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

CONCILIA generalia mea sunt; primum, ulti­mum, media, saith their Romane Camp. Ra [...]. 4. Thraso; Generall Councils are all ours, the first, the last, & the middle. Alls mine, as said the De­vill to the Collier. A vaunt too vaine, too Thrasonicall. Divide the Councils aright, and let each have his own due part and por­tion, and then all the five first, and so much as they account the 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 con­fused 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 Coun­cills, 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 [Page 2] concerning the Councils, it was my purpose, besides those o­ther generall questions, concerning the right of calling generall Councils, the right of Presidencie in them, and the right of con­firming 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 a­ble to accomplish a worke of such amplitude, and of so vast ex­tent, for which not Nestors age would suffice? Wherefore tur­ning my sailes, from this so long, and tedious a voyage, which I could not so much as hope to end, & which beside many dan­gerous 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 de­spairing 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, un­till 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 Empe­ror Iustinian and Pope Vigilius, for authoritie equall to the for­mer, it being, as well as they, approved by the consenting judge­ment 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 a­ges 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 Iudge­ment of the ancient and Catholike Church touching those Con­troversies 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 Theo­dorus B. of Mopsvestia long before dead: the writings of Theodo­ret B. of Cyrus against Cyril: and the Epistle of Ibas B. of Edessa un­to Maris: al which three Chapters were mentioned in the Coun­cill at Act. 8, 9, 10. Chalcedon.

5. The Nestorians (whose heresie was condemned in the third generall Councill) when they could no longer under the name [Page 3] of Nestorius countenance their heresie, very subtilly indevored to Nestorij sequaces propriam impieta [...] applicare valentes sanctae Dei Ecclesiae, & non potentes hoc per Nestoriū facere, festinaverunt [...] introducer per The­odorum Mopsvesi [...] ­num, necnon per im­pia scripta Theodo­re [...]i, & per sce [...]era­tam. Epistolam quae dicitur [...] ad M [...] ­r [...]n. Iust. Ep. ad Syn. 5. Col. 1. pa. 51 [...]. b. L [...]ë habet [...]oncilium ipsum in sua senten­tia definitiva. Col. 8. pa. 584. & L [...]b. c. 10 revive the same, by commending Theodorus B. of Mopsve­stia and his writings, as also the writings of Theodoret against Cy­rill and the Epistle of Ibas unto Maris. This after the Councill of Chalcedon they more earnestly applyed, then before, preten­ding Theod [...]ri et Ne­storij sequa [...]es conan tur di [...]e [...]e susceptam esse eam (Epistolam Iba) à 5. Chalcedo­nensi Conc. nomine ejus Theodorum & Nestorium condem­natione liberare se­stinantes. Iust. Edict § Tali. Et iterum Epist. Iust. ad Synod. Col. 1. pa 519 b. Et Diceb [...]nt istam im­piam Epistolam quae laudat et defendit Theodorum et Ne­storium et eorum impietatem suscep­tam esse à Synodo Chalc. Conc. 5. Col. 8 pa. 585. b. that not 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 o­ver 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 esta­blish the doctrine of Nestorius, which (as they boasted) that coun­cill 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 Lib de sect. act. 6. 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 Illi (Acephali) hoc offenduntur in Syn. Ch [...]lced quod laudes suscepit Theodor [...] Mops [...]est. Epistolam que Ibae, quae per om­nia Nestoriana esse cognoscitur. lib. [...] ca. 24. Liberatus declareth. Such were the Agnoites, Gainites, Theodosians, Themistians, and other like Sectaries, called all by the common name of Acephali, because they had no one head by whom to be directed. All these, though being at 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 maintain­eth all the blasphemies of Nestorius) was approved. Thus the Church was by contrary enemies, on every side assailed, and so extremely disturbed, that as the Emperor Sacerdotes sane­tarum D [...]i Ecclesia­rum ab Oriente as [...] ad Occidentem di­visi, Iust. Epist. ad Synod. pa 519. b. testifieth, it was in a manner rent even from East to West, yea the East 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. was rent from the West.

7. Iustinian the religious Emperor, knowing Initium et funda­mentum nostri imperij fecimus, conjungere divisos Sacerdotes. Epist. ad Synod Col. 1. 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 Impi­ous Epistle of Ibas, as also the person and doctrines of Theodorus of Mopsvestia (both which that Epistle defendeth) together with the writings of Theodoret against Cyrill: he knowing and that ex­actly [Page 4] 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 Extat apud Bin­tom. 2. Conc. pa. 492. Imperiall Edict containing a most orthodoxall, religious and holy profession, or rather an am­ple Declaration of his, nay not his, but of the Catholike Faith. Among many other things, the Emperor in that Edict did par­ticularly and expresly condemne Theodorus of Mopsvestia with his doctrines, the writings of Theodoret against Cyril, and that most impious Epistle of Ibas, accursing Si quis desendit Theodorum, &c. a­nathema sit. Edict. pa. [...]6. 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 Catho­like Bishops, were so far from consenting to this Imperial Edict, and the Catholike truth delivered therein, that they openly op­pugned 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 in­vectives 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 pre­sent either personally or by his deputies, the Acts of the Councill doe abundantly wit­nesse. The holy Synod said Coll. 2. pa. 524. a. thus, Saepius petivimus. We have of­ten entreated the most holy Pope Vigilius; to come together with us and make a determination of these matters. Againe, the holy Synod said, Col. 1. pa. 521. b. & Coll. 8. pa. 584. b. 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 [Page 5] present (said Coll. 2. pa. 524. a. 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 him­selfe testifieth Epist. Iustin. ad Conc. Coll. 1. pa. 520. a. 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 deter­mine this cause touching the Three Chapters.

2. What Pope Vigilius did, after so many invitations, en­treaties, and commands, Card. Bellarmine doth declare, The Pope, saith he, Lib 1. de Conc. ca. 5. § Coacta. nes (que) per se, ne (que) per legatos interfuit, was not pre­sent in the Council either by himselfe, or by his legats. And more clearly in another place, The Pope, saith he, Lib. cod. 19. § Aude. was then at Constan­tinople, sed noluit interesse, but he would not be present in the Councill. Binius testifieth Notis in Conc. gen. 5. § Praesedit. the same. At the fifth Councill Vigilius was not present either by himselfe or by his deputies. And Baronius, The Pope (saith he) Anno 553. nu. 29 noluit interesse, would not be present either by himselfe, or by any to supply his place. And this Cardinall adds Ibid. nu. 31. not with­out some choler, The members assembled without the head, nulla Vigilij aegrotantis adhuc habita ratione, having no regard at all to Pope Vigilius then sick.

3. What? doth the Card. complaine that they had no re­gard of him, when himselfe a little before professeth, noluit in­teresse, he himselfe was not willing to be present? Or had they no re­gard of him when before ever they assembled or sate in the Sy­nod, they writ an Epistle Epist. Euty, hij ad Vigilium lecta Coll. 1. ideo (que) missa ante incho [...]tum Synodū. unto him entreating his presence, and with their own request, signified Et primo die in­stantis Maij perve­nimus ad Vigilium:—Diximus, Pijs­simus Dominus vult te unà cum alijs cō ­ven [...]e: proposuc­runt jussionem pijs­simi Imperatoris. Coll. 2. p [...]. 523. b. 524. a. Concilium vero caepit 4. die May. Coll. 1. 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 Metropoli­tanes, as the Cardinal Missi sunt qui cum vocarent Epi­scopi numero vigin­ti, ijdem (que) Metropo­litani. Bar. an. 553. nu. 35. both knew, and acknowledged, & the Sy­nodall acts Coll. 1. & 2. nam in utra (que) missi sunt. doe witnesse, and of those twenty, three were Pa­triarks, 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 propo­sed 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, Coll. 1. pa. 521. a. 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 Coll. 2. pa. 523. b. the Bishop) your holinesse knoweth, [Page 6] 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 a­gaine, we entreated his reverence (say the whole Synod) Coll. 8. pa. 584. a scrip­tas 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 con­cluded that Session, saying, Coll. 1 in fine. Oportet, we must defer the examina­tion of the cause to another day? And whereas the Pope Postero die polli­citus est manifesta­re, quod ei de tali conventu placuerit. Coll. 1. promised to give them an answer the next day, then because his qualme was overpast, he found new excuses for his absence: one because Ille respondit non posse nobiscum con­venire, eo quod plu­rimi quidē hîc sunt Orientales Episcopi, pauci vero cum eo. Coll. 2. pa. 523. a. there was but a few westerne Bishops then present with them; another because Dicebat facere se per semetipsum in scriptis, & offerre Imperatori, ideo e­nim & inducias se postulasse ab ejus se­renitate. Ibid. he would himself alone declare his judgement in writing, and offer it to the Emperor, for which cause he had entreated respite for 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, Baro­nius Eam suae absentiae causam praetexuisse. an. 553. nu. 36. himselfe doubteth not to call that a pretence: for so it was indeed, seeing as the Bishops truly told Nec in sanctis 4. Synodis multitudo Occidentalium Epi­scoporum inventa est unquam, sed duo vel tres Episco [...]i. Col. 2. pa. 523. b. him, in none of the for­mer Councils there was any multitude of Westerne Bishops, but onely two or three, and some Clerkes, whereas at that time, there were present with the Pope at Constantinople Nunc vtro [...] multi ex [...] E­piscopi, sunt etiam ex Africa, & ex Il­lyrico, Ibid. many Italian Bishops, others out of Africk, others out of Illirium, for their number more then had beene in al the foure former Coun­cills; whereupon they plainly and truly told Ibid. Col. 2. the Pope to his face, Nihil est quod prohibet vos convenire una nobiscum; there is no sufficient or allowable cause to stay you from comming to the Synod to­gether with us: not sicknesse, not want of Western Bishops, Nihil est, there is nothing else at all but an unwilling mind. So extraor­dinary respect had they of the Pope at this time, and so earnest were they to have him present in the Synod, of whom Baronius without any regard of truth shamed not to say, that they assem­bled having no respect at all unto sick Vigilius.

5. The true reason which made the Pope so unwilling to be present in the Synod, and why Noluit interesse, was indeed his hereticall affection and adversnes from the truth in this cause of the Three Chapters. He saw the Catholike Bishops, then as­sembled, to be bent and forward (as their dutie was) for condem­ning 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 perswasi­ons, [Page 7] 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 per­versnesse, absented himselfe from the Holy Councill at this time.

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

1. WHen Pope Vigilius remaining then at Con­stantinople 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 re­solved Deo juvante, fu­turo die convenien­tes, quae oportet a­gemus. Col. 2. in fine 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 Celeriter de bi [...] quae interrogavimus vestram manifestata voluntatem. Iust. [...]p. ad Synod. Col. 1. pa. 520. b. them not to delay nor protract the time, but deliver a speedy, yet withall a sound and true judgement in that cause. The necessity of the Church required this, which was now in a general Ob tria capitulae fideles fueru [...] scissi atque schismate se­parati. Bar. an. 547. nu. 29. tumult and Schisme about those Three Chapters. The Nestorians on one side trium­phed 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 re­jected 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, Nec enim justum est vel Imperatorem vel fidelē populum ex dilatione scanda­lizari. Co. 2. p. 533. b said, That it was not just nor fit by delaying their judgement, to suffer either the Emperor or the faithful people any longer to be scan­dalized. And for the absence of Vigilius, they knew right well that which Card. Cusanus very truly observeth, Alioqui si expe­ctatus non mitteret, vel non veniret, vel nollet, Concilium congregatum suae necessitati, & Eccle­siae saluti providera debet. lib. 2. de Conc. ord. Cath. cap. 2. that if the Pope, being invited, did not, or would not come, or send to a Synod, but wilfully refused to come, in this case the 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 Rogavimus domi­nos Episcopos de Ro­ma, ut communica­rent ijs gestis. Conc. Chalc. act. 16. pa. 134. a. in­vited 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 [Page 8] be there, saying Ibid. (as Vigilius now did) Non, sed alia se suscepisse mandata, No, we will not come, we have a contrary command from pope Leo, yet that holy Councill of Chalcedon handled and defined that cause in their absence, and their determination, notwith' standing the Popes absence, was not onely declared Viri illustrissimi Iudices dixerunt, quod interlocuti su­mus tota Synodus approbavit. Ibid. pa. 137. b. 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 de­cree, they say, Ibid. pa. 140. a. Confirmavimus ante, we (to wit, this whole gene­rall 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 fa­mous Councils that ever were, that the peevishnes, perversnes, or wilfull absence of one or a few Bishops, yea of the Pope him­selfe, ought not, nor could not hinder a Synod to judge and de­termine any needful cause; much lesse a cause of faith about which there should happen (as now there did) a general distur­bance 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 Cum nos per om­nia, quod decet, & servavimus & ser­vamus, & saepius petivimus Vigilium. Col. 2. pa. 524. a. much in all points as was fit to be done for procuring the presence of Vigilius, and having in their first and second Sessions done nothing but waited and expected for his 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, be­ing stird Pa. eadem. b. up by the words of St. 1 Pet. 3.15. 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 Incongruum autē Sacerdotibus esse putantes protrabera dandum à nobis re­sponsum Christianis­simo Imperatori pa. cadem. more in Bishops: and if it must be declared towards all men, most of all towards the Emperor, who now required their speedy judgement and Synodall resolution in this cause.

2. Having in their first and second Sessions declared their long and earnest, but vaine expectance of Vigilius, In their third Collation (so their Sessions are called) they let downe as a foun­dation to all their future acts, a most holy confession of their faith, consonant in all points to that which the holy Apostles preached, which the 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 Vigilij libellus ob­latus Synodo. Bar. an. 553. nu. 47. us, the Con­stitution of Pope Vigilius touching the Three Chapters was brought unto the Synod. The Pope promised Ibid. that he would send his judgement thereof, ad ipsum Imperatorem, at (que) ad Syno­dum; both to the Emperor, and to the Synod; which he ingenuously [Page 9] performed; yea An. [...]od. nu. 48, modo opportunè praestandum putavit, he did it opportunely at this very time of the 5. Collation: And the Card. is so resolute in this point, that he peremptorily affirmeth of the Popes Constitution, Cognoscitur, Ibid. its knowne to pertaine to this very day of their fift Collation: and it Anno eod. nu. 41. was this day offered to the Coun­cill: for which cause he strongly imagining this Constitution Constitutum [...]oc ex actis 5. Synod [...] nescitur esse subla­tum. an. eod. nu. 47. to be stolne out of the Synodall acts now extant, is bold to in­sert Cum ad hunc ip­sam annum et diem Collationis 5. perti­nere cognos [...]itu [...]. Ibid. nu. 48. 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 Coun­cill, 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 here­in the Card. saith truly, The An. 553 nu. 210. decree of Vigilius was first sent to the Emperor, and from him to the Synod, as by the sixt Collati­on 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, Quae praesenti sta­tuimus Constituto. Vig. Const. [...]pud Bar an. 553. nu. 208. a Statute, Statuimus et de­cernimus. ibid. a Decree, a Definition, Post praesentem definitionem. ibid. or Definitive sentence: and by the name of a Consti­tution, it is subscribed unto, both by the Pope Vigilius Episco­pus huic Constituto nostro subscripsi. ib. nu. 209. and all Iohannes Marso­num huic Constituto subscripsi, & alij si­militer. ibid. the rest of his Assemblie; and for such it is commended by Card. Ann. 553. nu. 47. Baro­nius and Binius Viglij Papae Con­stitutum. Bin. in [...]ragm. 5. Conc. pa. 591.. In it the Pope delivereth his Apostolicall sen­tence & Iudgement touching the Three Chapters, this being Hunc ipsum esse sci [...], quem de sua sententia interpella­tim, pollicitus est se missinum ad Impe­ratorem. Bar. anu. 553. nu. 47. that very same answer which Vigilius promised to send to the Emper­ror, and for the advised setting downe whereof, he Const. Vigil. n [...] 58. requested of the Emperor the respite of twenty dayes. During which time he did insudare and laborare, as the Card. saith, Ann. 553. nu. 28. with much sweat and toile elaborate this large decree, (containing no lesse Apud Bar. nu. 553 a nu. 50. ad 210. then thirty six columes in folio) that it might in every re­spect, and for the exact handling of so weighty a cause, be cor­respondent to the gravity and authority of his infallible Chaire, specially seeing he set it forth of purpose, that it might be noti­fied Bar. an. 553. nu. 47 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 tea­ching, nullo casu errare potest, saith Card. Bellarmine, Lib. 4. de Po [...]. Rom. ca 3. § Sit. 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 Vide subscriptio­nes loc. c [...]. nu. 209. to his Constitution; and in theirs was included the consent of the Africane, of the Illyrian, of the Italian, and other [Page 10] 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 O cidentales per­stabant in sententia quá semper fuerant pro trium defensiene capitulorum. an. 547. nu. 39.. So deliberate and advi­sed was the Pope in this cause, that his resolution herein is not onely a Pontificall, but a Synodall Sentence also, yea a Decree and definitive judgement delivered by the Pope, as himselfe ex­presly witnesseth, Vigilij Const. a­pud Bar. loc. cit. nu. 209. 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 In Sess. 1. Conc. Trid. Archiepiscopi & Episcopi non plu­res quam 26. ut ex actis liquet. as many, as there were Bishops pre­sent in some Sessions of their Oecumenicall Councill at Trent.

7. This Apostolicall Constitution, which had long laid in obscu­ritie, about some 18. yeares since was brought to light, and first Bar. an. 553. nu. 48. of al published by Card. Baronius to the opē view of the world, copied by him out of an ancient Ibidem. manuscript in their Vaticane, where still it is kept: and more then halfe of it, is set out by Binius To. 2. pa. 591., 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 De­fence of those three Chapters, which the Emperor by his most re­ligious Edict had condemned and accursed. The Pope, saith Ba­ronius, An. 553. nu. 218. during the time of the Synod, set forth Decretum pro defensione trium Capitulorum, his decree for defence of the Three Chapters. Againe, Ibid. nu. 218. Vigilius made knowne to the whole Church pro Tribus Capitulis Constitutum à se editum, his Constitution publi­shed in defence of the Three Chapters. Againe, Ibid. nu. 272. 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 Vigilij Const. a­pud Bar▪ an. 553. nu. 179. 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, Ibid. nu. 176. minime repe­riuntur 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 Ibid. nu. 179., Seeing the holy Fa­thers had not, (as he saith) condemned him, eum nostra non au­demus 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 [Page 11] blemished by cōdemning his writings, seeing as he saith, Ibid. nu. 181. neither Cyril himself, nor after him the Councill of Chalcedon had condemned them. Nay Vigilius further adds, Nu. 180. 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 Nu. 182.; Statutimus at (que) decer­nimus, we ordaine and decree that no injury or slaunder shall by any man be raised, or uttered against Theodoret, sub taxatione no­minis ejus, by taxing of his name. So Vigilius, decreeing that the condemning of those writings of Theodoret against Cyril, is an injury to Theodoret.

11. The third Chapter (which indeed is the most 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 re­peated 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, Ann. 553▪ nu. 191 That the Fathers of Chalce­don, dixerunt eam Epistolam ut Catholicam recipiendam; said that this Epistle of Ibas was to be received as Catholike; and further adds, Ibid. nu. 196. Ex eâ Ibam comprobatum esse Catholicum; that by this Epistle Ibas himselfe was proved to be a Catholike, yea that An. 448. nu. 71. he was so pro­ved 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 Const. Vigil. loco citato nu. 187. Popes legats said by Pascasinus, Relecta ejus epistolâ agno­vimus cum orthodoxum; By the Epistle of Ibas now read, we acknow­ledge him to be orthodoxall: Maximus said, Ibid. nu. 189. Ex relecto rescripto epistolae, orthodoxa est ejus declarata dictatio; by the Epistle of Ibas now read, his Epistle or writing is declared to be 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 Ibid. nu. 19 [...]. Fathers of the Council at Chalcedon, Ibid. nu. 19 [...]. 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 epi­siolae 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 [Page 12] Bishops at Chalcedon to have judged the same by the words of that Epistle, for it is certaine that they all embraced Ibas him­selfe for a Catholike.

13. Hereupon now ensueth the Definitive sentence of Vigilius touching this Chapter, in this manner: Ibid. nu. 196. 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 Eu­stathius, and by the meaning of Ibas being present, that the Fa­thers at Chalcedon did most justly pronounce the faith of this most reverend Bishop Ibas to be 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 Catho­like, & that by it & by the words thereof, Ibas ought to be jud­ged 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; Ibid. nu. 208. His igitur à nobis cum omni undi (que) cautela at (que) diligentia dispositis; These things being now with all dili­gence, 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 defi­nition, to move any question touching these Three Chapters. But if any thing concerning these Chapters be either done, said, or written, or shall hereafter be done, said, or written contrary to that which we have here taught and decreed, hoc modis omnibus ex authoritate sedis Apostolicae refutamus; we by all 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 directi­on to the whole Church his definitive, Apostolicall, and infal­lible sentence in this cause, what needeth the Councill either to judge, or so much as debate this matter after this Decree? To de­fine 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 determina­tion, [Page 13] to be doubtfull Dubius in fide in­fidelis est. lib. 5. Dec. tit. 7. debaretitis. 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 infal­lible 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 re­vived, 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 con­trary to his Constitution made in defence of the Three Chapters, wherein he hath confirmed all the Blasphemies of Nestorius, and that by a Decree more irrevocable 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 incon­gruitie to set downe three intire Sessions of an holy and gene­rall 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 Iudge­ment, 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 Ca­thedrall sentence of the Pope was entertained by the holy ge­nerall Councill.

CAP. 4. That the holy generall Councill in their Synodall Iudgement contra­dicted the Popes Apostolicall Constitution and definitive sen­tence, 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 com­mand of Vigilius, the Holy Synod began to examine the Epistle of Ibas: for the causes of Theodorus and of Theodoret were sufficiently discus­sed in their former Collations. And first of all, alledging a saying of the Emperour (to which them­selves 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 Col. 6. pa. 561. a. 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 re­ligious 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 Coun­cill of Chalcedon, and for alledging the Interlocutions of one or two, as the Iudgement of that Councill. For, that the whole Sy­nod 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, Col. 6. pa. 576. b. The Decree of the Councill at Chalcedon condemneth this Epistle, hee that receiveth this Episte rejecteth the Councill at Chal­cedon: and, by those speeches of Theodorus Bishop of Cesarea, Andreas Bishop of Ephesus, and others, to which the whole Sancta Synodus dixit, Scimus et nos haec ita consequuta esse. Col. 6. p. 564. a. Synod assented, Quomodo Col. 6. pa. 563. b. 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 se­cundi interloquutionem attendere oportet, the speeches of one or two must not be attended, but what is defined by all, or by the grea­ter [Page 15] 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 Coll. 6. p. 576. a. 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 inter­locutions 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 inevi­tably 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, see­ing the Councill doth exactly mention, and refute all the prin­cipall 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, An. 553. nu. [...]12. as is evident, against the Constitu­tion 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 un­der one generall Appellation of, Sequaces Definitio Synod. Col. 8. pa. 586. a. Desensores Nestorij & ejus impietatis. Ibid. pa. 585. b. Theodori discipuli. Ibid. & saepe alibi. Nestorij et Theodori, the followers of Nestorius and Theodorus, their Disciples, or defen­ders which titles they saw the Emperor to have used and gi­ven unto them before, Theodori & Ne­storij sequaces. pa. 497. [...]. both in his Edict, and in his Nestorij sequaces. pa. 519. b. Epistle to the Synod, which common names to have as fitly and truly agreed to Pope Vigilius as to any else, the Councill knew right well, seeing in every point concerning these Three Chapters, he wholly agreed with them all. The Theodori & Ne­storij defensores di­cebant, &c. Col. 8. pa. 585. b. Et praesu­munt dicere. Col. 6. pa. 561. a. & Col. 8. pa. 586. a. followers of Theodorus and Nestorius pretended, and presumed to say, that the Councill of Chalcedon approved the Epistle of Ibas: Vigilius pretended, and presumed to say the same; The Fathers at Chalcedon (saith he) pronounced Const. Vig. apud Bar. an. 553. nu. [...] the Epistle of Ibas to be Orthodoxall. The followers [Page 16] of Col. 8. pa. 586. a. Theodorus and Nestorius fraudulently used the Interlocutions of one or two, as the An. 553. nu. 2 [...]2. Iudgment of the whole Councill at Chal­cedon. 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 Consti­tution, 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 De­cree touching this Chapter. For declaring both these, they dili­gently examined the whole Epistle, and found it in every part to be hereticall and blasphemous. But for the more cleare demonstra­tion 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 suffi­cient to lay open the severall impieties of that Epistle, conside­red by it selfe, but making a comparison or Collation betwixt it and the holy Council at Chalcedon, they set, in a direct oppositi­on, the most holy and Catholike truths decreed at Chalcedon, a­gainst 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, re­ferring the Reader for the full notice of them all, to the Acts themselves, wherein they are at large, exactly, and excellently Col. 6. pa. 575. & seq. 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 Ne­storius: The Epistle defendeth Nestorius, injureth, nay rejecteth, Prim [...]m Ephesi­nam Synodum re­probat haec Epistola. Col. [...]. pa. 563. a. [...] the holy Ephesine Councill, as if it had condemned Nestorius without due triall of his cause.

IV. The holy Councill commendeth Cyrill of blessed me­mory, and approveth his Synodall Epistles, in one of which are conteined those his 12. Chapters by which he condemned the [Page 17] 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 be­sides innumerable blasphemies, made another Creed, wherein he teacheth the Word of God to be one person, and Christ ano­ther person, accursing all, who doe not embrace that his new Creed. This is that Creed of Theodorus, against which (being o­penly read before in the fourth Collation) the holy Councill ex­clamed, saying, Pa. 536. a. 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 con­trary 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 Fa­thers, 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, Col. 6. pa. 5 [...]6. a. This our Collation, doth mani­festly shew, quod contraria per omnia est Epistola definitioni; that this Epistle of Ibas is in all and every part thereof contrary to the definiti­on of faith, which was made at Chalcedon. And 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 re­jecteth 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 de­cree and definitive sentence of Vigilius as hereticall, but Vigilius himselfe as an heretike, as a rejecter of the Councill of Chal­cedon, 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 [Page 18] heretike? Binius was exceeding loath to have it thought, that a generall, lawfull, ancient, and approved Councill, had so direct­ly contradicted the Popes Cathedrall judgement, and procla­med 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 ob­scuritie 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 de­cree 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) Ann. 553. nu. 191. many blasphe­mies in that Epistle, but none of those, saith he, did either the Coun­cill of Chalcedon or Pope Vigilius approve. What then, I pray you, was it, which his Holinesse defended, and approved therein? Forsooth in the end Ibid. nu. 192. of the Epistle, Ibas declareth that he assen­ted to the covenants of Vnion betweene Iohn and Cyrill, qua re­cepta, necesse fuit cundem probare catholicum; which peace and union being embraced by Ibas, he must needes be acknowledged thereby to be a Catholike. Seeing Ibid. nu. 197. 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 pro­ved 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) Ibid. nu. 213. 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, Ibid. Hoc plane fuit, this is cleerly that which Eunomius said, ipsam Epistolam in principio apparere haereticam, in fine vero in­ventam esse Catholicam; that the Epistle of Ibas by the beginning seemeth to be 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 con­tradict 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 [Page 19] Councill Haec omnes dici­mus, &c. Col. 6. pa. 576. b. 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 af­firme Qui dicunt cam rectam esse vel par­tem ejus. Col. 8. pa. 587. b.) he is an hereticke.

Not so, saith the Card. It is not all hereticall, It is not all blas­phemous: 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 Catho­like. Now though this alone were enough to refute whatsoever the Cardinall doth or can say in this cause, seeing it is all no­thing else, but the saying, nay the cavilling of a convicted here­tike, 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 asser­tion, and the proofes thereof. And because I shall hereafter in due place have fit occasion at large (as the obscuritie and intrica­cy 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 pro­fessedly 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 coun­tenance 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 Col. 6. pa. 576. a. Collation (say they) doth manifestly shew that this Epistle of Ibas, contraria per om­nia est Definitioni; is in every part of it contrary to the De­finition of faith made at Chalcedon. This whole Epistle is hereti­call, and blasphemous. Againe, Wee have demonstrated (say they) Col. 8. pa. 5. this Epistle, contrariam esse per omnia; To be in every part of it contrary to those things which are contained in the De­finition of faith made at Chalcedon. Againe, Col. 6. pa. 564. a. 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 Ibid. who say that the former part of this Epistle is impious, but the latter part or end thereof is right, Calumniatores demonstrantur, such are demonstrated to be Calumniators or Slanderers, Posteriora enim in­serta Epistolae majori impietate plena sunt, for those things which are set downe in the latter part or end of that Epistle, are more full of greater impietie, injuring Cyrill, and defending the impious [Page 20] 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 [...] ni­hilo habentes ea quae ab uno vel duobus pro eadem Epistola dicta sunt; esteeming worth nothing at all, those things which were spoken by one or two for that Epistle. Thus testifieth the whole Synod, and them­selves follow herein the judgement of the Fathers at Chalcedon: So by the judgement of two holy and 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 Eu­nomius; but what truth and honest dealing there is in Baronius, let the discreet Reader judge by this one saying among ten thou­sand the like; Eunomius saith not so, Eunomius saith the flat con­trary, as in the fift Councill is clearly witnessed; where against this cavill of the old heretikes, whom Baronius followeth, they say [...] thus, Nullam partem epistolae apparet Eunomium comprobasse; [...]t's evident that Eunomius approved no part at all of this Epistle. And againe, Quomodo Ib [...]. praesumunt isti defensores ealumniari interlocuti­onem Eunomij: how dare the defenders of this Epistle presume to slaun­der the Interlocution of Eunomius, as condemning one part of it, and approving another, seeing the whole epistle is full of impie­ty? I say yet more (which will manifest the Councils doome of Baronius, that he is a malicious caviller, to be most just) Euno­mius 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 Eu­nomius. This in the Councill is evidently declared by reciting the true words of Eunomius out of the Acts [...] at Chalcedon: which are these; Ex recitatis, Con. 5. [...]. 6. [...]a. [...]. By those things which have beene read and recited, Ibas is shewed to be innocent: for wherein he see­med 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: where­fore I also judge him worthy of his Bishoprike if, he accurse Ne­storius, Eutyches, and their wicked heresies, and consent to the [Page 21] 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 Act. 9. & 10. things, besides that Epistle, were recited touching the cause of Ibas, and particular­ly the whole Acts before Photius, Eustathites, and Vranius B. of Berithum, where a Synod was held about Ibas; it was those Acts and judgement given by them, and performed by Ibas, (and not the Epistle of Ibas) to which Eunomius had respect, when he said, by the posteriora, or postrema, Ibas made a true confession, for so in the fifth Council it is cleerly witnessed: It is manifest (say they) that Col. 6. pa. 564. a. Eunomius made this speech, gesta apud Photium, et Eustathium attendens, looking at those Acts before Photius and Eustathius. Now in those Acts, as is manifest by the diligent perusall thereof, and is further testified by the fift Councill, Ibid. pa. 563. & seq. there was a judge­ment pronounced by Photius and Eustathius, adversus eam epi­stolam et quae in ea continentur; against that Epistle, and the contents thereof: Ibas being commanded by those venerable Iudges, both to embrace the first Ephesine Synod, which that impious Epistle rejecteth, and to condemne and accurse Nestorius and his fol­lowers, 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, Apud Conc. Chal. act. 9. pa. 108. a. 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 Praeparavimus I. bim, quod & ample­xus est, ex scripto dare quid sentit de pia side nostra. ibid. 107. b. 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 Ex abundanti a [...] ­tē promisit, &c. ib. 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 Pho­tius and Eustathius, this accursing of Nestorius and his here­sies, 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 confes­sion, the fift Councill said, that thereby Ibas Ostenditur inde quod anathemati­zavit Epistolam &c Col. 6. pa. 56 [...]. a. had anathematized his owne Epistle, contrariam per omnia, being in every part of it con­trary [Page 22] 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, Act. 10. Concil. Chal. pa. 115 b. The reading of that judgement before Photius and Eustathius, doth teach that Ibas, in that judgement, accursed Ne­storius and his impious doctrines, and consented to the true faith: Wher­fore I receive him for a Bishop, if he now doe condemne Nestorius. The like said Ibid. 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 ex­treme 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 un­truth 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 concer­ning the Three Chapters, otherwise then he by his Apostolicall con­stitution 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 Quae jam acta sunt, relegantur: & relecta sunt. Col. 7. pa. 577. b. repeated and approved by the holy Councill. Such diligence and wa­rinesse they used in this matter, that nothing might passe with­out often recitall and serious ponderation by the whole Coun­cill.

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 Au. 553. nu. 219., was pronounced contra decreta ipsius (Vigilij) in a direct opposition to the Decrees of Vigilius. Which that it may ful­ly appeare, as you have before seene the words of the Popes De­cree, so now consider also, and compare with them, the words and Decree of the Councill.

[Page 23]16. First the holy Councill sets downe in generall their sentence concerning all the Three Chapters, (The defenders of which they had before Qui hanc (Epi­stolam) non anathe­matizat, haereticus est. Col 6. pa. 576. b., and here Haerelicorum con­demnationem. Col. 8 pa. 586. b. againe doe proclame to be heretikes) in this manner; We Ibid. pa. 586. a, accurse the Three foresaid Chapters, to wit, Theodorus of Mopsvestia, with his impious wri­tings, The impious writings of Theodoret against Cyril, and the impious Epistle of Ibas, et defensores eorum, et qui scripserunt, vel scribunt ad defensionem eorum; also we accurse the Defenders of those Chapters, and those who have written, or who do (at any time) write for the defence of them, or who presume to say that they are right, or who have defended, aut defendere conantur, or who 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 ju­diciall 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, An. 546. nu. 40. The Defenders of them were praised while they had Pope Vigilius, whom they might follow: and Vigilius himselfe he had An. 553. nu. 233. many and worthy reasons to make his Constitution in defence of those Chapters: he further presumes to defend Vigilius under the name and shew of con­senting 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 Chap­ters by it selfe. Of the first they thus define. Col. 8. pa. 587. b. If any do defend im­pious 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, nei­ther would he permit any other to accurse this Theodorus, he for­biddeth 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 Staple­ton goeth further, for he is so far from accursing this Theodorus, that he expresly calls Conterbl. divis. 68. pa. 171. him a Catholike, yea a most Catholike Bishop: Vigilius then, Baronius and Stapleton are al of them accur­sed by the Definitive sentence of this holy generall Councill, in this first Chapter.

18. Of the second Chapter they Col. 8. thus decree. If any defend the writings of Theodoret against Cyril, et non anathematizat ea, [Page 24] 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: Ba­ronius defendeth and commendeth this decree of Vigilius; they both then are tyed againe in this third Anathema of the Coun­cill.

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 con­tained in it, and who presume to defend it by the name of the holy Fa­thers, or of the Councill at Chalcedon, such an one be accursed. Now Vigilius (as was formerly declared) defendeth this Epistle, as or­thodoxall, he defendeth it by his Cathedrall sentence and Apo­stolicall authoritie, he defendeth it under the name of the holy Fathers, and of the Councill at Chalcedon; saying, Const. loc. cit. nu. 192. 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, An. 553. nu. 191. Pa­tres 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 De­fender 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, Gregori­us de Valentia, and, as afterwards I purpose to declare at large, by all Vt nomo Catholi­cus esse possit, qui illā non amplectatur Greg. de Val. in 2.2 disp. 1. par. 1. pa. 30 and every one, who is truly a member of the present Ro­mane Church) all these by holding and defending this one Posi­tion, 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 [Page 25] former Anathemaes all denounced and proclamed to be here­tikes, 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 sen­tence of an holy, generall, and approved Councill, to be accur­sed heretikes.

22. The Councill yet adds another clause, which justly cha­lengeth 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 supre­macy 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, Cur­sed 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 E­pistle or of any part thereof: As much in effect, as if they had said, Cursed be every one who doth not accurse Vigilius, Baroni­us, Bellarmine, and all that defend the Popes judgement in cau­ses 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 Nos timentes ma­ledictionem, qua im­minet his qui negli­genter opera Domini faci [...]t, Col. 8. pa. 584. a. to the words of the Prophet Ieremy, Ier. 48.10 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 a­gainst the Lord, and pulls downe that judgement which God himselfe threatned 1 King. 20.42. 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 [Page 26] often sets downe, even were they denounce all those Ana­themaes, for thus they say, Col. 8. saepe. They who defend Theodorus, the writings of Theodoret against Cyrill, the impious Epistle of Ibas, or the defenders of them, et in his vs (que) ad mortem permanent, and continue in this defence, untill they dye, let such be accursed. Re­nounce the defence of these Chapters, and of the Defenders of them, that is, forsake and renounce that position of the Popes Cathedrall infallibility in defining causes of faith: renounce the defence of all that defend it, that is, of the whole present Ro­mane Church, Come Apoc. 18.2.3.4. 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 Iohannes in Apo­calypsi passim Romā vocat Babylonem. Bell. lib. 2. de po [...]t. Rom. cap. 2. § Prae­terea. Babylon quae casura praedicitur, Roma quidem est. Riber. in ca. 14. [...]n. Apoc. pa. 377. Et, Roma qua­lis in fine saeculs fu­tura est. lb. pa. 378. 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. Monar. ca. 48. cannot but ac­knowledge to be meant of Rome: This doe, and then, Come Isa. 55.7. un­to the Lord and he will have mercy, and to our God, for he is very rea­dy to forgive: All your former impieties, heresies, and blasphe­mies shall not be mentioned unto you, but in the 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 firme­ly binde them before God in heaven, as they were truly de­nounced by the Synod here on earth, for he hath sealed theirs and all like censures with his owne signet, who Matth. 18.18. said, Whatso­ever ye binde upon earth, shall be bound in heaven.

24. After all these just Anathemaes denounced as well in ge­nerall 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, Col. 8. pa. 588. a. 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 conso­nant 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 cathe­drall sentence in causes of faith is infallible, is an hereticall posi­tion repugnant to Scriptures, Fathers, and the 4. first Councils, and condemned by them all. So at once the Holy Councill judi­cially 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 do­ctrine of the present Romane Church, even that fundamentall position, on which all the rest doe relye, to be not onely new, [Page 27] 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 ac­cursing of all who defend the Three Chapters, either expresly, as did Vigilius, or implicitè, and by consequent, as do all who main­taine 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 be­ing 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 succee­ding generall Councils, by Popes, and other Bishops, in the fol­lowing ages of the Church. By the sixt Councill, which profes­seth Act. 15. pa. 80. a. 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 Act. 6. pa. 357. a. 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 Coun­cils (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 An. 553. nu. 229 that this fift, in alijs Oecumenicis Synodis postea celebratis cognita est at (que) probata, was acknowledged and appro­ved by the other generall Councils which were held after it.

27. It was likewise approved by succeeding Popes and Bi­shops. By Pelagius the second, who writ an whole Epistle Epist. 7. Pelag. 2: to perswade the Bishops of Istria to condemne the Three Chapters, telling Pa. 687. them that though Pope Vigilius resisted the condemnation of them, yet others his predecessours which followed Vigilius did consent thereunto. By Gregory, who professing Lib. 1. Epist. 14. 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) venera­ble Councils doe condemne, those also doe I condemne, whom they re­verence I embrace; because seeing they are decreed by an universall con­sent, whosoever presumeth to loose, whom they bind, or bind whom they loose, se et non illa destruit, he destroyeth himselfe, but not those Coun­cils, and whosoever thinketh otherwise, let him be accursed. Thus [Page 28] Pope Gregory the great, ratifying all the former anathemaes of the Councill, and accursing all that labour to unty those bands. By Agatho In Conc. 6. Act. 4. pa. 16. a. by Leo Epist. ad Constan. Imp. the second, who both call this an holy Sy­nod; and, not to stay in particulars, All Bar. an. 869. nu. 58, 59. 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 In manuscripto codice ex quo eum citat Bar. loco citato doth witnesse) to embrace the eight gene­rall 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 whatso­ever they decreed, and whatsoever they condemned to con­demne both with their mouth and heart. A like forme of pro­fession is set downe in the Councill at Constance Ses. 39. pa. 1644., where the Councill having first decreed Ses. 4. pa. 1560. 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 or­ders 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 An. [...]53. nu. 229, that not onely Gregory and his predecessors (unto Vigilius) sed successores omnes, but all the successors of Gregory are knowne to have recei­ved and confirmed this fift Councill.

28. Neither onely did the Popes approve it, but all ortho­doxal Bishops in the world: it being a custome, as Baronius shew­eth An. [...]69. nu. 58., that they did professe to embrace the seven generall Coun­cills, which forme of faith Orthodoxi omnes ex more profiteri de­berent, all orthodoxall Bishops by custome were bound to professe. And this, as it seemeth, they did in those Literae Formatae, or Commu­nicatoriae, or Pacificae, (so they were called Cum quo totus or­bis commercio for­matarum, concordat. Opt. lib. 2. p. 40. Quaerebam utrum epistolas communi­catorias quas For­matas dicimus, pos­sent quo vellent da­re. Aug. Epist. 163. Sub probatione Epi­stoly, sine Pacificis, quae dicuntur Eccle­siastica. Conc. Chalc. can. 11.) which from ancient time they used to give and receive. For by that 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 Coun­cills, 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 Bi­shops, to the time of the Councill of Constance Celebratum est an. 1414., that is, for more then fourteene hundred yeares together after Christ, doe all with this fift Councill condemne and accurse, as hereticall, the ju­diciall 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 [Page 29] 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 do­ctrine which the reformed Churches maintaine, to be truly anci­ent, 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 Coun­cils, 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 Cathe­drall 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 Scrip­tures, 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, nei­ther was the Popes authoritie held for supreme, nor his judi­ciall sentence in causes of faith held for infallible: nay, to hold these was judged and defined to be hereticall, and the maintain­ers 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 Coun­cils, the one at Constance, the other at Basil, not long before Conc. Basil. fini­tum est an. 1442 id est, an. 74. ante con­cil. Later. that Laterane Synod. In both which it was defined, that not the Popes sentence, but the Iudgement of a generall Councill, Concil. Basil. in Dereto quinq. con­clus. pa. 96. a. is, supremum in terris; the highest judgement in earth, for rooting out of errors, and preserving the true faith, unto which judgement every one, even the Pope Cui quilibet eti­amis papalis status existat, obedire tene­tur. Conc. Constant; sess. 4. & Bas. sess. 2. himselfe, is subject, and ought to obey it, or if he will not, is pu­nishable Debite puniatur. Conc. Const. sess. 5. es Basil. sess. 3. by the same. Consider beside many other, that one testimony of the Councill of Basil, and you shall see they belee­ved and professed this as a Catholike truth, which in all ages [Page 30] 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 Ses [...]. 33. thus, Licet has esse veritates fidei catholicae satis constet; although it is sufficiently evident, by many declarations made both at Constance, & here at Basil, that these are truths of the 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 Per Concilia gene­ralia, quae summi Pontifices. Consisto­rialiter declarave­runt esse legitima, [...]tiam pro eo tempo­re, quo ejusmodi de­clarationes edide­runt. Conc. Basil. pa. 144. a. Consistorialiter, judicially and cathe­drally by the indubitate Popes, that then were, for so the Coun­cill of Basil witnesseth; who hearing that Eugenius would dis­solve the Councill, say Epist. Conc. Basil. pa. 100. b. 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 con­firmed the Councill at Basil, there are other evident proofes: His owne Bull, or embossed letters, wherein he saith Literae bullatae Eugenij lectae sunt in Conc. Bas. Ses. 16. of this Councill, purè, simpliciter, ac cum effectu, et omni devotione prose­quimur; we embrace sincerely, absolutely, and with all affection and de­votion, the generall Councill at Basil: The Councill often mention his adhesion, In sua adhaesione. sess. 16. his maximā adhaesionem Decreto quinque Concl. pa. 96. b. to the Councill; by which Adhesion, as they teach, Sess. 29. pa. 96. b. Decreta corroborata sunt, the Decrees of the Council at Basil made for the superiority of a Council above the Pope, were cōfirmed: Further yet the Orators w ^ch Pope Eug. sent to the council, did not only promise, but Iurabant ejus de­creta defendere, &c. Sess. 16. corporally sweare be­fore the whole Councill, that they would defend the decrees ther­of, & 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 Haec veritas to­ties et tam solenni­ter per universam ecclesiam declarata est. Epist. Conc. Bas. pa. 144. a. and Ca­tholike Church untill then embraced it, and that with such con­stancy and uniforme consent, that, as the Council of In decreto quin (que) conclus. pa. 96. Basil saith, (and their saying is worthy to be remembred) nunquam aliquis peritorum dubitavit, never any learned and skilfull man doubted ther­of. [Page 31] It may be some illiterate Gnatho hath soothed the Pope in his Hildebrandicall pride, vaunting, Hildebrandum si [...] gloriari solitum te­statur Avent. lib. 5. Annal. pa. 455. 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 em­braced in the Church, though with far greater opposition then before it had: Poss. Biblic. in Nic. Cusano. witnesse hereof, Nich. Cusanus a Bishop, a Car­dinall, a man scientijs pene omnibus excultus, who lived 20 Obut ann. 1464. Poss. Conc. autem fi­nitum est. an. 1442. yeares after the end of the Councill at Basil. He earnestly maintained the decree of that Councill, resolving Lib. 2. de Concor. Cathol [...]ca. 17. 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, Claruit an. 1460. Tritem. de Scrip. eccl. in Ioh. de Tur. He thought he was very unequall to the Councill at Basil, in fauour belike of Euge­nius the 4, who Poss. in. Ioh. Tur. 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 Lib. de author. ge­ner. Concil. pa, 88. 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 Fa­thers 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 sen­tence: who yet further touching Turr. summ. de eccl. lib. 2. cap. 93. 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 supe­rior unto him. Superior, I say, not onely (as he minceth the mat­ter) by authoritie Tunc Synodus ma­jor est Papa, nō qui­dem potestate juris­diction [...], sed autho­rita e discretivi ju­dicij. Turrec. 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 Rel. lib. 3. de ver. Dei. ca. 9. § Praeter­ea. Et lib. 2. de cōcil. ca. 18. autho­ritie, and judiciall power over him. Witnesse Panormitane, an Archbishop, and a Cardinall Poss. in Nich. Tu­disc. also, a man of great note in the Church, both at and after the Councill of Basil; He cap. Significasti. de Elect. extrav. 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 [Page 32] Councill at Basill so distastfull to the present Church of Rome, that they have forbid Po [...]. loco. citat. it to be read, and reckned it in the number of Prohibited bookes in their Romane Index. At the same time lived Obijt an. 1467. Tritem. in Ant. Ros. Antonius Rosellus, a man noble in birth, but more for learning, who thus writeth, Monarch. part. 2. ca. 15. I conclude, that the Pope may be accu­sed and deposed for no fault, nisi pro haeresi, but for heresie strictly ta­ken, or for some notorious crime scādalizing the whole Church. and againe, Li. ced. par. 3 c. 21 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, be­cause 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 Orthuin. Gra. in fasc. rer. expet. pa. 240. fere omnes, which all, in a manner, approved and honored that Councill of Basil; The other is the Councill at Biturice (some Ortel. Synon. take it for Burdeaux) called by Charles the seventh, the French King, in which was made consensu omnium Ioh. Marius lib. deschis. & conc. ca. 23. ecclesiasticorum, et principum regni, by the consent of the whole clergy, and all the Peeres of France, that Pragmaticall Sanction, which Iohn Marius calls Ibid. medullam, the pith and marrow of the decrees of the Councill at Basil. One decree of that Sanction is this, Gag. annal. Fran. Lib. 10. 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 se­venty yeares before the Councill at Lateran (as Leo the tenth witnesseth Abipsius Sancti­onis editione vix an­nos 70 fluxisse, Cōc. Later. Sess. [...]1. pa. 639. b. Loquitur autem de secunda e­jus edit. nam antea promulgata erat an. 1438. teste Gag. & Mario.) that is, some foure yeares after the end of the Coun­cill at Basill. And although the Popes (whose avarice and am­bition was restrained by that sanction) did detest it, as Gagninus saith, Lib. 10. non secus ac perniciosam haeresin; no otherwise then as a dange­rous heresie, yea and labored tooth & naile to admit it, yet, as saith the universitie of Paris, In sua App [...]l. à Leon. 10. ad Concil. by Gods helpe, hactenus prohibitum ex­titit, 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 Io. Mat. lib. citat. ca. 14. a solemne embassador, Card. Balveus, a very subtill Homo versutus, plane (que) perversus. ib. fellow, to bring this to passe, but after much toyling both himselfe and others, re infecta redijt, he retur­ned without effecting the Popes desire. And to goe no further, Leo the 10. and his Laterane Synod, are ample witnesses that this [Page 33] Sanction was never repealed, before that Synod, for they Conc. Later. s [...]s. 1 [...]. com­plaine 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 re­troactis temporibus vignisse, et adhuc vigere; had in former times, and did even to that very day of their eleventh Session, stand in force, and full 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 Asser­tion was taught, professed, and beleeved to be an heresie, and the obstinate defenders thereof to be heretikes, by the consen­ting judgement of Councils, Popes, Bishops, and the Catho­like 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 Ro­mane Church, it being the birth-day thereof,) Leo the tenth with his Laterane Councill (or as the learned Divines of Paris Leo 10. in quo­dam caetu, nescimus qualiter, tamen non in Spirita Domini congregato. App. Vniv. Paris. ac­count it, Conspiracie, they being not assembled in Gods name) abolished, as much as in them lay, the old and Catholike do­ctrine, 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 Quae de authori­tate Concilij supra Pontificem constitu­erunt sententia Cōc. Lateranensis plane reprobata sunt. Bin. Not. in Conc. Const. § Exparte. the Decree of Con­stance for the superioritie of a Councill above the Pope: they reprobated Reprobarunt decre [...]tum Concilij Basili­ensis. Rel. lib. [...]. de Conc. ca. 17. § Deni­que. also the Councill of Basil, and the same Decree re­newed by them. That Councill they condemne as Conciliabulum, or Conc. Lat. sess. 11▪ Conventiculam, quae nullum robur habere potuerit, As a Con­spiracie, and Conventicle, which could have no force at all. They re­probated the Ibid. Pragmaticall Sanction, wherein the Decree of Con­stance and Basil was for ever confirmed. Now that Decree being consonant to that catholike Faith which for 1500 yeares toge­ther had beene imbraced, and beleeved by the whole catholike Church untill that day, in reprobating it, they rejected and re­probated the old and catholike Faith of the whole Church. Instead hereof they decreed the Popes authoritie to be Hujus sanctae se­dis suprema autho­ritate. Ibid. pa. 640. supreme, that it is, de Ibid. 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 Ibid. pa. 639. Romanum Pontificem au­thoritatem super omnia Concilia habere; The Pope alone to have au­thoritie above all Generall Councills. This the Councill at Laterane diserte & ex prosesso docuit; taught cleerly and purposely, as Bellar­mine tells Lib. 2. de Concil. ca. 17. § Denique us: nay, they did not onely teach it, but expressissimè definiunt Lib. cod. ca. 13. § Deinde., they did most expresly define it. And that their De­finition [Page 34] is no other then a Decree of Faith, as the same Cardinall assures us; Decrees of faith (saith he) Lib. cod. ca. 17. § Ad hunc. 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 su­preme 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 ex­plaineth, That because his authoritie is supreme, therefore his judgement Proinde ultimum judicium summi pō ­tificis esse. lib. 4. de Rom. pontif. ca. 1. § Sed nec. in causes of Faith, is the last and highest: and because it is the last and highest, therefore it is Restat igitur ut Papa sit Iudex (ul­timus) et proinde nō possit errare. Lib. 4. de Pont. Rom. ca. 3. § Contra. Et Dicūt Concilij sententiam esse ultimū judicium Hinc autem apertis­simè sequitur, non errare. Lib. 2. de Conc. ca. 3. § Acce­dat. 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 he­resie, 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 gene­rall Councils, Popes, and Bishops, that is, from the whole ca­tholike Church of Christ, which was from the Apostles times untill that day. And if their Popes continue (as it is to be pre­sumed 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 ver­ball, no cordiall profession; there neither is, nor can be any truth therein, it being impossible to beleeve both the Popes Ca­thedrall judgement in causes of faith, to be hereticall, as the fift Councill defined; and the Popes Cathedrall sentence in such cau­ses, 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 In Ap [...]el. à L [...]on. 10. quae facta est 21 die Mart. an. 1517. Decret. Later. fact. 19 Decemb. 1517. Paris, as being contra fidem Catholicam, against the catholike Faith, and the authority of holy Councils. And even to these dayes the French Church doth not onely distaste that A Relation of Religion in the West parts, publi­shed an. 1605. pa. 129. Laterane Decree, and hold a Generall Councill to be superiour to the Pope, but [Page 35] their Councill also of Gentil. Exam. Cōc. Trid. Sess. 13. & Car. Mol. dec. Conc. Trid. decret. pa. 3. 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 Alpheum fama est [...]uc Elidis amnem, O [...]cultas e [...]isse via [...] subter m [...]re Virg. lib. 3. Aeneid. under or through the salt Sea, and yet to receive no salt or bitter taste from it, but at length to burst out, & send forth their owne sweet and delightfull waters: Right so it fell out with this and some other doctrines of Faith. This Catho­like 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 Ty­gris & 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 se­cond 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 Tot anni intersunt à Conc. Nic. 2. quod habitum est an. 787. ad annum quo Lu­therus se primum opposuit Indulg [...] ijs papalibus & pontifi­ci, qui fui [...] an. 1517 Cocl. in vita Luther. 730. yeares, this truth all that time kept her native and primitive sweetnesse, by the constant and successive profes­sions of the whole Church throughout all those ages. Now af­ter that long passage through all those salt waves, like Alpheus, or Arethusa, it bursts out againe, not as they did, in Sicily, nor neare the Italian shores, but (as the Cardinall tells Brevi occu [...]avit (Lutheri haeresis) multa regna. Bel. [...]. 3. de pontif. ca. 23. § Similitudo. Et, Romana sedes amisit nostris temporibus magna [...] Germaniae partem, Suctiam, Go­thiam, Norvegiam, Daniam universam, bonam Angliae, Gal­liae, Helvetia, Polo­niae, Bohemiae, ac Pannoniae partem, lib. [...]od. ca. 21. § Ac postea. us) in Germa­nie, 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 good­nesse of God, purified from all that mud and corruption where­with 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 profes­sed, thē they were in those ancient times before they were ming­led with any bitter or brackish waters.

36 You see now the whole judgement of the 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 [Page 36] Catholike Church of all ages, excepting none but such as ad­here to their new Laterane decree and faith. An example so an­cient, 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 with­all 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 ei­ther 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 indu­stry 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 con­cerne 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 ad­mitted 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 [Page 37] Theodora the Empresse, at the cause it selfe of the Three Chapters, at the Imperiall Edict, at Theodorus Bishop of Cesarea, at the Syno­dal acts, yea, at Pope Vigilius himselfe; we wil first encounter the just forces of the Cardinall, which onely are his lawfull warri­ours; and having discomfited them, we shall with ease cleare all the coasts of this cause, from all his theevish, piraticall, and dis­ordered 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, An. 547. nu. 30 & nu. 225. de personis, & non de fide; of persons and not of the faith. Againe, Ibid. nu. 46. Vigilius knew, Non de fide esse quaestionem, sed de personis; that there was no question moved herein about the faith, but about certaine persons. And yet more clearly, In these disputations, saith he, Ibid. nu 231. about the Three Chapters, as we have oftē said, Nulla fuit quae­stio de side, ut alter ab altero aliter sentiens dici posset haereticus; there was no question at all about the faith, so that one dissenting from another herein, might be called an heretike. And this hee so confi­dently avoucheth, that he saith of it, Abomnibus absque ulla contro­versia consentitur; all men agree herein without any controversie. Thus Baronius, whom Binius applauding, saith Not. in Conc. [...] §. Nequis. 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 tantum­modo de personis; there was no quaestion at all concerning the faith, but only concerning the persons. So he. Whereby they would insinuate, that Pope Vigilius did 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 do­ctrinall 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 infallibi­lity of the Apostolike Chaire. For to say truth, the maine contro­versie 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, Epist. ad. Synod. Coll. 1. pa. 520. a. commanded Vigilius to come together with you all, and debate these Three Chapters, that a determination may be given, rectae fidei conveniens, consonant to the right faith. Againe, stirring Ibid. [...]. them up to give a speedy resolution in this cause, hee [Page 38] 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 Coll. 8. pag. 584. a. de fide ratio movetur, when a doubt or question is moved touching the faith, even he is to be condemned, who may hinder impiety, but is negligent so to doe; and therefore, Festinavimus bo­num fidei semen conservare ab impietatis Zizanijs; We have hastened to preserve the good seed of faith pure from the tares of impietie. So cleerly doth the whole generall Councell even in their defini­tive sentence call the condemning of the Three Chapters which themselves did, a preserving of the good seed of faith; and the de­fending of them, which Vigilius did, a sowing of hereticall weeds which corrupt the faith. Againe, Ibid. pa. 586. b. We being enlightned by the ho­ly Scriptures, and the doctrine of the holy Fathers, have thought it needfull to set downe in certaine Chapters, (those are the parti­cular points of their Synodall judgement) Et praedicationem veri­tatis, & haereticorum eorumque impietatis condemnationem; both the preaching of the truth, or true faith, and the condemning of Heretikes, and their impietie. And in the end, having set downe those Chap­ters, and among them a particular and expresse condemning of these Three w ^th an anathema denounced to the defenders of thē, they conclude thus, Ibid. pa. 588. a. We have confessed these things, being delivered unto us both by the sacred Scriptures, by the doctrine of the holy Fa­thers, & by those things wch are defined, de unâ eâdem (que) fide, concerning one and the same faith by the foure former Councels. Then which no­thing 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 con­demners 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 Apud Bar. an. 553. nu. 106.197. [...]08. & alibi. still pretendeth his Defence of Those Chapters to be consonant to the Councell at Chal­cedon, and the Definition thereof: and of the Epistle of Ibas hee ex­presly 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 Coun­cell adjudged that Epistle to be, is a plaine question and contro­versie [Page 39] of faith. Victor B. of Tunen, who suffered imprisonment and banishment for defence of these Three Chapters, teacheth the like, saying, In Chron. an. 2. post Consul. Basilij. That Epistle of Ibas was approved and judged Iudicio Synodi ap­probata, & ortho­doxa judicata est. ibid. orthodoxall, by the sentence of the Councell at Chalcedon: and the condemning of these Three Chapters, is the condemning and banishing of that Coun­cell. Facundus B. of Hermian, who writ seven bookes of these Three Chapters, doth more than abundantly witnesse this of him. Victor thus writeth, In suo Chron. an. 10. post Consul. Basilij. Evidentissime declaravit, Facundus hath de­clared most evidently, that those Three Chapters were condemned in proscriptione fidei Catholicae & Apostolicae, for the exiling and rooting out of the Catholike and Apostolike faith. Facundus himselfe doth not onely affirme this, but prove it also, even by the judge­ment of Pope Vigilius. Vigilius, saith he, Lib 4. pro defens. trium Capit apud Bar. an. 546. nu. 57. esteemed, the condem­ning of these Three Chapters to be so hainous a crime, that hee thought it fit to be reproved by those words of the Apostle, Avoid prophane novelties of words, and opposition of science falsely so called, which some professing have erred from the faith. And hereupon, as if he meant purposely to refute this Evasion of Baronius, which it seemeth some did use in those dayes, he addes, Quid adhuc quaeritur utrum contra fidem factum fuerit; why doe any as yet doubt whether the con­demning of them be against the faith, seeing Pope Vigilius calleth it prophane noveltie and opposition of science, whereby some have erred from the faith? And a little after concluding, This saith he, Ibid. nu. 58. 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 testi­fying both his owne, and the judgement of the other defen­ders of those Chapters, and by name of Pope Vigilius, that they all esteemed and judged this to bee a question and controversie of faith, of which Baronius tels us, that in it there was moved no question at all concerning the faith; and that Pope Vigilius knew that it was no question of faith.

7. Now whereas the whole Church at that time was divided into Vniversus sere or­bis occidentalis ab orientali Ecclesia divisus erat. [...]in. not in S. Conc. §. Concilium. two parts, the Easterne Churches with the holy Councell condemning; the Westerne with Pope Vigilius defending those Three Chapters, seeing both the one side and the other consent in this point, that this was a cause and question of faith, what truth or credit thinke you, is there in Baronius, who saith, that All men without any doubt agree herein, that this is no cause or question of faith: whereas all, both the one side and the other agree in the quite contrary. Truly the wisdome of the Cardinall is well worthy observing, He consenteth to Vigilius in defending the Three Chapters, wherein Vigilius was hereticall: but dissenteth from Vigilius in holding this to be a cause of faith, wherein Vi­gilius was orthodoxal; as if he had made some vow to follow the Pope, when the Pope forsakes the truth, but to forsake the Pope, when the Pope followeth the truth.

[Page 40]8. Nor onely was this truth by that age acknowledged, but by succeeding, approved. By Pope Pelagius, who to reclame cer­taine Bishops from defence of those Chapters, wherin they were earnest, and had writ an apologie for the same, useth this as one speciall reason, because all those Chapters were repugnant to the Scriptures & former Councels. Consider, saith he, Epist. 7. § Pen­sate. if the wri­tings of Theodorus, which deny Christ the Redeemer to bee the Lord, the writings of Theodoret, quae contra fidem edita, which being publi­shed against the faith, were afterwards by himsefe condemned; and the Epistle of Ibas, wherein Nestorius the enemy of the Church is de­fended; if these bee consonant to the Propheticall, Euangelicall, and Apostolicall authority. And againe, Ibid. § Sed cur. of the Epistle of Ibas he addeth, If this Epistle be received as true, tota sanctae Ephesinae Synodus fides dissipatur, the whole faith of the holy Ephesine Councell is overthrowne. Let here some of Baronius friends tell us how that question or cause doth not concerne the faith, the defending whereof (which Vigilius did) is by the judgement of Pope Pelagi­us repugnant to the Euangelical and Apostolicall doctrines, and even an utter & totall overthrow of the faith. To Pelagius accor­deth Pope Gregory, who approved Lib. 2. Iud. 10. Epist. 36. this Epistle of Pelagius, & cōmen­ded it as a direction to others in this cause. And what speake I of one or two, seeing the Decree of this fift Councell, wherein this is declared to be a cause of faith, is consonant to all former, and confirmed by all succeeding generall Councels, Popes and Bi­shops, til that time of Leo the 10. & his Laterane Synod, as before we Cap. [...]. have shewed? was not this thinke you, most insolent pre­sumption in Baronius to set himselfe as a Iohannes ad oppositum, a­gainst them all, and oppose his owne fancy, to the constant and consenting judgement of the whole Catholike Church for more than 1500 yeares together? These all with one voyce professe this to be a cause of faith: Baronius against them all maintaineth, that it is no cause of faith: and to heape up the full measure of his shame, addeth a vast untruth, for which no colour of excuse can be devised; Consentitur ab omnibus, that all men without any controversie agree herein, that this is no question nor cause of faith.

9. Besides all these Card. Bellarmine setteth downe divers [...], and cleare tokens whereby one may certainly know when a Councell decreeth or proposeth any doctrine tanquam de fide, to be received as a doctrine of the Catholike faith. This saith he, Lib. 2. de Conc. ca. 12. § Quartū. is easily knowne by the words of the Councell, for either they use to say, that they explicate the Catholike faith; or else, that they who thinke the contrary are to be accounted heretikes; or, which is most frequent, they 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.

[Page 41]10. For the first, the Councell in plaine termes professeth even Coll. 8. pa. 588. a. in their definitive sentence, that in their Decree they explane that same doctrine which the Scriptures, the Fathers, and the foure former Councels had delivered in their definitions of faith. Then un­doubtedly by Bellarmines first note, their Decree herein is a De­cree of faith, seeing it is an explication of the Catholike faith.

11. For the second, the Councel in like sort, in plain termes cal­leth the defēders of those three Chapters, heretikes. For thus cried al the Synod, Coll. 6. pa. 576. b. He who doth not anathematize this Epistle, is an Here­tike: He who receiveth it, is an Heretike: This we say all. And in their definitive sentence they professe Coll. 8. pa. that they set down the preach­ing of the truth, & Haereticorum condemnationem, and the condem­ning of Heretikes. So by the second marke of Bellarmine it is un­doubted, that the Councels Decree herein is a Decree of faith.

12. The third note is more than demonstrative. For the Ho­ly 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 Coll. 4. pa 537. a. & Coll. 8. pa. 586. et 587. to Theodorus; anathema to him that doth not anathematize Theodorus; we all anathematize Theodorus and his writings. Anathema Coll. 8. pa. 587. b. to the impious writing of Theodoret against Cyril: Anathema to all that doe not anathematize them: we Coll. 6. pa. 576. b. all ana­thematize the impious Epistle of Ibas: If Coll. 8. pa 587. b. 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 questi­on 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 de­ceived, 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 sen­tence in a cause of faith, is condemned to bee hereticall, but all they also who defend it, to be Heretikes and accursed; and see­ing 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 ac­cursed, unlesse disclaiming that heresie they forsake all commu­nion with that Church. Baronius perceiving all those Anathe­maes 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 defen­ded; [Page 42] 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 propo­sed 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 Ob easdem haere­ses decrevit eos esse alienos à diaconorū honorc. Lib. 7. de visib. Monarch. an. 537. 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 An. 546. nu. 41. arrogate to himselfe edere san­ctiones de fide Catholica, to make Edicts about the Catholike faith. A­gain, the whole Catholike faith, saith he, would An. eodē. nu. 43. be in jeopardy, if such as Iustinian de fide leges sanciret, should make lawes concerning the faith. Againe, Ibid. nu. 50. 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, An. 547. nu. 50. Pope Vigili­us writ letters against those qui edito ab Imperatore fidei decreto sub­scripsissent, 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 ex­presly 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 o­ther 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, toi­ling 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 vio­lent [Page 43] tempest doth drive him unto; when the Emperour or his E­dict (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 infalli­bilitie 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 An. 547 nu. 30. & an. 553. nu. 231. Baronius was misse­led. He seemeth to teach the same with the Cardinall, where speaking of this fift Synod, hee saith, Lib. 3. Epist. 37. In eâ de personis tantum­modo, 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 him­selfe: for speaking of all the five Councels held before his time, he saith, Lib. 1. Epist. 24. 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 Ca. 4. nu. 27. shewed) this fift Councel and the De­cree therof; & seeing that Decree clearly expresseth this to have beene a cause of faith, grounded on Scriptures, and the definiti­ons of faith set downe in former Councels; even thereby doth Gregory certainly imply, that he accounted this cause for no o­ther 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, be­cause, 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 Exeuntes maligni homines turbave­runt animos vestros. Lib. 2. Epist. 10. 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) Lib. 3. Epist. 3. who affirme, that in the time of Iulian [Page 44] 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 pur­pose againe saith, Lib. 2. Ind. 10. Epist. 36. 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 Chal­cedon; so against their other he sheweth, that they decreed no no­veltie in the faith, nor ought else but what was formerly decreed at Chalcedon. To which purpose he saith Lib. 7. Epist. 54. of this fift Synod, that it was in omnibus sequax, in every point an imitator & follower of the Councell at Chalcedō: & again Lib. 2. Ind. 11. Epist. 10. more clearly, In this fift Synod no­thing else was done, quā apud Chalcedonēsem Synodū fuer at constitu­tū; 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 wit­nessed: but the Councell at Chalcedon and Ephesus decreed it ab­solutely, without any expresse reference to those persons or wri­tings 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 con­demning those heresies of Nestorius and Eutyches. The Decree of this fift Councell was onely Corroborative, or Declarative, expla­ning and corroborating those former decrees, by condemning these writings of Theodorus, Theodoret, and Ibas, which did over­throw the same. As Vigilius and other followers of Nestorius, did not at this time broach any new 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 un­der 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 E­phesus [Page 45] and Chalcedon, by making an Introductive decree for con­demning 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 Introdu­ctive decrees.

19. The words of Gregory next following those on which Ba­ronius 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 Chalce­donensi Synodo nihil continetur, concerning wch persons nothing is con­tained 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 Act. 9. & 10. whole A­ctions are bestowed) and yet in a favourable construction, or ac­cording to Gregory his meaning, he might truly say, that nothing concerning them is contained there; to wit, nothing to con­demne 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 for­merly 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 Gre­gory 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 defen­ding 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 cer­tainly to be collected. For how can the Pope be said not at all to erre in the faith, when by his Apostolicall Constitution hede­fendeth that cause of the Three Chapters, the defending whereof contradicteth a former definition of faith, and utterly over­throweth the holy Councell of Ephesus and Chalaceon; yea, the whole Catholike faith.

[Page 46]21. Neither must this seeme strange to any, that the fift gene­rall Councell did onely explane and confirme a former definiti­on 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 Socr. lib. 2. ca. 16. Ex pluribus quam 35 provin [...]i [...]s col­lecta. Athan. Epist. ad solit. vitam agent. pa. 225. others the Emperor Iustinian in that his Ab universali Sardicensi Synodo. Iust. Edict. § Quod autem. E­dict witnesseth: and yet in it, Bin. Not. in Conc. Sard. § Cum igitur. & Bell. lib. 2. de Rom. Pont. chap. 25 § Tertia. nihil novi quoad fidem definitū est; no new doctrine of faith was there defined, nor any new heresie con­demned, 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 Loc [...] citat. 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 diffe­rent places, at different times, and upon different occasions; neither were they ever by the ancient, or any of sound judgement held for one Synod) but the true reason thereof was this, be­cause the Sardicane, though in dignity & authority it was equall to the Nicene, yet onely confirmed the Decree of faith formerly made at Nice; and made no new or Introductive decree, to con­demne 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 one­ly esteemed it a Councell corroborative of the Councell at Chal­cedon, as that at Sardica was of the Nicene Councell, which some Churches also did, as by the 14. Councell at Can. 6. & 7. 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 occasi­on of those Chapters, was so exact, that it did in a manner equal any former decree of faith, and benefit the whole Church as much as any had done: it pleased the Church for these reasons, with one consent, declared first in the sixt Act. 15. pa. 8 [...]. Sāctas & universa­les quin (que) Synodos, & super [...]as & quin [...]ae Synodi. Councell; and then in the 2. Can. 1. 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 Car­dinall 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 con­sent thereof untill their Laterane Synod; but even by their owne writers, Cardinall Bellarmine, Sanders, yea, by Baronius himselfe, [Page 47] 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 al­though this alone (if I should say no more) were sufficient to op­pose to this first Evasion of Baronius; yet, that both the truth hereof may more fully and further 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 conside­ration 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 Christi­an 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, con­cernes the faith, and is hereticall.

1. IN the first Chapter, wherein Vigilius de­fēdeth that Theodorus of Mopsvestia, being long before dead, ought not to bee con­demned for an heretike; the Popes sen­tence relyeth on three reasons, the exami­nation whereof, wil both open the whole cause concerning this Chapter, and mani­fest 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 Const. Vigil. ap. Bar. an. 553. nu. 179. licere noviter aliquid de mortuorum judicare personis; It is law­full 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 Leon. lib. de set. Act. 4. be exceeding partiall and untrue, where he saith, that Theodorus and Diodorus, in pretio habiti mortem oppe­tiere; died in honour; neither did Viva quidem ipsis cur nomo contra­dixerat, factum ideo, &c. Ibid. any, while they lived reprove any of their sayings: yet are there divers other inducements to per­swade, that Theodorus was not in his life time, by any publike judgement of the Church, either declared, or condemned for an heretike: for besides that neither Cyrill, nor Proclus, nor the fift generall Councell, doe mention any such matter, the words of [Page 48] Cyrill doe plainly import the contrary. The Ephesine Synod, saith Cyril. epist. ad. Procl. in Conc. 5. Coll. 5. pa. 550, 551. he, forbare in particular, and by name, to anathematize Theo­rus, which they did dispensativè, by a certaine dispensation, indul­gence, or connivence, because divers held him in great estimatiō, or account: what needed either any such dispensation, or for­bearance, had he in his life time beene publikely condemned for heresie? Againe, the Church of Mopsvestia, where hee was Bi­shop, for divers yeares after his death, retained his name in Conc. 5. Coll. 5. pa. 552. & seq. in act. Synod. Mopso. Di­plicis, that is, in their Ecclesiasticall tables, making a thankfull com­memoration of him, as of other Catholikes in their Liturgie; which, had he beene in his life time condemned for an heretike, they would not have done. Lastly, what needed the defenders of the Three Chapters have beene so scrupulous, to condemne him being dead, had he in his life time beene before condemned? Or how could this have given occasion of this controversie, whether a dead man might Noviter be condemned, if Theodorus had not beene noviter condemned when he was dead.

3. Wherefore this particular being agreed upon, that Theo­dorus was not before, but after his death condemned, the whole doubt now resteth in the Thesis, whether a dead man may Noviter be cōdemned. Now that this is no personall, but meerly a dogma­ticall cause, and controversie of faith, is so evident, that it might be a wonder that Baronius, or any other, should so much as doubt thereof, unlesse the Apostle had foretold, that because men 2 Thess. 2.10, 11. doe not receive the love of the truth; therefore God doth send unto them strong delusions, that they may beleeve lyes. Certaine it is that Pope Vigilius, held this for no other, but a doctrine of faith; for he sets it downe as a Perspeximus si quid de his praede­cessores nostri de­creverint. Vig. Const. loc. citat. nu. 176. Hujus causae for­mam veneranda praedecessorum no­strorum constituta, nobis apertissime tradiderunt. Ibid. Idem regularia A­postolicae sedis defi­niunt constituta. Ibid. nu. 179. Definition, or Constitution of his predecessors, decreed by the 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 Ibid. nu. 177. collecteth, and Vigilius consen­teth unto him, that such as are not upon earth, or among the li­ving, hos non humano, sed suo Deus judicio reservavit; God hath ex­empted them from humane, and reserved them to his owne judgement: nec audet Ecclesia, nor dare the Church challenge to it selfe the judgement of such. As the Pope, so also the holy generall Coun­cell tooke this for no other, than a question of faith; for they plainly professe, even in their Synodall resolution, that their de­cree concerning dead men, that they may bee Noviter condemned; is not onely an Ecclesiasticall Licet cognoscere­mus Ecclesiasticam de impiis traditio­nem. Coll. 8. pa. 585. a. tradition, but an Apostolicall do­ctrine also, warranted by the texts, and testimonies of the holy Scriptures. To which purpose alledging divers places of Scrip­ture, they adde these words; It is many wayes manifest, that they who affirme this, [that men after their death may not Novi­ter be condemned,] nullam curam Dei judicatorum faciunt, nec Aposto­licarum pronunciationum, nec paternarum traditionum; that such have no regard either to the word of God, or the Apostles doctrine, or the tra­dition [Page 49] of the Fathers. So the whole Councell judging, and decree­ing Pope Vigilius to be guilty of all these.

4. Now when both the Pope on the one side, and the whole generall Councell on the other; that is, both the defenders, and condemners of this Chapter professe it to be a doctrine taught in the Scripture, and therefore undoubtedly to be a cause of faith; what insolency was it in Baronius to contradict them both, and, against that truth, wherein they both agree, to deny this Chapter to be a cause of faith? or seeing it is 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 Scrip­tures, are no doctrines or assertions of faith, at least, not of the Cardinals faith?

5. Seeing now this is a cause of faith, and in this cause of faith, the Pope, and generall Councell are at variance; either of them challenge the Scripture, as consonant to his, and repugnant to the opposite assertion; what equall and unpartiall umpire may be found to judge in this matter? Audito Ecclesiae nomine hostis expalluit, saith their vaine, and vaunting Camp. R [...]t. 3. Braggadochio; Hast thou appealed to the Church? to the Church, and judgement there­of shalt thou goe; at the name of which, we are so farre from being daunted, or appaled, that with great confidence, and assurance of victory, we provoke unto it.

6. But where may we heare the voyce, and judgement of the Church? out of doubt either in the writings of the Fathers, or provinciall Synods, or in generall Councels; & in which of these soever the Church speake, her sentence is for us, and our side. Her voyce is but soft & stil in the writings of single Fathers; the Church whispereth rather then speaketh in them; and yet even in them shee speaketh this truth very distinctly, and audibly. Heare Saint Epist. ad Bonif. quae citatur Conc. 5. Coll. 5. pa. 548. b. Austen, who entreating of Caecilianus, about an hundreth yeares after his death, saith; If as yet they could prove him to have beene guilty of those crimes, which were by the Dona­tists objected unto him, ipsum jam mortuum anathematizaremus, I and all Catholikes would even now accurse him though dead, though never condemned before, nor in his life time. Againe, Aug. lib. 3. Cont. Cresc. ca. 35. In this our communion, if there have beene any Traditores, or deliverers of the Bible to be burned in time of persecution, when thou shalt demonstrate or prove them to have beene such, & corde & carne mortuos detestabor. Heare Pope Pelag. 2. Epist. 7 § In bis autem. Pelagius, who both himselfe ful­ly assenteth herein to Saint Austen, and testifieth the assent of Pope Leo, in this manner; Quis nesciat, who knoweth not that the doctrine of Leo is consonant to Saint Austen. Heare Cyr. lib. cont. Theod. cit. à Conc. 5. Collat. 8. pa. 585. a▪ 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.

[Page 50]7. The Church speakes yet somewhat louder, in the united judgement of Provinciall Synods. In an Citatur in Conc. 5. Coll 5. pa. 548 a. 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 judge­ment 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 accur­sed 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 Iust. Edict. § In­venimus. Iustinian, Benignus Conc. 5. Coll. 5. pa. 549. a. Bi­shop of Heraclea; and after them both the fift Councell Coll. 8. pa. 585. b. testifi­eth. In this very cause of Theodorus there was a Synod held in Armenia, by Rambulas Bar. an. 435. nu. 4 Bishop of Edessa, Acatius, and others, wherein, both themselves condemned Theodorus, (though dead) and in their letters to Proclus exhort Petimus quatenus fiat unitas vestra contra Theodorum, & sacrilega Dog­mata ejus. In Li­bell. Presbyt. Arme. ad Procl. in Conc. 5. Coll. 5. pa 542. b. him to doe the like.

8. But this voyce of the Church sounds like a mighty thun­der in the consenting judgement of generall Councels. In the sixt, Act. 12.13, 18. 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 Act. 7. in Epistola 2. Synod. & Can. 1. Nicene; and in the other under Honorius post mortem ab Orientis Episcopis anathe­mate est affectus. Conc. 8. Act. 7. pa. 891. b. Hadrian, which they account to be the seventh and eighth generall Councels. In the Councell of Chalcedon, Domnus Edict. Iustin. § Quod autem. & Conc. 5. Coll. 6. pa. 575. b. Bishop of Antioch, was after his death condemned. In the holy Ephesine Councell was this very Theodorus of Mopsvestia, af­ter his death condemned, as Pope Pelagius Pelag. 2. Epist. § In bis. expresly testifieth. The like to have beene done against Macedonius, by the fift Councell at Constantinople, Iustinian Sancta Dei Eccle­sia & post mortem Macedonium ana­thematizavit. Iust. Edict. § Quod 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 Ibidem. 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, Ba­silides, à nulla Synodo Conc. 5. Coll. 5. pa. 549. a. anathematizati, being by no Synod in their life time condemned, were after their death accursed by the Church of God.

[Page 51]9. And yet if none of all these particulars could bee produ­ced, 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 Ca­tholike truth, which Vigilius oppugneth, that one may after his death be noviter condemned, and sound it as a doctrine of the Ca­tholike 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 memo­rable glosse upon the Popes text. Hic adverte, Note here, saith the Cardinall, that Bar. an. 553. na. 185. this assertion of Vigilius (that dead men ought not to be condemned) is not so generally received as it is set downe by him. A worthy note indeed out of a Cardinals mouth▪ Papa hic non tene­tur. But I pray you, by whom is it not received? The Cardinall answers, not by the holy Church; the holy Church Ejusmo [...]i homin [...] jure d [...]minare post mortem sanct [...] consu [...]vit E [...]les [...]a. Bar. ibid. doth practise the contrary unto it. What? the holy Church not receive the dog­maticall 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 [...]. The Church receiveth it not: hee might, and he should have said; The holy Church rejecteth, condem­neth, 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 gene­ral Councels, of Fathers, of Popes, of al Catholikes, this holy Church con­demneth and accurseth the assertion of Pope Vigilius. The Cardinall was too diminutive in his extenuations, when he spake so faint­ly, 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 ho­ly 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 [Page 52] 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 Bar. an. 553. nu. 185. it be proved, that one dyed in the peace of the Church, and yet it doe afterwards appeare, that in his writings he de­fended a condemned heresie, and continuing in that heresie died there­in; 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 Bar. an. 553. nu. 233. had many worthy reasons for his defence of the Three Chap­ters, by his Constitution; and among those worthy reasons this is one: for if this were once admitted, that a man who dyeth in the communion of the Church, might after his death be condemned; pateret ostium, this would open such a gap, that every ecclesiasticall writer, though hee dyed in the Catholike Communion, may yet after his death, out of his wri­tings 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 de­creeth 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 wilder­nesse, treading on nothing but thornes, wherewith feeling him­selfe prickt, he skips hither and thither for succour, but still lights on briars and brambles, which doe not onely gall, but so intan­gle him, that by no meanes he can ever extricate, or unwinde [Page 53] 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 cer­tainly followeth, that neither of them both say true, and yet fur­ther, that both of them, say both true and untrue, and yet that nei­ther of them both saith either truth, or untruth.

15. But leaving the 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, Matth 18, 18. 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 Gela­sius, 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 Savi­our 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 whe­ther alive or dead; the partie who ratifieth their act in binding and loosing, is Christ himselfe in heaven; For I say unto you, what­soever ye binde on earth, shall be bound in heaven, and whatso­ever 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, [Page 54] and loosing, not onely upon the living, but upon the dead also. Of their binding the nocent, wee have alleaged before abun­dance of examples: for their loosing the innocent, that one of Flavianus is sufficient. The Ephesine Act. concili ab. Ephes. citata in ac­tis Conc. Chalc. Act. 1. pa. 57. b. latrocinie adjudged and con­demned Flavianus a most holy and Catholike Bishop, for an Hereticke; under the censure of that generall Councel Flavianus died, nay was martyred Caesus Flavianus dolore plagarum migravit ad Do­minum. lib ca. 12. 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 be­cause their key did erre, they did not in truth. They honored and proclamed Flavianus for a Saint and Martyr Quae (Synodus Chalc.) Flaviano palmam mortis tri­buit gloriosae. Edict. Valen. & Mart. in Chalced. Conc. Act. 4. pa. 86. a. & Flavianus in­juste quidem in vi­ta condemnatus, juste post mortem revocatus est a B. Leone et sancta Sy­nodo Chalcedonensi. Iust. edict. §. Inve­nimus., whom the fa­ction of Dioscorus had murdered for an heretike: the holy Coun­cell 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 pie­tie of those ancient Bishops, restored to their pristine Hist. combustio­nis Buceri et Fagij et restitutionis eo­rum. 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 bur­ned them to ashes. Now it is rightly observed by Iustinian Si non oporteret anathem atizari post mortem eos qui in sua impietate mortui sunt, oporte­bat nec eos qui in­juste condemnati sunt patres post mortem revocari. Iust. edict. prope finem. that if the Church may after their death, restore such as being unjustly con­demned, and falsly supposed to be bound, died in their innocency, and sin­cerity of faith: it may also by the very same reason, condemne, and ana­thematize 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 accep­table 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 what­soever 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 [Page 55] 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 anti­pathie, and disunion betwixt us and them, as is said to have been betwixt Eteocles Impositis eorum cadaveribus eidem rogo, flammam se divisisse traditur, vid. Stat. in Theb., 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 se­vered, by a wall of immortality and immortall glory.

19. Vigilius his second reason is taken from the rules, decrees and Constitutions Idem regulariter Apostolicae sedis de­finiunt constituta. Vigil. loc. citar. nu. 179. 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 Vigili­us, that himselfe was hereticall herein, unlesse he drew his prede­cessors also into the same crime, of defending, yea defining here­sies? How much better had it beseemed him, to have covered such 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 ob­livion.

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 Praemisissis di­centes, doctrina vestrae reverendae sedis est, per B. Leo­nem successores (que) ejus, mortuum ab hominibus damna­ri nullatenus opor­tere. Pelag. 2. Epist. 7. § In his. 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 Quis nescit quod ejusdem Leonis & B. Augustini prae­dicatio contradicat. ibid wholly with Saint Austen, who professed, that he would anathematize Caecilianus after his death, if it could ap­peare that he were guilty of those crimes. Which testimony of Pela­gius 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 Leo Epist. 91. 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 ex­utus carne non poterit, hee cannot obtaine that (to wit, remission of his fault) being dead, which before his death he had not received: And up­on these follow the words cited by Vigilius. Neither is it need­full 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 priest­ly ministerie could not performe, (to wit, the loosing of that band of cen­sure 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 condem­ned, of which onely Vigilius entreateth, but of such, who being [Page 56] unpenitent, or condemned by the Church, die in their sin, or un­der that just censure, & therefore in the state of condemnation: So neither doe the words of Leo signifie any such thing, as Vigi­lius by them intended to prove: and Pope Pelagius assureth us, that Leo taught the quite contrary to that, which out of Leo, Vi­gilius in 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, Gelas. Epist. 11. 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 con­demnation 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 he­resie 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 absol­vi; He who dieth impenitent under the censure of excommunication, cannot after his death bee absolved. And Gelasius himselfe of­ten repeateth the same most clearly, in his Commonitorium to Fau­stus: We reade faith he Gelas. Epist. 4., that Christ raised up some from the dead, but we never reade, that he forgave, or absolved any who were impeni­tent when they dyed: and this power he gave to Peter, Whatsoe­ver thou shalt binde on earth: on earth saith he, namin hac ligati­one 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 Epist. Synodalis Gelasij, & Synod. Rom. 2. p. 268. b. allea­ged 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 excommuni­cated by Pope Felix the next predecessor of Gelasius; Misenus repen­ting was received into the communion of the Church: Vitalis remai­ning impenitent died under that just censure: when some of Vitalis friends desired the like absolution for Vitalis being dead Nos etiam mor­tuis veniam prastare deposcunt. ibid. Gela­sius 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; [Page 57] but must leave him (which are the words on which Vigilius re­lyeth) 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, absol­ved 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 Vigi­lius should out of Gelasius, but doth not prove: That none who at their death are justly bound by the Church, and dye impeni­tent therein, can after their death be loosed by the Church, is a 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 here­ditarie 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 un­pleasing 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 on­ly 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.

[Page 58]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 Con­stantinople, of Ephesus, of Chalcedon, for they all did noviter con­demne such persons being dead, as in their lives time had not beene condemned. Now the holy Fathers of those Councels, ha­ving 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 dis­cord 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 defen­ders of it.

CAP. VII. That the second reason of Vigilius touching the first Chapter, why Theodorus of Mopsvestia ought not to be condemned, because he 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 Vigil. Const. apud Bar. an. 553. nu. 179. the rules of his pre­decessors ( 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 Ibid. nu. 184. doe especially pro­vide by this our present Constitution, lest by occasion of perverse do­ctrine, 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 Eccle­siae [Page 59] 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 Sup. ca. 6. shewed, was knowne and confessed, because Perspeximus si quid de h [...] qui de­functi sunc, & mi­nime reperiuntur in vita damna [...]i. Vig­loc. cit. nu. 176. Quos vocat, In pa­ce Ecclesiae defun­ctos. Ibid. nu. 179. & 184. he was not in his life time condemned by the Church. Nor was Vigilius the first founder of this reason, he borrowed it of other Nestorians, with whom in this cause he was joyned both in hand and heart. They (to wit, the followers of Theodorus and Nestorius) flee unto another vaine excuse, saith Iust. Edict. § Quod antem. 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 Vi­gilius: The Emperour hath done it most soundly, and that before ever Vigilius writ his Constitution. Oportebat Iust. ibid. 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 do­ctrine of piety which is received in the whole Church. Iste autem us­que ad mortem in sua permanens impietate, ab omni Ecclesia ejectus est; but this Theodorus continuing in his impiety to his death, was rejected by the whole Church. Thus 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 Bin. Notis in Conc. 5. verbo Theo­dorus. be beleeved, nisi Iustinianus, unlesse the Emperor had testi­fied that he dyed in his heresie.

3. The same is clearly witnessed also in the fift Conc. 5. Coll. 5. pa. 552. a.. 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 do­ctrines 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 Theodo­rus 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 Catho­like 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 Theo­dorus in his life time, collecteth, that hee dyed in the peace and [Page 60] communion of the Church: both the Emperour and Coun­cell witnesse his doctrinall errour herein: truly teaching, that though an heretike live all his life time, not onely un­condemned 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 con­demned him not, because, as it teacheth others, so it selfe judg­eth most charitably of all: It judged him to be such, as hee see­med, and professed himselfe to bee. It was not his person, but his profession, with which the Church in his life time had commu­nion and peace; As soone as ever it seeth him not to bee indeed such as hee seemed to bee, it renounceth all peace and communi­on with him, whether dead, or alive: nay, rather it forsaketh not her communion with him, but declareth unto all, that 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 Accesserunt dig­nae causae ac ratio­nes. Bar. an. 553. nu. 233. Baronius saith, that Vigilius had just, and worthy reasons to defend this first Chapter: one of which is this, because, if this were once admitted that one dying in the com­munion of the Church, might after his death be condemned for an heretike; pateret ostium, there would a gap be opened, that e­very 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 he­retike; 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 ma­ny 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 com­munion, which is no other but the society with God. Such in­deed may dye in some errour, yea, in an errour of faith, as Papias, [Page 61] 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 Catho­like 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 con­cernes themselves; and feare it, even upon that Catholike posi­tion, that the dead out of their writings may justly bee condem­ned. They should feare to have such an itching humour to write in the Popes Cause; for his supremacy of authority, or infallibili­ty of his Cathedrall judgement: feare to stuffe their Volumes (as the Cardinall hath done his Annals) with heresies, and opposi­tions against the faith; feare to continue and persist in their here­ticall 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 revo­ked, 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 In sine vitae re­conciliatio pelenti­bus et poenitentibus non est neganda, dum tamen, si haere­tici sint, recipian­tur cum scriptura & juramento. Gloss in dist. [...]. de poenit, ca. Multiple [...]. 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 flat­ter themselves with the vaine name of the Church; yet in very truth, so long as their writings remaine; testifying that they de­fended the Popes infallibility in defyning causes of faith, or any o­ther doctrine relying on that ground, whereof in their life time they have not made Satis est ut Eccle­siae judicio loco as [...]et aliquem decessisse impoenitentem, si non constet de illius poe­nitentia, qui haereti­cus post mortem cō ­victus est. Fran. Torrens. lib. de 6.7, & 8. Synod. pa. 13. & ejusdem sententiae [...] Pigh. fuisse. a certaine, and knowne recantation, they neither lived nor dyed in the peace and communion of the Ca­tholike 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 seri­ously and sincerely performe, it is not I, nor any of our writers, (whom they imagine, but most unjustly, out of spleene and con­tention 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 mem­bers of the present Romane Church, to be hereticall; and as con­victed heretikes, she declares them to die anathematized; that is, utterly separated from God, and from the peace, and most bles­sed communion with the Church of God; howsoever they boast themselves to be the onely children of the Church of God.

7. If any shall here reply, or thinke, that by the former ex­amples 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 friend­ly, but no firme excuse; for although they are both alike in this, [Page 62] 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 Aug. lib. 2. de bapt. ca. 4. speaketh, not fully scanned, declared, & confirmed by a ple­nary Councell: Had it bin, we may well think the very same of all those holy men, which Austen Ibid. most charitably saith of S. Cypri­an, 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 Aug. lib. eod. c. 1. words, per universae Ecclesiae sta­tut 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 infir­mitie; so the latter, who reject the truth being manifested unto them, and withstand the knowne judgement of the whole catho­like Church, even that judgement which is testified by all those witnesses, to be consonant to the Scriptures, and Apostolicall do­ctrine, can no way be excused from most wilfull and pertinaci­ous obstinacy, seeing they adhere to that opinion, which them­selves, or their particular church hath chosen, though they see, and know the same to be repugnant to Scripture, & the consen­ting judgement of all generall and holy Councels, that is, of the whole catholike Church. So the errour of the former, though it was in a point of faith, yet was but materially to be called here­sie, as being a doctrine repugnant to faith; yet being not joyned in them with pertinacie, which is essentially, as Canus Quod haeresis esse sine pertinacia ne­quest, non est di [...]f­cile oslendere cōmu­ni omnium Theolo­gorum sementia, &c. Canus lib. 12. Loc. Theol. ca. 9. § Quod. sheweth, required in an heretike, could neither make, nor denominate them to be heretikes: The errour of the latter, is not onely an errour in a point of faith, but is formally to bee called heresie, such as being both a doctrine repugnant to faith, and being in them joyned with pertinacy, doth both make, and truly denomi­nate them, who so erre, to be heretikes; and shew them to hold it heretically, not onely as an errour, but as a most proper heresie.

9. The second difference is in the manner of their errour. The former held their opinions as probable collections, not as un­doubted doctrines of saith; and so long as those errours were so held, the Church suspended Sancta Ecclesia aliquandiu de ea re supersedit, judici­um (que) suspendit. Bar. notis in Martyr. in Febr. 22. voce Papiae. her judgement, both concerning the doctrines, and the persons. And this was at least untill the time of Ierome, touching the millenary opinion; for he mentio­ning the same, saith Hier. in cap. 19. Ieremiae. thus; Haec licet non sequamur, tamen damnare non possumus, quia multi Ecclesiasticorum virorum & martyrum ista [Page 63] dixerunt: These things (concerning the raigne of Christ for one thousand yeares upon earth, in a terrestriall, but yet a golden Ierusalem) although we doe not our selves follow, yet wee cannot con­demne them, because many of the Ecclesiasticall writers and Martyrs have said the same: whereby it is evident, that in Ieromes Hieronimi tempe­re nihil adhuc ab Ecclesia ac ea re fuit definitum. Bar. notis in Martyr, loc. cit. time nothing was defined herein by the Church; for then 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 Quae opinio esset utcun (que) to [...]rabili [...], si, &c. Aug lib. 20. de Civit. Dei. ca 7. opinion, and such as himselfe had some­times held, if the delights of the Saints in that time be supposed to be spirituall. Baronius tels Bar. an. 118. nu. 2. et au. 373. nu. 14 us, (how rightly I will not now examine,) that when Apollinarius renewed this opinion, and ur­ged it, ut dogma Catholicum, no longer as a matter of probabilitie, but as a Catholike doctrine of faith; It was then condemned by Pope Damasus about the time of Ierome; and so being condemned by the Church, it was ever after that held for an heresie; and the de­fenders of it, for heretikes.

10. Did Baronius and the rest of the Romane Church in like sort, as those millenary Fathers, commend their Popes infallibili­ty no otherwise then as a probable, a topicall, or disputable mat­ter, the like favourable censure would not be denyed unto them, but that they also, notwithstanding that error in faith, might die in the communion of the Church. But when Pope Vigilius pub­lished his Apostolicall Constitution, as a doctrine with such Statuimus nulli licere quicquam contrarium bis con­scribere, vel proser­re. Vig. Const. in sine necessitie to be received of all, that none either by word or writing might con­tradict the same; when the chiefe Pillers of their Church urge the Popes Cathedrall definitions in causes of faith, for such as wherein, nullo Bell. lib. 4. de Pōt. ca. 3. et Gretz. des. ca. 2. lib. 1. de Pont. pa. 652. et alij. casu errare potest, he can by no possibilitie bee deceived, or teach amisse; when they urge this, not onely as Apollinarius did the other, ut dogma Catholicum, as a doctrine of faith; but as the foundation of all the doctrines of faith; It was high time for the Catholike Church, as soone as they espied this, to creepe into the hearts of men, to give some soveraigne antidote against such poyson, and to prevent that deluge of heresies, which they knew, if this Cataract were set open, would at once rush in, and over­whelme the Church of God. And therefore the fift generall, and holy Councell, to preserve for ever the faith of the Church a­gainst this heresie, did not onely condemne it, decreeing the Apostolicall and cathedrall sentence of Pope Vigilius to be here­ticall; but decreed all the defenders of it to be accursed, and se­parated from God, and Gods Church; so that whosoever after this sentence and decree of the holy Synod, approved by the whole Catholike Church, shall defend the Popes Cathedrall judgements as infallible, and dye in that opinion, they are so farre from dying as Papias and Irene did, in the peace of the Church; that by the whole catholike Church they are declared, and de­creed to dye out of the peace and communion of the whole ca­tholike Church.

[Page 64]11. A third dissimilitude ariseth from the persons who erre. The former, for all their errour; held Cyprianus ita dixit, qui [...]ci vide­retur, ut in pace unitatis esse voluc­rit. etiam cum eis qui de hac re diver­ [...]a sentirent. Aug. lib. 2. de baptis. ca. 1 fast the unity with the Church, even with those who contradicted and cōdemned their errours; and we doubt not but that was verified of very many of them, which Austen Lib. 1. de baptis. ca. 18. affirmeth of Cyprian, that they kept this unitie of the Church, humiliter, fideliter, fortiter, ad martyrij usque coronam; kept it with humility, with fidelitie, with constancy, even to the crowne of martyrdome. By reason of which their charity they were not onely fast linked, and, as I may say, glued to the com­munion of the Church, both in their life, and death, but all their other errours, as Austen Charitate prae­senti quaedam (veri­tates) venialiter non habentur. Aug. ibid. [...]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 Ca­tholike Church; even from all who consent unto, or approve this fift generall Councell: for having by their Laterane decree ere­cted, and set up in the Romane Capitol, this pontificall suprema­cy, and infallibilitie, they now account all but Schismatickes Nemo potest sab­esse Christo, & com­municar [...] [...] Eccle­sia, qui non subest Pontifici Rom. Bell. lib. de Eccl. mil [...]t. ca. 5. Schisma est quando unum me [...]brum no vult este sub illo ca­ [...]e, quare tollit u­nitatem essentialem at (que), Ecclesia ipsam. Scinsinaticus igitur non est de Ecclesia. [...]. & [...] ha­bent alij. who con­sent 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 Baby­lon, cannot chuse but die out of the blessed peace, and holy com­munion of the whole catholike Church, which they have wilful­ly, insolently, and most disdainfully rejected.

12. The fourth and last difference which I now observe, ari­seth from the judgement of the Church concerning them both. The former, she is so 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 Natalis beati [...]. Martyr. Rom. Feb. 2 [...]. the au­thor of that opinion, a Saint, Irene, Passio Irene: Epis­copi & Martyris. Mart. in martij 24 & Menal. Graec. in Aug. 23. 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 Cathe­drall 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 here­tikes, & dying so, to die heretikes; yea, convicted heretikes, ana­thematized by the judgement of the catholike Church, and so pronounced to die out of the peace and communion of the ca­tholike Church.

13. I have stayed the longer in dissolving this doubt, partly for that it is very obvious in this cause; and yet (as to me it see­med [Page 65] not very easie; but specially that hereby I might open ano­ther errour in the Constitution of Vigilius, who from the exam­ple of those Millenarie Fathers (one of which, to wit Nepos, he ex­presly mentioneth) Vig. Const. loc. cit. nu. 178. would conclude, That none at all though dying in heresie, may after their death be condemned, seeing Dionysius Bi­shop of Alexandria, though he condemned the bookes and er­rour of Nepos, yet Nepos himselfe hee did not injure, nor con­demne, 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 Prateolum Ne­potem recenset inter haereticos, tum in I [...]dice, tum in libro ipso, in suo Elench. verbo Nepos. Et ait eum fuisse authore Epicurcae illius opinionis, in verbo Chil [...]astae., and after him, the Cardinall, Mittimus Tertul­lianum & Nepotem extra classem haere­ticorum vagantes. Bar. Not. in Mar­tyr. Feb. 22. upon what reason I know not, but sure none that is good, reckons Ne­pos with Tertullian, as one excluded from the ranke and order of catholikes: neither did Dionysius or the Church, for that reason at all which Vigilius fancieth; much lesse for that especially, for­beare to condemne Nepos, because he was dead: (for then they would not have condemned Valentinus, Basilides, Cerinthus, who also were dead Iustin. in Edicto § Quod autem., when the Church condemned them,) but be­cause they judged Nepos as well as Irene, Iustine, and the rest, to have dyed, though in an error, yet in the unity, peace, and com­munion of the Church. And this the words of Dionysius Apud Euseb. lib. 7. Eccl. hist. ca. 19., not rightly alleaged by Vigilius, and no better translated by Chri­stopherson doe import. For Dionysius said not, that hee there­fore reverenced Nepos, quia jam defunctus fuerat, as the one Vigilius., nor quia ex hac vita migravit, as the other Christopher. in sua translatione. readeth them, that is, because he was dead, (for upon that reason the holy Bishops should have reverenced also Simon Magus, Cerinthus, and other heretickes, who were then dead) but because [...] which Musculus very rightly translateth thus; I much reve­rence him as one, qui jam ad quietem praecessit, who is gone before mee unto rest: that is, because hee so dyed, that his death was a passage to rest; even to that rest of which the scrip­ture Apoc. 14.13. 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 reve­rence him. So both the assertion of Vigilius which from Diony­sius 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 con­cerning 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 Bar. an. 553. nu. 491 that Vigilius was therefore very slacke to condemne him, because hee would not condemne those, quos scisset in catholica communione de­functos, [Page 66] whom he knew to have died in the catholike communion of the Church. So the cardinall tells us that Vigilius knew, and there­fore 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 Ana­thema unto him for so saying: Cursed bee hee that curseth not Theodorus; how much more cursed then is he, who acquits Theo­dorus 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 cer­tainty 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 [...] 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 profes­sing to hold the same faith, and communion with all former ho­ly generall Councells, and Catholikes, and all succeeding catho­likes 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 Hoc symbolum Satanas composuit, Conc. 5. ita ait de symbolo Theodori. Collat. 4. pa. 537. a. pro­claimed 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 judge­ment of the whole Church:) of the same communion with those who are separated from God; yea it must needs be at peace, and league with the Devills communicants. Since this is the peace, [Page 67] 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.

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, be­cause he was not condemned by former Fathers, and Coun­cells, 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 pretend­eth, ibid. nu. 179. Theodorus of Mopsvestia was condem­ned, and therefore ought not now by him­selfe, 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 Vig. Const. nu. 173. 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 no­mine, 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, solici­tous, diligent, yea most diligent inspection, Vigilius saith, that, neither in the Councell of Ephesus Ipsam Synodum Ephesinam solicite recensentes, nihil de Theodori persona, referre coperimus. ibid. nu. 173., nor of Chalcedon Sed ne (que) in sancto Chalcedonensi con­cilio aliquid de Theodori nomine invenimus statutū. ibid. nu. 175., nor in Cyril Ex quo claret be­atum Cyrillum no­luisse nomen ejus (Theodori) monu­mentis Synodalibus propter regulam quae de mortuis ser­vanda est, contineri. ibid. nu. 173., nor in Proclus Quando scripsi oportere aut Theo­dorum aut alios qui pridem defuncti sunt anathemati subdi oportere, ibid. ex Proclo. nu. 174., 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 con­demned heresie of Nestorius. Can you see neither the person, [Page 68] 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 Conc. 5. coll. 8. pa. 585. b. 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 condem­nationem Theodori, for the condemning of Theodorus, and his impiety. In another place, Coll. 5. pa. 551. b. of them both they write againe in this man­ner, Let them who pretend the names of Cyrill, and Proclus, say if The­odorus be not by them numbred with the Iewes, Pagans, Sodomites and heretikes; particularly of Cyrill, they say Ibid. pa. 551. a., 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 Cyrilli verba ci­tantur in Conc. 5. coll. 5. pa. 5 [...]1. a. of Theodorus, calls him one, whose tongue speakes iniquity against God; one whose horne is exalted against God: one who insulteth Quous (que) insultas patienti Christo. ibid. over Christ, who lesseneth the crimes of the Iewes, who pulleth him downe, ad infamiam, to infamie and disgrace. Pro­clus also speaking Epist. Procii ad Armenios, de side, extat to. 3. Bib. 5. & citantur verba ejus in Conc. 5. coll. 5. pa. 551. & 542. b. Proclios de Theo­doro & ejus impie­tole ita dicit, &c. not only of the doctrine, but of the person of Theodorus, whom he setteth in the same ranke with Arius, Euno­mius, 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 The­odorus 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 Bar. an. 435. nu. 11. 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 Cardi­nall: checking the Popes sight, that would not see him to be con­demned by Cyrill, whom Cyrill esteemed every whit as wicked an heretike as Nestorius.

4. But this whole matter, and the unexcusable error of Vigi­lius, 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 Theodorus obijt nu. 427. Bar. nu. 27. Conc. Ephes. habitum nu. 431. Bar. & Bin. yeares before, was condemned in the holy Councell at Ephesus, Cyrill who was President in that Councell doth declare, [Page 69] as the fift Councell witnesseth. Cyrill (say Conc. 5. Coll. 8. pa. 585. a. they in the Synodall decree) writ unto Iohn, touching Theodorus, utpote una cum Nesto­rio anathematizato; as being anathematized together with Nestorius, in the Ephesine Synod: and this they shew out of the words of Cy­rill, which are In Epist. ad Ioh. Antioch. & Synod. cum co. worthy of most diligent consideration. Peltanus, and after him In Actis Conc. Ephes. tom. 5. ca. 9. Binius, have very unfitly translated Cyrils words, but in the Greeke; as also consonantly thereunto they are set downe in the fift Conc. 5. Coll. 8 pa. 585. a. Councell, thus; Processit adversus omnes, qui ea­dem sapiunt, vel sapuerunt aliquando; [...]: Peli & Bi [...]. ita ve. tunt, [...] & no­bis & vesirae san­ctitati absolute a [...] ­re liceat, Anathema­tizanum, &c. id quod absolute, nos & vestra sāctitas dixit, A­thematizamus illos, qui dicunt duos filios: That sentence of Anathe­ma, which we (to wit, the holy Ephesine Councell) and your Holi­nesse pronounced absolutely, (without naming any person) saying, we accuse those who say there are two Sonnes, or two Christs: that sen­tence 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 Epistolas Cyrilli Synodicas ad Nesto­rium et alios per O­riente [...], a. c [...]pti [...]i­ma [...] habet. Sic de se [...]it Conc. Chal. Act. 5 pa. 96. Chalcedon, in their very de­finition of faith, hath approved: so that this is now not 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 Quae extat in Act. Conc. Ephes. tom. 2. Append. 1. ca. 6. et citantur etiam haec Cyrilli ver­ba in Conc. 5. Coll. 8. pa. 585 a. to Anastasius, Alexander, and the rest; which al­so hath equall authoritie by the Councell of Chalcedon. Sancta Synodus Ephesi, saith Cyrill, The holy Ephesine Synod, having pro­nounced a just sentence of condemnation against Nestorius, hath by the like sentence condemned the impiety of others, qui vel postea futuri sunt, vel jam fuerunt eadem illi sapientes; who either shall hereafter, or heretofore have thought the same; aequalem condemnatio­nem eis imponens; imposing the same condemnation upon them also: for it is fit, that when one is condemned for such 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 Syno­dall sentences, and judgements of faith; and being so usefull, the fift Synod doth often Coll. 5. pa. 543. b. et pa. 548. a. et in sententia Synodali Coll. 8 pa. 585. a. insist upon it.

5. Seeing then Theodorus did not onely teach, write, and speake the same with Nestorius, but was indeed the Arch-heretike, and author of this heresie, Nestorius being but his Theodorus doctor Nestorij. Iustin. in E­pist ad Conc. 5 Coll. 1. pa. 519. b. et idem ait Conc. 5. in sen­tentia Synodali Coll. 8. pa. 585. b. et Ne­storius Theodori verba loquutus est. Coll. 5. pa. 550. a. et, Nec enim Theodo­rus Nestorij fuit dis­cipulus, sed iste illuis Ibid. dis­ciple, 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 be­fore 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 col­lect, and warrant others to collect the same. The writings, say they, of Coll. 5. pa. 549. b. Theodorus being in all things consonant to the vaniloquie of Nestorius, are together with his, deservedly rejected by the Coun­cell of Ephesus, utpote anathemate quod adversus Nestorium factum [Page 70] est procedente etiam adversus eos, qui ante illum similia illi sapucrunt: the Anathema which was pronounced against Nestorius, proceeding al­so against those, who before Nestorius thought the same which he did.

6. This same judgement of the Ephesine Councell, in con­demning Theodorus, is yet another way declared, and testified expresly by Pope Pelagius, Theodorum Pel. 2. epist. 7. § In his. mortuum sancta Synodus Ephesina damnavit; the holy Ephesine Councell condemned Theodorus being dead: which so cleare a testimony, though alone, were e­nough to manifest the foule errour of Vigilius in this point. But Pelagius sets downe a proofe also therof, which openeth ano­ther errour of Vigilius. He to excuse Theodorus, would perswade that Symbolum quod Charisius Presbyter illic prodidit. &c. Vig. Const. loc. cit. nu. 173. Theodorus was not the composer of that impious, and dia­bolicall creed, before mentioned. Heare now the words, and and proofe of Pelagius, taken from that creed: The Ephesine Sy­nod, saith Pelag. loc. cit. he, condemned Theodorus, nam cum ab ejus discipulis dictatum ab eo Symbolum; for when that creed, dictated and compo­sed by Theodorus, was brought forth before the Ephesine Sy­nod, cum authore damnatum est; both it, and the author of it was condemned presently by the same holy Fathers. So Pelagius: testify­ing against Vigilius, both Theodorus to 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, Conc. 5. Coll. 6. pa. 575. b. Theodorus, besides other innume­rable blasphemies, ausus est & impium exponere symbolum, was so au­dacious as to set out that impious creed: & again, hoc impium Theodori Symbolum; this impious creed of Theodorus was anathematized, to­ther with the writer of it, in the first Ephesine Councell: and againe, when this creed was repeated, which is by them Coll. 5. pa. 575. b. called, Impium Theodori Symbolum, the impious creed of Theodorus; the holy Synod Coll. 4. pa. 537. a. cryed out, anathema to him that composed it; (and that was Theodorus as themselves witnesse;) the holy Ephesine Coun­cell 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 Iust. Edict. § Tuli. 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 Cyrilli verba ex ep. ad Procl. citan­tur. Conc. 5. Coll. 5. pa. 550, 551. 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 gene­rall sentence Theodorus himselfe was especially included) nullam [Page 71] 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 wise­dome and lenitie of the Apostles, who for a time by a Et tal [...]m dispensa­tionem in divina scriptura est inveni­re. Paulus ad hoc Ti­motheum circumci­dit, &c. Conc. 5. Coll. 8. pa. 585. b. et Coll. 5. pa. 551. b. 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 condem­ned, as the Mosaicall ceremonies were dead, (though then not deadly) to the end that the estimation which some (but very un­justly) had of him, might rather dissui, than dissecari; rather by little and little be untwined, and worne out, than by a peremp­tory anathema, be at once, and as it were with one violent blow, obliterated out of the hearts of such as admired him, which they saw could hardly be effected.

9. But as the Apostles, when afterwards the 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 Gal 5.2. ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing: Even so did the Church in this cause of Theodorus. She expected that her generall sentence should have deterred all from that heresie; specially seeing the Emperours, Theodosius, and Valen­tinian, had strengthened that Synodall judgement, by a severe Imperiall L. 66. de haeret. Coll. Theod. Edict, set forth some foure yeares Coac. Eph. h [...]bit. an. 431. Basso et [...]n­tiocho Coss [...]nt ex Act. liquet. Tom. 2. ca. 1. Edictum vero editum Theodos [...]o 15 Coss. id est. anno 433. after the Ephesine Synod; forbidding the bookes of Nestorius, either to bee read, or retained: But it fell out farre otherwise; for when the Nesto­rians could no longer shrowd themselves under the name, nor countenance their heresie by the bookes and writings of Nesto­rius, they found this new device, to Consingentes enim quae Nestorij su [...]t, o­disse, 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. commend their doctrine, under the name, dignity, and authority of Theodorus of Mopsve­stia,, whose doctrine was the very same with that of Nestorius, he having 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 [Page 72] Imperiall Edict. To which purpose they, and particularly Ibas quaedam ex impijs Theodori Ca­pitulis in Syrorum linguam trans [...]ulit, et ubique transmi­sit. Con. 5. Coll. 6. pa. 562. b. Ibas, spred abroad the bookes of Theodorus in every countrey, and corner, translating them, as Liberatus Ca. 10. sheweth, into the Syrian, Armenian, and Persian languages; by which meanes they decei­ved, and seduced many, pretending Theodorus Theodori scripta admirantes, et dicen­tes cum recta sapu­isse et consonantia sanctu patribus, A­thanasio, &c. Conc. 5 Coll. 5. pa. 550. a. writings to bee consonant to the ancient fathers. The Catholikes seeing how lit­tle 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 Quoniam nec sus­cep [...]runt dicta illo­rum, et tempus, quod dispensationis indi­gerer, praeterijt, jam scripserunt (paties) quae superius dictae sunt, post mortem ejus adversus cum, et ejus scripta Conc. 5. Coll. 5. pa. 5 [...]1. b. of that dispensation being expired, they began now in 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 Vt liquet ex sub­scriptionibus, in qui­bus saepe A [...]ius. To. 2. Act. Conc. Ephes ca. 3. of the chiefe also in the ho­ly Ephesine Councel; and Rambulas vocatur in Conc. 5. Coll. 5. pa. 549. a. et apud Gratian. Caus. 24. [...]. 2. ca. 6. ex Emed. Greg. 13. Rambulas, or Rabulas Bishop of Edessa, (whose name it seemes the Nestorians for very spite against him, turned into Sic à Liberato (lo­mine Nestoria [...]o vo [...]atur. ca. 10. et Ibas narrat The­odorum injuste à Ra­bula damnatum. Bar. an. 448. nu. 72. Rabula, that so they might with more facility revile his person) a man of such piety and high esteeme in the Church, that Cyrill Cyrill [...] Epist. [...] Rabulam, in Conc. 5. Coll. 5. pa. 543 b. cals him columnam, & fundamentum veritatis; the ve­ry piller and foundation of the truth; and Rambulas sanctae memoriae Episcopus, qui in Saterdolibus explenduit. Benig. in Conc. 5. Coll. 5. pa. 549. a. Benignus testifieth, that he was a faire and resplendent lampe in the Church. These Liber. ca. 10. two stirred up the Bishops of Armenia to reject the writings of Theo­dorus, tanquam haeretici, as one who was an heretike; yea, the au­thor of the Nestorian heresie; and themselves were present in that noble Councell of Fuit nobile Con­cilium in Armeniae celebratum, cui Aca­tius cum Rabula in­ter fuit, Bar. an. 435 nu. 4. Armenia, wherein they not onely con­demned Theodorus as an impious person, an oppugner of Christ, and the childe of the Devill; as by the contents of the acts of that Sy­nod Libellus transmis­sus ab Episcopis Armeniae Proclo, extatin Conc. 5. Coll. 5. pa. 542. doth appeare; but further also, they writ their Synodal let­ters both to Proclus, Bishop of Constantinople, & to Cyrill Bishop of Alexandria, quatenus fiat unit as vestra contra Theodorum, & sa­crilega 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 condem­ned 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 Coun­cell, but in his owne Church at Edessa; for as Ibas in his impious [Page 73] Epistle Quae extat in Conc. Ch [...]. Act. 10. saith, Ausus est Theodorum clarè anathematizare, hee was bold by name, Conc. 5 coll. 5. pa. 540. a. 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, Liber. ca. 10. is not to be learned out of Li­beratus report of this matter, for he in the narration of this pas­sage, is not onely untrue, and partiall, but very hereticall also, justly herein taxed by Baronius Liberatus cantè [...], utpote q [...]i ab aliquo Nestoriano [...]am videtur mutua­tus historiam. Ba. an. 435. nu. 9., and Binius Historiam ca. 10. incante nimis ab al quo Nestoria [...]o magna ex parte mutuatus vid [...]ur. Bin. de Liberato. Notis ad Liber., as borrowing his narration from some Nestorians; which the Reader will easily observe: but the truth herein must be taken out of Cyrill, and the fift Councell. Proclus, saith Cyrill Cyrill. verba ci­tantur in Conc 5. coll. 5. pa. 543. b., sent a tome or writing to them of Armenia full of sound doctrine, and hee adjoyned thereunto certaine chapters, collecta è Theodori codicibus, gathered out of the bookes of Theodorus, consonant to the doctrine of Nestorius, ex­horting them, etiam illa anathematizare, to accurse even those do­ctrines of Theodorus also. The fift Councel explaines this more ful­ly; Proclus say they Coll. 5 pa. 551. a., writeth thus against Theodorus and his impious doctrine. And then they cite, first those words of Proclus before mentioned, wherein he sets Theodorus in the same ranke with A­rius, Eunomius, Macedonius In Epist. Procli quae extat in Bibl. S. pa. 10.3. corrupti [...]gitur Manic [...]es., and other like heretikes, calling them all puddles of errours and deceit. And after this, those o­ther 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, Iu­daicall impietie: ad destructionem legentium evomita: doctrines vo­mited out by him, to the destruction of the readers and hearers: exhor­ting others, to reject, to abhorre, to tread under foot, and to ac­curse all those chapters of Theodorus: utpote diabolicae insaniae con­stituta, & inventiones: as being the positions and inventions of devil­lish 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 condem­ned him as a Iew, Pagan, and Heretike: And this was done by Proclus in the yeare when Valentinian was the 4, and Theodosius the Corruptè legitur in editione [...] quae extat to. 3. B.S. pat. Theodus [...] 5. [...] 15. ut ex fastis liquet 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 Conc. Armeniae ha­bitum an. 435. Bar. anno illo nu. 4. is est Coss. Theodosij 15. et Valent. 4.: for it followed the spread­ing abroad of the 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 Coss. Theodosij 15, qui est an. 435. juxta Bar. illo an. nu. 1., 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 condem­ned) 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 in­treated him Conc. 5. coll. 5. pa. 551. a. plurimis deprecationibus, ut ne anathematizaretur [Page 74] Theodorus, nec impia ejus conscripta, did with most earnest prayers sollicite him, not to condemne the person, or doctrine of Theodo­rus: but, the truth of God which was oppugned by Theodorus, and the sentence of the Councell which had condemned Theodo­rus, did more prevaile then all their supplication with that holy Bishop.

12. Saint Cyrill did the like as Proclus herein, hee seeing the connivence Quoniam ejus­modi dispensationem Cyrilli & Procli non susceperunt (Nestoriani) è con­trario vero perman­serunt defendentes blasphemias Theo­dori, videns Cyrillus crescentem impieta­tem coactus est li­bros conscribere ad­versus Theodorum, & post mortem ejus­dem, eum haereti­cum, & impium, et supra Paganos et Iudaeos blasphemum ostendere. Conc. 5. coll. 5. pa. 551. a., 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 Conc. 5. coll. 5. pa. 550 a. out, Crescat fides Theo­dori, sic credimus sicut Theodorus, let the faith of Theodorus increase, we beleeve as he did: yea even stoning Ibid. some in the Church who spake against them, Cyrill seeing all this, could forbeare no lon­ger, Ego Ibid. citantur verò verba Cyrill. ex E­pist. ad Acat. 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 Coactus est often­dere eum esse haere­ticum, ibid. pa. 551. a heretike, mentiuntur contra sanctos patres; I said, that they belyed the holy Fathers, who affirmed Theodorus wri­tings, to be consonant to theirs, nec Ibid. pa. 551. a. cessavi increpās ea quae scrip­serunt, nec cessabo: nor have I ceased, nor will I cease, to reprove those who write thus: and which demonstrates yet further the zeale of that holy Bishop; he writ Sed et ad Theode­sium Imper. conso­nantia scrib [...]ns. ibid the same things concerning Theo­dorus, to the Emperor Theodosius, exhorting him Rogo ut intacta [...], et inviolatas animas vestras conservetis ab impietatibus Theodori. ibid. 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, decla­ring him by name, to have beene every way as blasphemous an heretike as Nestorius; and that the defenders of him, or his wri­tings, 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 Extant leges illae Theodosij et Valent. in Conc. 5. coll. 5. pa. 544.545. againe Iterum igitur do­ctrina Diodori, The­odori et Nestorij abominanda visa sunt. ibid. declare that the doctrine impiorum, & pe­stiferorum, of those impious and pestiferous persons is abominable un­to us: similiter autem & omnes, and so are all who follow their error. It is just that they all have one name, and bee all clothed with confusion, lest while they be called Christians they seeme to be honoured by that ti­tle; 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 [Page 75] 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) pub­lish 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, corroboran­tes Ibid. pa. 545. a. ea que piè decreta sunt Ephesi, strengthning thereby that which was decreed at Ephesus.

15. Whence two things may be observed, the one, that Theo­dorus 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 corrobo­ration of the same: The other, that seeing this Imperiall decree, hath stood ever since the inacting thereof in force and unrepea­led, by vertue of it; had it beene, or were it as yet, I say not rigo­rously, but duly, and justly put in execution, not any one defen­der of the three Chapters, no not Pope Vigilius 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 Coun­cell and catholike church, they should endure, if no sharper edge of the civill sword, yet, perpetuall banishment out of all Christi­an 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 con­demned and forbidden) grew into a generall contempt and ha­tred, whereof the church of Mopsvestia, where hee had beene Bi­shop, 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 a­mong the other Orthodox Bishops of that city, in their Eucha­risticall 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 [Page 76] that See, yet had by his pietie and zeale manifested and maintai­ned the faith, & brought, both the heresie & person of Theodorus into a just detestation, and all this is evident by the Acts of that Synode Acta illa Syno­di Mopsvest. extant in Conc. 5. Collat. 5. pa. 553. & seq. held at Mopsvestia, about this very matter, of wiping out of the name of Theodorus.

17. We are now come to the time of the Councell of Chal­cedon: for, the expunging of Theodorus name, and inserting of Cy­rills, followed as it seemes shortly after the death of Cyrill, and he dyed about seven Cyrill. objit an. 444. Conc. Chalced. habitum an. 451. Bar. et. Bin. yeares before the Councell of Chalcedon. That by it Theodorus was also condemned, their approving Conc. Chalc. Act. 5. in definit. Synodi. the Councell of Ephesus, and the Synodall Epistles of Cyrill, (in both which, and in the later, by name Vt liquet ex Cy­rilli Epistolis ad Io­hannem Antiochē, et ad Acatium, quae citantur in Conc. 5. Coll. 5. pa. 549. et 550. Theodorus is condemned) doth manifest: and besides this the Emperour Iustinian expresly saith Iustin. Edict. §. Tali. 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 Ne­storians began againe, contrary to the Edict of Theodosius, and Valentinian, to revive the dead, and condemned memory of The­odorus, Sergius Bishop of Cyrus making mention Vt testantur Act. Conc. 5. Coll. 7. pa. 578. a. et. 582. a., and comme­morating 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 Bi­shopricke, excluded out of the Church, and so continued even to his dying day: and this was done but six yeares before the Em­pire of Iustinian, as by the date Iustinus scripsit id edictum, Rustico Coss. Conc. 5. Coll. 7. pa. 582. b. fuit is Coss. an. 520. ut te­statur Marcell. in Chron. et agnoscit, Bar. in illo an. nu. 1 Instinianus vero coepit imperare an. 527. ut Marcell. et Baror. asserunt. of Iustinus his letters doth ap­peare.

19. Now if to all these particular sentences, you adde that which the fift Councell Conc. 5. Coll. 5. pa. 557. a. 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 inter­rupted 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 applau­ding those (to say the least) inconsiderate speeches of the Popes Legates, & Maximus in the Councel of Chalcedon, that by his dic­tation, or Epistle, Ibas was declared to be a catholike, hereupon they now boasted, that the holy Councell, by approving that E­pistle of Ibas, had approved, both the person and doctrine of Theodorus, seeing they both are highly extolled, and defended in that Epistle. By this 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 se­cond [Page 77] boute, all the defenders of the Three Chapters, and among them Pope Vigilius, as Generall to them all, undertooke the de­fence 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 for­mer Councels, or Fathers; and this he declareth after his solici­tous, 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 Theo­dorus, before mentioned? Not the general anathema of the Coun­cels 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. Cy­rill, 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 con­demned 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 fur­ther, 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 Chal­cedon, 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 Eam citat Vig [...]. in Const. nu. 17 [...]. & 174. apud Bar. an. 553. Epist. to Iohn B. of Antioch, Vigilius found an expli­cation, how it was said by Cyrill, that by a dispensation the name of Theodorus was not condemned; for there Cyrill saith, Sed juste audient, they shall justly heare this, though they will not: ye forget your selves, when you bend your bowes against ashes, that is, [Page 78] 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 cer­tainly 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 Rea [...] recordatio­nis [...] yrillum: et be­atus Cyrillus. Vig. lec. cit. S. Cy­ril, is none of Cyrils, it is a base and counterfeit writing, forged by some Nestorians in the name of Cyrill; Witnesse hereof the whole fift generall Councell, who, of purpose, and at large, exa­mined this matter, and refuted this cavill of Vigilius, before ever he set forth his Constitution; for thus they Conc. 5. Coll. 5. [...]a. 549. a. 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 cer­taine 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, Coll. 8. pa. 585. b. We have found, that the de­fenders 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 Vi­gilius for a lewd dealer, who commends, and that even in his A­postolicall Constitution, a false and forged writing, for the true E­pistle of S. Cyrill.

24. It is true, Vigilius is not the first Pope, who hath blemi­shed their See, by such false and fraudulent dealing: Zozimus and Bonifacius were long before this taxed, and that justly, b [...] the Africane Conc. Afric. E­pist. ad Caelest. ca. 105. tom. 1. conc. pa. 645. et seq. 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 [Page 79] 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. Cy­rill, Cyprian, or the like, and then they must be called, or estee­med for no others, than holy and reverend Fathers.

25. Proclus followeth: In whose writings Vigilius found three testimonies, to prove, that Theodorus being dead, was not to be condemned: The first is out of his Epistle to Const. Vig. nu. 174 Iohn Bishop of Antioch; where these words are alleaged; When did I write to you, oportere aut Theodorum, aut alios quosdam, qui pridem defun­cti sunt, anathemate subdi; that either Theodorus, or others, being dead, ought to be anathematized? The second is out of the same E­pistle; I rejected indeed those Chapters, (annexed to my Tome) as being impious, neque autem de Theodoro, neque de alio quoquam, qui jam defuncti sunt; but I neither writ of Theodorus, nor of any other who is dead, that they should be anathematized, or rejected. The third is out of an Epistle of Proclus to Maximus; I under­stand, that the names of Theodorus of Mopsvestia, and of some o­ther, is prefixed to the Chapters, ad anathematizandum, to 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 culpavi­mus; 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 De regulis juris lib. 6. decret. reg. 8. rule in law, semel malus, semper praesumitur esse ma­lus; He who is once convicted of any crime, is presumed still to be faul­ty in that kinde. Vigilius being lately convicted to commend for­geries 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 Conc. 5. Coll. 8. pa. 585. b. write, Because the disciples of Theodorus most evidently op­pugning 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 Ana­thema, but speake those things dispensativè, by way of dis­pensation, and in the very words of dispensation they declare [Page 80] 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 nei­ther 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 Coll. 6. pa. 562. 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 con­demned.

28. Did Theodorus at his death goe (as this forged Proclus af­firmeth) 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 Theodorus obijt an. 427. Proclus fit Episcopus an 434. Bar. inillit annis. neare to the time of Theodorus, could not bee ignorant, [Page 81] 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 com­plaining of his erroneous doctrine, but even by Theophilus B. of Alexandria, and Gregory Nissene. This the fift Councell wit­nesseth saying Conc. 5. coll. 5. pa. 545. a., Saint Theophilus, and Saint Gregory Nissene sus­ceptis querimonijs adversus Theodorum adhuc viventem, Complaints being brought unto them against Theodorus of Mopsvestia, as yet living; and against his writings, scripserunt adversus eum Epistolas, they writ Epistles against him: and in those Epistles (some part whereof is recorded in the Councell) they blame him as presu­ming 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 Epi­stles 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 concer­ning the first Ephesine. Vigilius noteth two points. The former that Theodorus was not condemned by it, to which purpose hee thus saith Vigil. Const nu. 173., Solicite recensentes, having with diligence, and sollici­tude reviewed the Ephesine Synode: We have found that in it no­thing is related touching the persō of Theodorus. What, nothing? how then did Pope Pelagius Theodorum mor­tuum sancta Synodus Ephesina damna vit. Pelag 2. Epist. 7. §. In [...]is. after Cyrill, and the fift Councell finde that in it Theodorus was condemned? and if they condem­ned 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 Act. Ephes. conc. to. 2. ca. 29, 30, 31, & 33. in the Synode, and condemned Hoc Symbolum una cum authore Ephesina prima Sy­nodus anathemati­zavit. conc. 5. coll. 4. pa. 5 [...]7. a. toge­ther 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 Sed Symbolum quod Charis [...] pro­didit (condemnatū) magis quia ab Atha­nasio, Phot [...]o, &c. Vigil. const. nu. 173. ubi sententia monca per dictionem (con­demnatum) aut ali­am similē supplenda est. 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, Anto­nius, and Iacobus. Nor doth Vigilius use this shift only about that impious Creed, but in other hereticall writings of Theodo­rus. Proclus adjoyned to his Tome certaine impious positions collected è Theodori codicibus, as Cyrill Cyrill Epistola ad Acalium, quae citat. in conc. 5. coll. 5. pa. 543. expresly witnesseth. Vi­gilius likewise of them would have it thought, that they were none of the positions of Theodorus; and by the forged Epistles of Proclus, hee would perswade Mala quae damna­vera [...], cirjus essent, Proclus profissus est se ignorare. Vigil. conc. nu. 175. that Proclus himselfe did not know whose they were. The Emperour Iustinian before the Synode be­gan▪ sent threescore severall hereticall passages or chapters truly gathered out of the bookes and writings of Theodorus, hoping [Page 82] that the Pope, seeing Theodorus bookes so full fraught with he­resies, 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 con­cerning those 60. chapters (expressed both in the Popes Constitu­tion Conc. Vig. a nu. 60. ad nu. 173., and in the Synodall Conc. 5. coll. 4. acts) he thus saith Vigil. in const. nu. 173., 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 nu. 184., We provide by this our Constitution, that by these or the like doctrines condemned in Nestorius and Euty­ches, no contumely, nor occasion of injury bee brought to those Bishops who have died in the peace of the Catholike Church: and that Vigili­us thought Theodorus so to have dyed, we have before Sup. ca. 7. 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 Defensores Theo­dori, ea ipsius scripta esse negaruxt. Bar. an. 43 [...]. nu. 14. tells us, by the old Nestorians and defenders of Theo­dorus, denying those to bee the writings of Theodorus, quae diffa­mata, which were famously knowne through the whole East: and which being afterwards detected, and discovered to bee truly his wri­tings, both they, and their author with them were condemned. Now this old hereticall and rejected cavill Vigilius here renew­eth; those writings famously knowne to be the workes of Theo­dorus, 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 Cyrill. Epistola ad Proclum, citata in Conc. 5. coll. 5 pa. 550. b. 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 Ibid. pa. 550 a., 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 abominati­on. Yea hee writ divers bookes Qui Cyrilli libri citantur saepe in Conc. 5. coll. 5. pa. 538. & seq. 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 li­ved at the same time with Theodorus, that hee thought them un­wise, who made any doubt of that, which Vigilius now calls in question. And particularly touching that impious Creed, Cyrill saith Prolata apud sanct [...]m Synodum expositione ab eo composita, sunt dice­bant, qui protule­vunt, &c. Verba Cyrill. in Epist. ad Pro­clum citat. in Conc. 5. coll. 5. pa. 550 b., 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 condem­ned Theodorus His condemnatis qui sic sapiunt, nullam viri (Theo­dori) memoriam fe­cerunt. Ibid., though by a dispensation they expressed not his name.

[Page 83]32 The same is testified by Rambulas, Acatius, and the whole Armenian Councell, who after examination Fiat unitas vestra contra Theodorum, & sacrilega capitula & dogmata ejus. Libell. Episc. Ar­men. ad Proclum. in conc. 5. coll. 5. pa. 54 [...] b. of this cause found the true and indubitate writings of Theodorus to be sacri­legious: and therefore by name condemned him, exhorting both Cyrill and Proclus to doe the like. The Imperiall Edicts of Theodosius Dequibus legi [...]us supra, hoc cap. Exta [...] vero in Conc. 5. coll. 5. pa. 544., and Valentinian leave no scruple in this matter: who would never have so severely forbidden the memory of Theodo­rus, and the reading or having of his bookes, had it not by evi­dences 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 questi­on, 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 ve­ry hereticall assertions whereof Vigilius doubteth, to be the do­ctrines and words Habemus quae ex Theodori codicibus collegistu. conc. 5. coll. 4. pa. 517. b. & idem docet Iustia. in suo Edict. § Si quis desendit Theo­dorum. of Theodorus, that impious creed also, where­of Vigilius is doubtfull to be composed by Theodorus: they are so certaine Impius Theodorus alind Symbolum ex­posuit. Instan Edicto. § Tali, Et impium ejus (Theodori) Sym­bolum. coll. 4. pa. 537. a. hereof, that even in their Synodall sentence Liect volentibus codices impij Theo­dori prae manibus ac­cipere, vol quae ex impijs codicibus ejus à nobis inserta his gestis sunt. Conc. 5. coll. 8. pa. 585. a., they re­ferre the triall of what they decree herein to the true and un­doubted 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 de­cree.

33 After all these Pope Pelagius, in one of his decretall Epi­stles, wherein at large he handleth this cause, not onely testifieth that impious Creed Ab ejus (Theodo­ri) discipulis, dicta­tum ab eo symbolum in eâdem Synedo E­ph [...]sina prolatum. Pelagius Epist. 7. § In his., and those hereticall Ejusdem Theodori ex libris illius dicta replicemus. ibid. writings, to bee the workes of Theodorus, alleaging many places of them, but wher­as some obstinately addicted to the defence of the three Chapters moved againe Haec Theodori di­cta, utrum ejus sint. fortasse dubitatur. ibid. §. Haec. this same doubt which Vigilius doth; and as is likely by occasion of his decree: Pelagius of purpose declareth those Ibidem. & seq. to have beene the true writings of Theodorus, and conso­nant 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 Secunda Cilicia, sub qua Mopsvestia constituta est. Conc [...]. coll. 5. pa. 547. b. Province,) of Hesychius, of The­odosius, 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 The­odorus the name of Theodoret. After which cloud of witnesses produced, Pelagius thus concludeth Epist, 7. §. Elfi., blasphemias has ejus esse quis dubitat, who may doubt but that those blasphemies are truly his, (namely of Theodorus,) being by so many witnesses declared to be his? Now when Pope Vigilius against all these 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 here­ticall and blasphemous assertions and writings: but by his Apo­stolicall Constitution decree it to bee an injury to ascribe those [Page 84] 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 E­phesine Councel is worse then this, for as yet he hath onely found that Theodorus was not de facto condemned by the Ephesine Sy­node; but in the next place, he will finde by that Councell, that Theodorus, de jure ought not to bee condemned. To which pur­pose he saith Vigilius in const. nu. 173., that Cyrill (and so the Ephesine Synode consenting to him as President) would not have the name of Theodorus con­tained in the Synodall Acts at Ephesus: propter regulam quae de mortuis in sacerdotio servanda est, for the rule which is to 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 o­ver the dead, whereby Vigilius even by his Apostolicall decree, ad­judgeth both Cyrill, and the whole Ephesine Councell consenting therein with him, to have beleeved and held a condemned here­sie, 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 Vigil. in Const. nu. 145. Bishop of Antioch, writ a letter to the Emperor Theodosius in excuse of Theodorus of Mopsvestia, ne post mortem damnari de­beret, that he ought not to 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 Chalce­don, in their Relation, or Synodall Epistle to the Emperour Mar­tianus. 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 condem­ned; 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 Liber. ca. 10. it downe almost totidem verbis: Iohn saith he, writ three letters in the behalfe of Theodorus of Mops­vestia, praising in them Theodorus, and declaring his wisedome; one of those letters he sent to the Emperour Theodosius, another [Page 85] to Cyrill, the third to Proclus. Now the first, and third, contai­ning the praises of Theodorus, the Councell of Chalcedon, in their Relation to Martianus the Emperour, did Duas Iohannis Epistolas laudes Theodori cominen­tes, Chalced. Synod. suscepit, et confir­mavit. Ioid. embrace, and con­firme. 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 in­civilitie in a Cardinall; but he payes the Deacon home to the full, who saith but the very same with the Pope: Liberatus, saith Bar. an. 435. nu. 11. 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 Anti­och; and, which is farre worse, that those letters of Iohn, contai­ning 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 prai­ses & 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 a­voucheth them to be hereticall: Videsne, saith the Ibid. 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 ex­amine it) more than a thousand like turfes; nay, beyond compa­rison worse than this.

37. But the Cardinall hath not yet done with Liberatus; Let us, saith Bar ibid. et nu. 12. 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 Bin. N [...]tis in libe­ratum. § Bre [...]ia­rum hoc.explaneth, saying, That which Liberatus affirmeth, that the Councell of Chalcedon recei­ved 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 Dea­con must feele the smart, and beare all the blowes; and yet by [Page 86] your leave, through the Deacons sides the Cardinall hath cun­ningly 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 sylla­ble against him.

38. After Fathers, and Councels, Vigilius will next finde, that the Emperour Iustinian himselfe, who was so earnest in condem­ning Theodorus, doth yet teach, that Theodorus ought not to bee condemned; and how proves hee this? You, saith In Const. nu. 175. Vigilius to the Emperour, laudabiliter adduxistis, have with praise and approba­tion alleaged that Relation of the Councell of Chalcedon in your law, de sancta Trinitate. Seeing then that Relation of the Coun­cell 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 do­ctrine, 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, In Cod. Iust. log. 6. [...]it. de summa Trin. de Summa Trinitate, & fide Catholica, (which seemes to be that which Vigilius intended) he accurseth all here­sies, and specially that of Nestorius; and all, qui eadem cum ipso sentiunt, vel senserunt; who either doe thinke, or have thought as Ne­storius did; in which number Theodorus of Mopsvestia to be com­prehended, not onely by that which we have said before, is ma­nifest; but even by Iustinian himselfe, who expresly witnesseth, Theodorus Theodorus haere­ticos omnes impieta­te sup [...]ra [...], &c. Iustan edict. § [...]ali. to have thought so, and to have Iste autem (Theo­dorus) usque ad mortem in sua per­mane [...]s impietate. Ibid. § Quod autem. 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 Datum Iustiniano August. 3. Coss. Is vero est annus 7. Iustiniani, ut docet Marcell. in Chrō. et Bar. in cum an. nu. [...]. date appeareth) and sent into twelve severall Provinces; seeing, after this, Iustini­an, in his twentieth Vt ait Bar. an. 546 nu. 8. yeare, set forth another Edict Edictum hoc de quo toties mentio­nem fecimus. concerning these three Chapters, wherein he particularly, and by name ana­thematizeth Iust. Edict. § Si quis defendit Theo­dorum. 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 condem­ning of Theodorus; and the whole fift Synod testified the same, saying in their seventh Collation, semper Pa. 582. b. fecit, & facit, the Em­perour hath ever done, and now continueth to doe, that which preser­veth the holy Church, and true faith: Was it not a very strange thing in Vigilius to pretend in his Constitution, that by the Empe­rours [Page 87] 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 defen­deth 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 be­came as quicksighted, as the Serpent of Epidaurus. The wri­tings 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 Iusti­nian, 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 cal­led a Quorum unus est beatus Theodorus veritatis praedica­tor, et doctor Eccle­siae. Epist. Ibae in Conc. Chal. Act. 10. pa. 113. b. Saint, a Preacher of the truth, a Doctor of the Church; Now it had 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 blasphe­mies of Theodorus. So bewitched was the Pope with Nestoria­nisme at this time, that it had the whole command of his heart, of his eyes, of his sense, of his understanding; it opened, and shut them all whensoever it listed.

[Page 88]40. I have stayed too long, I feare, in examining this first Chapter, touching Theodorus; but I was very loath to let any ma­teriall point passe, without due triall, or before I had shaken a­sunder 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 er­rour 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 Coun­cels 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 pre­tendeth, that it is no cause of faith, no such cause as doth con­cerne the faith.

41. There now remaineth nothing of Vigilius decree con­cerning this first Chapter, but his conclusion of the same: And al­though that must needs of it selfe fall downe, when all the rea­sons, 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 con­clusion hath two branches, the former is, that in regard of the foresaid reasons, nostrâ Vig. Const. nu. 179 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 Sanctissimorum Episcopo [...]um hic co­ [...]ctorum caput Cy­rillum, &c. Epist. Synod. Ephes. to. 4. Act. Co [...]c. Ephes. ca. 8. head of the generall Councell: Proclus, a most Cyrill. epist. ad A­cat. in Co [...]. 5. Co [...]. 5. pa. 543. a. Dominus meus sanctissimus Episcopus Proc [...]. holy Bishop, whose Epistle, as Liberatus Lib. ca. 10. 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 Gnathoni­zing Parasites of the Pope, even they durst, and did, even in set­ting downe the very Constitution of Vigilius, cal Rursumq, haereti­cus, blasph [...]mus, &c. Bar. an. 553. nu. 120. et seq. et B. n. pa. [...]95. et seq. Theodorus, more than forty times, an heretike, a craftie, impious, madde, pro­phane, 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.

[Page 89]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 he­reticall writings, under the name of holy Fathers, hee durst ap­prove 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 passi­ons in Vigilius, that made him sometimes more bold then a Ly­on, and other times more timerous then an Hare? Truely even from hence: As Vigilius had no eyes to see ought, but what favo­red 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, Vigi­lius 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 Pier. Hierog. lib. 55. is said to feed on dung, but to dye at the sent of a Rose▪ So the filth of Nestorianisme was meat, and 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 Ier. 9.3., 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 Vig. Const. nu. 179 nec ab alio quopiam condemnari concedimus, neither doe wee permit that any other shall condemne Theodorus: Nay we decree Vig. Const. nu. 208 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 per­mit, or suffer no man whatsoever, to teach or beleeve what Cy­rill, what Proclus, what the whole generall Councells of Ephesus and Chalcedon: that is, what all Catholikes, and the whole Ca­tholike 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 de­fending 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.

[Page 90]46. And as if all this were not sufficient, the Pope addes one other clause more execrable, then all the former; for having re­cited those threescore hereticall assertions, which as we have de­clared, were all collected out of the true, and indubitate writings of Theodorus, he adjoynes, Vig Const. nu. 173. 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 Pro­clus, 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 condem­ned Theodorus, them all for wronging, and condemning Theodo­rus 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 An­ti-Christ, and his hereticall adherents can doe, they demon­strate againe hereby their Church to bee hereticall, cata­catholike, and Anti-Christian, such as not onely hateth, but accurseth the holy, and truly Catholike Church of Christ. But the curse Prov. 26.2. that is causlesse shall not come. Nay, God doth, and for ever will turne their cursings into blessings. Blessed are Mat. 5.11. 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 moun­taine, or wheresoever hee sets up his altars to curse the Church of GOD, the Lord Deut. 23.5. will turne the curse into a blessing unto them: for, there is no sorcery Numb. 23.23. 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 [Page 91] blessed Numb. 24.9. 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 Coun­cell 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 expe­rience 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 questi­ons 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 illustra­tion 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 Extant in Actis Conc. Ephes. to. 1. ca. 14. et tom. 5. ca. 1., which containing a just condemnation of the twelve hereticall assertions of Nesto­rius, [Page 92] were approved both by the Councell of Ephesus Ibid. to. 5. ca. 2. §. Ego vero. Et Liber. ca. 6., and Chal­cedon Act. 5. in definit. fidei.. To which purpose he calls them not Theodorets, but wri­tings, quae Vigil. Constit. nu. 180. sub Theodoreti nomine proferuntur, which are set forth un­der the name of Theodoret. And againe, the reprose of the 12. Chap­ters of Cyrill: à Theodoreto Ibid. nu. 181. ut putatur ingesta, made as is thought by Theodoret: adding Ibid. this as one reason, why the Councell of Chal­cedon, did not cōdemne those writings, because they having those matters which were done but of late before their eyes, Theodore­tum nihil tale fecisse probaverunt, did judge that Theodoret had written no such thing. Thus Vigilius pretending those writings against Cyrill not to be Theodorets, and that the Councell of Chalcedon al­so 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 ma­ny, to have beene so eager and violent in defence of Nestorius, and his heresie, and so spitefull both in words, and writings a­gainst 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, Bin. in argamento ca. 2. Append. ad to. 5. Act. Conc. Ephes. pa. 859. perswaded Theodoret, that hee should with all his art and skill oppugne and refute those 12 Anathema­tizmes 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 here­ticall sense, and Enoptius sent that refutation of Theodoret unto Cyrill. Againe, Bin. notis in Epist. Leonis. 61. to. 1. Conc. pa. 971. Theodoret did once defend Theodorus and Nesto­rius, two most pestiferous Arch-heretikes against Cyrill. Yea Binius saith, defendit constantissimè, he defended them most constant­ly, as if to defend heresie, were with these men not pertinacie, but constancy, witnesse Baronius. Theodoret saith he Bar. an. 427. nu. 30. being most addicted to Theodorus, shadowed his praise, by his friendship with Ne­storius, but he utterly darkned it by his undertaking of the defence of that Arch-heretike against Cyrill. And againe an. 431. nu. 182., 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 he­resie of Apollinaris.

5. Witnesse (men of better note then the former) Liberatus, who saith, Liber. ca. 4. 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 Pelagi­us, who saith Pelag. 1. Epist. 7. §. Discusso. that Theodoret, monstratur scripsisse, is de­monstrated and certainly knowne to have written against the twelve Chapters of Cyrill, and against the true Faith. [Page 93] The Acts of the Ephesine Councell, wherein Repi chensio 12. Captiusorum, divi [...]yrilli [...] Theodore­to co [...]scripta, habi­beturi [...] Append. ad to. 5. Act. Conc. Eph. ca. 2. pa. 859. b is recorded the verie refutation of those twelve Chapters by Theodoret, and the answere of Cyrill unto it▪ the one still called, Theodoreti repre­hensio; and the other, Cyrilli adversus Theodoretum refutatio; Cy­rill, who, in his Epistle Cyrill. Epist. ad [...] extat. to. 5. Act. Conc. Eph. c. 8. to Eulogius, faith thus, You have my re­futation which I set forth against Andreas, and Theodoret, who writ against my Chapters.

6. Witnesse Theodoret himselfe, who, in sundrie of his Epistles, testifieth his spleene, and spight against Cyrill, and the Catholike faith. In Extat in Conc. [...]oll. 5 pa. 559 a. one of them to Nestorius he professeth his most per­verse, and pertinacious resolution to abide in that heresie of Ne­storius; 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 Extat et citat. ib. continue still, saith he, contradicting the twelve Chapters, ut alienis à pietate, as being contrary to pietie: In another to Aemeri­us, Wee Ea citatur à Pe­lagio, Epi [...]i. 7 § Dis­cusso. ought not to consent to the condemnation of the ve­nerable, and most holy Bishop Nestorius: in another to Citatur ibid. Alexander, I told you before, that the doctrine of my venerable, and most holy Bi­shop 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 Extat in Conc 5. Coll. 5. pa. 558. b. 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 Nesto­rius, and his fellow-heretikes were the onely Israel; but Cyrill, Bi­shop 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 Chal­cedon: When Theodoret, being called, came first into the Synod, the most reverend Bishops of Aegypt, Illirium, and Conc. Chal. Act. 1 pa. 6. a. Palestine, cry­ed 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 re­ceive Theodoret: Call him not a Bishop, he is no Bishop, hee is an op­pugner of God, he is a Iew, thrust him out: he accused, he anathemati­zed 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 Nestori­us, 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 [Page 94] cause was fully examined, and heard. Seeing now there are be­sides, many other which I willingly omit, so many, so evident, so obvious, so undeniable proofes, that Theodoret writ against Cy­rill, 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 Coun­cell of Chalcedon thought so; but takes this knowne, and palpa­ble 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 Vi­gilius, and that is, the reason whereby he proveth, that Theodo­ret writ not against Cyrill, or in defence of Nestorius; you shall heare it in his owne words: It is, saith Vigil. Const. nu. 180. he, undoubtedly repugnant to the judgement of the Councell of Chalcedon, that any Nestorian do­ctrines should be condemned under the name of that Bishop (Theodo­ret) who, together with those holy Fathers, did accurse the doctrines of Nestorius: Quid enim aliud est mendaces, & simulantes professionem rectae fidei patres in sancto Concilio Chalcedonensi residentes ostendere, quam dicere aliquos ex 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 im­plyeth, that seeing Theodoret was one of the Bishops, and Fathers at Chalcedon, if he ever writ any such things in defence of Ne­storius, then both he, and the rest admitting him, should dissem­ble in their faith, and 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 Vi­gilius 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 Coun­cell 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 dis­sembling, and lying in the faith; the whole Councell of Chalce­don, 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 plain­tiffe, [Page 95] who Gloriosiss. Iudices dixerunt, Theodore­tus in locum accusa­toris nunc ingressus est, unde pati amini ea quae inchoata sunt finiri, reservata post hac omni accu­satione, et vobis, et illi. Conc. Chal. Act. 1. pa. 6. a. accused Dioscorus for injuriously deposing him, and placing another in his See. And in the eight Action, wherein 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 cry­ed Act. 8. Conc. Chal. out, Theodoretus modo anathematizet Nestorium; let Theodo­ret 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 Nihil relegi vo­lumus, anathema­tizet Nestorium. Ib. refused) he purposed at large by words Ego (inquit Theo­retus) quomodo cr [...] ­do, &c. Ibid. 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; Anathe­ma to him, who doth not confesse the blessed Virgin to bee the Mother of God: with which profession the Synod being fully sa­tisfied, 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 resto­red 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 pos­sibly 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 recei­ved him who had sometimes swarved in the faith; The hereti­call Theodoret, they exclude and reject, the orthodoxall Theodo­ret they reverence and embrace. That which Saint Austen Aug. lib. 2. de A­dulter. conjug. ca. 9. 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 repen­tance 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 in­ferre, 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 anathe­matize [Page 96] his writings: Vig. Const. nu. 180. 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 suffice­re judicantes; judging this alone to be sufficient for them to receive Theodoret. Now it is unfit, saith Ibid. nu. 181. he further, nos aliquid quaere­re 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 ana­thematizing 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 hareti­ca 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 evi­dent consequent, both the Councell required, and Theodoret per­formed this before them all; for, hee subscribed Ego autem et de­finitioni fidei sub­scripsi, [...]it Theod. in Conc. Chal. Act. 8. to the definition of faith decreed at Chalcedon: one part of that definition is the ap­proveing Approbamus Sy­nodicas Epistolas Cyrilli. Conc. Chal. Act. 5. in definit. of the Synodall Epistles of Cyrill: a part of one of those Epistles Nam continentur in Epist. Cyrilli et Conc. Alexand. ad Nestorium, quae ex­tat inter acta Con­cilij Ephes. to. 1. Act. ca. 14. et. repe­titur in Conc. 5. Coll. 6. pa. 568. et seq. are the twelve Chapters of Cyrill, which Theo­doret refuted: in every one of those chapters, is an anathema de­nounced to the defenders of the contrarie doctrine: Then cer­tainely, 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 chap­ters. And it seemes strange, that Vigilius professing that Theo­doret 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 ana­thematized.

13. Besides this, how often, how plainely doth the Councell of Chalcedon Act. 8. require, and urge Theodoret to anathematize Nesto­rius and his doctrines? how willingly did Theodoret performe this? What else is this, but a vertuall, and implicite anathe­matizing of those his owne writings against Cyrill w ^ch defended Nestorius and his doctrines? None can anathematize the for­mer, but eo ipso he doth most certainely (though not expresly) a­nathematize the later; as on the contrary, none can say (as Vigi­lius doth, and decreeth, that all shall doe the like) none can say that the writings of Theodoret against Cyrill, and his twelve chap­ters [Page 97] ought not to be anathematized, but eo ipso, even by saying so, he doth most certainly (though but implicitè and by conse­quent) say that Nestorius and his heresie, ought not to be condem­ned. A truth so cleare that Pope Pelagius Pelag. 2. Epist. 7. § Quis hac. from his anathema­tizing of Nestorius and his doctrine, concludeth of Theodoret: Con­stat eundem, it is manifest, that in doing this, he condemned his owne writings against the twelve Chapters of Cyrill.

14. Neither is that true which Vigilius fancied, that to require men to anathematize the writings of Theodoret, is to seeke, and require more then the Councell of Chalcedon required: It is not. It is but requiring the selfe same thing to be done in actuall and expresse termes, which the Councel required and Theodoret per­formed in vertuall and implicite termes. The thing required and done is the same: the manner onely of doing it, or requiring it to be done, is different: Even as to require of men to professe Christ to be [...], which the Councell of Nice, and the Church ever since requireth, is not to require them to professe more, or ought else, then the Scripture teacheth, and all catholikes Hoc testimonis omnes patres utur­tur contra Arianos, ut probent unam esse essentiam patris & filij. Bell. lib. 1. de Christ. ca. 6. §. Quartum. be­fore professed, by those words, I and my Father are one: but it is a requiring of an explicite profession of that truth concerning the unity of substance of the Father, and the Sonne, which by those words of Scripture they did before implicitè professe.

15. But yet at least will some of Vigilius friends reply, it was unfit to require this explicite anathematizing of Theodorets wri­tings, seeing the Councell of Chalcedon did not require it. No, not so neither. The explicite condemning of them, was not on­ly fit, but necessarie at that time, in the dayes of Iustinian, and Vi­gilius; For as when the Arians denyed Christ to bee [...], it was enough for one to cleare himselfe of Arianisme, to say, that he held this text for true, I and the Father are one, though therein he doe implicitè professe Christ to bee [...], and though to have professed that alone, before the question about the unity of one substance was moved, had beene sufficient; but now he must explicitè professe that truth which is explicitè denyed and oppug­ned: even so it is in this cause of Theodorets writings, and all like it. While there was no doubt moved by heretikes, whether those writings of his ought to be condemned; and whether by the Councell of Chalcedon they were condemed or no, so long it was sufficient for one to professe that he condemned Nestorius, and subscribed to the definition of Chalcedon; both which were implicite condemning of those writings of Theodoret: but when the Nestorians began to boast, that Theodorets writings against Cyrill, neither were condemned, but rather with the author of them approved by the Councell of Chalcedon, neither ought to be condemned, the Church now was necessarily enforced to re­quire of all men a profession of that truth in plaine and explicite termes, which before they made onely in generall and implicite. Nor could Vigilius, or any other Nestorian, who refused in ex­presse manner to condemne the writings of Theodoret, purge him­selfe [Page 98] of that heresie of Nestorius at this time, by saying they approved the definition of Chalcedon, or condemned Nestorius; though in both these they did implicitè condemne the writings of Theodoret, but now they must expresly professe that which the heretikes expresly denyed, they must in plaine termes anathe­matize those hereticall writings of Theodoret, and acknowledge them to have bin anathematized by the Councel of Chalcedon, as the heretiks in plaine termes 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 wri­tings. It taught but the very same which the Councell of Chal­cedon had done before it, anathematized those his writings, which at Chalcedon were anathematized before, but they did this now in a plaine manner and explicitè, which by the Councell o [...] Chal­cedon only in an obscure manner, and implicitè was done before.

16. The third personall errour which Vigilius Vig. Const. nu. 181. taketh for a ground of his decree, is that Cyrill himselfe though he was so ex­ceedingly injured by the writings of those Easterne Bishops that tooke part with Nestorius, yet when he made union with them, he required them not to anathematize their owne writings, but overpast them in silence, as if there had never beene any such: whence Vigilius inferreth, that neither ought this anathemati­zing of their writings (by name of Theodorets) bee required by others, yea he saith, the Fathers of Chalcedon imitated this ex­ample of Cyrill, and so would not require that of Theodoret, which they saw Cyrill not to have required of others.

17. The answer is easie by that which hath beene declared: this saying of Vigilius laboureth of the same equivocall sophisti­cation, as did the former; for both Cyrill required, and all who were united unto him, and received into his, which was the com­munion of the Catholike Church; they all did, though not in ex­plicite termes, which then was not needfull; yet vertually, and af­ter a certaine, and undoubted, though implicite manner, con­demne; and anathematize all their writings against Cyrill, and the Catholike faith; for he received none till they had anathe­matized the doctrines of Nestorius. This doth Cyril himselfe most plainly witnesse in his Epistle to Cyrill. Epist. ad Dynat. exta [...] in Act. Conc. Ephes. to. 5. ca. 16. Dynatus; I would not, saith he, admit Paulus Bishop of Emisa into communion, priusquam Nestorij dogmata proprio chyrographo anathematizasset; untill hee had anathe­matized by his owne hand-writing the doctrines of Nestorius: And he intreated me in behalfe of the other Bishops, that I would [Page 99] rest contented with that profession which they had sent, and re­quire 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 resti­tuimus, did we receive them into our communion. Thus Cyrill, who by requiring this, did in effect require (& they performed the same) a condemning of all their witings which were made against him, and in defence of that heresie of Nestorius: And had Cyrill lived to see any question made, whether those writings (by whomso­ever 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 here­sies of Nestorius.

18. Now from these three grounds (every one of which is de­monstrated to be untrue) Vigilius collects his Conclusion, or definitive sentence in defence of this second Chapter, which also is an errour, but not as the former, personall, but doctrinall; yea, he­reticall: that those writings of Theodoret, or going under Theodo­rets 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 do­ctrine, which the defending of this second Chapter doth beare with it, exclaimes against it in this manner Pelag. 2. Epist. 7. §. Quis haec.: 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 super­biendo defendere? how full of temeritie it is to defend so insolently, the writings of Theodoret? The fift generall Councell Collat. 8. pa. 587., not onely ac­curseth 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 ana­thematized, and to their judgement consenteth the whole ca­tholike [Page 100] Church, they all condemne the decree of Vigilius even in this point as hereticall.

20. I, but Vigilius you will say condemneth Quacun (que) scripta vel dogmata scele­ratorum Nestorij & Eutychetis erroribus manifestantur con­sonare, anathemati­zamus & damna­mus. Vig. Const. nu. 182. those very he­resies of Nestorius, which are defended in those writings; he doth so: at least he seemes by his words to doe it: and had he not with­all decreed that Theodorets writings should not bee condemned, he could not justly have beene reproved in this point. But in do­ing 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 Vigi­lius would seeme to doe. Theodorets writings and Nestoria­nisme are inseparable companions, either both must stand, or both fall together. Its as impossible, and repugnant to con­demne the one, and deny that the other may be condemned, as to condemne Euticheanisme, and yet defend the Ephesine latro­cinie and decree thereof, or condemne Arianisme, and not con­demne 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 positi­ons 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 Pro ipsorum de sensione laborat Vi­gilius. Bar. an. 553. nu. 172. & 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, Ibid. nu. 222. 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 judge­ment & cathedrall resolution of the Pope in this matter: what he speaks repugnant to this is casuall, & praeter, nay contra intenti­onem, 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 con­demned, he puls in Nestorianisme with all his might, & sets wide open a postren gate unto it: by condemning Nestorianisme in [Page 101] shew of words, he seemes to be orthodoxall, by defending Ne­storianisme indeed and in truth, he demonstrates himselfe to be hereticall. Or because Vigilius was so very wise a Pope as here­after out of Baronius you shall heare, it seemes he meant to shew one part of his wisedome, and policie, in this matter, and there­fore while the heresie of Nestorius comes in his owne naturall habit, or in the liverie of Nestorius, away with it, the Popes ho­linesse 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 wri­tings 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, Vig. Const. nu. 180. valde contrarium, & Chalcedonensis Synodi judicio in­dubitabiliter 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, un­lesse he disgraced the holy Councell of Chalcedon as guilty of the same heresie, as if they also had judged that none of Theodo­rets writings, not those written against the faith, ought to bee condemned? They to judge this? or is it contrary, and that in­dubitabiliter, 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 anathemati­zed all those writings of Theodorrt, and warranted by their judgement all others to anathematize the same. Gregorie Lib. 7. Indic. 2. Epist. 54. wit­nesseth 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 ana­thematize 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 follow­ing them in that judgement, wherein they had gone before them. If to condemne those writings be repugnant to the judg­ment 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 ap­proving the fift Synod, and decree thereof, do anathematize [Page 102] 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 con­demne any writings of Theodoret, or any under his name, is re­pugnant to the judgement of the Councell at Chalcedon.

24. The other reason of Vigilius, is, because it were a dis­grace, injury and slander, against Theodoret, to condemne his writings. This the Pope Vigil. Const. nu. 282. expresseth in the very words of his sen­tence, in this manner; The truth of these things, (those are the three personall points before handled) being weighed, we ordaine and de­cree, nihil in injuriam, at que obtrectationem probatissimi viri, hoc est Theodoreti sub taxatione nominis ejus, à quoquam fieri vel proferri, that nothing shall be done or spoken by any, to the injury and 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 hereti­call writings of Theodoret, that rather than they may be condem­ned, 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 per­sons, 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 Au­gustine to himselfe in writing so many retractations, and cor­rections 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 con­comitants of true knowledge and learning: and the more lear­ned any man is, the more judicious is he in espying, the more ingenuous in acknowledging, the more lowly and humble, in condemning his owne errors. As it is but winde and no solid [Page 103] 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 em­brace the same, though it were with a condemning, yea with a detestation of his owne error. It must never be a shame or dis­grace to any man to recall and condemne his errors; till he be a­shamed of being a man, that is subject to errors, Saint Augustine Illi quos vulgō moriones vocant, quanto mag [...] absur­di & insulsi sunt, tanto magis nullum verbum emittunt quod revocare ve­lint, quia dicti mali paenitare, utique cor­datorum est. Aug. Epist. 7. more sharply saith, That its a token not onely of a foolish, and proud selfe-love, but of a most malignant Nimis perversè se ipsum [...]mat, qui & alios vul [...] orare ut error suus late al. ibid. minde, rather to wish others to bee poysoned with his heresies, then either himselfe to recall, or permit o­thers, 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 appro­ved by the Councell of Chalcedon, saith Vigilius; is it not an inju­ry to condemne the writings of a man most approved? No vere­ly, the more approved, the more eminent, learned, and ortho­doxall any man is, the more carefull and ready, both himselfe, and the Church must be to condemne his former hereticall wri­tings: 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 ap­proved Bishop; then, and then specially is there danger of infecti­on: 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 Vint. de Hares. ca. 23. 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 Vincent. Li [...]. loc. citato. of gravity, in­tegrity, continency, zeale Zelo dei se trun­cavit. Hier. Epist. ad Pamac. & [...]ce­an. to. 2. pa. 194. [...], piety, of learning of all sorts, both divine, and humane, of so Scripturas memo­riter tenebat. ibid. happy a memory, that he had the Bible without booke, of such admirable eloquence, that not words but hony Vinc. loc. cit. seemed to drop from his lips; of so indefati­gable industry, that he was called Adamantius, and was said by some Hier. lib. 2. ado. Ruffin. to have written six thousand bookes, by Hier. epist. ad Pam. Hierome, one thousand, besides innumerable commentaries; of such high [Page 104] esteeme, and authority, that Christians Vinc. loc cit. honoured him as a Pro­phet; 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 con­demne his bookes, for the honour which was given to his per­son, 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 Ori­gen. His birth noble, Nobilibus paren­tibus nascitur. Possev. in Theodor. his parents being without hope of Children, vowed Epist. Theod. 81. ad Nonium extat apud Bar. an. 448. nu. 12. him before his conception, like another Samuel unto God. And accordingly even from his Cradle consecrated him to Gods service: Violently Iavitus episcopus sum ordinatus ibid. 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 Erat in Syria op­pidulum vehemēter neglectum Cyrus no­mine, a Iudaeis ex­tructum ut qualem­cunque gratiam be­nefactori (Cyro) re­s [...]r [...]t. Proc. de aedi­fie. Iustia. Orat. 2 in fine. of eternall memorie, as being one monument of the deliverance of Gods people, by the hand of Cyrus, out of the Babylonish captivitie) So up­right, blamelesse, and voide of covetousnesse, that having beene five and twenty yeares Bishop of that place; in all that time, ne Theod. Epist. ad Nonium. 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 gar­ments, nay, which is a memorable token of integritie, none of mine house, saith he, hath taken the worth of an egge, or a mor­sell of bread: So plentifull in workes of charitie, That he distri­buted Quae nobis a pa­rentibus obvenerūt, post eorum mortem statim distribui. Theod. Epist ad Leonem. extat inter Epistolas Leonis post Ep. 62. his inheritance among the poore, repaired Churches, Theod. Epist. 81. 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 Epist. Theod. ad Leonem. & ad No­nium. 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, where­with I am apparelled, For learning and knowledge both in di­vine and humane matters he was much honoured, compared to Nilus [...] Epig. apud Poss. in Theodor. as watering the whole countrie, where hee abode with the streames of his knowledge, he converted eight townes, Theod. Epist. ad Nonium qnae est 81. in­fected with the heresie of the Marcionites, to the faith, two o­ther 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 Ibid. unum quidem haereticorum zizanium remansit, there re­mained not so much as one hereticall weed.

30. So learned, so laborious, so worthy a Bishop was Theodo­ret: and so desirous am I not to impaire any part of his honour, much lesse to injure, disgrace, or slander him. Whom almost [Page 105] would not the writings of a man so noble for birth, and paren­tage, so famous for learning, so eminent in vertue, move and perswade to assent unto him, if they might goe currant with­out 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 Ori­gen Originem, fontem Arij, Niceni patres percuss [...]re, damnan­tes enim eos qui fili­um negant esse de subs [...]antia patris, il­lum (Origi [...]ē) Ari­umqui d [...]mnave­runt. Hier. Epist. ad Pammac. de error. Orig. Omnis tam orientis, quam occi­d [...]ntis C [...]lbulicorum Sy [...]odus, illum, hae­rericum denunciat. Hier. Apol. 2. adver. Ruff. himselfe was by the Church condemned; and so the au­thor being disgraced, the authority of his writings must needs be very small: but the person of Theodoret was approved by the whole Councell of Chalcedon, they all proclamed Con. Chal. Act. 8. him to bee a Ca­tholike, and orthodoxall Bishop. Here was a farre greater temptati­on and greater danger when his writings are hereticall, whose person, so famous and holy a Councell commendeth for Catho­like. 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 Num Iustini re­scriptum de eâ re datum est Rustico Coss. ut liquet ex Conc. 5. Coll. 7. pa. 582. Vbi rescriptum extat. Rusticus vero Consul cum Vitalia­no an. 510. Marcel. in Chron. et Bar. in cum annum nu. 1. yeares, before this fift Councell, in the time of Iustinus the Emperour, the Nestorians (as if not one­ly some writings of his, but Theodoret himselfe had beene wholly theirs) set up Conc. 5. Coll. 7. pa. 582. et pa. 578. a. his image in a Chariot, and with great pompe, and sing­ing 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 per­son. 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 con­demned 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 he­retical 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 [Page 106] 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 Consti­tution is a triumphant chariot for them to set the Image of The­odoret, in their Temples, and with Anthemes and Collects to ca­nonize, 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 burn­ing 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 om­nia. Popes are men of profound thoughts, and very long rea­ches; 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 hereti­call writings of Theodoret may not be condemned, because him­selfe was a Catholike, à fortiori, this decree of Vigilius, be it ne­ver so hereticall, may not bee condemned, because the Pope is the head of all Catholikes. If it bee an injury, and a slande­ring 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 in­jurious, 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 mat­ters 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 in­tricate 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 seri­ous 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, be­ing their strongest hold, and most hidden hereticall den, where­in they hoped of all other most safely and securely to have lur­ked; for the more perspicuous proceeding wherein, before I come to the 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 expe­riment what truth, fidelity, and faire-dealing he is to expect at the hands of Vigilius and Baronius in their handling of this Chapter.

2. The first, and that indeed a capitall untruth, is, that Vigili­us avoucheth the Councell of Orthodoxa est Ib [...] à patribus pronun­ciata dictatio. Vig. Const. nu. 192. Chalcedon to have approved this Epistle of Ibas as orthodoxall. They approve that impious, and blasphemous Epistle? they rejected, they condemned, anathe­matized, 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 Conc. 5. Coll. 6. pa. 576. b. definitio sancti Chalcedonensis Concilij condem­navit, ejecit; the definition of faith made by the holy Councell at Chal­cedon hath condemned this Epistle, it hath cast out this Epistle. But because I have formerly Supra ca. 4.5.1.3.13. 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, Vig. Const. nu. 190 addeth that all the rest in the Councell of Chalcedon did not onely not contradict their interloquutions, verumetiam apertissimum eis nos­cuntur praebuisse consensum; but also they are knowne to have assented, [Page 108] 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 interloquuti­ons, uttered a papall and supreme untruth, whereof no coloura­ble pretence can be made, witnesse the fift general Councell, and the whole Catholike Church, which hath approved it: They expresly Conc. 5. Coll. 6. [...]a. 576. a. b. testifie, that the Councell of Chalcedon did pro nullo ha­bere, 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 A­damant, Patres Bar. an. 553. nu. 191. dixerunt eam Epistolam ut Catholicam recipiendam; the Fathers of Chalcedon said, that this Epistle of Ibas is to be received as orthodoxall: and Ba an. 448. nu. 71 againe, ex ipsa Ibam fuisse probatum orthodox­um, 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 Vi­gilius, yet are they farre more inexcusable in the Cardinall, than in the Pope his Master. Vigilius dyed before he saw the judge­ment 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 un­truths: But Cardinall Baronius knew all this; hee knew that the fift In 6. collatione Conc. 5. allata ab ipso Vigilio pro de­fensione Iba Episto­lae [...]nsutantur. Bar. an. 553. nu. 210. generall Councell had condemned these untruths in Vigili­us: he knew that Pelagius, Gregorius cum praedecessoribus & successoribus ejus omnes quintam Sy­nodum confirmasse noscuntur. Bar. an. 553 nu. 229. Gregory, and their successors, that the sixt, Bar. ibid. seventh, and other generall Councels had approved the fift Councell, and so in approving it, had condemned those same un­truths; 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 pro­claime, to be condemned untruths. Such account doth the Car­dinall 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 Chap­ter, 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 in­tent 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 au­thor of this Epistle, but onely the Epistle it selfe; yet seeing the [Page 109] 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 him­selfe in this point.

6. Baronius speaking against this Epistle, first makes it doubt­full whose it is, saying Bar. an. 432. nu. 71., author qui fertur nomine Ibae, quisquis ille fuerit, the author of this Epistle which passeth under the name of Ibas, whatsoever he be; and having thus bred a distrust in your 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, Ibid. 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 Ba­ronius, who for proofe hereof alleageth the publike acts Conc. Chalc. Act. 10. & Conc. Nic. 2. Act. 6. citantur à Bar. ibidem. 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 Epiphanius scitam à patribus appositam responsionem perle­git. Bar. nu. 787. nu. 34. and behalfe of the Synod. And be­cause it is a testimony very pregnant for the Cardinalls assertion, and is cited out of a Councel which he much honoreth, & affect­eth, 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 Quam confutati­onem nobis spiritus sanctus dedit. Conc. N [...]c. 2. Act. 6. pa. 356. a. unto them by the holy Ghost: but they further request Rogamus autem, quicun (que) etc. ibid b. 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 Conc. Nic 2. Act. 6. pa. 371. a. there was read on the behalfe of the Icono­clasts, a testimonie out of the ancient Father Epiphanius Bishop of Cyprus, forbidding to set up Images either in the Churches, or Epiphanius Cypri­us sic inquit, Ne in ecclesiam imagines inferatis, neque in coemiterijs statuatis: neque in domo com­muni tolerentur. ibid. in Churchyards, or in their common dwelling houses, but every where to carie about, God in their hearts. This saying netled the Nicene Fathers not a little, who were very supersti­tiously devoted to Image-worship: and therefore in stead of a better answer, they say that the booke whence that is alleaged, is falsly Id (ex Epiphanio lectum) nequaquam illius existit. ibid. a. Et, verum ut novitij (libelli) et alieni falsi (que) sunt. ibid b. ascribed to Epiphanius, hee was not the author of it. Ephiphanius they honor Commentarium illum reijcimus beatum autem pa­trem (Epiph.) ec­clesiae Doctorem ag­noscimus. ibid. b. 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 ac­cursed the Epistle going under the name of Ibas, non Ibid. b. enim de­monstrari 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 [Page 110] 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 con­curreth and jumpeth with the Cardinall, this is not the Epistle of Ibas.

8. Before I come to examine those publike acts, I must ob­serve one thing touching Baronius, which he will occasion and in­force 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 Cardi­nall, 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 con­tents thereof judge Ibas to be a Catholike (which Vigilius Vigil. Const. nu. 196. de­creeth, and Baronius Bar. an. 553. nu. 191, 192.193.196 197, &c. more then twenty times I thinke repeat­eth,) 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 Bar. an. 442. nu. 71.; This to be the Epistle of Ibas, the Popes Legates, and after them the rest of the Bishops by their subscrip­tion, confirmed and againe, the an. eod. nu. 77. Acts of Chalcedon doe teach, that this we acknowledged to be the Epistle of Ibas. I oppose Pope Vigilius, who in his Constitution assenteth Vigil. Const. nu. 90 to that judgement of the Popes Legates, and those words, relecta ejus Epistola, the E­pistle of Ibas being read, we acknowledge him to be a Catholike. I oppose the confession of Ibas himselfe, of which Baronius saith, the Bar. an. 448. nu. 77. Acts at Chalcedon declare Ibam confessum esse eam esse suam, that Ibas confessed this Epistle to be his owne: and againe Bar. an. 553. nu. 211., 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 an. 448. nu. 71. saith of this Epistle, verè esse Ibae fu­isse 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 [Page 111] 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 Bar. an. 432. nu. 71. 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 collec­ted, that this was not the Epistle of Ibas. Or if you will not be­leeve my saying, yet beleeve the Cardinall himselfe, more then once testifying that which he saith to be untrue. These are his words Bar. an. 448. nu. 77., 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 Ibid. nu. 71, 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 Ro­mane 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 dis­sent 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 un­true. But let him please himselfe in those Nice Fathers, we en­vie not such a Councell, nor such Fathers, nor such publike re­cords unto them. That Nicene assembly was but a conspiracie against the truth, it was fit they should uphold untruth, by un­truth. 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 main­tained, he shall finde them full stuft with many grosse and palpa­ble untruths, of matters de facto, on which they build their doctri­nall [Page 112] 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 Epi­stle 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 Beatum patrem (Epiphanium) ca­tholicae ecclesiae Doctorem agnosci­mus. Conc. Nic. 2. Act. 6. pa. 371. b. Doctor of the Church, one who held the ancient tradition Illi qui antiquam ecclesiae traditionem recipiunt, beato E­piphanio non ad­versantur. ibid. b. of the Church, and consented to the Catholikes, in and before his time: it hence againe followeth, that the doctrine of condemning Image-wor­ship which in that booke of Epiphanius is delivered, & was by the generall Councell at Constantinople some thirty Conc. Const. con­tra Imagines, habi­tum est an. 754. Bin. to. 3. pa. 229. Conc. Nicenum ha­bitum. an. 787. Bin. notis in id Conc. yeares before this Nicene Assembly, decreed Qui imaginem ausus fueri [...] parare, aut adorare, aut in ecclesia, aut in pri­vata domo constitu­ere, aut clam habe­re, si Episcopus fuerit, deponatur. &c. De­cretum Conc. Con­stant. sub Constan­tine Copronimo, quod extat in Nice­no Conc. 2. Act. 6. pa. 377. a., that it I say is ancient, Catho­like, 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 E­pistle 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 beha­ved themselves, that those former errours though they be too shamefull, are but a ve­ry 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 con­demned [Page 113] heresie. Those sleights are principally two. The for­mer is gathered out of the latter part of the Epistle of Ibas, where mention is made of the union betwixt Cyrill, and Iohn, which although I touched before Sup. ca. 4., yet because it is a matter of greater obscuritie, and containeth a most notable fraud of Vi­gilius, and Baronius, I purposely reserved the full handling of it unto this place, where without interruption of other mat­ters, I might have scope enough, to 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 Nesto­rius, against the holy Councell. And the division was so great, that at the selfe-same time, in one, & the selfe-same citie of Ephe­sus, they held two severall Councels, and set up altare contra alta­re, Councell against Councell, Patriarcke against Patriarcke, Bishops against Bishops, and Synodall sentence against Syno­dall 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 Syna­gogue of Satan. The one consisted of holy orthodoxall and Ca­tholike Bishops whose President was Cyrill: the other of here­ticall, Coactis in unum solo nomine Episco­pis, qui unà cum Nestorio desciverāta ex quibus alij erant extorres, [...]agi, pra­prijs sedibus deslitu­ti, alij à suis Metro­politanis depositi, a­lij, Pelagij & Caelestij veneno imbuti. Epi-Synodal. sanct. Conc. Epb. ad Caelestinum, to. 4. Act. Eph. c. 17. factious, and divers deposed Bishops, whose President was Iohn. The former condēned Nestorius & his blasphemous do­ctrine, whereby hee denied Christ to be God: the latter de­fended Nestorius and all his impious doctrines. The former was held in a Church, even in the Church of the Blessed Considentibus in sanctiss. Eccles. quae appellatur Maria, to. 2. act. Ephes. cōc. ca. 1. & saepe alibi. Virgin, whose Sonne they professed to bee truly God: the latter in an Inne Iohanne in divir­sorio manēte, sacra (que) illius Synodo prae­sente, Act. Ephe. cōc. to. 3. ca. 1. Cum vix curru dissilijsse [...] (Io­hannes) cubiculu (que), ingressus esset. Apol. Cyril. ad Imper. to. 5 ca. 2. pa. 817. b., or Taverne, a fit place for them who denied Christ to be God. The former proceeded in all respects, orderly and Syno­dally, as was fit and requisite that they should: the latter did all things tumultuously 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) eccle­siarum 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 perpe­trarunt, ibid., presumptuously, and against the Ca­nons of the Church, supporting themselves onely by lies, calum­nies, and slanderous reports. In a word, the former, was truly an holy, a generall, an Oecumenicall 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 sen­sum at (que), consensum. Ep. Synod. Eph. Conc. ad Imp. to. 2. ca. 17. Councell, wherein was the consent of the whole Catholike Church: the latter was no­thing else, but an hereticall, schismaticall, and rebellious faction or conspiracie of some thirtie 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. 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 [Page 114] these Vt patet ex corum subscripsione. Act. Conc. Ephes. to. 3. ca. 2. & [...]om. 4. ca. 7. Iohn Bishop of Antioch, the ring-leader of the rest, Pau­lus 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 Glic. Annal. part. 4. pa. 363. in his Annales, and the Councell at Chalcedon, Post duos dies ve­nimus in Ephesum ait Ibas in Epist. sua. Conc. Chal. act. 10. sequntus sum pri­matem meum ibid. pa. 112. b. and Ibas his 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 Tu Cyrille & tu Memnon, scitote vos exauctoratos, omnique episcopali honore exutos. to. 3. Act. Eph. ca. 2. Cyrill for an Arch-hereticke also, condemning Capita haeretica à Cyrillo exposita ut quae Euangelica & Apostolicae doctrinae apertè repugnant. I­bid. his twelve Chapters as hereticall, which the holy Councell had ap­proved as orthodoxall. As the holy Councell excommunicated Act. Conc. Ephes. to. 4. ca. 7. 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 At vos reliqui om­nes qui Cyrilli actis consensistis, anathe­mati subjacete. tom. 3. Ephes. Act. ca. 2. that tooke part with him, and de­fended his twelve Chapters, and so among these, even Pope Celestine, and the whole Catholike Church. As the holy Coun­cell truly and justly, called themselves; the sacred and oecume­nicall Councell, and tearmed Iohn with his adherents, a faction and hereticall Schismaticorum conciliabulum. to. 4. Act. Conc. Ephe. ca. 15. Conventicle of Nestorians: so did the Conven­ticle arrogate unto themselves, the glorious name of the holy Sacra Synodus, &c. tom. 3. act. ca. [...].6 7. & alibi saepe Ephesine Councell, and slandered them which held with Cy­rill to bee a Conventicle Confuso illorum Conciliabulose con­junxerunt. tom. 3. act. Ephes. ca. 1. Quoddam inter se conciliabulum in­stituerunt. ibid. c. 4., an unlawfull Seditiose, iniquè, contra ecclesiasticas sanctiones. regia (que) decreta consensistis. ibid. ca. 2. and disorderly assem­bly, tearming them Arians, Qui furijs qui­busdam agitati, A­rij, Apollinarijque dogmata instaura­re voluerunt. to. 3. ca. 18. Apollinarians, and from Cyrill, Cy­rillians Scitote Cyrillia­nos tyrannide, frau­dibus, &c. Append. ad to. 3. act. Ephes. ca. 10.. As the holy Councell constantly refused, to commu­nicate with Iohn To. 4. act. ca. 15. et ca. 18., 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 re­fused the communion with Cyrill, and other Catholikes, but bound themselves by many solemne oathes, Iuravimus (que) sapissime pientissimo Regi, quod impossibile sit nobis cōmunicare his (Cyrillianis) si non exploscrint capitula. Appen. to. 3. act. ca. 9. & 10. and that even in the presence of the Emperor, that they would never communi­cate with the Cyrillians, unlesse they would condemne the twelve chapters of Cyrill, adding that they would rather dye Parati sumus prius mori, quam suscipere unum ex Cyrills capitulis. ib. ca. 7., then ad­mit or consent unto any one of those twelve chapters. Such an 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 preven­ted this breach, or after it had hapned, have healed and made [Page 115] 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 Arbitramur pijss. Imperatorem nihil horum dilucidè in­tellexisse. Ita terra mari (que) obsidemur, ut nihil corum quae no­bis hic evenerūt ve­stra Sanctitudini significare potueri­mus. Epist. san. conc. ad [...]ulalium & a­lios. tom. 4. act. ca. 21. Qui Nestorij studiosi erant, om­nia maria & publi­cas via [...] obsidentes, neminem provsus à sacra Synodo Con­stantinopol. venire permittunt. to. 2. act Ephes ca. 19. were their messengers stopt, or their letters by the malicious vigilan­cie of the Nestorians intercepted, so that none, no not any small notice of them came to the Emperors, whereas on the o­ther part the frequent Ea interim quae inimici Christi e­rant, ultro citroque deferebantur. ibid. 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 Candidianus Co­mes amicitiam Ne­storij pietati antepo­nens— [...]a pietati vestrae instillare flu­duit, quae cum sibi tum Nestorio com­moda grata (que) futu­ra intelligebat. Re­latio Synod. ad Imp. to. 4. ca. 10. 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 Empe­rors knowing nothing of that division amongst the Bishops, & how beside the holy Councell, there was a factious, and schisma­ticall 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 Et Nestorij, & Cyrilli, et Memno­nis exauctorationem à Sanctitate vestra nobis insinuatam, calculo nostr [...] appro­bavi [...]us. Sacra mussa ab Augusto ad Synod. to. 3. act. Ephes. ca. 15. of them all three; But at length a letter being brought from the holy Synod to Constantinople by one, who to avoid suspition put on the habit of a begger Epistola ex E­pheso scripta, opera cujusdam mendici, qui in Scipione cam inclusam gerebat, tandem reddita est. tom. 2. act. ca. 19., 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 in­formed of the truth in all the proceedings: and the truth after diligent examination being found, the Emperors by their Impe­riall authoritie adnulled all the Acts of the conventicle, restored Cyrill 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., and Memnon, approved Lega [...]um Synodi sententia publicè ap­probata, Orientales quidem condemnat, Nestoris vero exilium indicit. D [...]cretum [...]g [...]um, tom. 5. act. Ephes. ca. 11. the judgement of the holy Councell against Nestorius, adding banishment also from Con­stantinople, to his deposition: But the Synodall sentence Quae extat tom. 4. act ca. 7. of de­position against Iohn, Imperator decrevit ut sententia Oecumenica Synodi contra Nestorium vim obtineret, quod (que) in causa Iohannis constituisset, suspenderetur. [...] not. in Conc. Ephes. [...] Verum. pa. 921. 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 [Page 116] 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 Ephe­sus dissolved, a farre greater rent by this means being left at the end, then had beene at the beginning thereof, and so that mala­die 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 en­tended, and he so earnestly laboured therein, that himselfe pro­fessed, Sacr. Imp. ad A­catium Episc. Ber. to. 5. act. Ephes. ca. 10. 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 Sacr. Imp. missa per Aristol. ad Io­hannem, tom. 5. act. Ephes. ca. 3. to Iohn B. of Antioch, by many reasons perswa­ding, and by his imperiall authoritie commanding Iohanni man­davit ut scelerata Nestorij dogmata a­nathematizaret &c. Epist. Cyril. ad Dyn. to. 5. act. Ephes. ca. 16. Imperatores li­teras miserunt ad Acatium B [...]reensem et Iohannem, quibus severè praecipiunt, ut turbas consopia­mus. Epist. Pauli ad Cyril. to. 5. act. Eph. ca. 4. him, and with him the rest of the faction, to subscribe to the deposition of Nestorius, & the 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, re­lented, and in a Synod held at Antioch, subscribed as the Empe­ror perswaded them, both to the deposing of Nestorius, and to a truly orthodoxall profession, sent unto them by Cyrill, wherein they approved Cum igitur Io­hannes subscripsisset caeteri (que) qui majori authoritate apud ip­sum erant, et Nesto­rij dogmata anathe­matizassent, cōmu­nionem illis restitui­mus, Epist. Cyril. ad Dynat. to. 5. ca. 16. 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 Et communican­tibus adinvicm, cō ­tentio de medio ab­lata est, et pax in Ecclesia facta. Iba verba in sua Epist., of the union betwixt Iohn and Cyrill, yea mentioneth it as a great blessing of Voluit autem Deus, qui suae sem­per curam gerit Ec­clesia. Ibid. God to the Church, seeing that he not onely consented, but greatly re­joyced at the same. Thus much is cleare and certaine by the E­pistle. 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 Ca­tholike 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 Epi­stle 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 & plau­sible pretence, and therefore more fit for the Pope and Cardi­nall [Page 117] 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 Bar. an. 448. nu. 75. 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 some­times erred with the Nestorians, and dealt against Cyrill, after the peace once made, did communicate with Cyrill, and con­demne Nestorius with his doctrine. Againe, Bar. an. 553▪ nu. 191. the reader is here to be admonished, that the sentence of the fathers at Chalcedon doth not tend to this end, ut voluerint probasse Epistolam Ibae, as if they meant to approve the Epistle of Ibas, in which there are many blasphemies affirmed, neither did Vigilius 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 pro­bare 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 appro­ved for a catholike. Againe, the Ibid. 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 Nu. 192. non alia ex parte; you see that this Epistle was approved by the Fathers at Chalce­don in no other part or respect; but for that which Ibas signifieth in the last part of the Epistle, that 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 An. eodem 553. nu. 113. most plainly in this manner: In the end of this Epistle, Ibas the author of it doth testifie, that peace was made, that himselfe consen­ted 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 de­crees of the Ephesine Councell received, it did plainely and ne­cessarily ensue, that Ibas condemned Nestorius, and approved the Ephesine Councell, and so the Popes Legates, and others at Chal­cedon 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 Aposto­licall [Page 118] Constitutiō, where he thus saith, The Vigil. Const. nu. 192. Fathers at Chalcedon pro­nounced this Epistle of Ibas to be orthodoxall, propter illam praedicatio­nem 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 lau­dans libenter amplectitur; which union and profession of faith Ibas both praiseth in this Epistle, and gladly embraceth. So Vigilius.

8. Here first of all must be observed the admirable 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 E­pistle, or by the union mentioned therein, that either the Epistle was Catholike, or Ibas by it to be judged a Catholike. But Vigi­lius and Baronius, though in some matters they be as blinde as a Beetle, yet when they list, ( and they ever list when they defend here­sie) they can see farre into a Milstone: And yet, if it be well con­sidered, they gaine not much by this their quicke sight, and quirke of the union, which they have spied in the end of that Epi­stle; for the whole fift Councell (approved by succeeding Coun­cels, 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 Tota Epistola he­retica est, tota Epi­stola blasphema est, hac omnes dicimus. Conc. 5. Coll. 6. pa. 576. b. Epistle, and every part, above all, and principally, the end Posteriora inserta Epistola majore im­pietate plena sunt. Conc. 5. Coll. 6. pa. 564 a. thereof, to be blasphemous, and he­reticall, they anathematize Si quis defendit memoratam Episto­lam, & non anathe­matiza [...] eam, et de­fensores ejus, et eos qui dicunt eam re­ctam esse, vel par­tam ejus. Conc. 5. Coll. 8. in senten­tia Synodali. Anath. 14. also as heretikes all who defend ei­ther the whole Epistle, or any part thereof, yea, all who doe not anathematize every part thereof: whence it is undeniably conse­quent, 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 defen­ding but the end onely of that Epistle, and much more for defen­ding 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 [Page 119] 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 testi­fieth Ibas to have approved, he inferres, that Ibas when hee writ this was a Catholike, and writ it as a Catholike, and so the wri­ting, or Epistle it selfe to be Catholike; for thus stands his rea­son; The Vig. Const. nu. 192. 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 di­ctatio; 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 ve­ry like reason as Vigilius doth, quod Bar. an. 553. nu. 191. ex illa, because Ibas in this Epistle professeth himselfe to consent to the union, therefore Pa­tres dixerunt eam Epistolam ut Catholicam recipiendam; the Fathers at Chalcedon said, that the Epistle (loe the Epistle, faith the Car­dinall, not a part onely of it) ought to bee received as Catho­like.

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 Bar. an. 448. nu. 71. Epistola hi­storiam continet re­rum gestarum inter Iohannem & Cyril­lum, et quae inter eos transacta essent, re­fert, &c. 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 oblo­quutus videatur, that in this part there is no wrong done to Cyrill. At the union, or when it was concluded, then was Ibas reconci­led to Cyrill, and received to the communion of the Church, and so would not write against the faith, so teacheth the Cardinall; Ibas, saith An. eodem. nu. 59. he, tooke part with Nestorius, usque ad tempus per Pau­lum Emissenum; untill the time that the union was made by Paul Bi­shop of Emisa, quando ipse sicut alij, communicare cum S. Cyrillo, & Ecclesia Catholica capit; at which time Ibas, as the rest, begun to com­municate with Cyrill, and with the Catholike Church. Vigilius Vigil. Const. nu. 192. 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 [Page 120] makes this plaine, for by it, saith Bar. an. 448. nu. 75. he, is declared, that Ibas, though before that time he had doated, tunc temporis fuisse Ca­tholicum, yet then (to wit, when he writ this) he was a Catholike; and Ibas writ this Epistle, eodem Ba. an. 553. nu. 211 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 Vig. Const. nu. 194 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 Bar. an. 553. nu. 211., 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 ap­proved, 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 pro­fessed, 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 mise­rable, and to tye more fast the knots of those Anathemaes de­nounced against them by the holy Councell, which nothing but renouncing their hereticall defences of this Epistle can ever dis­solve! 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 witnes­seth, and that truly, as you shall straight see, that even in this uni­on 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 mo­ment, nor in that moneth, nor in that yeare, nor at the least two whole yeares after the union was concluded: for the Epistle men­tioneth, [Page 121] 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 The­odorus, till the Emperour had by his Edict straightly forbidden the reading, writing, hearing, or having of the bookes of Nesto­rius; till then the name and writings of Nestorius, being a Patri­arke, 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 fa­mous, as Herostratus Herostratus, ut no­men memoria scele­ris extenderet, incen­dium nobilis f [...]bri­cae ( quod inter 7. orbu miracula [...] erat) manu sua s [...]ruxit, sicut ipse sassus est. Sol [...]n. ca. 53. Strab. li. 14. & Val. Max. tit. de Cupidit. gloriae. lib. 8. ca. 14. did himselfe by burning the temple of Di­ana at Ephesus: But when both the name and bookes of Nestorius was now so detested by reason of the imperiall Edict, tunc caepe­runt Theodori volumina circumferre, saith Liberatus, then Liber. ca. 10. they be­gan but to disperse the writings of Theodorus, w ^ch Baronius Bar. an. 435. nu. 3. also con­fesseth; when the rivers, that is, Nestorius was stopt by the Empe­rors 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 Nestori­us: That Edict was published, as by the date Leg. ult. de haere­ticis cod. Theod. appeares, in Au­gust, when Theodosius was the fifteenth time Is est annus Ch. 435, ut docet Marc, in Chron. & Bar. in illum annum. Consull. The union betwixt Iohn and Cyrill was made the next yeare after the Ephe­sine Councell: for Iohn writing to Xistus Bishop of Rome, and testifying his unitie Placuit & nobis quo (que) in sacrae syno­di sententia [...]equi­escere. Epist. Iohan­nis ad Xistum. Act Conc. Eph. to. 5. ca. 17. 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 Act. Conc. Ephes. to. 2. ca. 1. ubi ha­bita dicitur Syno­dus post Coss. 13. Theodes [...]. an. 10 autem post [...]stum Consulatum, Antio­chus & 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 Con­sule. Caepit autem Concilium 23. die Maij eo anno. to. 2. Act. ca 1. & finitum est post quatuor (ut Liber. ca. 7.) vel post 3. menses ut Socra­tes ait. lib. 7. ca. 33. & 37. and Bassus were Consuls Is est an. Ch. 431. Marc. in Ch. & Bar. in eum annum.. Betwixt Valerius and Aetius, (who were next Consuls after Antiochus and Bassus, and in whose Consulship the union was fully concluded,) and the fifteenth Consulship of Theodosius, wherein the Edict against Nestorius was published, are two intire Consulships An. 433. Theodo­sius 14. et Maxi­mus Coss. an. 434. Ariobinda & As­par. Coss. an. 435. Theodosius 15. et Valent. 4. Coss. Fasti. et Marcell. et Bar., as by the Fasti, and others is certaine. So that it is certaine, that the Epistle which mentioneth the condemning by name of Theodo­rus, 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 Fra [...]mentum Epistola Ibae Episcopi Edess [...]i. Conc. Cha [...]c. Act. 10. and contents Ex quibus unus (qui Theo­dorum condemnat) extitit (falso alicubi scribitur existit) nostra civitatis tyrannus. [...] sua Epist. loc. citat. tyranni au­tem nomine significari Rambulam testatur Liber. ca. 10. ubi sic ait, De quo (Rabula) successor ejus Ibas in epistola sua di­cit, [...] (Th [...]dorum) praesumpsit, qui omnia praesumit, aperrè in ecclesia sua anathema [...]iz [...]re, etc. of the Epistle declare. By all which, [Page 122] 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 like­lihood 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 Ca­tholike Pope Vigilius, and Cardinall Baronius have here set forth unto us. Ibas when he writ this Epistle, is with them a Ca­tholike, 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 Vig. Const. nu. 194. & Ibam tunc temporis (cum hanc Epistolam momento ipso unionis scripsit) Catholicum fuisse. Bar. an. 448. nu. 75. 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, histori­cally related) in his Epistle, as the words Vide Epistolam ipsam, & hoc cla­rum erit. thēselves do shew, & the whole fift Councell Conc. 5. coll. 6. pa. 575. & 576. 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 Ro­mane 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 en­sueth, 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 here­tikes.

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 op­pugning [Page 123] and overthrowing the whole Catholike faith, which I­bas 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 uni­on, and the conditions of peace agreed upon betwixt Cyrill and Iohn, they every where buzzed this into the eares of their secta­ries, 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 de­fendeth Ibas to be a Catholike, to which union whosoever con­senteth, or approveth others, consenting to it; they doe even by that one act, besides all the rest, infallibly demonstrate them­selves, 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 ca­lumnies strive to uphold their heresies.

16. For proofe whereof, I shall produce records above ex­ception: and first of all Cyrills owne testimony. Acatius the wor­thy Bishop of Meletene hearing by the report which the Nesto­rians Ex altera parti quidam de palatio culpaverunt Cyril­lum, cur susceperit ab orientalibus Episcopis duarum confessionem natu­rarum, quod Nesto­rius dixit & docuit hoc ipsū Valeriano, & Acatio videba­tur. Liber. ca. 8. had spred abroad, that Cyrill in making the union had con­sented to the Nestorian doctrine of two natures (making two per­sons) in Christ, contrarie to his owne 12. Chapters, certified Cy­rill of this report: Cyrill writ unto him at large, declaring the contrarie, and assuring him, that it was but a meere calumnie de­vised against him: They reprove and accuse us, saith he Cyril. Epist. ad A­cat. to. 5. Act. Conc. Eph. ca. 8. pa. 814.835. as if for­merly, we had thought the quite contrarie to those things which now (at the union) we have written; and I understand that they object al­so unto us, quod novam fidei expositionen vel 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 an­swered 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 [Page 124] 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 Ibid. pa. 83 [...]. a. be caried about as writ­ten by me, tanquam de ijs quae Ephesi acta sunt, jam dolente, & poeniten­tiam agente, contemnatur: as if I did now (since the union) sorrow and repent for those things which were done and decreed at Ephesus, let such an Epistle be condemned: Nay the Greeke is more empha­ticall, [...] scorne and deride every such writing. The like almost doth Cyrill write to Dynatus Bishop of Nicopolis, who up­pon the Nestorians slanderous reports, suspected as it seemeth the very same of Cyrill, as Acatius did. Cyrill Cyrill. Epist. ad Dynatum quae est 38. & extat tom. 5. Act. Eph. ca. 16. 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 [...]. and falsly report one thing for ano­ther, should trouble any of the brethren: Perindè acsi nos quae con­tra Nestorij blasphemias scripsimus, retractaremus [...]., 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 Nesto­rians themselves doe manifest this their calumnie: For although Iohn and those Easterne Bishops who in their Councell at Anti­och, 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 Vig. Const. nu. 192 orientales Episcopi per Paulum Emise­num 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 Doro­theus, 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 Cyrill Cyr. Epist. ad Dy­natum. 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 Nestori­ans that the Catholikes at the time of the Vnion had revo­ked their former doctrines, and consented to Nestoria­nisme, insulted over them in a publike oration Quae extat in Conc. 5. Coll. 5. pa. 559. at Antioch, before Domnus, in this manner: Vbi sunt dicentes, quod Deus est qui cru­cifixus est? where are those that say that he was God, who was crucified? God was not crucified, but the man Iesus Christ, hee who is of the seed of David, was crucified: Christ is the Sonne of David, [Page 125] 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 Nam unio facta an. 432. Cyril. autem obijt an. 444. Bar. in illo ann. 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 Ca­tholikes at the time of the union had condemned their former faith, and consented to Nestorianisme. So hard it is to re­clame 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 em­braced no other then this slanderous union, or union in Ne­storianisme, those very words in the later part of his Epistle, out of which Vigilius, and Baronius would prove him to 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 de­fend that part of his Epistle, or undertake by it to prove Ibas to be a Catholike. The words of Ibas are these Habentur tum in Conc. Chalc. Act. 10. tum in Con. 5. Coll. 6. pa. 561.. 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 slan­dered 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 an­swer hee received backe from Cyrill, I have to this my writing adjoy­ned [Page 126] 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 do­centes 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 Ad Marin Per­sam, haereticum. Con 5. Coll. 8. pa. 587. b. 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 encourage­ment 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 poy­son, and malice of all the heresies, and practises of the Nestori­ans, to be condensate and compact together. First, here is ex­pressed 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 Ca­tholike Faith. Thirdly, it is a notable untruth, that Cyril made the union with Iohn upon this condition, that hee should anathe­matize 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 men­tioned 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 [Page 127] divers the like, are the flowers wherewith the latter part of that Epistle is deckt, even that part which Pope Vigilius and Ba­ronius 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 Nestoria­nisme, and Cardinall Baronius, being infatuated with the admi­ration 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 Ne­storius, 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 ra­ther; 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 Catho­like: 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 Nesto­rianisme, but you speake it not after the rude and rusticke fashi­on, but in that purest Ciceronian phrase which is now the re­fined 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 [Page 128] of Nestorianisme; yet your comfort is, though it be ranke poi­son, 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.