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.

A TREATISE OF THE FIFT GENERALL COVNCILL held at Constantinople under Iustinian, in the time of Pope Vigilius: Wherein the exceeding fraud and falshoods of Cardinall Baronius are clearely discovered.

CAP. I. That the Emperour IVSTINIAN assembled the Fift Generall Coun∣cill, to define a doubt of Faith, about The three Chapters.

CONCILIA generalia mea sunt; primum, ulti∣mum, media, saith their Romane a 1.1 Thraso; Generall Councils are all ours, the first, the last, & the middle. Alls mine, as said the De∣vill to the Collier. A vaunt too vaine, too Thrasonicall. Divide the Councils aright, and let each have his own due part and por∣tion, and then all the five first, and so much as they account the sixt, that is, all which were held for 600. yeares and more; All the golden Councils, and of the golden ages of the Church, are ours onely, and not theirs, in many and even in the maine 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 onely embrace, but earnestly defend them all, as the rightfull and proper inheritance left unto us by those holy Fathers of the ancient and Catholike Church. The middle ranke, beginning at the second Nicene, unto the Councill of Florence, which were held in those ages of the mingled and con∣fused Church, none of them are either wholly ours or wholly theirs, those miscellane Councils, are neither thine nor mine, but they must all be divided. The two last, the one at Laterane, the other at Trent, which are the very lees and dreggs of Coun∣cills, held onely by such as were the drosse of the Church quite severed from the gold, wee willingly yeeld unto them: they and they onely are wholly theirs, let them have, let them enjoy their Helenaes, we envy not such refuse Councils unto them.

2. When first I set my selfe to the handling of this argument

concerning the Councils, it was my purpose, besides those o∣ther generall questions, concerning the right of calling generall Councils, the right of Presidencie in them, and the right of con∣firming them, to have made manifest those three severall points, touching those three rankes of Councils; every one of which, is not onely true, but even demonstrable in it selfe. And though with a delightfull kind of toile I have made no small progresse therein, yet alas, how unequall am I to such an Herculean labour? whose time, whose strength of body, or industry of minde, is a∣ble to accomplish a worke of such amplitude, and of so vast ex∣tent, for which not Nestors age would suffice? Wherefore tur∣ning my sailes, from this so long, and tedious a voyage, which I could not so much as hope to end, & which beside many dan∣gerous rockes, hidden Syrtes and sands, is every where beset by many Romane enemies, specially by Baronius the Archpirate of this and former ages, with whom at every turne, almost, one shall be sure to have an hot encounter; I thought a shorter course far more fit, for my small and unfurnisht barke, and de∣spairing of more or longer voyages, I shall be glad if God will enable me to make but a cut onely over some one arme of that great Ocean, not doubting but the ice being once broken, and the passage through these straits opened, many other will with more facilitie, and felicitie also, performe the like in the rest, un∣till the whole journey through every part of these seas be at length fully accomplished.

3. Among all the Councils I have for sundry reasons made choice of the fift, held at Constantinople in the time of the Empe∣ror Iustinian and Pope Vigilius, for authoritie equall to the for∣mer, it being, as well as they, approved by the consenting judge∣ment of the Catholike Church; for antiquitie venerable, being held within 600. yeares after Christ, even in those times while as yet the drosse had not prevailed and got the predominancie above the gold, as in the second Nicene Synod and succeding a∣ges it did: for varietie of weighty and important matters, more delightfull then any of the rest; and, which I most respected of them all, most apt to make manifest the truth and true Iudge∣ment of the ancient and Catholike Church touching those Con∣troversies of the Popes supremacy of authority and infallibility of judgement, which are of all other most ventilated in these dayes.

4. The occasion of this Councill were those Tria capitula, as they were called, which bred exceeding much and long trouble to the whole Church: to wit, The person and writings of Theo∣dorus B. of Mopsvestia long before dead: the writings of Theodo∣ret B. of Cyrus against Cyril: and the Epistle of Ibas B. of Edessa un∣to Maris: al which three Chapters were mentioned in the Coun∣cill at b 1.2 Chalcedon.

5. The Nestorians (whose heresie was condemned in the third generall Councill) when they could no longer under the name

of Nestorius countenance their heresie, very subtilly indevored to c 1.3 revive the same, by commending Theodorus B. of Mopsve∣stia and his writings, as also the writings of Theodoret against Cy∣rill and the Epistle of Ibas unto Maris. This after the Councill of Chalcedon they more earnestly applyed, then before, preten∣ding d 1.4 that not onely the persons of Theodoret and Ibas (who both had sometimes beene very earnest for Nestorius and his heresies) but that the writings also of Theodoret and the Epistle of Ibas, which is full fraught with Nestorianisme, and wherein Theodorus with his hereticall writings are greatly extolled, were received and approved in that famous Councill. And in truth the Nestorians little lesse then triumphed herein, and insulted o∣ver Catholikes, thinking by this meanes either to disgrace and utterly overthrow the Councill of Chalcedon, if their doctrine were rejected or, if that Council were imbraced, together with it, and under the colour and authoritie of it, to renew and esta∣blish the doctrine of Nestorius, which (as they boasted) that coun∣cill had certainly confirmed, by their approving that Epistle of Ibas.

6. By occasion hereof, many who were weake in faith began to doubt of the credit and authority of that most holy councill: and those, as Leontius e 1.5 sheweth, were called Haesitantes, waverers or Doubters: Many others (who for other causes distasted that Councill) were hereby incouraged pertinaciously to reject the same, as f 1.6 Liberatus declareth. Such were the Agnoites, Gainites, Theodosians, Themistians, and other like Sectaries, called all by the common name of Acephali, because they had no one head by whom to be directed. All these, though being at mortall wars one with another, yet herein conspired to oppugne the faith, and the holy Councill of Chalcedon, taking now advantage of that which the Nestorians every where boasted, and these men gladly beleeved, that in it the Epistle of Ibas (which maintain∣eth 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 1.7 testifieth, it was in a manner rent even from East to West, yea the East h 1.8 was rent from the West.

7. Iustinian the religious Emperor, knowing i 1.9 how much it was available not onely for his honor, and the tranquillitie of his empire, but for the good of the whole Church, and glory of God, to appease all those broiles: and knowing further, that the holy Councill of Chalcedon, though it received the persons of Theodoret and Ibas, after that they had publickly renounced the heresie of Nestorius, yet, did utterly condemne both that Impi∣ous 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 ex∣actly

all these particulars, that he might draw all the subjects of his Empire to the unitie of that most holy faith which was decreed at Chalcedon, set forth an k 1.10 Imperiall Edict containing a most orthodoxall, religious and holy profession, or rather an am∣ple Declaration of his, nay not his, but of the Catholike Faith. Among many other things, the Emperor in that Edict did par∣ticularly and expresly condemne Theodorus of Mopsvestia with his doctrines, the writings of Theodoret against Cyril, and that most impious Epistle of Ibas, accursing l 1.11 all these as hereticall, and all those, who either had heretofore, or should therafter maintaine or defend them, or any one of them.

8. But notwithstanding all this, which the Emperor with great prudence, piety and zeale performed, very many, even some of those who bare the names of orthodoxall and Catho∣like Bishops, were so far from consenting to this Imperial Edict, and the Catholike truth delivered therein, that they openly op∣pugned his Edict, and defended the Three Chapters (by him condemned and anathematized) by words, by writings, by all meanes which they could devise, publishing libels and bitter in∣vectives against it and the Emperor himselfe also. He seeing so generall 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 publick meanes which is left to the Church for deciding any doubt or controversie 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 generall Councill, whereof, God assisting us, we are now to entreat.

CAP. II. That the Fift Generall Councill, when Pope Vigilius refused to come unto it, was held without the Popes presence therein, either by himselfe or by his Legates.

1. THat this Council was celebrated when Pope Vigilius was at Constantinople; that he was once, againe, often and earnestly, invited to the Synod, but wilfully refused to be pre∣sent either personally or by his deputies, the Acts of the Councill doe abundantly wit∣nesse. The holy Synod said a 1.12 thus, Saepius petivimus. We have of∣ten entreated the most holy Pope Vigilius; to come together with us and make a determination of these matters. Againe, the holy Synod said, b 1.13 The most glorious Iudges and certaine 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 onely invite, exhort, and entreat him; but in the Emperors name they commanded him to come to the Synod: We being

present (said c 1.14 the Bishops, who were sent unto him) Liberius, Peter, and Patricius, proposuerunt Iussionem pijssimi Imperatoris sanctissimo Papae, proposed to the most holy Pope Vigilius the command of the most holy Emperor. If all this seeme not enough, the Emperor him∣selfe testifieth d 1.15 the same, Mandavimus illi, we have commanded Vigilius, both by our Iudges, and by certaine of your selves (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 deter∣mine this cause touching the Three Chapters.

2. What Pope Vigilius did, after so many invitations, en∣treaties, and commands, Card. Bellarmine doth declare, The Pope, saith he, e 1.16 nes{que} per se, ne{que} per legatos interfuit, was not pre∣sent in the Council either by himselfe, or by his legats. And more clearly in another place, The Pope, saith he, f 1.17 was then at Constan∣tinople, sed noluit interesse, but he would not be present in the Councill. Binius testifieth g 1.18 the same. At the fifth Councill Vigilius was not present either by himselfe or by his deputies. And Baronius, The Pope (saith he) h 1.19 noluit interesse, would not be present either by himselfe, or by any to supply his place. And this Cardinall adds i 1.20 not with∣out 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. complaine that they had no re∣gard of him, when himselfe a little before professeth, noluit in∣teresse, he himselfe was not willing to be present? Or had they no re∣gard of him when before ever they assembled or sate in the Sy∣nod, they writ an Epistle k 1.21 unto him entreating his presence, and with their own request, signified l 1.22 the Emperors command, wil, and pleasure to him, that he shold 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 meane, no ordinary messengers neither for their number nor dignitie▪ but twenty reverend Bishops, all of them Metropoli∣tanes, as the Cardinal m 1.23 both knew, and acknowledged, & the Sy∣nodall acts n 1.24 doe witnesse, and of those twenty, three were Pa∣triarks, Eutychius, of Constantinople, Apollinarius, of Alexandria, and Domninus, of Antioch? Was this a signe that they had no regard of Vigilius? when besides all this, in token of their most earnest desire of his presence, among divers other they propo∣sed two most effectuall reasons to induce him to come. The one, the promise of Presidencie among them, which so far as in them lay, they offred unto him, saying, o 1.25 Petimus praesidente nobis vestra beatitudine, we entreat that your holinesse being present in this Synod, the question may be debated and have an end: The other (which should not onely in equitie, but even in common honesty have prevailed with a Pope) for that himselfe had promised and that under his owne hand-writing, that he would come to the Synod: we told him (said p 1.26 the Bishop) your holinesse 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 discusse these three Chapters. And a∣gaine, we entreated his reverence (say the whole Synod) q 1.27scrip∣tas suas promissiones adimplere; to performe 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 con∣cluded that Session, saying, r 1.28 Oportet, we must defer the examina∣tion of the cause to another day? And whereas the Pope * 1.29 promised to give them an answer the next day, then because his qualme was overpast, he found new excuses for his absence: one because t 1.30 there was but a few westerne Bishops then present with them; another because v 1.31 he would himself alone declare his judgement in writing, and offer it to the Emperor, for which cause he had entreated respite for certaine dayes of his highnesse. Both which were in truth nothing else but meerepretēces, as the Bishops thē sent, manifestly declared unto him. For both the Emperor, said they, vult te in cōmuni convenire; will have you to come together with the rest, & therefore he ought not to have given his sentēce alone but in common and in the Synod: and for his other excuse, Baro∣nius x 1.32 himselfe doubteth not to call that a pretence: for so it was indeed, seeing as the Bishops truly told y 1.33 him, in none of the for∣mer Councils there was any multitude of Westerne Bishops, but onely two or three, and some Clerkes, whereas at that time, there were present with the Pope at Constantinople z 1.34 many Italian Bishops, others out of Africk, others out of Illirium, for their number more then had beene in al the foure former Coun∣cills; whereupon they plainly and truly told a 1.35 the Pope to his face, Nihil est quod prohibet vos convenire una nobiscum; there is no sufficient or allowable cause to stay you from comming to the Synod to∣gether with us: not sicknesse, not want of Western Bishops, Nihil est, there is nothing else at all but an unwilling mind. So extraor∣dinary 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 assem∣bled 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 interesse, was indeed his hereticall affection and adversnes from the truth in this cause of the Three Chapters. He saw the Catholike Bishops, then as∣sembled, to be bent and forward (as their dutie was) for condem∣ning those Chapters, which himselfe embraced and defended: he therefore thought it fit to separate himselfe from them in place, from whom in judgement and in the doctrine of faith he was so farre disjoyned and severed. This to have beene the onely true cause of his wilfull absence and of his Noluit interesse the sequell of this Treatise will make most evident. For this time it is sufficient, by all those honorable invitations, earnest perswasi∣ons,

and Imperiall commands, to have declared that as the holy Synod for their part was most desirous of his presence, so he not onely was absent, but in meere stomacke, wilfulnesse and per∣versnesse, absented himselfe from the Holy Councill at this time.

CAP. III. That Pope VIGILIVS, during the time of the fift Councill, publi∣shed his Apostolicall Constitution indefence of the Three Chapters.

1. WHen Pope Vigilius remaining then at Con∣stantinople where the Councill was held, by no intreaties, perswasions nor Imperiall commands could be brought to the Synod, having no other let, as before was declared, but his owne wilfulnesse, the holy Synod re∣solved a 1.36 without him to debate and judge the Controversie then referred unto them. And in truth what else was to be done in that case? The Emperor commanded b 1.37 them not to delay nor protract the time, but deliver a speedy, yet withall a sound and true judgement in that cause. The necessity of the Church required this, which was now in a general c 1.38 tumult and Schisme about those Three Chapters. The Nestorians on one side trium∣phed as if the Councill of Chalcedon had approved the Epistle of Ibas, and thereby confirmed their heresies. The Acephali on another side rejected that Councill, as favoring the Nestorians by approving that impious Epistle. The wavering Hesitantes were in a maze, not knowing which way to turne themselves, whether allow the Councill of Chalcedon with the Nestorians, or with the Acephali reject it. The Catholikes against all these Sectaries, both defended the Councill of Chalcedon, and yet re∣jected that impious Epistle and the two other Chapters. In such a generall rent and contention of all sides, what delay could the Church endure? which the Councill rightly considering, d 1.39 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 scan∣dalized. And for the absence of Vigilius, they knew right well that which Card. Cusanus very truly observeth, e 1.40 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 Councill 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 Popes legats being present at Chalcedon were f 1.41 in∣vited and intreated 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 1.42 (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 Councill of Chalcedon handled and defined that cause in their absence, and their determination, notwith' standing the Popes absence, was not onely declared h 1.43 by the most glorious Iudges 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 generall Councill: for in their Synodal relation to the Pope, speaking of this very de∣cree, they say, i 1.44 Confirmavimus ante, we (to wit, this whole gene∣rall Councill) have confirmed the sentence of the 150. Bishops for the prerogative of Constantinople. A most cleare and undeniable demonstration, and that by the warrant of one of the most fa∣mous Councils that ever were, that the peevishnes, perversnes, or wilfull absence of one or a few Bishops, yea of the Pope him∣selfe, ought not, nor could not hinder a Synod to judge and de∣termine any needful cause; much lesse a cause of faith about which there should happen (as now there did) a general distur∣bance of the whole Church. Vpon these and other like reasons the holy Synod now assembled at Constantinople, having done as much as in them lay, yea, as * 1.45 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 comming; seeing now all their invitations and intreaties to be contemned by him, and their longer expectance to be but in vaine, addresse themselves to the examining of the cause, be∣ing stird l 1.46 up by the words of St. m 1.47 Peter, Be ready alwaies to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of your hope, which readinesse if it must be in al Christians, much n 1.48 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 vaine expectance of Vigilius, In their third Collation (so their Sessions are called) they let downe as a foun∣dation 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 foure former Councils explained, and which the Holy Fathers with uniforme consent maintained.

3. In the 4. and 5. Collations, they at large and very exactly discusse the first Chapter, concerning the person and writings of Theodorus B. of Mopsvestia, adding so much also as was needfull touching the second Chapter, which concerned the writings of Theodoret against Cyril.

4. Now in that fifth Collation, as Baronius tells o 1.49 us, the Con∣stitution of Pope Vigilius touching the Three Chapters was brought unto the Synod. The Pope promised p 1.50 that he would send his judgement thereof, ad ipsum Imperatorem, at{que} ad Syno∣dum; both to the Emperor, and to the Synod; which he ingenuously

performed; yea q 1.51, 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 Popes Constitution, Cognoscitur, r 1.52 its knowne to pertaine to this very day of their fift Collation: and it s 1.53 was this day offered to the Coun∣cill: for which cause he strongly imagining this Constitution t 1.54 to be stolne out of the Synodall acts now extant, is bold to in∣sert v 1.55 it into the 5. Collation; as into his owne due and proper place, wherein it was, and now ought 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 appeare. Thus much is certaine and evident by the Synodall acts, that this Constitution of Vigilius was made knowne to the Bishops of this holy Coun∣cill, before their sixt Collation, for in that sixt, divers things are expressed, which have a cleare and undoubted reference to the Popes decree, as containing a refutation of the same, and here∣in the Card. saith truly, The x 1.56 decree of Vigilius was first sent to the Emperor, and from him to the Synod, as by the sixt Collati∣on may be perceived, wherein those things which the Pope had alledged 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 himselfe calleth it, a Constitution, y 1.57 a Statute, z 1.58 a Decree, a Definition, a 1.59 or Definitive sentence: and by the name of a Consti∣tution, it is subscribed unto, both by the Pope b 1.60 and all c 1.61 the rest of his Assemblie; and for such it is commended by Card. d 1.62 Baro∣nius and Binius e 1.63. In it the Pope delivereth his Apostolicall sen∣tence & Iudgement touching the Three Chapters, this being f 1.64 that very same answer which Vigilius promised to send to the Emper∣ror, and for the advised setting downe whereof, he g 1.65 requested of the Emperor the respite of twenty dayes. During which time he did insudare and laborare, as the Card. saith, h 1.66 with much sweat and toile elaborate this large decree, (containing no lesse i 1.67 then thirty six columes in folio) that it might in every re∣spect, and for the exact handling of so weighty a cause, be cor∣respondent to the gravity and authority of his infallible Chaire, specially seeing he set it forth of purpose, that it might be noti∣fied k 1.68 not onely to the Emperor and the Synod then assembled, sed universo orbi Catholico, but to the whole Catholike Church, as a publike direction in faith for them all; in which kinde of tea∣ching, nullo casu errare potest, saith Card. Bellarmine, l 1.69 the Pope can by no meanes be possibly deceived. For this cause also Vigilius at this time, and in this businesse, used the help and advice of a Synod, consisting of Italian, Africane, and Illyrian Bishops, then present with him at Constantinople, sixteene Bishops beside himselfe, and three Romane Deacons. These all consented with the Pope, and subscribed m 1.70 to his Constitution; and in theirs was included the consent of the Africane, of the Illyrian, of the Italian, and other

Westerne 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 1.71. So deliberate and advi∣sed was the Pope in this cause, that his resolution herein is not onely a Pontificall, but a Synodall Sentence also, yea a Decree and definitive judgement delivered by the Pope, as himselfe ex∣presly witnesseth, o 1.72 Ex authoritate sedis Apostolicae; by the authoritie of the Apostolicke sea, an whole Synod of Bishops (the Westerne Churches consenting with them) subscribing to the same, for their number, well-neere p 1.73 as many, as there were Bishops pre∣sent in some Sessions of their Oecumenicall Councill at Trent.

7. This Apostolicall Constitution, which had long laid in obscu∣ritie, about some 18. yeares since was brought to light, and first q 1.74 of al published by Card. Baronius to the opē view of the world, copied by him out of an ancient r 1.75 manuscript in their Vaticane, where still it is kept: and more then halfe of it, is set out by Binius s 1.76, annexed as a fragment to the fifth generall Councill. But for what good purpose Binius clipt away the residue, being a great (no lesse then five or six columes in folio) and by farre the most needfull part of the Popes Decree, thereby not onely injuring the Popes Holines, and deluding the world, but foully maiming and disgracing his owne Tomes of the Councils, you will easily perceive hereafter.

8. The summe and effect of the Popes Constitution is the De∣fence of those three Chapters, which the Emperor by his most re∣ligious Edict had condemned and accursed. The Pope, saith Ba∣ronius, t 1.77 during the time of the Synod, set forth Decretum pro defensione trium Capitulorum, his decree for defence of the Three Chapters. Againe, v 1.78 Vigilius made knowne to the whole Church pro Tribus Capitulis Constitutum à se editum, his Constitution publi∣shed in defence of the Three Chapters. Againe, x 1.79 pro ipsorum defensione laborat; Vigilius labored for defence of the Three Chapters. But the Constitution it selfe maketh this most evident.

9. Concerning the first Chapter, whether Theodorus (being dead more then an hundred yeares before this Council) ought to be condemned, Vigilius thus decreed, Nulli y 1.80 licere noviter aliquid de mortuorum judicare personis, That it is not lawfull for any to judge ought anew of those persons who are dead, that is, not to condemne those, who, as Vigilius explaining himselfe saith, z 1.81 minime repe∣riuntur in vit a damnati, are not found to have beene condemned while they lived. This for the generality of the dead: particularly for Theodorus B. of Mopsvestia he thus decreed a 1.82, Seeing the holy Fa∣thers had not, (as he saith) condemned him, eum nostra non au∣demus damnare sententia, we dare not condemne him by our sentence, sed nec ab alio quopiam condemnari concedimus; neither doe we permit that any other shall condemne him.

10. For the second Chapter which concernes the writings of Theodoret against Cyrill, Vigilius was so tender of the credit of Theodoret, that he would by no meanes permit his name to be

blemished by cōdemning his writings, seeing as he saith, b 1.83 neither Cyril himself, nor after him the Councill of Chalcedon had condemned them. Nay Vigilius further adds, c 1.84 that it is valde contrarium & indubitanter inimicum; very contrary and undoubtedly repugnant to the judgement of the Councill at Chalcedon, to condemne any Nestorian doctrines under the name of Theodoret. Whereupon he definitively decreeth in this manner d 1.85; Statutimus at{que} decer∣nimus, we ordaine and decree that no injury or slaunder shall by any man be raised, or uttered against Theodoret, sub taxatione no∣minis 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 materiall, but withall 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 Hereticke: the copie whereof is set downe in the 10. Action of the Councill at Chalcedon, and re∣peated in the 6. Collation of this fift Councill: What the Pope decrees herein, Baronius doth declare, who explaining the words and meaning of Vigilius, saith, e 1.86 That the Fathers of Chalce∣don, dixerunt eam Epistolam ut Catholicam recipiendam; said that this Epistle of Ibas was to be received as Catholike; and further adds, f 1.87 Ex eâ Ibam comprobatum esse Catholicum; that by this Epistle Ibas himselfe was proved to be a Catholike, yea that g 1.88 he was so pro∣ved by the consenting judgement of all the Bishops at Chalcedon. So Baronius.

12. This to have beene indeed the true meaning of Pope Vigilius, his owne words in his Constitution make manifest. There he first sets downe the ground of his sentence, and that was the sayings of Pascasinus and Maximus in the Councill at Chalcedon. The h 1.89 Popes legats said by Pascasinus, Relecta ejus epistolâ agno∣vimus cum orthodoxum; By the Epistle of Ibas now read, we acknow∣ledge him to be orthodoxall: Maximus said, i 1.90 Ex relecto rescripto epistolae, orthodoxa est ejus declarata dictatio; by the Epistle of Ibas now read, his Epistle or writing is declared to be orthodoxall. Vigilius grounding himselfe on these two speaches, collects and sets downe two positions of his owne, concerning this third Chapter; The former, that the Councill of Chalcedon approved that Epistle of Ibas as orthodoxall, to which purpose hee saith, the k 1.91 Fathers of the Council at Chalcedon,l 1.92 Epistolam pronunciantes orthodoxam, pronounced this Epistle to be orthodoxall: and yet more plainly, Orthodoxa est Ibae à patribus pronunciata dictatio; the Epistle or writing of Ibas was pronounced orthodoxall by the Fathers at Chalcedon; The other, that by this Epistle they judged Ibas to be a Catholike; to which purpose Vigilius writeth thus, Iuvenalis would never have said that Ibas was a Catholike, nisi ex verbis epi∣siolae ejus confessionem fidei orthodoxam comprobaret, Vnles by the words of his Epistle he had proved his faith to be orthodoxall, which words evidently shew that Vigilius thought in like sort all the

Bishops at Chalcedon to have judged the same by the words of that Epistle, for it is certaine that they all embraced Ibas him∣selfe for a Catholike.

13. Hereupon now ensueth the Definitive sentence of Vigilius touching this Chapter, in this manner: m 1.93 We following the judgement of the holy Fathers in all things, seeing it is a most cleare and shining truth, ex verbis Epistolae venerabilis Ibae; by the words of the Epistle of the reverend B. Ibas, being taken in their most right and godly sense, and by the acts of Photius and Eu∣stathius, and by the meaning of Ibas being present, that the Fa∣thers at Chalcedon did most justly pronounce the faith of this most reverend Bishop Ibas to be orthodoxall, we decree by the authoritie of this our present sentence, that the Iudgement of the Fathers at Chalcedon ought to remaine inviolable, both in all other things, and in this Epistle of Ibas so often mentioned. Thus Vigilius: decreeing both that this Epistle of Ibas is Catho∣like, & that by it & by the words thereof, Ibas ought to be jud∣ged a Catholike; both which he decreeth upon this ground, that the Councill of Chalcedon (as he supposeth) had judged the same.

14. In the end, to ratifie and confirme all that concernes any of these Three Chapters in the Popes Decree, he addeth this very remarkable conclusion; n 1.94 His igitur à nobis cum omni undi{que} cautela at{que} diligentia dispositis; These things being now with all dili∣gence, care and circumspection disposed, Statuimus et decernimus, we ordaine and decree, that it shall be lawfull for none pertaining to Orders and ecclesiasticall dignities, either to write, or speake, or teach any thing touching these three Chapters, contrary to these things which by this our present Constitution we have taught and decreed: aut aliguam post praesentem definitionem movere ulterius quaestionē, neither shall it be lawfull for any, after this our present defi∣nition, to move any question touching these Three Chapters. But if any thing concerning these Chapters be either done, said, or written, or shall hereafter be done, said, or written contrary to that which we have here taught and decreed, hoc modis omnibus ex authoritate sedis Apostolicae refutamus; we by all meanes do reject it by the Authority of the Apostolike See, whereof by Gods grace we have now the government. So Vigilius.

15. Thinke ye not now, that any Papist considering this so advised, elaborate and Apostolicall decree of Pope Vigilius, will be of opinion that there was now a finall end of this matter, and that all doubt concerning these Three Chapters was for ever now removed: seeing the supreme Iudge had published for a directi∣on to the whole Church his definitive, Apostolicall, and infal∣lible sentence in this cause, what needeth the Councill either to judge, or so much as debate this matter after this Decree? To de∣fine the same was needlesse, more then to light a candle when the Sunne shineth in his strength. To define the contrary, were Hereticall: yea after such an authenticall decision and determina∣tion,

to be doubtfull o 1.95 onely what to beleeve, hath the censure of an Infidell. But thrice happy was it for the Church of God, that this doctrine of the Popes supreme authoritie and infal∣lible Iudgement, was not then either knowne or beleeved. Had it beene, the Nestorians and their heresie had for ever prevailed, the Catholike faith had beene utterly extinguished, and that without all hope or possibility ever after this to have beene re∣vived, seeing Vigilius by his Apostolicall authoritie had stopt all mens mouthes from speaking, tyed their hands from writing, yea and their very hearts from beleeving or thinking ought con∣trary to his Constitution made in defence of the Three Chapters, wherein he hath confirmed all the Blasphemies of Nestorius, and that by a Decree more irrevocable then those of the Medes and Persians. Had the holy Council, at that time assembled, beleeved or knowne that doctrine of the Popes supremacie and infallible Iudgement, they would not have proceeded one inch further in that businesse, but shaking hands with Heretickes, they and the whole Church with them, had beene led in triumph by the Nestorians at that time, under the conduct of Pope Vigilius.

16. And by this you may conjecture that Binius had great reason to conceale the later part of the Popes decree, for he might well thinke, as any papist will, that it were a foule incon∣gruitie to set downe three intire Sessions of an holy and gene∣rall Council, not onely debating this controversie of faith about the Three Chapters, but directly also contradicting the Popes definitive sentence in them all, notwithstanding they knew the Pope by his Apostolicall authoritie to have delivered his Iudge∣ment, and by the same authoritie to have forbidden all men either to write, or speak, or to move any doubt to the contrary, of that which he had now decreed. But let us see by a view of the particulars and of their following Sessions, how this Ca∣thedrall sentence of the Pope was entertained by the holy ge∣nerall Councill.

CAP. 4. That the holy generall Councill in their Synodall Iudgement contra∣dicted the Popes Apostolicall Constitution and definitive sen∣tence, in that cause of faith, made knowne unto them.

1. IN the sixt, which was the very next Sessions after they had knowne the Popes will and pleasure, contrary to the Apostolicall authoritie and com∣mand of Vigilius, the Holy Synod began to examine the Epistle of Ibas: for the causes of Theodorus and of Theodoret were sufficiently discus∣sed in their former Collations. And first of all, alledging a saying of the Emperour (to which them∣selves doe 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 1.96 the most holy Emperor added among those things which he writ unto us, that some indevouring to defend the Epistle of Ibas, presume to say that it was approved by the holy Councill of Chalcedon, using the words of one or two most re∣ligious Bishops, who were in that Councill, as spoken for that Epistle, cum alij omnes, whereas all the rest were of another minde, we thinke it needfull, this question being proposed, to recite the Epistle of Ibas. Thus said the Synod, even at the first, calling the Popes judgement Presumption, and checking him both for pretending the Coun∣cill of Chalcedon, and for alledging the Interlocutions of one or two, as the Iudgement of that Councill. For, that the whole Sy∣nod consented to that speech of the Emperor, appeareth both by their owne words, where they shew this to be so odious an untruth, that they all cried out against it, saying, b 1.97 The Decree of the Councill at Chalcedon condemneth this Epistle, hee that receiveth this Episte rejecteth the Councill at Chal∣cedon: and, by those speeches of Theodorus Bishop of Cesarea, Andreas Bishop of Ephesus, and others, to which the whole c 1.98 Synod assented, Quomodo d 1.99 praesumunt quidam dicere, How do any presume to say, that this impious Epistle of Ibas was approved by the Councill of Chalcedon? And againe, Miramur quomodo, we doe even marvell that any will defend this Epistle by the name of the Councill at Chalcedon: and yet more sharply reproving Vigilius with others, for using so deceitfull a proofe, they adde, Astutia enim haeretica utentes, for they (who so say of the Councill at Chalcedon) using the fraud and subtilitie of heretickes, doe produce the Interlocutions of one or two, as spoken for that Epistle, whereas this is to be set downe for a certaine rule, that in Councills, non unius aut se∣cundi interloquutionem attendere oportet, the speeches of one or two must not be attended, but what is defined by all, or by the grea∣ter

part of the Councill. And yet further expressing their dislike of that fallacious and sophisticall reason which Vigilius herein used, the whole Councill said, The Holy c 1.100 Fathers at Chalcedon did, pro nihilo habere, quae ab uno vel duobils pro eadem Epistola dicta sunt, did esteeme as nothing, or made no reckning 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 inter∣locutions the Pope, as you have formerly seene, grounded his decree, concerning this Chapter; and if the proofe be of so small account by the judgement of that most holy Councill, it inevi∣tably followeth, that the Decree of Vigilius which wholly (for this Chapter) relyeth on this proofe, is no better then 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 knowne unto them) beside that it is evident by the Acts themselves, see∣ing the Councill doth exactly mention, and refute all the prin∣cipall points on which Vigilius doth insist, Baronius doth not onely professe, 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 1.101 as is evident, against the Constitu∣tion of Pope Vigilius (although for reverence they doe 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 acknowlegeth the Council herein to have dealt against Vigilius and his Decree, so in the other points, hee bewrayes too great partialitie towards Vigilius, for the Councill is so far from excusing the pope, that neither Baronius could, nor any of his friends shall be ever able to shew that excuse: And for their not naming of Vigilius, it proceeded not from any reverence they bare 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 condemne, but without mention of their names in particular, condemned them all un∣der one generall Appellation of, Sequaces e 1.102 Nestorij et Theodori, the followers of Nestorius and Theodorus, their Disciples, or defen∣ders which titles they saw the Emperor to have used and gi∣ven unto them before,f 1.103 both in his Edict, and in his g 1.104 Epistle to the Synod, which common names to have as fitly and truly agreed to Pope Vigilius as to any else, the Councill knew right well, seeing in every point concerning these Three Chapters, he wholly agreed with them all. The h 1.105 followers of Theodorus and Nestorius pretended, and presumed to say, that the Councill of Chalcedon approved the Epistle of Ibas: Vigilius pretended, and presumed to say the same; The Fathers at Chalcedon (saith he) pronounced i 1.106 the Epistle of Ibas to be Orthodoxall. The followers

of k 1.107 Theodorus and Nestorius fraudulently used the Interlocutions of one or two, as the l 1.108 Iudgment of the whole Councill at Chal∣cedon. Vigilius used the very same fraud, and for this very cause, as the Cardinall confesseth, is reproved by the Councill. Seeing then, Vigilius did at this time, and in this cause, walke hand in hand, and step by step with the other followers of Theodorus and Nestorius; The holy Councill judged it most fit and sufficient (as it was indeed) to refuse and condemne both him and his Consti∣tution, by that common name which agreed to all the rest, with whom in one common doctrine, both for his position and proofes thereof, he fully conspired.

3. The holy Council hauing now fully discovered the error of the Popes position, and the fallacious proofe which he used to uphold the same, procedeth to refute his very definitive sentence, prooving that neither the Epistle of Ibas is to be received as Catholike, neither that by it Ibas was, or ought to be judged a Catholike, which were the two maine points of the Popes De∣cree touching this Chapter. For declaring both these, they dili∣gently examined the whole Epistle, and found it in every part to be hereticall and blasphemous. But for the more cleare demonstra∣tion hereof, as also how untruly and unjustly Vigilius, and the other followers of Nestorius pretended, that it was received as orthodoxall by the Council at Chalcedon, they thought it not suffi∣cient to lay open the severall impieties of that Epistle, conside∣red by it selfe, but making a comparison or Collation betwixt it and the holy Council at Chalcedon, they set, in a direct oppositi∣on, the most holy and Catholike truths decreed at Chalcedon, a∣gainst the blasphemous impieties and heresies contained in that Epistle of Ibas. The summe of which Collations, or of some of them, I will here briefly propose out of the Synodall acts, re∣ferring the Reader for the full notice of them all, to the Acts themselves, wherein they are at large, exactly, and excellently n 1.109 delivered.

4. I. The holy Councill of Chalcedon professeth GOD to be incarnate, and made man: The Epistle calleth them Heretickes 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 Councill embraced that forme of Faith which was declared in the first Ephesine Synod, and anathematizeth Ne∣storius: The Epistle defendeth Nestorius, injureth, nay rejecteth, o 1.110 the holy Ephesine Councill, as if it had condemned Nestorius without due triall of his cause.

IV. The holy Councill commendeth Cyrill of blessed me∣mory, and approveth his Synodall Epistles, in one of which are conteined those his 12. Chapters by which he condemned the

heresie of Nestorius: The Epistle calleth Cyrill an heretike, and his 12. Chapters it tearmeth impious.

V. The Holy Councill professeth their faith to be the same with Cyrils, and accurseth those who beleeve otherwise: The Epistle saith of Cyrill, & those who beleeved as he did, that they were confounded, and recanted their former doctrine.

VI. The holy Councill accurseth those, who either make, or deliver any other Creed, then that which was expounded at the great Nicen Syond: The Epistle doth extoll Theodorus, who be∣sides innumerable blasphemies, made another Creed, wherein he teacheth the Word of God to be one person, and Christ ano∣ther person, accursing all, who doe not embrace that his new Creed. This is that Creed of Theodorus, against which (being o∣penly read before in the fourth Collation) the holy Councill ex∣clamed, saying, p 1.111 the devill himselfe 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 witnes, that the Epistle of Ibas praiseth and magnifieth the author and composer thereof.

VII. The holy Councill 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 personall, but onely an affectuall unitie of those two persons. Thus far hath the Synod opened, by way of comparison, the blasphemies of that Epistle, and the con∣trary truths decreed at Chalcedon.

5. Now although this Collation doth abundantly of it selfe manifest both the Impieties of that Epistle, of which Vigilius had decreed, that it ought to be received as orthodoxall: and how repugnant it is to the Councill of Chalcedon, of which Vigilius had decreed, that it was received as orthodoxall, by those holy Fa∣thers, yet for more evidence of this truth, the holy Councill doth in plaine and expresse tearmes, expresse both these points: for after this comparison they said, q 1.112 This our Collation, doth mani∣festly shew, quod contraria per omnia est Epistola definitioni; that this Epistle of Ibas is in all and every part thereof contrary to the definiti∣on of faith, which was made at Chalcedon. And againe, We all accurse this Epistle, who so doth not accurse this Epistle is an heretike; who so receiveth this Epistle is an heretike: who so receiveth this Epistle re∣jecteth the Councill of Chalcedon: who so receiveth this Epistle denieth God to be made man. Thus said, and cryed out the whole Synod with one voice: accursing (as you plainly see) not onely the de∣cree and definitive sentence of Vigilius as hereticall, but Vigilius himselfe as an heretike, as a rejecter of the Councill of Chal∣cedon, as a denier that God was incarnate, or made man.

6. Thinke ye not that the Councill was very unmannerly, daring not onely to talke and write of this Chapter, contrary to the Popes knowne will and pleasure, but even to condemne with one consent his sentence for hereticall, and himselfe for an

heretike? Binius was exceeding loath to have it thought, that a generall, lawfull, ancient, and approved Councill, had so direct∣ly contradicted the Popes Cathedrall judgement, and procla∣med to all the world the Pope to be an heretike, yea a definer of heresie, and that by his Apostolicall authoritie, and therefore he not knowing any better way to save the Popes credit, thoght it most fit to suppresse and dash out that whole passage in the Popes 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 maime my edition of the Councils, let the latter part of his Apostolicall sentence lye in ob∣scuritie and never see the Sunne.

7. Baronius, who (to the eternall infamy of their Popes, of their infallible Chaire, and of their whole religion, which wholly relies thereon) first had the heart to publish this Hereticall de∣cree of Vigilius, deviseth another medicine to salve this sore: But avoiding Sylla he falleth into Charybdis, a worse gulfe then the other, plunging himselfe, with the Pope, in a condemned heresie. There are (as he could not but confesse) r 1.113 many blasphe∣mies in that Epistle, but none of those, saith he, did either the Coun∣cill of Chalcedon or Pope Vigilius approve. What then, I pray you, was it, which his Holinesse defended, and approved therein? Forsooth in the end s 1.114 of the Epistle, Ibas declareth that he assen∣ted to the covenants of Vnion betweene Iohn and Cyrill, qua re∣cepta, necesse fuit cundem probare catholicum; which peace and union being embraced by Ibas, he must needes be acknowledged thereby to be a Catholike. Seeing t 1.115 then, this is understood, and gathered out of it, that after the Vnion, Ibas was a Catholike, 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 pro∣ved to be a Catholike. And the Cardinall labours to prove this by two testimonies, the one is that of Pascasinus, and the other legates of Leo: They (saith he) v 1.116 spake not amisse, when they said, Epistola illa lecta, Ibam probatum esse Catholicum, that by that Epistle being read, Ibas was proved to be a Catholike: The other is that speech of Eunomius B. of Nichomedia, of whom he thus writeth, x 1.117 Hoc plane fuit, this is cleerly that which Eunomius said, ipsam Epistolam in principio apparere haereticam, in fine vero in∣ventam esse Catholicam; that the Epistle of Ibas by the beginning seemeth to be hereticall, but by the end was found to be Catholike. Thus Baronius, in defence of that most impious Epistle, which as he saith, by the end of it is found to be orthodoxall and catholike, and so to be received.

8. What is it to be an heretike, if this be not? Directly to con∣tradict the judgement of an holy generall Councill, and defend that writing or part of it to be Catholike, which in every part the whole Councill hath defined to be hereticall? The whole

Councill y 1.118 with one voice proclamed; 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 expresly af∣firme z 1.119) he is an hereticke.

Not so, saith the Card. It is not all hereticall, It is not all blas∣phemous: The latter part of it, is right, holy, and Catholike, by it Ibas was rightly judged to be a Catholike; That part, at least, is to be received and embraced, to declare Ibas to be a Catho∣like. Now though this alone were enough to refute whatsoever the Cardinall doth or can say in this cause, seeing it is all no∣thing else, but the saying, nay the cavilling of a convicted here∣tike, proclamed for such by the loud cryes of an ancient and holy generall Councill, yet for the full manifesting of the truth, I will doe the Cardinall that favour, as to examine both his asser∣tion, and the proofes thereof. And because I shall hereafter in due place have fit occasion at large (as the obscuritie and intrica∣cy of this cause requireth) to discusse the words and declare the true meaning of Ibas in that part, which the Cardinall doth most wilfully and heretically mistake and pervert, for this time, I will use no other proofe against him, but the cleere judgement and consenting testimony of the generall Councill, which hath pro∣fessedly refuted this very cavil, which Baronius borrowed from the ancient heretikes of those times. And I am verily perswaded, that Baronius would never, for very shame of the world, have used this so untrue, so hereticall, and withall 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 Cardinall Baronius his name would coun∣tenance any untruth or Heresie against whatsoever opponents.

9. Is the end of the Epistle of Ibas Catholike? or doth that shew Ibas to bee a Catholike? The whole Councill expresly witnesseth the contrary. Our a 1.120 Collation (say they) doth manifestly shew that this Epistle of Ibas, contraria per om∣nia est Definitioni; is in every part of it contrary to the De∣finition of faith made at Chalcedon. This whole Epistle is hereti∣call, and blasphemous. Againe, Wee have demonstrated (say they) b 1.121 this Epistle, contrariam esse per omnia; To be in every part of it contrary to those things which are contained in the De∣finition of faith made at Chalcedon. Againe, c 1.122 Tota epistola impietatis plena est, the whole Epistle is full of impietie. And more clearly to our purpose, and against this cavill of Baronius, they adde, Those d 1.123 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 in∣serta Epistolae majori impietate plena sunt, for those things which are set downe in the latter part or end of that Epistle, are more full of greater impietie, injuring Cyrill, and defending the impious

heresie of Nestorius. So by the judgement of the whole Council Baronius is not onely proved, but even demonstrated to be an Heretike, and a malicious Caviller, for his defending the latter part of this Epistle to be right and catholike. And this is al which he hath gained by renewing that old hereticall and rejected cavill for defence of Vigilius.

10. But what shall we then say to the proofes of Baronius? what first, to the Interlocution of the Popes Legates so often and with ostentation mentioned by the Cardinall? What? Truly the very same which the holy generall Councill 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 1.124 ni∣hilo 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 them∣selves follow herein the judgement of the Fathers at Chalcedon: So by the judgement of two holy and generall Councils, that Interlocution of the Legates of Pope Leo, on which (after) Vigilius and Baronius relyeth, is worth nothing at all.

11. Yea, but Eunomius, as Baronius tells us, affirmeth, that though the beginning of the Epistle be hereticall, yet the end of it is found to be Catholike. Baronius indeed saith so of Eu∣nomius; but what truth and honest dealing there is in Baronius, let the discreet Reader judge by this one saying among ten thou∣sand the like; Eunomius saith not so, Eunomius saith the flat con∣trary, as in the fift Councill is clearly witnessed; where against this cavill of the old heretikes, whom Baronius followeth, they say f 1.125 thus, Nullam partem epistolae apparet Eunomium comprobasse; ••t's evident that Eunomius approved no part at all of this Epistle. And againe, Quomodo g 1.126 praesumunt isti defensores ealumniari interlocuti∣onem Eunomij: how dare the defenders of this Epistle presume to slaun∣der the Interlocution of Eunomius, as condemning one part of it, and approving another, seeing the whole epistle is full of impie∣ty? I say yet more (which will manifest the Councils doome of Baronius, that he is a malicious caviller, to be most just) Euno∣mius speakes 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 owne pate, and thereby falsifieth both the words and meaning of Eu∣nomius. This in the Councill is evidently declared by reciting the true words of Eunomius out of the Acts h 1.127 at Chalcedon: which are these; Ex recitatis, i 1.128 By those things which have beene read and recited, Ibas is shewed to be innocent: for wherein he see∣med to be blame worthy in accusing Cyrill, 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: where∣fore I also judge him worthy of his Bishoprike if, he accurse Ne∣storius, Eutyches, and their wicked heresies, and consent to the

writings of Leo, and this generall Councill. 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 Councill of Chalcedon, many other k 1.129 things, besides that Epistle, were recited touching the cause of Ibas, and particular∣ly 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 cleerly witnessed: It is manifest (say they) that l 1.130 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 perusall thereof, and is further testified by the fift Councill, m 1.131 there was a judge∣ment pronounced by Photius and Eustathius, adversus eam epi∣stolam et quae in ea continentur; against that Epistle, and the contents thereof: Ibas being commanded by those venerable Iudges, both to embrace the first Ephesine Synod, which that impious Epistle rejecteth, and to condemne and accurse Nestorius and his fol∣lowers, whom that Epistle commendeth: which judgement that Ibas then performed, the Acts before Photius and Eustathius doe make evident: for there it is thus said, n 1.132 Confessus est Ibas sic se credere? Ibas professed that he beleeved as the letters of Cyrill to Iohn 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 onely in words professe this, but in o 1.133 writing also, (at the perswasions of Photius and Eustathius) he expressed the like for the full satisfaction of such as had been before scandalized by his impious doctrine. And Ibas yet further of his p 1.134 owne accord promised before those Iudges, that he would in his own Church at Edessa, and that publikely accurse Nestorius as the chief leader in that impious heresie, and those also who did thinke as he did, or who did use his books or writings. Thus much do those Acts declare.

12. This orthodoxall confession of Ibas, made before Pho∣tius and Eustathius, this accursing of Nestorius and his here∣sies, this embracing of the Ephesine Councill, is that, which Eunomius calleth Posteriora, or Postrema, as following by many yeares, not onely that which Ibas did or said before the Vnion made betweene Iohn and Cyrill, but even this Impious Epistle also written after that Vnion. Of this confession Eunomius truly said, that by it (being posterius, later then 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 taile thereof. And for this cause, and in regard of this holy confes∣sion, the fift Councill said, that thereby Ibas q 1.135 had anathematized his owne Epistle, contrariam per omnia, being in every part of it con∣trary

to the faith, both in the beginning and end thereof. And the interlocution of Eusebius B. of Ancyra, at the Councill of Chalcedon, doth fully explaine the meaning of Eunomius; for he expresly mentioneth those Acts before Photius and Eustathius, and the confession of Ibas then made (which Eunomius called posteriora) saying thus, r 1.136 The reading of that judgement before Photius and Eustathius, doth teach that Ibas, in that judgement, accursed Ne∣storius and his impious doctrines, and consented to the true faith: Wher∣fore I receive him for a Bishop, if he now doe condemne Nestorius. The like said s 1.137 Diogenes B. of Cyzicum, Thalassius Bishop of Cesarea, Iohn Bishop of Sebastia, and they all cryed, Omnes eadem dicimus, wee all say the same. So cleare it is that upon this holy Confession of Ibas made first before Photius and Eustathius, and after that, before all the Councill at Chalcedon, and not upon this Epistle, nor any part, first or last thereof, Ibas was acknowledged and embraced for a Catholike, both by Eunomius, Eusebius, Diogenes, and all the whole Councill of Chalcedon.

13. By this now appeareth not onely the error, but the ex∣treme fraud of Baronius, who in excuse of Vigilius, not onely affirmeth an hereticall untruth, that the latter part of the Epistle is orthodoxall, but labours to uphold and boulster out that un∣truth with a malitious perverting and falsifying both of the words and meaning of Eunomius. And thus far proceeded the holy Councill against Vigilius in their sixt Session, being the very next after they had received the Popes mandatorie letters, commanding them neither to speake nor write ought concer∣ning the Three Chapters, otherwise then he by his Apostolicall con∣stitution had decreed.

14. In the seventh Collation, besides the publike reading of divers letters and writings for the manifestation of the truth, and of the uprightnes of their judgment in this cause of the three Chapters; all that was formerly done, was now againe t 1.138 repeated and approved by the holy Councill. Such diligence and wa∣rinesse they used in this matter, that nothing might passe with∣out often recitall and serious ponderation by the whole Coun∣cill.

15. In the eight, which is the last Collation, the holy Councill proceeded to their Synodall, and Definitive sentence, touching all those Three Chapters, which Vigilius (as they knew) by his decree and Apostolicall authoritie had defended. But the Councill directly contradicting the Pope in them all, doth Definitively condemne and accurse them all, and all who defend them or any of them: which sentence of the Councill, as Baronius truly confesseth v 1.139, was pronounced contra decreta ipsius (Vigilij) in a direct opposition to the Decrees of Vigilius. Which that it may ful∣ly appeare, as you have before seene the words of the Popes De∣cree, so now consider also, and compare with them, the words and Decree of the Councill.

16. First the holy Councill sets downe in generall their sentence concerning all the Three Chapters, (The defenders of which they had before x 1.140, and here y 1.141 againe doe proclame to be heretikes) in this manner; We z 1.142 accurse the Three foresaid Chapters, to wit, Theodorus of Mopsvestia, with his impious wri∣tings, 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 doe (at any time) indevour to defend their impietie under the name of the holy Fathers, or of the Councill at Chalcedon. Thus decreed the whole Synod. Now Pope Vigilius, as you have seene before, defended all these Three Chapters, he defended them by writing, yea by his Apostolicall authoritie, Constitution, and Definitive sentence: he defended them by the name of the holy Fathers, and of the Councill at Chalcedon; Pope Vigilius then, by the ju∣diciall and definitive sentence of this holy generall Councill is an Anathema, a condemned and accursed heretike; yea a Definer of a condemned and accursed heresie. Baronius writeth earnestly in defence of Pope Vigilius and his Constitution, he commends him for defending those Three Chapters, saying, a 1.143 The Defenders of them were praised while they had Pope Vigilius, whom they might follow: and Vigilius himselfe he had b 1.144 many and worthy reasons to make his Constitution in defence of those Chapters: he further presumes to defend Vigilius under the name and shew of con∣senting with the holy Fathers and Councill at Chalcedon. Card. Baronius then by the same definitive sentence of this holy and generall Council, is an Anathema with Vigilius, a condemned and accursed heretike.

17. After this generall sentence, the Councill proceedeth, in particular & severally, to condemne each of these Three Chap∣ters by it selfe. Of the first they thus define. c 1.145 If any do defend im∣pious Theodorus of Mopsvestia, et non anathematizat cum, and doe not accurse him and his impious writings, let such an one be accursed. Now Pope Vigilius (as you have seene) would not himselfe, nei∣ther would he permit any other to accurse this Theodorus, he for∣biddeth any to doe it, he made an Apostolicall Constitution that none should accurse him: Card. Baronius he writeth in defence of Vigilius and of his Constitution in this point: Thomas Staple∣ton goeth further, for he is so far from accursing this Theodorus, that he expresly calls d 1.146 him a Catholike, yea a most Catholike Bishop: Vigilius then, Baronius and Stapleton are al of them accur∣sed by the Definitive sentence of this holy generall Councill, in this first Chapter.

18. Of the second Chapter they e 1.147 thus decree. If any defend the writings of Theodoret against Cyril, et non anathematizat ea,

and doe not accurse them, let him be an Anathema. Vigilius would not himselfe accurse them, he would not permit any other to disgrace Theodoret, or injure him by accursing his writings: Ba∣ronius defendeth and commendeth this decree of Vigilius; they both then are tyed againe in this third Anathema of the Coun∣cill.

19. Though a threefold cord be not easily broken, yet the holy Councill addeth a fourth, which is more indissoluble then any adamantine chaine. Of the Third Chapter they decree in this manner; ^f If any defend that impious Epistle of Ibas unto Maris, which denieth God to be borne of the blessed Virgin, which accuseth Cyrill for an heretike, which condemneth the holy Councill of Ephesus, and defendeth Theodorus and Nestorius, with their impious doctrines and writings, if any defend this Epistle, et non anathematizat eam, et defensores ejus, et eos qui dicunt cam rectam esse, vel partem ejus, et eos qui scripserunt et scribunt pro eâ; If any doe not accurse this Epistle, and the Defenders of it, and those who say that it, or any part of it, is right; If any do not also accurse those who have written, or who (at any time) doe write for it, and the impiety con∣tained in it, and who presume to defend it by the name of the holy Fa∣thers, or of the Councill at Chalcedon, such an one be accursed. Now Vigilius (as was formerly declared) defendeth this Epistle, as or∣thodoxall, he defendeth it by his Cathedrall sentence and Apo∣stolicall authoritie, he defendeth it under the name of the holy Fathers, and of the Councill at Chalcedon; saying, g 1.148 Orthodoxa est Iba à patribus proniōciata dictatio; Baronius defendeth both Vigilius and this Epistle in some part thereof, he defendeth them under pretence of the Fathers and Councill at Chalcedon, saying, h 1.149 Pa∣tres dixerunt, eam Epistolam ut Catholicam recipiendam; The Fathers at Chalcedon said, that this Epistle ought to be received as orthodoxall: Is it possible thinke you, by any shift or evasion, to free either Vigilius or Baronius from this fourth Anathema denounced by the judiciall and Definitive sentence of this Holy Generall Councill.

20. But what speake I of Baronius, as if he alone were a De∣fender of Vigilius and his Constitution? All who have, or who at any time doe hold, and defend, either by word or writing, that the Popes judiciall and definitive sentence, in causes of faith, is infallible (and this is held, by Bellarmine, Gretzer, Pighius, Gregori∣us de Valentia, and, as afterwards I purpose to declare at large, by all i 1.150 and every one, who is truly a member of the present Ro∣mane Church) all these by holding and defending this one Posi∣tion, doe implicitly in that, hold and defend every Cathedrall and definitive sentence of any of their Popes, and particularly this Apostolicall Constitution of Pope Vigilius, to be not only true, but infallible also: and so they all defend the Three Chapters; they defend the Defenders of them, by name Pope Vigilius among the rest. All these then are unavoidably included within all the

former Anathemaes all denounced and proclamed to be here∣tikes, to be accursed and separate from God, by the judiciall and definitive sentence of this holy generall Councill.

21. With what comfort, alacritie and confidence may the servants of Christ fight his battles, and defend their holy faith and religion? or how can the servants of Antichrist chuse, but be utterly dismayed and daunted herewith, seeing they cannot wag their tongues or hands, to speake or write ought either against ours, or in defence of their owne doctrines, especially not of that which is the foundation of the rest, and is virtually in them all, but ipso facto, even for that act alone, if there were no other cause, they are declared and pronounced by the judiciall sen∣tence of an holy, generall, and approved Councill, to be accur∣sed heretikes.

22. The Councill yet adds another clause, which justly cha∣lengeth a speciall consideration. Some there are who would be held men of such a milde and mercifull disposition, that though they dislike and condemne those assertions of the Popes supre∣macy of authoritie, and infallibility of judgement, yet are they so charitably affected to the Defenders of those assertions, that they dare not themselves, nor can indure that others should call them heretickes or accursed: Durus est hic sermo, this is too harsh and hard. See here the fervour and zeale of this holy Councill! They first say, Cursed be the defenders of this Epistle or any part thereof: As much in effect, as if they had said, Cur∣sed be Vigilius, Baronius, Bellarmine, and all who defend the Popes judgement in causes of faith to be infallible, that is, all that are members of the present Church of Rome, Cursed be they all. And not contenting themselves herewith, they adde, Cursed be he who doth not accurse the defenders of that E∣pistle or of any part thereof: As much in effect, as if they had said, Cursed be every one who doth not accurse Vigilius, Baroni∣us, Bellarmine, and all that defend the Popes judgement in cau∣ses of faith to be infallible, that is, all that are members of the present Romane Church, Cursed be he who doth not accurse them all. The holy Council no doubt had an eye k 1.151 to the words of the Prophet Ieremy, l 1.152 Cursed be he that doth the worke 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 pitty nor piety, but meere rebellion a∣gainst the Lord, and pulls downe that judgement which God himselfe threatned m 1.153 to Ahab, Because thou hast let goe out of thine hand, a man whom I appointed to dye, thy life shall goe for his life.

23. What then? is there no meanes, no hope of such that they may be saved? God forbid. Far be it from my heart once to thinke, or my tongue to utter so hard a sentence. There is a meanes, and that after the Scripture, the Councill expresly and

often sets downe, even were they denounce all those Ana∣themaes, for thus they say, n 1.154 They who defend Theodorus, the writings of Theodoret against Cyrill, the impious Epistle of Ibas, or the defenders of them, et in his vs{que} ad mortem permanent, and continue in this defence, untill they dye, let such be accursed. Re∣nounce the defence of these Chapters, and of the Defenders of them, that is, forsake and renounce that position of the Popes Cathedrall infallibility in defining causes of faith: renounce the defence of all that defend it, that is, of the whole present Ro∣mane Church, Come o 1.155 out of Babylon the habitation of devils, the hold of all vncleane spirits, which hath made all nations drunke with the wine of her fornication, which themselves p 1.156 cannot but ac∣knowledge to be meant of Rome: This doe, and then, Come q 1.157 un∣to the Lord and he will have mercy, and to our God, for he is very rea∣dy to forgive: All your former impieties, heresies, and blasphe∣mies shall not be mentioned unto you, but in the righteousnes and Catholike truths which ye then embrace, you shall live. If this they will not doe, 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 shal as firme∣ly binde them before God in heaven, as they were truly de∣nounced by the Synod here on earth, for he hath sealed theirs and all like censures with his owne signet, who r 1.158 said, Whatso∣ever ye binde upon earth, shall be bound in heaven.

24. After all these just Anathemaes denounced as well in ge∣nerall as in particular by the Councill against the defenders of these Three Chapters or any one of them; the holy Synod sets downe 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 1.159 we have rightly confessed these things, quae tradita sund nobis tam à divinis scripturis; 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 foure former Councils. So the holy Councill. Whence it doth evidently ensue, that to teach and affirme, that the Pope in his judiciall and cathedrall sentence of faith may erre and define heresie, and that Vigilius in his constitution de facto did so, is a truth conso∣nant to Scriptures, fathers, and the foure first general Councils▪ But on the other side, to maintaine or affirme (as do all who are members of the present Romane Church) that the Popes cathe∣drall sentence in causes of faith is infallible, is an hereticall posi∣tion repugnant to Scriptures, Fathers, and the 4. first Councils, and condemned by them all. So at once the Holy Councill judi∣cially defineth both our faith to be truly ancient & Apostolical, the selfe same which the Holy Fathers, generall Councills, and the Catholike Church professed for 600 yeares; and the do∣ctrine of the present Romane Church, even that fundamentall position, on which all the rest doe relye, to be not onely new,

but hereticall, such as none can maintaine, but even thereby he oppugneth and contradicteth both the Scriptures, Fathers, the foure first general Councils; and the Catholike Church for 600 yeares after Christ.

25. Further yet: because one part of their sentence is the ac∣cursing of all who defend the Three Chapters, either expresly, as did Vigilius, or implicitè, and by consequent, as do all who main∣taine the Popes judgement in causes of faith to be infallible, that is, al who are members of the present Romane Church, and so die; it cleerely ensueth from that last clause of the Councill, that to condemne and accurse as heretikes all these, yea, all which doe not accurse these, is by the judgement of this whole generall Council, warranted by Scriptures, by Fathers, by the foure first generall Councils, and by the Caholike Church for 600 yeares after Christ: The judgement of this fifth Council be∣ing consonant to them all, and warranted by them all.

26. Neither is their Decree consonant onely to precedent Fathers, and Councils, but approved and confirmed by succee∣ding generall Councils, by Popes, and other Bishops, in the fol∣lowing ages of the Church. By the sixt Councill, which profes∣seth t 1.160 of it selfe that in omnibus consonuit; it in all points agreeth with the fifth. By the second Nicene, (which they account for the seaventh) which reckneth v 1.161 this fift, for one of the golden Councils, which are glorious by the words of the holy Spirit, and which all being inlightned by the same spirit, decreed those things which are profitable: professing that themselves did condemne all whom those Coun∣cils (and among them whom this fift) did condemne. By other following Councils, in every one of which the 2 Nicene (and by consequent this fift) Councill is approved, as by the acts is cleare: and Baronius confesseth x 1.162 that this fift, in alijs Oecumenicis Synodis postea celebratis cognita est at{que} probata, was acknowledged and appro∣ved by the other generall Councils which were held after it.

27. It was likewise approved by succeeding Popes and Bi∣shops. By Pelagius the second, who writ an whole Epistle y 1.163 to perswade the Bishops of Istria to condemne the Three Chapters, telling z 1.164 them that though Pope Vigilius resisted the condemnation of them, yet others his predecessours which followed Vigilius did consent thereunto. By Gregory, who professing a 1.165 to embrace & reverence the 4 first Councils, as the 4 Euangelists, addeth of this fift, Quintū quo{que} cō∣cilium pariter veneror; I do in like manner reverence the fift Councill, wherin 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) venera∣ble Councils doe condemne, those also doe I condemne, whom they re∣verence I embrace; because seeing they are decreed by an universall con∣sent, whosoever presumeth to loose, whom they bind, or bind whom they loose, se et non illa destruit, he destroyeth himselfe, but not those Coun∣cils, and whosoever thinketh otherwise, let him be accursed. Thus

Pope Gregory the great, ratifying all the former anathemaes of the Councill, and accursing all that labour to unty those bands. By Agatho b 1.166 by Leo c 1.167 the second, who both call this an holy Sy∣nod; and, not to stay in particulars, All d 1.168 their Popes (after the the time of Gregorie) were accustomed at their election to make profession of this fift, as of the former Councils, and that in such solemne and exact manner, after the time of Hadrian the second, that they professed (as their forme it selfe set downe by Anton. Augustinus e 1.169 doth witnesse) to embrace the eight gene∣rall Councils, (whereof this was one) to hold them pari honore et veneratione, in equal honor and esteeme, to keepe them intirely us{que} ad unum apicem, to the least iôta, to follow and teach whatso∣ever they decreed, and whatsoever they condemned to con∣demne both with their mouth and heart. A like forme of pro∣fession is set downe in the Councill at Constance f 1.170, where the Councill having first decreed g 1.171 the power and authoritie of the Pope to be inferiour and subject to the Councill, and that he ought to be obedient to them both, in matters of faith and or∣ders of reformation, by this their superior authoritie ordaineth, That every Pope at the time of his election shall professe that, corde et ore, both in words and in his heart hee doth embrace and firmely beleeve the doctrines delivered by the holy Fathers, and by the eleven generall Councils (this fift being reckned for one) and that he will keepe, defend and teach the same faith with them, us{que} ad unum apicem, even to the least syllable. To goe no further, Baronius confesseth h 1.172, that not onely Gregory and his predecessors (unto Vigilius) sed successores omnes, but all the successors of Gregory are knowne to have recei∣ved and confirmed this fift Councill.

28. Neither onely did the Popes approve it, but all ortho∣doxal Bishops in the world: it being a custome, as Baronius shew∣eth i 1.173, that they did professe to embrace the seven generall Coun∣cills, which forme of faith Orthodoxi omnes ex more profiteri de∣berent, all orthodoxall Bishops by custome were bound to professe. And this, as it seemeth, they did in those Literae Formatae, or Commu∣nicatoriae, or Pacificae, (so they were called k 1.174) which from ancient time they used to give and receive. For by that forme of letters they testified their communion in faith, and peaceable agreemēt with the whole Catholike Church. Such an Vniforme consent there was in approving this fift Council in all succeeding Coun∣cills, Popes and Bishops, almost to these dayes.

29. From whence it evidently and unavoidably ensueth, that as this fift Synod, so all succeeding Councils, Popes and Bi∣shops, to the time of the Councill of Constance l 1.175, that is, for more then fourteene hundred yeares together after Christ, doe all with this fift Councill condemne and accurse, as hereticall, the ju∣diciall and definitive sentence of Pope Vigilius, delivered by his Apostolical authority, for instruction of the whole Church in this cause of faith: & therfore they al with an uniforme consent did in

heart beleeve, and in words professe and teach, that the Popes Cathedrall sentence in causes of faith, may be, and de facto hath been hereticall: that is, they all did beleeve and teach, that do∣ctrine which the reformed Churches maintaine, to be truly anci∣ent, orthodoxall and catholike, such as the whole Church of Christ, for more then 14 hundred yeares, beleeved and taught: but the doctrine (even the Fundamentall position whereon all their doctrines doe relie, and which is vertually included in them all) which the present Church of Rome maintaineth, to be new, hereticall and accursed, such as the whole Church for so many hundred yeares together with one consent beleeved and taught to be accursed and hereticall. It hence further ensueth, that as this fift Councill did, so all the fore-mentioned generall Coun∣cils, Popes and Bishops, doe with it condemne and accurse for heretikes not onely Vigilius, but all who either have or doe hereafter defend him and his Constitution, even all, who either by word or writing, have or shall maintaine that the Popes Cathe∣drall judgement in causes of faith is infallible, that is, all who are members of the present Romane Church, and so continue till their death: nay, they not onely accurse all such, but further also, even all who doe not accurse such. And because the decree of this fift Councill is approved by them, to the least iôta it in the last place followeth, that the condemning and accursing for hereticall that doctrine of the Popes infallibilitie in causes of faith, and accursing for heretikes, all who either by word or writing have, or doe at any time hereafter defend the same, and so presist till they dye; nay, not onely the accursing of all such, but of all who doe not accurse them, is warranted by Scrip∣tures, by Fathers, by all generall Councils, by all Popes and Bishops, that have beene for more then 14. hundred yeares after Christ.

30. This Vniforme consent continued in the Church untill the time of Leo the 10 and his Laterane Councill. Till then, nei∣ther was the Popes authoritie held for supreme, nor his judi∣ciall sentence in causes of faith held for infallible: nay, to hold these was judged and defined to be hereticall, and the maintain∣ers of them to be heretikes. For besides that they all till that time approved this fift Councill, wherein these truths were decreed, the same was expresly decreed by two generall Coun∣cils, the one at Constance, the other at Basil, not long before m 1.176 that Laterane Synod. In both which it was defined, that not the Popes sentence, but the Iudgement of a generall Councill, n 1.177 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 1.178 himselfe, is subject, and ought to obey it, or if he will not, is pu∣nishable p 1.179 by the same. Consider beside many other, that one testimony of the Councill of Basil, and you shall see they belee∣ved and professed this as a Catholike truth, which in all ages

of the Church had beene, and still ought to be embraced. They having recited that Decree of the Councill at Constance, for the supreme authority of a Councill, to which the Pope is subject, say q 1.180 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 Catholike faith, yet for the better confirming of all Catholikes herein, This holy Synod doth define as followeth; The verity of the power of a generall Councill above the Pope, declared in the generall Councill at Constance, and in this at Basil, est veritas fidei Catholicae, is a veritie of the Catholike faith; and after a second conclusion like to this, they adjoyne a third, which concernes them both; He who pertinaciously gainsayeth these two verities, est censendus haereticus, is to be accounted an heretike. Thus the Councill at Basil; cleerly witnessing, that till this time of the Councill, the defending of the Popes authority to be supreme, or his judgement to be infallible, was esteemed an Heresie by the Catholike Church, and the maintainers of that doctrine to be heretikes: which their decrees were not, as some falsly pretend, rejected by the Popes of those times, but ratified and confirmed, and that r 1.181 Consistorialiter, judicially and cathe∣drally by the indubitate Popes, that then were, for so the Coun∣cill of Basil witnesseth; who hearing that Eugenius would dis∣solve the Councill, say s 1.182 thus; It is not likely that Eugenius will any way thinke to dissolve this sacred Council, especially seeing that it is against the decrees of the Councill at Constance, per praedecessorem suum et seipsum approbata; which both his predecessor Pope Martine the fift, and himselfe also hath approved. Besides this, that Eugenius con∣firmed the Councill at Basil, there are other evident proofes: His owne Bull, or embossed letters, wherein he saith t 1.183 of this Councill, purè, simpliciter, ac cum effectu, et omni devotione prose∣quimur; we embrace sincerely, absolutely, and with all affection and de∣votion, the generall Councill at Basil: The Councill often mention his adhesion, v 1.184 his maximā adhaesionem x 1.185 to the Councill; by which Adhesion, as they teach, y 1.186 Decreta corroborata sunt, the Decrees of the Council at Basil made for the superiority of a Council above the Pope, were cōfirmed: Further yet the Orators w^ch Pope Eug. sent to the council, did not only promise, but z 1.187 corporally sweare be∣fore the whole Councill, that they would defend the decrees ther∣of, & particularly that which was made at Constance was, & now renewed at Basil. Such an Harmonie there was in beleeving and professing this doctrine, (that the Popes judgement in causes of faith, is neither supreme nor infallible) that generall Councils at this time decreed it, the indubitate Popes confirmed it, the Popes Orators solemnly sware unto it, the Vniversall a 1.188 and Ca∣tholike Church untill then embraced it, and that with such con∣stancy and uniforme consent, that, as the Council of b 1.189 Basil saith, (and their saying is worthy to be remembred) nunquam aliquis peritorum dubitavit, never any learned and skilfull man doubted ther∣of.

It may be some illiterate Gnatho hath soothed the Pope in his Hildebrandicall pride, vaunting, c 1.190 Se, quasi deus sit, errare non posse; I sit in the temple of God, as God, I cannot erre; but for any that was truly judicious or learned, never any such man, in all the ages of the Church untill then, as the Councill witnesseth, so much as doubted thereof, but constantly beleeved the Popes authoritie not to be supreme, and his judgement not to be infallible.

31. After the Councill of Basil, the same truth was still em∣braced in the Church, though with far greater opposition then before it had:d 1.191 witnesse hereof, Nich. Cusanus a Bishop, a Car∣dinall, a man scientijs pene omnibus excultus, who lived 20 e 1.192 yeares after the end of the Councill at Basil. He earnestly maintained the decree of that Councill, resolving f 1.193 that a generall Councill is omni respectu tam supra Papam quam supra sedem Apostolicam; is in every respect superior both to the Pope and to the Apostolike see. Which he proveth by the Councils of Nice, of Chalcedon, of the sixt and 8 generall Councils, and he is so confident herein, that he saith, Quis dubitare potest sanae mentis? what man being in his wits can doubt of this superioritie? Witnesse Iohn de Turrecremata, a Cardinall also, who was famous at the same time, g 1.194 He thought he was very unequall to the Councill at Basil, in fauour belike of Euge∣nius the 4, who h 1.195 made him Cardinall, yet that he thought the Popes judgement in defining causes of faith to be fallible, and his authority not supreme, but subject to a Councill. Andradius will tell you i 1.196 in this manner; Let us heare him (Turrecremata) affirming that the Definitions of a Council concerning doctrines of faith, are to be preferred Iudicio Rom. Pontificis, to the judgement of the Pope; and then he citeth the words of Turrec. that in case the Fa∣thers of a generall Councill should make a definition of faith, which the Pope should contradict (This was the very case of the fift Councill, and Pope Vigilius) dicerem, judicio meo, quod Synodo standum esset et non personae Papae, I would say, according to my judgement, that we must stand to the Synods, and not to the Popes sen∣tence: who yet further touching k 1.197 that the Pope hath no superior Iudge upon earth, extracasum haeresis, unlesse it be in case of heresie, doth plainly acknowledge, that in such a case a Councill is supe∣rior unto him. Superior, I say, not onely (as he minceth the mat∣ter) by authoritie l 1.198 of discretive judgement, or amplitude of learning (in which sort many meane Bishops and presbyters are far his superiors) but even by power of Iurisdiction, seeing in that case (as he confesseth) the Councill is a superior Iudge unto the Pope, and if he be a Iudge of him, he must have coactive m 1.199 autho∣ritie, and judiciall power over him. Witnesse Panormitane, an Archbishop, and a Cardinall n 1.200 also, a man of great note in the Church, both at and after the Councill of Basil; He o 1.201 professeth that in those things, which concerne the Faith, or generall state of the Church; Concilium est supra Papam, the Councill in those things is superior to the Pope. He also writ a booke in defence of the

Councill at Basill so distastfull to the present Church of Rome, that they have forbid p 1.202 it to be read, and reckned it in the number of Prohibited bookes in their Romane Index. At the same time lived q 1.203 Antonius Rosellus, a man noble in birth, but more for learning, who thus writeth, r 1.204 I conclude, that the Pope may be accu∣sed and deposed for no fault, nisi pro haeresi, but for heresie strictly ta∣ken, or for some notorious crime scādalizing the whole Church. and againe, s 1.205 Though the Pope be not content or willing to be judged by a Councill, yet in case of heresie, the Councill may condemne and adnull senteniam Papae, the Iudgement or sentence of faith pronounced by the Pope; and he gives this reason thereof, be∣cause in this case the Councill is supra Papam, above the Pope: and the superior Iudge may be sought unto, to declare a nullitie in the sentence of the inferiour Iudge. Thus he: and much more to this purpose. Now although by these (the first of which was a Belgian, the second a Spaniard, the third a Sicilian, and the last an Italian) it may be perceived, that the generall judgement of the Church at that time, and the best learned therein, was almost the same with that of the Councill at Basill, that neither the Popes authoritie is supreme, nor his judgement in causes of faith is infallible; yet suffer me to adde two other witnesses, of those who were after that Councill.

32. The former is the Iudgement of Vniversities, quae t 1.206 fere omnes, which all, in a manner, approved and honored that Councill of Basil; The other is the Councill at Biturice (some * 1.207 take it for Burdeaux) called by Charles the seventh, the French King, in which was made consensu omnium x 1.208 ecclesiasticorum, et principum regni, by the consent of the whole clergy, and all the Peeres of France, that Pragmaticall Sanction, which Iohn Marius calls y 1.209 medullam, the pith and marrow of the decrees of the Councill at Basil. One decree of that Sanction is this, z 1.210 The authoritie of the Councill at Basil and the constancie of their decrees, perpetua esto, let it be perpetuall, and let none, no not the Pope himselfe, presume to abrogate or infringe the same. This Sanction was published with full authoritie, not se∣venty yeares before the Councill at Lateran (as Leo the tenth witnesseth a 1.211) that is, some foure yeares after the end of the Coun∣cill at Basill. And although the Popes (whose avarice and am∣bition was restrained by that sanction) did detest it, as Gagninus saith, b 1.212 non secus ac perniciosam haeresin; no otherwise then as a dange∣rous heresie, yea and labored tooth & naile to admit it, yet, as saith the universitie of Paris, c 1.213 by Gods helpe, hactenus prohibitum ex∣titit, they have beene ever hindred untill this time of Leo the tenth. Indeed Pius secundus indevored and labored with Lewes the 11. to have it abrogated, and he sent d 1.214 a solemne embassador, Card. Balveus, a very subtill e 1.215 fellow, to bring this to passe, but after much toyling both himselfe and others, re infecta redijt, he retur∣ned without effecting the Popes desire. And to goe no further, Leo the 10. and his Laterane Synod, are ample witnesses that this

Sanction was never repealed, before that Synod, for they f 1.216 com∣plaine that, by reason of the malignitie of those times, or else because they could not helpe it, his predecessors tolerasse visi sunt, seemed to have tolerated that pragmaticall Sanction, and that for all, which either they did or could doe, the same Sanction re∣troactis temporibus vignisse, et adhuc vigere; had in former times, and did even to that very day of their eleventh Session, stand in force, and full vigor. Now seeing that Sanction condemneth as hereticall (as did the Council also of Basil) that assertion of the Popes Supremacie of authoritie, and infallibilitie of judgment in defining causes of faith, which the present Romane Church defendenth, it is now cleerly demonstrated that the same Asser∣tion was taught, professed, and beleeved to be an heresie, and the obstinate defenders thereof to be heretikes, by the consen∣ting judgement of Councils, Popes, Bishops, and the Catho∣like Church, even from the Apostles time unto that very day of their Laterane Session, which was the 19. of December, in the yeare 1516. after Christ.

33 On that day (a day never to be forgotten by the present Ro∣mane Church, it being the birth-day thereof,) Leo the tenth with his Laterane Councill (or as the learned Divines of Paris g 1.217 ac∣count it, Conspiracie, they being not assembled in Gods name) abolished, as much as in them lay, the old and Catholike do∣ctrine, which in all ages of the Church had beene beleeved and professed untill that day, and in stead thereof erect a new faith, yea, a new foundation of the faith; and with it a new Church also. Hee and his Synod then reprobated h 1.218 the Decree of Con∣stance for the superioritie of a Councill above the Pope: they reprobated i 1.219 also the Councill of Basil, and the same Decree re∣newed by them. That Councill they condemne as Conciliabulum, or k 1.220 Conventiculam, quae nullum robur habere potuerit, As a Con∣spiracie, and Conventicle, which could have no force at all. They re∣probated the l 1.221 Pragmaticall Sanction, wherein the Decree of Con∣stance and Basil was for ever confirmed. Now that Decree being consonant to that catholike Faith which for 1500 yeares toge∣ther had beene imbraced, and beleeved by the whole catholike Church untill that day, in reprobating it, they rejected and re∣probated the old and catholike Faith of the whole Church. In¦stead hereof they decreed the Popes authoritie to be m 1.222 supreme, that it is, de n 1.223 necessitate salutis; a thing necessary to salvation, for all Christians to be subject to the Pope; and that not onely as they are severally considered, but even as they assembled together in a generall Councill: for they define Solum o 1.224 Romanum Pontificem au∣thoritatem super omnia Concilia habere; The Pope alone to have au∣thoritie above all Generall Councills. This the Councill at Laterane diserte & ex prosesso docuit; taught cleerly and purposely, as Bellar∣mine tells p 1.225 us: nay, they did not onely teach it, but expressissimè definiunt q 1.226, they did most expresly define it. And that their De∣finition

is no other then a Decree of Faith, as the same Cardinall assures us; Decrees of faith (saith he) r 1.227 are immutable, neyther may ever be repealed after they are once set downe; Tale autem est hoc de quo agimus, and such is this Decree for the Popes su∣preme authoritie over all, even Generall Councils, made in their Laterane Synod. And what meane they (thinke you) by that supreme authoritie? Truly the same which Bellarmine ex∣plaineth, That because his authoritie is supreme, therefore his judgement s 1.228 in causes of Faith, is the last and highest: and because it is the last and highest, therefore it is t 1.229 infallible. So by their Decree, together with supremacie of authority, they have given infallibilitie of judgement to the Pope; and defined that to be a catholike truth, and doctrine of Faith, which the whole Church in all ages untill then, taught, professed, and defined to be an he∣resie, and all who maintaine it, to be Heretikes, and for such condemned both it and them.

34 Now, because this is not onely a doctrine of their faith, but the very foundation, on which all their other doctrines of faith doe relie, by decreeing this, they have quite altered not onely the faith, but the whole frame and fabricke of the church, erecting a new Romane church, consisting of them, and them onely, who maintaine the Popes Infallibilitie and supremacie, decreed on that memorable day in their Laterane Synod: a church truly new, and but of yesterday, not so old as Luther, a church in faith and communion severed from all former gene∣rall Councils, Popes, and Bishops, that is, from the whole ca∣tholike Church of Christ, which was from the Apostles times untill that day. And if their Popes continue (as it is to be pre∣sumed they doe) to make that profession which by the Councils of Constance and Basil they are bound to doe, to hold among other, this fift Councill ad unum iôta, this certainly is but a ver∣ball, no cordiall profession; there neither is, nor can be any truth therein, it being impossible to beleeve both the Popes Ca∣thedrall judgement in causes of faith, to be hereticall, as the fift Councill defined; and the Popes Cathedrall sentence in such cau∣ses, to be infallible, as their Laterane Councill decreed: So by that profession is demonstrated that their doctrine of faith is both contradictory to it selfe, such as none can possibly beleeve, and withall new, such as is repugnant to that faith which the whole Catholike Church of Christ embraced, untill that very day of their Laterane Session.

35 Yea and even then was not this holy truth abolished. Foure moneths did not passe after that Laterane Decree was made but it was condemned by the whole Vniversitie of v 1.230 Paris, as being contra fidem Catholicam, against the catholike Faith, and the authority of holy Councils. And even to these dayes the French Church doth not onely distaste that x 1.231 Laterane Decree, and hold a Generall Councill to be superiour to the Pope, but

their Councill also of y 1.232 Trent, wherein that Laterane Decree is confirmed, is by them rejected. And what speake I of them? Behold, while Leo with his Laterane Councill strives to quench this catholike truth, it bursts out with farre more glorious and resplendent beauty. This stone, which was rejected by those builders of Babylon; was laid againe in the foundations of Sion, by those Ezra's, Nehemiah's, Zorobabel's and holy Servants of the Lord, who at the voyce of the Angell, came out of Babylon, and repaired the ruines of Ierusalem. And even as certaine rivers are said to runne z 1.233 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 owne sweet and delightfull waters: Right so it fell out with this and some other doctrines of Faith. This Catho∣like truth (that the Popes judgement and Cathedrall 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 mountaines of God, for the space of 600 yeares and more, passed with a most faire and spatious current, like Ty∣gris & Euphrates watering on each side the Garden of the Lord; or like Pactolus, with golden streames inriching and beautifying the Church of God: after that time it fell into the corrupted waters of succeeding ages, brackish (I confesse) before their se∣cond Nycene Synod, but after it and the next unto it, extremely salt and unpleasant, more bitter then 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 1.234 730. yeares, this truth all that time kept her native and primitive sweetnesse, by the constant and successive profes∣sions of the whole Church throughout all those ages. Now af∣ter that long passage through all those salt waves, like Alpheus, or Arethusa, it bursts out againe, not as they did, in Sicily, nor neare the Italian shores, but (as the Cardinall tells b 1.235 us) in Germa∣nie, in England, in Scotland, in France, in Helvetia, in Polonia, in Bohemia, in Pannonia, in Sueveland, in Denmarke, in Norway, in all the Reformed Churches, and being by the power and good∣nesse of God, purified from all that mud and corruption where∣with it was mingled; (all which is now left in it owne proper, that is, in the Romane, channels;) it is now preserved in the faire current of those Orthodoxall Churches, wherein both it and other holy doctrines of Faith, are with no lesse sinceritie profes∣sed, thē they were in those ancient times before they were ming∣led with any bitter or brackish waters.

36 You see now the whole judgement of the Fift Generall Councill, how in every point it contradicteth the Apostolicall Constitution of Pope Vigilius, condemning and accursing both it for hereticall, and all who defend it for heretikes: which their sentence, you see; is consonant to the Scriptures, and the whole

Catholike Church of all ages, excepting none but such as ad∣here to their new Laterane decree and faith. An example so an∣cient, so authenticall, and so pregnant to demonstrate the truth, which wee teach, and they oppugne, that it may justly cause any Papist in the world to stagger, and stand in doubt, even of the maine ground and foundation whereon all his faith relyeth. For the full clearing of which matter, being of so great importance and consequence, I have thought it needful to rip up every veine and sinew in this whole cause, concerning these Three Chapters, and the Constitution of Vigilius in defence of the same: and with∣all examine the weight of every doubt, evasion, & excuse, which eyther Cardinall 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 ei∣ther they urge, or which may seeme 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 thinke, any one cause which Card. Baronius in all the Volumes of his Annalls hath with more art or indu∣stry handled, then this concerning Pope Vigilius, and the Fift Generall Councill. In this hee hath strained all his wits, moved and removed every stone, under which hee imagined any help might be found, eyther wholly to excuse, or any way lessen the errour of Vigilius. All the Cardinalls forces may be ranked into foure severall troupes. In the first do march all his Shifts and Evasions which are drawne from the Matter of the Three Chapters: In the second, those which are drawne from the Popes Constitution: In the third, those which respect a subsequent Act of Vigilius: In the fourth & last, those which con∣cerne the fift General Councill. After all these, wherin cōsisteth the whole pith of the Cause, the Cardinall brings forth another band of certaine subsidiary, but most disorderly souldiers, nay, not souldiers; they never tooke the Military oath, nor may they by the Law of armes nor ever were by any worthy Generall ad∣mitted into any lawfull fight, or so much as to set footing in the field; meere theeves and robbers they are, whom the Cardinall hath set in an ambush, not to fight in the cause, but onely like so many Shimei's, that they might raile at and revile whomsoever the Cardinall takes a spleene at, or with whatsoever hee shall be moved in the heat of his choler: At the Emperour Iustinian, at

Theodora the Empresse, at the cause it selfe of the Three Chapters, at the Imperiall Edict, at Theodorus Bishop of Cesarea, at the Syno∣dal acts, yea, at Pope Vigilius himselfe; we wil first encounter the just forces of the Cardinall, which onely are his lawfull warri∣ours; and having discomfited them, we shall with ease cleare all the coasts of this cause, from all his theevish, piraticall, and dis∣ordered straglers.

2. The first and chiefest exception of Baronius ariseth from the matter & controversie it selfe touching these Three Chapters; concerning which he pretendeth, that no question of faith was handled therin, & so one dissenting from another in this cause, might not be counted or called an heretike. This was a question saith he, a 1.236 de personis, & non de fide; of persons and not of the faith. Againe, b 1.237 Vigilius knew, Non de fide esse quaestionem, sed de personis; that there was no question moved herein about the faith, but about certaine persons. And yet more clearly, In these disputations, saith he, c 1.238 about the Three Chapters, as we have oftē said, Nulla fuit quae∣stio de side, ut alter ab altero aliter sentiens dici posset haereticus; there was no question at all about the faith, so that one dissenting from another herein, might be called an heretike. And this hee so confi∣dently avoucheth, that he saith of it, Abomnibus absque ulla contro∣versia consentitur; all men agree herein without any controversie. Thus Baronius, whom Binius applauding, saith d 1.239 Sciendum est, bee it knowne to all men, that in these disputations and differences about the Three Chapters, non fuisse quaestionem ullam de fide, sed tantum∣modo de personis; there was no quaestion at all concerning the faith, but only concerning the persons. So he. Whereby they would insinuate, that Pope Vigilius did erre onely in a personall cause, or in a matter of fact, which they not unwillingly confesse that the Pope may doe; but he erred not in a cause of faith, or in any do∣ctrinall position of faith, wherein onely they defend him to bee infallible.

3. Truly the Card. was driven to an extreme exigent, when this poore shift must be the first and best shelter to save the infallibi∣lity of the Apostolike Chaire. For to say truth, the maine contro∣versie touching these Three Chapters, which the Councell condē∣ned, and Vigilius defended, was onely doctrinall, and directly belonging to the faith; nor did it concerne the persons any other way, but with an implication of that hereticall doctrine which they and the defenders of these Chapters under that colour did cunningly maintaine: A truth so evident that I doe even labour with abundance of proofes.

4. Iustinian the religious Emperour, who called this Councell about this matter, committed it unto them, as a question of saith: We have, saith he, e 1.240 commanded Vigilius to come together with you all, and debate these Three Chapters, that a determination may be given, rectae fidei conveniens, consonant to the right faith. Againe, stirring f 1.241 them up to give a speedy resolution in this cause, hee

addes this as a reason, Quoniā qui de fide recta interrogatur▪ for when one is asked concerning the right faith, and puts off his answer therein, this is nothing else but a deniall of the true confession: for in questions & answers quae de fide sunt, which are questions of faith, hee that is more prompt and ready is acceptable with God. Thus the Emperour.

5. The Holy Councell esteemed it, as did the Emperour, to be no other than a cause or question of faith; for thus they say, Cum h 1.242 de fide ratio movetur, when a doubt or question is moved touching the faith, even he is to be condemned, who may hinder impiety, but is negligent so to doe; and therefore, Festinavimus bo∣num fidei semen conservare ab impietatis Zizanijs; We have hastened to preserve the good seed of faith pure from the tares of impietie. So cleerly doth the whole generall Councell even in their defini∣tive sentence call the condemning of the Three Chapters which themselves did, a preserving of the good seed of faith; and the de∣fending of them, which Vigilius did, a sowing of hereticall weeds which corrupt the faith. Againe, m 1.243 We being enlightned by the ho∣ly Scriptures, and the doctrine of the holy Fathers, have thought it needfull to set downe in certaine Chapters, (those are the parti∣cular points of their Synodall judgement) Et praedicationem veri∣tatis, & haereticorum eorumque impietatis condemnationem; both the preaching of the truth, or true faith, and the condemning of Heretikes, and their impietie. And in the end, having set downe those Chap∣ters, and among them a particular and expresse condemning of these Three w^th an anathema denounced to the defenders of thē, they conclude thus, n 1.244 We have confessed these things, being delivered unto us both by the sacred Scriptures, by the doctrine of the holy Fa∣thers, & by those things w ^ch are defined, de unâ eâdem{que} fide, concerning one and the same faith by the foure former Councels. Then which no∣thing can be more cleare to witnesse their decree touching these Threee Chapters most nearely to concerne the faith, unlesse some of Baronius his friends can make proofe, that the condemning of heretikes, and their impious heresies, and the maintaining of that doctrine which the Scriptures and Fathers taught, and the foure first Councels defined, is not a point of faith.

6. Neither onely did the Catholikes which were the con∣demners of these Three Chapters, but the heretikes also which were the defenders of them, they also consent in this truth, that the question concerning them, was a controversie or cause of faith. Pope Vigilius in his Constitution o 1.245 still pretendeth his Defence of Those Chapters to be consonant to the Councell at Chal∣cedon, and the Definition thereof: and of the Epistle of Ibas hee ex∣presly saith, The Councel of Chalcedon pronounced it to be orthodoxall. And none I suppose will doubt, but that the question, whether that or any other writing be orthodoxall, and agreeable to the Definition of Chalcedon, as Vigilius affirmed that Epistle to be; or be heretical and repugnant to that Definition, as the Holy Coun∣cell adjudged that Epistle to be, is a plaine question and contro∣versie

of faith. Victor B. of Tunen, who suffered imprisonment and banishment for defence of these Three Chapters, teacheth the like, saying, p 1.246 That Epistle of Ibas was approved and judged q 1.247 orthodoxall, by the sentence of the Councell at Chalcedon: and the condemning of these Three Chapters, is the condemning and banishing of that Coun∣cell. Facundus B. of Hermian, who writ seven bookes of these Three Chapters, doth more than abundantly witnesse this of him. Victor thus writeth, r 1.248 Evidentissime declaravit, Facundus hath de∣clared most evidently, that those Three Chapters were condemned in proscriptione fidei Catholicae & Apostolicae, for the exiling and rooting out of the Catholike and Apostolike faith. Facundus himselfe doth not onely affirme this, but prove it also, even by the judge∣ment of Pope Vigilius. Vigilius, saith he, s 1.249 esteemed, the condem∣ning of these Three Chapters to be so hainous a crime, that hee thought it fit to be reproved by those words of the Apostle, Avoid prophane novelties of words, and opposition of science falsely so called, which some professing have erred from the faith. And hereupon, as if he meant purposely to refute this Evasion of Baronius, which it seemeth some did use in those dayes, he addes, Quid adhuc quaeritur utrum contra fidem factum fuerit; why doe any as yet doubt whether the con∣demning of them be against the faith, seeing Pope Vigilius calleth it prophane noveltie and opposition of science, whereby some have erred from the faith? And a little after concluding, This saith he, t 1.250 is not to be thought such a cause as may bee tolerated for the peace of the Church, sed quae merito judicatur contra ipsius fidei Catholicae statum commota; but it must bee judged such a cause as is moved against the state of the Catholike faith. Thus Facundus testi∣fying both his owne, and the judgement of the other defen∣ders of those Chapters, and by name of Pope Vigilius, that they all esteemed and judged this to bee a question and controversie of faith, of which Baronius tels us, that in it there was moved no question at all concerning the faith; and that Pope Vigilius knew that it was no question of faith.

7. Now whereas the whole Church at that time was divided into u 1.251 two parts, the Easterne Churches with the holy Councell condemning; the Westerne with Pope Vigilius defending those Three Chapters, seeing both the one side and the other consent in this point, that this was a cause and question of faith, what truth or credit thinke you, is there in Baronius, who saith, that All men without any doubt agree herein, that this is no cause or question of faith: whereas all, both the one side and the other agree in the quite contrary. Truly the wisdome of the Cardinall is well worthy observing, He consenteth to Vigilius in defending the Three Chapters, wherein Vigilius was hereticall: but dissenteth from Vigilius in holding this to be a cause of faith, wherein Vi∣gilius was orthodoxal; as if he had made some vow to follow the Pope, when the Pope forsakes the truth, but to forsake the Pope, when the Pope followeth the truth.

8. Nor onely was this truth by that age acknowledged, but by succeeding, approved. By Pope Pelagius, who to reclame cer∣taine Bishops from defence of those Chapters, wherin they were earnest, and had writ an apologie for the same, useth this as one speciall reason, because all those Chapters were repugnant to the Scriptures & former Councels. Consider, saith he, x 1.252 if the wri∣tings of Theodorus, which deny Christ the Redeemer to bee the Lord, the writings of Theodoret, quae contra fidem edita, which being publi∣shed against the faith, were afterwards by himsefe condemned; and the Epistle of Ibas, wherein Nestorius the enemy of the Church is de∣fended; if these bee consonant to the Propheticall, Euangelicall, and Apostolicall authority. And againe, y 1.253 of the Epistle of Ibas he addeth, If this Epistle be received as true, tota sanctae Ephesinae Synodus fides dissipatur, the whole faith of the holy Ephesine Councell is overthrowne. Let here some of Baronius friends tell us how that question or cause doth not concerne the faith, the defending whereof (which Vigilius did) is by the judgement of Pope Pelagi∣us repugnant to the Euangelical and Apostolicall doctrines, and even an utter & totall overthrow of the faith. To Pelagius accor∣deth Pope Gregory, who approved z 1.254 this Epistle of Pelagius, & cōmen∣ded it as a direction to others in this cause. And what speake I of one or two, seeing the Decree of this fift Councell, wherein this is declared to be a cause of faith, is consonant to all former, and confirmed by all succeeding generall Councels, Popes and Bi∣shops, til that time of Leo the 10. & his Laterane Synod, as before we a 1.255 have shewed? was not this thinke you, most insolent pre∣sumption in Baronius to set himselfe as a Iohannes ad oppositum, a∣gainst them all, and oppose his owne fancy, to the constant and consenting judgement of the whole Catholike Church for more than 1500 yeares together? These all with one voyce professe this to be a cause of faith: Baronius against them all maintaineth, that it is no cause of faith: and to heape up the full measure of his shame, addeth a vast untruth, for which no colour of excuse can be devised; Consentitur ab omnibus, that all men without any controversie agree herein, that this is no question nor cause of faith.

9. Besides all these Card. Bellarmine setteth downe divers 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and cleare tokens whereby one may certainly know when a Councell decreeth or proposeth any doctrine tanquam de fide, to be received as a doctrine of the Catholike faith. This saith he, b 1.256 is easily knowne by the words of the Councell, for either they use to say, that they explicate the Catholike faith; or else, that they who thinke the contrary are to be accounted heretikes; or, which is most frequent, they anathmeatize those who thinke the cōtrary. So he. Let us now by these markes examine this cause, and it will be most evident, not onely by some one of them, which yet were sufficient; but by them all, that the Holy Councell both held this controversie to be of faith, and also proposed their decree herein, as a Decree of faith.

10. For the first, the Councell in plaine termes professeth even c 1.257 in their definitive sentence, that in their Decree they explane that same doctrine which the Scriptures, the Fathers, and the foure former Councels had delivered in their definitions of faith. Then un∣doubtedly by Bellarmines first note, their Decree herein is a De∣cree of faith, seeing it is an explication of the Catholike faith.

11. For the second, the Councel in like sort, in plain termes cal∣leth the defēders of those three Chapters, heretikes. For thus cried al the Synod, d 1.258 He who doth not anathematize this Epistle, is an Here∣tike: He who receiveth it, is an Heretike: This we say all. And in their definitive sentence they professe e 1.259 that they set down the preach∣ing of the truth, & Haereticorum condemnationem, and the condem∣ning of Heretikes. So by the second marke of Bellarmine it is un∣doubted, that the Councels Decree herein is a Decree of faith.

12. The third note is more than demonstrative. For the Ho∣ly Councell denounceth, not once or twice, but more I thinke than an hundred times an Anathema to them that teach contrary to their sentence. Anathema f 1.260 to Theodorus; anathema to him that doth not anathematize Theodorus; we all anathematize Theodorus and his writings. Anathema g 1.261 to the impious writing of Theodoret against Cyril: Anathema to all that doe not anathematize them: we h 1.262 all ana∣thematize the impious Epistle of Ibas: If i 1.263 any defend this Epistle, or any part of it, if any doe not anathematize it, and the defenders of it, let him be an Anathema.

13. So by all the notes of Cardinall Bellarmine, it is evident, not onely that this question about the Three Chapters, is a questi∣on of faith; but, which is more, that the holy generall Councell proposed their Decree herein, tanquam de fide, as a Decree of faith. Now because every Christian is bound to beleeve certitudine fidei cui falsum subesse non potest, with certainty of faith which cannot be de∣ceived, every doctrine and position of faith, then especially when it is published and declared by a Decree of the Church to bee a doctrine of faith: Seeing by this Decree of faith which the Councell now made, not onely the Popes Apostolicall sen∣tence in a cause of faith, is condemned to bee hereticall, but all they also who defend it, to be Heretikes and accursed; and see∣ing all defend it who maintaine the Popes cathedrall sentence to be infallible, that is, all who are members of the present Church of Rome: it hence inevitably ensueth, that every Christian is bound to beleeve certitudine fidei cui falsum subesse non potest, not onely the doctrine, even the fundamentall doctrine of the present Church of Rome to be hereticall, but all that maintaine it; that is, all that are members of that Church, to be heretikes and ac∣cursed, unlesse disclaiming that heresie they forsake all commu∣nion with that Church. Baronius perceiving all those Anathe∣maes to fall inevitably upon himselfe, and their whole Church, if this cause of the Three Chapters which Vigilius defended and defined by his Apostolicall Constitution, that they must be defen∣ded;

if this I say were admitted to be a cause of faith, that hee might shuffle off those Anathemaes, which like the leprosie of Gehazi doth cleave unto them; thought it the safest, as indeed it was the shortest way, to deny this to be a cause of faith, which not onely by all the precedent witnesses, but by the judgement of their owne Cardinall, and all the three notes set downe by him, is undeniably proved to bee a cause of faith, and that the Decree of the Holy Councell concerning it, is propo∣sed as a Decree of faith.

14. I might further adde their owne Nicholas Sanders, who though he saw not much in matters of faith, yet he both saw and professed this truth,, and therefore in plaine termes calleth k 1.264 the defending of the Three Chapters an heresie. Now heresie it could not be, unlesse it were a cause of faith, seeing every heresie is a deviation from the faith. But omitting him, and some others of his ranke, I will now in the last place adde one other witnesse, which with the favourites of Baronius is of more weight and worth, than all the former, and that is Baronius himselfe, who, as he doth often deny, so doth he often and plainly professe this to be a cause of faith. Speaking of the Emperours Edict concerning these Three Chapters, he bitterly reproveth; yea, he reproacheth the Emperour for that he would l 1.265 arrogate to himselfe edere san∣ctiones de fide Catholica, to make Edicts about the Catholike faith. A∣gain, the whole Catholike faith, saith he, would m 1.266 be in jeopardy, if such as Iustinian de fide leges sanciret, should make lawes concerning the faith. Againe, n 1.267 Pelagius the Popes Legate sounded an alarum contra ejusdem Imperatoris de fide sancitū Edictū, against the Emperors Edict published concerning the faith. And yet againe, o 1.268 Pope Vigili∣us writ letters against those qui edito ab Imperatore fidei decreto sub∣scripsissent, who had subscribed to the Emperours Edict of faith. So often, so expresly doth Baronius professe this to be a cause of faith, which himselfe, like the Aesopicall Satyr, had so often, and so ex∣presly denied to be a cause of faith; and that also so confidently, that he shamed not to say, Consentitur ab omnibus, all men agree herein, that this is no cause of faith; whereas Baronius himselfe dissenteth herein, confessing in plaine termes this to be a cause of the Catholike faith.

15. The truth is, the Cardinals judgement was unsetled, and himselfe in a manner infatuated in handling this whole cause touching Vigilius and the fift generall Councell. For having once resolved to deny this one truth, that Vigilius by his Apostolicall sentence maintained and defined heresie, and decreed that all o∣ther should maintaine it, (which one truth, like a Thesean threed would easily and certainly have directed him in all the rest of his Treatise;) now he wandreth up and down as in a Labyrinth, toi∣ling himselfe in uncertainties and contradictions, saying, and gainsaying, whatsoever either the present occasiō which he hath in hand, or the partialitie of his corrupted judgement, like a vio∣lent

tempest doth drive him unto; when the Emperour or his E∣dict (to both which he beares an implacable hatred) comes in his way, then this question about the Three Chapters, must bee a cause of faith: for so the Cardinall may have a spacious field to declame against the Emperour for presuming to intermeddle and make lawes in a cause of faith. But when Pope Vigilius or his Constitution (with which the Cardinall is most partially blinded) meet him, then the case is quite altered, the question about the Three Chapters must then bee no more a question or cause of faith; for that is an easie way to excuse Vigilius, and the infalli∣bilitie of his Chaire: he erred onely in some personall matters, in such the Pope may erre; he erred not in any doctrinall point, nor in a cause of faith; in such is hee and his Chaire infallible.

16. There remaineth one doubt, arising out of the words of Gregory, by the wilfull mistaking whereof p 1.269 Baronius was misse∣led. He seemeth to teach the same with the Cardinall, where speaking of this fift Synod, hee saith, q 1.270 In eâ de personis tantum∣modo, non autem de fide aliquid est gestum; In it was onely handled somewhat concerning those persons, but nothing concerning the faith. So Gregory, whose words if they be taken without any limitation, are not onely untrue, but repugnant to the consenting judgement of Councels and Fathers above mentioned, even to Gregory him∣selfe: for speaking of all the five Councels held before his time, he saith, r 1.271 Whosoever embraceth, praedictarum Synodorum fidem, the faith explaned by those five Councels, peace be unto them. And if hee had not in such particular manner testified this; yet seeing hee approveth (as was before s 1.272 shewed) this fift Councel and the De∣cree therof; & seeing that Decree clearly expresseth this to have beene a cause of faith, grounded on Scriptures, and the definiti∣ons of faith set downe in former Councels; even thereby doth Gregory certainly imply, that he accounted this cause for no o∣ther than (as the Synod it selfe did) for a cause of faith.

17. What then is Gregory repugnant to himselfe herein? I list not to censure so of him; rather by his owne words I desire to explane his meaning. There were divers in his time, as also in his Predecessor's Pelagius, who condemned this fift Councell, be∣cause, as they supposed, it had altered and abolished the faith of the Councell at Chalcedon, by condemning these Three Chapters, and had established a new doctrine of faith. Gregorie intreating against these, whom he truly calleth t 1.273 malignant persons, and troublers of the Church, denieth, and that most justly, that this Councell had done ought 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 Councell did nothing in the faith. Heare the words of Gregorie expressing thus much; Some there are (saith hee) u 1.274 who affirme, that in the time of Iulian

there was somewhat decreed against the Councell at Chalcedon; But such men neither reading, neither beleeving those who read, remaine in their errour; for we professe, our conscience bearing witnesse unto us, de side ejusdem Concilij nihil esse motum, nihil violatum; that nothing concerning the faith of that Councell at Chalcedon, was here (in the fift Councell) moved or altered, nothing violated or hurt; but whatsoever was done in this fift Synod, it was done, that the faith of the Councell at Chalcedon should in no sort be infringed. So Gregory, who to like pur∣pose againe saith, x 1.275 In the Synod concerning the Three Chapters it is manifest, nihil de fide convulsum esse, nihil immutatū; that nothing concerning the faith was weakned, nothing changed therein.

18. Now as against their first calumnie, Gregory teacheth, that nothing was done contrary to the faith of the Councell at Chal∣cedon; so against their other he sheweth, that they decreed no no∣veltie in the faith, nor ought else but what was formerly decreed at Chalcedon. To which purpose he saith y 1.276 of this fift Synod, that it was in omnibus sequax, in every point an imitator & follower of the Councell at Chalcedō: & again z 1.277 more clearly, In this fift Synod no∣thing else was done, quā apud Chalcedonēsem Synodū fuer at constitu∣tū; then was formerly decreed in the Councel at Chalcedon. So Gregory. Both this fift, & that at Chalcedon (as also the former at Ephesus) decreed one and the selfe same faith, as by Gregory is truly wit∣nessed: but the Councell at Chalcedon and Ephesus decreed it ab∣solutely, without any expresse reference to those persons or wri∣tings which are condemned in the fift, though in them both was implicitè contained a condemnation of all these Three Chapters; the fift Councell decreed it with an expresse reference to these Chapters, and an explicite condemnation of them. The Decrees made at Ephesus and Chalcedon were Introductive; as first con∣demning those heresies of Nestorius and Eutyches. The Decree of this fift Councell was onely Corroborative, or Declarative, expla∣ning and corroborating those former decrees, by condemning these writings of Theodorus, Theodoret, and Ibas, which did over∣throw the same. As Vigilius and other followers of Nestorius, did not at this time broach any new heresie, but under those Three Chapters on which they put the visor of the Councell at Chalcedon, sought to revive the heresie of Nestorius, which before, when it came in its owne habit, was condemned: Even so the fift Councell needed not, neither did they condemne any new, but unmasked the old & condemned heresie of Nestorius lurking un∣der the defence of these Three Chapters; they pulled off the visor of Chalcedon from it, under which it most subtilly now sought to insinuate it selfe, and creep into the Church. And when Gregory saith, that in this fift Councell they dealt tantummodo de personis, that tantummodo, in his sense doth not exclude all handling of the faith, not the explaning, not the corroborating of the faith, for both these they certainly did, and Gregory acknowledgeth: but it onely excludes such an handling of the faith as was used at E∣phesus

and Chalcedon, by making an Introductive decree for con∣demning some new heresie. The fift Councell dealt onely with persons, without making such a Decree; yet it dealt with those persons with an intent to explane and corroborate those Introdu∣ctive decrees.

19. The words of Gregory next following those on which Ba∣ronius relied, doe yet more fully explane this to have beene his meaning. In the fift Synod nothing was done concerning the faith, but only the persons; and those persons, de quibus in Chalce∣donensi Synodo nihil continetur, concerning w ^ch persons nothing is con∣tained or set downe in the Councell at Chalcedon. For as there is much contained in that Councell concerning those persons, especially Ibas, (in whose cause, and the examining therof, two a 1.278 whole A∣ctions are bestowed) and yet in a favourable construction, or ac∣cording to Gregory his meaning, he might truly say, that nothing concerning them is contained there; to wit, nothing to con∣demne Theodorus, or the writings of Theodoret and Ibas in such an expresse and particular manner as they are condemned in the fift Councell: Right so, though the fift Councell not onely handled a cause of faith, but published their decree as a Decree of faith; yet in a like favourable construction, and according to Gregories 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 heresie, as was for∣merly made in the Councell at Chalcedon.

20. By all which the true meaning of Gregory is now by his owne explaning most evident. In the fift Councell nothing was done contrary to the faith, (as the malignant slanderers of this Councell pretended) nothing was done de novo, to condemne any new heresie; 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 Councell, was done to explane, confirme & corroberate the faith decreed at Chalcedon, & Ephesus; as Gre∣gory himselfe professeth, it undoubtedly followeth, that even for this cause, and by Gregories owne testimonie, the question here defined was a cause and question of faith. Vpon Gregories words the Cardinall might well have collected, that Vigilius in defen∣ding the Three Chapters, erred not in any new heresie, 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 farre from the intent of Gregory, that out of his expresse words the quite contrary is cer∣tainly to be collected. For how can the Pope be said not at all to erre in the faith, when by his Apostolicall Constitution hede∣fendeth that cause of the Three Chapters, the defending whereof contradicteth a former definition of faith, and utterly over∣throweth the holy Councell of Ephesus and Chalaceon; yea, the whole Catholike faith.

21. Neither must this seeme strange to any, that the fift gene∣rall Councell did onely explane and confirme a former definiti∣on of faith, and made no decree to condemne any new heresie repugnant to the faith. The like hereof in some other Councels may be obserued. The Councell of Sardica was a generall holy Councel, as beside b 1.279 others the Emperor Iustinian in that his c 1.280 E∣dict witnesseth: and yet in it, d 1.281 nihil novi quoad fidem definitū est; no new doctrine of faith was there defined, nor any new heresie con∣demned, but onely the faith decreed at Nice was corroborated, and confirmed. And the cause why the Sardican Councell is not reckoned in the order of generall Councels, was not that which e 1.282 Bellarmine and Binius fancie; because the Sardican and Nicene were held to be one and the same Councell, (for neither were they so indeed, being called by different Emperours, to diffe∣rent 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, be∣cause the Sardicane, though in dignity & authority it was equall to the Nicene, yet onely confirmed the Decree of faith formerly made at Nice; and made no new or Introductive decree, to con∣demne any heresie, as did the other at Nice. And truly for the selfe same reason, the Church might, if they had pleased, have done the like to this fift Councell, and not have accounted it no more than they did the Sardicane, in a distinct number; but one∣ly esteemed it a Councell corroborative of the Councell at Chal∣cedon, as that at Sardica was of the Nicene Councell, which some Churches also did, as by the 14. Councell at f 1.283 Toledo, held a little after the sixt generall, appeareth; wherein this fift being for that cause omitted; the sixt, held under Constantinus Pogonatus, is reckoned as the fift, or next Councell to that at Chalcedō. But for as much as this cause about the Three Chapters had bred so long, and so exceeding great trouble in the Church; and because the explanation of the faith made in this fift Councell upon occasi∣on of those Chapters, was so exact, that it did in a manner equal any former decree of faith, and benefit the whole Church as much as any had done: it pleased the Church for these reasons, with one consent, declared first in the sixt g 1.284 Councell; and then in the 2. h 1.285 Nicene, and divers other after it, to account this for the fift, and ranke it as it well deserveth, in the number of holy and golden generall Councels.

22. It now I hope clearely appeareth how unjustly the Car∣dinall pretends the words of Pope Gregory, as denying this to be at all any cause of faith; whereas not onely by the Emperour, by the fift Councell, by the defenders as well as the condemners of these Chapters; by succeding generall Councels; by Popes, even Pope Gregory among the rest; by the Catholike Church, and con∣sent thereof untill their Laterane Synod; but even by their owne writers, Cardinall Bellarmine, Sanders, yea, by Baronius himselfe,

it is evidently proved so nearely to concerne the faith, that to defend these Chapters (which Vigilius did) is to enervate and overthrow; and to condemne them (which the Councell did) is to uphold and confirme the Holy Catholike faith. And al∣though this alone (if I should say no more) were sufficient to op∣pose to this first Evasion of Baronius; yet, that both the truth hereof may more fully and further appeare; and that the most vile and shamelesse dealing of Baronius in this cause, such, as I thinke few heretikes have ever parallel'd, may be palpable unto all; To that which hitherto we have spoken in generall concerning all these Three Chapters, I purpose now to adde a particular conside∣ration of each of them by it selfe; whereby it will be evident, that every one of these Chapters doth so directly concerne the faith; that the defence of any one of them, but especially of the two last, is an oppugnation, yea, an abnegation of the whole Christi∣an faith.

CAP. VI. That the first reason of Vigilius touching the first Chapter, why Theodorus of Mopsvestia ought not to bee condemned, because none after their death ought noviter to be condemned, con∣cernes the faith, and is hereticall.

1. IN the first Chapter, wherein Vigilius de∣fēdeth that Theodorus of Mopsvestia, being long before dead, ought not to bee con∣demned for an heretike; the Popes sen∣tence relyeth on three reasons, the exami∣nation whereof, wil both open the whole cause concerning this Chapter, and mani∣fest the foule errors of Vigilius, as well doctrinall, as personall, as well concerning the faith, as the fact.

2. His first reason is drawne from a generall position, which Vigilius taketh as a Maxime, or doctrinall principle in divinitie. Nulli a 1.286 licere noviter aliquid de mortuorum judicare personis; It is law∣full to condemne none after their death, who were not in their life time condemned; and therefore not Theodorus. That Theodorus in his life time was not condemned, Vigilius proveth not, but presupposeth; nor doe I in that dissent from him; for although that testimony of Leontius b 1.287 be exceeding partiall and untrue, where he saith, that Theodorus and Diodorus, in pretio habiti mortem oppe∣tiere; died in honour; neither did c 1.288 any, while they lived reprove any of their sayings: yet are there divers other inducements to per∣swade, that Theodorus was not in his life time, by any publike judgement of the Church, either declared, or condemned for an heretike: for besides that neither Cyrill, nor Proclus, nor the fift generall Councell, doe mention any such matter, the words of

Cyrill doe plainly import the contrary. The Ephesine Synod, saith d 1.289 he, forbare in particular, and by name, to anathematize Theo∣rus, which they did dispensativè, by a certaine dispensation, indul∣gence, or connivence, because divers held him in great estimatiō, or account: what needed either any such dispensation, or for∣bearance, had he in his life time beene publikely condemned for heresie? Againe, the Church of Mopsvestia, where hee was Bi∣shop, for divers yeares after his death, retained his name in e 1.290 Di∣plicis, that is, in their Ecclesiasticall tables, making a thankfull com∣memoration of him, as of other Catholikes in their Liturgie; which, had he beene in his life time condemned for an heretike, they would not have done. Lastly, what needed the defenders of the Three Chapters have beene so scrupulous, to condemne him being dead, had he in his life time beene before condemned? Or how could this have given occasion of this controversie, whether a dead man might Noviter be condemned, if Theodorus had not beene noviter condemned when he was dead.

3. Wherefore this particular being agreed upon, that Theo∣dorus was not before, but after his death condemned, the whole doubt now resteth in the Thesis, whether a dead man may Noviter be cōdemned. Now that this is no personall, but meerly a dogma∣ticall cause, and controversie of faith, is so evident, that it might be a wonder that Baronius, or any other, should so much as doubt thereof, unlesse the Apostle had foretold, that because men f 1.291 doe not receive the love of the truth; therefore God doth send unto them strong delusions, that they may beleeve lyes. Certaine it is that Pope Vigilius, held this for no other, but a doctrine of faith; for he sets it downe as a g 1.292 Definition, or Constitution of his predecessors, decreed by the Apostolike See: particularly by Pope Leo, and Gelasius; and so decreed by them, as warranted, and taught by the Scriptures; for out of those words, Whatsoever ye binde, or loose upon earth, Pope Gelasius h 1.293 collecteth, and Vigilius consen∣teth unto him, that such as are not upon earth, or among the li∣ving, hos non humano, sed suo Deus judicio reservavit; God hath ex∣empted them from humane, and reserved them to his owne judgement: nec audet Ecclesia, nor dare the Church challenge to it selfe the judgement of such. As the Pope, so also the holy generall Coun∣cell tooke this for no other, than a question of faith; for they plainly professe, even in their Synodall resolution, that their de∣cree concerning dead men, that they may bee Noviter condemned; is not onely an Ecclesiasticall i 1.294 tradition, but an Apostolicall do∣ctrine also, warranted by the texts, and testimonies of the holy Scriptures. To which purpose alledging divers places of Scrip∣ture, they adde these words; It is many wayes manifest, that they who affirme this, [that men after their death may not Novi∣ter be condemned,] nullam curam Dei judicatorum faciunt, nec Aposto∣licarum pronunciationum, nec paternarum traditionum; that such have no regard either to the word of God, or the Apostles doctrine, or the tra∣dition

of the Fathers. So the whole Councell judging, and decree∣ing Pope Vigilius to be guilty of all these.

4. Now when both the Pope on the one side, and the whole generall Councell on the other; that is, both the defenders, and condemners of this Chapter professe it to be a doctrine taught in the Scripture, and therefore undoubtedly to be a cause of faith; what insolency was it in Baronius to contradict them both, and, against that truth, wherein they both agree, to deny this Chapter to be a cause of faith? or seeing it is cle••re, both by the Pope, and Councell, that the resolution of this question is set downe in Scripture, what else can bee thought of Baronius denying either the one, or the other part, to bee a cause, or assertion of faith, but that with him the doctrines defined, and set down in Scrip∣tures, are no doctrines or assertions of faith, at least, not of the Cardinals faith?

5. Seeing now this is a cause of faith, and in this cause of faith, the Pope, and generall Councell are at variance; either of them challenge the Scripture, as consonant to his, and repugnant to the opposite assertion; what equall and unpartiall umpire may be found to judge in this matter? Audito Ecclesiae nomine hostis expalluit, saith their vaine, and vaunting k 1.295 Braggadochio; Hast thou appealed to the Church? to the Church, and judgement there∣of shalt thou goe; at the name of which, we are so farre from being daunted, or appaled, that with great confidence, and assurance of victory, we provoke unto it.

6. But where may we heare the voyce, and judgement of the Church? out of doubt either in the writings of the Fathers, or provinciall Synods, or in generall Councels; & in which of these soever the Church speake, her sentence is for us, and our side. Her voyce is but soft & stil in the writings of single Fathers; the Church whispereth rather then speaketh in them; and yet even in them shee speaketh this truth very distinctly, and audibly. Heare Saint l 1.296 Austen, who entreating of Caecilianus, about an hundreth yeares after his death, saith; If as yet they could prove him to have beene guilty of those crimes, which were by the Dona∣tists objected unto him, ipsum jam mortuum anathematizaremus, I and all Catholikes would even now accurse him though dead, though never condemned before, nor in his life time. Againe, m 1.297 In this our communion, if there have beene any Traditores, or deliverers of the Bible to be burned in time of persecution, when thou shalt demonstrate or prove them to have beene such, & corde & carne mortuos detestabor. Heare Pope n 1.298 Pelagius, who both himselfe ful∣ly 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. Heare o 1.299 S. Cyrill, who speaking of heretikes, saith, Evitandi sunt, sive in vivis, sive in mortuis; they are to bee avoyded, whether they bee dead, or living.

7. The Church speakes yet somewhat louder, in the united judgement of Provinciall Synods. In an p 1.300 Africane Councell it was proved, how certaine Bishops at their death had bequeathed their goods to heretikes; whereupon statuerunt, the Bishops in that Synod decreed, ut post mortem anathemati subjiciantur; that such should bee accursed, even after their death; and this Sextilianus an Africane Bishop testifieth upon his owne certaine knowledge. The judge∣ment of the Romane Church is to this purpose most pregnant. About some twenty yeares before this fift Councell, Dioscorus was chosen Bishop of Rome; but shortly after dying, eum & post mortem anathematizavit Romana Ecclesia; the Romane Church accur∣sed him even after he was dead, although hee had not offended in the faith, (but in some pecuniary or Symoniacall crime) Et hoc sciunt omnes, qui degunt Romae; and they all who live at Rome, know this to have beene done against him after his death; they especially who are in eminent place, who also continued in the communion with Dioscorus untill hee dyed, as after q 1.301 Iustinian, Benignus r 1.302 Bi∣shop of Heraclea; and after them both the fift Councell s 1.303 testifi∣eth. In this very cause of Theodorus there was a Synod held in Armenia, by Rambulas t 1.304 Bishop of Edessa, Acatius, and others, wherein, both themselves condemned Theodorus, (though dead) and in their letters to Proclus exhort u 1.305 him to doe the like.

8. But this voyce of the Church sounds like a mighty thun∣der in the consenting judgement of generall Councels. In the sixt, x 1.306 Pope Honorius, who in his life time had not been, was now about threescore yeares after his death, convicted to bee an heretike; and then noviter condemned, and anathematized by the whole Councell. The same sentence of Anathema was confirmed, and againe denounced against him in the second y 1.307 Nicene; and in the other under z 1.308 Hadrian, which they account to be the seventh and eighth generall Councels. In the Councell of Chalcedon, Domnus a 1.309 Bishop of Antioch, was after his death condemned. In the holy Ephesine Councell was this very Theodorus of Mopsvestia, af∣ter his death condemned, as Pope Pelagius b 1.310 expresly testifieth. The like to have beene done against Macedonius, by the fift Councell at Constantinople, Iustinian c 1.311 declareth. Before that, was the same done by the Councell at Sardica; for when some of those, who had subscribed to the Nicene faith, returned to Arianisme, alij quidem d 1.312 vivi, alij autem post mortem anathemizati sunt à Damaso Papa, & ab universali Sardicensi Synodo; they were anathematized, some while they lived, others after their death, by Pope Damasus, and by the generall Councell at Sardica, as witnesseth Athanasius. With such an uniforme consent doe all these Councels teach this, and teach it, not as any novell 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, Ba∣silides, à nulla Synodo e 1.313 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 bee produ∣ced, seeing the doctrine of the faith decreed in this fift Councell, (one part whereof is this of condemning the dead) is consonant to all the former, and confirmed by all succeeding Councels, (as we did before demonstrate) nor Councels only, but approved by all Popes, and Bishops, from Gregory the first, to Leo the tenth, yea, by all Catholikes whatsoever, who all, by approving this fift Councell, consent in this truth; Seeing all these, that is, the whole Catholike Church, for 1500 yeares, with one consenting voyce, sound out, like a multitude of mighty waters, this Ca∣tholike truth, which Vigilius oppugneth, that one may after his death be noviter condemned, and sound it as a doctrine of the Ca∣tholike faith, and even thereby sound out Pope Vigilius to have held, yea, to have defined heresie; and all, who defend Vigilius, to bee hereticall; I do nothing doubt, but if ever you did, or can, you doe now most distinctly heare the voyce of the Church, even of that Church, of which their Romane Rabsecha vaunteth, that we are marvellously affrighted at the very name thereof.

10. May I now intreate, that as you have heard the Church, so you would be pleased to heare what the Cardinall doth say of this matter. After this part of Vigilius decree, he sets a memo∣rable glosse upon the Popes text. Hic adverte, Note here, saith the Cardinall, that f 1.314 this assertion of Vigilius (that dead men ought not to be condemned) is not so generally received as it is set downe by him. A worthy note indeed out of a Cardinals mouth▪ Papa hic non tene∣tur. But I pray you, by whom is it not received? The Cardinall answers, not by the holy Church; the holy Church g 1.315 doth practise the contrary unto it. What? the holy Church not receive the dog∣maticall and Apostolicall assertion of the holy Pope? not that assertion which his Holinesse decreeth to be taught by Scripture, to be a Constitution, a rule, a definition of the holy Apostolike See? No truly; The holy Church for all that, receives not this assertion, saith the Cardinall. And the Cardinall was to blame to use such a palpable 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. The Church receiveth it not: hee might, and he should have said; The holy Church rejecteth, condem∣neth, and accurseth this Cathedrall assertion of the Pope, and all that defend it: nor the Church onely of that one age wherein Vigilius lived, but the Catholike Church of all ages, speaking by the mouthes of al gene∣ral Councels, of Fathers, of Popes, of al Catholikes, this holy Church con∣demneth and accurseth the assertion of Pope Vigilius. The Cardinall was too diminutive in his extenuations, when he spake so faint∣ly, The holy Church doth not so generally receive it.

11. Let us beare with the Cardinals tendernesse of heart: the Popes sores must not be touched, but with soft, and tender hands. Seeing the Cardinall hath brought the Pope, and the ho∣ly Church to be at ods, and at an unreconciliable 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 Cardinall himselfe will take in this quarrell; you may be sure, the choyce on either part was very hard for him: he hath here a worse matter than a wolfe by the cares. This is dignus vindice nodus, a point which will trie the Cardinals art, wisdome, piety, constancy, and faire dealing: And in very deed, he hath herein plaid Sir Politike would be, above the degree of commendation. The Cardinall is a man of peace, hee loves not to displease either the Pope, or the Church; he knew, that to provoke either of them, would bring an armie of waspes about his eares; and therfore very gravely, wisely, and discreetly he takes part with them both: and though their assertions bee directly contradictory, he holds them both to be true, and takes up an hymne of Omnia bene to them both.

12. First, he sheweth that the Church saith right, in this manner: Although h 1.316 it be proved, that one dyed in the peace of the Church, and yet it doe afterwards appeare, that in his writings he de∣fended a condemned heresie, and continuing in that heresie died there∣in; and bu•• dissemblingly cōmunicate with the Church, the holy Church useth to condemne such a man, jure, even by right. Having said as much as can bee wished, on the Churches part, the Cardinall will now teach, that the Pope also saith right, in this manner; Pope Vigilius i 1.317 had many worthy reasons for his defence of the Three Chap∣ters, 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 ecclesiasticall writer, though hee dyed in the Catholike Communion, may yet after his death, out of his wri∣tings be condemned for an heretike. Thus Baronius.

13. O what a golden and blessed age was this, that brought forth such a Cardinall! The Church decreeth, that a man after his death, may noviter be condemned for an heretike; and it de∣creeth aright: The Pope decreeth the quite contrary, that no man after his death may noviter be condemned for an heretike; and hee also decreeth aright, and with good reason. So both the Church saith well, & the Pope saith well; & you can say no lesse then, Et vitulatu dignus, & hic: or because the Cardinall saith better than they both; and, what Iupiter himselfe could never doe, 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 cleare as the Sunne, that Baronius having once lost the path, & forsaken that truth, where only sure footing was to be found, wandreth up and downe, in and out in this cause, as in a wilder∣nesse, treading on nothing but thornes, wherewith feeling him∣selfe prickt, he skips hither and thither for succour, but still lights on briars and brambles, which doe not onely gall, but so intan∣gle him, that by no meanes he can ever extricate, or unwinde

himselfe; for if one listed to make sport with the Cardinall, it clearly and certainly followeth, that if the Church say true, then the Pope saying the contrary, doth say untrue. Againe, if the Pope say true, then the Church saying the contrary, doth say untrue; and then upon the Cardinals saying that they both say true, it cer∣tainly followeth, that neither of them both say true, and yet fur∣ther, that both of them, say both true and untrue, and yet that nei∣ther of them both saith either truth, or untruth.

15. But leaving the Cardinall in these bryars, seeing by the upright, and unpartiall judgement of the whole Catholike Church of all ages, we have proved the Popes 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 1.318 whatsoever ye binde on earth, whence, as you have seene, 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 Saviours words, being well considered, are so farre from concluding, what Vigilius or Gela∣sius, or both, doe thence collect, that they clearly and certainly doe enforce the quite contrary; for he said not, Whatsoever yee binde, or loose, concerning those that are on earth, or living; in which sense Vigilius tooke them: but, Whatsoever concerning either the living or dead, ye my Apostles and your successors being upon earth, or during your life time, shall binde or loose, the same according to your censure here passed upon earth, shall by my authority bee ratified in heaven. The restrictive termes [upon earth] are referred to the parties, who doe binde, or loose; not to the parties, who are bound, or loosed. The generall terme [whatsoever] is referred to the parties who are bound, or loosed, whether they be dead, or alive, not to the parties who binde or loose, who are onely alive, and upon earth. Nor doth our Savi∣our say, Whatsoever yee seeme to binde or loose here upon earth, shall bee bound or loosed in heaven; for, (ecclesiae clave errante) no censure doth, or can either binde, or loose, either the quicke or the dead: but he saith, Whatsoever ye doe binde or loose, if the party be once truly and really bound, or loosed, by you that are upon earth, it shall stand firme, and bee ratified by my selfe in heaven. So the parties who doe binde, or loose, are the Apostles, and their successors onely while they are upon earth: the parties who are bound, or loosed, are any whosoever whe∣ther alive or dead; the partie who ratifieth their act in binding and loosing, is Christ himselfe in heaven; For I say unto you, what∣soever ye binde on earth, shall be bound in heaven, and whatso∣ever yee loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven.

17. This exposition is clearly warranted by the judgement of the whole catholike Church, which, as we have before declared, both beleeved, taught, and practised this authority of binding,

and loosing, not onely upon the living, but upon the dead also. Of their binding the nocent, wee have alleaged before abun∣dance of examples: for their loosing the innocent, that one of Flavianus is sufficient. The Ephesine l 1.319 latrocinie adjudged and con∣demned Flavianus a most holy and Catholike Bishop, for an Hereticke; under the censure of that generall Councel Flavianus died, nay was martyred m 1.320 by them: The Holy Councell at Chalcedon after the death of Flavianus, loosed that band, wherwith the latrocinious conspirators at Ephesus, thought they had fast tyed him, but be∣cause their key did erre, they did not in truth. They honored and proclamed Flavianus for a Saint and Martyr n 1.321, whom the fa∣ction of Dioscorus had murdered for an heretike: the holy Coun∣cell feared not to loose him, because he was dead, & their power to binde, or loose, was onely towards those that are upon the earth, or living. By which example, and warrantie of that holy Councell, our Church of latter time, imitating the religious pie∣tie of those ancient Bishops, restored to their pristine o 1.322 dignitie and honor those reverend Martyrs, two Flaviani in their age, Bucer and Fagius after their death; when a worse then that Ephesine conspiracy had not onely with an erring key bound, but even bur∣ned them to ashes. Now it is rightly observed by Iustinian p 1.323 that if the Church may after their death, restore such as being unjustly con∣demned, and falsly supposed to be bound, died in their innocency, and sin∣cerity of faith: it may also by the very same reason, condemne, and ana∣thematize such after their death, who died in their impiety or heresie being charitably perhaps but falsly supposed, to have died in the communion of the Catholike Church.

18. And truely, whether soever of these censures; either of binding, or loosing, 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 performe an accep∣table service to God, and an holy duty to the Church of God. For as wee professe in our Creed to beleeve 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 dyed in the faith, or for the faith of Christ: so doe wee by the same Article of our Creed, renounce all communion with what∣soever heretickes, either dead or alive, and therefore though in their life time, they had never beene condemned for such, but honored as the servants of God, under whose livery they hide their heresies, and impieties; yet so soone as ever they shall bee manifested to have beene indeed, and to have died heretikes, we ought forthwith to forsake all communion with them, not love them, nor speake well of them, much lesse imitate them; but as Saint Austen saith he would doe of Cacilianus, even after their death, corde & 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, & Gods Church; and to be such though dead, as with whom we can have no more cōmunion, then hath light with darknesse, faith with heresie, God and Beliall; nay we should wish that if it were possible, there might be such an anti∣pathie, and disunion betwixt us and them, as is said to have been betwixt Eteocles q 1.324, and Polinices, that even our dead bones, and ashes, might leape from theirs, nor sleepe in one Church, nor one earth with them, from whom one day they shall be eternally se∣vered, by a wall of immortality and immortall glory.

19. Vigilius his second reason is taken from the rules, decrees and Constitutions r 1.325 of their Apostolicke See, by name of Pope Leo, & Gelasius, both whō Vigilius saith to have defined this, that a dead man might not noviter be condemned: was it not enough for Vigili∣us, that himselfe was hereticall herein, unlesse he drew his prede∣cessors also into the same crime, of defending, yea defining here∣sies? How much better had it beseemed him, to have covered such hereticall blemishes of their Apostolike See, and of so famous Bishops as Leo and Gelasius were, if not with a lappe of his robe, as the good Emperour would, yet at least with silence and ob∣livion.

20. And yet for all this, if Vigilius and the defenders of his infallibility, will give me leave, I am for my owne part willing to thinke 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 1.326 to Pope Pelagius, as according with them, Pelagius replyed not onely that hee could no where remember any such thing in the bookes of Leo, but that Leo indeed taught the quite contrary, as consenting t 1.327 wholly with Saint Austen, who professed, that he would anathematize Caecilianus after his death, if it could ap∣peare that he were guilty of those crimes. Which testimony of Pela∣gius as it fully cleareth Leo of this heresie, so doth it manifest how unjustly Vigilius pretendeth his consent with him in this cause; yea and the words of Leo, which hee citeth, doe declare no lesse. In that Epistle u 1.328 Leo intreating of those who by the just censure of the Church, were excommunicated, or who did not performe the acts required in repentance, saith, If any of them die before hee obtaine remission, quod manens in corpore non receperit, consequi ex∣utus carne non poterit, hee cannot obtaine that (to wit, remission of his fault) being dead, which before his death he had not received: And up∣on these follow the words cited by Vigilius. Neither is it need∣full that we shold fift the merits or acts of them, qui sic obierunt, who so die, seeing our Lord hath reserved to his justice, what the priest∣ly ministerie could not performe, (to wit, the loosing of that band of cen∣sure or of sinne, under which they dyed.) 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 bee pardoned; Hee speakes not of such as have not beene in their life time condem∣ned, of which onely Vigilius entreateth, but of such, who being

unpenitent, or condemned by the Church, die in their sin, or un∣der that just censure, & therefore in the state of condemnation: So neither doe the words of Leo signifie any such thing, as Vigi∣lius by them intended to prove: and Pope Pelagius assureth us, that Leo taught the quite contrary to that, which out of Leo, Vi∣gilius in vaine laboureth to prove.

21. The very like construction is to bee given of the words of Gelasius in both the places cited out of him by Vigilius. In the former, x 1.329 entreating of Acatius, he thus saith, Let no man perswade you that Acatius is freed from the crime of his prevarication; for after he had falne into that wickednesse, and deserved to be excluded, and that, jure, by right, from the Apostolike communion, in hac eâdem persistens damnatione defunctus est, hee persisting in this con∣demnation dyed; Absolution cannot bee now granted unto him being dead, which he neither desired, nor deserved while he lived: for it was said to the Apostles, Whatsoever yee binde on earth: But of him (these are the words cited by Vigilius) who is now under Gods iudgement, (that is, who is dead in this sort) it is not lawfull for us to decree ought else, but that, in quo eum supremus dies invenit, wherein hee was found at the time of his death. So Gelasius. In which words it is evident that hee speakes not (as Vigi••lius doth) of such as in their life time were not condemned, nor denieth hee that such may after their death (when their he∣resie is discovered) be condemned, but of such as being in their life time justly condemned, dye impenitent in that estate, and of such he denyeth, that after their death they can be absolved. A truth so cleare, that Binius sets this marginall note upon it, Qui impoenitens mortuus est excommunicatus, post mortem non potest absol∣vi; He who dieth impenitent under the censure of excommunication, cannot after his death bee absolved. And Gelasius himselfe of∣ten repeateth the same most clearly, in his Commonitorium to Fau∣stus: We reade faith he y 1.330, that Christ raised up some from the dead, but we never reade, that he forgave, or absolved any who were impeni∣tent when they dyed: and this power he gave to Peter, Whatsoe∣ver thou shalt binde on earth: on earth saith he, namin hac ligati∣one defunctum nusquam dixit absolvi; For Christ never said that any who dyed being so bound should be loosed.

22. The same is his meaning also in the other place z 1.331 allea∣ged by Vigilius; In it he intreateth of Vitalis and Misenus, who being the Popes Legates, had communicated with Acatius, and other hereticall sectaries, and were for that cause both of them excommuni∣cated by Pope Felix the next predecessor of Gelasius; Misenus repen∣ting was received into the communion of the Church: Vitalis remai∣ning impenitent died under that just censure: when some of Vitalis friends desired the like absolution for Vitalis being dead a 1.332 Gela∣sius utterly refused to grant it, and calling a Romane Synode, 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 owne impenitency wherein he dyed, they could not helpe, nor absolve;

but must leave him (which are the words on which Vigilius re∣lyeth) to the judgement of God, it being impossible for them to absolve him being dead, seeing it is said, Whatsoever ye shall binde upon earth: such then as are not upon earth, God hath reserved them not to mans, but to his owne judgement; Nor dare the Church challenge this unto it: So Gelasius and the whole Romane Synode: who doe not herein generally deny, that any without exception may bee judged being dead, for then they should condemne besides many other, the holy Councell of Chalcedon, which absolved Flavianus, and bound or condemned Domnus, and both after their deaths: but limiting their speach to the present matter which they handled, they teach that none who are dead (to wit in such state as Vitalis dyed, 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, absol∣ved or loosed after his death from that censure:) and that the words of our Saviour doe 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 onely judgement of God, the Church can pronounce no other, nor milder sentence, then 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 hereticall position which Vigi∣lius should out of Gelasius, but doth not prove: That none who at their death are justly bound by the Church, and dye impeni∣tent therein, can after their death be loosed by the Church, is a catholike truth, which Gelasius teacheth, and we all professe, this Vigilius firmly by Gelasius doth, but should not prove.

23. So willing am I to quit Pope Leo and Gelasius from that hereticall doctrine wherewith Vigilius by his Apostolicall decree hath not onely himselfe eternally blemished the Romane See, but laboureth also to fasten that heresie, as an ancient and here∣ditarie doctrine from the time of Leo unto their See. If this my indeavour, for the honor of Leo and Gelasius be not accepted by them, I must returne a conditionall and shorter, but more un∣pleasing answer to this second reason of Vigilius, relying on their authority, and that is this, If Leo and Gelasius truely and indeed taught the same with Vigilius, that none after their death may noviter be condemned, then were they also, as Vigilius, by the consenting judgement of the catholike Church, hereticall: If they did not indeed teach this doctrine, then is Vigilius not on∣ly erroneous in faith, both decreeing himselfe, and judging them to have decreed heresie, but slanderous also, falsly imputing so great a crime as is heresie, to so ancient & famous Popes aswere Gelasius and Leo: And so whether they taught this doctrine, or taught it not, this second reason of Vigilius is of no worth at all; proving nothing else, but either them to be hereticall, if Vigilius say true; or himselfe to be a slanderer, if he say untrue.

24. Now after the reasons of Vigilius fully refuted, in stead of a conclusion, I will adde one short consideration to all that hath beene said, That this position decreed by Vigilius is such, as doth not onely condemne the catholike church, that is, all the oppugners of it, but even Vigilius himselfe, and all who defend it. Say you, that a dead man may not noviter be condemned? In saying so you condemne the holy Councell at Sardica, of Con∣stantinople, of Ephesus, of Chalcedon, for they all did noviter con∣demne such persons being dead, as in their lives time had not beene condemned. Now the holy Fathers of those Councels, ha∣ving thus condemned the dead, dyed themselves in the Lord, and were in peace gathered to the Lord. If you say, they should not have condemned the dead, even in saying so you doe noviter condemne all those Fathers being now dead; and so you doe that same thing, which you say must not bee done; and even by defending your position, you overthrow your owne position; for you doe noviter condemne all those holy Fathers being dead; and yet you say, that no man may noviter condemne the dead: Nay, you condemne not them only, but even your own selfe also herein, for you condemne those, who condemne the dead, and yet your selfe condemnes all those holy Fathers, being now dead; and you condemne them for doing that, which your selfe now doe; even for condemning the dead. Such a strange dis∣cord there is in this hereticall position of Vigilius, that it not only fights against the truth, and the opposites unto it; but viper-like, even against it selfe, and against the favourers, and defen∣ders of it.

CAP. VII. That the second reason of Vigilius touching the first Chapter, why Theodorus of Mopsvestia ought not to be condemned, because he dyed in the peace, and communion of the Church, is erronious and untrue.

1. THE second reason of Vigilius, why Theodorus of Mopsvestia should not bee condemned, is, for that (as he supposeth) Theodorus dyed in the peace and communion of the Church: to this purpose he saith, that a 1.333 the rules of his pre∣decessors (which he applyeth to Theodorus) did keepe inviolate the persons of Bishops, in pace Ecclesiastica defunctorū, who dyed in the peace of the Church. And again, We b 1.334 doe especially pro∣vide by this our present Constitution, lest by occasion of perverse do∣ctrine, any thing be derogated from the persons of them, who, as wee have said, in pace & communione universalis Ecclesiae quieverunt; have dyed in the peace and communion of the Catholike Church; and that no contumelie be done to those Bishops, qui in pace Catholicae Eccle∣siae

sunt defuncti; who have dyed in the peace of the Catholike Church. Now that Theodorus so dyed Vigilius proveth not, but takes as consequent upon the former point, which, as we have c 1.335 shewed, was knowne and confessed, because d 1.336 he was not in his life time condemned by the Church. Nor was Vigilius the first founder of this reason, he borrowed it of other Nestorians, with whom in this cause he was joyned both in hand and heart. They (to wit, the followers of Theodorus and Nestorius) flee unto another vaine excuse, saith * 1.337 Iustinian, affirming that Theodorus ought not to be condemned, eò quod in communione Ecclesiarum mortuus est; because he dyed in the communion of the Churches.

2. I shall not need to stay long in refuting this reason of Vi∣gilius: The Emperour hath done it most soundly, and that before ever Vigilius writ his Constitution. Oportebat f 1.338 eas, scire, those men who plead thus for Theodorus, should know that they dye in the communion of the Church, who unto their very death doe hold that common do∣ctrine of piety which is received in the whole Church. Iste autem us∣que ad mortem in sua permanens impietate, ab omni Ecclesia ejectus est; but this Theodorus continuing in his impiety to his death, was rejected by the whole Church. Thus Iustinian. To whose true testimonie Binius ascribeth so much as well hee might, that whereas some reported of Theodorus that he recalled his heresie, this, saith he, might g 1.339 be beleeved, nisi Iustinianus, unlesse the Emperor had testi∣fied that he dyed in his heresie.

3. The same is clearly witnessed also in the fift h 1.340 Councell, where, as it were of purpose, this reason of Vigilius is refuted in this manner; Whereas it is said of some (and one of those is Vigilius) that Theodorus died in the peace and communion of the Church, mendacium est & calumnia, magis adversus Ecclesiam; this is a lie and slander, and that especially to the Church. For he is said to die in the communion and peace of the Church, qui usque ad mortem rectae Ecclesiae dogmata servavit; who hath kept and held the true do∣ctrines of faith, even till his death: But that Theodorus did not keepe those doctrines, certum est, it is certaine by his blasphemies: and Gregory Nissen witnesseth the same. And after the words of Gregory recited, they adde this, quomodo conantur dicere, how doe any say, that such an impious and blasphemous person as Theodo∣rus was, dyed in the communion of the Church? Thus testifieth the Councell.

4. Can ought be wished more pregnant to manifest the foule errours of Vigilius in this part of his decree? Vigilius affirmeth that Theodorus dyed in the peace and communion of the Catho∣like Church: The Emperour and Councell not onely testifie the contrary, but for this very cause the Councell (impatient at such indignitie offered to Gods Church,) cals him in plaine termes a lyar, and a slanderer; yea, a slanderer of the whole Catholike Church in so saying. Vigilius from the not condemning of Theo∣dorus in his life time, collecteth, that hee dyed in the peace and

communion of the Church: both the Emperour and Coun∣cell witnesse his doctrinall errour herein: truly teaching, that though an heretike live all his life time, not onely un∣condemned by the Church, but in all outward pompe, honour, and applause of the Church; either himselfe cunningly cloaking, or the Church not curiously, and warily observing his heresie while hee liveth; yet such a man neither lives, nor dyes in the intire peace and communion of the Church. The Church hath such peace with none, who have not peace with God; nor communion with any, who have not union with Christ. It con∣demned him not, because, as it teacheth others, so it selfe judg∣eth most charitably of all: It judged him to be such, as hee see∣med, and professed himselfe to bee. It was not his person, but his profession, with which the Church in his life time had commu∣nion and peace; As soone as ever it seeth him not to bee indeed such as hee seemed to bee, it renounceth all peace and communi∣on with him, whether dead, or alive: nay, rather it forsaketh not her communion with him, but declareth unto all, that shee never had communion or peace with this man, such as hee was indeed before, though she had peace with such as he seemed to bee. Shee now denounceth a double anathema against him, condemning him first for beleeving or teaching heresie, and then for covering his heresie under the visor of a Catholike, and of the Catholike faith. So justly and fully doth the Emperour, and Councell refute, both the personall errour of Vigilius in that hee affirmeth Theodorus to have dyed in the peace of the Church; and the doctrinall also, in that he affirmeth it upon this ground, that in his life time hee was not condemned by the Church.

5. Now whereas i 1.341 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 com∣munion of the Church, might after his death be condemned for an heretike; pateret ostium, there would a gap be opened, that e∣very ecclesiasticall writer, licet in communione Catholica defunctus esset; although hee dyed in the communion of the Catholike Church, might after death be out of his writings condemned, for an he∣retike; truly hee feareth where no feare is at all. This gap, nay, this gate and broad street of condemning the dead hath laine wide open this sixteen hundred years. Can the Cardinall, or any of his friends in all these successiōs of ages, wherin have dyed ma∣ny thousand millions of Catholikes; can he name or finde but so much as one who hath truly dyed in the peace and communion of the Church, and yet hath beene after his death condemned by the Catholike Church for an heretike? He cannot. The Church should condemne her owne selfe, if shee condemned any with whom she had peace, and whom she embraceth in her holy com∣munion, which is no other but the society with God. Such in∣deed may dye in some errour, yea, in an errour of faith, as Papias,

Irenee, Iustine, in that of the millenaries: as Cyprian, (as is likely) and other Africane Bishops in that of Rebaptization; but either dye heretikes, or be after their death condemned by the Catho∣like Church, for heretikes, they cannot.

6. But there is most just cause why the Cardinall, and all his fellowes, should feare another matter, which more neerely con∣cernes themselves; and feare it, even upon that Catholike posi∣tion, that the dead out of their writings may justly bee condem∣ned. They should feare to have such an itching humour to write in the Popes Cause; for his supremacy of authority, or infallibili∣ty of his Cathedrall judgement: feare to stuffe their Volumes (as the Cardinall hath done his Annals) with heresies, and opposi∣tions against the faith; feare to continue and persist in their here∣ticall doctrine: feare to die before they have attained to that which is secunda post naufragium tabula; the second and onely boord to save them after their shipwracke; to dye I say, before they revo∣ked, disclamed, condemned, or beene the first men to set fire to their hereticall doctrines and writings; and at least, in words, if not, as the k 1.342 custome was, by oath, and handwriting, to testifie to the Church, their desire to returne unto her bosome. These are the things indeed they ought to feare, knowing that howsoever they flat∣ter themselves with the vaine name of the Church; yet in very truth, so long as their writings remaine; testifying that they de∣fended the Popes infallibility in defyning causes of faith, or any o∣ther doctrine relying on that ground, whereof in their life time they have not made l 1.343 a certaine, and knowne recantation, they neither lived nor dyed in the peace and communion of the Ca∣tholike Church, but may at any time after their death, and ought whēsoever occasiō is offered, be declared by the Church to have dyed in their heresies, and therefore dyed both out of the peace of God, and of the holy Church of God. This, unlesse they seri∣ously and sincerely performe, it is not I, nor any of our writers, (whom they imagine, but most unjustly, out of spleene and con∣tention to speake these things) who condemne them, but it is the whole Catholike Church; Shee, by approving this fift Councell and the true decree therof, condemns this Apostolicall & Cathedral definition of Vigilius, and all that defend it; that is, all the mem∣bers of the present Romane Church, to be hereticall; and as con∣victed heretikes, she declares them to die anathematized; that is, utterly separated from God, and from the peace, and most bles∣sed communion with the Church of God; howsoever they boast themselves to be the onely children of the Church of God.

7. If any shall here reply, or thinke, that by the former ex∣amples of Papias, Irenee, Iustine, Cyprian, and the rest, Baronius, and other mēbers of the present Romane church may be excused; that these also, as the former, though dying in their error, may dye in the peace & cōmunion of the Church; this I confesse is a friend∣ly, but no firme excuse; for although they are both alike in this,

that the former as well as the latter, dye in an errour of faith; yet is there extreme odds, and many cleare dissimilitudes, betwixt the state or condition of the one, and the other.

8. The first ariseth from the matter it selfe wherin they erre. The former erred in that doctrine of faith, wherein the truth was not eliquata, declarata, & solidata per plenarium Concilium, as S. Austen m 1.344 speaketh, not fully scanned, declared, & confirmed by a ple∣nary Councell: Had it bin, we may well think the very same of all those holy men, which Austen n 1.345 most charitably saith of S. Cypri∣an, Sine dubio, universi orbis authoritate patefacta veritate cessissent; without doubt they would have yeelded to the truth, being manifested unto them, by the authority of the whole Church. The latter erre in that, which, to use same Fathers o 1.346 words, per universae Ecclesiae sta∣tut a firmatum est; which hath beene strengthened by the decree of the whole Church. This fift Councell, consonant to all precedent, and confirmed by all subsequent generall Councels, unto Leo the tenth, decreeing this cathedrall sentence of Pope Vigilius, to bee hereticall: whence it doth clearly ensue, that as the former, who were ready to embrace the truth, had it beene manifested unto them, erred not of pertinacy, but, as Austen saith, of humane infir∣mitie; so the latter, who reject the truth being manifested unto them, and withstand the knowne judgement of the whole catho∣like Church, even that judgement which is testified by all those witnesses, to be consonant to the Scriptures, and Apostolicall do∣ctrine, can no way be excused from most wilfull and pertinaci∣ous obstinacy, seeing they adhere to that opinion, which them∣selves, or their particular church hath chosen, though they see, and know the same to be repugnant to Scripture, & the consen∣ting judgement of all generall and holy Councels, that is, of the whole catholike Church. So the errour of the former, though it was in a point of faith, yet was but materially to be called here∣sie, as being a doctrine repugnant to faith; yet being not joyned in them with pertinacie, which is essentially, as Canus p 1.347 sheweth, required in an heretike, could neither make, nor denominate them to be heretikes: The errour of the latter, is not onely an errour in a point of faith, but is formally to bee called heresie, such as being both a doctrine repugnant to faith, and being in them joyned with pertinacy, doth both make, and truly denomi∣nate them, who so erre, to be heretikes; and shew them to hold it heretically, not onely as an errour, but as a most proper heresie.

9. The second difference is in the manner of their errour. The former held their opinions as probable collections, not as un∣doubted doctrines of saith; and so long as those errours were so held, the Church suspended q 1.348 her judgement, both concerning the doctrines, and the persons. And this was at least untill the time of Ierome, touching the millenary opinion; for he mentio∣ning the same, saith r 1.349 thus; Haec licet non sequamur, tamen damnare non possumus, quia multi Ecclesiasticorum virorum & martyrum ista

dixerunt: These things (concerning the raigne of Christ for one thousand yeares upon earth, in a terrestriall, but yet a golden Ierusalem) although we doe not our selves follow, yet wee cannot con∣demne them, because many of the Ecclesiasticall writers and Martyrs have said the same: whereby it is evident, that in Ieromes s 1.350 time nothing was defined herein by the Church; for then Ierome might, and would constantly have condemned that errour by the warrant of the Churches authoritie, which then hee held to bee a probable, and disputable matter. In which regard also Austen calleth it a tolerable t 1.351 opinion, and such as himselfe had some∣times held, if the delights of the Saints in that time be supposed to be spirituall. Baronius tels u 1.352 us, (how rightly I will not now examine,) that when Apollinarius renewed this opinion, and ur∣ged it, ut dogma Catholicum, no longer as a matter of probabilitie, but as a Catholike doctrine of faith; It was then condemned by Pope Damasus about the time of Ierome; and so being condemned by the Church, it was ever after that held for an heresie; and the de∣fenders of it, for heretikes.

10. Did Baronius and the rest of the Romane Church in like sort, as those millenary Fathers, commend their Popes infallibili∣ty no otherwise then as a probable, a topicall, or disputable mat∣ter, the like favourable censure would not be denyed unto them, but that they also, notwithstanding that error in faith, might die in the communion of the Church. But when Pope Vigilius pub∣lished his Apostolicall Constitution, as a doctrine with such x 1.353 necessitie to be received of all, that none either by word or writing might con∣tradict the same; when the chiefe Pillers of their Church urge the Popes Cathedrall definitions in causes of faith, for such as wherein, nullo y 1.354 casu errare potest, he can by no possibilitie bee deceived, or teach amisse; when they urge this, not onely as Apollinarius did the other, ut dogma Catholicum, as a doctrine of faith; but as the foundation of all the doctrines of faith; It was high time for the Catholike Church, as soone as they espied this, to creepe into the hearts of men, to give some soveraigne antidote against such poyson, and to prevent that deluge of heresies, which they knew, if this Cataract were set open, would at once rush in, and over∣whelme the Church of God. And therefore the fift generall, and holy Councell, to preserve for ever the faith of the Church a∣gainst this heresie, did not onely condemne it, decreeing the Apostolicall and cathedrall sentence of Pope Vigilius to be here∣ticall; but decreed all the defenders of it to be accursed, and se∣parated from God, and Gods Church; so that whosoever after this sentence and decree of the holy Synod, approved by the whole Catholike Church, shall defend the Popes Cathedrall judgements as infallible, and dye in that opinion, they are so farre from dying as Papias and Irene did, in the peace of the Church; that by the whole catholike Church they are declared, and de∣creed to dye out of the peace and communion of the whole ca∣tholike Church.

11. A third dissimilitude ariseth from the persons who erre. The former, for all their errour; held z 1.355 fast the unity with the Church, even with those who contradicted and cōdemned their errours; and we doubt not but that was verified of very many of them, which Austen a 1.356 affirmeth of Cyprian, that they kept this unitie of the Church, humiliter, fideliter, fortiter, ad martyrij usque coronam; kept it with humility, with fidelitie, with constancy, even to the crowne of martyrdome. By reason of which their charity they were not onely fast linked, and, as I may say, glued to the com∣munion of the Church, both in their life, and death, but all their other errours, as Austen b 1.357 ••aith, became veniall unto them: for charity covereth a multitude of sinnes. The latter are so unlike to these, that with their errour, and even by it, they have made an eternall breach, and separation of themselves from the Ca∣tholike Church; even from all who consent unto, or approve this fift generall Councell: for having by their Laterane decree ere∣cted, and set up in the Romane Capitol, this pontificall suprema∣cy, and infallibilitie, they now account all but Schismatickes c 1.358 who con∣sent not with them; they will have no peace, no cōmunion with any, who will not adore this Romish Calfe of the supreme & infallible authoritie of their vice-god. So the former, notwithstāding their error, died in the peace of that Church, to which, by most ardent affection they were conjoyned: The latter dying in this their errour, whereby they cut off, and quite dis-joyne themselves from the union of all, who approve the decree of the fift Councell, (and those are the whole catholike Church of all ages) though they dye in the very armes, and bosome of the Queene of Baby∣lon, cannot chuse but die out of the blessed peace, and holy com∣munion of the whole catholike Church, which they have wilful∣ly, insolently, and most disdainfully rejected.

12. The fourth and last difference which I now observe, ari∣seth from the judgement of the Church concerning them both. The former, she is so farre from once thinking to have dyed in heresie, or heretikes, that shee most gladly testifieth her selfe not onely to hold them in her communion, but to esteeme and honour them as glorious Saints of the Church. Papias d 1.359 the au∣thor of that opinion, a Saint, Irene, e 1.360 Iustine, and Cyprian, both Saints, and Martyrs. On the parties which hold the latter error, she hath passed a contrary doome; for by decreeing the Cathe∣drall sentence of Vigilius to be hereticall, and accursing all who defend it; she hath clearely judged and declared all who defend the Popes infallibilitie in defining causes of faith, to bee here∣tikes, & dying so, to die heretikes; yea, convicted heretikes, ana∣thematized by the judgement of the catholike Church, and so pronounced to die out of the peace and communion of the ca∣tholike 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 see∣med

not very easie; but specially that hereby I might open ano∣ther errour in the Constitution of Vigilius, who from the exam∣ple of those Millenarie Fathers (one of which, to wit Nepos, he ex∣presly mentioneth) f 1.361 would conclude, That none at all though dying in heresie, may after their death be condemned, seeing Dionysius Bi∣shop of Alexandria, though he condemned the bookes and er∣rour of Nepos, yet Nepos himselfe hee did not injure, nor con∣demne, propter hoc maxime, 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 formall heresie, but in an errour onely at that time, to which he did not pertinaciously adhere; though Prateolus g 1.362, and after him, the Cardinall, h 1.363 upon what reason I know not, but sure none that is good, reckons Ne∣pos with Tertullian, as one excluded from the ranke and order of catholikes: neither did Dionysius or the Church, for that reason at all which Vigilius fancieth; much lesse for that especially, for∣beare to condemne Nepos, because he was dead: (for then they would not have condemned Valentinus, Basilides, Cerinthus, who also were dead i 1.364, when the Church condemned them,) but be∣cause they judged Nepos as well as Irene, Iustine, and the rest, to have dyed, though in an error, yet in the unity, peace, and com∣munion of the Church. And this the words of Dionysius k 1.365, not rightly alleaged by Vigilius, and no better translated by Chri∣stopherson doe import. For Dionysius said not, that hee there∣fore reverenced Nepos, quia jam defunctus fuerat, as the one l 1.366, nor quia ex hac vita migravit, as the other m 1.367 readeth them, that is, because he was dead, (for upon that reason the holy Bishops should have reverenced also Simon Magus, Cerinthus, and other heretickes, who were then dead) but because 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which Musculus very rightly translateth thus; I much reve∣rence him as one, qui jam ad quietem praecessit, who is gone before mee unto rest: that is, because hee so dyed, that his death was a passage to rest; even to that rest of which the scrip∣ture n 1.368 saith, using the same words, they rest from their labour: to that rest unto which himselfe hoped to follow Nepos: for that Nepos is gone before to this rest; therefore did Dionysius reve∣rence him. So both the assertion of Vigilius which from Diony∣sius he would prove, is untrue, that none who are dead may bee condemned, and yet the saying of Dionysius is true, that such as goe to rest, or dye in the peace of the Church, ought not to bee condemned.

14. After this which the Cardinall hath said in generall con∣cerning such as dye in the peace of the Church, hee addeth one thing in particular concerning Theodorus of Mopsvestia, by way of application of that generall position unto him, saying o 1.369 that Vigilius was therefore very slacke to condemne him, because hee would not condemne those, quos scisset in catholica communione de∣functos,

whom he knew to have died in the catholike communion of the Church. So the cardinall tells us that Vigilius knew, and there∣fore that it is not onely true, but certaine, that Theodorus dyed in the catholike communion.

15. What thinke you doth the cardinall gaine by pleading thus for Theodorus a condemned heretike? Truly for his paines herein the holy Councell payes him soundly: for first in plaine termes it calls him a lyar, and a slanderer, yea a slanderer of the whole Church, and if this be not enough, it denounceth an Ana∣thema unto him for so saying: Cursed bee hee that curseth not Theodorus; how much more cursed then is he, who acquits Theo∣dorus from that curse, who makes Theodorus blessed? for blessed are all they that dye in the peace and holy communion of the Church, and that Theodorus so dyed the Cardinall for a cer∣tainty doth assure us; for Vigilius knew that he so dyed.

16. But what Church I pray you is that in the communion whereof the Cardinall assures us Theodorus to have dyed? you may bee sure it is their Romane: for in the Cardinalls idiome thats not onely 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Church, but its the one and onely Church. In the communion then of their Romane church, even in the communion with the Cardinall himselfe dyed Theodorus. Now its certaine, he died not in the communion of the Church, which was in the fift generall Councell, for they utterly disclaim him, accurse him, and call them lyars, and slanderers, that say hee dyed in their communion. Againe, its certaine that the Church of that fift Councell, was of the same communion with the whole Catholike and Apostolike Church▪ themselves profes∣sing to hold the same faith, and communion with all former ho∣ly generall Councells, and Catholikes, and all succeeding catho∣likes by approving it, professing the same faith and communion with it. Seeing then Theodorus dyed not in the communion of this Church, which is the true and truly catholike Church, and yet dyed as the Cardinall assures you in the communion of their Romane church, it doth clearly and certainly hence ensue, that their Romane church is neither the true catholike, neither hath full communion with the true catholike Church.

17. Lastly, seeing Theodorus as the Cardinall tells us, died in the peace, and communion of their Church, and Theodorus was most certainly an heretike, condemned by the catholike Church; declared by the same Church to bee accursed, that is, separated from God; nay to be a very Devill, as the holy Councell p 1.370 pro∣claimed him; Their Romane church must needes bee at peace, and of the same communion with condemned heretikes, with Anius, Nestorius, Eutiches, Eunomius, (none of them all can bee worse then as Theodorus was, condemned heretikes, by the judge∣ment 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 Devills communicants. Since this is the peace,

this the communion of their church (if Theodorus dyed, as the Cardinall 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 immortall warres, 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 dyed 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 bee condemned, be∣cause he was not condemned by former Fathers, and Coun∣cells, is erroneous and untrue.

1. THe third and last reason of Pope Vigilius in defence of the first Chapter, is drawne from the authority of the ancient Fathers and Councells; by none of which, as he pretend∣eth,b 1.371 Theodorus of Mopsvestia was condem∣ned, and therefore ought not now by him∣selfe, or any other to be condemned. And Vigilius was so exceeding carefull to enforme both himselfe, and all others of the certainty, and truth herein, that hee saith, wee a 1.372 added, solicitudinis nostrae animum, the carefull solicitude of our thoughts, and diligentissima investigatione quaerere curamus: Wee have taken most diligent care to finde out, whether any thing was decreed, ordered, or disposed by the Fathers, de persona, vel no∣mine, either concerning the person, or the name of Theodorus: and againe, Omnibus diligenter inspectis; We have diligently viewed all things belonging to this matter. Now after all this carefull, solici∣tous, diligent, yea most diligent inspection, Vigilius saith, that, neither in the Councell of Ephesus c 1.373, nor of Chalcedon d 1.374, nor in Cyril e 1.375, nor in Proclus f 1.376, nor in other Fathers, could hee finde that Theodorus was ever condemned.

2. Truly Vigilius had exceeding dimme eyes in this cause: or to speake more truly, Nestorianisme had so blinded, and put out his eye-sight, that he could discerne almost nothing; though it were never so cleare, and obvious, unlesse it favoured the con∣demned heresie 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 Councells of Ephesus, and Chalcedon? not by others? Suffer me I pray you, to helpe the Popes sight with some better spectacles. Of Cyrill and Proclus, the fift Councell, after a farre better view, and inspection, even in the Synodall decree, doe thus witnesse. They g 1.377 shew their meaning concerning Theodorus, quod oportet eum anathematizari, that he ought to be accursed, as we have demonstrated before, out of those things, which Cyrill and Proclus have written, ad condem∣nationem Theodori, for the condemning of Theodorus, and his impiety. In another place, h 1.378 of them both they write againe in this man∣ner, Let them who pretend the names of Cyrill, and Proclus, say if The∣odorus be not by them numbred with the Iewes, Pagans, Sodomites and heretikes; particularly of Cyrill, they say i 1.379, Cyrill seeing that divers continued to defend the blasphemies of Theodorus, was forced to write bookes against him and his impieties, & post mortem ejusdem Theodori, ostendere cum & haereticum, & impium, & super Paganos, & super Iudaeos blasphemium. And after the death of the same Theodorus, to shew him to have beene an heretike, and more blasphemous then either the Iewes or Pagans. This the Councell saw in the writings of Cyrill, and Proclus, and upon their sight and knowledge testified the same.

3. The words of Cyrill, and Proclus doe clearly witnesse the same. Cyrill speaking k 1.380 of Theodorus, calls him one, whose tongue speakes iniquity against God; one whose horne is exalted against God: one who insulteth l 1.381 over Christ, who lesseneth the crimes of the Iewes, who pulleth him downe, ad infamiam, to infamie and disgrace. Pro∣clus also speaking m 1.382 not only of the doctrine, but of the person of Theodorus, whom he setteth in the same ranke with Arius, Euno∣mius, Macedonius, and other heretikes, he calleth him as hee doth the rest, turbulentos, & coenosos fallaciae rivos, filthy and mirie rivers of deceit; adding, that the new blasphemie (which was taught by The∣odorus and Nestorius) doth farre exceed, the blasphemie of the Iewes. Thus Proclus. Where thinke you was the Popes eyes, when hee could not, or would not see any of all this? Or if yet wee doubt of Cyrills minde herein, Baronius n 1.383 himselfe could not chuse, but observe this out of him, you see that Cyrill 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 Cardi∣nall: checking the Popes sight, that would not see him to be con∣demned by Cyrill, whom Cyrill esteemed every whit as wicked an heretike as Nestorius.

4. But this whole matter, and the unexcusable error of Vigi∣lius, will be most evident, by considering the judgment of the Ephesine Councell touching Theodorus, and what ensued upon, or after it. That Theodorus of Mopsvestia, who dyed about some foure o 1.384 yeares before, was condemned in the holy Councell at Ephesus, Cyrill who was President in that Councell doth declare,

as the fift Councell witnesseth. Cyrill (say p 1.385 they in the Synodall decree) writ unto Iohn, touching Theodorus, utpote una cum Nesto∣rio anathematizato; as being anathematized together with Nestorius, in the Ephesine Synod: and this they shew out of the words of Cy∣rill, which are q 1.386 worthy of most diligent consideration. Peltanus, and after him r 1.387 Binius, have very unfitly translated Cyrils words, but in the Greeke; as also consonantly thereunto they are set downe in the fift s 1.388 Councell, thus; Processit adversus omnes, qui ea∣dem sapiunt, vel sapuerunt aliquando; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉:t 1.389 id quod absolute, nos & vestra sāctitas dixit, A∣thematizamus illos, qui dicunt duos filios: That sentence of Anathe∣ma, which we (to wit, the holy Ephesine Councell) and your Holi∣nesse pronounced absolutely, (without naming any person) saying, we accuse those who say there are two Sonnes, or two Christs: that sen∣tence proceeded against all who doe thinke so, or who have thought so. Thus Cyrill, and that also in one of those his Synodall Epistles, which the holy Councell of u 1.390 Chalcedon, in their very de∣finition of faith, hath approved: so that this is now not onely the judgement of Cyrill, but of the whole Councell at Chalcedon. The same is repeated againe by Cyrill, and more conspicuously in his Epistle x 1.391 to Anastasius, Alexander, and the rest; which al∣so hath equall authoritie by the Councell of Chalcedon. Sancta Synodus Ephesi, saith Cyrill, The holy Ephesine Synod, having pro∣nounced 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 condemnatio∣nem eis imponens; imposing the same condemnation upon them also: for it is fit, that when one is condemned for such vaine speeches, non contra unum tantum venire, that the sentence should not come against him alone, but against the whole heresie, and sect. Thus S. Cyrill setting this downe for a golden rule to be observed, in all Syno∣dall sentences, and judgements of faith; and being so usefull, the fift Synod doth often y 1.392 insist upon it.

5. Seeing then Theodorus did not onely teach, write, and speake the same with Nestorius, but was indeed the Arch-heretike, and author of this heresie, Nestorius being but his a 1.393 dis∣ciple, or the trunke to sound out or blaze abroad that hereticall doctrine, which Theodorus had breathed into him; it is evident by this golden rule of Cyrill, that though Theodorus was dead be∣fore the Synod at Ephesus, yet the anathema and condemnation denounced by the Synod, no lesse pertaineth to him, than to Nestorius, though the one was named, and not the other. And this the fift Councell out of those very words of Cyrill, doth col∣lect, and warrant others to collect the same. The writings, say they, of b 1.394 Theodorus being in all things consonant to the vaniloquie of Nestorius, are together with his, deservedly rejected by the Coun∣cell 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 al∣so against those, who before Nestorius thought the same which he did.

6. This same judgement of the Ephesine Councell, in con∣demning Theodorus, is yet another way declared, and testified expresly by Pope Pelagius, Theodorum c 1.395 mortuum sancta Synodus Ephesina damnavit; the holy Ephesine Councell condemned Theodorus being dead: which so cleare a testimony, though alone, were e∣nough to manifest the foule errour of Vigilius in this point. But Pelagius sets downe a proofe also therof, which openeth ano∣ther errour of Vigilius. He to excuse Theodorus, would perswade that d 1.396 Theodorus was not the composer of that impious, and dia∣bolicall creed, before mentioned. Heare now the words, and and proofe of Pelagius, taken from that creed: The Ephesine Sy∣nod, saith e 1.397 he, condemned Theodorus, nam cum ab ejus discipulis dictatum ab eo Symbolum; for when that creed, dictated and compo∣sed by Theodorus, was brought forth before the Ephesine Sy∣nod, cum authore damnatum est; both it, and the author of it was condemned presently by the same holy Fathers. So Pelagius: testify∣ing against Vigilius, both Theodorus to bee the author of that creed; and both him, and it, to have beene condemned by the Ephesine Councell.

7. What Pelagius saith was formerly delivered by the whole fift Councell, who thus say, f 1.398 Theodorus, besides other innume∣rable blasphemies, ausus est & impium exponere symbolum, was so au∣dacious as to set out that impious creed: & again, hoc impium Theodori Symbolum; this impious creed of Theodorus was anathematized, to∣ther with the writer of it, in the first Ephesine Councell: and againe, when this creed was repeated, which is by them g 1.399 called, Impium Theodori Symbolum, the impious creed of Theodorus; the holy Synod h 1.400 cryed out, anathema to him that composed it; (and that was Theodorus as themselves witnesse;) the holy Ephesine Coun∣cell accursed this creed, una cum authore ejus, together with the author of it. Thus testified the whole Councell. Before this fift Councell, Iustinian, in his most religious Edict, witnesseth the same. Theodorus (saith i 1.401 hee) who exceeds in impiety, Pagans, Iewes, and all heretikes, did not onely contemne 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 Councell. So the Emperour.

8. Before all these, this is testified, and fully explaned by S. Cyrill, who k 1.402 was the chiefe 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 Councell; and those who thought as that creed taught, being condemned (in which gene∣rall sentence Theodorus himselfe was especially included) nullam

viri mentionem fecit dispensatione, nec ipsum nominatim anathemati subjecit propter dispensationem; the Councell by a dispensation, made no particular mention of Theodorus, but forbare by name to denounce an anathema against him, by a kinde of connivence, 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 generall termes by the Ephesine Councell: The other, that they might in particular also have condemned him, as they did Nestorius; but they forbare that particular naming of him, onely by a dispensation, toleration, or connivence 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 Councell imitated the wise∣dome and lenitie of the Apostles, who for a time by a l 1.403 dispensation, and connivence, permitted the use of the Ceremoniall Law, that so by insensible degrees the Iewes might be weaned from that, unto which they had beene so long accustomed: which examples of the Apostles, the fift Councell, even in their Synodall sentence, apply to this very cause of Theodorus: the Church and Ephesine Councell, for a time, spared by name to condemne him, even then, when by their generall sentence hee was as truly condem∣ned, as the Mosaicall ceremonies were dead, (though then not deadly) to the end that the estimation which some (but very un∣justly) had of him, might rather dissui, than dissecari; rather by little and little be untwined, and worne out, than by a peremp∣tory 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 Gospell had been long published, and sufficient time allowed, to forget, and bury the ceremonies, then did utterly condemne all that used the same, saying, If m 1.404 ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing: Even so did the Church in this cause of Theodorus. She expected that her generall sentence should have deterred all from that heresie; specially seeing the Emperours, Theodosius, and Valen∣tinian, had strengthened that Synodall judgement, by a severe Imperiall n 1.405 Edict, set forth some foure yeares o 1.406 after the Ephesine Synod; forbidding the bookes of Nestorius, either to bee read, or retained: But it fell out farre otherwise; for when the Nesto∣rians could no longer shrowd themselves under the name, nor countenance their heresie by the bookes and writings of Nesto∣rius, they found this new device, to p 1.407 commend their doctrine, under the name, dignity, and authority of Theodorus of Mopsve∣stia,, whose doctrine was the very same with that of Nestorius, he having suckt all his hereticall poyson from Theodorus, and this they thought they might safely doe, Theodorus being not by name condemned, either in the Synodall judgement, or by the

Imperiall Edict. To which purpose they, and particularly p 1.408 Ibas, spred abroad the bookes of Theodorus in every countrey, and corner, translating them, as Liberatus q 1.409 sheweth, into the Syrian, Armenian, and Persian languages; by which meanes they decei∣ved, and seduced many, pretending Theodorus r 1.410 writings to bee consonant to the ancient fathers. The Catholikes seeing how lit∣tle effect their connivence at Theodorus name had taken; and that the heretikes abused their lenitie in forbearing him, to strengthen their heresie; saw that now it was time, no longer to dispense or winke at Theodorus; and therefore the time s 1.411 of that dispensation being expired, they began now in plaine termes, and by name, to condemne both his person, and his writings, as before they had in a generalitie performed them both in the Councell of Ephesus; and this was done by severall Bishops, in severall Countries, and by many severall wayes.

10. The first sentence wherein Theodorus was particularly, and by name condemned, was in a Councell at Armenia, where the credit of Theodorus had done most hurt. The chiefe Bishops in that Synod, were Acatius Bishop of Melitiū in Armenia, a very learned, & holy mā, who had bin one t 1.412 of the chiefe also in the ho∣ly Ephesine Councel; and u 1.413 Rambulas, or Rabulas Bishop of Edessa, (whose name it seemes the Nestorians for very spite against him, turned into x 1.414 Rabula, that so they might with more facility revile his person) a man of such piety and high esteeme in the Church, that Cyrill y 1.415 cals him columnam, & fundamentum veritatis; the ve∣ry piller and foundation of the truth; and z 1.416 Benignus testifieth, that he was a faire and resplendent lampe in the Church. These a 1.417 two stirred up the Bishops of Armenia to reject the writings of Theo∣dorus, tanquam haeretici, as one who was an heretike; yea, the au∣thor of the Nestorian heresie; and themselves were present in that noble Councell of b 1.418 Armenia, wherein they not onely con∣demned Theodorus as an impious person, an oppugner of Christ, and the childe of the Devill; as by the contents of the acts of that Sy∣nod c 1.419 doth appeare; but further also, they writ their Synodal let∣ters both to Proclus, Bishop of Constantinople, & to Cyrill Bishop of Alexandria, quatenus fiat unit as vestra contra Theodorum, & sa∣crilega dogmata ejus; that they also would joyne with them, and their Synod, in cōdemning by name, both the person and sacrilegious writings of Theodorus; giving this as a reason thereof, because they exhort them but to doe in plaine, and expresse manner, the same thing which was done by them before, but in a generality: We write unto you, per vos etiam antea condemnatum sine nomine, Theodorum nominatim condemnari; that Theodorus may now by name bee condem∣ned by you, who hath already, though without expressing his name, beene condemned by you. And what they exhorted Proclus, and Cyrill to doe, that Rambulas performed, not onely in the Armenian Coun∣cell, but in his owne Church at Edessa; for as Ibas in his impious

Epistle d 1.420 saith, Ausus est Theodorum clarè anathematizare, hee was bold by name,e 1.421 and expresly, to anathematize Theodorus in his owne Church, and, both Benignus and Liberatus witnesse the same.

11. What Proclus did upon receipt of those letters sent from the Armenian Councell unto him,f 1.422 is not to be learned out of Li∣beratus report of this matter, for he in the narration of this pas∣sage, is not onely untrue, and partiall, but very hereticall also, justly herein taxed by Baronius g 1.423, and Binius h 1.424, as borrowing his narration from some Nestorians; which the Reader will easily observe: but the truth herein must be taken out of Cyrill, and the fift Councell. Proclus, saith Cyrill i 1.425, sent a tome or writing to them of Armenia full of sound doctrine, and hee adjoyned thereunto certaine chapters, collecta è Theodori codicibus, gathered out of the bookes of Theodorus, consonant to the doctrine of Nestorius, ex∣horting them, etiam illa anathematizare, to accurse even those do∣ctrines of Theodorus also. The fift Councel explaines this more ful∣ly; Proclus say they k 1.426, writeth thus against Theodorus and his impious doctrine. And then they cite, first those words of Proclus before mentioned, wherein he sets Theodorus in the same ranke with A∣rius, Eunomius, Macedonius l 1.427, and other like heretikes, calling them all puddles of errours and deceit. And after this, those o∣ther words of Proclus, written to Iohn Bishop of Antioch, wherein he calleth the doctrines of Theodorus; or those chapters which were collected out of his bookes, vaniloquie, monstriloquie, Iu∣daicall impietie: ad destructionem legentium evomita: doctrines vo∣mited out by him, to the destruction of the readers and hearers: exhor∣ting others, to reject, to abhorre, to tread under foot, and to ac∣curse all those chapters of Theodorus: utpote diabolicae insaniae con∣stituta, & inventiones: as being the positions and inventions of devil∣lish madnesse. From which words of Proclus, uttered both against the person, and doctrine of Theodorus: the Councell concludeth very justly, that Proclus (not onely in particular condemned Theodorus as the Armenian Councell exhorted him) but condem∣ned him as a Iew, Pagan, and Heretike: And this was done by Proclus in the yeare when Valentinian was the 4, and Theodosius the m 1.428 15. time Consull, as the date of his letter or Tome to the Armenians doth declare; which declares also, that the Armenian Councell was held the same yeare n 1.429: for it followed the spread∣ing abroad of the bookes of Theodorus; and that was not done till the Nestorians were by the Imperiall Edict forbidden to reade the bookes of Nestorius: Now the Imperiall Edict beares date, in the same consulship o 1.430, which shewes evidently, that as soone as ever the Nestorians began to revive the honour, and name of Theodorus (being onely in a generality before condem∣ned) the catholikes forthwith opposed themselves, and by name condemned him. And which is specially to be observed, Proclus did this against Theodorus, although the Easterne Bishops in∣treated him p 1.431 plurimis deprecationibus, ut ne anathematizaretur

Theodorus, nec impia ejus conscripta, did with most earnest prayers sollicite him, not to condemne the person, or doctrine of Theodo∣rus: but, the truth of God which was oppugned by Theodorus, and the sentence of the Councell which had condemned Theodo∣rus, did more prevaile then all their supplication with that holy Bishop.

12. Saint Cyrill did the like as Proclus herein, hee seeing the connivence q 1.432, and dispensation of the Councell, 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 farre applauding him, that in some Churches they would cry r 1.433 out, Crescat fides Theo∣dori, sic credimus sicut Theodorus, let the faith of Theodorus increase, we beleeve as he did: yea even stoning s 1.434 some in the Church who spake against them, Cyrill seeing all this, could forbeare no lon∣ger, Ego t 1.435 ista non sustinui, sed fiducialiter dixi; I could not hold my selfe to heare those things, but said with great boldnesse, and confidence, that Theodorus was a blasphemous speaker, a blasphemous writer, that he was an u 1.436 heretike, mentiuntur contra sanctos patres; I said, that they belyed the holy Fathers, who affirmed Theodorus wri∣tings, to be consonant to theirs, nec x 1.437 cessavi increpās ea quae scrip∣serunt, nec cessabo: nor have I ceased, nor will I cease, to reprove those who write thus: and which demonstrates yet further the zeale of that holy Bishop; he writ y 1.438 the same things concerning Theo∣dorus, to the Emperor Theodosius, exhorting him z 1.439 to keepe his soule unspoted from his impieties. Thus Cyrill by name condemning both the person and writings of Theodorus.

13. The religious Emperors Theodosius & Valentinian moved partly by the grave admonitions of Cyrill, and specially by that disturbance which the Nestorians then made, by their defending and magnifying Theodorus; besides the former against Nestorius, published two other Imperiall Edicts, against Theodorus, decla∣ring him by name, to have beene every way as blasphemous an heretike as Nestorius; and that the defenders of him, or his wri∣tings, should be lyable to the same punishments, as the defenders of Nestorius. Those Edicts being so pregnant, to demonstrate the errour of Vigilius, I have thought it needfull, to expresse some parts or clauses of them.

14. We a 1.440 againe b 1.441 declare that the doctrine impiorum, & pe∣stiferorum, of those impious and pestiferous persons is abominable un∣to us: similiter autem & omnes, and so are all who follow their error. It is just that they all have one name, and bee all clothed with confusion, lest while they be called Christians they seeme to be honoured by that ti∣tle; Wherefore we by this our Law doe inact, 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 bee called Symonians, as Constantine decreed, that the followers of Arius should be called Porphirians. Further let none presume either to

have, or keepe, or write their sacrilegious bookes, especially not those of Theodorus, and Nestorius: but all their bookes shall bee diligently sought, and being found, shall be publikely burned. Neque de caetero inveniatur praedictorum hominum memoria: neither let there be found any memorie 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 doe contrary to this our sanction, let him be cast into perpetuall banishment, and let all his goods be confiscate. And let your excellency (they sent this to their Lieutenant) pub∣lish this our Law through the whole world, in every Province, and in every city. Thus did the Emperours inact, and which is specially also to be remembred, they inacted all this, corroboran∣tes c 1.442 ea que piè decreta sunt Ephesi, strengthning thereby that which was decreed at Ephesus.

15. Whence two things may be observed, the one, that Theo∣dorus was not onely accounted, and by name condemned for an heretike, as by other catholiks, so by the Emperors also, but that this particular condemning was consonant to the decree of the Ephesine Synode, this being nothing else but an explanation of that, which they in generall termes had set down, and a corrobo∣ration of the same: The other, that seeing this Imperiall decree, hath stood ever since the inacting thereof in force and unrepea∣led, by vertue of it; had it beene, or were it as yet, I say not rigo∣rously, but duly, and justly put in execution, not any one defen∣der of the three Chapters, no not Pope Vigilius himselfe, nor any who defends his Apostolicall constitution, (and those are all the members of the present Romane church) not one of them, shold either have beene heretofore, or be now tolerated, in any city, suburbs, towne, village, or field; but besides the ecclesiasticall, censures and anathemaes, denounced against thē, by the Coun∣cell and catholike church, they should endure, if no sharper edge of the civill sword, yet, perpetuall banishment out of all Christi∣an Common-wealths, with losse and confiscation of all their goods.

16. After this Imperiall Law was once published, the name and credit of Theodorus (whose memory the Emperors had con∣demned and forbidden) grew into a generall contempt and ha∣tred, whereof the church of Mopsvestia, where hee had beene Bi∣shop, gave a memorable example. They for a time esteeemed of Theodorus, as a catholike Bishop, and for that cause kept his name in their dipticks, or Ecclesiasticall tables; reciting him a∣mong the other Orthodox Bishops of that city, in their Eucha∣risticall commemoration; But now seeing him detected, and condemned, both by catholike Bishops, by Councells, and by the Imperiall Edict for an heretike, they expunged and blotted out the name of Theodorus, and in his roome inserted in their dipticks, the name of Cyrill, who though hee was not Bishop in

that See, yet had by his pietie and zeale manifested and maintai∣ned the faith, & brought, both the heresie & person of Theodorus into a just detestation, and all this is evident by the Acts of that Synode d 1.443 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 Councell of Chal∣cedon: for, the expunging of Theodorus name, and inserting of Cy∣rills, followed as it seemes shortly after the death of Cyrill, and he dyed about seven e 1.444 yeares before the Councell of Chalcedon. That by it Theodorus was also condemned, their approving f 1.445 the Councell of Ephesus, and the Synodall Epistles of Cyrill, (in both which, and in the later, by name g 1.446 Theodorus is condemned) doth manifest: and besides this the Emperour Iustinian expresly saith h 1.447 of it, that the impious Creed of Theodorus being recited in that Councell, both it, cum expositore ejus, with the Author and expounder of it, (and that was Theodorus) were condemned in the Councell of Chalcedon.

18. When many yeares after that holy Councell, some Ne∣storians began againe, contrary to the Edict of Theodosius, and Valentinian, to revive the dead, and condemned memory of The∣odorus, Sergius Bishop of Cyrus making mention i 1.448, and comme∣morating him in the Collect among catholikes; the truth of this matter being examined and found, that same Sergius by the command of Iustinus the Emperour, was deposed from his Bi∣shopricke, excluded out of the Church, and so continued even to his dying day: and this was done but six yeares before the Em∣pire of Iustinian, as by the date k 1.449 of Iustinus his letters doth ap∣peare.

19. Now if to all these particular sentences, you adde that which the fift Councell l 1.450 witnesseth, that Theodorus, post mortem à catholica ecclesia ejectus est, hath beene after his death condemned, and cast out, and that even by the whole Catholike Church, you will easily confesse, that from the time almost of his death, unto the raigne of Iustinian there hath beene a continuall, and never inter∣rupted condemnation of him in the Church. But in Iustinians time, and perhaps before, though lesse eagerly, the Ne••••orians began afresh, to renew the memory and doctrine of Theodorus, setting now a fairer glosse and varnish on their cause, then ever they had before: for they very gladly apprehending and applau∣ding those (to say the least) inconsiderate speeches of the Popes Legates, & Maximus in the Councel of Chalcedon, that by his dic∣tation, or Epistle, Ibas was declared to be a catholike, hereupon they now boasted, that the holy Councell, by approving that E∣pistle of Ibas, had approved, both the person and doctrine of Theodorus, seeing they both are highly extolled, and defended in that Epistle. By this meanes was this cause brought ab inferis the second time, upon the stage, and that also cloaked under the name, and credit of the Councell of Chalcedon. And at this se∣cond

boute, all the defenders of the Three Chapters, and among them Pope Vigilius, as Generall to them all, undertooke the de∣fence of Theodorus: and, as if there had never beene any sentence of condemnation, either in generall, or in particular denounced against him, even in his definitive, and Apostolicall constitution declareth, That Theodorus was not condemned, either by for∣mer Councels, or Fathers; and this he declareth after his solici∣tous, circumspective, and most diligent examination of their writings.

20. What thinke you was become of the Popes eyes at this time, that he could see none of all those condemnations of Theo∣dorus, before mentioned? Not the general anathema of the Coun∣cels at Ephesus, and Chalcedon, in which Theodorus was involved: not the expresse, and particular anathema denounced against him by Rambulas, and Acatius, with the Councell of Armenia: not the condemnation of him, and his writings by Saint Proclus, by S. Cy∣rill, by the Church of Mopsvestia, by the Edict of the religious Emperours, by the whole Catholike Church. None of all these things were done in a corner; they were all matters of publike notice, and record▪ obvious to any that did not shut their eyes against the sun-shine of the truth. But, as I said before, and must often say, Nestorianisme, like Naash the Ammonite, had put out the Popes 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 appeare, but will bee yet much more manifest, by that which in the Constitution of Vigilius wee are next to consider.

21. For, as if it were a small matter, not to see Theodorus con∣demned by the former Councels, and Fathers, (though in a man professing so exact and accurate inspection in any cause, such grosse oversights are not veniall) the Pope ventures one step fur∣ther, for the credit of this condemned heretike. Hee could not finde that Theodorus was condemned by the former witnesses: Tush, that is nothing, he findes him acquitted by them all: hee findes by Cyrill, by Proclus, by the Councels of Ephesus, and Chal∣cedon, yea, by Iustinians owne law, that Theodorus ought not to be condemned. This was indeed a point worthy the Popes owne finding. But withall I must tell you, that you also shall finde 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 eares, and drowne himselfe in untruths.

22. Let us then examine the allegations, which, for proofe of this, the Pope hath found▪ and begin we, as the Pope doth, with Cy••••••••. In his m 1.451 Epist. to Iohn B. of Antioch, Vigilius found an expli∣cation, 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 heare this, though they will not: ye forget your selves, when you bend your bowes against ashes, that is,

against the dead; for he who is written among them (that is, the dead) nō 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 bee but Laikes; how much more over those, who with their Bishopricks 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 Ecclesiasticall rule, to condemne any that is dead; and then cer∣tainly not a Bishop, not Theodorus.

23. For answer hereunto, I doe earnestly intreate the reader to ponder seriously the Popes good dealing herein. That Epistle which Vigilius commendeth unto us, under the name of n 1.452 S. Cy∣ril, is none of Cyrils, it is a base and counterfeit writing, forged by some Nestorians in the name of Cyrill; Witnesse hereof the whole fift generall Councell, who, of purpose, and at large, exa∣mined this matter, and refuted this cavill of Vigilius, before ever he set forth his Constitution; for thus they o 1.453 say of it, Some loving the perfidiousnesse of Nestorius, which is all one as to say, the madnesse of Theodorus, doe not refuse to faigne some things, and use cer∣taine 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 bookes. And then reciting the whole Epistle, and all those words which Vigilius alleageth; they adde, 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 forgerie, which is falsely composed by the defenders of Theodorus. The summe of this they repeate in their Synodall sentence, saying, p 1.454 We have found, that the de∣fenders of Theodorus have done the same which heretikes are wont to doe; for they clip away some part of the Fathers words, quaedam vero falsa ex femetipsis componentes, & confingentes; and devising, or faigning other things of themselves, they seeke by them, as it were, by the testimony of Cyrill, to free Theodorus from the Anathema. Thus the Councell: all of them with one voyce proclaming Pope Vi∣gilius for a lewd dealer, who commends, and that even in his A∣postolicall Constitution, a false and forged writing, for the true E∣pistle of S. Cyrill.

24. It is true, Vigilius is not the first Pope, who hath blemi∣shed their See, by such false and fraudulent dealing: Zozimus and Bonifacius were long before this taxed, and that justly, b•• the Africane q 1.455 Bishops, for downe 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 shamelesse and audacious in this kinde, that they

scarce writ any decrees of importance, but they stuffed them with such Fathers: Even the basest, and most abject fictions, which were voyd, not onely of truth, but of braine, were fittest for the Popes, and their Pontificall determinations, and were they never so base, and bastardly, yet the Popes, like kind Godfathers, could, when they listed, christen them with the names of S. Cy∣rill, Cyprian, or the like, and then they must be called, or estee∣med 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 1.456 Iohn Bishop of Antioch; where these words are alleaged; When did I write to you, oportere aut Theodorum, aut alios quosdam, qui pridem defun∣cti sunt, anathemate subdi; that either Theodorus, or others, being dead, ought to be anathematized? The second is out of the same E∣pistle; 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 anathematized, or rejected. The third is out of an Epistle of Proclus to Maximus; I under∣stand, that the names of Theodorus of Mopsvestia, and of some o∣ther, is prefixed to the Chapters, ad anathematizandum, to bee anathematized, together with the Chapters, cum illi ad Deum jam migrarunt, whereas they are now departed to God, and it is needlesse to injure them, being now dead, quos nec vivos aliquando culpavi∣mus; whom being alive we did never reprove. These are the Popes allegations out of S. Proclus; in which I confesse it is clearely taught, that neither any after their death may bee 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 1.457 rule in law, semel malus, semper praesumitur esse ma∣lus; He who is once convicted of any crime, is presumed still to be faul∣ty in that kinde. Vigilius being lately convicted to commend for∣geries for the writings of Fathers, is in reason and equitie to bee thought to alleage such a S. Proclus, as before hee did S. Cyrill: Nay, there needs no presuming in this matter; there is evident proofe, and witnesses, above exception, to manifest the same; even the whole fift generall Councell; who, out of the true, and undoubted writings of Proclus, testifie, that Proclus taught the quite contrary, both that the dead might, and particularly that Theodorus ought to be condemned, and that hee was by Proclus himselfe condemned; for in their very Synodall decree, they thus t 1.458 write, Because the disciples of Theodorus most evidently op∣pugning the truth (thus sharply do they reprove Vigilius) doe alleage certaine sayings of Cyrill, and Proclus, as written for Theodorus; It doth appeare, that those Fathers doe not free him from the Ana∣thema, but speake those things dispensativè, by way of dis∣pensation, and in the very words of dispensation they declare

of him, quod oportet anathematizari Theodorum, that Theodorus ought to be anathematized; adding, that they have demonstrated this, even out of the words of Cyrill, and Proclus, which they writ ad condemnationē ejus, for the condemning of Theodorus. Thus writ the Councell, unto which the whole Catholike Church hath ever since subscribed. Seeing then it is certaine that Proclus both taught that Theodorus ought to be condemned, and did himselfe write to condemne him, there can bee no doubt, but that those Epistles to Iohn, and Maximus, which Vigilius citeth; and wherein Proclus is made to avouch the quite contrary, that nei∣ther himselfe did, nor that any ought to condemne 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 Iohn, recorded in the fift u 1.459 Councell, there is no such thing at all) or, had this Constitution of Vigilius beene published, and knowne to the Councell before they had fully examined, and cleared this Chapter touching Theodorus; it is not to bee doubted, but the one of them, if not both would have discovered this forgery also.

27. Besides all which, there are divers evident prints of a false, and hereticall hand in those Epistles. Is it injury (as that forged Proclus affirmeth) to condemne the dead? Nay, it is even hereticall, and that by the judgement of the whole Catholike 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 Councels of Sardica, of Constantinople, of Ephesus, as injurious unto the dead; nor them onely, but he had condemned himselfe, who, as we have now demonstrated, both condemned the dead, and taught, that Theodorus, though dead, ought to bee con∣demned.

28. Did Theodorus at his death goe (as this forged Proclus af∣firmeth) to the Lord? a blasphemer; an heretike; equall, by the judgement of Proclus himselfe, to the Iewes, and Pagans, and of the same ranke with Arius, Macedonius, Eunomius, and Nestorius; such a blaspheming heretike goe unto the Lord? why then did the Ephesine Councell, why did Saint Cyrill, why did Proclus himselfe adjudge him to bee anathematized, that is, separated from the Lord? Heretikes, and impious persons, as living, they goe not in the wayes of the Lord, but in their owne wayes; so dying, they goe, like Iudas, to their owne place; not to the Lord, not to his habitation, and place of rest; the Saints, and they onely goe that way. To them onely he sai••h, 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 seemes Leontius borrowed his most partiall speech, before mentioned, out of this Proclus, and was too credulous unto it: But the true Proclus living so x 1.460 neare to the time of Theodorus, could not bee ignorant,

nor would ever have uttered so foule an untruth: for although the Church pronounced no publike censure by name against him, yet was he reproved and blamed, not onely by others com∣plaining of his erroneous doctrine, but even by Theophilus B. of Alexandria, and Gregory Nissene. This the fift Councell wit∣nesseth saying y 1.461, Saint Theophilus, and Saint Gregory Nissene sus∣ceptis 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 Councell) they blame him as presu∣ming to renew the heresie and madnesse of Paulus Samosatenus. And it is further added, porrecta sunt autem, and the impious chapters collected out of the books of Theodorus, were shewed and brought to Theophilus; whence it is now evident, that those Epi∣stles alleaged by Vigilius under the name of Proclus, are no lesse, by the untrue, and hereticall assertions contained in them, then by the cleare testimonies of the fift generall Councell, convicted of forgery.

30. From Fathers hee commeth to Councells, and concer∣ning the first Ephesine. Vigilius noteth two points. The former that Theodorus was not condemned by it, to which purpose hee thus saith z 1.462, Solicite recensentes, having with diligence, and sollici∣tude reviewed the Ephesine Synode: We have found that in it no∣thing is related touching the persō of Theodorus. What, nothing? how then did Pope Pelagius a 1.463 after Cyrill, and the fift Councell finde that in it Theodorus was condemned? and if they condem∣ned him, then certainly somwhat was related, & debated about him, upon knowledge whereof the Councell condemned him. But say indeed, is nothing found concerning Theodorus in that Councell? What say you to the impious and diabolicall Creed, which was both related b 1.464 in the Synode, and condemned c 1.465 toge∣ther with the author of it? Truely here Vigilius useth a shift, worthy to be observed. That Creed he found, and hee found it to be condemned: but to quite Theodorus, hee d 1.466 would have it beleeved, 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 certaine Nestorians, Athanasius, Photius, Anto∣nius, and Iacobus. Nor doth Vigilius use this shift only about that impious Creed, but in other hereticall writings of Theodo∣rus. Proclus adjoyned to his Tome certaine impious positions collected è Theodori codicibus, as Cyrill e 1.467 expresly witnesseth. Vi∣gilius likewise of them would have it thought, that they were none of the positions of Theodorus; and by the forged Epistles of Proclus, hee would perswade f 1.468 that Proclus himselfe did not know whose they were. The Emperour Iustinian before the Synode be∣gan▪ sent threescore severall hereticall passages or chapters truly gathered out of the bookes and writings of Theodorus, hoping

that the Pope, seeing Theodorus bookes so full fraught with he∣resies, and blasphemies, would make little doubt to condemne the writer of them. Vigilius turnes to his former shift, hee will not thinke, nor have others to thinke that Theodorus writ such heresies, though they had his name prefixed unto them: for con∣cerning those 60. chapters (expressed both in the Popes Constitu∣tion g 1.469, and in the Synodall h 1.470 acts) he thus saith i 1.471, Wee 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 1.472, We provide by this our Constitution, that by these or the like doctrines condemned in Nestorius and Euty∣ches, no contumely, nor occasion of injury bee brought to those Bishops who have died in the peace of the Catholike Church: and that Vigili∣us thought Theodorus so to have dyed, we have before l 1.473 declared: yea that Vigilius knew it, Baronius assured us. Thus Vigilius to free Theodorus from condemnation, pretends those hereticall writings to be none of his.

31. What is it that Vigilius will not say for defence of this blasphemous and condemned heretike? This cavill was used, as Baronius m 1.474 tells us, by the old Nestorians and defenders of Theo∣dorus, denying those to bee the writings of Theodorus, quae diffa∣mata, which were famously knowne through the whole East: and which being afterwards detected, and discovered to bee truly his wri∣tings, both they, and their author with them were condemned. Now this old hereticall and rejected cavill Vigilius here renew∣eth; those writings famously knowne to be the workes of Theo∣dorus, condemned as his writings, and he with them and for thē, Vigilius will now have thought to be none of his, nor he by them nor for them may bee now condemned. And that you may see how Vigilius herein doth strive against the maine streame of the truth. Saint Cyrill n 1.475 who then lived, restifieth Theodorus to be author of those hereticall and blasphemous writings. That wee have found certaine things in the writings of Theodorus, nimiae plena blasphemiae, nulli dubium est, full of blasphemie, none that thinks aright can make any doubt. And againe o 1.476, I examining the bookes of Theodorus, and Diodorus, have contradicted them as much as I could, declaring that sect to be every where full of abominati∣on. Yea hee writ divers bookes p 1.477 against Theodorus, expressing the words of Theodorus and his owne confutation of the same. So cleare, and undoubted was this truth in Cyrills dayes, who li∣ved at the same time with Theodorus, that hee thought them un∣wise, who made any doubt of that, which Vigilius now calls in question. And particularly touching that impious Creed, Cyrill saith q 1.478, that they who brought it to the Synode of Ephesus, said, that it was composed by Theodorus: which they said not as by way of uncertaine report, but as testifying it to be so, in so much that the whole Synode giving credit there unto, thereupon condem∣ned Theodorus r 1.479, though by a dispensation they expressed not his name.

32 The same is testified by Rambulas, Acatius, and the whole Armenian Councell, who after examination s 1.480 of this cause found the true and indubitate writings of Theodorus to be sacri∣legious: and therefore by name condemned him, exhorting both Cyrill and Proclus to doe the like. The Imperiall Edicts of Theodosius t 1.481, and Valentinian leave no scruple in this matter: who would never have so severely forbidden the memory of Theodo∣rus, and the reading or having of his bookes, had it not by evi∣dences undeniable beene knowne, that those were indeed his workes, and hereticall writings. If all these suffice not, when this cause about Theodorus was now againe brought into questi∣on, the Emperour Iustinian, and the fift Councell, so narrowly and so exactly examined the truth hereof, that after them to make a doubt, is to seeke a knot in a rush. They testifie those ve∣ry hereticall assertions whereof Vigilius doubteth, to be the do∣ctrines and words u 1.482 of Theodorus, that impious creed also, where∣of Vigilius is doubtfull to be composed by Theodorus: they are so certaine x 1.483 hereof, that even in their Synodall sentence y 1.484, they re∣ferre the triall of what they decree herein to the true and un∣doubted bookes of Theodorus. And in their sentence is included the judgement of the whole catholike Church, ever since they decreed this which hath with one consent approved their de∣cree.

33 After all these Pope Pelagius, in one of his decretall Epi∣stles, wherein at large he handleth this cause, not onely testifieth that impious Creed z 1.485, and those hereticall a 1.486 writings, to bee the workes of Theodorus, alleaging many places of them, but wher∣as some obstinately addicted to the defence of the three Chapters moved againe b 1.487 this same doubt which Vigilius doth; and as is likely by occasion of his decree: Pelagius of purpose declareth those c 1.488 to have beene the true writings of Theodorus, and conso∣nant to his doctrine; and that hee proveth by the testimonies of the Armenian Bishops, of Proclus, of Iohn of Antioch, of Cyrill, of Rambulas, of Honoratus a Bishop of Cilicia, (and so a neighbor of Mopsvestia which is in the same d 1.489 Province,) of Hesychius, of The∣odosius, and Valentinian the Emperours, and of Theodoret, then whom not any (except perhaps Nestorius) was more devoted to Theodorus; insomuch that he is thought to have taken from The∣odorus the name of Theodoret. After which cloud of witnesses produced, Pelagius thus concludeth e 1.490, 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 Councells, Bishops, Emperors, Popes, of the same, of succeeding ages, yea against the consenting judgement of the catholike Church, shall not onely doubt, whether Theodorus be the author of those here∣ticall and blasphemous assertions and writings: but by his Apo∣stolicall Constitution decree it to bee an injury to ascribe those

blasphemies unto him, or for them to condemne him, (as the whole Church, ever since the Ephesine Councell hath done) doth it not argue, nay demonstrate an hereticall, and most extreme distemper in the Popes judgment, and in his cathedrall sentence at that time.

34. The other point which Vigilius observeth out of the E∣phesine Councel is worse then this, for as yet he hath onely found that Theodorus was not de facto condemned by the Ephesine Sy∣node; but in the next place, he will finde by that Councell, that Theodorus, de jure ought not to bee condemned. To which pur∣pose he saith f 1.491, that Cyrill (and so the Ephesine Synode consenting to him as President) would not have the name of Theodorus con∣tained in the Synodall Acts at Ephesus: propter regulam quae de mortuis in sacerdotio servanda est, for the rule which is to bee kept in such Bishops as are dead. And that rule he explaines in the words following, to be this, that the dead should not bee condemned, nor should the living bend their bow against ashes, or insult o∣ver the dead, whereby Vigilius even by his Apostolicall decree, ad∣judgeth both Cyrill, and the whole Ephesine Councell consenting therein with him, to have beleeved and held a condemned here∣sie, as an Ecclesiasticall rule, or rule of their faith and actions; That one who is dead may not bee condemned: and so by the Popes Constitution both Cyrill and the holy Ephesine Synode were heretikes. Such worthy points doe the Popes finde when they use their art, and industry, to review ancient writings, with a reference to their owne determinations, and so easie was it for Vigilius to finde the Ephesine Councell, first injurious to the dead, and then hereticall in a doctrine or rule concerning the dead.

35. The very like he found also in the Councell of Chalcedon, that Theodorus ought not to be condemned. His reason is this; Iohn g 1.492 Bishop of Antioch, writ a letter to the Emperor Theodosius in excuse of Theodorus of Mopsvestia, ne post mortem damnari de∣beret, that he ought not to bee condemned after his death. Now this letter of Iohn, Venerabiliter memoratur, is with honour, (not onely with allowance and liking) remembred by the Councell of Chalce∣don, in their Relation, or Synodall Epistle to the Emperour Mar∣tianus. Whence Vigilius collecteth, that seeing the Councell with reverence, embraceth that letter of Iohn, and that letter importeth, that Theodorus being dead, ought not to be condem∣ned; therefore the Councell judgeth that none who are dead, and particularly, that Theodorus ought not to bee 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 1.493 it downe almost totidem verbis: Iohn saith he, writ three letters in the behalfe of Theodorus of Mops∣vestia, praising in them Theodorus, and declaring his wisedome; one of those letters he sent to the Emperour Theodosius, another

to Cyrill, the third to Proclus. Now the first, and third, contai∣ning the praises of Theodorus, the Councell of Chalcedon, in their Relation to Martianus the Emperour, did i 1.494 embrace, and con∣firme. Thus Liberatus agreeing wholly herein, as you see, with Vigilius.

36. For answer of which reason of Vigilius, I will intreat you to spare my labour, and heare how fully, and soundly Cardinall Baronius doth refute it; but yet so, that hee will not seeme to taxe, or touch Vigilius; that had beene great insolency, and in∣civilitie in a Cardinall; but he payes the Deacon home to the full, who saith but the very same with the Pope: Liberatus, saith k 1.495 hee, borrowed this narration of I know not what Nestorian, & incautè nimis; and he affirmes too indiscreetly, that the writings of Theodorus were praised in the letters of Iohn, Bishop of Anti∣och; and, which is farre worse, that those letters of Iohn, contai∣ning the praises of Theodosius, were received, and confirmed by the Councell of Chalcedon, in their Relation to Martianus; for by that meanes, adducit in idem crimen, he makes the whole Councell of Chalcedon guilty of the same crime; to wit, of approving the prai∣ses & doctrine of Theodorus. So Baronius. By whō it is cleare, that Vigilius (saying the same w^th Liberatus) makes the whole Coūce I of Chalcedon guilty of the same crime; that is, in plaine termes a∣voucheth them to be hereticall: Videsne, saith the l 1.496 Cardinall, quot, & quales lateant colubri sub uno cespite? Doe not you see how many, and how vile, and venemous snakes lye hid under this one turfe, or tuft of untruth? And that very tuft, hath Pope Vigilius chosen to build up, and beautifie with it his Apostolicall decree. Now, if under that one turfe there lurke (as indeed there doth, and the Cardinall acknowledgeth,) so great a number of Vipers; what infinite, and innumerable heapes of most deadly, and poisonfull untruths, are compacted into the whole body of his Apostolicall Constitution, which containeth (if one listed narrowly to ex∣amine it) more than a thousand like turfes; nay, beyond compa∣rison worse than this.

37. But the Cardinall hath not yet done with Liberatus; Let us, saith m 1.497 hee, put the Axe to the roote of the tree; and citing the very words of the Councell, 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 1.498explaneth, saying, That which Liberatus affirmeth, that the Councell of Chalcedon recei∣ved the praises of Theodorus, is not onely untroue, sed etiam ipsi relationi Synodic ae contraria; but it is plainly contrary to the Synodall Relation of the Councell at Chalcedon, to which Liberatus referreth himselfe: Change but the name, and all this is everie whit as forcible against Vigilius, as against Liberatus. But the Cardinall had well learned the old lesson, Dat veniam corvis vexat censura columbas; the Pope offends more than any, but the poore Dea∣con must feele the smart, and beare all the blowes; and yet by

your leave, through the Deacons sides the Cardinall hath cun∣ningly given a deadly wound, and cut the very roote of the Popes Apostolicall decree; although he will not bee thought so unmannerly, as once to touch his Holinesse, or speake one sylla∣ble against him.

38. After Fathers, and Councels, Vigilius will next finde, that the Emperour Iustinian himselfe, who was so earnest in condem∣ning Theodorus, doth yet teach, that Theodorus ought not to bee condemned; and how proves hee this? You, saith o 1.499 Vigilius to the Emperour, laudabiliter adduxistis, have with praise and approba∣tion alleaged that Relation of the Councell of Chalcedon in your law, de sancta Trinitate. Seeing then that Relation of the Coun∣cell approveth the letters of Iohn, and the letters of Iohn, shew, that Theodorus being dead, ought not to bee condemned; the Pope from hence inferreth, that by Iustinians own law approving that Relation, Theodorus ought not to be condemned. It were very easie with Baronius Hatchet to chop off this reason, and cut it up by the roote, seeing neither Iohns letters did teach that Theodorus, being dead, might not be condemned; nor did the Councell, in their Relation approve, either the person, or do∣ctrine, or any praises of Theodorus, or so much as mention him: But I will not trouble the Cardinall in so easie a matter as this. Besides all the inconsequences in this reason, Iustinian is so farre from teaching, or thinking this, so much as in a dreame, that in the same title, p 1.500 de Summa Trinitate, & fide Catholica, (which seemes to be that which Vigilius intended) he accurseth all here∣sies, and specially that of Nestorius; and all, qui eadem cum ipso sentiunt, vel senserunt; who either doe thinke, or have thought as Ne∣storius did; in which number Theodorus of Mopsvestia to be com∣prehended, not onely by that which we have said before, is ma∣nifest; but even by Iustinian himselfe, who expresly witnesseth, Theodorus q 1.501 to have thought so, and to have r 1.502 dyed in that hereticall opinion; and for that very cause doth he condemne, and accurse him. Now seeing that law, de Summa Trinitate, was published in the seventh yeare of Iustinians raigne, (as by the s 1.503 date appeareth) and sent into twelve severall Provinces; seeing, after this, Iustini∣an, in his twentieth t 1.504 yeare, set forth another Edict u 1.505 concerning these three Chapters, wherein he particularly, and by name ana∣thematizeth y 1.506 Theodorus; nor him onely, but all that defend him; yea, all, who doe not anathematize him; out of which number Vigilius himselfe is not exempted, seeing he remained so constant in this truth, that after Vigilius had published his Constitution, both himselfe signified to the fift Councell, that he still persisted in condemning the three Chapters, one of which was the condem∣ning of Theodorus; and the whole fift Synod testified the same, saying in their seventh Collation, semper z 1.507 fecit, & facit, the Em∣perour hath ever done, and now continueth to doe, that which preser∣veth the holy Church, and true faith: Was it not a very strange thing in Vigilius to pretend in his Constitution, that by the Empe∣rours

owne law, Theodorus ought not be condemned; whereas by the Emperours Edict, not onely Theodorus by name; but all, who defend him, even Vigilius himselfe, eo nomine, because he defen∣deth him, is condemned, and anathematized.

39. And now you have seene all that Vigilius bringeth for defence of Theodorus, all that hee found after his most diligent search of the Fathers, Councels, 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 ought that tended to the truth, came in his way, and offered it selfe unto him, he then lockt up his eyes, and kept them fast in a basket; but when, or where ought that tended to nestorianisme, and the defence of a condemned heretike, might in a likelihood be found; then he put his eyes in his head, and be∣came as quicksighted, as the Serpent of Epidaurus. The wri∣tings of Cyril, and Proclus, condemning Theodorus for an heretike, worse than either Iew, or Pagan, the Councels of Ephesus, of Armenia, of Chalcedon, anathematizing him; the Imperiall lawes of Theodosius, commanding all memory of him to bee abolished, & his heretical books to be burned; the expunging his name out of the Ecclesiasticall tables, even in that Church, where hee had beene Bishop; and a number the like; none of all these could Vigilius, in his most diligent inquisition, finde or see: why, the Lamia had lockt up his eyes against all these publike, and known evidences, and records. But when the base Counterfeits, forged in the name of Cyrill, and Proclus; when the depraving, or calumniating the Councels of Ephesus, of Chalcedon, and of Iusti∣nian, as being maintainers of a condemned heresie: when these, or the like might be found, oh the Pope saw these at the first; his eyes were now as cleare, as the sight of Linceus, he could spie these through a Milstone; nay, which is more, hee could see them, though there were no such matters at all to bee seene: And truly, if you well consider, there was good reason why hee should see the one, and not the other. For the Pope saw the Epistle of Ibas to bee orthodoxall, and to be approved by the Councell of Chalcedon; he saw in that Epistle Theodorus to be cal∣led a a 1.508 Saint, a Preacher of the truth, a Doctor of the Church; Now it had beene an exceeding incongruity, to see a condemned Saint, an accursed Saint, an hereticall, or blasphemous Saint; It was not for the Popes wisedome to see such a Saint, and therefore at all such sights, up with the eyes, locke them fast, that they see none of those ugly, and offensive sights; nothing of the condemning, of the accursing, of the heresies, and blasphe∣mies of Theodorus. So bewitched was the Pope with Nestoria∣nisme 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 feare, in examining this first Chapter, touching Theodorus; but I was very loath to let any ma∣teriall point passe, without due triall, or before I had shaken a∣sunder every joint, and parcell of the Popes Constitution in this cause, and fully manifested, how erronious his Apostolicall decree is, as well in doctrinall, as personall matters. That Theodorus was dead, is personall; but that none after death may bee condemned for an heretike, is doctrinall; yea, an heresie in the doctrine of faith. That Theodorus dyed in the peace of the Church, is an er∣rour personall; but that Theodorus therefore dyed in the peace of the Church, because he was not in his life time condemned by the expresse sentēce of the Church; or, that any dying in heresie, as Theodorus did, doe die in the peace of the Church, are errours doctrinall. That Theodorus was not by the former Fathers, and Councels condēned, is a personall error; but that Theodorus by the judgement of the Fathers, & Councels, ought not after his death to be condemned, is doctrinall; even a condemning of the Coun∣cels of Ephesus, and Chalcedon, as guilty of beleeving, and teaching an heresie. So many wayes is the Popes sentence, in this first Chapter, erronious in faith; of which Baronius most vainely pre∣tendeth, that it is no cause of faith, no such cause as doth con∣cerne the faith.

41. There now remaineth nothing of Vigilius decree con∣cerning this first Chapter, but his conclusion of the same: And al∣though that must needs of it selfe fall downe, when all the rea∣sons, on which it relyeth, and by which onely it is supported, are ruinated, or overthrowne; yet if you please, let us take a short view of it also, rather to explane, than refute the same. His con∣clusion hath two branches, the former is, that in regard of the foresaid reasons, nostrâ b 1.509 eum non audemus damnare sententia, wee•• dare not condemne Theodorus by our sentence, wee dare not doe it, saith Vigilius.

42. Oh how faint-hearted, pusillanimous, and dastardly was the Pope in this cause; Cyrill, the c 1.510 head of the generall Councell: Proclus, a most d 1.511 holy Bishop, whose Epistle, as Liberatus e 1.512 saith, the Councell of Chalcedon approved: Rambulas, the piller of the Church: the religious Emperours Theodorus, and Valentinian; the Church of Mopsvestia, the Councels of Ephesus, of Armenia, of Chalcedon, the whole Catholike Church ever since the Ephesine Synod, both durst, and did condemne Theodorus: and, besides these, Baronius, and Binius, two of the most artificiall Gnathoni∣zing Parasites of the Pope, even they durst, and did, even in set∣ting downe the very Constitution of Vigilius, cal f 1.513 Theodorus, more than forty times, an heretike, a craftie, impious, madde, pro∣phane, blasphemous, execrable heretike; onely Pope Vigilius hath not the heart, nor courage; hee onely with his sectators, dare not call him, nor cōdemne him for an heretike; we dare not condemne him by our sentence.

43. And yet when Vigilius saw good, hee who durst not doe this, durst doe a greater matter, he durst doe that which not any of all the former, nay which they all put together, never durst doe. Vigilius durst defend both an heresie, and a condemned and anathematized heretike, he durst commend forged, and he∣reticall writings, under the name of holy Fathers, hee durst ap∣prove that Epistle, wherein an heretike is called, and honoured for a Saint; he durst, contrary to the Imperiall and godly Edict of Theodosius, contrary to the judgements of the holy generall Councells, defend Theodorus, honor his memorie, yea honor him as a teacher of truth while he lived, as a Saint being dead; These things none of all the former ever durst doe: in these Vigilius is more bold and audacious then they are all.

44. Whence thinke you proceeded this contrariety of passi∣ons in Vigilius, that made him sometimes more bold then a Ly∣on, and other times more timerous then an Hare? Truely even from hence: As Vigilius had no eyes to see ought, but what favo∣red Nestorianisme, so hee had not the heart to doe ought which did not uphold Nestorianisme. If a Catholike truth met him, or the sweet influence thereof hapned to breath upon him, Vigi∣lius could not endure it, the Popes heart fainted at the smell thereof: but when the Nestorian heresie 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 1.514 is said to feed on dung, but to dye at the sent of a Rose▪ So the filth of Nestorianisme was meat, and drinke to the Pope, it was vita vitalis unto him; but the fragrant and most odoriferous sent of the catholike truth, was poison, it was even death to this Beetle. So truly was it fulfilled in him, which the Prophet saith h 1.515, they bend their tongues for lyes, but they have no courage for the truth: we dare not condemne Theodorus by our sentence.

45. The other branch of the Popes conclusion is, Sed i 1.516 nec ab alio quopiam condemnari concedimus, neither doe wee permit that any other shall condemne Theodorus: Nay we decree k 1.517 that none else shall speake, write, or teach otherwise, then we doe herein. As much in effect, as if the Pope had definitively decreed, wee per∣mit, or suffer no man whatsoever, to teach or beleeve what Cy∣rill, what Proclus, what the whole generall Councells of Ephesus and Chalcedon: that is, what all Catholikes, and the whole Ca∣tholike Church hath done, taught and beleeved: we permit, nay we command, and by this our Apostolicall Constitution, decree, that they shall be heretikes, and defend both an heresie, (that no dead man may be condemned) and condemned heretikes, in de∣fending Theodorus, yea defending him for a Saint, and teacher of truth: This we permit, command, and decree, that they shall doe; but to doe otherwise, to condemne Theodorus, or a dead man, that by no meanes doe we permit or suffer it to bee lawfull unto them.

46. And as if all this were not sufficient, the Pope addes one other clause more execrable, then all the former; for having re∣cited those threescore hereticall assertions, which as we have de∣clared, were all collected out of the true, and indubitate writings of Theodorus, he adjoynes, l 1.518 Anathematizamus omnem, wee accurse and anathematize 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, then 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 hee had said, We anathematize, and accurse Saint Cyrill, Saint Pro∣clus, Saint Rambulas, Saint Acatius, the Synode of Armenia, the generall Councells of Ephesus, of Chalcedon, of Constantinople in the time of Iustinian; yea even the whole catholike Church, which hath approved those holy Councells: all these out of those very impieties, which Vigilius mentioneth, have condem∣ned Theodorus, them all for wronging, and condemning Theodo∣rus for those impieties, we doe anathematize, and accurse, saith Vigilius.

47. Consider now seriously with your selves of what faith and religion they are, who hold (and so doe all the members of the present Romane Church,) this for a position or foundation of faith, that whatsoever any Pope doth judicially, and by his Apostolike authority define in such causes, is true, is infallible, is with certainty of faith to bee beleeved and embraced: Let all the rest be omitted, embrace but this one decree of Vigilius, nay but this one passage or parcell of his decree touching this first Chapter which concernes Theodorus; yet by approving this one, they demonstrate themselves, not onely to renounce, but with Vigilius to condemne, accurse, and anathematize both the Catholike faith, and the Catholike Church: yea to accurse all who doe not accurse them, which because none but An∣ti-Christ, and his hereticall adherents can doe, they demon∣strate againe hereby their Church to bee hereticall, cata∣catholike, and Anti-Christian, such as not onely hateth, but accurseth the holy, and truly Catholike Church of Christ. But the curse m 1.519 that is causlesse shall not come. Nay, God doth, and for ever will turne their cursings into blessings. Blessed are n 1.520 yee, when for my sake, (for professing and maintaining my truth) men revile you, and speake evill of you. Let Balak hire with hous-fulls of gold: Let the Romane Balaam for the wages of iniquity attempt never so oft, on this hill, on that moun∣taine, or wheresoever hee sets up his altars to curse the Church of GOD, the Lord o 1.521 will turne the curse into a blessing unto them: for, there is no sorcery p 1.522 against Iacob, no curse, no charme, nor incantation, against Israell. Nay their curses shall fall on their owne heads and returne into their owne bosomes, but peace, and the blessings of peace shall bee upon Israel. For

blessed q 1.523 shall hee bee that blesseth thee, and cursed is hee that curseth thee.

CHAP. IX. That Vigilius besides divers personall, held a doctrinall errour in ••aith, in his defence of the second Chapter, which concernes the writings of Theodoret against Cyrill.

1. THere was some shadow of reason to thinke, that the former Chapter was a personall 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 personall, and not wholy doctrinall; who in all the fift Councell once doubted of the persons of Theodoret, or Ibas, whether they were Catholikes, after their anathematizing of Nestorius in the Councell of Chalcedon? The onely question about them was, whether the writings of Theodoret against Cyrill were to bee condemned, which the Pope denyeth, and the holy Councell affirmeth, and whether the Epistle of Ibas was Orthodoxall, or he by it known to be Orthodoxal, which the Pope affirmeth, and the holy Coun∣cell denyeth. The question about them, no way concerned their persons, but onely their writings. And it might be a wonder that Baronius should have the face to say, that the cause in these two Chapters was onely personall, if it were not daily seene by expe∣rience that necessitas cogit ad turpia, mere necessity enforced the Cardinall to use any though never so untrue, never so unlikely excuses for Vigilius.

2. There are I confesse divers personall matters, and questi∣ons of facts, which concernes 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 needfull to say somewhat of them also; partly for more illustra∣tion of the cause of faith, & specially that we may see how foully Vigilius and Baronius have erred, not onely in doctrinall causes, which are more obscure, but even in those personall matters, which had beene easie, and obvious, if they had not shut their eyes against the truth.

3. Concerning the second Chapter, the Popes decree herein relyeth, and is grounded, on three personall points, or matters of fact. The first is, that Vigilius would perswade, that Theodoret was not the author of those writings against Cyrill, and against his twelve Chapters or Anathematizmes a 1.524, which containing a just condemnation of the twelve hereticall assertions of Nesto∣rius,

were approved both by the Councell of Ephesus b 1.525, and Chal∣cedon c 1.526. To which purpose he calls them not Theodorets, but wri∣tings, quae d 1.527 sub Theodoreti nomine proferuntur, which are set forth un∣der the name of Theodoret. And againe, the reprose of the 12. Chap∣ters of Cyrill: à Theodoreto e 1.528 ut putatur ingesta, made as is thought by Theodoret: adding f 1.529 this as one reason, why the Councell of Chal∣cedon, did not cōdemne those writings, because they having those matters which were done but of late before their eyes, Theodore∣tum nihil tale fecisse probaverunt, did judge that Theodoret had written no such thing. Thus Vigilius pretending those writings against Cyrill not to be Theodorets, and that the Councell of Chalcedon al∣so thought the same: whence he would inferre, (and justly upon this supposall) that Theodorets name ought not to bee blemished by those writings which were none of his.

4. Not his? why Theodoret is knowne, and testified by so ma∣ny, to have beene so eager and violent in defence of Nestorius, and his heresie, and so spitefull both in words, and writings a∣gainst Cyrill, and all orthodoxall 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. Witnesse Binius, Iohn of Antioch, saith he, g 1.530 perswaded Theodoret, that hee should with all his art and skill oppugne and refute those 12 Anathema∣tizmes of Cyrill. Theodoret being as much an enemy to Cyrill, as was Iohn himselfe, willingly yeelded to his petition, and by manifest sycophancy wrested every one of Cyrills Chapters from their true, genuine, and orthodoxall, to a false, preposterous, and here∣ticall sense, and Enoptius sent that refutation of Theodoret unto Cyrill. Againe, h 1.531 Theodoret did once defend Theodorus and Nesto∣rius, two most pestiferous Arch-heretikes against Cyrill. Yea Binius saith, defendit constantissimè, he defended them most constant∣ly, as if to defend heresie, were with these men not pertinacie, but constancy, witnesse Baronius. Theodoret saith he i 1.532 being most addicted to Theodorus, shadowed his praise, by his friendship with Ne∣storius, but he utterly darkned it by his undertaking of the defence of that Arch-heretike against Cyrill. And againe k 1.533, Theodoret being at that time the patron of Nestorius, and an oppugner of the Catholike faith, throweth his darts against the Chapters of Cyrill, and by new writings doth oppugne them; crying out in his letters to the Bishops of Millaine of Aquilcia, and of Ravenna, that Cyrill renewed the he∣resie of Apollinaris.

5. Witnesse (men of better note then the former) Liberatus, who saith,l 1.534 that Iohn of Antioch commanded two Bishops, Andreas & Theodoret, that they should write against the 12. Chapters of Cyrill, blaming him as one who renewed the heresie of Apollinaris: and that Theodoret consented, the event made manifest. Pope Pelagi∣us, who saith m 1.535 that Theodoret, monstratur scripsisse, is de∣monstrated and certainly knowne to have written against the twelve Chapters of Cyrill, and against the true Faith.

The Acts of the Ephesine Councell, wherein n 1.536 is recorded the verie refutation of those twelve Chapters by Theodoret, and the answere of Cyrill unto it▪ the one still called, Theodoreti repre∣hensio; and the other, Cyrilli adversus Theodoretum refutatio; Cy∣rill, who, in his Epistle o 1.537 to Eulogius, faith thus, You have my re∣futation which I set forth against Andreas, and Theodoret, who writ against my Chapters.

6. Witnesse Theodoret himselfe, who, in sundrie of his Epistles, testifieth his spleene, and spight against Cyrill, and the Catholike faith. In p 1.538 one of them to Nestorius he professeth his most per∣verse, and pertinacious resolution to abide in that heresie of Ne∣storius; I wil never, saith he, while I live, consent to those things which are done against you, and against the law: (so hee taxeth, not onely the Chapters of Cyrill, 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 Iohn, the Bishop of Antioch; We q 1.539 continue still, saith he, contradicting the twelve Chapters, ut alienis à pietate, as being contrary to pietie: In another to Aemeri∣us, Wee r 1.540 ought not to consent to the condemnation of the ve∣nerable, and most holy Bishop Nestorius: in another to s 1.541 Alexander, I told you before, that the doctrine of my venerable, and most holy Bi∣shop Nestorius hath beene 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 1.542 Andreas, his fellow oppugner of those Chapters. Insanit iterum Aegyptus adversus Deum; Aegypt is againe madde against the Lord, and makes warre with Moses, and Aaron, the servants of God: As if Nesto∣rius, and his fellow-heretikes were the onely Israel; but Cyrill, Bi∣shop of Alexandria in Aegypt; and the holy Ephesine Councell, and all Catholikes who held with them, were no other but Pharao, and his Aegyptian troupes, which fought against GODS people.

7. Doe we yet desire more, or more pregnant, and ample testimonies in this matter? Take this one out of the acts of Chal∣cedon: When Theodoret, being called, came first into the Synod, the most reverend Bishops of Aegypt, Illirium, and u 1.543 Palestine, cry∣ed 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 orthodoxall Councell doth not re∣ceive Theodoret: Call him not a Bishop, he is no Bishop, hee is an op∣pugner of God, he is a Iew, thrust him out: he accused, he anathemati∣zed Cyrill; If we receive him, we reject Cyrill; The Canons exclude him, God doth detest him. Thus cryed out the Bishops against Theodoret, before they knew him to have renounced the heresie of Nestori∣us, which he had so long, and so eagerly defended: nor were they pacified otherwise, but that Theodoret, at the appointment of the Iudges, should sit onely as an accuser of Dioscorus, not as one having judicatorie power, or a decisive suffrage, till his owne

cause was fully examined, and heard. Seeing now there are be∣sides, many other which I willingly omit, so many, so evident, so obvious, so undeniable proofes, that Theodoret writ against Cy∣rill, and against his twelve Chapters, in defence of Nestorius, and his heresie; what can one thinke of Vigilius, but that he wilfully, and wittingly resisted the truth, while he, not onely strives to perswade, that Theodoret writ no such thing, and that the Coun∣cell of Chalcedon thought so; but takes this knowne, and palpa∣ble untruth, for one of the grounds of his Apostolicall decree touching this second Chapter.

8. And yet there is a worse matter in this very passage of Vi∣gilius, and that is, the reason whereby he proveth, that Theodo∣ret writ not against Cyrill, or in defence of Nestorius; you shall heare it in his owne words: It is, saith x 1.544 he, undoubtedly repugnant to the judgement of the Councell of Chalcedon, that any Nestorian do∣ctrines should be condemned under the name of that Bishop (Theodo∣ret) 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 ijs similia sapuisse Nestorio: for to say, that any of them who were in that Councell, had thought as Nestorius did, is nothing else then to shew or affirme those Fathers in the Councell of Chalcedon to be lyers, and dissemblers in faith, as condemning that faith which they doe allow. Thus reasoneth Vigilius, who hence im∣plyeth, that seeing Theodoret was one of the Bishops, and Fathers at Chalcedon, if he ever writ any such things in defence of Ne∣storius, then both he, and the rest admitting him, should dissem∣ble in their faith, and lye; professing to condemne Nestorius, and yet approving him, who had writ in defence of Nestorius.

9. Truly I doe even admire, to consider the blindnesse of Vi∣gilius in this whole cause of the three Chapters. Most certaine it is, as we have shewed, that Theodoret did both thinke as Nestorius, and write in defence of him, and his heresie, and that the Coun∣cell of Chalcedon knew he did so: If then to receive such an one, as they knew Theodoret to have beene, be, as Vigilius saith, a dis∣sembling, and lying in the faith; the whole Councell of Chalce∣don, by the Popes judgement, and decree, were undoubtedly all lyers, and dissemblers in the faith; a calumnie and slander so vile, and incredible, that it alone should cause any Catholike minde to detest this Apostolicall Constitution of Vigilius: But to say truth, the Popes reason is without al reason. Had the holy Coū∣cell admitted Theodoret before he had renounced his heresie, 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 himselfe of heresie, hee was, as we have declared, no otherwise admitted, than onely as a plain∣tiffe,

who y 1.545 accused Dioscorus for injuriously deposing him, and placing another in his See. And in the eight Action, wherein hee came to cleare himselfe, and to be reconciled to the Church, he had no sooner almost set his foot in the Synod, but the Bishops cry∣ed z 1.546 out, Theodoretus modo anathematizet Nestorium; let Theodo∣ret forthwith anathematize Nestorius: let him doe it instantly and without any delay. And when Theodoret to give the Councell better satisfaction offered them first a book to reade containing the sincere profession of his faith; and when (that being a 1.547 refused) he purposed at large by words b 1.548 to have expressed the same; the Synod suspecting the worst, and that hee used those delayes, as being loath to anathematize Nestorius, cryed out, He is an heretike, he is a Nestorian, haereticum for as mitte, out with the heretike; and so they had indeed thrust him out, but that he leaving all circuition, presently before them all, cryed, Anathema to Nestorius; Anathe∣ma to him, who doth not confesse the blessed Virgin to bee the Mother of God: with which profession the Synod being fully sa∣tisfied, the glorious Iudges said, omnis dubitatio, now all doubt is quite taken away concerning Theodoret; and then the Synod both received him into their communion, as an orthodoxe, and resto∣red him to his See, from which in the Ephesine latrocinie, hee was deposed, they all crying out, Theodoret is worthy of his See; let his Church receive their orthodoxall Bishop: To Theodoret, a Catholike Doctor, let the Church be restored.

10. What greater detestation of heresie could the Synod pos∣sibly shew, what greater tokens of the sinceritie of his faith, could either Theodoret expresse, or the Synod require. It was too great rashnesse, if not simplicitie in Vigilius to collect that the holy Councell did dissemble in their faith, because they recei∣ved him who had sometimes swarved in the faith; The hereti∣call Theodoret, they exclude and reject, the orthodoxall Theodo∣ret they reverence and embrace. That which Saint Austen c 1.549 saith in another cause, that the husband who had put away his adulterous wife, ought againe to receive her being purged by unfained repentance, but so receive her, non ut post viri divortium adultera revocetur, sed ut post Christi consortium adultera non vocetur, that same may bee accommodated to any other offence, and not unfitly to this of heresie, and the repentant hereticke; whom they before, for that cause had from themselves disioyned; but they neither call, nor count him an hereticke, whom Christ hath now upon his repen∣tance unto himselfe conjoyned. So neither is the Popes reason consequent, that the Councell did dissemble in their receiving of Theodoret, nor his conclusion true, which he would thence in∣ferre, that Theodoret writ not against Cyrill and the Catholike faith.

11 The second personall matter which Vigilius taketh for another ground of his decree is, that neither Theodoret himselfe did, nor did the Councell of Chalcedon, require him to anathe∣matize

his writings:d 1.550 There was, saith he, divers in the Councell of Chalcedon who said, that Theodoret had anathematized Cyrill, and was an heretike; yet those holy Fathers most diligently examining this cause of Theodoret, nihil aliud ab eo exigisse noscuntur, are knowne to have required no more of him, than that hee should anathematize Nestorius, and his impious doctrines; hoc sibi tantummodo suffice∣re judicantes; judging this alone to be sufficient for them to receive Theodoret. Now it is unfit, saith e 1.551 he further, nos aliquid quaere∣re velut omissum à patribus, that we should seeke or require more than did the Councell of Chalcedon; as if they had omitted any thing in this cause of Theodoret: seeing then they required no ana∣thematizing of his writings against Cyrill, neither ought any others to anathematize, or require of any the anathematizing of the same.

12. As you saw Vigilius in the former Chapter to use hareti∣ca astutia; so may any man here easily discerne, that hee useth an evident, and fallacious sophistication. The Councell indeed required not that, nor did Theodoret in explicite, or expresse termes performe it, saying, I anathematize my owne writings against Cyrill; but in implicite termes, in effect, and by an evi∣dent consequent, both the Councell required, and Theodoret per∣formed this before them all; for, hee subscribed f 1.552 to the definition of faith decreed at Chalcedon: one part of that definition is the ap∣proveing g 1.553 of the Synodall Epistles of Cyrill: a part of one of those Epistles h 1.554 are the twelve Chapters of Cyrill, which Theo∣doret refuted: in every one of those chapters, is an anathema de∣nounced to the defenders of the contrarie doctrine: Then cer∣tainely, Theodoret by subscribing to the definition, subscribed to the Epistles of Cyrill, by them to the twelve chapters, and by doing so he condemned, and anathemized all who oppugned those twelve chapters, and then undoubtedly, his owne writings which were published, as a confutation of those twelve chap∣ters. And it seemes strange, that Vigilius professing that Theo∣doret did devota mente suscipere, with a dovout affection receive and approve the Epistles of Cyrill, and the doctrine of them, could deny or be ignorant, that in doing so he did anathematize his owne writings, which by the twelve chapters of Cyrill, are ana∣thematized.

13. Besides this, how often, how plainely doth the Councell of Chalcedon i 1.555 require, and urge Theodoret to anathematize Nesto∣rius and his doctrines? how willingly did Theodoret performe this? What else is this, but a vertuall, and implicite anathe∣matizing of those his owne writings against Cyrill w^ch defended Nestorius and his doctrines? None can anathematize the for∣mer, but eo ipso he doth most certainely (though not expresly) a∣nathematize the later; as on the contrary, none can say (as Vigi∣lius doth, and decreeth, that all shall doe the like) none can say that the writings of Theodoret against Cyrill, and his twelve chap∣ters

ought not to be anathematized, but eo ipso, even by saying so, he doth most certainly (though but implicitè and by conse∣quent) say that Nestorius and his heresie, ought not to be condem∣ned. A truth so cleare that Pope Pelagius k 1.556 from his anathema∣tizing of Nestorius and his doctrine, concludeth of Theodoret: Con∣stat eundem, it is manifest, that in doing this, he condemned his owne writings against the twelve Chapters of Cyrill.

14. Neither is that true which Vigilius fancied, that to require men to anathematize the writings of Theodoret, is to seeke, and require more then the Councell of Chalcedon required: It is not. It is but requiring the selfe same thing to be done in actuall and expresse termes, which the Councel required and Theodoret per∣formed in vertuall and implicite termes. The thing required and done is the same: the manner onely of doing it, or requiring it to be done, is different: Even as to require of men to professe Christ to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which the Councell of Nice, and the Church ever since requireth, is not to require them to professe more, or ought else, then the Scripture teacheth, and all catholikes l 1.557 be∣fore professed, by those words, I and my Father are one: but it is a requiring of an explicite profession of that truth concerning the unity of substance of the Father, and the Sonne, which by those words of Scripture they did before implicitè professe.

15. But yet at least will some of Vigilius friends reply, it was unfit to require this explicite anathematizing of Theodorets wri∣tings, seeing the Councell of Chalcedon did not require it. No, not so neither. The explicite condemning of them, was not on∣ly fit, but necessarie at that time, in the dayes of Iustinian, and Vi∣gilius; For as when the Arians denyed Christ to bee 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, it was enough for one to cleare himselfe of Arianisme, to say, that he held this text for true, I and the Father are one, though therein he doe implicitè professe Christ to bee 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and though to have professed that alone, before the question about the unity of one substance was moved, had beene sufficient; but now he must explicitè professe that truth which is explicitè denyed and oppug∣ned: even so it is in this cause of Theodorets writings, and all like it. While there was no doubt moved by heretikes, whether those writings of his ought to be condemned; and whether by the Councell of Chalcedon they were condemed or no, so long it was sufficient for one to professe that he condemned Nestorius, and subscribed to the definition of Chalcedon; both which were implicite condemning of those writings of Theodoret: but when the Nestorians began to boast, that Theodorets writings against Cyrill, neither were condemned, but rather with the author of them approved by the Councell of Chalcedon, neither ought to be condemned, the Church now was necessarily enforced to re∣quire of all men a profession of that truth in plaine and explicite termes, which before they made onely in generall and implicite. Nor could Vigilius, or any other Nestorian, who refused in ex∣presse manner to condemne the writings of Theodoret, purge him∣selfe

of that heresie of Nestorius at this time, by saying they approved the definition of Chalcedon, or condemned Nestorius; though in both these they did implicitè condemne the writings of Theodoret, but now they must expresly professe that which the heretikes expresly denyed, they must in plaine termes anathe∣matize those hereticall writings of Theodoret, and acknowledge them to have bin anathematized by the Councel of Chalcedon, as the heretiks in plaine termes vaūted, that neither they ought nor were anathematized, but approved by the Councel of Chalcedon, whensoever any point tending to the impeaching of faith begins explicitè to be denyed, the holy Church may not then content her selfe in generall and implicitè to condemne the same, (few perhaps can perceive that, and many will make that generality of termes, as Vigilius and other Nestorians now did, but a cloak for their heresie) but the Church must now in most plaine, easie, and expressed manner that can be devised, both teach, declare, and define the same. This the Church did in this fift Councell, as in the other two, so in this Chapter touching Theodorets wri∣tings. It taught but the very same which the Councell of Chal∣cedon had done before it, anathematized those his writings, which at Chalcedon were anathematized before, but they did this now in a plaine manner and explicitè, which by the Councell o•• Chal∣cedon only in an obscure manner, and implicitè was done before.

16. The third personall errour which Vigilius m 1.558 taketh for a ground of his decree, is that Cyrill himselfe though he was so ex∣ceedingly injured by the writings of those Easterne Bishops that tooke part with Nestorius, yet when he made union with them, he required them not to anathematize their owne writings, but overpast them in silence, as if there had never beene any such: whence Vigilius inferreth, that neither ought this anathemati∣zing of their writings (by name of Theodorets) bee required by others, yea he saith, the Fathers of Chalcedon imitated this ex∣ample of Cyrill, and so would not require that of Theodoret, which they saw Cyrill not to have required of others.

17. The answer is easie by that which hath beene declared: this saying of Vigilius laboureth of the same equivocall sophisti∣cation, as did the former; for both Cyrill required, and all who were united unto him, and received into his, which was the com∣munion of the Catholike Church; they all did, though not in ex∣plicite termes, which then was not needfull; yet vertually, and af∣ter a certaine, and undoubted, though implicite manner, con∣demne; and anathematize all their writings against Cyrill, and the Catholike faith; for he received none till they had anathe∣matized the doctrines of Nestorius. This doth Cyril himselfe most plainly witnesse in his Epistle to n 1.559 Dynatus; I would not, saith he, admit Paulus Bishop of Emisa into communion, priusquam Nestorij dogmata proprio chyrographo anathematizasset; untill hee had anathe∣matized by his owne hand-writing the doctrines of Nestorius: And he intreated me in behalfe of the other Bishops, that I would

rest contented with that profession which they had sent, and re∣quire no more: nulla ratione id fieri passus, I would by no meanes yeeld unto that, but I sent them a profession of faith; and when Iohn 8. of Antioch, caeterique, and the rest with him, had anathematized the doctrine of Nestorius, then, and not before, communionem illis resti∣tuimus, 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 heresie of Nestorius: And had Cyrill lived to see any question made, whether those writings (by whomso∣ever they had beene written) ought to bee, or were by himselfe condemned; out of all doubt that holy Father would in most plaine, and expresse termes, have anathematized them all, as vertually, and implicitè he had before, and would most strictly have exacted the like expresse anathematizing of them, of all those who would wash their hands of the blasphemies, and here∣sies of Nestorius.

18. Now from these three grounds (every one of which is de∣monstrated to be untrue) Vigilius collects his Conclusion, or definitive sentence in defence of this second Chapter, which also is an errour, but not as the former, personall, but doctrinall; yea, he∣reticall: that those writings of Theodoret, or going under Theodo∣rets 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 eagernesse, art, and acutenesse, 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 kinde of weapons, to maintaine their owne, and oppugne the Catholike cause; nor ever can Nestorianisme bee puld downe, or overthrowne, so long as those writings of Theodoret kee••e their credit, and stand uncondemned, yet shal not these be condemned, doth Vigilius decree.

19. Pope Pelagius seeing the poison of the hereticall do∣ctrine, which the defending of this second Chapter doth beare with it, exclaimes against it in this manner o 1.560: O my deare brethren, who seeth not these things to bee full of all impiety? And againe, who seeth not quanta temeritate plenum sit Theodoreti scripta super∣biendo defendere? how full of temeritie it is to defend so insolently, the writings of Theodoret? The fift generall Councell p 1.561, not onely ac∣curseth those writings of Theodoret, as hereticall, but all who defend them, yea all who doe not anathematize them. A cleare evidence that they not onely judged this second Chapter to concerne the faith, but the Constitution of Vigilius even herein to be hereticall, because he would not anathematize those writings of Theodoret, and much more because he decreed that they should not be ana∣thematized, and to their judgement consenteth the whole ca∣tholike

Church, they all condemne the decree of Vigilius even in this point as hereticall.

20. I, but Vigilius you will say condemneth q 1.562 those very he∣resies of Nestorius, which are defended in those writings; he doth so: at least he seemes by his words to doe it: and had he not with∣all decreed that Theodorets writings should not bee condemned, he could not justly have beene reproved in this point. But in do∣ing both, he proves not himselfe orthodoxal, by that w^ch he saith well, but unconstant and contrary to himselfe in overthrowing that which he saith well, for if Theodorets writings against Cyrill may not be condemned, as Vigilius decreth; then may not the doctrines of Nestorius defended therein be condemned as Vigi∣lius would seeme to doe. Theodorets writings and Nestoria∣nisme are inseparable companions, either both must stand, or both fall together. Its as impossible, and repugnant to con∣demne the one, and deny that the other may be condemned, as to condemne Euticheanisme, and yet defend the Ephesine latro∣cinie and decree thereof, or condemne Arianisme, and not con∣demne the Arimine Councel. Its the honor of truth, that it never is nor can be dissonant to any other truth: but heresie not onely may, but almost ever doth fight, not only against truth, but against it selfe, & overthroweth with one hand, or positiō, what it builds up by another, as in this of Vigilius is now apparent.

21. Now although this clearly convinceth the Popes decree to be hereticall, seeing it maintaineth two contradictory positi∣ons in a cause of faith, & the one is without all doubt an heresie; yet is it worthy the examining, whether of these contradictories must passe for the Popes judgment & cathedrall resolution in this cause. Cardinall Baronius will certainly direct vs in this doubt: for he tells us (which of it selfe also is evident) that the Popes purpose r 1.563 & intent in setting forth this Constitution, was to defēd the 3 Chapters: adversus Imperatoris decretum, & sententiam Synodi, against the Emperors Edict, and the sentence of the fift Synode. As the Emperour then and the Synode condemned,s 1.564 so was it the Popes maine purpose to defend the writings of Theodoret against Cyrill, which was the second Chapter. This is & must stand for the judge∣ment & cathedrall resolution of the Pope in this matter: what he speaks repugnant to this is casuall, & praeter, nay contra intenti∣onem, its against his mind & purpose; its to be thought onely by in-incogitancy to have slipt from his pen. So his condemning of the Nestorian doctrine is but in shew, its onely verball, his defining that Theodorets writings which maintaine Nestorianisme may not be condemned, is the true purpose and intent of his mind, its cordial & real. By his verball condemning of Nestorianisme, he shuts it out in words, or as you may say at the foregate of his pallace, By his defining that Theodorets writings may not be con∣demned, he puls in Nestorianisme with all his might, & sets wide open a postren gate unto it: by condemning Nestorianisme in

shew of words, he seemes to be orthodoxall, by defending Ne∣storianisme indeed and in truth, he demonstrates himselfe to be hereticall. Or because Vigilius was so very wise a Pope as here∣after out of Baronius you shall heare, it seemes he meant to shew one part of his wisedome, and policie, in this matter, and there∣fore while the heresie of Nestorius comes in his owne naturall habit, or in the liverie of Nestorius, away with it, the Popes ho∣linesse will not admit it, hee cannot abide it: but when it comes countenanced, and graced, with the name of Theodoret, and in his liverie, the Pope embraceth it in both his armes, and by his Apostolicall authoritie commandeth all men, to give most friendly welcome and entertainement unto it.

22 You have now the judgement, and cathedrall resolution of Vigilius, touching this second Chapter, that the hereticall wri∣tings of Theodoret against Cyril, and the Catholike faith may not bee condemned. Take a view also of those two reasons, by which hee labours to strengthen, and perswade the same. The former is drawne from the Councell at Chalcedon: It is, saith Vigilius, t 1.565 valde contrarium, & Chalcedonensis Synodi judicio in∣dubitabiliter inimicum, very contrarie, and without all doubt repugnant to the judgement of the Synod at Chalcedon, that any Nestorian doctrines should now be condemned, sub ejus sacerdotis nomine, under the name of Bishop Theodoret. So Vigilius.

23 Could he not content himselfe, to be hereticall alone, un∣lesse he disgraced the holy Councell of Chalcedon as guilty of the same heresie, as if they also had judged that none of Theodo∣rets writings, not those written against the faith, ought to bee condemned? They to judge this? or is it contrary, and that in∣dubitabiliter, to condemne those writings of Theodoret, or any writings under his name? Far was it from the thought, much more from the grave judgement of so holy a Councell. Even themselves, as before we declared, condemned and anathemati∣zed all those writings of Theodorrt, and warranted by their judgement all others to anathematize the same. Gregorie u 1.566 wit∣nesseth of the fift Councell, that it is sequax in omnibus, in all things a follower of the Councell at Chalcedon. Seeing then the fift Councell, doth so often and so constantly condemne and ana∣thematize those writings of Theodoret, its undoubted, that the same writings were formerly condemned by the Councell of Chalcedon, the fift Synod but treading in their steps and follow∣ing them in that judgement, wherein they had gone before them. If to condemne those writings be repugnant to the judg∣ment at Chalcedon, then is the fift Councell not a follower but a confuter and contradicter of the judgement at Chalcedon. Nor onely the fift Councell, but the whole catholike Church ever since the time of Vigilius, they all doe reject, and condemne the judgement of the Councell at Chalcedon, seeing they all by ap∣proving the fift Synod, and decree thereof, do anathematize

those writings of Theodoret, which to doe is, as Vigilius teacheth, indubitanter contrarium, most certainely contrary to the judgement at Chalcedon. If the whole catholike Church bee not hereticall (which to thinke is impietie) by contradicting and condemning the judgement of the Councell at Chalcedon, then undoubtedly is Vigilius hereticall in teaching and decreeing, that to con∣demne any writings of Theodoret, or any under his name, is re∣pugnant to the judgement of the Councell at Chalcedon.

24. The other reason of Vigilius, is, because it were a dis∣grace, injury and slander, against Theodoret, to condemne his writings. This the Pope x 1.567 expresseth in the very words of his sen∣tence, in this manner; The truth of these things, (those are the three personall points before handled) being weighed, we ordaine and de∣cree, nihil in injuriam, at que obtrectationem probatissimi viri, hoc est Theodoreti sub taxatione nominis ejus, à quoquam fieri vel proferri, that nothing shall be done or spoken by any, to the injury and slāder of the most approved Bishop Theodoret by taxing of his name: and it must needs be taxed, if his writings or bookes be condemned.

25. See here the compassionate and tender heart of Vigilius. Not onely Iustinian, and the fift generall Councell, but Pelagius, Gregory, and other succeeding Popes, and Councels, even the whole Catholike Church ever since the time of Vigilius, they all, by approving the decree of the fift Synod, doe not onely taxe the name of Theodoret, but accurse, & anathematize the writings of Theodoret, and that even under his name: Now, such a loving and tender affection doth the Pope carry towards the hereti∣call writings of Theodoret, that rather than they may be condem∣ned, or his name taxed by the condemning of them; Iustinian, Pelagius, Gregory, and other his successors, the fift, the sixt, and other generall Councels, even the whole Catholike Church, they all must be, and are de facto, here declared, and by the Popes cathedrall sentence decreed, and defined, not onely to bee hereticall, (as the former reason imported) but injurious per∣sons, backbiters, & slanderers, they all must be condemned, and for ever disgraced, rather then Theodorets name must bee taxed, or his hereticall writings condemned, or disgraced.

26. But say indeed: Is it an injurie, a slander, a disgrace to one, that his errors should either by himselfe, or by the Church be condemned? How injurious was that holy Bishop Saint Au∣gustine to himselfe in writing so many retractations, and cor∣rections of what he saw amisse? And what himselfe did, hee would not onely willingly, but gladly have permitted the holy Church to have done. Nor may we think this mind to have been onely in Austen, Modestie and humilitie, are the individuall con∣comitants of true knowledge and learning: and the more lear∣ned any man is, the more judicious is he in espying, the more ingenuous in acknowledging, the more lowly and humble, in condemning his owne errors. As it is but winde and no solid

substance, which puffes up a bladder, so is it never any sound, or solid learning, but meere ventositie & emptinesse of knowledge which makes the minde to swell, to beare it selfe aloft; and either not see that truth into which his high and windie conceit will not suffer him to looke downe and dive; or seeing it, not em∣brace the same, though it were with a condemning, yea with a detestation of his owne error. It must never be a shame or dis∣grace to any man to recall and condemne his errors; till he be a∣shamed of being a man, that is subject to errors, Saint Augustine y 1.568 more sharply saith, That its a token not onely of a foolish, and proud selfe-love, but of a most malignant z 1.569 minde, rather to wish others to bee poysoned with his heresies, then either himselfe to recall, or permit o∣thers, specially the Church of God, to condemne his heresies. It was no injurie, no slander; nor disgrace to Theodoret, that his hereticall writings, were by the Church condemned, but it had beene a fault unexcusable and an eternall disgrace to the Church, if shee had suffered such hereticall writings to passe uncondemned.

27. Oh but Theodoret was, probatissimusvir, a man most appro∣ved by the Councell of Chalcedon, saith Vigilius; is it not an inju∣ry to condemne the writings of a man most approved? No vere∣ly, the more approved, the more eminent, learned, and ortho∣doxall any man is, the more carefull and ready, both himselfe, and the Church must be to condemne his former hereticall wri∣tings: When heresie commeth in his owne deformed habit, it doth but little, or no hurt at all; who will not detest it, when he reades it in the writings of Arius, Nestorius, Eutiches, or such like condemned heretikes? the odiousnesse of their names breeds a dislike almost of a truth in their mouthes, but certainly of an errour; But when Satan assumes the forme of an Angell of light, when heresie comes palliated, yea, countenanced with the name of a Catholike, a learned, an holy, a renowned and ap∣proved Bishop; then, and then specially is there danger of infecti∣on: The reverence, the love, the honour wee beare to such a person, causeth us unawares to swallow the poyson which hee reacheth unto us, before we take leasure to examine, or once make doubt of his doctrine.

28. It was truely said by a 1.570 Vincentius Lirinensis, The errour of the Master, is the tryall of the Scholler, & 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 shewes by the example of Origen; he was in his age a mirrour b 1.571 of gravity, in∣tegrity, continency, zeale c 1.572, piety, of learning of all sorts, both divine, and humane, of so d 1.573 happy a memory, that he had the Bible without booke, of such admirable eloquence, that not words but hony e 1.574 seemed to drop from his lips; of so indefati∣gable industry, that he was called Adamantius, and was said by some f 1.575 to have written six thousand bookes, by g 1.576 Hierome, one thousand, besides innumerable commentaries; of such high

esteeme, and authority, that Christians h 1.577 honoured him as a Pro∣phet; Philosophers, as a Master; they flocked from the utmost parts of the world to heare his wisedome, as if a second Salomon had beene sent from heaven; yea, most would say, malle se cum Origene errare, quam cum alijs vera sentire, that they had rather erre with Origen, then thinke aright with others. When such a man lapseth into heresie, if his writings may scape without censure, if it shall be judged a contumelie, an injurie or slander, to con∣demne his bookes, for the honour which was given to his per∣son, one such man as Origen, were able to draw almost the third part of the starres of heaven after him.

29. And if any beleeve the Epistles going under his name, Theodoret was in divers respects, not much inferiour to Ori∣gen. His birth noble, i 1.578 his parents being without hope of Children, vowed k 1.579 him before his conception, like another Samuel unto God. And accordingly even from his Cradle consecrated him to Gods service: Violently l 1.580 drawne to the dignity of a Bishop, the Citie of Cyrus in Syria, where was his episcopall See, he nobilitated, being before but obscure (though worthy m 1.581 of eternall memorie, as being one monument of the deliverance of Gods people, by the hand of Cyrus, out of the Babylonish captivitie) So up∣right, blamelesse, and voide of covetousnesse, that having beene five and twenty yeares Bishop of that place; in all that time, ne n 1.582 obolum mihi in tribunali ablatum aliquis conquestus est, none could say that hee had exacted, or received for causes of judgement, so much as one halfe pennie. I tooke no mans goods, no mans gar∣ments, nay, which is a memorable token of integritie, none of mine house, saith he, hath taken the worth of an egge, or a mor∣sell of bread: So plentifull in workes of charitie, That he distri∣butedo 1.583 his inheritance among the poore, repaired Churches, p 1.584 builded bridges, drained Rivers, to townes where was want of water, and such like, in so much, saith he, that in all this time, I have q 1.585 provided nothing for my selfe, not any land, not any house, no not so much as any sepulcher; nothing, praeter laceras has vestes, I have left nothing to my selfe, but onely this ragged attire, where∣with I am apparelled, For learning and knowledge both in di∣vine and humane matters he was much honoured, compared to Nilus r 1.586 as watering the whole countrie, where hee abode with the streames of his knowledge, he converted eight townes, s 1.587 in∣fected with the heresie of the Marcionites, to the faith, two o∣ther of the Arians and Eunomians: wherein he tooke such paines, and that also with some expence of his blood, and hazard of his life, that in eight hundreth parishes (within the Diocesse of Cyrus) Ne t 1.588 unum quidem haereticorum zizanium remansit, there re∣mained not so much as one hereticall weed.

30. So learned, so laborious, so worthy a Bishop was Theodo∣ret: and so desirous am I not to impaire any part of his honour, much lesse to injure, disgrace, or slander him. Whom almost

would not the writings of a man so noble for birth, and paren∣tage, so famous for learning, so eminent in vertue, move and perswade to assent unto him, if they might goe currant with∣out taxing, without note or censure of the Church? and that much more than the bookes of Origen; both because Origen was but a Presbyter, but Theodoret a Bishop, and specially because Ori∣gen u 1.589 himselfe was by the Church condemned; and so the au∣thor being disgraced, the authority of his writings must needs be very small: but the person of Theodoret was approved by the whole Councell of Chalcedon, they all proclamed x 1.590 him to bee a Ca∣tholike, and orthodoxall Bishop. Here was a farre greater temptati∣on and greater danger when his writings are hereticall, whose person, so famous and holy a Councell commendeth for Catho∣like. Now, or never was the Church to shew that it honoured no mans person, writings, or name, more thā the truth of Christ. And so much the rather was the Church to doe this in Theodoret, because about some thirty y 1.591 yeares, before this fift Councell, in the time of Iustinus the Emperour, the Nestorians (as if not one∣ly some writings of his, but Theodoret himselfe had beene wholly theirs) set up z 1.592 his image in a Chariot, and with great pompe, and sing∣ing of hymnes, 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 principall Nestorian Saints: was it not now high time to wipe away that blemish from the name of Theodoret, and to condemne those writings of his which gave occasion to the Nestorians to make such boasts?

31. I appeale now unto any man, whether their condemning of Theodorets writings, did not much more tend to the honour, then, as Vigilius fancieth, to the slander, and disgrace of his per∣son. As it is a blemish to a man to retaine 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 Calender; but by the condemning of those writings was the staine 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 heretikes to vaunt of, but the onely staines of Theodoret; nothing but those hereticall writings con∣demned and accursed, both by Theodoret himselfe, 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 he∣retical writings of Theodoret, which, by the Churches sentence of condemnation are quite dulled, receive full strength, and vigour for the Nestorians against Catholikes: By him the Nestorians

have an eternall charter, and irrevocable decree, that Theodorets writings against Cyrill, and with them the heresie of Nestorius, ought not to be taxed, nor condemned. His Apostolicall Consti∣tution is a triumphant chariot for them to set the Image of The∣odoret, in their Temples, and with Anthemes and Collects to ca∣nonize, yea adore him in their Masses, among their hereticall Saints. But for the Church of God, I constantly affirme they could not possibly have more honoured Theodoret, than by burn∣ing up the hay and stubble of his writings, the condemning of which the Pope decreeth to bee an injury and slander unto him.

33. May wee now in the last place consider a little what might be the intendment of Vigilius in pleading, and decreeing this for Theodorets writings? I doubt not but the love he bare to Nestorianisme might make him zealous for those writings, which are the bulwarks of the Nestorians: but non sunt in eo om∣nia. Popes are men of profound thoughts, and very long rea∣ches; they have deepe, and mysticall projects in their decrees. Vigilius had, and it may be principally, an eye to this his owne, and all their Cathedrall Constitutions like unto it: If the hereti∣call writings of Theodoret may not be condemned, because him∣selfe was a Catholike, à fortiori, this decree of Vigilius, be it ne∣ver so hereticall, may not bee condemned, because the Pope is the head of all Catholikes. If it bee an injury, and a slande∣ring of Theodoret, to taxe 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 sinne irremissible to taxe the Popes Holinesse, by condemning his Apostolicall decree: If you presume to condemne, nay, but taxe them, or their names, though their decrees shall bee as apparently hereticall, as are those writings of Theodoret, you are condemned for ever as in∣jurious, as contumelious, as slandering persons. And let this suffice for the errours both personall, and doctrinall, of Vigilius touching this second Chapter.

CAP. X. That Vigilius and Baronius erre in divers personall points, or mat∣ters of fact, concerning the third Chapter, or the Epistle of Ibas.

1. THere remaineth now the third & last Chapter, w^ch concernes the impious Epistle of Ibas; In handling whereof, being of them all most in∣tricate and obscure, as Vigilius first, and then long after him his Champion Baronius, have here bestowed greatest paines, and used all their subtilty, judging this to bee▪ (as indeed by reason of the manifold obscurities, it is) the fittest cloake for their heresie; so must I on the other side intreate the more seri∣ous and attentive consideration at the readers hands, while I indeavour, not onely to discover the darke and secret corners of this cause, but pull both the Pope and his Parasite out of this, be∣ing their strongest hold, and most hidden hereticall den, where∣in they hoped of all other most safely and securely to have lur∣ked; for the more perspicuous proceeding wherein, before I come to the doctrinall errours, and maine heresie which in this third Chapter they maintaine; I will first manifest two or three of their personall untruths, which will both open a passage to the other, and will give the reader a taste, nay, a certaine expe∣riment 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 capitall untruth, is, that Vigili∣us avoucheth the Councell of a 1.593 Chalcedon to have approved this Epistle of Ibas as orthodoxall. They approve that impious, and blasphemous Epistle? they rejected, they condemned, anathe∣matized, and accursed it to the very pit of hell, witnesse the fift generall Councell, and the whole Catholike Church, which hath approved it; for thus cryed out, and proclaimed all the Bishops, Epistolam b 1.594 definitio sancti Chalcedonensis Concilij condem∣navit, ejecit; the definition of faith made by the holy Councell at Chal∣cedon hath condemned this Epistle, it hath cast out this Epistle. But because I have formerly c 1.595 intreated hereof, I will adde 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 interloquutions of Pascasinus, and Maximus, wherein they say that Ibas by his Epistle is declared to bee a Catholike, d 1.596 addeth that all the rest in the Councell of Chalcedon did not onely not contradict their interloquutions, verumetiam apertissimum eis nos∣cuntur praebuisse consensum; but also they are knowne to have assented,

and that most manifestly unto those interloquutions. So Vigilius. It had beene enough, and too much to have said, that the Councell had assented, or had but seemed to assent: but Vigilius in saying that all the rest did most manifestly assent to those interloquuti∣ons, uttered a papall and supreme untruth, whereof no coloura∣ble pretence can be made, witnesse the fift general Councell, and the whole Catholike Church, which hath approved it: They expresly e 1.597 testifie, that the Councell of Chalcedon did pro nullo ha∣bere, esteeme 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 vntruths, whereof Vigilius is so evidently, and by so ample witnesses convicted, Cardinall Baronius hath againe revived; telling with a face more hard than Brasse, or A∣damant, Patres f 1.598 dixerunt eam Epistolam ut Catholicam recipiendam; the Fathers of Chalcedon said, that this Epistle of Ibas is to be received as orthodoxall: and g 1.599 againe, ex ipsa Ibam fuisse probatum orthodox∣um, aequè una fuit sententia omnium Episcoporum; that Ibas was by this Epistle approved for a Catholike, it was the consent and uniforme judgement of all the Bishops at Chalcedon; then which, two lowder untruths, and well worthy of a golden whetstone, could hardly have beene uttered: And though he tooke them from Pope Vi∣gilius, yet are they farre more inexcusable in the Cardinall, than in the Pope his Master. Vigilius dyed before he saw the judge∣ment of succeeding Popes, and generall Councels; which had he knowne, wee may charitably thinke, that his Holinesse would have casseired and defaced such palpable, and condemned un∣truths: But Cardinall Baronius knew all this; hee knew that the fift h 1.600 generall Councell had condemned these untruths in Vigili∣us: he knew that Pelagius, l 1.601 Gregory, and their successors, that the sixt,k 1.602 seventh, and other generall Councels had approved the fift Councell, and so in approving it, had condemned those same un∣truths; and yet against the knowne consent, and judgement of all those Popes, and generall Councels, that is, against the knowne testimonie of the whole Catholike Church for a thousand yeares together; he is bold to avouch both those former sayings, for truths, which all those former witnesses with one voyce pro∣claime, to be condemned untruths. Such account doth the Car∣dinall make of Fathers, Popes, Generall Councels, and of the whole Catholike Church, when they come crosse in his way.

5. A third personall matter there is concerning this Chap∣ter, of which not Vigilius, but Cardinall Baronius doth enforce me to intreate; and that is, whether Ibas was indeed the author of this Epistle, or no: for although it be not materiall to the in∣tent of the fift Councell, (which, against the decree of Vigilius, we now defend) whether Ibas writ it or not, seeing neither this fift, nor the former Councell of Chalcedon condemned the au∣thor of this Epistle, but onely the Epistle it selfe; yet seeing the

Cardinall was pleased to undertake the defence of a needlesse untruth, that this is not the Epistle of Ibas. I am desirous that all should see how wisely and worthily hee hath behaved him∣selfe in this point.

6. Baronius speaking against this Epistle, first makes it doubt∣full whose it is, saying l 1.603, 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 mindes: then as the serpent dealt with Eve, hee positively sets downe his untruth. It is not the Epistle of Ibas, in this manner: Caeterum, m 1.604 ut publica acta testantur, producta in Concilium Epistola illa, non esse Ibae comperta, but the publike acts doe testifie, that when this Epistle was produced in the Councell at Chalcedon, it was found not to be the Epistle of Ibas: and so it being condemned, Ibas was absolved. Thus Ba∣ronius, who for proofe hereof alleageth the publike acts n 1.605 both of the Councell of Chalcedon, and of the 2. Nicene Synod. And truly in the second Nicene Synod, that which the Cardinall saith, is read indeed by Epiphanius, a Deacon in that Synod: but it is the testimony of the whole Councell, Epiphanius onely reading and proposing it in the name o 1.606 and behalfe of the Synod. And be∣cause it is a testimony very pregnant for the Cardinalls assertion, and is cited out of a Councel which he much honoreth, & affect∣eth, I will do him the favour, as at large to expresse that passage: the rather because this, as the whole answer read by Epiphanius, is not onely commended as a matter delivered p 1.607 unto them by the holy Ghost: but they further request q 1.608 all who shall happen to light on that commentarie of theirs, that they will not read it slightly, or perfunctorily, but with singular indagation and search of the same. And I am loth to deny those Nicene Fathers, so very just and reasonable a request.

7. In that place r 1.609 there was read on the behalfe of the Icono∣clasts, a testimonie out of the ancient Father Epiphanius Bishop of Cyprus, forbidding to set up Images either in the Churches, or s 1.610 in Churchyards, or in their common dwelling houses, but every where to carie about, God in their hearts. This saying netled the Nicene Fathers not a little, who were very supersti∣tiously devoted to Image-worship: and therefore in stead of a better answer, they say that the booke whence that is alleaged, is falsly t 1.611 ascribed to Epiphanius, hee was not the author of it. Ephiphanius they honor u 1.612 as an holy Father and Doctor of the Catholike Church, but that booke going under his name, they reject: which fact of theirs, they illustrate and labour to warrant by the example of the Councell at Chalcedon, who received Ibas himselfe, but ac∣cursed the Epistle going under the name of Ibas, non x 1.613 enim de∣monstrari poterat quod esset Ibae: for it could not be proved to be the Epistle of Ibas: wherefore they anathematized 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 bee the writings of Bishop Epiphanius, but they are not his. So those publike acts, and second Nicene Fathers, whose testimony con∣curreth and jumpeth with the Cardinall, this is not the Epistle of Ibas.

8. Before I come to examine those publike acts, I must ob∣serve one thing touching Baronius, which he will occasion and in∣force me often to repeat; and this it is, that Baronius was meerly infatuated in his handling of this whole cause touching the three Chapters, and this one might almost even sweare: but any may see it as cleare as the light: besides many other, even by this one point whereof we now intreat. If a man should study and devise ten dayes together, how to confute and utterly overthrow all that Pope Vigilius hath decreed touching this third Chapter; and all which Baronius himselfe hath either taught or said in defence of Vigilius in that point, he cannot possibly doe it more clearly, more certainly, more effectually, then by denying, as the Cardi∣nall, and his Nicene Fathers doe, that this is the Epistle of Ibas: for how could either the Councell of Chalcedon, or the Popes Legates therein, by this Epistle, and by the dictation and con∣tents thereof judge Ibas to be a Catholike (which Vigilius y 1.614 de∣creeth, and Baronius z 1.615 more then twenty times I thinke repeat∣eth,) unlesse 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 Popes Legates at Chalcedon, of which Baronius himselfe saith a 1.616; This to be the Epistle of Ibas, the Popes Legates, and after them the rest of the Bishops by their subscrip∣tion, confirmed and againe, the b 1.617 Acts of Chalcedon doe teach, that this we acknowledged to be the Epistle of Ibas. I oppose Pope Vigilius, who in his Constitution assenteth c 1.618 to that judgement of the Popes Legates, and those words, relecta ejus Epistola, the E∣pistle of Ibas being read, we acknowledge him to be a Catholike. I oppose the confession of Ibas himselfe, of which Baronius saith, the d 1.619 Acts at Chalcedon declare Ibam confessum esse eam esse suam, that Ibas confessed this Epistle to be his owne: and againe e 1.620, we have before declared Ibam eandem Epistolam suam esse professum, that Ibas professed this same Epistle to be his owne: 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 1.621 saith of this Epistle, verè esse Ibae fu∣isse cognitam, that it was knowne truly and indeed to be the Epistle of Ibas. Say now in sadnesse, what you thinke of Baronius, and where you thinke his five wits were, when hee denyed, and that upon proofe by publike records, this to be the Epistle of Ibas, which the Popes Legates, with the whole Councell of Chalcedon, which Pope Vigilius whom hee defendeth, which Ibas his owne

selfe, 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 publike acts, which as the Cardinall tells us, doe testifie, that this is not the Epistle of Ibas. What first to the acts of the Councell at Chalcedon, which he first g 1.622 alleageth, and the tenth Action thereof? I say, and say it upon certaine grounds, that the Cardinall therein saith an untruth, for proofe whereof, I appeale to that same tenth Action of the Councell, in no part whereof it is said, nor can thence be collec∣ted, that this was not the Epistle of Ibas. Or if you will not be∣leeve my saying, yet beleeve the Cardinall himselfe, more then once testifying that which he saith to be untrue. These are his words h 1.623, The Acts of the tenth Action of the Councell at Chalcedon: Eandem epistolam ut Ibae cognitam esse à patribus docent, doe teach, that this Epistle was knowne to be the Epistle of Ibas. And againe i 1.624, Vere esse Ibae fuisse cognitam eandem actio decima docet, that this was knowne to have beene truly the Epistle of Ibas, the tenth action of the Councell at Chalcedon doth teach. Thinke you not that Baronius is more like the Esopicall Satyr, then a grave Cardinall of the Ro∣mane Church? At his first blast he makes the tenth action of the Councell at Chalcedon to testifie that this is not the Epistle of Ibas; and then hee blowes a quite contrary blast, professing the tenth action of the Councell at Chalcedon to testifie that this is truly, and certainly the Epistle of Ibas.

11. O, but the second Nicene Councell, and the publike acts thereof, they witnesse the same which the Cardinall affirmeth, that this is not the Epistle of Ibas. They doe so indeed: But as it is an untruth in the Cardinalls mouth: so it is also in those his Nicene Fathers from whom hee tooke it, unlesse perhaps those men of Nice, knew better whose Epistle it was, then did the 600 holy Bishops of the Councell at Chalcedon, before whom Ibas stood, or better then Ibas himselfe who confessed it to bee his owne Epistle. The Cardinall may not be offended that we dis∣sent from his Nicene Councell, which dissenteth from the holy Councell at Chalcedon, from Ibas his owne confession, yea from whom the Cardinall dissenteth as much as we in this point. And I cannot see, what depth of wisedome it was in his Cardinalship to alleage them for witnesses, whose testimony, himselfe in this very point for which he produceth them, doth avouch to bee un∣true. But let him please himselfe in those Nice Fathers, we en∣vie not such a Councell, nor such Fathers, nor such publike re∣cords unto them. That Nicene assembly was but a conspiracie against the truth, it was fit they should uphold untruth, by un∣truth. And whosoever shal be pleased to examine and rip up the Acts of that Councell, I will give him this one assured comfort, that besides their superstitious & heretical doctrins therin main∣tained, he shall finde them full stuft with many grosse and palpa∣ble untruths, of matters de facto, on which they build their doctri∣nall

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 professe, 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 Epi∣stle to be truly and indeed the Epistle of Ibas, it followeth even by their owne reason and comparison, that the book also against Image-worship, cited by the Councell 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 Catholike k 1.625 Doctor of the Church, one who held the ancient tradition l 1.626 of the Church, and consented to the Catholikes, in and before his time: it hence againe followeth, that the doctrine of condemning Image-wor∣ship which in that booke of Epiphanius is delivered, & was by the generall Councell at Constantinople some thirty m 1.627 yeares before this Nicene Assembly, decreed n 1.628, that it I say is ancient, Catho∣like, consonant to the ancient tradition, and the doctrine of the ancient and catholike Fathers of the Church, even from the Apostles time. And this is all which Baronius hath gained by his alleaging those publike acts of the Nicene Fathers, to prove this not to be the Epistle of Ibas. And let this suffice to be spoken of the personall untruths of Vigilius and Baronius touching this E∣pistle of Ibas, which are but a praeludium to their doctrinall errors and heresies; wherof 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, drawne from the union with Cyrill, mentioned in the latter part of that Epistle, doe defend all the heresies of the Nestorians.

1. WEE come now from personall matters to that which is the Capital point, and maine heresie contained in the defence of this Chapter, wherein Vigilius, and Baronius have so beha∣ved themselves, that those former errours though they be too shamefull, are but a ve∣ry sport, and play to that hereticall frenzie which here they doe expresse. For now you shall behold the Pope and his Cardinall in their lively colours, fighting under the banner of Nestorius, and using the most cunning stratagems that were ever devised, to cloake their hereticall doctrine, and gaine credit to that con∣demned

heresie. Those sleights are principally two. The for∣mer is gathered out of the latter part of the Epistle of Ibas, where mention is made of the union betwixt Cyrill, and Iohn, which although I touched before a 1.629, yet because it is a matter of greater obscuritie, and containeth a most notable fraud of Vi∣gilius, and Baronius, I purposely reserved the full handling of it unto this place, where without interruption of other mat∣ters, I might have scope enough, to explaine the depth of this mysterie.

2. In the time of the Ephesine Councell, there was, as all know, an exceeding breach betwixt Cyrill, with other Catholike Bishops, who condemned Nestorius, and Iohn Bishop of Antioch, with divers other Eastern Bishops, who tooke part with Nesto∣rius, against the holy Councell. And the division was so great, that at the selfe-same time, in one, & the selfe-same citie of Ephe∣sus, they held two severall Councels, and set up altare contra alta∣re, Councell against Councell, Patriarcke against Patriarcke, Bishops against Bishops, and Synodall sentence against Syno∣dall sentence. But betwixt those two Councels, there was as much difference, as is betwixt light and darkenesse, betwixt truth and heresie, betwixt the Church of God, and the Syna∣gogue of Satan. The one consisted of holy orthodoxall and Ca∣tholike Bishops whose President was Cyrill: the other of here∣ticall, b 1.630 factious, and divers deposed Bishops, whose President was Iohn. The former condēned Nestorius & his blasphemous do∣ctrine, whereby hee denied Christ to be God: the latter de∣fended Nestorius and all his impious doctrines. The former was held in a Church, even in the Church of the Blessed c 1.631 Virgin, whose Sonne they professed to bee truly God: the latter in an Inne d 1.632, or Taverne, a fit place for them who denied Christ to be God. The former proceeded in all respects, orderly and Syno∣dally, as was fit and requisite that they should: the latter did all things tumultuously e 1.633, presumptuously, and against the Ca∣nons of the Church, supporting themselves onely by lies, calum∣nies, and slanderous reports. In a word, the former, was truly an holy, a generall, an Oecumenicall f 1.634 Councell, wherein was the consent of the whole Catholike Church: the latter was no∣thing else, but an hereticall, schismaticall, and rebellious faction or conspiracie of some thirtie g 1.635 or fortie persons, unworthy the name of Bishops, insolently opposing themselves to the holy Councel, yea to the whole Catholike Church, in which number and faction besides others, who lesse concerne our purpose, were

these h 1.636 Iohn Bishop of Antioch, the ring-leader of the rest, Pau∣lus Bishop of Emisa, Theodoret of whom wee before entreated, and Ibas, (not then, but some three or foure yeares after Bishop of Edessa) whom to have beene present at that time as a Bishop, though his name bee not expressed in their subscription, both Glicas i 1.637 in his Annales, and the Councell at Chalcedon, k 1.638 and Ibas his owne words therein, doe make manifest.

3. Now though there was so great odds betwixt the holy Councell, and this factious conventicle, yet were they (as is the custome of all heretickes and schismatickes) most insolent in all their actions. As the holy Councell deposed Nestorius for an hereticke, so the Conventicle to cry quittance with them; deposed l 1.639 Cyrill for an Arch-hereticke also, condemning m 1.640 his twelve Chapters as hereticall, which the holy Councell had ap∣proved as orthodoxall. As the holy Councell excommunicated n 1.641 and anathematized, Iohn, Paulus, Theodoret, Ibas, and all the rest of their factious adherents, and defenders of Nestorius, and his heresie: So did the Conventicle also excommunicate and anathematize Cyrill, and all o 1.642 that tooke part with him, and de∣fended his twelve Chapters, and so among these, even Pope Celestine, and the whole Catholike Church. As the holy Coun∣cell truly and justly, called themselves; the sacred and oecume∣nicall Councell, and tearmed Iohn with his adherents, a faction and hereticall p 1.643 Conventicle of Nestorians: so did the Conven∣ticle arrogate unto themselves, the glorious name of the holy q 1.644 Ephesine Councell, and slandered them which held with Cy∣rill to bee a Conventicle r 1.645, an unlawfull s 1.646 and disorderly assem∣bly, tearming them Arians, t 1.647 Apollinarians, and from Cyrill, Cy∣rillians v 1.648. As the holy Councell constantly refused, to commu∣nicate with Iohn x 1.649, or any of his faction, untill they did cōsent to the deposing of Nestorius, and anathematizing his heresie: so the conventicle most peevishly and pertinaciously not onely re∣fused the communion with Cyrill, and other Catholikes, but bound themselves by many solemne oathes, y 1.650 and that even in the presence of the Emperor, that they would never communi∣cate with the Cyrillians, unlesse they would condemne the twelve chapters of Cyrill, adding that they would rather dye z 1.651, then ad∣mit or consent unto any one of those twelve chapters. Such an unhappie and lamentable breach Iohn and the Eastern Bishops made in the Church at the time of that Ephesine Councell.

4. The religious Emperours Theodosius, and Valentinian whose imperiall authority, was the onely meanes to end all these strifes; had they beene personally present in the Synod, to see all these disorders, they would no doubt, either have preven∣ted this breach, or after it had hapned, have healed and made

up the same. But they residing then at Constantinople, were extreamely at used by the vile dealings of the Nestorians, for so much had these Nestorians prevailed, both at the Court and in the Citie of Constantinople, where Nestorius had beene Bishop, that though the holy Councell sent letters after letters, to certifie the truth of all matters to the Emperor, yet either a 1.652 were their messengers stopt, or their letters by the malicious vigilan∣cie of the Nestorians intercepted, so that none, no not any small notice of them came to the Emperors, whereas on the o∣ther part the frequent b 1.653 letters of the conventicle fraught with lies & slanders, had every day accesse, yea applause in the Citie, in the Court, and before the Emperors. And which was the worst of all, Count Candidianus, whom the Emperours made their owne deputie, and president of the Councell, to see all good, and Synodall orders observed therein, hee failed of that trust committed unto him, and being most partiall c 1.654 towards Nestorius and his heresie, by his letters also he seconded and soothed all the lies which the conventicle had writ unto the Emperors. By which meanes it came to passe, that the Empe∣rors knowing nothing of that division amongst the Bishops, & how beside the holy Councell, there was a factious, and schisma∣ticall conventicle held in the citie, thought all that was done, as well against Cyrill, and Memnon, in deposing them, as against Nestorius, in deposing him, that all this had beene in the act, judgement and sentence of one and the same Councell, upon which subreption and misinformation, the Emperors confirmed at the first the condemnation d 1.655 of them all three; But at length a letter being brought from the holy Synod to Constantinople by one, who to avoid suspition put on the habit of a begger e 1.656, and carried the letter in the trunke of his hollow staffe which for that purpose he had provided; as soone as the report of these strange disorders came to the Emperors eares, they sent for, and commanded certaine Bishops of either side, personally to come before them to Constantinople, that they might bee fully in∣formed of the truth in all the proceedings: and the truth after diligent examination being found, the Emperors by their Impe∣riall authoritie adnulled all the Acts of the conventicle, restored Cyrill f 1.657, and Memnon, approved g 1.658 the judgement of the holy Councell against Nestorius, adding banishment also from Con∣stantinople, to his deposition: But the Synodall sentence h 1.659 of de∣position against Iohn,i 1.660 and the other Bishops of his faction, that they staied, and suspended for a while, partly to prevent a greater schisme, which Iohn was like to procure, but specially in hope that Iohn, and the other Easterne Bishops might in time be

reduced and brought to unitie with Cyrill, and the catholike Church, which in that height of their heat and stomacke could not have beene expected. And thus▪ was the Councell at Ephe∣sus dissolved, a farre greater rent by this means being left at the end, then had beene at the beginning thereof, and so that mala∣die for which it was called, not cured but encreased.

5. But the religious Emperor Theodosius could not bee at quiet while the Church was thus disturbed, but the very next yeare after the Ephesine Councell was ended, when time and better advise had now cooled the former heat of the Easterne Bishops, hee began to effect that union which before he had en∣tended, and he so earnestly laboured therein, that himselfe pro∣fessed, k 1.661 I am certainely and firmely resolved, not to desist in working this reconcilement, untill God shall vouchsafe to restore unitie and peace to the Church; To which purpose hee writ a very religious, and effectuall Epistle l 1.662 to Iohn B. of Antioch, by many reasons perswa∣ding, and by his imperiall authoritie commanding m 1.663 him, and with him the rest of the faction, to subscribe to the deposition of Nestorius, & the anathematizing of his heresie, and so to embrace the holy communion with Cyrill, and the catholike Church, which perswasions of the Emperor, tooke indeed the intended effect: for after some tergiversation for a while, both Iohn and most of the Easterne Bishops, before the end of that yeare, re∣lented, and in a Synod held at Antioch, subscribed as the Empe∣ror perswaded them, both to the deposing of Nestorius, and to a truly orthodoxall profession, sent unto them by Cyrill, wherein they approved n 1.664 the holy Ephesine Councell, and condemned all the heresies of Nestorius, and upon this their consenting to Cyrill, and the orthodoxall faith, were received into the peace of the Church; and so union and concord, was fullie concluded betwixt Cyrill, with the other orthodoxall Bishops, & Iohn with most of those Eastern Bishops, who before adhered unto him.

6. Let us now see how Vigilius, and after him Baronius under couler of this Vnion, plead for Ibas, & his heretical Epistle. In the end of that Epistle, Ibas makes mention o 1.665, of the union betwixt Iohn and Cyrill, yea mentioneth it as a great blessing of p 1.666 God to the Church, seeing that he not onely consented, but greatly re∣joyced at the same. Thus much is cleare and certaine by the E∣pistle. Now because the Vnion as we have declared, was made by consenting to the Catholike faith, it seemes that Ibas who consented to the Vnion, consented also to the Catholike faith, and so was received into the communion of Cyrill and the Ca∣tholike Church. Seeing then Ibas by this Epistle is shewed to approve and embrace the Vnion, and embracing of the union is the proofe of a Catholike, it followeth that even by this Epi∣stle Ib•••• declares himselfe to be a very good Catholike, and an earnest embracer of the Catholike faith. This is the summe of their collection, which is, as any wil confesse, a very faire & plau∣sible pretence, and therefore more fit for the Pope and Cardi∣nall

to cloake their heresie under the shew thereof. But least we seeme either to wrong them, o•• leave out ought which is emphaticall in their reason, it is needfull to heare them dispute in their owne words.

7. It differeth much, saith q 1.667 Baronius, to say that the Epistle is Catholike, or that those things which are written in it are true, and to say that Ibas by this Epistle was proved to be a catholike. Etenim nihil aliud inde acceperunt patres, nisi Ibam tunc temporis fuisse Catholicum, for the fathers at Chalcedon tooke nothing at all out of that Epistle, but that Ibas at that time (when he writ it) was a Catholike, seeing in it is demonstrated that Ibas who had some∣times erred with the Nestorians, and dealt against Cyrill, after the peace once made, did communicate with Cyrill, and con∣demne Nestorius with his doctrine. Againe, r 1.668 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 meane 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 pro∣bare Catholicum, but both they and Vigilius meant onely that Ibas, by this Epistle was to be esteemed and embraced as a Catholike, seeing in this Epistle Ibas testifieth that he embraced the peace of the Church, which being received, it is necessary that he be appro∣ved for a catholike. Againe, the s 1.669 Fathers of Chalcedon, said, that this Epistle was to be received as Catholike, not in regard of those errors where with Ibas was once intangled, and which are recited therein, sed quod ex illa Ibas profitetur se paci initae consentire; but for that Ibas in it professeth himselfe to consent to the peace or union made betweene Iohn and Cyrill: and a little after, Vides t 1.670 non alia ex parte; you see that this Epistle was approved by the Fathers at Chalce∣don in no other part or respect; but for that which Ibas signifieth in the last part of the Epistle, that hee consented, omnibus pactis & conventis, in all the conditions and covenants of the catholike union made betweene Iohn and Cyrill. And to omit many the like places, (for Baronius harps much upon this string) hee repeateth this u 1.671 most plainly in this manner: In the end of this Epistle, Ibas the author of it doth testifie, that peace was made, that himselfe consen∣ted unto it, and rejoyceth therein, seeing he gives thankes to God for the same. Now seeing the peace was concluded upon this condition, that Nestorius and his errours should be condemned, and the de∣crees of the Ephesine Councell received, it did plainely and ne∣cessarily ensue, that Ibas condemned Nestorius, and approved the Ephesine Councell, and so the Popes Legates, and others at Chal∣cedon spake not amisse, when they said, that Ibas by that ••••istle being read, was proved to bee a catholike. Thus disputeth the Cardinall for this impious Epistle, nor did he wholly devise this of himselfe, but he had the groūd of it out of Vigilius his Aposto∣licall

Constitutiō, where he thus saith, The x 1.672 Fathers at Chalcedon pro∣nounced this Epistle of Ibas to be orthodoxall, propter illam praedicatio∣nem fidei, for that profession of faith, by which Cyrill and Iohn, and all the Easterne Bishops made concord and union by the meanes of Paulus Bishop of Emisa, quam Ibas quoque in eâdem Epistolâ lau∣dans 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 acutenesse of the Pope and the Cardinall: They can see in the Epistle of Ibas, more than the whole fift generall Councell, than other succeeding, either Popes or generall Councels; more than the whole Catholike Church ever did, or could; more than all the world besides, excepting onely the Nestorians: They, and none but they of all the former could see by the latter end of that E∣pistle, or by the union mentioned therein, that either the Epistle was Catholike, or Ibas by it to be judged a Catholike. But Vigi∣lius and Baronius, though in some matters they be as blinde as a Beetle, yet when they list, (and they ever list when they defend here∣sie) they can see farre into a Milstone: And yet, if it be well con∣sidered, they gaine not much by this their quicke sight, and quirke of the union, which they have spied in the end of that Epi∣stle; for the whole fift Councell (approved by succeeding Coun∣cels, and by the whole catholike Church, as before wee have declared) adjudgeth, not onely the beginning, and the middle, but the end also, even the whole y 1.673 Epistle, and every part, above all, and principally, the end z 1.674 thereof, to be blasphemous, and he∣reticall, they anathematize a 1.675 also as heretikes all who defend ei∣ther the whole Epistle, or any part thereof, yea, all who doe not anathematize every part thereof: whence it is undeniably conse∣quent, that both Vigilius, and his Procter Baronius, and all who doe, or shall hereafter herein defend them, yea, all who doe not anathematize them, are for this very quirke and subtilty of the union found in the latter part of this Epistle, anathematized, and condemned by the consenting judgment of the whole catholike Church. This have they gained as a just recompence for defen∣ding but the end onely of that Epistle, and much more for defen∣ding it by pretence of the Councell at Chalcedon, though they should condemne all the rest of it.

9. But if the matter be well considered, it will appeare 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 onely the latter part of that Epistle, his reason had beene 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 meere nugation, proving idem per idem; for seeing the union is onely 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 mee thinkes it sounds not well, to heare such nugatory, and frivolous reasons to proceed out so the infallible Chaire: Nor doth indeed Vigilius so conclude; but from that union and concord which the latter part of the Epistle testi∣fieth Ibas to have approved, he inferres, that Ibas when hee writ this was a Catholike, and writ it as a Catholike, and so the wri∣ting, or Epistle it selfe to be Catholike; for thus stands his rea∣son; The b 1.676 latter end of the Epistle sheweth, that Ibas praised the union betwixt Iohn and Cyrill, and gladly embraceth it; and propter illam fidei praedicationem orthodoxa est Ibae à patribus pronunciata di∣ctatio; therefore for that confession of faith, which Ibas by his Epistle sheweth that he embraceth, for that did the Fathers of Chalcedon pronounce the writing, or Epistle (not the end onely of it) to be orthodoxall: So he takes this one part, of which hee made no doubt but it was approved at Chalcedon, as a Medium to prove that which was doubted, to wit, that the Epistle it selfe, even the whole Epistle was by the same Fathers approved; yea, and Baronius also, though hee in words pretends the contrary, yet seemes to be indeed of the same judgement, for he useth the ve∣ry like reason as Vigilius doth, quod c 1.677 ex illa, because Ibas in this Epistle professeth himselfe to consent to the union, therefore Pa∣tres dixerunt eam Epistolam ut Catholicam recipiendam; the Fathers at Chalcedon said, that the Epistle (loe the Epistle, faith the Car∣dinall, not a part onely of it) ought to bee received as Catho∣like.

10. Which will be more plaine 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 beleeve them, is this writing hereticall, or against the faith; for what was done before the union, though therein much be spokē against Cyrill, & the Ephesine Councell, and Cyrill called an heretike, yet is all that, saith d 1.678 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 oblo∣quutus videatur, that in this part there is no wrong done to Cyrill. At the union, or when it was concluded, then was Ibas reconci∣led to Cyrill, and received to the communion of the Church, and so would not write against the faith, so teacheth the Cardinall; Ibas, saith e 1.679 he, tooke part with Nestorius, usque ad tempus per Pau∣lum Emissenum; untill the time that the union was made by Paul Bi∣shop of Emisa, quando ipse sicut alij, communicare cum S. Cyrillo, & Ecclesia Catholica capit; at which time Ibas, as the rest, begun to com∣municate with Cyrill, and with the Catholike Church. Vigilius f 1.680 noteth the same, and out of him Baronius seemes to have borr••wed it. By Paulus Bishop of Emisa, Iohn, atque omnes orientales Episcopi, and all the Easterne Bishops, (then Ibas among them) returned to concord with Cyrill. And Baronius further by the Epistle it selfe

makes this plaine, for by it, saith g 1.681 he, is declared, that Ibas, though before that time he had doated, tunc temporis fuisse Ca∣tholicum, yet then (to wit, when he writ this) he was a Catholike; and Ibas writ this Epistle, eodem h 1.682 momento pacis initae, at the verie time and moment when the peace was made and concluded; after which he never spake one undecent word against Cyrill: so at the time of the union being a Catholike, hee would not oppugne or write against the faith; much lesse after the time of the union, for after that time Vigilius i 1.683 testifieth, that Ibas remained still a catholike, and in the catholike communion, usque ad exitum, even to his dying day: And Baronius expresseth the same, saying k 1.684, that after the union it could not bee proved, aliquod verbum indecens adversus Cyrillum protulisse; that Ibas spake any unseemely word against Cyrill. Hereupon now it followeth, that the whole Epistle is to be ap∣proved, written by Ibas when he was a catholike, written with a catholike minde and affection; by him, who both at, and after the union would not write against the faith which himselfe pro∣fessed, and what is spoken of matters before the union, that is all historically narrated, not by assent approved.

11. Oh how doe these men even labour and study to be mise∣rable, and to tye more fast the knots of those Anathemaes de∣nounced against them by the holy Councell, which nothing but renouncing their hereticall defences of this Epistle can ever dis∣solve! what will they doubt or feare to say, who would justifie 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 Councell, and catholike Church hath pronounced, that it is wholly hereticall; and every part, head and taile, beginning and ending, an absolute, and positive deniall of the faith? what untruth will they not avouch, who deny Ibas after the union to have injured Cyrill, whereas the holy generall Councell witnes∣seth, and that truly, as you shall straight see, that even in this uni∣on which Ibas mentioneth, he wrongeth Cyrill and all catholikes more, than in any part of his Epist. yea, more thā Nestorius himself ever did. But omitting for this time al the other untruths, which are not a few in those assertions of Vigilius and Baronius; there are two things therein, which I may not wel passe over in silence.

12. The former is, (at the consideration whereof I could not refraine from laughter) how curious, and even superstitious the Cardinall is in calculating the nativity of this impious Epistle, as if he had performed the office of Iuno Lucina unto it, and knew the very moment of time when this faire babe was first brought to light: It was written, saith hee, eodem momento pacis inita, in that very moment when the union was made betwixt Iohn and Cyrill. At that very moment? Sure the Cardinals Ephemerides, or the constellations deceived him. It was neither written in that mo∣ment, nor in that moneth, nor in that yeare, nor at the least two whole yeares after the union was concluded: for the Epistle men∣tioneth,

not onely the praise of Theodorus of Mopsvastia, but his commendation by Rambulas. Now, neither did the Nestorians so much honour, nor did the catholikes by name condemne The∣odorus, till the Emperour had by his Edict straightly forbidden the reading, writing, hearing, or having of the bookes of Nesto∣rius; till then the name and writings of Nestorius, being a Patri∣arke, and of so eminent a citie as Constantinople, was farre more fit to credit, and countenance their doctrines, than the name of Theodorus, being but a Bishop, and of a very obscure and ignoble towne, or corner rather, which in likelihood had beene buried in eternall oblivion, had not he by his owne infamy made it fa∣mous, as Herostratus l 1.685 did himselfe by burning the temple of Di∣ana at Ephesus: But when both the name and bookes of Nestorius was now so detested by reason of the imperiall Edict, tunc caepe∣runt Theodori volumina circumferre, saith Liberatus, then m 1.686 they be∣gan but to disperse the writings of Theodorus, w^ch Baronius n 1.687 also con∣fesseth; when the rivers, that is, Nestorius was stopt by the Empe∣rors law, then the Nestorians ipsum fontem aperuere, opened the very fountaine, divulging the bookes of Theodorus, and Diodorus. The Epistle then, mentioning the expresse condemning of Theodorus, doth of a certaintie follow that imperiall Edict against Nestori∣us: That Edict was published, as by the date o 1.688 appeares, in Au∣gust, when Theodosius was the fifteenth time p 1.689 Consull. The union betwixt Iohn and Cyrill was made the next yeare after the Ephe∣sine Councell: for Iohn writing to Xistus Bishop of Rome, and testifying his unitie q 1.690 and consent to Cyrill, saith in that Epistle, that the Ephesine Councell was held anno proximè lapso, the yeare next before. The Councell at Ephesus both began and ended in the yeare when Antiochus r 1.691 and Bassus were Consuls s 1.692. 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 intire Consulships t 1.693, as by the Fasti, and others is certaine. So that it is certaine, that the Epistle which mentioneth the condemning by name of Theodo∣rus, was not written till more then two compleat yeares after the union ended: but how long after these two yeares it was, before Ibas writ it, is wholy uncertaine, in likelihood it was two or three more: for some time after the Edict must bee allowed for the Nestorians, to translate first, and then disperse the bookes of Theodorus: some more after that, for the condemning of him by Rambulas: some againe after that, before Rambulas dyed, to whom Ibas succeeded in the Bishopricke of Edessa: and who writ this Epistle, when hee was in possession of that See, as both the title u 1.694 and contents x 1.695 of the Epistle declare. By all which,

and if there were none else, by the last onely, that Ibas writ this, being Bishop of Edessa, it is cleere, that some good while, in like∣lihood three or foure yeares, were past 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 Ca∣tholike Pope Vigilius, and Cardinall Baronius have here set forth unto us. Ibas when he writ this Epistle, is with them a Ca∣tholike, a Catholike Writer, a Catholike Bishop; in him you shall see the lively portrature of one of their Catholikes. Hee even in this Epistle, written after the Vnion (when he was as they teach y 1.696 a Catholike) denyeth God to be incarnate, and Marie to be the Mother of God: he condemnes the holy Ephesine Councell, and the twelve Chapters of Cyrill, hee 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 Cardinall fancieth, histori∣cally related) in his Epistle, as the words z 1.697 thēselves do shew, & the whole fift Councell a 1.698 witnesseth, all taught by him, after the Vnion, when he was one of the Popes and Cardinalls Catholikes, yea taught consonantly to the Vnion 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 Catholike faith, is crowned and canonized by Vigilius and Baronius for a good Catholike. Of such Catholikes their Ro∣mane Church hath great store; nay, seeing none is now of their Church, who approves not all the Cathedrall decrees of their Popes, and therefore this of Vigilius among the rest, it hence en∣sueth, that none is now a Romane Catholike, that is, a member of their present Romane Church, who approves not Ibas, such as he was when he writ this Epistle, for a Catholike, that is, who approves not the most blasphemous heretikes, and oppugners of the whole faith, to be Catholikes, and who condemnes not the Cyrillians, that is, all that maintaine the Catholike faith, for here∣tikes.

14. But still as yet the doubt concerning the Vnion remaineth: Ibas, say they, when he writ this Epistle embraced the union with Cyrill, and none can embrace that union but hee shewes himselfe thereby to bee a Catholike. True; none can truly and sincerely embrace that union which Cyrill made with Iohn, the condition whereof was the subscribing to the holy Ephesine Synode, and condemning of Nestorius, with his doctrines, but hee is and must be acknowledged to be a good Catholike. Had Ibas approved that union or consented unto it; Ibas had not beene Ibas, he had never written that impious Epistle, which in every part, & most of all in the end, where hee speakes of the union, is repugnant to that holy union. It is the union in Nestorianisme, the union in op∣pugning

and overthrowing the whole Catholike faith, which I∣bas when he writ this Epistle embraced, and which in his Epistle he commendeth, which that it may appeare to all, wee are now to unfold the mystery of that union with Cyrill, under colour whereof Ibas first, then Vigilius, and lastly Baronius with all who hold the Popes judgement to bee infallible, doe very cunningly convey their hereticall doctrines, and contradict the Catholike faith.

15. The Nestorians being loth to forsa••e, or have it thought that any of them did forsake their heresies, and being withall most desperately given to lying and slandering, set forth a forme of union, forged by themselves, wherein they made Cyrill, and all who consented to him, that is, all Catholikes, to condemne their former Catholike doctrine decreed at the Ephesine Synod, and to assent to their heresies. And, as if this had beene the true uni∣on, and the conditions of peace agreed upon betwixt Cyrill and Iohn, they every where buzzed this into the eares of their secta∣ries, and spred abroad the copies thereof, triumphing in it, that now they had wonne the field, that Cyrill and all his partakers had now consented to Nestorianisme; and that upon this consent a generall 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 de∣fendeth Ibas to be a Catholike, to which union whosoever con∣senteth, or approveth others, consenting to it; they doe even by that one act, besides all the rest, infallibly demonstrate them∣selves, not onely 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 lyes and ca∣lumnies strive to uphold their heresies.

16. For proofe whereof, I shall produce records above ex∣ception: and first of all Cyrills owne testimony. Acatius the wor∣thy Bishop of Meletene hearing by the report which the Nesto∣rians b 1.699 had spred abroad, that Cyrill in making the union had con∣sented to the Nestorian doctrine of two natures (making two per∣sons) in Christ, contrarie to his owne 12. Chapters, certified Cy∣rill of this report: Cyrill writ unto him at large, declaring the contrarie, and assuring him, that it was but a meere calumnie de∣vised against him: They reprove and accuse us, saith he c 1.700 as if for∣merly, we had thought the quite contrarie to those things which now (at the union) we have written; and I understand that they object al∣so unto us, quod novam fidei expositionen vel symbolū 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 Cyrill, as himselfe testifieth: but what an∣swered he for himselfe? At stultus stulta loquitur, & cor ejus vana meditatur, he calls them in plaine termes, fooles and lyars: the foole speaketh foolishly, and his heart meditateth lyes. And in the end

he warneth Acatius not to give credit to the counterfeit Epistle, or forme of union, which the Nestorians had forged and spread abroad in his name. If any Epistle, saith he d 1.701 be caried about as writ∣ten by me, tanquam de ijs quae Ephesi acta sunt, jam dolente, & poeniten∣tiam 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 Greeke is more empha∣ticall, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 scorne and deride every such writing. The like almost doth Cyrill write to Dynatus Bishop of Nicopolis, who up∣pon the Nestorians slanderous reports, suspected as it seemeth the very same of Cyrill, as Acatius did. Cyrill e 1.702 having declared the certaine truth of these matters unto him, saith in the end, It is needfull that you should know the cleare truth of these matters; lest some men who doe vainly f 1.703 and falsly report one thing for ano∣ther, should trouble any of the brethren: Perindè acsi nos quae con∣tra Nestorij blasphemias scripsimus, retractaremus g 1.704, as if wee 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 Cyrill, the Nesto∣rians themselves doe manifest this their calumnie: For although Iohn and those Easterne Bishops who in their Councell at Anti∣och, subscribed to that holy profession of faith which was sent from Cyrill unto them, who were by farre the greater part, and who therefore are counted the Easterne Church, though these I say, were as they well deserved, received into the Catholike Cōmunion, when the union was concluded, yet is it most untrue which Vigilius affirmeth, and takes it for a ground of his errour touching Ibas, that omnes h 1.705 orientales Episcopi per Paulum Emise∣num ad concordiam redierunt, that all the Easterne Bishops by Paulus Emisenus returned to the unity and communion of the Church. They did not all, not Helladius, not Eutherius, not Hemerius, not Doro∣theus, for whose restoring to their Sees, (for they were deposed) Paulus did earnestly labour with Cyrill, but not being able to prevaile for them; manserunt in eodem schismate, in quo etiam nunc perseverant, they continued in their former schisme, as rent from the Church: and so they do now also remaine, nor was there in the covenants of peace, any mention of them, as Cyrilli 1.706 expresly affirmeth. But I will onely insist upon two of the principall sticklers in the Nestorian heresie, and who most concerne our present cause: Theodoret and Ibas.

18. Theodoret beleeving the reports of his fellow Nestori∣ans that the Catholikes at the time of the Vnion had revo∣ked their former doctrines, and consented to Nestoria∣nisme, insulted over them in a publike oration k 1.707 at Antioch, before Domnus, in this manner: Vbi sunt dicentes, quod Deus est qui cru∣cifixus est? where are those that say that he was God, who was crucified? God was not crucified, but the man Iesus Christ, hee who is of the seed of David, was crucified: Christ is the Sonne of David,

but he is the temple of the sonne of God. Non jam est contentio, Oriens & Aegyptus sub uno jugo est, There is now no contention, the East, and Aegypt (that is, all who hold as Cyrill did) are now both under one yoake. Thus triumphed Theodoret over the Catholikes, supposing (as the Nestorians slanderously gave out) that Cyrill and all that held with him, that is, all Catholikes, had submitted themselves, to the yoke of their Nestorian heresie, 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 1.708 yeares 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 perswaded, to desist from that calumny, but still let it passe for currant among them, and insulted, as it Cyrill and the Ca∣tholikes at the time of the union had condemned their former faith, and consented to Nestorianisme. So hard it is to re∣clame those who by selfe-will are wedded to any hereticall opinion.

19. The other is Ibas, the Popes owne Catholike doctor, whom, at that very time when hee writ this Epistle (which was long after the Vnion made betwixt Iohn, and Cyrill) to have em∣braced no other then this slanderous union, or union in Ne∣storianisme, those very words in the later part of his Epistle, out of which Vigilius, and Baronius would prove him to bee a Catholike, even those words I say, doe so fully and manifestly demonstrate, that you will say, if not sweare, that nothing but the love of Nestorianisme could so farre blind them, as to de∣fend that part of his Epistle, or undertake by it to prove Ibas to be a Catholike. The words of Ibas are these m 1.709. After that Iohn had received the Emperors letters, compelling him to make agreement with Cyrill; hee 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 anathematize those who say that the Godhead did suffer (which opinion the Nestorians slan∣dered Cyrill, and all Catholike 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 Cyrill. Now it was the will of God, who alwaies taketh care for his Church, which hee hath redeemed with his owne blood, to subdue the heart of the Aegyptian (that is Cyrill) that he presently consented to the faith, and embraced it, and anathematized all who beleeved otherwise. So they (Iohn and Cyrill) communicating together, the contention was taken away, peace was made in the Church, and now there is no schisme but peace, as of late there was. And that you may know what words were written, by the most holy Archbishop Iohn, and what an∣swer hee received backe from Cyrill, I have to this my writing adjoy∣ned

their very Epistles, that your Holinesse 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 (hee meaneth Cyrill and the Catholikes) who had before seditiously enveied against the living (Nestorius) and the dead (Theodorus) are now confounded, making satisfaction for their faults, & contraria do∣centes suae priori doctrinae, and now teach the contrarie to their former doctrine. For none now dare say, that there is one nature (that is, one naturall subsistence or person) of the divinity and humanity, but they confesse and beleeve, both in the temple, and in him who dwelleth in the temple, who is one Sonne, Iesus Christ. And this I have written to your Sanctitie, out of that great affection which I beare to you, knowing that your holinesse doth exercise it selfe, night and day, in the doctrine of God, that you might be profitable unto many. Thus farre are the words of Ibas, written unto Maris an hereticke n 1.710 of Persia, and writ not as a private letter, but as an Encyclicall Epistle to bee shewed and notified to all that love peace, that is, according to their hereticall dialect, to all that loved Nestorianisme in Persia, and in the places adjoyning, to be a comfort and encourage∣ment to them, to persist in their heresie, to which even Cyrill himselfe, and all Catholikes had upon better advice, at the time of the union with Iohn, consented.

20. In which words any who hath though but halfe an eye of a Catholike, cannot chuse but clearely discerne, the very poy∣son, and malice of all the heresies, and practises of the Nestori∣ans, to be condensate and compact together. First, here is ex∣pressed their maine heresie, that Christ is not God, as the house is not the man who dwelleth in the house. Secondly, is set downe a notorious slander against Cyrill and the Catholikes, that they at the union made with Iohn, did anathematize all who held one naturall subsistence, or one person to be in Christ, that is, in effect did accurse all Catholikes, and the whole Ca∣tholike Faith. Thirdly, it is a notable untruth, that Cyril made the union with Iohn upon this condition, that hee should anathe∣matize all who hold Christ to be one person, the condition was quite contrarie, to wit, that Iohn, and they on his part, should anathematize 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 men∣tioned by Ibas. The Epistle is testified by Cyrill himselfe not to bee his, but a counterfaite writing, forged by the Nestorians. Fiftly, it is a Calumnie, that Cyrill and the rest who condemned Nestorius and Theodorus were seditious persons: it is as much as to say, that the holy Ephesine Councell, was a conspiracie and seditious conventicle. Sixtly, it is an unexcusable slander and untruth, that Cyrill and they who held with him, that is, the Catholikes, that they were confounded, and repented of their former doctrines, or writ contrarie unto them. These, besides

divers the like, are the flowers wherewith the latter part of that Epistle is deckt, even that part which Pope Vigilius and Ba∣ronius doe so magnifie, the one defining, the other defending, that by it Ibas ought to be judged a Catholike, and his Epistle received as Catholike: This part above all the rest, is so stuffed with heresies and slanders, that I doe constantly affirme, that none of all their Romane Alcumists can extract or distill one dramme of Catholike doctrine, or any goodnesse out of it. Only Pope Vigilius, being, as I have often said, blinded with Nestoria∣nisme, and Cardinall Baronius, being infatuated with the admi∣ration of their Pontificall infallible Chaire, they two by the new found art of Transubstantiating, wherein that sect excelleth Iannes and Iambres, and all the inchanters in the world, they by one spell ••or charme of a few words pronounced out of that holy chaire, can turne a serpent into a staffe, bread into a living bodie, darkenesse into light, an hereticke into a Catholike, yea the very venome and poyson of all Nestorianisme, into most wholsome doctrines of the Catholike faith: such, as that none may write, speake, or thinke ought to the contrarie.

21. See ye not now, as I foretold that you should, both the Pope, and the Cardinall▪ marching under the banner of Ne∣storius, and like two worthy Generalls, holding up a standard to the Nestorians, and building in the Romane Church, but very cunningly and artificially, a Capitoll for Nestorianisme? They forsooth will not in plaine tearmes say that Nestorianisme is the Catholike faith, that Christ is not God, that the Sonne of Mary is not the Sonne of God, that Cyrill is an hereticke, and the holy Ephesine Councell hereticall: Fie, these are too Beoticall, and blunt, they could never have gotten any one to tast of that cup of Nestorianisme, had they dealt so plainely, or simply ra∣ther; Rome and Italy, are Schooles of better manners, and of more civilitie and subtiltie: you must learne there to speake heresie in the Atticke Dialect, in smooth, plausible, sweet and sugred tearmes; you must say the union which Ibas in his Epistle embraceth is the Catholike union, that Ibas by embracing that union was a Catholike, and ought to bee judged a Catholike; that whosoever embraceth not this union, which the Pope hath defined to be the Catholike communion, cannot be a Catho∣like: or if you speake more briefly and Laconically, you may say, the Popes decrees and Cathedrall 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 bee God; You condemne the Ephesine Councell, you speake true Nesto∣rianisme, but you speake it not after the rude and rusticke fashi∣on, but in that purest Ciceronian phrase which is now the re∣fined language of the Romane Church. By approving this union, or the Popes decree in this cause of Ibas, you drinke up at once all the blasphemies and heresies of Nestorius, even the very dregs

of Nestorianisme; yet your comfort is, though it be ranke poi∣son, you shall now take it as an antidote, and soveraigne 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 Cardinall Baronius unto you, that it killeth, not onely without any sense of paine, but with a sweet delight also, even in a pleasing slumber and dreame of life; bringing you, as on a bed of downe, unto the pit of death.

22. See here again their Synoniā art. Oh how nice & scrupulous is Baronius in approving, or allowing Vigilius to approve the for∣mer part of this Epistle of Ibas? The Epistle o 1.711 was in no other part, but onely in the last concerning the union approved: Why? there is nothing at all in the former, no heresie, or impi∣ety set downe in it, which doth not certainly and unavoydably 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 1.712 the blasphemies of the Nestorians are in too plaine and blunt a man∣ner expressed; Cyrill is an Apollinarian; The twelve Chapters of Cirill, omni impietate plena sunt, are full of all impietie. The Ephesine Councell unjustly deposed Nestorius, and approved the twelve Chapters of Cyrill, which are contraria verae fidei, and such like. It is not for a Pope or a Cardinall to approve such plaine and per∣spicuous heresies; they might as well say, We are heretikes, wee are Nestorians: which kinde of Beoticisme is farre from the civili∣ty of the Romane Court: But in the latter part the heresies of Nestorius and all his blasphemies are offered in the shew of uni∣on with Cyrill, and communion with the Church; and comming under the vaunt of that union, as in the wombe of the Trojane horse, the Pope and the Cardinall may now with honour re∣ceive them; the union (and with, or in it all Nestorianisme) must be brought into the City, the Pope and the Cardinall with them∣selves put their hands to this holy worke, pedibusque rotarum sub∣ijciunt lapsus, & stupeae vincula collo intendunt, themselves will drag and hale it with their owne shoulders to within the wals: nor is that enough, it must be placed in the very Romane Capitoll, in the holy temple, and consecrated to God, and that the Pope himselfe will doe by an Apostolicall and infallible constitution: by that immutable decree is this union set up as the Catholike 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 havocke of the Catholike faith.

23. Now it is not unworthy our labour to consider whether Vigilius and Baronius did in meere ignorance, or wittingly em∣brace this union mentioned by Ibas, that is in truth, all Nestoria∣nisme. And for Vigilius, if any will be so favourable as to inter¦pret

all this to have proceeded of ignorance, I will not greatly contend with him. It is as great a crime for their Romane Apollo, and as foule a disgrace to their infallible Chaire upon ignorance to decree an heresie, as to do it upon wilfull obstinacy; yet to cō∣fesse the truth, I am more than of opinion that Vigilius not upon ignorance, but out of a setled judgment & affection w^ch he bare to Nestorianisme decreed this union, and with it the doctrines of Nestorius to be embraced: And that which induceth mee so to judge, is the great diligence, care, and circumspection which Vigilius used to enforme both himselfe and others in this matter; for besides that this cause was debated, and continually discus∣sed in the Church for the space of six yeares and more, before the Pope published this his Apostolicall Constitution, (all which time Vigilius was a chiefe party in this cause) himselfe in his de∣cree witnesseth concerning this third Chapter, or Epistle of Ibas, that he examined it, diligenti p 1.713 investigatione, by a diligent inquisi∣tion; yea, that he perused his bookes most q 1.714 diligently for this point, and concludeth both of it, and the rest, that hee decreed these things, cum r 1.715 omni undique cautela atque diligentia; with all possible care and diligence that could be used: And because, pl••s vi∣dent oculi quam oculus, hee added to his owne 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 Vigili∣us speaketh in this cause of Ibas not doubtfully, but in words pro∣ceeding from certaine knowledge and resolute judgment, diluci∣de, s 1.716 aperteque reperimus, evidenter t 1.717 advertimus, apertissimum u 1.718 nos∣cuntur praebuisse consensum, evidenter x 1.719 declaratur, in Iba Episcopo ni∣hil in confessione fidei fuisse reprehensum, illud y 1.720 indubitanter patet, apertissima z 1.721 lucet veritate ex verbis Epistolae, constat a 1.722 eundem Ibam communicatorem Cyrilli fuisse toto vitae ejus tempore, luce clari∣us b 1.723 demonstratur: All which doe shew, that Vigilius spake out of his setled 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 di∣ligence peruse and ponder the same, can otherwise chuse than observe, and see it. Wherefore I cannot thinke but that Vigili∣us both saw and knew that part of the Epistle, above all the rest, to containe 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 cardinall Baronius, that hee in defending the lat∣ter part of this Epistle, as doth Vigilius before him, that in stri∣ving so earnestly by it to prove Ibas to have beene a catholike, and his Epistle to be orthodoxall, at least in the latter part, be∣cause Ibas assented to the union mentioned therein; that he I say did herein wittingly, willingly, and obstinately labour to main∣taine

the condemned heresie of Nestorius: for my owne part I cannot almost doubt, nor, as I thinke, will his best friends when they have well considered of his words: He intreating 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 dimne his sight, ingenuously there confesseth, that this Epistle is hereticall, written by a Nestorian, written of purpose to dis∣grace Cyrill, and the catholikes, as if they at the union had re∣canted their former doctrines. But let us heare his owne words.

25. He having shewed c 1.724 that the union was made in every point according to Cyrils minde, and without the condemning of his twelve Chapters, addeth this, They d 1.725 who favoured Nestori∣us spred abroad a rumour, that Cyrill had in all things consented unto Iohn, and condemned his former doctrines: and a little after decla∣ring e 1.726 how the Nestorians did slander Cyrill, he saith, Besides o∣thers, who tooke part with Nestorius, even Theodoret also, ijsdem aggressus est Cyrillum urgere calumnijs, vexed Cyrill with the same slanders, that he had condemned his owne Chapters; and then comming to this Epistle of Ibas, he thus writeth, Who f 1.727 so desireth to see further the sleights of the Nestorians, let him reade the Epistle, w ^ch is said to be the Epist. of Ibas unto Maris, wherin any may see the Nestorian fellow insulting and triumphing, as if the cause had beene adjudged to him, & jactantem Cyrillum poenitentem, tandem recant••sse palinodiam, and vaunting that Cyrill repenting himselfe 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 eo∣rum, & ignominia Catholicorum; for the comfort of the Nestorians, and for the disgrace of Catholikes, Thus Baronius. Professing as you see, that he knew this Epistle to be hereticall, and that even in the latter end, which Vigilius and himself defendeth as orthodoxall, yea, evē in that very point touching the union mentioned in that Epistle, to be a meere calumnie against Cyrill, and the Catholikes, as if they, by making the union, had consented to Nestoria∣nisme, and renounced the Ephesine Councell, and the Catho∣like faith.

26. Seeing now the Card. knew all this to be true, and yet af∣terwards for defence of Vigilius and his Constitution, teacheth and maintaineth, that by embracing the union mentioned in this Epi∣stle, Ibas was a Catholike, and was for this cause by the Councell at Chalcedon, and ought by all others to be adjudged a Catho∣like, is it not evident that the Cardinall wittingly and willingly maintaines hereby the union with the Nestorians to bee the ca∣tholike union, and so the doctrines of the Nestorians to bee the catholike faith? for this union mentioned in the Epistle, is, as the Cardinall professeth, an union in Nestorianisme, an union with Cyrill, having now renounced the Ephesine Councell, and the ca∣tholike faith.

27. Onely there is one quirke or subtilty in the Cardinals words, which may not without great wrong unto him bee omit∣ted, where he acknowledgeth this Epistle to be g 1.728 hereticall, & he∣reticall in this point of the union, there he will not h 1.729 have it to be the Epistle of Ibas, for then by it Ibas should bee judged a Nesto∣rian, which would quite overthrow the Constitution of Vigilius: when in the other i 1.730 place he defends, as Vigilius decreeth, that Ibas by this Epistle, and by consenting to this union was a Catholike, and ought to bee judged a Catholike, there the Epistle is truly the Epistle of Ibas, but then consenting to this union is the note of a Catholike: So both this Epistle is the Epistle of Ibas, and it is not the Epistle of Ibas; and to consent to the uni∣on herein mentioned, is the note of a Nestorian heretike; and to consent to the same union, is the note of a good Catholike. Thus doth the Cardinall play, & sport himselfe in contradictions, and as the winde blowes and turnes him, so doth he turne his note al∣so: If the winde blow to Alexandria, and turne the Cardinals face towards Cyrill, then the union is hereticall, lest Cyrill who condemned it, should bee condemned for an heretike. If the winde blow from Africke, and turne the Cardinals face towards Rome and Pope Vigilius, then the union is Catholike, lest Vigili∣us approving this union, should not be thought a Catholike. Or because a Cardinall so learned, so renouned as Baronius, may not be thought to contradict himselfe, or speake amisse in either place, let both sayings be admitted for true, and then it unavoy∣dably followeth, that by the Cardinals divinity, and in his judg∣ment, Nestorianisme is the Catholike faith; which aptly and ea∣sily 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 with∣all a perfect Catholike, as in the other place is avouched.

28. Besides this confession of Baronius, which is cleare enough, there is yet another meanes to demonstrate that the Cardinall by defending this latter part of the Epistle touching the union, did wittingly and wilfully maintaine the condemned heresie of Nestorius: for the fift generall Councell, approved, as wee have shewed, by the judgment of the whole Catholike Church, hath adjudged this very part k 1.731 of the Epistle, the defence whereof Ba∣ronius hath undertaken, not onely to bee hereticall, but to bee more full of blasphemies than any of the rest; it hath l 1.732 further ju∣dicially defined al that defend either this, or any part of that Epi∣stle, to be heretikes, and for such it hath anathematized them, yea, all that write m 1.733 either for it, or for them. Now the Cardinall had read the whole fift Councell, as appeareth by that summa∣ry collection n 1.734 which he hath made of the Acts, and of every Collation thereof; nay, hee had not onely read these Acts, but pried earnestly with a jealous and carping eie, into every corner and sentence thereof, as you shall perceive hereafter; and there∣fore

it is doubtlesse that hee knew the judgement of this fift Councell, concerning all that defend any part of this Epistle, and specially the latter part, which concernes the union. Neither onely did he know that to be the judgement of this fist Coun∣cell, but (as himselfe o 1.735 expresly witnesseth) of all both Popes, and generall Councels which followed it, all of them approving this fift Councell, and the judgement thereof; whence it is cleare, that Baronius knew certainly himselfe by defending this part of the Epistle touching the union, to defend that which by the judgment of the fift Councell, and the whole Catholike Church ever since hath beene condemned for hereticall, and the defen∣ders of it anathematized as heretikes: yet such was the Cardi∣nals zeale, and ardent affection to Nestorianisme, that against the judgement of the whole Church knowne unto him, yea, knowne for this very cause to anathematize 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, chosing rather, by adhering to Vigilius and his hereti∣call decree, to be condemned, and anathematized by the whole Catholike Church for a Nestorian heretike, than by forsaking the defence of Vigilius, and his decree, to condemne 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 wee have already said, that the union which Ibas in his Epistle menti∣oneth and embraceth, and which Vigilius first, and after him Ba∣ronius approveth, is not that true union in the Catholike faith, which Cyrill made with Iohn and other Easterne Bishops; but onely an union in Nestorianisme, and in denying the Catholike faith, to which the Nestorians falsly reported and slandered Cy∣rill, with the other Catholikes, to have consented, and thereby to have condemned and anathematized that truth, which the yeare before they had decreed at Ephesus; Yet for the full satis∣faction of all, and clearing of all doubts which may arise, I will adde one thing further which will much more manifest both the calumnie 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 explane, because the narration of this matter is extreamly 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 my selfe) in the search of this truth, or at least misleade them into such by-paths, that they should not finde the truth in this matter.

30. When Theodosius the religious Emperour had written by Aristolaus that earnest letter to Iohn, and the other Easterne Bi∣shops, perswading, yea, commanding them to consent with Cy∣rill, and embrace the Catholike communion; they upon the Em∣perors

motion sought indeed to make an union with Cyrill, but they laboured to effect it by drawing Cyrill unto their bent, and to consent unto their heresies. This they first attempted by a let∣ter of Acatius Bishop of Berea, willing p 1.736 him to write, in all their names unto Cyrill, that no unity, or concord could be made, but according to those conditions which themselves should pre∣scribe: and the condition prescribed by them, was that Cyrill should q 1.737 abolish and condemne all that ever hee had written a∣gainst Nestorianisme, and so both his twelve Chapters, and the Ephesine decree, and all the like. Cyrill answered r 1.738 with great confidence: rem eos postulare quae fieri plane non posset, that they re∣quired a matter utterly impossible, because what hee had written touching that matter, was rightly written, and in defence of the true faith, and therefore that he could not either condemne, or deny what he had written.

31. When it succeeded not this first way, they next attemp∣ted to effect the union by Paulus s 1.739 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 1.740 some things therein also, not fitting, nor allowable; for they reproved the holy Ephesine Councell, as if things had been spoken, and done therein amisse; What did Cyrill answer? Hujus∣modi epistolas equidem non admisi, truly I did not admit or allow of this their second Epistle neither, seeing therein they did adde 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 exas∣perate Cyrill, but to accord with him, delectionis gratia excusati∣onem admisi, I in charity was content to admit of this excuse. And Paulus being very desirous to effect the union, consented to ana∣thematize Nestorius and his heresies; to consent also to the depo∣sing of Nestorius, and the electing of Maximianus in his place: which when Paulus had performed, and subscribed suo chyrogra∣pho, with his owne hand-writing, (which was all that either the Emperor or Cyrill required) ad synaxim recepi, I received him to the communion of the Church. But when Paulus would further have perswaded 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 sub∣scription might satisfie for the others also, and that he would re∣quire no more of them, but be content with their letters which by him they had sent; nulla ratione id fieri passus sum, saith Cyrill, I could by no meanes indure that: I told Paulus also, that his sub∣scription in condemning Nestorius and his heresies, Ipsi soli suffi∣cere, could satisfie but only for himselfe, but as for the rest, Iohn u 1.741, and they must personally, and for themselves subscribe; or else they

could not bee received into communion: whereupon Cyrill writ an orthodoxall profession x 1.742 to that same effect, whereunto Paulus had subscribed, and sent it unto Iohn, requiring his per∣sonall subscription to it. This was the summe of all that was done by Paulus at his first comming.

32. Paulus returning to Antioch, brought this resolute an∣swer of Cyrill, to Iohn, and the Bishops of his Synod. They see∣ing no other meanes to make an union, but onely by consenting to Cyrill; and seeing that Paulus; whom they put in trust as their agent, had both himselfe consented, and further undertaken that Iohn and they should likewise consent unto the same which hee had done, did now at length yeeld y 1.743 to all the demands of Cyrill: and for an assurance of their sincerity therein, they writ a Syno∣dall z 1.744 and Encyclicall Epistle unto Cyrill, which they likewise sent unto Pope Sixtus, to Maximianus, and other principall Bishops, wherein they first set downe a very sound, true and orthodoxall confession of their faith, and then testifie their willing assent and subscription, to the deposing b 1.745 of Nestorius, and the condem∣ning of his heresies.a 1.746

33. This Synodall letter they sent to Cyrill by Paulus c 1.747 Bi∣shop of Emisa, that he might make a finall peace, and union. At whose comming to Alexandria this second time, and bringing with him this undoubted testimony of the orthodoxie of Iohn, and the chiefe of the Easterne Bishops, and that they had now consented to all which either the Emperour, or Cyrill required of them, the union was fully concluded on every part, and peace made in the Church: In token whereof Paulus preached at A∣lexandria, in the month of December d 1.748, making there before Cy∣rill, and the whole City, so orthodoxall a profession of the faith, that the people for joy interrupting him foure or five times, ex∣clamed e 1.749, Bene venisti Orthodoxe, O Orthodox Paul thou art welcome to us, Cyrill is orthodoxall, Paulus is orthodoxall: and Cyrill for his part writ that learned Epistle f 1.750 in congratulation unto Iohn, and the rest which beginneth, Let the Heavens rejoyce, and let the earth be glad, publishing it as an hymne 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 be∣twixt Cyrill, and the Easterne Bishops touching this matter of the union, as they who diligently peruse the Epistles of Cyril to Acatius Bishop of Melitene, to Dynatus, and Iohn, and compare therewith the Epistle of Iohn, and the Synod of Antioch sent to Cyrill and Xistus, will clearly perceive, whence three things may be observed: The first is the most shamelesse dealings of the Nestorians, who slandered Cyrill to have at the time of the union consented in all points unto them, and to their heresie, and to have condemned his former doctrine, and the Ephesine Coun∣cell, wheras 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 1.751 would not consent to Pharoah, no, not in the least hoofe, so would not Cyrill yeeld 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 tooke for their pretended calumnie: They knew that Iohn and the Ea∣sterne Bishops had written to Cyrill, willing him to condemne his owne Chapters; yea, that they had writ so resolutely, that un∣lesse Cyrill did so, they would not consent unto any peace, or uni∣on. Thus much was true, as by the letter of Acatius Bishop of Be∣rea to Cyrill is evident: Now they saw that Cyrill afterwards, and in that very yeare consented with Iohn, and made union with him, whereupon they boasted that Cyrill did it upon the conditi∣on required by Iohn at the first, which was the condemning of his former doctrine; wilfully and maliciously concealing both how Cyrill utterly denyed to yeeld unto them, or to that condi∣tion required by them; and how at the length Iohn, and so many of them as were received into communion, consented whol∣ly unto him, and subscribed to the Catholike faith. All this they quite suppresse; and, to colour the matter, they forged h 1.752 a letter under the name of Cyrill, as consenting to condemne his owne doctrine; which no doubt was the same letter that Ibas in his Epi∣stle inclosed, and sent unto Maris the heretike.

36. The third is, how Baronius hath perverted the narration of this union, and strengthened the calumnie of the Nestorians by his misreporting of the same: But first we must set downe the Cardinals words; Vpon the Emperours letters (saith hee i 1.753) sent unto Iohn, commanding him, and the rest, to agree with Cyrill, Iohn and the Easterne Bishops met together in a Synod at Antioch, and they agreed to k 1.754 ratifie the condemnation of Nestorius, and his heresie, as the Empe∣rour had required them to doe; and so to make union with the Pope, with Cyrill, and with the Catholike Church. According to this agree∣ment they made a Synodall decree, and Synodall l 1.755 Epistle, containing the condemning of Nestorius, with his heresies; and an orthodoxal profession which they sent to Pope Sixtus, and other Catholike Bishops, to testifie their communion with them al m 1.756. This Epistle n 1.757 by the way, is in effect the o 1.758 same which Paulus Bishop of Emisa brought, at his second comming into Alexan∣dria. The Cardinall proceeding, tels us, that this Epistle was sent as common to all, save p 1.759 onely to Cyrill; but as for Cyrill, against whom they had most bitter enmity, aliter q 1.760 sibi agendum puta∣runt; they would take another course, and deale after another man∣ner with him; and marke, I pray you, how that was, they would so deale with him, ut r 1.761 ab eo exigerent Catholicae fidei confessonem, qua, sua Capitula velut erronea condemnaret; so that they would exact of him a Catholike confession, wherein hee should condemne his owne twelve Chapters as erronious: and when Cyrill refused so to doe,

in the next place they send Paulus Bishop of Emisa, as their Le∣gate, unto Cyrill, qui si posset ab eo quod petitum antea furat, extor∣queret; who should, if by any meanes hee could, wring from Cyrill that which before they required; (to wit, the condemning of his Chap∣ters;) but if he could not doe that, nor prevaile therein with Cyrill, tunc de damnatione Nestorij literas ei redderet; then they willed Paulus to deliver unto Cyrill their Synodall letters, written by them, containing the condemnation of Nestorius, and his heresie. Thus Baro∣nius; and s 1.762 Binius traceth him in these steps.

37. In which narration of the Cardinall, besides many un∣truths wherewith it is stuffed, there are two things, above all the rest, to be observed. The former is, how wise and politike the Cardinall doth make Iohn, and the whole Synod of Antioch, to be in this matter of the union: first, they condemne the heresies of Nestorius, approve the Ephesine Councell, and by so doing ap∣prove the twelve Chapters of Cyrill; they doe this in a Synod, and publish their Synodall decree at Rome, at Constantinople, and other places, to shew and testifie themselves to bee truly ortho∣doxall; and when all this is done, they labour earnestly, with Cy∣rill, to make him condemne his owne twelve Chapters, which is in effect to maintaine Nestorianisme; to condemne the Ephe∣sine Councell, (wherein his Chapters were approved) yea, to condemne their owne Synodall decree, by which themselves, at Antioch, had condemned Nestorius, and approved the Chap∣ters of Cyrill. Againe, he makes Iohn, and his Synod to commu∣nicate with Sixtus, with Maximianus, with all other Catholikes save Cyrill, and them of his Patriarchship; with all the former they will communicate, though they all approved the twelve Chapters of Cyrill, with Cyril they will not communicate, unlesse he will condemne the same twelve Chapters. If they thought the twelve Chapters to be hereticall, why hold they communi∣on with Sixtus, Maximianus, and others who approved them? nay, why did themselves approve them? If they thought them orthodoxall, why would they (being themselves orthodoxall) perswade, yea, enforce and wring out of Cyrill a condemnation of the orthodoxall faith? Besides, what a worthy peece of poli∣cy was this, which the Cardinall doth fasten upon Iohn, 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 Chap∣ters of Cyrill, that is, of the Catholike faith, and yet command Paulus to urge and wring from Cyrill, if he could, a condemnati∣on of those twelve Chapters, that is, of the whole Catholike faith? What deepe dissemblers and hypocrites doth hee make Iohn, Paul, and the rest of those orthodoxall Bishops? Lastly, of what faith or religion, doe you thinke, must Iohn, Paul, and the rest be, by the Cardinals narration. By their Synodall sentence, and holy confession therein; they appove the twelve Chapters

of Cyrill, and so are perfect Catholikes; againe, by their urging of Cyrill to condemne his twelve Chapters, they are perfect Ne∣storians, for the condemning of them, is the defending of all the Nestorian heresies; so, by the Cardinals divinity, they are at the selfe same time, both perfect Nestorians, and perfect Catho∣likes; which can no way be effected, but by admitting the Car∣dinals old position, which he learned of Vigilius, that perfect Ne∣storianisme is the perfect Catholike faith.

38. Into such labyrinths doth the Cardinals foule misrepor∣ting of this matter leade, and even draw a man; whereas the truth, as, by that which formerly hath beene declared, is evident, that Iohn, and the rest of the Synod, when they vrged Cyrill to condemne his Chapters, had not made that Synodall decree for condemning of Nestorius; & when they had once made that de∣cree, they never, either by word or writing, urged Cyrill to con∣demne those Chapters: Before they made that decree, and con∣demned Nestorius, they were hereticall, and held communion neither with Cyrill, nor Sixtus, nor any other Catholikes: After they had made that decree, and condemned Nestorius with his heresies, they were orthodoxall, & communicated no lesse with Cyrill, thā with Sixtus, or any other Catholike; nay, they cōmu∣nicated first of all with Cyrill, & then with all other Catholikes.

39. The other point to bee observed out of the Cardinalls words, is, that by his narration Cyrill did indeed, as Ibas and the Nestorians slandered him, renounce & reject the Catholike faith, for the Cardinall makes Paulus of Emisa but to goe once to Alexandria about the union, or if any can finde in the Car∣dinall a second journey thither, yet by his narratiō, the Synodall Epistle of Iohn, and the rest, wherein they condemne Nestorius, and set downe an orthodoxall profession, that Epistle was sent by Paulus at the first time, for he had withall in charge to urge Cyrill to condemne his twelve Chapters, which at his last going had beene absurd and incongruous. So then the Epistle which Paulus, at his first going to Cyrill brought with him, was the orthodoxall Epistle of Iohn, and the Synod. Now it is certaine by the expresse words of Cyrill, that the letter which Iohn and the rest, sent by Paulus at his first going, was rejected by Cyrill, for he saith of that Epistle, hujusmodi epistolas non accep∣tavi, I did not accept this Epistle sent by Paul: and the Cardinall t 1.763 citing those words of Cyrill verbatim, and making some prettie collection out of them, could not be ignorant hereof. Seing then by the Cardinalls narration, the Epistle which Paulus brought at his first comming was orthodoxall, and seeing it is certaine that Cyrall rejected that Epistle, which Paulus at his first comming brought from Iohn, it inevitably followeth, upon the Cardinalls narration, that Cyrill indeed rejected an ortho∣doxall and Catholike profession, containing the condemnation of Nestorius, and his heresies, and therefore that Cyrill renounced

his former Catholike doctrine, & consented to Nestorianisme, which is the same calumnie wherewith Ibas in his impious Epi∣stle, slandereth Cyrill. And although Baronius doe in words deny this, as I know hee doth, yet considering the deepe projects which the Cardinall hath, it may bee feared, that he meant by this meanes, cunningly, and closely, to lay a foundation to up∣hold that union, in which Ibas in his Epistle rejoyceth, and which Vigilius and the Cardinall himselfe approve for Catho∣like, or if the Cardinall intended not this, yet I am sure that hee hath then unwittingly devised, such a notable ground, to main∣taine that slander, which Ibas imputeth to Cyrill, that at the time of the union he rejected his former doctrines, as that neither Ibas himselfe, nor any of the old Nestorians could possibly have for∣ged a more faire and colourable pretence for the same.

40. My conclusion now of this their former reason, for defence of the impious Epistle of Ibas; drawne 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 hee malitiously slan∣dereth Cyrill to have consented: and seeing Pope Vigilius, and Cardinall Baronius not onely approve as Catholike, the union there mentioned by Ibas, but prove by it and consenting to it, both Ibas himselfe to bee a Catholike, and his Epistle, in that part at least, to be orthodoxall, it hence cleerely ensueth, that Vigilius by his Apostolicall sentence defineth, and Baronius by name (as also all who maintaine the Popes Cathedrall sentence in causes of faith to bee infallible) doe all defend Nestorianisme to be the Catholike union, and so Nestorianisme to bee the Catholike faith: which whosoever affirmes, are by the judgement not onely of the fift, but the fourth and third generall Councells, convicted, condemned, and anathematized heretickes.

CHAP. XII. That Vigilius and Baronius in their later reason for defence of the Epistle of Ibas, taken from the words of Ibas, wherein hee con∣fesseth two natures and one person in Christ, doe maintaine the heresies of Nestorius.

1. THe other reason whereby they labour to defend this impious Epistle, and with no lesse fraud then they did in the former, is taken from the very confession of Ibas, set downe in his Epistle, wherein hee acknowledgeth Christ to have two natures, and to bee one per∣son. His words to Maris the hereticke are these, neare the be∣ginning of his Epistle a 1.764. Cyrill hath written twelve Chapters

which I thinke your holinesse knoweth, wherein he teacheth, quia una est natura divinitatis & humanitatis, that there is one nature of the divinitie, and humanitie in Christ, these things are full of all impiety; and giving a reason hereof, he addeth, for the Church saith thus, as it hath beene 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 Sonne our Lord Iesus Christ: Thus Ibas: which words seeme to be so true, so orthodoxall and Catholike, that Vigilius and Ba∣ronius, might either be themselves hereby deceived; or, which I rather thinke, judge them, as they are indeed, a most colourable pretence to deceive others, & lead them into Nestorianisme: for no Catholike can possibly in fairer tearmes, or better for shew of words, expresse against Nestorius the true doctrine of the Ca∣tholike faith, then to say that there are two natures in Christ, and yet but one person. This seeing Ibas professeth in his Epi∣stle, and withall accurseth b 1.765 those who deny two natures in Christ, sure none can thinke but this was a fit text for Vigilius and Baronius, by it to commend this impious Epistle as ortho∣doxall & Catholike, wherein so Catholike a confession seemeth to bee made. But let us see how the Pope and the Cardinall descant on these words.

2. Baronius saith not much, but yet hee speakes plainely of this matter; The fathers at Chalcedon, saith he c 1.766, out of this Epi∣stle of Ibas, gathered Ibas then (when he writ it) to be a Ca∣tholike, ut pote quod ex eadem epistola demonstratur ipse, because by this very Epistle Ibas was demonstrated, both to have held com∣munion with Cyrill, execratusque esse unam naturam in Christo confitentes, confessus vero esse, naturas duas unam d 1.767 [personam] effi∣cere, Dominum nostrum Iesum Christum, and also he was demon∣strated by this Epistle, to have accursed those who confesse one onely nature in Christ, and to have confessed the two natures, to make one person, and Lord Iesus Christ. So Baronius: teaching not only that profession which Ibas makes in his Epistle, of two natures, and one person, to be Catholike, but that Ibas by that very confession is proved, nay demonstrated to be a Catholike.

3. Vigilius handles this matter farre more largely, but very obscurely & mystically, as being indeed so miserably intangled in the birdlime of Nestorianisme, that hee know not possibly how to unfold himselfe. I must first of all set downe 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 1.768, which in the Epistle of Ibas, are injuriously spoken against Cyrill by a misunderstanding of Cyrills sayings, the Fathers at Chalcedon, when they pronounced the Epistle to be orthodoxall, did not receive; for the venerable Bishop (Ibas) himselfe by chan∣ging, refuted those, when he had gotten better understanding

of those Chapters which Eunomius in his interloquution doth most evidently declare. And f 1.769 the interloquution of Invenalis doth signifie the same, who therefore decreed that Ibas should receive his Bishopricke, as holding the orthodoxall profession of faith, because he devoutly ranne, to embrace the communion with Cyrill, after that Cyrill had explaned his Chapters, and Ibas had understood them otherwise then before he did, though he had carped at Cyrill, when hee misunderstood those Chapters, for thus said Iuvenalis; The holy Scripture commandeth that hee who is converted should be received, for which cause we receive such as returne from heretickes; wherefore I decree that the reverend Ibas should obtaine favour and receive his Bishopricke, both because he is an old man, and because he is a Catholike. So Iuvenalis: By which this is understood: If wee receive such as returne from heretikes, how should we not receive Ibas who is a Catholike? whom it is manifest to be a Catholike, seeing hee is now converted, from that understanding of Cyrills Chapters, whereby hee was de∣ceived, who while hee doubted of the understanding of those Chapters, did seem to speak against Cyrill: for never would Iu∣venalis say that Ibas were a Catholike, unlesse he had proved by the words of this Epistle his confession to bee orthodoxall. And that the Interloquutions of Iuvenalis and Eunomius doe agree, the words of Eunomius doe shew, which are these; In what things Ibas seemed to blame Cyrill, by speaking ill; hee 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 repro∣ved, seeing it is manifest, that his faith was praised; and that Ibas hath refuted that, which by misunderstanding Cyrill, hee had thought amisse of him.

4. For g 1.770 the same venerable Ibas, by the precedent Acts, (as the judgement of Photius and Eustathius doth shew) is most manifestly declared to receive and embrace all things which were done in the first Ephesine Synod, and judge them equall to the Nicene decrees, and to put no difference betwixt those and these at Ephesus: and Eustathius is shewed very much to com∣mend the sanctity of Ibas, for that he was so ready and willing to cure those, who, either by suspition, or any other way did hurt the opinion of his learning: For after that Cyrill had explaned his twelve Chapters, and the meaning which Cyrill had in them was declared unto Ibas, after that, Ibas professed himselfe, with all the Easterne Bishops, to have esteemed Cyrill a Catholike, and to have remained, even unto his end, in the communion with him; whence it is cleare, that Ibas, both before he understood the twelve Chapters of Cyrill, and when hee suspected one (onely) nature of Christ to be taught and maintained by them, did then in an orthodoxal sense reject that which he thought to be spoken a∣misse in those Chapters; and also after the explanation thereof,

did in an orthodoxall sense reverently embrace those things which he knew to be rightly spoken in those Chapters.

5. Further, h 1.771 it doth without all doubt appeare to the minds of all the faithfull, that Dioscorus with Eutiches, did offer more wrong in the second Ephesine Synod, than Ibas, to Cyrill and the first Ephesine Councell, by understanding Cyrils Chapters in an hereticall sense, beleeving Cyrill to teach by his twelve Chap∣ters one (onely) nature in our Lord Iesus Christ; and for this cause did Dioscorus condemne some of the Easterne Bishops, who would not acknowledge one (only) nature in Christ; among whom he condemned as an heretike, and deposed Ibas from his Bishop∣ricke, specially for this very confession of his faith, wherein hee most plainly professeth two natures, one power, one person, which is one Sonne, our Lord Iesus Christ: and Dioscorus restored Eutiches, as a Catholike, for the confession of one (onely) nature in Christ, condemning also Flavianus, of blessed memory, for the same do∣ctrine of holding two natures: And Dioscorus and Eutiches are found much more to indeavour to overthrow the first Ephesine Synod, while they defēd it under the shew of an execrable sense, (of one nature) and to slander Cyrill more while they praise him, than did Ibas, when, by the errour and misconceiving of Cyrils meaning, he dispraised him; for seeing their praise and dispraise doe tend unto the same thing, Dioscorus and Eutiches, who con∣demned Cyrill, are found to have commended him with an here∣ticall spirit, or in an hereticall sense, and therfore were they con∣demned in the Councell at Chalcedon; but Ibas, who at the first dispraised Cyrils Chapters, thinking one (onely) nature to bee taught by them; and who, after the sense and meaning of them was declared unto him, did professe himselfe, with the Easterne Bishops, to communicate with Cyrill, was judged by the same Councell of Chalcedon to have continued in the right faith. Thus farre are the words of Vigilius, and so much of his Constitution as concernes this profession made by Ibas, of two natures and one person in Christ.

6. Words like the Oracles of Apollo, ful of thick darknes, & hiddē mysteries. Nor must you here expect any light at al from Binius; was wise enough to decline these rocks in the Epist. of Ibas, both that of the union with Cyril, this & of his cōfessing two natures and one person; at w^ch fearing to make shipwracke of faith, as Vigilius had done before, he thought it to be far the safest course at one stroke to wipe away and spunge out those whole passages both out of the Popes Constitution, and his owne Tomes of Councels: best to have them smothered in silence, or buried in eternall ob∣livion. Add yet, to say truth, had Binius used all his art in this point, that alas would but have helped a little; he, poore lambe, is not able of himselfe to wade, no not through shallow places, it would require an Elephant to swimme through such a deepe: 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 Cardinals beames doe happen to collustrate his notes, yet even there they lose a great part of that vigour which they have in the Cardinals Phoebean lampe.

7. The only man in the world fit to make a full and just com∣mentary on this text of Vigilius, had beene Baronius himselfe: He by his long acquaintance with Popes, and Court of Rome, by his continuall rifling of the Vaticane Manuscripts, and anatomising so many Pontificall decrees, had quicke sense of the Popes pulse, he knew every string and straine in their breasts. But so unhappily it fals out, that the Cardinall himselfe durst not touch this soare; he passeth it over, nay, rather shuffles it from him with deepe silence; wote you why? you may bee sure hee knew there was a padde in this straw, which had the Cardinall uncovered, his owne friends could not have indured the loth∣some sent of the Pontificall Constitution, but for very shame would have swept it out of the Church of God. Now because it were great pitty that so many mysteries as lye hid in this part of the Popes decree should be unknowne to the world, and be∣cause the very explication of the Popes words, is a full convicti∣on of his heresie, for want of a better, I will lend them my best endeavours to supply the defect of the Cardinals Commentary in this point: And although all that I can say is, nihil ad Parme∣nonis suem, nothing to that which you should have applau∣ded, si ipsam belluam audissetis, if the Popes commentator had beene himselfe pleased to write hereof; yet truly, by long con∣templation of the Popes workes, and industrious observing the Cardinals artificium in explaning the like decrees, I well hope that I shal be able dolare, and after a rude fashion to rough-hew a peece of a commentary at this time; onely not being trained up in their Romane Schooles, where they learne to speake silken and sugered words of their Popes, and sow the softest Pillowes under their elbowes; I must crave pardon, if according to the Macedoniā rudenesse of our dialect I call a spade, a spade, a slan∣der, a slander, and heresie, heresie, though it happen to be found even in his Holinesse himselfe, and in his Pontificall and Cathe∣drall decree: In hope of which pardon (specially since the fault is so veniall) I will now addresse my selfe to an unaccustomed taske of making a Commentary upon the Popes writings.

8. The scope and purpose of Vigilius in this whole passage, is, to prove not onely Ibas himselfe, but his faith and profession also to have beene Catholike, not onely when he writ this Epi∣stle, but ever since Cyrill explaned his Chapters, and Ibas under∣stood the same, which was before this Epistle was writ. And this appeares by the very words of Vigilius, who i 1.772 saith, that after Cy∣rils Chapters were explaned, and understood by Ibas, in commu∣nionem ejus devotè concurrerit; he ranne, and hastened with devotion to embrace the communion with Cyrill; and having once embraced

it, in k 1.773 communione ipsius usque ad exitum permansisse; that he continu∣ed in the same communion with Cyrill, even to the end of his life: and as he was then a Catholike, so in this Epistle, which was writ after Cyrils explanation, understood by him, hee expressed that Catholike faith and profession, seeing l 1.774 Iuvenalis, ex verbis Epi∣stolae, ejus confessionem fidei orthodoxam comprobavit; proved the cōfes∣sion of Ibas to be orthodoxall by the very words of this Epistle. This is the purpose then of my author, to shew both Ibas and his confes∣sion of faith, when he writ this Epistle, to have beene Catholike: To prove this he useth three principal reasons; the first is drawne from the explanation of Cyrils Chapters, which Ibas devoutly embraced; and this hee harps upon almost in every part of his text, as you may easily see. The second is taken from his approba∣tion of the holy Ephesine Councel before Photius and Eustathius; in these words, For the same venerable Ibas, &c. The third is drawne from the very profession it selfe, and words thereof set downe in the Epistle of Ibas, where he confesseth two natures, and one person; and though there be a touch and taste of this through∣out the whole text, yet is it specially and more expresly set downe in those words, Further, it doth without all doubt ap∣peare, &c. I must be inforced, 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 affirmes, and by divers meanes proves that confession of Ibas, which in his Epistle hee makes to bee orthodoxall, and before wee handle his proofes hereof we must diligently consider the position it selfe, or con∣fession 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 1.775, is orthodoxall; and for this was Ibas unjustly condemned by Dioscorus, but justly commended by the Councell at Chalcedon. I must set an unpleasant, but a very true and cer∣taine glosse upon these words, Both Ibas, and Vigilius commen∣ding him, and Baronius defending Vigilius herein, doe all Ne∣storianize; or, to speake more plainely, Ibas by that confession in his Epistle teacheth, Vigilius by his Cathedrall decree confir∣meth, Baronius gnatonically applaudeth, and they all three con∣spire in defending the condemned heresie of Nestorius.

10. For the full manifestation whereof it must bee observed, that the Nestorians, the more plansibly to convey their heresie, wherein they denyed Christ the sonne of Mary to be God, used the very same words altogether which Chatholikes did▪ As Catho∣likes said that there are two natures in Christ, the divinity, and the humanity, so said the Nestorians also: As Catholikes confes∣sed 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 Catholikes said, that there are two natures in Christ, they meant truly & orthodoxally, that the divinity & humanity in Christ were differēt in essence and substance, & yet they both made but one hypostasis, that is, but one, and not two subsistent per∣sons: But when the Nestorians said, that there are two natures in Christ, they meant that either nature made a severall and distinct person by it selfe, and so they made Christ to be two distinct persons, each subsisting by it selfe, two Sonnes, two Christs, that is, in truth, no Christ, no Saviour at all; for a Saviour he cannot bee, unlesse the selfe same person which is man be God also.

12. Againe, when Catholikes said, that Christ is one person, they meant truly and orthodoxally, that both natures together make but one personall subsistence, as the humane soule and bo∣dy 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 naturall or personall subsistence, but of unity in affection, of unity by consent and liking, of unity by cohabitation; the person of the Sonne of God, so affecting and liking the sonne of Marie, that it inhabited and dwelt 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 sonne of Ma∣ry, or man; nor yet was that man which was the sonne of Mary, God; but onely the house or temple of God.

13. When Catholikes called Iesus Christ our Lord, they meant truly and orthodoxally, that the man Iesus Christ, who tooke flesh of the Virgin Mary, is in truth very God, the God∣head being hypostatically united unto the manhood, and both of them making but one person, who is both God and man: but the Nestoriās in calling Iesus Christ our Lord, meant not that the man Christ was truly & personally God or Lord, but that he was God, and the Lord, onely by having God and the Lord inhabi∣ting in him, and united, not personally, but onely affectually un∣to him; wherupon it followed, that they in adoring Christ, & gi∣ving divine honours unto him, were indeed 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; for they gave the honour proper onely to God, unto that person, or that mā, which, according to their doctrine, they held not to be God.

14. And, which of all may seeme most strange; whereas Ca∣tholikes not onely professed the Virgin Mary to bee the Mother of God, but under those very tearmes, and by that forme of words, as being most easie and perspicuous, contradicted & condemned all the heresies of Nestorius, which were all by consequent inclu∣ded in their denying Mary to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Mother of God; The Nestorians, to avoid the hatred of this speech, if they should de∣ny it, and more plausibly to convay their heresie, said, and in words professed even this also, that Mary was the Mother of God; but they meant not thereby, as Catholikes did, that Christ, who tooke flesh of the Virgin Mary, was the same person or one personall subsistence with the Sonne 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 onely by affection, and love united unto the sonne of Marie, being already perfect man in the wombe of his mother, and that God was borne of her, not by assuming flesh unto him, but by inhabiting that man who tooke flesh of her. Thus in shew of words the Nestorians seemed to bee Catholikes, and to say the same with Catholikes, but their sense and meaning in those words was most hereticall, and therefore indeed and in truth themselves notwithstanding all these speeches, were heretikes.

15. For the full and ample proofe of all these, I must referre my selfe 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 then Vigilius, I meane Hormisda, to have beene as deepe in the heresie of Nestorius, and to have as firmly by his Cathedrall and Apostolicall sentence confirmed the same, as Vigilius himselfe hath done, who as I thinke, by the example and authority of his predecessor was the more emboldned to plead for Nestorianisme, it being of all he∣resies which ever sprung up in the Church, most full of all sophi∣sticall subtilties, and colourable pretences of wit, was most fit of all the rest, to be commended by such as under the shew of lear∣ning, and truth, meant to defend and uphold heresie. But for this time I will now alleage onely a few evident testimonies, to de∣clare the truth of that concurrence in words, and difference in sense, betweene Catholikes and Nestorians, which even now I mentioned.

16. Nestorius in his Epistle n 1.776 to Alexander signifying that the two natures in Christ are also two persons, saith thus; Non duas personas unam personam facimus, we doe not make two persons, one person; but by this one name of Christ, we signifie two natures (to wit, making two persons.) And to shew how these two persons are called by them one person; thou mayst, saith he o 1.777, call him that was borne of Mary, by the name of the Sonne of God, for the Virgin which bare Christ, filium Dei genuit, bare the Sonne of God, but be∣cause the Sonne according to the Natures is double, non genuit quidem p 1.778 filium Dei she did not truly beare the Son of God (as taking flesh from her) but she bare the man or humane nature, quae prop∣ter filium adjunctum, filij quoque appellatione afficitur, which is called the Sonne of God, because the Sonne God is united and joyned unto him: and in another place q 1.779, He that was framed in the wombe, and laid in the grave, is not of himselfe God: at quia Deus in homine assumpto existit, but because God is in the man whom hee assumes unto him, the man assumed is called God, because hee 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 1.780 plasmato Deus verbum factus est. The Word or Sonne of God was united to the man Christ, being framed and formed, shewing plainly that Christ was first made a perfect man, and person, and that then the Sonne of God as another person was united unto him. And shewing that the unity of the two natures is not per∣sonall, but onely affectuall; hee compares the unity which is be∣twixt the Godhead, and the manhood in Christ, to that unitie which is bewixt man and wife, who though they bee called one, yet are they in naturall subsistence two distinct persons. Even so saith he s 1.781 in Christ, non nocet naturarum differentiae unitas perso∣nae, the unity of person doth not take away the distinction of the natures. And the two natures joyned together, unam personam dicimus, we call one person: which unity not to be personall no more then it is in man and wife, but affectuall, hee immediately explaneth, expresly affirming either nature in Christ, to be a perfect and di∣stinct person, or personall subsistence by it selfe, saying, for when we discerne or teach two natures, perfectam naturam verbi Dei dicimus & perfectam personam, perfectam autem & hominis naturam & personam similiter: we affirme both the perfect nature, and the per∣fect person of the Sonne 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, then wee call them one person, (to wit one by affectuall, but not by naturall and perso∣nall unity, for he said plainly before, that they were two perfect distinct persons.) Thus Theodorus.

18. This is to have beene the very true meaning of the Ne∣storians, Iustinian in his Edict manifestly declareth, writing thus and most divinely; In t 1.782 that the Apostle saith of the Sonne of God, that he tooke the forme of a servant, he sheweth that the Word was uni∣ted to the Nature of Man: but not to any subsistence or person: for he doth not say; he tooke him, who was in the forme of a servant, least he should imply thereby, that the Word was united unto the man being formerly formed, as impious Theodorus and Nesto∣rius did blaspheme: affectualem dicentes unitatem, teaching an af∣fectuall (and no personall) unitie betwixt them. The fift Coun∣cell after most exact sifting of this matter doth witnes the same, writing thus; Theodorus u 1.783 and Nestorius teaching two persons, two Christs, two sonnes, would hide their impietie by calling them two na∣tures, and one sonne. And a little after, Theodorus affectualem uni∣tatem dicens, naturas pro personis & subsistentijs accipit. Theodorus teaching an affectuall union (onely) to bee 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 hee taketh twose two natures for two persons. So the ge∣nerall Councell.

19. Pope Iohn the second, doth clearly expresse this, setting

downe the faith of the Romane Church. Wee x 1.784 professe 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 acci∣piens, 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 doe wee un∣derstand two persons to be in Christ, when wee say two natures to be in him, as madde Nestorius thought. Thus the Pope. But no where is this more clearly and fully explained then in the Dia∣logue of Maxentius, where the Catholike disputing with the Nestorian, saith thus: This is y 1.785 the cause of your errror, you cannot discerne the difference betwixt Person and Nature: But understand∣ing Nature to be all one with Person, ye confound (or use for one and the same thing) these two: & duas omnino personas, sicut duas na∣turas unius filij Dei sine dubio praedicatis: and without all doubt, you teach two persons to be in the Sonne of God, when yee professe two na∣tures to be in him.

20. By this which I have sayd, it is now evident, that the Ne∣storians spake like Catholikes, but they thought contrarie to Catholikes: their words were holy and orthodoxall, but their sense, and meaning, was blasphemous, and hereticall. Neither was this any new policie of the Nestorians; The Arians, the Pe∣lagians, almost all heretikes, have practised the like: out of them all, I will here alleage but one example. Vitalis z 1.786 a Presbyter of Antioch, was accused unto Damasus to maintaine in some part the heresie of Apollinaris, as denying Christ to have a soule or minde; At the motion a 1.787 of Damasus, he delivered in wri∣ting a confession of his faith. In that confession, disertis verbis confessus est in Christo, sicut carnem ita & mentem b 1.788: hee in plaine termes professed Christ to have as well a soule as a body. This his confession seeming at the first to be sound c 1.789 and good, was ap∣proved for catholike, both by Pope Damasus, by Gregorie Nazian∣zen and other Catholikes, who suspectd no hereticall fraud to lye hid under such faire and orthodoxall words, for in his con∣fession of faith, Scripturae d 1.790 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 chan∣ged, neither the order, nor writing of them being corrupted. But when Vitalis e 1.791 came among his owne fellowes, 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 soule f 1.792 and mind which hee had acknowledged in Christ, he meant nothing but the very Deity it selfe, which unto Christs body, was as the soule & mind, to animate it with life, sense, and reason, which was one part of the heresie of Apollinaris. As soone g 1.793 as Pope Damasus, and Gregory Nazianzen knew of this fraud, they not onely rejected Vitalis out of their communion, but condemned as hereticall, 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 Gregorie h 1.794 defendeth as just and right, both for himselfe, and for Damasus.

21. From this, two things are specially for our present purpose to be observed. The former, that an hereticall profes∣sion may bee made in most orthodoxall termes, yea in the very words of the holy Scripture, not corrupted, not altered, not changed, for so was this hereticall confession of Vitalis. The other is, that the selfe same profession of faith, if wee looke one∣ly at the words, may be allowed for orthodoxall, when the sense thereof is and appeareth to bee orthodoxall, and when there is no evidence to the contrary, but that the party who makes that profession, as he speakes orthodoxally, so also meaneth or∣thodoxally: and that same profession also, may justly bee con∣demned for hereticall, when by any overt act, or outward evi∣dence, it doth certainly appeare, that the party who made that confession, by, and under those orthodoxall words, meant by a fraudulent, and equivocating collusion, to expresse an hereti∣call sense: for while there appeared no cause to mistrust Vitalis, Pope Damasus and others approved his profession, as orthodox∣all: but as soone as they knew hee meant heretically, they con∣demned, and anathematized the very selfe same profession as he∣reticall. The reason of all which is, that which the same Gre∣gory i 1.795, and after him Iustinian k 1.796 expresseth, quoniam eaedem voces, because the very same words, if they bee rightly expounded, and understood, are pious, but if they be taken in an hereticall sense, they are impious.

22. That which Damasus and Gregorie did in the confession of Vitalis, must bee done in the profession of the Nestorians: when Catholikes say there are in Christ two natures, and one per∣son, their confession is orthodoxall, because they say it in an orthodoxall sense, using the words as they ought to bee in their right, naturall, and usuall signification: But when the Nestori∣ans say the very same words, their saying is hereticall, because they say it in an hereticall sense, abusing the words, to an equi∣vocall, unnaturall, and unusuall signification. Nay, it not one∣ly must, but it was sayd, it was decreed in this very case of Ne∣storius, and that by the whole generall Councell at Ephesus, themselves being Catholikes professed in Christ, two natures, and one person, and yet they condemned l 1.797 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 Councell at Chalcedon, & this 5. Synod, & in a word, by the whole Catholike Church, is a warrant authenticall, that a profession being for words, one, and the selfe same, may and ought in some to be judged orthodoxal, & in others condemned as hereticall, and the saying of old Ennius m 1.798 though spoken to a∣nother 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 Catho∣like, or his Epistle orthodoxall, because in it Ibas professeth two natures, and one person in Christ, (for Theodorus, and Ne∣storius professed the very same) but the sense and meaning of his words, set downe in that Epistle, must be exactly considered; whether he meant not as other Nestorians, and even as Nestori∣us himselfe 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 naturall, or personall sub∣sistence, but onely by affection, and cohabitation. If it may ap∣peare that this was indeed the meaning of Ibas in his Epistle, then will those words of his profession, be so farre from proving either him or his Epistle to be Catholike, as Vigilius and Baroni∣us doe thence inferre, that it will demonstrate both Ibas in ma∣king that profession, and Vigilius and Baronius in defending it, to approve and maintaine Nestorianisme as the onely Catholike Faith.

24. But can this thinke you be shewed indeed? It may: and that most clearly, and most certainely. The Emperour Iusti∣nian in his religious Edict both testifieth and demonstrates this. Heretickes, saith he n 1.799, omitting other blasphemies in this Epistle of Ibas, alleage this onely, which the Author of that Epistle spake to beguile the simple thereby, in that he professeth duas naturas, unam virtutē; unā personā, two natures, one power, one person, which we our selves also doe confesse. Sed certum est, quod unicuique naturae suam per∣sonam attribuit; but it is certaine, that the Author of that Epistle (Ibas) doth attribute to eyther nature a severall person, even as doe Theodorus and Nestorius, whom this Writer doth defend: For, they plainly teaching two natures of the Word of God, or of Christ, whom they esteeme to be no more then a man, doe call them (those two natures) one person, per affectualem conjunctio∣nem, by an affectuall conjunction, and as having one dignity, and one honour. And it is cleere that the writer of this Epistle, say∣ing that there is one vertue, and one power of the two natures; doth herein follow the foresaid heretickes, Theodorus in his im∣pious booke of the incarnation, and Nestorius in many of his writings, but specially in his Epistle to Alexāder, where he saith that there is one authoritie, one vertue, one power, one person, in respect of dignitie 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 authoritie, one power, one digni∣ty and honour, non in diversis naturis, sed in diversis personis dicitur, is not said to bee in divers natures, but in divers persons, of the same nature, as in the Trinitie we professe. Thus Iustinian both truly, and profoundly.

25. The fift generall Councell witnesseth the same, and al∣most in the same words. The author (say they o 1.800) of this Epistle,

teacheth two natures, one vertue, one person, one sonne. Sed certum est quod pro personis naturas ponit, & affectualem unitatem dicit, but it is certaine that he taketh the name of natures, for persons, and under∣standeth an affectuall unitie, even as doe Theodorus, and Nestorius, whom this writer doth defend and praise: Thus both the Em∣perour and the whole generall approved Councell, witnesse Ibas to meane by two natures, two persons, and by one person, one by affectuall, not by personall unitie, and they witnesse this not as a thing doubtfull, or uncertaine; but they seale it with a Cer∣tum est, this is certaine,

26. The Epistle it selfe doth so abundantly declare this truth, that none I thinke but a Nestorian, can make any doubt there∣of. Maris to whom Ibas writ this was a Nestorian hereticke: The end of his writing was to confirme, both Maris and the rest of that sect in their heresie. Had Ibas writ this touching two natures, and one person, in an orthodoxall sense, he had utterly condemned that same doctrine, which he purposely commen∣deth; he had overthrowne Nestorianisme, which he by this Epi∣stle, meant to establish. Againe, how could hee have condem∣ned Cyrill or the Ephesine Councell as hereticall, had he belee∣ved the two natures to be personally united in Christ? for that is the selfe same which Cyrill, and the Councell defendenth. Or how could he have commended Theodorus, for a teacher of the truth, who denies the personall, and holds onely an affectuall unitie of those two natures, had Ibas meant that there had beene a true personall and Hypostaticall union of them? Take the words in the Nestorian sense, there is a perfect harmonie in the whole Epistle: take them in the orthodoxall sense, the begin∣ning will then jarre from the middle and end, this makes a dis∣cord in the whole writing, yea, it makes the profession of Ibas to fight with the maine 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 anathematize those who professe, quia una natura est divinitatis, & humanitatis, that there is one nature of the deitie and humanitie in Christ. Had Ibas by one nature, meant one essence, so that both the humanitie, and deitie were one essence, why should they require Cyrill to anathematize that? for neither Cyrill, nor any Catholike ever affirmed there was onely one nature, that is, one onely essence in Christ. But by nature, Ibas understood Person, and so its true that Cyrill taught one nature, that is, one onely 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 Cyrill to yeeld to Ne∣storianisme, and on the behalfe of the Nestorians, required him to anathematize 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 Ne∣storianisme, and renounced the Catholike saith, the decree of the Ephesine Councell, and his owne 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 divinitie and humanitie, one nature, that is, one essence: no Catholike then, or ever, did say, but none dare now say, that there is one Nature, that is, one person in Christ, which all Catholikes both then, and ever said, and this the very next words doe de∣clare; but now they doe professe to beleeve in templum, & in eum qui in hoc habitat, in the temple, and in him who dwelleth in the tem∣ple, which was the very comparison of Nestorius p 1.801, to expresse that the two natures in Christ, are two persons, as are the house and inhabiters, and one not by personall, but onely by affectuall unitie and cohabitation. So cleere it is that Ibas by his con∣fessing of two natures meant two persons, and by confessing one per∣son, meant one by affection, but not by personall union: that is, meant all in an hereticall, and Nestorian sense, and nothing in the true Catholike, and orthodoxall meaning.

28. But what seeke I further proofe of this matter, see∣ing the fift Councell, approved by the whole catholike Church, hath defined the whole q 1.802 Epistle to bee hereticall, accursing e∣very one who defendeth it, or any part of it. An undeniable proofe, not onely that the profession of Ibas made therein of two natures and one person, is hereticall, but that Vigilius and Baronius, for this very point are anathematized by the whole Church, because they defend that profession in this Epistle as Catholike and orthodoxall, which by so many, so evident de∣monstrations, and even by the consenting judgement of the whole Church, is condemned for hereticall. And this I hope may suffice to explaine or illustrate the Popes meaning in the Position or conclusion which he undertakes to prove in his rea∣son, that Ibas was a Catholike, in making this so orthodoxall, and Catholike 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 Catholike. Those are spe∣cially three, in which, because they all depend on that which hath beene declared in the position, we may be the more briefe. The first is, because Dioscorus r 1.803, and the Ephesine Lactrocinie did judge both this profession of Ibas, and Ibas himselfe for making this profession, to bee hereticall, propter hanc fidei professionem, for this profession of two natures and one person, he condemned and de∣posed Ibas. Now the judgement of Dioscorus to have beene un∣just, and hereticall there is no doubt, and therefore the confessi∣on of Ibas which hee condemned must be acknowledged as or∣thodoxall, and Catholike, as being repugnant to the hereti∣call doctrine of Dioscorus. A very poore 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 conspiracie main∣tained the heresie of Eutiches, which denieth r 1.804 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 na∣tures, to make but one person, as the Catholikes said, or to make two distinct persons as the Nestorians affirmed, it was all one to Dioscorus; The very holding of two natures to bee in Christ, either of those wayes made one an hereticke in the judg∣ment of Eutiches, Dioscorus, and their Ephesine Synod. The he∣resie of Eutiches did equally contradict both the Catholike truth and the Nestorian heresie, because they both consented in one common truth, that there are two distinct natures, or essen∣ces abiding in Christ. If this judgement of Dioscorus against Ibas, will prove either him or his Epistle to be Catholike, the very like effect it must have in Theodorus, in Nestorius, in all Ne∣storians, and in all their writings; they all with Ibas professe two natures to abide in Christ, they all by the judgement of Diosco∣rus and his Synod, are hereticall. So either must Vigilius ap∣prove all Nestorians for Catholikes, if this reason for Ibas bee effectuall, or if they bee truly heretickes, whom Dioscorus yet hath condemned, as well as Ibas, then is this his reason ineffectu∣all to prove from the condemnation of Dioscorus, Ibas or his pro∣fession to be Catholike.

30. His second reason is drawne from the likenesse and iden∣titie of faith in Flavianus and Ibas, damnat s 1.805 quoque propter du∣arum naturarum vocem, Dioscorus did also, or for the same cause, condemne Flavianus, for which Ibas was condemned, to wit, for professing two natures in Christ. Seeing then it is knowne, that the profession of Flavianus was Catholike, the profession also of Ibas made in this Epistle, being like to that of Flavianus, must needes be Catholike; My annotation on this reason of Vigilius is, that it is inconsequent, sophisticall, and worth nothing at all, Ibas indeede in words said the like with Flavianus, but Flavi∣anus said it in a Chatholike sense, holding those two natures to make but one person or personall subsistence, and Ibas said it in this Epistle in an hereticall sense, holding those two natures to make two distinct persons, or two personall subsistences. To Di∣oscorus it was all one to say as Flavianus did, or as Ibas in this Epistle doth; for seeing they both jumpe in this, that two natures or essences doe remaine after the incarnation, they are both alike heretickes 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 here∣ticke. Or if Ibas be a Catholike for professing in words the same which Flavianus did, then by this reason of our Author Vigilius, Theodorus, Nestorius, and all the Nestorians, are Catholikes, be∣cause

they all professe with Flavianus, ••two natures, and one person to be in Christ in the same manner as Ibas here doth.

31.. His third and last reason is drawne from the judgement of the Councell at Chalcedon; they t 1.806 condemned Dioscorus and Eutiches, but they embraced Ibas: an evidence, that as they jud∣ged the profession of Dioscorus to be hereticall, so they esteemed the profession of Ibas to be orthodoxall; yea, even this which he maketh in this Epistle; for after that Cyrill had once explaned 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 glosse fit for this reason is, that it is fallacious, untrue, and slanderours: fal∣lacious; for the Councell of Chalcedon received Ibas indeed, but not for this profession made in his Epistle, which that holy Councell both knew, and condemned as hereticall, but, as before we have declared, for his consenting to the Ephesine Councell, and condemning of Nestorius first before Photius, & Eustathius, & then before themselves in the Councell at Chalcedon; upon this, whereby Ibas did in truth condemne 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 re∣ceived by the Councell at Chalcedon: untrue; for neither did the Councell of Chalcedon judge Ibas to have beene a Catholike, or hold the Catholike faith, upon the declaration of Cyrils Chapters; much lesse did they judge him to have continued ever after that time, in the orthodoxie of faith: slanderous; for Vigilius by say∣ing that the Councell of Chalcedon held Ibas for a Catholike, up∣on, 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 Nesto∣rius, are maintained. Had they judged him, since that Explana∣tion to be a Catholike; they must approve this Epistle for Ca∣tholike, and so prove themselves to be hereticall, to be Nestori∣ans. Thus Vigilius, to cloake his owne heresie, would faine fasten it upon the holy Counsell of Chalcedon, which was so farre from partaking with Vigilius herein, that by their definitive sentence, this very u 1.807 professiō of two natures, and one person, made in this E∣pistle; yea, every part of this Epistle, is condemned for impious, and hereticall. And this I hope may serve for an explanation of Pope Vigilius his third reason to prove Ibas a Catholike, (drawne from this profession of faith, made in this Epistle) untill some Annalist like Baronius will helpe us to a better Commen∣tary.

32. The second reason of Vigilius, set downe in the words before recited to prove Ibas a Catholike, is drawne from his approving of the Ephesine Councell at the judgement before Photius & Eustathius; He there, saith Vigilius x 1.808, most plainly appro∣ved

the Ephesine Synod, and the doctrines decreed therein, he professed them to be equall to the Nicene decrees; Photius the Iudge, exceedingly commended Ibas, that hee was so forward to professe the true faith, and wipe away all suspition of heresie from him: how could Ibas then be ought else but a Catholike, who made such a Catholike confession? Truely when Ibas made this confession before Photius and Eusta∣thius, there is no doubt but he was then a Catholike; but Vigili∣us his purpose is to prove him to have beene a Catholike, when he writ this Epistle, ever x 1.809 since the time that Cyrill explaned 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 in∣tent of Vigilius; for he y 1.810 telling us, that wheras those words in the end of the Epistle of Ibas, [None dare now say, there is one na∣ture, but they professe to beleeve in the Temple, and in him who dwelleth in the Temple] were wont to be taken by the Nestori∣ans in such a sense, as if in Christ there were two persons, ne Ibas putaretur ejusdem esse in verbis illis sententiae cum Nestorianis; lest I∣bas 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 shewing how Ibas in the Acts (before Photius and Eustathius) em∣braced the Ephesine Councell. So Baronius: by whose helpe, be∣sides the evidence in the text it selfe: it now appeares, that Vigi∣lius, by this profession of Ibas, made before Photius and Eusta∣thius, would prove Ibas to have beene a Catholike when hee 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 Popes Holinesse, had not Nestorianisme dul∣led his wit and judgement at this time. The judgement before Photius and Eustathius, was in the yeare when Posthumianus and Zeno were Consuls, or in the next unto it, as the Acts z 1.811 do testi∣fie, that is, according to Baronius account, an. 448. The union b 1.812 be∣twixt Iohn and Cyrill was made in the next yeare after the Ephe∣sine Councell, that is, an. 432. The Epistle of Ibas was writ by Baronius Almanacke in the very moment of the union;a 1.813 but in truth, two or three yeares at the least after the union, as before we have proved. Now I pray you, what a consequent, or colle∣ction call you this? Ibas being suspected of Nestorianisme, to cleare himselfe, consented to the Ephesine Councell, and shew∣ed himselfe to bee a Catholike, sixteene yeares after the union, or thirteene yeares after he writ this Epistle: therefore at the time of the union, and of the writing of this Epistle, he was a Ca∣tholike also, and not a Nestorian. Why, twelve or sixteen years might have a strange operatiō in Ibas; and there is no doubt but so it had? In so many revolutions Ibas saw, how both himselfe and other Nestorians were publikely cōdemned by the Church, and by the Emperour, and hated of all, who had any love to the

Catholike faith: He saw that himselfe was personally called corā nobis, for maintaining that heresie: he knew, that unlesse hee clea∣red himselfe before those Iudges, deputed by the Emperour to heare and examine his cause; he was in danger of the like depri∣vation, as Nestorius, and some others had justly felt. The serious and often meditation of these matters wrought effectually up∣on Ibas, and therefore before Photius & Eustathius he renounced, disclamed, and condemned Nestorianisme, and so at that time proved himselfe, by his profession before them, to bee a Catho∣like, as he had before that time, and specially when he writ this Epistle, demonstrated himselfe to be, not onely an earnest, but a malicious and slanderous heretike. I cannot illustrate the Pope, my Authors reason, by a more fit similitude, than of a man once deadly sicke of the Pestilence, but afterwards fully cured and a∣mended; for Vigilius his reason is, as if one should say, This man was not sicke of the Pestilence, no not when the sore was running upon him, and hee at the very point of death, because some twelve or sixteene yeares after, hee was a sound man, cleare from all suspition 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 hee hath compacted the very venome of the Nestorians, wee must bee inforced to take somewhat the more paines, in our Commentary upon it. This reason (in which, it seems, the Pope puts his greatest confidence) is drawne from the explanation of Cyrils Chapters, of which c 1.814 Vigilius saith, that Ibas at the first, & before Cyrill had explaned them, misconceived the meaning of Cyrill, and therefore seemed to speake against Cyrill: but so soone as Cyrill had explaned them, and decared his owne meaning, then Ibas, and all the Easterne Bishops forthwith embraced the com∣munion with Cyrill; and ever after that, Ibas continued a Catho∣like. This Epistle then of Ibas, and profession of faith made there∣in, which certainly followed the Explanation of Cyrils Chapters, must needs be Catholike, & declare Ibas, whē he writ it, to have been a Catholike; seeing, when he made this confession of faith, and writ this Epistle, he held the same faith with Cyrill, and there∣fore no doubt held the Catholike faith. This is the full summe and effect of the Popes reason, taken from the Explanation of Cyrils Chapters, and for the excellency of it, it spreadeth it selfe into every part of the two other reasons also, as containing an explication of them, or giving strength unto them; for which cause wee are with more diligence and circumspection to exa∣mine the pith of it.

35. And that we may more clearely behold and admire the Popes Artificium, in handling this reason, we are to observe five severall points thereof. The first, a peece of the Popes Rheto∣ricke, in that he saith d 1.815 that Ibas before the Explanation and

union, whilst hee doubted, and misconceived the meaning of Cy∣rill, visus est ei obloqui, he seemed to speake against Cyrill at that time. He seemed: Now Ibas professeth of himselfe, that hee then called e 1.816 Cyrill an hereticke, that hee followed Iohn f 1.817, and the Conventicle, which held with him, and so that with them hee counted, and in plain terms, called Cyrill h 1.818 an author of schisme, a disturber of the peace of the Church, a despiser of imperiall authoritie, an upholder of open tyrannie, an Arch-hereticke, and chiefe of the conspiracie, that he condemned, accursed, anathe∣matized him, and that with such a detestation, that though Cyrill i 1.819 should disclaime his heresie, yet hee should never be re∣ceived into their communion. These and many like intolera∣ble calumnies, and slanders, were the usuall liveries, that Ibas and the rest of that Conventicle, during the time of the disunion be∣stowed upon Cyrill; so vile, and malitious, that no hyperbolicall exaggeration, can sufficiently expresse the impietie of them, and yet the Popes holinesse, by the figure called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, doth so ar∣tificially extenuate, and almost annihilate them, as if in al•• these, Ibas did but seeme to speake against Cyrill, He seemed, what, to revile? nay, he seemed but to speake against him: Vigilius was too sparing and diminutive in his reproofe, Non laudo.

36. The second part of his Artificium concernes Chronolo∣gy; where he k 1.820 saith, that when Cyrill had explaned his Chapters, Ibas in ejus communionem devote concurrit; Ibas then ran, and haste∣ned to communicate with Cyril. Nor did Ibas alone at that time ac∣cord with Cyrill, but he, cum l 1.821 omnibus Orientalibus Episcopis, with all the Easterne Bishops; they all then embraced Cyrill for a Catho∣like; and Ibas ever after that, m 1.822 usque ad exitum, even to his dying day, continued in the Catholike communion with Cyrill. Thus Vigilius. I cannot flatter the Pope, nor set any glosse upon this text, but this, that is utterly untrue. All the Easterne Bishops did not, at the time of the union betwixt Iohn and Cyrill, much lesse 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 1.823 to Nestorius, that he then held Cyrils Chapters hereticall, and that hee would not consent to that which was done against Nestorius, no, not though his hands should be cut off. The like is certaine of Ibas, for that hee conti∣nued a malicious and slanderous defender of Nestorianisme, af∣ter the union; this, his impious Epistle, written, at least, two whole yeares after that union, wherein he maintaineth all the impieties of Nestorius, doth demonstrate. So untrue it is which Vigilius af∣firmeth, both in generall, that all the Easterne Bishops, and par∣ticularly, that Ibas, upon the Explanation of Cyrils Chapters, which was before the union, consented to Cyrill, and communi∣cated with him: and much more untrue it is, that Ibas, ever after that Explanation, even to his dying day, remained a Catholike.

37. I say yet more for the further clearing of this matter, that

neither all, nor so much as any one of all those Easterne Bishops, who tooke part with Iohn, consented to Cyrill upon his declara∣tion of the twelve Chapters, for Cyrill set forth his explanation during the time of the Ephesine Councell, while hee was impri∣soned at Ephesus, Cyrill, saith Baronius o 1.824, being left at Ephesus, was not idle there, but knowing that his twelve Chapters were car∣ped at by adversaries, lest by their mis-interpretations they might be infringed: ipse illis explanationem adjecit, himselfe set out an explanation of them. The very title prefixed to that ex∣planation declares the same: which is p 1.825, Cyrills explanation of the twelve Chapters, Edita Ephesi, sacra Synodo exigente, published at Ephesus, the holy Synod requiring Cyrill to doe the same. The Nestorians and their Conventicle witnesse this most clearly: for they who stayed at Ephesus, writ thus to the Legates, whom they sent to the Emperour at Constantinople. We q 1.826 have sent unto you, recens factam expositionem ab Alexandrino, haereticorum capitu∣lorum, the Explanation of the hereticall Chapters lately made by Cyrill of Alexandria. This was writ by the Ephesine Conventicle, before the dissolutiō of the Synod, which ended about the eight day r 1.827 of November.

38. Now that upon this explanation published by Cyrill, the Easterne Bishops did not consent to Cyrill, nor runne to commu∣nicate with him, their owne words in the Epistle of the Conven∣ticle last cited, doe make manifest, where they say * 1.828 of this ex∣planation of Cyrill, that he doth evidentius per illam ostendere suam impietatem, more plainly by it shew his impiety, then by the Chap∣ters themselves. So they more detested that explanation then the Chapters explaned, it was more hereticall in their judge∣ment then the other. And Iohn himselfe with the other Legates, assented to the judgement of their fellowes: wee are ready t 1.829 say they to strive unto death, and neither receive Cyrill, 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 Iohn him∣selfe, who was the ringleader to the rest, did consent to Cyrill and hold communion with him, upon his publishing that Explana∣tion 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 1.830 that those jarres continued for three yeares after the end of the Councell. So directly doe they controule the Popes Constituti∣on, wherein Vigilius so often affirmeth, that upon the publishing of Cyrills explanation they ranne to communicate with Cyrill: But because the account of Peltanus and Binius is certainly false, we will not presse the Pope therewith. Thus much is evident, that the union betwixt Iohn and Cyrill was not concluded till De∣cember; in the next yeare after the Councell was ended. For Cyrill received neither Iohn, nor any of the rest (save onely Pau∣lus Emisenus) till Paulus came the second time to Alexandria,

bringing with him the orthodoxall profession of Iohn * 1.831, and the other Bishops with him, at which time the union was fully con∣cluded, and in token thereof both Paulus made that his memo∣rable Sermon at Alexandria, on the twenty and ninth day of the month x 1.832 Chyath, which answereth to our December; and Cy∣rill writ that y 1.833 Epistle, as an hymne of joy, which beginneth lae∣tentur coeli, so farre were the Easterne Bishops from hastning or running as Vigilius saith to the communion with Cyrill upon his explanation made knowne unto them, that they all save Paul, stayed a full yeare and more after that explanation, before they made peace or consented with Cyrill.

40. The third part of the Popes Artificium is his Logicke, which in very truth is nothing else but trifling sophistication: he supposeth that Cyrills 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 knowne unto them, more then an whole yeare before the union: nay that explanation did more alienate their minds from Cyrill, they detested that, more then 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 onely true, and certaine cause of the union, was the relenting of the Easterne Bishops, from their former sto∣macke, obstinacie, and heresie: their subscribing to all that Cy∣rill required of them, to wit, to the condemning of Nestorius, and his heresies: till they did this, Cyrill was unmoveable, inflexi∣ble to any union: as soone as ever this was done, Cyrill most gladly embraced them, and sung his hymne, Let the heavens re∣joyce, for their consenting to the Catholike faith. Vigilius still harps on a wrong string, and fallaciously puts non causam, pro causa, which was not fitting for the Popes gravitie & judgment.

41. The fourth and fift which are the chiefe parts of my Au∣thors Artificium, concerne his Ethicall, and Theologicall know∣ledge, which being confused and mingled together throughout this whole text, and manifesting the Pope to joyne to his here∣sie, slander, I must bee forced to handle them both together. These consist in that which the Pope so often beats upon, that Cyrill explaned his Chapters, and upon that explanation, Ibas and the other Easterne Bishops ranne to embrace him, and his communion, what thinke 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 thats a mysterie indeed, and containes in it the pith of Nestorianisme: Baronius was very loath to unfold this secret of the Popes Art: but I hope to make it so perspicuous, as that none shall bemone the want of the Cardinalls Commentarie in this point.

42. The Nestorians being as Cyrill z 1.834 saith, tantum ad calumni∣andum nati, men composed of lyes and slanders, boasted that at the time of the union, the Catholikes had renounced and condemned

their former doctrines, and in all points consented unto them. And in particular they avouched this of Cyrill who was the chief agent on the Catholikes part, and who most zealously had op∣posed himselfe to their heresie. This hath beene so clearly proved before z 1.835, both by the Epistles of Cyrill, by the writings of Theodoret, and by this very Epistle of Ibas, that I thinke it super∣fluous to adde ought thereunto. Now the same Nestorians being no lesse subtle, then malicious: when they spake or writ of this matter to any of their owne consorts, to their Electi, one of which this Maris was to whom Ibas writ, then they said in plaine termes, that Cyrill (and the other Catholikes) had recal∣led, condemned, or anathematized his twelve Chapters, and his former doctrine; as in the end of this Epistle Ibas tells Maris, and wisheth him to shew 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 contrarie to his former doctrine, that hee anathematized it and all that held it. Loe heres plaine dealing with Maris. Cyrill now condemneth and anathematizeth his twelve Chapters: but when they spake to men otherwise affected then themselves, to such as could not endure to heare that Cyrill had recanted or anathematized his former doctrine, and Chapters, then they would not use such harsh and homely words of Cyrill, but they would signifie the same thing, by a more facile, faire, and courteous phrase, saying Cyrill explaned his Chapters, and they upon his explanation, received him into their communion, and held him for a Catholike.

43. This to be that which Ibas and other Nestorians meant by Cyrills explanation of his Chapters, the words of Ibas him∣selfe uttered in the judgement, before Photius, & Eustathius, 16 yeares after the union, doe make cleare; for although Ibas had then in the maine point renounced Nestorianisme: yet he still retained a touch or smack of their Nestorian language, hee had not as yet perfectly learned to pronounce Shibboleth, nor wholy weaned himselfe, or disused his tongue from those Nestorian phrases, which were so familiar in their mouthes. In those acts, Maris a 1.836 accuseth Ibas to have said of himselfe and the other Easterne Bishops, we would not have received Cyrill, unlesse he had anathematized his b 1.837 Chapters. Ibas answered; I said, that neither I nor they would have received him, nisi seipsum interpretatus fu∣isset, unlesse he had explained himselfe. And when Maris againe replyed, 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 Cyrill, donec anathematizasset sua capitula, till he had anathematized his owne 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 retractan∣tem, but if I said it, I said but the truth, for the Easterne Councell re∣ceived

Cyrill when hee had recalled his Chapters, otherwise I would have accounted him an hereticke. So answered Ibas: plainely calling that in the one place the anathematizing, and retracting of his Chapters, which in the other he called ex∣plaining or interpreting his Chapters; but the one was spoken in secret, the other openly, and by the one which is plaine, he sheweth what they meant by that milde phrase of explaining Chapters; and the like words are there often repeated.

44. Baronius darkely saw, and closely signified this, when re∣citing the effect of Ibas answere at that judgement, he saith c 1.838, that Ibas professed, that he called Cyrill an hereticke, before the union was concluded; postquam vero declarando sua Capitula, Cyrillus ista purgavit, & ob eam causam inita est inter eos concordia, but after that Cyrill 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 hereticke. So Baronius: declaring evidently, that whē Ibas said that Cyrill expounded, or explained his Chapters, that explanation which hee 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 1.839 orthodoxall, approved in ever part, both by the ho∣ly Ephesine Councell, and after that by the Councell at Chalce∣don e 1.840. Seeing in them, and every part of them there is not one dramme of any drosse, seeing all of them are the pure and refi∣ned Catholike faith, if ought at all bee purged out of them, it must needs be a Catholike doctrine, a position of the Catholike faith: the purging and wiping away of any part, purgeth out the whole Catholike faith, every part of it being so connexed with golden linkes together, that no man can deny one unlesse hee renounce al; nor purge out any of that vitall blood, but in stead thereof will succeed all the blasphemous humors of the Nesto∣rians; Since the explanation which Ibas meant was joyned with a purging of those Chapters, it was not, nor could it be any o∣ther but a plaine deniall, condemning and anathematizing of those Chapters, and of the whole Catholike faith.

45. This will bee more cleare, 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 orthodoxall in this point for his sense, so for his words he was not so strict and precise, but sometimes tooke the word Nature in an ample, and catachresticall significa∣tion, for Person, but commonly in the proper and usuall signifi∣cation, for Essence; whensoever he tooke it in the later sense, hee never then said that there was one onely nature in Christ, which was the heresie of Apollinarius, and Eutiches, but hee still professed and maintained two natures, that is, two offences, a∣gainst 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] hee followed Athanasius, whose words he alledgeth and approveth, we f 1.841 con∣fesse Christ to be the Sonne of God, according to the spirit; and to be the Sonne of Man, according to the flesh, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, not two na∣tures to be one Sonne, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, but one nature of the Word incar∣nate: Did Athanasius deny two essences, either the divinitie or humanitie in Christ? Nothing lesse: in that very sentēce he pro∣fesseth him to be truly God, and truly Man: but taking the word Nature for Person, hee in that sense truly denies two, and pro∣fesseth but one Nature; that is, one naturall subsistence or Per∣son to be in him. In like sort Cyrill himselfe, in his Epistle g 1.842 to Successus, affirmeth that there is, una natura Dei verbi incarnati, one Nature of the Sonne of God incarnate: that is, the Sonne of God, being now incarnate is one Nature, or naturall 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 bee his true meaning, besides Iustinians h 1.843 testimonie, infinite places doe make evident, those especially in his booke de i 1.844 fide recta ad Theodosium, where he saith k 1.845 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 doe meete in one, and the selfe same person. Nor may we thinke this di∣verse 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 1.846, 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 Sonne; Even so, when the name of Naturo is taken, (as in Atha∣nasius, Cyrill, and others sometimes it is) without an opposition to Person, it may there signifie the same with Person, and note any naturall subsistence: but when in any speech there is expres∣sed, or implied an opposition of Nature unto Person, there it ought onely to signifie the substances, or essences concurrant in in that person, and not the Person it selfe. 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 ordinarie and usuall signification, (they seldome by Nature noting ought but Person) and specially for that they tooke 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 coha∣bitation: neither of which truly making one person, they called that, one person, which in truth was not one, but divers distinct persons.

46. This profession of one Nature, that is, of one naturall sub∣sistence,

or of one person, the Nestorions disliked in Cyrill; and in his Chapters, and thought it (but very falsly) to be the same which Apollinarius taught, as appeareth by the Epistle of Ibas, where he m 1.847 thus writeth, Cyrill confuting the Bookes of Nestorius hath written, as Apollinaris did, that God himselfe, 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 shew, quia una est natura divinitatis, & humanitatis, that there is one nature of the Deitie, and humanitie in Christ, which thing is full of impiety. So Ibas, reproving Cyrill and condem∣ning 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 1.848 indeed, that they were one nature in that sense, howbeit in his Chapters hee 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 1.849, or one natural sub∣sistence, affirmed him to say in them, that they were one Nature as they tooke Nature, which is true, for in his Chapters, he teach∣eth them indeed to bee one person, which in the Nestorian language is one Nature. The very same by Theodorets words is most cleare, who p 1.850 for this cause reproved Cyrils Chapters, be∣cause he taught in them, non oportere subsistentias sive naturas divi∣dere, that the subsistences, that is, the Natures ought not to bee divided, and then he against Cyrill, having opposed that there is in Christ, both the perfect subsistence of God, and the perfect forme or subsistence of man, he addeth, that it is pious to con∣fesse them both to be one Person, one Sonne, one Christ, and withall not amisse to call them duas subsistentias, sive Naturas, two distinct subsistencies or Natures united, and often doth he teach the like, manifestly shewing, that both himselfe, as the other Ne∣storians, tooke Natures for Person, or personall 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 cleare and certaine, that Cyrill as well before q 1.851, as at r 1.852, and after t 1.853 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 Cyrill, as in his writings, so in his speeches (even to Paulus B. of Emisa) professed thus u 1.854 much, when he came to deale 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 tooke occasion of their speech. They knowing that Cyrill professed two Natures, tooke him to meane as themselves did, two Persons thereby; ma∣litiously suppressing what Cyrill added, for the declaration of his meaning, that those two natures did both make but one Per∣son, or personall 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 ex∣planed his Chapters, as that he thereby wholy consented unto them, and recalled and condemned all his former Chapters, and doctrine. That this was the meaning of the Nestorians, in say∣ing Cyrill explained his Chapters, the words of Ibas spoken be∣fore Photius and Eustathius compared with his Epistle, makes un∣doubted. For what there x 1.855 hee calls, three or foure times before them, interpreting, saying y 1.856 I my selfe and the Eastern Bishops did not nor would receive Cyrill: nor make union, nor hold communi∣on 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 1.857, as also in his Epistle a 1.858, he in plaine tearmes calleth ana∣thematizing his Chapters, & the doctrine of one Person taught therein, saying, Paulus required Cyrill, to anathematize such as pro∣fesse one Nature (that is by the Nestorian dialect) one person in Christ, and God inclined the heart of the Aegyptian to consent hereunto, and so contention ceased, and peace was made, and Cyrill, and the rest doe now teach Contraria priori doctrinae, the quite contrarie to their former doctrine, for before Cyrill taught in his Chapters, as Ibas b 1.859 said, that there is one Nature (that is one person) & that there is no (personall) differēce betwixt the tem∣ple, and him that dwelleth in the temple; but now no man (not Cyrill himselfe nor any other) dare say that there is one Nature, (that is one Person) of the deitie and humanitie, but all doe now professe to beleeve in the temple (as one person) and in him who dwelleth in the temple (as another distinct person.) So Ibas; expresly calling that in one place Cyrils anathematizing of his Chapters, which in the other he calleth the explanation of his chapters. And this the Epistle of Cyrill to Acatius c 1.860 doth further witnesse, 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 per∣sons, but did ever both before and after the union, teach the same truth herein, to wit, that in Christ there are two d 1.861 natures, (that is essences or subsistences) against the Appollinarians, and yet that Christ is but one e 1.862 Person, or personall subsistence, against the Nestorians. So untruly did they slander him to reach con∣trarie to his Chapters, or by his explaining of them, to have con∣demned,

recalled, and anathematized his Chapters.

48. We doe now clearly see, not onely 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 anathematizing, an Expla∣tion of his Chapters. If now it may further appeare, that Vigilius in his Constitution meant this Nestorian, and slanderous Expla∣nation; I doubt not, but his text will bee sufficient, easie, and cleare in this point: And though none, who diligently peruseth the Popes words, can, as I thinke, doubt hereof; yet because it is not fit, in a just Commentary, to give naked asseverations, spe∣cially in a point of such moment, I will propose three or foure 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 therof: It is no doubt but Vigilius meant such an explanation of Cyrils Chapters, as upon w^ch, that union which Ibas held with Cyrill, at the time when he writ this Epist. ensued; for Vigilius proveth Ibas f 1.863 at that time to have bin a Catholike, because upon Cyrils. Explanation, he forthwith em∣braced the union with Cyrill, and ••an to communicate with him. Now it is certaine g 1.864, that Ibas, when he writ this Epistle, appro∣ved not the orthodoxall, and true union, which Cyrill truly made with Iohn, and the rest, upon their profession of the orthodoxall faith, sent unto him; but onely the union in Nestorianisme, the slanderous union, which they falsely affirmed Cyrill to have made; wherefore it certainly followeth, that the Explanation of Cyrill, which Vigilius intendeth, as a cause of that union, can bee no other then the slanderous explanation, wherein Cyrill was falsely said to have explaned his Chapters; that is, anathemati∣zed them, and the doctrine delivered in them: for the true and orthodoxal explanatiō neither did, nor could effect that uniō in Nestorianisme, w^ch Ibas embraced at the time when he writ this Epistle; it was the condemning of his Chapters, and in such sort to explane them, that they were anathematized; it was this, and no other explanation, which did make the union, whereof Ibas boasteth. Seeing then the hereticall union of Ibas, followed up∣on that explanation which Vigilius here meaneth, it is doubt∣lesse, that the explanation also which hee intendeth, is the same slanderous, & hereticall explanation, which Ibas, and the other Nestorians ascribed to Cyril, & upon which they joyned in union and communion with him. The cause was like the effect; the ef∣fect, an hereticall, and slanderous union; the cause, an hereticall 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 diligētly to consider the same. Vigilius having said h 1.865, that, upon Cyrils Explanation, Ibas, with all the Easterne Bishops, held Cyrill for a Catholike; addeth this collection thereupon,

Ex quo apparet, By this it appeareth, Ibas, both before hee under∣stood the twelve Chapters of Cyrils, and when he suspected one Nature to be taught thereby, orthodoxo sensu, quod male dictum ex∣istimabat, reprobasse; then to have reproved those Chapters in an ortho∣doxall 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 orthodoxall sense embra∣ced that which he knew to bee rightly spoken therein. So Vigili∣us: plainly affirming the sense of Ibas to have been orthodoxall, both before, and after the Explanation, or union (made by Iohn, and all the i 1.866 rest,) with Cyrill: 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, decla∣red his Chapters to have the very same meaning, and orthodox∣all sense which Ibas had; which, when Ibas perceived to bee the sense of Cyrill, forthwith he held Cyrill for a Catholike, and joy∣ned communion with him, and reverently received his doctrine, as being consonant to the sense of Ibas, which was still or∣thodoxall; so there was no alteration in the sense of Ibas, that both before, and after Cyrils Explanation, was orthodox∣all, onely before the union, or Explanation Ibas mis-understood Cyrils meaning, and thought he had taught one Nature to bee in Christ, whereas Cyrill by his Explanation shewed, that he meant just as Ibas did, that there were in Christ two Natures, even in that orthodoxall sense which Ibas had held, as well before, as af∣ter the Explanation.

50. Oh what a Circean Cup is Heresie? specially Nestoria∣nisme? Pope Vigilius doth now shew himselfe in his colours, and demonstrates that he is, as by some 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, quite transfor∣med into Nestorius, Theodorus, or if there be any more hereticall than they in that kinde; for what, thinke you, was that sense of Ibas, which the Pope commends for orthodoxall? what was it first after the Explanation and union made betwixt Iohn and Cy∣rill? I have manifested this before, and the Epistle of Ibas, writ∣ten two yeares at least after that union, doth make it undeniably evident, that his sense was then, that there k 1.867 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 hereticall, in teaching one Nature, that is, one Person in Christ; in a word, his sense then was, that Nestorianisme, and nothing but Nestorianisme was Catholike, & that the decree at Ephesus, against Nestorius was hereticall doctrine. This sense of Ibas, Vigi∣lius, by his Pontificall and Cathedral Constitution, adjudgeth, and decreeth to be orthodoxall, and Catholike. 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 selfe same: So long, saith Ibas l 1.868, as the Easterne Councell anathematized

Cyrill, (which was still, till the union) sequutus sum Primatem me∣um, I followed my Primate, that was, Iohn of Antioch; what his sense was, and the Synods with him, that was my sense. Now the sense of Iohn, and his Conventicle, set downe in more than twen∣ty Synodall Epistles m 1.869 of theirs, was, that Cyrils twelve Chapters were hereticall, contrary to the Euangelicall and Apostolicall doctrine, that there are two Natures, making two Persons in Christ; that to teach one Nature, that is, one Person in Christ; was hereticall: that Cy∣rill, and all that tooke part with him; or consented to his Chapters, were heretikes; yea, condemned and anathematized heretikes; that the holy Ephesine Councell was a Conspiracie of heretikes, of seditious and facti∣ous persons. This was the sense of Iohn, this the sense of Ibas be∣fore the union: and this sense the Popes Holinesse hath decreed to be a Catholike and orthodoxall sense: The sense of Ibas, saith hee, both before the Explanation, or union, and after it, was or∣thodoxall; so, by the Pope Vigilius his decree, it is good Catho∣like doctrine to teach two Persons in Christ; to teach, Cyrill, Caele∣stine, the whole Ephesine Councell, to be heretikes, that is, in a word, to teach Nestorianisme, and nothing but Nestorianisme to be the Catholike faith.

52. But that which I principally aimed at, out of those words of Vigilius, was, to observe, that Cyrils Explanation here menti∣oned, and meant by Vigilius, neither is, nor can be ought else but an absolute condemning, and anathematizing of his twelve Chapters; for by that explanation, which Vigilius intendeth, Cy∣rill shewed, 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 divers yeares 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 spake, but one nature) in Christ, are hereticall, and to be anathematized, as being contrary to the Ca∣tholike faith; wherefore, that Explanation of Cyrils Chapters, which Vigilius intendeth, is certainly a declaring and acknow∣ledgment, 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 hereticall, and to be anathematized.

53. The third reason is taken from Vigilius his scope and pur∣pose in this whole passage: Suppose Vigilius to have meant the orthodoxall Explanation n 1.870 set out by Cyrill, seeing that is wholly repugnant to the Epistle of Ibas, which is full fraught with Nesto∣rianisme: Vigilius by approving that Explanation, had condem∣ned this Epistle of Ibas,o 1.871 and every part thereof. Seeing then by that Explanation which Vigilius intendeth, his purpose is, to con∣firme, and strengthen this Epistle of Ibas, and prove it to bee or∣thodoxall, which is onely done by approving the slanderous Ex∣planation of Cyrill to be orthodoxall; the very scope, and maine purpose of Vigilius doth declare, that it is not, nor can be the or∣thodoxall,

but the slanderous and hereticall Explanation only of Cyrils Chapters, which the Pope here meant, and by which, be∣ing commended for Catholike, hee indevoureth to prove the E∣pistle, which shewes Ibas to have consented most gladly, and reverently, as the Pope saith, to it, to bee indeed Ca∣tholike.

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 speake of the true and orthodoxall explanation of Cyrill, his words are riddles, more obscure than Plato's numbers, yea, they are unre∣conciliable to the truth of the story: Ibas, saith the Pope p 1.872, upon Cyrils Explanation, hastened and ran to communicate with Cyrill: Expound this of Cyrils orthodoxall Explanation, it is utterly un∣true; Ibas detested q 1.873 that, more than the Chapters themselves; hee neither ranne to embrace that, nor Cyrill for that, hee fled from it as a serpent: and the like may be said of the rest. But take Vigilius to speake (as indeed he doth) of this slanderous and here∣ticall Explanation, and then all the words of Vigilius are not onely coherent among themselves, but perspicuous and easie. Ibas by an errour r 1.874 mis-understood the words of Cyrill, (as think∣king him to teach one Nature, that is, one Person in Christ) and then hee spake injuriously against him, and called him an here∣tike▪ sed intellectu s 1.875 Capitulorum meliore recepto; but when Ibas better understood the Chapters of Cyrill, (when hee knew that Cyrill pro∣fessed two Natures, that is, two persons in Christ; and that Cyrill expounded his Chapters in such sort, that the humanitie and deitie, were each a distinct person) then Ibas amended all that he had said amisse of Cyrill, and called him no more an heretike, but embraced t 1.876 him as a Catholike. Again, Ibas u 1.877 blamed Cyrill, while he understood not his Chapters aright, (while he thought, that but one person had beene taught therein) but afterwards, his ab eo explanatis & intellectis; when Cyrill had explaned himselfe, and Ibas understood his meaning, (that hee 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. Againe x 1.878, how should we not receive Ibas, being a Catholike, who though hee seemed to speak against Cyrill, while he mis-understood his Chapters; nunc ab eo in quo fallebatur intellectu conversus; Now upon Cyrils Explana∣tion, hee is converted from that error, whereby hee was deceived: (for now he seeth Cyrill to professe two Natures, in the Nestorian sense, that is, two persons, whereas he erroniously thought Cy∣rill to teach but one Person in Christ:) Againe y 1.879, nothing is re∣proved of the confession of Ibas, (that is orthodoxall, as teaching two natures, that is, two persons in Christ) but Ibas hath refu∣ted all, quod fallente intelligentia de Cyrillo male senserat; which hee thought amisse of Cyrill, by the errour of his misconceiving Cyrils mea∣ning,

(as thinking Cyrill to have taught but one Nature, that is, one Person in Christ.) Lastly, the comparison which u 1.880 Vigilius sets downe, betwixt Ibas, and Dioscorus, is hereby made easie and cleare. Dioscorus, though hee commended x 1.881 Cyrill, and the Ephesine Councell, for teaching one Nature in Christ, (to wit, one Nature in Dioscorus sense, that is, one Essence) did more wrong Cyrill, and the Councell, 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 hereticall y 1.882 sense, (as teaching one nature (in Dio∣scorus sense, that is, one essence, which to affirme is hereticall) but Ibas z 1.883 condemned them in an orthodoxall sense, (as thinking them to teach one nature, in Ibas his sense, that is, one person in Christ) which to condemne is orthodoxall.) Againe, Dioscorus, though it was explaned unto him, that neither Cyrill, nor the E∣phesine Councell taught one nature, in his sense, yet did hee by his hereticall spirit persist in commending them, as agreeing with him in that hereticall doctrine; but Ibas a 1.884, when it was ex∣planed unto him, that Cyrill and the Ephesine Councell taught not one, but two natures, (in Ibas his sense) by his orthodoxall spirit desisted presently to condemne them, and then embraced them both, as agreeing with him in his orthodoxall doctrine, of two natures, that is, of two persons in Christ. Lastly, Dioscorus, though hee commended them, yet because hee did it in an he∣reticall sense, and with an hereticall spirit, was justly condemned by the Councell at Chalcedon; but Ibas, though hee condemned them, yet because he did it in an orthodoxall sense, and with an orthodoxall spirit, amending what by an errour, and mis-under∣standing he had done amisse, was approved by the Councell of Chalcedon, and judged by them to have continued in the right Catholike faith. Thus by our exposition, that Vigilius meant the slanderous, and hereticall explanation of Cyrils Chapters, is his whole text both coherent, and congruous to it selfe, and very perspicuous, and easie; which, if Vigilius should meane, or be ex∣pounded to have understood of the true and orthodoxall Expla∣nation of Cyrill, would bee, not onely obscure, and inextrica∣ble, 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 easie to discerne the two last parts of the Popes Artificium which before I mentioned, for now you see that his Divinity is meere heresie, and Nestorianisme, and that his morality is unju∣stice, falshood, and calumnie, most injuriously slandering, not on∣ly Saint Cyrill; but the holy generall Councells of Ephesus, and Chalcedon to have (like himselfe) defended and embraced the same heresies of Nestorius, which by them all, is together with this decree of Vigilius anathematized and condemned to the ve∣ry pit of hell. There needeth not, nor will I seeke any other cen∣sure

of this most shamefull dealing of Vigilius; then the very words of Baronius a 1.885 concerning the Nestorians. Haec cum scive∣ris, perfacile intelliges: Seeing you have knowne these things, you may easily perceive, under whose banner and ensigne these men fight. For seeing you have seene them by calumnies, lyes, and impo∣stures, publishing counterfeit Epistles, (counterfeit explanati∣ons) in the names of renowned men (such as Cyrill was) and pat∣ching lyes unto lyes, you may well know whose souldiers they are, even the ministers of Sathan, transfiguring themselves into Angels of Light. Nescit enim pura religio imposturas, for true Re∣ligion is voyd of frauds and impostures: nor doth the truth seeke lying pretenses, nor the catholike faith support it selfe by calum∣nies and slanders: sincerity goeth secure, attended, onely with simplicity; with which censure of Baronius (agreeing indeed to all Nestorians: but in an eminencie; and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to Vigilius hee being the Captaine and King of them all) I end my Com∣mentary on the Constitution of Vigilius; which although it be not so plausibly set downe as Baronius would have done, had hee thought good to have undertaken that office: yet I dare boldly affirme, it is delivered farre more truly, faithfully and agreeably to the text, then either the Cardinall himselfe, or any other of the Popes 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, then the coherence of his text: the evidence of reason, and manifold proofe out of the historical narration and circumstances thereof doe necessarily inferre, 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 himselfe, and his profession in this Epistle, in this point, and in the sense of Ibas to be orthodoxall, because Ibas professeth therein two natures, and one person to bee in Christ; and seeing as wee have certainly proved, Ibas meant two such natures, as make two distinct persons, and one person, not by a naturall, and hypostaticall union, but onely by affection, liking and cohabitation, which is the very he∣resie condemned in Nestorius: It doth hence clearly and unavoi∣dably ensue, not onely that this third Chapter touching the appro∣ving of the Epistle of Ibas, doth concerne the faith, and is a questi∣on, and cause of faith, but that Vigilius first, and next Baronius, and then all who by word or writing, doe defend either Vigilius or Baronius, or the Popes judgment in causes of faith to be infallible, that they all by defending this Epistle as orthodoxall; or that Ibas by it ought to bee judged a Catholike, doe thereby main∣taine the condemned heresie of Nestorius to be the onely Catho∣like faith.

CHAP. XIII. Two assertions of Baronius, about the defenders of the Three Chap∣ters, refuted: and two other against them, confirmed: the one. That to dissent from the Pope in a cause of faith, makes one neither an Heretike, nor a Schismatike: the other, That to as∣sent absolutely in faith to the Pope or present Church of Rome, makes one both an Heretike, and a Schismatike.

1. HAving now demonstratively refuted the first evasion of Baronius, I would pro∣ceed to the second, but that Baronius doth enforce me to stay a little, in the examining of two Positions, which he collects and sets downe touching this cause, the former concerning here∣sie, the later concerning schisme.

2. His former is this, That a 1.886 both the defenders, and the condemners of these three Chapters were Catholikes, neither of both were Heretikes. Negatio vel assertio non constituebat quemquam haereticum; neither the condemning of these Chapters, nor the defending of them made one an here∣tike, unlesse there were some other error joyned with it. Againe, in b 1.887 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 heretike. So Ba∣ronius; who to free Vigilius from heresie, acquits all that deale either pro or contra in this cause, neither one side, nor the other are heretikes.

3. See how heresie makes a man to dote. That this question about the three Chapters is a cause of faith, wee have cleerly and unanswerably confirmed; and Baronius himselfe 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 Cardinals judgement are good Catholikes: neither the one, who with the Nestorians deny Christ to be God: nor the other, who affirme him to be God, may be called heretikes. This truly is either the same heresie which the Rhetorians maintained, who as Philastrius saith c 1.888 praised all sects and opinions, and said they all went the right way; or else it is an heresie peculiar to Baronius, such as none before him ever dreamed of; That two contradictories in a cause of faith may be held, and yet neither of them be an heresie, nor the pertinacious defenders of either of them both be heretikes. Ba∣ronius would be famous for a peece of new found learning, and an hereticall quirke, above all that ever went before him, such as by which he hath ex condigno, merited an applause of all heretiks

which either have beene or shall arise hereafter. For seeing in this cause of faith two contradictories may be held without here∣sie, the like may be in every other point of faith; and so with Vi∣gilius, the Arians, Eutycheans, and all heretikes shall have their quietus est: say what they will in any cause of faith, none may call them heretikes. I commend the Cardinall for his wit. This makes all cocke sure, it is an unexpugnable bulwarke to defend the Constitution of Pope Vigilius.

4. Say you, neither the defenders, nor the condemners of these Chapters may for that cause bee called heretikes? For the condemners of them, trouble not your wit, they are and shall be ever acknowledged for Catholikes. But for the defenders of them, who are the onely men, that the Cardinall would gratifie by this assertion, I may boldly say with the Prophet d 1.889, Though thou wash them with nitre and much sope, yet is their iniquity marked out: All the water in Tyber and Euphrates cannot wash away their heresie: for as we have before fully declared, the defen∣ding of any one, much more of all these three Chapters, is the de∣fending of Nestorianisme, and all the blasphemies thereof, the condemning of the holy Councels of Ephesus and Chalcedon, and of all that approve them, that is, of the whole catholike Church, and of the whole Catholike Faith. All these must be hereticall, if the defenders of those three Chapters be not heretikes.

5. Now against this assertion of Baronius, whereby he would acquit Vigilius and all that defend him from heresie: I will op∣pose another and true assertion, ensuing of that which wee have clearly proved; and this it is: That, one or moe, either men or Chur∣ches may dissent from the Popes Cathedrall and definitive sentence in a cause of faith, made knowne unto them, and yet be no heretikes. For to omit other instances no lesse effectuall, this one concerning Vi∣gilius, doth make this most evident. The cause was a cause of faith,e 1.890 as Baronius himselfe often professeth. The Popes defini∣tive and Apostolicall sentence in that cause of faith, made for de∣fence of those three Chapters, was published and made knowne to the fift generall Councell, and to the whole Church: this also Baronius confesseth f 1.891, and yet they who contradicted the Popes Apostolicall sentence in this cause of faith, made knowne unto them, were not heretikes: this also is the confession of Baronius, whose assertion as you have seene is, that neither the condem∣ners of these Chapters, nor the defenders of them were heretiks. So by the Cardinalls owne assertions: one may contradict and oppugne the Popes knowne, Cathedral, and Apostolicall sentēce in cause of faith, and yet bee no heretike. But what speake I of Baronius, the evidence and force of reason doth unresistably con∣firme this. For the whole fift generall Councell contradicted, yea condemned and accursed the Popes Cathedrall and defini∣tive sentence in this cause of faith made knowne unto them. The whole Catholike Church ever since hath approved the fift

Councell, and the decree thereof, and therefore hath contradi∣cted, condemned and accursed the Popes sentence as the Coun∣cell had done. And none I hope will be so impudently hereticall, as to call not onely the fift generall and holy Councell, but the whole Catholike Church of God, heretikes: who yet must all be heretikes, or else the dissenting from, yea the detesting, and accursing the Popes Cathedrall sentence in a cause of faith, can∣not make one an heretike.

6. I say more, and adde this as a further consequent on that which hath been declared, That none can now assent to their Popes, or to their Cathedrall definitions and doctrines maintained by the present Romane Church, but eo nomine, even for that very cause, they are convicted, condemned, and accursed heretikes. For the manifesting of which conclusion, I will begin with that their fun∣damentall position of the Popes Cathedrall infallibility in defi∣ning causes of faith, whereof before I have so often made menti∣on. And to prove the present Romane Church to bee hereticall herein, two things are to be declared: the one that this is indeed the position or doctrine of their Church: the other, that this do∣ctrine is hereticall, and for such condemned by the Catholike Church.

7. For the former; that the assertion of Popes infallibility in defining causes of faith, is the doctrine of the present Romane Church, I thinke none conversant in their writings will make doubt. Give mee leave to propose some testimonies of their owne. The Pope saith Bellarmine g 1.892, when hee teacheth the whole Church those things which belong to faith, nullo casu errare potest, hee can by no possible meanes then erre. And this, as he saith, is, certissi∣mum, a most certaine truth: and in the end hee addeth, this is a signe, Ecclesiam totam sentire, that the whole Church doth beleeve the Pope to be in such causes infallible. So he testifying this to be the judgement and doctrine of their whole Church. The Iesuite Coster, for himselfe and their whole Church saith; We h 1.893 doe constantly deny the Popes vel haeresim docere posse vel errorem proponere, to be able either to teach an heresie, or to propose an errour to be beleeved. When the Pope, saith Bozius i 1.894, 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 er∣rour. Againe k 1.895, in making such decrees, nunquam valuit aut vale∣bit facere contra fidem, he never was, he never shall be able to doe ought against the faith. We beleeve saith Gretzer l 1.896, the judgement of him who succeeds Peter in the Chaire, non secus ac olim Petri infallibile; to be no otherwise infallible, then the judgement of Peter was. And the m 1.897 gates of hell shall never be able to drive Peters successours, ut errorem quempiam ex cathedra desiniant, that they shall define any errour out of the Chaire. This is saith Stapleton n 1.898, a certaine and received truth among Catholikes, That the Pope when he decreeth ought out of his pontificall office, hath never yet taught any hereticall

doctrine, nec tradere potest, nor can he deliver any error: yea if it bee a judgement o 1.899 of faith, it is not onely false but hereticall, to say that the Pope can erre therein. They, saith Canus p 1.900, who reject the Popes judgement in a cause of faith, are heretickes. To this accordeth Bellarmine q 1.901, It is lawfull to hold either part in a doubtfull matter, without note of heresie, before the Popes definition be given: but after the Popes sentence, he who then dissenteth from him is an hereticke. To these may be added, as Bellarmine testifieth r 1.902, S^t. Thomas, Thomas Waldensis, Cardinall Turrecremata, Cardinall Cajetane, Cardi∣nall Hosius, Driedo, Eccius, Iohannes a Lovanio, and Peter Soto, all these teach it to be impossible, that the Pope should define any he∣reticall doctrine. And after them all, the saying of Gregory de Va∣lentia, is most remarkable to this purpose: It now appeareth, saith he s 1.903, that Saint Thomas did truly, and orthodoxally teach, that the proposall or explication of our Creed, that is, of those things which are to be beleeved, doth belong unto the Pope: which truth containes so clearely the summe and chiefe point of Catholike religion, ut nemo Catholicus esse possit, qui illam non amplectatur, that none can be a Catholike, unlesse hee hold and embrace this. So he: professing that none are to be held with them for Catholikes, but such as maintaine the Popes infallibilitie in proposing or defining causes of faith.

8. They have yet another more plausible manner of teach∣ing the Popes Infallibilitie in such causes; and that is by com∣mending the judgement of the Church, and of generall Coun∣cels to be infallible. All Catholikes, saith Bellarmine t 1.904, doe constant∣ly teach that generall Councels, confirmed by the Pope, cannot possibly erre, in delivering doctrines of faith or good life: And this he saith, is so certaine, that fide catholica tenendum est, it is to be embraced by the Catholike faith: and so all Catholikes are bound to beleeve it. Likewise concerning the Church, he thus writeth u 1.905, Nostra sententia est, it is our sentence, that the Church cannot absolutely erre, in proposing things which are to bee beleeved. The same is taught by the rest of their present Church. Now when they have said all, and set it out with great pompe, and ostentation of words, for the infallibility of the Church, and Councell; it is all but a meere collusion, a very maske, under which they cover and con∣vaie the Popes Infallibilitie into the hearts of the simple. Try them seriously who list, sound the depth of their meaning, and it will appeare, that when they say; The Church is infallible, Generall Councels are infallible, The Pope is infallible, they never meane to make three distinct infallible Iudges, in matters of faith, but one onely infallible, and that one is the Pope.

9. This to be their meaning, sometimes they will not let to professe: When we teach, saith Gretzerx 1.906, that the Church is the (in∣fallible) Iudge in causes of faith, per Ecclesiā intelligimus Pontificem Romanum, we by the Church doe meane the Pope for the time being, or him with a Councell. Againe y 1.907, They object unto us, that by

the Church we understand the Pope, Non abnuo, I confesse wee meane so in deed, This is plaine dealing: by the Church they meane the Pope. So Gregorie de Valentia z 1.908, By the name of the Church we understand the head of Church, that is, the Pope. So Bozius a 1.909, The Pope universorum personam sustinet, sustaineth the person of all Bi∣shops, of all Councels, of all the whole Church, he is in stead of them all. As the whole multitude of the faithfull is the Church formal∣ly, and the generall Councell is the Church representatively, so the Pope also is the Church Vertually, as sustaining the person of all, and having the power, vertue, and authoritie of all, both the formall and representative Church; and so the Churches or Councels judgement, is the Popes judgement; and the Churches or Councels infallibility, is in plaine speech, the Popes infal∣libilitie.

10. This will further appeare by those comparisons, which they make betwixt the Church, or Councels, and the Pope. It is the assertiō of Card. Bellarmine b 1.910, as also of their best c 1.911 writers, that there is as much authoritie Intensivè, in the Pope alone, as in the Pope with a generall Councell, or with the whole Church; though Ex∣tensivè it is more in them, then in him alone: Even as the light is Intensivè, & for degrees of brightnes, as great in the Sun alone, as in it with all the Starres, though it is Extensivè more in thē, that is, more diffused, or spred abroad into moe, being in them, then in the Sun alone; Neither onely is all the authoritie, which either Coūcell or Church hath, in the Pope, but is in a far more eminent manner in him, then in them. In him it is Primitively, or originally, as water in the fountaine, or as light in the Sun; Omnis authoritas est in uno, saith Bellarmine d 1.912, seeing the govern∣mēt of the Church is Monarchicall, all ecclesiasticall power is in one, (he meanes the Pope) and from him it is derived unto others. In the Councell, and the rest of the Church, it is but derivatively, borrowed from the Pope, as waters in little brookes, or as light in the moone & starres. In him is Plenitudo potestatis, as Innocen∣tius teacheth e 1.913, the fulnesse of Ecclesiasticall power and authoritie dwelleth in him, in the rest whether Councels, or Church, it is onely by Participation, and measure, they have no more then either their narrow channels can containe, or his holinesse will permit to distill or drop downe upon their heads, from the lowest skirts of his garment. So whatsoever authoritie either Church, or generall Councell hath, the same hath the Pope, and that more eminently, and more abundantly then they either have or can have.

11. But for Infallibilitie in judgement thats so peculiar to him, that as they teach, neither the Pope can communicate it, unto Church or Councell, nor can they receive it, but onely by their connexion or coherence to the Pope, in whom alone it resideth. Potestas & infallibilitaes papalis, est potestas & gratia per∣sonalis, saith Stapleton f 1.914, Papall, power and infallibilitie is a personall

gift, and grace, given to the person of Peter, and his successors; and personall gifts cannot bee transferred to others. In like sort Pighius g 1.915, Vni Petro, atque ejus Cathedrae, non Sacerdotali quantocun∣que Concilio; the priviledge of never erring in faith, was obtained, by the prayer of Christ, for Peter alone, and his Chaire; not for any Councell, though it be never so great. To the same purpose saith Bellarmine h 1.916, If a generall Councell could not erre in their sentence, the judgement of such a Councell should be the last, and highest judgement of the Church; but that judgement is not the last, for the Pope may either approve, or reject their sentence. So Bellarmine; professing the Popes onely judgement to be infallible; seeing it alone is the last, and highest, after, and above both Church, and generall Councell. All the infallibility which they have, is onely by reason of his judgement to which they accord, & consent. It hence appeareth, saith Bellarmine i 1.917, totam firmitatem, that the whole strength, and cer∣tainty of judgement, which is even in lawfull Councels, is from the Pope, non partim à Concilio, partim à Pontifice; it is not partlie from the Councell, and partly from the Pope; it is wholly, and onely from the Pope, and in no part from the Councell. When the Councell, and Pope consent in judgement, saith Gretzer k 1.918, omnis infallibilitas Concilij derivatur à Papa; all the infallibility of the Councell is derived from the Pope: and a little after, when the Pope consenteth with the Councell, ideo non errat, quia est Papa; hee is therfore free from erring, because he is the Pope; and not because he consenteth with the Councell. In like sort Melchior l 1.919 Canus; The strength and firmitude, both of the whole Church, and of Councels, is derived from the Pope: and againe m 1.920, In generall Councels, matters are not to bee judged by number of suffrages, but by the waight of them; Pondus antem dat summi Pontificis authoritas; and it is the Popes gravity, and authority, which gives waight to that part whereunto he inclineth: If he say it, one hundred Fathers with him are sufficient; but if his assent bee wanting, a thousand, a million, ten thousand millions; Nulli satis sunt, no number is sufficient: Nay, if all the whole world be of a contrary judgement to the Pope, yet, as the Canonist n 1.921 tels us, the Popes sentence, totius orbis placito praefertur; is of more weight and worth, than the judgement of the whole world: So cleare it is, that all their boasting of the autho∣rity, and infallible judgement of the Church, and of generall Councels, wherein they please themselves, more than ever the Iews did in crying o 1.922 so oft, Templū Domini, the Temple of the Lord: that all this is nothing else but a Viser, to hide, or actually to draw into mens mindes the Popes infallibility: they having no meaning at all to give, or allow, either to Church, or generall Councell, any infallibility, but onely with a reference to the Pope, to whom alone they annex it as a personall gift, and peculiar prerogative; and who, like those leane and ill favoured Kine of Pharaoh, hath devoured, and quite swallowed up all the authori∣ty, and infallibility, both of Church, and Councels: yet thus

much now is evident, that seeing all, who are of their present Ro∣mane Church, beleeve, and professe the Church, and generall Councels to be infallible; & seeing their infallibility is none, but onely by adhering, and consenting to the Pope; it necessarily en∣sueth, that they all, à fortiori, doe beleeve, and must professe the Pope to be infallible, seeing on his, the infallibility of both the other, doth wholly, and solely depend.

12. Let me adde but one other proofe hereof, taken from Supremacy of authoritie and judgement: It is a ruled case in their learning, Si o 1.923 errare non potest, debet esse summus judex; He who is in∣fallible, must be the highest, and last Iudge; and, Vice versa, He p 1.924 who is the last, and highest judge, must be infallible. Supremacy and infalli∣bility of judgement are inseparably linked: To whomsoever Su∣premacy is given, even for that cause infallibility of judgement is granted unto him also; for seeing from the last or supreme Iudge, there can be no appeale, it were most unjust to binde Christians to beleeve his sentence, who might be deceived; most unjust to binde them from appealing from a judge that were fallible, or from an erronious judgement. Consider now to whom Supremacy of judgement in causes of faith, belongeth: To whom else but to the Pope? whereas some dare affirme, saith the Canonist q 1.925, that a Councell is above the Pope; Falsissimum est, This is most false: The Successor of Peter, saith Stapleton, r 1.926 supra omnes est, is above all; Bishops, Church, generall Councels; above all. The Pope, saith Bellarmine s 1.927, is simply and absolutely above the whole Church, and above a generall Councell. t 1.928 Hee further tels us, that this assertion, That the Pope is above a generall Councell, is, not only the judgment of all the ancient Schoole Divine, & the cōmon sen∣tence of their Writers, (of whom he reckoneth thirteene, and, if it were fit, three times thirtie might bee scored up with them) but that it is the publike doctrine of their Church, decreed in their Laterane Synod, under Leo the tenth: There the Councell, saith he u 1.929, disertè & ex professo docuit, did plainly, and of set purpose teach, the Pope to bee above all Councels: yea, expressissimè x 1.930 rem definivit; that Laterane Councell did most expresly define this: and their defini∣tion hereof, is, Decretum de fide, a Decree of faith: for which cause, in his Apology, bearing the name of Schulkenius, hee pro∣fesseth y 1.931, that this is, Articulus fidei, an Article of faith, such as every Christian is bound to beleeve, that the Pope is, Summus in terris totius Ecclesiae Iudex; the Supreme, last, and highest Iudge of the whole Church, here upon earth; which he proves, besides ma∣ny other authorities, by this very Laterane z 1.932 decree, and by their Trent Councell. The words themselves, of those Councels, make the matter plaine; in that at the Laterane Councell they thus decree; Solum a 1.933 Romanum Pontificem supra omnia Concilia au∣thoritatem habere; that the Pope alone hath authority above all Coun∣cels; and this, they say, is taught, not b 1.934 onely by Fathers, and Coun∣cels, but by the holy Scriptures; thereby shewing, that in this de∣cree

they explicate & declare the Catholike faith, which is one of the Cardinals notes, to know when a decree is published by a Councell, tanquam de fide, as a decree of faith; and they threaten, the c 1.935 indignation of God, and the blessed Apostles, to the gainsayers of their decree: A censure as heavy as any Anathema, the denouncing whereof, is another of the Cardinals notes, that they proposed this decree, as a decree of faith. In the other at Trent, the Councell teacheth d 1.936, that unto the Pope is given, Suprema potestas in universa Ecclesia; the Supreme power in the whole Church. And this Supre∣macy is such, that from all Councels, all other Iudges, you may appeale to him, and hee may reverse e 1.937, adnull, or repeale their judgement; but from him, as being the last, and highest Iudge, as having supreme power, qua f 1.938 nulla est major, & cui nulla est aequalis, then which none is greater, and to which none is equall; you may appeale to none, no, not (as some g 1.939 of them teach) unto God himselfe. The rea∣son whereof is plaine; for seeing the Popes sentence in such cau∣ses, is the h 1.940 sentence of God, uttered indeed by man; but, assisten∣te i 1.941, & gubernante Spiritu; Gods Spirit assisting, & guiding him there∣in; if you appeale from him, or his sentence, you appeale even from God himselfe, and Gods sentence. Such soveraignty they give unto the Pope in his Cathedrall judgement. Now because Infallibility is essentially, and inseperably annexed to supremacie of judgement, it hence evidently ensueth, that as their Laterane, and Trent Councels (and, with them, all, who hold their do∣ctrine; that is, all, who are members of their present Romane Church,) doe give supremacy of authority and judgement, unto the Pope; so with it they give also infallibility of judgement unto him; their best Writers professing, their generall Councels de∣fining, and decreeing, their whole Church maintaining him, and his Cathedrall judgement in causes of faith to bee infallible, which was the former point that I undertooke to declare.

13. Suffer mee to goe yet one step further. This assertion of the Popes Cathedrall infallibility in causes of faith, is, not onely a position of their Church, (which hitherto wee have declared) but it is very maine ground, and fundamentall position, on which all the faith, doctrines, and religion of the present Romane Church, and of every member thereof, doth relie. For the ma∣nifesting whereof, that must diligently be remembred, which we before have shewed; that, as when they commend the infalli∣bility of the Church, or Councell, they meane nothing else, then the Popes infallibility, by consenting to whom, the Church and Councell is infallible; even so, to the point, that now I under∣take to shew, it is all one to declare them to teach, that the Church, or generall Councell, is the foundation of faith, as to say, the Pope is the foundation thereof, seeing neither the Church, or Councell is such a foundation, but onely by their consenting with, and adhering to the Pope, who is that foundation.

14. This sometimes they will not let in plaine termes to pro∣fesse.

Peter, saith Bellarmine k 1.942, and every one of his successors, est petra, & fundamentum Ecclesiae; is the rocke, and foundation of the Church. In another place l 1.943 he calleth the Pope, that very founda∣tion, of which God prophesied in Isaiah, I m 1.944 lay in the foundations of Sion, a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: Ecce vobis lapidem in fundamentis Sion, saith Bellarmine, pointing at the Pope; behold, the Pope is this stone, laid in the foundations of Sion: And in his Apology under the name of Schulkenius n 1.945, he cals these positiōs of the Popes supremacy, Cardinē, fundamentū, & sum∣mā fidei Christianae; the Hinge, the foundation, the very summe of the Christian faith. To the like purpose Pighius cals o 1.946 the Popes judgement, Principium indubiae veritatis, a principle of undoubted ve∣rity; and that he meaneth the last and highest principle, his whole Treatise doth declare. Coster observes p 1.947, that the Pope is not onely the foundation, but, which is more, the Rock: other Apostles were foun∣dations, other Bishops are pillars of the Church; but Peter, and his Successor, is that solid Rocke, quae fundamenta ipsa continet; which supporteth all other pillers and foundations. To this purpose tends that assertion which is so frequent in their mouthes, and writings q 1.948, that in causes of faith, ultimum judicium est summi Pontificis, the last judgement belongs to the Pope: Now if it bee the last in such causes, then upon it, as on the last, and lowest founda∣tion, must every doctrine of their Church relie; into his judge∣ment it must last of all be resolved; but it, (because it is the last) into any higher judgement, or lower foundation, cannot possibly bee resolved.

15. But their most ordinary, and also most plausible way to expresse this, is under the name of the Church, teaching men to rest, and stay their faith on it; although, in very truth, as wee have shewed before, all which they herein say of the Church, doth in right, and properly belong to the Pope onely, and to the Church but onely by reason of him, who is the head thereof: The r 1.949 tradition of the Scriptures, and all doctrines of faith whatsoever, doe depend of the testimony of the Church, saith Bellarmine. Againe, The s 1.950 certainty of all ancient Councels, and of all doctrines, doth depend on the authority of the present Church: And yet more fully t 1.951, The faith which Catholikes have, is altogether certaine, and infallible: for what they beleeve, they doe therefore beleeve it, because God hath revealed it; and they beleeve God to have revealed it, quo∣niam Ecclesiam ita dicentem, vel declarantem, audiunt; because they heare the Church telling them, that God revealed it. So Bellarmine; who plainly professeth the testimony of the present Church, that is, of the Pope, to bee the last reason, why they beleeve any doctrine; and so the very last, and lowest foundatiō, on w^ch their faith doth relie. None more plentifull in this point, than Stapletō; The externall testimony of the Church, saith he u 1.952, Fundamentum quoddam fidei nostrae verè & propriè est; is truly and properly a founda∣tion of our faith. Againe x 1.953, the voyce of the Church, est regula om∣nium

quae creduntur; the rule and measure of all things which are beleeved. Againe y 1.954, whatsoever is beleeved by the Catholike faith, wee Catholikes beleeve that, propter Ecclesiae authoritatem, by reason of the Churches authority: we z 1.955 beleeve the Church, tan∣quam Medium credendi omnia; as the Medium or reason why we be∣leeve all other things: And yet more fully in his doctrinall princi∣ples a 1.956; when we professe in our Creed to beleeve the Catholike Church, the sense hereof, though perhaps not Grammaticall, (for the Pope and his divinity is not subject to Grammer rules) yet certainly the Theologicall sense is this, Credo illa omnia quae Deus per Ecclesiam me docuit; I beleeve all those things which God hath re∣vealed, and taught mee by the Church. But how know you, or why beleeve you this, Deum per Ecclesiam revelare; that all those things which the Church teacheth, are revealed and taught of GOD? What say you to this, which is one peece of your Creede? To this Stapleton, both in that place b 1.957, and againe in his Relecti∣ons c 1.958, gives a most remarkeable answer; This, (that God revea∣leth those things by the Church,) is no distinct Article of faith, sed est quoddam transcendens fidei Axioma at que principium, ex quo, & hic, & alij omnes Articuli deducuntur; but this is a transcendent Maxime, and principle of faith, upon which, both this it owne selfe, (note this especially) and all other Articles of faith doe depend: upon this all Articles of faith doe hang, hoc unum praesupponunt, they all praesuppose this, and take it for granted. This, and much more hath Stapleton.

16. But what speake I of Bellarmine or Stapleton, though the latter hath most diligently sifted this cause? This position, that the Church is the last Iudge, and so the lowest foundation of their faith, is the decreed doctrine of their Trent Councell, and there∣fore the consenting voyce of their whole Church, and of every member thereof: For in that Councell d 1.959, the Church is defined to bee the Iudge of the sense, and interpretation of the Scriptures: and by the like reason it is to iudge of traditions, and of the sense of them. Now because all doubts and controversies of faith, de∣pend on the one of these, it clearly followeth upon that decree, that the very last stay in all doubts of faith, is the Churches judgement; but that, upon no other, nor higher stay, doth, or can relie; for whatsoever you take besides this, the truth, the waight, 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 Churches judgement it selfe, even that, as all other, must be ended by the judgement of the Church; it is the last Iudge of all. This, to bee the true meaning of the Trent Councel, Bellarmine both saw, and professeth, when hee saith e 1.960, The Church, that is, the Pope, with a Councell, is Iudge of the sense of the Scripture, & omnium controversi∣arum, and of all controversies of faith; and in this all Catholikes do agree, and it is expresly set downe in the Trent Councell: So Bel∣larmine testifying this to be, both the decreed doctrine of their

generall and approved Councell, and the consenting judgment of all that are Romane Catholikes.

17. Now all this which they have said of the Church, if you will have it in plaine termes and without circumloquution, be∣longs onely to the Pope, who is vertually both Church and Councell. As the Church or Councell is called infallible, no otherwise but by a Synechdoche, because the Pope, who is the head both of Church and Councell, is infallible: So is the Church or Councell called the foundation of faith, or last principle on which their faith must relie, by the same figure Synechdoche, be∣cause the Pope who is the head of them both, is the foundation of faith. And whosoever is a true Romane Catholike or member of their present Church, hee beleeveth all other doctrines, because the Church, that is, the Pope doth teach them; and the Pope to teach them infallibly, he beleeveth for it selfe, because the Pope saith hee, is in such teaching infallible. This infallibility of the Pope is the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the very corner stone; the foundati∣on stone, the rocke and fundamentall position of their whole faith and religion, which was the point that I purposed to declare.

18. I have hitherto declared, and I feare too abundantly, that the assertion of the Popes Cathedrall infallibilitie in causes of faith, is not onely a position, but the very fundamentall position of all the doctrines of the present Romane Church. In the next place we are to prove that this position is hereticall, and that for such it was adjudged and condemned by the Catholike Church. In the proofe whereof I shall not need to stay long. This whole treatise, and even that which hath already beene declared touch∣ing the Constitution of Pope Vigilius doth evidently confirme the same. For seeing the defending of the Three Chapters hath been proved f 1.961 to be hereticall, the Constitution of Vigilius made in de∣fence of those Chapters, must of necessity be confessed to be he∣reticall. Nay if you well consider, you shall see, that this very position of the Popes Cathedrall infallibilitie, is adjudged to bee hereticall. For the fift generall Councell knew this cause of the Three Chapters to bee a cause of faith. They knew further that Pope Vigilius by his Apostolicall decree, and Cathedrall Consti∣tution had defined that those Three Chapters ought to bee defen∣ded. Now seeing they knew both these, and yet judicially de∣fined the defence of those Three Chapters to be hereticall, and for such accursed it, even in doing this, they define the Cathedrall judgement of Vigilius in this cause of Faith, to be hereticall; and therefore most certainly and à fortiori define this position [That the Popes Cathedrall sentence in a cause of faith is infallible] to bee hereticall, and for such they anathematize both it, and all that defend it. And because the judgement and definitive sen∣tence of the fift Councell is consonant to all former, and confir∣med by all subsequent Councels till the Laterane Synod under Leo the tenth, it unavoydably hence ensueth, that the same posi∣tion

of the Popes Cathedrall infallibility in causes of faith, is by the judgement of all generall Councells untill that time, that is, by the constant, and uniforme consent of the whole Catholike Church, adjudged, condemned, and accursed for hereticall, and all who defend it for heretikes. And seeing we have cleerly proved the whole present Romane Church, and all that are members therof, to defend this position, yea to defend it as the maine foundation of their whole faith; the evidence of that asser∣tion which I proposed g 1.962, doth now manifestly appeare: 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, ad∣judged and condemned for hereticall, and that even in the very ground and foundation of his faith.

19. From the foundation let us proceed to the walls and roofe of their religion. Thinke you the foundation thereof is onely hereticall, and the doctrines which they build thereon or∣thodoxall? Nothing lesse; They are both sutable, both hereti∣call. That one fundamentall position is like the Trojan horse, in the wombe of it are hid many troopes of heresies. If Liberius confirme Arianisme, Honorius Monothelitisme, Vigilius Nesto∣rianisme, these all by vertue of that one assertion must passe cur∣rant for Catholike truths. Nay, who can comprehend, I say not in words, or writing, but in his thought, and imagination all the blasphemous and hereticall doctrines, which by all their Popes have beene, or if as yet they have not, which hereafter may be by succeeding Popes defined to bee doctrines of faith? Seeing Stapleton h 1.963 assures us, That the Church of this, or any succee∣ding age may put into the Canon and number of sacred and undoubtedly Canonicall bookes, the booke of Hermas called Pastor, and the Constitu∣tions of Clement: the former being, as their owne notes censure it, i 1.964 haeresibus & fabulis opplet us, full of heresies and fables, rejected by Pope Gelasius k 1.965 with his Romane Synod; the later being stuf∣fed also with many impious doctrines, condemning m 1.966 lawfull ma∣riage as fornication, and allowing n 1.967 fornication as lawfull, with many the like impieties, which in Possevine o 1.968 are to bee seene together, for which cause they are worthily rejected in the Canons p 1.969 of the sixt Councell; seeing the Pope may canonize these, what blas∣phemies, what heresies, what lies may not with them be canoni∣zed? why may not their very Legend in the next Session bee de∣clared to be Canonicall? And yet by that fundamentall position, they are bound (and now doe implicitè) beleeve 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, hee shall perceive (that which now I intend to prove) such venome of infidelity to lye in that one fundamentall position of the Popes Cathedrall infallibility, that by reason of holding it, they neither doe nor can beleeve or hold with certaintie of faith

any one point or doctrine, which they professe to beleeve, and hold upon that Foundation.

20. For the clearing of which point (being very materiall) it is to be observed, that unto certainty of faith, two things are of necessity required; The one ex parte objecti, on the part of thing beleeved, which must be so true and certaine in it selfe, that it cannot possibly bee or have beene otherwise then it is beleeved to be, to have beene, or to be hereafter. And therefore none can truly beleeve any untruth, for nothing which is untrue, is or can be the object of faith. The other thing is required, ex parte sub∣jecti, on the part of him who beleeveth. Now faith being onely of such things are inevident, that is, which neither by sense can be perceived, nor by naturall reason collected or found out; but which are onely by the testimonie of such as first knew them, made knowne unto us, and none doth or can know that which is supernaturall, unlesse God himselfe reveale the same unto him, it hence followeth that whatsoever is by any beleeved, the same is revealed and testified to him by God himselfe, who is in∣fallible: and further, that it is certainly knowne unto him who beleeveth, that it is God himselfe, who doth reveale and testifie that thing unto him. For otherwise though the doctrine pro∣posed, be in it selfe never so certaine and divine, yet unto thee, or me, it cannot be certaine, nor held by certainty of faith, un∣lesse first we be sure and infallibly certaine, that he who testifi∣eth it unto us is himselfe infallible, that is, that he is God. Let us for perspicuity, call the former of these two, materiale fidei, the materiall in faith or the thing beleeved: and the later, for∣male fidei, that which is formall in faith, seeing as the former is the thing beleeved, so the later containes the reason, the ground or foundation upon which, and for which it is beleeved.

21. Consider now first the materials in their faith. In them there is a great difference; for some of them are in themselves credible, as being divine truths, and true objects of faith. Such are all those Catholike truths common to us and them, as that there is a Trinity, that Christ was borne of a Virgin, dyed, rose againe, and the like. Others are in themselves untrue, such as cannot be the object of faith: Of this sort are all those doctrines wher∣in they dissent from us, Transubstantiation, reall and proper sacri∣fice, worshipping of Images, Purgatory, Iustification by the merit or dignity of our works, and the like, which may rightly bee called popish doctrines. The later sort of these they neither doe nor can beleeve. The former they might, but they doe not beleeve. The reason whereof will appeare by considering that which is for∣mall or the fundamentall ground of their faith: where it is first to be observed, that a man may hold many, yea all the doctrines professed by the present Church, except that one of the Popes Cathedrall infallibility, and yet bee no Papist or member of their present Church. For although the things professed, or the Ma∣terialls

be the selfe same, yet the formalitie or diverse reason of holding them, causeth a maine difference in the parties that hold them. And for our present purpose it may suffice to note three divers wayes, whereby their doctrines are or may be held.

22. The first is, of them, who build all those doctrines upon the Scripture as the Foundation thereof: upon that ground, hold∣ing not onely many Catholike truths, which they most firmly beleeve, the Church inducing, the Scriptures outwardly teach∣ing, and the holy Spirit inwardly sealing, the same unto them: but together with those truths hold some errors also of the Ro∣mane Church (take for example Transubstantiation;) which al∣though for the inducement of that present Church wherein they live, they thinke to be taught in the Scriptures, and therefore hold and professe them, and thinke they beleeve them, yet be∣cause they are neither in truth taught in the Scriptures, nor sea∣led by Gods Spirit unto their hearts, therefore they hold not these, nor in truth can they hold them with that firmnesse and certainty of faith, as they doe the former truths, but they have a faintnes and feare in their assent unto these, and so a readines and willing preparation of heart; to disclaime these, and to hold or professe the contrary, if ever it may be fully cleared & manifest∣ed out of the Scriptures unto them. Of this sort we doubt not but many thousands of our fathers were, who living in the dark∣nesse & thicke 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 & drosse, thinking (but ve∣ry erroneously) the later as well as the former to be contained in that foundation. The state of all these is very like to S. Cyprians, and those other Africane Bishops, which were so earnest for Re∣baptizatiō, supposing it to be taught in the Scriptures, & though the foundation of it, & of those catholike truths that Christ was God, or the like; was one and the same unto them, yet they held not both with like firmnes & certainty of faith. The doctrine of Christs deity & manhood they so beleeved, that they would not cōmunicate with any that denied this, nay they would rather die then deny it. But Rebaptization they so held, as not thinking their opposites to be heretikes, nor refusing p 1.970 to cōmunicate with thē that denyed it; so they held this with a certaine faintnes of faith, or rather (as indeed it was) of opinion and not of faith, having a preparation in heart to beleeve, and professe the contrary, if it might at any time; be made manifest unto them. This S. Austen often witnesseth of Cyprian, Satis q 1.971 ostendit se facillime correctu∣rum, he sufficiently declareth that hee would most easily have al∣tered his opinion; if any would have demonstrated the truth unto him. Againe r 1.972, That holy man Cyprian, being non solum doctus, sed docilis, not onely learned, but willing to learne, and who sets this among the prayses of a Bishop,

that hee ought not onely to teach with knowledge, but learne with patience, hee I doubt not would readily have demonstra∣ted not onely how learned, but how willing to learne him∣selfe had beene, had this question in his life time beene deba∣ted, by such learned and holy men, as afterwards it was. I often admire that one observation, among many, which the same s 1.973 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 Rebaptization, that others might see in him a more eminent and excellent truth. And what truth is that? In him we may see the truth of Humilitie, the truth of modestie, the truth of Charitie and ardent love to the peace, and unitie of the Church: but the most excellent truth that I can see, or as I thinke, can be seene in erring Cyprian is this, that one may be a true Catholike, a Catholike Bishop, a pillar of Gods Church, yea even a Saint and glorious Martyr, and yet hold an error in faith, as did that holy Catholike Bishop, and blessed Martyr Saint Cyprian. To him then and the other Africane Bishops, who in like sort erred as he did; may fitly be compared the state of those servants of God, who in the blind∣nesse and invincible ignorance of those times of Antichrist, to∣gether with many golden truths, which they most firmely be∣leeved, upon that solid foundation of the Scriptures, held either Transubstantiation, or the like errors, thinking them (as Cyprian did, of Rebaptization) to be taught in that foundation also. They erred in some doctrines of faith, as Cyprian did: yet not∣withstanding those errors, they may be Catholikes, and blessed as Cyprian was, because they both firmely beleeved many Ca∣tholike truths, and their error was without pertinacie as Cypri∣ans was. For none, who truly beleeves the Scripture, and holds it for the foundation of his faith, can with pertinacie hold any doctrine repugnant to the Scripture, seeing in his very beleeve∣ing of the Scripture, and holding it as the foundation, he doth in truth, though implicitiè, and in radice, as I may say, beleeve the flat contrarie to that error, which explicitè he professeth. And because he doth implicitè beleeve the contrarie thereof, he hath, (even all the time while he so erreth) a readinesse and preparati∣on of hart to professe the contrarie whensoever out of the Scrip∣ture it shall bee deduced and manifested unto him.

23. A second way of holding those doctrines, is of them, who together with the truths, hold the errours also of their Church, Transubstantiation, Purgatorie, or the like, thinking them to bee taught in Scriptures, as did the former, but adding obstinacie, or pertinacie to their holding of them, which the former did not. And their pertinacie is apparant hereby, if either they will not yeeld to the truth, being manifested out of the Scriptures unto them, or if before such manifestation, they be so addicted and wedded to their owne wills, and conceits,

that they resolve either not to heare, or if they doe heare; not to yeeld to the evidence of reason, when they are convinced by it. For it is certaine, that one may bee truly pertinacious not one∣ly after conviction, and manifestation of the truth, but even be∣fore it also, if he have a resolution not to yeeld to the authority, and weight of convincing reasons. Of this sort were all those who ever since their second Nicen Synod (about which time, the Romane Church made their first publike defection from the true and ancient faith) tooke part with that faction in the Church, which maintained the adoration of Images, and after that, Deposing of Princes, then Transubstantiation, and other like heresies, as they crept by degrees into the Church, in seve∣rall ages. From that time untill Leo the tenth, the Church was like a confused lumpe, wherein both gold and drosse were mingled together: or like a great Citie infected with the plague. All as well the sicke as found, lived together within the walls, and bounds of that Citie, but all were not infected; and of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 it were, not all alike infected, with those hereti∣call diseases which then raigned, & more, and more prevaled in the Church. Some openly, and constantly withstood the cor∣ruptions, 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 1.974 I would say in the schooles and openly, sed maneat inter nos, diversum sentio, but keepe my counsell, I thinke the contrarie. Many were tainted with those Epidemicall diseases by the very contagion of those with whom they did converse, but that strong Antidote in the foundation, which preserved Cypri∣an and the Africane Bishops, kept from their hearts, and at last overcame all the poyson wherewith they were infected. Onely that violent, and strong faction, which pertinaciously adhered to the hereticall doctrines, which then sprung up, (the head of which faction was the Pope) and who preferred their owne opi∣nions, before the truth, out of the Scriptures manifested unto them, and by some Councels, also decreed, as namely by that at Constantinople in the time of Constantinus Iconomachus, and that at Frankford, these I say who wilfully and maliciously re∣sisted, yea persecuted the truth and such as stood in defence of it, are those, who are ranked in this second order, who though they are not in proprietie of speech to bee called Papists, yet because the errors which they held are the same, which the Po∣pish Church now maintaineth, they are truly and properly to be tearmed Popish Heretickes.

24. The third way of holding their doctrines, beganne with their Lateran decree, under Leo the tenth, at which time they held the same doctrines which they did before, but they held thē now upon another Foundation. For thē they cast away the old

and sure Foundation, and laid a new one of their owne in the roome thereof, The Popes word, in stead of Gods, and Anti∣christs in stead of Christs. For although the Pope long before that time, had made no small progresse in Antichristianisme, first in usurping an universall authority over all Bishops, next in upholding their impious doctrines of Adoration of Images, and the like, and after that in exalting himselfe above all Kings and Emperors, giving and taking away their Crownes at his pleasure; yet the height of the Antichristian mysterie consisted in none of these, nor did he ever attaine unto it, till by vertue of that Laterane decree he had just led out Christ and his word, and laid himselfe and his owne word in the stead thereof, for the Rocke & Foundation of the Catholike faith. In the first, the Pope was but Antichrist nascent; In the second, Antichrist crescent; In the third, Antichrist regnant; but in this fourth, he is made Lord of the Catholike faith, and Antichrist triumphant; set up as God in the Church of God, ruling, nay tyrannizing, not onely in the externall and temporall estates, but even in the faith, and Con∣sciences of all men; so that they may beleeve neither more, nor lesse, nor otherwise then he prescribeth, nay that they may not beleeve the very Scriptures themselves, and word of God, or that there are any Scriptures at all, or that there is a God, but for this reason, ipse dixit, because he saith so, and his saying, be∣ing a Transcēdent principle of faith, they must beleeve for it selfe, quia ipse dixit, because he saith so. In the first, and second, hee usurped the authority and place but of Bishops; in the third, but of Kings: but in making himselfe the Rocke and Foundation of faith, he intrudes himselfe into the most proper office and prerogative of Iesus Christ, For t 1.975 other foundation can no man lay, then that which is laid, Iesus Christ.

25. Here was now quite a new face of the Romane Church, yea, it was now made a new Church of it selfe, in the very es∣sence thereof distinct from the other part of the Church, and from that which it was before. For although most of the Ma∣terialls, as Adoration of Images, Transubstantiation, and the rest, were the same, yet the Formalitie and foundation of their faith and Church was quite altered. Before they beleeved the Pope to doe rightly, in decreeing Transubstantiation, because they beleeued the Scriptures, and word of God, to teach and war∣rant that doctrine: but now vice versa they beleeve the Scrip∣tures, and word of God, to teach Transubstantiation, because the Pope hath decreed and warranted the same. Till then one might be a good Catholike, and member of their Church, such as were the Bishops in the generall Councels of Constance and Basill, and those of the fift, sixt, seventh, and succeding Councels, and yet hold the Popes Cathedrall judgement in causes of faith to bee not onely fallible, but hereticall and accursed, as all those Councels did: But since Supremacie, and with it Infallibilitie of

judgement, is, by their Laterane decree, transferred to the Pope: he who now gainsayeth the Popes sentence, in a cause of faith, is none of their Church, as out of Gregory de Valentia, he is an here∣tike, as out of Stapleton, Canus, and Bellarmine was u 1.976 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, see∣ing he rejects that formall reason, for which, and that foundation upon which, they are all to be beleeved; and without beleefe of which, not one of them all can be now beleeved.

26. These then of this third sort are truly to he counted mem∣bers of their present Romane Church; these, who lay this new, & Laterane foundatiō, for the ground of their faith, whether expli∣citè, as do the learned, or implicitè, as do the simpler fort in their Church, who wilfully blind-folding themselves, and gladly per∣sisting in their affectate and supine ignorance, either will not use the meanes to see, or seeing, will not embrace the truth, but con∣tent themselves with the Colliars x 1.977 Catechisme, and wrap up their owne in the Churches faith, saying, I beleeve as the Church belee∣veth, and the Church beleeveth what the Pope teacheth. All these, and onely these are members of their present Church, un∣to whom, of all names, as that of Catholikes, is most unsutable, and most unjustly arrogated by themselves; so, the name of Pa∣pists, or, which is equivalent, Antichristians, doth most fitly, tru∣ly, 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, formali∣ty, and essence to their faith, on whom, as on the Rocke, and corner-stone, their whole faith dependeth. The saying of Cassander to this purpose, is worthy remembring: There are some, saith hee y 1.978, who will not permit the present state of the Church, though it be corrupted, to be changed, or reformed; and who, Pontifi∣cem Romanum quem Papam dicimus, tantùm non deum faciunt; make the Bishop of Rome, whom we call the Pope, almost a god; preferring his authority, not onely above the whole Church, but above the Sacred Scripture, holding his judgement equall to the divine Oracles, and an infallible rule of faith; Hos non video, tur minus Pseudo-catholicos, & Papistas appellare possis; I see no reason, but that these men should be called Pseudo-catholikes, or Papists. Thus Cassander; upon whose ju∣dicious observatiō it followeth, that seeing their whole Church, and all the members thereof, preferre the Popes authority a∣bove the whole Church, above all generall Councels, and quoad nos, (which is Cassanders meaning) above z 1.979 the Scriptures also; defending them not to be a 1.980 authenticall, but by the authority of the Church; that there is, multo b 1.981 major authoritas, much more au∣thoritie in the Church, than in them; that it is no c 1.982 absurd, nay, it may be a pious * 1.983 saying, That the Scriptures without the authoritie of the Church, are no more worth than Aesops Fables: seeing they all,

with one consent make the Pope the last, supreme, and infallible Iudge in all causes of faith; there can bee no name devised more proper and fit for them, than that of Papists; or, which is all one, Antichristians, both which expresse their essentiall dependence on the Pope, or Antichrist, as on the foundation of their faith; which name most essentially also differenceth them from all o∣thers, which are not of their present Church; especially from true Catholikes, or the Reformed Churches; seeing, as we make Christ and his word, so they on the contrary, make the Pope, that is to say, Antichrist, and his word, the ground and foundati∣on of faith: In regard wherof, as the faith & religion of the one is from Christ truly called, Christian, and they truly, Christians; so the faith and religion of the other, is from the Pope, or Anti∣christ, truly, and properly called Papisme, or Antichristianisme, and the professors of it Papists, or Antichristians. And whereas Bellarmine e 1.984 glorieth of this very name of Papists, that it doth, attestari veritati, give testimony to that truth which they professe; truly we envy not so apt a name unto them: Onely the Cardinal shews himself a very unskilful Herald in the blazony of this coat, & the descēt of this title unto them. He fetcheth f 1.985 it forsooth frō Pope Clement, Pope Peter, and Pope Christ: Phy, it is of no such antiquity, nor of so honourable a race. Their owne Bristow will assure g 1.986 him, that this name was never heard of till the dayes of Leo the tenth. Neither are they so called, (as the Cardinall fancieth) because they hold communion in faith with the Pope, which, for sixe hundred yeares and more, all Christians did, and yet were not Papists, nor ever so called; but because they hold the Popes judgement to be supreme, and infallible; and so build their faith on him, as on the foundation thereof, which their owne Church never did, till the time of Leo the tenth. It is not then the Lion of the Tribe of Iudah, but the Lion of that Laterane Synod, who is the first Godfather of that name unto them, when hee 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 Romane Church from all others, who held the old, good, and sure foundation.

26. You see now the great diuersity which ariseth from the divers manner of holding the same doctrines. The errours main∣tained 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 onely erre therein, but were not heretikes, because not pertinacious. The second doe not onely erre, but by adding pertinacy to errour, are truly heretikes, but yet not Papists, be∣cause they hold those Popish heresies in another manner, and on another foundation then Papists doe. The third, and last sort, which containeth all, and onely those who are members of the present Romane Church, doe both erre, and are heretikes; and,

which is the worst degree of heresie, are Papists, that is, Antichri∣stian heretikes; not onely 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 appeare, which before h 1.987 I proposed, that none who hold the Popes infalli∣bility in causes of faith for their foundation, (that is, none of the present Romane Church) either doth, or can beleeve any one do∣ctrine of faith, w^ch they professe: For seeing the beleefe of all o∣ther points relyes upō this, so that they beleeve thē, because they first beleeve this, it followeth by that true rule of the Philoso∣pher i 1.988, Propter quod unumquod{que}, illud magis; that they doe more firmely and certainly beleeve this, which is the foundation, than they doe, or can beleeve any other doctrine; I say not Transub∣stantiation, or Purgatory, but more thā that Article of their Creed, that Christ is God, or that there is a God, or any the like, which is builded upon this foundatiō. And seeing we have cleerly demon∣strated that foundation to bee, not onely untrue, but hereticall; and therefore such as cannot be apprehended by faith, it being no true object of faith; it doth evidently hence ensue, that they neither doe, nor can beleeve any one doctrine, position or point of faith. Impossible it is, that the roofe should bee more firme than the foundation which supports the roof; or the conclusion more cer∣taine unto us than those premisses which cause us to assent, and make us certaine of the conclusion: That one fundamentall un∣certainty, & contrariety to the faith, which is vertually in all the rest, breeds the like uncertainty, and contrariety to faith, in them all; and, like a Radicall poyson, spreads it selfe into the whole body of their religion, infecting every arme, branch, and twigge of their doctrine, and faith; whatsoever errour or heresie they maintaine, (and those are not a few) those they neither doe, nor can beleeve, because they are no objects of faith, whatsoever truths they maintaine, (and no doubt they doe many) those they thinke they doe, and they might doe, but indeed they doe not beleeve, 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 professe that Christ is God, or that there is a God, eo nomine, because the Devill, or Antichrist, or a fallible man testifieth it unto us, is not truly to beleeve, 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 doe therefore beleeve it, then must they beleeve Ne∣storianisme to be the truth, and Christ not to bee God, because Pope Vigilius, by his judiciall and Apostolicall sentence, hath de∣creed this, in decreeing that the three Chapters, are to be defēded: If they beleeve not this, then can they beleeve nothing at all,

eo nomine, because the Pope hath defined it; and then the foundati∣on of their faith being abolished, their whole faith, together with it, must needs be abolished also. Againe, if because the Pope defineth a doctrine, they doe therefore beleeve it; then seeing Pope Caelestine, with the Ephesine, and Pope Leo, with the Chalcedon Councell, decreed Nestorianisme to be heresie, they, by the strength of their fundamental positiō of the Popes infalli∣bility, must, at one and the same time, beleeve, both Nestoria∣nisme to be truth, as Pope Vigilius defined, and Nestorianisme to be heresie, as Pope Calestine and Leo defined; and so they must either beleeve two contradictories to be both true, yea, to bee truths of the Catholike faith, which, to beleeve, is impossible; or else they must beleeve, that it is impossible to beleeve, either the one or the other, eo nomine, because the Pope hath defined it, and so beleeve it to bee impossible to beleeve that, which is the foundation of their whole faith. Neither is this true onely in o∣ther points, but even in this very foundation it selfe: for the fift Councell, which decreed the Cathedrall and Apostolicall sen∣tence in the cause of the Three Chapters, to be hereticall, was ap∣proved by the decrees of Pope Gregory, Agatho, and the rest, unto Leo the tenth. If then they beleeve a doctrine to be true, because the Pope hath defined it, then must they beleeve the Popes Ca∣thedral sentence in a cause of faith, to bee, not onely falli∣ble, but hereticall; and so beleeve, that upon this fallible and hereticall 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 beleeve ought 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 Popes Cathedrall sentence in a cause of faith, may bee hereticall, as this of Pope Vigilius, by their judgement, was: So, whether the Pope in such causes, be falli∣ble, or infallible, it infallibly followeth upon either, that none who builds his faith upon that foundation, that is, none who are members of their present Romane Church, can beleeve, or hold with certainty of faith, any doctrine whatsoever, which he pro∣fesseth to beleeve.

29. Here I cannot chuse, but, to the unspeakeable comfort of all true beleevers, observe a wonderfull difference betwixt us, and them, arising from that diversitie of the foundation, which they and we hold; their foundation being not onely uncertaine, but hereticall and Antichristian, poysoneth all which they build thereon; it being vertually in them all, makes them all, like it selfe, uncertaine, hereticall, and Antichristian; and so those very doctrines, which, in themselves, are most certaine, and ortho∣doxall, by the uncertainty of that ground, upon which, and for

which they are beleeved, are overthrowne; with us, and all Ca∣tholikes it fals out otherwise. Though such happen to erre in some one, or moe doctrines of faith, (say, in Transubstantiation, Purgatory, or, as Cyprian did, in Rebaptization) yet seeing they hold those errors, because they thinke them to be taught in the Scriptures, and Word of God, on which alone their faith rely∣eth; most firmely, and undoubtedly beleeving whatsoever is taught therein; (among which things are the contrary do∣ctrines to Transubstantiatiō, Purgatory, & Rebaptization:) such, I say, even while they doe thus erre in their Explicite profession, doe truly, though implicitè, by consequent, and in radice, or funda∣mento, beleeve, and that most firmely, the quite contrary to those errours, which they doe outwardly professe, and think they doe; but indeed doe not beleeve. The vertue and strength of that fundamentall truth, which they indeed and truly beleeve, over∣commeth all their errours, which in very deed they doe not, though they thinke they doe beleeve, whereas, in very truth, they beleeve the quite contrary. And this golden foundation in Christ, which such men, though erring in some points, doe con∣stantly hold, shall more prevaile to their salvation, than the Hay and Stubble of those errours, which ignorantly, but not pertina∣ciously, they build thereon, can prevaile to their destruction: and therefore if such a man happen to die, without explicite no∣tice, and repentance of those errours in particular, (as the saying of Saint Austen k 1.989, that what faults Saint Cyprian had contracted by humane imbecillity, the same, by his glorious Martyrdome, was washed away, perswades mee that Cyprian did: and as of Irene, Nepos, Iustine Martyr, and others, who held the errour of the Chiliasts, I thinke none makes doubt:) it is not to be doub∣ted, but the abundance of this mans saith and love unto Christ, to whom in the foundation hee most firmely adhereth, shall worke the like effect in him, as did the blood of martyrdome in Saint Cypran: For the baptisme of martyrdome washeth away sinne, not because it is a washing in blood, but because it testi∣fieth the inward washing of his heart by faith, and by the pur∣ging Spirit of God. This inward washing in whomsoever it is found, (and found it is in all who truly beleeve, though in some point of faith they erre) it is as forcible and effectuall to save Valentinian l 1.990, neither baptized with water, nor with blood; and Nepos m 1.991, baptized with water, but not with blood, as to save Cy∣prian, baptized both with water, and with blood. Such a com∣fort and happinesse it is to hold the right and true foundation of faith.

30. The quite contrary is to be seen in them: Though they expli∣citè professe Christ to be God, w^ch is a most orthodoxall truth, yet because they hold this, as all other points, upon that foundation of the Popes infallible judgement in causes of faith, and in that foundation this is denyed, Pope Vigilius, by his Cathedrall Con∣stitution

defining Nestorianisme to be truth, and so Christ not to be God; it must needs be confessed, that even while they doe explicitè professe Christ to bee God, they doe implicitè, in radice, and in fundamento, deny Christ to be God: and because, by the Philosophers rule, they doe more firmely beleeve that foundation, than they doe, or can beleeve any doctrine depending thereon; it must needs ensue hence, that they doe, and must by their doctrine more firmely beleeve the Negative, that Christ is not God, which in the foundation is decreed, then they doe, or can beleeve the Affirmative, that Christ is God, which upon that foundation is builded. The truth, which upon that foundation they doe explicitè professe, cannot possibly be so strong to salvati∣on, as the errour of the foundation, upon which they build it, will be to destruction: For the fundamentall errour is never amen∣ded 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 superedifi∣ed, are ruinated by that fundamentall errour and uncertainty on which they all relye, even as the beames and rafters of gold are ruinated by that rottennesse and unsoundnesse which resteth in the foundation: Or if they say, that both the assertions (which are directly contradictory) are from that foundation deduced, Caelestine and Leo decreeing the one, that Christ is God, as Vigili∣us decreed the other, that Christ is not God, then doth it inevita∣bly follow, that they can truly beleeve neither the one, nor the other, seeing, by beleeving that foundation, they must equally be∣leeve them both, which is impossible. Such an unhappy, and wretched thing it is, to hold that erroneous, hereticall, and An∣tichristian foundation of faith.

31. My conclusion of this point is this. Seeing we have first declared, that all who are members of the present Romane Church, doe hold the Popes Cathedrall infallibility in causes of faith, yea, hold it as the very foundation on which all their other doctrines, faith and religion doth relye; and seeing wee have next demonstrated this to be a fundamentall heresie, and not onely an hereticall, but an Antichristian foundation, condemned by Scriptures, by generall Councels, by ancient Fathers, and by the consenting judgement of the whole Catholike Church; that now hence followeth which I proposed n 1.992 to prove, that none is, or can bee a member of their present Church, but the same is convicted and condemned for an heretike, by Scriptures, generall Councels, Fathers, and by the uniforme consent of the Catho∣like Church. An heretike, first, in the very foundation of his faith, which being Antichristian, is hereticall in the highest, and worst degree that may be, razing the true foundation of faith, in re∣gard whereof the mystery of Antichristianisme farre surpasseth all the heresies that ever went before, or shall ever follow after it. An heretike, secondly, in many particular doctrines depen∣ding

on that Foundation, among which are the heresies and blasphemies of the Nestorians; all which by the Cathedrall consti∣tution of Vigilius, are decreed to be truths, and by all men to be defended. Lastly, an heretike vertually and quoad radicem, in every doctrine of faith which hee holdeth or professeth, and so hereticall therein, that the very holding of Catholike truths be∣comes unto him hereticall, seeing he holds them upon that Foun∣dation, which is not only contrary to faith, but which overthrow∣eth the whole faith. Reward o 1.993 Babylon, O ye servants of the Lord, as she hath rewarded you, give her double according to her workes, and in the cup that she hath filled to you, fill her the double.

32. From hence there ensueth one other conclusion, w^ch 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 remaine such) any piety or holinesse, 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 fountaine of all true pietie, and good actions, it being impossible, as the Apostle teacheth, without p 1.994 faith to please God: and, to the q 1.995 unbeleevers all things are impure, even their mindes 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 1.996, who demandeth of the Priests, If a polluted per∣son (such are all whose hearts are not purified s 1.997 by faith) touch any of these things, either holy bread, or holy wine, or any holy thing, shall it be uncleane? 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 workes of their hands, and that which they offer is uncleane. The same agreeth to those of whom we intreat. The infidelity of their hearts, pollutes all their actions, seeme they never so holy: their almes-deedes and workes of charity, their righteousnesse, and workes of justice, their fastings, continency, and workes of tem∣perance, their prayers, sacraments, sacrifices, and workes of pie∣tie: the fountaine being poysoned with infidelity, and want of true faith, all the waters, every river, and little brooke derived from it, carieth the same infection in it, which it tooke at the spring. Saint Austen is plentifull in this point: Where the faith, saith he t 1.998, is fained or unsound, non potest ex ea bona vita existere, there can no good life be or arise from it. In another place u 1.999 hee sheweth, that even to keepe ones selfe chast or continent, and yet to doe this with∣out faith, is a sinne, and that thereby, non peccata coercentur, sedalijs peccatis alia peccata vincantur, sinnes are not expelled, but one sinne (of intemperancy) is overcome by another sinne, (of continency wanting faith.) To omit many the like, heare what he saith to the Mani∣chees, boasting, as they x 1.1000 of the Romane Church doe, that they

fulfilled the Law. Why y 1.1001 doe ye boast so much of fulfilling the Law, and commandements of God? Quid illa prodessent omnia ubi non est fides vera, etiamsi vere implerentur à vobis? what could all the com∣mandements profit you, who have not a true faith, though ye did truly fulfill them all? Thus and much more Saint Austen. Seeing then we have proved, their faith to be not onely unsound but hereti∣call and Antichristian, (worse then which, the faith of the Mani∣chees could not be:) impossible it is that from such a faith, either true vertue, or any godly act should ever arise. The best that can be said of those which they call good workes, is that which Lactantius saith z 1.1002 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 shew of justice, which they thinke to be justice. Omnis a 1.1003 doctrina & virtus eorum sine capite est, all the knowledge and vertue which they have, wanteth the head of true knowledge and vertue: It wanteth true faith in Christ, which is the head of all knowledge, and vertue. This head whosoever wanteth, Non dubium est, quin impius sit, omnes{que} virtutes ejus in illa mortifera via reperiantur, quae est tota tenebrarum, theres no doubt to be made, but such an one is impious, and all the vertues which hee thinkes he hath, are mortiferous and deadly.

33. Where againe I cannot but observe to the comfort of all true beleevers, another exceeding difference betwixt us and them, even in these matters concerning life, and good workes: whatsoever things are either in themselves good, or being of themselves indifferent, are by the lawfull authority either of ci∣vill, or ecclesiasticall governours, commanded, we in doing any of those things, and shewing our willing obedience thereunto, performe an act not onely lawfull, but laudable and accepta∣ble unto God. For in doing any of these, we doe vertually per∣forme obedience unto Christ, who by them commandeth the doing of all such things: and in our religious performing of them, we hold firme that holy foundation, not onely of faith, but of good workes, which the scriptures teach. Neither onely are such workes acceptable unto God, but even those acts also which are wicked and ungodly, being committed by such as doe truly beleeve, though they be as heinous as was the crime of David, or the abjuration of Peter, even those, I say, by the strength and vertue of that foundation, if one doe rightly hold and beleeve it, are so covered b 1.1004, put c 1.1005 away and forgotten, that God d 1.1006 seeth none iniquity in Iacob, nor transgression in Israel. Such, so infinite is the goodnesse, and so soveraigne is the vertue which is in hold∣ing the true foundation of faith. The contrary of all this falleth out unto them, of the present Romane Church. For not onely their sinnes are made more sinfull 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 doe, or can performe, though they should

doe nothing but sing hymnes with David, or feed Christs flock with Peter, or give their goods to the poore, and their bodies to be burned for Christ, even these, I say, are so tainted with the ve∣nome of that Apostaticall foundation, that being of themselves ho∣ly actions, yet unto them they are turned into sinne, and become pernicious and mortiferous. For whatsoever act being in it selfe either good or indifferent, any of their Church (except one∣ly the Pope himselfe, who is a member transcendent) doth per∣forme, because they doe it in obedience unto him, whose su∣preme authority they make the foundation, not onely of their faith, but of all good actions: in doing any such act, there is a vertuall and implicit obedience to Antichrist, an acknowledge∣ment of his supreme power to teach and command what is to be done, a receiving his marke, either in their hand or forehead: so that every such act, is not onely impious, but even Antichristian, and containeth in it a vertuall and implicit renouncing of the whole faith. In regard whereof none can ever sufficiently, I say, not commend, but admire the zeale of Luther: who though he was so earnest to have the Communion in both kinds, contrarie to the doctrine and custome of the Romane Church, yet withall be e 1.1007 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 onely. Blessed Luther! it was never thy meaning either to receive it, onely in one, or to deny it to be necessary for Gods Church and people to receive it in both kindes. Thou knewest right well, that Bibite ex hoc omnes, was Christs owne ordinance, with which none might dispense; Thou for defence of this truth among ma∣ny, was set up as a signe of contradiction unto them, and as a marke at which they directed all their darts of malicious and malignant reproaches. Farre was it from thee to relent one hare-bredth in this truth. But whereas they f 1.1008 taught the use of the Cup to be indifferent and arbitrarie; such as the Church (that is, the Pope) might either allow, or take away, as he should thinke fit: upon this supposall and no otherwise, didst thou in thine ardent zeale to Christ, and detestation of Antichrist, say, that were the use of both or one kinde onely, a thing indeed indifferent, as they taught it to be, if the Pope as Pope should command the recei∣ving in both kindes, thou wouldst not then receive it so, lest whilst thou might seeme to obey Christ commanding that, but yet (upon their supposall) as a thing indifferent, thou shouldest certainly performe obedience to Antichrist, by his authoritie limiting, and restraining that indifferency, unto both kindes, as now by his authority hee restraines it unto one. The summe is this, To doe any act whether in it selfe good, or indifferent, but com∣manded 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 weare a bead, a modell, a lace, or my garment white, or blacke, or use any crossing, either at Baptisme, or

any other time, to do any one of these, or any the like, eo nomine, be∣cause the Pope, as Pope, teacheth that they are to be done, or commands the doing of them, is in very deed a yeelding one selfe to be a vassall of Antichrist, a receiving the marke of the beast, and a vertuall or im∣plicit deniall of the faith in Christ. So extremly venemous is that poison which lyeth in the root of that fundamentall heresie which they have laid as the very rocke and Foundation of their faith.

34. Hitherto we have examined the former position of Baro∣nius which concerned Heresie. His other concerning Schisme, is this:g 1.1009 That they who dissented from Pope Vigilius when hee decreed that the Three Chapters ought to be defended, were Schismatikes. A most strange assertion: that the whole Catholike Church should bee schismaticall, for they all dissented from Vigilius in this cause; that Catholikes should all at once become Schisma∣tikes, yea and that also for the very defence of the Catholike faith. I oppose to this, another and true assertion, That not one∣ly Pope Vigilius when he defended the Three Chapters, and forsooke communion with the condemners of them, was a Schismatike himselfe, and chiefe of the Schisme, but that all who as yet defend Vigilius, that is, who maintaine the Popes Cathedrall infallibility in causes of faith, and forsake communion with those that condemne it, that those all are, and that for this very cause, Schismatikes, and the Pope, the ringlea∣der in the Schisme.

35. For the manifesting whereof, certaine it is, that after Pope Vigilius had so solemnly, and judicially by his Apostolicall authority defined, that the Three Chapters ought to be defended, there was a great rent and Schisme in the Church, either part separating it selfe from the other, and forsaking communion with the other. First, the holy Councell, and they who tooke part with it, anathematized h 1.1010 the defenders of those Chapters, thereby (as themselves expound it) declaring their opposites to be separated i 1.1011 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 ra∣ther endure disgrace, yea banishment as Baronius k 1.1012 sheweth, thē communicate with their opposites. But I shal not need to stay in proving that there was a rent and schisme at this time betweene the defenders & condemners of those chapters. Baronius profes∣seth it, saying l 1.1013, The whole Church was then schismate dilacerata, torn asunder by a schisme. Againe m 1.1014, After the end of the Councell there a∣rose a greater war then was before. Catholikes (so he falsly calls both parts) being then divided among themselves, some adhaering to the Councell, others holding with Vigilius and his Constitution. Againe, Many n 1.1015 relying upon the authority of Vigilius, did not receive the fift Synod, at{que} à contraria illis sentientibus sese diviserunt, and separated or divided themselves frō those who thought the contrary: Such were the Italian, Africane, Illirian, & other neighbour Bishops. So Ba∣ronius:

truly professing a schisme to have bin then in the Church, and Pope Vigilius to have beene the leader of the one part.

36. But whether of these two parts were Schismatickes? As the name of heresie, though it bee common to any opinion, whereof one makes choice, whether it be true or false, (in which sense Constantine the great, called o 1.1016 the true faith, Catholicam & sanctissimam haeresim) yet in the ordinarie use it is now applied only to the choice of such opinions, as are repugnāt to the faith: So the name of Schisme though it import any scissure or rent∣ing of one from another, yet now by the vulgar use of Divines, it is appropriated onely to such a rent or division as is made for an unjust cause, and from those, to whom, hee or they who are separated, ought to unite themselves & hold communion with them. This, whosoever doe, whether they bee moe, or fewer then those from whom they separate themselves, they are truly and properly to bee termed Schismatikes, and factious. For it is neither multitude, nor paucitie, nor the holding with, or against any visible head, or governour whatsoever, nor the bare act of separating ones selfe from others; but only the cause, for which the separation is made, which maketh a Schisme or faction, and truly denounceth one to be factious, or a Schisma∣tike. If Elijah separate himselfe from the foure hundreth Baalites and the whole kingdome of Israel, because they are Idolaters; and they sever themselves from him because he wil not worship Baal, as they did; If the three children for the like cause, sepa∣rate themselves from all the Idolatrous Babylonians, in separa∣tion they are both like, but in the cause being most unlike, the Baalites onely, and not Elijah, and the Babylonians only, and not the three children, are Schismatikes. Now because every one is bound to unite himselfe to the Catholike and orthodoxall Church, and hold communion with them in faith, hence it is that, as out of Austine h 1.1017 Stapleton rightly observes i 1.1018, Tota ratio Schismatis, the very essence of a Schisme consists in the separa∣ting from the Church, I say from the true & orthodoxall Church, for a Saint Augustine in the same place teacheth, whosoever dis∣sents from the Scriptures, and so from the true faith, though they be spred throughout the whole world, yet such are not in the (sound) Church,k 1.1019 much lesse are they the Church. And there∣fore from them, be they never so many, never so eminent, one may, and must separate himselfe. But if any sever himselfe from the orthodoxall Church, or, to speake in Stapletons words, si re∣nuit operari in ratione fidei ut pars ecclesiae catholicae, if he will not cooperate or joyne together in maintaining the faith, as a member of the Catholike or orthodoxall Church, Schismaticus hoc ipso est, hee is for this very cause a Schismatike.

37. Apply now this to Vigilius and the fift generall Coun∣cell, and the case will be cleare. The onely cause of separation on the Councels part, was, for that Vigilius with all his adhe∣rents

were Heretikes, convicted, condemned; and accursed for such, by that true sentence, and judgement of the fift gene∣rall Councell, which was consonant both to Scriptures, Fathers, and the foure former generall Councels, and approved by all succeeding generall Councels, Popes, and Bishops, that is, by the judgement of the whole Catholike Church, for more then fifteene hundreth yeares together. A cause not onely most just, but commanded by the holy Apostle l 1.1020, Shun him that is an here∣ticke, after once or twice admonition; much more after publike conviction and condemnation, by the upright judgement of the whole Catholike Church. On the other side, Vigilius and his Faction separated themselves from the Councell, and all that tooke part with it, for this onely reason, because they were Catholikes; because they embraced and constantly defended the Catholike faith; because he wold not cooperate (as Stapleton speaketh) with them, to maintaine the true Catholike faith, and so on their part, there was that which essentially made them Schismatickes. Baronius in saying that those who then dissented from Vigilius, were Schismatickes, speakes sutably to all his for∣mer assertions; For in saying this, he in effect saith, that Catho∣likes to avoid a Schisme, should have turned Heretickes, should have embraced Nestorianisme, and so have renounced and condemned the whole Catholike faith, as Vigilius then did. Had they so done, they should have been no Schismatikes with Baronius: But now for not condemning the Catholike faith with Vigilius, they must all be condemned by the Cardinall, for Schismatickes.

38. For the very same reason, the whole present Romane Church are Schismatickes 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 schismaticall faction separated themselves from the fift Councell, and the Catholikes of those times who all tooke part with it, even because wee refuse to embrace the Popes Cathe∣drall sentence in causes of faith, as the fift Councell refused that of Vigilius. The cause on our part is the same which the fift Councell then had, for that they defend the Popes hereticall constitution: nay not onely that of Vigilius (which yet were cause enough) but many other like unto that, and especially that one of Leo the tenth with his Laterane Councell, wherby Supremacie and with it Infallibilitie of judgement is given unto the Pope in all his decrees of faith: In which one Cathedrall decree (con∣demned for hereticall by the fift Councell, and constant judge∣ment both of precedent and subsequent Councells, as before we have declared) not onely innumerable heresies such as none yet doth dreame of, are included, but by the venom and poyson of that one fundamētall heresie, not only all the other doctrines are corrupted, but the very foundation of faith is utterly over∣throwne.

Let them boast of multitudes, and universalitie never so much, (which at this day, is but a vaine brag) say they were far more, even foure hundreth to one Luther, or the whole kingdome of Babilon to the two witnesses of God; yet seeing it is the cause which makes a schismaticke; & the cause of separati∣on 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 Catholike faith, that especially of the fift Councell, condemning and accursing the Cathedrall sentence of Pope Vi∣gilius, as hereticall, & all that defend it, as Heretickes, it evident∣ly followeth, that they are the only, & essentially schismatickes, at this time, and in this great rent of the Church,

39. Whence againe doth ensue another Conclusion of no small importance. For it is a ruled case among them, such as Bellarmine m 1.1021 avoucheth to be proved both by Scriptures, by Fa∣thers, by pontificall decrees, and sound reason, that no schisma∣tickes are in the Church, or of the Church, Now because out of n 1.1022 the Church there is no salvation, it nearly concernes them, to be∣thinke themselves seriously what hope there is or can be unto them, who being, (as wee have proved) schismatickes, are for this cause by their owne doctrine, utterly excluded from the Church. But I will proceed no further in this matter, wherein I have stayed much longer then I intended, yet my hope is, that I have now abundantly cleared against Baronius, not onely, That one may dissent in faith, and bee disioyned in communion from the Pope, & yet neither be Heretickes nor Schismatickes: 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 Catholike Church, both an hereticke and a schismaticke.

CHAP. XIIII. The second Exception of Baronius, excusing Vigilius from heresie, for that he often professeth to hold the Coūcell of Chalcedon, and the faith thereof, refuted.

1. HIs second excuse for Vigilius is taken from that profession which both other defen∣ders of the three Chapters, and Vigilius him∣selfe often maketh in his Constitution, that hee holdes the faith of the Councell of Chalcedon, and did all for the safety of that Councell. Both parties saith Baronius a 1.1023, as well the defenders as the condemners of those three Chapters did testifie, that they desired nothing more, quam consultum esse catholica fidei, probatae à S. Con∣cilio Chalcedonensi, then to provide that the Catholike faith decreed at Chalcedon might be safe. Againe b 1.1024 liquet omnes, it is manifest that

all Catholikes (in defence of the three Chapters) at once con∣tradicted this noveltie, (set downe in the Emperors Edict for condemning those chapters) vindicesque se Concilij Chalcedonensis exhibuisse, and shewed themselves to bee defenders of the Councell of Chalcedon, Of Vigilius in particular, hee not so little as fortie times ingeminates this: Vigilius c 1.1025 writ these things, pro defen∣sione & integritate Synodi Chalcedonensis, for the defence and safety of the Councell at Chalcedon. Vigilius d 1.1026 writ his constitution for no other cause (as by it is evident) but to the end that all things which were defined by the Councell at Chalcedon, firma consisterent, might remaine firme and by no meanes be infringed. Againe e 1.1027, All that Vi∣gilius or the rest did in this cause, did tend hereunto, ut consultum esset dignitati & authoritati Synodi Chalcedonensis, that the dignity and authoritie of the Councell at Chalcedon might be kept safe and sound, Thus Baronius.

2. The writings of those who defended those Chapters declare the same. Victor in plaine termes affirmeth f 1.1028, the three Chapters to have been approved and judged orthodoxall by the Councell of Chal∣cedon, and the condemning of them, to bee the condemning of that Councell; and that for this cause, he refused to condemne them, least in so doing he should condemne the Councell of Chalcedon. The like hee witnesseth g 1.1029 of Facundus: whose owne words set downe by Baronius h 1.1030 shew, that hee disliked the condemners of those three Chapters, because by condemning them, Synodum improbarent, they condemned the Councell of Chalcedon. But none shewes the like love to that Councell, and care for it as doth Pope Vigilius in his Constitution, we decree saith he i 1.1031, That the judgement of the Fathers at Chalcedon, shall be kept inviolable in all things, and particularly in this, touching the Epistle of Ibas: wee dare not call into question their judgement: their judgement in omnibus conservantes, we keepe in all things. Againe k 1.1032, we permit no man to innovate either by addi∣tiō, or detraction, or alteration, any thing which is ordained & set down by the Councell at Chalcedon. Againe l 1.1033, Behold, O Emperor, it is more cleare then the light, that we have alwayes beene desirous to reverence the foure Councels, and that all things might remaine 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 Cō∣stitution, and seeing him so fervent and zealous for the Councell at Chalcedon, and the faith therein declared, would not thinke, nay proclame Vigilius to be a most sound Catholike, an utter enemie to Nestorianisme, as that holy Councell at Chalcedon was? Or who would not applaud Baronius for his devise to defend and excuse Vigilius from heresie, because he was so earnest for the Councell of Chalcedon and the faith declared therein, which none can embrace, and be guiltie of Nestorianisme? This is his plea for Vigilius.

3. For answer whereunto, I am ashamed that Baronius, a Car∣dinall, and man of rare knowledge, as hee is supposed, should

shew himselfe so inconsiderate in this cause, as to seeke to ex∣cuse or defend Vigilius, by alledging the name, credit, or au∣thoritie of the Councell of Chalcedon. For even that alone, if there were nothing else, puls upon him that just Anathema de∣nounced by the fift Councell, who thus decree, Wee m 1.1034 anathema∣tize the defenders of these Three Chapters, and those who have writ∣ten, or doe write for them, or who doe defend, or indeavour to defend the impiety of them, nomine sanctorum Patrum, aut sancti Chalcedonensis Concilij; by the name of the holy fathers, or of the Councell at Chalce∣don. The more then that either Vigilius pretends that Councell for defence of the Three Chapters, or, that Baronius pretends it for the defence of Vigilius, the more they are still involved in the Councels Anathema: and no marvell, for by alledging that Councell as a patrone of those Three Chapters, they slander that most holy Councell, and all that approve it, that is, the whole Catholike Church to be hereticall, and patrons of the most blasphemous, and condemned heresie of Nestorius.

4. Let this passe: Is this reason, thinke you, of Baronius of any force to excuse Vigilius; hee professeth to defend the Councell of Chalcedon, therefore he is not an heretike? Truly of none at all; for who knoweth not that heretikes are as forward in cha∣lenging to themselves the names and authority of ancient Coun∣cels, and in professing to defend the same faith and doctrine which they taught. Take a view but of three or foure examples, and then you will pitty Baronius for this so weake and silly ex∣cuse for Vigilius.

5. In the Ephesine Latrocinie there came n 1.1035 certaine Eutychean he∣retikes, to the number of 35. who being justly excommunicated by that holy Bishop Flavianus, desired to bee restored to the cōmunion of the Church: Dioscorus & his Synod willed them to make a profession of their faith; they did so; & their confessiō was this, Sic sapimus, sicut 318. Patres in Nicea sanxerunt, & sicut hic congregata sancta a Synodus confirmarunt; wee beleeve as the Nicene Fathers decreed; and the (former) holy Synod at Ephesus confirmed, nor did we ever beleeve, or thinke otherwise than those holy Councels de∣creed: wee beleeve as S. Athanasius, S. Cyrill, S. Gregory, & om∣nes Catholici Episcopi, and as all Catholike Bishops have beleeved; and we accurse all that beleeve otherwise. Thus professed those Eutyche∣an heretikes, and upon this profession they were by Dioscerus and his Synod restored to the communion of the Church; yea, which is more, that same Latrocinie or hereticall Synod at Ephesus, pro∣fessing o 1.1036 the former Councels to be, tutelam nostrae Catholica fidei, the stay and prop of their Catholike faith, (so they call their here∣sie) commanded the Nicene Creed, which was confirmed in the holy Ephesine Councell, to bee read before them; and the testi∣monies of many holy Fathers p 1.1037 consenting thereunto, Peter, A∣thanasius, Foelix, Iulius, Cyprian, and others, together with the decree of the Ephesine Councell, Nulli q 1.1038licere proferre, vel con∣scribere,

vel componere aliam fidem prater eam; that it should not be lawfull 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 1.1039 omnibus placere, I thinke 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 thinke the same, & qui contraria eis sapiunt, abominor; and I abhorre all who thinke the contrary. Iohn of Sebastia, I detest all heresies, & colo hanc solam fidem, and embrace this faith onely which was decreed at Nice. Stephanus, If any beleeve otherwise than the Nicene Fathers decreed, let him be accursed, because this is the true and Catholike faith. and the whole Councell said, Omnes sumus ejusdem fidei, we are all of the same faith, which the Nicene Fathers decreed. Thus professed that whole Ephesine Latrocinie 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 heretikes, and conspi∣red together to abolish for ever the holy Nicene faith: They being Eutycheans, learned to make such a dissembling profession of Eu∣tyches himselfe, who delivered up to that Synod s 1.1040 a confession of his faith, bemoaning, that he was persecuted, because he would not deny the Nicene faith, nor beleeve otherwise then those holy fathers had decreed, and the Ephesine Councell had con∣firmed; and who having repeated verbatim the Nicene Creed, addeth this, Thus was I taught by my progenitors, thus have I belee∣ved, in this faith was I borne, in this faith was I baptized, and signed, (with the Crosse) in this faith was I consecrated, in this faith have I lived to this day, and in this faith doe I desire to dye: And this con∣fession doe I make, attestante mihi tam Deo, quam vestra sanctitate; both God and this holy Councell being my witnesse hereof. Thus Euty∣ches; of whom (notwithstanding this so holy a profession) and all his partakers, their second Nicene Councel truly saith t 1.1041, Eutiches, Dioscorus, and the heretikes of that branne approved the Nicene faith, confirmed in the holy Councell at Ephesus, sed tamen haeretici perman∣serunt, yet for all that they remained heretikes.

6. What can the Cardinall, or any of his friends oppose to this Example? If Vigilius be no heretike, because hee professeth to hold the faith of the Councell at Chalcedon, then neither Diosco∣rus, nor the Eutycheans, nor Eutyches himselfe, is an heretike, be∣cause they all with as great earnestnesse professed to keepe invi∣olable the Councels at Nice, and Ephesus, & the Catholike faith explaned in them, accursing all who beleeve the contrary there∣unto: If notwithstanding this so resolute and earnest profession, Dioscorus & the Eutycheans, with that Ephesine cōspiracy, were he∣retikes, & Eutyches himself an archheretike, as they al undoubted∣ly were; for even while they thus professed, they all denied u 1.1042 two natures to remaine in Christ, after the union, as the very acts of

that Latrocinie doe expresly declare; then was it a very silly rea∣son of Baronius, to conclude, that Vigilius was no heretike, be∣cause in his decree, for defence of the Three Chapters, hee is so re∣solute to keepe inviolable the Councell of Chalcedon, and the faith there decreed.

7. The like may bee seene in the Monothelites, of whom their second Nicen Synod saith x 1.1043 thus. Sergius Bishop of Constan∣tinople, Cyrus Bishop of Alexandria, Honorius Bishop of Rome, and all who are called Monothelites, embraced both the Councell of Chalcedon, and the next which followed it (which is this fift) and the generall Councels which went before these, to wit, the Nicen, Constantinopoli∣tane, and Ephesine: veruntamen ut haeretici a Catholica ecclesia dam∣mati sunt, yet for all this they were condemned for heretickes, by the whole Church; Why may not the Catholike Church give the like doome of Vigilius for defending the three Chapters, though hee professe and imbrace all the same Councels, and particularly that of Chalcedon, as they did?

8. Perhaps other Heretickes would dissemble in their pro∣fession, but the Nestorians (of which ranke Vigilius was) they were men of a better fashion, they would never professe to hold the decrees and faith of an holy Councell, unlesse they did so in∣deed. Fie, of all heretickes they were most vile in this kinde. Read the acts of their Conventicle held in an Inne at Ephesus, during the time of the holy Ephesine Councell, and you shall see, that as by lies, slanders and all base revilings they sought to dis∣grace Cyrill, and all other orthodoxall Bishops, calumniating them as heretickes, and oppugners of the Nicen faith, so they boasted of themselves, that they forsooth were the onely men who defended and upheld the Councell of Nice and the faith there explaned; Witnesse besides their second Nicen x 1.1044 Synod, their owne words, and writings, Nestorius himselfe and others of his sect, writ y 1.1045 thus to the Emperor, we obeying your imperiall command, came to Ephesus, and our intent and desire was, communi omnium calculo sanctorum Patrum Nicenorum fidem confirmare, to confirme with one consent the faith of the Nicen Fathers. In those in∣structions, which they gave to their Legates, they subscribed in z 1.1046 this manner, I Alexander Bishop of Hierapolis Nicena fidei ex∣positioni subscripsi, have subscribed to the Nicen Faith, and if you shall doe 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 1.1047, we doe earnestly desire your pietie, that you would command; that all men should subscribe to the faith expoun∣ded at Nice, and that they may teach nothing quod sit ab ea alie∣num, which is contrarie to that faith. In another Epistle to the Emperour, we came, say b 1.1048 they, to Ephesus without delay, maven∣tes in sola expositione fidei Patrum qui in Nicea convenerant, abiding in that profession of faith onely, which was decreed at Nice. In ano∣ther Epistle having repeated the Nicen Creed, they add c 1.1049 this,

In hanc fidei expositionem nos omnes acquiescimus, wee all doe rest our selves in this declaration of faith made at Nice, we constantly perse∣ver in it. In their d 1.1050 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 obtaine his due place and honour. In their very Synodall sentence against Cyrill, and other orthodoxall Bishops, they expresse e 1.1051 this, That they shall remaine excommunicate, untill they doe integrè suscipere, intirely embrace the Nicene faith, adding nothing unto it; which they repeat againe in their Epistle to the Senate of Constantinople, saying: If f 1.1052 Cyrill and the rest will repent, & forsake their hereticall doctrines, and embrace the faith of the Nicene Fathers, they shall straight be absolved; and twentie times the like. Who reading no more but these so manie, so earnest professions of Nestorius and the Ne∣storians, to defend in every point the Nicene faith, without ad∣dition or alteration, would not almost sweare that these doubt∣lesse were the onely men that stood firme and constant for the Nicene Councell; and that Cyrill and they who tooke part with him (which was the whole Catholike Church) were the maine oppugners of that Councell, and the faith there decreed? And yet notwithstanding all these professions, these were blasphe∣mous heretickes 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 heresie, so did they in seeking to countenance and grace their heresie, by professing to defend the Councell of Chalcedon, and the faith there decreed, yea to defend it so constantly as that it might not in any part or sylla∣ble bee violated, pretending their opposites, who condemned those Chapters, to oppugne and condemne the Councell of Chalcedon, as the old Nestorians slandered Cyrill, and other Ca∣tholikes of those times, to condemne the Councell of Nice. And yet notwithstanding all these professions, Vigilius and his adhe∣rents were as deepe in Nestorianisme as Nestorius himselfe, and even while he pretends to maintaine, he doth quite over∣throw the holy Councell 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 heretikes that ever the Church was pestered withall. Their pro∣fession is not so minute, as to boast of this or that one Councell, or of some few fathers. All Scriptures make for them, All the Fathers are theirs, All generall Councels confirme what they teach. Their bookes doe swell with this ventositie. I pray you heare the words but of one of them, but such an one, as puts downe all Nestorians, Eutycheans, Monothelites, and al heretickes

that went before him; We, saith he g 1.1053, have All authorities, Times, and places for our defence: Our enemies have none at all. Our h 1.1054 doctrine is taught by all godly and famous professors of Divinity; All Popes, Fathers and Doctors that ever were in the Church, All Councells, particular and ge∣nerall, All Vniversities, Schooles, Colledges and places of learning, since the time of Christ to Martin Luther: It is i 1.1055 ratified by all authority, all Scriptures, Traditions, Prophets, Apostles, Evangelists, Sibylls, Rabbins: All holy and learned Fathers, Historians, Antiquaries, and Monuments: All Synods, Councells, Lawes, Parliaments, Canons and Decrees of Popes, of Emperours, of Kings, and Rulers: All Martyrs, Confessors, and holy witnes∣ses; by all friends and enemies, even Mahumetanes, Iewes, Pagans, Infidells; All former Heretikes, and schismatikes, by all testimonies that can bee devi∣sed, not onely in this world, but of God, of Angells and glorious soules, of De∣vills and damned spirits in hell. (The fittest witnesses of all.) What, any more? yes, the best is yet behind. I have, saith he k 1.1056, read and studied all the Scriptures, the old Testament in the Hebrew Text, the new in the Greeke; I have studied the ancient Glosses and Scholies, Latine and Greeke. I have perused the most ancient Historians, Eusebius, Ruffinus, Socrates, Sozomene, Palladius, Saint Ierome, Saint Bede, and others; I have often with dili∣gence considered the Decrees of the Popes, both of all that were before the Ni∣cene Councell and after, (then no doubt but he diligently considered of this Apostolicall Constitution of Pope Vigilius.) I have beene an auditor both of Scholasticall and Controversall questions, where all doubts and diffi∣culties that wit or learning can devise, and invent, are handled, and most ex∣quisitely debated; I have seene and read all the generall Councells, from the first at Nice, to the last at Trent, (then doubt not but hee read this fift Councell:) as also all approved particular and Provinciall Councells which be extant and ordinarily used; I have carefully read over all the workes and writings which be to be had of Dionysius the Areopagite, Saint Ignatius, Saint Policarp, Saint Clement, Martialis, Saint Iustine, Origen, Saint Ba∣sil, Saint Athanasius, Saint Gregory Nazianzen, Saint Gregory Nissene, Saint Gregory the Great, Saint Irene, Saint Cyprian, Fulgentius, Pamphi∣lus the Martyr, Palladius, Theodoret, Ruffinus, Socrates, Sozomene, Evagri∣us, Cassianus, Lactantius, Vincentius Lyrinensis; all the workes of all these have I read and examined, and conferred them with Saint Augustine, Saint Ierome, Saint Ambrose, Saint Leo, Papius, Theophilact, Tertullian, Euse∣bius, Prudentius, and others most excellent Divines. And I take God and the whole Court of heaven to witnesse (before whom I must render an account of this protestation) that the same faith and religion which I defend, is taught and confirmed by those Hebrew and Greeke Scriptures, those Historians, Popes, Decrees, Scholies, and Expositions, Councells, Schooles and Fathers, and the profession of Protestants condemned by the same. Thus he.

11. Did ever mortall man read or heare of such a braggadochio? For learning and languages Ierome is but a baby to him; more indu∣strious and adamantine then Origen, then Adamantius himselfe. A shop, a storehouse of all knowledge; his head a Library of all Fathers, Councels, Decrees, of all writings, an Heluo, nay a very hell of books, he devoures up all. Rabsecha, Thraso, Pyrgopolinices, Therapontigonus; all ye Magnificoes & Glorio••oes, come sit at his feet, and learne of him

the exact forme of vaunting and reviling. What silly men were Eu∣tiches, Nestorius, and the old heretikes? they boasted but of one or two Councells. All Councells, all Fathers, all Decrees, all bookes, writings, and records, are witnesses of his faith. They sayd it, he swears it before God and the whole Court of Heaven, that all Scriptures, Councels, Fathers, all witnesses in heaven, earth and hell, yea the De∣vill and all, are his, and corfirme their Romane faith, and condemne the doctrine of Protestants. Alas what shall we doe, but even hide our selves in caves of the earth, and clifts of the rocks, from the force and fury of this Goliah, who thus braves it out in the open field, as who with the onely breath of his mouth can blow away whole legi∣ons, quasi ventus folia, aut pannicula tectoria.

12. But let no mans heart faint because of this proud anonymall Philistim. Thy servant, O Lord, though the meanest in the host of Israel, will fight with him; nor will I desire any other weapons, but this one pible stone of the judiciall sentence of the fift generall Coun∣cell against Vigilius. This being taken out of Davids bagge, that is, de∣rived from Scriptures, consonant to all former, and confirmed by all succeeding Catholike Councells and Fathers, directly and unavoyd∣ably hits him in the forehead, it gives a mortall and uncurable wound unto him; for it demonstrates not onely the foundation of their faith to be hereticall, and for such to bee condemned and accursed by the judgement of the whole Catholike Church, but all their doctrines, whatsoever they teach, because they all relye on this foundation of the Popes infallibility, are not onely unsound, and in the root hereti∣call, but even Antichristian also, such as utterly overthrow the whole Catholike faith. This, being one part of the Philistimes weapons, wherein he trusted and vanted, with his owne sword is his head, (the head and foundation of all their faith) cut off, so that of him and the whole body of their Church it may be truly said, Iacet ingens littore truncus, Avulsum{que} humeris caput, & sine nomine corpus.

13. You see now how both ancient and moderne heretikes boast of Councells, and therefore, that the reason of Baronius is most incon∣sequent, that Vigilius was no heretike because hee professeth to hold the Councell of Chalcedon. Nay I say more, though one professe to hold the whole Scripture, yet if with pertinacy hee hold any one do∣ctrine repugnant thereunto, the profession of the Scriptures them∣selves cannot excuse such a man from being an heretike; If it could, then not any of the old heretikes would want this pretence: or, to o∣mit them, seeing both Protestants and Papists make profession to be∣leeve the Scriptures, and whatsoever is taught therein; would this profession exempt one from heresie, neither they, nor wee, should be, or be called heretikes. But seeing in truth they are, and wee in their Antichristian language are called heretikes, as Cyrill, and the ortho∣doxall beleevers in his time, were by the Nestorians, it is without question that this profession to hold the whole Scriptures, much lesse to hold one or two Councells (as Vigilius did) cannot free one from being an heretike.

14. You will perhaps say, can one then beleeve the whole Scrip∣ture,

and be an heretike, or beleeve the faith decreed at Nice, Ephesus, or Chalcedon; and be an Arian, Eutychean or Nestorian heretike? No verily, for as the Scripture containeth a contradiction to every here∣sie, seeing as Saint Austen truly saith l 1.1057, all doctrines concerning faith, are set downe, and that also perspicuously therein: so doe every one of those three Councels containe a contradiction to every one of those three heresies, and to all other which concerne the divinity or humanity of Christ. But it is one thing to professe the scriptures, or those three Councells, and say that he beleeves them, which many heretikes may doe; and another thing to beleeve them indeed, which none can doe and be an heretike, for whosoever truly beleeveth the scriptures, can∣not possibly with pertinacy hold any doctrine repugnant to scrip∣tures; 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 perti∣nacy, and with an obstinate resolution not to yeeld to the truth of the scriptures, and so hee is certainly an heretike, notwithstanding his profession of the scriptures, which he falsly said he beleeved, and held, when in very truth he held, and that pertinaciously the quite contrary unto them. The very like must be said of those three Councells, and them who either truly beleeve, or falsly say, that they beleeve the faith explained in them, or any one of them.

15. Whence two things are evidently consequent, the former, that all heretikes are lyars in their profession: not onely because they professe that doctrine which is untrue, and hereticall, but because in words they professe to beleeve and hold that doctrine which they doe not, but hold, and that for a point of their faith, the quite contra∣ry: All of them will and doe professe that they beleeve the scrip∣tures, and the doctrines therein contained: and yet every one of them lye herein, for they beleeve one, if not moe doctrines contrary to the scriptures. The Nestorians professed to hold the Nicene faith, and so they professed two natures and but one person to bee in Christ, for that in the Nicene faith is certainly decreed: but they lyed in making this profession, for they beleeved not one person, but pertinaciously held two persons to be in Christ. The Eutycheans in professing the Ephesine Councell, professed in effect two natures to abide in Christ after the union, for this was certainly the faith of that holy Councell, but they lyed in this profession, for they held that after the union two natures did not abide in Christ, but one onely. The Church of Rome and members thereof professe to hold the faith of the fift generall Councell, and so professe implicitè the Popes Cathedrall sentence in a cause of faith to be fallible and hereticall: but they lye in making this profession, for they beleeve not the Popes sentence in such causes to be fallible, but with the Laterane and Trent Councels, they hold it to be infallible. It is the practice of all heretikes to make such faire, though lying professions. For should they say in plaine termes, (that which is truth indeed) wee beleeve not the scriptures, nor the Coun∣cells of Nice, Ephesus, or Chalcedon; every man would spit at them, and

detest them, cane pejus & angue, nor could they ever deceive any, or gaine one proselyte. But when they commend their faith (that is, their heresie) to be the same doctrine with the scriptures, which the Councells of Nice, Ephesus and Chalcedon taught, by these faire pre∣tences, and this lying profession, they insinuate themselves into the hearts of the simple, deceiving hereby both themselves and o∣thers.

16. The other consequent is this, That the profession of all here∣tikes is contradictory to it selfe. For they professe to hold the scrip∣tures, and so to condemne every heresie, and yet withal they professe one private doctrine repugnant to scripture, and which is an heresie. The like may be said of the Councells. The Nestorians by professing to hold the faith decreed at Nice, professe Christ to bee but one per∣son, and yet withall by holding Nestorianisme, they professe Christ to be two persons. The Eutycheans by professing to hold the Councell of Ephesus, professe two natures to remaine in Christ after the union; which in that Councell is certainly decreed, and yet by professing the heresie of Eutyches, they professe the quite contradictory, that one nature onely remaines after the union. The Church of Rome and mem∣bers thereof, by professing the faith of the fift Councell, professe the Popes Cathedrall sentence in a cause of faith to be fallible, and de facto to have beene hereticall; and yet they professe the direct contradicto∣ry, as the Councell of Laterane hath defined, that the Popes sentence in such causes is infallible, and neither hath beene nor can be hereticall. So repugnant to it selfe, and incoherent is the profession of all here∣tikes, that it fighteth both with the truth, and with it owne selfe also. The very same is to be seene in Vigilius and his Constitution. For in pro∣fessing to defend the three Chapters, and in decreeing that all shall de∣fend them, he professeth all the blasphemies of Nestorius, and decreeth that all shall maintaine them, and professing to hold the faith decreed at Chalcedon, and decreeing that all shall hold it, hee professeth that Nestorianisme is heresie, and decreeth that all shall condemne it for heresie: and so decreeing both these, he decreeth that all men in the world shall beleeve two contradictories, and beleeve them as Catholike Truths. Such a worthy Apostolicall decree is this of Vigilius, for defending whereof Baronius doth more then toyle himselfe.

17. You will againe demand: Seeing Vigilius doth so earnestly and plainely professe both these, why shall not his expresse profession to hold the Councell of Chalcedon, make him or shew him to bee a Ca∣tholike, rather then his other expresse profession, to defend the Three Chapters, make or shew him to bee an hereticke? Why rather shall his hereticall, then his orthodoxall profession give denomination unto him? I also demand of you, Seeing every hereticke in expresse words professeth to beleeve the whole Scripture, which is in effect a con∣demning of every heresie, why shall not this orthodoxall profession make or shew him to be a Catholike, rather then his expresse profes∣sion of some one doctrine contrarie to Scripture (say for example sake, of Arianisme) make or shew him to bee an Arian hereticke? The

reason of both is one and the same. Did an Arian so professe to hold the Scriptures, that hee were resolved to forsake his Arianisme, and confesse Christ to bee 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, upon manifestation that the Scriptures taught this, certainely his professiō of Arianisme, with such a profes∣siō to hold the Scriptures, could not make him an hereticke, no more then Cyprians profession of Rebaptization, or Irenees of the millenarie heresie, did make them heretikes: Erre hee should, as they did, but being not pertinacious in error, hereticke hee could not be, as they were not. But it falls out otherwise with all heretickes. They pro∣fesse to hold the Scripture, yet so that they resolve not to forsake that private doctrine which they have chosen to maintaine: That they will hold, and they will have that to be the doctrine of the Scripture, notwithstanding all manifestation to the contrarie, even of the Scrip∣tures themselves. They resolve of this, that whosoever, Bishops, Councells, or Church, teach the contrarie to that, or say & judge that the Scripture so teacheth, they all erre or mistake the meaning of the Scriptures. Thus did not Cyprian, nor Irenee. And this wilfull and pertinacious resolution it is, which evidently sheweth that in truth they beleeve not the Scriptures, but beleeve their own fancies, though they say a thousand times, that they beleeve and embrace whatsoe∣ver the Scriptures teach, for did they beleeve any doctrine, say Aria∣nisme, eo nomine, because the Scripture teacheth it, they would pre∣sently beleeve the contrarie thereunto, when it were manifested unto them (as is was to the Arians, by the Nicen Coūcell) that the Scripture taught the contrarie to their error. Seeing this they will not doe, It is certaine that they hold their private opiniō, eo nomine because they will hold it; and they hold it to bee the doctrine of scripture, not be∣cause it is so, but because they will have it to bee so, say what any will or can to the contrarie. So their owne will, and not Scripture, is the reason why they beleeve it, nay why they hold it with such a stiffe opi∣nion, for beleife it is not, it cannot be. This pertinacie to have beene in the Nestorians, Eutycheans and the rest, is evident. Had they belee∣ved, as they professed, the faith decreed at Nice and Ephesus, then up∣on manifestation of their errors out of those Councels, they would have renounced their heresies: but seeing the Nestorians persisted to hold two persons in Christ, notwithstanding, that the whole Coun∣cell of Ephesus manifested unto them that the Nicene Councel held but one person, and seeing the Eutycheans persisted to hold but one nature after the union, notwithstanding that the whole Councell at Chalce∣don manifested unto them, that the holy Ephesine Synod held two na∣tures to abide in him after the union, they did hereby make it evident unto all, that they so professed to hold those Councels, as that they resolved not to forsake their Nestorian and Eutichean heresies for any manifestation of the truth, or conviction of their error out of those Councels, and their profession of them was in effect as if they had said, we hold those Councels, and will have them to teach what wee af∣firme, whatsoever any man or Councell saith, or can say to the con∣trarie. The like must be said of Pope Vigilius in this cause: Had he so professed to hold the Councell of Chalcedon, as that upon manifestion

that the Three Chapters were condemned by it, he would have forsaken the defence of them, then certainely his defending of these 3. Chapters had not bin pertinacious, nor should have made him an hereticke, but his profession to hold the faith decreed at Chalcedon, notwithstanding his error about the 3. Chapters, should have made him a catholike. But seeing Vig. persisted to defend the 3. Chapt. though it was made evidēt unto him by the Synodall judgement of the fift Councell, that the de∣finition of faith decreed at Chalcedon condemned them all, he by this persisting in heresie did demonstrate to all, that he professed to hold the Councell at Chalcedon, no otherwise then with a pertinacious re∣solution not to forsake the defence of those Three hereticall Chapters, although the whole Church of God should manifest unto him, that the Councell of Chalcedon condemned the same: and for this cause his defending of those three Chapters, with this pertinacie and wil∣full resolution declareth him to bee indeed an hereticke, notwith∣standing his profession to hold the Councell of Chalcedon and faith thereof, whereby all those Chapters are condemned, which pro∣fession being joyned with the former pertinacie, could not now either make or declare him to be a Catholike.

18. The very fame must bee said of the present Romane Church and members thereof. Did they in such sort professe to hold the fift Councel, and faith thereof, as that upon manifestation that this Coun∣cell beleeved, taught and decreed that the Popes Cathedrall sentence in a cause of faith is fallible, and de facto hath beene hereticall, they would condemne that their fundamentall heresie of the Popes Cathe∣drall infallibilitie decreed in their Laterane and Trent assemblies, then should they much rather, for their profession of the fift Councell and faith thereof, bee orthodoxall, then for professing (together with this) the Popes Cathedrall infallibilitie, bee hereticall. But seeing they know by the very Acts and judiciall sentence of that fift Councell, by which the Cathedrall Constitution of Vigilius is condemned and accursed for hereticall in this cause of faith, touching the Three Chapters, that the fift Councell beleeved this, and decreed, under the censure of an Anathema, that all o∣thers should beleeve it, and that all who beleeve the contrary, are he∣retikes: seeing, I say, notwithstanding this manifestation of the faith of that Councell, they persist to defend the Popes Cathedrall infallibi∣lity in those causes, yea, defend it as the very foundation of their faith; this makes it evident to all, that they do no otherwise professe to hold this fift Councell, or the other, whether precedent, or following, (for they all are consonant to this) but with this pertinacious resolution, not to forsake that their fundamentall heresie; and therefore their ex∣presse profession of this fift, and other generall Councels, yea, of the Scriptures themselves, cannot be so effectuall to make them Catho∣likes, as the profession of the Popes infallibility, which is joyned with this pertinacy, is to make and demonstrate them to be heretikes.

19. There is yet a further point to be observed touching the per∣tinacy of Vigilius: For one may be, and often is pertinacious in his er∣rour, not onely after, but even before conviction, or manifestation of

the truth made unto him; and this happeneth whensoever hee is not paratus corrigi, prepared, or ready to be informed of the truth, and corrected thereby, or when he doth not, or will not, tanta solicitudine quaerere veritatem, with care and diligence seeke to know the truth, as after S. Au∣sten m 1.1058, and out of him Occham n 1.1059, Gerson o 1.1060, Navar p 1.1061, Alphonsus à Castro q 1.1062, and many others doe truly teach. See now, I pray you, how farre Vigilius was from this care of seeking, and preparation to embrace the truth. He by his Apostolicall authoritie decree r 1.1063, that none should either write, or speake, or teach ought contrary to his Constitution; or if they did, that his decree should stand for a condemnation and refutation of whatsoever they should either write or speake. Here was a tricke of Papall, that is, of the most supreme pertinacy that can bee devised: He takes order before hand, that none shall ever, I say, not convict him, but, so much as manifest the truth unto him, or o∣pen his mouth, or write a syllable for the manifestation thereof: and so, being not prepared to bee corrected, no nor informed neither, hee was pertinacious, and is justly to bee so accounted before ever either Bishop, or Councell manifested the truth unto him. Even as he is farre more wilfully and obstinately delighted in darknesse, who dammes up all the windowes, chinkes, and passages, whereby any light might enter into the house, wherein hee is, than hee, who lyeth a∣sleepe, and is willing to be awaked, when the light shineth about him: So was it with Pope Vigilius at this time; his tying of al mens tongues, and hands, that they should not manifest by word, or writing, the truth unto him; his damming up of the light, that never any glimpse of the truth might shine unto him, argues a mind most damnably per∣tinacious in errour, and so far from being prepared and ready to em∣brace the truth, that it is obdurate against the same, and will not per∣mit it so much as to come neere unto him.

20. The very like pertinacy is at this day in the Romane Church, and all the members thereof: for having once set downe this transcen∣dent principle, the foundation of all which they beleeve; that the Popes judgement, in causes of faith, is infallible, they doe by this exclude and utterly shut out all manifestation of the truth, that can possibly bee made unto them: Oppose whatsoever you will against their errour, Scriptures, Fathers, Councels, reason and sense it selfe, it is all refuted before it be proposed, seeing the Pope, who is infallible, saith the con∣trary to that which you would prove, you, in disputing from those places, doe either mis-cite them, or mis-interpret the Scriptures, Fa∣thers, and Councels, or your reason from them is sophisticall, and your sense of sight, of touching, of tasting, is deceived, some one de∣fect or other there is in your opposition; but an errour in that which they hold, there is, nay, there can be none, because the Pope teacheth that, and the Pope, in his teaching is infallible. Here is a charme, which causeth one to heare with a deafe eare, whatsoever is opposed: the ve∣ry head of Medusa, if you come against it, it stunnes you at the first, and turnes both your reason, your sense, and your selfe also, into a very stone. By holding this one fundamentall position, they are pertinaci∣ous in all their errours, and that in the highest degree of pertinacy,

which the wit of man can devise; yea, and pertinacious before all con∣viction, and that also though the truth should never by any meanes be manifested unto them: For by setting this downe, they are so far from being prepared to embrace the truth, though it should be mani∣fested unto them, that hereby they have made a fundamentall law for themselves, that they never will be convicted, nor ever have the truth manifested unto them. The onely meanes in likelihood to perswade them, that the doctrines which they maintaine, are heresies, were first to perswade the Pope, who hath decreed them to bee orthodoxall, to make a contrary decree, that they are hereticall. Now although this may be morally judged, to be a matter of impossibilitie; yet, if his Ho∣linesse could be induced hereunto, and would so farre stoope to Gods truth, as to make such a decree; even this also could not perswade 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 hereticall decree, hee cea∣sed ipso facto to be Pope, or the like; some one or other evasion they would have still: but, grant the Popes sentence to be fallible, or here∣ticall, 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, hee ceaseth to be a member of their Church,) there is no possible meanes in the world to convict him, or convert him to the truth.

21. You doe now clearely see, how feeble, and inconsequent that Collection is, which Baronius here useth in excuse of Pope Vigi∣lius, for that he often professeth to defend the Councell of Chalcedon, and the faith therein explaned: Hee did but herein that which is the usuall custome of all other heretikes, both ancient and moderne: Quit him for this cause, and quit them all; condemne them, and then, this pretēce can no way excuse Vigilius frō heresie. They all with him pro∣fesse, with great ostentation to hold the doctrines of the Scriptures, of Fathers, of generall Councels, but because their profession is not onely lying, and contradictorie to it selfe, but alwayes such, as that they re∣taine a wilfull and pertinacious resolution, not to forsake that heresie which themselves embrace, as Vigilius had, not to forsake his defence of the Three Chapters: Hence it is that their verbal profession of Scrip∣tures, Fathers, and Councels, cannot make any of them, nor Vigilius among them, to be esteemed orthodoxall, or Catholike: but the reall and cordiall profession of any one doctrine, which they, with such per∣tinacy hold against the Scriptures, or holy generall Councels, as Vi∣gilius did this of the Three Chapters, doth truly demonstrate them all, and Vigilius among them, to be heretikes. 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 con∣firming of the fift Councell, answered; and how Pope Vigilius, three of foure times changed his judgement in this cause of faith.

1. IN the third place Baronius comes to excuse Vigi∣lius, by his act of confirming and approving the fift Councell, and the decree thereof for con∣demning the Three Chapters, It appeareth, saith hee a 1.1064, that Vigilius, to the end he might take away the schisme, and unite the Easterne Churches to the Catholike communion, quintam Synodum authori∣tate Apostolica comprobavit, did approve the fift Synod by his Apostolicall authoritie. Againe b 1.1065, when Vigilius saw, that the Easterne Church would be rent from the West, unlesse he consented to the fift Synod, eam probavit, he approved it: Again c 1.1066, Pelagius thought it fit, as Vigilius had thought before, that the fift Synod, wherein the three Chapters were condemned, should bee approved: and again d 1.1067, Cognitum fuit, it was publikely known, that Vigilius had approved the fift Synod, and condemned the three Chapters. The like is affirmed by Bellarmine e 1.1068, Vigilius confirmed the fift Synod, per libel∣lum, by a booke, or writing. Binius is so resolute herein, that hee saith f 1.1069, A Vigilio (quintam) Synodum confirmatam et approbatam esse nemo dubitat; none doubteth but that Vigilius confirmed and approved the fift Councell. Now if Vigilius approved the fift Councell, and condemned the Three Chapters, it seemes that all which wee have said of his contradicting the fift Synod, and of his defending those Three Chapters, is of no force, and that by his assent to the Synod he is a good Catholike. This is the Exception, the validity whereof we are now to examine.

2. For the clearing of which whole matter, it must bee remem∣bred, that all, which hitherto wee have spoken of Vigilius, hath refe∣rence to his Apostolicall decree, published in defence of those Three Chapters, that is, to Vigilius, being such as that decree doth shew, and demonstrate him to have beene, even a pertinacious oppugner of the faith, and a condemned heretike by the judiciall sentence of the fift Councell: but now Baronius drawes us to a further examination of the cariage of Vigilius in this whole businesse, and how hee behaved himselfe from the first publishing of the Emperours Edict, which was in the twentieth g 1.1070 yeare of Iustinian, unto the death of Vigilius, which was, as Baronius accounteth h 1.1071, in the 29 of Iustinian, and second yeare after the fift Councell was ended; but, as Victor, (who then lived) ac∣counteth i 1.1072, in the 31 of Iustinian, and fourth yeare after the Synod: And, for the more cleare view of his cariage, wee must observe foure severall periods of time, wherein Vigilius, during those nine or tenne yeares, gave divers severall judgements, and made three or foure emi∣nent changes in this cause of faith. The first, from the promulgation of the Emperours Edict, while he remained at Rome, and was absent from the Emperor. The second, after he came to Constantinople, and to

the Emperours presence, but before the fift Synod was begun. The third, in the time of the fift Synod, and about a yeare after the end and dissolution thereof. The fourth, from thence, that is, from the yeare after the Synod, unto his death.

3. At the first k 1.1073 publishing of the Edict, many of the Westerne Churches, impugnabant Edictum, did oppose themselves to it, and, as Baronius saith, insurrexere, made an insurrection against it, and the Em∣perour: Pope Vigilius, as in place and dignity hee was more eminent, so in this Insurrection he was more forward, and a ring-leader unto them all: And because the conflict was likely to bee troublesome, Vi∣gilius used all his authority and art in managing of this cause. First, he proclameth the Edict, and condemning of the Three Chapters to bee a prophane l 1.1074 novelty, judging m 1.1075 it to bee contrary to the holy faith, and Councell at Chalcedon: To this he addes writings, threats, and pu∣nishments: Literas scripsit adversus eos, saith Baronius n 1.1076, Vigilius writ let∣ters against all that held with the Emperor, and his Edict: in those letters, comminatus o 1.1077 est eis qui consenserunt; he threatned those that consented to the Emperor; edixit p 1.1078 & indixit correctionem; he decreed punishment unto them, and forewarned them thereof; telling them, that unlesse they did amend their fault, hee would draw out his Apostolike blade against them, protesting with the Apostle q 1.1079, I feare when I come, I shall not finde you such as I would, and that I shall be found of you such as yee would not. Nor were his threats in vaine, as it seemeth, seeing Baronius r 1.1080 tells us, that for this very cause, either he or Stephanus his Legate, in his name did excommunicate, besides others, two Patriarkes, Mennas of Constanti∣nople, and Zoilus of Alexandria, and with them Theodorus Bishop of Cesarea.

4. Thus he dealt with inferiour persons, but for the Emperour he took another course with him: He saw what danger it was to write a∣gainst Emperors, that he would not do himself: But whē, like Pirrhus, ipse sibi cavit loco, he had provided for his owne safety; then he thrusts for∣ward Facundus Bishop of Hermian into that busines. Facundus an elo∣quent mā indeed, as his name also imports, but a most obstinate here∣tike & Schismatike, seeing he persisted in defēce of the three Chapters, not only before, but after the judicial sentēce of the general Councel; & yet is he cōmended by Baronius s 1.1081 to be prudentissimus agonistes, a most wise champion for the Church: but the more hereticall hee is, the more like, and better liked is hee to Baronius. Him doth Vigilius t 1.1082 egge, and even command to write against the Emperour; yea, sugillare, (it is the Cardinals word) to taunt and flout him, for his Edict; nor him onely, but in him to reprove, omnes simul Principes, all Princes whoso∣ever doe presume to meddle with a cause of faith, or make lawes therein, as Iustinian had done. Facundus being thus directed, incou∣raged, and warranted by Pope Vigilius, and being but his instrument in this matter, writes u 1.1083 a large volume containing twelve bookes, a∣gainst the Emperor, in defence of the three Chapters. A worke stuffed with heresie, yet highly commended by Possevine x 1.1084 the Iesuite, as being a brave booke strengthned with the authorities of the Fathers. There he takes upon him to revile the Emperor in most uncivill and undu∣tifull

manner, as if, forsooth, fides y 1.1085 omnium ex ejus voluntate penderet; the faith of all Churches did hang on the Emperours sleeve; and as if none might beleeve otherwise, quam praeciperet imperator, then the Emperour commanded; telling him, that it were more meet for him, se infra limi∣tem suum continere, to keepe himselfe within his owne bounds, as other Arti∣ficers kept their own shops; the Weaver not medling with the Forge and Anvill, nor the Cobler with a Carpenters office. Such rude, homely, and undutifull comparisons doth the Popes Oratour use in this cause: And, as if Facundus had not paid the Emperour halfe e∣nough, Baronius helpes him with a whole Cart-load of such Romish eloquence; calling the Emperour, utterly a 1.1086 unlearned, qui b 1.1087 nec Alpha∣betum aliquando didicisset; who never had learned so much as his A, B, C, nor could c 1.1088 ever read the Title of the Bible: a Punie d 1.1089, a palliated Theologue, a sacrilegious e 1.1090 person, a witlesse f 1.1091, furious, and fran••ike fellow, possessed with an evill spirit, and driven by the Devill himselfe: Such an one to g 1.1092 presume against all right, to make lawes concerning matters of faith, concer∣ning Priests, and the punishments of them? adding h 1.1093, that the whole Catholike faith would be in jeopardie, si qui ejusmodi esset; if such as Iu∣stinian should makes lawes of faith; yea, such lawes, quas i 1.1094 dolosè conscrip∣sissent haeretici, as heretikes had craftily penned; telling k 1.1095 him, (as Facundus had before) that it were more fit for him to looke to the government of the Empire; and upbraiding him with that proverbiall admoniti∣on, Ne ultra Crepidam, S^r Cobler go not beyond your Last & Latchet. This scurrility doth the Cardinall use against the most religious and prudent Emperour, and his holy and orthodoxall Edict; and hee saith, that he was l 1.1096 willing to adde these, ad roborandam Facundi senten∣tiam, to fortifie the sentence of Facundus, whereby he, with Vigilius, did defend the Three Chapters.

5. Were one disposed to make sport with the Cardinall, himselfe here offereth a large field, wherein one may exspaciate; and seeing he useth not others as Kings, hee might expect, lege tulionis, not to bee used himselfe as a Cardinall: But because wee shall in another place more fitly convince the Cardinall, both for his reviling the Emperor, and raling at his Edict, as penned by heretikes, 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, doe unavoydably pull upon themselves the just censure of Anathema, denounced by the holy Councell against the defenders of those Chapters, and those who are abetters of them: So, the more Baronius doth labour to fortifie the sentence of Facundus, the more he entangles himselfe in that curse of the generall Councel. The second, that both Facundus & Baronius do quite mistake the mat∣ter, in carping at the Emperour, 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 em∣brace that true, ancient, and Apostolicall faith, which was decreed and explaned at Chalcedon, as both the whole fift Councell witnes∣seth, which sheweth, that all those Chapters were implicite, but yet truly, and indeed condemned in the definition of faith made at Chal∣cedon;

and Pope Gregorie also testifieth the same, saying of this fift Councell, that it was in omnibus sequax, in every point a follower of the Councell at Chalcedon. This the religious Emperour wisely discerning, did by his imperiall edict, and authoritie (as Constantine, and Theodosius had done before him) ratifie that old and Catholike faith, which the Nestorians by defending those Chapters craftily undermined at that time. The third & speciall point which I observe, is that which Baroni∣us noteth, as the cause why Pope Vigil. was so eager against the Em∣peror and his edict. And what thinke you was it? Forsooth because, Iustinian primus m 1.1097 legem sancivit, was the first who made a law, and pub∣lished a Decree for condemning of those three Chapters. Had the Pope first done this, and Iustinian seconded his holinesse therein, hee had beene another Constantine, a second Theodosius, the dearest child of the Church. But for Princes to presume to teach the Pope, or make any lawes concerning the faith, before they consult with the Romane A∣pollo, or make him acquainted therewith, thats n 1.1098 piaculum, a capitall, an irremissible sinne, the Pope may not endure it. So then, is was nei∣ther zeale, not pietie, nor love to the truth, but meere stomacke and pride in Vigilius to oppose himselfe to the Emperours edict, and make an insurrection against him. A sory reason God wot for any wise man in the world, much more for the Pope, to contradict the truth and oppugne the Catholike faith. Now if Iustinian for doing this which was an act of prudence and pietie, tending wholy to the good and peace of the Church, if hee could not escape so undutifull usage at the Pope, & his orators in those better times, religious Kings may not thinke it strange, to finde the like or far worse entertainment at the Popes of these dayes and their instruments, men so exact and eloquent in reviling, that in all such base and uncivill usage they goe as farre beyond Facundus, Tertullus, and them of former ages, as drosse or the most abject mettle is inferiour 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 Emperours e∣dict, hee continued more then a yeare after the publishing of the E∣dict, even all that time while hee remained at Rome, and was absent from the Emperour.

6. As soone 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 aire of the Emperors Court altered the Popes judgement, and this was about a yeare after o 1.1099 the publishing of the Edict: Now that all things might be done with more solemnitie and advise, there was a Synod p 1.1100 held shortly after his comming, at Constantinople, wherein Vigilius with thirty Bishops condemned the Three Chapters, and consented to the Emperors Edict. This Facundus expresly witnesseth, saying q 1.1101, How shall not this bee a prejudice to the cause, if it bee demonstrated that Pope Vigili∣us with thirty Bishops or therabouts, have condemned the Epistle (of Ibas) approved by the Councell of Chalcedon, and anathematized that Bishop (Theodorus of Mopsvestia) with his doctrines, the praises whereof are set downe in that Councell? Thus Facundus. Besides all this, Vigilius was

now so forward in this cause, that as before he had written bookes a∣gainst the Edict, in defence of the three Chapters; and excommunica∣ted those who condemned those Chapters; so now on the Emperors side, he writ bookes, and gave judgement, for the condemning of those Chapters, and excommunicated some, by name, Rusticus and Sebastianus, two Romane Deacons, because they would not condemne them. None can deny saith Baronius d 1.1102, that Vigilius writ a booke against the three chapters, and sent it unto Mennas Bishop of Constantinople. Again, there e 1.1103 is certaine proofe, latae ab eo sententiae, of the sentence (of excom∣munication) pronounced by Vigilius, against Rusticus, Sebastianus, and other defenders of those chapters: and this is so cleare, ut nulla dubitatio esse possit, that there can be no doubt at all, but that Vigilius approved by a Con∣stitution the Emperors sentence, and condemned the three Chapters. So Ba∣ronius. The Epistles of Vigilius doe testifie the same. In that f 1.1104 to Ru∣sticus and Sebastianus he very often makes mention, Iudicati nostri, Con∣stituti nostri, of our judgement, of our constitution against the three chap∣ters, concerning which he addeth g 1.1105, that it was ratified by his Apostoli∣call authority, saying, that no man may doe, 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 hee testifieth, in his Epistle h 1.1106 to Valentinianus, We beleeve 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 Epi∣stle of Ibas, and the writings of Theodoret against the right faith. Thus Vi∣gilius consenting now with the Emperor, defending his Imperiall E∣dict, and condemning the three Chapters; in all which, his profession was Catholike and orthodoxall.

7. When Vigilius was thus turned an Imperialist, and in regard of his outward profession declared in his Constitution, become ortho∣doxall, (though as it seemeth he remained in heart hereticall) hee fell into so great dislike of those who defended the three Chapters, that they i 1.1107 did proclamare, proclame him to be a colluder, a prevaricator or betrayer of the faith; one, who to please the Emperour revolted from his former judgement; yea the Africane k 1.1108 Bishops proceeded so farre against him, that, as Victor Bishop of Tunen testifieth, Synodaliter cum à catholica communione recludunt, they in a Synod, and synodally ex∣communicated him, or shut him from the Catholike communion. A thing worthy observing, being done by those whom the Cardinall professeth l 1.1109 to have beene Catholikes at that time. But let that passe: Baronius to excuse m 1.1110 Vigilius from those imputations of colluder and prevaricator, and to shew that hee 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 1.1111, presently after Vi∣gilius had made that Apostolicall decree for condemning the three Chapters, he revoked the same, (touched belike with remorse for so hainous a crime, as to professe the Catholike faith) and he suspended it, and his owne judgement in that cause, till the time of a generall Councell: decreeing o 1.1112, that untill that time all men should be whisht

and silent in this cause of faith; they must neither say that the Three Chapters were to bee defended, nor condemned; they must neither speake one word for the truth, nor against the truth, they must all (during that time) be like himselfe, lukewarme Laodiceans, neither hot nor cold, neither fish nor flesh. This was the great wisedome and policy of the Pope, as Baronius at large declares, and makes no small boast thereof, adding p 1.1113 that the Pope remained in this mood till the time of the general Councel. Thus you see the second judgmēt of Pope Vigilius in this cause, and his cariage during the second peri∣od, for a fit (which perhaps lasted a weeke or a month) hee was in out∣ward profession orthodoxall, but being weary of such an ague, hee pre∣sently becomes a meere neutralist in the faith: and in this sort hee continued till the assembling of the generall Councell, that is, for the space of six yeares and more.

8. The third period begins at the time of the fift generall Coun∣cell: Of what judgement the Pope then was, it hath before q 1.1114 beene sufficiently declared. Then Vigilius turned to his old byas, hee con∣demned the Emperours Edict, and all that with it condemned the three Chapters: he defends those three hereticall chapters, and that after a most authenticall manner, publishing a Synodall, a Cathedrall and Apostolicall constitution in defence of the ••ame. And whereas not on∣ly others, but himselfe also, had written, and some sixe yeares before, made a Constitution to condemne those Chapters. Now after long and diligent ponderation of the cause, when hee had examined all matters, cum omni undi{que} cautela, with all warinesse and circumspection that could possible be used: he quite casheires, repeales, and forever adnuls r 1.1115 that former Constitution, and whatsoever either himselfe 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 endeavors to excuse Vi∣gilius by that former decree, or to prove him to have beene ortho∣doxall, by it: seeing by this later the whole force and vertue of that former is utterly made void, frustrate and of no effect in the world. In this judgement Vigilius was so resolute, that hee was ready to en∣dure any disgrace and punishment, rather then consent to the con∣demning of the three Chapters: and if wee may beleeve Baronius or Binius, he did for this very cause endure banishment. It is manifest saith Binius s 1.1116, that after the end of the fift Councell Iustinian did cast into banishment both Vigilius and other orthodoxall Bishops, (so hee termeth convicted and condemned heretikes) because they would not consent to the decrees of the Synod, and condemning of the three Chapters. In like sort Baronius t 1.1117, Liquet ex Anastasio, it is manifest by Anastasius, that Vigilius and those who held with him were caried into banishment. Againe u 1.1118, Others thought they had a just quarrell in defending the three Chapters: when they saw Vigilius even in banishment to maintaine the same, and they thought, se pro sacro sanctis pugnare legibus, that they fought for the holy faith; when they saw Pope Vigilius himselfe, for the same cause, constanti animo ex∣ilium ferre, to endure banishment with a constant minde. Againe x 1.1119, Horum solum causa, for this cause onely was Vigilius driven into banishment, be∣cause

he would not condemne the Three Chapters. So Baronius: who often calleth this exiling of Vigilius and others, who defended those Chap∣ters; persecution y 1.1120, yea, an heavy z 1.1121 and monstrous persecution, com∣plaining that the Church under Iustinian and from him, endured more hard conditions, and was in worse case then under the Heathen Emperors.

9. Now this demonstrates that which before I touched, that though the Pope upon his comming to Constantinople, made a decree for condemning the Three Chapters, yet still hee was in heart an affecti∣onate lover of Nestorianisme, and a defender of those Chapters, seeing for his love to them, and defence of them, he is ready not onely to bee bound, but to goe, and dye in banishment for his zeale unto them. For had he sincerely embraced the truth, (as in his former Constitu∣tion he professed,) why doth he now at the time of the fift Councell, disclame 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 exāple of orthodoxall Bishops, and the whole Councell 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 untill this time; and now relented or changed his judgement, it would have bin vehemētly suspected, that not the hatred of those chap∣ters, or of Nestorianisme, but either the favour of the Emperor, or the importunity of the Easterne Bishops, or the feare of exile, or depri∣vation, or some such punishment had extorted that sentence and con∣fession from him: But now when hee decreeth contrary to the Empe∣rour, to the generall Councell, and to his owne former and true judge∣ment; when by publishing this Decree, he was sure to gaine nothing, but the censure of an unconstant and wavering minded man, the Ana∣thema of the whole generall Councell, and the heavy indignation of the Emperor; when he goes thus against the maine current & streame of the time, who can thinke, but that his onely motive to doe this, was his zeale and love to Nestorianisme? Love a 1.1122 (specially of heresie) is strong as death. It will cause Vigilius, or any like him, when it hath once got possession of their heart, with the Baalites and Donatists, to contemne launcing, whipping, and tearing of their flesh; yea to de∣light as much in Phalaris Bull, as in a bed of doune, and in the midst of all tortures to sing with him in the Orator b 1.1123, Quam suave est hoc? Quam nihil curo? O how glad and merry a man am I, that suffer all these for the love of my Three Chapters? Losse of fame, losse of goods, losse of libertie, losse of my Countrey, losse of my pontificall See, losse of communion and society of the Catholike Church, and of God him∣selfe: Farewell all these, and all things else, rather then the Three Chapters, then Nestorianisme shall want a defender, or a Martyr to seale it with blood.

10. You see now the third period, and the third judgement of Pope Vigilius in this cause. A judgement, which being delivered ex Tripode, and with all possible circumspection, puts downe for many

respects both the former, what hee spake the first time in defence of these Three Chapters, was spoken in stomacke, and in his heat and cho∣ler against the Emperor. What he spake the second time for condem∣ning those Chapters, he did therein but temporize and curry favour with the Emperor. But what he spake now this third time, after se∣ven yeares ventilating of the cause, when all heat and passion being abated, he was in cold blood, and in such a calme, that no perturbati∣on did trouble his mind, or darken his judgement, that I say, proceed∣ed from the very bottome of the heart, and from the Apostolicall au∣thority of his infallible Chaire, which to be a true and divine judge∣ment, he like a worthy Confessor, sealed with his banishment. And of this judgement hee continued in likelihood more, but as Baronius (whom I now follow) tels c 1.1124 us, about the space of a yeare after the end of the fift Councell, even till hee returned out of exile unto Con∣stantinople.

11. The fourth and last changing of Vigilius was after his returne from banishment, as Baronius and Binius tell us. For while hee was there, he saw there was urgentissima causa, d 1.1125 a most urgent cause why he should consent to the Emperour, and approve the judgement of the holy Councell; and therefore hee was pleased once againe to make another Apostolicall e 1.1126 Decree, for adnulling his former Apo∣stolicall judgement, and for condemning the Three Chapters, and con∣firming the fift Synod. I thinke, saith Binius f 1.1127, that Vigilius confirmed the fift Synod by his Decree and Pontificall authority, and abrogated his for∣mer Constitution made in defence of the Three Chapters in the next yeare af∣ter the Councell was ended, when he being loosed from banishment, was suf∣fered to returne into Italy, being adorned with sundry gifts and priviledges. Neither doth he only opinari, but he is certaine of it. Dubium g 1.1128 non est, there is no doubt, but Vigilius being delivered from exile, by the entrea∣tie of Narses, did confirme the fift Synod. We thinke, saith Baronius, that h 1.1129 when Vigilius was by the intreaty of Narses freed from exile, hee did then assent to the Emperour, and recalling his former sentence, in his Con∣stitution declared, did approve the fift Synod. Againe i 1.1130, Seeing we have declared, that Vigilius did not approve the fift Synod, when hee was driven into banishment, for he was exiled for no other cause, but for that hee would not approve that Synod: Necesse est affirmare, it must of necessity bee said, that hee did this (approve the fift Synod;) at this time, when being loosed out of exile, he was sent home to his owne Church. So Baronius. Now seeing hee returned home after hee had obtained those ample gifts and priviledges, which they so magnifie, and which are set downe in that pragmaticall sanction of Iustinian k 1.1131, which was dated on the twelfth day of August, in the eight and twentieth yeare of his Empire: and the fift Councell was ended on the se∣cond l 1.1132 day of Iune in his seven and twentieth yeare; it is cleare, that this his last change was made about an whole yeare after the end of the fift Councell, after hee had remained a yeare or thereabouts in banishment. And in this minde, as they m 1.1133 tell us, hee returned to∣wards Rome, but by the way n 1.1134, while hee was yet but in Sicily, being afflicted with the stone, he dyed.

12. Here is now the Catastrophe of the Popes turnings and return∣ings, and often changing in this cause of faith: Concerning which this is especially to bee remembred, that whereas all the three former judgements of Vigilius, the first, when he defended those three Chap∣ters, being in Italie, the second, when he condemned them upon his comming to Constantinople, and the third, when he againe defended them at the time of the Councell, and after, have all of them certaine and undeniable proofes out of antiquitie, such as the testimonies of Facundus, Victor, Liberatus, the Popes owne letters and Constituti∣ons, together with the witnesse of the Emperor, and the whole fift Councell; onely this last period, and this last change, when hee con∣sented to the fift Councell, and condemned the Three Chapters, This I say, which is the onely judgement whereby Vigilius is excused from heresie, is utterly destitute of all ancient witnesses, not any one that I can finde makes mention of this change, or of ought that can any way enforce the same, and therefore this may and must be called the Baronian change or Period, he being the first man, that I can learne of, who ever mentioned or dreamed of his change. And although this alone were sufficient to oppose to all that the Cardinall or any other can hence collect in excuse of Vigilius, reason and equitie for∣bidding us to bee too credulous upon the Cardinals bare word, (which even in this one cause touching the Three Chapters, and this fift Councell, besides many the like, demonstratively to be proved untrue and false, I speake it confidently and within compasse, in six hundreth sayings at the least) yet that they may not say wee decline the force of this so pregnant an exception, we will for a little while admit and suppose it to bee true, and try, whether by this being yeel∣ded unto them, there can accrew any advantage to their cause, or any help to excuse either Vigilius himselfe, or his Constitution set forth in defence of the Three Chapters, from being hereticall.

13. Say you Vigilius by his last decree confirmed the fift Coun∣cell and approved the Catholike faith? Be it so, we deny not but that Vigilius, or any other of their Popes may decree, and have decreed a truth, thats not the doubt betwixt us and them. The question is, whe∣ther any of their Popes have at any time by his Cathedrall authoritie, and teaching, as Popes, decreed an heresie, or untruth. That Pope Vigilius did so, his Apostolicall Constitution in defence of the Three Chapters, is an eternall witnes against them, 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 pro∣ved what he had said. But seeing undeniable records testifie, and the Cardinall himselfe with a Stentors voice proclameth, this to be the true and undoubted Constitution of Pope Vigilius, though hee had re∣voked and repealed it a thousand times, yet can not this quit his for∣mer Apostolicall Decree from being hereticall, nor excuse their ponti∣ficall chaire from being fallible. It is nothing at all materiall which of the Popes Cathedrall Decrees, the first, last, or middle bee hereti∣call: If any one of them all bee: wee desire no more, the field is wonne.

14. Say you Vigilius by an Apostolicall decree, confirmed the fift Councell? Then did hee certainely decree that all writings defend∣ing the Three Chapters, doe defend heresie: and that all persons who defend those Chapters, for so long time as they defend them, after the judgement of that Councell, are convicted and condemned here∣ticks. Then the former Constitution of Pope Vigilius, set forth by his Apostolicall authoritie in the time of the Councell, in defence of those Chapters, is now by Popes Vigilius himselfe and by his Apostoli∣call authority and infallible Chaire declared to bee hereticall; and Vigi∣lius himselfe for that yeare after the Councell, is now by Vigilius him∣selfe pronounced to bee an Hereticke; yea a definer of heresie, Vigi∣lius now orthodoxal decreeth himselfe to have been before heretical. Nay it further followeth, that by confirming that Councell, hee con∣firmeth, and that by an Apostolicall and infallible Decree, that all who defend the Popes Cathedrall sentence in causes of faith, to bee infallible, are convicted and accursed heretickes, for by defending that position, they do eo ipso defend that Constitutiō of Vigilius made in defence of the Three Chapters to bee true, infallible, and orthodoxall, which Vi∣gilius himselfe by an infallible decree hath declared to bee erroneous, and hereticall. So far is this last and Baronian change from excusing Vigilius in this cause, that upon the admission thereof it doth inevita∣bly ensue, both that Vigilius was an hereticke and a definer of here∣sie, and that all who defend the Popes Cathedrall infallibitie, in causes of faith, that is, al who are members of their present Romane Church, to bee not onely heretickes, and for such condemned and accursed, but defenders also of a condemned and accursed heresie, even by the infallible judgement and decree of Pope Vigilius.

15. Their whole reason whereby Vigilius might bee excused, be∣ing now fully dissolved; There remaineth one point, which Baronius, and after him Binius, observeth, touching this often changing of Vigili∣us: which being a point of speciall note, I should wrong both Vigilius and Baronius if I should over-passe the same. Some men when they heare of these often changings, windings, and turn∣ings of Pope Vigilius in this cause of faith, and of his banishment for defending a condemned heresie, will perhaps imagine this to bee a token of some levitie, unconstancie, or solly in the Pope. O fie! It was not so, saith o 1.1135 Baronius; What hee did was not onely lawfull p 1.1136, done by good right and reason, but it was laudable also, done with great q 1.1137 advise, wisedome, and consideration. Vigilius, a man of r 1.1138 greatest constancie; One who stood s 1.1139 up with courage for defence of the Church, adversus violentum ecclesiae grassatorem, against Iustinian, a violent oppressor thereof: one t 1.1140 who fought for the sacred lawes, enduring exile, constanti animo, with a constant minde for the same. One who did by this meanes wisely u 1.1141, yea, prudentissimé, most wisely provide for the good of the Church. One who in thus doing did wisely x 1.1142 imitate Saint Paul, who condemned circumcision, and yet when hee circumcised Timothie, approved circumcision. And though there bee a marvellous dissimilitude in their actions, the one change being in a mutable, &, at that time, an indifferent ceremonie, 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 en∣treate the reader to observe with me two things touching their com∣mending Vigilius in this manner. The former is, what an happie thing it is to be a Pope, or have a Cardinall for his spokesman. Let Luther, Cranmer, or a Protestant make farre lesse change thē did Vigilius, what shall they not heare? An Apostate, unconstant, inconsiderate, a Chamelion, a Polipus, another Proteus, even Vertumnus himselfe. Let the Pope say and gaine say the same doctrine of faith, and then ex Ca∣thedra define both his sayings being contradictorie, to bee not one∣ly true, but infallible truths of the Catholike faith: O, It is all done with rare wisdome, with great reason, and consideration, The Pope in all this deales wisely, and that in the superlative degree. If when he is absent from the Emperor, he oppugne the truth published by the Emperors edict, It is wisely done; Kings and Emperors may not make Lawes in causes of faith, no not for the faith; The Cobler must not goe beyond his latchet. If when hee is brought before the Empe∣ror, 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 Kings wrath is the messenger of death. If after both these bee become a meere Neutralist and Ambodexter in faith, holding communion with all sides, Catholikes, heretickes, and all, this is also an act of rare wisdome, the Pope is now become another Saint Paul, factus est om∣nia omnibus, with Catholikes he's a Catholike, that he may gaine Catholikes, with Heretickes, he's an Hereticke, that he may gaine he∣retickes, he's all with all, that hee may gaine them all. If when the Emperor, the generall Councell, the whole Church calls for his re∣solution in a cause of faith, if then hee step into his infallible Chaire, and thence by his Apostolicall authoritie define, that the three Chapters, that is, that Nestorianisme shall for ever bee held for the Catholike faith, O wisely done, he now drops oracles from heaven, in Cathedra sedet, the voice of God, and not of man. If, when hee is banished for his obstinacie against the truth, upon some urgent cause which then he discernes, he calls againe for his holy Trevit, and thence decrees the quite contradictorie to his former Apostolicall sentence, In this he's wiser then in all the rest: for by this he shews that he's more wise and powerfull then 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 1.1143 potentior Prophetis, so much more wise and powerfull then all the Prophets, that hee 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 Rocke indeed, a Rocke upon which you may build two contradictories in the doctrine of faith, and in them both say unto him, Tu es Petra. Such a Rocke neither the Prophets, nor Apostles, nor Christ himselfe ever was. So wise, so exceeding wise is the Pope, in all his turnings, even as wise as a wethercocke for turning with the wind and weather.

17. Againe, when the Pope, his instruments or Inquisitors (to whom Phalaris, Busiris, and all the heathen persecutors may yeeld)

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 doe 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 bee covered with the mantle of holinesse. On the other side, when they resist the most religious lawes, or Edicts of Kings or Emperors, when Vigilius or any of them (being by an holy generall Councell declared, and condemned for an Hereticke,) are for their obstinate rebellion against the truth justly punished, though Iustinian yea Iustice it selfe, shall use rather moderate then severe correction against them; they forsooth must be accoumpted catholikes: Cōsessers, & holy Mar∣tyrs, such as suffer for religion, for the sacred lawes, and for the Ca∣tholike faith; but Iustinian the Defender of the faith, must be called Iulian, Iustice be termed Scelus z 1.1144, and the Church for that cause said to bee in farre worse condition, then in the times of Nero, Dioclesian, or any of the heathen Tyrants. Such an happie thing it is to bee a Pope, or Papist, for then their wavering shall be Constancie; their rebellion, Religion and fortitude: their folly, greate and rare wise∣dome: their heresie, Catholike doctrine: and their most condigne punishments shall be crowned with Martyrdome.

18. The other thing which I observe, is, what a strong faith, Papists had need to have, who rely upon the Popes judgement, which chan∣geth out and in, in and out so many times: who yet are bound to be∣leeve al the Pope definitive sentences in causes of faith, that is, to speake in plaine tearmes, who are bound to beleeve two contradictories to bee both true, both of them the infallible oracles of God. Or if any of them have so weake a faith, that he can but beleeve the one, I would gladly learne of some who is an Oedipus among them, In this case of two Contradictorie Cathedrall decrees, such as were these of Pope Vigilius, whether of the Popes 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 then the other. If the Apostolicall sentence of Vigilius delivered cum omni undique cau∣tela, and by his Cathedrall authoritie, in defence of the Three Chapters, be repealeable by a second, why may not the second (which cannot possibly have more authoritie) bee repealed by a third, and the third by a fourth, and fourth by a fift, and so in Infinitum? If the Pope after seaven yeares deliberation and ventilating of the cause, while hee is all that time in peace, and libertie, may be deceived in his judiciall and Cathedrall sentence in a cause of faith, how may wee be assured, that when some yeares after that, the tediousnesse of exile and desire of his pristine libertie and honour perswades him to make a contrary decree, he may not therein also bee deceived? If the Popes decrees made in libertie, 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 beleeve their Laterane and Trent decrees, as doctrines of faith? For why may there not once

againe, come some other Iustinian, into the world, (as great pitie it is but there should) who in these, or future times may minister that so∣veraigne medicine to cleare the Popes judgement, and restraine, or close him up in some meaner estate, and farre lower place, whence, as out of a darke and low pit, he may discerne those coelestiall truths in the Word of God, like so many Starres in heaven, which now be∣ing invironed with the circumfused splendor of the Romane Court, he cannot possibly behold. If those Three Chapters were to bee con∣demned, why did the Pope defend them at the time of the Councell? If they were to be defended, why did he condemne them after his re∣turne from exile? Nay, if the Three Chapters were orthodoxall, why did the Pope at any time first or last by his Apostolicall sentence con∣demne them? If they were hereticall, why did he at any time, first or last, by his Cathedrall and Apostolicall sentence defend them? I con∣fesse I am here in a Labyrinth; if any of the Cardinals friends will winde mee out, he shall for ever be Theseus unto me.

CAP. XVI. That the Decree of Vigilius for Taciturnity touching the Three Chap∣ters, and the Councell, wherein it is supposed to be made, and all the Con∣sequents upon that Decree, painted out by Baronius, are all fictitious, and Poeticall.

1. THE whole reason of Baronius drawne from Vigilius his confirming of the fift Councell, 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 exceptiō: but there are two points in this last passage, touching the chāgings of Vi∣gilius, which, even against my will, pull mee backe, and call me to examine what Baronius sets downe, and with ex∣ceeding ostentation paints out, in his Annals, concerning them; the due consideration whereof will cause any man to admire the Cardi∣nals most audacious, and shamelesse dealing in Synodall affaires, and causes of the Church: The one of them concernes the second, the o∣ther the fourth period in Vigilius changings. The former is this.

2. As soone as the defenders of the Three Chapters had notice of that Iudiciall sentence, and Decree published by Vigilius against the same Chapters, upon his comming to Constantinople, they began to storme thereat, and condemne Vigilius a 1.1145 as a Prevaricator, or revolter from the faith; whereupon Vigilius, as the Cardinall tels us, put in practice a rare peece of wisedome b 1.1146, and of his Pontificall pollicy; sententiam emissam c 1.1147 mox suspendit, seu potius revocavit; he suspends and re∣vokes 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 generall Councel, from d 1.1148 this yeare (which was the 21 e 1.1149 of Iusti∣nian, & the same wherin Vigilius came to Constantinople) until the time of the generall Councell, in eâ causâ ab ipso Vigilio indictū fuit Silentiū; Silence was injoyned every man in that cause, by Pope Vigilius: & againe f 1.1150, Tacendū indixit, he injoyned Silence in that cause; and very often doth the Cardinall, with no small comfort, mention this Decree of Taciturnity. And, for the more solemnitie of the matter, Vigilius decreed this in a Councell, it was not onely his, but, decretum g 1.1151 Synodi, the decree of a Councell, together with the Pope. Vigilius h 1.1152 Synodicè statuit tacen∣dum esse; Vigilius decreed in, and with a Synod, that there should be a Silence in this cause, untill the generall Councell: To which Synodall decree, not onely Mennas * 1.1153, and Theodorus Bishop of Cesarea, but k 1.1154 Iustinian himselfe also consented, and promised to observe the same. This was the Decree; see now the effects, and Cōsequents which ensued there∣upon, declared also by Baronius.

3. This Decree tooke so good effect at the first, that, res aliquandiu consopita l 1.1155 siluit, for a space, all matters, touching the Three Chap∣ters, were husht asleepe, not a word spoken of that Controversie: But some foure yeares m 1.1156 after the publishing thereof, when Vigilius saw divers contrary to his decree, to condemne the Three Chapters, n 1.1157 erigit se, he rouzeth up himselfe for defence thereof, and o 1.1158 excommunicated Mennas Patriarch of Constantinople, Theodorus Bishop of Cesarea, and many moe; and this also he did in another Councell consisting of thir∣teene p 1.1159 Bishops besides himselfe. Yea and whereas the Emperour in that yeare published, or hung out his Edict against the same Chapterq 1.1160 contrary to his owne promise, and the Decree for Taciturnity, the Pope withstood him so long, and so eagerly, that Iustinian began to rage, to use threats, and violence against him, so that the Pope, in r 1.1161 fu∣ga tantum spem posuit, was forced to flee from him out of the s 1.1162 house where he dwelled, called (for good lucke sake) Placidiana, unto the Church of Saint Peter, where he remained a time, in adversarios senten∣tiam ferens; thundering out his censures against his adversaries. But that sacred place t 1.1163 could be no Sanctuary for Vigilius; they buffeted u 1.1164 and beate him on his face; they called him an homicide, a murderer of Sylverius, and of the widowes sonne: whereupon hee, to avoid the fury x 1.1165 and violence of the sacrilegious Emperour, fled y 1.1166 from Constan∣tinople to Chalcedon, and there lived in the Church of Saint Euphemia, taking hold of a Piller or Horne of the Altar: And even there, though in persecution, and affliction, he bated z 1.1167 not one Ace of his Apostolicall authority; but, as if he had lived in peace, and beene in the Laterane or Vaticane, he ascends into his Apostolike Throne a 1.1168, and high Tribu∣nall; and thence, by the fulnesse of his Apostolicall power, he b 1.1169 throwes out his darts, represseth and prostrateth his adversaries; pronounceth

sentence c 1.1170 against Bishops, yea, against a Patriarch; adnulleth the acts of the Emperour, knowing his authoritie to be greater than that Pro∣phets was, to whom God said d 1.1171, I have set thee above Nations and kingdomes.

4. Now behold a miracle e 1.1172 indeed; by fleeing away, Vigilius over∣commeth, by being persecuted hee is victorious; all humane power, even hell gates, doth, and must yeed to him: For the Emperor under∣standing that he was fled away, repented f 1.1173 him of that which hee had done against the Pope, and therefore sent messengers to recall him from Chalcedon, and those not ordinary souldiers, sed dignam tanto Pon∣tifice legationem; but honourable embassadours, worthy the estate of so great a Bishop, who should assure him, even upon their oathes g 1.1174, that he should be honorably received. But, so stout, nay, magnanimous, was the Pope, and so very circumspect and wise h 1.1175, as, remembring the proverbe, Graecorum fides, that he would neither come out of the Church, nor beleeve i 1.1176 the messengers, though swearing unto him, unles the Empe∣rour would presently recall and abolish his Edicts against the Three Chapters. The Emperour yeelded k 1.1177 to all that the Pope prescribed; yea, constat cessisse, it is certaine and evident, that he submitted himselfe to the Popes pleasure, and that penitus in every point: hee commands the Edicts, which hee had published, to be taken away, to bee remo∣ved; & ea sententia l 1.1178 Vigilii, quod fecerat, abrogavit; and according to Vigilius direction, he abrogated what before he had done. Nor onely did the Emperour repent, but Theodorus l 1.1179 also, and Mennas, they came and offered, libellum supplicem Vigilio, a booke of supplication to intreat Vigilius, that he would be appeased towards them, and crying, Pecca∣vi, suppliciter m 1.1180 veniam petunt; they beseech him in a suppliant manner to to forgive their n 1.1181 offence. Oh how admirable is this in our eyes! the Rocke which the builders refused, is now laid againe in the head of the Corner; and those Princes and Prelates which opposed them∣selves to the Pope, doe now submit, supplicate, and yeeld themselves unto him. The Pope o 1.1182, after this so ample satisfaction, was pleased to be reconciled to them all, and admitted them into his communion; & so the storme of persecutiō being past, the Church injoyned tranquil∣lity, the Pope was brought againe with great joy from Chalcedon to Constantinople: For the joy p 1.1183 and solemnity whereof Mennas that same yeare (which was the 26 q 1.1184 of Iustinian, and next before the generall Councell) celebrated a feast of the Encaenia, or dedication of the Church, of three Apostles, Andrew, Luke, and Timothy, and the holy reliques r 1.1185 of their bodies being then found,s 1.1186 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 1.1187 being restored to his former dignitie, animis junctis, their mindes being joyned together; the generall Councell, long wished for by Vigilius, was summoned against the moneth of May, in the twenty se∣venth yeare of Iustinian. This is the summe of the narration of Baroni∣us, touching the Decree of Taciturnity, and the manifold consequents thereof.

5. Concerning which, none I thinke can judge otherwise, but that Baronius, as he is miserably infatuated in this whole cause of the Three Chapters; so, in this passage, hee was growne to that extremity of do∣tage, that hee seemes utterly to have beene bereft, both of common sense, and reason: For I doe 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 streame, through divers yeares in Baronius An∣nals) 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 Emperour unto it; no violating of that Decree by Mennas, or Theodorus; no excommunication of them, or o∣ther Bishops, for doing contrary to it; no hanging up of the Empe∣rours Edict after it; no resistance made by Vigilius against the Empe∣rour; no persecuting of Vigilius, no buffeting of him, no objecting of murder unto him; no fleeing either to Saint Peters Church, or to Chalcedon; no thundring out from thence of his Pontificall Censures; no embassage sent from the Emperour to call him thence; no such magnanimitie in Vigilius as to refuse to returne; no recalling, or ab∣rogating of the Emperiall Edict by the Emperour; no submission of Mennas, or Theodorus to the Pope; no solemnizing of the Encaenia for those three Apostles at that time by Mennas; no carying of those holy reliques in a triumphing manner, and in a golden Chariot; no laying them up by Mennas; and, in a word, in that whole passage of Baroni∣us, there is not so much as one dramme, nor one syllable of truth. The Cardinall from an Historian is here quite metamorphozed into a Poet, into a Fabler, and in stead of writing Annals, matters of fact, and reall truths, he guls his readers with fictitious, anile, and more than Aesopicall fables.

6. For the clearing whereof I will begin with the Decree it selfe, which is the ground of the whole fiction, and therefore if it bee de∣monstrated to bee but an idle dreame and fancie, all the rest, which hang on it like so many consequents, and appendices, will of them∣selves fall to the ground. Nor doe I speake to disgrace this Decree, as if Baronius could gaine ought thereby, though it were admitted and granted unto him: For alas, what a poore pollicy or peece of wise∣dome was this in the Pope, being a Iudge infallible, to command, and decree by his Apostolicall authority, that for five or sixe, or, as it might have hapned, for forty or sixty yeares together, no man should speake a word in this cause of faith, neither condemne the three Chapters, nor defend the same; which is in effect, that they should neither speake a∣gainst, 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 Catholikes, or heretikes,

but be like Vigilius, meere Neutralists in the faith, what other wis∣dome is this but that of the Laodiceans, which Christ condemneth u 1.1188? I would thou werst either hot or cold, but because thou art neither hot nor cold, it will come to passe that I will spue thee out of my mouth: what other then that which Elias reproves x 1.1189? Why halt yee betweene two opinions? If the Lord be God follow him, but if Baal, or Nestorianisme, be he, goe after it. By this Decree of Taciturnity Vigilius provideth that neither him∣selfe nor others should speake against the truth or condemne it. True, but that is not enough; He should have defended it also, and caused others by his instruction and example to doe the like. A neutralist, one that is not y 1.1190 with Christ, is against Christ: Hee that is not with the truth is against the truth. Silence where God commands to speake, is betraying of Gods truth. If the Heathen wise man z 1.1191 set this, and that justly among his eternall lawes; That he who in a publike division of the Common-wealth, tooke part with neither side, should bee pu∣nished with losse of goods and banishment: how much more ought this to take place in Vigilius, and all such Metij Suffetij, who in the pub∣like 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 bee judged an heretike, for the whole Councell of Chalcedon condemned Domnus Patriarch of Antioch as an Heretike, onely for this cause a 1.1192, for that hee writ that men should bee silent, and say nothing of the twelve Chap∣ters of Cyrill, as both Iustinian and the fift Councell b 1.1193 doe testifie. Did not Vigilius, if the Cardinall say true, teach, nay decree the very like silence concerning the Three Chapters, as Domnus did concerning those twelve of Cyrill? These Three doe as nearly concerne the faith, as did the other twelve. These three were as certainly condemned by the Councell of Chalcedon, as the other twelve were approved by the Councell of Ephesus. As Domnus by teaching silence in those of Cyrill, even thereby taught that men should not allow them, nor say that they might be allowed, and there∣in overthrew the faith of the Ephesine Councell, which approved them, and taught all men to approve them: Even so, Vigilius by de∣creeing silence in these Three Chapters, decreeth that none shall con∣demne them, or say they are to be condemned, and so overthroweth the Catholike faith which was declared at Chalcedon, whereby they are all three condemned, and taught that they ought to bee condem∣ned. If the teaching of silence in the one can make Domnus an here∣tike, certainly the decreeing of silence in the other, cannot chuse but make Vigilius an heretike. O but this decree was to continue but for a time, Vigilius would expect the assembling of a generall Councell, and then he would resolve the matter to the full. And you have seen how well he resolved it then. But what? Expect a Councell? why is not his Holinesse able to decide a doubt in faith, without a generall Councell? Is he not of himselfe infallible? Doth his infallibilitie like an Ague goe away, and come by fits upon him? Is the generall Coun∣cel that Angel which must move the Poole in the Popes brest, before he can teach infallibly? The Pope scornes to hold his infallibility

precario, by the curtesie either of the whole Church, or of any generall Councell: He is all-sufficient in himselfe, he gives to them infallibility, he receives none from them; what thinke you then was become of Vigilius his infallibility, that for deciding a doubt in faith, hee must suspend all in silence; and stay till the generall Councel be assembled, which, for ought he knew, might bee 60. or 100. yeares after? If of himselfe he was infallible, why did he hold men in suspence in the do∣ctrine of faith? why did he not presently, and without the Councell infallibly decide it, and so set the Church at quiet? If of himselfe he was not infallible, how could he at the time of the Councell infallibly decide it? for they make not him or his sentence infallible, but all their infallibility is borrowed from him. So little helpe is there for them in this decree of taciturnity, (if wee should admit thereof) that in very deed, it doth many wayes prejudice their cause. It is not then the pre∣venting of any advantage which hence they might have, that causeth me to reject this decree, but the onely love of the truth perswadeth, nay enforceth me hereunto. For I professe I was not a little moved to see the Cardinalls Annalls so stuffed with untruths and figments, and see him also not onely by these to abuse, and that most vilely, his Readers, but even to vaunt and glory (as you have seene hee doth) in that which is, and will be an eternall ignominy unto him. But let us come to make evident the fiction of this Decree.

7. That Vigilius made no such decree of Taciturnitie, first the Em∣peror Iustinian in his Letters to the fift generall Councell is a witnes above exception, When Pope Vigilius, saith he c 1.1194, 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 twise, but often in writing, without writing, did anathematize the same Chapters. Quod vero ejusdem voluntatis semper fuit de condem∣natione trium Capitulorum, per plurima declaravit, and that he hath alwayes, (ever since his comming hither) continued in the same minde of condem∣ning those three Chapters, he hath very many wayes declared. And after, re∣peating some of those particulars, hee adds, Et compendiosè dicere, sem∣per in eadem voluntate perseveravit, and to speake briefly, he hath ever since persevered in this minde. So writ and testified the Emperour. In the seventh Collation the Emperour sent Constantine the most glorious Quaestor of his Palace, unto the Synod, to deliver unto them certaine letters of Vigilius, who againe testified this from the Emperour be∣fore the whole Councell: Vigilius, saith he c 1.1195, hath very often manifested by writings his minde, that he condemneth the Three Chapters, which also without writing, he hath said before the Emperour in the presence of the most glorious Iudges, and of very many of your selves, who are here in the Coun∣cell: et non intermisit, semper anathematizans Theodorum, and hee hath not intermitted or ever ceased (since his first comming almost to Constanti∣nople) to anathematize the defenders of Theodorus of Mopsvestia, and the Epistle of Ibas, and the writings of Theodoret against Cyrill: and then de∣livering 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 comming to Constantinople, untill the assembling of the generall Councell) hee 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 withall so certaine, that there can bee 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 certaine, that Vigilius persisted and persevered to condemne the Three Chapters, after the time of his consenting to the Emperors Edict, upon his comming to Constantino∣ple, till the time of the fift Councell; it must needs be acknowledged for certaine, that in that time hee made no decree to forbid men to condemne the same; and then, not this decree of Taciturnity, which tyes all mens tongues that they shal neither defend, nor yet condemne them. And if the decree be fictitious, such as was never made, as by this testimony it is now certaine: then is the Councell fictitious wherein it was decreed, then the whole fable of Baronius, how the Emperor and Mennas violated that decree, how the Pope indured persecution for maintaining that Decree, and the other Consequents, they all are certainly fictitious, this one testimonie overthroweth thē all. But I will adde a second reason drawne from the consideration of the observing and putting in execution this Synodall and pontifi∣call Decree. For it is not to bee doubted, but if such a Decree had beene made, especially, with the consent of a Synod, and of the Em∣perour also, but some one or other would have observed the same; the rather, because Baronius d 1.1196 tols us, that upon the publishing of this Decree in the one and twentieth yeare of Iustinian, res consopita siluit; the controversie was for a while husht. Let us then see who those were whom this Decree made silent or tongue-tyed in this cause, and it will appeare that none at all observed it.

9. Let us begin with the Pope himselfe, who of all is most likely to have kept his owne decree; but he was so farre from observing it, that he practised the quite contrary. In the two and twentieth yeare of Iustinian, the very next unto that wherein this decree is supposed to be made, Rusticus and Sebastianus two Romane Deacons remaining then at Constantinople, and being earnest defenders of the Three Chap∣ters, writ letters unto divers Bishops, and into divers Provinces a∣gainst e 1.1197 Pope Vigilius, and the cause was, for that he condemned f 1.1198 the Three Chapters, and thereby as they pretended, condemned also the Councell of Chalcedon, and for a proofe of their accusation they di∣spersed g 1.1199 the copies of Vigilius his Constitution sent unto Mennas a∣gainst the Three Chapters. A cleare proofe that as then Vigilius neither had made this Decree, nor revoked his judgement for condemning of those Chapters. In the 23. h 1.1200 yeare, Vigilius writ to Valentinianus, to purge himselfe of those slanders i 1.1201 and untruths, and that hee doth by referring himselfe to his judgement k 1.1202, sent to Mennas against the 3. Chapters, wherein he then plainly professeth, that what he had therein defined was consonant l 1.1203 to the faith of the 4. former Councels, 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 1.1204 to satis∣fie 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 condemne the same Chapters. In the foure and twentieth n 1.1205 yeare hee writ the like Apology to Aurelianus Bishop of Arles, yea which is more, Baronius o 1.1206 sheweth that in that 24. yeare, he published his judiciall sentence of condemnation and deposition against p 1.1207 Rusticus, Sebastianus, Gerontius, q 1.1208 Severus, Importunus, Iohn, and Deusdedit; for that they r 1.1209 by defending the Three Chapters, and communicating with such as defended them, contra Iudicati nostri se∣riem nitebantur, dealt against the tenor of his judgement: shewing plain∣ly that till then, and in that yeare his judgement against the Three Chapters stood so firmly in force, that by a judiciall sentence he depo∣sed the contradictors thereof, which had himselfe revoked, and by a Decree of silence adnulled, in likelihood he wold not, certainly in ju∣stice he could not have done; and seeing hee censured them not for speaking of that controversie, 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 beene, because they had done contrary to it, not because they had contradicted his judgement in condemning those Chapters.

10. Is not Baronius thinke you a very wise and worthy Annalist, who perswades you that Vigilius made this Decree of silence in the 21. yeare of Iustinian▪ forbidding all thereby to condemne the Three Chapters, which not to have been made either in the 22, or 23, or 24. yeares, the undoubted writing and censures of Vigilius expressed by Baronius himselfe doe make evident, and testifie that the Pope him∣selfe was so far from being silent therein, that both by words, by wri∣tings, by pontificall censures and judgements, himselfe condemned the 3, Chapters? who will again perswade you that the Pope suffered very heavy persecution at the Emperors hands, because he would not per∣mit the 3. Chapters to be condemned, whereas the Pope himselfe, not onely condemned them all that time, as well as the Emperor did, but both by writings reproved, and by judiciall censures punished, con∣demned, and deposed such as would not condemne them, and that al∣so eo nomine, because they would not condemne them, nor consent to his judgements whereby he had condemned them. Now that Vigilius continued of the same mind, both in the 25. & 26. yeares of Iustinian, that is, untill the time that the fift Councell was assembled, though there be no particulars to explaine, yet by the Emperours words be∣fore remembred, 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 beene any, he of all men was the most likely to observe it, who as Baronius fableth, was so rigorous against others, even the Em∣peror also, for not observing thereof, his not observing of it, is an evi∣dence that he made no such Decree at all, but that the whole narrati∣on 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 1.1210, 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 forbeare to condemne the 3. Chapters, seeing by so doing, he should have anathematized himselfe: for by his Imperiall Edict, he denoūced all those to be an Anathema, who do not condemne and t 1.1211 anathematize the same Chapters. The very silence in this cause, and ceasing or refusing to anathematize the Chapters, had made him guilty of his owne just Anathema. But to leave presump∣tions, Certaine it is that Iustinian continued the same man, constant in condemning those Chapters, and that not onely for the time after this supposed Decree, but from the first publishing of his own Edict, whereof the whole fift Councell is a most ample witnesse, who thus say u 1.1212, omnia semper fecit, & facit, quae sanctam Ecclesiam & recta dogma∣ta 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 doe make evident, where they professe the condemning thereof to bee the preserving of the good seed x 1.1213 of faith, the preserving of the Councell of Chalcedon, and the rooting out of hereticall tares.

12. And if wee desire particulars of his constant dealing herein, Victor Tunavensis declareth the earnestnesse of Iustinian, in condemn∣ing these Chapters for every yeare since this Decree of Taciturnity is supposed to have beene made. The Decree, as y 1.1214 Baronius sheweth, was set out in the sixt yeare after the Consulship of Basilius (which ac∣count by Consular yeares Victor useth) and it answereth to the end of twenty one, and most of the 22. yeare of Iustinian. In the seaventh yeare after Basilius z 1.1215 Coss. that is, in the very next to that wherein the Decree was made, Iustinian writ most earnestly saith Victor a 1.1216 into di∣vers provinces, & antistites cunctos praefata tria Capitula damnare com∣pellit, and hee compelled all Bishops to condemne the Three Chapters. In the eight he sheweth that the Illyrian Bishops held a Synod, and writ unto the Emperour to disswade him from condemning those Chap∣ters. In the ninth he shewes that Facundus did the like, and further in this yeare b 1.1217 the Emperor commanded the Synod at Mopsvestia to be held against Theodorus, that it might appeare how, and from how long time before then, the name of Theodorus had beene blotted out of the Ecclesiasticall tables, the judgement of which Synod the Emperor sent c 1.1218 to Vigilius to assure him of the truth thereof, that hee might with more constancie continue to cōdemne the Three Chapters. In the tenth Victor declares that the Emperor sent for Reparatus and Firmus two Primates, for Primasius, & Verecundus, two Bishops to deale with them, that they would condemne the same Chapters, and that Zoilus Patriarch of Alexandria, for refusing to condemne them was deposed, which to have beene done by the Emperors command, d 1.1219 Liberatus sheweth. In the eleventh, which was the next before the generall Councell, Victor tells us, both that Firmus Primate of Numidia being wonne e 1.1220 by the Emperors gifts (so hee partially writeth) consented

to condemne the Chapters, but Primasius, Verecundus, and Macarius for not consenting, were all banished. So cleare and undoubted it is that the Emperor continued so constant in his condemning of these Chapters, that for every yeare 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 shamelesse untruths of the Baronian narration is demonstrated. He tells you, and tells it with a Constat, that in the next yeare before the fift Councell, the Emperour recalled his Edict, and abrogated what he had done in this cause of the 3. Chapters, where∣as not onely the whole generall Councell testifieth on the contra∣ry, that hee still persisted constant in condemning of them, but Victor (one who had good reason to know these matters, as feeling the smart of the Emperors severity for his obstinacie in defending those Chapters) particularly witnesseth of that very yeare, that the Empe∣ror was so eager in maintaining his Edict, and condemning the Chap∣ters, that he both drew Firmus, the Primate of Numidia to his opiniō, and banished Macarius Patriarch of Ierusalem, Verecundus Bishop of Nica, and Primasius another Bishop, because they would not consent to his Edict, and condemne the same Chapters. And what a brain∣lesse devise was this, that the Emperor in his 25. yeare should hang out his Edict, at Constantinople, so the Cardinall f 1.1221 fableth, as a matter of some great noveltie, to bee published to the Citie, whereas his E∣dict foure or five yeares before, was so divulged throughout the whole Church, that none may be thought to have beene ignorant thereof, seeing universus g 1.1222 orbis Catholicus, the whole Catholike Church was divided and rent into a schisme about that Edict, the one halfe de∣fending, the other oppugning the same? Or what reason can the fabler give, why Vigilius should in the 25. yeare quarrell with the Emperor, rather then in the 24.23.22. in every one of which, Iustinian was the same man, constant in maintaining the truth published by his Edict? Did the hanging out of the Edict, more provoke the Popes zeale then the banishing, imprisoning of those who withstood the Edict? more then the Emperors enforcing, and compelling, omnes antistites, all the Bishops to condemne the Three Chapters? But enough of Iustinian, to manifest that he never observed this fictitious Decree of Taci∣turnitie.

14. After the Emperor and Pope, let us see if Catholikes, that is, those who condemned the three Chapters, did observe this Decree. They did not: but like the Emperour, they constantly continued to speake, to write against them as well after as before the time of this supposed Decree, it stopt not the mouth of any one of them; Not of Mennas, not of Theodorus h 1.1223, whom, i 1.1224 for talking so much against those Chapters Vigilius suspended, and excommunicated, as the Ba∣ronian narration tells you, not of the other Bishops, subject to thē, for Vigilius used the very same censure against them also, for their con∣demning of those Chapters, We, saith k 1.1225 Vigilius, condemne thee O Men∣nas, with all the Bishops pertaining to thy Diocesse, yea, we condemne also thy fellow Eastern Bishops though of diverse provinces, be they of grea∣ter

or lesser Cities, wee condemne and excommunicate them all. Neither did they begin to condemne the Chapters, in that 25. yeare, wherein this sentence, by the accoumpt of Baronius was pronounced, but they did this ever since the time, that the Decree of Silence is suppo∣sed to bee made; for Vigilius there saith l 1.1226 to Theodorus, wee have declared pene hoc quinquennio elapso, almost these five yeares last past, our longanimitie and patience both towards you, and towards those who have beene seduced by you; which five yeares being reckned backe, will fall out in the 21. yeare of Iustinian, even from that yeare (and then was the decree of Silence said to bee published) did the Eastern Bishops continue to speake against, and condemne the three Chapters. Now although this against Baronius, who applaudes that sentence and writing of Vigilius, bee sufficient, yet because it is onely argumentum ad hominem, I will adde a more weightie testimonie to cleare this matter, concerning Catholikes, & that is, of the whole fift generall Councell, which saith m 1.1227, the Emperor doth manifest quod nec quenquam latuit, that whereof no man is ignorant, that the impietie of these Chapters, ab initio aliena est à sancta Dei ecclesia, is strange, and hath beene disliked by the holy Church, ever since the controversie about them hath beene moved. Then certainely no Catholike, none Catholikely affected at any time forbore to condemne them, not one of them observed that Decree of Silence.

15. All the Cardinalls hope is now in the Defenders of these Chap∣ters; they no doubt would bee willing to obey this Pontificall and Synodall Decree; seeing for the most part, they were Africane, Illy∣rian, & 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 farre more eager in defending the Three Chapters, then ever they were before. For now, besides the defending of those Chapters, they boldly and bitterly invaighed against Vigilius himselfe, because he condemned the same. This n 1.1228 did Liberatus at Carthage, at Tunen Victor, at Constantinople Facundus, the Popes owne orator, (who now having turnd his stile, whetted it as sharpe against the Pope, as before he had done at the Popes command against the Emperor) yea the Popes owne Romane Deacons, Rusticus and Sebastianus, besides others, freely, and openly declamed o 1.1229 against the Pope, as one, who by condemning the 3. Chapters, did condemne the Councell of Chalcedon: nay, they proceeded even to flout and taunt the Pope, for his condemning of those Chapters, deriding his sen∣tence against Theodorus of Mopsvestia being dead, in this manner p 1.1230, the Pope should have condemned not onely the person, and writings of Theodorus, sed & territorium ipsum ubi positus est, but even the very ground also where hee was buried, adding, that if any could finde but the bones of Theodorus, (though now accursed by the Pope) gratanter acci∣perent, they would very lovingly embrace them and keepe them for holy relickes.

16. And what speake I of a few particular men? In the 23. yeare of Iustinian, that is, in the second yeare after the supposed Decree, the

Illyrian y 1.1231 Bishops held a Synod, by which was both writ a booke in defence of those Chapters, and sent unto the Emperor, and Benenatus Bishop of Iustineanca, was condemned by the same Synod, because hee spake against those Chapters. The next yeare z 1.1232 after that, did the Africane Bishops hold a Synod, wherein they did nominatim, and ex∣presly condemne Pope Vigilius, excommunicate him, and shut him out of their communion, because he was one of those who con∣demned the Three Chapters, as Victor Bishop of Tunea, who as it seemes was present in that Synod, doth testifie. Now seeing the Cardinall professeth a 1.1233 that these divisions, and contentions were among Catho∣likes, pugnantibus inter se orthodoxis, orthodoxall Bishops and Catholikes they were, who at this time fought one against another, yea and by his po∣sition, Schismaticall they were not, because b 1.1234 the Pope had not yet given his last sentence. If one lifted to digresse, here were a fit occa∣sion to make a little sport with his Cardinalship, upon whose asserti∣on it clearely ensueth, that a Synod, even an Africane Synod (which with them is more) yea the whole Church of Africke, 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 beene very good Catholikes, and nei∣ther heretickes, nor schismatickes. But of that point I have before in∣treated. This onely I doe now observe, that by the view and consi∣deration 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 Orthodoxall professors, & such as before condem∣ned the Chapters, not the hereticall defenders of them: All these (and in one of these rankes, were comprehended all Christians at that time) by their speeches, by their writings, by their actions, by their Sy∣nodall decrees and judgements, doe evidently witnesse that there was no such decree of Silence ever made, which without all question a∣mongst some one order and degree or other, would have been obser∣ved, and taken effect.

17. To these I will adde one other reason, taken from the weak∣nesse, and unsoundnesse of that ground whereon the Cardinall hath framed this whole narration. He tells c 1.1235 us that this Decree of Silence, the Synod wherein it was made, and divers of the consequents (for some are of the Cardinalls owne invention) are testified by certaine publike acts or Records, to wit, those which contained the sentence and Pontificall Constitution d 1.1236 of Pope Vigilius against Mennas, Theodo∣rus, and the rest. In those acts indeed a good part of this Baronian fable is related, how Mennas, Dacius, and many other both Greeke and Latine Bishops were present in this Synod, at the making of this Decree: how Theodorus, e 1.1237 and other Eastern Bishops had dealt for the space of five yeares against that Decree: how the Pope f 1.1238 after five yeares toleration and longanimitie, called an other Synod, and ther∣in 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 publike Acts

of Baronius to bee no other than forgeries, I thinke none will make doubt, but that all the rest of the Baronian narration which relyes hereon, is a very fiction.

18. But can those publike Acts be convinced for such? they may; and that most evidently, besides many other meanes, 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 yeare of Iusti∣nian, for so in the date g 1.1239 of them is expressed; nor can it bee supposed that there is any error either in the writer or Printer, for both the Consular yeare is also added h 1.1240, to wit, the tenth after the Coss. of Ba∣silius, which answereth to the 25 of Iustinian, and the Pope accounts there almost five i 1.1241 yeares, since the Decree of Silence was made; which being placed by Baronius k 1.1242 in the 21, the fift current yeare after it, will directly fal to be the 25 year. So in the 25 of Iustinian did the Pope ex∣cōmunicate Mennas; yea, write and send this Excommunication unto him, saying unto him in this l 1.1243 manner, Te{que} Mennam tamdin à sacra com∣munione suspendimus; we suspend thee O Mennas, and all the other Bishops in thy Diocesse, so long untill every one of you acknowledging his er∣rour shall make competent satisfaction for his owne fault, which satisfaction, and submission to have beene performed by Mennas in the next yeare, to wit, the 26 of Iustinian, Baronius m 1.1244 with great pompe declareth. Now Mennas dyed five yeares before he offered this booke of supplication, or submitted himself to Vigilius; & 4. before the Pope sent out this Excommunication unto him, with that admonition to submit himselfe; for it is certainly testified by the Popes Legates in the sixt generall Councell, that Mennas dyed in the 21 yeare of Iusti∣nian. In that Councell n 1.1245 a sermon or speech going under the name of Mennas, to Vigilius, was produced as a part of the Acts of the fift Councell, the Legates of Pope Agatho cryed out before the Emperor and the whole Councell, that it was a forgery: which they proved o 1.1246, and that most manifestly, because Mennas dyed in the 21 yeare of Iustinian, but the fift Synod was congregated in the 26 yeare, which ended on the first of Aprill, though the first Session of the Synod was not held till the May next after, which was in the 27 yeare of Iustinian. Thus testified the Popes owne Legates; and the Emperour, with the whole Synod, upon their evidence, rejected their writing for a for∣gerie.

19. Said I not truly unto you, that the Baronian narration was a peece of rare Poetry? might not a meane Poet make an excellent Tra∣gedy of it? were it not a fine Pageant, to see the Pope, and so many Bishops sit in Vtopia, and there make a law for Taciturnity, the Em∣perour, the Senate, and people consenting unto it? would it not bee another, and farre more delightfull Act, to see the Pope and Empe∣rour quarrelling about this law; the one beating, buffeting, and per∣secuting; 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 Romane Apollo ascend into his Delphi∣an throne, and thence, as from Olympus, cast his fierie darts, his thun∣ders

and lightnings against that Typhoëan generation, which durst speake when he enjoyned silence? Now the embassage which the Emperour sent to Chalcedon to intreat his Holinesse to returne, the magnanimity of the Pope in refusing to come from the Altar, the Emperours yeelding to all that he prescribed; this of it selfe would incourage a Poet, and cause him to presume of an applause: But the most rare Pageant of all would bee, to see and heare Mennas, foure yeares after he was dead and rotten, to speake and dispute against the Decree of Silence (the Silentes umbrae, to declame against Silence) to see him a Bishop, a Patriarch, at the voyce of the Popes sentence; Au∣disne 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 Romane Iove, and intreat pardon for his talking so much in the grave, and among the infernall ghosts, against the Popes Decree of Silence; & after all this to see the Pope shake hands with him, and all his Metropolitanes, and Micropolitanes p 1.1247, (note the eloquence of the Pope), and so, after a most joyfull reconcilement, to see the holy Re∣liques caried in a golden Chariot (an excellent dumbe shew) about the City, and that by a dead man; Can you doe lesse than give the Poet Baronius a Plaudite for his so rare invention, or contriving of this Fable?

20. Why, but is it credible that Cardinall Baronius, the great An∣nalist of our age, hee who bestowed thirty q 1.1248 yeares in the study of these Ecclesiasticall affaires, that hee should so foully be overseene in a computation so easie, and so obvious, as to thinke Mennas to bee ex∣communicated, to come with a supplication to the Pope, and to ride in a triumphant Chariot, with those holy reliques, foure or five yeares after he was dead and rotten? Overseene? nothing lesse: It was no ig∣norance, no oversight in him; he knew all this matter ad unguem, hee knew that Mennas was dead long before that submission, and triumph: But the Cardinall was disposed, either to recreate the reader with the contemplation of this his Poetical fiction, or else for to shew you, that, with the charme of those forgeries, and counterfeit writings, with which he hath stuffed his Annals, hee is able to metamorphoze all other men into very blocks and beetles, that they shall applaud his most absurd dotages as undoubted and historicall 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 Cardinall is content that you should thinke Mennas to have been alive in the 26. r 1.1249 year of Iustinian, that is, five years after he was dead, for otherwise all his narration, even the whole play had been spoiled, there had neither beene any Decree of Silence, nor any persecution by Iustinian, nor any flight of Vigilius, nor any excommunication of Mennas or Theodorus, nor any submission of them, and of the Empe∣rour also to the Pope, the Pope had not beene knowne to bee so farre above Bishops, Patriarks, and Emperours, that they must all stoope 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 Holi∣nesse leave and licence, yea, that Kings must pull downe, abrogate,

and adnull their imperiall Edicts, if the Pope doe but becke unto them; though, for these considerations, hee is here willing that you beleeve that untruth concerning Mennas, for all these depend on that one sentence of Anathema against Mennas; yet, when this matter is over-past, when the Cardinall comes to a new argument, where hee hopes, this, which is said about the cause of Vigilius, wil be forgotten, there he confesseth the truth indeed concerning Mennas, and tels you a quite contrary tale: For intreating of the Acts of the sixt Councel, & particularly of that reason of the Popes Legates against the forged E∣pistle in Mennas name, he thus s 1.1250 saith, Ejusque rei certum illud attule∣runt argumentum, quod Mennas diem obijt anno 21 Iustiniani Imperatoris: The Legates give a certaine proofe, that the writing was forged, because Mennas dyed in the 21 yeare of Iustinian the Emperour. Loe, the Cardi∣nall knew, and professeth it to bee, not onely true, but certaine, that Mennas dyed in the 21 yeare of Iustinian, and yet against his owne cer∣tain knowledge, for maintaining this fictitious Decree of Silence, and the fables thereon depending, he perswades you to beleeve that Men∣nas dealt against this Decree, was excommunicated by Vigilius, and submitted himselfe to the Pope, and rode with the relikes five yeares after he was dead.

21. Truly this was scarse faire and honest dealing in the Cardinall, by untruths to strive to bolster out forged Acts and writing: But the Cardinals Annals are so full of such like stuffe, that, if you divide them into foure parts, I doe constantly affirme there is no more truth in three of those foure, than you have seene to bee in this fable, which from a most base forgery, knowne also to the Cardinall for such, hee hath commended for a grave and authentike history unto us: And I should grow somewhat out of patience to see the Cardinall so grosly contradict, both the truth, and his owne writings also, but that, by my long and serious tossing of his bookes, I perceive this is so fami∣liar a tricke with him, that, for the usuall meeting of it, I have long since forgotten to be angry with him for such pettie faults. This I hope, which hath beene declared, will serve for a caveat unto all, to take heed how they credit any matter whatsoever upon the Cardinals relation: either it is in it selfe untrue, or it springs from some untruth, or by his purpose in relating it, it is made to serve but for a pully to draw you into some untruth, aut aliquis latet dolus, either in the head or taile there is a sting, beleeve him not. And I would also have added somewhat for Binius, who in this t 1.1251, as in other fancies and fables, ap∣plauds Baronius; but I suppose, that as hee sucketh his errours from Baronius, so hee will thinke, that the refuting of Baronius is a sufficient warning for him to purge his Edition of the Councels from such vile and shamelesse untruths. Thus much of that former point which con∣cernes the second Period in Vigilius changings.

CAP. XVII. That Vigilius, neither by his Pontificall Decree, nor so much as by a perso∣nall profession consented to, or confirmed the fift Councell, after the end thereof, or after his supposed exile.

1. THE other point proposed concernes that fourth and last change of Vigilius judgement, whereby, as Baronius a 1.1252 tels us, he, by his Apo∣stolicall Decree b 1.1253 confirmed the fift Councell, when, about a yeare c 1.1254 after the end thereof, he returned out of exile. That such a change of Vigilius can no way helpe Baronius, or his cause, though it should be granted unto him, we have before d 1.1255 declared; but because al which we then said was one∣ly spoken upon a supposall 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 fift Councell change his judge∣ment, in such sort, that he became a condemner of the Three Chapters, and an approver of the fift Synod. And truly I could wish so much good to Vigilius, as that there might appeare some cleare, and ancient records, to testifie his renouncing of heresie, and condemning of his owne hereticall and Cathedrall decree, published in the time of the Councell, 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 discusse this point, I must needs confesse, that I can finde nothing at all, which can effectu∣ally induce mee to beleeve it, but there are many and pregnant rea∣sons which inforce me to thinke, 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 peece of the Cardinals owne Poetry, which, without all warrant or ground from any ancient wri∣ter, hee, like a Spider, onely out of his owne braine hath woven and devised.

2. That Vigilius made no such Decree, the reason w^ch Bar. gives 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 1.1256, If Vigilius had then assented by his letters, utique literae illae Actis fuissent intextae; verily those letters, purchased with so great labour, would have beene inserted among the Acts of the fift Synod, and a great number of copies would have been taken thereof, spred abroad, and made knowne 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 fift 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 al, or not a yeare after, as that he made it not within one or two moneths after the end of the Synod? with what labour, at what price would not the Bishops of the fift 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 testifie the truth of their Synodall judgement, and that the infallible Iudge had consented to their sentence, and confirmed the same. Or would they have done this within a month, and not a yeare 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 1.1257, whereof the Cardinall speaketh, was not written till five g 1.1258 moneths after the end of the Councell at Chalcedon, and yet was it annexed to the acts thereof. If then the Cardinalls reason bee of force to prove that hee writ not this Decree shortly after the Synod, it is altogether as effe∣ctuall to prove he writ it not at all, nor after his returne about a year after out of exile.

3. The Cardinall gives yet another evidence hereof, Pelagius, saith he h 1.1259, the successor of Vigilius did thinke it fit, that the fift Synod should bee approved, and the three Chapters condemned, moved especially hereunto by this reason, that the Easterne Church, ob Vigilij constitutum schismate scissa, being rent and divided from the Romane by reason of the Constitution of Vi∣gilius, might be united unto it. How was the Easterne Church divided from the Romane in the time of Pelagius, by reason of that decree of Vigilius in defence of the Three Chapters, if Vigilius by another decree published after it had recalled, and adnulled it? If the Popes condemning of those Chapters, and approving of the fift Councell could unite the Churches, then the decree of Vigilius (had there beene any such) would have effected that union. If the Apostolike Decree of Vigilius could not effect it, in vaine it was for Pelagius to thinke by his approbation, which could have no more authority then Apostoli∣call, to effect that union. If the cause of the breach and disunion of those Churches was, as Baronius truly saith, the Constitution of Vigilius in defence of the Three Chapters, against the judgement of the fift Sy∣nod, seeing it is cleare by the Cardinalls owne confession, that the disunion continued till after the death of Vigilius, it certainly hence followeth, that the Constitution of Vigilius, which was the cause of that breach, was never by himselfe repealed, which even in Pelagius time remained in force, and was then a wall of separation of the Ea∣sterne, from the Westerne Church. Againe, if the Popes approving the fift Councell, and condemning the three Chapters was, as in truth it was, and as the Cardinall noteth i 1.1260 it to have beene, the cause to u∣nite those Churches, seeing by his owne confession in Vigilius time they were not united (for Pelagius k 1.1261 after Vigilius his death, sought to take away that schisme) it certainly hence followeth, that Vigilius never by any Decree approved that Synod, and their Synodall con∣demning of those Chapters: for had he so done, the union had in his time presently beene effected.

4. The same may be perceived also by the Westerne Church. For as that Pontificall decree of Vigilius (had there beene any such) would have united the Easterne, so much more would it have drawne the Westerne, the Italian, and specially the Romane Church, to consent to the fift Councell, and condemning of the three Chapters: but that they persisted in the defence of the three Chapters, and that also to the very end of Vigilius his life, may divers wayes be made evident. Whē Pelagius being then but a Deacon was chosen Pope after the death of Vigilius, and was to be consecrated Bishop; there could no more then two Bishops l 1.1262 be found in the Westerne Church that would conse∣crate or ordaine him Bishop: wherefore contrary to that Canon both of the Apostles m 1.1263 and Nicene Fathers n 1.1264, requiring three o 1.1265 Bishops to the consecration of a Bishop (which they so often boast p 1.1266 of in their disputes against us) the Pope himselfe was faine to be ordained onely by two Bishops, with a Presbyter of Ostia in stead of the third. Anasta∣sius very ignorantly, (if not worse) sets downe the reason thereof to have beene, for that Pelagius was suspected q 1.1267 to have beene guilty (by poison or some other way) of the death of Vigilius. A very idle fan∣cie, as is the most in Anastasius; for Pelagius was in banishment long before the death of Vigilius, and there continued till Vigilius r 1.1268 was dead, he had little leisure nor oportunity to thinke of poisoning or murdering his owne Bishop; by whose death he could expect no gaine. The true cause why the Westerne Bishops distasted Pelagius, is noted by Victor who then lived. Hee s 1.1269 before hee came from Constanti∣nople consented to the fift Synod, and condemned the Three Chapters. Now the Westerne t 1.1270 Bishops so detested the fift Synod, and those who with it condemned those Chapters, that among them all there could be found but two Bishops who held with the Synod, and so allowed of Pelagius and his act in consenting thereunto, and those two with the Presbyter of Ostia, were the ordainers of Pelagius, whom Victor in his corrupted language calls prevaricators. Let any man now consider with himselfe, whether it bee credible that in all Italy, and some Pro∣vinces adjoyning, there should be but two Bishops who would consēt to the Apostolicall decree of Vigilius, for approving the fift Councell, if he had indeed published such a decree. If they knew not the Popes sen∣tence in this cause (which they held, and that rightly, for a cause of faith) to be infallible, how was not the westerne or the Romane Church hereticall at this time, not knowing that point of faith, which is the transcendent principle and foundation of all doctrines of faith? If they knew it to bee infallible, seeing his judgement must then over∣sway their owne, how could there bee no more but two bishops found among them all, who approved the Popes Cathedrall sentence, and consented to his infallible judgement? Seeing then it is certaine that the Westerne Church did generally reject the fift Synod, after the death of Vigilius, and seeing it is not to bee thought

that they would have persisted in such a generall dislike thereof had they knowne Vigilius to have by his Apostolicall sentence decreed, that all should approve the same, of which his sentence (had there been any such) they could not have beene ignorant (for if by no other meanes, which were very many, Pelagius himselfe would have brought and assuredly made knowne the same unto them) this their generall rejection of the fift Synod, is an evident proofe that this Baronian de∣cree which hee ascribeth to Vigilius is no better then the former of si∣lence, both untrue, both fictitious, and of the two, this the far worse, seeing for this the Cardinall hath not so much as any one, no not a for∣ged writing, on which he may ground it, it is wholy devised by him∣selfe, he the onely Poet or maker of this fable.

5. To this may be added that which is mentioned in u 1.1271 Bede concer∣ning the Councell of Aquileia in Italy. That Councell was held neare about, or rather, as by x 1.1272 Sigonius narration it appeareth, after the death of Vigilius; and in it were present Honoratus Bishop of Millan, Macedo∣nius B. of Aquileia, Maximianus B. of Ravenna, besides many other Bi∣shops of Liguria, Venice and Istria. These being as Bede y 1.1273 saith, unskil∣full of the faith, doubted to approve the fift Synod; nay, Concilium il∣lud z 1.1274 non observandum esse statuêre, they decreed that the fift Synod should not be allowed or received. What? would so many Italian Bishops in an Italian Councell decree the quite contradictory to the Popes known judiciall sentence in a cause of faith? the Pope decreed (as Baronius saith) that the fift Councell ought to be imbraced. The Italian Synod decreeth that the fift Councell ought to be rejected. Neither onely did they thus decree, but as Bede a 1.1275 noteth, they continued in this opi∣nion, donec salutaribus beati Pelagij b 1.1276 monitis instructa consensit, untill be∣ing instructed by the wholsome admonitions of Pope Pelagius, they consented to the fift Councell, as other Churches did. Now this Pelagius of whom Bede speaketh, was Pelagius the second, who was not Pope till more then 20. c 1.1277 yeares after the death of Vigilius. He to reclame those Bi∣shops of Istria, Venice, and Liguria, writ a very large and decretall E∣pistle d 1.1278 (which Binius e 1.1279 compares to that of Leo to Flavianus) wherin he declares every one of those Three Chapters, to be repugnant to the faith and decrees of the ancient Councells. By this decretall instruc∣tion of Pelagius the second, were those Italian defenders of the Three Chapters, after twenty yeares, and more, reduced as Bede noteth, to the unity of the Church, and to approve of the fift Councell. Had Vigilius made, as Baronius fancieth, the like decree, why tooke it not the like effect in those Westerne Bishops? was there more then Apostolicall authority and instruction in the decree of Pelagius? or was there lesse then that in the decree of Vigilius?

6. Nay there is another speciall point to bee observed concerning that Epistle of Pelagius, Elias Bishop of Aquileia, and the rest who de∣fended the three Chapters, among other reasons urged the authority of Vigilius f 1.1280 on their part, therby countenancing their error, in that they taught no other doctrine in defending those Chapters then the Apostolicall See had taught by Vigilius; thus writ they in their Apology which they sent to Pelagius, ayming no doubt at that Apostolicall Constitution of Vigilius

published in the time of the Councell, whereby hee decreed that the Three Chapters ought by all to be defended: for that was it as the Car∣dinall g 1.1281 saith, which moved, nay enforced all to follow that opinion, and to de∣fend the Three Chapters. What doth Pelagius now answer to this rea∣son? Truly had Vigilius made any such later Decree, as the Cardinall fancieth, by which he had approved the fift Synod, and so both con∣demned the three Chapters, and repealed his owne former judgement in defence thereof; neither could Pelagius have beene ignorant of that decree, neither would he, being so earnestly pressed therewith, have omitted that oportunity, both to grace Vigilius, and most ef∣fectually confute that which was the speciall reason on which his op∣posites did relye. Could he have truly replyed, that Vigilius himselfe upon better advise had recalled his Decree made in defence of those Chapters, and by his last Apostolicall judgement condemned the same Chapters, this had cut insunder the very sinewes of that objection. But Pelagius returnes them not this answer, but knowing that to bee true which they said of Vigilius, hee tells them (which is a point wor∣thy observing) that the Apostolike See might change h 1.1282 their judgement in this cause (and this even by Pelagius himselfe is a cause of faith,) and that the ignorance of the Greeke i 1.1283 in the Westerne Bishops was the cause why they so lately consented to the fift Synod. And so though Vigilius had jud∣ged that the Three Chapters ought to be defended, yet the successors of Vigilius might long after, as they did, k 1.1284 teach, and himselfe define, that the same Chapters ought to bee condemned, and that the fift Councell wherein they were condemned, ought to bee approved. A very strong inducement, that Pelagius knew not, and then that Vigi∣lius made not any such Decree as the Cardinall commendeth unto us.

7. For any Apostolicall Decree then, whereby Vigilius after his exile recalled his former judgment, or approved the fift Councell, there was none, as besides those reasons which the Cardinall himselfe gi∣veth, the persisting of the Westerne Churches in defence of those Chapters, not onely 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 onely by some private or perso∣nall, but not by any decretall or Pontificall approbation. And if the reasons or pretences of Baronius prove ought at all, this is the most that can be collected from them. And this though wee should grant and yeeld unto them, yet can it no way helpe their cause, or excuse the Popes Cathedrall judgment from being fallible, onely it would serve, to save Vigilius himselfe from dying an heretike, or under the Anathe∣ma of the holy Councell. For as they teach, and teach it with osten∣tation, as a matter of great wit and subtilty, that the Pope may erre personally, or in his owne person hold an heresie, which onely hurts himselfe, and not the Church, but erre doctrinally, or judicially define an heresie he cannot, even so (to pay them with their owne coine) might it fall out at this time with Vigilius; hee being wearied with long exile, might perhaps for his owne person condemne the Three Chapters, and approve the Synod, which may be called a personall truth, or a personal profession in the Pope, the benefit wherof

was onely to redound to himselfe, either to free him from the cen∣sure of the Synod, or procure the Emperors favour, & goodwill, that he might returne home to his See, but that this professing (supposing he made it) was doctrinall or Cathedrall, delivered ex officio by the Pope as Pope, so that by it he entended to bind the whole Church to doe the like, neither Baronius, nor any of all his favourers can ever prove. Now were I sure that the Cardinall, or his friends, would be content with this grant of a personall truth in Pope Vigilius, I could be willing to let it passe for currant without further examination. But alas, they are no men of such low thoughts and lookes, their eyes are ever upon the Supremacie and Infallibilitie of the Popes judgement: As personall errors hurt them not, so personall truths helpe them not, Baronius will either have this consent of Vigilius to bee Iudiciall, Doctrinall, Aposto∣licall l 1.1285, and Cathedrall, or he will have none at all. And therefore to de∣monstrate how farre Vigilius was frō decreeing this, I will now enter into a further discussion of this point then I first intended, not doubt∣ing to make it evident, that none of all the Cardinalls reasons are of force to prove so much as a private or personall consent in Vigilius to condemne the Three Chapters, and approve the fift Councell, after the end of the fift Synod, or after that exile which the Cardinall so often mentioneth.

8. The Cardinalls reasons to prove this, are three: The first is taken from the testimonie of Evagrius m 1.1286, who then lived. Nicephorus, Cedrenus, Zonaras, Photius, and all Greeke writers, Graeci n 1.1287 omnes affir∣mant, they all testifie Vigilius to have assented to this fift Councell, and that by letters, or by a booke, whence the Cardinall 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 1.1288 id ab ipso factū esse hoc tempore, cum ab exilio solutus est, liberque dimissus; It must of necessitie 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 beleeve to have been so simple and ignorant, as that he knew not, how lame, defective, and unsound this his necessarie collection was. That his Necesse est, is meerly incon∣sequent, it is not so good as Contingens est. That Vigilius consented by a booke, or letters, to the Synod, is certaine, none that I know makes doubt of it, and that is all that Evagrius, or any of his other witnesses affirme: but neither Evagrius, nor any one of them saith, that Vigilius consented to the Synod after the end thereof, or after he was sent in∣to banishment: this and this onely is it which wee deny, and which Baronius undertakes to prove: but when he comes to his proofe, hee still, and that most fraudulently, omitteth this which is the principall, nay the onely verbe in the sentence. And to prove that Vigilius con∣sented to the Synod in condemning the three Chapters, what needed the Cardinall to cite all, or any one of the Greeke writers? The very Acts of the fift Councell doe often and expresly testifie this, Vigilius hath q 1.1289 often by writings, without writing condemned, and anathe∣matized the Three Chapters. In the very Synodall sentence, q 1.1290 it is said, It hath happened that Vigilius, living in this City, hath beene 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 shew out of Vigilius own writings, that he consented with the Councell in condemning the three Chapters, the very letters of Vigilius, which were read in that seventh Collation, do clearely witnesse his consent and judgement in condemning those Chapters. The Councell condemnes them, Vigilius condemnes them; Doth not Vigilius consent to, and with the Synod? Did he not per li∣bellum, & literas, expresse that assent, when his owne Epistles testifie 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 Councell 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 cōming to Con∣stantinople, untill the Councell met together, all that time he consen∣ted in judgement with the Councell, he condemned the Chapters, as the Councell did. But at the time of the Councell, when Vigilius should have consented also in making the Synodall Decree for con∣demning of those Chapters, then hee dissented from the Synod and published an Apostolicall Constitution in defence of the Three Chapters. So he both consented and that by letters, yea by his Decree, with the Synod, and withall he dissented, and that also by his Decree, from the Synod. His consent, which the Synodall Acts doe shew and testi∣fie, Evagrius and the rest who saw and therein followed the Acts, report and that truly. His dissent, which his owne Apostolicall Consti∣tution kept in their Vaticane doth shew and testifie, & which in likely∣hood 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 intreat, which may appeare even by the very words of Evagrius. Vigilius r 1.1291 per liter as consensit Concilio, non tamen interesse voluit. He saith not, Vigilius would not be present at the Councell, but after the end of it hee consented by letters, unto it, (this is the false and corrupt glosse of Baronius) but Vigilius con∣sented to the Councell by his letters, but would not be present. His consent by letters was the former, his deniall to come was the later. For when Evagrius saith, consensit, sed noluit interesse, he plainely shew∣eth that Vigilius might have beene present in the Councell, as well as have consented by his letters, he might, but he would not: now had his consent beene after his returne from exile, that is, an whole yeare after the end of the Councell, Vigilius could not possibly, though hee would never so gladly, have beene present in the Councell, nor would Evagrius have said, consensit sed noluit interesse, but hee should have said, consensit sed non potuit interesse, hee consented indeed with the Sy∣nod, but he could not be present in it, because when he consented, the Sy∣nod was dissolved, and ended a yeare before. The sense in Nicephorus

is the very same, but his words a little more cleare, Vigilius, saith he s 1.1292, et si scripto interveniente cum Eutichio conveniret, assidere tamen illi noluit, although he agreed with Eutichius, by a writing, (this as it seemes was his Epistle to Rusticus and Sebastianus read in the Synod) yet hee would not sit with him in the Councell. Importing hereby that Vigilius might also have sitten with Eutichius, when hee consented in doctrine with him, but he would not: which is evidently to bee 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 1.1293 Vigilius was not for∣ward to come to the sacred assembly, communem tamen patrum fidem li∣bello confirmavit, yet he confirmed the same common faith, (marke, the same faith, so he accounts the cause of the Three Chapters to be a cause of faith, and the condemning of them to bee the confirming of the faith) by a booke, which booke is the same that Evagrius and Nicephorus meant, the booke, Epistle, or Constitution of Vigilius, made before the time of the Councell, 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 Cardinall u 1.1294 adds, that Graeci omnes de con∣sensione Vigilij affirment, that all Greeke writers affirme Vigilius to have consented to the Councell, it is nothing but an untrue, and vaine bragge of Baronius to downeface the truth, for Zonaras affirmes it not, nor Cedrenus (and yet both these are expresly named by the Cardinall to write this) nor Glicas, nor Constantinus Manasses, nor the Cardinalls owne Theophanes. And yet if we should admit them to say the like, or the same with Evagrius, Nicephorus, and Photius, that Vigilius did con∣sent to the Synod by a booke or letters, yet what one of all the Greek writers, yea or Latine either, can the Cardinall produce to say that which he doth, that Vigilius after the end of the Synod, or after hee was sent into banishment, consented to the Synod? That by his pre∣cedent letters, and judiciall sentence he consented to the same faith, which the Synod decreed, is true; this the Cardinall doth, but should not prove; but that by a subsequent cōsent or writing he approved the Synod after his owne exile, this none of the Cardinals witnesses af∣firme, this the Cardinall should, but neither doth nor can prove.

11. His second reason is taken from the fact of Iustinian in restore∣ing Vigilius. The Emperor, saith he x 1.1295, was most carefull 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 hee have endured Vigilius to have beene freed from exile, & to returne into the West, nisi consensisset, unlesse he had consented to the Synod? Seeing otherwise Vigilius would have stird up all the Bishops in the West against the Emperors Edict, and the Synodall sentence. Now that the Emperor did free Vigilius from exile, and permit him to returne to the West, Baronius y 1.1296 proves that, by Anastasius z 1.1297, out of whom hee relates, that the whole Romane Clergie entreated Narses that he would be a meanes to the Emperor to restore unto thē Vigilius, & the rest who were banished with him. The Emperor at the entreatie of Narses sent presently to Gissa, Pro∣conesus, and other places, and called them to him who were banished, and

put it to their choice, whether a 1.1298 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 1.1299 home with Vigilius. Nay the Emperor did not onely restore him, and send him home, but granted c 1.1300 divers matters (gifts, rewards, and Priviledges, as Binius d 1.1301 calleth them) and at his entreatie published a pragmaticall sanction for the affaires of Italie, as the words of the sanction, Pro petitione Vigilij, doe declare. Hence now doth the Card: make his inference, that absque e 1.1302 dubio, without all doubt Vigilius was very deare to the Emperor, seeing he granted such favours unto him, but there could have beene no friendship at all betwixt thē, unlesse Vigilius after his returne from exile, had consented to the Synod, and condemned the Three Chapters, seeing f 1.1303 his not consent∣ing thereunto, was the cause of his banishment, Thus Baronius: who hath very hansomely concluded, that absque dubio, Vigilius after his re∣turne out of exile, consented to the fift Councell. If now wee can clear this reason, wherein consists the whole pith of the Cardinals cause, I well hope that this consent of Vigilius, of which he so much boasteth, will be acknowledged to bee nothing else then a Baronian dreame.

12. And first admitting for a while the Cardinalls antecedent, the consequent sure is inconsequent. Iustinian might upon the entreatie of Narses, send Vigilius home, though Vigilius had not consented to the Synod after the end thereof. Narses was a man for his pietie, pru∣dence, fortitude, & felicitie in warre, exceedingly beloved & honored by Iustinian. They who are conversant in histories, are not ignorant that Emperors doe yeeld many times greater matters then the restoring of Vigilius, at the entreatie of such as Narses was. When the Romane Matrones g 1.1304 (their husbands not daring to motion such a mat∣ter) entreated Constantius to restore Liberius to his See, from which he was then banished, the Emperour, though he was most violently bent against Liberius, and had placed an other Bishop in his See, yet, as Theodoret writeth, sic inflectebatur, hee was so affected with their en∣treatie, that he yeelded to their request, thinking it fitter that there should be two Bishops at once in Rome, rather then he would seeme so obdurate and unkinde, as to deny that petition in the time of his triumph. It was as great incongruitie and disproportion in the go∣vernment of Constantius an Arian, to restore Liberius, then a Catho∣like, as for Iustinian being a Catholike Emperor, to restore Vigilius be∣ing now an hereticall Bishop. The hatred of Constantius to Liberius was farre greater, then Iustinians against Vigilius. The parties entreat∣ing are so unequall, that Constantius seemes to have yeelded onely for popularitie, and to get the opinion of courtisie, they having done no∣thing to merit such favour at his hands: but Narses had by his valor and late victories, not onely won great honor to Iustinian, and to the whole Empire, but had freed Italie from the servitude of the Gothes, and by that meanes, besides many other, had merited the love and fa∣vour of Iustinian, who might have seemed not onely unkind, but un∣just in denying the petition of one so well deserving.

13. Nay, what if the intreaty of Narses, and narration of Anasta∣sius

doe prove the quite contrary to that which Baronius from them collects, that Vigilius had not consented to the Synod when hee was restored upon that entreaty? Narses did this to gratifie h 1.1305 the Romane Clergy, and the Italian Bishops, who intreated him to bee a meanes 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 Easterne Churches, as Baronius i 1.1306 witnesseth. It had beene no gratifying, but a very heart griefe and vexation to such, to have Vigili∣us the condemner of those Chapters, that is, in their judgement, an he∣retike, restored unto them. It was Vigilius, the defender of those Chapters, whom they desired, for whom Narses intreated, and whom, if any, the Emperour upon his intreaty restored; which, by the Anasta∣sian narration, is made very evident, for he k 1.1307 sheweth, how the Em∣perour 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 re∣lease them; but, without any questioning of that matter, hee com∣mands that they, howsoever they stood affected, should be free, and brought out of banishment; when they were returned, did the Empe∣rour aske them one word, whether they would consent to the Synod, or no? He did not; but al that he demanded of them was this, vultis ha∣bere Vigilium, will yee have Vigilius to continue your Pope, as hee was before, or will you have Pelagius, who is here among you? A de∣monstration, that Vigilius had not then consented to the Synod, when the Emperor said this; for there was no cause, either to deprive Vigi∣lius, or elect any other in his roome, but his persisting in heresie; had he consented to the Synod, and condemned the Three Chapters, the Em∣peror should have done wrong unto him, to have suffered any other to have beene chosen: nay, the See being full, Pelagius could not, though all the banished Clergy had desired it, have beene chosen Bishop in his stead. Seeing then, both the Emperours words, and the answer of the Clergy, as Anastasius relateth them, doe shew, that if they had pleased they might lawfully have chosen another Pope; and seeing they could not by right have done that, unlesse Vigilius had continu∣ed in his pertinacious defence of heresie; even hereby it may bee per∣ceived, that at his restoring he persisted in the same hereticall minde of which he was before, and that hee had not then consented to the Synod, nor to the condemning of those Three Chapters. So blinded was the Cardinall in this cause, that he could not, or rather would not see how his owne reason, drawne from the intreaty of Narses, and the narration of Anastasius, doth quite overthrow the conclusion which by them he intended to confirme.

14. And all this have I said upon supposall onely of the truth of that narration touching Narses his intreatie, and the Emperors yeeld∣ing thereupon, to restore Vigilius out of exile. But now I must adde another answere, which I feare will bee much more displeasing to the Cardinal and his friends, and that is, that this whole narration touch∣ing the exile of Vigilius after the Synod, the intreaty of Narses, the re∣storing

him from that banishment, and the rest depending thereon, is all untrue, & fictitious, such as hath no ground in the whole world, but onely the Cardinals owne Poeticall pate: For the manifesting whereof I will insist on the two principall points in the Cardinals narration, the untruth of which being declared, all the rest will easily be acknowledged to bee untrue and fabulous.

15. The former concernes the restoring of Vigilius out of Banish∣ment. Baronius l 1.1308 following Anastasius, saith, that the Emperour, toge∣ther with Vigilius restored all the rest who were banished with him; Dimisit omnes cum Vigilio; and by name Pelagius is expressed to bee one of them; of whom the Emperour 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, witnesse whereof Victor Bishop of Tunea, who then lived, and who himselfe m 1.1309, after im∣prisonment and whipping was banished into three severall places, for defending the Three Chapters; and after that was brought to Constanti∣nople n 1.1310, where hee was an eye witnesse of the most things there hap∣pening about this cause. Hee having set downe the time of Vigilius death, that he dyed in Sicily, in the 16 d 1.1311 year after the Coss. of Basilius, addeth in the next yeare concerning Pelagius, that he, being that yeare called from banishment, which he sustained for defence of the Three Chapters, did then condemne 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 Pelagi∣us was then, and after that in exile? How did the Emperour dismisse them all, and particularly Pelagius, when Vigilius was sent home, see∣ing Pelagius remained in exile till Vigilius was dead? But that which I principally collect is this: Seeing Vigilius, by the Cardinals narration, was not freed from exile, nor consented to the Synod, but at the same time when Pelagius was released; and seeing it is certaine, by the te∣stimony of Victor, that Vigilius was not freed, nor consented unto the Synod at that time, (for Vigilius was dead before Pelagius was relea∣sed) it hence certainly ensueth, that Vigilius neither was freed from exile, nor at all consented unto the fift Synod after his exile.

16. The other, which is indeed the speciall point, concernes the banishment of Vigilius after the end of the Synod, which Baronius so often mentioneth, and on which depends the whole fable; this banish∣ment being in very deed nothing else than a Baronian fiction; the au∣thor, and the onely author whom Baronius names for proofe of this banishment, is Anastasius: and because the Cardinall in good discre∣tion would name the best author, and authority which hee had; him, whose antiquity and name might gaine credit to the narration: it is not to bee doubted but Anastasius was the best, most credible, and authentike author, which the Cardinall had for this banishment: of him then Baronius p 1.1312 saith thus, Liquet ex Anastasio Vigilium in exilium deportatum fuisse; It is evident by Anastasius, that Vigilius and those who were with him were caried into banishment. True; that is evident indeed by Anastasius: But why did the Cardinall omit the principall point to be proved? why said he not, Vigilius to have been caried into banish∣ment

after the end of the Synod, or caried 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 rea∣son herof? It is this, because, hoc non liquet ex Anastasio; nay, because, contrarium liquet ex Anastasio, Anastasius is so farre from saying as the Cardinall doth, that Vigilius was banished after the end of the Coun∣cell, or for not consenting to the Councell, that hee saith the quite contrary, and contradicteth all that the Cardinall hath said touching that banishment, both for the time, and for the cause thereof. The cause of the Anastasian banishment q 1.1313 of Vigilius was, for that hee refu∣sed to restore Anthimus to the See of Constantinople, whence hee was justly ejected by Pope Agapetus, and a generall Councell, more than ten r 1.1314 yeares before Vigilius came to Constantinople, and the time of this Anastasian banishment was two yeares after s 1.1315 Vigilius came to Con∣stantinople, and while Theodora t 1.1316 was alive, which was long before the fift Synod was assembled. This, and no other banishment of Vigilius is to be found in Anastasius; from this, and no other it is, that Anasta∣sius saith, he was freed by the entreaty of Narses, remaining an exile untill 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 1.1317 of the fift Synod, that is, about five x 1.1318 yeares after the death of Theodora; til then Baronius wil acknowledge no banishment of Vigi∣lius. The cause of the Baronian banishment was not Anthimus, nor the restoring of him, but onely y 1.1319 his not yeelding to the fift Synod, and refusing to condemne the Three Chapters. So the Cardinals owne wit∣nesse: yea, his onely witnesse is so farre from proving what hee pre∣tends, and affirmes, 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 intreaty he was released; then most certainly was hee not cast into banishment after the end of the fift Synod, not for refusing to consent therunto, which is the fiction of Baronius.

16. And for more evidence that the same which I said is the ba∣nishment by Anastasius, I might alleage Bellarmine z 1.1320, and others, but omitting them, let us heare that worthy author, to whom Binius a 1.1321 re∣ferres us concerning this matter; Nicholas Sanders, He b 1.1322 thus writeth; That Vigilius was sent into banishment, because he would not restore Anthi∣mus: the Romane Pontificall (so he cals the booke of Anastasius) doth testi∣fie; 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 Sige∣bert c 1.1323, who placeth his banishmēt divers years before the fift Councel; Albo d 1.1324 Floriacensis, who hath the same words with Anastasius, Naucle∣rus d 1.1325, Rhegino e 1.1326, Hermanus f 1.1327 Cōtractus, Gotofridus g 1.1328 Viterbiensis, Otho Fri∣singensis h 1.1329, Palmerius i 1.1330, their owne Genebrard k 1.1331, Stapleton l 1.1332, and many others: These following Anastasius, relate the cause of his banishmēt to have bin the not restoring of Anthimus; & the time, before the death of the Empresse Theodora. Nor can I finde so much as one, either an∣cient

or later writer, who saith, with Baronius, that hee was banished after the fift Councell, and for refusing to consent unto it; what a rare Poeticall conceit hath the Cardinall, who can make such a noble dis∣course of that fictitious banishment, and commend it as an historicall narration, for the warrant of which he had not so much as one wri∣ter, (and one is a small number) ancient or late, upon whose credit and authoritie he might report it; and for that one witnesse Anastasius, whom he nameth, he is so farre from testifying it, that he doth cleare∣ly testifie the quite contrary; yea, Baronius himselfe was not ignorant hereof, but knew right well Anastasius to referre m 1.1333 the beating of Vigi∣lius, his flight to Chalcedon, the other indigne usage set downe by him, and his exile, to the time while Theodora lived; and therefore hee taxeth Anastasius, for confounding those things, and referring them to that time, whereas himselfe placeth them after the death n 1.1334 of Theo∣dora: And yet for all this, though he knew Anastasius to teach the quite contrary, yet was not the Cardinall afraid, nor ashamed to alleage Anastasius for a witnesse, that Vigilius was cast into banishment af∣ter the fift Councell, and for refusing to consent unto it, and to say of this banishment, Liquet ex Anastacio, it is clearly knowne out of Ana∣stasius; whereas not that, but the quite contrarie, Liquet ex Anastasio.

17. From hence now there issueth another consequent to bee re∣membred. It is agreed by all, who mention any banishment of Vi∣gilius, and it is confessed also by Baronius, that Vigilius was but once banished, and from that one freed by the intreaty of Narses: Now that one cannot bee the Baronian banishment, for of it there is no proofe at all to bee found, no one author to witnesse it, but the Cardinall and his owne 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which in matters of fact done some thousand and more yeares before the Cardinall was borne, is of no worth at all, nor can be esteemed ought but one of his owne dreames and fig∣ments. Againe, that one cannot bee the Anastasian banishment, which is said to happen before the death of Theodora, more than foure yeares before the fift Councell; for it is certaine by the Acts of the fift Synod o 1.1335, that Vigilius at that time was at Constantinople; yea, that untill then he lived and dwelt p 1.1336 at Constantinople. Seeing then Vigilius was neither banished before the Councell, as Anastasius saith, nor ba∣nished after the Councell, as Baronius saith, it followeth, which indeed is very truth, that Vigilius was not at all banished, but all which is re∣ported of his banishment, and all that depends thereon, is fictitious and Poeticall, devised by two Bibliothecarij to his Holinesse; the for∣mer, and precedent to the Councell, is an Anastasian; the other, fol∣lowing the Councell, is a Barbarian Poeme; but both Poems both fa∣bulous and Aesopicall narrations.

18. And truly, might wee be allowed to imitate the Cardinals Arte in disputing, this matter would easily be made plaine. There is one Topicke place of arguing à testimonio negativè, which is very fami∣liar to Baronius in his Annals q 1.1337, and it is defended by Gretzer in his A∣pology r 1.1338 for Baronius; let us take but one example, and that also in this our present cause concerning Vigilius. There is in Anastasius s 1.1339 a narration, how Vigilius was violently puld away from Rome

by Anthemius Scribonius, sent thither for that purpose, by the Em∣presse; how he was apprehended in the Church, thrust into the shippe; how the Romanes followed reviling t 1.1340 him, cursing him, and casting stones and dung at him, praying that a mischiefe might goe with him. Thus it is historified by Anastasius. The like is mentioned by many others, who borrowed it out of Anastasius; by Aimonius * 1.1341, by the Historia Miscella u 1.1342, going under the name of Paulus Diaconus, though it be not his; by Marianus x 1.1343 Scotus, by Hermanus y 1.1344 Contractus, by Sige∣bert z 1.1345, by Luitprandus a 1.1346 de vitis Pontificum, as the booke is called; by Al∣bo b 1.1347 Floriacensis, by Platina c 1.1348, by Conrade d 1.1349, by Nauclerus e 1.1350, by Marti∣nus f 1.1351 Polonus, by Blondus g 1.1352, by Krantzius h 1.1353, by Sigonius i 1.1354, & others. Heare now the Cardinals censure of this narration of Anastasius, and the rest who followed him; Aperti mendacij k 1.1355 redarguitur Anastasius; Anasta∣sius is convicted of a manifest lye herein; and how prove you that, my Baronius? res adeo ignominiosa, so ignominious a matter as this is, could not have beene unknowne to the Authors, who writ most accurately the Acts of their times, and those were Facundus and Procopius, the Cardi∣nall names no moe: from the silence and omission of this matter in them two, he concludes Anastasius to be a lyar, and his narration, se∣conded by many moe, to be a lye.

19. Let now but the like liberty of disputing à Testimonio negativè, be allowed unto us, and the Baronian banishment (to begin with that) must be rejected, banished, and set in the same ranke with that lye of Anastasius; for thus wee may argue: This banishment of Vigilius after the end of the fift Councell, 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 af∣faires 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 Floriacen∣fis, nor by Otho Frisingensis, nor by Conrade Abbat of Vrsberge, nor by Hermanus Contractus, nor by Sigebert, nor by Lambertus Scaffuaburgen∣sis, nor by Martinus Polonus, nor by Gotofridus Viterbiensis, nor by Al∣bertus Stadēsis, 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 Chronicō Germanicum per Monachū Herveldensem, nor by Chronica Compendrosa, or Compilatio Chronologica, nor by Blon∣dus, nor by Sabellicus, nor by Aventinus, nor by Huldericus Mutius, nor by Sigonius, nor by Palmerius, nor by Karanza, nor by Papirius Massoni∣us, nor by Genebrard, nor by Sanders, nor by Stapleton; and I challenge the welwillers of Baronius, by that love they beare unto him, & his e∣stimatiō, to name if they can but any one writer before Baronius, who affirmeth Vigilius to have beene banished after the Synod, for not consenting unto it, that therby it may be knowne, that their great An∣nalist playes the Historian, and not the Poet, in relating the Ecclesia∣sticall affaires of the Church: Or if they can at any time doe this, (which I am verily perswaded they neither will, nor ever can per∣forme)

yet seeing none of all these doe mention that banishment; truly if Baronius, from the silence of two writers, might conclude a∣gainst Anastasius, that he was a lyar in the former narration, I thinke none will deny; but à fortiori, it will follow, that seeing more than two score are silent in this matter, it may farre more justly bee said, aperti mendacij redarguitur, which is the Cardinals owne doome and words that hee bestoweth on Anastasius: and here much more fitly may the Cardinals reason take place, res adeo ignominiosa, so ignomini∣ous a matter; nay, so glorious a peece of martyrdome on the Popes part, as the banishment and cruell persecution of the Pope, the chiefe Bishop in the world, for such a cause, as for not assenting to the Sy∣nod, could not have bin unknowne unto those writers, who most dili∣gently prosecute the affaires of their times, and such as concerned the Church: Nay, from the most of these wee may draw an affirmative argument also, and reason, more strongly than the Cardinall doth in his disputes. Anastasius, Aimonius, Diaconus, Platina, and divers moe of the forenamed authors, to the number at least of twenty, affirme, Vigilius was banished before the Synod, and in the life time of Theo∣dora; and withall teach but one banishment of Vigilius, and therefore they not onely 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 kinde of arguing disproves the Baroni∣an, so doth it also the Anastasian banishment, and forcibly con∣cludes, that Vigilius was not at all banished, either before, or after the Councel; for there is no banishmēt 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 Luitpran∣dus, or by Bede, or by Krantzius, or by Mutius, or by Papirius Masso∣nius, or by Caranza, besides others. Adde now here againe the Cardi∣nals words, Res adeo ignominiosa, surely so ignominious and shamefull a fact, as the banishing of a Pope, could not have beene unknowne to those who writ (as exactly as Facundus and Procopius) the Ecclesia∣sticall affaires, and occurrents in their times; and therfore seeing these so many, so exact writers, mention not that Anastasian banishment of Vigilius, it may be rightly concluded, that Anastasius therin aperti men∣dicij redarguitur; or if none but the Cardinall may give the lye to A∣nastasius; yet, confessing his narration to be untrue, let us leave that as a priviledge of the Cardinals, that he alone shal bestow lies, for liveries, upon Anastasius. Nay, seeing none of these Writers mention any ba∣nishment at all of Vigilius, it must further be concluded from their si∣lence, that Vigilius neither first nor last, neither before, nor after the Synod was banished, but that the whole narration, touching his ba∣nishment, is a meere fiction and fable, devised, partly by Anastasius, and partly by Baronius.

21. Which may much rather be affirmed, considering that Victo••••

who was himselfe exiled, and brought to Constantinople, is not onely 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 ranke he l 1.1356 nameth Benenatus Bishop of Iustinianea, Zoilus Patriarch of Alexandria, Reparatus Bishop of Car∣thage, Verecundus Bishop of Nica, Macarius Bishop of Ierusalem, Rusti∣cus a Romane Deacon, Foelix a Monke of Guilla, Frontinus Bishop of Salone, Theodosius Bishop of Sebarsuse, himselfe being Bishop of Tunen, and Pelagius then a Deacon, but afterwards Bishop of Rome, and suc∣cessor to Vigilius. Had Baronius this negative argument à testimonio in hand, how would hee insult, and even triumph in it? how easily would he perswade the world, that certainly Bishop Victor, who by name, and so particularly, recounteth meaner Bishops, yea, Deacons and Monkes, who suffered banishment for this cause, would never have omitted the Prince of Bishops, had hee beene 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 beene evident, that the Oracle of the world, the infallible Iudge had sealed the truth of that cause with his glorious ba∣nishment, which is a kinde of Martyrdome. Anastasius, Diaconus, O∣tho, and all the rest, who say he was banished, should have had the lye an hundred times at the Cardinals hands, for saying that he was bani∣shed, either before or after the Councell, rather than Bishop Vi∣ctor, who then lived at Constantinople, and was fellow-partner in those troubles and banishments, should have beene thought either igno∣rant or forgetfull to expresse that banishment of Vigilius, had there beene truly any at all.

22. Thus from the Cardinals owne Topicks 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, w^ch will not more forcibly refute many of the Cardinals disputes, un∣lesse perhaps, as Gretzer m 1.1357 answers in defence of Baronius, in another cause, that the old Logick rule, Ex puris negativis nihil sequi, holds only in Syllogismes, but not in Enthymems (for which subtilty I doubt not but the very Sophisters in our Vniversities will soundly deride him) so in this they will say, which, with as good warrant and reason, they may; that an agument à testimonio negativè, holds onely in the Cardi∣nals 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 Cardinall; or makes for the Protestants, and their cause.

23. But if Anastasius, in this narration be fabulous, what shall wee say of Aimonius, and al those other Writers, who mention this banish∣ment of Vigilius, as well as doth Anastasius? What else can bee said, then that which Ierome n 1.1358 saith of divers of the ancient Writers? Before that Southerne Devill Arius arose at Alexandria, innocenter quaedam, & minus cantè loquuti sunt; the ancients spake certaine things in simplicitie, and not so warily, which cannot abide the touch, nor avoide the repre∣hension of perverse men: Or that which Saint Austen o 1.1359 observes in

himselfe, and Tyconius; Non erat expertus hanc haresin; Tyconius had not to deale with this heresie 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 fals out betwixt those Writers, and us of this age. Aimonius, Otho, Platina, and the rest found the banishment of Vigilius, and much like stuffe, as it is histories in Anastasius: they, in simplicitie and harmelesse innocency, tooke it upon his credit. The question about the Popes Cathedrall Infallibility, about Vigilius hereti∣call Constitution, and such like controversies, were not moved in their dayes, and therefore they spake of these things, innocenter, & minùs cautè, as Ierome saith of the Fathers; and because they were not distrust∣full of Anastasius, they writ not so warily of these matters, as others, whose industry, by the manifold frauds of Baronius, as of another A∣rius, hath beene whetted, and they compelled to fift the truth more narrowly than they, wanting opposites and oppugners, did: It fell out to them as it did to Ierome himselfe. Ruffinus had set p 1.1360 out a book in defence of Origen, under the name of Pamphilus the Martyr: p 1.1361 Ierome at the first, and for divers yeares, beleeved q 1.1362 the booke to have beene indeed written by Pamphilus, as Ruffinus said it was: Credidi r 1.1363 Christia∣no, Credidi Monacho: I never dreamed, that such an horrible wicked∣nesse, as to forge writings, and cal them by the name of Martyrs, could come from a Christian, from a Monke, from Ruffinus: but when the question about Origen was once set on foote, Ierome then sought s 1.1364 out every corner, every Copie, every Library that hee could come to, and so discovered the whole forgery. The very like hapned to Otho, Platina, and the rest; they found this fabulous narration of the banish∣ment of Vigilius, and the consequents upon it, in the booke of Anasta∣sius, the Writer of the Popes lives, of the Pontificall, the keeper of the Popes Library, a man of great name and note for learning, one in high favour with the Popes of his time; they never suspected or drea∣med that such a man, a Christian, a Monke, that Anastasius would deale 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 dayes, being sifted and come to the skanning, the whole forgery and falshood 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 tooke him for; his writings are full of lyes and fictions: Not the Legendaur more fabulous than Anastasius; hee for a long time was the Master of the Popes Mint; by his meanes the roy∣all stampe of many golden Fathers, yea, of some Councels also, and infinite historicall narrations, was set upon Brasse, Lead, and most base metals; and then being brought, like so many Gibeonites in old Coates, and mouldy coverings, Anastasius gave them an high place, and honourable entertainment in the Popes Librarie, and with them ever since hath the Church of God beene pestered; they past for cur∣rant among men delighted in darknesse, and errours, 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 weaknesse, nay the nullity of the Cardinalls reason, even of his Achilles, drawne from the Emperours fact, in resto∣ring or freeing him from exile, which he would never have done, un∣lesse 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 Empe∣rour upon that entreaty free him from exile, neither did Vigilius con∣sent to the Synod after his exile, and all the other consequents, which upon this foundation of Vigilius his exile the Cardinall builds like so many Castles in the ayre, they all of themselves doe now fall to the ground: and which I specially observe, it hence followeth, that Vigi∣lius did never after the end of the fift Councell consent unto it, or to the condemning of the Three Chapters, either by his Pontificall decree, or by his personall profession: for the Cardinall assures us, and delivers it as a truth, which of necessity t 1.1365 must bee granted, that his consent, (whether personall or pontificall) 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 hee at all banished, and therefore upon the Cardinals owne 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 Chap∣ters, or consented to the Synod, either by any pontificall, or so much as by a personall profession, but that hee still persisted in his hereticall defence of the same Chapters, and subject to that censure of Anathema, which the fift Councell denounced against all the defenders of those Chapters.

26. Some perhaps will marvell, or demand how it should come to passe, that the Emperour, who as wee have shewed was so rigorous and severe in imprisoning, banishing, and punishing the defenders of the Three Chapters, and such as yeelded not to the Synod, should wink at Vigilius at this time, who was the chiefe and most eminent of them all: which doubt Baronius also u 1.1366 moveth, saying, he who published his Edict against such as contradicted him, Num Vigilio pepercit, may wee thinke he would spare Vigilius, and not banish him who set forth a Con∣stitution against the Emperours Edict? Minime quidem: Truly the Emperour would never spare him, saith the Cardinall. Yes, the Em∣perour both would and did spare him. Belike the Cardinall measures Iustinian by his owne irefull and revengefull minde. Had the Cardi∣nall beene crossed and contradicted, nothing but torture, exile, or fire from heaven to consume such rebells, would have appeased his rage. Iustinian was of a farre more calme, and therefore more prudent spirit. Vigilius deserved, and the Emperour might in justice for his pertina∣cious resisting the truth, have inflicted upon him either imprison∣ment, or banishment, or deposition, or death. It pleased him to doe none of all these, nor to deale with the Pope according to his deme∣rits. Iustinian saw that Vigilius was but a weake and silly man, one of no constancy and resolution, a very wethercocke in his judgement concerning causes of faith: that hee had said and gainsayd the same

things, and then by his Apostolicall authority judicially defined both his sayings being contradictory, to be true, and truths of the Catholike faith: the Emperour was more willing to pity this imbecility of his judgement, than punish that fit of perversenesse which then was come upon him. Had Vigilius beene so stiffe and inflexible as Victor, as Li∣beratus, as Facundus were, whom no reason, nor perswasion would in∣duce to yeeld to the truth, its not to be doubted but hee had felt the Emperours indignation as well as any of them. But Vigilius like a wise man tooke part with both, he was an Ambodexter, both a defen∣der, and a condemner of the three Chapters, both on the Emperours side, and against him: and because hee might bee reckoned on either side, having given a judiciall sentence as well for condemning the three Chapters, as for defending them: it pleased the Emperour to take him at the best, and ranke him among the condemners; at least to winke at him as being one of them, and not punish him among the defenders of those Chapters.

27. Nor could the Emperour have any way provided better for the peace and quiet of the Church, than by such connivence at Vigili∣us, and letting him passe as one of the condemners of those Chapters. The banishing of him would have hardned others, and that far more than his consent after punishment would have gained: the former, men would have ascribed it to judgement; the latter, to passion, and weari∣nesse of his exile. But now accounting him as a condemner of the Three Chapters, if any were led by his authority and judgement, the Emperor could shew them, Loe here you have the judiciall sentence of the Pope for condemning the three Chapters: if his authority were despised by others, then his judiciall sentence in defence of the Chap∣ters could doe no hurt; and why should the Emperor banish him if he did no hurt to the cause? nay it was in a manner necessary for the Emperour to winke at him, as at a condemner of the three Chapters: for he had often testified to the Councell, that Vigilius had condem∣ned both by words and writings those Chapters, hee sent the Popes owne letters to the Synod, to declare and testifie the same: those let∣ters as well of the Emperour as of the Pope testifying this, were inser∣ted into the Synodall Acts x 1.1367. Had the Emperour banished Vigilius for not condemning those Chapters, his owne act in punishing Vigi∣lius had seemed to crosse and contradict his owne letters, and the Sy∣nodall Acts. If Vigilius be a condemner of the Chapters, as you say, and the Synodall Acts record that he is, why doe yee banish him for not condemning those Chapters? If Vigilius bee justly banished as a defender of those Chapters, how can the Emperours letters and Sy∣nodall Acts be true, which testifie him to be one of the condemners of those Chapters? So much did it concerne the Emperors honour, and credit of the Synod, that Vigilius should not be banished at that time. Vigilius had sufficient punishment that he stood now a convicted, con∣demned, and anathematized heretike by the judgement of the whole and holy generall Councell: but for any banishment, imprisonment, or other corporall punishment, the Emperour in his wisedome, in his lenity thought fit to inflict none upon him. Onely he stayed him at

Constantinople for one, or as Victor saith, for moe yeares after the Sy∣nod, to the end that before he returned, the Synodall sentence and Acts of the Councell being every where divulged, and with them, nay in them the judgement of Vigilius in condemning those Chapters as the Synod did, might settle if it were possible, the mindes of men in the truth, or at least serve for an Antidote against that poison, which either from the contrary constitution, or his personall presence when he should returne, could proceed.

28. And by this is easily answered all that the Cardinall and Binius collect from those great offices, gifts, rewards, and priviledges with which the Emperor graced and decked Vigilius, and so sent him home: which the Cardinall thinkes the Emperour would never have done, unlesse Vigilius had consented to the Synod, and condemned the three Chapters. Truly these men can make a mountaine of a mole-hill. There is no proofe in the world that Vigilius was so graced at his returne: no nor that the Emperour bestowed any gifts or rewards upon him at all. That which the Emperour did was the publishing of a pragmaticall sanction, wherein are contained divers very wholesome lawes, and good orders for the government of Italy, and the Provinces adjoyn∣ing: The date of the sanction is in August, in the eight and twenty yeare of Iustinian, and thirteene after the Cons. of Basilius, which was the next yeare after the Councell. But that Vigilius at that time re∣turned, there is no solid proofe; and Victor y 1.1368 who then lived, and was present at Constantinople, puts the death of Vigilius in the 31. yeare of Iustinian, or 16. after Basilius, who yet by all mens account (who write of his returne) returned from Constantinople either in the same, or in the next yeare before he dyed. So uncertaine, and by Victors account unlikely it is, that Vigilius at his returne home was ornatus muncribus, donis, officiis, and privilegiis, as they z 1.1369 pompously set out the matter. Now it is true that the Emperour ordered and decreed those matters upon the entreaty of Vigilius: for so the words pro petitione Vigilij, doe make evident: but that either Vigilius entreated, or the Emperour granted this upon any entreaty which he made, either after his return out of exile, (which certainly he did not) or after the end of the Sy∣nod, or at the time of his return (al which are the Cardinals tales with∣out any proofe) none of the Cardinalls friends will bee ever able to make cleare. And for my owne part, till I see some reason to the con∣trary, I cannot otherwise thinke, but that this petition was made by Vigilius some three or foure yeares before the Councell, at which time Vigilius consented wholly with the Emperor, was in great grace and favour with him. And I am hereunto induced by that which Pro∣copius a 1.1370 expresseth: How in the 14. yeare of the Gothicke war, which is the 23. of Iustinian; when Totilas and the Gothes began to win a∣gaine divers parts of Italy, which Belisarius had before recovered, Vi∣gilius and divers Italians and Romanes, who were then at Constantinople, submissius & enixius postulabant ab Imperatore, did in very submisse and earnest manner entreat the Emperour, that he would reduce all Italy into his subjection. Now it is very likely that together with this petition they signified divers matters to the Emperour, which were behoove∣full

for his government in the Westerne parts: and this the Emperors answer then made unto them imports; who, as Procopius addeth, an∣swered them, Italiam sibi cura fore, that hee would have a care of Italy: but for that time hee was busie in composing the differences about Christian doctrines. The fift Synod then being ended, and all those Ecclesiasticall affaires concluded, nor that onely, but Totilas and Teia•• being both vanquished, and so the whole dominion of Italy being re∣covered by the victorious Narses, the Emperour in his 28. yeare, which was next after the Synod, performed that promise which hee had made before to Vigilius and the other Italians, and according to their request disposed and ordered divers matters which in that san∣ction are set downe.

29. Now if the words of the Sanction have respect (as I verily thinke they have) to that time, then all that Baronius collecteth from granting that sanction, and those priviledges upon the petition of Vi∣gilius after his returne from exile, or after the Synod, are meere fan∣cies and dreames. Or if it were admitted (whereof I can find no proofe at all) that Vigilius made, and the Emperour granted unto him this petition after the end of the Councell, yet will it not hence follow that Vigilius then consented to the Synod; for as wee have before de∣clared, the Emperour was not so eager, nor rigorous against Vigilius, but that upon his entreaty hee might grant to establish those Lawes, which being in themselves so commodious and behoovefull, he with∣out any entreaty, upon the consideration of those matters, would in all likelihood have enacted. And so every joynt of the Cardinalls se∣cond reason (wherein consists the very pith of his cause) drawne from the fact of Iustinian, in restoring him from exile, and dismissing him home with gifts and priviledges, being now fully dissolved by that which hath beene said, it remaineth cleere, that notwithstanding all which the Cardinall hath yet brought, there appeares no proofe nor token that Vigilius any time after the end of the Councell, either by his publike decree, as the Cardinall boasteth, or so much as by his per∣sonall profession, consented to the Synod, and the condemning of the Three Chapters.

30. His third b 1.1371 and last reason is drawne from those darke words of Liberatus c 1.1372, where he saith, that Vigilius dyed, being afflicted by that heresie (of the Eutycheans) but he was not crowned. Before wee examine the Cardinalls reason grounded hereon, let us first in a word observe the Cardinalls honest dealing with Liberatus. In that very same chap∣ter, and in the words next before that sentence which the Cardinall alledgeth, Liberatus sets downe the Epistle and profession of Vigilius, wherein he defendeth the Eutychean heresie, and anathematizeth all who hold two natures in Christ as the Councell of Chalcedon had de∣fined. Of that Epistle Liberatus witnesseth that it is the Epistle of Vi∣gilius, and was truly written by him. Baronius seeing that to tend to the disgrace of Vigilius, that the Pope should be an heretike, an Eu∣tychean, and should accurse all that are not such, what saith he for this matter? Truly he contemnes and rejects the testimonie of Liberatus; The Epistle d 1.1373 is not the writing of Vigilius, it is an Impostor, a forged wri∣ting,

a counterfeit: notwithstanding all that Liberatus saith: So if Li∣beratus say ought distastfull to the Cardinals palate, Liberatus is a wit∣nesse of no worth, he is utterly to be contemned, to be rejected. But if in the next words Liberatus say ought that seemeth to favour the Cardinalls fancy, Liberatus then is a worthy witnesse, you may not take any exception against Liberatus, if he say that Vigilius, when hee dyed, had consented to the fift Synod, you must beleeve him. Some would thinke this to be scarce currant dealing with his own witnesse, to make him sometimes more then a thousand, sometimes lesse then a Cypher, but such are almost all the Cardinalls witnesses, they speak not so much for him in one place, as they doe against him in others, nor is he so willing to accept them in one, as he is ready to reject thē in another. If Liberatus be to bee credited, why doth the Cardinall reject him? If he be not to be credited, why doth the Cardinall al∣leage him?

31. Thus one might if he listed, elude his proofe, and make a little sport with the Cardinalls Counters. But I will let the words of Libe∣ratus stand in their best value; and to see the Cardinals deduction the better, wee must consider the whole sentence of Liberatus, which is this; Vigilius writing these things (to wit, that hereticall Epistle, in de∣fence of Eutycheanisme) and that closely, to heretikes; continued sit∣ting, (in the See of Rome) In whom was fulfilled that testimony of Sa∣lomon, they shall eate the fruit of their owne way, and they shall bee filled with their owne Counsells. Ab ipsa haeresi afflictus Vigilius, nec co∣ronatus, qualem vitae terminum suscepit, notum est omnibus: Vigilius being afflicted by that heresie, but not crowned, how hee ended his life, every man can tell. Thus Liberatus. In which words as you see, there is no men∣tion 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 Emperours either casting him into, or releasing him from exile, or of the fift Councell, or of the end thereof; and yet out of these words will Baronius like a very skilfull Chymick extract, both that Vigilius after the end of the fift Councell was banished for defending the Three Chapters, and after that banishment, consented to the Synod, and to condemne the three Chapters. And see I pray you how the Chymick distills this. If Libe∣ratus, saith he e 1.1374, being one of those who fought for the Three Chapters, had found Vigilius, perstantem in sententia usque ad mortem, persisting un∣till 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 dyed 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 Car∣dinall glosse upon the words of Liberatus.

32. See the force of truth; The Cardinalls owne words doe most fully answer his owne doubt, and explane that truth which hee wit∣tingly oppugneth: Had Liberatus found Vigilius, perstantem in senten∣tia usque ad wortem, constant, or persisting without any change or relen••ing

in his defending the three Chapters, untill his dying day, then indeed Vigi∣lius should have beene with Liberatus (an obstinate defender of that sentence) a glorious Martyr, at the least a worthy Confessor, and for that cause he should have beene condemned by Liberatus. But seeing he found him a changeling in his sentence, wavering and unconstant therein, turning his note as soone almost as he had looked the Empe∣rour in the face, Vigilius by reason of that change, unconstancie, and revolt from his opinion, lost his Crowne, and all his commendation with Liberatus, not for any returning to condemne the Three Chapters after his exile, whereof in Liberatus there is no sound nor syllable. By publishing his Apostolicall Constitution in the time of the Councell 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 hee could not possibly find him persisting constantly, not persevering in that sentence which first he had embraced; for whereas he saw and knew the Syno∣dall Acts, to testifie that for five or six yeares together, hee not onely was of a contrary judgement, but did judicially, and definitively de∣cree 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 inter∣rupted his persisting and persevering in his first sentence▪ for this cause he lost his Crowne, and dyed non coronatus, in the Kalender, and ac∣count of Liberatus.

33. I adde further, that the words of Liberatus being well ponde∣red, doe shew the quite contrary to that which the Cardinall thence collecteth. Liberatus as all the defenders of those Chapters, held their opposites who condemned the same Chapters, for no other then he∣retikes, then oppugners of the Catholike faith, and holy Councell of Chalcedon. And for Vigilius, while hee fought f 1.1375 on their side, and a∣gainst the Emperour, they honoured g 1.1376, him as a Catholike, as a chiefe defender of the Catholike faith. As soone as Vigilius had consented to the Emperor, and upon his comming to Constantinople had condem∣ned the Three Chapters, then they held him for no other then a betrai∣er h 1.1377 of the faith, then an heretike, then a backslider, revolter, and lap∣ser from the faith, and for such they adjudged, and accursed him by name in their Africane i 1.1378 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 fift Councell to defend againe with them the Three Chapters, they esteemed him as one of those poenitentes, which after their lapsing returne againe to the profession of the faith. Had Vigilius after this revolted, and turned againe to condemne the same Chapters, and in that opinion dyed, as out of Liberatus, the Car∣dinall would perswade, Liberatus and the rest of that sect would have held him for a double heretike, for a lapser, and relapser from the faith, for one dying in heresie, and dying a condemned heretike by the judgement of their Africane Synod. Now let any man judge whether Liberatus would have said of such an one as hee esteemed an heretike, a condemned heretike, and to dye in heresie, that hee dyed,

non coronatus? would he have minced and extenuated the crime of heresie, of one dying in heresie, would he not much rather have said, he dyed Damnatus, condemned, and accursed by the judgement of their owne Synod, and therefore utterly separated from God? Who ever read or heard, that one dying in heresie, was called by so friendly a title as Non coronatus?

43. This will most clearly appeare, if we consider that the Church and Ecclesiasticall Writers doe mention as two sorts, so also two re∣wards of Catholike and Orthodoxall professors. The one is of those who are couragious and constant in defending the faith, such as joy∣fully endure torments, imprisonment, exile, and if need be, even death it selfe rather then they will renounce and forsake the faith, and these are called coronati. The other is of those who being timerous, and faint-hearted, yeeld to deny the truth, rather then they will endure torments or death for confessing the same; and yet by reason of that immortall seed which is in their hearts, they returne againe, and o∣penly professe 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 faintnesse, and lapsing, Not crowned. Both of these are Orthodoxall, and Catholikes, 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 Fathers k 1.1379 house are many mansions. Both of them starres, and glorious starres in hea∣ven, but even among those heavenly starres, one starre l 1.1380 differeth from another in glory. Both of them receive an infinity of glory, but in that infinitie, the weight is unequall, and the one receives but as the pen∣nie, the other as the pound or talent of that glory. Both of them blessed in the Kingdome of God, but the former not blessed onely, but crowned with blessednesse, the later blessed, but not crowned; neither with the Aureall Crowne of Martyrs, nor with the Lawrell garland of Confessors, yet still, whether coronati, or non coronati, as they both dye in the profession of the Catholike faith, so are they both rewarded with eternall glory for profession of the Catholike faith. As for heretikes such as die in heresie, and out of the Catholike faith, they are to be sorted with neither of these, they have another and a quite different ranke, Classis or Predicament of their owne. 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 Crowne. As the Church doth justly anathematize and accurse such, so are they to be ranked in the order of those to whom Christ shall say,m 1.1381 Goe yee cursed. The Apostle n 1.1382 reckoning heresies with Idolatry, witchcraft, adultery, and the like, of which he saith, that they which doe them shall not inherite the Kingdome of God.

35. Hence now it doth clearly appeare, that Liberatus in saying that Vigilius dyed Non coronatus, cannot intend as the Cardinall most ignorantly collecteth, that Vigilius returned from the defence of the three Chapters to condemne the same; for that being in Liberatus judg∣ment a revolt from the truth, hee thereby had by Liberatus beene ac∣counted an heretike, and to dye in heresie, and so had beene in the

ranke of those who are Damnati; but Liberatus, in saying he dyed non coronatus, doth directly teach, that he dyed in defence of those Three Chapters, (which, with Liberatus, is the Catholike faith) from which hee had lapsed, and revolted before; but seeing at the time of the Councell, hee returned againe to that opinion, and therein dyed; hee was saved, (in Liberatus judgement) but not crowned: By his peni∣tence, and returning to the defence of those Chapters, he got glory, but because he had so grievously lapsed before, hee lost the crowne of glory. And this also is the reason why Victor, Bishop of Tunen menti∣oneth the death of Vigilius in such a naked o 1.1383 manner, neither disgra∣cing him as a Prevaricator, as hee doth Firmus p 1.1384, Primasius q 1.1385, and Pela∣gius r 1.1386; nor honouring him as a Martyr or Confessor, as he doth Foelix, Rusticus, and Reparatus s 1.1387; intimating thereby, that Vigilius dyed in the confession and defence of the Three Chapters, and therefore hee could not condemne him; but yet because he was not constant in that pro∣fession, he would not commend him.

36. Yea, but Liberatus by saying he was afflicted by that heresie,t 1.1388 pla∣ne alludit ad ejus exilium, he doth plainly allude to the banishment of Vigili∣us. Plainly? Phy on such a Plain-lie out of a Cardinals mouth; he doth not so much as obscurely, not under a cloud or mist, not any way al∣lude unto it, nor intimate or insinuate ought tending thereunto; nor could hee 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 hee could allude to their idle dreams: But if he allude not to his banishment, why then saith he that Vigilius was afflicted by that heresie? as if there were no afflicti∣ons in the world but banishment; what ere hee meant, he meant not that: And truly, whatsoever calamities or afflictions, either of body or minde, befell Vigilius after he had once consented to the Emperors Edict, & to the condemning of the Three Chapters, (which, in Liberatus account, was heresie) and because it was (as hee thought) contrary to the Councell of Chalcedon, even the heresie of the Eutycheans; all those did Liberatus impute to that his revolt from the faith, and to that Eutychean heresie which he then embraced, as Liberatus judged. Now there are two or three evident matters, which were great affli∣ctions to Vigilius, and may well bee intended by Liberatus.

37. The first was the generall dislike which the Italian, Africane, and other Westerne Bishops took against him, as soone as they knew that he had consented to the Emperours Edict, they writ against him, as one who denyed the faith, and condemned the Councell of Chalcedon, they censured, judged, and accursed him by their Synodall sentence; they contemned him as a temporizer; as one, who, to please the Em∣perour, betrayed the faith: This was, no doubt, no small affliction to Vigilius, to bee disgraced, contemned, and accursed by his owne friends, to whom, by so many bands of duty and love, he was so near∣ly conjoyned; and this lay upon his stomacke for five or sixe yeares together, even from his first comming almost, to Constantinople, to the time of the Councell.

38. His second affliction followed upon his change in the time of

the Councell; for though hee then, by defending the Three Chapters, and publishing his Apostolicall Constitution for defence of them, hoped to recover the love and good opinion of the Westerne Churches; yet hee exceedingly failed of that hope. Now hee was in farre worse case than before; On one side he incurred the Emperours just indignation, and made himselfe obnoxious to deprivation, banishment, death, or whatsoever punishments may bee inflicted on pertinacious, and hereticall oppugners of the faith; which, although the Emperour in his lenity did not, nor would inflict upon him; yet what a griefe is it to have all those punishments hanging, like Damocles sword, over his head, and sure to fall upon him, if the Emperour at any time listed to breake or cut the haire? What comfort could he have, who held not onely his dignitie, but his liberty, yea, his very life at the will and pleasure of another? On another side he had incurred the heavie and just censure of the holy generall Councell, and of all Ca∣tholikes, being by them adjudged and accursed for an heretike. On a third side the Westerne Churches, and the defenders of the Three Chapters, were so farre from honouring him as he expected, that they also, for all that, held him for no other than an unconstant and wave∣ring person, one that turned his faith with every winde and weather: So, whereas at the first hee was beloved and honoured of the We∣sterne Churches, while hee defended the Three Chapters, as they did; and after that was beloved and honoured of the Emperour, and Ea∣sterne Churches, while hee, with them, condemned the Three Chap∣ters: when now againe he returned to defend them, hee was contem∣ned both of the one sort and the other; they all now esteemed no bet∣ter of him than a very Wethercocke. Now whether this, to see him∣selfe forsaken and contemned by all, both friends and foes, both Ca∣tholikes and heretikes; whether this might not bee a corrasive to his heart, let any man duly consider with himselfe. Adde to these that corporeall anguish which caused his death; hee, if wee may trust Ana∣stasius, u 1.1389 afflictus, calculi dolorem habens, mortuus est, being afflicted and vexed with paine of the stone, or (as by Liberatus it may bee thought) by some more grievous disease of his body, dyed in great affliction: When there were so many afflictions lying at the heart of Vigilius, all which Libe∣ratus imputeth to his consenting to the Emperours Edict, and con∣demning of the Three Chapters, which he, as the rest of the defenders of them, called heresie; was not the Cardinall, thinke you, in some ex∣tasie of his wit, when he thought, that the affliction of Vigilius must needs bee his owne fictitious banishment, and that Liberatus doth plainly allude therunto.

39. Thus all the reasons of Baronius being manie wayes, and ma∣nifestly declared to bee ineffectuall, to prove that last and Baronian change in Vigilius, after the end of the Synod, we may now safely con∣clude, that as Vigilius, after his Apostolicall Constitution in defence of the Three Chapters once published, made at no time after that, any publike, judiciall or Pontificall Decree to reverse and adnul the same; but that still stood in full power and strength untill the death of Vigi∣lius; so neither did hee ever after that time declare so much as a pri∣vate

dislike thereof, or a personall consent to the fift Councell, which had decreed the contrary; but pertinaciously persisting in that sen∣tence, he both lived and dyed an hereticall defender of those Three Chapters. At the first he was hereticall in defending them against the Emperours Edict: at the last he was not onely hereticall, but a con∣demned heretike in defending them against the judiciall sentence of the holy generall Councell. In the middle time he had a fit of profes∣sing the truth, but that was only in shew, and in appearance, that so he might temporize with the Emperour, in heart hee was (as when the time of tryall came he demonstrated himselfe) an oppugner of the truth, both against the Imperiall Edict, and Synodall judgement: And therefore, as wee found him at the first an heretike; so, for all which Baronius hath said, or could say to the contrary, we must leave him for a condemned heretike; even such a one, as not only defended, but, by his Cathedrall and Apostolicall sentence, defined heresie to be the Catholike faith. And thus much bee spoken of the Cardinals third principall Exception, or troupe of evasions, marching under that Act of Vigilius, which, by his manifold changing in this cause of faith, you have fully seene.

CAP. XVIII. The fourth and last Exception of Baronius, in defence of Vigilius, preten∣ding, 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.

1. THere now remaineth onely 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 Cardinall brings forth all his forces, all the Engines of his wit and malice, to batter downe the au∣thority of the fift generall Councell. Seeing it contradicted the Pope, and judicially de∣creed his Apostolicall sentence to be hereticall, it shall bee of no autho∣rity at all; it shall bee neither a generall, nor a lawfull Councell; it shall bee nothing but a Conspiracy and conventicle with Baronius and his friends, untill Vigilius doe approve the same: But heare their owne words to this purpose.

2. The fift Councell, saith Baronius a 1.1390, 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 bee called so much as a lawfull (much lesse a generall and lawfull) 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, then it got the title and authority of an Oecumenicall Synod. Againe b 1.1391, The fift Councell at that time, when it was

held, could not have the name of an Oecumenicall Synod, seeing it was not lawfully assembled in the Holy Ghost, because the Pope, neither by himselfe, nor by his Legates would be present in it. And yet more spightfully; These things c 1.1392 cōsidered, planè consenties, ipsam nec Oecumenicae, nec privatae Sy∣nodi mereri nomen, you will consent, that the fift Councell deserved not the name of an Oecumenicall, no nor so much as of a private Synod; it was no Sy∣nod nor Councell at all, seeing, both it was assembled, resistente Pontifice, the Pope resisting it, and also pronounced sentence, contra ipsius Decretum, against the Popes Decree. Thus Baronius: in whose steps Binius treadeth, say∣ing d 1.1393, Pope Vigilius was not present in this Councell, either by himselfe, or by his deputies, Contradixit eidem, he contradicted the Synod; the members as∣sembled without the head, dum ageretur non consentit, the Pope consented not to it while it was held, nor did approve it straight after it was ended; yet it got the name, title, and authority of an Oecumenicall Councell, quando ipsius Vigilii sententia, when it was afterwards approved by the sentence of Vigi∣lius himselfe, 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 in∣solency and most shamelesse dealing of these men, who, rather than one of their Popes, even Pope Proteus himselfe, shall bee thought to erre in his Cathedrall Decree of faith, care not to disgrace, to vilifie, yea, to nullifie one of the ancient and sacred generall Councels, ap∣proved, as before e 1.1394 we have shewed, by the whole Catholike Church? For if this Councell was neither generall, nor lawfull, (as they teach) till Vigilius approved it by his Apostolicall authority, after his returne from exile; then was it never, nor as yet is either a generall or lawfull Councell, seeing Vigilius, after his exile, never did, nor could approve it, as before f 1.1395 we have clearly proved: So this fift Councell must for ever be cashiered and blotted out of the ranke of Councels. And be∣cause, as their second Nicene Synod rightly disputes g 1.1396, the seventh must follow the sixt, in the same ranke and order, and the sixt, the fift, if there was no fift generall and holy Councell; neither can there bee any sixt, nor seventh, nor eighth, nor any other after it. So, by the asser∣tion of these men, there are at once dashed out fourteene of those, which themselves h 1.1397 doe honour by the name of holy generall Councels.

4. I say more, the expunging of all those fourteene Councels, doth certainly follow upon the Cardinals assertion, though it were granted, that Vigilius had confirmed this fift, as it is true, that Pelagius and Gregory did: For if it was (as he teacheth) neither a generall nor lawfull Synod, while the Councell 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 generall or a lawfull Sy∣nod: For after the end, and dissolution thereof, it was never extant in rerum natura againe; it was ever after that time Non ens: and being neither Synod, nor yet so much as Ens, it could not possibly be either generall or lawfull. It is a Maxime, Non entis non sunt Accidentia; If while it was extant, and while it was an assembly, it was but a conven∣ticle; if then it was not gathered in Gods name, I pray you, when was

it ever after that, gathered in Gods name? Did Vigilius, Pelagius, or Gregory, when they made it, by their approbation, a generall and law∣full Councell; did they, like some new Aeolus, blow all the Bishops againe to Constantinople, and assemble them the second time in the Popes name, that so they might be said to be gathered in Gods name? Let their Popes trie, if by all their magicall skill, or omnipotent pow∣er, they can make any one of those Africane Councels under Cyprian, a Generall; or make the Arimine, Syrmian; or second Ephesine, a lawfull Councell, and I will instantly yeeld, that hee may doe the like to this fift. If hee cannot doe any of the former, what vanitie was it in the Cardinall and Binius to say of this fift, that while it was extant, and Ens, it was neither a general nor lawful Councel; but some one, or some twenty yeares after, when it was non Ens, the Pope made it, with a word, both a generall and lawfull Councell? Dixit & factum est: One word of his mouth makes, or unmakes what he list: Truth is, the Popes, or any other Bishops approbation, or confirmation of a Councell, or any decree thereof, after the Councell is once ended, may perhaps in the opinion of some men, gaine some more liking un∣to that Councell, or decree, than before it had, seeing now it hath the expresse consent of those Bishops, whom the other doe much e∣steeme: but the after consent, or approbation of all the Bishops in the world, much lesse of the Pope, cannot make that to bee a generall, which before, and while it was extant, was onely Provinciall; or that to be a lawfull, which before, and while it was extant, was an unlawfull Synod: Even as the Pope, and a thousand Bishops with him, cannot now make any of the foure first generall and holy Councels, to be ei∣ther unlawfull 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 generall or a lawfull Councell.

5. Say you that the fift Councell was of no authority till the Pope approved it, and unlesse he should approve it? See how contrary the Cardinals assertion is to the consenting judgement of the whole Church. Begin we with the Church of that age: Baronius tels i 1.1398 us, that both the Emperour, the Pope, Mennas, and other Easterne Bishops, agreed to referre the deciding of this doubt about the Three Chapters, to a generall Councell. Why did none of them reason, as the Cardinall now doth, against the Councell? Why did the Pope delude them with that pretence of a generall Councel? Why did hee not deale plainly with the Emperour and the rest, who made that agreement, and say to this effect unto them? Why will yee referre this cause to the judgment of a Councell, it cannot decide this question otherwise than my selfe shall please? If they say as I say, it shall be a Councell, a lawfull, a ge∣nerall, an holy Councell: If they say the contrary to that which I af∣firme, though they have ten thousand millions of voyces, their De∣cree shall be utterly void, their assembly unlawfull, they shall nei∣ther bee, nor bee called a generall, nor a lawfull Councell, no nor a Councell neither, but onely a Conventicle, without all authoritie in the world. Had the Emperour and the Church beleeved this do∣ctrine, there had beene no fift Councell ever called or assembled; nay,

there never had beene any other holy generall Councell: The Pope had beene in stead of all, and above them all. This very act then of re∣ferring the judgement in this cause to a generall Councell, witnes∣seth them all (even the Pope himselfe at that time) to have esteemed the sentence of the Synod to be of authority without the Popes con∣sent, and to be of more authority, in case they should differ (as in this question they did) than the sentence of the Pope. This before the Councell was assembled.

6. At the time of the Councell, had the Church or holy Synod which represented the whole Church, beleeved their assembly with∣out the Pope to be no Synod, but a Conventicle; why did they at all come together after their second Session? for they were then assured by the Pope himselfe, that he would neither come, nor send any de∣puties unto them. Or had they beleeved that his definitive sentence would or ought to have overswayed others, so that without his as∣sent their judgement should be of no validity, why did they after the fift Session, once proceed to examine or determine that cause? For before the sixt day of their assembling, they received from Pope Vigi∣lius his Cathedrall and Apostolicall Constitution in that cause, inhibiting them either to write or speak (much more judicially to define) ought contrarie to his sentence: or if they did, that he by his authority had beforehand refuted and condemned the same. Seeing notwithstand∣ing all this well knowne unto them, they not onely continued their Synodall assemblies, but judicially defined that cause, and that quite contrary to the Popes judgement made knowne unto them; it is an evident demonstration, that the whole general Councell judged their assemblies both lawfull and Synodall, and their sentence of full autho∣rity, even as ample as of any generall Councell, though the Pope de∣nied his presence to the one, and expressely signified not onely his dis∣like, but contradiction and condemnation of the other.

7. What can pervicacie it selfe oppose to so cleare an evidence? or what thinke you will the Cardinall or his friends reply hereunto? Will he, or can he say, that these men who thus judged, were heretikes? They were not. The doctrine which they maintained was wholly Ca∣tholike, consonant (as they k 1.1399 professe, and as in truth it was) to Scrip∣tures, to Fathers, to the foure former generall Councells. The doctrine which they oppugned, and Vigilius then defended, was hereticall, condemned by all the former, Scriptures, Fathers, and Councels. He∣retikes then doubtless they could not be; that, like a leprosie did cleave to Vigilius. Will he, or can he say that they were Schismatikes? Nei∣ther is that true. For they all even then remained in the communion with the Catholike Church: yea they were by representation the true Catholike Church: I say further, they held communion even with Pope Vigilius himselfe, till his owne pertinacy, and wilfull obstinacie against the true faith, severed him both from them, & from the truth. In token of which communion with Vigilius, they earnestly l 1.1400 entreated his presence in the Synod, they offered him the presidency therein, yea they said in expresse words unto him, before they knew his mind to defend the Three Chapters, Nos m 1.1401 vero & communicamus & uniti vo∣biscum

sumus, We all doe hold communion with you, and are united unto you. Schismaticall then they could not be. So the judgement of these men being all Catholikes, and holding the Catholike communion, doth evidently prove the whole Catholike Church at that time, to have beleeved a Councell to be both generall and lawfull, though the Pope dissented from it, and by his Apostolicall authority condemned the same, and the decree thereof.

8. After the end of the Councell did the Church then think other∣wise? Did it then judge the Councell to want authority, while it wanted the Popes approbation, or to receive authority by his appro∣bation? Who were they, I pray you, that thought thus? Certainly not Catholikes, and the condemners of these Chapters. For they ap∣proved the Councel and Decree thereof during the time of the Coun∣cell, and while the Pope so far disliked it, that for his refusall to con∣sent unto it, he endured banishment. Neither did the Heretikes who defended those Chapters, judge thus. For they, as Baronius witnes∣seth n 1.1402, 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 1.1403 redditus est execrabilis, was even detested and accursed by them for appro∣ving the Synod. Or because Vigilius approved it not, Pelagius who is knowne to have approved it, was so generally disliked for that cause of the Westerne Bishops, that there p 1.1404 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 1.1405 of the Apostles, which they often op∣pose to us, to take a Presbyter of Ostia at his ordination. So much did they dislike both the fift Councell, and all (though it were the Pope) who did approve it. Now the whole Church being at that time di∣vided into these two parts, the defenders and condemners of those Chapters, seeing neither the one nor the other judged the Synod to be generall or lawfull, because the Pope approved it; who possibly could there be at that time of the Cardinals fancie, that the fift Coun∣cell wanted all authority till the Pope approved it, and gained autho∣rity of a generall and lawfull Councell by his approving of it? Catho∣likes and condemners of those Chapters, embraced the Councell, though the Pope rejected it: Heretikes and defenders of those Chap∣ters, rejected the Councell, though the Pope approved it. Neither of them both (and so none at all in the whole Church) judged either the Popes approbation to give, or his reprobation to take away au∣thority from a generall Councell. Thus by the Antecedentia, Conco∣mitantia, and Consequentia of the Councell, it is manifest by the judge∣ment of the whole Church in that age, that this fift Councell was of authority without the Popes approbation, and was not held of autho∣rity by reason of his approbation.

9. What the judgement of the Church was, as well in the ages preceding, as succeeding to this Councell, is evident by that which we have already declared. For we have at large shewed r 1.1406, that the doctrine, faith, and judgement of this fift Councell, is consonant to all former, and confirmed by all following generall Councells, till that at Lateran under Leo the tenth. Whereupon it ensueth, that this

doctrine which wee maintaine, and the Cardinall impugneth, (that neither the Popes approbation doth give, nor his reprobation take away authority from a Councell,) was embraced and beleeved as a Catholike truth, by the whole Catholike Church of all ages, till that Lateran Synod, that is, for more than 1500. yeares together.

10. And if there were not so ample testimonies in this point, yet even reason would enforce to acknowledge this truth. For if this fift Councell be of force and Synodall authority, eo nomine, because the Pope, to wit Pelagius, approved it; then by the same reason is it of no force or Synodall authority, eo nomine, because the Pope, to wit Vi∣gilius, rejected it. If the Popes definitive and Apostolicall reprobation cannot take away authority from it; neither can his approbation, though Apostolicall, give authority unto it. Or if they say that both are true, (as indeed they are both alike true) then seeing this fift Coun∣cell is both approved by Pope Pelagius, and rejected by Pope Vigilius, it must now be held both to be wholly approved, and wholly rejected: both to be lawfull, and unlawfull: both to be a generall Councell, and no generall Councell. And the very same doome must bee given of all the thirteene Councells which follow it: They all, because they are approved by some one Pope, are approved and lawfull Councels: and because they approve this fift, which is rejected by the Pope, they are all rejected, and unlawfull Councells. Such an havocke of gene∣rall Councels doth this their assertion bring with it, and into such in∣extricable labyrinths are they driven, by teaching the authority of Councels to depend on the Popes will and pleasure.

11. Now though this bee more than abundant to refute all that they can alledge against this fift Councell, yet for the more clearing of the truth, and expressing my love to this holy Councell, to which next after that at Chalcedon, I beare speciall affection; I will more strictly examine those two reasons which Baronius & Binius have used, of purpose to disgrace this holy Synod. The former is taken from the assembling; the later, from the decree of the Councell. It was assem∣bled, say Baronius s 1.1407 and Binius, Pontifice resistente & contradicente, the Pope resisting and contradicting it. Whence they inferre, that it was an unlawfull assembly, not gathered in Gods name. In this their reason, both the antecedent and consequence are unsound and untrue. Did Pope Vigilius resist this Councell, and contradict the calling or assem∣bling thereof? What testimonie doth Baronius or Binius bring of this their so confident assertion? Truly none at all. What probabili∣ties yet, or conjectures? Even as many. Are not these men, think you, wise & worthy disputers, who dare avouch so doubtfull matters, and that also to the disgrace of an holy, ancient, and approved Councell; and yet bring no testimonie, no probabilitie, no conjecture, no proofe at all of their saying? Ipse dixit, is in stead of all.

12. But what will you say if Ipse dixit will prove the quite contra∣rie? If both Baronius and Binius professe, that Vigilius did consent that this Councell should be held? Heare I pray you their own words, and then admire and detest the most vile dealing of these men. Hanc Synodum, Vigilius authoritate pontificia indixit, saith Binius t 1.1408; Vigilius

called and appointed this Synod by his papall authority. Againe u 1.1409, The Em∣perour called this fift Synod, authoritate Vigilij, by the authority of Pope Vigilius. Baronius sings the same note: It was very well provided, saith he x 1.1410, that this Oecumenicall Synod should be held, ex Vigilii Papae sententia, according to the minde and sentence of Pope Vigilius, who above all other men desired to have a Councell. Againe y 1.1411, The Emperour decreed that the Synod should be called, ex ipsius Vigilii sententia, according to the minde of Vigilius. And a little after; It was commendable in the Emperor, that he did labour to assemble the Synod, ex Vigilij Papae sententia, ac∣cording to the minde and sentence of Pope Vigilius. Neither onely did the Pope consent to have a Councell, but to have it in that very city where it was held, and where himselfe then was. Indeed at the first, the Pope was desirous z 1.1412 and earnest, to have it held in Sicily, or in some Westerne Citie: (even as Pope Leo had laboured a 1.1413 with Theodosius for the Councell which was held at Chalcedon:) But when Iustinian the Emperour would not consent b 1.1414 to that petition, (as neither Theodo∣sius nor Martian would to the former of Leo,) Vigilius then, voluntati c 1.1415 Imperatoris libens accessit, very willingly consented to the Emperours plea∣sure in this matter, that the Oecumenicall Councell should be held at Constantinople. Say now in sadnesse, what you thinke of Baronius and Binius? Whither had they sent their wits, when they laboured to perswade this Councell to be unlawfull, because Pope Vigilius resi∣sted and contradicted the assembling thereof? whereas themselves so often, so evidently, so expresly testifie, not onely that it was assem∣bled by the consent, and according to the minde, will, pleasure, desire, authority, and sentence of the Pope; but the very chiefe act and roy∣altie of the summons they challenge (though falsely) to the Pope; the other, which is an act of labour and service, to be as it were the Popes Sumner or Apparitor, in bringing the Bishops together by the Popes authoritie, that, and none but that they allow to the Emperour.

13. Many other testimonies might bee produced, to declare this truth: That of Sigonius d 1.1416: The Emperour called this Synod, Vigilio Pontifice permittente, Pope Vigilius permitting him: that of Wernerus e 1.1417; Vigilius jussit Concilium Constantinopoli celebrari, Vigilius commanded that this Councell should be held at Constantinople: That of Zonaras f 1.1418 and Gli∣cas g 1.1419, who both affirme, that Vigilius was Princeps Concilij, the chiefe Bishop of the Councell: not chiefe among them that sate in the Councell, for there he was not at all: nor chiefe in making the Synodall decree, for therein he contradicted the Councell: but chiefe of all who sued to the Emperour, and procured the Councell, as being desirous of the same. But omitting the rest, the whole generall Councell, yea and the Popes owne letters, put this out of all doubt. This say h 1.1420 the whole Councell, even in their Synodall sentence, Consensit in scriptis in Con∣cilio convenire, Vigilius under his owne hand-writing consented to come to∣gether, and be present with us in the Synod. Againe, the Legates sent from the Councell to invite Vigilius, said i 1.1421 thus unto him, Your Holinesse knoweth, quod promisistis unà cum Episcopis convenire, that you have pro∣mised to come together with the other Bishops, into the Councell, and there to debate this question. Vigilius himselfe writ k 1.1422 thus to the Bishops of the

Councell: We knowing your desire, praedictis postulationibus annui∣mus, have consented to your petitions, that in an orderly assembly being made, wee may conferre with our united brethren about the three Chapters. I doubt not but upon such faire and undoubted records, every one will now confesse, First, that if to be gathered by the Popes consent and authority, will make a Councell lawfull, (which with them is an authentike rule) then this fift Councell is without question in this respect most lawfull: Secondly, that Baronius and Binius are shamelesse both in uttering untruths, & in reviling this holy Synod, which they would perswade to be unlawful, because it was assembled, the Pope resisting it; whereas this Councell to have beene assembled, with the consent (yea as they boast with the authority also) of Pope Vigilius, not onely other Writers, but the Synodall Acts, the whole generall Councell, the letters of Vigilius, and the expresse words of Baronius and Binius themselves doe evidently declare.

14. Come now to the Consequence. Say the Pope had resisted the assembling of this Councell, was it for this cause unlawfull, was it no generall Councell? What say you then to the second Councell, of which Baronius thus writeth l 1.1423, It was held, repugnante Damaso, Pope Damasus resisting the holding thereof. Will they blot that also out of the ranke of generall, and lawfull Synods? If not, why may not this fift also bee a generall and lawfull Synod, though Vigilius had with tooth and naile resisted the same? Shall the peevishnesse or pervers∣nesse of the Pope, or any Bishop hinder the assembling of a generall Councell, and so the publike peace and tranquillity of the whole Church? Open but this gappe, and there never should have been, nor ever shall be any generall Councell. The wilfulnesse of Eusebius Bi∣shop of Nicomedia, at Nice••; of Iohn Patriarch of Antioch, at Ephesus; of Dioscorus Patriarch of Alexandria, at Chalcedon, will frustrate all those holy Councells, and make them to be neither generall nor law∣full. The saying of Cardinall Cusanus is worthy observing to this pur∣pose; I beleeve, saith he m 1.1424, that to be spoken not absurdly, that the Emperor himselfe, in regard of that care and custody of preserving the faith, which is committed unto him, may praeceptivè indicere Synodum, by his Imperiall au∣thority and command assemble a Synod, when the great danger of the Church requireth the same; negligente aut contradicente Romano Pontifice, the Pope either neglecting so to doe, or resisting and contradicting the doing thereof. So Cusanus. This was the very state and condition of the Church at this time, when the fift Councell was assembled. The n 1.1425 whole Church had beene a long time scandalized and troubled about those Three Chapters, it was rent and divided from East to West. High time it was and necessary for Iustinian to see that flame quenched, although Pope Vigilius or any other Patriarch had never so eagerly resisted the remedie thereof.

15. Had the Cardinall pleaded against this Synod, that Vigilius had not beene called unto it, hee had spoken indeed to the purpose. For this is essentiall, and such as without which a Synod cannot bee generall and lawfull, that all Bishops be summoned to the Synod, and comming thither, have free accesse unto it, and freedome of speech

and judgment therein. But the Cardinall durst not take this excepti∣on against this Synod, or for Vigilius; for none of these to have beene wanting in this Councell, is so cleare, that pertinacie it selfe cannot deny it. It was not the Pope (as they vainly boast) but the Emperor, who by his owne and Imperiall authority called this Councell, as the whole Synod even in their Synodall sentence witnesse: Wee are a••∣sembled here in this City, jussione pijssimi Imperatoris vocati, being called by the commandement of our most religious Emperor. His calling to have beene generall, Nicephorus doth expresly declare, The Emperor saith he o 1.1426, assembled the fift generall Councell, Episcopis ecclesiarum omnium evocatis, the Bishops of all Churches being called unto it: yea the Empe∣ror was so equall in this cause, that Binius p 1.1427 testifieth of him, Paris numeri Episcopos ex Oriente & Occidente convocavit, that he called (in particular, and besides his generall summons, by which all without exception had free accesse) as many out of the West, where the defenders of those Chapters did abound; as he did out of the East, where the same Chap∣ters were generally condemned. And yet further, Vigilius himselfe was by name, not onely invited, intreated, and by many reasons perswa∣ded, but even commanded by the Emperor, and in his name, to come unto the Synod, as before q 1.1428 we shewed. Now what freedome hee might have had in the Councell, both that offer of the Presidencie, doth shew for him in particular, and the words of the Councell spo∣ken concerning all in generall doth declare; for when Sabinianus and others, who being then at Constantinople, were invited to the Synod, and refused to come, the synod sayd r 1.1429, It was meet that they being called should have come to the Councell, and have been partakers of all things which are here done and debated, especially seeing both the most holy Empe∣rour and we, licentiam dedimus unicui{que} have granted free liberty to e∣very one to manifest his minde in the Synod concerning the causes proposed. Seeing then he not onely might, but in his duty both to God, to the Emperour, and to the whole Church, hee ought to have come, and freely spoken his minde in this cause, his resisting the will of the Em∣peror, and refusing to come, doth evidently demonstrate his want of love to the truth, and dutifulnesse to the Emperor, and the Church; but it can no way impaire or impeach the dignity and authority of the Councell, neither for the generality, nor for the lawfulnesse thereof.

16. Besides all which there is yet one thing above all the rest to be remembred; for though Pope Vigilius was not present in the Sy∣nod 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 Apostolicall and Cathedrall Constitution which hee 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 Impe∣ratorem & Synodum, both to the Emperor and to the Synod, quod & ingenuè praestitit, which also he ingenuously performed as the Cardinall tells s 1.1430 us. That elaborate t 1.1431 decree, to which an whole Synod, together with the Pope subscribed, containing the Popes sentence and instruction given in this cause, Vniverso u 1.1432 orbi Catholico cunctis{que} fidelibus, not onely to the

Synod, teaching them what they should define, but to all Christians, teaching them what they shold beleeve, was in consessu Episcoporum re∣citatum, read and recited before all the Bishops in that Councell, as Binius doth x 1.1433 assure us. This one kinde of presence in the Synod, is supple∣tive of all the rest, of more worth then 20. nay then 200. Legates, à latere sent from his holinesse. They all may deale besides, or con∣trary to the Popes minde, as Zacharias and Rhodoaldus did in a Coun∣cell held about the cause of Photius; but this Cathedrall instruction is an inflexible messenger, no bribes, no perswasions, no feare, no favour can extort from it one syllable more then his holinesse by the infalli∣ble direction of his Chaire hath delivered; yea though the Pope should have beene personally present in the Synod, and face to face spoken his mind in his cause, yet could not his sudden or lesse preme∣ditated speech have beene for weight or authority comparable to this decree, being elaborated after seven yeares ponderation of the cause, and all things in it being disposed cum omni undi{que} cautela atque dili∣gentia, with all diligence and circumspection, that could possibly bee used, which the Pope though absent in body, yet sent as an Oracle from heaven to be a direction to the Synod, and to supply his own absence. So many wayes is this former objection of Baronius vaine, and un∣sound, when he pretends this Councell to have beene unlawfull be∣cause the Pope resisted it, and the members assembled without their head: for neither did Vigilius resist their assembling, but freely and willingly consented unto it; neither was hee excluded from the Sy∣nod, but most undutifully absented himselfe from it: and though the members at that time wanted the Popes head-peece, yet they had his heart, his minde, and his Apostolicall direction among them, to bee a Cynosure unto them in that cause, which alone is able to supply both his personall and Legantine absence in any Councel.

17. The other objection of Baronius is taken from the decree of this Synod. The sentence, saith he y 1.1434, given by it, was contra ipsius decre∣tum, against the decree of Vigilius, and therefore their assembly deser∣ved not the name of a generall, no nor so much as of a private Synod, it was no Councell at all. Cardinall Bellarmine explaines this more fully, saying z 1.1435, Such Councells as define matters against the Popes instructi∣on; Reprobata Concilia dici debent, are to bee called or accounted, Rejected Councells; for it is all one, saith he, whether the Pope doe expresly reject and reprobate a Councell, or whether the Councell deale, contra Pontificis senten∣tiam, against the Popes sentence, either of both such Councells, are reiected, and so of no authoritie at all. So Bellarmine. What shall we answer to the perversnesse of these men? If this rule be admitted, the Church hath for ever and inevitably lost this fift Councell, and (by their se∣cond Nicen collection) the sixt, the seventh, and all that follow. And I verily am perswaded, that none can possibly excuse either Baronius, or Bellarmine from this crime of expunging the fift Councell, and all which follow it, from the ranke and number of generall, or approved Councels. For it is as cleare as the sunshine at noone day, that the sentence pronounced by the fift synod was contradictory to the defi∣nition and Cathedrall instruction sent by Pope Vigilius into them. If

then to define a cause contrary to the Popes instruction be a sure note of a Reprobate Councell, as they teach it to be; farewell for ever this fift, and all that follow it, or approve it: they are all by the rule of these two worthy Cardinals, Reprobated Councels, nay not so much as Councels, but meere Conspiracies or Conventicles.

18. Besides this, see I pray you the zeale and devotion of these men to the Catholike faith. If this Councell be for this cause a Re∣jected Councell, because it followed not the instructions of Pope Vi∣gilius sent unto it, then it should have beene an holy, and approved Councell, if it had followed those instructions of Vigilius; that is, if it had condemned the Councells of Nice, Ephesus and Chalcedon, if it had decreed Nestorianisme to be the Catholike faith, and Iesus Christ not to be God: for Vigilius be decreeing that the Three Chapters ought to be defended, instructed them thus to define and judge. Had they thus done, then, because they had followed the instructions of Vigilius, the two Cardinalls would have embraced this Councell, with both armes, have applauded, & advanced it to the skies: seeing it did not so, but contradicted the Popes Apostolicall instructions at this time; fie on it, it is an unlawfull, a Reprobated Councell, nay it is no Councell at all, nor of any authority. Can any with reason judge these men to be ought else then Nestorians, then condemned here∣tikes, and obstinate oppugners of all ancient holy Councells, and of the Catholike faith? See the strange diversity of judgement which is in us and them. They in their hereticall dotage on the Popes Ca∣thedrall infallibility, teach this fift holy Councell to bee a reprobated synod, eo nomine, because it followed not the instructions of Pope Vi∣gilius; we on the contrary doe constantly affirme it to bee an holy and most approved synod, eo nomine, because it followed not, but rejected and condemned those Cathedrall instructions of Vigilius: with us con∣sent the sixt, seventh, and all succeeding generall Councells, till that at Laterane, all former holy Councells also, to all which this Councell is consonant. From them dissent all these both former and subsequent Councells; that is, the whole Catholike Church for fifteene hundreth yeares and more. Vtri creditis? whose doctrine thinke you now is an∣cient, orthodoxall, and catholike? And whether had you rather with these two Cardinalls, account this fift synod an unlawfull assembly, and a reprobate Councell, because it contradicted the hereticall con∣stitution of Pope Vigilius, or with such an army of witnesses, honor it for a sacred, Oecumenicall approved Councell, though it not onely wanted the approbation, but had in plaine words the Cathedrall Re∣probation z 1.1436 of Pope Vigilius.

19. Having now fully refuted not onely the Assertion of Baronius, That this Councell was of no authority, nor an approved Councell till Pope Vigilius confirmed and approved it, but also both those rea∣sons whereby he would perswade the same: there remaineth yet one doubt, which necessarily is to be satisfied for the finall clearing of this point. For it will, and justly may bee demanded, what it was which made this fift an approved Councell? Or if it bee not the Popes con∣firmation and approbation, what it is in any Councell, or any decree

thereof, which makes it to be, and rightly to be esteemed an approved Councell or Decree? I constantly answer, that whatsoever it be, it is no approbation, no confirmation, nor any act of the Pope; at least no more of him, than of any other Patriarke or Patriarchall Primate in the Church: An evident proofe whereof is in the second Generall Councell; for that, ever since their Synodall sen∣tence was made against the MACEDONIANS, and ratified by the Emperour, was esteemed by the Catholike Church an Oecu∣menicall, and approved Councell, and that, before the Pope had con∣sented unto it or approved the same: For that Councell being as∣sembled in May a 1.1437, when Eucherius and Seagrius were Consuls, (an. 381.) continued till b 1.1438 about the end of Iuly in the same yeare. On the 30. of Iuly Theodosius the Emperour published his severe law against the Macedonians, being then condemned heretikes: Hee commanded that forth withal Churches should be givē to those,c 1.1439 who held the one and equall Majesty of the Father, Sonne, and Holy Ghost, and were of the same faith with Nestorius, Timotheus, and other Bishops in that Synod; but whosoever dissented in faith from them, ut manifestos hae∣reticos ab Ecclesia expelli, they should all be expelled as manifest haeretikes, and never be admitted againe. In which law seeing the Macedonians are called manifest heretikes, that is, such as are convicted and condem∣ned by a generall Councell, it is doubtlesse, that at the promulgating of this law, both the Emperour and the catholike Church, held that decree of the second Councel, against the Macedonians, to be the judg∣ment of an holy, lawful, & approved Oecumenical Synod, such as was the most ample convictiō of an heretike, & manifestation of a heresie. Now this Edict was published before Pope Damasus either approved that Councell, or so much as knew what was done therein: For the first newes what was done in the Councell, came to Damasus, after the Councell of Aquileia, as after Sigenius d 1.1440, Baronius declareth▪ who after the Synod at Aquileia described, saith e 1.1441, Post haec autem, Af∣ter these things done at Aquileia, when Damasus had received a mes∣sage concerning the Councell at Constantinople, &c. that Councell at Aquileia was held f 1.1442 on the fift of September, when the other at Con∣stantinople was ended a month before: and how long after that time it was before Damasus approved that Councell at Constantinople, whe∣ther one, two, or three yeares, will bee hard for any of the Cardi∣nals friends truly to explane: Howsoever, seeing it is certaine, that the generall Councell was ended, and the Decrees thereof not onely ap∣proved, but put in execution by the Church, before the Pope, I say not, confirmed that Councell; but before hee knew what was done and decred therein, it is a Demonstration, that a generall Councell, or a Decree thereof, may bee, and de facto, hath beene judged, by the Church, both of them to bee of full and Synodall authoritie, and ap∣proved 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 Gre∣gories time, approved that Councell? Gregory himselfe is a witnesse hereof: The g 1.1443 Canons of the Constantinopolitane Councell condemne the Eu∣doxians,

but who that Eudoxius was, they doe not declare. And the Ro∣mane Church, eosdem Canones vel gesta Synodi illius, hactenus non habet, nec accipit; neither hath, nor approveth those Canons or Acts; but herein it accepteth that Synod in that which was defined against the Macedonians, by it; and it rejecteth those heresies, which being mentioned therein, were already condemned by other Fathers. So Gregory: By whose words it is plaine, that the Romane Church, untill Gregories time, neither approved the Canons nor Acts of that second generall Councell: Even the con∣demning of Macedonius and his heresie, was not approved by the Ro∣mane Church, eo nomine, because it was decreed in that Councell, for then they should have approved the Canon against the Eudoxians, and all the rest of their Canons, seeing there was the selfe-same authority of the holy Councell, in decreeing them all; but the reason why they approved that against the Macedonians, was, because Pope h 1.1444 Damasus had, in a Romane Synod, divers yeares before i 1.1445 the second Councell condemned that heresie; and what heresies were by former Fathers condemned, those, and nothing else; did the Romane Church approve in that Councell, as Gregory saith. The inducement moving them was not the authority of the second Councell, but the judgement of other Fathers, for which they accepted of the second Councell there∣in: and this was untill the dayes or time of Gregory; for that is it which Gregory intendeth in the former words, hactenus non habet nec accipit; not meaning, that till the yeare, wherein he writ that Epistle, which was the fifteenth Indiction, the Romane Church received not those Canons or Acts: (for in the ninth Indiction, that is, sixe yeares before, himselfe professed k 1.1446 to embrace that second Councell, as one of the foure Euangelists, which also to have beene the judgement of their Church, he l 1.1447 witnesseth in the eleventh Indiction) but untill Gre∣gories time; hactenus, untill this age, wherein I live, was the second Councell, the Canons or Acts thereof, not had nor approved by the Romane Church: And yet all that time, even from the end of that Councell, was both that Councell held for a generall, lawfull, and ap∣proved Synod, and their Decree against Macedonius, by the whole Church approved, as a Decree of a generall and lawfull Councell, such as ought to binde the whole Church.

21. What wee have shewed concerning the Decree against the Macedonians, and in generall, for the second Councell, that will bee much more evident in the third Canon of that Synod, which con∣cernes the Patriarchall dignity of the See of Constantinople, his prece∣dence to the Patriarchs of Alexandria & Antioch, and his authority o∣ver the Churches in Asia minor, Thrace, and Pontus, all which was con∣ferred on that See by that third Canon. That the Church of Rome, till Gregories time; approved not that Canon, is evident by Pope Leo, who in many m 1.1448 of his Epistles, specially in that to Anatolius n 1.1449, shewes his dislike of it; yea, rejects it, as contrary to the Nicene Decrees, which Leo there defineth (but, without doubt, erroniously) to bee im∣mutable. The Legates of Leo, having instructions from him, said o∣penly in the Councell of Chalcedon o 1.1450, touching the Canons of this Councell, in Synodicis Canonibus non habentur, they are not accounted or

held for Synodall Canons; and following the minde and precept p 1.1451 of the Pope, they most earnestly oppugned this third Canon. Long before Leo did Damasus reject q 1.1452 this Canon, facto decreto in Synodo Romana, making a Decree against it, in a Romane Synod, which is extant in their Vaticane, as Turrian, who belike saw the Decree, doth witnesse. Now seeing that Decree of Damasus was made, statim post secundum Conci∣lium, presently after the second Councell, and was so strongly corrobora∣ted by Pope Leo; this may perswade, that none of their Popes before the dayes of Gregory would repeale the Decrees of those two Popes. Their owne Nicholas Sanders goes further, and saith r 1.1453, That this Canon was not allowed by the Romane Church, till the Councell at Laterane, under Innocentius the third, which is more than sixe hundred yeares after the death of Gregory: and though he prove this by the testimony of Guiliel∣mus Tyrius, yet I insist onely upon the time of Gregorie, whose words are very pregnant for this, and the other Canons of that second Coun∣cel; the Romane Church, hactenus non habet nec accipit, did not till these dayes 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 generall Councell, which bindeth all: notwithstanding the Popes did not approve it, nay, did even by their Synodall Decrees reject it, there are very many and cleare evidences: By warrant of that Canon did Anatolius in the Councell of Chalcedon s 1.1454, and Eutichius in the fift Sy∣nod t 1.1455, in the right of their See of Constantinople take place before, and above the Patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch; none in those Councels repi∣ning thereat: nay, those Synods, and God himselfe (as is there u 1.1456 said) approving that precedence: And whereas this order had not beene observed in the Ephesine Latrocinie; Flavianus Bishop of Constantinople being set after the Bishops of Antioch and Ierusalem, the Bishops of the Councell of Chalcedon stormed thereat, and said x 1.1457, Why did not Fla∣vianus sit in his proper place? that is, next to the Romane Bishop, or his Legates. By authority of the same Canon did Chrysostome, when he was Bishop of Constantinople, depose y 1.1458 fifteene Bishops in Asia; ordaine others in their roomes; celebrate z 1.1459 a Councell 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 beene knowne, that they were subject to him as their Patriarke, by that Canon of the second gene∣rall Councell, to which they all must obey: And this was done about some twenty yeares after that Canon was made. So quickly was the same in force,a 1.1460 and was acknowledged to bee of a binding authority. In the Councell of Chalcedon, when the truth of this Canon was most diligently examined, Elutherius Bishop of Chalcedon said, b 1.1461 Sciens quia per Canones & per consuetudinem; I subscribed hereunto, knowing that the See of Constantinople hath these rights (in Asia and Pontus, as a Patriarke to governe there) both according to the Canons, and according to custome: and the like was deposed by many Bishops of Asia and Pontus. They ac∣knowledge, nay, they knew there was such a Canon; they knew also, that the custome and practice did concurrere cum lege, did concurre with the Canon; whereupon the glorious Iudges, after full discussing of this

cause, testified b 1.1462, and sentenced, that the Bish. of Constantinople had right∣full authority to ordaine Metropolitane Bishops in the Diocesses of Thrace, Asia, and Pontus, and the whole Synod consented to them; first proclaiming, Haecc 1.1463 justa est sententia, this is a just sentence, this we say all: and then in the very Synodal Epistle d 1.1464 to Leo testifying the same, to wit, that they had confirmed that custome to the Bishop of Constantinople, that he should ordaine Metropolitanes in Thrace, Asia, and Pontus; and thereby had con∣firmed the third Canon of the second Councell. This was the judge∣ment of the whole Councell at Chalcedon, that is, of the whole Catho∣like Church in that age, to which have consented all Councels, and catholike Bishops ever since: All these doe approve, and judge to bee approved that Canon of the second generall Councell, which the Popes and Romane Church, not onely not approved, but expresly and by Synodall decrees rejected.

23. About some ninety yeares e 1.1465 after this, and an hundred sixty yeares f 1.1466 after that second Synod, did Iustinian the Emperour confirme the g 1.1467 Canons, both of that second, and of al the former general Coun∣cels, giving unto them force of Imperiall lawes: Yea, hee further com∣manded those Canons, (this third among the rest) Dipticis inseri, & praedicari, to be written in the Diptikes or Ecclesiasticall bookes, and pub∣likely to be read in the Churches, in token of the publike and universall appro∣bation of the same. This the fift Councell h 1.1468 testifieth, as also Victor i 1.1469, and Evagrius k 1.1470, yea, the Emperour himselfe also, who both l 1.1471 professeth that he will not suffer this custome to bee taken away, and signifieth m 1.1472 that all Patriarkes are knowne to keepe in their Diptikes, and to recite those Canons in their Churches. The Emperor doubted not but the Romane Church & Patriarke, as well as the rest, had done this, and yeelded obedience to so holy an Edict; but the Romane Church deluded the Emperour herein: none of them, as Bellarmine n 1.1473 tels us, did after Iustinians time, or as he accounts after the yeare 500, reclamare, contradict or speake against that Canon, (which their silence the Emperour and others, not acquainted with the Romane Arts, did interpret to be a consent) but Binius o 1.1474 bewrayeth their policy; they, for peace and quietnes sake (being loth to exasperate the Emperour) 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, (thē not til Gregories time, which is as much as I intended to prove) it was never, saith hee, approved by the Romane Church; which hee proves by a De∣cretall of Innocentius the third; whence it is evident, seeing that Canon of the second generall Councell, was never, as Binius avoucheth, but certainly not till Gregories time, approved by the Pope, and yet was all that time approved by the catholike Church, even by the great and famous Councell at Chalcedon, & al who approve it, who are no fewer than the whole catholike Church; it is evident, I say, that it is nei∣ther the Popes Approbation which maketh, nor his Reprobation which hindereth a Councell, or any Decree, or Canon thereof, to be an approved generall Councell, or a Synodall Canon, such as doth, and ought to binde all that are in the Church.

24. The Popes Approbation it is not: but what it is which makes

a generall Councell or Canon thereof, to be an approved Councell, or an approved Canon; and for such to bee rightly accounted, is not so easie to explane. This in an other Treatise I have at large handled, to which, if it ever see the light, I referre my selfe; yet suffer me to touch in this place so much as may serve to cleare this, and divers other doubts, which are obvious in their writings concerning this point.

25. That every Councell 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 Councells most evi∣dent. For both their consenting judgement pronounced by word of mouth, and after that, their subscription to their decree, did ratifie and confirme their sentence. In that which they call the eighth gene∣rall Synod, after the sentence pronounced, the Popes Legates said p 1.1475, Oportet ut haec manu nostra subscribendo confirmemus, it is needfull that wee confirme these things which we have decreed, by our subscribing unto them. Of the great Nicene Councell Eusebius this writeth q 1.1476, Those things which with one consent they had decreed, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, they were fully autho∣rized, ratified, confirmed or approved, (the Greeke word is very empha∣ticall) by their subscription. In the Councell of Chalcedon, when the a∣greement betwixt Iuvenalis and Maximus was decreed, they subscri∣bed r 1.1477 in this forme; That which is consented upon, confirmo, I by my sentence doe confirme; or, firma esse decerno, I decree that it shall be firme: and to the like effect subscribed all the rest. Whereupon the glorious Iudges, without expecting any other confirmation either from Pope Leo, or any that was absent, said; This which is consented upon shall abide firme, in omni tempore, for ever by our decree, and by the sentence of the Synod. Of the second generall Councell, a Synod at Hellespont said s 1.1478, Hanc Synodum Timotheus unà cum eis praesens firmavit, Timotheus, with the other Bishops, then present, confirmed this Synod. The consent and subscrip∣tion of the Bishops present in the Synod, they call a Confirmation of the Synod. In the Synod t 1.1479 at Maesia, after the sentence of the Synod was given, they all subscribed in this forme, I M.P.D. &c. confirmavi & subscripsi, have confirmed this Synodall sentence, and subscribed unto it. In the second Councell at Carthage, held about the time of Pope Ce∣lestine, Gennadius said u 1.1480, Quae ab omnibus sunt dicta propria debemus sub∣scriptione firmare, what hath beene said and decreed by us all, wee ought by our owne subscriptions to confirme: and all the Bishops answered, Fiat, fiat, let us so doe; and then they subscribed. So cleare it is, that what∣soever decree is made by any Councell, the same is truly and rightly said to bee 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. Vpon this confirmation or approbation of any Decree by the Bishops present in the Councell, doth the whole strength and autho∣rity of any Synodall decree rely; and upon no other confirmation of any Bishop whatsoever, when the Councell is generall and lawfull. For in such a Councell, lawfully called, lawfully governed, and law∣fully proceeding, as well in the free discussing, as free sentencing of the cause; there is in true account the joynt consent of all Bishops and

Ecclesiasticall persons in the whole world. No Bishop can then com∣plaine that either he is not called, or not admitted with freedome in∣to such a Councell, unlesse that he be excommunicated, or suspended, or for some such like reason justly debarred. If all do come, they may and doe freely deliver their owne judgement; and that not onely for themselves, but for all the Presbyters in their whole Diocesse. For seeing the pastorall care of every Diocesse, even from the Apostles time, and by them is committed to the Bishop thereof, (all the rest being by him admitted but onely into a part of his care, and to assist him in some parts of his Episcopall function) he doth, at least (because he should) he is supposed to admit none, but such as hee knoweth to professe the same faith with himselfe: whence it is, that in his voice is included the judgement of his whole Diocesan Church, and of all the Presbyters therein: they all beleeving as he doth, speake also in the Councell by his mouth, the same that he doth. If some of the Bishops come not personally, but either depute others in their roomes, or passe their suffrage (as often they did) in the voice of their Metropo∣litan, then 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 minde, 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 thinke not onely to be able and sufficient without themselves to define that cause; but that they will define it in such sort as themselves doe 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 stomack or hatred to the truth, do wilfully re∣fuse to come, because they dissent from the others in that doctrine, yet even these also are in the eie of reason supposed to give an implicit consent unto that which is decreed, yea though explicitè they doe dis∣sent from it. For every one doth, and in reason is supposed to consent on this generall point, that a Synodall judgement must bee given in that doubt & controversie, there being no better nor higher humane Court than is that of a generall Councell, by which they may bee di∣rected. Now because there never possibly could any Synodall judge∣ment be given, if the wilfull absence of one or a few should bee a just barre 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 Councell, and that their decree or sentence shall stand for the judgement of a generall Councell, notwithstanding their ab∣sence who wilfully refuse to come.

27. If then all the Bishops present in the Councell do consent up∣on any decree, there is in it one of those wayes which we have mentio∣ned, either by personall declaration, or by signification made by their delegates and agents, or by a tacit, or by an implicit consent, the con∣senting judgement of all the Bishops and Presbyters in the whole Church, that is, of al who either have judicatory power or authoritie to preach publikely; 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 confirme this De∣cree. Hereof there is a worthy example in the third generall Coun∣cell. No Presbyters at all were therein, not in their owne right. Ve∣ry many Bishops were personally absent, and present onely by their Legates or Agents; as almost all the Westerne Bishops, and by name Celestine Patriarch of Rome. Some, no question, upon other occasions neglected that businesse; as, it may be, the Bishops of Gangra, and of Heraclèa in Macedonia, who were not at this Councell. Divers o∣thers wilfully and obstinately refused to come to that holy Synod; as by name Nestorius Patriarch of Constantinople, Iohn Patriarch of Anti∣och, and some forty Bishops, who at the same time while the holy Councell was held in the Church at Ephesus, held a Conventicle by themselves in an Inne, in the same Citie; and yet notwithstanding the personall absence of the first, the negligent of the second, and wilfull absence of the last, the holy x 1.1481 generall Councell saith of their Syno∣dall judgement, given by those who were then present, that it was ni∣hil aliud quam communis & concors terrarum orbis sensus & consensus, no∣thing else but the common and consenting judgment of the whole world. How could this be, when so many Bishops, besides three Patriarchs, were either personally, or negligently, or wifully absent? How was there in that decree the consent of these? Truly because they all (even all the Bishops in the world) did either personally, or by their Agents, ex∣presse; or else in such a tacit and implicit manner (as wee declared) wrap up their judgement in the Synodall decree made by the Bishops present in the Councell.

28. But what if many of those who are present, doe dissent from that which the rest being the greater part doe decree? Truly, even these also doe implicitè, and are in reason to bee judged to consent to that same decree. For every one is supposed to agree on that generall Maxime of reason, that in such an assembly of Iudges, what the grea∣ter part decreeth shall stand as the Act and Iudgement of the whole: seeing otherwise it would be impossible that such a multitude of Bi∣shops should ever give any judgement in a cause, for still some in per∣versenesse and pertinacie would dissent. Seeing then it is the ordi∣nance of God that the Church shall judge, and seeing there can no other meanes be devised how they should judge, unlesse the sentence of the greater part may stand for their judgement, reason enforceth all to consent upon this Maxime. Vpon this is that Imperiall Law grounded, Quod y 1.1482 major pars curiae effecit, pro rato habetur, acsi omnes id egerint, what the greater part of the Court shall do, that is ratified, or to stand for the judgement of the Court, as if all had done the same. And againe, Refertur z 1.1483 ad universos quod publicè fit per majorem partem: That is accoun∣ted the act of all, which is publikely done by the greater part. Vpon this ground is that truly said by Bellarmine a 1.1484, That whereon the greater part doth consent, est verum decretum Concilij, is the true decree of the Councell, even of the whole Councell. Vpon the equitie of this rule was it said in the Councell at Chalcedon b 1.1485, when ten Bishops dissented from the rest, Non est justum decem audiri, It is not just that the sentence of ten should prevaile against a thousand and two hundred Bishops. Vpon the equitie of

the same rule did the fift generall Councell truly & constantly judge c 1.1486, that the Councell of Chalcedon even in that definition of faith, which they all with one consent agreed upon, condemned the Epistle of Ibas as hereticall; al∣though they knew that Maximus, with Pascasinus, and the other Legats of Pope Leo, in the Councell of Chalcedon, adjudged that Epistle to be orthodo∣xall. How was it the consenting judgement of the whole Councell of Chalcedon, when yet some did expresse their dissent therein? How, but by that implicit consent which all give to that rule of reason, that the judgement of the greater part shall stand for the judgment of the whole; which the fift Councell doth plainly signifie, saying d 1.1487, In Councels we must not attend the interloquutions of one or two, but what is defined in common, ab omnibus, aut amplioribus, either by all, or by the greater part: to that we must attend as to the judgement of the whole Councell. But omitting all the rest, there is one example in the Councell of Chalcedon most pregnant to this purpose.

29. All e 1.1488 the Councell, save onely the Popes Legates, consented upon that third Canon, decreed in the second, and now confirmed in this fourth Councell, that the See of Constantinople should have Patri∣archall dignity over Thrace, Asia, and Pontus, and have precedence be∣fore other Patriarches, as the next after the Bishop of Rome. The Le∣gates following the instructions of Leo, were so averse in this matter, that they said f 1.1489 not without some choler, Contradictio nostra his gestis inhaereat, Let our contradiction cleave to these Acts: and so it doth, to the eternall disgrace both of them and their master. The glorious Iudges notwithstanding this dissenting of the Legates and of Pope Leo him∣selfe in them, said g 1.1490 concerning that Canon, That which we have spo∣ken, (that the See of Constantinople ought to be the second, &c.) To∣ta Synodus, the whole Councell hath approved it. Why, but the Popes Le∣gates approved it not; they contradicted it. True, in this particular they dissented. But because they as all other Bishops, even Pope Leo himselfe, consented unto that generall Maxime, That the judgement of the greater part shall stand for the judgement of the whole Coun∣cell, in that generall both the Legats of Leo, and Leo himselfe, did im∣plicitè and virtually consent to that very Canon, from which actually and explicitè they did then dissent. For which cause the most prudent Iudges truly said, Tota Synodus, the whole Councell hath approved this Ca∣non: either explicitè or implicitè, either expressely or virtually appro∣ved it. Neither did onely those secular Iudges so esteeme, the whole generall Councell it selfe professed the same, and that even in the Sy∣nodall Relation of their Acts to Pope Leo: The universall h 1.1491 Synod said thus, We have condemned Dioscorus, we have confirmed the faith, wee have confirmed the Canon of the second Councell for the honour of the See of Constantinople, we have condemned the heresie of Eutyches: Thus writ the whole Councell to Leo: declaring evidently that act of approving that Canon to be the Act of the whole Synod, although they knew the contradiction of the Pope and his Legates to cleave unto it.

30. You see now that in every sentence of a generall and lawfull Councell there is an assent of all Bishops and Presbyters, they all ei∣ther explicitè, or tacitè, or implicitè, consenting to that decree, whe∣ther

they be absent or present, and whether in that particular they consent or dissent. Now because there can bee no greater humane judgement in any cause of faith or ecclesiasticall matter, than is the consenting judgement of all Bishops and Presbyters, that is, of all who have power either to teach or judge in those causes; it hence clearly ensueth, that there neither is nor can be any Episcopall or Ecclesiasti∣call confirmation or approbation whatsoever of any decree, greater, stronger, or of more authority, then is the judgement it selfe of such a generall Councell, and their owne confirmation or approbation of the decrees which they make; for in every such decree there is the consent of all the Bishops and Presbyters in the whole world.

31. Besides this confirmation of any synodall decree, which is by Bishops, and therefore to bee called Episcopall, there is also another confirmation added by Kings and Emperors, which is called Royall or Imperiall▪ by this later, religious Kings not onely give freedome and liberty, that those decrees of the Councell shall stand in force of Ec∣clesiasticall Canons within their dominions, so that the contemners of them may be with allowance of Kings, corrected by Ecclesiasticall censures, but further also, doe so strengthen, and backe the same by their sword, and civill authority, that the contradicters of those de∣crees, are made liable to those temporall punishments, which are set downe in Ezra i 1.1492 to death, to banishment, to confiscation of goods, or to im∣prisonment, as the quality of the offence shall require, and the wise∣dome of that Imperiall State shall think fit. Betwixt these two confir∣mations, Episcopall and Imperiall, there is exceeding great oddes and difference. By the former, judiciall sentence is given, and the synodall decree made or declared to be made, for which cause it may rightly be called a judiciall or definitive confirmation: by the later, neither is the synodal decree made, nor any judgment given to define that cause (for neither Princes nor any Lay men, are Iudges to decide those mat∣ters, as the Emperours Theodosius and Valentinian excellently declare in k 1.1493 their directions to Candidianus, in the Councell of Ephesus;) but the synodall decree being already made by the Bishops, and their judgement given in that cause, is strengthened by Imperiall authori∣ty, for which cause, this may fitly be called a supereminēt or corrobo∣rative confirmation of the synodall judgement. The former confir∣mation is Directive, teaching what all are to beleeve or observe in the Church: the later is Coactive, compelling all, by civill punishment to beleeve or observe the Synodall directions. The former is Essentiall to the Decree, such as if it want, there is no Synodall decree made at all: the later is Accidentall, which though it want, yet is the Decree of the Councell, a true Synodall Decree and sentence. The former bindes all men to obedience to that Decree, but yet onely under paine of Ecclesiasticall censures: the latter bindes the subjects only of those Princes, who give the Royall Confirmation to such Decrees, and binds them under the pain only of temporal punishmēt. By vertue of the former, the contradicters or contemners of those Decrees are rightly to be accounted either heretikes in causes of faith, or contu∣macious in other matters; and such are truly subject to the censures of

the Church, though, if the later be wanting, those censures cannot bee inflicted by any, or upon any, but with danger to incurre the in∣dignation of Princes: By vertue of the later, not onely the Church may safely, yea, with great allowance and praise, inflict their Ecclesi∣asticall censures, but inferiour Magistrates also may, nay ought to pro∣ceed against such contemners of those Synodall decrees, as against no∣torious, convicted, and condemned heretikes; or in causes which are not of faith, but of externall discipline and orders, as against contu∣macious persons. The Episcopall confirmation is the first in order, but yet because it proceeds from those who are all subject to Imperi∣all authority, it is in dignitie inferiour. The Imperiall confirmation is the last in order, but because it proceeds from those to whom everie soule is subject, it is in dignity Supreme.

32. This Imperiall confirmation, as holy generall Councels did with all submission intreate of Emperours, so religious Emperors did with all willingnesse grant unto them. Of the great Nicene Councell Eusebius saith l 1.1494, Constantine sealed, ratified, and confirmed the decrees which were made therein. The second general Councel writ m 1.1495 thus to the Em∣perour Theodosius, We beseech your clemency, that by your letters, ratum esse jubeas confirmesque Concilij decretum, that you would ratifie and con∣firme the decree of this Councell: and that the Emperour did so, his Em∣periall Edict, before n 1.1496 mentioned, doth make evident. To the third Councell the Emperor writ thus o 1.1497, Let matters cōcerning religion and pi∣ety be diligently examined, contention being laid aside; ac tum demū à nostrae pietate confirmationem expectate; and then expect from us our imperiall con∣firmation. The holy Councell having done so, writ p 1.1498 thus to the Em∣perour, We earnestly intreate your piety, ut jub••at ••a omnia, that you would cōmand, that all which is done by this holy and Oecumenical Councell against Nestorius, may stand in force, per vestra pietatis nutum et consensum con∣firmata; being confirmed by your roall assent: And that the Emperour yeelded to their request, his Edict q 1.1499 against Nestorius doth declare. In the fourth Councell the Emperour said r 1.1500, We come to this Synod, not to shew our power, sed ad con••irmandam fidem, but to confirme the faith. And whē he had signified before all the Bishops his royall assent s 1.1501 to their decree, the whole Councell cryed out, Orthodoxam fidem tu confirmasti, thou hast confirmed the Catholike faith: often ingeminating those joyfull acclamations. That Iustinian confirmed the fift Councell, his imperiall Edict for condemning those Three Chapters, which after the Synodall judgment stood in more force than before; his severity t 1.1502 in punishing the contradicters of the Synodall sentence, partly by exile, partly by imprisonment, are cleare witnesses. The sixt Councell said u 1.1503 thus to the Emperour, O our most gracious Lord grant this favour unto us, signacu∣lum tribue, seale and ratifie all that we have done; vestram inscribito imperia∣lem ratihabitionem; adde unto them your imperiall confirmation, that by your holy Edicts, and godly constitutions they may stand in firme force. And the Emperour upon their humble request, set forth his Edict, wherein he saith x 1.1504, We have published this our Edict, that we might, corroborare atque confirmare ea quae definita sunt, corroborate and confirme those things which are defined by the Councell. To all which, that may bee added

which Basilius the Emperour said in the eighth Synod, as they call it; I had y 1.1505 purposed to have subscribed after al the Bishops, as did my predecessors, Constantine the great, Theodosius, Martian, and the rest: thereby evidently testifying, not onely the custome of imperiall confirmation to have been observed in all former Councels, but the difference also betwixt it and the Episcopall subscription; the Bishops first subscribing, and thereby making or declaring, that they had made a Synodall decree, the Emperours after them all subscribing, as ratifying by their Impe∣riall 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 ap∣proved Synod, or an approved Synodall and Oecumenicall decree. It is not the Popes assent, approbation, or confirmation, (as they, with∣out all ground of truth doe fancy,) which at any time did, or pos∣sibly can doe this. It is onely the Vniversall and Oecumenicall consent of the whole Church, and of all the members thereof, upon any decree made by a generall Councell, which truly makes that an approved decree; which generall and Oecumenicall consent or appro∣bation, is shewed partly by the Episcopall confirmation of that de∣cree, made by the Bishops present therein, wherein there is ever either an expresse, or a vertuall and implicite consent of all the Bishops and Presbyters, and so of all the Clergy in the world; partly by the royall and imperiall confirmation given to that decree by Christian Kings and Emperours, in which there is an implicite con∣sent of all Laickes in the whole Church, Kings and Princes assenting not onely for themselves, but in the name of all their Lay subjects, for whom they undertake, that either they shall willingly obey that de∣cree, or else by severity of punishments, be compelled thereunto. If these two confirmations, or either of them be wanting, the Councell and decree which is supposed to be made therein, is neither an appro∣ved or confirmed Councell, nor decree, though the Pope send forth ten thousand Buls to approve and confirme the same: But if these two confirmations concurre in any decree of a generall and lawfull Coun∣cel, though the Pope reprobate and reject that Councell or decree ne∣ver so often, yet is both that Councell an approved generall Councel, and the decree thereof an approved or confirmed Synodall and Oe∣cumenicall decree, approved I say, and confirmed by the greatest hu∣mane authority and judgement that possibly can bee, either found, or desired, even by the whole catholike Church, and every member, whether Ecclesiasticall or Laicall, therein: And whosoever after such an ample approbation or confirmation, shall at any time contradict or contemne such a Councell or decree, he doth not, nor can he there∣by impare the dignity and authority of it, but he demonstrates him∣selfe to be an heretike, or, at least, a contumacious person, insolently, and in the pride of his singularity despising that judgement of the Councell, which the whole Church, and every member thereof, yea, even himselfe also among them, hath approved.

34. You will yet demand of mee, why generall Councels have fought the Popes approbation and confirmation of their decrees, (as

did the Councell of Chalcedon z 1.1506 of Pope Leo) after the end of the Sy∣nods; and what effect or fruit did arise from such confirmations, if it added no greater authority to the Synodall sentence, than before it had? I also aske of you another question; Why did the Councell of Constantinople confirme a 1.1507 the Nicene Synod, and the faith decreed therein? or why did the Councell of Chalcedon confirme b 1.1508 all the three former generall Councels? or why did their second Nicene con∣firme all the sixe Synods which were before it, saying ^c, Eorum consti∣tutionem integram & illabefactabilem confirmamus; we confirme the divine Canons and constitutions, being inviolable? Was not the great Nicene Councell and decree of faith, of as great authority before it was con∣firmed by the second or fourth Councel, as afterwards? or what great∣er strength and authority had either it, or any of the sixe first generall Councels, by the confirmation of the second Nicene Synod, which, unto all the former, is as much inferiour, as is drosse or clay to the gold of Ophir. If the confirmations of one generall Councell by another, give no greater authority unto it than before it had, (as it is certain by these examples, that it doth not) what marvell if the Popes confirma∣tion doe not worke that effect? If notwitstanding all this, the con∣firmations of former, by subsequent Councels, bee not fruitlesse; truly, neither the confirmation of the Pope, or any other Bishop that is absent, must bee thought fruitlesse, though it adde no more autho∣rity to the Synod, or Synodall decrees, than before they had.

35. Neither did only general, but even Provincial Coūcels, yea, par∣ticular Bishops confirme generall Synods, and the decrees therof. The Synod at Millane was assembled by the direction of Pope Leo, in which the Acts of the first Emphesine Councell, per subscriptionem Episcoporum absentium sunt confirmata; were confirmed by the subscription of those Bi∣shops, who were absent. So writeth d 1.1509 Binius. The like was done after the Councell of Chalcedon; for when some began to quarrell at it, Leo the Emperour, that he might, confirmare e 1.1510 ea, confirme the decrees of that Councell, published an Edict to that end, at the sollicitation of Pope Leo f 1.1511; yea further, the Emperour commanded the severall Bishops to shew their judgements in that doctrine of faith decreed at Chalcedon, which he did to this end, ut omnium calculo & confessione Chalcedonense Concilium iterum firmaretur, saith Binius m 1.1512; that the Councell of Chalcedon might be confirmed againe by the consent and confession of all those Bishops. They did what the Emperour commanded them: some alone, as A∣natolius, Seba••••ianus, Lucianus, Agapetus, and many moe; some in Syno∣dal Epistles, as the Bishops of Alexandria, of Europe; all whose letters are adjoyned to the Councell of Chalcedon n 1.1513: concerning all which, that is to be noted which Agapetus saith o 1.1514, Pene omnes occidentalium partium Episcopi confirmaverunt, atque consignaverunt; almost all the Bi∣shops of the West, (and so also in the East) did confirme by their letters and subscriptions, that faith which was explaned at Chalcedon. What authority thinke you, could the confirmation of one single Bishop, as of Agape∣tus and Sebastianus, or of a Synod consisting but of nineteene Bishops, (as that at Millan p 1.1515) or but of seven q 1.1516, or sixe r 1.1517, or five s 1.1518, or foure t 1.1519, (as some of the other) give to the great and Oecumenicall Councels of

Ephesus and Chalcedon, approved not onely by the Popes, but by the consenting judgement of the whole (Christian) world, as out of the Ephesine Synod we before declared: And yet was never one of those confirmations fruitlesse, as Pope Leo, who was the author of them, rightly judged. Of the great Nicene Councell, Eusebius Bishop of Nicomedia, and Theognis Bishop of Nice, after they had endured exile for not consenting to the Nicene faith, in token of their repentance, writ u 1.1520 thus unto the Synod, Those things which are decreed by your judge∣ment, consentientibus animis confirmare decrevimus, we are purposed to con∣firme with consenting mindes. Even the consent of two, and those exiled and hereticall Bishops, is called a confirmation of the great Nicene Councell, to which no authority was added therby. I will but add one example more, and that is of this our fift Councell; concerning which, in their second Nicene Synod, it is thus said x 1.1521, Foure Patriarkes being present, approved the same, and the most religious Emperour sent the Synodall Acts thereof to Ierusalem; where a Synod being assembled, all the Bi∣shops of Palestina manibus, & pedibus, & ore, sententiam Synodi con∣firmarunt; they all confirmed the sentence of this Councell, with their hands, with their confessions, and full consent, except onely one Alexander Bishop of Abyles, who thought the contrary, and therefore was put from his Bishopricke; and comming to Constantinople was swallowed up by an earthquake. So their Nicene Synod: By all which it is now cleare, that generall and appoved Oecumenicall Councels, or the de∣crees thereof, may bee, and, de facto, have beene usually approved and confirmed not onely by the Pope, but by other succeding generall Councels, by Provinciall Synods, yea, by particular Bishops, who have beene absent, none of all which gave, or could give more autho∣rity to the Councell or Synodall decree thereof, than it had before; and some of them are both in authority and dignity not once to bee compared to those Synods which they doe approve or confirme; and yet not any one of al these confirmations were needlesse, or fruitlesse.

36. The reason of all which may be perceived by the divers ends of th••se two cōfirmations. These use & end of the first confirmation by the Bishops present in the Councell, was judicially to determine and define the controversie then proposed, and to give unto it the full and perfect authority of a Synodall Oecumenicall decree, that is in truth, the whole strength and authority which all the Bishops and Churches in the whole world could give unto it. The use and end of the second confirmation by those Bishops, who were absent, was not judicially to define that cause, or give any judgment therein, (for this was done already, and in as effectuall a manner as possible it could bee) but to preserve the peace of the Church, and unity in faith, which could by no other meanes be better effected, than if Bishops, who had been ab∣sent, and therefore did but implicitè, or by others, consent to those de∣crees at the making thereof, did afterwards declare their owne expli∣cite and expresse consent to the same. Now because the more emi∣nent that any Bishop was, either for authority or learning, the more likely he was, either to make a rent and schisme in the Church, if hee should dissent, or to procure the tranquility and peace of the

Church, if hee should consent; hence it was, that if any Patriarke, Patriarchall Primate, or other eminent Bishop were absent at the time of the Councell, the Church and Councell did the more ear∣nestly labour to have his expresse consent and confirmation to the Synodall decrees: This was the cause why both the religious Empe∣rour Theodosius y 1.1522, and Cyrill, with other orthodoxall Bishops, were so earnest to have Iohn Patriarke of Antioch, to consent to the holy E∣phesine Synod, which long before was ended; that as he had beene the ringleader to the factious conventicle, and those who defended Nesto∣rius with his heresie; so his yeelding to the truth, and embracing the Ephesine Councell, which condemned Nestorius, might draw many o∣thers to doe the like, and so indeed it did. This was the princi∣pall reason why some of the ancient Councels, as that by name of Chalcedon, (for all did it not) sought the Popes confirmation to their Synodall decrees; not thinking their sentence in any cause to bee in∣valid, or their Councell no approved Councell, if it wanted his ap∣probation or confirmation, (a fancy not dreamed of in the Church in those daies) but wheras the Pope was never personally present in any of those w^ch they account the 8 general Councels, the Synod thought it fit to procure, if they could, his expresse and explicite consent to their decrees, that he being the chiefe Patriarch in the Church, might by his example move all, and by his authoritie draw his owne Patri∣archall Diocesse (as usually hee did) to consent to the same decrees; whereas, if he should happen to dissent (as Vigilius did at the time of the fift Councell) hee was likely to cause (as Vigilius then did) a very grievous rent and schisme in the Church of God.

37. There was yet another use and end of those subsequent confir∣mations, whether by succeeding Councels, or absent Bishops: and that was, that every one should thereby either testifie his orthodoxy in the faith, or else manifest himselfe to bee an heretike: For as the ap∣proving of the six generall Councels, and their decrees of faith did witnesse one to be a Catholike in those doctrines; so the very refu∣sing to approve or confirme any one of those Councels, or their de∣crees of faith, was ipso facto, without any further examination of the cause, an evident conviction that he was a condemned heretike; such an one, as in the pride and pertinacie of his heart rejected that holy synodall judgement, which all the whole catholike Church, and eve∣ry member thereof, even himselfe also had implicitè before confirmed and approved. In which respect an heretike may truly bee called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, being convicted and condemned not onely by the evi∣dence of truth, and by synodall sentence, but even by that judgment which his owne selfe had given implicitè, in the decree of the Coun∣cell. The summe is this; The former confirmation by the Bishops pre∣sent in the Synod, is Iudiciall; the later confirmation by the Bishops who are absent, is Pacificall. The former is authoritative, such as gives the whole authority to any decree: the later (whether by succeeding Councels, or absent Bishops) is Testificative, such as witnesseth them to be orthodoxall in that decree. The former, joyned to the Imperi∣all confirmation, is Essentiall, which essentially makes both the Coun∣cell

an approved Councel, & all the decrees therof, approved, synodal, and Oecumenicall decrees: the later is accidentall, which being gran∣ted by a Bishop, doth much grace himselfe, but little or nothing the Synod; and being denyed by any, doth no whit at all either disgrace the Synod, or impare the dignity and authority thereof, but doth ex∣treamely disgrace the partie himselfe who denyeth it, and puls downe upon him, both the just censures of the Church, and those civill pu∣nishments which are due to heretikes or contumacious persons.

38. My conclusion now is this: Seeing this fift Councell was both for the calling generall, and for the proceeding therin lawfull, and or∣derly; and seeing, although it wanted the Popes consent, yet it had the concurrence of those two confirmations, before mentioned; Epis∣copall and Imperiall, in which is included the Oecumenicall approbati∣on of the whole catholike Church: it hence therefore ensueth, that as from the first assembling of the Bishops it was an holy, a lawfull, and Oecumenicall Councell; so from the first pronouncing of their sy∣nodall sentence, and the Imperiall assent added thereunto, it was an approved generall Councell, approved by the whole catholike Church; and so approved, that without any expresse consent of the Pope added unto it, it was of as great worth, dignity, and authoritie, as if all the Popes since S. Peters time had, with their owne hands sub∣scribed unto it. And this may suffice to satisfie the fourth and last ex∣ception which Baronius devised to excuse Vigilius from heresie.

CAP. XIX. The true notes to know which are generall and lawfull, and which either are not generall, or being generall, are no lawfull Councels; with divers examples of both kindes.

1. THAT which hath beene said in the former Chapter is sufficient to refute that cavill of Baronius, against the fift Councell, whereby he pretends it to have neither been a general, nor a lawfull Synod, because the Pope resi∣sted the assembling, and contradicted the de∣cree and sentence thereof; but for as much as it is not victory, but truth which I seeke, and the full satisfaction of the reader in this cause, and seeing this point a∣bout the lawfulnesse of generall Councels, is frequent, and very ob∣vious, and such as being rightly conceived, will give great light to this whole controversie about Councels; I will crave liberty to lanch somewhat further into this deepe, and explane, with what convenient brevity I can, what it is which maketh any Synod to bee, or rightly to be esteemed a generall and lawfull Councell.

2. As the name of Synod doth in his primary and large acception agree to every assembly, so doth the name of Councell to every assembly of consultation: The former being derived from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,

is all one with Coetus, and imports the assembly of any multitude which meeteth and commeth together: The later being derived of Cilia a 1.1523, (whence also supercilium) imports the common or joynt inten∣ding, or bending their eyes, both of body and minde, to the investi∣gation of the truth in that matter, which is proposed in their assem∣bly: But both of those words being now drawne from those their large and primitive significations, are by Ecclesiasticall writers, and use of speech, (penes quem jus est, & norma loquendi) restrained and ap∣propriated onely to those assemblies of Bishops, and Ecclesiasticall persons; wherein they come together to consult of such matters as concernes either the faith or discipline of the Church. Of these, be∣cause some are lawfull, others unlawfull Synods, if we can finde what it is which maketh a generall and lawfull Councell, it will bee easie therby to discerne which are unlawfull Synods, seeing it is vulgarly and truly said, that, Rectum is index sui & obliqui.

3. That a Synod be generall and lawfull, there are three things ne∣cessarily, and even essentially required, the want of any one of which is a just barre and exception, why that Synod is either not generall, or not lawfull. The first, which concernes the generalitie, is, that the calling and summons to the Councell be generall and Oecumenicall; so that all Bishops be called, and when they are come, have free accesse to the same Councell, unlesse for some fault of their owne, or some just reason, they ought to bee debarred: For if the calling to a∣ny Synod bee out of some parts onely of the Church, and not out of the whole, the judgement also of such a Councell is but partiall, not generall, and the Councell is but particular, not Oecumenicall, seeing some of those who have judicatory power are either omitted, or un∣justly excluded from the Synod: The want of this was a just exception taken by the Pope Iulius, against that Councell of Antioch b 1.1524, (wherein Athanasius was deposed by the Arian faction, and Gregory of Cappado∣cia intruded into his See) why it neither was, nor could be esteemed generall, or such as should binde the whole Church, by the decrees made by it; for said Iulius c 1.1525, they did against the Canons of the Church, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, because they did not so much as call him to that Synod; whereas the Canons of the Church forbid that any decree (which should have power to binde the whole Church) should bee made without the sentence, judgement, and consent of the Bishop of Rome, (either attained, or at least sought for.) The Canon which Iulius mentioned, might well ordaine, and if there were no such Ca∣non, yet even reason and equity doe teach, that such decrees as con∣cerne the whole Church, and are to binde them all, ought to be made by the helpe, judgement, and advise of them all; according to the rule, Quod d 1.1526 omnes tangit,, ab omnibus approbari debet. The wilfull omis∣sion of any one Bishop, much more of the Bish. of Rome, who then was the chiefe Patriarch in the world, declares the Councell not to be ge∣nerall, seeing unto it there was onely a partiall, and not a generall summons or calling.

4. As this first condition is required to the generality, so are the other two for the lawfulnesse and order of Synods: For if the Apo∣stles

rule, Let e 1.1527 all things be done decently, and in order, must bee kept in every private and particular Church, how much more in those venera∣ble assemblies of Oecumenicall Councels, which are the Armies of God, & of the Angels of all the Churches of God, amōg whom doth, and ought to shine gravity, prudence, and all sacred, and fitting or∣ders, no lesse than in the coelestiall Hierarchy, and in the very presence of the Majesty of God. If they bee gathered in Gods name, how can they be other than lawfull and orderly Assemblies, seeing God f 1.1528 is not the God of confusion g 1.1529, or disorder, but of peace in all Churches. Now the lawfulnesse and order of Synods, consists partly in their orderly as∣sembling, and partly in their orderly government and proceedings, when they are assembled; whensoever the Bishops of any generall Councell first assemble together by lawfull authority, and then are so governed by lawfull authority also; that orderly, lawfull, and due synodall proceedings be onely used therein, as well in the free and di∣ligent discussion of the causes proposed, as in the free sentencing thereof, the same is truly and properly to bee called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 h 1.1530, a lawfull Synod: But if either if these conditions be wanting, it becomes unlawfull and disorderly. If the Bishops assemble together, either not being called, or if called, yet not by such as have right and autho∣rity to call them; though this in a large acception may bee called a Synod, that is, an assembly of Bishops, yet because they doe unlaw∣fully & disorderly assemble together, it is in propriety of speech to be termed a Cōventicle, a riotous, tumultuous, & seditious assembly; even such as that was of Demetrius i 1.1531, & the other Ephesiās, who, with∣out calling and order, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, rusht k 1.1532 & run headlong together to up∣hold the honour of their great Diana; which both the Spirit of God condemneth, as a confused l 1.1533 or disorderly assembly, and the more wise among them taxed, as a riotous and seditious m 1.1534 tumult. If being lawfully called, yet they either want a lawfull President to governe them; or having one, yet want freedome and liberty either in discus∣sing or giving judgement in the cause; such a Synod, though in respect of their assembling it be lawfull, yet in respect of their proceedings and judgment, it is unlawfull, and disorderly, and therefore in propri∣ety of speech to be termed a conspiracy, because those men conspire and band themselves, as did the Councell n 1.1535 of the Priests with Pilate, by unjust and unlawfull meanes to suppresse the truth, and oppresse innocency.

5. But unto whō belongs that right to call general Councels, & whē they are called, to see orderly & synodal proceedings observed there∣in? To whom? to whom else but only to those who have Imperiall & Regal authority, whether they be one (as whē the Empire was united, & the whole Christiā world subject to his authority;) or moe, as it was when the Empire was devided, and ever since that great dissolution of it in the time o 1.1536 of Charles the great: To them, and them onely, this right to belong, I have in two other bookes, the one concerning the

calling, the other concerning the Presidencie in Councels, at large and clearly demonstrated; & I hold them to be so evident truths, both by the doctrine of Scripture, and by the constant judgement and pra∣ctice of the Catholike Church, for more than eight hundred yeares after Christ, that if any would reade the Tomes of the Councels, hee had need put out both his eyes, if he will not see this.

6. To them, and them onely is the sword p 1.1537 given by God, that by it they might maintaine the faith, and use it to the praise of them that doe well, but take vengeance on them that doe evill: They are the nursing q 1.1538 fathers of the Church, unto whom the care is committed by God, that all his Children, to whom they, next unto God, are fa∣thers, be fed with the sincere milke r 1.1539 of Gods word, all mixture and poison of heresie and impiety being taken away, and severed from it: They are like Ioshua s 1.1540 and David, appointed by God to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Pa∣stours t 1.1541, even supreme Pastours of the Israel of God, not indeed to reach and give the food themselves, (which duty belongs to their inferiour servants) yet to performe those w^ch are the principall & most u 1.1542 proper Pastoral acts & offices, procurare are ac providere alteri cibū, ducere, reducere, tueri, praesse, regere, castigare; to provide that all the sheepe of Christ have wholesome and convenient food given unto them, to lead them, bring them backe, defend, governe, and chastise them when they will not obey their Pasto∣rall call and command. None of all which Pastorall duties were it possi∣ble for Kings to performe, if for publike tranquillity and instru∣ction of Gods people they might not by their authority assemble a generall Councell of Bishops, and being assembled, if they might not defend and uphold all just and equall, but castigate and keepe away all violent, fraudulent, and unjust proceedings in such Coun∣cels.

7. I purposely said supreme Pastours; for none is ignorant, that Peter x 1.1543 and all the Apostles equally with him, as also all y 1.1544 who either in their Presbyteriall or Episcopall authority succeed unto them (for in their Apostolicall none of them had or have any successour) that all these are Pastours z 1.1545 also of Gods flock, but they are all subordinate to the Imperiall Pastours of the people of God, the sheep-hooke is subject to the Scepter, the Crosier to the Imperiall Crowne. Con∣cerning Kings Saint Peter gives a generall precept, Feare God a 1.1546, and honour the King; which honour he expresly calleth subjection b 1.1547 and o∣bedience in the same Chapter; first wee owe obedience to God, and next God, unto Kings and Emperours. Concerning all others excep∣ting Kings, and such as have Kingly authority, Saint Paul gives a like generall precept, Let c 1.1548 every soule be subject to the higher powers, even to those, who by Gods warrant, and as his Vicegerents, doe beare d 1.1549 the sword: to them every soule ought to be subject; who can except thee from this generality? This is commanded, saith Chrysostome e 1.1550, Not one∣ly to secular men, but to all, to Monkes, to Priests and Bishops, the Apostle teacheth them, ex debito obedire, even in duty to obey Kings and Princes,

sive Apostolus sis, sive Propheta, sive Euangelista, sive quisquis tandem fu∣eris; not the Prophets, not the Apostles, not the Euangelists, not any soule in exempt from this subjection: and if not Peter himselfe, then certainly not his Vicar, as the Pope f 1.1551 cals himselfe: And this very sub∣jection of the Pope, and all Bishops to the Emperours, to omit Silve∣ster, Iulius, Leo, and Gregorie, Pope Agatho in most submissive manner acknowledgeth almost seven hundred g 1.1552 years after Christ, h 1.1553 Omnes nos praesules, vestri imperij famuli; All we Bishops are the servants of your im∣periall highnesse, saith Agatho, and a Synod of 125 Westerne Bishops with him; to which purpose hee cals Italy his servile i 1.1554 Province, and Rome his servile City; adding, that he did this at the Emperours sa∣cred command, pro obedientiae satisfactione, pro obedientia quam debuimus, for that obedience which hee did owe to the Emperour; nay, yet in more lowly manner, he saith not, that hee, but, studiosa obedientia nostri fa∣mulatus implevit; the willing obedience of his owne servitude to the Empe∣rour, did performe this. Nor was this the profession onely of Agatho; and the Westerne Bishops, but the whole sixt Councell approved the same, Petrus k 1.1555 per Agathonem loquebatur, Saint Peter spake by the mouth of Agatho. Now because they all acknowledge the Pope to be the first and chiefe Bishop in the Church, (for they all in that Councell approve l 1.1556 the Councels of Chalcedon, and first Constantinopo∣litane, in both m 1.1557 w^ch that is decreed) seeing by the confession of Aga∣tho, by them approved, the Pope is a servant, and oweth subjection and obedience to the Emperour; much more are all other Bishops in the whole world, servants, and subjects to the Imperial command, and that by the consenting judgment of the whole catholike Church, represented in that sixt generall Councell.

8. The same Soveraignty, and supreme Pastorall authority of Kings, is after this againe testified in that which they call the eighth generall Councell, more than n 1.1558 eight hundred and sixty yeares after CHRIST. Basilius the Emperour said before the Councell, in his letters o 1.1559 unto them, The government of the Ecclesiasticall ship is by the Divine Providence committed unto us: in that ship doth saile all who are members of the Church, Bishops or Laicks, and the government of the whole ship is given to the Emperour; Hee, like the Pilot, rules and directs all. Raderus the Iesuite, and Binius following him, in stead of nobis have put vobis in the latine text; as if Basilius had said, that the government of the Church belonged to Bishops, not to Emperours; It is a Iesuiticall and fraudulent tricke, for which no colour of excuse can bee made: The Greeke set on the very opposite Page p 1.1560, is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, nobis: in the Surian Collectiō q 1.1561 of those Acts, it was rightly read nobis; their owne Cardinall Cusanus r 1.1562 out of the ancient Acts of that Synod, cites it, commisisset nobis: the very sense inforceth it to be nobis, for the Em∣perour addeth, Therefore doe wee with all sollicitude exhort and warne you, that you come to the holy Oecumenicall Synod: which had beene a most foolish collection, had he not said nobis, but vobis, for then not

to him, but to them should have belonged the care to call the Bishops to the Synod; yet against all these evidences of truth Raderus and Bi∣nius falsifie the text, corrupt the words, and pervert the sense, by tur∣ning nobis into vobis, that so they might deprive the Emperour of that supreme authority which Basilius there professed to belong un∣to himselfe, and the Legates of the Patriarchs, in the name of the whole Synod approved the Emperours saying s 1.1563, Recte Imperatores no∣stri monuere, the Emperours have said well. To goe no further in this mat∣ter, that which was cited out of the Scripture concerning Ioshua and David, doth clear this point; for seeing all who sit in Imperiall thrones, are like Ioshua and David, to feed the Israel of God; and the Israel of God containes the whole flocke and all the sheepe of Christ, ex t 1.1564 hac ipsa voce Pasce, difficile non est demonstrare summam potestatem ei attribut; It is easie even by this very word Feed, to demonstrate, that supreme power doth belong to Kings, seeing unto them it is said, Feed my sheepe, feed my people: Wherefore seeing Kings are commanded by God to rule by their Pastorall authoritie all others, and all others are commanded to obey, and bee subject unto them and their Imperiall commands, as unto their supreme Pastour here upon earth; it hence unavoydably followeth, that Bishops neither without that Imperiall command, may in a riotous manner assemble in generall Councels, nor being commanded by them, may deny to assemble, nor being assembled may refuse to bee ordered and governed by their Imperiall Pre∣sidency.

9. After these precepts of GOD, looke to the practice of the Church, and you shall see that lawfull Synods or Assemblies about Ecclesiasticall affaires, have beene gathered by no other than Im∣periall authority, as well in the old as new Testament. In the time of IOSIA when the Temple was purged from those manifold Idolatries, wherewith it was polluted, who assembled Israel? the Priests? no, but the King u 1.1565 sent and gathered all the Elders of Iuda, 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 1.1566 gathered all Iuda. SALOMON in the Dedication of the Temple, He y 1.1567 assembled the Elders and the heads of the Tribes; DAVID in bringing the Arke, and in ordering the offices of the Temple, DAVID z 1.1568 gathered all Israel together; Hee a 1.1569 gathered together then all the Princes, with the Priests and Levites: HEZECHIA in clensing the house of the Lord, b 1.1570 Hee gathered the Priests and Levites, called c 1.1571 them his sonnes; and they were gathered together, juxta d 1.1572 mandatum Regis, according to the commande∣ment of the King. Ioshua at the renewing of the Covenant, He e 1.1573 assem∣bled all the Tribes of Israel. And to mention no more, (for what King is there, or Iudge, or Captaine, who had all kingly authoritie, 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 soveraignty in their common-wealth; how often and still with a warrant from God did he assemble the people upon urgēt occasions?

At the first making of the covenant with God, Moses called f 1.1574 the Elders; at the publishing of the law, Moses brought g 1.1575 the people out of their tents unto God: after the bringing of the two Tables from God, Moses assembled all h 1.1576 the congregation of Israel: at the anointing and investing of Aaron, Moses i 1.1577 assembled all the congregation: at the repeating of the Covenant, he k 1.1578 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 Captaine and Ruler over his people, even then God gave unto him that authority (which afterwards he renewed in the tenth l 1.1579 of Numbers) to congre∣gate and assemble the people of God; Goe, saith God m 1.1580, and gather the Elders of Israel together: thereby teaching the power of assembling Gods people to be inseparably annexed unto Imperiall, regall, and so∣veraigne authority; that none hath the one who hath not the other by the very warrant of God committed unto him, to the end the as∣semblies of Gods people might not be tumultuous and seditious, as was that of Demetrius, and of Corah n 1.1581, Dathan, and Abiram, which the Lord severely revenged, but lawfull and orderly, as God is the au∣thor not of confusion, but of order in all Churches, and in all ages of the Church.

10. Come we to the times of the Gospell. The power and right∣full authority to call Synods was ever in the Emperours and Kings, even in those three hundred years while the Church was in most grie∣vous persecution under Heathen Emperours: The right and power was in the Heathen as well as in Christian Emperours; in Tiberius as well as Theodosius; in Dioclesian, as well as in Constantine or Iustinian. But that power which they rightly had, they did not use aright: not to call Synods to maintaine the faith, but to abolish Synods, Bishops, Christians, and utterly extirpate the Christian faith. Now because Christ had layd an absolute necessity o 1.1582 upon the Apostles, and their successors, to feed, to teach, and maintaine the doctrine of faith; and seeing they could not doe this with the allowance, or so much as con∣nivence of the Emperours, who in duty should have protected them in so doing, yea have caused them so to doe; this very necessity en∣forced them, and was a lawfull warrant unto them, both to feed the flocke, preach the Gospell, and to hold Synods in the best and most convenient manner that they then could, not onely without, but a∣gainst the will and command of the Emperors, that higher command of Christ over-ruling theirs. Whereby are warranted as lawfull, to say nothing of that Acts 15. those Synods at Antioch against Paulus Samosatenus at Rome, against the Novatians in Africke, many in the time of Cyprian, and divers the like. For even the law of God, to yeeld un∣to neccessity, the example of David p 1.1583, the doctrine of our Saviour, doth demonstrate; besides those many Maximes, which are all grounded on this truth, as, that necessity q 1.1584 hath no law, nor is subject to any law, but is a law of it selfe: that many things are lawfull in case of necessity r 1.1585, which otherwise are unlawfull: that of Leo, Inculpabile judicandum quod necessitas intulit;s 1.1586 that is blamelesse which necessity doth war∣rant: and many the like, which Pope Iohn t 1.1587 alledgeth. This, and no∣thing else, doth declare those Synods to have beene lawfull, though

assembled without Imperiall authority: as the times were extraordi∣nary, so their extraordinary assembling was by those times of neces∣sity made lawfull. But as soone as Emperours began to professe the faith, and to use their owne, and Imperiall authority, in assembling Bishops for consulting about causes of faith, the Catholike 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 re∣fused to come when they were called; though sometimes they came with an assured expectance of the crowne of Martyrdome before they departed; as in the Councels of Millane, Arimine, and Syrmium, cal∣led by the Arrian Emperour Constantius, is most cleare.

11. Hence it is that all the ancient generall Councels, yea all that were held for the space of a thousand yeares after Christ, were all as∣sembled by no other than this Imperiall authority. Take a short view of some, and of the chiefe of them. Of the first Nicen, Eusebius l 1.1588 saith, Constantine assembled this Oecumenicall Councell, hee called the Bi∣shops by his letters, and his call was mandatory, for Mandatum erat, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ad hanc rem, Constantine commanded that they should come. The very Synod it selfe writeth thus in their Synodall letters, We are assem∣bled m 1.1589 by the grace of God, & mandato Imperatoris, and by the mandate of Constantine the Emperour: so Christopherson translates 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, both in Socrates and Theodoret. Of the second, their owne Syno∣dall Epistle to Theodosius witnesseth; We came n 1.1590 hither, ex mandato tuae pietatis, by the command of your Imperiall highnesse. Of the third Coun∣cell, the Synodall acts and Epistles are cleare witnesses: Your Highnes hath cōmanded o 1.1591 by your holy Edict, the Bishops out of the whole world to come to Ephesus. Againe, the synod p 1.1592 being assembled 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, by the E∣dict, decree, authority and appointment of the Emperour: and the like is repeated I think not so little as threescore times in those Acts. And as they came at the Emperors command, so would they not de∣part without his leave and licence. We beseech q 1.1593 your piety that you will at length free us from this exile: and the Emperour granted their re∣quest: for, injungit r 1.1594 eis, he commanded & injoyned them to returne to their owne Cities: and againe, Regio s 1.1595 mandato imperatum est singulis Episco∣pis, there was a mandate to all the Bishops by the Emperour to re∣turne to their owne Provinces. Of the Councell at Chalcedon, the whole Synod saith in their Epistle to Pope Leo, This t 1.1596 holy and gene∣rall Synod was assembled by the grace of God, & sanctione Imperato∣rum, and by the sanction or decree of our most holy Emperours. Againe, this synod was gathered, ex decreto u 1.1597 Imperatorum, by the decree of the Emperours: secundum jussionem, according to his command. And the like is repeated almost in every action. Of the fift we shewed before that it was called Iussione x 1.1598 piissimi Imperatoris, by the command of the most ho∣ly Emperour Iustinian. Of the sixt it is usually said, it was assembled, secundum y 1.1599 Imperialem sanctionem aut decretum, and the like, by the Im∣periall sanction or decree. And the whole Councell in their prospho∣neticall oration to the Emperour, saith z 1.1600 unto him; your mansuetude hath congregated this holy and great assembly. Of their second Nicene it is said, that it was assembled, per a 1.1601 pium Decretum, Sanctionem, Man∣datum,

by the holy Decree, Sanction, and Mandate of the Emperors: of that which they call the eighth, the synodall definition expresseth, Quod à b 1.1602 Basilio Imperatore coactum, that it was assembled by Basilius the Empe∣rour; and the whole Synod cryed out, We all thinke so; we all sub∣scribe to these things. And Pope Stephen in his letters to Basilius, spea∣king of this Synod, saith c 1.1603, Did not the Romane See send Legates to the Councell, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, te imperante, Raderus and Binius trans∣late it, but it is rather to be read, ad imperium, and summam jussionem tuam, the Pope sent Legates, not when Basilius was Emperour, (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 Emperour, whom the Pope in that same Epistle acknowledgeth to be the highest d 1.1604 person who here upon earth sustaines the person of Christ: and in the sixt Action of the same e 1.1605 Councell, it is said, Impe∣rator hanc Synodum coegit, the Emperour assembled this Synod.

12. Thus all those Councells which are usually reckoned for gene∣rall and approved, for the space of a thousand yeares, were all called by Imperiall jussion and command; the religious Emperours exerci∣sing that right in commanding all Bishops, even the Popes to such Councels; all the Bishops, even the Popes, by their willing obedience acknowledging that authority and power to be in the Emperours, and therefore they gladly obeyed those imperiall jussions and commands. And as they were all assembled by Imperiall calling, so were they all governed by Imperiall presidency. That Constantine was President in the Nicene, Pope Stephen in the Epistle lately cited expresly witnes∣seth: Doe you not remember, saith he f 1.1606, what Pope Silvester said in the Ni∣cene Synod, praesidente ibi S. Constantino, Saint Constantine being President therein. His owne Acts in the Councell, of moderating g 1.1607, and repres∣sing the jarres of the Bishops, of burning h 1.1608 their bookes of accusations and quarrels, of drawing them to unity, that with one consent they should define the causes proposed, doe manifest the same: for all these are acts of the Imperiall presidency. That Theodosius was President in the second, may appeare, not onely for that he was present i 1.1609 therein, and present no doubt as Constantine had beene before, as a modera∣tor of their actions; but that small remainder of the Acts of that Councell import also the same: for he directed, and that by his Man∣datum k 1.1610, what the Bishops should doe: and when they out of their par∣tiall affections would have preferred each his owne friend to the See of Constantinople, the Emperour perceiving that, corrected their par∣tiall judgement, Iussit l 1.1611 inscribere chartae, hee commanded them to write a bill of such men as they thought fit for the place; himselfe nominated Ne∣ctarius; 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 Im∣periall Presidency. The Emperours sent Candidianus m 1.1612 to keepe away tu∣mult, and disorderly n 1.1613 persons from the Councell: to see that no o 1.1614 dissention 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 1.1615 and with leisure propose what was needfull, and have scope to refute all doubts proposed by others. The Emperours when they heard of the dissentions and disorders among the Bishops, writ unto them to take a better and more peaceable and orderly examination of the cause, saying q 1.1616, Majestas nostra ea quae acta sunt pro ratis & legitimis habere non potest; our Majesty cannot hold or esteeme those acts, done so disorderly, for firme and synodall; nay we decree that all things which hitherto have beene done, pro irritis, & nullis habenda esse, shall be accounted of no force, but utterly void and frustrate: than which no greater tokens of Impe∣riall Presidency can be devised. The whole and holy Synod willingly submitted themselves to this presidency. In their proceedings the Emperours letters were their direction r 1.1617, and as themselves professe, the very Torch to guide all their actions. In the manifold injuries and contumelies which they endured at the hands of Iohn, with his Con∣venticle, they fled to the Emperour, beseeching s 1.1618 him to be Iudge of their equall proceedings, and take an equal exact view and examination of their doings, which upon t 1.1619 their request the Emperour did, and cal∣led u 1.1620 five Bishops of either part to Constantinople to declare the whole cause unto him; after which being performed, he gave judgement x 1.1621 for the holy Councell, and adnulled all the acts of the Conventicle, as the holy Synod had earnestly and humbly entreated him. So fully and cleerly doth that sacred and Oecumenicall Councell, wherein was the judgement and consent of the whole Catholike Church, both ac∣knowledge this Imperiall right of Presidency in the Emperours, and submit themselves unto it.

14. For the Councell of Chalcedon, the matter is so evident, that Bellarmine, though strugling against the truth, could not deny it. There were present, saith he y 1.1622, in this Councell secular Iudges, deputed by the Emperour, who were not Iudges 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 & fraude & tumultibus, but they were Iudges onely of Synodall order, whether all things were done lawfully, without force, fraud and tumult. And in this doth the very Imperiall Presidency consist. And truly how religiously and worthily those glo∣rious Iudges performed that honourable office in the synod, all the actions thereof doe 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 Popes Legats very insolently took upon them at the beginning, willing that Dioscorus might bee put out of the synod, and sayd z 1.1623, Either let Dioscorus goe out, or we will depart. The Iudges gravely reproved this stomacke in the Legates, telling them, If you will be a 1.1624 Iudges, you must not prosequute as accusers: nor did they suffer Dioscorus to goe away, but commanded him, as was fit, to sit in the place of the Ret. The cause of Iuvenalis and Thalassius was pro∣posed to the synod; It could not be examined by them, till they had leave from the Emperour; We, said b 1.1625 the Iudges, have acquainted the

Emperour therewith, and we expect his Mandate herein: and after they had received the Emperours minde, they then told the synod, Imperator c 1.1626 sententiae vestrae permisit de Iuvenale deliberare, the Emperour hath upon your intreaty permitted you to discusse and judge the cause of Iuvenalis Tha∣lassius, and the rest. In the cause d 1.1627 of the ten Aegyptian Bish. the Synod had almost pronounced a temerarious sentence against them, as here∣ticall, when indeed they were orthodoxall; the Bishops cryed out, Isti haeretici sunt, these ten are heretikes. The glorious Iudges know∣ing which was manifest, that they forbore to subscribe, by reason of a custome which they had, that they might doe nothing without their Patriarke, who was not then chosen; and not as thinking heretically in the faith, moderated the Synod in that matter, saying, e 1.1628 Rationabile nobis & clemens videtur; it seemes to us to be reason, and an act of clemencie, not to have condemned them, but staid till their Patriarch bee chosen: the whole Synod consented to this grave sentence of Iudges, and made a Canon f 1.1629 for that purpose. In making the very definition of faith, there grew a great dissention in the Synod; some g 1.1630 would have it one, some another way set downe; in so much that the Popes Legates were ready to make a schisme, and depart h 1.1631 from the Councel, and hold an∣other Councell by themselves. The glorious Iudges proposed a most equall and fitting meanes to have the matter peaceably debated, and the whole Synod brought to unity: But when out-cryes i 1.1632 and tumult prevailed above reason, the Iudges complained of those discords to the Emperour, and, Imperator k 1.1633 praecepit, the Emperour commanded them to follow the direction of the Iudges, which they did, and so with one ac∣cord consented on the Definition of faith. The Emperour at the ear∣nest entreaty of Bassianus, commanded l 1.1634 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, Iustitia m 1.1635 Bassianum vocat, Equity and right doth call for Bassianus to bee the Bishop of that place. The glorious Iudges 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 1.1636, This is a just sentence, this is the very jugement of God. When there was a difference in the Synod, about the dignity of Constantinople, the greater part o 1.1637 holding one way, and the Popes Legates the contrary p 1.1638, the glorious Iudges judicially q 1.1639 sen∣tenced, which was to stand for the Iudgement of the Synod; and the whole Councell in their synodall letter consented r 1.1640 therunto. So ma∣ny, so manifest evidences there are of the Imperiall Presidency in that holy Councell, not any of all those Catholikes once repining at, or contradicting the same.

15. For the fift, that it was ordered by the Imperiall authoritie, may appeare, in that both the Emperor was sometimes by s 1.1641 himselfe, sometimes by his glorious t 1.1642 Iudges, present in the Synod, and specially in that hee tooke order, that liberty u 1.1643 and synodall freedome should be observed therein; yea, as the whole Synod testifieth, hee did x 1.1644 om∣nia, all things which preserve the peace of the Church, and unity in the Catholike faith: The sixt Councell is abundant with proofes of

this presidency: Macarius said, O our most holy Lord, iubeto y 1.1645 libros proferri, command that the bookes bee produced; and the Emperour an∣swered, Iubemus, we command them to be brought; wee command them to be read; and it was done. The Popes Legates say, Petimus z 1.1646 sere∣nitatem vestram, we entreate your highnesse that this booke may be ex∣amined; the Emperour answered, Quod postulatum est proveniat, let that be done which you request: Againe, O most holy Lord, we intreat a 1.1647, that the letters of Pope Agatho may be read; the Emperours answer was, what you have desired, let it be done; and they were read: Macarius having collected certaine testimonies out of the Fathers, for his opinion, in∣treated the Emperour, Iubeto b 1.1648 relegi, that he would command them to be read; his answere was, let them bee read in order, and so they were: The Popes Legates said, petimus, wee intreate c 1.1649 your highnesse, that the authentike Copies may bee produced out of the Registrie; his an∣swer was, fiat, let it de done: The whole Synod intreated, If it d 1.1650 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 * 1.1651 that the name of Pope Vitalianus may bee set in the Dipticks; his answer was, quod postulatum est, fiat, let that be done which he hath requested. The Emperour commanded e 1.1652 the books of Macarius to be read; the whole Synod answered, Quod jussum est, what your highnesse hath commanded shall be performed. After the authen∣ticall letters of Sergius, & Pope Honorius had been read in the Synod, the glorious Iudges called f 1.1653 for the like authenticall writings of Pir∣rhus, Paulus, Peter, and Cyrus, to bee produced and read: the whole Councell answered g 1.1654, that it was superfluous, seeing their heresie was manifest to all: the Iudges replied, omnino h 1.1655 necessarium existit, this is necessary; that they be convicted out of their owne writings; and then their writings were produced. I omit the rest, whereof every Acti∣on of that Synod is ful; and by those Acts the Presidency in Councels doth so clearly belōg to Emperors, and that also by the acknowledg∣ment i 1.1656 of that whole generall Councell, that Albertus Pighius being unwilling to yeeld to this truth, hath purposely writ k 1.1657 a most railing and reviling Treatise against this holy generall Synod, condemning both this Councell, and these Acts, as unlawfull, for this among other reasons, because the Emperour with his Iudges, plena l 1.1658 authoritate Praesidet, is President with full authority in the same; hee doth all, he pro∣poseth, hee questioneth, he commandeth, hee examineth, he judgeth, he decreeth: And yet in all these hee doth nothing but what belongs essentially to his Imperiall authority; nothing but what Constantine, Theodosius, Martian, and Iustinian had done before him, and done it with the approbation and applause of the whole Church, and of all the Catholike Bishops in those holy generall Councels; and hee per∣formed this with such uprightnesse and equality, that hee professed, necessitatem m 1.1659 nullatenus inferre volumus, wee will inforce no man, but leave him at his owne freedome in sentencing the causes proposed, and, aequalitatam n 1.1660 utriusque partis conservabimus; we will bee equall and in∣different Iudges 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 Imperiall Presidencie; We have received, say the Emperours o 1.1661, 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 publikely read according to the use in Councels, and we command all you to marke them with decent silence: After that, you shall reade two quaternions also sent from the Bishops in the East; and the whole Synod obeyed the Imperiall commands. Pope Hadrian himselfe was not ignorant of this right in the Emperours, when sending his Pontificall and Cathedrall judgement concerning the cause of Images, hee said thus unto them, We p 1.1662 offer these things to your highnesse with all humility, that they may bee diligently examined, for we have but perfuncto∣riè, that is, for fashiō, and not exactly gathered these testimonies, and we have delivered them to your Imperiall Highnesse to be read, intreating and besee∣ching your mansuetude; yea, and as if I were lying q 1.1663 at your feete, I pray and adjure you that you will command holy Images to bee restored. Thus hee. When the Pope cals the Emperours his r 1.1664 Lords, and submits both his owne person to their feet, and his judiciall sentence to such tryall, as they shall thinke fit, doth not this import an higher Presidency in the Emperour, than either himselfe or his Legates had in the Synod? Nay, it is further to be remembred, which will remaine as an eternal blot of that Synod, that Irene the Empresse, not contenting her selfe with the Imperiall, which was her owne rightfull authority, intruded her selfe into the Episcopall also; she forshooth would be a s 1.1665 Doctrix in the Councell; she present among the Bishops to teach the whole Councell what they should define in causes of faith: Perversas Consti∣tutiones tradere; shee tooke upon her to give Constitutions, and those impious also, unto them: Those Constitutions backed with her sword and au∣thority; the Bishops of the Councell had not the hearts and courage to withstand: All which is testified in the Libri Carolini, which in part were written t 1.1666, and wholly set forth by Charles the great, being for the most part composed by the Councell at Frankfourd u 1.1667, and approved by them all in that great synod. A truth so cleare, that Pope Adrian in his reply to those Caroline bookes, denyeth not Irene to have done this, (which had easily and evidently refuted that objectiō, and discredited those Caroline Bookes for ever) but hee x 1.1668 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 Councell of Frankford y 1.1669, consisting of three hundred Bishops, or thereabouts, re∣sembled to the tyrannizing and usurping Athalia. Lastly, when that whole Synod came to the Kingly City for the Imperiall confirmati∣on of their Acts, seeing it is expresly testified by Zonaras z 1.1670, and Paulus Diac••••••s a 1.1671, that the Emperour was President in that assembly of the Bishops, why should it not by like reason be thought, that both him∣selfe when hee was present, and in his absence the secular Iudges, his Deputies, held the same Imperial Presidency in the Nicene Synod?

17. For that which they call the eighth generall Councell, both the Emperours Deputies are called Presidents i 1.1672; and in the sixt, se∣venth, eighth, and tenth actions it is expresly said, Presidentibus Impe∣ratoribus, the Emperours being Presidents; yea, and both of them by their very actions declared their Presidencie. The Popes Legate k 1.1673 would not have permitted Photius and his Bishops to bee heard; the Empe∣rours Deputies over-ruled l 1.1674 them, as was fit, in that matter; yea, they said to the Photian Bishops, Imperator m 1.1675 jubet et vult, the Emperours will, pleasure, and command is, that you should speake in your owne cause. Of the Emperour they intreat libety to defend themselves, Rogamus domine n 1.1676 Imperator; we beseech you, our Lord and Emperour, that without in∣terruption we may defend our cause: When the bookes of Photius were brought into the Synod, and burned in the midst thereof, this was done, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 o 1.1677, the Emperour commanding it, and many the like.

18. Now these eight are all which are accounted by them in the number of generall and approved Councels, for the space of more than a thousand years after Christ: Of al which seeing it is now cleare, that they were both called by Imperiall authoritie, and governed by Imperiall Presidencie, 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 Catholike Church, for a thousand years together; these rights of calling and ordering gene∣rall Councels doe belong, and were acknowledged to belong onely to Kings and Emperours; they called and commanded the Bishops, the Bishops came at that call and command: they governed the as∣semblies in those Councels, all the Bishops (without murmuring or so much as once contradicting) willingly submitted themselves to that Imperiall government. And by this may now easily be discerned wherein the lawfulnesse or unlawfulnesse of any Synod consisteth: For wheresoever to Imperiall calling, and Imperiall Presidencie, there is added the rightfull use of that Imperiall authoritie, in seeing liberty, freedome, diligent discussion of the causes, and all due syno∣dall order preserved in any generall Synod, the fame is, and ought to bee truly called a generall lawfull Councell: But what generall Councels soever have beene heretofore, or shall bee at any time hereafter, either assembled by any other than Imperiall, and regall authority, or governed for the observing of synodall order, by any o∣ther than Imperiall Presidencie, or misgoverned by the abuse there∣of, they all are, and are to bee esteemed for no other than generall un∣lawfull Councels.

19. Suffer mee here to propose some examples of each kinde, partly in the ancient, partly in the later times of the Church: In the order of lawfull generall Councels, principally, and by a certaine ex∣cellency above all the rest, are the five first approved Councels to bee reckned: The first at Nice, the second at Constantinople, the third at Ephesus, the fourth at Chalcedon, the fift at Constantinople in the time of Iustinian; unto these the Sardicane, and that at Constantinople under Mennas, are to bee added, like two Appendant Synods; the former to that at Nice, the later to that at Chalcedon: For the sixt, which was

held at Constantinople in the time of Constantinus Pogonatus, I am out of doubt, and doe firmely hold it to have beene both gene∣rall and lawfull: But I mention it apart by reason of that scruple touching the Canons thereof, concerning which I intend, if ever I have oportunity, to make a severall tract by it selfe. 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 excep∣tions against their lawfulnesse, in regard of the proceedings used ther∣in, it may be justly doubted whether either of them may be esteemed generall: specially considering that the Councell at Frankford utterly condemned p 1.1678 that second Nicene, and decreed that it should not bee called a generall Synod: and in very like manner did the Councell at Constantinople, held in the time of Pope Iohn the eighth, (or as some call him the ninth,) the next successor to Hadrian the second, con∣demne q 1.1679 that Councell which they call the eighth, held in the time of Hadrian the second. Now although by the judgements of these two Councels, those other which they reckon for the seventh and eighth be wholy 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 perswaded, that neither of them ought to stand in the order of generall lawfull Councels: 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 sixt be to be ranked in the number of generall and lawfull Councells, I would not doubt to make it evident, if ever I should proceed so farre in this argument about Councels, that the Councell held at Constantinople in the time of Constantinus Iconoma∣chus (whom they in contempt have with no small token of their im∣modesty nicknamed Copronimus) that this ought to bee judged the se∣venth; that at Frankford the eighth; and that at Constantinople, which even now I mentioned, held in the time of Pope Iohn the eighth, (or as some call him, the ninth) the ninth of that order. For both the ge∣nerality of all these three is by the best Writers acknowledged, and all of them were called by Imperiall authority, governed by Imperi∣all presidency, and that in a lawfull, free, and synodall manner; as, if ever I come to handle the Councels of those times, I purpose to ex∣plaine. This rather for this time I thinke needfull to observe: that as a Councell may be generall, and yet not lawfull, so may one be both generall and lawfull, and yet erroneous in the decrees thereof: which one point rightly observed, shewes an exceeding difference betwixt those five first generall Councels, with the Sardicane, and that under Mennas, and all the rest which follow the fift Synod. The former which were all held within the six hundred yeares after Christ, in the golden ages of the Church, are wholly, and in every decree and Ca∣non, orthodoxall, and golden Councells, no drosse, nor dramme of corrupt doctrine could prevaile in any one of them: and so they are, and ever since they were held, were esteemed not onely generall and lawfull, but in every part and parcell of their decrees, holy and ortho∣doxall Councels, approved by all Catholikes, and by the whole Ca∣tholike

Church. But in all generall Councels which follow that fift, which were held after the 600. yeare, and in those times wherein dross and corruption began to prevaile 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 generall and lawfull, yet are they not in every decree holy and orthodoxall, nor approved by the suc∣ceeding ages of the Church. Such in the sixt, is the 2.52. and 53. Canons: in that under Constantinus Iconomachus, the 15. and 17. defini∣tions: in that at Frankford, their condemning of the fact of the Icono∣clasts, which (untill the decree for breaking them downe was repealed by the Councell at Frankford) was both pious, and warranted by the example of Hezekias dealing with the brazen serpent: In that under Iohn 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 generall and lawfull Councels, which as yet have beene held in the Church.

20. Wee come now to unlawfull Synods: wherein it is very me∣morable, that of such as are unlawfull by want of lawfull calling, there is no example in the ancient Church to bee found, nor more than a thousand yeares after Christ. All that time not any generall Coun∣cell assembled without lawfull warrant. The Bishops, no not they of Rome, were as yet growne to bee so insolent and headstrong as to come together without the Emperours Mandatum. And the very like might be said of such Synods as are unlawfull by want of Imperi∣all presidency. During all that time no Bishop, no not he of Rome, durst intrude himselfe into that Royalty and Imperiall right. As the Emperour called them all for a thousand yeares, so was he by himselfe or his deputies President in them all. But of such as were unlawfull by abuse of that Imperiall presidency, those ancient times doe yeeld a∣bundant examples. Such among many was that at Millane, wherein Constantius, who should have preserved order in all others, most of all in his owne selfe used such violent and tyrannous dealing, that the on∣ly Canon r 1.1680 whereby he ruled the Synod, was his owne will: Quod ego volo pro Canone sit; My will shall be your law: and the onely reason wher∣by hee perswaded, was a most tyrannous Dilemma, Aut subscri∣bite s 1.1681, aut exulate; either subscribe to Arianisme, or goe into banishment. Such againe was that Ephesine Latrocinie; When Dioscorus could not otherwise prevaile, hee brought t 1.1682 the Proconsull guarded with clubs, with swords, with chaines, and by such meanes forced the Bi∣shops to subscribe to blankes u 1.1683, and to the heresie of Eutiches; such fraud, violence, and unjust proceedings, whereby all liberty was ta∣ken away, made that Synod, though lawfully called, and having a rightfull President, to be no other than a very Lattocinie x 1.1684, as it is u∣sually and y 1.1685 justly called. Of this same sort was the Councel at Ari∣mine, at Syrmium, and divers more of the ancient Synods. But these are sufficient for examples in those ancient times: the unlawfulnesse of them all arising onely from the abuse of the Imperiall and lawfull authority, not for want of lawfull authority either to assemble them, or governe them being assembled.

21. Let us come lower, and to later times, and then we shall have abundance of examples of all kindes of unlawfull Synods. Since the thousand yeare after Christ, there have beene ten which they honour with the specious titles of generall z 1.1686 and holy Councels. All of them held in the West, five at Rome in the Laterane; 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 1.1687 Trent. For their gene∣rality it is not unknowne what just exceptions may bee taken against them. Seeing in foure b 1.1688 of them none, in the rest but very few of the Easterne Bishops were present, they ought rather to bee called parti∣all, than generall; Westerne, than Oecumenicall Synods. That the Greekes held them not for generall, both that speech of theirs in the Councell of Florence c 1.1689, Venio ad septimum & ultimum generale Concili∣um: where they professe the second Nicene to be the last which they acknowledge for a generall Councell: and the words of Bellarmine do make evident; Graeci d 1.1690 tantum recipiunt prima septem Concilia ut notum est; It is a thing vulgarly knowne, that the Greeke Church receiveth none but the seven first for generall Councells. And yet if wee should admit them (as we may not) for generall, what more honor were it for them that they were generall, than for the Councell at Ariminum, at Syrmium, at Millane, and the Ephesine Latrocine: the worst of all which is by many degrees, for sanctity and due synodall order, to bee preferred before the best of their ten. But besides this of their generality, there is another exception which can never bee removed, concerning their lawfulnesse. They all and every one of them are unlawfull Synods: and that by defect of all those conditions which are essentially requi∣red in all lawfull generall Councels.

22. Vnlawfull first they are by want of lawfull calling and authori∣tie to assemble them: not one of them assembled by Imperiall, all by Papall and usurped authority. The Popes, saith Bellarmine e 1.1691, have called moe than twelve generall Councels: Of those, these which wee have na∣med were ten. Of the first Laterane, which is the first of the ten, Bi∣nius f 1.1692 saith, It was appointed, solius Pontificis authoritate, by the authority of the Pope alone. Of the next, which was the second Laterane, where∣in were present about a thousand Bishops, It was Innocentius g 1.1693 will to congregate it. Of the third at Laterane (which is also the third in or∣der) It was assembled, Papae authoritate h 1.1694, by the authority of Pope Alexan∣der. Of the fourth Laterane, (the fourth also in order) wherein among many other like matters, Transubstantiation was first of all decreed, more than twelve hundred yeares after Christ, Authoritate i 1.1695 Innocentij indicta esse indicat apertissime Encyclica epistola, the Encyclicall Epistle doth most manifestly shew that it was appointed by the Popes authority. Of the fift, which was the former at Lions, This Synod was appointed and congregated, A k 1.1696 solo Pontisice, by the Pope alone, and by his authority. Of the sixt, which was the second at Lions, Pope Gregory Indixit * 1.1697 hoc Concilium, appointed this Councell. Of the seventh, which was at Vienna, Pope Clement m 1.1698 indixit Concilium, appointed this Councell. Of the Flo∣rentine, which is the eighth, This Synod was ab n 1.1699 Eugenio indicta, ap∣pointed

by Eugenius, at the intreaty of the Emperour. Of the ninth, which was the fift Laterane, This was appointed and assembled, Au∣thoritate o 1.1700 Iulij Papae, by the authority of Pope Iulius: nor onely was it selfe so assembled, but it p 1.1701 decreed (which was never done before) that all generall Councels ought to be so assembled. For the last (which is their faire Helen q 1.1702 of Trent) the Popes Bull, whereby hee appointed, summoned, and assembled it, is set in the forefront of it; wherein the Pope saith, Conventum r 1.1703 Mantuae indiximus, we have appointed that this Councell should bee held at Mantua; but afterwards he removed it to Trent.

23. Thus were all the ten assembled by Papall, not one of them by Imperiall authority. For though some Emperours and Kings consen∣ted indeed unto some of them; as to the first Laterane, Henry 5. to that at Vienna, Philip of France, and so in some others; yet the consent of Emperours and Kings is not sufficient for holding a Councell, the au∣thority by which the Bishops are called and come together, must bee regall: which in all these, as Bellarmine s 1.1704 truly teacheth, was onely pon∣tificial. Againe, that very consent to hold those Councels which Kings then gave, was a servile consent, not Imperiall; nor was it free and willing, but coacted and extorted. They knew certainly by the dea∣ling of Pope Hildebrand with Henry the fourth, what they might ex∣pect, if they withstood the Popes will, or wrastled with such a Giant: no lesse than the losse of their Crownes had beene the censure for de∣nying to consent to what the Pope would have them: their consent was no other, but that by the Popes authority the Synod should bee called and held, a consent that the Synod should be called by an un∣lawfull and usurped authority; even such a consent, as if a rightfull King being overcome by a Rebell, should for feare of his life consent that the Rebell should call and assemble a Parliament, and there en∣act what lawes himselfe listed. It is the authority by which those Councels were gathered, not by whose consent they were gathered; of which we doe now enquire. The authority whereby they were as∣sembled was onely in the Pope, though to that authority Emperours and Kings consented: and as they are not a little brag that the Pope could doe such worthy acts by his authority; so are we so farre from denying him to have done this, that wee willingly professe the same: but withall doe affirme, which inevitably ensues thereof, that even for this very cause all those Councels are unlawfull, because they were called by Papall, and not by Imperiall authority. This demonstrates them to have assembled without lawfull authority, to have beene no∣thing else than so many great Routs and Riots in the Church, so many tumultuous and disorderly Conventicles, so much more odious both in the sight of God and men, as those who tumultuously and without authority convented, should have beene patternes of piety, obedience, and order unto others.

24. Yea and this very exception which may equally be opposed a∣gainst them all, was most justly taken (to omit the rest) against their Trent Riot, when it was congregated by that Papall and usurped au∣thority. The King * 1.1705 of England gave this as a reason of his refusall to

send to it, because the right to call Councels belonged to Kings and Emperours, nullam vero esse potestatem penes Pontificem, but the Pope had no authority to call or assemble a Councell. The French King writ a letter to them at Trent, and the superscription u 1.1706 was, Conventui Triden∣tino: The Fathers stormed and snuffed a long while at that, disdaining that the King should write Conventui, and not▪ Concilio, and hardly were they perswaded to read his letter: At last, when credence and audience was obtained for Iames Aimiot his Legate, he signified be∣fore all the Trent Fathers, that the King protested and published to al, (as also before he had done at Rome) that he accounted not that assem∣bly pro Oecumenico & legitimo Concilio, sed pro privato Conventu; not for a generall Councell, but for a private Convent, gathered together for the private benefit and good of some few; adding, se suosque subditos nullo vinculo ad parendum his quae in eo decreta fuerint obstrictos iri; that hee and his subjects would not be tyed by the decrees thereof: exhorting fur∣ther that this his protestation might bee recorded among the Acts of their Synod, and that all Christian Kings might have notice thereof. The Electours x 1.1707 and Princes of Germany being assembled at Nurim∣berge, when Zacharias Delphinus, and Franciscus Commendonius the Popes Legates came to warne them in the Popes name y 1.1708 to come, or send to the Councell of Trent, returned this answere unto them, Mi∣rantur illustrissimi Electores & Principes, the most illustrious Electours and Princes doe wonder, that the Pope would take upon him, Celsitudinibus suis Concilij indictionem obtrudere, to obtrude to their Celsitude his appointment of a Councell, and that he durst call them to Trent; adding, wee would have both the Pope and you his Legates to know, that wee acknow∣ledge no such authority in the Pope, and we are certainly perswaded by the undoubted testimonies both of Gods law and mans, Concilij in∣dicendi jus Pontificem Romanum non habere; that the Pope hath no autho∣rity and right to appoint, call, or assemble a Councell. Thus they; whose an∣swer is at large explaned in their Gravamina z 1.1709, 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 autho∣ritie to summon or call a Councel: Of the same judgement were other Princes. When Hieronimus Martinengus a 1.1710 was sent as Legate from the Pope, to call some out of England to that Trent assembly in the time of the late Queene of renowned and blessed memory; è Belgio in insulam traijcere prohibuit; she would not suffer him to set foote in her domi∣nion about such businesse: Nec b 1.1711 diversum ad Reges Daciae & Suetiae missus, responsum retulit; and the Kings of Denmarke and Swetia gave the like answere, that the Pope had no right to call a Councell. So justly did they dis∣like and contemne the going to that Synod, even for this cause, and that most justly, esteeming it for no other than a Coventicle, or un∣lawfull assembly.

25. Said I unlawfull? that is too soft and mild a word: that, and all the other nine with it, by reason of that Papall calling, were un∣lawfull in the highest degree, even Antichristian: For the authoritie whereby those Synods were called, belonging in right to Emperours

and Kings, and being tyrannically usurped by the Pope, as he by intru∣ding himselfe into the Imperiall royalties, and lifting up himselfe a∣bove all the Vicegerents of God here in earth, that is, above c 1.1712 all that is called God, did thereby proclame himselfe to bee that man of sinne, and display his Antichristian Banner: So on the other side, those Bi∣shops and others, who came at his Papall call, and yeelded obedience to him, in such sort usurping, did, eo ipso, in that very act of theirs, re∣ceive the marke of the beast, and not onely consent, but submit them∣selves to his Antichristian authority, and fight under the vety En∣signes and Banner of Antichrist: But of this point I have before d 1.1713 in∣treated, where I shewed, that all, even the best actions, (how much more then such tumultuous and turbulent attempts) when they are performed in obedience to the Pope, as Pope, that is, as a su∣preme Commander, are turned into impious and Antichristian re∣bellions against God.

26. This rather is needfull to bee here observed, that not onely generall, but even Provinciall or Nationall Synods are in all Christi∣an Kingdomes to bee called onely by Imperiall, not at all by Papall or Episcopall authority; yea, and they are so called in every well or∣dered Church: For although there goe not forth a particular and ex∣presse Edict or mandatum from Kings, to assemble them, yet so long as Kings or Emperours doe not expresse their will to the contrary, e∣ven that summons which is sent from Primates or other Bishops sub∣ject unto them, hath virtually and implicitè the Imperiall authority by w^ch every such Synod is assembled: The reason whereof is this: The holy Nicene Councell decreed e 1.1714, that for the more peaceable govern∣ment of each Church, there should be two Provinciall Synods yeare∣ly held by every Primate. Those holy Fathers meant not (as the conti∣nuall practice throughout the whole Church doth explane) so strict∣ly to define that number of two, as that neither moe, nor fewer might be kept in one yeare: But they judging that, for those times a compe∣tent and convenient number, they set it downe, but yet as an acciden∣tall, ceremoniall, and therefore mutable order, if the necessitie and oc∣casions of any Church should otherwise require. That which is sub∣stantiall and immutable in their Canon is, that Provinciall Synods shall be held by each Primate so often, and at such times as the neces∣sity and occasions of their Church shall require: and the chiefe Iudge of that necessity and fitting occasions is no other than hee to whose sword and authority every Bishop is subject, and without whose con∣sent first obtained, they may in no place of his Kingdome assemble together without the note of tumult and sedition. This Nicene Ca∣non, as all the rest, when Constantine f 1.1715, and other suceeding Emperours and Kings approved, (as who hath not approved that holy Councel?) they then gave unto it the force of an Imperiall law, according to the rule, omnia g 1.1716 nostra facimus, quibus nostram impartimar authoritatem; wee make that our owne Act, and our law which wee ratifie by our authoritie: And Iustinian more plainly expressed this, when he said: h 1.1717 Sancimus vicem legum obtinere sanctas regulas; we enact, that the holy Canons of the Church set downe in the former Councels, the Nicene, the Constantino∣politane,

Ephesine, and Chalcedon, shall have the force, and stand in the strength of Imperiall lawes: By this Imperiall assent it is, that when the wisedome of Christian Emperours and Kings doth not otherwise dispose of calling Synods in their dominions, Primates may call the same, two, or moe, or fewer in any yeare, as necessitie shall perswade: but whensoever they call any, the same are called, assembled and cele∣brated by the force of that Imperial authoritie, which Kings and Em∣perours have either given to that Nicene Canon, or which they in more explicite manner shall impart unto the Primates or Bishops in their Kingdomes.

27. Now if Provinciall Councels may not, nor ever are lawfully held in Christian Kingdomes without this authority, how much lesse may generall and Oecumenicall, the occasions of which being rare and extraordinary, the calling also of them is extraordinary, and both for the time & place, meerly arbitrary, at the will of those who have Imperial or regal authority: To say nothing, how inconvenient it is even in civill government, and how dangerous unto Christian States, that all the Bish. of a Kingdome should leave their own Chur∣ches naked of their guides, and Pastours, and goe into farre and for∣raigne Countries, without the command of their Soveraigne Lords, especially goe at the command of an usurping Commander, and that also, if he require, though their owne Soveraignes shall forbid or withstand the same, of the mischiefe and danger whereof the example of Becket, among many like, may be a warning to all Kingdomes. But leaving that to the grave consideration of others, thus much now out of that which hath beene said, is evident; that seeing all those ten forenamed Synods were called and assemble by no other authori∣ty than Pontificall, and seeing lawfully assemble they could not, but onely by Imperiall, it hence clearly ensueth, that for defect of lawfull calling and assembling, they are all of them no other than unlawfull Councels: Againe, seeing no Synods are congregated in Christs name i 1.1718, but such as are assembled by him who hath from Christ autho∣rity to assemble them, which in Christian Kingdomes none hath, as wee have shewed, but onely Kings and Emperours: 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 Christs name, and if not in Christs, then sure in no other but in the name of Anti∣christ, and so all of them, in respect of their calling, not only unlawfull, but even Antichristian Councels.

28. After their calling consider their proceedings, for as those Councels were unlawfully assembled, so were they also unlawfull by defect of the other essentiall condition, which is, due and synodall or∣der: for they all not onely wanted synodall freedome and order, but, which is worse, they wanted that which is the onely meanes to have synodall freedome and order observed in any generall Councell, and that is the Imperiall Presidencie: in none of them was the Emperour, in them all k 1.1719 the Pope was President: In the first Later ane, Calistus l 1.1720; in the second, Innocentius m 1.1721 the second; in the third, Alexander n 1.1722 the third; in the fourth, Innocentius o 1.1723 the third; and the like might bee

shewed in the rest; but that Bellarmines words may ease us of that la∣bour, who speaking of all those ten Councels, saith p 1.1724, In eis omnibus si∣ne Controversia Pontifex Rom. praesedit; the Pope without doubt was Presi∣dent in them all.

29. Nor was this an Episcopall Presidencie a preheminence only, & precedence before other Bishops in the Synod, such as any Bish. to whō 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 permi∣ssion fell, as it were by devolution upon the chiefe Bishop that was present in the Councell: Such a Presidencie, though it bee not due to the Pope, seeing in the ancient Councels hee neither had it, nor grud∣ged that other should have it, yet are wee not unwilling to allow that unto him, if contenting himselfe therewith hee would seeke no more: But the Presidencie which hee now desires, and in all those ten Councels usurped, is meerely Imperiall; the Presidencie of governing the Synod, and ordering it by his authority and power, the very same which in all the generall Councels, for a thousand yeares after Christ, the Emperour held, and had it as one of his Royalties and Imperiall rights, none of all the Catholike Bishops in those Councels ever so much as contradicting, much lesse resisting the same: For any Bi∣shops, most of all for the Pope, to take upon them such a Presidencie utterly overthrows all liberty and order in Councels; for by it all the Bishops are to be kept in awe and order; and the Pope, who of all o∣ther is most exorbitant, and farthest out of square, ought by this to be curbed, & reduced in to order: Even as when Catiline took upon him to bee the Ruler and guide to his assembly, and a punisher of disor∣ders among them, though all the rest willingly submitted themselves, and that with a solemne oath q 1.1725, to bee ordered by him in their acti∣ons; yet for all this order they were no free Romane Senate, but a Conjuration of Conspirators, striving to oppresse r 1.1726 the Romane State, liberties, and ancient lawes: Right so it is in these Synods, when the Pope, who is the Lord of misrule, and Ring-leader of the Conspi∣rators, takes upon him this Presidencie, to order Councels, though the ••est not onely consent, but binde themselves by a sacred oath s 1.1727, to be subject to his authoritie; this very usurpation of such Presidencie doth, eo ipso, exclude and banish al liberty & synodall order, & makes their assemblies meere Conjurations against the truth, and ancient faith of the Church.

30. How could it now be chosen, but that whasoever heresie the Pope with the faction of his Catilinarie Conspiratours embraced, should in such Councels prevaile against the truth? The Imperiall au∣thority was the onely hedge or pale to keepe 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 Constan∣tius, Quod ego volo pro Canone sit: the proofe of all their decrees was borrowed from their predecessors, the old Donatists: Quod t 1.1728 volumus sanctum est. Not Emperours, not Bishops, none might controule him or say unto him u 1.1729, Domine, cur ita facis? The Bishops were tyed to him by an oath x 1.1730, to defend the Papacy, (that is, his usurped authority)

and defend it, contra omnes homines, against all that should wag their tongues against it. The Emperours and Kings saw how Hildebrand had used, and in most indigne manner misused Henry the 4. how Alexan∣der y 1.1731 the third had insolently trodden on the necke of Fredericke: what could they, nay what durst they doe, but either willingly stoop and prostrate themselves, or else be forced to lye downe at the Popes feet, and say unto him, Tread on us, O thou Lion of the Tribe of Iudah; and according as it is written, Set thy foot super Aspidem & Basiliscum. Could there possibly be any freedome or order in such Synods, where the onely meanes of preserving freedome and order was banished? Might not the Pope in such Councels doe and decree whatsoever ei∣ther himselfe, his will, or faction would suggest unto him? Say they had neither swords, nor clubs, nor other like instruments of violence in those Synods: they needed none of them: This Papall presidency was in stead of them all. It was like the club of Hercules, the very sha∣king of it was able, and did affright all, that none, no not Emperours durst deale against it. The removing of the Imperiall presidency made such a calme in their Synods, that without resistance, without any need of other further violence, the Pope might oversway whatsoever he desired.

31. And truly it may bee easily observed by such as attentively reade the Ecclesiasticall stories, that together with the standing or fall of the Empire, either the ancient faith or heresies prevailed in the Church. So long as the Emperour being Christian, retained his dig∣nity and Imperiall authority, no heresie could long take place, but was by the Synodall judgement of Oecumenicall Councels maturely suppressed: the faction of no Bishop, no not of the Pope, being able to prevaile against that soveraigne remedy. But when once z 1.1732 Gregorie the second, Zachary, and their succeeding Popes to Leo the third, had by most admirable and unexplicable fraud & subtilty, clipt the wings and cut the sinewes of the Easterne Empire; themselves first seizing upon the greatest part of Italy, by the meanes of Pipin, and then erec∣ting a new Empire in the West, the Imperiall authority being thus infringed, the Easterne Emperour not daring, the Westerne in re∣gard of the late curtesie received from the Pope, being not willing, and neither of them both being able now to match and justle with the Pope; this which was the great let and impediment to the Popes fac∣tion, and the discovering of the man of sinne being now removed, there was no meanes to keepe out of the Church the heresies which the Pope affected: then the Cataracts of heresies being set open, and the depths of the earth, nay of the infernall pit being burst up, heresies rusht in, and came with a strong hand into the Church, and those he∣reticall doctrines which in six hundred yeares and more could never get head, passing as doubtfull and private opinions among a few, and falling but as a few little drops of raine, grew now unto such an height and outrage, that they became the publike and decreed doctrines in the Westerne Church. The Pope once having found his strength in the cause of Images, (wherein the first triall was made thereof) no fan∣cie nor dotage was so absurd for which he could not after that com∣mand,

when he listed, the judgement of a generall Councell, Transub∣stantiation, Proper Sacrifice, the Idoll of the Masse, (to which not Moloch nor Baal is to be compared) their Purgatorian fire, their five new-found proper Sacraments, condignity of workes, yea Superero∣gation, and an armie of like heresies assayled and prevailed against the truth. The Imperiall authority being laid in the dust, and tram∣pled under the sole of the Popes foot, no meanes was left to restraine his enormous designes, or hinder him in Councels, to doe and define even what he listed. And as the Imperiall authority which he so long time had oppressed, is in any kingdome more or lesse restored, and freed from his vassalage; the other heresies which arose from the ru∣ine and decay thereof, are more or lesse expurged out of that King∣dome, and the ancient truth restored therein: Yea and still, though but by insensible degrees, shall hee and his authority wast a 1.1733 and con∣sume, till not onely all the ten b 1.1734 hornes of the Beast (that is, all the Kings whose authority he hath usurped, and used as his hornes to push at Gods Saints) shall hate the Whore, that Romish Babylon, and make her desolate and naked, and burne her with fire; but till himselfe also being despised and contemned of his owne lovers, shall together with his adherents be utterly abolished, and cast into that Lake of Gods wrath.

32. You see now how unlawfull those Synods are by reason of the defect of Imperiall presidency: you will perhaps demand whether by the want thereof there happened any particular disorder in them, or ought contrary to freedome and synodall order: whereunto I might in a word answer, that there neither was, nor could there bee ought at all done in any of those ten Synods with freedome and synodall or∣der. For though otherwise their proceedings had beene never so milde, temperate and equall, yet even for that one defect of Imperi∣all presidency, and excludng the same; whatsoever they did was disor∣derly, and they all nothing but synods of disorder. But yet for fur∣ther satisfaction of that question, let us (omitting all the rest) consi∣der among very many, some few particulars concerning their youn∣gest and dearest baby of Trent, was that equall dealing in Paul the 3. at the beginning of his Trent assembly, to conspire c 1.1735 and take secret counsell with the Emperour to make warre against the Protestants, and root them out of the world? The Italian Franciscan in his Ser∣mon before Ferdinand, stirring up both him and others to this butche∣ry, Exere vires tuas, plucke up your spirit and strength, and root out that pestiferous kinde of men, nefas enim est, for it is unlawfull to suf∣fer them any longer to looke upon the light: neither say that you will doe it, it must be done even now at this present, and without any de∣lay. Thus did he give the watchword, and sound an alarme to their intended Massacre:d 1.1736 whereupon there ensued bellum e 1.1737 cruentum & ca∣lamitosum, a bloody and cruell warre against the Protestants: concerning which divers of the Princes of Germanie said in their Letters to the Emperour, Wee f 1.1738 shall so answer that every man may understand, both that injury is done to us, and that you doe undertake this warre Romani Antichristi & impij Concilij Tridentini impulsu, at the instigation

of the Romane Antichrist, and the impious Councell at Trent, that the doc∣trine of the Gospell, and the liberty of Germany may bee oppressed. Was this Concilium pacis, or rather Concilium sanguinis, a conspiracie not onely against the faith, but against the life of Catholikes? Was it fit his Holinesse should play Iudas part, pretend love and emenda∣tion of the faith, when he entended murder, and an utter extirpation of the servants of God? Could there be freedome for them at Trent in the Popes dominion g 1.1739, when they might not be suffered to breathe or live at home in their owne free Cities and States? Was not this a stratagem unknowne in the time of the Councell at Millane and Arimine, to invite Catholikes to the Synod, and promise liberty and free accesse, but provide that they shall have no leisure, not so much as come to the Councell?

33. What equity or freedome could there either be, or be expec∣ted in that Councell, wherein the Pope, who is the capitall enemy of the Catholikes, took upon him to be their Iudge, yea, when himselfe who was reus, guilty of heresie, besides other crimes, and who should have beene judged first of all, tooke upon him to bee supreme Iudge in his owne cause? Let Catiline be held for such a Iudge betwixt the Senate and himselfe; it is not to bee 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 onely true Citizens, the onely men fit to rule the Empire. It was the just exception h 1.1740 which those 47. Catholike Bishops that stood for Athanasius, tooke against the Councell at Tyre, wherein hee was condemned, that Eusebius and Theogius, the mortall enemies of Atha∣nasius, were his Iudges in that Synod; Lex autem Dei inimicum neque testem, neque judicem esse vult; but the law of God prohibits a mans enemy to be a witnesse, much more to be his Iudge. The very same exception took i 1.1741 Chrysostome against Theophilus and the Synod with him. Theophilus, saith he, hath called us unto judgement, before hee hath purged himselfe of the crimes objected against him, quod contra omnes Canones & Leges est, which is against all lawes and Canons: and againe, it is not fit that Theo∣philus should judge us, qui ipse reus est, inimicus & hostis, who is himselfe guilty or accused of crimes, and is also our enemy. Thus Chrysostome. A matter of such equity, that both Pope Nicholas k 1.1742 the first, and l 1.1743 Celestine the third say, Ipsa ratio dictat, Common reason doth teach, that those who are ones enemies, ought not to be their Iudges. The Pope then being a pro∣fessed enemie of Protestants can be now lawfull or competent Iudge of them: and being himselfe reus, called into question for heresies, can be no lawfull Iudge in his owne cause, and in those very heresies where∣of he is accused. And truly the answer whereby Bellarmine thought to avoid this most just exception against their Trent Councell and the rest, doth much more confirme the equity thereof: He confesseth that this holds m 1.1744 in all, save onely in the supreme Iudge. He onely may be Iudge in his owne cause, and against his enemies also, all else must stand to the judgement of others. The interpretation is true, but in the appli∣cation of this to the Pope, there he faileth: for hee intends the Pope to be that supreme Iudge; than which there cannot be devised a more

base begging of the question, and most speciall controversie. That he is not supreme, we unavoydably prove by the words of Christ n 1.1745, Dic Ecclesiae: by the judgement of this fift Councell, which judged and condemned both the Popes Cathedrall Constitution for hereticall, and Vigilius himselfe for an heretike: and in saying the fift Councell, it is as much as if I said, by the judgement of the whole Catholike Church, all the former Councels consenting in faith with this fift, and all that follow it approving the judgement thereof, untill their Laterane Sy∣nod. The same is further proved by the sixt o 1.1746 generall Councell, which judged and condemned Pope Honorius for an Heretike; by that which they call the seventh, which p 1.1747 also condemned Honorius; by the next, which they account the eighth, wherein it is decreed, that in the case q 1.1748 of heresie the Pope may be judged; (and that is the very case whereof the Pope is now accused;) by the Councels of Constance r 1.1749, and Basil s 1.1750, in both which it is decreed to be a doctrine of the Catholike faith, that the Pope hath a superiour Iudge in the case both of heresie, schisme, and scan∣dalous life: by the practice t 1.1751 of the Church, in judging and deposing Liberius, and Iohn the 12. by the very words of Bellarmine himselfe, If the Bishops, saith he u 1.1752, in a Synod can convince the Pope of heresie, possunt cum judicare & deponere, they may judge and depose him. And if in any cause he have a superiour Iudge, then is he not supreme. Seeing then by all these, besides infinite moe, it is not onely proved, but demon∣strated, that the Pope is not, nor ought to be held as supreme Iudge, but may in some causes be both judged, condemned, and deposed: and seeing by Bellarmines owne confession, none can be judge in his owne cause, or of his adversaries towards whom he professeth open enmity, but onely the supreme Iudge; it inevitably followeth upon the Cardi∣nalls owne words, besides evident reason, that the Pope neither was in the Councell of Trent, nor can be in any Councell a lawfull Iudge, either of Protestants, or in those causes which he then undertooke to judge, in which himselfe was a party and Reus; seeing then, he should be Iudge in his owne cause, which equity and reason, the law both di∣vine and humane doe constantly prohibite.

34. Adde hereunto the judgement of the ancient and Catholike Church. I doe never reade, or almost remember the holy Councell of Chalcedon, but with a kinde of amazement I admire the rare piety, prudence, integrity, moderation, and gravity of those most glorious Iudges, who supplying the Emperours place when he was absent, were the Imperiall Presidents in that Councell: Had they, or such like Pre∣sidents beene wanting at that time, it may justly be feared, conside∣ring the eagernesse and temerity, that I say not the insolency of the Popes Legates in that Synod, that the Councell of Chalcedon had pro∣ved a worse Latrociny than the second Ephesine was. In that Coun∣cell both these causes now mentioned fell out, the one in Dioscorus, the other in Athanasius Bishop of Paros. Dioscorus came and sate down in his place among the other Patriarks & Bishops, as one who would be a Iudge in the causes proposed; for in ancient Councels there was

a different x 1.1753 place, and seats for the Bishops, who judged and gave sentence in the Councell, and for others who were actors, whether plaintiffs and accusers, or Rei, and accused. Now because Dioscorus himselfe was the partie who was called into question, and to be jud∣ged; and equity forbids a man to bee Iudge in his owne cause: The Councell, and by name the Popes Legates, (to whom the rest there∣in assented) tooke this just exception thereat, and said, y 1.1754 Non patimur, we cannot indure this wrong to be done, ut iste sedeat qui judicandus advenit; that Dioscorus, who is to bee judged, sit as a Iudge in his owne cause; upon which most just and equall motion, the glorious Iudges, who were Presidents for order, commanded Dioscorus to remove z 1.1755 from the Bench, as I may say, of Iudges, and to sit in the middle of the Church, which was the place both for the Accusers and Rei; and Dios∣corus accordingly sate there, as the glorious Iudges had appointed: Vpon the very same ground of equitie did the religious Emperour command in the second Ephesine Synod, that if a 1.1756 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 as∣sēble & judge that cause without Theodoret; he should have no judicatory power in his own cause: And the like he further cōmanded cōcerning that holy Bish. Flavianus: He & some others had before in the Synod at Constantinople beene Iudges against Eutiches, and condemned him. An higher, even that generall Councell at Ephesus (which proved a Latrociny in the end) was called to examine b 1.1757 that judgment of Fla∣vianus and the rest, whether it was just or no. The Emperour com∣manded c 1.1758 those who had beene Iudges of late, in loco eorum esse qui ju∣dicandi sunt, now to bee in the place of Rei, such as were to bee judged. A demonstration, that if Theodosius or Martian, or such like worthy and equall Iudges as they were at Chalcedon, had been Presidents for order in their Trent assembly; the Pope, though hee had beene as just and orthodoxall as Flavianus, much more being in impiety and heresie farre superiour to Dioscorus, should not have beene permitted to sit among the Bishops of the Councell, nor have so much as one single decisive suffrage or any judicatory power in his owne cause, much lesse have had such a supremacie of judgement, that his onely voyce and sentence should over-rule, and over-sway the whole Councell besides.

35. The other example is this: Athanasius Bishop of Paros be∣ing accused d 1.1759 of sundry crimes, was called to triall before a Provin∣ciall Councell at Antioch, held by Domnus Bishop of that See, unto whose Patriarchall authority Athanasius was subject; when hee refu∣sed to come after three citations, hee was deposed by that Synod, and Sabinianus by the same authority, made Bishop of Paros in his roome. In the Councel at Chalcedon Athanasius came, complained of wrongfull extrusion, and desired of the generall Councell, that his Bishopricke might be restored unto him, pleading for his refusall to come to trial at the Synod at Antioch, nothing else but thise 1.1760, that Dō∣nus who was the chiefe Iudge in that Synod, was his enemy; and there∣fore hee thought it not equall to be tryed before him, though he was

his owne Patriarch. The glorious Iudges gave order that the accusa∣tions against Athanasius should within eight moneths bee examined by Maximus then Bishop of Antioch, and a Synod with him; and if he were found guilty of those crimes, or any other worthy deposition, he should for ever want the Bishopricke. But if either they did not with∣in such time examine the cause, or examining it, finde the accusations untrue, that then the See of Paros should be restored unto Athanasi∣us, as unjustly deposed; and that Sabinianus should remaine but a sub∣stitute unto him, untill Maximus could provide him of another Bi∣shopricke. Thus ordered the secular Iudges, and the whole Councell of Chalcedon approved this sentence, crying out, Nihil justius, nothing is more just, nothing is more equall, this is a just sentence, you judge ac∣cording to Gods minde. O that once againe the world might bee so happy as to see one other such holy Councell as was this of Chalcedon, and such worthy Iudges to be Presidents thereof. All the Anathemaes and censures of their Councell at Trent, where the Romane Domnus our capitall enemy was the chiefe, nay rather the onely Iudge, would even for this very cause be adjudged of no validity, nor of force to bind I say not other Churches, such as these of Britany, but not those very men who are otherwise subject to the Popes Patriarchall authority, as Athanasius was to Domnus. Such an holy Councell would cause a me∣lius inquirendum to be taken of all their judgements and proceedings against the Saints of God: and unlesse they could justifie (which while the Sun and Moone endureth they can never) their slanderous crimes of heresie imputed unto us, and withall purge themselves of that An∣tichristian apostasie whereof they are most justly accused and convict∣ed, not onely in foro poli, but in their owne consciences, and by the con∣senting judgement of the Catholike Church for six hundred, nay in some points for fifteene hundred yeares after Christ, they should and would by such a Councell bee deposed from all those Episcopall dignities and functions which they have so long time usurped and abused unto all tyranny, injustice, and subversion of the Catholike Faith.

36. As the proceedings in that Councell were all unlawfull on the Popes part, so were they also both unlawfull and servile in respect of the other Bishops, who were assessors in that Assembly. Could there possibly be any freedome or safety for Protestants among them, being the children of that generation which had most perfidiously violated their faith and promise to Iohn Hus in the Councell of Constance, and murdered the Prophets? Among whom that Canon authorizing tre∣cherous and perfidious dealing, stood in force: Quod f 1.1761 non obstantibus, that notwithstanding the safe conducts of Emperours, Kings, or any other granted to such as come to their Councels, Quocunque vinculo se a∣strinxerint, by what bond soever they have tyed themselves, by promise, by their honour, by their oath, yet non obstante any such band they may bring them into inquisition, and proceed to censure, to punish them as they shall thinke fit, and then vaunt and glory in their perfidious∣nesse, saying, Caesar obsignavit g 1.1762, Christianus orbis major Caesare resigna∣vit; The Emperour hath sealed this with his promise and oath, but our Coun∣cell

which is above the Emperour, hath repealed it; it shall not stand in force.

37. Could there be any freedome or liberty among those who were by many obligations most servilely addicted to the Pope? The Apulian Bishops h 1.1763 crying out, aliorum omnium nomine, in the name of all the rest in their Councell, Nihil aliud sumus praeterquam creaturae & man∣cipia sanctissimi patris: O, we are all but the Popes creatures, his very slaves. The complaint i 1.1764 of the Bishop of Arles might here be renewed, which he made of such like Councels, at Basil, that must bee done, and of ne∣cessity be done and decreed in Councells, quod nationi placeat Italicae, which the Italian nation shall affect; which country alone k 1.1765 for multitude of Bishops doth equall or exceed other nations: and this very Italian faction to have prevailed at Trent, their owne Bishop Espencaeus, who was at the Councell, doth testifie: Haec l 1.1766 illa Helena est, this is the Helena which of late prevailed at Trent; this Italian faction overswayed all: whereof Molineus m 1.1767 gives a plaine instance. For when an wholesome Canon, that the Pope might not dispence in some matters, had like to have beene decreed, many in the Councell liking well thereof, the Pope procured a respite n 1.1768 for that businesse for a month and an halfe, during which time some forty poore 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 Councell also were the Popes pensioners, and stipendary Bishops, nay rather ought than Bishops: such as among others were Olaus Magnus o 1.1769, the titular Archbishop of Vpsala in Go∣thia, and Robertus Venantius the titular p 1.1770 and blinde Bishop of Armach, and yet not halfe so blinde in body as in minde; Archbishops q 1.1771 with∣out Archbishoprickes, without a Church, without a Clergy, without Diocesse, without any revenues, save a small * 1.1772 pension which the Pope allowed them, that they might be cyphers in the Councell, and taking his pay might doe him some service for it, and grace his Synod with their subscriptions. But all the other bonds are a•• nothing to that r 1.1773 oath wherewith every one of them was tyed and fettered to the Pope, swearing to uphold the Papall authority against all men, and to fight s 1.1774 against all that should rebell against him: an oath so execrable, that Aeneas Sylvius is t 1.1775 mentioned to have said, Quod etiam verum dicere contra Papam sit contra Episcoporum juramentum, that even to speake the truth, to speake for the truth, if it be contrary to the Pope, is against the oath of Bishops. By this they were so tyed, at u 1.1776 ne mutire quidem ipsis liceat adversus Idolum Romanum, that they might not so much as whisper a∣gainst him.

38. Verily none of those Iron chaines which were used by Diosco∣rus in the Ephesine Latrocinie are comparable to these: No subscrip∣tion unto blankes like the swearing to maintaine whatsoever their Romane 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 freedome in the Sy∣nod; they must speake, thinke, and teach nothing but what the Pope breathes into them. Had there beene such wise and worthy Iudges

for Presidents of that Councell, as there was at Chalcedon, could they possibly have endured to see all synodall freedome thus oppressed and banished? Nay they would in their zeale to God and his truth, have broken and burst in sunder every linke of that chaine: And as x 1.1777 Ibas and Theodoret were not admitted to the Councel of Chalcedon as mem∣bers thereof, till they had openly renounced and anathematized the heresies which they had before embraced: So would not those glori∣ous Iudges have permitted any of those Tridentine Bishops to have sit in the Councell, till they had openly renounced, anathematized, and abjured that oath, and with it their vassallage to the Pope, and all those hereticall doctrines which by their adhering to the Pope, and following his faction, they had embraced: and those are Image-wor∣ship, Transubstantiation, proper Sacrifice, Adoration of the Host, their Purgatorian fire, and the rest of those heresies, which, since the Romane faction began to prevaile, (and that was about seven hundred yeares after Christ, in the dayes of Gregory the second, who as I sup∣pose, first of all by synodall judgement decreed the worship of Ima∣ges,) 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 equall triall of the truth by any of their Synods held since that time. But when all the Bishops were freed from those chaines of their oath and slavish bondage to the Pope, since the faction (whereof he hath beene the leader) got the upper hand, those glorious Iudges would have permitted nothing to passe for a free synodall sentence, but that onely which could have had warrant from the Scriptures, those holy Councells and consenting judgement of those Fathers who lived within the six hundred yeares or somewhat more after Christ, at what time partiality and faction had not cor∣rupted and blinded their judgement, as in the second Nicene, and ever since it hath.

39. But because such glorious Iudges and their most equall Presi∣dency was wanting, nay was banished from their Assembly at Trent, scarce any tokens or shadow of freedome could take place therein. Not towards Protestants. Brentius y 1.1778, and divers other learned Di∣vines came to Trent, offered z 1.1779 themselves and their faith to triall of disputations, Nulla ratione a 1.1780 impetrari potuit, this could not be obtained by any meanes, that they should come to dispute b 1.1781 for the faith. c 1.1782 Nullus unquam liber aditus Protestantibus, the Protestants at no time had any free∣done to come to the Councell at Trent. Not towards their owne Bishops, if they spake or did ought tending to the defence of the truth. Corne∣lius Bishop of Bitons said d 1.1783, that Christ offered not in his last supper his owne body and blood: this crossed their proper sacrifice of the masse, therfore Cornelius for that free & true speech, à Patribus universis explosus est, was hissed out of their Trent Councell by all the Fathers and Di∣vines there present. Iacobus Nachiantes e 1.1784 Bishop of Clodia Fossa, sayd, he could not approve that traditions should be held in equal reverence as the Scripture, he was for this truth expulsed the Councell. Gulielmus f 1.1785 Venetus a Dominican Fryer, sayd in the Councell, that the Councell was above the Pope, he was commanded to depart out of the Coun∣cell.

Another of the Bishops g 1.1786 hapning 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 1.1787, and to bee degraded. Petrus Vergerius i 1.1788 Bishop of Iustinianople, (he who endeavoring k 1.1789 to refute the Protestant writings, and began that booke which hee intituled, A∣gainst the Apostates of Germany, was himselfe overcome by the evi∣dence of that truth, specially in the doctrine of Iustification, which he oppugned) came to the Councell at Trent: The Pope having intelli∣gence that he was inclined to Lutheranisme, writ to his Legats at Trent, Ne locum ei tribuant in consessu, That they should not admit him into their Councell, but command him to depart. Ad hunc l 1.1790 modum eliminatus, by this meanes was the Bishop excluded from their free Synod: and if Iohannes Casus the Popes Legate to the Venetians, and Archbishops of Beneven∣tum, (who writ a m 1.1791 booke in the praise of one of the most detestable and damnable sinnes) could have prevailed to have entised m 1.1792 him to goe to Rome, he had not thence escaped so easily as he did from Trent. Could any of these or the like enormous disorders, which utterly sub∣vert all synodall freedome, have been endured, had there been e∣quall and prudent Presidents for Kings and Emperours in that Coun∣cell? But the Imperiall presidency being abandoned, together with it, was all freedome and synodall orders excluded. So that I may truly say both of these Tridentine, and their other nine Synods, that as by reason of their want of this Imperiall presidency, they had many dis∣orders, so by reason they excluded that Presidency, they had, nay they could have nothing in them at all but disorder.

40. You see now the severall kinds of unlawfull Councells, as well by want of Imperiall calling, or of Imperiall Presidency, as when nei∣ther is wanting, by the abuse of that Imperiall authority in the Synod. And though the unlawfulnesse of those ten later Synods doth now ap∣peare to be farre greater than of those ancient Councells before men∣tioned; seeing in all the ancient there was not onely a lawfull calling, but a lawfull presidency also, both which were wanting in the other tenne; besides the unlawfull proceedings which were equally in both, or rather farre worse in the later: yet is there one especiall difference that is principally to be remembred, which issuing from the former diversity of unlawfulnesse, makes a greater oddes than at the first one would imagine: and this it is: When the unlawfulnesse of any Synod ariseth (as in their tenne Synods it doth) from the want of the first condition, that is, of lawfull calling and authority to assemble and judge, be the consultations and proceedings of such Synods otherwise never so orderly, and their resolutions never so just and true, yet for making of any Canon or Decree, or giving any synodall judgement, there is an invalidity in all such Synods, and a meere nullity in all their Decrees, Canons, and Iudgements. They had no authority to assem∣ble in a Synod, much lesse o 1.1793 have they any authority to make a Law;

or give judgement in that Synod. That which is invalid in the spring and originall, must needs in all the subsequent actions derived from thence, & depending thereon, retain the same invalidity. And seeing it is neither multitude, nor learning, nor wisdome, but authority which is the fountain and foundation of all Lawes, Canons, and Iudgements, where this authority is wanting in any person or assembly, it is as im∣possible for such a person or assembly to make a law, give any judge∣ment, or pronounce any judiciall sentence, as to erect an house in the ayre, or build without any foundation. And truly this toucheth at the quick all those ten Councels, which wanting authority to assemble them, were no other but tumultuous, seditious, and unauthorized as∣semblies. There was no more strength, validity, or vigour in any of their Decrees to binde as lawes, or synodall judgements, than there was in such Edicts as Spartacus and Catiline in Rome, or Iacke Cade in this Kingdome should have published and set forth: specially in that which he like another Pope intended to be his fundamentall law, That all lawes should proceed out of his mouth. Those which they untruly call the Canons, Decrees, or Iudgements of those Synods, are onely the opinions, resolutions, and consultations of so many seditious men which cōvened and conspired together in those conjurations: synodall Decrees, or Ecclesiasticall Lawes and Iudgements they were not, they could not be. In the head, they are nipt and tainted with a nul∣lity of authority, they beare this tainture and nullity throughout eve∣ry part and parcell of their determinations.

41. But when the unlawfulnesse of any Synod ariseth (as in the an∣cient Councels at Arimine, Millane, and Ephesus it did) from the want of the other condition, that is, of orderly proceedings onely, the Bi∣shops being both lawfully called, and having a lawfull President, the case is here farre different; their acts and sentences though they bee unlawfull, yet are they truly judiciall, and have the authority of syno∣dall judgements, and therefore doe binde others, though not in con∣science to accept them as true, yet with patience to submit themselves to their censures, till by like authority they be revoked, and repealed. Even as in civill Courts, though an unjust or partiall Iudge, either for feare, favour, hatred, desire of lucre, or any other perturbation of minde, shall wilfully pervert justice and due proceedings, and pro∣nounce an unjust sentence: yet is this act judiciall, and stands in force of a judgement, till by the like, or higher authority it be reversed; be∣cause such an one had authority and rightfull power to judge and give sentence in that cause, though he abused his authority to injustice and wrong: Right so it is in synodall and Ecclesiasticall assemblies, when they are lawfully called and authorized to heare and judge any mat∣ter, their want of due, orderly, and just proceedings makes their judg∣ment unjust, and shewes them to be wicked and malicious conspira∣tors against the truth, but it doth not make the decree to be no judg∣ment, or no judiciall sentence of a Councell. The corruption is now in the branch, not in the root: the abuse of their authority makes not a nullity in their act: It hinders not them to bee truly and rightfully Iudges, but it demonstrates them not to bee upright, good, and just

Iudges, it shewes their sentence to be wicked and impious, but in hin∣ders it not to be a judiciall sentence. Whereof that one (among ma∣ny) in the Ephesine Latrociny, is a cleare example. In it p 1.1794 Eusebius Bi∣shop of Dorileum was most wickedly and unjustly deposed from his See, yet this their unjust sentence stood in force, till by the like autho∣rity of another generall Councell at Chalcedon, it was repealed: for in it Eusebius sate not at the first as a Iudge, but as an accuser q 1.1795 of Diosco∣rus, and in the place of accusers: He entreated the holy Councell that all the Acts r 1.1796 and Iudgements at Ephesus, viribus carere, might be ad∣nulled and declared to be of no force, and that hee might enjoy as be∣fore that sentence he did, Sacerdotali dignitate, his Episcopall dignity and See. The holy Synod consented to his just request, received him as a member s 1.1797 of the Councell, restored him to his See, and adnulled all the acts of the Ephesine Latrociny, requesting t 1.1798 the Emperour to rati∣fie and confirme that their Iudgement.

42. Such an exceeding great and most remarkable difference there is betwixt those ancient and these ten later unlawfull Synods. Though both be unlawfull, yet in the former there was a binding force for a while, till they were repealed; but in these later there never was any power to binde any, either to accept their Decrees, or to undergoe their censures, because ab initio there was a meere nullity in all their Acts. Againe, 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 bee presumed as just, (the sentence of every Iudge, even eo nomine, because he is a Iudge, being to bee presumed just, untill upon evident proofe it bee declared to bee unjust.) But what censures or punishments soever are, or at any time have beene denounced or inflicted on any, upon the warrant or Iudgement of these last ten Synods, they are all ab initio meerely tyrannous, and un∣just, inflicted without any either divine or humane authority, (see∣ing those Synods had none at all) there is not so much as a presump∣tion that they were or could be just, but for their want of authority in decreeing them, they are (though otherwise equall) presumed to be unjust.

43. And thus much I have thought good to insert concerning all sorts of Councels, as well lawfull as unlawfull: to manifest hereby not onely the injurious dealing of Baronius with this fift Councell, against which he declameth as an impious and unlawfull conspiracy; but their vanity also in extolling and magnifying many, and specially those last ten, for holy, lawfull, and oecumenicall Synods; of which dignity they are so farre short, that they are all most deservedly to be ranked with the Ephesine Latrocinie, and put in the Classis of those which of all other are the most base, impious, unlawfull, and disorderly Coun∣cells.

CAP. XX. How Cardinall Baronius revileth the Emperour Iustinian, and a refutation of the same.

1. WEE have hitherto seene and fully examined all the materiall exceptions which Baronius could devise to excuse Pope Vigilius from heresie: and in them consists the whole pith, and all the sinewes of the cause; they being the onely argu∣ments which are to be reckoned as the lawfull warriers of the Cardinall. Now followeth that other Troupe, whereof I told you a 1.1799 before, of his piraticall and disorderly Straglers, which the Cardinall hath mustred together, not that they should dispute or reason in this cause, but to raile and revile at every thing whereat their Leader is displea∣sed: And the Cardinall doth this with so impotent affections, in so immodest, that I say not so scurrill a manner, and with such virulency of all uncivill and most undutiful speeches, that you shall see him now, having cast away all that gravity and modesty which is fit not onely for a Divine, a Cardinall, 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 seemes to crosse his fancy, not the Emperour Iustinian, not the Empresse Theodora, not Theodorus Bi∣shop of Cesarea, not the Imperiall Edict, not the controversie and cause it selfe of the Three Chapters, not the Acts of the holy Generall Councell, not Pope Vigilius himselfe; nothing can scape the whippe of his tongue and pen. Let us begin with the Emperour, against whom Baronius declameth in this manner.

2. Princes b 1.1800 to dare to make lawes for Priests? who should obey the lawes made by them. Such c 1.1801 an one as Iustinian make lawes of faith? an d 1.1802 abceda∣ry Emperour: an illiterate e 1.1803 Theologue: utterly f 1.1804 unlearned: who g 1.1805 knew not how to reade. who h 1.1806 could never reade the title of the Bible: no not the very first i 1.1807 elements: not his Alpha, Beta: He on a sodaine to become a k 1.1808 palliated Divine? Hee to prescribe lawes l 1.1809 for the Church, as subject to his? Hee against m 1.1810 all right and equity to presume to make lawes of sacred matters, of Priests? He to set downe punishments for them? Hee who was not onely thus utterly unlearned, but withall an enemy to the Church; a n 1.1811 sacrilegious per∣son: a o 1.1812 persecutor: a grievous, a p 1.1813 monstrous persecutor: one who was madde q 1.1814 franticke, and out of his wits, who was possessed with an evill spirit, and driven by the Devill himselfe? Such an one r 1.1815 make lawes for Bishops?

what is this else, but to confound s 1.1816 all things, to treade t 1.1817 under foote the sacred Canons, to abolish utterly the Church discipline, to u 1.1818 dissolve all divine order, and to make of the Kingdome of heaven (which the Church is) the very prison of hell, where there is nothing but confusion? Thus the Cardinall: And this is but the first pageant of his Ajax, and but some gleanings neither of that harvest, which is abundant in his Annals.

3. Not to seeke any exact, or methodicall refutation hereof: All that the Cardinall hath hitherto said may bee reduced to three no∣torious slanders, by which he laboureth to blemish the immortall fame and unspotted honour of that most religious Emperour. The first concernes His knowledge and learning; Iustinian not able to reade? not know so much as his Alphabet? Is there any in the world, thinke you, so very stupid, as to beleeve the Cardinall in this so shamelesse, so incredible an untruth? Tanti ingenii, tantaeque doctrinae fuisse constat, saith Platina x 1.1819; it is manifest, that Iustinian was of so great a wit, and so great learning, that it is not to bee marveiled if hee reduced the lawes, being confused before, into order: Tritemius y 1.1820 saith of him, He was a man of an excellent wit, and hee is deservedly z 1.1821 reckoned among Eccle∣siasticall Writers; and hee expresly mentioneth three bookes which hee writ against Eutyches, one against the Africane Bishops: adding, that none may doubt, but that besides these, hee writ many and very excel∣lent Epist. Possevine a 1.1822 the Iesuite acknowledgeth him, with Tritemius, for an Ecclesiasticall Writer; & besides the reciting of those same books which Tritemius mentioned, hee alleageth these words of their Ponti∣ficiall, most worthy to be observed, for this purpose: Iustinian the Emperour a religious man, sent unto the Apostolike See his profession of saith, Scriptam chirographo proprio, written with his own hand, testifying his great love to the Christiā Religion. In regard of w^ch his excellēt writings, both Pope Agatho * 1.1823, and the whole sixt generall Councell with him, who lived in the next age to Iustinian, reckoneth him in the same ranke, not onely of Ecclesiasticall Writers, but of venerable Fathers, with Saint Cyrill, Saint Chrysostome and others, whose writings doe give testimony to the truth. Liberatus who lived in the dayes of Iustinian, and who was no well-willer of the Emperour, yet could not but record, That he b 1.1824 writ a Booke against the Acephali or Eutichean heretikes, in defence of the Councell of Chalcedon, and that Theodorus seeing him so toyled in writing against heretikes, told him, Scribendi laborem non cum de∣bere pati; That he should not trouble himselfe with writing books, but maintaine the faith by publishing Edicts. Procopius c 1.1825, who was famili∣arly conversant with Iustinian, recites that traiterous perswasion of Arsaces to Artabanus, when he excited him to murther the Emperour; This (said hee) you may doe easily, and without danger, for the Emperour is not mistrustfull, 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 a∣bout him, Christianorum scriptis miro studio revolvendis intentus, being marvellously addicted to reade and peruse the writings of Christians. Are these, thinke you, the actions of an illiterate, of an Abcedary Em∣perour? And what speake I of these? The Pandects, the Code, the Authentikes, the Institutions, the whole body of the law proclame

the incredible wisedome, and rare knowledge of Iustinian, All people saith he, p 1.1826 are governed by the lawes, Tam à nobis promulgatis quam composi∣tis, as well published as composed by us: and though he used the lear∣ning, helpe, and industry of other worthy men, (whose names he hath commended to all posterity, and never-dying fame) yet when they offred the bookes unto him, Et legimus & recognovimus, saith he, * 1.1827 wee both read them and examined them; which the glosse explaineth, saying, Nos ipsi legimus, We our selves have reade and perused them. So that I cannot sufficiently admire this most shamelesse untruth of Baronius, in reviling him for an illiterate, and not so much as an Ab∣cedarie scholler, whose wit, learning, and prudence hath beene, and will for ever bee a mirrour to all ages.

4. But Suidas (saith the Cardinall e 1.1828) doth affirme f 1.1829 the same; calling Iustinian 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and void of all learning. For answer whereunto, first, I would gladly know of the Cardinal, how hee can assure us that this is indeed the saying of Suidas? specially seeing their owne Iesuite Possevine tels g 1.1830 us for a certainty, that Plaeraque, very many things are falsly inserted into Suidas; and that, à Sciolis & Schismaticis, by some smatterers or Schismaticks; and further, that those Plaeraque, are such as are repugnant to the Euangelicall truth, and Historicall sinceritie. How may we bee assured, that this concerning Iustinian, is not one of those Plaeraque, seeing this to be contrary to Historicall sincerity, doth by those many and evident proofes which wee before produced, fully ap∣peare? Againe, admitting Suidas for the Author thereof: is Suidas thinke you of more, or equall authority and credit to their Pontifi∣call? which witnesseth expresly, that Iustinian writ the holy confes∣sion of his faith, Chirographo proprio, with his owne hand? Equall to Tritemius and Possevine, or (to winke at them) to Pope Agatho and the sixt generall Councell? who all account Iustinian among the Wri∣ters of the Church. Who I pray you was this Suidas? truly an ear∣nest defender of those impieties, which in their second Nicene Sy∣nod began to prevaile; who in reviling manner doth call h 1.1831 Constantine Iconomachus, a Serpent, an Antichrist, and the disciple of the Devill: and all, for his not consenting to the adoration of Images, and reliques, and to the Invocation of Saints. Now how this sort of men were given to lyes and fables, the Acts of that Synod doe fully demonstrate: Or if you rather desire to have their Iesuites judgement of Suidas, hee will tell you first, that he was hereticall, in teaching i 1.1832 the Essence in the Godhead to be generative; which their Laterane Councell hath condemned for an heresie. Hee will tell you further, that this booke is full of errours, fables, and lyes, of which sort are these, among many. That the world was made of the Poëticall Chaos; that it shal continue 1200. thousand yeares: that the Sun and Starres, are fierie substances, fed and perpetuated by terrestriall humours as their nutriment: that Paradise is Hortus pensilis, a garden hanging in the ayre farre above the earth: that Caine was begotten of the Devill, which is a lye; that the Iewes adored an asses head, and every seventh yeare sacri∣ficed a stranger: His narration (in verbo Nero) touching Annas and Cai∣phas, Pilate, Peter, and Simon Magus, wherin multa comminiscitur, he for∣geth many things: His narration (in verbo Iulianus) which hee calleth in expresse words, mendacium flagiciosissimum, a most lewd lie: His slan∣dering

Constantine the great, as base of birth, and his sonne Crispus as incestuous: His commending of Acatius and Acesius two heretikes: adding, that hee writeth many things, contra Historiae veritatem, against the Historicall 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 Magicke, and Divinations: His approving of Appolonius and Danis, two wicked Magitians, who both are relegati ad inferos, con∣demned to Hell. And to omit very many of this kinde of impieties and fables, which abound in Suidas: His narration (in verbo Iesus:) which not onely Baronius rejecteth, but Pope Paul the fourth, for that cause beside some other k 1.1833 exploded the booke of Suidas, and placed it in the ranke librorum prohibitorum: Such, even by the confession of their owne Iesuite; is this Suidas: a depraver of good, a commender of wicked men, a fabler, a lyer, a falsifier of Histories, a Magitian, an Heretike, whose booke is by the Pope forbidden to bee read. Such a worthy witnesse hath the Cardinall of his Suidas, with whom he con∣spireth in reviling Iustinian, as one utterly unlearned. Concerning which untruth, I will say no more at this time than that which Goto∣fr••d doth in his censure l 1.1834 of those words of Suidas, where calling it in plaine termes a slander, he rejects it, as it justly deserveth, in this man∣ner, 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 reproofe of the Emperour is, for presuming to make l••res in causes of faith; which for Kings and Emperours to doe, brings (as he saith) an hellish confusion into the Church of God: The wit of a Cardinall Iustinian may not doe that which King Hezekiah, which Asa, which Iesiah, and Constantine the great, the two Theodosu, Martian, and o∣ther holy Emperours before had done, and done it by the warrant of God, to the eternall good of the Church, and their owne immortall ••ame: Had hee indeed, or any of those Emperours taken upon them by their lawes to establish some new, erronious, or hereticall do∣ctrine, the Cardinall 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 expla∣ned; those, and none else did Iustinian, by his Edict, and other religi∣ous Emperours, ratifie by their imperiall authority: Heare Iustinians owne words, Wee f 1.1835 have thought it needfull 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 E∣dict for any new doctrine, but for maintaining that onely faith which the holy Catholike Church taught, and the Councell of Chalcedon had decreed; wherein that Iustinian did nothing but worthy of eternal praise, the whole fift Councell, and the whole Catholike Church ap∣proving it, is a witnesse aboue exception, which entreating of that which Iustinian had done in this cause of the Three Chapters; (the chiefe of all w^ch was the publishing of his most religious Edict, to cōdemne the same) saith, g 1.1836 Omnia semper fecit & facit, quae sanctam Ecclesiam &

recta dogmata conservant; Iustinian hath ever done, and as yet doth all things which preserve the holy Church, and the true faith. So the Councell. Is not Baronius minde composed of venome and malice, who condemnes and reviles the Emperour, as bringing hellish confu∣sion into the Church, by publishing that law, which to have beene an especiall meanes to preserve the Church and Catholike faith, the ho∣ly generall Councell, and all the whole Catholike Church with it proclameth.

6. See here againe the love and respect which Baronius beares to the Imperiall lawes, and to those holy and religious Emperors, which were the nursing fathers of Gods Church, and pillers to uphold the faith in their dayes. There are extant in the Theodosian Code many laws cōcerning the Catholike faith; concerning Bish. Churches, and the Clergy; concerning Heretikes, Apostates, Monkes, Iewes, and Samaritanes; concerning Pagan sacrifices, and Temples; concerning Religion, Episco∣pall judgement, those who flee unto Churches, and many other of the same kinde: lawes wholesome and necessary for those times. The like titles are extant also in the Code of Iustinian. In the Authenticks there are I know not how many lawes in the like causes: Of the foure Councels, of the Order of Patriarchs, of the building of Churches; of goods belonging to sacred places; Of the holy Communion, of Litanies, of the memorials for the dead, of the Priviledges of Churches, of Patriarchs, of the Pope of old Rome, of Archbishops, of Abbots, of Presbyters, of Deacons, of Subdeacons, of Monkes, of Anchorites, of Synods, of deposing Bishops who fall into heresie, that Patrons who builded Churches, and their heyers shall nominate the Clerks for the same; and in case they name such as are unmeet, then the Bishop to ap∣point who he thinks fit, that Heretikes shall be uncapable of any legacies: and exceeding many the like. Now such a spite hath the Cardinall to the Emperours, and these their Imperiall lawes, made concerning the af∣faires of the Church, that like some new Aristarchus, with one dash of his pen, hee takes upon him to casheire, and utterly abolish those lawes, (five or sixe hundreth at the least, with such care, piety, and prudēce, set forth by Constantine, Theodosius, Valentinian, Gratian, Mar∣tian, Iustinian, and other holy and religious Emperours: And when these are gone, whether the Cardinall meant not after them, to wipe away (which with as good reason, and authority he may) all the other lawes, which are in the Digest, Code, and Authenticks, that so his master the Pope may play even another Iack Cade, that all law might proceed out of his mouth, let the judicious consider. This is cleare, that the Cardinals malice is not satisfied with reproofe of the lawes themselves: even these holy Emperors Constantine, Theodosius and the rest, are, together with Iustinian, for the making of those lawes touch∣ing Ecclesiasticall affaires and persons, reproved, nay reviled by Baro∣nius, as having beene presumptuous persons, authors of an hellish confusion in the Church, and for turning heaven into hell. They, and such as they, make lawes of faith? lawes for Bishops? lawes for the Church? let them heare, as they well deserve, and as the * 1.1837 Cardinall shameth not to upbraid to Iustinian, Ne ultra crepidam, Sir Cobler goe not beyond you Last and Latchet: So indignly doth the Cardinall use those holy and reli∣gious

Princes, and that even for their zeale to Gods truth and love to his Church, for that which with exceeding piety and prudence they performed to their owne immortall honor, and to the peace and tran∣quillity of the whole Church of God.

7. His third calumnie is, that hee revileth Iustinian for his sacrilegi∣ous fury and persecution which hee used against Pope Vigilius, partly when Vigilius h 1.1838 was buffeted and beaten at Constantinople, before the time of the Councell, and forced to flee to Chalcedon; partly when he was banished i 1.1839 after the end of the Councell, for not consenting with the Synod in condemning the Three Chapters. Alas, how hath heresie and malice quite blinded the Cardinall, and bereft him of his understanding? Iustinian neither be∣fore the Councell, nor after it, persecuted Vigilius. Vigilius was nei∣ther beaten, nor buffeted, nor fled hee either to Saint Peter, or to Saint Euphemia, nor was he banished at all; these all are nothing but the Poeticall and Chimericall fictions of the Cardinall, no truth, no realty at all in them, as we have before k 1.1840 fully demonstrated. Iudge now I pray you, whether any but some Ajax furiosus, or who were de∣prived of his wits, would call the Emperour madde, franticke, sacrilegi∣ous, possessed and guided by the Devill, for persecuting and banishing him, who neither was persecuted nor banished, but enjoyed the latitude of liberty, and all the benefits thereof, even the Emperours 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 generall Councell: was Iustinian a per∣secutor, a monstrous sacrilegious persecutor, for banishing or puni∣shing condemned heretikes, and Nestorians? such as all the defen∣ders of the Three Chapters to have beene wee have * 1.1841 before declared. what a monstrous persecutor then was holy Constantine for banishing Theognis l 1.1842 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 1.1843 all that held the Macedonian heresie to bee banished and shut out of their Churches without any hope to recover the same againe? What a persecutor was Theodosius the younger, who forbad all men n 1.1844 to have or reade the bookes of Nestorius, or to admit the Nestorians into any City, Towne, Village or house? What an horrible and monstrous persecutor was Martian, who made a law o 1.1845 that if any should teach the Eutichean heresie, ultimo supplicio coercebitur, he shall bee put to death. If Constantine, Theodosius the elder and younger, and Martian bee no per∣secutors, notwithstanding this severity in exiling, punishing, and put∣ting to death heretikes: what a malicious slanderer is Baronius for cōdemning Iustinian as a persecutor, for banishing, imprisoning, or pu∣nishing with like severity the defēders of the three Chapters, who were every way as detestable, as damnable, & as truly convicted & condē∣ned heretikes, by the judgment of an holy general Councel, as either the Arians, Macedonians, Eutycheans, or old Nestorians? Thus to perse∣cute, that is, justly punish heretikes, is laudable: thus to be persecuted is ignominious. Non est peccatum malos persequi, p 1.1846 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 righteousnesse sake.

Had Iustinian done this to Vigilius, hee had beene no persecutor: But Vigilius who oppugned the truth, & Baronius who with such a virulent tongue reviles and railes at the defenders of Gods truth; they, and none but they, are persecutors in this cause: They kill not the Prophets nor Apostles, but they kill & murther, as cruelly as they can, that truth of God which the Prophets and Apostles imbraced, and for defence of which they were ready to bee killed: This spirituall persecution, as Saint Augustine teacheth, q 1.1847 exceeds the corporall: They r 1.1848 murther the Prophets who contradict the doctrines of the Prophets: Mitius ageretis, It were lesse crueltie in you to thrust your swords into the bodies of the Pro∣phets, then with your tongues to murther the doctrine and words of the Prophets. And a thousand like sayings hath the same Augustine, by which it were easie to demonstrate Baronius himselfe, and not Iusti∣nian, to bee the unjust, impious, sacrilegious, and franticke persecu∣tor, if by that which hath beene said this were not abundantly ap∣parent.

8. Now followeth the other Pageant of this Baronian Tragedy in declaming against Iustinian. That respects his last yeares, 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 venome of his poysonfull affections, and splene, against the Emperour, I am most unwilling to forsake the religious Emperour in the last act of all, but a•• exceeding desirous to testifie my love un∣to him, both for other causes, and for this especially, that he, next unto God, was the preserver of the Catholike faith, when in this cause of the Three Chapters, the Nestorians, and especially Pope Vigilius, la∣boured with might and maine for ever to abolish and extinguish the same: in regard of which act alone, if there were none else, hee deser∣ved to bee eternized in the blessed memory, and by the best indeavors of all that love the Catholike faith. Baronius s 1.1849 intreating of the 37. yeare of Iustinian, which was about two yeares before his death, tels us how at that time, Iustinian, Vnhappy Iustinian ranne headlong into the heresie of the Aphthardokites, or incorrupticolae: who * 1.1850 denyed the body of CHRIST to bee subject to passions, death, or corruption: These, as Liberatus saith, u 1.1851, were also called Phantasticks, because upon their doctrine it followed, that CHRIST had not a true and truely hu∣mane, but onely an imaginary and phantasticall body. Into this phantasticall heresie, saith Baronius, did Iustinian fall, and runne head∣long in his last age: and for proofe hereof hee alleageth x 1.1852 most am∣ple witnesses: Authores omnes tam Graeci quam Latini, All Au∣thors both Greeke and Latine, they all testifie that hee fell into this here∣sie; and they detest that impiety in him; Nor did he onely fall himselfe into it, but hee sought to draw all others into the same errour: Ita ebrius y 1.1853 factus est, ut mente motus, Iustinian was so drunke, that being out of his wits, hee writ an Edict z 1.1854 to confirme that heresie, and bring all the Church to beleeve the same: When hee prevailed not that way, then hee began a 1.1855 to use violence, Exilium omnibus Episcopis contradicentibus comminatur, hee threatned banishment to all the Bishops who contra∣dicted

that heresie, and b 1.1856 so boyling in rage, raised a persecution, yea, Per∣secutionem c 1.1857 haud mediocrem, an heavy and great persecution against Catho∣like 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 1.1858, who writ the life of Eu∣tychius, partly out of Evagrius, e 1.1859 who both mention indeed the ba∣nishment of Eutychius, and the Edict of Iustinian, written for that heresie.

9. This is the summe of that which is objected: but how Baronius doth amplifie, decke, and paint out the same by his Rhetorication, is not unworthy observing. He not onely taxeth this in Iustinian as an act of curiosity, f 1.1860 temerity, and arrogancy, for His intermedling in sacred matters, and of foolishnesse, for Partaking g 1.1861 with the one side in the facti∣on, as he had done with the Prasini, for which he h 1.1862 calleth him, Maxi∣mum jurium proculcatorem, The greatest despiser and trampler of lawes under his feet; but he cals him also Mente motū, i 1.1863 a man out of his wits, an hereteike, l 1.1864 another Aegyptian Pharaoh, m 1.1865 who bent all his power to oppresse the Catholike faith; yea a very Antichrist, saying thus n 1.1866 of him, Iustinian no otherwise than Antichrist, setting up his Chaire and Throne in the Temple of God, and extolling himselfe above all that is worshipped, maketh sacrilegious lawes for establishing Infidelity, and writes Edicts for heresie: And againe, not o 1.1867 but onely the Emperours authority, did erect that heresie, Tanquam Idolum in Templo Dei, As an Idoll in the Temple of God. Whereupon the Cardinall p 1.1868 in the anguish of his heart, takes up with sighes and teares the complaint of Ieremy, O heavens be astonished at this, be afraid and utterly astonished, the Emperor hath forsaken the fountaine of living waters, & he hath digged to himselfe pits that will hold no water. Af∣ter this fit of his weeping overpast, he then comes to the most base re∣viling & railing against the Emperor, calling q 1.1869 him Monstrū triceps, that Monster with three heads (like another Cerberus, or hell-hound) which Ecclesiasticus r 1.1870 speaks of, & declares to be so odious & execrable: A poore man proud, a rich man a lyar, and an old man a foole. Such a Monster, saith he, did Iustinian now appeare, (like three-bodied Gerion, in the Poets,) seeing he joy∣ned these three detestable faults in himselfe at this time. Hee was poore, yea most poore, Expers penitus literarum, Vtterly voyd of learning, not able to reade his very A. b. c. and yet hee would seeme to be more learned than all Bishops: so he was a poore man proud. He was also a rich man, a lyar, in that he commanded all to embrace heresie, and by his power hindreth them to con∣tradict his Edict: like him of whom it is said, t 1.1871 The rich man spake, and all held their peace. Lastly, when he refused the counsell of the Elders, Planè se∣nex cognitus est fatuus & insensatus, He was therein plainly knowne to be an old doting foole, without wit or sense. Thus Baronius▪ conclu∣ding that Emperour to be a monster, an heretike, a hell-hound, a mad man, a lyar, a blockhead, and a very plaine foole: whom all the Chri∣stian world hath, and shall for ever, and that most justly, admire for his piety, prudence, and wisedome.

10. Baronius, not content with this so uncivill demeanour, tells us further what mischiefes ensued upon these detestable crimes of the Emperour. Those are of two sorts: the former is publique, concern∣ing

both the Ecclesiasticall and civill State. For the Church, u 1.1872 pacem profligat, Iustinian 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 1.1873 titubare, reele and decline into a worse estate, under this hereticall Emperour, whom he y 1.1874 accuseth, frigescere, to have beene cold and carelesse in the government of the Empire. The other mischiefe, which is private, concernes Iusti∣nian himselfe. For the Cardinalls hatred to Iustinian is not satiate with the evils of this life, he pursues him 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and sitting in the chayre of Radamanthus, he approves z 1.1875 and applauds that most rash and undiscreet judgement of Evagrius, a 1.1876 ad supplicia apud inferos luenda profectus est, hee is gone to be tormented in hell. Yea the Cardinall proves b 1.1877 that he went thither in this manner; Although it be not in mans power to bee present at Gods judgement, and it be utterly unlawfull to judge of the dead; yet according to that irrevocable sentence of God, which is pro∣noūced of all the dead, * 1.1878 Their works follow them, according to this sen∣tence, eadem ipsa quae hinc abeuntem sequuta sunt Iustinianū, those same workes which followed Iustinian when hee dyed, doe as yet crie against him in bookes: and those are juge bellum, his perpetuall warre against the Church, which hee continually nourished, (having banished peace which he found therein) and when hee dyed left it in a flame: his unmeasurable c 1.1879 Sa∣crilegies, laying oftentimes his violent hands upon holy Bishops, the annoin∣ted of the Lord: his cruelty against innocent Citizens: his covetousnesse, and the rest, which I omit. Thus Baronius: who plainly telling us, that these so many, so heinous crimes, and crying sinnes, followed Iustinian out of this life, (and every man knowes that these follow no whither but unto hell) hee most forcibly concludeth, that Iustinian out of all doubt, was carried hence to be tormented in those hellish flames. Ne∣ver could the Cardinall bee at quiet, till besides all those other revi∣ling and disgracefull ignominies which hee hath heaped upon Iustini∣an, he had brought him into the pit and torments of hell: And yet not there also will the Cardinall suffer him to be at rest, but like a Fiend or Fury, hee still exagitates the Emperour with his virulent tongue and stile, worse than any of all the infernall Ghosts; neither alive nor dead will the Cardinall 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 Cardinals insolent, inhumane, unchristian demenour against the most renowned and religious Emperour. Did any of those worthy professours of the civill lawes, but halfe so much abound with leasure, as they doe with excellency of wit and learning, I doubt not but they would (as I doe heartily wish) undertake so ho∣nourable a service, not onely to Iustinian, but unto GOD and his Church, as in a just volume to vindicate the Emperours honour from these so many, so malicious, so base & immodest calūnies of this Rhab∣secha. A worke not very laborious, seeing as on the Emperours part there is such abundant store and variety of all vertues and praise-wor∣thy actions to set forth his honour, as no mans stile nor words can e∣quall or come neare the same: so on Baronius part, with whom hee is

to contend, there are so many shamelesse and detestable untruths, ei∣ther devised, or applauded by him, that Voraginensis himselfe may seeme inferiour to him in this kinde; and I much doubt, whether so many voluminous bookes, as might equall any two Tomes of his An∣nals, could bee able to comprehend them all: Meane while that I seeme not to shuffle this burden from mine own to other mens shoul∣ders, I will, with their good leave, I hope, adde somewhat out of those bookes which concerne my own profession, and out of my shal∣low reading indeavour to free the Emperour from those most disho∣norable imputations of the Cardinall.

12. Let us then begin with that which is the substance and ground of this whole accusation, and that is, The Emperours supposed falling into heresie, and writing that hereticall Edict: This if we can prove to bee a slander and untruth, all the rest, which the Cardinall builds upon this, and derives from it, will of themselves fall to the ground. First then I doe constantly avouch that imputation of heresie to bee untrue: Iu∣stinian neither held that fantasticall heresie of the Aphthardokites, nor made any Edict for the defence or propagating thereof, nor did hee banish or persecute any Orthodoxall Bishop for contradicting that heresie: All these are slanderous untruths which the Cardinall hath collected out of others, and maliciously uttered in disgrace of the Emperour: And truly, that very contradiction which is not onely in other writers, but in the Cardinall himselfe, in setting downe this narration, is no small presumption of the untruth thereof. d 1.1880 Evagrius and Nicephorus e 1.1881 expresly witnesse, that the Emperours Edict was not at all published. Theophanes f 1.1882, (as the Cardinall cals him, or Paulus Di∣aconus as others,) and after him Sixtus Senensis g 1.1883, expresly witnesse 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 expresly contradictory: First, that he did publish the Edict, the Cardinall teacheth, h 1.1884 saying, Iustinian when he saw his Edict, contemni ab Orthodoxis, & pro nihilo duci; to bee contem∣ned and set at nought by the Orthodoxall Bishops, then hee raised his persecution. How could that Edict be contemned, unlesse 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? Againe, that hee did not publish it, the i 1.1885 Cardinall likewise tels us, Hee writ indeed, Non tamen promulgavit de haeresi Edi∣ctum, But hee did not publish that Edict. Hee did publish it: hee did not publish it: what truth in those witnesses who thus contradict themselves? If he did publish it, as the Cardinals Theophanes, and Six∣tus Senensis affirme, then Evagrius, and Nicephorus, are not herein to bee credited: If hee did not publish it, how is the Cardinals Theopha∣nes, or Senensis herein to be credited? And whether hee did publish it, or not publish it, the Cardinall who teacheth both, is certainly herein not to bee credited. This disagreement of the witnesses one with an∣other, and of Baronius with his one selfe, is no good signe of truth in their Narration.

13. But that Iustinian neither published nor writ any such Edict,

nor held any such phantasticke heresie, a farre more faithfull witnesse 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. Hee k 1.1886 plainly sheweth how Iustinian continued constant in defence of his owne E∣dict, for condemning the Three Chapters, and of the synodall Iudge∣ment given therein, even to his death. In his 38. yeare (the very next to that wherein Baronius fancieth him to have fallen into heresie,) Hee sent for foure Africane and two Aegyptian Bishops, and both personally by himselfe, as also by some others, he laboured to draw them to the or∣thodox faith, in condemning with him, and the fift Synod, the Three Chapters: and when he could not prevaile, Custodiae mittuntur, they were put into prison. In the next yeare, he saith that l 1.1887 Iustinian placed Iohn a condemner of the Three Chapters in the Sec of Constantinople, Euty∣chius being banished: and to his very dying day, he kept Theodorus Bi∣shop of Cabarsussus in banishment, because he would not condemne the Three Chapters. So orthodoxall was Iustinian, and so earnest an op∣pugner of heresies, of those especially which deny either the true hu∣manity, or the true Godhead of Christ, even till his very death, by the certaine testimony of Victor, an eager enemy of Iustinian. Seeing then he continued constant till his death, in condemning the Three Chap∣ters, and maintaining his owne 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 1.1888 and an oppugnation of all heresies, which deny either the Divinity or Humanity in Christ, specially of that of the Phantasticks, or Aphthardokites, as the very words n 1.1889 of his Edict doe declare; it clearly hence followeth from the certaine testimony of Victor, that Iustinian was so farre from embracing, or making Edicts for that heresie, that he constantly oppugned the same, and even pu∣nished all who beleeved or taught as the Aphthardokites did; for in beleeving that heresie, they contradicted the Emperours owne Edict, and the holy Councels, both at Nice, Constantinople, Ephesus, and Chalcedon: all o 1.1890 which the Emperour by this Edict, even untill his death constantly maintained.

14. Why, but All Writers, saith Baronius, m 1.1891 both Greeke and Latine, they all doe testifie that Iustinian sell into that heresie. What heare I? Doe All and All, both Greeke and Latine? doe they All testifie this of Iustini∣an? A vast, a shamelesse, a Cardinall, a very Baronian untruth! Of the Greekes, not Procopius, not Agathias, not Photius, not Damascen, though he entreat n 1.1892 of this very heresie; not the Cardinals owne Suidas, who quite contrary to the Cardinall calls Iustinian 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a most Catho∣lique and Orthodoxall Emperour. Of the Latines, not Victor, by whom as you have seene, the cleane contrary is also testified: not Liberatus; and both these lived at the same time with Iustinian: not Marcellinus: not Bede: not Anastasius, though such was his splene against Iustinian, that he could not have concealed such a disgracefull crime: not Aimo∣nius, of whom I pray you see how well his testimony accordeth with the Cardinall: Iustinian, saith o 1.1893 he, was a man fide Catholicus, pietate in∣signis,

aquitatis cultor egregius: for his faith, Catholike; for his piety, re∣nowned; a marvellous lover of equitie, and therefore all things did cooperate to his good: & he addeth, for the whole time of his Empire, (which was 39. yeares) Imperium faelici sorte rexit, Hee governed the Empire in an happy manner: Not the true Paulus Diaconus p 1.1894, who using the like words, saith, that Iustinian governed the Empire in an hap∣py q 1.1895 sort, & was Prince for his faith Catholike, in his actions upright, in judg∣ments 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 Conrad Abbas Vspergen∣sis, not Albertus Stadensis, not Otho Frisingensis, who cals r 1.1896 him Christianissimum ac pijssimum Principem, a most Christian, and most pi∣ous Prince, (unfit epethetes for an heretike, or one condemned to the torments of hell) not Gotofrid Viterbiensis s 1.1897, who likewise calls him a most Christian Prince, one who established peace in the Church, which rejoyced under him to enjoy tranquillitie: not Wernerus, whose testimonie is worthy observing, to see the Cardinals faith and true dealing in this cause: Iustinian, saith hee * 1.1898, was in all things most excellent, for in him did concurre three things which make a Prince glorious, to wit, power, by which hee overcame his enemies; wisedome, by which hee governed the world with just lawes; and a religious minde to Gods worship, by which hee glorified God, and beautified the Churches: So farre is he from teaching him with the Cardinall, to have beene a Tartarean Cerberus, or Three-headed monster, consisting of three detestable vices, that he opposeth there∣unto a Trinity of three most renowned vertues, Fortitude, Iustice, and Piety, of which the Emperour was composed: Not Nauclerus, not Krantzius, not Tritemius, not Papirius Massonus, not Christianus Masseus, not the Magnum Cronicum Belgicum: not the Chronicon Rei∣cherspergense, which s 1.1899 testifieth, that he did performe many things profita∣ble to the Common-wealth, and so ended his life: Not Munster, who t 1.1900 saith of him, that hee was a just and upright man in finding out matters ingeni∣ous, Atque haeresum maximus hostis, and the greatest enemy of heresies: not Platina, who u 1.1901 saith of Iustinus, the next Emperour unto him, hee was Nulla in re similis Iustiniano, in nothing like unto Iustinian, For hee was covetous wicked, ravenous, a contemner both of God and men: whence it followeth, that Iustinian was quite contrary, bountifull, just, religi∣ous, an honourer both of God and good men.

15. Now whereas all these (and I know not how many more, I thinke an hundred at least, if one were curious in this search) doe write of Iustinian, and not one of them, for ought that after earnest search I can finde, doe mention his fall in that fantasticke heresie; nay, many of them, as you have seene, doe testifie on the contrary, that hee was and continued a Catholike, a religious, a most pious, a most Christi∣an, a most orthodoxall Prince, and the greatest oppugner of heresies: what an audacious and shamelesse untruth was it in the Cardinall, to say, that, All Authors, all, both Greeke and Latine, doe witnesse and detest his impiety, and his fall into that heresie. Besides these, I must yet adde some other, and those also farre more eminent and ample witnesses, who doe more than demonstrate both the honour of Iustinian, and

those imputations of heresie, and the other disgraces wherewith Baronius hath loaded him, to bee most shamelesse calumnies and slanders.

16. The first of these is Pope Agatho, one of their x 1.1902 Canonized Saints: Hee in his y 1.1903 Epistle to the Emperour Constantine Pogonatus, to prove out of the venerable z 1.1904 Fathers two natures to be in Christ, tels us, that S. Cyril, Saint Chrysostome, Iohn Bishop of Scithopolis, Eulogius Bishop of Alexandria, Ephremius and Anastasius the elder, two most worthy Bishops of Antioch, & prae omnibus, amulator verae & Apostoli∣cae fidei, piae memoriae Iustinianus Augustus, & above all these Iustinian the Emperour of holy memory, a zealous defender of the true and Apo∣stolicall faith, teacheth this, whose integrity of faith did as much exalt the Christian Common-wealth, as by the sincerity therof it was pleasing unto God: and whose religious memory, ab omnibus gentibus veneratione digna cense∣tur, is esteemed by all nations worthy of veneration. seeing the integri∣ty of his faith, set out by his Imperiall Edicts, in toto orbe diffusa laudatur, is ••pred abroad and praised in the whole world. Thus Saint Agatho: Whose words may justly cause all the Cardinals friends to blush and bee ashamed of his Annals. Saint Agatho rankes Iustinian among the venerable and holy Fathers of the Church: Baronius thrusts him among heretikes, Saint Agatho preferres him before Saint Cyrill, Saint Chrysostome, Eulogius, Iohn and Ephremius, all learned and wor∣thy Bishops: Baronius debaseth him below the most rude and illite∣rate persons, even below any abcedary Scholler, and cals him a very blocke and a foole: Saint Agatho preferres him to that very Anasta∣sius the elder, * 1.1905 surnamed, Sinaita, because hee came from the wilder∣nesse of Sina••, whom for maintaining the faith against this very heresie of the Aphthardokites, Evagrius a 1.1906, and Baronius b 1.1907 himselfe, cals turrim munitiss••mam, a most strong towre; and yet (as Saint Agatho witnes∣seth) a more worthy and defensed towre of faith was our Iustinian: Baronius c 1.1908 makes him and this Anastasius to bee contradictory in faith, and Iustinian to threaten banishment unto this Anastasius for not con∣senting to the heresie of the Phantasticks: S. Agatho commends him for his integrity & sincerity in maintaining the true and Apostolicall faith: Baronius condemnes him for an Antichrist, an execrable and he∣reticall oppugner, yea, persecutor of the Apostolicall faith: S. Aga∣tho 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 bee pious, blessed and venerable, and that in all nations: Baronius declames a∣gainst him as accursed, and abominable to all: S. Agatho proclameth, that all nations, and the whole world doth consent in the praising of the faith, and veneration of the person of Iustinian: Baronius tels you, that all Authors, both Greeke and Latine, consent in condemning the faith, and detesting the heresie of Iustinian. Vtri creditis? whether doe you beleeve Baronius maliciously applauding an untruth, which hee 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 adjoyne the whole Romane Synod consist∣ing of 125. Bishops, who all together with Agatho give the like hono∣rable testimony of Iustinian. They with Agatho writ a Synodall d 1.1909 letter to the same Emperour Constantine, wherein they exhort him to imi∣tate the piety and vertue of Constantine, of Theodosius, of Martian, and of Iustinian the great, extremi quidem, praestantissimi tamen omnium, the last indeed (of those who had before assembled generall Councells) but the most excellent of them all, whose piety and vertue 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 Iustinian was an heretike, a perse∣cutor, an Antichrist, one who dissipated the faith, ruinated the Em∣pire, brought an hellish confusion into the Church: for which crimes hee placeth him among the damned in hell. Pope Agatho with his whole Councell, testifie, that by his piety and vertue hee restored all, both the Church and Empire into a better order: they honour him (as much, nay more than they do S. Constantine * 1.1910, or Theodosius, or Mar∣tian,) 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 onely ex∣change their imperiall Crowne, and in stead of their earthly and cor∣ruptible, received the celestiall and immarcessible Diadem of immor∣tality and eternall glory: among these, yea and above these Saints and glorified Emperours, as being most excellent of them all, is Iustinian pla∣ced and crowned in heaven, by the judgement of Saint Agatho and his whole Councell with him.

18. If yet you require more or more ample witnesses, behold, the sixt generall Councell hath approved both those Epistles of Agatho. Of them the whole Synod e 1.1911 said, Petrus per Agathonem loquutus est; Pe∣ter spake by the mouth of Agatho: and againe, f 1.1912 We all consent to the dog∣maticall letters of Agatho, & to the suggestion of the holy Synod which was un∣der him, of 125. Bishops. Of them Constantine g 1.1913 saith in the name of the whole Councell, Omnes consonanter mente & linguae, wee all with one heart and voyce beleeve and professe, and admire the relation of Agatho, as the divine voyce of Saint Peter. Of them i 1.1914 Domitius B. of Prusias sayd, I receive and imbrace 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 generall Councell approve those Epistles of Agatho: which their approbation not onely Bellarmine k 1.1915, but Baronius l 1.1916 himselfe extendeth to every part and parcell of those Epistles, saying of them, In omnibus tum ipse Constantinus, tam sancta Synodus suscepit, both Con∣stantine & the holy Councell received these in all & every point. And againe, m 1.1917 Epistolae Roma missaein omnibus comprobatae dicuntur, The E∣pistles of Agatho, which were sent from Rome are said to be approved in All things set downe therein. Now seeing the whole generall Councell, by Baronius owne confession, doth in this sort approve the Epistles of Agatho, and therefore those very testimonies concerning Iustinians faith, piety, honour, and eternall blessednesse in Heaven: had not Baronius, thinke you, a face more hard than brasse or adamant,

when he reviled in so immodest manner that Emperour, as an here∣tike, a persequutor of the faith, an Antichrist, a drunken, frantick, and sacrilegious foole, a ruinater of the Church, and carelesse governour of the Empire, yea as one condemned and now tormented in hell, and who sealeth it with this saying, That his heresie is testified by All au∣thors? whereas those most honourable testimonies of Pope Agatho, and the Romane Synod with him, (which declare Iustinian to have beene for faith orthodoxall, for vertue and piety renowned, and held in veneration by all nations, and praised of all the world, and to have beene equall, nay more excellent than Saint Constantine, Theodosius, and Martian, and therefore to be both in his owne person, and in his memory blessed) are approved, and that in this very point, as Baronius acknowledgeth, by the sixt generall Councell to be as certaine 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 Car∣dinall, not onely of truth, but of judgement, of modesty, of civility, yea almost of common sense, so that he cares not what he sayes, so he speake in defence of those who defend, and in condemnation of those who condemne the Three Chapters, though he knoweth that, which he saith, to be testified to be a calumny and slander, not onely by hi∣storians and private writers, but by the Pope, by the Romane Synod, by the holy general Councel, that is, by the whole Catholike Church, by all Nations, by the whole world, by Saint Peter, and by the Holy Ghost himselfe.

19. There might be added unto these, divers other pregnant testi∣monies, of Pope Gregory, who often calls k 1.1918 Iustinian, a man Piae memo∣riae, of a pious memory; of the Legates of Agatho, who call l 1.1919 him, of divine memory; of Peter B. of Nicomedia and others, who call m 1.1920 him of blessed remembrance; of the Emperour Constantinus, who calls n 1.1921 him, divinae memoriae; of the sixt generall Councell, which not so little as a dozen times I thinke, o 1.1922 calls him of pious, or divine memory, most holy Iu∣stinian, or the like; and which, to expresse that great honour which they ascribe to the religious Emperour then present before them, (whom they terme the driver away of heretikes,) proclame him to be a new Constantine, a new Theodosius, a new Martian, a new Iustinian, cry∣ing out in his honour in divers p 1.1923 actions, Novo Iustiniano aeterna memo∣ria, eternall memory bee to you our new Iustinian. A miserable prayse and wish had this beene, had Iustinian beene an Heretike, a Persecu∣tor, an Antichrist, a damned person in hell: for then the whole gene∣rall Councell had not onely dishonoured Constantine there present, but had wished honour and immortall glory to Heretikes, to Perse∣cutors, to Antichrist, yea to the Devill himselfe: which kinde of pray∣sing and praying, is not very sutable to the piety and faith of that ge∣nerall Councell. But the former testimonies are so ample and illustri∣ous, that they seeme to me to obscure all these and the like, and doe so abundantly convince Baronius to slander and calumniate the Empe∣rour, that I will forbeare to presse him with any more.

20. Perhaps some good friends of Baronius will say in his behalfe, and for his excuse, that hee did not devise this of himselfe, nor is hee

the first that accuseth Iustinian of this Heresie: 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 secōd others therin. By this apolo∣gy whō may not the Cardinal revile when he list? He may calumniate Athanasius for a l 1.1924 murderer; Celestine and Cyril for m 1.1925 Apolinarians; Constan∣tine the great for a n 1.1926 persecutor of the true faith; for which crime his son is called an Hereticke, a murderer, a friend of the Devill: Saint Paul for a o 1.1927 se∣ditious and pestilent fellow, a p 1.1928 mad man: Christ himselfe for a glutton q 1.1929 and drunkard, a man possessed r 1.1930 by the devill, a s 1.1931 blasphemer. Thus may he revile and accuse these, and al the best men that have ever been in the world, yea even God himselfe, and then salve all with this plaister, Why, Ba∣ronius deviseth not any one of these imputations, hee can produce his books & authors for thē all: and those also far better than he doth for this concerning Iustinian. In one he hath the whole Councell of Tyre; in another, Iohn Patriarch of Antioch, Theodoret, & the Councel which they held at Ephesus; in a third, Lucifer Bishop of Calaris, a Confessor, one who suffered whippings and tortures at the Councell of Millan, and after that, exile for the faith: in another, Tertullus and Festus: in the last, the Iewes, the Scribes, and the High Priest with his Councell: 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 Ba∣ronius this of Iustinian) he is as guilty of slander as if himselfe had devi∣sed it. The law of God doth not only say, Thou shalt not lye or devise a false tale, but t 1.1932 Thou shalt not receive a false tale, neither shalt thou put thine hand w^th the wicked (not be a coadjutor, an accessary, or an abetter) to be a false witnesse. Yea though many report an untruth, yet their mul∣titude cannot excuse thee: Thou u 1.1933 shalt not follow a multitude in doing evill; neither shalt thou agree in a controversie to decline after many, and overthrow the truth. And the Apostles rule x 1.1934 condemnes not onely those who doe evill themselves, but those also (and that much more) who consent unto, or who favour those that doe evill: accordingly whereunto S. Ierome y 1.1935 saith of wantonnesse, that which is true in all other sins, majori procacitate defendunt libidinem quam exercent, it is a greater impudency 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 yeeld more unto him if he please: let him have 10. or 20. to say what his fore-man doth: yet the law of God is forcible against them, as if they were but one: Thou shalt not follow a multitude to doe evill. And alas, what are these, either for number, or (which is more) for gravity and authority, to those which we have be∣fore produced? To say nothing of that cloud of Historians: what are they to S. Agatho? to S. Gregory? to the Emperour Constantinus Pogona∣tus? to the Romane Synod? to the sixt generall Councel? to all nations? to the whole world? to S. Peter? yea to the Holy Ghost himselfe?

What an army of invincible, unresistable Captaines, hath Iustinian to fight on his side, against two or three poore, 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 Cardinall, I thinke them unworthy to bee refuted also. This onely I say of them all, they were misse-led and deceived by those whom the Card. mentioneth as his prime and principall wit∣nesses: and those are Evagrius, Eustathius, and Nicephorus. Now for the last of these, Possevine shewes him to be hereticall, a 1.1936 and in Histo∣ricall narrations, erroneous: and the Card. b 1.1937 himselfe saith on him, Fatuus judicandus est, he is but a foole: and his reason is far worse than his censure, because he is not so virulent and spitefull in condemning the Emperour Iustinian, as the Card. could wish him, and as himselfe is: besides, what Nicephorus saith, is but borrowed from Evagrius (Possevine c 1.1938 calls him Asseclam, a Page or Ape of Evagrius) and there∣fore the answer to Evagrius will be sufficient for him also.

23. His middle witnesse is Eustathius, the writer of the life of Eu∣tychius, which is set forth by Surius. He at large indeed describeth this matter, both how Iustinian d 1.1939 fell into this heresie of the Aphthardokites, how hee writ an Edict for the same, and read it to Eutychias B. of Constanti∣nople, urging him to approve it; how when he refused so to doe, the Emperor for this cause thrust him from f 1.1940 his See, and sent him into banishment; where he lived working abundance of miracles, for the space g 1.1941 of 12. yeares, till Ti∣berius the Emperour restored him with great honour. This is the summe of that narration of Eustathius, in which the Card. much pleaseth him∣selfe, as if all that Eustathius saith in this matter were an undoubted Oracle, seeing Eustathius (as he often boasteth h 1.1942) was present with Eu∣tychius in all these occurrents, and an eye-witnesse of them.

24. But why did the Card. mention this worthy record out of Su∣rius? could hee finde this writing of Eustathius in no better Author than Surius? Surius, a man so prostitute in faith, so delighted in lyes, and forgeries of this kinde, with which he hath stuffed his Lives of the Saints, that at the very first naming of Surius, I suspected this Eustathi∣us 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 Eu∣tychius. But after I had perused and considered the writing it selfe, 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 lyes, that none but such as Surius and Baronius, men delighted in applaud∣ing forgeries and untruths, can give any credit at all to that Surian Eu∣stathius. 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 1.1943 us that after the fift generall Councell was summoned, Eutychius was sent thither by the Bishop of Amasea, (who then was sicke) to supplie his roome in the Councell. Mennas then

Patriarch of Constantinople, exhorted Eutychius not to depart from him, and shewing Eutychius to the Clergie, said of him by way of prophesie (for that Eustathius is full of miracles, prophesies, and visions,) unto them; This Monke shall be my successor; and then sent him to the Emperor. Some few dayes after this, Mennas dyed: and whereas many sued for the Bishop∣ricke, the Emperour had a vision, wherein S. Peter appeared unto him, shew∣ing him Eutychius, and saying, Fac ut hic sit Episcopus, see that this man be the Bishop of Constantinople. The Emperour acquainted the Clergy with his vision, and upon his oath testified it unto them; whereupon they all chose Eu∣tychius, and then he was consecrated. Thus the Surian Eustathius. A narra∣tion so sottish and so absurd, that nothing can bee more ridiculous: and so untrue, that there are not so many words as lyes therein. The fift Councell was not summoned till the 26. yeare of Iustinian: and that before then, it could not be summoned, Baronius evidently snew∣eth: For the summons to the Councell followed, as he saith, k 1.1944 the re∣storing of Vigilius, and his reconcilement both to the Emperour, to Mennas, and to Theodorus of Caesarea: all which he l 1.1945 placeth in the 26. yeare of Iu∣stinian. Now it is certaine by that testimony of the Popes Legates, which m 1.1946 before was handled, and was uttered before the sixt generall Councell n 1.1947, and is acknowledged for true by Baronius o 1.1948, that Mennas died in the 21. yeare of Iustinian, that is, foure whole yeares at the least before the summons of the Councell, 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 bee his successor, when Mennas was dead foure whole yeares before he did any of these things? what a prophane fiction is it, to make the Emperour see a vi∣sion, and Saint Peter to command him to take care that Eutychius should be chosen, and the Emperour to avouch all this upon his oath to be true? whereas not one syllable thereof is true; or so much as pos∣sible; seeing Eutychius was actually placed in that See full foure years before this vision, or before Saint Peter gave that strait charge unto Iustinian. They who can beleeve these phantasticall dotages of that Surian Eustathius, (and Baronius p 1.1949 applauds this with the other narra∣tions in that Eustathius) little marvell, if upon his report they upbraid that which is every way as incredible, that Iustinian fell into that he∣resie of the Phantastickes, and banished Eutychius for not consenting to the same.

26. Of no more truth is that which the same Eustathius sets downe for the continuance of the banishment of Eutychius, which was, the space of twelve m 1.1950 whole yeares, untill Tiberius was n 1.1951 associated into the Em∣pire by Iustinus, and in the same yeare when Iohn o 1.1952 the successor to Eutychius dyed. For Theophanes, as the Card▪ calls him, as other (though amisse) Paulus Di••conus, but the author of the Miscella. Historia, expresly wit∣nesseth p 1.1953 that Iustinus (who began his reigne two yeares after the ba∣nishment of Eutychius) was crowned by Eutychius. And Zonar as q 1.1954 for a certainty relates, how that (before Tiberius was associated) when Iustinus was sicke, he called, besides others, Eutychius unto him, and in their presence

nominated Tiberius to be his partner in the Empire: for Iohn, 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 de∣monstrates 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 suppli∣cation, sent post hast to Amasea to bring him home out of banishment: that the Angell r 1.1955 of God brought him miraculously thence: that the people floc∣ked unto him in every place: that they laid their sicke 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 Asse into Constantinople, the people cutting downe boughes, & sprea∣ding 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 banish∣ment, at the least 11. or 12. yeares, even ever since the crowning of Iu∣stinus: who reigned 12.s 1.1956 yeares 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 Cardinall t 1.1957 teacheth, and that rightly, in the same yeare wherein Iohannes Scholasticus (who was placed in his roome) died. Now Iohn was Bishop, as Nicephorus u 1.1958 wit∣nesseth, but two yeares and seven moneths. Whereupon it certainly fol∣loweth, that Eutychius was recalled within three yeares after his ba∣nishment, that is, in the very first yeare of Iustinus, upon whom hee set the Crowne, at the solemnity of his first Coronation, as was shewed out of the Historia Miscella: and this was full twelve yeares x 1.1959 before Tiberius was made Emperour. Which demonstrates, not onely the un∣truth and manifold lyes of that Surian Eustathius, but another hand∣some tricke of legerdemaine in Anastasius and Baronius. For Anastasius seeing belike that it was needfull (for saving the credit of some such like fabler as this Eustathius is) that Iohn should bee Bishop twelve yeares, he translating y 1.1960 the Greeke Nicephorus, in stead of two yeares se∣ven moneths, puts in twelve z 1.1961 yeares and seven moneths, and gives so many unto Iohn before Eutychius bee restored: and Baronius finding this ac∣count in the Anastasian translation, followeth it, a 1.1962 and saith, Nicepho∣rus ascribes twelve yeares to Iohn: whereas, not Nicephorus, nor his Greek edition (which hath onely two yeares and seven moneths) but the A∣na••asian falsified and corrupted Latine translation hath the other un∣true and false accompt of twelve years and seven moneths. This, if no∣thing else, might be sufficient to refute the whole fiction of that Surian Eustathius the untruths whereof Baronius could not defend, but by ap∣plauding the untrue and falsified writings of his fellow Bibliothecarius▪

27. Perhaps you will demand, why then did Iustinian banish Euty∣chius, if not for refusing to consent to his opinion and heresie of the Aphthardokites, as Eustathius saith? which doubt seemes the grea∣ter, because Nicephorus the Patriarch in his Chronology mentioneth the same cause, saying thus, Eutychius was cast out of his See by Iustinian, eo quod non reciperet edictum ipsius de corpore Christi experte omnis labe∣factionis,

because Eutychius would not consent to his Edict, that Christs body was incorruptible. See here againe I pray you, and de∣test for ever the vile and shamelesse dealing of Anastasius. Nicephorus saith not so; all that hee c 1.1963 saith, is, that Eutychius was banished because hee would not receive or consent unto the Edict of Iustinian; but that which followeth, his Edict de corpore Christi incorruptibili, wherein is contai∣ned the heresie slanderously objected to Iustinian, of that Nicephorus hath not one word in his Greeke text; that is wholy pacht to him in the Latine translation by the false hand of Anastasius, the Arch-cor∣rupter of all writings in his time, as I have * 1.1964 before more at large de∣clared: And yet so are they delighted with lyes, & corrupted writings, this Latine translation, thus vilely falsified by Anastasius, is set d 1.1965 in their Bibliotheca Sanctorum Patrum; which much better deserves to bee called a Library of forged or corrupted Fathers, and Writers.

28. But for what other Edict, if not for this of the Aphthardo∣kites, was Eutychius banished? for that he was expelled from his See, there is no doubt, that being testified not onely by the Surian Eusta∣thius, Zonaras, Glicas, and others, but by Victor e 1.1966, who then lived, and was at Constantinople when these things fell out, to whom alone more credit herein is to bee given, than to five hundredth of the Surian re∣cords. Truly, whatsoever was the cause why he was banished, certaine it is, that this heresie of Iustinian, 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 Iustinian against him: The former was this; Eutychius pretended a Propheticall skill whereby hee could foreshew who should succeed in the Empire; and hee began to tamper and practice this Art about some three yeares be∣fore Iustinian dyed, as that Eustathius delareth. At that time f 1.1967 hee private∣ly called Iustinus unto him, and told him that he should succeed in the Empire after the death of Iustinian, for so g 1.1968 (said he) God hath revealed unto mee. The like good fortune hee foretold to Tiberius, that h 1.1969 ere long he should have the Empire alone. Againe, two yeares before the death of Tiberius, hee prophesied of Mauritius, that i 1.1970 hee, and none but hee should have the Empire after Tiberius; idque juramento asseruit, and hee confirmed this by an oath. Now this Art of Divination, and Mathematicall pre∣dictions, especially when they prognosticate of Kings their deaths, & successours, was never allowable in any wise State, nor acceptable to any prudent Emperour. It betokened no good to Caesar that they foretold k 1.1971 him of those dismall Ides of March. Domitian was fore∣told l 1.1972, not onely of the yeare, but of the day, and the very houre when hee should dye; and when he had carefully looked to himselfe on that day, enquiring m 1.1973 the houre, his owne men of purpose told him the sixt, in stead of the fift: hee then thinking all danger to bee past, was by the Conspiratours, (who kept a better watch of the time than he did) securely murdered. What mischiefe ensued upon that prediction to Valence, that one whose name did begin with Theod. should suc∣ceed unto him, Socrates n 1.1974 declareth; Hee thereupon murdered most unjustly all whom he could finde to be called either Theodori, or Theo∣doti,

or Theodosij, or Theoduli, or Theodosioli, or beginning with those let∣ters. What hurt followed as wel in this kingdom, upon that prophesie G. should succeed unto Edward the fourth; as in the next, when it was foretold the Earle of Athel, that hee should bee crowned before hee dyed, who thereupon never ceased to rebell against his Soveraigne, till hee was crowned with an hot burning iron, our owne Chronicles doe declare. All kingdomes, all Stories are full of like examples. It was not without cause, that in the Code p 1.1975 both of Theodosius and Iusti∣nian, there are so many, and so severe lawes aginst this kinde of Ma∣thematicall diviners, their Art q 1.1976 being called damnabilis, & omnibus in∣terdicta, a damnable Art, forbidden to all; the punishment denounced against them, being r 1.1977 banishment, yea, death; s••pplicio capitis s 1.1978 ferietur, hee shall bee put to death who practiseth the curiositie of divining: Now Eutychius taking upō him this Art of divining, cōtrary to those severe and Imperiall Edicts ratified by Iustinian, whether for this cause the Emperour, who by the law might have deprived him of his life, did not chuse rather to deprive him onely of his See, and liberty, I leave to the judgement of others.

29. The other cause was a most impious heresie defended by Eutychi∣us, whom they so much honour; which alone being duely considered, overthroweth that whole fabulous Legend of Eustathius. Eutychius, when hee had long continued in the defence of the truth, did after∣wards fall both by words and writing to maintaine the Heresie of O∣rigen and the Origenists, denying Christs body after the resurrection to have beene palpable, that is in effect, to bee no true humane body; and the very like hee taught of the bodies of all other men after the resurrection: This the Surian Eustathius quite over-passeth in silence; for it was not fit that such a Saint as Eutychius, so abundāt in miracles, prophesies, and visions, should be thought guilty of so foule and con∣demned an heresie: But Pope Gregory doth so fully and certainly te∣stifie t 1.1979 it, that no doubt can remaine thereof; hee tels us, how himselfe disputed against Eutychius, defending this heresie; how hee urged those words of our Saviour, palpate & videte; how Eutychius answered thereunto, that Christs body was then indeed palpable to confirme the mindes of his Dis∣ciples; but after they were once confirmed, all that was before palpable in Christs bodie, in subtilitatem est redactū, was turned into an aërial and un∣palpable subtilty; How he further strived to prove this by those words of the Apostle, Flesh & blood cannot inherit the kingdome of heavē; how then (said hee) may this be beleeved, veraciter resurgere carnem, that true bodies did or shall rise againe? How he further insisted on those words, That which thou sowest is not the same body which it shall be proving therby that which riseth againe either not to be a body, or not a palpable, that is, no true humane bo∣dy. Gregory also tels us, that Eutychius writ u 1.1980 a booke in defence of this heresie, which both himselfe read, and Tiberius the Emperour after diligent ponderation of the reasons of Gregory against it, caused it publikely to bee burned, as hereticall: adding, that Eutychius continued in this heresie al∣most till the very houre of his death. Now although Gregory tels not when, or at what time Eutychius fel into this heresie, yet it may wel be supposed, that as Iustinian honoured him so long as he persisted in the

truth, so when once hee gave himselfe to such dotages of the Orige∣nists, (which, as it seemes, he did about the latter end of Iustinians Em∣pire, some three yeares before his death) then the Emperour, who till his end was constant in condemning the Three Chapters, as Victor shew∣eth, (the condemning of which is, as before t 1.1981 we declared, the condem∣ning of all the heresies of Origen, and whatsoever contradicts the ve∣rity of Christs deity, or humanity) as it is most likely, exiled him for this heretical opinion: And this is much more probable, seeing Iustini∣an had purposely set forth, long before this, a most religious and or∣thodoxall Edict or Decree, particularly against Origen, and the Orige∣nists, as Liberatus u 1.1982 sheweth and as the Edict it selfe, which is extant x 1.1983, doth manifest, condemning them in particular y 1.1984, for denying the veri∣ty of Christs, and other humane bodies after the resurrection. Seeing then Nicephorus the Patriarch saith, that Eutychius was banished for not consenting to the Emperours Edict, and Eutychius by his defending of that heresie of the Origenists, directly oppugned that his Edict; most like it is, that (besides his Mathematicall Art, whereby hee was lia∣ble both to death and banishment, by the Emperours lawes) this E∣dict of Iustinian against Origen, should bee that which Nicephorus the Patriarch meant, and for which Eutychius was, and that most justly, exiled. So not Iustinian, but Eutychius, was the heretike; nor was it any hereticall Edict of Iustinian, (as the Surian Eustathius, and after him Baronius affirmeth) to which Eutychius a Catholike opposed himselfe; but an orthodoxall and Catholike Edict of Iustinian, which Eutychi∣us, then an heretike, and Origenist, oppugned, for not consenting whereunto hee was banished. Thus not onely the Emperour is clear∣ly acquitted of that phantasticall heresie, whereof the Surian Eusta∣thius, and Baronius doe accuse him; but Eutychius himselfe, whom they honour for a Saint, a Prophet, and a Demi-god, is found guilty of that selfe-same crime, and of that very heresie of denying the truth of Christs body, which they unjustly and slanderously impute to Iustini∣an. And this I thinke is abundant to satisfie the Cardinals se∣cond witnesse, namely that fabulous and legendary Surian Eustathius.

30. All the Cardinals hope, and the whole waight of his accusation relyes now on Evagrius. He, I confesse, saith well neere as much as Ba∣ronius, against Iustinian, accusing him of avarice, injustice, and heresie. But the credit of Evagrius is not such, as to countenance such calumnies. Evagrius, in some matters wherein hee followeth Au∣thors of better note, is not be contemned, but in very many hee is too credulous, fabulous, and utterly to bee rejected. What credit can you give unto this Narration a 1.1985 of the Monke Barsanuphius, whom he reports to have lived in his Cell, wherein he had mewed up himselfe; and for the space of fifty yeares and more, neither to have beene seene by any, ne∣que quidquam alimenti cepisse, nor to have received any nourishment, or food? What a worthy S. doth he b 1.1986 describe Simeon Môros, that is S. Foole, to have been? How doth he commend c 1.1987 Synesius, whom they perswaded to bee baptized, and undertake the function of a Priest, though hee did not consent to the doctrine of the resurrection, neque ita censere vellet, neither would beleeve that it was possible? The like

might bee noted, touching the blood of Euphemia d 1.1988, and divers other Narrations. Evagrius is full of such like fables; but omitting the rest, I will propose onely two, which will demonstrate him to have beene either extremely negligent in the search, or very malicious in per∣verting the truth.

31. The former concernes Nestorius Bishop of Constantinople, and his successor Maximianus. Evagrius saith e 1.1989, that Maximianus tooke the Bishopricke after the death of Nestorius: An untruth so palpable, that none can thinke Evagrius to have bin ignorant of those manifold and undoubted records which testifie the contrary: For it appeares by the writings of Nestorius, set downe also in Evagrius f 1.1990 himselfe, that after his deposition, hee stayed at Ephesus, and about Antioch, for the space of foure yeares, and then was exiled to Oasis. Now Maximianus was placed in the See of Constantinople, that very same yeare, wherein the Ephesine Councell was held, and Nestorius deposed some three or foure g 1.1991 months after the same deposition, as Socrates and Liberatus declare. The next year after the Councel, the union was made between Iohn & Cyrill; Iohn & the rest with him professing expresly in their letters h 1.1992 of union, that they acknowledge & receive Maximianus for Bishop of Constāti∣nople: A demonstration, that Maximianus was Bishop of Con∣stantinople, three whole yeares at least before the death of Nestorius: Nay, which argueth Evagrius to have doated in historicall relations, Maximianus was dead,i 1.1993 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 yeares and five months, and hee dyed before the Ides of Aprill, when Ariobindus and Asper were Con∣suls; and before he was buried, was Proclus placed in the See the same yeare, as Socrates witnesseth. Now Nestorius lived foure yeares at Ephe∣sus, and about Antioch, after his deposition, and some while also in banishment at Oasis, as Evagrius himselfe affirmeth: So that by Eva∣grius Narration Maximianus was made Bishop of Constantinople two yeares 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 concernes the fable touching the Epistle and Image of Christ sent to Abgarus, which Evagrius k 1.1994 paints out at large, and in most lively colours: He commends the Epistle as a true writing of Christ, and celebrated by the Ancients; Hee cals the Image sent to Abgarus, a most holy Image; He tels you, it was not made by the hand of man, but fra∣med immediately by God; that Christ himselfe 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 beleeved by all the faithfull, that the City of Edessa should never be conquered: (that Image made it uncon∣querable) Hee addes, the event did confirme that praediction to bee true. Hee saith, that when Cosroes besieged the City, and had almost taken it, then the Edessanes brought forth that divine Image, and laid it in a ditch, to keepe away the Engines wherewith Cosroes intended to destroy the City, and that by this meanes Cosroes was faine to returne home, not onely without the victory, but with great ignominie: and for confirmation of

this, hee saith, Procopius hath related this concerning Edessa, and the Epistle of Christ, This is the Narration of Evagrius, which for the worthinesse thereof is approved and applauded by their second Nicene n 1.1995 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 Councell and Baronius; for in this whole narration there is not a sillable of truth, it is nothing but a fardle, or dunghill of lyes. First, whereas Evagrius fathereth this on Procopius, that is utter∣ly untrue: In Procopius there is not any mention either of Abgarus or of Christs Epistle, or of that Image made without hands, or of any praediction 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 meanes of it Cosroes was vanquished; all these are the fictions of Evagrius, and those also quite contrary to the true relation of Procopius; for hee o 1.1996 ascribes the repulsing of Cosroes from the City, to the noble military skill and stratagem of the Romane Captaines; by reason whereof when Cosroes perceived his attempt to bee in vaine, hee made peace with the Romanes; but yet so, that the Romanes yeelded to pay unto him, quinquaginta millia aure∣orum, those fifty thousand pieces of Gold, which hee at the beginning of the siege demanded, and for which he offered to desist from warre.

34. Againe, whereas Evagrius, to justifie that lying prediction, as divine and propheticall, such as the faithfull then beleeved as a pro∣phesie of God, saith, that the Event did prove it to bee true; in that, Evagrius proves himselfe to bee so extremely false, that almost no∣thing in him may be credited, but certainly not for his authority: for in the first yeare of Heraclius, (at which time it is not unlike but Eva∣grius lived, for he writ his history but some sixteene yeares before) the event plainely demonstrated the contrary, and this to bee no divine prophesie, but a lying fiction; Then the Persians came against Syria, saith the Author * 1.1997 of the miscella: historia, & ceperunt Edessam, and they won and took Capessa and Edessa, and proceeded as farre as Antioch; yea, Cosroes then so prevailed against Christians, that Heraclius p 1.1998 was faine to send many Legacies to intreate peace, offering to pay what q 1.1999 tribute hee would impose; but the Persian disdainefully answered, Non parcam vobis do∣nec Crucifixum abnegetis & adoretis Solem; I will not spare you, till you renounce the profession of Christ,r 1.2000 and with us adore the Sunne. How did their Palladium, that divine Image, now defend them? or how could that bee a divine praediction, which for such Evagrius com∣mends, and saith, the event proved it to bee true, when the event within lesse than twenty yeares after demonstrated it to bee a lye?

35. But that which is the principall 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 cleare, that their owne Writers proclame the same. Bishop Ca∣nus s 1.2001, among other bookes which the Church (as hee saith) rejecteth, recites Epistolam Iesu ad Abgarum, and Historiam Eusebij; these two

by name, the Church (saith he) rejecteth; & because some ignorāt per∣sons thought that touching Eusebius History not to be the words of Gelasius, and the Councell, Canus refuting those, gives this, as the rea∣son why Eusebius is rejected, because in it is set downe the Epistle of Iesus to Abgarus, quam Gelasius explodit, which Epistle Gelasius doth hisse out of the Church. This Epistle of Iesus to Abgarus, saith Sixtus t 1.2002 Se∣nensis, Pope Gelasius inter scripturas Apochryphas rejicit, doth reject a∣mong other Apocryphall writings Coster their Iesuit saith u 1.2003, 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 Christs) by the Church. But the words of Gelasius, & the whole Roman Councel with him, are of all most remarkeable: They x 1.2004 having expressed and named a long Catalogue of such fabulous writings, and particularly this E∣pistle of Christ to Abgarus, (which Evagrius approveth) set downe this censure of them all; These, and all like unto these, wee confesse to bee not onely refused, but also eliminata, cast out of the Church by the whole Ro∣mane Catholike and Apostolike Church, atque cum suis authoribus, autho∣rumque sequacibus, sub anathematis indissolubili vinculo in aeternum confi∣temur esse damnata, and wee confesse as well these writings, as the Au∣thors and the followers also of them to bee eternally condemned un∣der the indissoluble bond of an Anathema. So Gelasius and the whole Romane Councell: whereby it is evident, that not onely this Epi∣stle, and the Author of it, but that the followers of the Author, the ap∣provers of that Epistle, that is, Evagrius, and the whole second Nicene Synod, and Baronius himselfe, that these also are anathematized, con∣demned and accursed by the judgement of the whole Romane Catho∣like Church, and that also by an indissoluble bond of an Anathema. Such an untrue and fabulous, yea miserable and accursed witnesse hath the Cardinall chosen of Evagrius, by the warrant and authority of whom hee might insult upon, and revile the Emperour: but now the Cardi∣nall hath farre more neede to excuse Evagrius from lies, than by his lying reports to accuse others; and now hee may clearly see that cen∣sure of condemnation, which hee, with Evagrius, most rashly and un∣justly objecteth to the Emperour, to fall on Evagrius, their second Nicene Fathers, and the Cardinals owne pate; since they all, by appro∣ving that Narration touching Abgarus; or being sequaces of the Au∣thor thereof, are pronounced to bee eternally condemned by the judgement of the whole Romane Catholike Apostolicall Church: It is fit such a censure should ever passe on them, who open their mouthes in reviling manner against religious and holy Emperours, the anointed of the Lord.

36. You doe now evidently see, not onely Iustinian to bee cleared of those odious and indigne imputations of heresie, tyranny, persecu∣tion, and other crimes, which the Cardinall in such spitefull manner upbraideth unto him, but all those witnesses whom hee hath nomina∣ted, and produced in this cause, to be so light, and of so little account, that they are utterly unworthy to bee put in the skales or counter∣poized with those honourable and innumerable witnesses, which, (as wee have shewed) doe with a loud and consenting voyce proclame,

that Faith, Piety, Prudence, Iustice, Clemencie, Bounty, and all other Heroicall and Princely vertues have shined in Iustinian, which have beautified any of the most renowned and religious Emperors that the Church hath had. Let us now proceed to those effects which Baroni∣us observeth to have ensued upon the heresie of Iustinian, and the per∣secution raised by his maintaining of the same. Now indeed this whole passage might justly be omitted, for, sublata causa tollitur effectus; seeing Iustinian held no such heresie as hee is slandered withall, there neither was, nor could there bee any effects or consequents of a cause not existent: Yet will I not so sleightly reject the Cardinals calumnie in this point, but fully examine, first the publike, and then the private mischiefes, which hee, without all truth hath fancied, and objected against the Emperour.

37. The publike was partly the subversion and overthrow of the faith, and partly the decay of the Empire in the time, and under the government of Iustinian. Disertus esse posset; Hee that would in an elaborate speech refute this calumnie of Baronius, might have an ample scope to display all his Art and skill in this so large an argument: My purpose is onely to point at the severall heads, and not expatiate at this time. Truly, the Cardinall could hardly have devised any calumny more ea∣sie to be refuted, or more evidently witnessing his malicious and wil∣full oppugning of the truth. I will not insist on those private testimo∣nies: of Procopius, a 1.2005 Iustinian seemeth to have beene advanced by God to that Imperiall dignitie, ut totum Imperium repararet, that he might repaire and beautifie the whole Empire: Of Otho b 1.2006, Iustinian being a most valiant and most Christiā Prince, Imperitū quasi mortuū resuscitavit, did raise the Em∣pire as it were from death to life, and exceedingly repaired the Common∣wealth being decayed: Of Gotofrid c 1.2007, The whole glory of God was repaired by his vertue, and the Church rejoyced in the stable peace which under him it in∣joyed: Of Wernerus d 1.2008, Hee was in all things most excellent, and by his just lawes, and wisedome he governed the world; by his impiety he glorified God: Of Aimonius e 1.2009, He was a Catholike, a pious, a just Emperour, therefore all things prospered under his hands. I oppose to that Baronian calumny, the judgment of Pope Agatho, and of the Romane Councell with him, wherin this is expresly witnessed, f 1.2010 His integritie in faith did much please God, & exalt the Christian Common-wealth: and againe g 1.2011, His vertue and pietie, omnia in meliorem ordinem restauravit, restored all things into a better state and condition: All, both Church and Common-wealth, both the Civill and Ecclesiasticall state: he restored all. I oppose the sixt generall Councell, that is, the judgement of the whole Church, in w^ch the suggestions of Agatho, evē in that point, according to the Cardinals doctrine h 1.2012, are approved as uttered by S. Peter, yea, by the holy Ghost him∣self. These pregnant and irrefragable testimonies of so many, so holy, and divine witnesses, are able, I say not to confute, but utterly to con∣found & overwhelme Baronius w^th his deformed & decrepit calumnie.

38. If any further please to descend to particulars, whether hee cast his eyes on the Church or Common-wealth, he shal see every Re∣gion, every Province, almost every City & Towne proclaming the ho∣nour of Iustinian: Besides, his happy appeasing of those manifold broyles,

and suppressing sundry heresies which infested the Church in his dayes, a∣mong which this concerning the Three Chapters was the chiefe: How infinite monuments did he leave of his piety and zeale to Gods glory & the good of his Church, in building new, in repairing decaied Chur∣ches, reducing both to a most magnificēt beauty? The Church of Christ called Sophia, built by him at Constantinople, was the mirrour of all Ages: Of it Procopius, an eye-witnesse, testifieth, i 1.2013 that the magnificence thereof amazed those who saw it, but was incredible to those that saw it not: the k 1.2014 height of it mounted up into the heaven, the splendor of it was such, as if it received not l 1.2015 light from the Sun, but had it in it selfe; the roofe deckt with Gold, the pavement beset m 1.2016 with Pearle; the silver of the Quire onely contai∣ned foure * 1.2017 Myriads, that is, forty thousand pounds; in so much that it is said n 1.2018, to have excelled the Temple of Salomon. Further, in the honour of the blessed Virgin hee builded every where so many houses, so stately and sumptuous throughout the Roman Empire, that if you should com∣template but onely one of them, you would thinke (saith Procopius o 1.2019) his whole raigne to have beene imployed in building that alone. At Constantinople he builded three p 1.2020, 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 Baccus, utrumque fulgore lapillorum Solem vin∣cit, either of which, by the brightnesse of precious stones, excelled the Sunne; of Andrew, Luke and Tymothy, of Acatius, of Mocius, of Thir∣sis, 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 bee expres∣sed, by viewing be perlustrated. Nor did he this to one onely Citie; he builded like magnificent Churches, at Antioch q 1.2021, at Sebastia, at Nicopo∣lis, at Theodosia, at Tzani, at Iustinianea r 1.2022, where hee was borne, at Ephe∣sus s 1.2023, at Helena, at Nice, at Pythia, at Ierusalem, so magnificent, ut nullum aliud aequipare possit, that none other may compare with it; at Iericho, at mount Gerazim, at mount Sinai, at Theopolis, at Aegila t 1.2024, where they sa∣crificed to Iupiter Hammon and Alexander the great, even to that time; at Bore••on, at Tripolis, at Carthage, at the Gades, or Hercules pillers, which was the uttermost border of the known world in those dayes: So that one may truly say of him, Imperium Oceano, famam qui terminat astris; his piety and zeale reacheth as farre 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 Gods Church, he not onely erected, but inriched with large patrimonies and possessions, which for number are as I suppose equall, for expences greater, than the former: all the par∣ticulars whereof I referre to be read in Procopius, who considering, be∣side other matters, al these magnificent and sumptuous buildings, did truly say of Iustiniā u 1.2025, Nulla honorandi Dei satietas eum cepit, he was never wearied, never satiate with honouring of God.

40. After the Church, wil it please you to take a view of the civil state & Empire. No mans tongue or pen can equall or come neare his acts, and most deserved praise. The whole Empire at the beginning of his reigne was in a maner spoyled & defaced. In the East, the Persiās held

a great part of Asia; in the South, the Vandals possessed Africk; in the West, the Goths usurped Italy, and Rome it selfe; in the North, the Franks, Almanes, and other people withdrew Germany, France, and other Northerne Countries. Iustinian, finding the Empire thus torne asunder on every side, freed it from all these enemies; and having most happily subdued, and gloriously triumphed over them all, by his vi∣ctorious conquests, hee purchased those manifold titles, which are so many Trophees, Crests, and Ensignes of his immortall honour, to bee surnamed Iustinian the Great h 1.2026, happy i 1.2027, renowned, victorious, and Trium∣phant Augustus, Alamanicus, Gothicus, Francicus, Germanicus, Anticus, Alanicus, Vandalicus, Africanus: So at once he purchased both honor to himselfe, 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 hee so fortified them, being recovered, by building and repairing their ruinated Ci∣ties, by erecting Castles, Forts, and strong places of munition; by fur∣nishing them all with the commodities of waters, of wals, of promon∣tories, 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 wisedome and government was made, as it were, one great and strong City, both commodious and delightful to his owne subjects, and inexpugnable to his enemies: So in Media hee fortified Doras k 1.2028; in Persia, Sisauranon; in Mesopotamia, Baros; in Sy∣ria, Edessa, and Callinicum; in Commagine, Zenobia; in Armenia, Martyropolis l 1.2029; in the other Armenia, Theodosiopolis; in Tzani, Bur∣gunocie; Totam m 1.2030 Europā inaccessam reddidit; he made the whole Coun∣try of Europe unconquerable: Tauresium, where he was borne, hee exceedingly fortified, and beautified, and called it Iustinianea; the like hee did to Vlpiana, and called it Iustinianea secunda: neare to it he builded Iustinopolis; he repaired all Epyrus, Aetolia, Acarnania; V∣niversam Graeciam, he fortified al Greece: the like hee did in Thessa∣lia, and Euboea, Quam penitus inexpugnabilem & invictā reddidit, which hee made inexpugnable: The like hee did in Thrace, in Misia, and in Scythia also; in Libya n 1.2031, in Numidia, and at the very Gades. Time would faile me to recount the one halfe of his famous buildings in this kinde, they may bee read in Procopius, who thus concludeth, Nulli a 1.2032 du∣bium est, no man may doubt, but that Iustinian fortified the Romane 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 workes of Iustinian not onely cals b 1.2033 him, Orbis reparatorem, the repairer of the whole world, but adds this memorable saying of him, That there hath c 1.2034 not beene any in all ages, nor among all men, more provident, more careful for the publike good, than Iustinian, unto whom nothing was dif∣ficult, no not to bridle and confine the Seas, to levell the Mountaines, and overcome those things which seeme impossible.

40. Even Evagrius himselfe, whose spite and spleene was (as I con∣jecture by some welwiller of the Three Chapters, of which there were divers in the time of Gregory, when Evagrius writ) incensed against Iu∣stinian, could not chuse but testifie this. d 1.2035 It is reported of him, that

hee restored anew, an hundreth and fifty Cities, which were either wholly o∣verthrowne, or exceedingly decayed, and that he beautified them with such & so great ornaments, with houses both private and publike, with goodly walles, with faire and sumptuous buildings, and Churches, ut nihil possit esse magni∣ficentius, that nothing can bee more magnificent: So hee. And yet all these Buildings, Munitions, Castles and Forts, are not comparable to those most wholesome Imperiall Lawes, whereby hee most wisely orde∣red & governed the whole Empire: that alone was a work of so great value & excellency, that I may truly say, that all his victories & victo∣rious triumphs over the Persians, the Gothes, 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 lawes, to the unspeakable benefit of the whole Christian world: for as by his victories and buildings, he restored but the materiall Cities and wals thereof, so by this he repaired the men themselves, and their mindes, reducing them from rude and barbarous behaviour to civility and or∣der, setting them in such a constant forme of civill government, as all Christian Kingdomes since have not onely with admiration extolled, but with most happy successe embraced and followed.

41. Iudge now, I pray you, uprightly of the Cardinals dealing, who declames against this Emperor, and reviles him in most odious terms, as an unjust, avaricious, sacrilegious, tyrannicall person, calling him a dolt, a foole, a mad-man, an heretike, an Antichrist, a persecutor of the faith, neg∣ligent of the civill, disturber of the Ecclesiasticall State, under whom the Empire and Common-wealth decayed, and declined, the Church was op∣pressed, and the faith overthrowne: Whereas it doth now appeare by evidences of all sorts, that hee was a Prince, not onely Catholike, pi∣ous, prudent, magnanimous, just, munificent, and most vigilant for the good, both of the Church and Common-wealth, but so adorned with the concurrence of all those heroicall vertues, which have beene single in other men of great same, as if in him we should see the compleate Idea of a worthy Emperour; hee being for politicall prudence, Solon; for valour and victorious conquests, Alexander; for magnificence, Au∣gustus; for his Piety, constant love and zeal to the faith, Constantine, Theodosius or Martian; for multiplicity of labours, undertaken for the good of the whole Empire, more indefatigable than Hercules; and for supporting the whole fabricke of the Church and Christian faith, a very Atlas; Caelum qui vertice falcit.

42. There onely remaineth now the other effect, which is private: which as it is the last, so is it the heaviest punishment that Baronius could wish unto Iustinian, and that is, his adjudging him to the pit and torments of hell. Did he not feare the Apostles reproofe, either against rash and temerarious judgers, Who f 1.2036 art thou that judgest another mans servant? or against uncharitable censures, Charity thinketh not e∣vill g 1.2037, it rejoyceth not in iniquity, but rejoyceth in the truth. why did not the Cardinall harken rather to the judgement of the Church of Constan∣tinople? Wherein the memory h 1.2038 of Iustinian was yearely celebrated, and that with great pompe and solemnity in the Church of Sophia, in the time of di∣vine service, all the people being assēbled. The like celebrity i 1.2039 of his memory

was observed at Ephesus in the Church of Saint Iohn, which he had builded: Or if the authority of these particular Churches could not sway the Cardinall, seemed it a small matter unto him to contemne the consen∣ting judgement of Pope Agatho, and his Romane Councell, which ranke him among the glorious and blessed Saints in heaven, with Saint Constantine, Theodosius, and Martian? yea, of the whole sixt ge∣nerall Councell, wherein his memory is so often called, holy, blessed, divine, happy, and the like? & if his memory, then much more himselfe is happy and blessed; for to the just onely doth that honor belong; The k 1.2040 memo∣riall of the just shall be blessed, but the name of the wicked shall rot. To which purpose that is specially to be observed which Nicephorus addeth in plaine termes of the sixt generall Councell, Iustinianum l 1.2041 beata quiete dignatur, It placeth Iustinian in blessed rest and peace: and againe, Sem∣per cum qui in Sanctis est Iustinianum dicunt, That general Councell ever calleth Iustinian one who is a Saint, and among the Saints. Adde to all these, that seeing, by the Cardinals confession, the Epistles of Aga∣tho, In omnibus (and therefore even in that which he saith of this holy Emperour, That hee is a blessed Saint, venerable in all Nations) are to be imbraced as divine Oracles; it may bee truly concluded, that Iustini∣an, not onely by the testimonies of mortall men, and of all nations, but even by the voyce of God himselfe is blessed, and hath ever since his death, and doth now rest, and raigne with God. When by the unpar∣tiall judgement of S. Agatho, of the Romane Synod, of the whole sixt generall Councell, of all Nations, yea, of God himselfe, Iustinian is proclamed to be a venerable Saint, now resting & raigning with God in heaven: who is Baronius, a man of yesterday, that after a thousand years possession of that heavenly rest, he should unsaint him, dethrone him, and thrust him downe to the lowest pit and most hideous tor∣ments of hell? I'st not enough for that Hildebrandicall generation to devest Kings & Emperors of their earthly diadems, unless in the pride of their hearts climbing up into heaven, they thrust them out thence also, & deprive them of their crowns of immortality, & eternal glory?

43. And yet were there neither Historian nor Pope, nor Provinci∣all, nor Generall Councell, to testifie this felicity of Iustinian unto us; that very text, out of which, being maimed, the Cardinall sucked poy∣son, and collected His death & damnation, doth so forcible prove the beatitude of Iustinian, that it alone may bee sufficient in this cause. The Cardinall cites but one part of the text, but the whole doth manifest his fraud and malicious collection. Apoc. 14.13. Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord, from hence forth; even so saith the Spirit, for they rest from their labours, and opera illorum sequuntur illos, their workes follow them: which last words the Cardinall onely alleageth, and applyeth them to Iustinian. Now who are Those, that are meant by, Their works, and follow Them? who are those Them, that the Spirit meaneth in that text? Out of al doubt those selfe-same of whom before he spake, Them, that dye in the Lord, Them, that are blessed, and rest from their labours; Of Them, the Spirit there saith, Opera illorum, Their workes follow Them. Seeing then the Cardinall confesseth this text to belong to Iustinian, and himselfe applyeth it unto him, it certainly hence followeth, that

Iustinian is of their number, who dye in the Lord, and are blessed: for of Them, and Them onely doth the holy Ghost speake in that text, saying, They rest from their labours, and Their workes follow Them. So hard it is for the Cardinal to cite or say ought against Iustinian, which doth not redound to the Emperours honour, and the Cardinals owne ignominie.

44. But let us suppose the words to bee generall, as being uttered alone, without any reference to that text, they may bee truly affirmed both of the good & bad: There cannot be found in al Scripture more faire evidence, nor a more authentike Charter for the happy estate of any one in particular that lived since the Apostles times, then is this for Iustinian: For what were those workes which did accompanie and follow Iustinian? Truely the workes of sincere faith, of fervent zeale to GOD, of love to the Church and Children of God, the workes of piety, of prudence, of justice, of fortitude, of munificence, of many other heroicall vertues: with these, as with a garment and chaine of pure Gold, Iustinian being decked, was brought unto the Bridegroom; every decree made, or ratified by him for confirming the faith; every Anathema denounced against heresies, & heretiks, particu∣larly those against Vigilius, & al that defend him, that is, against Baro∣nius, and all who defend the Popes infallibility in defining causes of faith; everie Temple or Church, every Monastery and Hospitall, eve∣ry City and Towne, everie Bridge, Haven and High-way, every Ca∣stle, Fort, and Munition, whether made or repaired by him, tending either immediately to the advancement of Gods service, or to the maintaining or relieving of Gods servants, or strengthning the Em∣pire against his and Gods enemies: every booke in the Digest, Code, and Authentikes; every Title, yea, every law in any title, whereby ei∣ther the Christian faith and religion, or peaceable order and tranquil∣lity, have beene either planted, or propagated, or continued, either in the Church or Common-wealth: all these, and every one of them, and many other the like, which I cannot either remember, or recount, are like so many Rubies, Chrysolites, and Diamonds in the costly garment, or so many linkes in that golden chaine of his faith and ver∣tues. 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 troope of vertues and traine of good workes obtaine at his hands, who rewardeth indeed every man according to their workes, but withall rewardeth them infinitely above all the dignity or condignity of their workes.

45. If Iustinian and those who are beautified with so many vertues and glorious works, be, as the Card. Judgeth, tormented in hell, belike the Cardinall himselfe hoped by workes contrary unto these, by workes of infidelity, of impiety, of maligning the Church, of revi∣ling the servants of GOD, of oppugning the faith, of Patronizing heresie, yea, that fundamental heresie which overthroweth the whole Catholike faith, and brings in a totall Apostasie from the faith; by these hee hoped to purchase, and in condignity to merit the felicity of the Kingdome of Heaven: This being the track and beaten path where∣in

they walke, and by which they aspire to immortality, what Constan∣tine m 1.2042 sayd once to Acesius the Novatian, the same may be sayd to Ba∣ronius and his consorts, Erigito tibi scalam Baroni, & ad caelum solus ascen∣dito, Keepe that Ladder unto your selves, and by it doe you alone climbe up into heaven. But well were it with them, and thrice happy had the Cardinall beene, if with a faithfull and upright heart towards God, he could have said of Iustinian 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 workes, hee now enjoyeth the fruit thereof, felicity and eternall rest in Abrahams bosome: As for the Car∣dinall who hath so malignantly reviled him, himselfe can now best tell whether he doth not cry and pray, Father Abraham have mercy on me, and send Iustinian that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and coole my tongue: or sing that other note n 1.2043 unto his fellowes concerning this Emperour; Wee fooles thought his life to be madnesse, and his end to bee without honour, but now is he numbred among the children of God, and his lot is among the Saints: Therefore wee have erred from the way of truth, and wearied our selves in the wayes of wickednesse and destruction; we have gone through deserts where there lay no way, but as for the way of the Lord wee have not knowne it.

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

1. NExt the Emperour, let us see how dutifully the Cardinall behaveth himselfe towards the Em∣presse Theodora. A small matter it is with him in severall places to call her an a 1.2044 impious, an hereti∣call b 1.2045, a sacrilegious c 1.2046, a furious d 1.2047 hereticall woman, a patrone e 1.2048 of heretikes, and the like. Heare and con∣sider how he stormeth but in one place f 1.2049 against her: These so great mis∣chiefes did that most wicked woman beginne; she became to her husband ano∣ther Eve obeying the serpent, a new Dalila to Samson, striving by her subtil∣tie to weaken his strength; another Herodias, thirsting after the blood of most holy men; a wanton mayd of the High Priest, perswading Peter to deny Christ. But this is not enough, Sugillare ipsam, with these termes to flout her, who exceedeth all women in impiety, let her have a name taken from Hell, let her be called Alecto, or Megera, or Tisiphone, a Citizen of hell, a childe of Devills, ravished with a satanicall spirit, driven up and downe with a de∣villish gad bee, an enemy of concord and peace purchased with the blood of Martyrs. Thus the Cardinall: who tells us afterwards how when Vi∣gilius 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 1.2050, where∣upon she h 1.2051 shortly dyed. Here is the tragicall end which the Cardinall hath made of her.

2. Now I would not have any think that I intend wholly to excuse the Empresse; she had her passions and errors; as who hath not? and as Liberatus i 1.2052 and Evagrius k 1.2053 shew, she tooke part with the oppugners of the Councell of Chalcedon: which was for some time true; shee being, as it seemes, seduced by Anthimus, whom for a while she labou∣red to have restored to the See of Constantinople: though afterwards, as Victor Tununensis testifieth, she being better informed, joyned with the Emperor in condemning the Three Chapters, and so in truth, in de∣fending the Councell of Chalcedon, though Victor thought the contra∣rie. And of this minde in condemning the three Chapters shee was, as by Victor is evident, some yeares before Vigilius came to Constantino∣ple. Her former error, seduction, and labour for Anthimus, I will not seeke to lessen, or any way excuse. But though she were worthy of blame, was it fit for the Cardinall so basely to revile her, and in such an unseemly and undutifull manner, to disgorge the venome of his stomacke upon an Empresse? tantae ne animis caelestibus irae, who would have thought such rancour and poison to have rested in the brest of a Cardinall? But there was, you may be sure, some great cause which drew from the Cardinall to many unseemly speeches against the Em∣presse; and though hee would bee thought to doe all this onely out of zeale to the truth, which Anthimus the heretike oppugned, yet if the depth of the Cardinalls heart were founded, it will appeare, 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 Apostolicall Constitution, the he∣resies of the Nestorians, decreed and defined therein, that is the true marke at which the Cardinall aymeth; neither Emperour nor Em∣presse, nor Bishop, nor Councell, nor any may open their mouth a∣gainst that Constitution, which toucheth them in capite, but they shall be sure to heare and beare away as harsh and hellish termes from Ba∣ronius, as if they had condemned the Trent Councell it selfe. Had Theo∣dora defended the Three Chapters, as Vigilius in his Constitution did, the Cardinall would have honoured her as a Melpomene, Clio, or Vrania; because she did not that, she must be nothing but Alecto, 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 1.2054 saith, that she was Iisdem addicta cum marito studiis, & iisdem praedita moribus: that she so well consorted to her husband, that shee was addicted to the same studies, indued with the same manners as he was: That Iustinian himselfe calleth her m 1.2055, reverendissimam conjugem, his most reverend wife, given unto him by God: adding that he tooke her as a partner with him of his coun∣sells in making his lawes, and after her death he n 1.2056 calleth her Augu∣stam piae memoriae, Empresse of holy memorie, as doe also and very often the sixt general o 1.2057 Councell: an unfit title to be given to an heretike, or a fury, either by a holy generall Councell, or by a Christian ortho∣dox Emperour, who was so earnest with the fift Councell to con∣demne 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 alledged, if one would labour to extoll that Empresse, as the Cardinall hath strained his wit and pen to vili∣fie and disgrace her. But because that is not my purpose at this time, I would onely observe how unjustly the Cardinall hath taxed her in respect of three severall times, and three speciall matters.

4. The first concernes the placing of Anthimus, an Eutychean he∣retike in the See of Constantinople, which Baronius p 1.2058 saith was done by Iustinian, occultis insidiis Theodorae, by the cunning and trecherous meanes of Theodora; and thereupon hee breakes q 1.2059 into many uncivill termes. Wherein the Cardinalls 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 shew∣ed and professed himselfe to bee a Catholike; he was a wolfe, as the Archimandrites r 1.2060 and Monkes of Constantinople, Ierusalem, and other parts of the East doe witnesse, in their synodall Epistles to Agapetus; but he covered himselfe, and his wolvish conditions, under sheepes clothing. Againe, hee s 1.2061 and others, religionis pietatem dissimulantes, counterfeiting the piety of religion, thrust themselves into the Church. Anthimus lived not an Euangelicall (that is, sincere,) sed fictam vitam, but a fained and hypocriticall life, manifesting forth to all men the coun∣terfeit continency of his government, and the shew of piety which by it he made. The Emperour t 1.2062 testifieth the same; Anthimus forsooke and refused those true doctrines which hee often seemed to love, simulans se∣qui sanctas quatuor Synodos, faining himselfe to follow the foure holy Synods. The whole generall Councell under u 1.2063 Mennas in their definitive sen∣tence against Anthimus do expresly witnesse the same, He counterfeited himselfe to embrace and receive the foure Councells, and he kept them in 〈◊〉〈◊〉. Againe, he used deceptibilibus rationibus ad ejus Serenitatem, de∣ceitfull and cozening meanes before the Emperour, promising to doe all things which the Apostolike See (then Catholike) did decree, and hee writ to the most holy Patriarchs, Se sequi per omnia Apostolicam sedem, that he did in all things follow the Apostolike See: when Anthimus made so holy, and orthodoxall a profession, better than which no Catholike could desire; what marvell if by this faire shew, and outward ortho∣doxy, hee deceived both the Emperour, and the Empresse, and the whole Church? They were not, nor could they looke into his heart, it was their duty to judge him to bee such in deed, as he shewed and professed himselfe to be, a Catholike Bishop: and taking him for such, they placed him in that high Patriarchall See. Did not Constantine the great the like, and without any just blame or reprehension, recei∣ving into great favour Eusebius of Nicomedia, and others, though in∣wardly and in heart most pestilent Arians, yet in outward profession orthodoxall, and embracers of the Nicene faith? Nay, what if Baro∣nius himselfe acknowledge, that neither Theodora nor Iustinian, advan∣ced Anthimus the heretike; but Anthimus then seeming, and being in their judgement a Catholike? Heare I pray you his owne words x 1.2064, The Empresse favoured Anthimus, uti orthodoxo, as an orthodoxall Bishop: and Iustinian sent a Constitution to him, ut orthodoxū Antistitem, as to an or∣thodoxal Bishop. He did y 1.2065 outwardly professe the Catholike faith, but inwardly

was an Eutychean. Againe, the z 1.2066 Fox had so ordered himselfe, that be∣ing a most abominable heretike, Studeret tamen in omnibus apparere Catholicus, yet he endeavoured every way to seeme a Catholike, approving the Councell of Chalcedon, and all that true Catholikes did; yea and when there was a rumour spred of him to bee an heretike, the crafty companion throughly purged himselfe of that crime, when in plaine termes he professed before the Emperour, that he would in all things assent to what the Apostolike See did prescribe: these things being dissembled by Anthimus, his hypocrisie and heresie were not dete∣cted, untill a 1.2067 Agapetus the next yeare came to Constantinople; in the meane space he was held for a professor of the Catholike faith, a com∣municator with the Apostolike See, by reason of his publike profes∣sion, wherein he openly before all mens eyes, and before the Emperor himselfe, professed to receive all things which the Apostolike See did prescribe. Thus Baronius. By whose words it is most cleare that An∣thimus when hee was placed in that See of Constantinople by the meanes of the Empresse, was not knowne to her, nor discovered to the Church, as yet, to be an heretike, nor a full yeare after: hee was held & reputed by all for a Catholike, and very orthodoxall Bishop. What fault was this now in Theodora or Iustinian, to place him in this See, whom they knew for no other than a Catholike? who professed to hold the foure former Councels, and promised to yeeld to whatso∣ever Agapetus a knowne Catholike did prescribe. Nay, seeing by Baronius owne confession, the Empresse did then favour him uti ortho∣doxo, no otherwise than as being orthodoxall, she even therein testified her orthodoxy in faith at that time, as favouring him eo nomine, because she thought him to be orthodoxall. So farre was she in this act either from being an heretike, or deserving those epithetes & titles w^ch the Cardinall hath fetcht from hell to bestow upon her, that in very deed by the Cardinals words she deserveth praise and honour.

5. The second point concernes the bienniall contention with Vigi∣lius for restoring of Anthimus, which out of Anastasius b 1.2068 Baronius c 1.2069 hath borrowed: all which is nothing but a meere fiction and legend pat∣ched up by Anastasius, as elsewhere I shall further explaine. Vigilius was neither called, nor came about that businesse to Constantinople, but about the three Chapters; the cause of Anthimus was some ten yeares before ended: the Empresse knew the resolution of Vigilius therein, that he had absolutely refused to restore him. And though for a while after the deposition of Anthimus, shee, being deceived by his faire words and shew of piety, fought to restore him: yet when shee saw Anthimus to remaine an obstinate heretike, and to oppugne the faith of Chalcedon, shee quite left off all striving for Anthimus, and became with Iustinian a condemner of the three Chapters, (as Victor c 1.2070 testifieth) that is in truth, an earnest defender of the Councell of Chalcedon, and of the Catholike faith. So unjustly doth the Cardinall take occasion upon an untruth and legendary fable to revile the Empresse as an he∣retike.

6. The third and last point concernes the direfull thunderblast of Excommunication, which Vigilius the Romane Iupiter cast from hea∣ven

against Theodora, wherewith belike she was smit to death. Where∣in though the Cardinall d 1.2071 is exceeding brag, and thinkes his saying to be warranted by no meane witnesses, but by Pope Gregory himselfe; yet for all that, I must be bold to tell him that it also is a fiction, and that Vigilius brought no such Ioviall darts with him to Constantinople, or if he did, he spent them not upon the Empresse. It was Pope Aga∣petus, and not Vigilius, by whom (if by any) Theodora was excommu∣nicated, seeing Theodora did contend with Agapetus about Anthimus, and that also before his deposition. It was he which called Theodora, Eleutheria, a persecuting Empresse. Vigilius had no occasion at his comming to excommunicate her, the cause of Anthimus was before that ended. Theodora and Vigilius consented together in one professi∣on of faith: he condemning the three Chapters, a little after he came to Constantinople, as well as the Empresse, could not condemne or excom∣municate her for an heretike, but hee must condemne himselfe also. I, but Pope Gregory e 1.2072 saith expresly he did excommunicate her. Might I in stead of an answer say as some f 1.2073 of their owne Writers do in ano∣ther cause, Gregorius hîc non est audiendus, Gregory is here not to bee regar∣ded: or but say as their owne Bishop Canus g 1.2074 doth, that Gregory was too credulous in writing reports; the matter were soone answered: But I am not willing to censure Gregory so hard as they doe: my an∣swer 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 Agape∣tus, Victor h 1.2075 is an expresse witnesse, that he indeed deprived Theodora of the communion: All the circumstances accord thereunto. Theodora was then an enemy to the Councell of Chalcedon, she tooke part, and was a patron of Anthimus: Gregory himselfe notes this fact to be done equally against the whole sect i 1.2076 of the Acephalian heretikes, as against Theodora: now Vigilius had nothing to doe with those heretikes; it was the cause of the three Chapters wherewith hee was troubled; the heads of the Acephali, Anthimus, Severus, Petrus, Zoaras, and their fol∣lowers, were condemned both by Agapetus k 1.2077, and by the great Coun∣cell of Constantinople l 1.2078 under Mennas, where were present the Legates of the Romane See, Agapetus being lately dead: and the same sentence was confirmed by the Emperour Iustinian m 1.2079 at the end of the Synod, so that there was nothing left for Vigilius to doe against the Acephali, who both by the Pontificall, Synodall, and Imperiall sentence were con∣demned nine yeares before his comming to Constantinople. Lastly, the very scope and coherence of Gregories text doth inforce this correcti∣on. The defenders of the three Chapters alledged, that since the time of the fift Councell, wherein the three Chapters were condemned, ma∣ny calamities had befalne Italy, whereupon they concluded that God afflicted the Church for that decree of the fift Councell, and for con∣demning of those three Chapters. Gregory to refute this their reason, alledged another example, and of former times: to wit, of condem∣ning the Acephali, whom they, to whom Gregory writ, acknowledged for heretikes; saying, Postquam, after Pope Agapetus when he came in∣to 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 Gothes;) was therefore God angry for that sen∣tence against the Acephali? Apply this reason to Vigilius, and his time, and it is not onely untrue, but unfit to the purpose of Gregory: for be∣fore Vigilius his comming to Constantinople, not only Vitiges the Goth possessed Rome, (from whom Bellisarius in the time of Silverius reco∣vered it) and made great havocke in Italy; but Totilas n 1.2080 also (before Vitiges came) besieged it so hard, that by reason of the famine they were driven not onely to eate mice, and dogs, but even dung also, and last of all one to eate up another: and that same yeare Totilas tooke Rome, sacked it, and had purposed utterly to have abolished it, and burnt it to ashes, but that Bellisarius by his most prudent and fortunate perswasions, staid him from that barbarous immanity. Now seeing not onely the siege, but captivity of Rome was after the comming of that Pope to Constantinople, and sentence against Theodora, of whom Gregory speaketh, it must needs be hee meant Pope Agapetus, whose sentence all the foresaid calamities follow; and not Vigilius, o 1.2081 before whose comming to Constantinople Rome was besieged by Totilas, and taken also before the sentence, if it was (as by Anastasius is to be gathe∣red) not denounced till the second yeare after Vigilius his comming thither. Neither onely had the reason of Gregory beene untrue, but most unfit for his purpose, had he meant Vigilius in this place: for hee clearly intends such a calamity as hapned before the condemning of the three Chapters, but after the condemning of the Acephali. Now it is certaine by the Acts of the fift Councell, and by the Emperours te∣stimony, that as the Easterne Bishops, so also Vigilius presently after he came to Constantinople consented to condemne the three Chapters, yea condemned them by a Pontificall decree and judgement, and con∣tinued in that minde till the time of the fift Councell; at which time by the general Synod they were also condemned. Gregory then should have spoken against himselfe, had hee meant Vigilius, and his com∣ming to Constantinople, in saying that after the sentence of Vigilius against Theodora, the City was besieged and taken, (as it was once a∣gaine indeed taken by Totilas p 1.2082 in the 23. yeare of Iustinus:) for his adversaries to whom he writ, being defenders of the three Chapters, would have replyed against him, that this calamity befell them from the very same cause; seeing both the Easterne Bishops and the Pope consented in that doctrine of condemning of the three Chapters. Thus it appeareth not by surmises and conjectures, but by certaine and evi∣dent proofe, that the text of Gregory is corrupted, or else that Gregory himselfe was mistaken therein, (which in a matter so neare his dayes wee may not thinke) and so that it was not Vigilius, but Agapetus whom Gregory intended to denounce that sentence against the Acepha∣li, or Theodora, of which Baronius maketh such boast, and commends with such great ostentation, that thereby he might make the Empresse who was a condemner of the three Chapters, more odious, and streng∣then that fiction and fabulous tale of Anastasius, that Vigilius conten∣ded with Iustinian and Theodora about Anthimus.

CAP. XXII. How Baronius, declameth against the cause it selfe of the Three Chap∣ters, and a refutation thereof.

1. BAronius not content to wrecke his spite upon the Emperour and Empresse in such uncivill man∣ner as you have seene, carpes in the next place at the very cause it selfe of the three Chapters. What did Vigilius, saith hee a 1.2083, offend, in appoin∣ting that men should be silent and say nothing untill the future Synod, of this cause of the three Chap∣ters? which if it could have beene, potius perpe∣tuo erat silentio condemnanda, sopienda, sepelienda, atque penitus extinguen∣da; was rather to be condemned to perpetuall silence, to be buried and utterly extinguished. Againe b 1.2084, I doe never feare to avouch that it had beene 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 beene one word spoken of them. Thus Baronius.

2. What thinke you moved the Cardinall to have such an immor∣tall hatred to this cause, as to wish the condemning, buriall, and utter extinguishing of those controversies? What more hurt did this to the Church, than the question about 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, about 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or about the opinion of Eutiches? Very great calamity, saith Baronius c 1.2085, insued upon this controversie, both in the East and West. True, it did so: and so there did, and far greater and longer about the controversie of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: and more againe than that, upon the question whether the Gospell or Paganisme should prevaile: and yet by moving those controversies was the faith propagated, the truth of Christ spred abroad, the blood of Martyrs was made the seed of the Gospell. No affliction, calamity, or persecution, is a just cause either to wish that there had never beene any such controversie, or to forsake the truth of God, when the controversie is moved. It was an excellent saying of the Aegyptian Bishops in the Councell of Chalcedon d 1.2086, Christianus neminem timet, a Christian feareth no mortall man; si homines timerentur, martyres non essent, if men should be feared, there would be no Martyrs. But the truth is, it was not as Baronius fancieth, the controversie it selfe, nor the dis∣puting and debating thereof, that caused so great calamities in the East and West; that is non causa pro causa; the peevishnesse and per∣versenesse of wicked men maintaining heresies, and oppugning the truth, that was the true cause thereof. The controversie it selfe, if you well marke it, was very beneficiall to the Church. Oportet haereses e 1.2087 esse, there must be heresies among you, that they which are approved might bee knowne. Every heresie is a probation and tryall of mens love to God, and his truth, whether they esteeme it more than their honours, plea∣sures, and their owne wilfull conceits; and the greater the heresie is, and the further it spreads, it is still a greater tryall. Heretikes, saith S. Austen f 1.2088, doe much profit the Church, though they be out of the Church, not

by teaching the truth which they doe not know, but by stirring up those who are more carnall Catholikes, to seeke, and those who are more spirituall, to de∣fend and manifest the truth. This triall and probation of men (if I mis∣take not) was never so great in any controversie or question, as in this of the three Chapters. First, it sifted and tryed Vigilius to the full, and tryed him to be a wether-cocke in faith, an heretike, and a defender of heresies even by his Apostolicall authority. Next, it sifted out divers notable conclusions: as first, that which I think was never before that tryed; that not onely the Pope, but the Apostolike See also, to wit, the Romane Church, and with it the Westerne Churches, all at once ad∣hered to heresie, and forsooke the truth, and that even after it was de∣creed, and judged by the generall approved Councell; and so it pro∣ved both Pope and Romane Church to be properly hereticall, the Ea∣sterne Churches constantly upholding the truth at that time; it shew∣ed that the Catholike faith was tied neither to the Chair, nor Church of Rome. Another conclusion then tryed, was that either persons, or Churches, may not onely dissent from the Pope and the Romane Church, and that in a cause of faith judicially defined by the Pope with a Synod, but may renounce communion with them, and yet re∣maine Catholikes, and in the unity of the Catholike Church; the Pope, the Westerne Church, and all that adheered unto them being then by forsaking the Catholike faith, Heretikes, and by forsaking the unity of the Church, Schismatikes.

3. Neither onely was this controversie a triall to them in that age, a tryall of their faith, love to God, charity to the Church, obedience to the Emperour, but it is as great a triall even in these our dayes, and ever since that doctrine of the Popes infallibility in causes of faith hath beene defined and condemned. By this controversie, most happly de∣cided by the generall Councell, all that hold the Popes definitions of faith to be infallible, that is, all that are Papists, or members of the present Church of Rome, they are all hereby tryed to defend this A∣postolicall Constitution of Vigilius, that is, to maintaine all the blasphe∣mies of the Nestorians, to deny the Catholike faith, the doctrine of the Apostles, of the primative Church, of the fift generall Councell; & so to be not only heretikes, but convicted, anathematized, and cōdemned heretikes, by the judgement of a generall approved Councell, and so by the consenting judgement of the Catholike Church. Further yet there is a tryall of them, whether upon that ground or foundation of the Popes infallibility, they will build up and maintaine any other doctrine, or position of faith, or religion; if they doe (as indeed every point of the Romish faith and Religion relyeth upon that) they are a∣gaine hereby tryed to be hereticall, not onely in the foundation, but in every position and doctrine of their faith and religion, which relyes upon that foundation.

4. This was it which netled Baronius, and extorted from him those earnest and affectionate wishes, that this controversie had never beene heard of, nor mentioned in the world: he saw what a tryall was like to be made by it of men, of doctrines, of Churches, of the Pope him∣selfe, and their whole Romish Church; and seeing that tryall, he ne∣ver

ceased to say, that it had beene much better that this controversie had never beene moved, nor spoken of, for so they had avoided this most notable triall. Blessed be God, for that it pleased him in the in∣finite depth of his unspeakable wisedome to cause this controversie to be ventilated, and discussed to the utmost; that among many other tryals, this might be one of the Antichristian Synagogue, to try them even untill the very destruction of Antichrist. It is for heretikes whose errors and obstinacy is tryed, and discovered to the world; it is for them, I say, to wish that the controversies about Arianisme, Nestori∣anisme, Eutycheanisme, and the like, had never beene moved; they had scaped the just censures and anathemaes by that meanes. But Ca∣tholikes have cause to rejoyce and triumph in such controversies, by which, both the truth which they maintaine, is made more resplen∣dent and victorious, themselves, and their faith tryed to be like refi∣ned gold, the Church thereby is quieted, the truth propagated, here∣sies confounded, and the glory of Almighty God, much more magni∣fied, and praysed.

CAP. XXIII. How Baronius revileth both the Imperiall Edict of Iustinian, and Theo∣dorus B. of Caesarea: and a refutation of the same.

1. SEeing now, notwithstanding the wishing of Baro∣nius, this controversie 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 Emperors Edict, whereby these three Chapters were condemned, & Theodorus Bish. of Caesarea, who (as he saith) was the author & penner of that Edict. The Edict it self he calleth first, Se∣minarium a 1.2089 dissentionū, a seed-plot of sedition, which was never made up∣on a good occasion, nor had any good end. And not content here∣with, he tells b 1.2090 us out of Facundus, that it is contrary to the faith, yea even to that faith which Iustinian himselfe professed as orthodoxall: to which ef∣fect also Baronius himselfe saith c 1.2091 that the Emperours Edict was set forth contrary to the three Chapters of the most holy Councell of Chalcedon. But he specially seekes to disgrace it by the author of it, for though it was published by Iustinian, yet saith he d 1.2092, it was written, and that craftily by heretikes and adversaries to the truth; by the e 1.2093 Origenists, and in parti∣cular by f 1.2094 Theodorus Bishop of Caesarea, one gratious g 1.2095, potent, and fa∣miliar with the Emperour: and for proofe of all this the Cardinall citeth Liberatus h 1.2096, 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 veterē comoediam, or according to the Proverbe, ex plaustro, to raile out of a cart against him, calling him factious i 1.2097, fraudulēt k 1.2098, impudēt l 1.2099, a most wicked m 1.2100, hereticall, schismaticall, headstrong Origenist, the ring-leader of

the Origenists, one marvellously addicted to the heresie of Origen: nor onely a servant to Origens errors, but also n 1.2101 a most earnest defender of the Eutychean blasphemy; nor onely so, but plunged o 1.2102 in the heresie of the Aphthardokites, or Phantastickes, and like a blinde guide leading the blinde Emperour into that ditch of heresie: a sacrilegious p 1.2103 person, a pseudobishop, a tyrant, a perverter of lawes, an overthrower of right, the q 1.2104 au∣thor of all mischiefe to the Empire, the very r 1.2105 plague of the whole Church: Thus and much more doth Baronius utter against Theodorus, by whom being so unworthy an author, hee would disgrace the Edict it selfe, which he writ, though the Emperour published it.

3. Let us first begin with that most untrue and malicious calum∣ny of Baronius, that the Emperor published his Edict against the three Chapters of the Councell of Chalcedon. Truly the Cardinall should and might most truly have said the quite contrary, that he published his Edict for defence not onely of the three, but of every Chapter, of every position, of every decree of the Councell of Chalcedon. The three Chapters which that Imperiall Edict, and after it the fift Councell, and the whole Catholike Church condemneth, were not Chapters of the Councell of Chalcedon, but three impious positions, assertions, or (as they were by an equivalent word called) Chapters, which here∣tikes, specially the Nestorians, collected, and falsely boasted to bee taught by the Councell of Chalcedon; whereas in very truth the hold∣ing of any one of them (much more of them all) is the overthrow of the whole Councell at Chalcedon, yea of the whole Catholike faith: that Councell contradicteth and condemneth them all, no lesse than the fift Councell, which as Gregory truly saith, is in omnibus sequax, it doth in every point follow and consent unto the Councell of Chalce∣don. The like may be said of that which out of Facundus, Baronius ob∣serveth, and citeth as a proofe of his saying, that the Emperours Edict is repugnant and contrary to the orthodoxall faith. Baronius will still keepe 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 Impe∣riall Edict of Iustinian, but the Pontificall Constitution of Vigilius must be approved as orthodoxall. And what is this else, but to condemne the judgement of the fift generall Councell, of Pope Pelagius, Grego∣ry, and all Popes after them, of all generall Councells following it; in a word, to contradict, and utterly condemne the consenting judge∣ment of the whole Church, for the space of 11. hundred yeares? they all approve the determination of the fift Councell, and it so fully con∣senteth 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 Emperours Edict, which caused Bini∣us to say, the Edict of the Emperour was approved by the Pope and the Councell: So Catholike and orthodoxall is it, so advisedly and orthodoxally penned. To seeke no further proofe, Baronius himselfe was so infatuated in this cause, that he oftentimes confuteth his owne sayings: for himselfe gives a most ample and most observable testimo∣ny of this Edict, and of the orthodoxy thereof, saying s 1.2106 of it, Est ve∣luti

Catechismus, & fidei Catholicae exacta declaratio; this Edict of Iustini∣an is as it were a Catechisme, or an exact declaration of the Catholike faith, and an exact discussing of the Three Chapters, which were after∣wards long controversed in the Church. So untrue is that his first ca∣lumnie against the Edict, whereby hee would perswade, that it is contrary to certaine Chapters of the holy Councell of Chalcedon, or as Facundus plainly, but most untruely affirmeth, contrary to the Ca∣tholike faith.

4. For the second calumnie, that his Edict was a seminary of sedi∣tion, Baronius might as justly condemne the decree of Nice, of Ephe∣sus, of Chalcedon, yea, the very Scripture it selfe, and preaching of the Gospell; Christ himselfe is set as signum t 1.2107 contradictionis, as a butt of contradiction, against which they will ever bee striving, and shooting their arrowes of opposition, sedition, & contention: himselfe u 1.2108 saith, I am come to set fire on the earth, and what would I but that it should bee kindled: and againe, Suppose yee that I am come to give peace on the earth, I tell you nay, but rather division; and no sooner was the Gospell preached abroad in the world, but that which our Saviour foretold them x 1.2109, came to passe; Brother shall deliver up brother, the father the Childe; the Children shall rise against their Parents, and cause them to bee put to death; and ye shall be hated of all men for my names sake: what a se∣minary of sedition may the Cardinal call the Gospell, that caused all these troubles, warres, seditions, murders, and burnings in the whole world? what another Seminary was the Nicene decree against Aria∣nisme, and Constantines Edict to ratifie the same? after that, how sedi∣tiously was Athanasius and the Catholikes persecuted, put to flight, to torments, by Constantius and the Arians? how seditiously did the Councels of Ariminum, and Syrmium oppugne and fight against that Nicene Decree, till they had so farre prevailed, that well-neare there had needed no longer contending, the whole world almost being tur∣ned Arians, and even groaning under Arianisme? If the Cardinall, by reason of those manifold troubles and oppositions, which ensued upon this Edict, will condemne it for being a Seminary of sedition; let him first condemne the Nicene Decree, and Imperiall Edict for it, let him condemne the Gospell, and Christ himselfe, which were all such Seminaries as that Edict was. If notwithstanding all the oppositi∣ons, seditions, & cōtentions raysed by heathen, heretical, & other wic∣ked men, against these, they were (as most certainly they were) Semi∣naries of truth; let the Card. know & acknowledge his malicious slan∣der against this most religious and orthodoxall Edict of Iustinian, which was, as all the former, a sacred Sanctuary for the Catholike faith. Se∣ditions, oppositions, tumults, persecutions, and the like disturbances in the Church, spring not from Christ, nor from his Word and Gos∣pel, either preached by Bishops, or decreed by Councels, or confirmed by Imperiall Edicts, all these are of themselves causes onely of unity, concord, peace, and agreement in the Church; these onely are the proper, native, and naturall fruits, and effects that proceed from them; but contentions and seditions come from the perverse, froward, wic∣ked, and malicious mindes of men, that hate the truth, and in hatred

of it fight against all that uphold the truth, bee it by preaching, by decreeing, or by enacting the truth, these are as Wolves, which by continuall tumbling in the mire disturbe and trouble the streame: The fountaines whence the truth springeth are most pure and most peaceable.

5. Now whereas in the third place Baronius seekes to disgrace the Edict, by the Author of it, whom he describes to have beene not one∣ly an heretike, but a most detestable person, even the plague of the whole Church, let us suppose and admit the Author to have beene such a man indeed, nay, to have beene Iudas himselfe, (and worse than Iudas hee could hardly bee, seeing CHRIST himselfe cal∣led y 1.2110 Iudas a Devill,) Is the Edict, or the truth of God thereby pub∣lished, worse, because Iudas uttered or penned it? was the Arke to bee refused or contemned, because wicked men framed and built it? Did not Christ say z 1.2111 of Iudas, (a Devill) as well as of Peter a Saint, Hee that heareth you heareth mee, he that despiseth you despiseth me? Hath Ba∣ronius forgotten the lesson of Saint Iames a 1.2112, My brethren, have not the faith of our glorious Lord Iesus Christ in respect of persons; love it for it selfe, but neither love it nor refuse it because of him that speaketh, penneth, or bringeth the same? Did the Cardinall never heare of the Scribes and Pharisees, they sit b 1.2113 in Moses chaire, (that is, deliver Gods truth out of Moses and the Prophets unto you) whatsoever therefore they bid you, that observe, doe, but after their workes doe not? Or if this rea∣son of the Cardinall may take effect, themselves, and their Romane Church will be farre the greatest loosers; how easie will it be to reject and contemne an whole Volume of their Pontificall Edicts? why, this was made or written by Iohn 12. that by Hildebrand, or Boni∣face 8. the other by Iohn 23. an heretike, an Atheist, a Devill incarnate, as a generall Councell c 1.2114 testifieth; another by Formosus, Steven, or by one of those whom themselves professe to have beene theeves, rob∣bers, Wolves, Tygers, and most savage beasts, and Apostaticall Popes, as Genebrard d 1.2115 calleth threescore of them, all worse than the Author of this Imperiall Edict, though wee should admit him to have beene 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 Cardinall fancieth: as it beares the name, so it was indeed the worke of Iustinian, no childe can have more honour by his father, than it by such an Emperour: and though Baronius having so often slandered Iustinian, to bee utterly rude, unlearned, one that could not so much as reade, nor knew his Alphabet or first elements, could not but in good congruity confidently deny Iustinian to bee the Writer, or Au∣thor of so learned and divine an Edict, or as himselfe cals it, of so ex∣act a Catechisme; yet considering what before was declared, both out of Procopius of the Emperours often tossing of bookes among the Bishops, out of Liberatus of his great paines taken in writing against heretikes, and for defence of the Councell of Chalcedon, and out of Platina calling Iustinian a very learned Emperour: I cannot thinke but that although Iustinian might use the advise, helpe, and industry of

Mennas, Theodorus, or some other Bishops in this as in other Edicts, concerning Ecclesiasticall affaires, yet still the ultima manus, the last correction and perfecting of all, was the Emperours owne doing, the rather because both in his other Edicts, that against Anthimus, a∣gainst Origen, as also in his letters to this Synod, and the rest, there is so uniforme a stile, so Imperiall, and so divine a kinde of wri∣ting, that the same Genius of Iustinian seemes to breathe in them all.

7. But Baronius e 1.2116 tels us, that both Liberatus, Facundus, and Vigili∣us doe testifie Theodorus Bishop of Cesarea to bee the Author of this Edict. Baronius is ever like himselfe, that is, untrue, and fraudulent: Not one of these say it: first, not Liberatus, hee indeed affirmes f 1.2117 The∣odorus and some others to have suggested this unto the Emperour, that hee would condemne those Three Chapters, by a publike Edict or booke; but hee addes withall, Rogaverunt eum ut dictaret Libellum; they prayed the Empe∣rour that he would dictate or indite the booke against the Three Chapters; and the Emperour consented, saith Liberatus g 1.2118, unto them & hoc se laetus implere promisit, and he gladly promised to doe so; that is, to indite or di∣ctate such an Edict. So farre is Liberatus from affirming, as Baronius al∣leageth him, Theodorus to bee the Author of this booke or Edict, that hee teacheth the quite contrary. As for Facundus he h 1.2119 saith indeed, the Edict was not written by Iustinian, but by the adversaries of the truth: but that Theodorus writ it, that is the Cardinals addition, Facundus saith it not: and even in that which hee saith, that the Edict is contra∣ry to the Emperours faith, Facundus doth so manifestly slander, both the Emperour, (as if hee 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 Catholike faith) that there is no credit at all to bee given to him in his report touching the Au∣thor, who is so untrue in his reports, both touching the matter of the Edict, and touching the knowne profession, and faith of the Em∣perour.

8. The Cardinals Vigilius now remaineth, whose words i 1.2120 are these spoken to Theodorus; The booke condemning the Three Chapters, by their meanes was read in the Kings Pallace, before certaine Greeke Bishops, à quibus assentationum favorem tuis vocibus exigebas: What if one should here oppose the Cardinall, and say, tuis vocibus, were the Ablative case, and that Theodorus had by his words sollicited, the o∣ther Bishops favorably to consent to the Emperors Edict? How will Baronius assure us, that they must bee taken in the Dative case; as if Theodorus had sollicited them to consent to his words, that is, as the Cardinall supposeth, to the Edict which was penned, and written by him, or whereof he was the Author? Sure against this Baronian con∣struction, the words of Liberatus are very pregnant, seeing Theodorus, as hee sheweth, was one who entreated the Emperour to indite or dictate the booke, and the Emperour promised so to doe. If then Theodorus sollicited the Bishops to consent to the words of the Edict, hee certainly urged them (by this testimonie of Liberatus) to consent not to his owne, but to the Emperours words, of whose inditing and

dictating the Edict was. Admit them to bee the Dative, how knowes the Cardinall, that by [tuis vocibus] are ment the words of the Edict? might not Theodorus signifie to the Bishops his owne great liking of the Emperours Edict, and perswade them to the like, to say as he said, to consent to his words in approving the Imperiall Edict? The Card▪ was too secure & negligēt in relying on these words [tuis vocibus] w^ch being so ambiguous, receive divers, & those also just exceptions: But yet there is a farre worse fault in this proofe; that the Epistle, whence the Cardinall citeth these words, though it beare the name of Vigili∣us, 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 proofes, (hereafter to be alleaged) faineth Mennas to be Bishop of Constantinople, and to be excommunicated, to∣gether with Theodorus, by Vigilius foure or five yeares after hee was dead, which censure was to stand in force till Mennas repented of his contumacie against the Popes Decree, and should be reconciled to him. This lying and base forgery doth Baronius bring to prove Theodo∣rus, and not Iustinian to bee the author of this Imperiall Edict. Might not one say here as was said of the Asse, Like lips, like lettuce? Such a writing is a most fit witnesse for Baronius, who delighteth in un∣truths, and not finding true records, to give testimony to them, it was fit hee should applaud the most vile and abject forgeries, if they seeme to speak ought pleasing to the Cardinals pallate, or which may serve to support his untruths.

9. You see that yet it appeares 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 spee∣ches which Baronius so prodigally bestoweth on Theodorus: But I minde not so to leave the Cardinall, nor suffer the proud Philistine so insolently to revile and insult over any one of the Israelites; much lesse this worthy Bishop of Cesarea, to whom hee could not have done a greater honor, 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 Iustinian, so wise and religious an Emperour, should commit the care of so waighty a matter to The∣odorus; that hee should have him in so high esteeme, as account his word an Oracle, to bee guided and directed by his judgement; so to adhere unto him, as Constantine did to that renowned Hosius, as to thinke it a piaculum, or great offence not to follow his advice in mat∣ters of so great waight, consequence, and importance. Nay, this one Edict, (supposing with the Cardinall Theodorus to bee the Author of it) shall not onely pleade for Theodorus, but utterly wipe away all those vile slanders of heresie, impiety, imprudency, and the like, so often, and so odiously objected, and exaggerated by the Cardinall a∣gainst him; this writing and the words thereof being (as whosoever readeth them will easily conceive, and if hee deale ingenuously, con∣fesse) the words of truth, of faith, of sobriety, of profound knowledge, evidences of a minde full fraught with faith, with piety, with the love

of God, and Gods Church, and in a word full of the holy Ghost. As Sophocles k 1.2121, being accused to doate, recited his Oedipus Coloneus, and de∣manding whether that did seeme the Poeme of a doating man, was by the sentence of all the Iudges acquitted: So none can reade this Edict, but forthwith acknowledge it a meere calumny in Baronius to call the maker of it an heretike, whose profession of faith is so pious, divine, and Catholike. Or rather Theodorus may answer that Baronian slander with the like words, as did S. Paul l 1.2122, They neither found me ma∣king an uproare among the people, nor in the Synagogues, nor in the City, nei∣ther can they prove these things whereof they now accuse mee; but this I confesse, that after this way, (declared in this Edict) which they call heresie, so worship I the God of my fathers.

10. Now as this may serve for a generall Antidote at once, as it were, to expell all the whole poyson 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 appeare. The crimes objected to Theodorus by Baronius are reduced to three heads; one, his threefold heresie; another, his opposing himselfe to Pope Vigilius, or the Decree of Taciturnity, in the cause of the Three Chapters; the third, his misleading of Iustinian into the heresie of the Aphthardokites, and so causing that great persecution of the Church which thereupon ensued; all the other disgracefull termes are but the superfluity of that malice which the Cardinall beares against all that were opposite to Vigilius, and his Apostolicall 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 meere slan∣ders and calumnies, without any certaine ground, or probability of truth, devised either by Baronius himselfe, or by such as he is, ene∣mies and haters of the truth; and truly for the later, his misleading Iustinian into the heresie of the Apthardokites, that is not onely a manifest untruth, (for Iustinian, as wee have before m 1.2123 proved, did not onely at all hold that heresie) but it is wholly forged and devised by Baronius, he hath not any one Author, no not so much as a forged writing to testifie this, no nor any probable collection out of any Au∣thor to induce him to lay this imputation upon Theodorus; the world is wholly and soly beholden to the Cardinall for this shamelesse ca∣lumny; and yet see the wisedome of Baronius herein, hee was not con∣tent barely and in a word to taxe and reprove Theodorus, (which had beene more than sufficient, having no proofe nor evidence of the crime) but in this passage, as if shee had demonstratively proved Theo∣dorus to bee guilty hereof, hee rageth and foameth like a wilde Bore against him, calling him a most wicked man, and most vehement pro∣pugner of blasphemy, the plague of the whole Church, who with a vi∣sor affrayed the Emperour like a little Boy from the truth, and led him captive into heresie. Doe you not thinke that the Cardinall nee∣ded to be sent to Anticyra, when he writ this not onely without truth, but without braine and ordinary sense?

11. The other crime, that Theodorus opposed himselfe to Vigilius, and to the decree of silence, is like the former, save that this diffe∣rence

is to be observed betwixt them, that the former was forged by Baronius, but this later is grounded on a foolish and forged wri∣ting applauded by Baronius, fictions and forgeries they are both, but the one was fained to the Cardinals hand, for the other hee was faine to beate it out of his owne anvill. There was neither any such decree for taciturnity, neither did Theodorus, nor needed hee to oppose him∣selfe to Vigilius, for Vigilius, as well as Theodorus, all the whole time almost from his comming to Constantinople till the fift Councell was assembled, wholly consented to condemne the Three Chapters, as, be∣sides other evident proofes before alleaged, to which I remit the rea∣der, that one testimony of the Emperour doth undeniably demon∣strate; Quod n 1.2124 vero ejusdem voluntatis semper fuit de condemnatione Trium Capitulorum per plurima declaravit; Vigilius hath by very many things declared, that he hath been alwayes (since his comming to Constantinople) of the same minde in condemning the Three Chapters; what thinke you here againe of Baronius, who upon this occasion of contradicting Vigi∣lius, & his decree of silence, reviles Theodorus, calling o 1.2125 him sacrilegious, a Pseudo-Bishop, a tyrant, a schismatike, a perverter of lawes, the author of all evils; and yet when the Cardinall hath said all this, there is no truth nor reality in the cause and occasion for which hee thus rageth and revileth; no opposition to Vigilius, no decree of silence either oppug∣ned, or such as might bee oppugned, it was a non ens, a chymera floating in the Cardinals idle fancy. Was there no Helleborus at Rome or in Italy to purge the Cardinals braine of this extreme di∣stemper?

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 meere fictions of Baronius: Theodorus was (saith hee p 1.2126) an Aphthardokite, and an Eutychean heretike: what Au∣thor what witnesse or testimony doth the Cardinall produce to prove so hainous a crime against him? truly not one, himselfe accusa∣tor simul & testis, is both the accuser and the witnesse. But yet hee proves it by some good consequence or reason? no nor that neither, his proofe is no lesse foolish than his position is false. Iustinian, saith q 1.2127 he, was misled into the heresie of the Aphthardokites by some Origenists, as Eustathius declareth; whereupon we may easily, and without calumny affirme, that the ring-leader of those who misled the Emperour was Theodorus Bish. of Caesarea, an Origenist: The ground of w^ch, (to omit that this Eustathius is of no credit) being the heresie of Iustinian, seeing that to bee a ca∣lumnie and slander wee have before r 1.2128 confirmed, this whole colle∣ction must needs be like the foundation on which it relyeth, slande∣rous and false, to say nothing how alogicall and incoherent a conse∣quent this is from particulars. Some Origenists misled Iustinian, therefore Theodorus; how much rather on the contrary may wee cer∣tainly conclude, that seeing Iustinian, who was directed in causes of faith by Theodorus, continued orthodoxall, and a most worthy defen∣der of the true faith, as before we proved, therefore doubtlesse Theo∣dorus himselfe, the director of the Emperor, was and remained ortho∣doxall,

and that of a certaine hee was no Eutychean nor Aphthardo∣kite, is evident by his subscribing s 1.2129 to the decree of the fift Councell, wherein not onely the Councell, and decree of Chalcedon condemning Eutyches, and in it the heresie of the Aphthardokites, is strongly con∣firmed, but Eutyches also by name, and all that hold his heresies, are anathematized, by all the Bishops of that fift Councell, and particu∣larly by this Theodorus, whom the Cardinall, without any testimony or proofe at all, slanders to have beene an Eutychean and Apthardo∣kite, 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 Theo∣dorus was an Origenist, and a most earnest maintainer of that he∣resie, the Cardinall often, and most confidently affirmeth; where∣in hee hath Liberatus t 1.2130 the Deacon, and Bishop Facundus u 1.2131 for his Authors.

13. First for Facundus, he doth not expresly mention Theodorus as an Origenist, but yet because Baronius citeth him to say, that Theodo∣rus writ the Edict, and Facundus calleth the writers of that Edict, Ori∣genists, let him be admitted for one of the Cardinals witnesses. Who I pray you, or of what credit thinke you is this Bishop Facundus? Tru∣ly an enemy to Iustinian, an enemy to Theodorus of Caesarea, and to all that condemned the Three Chapters, a very heretike, and enemy to the Catholike truth. Witnesse hereof that testimony which their owne Possevine x 1.2132 giveth of him out of Isidorius. He writ twelve bookes in de∣fence of the three Chapters, whereby he proveth the condemning of those three Chapters to bee the condemning or banishing of the Apo∣stolike faith, and the Councell of Chalcedon. Now the defenders of the three Chapters, and writers in defence of them to bee condemned, anathematized, and accursed for heretikes by the fift Councell, and after it the 6.7. and in a word, by all, both generall Councels, and Popes that follow Gregory, we have often before declared: So that by the consenting judgement of all those generall approved Councels, and Popes, Facundus being an earnest defender of them, and writer in their defence, is anathematized, and condemned for an heretike. And that the continued pertinaciously in this heresie, after the sentence and judgement of the generall Councell, Baronius doth witnesse, who y 1.2133 tels us, and that with a Constat, It is certaine and manifest, that Facundus was sought for to be punished, because hee had written most eloquently in defence of the three Chapters, but by lurking in some secret place he escaped. Posse∣vine a 1.2134 further addeth, that Facundus writ a booke against Mutianus in defence of Theodorus of Mopsvestia, and that Theodorus of Mopsve∣stia, damnatus fuit ab Ecclesia Catholica ob errores contra sidem, was con∣demned by the Catholike Church, for his heresie or errors against the faith. Must not he needs bee an heretike, that defends a condemned here∣tike? yea defends those very writings and errors of him and Ibas, which are condemned for hereticall? I confesse, saith Facundus b 1.2135, to your Holi∣nesse, that I withdraw my selfe from the communion of the opposites, (those were the condemners of the three Chapters, that is, to say in truth, Ca∣tholikes) not because they condemne Theodorus of Mopsvestia, but for that

in the person of this Theodorus they condemne the Epistle of Ibas as hereticall, and by that Epistle condemne the Councell of Chalcedon, à qua suscepta est, by which that Epistle is approved. Thus Facundus, so very heretically, that Nestorius, Eutyches, Dioscorus, nor any cōdemned heretike could wish or say more than Facundus hath done both for their heresies, & against the Councell of Chalcedon. For the impious Epistle of Ibas is wholly here∣ticall, the approving of it is the overthrow of the whole Catholike faith: and yet Facundus not onely himselfe defendeth that impious E∣pistle as orthodoxall, and by it defendeth the person and writing of Theodorus of Mopsvestia a condemned heretike; but avoucheth the Councell of Chalcedon to approve the same, which condemnes 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 minde of one or two points which concern Possevine and Baronius in this passage. If Facundus be a condemned heretike for writing in defence of the three Chapters, what else can Possevine be who praysed those bookes of a condemned heretike? for thus he writeth c 1.2136, Facundus writ opus gran∣de atque elegans, a great and elegant worke, containing twelve books, for∣tified by the authorities of the Fathers in defence of the three Chapters. Heretike! Is that a brave and elegant booke that defendeth heresie? can heresie be fortified by the testimonies of the holy Fathers? What is this else but to make the holy Fathers heretikes? So hereticall and spitefull is Possevine, that together with himselfe he would draw the ancient and holy Fathers into one and the same crime of heresie. The other point concernes Baronius: hee sayth d 1.2137 that the controversie or contention about the three Chapters, was inter Catholicos tantum, onely among such as were Catholikes: doth not he plainly thereby signifie his opinion of Facundus, that he was a Catholike? for Facundus was as hot, and earnest a contender in that controversie as Vigilius himselfe; he writ in defence of the three Chapters twelve whole bookes, elegant and brave bookes, as Possevine saith: he bitterly inveighed against the Emperour, against all the condemners of them, against Pope Vigilius himselfe, when hee after his comming to Constantinople consented to the Emperor. Seeing this Facundus (a convicted and condemned he∣hetike) is one of the Cardinals Catholikes, must not heresie and Ne∣storianisme bee with him Catholike doctrine? must not the impious Epistle be orthodoxall, and the overthrow of the faith and decree of the Councell at Chalcedon bee an Article of Baronius faith? even that which he accounted the Catholike faith? But this by the way. We see now what manner of Bishop Facundus was, an obstinate heretike, pertinaciously persisting in heresie. What though Facundus call Theo∣dorus of Caesarea an Origenist? Did not the old Nestorians call Cyrill, and other Catholikes, Apollinarians? of whom it seemes the defen∣ders of the three Chapters learned to calumniate the Catholikes with the names of heretikes and Origenists, when they were in truth whol∣ly opposite to those and other heresies. Can any expect a true testi∣mony concerning Theodorus Bishop, of Caesarea, from Facundus, concer∣ning Catholikes, from heretikes, their immortall and malicious ene∣mies, nor theirs onely, 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 witnesse is Liberatus the Deacon, who indeed sayth as e 1.2138 plainly as Baronius that Theodorus was an Origenist; and refers the occasion of that whole controversie touching the three Chapters to the malice of the same Theodorus. For as Liberatus saith, Pelagius the Popes Legate when he was at Constantinople, entreated of the Emperour that Ori∣gen, and his heresies wherewith the Easterne Churches, specially about Ierusa∣lem, were exceedingly troubled, might be condemned; whereunto the Empe∣rour willingly assenting, published an Imperiall 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 pro∣curing the condemnation of Origen, moved the Emperour also to condemne Theodorus Bishop of Mopsvestia, who had written much against Origen, whose writings were detested of all the Origenists: the Emperour at Theodorus his suggestion made another Edict, wherein he condemned Theodorus of Mopsve∣stia, 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, hee is a most unfit witnesse, himselfe was deepely interressed in this cause, partiality blinded him, his stile was sharpe against the adverse part, but dull in taxing any, though never so great a crime, in men of his owne faction. Of him Binius f 1.2139 gives this true censure, hee was one of their ranke who defended the Three Chapters, who also writ an A∣pology for Theodorus of Mopsvestia: againe, Baronius and Bellarmine have noted g 1.2140, that divers things are caute legenda in Liberatus; of him Possevine h 1.2141 writeth, There are many things in Liberatus which are to bee read with circumspection, those especially which hee borrowed of some Ne∣storians, and those are his narrations touching Theodorus of Mopsvestia, that his writings were praised both by the Emperour Theodosius his Edict, and by Cyrill, and approved also in the Councell of Chalcedon; all which to be lies Baronius doth convince. Againe i 1.2142, what Liberatus saith of the fift Councell 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 Catholike fathers. Thus Possevine out of Baronius; who might as well in plaine termes have called Liberatus a Nestorian heretike, for none but Nestorians, and such as slander the Councel of Chalcedon for hereticall, can judge the writings of Theodo∣rus, w^ch are ful of all heresies, blasphemies, and impieties, to be appro∣ved in that holy Councell. Againe, Possevine rejecting that w^ch Libera∣tus writeth of the fift Councell, gives a most just exception against all that he writeth either touching Theodorus of Cesarea, as being an Ori∣genist, or of the occasiō of this cōtroversie about the 3. Chapters, as if it did arise from the cōdemning of Origen, in all this Liberatus by the Ie∣suites confession was deceived by the false relation of others, they a∣gree

not to the truth, nor to the narrations of Catholike fathers. Li∣beratus being an earnest favourer and defender of Theodorus Mopsve∣stenus, could not chuse but hate Theodorus of Cesarea, for seeking to have him and his writings condemned: The saying of Ierome k 1.2143 ought here to take place, Professae inimicitiae suspitionem habent mendacij; the report of a professed enemy ought to be suspected as a lye. The true cause why Liberatus is so violent against Theodorus of Cesarea, 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 con∣demning the three Chapters, as Liberatus untruly reporteth, but as both Iustinian and the whole Councell witnesse; the true occasion thereof were the Nestorian heretikes, who pretending and boasting the three Chapters to bee allowed in the Councell of Chalcedon, both the Catho∣likes, in defence of the Councell, justly denyed the same, and the Em∣perour first, then the Councell to confirme the faith, condemned the three Chapters, which were the overthrow of the faith, as before l 1.2144 wee have proved.

17. This were enough to oppose to all that Facundus and Libera∣tus say, two defenders of the three Chapters, and so professed enemies both to the Catholike truth defined in the fift Councell, and to Theo∣dorus of Cesarea, who first of all suggested the condemning of them to the Emperour Iustinian: But now, besides this just exception a∣gainst the Cardinals witnesses I will adde two cleare and authentike proofes to demonstrate both Liberatus, and after him Baronius unjust∣ly and falsly to slander Theodorus of Cesarea for an Origenist. The for∣mer is his owne subscription to the fift Councell. In that Councel, a∣mong other heretikes, Origen is not only expresly & by name condē∣ned, & that in their definitive sentence; but an Anathema also denoun∣ced against all who doe not condemne and anathematize him: these are the words of the Councell, m 1.2145 If any doe not anathematize Arius, Emonius, Macedonius, Apollinarius; Nestorius, Eutyches, Origen, with their impious writings, talis anathema sit, such an one let him bee accursed. To this Synodall decree did all the 165. Bishops in the Councell consent and subscribe; the eighth man was this Theodorus of Cesarea, who subscribed n 1.2146 in this manner, I Theodorus, decrevi quae proposita sunt, have decreed these things which are proposed, and I confesse that the truth is as all those Chapters and doctrines above named (of which this against Ori∣gen is the eleaventh) doe containe: when Theodorus himselfe confesseth Origen and his writings to bee condemned, accurseth them, yea, and all who doe not accurse them, is it not a vile and unexcusable ca∣lumny in Liberatus and in Baronius, to revile him as a patron of Origen?

18. Perhaps you will say hee was in former time an Origenist, but at the time of the fift Councell hee was become a new man. Though this were admitted, yet cannot Baronius bee excused, for calling him after that fift Councell an heretike, an Origenist: But hee was still the same man, both now and before orthodoxall, as by the other evi∣dence,

taken from the Emperours Edict in condemning Origen, will appeare, when the defenders of Origen, both for their number, and in∣solency, grew very troublesome in the East, specially about Ierusalem. Pelagius and Mennas, as Liberatus o 1.2147 saith, at the instigation of some re∣ligious Monks, intreated the Emperour that Origen and his heresies might be condemned: the Emperour thereupon published a very large and religious Edict against Origen, which he directed to Mennas, and the copy therof he sent also to Vigilius, and to other Patriarks; af∣ter many other things the Emp. thus writeth p 1.2148, We, desiring to put away all offence from the holy Church, & to leave it without blemish, following the divine Scriptures, & holy fathers, who have cast out and justly anathematized Origen and his impious doctrine, have sent this our Epistle unto you, wherein we exhorte you, that you call an assembly or Synod of all the holy Bishops and Abbots who are now in Constantinople, and that you see that all of them doe in writing anathematize Origen, and his wicked doctrines, and all the Chapters out of him under-written; and further that you send the Copy of what you have done in this cause (to all other Bishops and Abbots within your Patriarkship) that they also may all doe the like. Besides this, the Em∣perour yet commands, that none be ordained Bishop or chosen into any Monastery, unlesse forthwith in a booke they accurse and anathematize, as A∣rius, Sabellus, Nestorius, Eutyches, and the rest, so also Origen and his im∣pious doctrines. Thus writ the Emperour, and what in this manner hee commanded Mennas to doe in his Patriarkship, the like was Vigilius to doe in the Romane, Zoilus in the Alexandrian, Euphrenius in the Antiochian. That, according as the Emperour commanded, this was done, Liberatus q 1.2149 is witnesse; so that by all the Bishops in the world that then were, and by such as were after this to bee ordained, Origen with his im∣pious doctrine was to bee condemned and accursed. Particularly of the Sy∣nod or Bishops at Constantinople Baronius r 1.2150 confesseth, The Emperour admonished Mennas to assemble a Synod, by which all these things which he had written against Origen might bee confirmed, quod & factum fuit, which was accordingly done; and, as Cedrenus s 1.2151 saith, their sentence was this, We condemne all these errours of Origen, & omnes qui ita sentiunt, & senti∣ent, and all who do either now or herafter shall think as he doth, condemning themselves with an anathema, if either then they did thinke so, or ever hereafter should think the like. That Theodorus, though he had remai∣ned at Cesarea subscribed to this sentence, I thinke none can doubt, the Emperours command being so strict to all Patriarks: But indeed it seemeth that Theodorus was not onely at Constantinople at this time, and there subscribed, but that hee was one of the chiefe agents with the Emperour to publish this Edict; for of him Evagrius t 1.2152 witnesseth, that, cum Iustiniano assiduè versabatur, he was continually conversant with the Emperour, hee was faithfull, and especially necessary unto him, of him Liberatus u 1.2153 saith, that hee was, dilectus & familiaris Principum, deare and familiar both with the Emperour and Empresse; of him x 1.2154 Baronius testifieth that he was praepotens armiger Iustiniam, the Champion of Iusti∣nian, for so saith he, I may well call him that was used to sit at the Em∣perours Elbow, yea, of whom y 1.2155 the Emperour had conceived so great an opinion, that hee thought it the chiefe point of his duty or piety,

ejus semper inhaerere Vestigijs, alwayes to tread in the footsteps of Theodorus. Thus Baronius. Seeing Theodorus was so neare unto, so potent with the Emperour, so highly esteemed by him, that hee alwayes trode in his steps, how could Theodorus bee a patron of Origen, when the Emperor himselfe accursed, and commanded all others to accurse him? Did not Theodorus treade out this path of an anathema unto the Empe∣rour? or had he been an Origenist, how could the Emperour, follow∣ing him step by step, be an enemy to Origen? Or to omit many other like consequences, seeing the Synod of Constantinople, (as, besides Ba∣ronius, Liberatus witnesseth) that is, all the Bishops there present (among whom Theodorus being neare and deare unto the Emperour, and so continually conversant with him, was doubtlesse one, and one of the chiefe) condemned Origen, it is not to bee doubted but that he was one of the first and chiefe Bishops that subscribed in that Synod to the condemnation of him. Now this was done in the 12. z 1.2156 yeare of Iustinian, that is, full fourteene yeares before the fift Councell, 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 owne publike and constant profession and subscrip∣tion testifieth to have accursed Origen with all his heresies; yea, to have accursed all that doe either defend him, or think as Origen did, though outwardly and openly he doe not defend him, for that was one Arti∣cle, * 1.2157 to which Theodorus, and the whole Synod under Mennas sub∣scribed; a curse be to Origen with all his execrable doctrine, a curse bee 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 partiall, uncertaine, and malicious reports of Facundus, of Liberatus, or of the Surian Cyrill (to adde him also among them) to these undoubted and authentike records of Councels? when wee reade and see the evident subscription of Theodorus proclaming him to condemne and accurse Origen, what vanitie, malice and hatred of truth is this in the Cardinall, to alleage two, or if you please, three partiall testimonies against that evidence which condemneth them, and all that they can say? So unfortunate is the Cardinall in all that he undertakes in this cause, that hee doth not onely speake praeter, but contra, directly contrary to the truth, whereof, as in other passages, so in this touching Theodorus, wee have seene so faire and cleare evi∣dences.

CAP. XXIIII. How unjustly Baronius excepteth against the Acts of the fift Councell, as being corrupted; and of no credit; and a refutation in generall all of the same.

1. BAronius perceiving right well, that all which heretofore hath beene said either against the Emperour, or the Empresse, or the Edict, or Theodorus the supposed author of it, is not suffi∣cient in any measure either to defend, or excuse Vigilius; in the next place he taketh a very un∣couth & unusuall, but a most sure course, wher∣by hee may not onely weaken, but utterly o∣verthrow all that hath or can be said against the Pope in this cause; for the Acts of the fift generall Councell being the most authentike records that can bee produced, to prove Vigilius and all that defend him, to bee heretikes; the Cardinall, and after him Binius will now no longer hacke at this or that person, which were agents in the cause, and but petty branches, but now hee will strike at the very roote, calling into question the Acts and evidences themselves, striving to prove them to bee of no credit; which if hee can doe, all the rest, whatsoever can bee said, will most easily bee rejected. Now because Baronius was willing in this passage to shew not onely the utmost sub∣tilty of his wit, but his exact diligence in picking out every quarrell, that art or malice could suggest against the Acts of this holy Coun∣cell, I must intreate the reader not to thinke it tedious (though unto mee this was a matter almost of greatest trouble and difficultie) to heare patiently, and weigh with equity of judgement the manifold exceptions against these Acts, which he hath collected, or rather scat∣tered upon every occasion which offered it selfe 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 minde of one or two considerations which may in generall concerne them all. The first is, that though the Cardinall, 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 speciall corruptions in them, yet not any thing which they mention, or against which they except, doth any way so touch or concerne the cause of the Three Chapters, whereof wee have intreated, as either to shew that the Councell condemneth them not, or that Vigilius de∣fendeth them not by his definitive & Apostolical Constitutiō, or that the Councell by their Synodall sentence and consenting judgement did not for that cause condemne, anathematize, and accurse for heretikes all that defend them, and so Pope Vigilius, among the rest, and al that defend him or his Apostolicall Constitution. All these are matters of so certaine, evident, and undoubted truth, by the Acts, that Baronius or

Binius could finde nothing at all to blemish or darken them. So then, though the Acts were admitted in 100. or 1000. other points to bee corrupted, mutilated, and altered, yet the Cardinall and Binius are never a whit the nearer; the maine point at which they aime, is to excuse Vigilius, and those that defend him, but notwithstāding all that they have said, (and they have said all that industry, having borrowed serpentine eyes, could finde out) both Vigilius himselfe, and all who defend him, and those are all who defend the Popes infallibility in defi∣ning causes of faith, that is, all Papists, remaine still, as convicted, accur∣sed, and anathematized heretikes, and that by the judgment of an ho∣ly generall Councell, approved by all succeeding, both Popes and Councels, till the time of Luther and Leo the tenth.

3. The second thing which I observe is, that corruptions which happely may bee 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 Councell, or wri∣tings of the author. Admit this once, what credit can be given to the Nicene and Constantinopolitane Councels? whose Acts to bee miserably maimed, none is ignorant? yea, even the very Canons also to bee corrupted Bellarmine a 1.2158 and Baronius b 1.2159 doe professe and prove: The like corruption Baronius noteth in the first Ephesine Councell, wherein is set c 1.2160 downe, among other acts, decretum Regum, for the banishment of the Nestorians, of which Baronius d 1.2161 saith, plura simul mendacia insuta habent, there are many lyes sowed up in these Acts. In like sort in the Councell of Chalcedon is inserted among the Acts of the third Session e 1.2162, an Edict of the Emperor Valentinianus and Martianus, which was written a long f 1.2163 yeare after the Councell was ended, and therefore must of necessity be acknowledged to bee foisted, and un∣justly inserted into the Acts. Of the sixt Councell Bellarmine g 1.2164 saith, that it without doubt is corrupted, and whatsoever is found there of Honorius, is falsly inserted. Of it Binius h 1.2165 after Baronius i 1.2166 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 Monothe∣lites. Of the seventh Binius k 1.2167 thus writeth, This fourth Action is in divers places faulty, and in the History of the Image crucified at Be∣ritus it containeth divers Apocryphall narrations concerning the I∣mage of Christ made by Nicodemus. Of the eighth Councell, that the Canons thereof are corrupted, and some inserted by Anastasius, their owne Raderus l 1.2168 will perswade them. Let the Baronian reason against the Acts of this fift Councell bee applyed to these: He having found among these, one Epistle of Theodorets which hee supposeth to bee a counterfait, concludeth upon that one example in this manner, quam fidem rogo merentur acta hujusmodi, quae sunt his contexta commentis; what credit, I pray you, doe such Acts as these of the fift Councell deserve, which are intangled in such fictions? May not the selfe same reason be much more justly alleaged against the Nicene and Constantinopolitane Canons; against the Acts of the Councell at Ephesus, at Chalcedon; against the sixt, seventh and eighth Synods, in every one of which, some, & in divers, more corruptions, not onely mutilations, but altera∣tions,

and commentitious writings are inserted by their owne confes∣sion? Let Baronius answer here his owne question, Quam fidem rogo? I pray you then, what credit may bee given to such Canons or Acts as are those of Nice, of Constantinople, of Ephesus, of Chalcedon, of the sixt, seventh, or eighth Councell? they all must by the Cardinals rea∣son be rejected, as Canons and Acts of no worth, of no credit at all: Nor they onely, but all the workes of Augustine, of Athanasius, of Ie∣rome, and almost all the holy Fathers: none of them all by this Baro∣nian reason, deserve any credit, for among their writings are inserted many suppositious and factitious tracts, as the book de variis Quaestio∣nibus Scripturae, the Sermon of the Assumption of the blessed Virgin, and many moe m 1.2169 in Athanasius, the Epistle of Augustine to Cyrill, and Cyrils to Austen, the author n 1.2170 of which was not onely an Impostor, but an heretike; the booke de Spiritu & litera, the booke of questions of the old and new Testament, which is hereticall, and an heape of the like in Austen; the Commentaries on Pauls Epistles, which savour of Pelagianisme; the Epistle to Demetrias concerning virginity, and 100. like in o 1.2171 Ierome. Quae fides rogo? what credit can bee given to these bookes or writings of Austen, Athanasius, Ierome, or the rest, in which are found so many fictitious, & heretical treatises, falsly ascribed unto them, mingled and inserted among their writings? Truly, I cannot de∣vise what might move the great Card to make such a collection, and reason, as from some corruptions crept into the bookes of fathers, or Acts of Councels, to inferre, that the whole Acts or writings are un∣worthy of any credit, but onely as Iacke Cade had a purpose to burne all authentick records and writings of law, that, as hee boasted, all the law might proceed from his own mouth; so the Cardinal intended to play a right Iacke Cade with all the ancient Councels 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 owne mouth might bee an Oracle to report without controulment all hi∣stories of ancient matters; and what his Cardinalship should please to say in any matter, or to set downe in his Annals, that all men should beleeve, as if the most authentick Records in the world had testified the same: How much better and more advisedly might the Cardinall have done, to have wished all corruptions to bee removed? whatso∣ever can be certainly proved in any Acts of Councels, or writings of Fathers to be added unto them, that to be quite cut off; whatsoever might bee found wanting, that to bee added; whatsoever to be alte∣red or perverted, that to be amended, and not in the blindnesse of his hatred, against this one fift Councell, to fight like one of the Anda∣batae, against al the rest, and with one stroke to cashire all the Acts and Canons of Councels, all the writings of Fathers or Historians, be∣cause, forsooth, one or some few corruptions have either by negli∣gence or errour 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 of∣ten and so spightfully declameth against the Acts of this Councell, as imperfect and corrupted, this his whole accusation proceedeth of ma∣lice

to the Councell and these Acts, rather than of judgement or of truth; for I doe constantly affirme, and who so ever pleaseth to peruse the Councels shall certainly finde, (and, if he deale ingenuously, will confesse the same) that as of al the general Councels which go before this fift, for integrity of the Acts, none is better, or any way compa∣rable to this, save that of Chalcedon: so of all that follow it none at all is to bee preferred, nor any way to bee counted equall with it, un∣lesse that which they call the sixt Councell, that is, so much of the Acts of that Synod as concerne the cause of the Monothelites, leaving out the Trullane Canons: This, whosoever is exercised in the Volumes of Councels cannot choose but observe. The Nicene & Constantinopo∣litane being so miserably maimed, that scarce wee have so much as a few shreds or chips of the most magnificent buildings of those Coun∣cels, which, if they could bee recovered, no treasures are sufficient to redeeme a worke of that worth and value, a worke non gemmis, neque purpura a vaenale, neque auro. That of Ephesus is a little helped indeed by Peltanus, but yet it remaines so imperfect, so confused, and disorderly, that as Diogines sought men in the most thronged multitudes of men, so among those very Acts & large Tomes of the Coūcels, the reader shall be forced to seeke the Acts of the Ephesine Councell. The Acts of the second Nicene, and of the next to it, which they call the eighth, are so doubtfull, that not onely this or that part, but the whole fabrick of them both is questionable, whether they were the Synodall Acts, or but a relation framed by Anastasius, as hee thought best. Of all the eight Councels, the Acts of Chalcedon, this fift, and the sixt have beene most safely preserved, and like the river Arethusa have strong∣ly passed through so many corrupt ages and hands, and yet without tainture of the salt, deliver unto us the cleare and sweete current of antiquity and truth: And verily, when I seriously compare the wrack of other Councels with the entirenesse of these three, I cannot but admire and magnifie with all my might the gracious providence, wis∣dome, and love of God to his Church, for in every one of these there is an unresistable force of truth, against that Antichristiā authority & supremacy which is now made the foundation of the Popish faith; the sixt in the cause of Honorius, the fift in this cause of Vigilius, and that of Chalcedon, in curbing the Popes Legates, in crossing the decree, and knowne resolution of Pope Leo, and in being a most lively patterne of that rightfull and ancient authority which Emperours then held a∣bove all the Bishops in the Councell; but now the Pope usurpes both above all Bishops, Emperours and Councels. God would by these monuments of antiquity pull downe the lofty Towers, and raze from the very bottome that foundation of Babylon, w^ch can never be firme and setled; hee would have, besides other particular witnesses, these unconquerable and irresistible forces of these ancient and generall Councels, 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 averre, that they are so few, so light, and of so small importance, that the maine controversies handled in them, or relying on them, cannot be prejudicated thereby,

they being rather the errours of the Collectors, or of the writers, and exscribers of these Councels, than of the Councels themselves: And particularly for this fift Councell, against which Baronius doth so fu∣riously declame: I doubt not to make it evident, that all the faults, which, after much prying, hee hath objected unto the Acts thereof, will prove so many evident testimonies of his owne most fraudulent and corrupt dealing, and not the defects or corruptions in the Acts of this Councell. But let us view the particulars.

CAP. XXV. The first alteration of the Synodall Acts pretended by Baronius, for that the text of the Councell at Chalcedon is changed therein, refuted.

THE corruptions which Baronius, and out of him Binius objecteth, are according to the grammaticall 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 ranke bee preten∣deth three examples; the first which seemeth to be of greatest moment, and carieth the greatest colour of probabili∣ty is the corrupting of a certaine text of the Councell at Chalcedon cited by this fift Synod. Heare the accusati∣on in Baronius his owne words, We may not here omit, saith he a 1.2172 to note the craft of the Grecians, who, contrary to right and equitie, have corrupted the holy text of the Synodall Acts, by adding unto the Councell of Chalcedon those words, about which there was much contention in the time of Pope Hor∣misda, when certaine suspected of Eutycheanisine, specially some Scythian Monkes, did labour that unto the holy Councell of Chalcedon these words might bee added, Dominum nostrum Iesum Christum unum esse de sancta Trinitate; which when they could not obtaine, because the Synod was well e∣nough without that addition, here now (in this fift Councell) where the Epistle of Ibas is compared with the profession of the Councell at Chalcedon; they re∣cite 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 pro∣fesse God the Word to have beene incarnate and made man; and they adde unto the words of the Synod, [qui est Dominus noster Iesus Christus, unus de sancta Trinitate; who is our Lord Iesus Christ, one of the holy Trinitie;] 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 contai∣ned so many notable untruths, and hereticall frauds, that without a rare dexterity in that craft, hee could not have easily contrived and couched them in so small a roome.

2. First, that they who contended to have Christ called unum de sancta Trinitate, were heretikes, or Eutycheans, or unjustly suspected thereof, is not onely untrue, but bewrayes the Cardinals obstinate and obdurate affection to Nestorianisme; for as Dionysius b 1.2173 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 subtilty professing the Trinity to bee in such sort of one Essence, ut Christum Dominum nostrum unum ex Tri∣nitate nullatenus faterentur, that they would by no meanes confesse Christ our Lord to be one of the Trinity; and thereupon they taught a quaternity in the persons. If Baronius esteeme it heresie to professe Christ, unum de sancta Trinitate, then is hee certainly by this, besides all other eviden∣ces, convicted to be a Nestorian heretike, for it is an Article of their Nestorian, and repugnant to the Catholike faith, to deny or doubt to call Christ, unum de sancta Trinitate.

3. Secondly, that the Councell of Chalcedon made ever any doubt to professe Christ to bee unum de sancta Trinitate, or that they would rather call him, unam personam Trinitatis, is another vile Nestorian slander, and hereticall untruth of Baronius. The Councell of Chalcedon, saith Iustinian c 1.2174, approved the Epistle of Proclus, wherin it is taught, that we ought to confesse our Lord Iesus Christ to be one of the holy Trinity: Proclus, saith d 1.2175 Dionysius Exiguus, did marvellously resist that impiety, and hee taught our Lord Iesus Christ, unum de Trinitate esse, to bee one of the Trinity. When the Nestorians troubled the Church about this mat∣ter, Iustinian set forth a most religious Imperiall Edict e 1.2176, wherein hee commanded all to professe Christ to bee unum de Trinitate; wee ana∣thematize, saith he, every heresie, especially Nestorius, and those who thinke, or have thought as he did; wee anathematize those who deny or will not confesse our Lord Iesus Christ, unum esse ex sancta & consub∣stantiali Trinitate, to bee one of the holy and consubstantiall Trinitie. This Imperiall Edict the very next yeare after it was published was confir∣med by Pope Iohn, who thus writeth f 1.2177 to the Emperour, You for the love of the faith, and to remove heresie, have published an Edict, which, because it agreeth with the Apostolike doctrine, wee confirme by our authority: and againe, You have writ and published those things, which both the Apostolike doctrine, and the venerable authority of the holy Fa∣thers hath decreed, & nos in omnibus confirmamus, and we confirme it in all points: This your faith is the true and certaine religion, this all the Fathers & Bishops of Rome; and the Apostolike See hath hitherto inviolably kept; this confession whosoever doth contradict, hee is an alien from the holy Commu∣nion, and from the Catholike Church. Thus Pope Iohn. What can any man in the world now thinke else of Baronius, but condemne him for an accursed heretike? Hee denyes the Councell of Chalcedon to em∣brace that profession, unum de Trinitate, which, as the Emperour and Pope witnesse, it earnestly embraceth; he not onely suspecteth in this place, but in plaine termes else-where g 1.2178, he calleth the Scythian Monks Eutycheans, heretikes, and oppugners of the Councell of Chalcedon, and that for this cause, for that both themselves professed, and required o∣thers to professe Christ to bee unum de sancta Trinitate; nor content

herewith hee addeth these words, the heresie whereof with no niter can bee washt away: hee faineth, saith Baroniush 1.2179, that these words, unus de Trinitate est crucifixus, are to bee added for the strengthning and explaning of the Councell of Chalcedon; which sentence (unus de Trinitate est crucifixus) the Legates of the Apostolike Sea, prorsus reijci∣endam esse putarunt, thought to bee such as ought utterly to be rejected, as be∣ing never used by the Fathers in their Synodall sentences; latere enim sciebant sub melle venenum, for they knew that poison did lye under this hony. Now seeing by Iustinians Edict, and the Popes confirmation thereof, all, who either refuse, or who will not professe Christ to be unum de sancta Trinitate, are accursed, and excluded from the Catho∣like Church and communion; Baronius cannot possibly escape that just censure, who condemneth that profession as hereticall, and as re∣pugnant to the faith of Chalcedon. Thus while the Cardinall labours to prove by this the Acts of the fift Councell to bee corrupt, hee de∣monstrates himselfe to bee both untrue, hereticall, rejected out of the Church, and a slanderer of the holy Councell of Chalcedon, as favou∣ring the heresie of Nestorius.

4. Thirdly, whereas hee saith, that the Scythian Monkes would inferre verba ista in Synodum Chalcedonensem, bring or thrust in those words into the Councell of Chalcedon, it is a slander without all co∣lour or ground of truth: they saw divers Nestorians obstinate in de∣nying this truth, that Chist was unus de sancta Trinitate, who preten∣ded for them that these words were not expressed in the Councell of Chalcedon; the Monkes and Catholikes most justly replyed, that though the expresse words were not there, yet the sense of them was decreed in that Councell, that this confession was but an expression or explication of that which was truly, implicitely, and more obscurely decreed at Chalcedon. To falsifie the Acts of that Councell, or adde one syllable unto it, otherwise than by way of explanation or declara∣tion, that, the Monks and Catholikes, whom Baronius calleth Eutyche∣ans, never sought to doe, as at large appeares by that most learned and orthodoxall booke written by Iohannes Maxentius about this very cause, against which booke, and the Author thereof, the more earnestly Baronius doth oppose himselfe, and call them hereticall, hee doth not therby one whit disgrace them (his tongue and pen is no slan∣der, at least not to weighed) but the more he still intangles himselfe in the heresie of the Nestorians, out of which in that cause none can extricate him, as in another Treatise I purpose God willing, to de∣monstrate.

5. Fourthly, whereas Baronius saith, that the Scythian Monkes prevailed not in the dayes of Hormisda, quod absque additamento Syno∣dus rectè consisteres, because the Synod of Chalcedon was well enough without that addition, hee shewes a notable sleight of his hereticall fraud. That the Synod is well enough without adding those words, as an expresse part of the Synodall decree, or as written totidem ver∣bis by the Councell of Chalcedon, is most true, but nothing to the pur∣pose; for neither the Scythian Monks nor any Catholikes did affirme them so to bee, or wish them so to bee added, for that had beene to

say in expresse words, wee will have the decree falsified, or written in other words than it was by the Councell: But that the Synod was well enough without this additament, as an explication of it, and declaration of the sense of that Councell, is most untrue; for both Iustinian by his Edict commanded, and Pope Iohn by his Apostolike authoritie confirmed, that to bee the true meaning, both of that Councell, and of all the holy Fathers: And when a controversie is once moved, and on foote, whether Christ ought to bee called unus de sancta Trinitate, for a man then to deny this, or deny it to bee de∣creed in the Councell of Chalcedon, or to deny that it ought to be ad∣ded as a true explanation of that Councell, is to deny the whole Ca∣tholike faith, and the decrees of the soure first Councels; and though one shall say and professe in words, as did Hormisda and his Legates, that they hold the whole Councell of Chalcedon, yet in that they ex∣presly deny this truth, which was certainly decreed at Chalcedon, their generall profession shall not excuse them, but their expresse deniall of this one particular shall demonstrate them, both to bee heretikes, and expresly to beleeve and hold an heresie repugnant to that Coun∣cell, which in a generality they professe to hold, but indeed and truth doe not. Even as the expresse denying of the manhood, or Godhead of Christ, or resurrection of the dead shall convince one to bee an heretike, though hee professe himselfe in a generality to beleeve and hold all that the holy Scriptures doe teach, or the Nicene fathers de∣cree. If Baronius his words, that the Councell is right without that ad∣ditament, bee taken in the former sense, they are idle, vaine, and spo∣ken to no purpose, which, of the Cardinals deepe wisedome is not to bee imagined: If they bee taken (as I suppose they are) in the la∣ter sense, they undeniably demonstrate him to bee a Cardinall Ne∣storian.

6. But leaving all the rest of the Cardinals frauds in this passage, let us come to that last clause which concernes the corrupting of the Councell of Chalcedon. This, saith he, which in Horm••sdaes dayes they could not, now in this fift Synod they obtained, now they added to the words of the Synod this clause, qui est Dominus unus de sancta Tri∣nitate: A very perilous corruption sure, to expresse that clause which all the Bishops of Rome, (semper excipio Hormisdam) with all Catho∣likes, beleeved and taught, which, whosoever denieth or wil not pro∣fesse, is anathematized, and excluded from the Catholike Church is not this thinke you a very sore corruption of the Councell of Chalce∣don? Is not the Cardinall a rare man of judgement that could spie such a maine fault in these Acts of the fift Councell, that they pro∣fesse 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 Councell of Chalcedon, whose they are not. A meere fancy and ca∣lumny of the Cardinall: they are plainly set downe as the words of the fift Synod, whose indeed they are; and it relateth not precisely the words of the Councell of Chalcedon, nor what it there expressed, totidem verbis, but the true summe and substance of what is there de∣creed.

For thus they say i 1.2180, The holy Synod of Chalcedon in the definition which it made of faith, doth professe God the Word incarnate, to be made man; this is all they report of the Councell of Chalcedon, as by the oppositi∣on of Ibas his Epistle is apparent, wherein they oppose not that he de∣nyed Christ to be one of the Trinity, but that hee called them here∣tikes who taught the Word incarnate to be made man. That clause which they adde [That Christ is one of the Trinity] is an addition of the fift Councell it selfe, explicating that of Christ, which the Empe∣rours Edict bound them to professe, as being the true sense and mean∣ing of the Councell at Chalcedon, but not as being word for word set downe in the decree of Chalcedon. And even as he were more than ri∣diculous, who would accuse one to corrupt the Councell of Chalcedon for saying they professed Christ to be God and man, who was borne in Bethleem, and fled from Herod into Aegypt; so is the Cardinall as ridiculous in objecting this as a corruption of the Synod, or additi∣on to the Councell of Chalcedon, that they say the Councell taught the Word of God to bee man, who is our Lord Iesus Christ, one of the holy Trinity. Both additions are true, but neither of them affir∣med to be expresly, and totidem verbis, set downe in the Councell of Chalcedon. Why but looke to the Cardinals proofe; for he would not for any good affirme such a matter without proofe. What? doe yee aske for proofe of the Cardinall? I tell you, it is proofe enough that he sayth it: and truly in this poynt he produceth neither any proofe, nor any shadow of reason to prove either that those words are falsely inserted into the Acts of the fift Councell, or that the fift Councell cited them as the very expresse words of the Councell of Chalcedon: all the proofe is grounded on his old Topicke place Ipse dixit, which is a sory 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 Cardinall is very cir∣cumspect & wary to let nothing, no not a syllable fall from him which may in the least wise seem to prejudice the Popes dignity, or the cause of their Church, unlesse the maine force and undeniable evidence of truth doe wrest and wring it from his pen: yet in any matter of histo∣ry, wherein he may advantage the Pope, or benefit their cause, it is not by many degrees so good to say, the illustrissimus Cardinalis affirmes it, which is now growne a familiar kinde of proofe among them k 1.2181, as to say, Ovid, Aesop, or Iacobus Voraginensis affirme it, therefore it is cer∣tainly true. His Annals in the art of fraudulent, vile, and pernicious untruths farre excell the most base fictitious Poemes or Legends that ever as yet have seene the Sunne.

CAP. XXVI. The second alteration of the Synodall Acts pretended by Baronius, for that Ibas is sayd therein to have denyed the Epistle written to Maris to be his, refuted.

1. THe second thing which our Momus a 1.2182 carpeth at, is for that in these Acts it is sayd that Ibas denyed the Epistle written to Maris, to bee his: which saith Baronius is untrue; for Ibas professed the Epistle to be his. And Binius not content to call it with the Cardinall an un∣truth, in plaine termes affirmes b 1.2183 it to be a lye. Had not hatred to the truth corrupted or quite blinded the judgement of Baronius and Binius, they would never have quarelled with the Acts about this mat∣ter, nor for this accused them to have beene corrupt. They may as well collect the Edict of Iustinian, or that famous Epistle of Pope Gre∣gorie, wherein he writeth of Ibas and the three Chapters, to be corrup∣ted, and of no credit, as well as the Acts of the fift Councell: for in both c 1.2184 them the same is said concerning the deniall of Ibas which is in these Acts. If notwithstanding the avouching of that denyall, they may passe for sincere and incorrupt, it was certainly malice and not reason that moved the Cardinall and Binius to carpe at the Acts for this cause: which will much more appeare, if any please but to view the Acts themselves. For this is not spoken obitèr, nor once, but the Councell insisteth upon it, repeateth it in severall d 1.2185 places, and divers times; and if those words were taken away, there would be an appa∣rent hiatus in the text of those Acts. The words then are truly the words of the true Acts, the corruption is onely in the braine of Baro∣nius and Binius.

2. Now whereas the Cardinall and Binius so confidently affirme this to be untrue, or a lye, that Ibas denyed his Epistle, and so accuse the whole Councell to lye in this matter, they doe but keepe their owne tongues and pens in ure with calumnies: the untruth and lye belongs neither to the Councell, nor to the Acts, but must bee retur∣ned to themselves to whom onely it is due. For the Councels truth herein, the Emperour is a most honourable witnesse, who saith e 1.2186, De∣monstratur Ibas cam abnegasse, Ibas is demonstrated, or by evident proofe knowne, to have denyed his Epistle. Pope Gregory is another witnesse above exception, who saith f 1.2187, Epistolam Ibas denegat suam, Ibas denyed the Epistle to be his: the fift Councell also doth not onely affirme it, but prove g 1.2188 it by the testimony of six Metropolitan Bishops, and their interloquution in the Councell of Chalcedon, they all sayd they recei∣ved 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 Councell: what witnesses now doth the Cardinall or Binius bring to countervaile these? truly not so much as

one: and one were but a poore number to be opposed to so many, and so worthy men, testifying the contrary. Now whether the testimony of the Emperour, Pope Gregory, of six Metropolitanes, and an whole generall approved Councell affirming this; or Baronius without any one witnesse denying this, be more credible, let the very best friends of Baronius judge: but Baronius loves to bee Iohannes ad oppositum, to Emperours, Popes, Bishops, and Councels: if they say any thing that pleaseth not his palate, that is indeed, if they say the truth.

3. But yet Baronius hath a proofe of his saying, which is this; be∣cause Ibas h 1.2189 confessed it to be his, and hee tels us this is in the Acts of Chalcedon. Say he did confesse it, as I will not deny that he did; (though I verily thinke the Cardinall speakes an untruth, in saying that this is in the Acts, for I finde not in those Acts either any such expresse con∣fession, or ought from whence it can be collected: and Iustinian plain∣ly saith i 1.2190, 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 denyed it not to be his? might he nor doe both? might he not contradict himselfe? doth not the Cardinall, (who neither for wit nor wisedome will yeeld one jote to Ibas,) doth not he as much in this very cause of Ibas Epistle: In one place he k 1.2191 sayth, the Epistle being produced, non esse Ibae compertam, it was found not to be the Epistle of Ibas, as the Acts of Chalcedon doe shew: in another l 1.2192 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 peece of handsome worke of the Cardinall? 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 himselfe play more cunningly fa•• and loose than he doth? Might not Ibas doe the like? sometimes for his owne credit deny the Epistle to be his, though at other times he confessed it to be his? Is it not more likely in it selfe, more charity in others to thinke that Ibas did thus, than that the Emperour, Pope Gregory, and a generall Coun∣cell did all conspire to tell a lye.

4. And not to dispute that (which we have now admitted) whe∣ther he confessed it to be his or not; that he did certainly deny it to be his Epistle, if neither the fift generall Councell, nor Iustinian, nor Gregory had testified this, yet the Acts of the Councell of Chalcedon where Ibas himselfe was personally present, have so cleare a demon∣stration thereof, that I cannot sufficiently admire either the stupidity, or the most shamelesse dealing of Baronius and Binius, who with their foule mouthes call it an untruth, and a lye: for that Epistle was writ by Ibas not onely after the union made betwixt Iohn and Cyrill, as Iu∣stinian m 1.2193, and the fift n 1.2194 Councell truly teach; but as wee have before clearly o 1.2195 proved, at least two yeares after the same. In that Epistle Cyrill is called an heretike, an Apollinarian, as both the fift Councell testifieth, saying p 1.2196 Epistola, Cyrillum sanctae memoriae haereticum vocat; and the very words of the Epistle doe make evident, wherein Ibas saith q 1.2197, Cyrill is found to have falne into the doctrine of Apollinaris: And againe, speaking of these twelve Chapters of Cyrill, which both the Ephesine and Chalcedon Councell confirme, he calls r 1.2198 them plena omni

impietate, full of all impiety, and contrary to the faith. Thus writ Ibas of Cyrill two yeares at least after the union was fully made. Now in the Acts before Photius and Eustathius, which are expressed in the Coun∣cell of Chalcedon, Ibas there professed before the Iudges, that after the union once made, we all, sayth he s 1.2199, held communion with Cyrill, we ac∣counted him an orthodoxall Bishop, & nullus eum appellat haereticum, and none after that called Cyrill an heretike: was not this a plaine deny∣all that he writ this Epistle? for whosoever writ it calleth Cyrill an heretike, and that divers yeares after the union: now Ibas denyeth that ever after the union he called Cyrill an heretike. Could he more directly conclude that he writ not this Epistle? unlesse one will say that to deny Baronius to have written or published one word after the beginning of Pope Sixtus the fift, be not a certaine denyall, that the Annalls which goe under his name, and were all published after the beginning of Sixtus t 1.2200, are the Annalls of Baronius. This denyall by an evident and most certaine consequent, (not any expresse de∣nyall totidem verbis, as if Ibas had sayd, this is not my Epistle) was it which both Iustinian and the fift Councell meant, as their owne words doe declare: The Epistle, sayth Iustinian u 1.2201, being full of blasphemies, and containing many injuries against S. Cyrill, is shewed to be written af∣ter the union, ex quo demonstratur Ibas eam abnegasse, whereby it is de∣monstrated that Ibas denyed it, (in that he sayd, that he never called Cy∣rill an heretike after that union.) The impious Epistle, sayth the Coun∣cell x 1.2202, is shewed by the contents thereof to have beene written after the union; therefore it appeareth that Ibas denyed it to be his Epistle by this, in that he sayd that he spake nothing against Cyrill after the union: again, Ibas in this denyed the Epistle, eò quod dicebat, because he sayd y 1.2203, after the union I am not found to have sayd ought against Saint Cyrill. Yea this and no other, to have beene that denyall which the Councell meant, Baronius knew right well; for himselfe sayth z 1.2204, that it is sayd in the Councell, that Ibas denyed the Epistle, ex eo, for this cause, for that after the union and peace made, he denyed that he had sayd ought a∣gainst Cyrill: yet notwithstanding all this evidence of truth, the Car∣dinall to disgrace the Acts of this Councell, even against his owne knowledge and conscience affirmeth it to bee an untruth, or as Binius calls it, (in a most spitefull manner) a lye, that Ibas denyed this Epistle to be his.

CAP. XXVII. The third alteration of the Synodall Acts pretended by Baronius, for that the Councell of Chalcedon is said therein to condemne the Epistle of Ibas, refuted.

1. THE third corruption is by a mis-report and untrue relation which Baronius ob∣serveth in these Acts, for that in them the Councel of Chalcedon is said to have condemned that Epistle of Ibas, which he not onely saith a 1.2205 is untrue, (Binius cals b 1.2206 it also in plaine termes, a lye,) but addeth both that the Acts of the Councell of Chal∣cedon doe teach the contrary, and that out of those Acts hee hath before demonstrated the same. Call you this a corruption of the Acts? why, it is the maine purpose of the Councell, it is their ve∣ry judgement and resolution touching the Three Chapters, often and with acclamations repeated. The Epistle c 1.2207 is contrary to the definiti∣on, Epistolam d 1.2208 definitio sancti Chalcedonensis Concilij condemnat, definitio ejecit; in the proofe whereof they much insist. Neither onely in the sixt collation doe they at large set downe this, but in their eighth, even in their Synodall definition e 1.2209 they expresly mention, that they have not onely said, but even demonstrated before, that this Epistle is in all things contrary to the definition of the Councell at Chalcedon; yea, they there adde, which is more, that the Councel of Chalcedon would in no sort otherwise f 1.2210 receive Ibas, unlesse he himselfe did condemne the impietie contained in that Epistle. Would any in the world (saye Baronius, a man meerly infatuated in this cause, and such as follow his idle fancies) ac∣count that to bee a corruption or depravation of the Acts, which is the maine scope, purpose, judgement, and definition of the Synod? which they so often in their severall Sessions repeate, of which they expresly restifie in their very definitive sentence, that they before had said, proved, & demonstrated the same, without which also if it were taken away, (as the Cardinall pretends it should,) not onely the Acts should be utterly perverted, but the quite contrary to the judgement and determination of the Councell, should bee affirmed. Baronius might with as great truth and probability have said, that the hand∣ling of the Three Chapters, or judging of the Three Chapters had beene a depravation and corrupting of the Acts, for this assertion that Ibas his Epistle was condemned by the Councell of Chalcedon, is as necessa∣rie and essentiall to the Acts, as the cause it selfe of the Three Chap∣ters, or any sentence that is any where set downe therein.

2. But yet if it be no depravation in the Acts, yet, saith the Car∣dinall, g 1.2211 and Binius, it is untrue, It is a lye, that the Councell of Chal∣cedon condemned that Epistle: Let falshood and impudency it selfe stand here amazed and agast at these men. This definitive sentence of

this Councell, wherein it is proclamed and decreed, that the Epistle of Ibas was condemned by the Councell of Chalcedon, is approved by all succeeding generall Councells, by Pelagius, Gregory, and all o∣ther their successors, till Leo the tenth, (that is, by the consenting judgment of the whole Catholike Church, and of all Catholikes ever since that decree was made) and now Baronius and Binius stand up to give them all the lie; they all say untruths, onely 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 Cardinall h 1.2212, The Acts of the Councell of Chalcedon doe declare this, and out of them I have before demonstrated this. Loe, the Cardinall will not onely say it, but prove it, yea, he hath even demon∣strated out of the Councell of Chalcedon all the former Popes, and Councels, that is, all the whole Catholike Church, to lye. I feare mee, such demonstrations will not turne to the Cardinals cre∣dit: Doe the Acts of the Councell teach or demonstrate that? could none of the Popes? none of the succeeding generall Councels spie it in those Acts, till Baronius took thē all tardy in an untruth? What wil you say to the Cardinal and to his demonstration, if the Acts doe not teach this? nay, if they teach directly and demonstrate the quite con∣trary, who then, I pray you, must have the whetstone? the Catholike Church or the illustrious Cardinall? And certainly the Acts of Chal∣cedon doe demonstrate what this fift Councell, and after it the sixt, se∣venth, and eighth, and the rest testifie, that this Epistle of Ibas was con∣demned by the Councell of Chalcedon. First, it is cleare and certaine by those Acts that the Councell of Chalcedon condemned Nestorius, and all the impious doctrines and blasphemies of Nestorius, approving the Ephesine i 1.2213 Councell, and the Synodall Epistle of Cyrill, wherein they k 1.2214 are condemned and anathematized: was not this a condem∣ning of the Epistle of Ibas, which defendeth Nestorius and his heresies, which is full fraught with all his blasphemous doctrines? Could the Councell of Chalcedon condemne and anathematize the doctrine of Nestorius, and yet not condemne that Epistle which defends all those doctrines? By the Acts it is cleare and certaine, that the Councell of Chalcedon approve l 1.2215 their owne decree of faith: now this Epistle, as not onely the fift Councell often m 1.2216, but after it Pope Gregory saith, procul dubio definitioni Synodi probatur adversa, without doubt is contrary to the definition of the Councell of Chalcedon. Is not the approving of their de∣finition a rejecting and condemning of whatsoever writing is contra∣ry to the same?n 1.2217 By the Acts it is cleare and certaine, that the Coun∣cell even in their definition o 1.2218 forbids, and pronounceth it unlawfull for any to teach, or produce, or write, or deliuer any other doctrine; which whosoever doth, if hee bee a Bishop or Clerke, hee shall bee deposed; if a Monke or Lay man, anathematized: Is not this a plaine forbidding of that Epistle to bee read, or taught, the doctrine where∣of is directly contrary to their decree•• when by the Councels de∣cree it may neither be taught, written, nor read, (otherwise then with a detestation) is not this a condemning of it by the Councell? by the Acts that is cleare in the fift Councell p 1.2219. that the Councell of

Chalcedon approved the judgement of Photius and Eustathius, for as Photius and Eustathius, so they all at q 1.2220 Chalcedon required Ibas to ana∣thematize Nestorius and his doctrines, before they would receive him. Now as the fift Councell r 1.2221 truly saith, to approve the judgement of Photius and Eustathius, Nihil est aliud quam condemnare impiam Episto∣lam; this is nothing else than to condemne the impious Epistle, seeing in it Nestorius and his heresies are defended. To be short (for there are ve∣ry many other evidences to declare this,) Pope Gregory s 1.2222 testifieth, that the fift Councell was in omnibus sequax, did in all things follow the Councell of Chalcedon; if in all, then in condemning this impious Epistle, and if they followed it therein, then most certainly the Councell of Chalcedon condemned it before them. So untrue it is which the Car∣dinall saith, that the Acts doe shew, and that out of them he hath de∣monstrated, that the Councell of Chalcedon did not condemne this Epistle, whereas he hath demonstrated nothing so cleare, as himselfe to bee a malicious and shamelesse downfacer of most certaine and evident truths. Thus much of his first sort of corruptions, namely, the three variations or depravations, wherewith, as you see, hee hath slandered the Acts of this fift Councell, to his immortall dis∣grace.

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 1.2223: 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 1.2224 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 1.2225 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 1.2226, 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 1.2227, 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 1.2228 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 1.2229, 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 1.2230, the letters or Edict published by Iustinian: Third∣ly, there wants h 1.2231, 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 1.2232 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 1.2233, 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 1.2234 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 1.2235, 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 1.2236 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 1.2237 & second p 1.2238 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 1.2239 dayes Collation: Cumque r 1.2240 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 1.2241, and a great part of the fift t 1.2242 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 1.2243 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 1.2244 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 1.2245 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 1.2246 saith, and after him Evagrius * 1.2247, 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 1.2248 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 1.2249, 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 1.2250, which the Cardinall slily e 1.2251 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 1.2252 yeares before in the time of Mennas, both the Emperour in an Imperiall Edict f 1.2253 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 1.2254 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 1.2255, 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 1.2256, 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 1.2257,] 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 1.2258 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 1.2259, together with Origen, was made in this fift Synod, as the second Nicene Councell n 1.2260 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 1.2261 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 1.2262, 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 1.2263 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 1.2264 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.

CAP. XXIX. The fourth defect in the Synodall Acts pretended by Baronius, for that the Emperors Epistle to the fift Councell is wanting therein, refuted.

1. THE fourth defect which they finde in these Acts, is the want of that other Epistle of Iusti∣nian directed to the Synod, set downe by Ce∣drenus, and out of him annexed by Binius a 1.2265 to the end of the Synod, as one of the fragments which were taken away from the Acts. Of it Baronius b 1.2266 thus writeth: Cedrenus adjoyneth af∣ter this another Epistle of the Emperor sent to the Synod, containing an history of the four generall Councells, in the end where∣of divers things are written against Theodorus of Mopsvestia; the begin∣ning of it is this, Majores nostri fidei cultores, &c. That this same Epistle sent to the Synod was inserted among the Acts thereof, nemo jure du∣bitârit, none may justly doubt: so that by this you may perceive, Quam∣plurima in eadem quinta Synodo desiderari, that very many things are wan∣ting in the Acts of this fift Councell. Thus Baronius. No sure: that can∣not be hence perceived: but another thing is most evident, that the Cardinall is more malicious in carping at these Acts, and correcting Magnificat, than Momus himselfe. May no man doubt but that this Epistle of Iustinian (as it is set downe by Cedrenus) was inserted in the Acts of this fift Councell? what proofe hath the Cardinall for this his confident saying? Truly none at all: nor could hee finde any sound proofe, if he had studied for one thirty yeares: for none but a carping Momus can, and none at all ought to doubt of the contrary, that this Epistle which is in Cedrenus, neither was Iustinians Epistle, neither was sent unto the Synod. Iustinian indeed sent a very large and lear∣ned Epistle to the Bishops of the Synod at their first assembling, con∣taining altogether the like effect, (to wit, a history or narration of the foure former Councells, 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 controversie touching the three Chapters; and that being the true and authenticall Epistle of Iustinian, is extant in the Acts c 1.2267, and is the warrant for all that the Synod did. That which out of Cedrenus the Cardinall and Binius mention, is no∣thing else (as any man may easily see) but an epitome or extract which Cedrenus himselfe, or some other undiscreet abridger, collec∣ted out of the true Epistle of Iustinian. It is not the use of Emperours to send with their letters abridgements and briefes of the same, espe∣cially such (of which sort this is) as come farre short of the maine 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 Iustinian, may testifie, it was neither writ, nor sent by him to the Synod. In that Baronian Epistle Eutyches is sayd d 1.2268 to approve the

opinions of Nestorius; whereas the heresie of Eutyches was quite con∣trary to that of Nestorius, as Iustinian i 1.2269 truly observeth in his Epistle▪ for Nestorius taught two k 1.2270 natures to be in Christ, and to make two persons; Eutyches taught as but one person, so but one l 1.2271 nature. Yea the Eutycheans utterly condemned the Nestorians, and with them all Catholikes, as Nestorians, because m 1.2272 they taught 2. natures after the adunation to re∣main in Christ, n 1.2273 Qui dicit duas naturas, Nestorianus est. In that Baronian Epistle Eutyches is affirmed to follow Nestorius, in that o 1.2274 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 1.2275, the flesh which Christ took of the blessed Virgin to be truly humane, and therefore the sonne of Mary to be truly, but yet onely a man; as Iustinian also in his Epistle teach∣eth. In that Baronian Epistle, Nestorius is sayd q 1.2276 to have beene the master or teacher of Theodorus; but the quite contrary is truth, as both the whole fift r 1.2277 Councell often, and even in their definitive sentence, and Iustinian s 1.2278 in his Epistle doe expresly witnesse. Are not Baronius and Binius rare men to cure the lamenesse of Councels, who when the Acts are sound and perfect, would patch unto them such false and un∣worthy writings, containing so manifest untruths, repugnant to the authenticke records of the Acts? But woe come to all Councels, Fa∣thers, and ancient writings, when they must be amended and cured by such Surgeons as Baronius and Binius. Give me the most lame and impotent Councels that can be had, I had rather have them all to bee creeples, than to come under their deadly, unfortunate, and Harpyan hands, which defile every history or writing that they touch.

CAP. XXX. The fift defect in the Synodall Acts pretended by Baronius, for that the Constitution of Pope Vigilius concerning the three Chapters is wan∣ting therein, refuted.

1. THe fift defect which the Cardinall hath spyed in these Acts, is, that the Constitution of Pope Vigilius is not now extant therein. Of it the Cardinall sayth a 1.2279, That it belongeth to the Acts of the fift Synod, is evidently declared by that which we have spoken: and againe, this b 1.2280 Constitution as also many other things, Noscitur esse subla∣tum, is knowne to be taken out of the Acts of the fift Synod. How prove you Sir, that either it belongs to it, or is taken out of these Synodall acts? What? againe so rude and unmannerly as aske a reason of the Car∣dinall?

Is it not proved sufficiently when Baronius hath sayd it? Truly then it is disproved sufficiently when an opposer of Baronius hath de∣nyed it. For any man for truth and credit may easily oversway Baro∣nius. I pray, why should the Popes Constitution bee part of the Acts, rather than the Emperours Edict? or why doth the Cardinall finde a defect in wanting the Papall, which is hereticall, and not of the Impe∣riall which is an orthodoxall decree?

2. Baronius will further tell you, out of which part of the Acts this is stolne. It c 1.2281 was offered to the Synod in their fift Collation, Ad d 1.2282 hunc ipsum diem quintae Collationis pertinere cognoscitur; It is knowne that the Popes Constitution belongs to this yeare, and to this very day of the fift Colla∣tion. And how I pray you is that knowne? Because e 1.2283 the Constitution hath in the end of it the date of the day and yeare wherein Vigilius published it. A reason fit for none but a Cardinall. As if all Consti∣tutions, Letters, and Edicts which beare date of a yeare and a day, belonged to that fift Collation, and were certainly stolne out of it. Was ever any infatuated, if not Baronius in this cause? But the Consti∣tution beares date f 1.2284 on the 14. day of May, in the reigne of Iustinian, and the fift Collation of the Synod was on the same day. A like rea∣son to the former: as if all Letters or Constitutions written on that day must needs be published in the Councell, or on that very day in their Collation. Admitting it was read, yet the contrary seemes much rather to follow, that it was not read on that day, but on some other after; for the Constitution is directed g 1.2285, and was sent h 1.2286 to the Emperour: that could not be before the fourteenth day, on which it is dated, and in likelihood the Emperour both read and examined it with leasure before he sent it from him to the Councell: the length of the Constitution may easily perswade any, that one day was little enough for that businesse, supposing no other affaires to have distrac∣ted the Emperour. Binius considering this, and being better advised hereof, dissenting from the Cardinall herein, tels us that the Constitu∣tion was read in their sixt Collation, which was on the nineteenth k 1.2287 of May,i 1.2288 foure or five dayes after the date and publishing of it. So uncer∣taine and unlikely is that, of which the Cardinall sayth Cognoscitur, it is knowne to belong to the fift Collation.

3. But indeed, as the Imperiall Edict was not, so neither was this Papal Constitution publikely read, either in the fift or sixt, or any other Collation of this Synod, much lesse was it ever any part of the Sy∣nodall Acts thereof. The Emperour, 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 Westerne Church, which were most earnest in defence of the Three Chapters. They knew that in particular, and by name to con∣demne Vigilius, or his Constitution, might not only have exasperated, but even utterly alienated the minde of Vigilius, and made him (and with him his adherents) more obstinate in their heresie. They sought by silence to conceale and by charity to suppresse, as much as they could, that hereticall and disgracefull Constitution of his, and by their

lenity and faire meanes, to gaine him, and his consent to them, yea, even to the truth it selfe: 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 forbare at all to name Vigilius, or in particular to mētion this his decree; that had beene to proclame 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 Emperour had alwayes a purpose to have (as in the seventh Collation was done) the Epistles of Vigilius to Rusticus and Sebastianus to Valentinianus and o∣thers, opēly read & published in the Councel: In them Vigilius by his Apostolicall authority decreeth the condemning of the three Chapters: what a disgrace had this beene to Vigilius to publish first his Apostoli∣call Constitution in defence, and shortly after, his Apostolicall Con∣stitution for condemning the same Three Chapters? How justly might this have incensed Vigilius, and for ever with-held him from consenting to them; who had proclamed him in their Councell, & re∣corded him in their Synodall Acts to bee such a Proteus? Nay, this had extenuated and vilified for ever the authority of Pope Vigilius, & the holy Apostolike See, to record two constitutions, both procee∣ding ex Tripode, fighting ex Diametro, and by an unreconciliable con∣tradiction opposed the one to the other. Seeing then both the Empe∣rour, and the Councell meant by their so often expressing the consent of Vigilius to them, and by their reciting his Apostolicall 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 Apostolicall decree: it is not to bee imagined that the Emperour or Councell would at all, either publish in their Synod, or insert among their Acts the contrary Con∣stitution of Vigilius in defence of the Three Chapters; in doing whereof they should not onely have for ever disgraced Vigilius, but have much impaired the reputation of their owne wisedome, and quite crossed their principall designe: Nay, what will you say if Baronius himselfe professe the same? See, and wonder to see him infatuated in this point also. The Bishops, saith he l 1.2289, of this fift Councell, 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 con∣demned these three Chapters, tacentes omnino quid ab ipso per editum con∣stitutum 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 hee 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 himselfe speaking an untruth in malice to these Synodall Acts.

5. Now if none of these reasons, nor yet Baronius his owne expresse testimony can perswade, but still the Cardinall or his friends will re∣ply

with his cognoscitur. It is certainly knowne, that this Papall Con∣stitution did belong to this Synod, yea, to the fift Collation thereof; I would gladly intreat some of them to tell us in this, as in the former concerning Origen, who was the thiefe, or robber, that cut out, or pickt away his holinesse Constitution; a more capitall crime than the expiling of the Delphian Temple, or the house of Iupiter Ammon. Touch the Popes owne writings, even his Apostolicall decree delive∣red out of the holy Chaire? 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 lesse; they knew that this Constitution was the overthrow of the Councell of Chalcedon, and all the former holy Coūcels, Hoc Ithacus velit, they would have wisht the Constitution to have stood for ever: whom may we deeme then to have stolne away that Papall decree? Truly by the old Cassian rule, Cui bo∣no, none else but either some of the Popes themselves, or some of their favourites, who being ashamed to see such an hereticall Constitu∣tion of Pope Vigilius stand among the Acts, judged theft and sacri∣ledge a lesser crime, than to have the Popes Chaire thought fallible and hereticall. Now because I can imagine none to have beene 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 hainous crime, as with sacriledge to maime the Acts of the ho∣ly Councels; I doe therefore here absolve and acquit them all of this crime, promising against any adversary, be it Baronius himselfe, to defend their innocency in this matter, untill some of Baronius his friends can either bring some further evidence against them, or else prove, which I thinke they will hardly be able, that a decree, which was never extant among the Synodall Acts, can be stolne or cut away out of the Synodall Acts.

CAP. XXXI. The sixt defect in the Synodall Acts pretēded by Baronius, for that the de∣cree which advanced Ierusalem to patriarchall dignity is wanting therein, refuted.

1. THE sixt and last defect is of all the rest most memorable, concerning the advan∣cing of Ierusalem to a Patriarchall See, and annexing some Churches unto it. That this was done in the fift Councell Baro∣nius a 1.2290 proves by Guil. Tyrius b 1.2291, who writeth, that in the fift Synod in the time of Iustinian, Vigilius, Eutychius, and the rest decreed, that this Bishopricke of Ierusa∣lem should have the place of a Patriarke, with the rest: And because it was situate in a manner in the limits of the Bishop of Alexandria and Antioch, and so there c 1.2292 was no meanes for it to have subordinate Bishops, unlesse somewhat were taken from either of those Patriarkships, therefore it seemed good to the Synod to take part from either; so they tooke from the Bishop of Antioch two Provinces, Caesarea and Scythopolis; and two other from the Bishop of Alexandria, Ruba and Beritus; besides which Metropolitane Sees, they tooke also from the same Patriarks divers Bishopricks, and erected some other; all which (being in num∣ber twenty five) they subjected to their new founded Patriarke of Ie∣rusalem. This is the summe of that which Guil. Tyrius, and out of him Baronius delivereth, and Binius d 1.2293 addeth this as a fragment or scrap of the fift Councell, w^ch is now not found among the Acts therof. Baro∣nius e 1.2294 further glossing on this text, tels us, that though Iuvenalis had at∣tempted and obtained this before in the Councell of Chalcedon, when the f 1.2295 Pope Legates were absent, yet Pope Leo resisting it, he prevai∣led not, nor was the matter put in execution; but at this g 1.2296 time the an∣cient order instituted by the Nicene Councell, being inverted, Caesa∣rea was now first of all made subject to the Church of Ierusalem, which now was become a Patriarchall See.

2. This whole passage of Baronius (approving that testimony of Guil. Tyrius which is justly refuted by Berterius h 1.2297) I cannot tell what to call, but sure I am, it consists of divers untruths, not so much upon ig∣norance (then his sinne had beene lesse) as maliciously objected against the Acts of this holy Synod; some of them I will explane, beginning with that which is the maine point of all. First then it is untrue, that this fift Synod advanced the See of Ierusalem to a Patriarkship. Not to the name and title of a Patriarke, for that it had long before, as Bellar. i 1.2298 and Binius k 1.2299 professe; & though it was but a single Bishorick, subject, as both Ierome, l 1.2300 and the Nicene m 1.2301 Councell declare, to the Bi∣shop

of Antioch, as his Patriarke, and to the Bishop of Cesarea Palesti¦na, (for there is another in Cappadocia,) as his Metropolitane, yet for honor of our Saviors resurrectiō in that place, it had the name of n 1.2302 Pa∣triark, and preeminency in Councels o 1.2303 to the Bishop of Caesarea. Not to the authoritie and power of a Patriarke, for that it had, and had it justly, long before this fift Councell, even by the decree and judge∣ment of the Councell of Chalcedon. Iuvenalis p 1.2304 had sued for it in the Ephesine Councell, but the Bish. of Antioch, as it seemeth, then being unwilling to manumit him, & as it were, free him from his subjection, Cyrill resisted it & writ to Pope Leo, praying him to do the like. But af∣ter long contention both parties being throughly agreed, the matter was brought to the Councell of Chalcedon, where Maximus and Iuve∣nalis, the Bishops of both Sees, first of all, and before the whole Coun∣cell, professed that they were both willing, that q 1.2305 the Bishop of Antioch should hold the two Pheniciaes and Arabia, and the Bishop of Ierusalem should hold the three Palestinaes, and they both requested the whole Sy∣nod to decree, cofirme, and ratifie the same. The whole Councell there∣upon by their decree cōfirmed the same, all the most reverēd Bishops cryed r 1.2306, We all say the same, and we consent thereunto. After them the most glorious Iudges in the name of the Emperor, added Imperiall authori∣ty and the royall assent to the Synods decree, saying, Firmum etiam per nostrum decretū & sententiam Concilij in omni tempore permanebit hoc; this shall abide firme for ever by our decree, and by the judgement of the Councell, that the Church of Antioch have under it the two Pheniciaes, and Arabia; & the Church of Ierusalem have under it the three Palestines. Thus the Iud∣ges. The same Decree of this Councell at Chalcedon is expresly testi∣fied both by Evagrius s 1.2307 and Nicephorus t 1.2308. So untrue it is which Guil. Tyrius, and out of him Baronius a voucheth, that the Church of Ierusa∣lem was first made a Patriarchall See, or had the Provinces and Metro∣politanes of Caesarea and Scithopolis annexed unto it by the fift Coun∣cell, that it is undoubtedly certaine, that it had with the title and dignity, true Patriarchal authority and power over divers Provinces, together with their inferiour Bishops conferred upon it, with a ple∣nary consent of the whole Church in the Councell of Chalcedon. And that you may see the most shamefull dealing both of Bar. and Binius in another place (where their choller against this fift Councell was not moved) they acknowledge that truth; for intreating of the Councell at Chalcedon: In this seventh Session of it, saith Baronius u 1.2309, (and the like doth Binius x 1.2310) was the controversie cōposed betwixt the Bishops of Antioch & Ierusalē, and the cause being judged, the two Pheniciae and Arabia, were gi∣ven to the Bishop of Antioch, and the three Palestines were adjudged to the Bishop of Hierusalem, ex quibus jam perspicuè apparet jus Metropolis in Hierosolymitanam Ecclesiam esse translatum; whence it doth evidently ap∣peare, that the right of the Metropolis which before belonged to the Bishop of Caesarea was translated to the Bishop of Ierusalem. So they: who yet in ha∣tred against the Acts of the fift Councell with faces of Adamant de∣ny that truth which here they confesse to be cleare and conspicuous.

3. But (saith the Cardinall y 1.2311) the decree of Chalcedon was made, post absentiam Legatorum, when the Popes Legates were now gone, and 〈2 pages missing〉〈2 pages missing〉

so they being absent, is to be held invalid. O the forehead of the Car∣dinall! Were the Popes Legats absent? were they gone? Truly they were not onely present at this decree, and consenting unto it, but after it was proposed by Maximus and Iuvenalis, they were the very first men that gave sentence therein, whose sentence the whole Councell followed. For thus it is sayd z 1.2312, Pascasinus and Lucentius the most reve∣rend Bishops, and Boniface a Presbyter, these holding the place of the Aposto∣like See, said by Pascasinus; These things betwixt Maximus and Invenalis are knowne to be done for their good and peace; & nostrae humilitatis interlo∣quutione firmantur, and they are confirmed by the interloquuntion of our hu∣mility; ut nulla imposterum de hac causa sit contentio, that never hereafter there should be any contention about this matter betweene these Churches. Is it credible that the Cardinall could be so audacious and impudent, as to utter such palpable untruths? Vnlesse he had quite put off, I say not modesty, but reason, sense, and almost humane nature. Let this stand for the second capitall untruth in this passage.

4. Yet Pope Leo himselfe, saith Baronius a 1.2313, withstood that Decree of the Councell at Chalcedon, because it was prejudiciall 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 fift Synod. Had the Car∣dinall and his friends beene well advised, they would feare, and bee much ashamed once to mention the resistance of Pope Leo to the Councell at Chalcedon, either in those Patriarks, or in the other of Con∣stantinople: for first the resistance of Leo, which was meerely in∣effectuall, demonstrates, that the Popes contradiction, with all his might and power, can neither disanull nor infringe the judgement of a generall Councell; which is no small prejudice to his Princehood, or Princely supremacy. Againe, it convinceth Leo of a very foule and unexcusable errour, seeing Leo judged the Nicene Canons concer∣ning matters of order, policie, and government of the Church (such as these are about the extent of Sees, or superiority of one Patriarke or Bishop above another) to be unalterable and eternall, no lesse than the decrees of faith: The condition (saith hee b 1.2314) of the Nicene Canons (in the margent hee points at the sixt and seventh, both w^ch concerne the limits of Sees) being ordained by the Spirit of God, is in no part soluble; and whatsoever is diverse from their Constitution, omni penitus authorita∣te vacuum est; is utterly voide of all authority, by whomsoever it bee decreed, fewer or moe. Againe c 1.2315, the Nicene fathers, after they had con∣demned Arius, made lawes of Ecclesiasticall Canons, mansuras us∣que in finem mundi, which are to stand in force untill the end of the world; and if ought be any where presumed to bee done otherwise than they have decreed, sine cunctatione cassatur, it is presently made void. Againe d 1.2316, the priviledges of Churches being instituted by the Canons of the ho∣ly Fathers, and confirmed by the Nicene decrees, nulla possunt improbi∣tate convelli, nulla novitate mutari; they can bee infringed by no impro∣bity, they can by no novelty bee altered. Againe e 1.2317, concerning Iuvenalis Bishop of Ierusalem, who was now truly made a Patriarke, for keeping the Statutes of the holy fathers, which in the Nicene Synod are con∣firmed, inviolabilibus decretis, by inviolable decrees; I admonish your

sanctity, that the lawes of the Churches remaine; let no mans ambiti∣on covet that which is another mans, let no man seeke by impairing another to advance himselfe, for though they thinke to strengthen their desires by Councels, infirmum atque irritum erit quicquid à praedi∣ctorum patrum Canonibus discreparit; whatsoever is diverse from these Nicene Canons shall bee void. Lastly f 1.2318, to Maximus Bishop of An∣tioch, let it suffice that I pronounce this in generall, ad omnia, for all matters, concerning limits of Sees, and the like, that if any thing bee attempted by any man, in any Synod, against the Statutes of the Ni∣cene Canons, nihil praejudicij potest inviolabilibus inferre decretis, it can bring no prejudice to these unalterable and inviolable decrees. Thus Pope Leo erroniously judging the order set downe in the Nicene Ca∣nons, for the bounds and preheminence of Bishops to be for ever, or by any Councell whatsoever immutable.

5. See now the wisedome of the Cardinall in alleaging Pope Leo. If the decree at Chalcedon was not of force because Leo contradicted it, then neither can that other decree, supposed to bee made in the fift Councell, be of force, because Leo contradicteth it also, for by Leo his judgement, at no time, by no person, by no Councell, by no autho∣rity can the order set downe at Nice bee changed. If that at Chalcedon was not in force, to which the Popes Legates consented, how can the Cardinall thinke this of the fift Councell to bee of force, to which neither Pope nor Legate consented, nor was so much as pre∣sent in the Councell? If the judgment of Leo stand for good, then nei∣ther is, nor ever was either Constantinople or Ierusalem Patriarchall Sees; & then the decree of the eighth Councell g 1.2319, and the h 1.2320 Laterane, and I know not how many Councels must bee rejected as unlawfull and impious, if the judgement of Leo be (as by the eighth Councell and their Laterane it is adjudged) erronious, then was Ierusalem a Patriarchall See, notwithstanding the contradiction of Leo to that decree. In a word, if Leo his judgement be of force, it repeales the decreee of the fift, eighth, and all other generall Councels decreeing this; if it be not of force, it neither did nor could infringe the decree of Chalcedon. So unadvised was the Cardinall in alleaging the resi∣stance of Leo to that decree.

6. And to satisfie the Cardinall yet a little more fully, it is an un∣truth which hee saith i 1.2321, that the Decree of Chalcedon was not put in ex∣ecution before the time of this fift Synod, and this supposed decree therof, for the Councell of Chalcedon k 1.2322 decreed that their sentence in advancing Ierusalē to a Patriarchall See, should stand in force, in omni tempore, and therfore doubtlesse even then, and from that very time it was truely a Patriarchall See, the contradiction of Leo no more hin∣dring it the very next or second yeare, than it did two hundred or two thousand yeares after that decree made. Againe, as it is certaine 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 Patriarchall authority, Iustinian also by his Imperiall law l 1.2323 made some twelve m 1.2324 yeares before the fift Councell, confirming the same; and so it is not to bee doubted but the Church of Ierusalem

did the very like in it owne Patriarchall Diocesse, especially conside∣ring, that the Imperiall law of Iustinian is as forcible n 1.2325 for the one as for the other: So that for any one to have denyed or sought then to have infringed the Patriarchall authority confirmed to Constantino∣ple, conferred to Ierusalem by the Councell of Chalcedon, had brought him into danger not onely of Ecclesiasticall censure, but of civill pu∣nishments, and of the Emperours high indignation: Or if the Cardi∣nall will not bee satisfied unlesse hee see the practice of that Patriar∣chall authority▪o 1.2326 let him looke in the general Councell under Mennas, and there hee shall see Iohn Bishop of Ierusalem hold a Provinciall Councell of the Bishops of the three Palestines, qui sub eo sunt, who were under him, two of which, as by their subscriptions appeare, were the Metropolitane Bishops of Caesarea and Scythopolis, with thirty moe; so many were then subject to the Patriarke of Ierusalem. Againe, in ano∣ther Provinciall Councell p 1.2327 held at Ierusalem the tenth yeare of Iustinian, Peter, Patriarch of Ierusalem, is President q 1.2328 over all the Bi∣shops of the three Palestines there assembled with him, two of which were the foresaid Metropolitanes. So untrue it is which Baronius to maintaine the false testimony of Guil. Tyrius avoucheth, that the De∣cree of Chalcedon was not put in execution before this fift Councell. Let this bee scored for his third capitall untruth in this short pas∣sage.

7. A fourth untruth is that which is said in the fragments, that the Councell had no other meanes to erect this Patriarchship of Ie∣rusalem, but by taking part from both the other of Antioch and A∣lexandria, for there was another meanes, as both the Decree of Chalce∣don, and the event did shew, and nothing at al was taken from the See of Alexandria.

8. A fift untruth is, that they tooke from Alexandria the Metro∣politane 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 1.2329 (refuting this very fragment, which the Cardinall and Binius so gladly snatch at) saith s 1.2330, certainly Ruba is placed by Ptolome in Syria; and it is manifest, that Berithus is the Metropolis of Phenice, neare 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 doe know. Thus hee; and for Berithus the matter is certaine, that it is not neare the bounds o•• li∣mits of Alexandria, for that it is in the Province of Phenicia, not onely Ptolome c 1.2331 shewes, but the subscriptions of the Bishops, both in the Ni∣cene d 1.2332, in the first Constantinopolitane e 1.2333, and Chalcedon f 1.2334 Councels, in all which the Bishop of Berithus is set in the Province of Phenicia; whence againe a sixt untruth is to bee observed in that fragment of Tyrius, for it saith g 1.2335, that Berithus was granted to the new Patriarch of Ierusalem; whereas it is cleare, that it was in Phenicia, & that the two Pheniciae h 1.2336, both by the agreement of Max. and Invenalis, and by the de∣cree

of the Councell of Chalcedon did belong to the See and Bishop of Antioch, and not of Ierusalem.

9. Is not this now thinke you a worthy fragment which Baronius and Binius have found to be wanting, and will you, nill you, will needs fasten to the fift Councell? Are not they excellent Surgeons to cure lame Councels? who to the faire and authenticke Acts and Records of this Synod would patch such a rablement of untruths, quite repug∣nant to the minde of this fift Synod? For seeing as Gregory i 1.2337 truly saith, it was in omnibus sequax, in all things a follower of the Councell at Chalcedon, most certainly it never either decreed or approved this of taking ought from the See of Alexandria, or of adding Berithus and Ruba to the See of Ierusalem; both which are directly contrary to the Decree of Chalcedon, which this fift Councell followeth. Let the Car∣dinall and Binius themselves feed upon these and such like scraps and huskes, they are fit and dainty meat for the Cardinals tooth and pa∣late, which relisheth little, unlesse it have a touch of falshood. But as I sayd before, so I here againe proelame, let all Councels be a thou∣sand 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 bee much more confirmed hereby; seeing neither the craft, nor malice, nor ex∣treme labour of Baronius and Binius was able to finde 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 lawes of Theodosius are falsly inserted therein; refuted.

1. LEt us in the last place, saith Baronius a 1.2338, see what things Impostours have published under the name of the fift Synod; Quaeve b 1.2339 spuriae ei∣dem accesserunt, and what counterfeit additions are inserted in these Acts. Of these in generall the Cardinall c 1.2340 tels us, Pudenda planè in istis intexta habentur, there are inserted very shamefull matters into these Acts, such as are altogether unworthy of an oecumenical Sy∣nod. An haynous crime indeed, if the Cardinall can justifie this. For though we might deplore the defects if ought were wanting, yet that is no prejudice to the truth of that which remaineth, no more than the extreme want and shipwracke of the Nicene Acts, doth or can dis∣credit the truth of the Canons which are come safe to land. But if in these Acts which now are extant, and passe for the true and faithfull Acts of the fift Synod, Impostors have inserted false and counterfeit writings, that may cause one justly to misdoubt the truth of these acts which wee have: for why (will some say) may not that part, or any

one bee forged or foist••d 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 fift Councell: his proofes thereof are five.

2. The first d 1.2341 is taken out of the sixt generall Councell, in which when the Monothelites alledged an Epistle of Mennas to Vigilius as out of the Acts of the fift Synod, It was proved that those Acts were cor∣rupted, and that the heretikes had inserted three quaternions, that is, foure and twenty leaves into the same Acts. Againe e 1.2342, in the 7. Action or Col∣lation it was found further, that they added two Epistles of Vigilius, one to Iustinian, and the other to Theodora, by which you see, saith the Cardinal f 1.2343, that the Acts of the fift Synod have beene foully corrupted by the Monothe∣lites. We see it indeed. And wee see withall another thing no lesse remarkable and cleare, that the Cardinall is an insignious slanderer, and playes the trifling Sophister in the highest degree. Who ever doubted or denyed, but that some copies of the Acts of this Synod have beene corrupted? of this, none that read the sixt g 1.2344 Councell can make the least question in the world. For three corrupted copies were produced h 1.2345 and examined, and some other were mentioned, and the authors, both who falsified them, and who writ the inserted ad∣ditions are all there recorded. Nay the three corrupted copies were not onely discovered, but accursed i 1.2346, defaced k 1.2347, and raced before the whole Synod, so farre as any corruption could bee found. Doth the Cardinall know any man to defend as sincere, or justifie one of those corrupted Monothelite copies? If he doe, the sixt Councell is an un∣resistable record against such; and we will joyne with him in confu∣ting such audaciousnesse. Or will the Cardinall say, that the Acts of the fift Synod which are now extant, either have those additions, or were written and taken out of those corrupted and falsified copies? It is as cleare as the Sun they are not, for not one of those Monothe∣lite additions are in these Acts now extant. These Acts, and no other are they which we defend, and which the Cardinall undertooke to disgrace, and prove to bee corrupted, and to have forgeries patched unto them. Against these Acts, the Cardinalls proofe out of the sixt Synod is so idle, and so ridiculously sophisticall, as not disputing ad idem; that hee had need to pray that the Sophisters in our Schooles heare not of, and applaud his rare skill in Logicke. If because some copies were corrupted by the Monothelites, those which most certain∣ly escaped their hands must bee condemned, then no deed, nor testa∣ment, though never so truly authenticall, may be trusted, for a forge∣rer may exscribe it, and adde what he pleaseth in his extracted copy; or because the Romane copies of the Nicene Canons were corrupted by ^l Zozimus, Bonifacius, or some of their friends, therefore the au∣thenticke records thereof (the true copies of which the Africane Bi∣shops with much labour purchased from Constantinople and Alexan∣dria,) must be distrusted: which yet the Africane Synod (Saint Au∣sten 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 Ti∣ber will never wash away.

3. The Cardinall m 1.2348, and after him Binius n 1.2349, tels us a great matter and rare newes, that in Pope Gregories time, the Acts of this Synod were intire, and that he sent the genuine copy thereof to Queen Theo∣dalinda: (An evidence by the way that the Cardinall o 1.2350 wittingly and wilfully slandereth the acts which Gregory followed to have beene cor∣rupted; wherein Ibas is truly said (as the true genuine acts doe also witnesse) to have denyed the Epistle to be his.) But let that passe: why doe they mention the Copies of the Acts to have been sincere in Gre∣gories time, as if after that time no true copies thereof could be found? In the sixt Councell more than 70. p 1.2351 yeares after the death of Gregory, divers true, ancient, and incorrupt copies q 1.2352 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 bookes which they cancelled and defa∣ced; how will or can either the Cardinall or Binius, or any other, prove that these Acts now extant, are not consonant to those, or ta∣ken out, or published according to them? Truly I doe verily per∣swade my selfe, considering both that the sixt Councell was so care∣full 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 selfe 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 sixt Councell were read, and commended to all posterity. And I doubt not but the fraud of heretikes being then so fully and openly discovered, the Church ever since hath most diligently and curiously, not onely carefully, pre∣served the same. Which may well be thought to bee the true cause, why of all the eight Councels the Acts of these three last, that at Chal∣cedon, this fift, and the other of the sixt, are come most safe and intire unto our hands. Howsoever, certaine it is that the Cardinall and Bi∣nius doe most childishly sophisticate, in accusing the copies of the Acts now extant, (which onely we defend) to be corrupted, because those three or moe copies of the Acts which were produced in the sixt Synod, (which we detest and condemne much more than the Car∣dinall) were falsified by the Monothelites, none of those false additi∣ons being found in these.

4. The second imposture or fictitious writing which Baronius ob∣serveth to be inserted in these acts, are the two lawes of Theodosius a∣gainst Nestorius, recited in the fift Collation. We may not omit this, sayth he r 1.2353, that those lawes of Theodosius against Nestorius, aliter se ha∣bere in Codice Theodosiano, are otherwise set downe both in the Code of Theo∣dosius, and in the Ephesine Councell, in which there is no mention at all of Theodoret, as in one of these there is: and then hee concludeth, haec de commentitiis scriptis, this may be spoken of the counterfeit writings in∣serted in these Acts. Thus Baronius. I am somewhat ashamed that such a reason should slip from a Cardinall, specially from Baronius, for it bewrayes an exceeding imbecility of judgement. There is but one law extant in the Theodosian Code s 1.2354 against Nestorius, and the followers of

his sect. Now because the lawes which are recited in the Synodall Acts t 1.2355 of this fift Councell, are different from it, hereupon the Car∣dinall presently concludes it to be a forgery, an imposture: he might as well conclude the Gospell of S. Luke, or S. Iohn to bee forged, be∣cause they differ from the Gospels of Matthew and Marke: or the Booke of Deuteronomy to be forged, because some lawes in Exodus are different from some in Deuteronomy. Is it possible, or credible, that Baronius could be so simple, and so infatuated, as to thinke one Empe∣rour might not make divers lawes concerning one heresie? specially against divers persons, or divers writings, though all of them suppor∣ting one heresie? The law in the Code and these in the Acts are diffe∣rent lawes: True, they are so: but can the Cardinall prove, or doth he once offer to prove that they are one law? and that they ought not to differ? No: the Cardinall was wise enough not to undertake so hard a taske. For it is as evident as the Sun, that the law against Ne∣storius 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 1.2356, Iterum, igitur doctrina Diodori, & Theodori, & Nestorij visa est nobis abo∣minanda, It seemes good to us againe to detest the doctrine of Diodorus, Theo∣dorus, and Nestorius. This Iterum, imports it was once done before in a former law, and now in this the Emperour would doe the same a∣gain. As the lawes, 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 Ne∣storius, all the rest who favoured that heresie, were in a generality, not by name condemned; because when that law was made, the Nestori∣ans honoured, and held Nestorius for their chiefest patron, and urged his writings: In these two recited in the Acts, Diodorus of Tarsis, Theo∣dorus 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 downe in the Code, the Nestorians durst not, nor could without danger of punish∣ment either praise Nestorius, or reade, write, or urge his books, which were all by that law condemned: then they began to magnifie Theo∣dorus of Mopsvestia, and Diodorus, and the writing of Theodoret, all which were as plaine and plentifull for their heresie, as Nestorius him∣selfe: but because these were not as yet by name condemned, nor by name prohibited, they presumed more boldly to rely on them. The Catholikes, and specially they of Armenia, as is witnessed x 1.2357 in a letter from them to Proclus, seeing this their new device, entreated the Em∣peror Theodosius to stop that wicked course, & to condemne by name Theodorus, as well as hee had done Nestorius. Which though at the first the Emperour 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 onely im∣plicitè, and in a generality condemned. When the lawes, the occasion, the time of promulgation, were all different, was not the Cardinall, thinke you, bereft of judgement, who would prove these later to bee

forged and counterfeit, because they differ from the former, with which they should not agree.

5. It may be the Cardinall thought that all lawes were expressed in the Code, and therefore if there had beene any such lawes as they, they would have beene there set downe. A conceit I beleeve which will never enter into any mans mind, while he hath use of his five wits, but into the Cardinals, who hath conceits by himselfe, and knoweth notes above Ela. To say nothing of the twelve Tables, and of all the ancient Romane lawes, (no part of which are extant in the Theodo∣sian Code,) the most ancient law mentioned in the Gregorian, surpas∣seth not the time of the Emperour Antoninus s 1.2358; and in the Theodo∣sian, not the time of Constantine. Can the Cardinall assure us that all the Lawes of Constantine, Constantius, and the other Emperours till the time of Theodosius the younger,t 1.2359 are expressed in this Code? Eusebius u 1.2360, and Zozomen x 1.2361 mention divers of Constantines lawes, Pro liberatione exu∣lum, Pro reducendis relegatis, Pro ijs qui ad metalla damnati erant, Pro con∣fessoribus, Pro ingenuis, Quod Ecclesia sit haeres ijs 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 Cardinall say y 1.2362 true, in the Consulship of Licinius, the fift time, and Crispus; for which yeare the Code hath no lawes, but two a 1.2363, 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 1.2364, commanding if any Bishop or Clerke mention that heresie, that hee should forth∣with be deposed; if a Laicke, bee anathematized; in which law hee particularly commandeth Irenaeus Bishop of Tyrus to be deposed from his See. This law, though it is both recorded in the Acts of the Ephe∣sine Councell, and confessed by the Cardinall c 1.2365 to bee truly the Em∣perours Law; yet is not extant in the Code, nor is it all one with that which is there set downe. The Cardinall by the same reason might prove it a forgery, as well as those other two, and conclude the Acts of the Ephesine Councell to be falsified by Impostors, and so to be of no credit, as well as the Acts of this fift 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 Councell d 1.2366 at Chalcedon; wherein the Emperour shewes againe his detestation of that heresie, approving the condemning and deposing of Domnus, of Theodoret and Irenie, Nestorian Bishops, as also of Flavianus, and Eu∣sebius of Dorilen, whom he thought to be Nestorians: but therein the Emperour was mis-informed, as hee had beene before, in the time of the holy Ephesine Synod, when upon like mis-information hee con∣demned Cyrill and Memnon, as well as Nestorius. That law, though ac∣knowledged also by Baronius e 1.2367 to be true, is not extant in the Theodo∣sian Code, nor doth it accord with that which is there expressed: would not any man thinke it ridiculous hence to conclude as the Cardinall doth, that certainly it is therefore a forgery, and the Acts of Chalce∣don containing such forgeries, are to be held of no credit? Thus while the Cardinall labours to discredit these Acts, he so foully disgraceth

himselfe, that men may justly doubt whether hee were his owne man when he writ these things, which are so voide 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 false∣ly inserted, refuted.

1. THe third proofe which Baronius a 1.2368 brings to shew 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 downe in the fift Collation b 1.2369, wherein Theodoret professeth to Nestori∣us, that he did not receive the letters of Cyrill as orthodoxall; nay, hee sheweth himselfe so averse from consenting to them, and so addicted to Nestorius after the union made, that hee 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 hereticall bitternesse; nor will I ever consent to those things which are unjustly done against you, nec si ambas manus, no though both my hands should bee cut off from me. Thus writeth Theodoret in that Epistle which the holy Councell first, and after them we af∣firme and professe to have beene the true writing of Theodoret; and the same to be a counterfeit, a forgery, and none of Theodorets, but fra∣med by heretikes, Baronius confidently avoucheth.

2. Now in this cause having the Synodall Acts, and with them the judgment of the whole generall approved Councell, on our side, wee might justly reject this as a calumny of Baronius, but for as much as hee not onely saith it, but undertakes to prove the same, wee will examine his reasons, that so the integrity and credit of these Acts may be more conspicuous. His reasons are two. The first c 1.2370 is groun∣ded on a testimony of Leontius Scolasticus, who writeth d 1.2371 thus, It is to bee knowne, that certaine letters of Theodoret and Nestorius are caried about, in which either of them doe lovingly embrace the other, sed fictitiae sunt, but they are counterfeit, and devised by heretikes, thereby to oppugne the Councell at Chalcedon; but Theodoret hated Nestorius, &c. Thus Leonti∣us: and the Card. adds e 1.2372 this, extat ex illis Epistolis una, one of those coun∣terfeit Epistles written to Nestorius is extant in the fift Councell, neare the end of the fift action thereof.

3. What if wee should except against Leontius, (though hee f 1.2373 bee as ancient as Pope Gregory) as a man not of sufficient credit? Or will the Card. thinke you, defend him, and take his testimony for sound and good paiment? then farewell for ever the books of Toby, Iudith,

Wisdome, Maccabees, and Ecclesiasticus; for Leontius g 1.2374 reckoning the bookes of the old Testament to be twenty two, and expresly mentio∣ning them all without these, saith, Hi sunt libri, these are the bookes, 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 al∣tered; In this hee speaks against them and their Trent faith, not against us: Here the note of their Index expurgatorius h 1.2375 must bee embraced; write, saith the Index, in the margent, diminutè Catalogum texuit Leon∣tius, Leontius recites not fully the Catalogue of the sacred bookes: And yet note one memorable thing by the way; God who suffered not Lahan to speak an ill word against Iacob, and who turned the curses of Bala∣am into a blessing to Israell, the same God over-ruled their pen or hands, as hee 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 1.2376 which past through their Purgatorian fire of correcti∣on, Divinitùs Catalogum librorum divinorum texuit; Leontius hath reci∣ted this Catalogue by an heavenly inspiration: and yet for all that divini∣tus texuit, the Cardinall will not beleeve Leontius, whom against us he perswades all men to beleeve. But howsoever in other matters (as by name in that Catalogue texto divinitus) Leontius is to bee beleeved, of a certainty hee is no fit witnesse in this cause of the Three Chapters; Hee was too partiall, that I say not hereticall, in this point, too much addicted to the writings of Theodorus of Mopsvestia, and Theo∣doret; let Baronius himselfe say, whether his commending of Theodo∣rus k 1.2377 Bishop of Mopsvestia, and Diodorus Bishop of Tarsis, for illustra∣ting the whole Scripture by their Commentaries, for being such worthy men, as that no man l 1.2378 while they lived, did reprove any one saying of theirs, bee not untrue, and after, both the person of the one, and writing of both condemned by the generall Councell, impious al∣so and hereticall. To come yet nearer to his saying concerning Theodo∣ret, in the very next sentence save one before those words which Baro∣nius alleageth Leontius saith, Verum ne Theodoretum quidem constat un∣quam admisisse Nestorium, it doth not appeare that Theodoret did ever admit of Nestorius, or hold communion with him. Had not the Cardinall skipt over (as is the wont of all heretikes) these former words of Le∣ontius, hee would have beene ashamed to alleage this testimony: For not onely the Synodall acts of the Ephesine m 1.2379 Councell, but the Car∣dinall himselfe often teacheth and proveth it by cleare evidence, that Theodoret n 1.2380 admitted Nestorius, and that into a neare band of friend∣ship, love, and communion. In that Epistle which Theodoret writ from Chalcedon to Alexander, hee calleth Nestorius their friend o 1.2381 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and saith of him, while wee are here in this legacy to the Emperour, non cessabimus omni virtute, ejus patris curam gerere, wee 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 1.2382 a very loving Epist. to Nestorius written by Iohn & other Eastern Bish. parti∣cularly by Theodoret, who all writ of themselves tui studiosissimi, we are all most affectionate to Nestorius; of whom Baronius q 1.2383 saith, they who writ this to Nestorius, eidem intima, conjuncti necessitudine, being joyned

in a most neare band of familiarity, stood afterwards for him in the Councell, Maximè vero eidem addictus Theodoretus, but of them all Theodoret was most addicted unto him. And againe r 1.2384, having cited some words of Theodoret, he addeth, Seeing Theodoret saith thus, I am non so∣lum cum Nestorio unanimem fuisse vides, sed dixerim etiam concorporeum; you see that he was not only a loving friend, and of one minde, but, if I may so say, one incorporated, and concorporated to Nestorius. Thus Baronius, when himselfe so expresly contradicts his owne witnesse Leontius, and in this very cause touching Theodoret and Nestorius, yea, in that which is the ground of Leontius errour touching this Epistle; should hee require us to beleeve that which is but a collection. from the former, which is his fundamentall errour? 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 hee thought, and thought erroniously, that Theodoret never embraced the friendship and communion with Nestorius, thought also erroniously this Epistle (which testifieth Theo∣dorets love and communion with Nestorius) to bee a counterfeit; the Cardinall, who knoweth and professeth against Leontius, that Theodo∣ret was most inward, and even almost incorporated to Nestorius, ought likewise to hold against Leontius, that this Epistle which testifi∣eth 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 Cardinall dealt in this cause, behold himselfe within few years after, against this testimony of Leontius, acknowled∣geth, professeth, and sets downe this very Epistle as the true and cer∣taine Epistle of Theodoret to Nestorius, which here no doubt, against his owne judgement and conscience hee denyeth, and proves out of Leontius not to bee the Epistle of Theodoret, but a counterfeit, and a forgery, for thus he writeth s 1.2385, Theodoret indeed received the forme 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 hee had so long affe∣cted, for at this time (to wit after the union was made) hee writ an Epistle to Nestorius, which was read in the fift generall Synod; and then repeating every word of the Inscription and Epistle, hee adds at the end, hacte∣nus ad Nestorium Theodoretus, thus writ Theodoret to Nestorius: and a∣gaine, Theodoret obstinately professed in his letters lately recited, that hee would never assent to the sentence against Nestorius. Thus Baronius; who hereby demonstrates himselfe to be a meere calumniator, who to dis∣grace the Synodal Acts of the fift Councell, affirmes, and would seem by Leontius to prove that Epistle of Theodorets to bee none of his, but a forgery, which to bee no forgery but the true writing of Theodoret, himselfe knew, testifieth and professeth. Thus much of his former proofe out of Leontius.

5. His other proofe is taken t 1.2386 out of divers Epistles of Theodoret, specially out of that to Dioscorus Bishop of Alexandria, to Pope Leo, and divers others; and because it might bee replyed, that these were written long after the time of the union, whereas, onely at that time, and somewhat after, Theodoret might bee said to have been hereticall,

and a favourer of Nestorius, as by this Epistle is signified: to wipe away this suspition, he addes these words, post initam quidem pacem, truly af∣ter 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) stre∣nuè atque impigrè laboravit, that he laboured stoutly and diligently for the Catholike faith. To which purpose he againe saith u 1.2387, Post restitutam Ec∣clesiae pacem, after the peace and unity of the Church, Theodoret by all Ca∣tholikes was knowne to bee orthodoxall, and to communicate with those that were orthodoxall. Which orthodoxy of faith; saith hee x 1.2388, those Epistles of his doe so abundantly testifie, 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 Ne∣storius. Thus Baronius, denying Theodoret at any time after the union made, to have beene hereticall, or a favourer of Nestorius; and then undoubtedly this Epistle, which both is hereticall, and wherein such entire love and affection is expressed to Nestorius, and which is recor∣ded to have beene written after the time of the union, can be none of Theodorets, but must be rejected for an imposture, a forgery.

6. Doe you not verily beleeve the Cardinall had sent his wit out of the Country, when hee writ that whole part of his Annals, which concernes these three Chapters? A little before he professeth y 1.2389 this to be truly the Epistle of Theodoret, and now hee will prove that it was not, that it could not possible be the Epistle of Theodoret. Yea which is no lesse worthy of observing, hee before not onely allowed this E∣pistle, (with the inscription, wherein it was sayd that it was writ to Nestorius after the union) to be Theodorets; but he further sayth z 1.2390, that Theodoret seemes to have beene of this minde, (which is noted in this Epistle) etiam post concordiam, even after the agreement, union, and con∣cord made with Cyrill, seeing Theodoret so obstinately professeth in his letters, that hee would never assent to the sentence against Nestorius, Sicque certum est aliquandiu perseverasse, and so it is certaine that Theodo∣ret continued some while (after the union) with an angry minde against Cy∣rill. But now hee will prove the quite contrary, that Theodoret for a certainty writ no such things, nor had any fellowship with Nestorius af∣ter the union. So both it is certaine that Theodoret writ this, and yet it is certaine he writ it not; certaine that hee writ it after the union, and yet certaine that he writ it not after the union. That is, to speake plainly, it is certaine the Cardinall demonstrates himselfe and his An∣nals to be false, untrue, and ridiculous, repugnant both to the truth, and to his owne writings.

7. This might suffice to oppose against whatsoever Baronius can produce. If he prove by any testimony this Epistle not to be Theodo∣rets, I on the contrary will prove it to bee Theodorets, by the Cardi∣nals owne testimony: If he prove by any reason Theodoret after the union not to have favoured Nestorius and his heresie; I on the con∣trary will prove that after the union hee favoured Nestorius, by a stronger reason, even by the Cardinals owne confession. If hee bring Theodoret, I bring Baronius, and so I might Par pari referre, quod

male mordeat hominem. But besides this confession of Baronius, (which disproves whatsoever he can prove against us in this matter) I will adde somewhat concerning those Epistles of Theodoret, on which hee much relyeth. Those Epistles comming out of the a 1.2391 Vaticane (the very Mint-house of forgery) are in truth nothing else but counter∣feits, as hereafter I purpose more fully to demonstrate; for this time I will onely mention that which most concernes this present cause, out of those Epistles which the Cardinall most urgeth, and those are his Epistles to Dioscorus, & to Pope Leo, specially seeing that to Dioscorus (as the Cardinall b 1.2392 tels us) declareth the faith of Theodoret to bee such and so orthodoxal, that it is enough, ad abstergendum suspitionem, to wipe away all suspition of heresie, wherewith, by reason of some counterfeit writings in the Synod, (I thinke he meanes the fift Councell) hee 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 1.2393 the union, and so cannot helpe the Cardinall at all in this point: and if they had beene writ presently upon that union, yet those not to bee truely Theodorets, divers circumstances doe make evident. In the Epistle to Dioscorus * 1.2394 Theodoret is made to relate how long before that time hee had beene a Bishop, and where hee had preached. The yeares of his Bishopricke he reckons d 1.2395 to bee twenty six, all which time he continu∣ed a Preacher at Antioch. Whence Baronius e 1.2396 observeth, Theodoretum Episcopum publicum semper egisse Cathechistam Antiochiae, that Theodoret being a Bishop, was continually the publike Catechist at Antioch, during that time of three Patriarchs, Theodatus, Iohn, and Domnus: And at least it might bee supposed that hee was a Preacher, or (as the Cardinall cals him) a Catechiser in that City, before hee was Bishop; another of those Epistles (that ad Nonium f 1.2397) wil assure us the contrary, for there Theodoret saith of himselfe, I stayed in a Monastery, quousque Episcopus factus, till I was made a Bishop; And Baronius g 1.2398 further explanes this, say∣ing, creatus Episcopus, after Theodoret was made and ordained Bishop, he was held at Antioch to be the preacher there, first by Theodatus, then by Iohn his successor: Theodoret goes on to set forth his owne ortho∣doxy and praise, saying h 1.2399, that though hee so long continued a preacher at Antioch, yet in all those yeares, neither i 1.2400 any of the Bishops, nor any of the Clergy did reprove his doctrine or sayings; which hee explanes in that o∣ther Epistle k 1.2401 to Pope Leo, saying thus, Whereas I have beene a Bishop these sixe and twenty yeares, yet in all this time, non subij quantumvis levem reprehensionem, I have not beene so much as lightly reproved for my do∣ctrine, but by the favor of God I have delivered more than 1000 (or as Baro∣nius l 1.2402 corrects it, more than ten thousand) soules from Marcionisme, Ari∣anisme, Eunomianisme, so that in eight hundred Parishes (so many are in my Diocesse of Cyrus) there hath not remained no not one weede, but my flocke is free from all hereticall errour. Thus hee in that Epistle. Which his orthodoxy hee yet more fully declares in another Epistle m 1.2403; Looke on my writings both before and since the holy Ephesine Councell, in singu∣lis 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 againe in that to Nomus n 1.2404 speaking of the same his integrity of faith, in all these five and twenty yeares, saith he, Nec à quoquam accusatus, nec quenquam accusavi, Neither have I beene ac∣cused 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 forgerer, who reports this as an honour to Theodoret, that hee even when hee was a Bishop, was a Catechiser for six and twenty yeares together, and that out of his owne Diocesse: that withall hee 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 heresie out of his owne Dio∣cesse, that ne unum zizanium, not so much as one weed remained, in all those eight hundred Parishes whereof he was Pastor. Doe but observe here two most palpable and ridiculous untruths of the forgerer. The former, that he makes Theodoret to write in the first yeare of Diosco∣rus, that is, as Baronius o 1.2405 assures us, an. 444. that hee had then beene a Bishop six and twenty yeares. Now hee was created Bishop, as the Cardinall p 1.2406 demonstrates, and sets downe for a certainty, An. 423. to which if you adde 26. I doubt not but any Arithmetician will easily shew it to be impossible that at the yeare 444. he shall be 26. yeares a Bishop. Nay see and deride the folly of this impostor. In the Epistle to Leo written after q 1.2407 the Ephesine Latrociny, which the Cardinall r 1.2408, Binius s 1.2409, and all confesse to have beene An. 449. he makes Theodoret, account the whole time of his Bishopricke, to bee but twenty t 1.2410 sixe yeares, which was so much when hee writ to Dioscorus, five yeares before that.

9. And here withall note by the way the rare wisedome of Car∣dinall Baronius. He upon that Epistle ^u to Dioscorus sets downe this Memorandum, Observa lector, Note here gentle reader, that all these twenty six yeares Bishop Theodoret was a Catechist; and withall note how long each of those three Patriarches sate (to wit, six and twenty yeares) from the time that Theodoret was made Bishop, till this yeare 444. Observa lector, Note againe good reader, the dotage of the Car∣dinall. Theodoret was made Bishop An. 423. and by adding 26. the Cardinall cannot finde above 444. Truly it was fit he should be be∣sotted, who undertakes to defend Impostours, and most sottish un∣truths. But in the meane space doe you not thinke Baronius a very fit man to write Annals of 1200. yeares, that is so exact in calculating so small a summe, as to account 23. and 26. to make just 44. though at another time, when by such a false accompt he had no purpose to dis∣grace or refute the Acts of this Synod, he x 1.2411 could then summe 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 shamelesse lyer, and in these his writings of no credit at all. In all those 25. or 26. yeares, saith he, I was not ac∣cused, nor reproved: no not lightly reproved for my doctrine by any man. Not accused? not reproved? no not lightly reproved? Fye, both he and his doctrines were condemned and accursed for hereti∣call,

and before hee writ this to Leo, himselfe was deposed also from his Bishoprick in a generall Councell. Of all which there are undoub∣ted evidences as cleare as the Sun. His impious and hereticall wri∣tings against Cyrill, and his twelve Chapters, so often recorded both in the fift Councell, in the Imperiall Edict of Iustinian, in Pope Grego∣ry and Pelagius, acknowledged by Baronius for impious and heretical, these being writ in the time of the holy Ephesine Councell directly in defence of Nestorianisme, and against the Catholike faith, did the doctrine of the Church shine in them? were not they reproved? not so much as lightly reproved? when the holy Ephesine Councell y 1.2412 ex∣presly condemned and accursed all the doctrines of Nestorius, and all who defend them: was this thinke you no reproofe of Theodoret his writings? There is extant among the acts of the Ephesine Councell, the decree which Iohn a 1.2413 Bishop of Antioch made with the rest that tooke part with Nestorius, and which falsely called themselves the ho∣ly Synod of Ephesus, whereas they were nothing else but a meere con∣spiracy of detestable heretikes. In that decree they depose Cyrill and Memnon as being Apollinarians, heretikes, contemners of the holy Fathers and their doctrine, turbulent, seditious, and the like: they accurse all the rest of the Bishops who consented to Cyrill, that is, all who were of the holy Ephesine Councell; and they binde them with an Anathema so long, till they did accurse the twelve chapters of Cyrill, (that is, till they did renounce and accuse the Catholike faith, and maintaine Nestorianisme.) To this hereticall, false, slanderous, and diabolicall decree of the Nestorians, Theodoret subscribed by name a∣mong the rest. What thinke 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? Reade but the se∣venth Chapter of the fourth Tome of those acts b 1.2414, and there you shall see that this their whole conventicle, and among the rest Theodoret is particularly condemned, and anathematized by the holy Oecumeni∣call Synod of Ephesus, for this their hereticall dealing: and I suppose this was some reproofe of Theodoret, to bee, and that most justly, con∣demned and excommunicated for an heretike by the consenting judg∣ment of an holy Oecumenicall Synod; that is in truth by the whole Catholike Church. Those Acts of the Ephesine Councell containe 1000. like demonstrations of that untruth, uttered in those Epistles. Among them all consider but that Sermon c 1.2415 which Theodoret made to the Nestorians at Chalcedon, during the time of that Ephesine Coun∣cell, of which Peltanus sayth, Theodoret is caryed, insano impitu, with a furious rage against Cyrill, and the other Orthodoxall Bishops of the holy Councell, comparing them to Serpents, Basiliskes, murderers, and the like. Neither doth he onely vomit out his choler against them, but he plainly girded at the Emperour also. (Did he accuse none when he uttered all this?) Nay he d 1.2416 affirmes Catholikes which hold Christ God and man to be one person, and so to be passible, to be worse than Heathens. The Heathens, sayth he, taught, the Heaven, the Sun, and the Starres to be impassible, and shall wee beleeve the onely begotten Son of God to be passible, and such as may dye? Absit Salvator, ne sic

simus Apostatae; farre be this from us, O Saviour, let us not be such Apo∣states, as to teach this, let us not suspect that our Saviour could suffer. Let any man now judge whether it be not a shamelesse untruth which those Epistles avouch that Theodoret was not reproved for this doc∣trine, no not lightly reproved in all those 26. yeares; whereas both then and ever since, the whole Catholike Church hath accursed his impiety and heresie, which he so insolently then preached? And omit∣ting infinite like proofes of the falshood of that Epistle, the next yeare after the Ephesine Councell, there was a Synod e 1.2417 held at Antioch, where Iohn and divers other Bishops concluded the full union with Cyrill, wherein they all condemne & anathematize the heresies of Ne∣storius, which their profession of faith, and this condemning of the Nestorian heresie, Iohn sent, both to Cyrill, to Pope Sixtus, and to Ma∣ximianus Bishop of Constantinople. Now seeing Theodoret not onely in former time had beene so violent and furious in defence of that doc∣trine, but then and long after continued in the same minde, was not his doctrine reproved, nay was it not accursed and anathematized by Iohn Patriarch of Antioch, and many other Bishops subject to his Pa∣triarchship? What a most vile and shameless untruth then is it, which the Impostor makes Theodoret to utter, that in the whole space of 25. or 26. yeares he neither accused any, nor was accused nor reproved, no not lightly reproved either by Iohn 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 sayd may for this time suffice.

11. Having now declared how untrue that is which Baronius affir∣meth, that Theodoret after the union did never embrace the heresies of Nestorius, and withall seene how weake and unsound his proofe is in this point, I will yet adde one consideration which will further ma∣nifest, and even demonstrate the same. That is taken from the history of Theodoret. Certaine it is, that when Theodoret writ that history, he was earnestly addicted to Nestorianisme, whereof in the very last Chapter f 1.2418 he gives an eminent proofe, 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 yeares, he never ceased, optimam herbam sanctis Christi ••vi••us suppe∣ditare, to feed the flocke of Christ with the best herbes. None can doubt but hee who so much extolleth so detestable an heretike, and appro∣veth those most damnable heresies which from him Nestorius suck••, for the best herbes or doctrines, but he must needs be confessed to bee as deepe in Nestorianisme as Nestorius himselfe. If now it may appeare that this history was writ by him after the union, there can no doubt remaine 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, tels g 1.2419 us that Theodoret writ his history not onely be∣fore the union, but before the jarre also; yea before the time of the holy Coun∣cell at Ephesus; whereof having given some sleight conjectures, in the end he concludes, Dicendum est, It must be sayd that Theodoret writ this history in

the space of those three yeares which were next precedent to the holy Ephesine Councell. So he. Shall I say the Cardinall was deceived and overseene herein? No, I will not suspect that such an evident error could creepe into the minde of so exact an Annalist. I rather thinke his intent was, wilfully and wittingly to deceive others, and that therefore hee sayd this to smother that truth touching Theodorets continuance in Nesto∣rianisme, which he elsewhere so often denieth. Theodoret h 1.2420 mentioneth in that his history the translation of the body or reliques of Chryso∣stome, and bringing them to Constantinople. The Cardinall was so far from being ignorant hereof, that himselfe citeth i 1.2421 Theodoret with a memorandum, He, ante omnes, above them all mentioneth this transla∣tion, but in few words. That translation, as Socrates k 1.2422 and Marcelli∣nus l 1.2423 witnesse, was when Theodosius was the sixteenth time Consull, that is, as the Cardinall also accounteth, in the yeare 438. Now seeing the union betweene Iohn and Cyrill was made in the yeare 432. it un∣avoydably followeth, that either Theodoret writ not his History till seven yeares at least after the union, and how much more I know not, whether 8.10. or 16. after it, (for it is uncertaine:) or if hee writ it, as the Cardinall divineth, before the Ephesine Synod, that he writ it prophetically, writing those Acts which happened not till eight or nine yeares after his history was written. The truth is, an orderly and historicall continuation of things done, he doth not write, but onely to the death of Theodorus Bishop of Mopsvestia, where his history (for any such continuation of succeeding matters) doth end: but to shew and testifie that he writ his history after the yeare 438. hee purposely mentioneth some of those acts which sell out in that yeare: and here∣of further there may be a presumption, because Theodoret, as Baronius tels m 1.2424 us, followed Sozomen in his commending of Theodorus of Mops∣vestia; now Sozomens history was continued unto the 17. Consulship of Theodosius, as himselfe witnesseth: So that if Theodoret, as the Car∣dinall tels us, tooke it out of Sozomen, and his booke was not publish∣ed till the yeare 439. sure the Cardinall of all men had reason to think that Theodoret could not before that time (otherwise than propheti∣cally in this point) write his history. It remaineth now, seeing Theodo∣ret was an earnest defender of Nestorius at the time when he writ this history; and it was written after the yeare 438. that out of all doubt till then hee remained hereticall, and devoted to all the blasphemies and heresies of Nestorius and Theodorus, which in that history he com∣mends for most wholsome food, and Catholike doctrine.

11. But not to stay longer in a matter very cleare, my conclusion of this former point is this; Seeing the Cardinall tels us that from the time of the union Theodoret was not onely a Catholike and ortho∣doxall Bishop, but that he did manfully fight for the Catholike faith, it evidently followeth, that in the Cardinals judgment, Nestorianism and those herbes, nay most poysonfull weeds of Theodorus are Catho∣like doctrines, seeing as now we have proved for many (but of a cer∣tainty for seven yeares 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 fift Councell.

CAP. XXXIV. The fourth addition to the Synodall Acts, pretended by Baronius, for that the Epistle of Theodoret, intitled to Iohn Bishop of Antioch, is fals∣ly inserted therein; refuted.

1. HIs fourth instance concernes an Epistle of Theo∣doret, inscribed to Iohn Bishop of Antioch, set downe neare the last end of the fift Collati∣on; wherein Theodoret exceedingly rejoyceth for the death of Cyrill. In handling whereof, Baronius and Binius doe more than triumph, as if the field were certainly wonne. That E∣pistle, sayth Binius a 1.2425, 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 1.2426, the imposture of that Epistle, but we are not grieved to re∣peat the same things here againe, that it may be shewed that they are not the true Acts of the Synod, sed nebulonis cujusdam ex cogitatione commentum, but a forgery devised by some knave: and therfore we say, that Epistle which is recited under the name of Theodoret to Iohn of Anti∣och, Omni ex parte convinci, is every way convinced not to bee Theodorets. Againe c 1.2427, There is an Epistle set downe in the fift Synod, under the name of Theodoret, written unto Iohn, rejoycing in the death of Cyrill, and babbling very many things against him, which you may more truly call a Satyre, or in∣famous libell, than an Epistle. And we take it very indignely that it should goe under the name of Theodoret, which is rather the figment of some Nesto∣rian: and againe d 1.2428, it is figmentum impudentissimi cujusdam nebulonis, a fiction of some most shameles varlet. Thus & much more Baronius. The like doth Binius with no lesse confidence and virulency against these Acts affirme. The maine ground on which they both relye, is, for that Iohn Bishop of Antioch to whom this Epistle is inscribed, was dead before Cyrill. How could Theodoret, saith Baronius e 1.2429, write to Iohn touching the death of Cyrill, seeing Iohn was dead seven yeares before Cyrill? which, saith he, exploratum habetur, is sure and certaine, both by Nicephorus and others who writ the succession of Bishops, as also by an Epistle which Cyrill writ to Domnus the successour of Iohn, both which proofes Binius f 1.2430 also alledgeth.

2. My first answer hereunto is, that if this bee 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 decretall Epistle g 1.2431 written by Pope Clement to Iames Bishop of Ierusalem, and

brother of our Lord: in that Epistle the Pope tels Iames, how Peter being now ready to bee martyred, tooke Clement, ordained him Bi∣shop, gave him the keyes, set him in his owne chayre, and when hee was set therein, sayd unto him, Deprecor te O Clemens, O Clement I be∣seech thee before all that are here present, that thou write unto Iames the brother of our Lord, how thou hast beene a companion with me of my journyes, and of my actions, ab initio usque ad finem, from the be∣ginning to the end; and write also what thou hast heard mee preach in every City, what order of words, of actions, I have used in my prea∣ching, and also what an end I make of my life in this City. Neither feare that he will be sory for my death, seeing he will not doubt but I dye for pieties sake; yea it will be a great comfort unto him, to heare that I doe not leave my charge to one that is ignorant or unlearned. According to this request and command of Peter, Clement writ an E∣pistle to Iames, exhorting him, that he command all that which Peter taught, to be diligently observed. This and much more writ Clement to Iames after the death, and of the life and death of Peter. Now Iames unto whom hee writ was dead sixe or seven yeares before Peter: For Iames was slaine in the seventh, and Peter in the thirteenth yeare of Ne∣ro, as out of S. Ierome h 1.2432, Eusebius i 1.2433, Iosephus k 1.2434, and others, is evident; and as Baronius l 1.2435, and after him Binius m 1.2436, not onely professe but clear∣ly and rightly prove: and because this is a decretall n 1.2437 Epistle, an Apo∣stolicall o 1.2438 writing, sent from Clement being Pope, which was not till the tenth p 1.2439 yeare of Domitian, and that is thirty yeares after the q 1.2440 death of Iames, it hence ensueth that it was writ to Iames thirty yeares after he was dead. What shall now become of this decretall and Apostoli∣call Epistle? Will they be content that by the Cardinals demonstra∣tion it bee rejected as the forgery of some leud varlet? Fye! By no meanes. Binius r 1.2441 cals it the Epistle of Pope Clement; Baronius s 1.2442 tels us that it is not only Pope Clements, but that this and the other written to the same Iames the dead Bishop of Ierusalem, are integrae & illibatae, intire and incorrupted writings of Clement. In their Canon law t 1.2443, and that corrected by the Pope, it is stiled the epistle of Pope Clement to Iames: and that which is there related must stand for the words and doctrine of S. Peter u 1.2444; yea the authority of it, as other decretall Epistles, Conci∣liorū x 1.2445 Canonibus pari jure exaequatur, is every way equall to the Canons of Nice, of Chalcedon, of other holy Councels. If that bee too little, what Saint Austen y 1.2446 sayth of the very sacred Canonicall Scriptures, indited by the Spirit of God himselfe, that doth Gratian (wretchedly abusing Saint Austens words) apply to this and the rest of the Popes decretall Epistles, saying of them z 1.2447, Inter Canonicas Scripturas, decreta∣les Epistolae connumerantur; the decretall Epistles are to be reckoned among the Canonicall Scriptures. Bellarmine a 1.2448 not onely in generall defends this saying of Gratian, telling us that the decretals may well be called Canonicall, that is, either such as are a rule, and have force to binde; or Canonicall in that sense as the seventh Synod calleth the Decrees of Councels, Constitutions inspired from God; but particularly also

he defends b 1.2449 by the authority of Ruffinus this to be the true Epistle of Pope Clement unto Iames: and to omit others, their Iesuite Turrian, to whom Baronius c 1.2450, Binius d 1.2451, Gretzer e 1.2452, and others, refer us for the cre∣dit of these Epistles, hath writ a whole booke in defence of them; wherein he cals them (and particularly he mentioneth and defendeth this of Clement to Iames) sanctissimas f 1.2453, verissimas, &c. most holy, most true Epistles, most worthy of their authors; that is, men Apostolike, conse∣crated by the reverence of the whole word, full g 1.2454 of all gravity, lear∣ning and sanctity, confirmed by the testimony and use of all ages: and which is most worthy remembring for our present purpose, the Iesu∣ite writes in defence of them thus h 1.2455, What if in these Epistles sometimes there meet us some such matters as are not easie to all? must wee therefore doubt of their authority? by no meanes. Therefore if any man doe not understand how the Epistle of Clement could bee written to Iames the brother of our Lord, who was dead more than eight yeares before, such an one, if he be a learned, modest, and temperate man, he will ask of others, and in the meane space containe himselfe within his owne bounds; that is, as himselfe explaineth, handling this Epistle i 1.2456, he must so firmly hold it to be written by Pope Clement, ut dubitare nefas exi∣stimet, that he esteeme it a great sinne to doubt thereof. Besides all this, the Iesuite hath a large Chapter k 1.2457 purposely to defend and shew this E∣pistle to be truly Clements, though it was written to Iames long after he was dead. Some there were (whom Baronius l 1.2458, Possevine and Binius follow) who thought it was written indeed by Clement,m 1.2459 but not unto Iames,n 1.2460 who was then dead, but unto his successor Simeon. Against these their owne Turrian holds resolutely p 1.2461 that it was writ not to Simeon, nor to any but to Iames; and whereas some would think it a folly q 1.2462 and madnesse to write to such an one as was dead, and which was knowne to be dead to the author who writ it, (for who should be the carier of this letter unto him?) especially to write unto him as a governour in the Church militant, & to instruct and exhort r 1.2463 him what he should carefully observe, Turrian tels s 1.2464 you that there were divers great and waighty reasons why Saint Peter commanded Clement,t 1.2465 and why Cle∣ment did write this to a dead man, whom they both knew to be dead: and having given divers very wise and worthy reasons hereof, one ta∣ken from transfiguration u 1.2466, another x 1.2467 from imitation, a third from a∣voyding y 1.2468 hatred, if he had writ to any that had beene alive; a fourth z 1.2469, for to be a testimony of the Resurrection, (belike because that Saint Iames shall then reade this holy Apostolicall 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 1.2470, that such as are Catholikes must not doubt q 1.2471 of the truth of this Epistle, though they know not the reason why it was written to a dead man: and with∣all, 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 Cardinals worthy demon∣stration? Had hee and Binius beene men of reason and judgement, and considered (as no doubt but they read) that tract of Turrian, (seeing unto it they referre us) they might have seene therein divers reasons why Theodoret might write to Iohn, 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 Iames, who was dead long before: But the case is now altered, the Cardinals demon∣stration holds onely 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 doe) either honour to the Romane See, or gaine to the Romane Court, though they were writ to one that was dead, I say not seven, but seven times seven yeares before, they shall bee honoured as the true and undoubted writings of the authors.

3. Let mee adde but one other example, but that is such an one as doth cut all the sinewes, yea, the very heart-strings of the Cardinals demonstration. The translation of Chrysostomes body or reliques by Theodosius the younger, more than thirty yeares after his death, from Comana, where hee dyed in banishment, to Constantinople, is a matter so testified by Socrates r 1.2472, Theodoret s 1.2473, Marcellimus t 1.2474, the great Menolo∣gy u 1.2475, their Romane Martyrology x 1.2476, and others, that we doe not doubt of the truth therof; But since it is y 1.2477 retranslated, as they say, from Con∣stantinople to Rome, the onely shop indeed to utter all such ware, and make the people goe a whoring after them: That those his supposed reliques may be had in reverence, it is worthy the considering, how miraculously they have made the manner of his Translation. Nicepho∣rus z 1.2478 relates the summe of it, but, as by Baronius a 1.2479 it seemes, he borrow∣ed it out of the luculent Oration of one Cosmas Vestiarius, whether one of the Vaticane b 1.2480, or a Baronian author I know not, but so igno∣ble, and so unworthy an author, that Possevine judged him not wor∣thy to bee named in his Bibliotheca, or reckoned among his testes ve∣ritatis. Out of this Tailors Oration hath the Cardinall c 1.2481 stitcht a very pretty Anile, the summe whereof is this: Proclus on a time making a panegyricall Oration in the praise of Chrysostome, the people were so flamed with the love and longing desire after him, that they inter∣rupted the Bishop, and would not suffer him to make an end of his Sermon, crying out with many loud vociferations, they would have Chrysostome, Chrysostome and his reliques they would have: Proclus mo∣ved herewith, intreates the Emperour; the Emperour, at this their earnest sute sent divers Senators (some d 1.2482 say an army together, with Clerks and Monkes) to bring with all pompe the body of Chrysostome from Comana; thither they goe, and come to the place where Chryso∣stomes

body was kept in a silver Coffin: Once, againe b 1.2483, and very often they assay, yea, labor & strive with all their strength, w^ch all their skil, to lift up the Coffin, all was in vaine, the sacred body c 1.2484 was more im∣movable than a rock; they certifie this news to the Emperor, who cal∣led Proclus, & other holy men to advise further about that matter; in the end the resolution of them all d 1.2485 was, that the Emperour Theodosius should write a Letter to Chrysostome, Supplicis instar libelli, in forme of a supplication, asking him forgivenesse for the sinnes which Arcadius his father had committed against him, & humilibus precibus, to beseech him with most lowly prayers that hee would returne to Constantinople, and take his old See againe, praying him that hee would no longer by his absence afflict them, being so desirous of his body, yea, of his ashes, yea, of his shadow. The Emperour did so, the forme of whose letter of supplication out of the Tailor Cosmas, first Nicephorus, and then Ba∣ronius expresse, though the Cardinall for good cause was loath to give Chrysostome the title of a Patriarke, and Pater Patrum, which Ni∣cephorus e 1.2486 sets downe; those either the Tailor or the Cardinall con∣cealeth or altereth. The Emperours letters were sent and brought to the dead corps, and with great reverence laid upon the brest and heart of Chrysostome, 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 Emperour with the people, supplex communem precationem pro Pa∣rentibus fecit, made an humble prayer for his Parents, and more specially entreated for his Mother, that her grave f 1.2487, which had shaken and been sicke of a palsie, and made a noise and ratling for thirty five yeares to∣gether might now at length cease; & the holy man heard the request, granted it; the graves palsie was cured, so that it shaked no more. Then Proclus the Bishop placed dead Chrysostome in eundem Thronum, in the very same See and Episcopall seat with himselfe, all the people applauding and crying, O Father Chrysostome receive thy See; and then by a miracle beyond the degree of admiration, the lips g 1.2488 of Chry∣sostome (five and thirty yeares after hee was laid in his grave) opened and blessed all the people, saying, Peace be to you; and this both the Pa∣triarke Proclus, and the people standing by, testified h 1.2489 that they heard. Thus farre the Cardinals narration out of his Tailor Cosmas and Ni∣cephorus.

4. Say now in earnest, is not this a story able to put downe Helio∣dore, Orlando, and all the fictions of all the Poets? their wits are bar∣ren, their conceits dull, they are all but very botchers to the Cardinals Taylor. It is not my purpose to stand now to resute such a lying le∣gend: The Cardinals friends may see the censure which their Car∣thusian Monke i 1.2490 Tilmannus gives of it and of Nicephorus, the onely au∣thor that he knew, till Baronius pull'd this blinde Tailor out of a cor∣ner; Though I beleeve (saith hee) God to bee omnipotent, yet I be∣leeve not all which is here written of Chrysostome, sed fides penes lectorē esto, let the reader choose whether hee will beleeve it or not, for the writers of mens lives, who lived before Nicephorus, (and hee writ about the yeare 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 bee the more weighty, because of all the ancient Fathers there is none (I speake it confidently) who hapned to have more fabulous writers than are Palladius (as he is cal∣led) Leo and George the writers, or rather the devisers of Chrysostomes 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 onely observe is the strange, and if you please, miraculous lewd dealing of Baronius. This Epistle of Theodosius, though it was written to Chrysostome more than thirty yeares after his death, the Cardinall approves, applaudes, and for a rare monument hee commends k 1.2491 it, and all that appendant fable to all posterity. Why? it is an excellent story indeed to perswade the adoration of reliques, invocation of Saints, prayers for the dead, and such like. Had this Epistle of Theodorets contained such stuffe, it should have had every way the like applause from his Cardinalship; because it wants such matters, and crosseth in very many things the Cardinals 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 Iohn Bishop of Antioch, who was dead but 7. yeares be∣fore, whereas more than foure times seven yeares, cannot hinder the Epistle of Theodosius written to the Bishop of Constantinople after hee was dead, to be an authentike and undoubted record. This may serve the Cardinall for the first answere, who is now bound in all equity, either to confesse his owne demonstration to be fallacious, or to pro∣clame the Epistle of Pope Clement, and the other of Theodosius with that whole narration, to be fictitious, and his owne Annals a fabulous legend.

5. My second answer is, that though Iohn, to whom this Epistle is directed, was dead, yet that proves onely the title or inscription to be amisse, or that Theodoret writ not this Epistle to Iohn; it cannot prove (which the Cardinall undertooke to doe) that the Epistle is for∣ged, and not written by Theodoret: For the Epistle it selfe to bee tru∣ly Theodorets, his owne Sermon publikely preached at Antioch be∣fore Domnus after the death of Cyrill, and mentioned in the Synodall Acts l 1.2492 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 eagernesse in defending the do∣ctrine of Nestorius, and withall rejoyceth and insulteth over Cyrill be∣ing dead, who was then the chiefe oppugner of the heresies of Nestori∣us. The very same eagernesse for Nestorianisme, and love to his here∣sies, as also the like joy for Cyrils death doth his sermon expresse more fully, saying, Nemo neminem jam cogit blasphemare, none doth now (seeing Cyrill is dead) compell any man to blaspheme, (so hee cals the Catholike faith.) Where are those (to wit Cyrill) who teach that God was cruci∣fied? It was the man Christ, and not God who was crucified: It was the man IESVS that dyed, 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 Patriarke of Alexandria, as they who are under the Patriarke 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 (hee meaneth Cyrill, 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, (hee meanes Catholikes, who taught God to have suffe∣red and dyed) let them now bee at quiet. Thus preached Theodoret af∣ter the death of Cyrill, insulting over him being dead, triumphing that now (seeing Cyrill was dead) Nestorianisme did and would prevaile. Who can imagine, but that the Epistle, maintaining the same heresie insulting in the same triumphing manner at the death of Cyrill, was written by Theodoret, when he publikely in his sermon before a Patri∣arke, uttered the same matter. Would Theodoret feare or forbeare to write that in a letter, which hee neither did feare, nor could forbeare to professe openly in a sermon, and that in so solemne a place and as∣sembly? or was Theodoret orthodoxall, and a lover of Cyrill in his wri∣tings before the death of Cyrill, who was hereticall, 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 Cyrill in an open Pulpit, and in the hearing of a Patriarke, and all the people of Antioch? It is not the inscription or title of the Epistle, but the Epi∣stle it selfe which the fift Councell and wee after it doe stand upon. Had not they knowne the Epistle to bee Theodorets 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 publike sermon by them cited and preached after Cyrils death, and against Cyrill, had beene a sufficient proofe and demonstration of that; but because they were sure this was the true Epistle of Theodoret, they thought good to testifie that he was in writing the selfe same man as hee was in preaching, that is in both a spitefull maligner of Cyrill, in both a malicious and malignant Nestorian, and that long after the union made betwixt Iohn and Cyrill, yea, that even after the death of Cyrill he continued both to write and to speake 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 publikely preached at Antioch against Cyrill, and in an insulting manner for his death, this they doe not, nor durst they carpe at it. It is testified by all the Bishops of the fift Councell to have beene a part of Theodorets sermon: the Epistle which likewise is testified by them all to bee Theodorets, containing the same matter with his sermon, that they raile at, and revile both it and the writer of it, because in the inscrip∣tion thereof they have espyed an errour. It had beene honest dealing in the Cardinall and Binius, seeing these are fethers of one wing, ei∣ther to have acknowledged both, or denyed both to bee the brood of Theodoret.

7. Againe, the Cardinall undertooke to prove, that still after the union betwixt Iohn and Cyrill, Theodoret was a Catholike, and defen∣der

of the Catholike faith, and because the Epistle demonstrates the contrary, he will not allow it to bee Theodorets, but a forgery written in his name. Admit it were, yet that part of Theodorets sermon is tru∣ly his, nor doth eyther Baronius or Binius deny it to bee his. Now by this sermon is Theodoret as effectually proved and demonstrated, as by the Epistle to have beene an eager oppugner of the Catholike faith, and an obstinate defender of all the heresies of Nestorius after the death of Cyrill, which was twelve m 1.2493 yeares after the union: So that although the Epistle were not Theodorets, or had never beene extant, yet the Cardinals position for Theodorets Orthodoxy is clearly and certainly refuted by the sermon of Theodoret made twelve yeares af∣ter the union.

8. Further yet the Cardinall to defend the Orthodoxy of Theodo∣ret urgeth strongly, and relyeth upon the Epistles, which in their Va∣ticane or Mint-house are stamped with the name of Theodoret; where∣as if there were no other proofes, this one sermon of Theodorets is an undoubted evidence that they can bee none of Theodorets, but are for∣ged in his name; for the whole scope, at which those Epistles n 1.2494 ayme, is to magnifie Theodoret both for his integrity of life, uprightnesse in judgement, laboriousnesse in preaching, and specially for his sound∣nesse in the Catholike faith, that he was never reproved nor accused by any, no not in sixe and twenty yeares, for his doctrine; that he ne∣ver accused any, and specially for Cyrill, that Theodoret loved and ho∣noured him for a learned and pious man, & mirificè coluit ejus memo∣riam, when Cyrill was dead, hee wonderfully honoured his memory, calling him a man of blessed memory; all which and a hundred such like mat∣ters contained in those Epistles are undeniably convicted to bee un∣true by this sermon of his, wherein he vomiteth cut in a most solemne assembly, together with the blasphemies of Nestorius, most slanderous revilings not onely against Cyrill, at whose death hee insulteth, but a∣gainst all Catholikes, whom he, according to the Nestorian language, cals Theopaschites and heretikes: with such false, fained, and lying wri∣tings doth the Cardinall fight against the fift Synod and the Acts thereof.

9. Yea, but still the Cardinall will reply, the Inscription unto Iohn, who before was dead, shewes the Epistle to Iohn to bee forged, and to be none of Theodorets: It doth not; for the inscription or title of an Epistle or other writing, may bee erronious, and the Epistle truly his whose name it beares, which the Cardinal may see, if need were, in a hundred examples.

10. In the Epistle of Pope Clement unto Iames, whereof before wee spake, the Cardinall o 1.2495 and Binius p 1.2496 both confesse the inscription to be false, and yet they both hold the Epistle to bee Pope Clements, yea, they can excuse that, and say it was but an errour in writing, Iames q 1.2497 in stead of Simeon in the title, were they not too too partiall and malici∣ous against this holy Synod, they would as easily have used the same excuse for Theodorets Epistle, and have said, the Epistle is truly his, but in the inscription in the Acts, the name of Iohn is, by the writers mi∣staking, set in stead of Domnus.

11. Theodoret in his history r 1.2498 sets down an Epistle of Pope Damasus, against Eunomius and other heretikes, 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 Ve∣nice edition of the Councels 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 1.2499 Baronius and t 1.2500 Binius at large prove and professe. What then? may we here conclude by the Cardinals demonstration; certainly this Epistle was none of Pope Damasus writings, it is a forgery and a counterfeit, see∣ing 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 errour in the title, Baronius and Binius u 1.2501 hold it both to be the true, undoubted, and Synodall Epistle of Pope Da∣masus, and truely sent from him, but sent to Paulinus Bishop of Anti∣och, not to any Paulinus Bishop of Thessalonica. Applie 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 unpossible? If any demand how that errour in Theodoret, touching the title of the Epistle, might happen, Baronius and Binius impute x 1.2502 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 igno∣rantly or wickedly, inserted the false addition of Thessalonica. Would the Cardinall have dealt favourably with the other inscription of Iohn, and in stead of it have put Domnus, who was then Bishop of An∣tioch, he might have spared his labour in this point.

12. In the sixteenth Novell of Iustinian the inscription is to An∣thimus Bishop of Constantinople, now the date of that Edict is on the thirteenth day of August in the yeare after the Consulship of Bell. sa∣rius, at which time it is certaine that not Anthimus, but Mennas was Bishop, for Mennas sate in the generall Councell held that yeare at Constantinople, which began on the second of May, yea, the Emperour himselfe on the sixt of August in the same yeare and Consulship, dates another Edict unto Mennas. So that undoubtedly there is an errour in the inscription, and yet notwithstanding this errour, the Edict it selfe is without all doubt Iustinians, nor will the Cardinals demon∣stration hold in this.

13. The Epistle of Foelix the fourth y 1.2503 to Sabina, was written and da∣ted on the twefth of the Kalends of November, at which time a 1.2504 Foelix was dead. What, may it by the Cardinals demonstration be rejected for a counterfeit? No, the Cardinall b 1.2505 will tell you, it was indeed the Popes Epistle but of Boniface the successor of Foelix, and not as the inscription tels, of Pope Foelix, & facile accidisse potuit, it might easily happen, that the name of Foelix might bee put in stead of Boniface his next successor. Might not the very same and as easily happen in this E∣pistle of Theodoret, that the name of Iohn might be put in the inscripti∣on in stead of Domnus his next successor?

14. There is an Epistle of Pope Silverius c 1.2506, wherein he writ an ex∣communication against Vigilius usurping his See, it is dated in some

Copies in the yeare of Basilius, in others of Bellisarius, being Consuls. Now in all the time d 1.2507 Silverius was Pope, neither was Basilius nor Bel∣lisarius Consuls. What then? shall the Popes Epistle be rejected as a a forgery, a counterfeit? No, by no meanes. The Cardinall e 1.2508 often mentioneth it, honours it for a rare monument; and to helpe that er∣rour, he tels us the date is added more than should be. Might not the like happen to the inscription of Theodorets letter in the Synodall acts? Might it not happen that the inscription was onely to the Archbishop of Antioch, & that the name of Iohn was added more than should be? E∣piphanius in his Book of heresies sayth f 1.2509 that Iustine Martyr dyed when Adrian was Emperour; a manifest untruth, for Iustine Martyr writ an Apology for the Christian faith unto Antoninus g 1.2510 the successor of A∣drian, and he was put to death under Mar. Aurelius, and Verus, 24. yeares h 1.2511 after the death of Adrian. Will the Cardinall have his de∣monstration to hold here in Epiphanius? so that his booke against he∣resies must be condemned for a counterfeit, and none of Epiphanius writing? No, error irrepsit, there slipt an error into Epiphanius; for A∣drian is written in stead of Antoninus, as the Cardinall i 1.2512 tels you: but it rather seemes in stead of Aurelius, (under whom Iustine dyed.) Had the Cardinall beene any way as indifferent to Theodorets letters, hee would likewise have said, error irrepsit, an error is slipt into the inscrip∣tion, by writing Iohn 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 errour of Sylvester instead of Sylverius. Did the Gregorian Correctors, for this false title or name of Sylvester inserted, condemne 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 bee deposed, there was no Guillisarius that ever did that, but it was Bellisarius; yet for that error of the name, which yet remaines * 1.2513 uncorrected, is not the Canon or Epistle re∣jected.

15. In that fragment of this Synod which Binius i 1.2514 out of Tyrius commendeth, it is sayd that the fift Synod which decreed the Patri∣archall dignity to the Bishop of Ierusalem, was held in the time of Vi∣gilius of Rome, Eutychius of Constantinople, and Paule of Antioch. Now that by the Cardinals demonstration was never; for it is certaine that there was no Paul Bishop of Antioch in Pope Vigilius his dayes. Be∣fore this Synod, was Ephreem k 1.2515, who sate eighteene yeares, in whose fourteenth, or fifteenth yeare began Vigilius l 1.2516 to be Pope, to him suc∣ceeded Domnus m 1.2517, hee sate 18. yeares, in whose n 1.2518 seventh or eighth yeare this fift Councell was held, and himselfe personally subscribed unto o 1.2519 it, and about his tenth yeare dyed Vigilius p 1.2520. So this decree, by the Cardinals owne reason, is but a forgery (as in very truth it is.) Now if he to save the credit of that worthlesse 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 thinke a like errour of the pen in it, and Iohannes to be put for Domnus?

16. That Edict of Iustinian which wee have so often mentioned in the ancient editiōs of Councels before Binius had this title; The Edict of Iustinian sent unto Pope Iohn the second. Contius r 1.2521 the learned Lawyer, defends that inscription. Baronius himselfe somewhat forget∣full of what elsewhere hee writeth, cals this s 1.2522 Edict, Constitutio data ad Iohan. a Constitution sent to Pope Iohn, & again t 1.2523, Iustinian expresly witnes∣seth this in his Edict to P. Iohn; a false title & inscriptiō without al doubt, Iohn being dead ten u 1.2524 yeares before this Edict was either published, or writ, as Baronius x 1.2525 himselfe both declares and proves, professing that Inscription to be false. Had the Cardinall remembred his demonstra∣tion drawne from the title and Inscription, oh how happily, how ea∣sily had he avoided all his trouble of defending Vigilius for writing a∣gainst, and contradicting that Edict: Hee might have said, Why, that Edict was none of Iustinians, nor ever published by him, for the Inscrip∣tion is to Pope Iohn who was dead long before. And because the fift Councell was assembled for discussing that truth which the Emperor in his Edict had delivered, and Vigilius with the other Nestorians did oppugne, the Cardinal againe might have denyed that ever there had beene any such fift Councell, or any Synodall Acts at all of it; for if there was no Edict there could bee no Councel, which was assembled and gathered for that onely cause, to define the truth delivered by the Edict. This had beene a short cut indeed, and the Cardinall, like ano∣ther Alexander, by this one stroke had dispatched all the doubts and difficultes which neither hee nor all his friends can ever untwine or loose in this Gordian knot. But the Cardinals demonstrations were not in force as then, nor ever, I thinke, till the acts of this fift Synod, and in them the Epistle of Theodoret came to his tryal: for not withstan∣ding the falshood of that inscription & title, the Card. very honestly acknowledgeth that to bee no counterfeit, but a true imperiall Edict, truely published by Iustinian y 1.2526, contradicted by Vigilius, confirmed as touching the doctrine of the Three Chapters, by the fift Councel. Here he can say z 1.2527 that addition to Iohn is added, & put amisse 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 Iohn is added in the title by some who knew not accurately to distinguish the times, but yet the Epistle it selfe it is truely Theodorets. It had beene honest and faire dealing in the Cardinal, any one of these waies to have excused this errour in the title of Theodorets Epistle, rather than by reason of such an errour, as happeneth in many Epistles and writings, to declame, not onely against the Epistle as a base forge∣ry, and none of Theodorets, but even against all the Acts a 1.2528 of this holy generall Councell, as unworrhy of credit, because among them an E∣pistle with an erronious Inscription is sound extant.

17. None, I thinke, doe nor ever will defend the Acts of this or any other Councel, or any humane writings to be so absolutely intire, 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 Councels. To omit the rest; in those of Chalcedon b 1.2529, the Ephesine La∣trociny is said to have beene held when Zeno and Posthumianus were

Consuls, in the third Indiction. An undoubted errour; For that E∣phesine Conventicle was held when c 1.2530 Protogenes and Asterius were Consuls, not when Zeno and Posthumianus; neither were Zeno and Post∣humianus Consuls in the third, but in the first d 1.2531 Indiction: neither was the Councell held either in the first or in the third, but in the e 1.2532 second Indiction; and therefore both Baronius f 1.2533, and Binius g 1.2534 say, these words [tempore Zenonis & Posthumiani venerabilium Consulum indictione tertia] are false, and by surreption crept into the Acts. Againe, the sixteenth Action or Session is sayd to have beene on the twenty eight h 1.2535 of Octo∣ber. A manifest errour; seeing their thirteenth Action i 1.2536 or Session was on the nine and twentieth, and their fourteenth k 1.2537 Session on the thirtieth of October. Yea there are in those Acts farre greater faults than these. For in the third Action l 1.2538 is set downe the Imperiall Edict of Valentinian and Martian, for condemning of Eutyches: and yet that Edict was not published untill the 26. of Ianuary, when m 1.2539 Sporarius was Consull: whereas the Councell of Chalcedon and all the Acts ther∣of was ended on the first day of November n 1.2540 the yeare before: that is, more than two moneths before that Edict was made. In the seventh Session also there is inserted by Binius o 1.2541 and Baronius p 1.2542 an whole Acti∣on concerning Domnus, who was deposed in the Ephesine Latrociny, where the Councel decreed that Maximus should allow Domnus some charges to serve him pro victu & vestitu. A forged Action, and that in the highest degree, as not onely the time when it was held, to wit, on the twenty seventh q 1.2543 of October; whereas the Session r 1.2544 which follow∣ed it was held on the five and twentieth, or six and twentieth day of the same moneth, doth declare; but because this Domnus was dead be∣fore the Councell of Chalcedon, as both the Imperiall Edict of Iustini∣an t 1.2545, and the fift Councell, doe certainly witnesse. Could the Cardi∣nall have found such additions or forgeries inserted into the Acts of this fift Councell, quos ludos daret, how would hee have triumphed in the disgrace of these Acts, to have writings in them, and as parts of them and their Synodall Acts, which were not made long after the end of the Councell? to have an whole Action or consultation, what allowance should be made to a dead man for provision of his food and rayment? Here had beene a field indeed for the Cardinall to have in∣sulted over these Acts. And yet, notwithstanding these errors in the two first, and undoubted additions of the Emperours Edict in the third, and that whole ridiculous action, nay fiction, in the fourth, pat∣ched unto the Acts of Chalcedon, the Cardinall will not so disgrace those Acts, as to use his demonstration against the credit of them, or that Councell: And yet see his unequall and unhonest dealing in these matters, because but one name is inserted into the inscription, or by an error put in stead of another: the Cardinals choler breakes out in this manner against the Acts of this fift Synod, Quam fidem u 1.2546, rogo, I pray you what credit is to be given to such Acts?

18. Some three or foure errors of the pen, besides this of the in∣scription, I confesse are also in the Acts of this fift Synod. The fift Collation is sayd to have beene on the eight m 1.2547, (it should bee on the thirteenth or fourteenth) of May, seeing the fourth Collation was held on the twelfth n 1.2548 of that moneth. In the same fift Collation o 1.2549 Cy∣rill is alledged to say, Non jam quidem sancta Synodus, the holy Synod did not now pronounce a sentence against Nestorius: the negation (non) is by negligence either of Binius, or the Printer, crept in, and is cer∣tainly to be blotted out, which otherwise not onely makes Saint Cyrill to speake untruly, but even to contradict himselfe. In the same Acti∣on p 1.2550, there is recited an Epistle to Andreas Bishop of Samosat, in the inscription whereof Theodorus is written in stead of Theodoretus, seeing of the next Epistle being Theodorets, it is sayd, ejusdem ad Nestorium. It may be some few moe such errors may be found in these Acts of the fift Councell; but for the honour of them, I professe, they are so in∣corrupt and intire, that moe than these I doe not remember my selfe to have for a certainty observed in them. Neither doe such errours creep only into humane writings, their owne learned Iansenius q 1.2551 (after Beza r 1.2552) will tell them, that the very sacred Scriptures are subject to the same: for whereas Matth. 27.9. the Euangelist sayth it is written in the Prophet Ieremy; seeing the text there cited is not found in Iere∣mie, but in Zachary; although some thinke it to be a slip s 1.2553 in memory in Saint Matthew; others, that it is in some apochryphall t 1.2554 writing of Ieremy; others, that Zachary had two names (as many other Iewes) and so might be called either Ieremie or Zacharie; yet Iansenius not li∣king any of these conjectures, rests on this answer as most neare the truth, that either the name of Zacharie is Scribae culpâ commutatum in Ie∣remiam, by the errour and fault of the writer turned into Ieremy; or else, that whereas the Euangelist sayd no more, but that this is written in the Prophet (in which sort without any addition or mention of name, some copies to have read that place, Saint Austen u 1.2555 is witnesse, and not onely Rupertus, but the Syriack translator read it in the same man∣ner) some more audacious hand expressed the name of Ieremy. Do you thinke the Cardinall would or durst use his demonstration in this text? that seeing a wrong name is inserted (not in the title or inscrip∣tion (as in this Epistle it is) but in the very text,) he would account the Gospell a forgery, and unworthy of credit? It is true, they are too too bold even with the Scriptures also: whereof they gave a no∣table proofe; first when (as it was credibly reported x 1.2556 to the relator) some of the Iesuites, even in their solemne Sermons in Italy, censured Saint Paul for an hot-headed person, who was transported with his pangs of zeale and eagernesse, beyond all compasse in his disputes, and that there was no great reckoning to bee made of his assertions; yea that he was dangerous to reade, as savouring of heresie in some places, and better perhaps he had never written: and againe, when (as some Catholikes y 1.2557 told it in the hearing of the relator) they held a consul∣tation among them, to have censured by some meanes, and reformed the Epistle of Saint Paul. Though such be their audaciousnesse, yet I hope the Cardinall will not bee so censorious with the holy Gospell.

what hard hap then hath Theodoret, that hee alone among all writers, divine and humane, may not have the benefit of his book at the Car∣dinalls hand; but for one such fault, not onely his writing must be re∣jected 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 mollifie the Cardinals heart, let it yet fur∣ther be considered, that in his owne Annals a 1.2558 it is sayd of the consent of Vigilius to the Edict, the fift Synod doth often give witnesse, quin∣etiam sexta Synodus Actione septimâ continet monumenta, Further also the sixt Synod in the seventh Action containes the writings of Pope Vigilius a∣gainst the three Chapters. A saying so voyd of truth, that those monu∣ments 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 sixt Councell, there is neither monuments of Vigilius, nor so much as any mention of Vigili∣us at all, nor of the three Chapters. Let him againe consider how hee saith b 1.2559, that Caelestine called the Ephesine Councell by the Emperour Theodorus; that is to say, never, if the Cardinall be not relieved with an error or scape of the writer. That elsewhere in the same Annalls he * 1.2560 sayth, that by the Catholike Church the Romane Church is sig∣nified, as appeares ex Epistola Hormisdae Papae ad Iustinum Imperatorem, by the Epistle (he quoteth the 22.) of Pope Hormisda to Iustinus. An evi∣dent error. For neither is that 22. Epistle written to Iustinus, but to Dorotheus a Bishop; neither is that which the Cardinall alledgeth, either in that 22. or in any other of all the epistles (they are five) which Hormisda writ to Iustinus. But the Card. by a pretty mistaking, first turnes Iustinian into Iustinus, and then pretends that to be written E∣pist. 22. and by Hormisda, and to Iustinus; which is written by Iustinian, and to Hormisda, and which followeth the 56. Epistle. Further yet let him remember, how in the same Annals c 1.2561 it is said, that before the E∣dict of Iustinian was written, those controversies hapned betwixt Theo∣dorus (Bishop of Caesarea) and Pascalis the Deacon. The Card. might as wel have said, that the Edict was never written nor published; for there was never any contention nor controversie 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 bent against Theodorus) but if there was any such con∣troversie, it was not betwixt Theodorus and Pascalis, but betwixt Theo∣dorus and Pelagius. Pelagius & not Pascalis was the Popes Agent at Con∣stantinople at that time, as not onely Liberatus d 1.2562 but Procopius e 1.2563, a man of better note testifieth. Now these foule errours (whereupon is conse∣quent that almost all which the Cardinall hath historified for some 10. or 11. yeares is utterly untrue) being extant and recorded in his Annals, though there be violent presumption, to thinke that the Car∣dinall 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 beames as these, as the mistaking of a few months or dayes, or miswri∣ting

a word or syllable, and the like; yet hee not once mentioneth any correction in these places, yet am I content to allow these to bee but slips of the writer or Printer, as writing Theodorus in stead of Theodosi∣us, Pascalis for Pelagius; from Hormisda, for, to Hormisda; to Iustine, for, from Iustinian; and sexta for quinta, or eadem quinta; upon condition that the Cardinall and his friends will in like sort consent, that by an error of some writer of these Synodall acts, the name of Iohn 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 profer, the Card. and all his friends must be patient to heare, how just∣ly and forcibly his owne demonstation may in his owne words be re∣torted upon himselfe, & these errors of his. Certainly these are patent and manifest lyes and frauds, devised by some hereticall knave or var∣let, 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 forgerer. Et quam fidem rogo, merentur? and what credit in the world can bee 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 suf∣ficient to satisfie 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 confesse, that Iohn dyed before Cy∣rill: for this is cleare and certaine, by many undoubted testimonies in the Councell of Chalcedon f 1.2564, not one of all which the Cardinall had the grace to alledge. But all the Cardinals reasons are so weake and withall so full of fraud and untruth, that it is worthy your conside∣ring to see his blindnesse and perversenesse even in proving that which is true.

20. His first reason is this; I have shewed g 1.2565 this apertissimè, that Iohn dyed seven yeares before Cyrill by the Epistle which Theodoret writ to Dom∣nus foure yeares since, (that is, foure before the yeare 444.) in the be∣halfe of one Felicianus, whose estate Theodoret recommends to Domnus. Truly the Cardinall hath shewed himselfe an egregious trifler here∣by: For neither in the 440. nor in any foure yeares either before or after that, doth hee set-downe any Epistle of Theodorets to Domnus, in the behalfe of Felicianus. The Epistle which the Cardinall drea∣meth of, is in behalfe of Celestianus, and that is indeed expressed An. 440 h 1.2566. where note I pray you, that the Cardinall by a slip either of his owne penne or memory, (as I verily suppose) or of his Scribe, names Felicianus in stead of Celestianus: God even by this, demonstrating how unjustly he carpes at the Synodall Acts, for that very errour or slippe of a penne, which the Cardinall himselfe falls into, even while hee, for the like slippe, declameth against those holy Synodall Acts. And yet there is a worse fault in this reason. For it is no more shewed that Iohn dyed before Cyrill by that Epistle, than by Tul∣lies ad Atticum. That Epistle having neither date, nor any circum∣stance to induce that, may as well bee written Anno 448. as An∣no 440.

21. His second reason is this: There are letters, saith hee ⁱ, extant of Theodoret to Domnus the yeare following, (to wit, an. 437.) and that Epi∣stle of Theodoret I will set downe in his due place, anno sequenti, the next yeare. Now in that next yeare, viz. an. 437. there is no Epistle of Theo∣doret set downe by the Cardinall, nor is either Domnus or Theodoret so much as named in all his discourse of that yeare. Is not this now shewed apertissimè? you may bee sure the Cardinall would not have feared to performe his promise, but that there was somewhat in that Epist. w^ch would have bewrayed his lewd dealing in this cause.

22. His third reason is drawne from the testimony of Nicephorus Bishop of Constantinople. This, saith hee k 1.2567, exploratum habetur, is sure and certaine by Nicephorus. No, it is sure and certaine by Nicephorus that Baronius is erronious in this matter; for Nicephorus l 1.2568 accounteth Iohn to have beene Bishop of Antioch eighteene yeares, and the Cardinall m 1.2569 will allow him no more but thirteene, now the first yeare of Iohn cannot possibly be before the yeare 427. for in that year Theodotus, the next predecessor of Iohn, dyed, as Baronius n 1.2570 himselfe proveth. Add now unto these seventeene moe, and then the death of Iohn by Nicephorus will bee an. 444. which is the selfe same yeare wherein Cyrill dyed. Is not this a worthy proofe to shew Iohn to have dyed seven years before Cyrill, as the Cardinall avoucheth that he did? Or do not you think the Cardinal was in some extasy, to produce Ni∣cephorus as a witnesse for him, whereas Nicephorus (as the Cardinall himselfe also confesseth) gives to Iohn 18. yeares, and the Cardinall allowes him but thirteene; and whereas the Cardinall of set purpose refuteth the account of Nicephorus?

23. But will you bee pleased to see how the Cardinall refuteth him? Domnus, saith hee o 1.2571, was Bishop of Antioch an. 437. as is proved by an Epistle of Theodorets written to Domnus in that yeare, which Epistle I will set downe in his due place, to wit; an. 437. Lo, all his proofe is from that Epistle, which the Cardinall, contrary to his own promise, doth not, and, as I thinke, durst not set downe.

24. But see further how the Cardinall is infatuated in this cause: Iohn, saith he p 1.2572, dyed an. 436. having beene Bishop 13. yeares. Iohn succeeded to q 1.2573 Theodotus, who dyed an. 427. Say now in truth, is not the Cardinall 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 1.2574 glossing upon Theodorets letter to Dioscorus, which, as hee s 1.2575 saith, was written, an. 444. there observes with a memo∣randum, that by this passage of Theodoret you may see how long Theo∣dotus t 1.2576, Iohn, and Domnus had sitten in the See of Antioch, to wit, 26. yeares in all, from the time that Theodoret was made Bishop unto that 444. yeare, viz. Theodotus 6. Iohn 13. and Domnus 7. untill that yeare Theodoret, as Baronius u 1.2577 will assure you, was made Bishop, an. 423. Add now unto these six of Theodotus, thirteene of Iohn, and 7. of Domnus, and tell me whither you thinke the Cardinall had sent his wits, when hee could summe these to bee just 444?

25. Or will you see the very quintessence of the Cardinals wise∣dome? I will, saith he x 1.2578, set downe the next yeare (that is, an. 437.) the

very Epistle of Theodoret to Domnus, which was then written unto him; & eam quâ monstratur, & I wil also set downe in his due place (to wit, an. 444.) that Epistle of Theodoret to Dioscorus, whereby is shewed, that Iohn was Bi∣shop of Antioch just thirteene yeare. Thus Baronius▪ who by these two E∣pistles of Theodoret will prove both these. As much in effect as if hee had said, I have already y 1.2579 proved, that Iohn began to bee Bishop of An∣tioch an. 427. and this being set downe for a certainty: I will now prove by Theodorets Epistle to Domnus, that Iohn dyed an 436. that is, in his ninth yeare; and then I will prove againe by Theodorets Epistle to Dioscorus, that hee dyed in his thirteenth yeare, and so dyed not till the yeare 440. Or, as if hee had thus said, I will first prove, that mine owne Annals are untrue, wherin it is said z 1.2580, that Iohn dyed in the yeare 436. which is but the ninth yeare of Iohn; because he dyed not, as Theo∣doret in one Epistle a 1.2581 witnesseth, untill his thirteenth yeare, which is an 440. And then I will prove unto you, that mine own Annals are a∣gain untrue, wherein it is said b 1.2582, that Iohn was Bishop thirteene yeare, and so dyed not till an. 440. (beginning the first, an. 427) because The∣odoret, in another Epistle c 1.2583, witnesseth, that Iohn dyed an. 436. Or thus, I will first prove, that Iohn was dead an. 436. though he was alive an. 440. and thē I will prove unto you, that Iohn was alive an. 440. though he was dead an. 436.

26. Is not this brave dealing in the Cardinall? is hee not worthy of a cap and a fether too, that can prove all these? and prove them by Theodorets Epistles? or doe you not think those to be worthy Epistles of Theodoret, by which such absurdities, such impossibilities may bee proved? Nay, doth not this alone, if there were no other evidence, demonstrate those Epistles of Theodorets to bee counterfeits? If that to Domnus be truly his, as Baronius assures d 1.2584 you, wherby Iohn is shew∣ed to have dyed an. 436. then certainly the other to Dioscorus must needs be•• a forgery, whereby Iohn is shewed to live an. 440. Againe, if that to Dioscous be truly his, as Baronius e 1.2585 assures you, wherin Iohn is said to live an. 440. then certainely the other to Domnus must of ne∣cessity bee a forgery, wherein Iohn 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 wil make good what they both do affirm; that is, the same man to bee both dead and alive, a Bishop and no Bi∣shop; at the selfe same time, and by these worthy reasons doth the Cardinall refute his owne witnesse Nicephorus, who by giving eigh∣teene yeares to Iohn, shewes plainly that Iohn and Cyrill dyed within one yeare, which account perhaps gave occasion to the exscriber of the Synodall Acts to thrust in the name of Iohn, whom, upon Nicepho∣rus account hee thought to live after Cyrill, whereas in very deed hee dyed somewhile before Cyrill.

27. His fourth and last reason is drawn from a Canonicall Epist. of Cyrils to Domnus, which is set done in the adjections to Theodorus Bal∣samon, whence it is out of all doubt, saith the Cardinall f 1.2586, that Iohn dyed before Cyrill, seeing Cyrill writ unto his successor Domnus. But howsoever the Cardinall vanteth, that this reason will leave no doubt, yet, if you

observe it, there are two great doubts therein: The former is, whe∣ther that Epistle be truly Cyrils: And besides other reasons, that one point which the Cardinall himselfe mentioneth, may justly cause any to thinke it none of his; for as the Cardinall g 1.2587 saith, the Author of that Epistle ascribes such authority to Domnus, that he might ad libi∣tum, at his pleasure put out Bishops, and at his pleasure restore them. Now there is none that knowes the learning, moderation, and wisedome of Cyrill, that can thinke Cyrill ever to have written in such manner either to any Metropolitane, or to any Patriarke, specially seeing Cy∣rill was not ignorant of that Canon of the Councell at Antioch h 1.2588, let not a Metropolitane doe any thing in such causes, without the advise and consent of the other Bishops in the Province.

28. The other doubt is, whether that Domnus, to whom this Epi∣stle is written, bee the same Domnus that was Bishop of Antioch, and successor to Iohn. The Cardinall is much troubled in removing this doubt, and hee windes himselfe divers wayes. Sure it is, saith Baro∣nius i 1.2589, that hee who had such authoritie must needs bee some eminent Bishop, and not one of an inferior See. True, but hee might bee a Metropolitane and so have inferiour Bishops under him, and yet bee no Patriarke. Againe, saith hee k 1.2590, There is no Domnus else but this Domnus Bishop of Antioch, mentioned either in the Councell of Ephesus or Chalcedon, who had such authority, as to depose and restore Bishops, ad libitum. As if Domnus of Antioch might doe it ad libitum: But in such lawfull manner as Domnus of Antioch might doe it, there were others called by the name of Domnus, and those mentioned in those very Councels, who might upon just cause, and by due and Canonical proceeding depose and re∣store their inferiour Bishops: looke but into those Councels, and you will admire both the supine negligence of the Cardinall in this point, and his most audacious down••facing of the truth; for, to omit others, both in the Conventicle of Ephesus, and the Councell of Chalcedon, there is often mention of Domnus Bishop of Apamea, a Metropolitane Bishop, as the words of Miletius l 1.2591 doe witnesse, I Miletius Bishop of Larissa, speaking for Domnus the Metropolitane Bishop of Apamca; and for this Domnus hee subscribed m 1.2592. And that you may see how fraudulent∣ly the Cardinall dealt in this very point, he neither would set downe that Epistle, nor acquaint you with that which in Balsamon n 1.2593 is expre∣sly noted; that Peter the Bish. whom that Domnus, unto whom Cyrill writeth, had deposed, was Alexandrinus Sacerdos, a Bishop of the patri∣archall diocesse of Alexandria, what had Domnus of Antioch to doe with the Alexandrian Bishops. So cleare it is by Balsamon, that this Dom∣nus, unto whom Cyrill writ, was not Domnus of Antioch, as the Card. I feare against his knowledge, avoucheth,

29. Thus you see all and every reason which the Cardinall brin∣geth Iohn to bee dead seven yeares before Cyrill, not only to be weake and unable to enforce that Conclusion, but withall to bee full fraught with frauds and untruths: So that if I had not found more sound and certaine reasons to perswade this, I could never by the Cardinals proofes have beene induced to thinke that an errour in the Inscripti∣on of Theodorets Epistle. But seeing upon the undoubted testimonies

in the Councell of Chalcedon it is certaine, that Iohn dyed before Cyrill, I willingly acknowledge a slip of some writer in that Inscripti∣on, but yet the Epistle it selfe must bee acknowledged truly to bee Theodorets, which is all that the Synod avoucheth, and which is that which the Cardinall undertooke to disprove, but by no one reason doth offer to prove the same. And even for that errour also in the Inscription I doubt not, but those who can have the sight of the Greek and Originall, yea, perhaps of some ancient Latine copies of the Acts of this fift Councell, shall finde either no name at all, or, which I ra∣ther suppose, the name of Domnus expressed therin; in stead of which, whereas some ignorant audacious exscriber, hath thrust in the name of Iohn; it is not, nor ought it to bee any impeachment at all to the Synodall Acts, unlesse the Cardinall will acknowledge his owne An∣nals to bee of no credit, because in them Pascalis is written by some such errour, for Pelagius, Iohn for Vigilius, Instinus for Iustinianus, Theodorus for Theodosius, Sexta for Quinta, Foelicianus for Celestianus, and a number the like in other causes, most of these slips pertai∣ning to this very cause of the Three Chapters, of which wee doe en∣treate.

CAP. XXXV. That Baronius himselfe followeth many forged writings, and fabulous narrations in handling this cause of the fift Councell, as particularly the excommunication ascribed to Mennas, Theodorus and others, and the narration of Anastasius.

1. YOV have seene all the exceptions which their great Momus could devise against these Acts, to prove them corrupted, either by al∣teration or mutilation, or, which is the worst of all, by additions of forged writings. But alas, who can endure to heare Baronius de∣clame against corrupted, false, forged, or counterfeit writings? Quis tulerit Gracchos? better might Gracchus invey against sedition, or Verres against bribe∣ry, than Baronius against the using of false and fained writings. Aethio∣pem albus derideat, hee should first have washt away those foule blemi∣shes out of his owne Annals, more blacke herewith than any Aethio∣pian, and then have censured such spots in others. Were his Annals well purged of such writings, their vast Tomes would become a pret∣ty Manuall: They who have occasion to examine other passages in Baronius will finde the truth hereof in them; for this one concerning the fift Councell, Pope Vigilius, and the cause of the Three Chapters, from which I am loath to digresse, I doubt not, but whosoever will compare the Cardinals Annals with this Treatise, wil easily perceive, that all which hee hath said in defence of the Pope relyeth on no other nor better grounds, but either forged writings, or, if truely written

by the authors, yet on some fabulous narration and untruths, which from them the Cardinall hath culd out, as onely fit for his purpose. Suffer me to give a tast hereof in some of them.

2. The first in this kinde is a supplication to Vigilius, or a briefe confession made unto him by Mennas Bishop of Constantinople, Theodo∣rus Bishop of Caesarea, and divers other Easterne Bishops, inserted in the beginning of the Constitution of Vigilius, and much applau∣ded by the Cardinall a 1.2594 in this cause; and this to bee a meere fiction is by many evident proofes, before mentioned, easily discerned. The occasion of it, as the Cardinall tels us b 1.2595, was to humble themselves to Pope Vigilius, and acknowledge the injuries they had done in writing and declaming against c 1.2596 him, and his Synodall Constitution for Ta∣citurnity 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 dulnesse of the forgerer; The Easterne Bishops professe there, to imbrace the foure former Councels, and all the Acts thereof, in all causes, judgements and Constitutions, made with consent d 1.2597 of the Popes Legates. Why? the Easterne Bi∣shops knew right well, that some Canons were concluded both in the Councells of Constantinople and Chalcedon, not only without, but quite contrary to the minde 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 beene ever held in force by the judgement of the Catholike Church, but specially by the Bishops of Constantinople, whose Patriarchall digni∣ty, which they ever after the second Councell enjoyed, was both de∣creed and confirmed by those Canons. Never did the Easterne Bi∣shops in those dayes, nor long after, esteeme the Popes owne, much lesse his Legates consent, so necessary to any Synodall Decree, but that without them the same might bee made and stand in force as the judgement of the generall Councell and whole Church. And to goe no further, what an unlikely and uncredible thing is it, that Theodorus and the rest in one yeare should make this confession to accept no more of those Synodall decrees, then the Pope or his Legates were pleased to allow; and the very next yeare after, contrary to that their confession, themselves hold a Synod, and make a Synodall decree in this cause of the Three Chapters, not onely without the Popes consent, or presence either of himself or his Legate, but even contrary to his definitive sentence made known unto them? the deviser of that confes∣sion shewes himselfe plainely to have beene some of the Vaticane fa∣vourites, 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. Councell, whereas the Ea∣sterne Bishops notwithstanding the contradiction and resistance of the Pope held them ever in as great authority and reverence, as any Canons in all the foure former Councels.

4. Againe what a silly devise was it to make Mennas, Theodorus,

and a great number of Bishops to aske pardon of the Pope for that wherein they professe themselves no way to bee guilty? I have e 1.2598 done no injuries to your Holinesse, yet for the peace of the Church, veluti si eas fecissem veniam postulo, I pray you forgive mee that which I never did, as if I had done it. Can any man thinke this the submission of wise men, of such stout and constant mindes as Mennas and Theodorus, besides the rest, had? or what could bee devised more repugnant to that which Vigilius is made to say in his excommunication f 1.2599 of Theodorus, Thou scandalizing the whole Church, and being warned, entreated, threatned by me, hast refused to amend: & nunquam à pravâ intentione cessasti, and ne∣ver hast thou ceased from thy wicked designe, nor to write and preach novel∣ties, (so he cals the condemning of the Three Chapters) yea, after the Constitution for silence, to which thou hadst sworne, thou hast openly read in the Pallace a booke against the Three Chapters; thou hast beene the fire-brand and the beginner of the whole scandall, thou hast despised the authority of the Apostolike See. Thus saith the Excommunication. Was Vigili∣us well advised, thinke you, to accept, as a satisfaction and submission for so many and so hainous crimes of insolency, contempt, perjury, sacriledge, 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 bookes at all contrarie to that Decree of Silence made by your Holinesse, and for the injuries which have beene done to your holinesse, and to your See, eas quidem non feci, truely I have done none at all. Is not this a worthy submission? the Pope saith, he hath done innumerable and very hainous 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 1.2600, or an humble submission upon which hee is pre∣sently reconciled, and shakes hands with that capitall offender. Or where was the Cardinals judgment when he saith h 1.2601 of this confession, that in it Theodorus did supplicitèr, humbly intreat pardon of Vigilius, de irrogatis in ipsum probris & contumelijs, for the seoffes and contumelies which hee had used against the Pope. If this confession was true and reall, then certainly the Excommunication of Vigilius is not only most un∣just, but a very foolish fiction: If the Excommunication was true and reall, then must needs this submission bee fained and fictitious. True they cannot bee both, but that both should be false and counterfaits, is not onely possible, but certaine.

5. If nothing else, the time when this Confession was made by Theodorus and Mennas demonstrates this. It was made after the De∣cree i 1.2602 of Taciturnity, and the Synod wherein that was concluded, and that was indeed never: that decree and Synod are meerely Chymeri∣call, this Confession then made after them, and mentioning that de∣cree, cannot possibly be reall: It was made, as the Cardinall k 1.2603 assures us, after that Vigilius, fleeing the persecution of Iustinian, had fled, first, to Saint Peters in Constantinople, then to the Church of Enthennia at Chalcedon; yea, after that the Emperour had revoked and abrogated his Edict against the Three Chapters, and Vigilius, at the earnest intrea∣ty of the Emperour, was now returned from Chalcedon to Constantino∣ple:

and this was at Nevermasse: neither did Iustinian persecute Vigi∣lius, neither did Vigilius for feare of his persecution flee either to S. Peters, or to Chalcedon, neither did Iustinian intreat him to returne from thence, whither hee fled not at all, nor ever did the Emperour adnull or revoke his Edict against the three Chapters: then certainly the confession w^ch by the Cardinalls own profession & acknowledge∣ment followed all these, must needs be like them, a fiction and meere forgery, never really & truly made by Mennas, Theodorus, and the rest of those Bishops. Lastly, it was made the next yeare before the fift Councell was held, that is, anno 552. which is the twenty sixt of Iusti∣nian, as the Cardinall witnesseth l 1.2604; before which time it cannot bee imagined to have beene made; for the excommunication of Theodo∣rus was published but in that yeare in which Vigilius came to Chalce∣don, as Baronius m 1.2605 confesseth. Now it is a riddle which Oedipus cannot dissolve, how Mennas, who, as wee have certainly proved by the Acts of the sixt Councell, dyed in the 21. yeare of Iustinian, should come now in his 26. yeare, that is, foure or five yeares after his death, to of∣fer up a supplication to Vigilius, and aske pardon of him for doing no offence against him. Me thinkes either the Pope should be afrighted with such a gastly sight, or Baronius ashamed to applaud such sot∣tish fictions, as is that excommunication of Mennas made by Vigi∣lius: and the Encyclycall Epistle of Vigilius, which mentions and ap∣proves 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 heare the Popes sentence thundred out against him, and then come with a bill of supplication to beg forgivenesse of his Holinesse, who had more reason to have prayed pardon of Mennas for disquieting and waking him out of that long and sound sleepe.

6. So both the occasion, the contents, and the time, besides other circumstances, doe evidently convince that submission to bee a coun∣terfeit. But how comes it then into the Popes Constitution? You must enquire this of Baronius, or of those who have accesse to the Vaticane whence this Constitution was taken: might one have the sight of the Vaticane 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 Vaticane art in this matter. Howsoever, certaine it is that this confession hath neither fit cohe∣rence, nor any dependence at all of ought 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 Cardinall and his friends looke to this matter by what meanes or whose fraud this was inserted, I thought needfull to admonish thē of the fault, nor for the love and affection I beare 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 fained and fabulous narrations are so clearly discovered before, that I thinke it needlesse to adde ought concern∣ing him, or them.

8. The third writing is a book in very great request with Baronius,

and that is, those Epistles which beare the name of Theodoret, of which though much hath beene sayd before, yet will I here adde somewhat to manifest them further to bee 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 beene Bishop 26. yeares n 1.2606, whereas by the later writ∣ten anno 449. it is cleare that in that yeare he had beene Bishop, no more o 1.2607 than 26. yeares. So vice versa, that the later is forged is de∣monstrated by the former; for by that to Leo written an. 449. Theodo∣ret is made to say that he had then beene Bishop just 26. whereas by the other to Dioscorus written anno 444. it is witnessed that hee had beene Bishop 26. p 1.2608 yeares, five yeares before he writ to Leo. And they are both demonstrated to be meere fictitious, in that Theodoret is made in them both to testifie that for that whole time of 26. yeares he had beene orthodoxall in faith, and for proofe thereof he appeales q 1.2609 to his owne writings, written 12.15. and 20. yeares before that; whereas it is as cleare as the Sunne that hee was a most earnest defender and writer in defence of Nestorius and his heresies, and for this cause was justly condemned by the holy Councell of Ephesus, yea and his wri∣tings yet extant r 1.2610 doe undenyably convince the same. Besides in that to Dioscorus, hee professeth s 1.2611 his ardent affection and love to Cyrill, whereas after Cyrils death, in an open assembly at Antioch he most bit∣terly t 1.2612, unjustly, and spitefully declamed against him. Further, in that to Dioscorus, it is said that he was orthodoxall u 1.2613 anno 444. when that Epistle was written; whereas in his Epistle written anno 448. x 1.2614 or af∣ter, unto Irene a Nestorian Bishop of Tyre, justly deposed y 1.2615 by the Em∣perour, he bemones both the publike cause and the case of Irene, com∣paring his to the cause z 1.2616 of Susanna, and lamenting that either a 1.2617 they must offend God, and hurt their owne conscience, (if they forsake Ne∣storianisme,) or else fall into unjust decrees and punishments of men, (if they continued in that doctrine;) and who further calls this depo∣sed and hereticall Bishop, Dilectissimum b 1.2618, & piissimum Irenaeum, The most beloved, and most holy Irene. The like forgery might be shewed in his Epistle to Nomus, written also anno 448. c 1.2619 wherein hee exclameth against the Emperor Theodosius, as if he had given toleration d 1.2620 & free liberty of Religion to Arians, Eunomians, Manichees, Marcionites, Valentinians, & Mōtanists, & yet restrained yea excluded him ab omni civitate, from every City in his Empire; which to bee a most vile and un∣just slander, the piety and zeale of Theodosius, highly renowned both by Sozomen e 1.2621, and Pope Leo f 1.2622 doth demonstrate; and whose g 1.2623 Edicts a∣gainst heretikes do also manifest the same, seeing therein out of his ha∣tred to heresie, and specially to Nestorianisme, he forbids any h 1.2624 such to

enjoy their Sees, or to scape unpunished; and being misinformed that Flavianus and Eusebius of Dorileum were Nestorians, hee upon that misinformation, unjustly and rashly subjected i 1.2625 them to that censure; but being truly enformed of Domnus and Theodoret, that they embra∣ced Nestorianisme, he justly confirmed their deposition, forbidding any either to reade or have the bookes or Theodoret k 1.2626, or of Nestorius, Theodorets being every whit as bad as the bookes of Nestorius. It were easie to shew the like prints of forgery in all those Epistles going un∣der the name of Theodoret, which the Cardinall so much magnifieth: but I am loth to stay too long in them, the falshood of which hath beene so often before demonstrated.

9. A fourth is that Action concerning Domnus, inserted by Baro∣nius and Binius into the Acts of the Councell q 1.2627 at Chalcedon. This to be undoubtedly a forgery and fiction, was before proved, because Domnus was dead before the Councell at Chalcedon; for so both the Emperour Iustinian r 1.2628 in his Edict, and the fift Councell s 1.2629 expresly wit∣nesse, saying, the holy Councell at Chalcedon condemned Domnus, post mortem, after he was dead, for that he durst write that the twelve chap∣ters of Cyrill should not be spoken of. Now that whole Action con∣taining nothing else but a consultation and decree for the mainte∣nance of Domnus, by some annuall allowance out of the revenewes of the See of Antioch, none I thinke 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 Councell of Chalcedon approved: and it is very unlikely they would judge him worthy to have mainte∣nance out of that Bishopricke, of which by reason of his heresie they judged him most justly to bee 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 thinke you in the Greeke and origi∣nall copies of that Councell? No certainly, it is not: as both the Car∣dinall t 1.2630 and Binius will assure you; Desideratur in Graeco, it is wanting in the Greeke or originall: nor onely is it now wanting there, but certum est eadem caruisse Graeca exemplaria tempore Iustiniani; It is certaine the Greeke copies had not this Action in the time of Iustinian the Emperour. Is it mentioned in Liberatus? or in Evagrius? or in Nicephorus? all which set downe the summe of the Actions in that Councell? No, it is not in any of them. Whence then comes this worthy action that so care∣fully provides victuals for a dead man? Truly out of their old Mint∣house the Vaticane: Haec Actio scripta in Latino veteri codice Vaticano: There is in the Vaticane an old manuscript Latine copie, which is sayd to have beene the copy of Albinus and Proculus, and in that old written booke, this Action is found, saith Baronius u 1.2631. 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 shooes and torne clothes, and so de∣ceived the Cardinall: No, it deceived him not, but by it hee would deceive others, and not onely most shamefully deprave and corrupt the Acts of the holy Councell of Chalcedon, as hee and Binius have

done herein, but make a way, and shew an occasion to carpe at the Synodall Acts of the fift Councell: and had not the Cardinall beene conscious of this fault in this Action, you may be well assured that he would not have omitted so foule an errour in the fift Synod, and the Acts thereof, as to avouch Domnus to have beene dead before the Councell of Chalcedon, when hee scraped and raked together all that he could finde (and they are all but motes to this beame) whereby he might disgrace those Acts.

10. But the Cardinall will not for all this yeeld in this matter, nay he will defend this Action also: For objecting x 1.2632 to himselfe how any such Action could be held concerning Domnus, seeing Iustinian testifieth hee was dead before the Councell of Chalcedon, hee answereth, Iustinian was ig∣norant of this Action, and he had some other Action of the Councell of Chal∣cedon touching Domnus, Quam nusquam legimus, Which we no where finde. So Baronius: Who hereby would have it thought, that Iustinian and the fift Councell had not the true Copies of the Councell at Chalce∣don, but that these which the Cardinall frameth, they are the onely perfect and entire Acts thereof. Certainly Iustinian was ignorant of this Action, and so was the fift Councell. And no marvell, when the Councell of Chalcedon it selfe was ignorant thereof. And whether the Emperour and the whole fift generall Councell, wherein were pre∣sent foure Patriarkes, and the Bishop of Chalcedon also, whether these living about an hundred yeares after that Councell, bee not like to have had more true Copies of the Councell at Chalcedon, than Baro∣nius, living eleven hundred yeares after it, it is not hard to judge.

11. Now for that which the Cardinall would perswade, that whereas Iustinian and the fift Synod sayd, that the Councell of Chal∣cedon condemned Domnus after he was dead, they sayd this, as he sup∣poseth, out of some other Action y 1.2633 of Chalcedon, which is not now extant, and thereby would blemish the Acts of the Councell of Chal∣cedon as being defective, and wanting that Action: Truly his Cardi∣nalship is foully mistaken herein. Neither Iustinian, nor the fift Coun∣cell, had any such Action, as he vainly and idlely dreameth of. It was these very Acts which now wee have, out of which they affirme that. For they say not that the Councell did that in any action particular∣ly concerning Domnus, nor yet that in expresse termes they condem∣ned Domnus: But they say, the Councell condemned him, and so they did, in that they approved both his condemnation and deposi∣tion decreed in the Ephesine Latrociny. That this they did the acts now extant doe declare; whereas a 1.2634 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 sayd the Popes Legates, and Stephen b 1.2635, I also judge those things to be voyd which were done at Ephesus, absque his quae gesta sunt ad∣versus Domnum, excepting those things which were done against Domnus: and to the like effect sayd they all. Domnus then being dead, at the time of the Councell at Chalcedon, and having beene in the Ephesine Latrociny, both condemned and deposed, seeing the Councell of Chalcedon approved both his condemnation and deposition, and the

substitution of Maximus, (which were all done in that Ephesine La∣trociny,) as just and lawfull: hence it is that the fift Councell sayth, and that out of these very Acts and no other, as themselves explaine, that c 1.2636 the Fathers at Chalcedon condemned Domnus being dead, whose condemnation they approved, when at that time of their approving it hee was dead. So neither are the Acts of the fourth Councell im∣perfect, nor these of the fift untrue, in affirming this of Domnus; but that Vaticane and Gibeonitish Action, inserted into the Acts of Chalcedon, and approved by Baronius and Binius, is both false, ridi∣culous, and impossible.

12. The last whom I wil now mention, is Anastasius, the writer of the lives of their Popes. An author whom Baronius much follow∣eth, and relyeth upon, almost in all parts of his Annals: whom I doe not mention in this place, as doubting whether those lives are truly his, but as doubting, nay rather without doubt assuring both my selfe and others, that such credit is not to bee given to him and to his reports, as the Cardinall and Binius doe 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 onely examine the life of Vigilius written by him; wherein I doe constantly affirme, that there are not so many lines as lyes set downe by Anastasius. Which that it may appeare that I doe not speake in any spleene against Anastasius, but out of the evidence of truth, give me leave to take a view of some particulars therein, those especially which most concerne this our present cause.

13. First, Anastasius d 1.2637 describing the entrance of Vigilius to have beene eodem tempore, at that time when Bellisarius made warre against Vitiges the King of the Gothes, sayth that Vitiges fled away by night, but Iohn surnamed the bloody, pursued after him, and brought him to Bellisa∣rius and Vigilius at Rome, and there Bellisarius tooke the Sacrament to bring him safe to Iustinian. All untrue. First, it is untrue that Vi∣tiges fled away by night; or secondly, that hee fled at all; or third∣ly, that Iohn did pursue him in flight; or fourthly, that Iohn tooke him; or fiftly, that Iohn brought him to Bellisarius; or sixtly, that hee brought him to Vigilius; or seventhly, that he brought him to Rome; or eightly, that Bellisarius tooke any such oath; or ninthly, any Sacrament; or tenthly, tooke it in the Church of Iulius; or e∣leventhly, tooke it to assure them that hee would bring Vitiges to Iustinian: all these are the fictions of Anastasius: For as Procopius who was Counsellor e 1.2638 to Bellisarius, and present with him in all his warres, testifieth, Vitiges and the Gothes willingly yeelded f 1.2639 themselves and Ravenna unto Bellisarius; yea Vitiges perswaded and even entreated him to accept the kingdome: and Bellisarius tooke Vitiges g 1.2640 himselfe, and kept him in custody: yea he sent away Iohn h 1.2641 and Narses before ei∣ther he entred in Ravenna, or tooke Vitiges, and being taken, he cari∣ed

him not to Rome, but the straight way by Sea to i 1.2642 Constantinople, whither himselfe was then k 1.2643 called by the Emperour, and comman∣ded to come without any delay. So in the very entrance of his narra∣tion, Anastasius hath in few words couched together at the least ten or eleven evident untruths.

14. Next Anastasius relates, how the Emperour and his wife demanded of Bellisarius when be came to Constantinople, how he had placed Vigilius in¦stead of Silverius, and thanked him for it. Truly Anastasius had small wit to thinke that the Emperour had leasure to confer with Bellisarius con∣cerning a matter done about three l 1.2644 yeares before: and specially which with the death of Silverius m 1.2645 was now dead and buried. Yet say he did. Againe, what an idle discourse was this about the placing of Vigilius in the roome of Silverius, seeing the Emperour knew the whole mat∣ter 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 himselfe had taken order that the cause of Silverius should be againe examined, and if that letter was truly writ by Silverius, that he should be banished; if it were found a calumny, that he should bee restored, as Liberatus n 1.2646 sheweth. Hee knew o 1.2647 also that Silverius was dead, and that Vigilius was peaceably and with his consent placed in the Romane See before Bellisarius came, for hee had written ^p unto him as the onely lawfull Pope, and both the Emperour and Mennas had received Letters q 1.2648 from him the yeare r 1.2649 before. But Anasta∣sius thought the Emperours discourses to bee as idle as his owne. Besides, whereas he addes that the Emperour thanked him for pla∣cing of Vigilius in the roome of Silverius; Binius is bould there∣in to tell Anastasius of his untruth, seeing all that, as he saith s 1.2650, was done without the knowledge of Iustinian, by the plotting of Theodora. I will account these for no more than two un∣truths.

15. After this, Anastasius tels us that Iustinian then sent Bellisarius a∣gaine into Africke, who comming thither killed by trechery Gontharis King of the Vandalls, and then comming to Rome offered some of the spotles of the Vandalls to Saint Peter by the hands of Pope Vigilius, to wit, a Crosse of gold beset with precious stones, being a hundred pound in waight, wherin were writ his victories, two great silver tables guilded, which unto this day stand, saith hee, before the body of Saint Peter: also hee gave many other gifts, and many almes to the poore, and built an hospitall in the broad way, and a Monastery of Saint Iuvenalis at the City of Orta, where hee gave pos∣sessions, and many gifts. Thus Anastasius; whose narration as it must needs testifie in what great honour the Romane Church was in those ancient times, and how bountifull they were then unto it, so may it serve for an incentive to inflame the zeale of Emperours, and great persons to doe the like after their victories and conquests; and no doubt but by such lyes and fables as this is their Church had gained the best part of her treasures and possessions; for all this not one sylla∣ble is true or probable. Bellisarius when hee came to Constantinople

with Vitiges was not then sent into the West, but into Persia t 1.2651 against Cosroes, as Procopius, who was present with him, testifieth, and in those warres hee continued full three u 1.2652 yeares: When hee was sent Westward hee was not sent into Africk, for thither Ariobindus x 1.2653 was sent, with whom was sent Artabanus: Neither did Bellisarius either by villany or victory kill Gontharis, but Artabanus killed y 1.2654 him trea∣cherously when they sat together at a feast in Gontharis Chamber: nor came Bellisarius from Africk to Rome, (for after his second com∣ming (which was from Constantinople) into Italy, he stayed there till his returne to Bizantium five z 1.2655 yeares after, and returned backe no more a 1.2656) nor brought hee thence with him any of the spoyles of the Vandales; nor offered hee them to Saint Peter; nor offered he, by the hand of Vigilius either than golden Crosse of an hundred pound waight (which is a golden lye, consisting of an hundred latche••s) nor the silver table, nor those many other gifts, nor built he an Hospitall, nor gave hee either possessions or donations. All these, if they be well summed, will make at least twelve grand capitall mother lyes, which have many moe in their wombs; such an art of devising untruths hath Anastasius. Or if this oblation bee referred, as Binius b 1.2657 saith perhaps it ought, to the time when Bellisarius wanne Rome from Vitiges, which was, as Procopius c 1.2658 sheweth in the third yeare of the warres against the Gothes, and 12. of Iustinian, yet this can excuse no one of all the untruths of Anastasius; for neither then was Vigilius but Sylverius d 1.2659 the Pope, neither did Bellisarius then come out of Africk, or bring the spoyles 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 Empresse writ to Vigilius to come to Constanti∣nople, and restore Anthimus to his See; but Vigilius refused, saying, I spake foolishly before when I promised that, but now I can no way consent to restore an heretike: Whence Baronius e 1.2660 observes a rare miracle, that Vigilius was now turned to a new man, & now Saul was one of the Prophets, of a blasphemer chāged to a true Preacher, of a Saul into a Paul, all w^ch change proceeded from his very sitting in the Popes Chaire, momento temporis novam formam accepit, at that very moment when he became the true Pope, hee had a new forme, a new speech, and then prophesied consonantly to the fathers: and the like miracle doth Binius f 1.2661 note, statim ut sanctam sedem ascendit, as soone as ever Vigilius had stept into the holy Chaire, hee was wholly changed into a new man, and then con∣demned the heresies, which before hee approved. A right Neanthes indeed, of whom it is written, that before being 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, having

now got the harpe of Orpheus, hee thought he was also able to worke wonders therwith, as well as Orpheus had done; he would needs then, Saxa movere sono testudinis, but all in vaine: Even so Peters Chaire made Vigilius as infallible as Peter himselfe, being once set there hee could doe nothing else but drop Oracles, and his fidling on Orpheus harpe made an heavenly harmony, but how hee failed in his skill, and proved no better than Neanthes, his Constitution touching the Three Chapters is an eternall record, and yet all that time hee sat in the Chaire and prophesied, for as the common saying is, Vbi Papa, ibi Ro∣ma; so it is as true, Vbi Papa, ibi Cathedra, it is more easie for the Pope to take the Chaire with him, than, like an Elephant, to carry the whole City of Rome upon his backe to Constantinople, and goe up and downe the world with it.

17. But is this narration, thinke you, of Anastasius true? verily not one word therein; neither did the Empresse 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 Africk, and offered those spoiles of the Van∣dales, and seeing, that, as wee have proved, was never; this writing of Theodora and answer of Vigilius was at the same tide of Nevermas. Againe, this answer of Vigilius was given, statim ac sanctam sedem a∣scendit, at his very first placing in the See, as Binius sheweth, and that was in the fourteenth g 1.2662 yeare of Iusti••ian, for then Sylverius dyed: now seeing Theodora writ not this till Gontharis was overcome, and that was, as Procopius h 1.2663 sheweth, in the nineteenth yeare of Iustinian; it was a fine devise of Anastasius, to tell how this new Saint answered a letter (by way of prophesie) three or foure yeares before the letter was writ∣ten. Further, Vigilius, as Liberatus saith i 1.2664, implens promissum suum, quod Augustae fecerat, performing his promise to the Empress, writ a letter in this manner, hee performed it as much as hee could, he laboured a while to doe it, and this was both before and a little after the death of Syl∣verius; but when hee could not effect it, and after that the Emperor had writ unto him to confirme the deposition of Anthimus: Vigilius seeing his labour to be lost therein, left off that care untill hee could have a better oportunity to overthrow the Councell of Chalcedon, which, so long as it stood in force, was a barre unto Anthimus. If Vigi∣lius could have prevailed to have had the fift Councel and the Church approve his Constitution published in defence of the Three Chapters, by which the Councell of Chalcedon had beene quite overthrowne, then in likelihood he would have set up Anthimus, & all who with An∣thimus had oppugned the Councell of Chalcedon, but till that were done, till the Councell were repealed, Vigilius saw it was in vaine to strive for Anthimus, and therefore waiting for another oportunity for that, hee in two severall Epistles, the one to Iustinian, the other to Mennas, confirmed, as the Emperour required him to doe, the de∣position of Anthimus; and this hee did the yeare before Bellisarius re∣turned to Constantinople with Vitiges, namely in the fourteenth yeare of k 1.2665 Iustinian, and five yeares before the death of Gontharis. Would the Empresse then write to him to come and doe that which he knew

not onely the Emperour most constantly withstood, but Vigilius also, to have five yeares before publikely testified to the Empe∣rour, that hee would not doe? specially seeing, as Baronius l 1.2666 saith, Vi∣gilius by that his letter to the Emperour, Omnem prorsus, sive Theodo∣rae, sive alijs spem ademisset, would put both Theodora, and all else out of all hope, that he should ever performe his promise in restoring Anthimus. So although those words, eodem tempore, were not (as they ought to be) referred to the time after the killing of Gontharis, but to the time when Bellisarius came with Vitiges to Constantinople, which was the yeare m 1.2667 after Vigilius his letter sent to the Emperour; yet the Ana∣stasian narration is not onely untrue, but wholly improbable, that Theodora should then send to him to come and restore Anthimus, who had the yeare before confirmed the deposing of Anthimus, and professed both to the Emperour and Mennas, that hee would not restore him, and that he ought not to bee restored. Lastly, at this time when Anastasius faineth Theodora to write to Vigilius to come and restore Anthimus, (which following the death of Gontharis, must needs bee in the nineteenth or twentieth yeare of Iustinian) the cause of Anthimus was quite forgotten and laid aside, and the Three Chap∣ters were then in every mans mouth, and every where debated: The Emperor having in that nineteenth yeare, as by Victor n 1.2668, who then li∣ved, is evident, if not before, published his Edict, and called Vigilius about that matter to Constantinople. Anastasius dreamed of somewhat, and hearing of some writing, or sending to Vigilius about that time, he not knowing, or, which I rather thinke, willing to corrupt and falsifie the true narration, for his great love to the Pope, conceales the true and onely cause about which the message was sent to Vigili∣us, and deviseth a false and fained matter about Anthimus, and indea∣vors to draw al men by the noise of that from harkning after the cause of the Three Chapters, which he saw would prove no small blemish to the Romane See. Iust as Alcibiades o 1.2669 to avoyd a greater infamy, cut off the taile of his beautifull dog, which cost him 70. minas Atti∣cas, (that is of our coyne p 1.2670 218. pound and 15. shillings) and filled the mouthes of the people with that trifle, that there might bee no noise of his other disgrace. The true cause of sending to Vigilius, as Victor sheweth q 1.2671, was about the Three Chapters, this of Anthimus, which Ana∣stasius harpes upon, is in truth no other but the dogs taile, and the din of it hath a long time possessed the eares of men; but now the true cause being come to the open view, fils the world with that shame∣full heresie of Vigilius, which Anastasius would have concealed and co∣vered with his dogs taile. But enough of this passage, wherein there are not so few as twenty lyes.

18. The next passage in Anastasius containes the sending for Vi∣gilius, and the manner how hee was taken from Rome and brought to Constātinople: He tels us that the people of Rome taking that oportunity of the displeasure of Theodora against him for his former consenting to restore An∣thimus, suggested d••vers accusations against him, as that by his Counsell Sylverius was deposed, and that hee was a murderer, and had killed his Ne∣phew Asterius, whereupon the Empresse sent Anthimus Scrib•• to take

him wheresoever hee wee, except onely in the Church of Saint Peter. Scribe came and tooke 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 evill to goe with him; hee in this violent manner was brought to Sicilie, in December, and on Christmas eve to Constantinople, whom the Emperour then meeting, they kissed and wept one over the other for joy, and then they led him to the Church of Saint Sophie, the people singing an hymne, behold the Lord commeth. Thus Anastasius. Which whole narration to bee a very lying and dunghill legend, were easie to demonstrate, if Baronius and Binius had not much eased us in this part, for they not onely condemne this as untrue, but prove it by divers arguments to be such. The first, for that Vigilius was called to Constantinople onely r 1.2672 for the cause of the Three Chapters, and therefore Anastasius putting downe other causes thereof, aperti mendacij s 1.2673 arguitur, is convin∣ced of an evident untruth. The second, because seeing, as they say, Men∣nas and the chiefe Easterne Bishops would not subscribe to the Edict of the Emperour untill the Pope had consented, Iustinian would con∣ciliate t 1.2674 the Pope unto him by all faire meanes, and intreate him no otherwise but favourably, least if the Pope were displeased, he should not yeeld his consent, and then the whole purpose of the Emperour should bee made frustrate. Their third reason is an argument à testimonio negativè, because neither u 1.2675 Procopius nor Facundus mention any such violence or abuse offered to the Pope, of which rea∣son I have spoken before. A fourth is taken from the time; whereas he saith, that Vigilius came to Constant. on Christmas eve, mendacij x 1.2676 redar∣guitur, hee is proved to lye, by that which Procopius saith. Many o∣ther reasons might bee added, but these of Baronius and Binius are suf∣fici••nt to convince Anastasius of lying, and open lying in this passage, which is, as now you see, nothing but a fardell of lyes; for neither did the people take that oportunity to accuse Vigilius, nor did they ac∣cuse him of those crimes, nor did the Empresse for that cause send for Vigilius, neither did shee, but Iustinian call him to Constantinople, neither did shee send Anthimus Scribo to pull him away by violence, neither commanded she him not to forbeare Vigilius in any place, but only in Saint Peters Church (this was but the kind affection of Anasta∣sius to the honour of Peters See) neither did shee sweare to excom∣municate Scribo if hee brought not Vigilius, neither did Scribo appre∣hend 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 peo∣ple 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 hee at that time brought, but as by Procopius y 1.2677 appeareth, long before hee voluntarily went to Sicilie, and made so long stay there, that the Emperour ha∣ving called him the yeare before, as by Victor z 1.2678 is cleare, by reason of his long abode in Sicilie, he called him the yeare after againe out of Sicily, as Procopius sheweth. Neither came he to Constantinople on Christmas Eeve, but either on the five and twentieth of Ianuary, as

Marcellinus a 1.2679 saith, or as by Procopius, who is farre more worthy of credit, may bee gathered b 1.2680, about the middle of April next ensuing; neither did the Emperour when they met, kisse him, nor did they weepe for joy, the one of the other, nor did they sing the hymne 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 Christs Advent in the flesh, and turne it to an Anthem to congratu∣late the Popes Advent on Christmas eve to Constantinople; but I feare it will hardly be beleeved, that men in those dayes did use such base, nay, blasphemous flattery to the Pope; this hymne would have bet∣ter befitted the time of Leo the tenth, when in the open Councell they durst say c 1.2681, to Pope Leo, Weepe not O daughter Syon, Ecce venit Leo de Tribu Iuda, behold the Lion of the Tribe of Iuda commeth, the roote of Iesse; 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, wee have looked for thee, we have hoped that thou shouldest come and be our delive∣rer. The former Anthem had beene sutable to such a time; the art of their blasphemous Gnatonisme to the Popes, was not halfe learned in Iustinians dayes, and most incredible it is, that Iustinian would use, or could endure in his presence, such entertainment of Vigilius, knowing that hee was an earnest and violent oppugner of his Imperiall Edict, in which he had expresly anathematized and accursed all that did de∣fend the Three Chapters. This proclaming of an Anathema against Vigi∣lius, and the hymne of Ecce advenit Dominus Dominator, with kissing & weeping for joy, make no good concord nor harmony together. Let this be accounted for no moe than twenty Anastasian lyes, and those are the fewest which are bound up in this fardle.

19. After that Anastasius hath, as you have seene, safely landed the Pope at Constantinople, then hee tels you, That for two yeares space there was continuall strife about Anthimus, the Emperour and Empresse 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 Iustinian and Theodora, but Diocle∣sian and Eleutheria that called mee hither, doe with me what you will: there∣upon they buffeted him, and called him homicide, and killer of Sylverius; then hee fled to the Church of Euphemia, and held himselfe by a Piller of the Altar, but they puld him thence, cast him out of the Church, put a rope about his necke, 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 Romane Clergy. And these, like the rest, are meerely the sond and sottish dreames of Anastasius, of, as Baronius u∣seth to call them, lyes. Baronius will assure you, that it was not An∣thimus or his restoring, but the Three Chapters about which Vigilius was sent for. The cause of Anthimus, who was deposed tenne d 1.2682 yeares before, was quite forgotten: and to see the sottishnesse of Anastasius, Iustinian had long before e 1.2683 written to Vigilius, requiring him to con∣firme the deposition of Anthimus, Vigilius f 1.2684 had done this upon the

Emperours letter, the Popes letters are recorded both in Baronius and Binius, dated when Iustinus was Consull, which was sixe whole yeares before the Popes comming to Constantinople, all that time the Emperour still liked the deposing of Anthimus, and many wayes had approved Mennas for the Bishop. Now after all this, when the whole Church, and every man was troubled with a more waighty cause of the Three Chapters, Anastasius brings in this, that the Emperour, and the Pope quarrelled for two yeares, about an old forgotten mat∣ter of Anthimus, wherein there was a perfect concord betwixt them both: nay, that is nothing to quarrell, but that the Emperour, like Dioclesian should cause him to be beaten, to bee reviled, to be puld from the Altar and Sanctuary, and haled about the towne by a rope about his necke, imprison and banish him, and all for his refusing to doe that which the Emperour had decreed to be done, and comman∣ded him to do the same, that for this cause their kisses should be tur∣ned into curses, and they both now weep a contrary weeping to their former, the Emperour wept because Vigilius would not doe that which the Emperour himselfe commanded him not to doe; the Pope wept for that he was trailed in a rope about the towne, and all for not doing that which the Emperour would not have him to doe: Truely this surpasseth the degree of a fable or untruth. Voraginensis himselfe could not devise a more simple and sottish Legend.

20. If this doe not sufficiently perswade you of the untruth of this passage, see how Baronius and Binius doe contradict the same, for in this short narration are contained those complura mendacia, as Baronius cals f 1.2685 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 1.2686 and Binius h 1.2687 tels you, it was the Church in Chalcedon; Anastasius saith, the Pope was puld thence from the Altar. Baronius i 1.2688 tels you the Emperour sent a most honorable message to intreat him to come from thence, but the Pope refused, till the Emperour yeelded to his demands in recalling his E∣dict. Lastly, Baronius k 1.2689 and Binius l 1.2690 will assure you, that the buffeting of Vigilius, his fleeing to the Church of Euphemia, and their haling him from thence did all happen divers yeares, three at least after the death of Theodora the Empresse; but Anastasius referres all that to the time of Theodora, and makes her another Eleutheria, as great an agent in all this as Dioclesian himselfe: belike as Eleutheria by a metempseu∣chosis, was changed into Theodora, so Theodora by a like Necromanticall tricke of Anastasius was raised out of her grave to buffet, to beate, and banish Pope Vigilius for not restoring Anthimus.

21. That which, as it seemes, gave occasion of this whole errour to Anastasius, was a matter done by Agapetus: Hee when hee came to Constantinople, had much contention with the Acephali, who were op∣pugners of the Councell at Chalcedon, among which Anthimus the Bi∣shop of Constantinople was one, and a most earnest defender of that sect. It is not unlike but Iustinian at the first favoured Anthimus, untill he perceived him to be hereticall. Anastasius m 1.2691 further saith, that Iusti∣nian favoured not onely the person, but the very heresie of Anthimus, and re∣lates

certaine threatning words used by Iustinian against Agapetus for that cause, as if Iustinian had sayd, either consent to us, or I will ba∣nish thee; which the Pope answered in the same manner almost as Vi∣gilius is sayd to have done, I thought I had come to Iustinian, but now I perceive I have found Dioclesian: upon which narration of Anastasi∣us, Baronius n 1.2692 and Binius, (having an implacable hatred to Iustinian,) say, that he was suspected of heresie, and to cleare himselfe, he upon the Popes command o 1.2693, published againe his profession of the true faith. But that neither Anastasius nor Baronius are herein to bee cre∣dited, may cleerly appeare, partly because Iustinian had before pub∣lished an orthodoxall profession in the beginning p 1.2694 of the Popedome of Agapetus, and specially by that ample testimony, which is given him by the Easterne and orthodoxall Bishops in the Councell under Mennas, after the death of Agapetus, who q 1.2695 say of him, that à primor∣dits regni sui usque nunc, from the very beginning of his Empire till then, he studied to keepe the whole body of the Church sound, and intire, and free from all infection of heresies. So farre was he from suppor∣ting that heresie, or Anthimus in it, when he once knew him to defend the same. Theodora the Empresse, by whose meanes Anthimus (who secretly oppugned the Councell 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 meanes of Vigilius. Liberatus who then lived, saying nothing of the Emperours threats (which had Iusti∣nian used, for the ill will Liberatus bare to Iustinian, he would not have omitted) expresly mentioneth r 1.2696 both how Theodora by rewards sought to corrupt Agapetus, and when that prevailed not, added threats ther∣unto; and how the Pope would not at all consent to her motion. Vic∣tor s 1.2697, who also lived at that time, saith that Agapetus communione priva∣vit, did excommunicate Theodora, the patron of Anthimus▪ an oppugner of the Councell of Chalcedon: whence it may appeare, that Anastasius ascribes to the Emperour that which was done by the Empresse, a∣gainst Agapetus, and if any such words were used by Agapetus, as com∣paring their tyranny to Dioclesians persecution, it was spoken no way of Iustinian, (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 Councell of Chalcedon, till seeing that shee could not pre∣vaile therein, neither by the meanes of Agapetus, nor Silverius, nor Vigilius, after he had once writ to the Emperour, 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 Emperour himselfe was, an earnest condemner of the three Chapters, as by t 1.2698 Victor is evident, that is in truth an earnest defender of the Councell of Chalcedon. Now upon this truth (errour alwayes having some truth for his ground) Anastasius u 1.2699 buildeth many fabulous and poeticall fictions of his owne devising: as that Iustinian and Agapetus quarrelled about the faith, Agapetus defending against him the two natures in Christ; that the Emperour threatned banishment to Agapetus, un∣lesse he would consent with him, and deny the two natures; that A∣gapetus

called him Dioclesian; that Agapetus disputed with Anthimus, and overcame him before the Emperour; that the Emperour there∣upon humbled himselfe to the Pope, and adored x 1.2700 the most blessed Agapetus; that then hee banished Anthimus, and entreated Agapetus to consecrate Mennas in his roome. Now Anastasius perceiving these his fictions concerning Iustinian and Agapetus, wherein hee had some ground of truth, to be plausible, and his end being this, Papae ut place∣rēt, quas fecisset fabulas, hee brings in Iustinian and Vigilius to act the very same pageant againe, and that without any ground of truth, they for sooth, tenne yeares after Anthimus was deposed, and for ought ap∣peareth was dead at that time, must come in quarrelling againe about Anthimus, as fresh as ever the Emperour and Agapetus had done be∣fore: nay they must contend two other whole yeares after the former tenne: about this Helena, Iustinian and his Empresse 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 Vigi∣lius he is beholding to none but his own poeticall pate; & lest any little scene or shadow of resemblance might be wanting, Baronius y 1.2701 supply∣ing one defect in Anastasius, tels us how Vigilius for the same cause of Anthimus, excommunicated Theodora at his comming 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 meere fiction of Ana∣stasius? in which there are not so few as thirty lyes.

22. You have seene the tragicall part of this Anastasian fable, now followeth the Catastrophe or sudden change of all this hard fortune: Tunc Gothi fecerunt, then (saith he) the Gothes made Totilas their King, who comming to Rome besieged it so sore, that the City was pressed with a great famine, so that they did eate their owne children. Totilas entred the Citie at the gate of Saint Paul, in the 13. Indiction, and for a whole night caused a Trumpet to be sounded, till all the Romane people were fled away, or hid in Churches. And Totilas dwelled with the Romanes, 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, dragging, and imprisonment of Vigilius, and banishment of him & his fellows, upō which Anastasius presently adjoyneth, Tunc Gothi fecerunt, then the Gothes made Totilas King; and yet Totilas was King a 1.2702 not onely before all that tragicall act, but foure or five yeares also before Vigili∣us came to Constantinople, or before the Emperour sent for him, and in like sort Totilas his besieging of Rome by Anastasius narration follows all the former: whereas by Procopius b 1.2703 it is evident that Totilas besie∣ged Rome while Vigilius stayed in Sicilie, before he set forward to Con∣stantinople. The like errour is in the note of the Indiction; for Totilas tooke the City, not as Anastasius saith in the 13. but as c 1.2704 Marcellinus witnesseth, and that aright, in the 10. Indiction: neither did he enter at the gate of Saint Paul, but as Procopius d 1.2705 expresly declareth, at that which was called Asinaria: neither did Totilas sound any such Trum∣pet, to give them warning or space to flee, but entring the City in the night, and that by trechery of the watch, he stayed e 1.2706 his army toge∣ther

till morning, for feare that some danger might befall himselfe or his army in the darke, by the lying in wait of the enemies. And when after this, Bellisarius having recovered the City, Totilas againe wan it from the Romanes, which was three yeares after this, to wit, in the 15. yeare of the Gothicke warre, as Procopius f 1.2707 sheweth, which was the 24. of Iustinian, whereas his first taking it was in the 21. of Iustinian; then indeed Totilas, as Procopius g 1.2708 declareth, caused divers Trumpets to sound an alarum on the river of Tyber in the night time, as if hee would on that side assault the City, while hee had his army in readi∣nesse on the contrary side, and entred there by trechery also of the Watch; the Romanes giving little regard to that part. These Trum∣pets 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 Romanes, that Anastasius in his sim∣plicity takes and relates as done in favour of the Romanes, that they might escape and not be killed. And yet the taking of the City, wher∣of Anastasius speaketh, cannot be this second, wherein the Trumpets were sounded, but the former, (at which time Totilas used no such policie) as appeares by the famine which Anastasius h 1.2709 mentioneth, which happened in this former i 1.2710, 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 addes of King Totilas that hee dwelt among the Romanes as a father among his children, I know not how to checke so great a solly. The barbarous Gothes, after that long and miserable siege of the Romanes, having by trechery in the night entred the City, the very next k 1.2711 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 1.2712 comming in most submissive manner had not stayed their Gothish fury. The Romane people m 1.2713, so many as could by flight, sought their safety: there remai∣ned of their innumerable Romane troups, but to the number of five hundred, the Noblemen n 1.2714 and better sort who remained among them, led a life more ignominious and miserable than death, being spoyled of all, domos circumeundo, fores{que} appulsando cibum dari sibi sup∣plicitèr precabantur; from doore to doore in most abject and beggerly manner praying for some reliefe of the proud and insolent victor: nor was Totilas content herewith, but he was resolved o 1.2715 to ruinate and utterly deface the whole city of Rome, which also he had then done, had not the most prudent perswasions p 1.2716 of Bellisarius never sufficiently even for this one∣ly cause to bee commended, hindred so barbarous a designe. 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 1.2717, woman, or childe to remaine 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 lyes, and proceed to the rest of his narration.

23. At the same time, saith he, the Emperour sent Narses into Italie, to whom God gave the victory over the Gothes, the King and a great multi∣tude of them were slaine. 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 sutable to all the rest, that is, wholly untrue: for Totilas the first time tooke Rome in the 12. and the second time in the 15. yeare of the Gothicke warre, whereas Narses overcame him not, nor came as chiefe Generall into Italy till the eigh∣teenth yeare of the same warre. All which by Procopius r 1.2718 is clearly te∣stified. But Binius doth here set to his helping hand, and making a glosse 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 1.2719, Illo anno quo Imperator revocavit Edictum; in that yeare where∣in the Emperour at the instance of Pope Vigilius recalled the Edict, which he had published concerning the three Chapters, shewing himselfe therein obe∣dient to the Pope; in that yeare Narses the Captaine of the Romane armie, trusting to the helpe of God, by the intercession of the blessed Virgin Mary, put to flight and killed Totilas, with his whole army. So Binius: upon whose glosse it will inevitably follow that Narses never overcame Totilas, nor was sent Generall into Italie. For it is certaine, (as before wee have by many reasons proved) and by the testimony of the whole ge∣nerall Councell t 1.2720, that Iustinian did not at all recall that Edict: he was both before and after the Councell, yea after the death of Vigilius, earnest in the defence thereof. But let us admit that hee had indeed recalled that Edict; when thinke you was this done? No man can tell you better than Baronius, who referres all that to the 26. yeare of Iusti∣nian, which is the 17. of the Gothicke warre; for by his narration u 1.2721, not onely the Emperour in that yeare revoked his Edict against the Three Chapters, but he with Theodorus Bishop of Caesarea, and Mennas, were all in that yeare reconciled to the Pope, and a perfect peace con∣cluded on all hands before the moneth of Iuly; peace being conclu∣ded Mennas shortly after dyed. If then as Binius glosseth, Totilas was slaine eo anno, in that yeare wherein Iustinian is supposed to have re∣called his Edict, then was he certainly vanquished and slaine, not by Narses, for he as Procopius x 1.2722 sheweth, came not as chiefe Generall into Italy, untill the 18. yeare of the Gothicke warre, which is the 27. of Iustinian. Againe, seeing it followeth in Anastasius, Tunc adunatus, then when Totilas was vanquished and killed, did the Romane Cler∣gie entreat to have Vigilius with the rest restored from exile. It hence clearly followeth, that Anastasius can meane no other exile, than such as was inflicted upon him some three or foure yeares before, for the cause of Anthimus, and not that which followed the Councell: for the Councell was not held in the seventeenth yeare of the Gothicke warre, or six and twentieth of Iustinian, but in the eighteenth of the one, and seven and twentieth of the other, as the Acts doe witnesse:

or if Baronius will needs have the exile following the Councell, 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 Iustinian, that Narses and the Romane Clergy entreated the Emperour to restore Vigilius out of exile, before he was cast into exile; nay before the Councell was as∣sembled, or before Vigilius had given any cause why he should be ba∣nished; which doth not well accord with the wisedome of Narses and the Romane Clergy to entreat, nor was it possible for the Emperour to grant. The same is further manifest by the other note of time which Binius * 1.2723 sets down, that Totilas was killed decimo anno regni sui, in the 10 year of his reigne, as the holy Monk Bennet had foretold unto him: for Totilas was made King of the Goths in the 7. yeare of the Gothick war, as Procopius y 1.2724 testifieth, which was in the 16. yeare of Iustinian, and as it seemeth by his Acts, in the beginning of the yeare. But to helpe the Benedictine prophesie, we will suppose him to be made in the last end of all, and account the next yeare for his first: yet even so must Toti∣las be vanquished and slaine before the beginning of the 18. yeare of the Gothicke war, or 27. of Iustinian, for with the end of the 17. yeare of the Gothicke warre is fully completed the tenth yeare of Totilas. Wherefore if Benedict was not a lying Prophet, and if Totilas was slaine decimo anno, in his tenth yeare, then all the former inconveniences doe upon this account also ensue, that he was not vanquished by Nar∣ses; that then, when he was slain, Narses & the Romane Clergy did not entreat for the delivery of Vigilius out of banishment, and the like; seeing it is certaine that Narses came not into Italie, and that Vigilius was not banished (by that Baronian exile which followeth the Coun∣cell) till the 18. yeare of the Gothicke war, and 27. of Iustinian. Or if any to excuse Binius will expound as Baronius z 1.2725 doth, the prophesie to be meant that Totilas was slaine anno decimo, that is, in the tenth yeare being complete, that plainly contradicteth the prophesie: for if the tenth yeare was wholly ended, then was he not slaine in the tenth, but onely in the eleventh yeare, nor in the tenth otherwise than in the first, second, or sixt yeare; nay slaine in the yeare before hee was borne, that is, slaine after all those yeares ended and fully completed.

24. Now that which Binius a 1.2726 interlaceth of the Emperours being so obsequent and obedient to the Pope, or as Baronius b 1.2727 expresseth it, for being ruled by the Popes command, these as being but flourishes of their vanity and arrogancy, I will passe over. The Acts both of Iusti∣nian, and of the fift Councell doe demonstrate that Iustinian was (as he ought to be) the commander of the Pope, the Popes Empire was not as yet in the cradle. But that which is added, that Narses o∣vercame the Gothes by the intercession of the blessed Virgin, I am de∣sirous a little more at large to examine, the rather, because c 1.2728 Baronius little lesse than triumpheth therein. Narses, saith he, indevored all these things, Mariae virginis ope, by the help of the virgin Mary. And again, having cited certain words out of Evagrius to prove it, By this, saith d 1.2729 he, you do understand, cujus niti praesidio duces debeant, on whose help Generals & Captains must rely, that they may perform every difficultest enterprise,

truely even on the helpe of Mary the Mother of God, who being in∣vocated 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 Cardinall, wresting and abusing the Scripture, to draw mens confidence from the Lord of Hosts to the blessed Vir∣gin, making her, contrary to her sexe, to be another Mars, and a chiefe warrier in all the greatest battels of the Christians. But for the truth of the matter, what Narses did, Procopius doth declare, who thus wri∣teth e 1.2730 of him; When Totilas was overcome, Narses being exceeding joyfull, id omne Deo acceptū ut erat in vero indesinenter referre, did continu∣ally attribute all that victorie to God, to whom in truth it was to be ascribed. Evagrius the Cardinals own witnesse, testifieth the same, even in that place which the Cardinall alledgeth, his words are these f 1.2731, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, they who were with Narses report, that, dum precibus divinum numen placeret, while he appeased or pleased God by his prayer, & other offices of pi∣ety, and gave due honour unto him, the Virgin, Mother of God appeared unto him, and plainly set downe the time when he should fight with the enemies, nor fight w ^th thē til he received a sign from above. Thus Evag. in whose words three things are to be observed: First, that Narses used noin vocatiō or prayers to the blessed Virgin, or any other, but only to God, it was Di∣vinū numen, the very Godhead, which hee 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 hee reposed in her, or that she at al helped him in the battle, but only that she appeared unto him as a messenger, to signifie what time he should fight. Now as the Angel Gabriel was no helper to the Virgin Mary, ei∣ther in the cōception of Christ, or in his birth, though, as a messenger from God, hee signifieth them both unto Ioseph, (Ioseph neither invo∣cating him nor relying on him, but on God, whose messenger he was) even so, admitting the truth of this apparition, the Virgin Mary did signifie from God the time when Narses should fight, but neither did Narses invocate or adore her, nor did shee her selfe more helpe in the battle than the Angell in the birth of Christ; nor did the confidence of Narses relie on her, but on God, whose messenger he then beleeved her to be. Let the Cardinall, or Binius, or any of them prove forcibly (which they can never doe) out of Evagrius any other invocation or adoration used by Narses to the blessed Virgin, and I will consent un∣to 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: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, some say, Evagrius himselfe doth not say it was so, or that Narses either said or beleeved it to be so, but reported it was by some of the souldiers of Narses, whether true or false, that must relie on the credit of the reporters. Now for the Car∣dinall to avouch a doctrine of faith out of a rumour or report of how credible men themselves knew not, from such an uncertainty to col∣lect, that Generals ought to relie on the aide of the blessed Virgin in their battels, and that shee, interpellata precibus, being invocated by their prayers, riseth up, and becomes a warrier on their side; this, by none that are indifferent can be judged lesse than exceeding temeri∣ty,

and by those that are religious will bee condemned as plaine su∣perstition and impiety. But let us returne now to Anastasius, whose narration, as it is untrue in it selfe, if the comming of Narses into Italy, and victory over the Gothes, bee referred to that time, when Totilas had before wonne Rome, so it is much more untrue, if it bee referred, as by Binius glosse it is, either to the yeare wherein the Emperour re∣called his Edict, (which was never) or to the tenth yeare of Totilas, which was wholly ended before the comming of Narses into Italie, and before the fift Councell, and the Baronian banishment of Vigilius.

25. After the victory of Narses it followeth in Anastasius, tunc adunatus Clerus, then the Romane Clergy joyned together, besought Narses that hee would intreat the Emperour, that if as yet Pope Vigilius, with the Presbiters and Deacons that were carried into banishment with him, were alive, they might returne home. In that they speake of this exile, as long before begun, even so long that they doubted whether Vigilius were then alive or no, it seemeth evi∣dently, that Anastasius still hath an eye to that banishment for the cause of Anthimus, after he had beene two yeares in Constantinople; that falling five g 1.2732 whole yeares before the victory of Narses, they had reason to adde, si adhuc, if Vigilius doe live as yet, that is, after so long time of banishment, remaine alive. Now seeing it is certaine, that Vigilius was not at that time (to wit, not within two yeares after his comming to Constantinople) banished, as by the fift generall Councell is h 1.2733 evident, it hence followeth, that as this Anastasian exile, so all the consequents depending thereon are nothing else but a meere fiction of Anastasius, without all truth or probability: for seeing Vigilius was not then banished, neither did the Romanes intreate Narses, nor Narses the Emperour for his delivery, nor the Emperour upon that send to recall him or them from exile, nor use any such words about Pelagius, nor thanke them if they would accept Vigilius, nor did they promise after the death of Vigilius to chuse Pelagius, nor did the Em∣perour dismisse them all (for of Pelagius that hee three yeares after the end of the Councell remained in banishment, is certainly testified by Victor i 1.2734) nor did they returne from exile into Sicilie; all this is a meere fiction. So in this Catastrophe, beginning at the time when Anastasius saith Totilas was King of the Gothes, there are contained at least forty capitall untruths, to let passe the rest, as being of lesser note and moment. Let any now cast up the whole summe, I doubt not but hee shall finde, not onely, 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 veri∣ly perswaded, that few Popes lives scape better at his hands than this: But I have stayed long enough in declaring the falshood of Anastasi∣us, on whom Baronius so much relyeth, and who is a very fit author for such an Annalist as Baronius.

CAP. XXXVI. That Baronius reproveth Pope Vigilius for his comming to Constantino∣ple, and a refutation thereof; with a description of the life of the same Vigilius.

1. AFter all which the Cardinall could devise to disgrace either the Emperor or the Empresse, or Theodorus Bishop of Cesarea, or the cause it selfe 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 netled him, that whatsoever or whosoever came in his way, though it were his Holinesse himselfe, hee would not spare them, if he thought thereby to gaine ne∣ver so little for the support of their infallible Chaire: And what think you is it that he carps at, and for which hee so unmannerly quarrels Pope Vigilius? was it for oppugning the truth published by the Emp. Edict, or was it for making his hereticall Constitution, and defining it ex Cathedrâ, in defence of the Three Chapters? or was it for his pevish∣nesse in refusing to come to the generall Councell, even then when he was present in the City where it was held, and had promised under his owne hand that hee would come unto it? or was it his pertinaci∣ous obstinacy in heresie, that he would rather undergoe both the just sentence of an anathema denounced by the generall Councell, and also the calamity and wearinesse of exile inflicted by the Emperor (as Ba∣ronius saith) upon him, then yeelding to the truth and true judgement of the Synod in condemning the Three Chapters? Are these (which are all of them hainous crimes, and notorious in Vigilius) the matters that offend the Cardinall? No, none of these, hee is not used to finde such faults in their Popes, these all hee commends as rare vertues, as demonstrations of constancy, of prudence, of fortitude in Vigilius? what then is it that his Cardinalship dislikes? Truely, among many great and eminent vices in Vigilius, which are obvious, and runne into every mans sight, it hapned that once in his life he did one thing wor∣thy of commendations, and that was his obedience in going to Con∣stantinople, when the Emperour a 1.2735 called and requested b 1.2736 him to come thither, and the Cardinall winking at all the other, reproves his Ho∣linesse for this one thing, which both in equity and duty hee ought to have done: This forsooth is it which hee notes as a very c 1.2737 dangerous and hurtfull matter, and a speciall point of great indiscretion in Pope Vigilius, that leaving Rome, that holy City, hee would goe to Constan∣tinople, and to the Emperours Court, which his predecessors, Leo and others, in very great wisdome would never do, not goe into the East, nor suffer themselves to bee pulled away from their See fixed at Rome.

2. Truely, I never knew before that there was such vertue in the Romane, or such venome in the Constantinopolitane soile, or in the

Easterne ayre, specially seeing the holy Land and the holy City, and the holy Temple were all in the East: All the Westerne nations are beholding to the Cardinall for this conceit;* 1.2738 Shall there not bee 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•• goe to Constantinople. Oh, saith the Cardinall d 1.2739, it is found by experience, that the Popes 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 faire intreaties of Emperours, as it were with two contrary windes, the ship of Peter is exposed to great hazzard. Modicae fidei, phy, a Cardinall to feare or distrust any wracke of Saint Peters ship, though never so dangerous a tempest happen, though, Vna Eurusque, Notusque ruant, creberque procellis Africus. S. Peter hath left such a Pilot in his Rome, that a thousand times sooner might he himselfe, than his ship sinke, Pasce oves, tues Petra, & oravi pro te Petre, will uphold it against all winde 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 maxime, e 1.2740 ubi Papa, ibi Roma, let the Pope goe to Peru, yea, ultra Garamantas & Indos, he hath a priviledge above all creatures but the Snaile; hee carrieth not onely their infallible Chaire, but the whole City of Rome on his backe, whithersoever hee goes. If not so, or if the Chaire bee fixt to Rome, where sate all their Popes for those seventy yeares f 1.2741, when they were at Avinion? or how shall they sit in the Chaire, when their Babylonish Rome for her Idolatries shal be burnt with unquencheable fire, and sinke like a Milstone into the bottome of the Sea? which being foretold by Saint Iohn, of the Romane City, which yet remaineth, as their owne Iesuite Ribera g 1.2742 doth truely and undeniably demonstrate, is a most certaine Article of the Catholike faith, though they seldome thinke of it, and will hardly put it into their Creed. When their Pope (goe whither hee will) carieth still with him his infallible Chaire, was it not infidelity in the Cardinall to dreame or doubt lest that ship should any where miscarry, more at the Court or Kings Pallace than in a Country Cottage, more in the Trullane than in the Laterane Temple?

3. Yea, but, usu rerum reperitur h 1.2743, experience teacheth, that their going to the Emperour hath done exceeding hurt, and particularly for Vigilius, that his going to Constantinople hath brought i 1.2744, magnum damnum, great harme to the Catholike Church, declararunt eventa, the events have shewed. Events and experience are the most woefull arguments in Divinitie, that can possibly be devised. Measure the Gospell by temporall calamities which ensued upon it, the bloody murdering of the Apostles, of the Saints of God, almost for three hundred yeares together, and hee may as well conclude, that the Go∣spell and truth of Christ is found by woefull experience to have brought exceeding great hurt to the Church. The Cardinall 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 Topicall places.

4. But say, what hurt can he tell us that ever any Emperours pre∣sence with the Pope, brought unto the Church? If both were Catho∣like, or both hereticall, they agreed well enough together. As not Satans, so much lesse is Gods Kingdome devided against it selfe; if the Emperour Catholike, and the Pope hereticall, the worst the Em∣perour ever did, was but to inflict just punishment on an heretike, the worst the Pope sustained was but a just recompence of his heresie and hatred of truth: The execution of Iustice never did, nor ever can hurt the Catholike Church. If the Emperor were hereticall and the Pope orthodoxal, there was trial of the Popes art & skil in converting such a man to the truth; triall of his constancy and love unto Gods truth, whether by feare or favour he would forsake it: triall of his patience and fortitude in induring all torments, even death it selfe, for his love to Christ. All the hurt which such an Emperour did, or could doe, was to crowne him a glorious Martyr, and in stead of the white gar∣ment of innocency, to send him in scarlet robes unto heaven; and woe be to that Church which shall thinke Martyrdome an hurt unto it, which was, and ever will bee the glory of the Catholike Church. Non decet sub spinoso capite membrum esse delicatum, when Christ, his Apo∣stles, and glorious Saints, and Martyrs, have gone before upon thornes and briars, wee must not looke to have a silken way, strewed with Roses and Lillies, unto the Kingdome of God. This, which is yet the very worst that can befall any Catholike,* 1.2745 is no harme to him who hath learned that lesson, Blessed are they which die in the Lord; so whe∣ther Pope and Emperour be both of one, or of a different religion, his presence with the Emperour may happen to doe good, but it is cer∣taine it can never possibly doe hurt unto the Church. The greatest hurt that was ever done to the Church by this meanes, was when Constan∣tine after his baptisme by Pope Silvester, in liew of his paines, and in token of a thankful minde, sealed unto him that donation k 1.2746 of the Ro∣mane and Westerne Provinces: That one fable I must particularly ex∣cept, for by it hath beene lift up the man of sinne, Christian Empires have beene robbed, the ignorant seduced, the whole Church abused: Nero did not the thousand part so much hurt by martyring Peter and Paul when they were present with him, as the most falsly supposed donation hath done to the Catholike Church.

5. Will you yet see the great vanity of the Cardinall in this reason drawne from the event, and the Emperours presence. Some l 1.2747 ten yeares before this, Pope Agapetus, being sent by Theodotus King of the Gothes, came to Constantinople, and to the same Emperour: It so fell out, that at that time Anthimus an heretike and an intruder, held the Sea of Constantinople: Agapetus deposed him, that is, hee declared and denounced (which was true indeed) that hee was never lawfully Bishop of that See, and that himselfe did not, nor ought others to hold him for the lawfull Bishop thereof; whereupon Mennas was cho∣sen and consecrated Bishop by Agapetus in Anthimus his roome. Vigi∣lius was called by the Emperour, Agapetus sent by a Gothish usur∣per; Vigilius called by a religious and most orthodoxall Professor, Agapetus sent by an heretike and Arian King; Vigilius called purpose∣ly

about causes of faith, Agapetus sent only about civill, and but casual∣ly intermedling w^th Ecclesiasticall causes. You would now even blesse your selfe to see how the Card. here turns this argument ab eventu, & by it proves the Popes presence at the same Court with the same Em∣peror, to have brought such an infinite & unspeakeable good unto the Church, as could scarce bee wished. Agapetus m 1.2748 no longer sent from Theodotus a barbarous Goth, but even from God himselfe, and by him commanded to goe thither with an errant from heaven; hee seemed to bee sent to intreat of peace, but hee was commanded by God to goe, ut imperaret imperantibus, that he should shew himselfe to be an Empe∣rour above the Emperour: He, like Saint Peter n 1.2749, had not gold nor silver being faine to pawne the holy Vessels for to furnish him with money in the journey, but he was rich in the power and heavenly treasures of working miracles. Now was demonstrated o 1.2750 the highest power of the Pope, that without any Councell called about the matter, as the custome is, hee could depose a Patriarke, (at other times hee may not have that title) and a Patriark of so high a See as Constantinople, and so highly favoured by the Emp. & Empresses. Now was demonstrated p 1.2751, that, Pontifex supra omnes Canones eminet, that the Popes power is above all Canōs, for herby was shewed, that he by his omnipēt authority may do matters with the Canons, without the Canons, against all Canons; & seeing his judgement was without a Synod, (w^ch in a Patriarks cause is required) fuit secundum supremam Apostilicae sedis authoritatem, it was according to his supreme authority, which is transcēdent above all Canōs; or to use Bellarmines q 1.2752 phrase, hee did shew himselfe to bee, Princeps Ecclesiae, one that may doe against the whole Church. Nay, if you well consider r 1.2753, admirari non desines, you will never cease to wonder, to see that Agapetus a poore man, as soone as hee came to Constantinople should imperare Imperatoribus, corū facta rescindere, jura dare, omnibus{que} jubere, to command Emperours, to adnull their Acts, to depose a Patriarke and thrust him from his throne, to set another there, to set downe lawes, and command all men, and to do all this without any Synod: & such a Pope s 1.2754 was Agape∣tus, that I know not, an similis alius inveniri possit, whether such ano∣ther can bee found among them all. Thus declameth Baronius. Where thinke you, all time was the Cardinals argument ab adventu? Experi∣ence teacheth, that when Popes leave their See, and goe to the Court or Emperours presence, the ship of S. Peter is then in great hazzard: If Agapetus his comming to Constantinople or to the Emperour did not hazzard or endanger the Church, how came it to bee perillous a few yeares after in Vigilius? and where were now the most wise exam∣ples of Pope Leo and the other, who in great wisedome could never be drawne to the East, and from their owne See? how was the ho∣ly Church now fixed to Rome, when Agapetus had it in the greatest majesty and honour at Constantinople? perceive you not how these ar∣guments lie asleepe in the cause of Agapetus, which the Cardinall rou∣seth up when Vigilius goes to Constantinople? This, ab adventu, as all the Cardinals Topicke places, is drawne from the art and authority of Esops Satyr: If they make for the Pope, as the event did in Agapetus, then the Cardinall with his Satyrs blast will puffe them up and make

them swell to demonstrations: But if they make against the Pope, as did the event in Vigilius, all arguments in the world drawne from the cause, effect, or any other Topicall or demonstrative place, the Car∣dinall with a contrary breath can turne them al to Sophistications. He is another Iannes or Iambres of this age, when any argument or Topick place is for the Romish Pharao, it shall sting like a Serpent, when it is used against King Pharao it shall bee as dull and dead as a stick.

6. And yet what are those ill events and dangers whereunto the Church was brought by the comming of Vigilius to Constantinople? what hurt received it by the presence of the Pope with Iustinian? Sure the Cardinall in good discretion should have expressed them, at least some one of them, but hee was too politike to open such secrets of their State; for mine owne part I cannot but first condemne his foule ingratitude in this point. Vigilius before hee came to Constanti∣nople, was earnest in oppugning the truth, and Catholike faith, by de∣fending of the Three Chapters, hee defended them by words, by wri∣tings, by censures, by the utmost of his power: All the hurt the Em∣perour did him was this, that he converted him to the truth, that hee brought him to define, by an Apostolicall Constitution, that truth which before hee oppugned, and in this tune the Emperour kept him for five or sixe yeares together, but then when his old fit of heresie came up∣on him againe, when at the time of the generall Councell he forsook the Emperours holy faith, his communion, and, as may bee thought, e∣ven his company and presence also, by this absence from the Emperor, he relapsed quite from the Catholike faith, even from that which be∣fore hee had defended and defined, so long as hee kept society with the Emperour. When the Emperours presence made hereticall Pope Vigilius for the space of five or sixe yeares a Catholike Pope, (at least in shew and profession) doe you not thinke Baronius to deale unkindly with the Emperour in blaming the time that ever Vigilius came to the Emperour, that is in effect to blame, and little lesse than curse the day wherein Vigilius renounced heresie, and embraced or made profession of the Catholike faith.

7. Now as this good redownded to Vigilius in particular by his comming to Constantinople, so there is another and publike benefit which ensued thence to the whole Church, and that so great and so happy, that if we should (as the Cardinall doth) measure things by the event, the comming of Agapetus to Constantinople, though they glory therein more than in any other example of antiquity, is no way com∣parable to this of Vigilius, for by this comming of Vigilius it was de∣monstrated by evident experience, that the Pope may say and gainsay his owne 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 hee temporized with the Emperour defined ex Cathedra, that the Three Chapters ought to bee condemned, and after that, when it pleased him to open the depth of his owne heart, defined the quite contrary ex Cathedra, that the Three Chapters ought to bee defended. By it was further demonstra∣ted, that the Pope may not onely be an heretike, but teach also and de∣fine

and that ex cathedra, an heresie to be truth, and so be a convicted, condemned, and anathematized heretike, by the judgment of an holy generall Councell, and of the whole Catholike 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 undenyably de∣monstrated in the cause of Pope Vigilius, when he came to Constanti∣nople, that had the Cardinall or his favourers (I meane the maintai∣ners of the Popes infallibility,) grace to make use thereof for the ope∣ning of their eyes in that maine and fundamentall point, wherein they are now so miserably blinded, they might have greater cause to thank God for his comming thither, than for the voyage of Agapetus, or of any other of his predecessors undertaken in many yeares before.

8. Where are now the great hurts and inconveniences which the Cardinall fancieth by Vigilius his comming to the Emperour? Truly I cannot devise, what one they can finde, but the disgrace onely of Vigilius, in that upon his comming he shewed himselfe to be a tempo∣rizer, a very weather-cocke in faith, a dissembler with God and his Church, pretending for five or six yeares that hee favoured the truth, when all that time he harboured in his brest the deadly poyson of that heresie, which as before his comming he defended, so at the time of the Councell he defined. This blot or blemish of their holy Father, neither I, nor themselves, with all the water in Tiber, can wash or e∣ver wipe away. The best use that can be made of it, is, that as Thomas distrusted, to make others faithfull and void of distrust; so God, in the infinitenesse of his wisedome, permitted Pope Vigilius to be not only unconstant, but hereticall in defining causes of faith, that others by re∣lying on the Popes judgement as infallible, might not be hereticall: and yet even for this very fact, thus much I must needs say, that if the Cardinall thinke it was the place, or the City of Constantinople, that wrought this disgracefull effect in Vigilius, it may bee truly replyed unto him much like as Themistocles t 1.2755 did to the foolish Seriphian, ascri∣bing his owne ignobility to the basenesse of the towne of Seriphus, certainly though Silvester, Iulius, and Calestine had beene never so oft at Constantinople, they had beene orthodoxall and heroicall Bishops; but Vigilius hereticall and ignoble, though he had beene nayled to the posts of the Vaticane, or chained to the pillars of it as fast as Promethe∣us to Caucasus. The soyle and ayre is as Catholike at Constantinople, as in the very Laterane; it is as hereticall in Rome, as in any City in all the world. The onely difference is in the men themselves, the for∣mer, where ever they had come, caried with them constant, heroi∣call, and truly pontificall minds; Vigilius in every place was of an am∣bitious, unstable, dissembling, hypocriticall, and hereticall 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 downe a true de∣scription of the life of Vigilius: partly because it may bee 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 hereticall Popes life, to re∣quite the labour of Baronius, in his malitious slanders of the religious

Emperour Iustinian; and specially because Vigilius being the subject, (in a manner) of this whole Treatise, it seemes to mee needfull to ex∣presse the most materiall circumstances, touching the entrance, the actions, the end of him, who hath occasioned us to undertake this so long, and as I truly professe, both laborious and irksome labour.

9. I confesse I have no good faculty in writing their Popes lives, Nec fonte labra prolui Caballino, nec in bicipiti somniasse Parnasso memini; I have not tasted of their streames of Tiber, more holy than Helicon, nor ever had I dreame or vision in their sacred Parnassus; yet with their leave will I adventure to set downe some parts of the life of Vigi∣lius, which doe afford as much variety of matter, and are as needfull to be knowne and remembred, as any other of that whole ranke from S. Peter to Paul the fift.

10. That many of their Popes have unjustly climbed up to S. Peters Chaire, I thinke none so unskilfull as not to know, none so malitious as to deny: But whether any of them all, I except none, not the boy-Pope u 1.2756 Iohn the 12. not the Fox x 1.2757 Boniface, not Silvester the second, who had it y 1.2758 by a compact with the Devill, of whom hee purchased it with the gift of his soule; not Iohn the 23. called a Devill incarnate z 1.2759, not any else; whether any of them all, I say, obtained the See with more impiety, or greater villany than Vigilius, may be justly doub∣ted. He, intending to be a good cammock, beganne (according to the Proverb,) to hooke and crooke betimes, and gape after that emi∣nent Throne. His first attempt a 1.2760 was in the time of Boniface the se∣cond, with whom he prevailed so far, that when Boniface b 1.2761 in a Roman Synod had made a Constitution that he should nominate his succes∣sor, before them all he named and constituted Vigilius to succeed to himselfe: for the performance of which, both he and all the rest of the Synod did binde themselves, both by subscription, and by a solemne oath. Vigilius seemed for a while to be cocke-sure of the See: but it fell out contrary to his expectation at this time: the Senate of Rome justly withstood (as Pope Silverius c 1.2762 witnesseth) that nomination. It may be they knew the crooked disposition of Vigilius, how unfit hee was to make a Bishop: nor the Senate onely, but the Ecclesiasticall Canons resisted it: Thou endeavouredst this contra jura canonica, saith Pope Silverius d 1.2763, against the Canonicall right. The Itaian lawes also resi∣sted it at that time; Theodorick e 1.2764, and after him Odoacer f 1.2765, having en∣acted, and that as they affirme by the advice of Pope Simplicius, electio∣nem 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 Romane Councell under Symmachus doth appeare: For which cause Boniface called a second Sy∣nod to Rome, wherein he recalled g 1.2766 his nomination of Vigilius, and

burned his former Constitution, acknowledging himselfe (and by consequence all the rest of the former Synod) to bee 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 Ca∣nons, and treason against the King, and perjury of the Pope, and of the whole Synod, whom he had cunningly drawne to that snare, either by making him Pope to incurre treason, or by defeating him of it to incurre perjury.

11. Hâc non successit, he could not by such petty offences, as treason, perjury, and contempt of the Canons prevaile: about he will againe, and try another course, and that is by treason against Christ himselfe, and abnegation of the Catholike faith. For after the death, first of his old friend Boniface, then of Iohn the second, then of Agapetus, who died at Constantinople; Vigilius, that he might effect his purpose, tam∣pered and consulted with the Empresse Theodora, who though of her selfe at that time she was too earnestly affected to Anthimus, and being by him seduced, sought for his cause to overthrow the Councell of Chalcedon; yet Instigabat h 1.2767 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 Libe∣ratus i 1.2768 sheweth, that the Empresse for her part should procure Vigili∣us to be Pope, and give him 700. peeces k 1.2769 of gold; and that Vigilius for his part, and in recompence of so ample wages, and so great a re∣ward, should when he were Pope, abolish l 1.2770 and adnull for ever the Councell of Chalcedon, and restore Anthimus, Theodosius, and Seve∣rus, three Eutychean Bishops of their Sees. The words of Liberatus are very worthy observing: Libenter suscepit Vigilius promissum ejus, amore episcopatus, & auri; Vigilius gladly tooke the offer, for his desire both of the Popedome, and of the pounds of gold. O ambition, & auri sacra fa∣mes, what will not it effect in such a Balaam, such a ludas as Vigilius was? It was a very bitter scoffe, and some touch also to the credit of Pope Damasus, that Praetextatus m 1.2771 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 paga∣nisme, and become a Christian, so hee might gaine the Popedome thereby; Vigilius will renounce Christ and Christianity, and turne quite Pagan, to obtaine the same honour. What thinke you would Vigilius have sayd to him that made the offer,* 1.2772 All these will I give thee and fall downe and worship me, when he was so glad for the offer of 700. peeces of gold, and the triple Crowne; that for them onely he under∣takes, and bindes himselfe in an obligation under his owne hand to re∣nounce Christ, and abandon out of the world the whole Catholike faith? Which is every whit as bad, if not all one with falling downe to adore the Devill. Vigilius having now the Empresse warrant, see∣med sure and secure of the Papacy, and in this confidence hee n 1.2773 posts from Constantinople to Rome: but it fell out so unhappily, that when he came, he found o 1.2774 Silverius placed by Theodotus, & holding quiet and peaceable possession of the See. This had beene 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 passe by this fact and fault of Bellisarius, one for warlike prowes, wisedome, and successe, inferiour to no Generall that Rome ever had, by whom the Persians were sub∣dued, the Vandals expelled Africke, the Gothes out of Italy, the Em∣pire restored with an overplus also to his pristine beauty and dignity! But it so fals out that all men, even the most praise-worthy, yea the most holy, Abraham, Lot, Sampson, Peter, and the rest, they all have some blemish or other, like a moale or wart in a faire body, they must all be commended as God himselfe praised p 1.2775 David, with an excepti∣on of that one matter of Vriah: Peter a most holy Apostle, save onely in the matter of denying Christ. Bellisarius, a most worthy and re∣nowned man, save this one matter of Silverius. To this renowned Bellisarius comes Vigilius, and delivered unto him q 1.2776 praeceptum Auguslae, the Empresse mandatory letters to make him Pope; and to perswade him more easily, knowing what strong operation gold had in himselfe, Duo r 1.2777 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 beene the instrument of so vile an action. But so it was, either the command of the Empresse, or the importunity of Vigilius, or both, caused him to condemne s 1.2778 Pope Silverius as guilty of treason, for practising to be∣tray the Imperiall City of Rome to the Gothes, under pretence of which false accusation, (for I cannot assent to Marcellinus t 1.2779, who thinks Silverius guilty thereof) Silverius was expelled u 1.2780 and thrust away, and then Vigilius by the same meanes of Bellisarius intru∣ded himselfe, and slept into the Apostolicall See, usurping it about two yeares x 1.2781 during the life time of Silverius: all which time he caried himselfe y 1.2782 for the onely lawfull Pope; as Pope he received z 1.2783 Letters from Iustinian, as Pope he gave answer a 1.2784 and judgement to Etherius, to Caesarius b 1.2785, as true and Catholike, you may be sure, as if S. Peter had given them: the Chaire would not permit him to speake amisse.

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 accusa∣tions, by a sacrilegious extrusion of the lawfull Bishop, by Symonie, by undertaking to restore condemned heretikes, and to abolish the holy Councell of Chalcedon, which is in effect utterly to abandon the whole Catholike faith; yet the sequell of his actions bewrayes further the most devillish minde of Vigilius. Who would have thought but that Vigilius would have kept touch, and performed his sacrilegious and symoniacall contract with the Empresse and Bellisarius? Libera∣tus c 1.2786 notes of him that he would doe neither, not restore Anthimus, ti∣more Romanorum, it was not out of conscience, he feared the people, he feared his owne life: Not pay the 200. Centenaria to Bellisarius, ava∣ritia patrocinante, better lose all his credit, faith, and honesty, than two hundred peeces of gold; better break his promise, than hurt his purse: But all this is nothing to his usage of Pope Silverius: Was it not e∣nough

to usurpe and violently thrust himselfe into his See, to set up altare contra altare, Pope against Pope, S. Peters Chaire against S. Pe∣ters Chaire, but hee must adde indignities also to the holy Bishop? Had he permitted him to live in his owne Country, in some quiet, though meane estate, it had beene some contentment to innocent Sil∣verius: But Vigilius could not endure that, away with him, out of Rome, out of Italy, out of Europe. So by Vigilius meanes is Silverius sent to Patara, a City in Licia e 1.2787, once famous for the Temple and O∣racle of Apollo f 1.2788: there hee is fed with the bread of tribulation, and with the water of affliction. But the rage of Vigilius was further in∣censed by two occasions, the former on Silverius part. He, though in exile, yet as then being the onely true and lawfull Pope, in a Councell held * 1.2789 at Patara, by the authority of S. Peter, and the fulnesse of his Apostolicall power, thundred out from Patara a sentence of excommu∣nication, of deposition, of damnation against the usurper and invader of his See, Vigilius. Which being an authenticke and undenyable re∣cord 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 1.2790 Silverius having told Vigilius how he sought against law to obtaine the Papall dignity in the time of Boniface the second, addes this, At that h 1.2791 time the pastorall and pontificall authority should have cut away, execran∣da tua auspicia, thy execrable beginnings, but by neglect a little wound insanabile accrevit apostema, is become an incurable impostume, which be∣ing senslesse of other medicines, is to be cut off with a sword. For thou art led i 1.2792 with the audaciousnesse of the most wicked fiend, thou art franticke with ambition, thou labourest to bring the crime of error or heresie into the Apostolike See; thou followest the steps of Simon Magus, whose disciple thou shewest thy selfe to be, by thy workes, by giving money, by thrusting out me, and invading my See: Receive thou therefore this sentence of damnation, sub∣latum{que} tibi nomen, & ministerium sacerdotalis dignitatis agnosce; and know that thou art deprived of the name, and all function of priestly ministery, being damned by the judgement of the holy Ghost, and by the Apostolike au∣thority in us: for it is fit, ut quod habuit amittat, that hee should lose that which he hath received, who usurpes that which he hath not received. Thus Silverius: who being then the onely true Pope, pronounced this sen∣tence of deprivation, of degradation, and damnation out of the high∣est authority of their Apostolike Chaire: which alone is so authenticall a testimony, of the most execrable conditions of Vigilius, that if I said no more, few Logicians I thinke would complaine that the descripti∣on of Vigilius were imperfect, being so fully, so plainly, and so infal∣libly expressed, both by his Genus, a damnable and damned intruder, and by his foure differences, or at least properties, hereticall, schismati∣call, symoniacall, Satanicall.

13. This no doubt moved the choler of Vigilius not a little, to heare such a thundring from Patara, as if Apollo were there set againe on his sacred trevet. But the other accident was farre worse than this. For perhaps Vigilius had learned that maxime which Lewis k 1.2793 the French King sometime uttered, That hee who feared the Popes curse should never sleepe a quiet night. Many other Catholikes, 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 1.2794 to the Emperour to plead on his behalfe; declaring both his innocency and extreme oppression. The Emperour whose delight it was to doe ju∣stice to all, and relieve the innocent, especially sacred persons, and most of all the Pope, was so affected therewith, that he commanded that m 1.2795 Silverius should be brought againe 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, then hee should be for ever exiled; if innocent, he should be restored to his See, which Vi∣gilius then usurped. Silverius n 1.2796 was hereupon brought backe with speed, and being come as neare as Italy, Vigilius was then netled in∣deed, and fearing o 1.2797 to be dethroned, he bestirres himselfe, and stirres every stone. Then he comes againe in very earnest manner to Bellisa∣rius, and tels him he will now performe all his covenants, if he would deliver Silverius to his custody. By which sollicitation Silverius the lambe was committed to the wolfe, who (intending now to make as sure worke with him, as he who sayd p 1.2798, mortui non mordent,) by two of q 1.2799 his servants convayed him out of Italy to the Iland Palmaria, where after all other injuries, indignities, and calamities, hee spared not the innocent life and soule of that holy Bishop, but murdered him by a kinde of languishing death, namely by famine, which r 1.2800 Vegetius and the Prophet s 1.2801 also judged worse than the sword.

14. And now that which onely hindred Vigilius, being by a strong writ de ejectione mundi quite removed, there was none to make oppo∣sition against him, or hinder his exaltation to the Zenith of Pontificall dignity, but onely God, and the sting of his owne most guilty consci∣ence, both which (though you may be sure he lightly regarded, yet) for abundant caution he by a fine fleight and policy will pacifie and appease: for as hitherto he had played the Wolfe and Tiger, so now you shall see him act the Foxe: and that in so lively and native man∣ner, that hee meaneth to cozen not onely all men, but his owne con∣science, and Almighty GOD himselfe. As hee had murdered the true & lawfull Pope Silverius, so in token of remorse he will needs die & kill himselfe also, being the usurping Pope: but his death is no other than they fancy of Antichrist the beast in the Apocalyps; he dyeth, but within few dayes he revives againe. He considered he had entred vio∣lētly & 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 1.2802 abdicat se pontificatu, he puts off his Popedome; & considering u 1.2803 how he was blemished with Symony, heresie, murder, and other crimes, that he was also excommunicated and accursed, à sede male occupata descendit, he forsakes & comes downe from the papall chaire, and resignes the keies into the hands of S. Peter or Christ, and makes the See void, that there might be a new election of a lawfull Pope. They shall chuse freely whom they will, as for him∣self, either they shall bring him by a lawfull election in at the doore, or he (so cōscionable is the Fox now become) wil for ever stand without: climbe in at the window he will no more; either Christ himselfe shall reach the keyes unto him, that he may be his lawfull 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 1.2804 witnesseth, for the space of sixe dayes.

15. In this vacancy of the See Baronius not onely tels you, that there was (w^ch is not unlike) very great deliberatiō about the election of a new Pope, but, as if hee had beene present in the very conclave at that time, or as if by some Pythagoricall metempseuchosis the soules of some of those Electors, comming from one beast to another, had at last entred into the Cardinals breast, declares their whole debatement of the matter, pro & con, what was said for Vigilius, what against Vigi∣lius; which kinde of poetry, if any be pleased with, they may have abundance of it in his Annals; for my selfe, I told you before I never dreamed as yet in their Romane 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 Vi∣gilius hee saith y 1.2805, that hee gave over the Popedome, not with any purpose to leave it, but, as it were, to act a part in a comedy, and seeme to doe that which he never meant, & that he did it, z 1.2806 fretus potentià Bellisarij, quod esset eum mox iterum conscensurus; because he knew, that by the meanes of Bellisarius hee should shortly after bee elected and placed in it againe; or, to use the Car∣dinals own comparison, he did not play a 1.2807 at mum chance, but knowing how the election would goe after hee had given over, haud dubiam jecit aleam, hee knew what his cast would be, and what side of the Die would fall upward, hee knew his cast would bee better than jactus venereus, it would be the cast of the triple Crowne; As for the Electors b 1.2808 he tels us, that they chose him not for any worth, piety, vertue, or such like Pontificall qualifications, (of which they saw none in him) but to avoid c 1.2809 a schisme in the Church, because they knew if they should choose another, the Empresse and Bellisarius would maintaine the right of Vigilius, and as they had thrust him in, so they would uphold and maintaine 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 lawfull Pope, the undoubted Vicar of Christ, which was a fine cast indeed at the Dies.

16. Now though this may seeme unto others, to demonstrate great basenesse and pusilanimitie in the Electors at that time, who fearing a little storme of anger or persecution, would place so un∣worthy a man in the Papall throne, and though it testifie the present Romane policy to be such, that if Simon Magus, nay, the devill himself can once but be intruded into their Chaire, & put in possession there∣of, he shall be sure to hold it, with the Electors consent, if hee can but storme and threaten in a Pilates voyce to incense the Emperour, or some potent King to revenge his wrong, if they ever choose any o∣ther; yet the Cardinal who was privy to the mysteries of their Con∣clave, commends d 1.2810 this for salubre consilium, a very wholesome advice; & wisely was it done to chuse Vigilius, nay, as if that were too little, he adds, it was, Divinitus inspiratum consilium, God himself inspired this divine councell from heaven into their hearts, rather to choose an ambiti∣ous,

an hypocriticall, a Symoniacall, a schismaticall, an hereticall, a perfidious, a perjured, a murderous, a degraded, an accursed, a diabo∣licall person to be their Pope, rather than hazzard to sustain a snuffe of Bellisarius, or a frowne of Theodoraes countenance. Howsoever, cho∣sen now Vigilius was by commō consent; and solennibus e 1.2811 ritibus, made the true and lawfull Pope from thence forward, and with all solemni∣ty of their rites placed in the Papall throne, and put, not onely in the lawfull, but quiet and peaceable possession thereof, the whole Ro∣mane Church approving and applauding the same. Thus Vigilius at last got what in his ambitious desires hee so long gaped and thirsted after: At the first onset hee sought the Papacy, but got it not; at the second turne hee got it, but by usurpation and intrusion onely; but now at this third and last boute hee hit the marke indeed, hee got the rightfull possession of it, and is now become what hee would bee, 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 downe no more but a very 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a naked & undec∣ked narration, or as it were, onely rough hewed; I must pray the rea∣der that hee will permit mee to set downe some few exornations and polishments of it out of Cardinall Baronius, for though all men knew him to bee one, whose words concerning their Popes are as smooth as oyle, and who will bee sure to say no more ill of any of them, than meere necessity and evidence of truth inforceth him, yet so unfit am I to write their Popes lives, that for want of fit termes I am inforced to borrow from him the whole garnish and varnish of this Descripti∣on of Vigilius; heare then no longer mee, but the great Cardinall, the deare friend of Vigilius, telling you what a worthy man the Electors at this time chose for their Pope: heare him defining Vigilius in this manner; Hee was an ambitious f 1.2812 Deacon, who by a madde g 1.2813 desire, burned with pride, whom thirst h 1.2814 of vaine glory drove into madnesse, and into the hellish gulfe, by meanes whereof he makes shipwracke in the very haven, becomes a Rocke of offence, and seemes an infidell in faith; a bondslave i 1.2815 to impious and hereticall Theodora, that is, to Me∣gera k 1.2816, to Alecto and the hellish furies, who, with Lucifer, desired to as∣cend l 1.2817 into heaven, and exalt his throne above the Starres, but being loaden with the weight of his heinous crimes, fals downe into the depth, w^ch crimes with Cain m 1.2818 he having so inclosed in his breast, must needs wander up and down like a Vagabond: Vnsavory salt n 1.2819, worthy by all to bee trodden under foote, and cast into the dunghill of here∣sies, who had got unto him the stench o 1.2820 of heretical pravity, who boūd himselfe p 1.2821 by an obligation under his owne hand, yea by his oath al∣so, to patronize heretikes, who promised q 1.2822 to abolish the faith and Councell of Chalcedon. It was the just iudgement r 1.2823 of God that hee should fall from the faith, who became a Vassall to vaine glory, a schismatike s 1.2824, a Symoniacke t 1.2825, a murderer u 1.2826, whose sacriledges x 1.2827 cried

unto heaven, an usurper y 1.2828, a violent invader, an intruder of the Apo∣stolike See, a bastard z 1.2829 and unlawfull Pope, whom the true and lawfull Pope hath bound a 1.2830 with eternall chaines, against whom hee hath shot the dart b 1.2831 of damnation, and shewed to the whole world that he as∣cended into the throne, ut lapsu graviore ruat, that hee might have a greater and more shamefull fall, that hee did not represent c 1.2832, nor was the successor of Simon Peter, but of Simon Magus, and that hee is the Vicar not of Christ, but of Antichrist, an Idol d 1.2833, even the abo∣mination of desolation standing in the holy place, and set up in the temple of God; one rightly e 1.2834 to bee called by no other name than a Wolfe, a Thiefe, a Robber, a Pseudobishop, and even Antichrist: and, which after all the rest is especially to bee remembred as the cloze of the Cardinals Description, all this time Vigilius f 1.2835 both was, and was known to the Electors, to be a very sound and true Catholike. A true Catholike? Such Catholikes indeed doth the Cardinall describe and commend unto the world; a Catholike Schismatike, a Catholike heretike, a Catholike Antichrist, a Catholike Devill: If such were their Romane Catholikes and Catholike Popes in those ancient times, O gracious God, what manner of Catholike Popes are they in these ages? Then, and untill the yeare 600, was the golden age of the Church, their Romane Bishops were then like the head of Nebuchad∣nezzers Image to the late and moderne Popes, Vigilius a golden Bi∣shop indeed to the brazen, iron, and clayish Popes of these later ages, the basenesse of which no tongue or pen can expresse; when the gold is so full of drosse, when the heads, which give life, motion, and beeing to all the rest, are so full of abomination, what manner of Ca∣tholikes thinke you are the armes, the legs, the feet and tailes of that their Babylonish Image, which all must bee proportionable? But let us returne to Vigilius, whom, I hope, you will now confesse to be ex∣actly and graphically described by the pensill of their owne Apelles.

17. After his instalment, wee are to come to his Acts and gests; those, I confesse, are very few in number, they are but two. Anastasi∣us a man slavishly addicted to the Papall See, was the chiefe compi∣ler of his life, which had a man of integrity and indifferency writ, it is not unlike but many other matters had bin recorded of Vigilius, yet those two are very memorable, and such as most nearely touch the Pōtifical office. The former concerns the performāce of that promise which Vigilius made to Theodora, that when he were Pope he would abolish the Councell of Chalcedon, and restore Anthimus, Severus, and other Eutychean deposed Bishops: of it Liberatus g 1.2836 writes, that Vigilius, implens promissionem suam quam Augustae fecerat, talem scripsit Epist. fufil∣ling his promise w ^ch he had made to the Empresse, writ this Epistle. Victor B. of Tunē, sheweth h 1.2837 also, that Vigilius by the means of Antonia the wife of Bellisarius, writ unto Theodosius of Alexandria, Anthimus of Constan∣tinople, and Severus of Antioch, a good while since condemned by the Apostolike See, tanquam Catholicis, as unto Catholikes, & signified, that himselfe was of the same opinion concerning the faith with them. The summe then of the Epistle of Pope Vigilius was to signifie to these he∣reticall and deposed Bishops, that himselfe was an Eutychean, as they

were, the Epistle it selfe, set downe 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 signifie un∣to you, that, by Gods helpe, I have held, and doe now hold the same faith which you doe: but the Pope adds one clause further for secresie, wel worthy observing; O portet ut haec quae scribo nullus agnoscat, it is needfull, that none know of these things which I write unto you, but rather your wisedome must have me in suspition, more than any other, that so I may more easily effect, and bring to passe those things which I have begun. See you not here, as in a glasse, the deep hypocrisie and heresie of Vigilius? with what subtilty and closenesse he labours to undermine the Coun∣cell of Chalcedon, and the whole Catholike faith, even then when hee would seeme to favour it, and therefore wisheth the Eutycheans to speake of him as one who they suspected most of all to bee against them. Liberatus adds, that Vigilius under his Epistle writ a confession of his faith also, in qua duas in Christo damnavit naturas, wherein hee con∣demned the teaching of two natures in Christ: and dissolving the Tome of Pope Leo, hee said, non duas Christi naturas confitemur, we doe not acknow∣ledge two natures in Christ, but one Sonne, one Christ, one Lord com∣posed of two natures, (to wit, two before the adunation) and againe, qui dicit in Christo duas formas, whosoever saith that there are two formes or natures in Christ, either working according to his owne property, and doth not confesse one person, one essence, anathema sit, let such a man be accursed. Could Arius, Eutyches, or any heretike in the world more plainly condemne and accurse the Councell of Nice, of Ephesus, of Chalcedon, yea, the whole Catholike Church, and Catholike faith? It is here a fine sport to see how the two Cardinals, Baronius and Bel∣larmine, how other pettifoggers, such as Gretzer and Binius, doe here bestirre themselves to quit Vigilius of this blemish, and of the heresie and impiety taught in this Epistle. First, Vigilius writ not this Epistle, it is but a counterfeit and forgery: Next, if hee did write it, yet he did it while he was an usurper, not when hee was the true and lawfull Pope. Lastly, hee did not hereby embrace heresie ex animo, nor define it as Pope, but onely by an exteriour act hee condemned the faith. Thus they toile themselves to wash the Ethiopian, and turne a Black∣amore into a mike white Swanne.

18. Truely, 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 shewed, that hee taught the quite contrarie heresie of Nestoria∣nisme, might I not say, Spectatum satis & donatum jam rude, tandem, Quaeritis hoc iterum antiquo me includere ludo? I have not now the like vi∣gor of minde at the putting off of the armour, as at the first comming 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 mans head, by proving him to bee an heretike, who is not onely proved, but by most ample judgment and sentence of the whole Catholike Church, already condemned for an heretike? yet because I have a desire to handle this whole argument concerning Vigilius, if the reader bee not

as much tyred as my selfe, after conquest of the generall, I will, as Ab∣ner did, play a little with these stragling Asaels in this point also; or if you please to suffer me to give aime a while, I will onely 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 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 Cardinall k 1.2838 Baroni∣us, it is none of Vigilius writing. I here one say so, saith Cardinall Bellarmine l 1.2839, but I say, Vigilium scripsisse illam Epistolam, & damnasse Catholicam fidem, that Vigilius did write that Epistle, and condemne the Ca∣tholike faith, Epistolam quidem scripsit nefariam, truely he writ m 1.2840 that ne∣farious Epistle, unworthy of any Christian. Here is worke indeed, say∣ing against saying, Cardinall against Cardinall, and whether Cardi∣nall is the stronger let the spectators consider: But the best sport is, that whereas Cardinall Baronius n 1.2841 tels us, that this Epistle was writ∣ten by some unskilfull Eutychean heretike, and Cardinall o 1.2842 Bellarmine tels us, that it was writ by Vigilius, it followeth upon the two Car∣dinals sayings joyned together, that Vigilius was both an heretike, and an unskilfull Eutychean heretike.

20. From their words let us come to their strokes and sad blowes, Causa cum causa, ratio cum ratione pugnet. Cardinall Bellarmine hath but one reason, but that is indeed a very sound one, like the Cat in the fa∣ble, which hath but one shift against the hounds; his reason p 1.2843 is the testimony of Saint q 1.2844 Liberatus who then lived, who not onely testifi∣eth Vigilius to have writ this, but sets downe the very Epistle it selfe of Vigilius; and whereas some pretended both that Liberatus was cor∣rupted by heretikes, and that his narration was contrary to their Pontificall; the Card. tels us for a certainty, that there r 1.2845 is neither any footstep nor print of corruption in Liberatus, neither doth he s 1.2846 herein dissent from the Pontificall. Cardinall Baronius boasteth t 1.2847 of his rea∣son, as the Fox did in the same fable, that he had a number of sleights and shifts to deceive the dogs; but the hounds comming suddenly up∣on them both, the Cat skipt into a tree, which was her onely pollicy, and there shee saw the Fox with all his hundreth wiles torne in pie∣ces: even such are Cardinall Baronius his sleights in this cause, hee 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 1.2848 Acts of the sixt generall Councell doe shew, that heretikes had counterfaited some Epistles in the name of Vigilius, and particularly those bookes, which are said to be writ from Vigili∣us to Iustinian 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 Cardinals shifts, and that it must bee for the worth of it stiled x 1.2849 a demonstration: Why, there needs here, nei∣ther mastive nor hound, any beagle or brache will rent this reason in∣to 20. pieces. First, what meant the Cardinal to expresse the words of the sixt Councell, where Theodora is called an Empresse of blessed memory? had he forgot what in another place y 1.2850 hee said, that she died

miserably, being blasted by the Popes thunder-clap? Againe what a de∣monstration is this, some Epistles were forged in the name of Vigili∣us, ergo, this is forged. A pari, some bookes are forged, the Cardinals Annals are some bookes, ergo, they are all forged; or some man is as wise as Chorebus, ergo, so is the Cardinall. Take heed, I pray you, the hounds sent not these consequences of the Cardinall, grounded on that old maxime, A particulari non est Syllogisari. Further yet, what a reason call you this; some bookes sent in Vigilius name to Iustinian and Theodora, were forged, ergo, this Epist. is forged. It is a demonstra∣tion, à baculo ad Angulum, for this Epistle was writ neither to Iustini∣an, nor to Theodora, but to Anthimus, Theodosius and Severus; The Car∣dinall may know this clearly by Victor, who testifieth the same in ex∣presse words; he might have perceived it by Liberatus, who saith, that Vigilius writ this Epistle to heretikes; whereas not Pope Leo himselfe was more orthodoxall in this point than Iustinian, as besides infinite other proofes, is evident both by his Epistle z 1.2851 to Mennas, confirming the deposition of Anthimus, and by that his Epistle a 1.2852 written to Epi∣phanius Bishop of Constantinople, foure b 1.2853 years before Silverius was ex∣pelled, wherein hee professeth to embrace all the foure Councels, and hee anathematizeth all that are anathematized by any of them, de∣claring that he will not permit within his Empire any that oppugned those Councels. But for all this the Card will prove by the Inscripti∣on c 1.2854 of this Epistle, that it written to Iustinian and Theodora. What if it were? can hee prove withall that no other Epistle or booke was writ to them in the name of Vigilius? No, hee never offers to prove that, and till that bee proved his reason at the best is but à particulari, some Epistle writ in the name of Vigilius to Iustinian and Theodora was forged, ergo, this; some man deserves a whet stone, ergo, so doth the Cardinall. Besides this inconsequence, the Antecedent is so false that I am ashamed to take the renowned Cardinall so tripping in his demonstration: The Inscription, saith hee, demonstrates that it was writ to Iustinian and Theodora. Truly the Inscription demonstrates the Cardinall to be of no truth or credit at al. The Inscription in Liberatus (and him the d 1.2855 Cardinal followeth) is Dominis & Christis e 1.2856 Vigilius, Vi∣gilius to my Lords and Christs. An Inscription indeed with a witnesse, and a lesson for the Cardinall; Iustinian Christ, Theodora Christ, and yet the Cardinall rankes the one Christ among the Furies of hell, the other Christ hee condemnes to the pit and torments of hell; what a Cardinall to bee so malitious and spightfull against Christ, and Christs?

21 The Inscription, saith the Cardinall, points f 1.2857 at Iustinian and Theodora: I rejoyce to see the Cardinall once so charitably affected, as to thinke Iustinian to be Christ, Theodora Christ, let all applaud the Cardinall in this saying; seldome shall you take him, nor will hee long persist in so good a mood or minde. The Inscription of the Epi∣stle is to Christs, the Inscription demonstrates and points at them, as the Cardinall tels us; Christs then they were, Christs they are against the spite of all slandering tongues, Christs let them bee, and with Christ let them rest for ever. But will you now see a fine sleight in∣deed

of the Cardinall, such as put downe the Fox, and Cat, and all. Truely, saith hee, the Inscription, ad Dominos, demonstrates, that this Epistle was writ to Iustinian and Theodora: why, what meanes this In∣scription, ad Dominos? why doth the Cardinal clip away the one halfe of the Inscription? The Inscription in Liberatus is, Dominis & Christis; the Cardinall belike misdoubted by Christis could not bee demon∣strated Iustinian and Theodora, Christus is the Popes prerogative, it de∣monstrates him, and therefore lest the Pope should frowne upon the Cardinall for saying this Inscription, Dominis ac Christis, doe demon∣strate Iustinian and Theodora, hee corrupts the Text, and maimes the Inscription, and makes it to bee but ad Dominos, and so the Inscrip∣tion, ad Dominos, may well point at the Emperour and Empresse.

22. Yet take the Cardinals maimed Inscription as it is, doth this title, ad Dominos, demonstrate the Emperour? may not one write Domino, or ad Dominum, but onely to the Emperour? how many thou∣sand millions of Emperors will the Cardinall coine unto us? every servant, every prentise may write, Domino, or Dominis, unto their Ma∣ster, and then by the Cardinals demonstration you shall have Cob∣lers, and Tailors, and Weavers, and all Artificers in the world turned into Emp. and their wifes into Empresses, for, sanè quidem, verily this Inscriptiō, ad Dominos, demonstrates that the Epist. is writ to the Em∣perour and Empresse. Doe you think, I say not, that Philosophers and Logicians, but any elementary boy that hath learned to decline Do∣minus can hold himselfe at the hearing of such demonstrations? But to put the matter out of all doubt, and demonstrate the other demon∣stration to bee as idle a fancie as can devised, the Inscription which is but in briefe set downe by Liberatus, is fully and at large expressed by Victor, who lived and writ also at that time: The tenour (saith hee g 1.2858) of Vigilius Epistle is proved to bee thus, Bishop Vigilius, Dominis ac fratribus, to Theodosius, Anthimus and Severus Bishops, my Lords and brethren, joyned to us in the love of Christ our Saviour: What is now become of the De∣monstration, ad Dominos? how doth the Inscription, ad Dominos, sanè quidem, truly and verily demonstrate Iustinian and Theodora, when, to∣gether with Dominus, is expresly set downe and named who those Domini were, to whom Vigilius writ, even three deposed hereticall Bishops?

23. The Cardinall, and Binius h 1.2859 following him, will not yet let goe this demonstration, but much please themselves in a new device; The Epistle, saith hee i 1.2860, is inscribed also ad Patres, now it is unusuall for Popes to call Emperours their Fathers, and therefore sure it is but a counterfeit Epistle in Vigilius name: Why, but if Popes doe not use that terme, it is their owne fault, thy might justly so call Emperours, Emperours are the fathers of their whole Empire, and that in a more eminent manner than any other father, Imperiall Fathers, comman∣ding and compelling fathers, fathers superiour to all other fathers, e∣ven to all Pontificall 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 faire, and cleare, Dominis ac Christis; and yet so ridicu∣lous

was Binius, and so foolishly addicted to Baronius, that he proves this Epistle to bee forged, because the Inscription is, Dominis ac Patri∣bus, whereas himselfe in the lease before had set downe the Inscripti∣on to bee Dominis ac Christis, let it bee Patribus: the Cardinall and Bi∣nius surely doated when they concluded, that the Epistle was writ to the Emperour, for as out of Liberatus, but most clearely out of Victors words is demonstrated, it was writ to father Anthimus, father Theodo∣sius, and father Severus: Vigilius might well call them Patres, when in the Inscription he called them Bishops k 1.2861.

24. And certainly Baronius was conscious to himselfe, that this E∣pistle was writ to Bishops, not to the Emperour and Empresse; for as misdoubting that this would, and justly might bee replied to his de∣monstration, hee adds l 1.2862, Si dicas scriptum ad Episcopos, if you say the Epi∣stle was written to Bishops, and not to the Emperour, yet even so it is a forgery also, and why? for, Qui novus iste mos est, what a novelty is it, and utterly unusuall, 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 demon∣stration come now to relye upon this, It is new, It is unusuall; as if nothing that is new or unusuall were done or writ: It was new and unusual to thrust out and murther the true Pope, yet Vigilius did it for all the novelty thereof. Could Vigilius act a matter so horrible being new and unusuall, and might not hee write a phrase, or give a title be∣ing new and unusuall? It is unusuall, I trow, for Popes to call hereti∣call Bishops, deposed by generall Councels, their brethren beloved in Christ, he that would honour deposed heretikes with such loving termes, would hee doubt to call them by an unusuall title, Dominos ac Patres, or, Dominos ac Fratres? and yet neither of both is so unusuall as the Cardinall would have it thought. In the Councell at Barre m 1.2863, when the Greekes disputed against the Pope Vrbane so eagerly against the pro∣cession of the holy Ghost, that the Pope was at a non plus, and unable to answer, being driven to that exigent, and remembring that An∣selme Archbishop of Canterbury was in the Councell, exclamat he cri∣ed aloud before the whole Councell, Pater et Magister Anselme ubi es? Oh my father and Master Anselme 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 Vr∣bane said, includamus hunc in orbe nostro quasi alterius orbis Papam; let us inclose him in our circle, as the Pope of the other world. Might not Vigilius do that to three Patriarks, which Vrbane did to an Archbishop? might not Vigilius call them fathers, as well as Vrbane called Anselme father and Master? Might not that bee done secretly, and in a private letter which the Pope did openly in the audience of the whole Councell? Is it more incongruity for the Pope to call the Patriarcke of Alex∣andria, or of Antioch, his father or Lord, than to call the Patriarke of England, father, master, yea, Pope in his owne Patriarchal Diocesse in England?

25. But the Cardinall still harps on a wrong string; Vigilius nei∣ther

in the Inscription, subscription, nor body of the Epistle, called them fathers, but brethren: That title is given them indeed three or foure times, both in Liberatus and in Victor, fraternitati vestrae, frater∣nitatem vestram, & orate pro nobis mihi fratres in Christo conjuncti; pray for us my brethren in the Lord. Which evidently shewes, that Baronius and Binius either themselves corrupted, and followed some corrupt Edition of that Epistle, when they so craftily persist on the Inscrip∣tion, Dominis ac Patribus; for had hee stiled them in the title fathers, hee would not in the Epistle have so often called them brethren, and never once fathers. Now to say as the Cardinall n 1.2864 doth, that it is ab∣horrent either from reason or practice to call the same parties both Dominos and fratres, argues, either extreme and supine negligence, or obstinate perversnesse in the Cardinall and Binius, scarce any thing in antiquity being more frequent. Pope Damasus o 1.2865 writ a Synodall let∣ter to Prosper Bishop of Numidia, and others, he inscribes it thus, Do∣minis venerabilibus & fratribus Prospero, Leoni, Reparato, Damasus Epis∣copus; Bishop Damasus to my reverend Lords and Brethren Prosper, &c. So the Councell of Carthage p 1.2866 in two letters, written the one to Pope Bo∣niface, the other to Pope Caelestine, writes in both in this manner, To our Lord and honourable brother: So Cyrill q 1.2867 Patriarke of Alexandria writ to Aurelius Valentinus, and the other African Bishops, Dominis ho∣nor abilibus, to the honourable Lords, and holy brethren. In like sort Atti∣cus r 1.2868 Patriarke of Constantinople to the same Africane Bishops, Dominis sanctis, to the holy Lords, & our most blessed brethren, fellow Bish. Why might not Vigilius call other Patriarks Lords and brethren, when At∣ticus, Cyrill, the Councell of Carthage, yea, Pope Damasus himselfe cal∣led other Bishops, Dominos ac fratres. Nay, seeing the Pope is used to inscribe his letters to the Emp. Dominis ac s 1.2869 filijs, or, Domino ac filio, as doth P. Hadriā to Constant. and Irene, & to Charles t 1.2870, why may not he as well call his brother as his son, Lord? is the title of son more compa∣tible with Dominis, than the title of brother? or whether title, thinke you, Lord or brother, may not the Pope give to his fellow Bishops? the name of brother is almost every where seene in his letters, the Cardinall envies not that unto them; it is the name of Dominus that seemes somewhat harsh. The Cardinall would not have the Pope call or account other Bishops his Lords; and yet how can they, even the meanest of them, but bee his Lord, when hee gladly stiles himselfe their servant, yea, servant u 1.2871 to every servant of the Lord? So that if the Popes Secretary were well catechized, and knew good manners, his Holines should write thus to his own servants, To my Lord Groome 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 bee howsoever yee will, whether, Dominis ac Christis, as it is in Liberatus; or, Dominis & fratribus, as it is in Victor; or, Dominis & Patribus, as the Cardinall (without any authority that I can finde) would have it, cer∣taine 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 Emperour and Empresse, as the Cardinall with∣out 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 a∣ny but in Chorebus his Analyticks.

26. Another of the Cardinals 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 1.2872 first professeth to hold but one nature in Christ, and then anathematizeth Dioscorus, who held the same. The Cardinall should have proved, that Vigilius could not, or did not write contrarieties. As the Cardinall, though he hath beene so often taken tardy in contradictions, yet will not deny the Annals for that cause to bee his owne faire birth; so hee might thinke of this writing, though it bee repugnant to it selfe, yet it might proceed from such an unstayed and unstable minde, as Vigilius had: But I doe acquit Vigilius from this contradiction, it is not his, hee condemned not Dioscorus in his Subscription. In his Epistle he professeth to hold the same doctrine of one onely nature in Christ with Eutyches and Dioscorus; there is little reason then to thinke, that hee did in his Sub∣scription adjoyned, condemne the professors of that doctrine, of which Dioscorus was one of the chiefe, as deepe in that heresie as Eu∣tyches himselfe: What shall wee say then to Liberatus, in whom Dio∣scorus is named? Truely had not malice and spight shut the eyes of Baronius and Binius, they could not but have seene, 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 onely with the Epistle, but with the next precedent words in the Subscription, doe evidently demonstrate thus much; for having professed in his E∣pistle y 1.2873 to hold, as did Dioscorus, but one nature in Christ, having a∣gaine in his Subscription and next words before, anathematized z 1.2874 all who admit two, or deny but one nature in Christ, hee in particular declares who those are, that hee therein anathematized, saying, A∣nathematizamus ergo, therefore we accurse (by this our condemnation of those who deny but one nature) Paulus Samosatenus, Nestorius, Theo∣dorus, and Theodoret, and all who have or doe 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 selfe-same heresie 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 cleare by the Councels, both of Ephesus and Chalcedon, and the fift Synod. Of Paulus Samosatenus, the writing or contestation of the Catholike Clergy of Constantinople, set downe in the Acts of Ephesus a 1.2875, doe certainly witnesse and declare the same; the title of which is to shew, partly, Nestoriū ejusdem esse sententiae cum Paulo Samosateno, that Nestorius is of the same opinion with Paulus Samosa∣tenus; and in the contestation it selfe it is said thus, I adjure all to pub∣lish this our writing for the evident reproofe of Nestorius the heretike, 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 expresse 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 Diosco∣rus: it is undoubtedly certaine, 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 mistakings are not unusuall in Liberatus. In this very Chapter it is sayd that Vigilius a little after the death of Agapetus, and election of Silverius, when he came from Constantinople to Rome with the Empresse her letters for placing him in the Romane See, he found b 1.2876 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 1.2877 is evident: and because this is no way prejudiciall to their cause, Baronius and Binius can there willingly admit d 1.2878 an error or slip of memory in Liberatus, and not so hastily conclude as here they doe, that because Bellisarius was not then at Ravenna, as in Liberatus is falsly affirmed, therefore that Chapter of Liberatus is forged, and not truly written by him. Would his Cardinalship have beene as favourable to Liberatus in naming Dioscorus for Nestorius, which the like evidence of truth and all the circumstances doe necessarily enforce, the Epistle might as well passe 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 1.2879, I know, quia ad Sanctitatē vestrā fidei meae crudelitas perve∣nit, that the cruelty of my faith is before this come to your eares; and the very same word of crudelitas fidei is in Victor also, w^ch argues the fault to be very ancient. It is true that the faith of Vigilius was indeed cruell, for he by it cruelly condemned, abolished, and as it were murdered the Councell of Chalcedon, that is in truth, the whole Catholike faith: and so this happened to be not onely a true, but a fit and significant error. Yet the Cardinall was so friendly and charitable here, as to thinke that it was but a slip of the penne, or negligence of the writer, in say∣ing crudelitas, for credulitas, as the Cardinall readeth f 1.2880 it; might not by the like negligence, and with lesse disgrace to Vigilius, Dioscorus slip into the text in stead of Nestorius? In the inscription of the Epi∣stle Liberatus reades it, Dominis ac Christis; Victor, Dominis ac fratribus; the Cardinall corrects both, and makes it worst of all, Dominis ac pa∣tribus. May he play the Criticke, and turne 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 then not Dioscorus whom Vigilius accursed; it is but the errour or corrupt writing of Vigilius Epistle in Liberatus, (which wee also condemne) and not the Epistle of Vigilius at which the Cardinall unjustly quar∣relleth.

27. His third and last shift is worst of all. If Vigilius had indeed writ this Epistle, why then (saith he g 1.2881) was it not upbraided unto him at Constantinople, neither by the Empresse Theodora, when shee contended with him, about the restoring of Anthimus, nor by Theodorus Bishop of Cae∣sareae, and Mennas, when Vigilius excommunicated them both, and they

vexed him so long; nor by the Emperour Iustinian, when he was furiously in∣raged against him; nor by the fift Synod, which was offended with him for refusing to come to the Councell; nor yet by Facundus, when he writ angerly against him? these were publikely debated, nec tamen de dicta epistolâ, vel usquam mentio; yet is there not any mention, or light signification of any such Epistle. Thus the Cardinall. Of whom I againe demand where he learned to dispute ab authoritate humanâ negativè; the old and good rule was, Neque ex negativis recte concludere si vis; but the Cardinall hath new Analytickes, and new-found rules of Art, Ex negativis po∣teris concludere si vis. Himselfe witnesseth h 1.2882 and proclameth Vigilius to have beene a Symoniack, and to have compacted with Bellisarius for 200. peeces of gold, to have beene excommunicated, deposed, degra∣ded, by Pope Silverius pronouncing that sentence out of his Apostolike authority, and from the mouth of God: why was not this Symony, why was not this censure of Silverius upbraided, neither by Theodora▪ nor Theodorus, nor Iustinian, nor the fift Councell, nor Facundus? that being a publike and knowne censure, had been a matter of farre grea∣ter disgrace to Vigilius, farre more justifiable than the epistle writ pri∣vately and secretly to Anthimus, and commanded by Vigilius to bee kept close that none might know it. See you not how vaine this shift of the Cardinall is? How it crosseth him in his Annals, to slander Vi∣gilius as symoniacall, as censured by Silverius, both which seeing they are not upbrayded to him by the forenamed persons, but set downe in the Cardinals Analytickes, sure they are impostures, and forgeries. What though none of them upbrayded 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 needlesse to mention that, as it seemes they did the Symo∣ny of Vigilius, and censure of Silverius? what if they were not so spite∣full as the Cardinall is, and therefore would not say the worst they could against his Holinesse?

28. But see the strange dealing of the Cardinall! How or why should Theodora upbrayd this to Vigilius for the not restoring of An∣thimus? that quarrell for the restoring of Anthimus (as I have often sayd, and clearly proved) was a meere devise and fiction of Anastasius, it was nothing but Alcibiades dogs tayle. Or how should Iustinian up∣braid it, when he was so enraged against Vigilius, and persecuted him for not restoring Anthimus? Seeing neither Iustinian persecuted Vigi∣lius, nor was enraged against him, but for the space of five of six yeares 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 be∣fore that forged excommunication of him) was demonstrated? Are not these worthy reasons to disprove this Epistle to bee writ by Vigi∣lius, which all relie on fictions, & on most untrue and idle fancies? And

whether Facundus upbraided it or no, may bee questioned, nor will it bee clearly knowne, untill they will suffer Facundus to come out of their Vaticane, where hee lyeth yet imprisoned. But as for the fift Councell, it was great sillinesse in the Cardinall, once to thinke that they should or would upbraid this Epistle to him, they used the Pope in the most honourable and respectfull 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 condem∣ning the Three Chapters before the time of the Councell, that they of∣ten mention and approve it also. They sought by lenity to win the Popes heart to consent unto the truth, which they defended: seeing they could not prevaile with him, yet they would have the whole world to testifie, together with the Popes peevishnesse, their owne lenity, equity and moderation used towards him, and that it was not hatred or contempt of his person, nor any precedent occasion, but on∣ly the truth and equity of that present cause, which enforced them to involve him (remaining obdurate in his heresie) in that Anathema which they in generall denounced against all the pertinacious defen∣ders of the Three Chapters, of which Vigilius was the chiefe, and stan∣dard-bearer to the rest. Did the Cardinall thinke with such poore sleights to quit Vigilius of this Epistle? If nothing else, truely the very imbecillity and dulnesse of the Cardinals reasons and demonstrati∣ons in this point may perswade, 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 Cardinall Bellarmine in this cause, who is knowne to bee, plurimarum palmarum vetus ac nobilis gladiator, and in this combate with Baronius hee hath played the right Eutellus in∣deed. Come, let us give to him in token of his conquest, corollam & palmam, and let Baronius in remembrance of his foile, leave this Epistle to Vigilius, with this Impresse,

Vigilio scriptum hoc, Eutello palma feratur.

29. Vigilius now, by just Duell, is proved to bee the true author of this Epistle: Be it so, say they k 1.2883, yet that is no prejudice all to the Apostolike See, because he writ it in the time of Sylverius, while as yet Vigilius was not the lawfull Pope, but an intruder and usurper, and Pseudopope, and herein they all joyne hand in hand, Bellarmine with Baronius, Gretzer and Binius with them both. But feare not the tailes of these smoaking firebrands, nor the wrath of Rhesin, Aram, and Remalias sonne, because they have taken wicked counsell against the truth. Nor needed there here any long contention about this matter, for how doe they prove this saying of theirs, that Vigilius writ it whē Sylverius lived, and not afterwards. Truly by no other but the Colli∣ers argument, It is so, because it is so, proofe 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 heresie, they begge this, or rather take it without begging or asking, by vertue of that place called, Petitio Principij. Let us pardon Binius and Gretzer, who gathe∣red up onely the scraps under the Cardinals tables, but for a Cardinal so basely and beggarly to behave himselfe, as to dispute from such so∣phistical

topicks, is too foule a shame and blemish to his wit and lear∣ning. And why may not wee take upon us the like Magisteriall au∣thority, and to their, I say it is so, oppose, I say it is not so? Doe they thinke by their bigge lookes, and sesquipedalia verba, to down-face the truth?

30. But because I have no fancy to this Pythagoricall kinde of lear∣ning, there are one or two reasons which declare, that Vigilius writ this Epistle after the death of Silverius, when he was the onely and true lawfull 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 1.2884, dyed with famine; Vigilius autem implens promissum, And Vigilius to fulfill his promise, writ this Epistle. Oh, saith Gretzer m 1.2885, Liberatus useth here an anticipation, and sets downe that before which fell out after. Prove that Gretzer; Prove it? why, his proofe is like his Masters, It is so, because it is so: Other proofe you shall have none of Gretzer: He thought, belike, his words should passe for currant pay, as well as a Cardinals, but it was too foolish presumption in him to take upon him to dispute so Cardinali∣tèr; 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 sequell of things and times, as the law of an historian re∣quires, rather than beleeve Gretzers bare saying, that it is disorderly and contrary to the order of the times and event of things?

31. This will further appeare by the other reason drawne from the time when this Epistle was written: Baronius referres it to the yeare 538. wherein Silverius was expelled, and saith n 1.2886, that though Vigilius had truly writ it, yet it is no prejudice to the Apostolike See, cujus tunc ipse invasor, of which hee was an invader and intruder at that time when it was written. But the Cardinal is mistaken in this point, for it is cleare and certaine by the testimony of Liberatus o 1.2887, that Vigili∣us had not writ this Epistle when Silverius returned out of exile from Patara into Italy; for Vigilius hearing of the returne of Silverius, and being in great feare of losing the Popedome, hee hastened then to Bellisarius, and intreated him to deliver Silverius into his custody, o∣therwise, said hee, non possum facere quod à me exigis, I cannot doe that which you require me. Bellisarius required of him two things, as the same Liberat. witnesseth, the one to performe his promise to the Empresse, & that was p 1.2888 the overthrowing of the Councel at Chalcedon: the other, to pay him the two hundred pieces of Gold, which hee promised to himselfe; 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 dyed q 1.2889 in the month of Iune that yeare, and being presently upon r 1.2890 his returne sent away into the Iland of Palmaria by Vigilius, a little time, you may be sure, would serve to famish an old & dishear∣tened man. But Gretzer easeth us in this point, and plainly professeth s 1.2891, that this Epistle was writ in that same yeare 440. wherein Silverius dyed. If now you doe 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 worke, and of more importance to looke unto, than the writing of letters to deposed Bishops, to wit, to provide that Silverius should not live, that himselfe should not bee expelled his owne See, and how upon Silverius death himselfe might be againe lawfully chosen Pope; none I thinke will suppose that Vig. writ this before Silverius death in that yeare, but after it, and after all his troubles ended, when hee having quiet possession of the See, had leisure to thinke on such matters. But why stay I in the proofe hereof, this being clearly testified by Nauclerus, who thus writeth t 1.2892, Silverius being dead, Vigilius was created Pope, quod postquam comperit Theodora, which when Theodora understood, she writ unto him to performe his promise about Anthimus, but Vigilius answered, farre be this from me, I spake unad∣visedly before, and I am sorry for it. So Nauclerus; who therein no doubt followed Anastasius, for hee u 1.2893 having set downe both the same motion made by Theodora, and the answer given by Vigilius, Binius x 1.2894 observes, that this was done when Vigilius was now the rightfull and true Pope: wherefore seeing Theodora writ to Pope Vigilius, and that after the death of Silverius, to performe his promise, it is certaine, that be∣fore then he had not done it, and so that untill hee was the onely true and lawfull Pope hee did not write this Epistle, which would have given full content to Theodora; and seeing againe we have clearly pro∣ved that hee did write it, it remaineth that hee writ it after the death of Silverius, when himselfe was the onely lawfull and true Bishop of Rome. One doubt in this matter remaineth, which Binius y 1.2895 sleightly mentioneth, for that Vigilius after he was true Pope, did not onely a∣nathematize Anthimus, and confirme his deposition, but professe him∣selfe also to defend the Councell of Chalcedon, as appeares both by his Epistle to Iustinian and Mennas, dated foure months z 1.2896 after hee was the true Pope; and by that answer, which, as Anastasius and Nauclerus say, hee sent (in a 1.2897 writing) to Theodora, that hee would not now restore Anthimus, being an heretike: Whence it may bee collected, that after he was once the true and lawfull Pope, nihil horum dixerit, scripserit vel egerit, that hee neither said, writ, nor did any such thing, as it is expressed in this Epistle, for confirming the heresie of Eutyches; for how is it cre∣dible, that he should write both these, being directly contrary the one to the other?

32. I answer, that had Vigilius bin an honest man, or a man of credit, of constancy, and resolution, he would never have thought or dreamed to write both those. But Vigilius was perpaucorum hominum, you may goe through the whole Catalogue of the Romane Popes, (and there is the best choise of wicked men in all formes and fashions of impiety to bee found) and not picke out such a Polipus, a turncoate, a weather∣cocke, as Pope Vigilius: Baronius compares him to King Saul, and saith b 1.2898, that as soone as hee was made the true Pope, hee was then Saul inter Prophetas. It is true in many things, hee 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 Gods Spirit, Vigilius by his owne will; Saul was acted and driven to utter those prophesies, which God put into his mouth, Vigilius him∣selfe

did guide and move his tongue, and turned it with the rudder of his unconstant minde, when, and whithersoever hee would; Saul prophesied of necessity, not being able to resist Gods motion, Vigilius in hypocrisie being desirous to please and humour other men: in a word, Saul had the gift, Vigilius the art or jugling tricke of prophesy∣ing. When he would seeme to be that w^ch indeed and in heart he was not, a Catholike Bishop, and gaine the favour of Iustinian a Catho∣like Emperor; not Saul, nor scarce Paul more orthodoxall than Vigili∣us; when hee would open his heart and declare what hee was intus & in cute; not Eutyches or Nestorius more damnably heretical than Vigili∣us. In his Epistle written secretly to Theodosius, Anthimus, and Severus, he opens to them his true intent and minde, that hee was of one faith with them, an Eutychean as they were, and so assures them that hee would doe what hee could for them, when oportunity b 1.2899 should be of∣fered. In his Epistles to the Emperour, Empresse, and Mennas, which were to bee publike and seene of all, hee makes a shew of love to the truth, and to the Councell of Chalcedon, which even then hee meant, if oportunity were once offred, to adnull & abolish for ever. I here re∣member a narration, not unworthy observing, which long since a man of great gravity and judgement in law, and now one of the chiefe Iudges in this Realme, related unto me, how one of the most notori∣ous Traytors in the time of our late Queene of happy memory, ha∣ving by solemne vow, by oath, by receiving the holy Sacrament, bound himselfe to murder his Soveraigne, returned home from Italy, but with such a shew of zeale towards our religion, our State, and his Soveraigne, that in open Parliament (being chosen a Burgesse) hee made a very spightfull and violent invective against Recusants, and specially against Iesuites: His Paymasters and friends of Rome, expo∣stulating with him then about the matter, Oh, quoth he, it was need∣full I should thus doe, now all feare, nay suspition of me is quite remo∣ved, I have by this my open speech gained trust and credit with the Prince, with the Councell, and the whole State, I have now made an easie and free accesse to performe that holy worke. And if God had not watched over Israell, and his Anoynted, many times without suspition and danger he might have done, and had done it indeed. Sel∣dome are great villanies attempted but with great hypocrisie: such deepe 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▪ Hee undertakes c 1.2900 and bindes himselfe by his own handwriting, by his oath also, (the Sacrament was not as yet growne to be an obligation of such detestable designes) to overthrow and abolish for ever the Councell of Chalcedon, and with it the whole Christian faith; his pur∣pose and resolution of heart hee signifies in his hereticall Epistle, which, as it seemes, hee writ very shortly after hee was the true and lawfull Pope, to Anthimus, Severus, and Theodosius, and sent it pri∣vately to Theodora. While hee is meditating and seeking how to ef∣fect this, the Emperour writes unto him, requiring him to approve that faith which Leo, Caelestine, Agapetus, and others his predecessors had embraced; and particularly to confirme the deposition of Anthi∣mus,

Severus, and Theodosius. What should Vigilius here doe? had he refused to yeeld to the Emperours just motion, hee had bewrayed himselfe, and his minde, and then not onely the Emperour and Grae∣cians, but even his owne Romane Church (then orthodoxall and Ca∣tholike) would have expelled him for an heretike, and so hee had de∣prived himselfe of all possibillity ever to effect his hereticall intend∣ment: Hee saw it was most needfull for him to put on the visor of a Catholike profession, and therefore after his sacrifice and prayer to Laverna, Pulcra Laverna da mihi fallere, da justum sanctum{que} videri; then in that counterfeit habit of holinesse he writ those open letters to Iu∣stinian, to Mennas, and to Theodora, so orthodoxall and Catholike, that none by them in the world could otherwise judge of him, but that he was another S. Silvester, S. Caelestine, or S. Leo; When by this he had gai∣ned, first, the reputation of sanctity in the Church, then the good will of the Emperour and the love of all Catholikes, when every man now held Vigilius his Apostolicall letters or decrees for so many Oracles, and himselfe for an Apostle and Prophet sent from heaven to instruct them, then, and not before, was it time to worke his intended feat; then, and never before, hee was to publish his Apostolicall decree (his minde was as yet but private) for overthrow of the Catholike faith, and the Councell of Chalcedon: But if so happened, that the heresie of the Eutychians was so generally odious, and so lately condemned, that there was no likelihood for him to bring his purpose about by esta∣blishing it, as at the first he meant, but after some few yeares expe∣ctance there fell out another & farre fitter oportunity, & that was the defence of the Three Chapters, there he had the Africane, the Illirian, the Italian, and, in a manner, all the Westerne Churches to partake with him in that heresie; that oportunity Vigilius gladly embraceth, nor would hee let it passe: Then hee labours tooth and naile, and in the end, when either then or never he must do the deed, by his Aposto∣licall Const. he decreeth that those 3. Chapters should by al be defēded. Certainly, had that his decree prevailed, (as his purpose and earnest desire was that it should) not only Anthimus, Theodosius, & Severus, be∣ing Eutychians, but all Arians, Macedonians, all heresies and heretikes, had at once, like so many wilde Bores, rushed into the inheritance of Christ; the Catholike faith, which is the only barre and fence against them all, being by that Constitution of Vigilius utterly broken downe, and by the defending of those Three Chapters, for ever subverted. This was the most Diabolicall plot and project of Pope Vigilius, to seeme a Catholike, and openly to professe before Iustinian and others the Catholike faith, and while they are secure of him, closely in the meane space to undermine and blow up at once all Catholikes, and with them the Catholike faith. So there is no repugnance, no incoherence at all in these, though contradictory letters of Vigilius, both of them, the orthodoxall to Iustinian, Theodora, and Mennas, the hereticall to An∣thimus, Theodosius, and Severus, both were writ by Vigilius, both by Pope Vigilius, both by Vigilius, when he was the onely true and law∣full Pope; but the former were writ by the personated and visored, the later by the naked and unmasked Pope Vigilius.

33. Wee have now proved, first, that Vigilius writ this hereticall Epistle against their first evasion, next that hee writ it when hee was the onely true and lawfull Pope, against their second evasion; there remains as yet two other Pretences of Bellarmine, but such, as Baronius was ashamed to use so poore and petty excuses for their Pope. The third evasion then is this, that Vigilius in heart embraced the true faith, and onely fained himselfe in this Epistle to be a favourer of the Eutychean heresie. Vigilius, saith the Cardinall d 1.2901, was here in a great straite, for if hee openly professed heresie, hee feared the Romanes, who would never indure an heretike to sit in Peters Chaire; if hee should on the other side professe himselfe a Catholike, he feared The∣odora the hereticall Empresse, that she would not indure him; Itaque rationem illam excogitavit, therfore he devised this policy, (and I pray you note it well) that e 1.2902 at Rome (or openly) hee would play the Catholike, but (secretly) in his private letters to the Empresse, and to Anthimus, he would faine himselfe an heretike. Thus Bellarmine, who fully ex∣presseth the nature and disposition of Pope Vigilius, as if hee had not onely felt his pulse, but beene in his bosome: Hee was indeed another Catiline, Simulare, ac dissimulare, hee could semble and dissemble, conceale what indeed hee was, seeme to bee what hee was not: At Rome, and in shew of the world a Catholike; at Constantinople, and in his secret and close actions an heretike. Thus farre the Cardinall saith well; but hee is extremely mistaken in one circumstance, in that hee saith, that his open or Catholike profession was mentall, and ex animo, and his private and secret detestation of the Catholike faith, was verball and fained. It was quite contrary, his heart and Intrals were all here∣ticall, nothing but his face and outward shew was Catholike: for proofe whereof I will not urge, that the Pope in this Epistle accurseth and f 1.2903 anathematizeth all who hold the Catholike faith, or who be∣leeve otherwise than Eutyches did, for so hee doth also in his other Epistle to the Emperour and Mennas, condemne Eutycheanisme; and yet it is no commendation for his Holinesse, either to curse the Ca∣tholike faith, or to curse that faith which in his heart hee beleeveth. But this I would have considered, that Vigilius promised g 1.2904 under his hand-writing, yea, hee swore h 1.2905 also that he would abolish the Coun∣cell of Chalcedon, and restore Anthimus; for performance whereof hee writ i 1.2906 that private Epistle, which was all that as yet hee could doe. Let Bellarmine now say, if their Popes doe use to promise, and that under their hands, yea, to sweare also to doe that, which they meane not to doe. Who may bee beleeved upon their words, up∣on their oathes, if not the Popes Holinesse? if hee, not onely in words and writing, but in his solemne oathes equivocate, whose oath, among all that generation, can bee thought simple and without fraud?

34. Againe, to what end should Pope Vigilius dissemble secretly and among his intire friends, such as were Anthimus, Theodosius, and Severus? where or to whom should he truly open himselfe and his in∣ward heart, if not to such? The first lesson that men of Vigilius me∣tall learne, is that of Lucilius k 1.2907, Homini amico ac familiari non est mentiri

meum. The Prisciliaens, who as S. Austen l 1.2908 shewes, were the very tea∣chers of lying and dissembling, and who perswaded their fellow here∣tikes unto that base art and trade; yet even they taught that Lucilian lesson, (and most impiously pretended m 1.2909 to collect it out of the words of the Apostle) Speake the truth every man to his neighbour, for we are members one of another. To his neighbour and fellow member, sayd they, we must speake the truth: but to such as are not joyned n 1.2910 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 oportet{que} mendaci∣um, to them you may lye, nay you must not speake the truth to such. Anthimus, Severus, and Theodosius, they were the next neighbours to Vigilius, all conjoyned o 1.2911 and concorporated into Eutycheanisme. Had he dissembled with them, he had beene worse than the Priscilianists, nay worse than the devils themselves, for they though they lye to all others, yet speake truth among themselves, and to Beelzebub, other∣wise his kingdome could not endure. It was Iustinian and the Catho∣likes, 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 neighbors, & commembres with him by the rules of that blacke Art, he might, he ought to lye: but to Anthimus and Severus, being of one body with him, he must speake the truth.

35. Further yet, looke to that old Cassian rule, Cui bono? where, and with whom was Pope Vigilius to gaine more by his cogging and counterfeiting? He had now rightfull possession of the See of Rome, which was the onely marke he aymed at. What hurt could three de∣posed Bishops, or the Empresse her selfe doe now unto him, being backt by the Emperor, by all Catholikes, and which is best, by a good cause? what needed he for pleasing them to faine himselfe an heretike? Could they thrust Vigilius from his See, who could not hold their owne? or could the Empresse deprive Vigilius, who could not restore Anthimus? There was nothing that could move Vigilius to faine himselfe an heretike, or to write that hereticall Epistle, if he had been in heart a Catholike. But being in heart hereticall, there was many most urgent and necessary inducements, why he should faine himselfe a Catholike. Had hee shewed his inside unto the Emperour, and the Church, had he opened to them the heresie lurking in his brest, had he made it knowne that he would abolish the Councell of Chalcedon, and the Catholike faith, hee had instantly incensed all against him; both the Emperour and the Romanes, as Bellarmine p 1.2912 sayth, yea the whole Catholike Church would have joyned in the expulsing and de∣posing of such a wolfe and wretched heretike out of the See. S. Peters Chaire had beene too hot for him. Vigilius wisely considered that it was no lesse art to keepe, than to get the See; he knowing that with∣out deepe dissimulation, and without faining himselfe a Catholike, he could not possibly hold it, much lesse could he effect that which he purposed, and had both promised and sworne to performe, and there∣fore by his private letter assuring Anthimus, Severus, Theodosius, and Theodora, of his hearty and serious intent to joyne with them, and

when time served to worke his feat, by his other publike and ortho∣doxall letters to Iustinian, Theodora and Mennas, hee did but cast a mist before their eyes, that they should not spy his heresie; and under that visor of a Catholike, he did labour to undermine the whole Ca∣tholike faith. And thus much in his private letter he signifieth to An∣thimus and the rest, warning them first q 1.2913 of secresie, lest if his powder-plot should be discovered (as indeed most happily it was) the sudden blow should not hit the Councell of Chalcedon: and next, that besides their secresie they should dissemble also no lesse than hee did, they should still seeme r 1.2914 to suspect and bee jealous of him as of their onely enemy, that their feare might make Catholikes secure of him, and of that sudden blow which in a moment by the publishing of his Apo∣stolike Edict for the adnulling of the Councell of Chalcedon he meant to give.

36. But Bellarmine s 1.2915 for all this will prove by two reasons that Vigi∣lius was not in heart t 1.2916 an heretike, 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 publikely, but onely in secret and closely con∣demne the Catholike faith: for hee writes therein, Vt sint omnia occulta usque ad tempus; that they should keepe all private untill a fitter time. Con∣demne then he did the Catholike faith, but not ex animo, because hee did secretly condemne it. Ex studio occultandi, saith Gretzer u 1.2917, by his desire of concealing it. Bellarmine collecteth this, that Vigilius did not seriously and from his heart, but dissemblingly write that impious E∣pistle. As if one may not doe the same thing ex animo, and seriously, and yet doe it secretly. What thinkes he of Iudas? his plotting to be∣tray Christ was close and secret, his owne fellow Apostles knew not of it, but sayd, Master, is it I? his friendly conversing with Christ, sit∣ting at table, and kissing, was open and publike, yet his outward cour∣tesie, even his kisse was dissembled, and trecherous; his malice, trea∣son, and murderous affection which were secret and covered under those outward shewes of love, were true and serious. The Powder-plotters dealt closely and secretly, all under boord: their pretended subjection was open, and yet the treason was serious, their obedience but fained. Bellarmine was but a meere novice in the Romane Court when hee writ this, and imagined that Popes doe not seriously that which they doe secretly.

37. His other reason x 1.2918 to prove that Vigilius was not in heart here∣ticall, when he writ this Epistle, is, because he writ it not with an he∣reticall minde, sed propter cupiditatem praesidendi, but in an ambitious desire of presidency. What I pray you, Is an hereticall and ambitious minde incompatible? doth ambition exclude heresie? or in ambition for one to teach heresie, doth that hinder him from being in heart an heretike? Scarce was there any Heresiarch, whom ambition hath not inflamed, and who in ambition layd not the foundation of his heresie. Valentinus, sayth Tertullian y 1.2919, hoped for but missed a Bishopricke, in re∣venge thereof he kindled his heresie, and set fire in that Church, wherein him∣selfe could not be governour. When Marcion, (sayth Epiphanius z 1.2920) got not the presidency, he invented his heresie, and puft up with pride, sayd,

Ego sindam Ecclesiam, Ile rend asunder your Church. When Aerius b 1.2921 mis∣sed the Bishopricke which Eustathius obtained, in his ambitious pride he devised his heresie, that a Presbyter was all one with a Bishop. Heare Cardinall Bellarmines c 1.2922 owne words: All Arch-heretickes have one com∣mon vice, and that is pride, they spring up in divers places, but pride is the mother of them all. If Vigilius was no heretike in heart, because he was ambitious, neither was Nestorius, nor Arius, nor Aerius, nor Mon∣tanus, nor Valentinus, by Bellarmines divinity heretikes, because they were all ambitious. If they notwithstanding their ambition were (as certainly they were) Arch-heretikes, and taught their heresies with hereticall minds, then not onely the Cardinals reason is inconsequent and ridiculous, but Vigilius for all his ambition may not onely write that Epistle with an hereticall minde, but be even an Heresiarch, or rather a Pope heretike.

38. Againe, did he not write this with an hereticall minde? why did not the Cardinall expresse what that hereticall minde is, which was now wanting in Vigilius? An hereticall minde is no other but a minde pertinaciously and obstinately addicted to heresie. It was he∣resie doubtlesse which he writ, in teaching with Eutyches but one na∣ture to be in Christ. That he writ this obstinately, is cleare, seeing he writ it against the knowne judgement of the holy Councell of Chalce∣don, that is, of the Catholike Church; which none can doe but even thereby he shewes an obstinate and pertinacious minde, rebellious a∣gainst the Church. If this be not, no hereticke in the world ever had an hereticall minde. If Arius, Nestorius, and Eutyches, when they writ or taught their doctrines with this minde, were hereticall and here∣tikes, then most certainly Vigilius who writ this Epistle with the like obstinate and pertinacious minde, must needs bee judged to be rebel∣lious against the Church, and as heretically affected in minde, as Ari∣us or Eutyches himselfe. Pride and insolency is so farre from excluding an hereticall minde, as Bellarmine would here perswade, that it is even an individuall companion, yea essentiall unto it. None can possibly have an hereticall, but ••o nomine he hath an ambitious heart, the pride whereof causeth him to condemne the just sentence of the Catholike Church, and prefer before it his owne fancy and opinion.

39. You see now how inconsequent both these reasons of the Car∣dinals are, seeing Vigilius might bee hereticall in heart, though both his writings were secret, and his minde ambitious. Let us yet a little further debate this matter with the Cardinall. Say you that Vigilius did not write this hereticall 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 heretike in heart, when he was so hereti∣call 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 heretikes and plaine Infidels in heart, when their words were Ca∣tholike? 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 beleeved and thought in their heart. What Innocent the third, when he decreed the

doctrine of Transubstantiation: what Leo the tenth, when he condem∣ned Luther: or what Paul, Iulius, and Pius the fourth, when they con∣firmed their Trent Councell? How know you that in their hearts they beleeved those doctrines? or that they did not dissemble and faine, as you say Vigilius did? What can you say for Pius the fourth, which may not be sayd for Vigilius also? Doth Pius say, he did before, and now doth thinke as the Trent masters doe? Pope Vigilius sayth the like, and most plainly, Eam fidem quam tenetis, that faith which you (Anthimus, Severus, and Theodosius) doe hold, I signifie unto you, that I have held, and that I doe now hold the same. Doth Pius call the Trent Fathers his beloved brethren in Christ? so doth Vigilius call those hereticall Bishops his beloved brethren in Christ: nay in Libe∣ratus he calls them even Christs. Doth Pope Pius professe an unity be∣twixt himselfe and them, all making one body of the Church? Pope Vigilius doth the like, and he doth it more significantly: We, sayth he, preach this same doctrine that you doe, Vt & anima una sit & cor unum in Deo; so that there is in you and mee but one soule, and one heart in God. How can any speech be cordiall, if this testifying himselfe to be one soule and one heart with them, doe not come à fibris, but onely à labris? Doth Pope Pius approve the doctrine of the Trent conspirators? So doth Pope Vigilius the doctrine of those Eutychean heretikes? Doth Pius condemne and anathematize Lutherans, Calvinists, and all who thinke or teach otherwise than himselfe and his Trent Conventicle taught or beleeved? so doth Pope Vigilius condemne and anathema∣tize all who deny two natures in Christ, all who beleeve otherwise than himselfe and his Eutychean fellow heretikes did. In all these there is as much to be sayd for Pope Vigilius, as for Pope Pius: and if you please to adde that one other agreement also, as of Vigilius it is sayd, that they knew crudelitatem fidei; so may it in like manner bee truly sayd of Pope Pius, that this did manifest unto all men, crudelitatem fi∣dei, the cruelty of his and his Trent Councels faith. If by these outward acts the Cardinall can know Pius the fourth to have ex animo condem∣ned their Trent heresies, why can he not by the like outward acts know Vigilius to have ex animo condemned the Catholike faith? If Vigilius for all these outward acts, and so many testimonies and evidences of a willing minde did dissemble, and thinke in his heart otherwise than he writ, how will or can the Cardinall prove unto us that Pius the 4. and the whole Councell of Trent did not dissemble, and both write and speake otherwise than they thought in heart? Hath the Cardinall some windowes to pry into the secrets of the heart of Pius the fourth and the Trent Councell, which are dammed up that he cannot see into the brest 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 hereticall doctrine, but (which Pius did not) he bound himselfe by a sacred oath that hee would teach the same. And which is yet a farre greater evidence, Vigilius after this did teach the like hereticall doctrine, to overthrow the same Councell of Chalce∣don, in the cause of the Three Chapters, which hee did so unfainedly and so cordially, that for teaching the same he incurred the just indig∣nation

of the Emperour, the curse of the holy generall Councell, the publike hatred of all Catholikes, and, if wee may beleeve Baronius, even exile and persecution also. Why might not the same Vigilius from his heart teach Eutycheanisme, as well as Nestorianisme? The fa∣ces of those two heresies looke contrary wayes indeed, but their tayles, like Sampsons Foxes, are joyned together to undermine the Catholike faith, and the holy Councell of Chalcedon: Hee who once is proved to be treacherous in this sort, and to doe this once from his heart, semper praesumitur, is alwayes to bee presumed treacherous in the same kinde: Hee 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 oportunity which served bet∣ter in the one, than in the other; what need they excuse his teaching Eutycheanisme to have been only labiall, when it is cleare his teaching of Nestorianisme was cordiall? 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, thinke you, meant the Cardinall so to busie him∣selfe, and bee so curious about the heart and secret minde of Vigilius? what though hee did not in heart, yet, exteriori professione, by his he∣reticall writing, by his outward confession, by that Vigilius condem∣ned the Catholike faith, as the Cardinall d 1.2923 acknowledgeth, & it is the Popes outward profession, not his inward cogitation, by which wee prove his Chayre to bee fallible; what have wee, nay what hath the Cardinall or any of them all to doe with Vigilius intent or inward thoughts? leave those to his Tribunall, who onely e 1.2924 knoweth and seeth the hearts of all the sonnes of men; let men, who cannot see the heart, looke to his words, to his writings, to that profession, by which hee teacheth others. If that be hereticall, what boots it them though his heart bee orthodoxall? Confirma fratres, & pasce oves, are out∣ward acts, they looke abroad and outwardly, not to the inward and hidden man in the Popes breast. If he think as Simon Peter, and teach as Simō Magus, as Arius, Nestorius, or Eutyches did, is he not an hereticall teacher, an hereticall Pope, a confirmer of his brethrē in heresie, a fee∣der, nay, a very prisoner of the sheepe, with worse weeds than the Socraticall Cicuta? If the Pope onely thinke and beleeve heresie, why, thought is free, (to wit, from mans eye, much more from his censure) his thought is for himselfe, that errour is personall, it hurts none but the Pope himselfe. If either by word or writing hee teach heresie, that is Pontificall, it is the fault of his office, of his Chayre, which should have beene infallible, this hurts his sheepe and his bre∣thren: Nor skilleth it at all in what manner, whether by word or writing, by what occasion or motive hee teacheth heresie, but whe∣ther at all, or upon any occasion hee wittingly and willingly teach it, that is the onely point which is questioned. Vigilius condemned the Catholike faith, saith Cardinall Bellarmine f 1.2925, but hee did it for ambi∣tion, and desire of presidency. Bee it ••o: If the Pope for ambition

may condemne the Catholike faith; why may hee not doe so, for feare of exile, of disgrace, of losing the Emperours, or the King of Spaine, or the French Kings favour? If for feare, why not for favour to pur∣chase the good will of those, or any of them? If for favour, why not for hatred, hatred of Henrie the fourth, the Emperour; of Henry the eighth, for pulling away the best feather out of the Popes Plume; of Luther for being so busie in medling with his Indulgences, and the triple Crowne? If for hatred or favour, why not for desire of lucre, and to keepe the gaine of their crafts-men and Image workers, who continually sing that note in the Popes eare, Great is Diana of the E∣phesians, great is the Church and S. Peters Chayre? Why not for any like passion of the minde may the Pope condemne the Catholike faith? On what a ticklish the flippery ground doth their whole faith stand, when either the Popes ambition, or feare, or favour, or love, or hatred, or anger, or desire, or a fit of any other perturbation, which disturbeth his minde, may procure, as at this time it did in Vi∣gilius, an anathema to the Catholike faith? Best it were for them to renew the Stoicall sect and doctrine, and receive it in the Church, that out of those sober and unmoved mindes, as out of an happy Nur∣sery of Popes, the Cardinals might in the Conclave still elect a Pope voyde of all passions and perturbations, and transplant him out of the Stoicall to their Apostolicall Chaire. But sure, so long as they goe no further than the Conclave, they shall never finde any but of the same metall with Vigilius, one that may bee tossed every way with ambition, with envy, with love, with hatred, with feare, and every passion of his minde, as a powder-plot to blow up the whole Catho∣like 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, Cardinall Bellarmine can excuse it, and wipe away all the disgrace of it, as here hee doth in Vigilius; hee did it not with an hereticall minde, for hee did it for ambition, hee did it for feare, hee did it for hatred; hee did it for some other passion, hee did it onely by an exteriour act, and not ex animo: But in the meane time whether hee did it ex ani∣mo, or otherwise by his exteriour act, the Catholike faith is blowne up from the foundation thereof, as much by the Popes act, as by the act of Arius, of Nestorius, of Eutyches, or any other heretike; and the Church hath a goodly amends indeed, that the Pope forsooth did not (which is impossible for him or all heretikes in the world to doe) blow it up with an imagination or inward thought, but with an exteriour act of his teaching by word or writing.

41. Oh but, sayth Bellarmine f 1.2926, non damnavit fidem palam, sed occultè, Vigilius did not openly but closely condemne the Catholike faith: Closely, so he did indeed; it was his purpose and intent so to doe. He came not now as Nero, or Dioclesian, with open force to batter, but as Simon Ma∣gus, Arius, Nestorius, Eutyches, and other heretikes, with Synomian arts, to undermine the Church; all his worke was under the vault. The Anathema denounced in this Epistle against all who hold two natures in Christ, was the powder that should have blowne up the holy Synod, and Senate, the House of God, and whole City of God:

the powder, the person and all was ready, onely, which the Cardinall observes g 1.2927, the time for the open publishing of that Anathema, and setting fire to the traine was not yet come. The gracious Providence of God, which watcheth over Israell, the admirable zeale, piety, pru∣dence, and vigilancy, which God put into the heart of Iustinian, the constancy of faith in the Greeke Church, which at that time most happily fell out to bee greater than at any time before or since; by these was the fatall blow intended by Vigilius, most happily preven∣ted. This close and secret working proves Pope Vigilius to have beene both subtill and malicious in condemning the faith; it doth excuse him neither à toto, nor tanto, from his condemning the faith or from being an hereticall Pope, labouring by his hereticall doctrine to sub∣vert the faith.

42. The fourth and last Evasion or excuse for Vigilius fact in wri∣ting this Epistle, is Bellarmines also; Vigilius, saith hee h 1.2928, did not at that time define any thing against the faith, tanquam Pontifex, as hee was Pope. What shuffling and shifting is this in the Cardinall? hee did not define any thing against the faith, as Pope: Hee did then define that which was against the faith, but hee defined it not as Pope, for otherwise it had beene foolish to say, he defined it not as Pope, when hee defined it, neither as Pope, nor as no Pope, when hee defined it not at all. Againe, what a worthy saying is this of a Cardinall? Vigi∣lius did not at that time define it as hee was Pope; at that time, to wit, while Silverius lived and was the onely Pope, at which time, as himselfe in expresse words saith, Vigilius Papa non erat, Vigilius was not then the Pope. What needed the Cardinall say hee defined it not at that time as hee was Pope, when at that time he was not Pope? This reduplication, quatenus Papa, implies hee was Pope, and that be∣ing Pope hee defined it, but hee defined it not as hee was Pope, but as hee was a private man, or some other way: Would not the Cardinall laugh, if Gretzer or any such good friend of his should say, Bellarmine at that time while hee was at Ingolstad writ not his Controversies as he was Pope, or, hee writ them not as he was a Turke, a Iew, or Mahume∣tane? But leaving these shifts, which demonstrate plainly, that Bellar∣mine 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 crosse unto himselfe, and such also as he could not hold. Let us consider the Exception it selfe; Vigilius writ this Epistle, that is confessed; hee writ it when hee was the onely true and lawfull Pope, that wee have proved; hee defined heresie in it, and that which is against the faith, that Bellarmine implyeth; hee condemned in it the Catholike faith, that Bellarmine in plaine words expresseth. Thus far the cause is cleare. Now whether Pope Vigilius in it defined here∣sie, and condemned the Catholike faith, as he was Pope, or no, that is the point here to be debated.

43. Some may thinke, that Bellarmine by those two reasons drawne from secresie and an ambitious minde, by which he laboured before, to prove, that Vigilius did not condemne 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 say∣ing. If any like to take Bellar. words in that sort, then his reasons are be∣fore hand refuted; for as Vigilius might, ex animo, write heretically, both privately and out of ambition, so also might hee, tanquam Ponti∣fex, condemne the faith, notwithstanding both his secrecy and ambi∣tious 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 Apostolicall authority in teaching, as wel private∣ly as publikely, as well with Iudas in ambition, as with Iohn or Peter in sincerity of heart. But the Cardinals Apologist, who it may be con∣sulted with the Cardinall about his intent herein, doth ease us of those reasons, for hee i 1.2929 tels us plainly, that from Vigilius his desire of secrecie, nil aliud colligit, Bellarmine collects or proves nothing else, but this, that Vigilius did not write his letter from his heart or seriò, that hee did it not in earnest. It is but a sport with Gretzer, or with the Pope, to condemne the Catholike faith; they doe it, but they doe it not in earnest, they doe it jocularitèr not seriò. Have ye indeed such May-games & sports at Rome, as to condemne the faith, and then say, I was in jest, and in sport? Are not these men new Philistines, Call in Sampson, Condemne the Catholike faith, to make us pastime? But let us leave them to their sports, till the fall of their Babylonish house make a catastrophe and dolefull end both of their actors & spe∣ctators: That which I now note, is, that Bellarmine doth not in those words, Siquidem Epistolam scripsit, &c. from the privatenesse or se∣crecy prove any thing else, but that Vigilius writ it not seriò, in earnest and from his heart; that hee 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 proofe, without any reasons, and I must needs confesse, I hold it a most suf∣ficient encounter for any man to Bellarmines ipse dixit, to oppose, ipse dico, yet because I desire rather to satisfie such as seeke the truth, then contend with those who seeke 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 onely condemne the Catholike faith at that time, but that he did it even as hee was Pope, and, tanquam Pontifex, condemne the Catholike faith.

44. What it is for a Pope to teach an errour as Pope, may be per∣ceived by other Arts and Sciences, in the practice or exercise where∣of, together with knowledge, judgement, and skill, fidelity also is re∣quired; were Baronius or some Romane Facundus to examine this point, they would quickly sute the Pope to some Cobler, Pedler, or such like companion: I love not to deale so rudely with his Holinesse, yet if I should happen at any time to let slip a word that way, you know how the Cardinall quitted the religious Emperour with, Ne ul∣tra crepidam. If a Physitian, or Lawyer, or Iudge in any discourse should speake barbarously or incongruously, they erre therein but as Grammarians, not as Iudges, Lawyers or Physitians; But if a Iudge 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, affirme that title to bee sound, which were clearely voide in law; or if a Physitian should prescribe to his patient Coloquintida for an wholesome diet, each of them now erred & offended in his owne profession, & in that proper duty w^ch belongeth to them; the Iudge as a Iudge, the Counsellor as a Counsellor, the Physitian as a Physitian, because they failed either in skill or in fidelity in those faculties wher∣in they professe both to know themselves, and to make knowne unto others what is right and good: If in other matters they transgresse, it is not, quatenus tales; if any of them bee prophane, covetous, or intem∣perate, they offend now, quatenus homines, as they are mortall men in those duties of morality, which are common to them with all men: If they bee seditious, rebellious, and conspire in treasonable practice, they offend, quatenus Cives, as they are parts of the Common-wealth, in those duties which are common to them with all subjects; but when they offend in Physick, law, or judgment, those are their own peculiar Arts and Sciences, they then offend, neither quatenus homines, nor qua∣tenus Cives, nor in any other respect, but quatenus tales, as they are such professors: for now they transgresse against those proper duties, which, as they are Iudges, Counsellors, or Physitians, are required of them. The like of all Artificers, of Grāmarians, Logicians, Poets, Phi∣losophers, of Presbyters, of Bishops, of the Professors of Theology, which is scientia scientiarum, is to bee said. If a Divine shall speake rudely, incongruously, ad populum Antiochenum, he offends as a Gram∣marian, not as a Divine, unlesse perhaps it bee no fault when it doth so happen for edification, that hee ought so to speake, as Saint Au∣sten k 1.2930 did use divers barbarismes, and say, ossum for os, floriet for slo∣rebit, dolus for dolor; Malo me populus, I had rather edifie with rude∣nesse of words than speake nothing but pure Ciceronian without edi∣fying them, without honouring God; But if a Bishop or any Divine, in stead of truth teach heresie, either because hee knowes not the truth, or knowing it, oppugnes the truth, hee is now in his owne ele∣ment, he offends no longer as a Rhetorician, or Grammarian, but, qua∣tenus talis, as hee is a Bishop, as hee is a Divine, as hee is one who both should know, and bring others to the knowledge of the truth. And this, beside that by reason it is evident, is grounded on that saying of Austen l 1.2931, Aliter servit Rex qua homo, aliter qua Rex, for as a King ser∣veth God, qua Rex, in doing that which none but a King can doe; so a King, or a Bishop, or any other offendeth God, as a King, or Bishop, in doing against that duty which none but they are to doe.

45. Now, what is said of all Sciences, Arts and mysteries, that is in due proportion to be applyed to that greatest mysterie of myste∣ries, and Craft above all Crafts, to their Pope-craft, or mysterie of In∣iquity: He is the sheepheard to feed all, the Physitian to cure all, the Counsellor to advise all, the Iudge to decide al, the Monarke to com∣mand all, hee is all in all, nay, above all; hard it is to define him or his duties, hee is indefinite, infinite, transcendent above all limits, above all definitions, above all rule, yea, above all reason also: But as the Nymphs not able to measure the vastnes of the Gyants whole body, measured onely the compasse of his thumbe with a thred, and by it

knew and admired the bignesse of his Gygantean body; so let us con∣sider but the thumbe, or little toe of his Holinesse fault, and by it con∣jecture the immensity of this eldest sonne of Anak. Pasce oves & confir∣mafratres, must bee to us as the Nymphes thred or line, for these two are the Popes peculiars, in which are contained all the rest, and they reach as farre as heaven and hell, they are the Popes duty, quate∣nus hee is Pope. If at any time, or upon any occasion hee swarve from this line, if by his doctrine he cast downe his brethren, instead of con∣firming them, or give them poyson in stead of good food, he offends not now as Swines-snout m 1.2932, nor as Peter n 1.2933 of Tarantasia, nor as Hugh Bone companion, but quatenus Papa, even as Pope; in that very Pastorall and Papall duty, which properly and peculiarly belongeth to him as Pope. Lay now this line and thred to Pope Vigilius, and his Epistle; did he confirme Anthimus, Theodosius, and Severus in the faith, when he told them, that, by Gods o 1.2934 helpe both before and then also he held the same faith with them, and that was Eutycheanisme, and that they were joyned to him in the charity which is in Christ? or was this wholsome food, which hee, the great Pastor of their soules, set before them: Accursed be all that deny one and affirme two natures to have beene in Christ? If this bee hereticall doctrine, seeing Pope Vigilius fed them, and confirmed them in this faith, then certainely he taught heresie as Pope; that is, hee exercised his Papall office, even that of feeding and confirming his brethren, which is peculiar to the Pope, as Pope, to the teaching and approving of heresie at this time.

46. If yet wee shall goe somewhat more precisely and exactly to worke, according to line and measure; those acts of feeding and con∣firming doe but in a very equivocall sense (for their doctrine is full of Equivocation) agree to other Bishops, but still a maine difference or odds is to bee observed, betwixt the Popes feeding and confirming, as hee is Pope, and all others; when any other Bishop teacheth heresie, because his teaching is subordinate and fallible, one may, nay, he must doubt or feare to feed on such food, he must still receive it with this caution or tacit appeale of his heart, if his holinesse commend it for an wholesome diet of the soule. But if the Pope teach any heresie; if hee say that the Sunne is darke; the left, the write hand; poyson an whole∣some food; Eutycheanisme or Nestorianisme, the orthodoxall faith; here, because there is no higher judge to whom you may appeale, you are bound upon salvation, without any doubt or scruple at all, to eate and devoure this meate; you may not judge, nay, you may not dispute or aske any man whether it be true or no, the Popes teaching is su∣preme, and therefore infallible, indubitable; this is to teach, to feed, to confirme as Pope, for none can thus teach or feed, but onely the Pope as Pope. So the same hereticall doctrine, when it is taught by the Pope, as he is a private man, is a private instruction without any publike authority to teach; when by him, as a Presbiter, it is an in∣struction with publike authority to teach, but without judicatory po∣wer to censure the gainsayers; when by him, as a Bishop, it is both with publike authority and judicatory power to censure, suspend, or excommunicate the gainsayers, but yet subordinate and fallible, inclu∣ding

a virtuall appeale to the highest tribunall of the Pope, when by him, as Pope, it hath all the former conditions, both publike autho∣rity to teach, and judiciall power to censure, and, which is the Popes peculiar prerogative, as Pope, to doe those with infallibility of judge∣ment, and supremacy of authority, such as none may refuse, or doubt to beleeve and embrace.

47. If any will here reply with the Sophister Thrasimachus his sub∣tilty in Plato q 1.2935, that the Pope, as Pope, teacheth not amisse, but as hee faileth in the Popes duty, as hee wants skill or will to performe that office: This must bee acknowledged as true indeed, for in the strict∣est 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 insepara∣bly agree to the teaching of every Pope, even as Logicians q 1.2936 say, that what agreeth to a man, a bird, or a tree, quatenus talia, as they are such, must agree to every man, bird and tree. But this quirke and subtilty will not helpe their cause, nor excuse the Pope from erring as Pope; for as in this sense no Pope, as Pope, doth erre, because then every Pope should erre in all doctrines which hee teacheth, so neither in the same sense doth any Pope, as Pope, teach the truth, for then every doctrine of every Pope should bee true. Againe, as according to this sense, no Pope as Pope, so no Bishop as Bishop, no Presbyter as Pres∣byter doth erre or teach heresie, for did hee in his teaching erre as Bi∣shop or Presbyter, then every Presbyter and every Bishop, and so even the Apostles themselves should erre in their teaching. But as Vigilius or Liberius when they taught Arianisme, Eutycheanisme, or Nestorianisme, did this not simply as Popes, but as persons not knowing as in duty they should, what to teach; or knowing it, but willingly teaching the contrary to their knowledge, which in duty they should not: even so Nestorius, Macedonius, Arius, and Eutyches, e∣very Bishop, and Presbyter, when they erred, they erred not simply as Bishops, or as Presbyters, but as persons failing in their Episcopall, or Presbyteriall duties, either not knowing the truth, as by their office they should, or wilfully oppugning and contradicting the truth, as by their office they should not: So by his subtilty, if any applaud them∣selves in it, not only the Bishops of Rome, but of Constantinople, of Anti∣och, of Alexandria, yea, all Bishops and Presbyters in the world shall be as free from errour, as his holinesse himselfe, yea, all professors of any Art, Science, or faculty, shall plead the like Papall exemption from errour; every man shall bee a Pope in his owne faculty; no Gramma∣rian speaking incongruously as a Grammarian, but as wanting the skil required in a Grammarian; no Iudge giving a wrongfull sentence as a Iudge, no Galenist ministring unwholsome physicke as a Physiti∣an, no Artificer working any thing amisse in his trade, as an Artificer, but as being defective in the duties either of that knowledge, or of that fidelity which is required in a Iudge, a Physitian, and in every Artificer. If they will exempt all Bishops and Presbyters, all Iudges and Physitians from erring, as they are such Officers or Artificers, we also will in the same sort and sense allow the like immunity to the Pope: If they notwithstanding this subtilty, will admit another Bi∣shop

to erre as Bishop, they must not thinke much if wee exempt not the Pope as Pope: For, to speake that which is the very truth of them all, and exactly to measure every thing by his owne line, a Iudge sim∣ply as Iudge doth pronounce a judiciall sentence, as a skilfull and faithfull judge, an upright judiciall sentence; as an unskilful or unfaith∣full Iudge, an erronious or unjust sentence. A Bishop or Presbyter simply as Bishop or Presbyter, doth teach with publike authority in the Church; as a skilfull and faithfull Bishop or Presbyter he teach∣eth the truth of God; as an ignorant and unfaithful Bishop he teacheth errours and heresies in the Church, the one without, the other with judicall power to censure the gainsayers. The like in all Arts, Scien∣ces, and faculties is to be sayd, even in the Pope himselfe. A Pope sim∣ply as he is Pope and defined by them, teacheth both with authority to teach, with power to censure the gainsayers, and with a supremacy of judgement binding all to embrace his doctrine without appeale, without doubt, as an infallible Oracle: as a skilfull or faithfull Pope he teacheth the truth in that sort, as an unskilfull or unfaithfull Pope he teacheth errour or heresie with the like authority, power, and su∣premacy, binding others to receive and swallow up his heresies for Catholike truth, and that with a most blind obedience, without once doubting of the same.

48. Apply this to Vigilius & his hereticall Epistle: In a vulgar sense; Vig. erred as Pope, because he erred in those very Pōtifical duties of feeding & confirming, w^ch are proper to his office. In a strickt sense; though hee did not therein erre simply as Pope, but quatenus talis, taught onely with a supreme binding authority, yet hee erred as an unfaithfull Pope, binding▪ others by that his Pontificall and supreme authority to receive Eutycheanisme as Catholike truth, without once moving any doubt or making scruple of the same. What may wee thinke will they oppose to this; If they say Vigilius doth not ex∣presse in this Epistle, that hee writ it by his Apostolicall authority. Hee doth not indeed. Now doth Pope Leo in that Epistle to Flavianus, a∣gainst the heresie of Eutyches, which to have beene writ by his Aposto∣licall authorty, and as hee was Pope none of them doe or will deny, that Epistle being approved by the whole Councell r 1.2937 of Chalcedon. Pope Leo by his Papall authority condemneth Eutycheanisme, Pope Vigilius by his Papall authority confirme Eutycheanisme: both of them confirmed their doctrine by their Papall authority; both writ as Popes, the one as orthodoxall, the other as a perfidious and hereticall Pope; neither of both expresse that their Apostolicall authority by which they both writ. The like in many other Epistles of Leo, and of other Popes might easily bee observed. Not the tenth part of their decretal Epistles, such as they writ as Popes, have this clause of doing it by their Apostolicall authority expressed in them. It is sufficient that this is vertually in them all, and vertually it is in this of Pope Vigilius: Yea, but hee taught this onely in a private letter to a few, to Anthi∣mus, Severus and Theodosius, not in a publike, generall, and encyclicall Epistles, written for instruction of the whole Church. What, is the Pope fallible in teaching of a few, in confirming three of his brethren?

why not in foure, in eight, in twenty? and if in twenty, why not in an hundred? if so, why not in a thousand? if in one, why not in two, foure, or ten thousand? Caudae{que} pilos ut equinae paulatim vellam; where, or at what number shall we stay, as being the least which with infallibility he can teach? Certainly, confirma fratres, & in cathedra sede, & pasce oves, respects two as well as two millions. If in confirming or feeding three, the Chaire may bee erroneous, how can wee know to what number God hath tyed the infallibility of it? But the sixt generall Councell may teach them a better lesson. Pope Honorius writ an he∣reticall Epistle s 1.2938 but onely to Sergius Bishop of Constantinople, Vigilius writ this to three, all of patriarchall dignity as Sergius was. Honorius writ it privately, as Vigilius did, which was the cause, as it seemes, that the Romane Church tooke so little notice thereof: yet though it was private, and but to one, it is condemned by the sixt Councell, for t 1.2939 a domaticall writing of Pope Honorius, for a writing wherein hee con∣firmes others in heresie: and Pope Leo u 1.2940 the second judged it to bee such as was a blemish to the Apostolike See, such as by which Honorius did labour to subvert the Catholike faith. The like and more danger was in this, to these three deposed patriarchs. It confirmed them in heresie; it confirmed the Empresse; it confirmed all that tooke part with them; it was the meanes whereby the faith was in hazard to have beene utterly subverted. For plurality or paucity it is not materiall, be they few, be they moe: if the Pope as Pope, or as an hereticall pope may confirme three, or but one, that one is abundant to prove his Chaire and judiciall sentence not to be infallible.

49. But he taught this alone, not in a Councell, not with advice of his Cardinalls, and Consistory: why, he did it not as a member of a Councell, but as x 1.2941 Princeps Ecclesiae. He did this as did Agapetus y 1.2942 in deposing Anthimus, above and besides the Canons. The whole po∣wer of his Apostolike authority much shined in this decision, more than in any other, where either his Cardinals or a Councell hath ought to doe: much more was this done by him as Pope, than any of them. And yet had he listed to follow the judgement of others, or of a Sy∣nod herein, what better direction, advice, or counsell, could his Car∣dinalls, or any Synod in the world give unto him, than the decree of the whole Councell 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 generall Synod, yea against that Synod, what could the advice of another, or of a few Cardinals have avayled at this time?

50. Thus all the evasions which they use, being refuted, it may now be clearly concluded, not onely that Vigilius writ this impious and he∣reticall Epistle, and writ it when he was the true and lawfull Pope; but that he writ it also ex animo, even out of an hereticall heart, and writ it as he was Pope, that is, in such sort as that by his Pontificall and supreme authority hee confirmed that heresie which hee taught therein. And this is the former of his Acts, which as I told you is ve∣ry remarkable, his purpose and intent therein being the overthrow of the Councell at Chalcedon, and of the whole Catholike faith.

51. The other act of Vigilius concernes the cause of the three Chap∣ters, wherein by the heresie of Nestorius, he publikely decreed and per∣formed that (as much as in him lay, and as by his Apostolicall decree could be effected,) which hee had purposed and intended to doe by the heresie of Eutycheanisme. In which whole cause, how Vigilius from the first to the last, behaved himselfe, how at the first hee oppugned the Emperours most religious Edict, and the Catholike faith, how af∣terward he played the dissembling Proteus with the Emperour and the whole Church, for the space of five or six yeares together, how at the last he returned to his naturall and habituall love of heresie, and how in decreeing it by the fulnesse of his Apostolicall authority, hee sought utterly and for ever to abolish the Councell of Chalcedon, and with it the whole Catholike faith; the former Treatise doth abundantly de∣clare; which withall demonstrates the vanity of that saying of Bellar∣mine: For the time, sayth he a 1.2943, that hee was true Pope, neither any errour, nor simulation of errour was found in him: sed summa constantia in fide, but the greatest constancy of faith that could be. For as by our former trea∣tise is evident, he was not only most wavering, but hereticall 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 heresie, and as opportunity offered it selfe, labouring by words, by private Epistles, by resisting the imperiall, just, and godly Edict, by publike constitutions to overthrow the faith and the whole Church of God.

52. You see now his ingresse into the Papacy, and his progresse in the same: touching his egresse both out of it and this life, heare what S. Liberatus b 1.2944 saith: How Vigilius being by heresie afflicted, died, it is knowne unto all. Heare what Cardinall Bellarmine c 1.2945 saith out of Liberatus, Ab illa ipsa haeresi afflictus, Vigilius was miserably afflicted by that selfe same heresie, which at the first he nourished: and againe, Misere vexatus usque ad mortem, he was miserably vexed even untill hee dyed. Heare Baronius, who first promised d 1.2946 to declare how invigilavit in Vigilio vindicta Dei; how the vengeance of God watched Vigilius, and at last re∣venged the innocent blood which he shed: and then performing that promise, sayth e 1.2947, He died in an Iland in Sicily by the just judgement of God; confectus ipse aerumnis ex morbo, himselfe being wasted with misery, by rea∣son of his disease, who had caused Silverius in an Iland in Palmaria to bee pined away, and put to death. As he got the papacy by wicked meanes, so was he immensis agitatus fluctibus, tossed with exceeding great tempests therein, hated by the Emperour, not gratefull to the Easterne, and execra∣ble to the Westerne Bishops: and when hee seemed to have come out of the streame into the haven, and almost one foot into the City, being pined away, immensis doloribus, with unmeasurable paines, he dyed. Thus Baronius. Now if we should deale with him as Baronius f 1.2948 doth with Iustinian, and by his precedent acts judge of his reward, according to the Text, Opera eorum sequuntur eos, I feare the censure would seeme very harsh to those who are so ready to examine Iustinian by that rule. For what workes I pray you followed Pope Vigilius? Ambition, usurpation, sacriledge, murder, symony, hypocrisie, schisme, heresie, and Anti∣christianisme,

concerning which the Apostle sayth, They which doe them shall not inherit the kingdome of God. I will not, I list not be rigorous in this point, neither towards him or any other. I conten•• my selfe with that lesson of the Apostle g 1.2949, 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 be∣fore dead, must needs bee 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 heresie, and oppugnation of Gods truth; As re∣pentance for such sinnes and impious writings opens unto them, so impenitency and persevering therein, eternally shuts against them the gates of Gods mercy, and the kingdome of heaven. Both w^ch because they are hid from mans eyes, the Church leaving the judgement of certainty and verity onely to God, passeth her sentence which is the judgement of charity, by the outward and apparant acts which are open unto them: whomsoever shee seeth not, nor findes by certaine and evident proofe to have manifested the detestation and revocation of their hereticall 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 condemne, accurse, and anathematize, as by her sentence against Theodorus of Mopsvestia, dead an hundred yeares before, is most evident, whose condemnation and anathema pronounced by the fift Councell, is ap∣proved by all succeeding generall Councels, by all Catholikes, and even by the whole Catholike Church. Not will I here dispute whe∣ther such a sentence doth not sometimes passe, errante clave, the party having repented, whom they not having proofe of his repentance, thought to dye impenitent; but howsoever that fall out, none may justly complaine of the Churches judgement as unjust or unequall herein; for besides that it is presumed, that those who so notoriously and publikely by their hereticall writings doe scandalize the Church and people of God, if they had seriously repented would have expres∣sed some publike 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 learne; 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 learne to be so lowly and humble in heart, as to revoke their impie∣ties and blasphemies, although to some blemish and disgrace of them∣selves, yet to the great honour of Gods truth, and the satisfaction and edification of the holy Church, which they had scandalized. If in am∣bition they will first oppugne the truth, and then in a worse pride of heart, not be reclamed to the truth, nor shew their love unto it, why should not the Church by her most charitable judgement shew her open detestation of their persons, who in the insolency of their hearts will not shew any open detestation of their heresies? That Vigilius writ a papall Constitution in defence of heresie, it is apparent and un∣denyable: that he at any time revoked that writing, I wish it were, but it is not yet evident. The like may be sayd of Baronius, of Pighius, of

Eccius, of the Laterane, Florentine, and Trent conspirators, of all who have whet their tongues against other truth, and specially to uphold that fundamentall heresie of the Popes infallibility. Their writings for heresie are evident, that they ever reclamed those writings, it is in∣evident: and if ever they and their cause come to bee tryed, in such a free, lawfull, and oecumenicall Councell as was this fift under Iustini∣an, they may justly feare, and certainly expect from the Church, (un∣lesse the disclaming of their writings may by certaine proofe be made knowne) the very like sentence, though a hundred yeares after theirs, as passed upon Theodorus of Mopsvestia an hundred yeares after his death. And because the houre-glasse for repentance in runne out to the former, all that we can doe, is (which I seriously now doe from my heart) to cry amaine unto others, to admonish, exhort, yea even pray and entreat them by the mercies of God, and by the love of their owne soules, first that they keepe their tongues and pennes from once uttering any heresie; 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 disclame than they have ever pro∣clamed their impious and hereticall doctrines.

53. You have now some view both of the life and death of Vigilius. The exact pourtraiture of the Popes lives, Baronius had beene able to set forth if he had listed; but he addeth such fucos, and so many sophi∣sticall colours, that indeed scarce you shall see any one of them in his Annals set out in his native and naturall habit. If ought be amisse in this our description, and not set forth according to the lively linea∣ments of Vigilius and his impieties, the equall reader will not too ri∣gorously censure the same. I acknowledge that I can but dolare in this kinde; to polish and set forth the lively image of their Popes, I have not learned: That is an Art which may not bee too vulgar, lest their Romane policies be too farre divulged. But by this it is easie 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 owne hereticall minde, but the ayre of Constantinople had wrought such effects, as to produce that hereti∣call, and yet as they count it, Apostolicall Constitution in defence of the Three Chapters.

FINIS.

Laus Deo sine fine.

Notes

• a 1.1

  Camp. Ra••. 4.
• b 1.2

  Act. 8, 9, 10.
• c 1.3

  Nestorij sequaces propriam impieta•••• applicare valentes sanctae Dei Ecclesiae, & non potentes hoc per Nestoriū facere, festinaverunt 〈◊〉〈◊〉 introducer per The∣odorum Mopsvesi••∣num, necnon per im∣pia scripta Theodo∣re••i, & per sce••era∣tam. Epistolam quae dicitur 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ad M••∣r••n. Iust. Ep. ad Syn. 5. Col. 1. pa. 51••. b. L••ë habet ••oncilium ipsum in sua senten∣tia definitiva. Col. 8. pa. 584. & L••b. c. 10
• d 1.4

  Theod••ri et Ne∣storij sequa••es conan tur di••e••e susceptam esse eam (Epistolam Iba) à 5. Chalcedo∣nensi Conc. nomine ejus Theodorum & Nestorium condem∣natione liberare se∣stinantes. Iust. Edict § Tali. Et iterum Epist. Iust. ad Synod. Col. 1. pa 519 b. Et Diceb••nt istam im∣piam Epistolam quae laudat et defendit Theodorum et Ne∣storium et eorum impietatem suscep∣tam esse à Synodo Chalc. Conc. 5. Col. 8 pa. 585. b.
• e 1.5

  Lib de sect. act. 6.
• f 1.6

  Illi (Acephali) hoc offenduntur in Syn. Ch••lced quod laudes suscepit Theodor•• Mops••est. Epistolam que Ibae, quae per om∣nia Nestoriana esse cognoscitur. lib. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ca. 24.
• g 1.7

  Sacerdotes sane∣tarum D••i Ecclesia∣rum ab Oriente as•• ad Occidentem di∣visi, Iust. Epist. ad Synod. pa 519. b.
• h 1.8

  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. Bin not. in 5. Conc. § Concitium.
• i 1.9

  Initium et funda∣mentum nostri imperij fecimus, conjungere divisos Sacerdotes. Epist. ad Synod Col. 1.
• k 1.10

  Extat apud Bin∣tom. 2. Conc. pa. 492.
• l 1.11

  Si quis desendit Theodorum, &c. a∣nathema sit. Edict. pa. ••••6.
• a 1.12

  Coll. 2. pa. 524. a.
• b 1.13

  Col. 1. pa. 521. b. & Coll. 8. pa. 584. b.
• c 1.14

  Coll. 2. pa. 524. a.
• d 1.15

  Epist. Iustin. ad Conc. Coll. 1. pa. 520. a.
• e 1.16

  Lib 1. de Conc. ca. 5. § Coacta.
• f 1.17

  Lib. cod. 19. § Aude.
• g 1.18

  Notis in Conc. gen. 5. § Praesedit.
• h 1.19

  Anno 553. nu. 29
• i 1.20

  Ibid. nu. 31.
• k 1.21

  Epist. Euty, hij ad Vigilium lecta Coll. 1. ideo{que} missa ante incho••tum Synodū.
• l 1.22

  Et primo die in∣stantis Maij perve∣nimus ad Vigilium:—Diximus, Pijs∣simus Dominus vult te unà cum alijs cō∣ven••e: proposuc∣runt jussionem pijs∣simi Imperatoris. Coll. 2. p••. 523. b. 524. a. Concilium vero caepit 4. die May. Coll. 1.
• m 1.23

  Missi sunt qui cum vocarent Epi∣scopi numero vigin∣ti, ijdem{que} Metropo∣litani. Bar. an. 553. nu. 35.
• n 1.24

  Coll. 1. & 2. nam in utra{que} missi sunt.
• o 1.25

  Coll. 1. pa. 521. a.
• p 1.26

  Coll. 2. pa. 523. b.
• q 1.27

  Coll. 8. pa. 584. a
• r 1.28

  Coll. 1 in fine.
• * 1.29

  Postero die polli∣citus est manifesta∣re, quod ei de tali conventu placuerit. Coll. 1.
• t 1.30

  Ille respondit non posse nobiscum con∣venire, eo quod plu∣rimi quidē hîc sunt Orientales Episcopi, pauci vero cum eo. Coll. 2. pa. 523. a.
• v 1.31

  Dicebat facere se per semetipsum in scriptis, & offerre Imperatori, ideo e∣nim & inducias se postulasse ab ejus se∣renitate. Ibid.
• x 1.32

  Eam suae absentiae causam praetexuisse. an. 553. nu. 36.
• y 1.33

  Nec in sanctis 4. Synodis multitudo Occidentalium Epi∣scoporum inventa est unquam, sed duo vel tres Episco••i. Col. 2. pa. 523. b.
• z 1.34

  Nunc vtro 〈◊〉〈◊〉 multi ex 〈◊〉〈◊〉 E∣piscopi, sunt etiam ex Africa, & ex Il∣lyrico, Ibid.
• a 1.35

  Ibid. Col. 2.
• a 1.36

  Deo juvante, fu∣turo die convenien∣tes, quae oportet a∣gemus. Col. 2. in fine
• b 1.37

  Celeriter de bi•• quae interrogavimus vestram manifestata voluntatem. Iust. ••p. ad Synod. Col. 1. pa. 520. b.
• c 1.38

  Ob tria capitulae fideles fueru•• scissi atque schismate se∣parati. Bar. an. 547. nu. 29.
• d 1.39

  Nec enim justum est vel Imperatorem vel fidelē populum ex dilatione scanda∣lizari. Co. 2. p. 533. b
• e 1.40

  Alioqui si expe∣ctatus non mitteret, vel non veniret, vel nollet, Concilium congregatum suae necessitati, & Eccle∣siae saluti providera debet. lib. 2. de Conc. ord. Cath. cap. 2.
• f 1.41

  Rogavimus domi∣nos Episcopos de Ro∣ma, ut communica∣rent ijs gestis. Conc. Chalc. act. 16. pa. 134. a.
• g 1.42

  Ibid.
• h 1.43

  Viri illustrissimi Iudices dixerunt, quod interlocuti su∣mus tota Synodus approbavit. Ibid. pa. 137. b.
• i 1.44

  Ibid. pa. 140. a.
• * 1.45

  Cum nos per om∣nia, quod decet, & servavimus & ser∣vamus, & saepius petivimus Vigilium. Col. 2. pa. 524. a.
• l 1.46

  Pa. eadem. b.
• m 1.47

  1 Pet. 3.15.
• n 1.48

  Incongruum autē Sacerdotibus esse putantes protrabera dandum à nobis re∣sponsum Christianis∣simo Imperatori pa. cadem.
• o 1.49

  Vigilij libellus ob∣latus Synodo. Bar. an. 553. nu. 47.
• p 1.50

  Ibid.
• q 1.51

  An. ••od. nu. 48
• r 1.52

  Ibid.
• s 1.53

  Anno eod. nu. 41.
• t 1.54

  Constitutum ••oc ex actis 5. Synod•• nescitur esse subla∣tum. an. eod. nu. 47.
• v 1.55

  Cum ad hunc ip∣sam annum et diem Collationis 5. perti∣nere cognos••itu••. Ibid. nu. 48.
• x 1.56

  An. 553 nu. 210.
• y 1.57

  Quae praesenti sta∣tuimus Constituto. Vig. Const. ••pud Bar an. 553. nu. 208.
• z 1.58

  Statuimus et de∣cernimus. ibid.
• a 1.59

  Post praesentem definitionem. ibid.
• b 1.60

  Vigilius Episco∣pus huic Constituto nostro subscripsi. ib. nu. 209.
• c 1.61

  Iohannes Marso∣num huic Constituto subscripsi, & alij si∣militer. ibid.
• d 1.62

  Ann. 553. nu. 47.
• e 1.63

  Viglij Papae Con∣stitutum. Bin. in ••ragm. 5. Conc. pa. 591.
• f 1.64

  Hunc ipsum esse sci••••, quem de sua sententia interpella∣tim, pollicitus est se missinum ad Impe∣ratorem. Bar. anu. 553. nu. 47.
• g 1.65

  Const. Vigil. n•• 58.
• h 1.66

  Ann. 553. nu. 28.
• i 1.67

  Apud Bar. nu. 553 a nu. 50. ad 210.
• k 1.68

  Bar. an. 553. nu. 47
• l 1.69

  Lib. 4. de Po••••. Rom. ca 3. § Sit.
• m 1.70

  Vide subscriptio∣nes loc. c••. nu. 209.
• n 1.71

  O cidentales per∣stabant in sententia quá semper fuerant pro trium defensiene capitulorum. an. 547. nu. 39.
• o 1.72

  Vigilij Const. a∣pud Bar. loc. cit. nu. 209.
• p 1.73

  In Sess. 1. Conc. Trid. Archiepiscopi & Episcopi non plu∣res quam 26. ut ex actis liquet.
• q 1.74

  Bar. an. 553. nu. 48.
• r 1.75

  Ibidem.
• s 1.76

  To. 2. pa. 591.
• t 1.77

  An. 553. nu. 218.
• v 1.78

  Ibid. nu. 218.
• x 1.79

  Ibid. nu. 272.
• y 1.80

  Vigilij Const. a∣pud Bar▪ an. 553. nu. 179.
• z 1.81

  Ibid. nu. 176.
• a 1.82

  Ibid. nu. 179.
• b 1.83

  Ibid. nu. 181.
• c 1.84

  Nu. 180.
• d 1.85

  Nu. 182.
• e 1.86

  Ann. 553▪ nu. 191
• f 1.87

  Ibid. nu. 196.
• g 1.88

  An. 448. nu. 71.
• h 1.89

  Const. Vigil. loco citato nu. 187.
• i 1.90

  Ibid. nu. 189.
• k 1.91

  Ibid. nu. 19••.
• l 1.92

  Ibid. nu. 19••.
• m 1.93

  Ibid. nu. 196.
• n 1.94

  Ibid. nu. 208.
• o 1.95

  Dubius in fide in∣fidelis est. lib. 5. Dec. tit. 7. debaretitis.
• a 1.96

  Col. 6. pa. 561. a.
• b 1.97

  Col. 6. pa. 576. b.
• c 1.98

  Sancta Synodus dixit, Scimus et nos haec ita consequuta esse. Col. 6. p. 564. a.
• d 1.99

  Col. 6. pa. 563. b.
• c 1.100

  Coll. 6. p. 576. a.
• d 1.101

  An. 553. nu. ••12.
• e 1.102

  Definitio Synod. Col. 8. pa. 586. a. Desensores Nestorij & ejus impietatis. Ibid. pa. 585. b. Theodori discipuli. Ibid. & saepe alibi.
• f 1.103

  Theodori & Ne∣storij sequaces. pa. 497. ••.
• g 1.104

  Nestorij sequaces. pa. 519. b.
• h 1.105

  Theodori & Ne∣storij defensores di∣cebant, &c. Col. 8. pa. 585. b. Et praesu∣munt dicere. Col. 6. pa. 561. a. & Col. 8. pa. 586. a.
• i 1.106

  Const. Vig. apud Bar. an. 553. nu. ••••
• k 1.107

  Col. 8. pa. 586. a.
• l 1.108

  An. 553. nu. 2••2.
• n 1.109

  Col. 6. pa. 575. & seq.
• o 1.110

  Prim••m Ephesi∣nam Synodum re∣probat haec Epistola. Col. ••. pa. 563. a.••
• p 1.111

  Pa. 536. a.
• q 1.112

  Col. 6. pa. 5••6. a.
• r 1.113

  Ann. 553. nu. 191.
• s 1.114

  Ibid. nu. 192.
• t 1.115

  Ibid. nu. 197.
• v 1.116

  Ibid. nu. 213.
• x 1.117

  Ibid.
• y 1.118

  Haec omnes dici∣mus, &c. Col. 6. pa. 576. b.
• z 1.119

  Qui dicunt cam rectam esse vel par∣tem ejus. Col. 8. pa. 587. b.
• a 1.120

  Col. 6. pa. 576. a.
• b 1.121

  Col. 8. pa. 5.
• c 1.122

  Col. 6. pa. 564. a.
• d 1.123

  Ibid.
• e 1.124

  〈1 paragraph〉〈1 paragraph〉
• f 1.125

  〈1 paragraph〉〈1 paragraph〉
• g 1.126

  Ib••••.
• h 1.127

  〈1 paragraph〉〈1 paragraph〉
• i 1.128

  Con. 5. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 6. ••a. 〈…〉〈…〉.
• k 1.129

  Act. 9. & 10.
• l 1.130

  Col. 6. pa. 564. a.
• m 1.131

  Ibid. pa. 563. & seq.
• n 1.132

  Apud Conc. Chal. act. 9. pa. 108. a.
• o 1.133

  Praeparavimus I. bim, quod & ample∣xus est, ex scripto dare quid sentit de pia side nostra. ibid. 107.b.
• p 1.134

  Ex abundanti a••∣tē promisit, &c. ib.
• q 1.135

  Ostenditur inde quod anathemati∣zavit Epistolam &c Col. 6. pa. 56••.a.
• r 1.136

  Act. 10. Concil. Chal. pa. 115 b.
• s 1.137

  Ibid.
• t 1.138

  Quae jam acta sunt, relegantur: & relecta sunt. Col. 7. pa. 577. b.
• v 1.139

  Au. 553. nu. 219.
• x 1.140

  Qui hanc (Epi∣stolam) non anathe∣matizat, haereticus est. Col 6. pa. 576. b.
• y 1.141

  Haerelicorum con∣demnationem. Col. 8 pa. 586. b.
• z 1.142

  Ibid. pa. 586. a,
• a 1.143

  An. 546. nu. 40.
• b 1.144

  An. 553. nu. 233.
• c 1.145

  Col. 8. pa. 587. b.
• d 1.146

  Conterbl. divis. 68. pa. 171.
• e 1.147

  Col. 8.
• g 1.148

  Const. loc. cit. nu. 192.
• h 1.149

  An. 553. nu. 191.
• i 1.150

  Vt nomo Catholi∣cus esse possit, qui illā non amplectatur Greg. de Val. in 2.2 disp. 1. par. 1. pa. 30
• k 1.151

  Nos timentes ma∣ledictionem, qua im∣minet his qui negli∣genter opera Domini faci••••t, Col. 8. pa. 584. a.
• l 1.152

  Ier. 48.10
• m 1.153

  1 King. 20.42.
• n 1.154

  Col. 8. saepe.
• o 1.155

  Apoc. 18.2.3.4.
• p 1.156

  Iohannes in Apo∣calypsi passim Romā vocat Babylonem. Bell. lib. 2. de po••t. Rom. cap. 2. § Prae∣terea.

  Babylon quae casura praedicitur, Roma quidem est. Riber. in ca. 14. ••n. Apoc. pa. 377. Et, Roma qua∣lis in fine saeculs fu∣tura est. lb. pa. 378. Iohannes loquitur de Roma qualu sub finē 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. de vis••b. Mo¦nar. ca. 48.
• q 1.157

  Isa. 55.7.
• r 1.158

  Matth. 18.18.
• s 1.159

  Col. 8. pa. 588. a.
• t 1.160

  Act. 15. pa. 80. a.
• v 1.161

  Act. 6. pa. 357. a.
• x 1.162

  An. 553. nu. 229
• y 1.163

  Epist. 7. Pelag. 2:
• z 1.164

  Pa. 687.
• a 1.165

  Lib. 1. Epist. 14.
• b 1.166

  In Conc. 6. Act. 4. pa. 16. a.
• c 1.167

  Epist. ad Constan. Imp.
• d 1.168

  Bar. an. 869. nu. 58, 59.
• e 1.169

  In manuscripto codice ex quo eum citat Bar. loco citato
• f 1.170

  Ses. 39. pa. 1644.
• g 1.171

  Ses. 4. pa. 1560.
• h 1.172

  An. ••53. nu. 229
• i 1.173

  An. ••69. nu. 58.
• k 1.174

  Cum quo totus or∣bis commercio for∣matarum, concordat. Opt. lib. 2. p. 40. Quaerebam utrum epistolas communi∣catorias quas For∣matas dicimus, pos∣sent quo vellent da∣re. Aug. Epist. 163. Sub probatione Epi∣stoly, sine Pacificis, quae dicuntur Eccle∣siastica. Conc. Chalc. can. 11.
• l 1.175

  Celebratum est an. 1414.
• m 1.176

  Conc. Basil. fini∣tum est an. 1442 id est, an. 74. ante con∣cil. Later.
• n 1.177

  Concil. Basil. in Dereto quinq. con∣clus. pa. 96. a.
• o 1.178

  Cui quilibet eti∣amis papalis status existat, obedire tene∣tur. Conc. Constant; sess. 4. & Bas. sess. 2.
• p 1.179

  Debite puniatur. Conc. Const. sess. 5. es Basil. sess. 3.
• q 1.180

  Ses••. 33.
• r 1.181

  Per Concilia gene∣ralia, quae summi Pontifices. Consisto∣rialiter declarave∣runt esse legitima, ••tiam pro eo tempo∣re, quo ejusmodi de∣clarationes edide∣runt. Conc. Basil. pa. 144. a.
• s 1.182

  Epist. Conc. Basil. pa. 100. b.
• t 1.183

  Literae bullatae Eugenij lectae sunt in Conc. Bas. Ses. 16.
• v 1.184

  In sua adhaesione. sess. 16.
• x 1.185

  Decreto quinque Concl. pa. 96. b.
• y 1.186

  Sess. 29. pa. 96. b.
• z 1.187

  Iurabant ejus de∣creta defendere, &c. Sess. 16.
• a 1.188

  Haec veritas to∣ties et tam solenni∣ter per universam ecclesiam declarata est. Epist. Conc. Bas. pa. 144. a.
• b 1.189

  In decreto quin{que} conclus. pa. 96.
• c 1.190

  Hildebrandum si•• gloriari solitum te∣statur Avent. lib. 5. Annal. pa. 455.
• d 1.191

  Poss. Biblic. in Nic. Cusano.
• e 1.192

  Obut ann. 1464. Poss. Conc. autem fi∣nitum est. an. 1442.
• f 1.193

  Lib. 2. de Concor. Cathol••ca. 17.
• g 1.194

  Claruit an. 1460. Tritem. de Scrip. eccl. in Ioh. de Tur.
• h 1.195

  Poss. in. Ioh. Tur.
• i 1.196

  Lib. de author. ge∣ner. Concil. pa, 88.
• k 1.197

  Turr. summ. de eccl. lib. 2. cap. 93.
• l 1.198

  Tunc Synodus ma∣jor est Papa, nō qui∣dem potestate juris∣diction••, sed autho∣rita e discretivi ju∣dicij. Turrec.
• m 1.199

  Rel. lib. 3. de ver. Dei. ca. 9. § Praeter∣ea. Et lib. 2. de cōcil. ca. 18.
• n 1.200

  Poss. in Nich. Tu∣disc.
• o 1.201

  cap. Significasti. de Elect. extrav.
• p 1.202

  Po••••. loco. citat.
• q 1.203

  Obijt an. 1467. Tritem. in Ant. Ros.
• r 1.204

  Monarch. part. 2. ca. 15.
• s 1.205

  Li. ced. par. 3 c. 21
• t 1.206

  Orthuin. Gra. in fasc. rer. expet. pa. 240.
• * 1.207

  Ortel. Synon.
• x 1.208

  Ioh. Marius lib. deschis. & conc. ca. 23.
• y 1.209

  Ibid.
• z 1.210

  Gag. annal. Fran. Lib. 10.
• a 1.211

  Abipsius Sancti∣onis editione vix an∣nos 70 fluxisse, Cōc. Later. Sess. ••1. pa. 639. b. Loquitur autem de secunda e∣jus edit. nam antea promulgata erat an. 1438. teste Gag. & Mario.
• b 1.212

  Lib. 10.
• c 1.213

  In sua App••l. à Leon. 10. ad Concil.
• d 1.214

  Io. Mat. lib. citat. ca. 14.
• e 1.215

  Homo versutus, plane{que} perversus. ib.
• f 1.216

  Conc. Later. s••s. 1••.
• g 1.217

  Leo 10. in quo∣dam caetu, nescimus qualiter, tamen non in Spirita Domini congregato. App. Vniv. Paris.
• h 1.218

  Quae de authori∣tate Concilij supra Pontificem constitu∣erunt sententia Cōc. Lateranensis plane reprobata sunt. Bin. Not. in Conc. Const. § Exparte.
• i 1.219

  Reprobarunt decre••tum Concilij Basili∣ensis. Rel. lib. ••. de Conc. ca. 17. § Deni∣que.
• k 1.220

  Conc. Lat. sess. 11▪
• l 1.221

  Ibid.
• m 1.222

  Hujus sanctae se∣dis suprema autho∣ritate. Ibid. pa. 640.
• n 1.223

  Ibid.
• o 1.224

  Ibid. pa. 639.
• p 1.225

  Lib. 2. de Concil. ca. 17. § Denique
• q 1.226

  Lib. cod. ca. 13. § Deinde.
• r 1.227

  Lib. cod. ca. 17. § Ad hunc.
• s 1.228

  Proinde ultimum judicium summi pō∣tificis esse. lib. 4. de Rom. pontif. ca. 1. § Sed nec.
• t 1.229

  Restat igitur ut Papa sit Iudex (ul∣timus) et proinde nō possit errare. Lib. 4. de Pont. Rom. ca. 3. § Contra. Et Dicūt Concilij sententiam esse ultimū judicium Hinc autem apertis∣simè sequitur, non errare. Lib. 2. de Conc. ca. 3. § Acce∣dat.
• v 1.230

  In Ap••el. à L••on. 10. quae facta est 21 die Mart. an. 1517. Decret. Later. fact. 19 Decemb. 1517.
• x 1.231

  A Relation of Religion in the West parts, publi∣shed an. 1605. pa. 129.
• y 1.232

  Gentil. Exam. Cōc. Trid. Sess. 13. & Car. Mol. dec. Conc. Trid. decret. pa. 3.
• z 1.233

  Alpheum fama est ••uc Elidis amnem, O••cultas e••isse via•• subter m••re Virg. lib. 3. Aeneid.
• a 1.234

  Tot anni intersunt à Conc. Nic. 2. quod habitum est an. 787. ad annum quo Lu∣therus se primum opposuit Indulg•• ijs papalibus & pontifi∣ci, qui fui•• an. 1517 Cocl. in vita Luther.
• b 1.235

  Brevi occu••avit (Lutheri haeresis) multa regna. Bel. ••. 3. de pontif. ca. 23. § Similitudo. Et, Romana sedes amisit nostris temporibus magna•• Germaniae partem, Suctiam, Go∣thiam, Norvegiam, Daniam universam, bonam Angliae, Gal∣liae, Helvetia, Polo∣niae, Bohemiae, ac Pannoniae partem, lib. ••od. ca. 21. § Ac postea.
• a 1.236

  An. 547. nu. 30 & nu. 225.
• b 1.237

  Ibid. nu. 46.
• c 1.238

  Ibid. nu 231.
• d 1.239

  Not. in Conc. •••• §. Nequis.
• e 1.240

  Epist. ad. Synod. Coll. 1. pa. 520. a.
• f 1.241

  Ibid. ••.
• h 1.242

  Coll. 8. pag. 584. a.
• m 1.243

  Ibid. pa. 586. b.
• n 1.244

  Ibid. pa. 588. a.
• o 1.245

  Apud Bar. an. 553. nu. 106.197.••08. & alibi.
• p 1.246

  In Chron. an. 2. post Consul. Basilij.
• q 1.247

  Iudicio Synodi ap∣probata, & ortho∣doxa judicata est. ibid.
• r 1.248

  In suo Chron. an. 10. post Consul. Basilij.
• s 1.249

  Lib 4. pro defens. trium Capit apud Bar. an. 546. nu. 57.
• t 1.250

  Ibid. nu. 58.
• u 1.251

  Vniversus sere or∣bis occidentalis ab orientali Ecclesia divisus erat. ••in. not in S. Conc. §. Concilium.
• x 1.252

  Epist. 7. § Pen∣sate.
• y 1.253

  Ibid. § Sed cur.
• z 1.254

  Lib. 2. Iud. 10. Epist. 36.
• a 1.255

  Cap. ••.
• b 1.256

  Lib. 2. de Conc. ca. 12. § Quartū.
• c 1.257

  Coll. 8. pa. 588. a.
• d 1.258

  Coll. 6.pa. 576. b.
• e 1.259

  Coll. 8. pa.
• f 1.260

  Coll. 4. pa 537. a. & Coll. 8. pa. 586. et 587.
• g 1.261

  Coll. 8. pa. 587. b.
• h 1.262

  Coll. 6. pa. 576. b.
• i 1.263

  Coll. 8. pa 587. b.
• k 1.264

  Ob easdem haere∣ses decrevit eos esse alienos à diaconorū honorc. Lib. 7. de visib. Monarch. an. 537.
• l 1.265

  An. 546. nu. 41.
• m 1.266

  An. eodē. nu. 43.
• n 1.267

  Ibid. nu. 50.
• o 1.268

  An. 547. nu. 50.
• p 1.269

  An. 547 nu. 30. & an. 553. nu. 231.
• q 1.270

  Lib. 3. Epist. 37.
• r 1.271

  Lib. 1. Epist. 24.
• s 1.272

  Ca. 4. nu. 27.
• t 1.273

  Exeuntes maligni homines turbave∣runt animos vestros. Lib. 2. Epist. 10.
• u 1.274

  Lib. 3. Epist. 3.
• x 1.275

  Lib. 2. Ind. 10. Epist. 36.
• y 1.276

  Lib. 7. Epist. 54.
• z 1.277

  Lib. 2. Ind. 11. Epist. 10.
• a 1.278

  Act. 9. & 10.
• b 1.279

  Socr. lib. 2. ca. 16. Ex pluribus quam 35 provin••i••s col∣lecta. Athan. Epist. ad solit. vitam agent. pa. 225.
• c 1.280

  Ab universali Sardicensi Synodo. Iust. Edict. § Quod autem.
• d 1.281

  Bin. Not. in Conc. Sard. § Cum igitur. & Bell. lib. 2. de Rom. Pont. chap. 25 § Tertia.
• e 1.282

  Loc•• citat.
• f 1.283

  Can. 6. & 7.
• g 1.284

  Act. 15. pa. 8••. Sāctas & universa∣les quin{que} Synodos, & super••as & quin••ae Synodi.
• h 1.285

  Can. 1.
• a 1.286

  Const. Vigil. ap. Bar. an. 553. nu. 179.
• b 1.287

  Leon. lib. de set. Act. 4.
• c 1.288

  Viva quidem ipsis cur nomo contra∣dixerat, factum ideo, &c. Ibid.
• d 1.289

  Cyril. epist. ad. Procl. in Conc. 5. Coll. 5. pa. 550, 551.
• e 1.290

  Conc. 5. Coll. 5. pa. 552. & seq. in act. Synod. Mopso.
• f 1.291

  2 Thess. 2.10, 11.
• g 1.292

  Perspeximus si quid de his praede∣cessores nostri de∣creverint. Vig. Const. loc. citat. nu. 176.

  Hujus causae for∣mam veneranda praedecessorum no∣strorum constituta, nobis apertissime tradiderunt. Ibid. Idem regularia A∣postolicae sedis defi∣niunt constituta. Ibid. nu. 179.
• h 1.293

  Ibid. nu. 177.
• i 1.294

  Licet cognoscere∣mus Ecclesiasticam de impiis traditio∣nem. Coll. 8. pa. 585. a.
• k 1.295

  Camp. R••t. 3.
• l 1.296

  Epist. ad Bonif. quae citatur Conc. 5. Coll. 5.pa. 548. b.
• m 1.297

  Aug. lib. 3. Cont. Cresc. ca. 35.
• n 1.298

  Pelag. 2. Epist. 7 § In bis autem.
• o 1.299

  Cyr. lib. cont. Theod. cit. à Conc. 5. Collat. 8. pa. 585. a▪
• p 1.300

  Citatur in Conc. 5. Coll 5. pa. 548 a.
• q 1.301

  Iust. Edict. § In∣venimus.
• r 1.302

  Conc. 5. Coll. 5. pa. 549. a.
• s 1.303

  Coll. 8. pa. 585. b.
• t 1.304

  Bar. an. 435. nu. 4
• u 1.305

  Petimus quatenus fiat unitas vestra contra Theodorum, & sacrilega Dog∣mata ejus. In Li∣bell. Presbyt. Arme. ad Procl. in Conc. 5. Coll. 5. pa 542. b.
• x 1.306

  Act. 12.13, 18.
• y 1.307

  Act. 7. in Epistola 2. Synod. & Can. 1.
• z 1.308

  Honorius post mortem ab Orientis Episcopis anathe∣mate est affectus. Conc. 8. Act. 7. pa. 891. b.
• a 1.309

  Edict. Iustin. § Quod autem. & Conc. 5. Coll. 6. pa. 575. b.
• b 1.310

  Pelag. 2. Epist. § In bis.
• c 1.311

  Sancta Dei Eccle∣sia & post mortem Macedonium ana∣thematizavit. Iust. Edict. § Quod
• d 1.312

  Ibidem.
• e 1.313

  Conc. 5. Coll. 5. pa. 549. a.
• f 1.314

  Bar. an. 553. na. 185.
• g 1.315

  Ejusmo••i homin•• jure d••minare post mortem sanct•• consu••vit E••••les••a. Bar. ibid.
• h 1.316

  Bar. an. 553. nu. 185.
• i 1.317

  Bar. an. 553. nu. 233.
• k 1.318

  Matth 18, 18.
• l 1.319

  Act. concili ab. Ephes. citata in ac∣tis Conc. Chalc. Act. 1. pa. 57. b.
• m 1.320

  Caesus Flavianus dolore plagarum migravit ad Do∣minum. lib ca. 12.
• n 1.321

  Quae (Synodus Chalc.) Flaviano palmam mortis tri∣buit gloriosae. Edict. Valen. & Mart. in Chalced. Conc. Act. 4. pa. 86. a. & Flavianus in∣juste quidem in vi∣ta condemnatus, juste post mortem revocatus est a B. Leone et sancta Sy∣nodo Chalcedonensi. Iust. edict. §. Inve∣nimus.
• o 1.322

  Hist. combustio∣nis Buceri et Fagij et restitutionis eo∣rum.
• p 1.323

  Si non oporteret anathem atizari post mortem eos qui in sua impietate mortui sunt, oporte∣bat nec eos qui in∣juste condemnati sunt patres post mortem revocari. Iust. edict. prope finem.
• q 1.324

  Impositis eorum cadaveribus eidem rogo, flammam se divisisse traditur, vid. Stat. in Theb.
• r 1.325

  Idem regulariter Apostolicae sedis de∣finiunt constituta. Vigil. loc. citar. nu. 179.
• s 1.326

  Praemisissis di∣centes, doctrina vestrae reverendae sedis est, per B. Leo∣nem successores{que} ejus, mortuum ab hominibus damna∣ri nullatenus opor∣tere. Pelag. 2. Epist. 7. § In his.
• t 1.327

  Quis nescit quod ejusdem Leonis & B. Augustini prae∣dicatio contradicat. ibid
• u 1.328

  Leo Epist. 91.
• x 1.329

  Gelas. Epist. 11.
• y 1.330

  Gelas. Epist. 4.
• z 1.331

  Epist. Synodalis Gelasij, & Synod. Rom. 2. p. 268. b.
• a 1.332

  Nos etiam mor∣tuis veniam prastare deposcunt. ibid.
• a 1.333

  Vigil. Const. apud Bar. an. 553. nu. 179.
• b 1.334

  Ibid. nu. 184.
• c 1.335

  Sup. ca. 6.
• d 1.336

  Perspeximus si quid de h•• qui de∣functi sunc, & mi∣nime reperiuntur in vita damna••i. Vig∣loc. cit. nu. 176. Quos vocat, In pa∣ce Ecclesiae defun∣ctos. Ibid. nu. 179. & 184.
• * 1.337

  Iust. Edict. § Quod antem.
• f 1.338

  Iust. ibid.
• g 1.339

  Bin. Notis in Conc. 5. verbo Theo∣dorus.
• h 1.340

  Conc. 5. Coll. 5. pa. 552. a..
• i 1.341

  Accesserunt dig∣nae causae ac ratio∣nes. Bar. an. 553. nu. 233.
• k 1.342

  In sine vitae re∣conciliatio pelenti∣bus et poenitentibus non est neganda, dum tamen, si haere∣tici sint, recipian∣tur cum scriptura & juramento. Gloss in dist. ••. de poenit, ca. Multiple••.
• l 1.343

  Satis est ut Eccle∣siae judicio loco as••et aliquem decessisse impoenitentem, si non constet de illius poe∣nitentia, qui haereti∣cus post mortem cō∣victus est. Fran. Torrens. lib. de 6.7, & 8. Synod. pa. 13. & ejusdem sententiae 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Pigh. fuisse.
• m 1.344

  Aug. lib. 2. de bapt. ca. 4.
• n 1.345

  Ibid.
• o 1.346

  Aug. lib. eod. c. 1.
• p 1.347

  Quod haeresis esse sine pertinacia ne∣quest, non est di••f∣cile oslendere cōmu∣ni omnium Theolo∣gorum sementia, &c. Canus lib. 12. Loc. Theol. ca. 9. § Quod.
• q 1.348

  Sancta Ecclesia aliquandiu de ea re supersedit, judici∣um{que} suspendit. Bar. notis in Martyr. in Febr. 22. voce Papiae.
• r 1.349

  Hier. in cap. 19. Ieremiae.
• s 1.350

  Hieronimi tempe∣re nihil adhuc ab Ecclesia ac ea re fuit definitum. Bar. notis in Martyr, loc. cit.
• t 1.351

  Quae opinio esset utcun{que} to••••rabili••, si, &c. Aug lib. 20. de Civit. Dei. ca 7.
• u 1.352

  Bar. an. 118. nu. 2. et au. 373. nu. 14
• x 1.353

  Statuimus nulli licere quicquam contrarium bis con∣scribere, vel proser∣re. Vig. Const. in sine
• y 1.354

  Bell. lib. 4. de Pōt. ca. 3. et Gretz. des. ca. 2. lib. 1. de Pont. pa. 652. et alij.
• z 1.355

  Cyprianus ita dixit, qui••ci vide∣retur, ut in pace unitatis esse voluc∣rit. etiam cum eis qui de hac re diver∣••a sentirent. Aug. lib. 2. de baptis. ca. 1
• a 1.356

  Lib. 1. de baptis. ca. 18.
• b 1.357

  Charitate prae∣senti quaedam (veri∣tates) venialiter non habentur. Aug. ibid.
• c 1.358

  Nemo potest sab∣esse Christo, & com∣municar•• 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Eccle∣sia, 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 u∣nitatem essentialem at{que}, Ecclesia ipsam. Scinsinaticus igitur non est de Ecclesia. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. & 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ha∣bent alij.
• d 1.359

  Natalis beati 〈◊〉〈◊〉. Martyr. Rom. Feb. 2••.
• e 1.360

  Passio Irene: Epis∣copi & Martyris. Mart. in martij 24 & Menal. Graec. in Aug. 23.
• f 1.361

  Vig. Const. loc. cit. nu. 178.
• g 1.362

  Prateolum Ne∣potem 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.
• h 1.363

  Mittimus Tertul∣lianum & Nepotem extra classem haere∣ticorum vagantes. Bar. Not. in Mar∣tyr. Feb. 22.
• i 1.364

  Iustin. in Edicto § Quod autem.
• k 1.365

  Apud Euseb. lib. 7. Eccl. hist. ca. 19.
• l 1.366

  Vigilius.
• m 1.367

  Christopher. in sua translatione.
• n 1.368

  Apoc. 14.13.
• o 1.369

  Bar. an. 553. nu. 491
• p 1.370

  Hoc symbolum Satanas composuit, Conc. 5. ita ait de symbolo Theodori. Collat. 4. pa. 537. a.
• b 1.371

  ibid. nu. 179.
• a 1.372

  Vig. Const. nu. 173.
• c 1.373

  Ipsam Synodum Ephesinam solicite recensentes, nihil de Theodori persona, referre coperimus. ibid. nu. 173.
• d 1.374

  Sed ne{que} in sancto Chalcedonensi con∣cilio aliquid de Theodori nomine invenimus statutū. ibid. nu. 175.
• e 1.375

  Ex quo claret be∣atum Cyrillum no∣luisse nomen ejus (Theodori) monu∣mentis Synodalibus propter regulam quae de mortuis ser∣vanda est, contineri. ibid. nu. 173.
• f 1.376

  Quando scripsi oportere aut Theo∣dorum aut alios qui pridem defuncti sunt anathemati subdi oportere, ibid. ex Proclo. nu. 174.
• g 1.377

  Conc. 5. coll. 8. pa. 585. b.
• h 1.378

  Coll. 5. pa. 551. b.
• i 1.379

  Ibid. pa. 551. a.
• k 1.380

  Cyrilli verba ci∣tantur in Conc. 5. coll. 5. pa. 5••1. a.
• l 1.381

  Quous{que} insultas patienti Christo. ibid.
• m 1.382

  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 Theo∣doro & ejus impie∣tole ita dicit, &c.
• n 1.383

  Bar. an. 435. nu. 11.
• o 1.384

  Theodorus obijt nu. 427. Bar. nu. 27. Conc. Ephes. habitum nu. 431. Bar. & Bin.
• p 1.385

  Conc. 5. Coll. 8. pa. 585. a.
• q 1.386

  In Epist. ad Ioh. Antioch. & Synod. cum co.
• r 1.387

  In Actis Conc. Ephes. tom. 5. ca. 9.
• s 1.388

  Conc. 5. Coll. 8 pa. 585. a.
• t 1.389

  Peli & Bi••. ita ve. tunt, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 & no∣bis & vesirae san∣ctitati absolute a••••••∣re liceat, Anathema∣tizanum, &c.
• u 1.390

  Epistolas Cyrilli Synodicas ad Nesto∣rium et alios per O∣riente••, a. c••pti••••i∣ma•• habet. Sic de se ••it Conc. Chal. Act. 5 pa. 96.
• x 1.391

  Quae extat in Act. Conc. Ephes. tom. 2. Append. 1. ca. 6. et citantur eti¦am haec Cyrilli ver∣ba in Conc. 5. Coll. 8. pa. 585 a.
• y 1.392

  Coll. 5. pa. 543. b. et pa. 548. a. et in sententia Synodali Coll. 8 pa. 585. a.
• a 1.393

  Theodorus doctor Nestorij. Iustin. in E∣pist ad Conc. 5 Coll. 1. pa. 519. b. et idem ait Conc. 5. in sen∣tentia Synodali Coll. 8. pa. 585. b. et Ne∣storius Theodori verba loquutus est. Coll. 5. pa. 550. a. et, Nec enim Theodo∣rus Nestorij fuit dis∣cipulus, sed iste illuis Ibid.
• b 1.394

  Coll. 5. pa. 549. b.
• c 1.395

  Pel. 2. epist. 7. § In his.
• d 1.396

  Symbolum quod Charisius Presbyter illic prodidit. &c. Vig. Const. loc. cit. nu. 173.
• e 1.397

  Pelag. loc. cit.
• f 1.398

  Conc. 5. Coll. 6. pa. 575. b.
• g 1.399

  Coll. 5. pa. 575. b.
• h 1.400

  Coll. 4. pa. 537. a.
• i 1.401

  Iust. Edict. § Tuli.
• k 1.402

  Cyrilli verba ex ep. ad Procl. citan∣tur. Conc. 5. Coll. 5. pa. 550, 551.
• l 1.403

  Et tal••m dispensa∣tionem in divina scriptura est inveni∣re. Paulus ad hoc Ti∣motheum circumci∣dit, &c. Conc. 5. Coll. 8. pa. 585. b. et Coll. 5. pa. 551. b.
• m 1.404

  Gal 5.2.
• n 1.405

  L. 66. de haeret. Coll. Theod.
• o 1.406

  Coac. Eph. h••bit. an. 431. Basso et ••n∣tiocho Coss••nt ex Act. liquet. Tom. 2. ca. 1. Edictum vero editum Theodos••o 15 Coss. id est. anno 433.
• p 1.407

  Consingentes enim quae Nestorij su••t, o∣disse, alio iterum ca introducunt modo, quae Theodori sunt admir••ntes. Cyrill cujus verba citantur in Conc. 5. Coll. 5. pa. 550. a. et idem docet Liber. ca. 10.
• p 1.408

  Ibas quaedam ex impijs Theodori Ca∣pitulis in Syrorum linguam trans••ulit, et ubique transmi∣sit. Con. 5. Coll. 6. pa. 562. b.
• q 1.409

  Ca. 10.
• r 1.410

  Theodori scripta admirantes, et dicen∣tes cum recta sapu∣isse et consonantia sanctu patribus, A∣thanasio, &c. Conc. 5 Coll. 5. pa. 550. a.
• s 1.411

  Quoniam nec sus∣cep••runt dicta illo∣rum, et tempus, quod dispensationis indi∣gerer, praeterijt, jam scripserunt (paties) quae superius dictae sunt, post mortem ejus adversus cum, et ejus scripta Conc. 5. Coll. 5. pa. 5••1. b.
• t 1.412

  Vt liquet ex sub∣scriptionibus, in qui∣bus saepe A••••••ius. To. 2. Act. Conc. Ephes ca. 3.
• u 1.413

  Rambulas vocatur in Conc. 5. Coll. 5. pa. 549. a. et apud Gratian. Caus. 24. ••. 2. ca. 6. ex Emed. Greg. 13.
• x 1.414

  Sic à Liberato (lo∣mine Nestoria••o vo••atur. ca. 10. et Ibas narrat The∣odorum injuste à Ra∣bula damnatum. Bar. an. 448. nu. 72.
• y 1.415

  Cyrill•• Epist. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Rabulam, in Conc. 5. Coll. 5. pa. 543 b.
• z 1.416

  Rambulas sanctae memoriae Episcopus, qui in Saterdolibus explenduit. Benig. in Conc. 5. Coll. 5. pa. 549. a.
• a 1.417

  Liber. ca. 10.
• b 1.418

  Fuit nobile Con∣cilium in Armeniae celebratum, cui Aca∣tius cum Rabula in∣ter fuit, Bar. an. 435 nu. 4.
• c 1.419

  Libellus transmis∣sus ab Episcopis Armeniae Proclo, extatin Conc. 5. Coll. 5. pa. 542.
• d 1.420

  Quae extat in Conc. Ch••••. Act. 10.
• e 1.421

  Conc. 5 coll. 5. pa. 540. a.
• f 1.422

  Liber. ca. 10.
• g 1.423

  Liberatus cantè 〈◊〉〈◊〉, utpote q••i ab aliquo Nestoriano ••am videtur mutua∣tus historiam. Ba. an. 435. nu. 9.
• h 1.424

  Historiam ca. 10. incante nimis ab al quo Nestoria••o magna ex parte mutuatus vid••••ur. Bin. de Liberato. Notis ad Liber.
• i 1.425

  Cyrill. verba ci∣tantur in Conc 5. coll. 5. pa. 543. b.
• k 1.426

  Coll. 5 pa. 551. a.
• l 1.427

  In Epist. Procli quae extat in Bibl. S. pa. 10.3. corrupti ••••gitur Manic••es.
• m 1.428

  Corruptè legitur in editione 〈◊〉〈◊〉 quae extat to. 3. B.S. pat. Theodus•••• 5. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 15. ut ex fastis liquet
• n 1.429

  Conc. Armeniae ha∣bitum an. 435. Bar. anno illo nu. 4. is est Coss. Theodosij 15. et Valent. 4.
• o 1.430

  Coss. Theodosij 15, qui est an. 435. juxta Bar. illo an. nu. 1.
• p 1.431

  Conc. 5. coll. 5. pa. 551. a.
• q 1.432

  Quoniam ejus∣modi dispensationem Cyrilli & Procli non susceperunt (Nestoriani) è con∣trario vero perman∣serunt defendentes blasphemias Theo∣dori, videns Cyrillus crescentem impieta∣tem coactus est li∣bros conscribere ad∣versus Theodorum, & post mortem ejus∣dem, eum haereti∣cum, & impium, et supra Paganos et Iudaeos blasphemum ostendere. Conc. 5. coll. 5. pa. 551. a.
• r 1.433

  Conc. 5. coll. 5. pa. 550 a.
• s 1.434

  Ibid.
• t 1.435

  Ibid. citantur verò verba Cyrill. ex E∣pist. ad Acat.
• u 1.436

  Coactus est often∣dere eum esse haere∣ticum, ibid. pa. 551. a
• x 1.437

  Ibid. pa. 551. a.
• y 1.438

  Sed et ad Theode∣sium Imper. conso∣nantia scrib••ns. ibid
• z 1.439

  Rogo ut intacta••, et inviolatas animas vestras conservetis ab impietatibus Theodori. ibid.
• a 1.440

  Extant leges illae Theodosij et Valent. in Conc. 5. coll. 5. pa. 544.545.
• b 1.441

  Iterum igitur do∣ctrina Diodori, The∣odori et Nestorij abominanda visa sunt. ibid.
• c 1.442

  Ibid. pa. 545. a.
• d 1.443

  Acta illa Syno∣di Mopsvest. extant in Conc. 5. Collat. 5. pa. 553. & seq.
• e 1.444

  Cyrill. objit an. 444. Conc. Chalced. habitum an. 451. Bar. et. Bin.
• f 1.445

  Conc. Chalc. Act. 5. in definit. Synodi.
• g 1.446

  Vt liquet ex Cy∣rilli Epistolis ad Io∣hannem Antiochē, et ad Acatium, quae citantur in Conc. 5. Coll. 5. pa. 549. et 550.
• h 1.447

  Iustin. Edict. §. Tali.
• i 1.448

  Vt testantur Act. Conc. 5. Coll. 7. pa. 578. a. et. 582. a.
• k 1.449

  Iustinus scripsit id edictum, Rustico Coss. Conc. 5. Coll. 7. pa. 582. b. fuit is Coss. an. 520. ut te∣statur Marcell. in Chron. et agnoscit, Bar. in illo an. nu. 1 Instinianus vero coepit imperare an. 527. ut Marcell. et Baror. asserunt.
• l 1.450

  Conc. 5. Coll. 5. pa. 557. a.
• m 1.451

  Eam citat Vig••. in Const. nu. 17••. & 174. apud Bar. an. 553.
• n 1.452

  Rea•••• recordatio∣nis •• yrillum: et be∣atus Cyrillus. Vig. lec. cit.
• o 1.453

  Conc. 5. Coll. 5. ••a. 549. a.
• p 1.454

  Coll. 8. pa. 585. b.
• q 1.455

  Conc. Afric. E∣pist. ad Caelest. ca. 105. tom. 1. conc. pa. 645. et seq.
• r 1.456

  Const. Vig. nu. 174
• s 1.457

  De regulis juris lib. 6. decret. reg. 8.
• t 1.458

  Conc. 5. Coll. 8. pa. 585. b.
• u 1.459

  Coll. 6. pa. 562.
• x 1.460

  Theodorus obijt an. 427. Proclus fit Episcopus an 434. Bar. inillit annis.
• y 1.461

  Conc. 5. coll. 5. pa. 545. a.
• z 1.462

  Vigil. Const nu. 173.
• a 1.463

  Theodorum mor∣tuum sancta Synodus Ephesina damna vit. Pelag 2. Epist. 7. §. In ••is.
• b 1.464

  Act. Ephes. conc. to. 2. ca. 29, 30, 31, & 33.
• c 1.465

  Hoc Symbolum una cum authore Ephesina prima Sy∣nodus anathemati∣zavit. conc. 5. coll. 4. pa. 5••7. a.
• d 1.466

  Sed Symbolum quod Charis•••• pro∣didit (condemnatū) magis quia ab Atha∣nasio, Phot••o, &c. Vigil. const. nu. 173. ubi sententia monca per dictionem (con∣demnatum) aut ali∣am similē supplenda est.
• e 1.467

  Cyrill Epistola ad Acalium, quae citat. in conc. 5. coll. 5. pa. 543.
• f 1.468

  Mala quae damna∣vera••, cirjus essent, Proclus profissus est se ignorare. Vigil. conc. nu. 175.
• g 1.469

  Conc. Vig. a nu. 60. ad nu. 173.
• h 1.470

  Conc. 5. coll. 4.
• i 1.471

  Vigil. in const. nu. 173.
• k 1.472

  nu. 184.
• l 1.473

  Sup. ca. 7.
• m 1.474

  Defensores Theo∣dori, ea ipsius scripta esse negaruxt. Bar. an. 43••. nu. 14.
• n 1.475

  Cyrill. Epistola ad Proclum, citata in Conc. 5. coll. 5 pa. 550. b.
• o 1.476

  Ibid. pa. 550 a.
• p 1.477

  Qui Cyrilli libri citantur saepe in Conc. 5. coll. 5. pa. 538. & seq.
• q 1.478

  Prolata apud sanct••m Synodum expositione ab eo composita, sunt dice∣bant, qui protule∣vunt, &c. Verba Cyrill. in Epist. ad Pro∣clum citat. in Conc. 5. coll. 5. pa. 550 b.
• r 1.479

  His condemnatis qui sic sapiunt, nullam viri (Theo∣dori) memoriam fe∣cerunt. Ibid.
• s 1.480

  Fiat unitas vestra contra Theodorum, & sacrilega capitula & dogmata ejus. Libell. Episc. Ar∣men. ad Proclum. in conc. 5. coll. 5. pa. 54•• b.
• t 1.481

  Dequibus legi••us supra, hoc cap. Exta •• vero in Conc. 5. coll. 5. pa. 544.
• u 1.482

  Habemus quae ex Theodori codicibus collegistu. conc. 5. coll. 4. pa. 517. b. & idem docet Iustia. in suo Edict. § Si quis desendit Theo∣dorum.
• x 1.483

  Impius Theodorus alind Symbolum ex∣posuit. Instan Edicto. § Tali, Et impium ejus (Theodori) Sym∣bolum. coll. 4. pa. 537. a.
• y 1.484

  Liect volentibus codices impij Theo∣dori prae manibus ac∣cipere, vol quae ex impijs codicibus ejus à nobis inserta his gestis sunt. Conc. 5. coll. 8. pa. 585. a.
• z 1.485

  Ab ejus (Theodo∣ri) discipulis, dicta∣tum ab eo symbolum in eâdem Synedo E∣ph••sina prolatum. Pelagius Epist. 7. § In his.
• a 1.486

  Ejusdem Theodori ex libris illius dicta replicemus. ibid.
• b 1.487

  Haec Theodori di∣cta, utrum ejus sint. fortasse dubitatur. ibid. §. Haec.
• c 1.488

  Ibidem. & seq.
• d 1.489

  Secunda Cilicia, sub qua Mopsvestia constituta est. Conc ••. coll. 5. pa. 547. b.
• e 1.490

  Epist, 7. §. Elfi.
• f 1.491

  Vigilius in const. nu. 173.
• g 1.492

  Vigil. in Const. nu. 145.
• h 1.493

  Liber. ca. 10.
• i 1.494

  Duas Iohannis Epistolas laudes Theodori cominen∣tes, Chalced. Synod. suscepit, et confir∣mavit. Ioid.
• k 1.495

  Bar. an. 435. nu. 11.
• l 1.496

  Ibid.
• m 1.497

  Bar ibid. et nu. 12.
• n 1.498

  Bin. N••tis in libe∣ratum. § Bre••ia∣rum hoc.
• o 1.499

  In Const. nu. 175.
• p 1.500

  In Cod. Iust. log. 6. ••it. de summa Trin.
• q 1.501

  Theodorus haere∣ticos omnes impieta∣te sup••ra••, &c. Iustan edict. § ••ali.
• r 1.502

  Iste autem (Theo∣dorus) usque ad mortem in sua per∣mane••s impietate. Ibid. § Quod autem.
• s 1.503

  Datum Iustiniano August. 3. Coss. Is vero est annus 7. Iustiniani, ut docet Marcell. in Chrō. et Bar. in cum an. nu. ••.
• t 1.504

  Vt ait Bar. an. 546 nu. 8.
• u 1.505

  Edictum hoc de quo toties mentio∣nem fecimus.
• y 1.506

  Iust. Edict. § Si quis defendit Theo∣dorum.
• z 1.507

  Pa. 582. b.
• a 1.508

  Quorum unus est beatus Theodorus veritatis praedica∣tor, et doctor Eccle∣siae. Epist. Ibae in Conc. Chal. Act. 10. pa. 113. b.
• b 1.509

  Vig. Const. nu. 179
• c 1.510

  Sanctissimorum Episcopo••um hic co∣••ctorum caput Cy∣rillum, &c. Epist. Synod. Ephes. to. 4. Act. Co••c. Ephes. ca. 8.
• d 1.511

  Cyrill. epist. ad A∣cat. in Co••. 5. Co••••. 5. pa. 543. a. Dominus meus sanctissimus Episcopus Proc••••••••.
• e 1.512

  Lib. ca. 10.
• f 1.513

  Rursumq, haereti∣cus, blasph••mus, &c. Bar. an. 553. nu. 120. et seq. et B. n. pa. ••95. et seq.
• g 1.514

  Pier. Hierog. lib. 55.
• h 1.515

  Ier. 9.3.
• i 1.516

  Vig. Const. nu. 179
• k 1.517

  Vig. Const. nu. 208
• l 1.518

  Vig Const. nu. 173.
• m 1.519

  Prov. 26.2.
• n 1.520

  Mat. 5.11.
• o 1.521

  Deut. 23.5.
• p 1.522

  Numb. 23.23.
• q 1.523

  Numb. 24.9.
• a 1.524

  Extant in Actis Conc. Ephes. to. 1. ca. 14. et tom. 5. ca. 1.
• b 1.525

  Ibid. to. 5. ca. 2. §. Ego vero. Et Liber. ca. 6.
• c 1.526

  Act. 5. in definit. fidei.
• d 1.527

  Vigil. Constit. nu. 180.
• e 1.528

  Ibid. nu. 181.
• f 1.529

  Ibid.
• g 1.530

  Bin. in argamento ca. 2. Append. ad to. 5. Act. Conc. Ephes. pa. 859.
• h 1.531

  Bin. notis in Epist. Leonis. 61. to. 1. Conc. pa. 971.
• i 1.532

  Bar. an. 427. nu. 30.
• k 1.533

  an. 431. nu. 182.
• l 1.534

  Liber. ca. 4.
• m 1.535

  Pelag. 1. Epist. 7. §. Discusso.
• n 1.536

  Repi chensio 12. Captiusorum, divi ••yrilli •• Theodore∣to co••scripta, habi∣beturi•• Append. ad to. 5. Act. Conc. Eph. ca. 2. pa. 859. b
• o 1.537

  Cyrill. Epist. ad 〈◊〉〈◊〉 extat. to. 5. Act. Conc. Eph. c. 8.
• p 1.538

  Extat in Conc. ••oll. 5 pa. 559 a.
• q 1.539

  Extat et citat. ib.
• r 1.540

  Ea citatur à Pe∣lagio, Epi••i. 7 § Dis∣cusso.
• s 1.541

  Citatur ibid.
• t 1.542

  Extat in Conc 5. Coll. 5. pa. 558. b.
• u 1.543

  Conc. Chal. Act. 1 pa. 6. a.
• x 1.544

  Vigil. Const. nu. 180.
• y 1.545

  Gloriosiss. Iudices dixerunt, Theodore∣tus in locum accusa∣toris nunc ingressus est, unde pati amini ea quae inchoata sunt finiri, reservata post hac omni accu∣satione, et vobis, et illi. Conc. Chal. Act. 1. pa. 6. a.
• z 1.546

  Act. 8. Conc. Chal.
• a 1.547

  Nihil relegi vo∣lumus, anathema∣tizet Nestorium. Ib.
• b 1.548

  Ego (inquit Theo∣retus) quomodo cr••∣do, &c. Ibid.
• c 1.549

  Aug. lib. 2. de A∣dulter. conjug. ca. 9.
• d 1.550

  Vig. Const. nu. 180.
• e 1.551

  Ibid. nu. 181.
• f 1.552

  Ego autem et de∣finitioni fidei sub∣scripsi, ••it Theod. in Conc. Chal. Act. 8.
• g 1.553

  Approbamus Sy∣nodicas Epistolas Cyrilli. Conc. Chal. Act. 5. in definit.
• h 1.554

  Nam continentur in Epist. Cyrilli et Conc. Alexand. ad Nestorium, quae ex∣tat inter acta Con∣cilij Ephes. to. 1. Act. ca. 14. et. repe∣titur in Conc. 5. Coll. 6. pa. 568. et seq.
• i 1.555

  Act. 8.
• k 1.556

  Pelag. 2. Epist. 7. § Quis hac.
• l 1.557

  Hoc testimonis omnes patres utur∣tur contra Arianos, ut probent unam esse essentiam patris & filij. Bell. lib. 1. de Christ. ca. 6. §. Quartum.
• m 1.558

  Vig. Const. nu. 181.
• n 1.559

  Cyrill. Epist. ad Dynat. exta•• in Act. Conc. Ephes. to. 5. ca. 16.
• o 1.560

  Pelag. 2. Epist. 7. §. Quis haec.
• p 1.561

  Collat. 8. pa. 587.
• q 1.562

  Quacun{que} scripta vel dogmata scele∣ratorum Nestorij & Eutychetis erroribus manifestantur con∣sonare, anathemati∣zamus & damna∣mus. Vig. Const. nu. 182.
• r 1.563

  Pro ipsorum de sensione laborat Vi∣gilius. Bar. an. 553. nu. 172.
• s 1.564

  Ibid. nu. 222.
• t 1.565

  Vig. Const. nu. 180.
• u 1.566

  Lib. 7. Indic. 2. Epist. 54.
• x 1.567

  Vigil. Const. nu. 282.
• y 1.568

  Illi quos vulgō moriones vocant, quanto mag•• absur∣di & insulsi sunt, tanto magis nullum verbum emittunt quod revocare ve∣lint, quia dicti mali paenitare, utique cor∣datorum est. Aug. Epist. 7.
• z 1.569

  Nimis perversè se ipsum ••mat, qui & alios vul•• orare ut error suus late al. ibid.
• a 1.570

  Vint. de Hares. ca. 23.
• b 1.571

  Vincent. Li••. loc. citato.
• c 1.572

  Zelo dei se trun∣cavit. Hier. Epist. ad Pamac. & ••ce∣an. to. 2. pa. 194.••••
• d 1.573

  Scripturas memo∣riter tenebat. ibid.
• e 1.574

  Vinc. loc. cit.
• f 1.575

  Hier. lib. 2. ado. Ruffin.
• g 1.576

  Hier. epist. ad Pam.
• h 1.577

  Vinc. loc cit.
• i 1.578

  Nobilibus paren∣tibus nascitur. Possev. in Theodor.
• k 1.579

  Epist. Theod. 81. ad Nonium extat apud Bar. an. 448. nu. 12.
• l 1.580

  Iavitus episcopus sum ordinatus ibid.
• m 1.581

  Erat in Syria op∣pidulum vehemēter neglectum Cyrus no∣mine, a Iudaeis ex∣tructum ut qualem∣cunque gratiam be∣nefactori (Cyro) re∣s••r••••t. Proc. de aedi∣fie. Iustia. Orat. 2 in fine.
• n 1.582

  Theod. Epist. ad Nonium.
• o 1.583

  Quae nobis a pa∣rentibus obvenerūt, post eorum mortem statim distribui. Theod. Epist ad Leonem. extat inter Epistolas Leonis post Ep. 62.
• p 1.584

  Theod. Epist. 81.
• q 1.585

  Epist. Theod. ad Leonem. & ad No∣nium.
• r 1.586

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Epig. apud Poss. in Theodor.
• s 1.587

  Theod. Epist. ad Nonium qnae est 81.
• t 1.588

  Ibid.
• u 1.589

  Originem, fontem Arij, Niceni patres percuss••re, damnan∣tes enim eos qui fili∣um negant esse de subs••antia patris, il∣lum (Origi••ē) Ari∣umqui d••mnave∣runt. Hier. Epist. ad Pammac. de error. Orig. Omnis tam orientis, quam occi∣d••ntis C••lbulicorum Sy••odus, illum, hae∣rericum denunciat. Hier. Apol. 2. adver. Ruff.
• x 1.590

  Con. Chal. Act. 8.
• y 1.591

  Num Iustini re∣scriptum de eâ re datum est Rustico Coss. ut liquet ex Conc. 5. Coll. 7. pa. 582. Vbi rescriptum extat. Rusticus vero Consul cum Vitalia∣no an. 510. Marcel. in Chron. et Bar. in cum annum nu. 1.
• z 1.592

  Conc. 5. Coll. 7. pa. 582. et pa. 578. a.
• a 1.593

  Orthodoxa est Ib•• à patribus pronun∣ciata dictatio. Vig. Const. nu. 192.
• b 1.594

  Conc. 5. Coll. 6. pa. 576. b.
• c 1.595

  Supra ca. 4.5.1.3.13.
• d 1.596

  Vig. Const. nu. 190
• e 1.597

  Conc. 5. Coll. 6. ••a. 576. a. b.
• f 1.598

  Bar. an. 553. nu. 191.
• g 1.599

  Ba an. 448. nu. 71
• h 1.600

  In 6. collatione Conc. 5. allata ab ipso Vigilio pro de∣fensione Iba Episto∣lae ••••nsutantur. Bar. an. 553. nu. 210.
• l 1.601

  Gregorius cum praedecessoribus & successoribus ejus omnes quintam Sy∣nodum confirmasse noscuntur. Bar. an. 553 nu. 229.
• k 1.602

  Bar. ibid.
• l 1.603

  Bar. an. 432. nu. 71.
• m 1.604

  Ibid.
• n 1.605

  Conc. Chalc. Act. 10. & Conc. Nic. 2. Act. 6. citantur à Bar. ibidem.
• o 1.606

  Epiphanius scitam à patribus appositam responsionem perle∣git. Bar. nu. 787. nu. 34.
• p 1.607

  Quam confutati∣onem nobis spiritus sanctus dedit. Conc. N••c. 2. Act. 6. pa. 356. a.
• q 1.608

  Rogamus autem, quicun{que} etc. ibid b.
• r 1.609

  Conc. Nic 2. Act. 6. pa. 371. a.
• s 1.610

  Epiphanius Cypri∣us sic inquit, Ne in ecclesiam imagines inferatis, neque in coemiterijs statuatis: neque in domo com∣muni tolerentur. ibid.
• t 1.611

  Id (ex Epiphanio lectum) nequaquam illius existit. ibid. a. Et, verum ut novitij (libelli) et alieni falsi{que} sunt. ibid b.
• u 1.612

  Commentarium illum reijcimus beatum autem pa∣trem (Epiph.) ec∣clesiae Doctorem ag∣noscimus. ibid. b.
• x 1.613

  Ibid. b.
• y 1.614

  Vigil. Const. nu. 196.
• z 1.615

  Bar. an. 553. nu. 191, 192.193.196 197, &c.
• a 1.616

  Bar. an. 442. nu. 71.
• b 1.617

  an. eod. nu. 77.
• c 1.618

  Vigil. Const. nu. 90
• d 1.619

  Bar. an. 448. nu. 77.
• e 1.620

  Bar. an. 553. nu. 211.
• f 1.621

  an. 448. nu. 71.
• g 1.622

  Bar. an. 432. nu. 71.
• h 1.623

  Bar. an. 448. nu. 77.
• i 1.624

  Ibid. nu. 71
• k 1.625

  Beatum patrem (Epiphanium) ca∣tholicae ecclesiae Doctorem agnosci∣mus. Conc. Nic. 2. Act. 6. pa. 371. b.
• l 1.626

  Illi qui antiquam ecclesiae traditionem recipiunt, beato E∣piphanio non ad∣versantur. ibid. b.
• m 1.627

  Conc. Const. con∣tra Imagines, habi∣tum est an. 754. Bin. to. 3. pa. 229. Conc. Nicenum ha∣bitum. an. 787. Bin. notis in id Conc.
• n 1.628

  Qui imaginem ausus fueri•• parare, aut adorare, aut in ecclesia, aut in pri∣vata domo constitu∣ere, aut clam habe∣re, si Episcopus fuerit, deponatur. &c. De∣cretum Conc. Con∣stant. sub Constan∣tine Copronimo, quod extat in Nice∣no Conc. 2. Act. 6. pa. 377. a.
• a 1.629

  Sup. ca. 4.
• b 1.630

  Coactis in unum solo nomine Episco∣pis, qui unà cum Nestorio desciverāta ex quibus alij erant extorres, ••agi, pra∣prijs sedibus deslitu∣ti, alij à suis Metro∣politanis depositi, a∣lij, Pelagij & Caelestij veneno imbuti. Epi-Synodal. sanct. Conc. Epb. ad Caelestinum, to. 4. Act. Eph. c. 17.
• c 1.631

  Considentibus in sanctiss. Eccles. quae appellatur Maria, to. 2. act. Ephes. cōc. ca. 1. & saepe alibi.
• d 1.632

  Iohanne in divir∣sorio manēte, sacra{que} illius Synodo prae∣sente, Act. Ephe. cōc. to. 3. ca. 1. Cum vix curru dissilijsse•• (Io∣hannes) cubiculu{que}, ingressus esset. Apol. Cyril. ad Imper. to. 5 ca. 2. pa. 817. b.
• e 1.633

  Iohannes 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. Iohannes omni ecclesiastica authoritate proculcata, omni{que} eccle∣siarum ordine & ritu & consuctudine contempla, &c. ibid. Quae temere vane{que} fuerant nugati, quaeque praeter omnem Canonum ordinem edid••rant, &c. Epist. Synod. ad Imp. to. 4. ca. 8. quod contra leges et canones, oninem{que} ordinem perpe∣trarunt, ibid.
• f 1.634

  Omnes Orientales al{que} 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 cōmunem concordemque terrarum orbis sen∣sum at{que}, consensum. Ep. Synod. Eph. Conc. ad Imp. to. 2. ca. 17.
• g 1.635

  Ille (Iohannes) 30. tantum numero, cosque vel haereticos vel alios illius factionis socios. Epist. Synod. 5. Conc. ad Imp. to. 4. ca. ••. Iohannes rebellionis hujus ante signanus. ibid. ca. 3. & alibi saepe.
• h 1.636

  Vt patet ex corum subscripsione. Act. Conc. Ephes. to. 3. ca. 2. & ••om. 4. ca. 7.
• i 1.637

  Glic. Annal. part. 4. pa. 363.
• k 1.638

  Post duos dies ve∣nimus in Ephesum ait Ibas in Epist. sua. Conc. Chal. act. 10. sequntus sum pri∣matem meum ibid. pa. 112. b.
• l 1.639

  Tu Cyrille & tu Memnon, scitote vos exauctoratos, omnique episcopali honore exutos. to. 3. Act. Eph. ca. 2.
• m 1.640

  Capita haeretica à Cyrillo exposita ut quae Euangelica & Apostolicae doctrinae apertè repugnant. I∣bid.
• n 1.641

  Act. Conc. Ephes. to. 4. ca. 7.
• o 1.642

  At vos reliqui om∣nes qui Cyrilli actis consensistis, anathe∣mati subjacete. tom. 3. Ephes. Act. ca. 2.
• p 1.643

  Schismaticorum conciliabulum. to. 4. Act. Conc. Ephe. ca. 15.
• q 1.644

  Sacra Synodus, &c. tom. 3. act. ca. ••.6 7. & alibi saepe
• r 1.645

  Confuso illorum Conciliabulose con∣junxerunt. tom. 3. act. Ephes. ca. 1. Quoddam inter se conciliabulum in∣stituerunt. ibid. c. 4.
• s 1.646

  Seditiose, iniquè, contra ecclesiasticas sanctiones. regia{que} decreta consensistis. ibid. ca. 2.
• t 1.647

  Qui furijs qui∣busdam agitati, A∣rij, Apollinarijque dogmata instaura∣re voluerunt. to. 3. ca. 18.
• v 1.648

  Scitote Cyrillia∣nos tyrannide, frau∣dibus, &c. Append. ad to. 3. act. Ephes. ca. 10.
• x 1.649

  To. 4. act. ca. 15. et ca. 18.
• y 1.650

  Iuravimus{que} sapissime pientissimo Regi, quod impossibile sit nobis cōmunicare his (Cyrillianis) si non exploscrint capitula. Appen. to. 3. act. ca. 9. & 10.
• z 1.651

  Parati sumus prius mori, quam suscipere unum ex Cyrills capitulis. ib. ca. 7.
• a 1.652

  Arbitramur pijss. Imperatorem nihil horum dilucidè in∣tellexisse. Ita terra mari{que} obsidemur, ut nihil corum quae no∣bis hic evenerūt ve∣stra Sanctitudini significare potueri∣mus. Epist. san. conc. ad ••ulalium & a∣lios. tom. 4. act. ca. 21. Qui Nestorij studiosi erant, om∣nia maria & publi∣cas via•• obsidentes, neminem provsus à sacra Synodo Con∣stantinopol. venire permittunt. to. 2. act Ephes ca. 19.
• b 1.653

  Ea interim quae inimici Christi e∣rant, ultro citroque deferebantur. ibid.
• c 1.654

  Candidianus Co∣mes amicitiam Ne∣storij pietati antepo∣nens—••a pietati vestrae instillare flu∣duit, quae cum sibi tum Nestorio com∣moda grata{que} futu∣ra intelligebat. Re∣latio Synod. ad Imp. to. 4. ca. 10.
• d 1.655

  Et Nestorij, & Cyrilli, et Memno∣nis exauctorationem à Sanctitate vestra nobis insinuatam, calculo nostr•• appro∣bavi••us. Sacra mussa ab Augusto ad Synod. to. 3. act. Ephes. ca. 15.
• e 1.656

  Epistola ex E∣pheso scripta, opera cujusdam mendici, qui in Scipione cam inclusam gerebat, tandem reddita est. tom. 2. act. ca. 19.
• f 1.657

  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) ad 〈◊〉〈◊〉 suum redit. Ibid.
• g 1.658

  Lega••um Synodi sententia publicè ap∣probata, Orientales quidem condemnat, Nestoris vero exilium indicit. D••cretum ••••g••um, tom. 5. act. Ephes. ca. 11.
• h 1.659

  Quae extat tom. 4. act ca. 7.
• i 1.660

  Imperator decrevit ut sententia Oecumenica Synodi contra Nestorium vim obtineret, quod{que} in causa Iohannis constituisset, suspenderetur. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 not. in Conc. Ephes. •• Verum. pa. 921.
• k 1.661

  Sacr. Imp. ad A∣catium Episc. Ber. to. 5. act. Ephes. ca. 10.
• l 1.662

  Sacr. Imp. missa per Aristol. ad Io∣hannem, tom. 5. act. Ephes. ca. 3.
• m 1.663

  Iohanni man∣davit ut scelerata Nestorij dogmata a∣nathematizaret &c. Epist. Cyril. ad Dyn. to. 5. act. Ephes. ca. 16. Imperatores li∣teras miserunt ad Acatium B••reensem et Iohannem, quibus severè praecipiunt, ut turbas consopia∣mus. Epist. Pauli ad Cyril. to. 5. act. Eph. ca. 4.
• n 1.664

  Cum igitur Io∣hannes subscripsisset caeteri{que} qui majori authoritate apud ip∣sum erant, et Nesto∣rij dogmata anathe∣matizassent, cōmu∣nionem illis restitui∣mus, Epist. Cyril. ad Dynat. to. 5. ca. 16.
• o 1.665

  Et communican∣tibus adinvicm, cō∣tentio de medio ab∣lata est, et pax in Ecclesia facta. Iba verba in sua Epist.
• p 1.666

  Voluit autem Deus, qui suae sem∣per curam gerit Ec∣clesia. Ibid.
• q 1.667

  Bar. an. 448. nu. 75.
• r 1.668

  Bar. an. 553▪ nu. 191.
• s 1.669

  Ibid.
• t 1.670

  Nu. 192.
• u 1.671

  An. eodem 553. nu. 113.
• x 1.672

  Vigil. Const. nu. 192.
• y 1.673

  Tota Epistola he∣retica est, tota Epi∣stola blasphema est, hac omnes dicimus. Conc. 5. Coll. 6. pa. 576. b.
• z 1.674

  Posteriora inserta Epistola majore im∣pietate plena sunt. Conc. 5. Coll. 6. pa. 564 a.
• a 1.675

  Si quis defendit memoratam Episto∣lam, & non anathe∣matiza•• eam, et de∣fensores ejus, et eos qui dicunt eam re∣ctam esse, vel par∣tam ejus. Conc. 5. Coll. 8. in senten∣tia Synodali. Anath. 14.
• b 1.676

  Vig. Const. nu. 192.
• c 1.677

  Bar. an. 553. nu. 191.
• d 1.678

  Bar. an. 448. nu. 71. Epistola hi∣storiam continet re∣rum gestarum inter Iohannem & Cyril∣lum, et quae inter eos transacta essent, re∣fert, &c.
• e 1.679

  An. eodem. nu. 59.
• f 1.680

  Vigil. Const. nu. 192.
• g 1.681

  Bar. an. 448. nu. 75.
• h 1.682

  Ba. an. 553. nu. 211
• i 1.683

  Vig. Const. nu. 194
• k 1.684

  Bar. an. 553. nu. 211.
• l 1.685

  Herostratus, ut no∣men memoria scele∣ris extenderet, incen∣dium nobilis f••bri∣cae (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.
• m 1.686

  Liber. ca. 10.
• n 1.687

  Bar. an. 435. nu. 3.
• o 1.688

  Leg. ult. de haere∣ticis cod. Theod.
• p 1.689

  Is est annus Ch. 435, ut docet Marc, in Chron. & Bar. in illum annum.
• q 1.690

  Placuit & nobis quo{que} in sacrae syno∣di sententia ••equi∣escere. Epist. Iohan∣nis ad Xistum. Act Conc. Eph. to. 5. ca. 17.
• r 1.691

  Act. Conc. Ephes. to. 2. ca. 1. ubi ha∣bita dicitur Syno∣dus post Coss. 13. Theodes••. an. 10 autem post••stum Consulatum, Antio∣chus & Bassus erant Consules, ut ex Marcell. in Chron. & fastis certum est. ••t to. 3. Act. Eph. ca. 17. litera Imper. ad Synodum datae sunt Antiocho Con∣sule. 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 Socra∣tes ait. lib. 7. ca. 33. & 37.
• s 1.692

  Is est an. Ch. 431. Marc. in Ch. & Bar. in eum annum.
• t 1.693

  An. 433. Theodo∣sius 14. et Maxi∣mus Coss. an. 434. Ariobinda & As∣par. Coss. an. 435. Theodosius 15. et Valent. 4. Coss. Fasti. et Marcell. et Bar.
• u 1.694

  Fra••mentum Epistola Ibae Episcopi Edess••••i. Conc. Cha••c. Act. 10.
• x 1.695

  Ex quibus unus (qui Theo∣dorum condemnat) extitit (falso alicubi scribitur existit) nostra civitatis tyrannus. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 sua Epist. loc. citat. tyranni au∣tem nomine significari Rambulam testatur Liber. ca. 10. ubi sic ait, De quo (Rabula) successor ejus Ibas in epistola sua di∣cit, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 (Th••••dorum) praesumpsit, qui omnia praesumit, aperrè in ecclesia sua anathema••iz••re, etc.
• y 1.696

  Vig. Const. nu. 194. & Ibam tunc temporis (cum hanc Epistolam momento ipso unionis scripsit) Catholicum fuisse. Bar. an. 448. nu. 75.
• z 1.697

  Vide Epistolam ipsam, & hoc cla∣rum erit.
• a 1.698

  Conc. 5. coll. 6. pa. 575. & 576.
• b 1.699

  Ex altera parti quidam de palatio culpaverunt Cyril∣lum, cur susceperit ab orientalibus E¦piscopis duarum confessionem natu∣rarum, quod Nesto∣rius dixit & docuit hoc ipsū Valeriano, & Acatio videba∣tur. Liber. ca. 8.
• c 1.700

  Cyril. Epist. ad A∣cat. to. 5. Act. Conc. Eph. ca. 8. pa. 814.835.
• d 1.701

  Ibid. pa. 83••. a.
• e 1.702

  Cyrill. Epist. ad Dynatum quae est 38. & extat tom. 5. Act. Eph. ca. 16.
• f 1.703

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• g 1.704

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• h 1.705

  Vig. Const. nu. 192
• i 1.706

  Cyr. Epist. ad Dy∣natum.
• k 1.707

  Quae extat in Conc. 5. Coll. 5. pa. 559.
• l 1.708

  Nam unio facta an. 432. Cyril. autem obijt an. 444. Bar. in illo ann.
• m 1.709

  Habentur tum in Conc. Chalc. Act. 10. tum in Con. 5. Coll. 6. pa. 561.
• n 1.710

  Ad Marin Per∣sam, haereticum. Con 5. Coll. 8. pa. 587. b.
• o 1.711

  Bar. an. 553. nu. 192.
• p 1.712

  Vid. Epist. Ibae lec. cit.
• p 1.713

  Vig. Const. nu. 186.
• q 1.714

  Gesta Concilij ••halc. dili••en••••ssim•• perquirentes. Ibid.
• r 1.715

  Ibid. nu. 208.
• s 1.716

  Nu. 186.
• t 1.717

  Nu. 190.
• u 1.718

  Ibid.
• x 1.719

  Nu. 193.
• y 1.720

  Nu. 195.
• z 1.721

  Nu. 196.
• a 1.722

  Nu. 198.
• b 1.723

  Nu. 207.
• c 1.724

  Bar. an. 432. nu. 68. abs{que} condemna∣tione suorum Capi∣tulorum, c••ncta arbitrio Cyrilli gesta sunt.
• d 1.725

  An. eod. nu. 69.
• e 1.726

  Ibid. nu. 70.
• f 1.727

  Ibid. nu. 71.
• g 1.728

  Videre est Nesto∣rianum hominem, &c. Bar. an. 432. nu. 71.
• h 1.729

  Non esse Ibae com∣perta. Ibid.
• i 1.730

  Vigilius asserere voluit ex ed Episto∣lâ Ibam esse recipi∣endum, in qua nimi∣rum ipse testatur se amplecti pacem ec∣clesiae, qua recepta, necesse s••crit eun∣dem probare Ca. ho∣licum. Bar, an. 533. nu. 191.
• k 1.731

  Posteriora enim inserta Epistolae, ma∣jori impietate plena sunt, Cyrillum et si∣milia ei sapientes injuriantia, et om∣nino impiam sectam Nestorij vindican∣tia. Conc. 5. Coll. 6. pa. 564. a. Scimus et nos haec ita subse. quata est, &c. Ibid.
• l 1.732

  Qui dicit eam rectam esse, vel par∣tem ejus. Coll. 8. pa. 587. b.
• m 1.733

  Eos qui scripse∣runt vel scribunt pro e••. Ibid.
• n 1.734

  Extat in Annal. Bar an. 553. a. nu. 33. ad 217.
• o 1.735

  An. 553. nu. 229.
• p 1.736

  Apud Acatium B••r••ensem Episcop•••• congressi, scribi ad me curar••nt, pacem concordiam{que} nisi eo modo q••em praescri∣berent, fieri non de∣bere, Epist. Cyrill. ad Acatium, quae est 29. & ext. tom. 5. Act. Ephes. ca. 7. & idem habetur in E∣pist. Cyrilli ad Dyna∣tum tom. e••d. ca. 16.
• q 1.737

  Vrgebat ut omni∣bus quae adversus Nestorium scripsi∣mus abuli••is & ve∣lut inutilibus reje∣ctis, &c. Epist. ad Dynat. & similia habentur, in Epist Cy∣rill. ad Acat. locis cit.
• r 1.738

  Cyrill. Epistola ad Dynat & ad Acat.
• s 1.739

  Miserunt Alexan∣driam Paulum E∣piscopum Emisenor•••• &c. ibid.
• t 1.740

  Attulit quaedam parum decore & commode proposita, ibid.
• u 1.741

  Modis omnibus opus esse dixi ut Io∣hannes scriptam de•••• his confessionem ede∣ret, &c. Cyrill. Epist, ad Acatium.
• x 1.742

  Nisichartam qua significavi, si Iohan∣nes illi subscripserit, tum communionem illis reddite. Cyrill. Epist. ad Dynat.
• y 1.743

  Cum Iohannes subscripsisset, caeteri{que} qui majore autho∣ritate apud ipsum erant, Cyrill. Epist. ad Dynat.
• z 1.744

  Ea extat inter E∣pist. Cyrilli Epist. 27. & in Act. Conc. E∣phes. to. 5. ca 5.
• b 1.745

  Placuit nobis Ne∣storium pro deposito babere, pravasque illius prophanosque novitates anathe∣matizare. Epist. Sy∣nodalis Iohannis Antioch, & Synodi Antioch. to. 5. Act. Ephis. ca. 5.
• a 1.746

  Miserunt autem tandem Epistolam, quam ad me scripserunt ad X stam & Maximianum, Cyrill. Epist. ad Dynat.
• c 1.747

  Nos Dominum no∣strum Paulum ad sanctitatem tuam mittendum duximus Epist. Ioh. & Synod. Antioch. loco jam ci∣tato, & ex charta, quam Dominus meus Paulus nunc attulit evidenter cognosci∣mus. Continel enim inculpatam fidei confessionem. Cyrill. Epist. 28. quae est ad Iohannem Antioch. & extat tom. 5. Act. Ephes. ca. 6.
• d 1.748

  Nempe 29. mensis Chiath. i. Decembris. 10.6. Act. Ephes. ca. 13. in tit.
• e 1.749

  Ibid. to. 6. ca. 13.
• f 1.750

  Epist. Cyrilli 28. quae extat tom. 5. Act. Ephes. ca. 6:
• g 1.751

  Exod. 10.26.
• h 1.752

  Siqua Epistola à quibusdam cucum∣feratur tanquam à me, de ijs quae Ephe∣si acta sunt jam do∣lente, & poenitentia agente, perscripta, ea quoque contem••natur. Cyrill. Epist. ad Acat. in fine.
• i 1.753

  Ba. an. 432. nu. 54
• k 1.754

  Consultius delibe∣ratur, ratam haben∣dam esse dann. atio∣ne haeresis Nestoria∣nae. Ibid.
• l 1.755

  Iohannes ex Syno∣do tanc Antiochi•• habita, de damnati∣one Nestorij, et ejus haeresi, Synodalem dedit Epistolam. Ib.
• m 1.756

  Hactenus Episto∣la communis omni∣bus quidem Episco∣pis Catholicae fidei, quae Catholicam E••∣clesiarum omnium communionem nan∣ciscerentur. Bar. an∣tedem nu. 56.
• n 1.757

  Epistola illa extat to. 5. Act Conc. Eph. ca. 17.
• o 1.758

  Nam in utraque damnatur Nestori∣us, et illius haeresis, et apprebatur Syno∣dus Ephesina, vide, et conser Epistolas.
• p 1.759

  Dedit Epistolam ad Sixtum. Bar. an. 432. nu. 54. quae erat communis om∣nibus Episcopis C••∣tholicis. Ibid. nu. 56
• q 1.760

  Ibid. nu. 57.
• r 1.761

  Ibid.
• s 1.762

  Bin. Notis in Cō••. Antioch. tempore Sixti.
• t 1.763

  Bar. an. 432. nu. 66.
• a 1.764

  In Cont. Chalc. Act. 10.
• b 1.765

  Denuncians ei ut anathematizaret eos qui dicunt quia una est natura divinita∣tis et humanitatis. Ibas in eadem Epist.
• c 1.766

  Bar. an. 448. nu. 75.
• d 1.767

  Vox [personam] vitio Typo raphi deest apud Baron. sed ex Constructione Gammatica, et ipso sensu, necessariè ad∣dendam liquet.
• e 1.768

  Vig. Const. nu. 192.
• f 1.769

  Ibid. nu. 193.
• g 1.770

  Ibid. nu. 194.
• h 1.771

  Ibid. nu. 195.
• i 1.772

  Vig. nu. 193.
• k 1.773

  Ibid. nu. 194.
• l 1.774

  Ibid. nu. 193.
• m 1.775

  Et ob hoc aliquos Orientales Episco∣pas, qui unim natu∣rae praedicationem voluerunt suscipere Dioscorus condem∣n••vit, inter quos et Ibam, propter hanc specialiter fidei ejus professionem, qua duas naturas, unam virtutem, unam per∣sonam apertissimè confitetur, haereti∣cum condemnavit. Vig. nu. 195.
• n 1.776

  Extat in Cone. 5 Coll. 6. pa 575. b.
• o 1.777

  Nestorij verba ci∣tata ibidem. pa. 576. a. & in Actis Conc. Ephes. to. 2. ca. 8. pa. 747. a.
• p 1.778

  Negat Nestorius Mariam genuisse filium, ita ut ex ipsa carnem sumpserit, offirmat genuisse, ita ut ex ipsa prodie∣rit. Hoc declarant Nestorij verba apud Cyrill••m citata in Epist. ad Acatium. to. 3. Act. Ephes. ca. 7 vbi ita ait Nestoriu••; Deum ex Chrissipa∣ra virgine prodijsse ex divina scriptura edoctus sum, at vero Deum ex ipsa geni∣tum esse (eo quo dixi s••••su) id nus∣quam edoctus sum.
• q 1.779

  Non per se & se∣cundum se Deus est, quod in utero forma∣tum e•••• non per se & secun dum se Deus est, quod spiritus sancti operâ effectum est▪ non per se & se∣cundum se Deus est, quod in monumento conditum est. At quia Deus in homine as∣sumpto extitit, as∣sumptus assumenti conjunctus, propter assumentum Deus appellatur. verba Nestorij citata in Act. Conc. Ephes. to. 2. ca. 8. pa. 748. a.
• r 1.780

  Theodori verba citata in Conc. 5. Coll. 4. pa. 528. a.
• s 1.781

  Coll. eadem. pa. 532. a. & Coll. 6. pa. 576. a.
• t 1.782

  Edict. Iustir. §. Credimus autem.
• u 1.783

  Conc. 5. Coll. 6. pa. 575. b.
• x 1.784

  Ioh. 2. Epist. 3. ad Senatore.
• y 1.785

  Ioh. Maxent. Dial. 1. ca. 12.
• z 1.786

  Elias Cretens••••n Greg. Nizian. Epi. 2. ad Clidon.
• a 1.787

  Poscente illo (Da∣maso) ut fidem suam exponeret, eam scrip∣tis mandatam edi∣dit. ibid.
• b 1.788

  Baron. an. 373. nu. 3.
• c 1.789

  Prima fronte recta & sana visa (ea professio) id••irco & Damasus & bic di∣vinus ma ister (Gre∣gorius) eam admise∣runt, quod abditam & occultam franaē nullo modo depre••bendisseat, nec ver∣sutam malignitatem sub verbis latentem. Elias Cret. loc. cit.
• d 1.790

  Elias Cret. ibid.
• e 1.791

  Hi cum discipulis suis abditis. & my∣stis, de absconditis theologicum instil∣lant sermon••••, qui madmodum & Manichei, totam eis morbum revelantes▪ Greg. Nazian. Epist. 2. ad Clidon.
• f 1.792

  Animam & rati∣onem ac mentem, (Christi) divinita∣tem ipsam introdu∣cunt, t••nquam ipsa sola carni sit admistae Mentem, divinita∣tem Christi dicantes. Greg. ibid.
• g 1.793

  Statim ac dolum sens••runt, fraudu∣lentum hominem ab ecclesi•• proscibun••. Elias Cret. loc. cit.
• h 1.794

  Ne nos accusent quod Vitalis fidem prius quidem proba∣verimus, nunc vero repudiemus. Greg. Naz Epist. 2. ad Cli∣don. & similia habet in Epi. 2. ad Hell.
• i 1.795

  Greg. Epist. 2. ad Clid.
• k 1.796

  Iust. in Edict. §. Tali.
• l 1.797

  Nestorium dua•• quidem naturas, et unam personam di∣centam Ephesina prima Synodus condemnavit. Iust. in Edict. §. Tali.
• m 1.798

  apud G••ll. lib. 11.•• a. 4.
• n 1.799

  Edict. Iust. §. Tal••
• o 1.800

  Con. 5. Coll. 6. pa. 575.
• p 1.801

  Si quis di••erit Christum Deu•••• ve∣rum esse, & non po∣tius nob••••••m d••um, hoc est, exhabitasse naturam nestra per id qu••d unit••s est nostrae, anathema sit, Nestorius in anathe∣matismo 1. cōtra Cy∣rill. anath. § 1. in Act. Conc. Eph 2 to. ca. 5. in Appen. pa. 768.
• q 1.802

  Tota Epistola hae∣retica est, Epistola per omnia contraria est definitioni a Sy∣nodo Chalced. factae. Conc. 5. Coll. 6. pa. 576. a.b.
• r 1.803

  Dioscorus Ibam propter hanc specia∣liter fidei professio∣nem qua duos natu∣ras, unam virtutem, unam personam a∣pertissime confite∣tur, haer••ticum con∣dēnavit. Const. Vig. nu. 195.
• r 1.804

  Eutiches dixit, cōfitemur ex ••nabus naturis fuisse domi∣num nostrum ante adunationē, post ve∣ro adunationē unam naturam consitent. Dioscorus & Syno∣dus (Ephesina 2.) dixit, consentimus huic & ••os omnes. Act. Conc. Ephes. recitata in Conc. Chal. Act. 1. pa 28. b.
• s 1.805

  Vigil. Const. nu. 195.
• t 1.806

  Vig. Const. nu. 195
• u 1.807

  Tota Epistola hae∣retica est. Conc. 5. Coll. 6. pa. 576. a. b.
• x 1.808

  In Const. nu. 194.
• x 1.809

  His Capitulis à Cyrille explanatis, devotè in ejur com∣munionem concur∣rit. Vig Const. nu. 193. post expla∣nationem 12. Capi∣tulorum Ibas profes∣sus est se habuisse Cyrillum orthodox∣um, et in cōmunione ipsius ad exitum permansisse. Ibid. nu. 194.
• y 1.810

  Bar. an. 553. nu. 193.
• z 1.811

  Iudicium illud Photij, et Eustathij extat cum Actis in co, in Conc. Chal. Act. 9. et 10.
• b 1.812

  Vt supra proba∣tum est. Ca. 11.
• a 1.813

  Bar. illo an. nu. 57
• c 1.814

  Vig. Const. nu. 192 193, 194.
• d 1.815

  Nu. 193.
• e 1.816

  Donec seipsum in∣terpretatus fuisset, quia Orientale Con∣cilium cum vocabat haereticum, et ut haereticum condem∣navit, haereticum eum et ego putavi. verba Ibae, in Act. Conc. Chal. Act. 10. pa. 113. a.
• f 1.817

  Quando Orienta∣le Concilium eum, quasi haereticum anathematizavit, sequutus sum pri∣matem meum: ver∣ba Ibae, ibid. pa. 112. b.
• h 1.818

  Ita Cyrillum vo∣catum à Conciliabu∣lo Iohannis, supra ostendi ca. 11.
• i 1.819

  Et juravimus quod Cyrillus, eti∣amsi rejecerit Capi∣tula, à novis suscipi∣endus non sit, eo quod Haeresiarches factus sit. Epist. De∣gatorli Conciliabuli Ephesini, to. 3. Act. ca 10. Append.
• k 1.820

  Vig Const. nu. 193.
• l 1.821

  Ibid. nu. 194.
• m 1.822

  Ibid. et in Catho∣lica fidei rectitudi∣ne judicatus est per∣mansisse. Na. 195.
• n 1.823

  Epistola illa The∣od. extat in Conc. 5. Coll 5. pa. 558. b.
• o 1.824

  Bar. an. 431. nu. 153.
• p 1.825

  Act. Conc. Ephes. to. 5. ca. 1.
• q 1.826

  Eorum Epist. extat in Append. ad to. 3. Act. Conc. Ephes. ca. 7. append.
• r 1.827

  Lin. in Not. ad Conc. Ephes. pa. 922. a.
• * 1.828

  To. 3. Act. Eph. in append. ca. 7.
• t 1.829

  Epist. legatorum ad suos in Epheso. in ap∣pend. to. 3. Act. ca. 10. pa. 791. b.
• u 1.830

  Duravit haec con∣troversia duos aut tres annos post Conc. Ephesinum dissolu∣tum. Pax quarto demum anno impo∣trata est. Bin. Not. ante cap. 1. to. 5. Act. Eph.
• * 1.831

  Vid. sup. ca. 11.
• x 1.832

  Chiath mensis. Ae∣gyptiacus quartus à Thoth, in quo est Ae∣quinoctium aestivum vid. Ioseph. Scalig. lib. 4. de Emend: temp. in Anno Aegypt. & lib. 7. in mensium divif. pa. 378.
• y 1.833

  Epist. Cyril. 28.
• z 1.834

  Cyrill. Epist. 28. quae extat etiam in Act. Conc. Ephes. to. 5. ca. 6.
• z 1.835

  Supra ca. 1••.
• a 1.836

  Extant in Conc. Chalced. Act. 10. pa. 112. b.
• b 1.837

  Non dixisti? quia nisi anathemati∣zasset Capitula sua, non reciperemus eum. ibid.
• c 1.838

  Bar. an. 448. nu. 65.
• d 1.839

  Quod nulla ex parte ab Euangelica & Apostol ca do∣ctrina aberraverim, id, postquam Episto∣las quas od Nestori∣um 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.
• e 1.840

  Conc. Chal. in de∣fin. fidei. Act. 5.
• f 1.841

  Athanassi verba apud Cyrillū lib. dé r••ct. fide ad Imper. to. 1. Act. Eph. Conc. ca. 5. §. Porro. pa. 672. a.
• g 1.842

  Ea Epistola Cyril. citatur a Iustinian•• in Edict. §. Credi∣mus.
• h 1.843

  Ipse pater (Cyril.) quoties unam n••••u∣ram dixit verbi in∣carnatam, Natura nomine pro subsiste∣tia usus est, Iust in. in Edict. §. Credi∣mus, pa. 493. a.
• i 1.844

  Extat to. 1. Act. Conc Ephes. ca. 5.
• k 1.845

  Ibid. §. Quin. pa. 666. a.
• l 1.846

  Tota Trinitas est Pater noster per cre∣ationem et guberna∣tionem, ut Esa. 63. Et nunc Domine. Pater nosteres: licet persona Patris dica∣tur Pater Christi per naturam. Aquin. in ca. 1 Epist. 2. ad Cor. v. 1. Et Paternitas in divinis prius im∣portat respectum personae ad perso∣nam, quam respe∣ctum Dei ad crea∣turam. Aquin. p. 1. q. 33. art. 3.
• m 1.847

  Ibas in Epist. apud Conc. Chal. Act. 10.
• n 1.848

  Locis citatis pau∣lo ante.
• o 1.849

  Si quis Dei verbū carni secundum Hy∣postasim unitum non consitetur, anathe∣ma sit, Ana h. Cyr. 2 Si quis Hypostases (.i. Personas) in Christo distinguit et non connectit eas commistione illa quae est 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, anathema sit. Idem anath. 3. to. 1. Act. Conc. Ephes. ca. 14.
• p 1.850

  Theod. repreb. Ca∣pit. Cyrill. Anath. 3 extant ejus verba in Append tom. 5. Act. Con. Ephes. ca. 2. pa. 8••1 b.
• q 1.851

  Voces quao de se Servator utitur, du∣abus subsis••e••us aut personis, nequaqua tribuimus. Nam etsi & ex d••abus rebus us{que} diversis in uni∣••a••••m inseparabilem coatuerit. &c. Cyril. Epist. ad Nestorium ante Conc. Ephes. extat tom. 1. Act. Conc. Ephes. ca. 14. §. Porro.
• r 1.852

  Duarum natura∣rum facta est unio, Cyrill. Epist. ad Io∣han. Antioch. cu fiet unio. to. 5. Act. Conc. Eph ca. 6 §. confite∣mur.
• t 1.853

  ••nam. verbi Oci subsistentiam esse certissimis est, quam incarnata novimus,—secundum hoc unum & solū Natu∣rarum ve•• substantiarum discrimen observatur Cyril. Epist. ad. Acat. post unionem. to. 5. ca. 7.
• u 1.854

  Scilicet dum esse in Christo naturas, & substantias; quas nonnunquam etiam subsistentias vocat, ut in defens. 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 substan∣tiis & Naturis, et sit loquitur iuxta usum haereticorum, num ut habetur apud Theod. lib. 2. hist ca. ••. Sardicense conciti∣um ita dicebat. Nos hanc habemus catholicam fidem, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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.
• x 1.855

  In Act. apud Pho∣tium quae habentur in Canc. Chal. Act. 10.
• y 1.856

  Ibid. pa. 113. a.
• z 1.857

  Ibid. pa. 112. b.
• a 1.858

  Ibae Epist. in fine.
• b 1.859

  Ibas in principio Epistolae.
• c 1.860

  Cyr epist. ad Acat. quae est 29. et extat, to. 5. Act. Conc. Eph. ca. 7.
• d 1.861

  Scripsi, me neque cum Ario, neque cū Apollinario sen∣sisse unquam—sed opus esse Naturaris observare differen∣tiam, ib. §. Audivi.
• e 1.862

  Nestorij cacodixia ab hac doctrina lon∣ge diversa est, nam duas Naturas nomi∣not, easque a se in∣vicem divellit. De•••• seorsimponit (ut unā personam) et ho••i∣nem itidem seorsim▪ (ut aliam personam) ibid. §. Verum di∣cent.
• f 1.863

  His abeo explana∣tis, in communionem ejus devotè concur∣rit. Vig. Const. nu. 193.
• g 1.864

  Vt ante probatum est ca. 11.
• h 1.865

  Vig. C••nst. nu. 194
• i 1.866

  Cum omnibus Ori∣entalibus Episcopis. Ibid.
• k 1.867

  Vt liquet ex Iba Epist.
• l 1.868

  Verba Iba in A∣ctis apud Photium in Canc. Chal. Act. 10. pa. 112. b.
• m 1.869

  Vid. decretum Conciliabuli tom. 3. Act. Conc. Ephes. ca. 2. et reliquis cap.
• n 1.870

  Quae extat in Actis Conc. Ephes. to. 5. ca. 1.
• o 1.871

  Non diceret Iu∣venalis Ibam esse orthodoxum, nisi ex ver∣bis Epistola, esus confessionem f••dei orthodoxam com∣probaret. Vig. ••onst. nu. 193.
• p 1.872

  In Const. nu. 193
• q 1.873

  Misimus vestrae sanctitati recens sa∣ctam expositionem ab Alexandrino, hae∣reticorum Capitu∣lorum, evidentius e∣tiam per illam osten∣dēte suam impictatē, ait Conciliabulum Ephes. in quo Ibas in Epist. missae lo∣banni, et alijs, in Appen. ad to. 3. Act. Eph. Conc ca. 7. pa. 790. a. Nos ad mor∣tem instare parati sumus, et neque Cy∣rillum, neque ca∣pitula ab eo exposi∣ta suscipere. Ibid. ca. 10. pa. 791. b.
• r 1.874

  Illa quae in Ibae E∣pistola, in injurijs beati Cyrilli per er∣rorum intelligentiae dicta sunt. Vig. Const. nu. 192. et quod de Cyrillo, Capitula ejus aliter intelligendo detrax∣erat. Nu. 193.
• s 1.875

  Ibid. nu. 192. Pa∣stea professus quia bis ab ••o explanatis, ec à se intellectis, in communionem e∣jus devote concur∣••erit; et de bis, quae prius aliter intel∣lexerat, sit cōversus. Ibid nu. 193.
• t 1.876

  Post explanationē beati Cyrilli fac∣••am, et intellectum Cyrilli sibi (Iba) de∣claraetum, Ibas, Cy∣rillum, ut orthodox∣um babuit, et in cō∣munione ipsius per••mansit. Ib. nu. 194.
• u 1.877

  Ibid. nu. 193.
• x 1.878

  Ibid.
• y 1.879

  Ex quibus evi∣denter declaratur in Iba Episcopo nihil de confessione fidei reprebensum, quam constat esse lauda∣tam, sed eundem, &c. Ibid nu. 193.
• u 1.880

  Ibid. nu. 195.
• x 1.881

  Inventus est Dios∣corus magis conari Ephesinam primam Synodum destruere, qui cam sub execra∣bilis intellectus imagine defendebat, & amplius B. Ciril∣lum criminatus est, laudans eam Dios∣corus, quam Ibas sub falsi intellectus errore vituperans. Vig. Const. Ibid.
• y 1.882

  Haeretico spiritis Ephesinam Syno∣dum, & Cyrillum laudasse reperti sunt Dioscorus, et Euti∣ches. Ibid.
• z 1.883

  At vero Ibas, qui per errorem unam putans in his praedi∣cari naturam (id est personam) prius vi∣tuperavit Capitula, et post declaratum sibi intellectum eo∣rum (quod duas naturas Ibae sensus doceret) communi∣catorem se B. Cyrilli cum omnibus Ori∣entalibus professus est. Ibid. nu. 195.
• a 1.884

  Ibid.
• a 1.885

  Bar. an. 433. nu. 10.
• a 1.886

  An. 547. nu. 36.
• b 1.887

  An. 553. nu. 23.
• c 1.888

  Haeres. 43. P••attol. lib. 17. Haeres. 3.
• d 1.889

  Ier. 2.2••.
• e 1.890

  Vid. sup. ca. 5. nu. 14.
• f 1.891

  An. 553. nu. 47. vid. sup. ca. 3. nu. 6▪
• g 1.892

  Lib. 4. de pont. ca. 3. § Sic.
• h 1.893

  Ench. tit. de summo pont. §. Fatemur.
• i 1.894

  Th. Boz lib 18. de Sig. Eccl. ca. 6. §. Sequitur.
• k 1.895

  Idem. lib. 16. ca. 8. §. Rursus.
• l 1.896

  Des. ca. 3. lib. 4. de Rom. Pont. §. Ter∣ius.
• m 1.897

  Idem def. ca. 28. lib. 1. de pontis. §. Quocirca.
• n 1.898

  Relect. Cont. 3. qu. 4. §. Circa.
• o 1.899

  Rel. Conc. 6. q. 3. Art. 5. §. Respond••o.
• p 1.900

  Loc. Theol. lib. 6. ca. 7. §. Quid.
• q 1.901

  Lib. 3. de verb. De•• ca. 8. §. Excuti∣mus.
• r 1.902

  Lib. 4. de Pont. ca. 2. § Quarto.
• s 1.903

  In 2. 2. disp. 1. q. 1. punct. 1 part. 30.
• t 1.904

  Lib 2. de Conc. ca. 2 §. Ac ut.
• u 1.905

  Lib. de. Eccles. milit. ca. 14. §. No∣stra.
• x 1.906

  Def. ca. 10. lib. 3. de verb. Dei. §. Iam. pa. 1450.
• y 1.907

  Ibid. §. An. pa. 1451.
• z 1.908

  In 2.2. disp. 1. q. 1.
• a 1.909

  Lib. 2. de sig. eccl. ca. 21. §. His. & lib. 14. ca. 16. §. His.
• b 1.910

  Li 2. de Conc. ca. 13. § Haec.
• c 1.911

  Omnium qui docēt papam esse supra Concilium. ibid. quos recenset ca. 14. §. ultima.
• d 1.912

  Lib. 4. de. Pon. Rom. ca. 24. §. Se∣cundo.
• e 1.913

  Inn. 3. ca. 1. Cum ex eo. Ex. de Penit. & cap. Proposuit et de Concess. prebend.
• f 1.914

  Relect. Conc. 6. q. 3. art. 5. opin. 5.
• g 1.915

  Lib. 6. de Eccles. Hier. ca. 1. § Et quanquam.
• h 1.916

  Lib. 2. de Conc. ca. 11. § De secundo
• i 1.917

  Lib. 4. de Pont. ca. 3. §. Contra.
• k 1.918

  Defen. ca. 2. lib. 4 de Pont. § Recensent
• l 1.919

  Loc. Theod. lib. 6▪ ca. 7. § Quid.
• m 1.920

  Lib. 5. ca. 5. § Non.
• n 1.921

  Cupers Com. i•• cap. Oportebat. pa. 11.
• o 1.922

  Ier.
• o 1.923

  Bell. lib. 3. de verb. Dei ca. 5. § Quinsū et lib. 4. de Pont. ca. 1. § Denique. et lib. 2. de Conc. ca. 11. § De tertio.
• p 1.924

  Affirmant ejus ju∣dicium esse ultimū. Hinc autem aperte sequitur non errare. ••ell. lib 2. de Conc. ca. 3 § Accedat.
• q 1.925

  Cupers com. ad cap. oporteb. pa. 4. nu. 33.
• r 1.926

  Ret Cont. 6. q. 3. art. 5. opin. 10.
• s 1.927

  Lib. 2. de Conc. ca. 17.
• t 1.928

  Lib. eod. ca. 14. § Vltima.
• u 1.929

  Lib. eod. ca. 17. § Donique.
• x 1.930

  Lib. eod ca. 13. § Deinde.
• y 1.931

  Ca. 6. § Probo. pa. 227.
• z 1.932

  Cap. eodem. § La∣teran pa. 249.
• a 1.933

  Sess. 11. pa. 639. b.
• b 1.934

  Nedum ex Scripturae sacrae te∣stimonio, dictu san∣ctorum patrum &c. Ibid.
• c 1.935

  Ibid. pa. 340.
• d 1.936

  Sess. 14. ca. 7.
• e 1.937

  Pontifex ut Prin∣ceps Ecclesiae sum∣mus potest retracta∣re illud judicium Concilij. Bell. lib. 1. de Conc. ca 18. § Dicc. Potest ap∣probare vel reproba∣re. Idē lib. 2. ca. 11. § De tertio.
• f 1.938

  Bell. lib. codem 2. ca. 18. § Praeterea.
• g 1.939

  Aug. Triump. de potest. Eccl. q. 6. ar 8.
• h 1.940

  Sententia Concilij cui praest Petrus, est sententia Spiri∣tus sancti. Bell. lib. 3 de verb. Dei. ca. 5. § Sextum.

  Idem asserere pos∣sunt caetera legiti∣ma Concilia. Bell. lib. 2. de Conc. ca. 2. § Tertius.
• i 1.941

  Bell. lib. 3. de verb. Dei, ca. 10. § Decimum.
• k 1.942

  Lib. 4. de Pont. ca. 3. § Secundo.
• l 1.943

  Pref. in lib de Pont. § Quae.
• m 1.944

  Isa. 28.16. 1 Pet. 2.8.
• n 1.945

  Ca. 6. pa. 255.
• o 1.946

  Lib. 4. Hier. ca. 6. § Habes.
• p 1.947

  Ench. co. de. sum. Pont § Neque.
• q 1.948

  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.
• r 1.949

  Lib. de Eccl. milit. ca. 10 § Ad baec.
• s 1.950

  Lib. de effect. Sacr. ca. 25 § Tertium.
• t 1.951

  Lib. 6. de grat. et lib. arb. ca. 3. § At Catholici.
• u 1.952

  Tripl. cont. Whit. ca. 11. § Veni••s.
• x 1.953

  Dupl. cont. Whit. ca. 16. sect. 4.
• y 1.954

  Tripl. ca. 16. § At qui.
• z 1.955

  Relect. Cont. 4. q. 1 art. 3. ad 8.
• a 1.956

  Doct. Prin. lib. 8 ca. 21 § Hic.
• b 1.957

  Ca. Eod. § Ad se∣cundam.
• c 1.958

  Rel. Cont 4. q. 3. art. 2. ad 8.
• d 1.959

  Sess. 4. § Praete••∣e••
• e 1.960

  Lib. 3. de verbo Dei. ca. 3. § T••ta
• f 1.961

  Ca. 3. & 4.
• g 1.962

  Sup. hoc. cap. nu. 6.
• h 1.963

  Lib. 9. doct. prin. ca. 14. §. Manet.
• i 1.964

  Notae in lib. Her∣mae. to. 5. Bibl. S. patr.
• k 1.965

  Concil. Rom. primū sub Gelasio.
• m 1.966

  Const. Clem. lib. 3. ca. 2.
• n 1.967

  Idem lib. 8. ca. 32.
• o 1.968

  Bibl. in verbo Clemens Rom.
• p 1.969

  Can. 2.
• p 1.970

  Haec rescripsimus, nemini praescriben∣tes, aut praejudican∣tes quo minus unus∣quisque quod puta∣verit faciat, habens liberam arbitrij sui faculta••ē. Nos autem cum Collegis nostr•••• non contendimus, cum quibus divinem & dominicam pa∣cem tenemus. Cyp. Epist. ad lub••ian. in finc. vid. August lib. 5. de Baptis. ca. 17.
• q 1.971

  Lib. 2. de Baptis. ca. 4.
• r 1.972

  Lib. 4. ca. 5.
• s 1.973

  Lib. 1. ca. 18.
• s 1.974

  Paralip. ad. Abb. Vsperg. pa. 448.
• t 1.975

  1 Cor. 3.11.
• u 1.976

  Sup. hoc cap. nu. 7
• x 1.977

  Hos. de author. sac. Script. lib. 3. § Quaerit.
• y 1.978

  Lib. de ossic. viri ••ij. § Sunc alij.
• z 1.979

  Ecce potestas Ec∣clesiae supra Script. ••nchyr. tit. de Eccles.
• a 1.980

  Enchyr. Ibid.
• b 1.981

  Th. B••z. lib. de sig∣nu Eccl. 16. ca. 10. § Illud.
• c 1.982

  Non adeo absurde dictum est. &c. Gretz. Appen. 2. od lib. 1. de verb. dei pa. 3••6.
• * 1.983

  Potuit illud pio sensu dici. Hos. lib. 3. de author. Script. § Fingemus.
• e 1.984

  Lib. de. not. Eccl. ca. ••.
• f 1.985

  Papista deducitur a Papa, 〈…〉〈…〉 Petrus, 〈…〉〈…〉 Christus ipse. Ibid.
• g 1.986

  Demand. 8.
• h 1.987

  Sup. nu. 19.
• i 1.988

  Arist. lib. 1. demen. ca. 2.
• k 1.989

  Lib. 1. de baptism. ca. 18.
• l 1.990

  Ablatus ascendit, quē sua fides lavit. Amb. Orat. de obitu Valent.
• m 1.991

  Qui jam ad quietem pr••cessit, ait Dionys. apud Euseb. l. 1. ca. 23.
• n 1.992

  Sup. nu. 6.
• o 1.993

  Rev. 18 6.
• p 1.994

  Heb. 11.6.
• q 1.995

  Tit. 1.15.
• r 1.996

  Ca. 2.14.15.
• s 1.997

  Act. 15.9.
• t 1.998

  Lib. 5. cont. Faust. ca. 11.
• u 1.999

  Lib. 1. de Nup. & Conc. ca. 3.
• x 1.1000

  Potest homo facere plus quā Deus prae∣cipit, igitu•• mul••o magis potest implere praeceptum. Bell. lib. 4. de Ius••if. ca. 13. § Accedant, & Catholici omnes doce••, legem dei justis hominibus esse absolutè possi∣bilem, lib. eod. ca. 10 § Por••••.
• y 1.1001

  Aust. lib. 5. contra Faust. ca. 5.
• z 1.1002

  In lib. Inst. divin. ca. 6,
• a 1.1003

  Lib. eod. ca. 9.
• b 1.1004

  Pectatum tectum est. Psal. 32.1.
• c 1.1005

  Isa, 43.25.
• d 1.1006

  Numb. 23.21.
• e 1.1007

  Kemnit. Exa. Conc. Trid. 1. Tract. de communi. sub u∣tra{que} speci••. pa. 136.
• f 1.1008

  Conc. Constant. Sess. 13. Conc. Trid. Sess. 22. in de∣creto super petit. de concessione calici•• Bell. lib. 4. de Eu∣char. ca. 28.
• g 1.1009

  Esse schismatici convicti sunt, qui diversam à Romano Pontifice, his decer∣nendis, sententiam sectati essent. Bar. an. 547. nu. 30.
• h 1.1010

  Coll. 8. ••olis ana∣thema sit. saepa ibid.
• i 1.1011

  Nihil aliud signi∣ficat anathema, nisi à Deo separationem. Coll. 5. pa. 552. b.
• k 1.1012

  An. 553. nu. 221.
• l 1.1013

  Ibid.
• m 1.1014

  An. eodem 553. nu. 250.
• n 1.1015

  An. eodem nu. 2••9.
• o 1.1016

  Epist. ad Crestum apud Euseb. lib. 10. ca. 5.
• h 1.1017

  Lib. de unit. Eccl. ca. 4.
• i 1.1018

  Lib. 6. doct. princ. ca. 7. § Istud.
• k 1.1019

  Lib. 10. ca. 7. §. Nempe.
• l 1.1020

  Tu. ••.10.
• m 1.1021

  Lib. de Eccles. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ca. 5.
• n 1.1022

  Extra quam (Ec∣clesiam) nullus om∣nino salvatur. Conc. Lateran. •• •• 1.
• a 1.1023

  An. 547. nu. 47.
• b 1.1024

  An. 546. nu. 53.••
• c 1.1025

  An. 553. nu. 197.
• d 1.1026

  Ibid. nu. 47.
• e 1.1027

  Ibid. nu. 231.
• f 1.1028

  In Chron. an. 2. post Coss. Basil••.
• g 1.1029

  An. 10. post Coss. Basilij.
• h 1.1030

  An. 545. nu. 25.
• i 1.1031

  Apud Bar. an. 553. nu. 196.
• k 1.1032

  Ibid. nu. 197:
• l 1.1033

  Ibid. nu. 207.
• m 1.1034

  Coll. 8. pa. 586. b. & 588. a.
• n 1.1035

  Act. Concil. Eph. recitat. in Conc. Chal. Act. 1. pa. 45.
• o 1.1036

  Ibid. pa. 46.
• p 1.1037

  Ibid. pa. 47.
• q 1.1038

  Ibid. pa. ••••.
• r 1.1039

  Ibid. pa. 57.
• s 1.1040

  Conciliab. Ephes. in Act. Conc. Chal. Act. 1. pa. 11.
• t 1.1041

  Act. 6. pa. 561.
• u 1.1042

  Confiteor ex dua∣bus naturis fuisse Dominum ante adunationem, post vero adunationem unam naturam con∣fiteor, Dixit Euty∣ches: sancta Syno∣dus dixit, consenti∣mus. Act. Conc. Ephes. in Act. Conc. Chal. Act. 1. pa. 28. b.
• x 1.1043

  Act. 6. pa. 561.
• x 1.1044

  Ibid.
• y 1.1045

  To. 3. Act. Conc. Epist. ca. 20.
• z 1.1046

  Ibid. ca. 19.
• a 1.1047

  Ibid. ca. 11.
• b 1.1048

  Append. 2. ad tom. 3. Act. Conc. Ephes. ca. 3.
• c 1.1049

  To. ••. Conc. Ephes. ca. 12.
• d 1.1050

  Ibid. ca. 13.
• e 1.1051

  Ibid. ca. 2:
• f 1.1052

  Ibid. ca. 6.
• g 1.1053

  An Apologi∣call Epistle pub∣lished an. 1601. pa. 113.
• h 1.1054

  Ibid. pa. 113.
• i 1.1055

  Ibid. pa. 38.
• k 1.1056

  Ibid. pa. 119.
• l 1.1057

  Lib. 2. de doct. Christ. ca. 9.
• m 1.1058

  Epist. 1 62.
• n 1.1059

  Lib. 4. part. 1. ca. 2.
• o 1.1060

  Cons. 12. de pertinacia. part. 1. pa. 430.
• p 1.1061

  Ench. ca. 11. nu. 22.
• q 1.1062

  Lib. 1. de justa punit. haeret. ca. 7
• r 1.1063

  Const. Vigil. apud Bar. an. 553. nu. 208.
• a 1.1064

  An. 554. nu. 7.
• b 1.1065

  An. 553. nu. 235.
• c 1.1066

  Ibid. nu. 236.
• d 1.1067

  An. 556. nu. 1.
• e 1.1068

  Lib. 1. de Conc. ca. 5. § Coacta.
• f 1.1069

  Not. in Conc. 5. § Praeslitit.
• g 1.1070

  Bar. an. 546. nu. 8.
• h 1.1071

  An. 555. nu. 1.
• i 1.1072

  In Chron. an. 17. post Coss. Basil.
• k 1.1073

  Ipso exordio os∣seriae ab Impe∣ratore senten∣tiae. Bar. an. 546 nu. 38. et 39.
• l 1.1074

  Ille (Vigilius) prophanas vo∣cum novitates sibi vendicavit arguendas. Ait Facund. apud Bar. an. 546. nu. 57.
• m 1.1075

  Nisi contrari∣um Synodo Chalcedonensi judicaret. Ibid. nu. 58.
• n 1.1076

  An. 547. nu. 44. et 32.
• o 1.1077

  Ibid.
• p 1.1078

  Facund. loco cit. nu. 56.
• q 1.1079

  2 Cor. 12. v. 22.
• r 1.1080

  An. 546. nu. 47. et 547. nu. 45.
• s 1.1081

  An. 546. nu. 44
• t 1.1082

  Hac Facun∣dus jubente Vi∣gilio. Bar. ibid.
• u 1.1083

  Scriptum ad∣versus Impera∣torem edidit. An. eod. nu. 39.
• x 1.1084

  Opus grande & elegans, et patrum authori∣tatibus muni∣tum. Poss. Bibl. in Facund.
• y 1.1085

  Facund. lib. 12 ejus verba citan∣tur à Bar. an. 546. nu. 41.
• a 1.1086

  An. 546. nu. 41
• b 1.1087

  An. 528. nu. 2. ut qui nec pri∣ma elementa cal∣leret ut legere posset. An. 446. nu. 43.
• c 1.1088

  An. 551. nu. 4
• d 1.1089

  Repente ap∣parere pallia••••m Theologum. An. 551. nu. 43.
• e 1.1090

  An. 552. nu. 8.
• f 1.1091

  Ille furore per∣citus, men••e di∣mo••us, co••rre, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 maligno spiritu, agitatus á Sata∣na. An. 551. nu. 2.
• g 1.1092

  Praeter 〈◊〉〈◊〉 fas∣que prasumens. An. 528. nu. 2.
• h 1.1093

  An. 546. nu. 43.
• i 1.1094

  Ibid. nu. 41.
• k 1.1095

  An. 550. nu. 14.
• l 1.1096

  Haec addidisse voluimus. An. 546. nu. 43.
• m 1.1097

  An. 553. nu. 237.
• n 1.1098

  Vel si rectum fuisset, recte non fieret, quia nulli Regum hinc ali∣quid agere, sed solis est sacerdoti∣bus datum. Fa∣cund. & Bar. an. 547. nu. 35. Im∣perator. est fidem coram sacerdoti∣bus profiteri, non eandem praescri∣bere sacerdotibus Bar. ibid.
• o 1.1099

  Edictū editū fuit anno. 546. Bar. eo anno nu. 8. Constantinopo∣lin ingressus est an. 547. prope die Natalis Do∣mini. Bar. an. illo. nu. 26.
• p 1.1100

  Bar. an. eod. nu. 31.32.
• q 1.1101

  Ibid. nu. 37.
• d 1.1102

  An. 547. nu. 40.
• e 1.1103

  Ibid.
• f 1.1104

  Extat in Coll. 7. Conc. 5. pa. 578.
• g 1.1105

  Ibid. pa. 580.
• h 1.1106

  Ibid.
• i 1.1107

  Bar. an. 547. nu. 49.
• k 1.1108

  In Chron. an. 10. post Coss. Basilij.
• l 1.1109

  An. 547 nu. 30. & 39.
• m 1.1110

  Ad haec om∣nia excusanda, illud satis super∣que est. Bar. ibi. nu. 49.
• n 1.1111

  An. eodem nu. 41.
• o 1.1112

  Rursus a Vi∣gilio promulga∣tum decretum est, quo decer∣nebatur, ut de controversia de tribus Capitu••••s penitus tacere∣tur, ibid.
• p 1.1113

  Ab hoc anno (547) ad tem∣pus Concilij in∣dictum (fuit au∣tem an. 553) fuit in ea causa silentium, ibid. nu. 43.
• q 1.1114

  Sup. ca. 3. nu. 4. & seq.
• r 1.1115

  Si quid de ••isdem capitulis contra haec quae hic asseruimus—••el statuimus factum, dictum at{que} conscriptum est, vel fuerit—hoc modis omni∣bus ex authori∣tate sedis Apo∣stolicae refuta∣mus. Const. Vi∣gil. in fine.
• s 1.1116

  Not. in Conc. 5. § Praestitit.
• t 1.1117

  An. 553. nu. 222.
• u 1.1118

  Ibid. nu. 251.
• x 1.1119

  An. 554. nu. 6.
• y 1.1120

  Illi tantum immunes à persecutione erant, &c. an. 553. nu. 222.
• z 1.1121

  Quod mon∣strosus accessit, ab Imperatore persecutio exci∣tata est, & haud quidem levis. ibid. nu. 221.
• a 1.1122

  Cant. 8.6.
• b 1.1123

  Tusc. quaest. lib. 2.
• c 1.1124

  An. 554. & 555.
• d 1.1125

  Bar. an. 553. nu. 235.
• e 1.1126

  Synodum 5. ••adem Aposto∣lica authoritate comprobass•• satis apparet. Bar. an. 554. nu. 7. & Bini. loc. cit. § Praestitit.
• f 1.1127

  Ibid.
• g 1.1128

  Ibid. § Tunc.
• h 1.1129

  An. 554. nu. 4.
• i 1.1130

  Ibidem.
• k 1.1131

  Extat in fine Novell.
• l 1.1132

  Conc. 5. coll. 8.
• m 1.1133

  Bar. & Bin. locis cit.
• n 1.1134

  Bar. an. 555. nu. 2.
• o 1.1135

  Cum saepe sen∣tentia mutavit, haud arguendus est levitatis. an. 553. nu. 235.
• p 1.1136

  Cur ei nōlicuit mutalo rerum statu mutare sē∣tentiam? ibid. nu. 231, &, jure me∣ritoque mutavit sententiam. Bin. § Cum igitur.
• q 1.1137

  Vigilius mag∣na consideratione adhibita atque prudentiâ, diver∣se modo pugna∣bat. an. 547. nu. 60.
• r 1.1138

  Summa consta∣tia specimen edi∣dit. ibid. nu. 49.
• s 1.1139

  An. 551. nu. 5.
• t 1.1140

  An. 553. nu. 251.
• u 1.1141

  An. 547. nu. 41.
• x 1.1142

  Prudēs & pius pontifex hac in re prudenter est imitatus S. Pau∣lum. Bin. in E∣dict. nu. 11. to. 2. pa. 499. § Cum, & Bar. an. 553. nu. 235.
• y 1.1143

  Tanto ipse po∣tentior est Pro∣phetis effectus, quanto differen∣tius prae illis no∣men haeredit••∣vit. Nom cui prophetarum ali∣quando dictū est, Tu es Petra? Bar. an 552. nu. 9.
• z 1.1144

  Vidisti Scelus, &c. Bar. an. 554. nu. 2.
• a 1.1145

  Obid, ipsum (Vigilium) col∣lusorem, praeva∣ricat••remque ab adversarijs cō∣clamatum. Bar. an. 547. nu. 49.
• b 1.1146

  Prudenter pe∣riclitanti Eccle∣siae visus est con∣suluisse Vigilius Ibid. nu. 41.
• c 1.1147

  Ibid.
• d 1.1148

  Ab hoc anno, ad illud usque tempus. Ibid. nu. 43.
• e 1.1149

  Bar ibid. nu. 26
• f 1.1150

  Ibid. nu. 48
• g 1.1151

  Bar. an. 551. nu. 2.
• h 1.1152

  Ibid. nu. 3.
• * 1.1153

  Bar. an. 547. nu. 43.
• k 1.1154

  Iustinianus contra praece∣dentis Synodi decretū, et emis∣sam sponsionem de servando us{que} ad Concilium u∣niversale silētio, appendi jussit E∣dictum. Bar. an. 55••. nu. 2.
• l 1.1155

  Bar. an. 547. nu. 41.
• m 1.1156

  Nam decretū editum an. 547. Bar. eo an. nu. 43. ista au∣tem gesta an. 551 Bar. eo an. nu. 2.5, 6. et seq.
• n 1.1157

  Bar. an. 551. nu. 5.
• o 1.1158

  Sententiam excommunicati∣onis intorquet. Ibid. Verba excō∣municationis ex∣tant. Ibid. nu. 11 et 12.
• p 1.1159

  Ibid. nu. 11.
• q 1.1160

  Iustinianus contra Synodi decretum publi∣cé appendi jussit Edictum. Ibid. nu. 2.
• r 1.1161

  Ibid. et consa∣gere coactus est. An. 552. nu. 8.
• s 1.1162

  Bar. an. 551. nu. 2.
• t 1.1163

  Nec sacer ille locus asylum tan∣to Pontifici fuit. An. 552. nu. 8.
• u 1.1164

  Dedit alapam in faciem, &c. Ibid.
• x 1.1165

  Ab Imperatoris furore; & ab Imperatoris sacrilegi violentia. Ibid.
• y 1.1166

  Trans mare quaesivit effugium, et in Basilicam S. Euphemiae apud Chalcedonem habitare disposuit. An. 552. nu. 8.
• z 1.1167

  Nihil penitus remisit Apostolicae authoritatis. Ibid. nu. 9. et 10.
• a 1.1168

  Idem ille locus effectus est, Pontificis Romani praesentia, eminens cunctisque perspicuum ad judicandum tribunal, &c. Ibid. nu. 10.
• b 1.1169

  Missilia in hostes facit, potentissima que spiritalia spicu∣la jacit in hostes seritque. Ibid.
• c 1.1170

  Summa po∣testatis plenitu∣dine adversus metropolitano•• Episcopos, i•• ò in ipsum Patriar∣cham Constanti∣nopolitanum ser∣re sententiam, insuper et perpe∣ram facta Impe∣ratoris rescinde∣re magno animo aggressus est. An. 552. nu. 9.
• d 1.1171

  Ier. 1.
• e 1.1172

  Ita plane mag∣no velutimira∣culo factum est, &c. Ibid. nu. 11.
• f 1.1173

  Iustinianus fa∣cti poenitens dig∣nam tanto Pon∣tifice legationem ornavit, &c. Ibid.
• g 1.1174

  Iuramento praestito honori∣fice revocaret. Ibid.
• h 1.1175

  Nuncijs licet magna pollicen∣tibus haud puta∣vit esse creden∣dum, ut∣pote (quod in proverbio est) Graecorum fides. Bar. 552. nu. 12.
• i 1.1176

  Neque juratis patricijs voluit fidem adhibere, nisi Imperator quae contra Rom. Pontificis de tribus Captu∣lis appendisset Edicta protenus revocaret, atque penitus abo••cret•• Ibid. nu. 11.
• k 1.1177

  Constat cessisse tandem Vigi∣lio Imperato∣rem, atque ap∣pensa ••moveri jussisse a se pro∣lata de tri∣bus Capitulis Edicta. &c. Ibid. an. 552. nu. 15. et, Imperator appensa antea de tribus Capitulis ••olli jussit Edicta. Ibid. an. 19.
• l 1.1178

  Ibid. an. 552. nu. 19.
• l 1.1179

  Theo∣dorus facti poenitens ad cum accedens humilis libellum supplicem ipsi Vigilio offeri. Ibid. an. 552. nu. 19. Praesticit id ipsum eti∣am Mennas. Ibid. nu. 20.
• m 1.1180

  Ibid. nu. 19.
• n 1.1181

  Quis ista considerans non miretur, atque obstupescat, &c. Ibid. nu. 20.
• o 1.1182

  Tali pramissa satisfactione, Vigilius eosdem in communionem accepit, redditaque est Ecclesia pax. Ibid. nu. 20.
• p 1.1183

  Hoc ipso anno (552) Mennas Const. Episcopus à Vigilio in communionem admissus E••••aenia celebravit, &c. Bar. ibid. an. 552. nu. 22.
• q 1.1184

  An∣no hoc 552. exordio mensis Aprilis incipit numerari Iustiniani annu•• 26.
• r 1.1185

  Cum sacrae reliquiae 〈◊〉〈◊〉 aureo circumvecta ab eodem Menna reconditae sunt. Bar. Ibid. nu. 22.
• s 1.1186

  Bar. an. 552. nu. 23.
• t 1.1187

  Sic ita{que} animis junctis, restitu∣loque in pristinā dignitatem at{que} honorem Vigilio, indicta est Syno∣dus, &c. Bar. an. 553. nu. 14.
• u 1.1188

  Apoc. 3.15, 16.
• x 1.1189

  1 King. 18.21.
• y 1.1190

  Matth. 12.30.
• z 1.1191

  Solonis lex apud A. Gellium lib. 2. ca. 12.
• a 1.1192

  Chalcedonen∣sis S. Synodus Domnum con∣demnavit, quod ansus est scribere, oportere solum tacere 12. Ca∣pitula S. Cyrillij. Iust. in Aedict. §. Quod autem.
• b 1.1193

  Idem asserit plane Conc. 6. Col. 6. pa. 575. b
• c 1.1194

  Iustin. Epist. ad 5. Synod. Coll. 2. pa. 520. a.
• c 1.1195

  Coll. 7. Conc. 5. pa. 578. a.
• d 1.1196

  Bar. an. 547. nu. 41.
• e 1.1197

  Hi adversus Rom. Pontificē in diversas pro∣vincias literas dedere, Bar. an. 548. nu. 2. is est juxta. Bar. an. Iustin. 22.
• f 1.1198

  Schismatici scriptis ubi{que} vulgaverant, Vigilium tria damn••ndo Ca∣pitula impugna∣re Chalcedonense Concilium. Bar. an 550. nu. 1.
• g 1.1199

  Exemplaria (Iudicati no∣stri) per plurimos sacerdotes et laicos in Africa∣na Provincia destinares ait Vig. Rustico et Sebastiano, in sua Epist. ad eos in Conc. 5. Coll. 7 pa. 578 b.
• h 1.1200

  Epistola Vigi∣lij ad Valentin. data est 15. K••l. April. anno 23. Iustiniani. extat in Conc. 5. Coll 7. pa. 580. et seq.
• i 1.1201

  Etiam hoc mentiti sunt, etc. Epist. Vig. ib. pa. 581. a.
• k 1.1202

  Legant quae de causa quae hic mota est ad fratrem nostrum Mennam scri∣bentes legimur definivisse, ibid.
• l 1.1203

  Ibid.
• m 1.1204

  Credimus e∣nim, Catholicae ecclesiae filijs, ea quae tunc ad Mēnam scripsi∣mus de blasphe∣mijs Theodori, ejus{que} persona, de{que} Epistola Ibae, & scriptis Theodoreti cōtra rectam fidem, abunde posse sufficere, ibid.
• n 1.1205

  Epistola Vigi∣lij ad Aurel. da∣ta est Kal. Maijs an. 24. Iustiniani Augusti, extat in Conc. 5. Coll. 7. pa. 581. b.
• o 1.1206

  Ista hoc anno Constantinopoli à Vigilio ad∣versus schisma∣ticos decreta fuerunt. Bar. an. 550. (qui est Iustiniani 24.) nu. 36.
• p 1.1207

  Ea extat in Conc. 5. Coll. 7. pa. 578. & seq. & eam recita 1. Bar. an. 550. nu. 16. & seq.
• q 1.1208

  Hi in sentētia papae & decreto nominantur, apud Bar. an. eodem, nu. 34.
• r 1.1209

  Immutatum te comperimus, & cum adversarijs ecclesiae qui con∣tra Iudicati nostri seriem ni∣tebantur se, cau∣tè tractare, &c. Vigil. in suo de∣creto contra Rust. & Sebast. apud Bar. an. 550. nu. 22.
• s 1.1210

  Bar. an. 551. nu. 2. emiss•• spōsionē de servade silentio, &c.
• t 1.1211

  Si quis nō ana∣thematizat The∣odorū et Theodo∣reti scripta, &c. & Epistol•• Ibae, Anathema sit. E∣dict. Iustin.
• u 1.1212

  Conc. 5. Coll. 7. in fine.
• x 1.1213

  Festinantes bo∣nā fides semē pu∣ram co••servare ab impietatis Zi∣zanus. Conc. 5. Coll. 8. pa. 584. a.
• y 1.1214

  Bar. an. 547. nu. 1. & 41.
• z 1.1215

  Victo. Tun. in ••bron. sed vitio Typogr. scribitur an. 8. pro 7. nam proxim•• praece∣dens ānusap••. deiā recte numeratur an. 6. post. Coss. Bas. neque ul••um ••••num omitti ab eo certum est.
• a 1.1216

  Vict. loc. citat.
• b 1.1217

  Nasacra impe∣ratoris ad Ioh••. data est an. Iust. 24. post Cos. Bas∣a. 9. ext. in Coc. 5 Col. 6. pa. 553. a.
• c 1.1218

  Facta est sug∣gestio ad sanct. pa. p••m Vigiliū ab eisdem episcopis (Concil. Mops∣ves••eni.) Conc. 5. Coll. 5 pa. 557. a. ••cta in Con∣cilio Mopsvestena 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Vigilium Iu∣stiniani Concilio & opera missa fuere ne in futu∣ra generali Sy∣nodo ••heodorum ipse domnare ali∣quo modo detrec∣taret. Bar. anno. 550. nu. 39.
• d 1.1219

  Zoilum Impe∣rator deposuit. Liber. ca. 23.
• e 1.1220

  Firmus donis principis corrup∣tus, damnationī 3. Capitulorum assensū praebuit. Vict. an. 11 (cor∣rupè. scribitur 12) post. Cōs B••s••
• f 1.1221

  Iustinianus Imp. contra tria Capitula publice (Constantinopo∣li) appendi jussit edictam. Bar. an. 551. (qui est 10. post Coss. Basil.) nu. 2.
• g 1.1222

  Bin. not. in Conc. 5. § Conci∣lium. & Bar. an. 547. nu. 29.
• h 1.1223

  Bar. an. 551. nu. 5. Theodorus adversus tria ca∣pitula cuncta publice agere non desticit.
• i 1.1224

  Excommuni∣catio resertur à Bar. an. 551. nu. 11.12.
• k 1.1225

  Ibid. nu. 12.
• l 1.1226

  Ibid. nu. 7.
• m 1.1227

  Conc. 5. Coll. 7 in fine.
• n 1.1228

  Bar. ann. 548. nu. 6. Non tantū Rusticus acuit sti••um contra Vi∣gisium, sed alij plures, Libera∣tus, Victor, &c.
• o 1.1229

  Vbique vul∣garunt ipsum Vigilium tria damnando capi∣tula impugnare Concilium Chalc. Bar. an. 550. nu. 1.
• p 1.1230

  Vigilius in suae sententia, seu E∣pistola Rustico et Sebastiano in Conc. 5. •• Coll. 7. pa. 578. b.
• y 1.1231

  Vict. Tun. an. 8. post Cons. Bas. sed corrupte le∣gitur 9.
• z 1.1232

  Vict. Tun. an. 9 post Cons. Basil.
• a 1.1233

  Bar. an. 548. nu. 6.
• b 1.1234

  Qui postea (post ultimum judicium Papae) ab bis dissensere, Schismatici ha∣biti sunt. Cum tamen interea ante novissimum Apostolicae sedis assensum, non esset piacuhum pro tribus pug∣nare capitulis. Bar. an. 546. nu. 38.
• c 1.1235

  De hoc Vigilij decreto (pro Si∣lentio) et inita c •••• Theodoro & Menna transac∣tione, testes sunt acta publica. Bar. an. 547. nu. 42. Ista Acta vo∣cat, Constitutum Vigilij de Ana∣themate. an. 551. nu. 12.
• d 1.1236

  Extat tum a∣pud Bar. an. 551 nu. 6. et seq. tum apud Bin. post. E∣pist. 16. Vigilij.
• e 1.1237

  Ibid. nu. 3. pene hoc quin∣quennio.
• f 1.1238

  Ib. nu. 11. et 12
• g 1.1239

  Data 19. Kal. Septemb. Impe∣rante Domino Iustiniano an. 25. post. Cons. Basilij anno deci∣mo. Bar. an. 551 nu. 12.
• h 1.1240

  Ibid.
• i 1.1241

  Pene hoc quin∣quennio elapso monstravimus. Ibid. nu. 7.
• k 1.1242

  Bar. an. 547. (que est Iustinia∣ni. 21.) nu. 41. et 43.
• l 1.1243

  Apud Bar. an. 551. nu. 12.
• m 1.1244

  Bar. an. 552. nu. 20. Ipse Mennas libel∣lum supplic•••• Vigilio obtulit.
• n 1.1245

  Conc. 6. Act. 3.
• o 1.1246

  Eo argumen∣to manifestis∣simè comproba∣runt, quod Men∣nas sex annis an∣te quintam Sy∣nodum sub Vigi∣lio celebratam ex hoc vitá ••i∣grasset. Bin. not. in Conc. 6. in Act. 3.
• p 1.1247

  Tu cum omni∣bus Metropoli∣tanis et Micro∣politanis Episco∣pis. Vigil. senten∣tia apud Bar. an. 551. nu. 12.
• q 1.1248

  Hoc opus ante annos circiter 30 aggressus sum. Bar. in praefat, dedic. an∣te tom. 1. Anna∣lium.
• r 1.1249

  Hoc anno (26. Iustiniani) finem vivendisecit Mennas. Bar. an. 552. nu. 21.
• s 1.1250

  Bar. an. 680. nu. 46.
• t 1.1251

  Bin. Not. in Vigilij sententi∣am contra Theo∣dorum, tom. 2. Conc. pa. 504.
• a 1.1252

  Cum vero Vi∣gilius graviori damno univer∣sum Orientem ab Ecclesia Rom. divisum cerne∣ret, nisi Synodo quintae consenti∣ret, eam proba∣vit. Bar. an. 553 nu. 235.
• b 1.1253

  Vigilius abro∣gato quod pro 3. Capitulis edide∣rat Constituto, quintae Synodo adversanti, ean∣dem Synodum authoritate A∣postolica compro∣bavit. Bar. 554. nu. 7. Vigilius hanc Synodum quintam, suo Decreto, suaque authoritate Pon∣tificia confirma∣vit. Bin. not. in Conc. 5. § Prae∣flitit; et Decretū Vigilij vocat Bar. an. 553. nu. 231.
• c 1.1254

  Quo anno (554.) Vigilius praecibus Narse∣tis liberatur exi∣lio. Bar. an. 554. nu. 1. necesse est dicere id à Vigi∣li•• factum (id est quintam Syno∣dum comproba∣tam) hoc tempo∣re (an. 554.) cum ab exilio solutus est. Bar. ibid. nu. 4. Idem ait Bin. not. in Conc. 5. § Praestitit.
• d 1.1255

  Sup. ca. 15.
• e 1.1256

  Bar. an. 553. nu. 223.
• f 1.1257

  Ea est Epist. Leonis 61. quae incipit, Omnem fraternitatem.
• g 1.1258

  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.
• h 1.1259

  Bar. an. 553. nu. 236.
• i 1.1260

  Cujus (Vigilij) postremam sen∣tentiam (pro approbatione 5. Conc. & con∣demnatione tri•••• Capitulorum) posteri omnes sequnti, univers•• Dei Ecclesia pa••cis schisma∣ticia exceptis, eandem Syno∣dum ut oecume∣nicam semper novit. Bar. an. 554. nu. 7.
• k 1.1261

  Bar. an. 553. nu. 236.
• l 1.1262

  Dum non es∣sent Episcopi qui eum ordinarent, inventi sunt duo, Iohannes, & Bonus, & Andreas Presby∣ter de Ostia, & ordinaverunt eum Episcopum, Anast. in vita Pelagij. 1.
• m 1.1263

  Can. Apost. 1
• n 1.1264

  Conc. Nic. Can. 4.
• o 1.1265

  Certe omnimo∣do 3 Episcopi debent esse con∣gregati,—& ita faciant ordi∣nationem. Con. 4. Cont. Nic.
• p 1.1266

  Bell. lib. de Notis Ecclesiae, ca. 8. §. Ex quo. Et Bin. in Notis ad Can. 1. Apost. alij{que}
• q 1.1267

  Subduxerunt se à communione ejus, dicentes, quia in morte Vigilij se mis∣cuit. Anast. in vita Pelag. 1.
• r 1.1268

  Nam Vigilius obijt anno prae∣cedente quum Pelagius de exilió revocatu•• est. Vict. Tun. in Chron. ad an. 16. (corrupte legitur 17.) Basilij, et ad an. sequentem.
• s 1.1269

  Pelagius con∣demnant ea (tria Capitula) quae dudum con∣stantissime de∣sendebat, à prae∣varicatoribus ordinatus est. Vict. ad an. 17. (corrupte legitur 18.) post Cons. Basilij.
• t 1.1270

  Adeo exhorruisse visi sunt Antistites accidentales ferè omnes, aliam post 4. admittere Oecumenican Synodum, ut non p••ta••rit Pelagius reperir•• Episco∣pos Romae, à quibus consecraretur. Bar. an. 556. nu. 1.
• u 1.1271

  Bed. lib. de sex Ae••atib. an∣no mundi, 46••7.
• x 1.1272

  Sigon. lib. 20. de Occid. Imper. an. 554. in fine.
• y 1.1273

  Ob imperitiam fidei 5. Conciliū suscipere dissidit Synodus Aqui∣l••iae. Bed. loc. cit.
• z 1.1274

  Sigon. loc. cit.
• a 1.1275

  Bed. loc. cit.
• b 1.1276

  Apud Bedam legitur (beati Sergij) qui vixit annis 130. post Vigilium, eundē errorem sequitur Platina, & alij. Sed legendum esse Pelagij non Sergij, constat ex Ivone, cujus verba ex decre∣to citat Sigonius, loco cit at. & ibid. ex Beda le∣gitur Pelagij.
• c 1.1277

  Vigilius obijt, an. 550. juxta Baron. Pelagius antem 2. caepit an. 577. juxta eundem Bar.
• d 1.1278

  Ea est 7. Pe∣lagij 2.
• e 1.1279

  Bin. Not. ad eam Epistolam Pelagij.
• f 1.1280

  Rarsus per E∣pistolam vestram dicitur. A sede Apostolica vos doctos & con∣firmatos ne huic rei (1. Synodo quintae & con∣demnationi tri∣um Capitulorū) consentire de∣beatis,—Sedes Apostolica per Vigilium restitit. Pel••g. Epist. 17. §. Rarsum.
• g 1.1281

  Vigilius am∣plissimis scrip∣tis contrariam sententiam (ei quae in quinta Synodo definita est,) professus est, & ad eam sectandam universam eccle∣siam catholicam impulit. Bar. an. 554. nu. 6.
• h 1.1282

  Cur mutatio sententiae hui•• sedi in crimine obijcitur. Pelag. Epist. 7. §. Debet.
• i 1.1283

  Latini homines & Graecitatis Signori dum lin∣guam nesciunt, errorem tarde cognoverunt. Pelag. ibid. §. Rursum.
• k 1.1284

  Praedecessorum nostrorum in hoc causa con∣sensus tanto post inanis non fuit, ibid. § Debet. An illud Tanto post, referri potuit ad decretum Vigilij editum anno proxime sequen∣ti post Concilium 〈◊〉〈◊〉 non potest.
• l 1.1285

  Ante novissi•• Apostolicae 〈◊〉〈◊〉 assensum. Bar. an. 546. nu. 38. itidem{que} 〈…〉〈…〉 in ipsius Vigilij abire Decretum. Bar. an. 553. nu. 231. Quintam Synodum Apo∣stolica authorita∣te comprehavit. an. 554. nu. 7.
• m 1.1286

  Bar. an. 553. nu. 223.
• n 1.1287

  Bar. an. 554. nu 4.
• o 1.1288

  Ibid.
• q 1.1289

  Act. Conc. 5. Coll. 1. pa. 520. a. & Coll. 7. pa. 578. a.
• q 1.1290

  Collat. 8. pa. 584. a.
• r 1.1291

  Evag. lib. 4. ca. 37.
• s 1.1292

  Nicep. lib. 17. ca. 27.
• t 1.1293

  Phot. lib. de 7. Synod. in Conc. 5
• u 1.1294

  Bar. an. 554. nu 4.
• x 1.1295

  Bar. an. 5••4. nu. 6.
• y 1.1296

  A••. eodem nu. ••. et an. 553. nu. 222. liquet ex Anastasio Vi∣gilium fuisse in exilium deporta∣tum, &c.
• z 1.1297

  Anast. in vita Vigilij.
• a 1.1298

  Vultis habere Vigilium, ut fuit, Papa vester? Mi∣nusve? Hîc habe∣tis Pelagium Archidiaconum &c. Anast. ibid.
• b 1.1299

  Liquet ex A∣nastasio omnes ab exilio pariter revocatos. Bar. an. 553. nu. 222
• c 1.1300

  Alia nonnulla eidem petenti cō∣cessit, & ipso ex∣igente sanctionē promulgavit. Bar. an. 554. nu 6.
• d 1.1301

  Donis, muneri∣bus, ac privilegijs ornatus in Italiā redire permissus fuit. B in notis in Conc. 5. §. Prae∣stitit.
• e 1.1302

  Bar. an. 554. nu. 6.
• f 1.1303

  Quorum solùm causá odium con∣statum erat, & exilium irroga∣tum. Bar. ibid.
• g 1.1304

  Theod. histor. lib. 2. ca. 17.
• h 1.1305

  Tunc aduna∣••us clerus r••ga∣verunt Norsere••, ut rogaret Prin∣cipem, &c. Anast. in vita Vig.
• i 1.1306

  Cum (Vigili∣us) cerneret uni∣versum Orien∣tem ab Ecclesia Romana divi∣sum, nisi Synodo consentiret. Bar. an. 553. nu. 235
• k 1.1307

  Anast. in vita Vig.
• l 1.1308

  Bar. 554. nu. 1.
• m 1.1309

  Victor Tun∣nensis author hujus operis, post custodias si••ul et plagas primo et secundo exilio egi Mauritaniae, ••ertiv Alexan∣drinae, pro trium capitulorum desensione. Vict. in Chron. an. 14. (corrupt•• legi∣tu•• 15.) post Cō∣sul. Basilij.
• n 1.1310

  Isiod. lib. de viris illust. ca. 25. ex Aegypto ••ursu•• Constan∣tinopolin evoca∣tus, &c.
• d 1.1311

  Corrupt•• legi∣tur 17. in Chron. Vict.
• p 1.1312

  Bar. an. 553. nu. 2.2.
• q 1.1313

  Per biennium fuere contentic∣nes de Anthime3, sed Vigil. nulla∣tenus voluit con∣sentire, &c. A∣nast. in vit. Vig.
• r 1.1314

  Conc. illud sub Menna, ••bi An∣thimus est depo∣situs, habitum est an. 536. Bar. illo▪ an. nu. 72. Vig. venit Constanti∣nopolin an. 547▪ Bar. illo a. nu. 26
• s 1.1315

  Per biennium, &c. Anast. loc. cit.
• t 1.1316

  Non secerunt me, ut video, ve∣nire ad se Iusti∣nian et Theodo∣ra, sed Dioclesi∣anus et Eleuthe∣ria. Anast. Ibid.
• u 1.1317

  Bar. an. 5••3. nu. 221. et seq▪
• x 1.1318

  Nam Theodo∣ra obijt an. 548. Bar. eo an. nu. 24 Cōc. 5. ••••bitū an. 553. Bar. eo an.
• y 1.1319

  Pontifex (Vi∣gilius) non aliam ••b causam in ex∣ilium actus est, nisi quod 5. Sy∣nodum minimè probare voluiss••t Bar. an. 554. nu. 4.
• z 1.1320

  Quo circa (qu•••• noluit Anthimum resti∣turre) ab irata Imperatrice, in exilium miss•••• fuit Vigilius, & miserè vexatus us{que} ad moxtem. Bell. lib. 4. de Pont. Rom. ca. 10 § ••••migit.
• a 1.1321

  De Vigili•• et tota ejus causa vid. Sanderum. Bin. not. in vit. Vigil. pa. 478. b.
• b 1.1322

  Sand. lib. 7. de visib. Monarch. ad an. 537.
• c 1.1323

  Sig. an. 546.
• d 1.1324

  Alb. Flor. in vita Vig.
• d 1.1325

  Naucl. an. 540
• e 1.1326

  Rheg. an. 559.
• f 1.1327

  Herm. an. 547.
• g 1.1328

  Gotof. an. 527.
• h 1.1329

  Otho an. 528.
• i 1.1330

  Palm. in Chr. an. 537.
• k 1.1331

  Geneb. an. 537.
• l 1.1332

  Stapl. Counterbl. ca. 19.
• m 1.1333

  Hoc plane tempore accidis∣se noscuntur, quae Anast••sius fun∣git, imo confun∣dit cum priori∣bus, quae accide∣runt vivente ad huc Theodora. Bar. an. 552. nu. 8.
• n 1.1334

  Caetera quae sequuntur (in A∣nastasio) post obi∣••um Theodorae contigerunt. Bar. an. 547. nu. 27. Interilla caetera est Vigilij exilium.
• o 1.1335

  Conc. 5. Coll. 1, 2, 3, et 8.
• p 1.1336

  Contigit Vigi∣lium in hac re∣gia urbe degen∣••em, omnibus in∣teresse, &c. Coll. 8. pa. 584. a.
• q 1.1337

  Vid. Bar. an. 574. nu. 10.11.
• r 1.1338

  Respondisse∣mus hanc argu∣mentandi ratio∣nem (ab authori∣tate negativè) in eis praeserrim quae ad histori∣am spectant, non esse prorsus in∣firmamet et elum. bem. Gretz. A∣pol pro Bar. ca. 1 § Peritius.
• s 1.1339

  Anast. in vit. Vigil.
• t 1.1340

  Populus c••pit jactare post cum lapides, fulles, et cacabos, et dice∣re, Fames tua tecum, male in∣venias, ubi va∣dis, &c.
• * 1.1341

  Aim. lib. 2. de gest. Franc. ca. 32
• u 1.1342

  Hist. misc. lib. 16.
• x 1.1343

  Mar. an. 553.
• y 1.1344

  Her. an. 547.
• z 1.1345

  Sig. an. 543.
• a 1.1346

  Luitp. in vita Vigil.
• b 1.1347

  Alb. in vita Vig.
• c 1.1348

  Plat. in vita Vig.
• d 1.1349

  Conr. Ab. Vrs∣per. an. 527.
• e 1.1350

  Nauc. an. 540.
• f 1.1351

  Mart. in vita Vig.
• g 1.1352

  Blond. Dec. 1. lib. 6.
• h 1.1353

  Krant. Met. lib. 2.
• i 1.1354

  Sigeb. lib. 19. de Occ. Imp. an. 545.
• k 1.1355

  Bar. an. 546. nu. 54.
• l 1.1356

  Vict. in Chron. an. 8. post Coss. Bas.
• m 1.1357

  Gretz. Apol. pro Bar. ca. 1. § Respondet.
• n 1.1358

  Hier. Apol. 2. adver. Ruff. pa. 223.
• o 1.1359

  Aug. lib. 3. de doct. Christ. ca. 33.
• p 1.1360

  Vnus sub no∣mine Pamphili à te editus est, et; eadem, quae sub Pamphili nomi∣••e à te ficta ••ant. Hier. Apol. 2. Cont. Ruff. pa. 226.
• p 1.1361

  Vnus sub no∣mine Pamphili à te editus est, et; eadem, quae sub Pamphili nomi∣••e à te ficta ••ant. Hier. Apol. 2. Cont. Ruff. pa. 226.
• q 1.1362

  Inter caetere translatore: po∣sui et hunc li∣brum à Pamphi∣lo editum, ita pu∣tans essè, ut à te et tuis discipalis fuerat, divulga∣tum. Ibid.
• r 1.1363

  Hier. Apol. 3. contra Ruff. pa. 228
• s 1.1364

  Hier. lxij ci••at.
• t 1.1365

  Necesse est af∣firmare. Bar. an. 554. nu. 4.
• u 1.1366

  Bar. an. 553. nu. 222.
• x 1.1367

  Conc. 5. Coll. 1. & 7.
• y 1.1368

  Vict. in Chron. an. 16. (corrup∣tè legitur 17.) post Coss. Basilij.
• z 1.1369

  Bar. an. 554. nu. 6. & Bin. Not. in Conc. ••. §. Praestitit.
• a 1.1370

  Proc. lib. 3. de Bell. Goth. pa. ••93.
• b 1.1371

  Bar. an. 554. nu. 5.
• c 1.1372

  Liber. ca. 22.
• d 1.1373

  Bar. an. 538. nu. ••5.
• e 1.1374

  Bar. an. 55▪ nu. 5.
• f 1.1375

  Complures Or∣thodoxi & ipse Vigilius contra eadem Capitula asserta ab Im∣peratore insur∣rexere. Bar. an. 546. nu. 38.
• g 1.1376

  Vigilius ar∣guit ut propha∣n••s vo••um no∣vitates. Facundi dictum apud Bar. an. 546. nu. 57.58.
• h 1.1377

  Ne Traditor videretur. Fa∣cundi dictum de Vigilio apud Bar. an. 547. nu. 37. Colluso∣rem & Praeva∣ricatorem con∣clamarunt. Bar. an. eod. nu. 49. vulgarunt vbi{que} ••um impugnare Concilium Chal∣tedonense. Bar. an. 550. nu. 1.
• i 1.1378

  Vict. in Chron. an. ••. post Cons. Basil.
• k 1.1379

  Iohn 14:2.
• l 1.1380

  1 Cor. 15.41.
• m 1.1381

  Mat. 25.41.
• n 1.1382

  Gal. 5.19.20.
• o 1.1383

  Vigilius Ro∣manus in insula Sicilia moritur. Vict. in Chron. an. 16. post Cons. Bas.
• p 1.1384

  Firmus donis Principis cor∣ruptus, assensum praebuit, sed in navi morte turpissima perijt. Vict. ibid. an. 11. post Cons. Bas.
• q 1.1385

  Primasius à Catholicis, pro praevaricatore condemnatus infoelici morte extinguitur. Ib.
• r 1.1386

  A praevaricato∣ribus ordinatur. Ibid. an. 17. post Cons. Bas.
• s 1.1387

  Reparatus exi∣lio apud Eu∣chaidam, gloriosa confessione tran∣••iit ad dominum Vict. an. 22. post Cons. Bas.
• t 1.1388

  Bar. an. 554. nu. 5.
• u 1.1389

  Anast. in vit•• Vig.
• a 1.1390

  An. 593. nu. 124.
• b 1.1391

  An. eod. nu. 29.
• c 1.1392

  An. eod. nu. 219
• d 1.1393

  Not▪ in Conc. 5. § Praesedit.
• e 1.1394

  Sup. ca. 4. nu. 26. et seq.
• f 1.1395

  Sup. ca. 17.
• g 1.1396

  Omne septimū ordinatum in eādem numera∣tione quā res•• praecesserunt, &c. Act. 6. pa. 357. a.
• h 1.1397

  Bell. lib. 1. de Conc. ca. 5.
• i 1.1398

  An. 547. nu. 41. & 43.
• k 1.1399

  Coll 8.
• l 1.1400

  Sup. cap. 2. nu. 1. & seq.
• m 1.1401

  Coll. 2. p. 523.
• n 1.1402

  An. 553. nu. 221.
• o 1.1403

  An. 555. nu. 2.
• p 1.1404

  Adeo exhor∣ruisse visi sunt Antistites occi∣dentales aliam post quartam ad∣mittere oecume∣nicam Synodum, ut non potuerit Pelagius rep••rire Episcopos Romae à quibus conse∣craretur. Bar. an. 556. nu. 1.
• q 1.1405

  Can. 1. & Con. Nic. can. 4.
• r 1.1406

  Sup. ca. 4. nu. ••••, 26. & seq.
• s 1.1407

  Sup. hoc cap. nu. 2.
• t 1.1408

  Not. in 5. Con. §. Concilium.
• u 1.1409

  Ibid.
• x 1.1410

  An. 553. nu. 23
• y 1.1411

  Ibid. nu. 24.
• z 1.1412

  Optavimus & frequentissime supplici voce po∣poscimus eundē (coe••um) ad quē∣libet Italiae locū, aut cer••e ad Si∣cili••m, &c. Vi∣gil. in Constit. apud Bar. an. 553. nu. 56.
• a 1.1413

  Epist. Leon. 24
• b 1.1414

  Quod quia fieri Serenitas vestra non ••n∣nuit. Vigil. loc. cit.
• c 1.1415

  Bin. Not. in Conc. 5. §. Con∣cilium.
• d 1.1416

  Lib. 20. an. 553.
• e 1.1417

  An. 544.
• f 1.1418

  An. to. 3. in Iustinian••.
• g 1.1419

  Cui Concilio praerant Euty∣chius, Domnus & Vigilius. Glic. annal. part. 4. pa. 379.
• h 1.1420

  Coll. 8. p. 584. a
• i 1.1421

  Coll. 2. pa. 523.
• k 1.1422

  Coll. 1. p. 521. b
• l 1.1423

  An. 553. nu. 2
• m 1.1424

  Lib. 3. de Concor. ca. 15.
• n 1.1425

  Vid. sup. ca. •••• nu. 6.
• o 1.1426

  Lib. 17. ca. 27.
• p 1.1427

  Not. in Conc. 5. §. Concilium.
• q 1.1428

  Sup. ca. 2. nu. 1. &. 3.
• r 1.1429

  Collat. 2. pa. 524. b.
• s 1.1430

  An. 553. nu. 47.
• t 1.1431

  Id{que} elabora∣vit. ibid.
• u 1.1432

  An. eod. nu. 4••.
• x 1.1433

  Not. in Conc. 5. §. Constitutis.
• y 1.1434

  An. 553 nu. 219.
• z 1.1435

  Lib. 2. de Conc. ca. 11. §. Ac de.
• z 1.1436

  Si quid contra haec quae statui∣mus, à quolibet factum dictum at{que} conscriptum est, vel fuerit; hoc modis om∣nibus ex autho∣ritate sedis Apo∣stolicae refuta∣mus. Consi. Vig. in ••ine.
• a 1.1437

  Socr. l. 5. ca. ••.
• b 1.1438

  Vs{que} ad sinem mensis Iuly pro∣ducta est. Bar. an. 381. nu 80.
• c 1.1439

  Lib. 3. de sidc Cathol. Cod. Theod.
• d 1.1440

  L. 8. de Occid. Imp. an. 381.
• e 1.1441

  An. 381. nu. 97.
• f 1.1442

  Bar. an. eod▪ nu. 81.
• g 1.1443

  Lib. 6. Epist. 31
• h 1.1444

  Anathema in∣fligimus Mace∣donianis. Epist. Damas. et Sy∣nod. Rom. apud Theod. lib. 5. ca. 10.
• i 1.1445

  Concilium il∣lud Ro••anum habitum est tem∣pore 〈◊〉〈◊〉 e••is∣copi Alexandri∣ni, qui ei intersu∣it. Zozom lib. 6. ca. 23.

  Timotheus vero qui ••etro succes∣sit, sedit in Con∣cilio Constan∣tinopolitan••, ut ex subscripti∣one liquet.
• k 1.1446

  Lib. 2. Epist. 24
• l 1.1447

  Lib. 2. Epist. 10 Indict. 11.
• m 1.1448

  Epist. 54.51.61.
• n 1.1449

  Epist. 53.
• o 1.1450

  Act 16. pa. ••36. a.
• p 1.1451

  Sedes Aposto∣lica quae nobis, praecepit. Ib••d. pa. 137. b.
• q 1.1452

  Vehementer refutarunt hunc terti••m Canonē Leo et Damasus. Turrian. l••b de 6, 7, et 8, Syno∣dis. pa. 65. Ro∣mana Ecclesia hactenus respuit hunc Canonem. Bin, not. in Conc. 2 § Approbatum
• r 1.1453

  ••am primum (in Concilio La∣ter.) Constanti∣nopolitana sedes Romanae Eccle∣siae assensum, publice obtinuit, &c. Sand. lib. 7. de visib. Monar. ad an. 1215.
• s 1.1454

  Act. 1. et alijs ubi recensentur Episcopi.
• t 1.1455

  Coll. 1. et alijs.
• u 1.1456

  Ecce nos Deo volente Anatoli∣um primum ha∣bemus. Ait P••s∣casinus in Conc. Chal. Act. 1. pa. 8. b.
• x 1.1457

  Ibid.
• y 1.1458

  S. memorie Chrysostomus 15 Episcop••s depo∣suit in Asia et pro eis alios or∣dinavit. Conc. Chalc. Act. 11. in fine Zozo lib. 1. ca. 6.
• z 1.1459

  Pallad. in vit. Chrys.
• a 1.1460

  Conc. habitum an.; 81. Chrysost. creatus Episco∣pus C••sario et Attico Coss. Socr. lib. 6. ca. 2. id est, circa an. 398 cujus secundo anno, aut circi∣ter, haec ••••enc∣runt.
• b 1.1461

  Act. 16. pa. 136. b.
• b 1.1462

  Act. 16. pa. 136. b.
• c 1.1463

  Ibid.
• d 1.1464

  Relat. ad Leo∣nem post act. 16.
• e 1.1465

  Conc. Chalced. habitum, an. 451
• f 1.1466

  Conc. Constant. habit. an. 381.
• g 1.1467

  Nov. 131. ca. 1, et. 2.
• h 1.1468

  Coll. 2. pa. 524. a.
• i 1.1469

  In Chron. an. 1. Iustin.
• k 1.1470

  Lib. 4. ca. 11.
• l 1.1471

  Cod. l. 7. de summa Trin.
• m 1.1472

  Nov. 115.
• n 1.1473

  Lib. 1. de Pont. ca. 24. § His.
• o 1.1474

  Not. in Conc. 2 §. Constantinop.
• p 1.1475

  Act. 10.
• q 1.1476

  Lib. 3. de vita Constant ca. 13.
• r 1.1477

  Act. 6.
• s 1.1478

  Extat inter E∣pist. post Concil. Chal. pa. 168. a.
• t 1.1479

  Extat ibid. pa. 155.
• u 1.1480

  Tom. 1. Conc. pa. 541.
• x 1.1481

  Epist. Conc. E∣phes. ad Imper. tom. 2. Act. Con. Ephes. epist. 17.
• y 1.1482

  Dig lib. 50. leg. 19.
• z 1.1483

  Dig. lib. 5. lit. 17. de Reg. Iuris 160.
• a 1.1484

  Lib. 2. de Conc. ca. 11. §. At.
• b 1.1485

  Act. 4. p. 90. b.
• c 1.1486

  Coll. 6. p. 576. b.
• d 1.1487

  Ibid. pa. 563. b.
• e 1.1488

  Haec omnes di∣cimus, haec omni∣bus placent. Act. 16. pa. 137. a.
• f 1.1489

  Ibid. pa. 137. b.
• g 1.1490

  Ibid.
• h 1.1491

  Sancta & uni∣versal. Synod. Leoni. Relat. Sy∣nod. post Act. 16
• i 1.1492

  Ez. 7.16.
• k 1.1493

  Nefas est eum qui Episcoporum catalogo adscrip∣tus non est, Ec∣clesiasticis nego∣tijs scimmiscere. (nempe ut Iudi∣cē qui definiat.) Epist. Imp. ad Synod. Ephes. t••. 1. Act. Ephes. Conc. ca. 32.
• l 1.1494

  Lib. 4. de vita Constant. ca 27.
• m 1.1495

  Epist. Synod. 2. post Act. Concil. pa. 518.
• n 1.1496

  Hoc. cap. nu. 19.
• o 1.1497

  Act Ephes. Conc to••. 3. ca. 17.
• p 1.1498

  Act. Conc. Eph. to. 4 ca. 8.
• q 1.1499

  Imperator sen∣tentia Synodi publicè approba∣ta, Nestorio ex∣ilium indicit. Act. Con. Eph. to. 5. ca. 11. et lege ult. de haeret. Cod. Theod.
• r 1.1500

  Act. 6.
• s 1.1501

  In perpetuum quae à vobis te••∣minata sunt ser∣ventur. Ibid.
• t 1.1502

  Vict. in Chron. an. post Coss. Bas. 13, 14.15, &c.
• u 1.1503

  Act. 18.
• x 1.1504

  Edict. Constat. P••gon. Act. 18. Conc. 6.
• y 1.1505

  Act. 10.
• z 1.1506

  Rogamus tuis decretis nostrum honora judici∣um. Epist. Synod. Chal. ad Leonem post Act. 16.
• a 1.1507

  Statuerunt 318. Patrum fi∣dem firmam ac stabilem manere oportere. Conc. Const. ca. 1.
• b 1.1508

  In definit. fidei Act. 5. Confir∣mavimus Pa∣tr••m 150. regu∣lam Epist. Conc. Chal. ad Leonē post Act. 16. Conc. Chal. prae∣dicta concilia firmavit. Epist. Episc. Europae post Cōc. Chal pa. 152.
• d 1.1509

  Not. in Conc. Rom. 3. tempore Silvestri.
• e 1.1510

  Bin. not. in Conc. Chalc. § Incipiunt pa. 190.
• f 1.1511

  Epist 73. hoc classico Pontifi∣cis Imperator excitatus sancti∣onem edidit. Bin. not. in eam Epist.
• m 1.1512

  Locis citat••.
• n 1.1513

  Pa. 146. ad pa. 179.
• o 1.1514

  Pa. 166.
• p 1.1515

  Vt liquet ex eorum epist. Sy∣nod. quae extat post Epist. 52. Leonis.
• q 1.1516

  Vt Epis. Syriae post Conc. Chal. pa. 155. b.
• r 1.1517

  Vt Episc. Mae∣sia ibid. a.
• s 1.1518

  Vt Episc. secun∣dae Syriae. Ibid. pa. 157. b.
• t 1.1519

  Vt Episc. Osro∣eviae. Ibid. pa. 268. a.
• u 1.1520

  Epistola eorum extat apud So∣cratem lib. 1. ca. 10.
• x 1.1521

  Act. 1. pa. 306
• y 1.1522

  Sacra Imper. ad Iohan. to. 5. Act. Eph. Conc. ca. 3. Cyril. Epist. 38. ad Dynatum to. eod. ca. 16.
• a 1.1523

  Concilium di∣ctū à communi intentione, ••o quod in unum omnes dirigant mentis obtutū: Cilia enim ocu∣lorum sunt. Isiod. Mer. in suam ••anon. collect.
• b 1.1524

  Extat tom. 3. Conc. pa. 420.
• c 1.1525

  Apud Socr. l. 2 ca. 13. et Zozom. lib. 3. ca. 9.
• d 1.1526

  Reg. I••ris 29.
• e 1.1527

  1 Cor. 14.40.
• f 1.1528

  1 Cor. 14.33.
• g 1.1529

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 tumultu a••••onis, in••ōpos••i status.
• h 1.1530

  Act. 19.39.
• i 1.1531

  Ib. v. 24. et seq.
• k 1.1532

  Ibid. v. 29.
• l 1.1533

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. v. 32.
• m 1.1534

  Periclitam•••• argui seditionis▪ v. 40.
• n 1.1535

  Mat. 26.59. & ca. 27.2. & Act. 4.27.
• o 1.1536

  Ci••ca an. 800▪
• p 1.1537

  Rom. 13.2, 3.
• q 1.1538

  Isa. 49.23.
• r 1.1539

  1 Pet. 2.2.
• s 1.1540

  Numb. 27.17. Psal. 78.71, 72.
• t 1.1541

  Tam Hebraicè quam in 70. In∣terpr. et apud Hier. legitur [ad pasc••ndum Iacob populum suum] et [pavit eos] quod alij vertunt, ad re∣gendum.
• u 1.1542

  Non propriè dicitur pascere alium, qui cibum quacunque rati∣one ministrat, sed qui procurat et providet alteri cibum, quod est certè Praepositi, et gubernatoris, & Actus Pastoralis non est tantum praebere cibum, sed etiam ducere, &c. Bell. lib. 1. de Pont. Rom. ca. 15. § Primū. et § Deinde.
• x 1.1543

  Iohn 21.15, 17.
• y 1.1544

  Cum ei (Petro) dicitur, ad omnes dicitur, Amas me•• pasce oves meas. Aug. lib. de egone Christ. ca. 30.
• z 1.1545

  Ier. 23.1, 2. Ezech. 34. per totum, et Act. 20 28. et. 1 Pet. 5.2.
• a 1.1546

  1 Pet. 2.17.
• b 1.1547

  Ibid v. 30.
• c 1.1548

  Rom. 13.1.
• d 1.1549

  Ibid. v. 4.
• e 1.1550

  Chrys. in ca. 13. ad Rom.
• f 1.1551

  Quem Prima∣tem dioceseos Synodus dixit. praeter Apostoli primi Vicarium. Nich. 1. Epist. 8. § Quem.
• g 1.1552

  Conc. 6. habitum an. 680 Bar. et Bin.
• h 1.1553

  Conc. 6. Act. 4. pa. 22. in Epist. Agathonis et Rom. Synodi.
• i 1.1554

  Epist. Agath. Act. 4. pa. 12. b.
• k 1.1555

  Sermo accla∣matorius Conc. generalis 6. Act. 18. pa. 89. b.
• l 1.1556

  Deficit. Concil. 6. Act. 17. pa. 80. a.
• m 1.1557

  Conc. 2. Can. 5 et Conc. Chal. Act. 16. post Can. 27.
• n 1.1558

  Conc. illud 8. habit. an. 869. Bar. et Bin.
• o 1.1559

  Conc. 8. Act. 1. pa. 880 b.
• p 1.1560

  Apud Rad. pa. 224.
• q 1.1561

  Extat apud Bin. to. 3. Con. pa. 858.
• r 1.1562

  Cusan. lib. 3. de Concor. Cath. ca. 19.
• s 1.1563

  Conc. 8. Act. 1. pa. 880. b.
• t 1.1564

  Bell. lib. 1. de Pontif. Rom. ca. ••5. § At nobis.
• u 1.1565

  2 Chr. 34.29.30.
• x 1.1566

  2 Chron. 15.9, 10.
• y 1.1567

  2 Chron. 5.2.
• z 1.1568

  1 Chron. 13.5. & cap. 15.4.
• a 1.1569

  1 Chron. 23.2.
• b 1.1570

  2 Chron. 29.4.
• c 1.1571

  Ibid. v. 11.
• d 1.1572

  Ibid. v. 15.
• e 1.1573

  Iosh. 24.2.
• f 1.1574

  Exod. 19.7.
• g 1.1575

  Exod. 19.17.
• h 1.1576

  Exod. 35.1.
• i 1.1577

  Levit. 8.3, 4.
• k 1.1578

  Deut. 5.1. & ca. 31.28.
• l 1.1579

  Num. 10.2. Make thee two Trumpets, that thou maist use them for the assembling of the congrega∣tion.
• m 1.1580

  Exod. 3.16.
• n 1.1581

  Num. 16.2. &c.
• o 1.1582

  1 Cor. 9.16. Matth. 28.19.
• p 1.1583

  Matth. 12.1, 2. &c.
• q 1.1584

  Necessitas non habet legem, sed ipsa sibi ••acit le∣gem. Caus. 1. q. 1 ca. 39. Remissio∣nem.
• r 1.1585

  Gloss. in cap. Discipulos de consec. distinct. 5. in marg.
• s 1.1586

  Citatur à Io∣hanne 8. in Epist. 19••. §. Nos.
• t 1.1587

  Ibidem.
• l 1.1588

  Euseb. lib. 3. de vit. Constant. c. 6.
• m 1.1589

  Citantur ver∣ba, tum à Socr. lib. 2. ca. 6. tum à Theodor. lib. 1. ca. 11.
• n 1.1590

  Epist. Synod. Conc. Const. 1. apud Bin. to. 1. Conc. pa. 518.
• o 1.1591

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Ius∣sit suo pio edict. Act. Conc. Ephes. to. 4. ca. 11.
• p 1.1592

  Act. Conc. E∣phes. to. 2. ca. 1.
• q 1.1593

  Epist. Synodi ad Imper. to. 2. Act. Conc. Eph. ca. 17.
• r 1.1594

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. to. 5. Act. Conc. Eph. ca 11.
• s 1.1595

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. ibid.
• t 1.1596

  Epist. Syn. Chalc. post Act. 16.
• u 1.1597

  Conc. Chalc. Act. 1. pa. 1.
• x 1.1598

  Conc. 5. Coll. 8. pa. 584. a.
• y 1.1599

  Conc. 6. Act. 1.2.3. & reli∣quis.
• z 1.1600

  Conc. 6. Act. 18 pa. 89. a.
• a 1.1601

  Conc. Nic. 2. Act. 1. pa. 297. a. & act. 2. pa. 308 b. & act. 5. pa. 338. b.
• b 1.1602

  Conc. 8. Act. 10. pa. 897. a.
• c 1.1603

  Epist. Stephan. post Conc. 8. pa. 900.
• d 1.1604

  Quam vis su∣premam Christi in terris perso∣nam formam{que} geris. Steph. Ep. eadem. p. 899. b.
• e 1.1605

  Conc. 8. act. 6. pa. 886. a.
• f 1.1606

  Steph. Papa in Epist. ad Basil. Imper. post 8. Conc.
• g 1.1607

  Euseb. lib. 3. de vit. Const. ca. 13.
• h 1.1608

  Ruff lib. 1. c. 2
• i 1.1609

  Ipso{que} praesente Theodosio. Epist. Iustin post Conc. 5. pa. 605. a.
• k 1.1610

  Insuper{que} mā∣daret Impera∣tor, ut diligens inquisitio fieret. Sozom. lib. 7. c. 6
• l 1.1611

  Sozom. lib. 7. ca. 7.
• m 1.1612

  Tom. 1. act. Conc. Ephes. ca. 32.
• n 1.1613

  Non licet illo qui necessarij non sunt, dogma∣tum examen aliquo tumulto impedire. ibid.
• o 1.1614

  Vt diligenter prospiciat ne quae gravior dissentio synodi consulta∣tionem obturbet. Ibid.
• p 1.1615

  Vt omnibus & singulis recte perceptis, singuli quod visum sue∣rit, in medio proponant, vel ab aliis proposita, si opus id fuerit, refutare. ibid.
• q 1.1616

  Sacr. Imper. ad Synodum, to. 3. act. Conc. Eph. ca. 17.
• r 1.1617

  Primo omniū Actorum monu∣mentis reveren∣das pietatis ve∣strae literas qua∣si Facem quan∣dam praemisi∣mus. Ep. synod. ad Imp. to. 2. act. Conc. Eph. ca. 22
• s 1.1618

  Etiam atque etiam rogamus vestram Maje∣statem ut sanct. synod. studium erga Deum ag∣noscat, ut Can∣didianum & quinque prae∣terea •• sacra sy∣nodo Episcopos ad se actersat, qui omnia & singula quae E∣phest gest•• sunt pietati vestrae ordine & coram exponant. Epist. synodi ad Imp. to. 4. act. Conc. Eph. ca. 10. & idem ca. 11.
• t 1.1619

  Annuit tandē illorum votis Imperator. Bin. in arg. cap. 19 to. 4. act. Conc. Ephes.
• u 1.1620

  Vestra pietas nostra supplica∣tione inflexa mandavit, ut S. Synodus quos voluerit am••d et qui universarum rerum statum co∣ram exponant. Relat. synodi ad Imper. to. 4. act. Conc. Ephes. c. 22 Nostrae praeces sunt ut judicium à tua pietate accipiamus. Iohan. & convent. cum expetit. ad Imper. Append. ad to. 2. Act. Conc. Ephes. ca. 2. pa. 787. b.
• x 1.1621

  Decretum regium, to. 5. act. Conc. Ephes. ca. 11.
• y 1.1622

  Bell. lib. 1. de Conc. ca. 19. §. Quartam.
• z 1.1623

  Act. 1. Conc. Chal. pa. 4. b. Aut ille egrediatur, aut nos eximus.
• a 1.1624

  Si Iudicis obtines personam, non ut accusator debes prose∣qui. Ibid. pa. 5. b.
• b 1.1625

  Act. 4. Conc. Chal. pa. 89. b.
• c 1.1626

  Ibid.
• d 1.1627

  Act. 4. Conc. Chal. pa. 90. Om∣nes clamaverūt, Isti haeretici sunt
• e 1.1628

  Act. caaem 5. pa. 90 b.
• f 1.1629

  Can. 30. Act. 15
• g 1.1630

  Non recte ha∣bet Definitio, &c. Act. 5. Cōc. Chal. pa. 93. b.
• h 1.1631

  Iubete nobis res••riptum dar•• ut revertamur, et ibi Synodus celebretar. Ibid.
• i 1.1632

  Suggerentur Imperatoricla∣mores isti, &c. Act. eadem. 5. pa. 94. a.
• k 1.1633

  Ibid.
• l 1.1634

  Festinet vestra reverentia cau∣sam disc••ter••, &c. Literae Im∣per. Act. 11. Cōc. Chal. pa. 116. b.
• m 1.1635

  Act. eadem pa. 118. b.
• n 1.1636

  Ibid.
• o 1.1637

  Haec omnes di∣cimus. Act. 16. pa. 137. a.
• p 1.1638

  Contradictio nostra his gestis inhaereat. Ibid.
• q 1.1639

  Quod interlo∣quuti sumus to∣ta Synodus ap∣probavit, dixe∣runt Iudices. I••.
• r 1.1640

  Confirma vi∣mus regulam 150. patrum, &c. Relatio Sy∣nodi ad Leonem post Conc. Chal. pa. 1••0. a.
• s 1.1641

  Cū Iustinianus Synodo interes∣s••t. Zonar. Ann. to. 3. in Iustin.
• t 1.1642

  Coll. 1. Conc. 5. et Coll. 7.
• u 1.1643

  M••ximè, cum pijssimus Impe∣rator et nos ipsi licentiam dedi∣mus unicai{que} su∣am voluntatem facere manife∣stā, sic dixit Sy∣nodus. Coll. 2. pa. 524. b.
• x 1.1644

  Coll. 7. p. 582. ••
• y 1.1645

  Conc. 6. Act. 1 pa. 8. b.
• z 1.1646

  Act. 3. Conc. 6. pa. 11. a.
• a 1.1647

  Ibid. pa. 11. b.
• b 1.1648

  Act. 5. pa. 25. b
• c 1.1649

  Act. 6. pa. 27 a
• d 1.1650

  Act. 8. pa. 30. a
• * 1.1651

  Ibid.
• e 1.1652

  Act. eadem 8. pa. 30. b.
• f 1.1653

  Act. 13. pa 67. a. b.
• g 1.1654

  Sanctum Con∣cilium dixit, Hoc fieri super∣fluum judicavi∣mus, &c. Ibid. pa. 67. b.
• h 1.1655

  Ibid.
• i 1.1656

  Praesidente eo∣dem pijssimo Im∣peratore Constan∣tino. Act. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11.
• k 1.1657

  Act. Pigh. lib. de Actis 6. et 7. Synodi quae cir∣cumferuntur, quod parengra∣pha sint et mini∣mè germana.
• l 1.1658

  Lib. eodem § At Concilio illi
• m 1.1659

  Sacra Imp. Constantini Po∣gon. ante 6. Conc. pa. 6. b.
• n 1.1660

  Ibid.
• o 1.1661

  Conc. Nic. 2. a Act. 1. pa. 300.
• p 1.1662

  Epist, Hadr. Papa ad Imp. lecta in Con. Nic. 2. Act. 2. in fine Epist.
• q 1.1663

  Et veluti prae∣sentes genibus advoluti, et corā vestigia pedum volutando. Ibid.
• r 1.1664

  Dominis pijssi∣mis Constantino et Irene Hadria∣nus servus ser∣vorum Dei. In∣script. Ep. Haar.
• s 1.1665

  Synodus illa (Nicena) mulie∣rem Institutricē sive Doctricem habuisse per••ibe∣tur; quod non solum divina le∣gis documentis, sed ipsius natu∣rae lege inhibe∣tur. Car. magni l••ber dict. Capi∣tulare de non a∣dorand. Imag. lib. 3. ca. 13. A∣liud est matrem∣familias domesti∣cos erudire; aliud Antislitibus sine omni Ecclesiasti∣co ordine, vel publicae Synodo docentem inter esse. Ibid.
• t 1.1666

  Quod o••us ag∣gressi sumus cum cōhibētia Sacer∣dotum, non arro∣gantiae superci∣lio, sed zelo Dei et veritatis stu∣dio. Carol mag. praesatio, et Cap. ultimum illius libri fuisse Caro∣li agnoscit Had. in sua Epist. 3. ca. 25. pa. 281. a.
• u 1.1667

  Libri Carolini scripti videntur in Concilio Frā∣cofordiensi. Belt. lib. 2. de Conc. ca. 8. § Primo quia.
• x 1.1668

  Hadr. Epist. 3.3. ca. 53.
• y 1.1669

  Lib. Carol. lib. 3. ca. 13.
• z 1.1670

  Commentaria in regia Praesidentibus Imperatoribus recitarunt, quae statim obsignatae sunt. Zonar. to. ••. in vita Iren. et Const.
• a 1.1671

  Ingressi sunt omnes Episcopi in regiam, et praesidentibus Imperatoribus una cum Episcopis, lect•••• est tomus, et subscripsit tam Imperator, quam mater ejus. Paul Diac. histor. misc. lib. 23. in a••. ••. Const.
• i 1.1672

  Magnificentis∣simi praesides dixerunt Act. 9. § Lecta.
• k 1.1673

  Repugnantibus Apost. sedis lega∣tis, utpota quod sententia Rom. Poncificum con∣demnati audiri iterum non debe∣rent. Bar. an. 869. nu. 27.
• l 1.1674

  Advocentur cum Photio Epis∣copi quoque Photiani, quod nisi fiat, literam in hac Synodo scribemus nul∣lam. Verba Iu∣dic. saec. in Cōc. 8 Act. 4. pa. 883. b
• m 1.1675

  Verba Baha∣nis in Conc. 8. citata à Nich. Cusan. lib. 3. Concor. ca. 20.
• n 1.1676

  Conc. 8. Act. 6. verba sunt Me∣tropolitae Caesa∣riensis, pa. 886. b
• o 1.1677

  Act. 8. p. 893. a
• p 1.1678

  Synodus quae ante p••ucos an∣nos sub Iren•• & Constantino con∣gregata, & ab ipsis non solum▪ septima ver•• ••tiā unive••salis e∣rat appellata ut nec septima nec universalis ha∣beretur, dicere∣turve, quasi su∣pe••vacua in to∣tum ab omnibus (in Conc. Fran∣cofordensi) ab∣dicata est. Aim. lib. 4. ca. 85. Si∣milia habet Ade Vien. in Chron. Hin••m. Rhem. in lib. contra Hinem. Land. ca 20. Rhegino, Hermann. Stra∣bus Fuld. Egolis. Monac. & alit quam multi.
• q 1.1679

  Quartus Ca∣non (Conci••ii Constant. sub. Io∣han 8) superio∣res synodos ad∣versus Photiu•••• habitas Nicholai & Hadriani temporibus ex∣plodit, & rejicit imo ut de Syno∣dorum numero tollantur jubet. Fran. Turrian. lib. de 6, 7, & 8. synod. pa. 95.
• r 1.1680

  Athan. in E∣pist. ad solit. vit. agent pa. 228. b.
• s 1.1681

  Ibid.
• t 1.1682

  Introduxerunt proconsulem cū multitudine magna, & cate∣nis. Act. Conc. Ephes. in Conc. Chalc. Act. 1. pa. 39. a. Violenta facta est vis, cum plagis. Minaba∣tur nobis dam∣natio, minae exi∣lij tendebantur, milites cum su∣stibus & gladiis instabant. ibid. Act. 1. pa. 7. b.
• u 1.1683

  In pura char∣ta subscripsimus. ibid. pa. 7. b.
• x 1.1684

  Vbi gladii & fustes, qualis sy∣nodus? ibid.
• y 1.1685

  Aliud Ephesi Concilium latro∣num cogitur. Epist. Iustin. ad 5. synod. p. 605. b
• z 1.1686

  Din. in to••••is suts Concit. & Bell. l••b. 1. de Conc. ca. 5. & alij.
• a 1.1687

  Tridentum nō Germanicam esse, sed Italicam civitatem nemo est qui nesciat. Gravan. op••os•• Conc. Trident. pa. 36.
• b 1.1688

  Omitto quin{que} alia Concilia ge∣neralia, quia nec à Graecis recipi∣untur, cum ipsi non intersue∣rint,—nimi••••, Lugdunense sub Innocent. 4. Vi∣ennensi sub Cle∣me••te 5. Con∣stantiense, Late∣ranense sub Leo∣ne 10. & Tri∣dentinum. Bell. lib. 1. de Conc. ca. 13. § Deni{que}
• c 1.1689

  Concil. Flor. Sess. 5. p. 42••. •••• Sunt autem ver∣ba Mar••i Ephe∣sii, praec••••ri T••e∣ologi, qui pro Grae. is causam egit, ut liquet ex sess. 3. pa. 415. b.
• d 1.1690

  Bell. lib. 1. de Conc. ca. 5. §. Ex 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• e 1.1691

  Bell. lib. 1. de Conc. ca. 13 §. Ad haec.
• f 1.1692

  Bin. Not. in Con••. Lateran 1. § Concilium. to. 3. pa. 1317. a.
• g 1.1693

  〈…〉〈…〉 Pontisex hanc Synodum congregatam volucrii, 〈◊〉〈◊〉. Bin. Not. in Conc. ••ater. 2. pa. 1325. a.
• h 1.1694

  Bin. Not. in id. Conc. pa. 1350. b.
• i 1.1695

  Bin. Not. in Conc. Lateran. 4. pa. 1465. b.
• k 1.1696

  Bin. Not. in Conc. Lugd. 1. to. 3. pa. 1490. a.
• * 1.1697

  Bin. Not. in Conc. 2. Lugdun▪ (ex Blond.) p. 1495. a.
• m 1.1698

  Bin. (ex Tritem.) Not. in Conc. Vien. to. 3. Conc. pa. 1510. a.
• n 1.1699

  Bin. Not. in Conc. Florent. to. 4. pa. 495. b.
• o 1.1700

  Bin. Notis in Con. Later. 1. sub Leone 10. to. 4. Conc. pa. 651.
• p 1.1701

  Conc. Later. sub Leone 10. Sess. 11. p. 639. b
• q 1.1702

  Haec est Hele∣na, quae nuper Tridenti obti∣nuit. Espenc. com. in Epist. ad Tit. pa. 42.
• r 1.1703

  Pauli 3. Bulla indict. praefixa Act. Conc. Trid.
• s 1.1704

  Cur tunc non solus Pontifex concilia indixe∣rit, ut postea fa∣ctum est, ration∣nes multae sunt. Bell. lib. 1. de Concil. ca. 13. §. Habemus.
• * 1.1705

  Innoc. Gentil. in Examin. Con. Trid. lib. 2. in ••nitie.
• u 1.1706

  Gent. in Ex∣am. sess. 12. Cōc. Trid. pa. 96. & Ioh. Sleid. Com∣ment. lib. 22. pa. 332. b. etseq.
• x 1.1707

  Epit. rerum in e••be g••s••. sub F••••d. 1. an. 1261. apud Scard. tom. 3. pa. 2171. etseq.
• y 1.1708

  Summus Pon∣tifex sacrum Concilium Tri∣denti celebrandi•• authoritate di∣vinicus sibi tra∣dita decrevit; nos{que} ablegavit nuncios suos qui ••ij Pontificis no∣mine singulos conveni••emus, et r••garemus 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ad Concilium hoc accederent. ibid.
• z 1.1709

  Gravam. o••••o∣sita Conc. Trid. Causa 1. pa. 21.
• a 1.1710

  Epit. rerum in orb. gest. sub F••••. an. 1561. apud Scard. loc. cit.
• b 1.1711

  Ibid.
• c 1.1712

  2 Thess. 2.4.
• d 1.1713

  Sup. ca. 13.
• e 1.1714

  Placuit annis singulis per u∣namquam{que} Pro∣vinciam bis in anno Concilia celebrari. Conc. Nic. Can. 5.
• f 1.1715

  Quae ab Epis∣copis erant editae regulae Constan∣tinus sua consig∣nabat et confir∣mabat authori∣tate. Euseb. lib. 4. de vita Const. ca. 2••.
• g 1.1716

  ••ib. 1. Cod. de Veter. jure enuc. et lib. 2. De∣cretal. tit 23. ca. ••eut noxius in Glossa.
• h 1.1717

  Novel. 131. ca. 1.
• i 1.1718

  Congregari in nomine Christi nihil aliud est, quam ab eo con∣gregari, qui h••∣bet à Christo au∣thoritatem con∣gregandi. ••ell. lib. 1. de Conc. ca. 17. § At hoc.
• k 1.1719

  Addamus (his 8. primis) reli∣qua generalia Concilia, in qui∣bus omnibus sine controversis Pontifex Rom. praesedit. Bell. lib. 1. de Conc. ca. 20 § Si ergo.
• l 1.1720

  Papa Calixtus 2. coram innu∣mera multitudi∣ne Cleri et popu∣li, eidem Concilio (Vienne••sem nominat Vsper∣diceret Latera∣nensi, ut et Bin. agnoscit notis suis in illud Cōc.) praesedit. Abb. V••sper. ad an. 1119. et huic Concilio praesedit Pontifex. Bin. notis suis ad id Conc. pa. 1317.
• m 1.1721

  Synodus max∣ima Romae praesi∣dente summo Pontifice Inno∣cētio celebratur. Otho Frising. lib. 7. ca. 23.
• n 1.1722

  Omnes scrip∣tores fatentur ei∣dem Concilio Pontisicem Ro∣manum praesedis∣se. Bin. Not. in Conc. Later. 3. § Oecumenicum to. 3. pa. 1351.
• o 1.1723

  Ei Pontifex Rom. praesedit. Bin. not. in Conc. Later. 4. to. 3. Con. pa. 1466.
• p 1.1724

  Bell. lib. 1. de Con. ca. 20. § Si ergo.
• q 1.1725

  Hos ut se ne∣fando jureju∣rando adstrin∣gerent, adegit, puerum enim mactavit, jura∣mento{que} intio super ejus visceribus, eadem ipse cum alijs ••omedit. Dio Cass. lib. 37.
• r 1.1726

  Catilinam lux∣uria primum tū egestas in nefaria Concilia oppri∣mendae pa••ri•• impulerae, Sena∣tum confodere, totam rempub. funditus tollere, et quicquid nec Hannibal. vide∣retur optasse. L. Flor. lib. 4. ca. 1.
• s 1.1727

  Ego Nic. ab hac hora fidelis ero S. Petro et Eccle∣siae Romana do∣minoque meo Pa∣pae. Papatum adjutor ero ad defendendum. Forma est jura∣menti secundum quam jurant E∣piscopi et bodiè omnes recipien∣tes dignitatem •• Papa. Extra. de jurejur. ca. Ego N. lib. 2. tit. 24. ca. 4.
• t 1.1728

  Aug. lib. 2. cōt. Ep. Parm. ca. 13.
• u 1.1729

  Quid excogi∣tare ••erum vel verisi∣mile possunt, qui∣bus non vel Rex vel Caesar, non populus, non cle∣r••s, non genera∣lis Synodus, non deni{que} tota Ec∣clesia dicere po∣test, cur ita fa∣cis? Cl. Espen. in cap. 1. ad Ti∣tum. pa. 76.
• x 1.1730

  De quo supra cap. Ego N. Ex∣tra. de jure••ur.
• y 1.1731

  Alexander Imperatori jussit ut se humi pro∣sterneret, et Im∣peratoris collum pede comprimen•• ait, Scriptum est, Super Aspidem et Basiliscum ambulabis. Naucl. an. 11••••
• z 1.1732

  Ab an. 730 ad an. 800.
• a 1.1733

  2 Thess. 2.8.
• b 1.1734

  Apoc. 17.12.16.
• c 1.1735

  Cum Conciliū jam haberi inci∣peret, Imperator et Pontifex clan∣culum und, de ••••mis ad Prote∣stantes doman∣dos suscipiendis concilium inter se inierunt. Gen. Exam. Trident. Conc. sess. 3. nu. 5
• d 1.1736

  Iob. Sleid. Comment. lib. 16. an. 1545.
• e 1.1737

  Gent. loc. cit. nu. 6.
• f 1.1738

  Sleid. Comm. lib. 17. an. 1546
• g 1.1739

  Tridentum li∣bera aut Imperij civitas non est, sed membrum praecip••um Pon∣tificia factionis, Grav. oppes. Trid Conc. pa. 37.
• h 1.1740

  Athanas. A∣pol. 2. §. Non ar∣bitramur. p. 216
• i 1.1741

  Chrys. Epist. ad Innocent. Pa∣pam to. 1. Conc. post Epi. ••un. 27.
• k 1.1742

  Quia suspecti et inimici, judi∣ces esse non de∣beant, et ipsa ratio dictat et plurimis proba∣tur exemplis, E∣pist. 8. Nich. 1. §. ••gtur quia.
• l 1.1743

  Ipsa ratio di∣ctat, quia suspe∣cti et inimici ju∣dices esse non debeant. ••xtr. de Appel. ca. Se∣cundo requiris.
• m 1.1744

  Quod dicunt▪ non a••bere cun∣dem esse Iudicē, et partē, dico ha∣bere locum in privatis ho••ini∣bus, non in prin∣cipe supremo. Ille enim semper est summus Index etiamsi cum ips•• litigetur. Bell. lib. 1. de Conc. ca. 21. §. Tertia▪
• n 1.1745

  Matth. 18.17. Hoc quod Chri∣stus dixit, Dic Ecclesiae, omnes homines com∣prehendi••, & quod Petrus & ejus successores illa authoritate comprehend••tur ostendit Paulus qui in faciam re∣stitit Cephae: probat etiam hoc outhoritas uni∣versalis Eccle∣siae &c. Respon∣sio Synodalis Concil. Basti. pa. 105. a.
• o 1.1746

  Conc. 6. act. 13 Epistolas Hono∣rii 〈…〉〈…〉 abij•• 〈◊〉〈◊〉 & tanquam animae noxias, recra∣mu 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 67. ••. &. ••••••••lamav∣runt universi, Honorio haereti∣co Anathem••. Conc. 6. act. 26. pa. 79. c.
• p 1.1747

  Detestamur Sergium, Hono∣rium, &c. Conc. Nic. 2. Act. 7. p. 386. b.
• q 1.1748

  Quamvis Ho∣norius post mor∣tem anathemate sit affectus, ma∣nifeslum tamen est ill••m de hae∣resi fuisse accu∣satum, qua sola in causa licet in∣ferioribus de superioribus ju∣dicare. Conc. 8. Act. 7. pa. 891. b
• r 1.1749

  Potestati Ec∣clesiae quilibet cajus••un{que} dig∣nitatis, etiamsi papalis exislat, obidire tenetur in his quae perti∣nent ad fidem. Conc. Constant. sess. 4.
• s 1.1750

  Veritas haec quod Concilium est supra Papam est veritas fidei Catholicae. Conc. Basil. sess. 33.
• t 1.1751

  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 Ioh. 12. et alios▪
• u 1.1752

  Bell. lib. 1. de Conc. ca. 21. §. Deni{que}.
• x 1.1753

  Eusebius et Theoderetus in ordine accusan∣tium sident, si∣cut et vos in loco accusatorum se∣detis. Conc. Chal. Act. 1. pa. 13. a.
• y 1.1754

  Act. 1. Conc. Chal. pa. 5. a.
• z 1.1755

  Dioscoro se∣cundum jussio∣nem gloriosiss. Iudicam, res••d••∣te in medio. ••bid.
• a 1.1756

  Epist. Theodos. et Valent. ad Di∣osc extat in Actis Conc. Chal. Act. 1. pa. 5. b.
• b 1.1757

  Nunc vos c••n∣venistis ut cos qu•• judicavera••t judicetis. Elpidi•• di••tum nomine Imper. in Conci∣liab. Ephes. reci∣tatur vero in Conc. Chal. Act. 1. pa. 13. b.
• c 1.1758

  Ibid.
• d 1.1759

  Conc. Ch••l. Act. 14. per totū
• e 1.1760

  Dicat Atha∣n••sius cur tert••ò ••••••••atus in Con∣ci••io Antioche∣no, non occurrit. Athanasius dix∣it, Quoniam ini∣micu•• meus erat ipse qui judica∣ba••, et ••ogo haec relegi, et verita∣te probari. Ib. pa. 127. b. Solum quia suus ini∣micus esset ipse qui judica∣bat, ••lamavit, •• sancta Ch••l. Sy∣nodo ad causas illatas sibi exa∣minanda•• reser∣vitur. Epist. 8 Ni••h. 1. § Veniamus.
• f 1.1761

  Const. Const. sess. 19.
• g 1.1762

  Campian. Rat. 4.
• h 1.1763

  Carol. Molin. lib. de Concil. Trident. nu. 21.
• i 1.1764

  Cl. Espenc. com. in Epist. ad Tit. ca. 1. pa. 42.
• k 1.1765

  Vt quae solae Episcoperum nu∣mero nationes alias aequet aut superet ibid.
• l 1.1766

  Ibid.
• m 1.1767

  Car. Mol. Icco ci••ato.
• n 1.1768

  Pont••fex ad s••smimensem decreti conclusi∣onem ampliari jussit▪ ibid.
• o 1.1769

  Olaus Magnus Suevus qui Ar∣chiepiscopi Vp∣salensis nomen et titulum vendi∣cavat, quae qui∣dem regio nec Pontificem un∣qu in, nec Eccle∣siam Romanam agn••vit. Gent. Exam. Conc. Trid. sess. 1. nu. 3
• p 1.1770

  Ibid.
• q 1.1771

  Archiepiscopi, sine Archiepis∣copatu, sine Ec∣clesia, sine ••l••ro, sine ullo censu & reditu. ibid.
• * 1.1772

  Hos Archie∣piscopos rerum tenues & inope•• Romae suis stipe∣diis ali. erat Pex∣tise••. ibid. Olao in si••gulos men∣ses 15. aurcos ••ummos suppe∣di••abat, ibid.
• r 1.1773

  Extr. ad ••ure∣jur ca. Ego N.
• s 1.1774

  In nova jura∣menti forma in∣super hoc jurant Episcopi, se haere∣ticos, omnes{que} re∣belles Pontifici extre••è infesta∣turos, & perse∣quuturos. Grat. oppos. Conc. Tri∣dent. p. 2. Caus. 4 pa. 52.
• t 1.1775

  Ibidem in Pa∣ral ad Abbat. Vsper. pa. 418.
• u 1.1776

  Ibid. pa. ••1.
• x 1.1777

  Conc. Chalc. act. 8. & 10.
• y 1.1778

  Gent. Exam. Conc. Trid. sess. 15. nu. 3.
• z 1.1779

  Obsecrant in disputationis a∣renam descēdere, & se certamine offerebant. ibid.
• a 1.1780

  Ibidem.
• b 1.1781

  Neque admissi fuerint ad suae fidei professionē proponendam & discutiendam, et haud unquam admitti potue∣runt ut suam fi∣dei consessionem in synodi publico conventu exhi∣berent, ac multo minus ut dogma∣ta que in ea con∣tinebantur di∣sputatione asse∣rerent. ibid. Gen. in Exam. lib. 5. nu. 4. pa. 317.
• c 1.1782

  Ibid. pa. 320.
• d 1.1783

  Melc. Can. lib. 12. loc. Theol. ca. 13. §. Extat.
• e 1.1784

  Cypr. Valer. in Marc. 2.
• f 1.1785

  Ibid.
• g 1.1786

  Car. Molin. li. de Conc. Trid. nu. 22.
• h 1.1787

  Satalitibus suis de gradu deijci∣endum & dari∣ter tractandum propinavit. Ibid.
• i 1.1788

  Iob. Sleid. Com. lib. 21. pa. 304. & seq.
• k 1.1789

  Dum confu∣tādi causa libros adversariorum diligenter excu∣tit, & attente argumenta con∣siderat, captum se victum{que} sen∣sit. Ibid.
• l 1.1790

  Ibid. & plura de eo lege apud Cypr. Valer. in Marcel. 2.
• m 1.1791

  Nec puduit eum scelus onmi∣um longe turpis∣simum celebra••e laudibus. Iob. Sleid. loc. citat.
• m 1.1792

  Eum, uti Ro∣mam peteret mo∣d•• omnibus hor∣tatur Casus; Verge••ius vero qui periculum suum intellige∣ret, recusat ibid.
• o 1.1793

  Si legitima sy∣nodus non fuit, planum est nullà authoritatem potuisse habere▪ & nullius robo∣ris sunt illius ca∣nones. Bell. lib. 2. de Pont. ca. 18. §. Caeterum: & §. Ac deinde. & Sententia à non suo Iudice dicta nihil si••mitatis obtinet. Greg lib. 11. Epist. 56.
• p 1.1794

  Fl. vianum et Eusibium ab omni Episcopuli dignitate judi∣camus esse alie∣nos. Conc. Ephes∣in act. Con. Chal. act. 1. pa. 57. b.
• q 1.1795

  Et Eusebius et Theodoretus in ordine accusan∣tium sedent. Con. Chalc. act. 1. pa. 13. a.
• r 1.1796

  Con. Chalc. act. 3. pa. 66.
• s 1.1797

  Nam act. 6. pa. 101. b. Eusebius Derilei subscri∣bit definitioni fi∣dei inter alios.
• t 1.1798

  Praesens omne Concilium de∣precatur Impe∣ratorem quate∣nus pia lege fan∣ciat, ne{que} Syno∣dum illam (E∣phesinam 2.) nomina••i, neque quidquam quod actum est in e•• teneri. Conc. Chalc. act. 10. p. 115. § Anato∣lius. & pa. 116. Omnes eadem dicimus.
• a 1.1799

  Cap. 5. nu. 1.
• b 1.1800

  Vides quanta jactura—cum Principes indicere audent ipsis sacerdotibus leges, a quibus sancitas serva∣re ipsi debent. Bar. an. 553. nu. 237.
• c 1.1801

  Si qui ejusino∣di esset, leges sanciret de fide, an. 546. nu. 43.
• d 1.1802

  Fuit homo pe∣nitus illiteratus, adeo ut nec Al∣phabetum ali∣quando didicis∣set, an. 528. nu. 2.
• e 1.1803

  Illiteratus Theologus, an. 551 nu. 2.
• f 1.1804

  Cum esset peni∣••us illiteratus, an. 546. nu. 41.
• g 1.1805

  Iustiniani lege∣re nescientis, an. 538. nu. 32.
• h 1.1806

  Qui nanq••am iegere sciverit vel ipsum soris inscriptum titu∣lum Biblioram, an. 551. nu. 4.
• i 1.1807

  Vt qui nec pri. ma elementa ••olleret, ut lege∣••e posset, an. 546 nu. 4••.
• k 1.1808

  Fecit analpha∣betum Imperato∣rem repente pal∣liatum apparere Theologum, an. 551. nu. 4.
• l 1.1809

  Cui ut sibi sub∣dit••. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 e∣r••t pras••. bere Leges, an 551. nu. 2.
• m 1.1810

  〈◊〉〈◊〉 legi•• 〈…〉〈…〉 sacerdotibus leges ferre, et easque poenas statuere, praeter jusfas{que} praesumens, an. 528. nu. 2.
• n 1.1811

  Ab 〈…〉〈…〉 violentia, an. 552. nu. 8.
• o 1.1812

  Iust. a persequ••tione cessavit, an. 553. nu. 14.
• p 1.1813

  Et quod manstrosius accessit, ab 〈…〉〈…〉 persequutio excitate fuit, et haud quidem levis, an 553. nu. 221.
• q 1.1814

  Ab Imperatoris furore, an. 552. nu. 8. ille fur••i 〈◊〉〈◊〉 citus, mente dimolus, correptus maligno spiritu, agitatus a Satana, an. 551. nu. 2.
• r 1.1815

  Aquo accepturi essent leges Epis∣copi, an. 551. nu. 4.
• s 1.1816

  Cons••••di ••••∣nia necesse est, an 553 nu. 237.
• t 1.1817

  Canones ipse concu. cat, ••eni∣tus{que} pessuniat Ecclesiasti••am aconcnian, an. 541. nu. 16.
• u 1.1818

  Sic{que} omnem in Eclesia dissol∣veret ordinen, faceretque ex requo ••••loram c••gislutum in••e∣rorum, an. 551. nu. 4.
• x 1.1819

  In vita Boni∣fac. 2.
• y 1.1820

  Lib de script. 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• z 1.1821

  〈…〉〈…〉 sc••iptor••s merito acquisivit. Ibid.
• a 1.1822

  Appar. Sae. in verbo Iustini∣anus.
• * 1.1823

  Conc. 6. Act. 4. in Epist. Agath.
• b 1.1824

  In Brevia. ca. 24.
• c 1.1825

  Lib. 3. de bell: Goth.
• p 1.1826

  Instit. Proem.
• * 1.1827

  Ibid.
• e 1.1828

  Bar. an. 528. nu. 2.
• f 1.1829

  In verbo Iust.
• g 1.1830

  In appar. ver∣bo Suidas.
• h 1.1831

  Suid. in verbo Constantinus.
• i 1.1832

  Poss. in verbo Suidas.
• k 1.1833

  Exploserit in Iudicem lib. prohib.
• l 1.1834

  〈◊〉〈◊〉 lib. Instit.
• f 1.1835

  Edict. Iustin. in caus•• trium Capi••ul. in princip.
• g 1.1836

  Coll. 7. in fine
• * 1.1837

  An. 550. nu. 14.
• h 1.1838

  Bar. an. 551. 2. et 552. nu. 8.
• i 1.1839

  Bar. an. 553. nu. 221. et 222: &c.
• k 1.1840

  Sup. ca. 16. et 17.
• * 1.1841

  Ca. 4.5. et seq.
• l 1.1842

  Socrat. lib. 1. c. 10.
• m 1.1843

  L. 3 de fide Cath. Cod. Theod.
• n 1.1844

  Leg. ult. de haer. Cod. Theod.
• o 1.1845

  Extat in Cons. Chal. Act. 3. pa 86.
• p 1.1846

  Lib. cont. Ful∣gent. Donat. art. 20.
• q 1.1847

  Lib. 1. cont. later. Petil. ca. 27
• r 1.1848

  Aug. lib. 2. cont. lit. Petil. ca. 14.
• s 1.1849

  An. 563. nu. 1.
• * 1.1850

  Evagr. lib. 4. ca. 38. Leon•• lib. de sect. Act. 10. et Pra∣••eoll. de Haeres. har. 55. Dice∣ban•• carnen quaem ex virgine Servator as∣sumpsit, ante pas∣sionem, incorrup∣tibilem fuisse.
• u 1.1851

  Liberat. Brev. ca. 19.
• x 1.1852

  An. 563. nu. 8.
• y 1.1853

  Bar. ibid. nu. 9
• z 1.1854

  Illud constat, Imperatorem haeresin compro∣basse eand••mque scripto Edicto sir∣masse. An. 564. nu 3.
• a 1.1855

  An. 563. nu. 12
• b 1.1856

  Vb•• elabora•••••• à se edictū con∣temni ab ortho∣doxis percepit, irae exaes••ouns, magnam perse∣quutionem com∣movit. an. 564. nu. 1.
• c 1.1857

  Ibid. nu. ••.
• d 1.1858

  Bar. ibid. ex∣tant vero apud Sur. dic 6. Apr.
• e 1.1859

  Lib. 4. ca. 38.
• f 1.1860

  An. 563. nu. 1. & 6.
• g 1.1861

  Prasinis eum slulte studuisse meminimies. an. 563. nu. ••.
• h 1.1862

  An. 558. nu. 13.
• i 1.1863

  an. 563.9.
• l 1.1864

  an. 563. nu. 1.
• m 1.1865

  an. 564. nu. 21.
• n 1.1866

  an. 563. nu. 6.
• o 1.1867

  an. 564. nu. 1.
• p 1.1868

  an. 563. nu. 6.
• q 1.1869

  Ibid. nu. 7.
• r 1.1870

  Eccl. 25.
• t 1.1871

  Eccl. 13.
• u 1.1872

  An. 563. nu. 1
• x 1.1873

  An. 565. nu. 1.
• y 1.1874

  An. 550. nu. 14
• z 1.1875

  Opinari si cui licet, facilius est invenire qui Evagrij de ejus condemnatione velit sequi sentē∣tiam, quam ali∣orum, &c. an. 565. nu. 6.
• a 1.1876

  Lib. 5. ca. 1.
• b 1.1877

  An. 565. nu. 6.
• * 1.1878

  Apoc. 4.
• c 1.1879

  Sacrilegiorum immensitas. Bar. Ibid.
• d 1.1880

  Iustiniani E∣dictum minimè divulgatum est. Lib 4. ca. 40.
• e 1.1881

  Scriptumid, editum non est. Lib. 17. ca. 30.
• f 1.1882

  Hist. misce••. lib. 16. an. 38. Iustin.
• g 1.1883

  Iustin. praece∣pit hoc dogma à sacerdotibus pub••icè do••eri, et ab omni plebe recipi. Lib. 5. Bibl. annot. 186.
• h 1.1884

  An. 564. nu. 1.
• i 1.1885

  An. 565. nu. 4.
• k 1.1886

  Vict. Tun. in Chron.
• l 1.1887

  An. Iust. ••••.
• m 1.1888

  Nece••••rium putavi••••u••, re∣cla fidei conses∣sionem quae in ••ancta Dei Ec∣clesia praedica∣tur pr••senti edi∣cio sa••••re mani∣fe•••• 〈…〉〈…〉 pa. 4••••.
• n 1.1889

  Iesus ••hristus est cons••••stanti∣a•••• Patri secun∣dum Deitatem, consubstanti••lis nobis secundum Humanitatem, passi••••••a ••a••••e, impassibilis dei∣tate i••••d. & ••••∣tra•• natura in propri••tate & ••a ion•• naturae suae manente, facta est unit••. secundum sub∣stantiam, ibid.
• o 1.1890

  Hec cum u••niversali Eccle∣sia 〈…〉〈…〉 ••andem co••••es¦sionem con••erva∣••us, quam ••18. Potrei in N••cea collect••, tranide∣runt: & post••l∣los, 1••0. san••ti Patres, Constan∣tinopoli expla∣naverunt: &, qui in Epheso & qui Cha••e∣done conven••••e do••uerunt. ibid. pa. 405.
• m 1.1891

  an. 563. nu. 8.
• n 1.1892

  Lib. de haeres.
• o 1.1893

  De gest. Franc. lib. 3. ca. 8.
• p 1.1894

  Lib. 1. de Gest. Longob. ca. 25.
• q 1.1895

  Faelici sorte.
• r 1.1896

  Lib. 5. ca. 4.
• s 1.1897

  Chron. in Iust.
• * 1.1898

  An. 504.
• s 1.1899

  An. 564.
• t 1.1900

  Cosmog. lib. 4. in Iustin.
• u 1.1901

  In vita Ioh. 3.
• x 1.1902

  Martyrol. Rom. Ian. 10.
• y 1.1903

  Agath. Epist. extat Act. 4. Concil. Gen. 6.
• z 1.1904

  Non desunt autem et aliorū venerabilium patrum proba∣tissima testimo∣nia, &c. Ibid.
• * 1.1905

  Nam Anasta∣siu•• mino•• Epis∣copa••um adep•••••• est 〈…〉〈…〉 ut ex Ni••eph. Constant▪ in Chro. liquet.
• a 1.1906

  Lib. 4. ca. 39.
• b 1.1907

  An. 563.10.
• c 1.1908

  Ibid. nu. 12.
• d 1.1909

  Extat Epist. Act. 4. Conc. 6. pa. 21.
• * 1.1910

  Sanctum Con∣stantinum, vo∣cat Papa Steph•• in Epist. ad Ba∣sil. imperat. post 8. Synod.
• e 1.1911

  In Sermon. prosphon. Act. 18 pa. 89.
• f 1.1912

  Ibid. & Act. 15 8.6.
• g 1.1913

  Act. 18. pa. 93.
• i 1.1914

  Act. 8. pa. 29.
• k 1.1915

  Bell. lib. 4. de Pontif. ca. 11. § Vbi et. At si.
• l 1.1916

  an. 681. nu. 24.
• m 1.1917

  an. eod. nu. 45
• k 1.1918

  Lib. 2. Ind. 11 Epist. 10. & lib. 3. Epist. 4.
• l 1.1919

  Con. 6. act. 3.
• m 1.1920

  Act. 10.
• n 1.1921

  Act. 18.
• o 1.1922

  Act. 14. & 18
• p 1.1923

  Act. ••. & 16. & 17. et 18.
• l 1.1924

  Conc. Tyrium apud Athan. Apol. 2.
• m 1.1925

  Conciliab. Io∣hannis, Ephes∣sup. ca. 11. nu. 42.
• n 1.1926

  Quia nolue∣rit esse Arianus, idcirco Athana∣sium perosum habitum à Patre tuo, non te sugit. Lucif. lib. 1. pro Athan. pa. 57. Primò, es haereti∣cus, d••inde, perse∣cutor, &c. et, amici tui diabo∣li. ait idem Con∣stantino. ibid. pa. 12. et 13.
• o 1.1927

  Tertullus, Act. 24.5.
• p 1.1928

  Festus, Act. 26.24.
• q 1.1929

  Matth. 11 19.
• r 1.1930

  Mark 3.22.
• s 1.1931

  Matth. 26.65.
• t 1.1932

  Exod. 23.1.
• u 1.1933

  ibid v. 2.
• x 1.1934

  Rom. 1. 32.
• y 1.1935

  Lib. 2. advers. Iovin.
• a 1.1936

  Nicephorus Andronicum co••mendat quod S. Sanct•• a solo Patre pro∣cedere per Sy∣nodum à se co∣actam promul∣gari curaverit. Poss. in verb. Nicephorus. Et, Habet tum in dogmatibus, tum in historica voritate quae digna sunt ut praecaveantur. Ibid.
• b 1.1937

  an. 563. nu. 8.
• c 1.1938

  In verb•• Eva∣grius.
• d 1.1939

  Hic (Iustin.) cepit execrabi∣lem opinionem probare, quae Christi corpus incorruptum asserebat. Eust. apud Sur. 6. April.
• f 1.1940

  Persuaserunt Imperatori, ut eum à sede ex∣turbaret, in eâ{que} alium constitu∣aeret, qui opinio∣nibus sais con∣sentiret: quod et factum est. Ibid.
• g 1.1941

  Perduravit exilium Eaty∣chii (ut idem author affi••mat) spacio 12. anno∣rum et amplius. Bar. an. 564. nu. 29.
• h 1.1942

  Haec eustatbi∣us: Quibu om∣nibus praesens aderat. Bar. an. 564. nu. 20 prae∣sens aspexit. nu. 24. et alibi.
• i 1.1943

  Loc. citet.
• k 1.1944

  Sic{que} animis junctu restitu∣to{que} Romano Pē∣tifice in pristi∣nam dignitatem indicta est occu∣menica Synodu••. a••. 553. nu. 14.
• l 1.1945

  an. 552. nu. 19. & 20.
• m 1.1946

  Sup. ca. 16. nu. 18.
• n 1.1947

  Act. 3.
• o 1.1948

  an. 860. nu. 46
• p 1.1949

  an. 553. & an. 564. & alibi
• m 1.1950

  Vt ex Eusta∣thie notat Ba∣ron. an. 564. 29. & an. 578. nu. 3.5.6.
• n 1.1951

  Ad Iustinum & Tiberium ex∣clamant, ut fidei custos (Eutychi∣us) redderetur; qui id concesse∣runt, Verba Eu∣stath. Suriani. loc. cit.
• o 1.1952

  Bar. an. 578. nu. 5.
• p 1.1953

  Iustinus Im∣perator corona∣tus ab Eutychio Patriarch. lib. 16. Hist. Misc••l.
• q 1.1954

  Zonar. ••••. 3. in Iustin.
• r 1.1955

  Vere co••novi∣mus D••um mi∣sisse Angelum suum & cripu∣isse, &c. Eustat.
• s 1.1956

  Iustinus per se solum ad annos ••2. regnavit, & 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Tiberio an∣nis ••. Evagr. L••••. 5. ca. 23.
• t 1.1957

  〈…〉〈…〉 Iohanne, 〈…〉〈…〉 est 〈…〉〈…〉 exal. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 7•• an. 5.
• u 1.1958

  〈…〉〈…〉.
• x 1.1959

  Nam Iustinus solus totidem annos regnavit. ••••p.
• y 1.1960

  Ab Anastasio Bibliotheca••i•• hu••us Chronolo∣giae interp••••te. &, ch••o••olo∣gia Nic••phori conversa in La∣tinum per Ana∣stas••••••. Titulo Nice••hori in Biblioth. S. Pat. ••0.7.
• z 1.1961

  Iohannes an. 12. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 7.
• a 1.1962

  Iohannes 〈◊〉〈◊〉 an 12. 〈…〉〈…〉 Bar. an. 564. an. 25.
• c 1.1963

  Niceph. in e∣dit. Graeca.
• * 1.1964

  Sup. cap. 17.
• d 1.1965

  Tom. 7.
• e 1.1966

  In Chron.
• f 1.1967

  Tribus circite•• annis ante Im∣perium Iustini. Eust. apu•• Sur.
• g 1.1968

  Significavit mihi Deus te post avunculum tuum fore Impe∣ratorem. Ibid.
• h 1.1969

  Nunc in p••r•••• re••publicae gu∣bernacula com∣misit Deu••, mo•• autem et sinem c••ncedet. Ibid.
• i 1.1970

  Verè (inquil) non est alius (qui succedet) quam Mauriti∣us. Ibid.
• k 1.1971

  Suct. in Iul. Caes. cap. 81.
• l 1.1972

  Suct. in Domit. cap. 13.
• m 1.1973

  Ibid. cap. 16.
• n 1.1974

  Lib. 4. cap. 19.
• p 1.1975

  Tit. de Male∣ficis, Mathema∣ticis, et his simi∣libus.
• q 1.1976

  Leg. 2. eod. tit. Cod. Iust.
• r 1.1977

  Non solum ur∣be Roma, sed eti∣am omnibus ci∣vitatibus pelli decernimus. I. ult. Tit. de ma∣les. Cod. Theod.
• s 1.1978

  Leg. 5. tit. de Malef. Cod. Iust. et leg. 4. Cod. Theod.
• t 1.1979

  Greg. lib. 14. Moral. ca. 29. Eutychius scrip∣sit quod corpus nostrum in illa resurrectionis gloria erit im∣palpabile.
• u 1.1980

  Libellum de Resurrectione scripsit, ostendē•• quod caro vel impalpabilis, vel ipsa non erit.
• t 1.1981

  Hoc cap. nu. 13
• u 1.1982

  Cap. 23.
• x 1.1983

  Apud Bar. an. 538. nu. 33. & Bin. tom. 2. pa. 482.
• y 1.1984

  (Quamobrem hos quoque risu dignum est) et Anath. 5.
• a 1.1985

  Evag. lib. 4. ca. 32.
• b 1.1986

  Lib. cod. ca. 33
• c 1.1987

  Lib. 1. ca. 15.
• d 1.1988

  Lib. 2. ca. 3.
• e 1.1989

  Lib. 1. ca. 8.
• f 1.1990

  Narrat ipse Nestorius se in eo loco quadrien∣nij spacio com∣moratum, & po∣stea relegatum ad Oasim. Lib. 1 cap. 7.
• g 1.1991

  Soc. lib. 7. ca. 34. & Liber. Brev. ca. 7.
• h 1.1992

  Epist. Iohan∣nis, et Orienta∣lium Cyrillo, to. 5 Act. Ephes. ca. 5 & ca. 17.
• i 1.1993

  Lib. 7. ca. 39.
• k 1.1994

  Lib. 4. ca. 26.
• n 1.1995

  Act. 5. pa. 35••
• o 1.1996

  Proc. l••b. 2. de bel. Pers.
• * 1.1997

  Lib. 1••. an. 1 Heracl.
• p 1.1998

  Ibid. an. 3. & an. 4. & an. 8.
• q 1.1999

  Rogavit ut des••iret tribu∣ta, et pacta ac••i∣peret. Ibid.
• r 1.2000

  Ibid. an. 8. & Zonar. to. 3. in Heracl.
• s 1.2001

  Loc. Theol. lib. 11. c. 6. Reji••it.
• t 1.2002

  Bibl. sanc. li. 2.
• u 1.2003

  Enchir. Tit. de sac. Scrip. Palam.
• x 1.2004

  Concil. Rom. 1 sub Gelas.
• a 1.2005

  Lib. 3. de adif. Iustin. pa. 433.
• b 1.2006

  Lib. 5. ca. 4.
• c 1.2007

  In Chron. part. 16. in Iustinia••.
• d 1.2008

  An. 504.
• e 1.2009

  De gest. Fr. lib. 2. ca. 8.
• f 1.2010

  In Epist. Aga••. Act. 4. Conc. 6. pa. 18.••▪
• g 1.2011

  Ibid. in Epist. Synod. pa. 22.
• h 1.2012

  Vid. sup. he•• cap. nu. 18.
• i 1.2013

  Proc. lib. 1. de aedif. Iustin. pa. 423.
• k 1.2014

  Assurgit in al∣titudinem caeli. Ibid.
• l 1.2015

  Diceres locum illum non exter∣no sole illumina∣ri. Ibid.
• m 1.2016

  Pavimentum ex diversi colotis unionibus per∣fectum. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Annal. part. 4.
• * 1.2017

  Myriadas 4. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 argenti habuisse sertur. Proc. loc. cit.
• n 1.2018

  Hoc aedifici•• Solomonem esse superatum. ••lic. loc. cit.
• o 1.2019

  Lib. 1.
• p 1.2020

  Ibid.
• q 1.2021

  Pro. lib. 2.
• r 1.2022

  Lib. 4.
• s 1.2023

  Lib. 5.
• t 1.2024

  Lib. 6. pa. 453.
• u 1.2025

  Lib. 1. pa. 424
• h 1.2026

  Iustiniani magni. Epist. Agath. et Synod. Rom. Act. 4. Conc. 6.
• i 1.2027

  In praes••d Institut. Iustin.
• k 1.2028

  Inexpugnabilē hollibus effecit. Proc. lib. 2. de ••∣dis. Iust.
• l 1.2029

  Ibid. lib. 3.
• m 1.2030

  Lib. 4.
• n 1.2031

  Lib. 6.
• a 1.2032

  Lib. 6. pa. 456.
• b 1.2033

  Lib. 4. pa. 439.
• c 1.2034

  Quapropter 〈◊〉〈◊〉 contende∣rit, per omnem aetatem fuisse quempia•• ex omnibus homini∣bus Iustiniano magis providum, & accuratio∣rem. Lib. 4. pa. 440.
• d 1.2035

  Evang••. lib. 4. ca. 18.
• f 1.2036

  Rom. 14. 4••
• g 1.2037

  1 Cor. 13.5.
• h 1.2038

  In ipso Dei Verbi Sapientiae templo quotannis magnifi•• è me∣moriam ejus celebrari, populi universi conci∣one ad rem di∣vinam coacta. Nicep. lib. 17. ca. 31.
• i 1.2039

  Ibid.
• k 1.2040

  Pro. 10.7.
• l 1.2041

  Loc. cita••.
• m 1.2042

  Socr. lib. 1. ca. 7.
• n 1.2043

  Wisd 5.4. c.
• a 1.2044

  Impiae Theo∣dorae Augustae. an. 535. nu. 59.
• b 1.2045

  H••reticae fa∣minae impiae Theodorae. ibid. nu. 60.
• c 1.2046

  Sacrilega fae∣mina molita es••. an. 536. nu. 123
• d 1.2047

  A furente hae∣retica faemina excitata. an. 538 nu. 9.
• e 1.2048

  Ipsa haeretico∣rum, Ac••phalo∣rum, Severiano∣rum, E••••y. hia∣norum patrona. an 547. nu. 49.
• f 1.2049

  An. 535. nu. 63
• g 1.2050

  Sententi••m excommunica∣tionis instixit. et, Excommu∣nicationis sen∣tentia fulmini•• ins••ar coelitus emiss•• prostravit. an. 547. nu. 49. & 50.
• h 1.2051

  Theodoram •• Vigilio sancia∣tam dito ja••uto anathematis, haud diu post ulciscente numi∣ne, est insequuius interitus. an. 548. nu. 24.
• i 1.2052

  Liber. ca. 21, 22.
• k 1.2053

  Evagr. lib. 4. ca. 10.
• l 1.2054

  In annal. sui••. pa. 87.
• m 1.2055

  Participem consilij sumen∣tes eam quae à Deo est data no∣bis, reverendissi∣ma•••• conjugem. Novel. 8. ca. 1.
• n 1.2056

  〈◊〉〈◊〉 pragmatica sanctione Iustin. ca. 1.
• o 1.2057

  Ad Iustinianū & Theodoram divae memoriae. Conc. gen. 6. Act. 14. pa. 73. Bis ita ait Conciliū. &, Ad Theodo∣ram piae memo∣riae quondam Augustam. Act. 3 pa. 11.
• p 1.2058

  Iustinianus Angustam con∣jugent a••diens, monstrum hor∣rendum in sea••uz Pontificiam pro∣vehit. an. 535. nu. 60.
• q 1.2059

  Ibid. nu. ••2. & 63.
• r 1.2060

  Libell. Arch••••••mand. et Monac ad Agapetum in Conc. Constan∣tinop. sub Menn. act. 1. pa. 426. a.
• s 1.2061

  〈◊〉〈◊〉 eadem. b.
• t 1.2062

  Iustin. Consti∣tutio contra Se∣verum, Anti••i∣mum. &c. quae extat posi Conc. sub M••nna. pa. 469. a.
• u 1.2063

  Sent. Synodi contra Anthimū. act. 4. pa. 438. a.
• x 1.2064

  an. 535. nu. 6••.
• y 1.2065

  an. eod. nu. 5••.
• z 1.2066

  an. eod. nu. 86
• a 1.2067

  Ibid. nu. 88.
• b 1.2068

  Anast. in vita Vigil.
• c 1.2069

  an. 547. nu. 49
• c 1.2070

  Theodora ••li∣cuit à Vigilio ut tria Capitula condemnaret. Vict. Tun. in Chron. an. 2. post Coss. Basilij.
• d 1.2071

  Ibid.
• e 1.2072

  Greg. lib. 2. Epist. 36.
• f 1.2073

  Author. apol. Tumultuariae pro dispensatione de matr. m. Hen. 8. & ••xoris fra∣tris ejus. fol. 46.
• g 1.2074

  De loc. Theol. lib. 11. ca. 6. §. Lex vero 2.
• h 1.2075

  Agapetus Ar∣chie••••••••. Rom. Theodoram Au∣gustam Anthi•••• patronam com∣munione privat: Anthimum de∣ponit, & Men∣nam ejus loco Epis. opum ponit. Vict. Tunun in 〈◊〉〈◊〉. in Coss. Iustin. an. 14. Iustiniani.
• i 1.2076

  Papa, contra Theodoram & Acephalos dam∣nationis senten∣tiam promulga∣vit. Greg loco citato.
• k 1.2077

  Acephalorum Principes, An∣thimum, Severū, &c. condemna∣vit Agapetus. hin Not. in vit∣tam Agapet. pa. 416. b.
• l 1.2078

  Act. 5.
• m 1.2079

  Const. Iustin. post finem Synod. sub Menna.
• n 1.2080

  Totilas Ro∣mam contendit, quam statim ob∣sedit. Proc. lib. 3. de bell. Goth. pa. 360.
• o 1.2081

  Vigilius venit Constantinopolin an. 12. be〈…〉〈…〉 Go∣thic. Proc. lib. eodem. pa. 364. Romam obsedit Io••i••••s. an. 11. ejusdem belli. lib. eodem. pa. 359. & seq.
• p 1.2082

  Proc. lib. eodē 3. an. 15. belli Goth. pa. 394.
• a 1.2083

  Bar. an. 547. nu. 48.
• b 1.2084

  an. 553. n. 137
• c 1.2085

  Ibidem.
• d 1.2086

  Act. 1. pa. 8.
• e 1.2087

  1 Cor. 11.19.
• f 1.2088

  Lib. de ver•• relig. ca. 8.
• a 1.2089

  An. 534. n. 2••
• b 1.2090

  An. 546. nu. 9.
• c 1.2091

  Ibid. nu. 8.
• d 1.2092

  Edere sanctio∣nes sibi arrogat (Iustin.) quas dolose conscrip∣sissent haeretici. an. 546. nu. 41. Egerunt callide adversarii veri∣tatis, &c. ibid. nu. 9.
• e 1.2093

  Ingenue pro∣fessus est, Orige∣nistarum studiis ea fuisse ab Im∣peratore promul∣gata. ibid. nu. 49.
• f 1.2094

  Illud à Theo∣doro conscriptū edictum suo no∣mine Iustin. pro∣mulgavit. ibid. nu. 8.
• g 1.2095

  an. 538. nu. 85
• h 1.2096

  an. 546. nu. 9. & an. 534. nu. 21. & alibi.
• i 1.2097

  Iustin. factioso∣rum stadijs se inseruit. an. 550. nu. 14.
• k 1.2098

  Hominem va∣frum. an. 551. nu. 4. & 564. nu. 7.
• l 1.2099

  Ejus gratia factus impudent ibid. nu. 3.
• m 1.2100

  Theodorum illum nequissi∣mum quem mirum in modum favisse ostendimus Ori∣genis haeresibus. an. 564. nu. 6. & occaltum hae∣reticum mani∣festum schisma∣ticum. an. 551. nu. 5. Praecep•• Origenista. an. eod. nu. 4.
• n 1.2101

  Non Origenis tantum errorum assecla, sed & Eutychianae blasphemie ve∣hementissimus propugnat••r. an. 564. nu. 7.
• o 1.2102

  Ita miser (Iu∣stinianus) caecus caecum (Theodo∣rum) sectans, cū ipso pariter mer∣gitur in profun∣dum. an. 564. nu. 7. agit au••e de haeresi Aph∣thardochitarum.
• p 1.2103

  Iu{que} sacrilegum (Theodorum) pseudo episcopam, imo tyrannum insurgit, in per∣versorem legum, eversorem juriū. an. 551. nu. 5.
• q 1.2104

  Qui Impera∣tori omnium illi malorum causa fuit. an. 551. n. 3
• r 1.2105

  Hic igitur ne∣fandissimus, to∣tius Ecclesiae postis. an. 564. nu. 7.
• s 1.2106

  an. 534. nu. 21.
• t 1.2107

  Luk. 2.34.
• u 1.2108

  Luk. 12.49, ••1
• x 1.2109

  Mat. 10.21
• y 1.2110

  Iohn 6. v. 71.
• z 1.2111

  Luk. 10.16.
• a 1.2112

  Iam. 2. v. 1.
• b 1.2113

  Mat. 23. v. 2.3
• c 1.2114

  Iohannes 23. inter Christi fideles vita•• ne mores ejus cog∣noscentes, vulga∣riter dicitur Di∣abolus incarna∣tus. Conc. Con∣stant. sess. 11. pa. 1579.
• d 1.2115

  Per annos ferè 150. Pontifices ferè 50. a virtu∣te majorum prorsus defece∣runt, Apotactici, Apostaticivè, potius quam A∣postolici, &c. Gen. lib. 4. Chro∣nol. ad an. 904.
• e 1.2116

  An. 546. nu. 8 9.
• f 1.2117

  In suo Brevi a••. ca. 24.
• g 1.2118

  Annuit 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Princeps Ibid.
• h 1.2119

  Ea quae scribi fecerunt, titulo nominis tui prae∣notarunt, verum nos illa scripta 〈◊〉〈◊〉 tua di∣ci. Fac. apud Bar. an. 546. nu. 9.
• i 1.2120

  Inter Epist. V••••gilij, Epist. 17. tom. 2. Conc. pa. 5••3. b.
• k 1.2121

  Cic. de Senect.
• l 1.2122

  Act. 24.12.13
• m 1.2123

  Ca. 20.
• n 1.2124

  Epist. Iustin. ad Conc. 5. Act. 1 pa. 520. a.
• o 1.2125

  Locis supra ci∣tatis.
• p 1.2126

  Iustinianus ob∣••igatus fuit in eo errore (Apthar. doch. taram) ab eis, qui ei assiste∣bant, haeresis e∣jus defensoribus. At quinam illi? Horum Antefig∣nanus fuit Theo∣dorus ille nequis∣simus, &c. erat is Eu••ycheanae blasphemiae 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Ba••. an. 504. nu. 6. & 7.
• q 1.2127

  Ibid.
• r 1.2128

  Sup. ca. 20.
• s 1.2129

  Coll. 8.
• t 1.2130

  An. 538. nu. 2••
• u 1.2131

  An. 546.8, 9. & 49.
• x 1.2132

  Poss. Appar. in verbo Facun∣dus, et verbo Se∣cundus.
• y 1.2133

  An. 553. nu. 221.
• a 1.2134

  In Facundo.
• b 1.2135

  Fac. apud Ba••. an. 547▪ nu. 38.
• c 1.2136

  Loco citato.
• d 1.2137

  An. 547. nu. 30.
• e 1.2138

  In Brev. ca. 24
• f 1.2139

  In 〈◊〉〈◊〉 in B••ev. Liber. to 2. Conc. pa. 626.
• g 1.2140

  B••ll. l••b. 1. de Conc ca. 5 § 〈…〉〈…〉 Bell. et Baro••ius in ••iber••ti 〈◊〉〈◊〉, haec 〈◊〉〈◊〉 legon∣da ad ••onuerut ••••nius loco citato.
• h 1.2141

  I•• App••r. in v••••bo ••iberatus.
• i 1.2142

  Ibid.
• k 1.2143

  Apol. 1. contra Ru••••in. ad Pam∣mach. et Marcel. pa. 204.
• l 1.2144

  〈◊〉〈◊〉 supra.
• m 1.2145

  Coll. 8. pa. 587 ••. b.
• n 1.2146

  Coll. eadem pa. 588. b.
• o 1.2147

  Loco citate.
• p 1.2148

  Edictum ••u∣s••i••. contra Ori∣genem. extat to. 2. Con. pa. 482.
• q 1.2149

  Dictata est in Originem dam∣natio, quam sub∣scri••entes, &c. Liber. ca. 23.
• r 1.2150

  An. 538. nu▪ 83
• s 1.2151

  〈◊〉〈◊〉 in com. p••nd. Annal.
• t 1.2152

  Lib. 4. ca. 37.
• u 1.2153

  Ca. 24.
• x 1.2154

  An. 451. nu. 4
• y 1.2155

  An. 564 nu. 7.
• z 1.2156

  Hoc tempore (12. is annus Iustin.) Con∣stantinopoli magnum agita∣••um est de Ori∣gene judicium. Bar. an. 538. nu. 31. et Conc. 5. habitum an. 27. Iustin.
• * 1.2157

  Edict. Iust. cō∣tra Originem in fine.
• a 1.2158

  Probatur Ca∣nonas illos (Ni∣cenos) non esse integros. Lib. 2. de Pontif. Rom. ca. 25. §. Omissa
• b 1.2159

  Quod Canon 6. Con. Nic. mu∣tilatus sit, &c. Bar. an. ••25. nu. 125. & Canon ••sse (5. Concilij Constantinopoli∣tani) suspectus, imo planè addititius esse atque suppo∣situs habetur, &c. Bar. an. 381 nu. 35.
• c 1.2160

  Tom. 5. Conc. Ephes. ca. 11.
• d 1.2161

  An. 481. nu. 173.
• e 1.2162

  Pag. 84. b.
• f 1.2163

  Concilium fini∣tum est mense Novemb. in Cōs. Martiani et Adelphij. Bar. an. 451. nu. 160. Edictum vero scriptum 7 Ka∣len. Febr. Coss. Sporatio.
• g 1.2164

  Bell. lib. 4. de Pontif. Rom. ca. 11. § Ad secun∣dum depravata sunt. Bin. not. in Con. 6. § Acta.
• h 1.2165

  Acta Concilij multis in locis
• i 1.2166

  Bar. an. 681. nu. 13.
• k 1.2167

  Not. in Conc. Nicen. 2. et Acti. 4.
• l 1.2168

  Viginti septem Canones ex Ana∣stasii codice sumptos nullus dubitet, et hi duo Canones non nisi ex Anastasio vi∣dentur accipi. Rad. in Obser. ad Conc. 8. pa. ••48.
• m 1.2169

  Poss. Appar. in Athan. p. 127.
• n 1.2170

  Poss. in Aug. pa. 147.
• o 1.2171

  Poss. in Hier. pa. 751.
• a 1.2172

  An. 553. nu. 214.
• b 1.2173

  Extat in Bib. ••. pat. tom. 3.
• c 1.2174

  Le••. ••. de sum∣ma ••rinit. ca. 4.
• d 1.2175

  Loco citato.
• e 1.2176

  Ed••ct. extat apud Bar. an. 593. nu. 7.9.
• f 1.2177

  Epist. 1. Ioh. 2. ad Iustin. to. 2. Conc. p••. 404. et Bar. an. ••34. nu. 15. et seq.
• g 1.2178

  Plane compe∣ritur eosdem ip∣sos (〈…〉〈…〉) Eu∣tycheanos fuisse Haereticos. Bar. an. 519. nu. 99.
• h 1.2179

  An. cod. nu. 102.
• i 1.2180

  Coll. 6. pa. 575. a.
• k 1.2181

  Vide Gretz. tractatus varios, & alios ejus farinae.
• a 1.2182

  Dam salsa quaedam ibi (in Actis 5. Concilij) asserta reperiun∣tur, de impostura non mediocrem suspicionem in∣ducunt: cum viz. ibi dictum habetur, Ibam negosse Epistolā esse suam. Bar. an. 553. nu. 211
• b 1.2183

  Duo••aul plura mendacia de Ibae epistola leguntur. Bin. Notis in Conc. 6. pa. 606. ••. Acta Conc. 5 nō uno loco indi∣cant quod Ibas Epistolam non agnoverit, verū haec sententia, &c. ibid. p. 607. a
• c 1.2184

  Ibas non est ausus eam suam dicere Epistolam Iustin. edictum pa. 496. b. Epi∣stolam Ibas de∣negat suam. Greg. lib. 7. E∣pist. 53.
• d 1.2185

  Abnegans E∣pistolam. Cell. 6. pa. 563. b. Eo quod abnega••at Ibas illa. Coll. ea∣dem. pa. 564. a. Vnde & Ibas eam abnegabat. ibid. & alibi.
• e 1.2186

  Loco nuper ci∣tato.
• f 1.2187

  Loco citato.
• g 1.2188

  Coll. 6. p. 564. a Iohannes Se∣bastiae, Seleucus Amasiae, Con∣stantinus, Patri∣tius, Petrus & Albarbius, om∣nes Metropoli∣tani pariter in∣terloquuti sunt, eo quod Ibas ab∣negavit illa, &c.
• h 1.2189

  Acta Germa∣na hatent Ibam confessum, cam esse 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ••ed & ••cta Conc. Chalc. ••••ndem Epistolam ut Ibae cognitam esse co∣cent. Bar. an. 44••. nu. 77.
• i 1.2190

  〈◊〉〈◊〉 citat.
• k 1.2191

  Bar an 4•• 2. nu. 71.
• l 1.2192

  Pa••. 448. nu 7••
• m 1.2193

  Epistola fasiz esl••nditur post 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ad orientales facts. Edict. Iust. loco citato.
• n 1.2194

  In pia episicia past unitatem scripta offerdi∣t••r. Conc. 5. Coll. 6 pa. 563.
• o 1.2195

  Sup. ca. ••0.
• p 1.2196

  Coll. 6 pa. 575. a.
• q 1.2197

  In Conc. Chal•• act. 10. pa. 113. a
• r 1.2198

  Ibid.
• s 1.2199

  In Conc. Chalc. Act. 10. p. 113. a
• t 1.2200

  Nam primum eorum Tomum dedicavit Sixto 5. an. 1589.
• u 1.2201

  Loco citato.
• x 1.2202

  Loco citato.
• y 1.2203

  Coll. 6. p. 564. a
• z 1.2204

  an. 563. ••. 211
• a 1.2205

  Quod Ibidem subditur, eandem Epistolam in Sy∣nodo Chalced. fuisse damna∣tam, ipsa acta secus docent, neutrum enim borum verum esse superius de••monstr avimus. Bar. an. 553. nu. 211.
• b 1.2206

  Duo aut plura mendacia. Bin. not. in Conc. 5. pa. 606. b.
• c 1.2207

  Anathemati∣zavit Epist. con∣trariam per om∣nia, expositae de∣finitioni à Con∣cilio Chalc. San∣cta Synodus dixit. Scimus et no•• hac ita subseqaeut•• esse. Coll. 6 pa. 564. a.
• d 1.2208

  Coll. eadem. pa. 576. b.
• e 1.2209

  Quo facto de∣monstratum est, contrariam per omnia Episto∣lam esse his quae definitione (Chalc.) conti∣nentur Coll. 8. pa. 584. a.
• f 1.2210

  Invenimus quod non aliter passi sunt Ibam suscipere, &c. Ib.
• g 1.2211

  Loc. citat.
• h 1.2212

  Loco cit.
• i 1.2213

  S. et magna Sy∣nodus 5. Cyrilli Synodales Epi∣s••olas amplexa est, ad arguendū Nestorianam ••lementiam &c. Conc Chalc. Act. 5. pa. 96. et Can. 1 pa. 15.
• k 1.2214

  Omnes Episco∣pi clamaverunt, Quicunque Ne∣storiano anathe∣matizat, anathe∣ma sit. Omnes Nestorij Episto∣lam, et dogmata anathematiza∣mus. Con. Ephes. to. 2. ca. 4. pa. 743.
• l 1.2215

  Huic omnes Co∣tentimate, omnes ita sapimus Act. 5. pa. 98.
• m 1.2216

  ••••istolam de∣finitio S. Chalce∣donensis Concilij 〈…〉〈…〉 Coliat. ••. pa. 576 b. et a••hi.
• n 1.2217

  Lib. 7. Iud. 2. Epist. 54.
• o 1.2218

  Chal. Conc. Act 5. pa. 38.
• p 1.2219

  Hoc judicium Ph••••••, et Eusta∣thij omnes Epis∣cep (Chal. Col.) 〈◊〉〈◊〉, rers. e∣xir••nt••sarm (tham) anathe∣matiz••re Ne∣storium et impia 〈◊〉〈◊〉 dogmata. Co••. 5. Coll. 6. pa. 563. b.
• q 1.2220

  Ibam anathe∣matizi••e•• 〈…〉〈…〉 dogmata, permane•••• in Sacerdotio volo. Euseb. E∣pis. et eyrae in Conc. Chal. Act. 10. pa. 〈…〉〈…〉 Epis∣copa clamate∣runt. 〈…〉〈…〉 Ibid. pa 116. a.
• r 1.2221

  Coll. •• p. 563. b
• s 1.2222

  Loco citato.
• a 1.2223

  Intel••••gas quā plu••ima in e••dë 5. Syno••o des••e∣rari. Bar. an. 553 nu. 243.
• b 1.2224

  Decartat••onē et matilat••onem Actorum indi∣cant illa ••rag∣menta que in si∣ne 〈…〉〈…〉 Conc 5 § Consti∣tutum.
• c 1.2225

  Coll. 5. pa. 55••.
• c 1.2226

  Coll. 8. Anath. 11. pa. 587. a.
• d 1.2227

  An. 553. nu. 248.
• e 1.2228

  An. 553. nu. 238.
• f 1.2229

  An. eod. nu. 242. porro de O∣rigine, actum esse in Synodo poni∣tur, inde vero as Theodoro. &c.
• g 1.2230

  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 1.2231

  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 1.2232

  An eod. nu. 238.
• k 1.2233

  Niceph. Cal∣list. lib 17. Eccl. Histor. ca. 27.
• l 1.2234

  Extat Conc. 5. Coll. 1.
• m 1.2235

  Collat. 8.
• n 1.2236

  Pro Dei vo∣luntate & fussi∣one pijssimi Im∣peratoris conve∣nimus. Ibid.
• o 1.2237

  1. Coll. 4. die Maij.
• p 1.2238

  2. Coll. 8. die Maij.
• q 1.2239

  3. Coll. 9. die Maij.
• r 1.2240

  Loc. cit. Coll. 8. pa. 584.
• s 1.2241

  Coll. 4.12. di•• Maij.
• t 1.2242

  Coll. 5.14 die Maij. pridiè Idus Maij. Bar. an 553. nu. 41.
• u 1.2243

  •• Coll. 19. Maij.
• x 1.2244

  ••. Co••••. 26. di••. Maij.
• y 1.2245

  8. Coll. ••. die Iunij.
• z 1.2246

  Loco citato.
• * 1.2247

  Evag. lib. 4. ca. 37.
• a 1.2248

  Coll. 8. p. 586. a
• b 1.2249

  Niceph. et Evag. loc. citat.
• d 1.2250

  Coll. 5. p. 552. a
• e 1.2251

  An. 553. nu. 42 haec acta inquit desiderantur in Synodo, &c.
• e 1.2252

  Anno n••mpe 1•• Iustiniani, & Vigilii 2. ut no∣tat Bar. an. 538. nu. 29. et 31.
• f 1.2253

  Extat Edict. to. 2. Conc. pa. 482. et seq.
• g 1.2254

  Coll. 8. pa. 58••
• h 1.2255

  Evag. loc. cic.
• i 1.2256

  Extant post edictum Iustin. pa. 488.
• k 1.2257

  an. 563. n. 242.
• l 1.2258

  Post Conc. 5. pa. 604. et pa. 606 b. indicant illa fragmenta, &c.
• m 1.2259

  Ib. pa. 606. b.
• n 1.2260

  Act. 1. pa. 306. a.
• o 1.2261

  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 1.2262

  Didymus et Evagrius secta∣ri•• Origenis. Bid. loc. citat••
• q 1.2263

  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 1.2264

  Rust. ••••b. 1. Eccl h••s••. ca. 1•••• & alij.
• a 1.2265

  Epistola 2. Iu∣stin. ad Conc. Oecumenicum. 5. Bin. pa. 604. b
• b 1.2266

  An. 553. nu. 243.
• c 1.2267

  Collat. 1. pa. 518. & sequ.
• d 1.2268

  Eutyches Ne∣storii opiniones probat. in Frag. ex Cedr. apud Bin. pa. 605. b.
• i 1.2269

  Nestorio alium di. ente Deum verbum, et alium Christum, &c. Iust. epist. Coll. 1. pa. 519.
• k 1.2270

  In eo te laudo quod distinctio∣nem naturarum secundum divi∣nitatus et huma∣nitatis rationem praedicas Haec enim vera et or∣thodoxa sunt, &c. Sit Nesto∣rius scribit ••y∣rillo, in ea E∣pist. Nest. quae ha∣betur ••om. 1. Ephes. Con. ca. 14
• l 1.2271

  Eu••yches ne∣••••t cons••••st inti∣alem nobis esse carnem Domini. Iust. in Epist ad Synod. sup. citat. et authem. qui dixit duas naturas post ad∣unationem, di∣cant Eutychiani in conciliab. Eph. apud Conc. Chal. Act. 1.
• m 1.2272

  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.
• n 1.2273

  Eum qui dicit duas naturas in duo incidite, Qui dicit duas naturas, Nestorianus est. ibid. pa. 12. a.
• o 1.2274

  Eutyches Nestorii opiniones prohans, dicens{que} carnem Christi non ejusd••m cum nostra esse natura. Epist. ex Cedr. pa. 605. b.
• p 1.2275

  Vt liquet ex verbis Nestorii aute citatis.
• q 1.2276

  Opera Theodori Mopsves••eni, qui magistrum suum Nestorium impie de rebus sacris loquendo superabat. Epist. ex Cedr. loc. cit.
• r 1.2277

  Et docerent non solumaisci∣pu••••m impiet••t••s Nestorium, se•• etiam doctorem ejus Theodorum. Coll. 8. pa. 585. b.
• s 1.2278

  Per Theodorum Mopsves••enum, doctorem Nestorij. Epist. Iust. Coll. 1. p. 519.
• a 1.2279

  An. 553. nu. 48
• b 1.2280

  Ibid. nu. 47.
• c 1.2281

  Libellus Syno∣do oblatus pridie Idus Maij. an. 553. nu. 41. et Papae libellus ob∣latus Synodo: nos hic (in 5. Collatione) suo loco restituendū esse putamus. ibid. nu. 47.
• d 1.2282

  Ibid. nu. 48.
• e 1.2283

  Ibid.
• f 1.2284

  Pridie Idus Maij. Bar. an. 553. nu. 210. eo autem die habi∣ta 5. Collatio. an. eodem nu. 41.
• g 1.2285

  Gloriesissimo et clementissimo filio Iustiniano, Vigilius Episco∣pus; ita incipit Constit. Vigil. apud Bar. an. 553 nu. 50.
• h 1.2286

  Vigilius polli∣citus fuit se mis∣surum (decretū suum seu Consti∣tutum) ad ipsum Imperatorem at{que} ad Syodum, quod et ingenue prae∣stitit. Bar. an. eodem. nu. 47.
• k 1.2287

  14. Kalendas Iunias. Coll. 6. in initio.
• i 1.2288

  Oblatum fuisse Concilio, Vigilij constitutum, &c. quibus non ob∣scure significa∣tur idem Consti∣tutum in sexto ill•• Patrum con∣sessu recitatum fuisse. B••n. Not. ad Conc. 5 pa. 610. a. et Ex Actis Concilii non obscure col∣ligitur ipsum (Constitutum insexto Confessu Episcoporum r••∣citatum fuisse. idem pa 606. b.
• l 1.2289

  Bar. an. 553. nu. 218.
• a 1.2290

  An. 553. nu. 245. Acta illa deside∣rari noscuntur, quibus agebatur de adjactis Pa∣triarchatui Hie∣rosolymitano Ec∣clesiis, &c.
• b 1.2291

  De Bello sacro, lib. 24. ca. 12.
• c 1.2292

  Non habens unde illi urbi ordinoret suf∣fra aueos, nisi u∣trique Patriar∣chae aliquid de∣traheret.
• d 1.2293

  Bin. inter frag∣menta addit post Cōc. 5 pa. 606. a.
• e 1.2294

  An. 553. nu. 246.
• f 1.2295

  Post absentiam Legatorum Ibid.
• g 1.2296

  Sic igitur in∣verso antique ordi••e a Nicano Constituto insti∣tuto, Caesariensis Ecclesia, totius Palestinae Me∣tropolis nunc primum subjecta est Hierosolimo∣rum Ecclesiae. Bar. Ibid.
• h 1.2297

  Diatr. 2. ca. 2.
• i 1.2298

  Hierosolimita∣n•• per annos fe∣rè quingentos habita est quar∣ta Pa••ria chali∣sed nomine non re, seu lignore non potestate. Rest. lib. 1. de Pontif. Rom. ca. 24. § Porro.
• k 1.2299

  Binius ver∣ba Bellar. ro∣petit, 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.
• l 1.2300

  Hoc ibi (in Conc. Nic.) decernitur ut Palestina Metro∣polis Cesarea sit, et toti•••• Orientis Antiochia. Hier. Epist. ad Pammach. contra Iohan. Epis. Hieros.
• m 1.2301

  Habeat Aelia 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ••••••sequentiam (post Antiochiam) Metropoli propria dignitate servale. Conc. Nic. Can. 7.
• n 1.2302

  Hierosolimita∣nus Episcopus sedebat. 4. loco, sed nulli Archi-Episcopo vel Episcopo praec. rat. Bell. loc. cit.
• o 1.2303

  Nam sedit 4. loco in Concilio Niceno, et sub∣scribit ante Epis∣copum Caesarien∣sem in Conc. Ni∣ceno, et Constant. ut ex subsciptio∣ne liquet, et in Conc. Chalc. Act 5.
• p 1.2304

  Epist. 62. Leonis.
• q 1.2305

  Placuit mihi (ait Maximus) et Iuvenali prop∣ier multam con∣tentionem ut se∣des Antiochena habeat duas Phaenician et Arabiam, se∣des autem Hie∣rosolymorum ha∣beat tres Palesti∣nas, et r••gamus ex decreto vestro haec firmari. Conc. Chalc. Act. 7. pa. 105.
• r 1.2306

  Ibid.
• s 1.2307

  Evag l. 2. ca. 18
• t 1.2308

  Nic. Callist. lib. 15. ca. 30.
• u 1.2309

  An. 451. nu. 124.
• x 1.2310

  Not. in Conc. Chalc. pa. 184. b.
• y 1.2311

  lin. 553. nu. 246.
• z 1.2312

  Conc. Chalc. Act. 7. pa. 105. ••.
• a 1.2313

  Loco citato.
• b 1.2314

  Leo Epist. 53.
• c 1.2315

  Epist. eadem.
• d 1.2316

  Epist. 54.
• e 1.2317

  Epist. 61.
• f 1.2318

  Epist. 62.
• g 1.2319

  Haec sancta & magna Synodus, tam in seniori & nova Roma, quam in sede A∣lexandria, An∣tioch••ae 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Hie∣rosolymorum prisc••m consue∣tudinē decernit in omnibus con∣servati, ita ut eorum praesules universorum Metropolitano∣rum qui ab ipsis promoventur, habeant potesta∣tem, ad convoca∣dum eos, ad coor∣cendum et corri∣gendum. Can. 17 Conc. 8. apud Bin. pa. 850.
• h 1.2320

  Conc. Later. 4. habitum sub In∣noc. 3. ca. 5.
• i 1.2321

  Quo minus ea (qua Chalcedo∣ne obtinuit ••u∣••enalis) executi∣on•• mandata es∣sent, Leo Rom. Pont intercessit. Nunc erro pri∣mum (in Conci∣lio 5.) Hieroso∣lymorum Eccle∣sia P••triarcha∣tu verè ••ucta cognoscitur. Bar. an. 553. nu. 246.
• k 1.2322

  Act. 7.
• l 1.2323

  Novel. 131. ca. 1, et 2
• m 1.2324

  Data est No∣vel. Basilio Coss. ut in fine esus liques, is vero est annus Regni Iu∣stinians 15. et Conc. 4. habitum en. Iust. 27.
• n 1.2325

  Saucimus vi∣cem legum obti∣nere sanctas Ec∣clesiastica regu∣las quae à sanctis a. Concilijs expe∣sitae sunt, aut fir∣matae, Nov. ca∣dem ca. 1.
• o 1.2326

  Act. 5. pa. 455. et seq.
• p 1.2327

  Conc. Hieros. contra Severum etalios extat, to. 2 Conc. pa 472.
• q 1.2328

  Praesidente sanctissimo Patriarcha Pe∣tro assistentibus Episcopis trium Palestinarum. Ibid.
• r 1.2329

  Diatr. 2. ca. 2.
• s 1.2330

  At certè Ruba à Ptolomeo in Syria ponitur, et B••rithum Phae∣nices Libani Metropolim ess•• constat, Syria au∣tem et Phaenice Orientis Provin∣ciae omnibus no∣tae sunt Nihil igitur ab Aegyptiaca Alexandri∣ni Patriarchae diocasi accepit Hierosoly••ita∣nus. Quod 〈◊〉〈◊〉 est, non temere Tyrio et veteri h••ic scripto (fragmento sci∣licet Baroniano & Biniano) fides adhi••enda. Bert. Ibid.
• c 1.2331

  Ptol. Geog. lib. 5. ca 15. ubi Be∣rithum ponit si∣tum in Syria.
• d 1.2332

  Provinciae Phae••ices Grego∣rius Berithi, ••••; 310. b.
• e 1.2333

  Provinciae Phaenices Timo∣theus Beritius, pa. 513. a.
• f 1.2334

  Eust. Berithi civitatis Phaeni∣ces maritimae. Act. 1. pa. 2. a.
• g 1.2335

  Subtraxerunt Alexandrino Ecclesiam Berithensem; et quoniam iterum eundem Patriarcham (Hierosolymitanum) oportebat habere orater supradictos Metropolitanos, &c. Frag. sup. citato.
• h 1.2336

  Concil. Chalc. Act 7. pa. 105. ut sedes Antiochena ha beat duas Phanicias, &c.
• i 1.2337

  Lib. 7. Ind. 2. Epist. 54.
• a 1.2338

  Iam ad postre∣mum videamus quae ab imposto∣ribus fueri••nt 5. Synodi nomine pervulgata. Bar. an. 553. nu. 247.
• b 1.2339

  An. cod. nu. 238.
• c 1.2340

  An. cod. nu. 29.
• d 1.2341

  Monoth••lita∣rum fuit inven∣tum ut sub tit••lo 5. Synodi, episto∣lem M••nnae ca••∣derint. Bar. an. 553. nu. 247.
• e 1.2342

  Du••e in ca (7. Actione concit. 5.) Epistolae in∣ventae sunt quas commentias esse & supposittas manifeste pr••ba∣runt ibid.
• f 1.2343

  Vides igitur quam sherit 5. Synodus tu•• ab Origenistes, tum a Monotheletis ••••ersis tempo∣ribus lanciala. ibid.
• g 1.2344

  Act. 3. & Act. 14.
• h 1.2345

  Act. 14.
• i 1.2346

  Anathema li∣bro qui dicitur Mennae ad Vigi∣lium, & qui cū sinne••unt sive scripserunt. Ana∣them. Ubillis qui decuntur facts f••••sse à V••gilio ad tusti∣meri, et 〈…〉〈…〉 qio f••b verunt acta santi, & 〈…〉〈…〉 Concilij. Ibid. ca. 74 b.
• k 1.2347

  Chartacum volaron quod falsatum est de∣conius cassari in locis, in qui∣•••• ••••jectiones sunt factae verii libros ti••s co••s obelis obduci, in locis in quibros deprova∣ti sunt, & cassa∣ri, &c. ibid. pa. 73.
• m 1.2348

  An. 554. nu 8 Exemplacia ge∣nuina misisse noscitur Grego∣rius.
• n 1.2349

  Germana ex∣em••laria S. Sy∣nodi vidit & cognovit S. Gre∣gor••us. l••b. 12. Ep••st. 7. Bin. pa. 607. a.
• o 1.2350

  S. Greg. lib. 7. Epist 54. in ••e∣pravata Synodi (quintae) exem∣plaria incidisse liquet dim ait Ib••m n••gasse dictam epistolam esse suam. Bar. an. 448. nu. 76.
• p 1.2351

  Obijt Greg. an. 604. Con. 6. ha∣bitum. an 681.
• q 1.2352

  Praefotos duos libros falsatos esse, eo quod ne{que} in unum èprola∣tu antiqui•• & immutilatis li∣b••is, ejusdem sancti Concilijs, neque in charta∣ceo libro qui in recenti inventus aest apud biblio∣thecam venera∣bilis Patriarchij Act. 14. pa. 73. b
• r 1.2353

  an. 553. nu. 46.
• s 1.2354

  Tit. de haeret. ••g. 66. Damnato
• t 1.2355

  Coll. 5. pa. 544. & seq.
• u 1.2356

  Pa. 544. b.
• x 1.2357

  Coll. 5. pa. 542
• s 1.2358

  Nam 1. lex ibi posita, est impe∣rante Antonino & Severo.
• t 1.2359

  Vt liquet ex tit. 1. l. 1.
• u 1.2360

  Lib. 2. de vita Constant. ca. 30.31. & seq.
• x 1.2361

  Lib. 1. ca. 8.
• y 1.2362

  an. 318. nu. 37.
• a 1.2363

  Vide Chronol. omnium Constit. Imperat. servata Consalum ratio∣ne extat post fi∣nem Codicu Theod.
• b 1.2364

  Extat illa lex tom. 5. Conc. E∣phes. ca. 19.
• c 1.2365

  An. 448. nu. 2. & seq.
• d 1.2366

  Act. 3. pa. 85.
• e 1.2367

  an. 449. n. 130
• a 1.2368

  Nestoriani cō∣mentitias quas∣dam Theodore. tivalgavere E∣pistolas, extat ex illis àd Ne∣storium inscrip∣ta an finem 5. Actionis 5. Synodi. an. 436. nu. 10.
• b 1.2369

  Pa. 558. b.
• c 1.2370

  Bar. loco cit.
• d 1.2371

  Leont. lib. de sect. Act. 4. extat tum 4. Bibl. S. Patrum Edit. 3.
• e 1.2372

  Bar. loco citat.
• f 1.2373

  Nam Leontius meminit Eulogy Episcopi Alex∣andrini, lib. de sect. Act. 5. Gregorius vere et Eulogius ae∣quales, et exiat Epist. Greg ad ipsum lib. ••. Epist. 37••.
• g 1.2374

  Leont. Act. 2.
• h 1.2375

  Magister Sac. Palat. pa. 134. primitom. Indi∣cis Romae editi, an. 1607.
• i 1.2376

  Edit. 3. Bibl. 5. Pair. per Marg. la Bigne. Paris. an. 1610.
• k 1.2377

  Extiterunt ijs tem, oribus duo virt, Diodorus et Theodorus Mopsvessiae, qui universas literas sacras com∣mentariis illu∣strabant. Leone. Act. 4.
• l 1.2378

  Nec ipsis vivis quisquam dictū aliquod eorum reprehendebat. Ibid.
• m 1.2379

  Scipsibac praesentibus multis Episcopis, Archelao, Aprin∣gio, Theodoreto, &c. qui omnes tui studiosissimi, una mecum te rogant, &c. sia Iohan. Antio. Nestorio. tom. 1. Conc. Eph ca. 31
• n 1.2380

  Ex scholae Theodori Mops∣vesteni eraunt Nestorius, Theo∣doreus et alij, faetus viperini dicendi. Bar. an. 4••7. nu. 26. et Theodoretus e∣jusdem pianè communionis cum Theodoro Mopsvessero, cu∣jus adeo studiosus extitit ut crede∣retur eum nomē Theodoreti à Theodoro deri∣vasse. Ibid. nu. 29.
• o 1.2381

  De amico au∣tem sciat tua sanctitas. (vnle antem Nestori. um) Epist. Theo∣doret. tom. 3. Ephes. Conc. Append. 2. ca. 9.
• p 1.2382

  Tom. 1. Eph. Conc. ca. 31.
• q 1.2383

  An. 431. nu. ••4.
• r 1.2384

  An. eod. nu. 160
• s 1.2385

  An. 432. nu. 80 81. et seq.
• t 1.2386

  Bar. an. 436. nu. 11.
• u 1.2387

  an. 449. n. 140.
• x 1.2388

  an. 436. nu. 12
• y 1.2389

  an. 432. nu. 80.81.
• z 1.2390

  an. eod. nu. 82.
• a 1.2391

  Epistolas The∣odoreti (157. numero) Graecè script•••• continet. codex Vatica∣nus, &c. Bar. an. 430. nu. 48.
• b 1.2392

  An. 444. nu. 20.
• c 1.2393

  Epistola ad It∣onem scripta erat post Ephesi∣num Latrocini∣um illud habi∣tum an. 449. al∣tera ad Dios∣corum scripta est an. 444 ut ait Bar. illo an. nu. 18. at unio facta est an. 432. Bar. illo an. nu. 72.
• * 1.2394

  Extat apud Bar. an. 444. nu. 21.
• d 1.2395

  Sex annos ibi ego docens tem∣pore Theodosy a∣lios tredecim an∣nus tempore Jo∣hannis; frater hac jum septi∣mus agitur an∣nus quo Dom∣nus Sedet. Epist. Theod. apud Bar. an 444. nu. 23.
• e 1.2396

  Ibidem.
• f 1.2397

  Extat apud Bar. an. 448. nu. 12. et seq.
• g 1.2398

  An. 423. nu. 10.
• h 1.2399

  Epist. ad Dios. corum apud Bar an. 444. nu.
• i 1.2400

  Et usque hodie cum tantum tempus praeteri∣erit nulius xe{que} Deo dilectorum Episcoporum; neque pussimotū Clēitorum, c•• quae à medicta sunt, repribendis aliquando. Ibid.
• k 1.2401

  Epist. Theod. 113. extat apud Bar. an. 449. nu. 115.
• l 1.2402

  An. 424. nu. 19.
• m 1.2403

  Epist. Theodoreti 81. ad Eusebium Ancyrae Episcopum apud Bar an. 443. nu. 12.
• n 1.2404

  Theodor. Epist. 81. apud Bar. an. 448. nu. 14.
• o 1.2405

  An. 4••4. nu. 18. Defuncto ••y∣rillo, ••••ff••ctus est hoc anno in locū ipsius Dioscorus.
• p 1.2406

  Hoc codeman∣no Theodoretus Cy•• creatus est Episco••us; id plane co••••••ges ex &c. Bar. an. 423. nu. 10.
• q 1.2407

  Nam in ••a E∣pist. (quae est Theod. 113.) narrat se injuste in eo Co••••ilio Eph••s••no depo∣situm. apud Bar. an. 444. nu. 118.
• r 1.2408

  Non hoc an. (448.) sedse∣quenti Eph••si famosam habi∣tam esse Synodū, certum est. Bar. an. 448 nu. 58.
• s 1.2409

  In Notis suis ad ••onciliab. E∣phes. pa. 1017. b.
• t 1.2410

  Vigin••••sex an∣nis Ecc••si •••• rexi. Epist. The∣od. 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
• x 1.2411

  Cum Theodo∣retus testatur s•• anno 440. habere in sed. Episco∣pa••i annos 26. utique in hunc annum (423.) necesse est revo∣ces se 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ejus prunord. a. Bar. an. 423. nu. 10.
• y 1.2412

  Sancta Sync∣dus, ••arise••ten∣tia condemnavit ••liorum vanilo∣quen••iam, quot∣quot vel post Nestorum, vel certe illum faere q•••• ••adem sape∣••ent. Append. 1. ad ••om. 2. Act. Ephes. Conc. ca. 6 pa. 679.
• a 1.2413

  Tom. 3. Act. Eph. Conc. ca. 2. pa. 77••.
• b 1.2414

  Pa. 797.
• c 1.2415

  Append. 5. ca. 3. ad tom 6. Act. Conc. Eph. p. 907
• d 1.2416

  Theod. loc. cit.
• e 1.2417

  Tom. 5. Act. Eph. Conc. ca. 5. pa. 831. & pa. 927.
• f 1.2418

  Lib. 5. ca. 40.
• g 1.2419

  an. 427. nu. 28
• h 1.2420

  Lib. 5. hist. Eccl. ca. 36.
• i 1.2421

  Bar. an. 438. nu. 6.
• k 1.2422

  Lib. 7. ca. 44▪
• l 1.2423

  Insuo Chron.
• m 1.2424

  Ecquid mi∣rum, si quod di∣xerat. Sozome∣nus, à Theodore∣to rep••titum in∣veniatur. Bar. in Martyr. Rom. Decemb. 23.
• a 1.2425

  Annot. in 5. Concil § Consti∣tutum.
• b 1.2426

  an. 553. nu. 43
• c 1.2427

  Bar. an. 444. an. 12.
• d 1.2428

  an. 553. n. 44.
• e 1.2429

  an. 444. nu. 16 & an. 553. n. 44.
• f 1.2430

  Loco citato.
• g 1.2431

  Epist. 1. Clem. extat. to. 1. Conc. pa. 25. & seq.
• h 1.2432

  Hic Iacobus 30. annis rexit Ecclesiam, us{que} ad septimum Neronis annum▪ Hier. in Catal. scrip. in Iacobo, Petrus ad ulti∣mum annum Neronis, id est, 14. Ecclesia•• rexit. idem in Petro.
• i 1.2433

  Euseb. an. 7. Nero•• is ait I••∣••obum o••••sum. an. Christ. 63. Petrus an. 14. Neronis▪ idem an. 70.
• k 1.2434

  Ioseph. Iacob••s lapidat•• ait an. post Christum natum 63. An∣tiqu. lib. 20. c. 8.
• l 1.2435

  Anno 7. Nero∣nis, Iacobi no∣cem accidisse omnes consenti∣unt. Bar. an. 63. nu. 2. Petrum antem anno 13. Neronis occisum probat. Bar. an. 69. nu. 2.
• m 1.2436

  Annot. in E∣pist. 1. Clem.
• n 1.2437

  Inter Decreta∣les episiolas Pon∣tificum numerat can Turrian. lib. 2. ca. 13. & hoc prebat. ••. 209
• o 1.2438

  Apostolicorum Pentisi▪ um. Tur. l••b. 2. in praes. pa. 150. et suis authoribus, id est Apostolic••, dig∣nissunas. ibid. pa. 152.
• p 1.2439

  Clementem in∣gressum in Papa∣tum an. Chr. 93. is est Domitians an. 10. probat Baron. an. 93. nu. 2.
• q 1.2440

  Nam is obijt (ut probatum est) an. Chr. 63.
• r 1.2441

  Epistola 1. Clement. Papae.
• s 1.2442

  An. 102. nu. 6.
• t 1.2443

  Clemens Papa▪ ••d Iacobum Epist. 1. Distinct. 80. ca. 2. sic iterum Caus. 6. q. 1. ca. 5.
• u 1.2444

  Petrus in ordinatione Clementis. caus. 11. q. 3. ca. 12. attendite sermoni illius, qui nobis per B. Clementē recitatur. Nich. 1. Epist. 49. et beatus Petrus prohibebat. Caus. 6 q. 1. ca. 5.
• x 1.2445

  Dist. 20. ca. Decretater.
• y 1.2446

  Lib. 2. de doct. Christ. ca. 8.
• z 1.2447

  Dist. 19. ca. 6.
• a 1.2448

  Lib. 2. Conc. ca. 12.
• b 1.2449

  Ruffinus me∣min••t epistolae Clementis ad Iacobum, et eam se vertisse dicit ex Graeco. Bell. lib. 2. de Pout. Rom. ca. 14. § Ad haec.
• c 1.2450

  Tu consule Tur∣rianum. Bar. an. 102. nu. 6.
• d 1.2451

  Cujus fidei sint bae Clementis epistolae, Vide Turrianum. Bin. notis in Episl. 1. Clem. pa. 31.
• e 1.2452

  Defens. ca. 14 lib. 2. de Pont. Rom. §. Altera.
• f 1.2453

  Turr. pro epist. Pont. ••icum. lib. 2. traef. pa. 152.
• g 1.2454

  Oman gravi∣tate, 〈◊〉〈◊〉. ••â 〈◊〉〈◊〉 sanctit••te. reser∣tas. ibid.
• h 1.2455

  ••raes. eadem. pa. 150 151.
• i 1.2456

  Lib. codem. 2. ca. 13. pa. 215.
• k 1.2457

  Ca. 13. lib. 2.
• l 1.2458

  Si Clementis germanam epi∣stulam hancesse dixeri••••s (ut Bar. ipse oit. an. 102. nu. 6.) falso inscripta ell, & ad Simconem po∣tius tunt Hiero∣solymorum Epi∣scopum, quam ad Iacobum longe antea defunctū, scripta fuit. Bar. an. 69 nu. 43.
• m 1.2459

  Poss. in Cle∣mente, in suo apparatu.
• n 1.2460

  Haec epistola potius ad Simeo∣nem qui etiam frater Dominidicitur▪ scripta est: & in titulum epistola mendose, vox (Iacobum) irrepsit. Bin. notis in epist. 1. Clem.
• p 1.2461

  Ne si ad Simeonem Iacobi successorem, aut Marcum Alexandriae Episcopum, aut a••ium ullum scribere ••ussisset, &c. Turt. ca. illn 13. pa. 211.
• q 1.2462

  Quid coegit eum to imprudentia delabi, ut ad cumscribere Clementem mandaret Petrus, quem ipse sciebat jam mortuum, ibid. pa. 208.
• r 1.2463

  Haec tibi frater Iacobe ab orr sancti Petri accepi, tibi{que} ins••nnare studui, ut ser∣var•• omnia immaculate praecipis. Epist. Clem. in fine.
• s 1.2464

  Causa gravissima scribendi ad Iacobum jam mortuum jussu Petri, de doctrina ad omnes Episcopos pertinente. Turr. loc. cit. pa. 211.
• t 1.2465

  Ita certè est ut isti dicunt, non potuisse igno∣rare Petrum fuisse jam ante annos 8. Iacobum mortuum. ibid. pa. 208.
• u 1.2466

  Causa gravissima scribendi per transfiguratio∣nem. pa. 211.
• x 1.2467

  Simile exemplum in alys 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.
• y 1.2468

  Si ad ullum aliquem vivorum scripsisset, videretur magis eum diligere aut honorare, & aemulationis, vel invidiae materi∣am praebuisse: Anne parvi momenti haec cautio? Quis tam obtusus sit, ut sic sentiat? ibid. pa. 211.
• z 1.2469

  Cum Pe∣trus mandat Clementi ut ad Iacobu•• mortuum scribat clarissimum testimonium resurrect••••is praebet. ibid. pa. 212.
• p 1.2470

  Catholici vero siqui sint, &c. pa. 215.
• q 1.2471

  Etiamsi und••, aut quomodo ad nos profecta sint nesciamus, tan ē propter antiquo∣rum authorita∣tum ita tene∣mus, ut de eis debitare ne••as esse existimemut, Ibid.
• r 1.2472

  Lib. 7. ca. 44.
• s 1.2473

  Lib. 5. ca. 36.
• t 1.2474

  in suo Chron. an. 438.
• u 1.2475

  Die 27. Ianu.
• x 1.2476

  Die 27. Ian.
• y 1.2477

  Inde postea Roma•• transla∣tum est Martyr. Rom Ibid.
• z 1.2478

  Lib. 14. ca. 43.
• a 1.2479

  Recitatidem Cosmas literas, a quibus pulo Nicepborum ex∣scripsisse. Mar. an 438. nu. 8.
• b 1.2480

  ••••bumus cum (cesma sermo∣n••) in nostrâ I••bhorheca di∣scr. p. ū. Baran. not. in Martyr. Ro••. Jan. 27. et an. 438. nu 7.
• c 1.2481

  An. 438.
• d 1.2482

  Misit exerbi∣tum militum u. na cum clericis. Georg. Patriar; Alex. in vitae Chrysostomi, sol. 77.
• b 1.2483

  In thecâ ar∣gentea, sacra Io∣hannis pignora asservaban••ur, inde ea auferre et deferre conan∣tibus, nemine resistente mini∣mè concessum fuit, ressaep•• frustra tentata. Bar. an. 438 nu. 8
• c 1.2484

  Sacro corpore instar silicis, loco inbaerescente et immobili perma∣nente. Ibid.
• d 1.2485

  Imperatoris sententia ab om∣nibus aequae pro bata atque tau∣data fuit. Ibid.
• e 1.2486

  Iohanni, aureī oris Patriar∣chiae. Nic. lo. cit. et, At tu pater patrum, &c. Ib.
• f 1.2487

  Precatus est, ut tumuli ejus mo∣tus at{que} strepitus consisteret, 35. e∣nim annis jam is quatiebatur. Bar. ibid. nu. 12.
• g 1.2488

  Ipse Chrysosto∣mus laehijs rur∣sum apertis. ad ponulum dixisse fertur▪ Pax vo∣bis. Cosmas apud Bar. loco citat. et Niceph.
• h 1.2489

  Id circum∣stantes homines et Patriarcha Proclus, se audis∣se, testati sunt. Cos. et Niceph. loc. cit.
• i 1.2490

  Ad optimum quem{que} lecto∣rum 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Carthusiani post vitam Chrysost. apud Geor. pat. ••lex.
• k 1.2491

  Concionem il∣lam rati, tibi so∣re chariorem. Bar. an 438. nu. 2. Cosmas vestia∣rius lu••••lenta oratione ac câdē translatione ha∣bitá quae ges••a fuerunt exactè recenset. Ibid. nu. 7. et alia si∣milia habet.
• l 1.2492

  Conc. Coll. 5.5. pa. 559. b.
• m 1.2493

  Vnio factae an. 432. Bar. ille an. nu. 77. Cyril∣lus autem obijt an. 44••. Bar. il∣lo an. nu. 9.
• n 1.2494

  Vt clarum est ex Epist. Theod. a•• Dioscorum. ad L••onem, ad Nomum, de qui∣bus diximus su∣pra, ca. 33.
• o 1.2495

  An. 69. nu. 43
• p 1.2496

  Notis in 1. E∣pistolam Clemen∣tis.
• q 1.2497

  In titulum E∣pistolae, mendosè vox [Iacobum] irrepsit. Bin. loc. cit.
• r 1.2498

  Lib. 5. ca. 10. et secundum Chryst. ca. 11.
• s 1.2499

  Vides Lector, ne fingi quidem posse ut Pauli∣nus, quem jactat Theodoretus. fu∣erit Episcopus Thessalonicensis. Bar. an. 378. nu. 43.
• t 1.2500

  Bin. not. in Conc. Rom. 3. sub Damaso post professionem fidei Apollina∣ris, &c. pa. 508.
• u 1.2501

  Scripta fuit Synodalis Epi∣stola à Damaso ex Concilio Ro∣mano ad Pauli∣num Antioche∣num. Bar. an. 378. nu. 41. itidem Bincus loco citat.
• x 1.2502

  Locis citatis.
• y 1.2503

  Extat tom. 2. Conc. pa. 390.
• a 1.2504

  Hac Chronolo∣gia mendosa est, nam hoc mense Bonifacius jam Pontifex creatus erat, ut patet su∣pra. Bin. not. in eam Epist. et Bar. an. 530. nu. 1.
• b 1.2505

  Facile accidis∣se potuit, ut loco Bonifacy, Foeli••i•• nomen fuerit ap∣positum. Bar. loco citat.
• c 1.2506

  E••isi. 1. Sylv. extat. tom. 2. Conc. pa. 476.
• d 1.2507

  Temporibus Sylverii nullus convenit Belli∣sarij consulatus. ni{que} Basilii. Bar. an. 539.3. & idem ait Bin. Not. margia. ad eam epistolā.
• e 1.2508

  An. 539. nu. 1. & 4.
• f 1.2509

  Epiph. haer 46.
• g 1.2510

  Iust. Mart. ad Antoninum pium def••nsio.
• h 1.2511

  Nam Hadria∣nus obiit an. 140. Bar. illo an. nu. 1. Iustinus vero an. 165. Bar. illo an. nu. 1
• i 1.2512

  Loc. citat. & Noth in Mar∣tyr. Rom. Apr. 13
• * 1.2513

  Guillisarius, quia est initium capitis non est mutatum. Not. Greg. in illud cap.
• i 1.2514

  Post 5. Concil. pa. 606. a.
• k 1.2515

  Ephreem sede∣re capit. an. 526. Bar. eo an. nu. 55 sedet aute. an. 18. Niceph. in Chron.
• l 1.2516

  Vigilius caepit an. 440. Bar. eo an. nu. 9 is est Ephaimi an. 15.
• m 1.2517

  Niceph. in Chron. & Bar. an ••46. nu. 68.
• n 1.2518

  Nam 8. Dom∣ni est an. 553. quo habitum est Concilium hoc 5.
• o 1.2519

  Collat. 8. pa. ••88. a.
• p 1.2520

  Domnus caepit an. 446. quare ejus an. 10. erit 555. quo anno obijste. Vigilium, ait Bar. an. 555. nu. 1.
• r 1.2521

  In append. ad Cod. Iustin.
• s 1.2522

  Bar. an. 451. nu. 129.
• t 1.2523

  An 330. nu. 4.
• u 1.2524

  Iohannes 2. Obijt an. 9. Iusti∣niani. Bar. an. 535. nu. 26. at Edictum editum an. 20. Iustiniani Bar. an. 546. nu. 8.
• x 1.2525

  Iohannis Papae tempore editum, mendaci inscrip∣tione notatur Bar. an. 546. nu. 10. liquido con∣stat, non ante praesens tempus (an. vid. 20. Iu∣stin.) potuisse es∣se conscriptum libellum illum. Bar. ibid. & constat Edictum Vigilij tempore conscriptum, an. 534. nu. 21.
• y 1.2526

  Imperator pro∣mulgavit Edi∣ctum. Bar an. 546. nu. 8. Ha∣ctenus Iustiniani Edictum. Ibid. nu. 37. et saepis∣sime si nilia.
• z 1.2527

  Scias perperam additum, ipsum missum ad Io∣hannem. Bar. an. 534. nu. 21. et an. 546. nu. 10.
• a 1.2528

  At quam fidem rogo, merentur Acta hujusmo∣di, quae sunt his contexta com∣mentis? Bar. an. 553. nu. 46.
• b 1.2529

  Act. 1. pa. 8. a.
• c 1.2530

  Marcell. in Chron. & hinc certo liquet, quiae Concitiabulum Ephesi. um se∣qu••tum est illud Constantinopoli habitum, in quo condemnatus est Eutyches à Fla∣viano, ••t hoc Constantinopoli habitum est, Pro∣togene et Aste∣rio. Coss. ut patet in Concil. Chalc. Act. 1. pa. 30.
• d 1.2531

  Vt liquet ex Marcell. in Chron.
• e 1.2532

  Vt liquet ex eodem Marc.
• f 1.2533

  Ba. an. 448 n. 58
• g 1.2534

  Haec verb a [se••ore Z••nonis et Posthum••ani Ind••ct••one 3.] mendosa sunt & surreptitia. Bin. Not. in Concili∣ab. Epis. to. 1. Conc. pa. 1017. b
• h 1.2535

  Quinto K••∣l••ndas Novem∣br••. Act. 16. Conc. Chalc.
• i 1.2536

  3. Kal••nd. No∣vemb. Conc. Chal. Act. 13.
• k 1.2537

  Pridie Kalend Nov. Conc. Chal. Act. 34.
• l 1.2538

  Pa. 84. b.
• m 1.2539

  Datum 7. Ka∣lend. Febr. Spo∣rario Coss. in fine Edicti.
• n 1.2540

  Nam ultima Sessio habita est Kalendes No∣vemb dicitur enim ibi, hestern•• die, postquam po∣teslas vestra sur∣rexit, &c. quare ultima Sessio fuit proxima die post Sessionem in qua Actio 14. & 15. continen∣tur, at actio 14. habita est pridie Kalend. Novēb▪
• o 1.2541

  Act. 7. pa. 105. b.
• p 1.2542

  Bar. an. 551. nu. 128.
• q 1.2543

  Actio de Domno habita est 6. Kalend. Nov Bar. an. 451. nu. 129. et Bin. Not. ad Conc. Chalc. pa. 18.
• r 1.2544

  Nam actio sequens quae etiam alia Sessio est, in qua Theodoreti causa tractatur, habita est sub octav. Kalend. Nov.
• t 1.2545

  Chalcedonensis Synodus Domnum post mortem condemnavit. Edict. Iust. to. 2. Concil. pa. 498. & idem repetit Conc. 5. Coll. 6. pa. 575 b.
• u 1.2546

  An. 553. nu. 46.
• m 1.2547

  Octavo Idus Maias. Coll. 5. pa. 537. b.
• n 1.2548

  Collatio 4. die 4. Idus Maias.
• o 1.2549

  Pa. 548. a.
• p 1.2550

  Pa. 558. b.
• q 1.2551

  Cap. 140. Con∣cord. Euang.
• r 1.2552

  Bez in cap. 27 Matth. v. 9.
• s 1.2553

  Videtur huc in∣clinare Aug. lib 3. de cons. Euan. ca. 7.
• t 1.2554

  Sic Orig. sensit Homil. 35. in Matth.
• u 1.2555

  Loco citato.
• x 1.2556

  A Relation of the state of Re∣ligion in the West parts. fol. l. 4.
• y 1.2557

  Ibid.
• a 1.2558

  an. 547. an. 40
• b 1.2559

  Bar. an. 536. nu. 32.
• * 1.2560

  Bar. an. 534.
• c 1.2561

  Bar. an. 546. nu. 10.
• d 1.2562

  Pelagius aemu∣lus existens Theodoro, volens etnocere. Liber. Brev ca. 23.24. & Pelagius A∣pocrisiarius A∣gape••i, Silverij & Vigilij. Bar. an. 5••6. nu 116.
• e 1.2563

  Lib. 3. de Bell. Golb. pa. 365. Pelagius diis Constantinopoli commeratus.
• f 1.2564

  Act. 14. Vbi extat germana Cyrilli Episcopi Alexandrini E∣pistola ad Dom∣num Antioche∣num. pa. 122. & saepius fit mentio Cyrilli mortui cum Domnus ille ••edebat Antio∣chiae.
• g 1.2565

  Bar. an. 444. nu. 16.
• h 1.2566

  To. 6. an. 440. nu. 9.
• k 1.2567

  Bar. an. 553. nu. 44.
• l 1.2568

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Niceph. in Chro.
• m 1.2569

  Iohannes obi∣it cum sedisset annos 13. licet Nicephorus in Chronico tribuat ci 18. Bar. an. 436 nu. 12.
• n 1.2570

  Post haec Theo∣dotus ex hac vita migravit, qui ad nunc usque an∣num pervenisse proditur, &c. Bar. an. 427. nu. 25.
• o 1.2571

  Bar. an. 436. nu. 12.
• p 1.2572

  Bar. Ibid.
• q 1.2573

  Bar. an. 427. nu. 26. Defun∣cto Theodoto, s••brogatus est in ejus locum Io∣hannes.
• r 1.2574

  Bar, an. 444. nu. 23.
• s 1.2575

  Theodoreti ad Dioscorum data hoc anno Episto∣la sic se habet. An. illo nu. 18.
• t 1.2576

  Hinc discas an∣nos cujusque ip∣sorum Episcopa∣tus. Bar. an. 444 nu. 23.
• u 1.2577

  Bar. an. 423. nu. 10. Hoc anno Theodoretus cre∣atus est Episco∣pus.
• x 1.2578

  Bar. an. 437. nu. 12.
• y 1.2579

  An. 427. nu. 26
• z 1.2580

  An. 436. nu. 12. Hoc anno Io∣hannes diem o∣bijt extremum.
• a 1.2581

  Theodor. Epist. ad Diosc. apud Bar. an. 444. nu. 23. Alios 13. tē∣pore Iohannis.
• b 1.2582

  Bar. an. 436. nu. 12. Iohannes sedit annos 13.
• c 1.2583

  Anno sequenti (vid. an. 437.) extant literae Theodoreti ad ejus successorem Domnum. Bar. an. 436. nu. 12.
• d 1.2584

  Extant litera Theodoreti ad Domnum Bar. an. 436. nu. 12.
• e 1.2585

  Plactenus The∣odore••i ad Diosc. Epistola. Bar. an. 440. nu. 29.
• f 1.2586

  Bar. an. 553. nu. 44.
• g 1.2587

  Nullus alius nomine Domnu•• inscriptus legi∣tur, qui tanta poll••ret authori∣tate ut ad libi∣tum (quod dictū est) deponere at{que} restituere Episco∣pos posset. Bar. an. 553. nu. 44.
• h 1.2588

  Conc. Antioch. sub Iulio 1. can. 9.
• i 1.2589

  Vnde apparent, non inferioris se∣dis aliquem esse ••otuisse ejus no∣minis Episco∣pum. an. 553. nu. 44.
• k 1.2590

  Certè quidem in serie Episco∣porum Orientali∣um, qui Concilio Ephesino, et Chalcedonensi interfuerunt, nullus aliu•• ejus nominis Domnus inscriptus repe∣ritur. &c. Ibid.
• l 1.2591

  Act. 3. Conc. Cha•• pa. 75. b.
• m 1.2592

  Act. eâdem pa. 81. et Act. 6. pa. 101. a.
• n 1.2593

  Sic enim in margine ••llius E∣pistolae notatur, videtur tempore Cyrilli, emissae esse Roma••, hujus Alexan∣drini Sacerdotis Appellatio.
• a 1.2594

  Bar. an. 5••8. nu. 19.
• b 1.2595

  Ibid. et nu. 20.
• c 1.2596

  Vigilio non acquai•• vit, sed e••̄ plane despexi, ci{que} insultavit, &c. Ba. an. 55•• nu 3.
• d 1.2597

  Vniversa ab eis••em Synodis Communi cox∣sensit cum Vica∣rijs sedis Aposto∣licae judicia con∣servamus, &c. in Exemplo con∣fess. quod exiat in initio Con••i∣tuti Vigilij.
• e 1.2598

  De injurijs be∣atitudini vestrae fictis, ego quidē nullam feci, &c. Ibid.
• f 1.2599

  P••••tat inter E∣pist. Vigilij post Epistolam 16.
• g 1.2600

  Tali praemissâ satisfactione Vi∣gilius eosdem in communio∣nem accepit. Bar. an. 552. nu. 20.
• h 1.2601

  An. eodem nu. 19.
• i 1.2602

  Bar. an. 551. nu. 3. et 552. nu. 19.
• k 1.2603

  Bar. an. 552. nu. 8 et seq.
• l 1.2604

  Anno illo 552, nu. 19.
• m 1.2605

  Haec de sen∣tentiâ in Theo∣dorum ac Men∣nam lata Vigi∣lius, quae ipse scripsit anno se∣quenti in Basi∣lica S. Euphemiae Chalcedone. Bar. an. 551. nu. 18.
• n 1.2606

  Apud Bar. an. 444. nu. 23.
• o 1.2607

  Cum 26. annis Ecclesiam rexe∣rim. Theod. apud Bar. an. 449. nu. 119.
• p 1.2608

  Apud Bar. an. 444. nu. 23.
• q 1.2609

  In Epist. ad Leonem. apud Bar. an. 449. nu. 120. A me enim scripta sunt alia quidem ante annos viginti, &c.
• r 1.2610

  Extant tom. 5. act. Conc. Ephes. pa. 859. et sequ. sub hoc titulo. Reprehensio 12. Capitulorum Cyrilli, â Theodo∣vero Episcopo Cyri.
• s 1.2611

  Hominem su∣mus admirati, et scripsimus ad Cyrillum beatae memoriae, &c. Theod. apud Bar. an. 444. nu. 28.
• t 1.2612

  Theodoreti al∣l••quntio, apud Conc. 5. Coll. 5. p. 559. b.
• u 1.2613

  Ego multas habeo myriadas hominum qui doctrinae verita∣t••m et rectitudi∣nem mibi testan∣tur. Theod. apud Bar. an. 444. nu. 22.
• x 1.2614

  Literae quae à Theodoreto ad Irenaeum tunc (id est, ut i••se explicat, hoc an∣no 448.) reddit•• sunt. Bar. an. 440. nu. 7.8.
• y 1.2615

  Statuimus ut Irenaeus à sancta Tyriorum Eccle∣siâ statim expel∣latur. Edict. Theodos. quod extat to. 5. Conc. Ephes. ca. 19.
• z 1.2616

  Beatissimae Susannae sum recordatus, &c. Theod. epist. ad Iren. apud. Bar. an. 448. nu. 9.
• a 1.2617

  Et nunc Domine duo nobis proponuntur, vel Deum offendere et conscientiam ladere, velincidere in injusta ho∣minum decreta, &c. Theod ibid.
• b 1.2618

  Epistola e••dem.
• c 1.2619

  Illa Theodoreti Epistola scripta ad Nomum hoc ipso anno. Bar. an. 448 nu. 11.
• d 1.2620

  Alijs quidem omnibus aperta est civitas, non solum Arij et Eunomij sectatoribus, sed et Manicheis, et Marcionistis, &c. Theod. epist. ad Nomum. apud Bar. an. 448. nu. 12.
• e 1.2621

  Nullam non virtutis genus sedulo excol••isti, &c. sic Theodosium ju∣niore •••• alloquitur Sozom. i•• praefat. ad suam bistor.
• f 1.2622

  Piissimam sollicitudinem Christianae religionis habetis, ne in populo Dei aut schismata, aut haereses, aut ••lla scandala convalescant. Leo. epist. 7. quae est ad Theodosium.
• g 1.2623

  Leg. 66. de baer. cod. Theod. et id quod extat in Conci Chal. act. 3. pa. 84.
• h 1.2624

  Definivimus c••s cater•• debere ultionibus subjacere, &c. Edict. Theod. in Conc. Chalc. loc. cit.
• i 1.2625

  Excludi ab E∣piscopatu (volu∣mus) Flavia∣num & Euse∣bium, Domnum quoque & Theo∣doretum. ibid.
• k 1.2626

  Sed nec habeat quis, vel legat, proferatve, Ne∣storij codices, neque Theodo∣reti scripta. ibid.
• q 1.2627

  Conc. Chalc. Act. 7.
• r 1.2628

  Iust. Edict. to. 2. Conc. pa. 498.
• s 1.2629

  Coll. 6 p. 575. b.
• t 1.2630

  Haec actio desi∣deratur in Grae∣co codice. Bar. an. 45 ••. nu. 129. & Bin. not. in Conc. Chal. p. 185
• u 1.2631

  an. 451. n. 130
• x 1.2632

  an. 451. n. 130
• y 1.2633

  Ex quibus ap∣paret Iustinia∣num alicujus alterius actionis, quam nusquam legimus, cogni∣tionem h••buisse. Bar. loc. cit.
• a 1.2634

  Act. 10. pa. 115.
• b 1.2635

  Ibid.
• c 1.2636

  Chalcedonen∣sis Synodus Domnum con∣demnavit, cum confirmasset con∣demnationem ejus, & susce∣pi••set Maximi ordinationem. Conc. 5. Coll. 6. pa. 575.
• d 1.2637

  Anast. in vita Vigil. Nam A∣nastosius con∣tinuavit histori∣am Damasi, ab obitu Damasi usque ad Adri∣anum s••cundum. Possev. in App.
• e 1.2638

  Bellisario Consiliorus ••d∣fuit Procopius, & rebus omni∣bus dum age∣rentur inter∣fuit. Procop. lib. 1. de bello Persico.
• f 1.2639

  Gothorum Optimates B••∣lisarium Hespe∣riae Regem ap∣pellare consticu∣unt, ad eum{que} mittunt qui ob∣secrarent ut imperium susci∣p••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.
• g 1.2640

  Belli∣sarius Ravenna potit••s Vitigem imprimis honorified custoditum servabat. ibid. pa 341.
• h 1.2641

  Bellisarius Iohannem & Nat∣sitem divers•••• abire cum suis copijs ••ussit. Hu abeuntibus Ravennam contendit. ib. p. 340. idem et Leon. Aret. 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• i 1.2642

  Bellis. iter ag∣greditur, Bizan∣tium{que} rectâ con∣tendit. ibid. pa. 343. et cum Vi∣tige Gothorum{que} optimatibus Bi∣zantium venit. Idem lib. 3. pa. 343. Bellisarius cum Vitige Bi∣zantium navi∣gavit. Leo. Aret. loc. cit.
• k 1.2643

  Bellisario ad se celerius vocate. Proc. lib. 2. pa. 341. et Leonar. Aret. pa. 670. Iustinianus Bel∣lisarium ex Ita∣lia confestim re∣vocavit.
• l 1.2644

  Nam Silveriū à Bellisario e∣jectum narrat. Proc. lib. 1. pa. 287. e••{que} tum suffectus Vigi∣lius. ibid. Id fa∣ctum an. 3. belli Goth. vel ante, liquet ex lib. 2. pa. 313. ubi sic ait, Iam tertius bello huic annus exibat.
• m 1.2645

  Nam Silve∣rius obijt an. 14. Iustiniani▪ Bar. an. 540. n. 2. at Vitigem caepit et Constantinopol. adduxit Bellisa∣rius an. 15. Iu∣stiniani. Bar. an. 541. nu. 3.
• n 1.2646

  Liber. in Brev. ca. 22.
• o 1.2647

  Hoc anno (14. Iustiniani) si∣mulac de legiti∣ma Vigilii ele∣ctione nuncium Constantinopol. perlatum est, Im∣perator protinus Epis••olam ad eū dat▪ Bar. an. 540. nu. 11.
• q 1.2648

  Epist. Vigilij extat apud. Bar. an. 540. nu. 20. & sequ.
• r 1.2649

  Nam literae ad Me••••am datae sunt 15. Kalend. Oct. Iustino Consult, id est, an. 14. Iustiniani. Bar. an. 450. nu. 25. Bellisarius antem Constantinopol. redit Con∣sul. Basilio, id est. an. 15. Iustin. Bar. an. 541. n. 3.
• s 1.2650

  Patet quod ipse Imperator Bellisoris hac de causa gratias non egit. B••••. Nat. in vitam Vigil. §. Gratia••.
• t 1.2651

  Bellisarius Vitigem capti∣viam co tempore Biz••ntium dux∣it quando Iusti∣nianus Cosrcem audivit bellum movisse. Proc. lib. 2 Bell. Pers. pa. 156. Impe∣rator 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Orien∣tis in 〈◊〉〈◊〉 di∣duxit duces. circa fluvium Euphra∣tem omnia Belli∣sario ••radidit regenda. Ibid. pa. 158.
• u 1.2652

  Totilus cum exercitus par••c ad leca Romae vic na cō∣tendit, cujus p••••fectio••e ••ogni∣t••, Imperator, e••si adhuc 〈…〉〈…〉 Persi••, mittere rursum in Itali∣am B••bisarium cogitur. I••m{que} novus hujus belli annus ••xi∣bat. Proc. lib. 3. d•• bell. Goth. pa. 356. redi•••• at au∣tem ex Italia Constantinopolim anno 6. belli Go∣thici, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 liquet ex ••roc. lib. 2. in fi∣ne, et lib. 3. in initio.
• x 1.2653

  Imperator A∣riobindum ducē in Africam mi∣sit, & Artaba∣num, sed inutile put••ns d••erum d••••••m Im••erio ••es a••ministra∣ri, Ariobind, ••oti∣uo Africae 〈◊〉〈◊〉 delepav••••. Proc. de b••ll. Vand. lib 2. pa. 239.
• y 1.2654

  Convivium erat in conclavi, ubi tres mensae paratae, ipse in prima accubuit, cui Athanasium & Artobanum adhibuit. Artahamus Gon∣tharidem adcessit, quasi clam ei aliquid dicturus, Gontharidi saucio exilire conanti Artab••nus ensem educens lotus dextrum ca∣pulo tenus confodit, ex quo ille statim moribundus cecidit. Proc. lib. 4. de bello Vandal. pa. 243.
• z 1.2655

  Bellisarius Bizantium venit, quum per quinquennium ex Italia nusquam abcessisset. Pro. lib. 3. de bell. Goth. pa. 392. sicque 14. annus bujus belli exibat. Ibid. pa. 394.
• a 1.2656

  Bizantium cum pervenisset, ibi diutius commoratus, ex otio vivere, et in delitus ••ffl••entibus opibus age∣re rebus ante hac soeliciter gestis, contentus. Proc. ibid pa. 393.
• b 1.2657

  Bin. not. in vitam Vicilij. § De s••olijs.
• c 1.2658

  Vrb•• Roma recuperata à Gothis per Bellisarium post annum sexagesimum quo cam tenuerunt Gothi, et post Iustiniani annum undeci∣mum. Proc. lib. 1. de bell. Goth. pa. 271. et post haec ait, Iamque tertius huie bello annus exibat. Lib. 2. pa. 313.
• d 1.2659

  Duo∣decimus annus Iustiniani respondet anno 2. Sylverij. Bar. an. 538. nu. 1. Sylverius autem sedit annos 3. Bar. an. 540. nu. ••••
• e 1.2660

  An. 540. nu. 13.
• f 1.2661

  Bin. not. in vit. Vig. pa. 478.
• g 1.2662

  Bar. ••n. 54. nu. 2.
• h 1.2663

  Hoc modo (cae∣de nimicum Goth••ridis et a∣liorum) Artaba∣nes Carthaginem Iustiniano resti∣tuit anno ipsius decimo nono. Procl. lib. 2. de Bell. Vandal. pa. 244.
• i 1.2664

  Liberat. ca. 22.
• k 1.2665

  Vt ante proba∣t•••• est hoc cap.
• l 1.2666

  Bar. an. 540. nu. 32.
• m 1.2667

  Nam literae Vigilij missae I••∣stiniano sunt an. 14. Iustiniani. Bar. an. 540. nu. 14. Bellisarius autem redit Con∣stantinopolim cum Vitige an. Iustiniani 15. Bar. an. 541. nu. 3.
• n 1.2668

  Iustinianus Vigitium com∣pet••t ut ad urbaē regiam propera∣ret. ••n. 4. post Consulatum Ba∣silij. Vict. in Chr∣i•• eum an. i•• au∣tem est an. 19. Iustiniani se∣cundum Bar. an. 545. nu. 1.
• o 1.2669

  Plut. in Alcib.
• p 1.2670

  Nam mina At∣tica valet nostri nummi 3. l. 2. s. 6. d. u•• testatur Edovardus Breirwooddus i•• lib. suo de Pond. ca. 4. q••em libi ū accuratè admo∣dum haet tracta∣re, non est cur••docti dubitent.
• q 1.2671

  Imperator Vi∣gilium ad regians urbem compellit venire, ut triae Capitula condē∣naret. Vict. in: Chron. an. 4. pos•• Coss. Basilij.
• r 1.2672

  Trium Ca••itu∣lorum ca••si tanium voc••tus est. Bin. not. in vita Vigilij. § Cu••••s Romani. Non alia causa profectionis Vigi∣lij Constantino∣polim cognosci∣tur. Bar. an. 546. nu. 55.
• s 1.2673

  Bar. an. eodem 546. nu. 54.
• t 1.2674

  Putavit Vigili∣um, quibus pos∣set fieri, blandi∣tijs concilian∣dum. Bin. loc. cit. Eum sibi quibus valui••, studuit conciliare blan∣dicijs. Bar. an. 546. nu. 55.
• u 1.2675

  Ba. an eo. n. 54
• x 1.2676

  Bar. an ••od. 546. nu. 60.
• y 1.2677

  Interea Vigili∣u•• ab Imperato∣re ex Siciliá e∣vocatus, Bizanti∣um venit. N••m ut ••ò contende∣rent, diuti••am in eâ insula traxerunt mo••ā. Proc lib. 3. de bell. Goth. p. 364 E••ocatus autem fuit circa fi••em a••. 11. ••ell. Goth. ut liqu••••, exprae∣sedētibus verbis; undecimus hajus bellise verterat annus. Interea Vigilius, &c. Iam 11. illius belli est Iustinia∣ni 20. nam bel••ū capit anno ejus nono prope fini∣to, ut restatur. Proc. lib. 1. Bell. Goth. pa. 253. Imperator se ad bellum parat, annos novenos potitus Imperio.
• z 1.2678

  Victor loc. cit. eti••m et Marcel∣li••u•• anno priori evocatum ab Impera••ore, sed sequenti ••o••s••an. venisse e••pressè docet. In Chron. an. 546. et 547.
• a 1.2679

  Vigilius Con∣stantinopolim in∣gressus est 8. Ca∣lend. Febr.
• b 1.2680

  Nam adventus Vigilij Constan∣tinopolim poni∣tur à Procopio, in initio 12. an∣ni be••i Gothici, lib. 3. pa. 364. jam 12. an. illius belli it choatur in fine anni 20. Iustiniani; is au∣tem imperare coepit 1. die A∣prilis, ut docct Marcell. in Chr. an. 527.
• c 1.2681

  Cunc. Later. sub Leone 10. sess. 6. in Orat. Simonis Begnij.
• d 1.2682

  Anthimus de∣positus in Conc. Constant. sub Menns, Act. 4. an post. Cons. Basilij, qui est primus belli Go∣thici, Vigilius autem venit Bi∣zantium an. 12. ejusdem belli.
• e 1.2683

  Anno 〈◊〉〈◊〉 540. Bar. in il∣lum an. nu. 12.
• f 1.2684

  Bar an. cod. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 18.
• f 1.2685

  Bar. an. 552. nu. 16.
• g 1.2686

  In Basilica S. Euphaemiae, quae est Chalcedo∣ne habitare disposuit Vigili∣us. Bar. an. 552. nu. 8.
• h 1.2687

  Confugit Chal∣cedonem in Ba∣silicam S. Eu∣phaemiae. Bin. Not. in vitam Vigilij § Tunc dedit.
• i 1.2688

  Imperator dig∣nam tanto Pon∣tificè legationē ornavit, &c. At Vigilius egredi nunquam con∣sentit, nisi prius &c. Bar. an. 552 nu. 11, 12.
• k 1.2689

  Hoc tempore (vid. an. 552.) accidisse noscūtur quae Anastasius confundit cum prioribus quae acciderunt, vi∣vente Theodora. Bar. an. 552. nu. 8 Theodora autem obijt an. 548. ut ait Bar. illo anno nu. 24.
• l 1.2690

  ••aec quae se∣quuntur contige∣runt post obitum Theodorae. Bin. not. in vitam Vigilij § Tunc dedit.
• m 1.2691

  Agapetus al∣tercationem cae∣pit habere cum Imperatore de religione, &c. Anast▪ in vita Agapeti.
• n 1.2692

  Imperator ip••e in suspitionem haeresis est ad∣ductus. 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.
• o 1.2693

  Non ••btempe∣rare Romano Pontisi••i, nefas ratus, editam confessionem ite∣rat. Bar. an. 536. nu. 18.
• p 1.2694

  Simulac Aga∣petus est creatus Papa, Iustinia∣nus rectae fidei professionem Ro∣mam misit. Bar. an. eod. nu. 18.
• q 1.2695

  Act. 1. pa. 429. a.
• r 1.2696

  Liber. ca. 21. Augusta clam promittente mu∣nera, et rursus Papae (Agapeto) minas inten∣tante.
• s 1.2697

  Vict. Tun. in Chron. sub Coss. Iustin.
• t 1.2698

  Nam Victor asserit Theodo∣ram laborasse ut tria Capitulae condemnentur. in suo Chron. sub an. 2. post Cons. Basilij.
• u 1.2699

  In vitae Aga∣peti.
• x 1.2700

  Augustus ado∣ravit beatissimū Agapetum Pa∣pam. Anast. ibid.
• y 1.2701

  Bar. an. 547. nu. 49.
• a 1.2702

  Totilas crea∣tur Rex Gotho∣rum anno 7. belli Gothici. Proc. lib. 3. pa. 346. Is est annus Iust. 16. ut ait Bar. an. 542. nu. 1. Vigilius Bizan∣tium venit anno 12. belli Gothici. Proc. lib. 3. pa. 364. is est Iusti∣niani 21. & isto anno Constanti∣nopolim venisse Vigilium, ait Bar. an. 547. nu. 26.
• b 1.2703

  Totilas Romam contendit quam flatim obsedit. Procop. lib. 3. pa. 360. Per id tempus (obsi∣dionis) cum Vi∣gilius in Sicilia esset, &c. lib. eod. pa. 364.
• c 1.2704

  Indictione 10. & 6. post Cons. Basilij anno, To∣tilas Romam in∣greditur. Marc. in Chron. Is est juxta eundem Marc. an. 547. cui consenlit Bar. an. 547. nu. 12.
• d 1.2705

  Vniverso exer∣citu instructo ad portam Asina∣riam duxit, &c. Proc. lib. 3. p. 372
• e 1.2706

  Vnum in locum copias omnes co••git hostium insidias veritus. Proc. ibid.
• f 1.2707

  Annus 14. exi∣bat hujus 〈◊〉〈◊〉, Totilas deinde copias Romam ductavit, &c. Proc. l. 3. pa. 394.
• g 1.2708

  Praecepit ut quanta ••iposi et bucciná ciango∣rem eliderent, &c. Proc. ibid. pa. 394.
• h 1.2709

  Et facta est sa∣mes in civitate talis, &c. Anasi. in vita Vigilij.
• i 1.2710

  Vt testatur Proc. l. 3. p. 367.
• k 1.2711

  Vbi primum illuxit Gothi, &c Proc. pa. 373.
• l 1.2712

  Pelagius Totilae supplex factus, non prius preca∣ri hunc desiit, qu••m ille elemē∣tiorem fore in Romanos pollici∣tus esset. Proc. lib. 3. pa. 374.
• m 1.2713

  Pars maxima fugam capessunt, pauci in templo pe••fugium ba••u∣cre, constat è plebe ad quix∣gentos in urbe resid. 5. Proc. ibid. pa. 372.
• n 1.2714

  Inter hos erat Rusticiana filia Symmachi, et uxor Bocthij Se∣natoris. Proc. ib.
• o 1.2715

  Totilas Romā ad s••lum proster∣nere decernit. Proc pa. 375.
• p 1.2716

  Edu••bus (sic ad cum scripsie Bellisarius) al∣terum necesse est ut aut bello vic∣tus succumbas, aut ut nos vin∣cas. Si viceris, et Romam demo∣liaris, non alte∣rius urbem sed tuam delebis. quâ servata, longe opulentior fies. Si victus sis, Romá incolumi reservata, gratia tibi nec mediocris apud victorem conciliabitur, qua de∣leta nullus tibi ad clementiam locus relinquetur. His (inter similes alias) persuasionibus usus est Bellisarius apud Totilam, ut re••••rt Proc. lib 3. pa. 375.
• q 1.2717

  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.
• r 1.2718

  De Roma cap∣ta, supra osten∣dimus. De Nar∣sete siquet, ex Proc. lib. 3. pa. 408. ubi ait Iam 17. hujus belli exibat an∣nus. Et paulo post, Narses ex Salonis (in Si∣cilia) prof••ctus adversus Toti∣lam progreditur. Ibid.
• s 1.2719

  Bin. Not. in vi••am Vigilij. §. Eodem.
• t 1.2720

  Iustinianus omnia semper fecit, & facit, quae sanctam Ecclesiam & recta dogmata conservant. Conc. 5. Coll. 7. in fine.
• u 1.2721

  Bar. an. 55. nu. 15.22.23.
• x 1.2722

  Proc. lib. 3. pa. 408.
• * 1.2723

  Bin not. cit.
• y 1.2724

  Hujus belli annus sextus ex∣ierat. Proc. lib. 3 pa. 346. & To∣tiles ex conven∣tu suscepit im∣perium. idem pa. 347.
• z 1.2725

  Necatur To∣tilas, anno un∣decimo regnisui inchoato, decimo expleto. Bar. an. 553. nu. 16.
• a 1.2726

  Se Rom. Pon∣tifici obsequen∣tem praebet. ••in. loc. citat. et indem Bar. an. 553. nu. 16.
• b 1.2727

  Dum sibi im∣perari à Rom. Pontifice passus •• est. Bar. ibid. nu. 17.
• c 1.2728

  Bar. an. 553. nu. 15.
• d 1.2729

  Ibid. nu. 18.
• e 1.2730

  Proc. lib. 3. pa. 416.
• f 1.2731

  Evag. lib. 4. ca. 23.
• g 1.2732

  Nam Vigilius venit Constanti∣nopolim anno 12 belli Gothici. Proc. lib. 3. pa. 364. Narses au∣tem Totilam vi∣cit, et Romam recepit an. 18. ejusdem belli. Proc. lib 3. pa. 408. et seq.
• h 1.2733

  Nam ex ••o li∣quet, Vigilium a primo ejus ad∣ventus Constanti∣nopolim, illic mansisse ad finē Concilij, dicitur enim illic à Iu∣stiniano, quod Vigilius semper ejusdem volun∣tatis fuit de con∣demnatione Tri∣um Capitulo∣rum. Conc. 5. Coll. 1. pa. 520. a Semper, viz. à primo ē••us advē∣tu et consensu ad tempus 5. Concilij.
• i 1.2734

  Nam Victor ait Pelagium re∣dijsse ab exilio anno 18. post Coss. Basilij. Vict. Tun. in Chron. et Conci∣lium habitum ait ille an. 13. post ejusdem Consulatum.
• a 1.2735

  Vigilius ab Imperatore ev••∣catus, Bizantium venit Proc. lib. 3. pa. 364.
• b 1.2736

  Ipsum summâ celeritate venire rogans. Bar. an. 546.. nu. 54.
• c 1.2737

  Caeterum Vigi∣lij pr••fectionem Constantinopo∣lim, magnum in∣tulisse Catholicae Ecclesiae damnū eventa declara∣runt, quae et sig∣ficarunt quam prudentissimè egerunt illius praedecessores, S. Leo, et alij, qui vocati saepe ab orthodoxis li∣cet Imperatori∣bus nunquanus passi sunt se ab ipsa fixá Romae sede divelli, &c. Bar. an. 546. nu. 55.
• * 1.2738

  2 King. 5.17.
• d 1.2739

  Bar. loc. cit.
• e 1.2740

  Sententia illae omnium ore ver∣sata, Vbi Papa, ibi Roma. Bar. an. 552. nu. 10.
• f 1.2741

  Clemens 5. propter seditio∣nes Italicas sedē Pontificiam ab urbe Roma, Avionem Gal∣liae u••bem, ubi successores man∣••••re annos 70. transtulit. Geneb. in Chron. in an. 1305.
• g 1.2742

  Iohannes in omnibus quae de Babylone loqui∣tur, adversus ur∣bem Romanam vaticinatur, &c. Rib. Com. in ca. 14. Apoc. nu. 57. et Vicarius Christi ubicun{que} sit, erit Episcopus Roma, etiamsi illa penitus ex∣cisa sit. Ibid. nu. 48.
• h 1.2743

  Obfuisse haud modicum usu re∣rum repe••itur, Pontificum ab urbe profectio ad Comitatum. Bar. an. 546. nu. 55.
• i 1.2744

  Ibid.
• * 1.2745

  Reu. 14.13.
• k 1.2746

  Donationis ex∣emplar extat Dist. 96. ca. Con∣stantinus.
• l 1.2747

  Agapetus Bar∣barico c••••ctus Imperio, &c. Bar. an. 536. nu. 10. qui Agapeti profectionem eo anno contigisse probat.
• m 1.2748

  Agapetus li∣cet à Rege visus sit missus ad Im∣peratorem, à Deo tamen proficisci missus apparuit, ut impertaret im∣perantibus, &c. Bar. an. 536. nu. 12.
• n 1.2749

  Illud ipsum firme contigit Agapeto, quod olim Petro, &c. Ibid. nu. 13.
• o 1.2750

  In his omnibus peragendis sum∣ma potestas Apo∣stolicae sedis An∣tistitis demon∣stratae est, &c. Ibid. nu. 22.
• p 1.2751

  Ibid. nu. 23.
• q 1.2752

  Bell. lib. 1. de Conc. ca. 18. Pontifex et Princeps Eccle∣siae sūmus, potest retractare judi∣cium Concilij, et non sequi ma∣jorem partem.
• r 1.2753

  Bar. an. 536. nu. 31.
• s 1.2754

  Ibid. nu. 70.
• t 1.2755

  Cic. lib. de Senect.
• u 1.2756

  De quo O••bo Imperator di∣xit postquam se∣disset 8. annos, Puer est: erat enim cum inva∣sit sedem non nisi annorum 18. Bar. an. 955. nu. 1. & 2. Cujas electioni lex nul∣la suffragata est, sed vis & metus omnia impleve∣runt. ibid. n. 3.
• x 1.2757

  De quo dicitur, Intravit ut vul∣pes, regnavit ut leo, mortu{us} est ut Canis. Geneb. in suo Chron. ad an. 1303.
• y 1.2758

  Pontificatum adjuvante dia∣bolo consequ••∣tus est, hac ta∣men lege, ut post mortem totus illius esset. Plat. in Silv. 2.
• z 1.2759

  Iohannes in∣ter Christi side∣les, vitam & mores ejus cog∣noscentes, vul∣gariter dicitur Diabolus incar∣natus. Conc. Consten. Sess. 11. pa. 1579.
• a 1.2760

  Contra jura canonica, tem∣poribus Bonifa∣cij Papae, ipso vi∣vente, successor ••jus designari conabaris. Epist. 1. Silverij quae est ad Vigilium.
• b 1.2761

  Bonifacius 2. congregavit Sy∣nodum, & fecit Constitutum ut sibi successorem nominaret, quo Constituto, cum chirographis Sacerdotum, et jurejurando, Diaconum Vigilium constituit. Anast. in vita Bonif. 2.
• c 1.2762

  Amplissimi Senatus tibi obviavit justiti••. Silv. Epist. 1.
• d 1.2763

  Ibid.
• e 1.2764

  Electionem Rom. Pontificis ad Regem spectare Theodoricus statuerat. Bar. an 531. nu 2.
• f 1.2765

  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.
• g 1.2766

  Bonifacius facta iterum Synodo reum se Majestatis confessus est quod Diaconum Vigilium constituisset, ac ip∣sum constitutum incendio consumpsit. Anast. in vit. Bonif. 2.
• h 1.2767

  Bloud. Decad. 1. lib. 5. in inis••o.
• i 1.2768

  Lib. in Brev. ca. 22.
• k 1.2769

  Promittens dare centenaria septem, (••uta auri, nam duo ex bis centenaria auri Vigilius Bellisario pro∣misit.) Lib. loc. ••it. Viden••ur autem falsse au∣rei illi qui a Va∣lentiniano cusi Sextala niceban∣tur, quod essent sexta paers uncig. Aureus autem quisque tali. va∣lebat de nostro nummo 10.3. ut observat do∣ctissim. v••r Ed••r. Breirwood. lib. suo de antiquis nummis. ca. 15. Ita summa Vi∣gilio promissa fuit 350. li.
• l 1.2770

  Augusta vocans Vigilium prosi∣ter•• sibi sacreto ab eo flagitavit, ut si Papa fieret, tolleret Synodii, & fidem f••••••∣ret ••nthimo, &c Liber. loc. vit.
• m 1.2771

  Hier. Epist. ad Pammac••. adversus c••••. Iohannis Hieros.
• * 1.2772

  Matth 49.
• n 1.2773

  Vigilius facta prosessione (The∣odorae) Romam profectus est. Liber. loc. cit.
• o 1.2774

  Invenit Silve∣rium, Papam ordinatum. Lib.
• p 1.2775

  1 Reg. 15.5.
• q 1.2776

  Liber loc. cit. & misit Augusta ••us∣siones suas ad Belli∣sarium per Vigili∣um Anast in vita Silver.
• r 1.2777

  Liber. loc. cit
• s 1.2778

  Intentabat Silve∣rio calumniā quasi Gothis scrip sisset ut Romam introirent. Liber. loc. cit. &, Exicrunt quidam falsi testes qui di∣xerw••••, Invenimus Silverium, &c. A∣nast. in vita Silv.
• t 1.2779

  Marc. in Chron. an. 547. Silverium faventem Vitigi, Bellisarius submo∣vis.
• u 1.2780

  Oborta suspicione Silverium defectu∣rum ad Gothos transinisit in Grae∣ciam Bellisarius, & Vigilium suffe∣cit. Proc. lib. 1 de bell. Goth pa. 286 Belissarius manda∣vit eu ut alium Papam eligerent, & favore Bellisary ordinatus est Vigi∣lius. Laber loc. cit.
• x 1.2781

  Hoc anno (548) expulsus est Vigili∣us. Bar an. 547. nu. ••1 obij•• autem Sil∣verius a. 540. Bar. an. 540 nu. ••.
• y 1.2782

  Vigilius quae Pontificij muneru crant, exequi muni∣••e pratermisit. Bar. an. 538. nu. 21
• z 1.2783

  Haec eadem scrip∣sissumus ad beat••ss. Papam sentoru Roma Vigilium. sic ait Iustinian suu liter•• ad Menu∣quae extant apud Bar. an. 538. nu. 34 & 77. Illam autem epistolam mi sam ram Mennam quà ad Vigilium, isto anno 547. ex ho. liquet, quod hae li∣tera Concilium il∣liul Constantinopo∣litanum pracedit, in quo Origines daninatus est, nam Mennam adm••t•••••• Imp. ut Synodum de hac re habeat. Ipist apud Bar. n. ••••. Com ilium autē illud habitum est isto anno. testatur Ear. an 538. nu. 31 & nu 83.
• a 1.2784

  Bar an. 538. nu. 21. & 25. Legiti∣morum Pontificū vestogijs insistit.
• b 1.2785

  Epist. 2. Vigilij, apud Bin. pa. 482.
• c 1.2786

  Vigilius post ordinationem suam compellabatur a Bellisario ut impleret promisiionem suam Au∣gusta, & sibo redderet duo auri centenaria promissa. Vigilius autem timore Bomonarum, & avaritia patro••••nante nolebat sponsiones suas im∣plero. Liber. loc. cit.
• e 1.2787

  Pamp. Mel. in Lib. 1. in Licia.
• f 1.2788

  Vnde Patareu•• Apollo dictus. Vad. in Pom. Mel. loc. cit.
• * 1.2789

  Silverius ha∣bito illic Concilio Episcoporum in Vigilium senten∣tiam damnatio∣nis intorquet. Bar. an. 538. nu. 18. & Vigilio veniente Pata∣rem venerabilis Episcopus, &c. Liber. loco cit.
• g 1.2790

  Silverij Epist. 1 quae est ad Vigi∣lium pseudopa∣pam.
• h 1.2791

  Viz. tempore Bonifacij.
• i 1.2792

  Nequissimi spi∣ritus audacia, ambitionis phre∣nesin concipiens. Silv. ibid.
• k 1.2793

  Con••in. of the History of France, collect▪ by Thomas Da••∣net, in Lewes 11 in fine.
• l 1.2794

  Venerabilis Patarae Episco∣pus venit ad Im∣peratorem, & jud. cium Dei contestatus est, de tantae sedis expulsione, &c. Liber. loc. cit.
• m 1.2795

  Imperator re∣vocari Romam Silverium jussit, & de literis illis (à Silverio ut aiebant ad Go∣thos scriptis) judicium fieri, ut si prob••retur &c. Liber. loc. cit
• n 1.2796

  Praevalente Imperatoris jus∣sione Silverius ad Italiam re∣duclus est. Liber. ibid.
• o 1.2797

  ••ujus adven∣tu territu•• Vigi∣lius n••se••i•• pel••e∣r••lur, Bellisario mandavit, Trade mibi Vigilium, alloquin non possum facere, quod •• me exi∣g••. Liber. ibid.
• p 1.2798

  Dictum Theo∣doti de Pomp. in, apud Plut. in vita Pomp.
• q 1.2799

  Ita Silverius traditus est d••••∣bus Vigilij ser∣vis, qui in Pal∣mariam insulam adductus, sub corum custedia defecit in••••••a. Liber. loc. cit.
• r 1.2800

  Ferro saviur est lames. Veget.
• s 1.2801

  Lament. 4.9. Melius est mori gl••dio, quam ••••me.
• t 1.2802

  ••in. N••t. in vitam Vigilij.
• u 1.2803

  Bar. an. 540. nu. 4.
• x 1.2804

  Cessavit Epis∣copatus dies sex. Anast. in vit. Silv. Ex quibu•• intelligas Vigili∣um qui sedem usurpasset ad hoc tempus, minimè diutius sedere perseverasse. Ba. an. 540. nu. 4
• y 1.2805

  Bar. an. 540. nu. 5. quod Vi∣gilius id fecerit tanquam repre∣sentans in scena comoediam, non ex animo, facile mihi persuadeo.
• z 1.2806

  Bar. ibid. nu. 4. Et, vaser homo, hujusmodi sibi viam aperiendā curavit, ut ob perpetrata deli∣cta eijci inde nū. quam posset, se∣curus de Bellisa∣rij voluntate, &c. Bar. an. cod. 540. nu. 5.
• a 1.2807

  Haud dubiam jecit aleam, cum sciret eandem quam vellet, facië redituram. Bar. ib. nu. 5.
• b 1.2808

  Clerus longè abhorret, ut ho∣minem tot cri∣minibus implica∣tum in sedem e∣veheret Pontifi∣ciam, id praeser∣tim saeris Eccle∣siae legibus prohi∣••enlibus, et om∣nes, ut ab exe∣crando facinore, ab ejus electione, longe longius abhorrent. Bar. an. 540. nu. 7.
• c 1.2809

  Contra, actura∣tius rom expen∣dentes manifestè cernebant si ali∣quem clium esi∣gerent, scinden∣dam mox sore Ecclesiam diro schismate, ideo divinitus inspi∣rato consilio eve∣bunt ipsum in Pont. thr••n••, &c Bar. an. 540. nu. 7. & 8.
• d 1.2810

  Bar. ibid. nu. 8.
• e 1.2811

  Bar. ibid.
• f 1.2812

  Ab ambitioso Diacono procu∣rata. Bar. an. 538. nu. 9.
• g 1.2813

  Insana cupi∣ditate flagrans ambitione Vigi∣lius. Ibid. nu. 5.
• h 1.2814

  En in quod ba∣rathrum in foelicē hominem conje∣cit ambitio, in quantam insa∣niam, & insa∣miam adegit eū vana gloriae cu∣pido, cujus causa cogatur in ipso portu pati nau∣fragium, & in Petra Petrae scandalum esse, et in fide infid∣lem huberi. Ibid. nu. 17.
• i 1.2815

  Se Theodorae Augustae instar mancipij turpis∣simè vendidit. Bar. an. 540. nu. 8.
• k 1.2816

  Accipiat (Theo∣dora) nomen potius ab inferis, Alecto, vel Me∣gera, vel Tisi∣phone nūcupan∣da. Bar. an. 535. nu. 63.
• l 1.2817

  Dum sursum ascendere medi∣tatur, deorsum demergitur. An. 538. nu. 18.
• m 1.2818

  Vagetur ne∣cesse est cum Caine qui intus clausum habet, quod eum agit in adversa, pec∣catum. Ibid.
• n 1.2819

  Quid reliquū esse potuit salu insatuati, nisi ut conculcetur et proijciatur in flerquiliniū hae∣resum. An. 538. nu. 17.
• o 1.2820

  Putorem con∣traxit haereticae pravitatis. Ibid.
• p 1.2821

  Pactis conventis conscripta jurataque haereticorum defensio. An. 540. nu. 4.
• q 1.2822

  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.
• r 1.2823

  Ita plarè sententiâ Domini judicatur à fide excidere qui gloriae mancipium se constituit. An. 538. nu. 17.
• s 1.2824

  Vigilij schismatici, an. 538. nu. 20.
• t 1.2825

  Alienae sedis emptor. Ibid. et Symoniaca labes eum deturpavit. An. 540. nu. 4.
• u 1.2826

  Sil∣verij necis cooperatio ••um redarguit. Ibid.
• x 1.2827

  Clamantibus undique sacrilegijs, an. 538. nu. 19.
• y 1.2828

  Silverij viven∣tis seriem us••r∣passe, & malis artibus nactum esse, imo & in∣v••sisse ••um in∣telligit, an. 540. nu. 4. violentus intrusor, an. 538. nu. 11.
• z 1.2829

  Agit Rom. Pō∣tificem, quamvis spurius, et peni∣tus illegitimus, an. 538. nu. 21.
• a 1.2830

  Sciens cun∣ctos sibi subje∣ctos, quos vel ab∣so. vat, vel aeter∣nis vinculis obli∣get, authoritate, &c. an. 539. nu. 4.
• b 1.2831

  Adversus Ro∣manae Ecclesiae invasorem, spu∣riūque intrusum Pontificem, va∣lidè telum dam∣nationis intor∣quet, an. 539. nu. 4.
• c 1.2832

  Silverius ostē∣dit universo or∣bi, Vigilium non referie Simonem Petrum, sed Magun, neque Vic••rium Chri∣sti, sed Antichri∣stum. Ibid.
• d 1.2833

  Cernebaut quod ru••sus Ido∣lum collocandū esset in Templo. conspiciendam{que} abominationem desolationis slan∣tē in loco sancto, an. 540. nu. 7.
• e 1.2834

  Quonem alio nomine quam lu∣pus, fur et latre, Pseudoepiscopus, ac deni{que} Anti∣christus jure po∣tuit appellari? an 538. nu. 20.
• f 1.2835

  Cum Vigilij personam satis perspectam ha∣berent, cum ••em∣pe esse hominem revera Catholi∣cum, an. 540. nu. 8.
• g 1.2836

  Lib. ca. 22.
• h 1.2837

  Vict. in Chron.
• k 1.2838

  Bar. an. 538. nu. 15.
• l 1.2839

  Bell. lib. 4. de Pont. ca. 10.
• m 1.2840

  Bell. ca. eod.
• n 1.2841

  Nomine Vigi∣lij ab al quo Eu∣tychiano esse sup∣positam, enque imperito, ex plu∣ri••us colligi po∣test. Bar. an. 538 nu. 19.
• o 1.2842

  Bell. loc. cit.
• p 1.2843

  Bell. loc. cit.
• q 1.2844

  Breviarium collectum à san∣cto Liberato, sic inser••bitur apud Binium, to. 2. pa. 610.
• r 1.2845

  Vestigium nul∣lum apparet cor∣ruptioni in li∣bro liberaci. Bell.
• s 1.2846

  Revera non pugnat narratio Liberall, cum narratio••e Pon∣tific••lis. Ibid.
• t 1.2847

  Plura s••nt q••ae persuadent. Bar. an. 538. nu. 15. et ex pluribus colligi potest. An. cod. nu. 19.
• u 1.2848

  Bar. an. 538. nu. 19.
• x 1.2849

  Inscriptio ad Dominos, demō∣strat hanc Epi∣stolam scriptam esse ad Iust. et Theodoram. Bar. ibid.
• y 1.2850

  Bar. an. 54••. nu. 24.
• z 1.2851

  Constitutio Iu∣stiniani voca∣tur. Extat autem post finem Conc. Constantinopoli∣tani sub Menna. 10.2. pa. 469.
• a 1.2852

  Epistola illa ad Epiphanium ex∣tat. Leg. 7. Cod. de summa Trin.
• b 1.2853

  Data est ea E∣pist. Iust. 3. Consul. Is est an. 533.
• c 1.2854

  Sane quidem Inscriptio de∣monstrat. Bar. an. 538. nu. 19.
• d 1.2855

  Bar. an. 538. nu. 13.
• e 1.2856

  Sic habetur in Lib. ca. 22. apud Bin. pa. 624. b.
• f 1.2857

  Demonstrat.
• g 1.2858

  Vict. Tun. in Chron. sub an. 2. post Cons. Basilij.
• h 1.2859

  Bin. in not. ad Liberatum. § In historia.
• i 1.2860

  Bar. an. 538. nu. 19. Abhorret à consueto scri∣bendi more, &c. et, quoduam un∣quam extitit praedecessorum exempsum, ut Imperatores Ro∣manus Pontifex Patres nomina∣ret.
• k 1.2861

  Dominis Theodosio, An∣thimo et Severo Episcopis. Apud Victorem loc. cit.
• l 1.2862

  Bar. loc. cit.
• m 1.2863

  Guil. Mals∣bur. lib. 1. de gest. Pontif. Angl. pa. 127.
• n 1.2864

  Vel si ••ratres legas, cer••è pro∣cul abhorret, ut cosdem dicat & Dominos. Bar. an. 538. nu. 19.
• o 1.2865

  Epist. S. Da∣masi apud. Bin. to. 1. Conc. pa. ••01.
• p 1.2866

  Habentur in Concil. Africano sub Caelest. et Bo∣nif. ca. 101. ••t 105. to. 1. Conc. pa. 644. & 645.
• q 1.2867

  In eodem Cōc. Afric. ta. 102.
• r 1.2868

  In eodem Conc. ca. 103.
• s 1.2869

  Sic Adrianus 1 scribit ad. Con∣stantinum et Ire∣nem. Tom. 3. Conc. pa. 254.
• t 1.2870

  Adrianus Papa to. cod. pa. 263.
• u 1.2871

  Servus servo∣rum Dei, sic se scribit Gregor. 7. qui prius Hilde∣brandus dictus est. Epist. 13, 14. et resiqui•• plus centies.
• x 1.2872

  Quo pacto, ro∣go, potuit Vigili∣us anathem ati∣zare Diosco∣rum, si cum Dio∣scoro Eutychiae∣nam haeresin praedicat? Haec enim sibi invi∣cem adversan∣tur, ut utraque vera esse non possint. Bar. an. 538. nu. 16. et idem habet Bin. not. in Lib. pa. 626. a.
• y 1.2873

  Eam fidem quam tenetis, & tenere me, et te∣nuissa significo. Epist. Vigilij tū apud Liber. ca. 22. et Vict. Tun. in Chron. an. post Cons. Basilij 2.
• z 1.2874

  Qui dicit in Christo duas for∣mas, et non cōfi∣tetur unam per∣sonam, unam es∣sentiam, Anathe∣ma sit. Ibid. apud Liber.
• a 1.2875

  To. 1. act. Conc. Eph. ca. 11.
• b 1.2876

  Quin & Ra∣vennae reperit Bellisarium. Liber. ca. 22.
• c 1.2877

  Nam Silveriū 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 Belli∣sarius non caepit Ravennam ante finem anai 5. ejus belli, ut ait Proc. 340. & 343. ubi ait, ••am annus 5. exib••t.
• d 1.2878

  Hic puto Libe∣ratum memoria lapsum, Raven∣nam pro Neapoli posuisse. Bar. an. 538. nu. 7. & idem Bin. Not. in Liber.
• e 1.2879

  Apud Bin. to. 2. pa: 6••4.
• f 1.2880

  Bar. an 538. nu. 14.
• g 1.2881

  Bar. an. 538. nu. 15.
• h 1.2882

  Bar. locis supr. citat.
• k 1.2883

  Etiamsi ista verè scripsissit Vigilius, nullum tamen ob id in∣fertur praejudi∣cium Apostolicae sedi, cujus tunc ipse erat invasor, Silverius autem germanus Pon∣tifex. Bar. an. 538. nu. 15. Fe∣cit id cum ad huc v. veret Silveri∣us, quo tempore Vigilius non e∣rat Papa, sed Pseudopapa. Bell. lib. 4. de Pont. ca. 10. Non mi∣rum si Pseudo∣episcopus et quasi Antichristus ad schisma, hae∣resi•• addidissae. Bin. not. in. Lib. pa. 626. a. ita etiam Gretz. in Defens. ca. 10. lib. 4. Bell.
• l 1.2884

  Liber. ca. 22.
• m 1.2885

  Gret. loc. cit.
• n 1.2886

  Bar. an 538. nu. 14, 15.
• o 1.2887

  Lib. loc. cit.
• p 1.2888

  Augusta Vigi∣lium profiteri flagitavit ut si Papa fieret tolle∣ret Synodum, &c. L••benter suscepit Vigilius promissum. Liber. loc. cit.
• q 1.2889

  Silverius hoc anno obijt, 12. Kalend. Iulij. Ba. an. 540. nu. 2
• r 1.2890

  Ita Silverius traditus duobus Vigilij servis, qui in Palma∣riam abductu•• sub eorum custo∣diâ defecit ine∣dia. Lib. loc. cit.
• s 1.2891

  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••.
• t 1.2892

  Naucl. Gener. 18.
• u 1.2893

  Anast. in vit. Vigilij.
• x 1.2894

  Ecc•• ut Vigil. s••atim ac san∣ctam sedem as∣cenait, &c. Bin. not. in vit. Vig.
• y 1.2895

  Bin. not. in vit. Vig. § Ex Actis
• z 1.2896

  Epist. Vigilij ad Mennam 15 Calend. Octob. data est. Ea ex∣tat apud Bar. an. 540. nu. 25. et eodem tempo∣re missa est etiam illa ad Iustinia∣num, apud Bar. an. 540. nu. 15. et 22.
• a 1.2897

  Ad haec re∣scripsit Vigilius, Anast. in vit. Vig.
• b 1.2898

  Bar. an. 540. nu. 13.
• b 1.2899

  Scribit ut s••••t omnia occulta us{que} ad tempus. Bell. lib. 4. de Pont. ca. 10.
• c 1.2900

  Vigilius facta promissione Ro∣ma•• profectus est. Liber. ca. 22. redarguit ipsum, ••aereticorum pactis conventis conscripta, jura∣qu•• defensio. Bar. an. 540. nu. 4.
• d 1.2901

  Bell. lib. 4. de Pontif. ca. 10. § Sciendum.
• e 1.2902

  Vt Romae Ca∣tholicum ageret, et interim per literas apud Im∣peratricem, hae∣reticum simula∣ret. Bell. ibid.
• f 1.2903

  Qui dicit in Christo du••s for∣mas (i. naturas) et non confite∣tur unam persona unam essentiam anathema sit. Vigil. in Epist. apud Liber. loc. cit.
• g 1.2904

  Adimple nobis q••ae pron•• vo∣lun••ate promisi∣sti. Anast. in vi∣ta Vigil.
• h 1.2905

  Conscriptaque jurataque haereticorum de∣fensio. Bar. an. 540. nu. 4.
• i 1.2906

  Vigilius im∣ple••s promissionē suam quam Au∣gustae secerat, talē scripsit Episto∣lam. Liber. ca. 22
• k 1.2907

  Ex quo citat Lactant. lib. 6. divin. Iust. ca. 18.
• l 1.2908

  Exhortantur suos ad mend••ci¦um, tanquam •• exemplis Prophe∣t••rum, Apostolo∣rum, Angelorum, et ipsius Christi. Aug. lib. contr. Mend. ca. 2.
• m 1.2909

  Aug. ibid.
• n 1.2910

  Cum e••s qui nobis in societate veritatis proxi∣mi non sunt, ne{que} ut ita dicam commembres nostri sunt. Ibid.
• o 1.2911

  Grati••, qua nos Deo nostro conjungimur, eam fidem quam ten••tis, et ten••∣isse me, & tene∣re significo, ut et anima una sit, et cor unum. Vig. Epist. ad An••••. apud Lib. loc. cit.
• p 1.2912

  Metuebac R••••manos qui hare∣ticum sedere, nunquam possu∣ri videbantur. Bell. loc. cit.
• q 1.2913

  Oportet ut haec quae scribo nullus agn••scat. Epist. Vig. apud Lib.
• r 1.2914

  Sed magis su∣spectum me ante alies, habeat sa∣pientia vestra ut factsius possim quae ••aepi, operari et perficere. Ib.
• s 1.2915

  Bell. lib. 4. de Pont. ca. 10. § Sciendum.
• t 1.2916

  Non fuit ani∣mo haereticus. Ibid.
• u 1.2917

  Gret. loc. cit.
• x 1.2918

  Bell. ubi supra.
• y 1.2919

  Tert. cont. Va∣lent. ca. 4.
• z 1.2920

  Epiph. bar. 42
• b 1.2921

  Epiph. haer. 75.
• c 1.2922

  Bell. lib. de not. Eccl. ca. 13.
• d 1.2923

  Dico Vigilium scripsisse illam Epistolam, et damnasse Catho∣licam fidem, sal∣tem exteriori professione. Bell. lib. 4. de Pont. ca. 10. §. Respon∣deo, multi.
• e 1.2924

  Reg. 8.39.
• f 1.2925

  Bell. loco cit••
• f 1.2926

  Bell. loc. cit.
• g 1.2927

  Vt sint omnia occulta, usque ad tempus. Bell. loc. cit.
• h 1.2928

  Bell. 4. de Pōt. ca. 10. § Sciendū
• i 1.2929

  Gretz. loc. cit.
• k 1.2930

  Aust. lib. 4. de doct. Christ. ca. 16. et Tract. 7. in Iohan.
• l 1.2931

  Aug. Epist. 50.
• m 1.2932

  Sunt qui Ser∣gium 2. prius di∣cant os porci vo∣catum, et ob tur∣pitudinem cogno∣menti, Sergy no∣men sumpsisse, cam{que} consuetu. dinem ad po••••e∣ros manasse, &c. Plat. in vita Serg. 2.
• n 1.2933

  Dicimus qui∣dem quod Inno∣centius hoc dix∣it, non ut Papa, sed ut Petrus de Tarantasia. In Extrav. Io∣han. 22. Tit. 14. de verbor. signif∣ca. 5.

  Greg. 13. antea Hugo dictus à Boncompagnorū familia oriun∣dus. Anto. Cicar. in ejus vita.
• o 1.2934

  Vigil. in epist. apud Liber. loc. cit.
• q 1.2935

  Plat. lib. 1. de Repub.
• q 1.2936

  Per hanc con∣ditionem quate∣nus ipsam, nota∣tur quod praedi∣catum inest sub∣jecto secundum propriam subje∣cti naturam. Iac. Zab. com. in ca. 4. lib. demon. text. 36.
• r 1.2937

  Conc. Chalc. Act. 2. ct 3.
• s 1.2938

  Quae recitatur Conc. 6. Act. 12. pa. 64.
• t 1.2939

  Vocantur istae et aliae Epistolae, dogmatica scrip∣ta. In eodem Conc. Act. 12. p. 65. a. et retra∣ctantes dogmati∣cas Epistolas, à Sergio, et ab Ho∣norio ad Sergi∣um. Act. 13. pa. 67. a. et, Hono∣rias impia dog∣mata confirma∣vit. Ibid.
• u 1.2940

  Anathemati∣z••mus quoque Honorium, qui hanc Apostoli∣cam Ecclesiam, et immaculatata fidem prophana proditione sub∣vertere conatus est. Leo 2. Epist. 1
• x 1.2941

  Pontifex non ut praeses Conci∣lij. sed ut Prin∣ceps Ecclesiae summus potest iudicium Conci∣ly retractare, &c. Bell. lib. r•• de Conc. ca. 1••. § Dico secundo.
• y 1.2942

  Agapeti Papae contra Anthim•••• iudicium abs{que} Synodo fuit, se∣cundum suprà∣mam Apostolicae sedis authorita∣tem, qua supra òmnes Canones Pontifex eminet. Bar. an. 536. nu. 23.
• a 1.2943

  Bell. lib. 4. de Pont. ca. 10. § Contigit. Ab hoc tempore nul∣lus inventus est in Vigilio, aut error, aut erroris simulatio, &c.
• b 1.2944

  Liber. Brev. a. 22.
• c 1.2945

  Bell. loc. cit.
• d 1.2946

  Bar. an. 538. nu. 20.
• e 1.2947

  Bar. an. 556. nu. 2.
• f 1.2948

  Opinari si cui licet, facilius est invenire, qui E∣vagrij de ejus condemnatione (ad supplicia a∣pud inseros lise••∣da) velit sequi sententiam, quam aliorum. Bar. an. 565. nu. 2. & 6.
• g 1.2949

  Rom. 14.4.