Church History of the Government of Bishops and Their Councils, Chapter 7

Church History of the Government of Bishops and Their Councils · Chapter 7

p. 177CHAP. VII.

Of the Controversies de tribus Capitulis, and the Fifth Council called General, and many other.

§ 1. EVagrius l. 4. c. 38. tells us, that Iustinian fell from the right Faith, affirming, That the Body of Christ was every way incorruptible; and that he wrote an Edict, in which he said, That the Body of the Lord was not subject to death or corruption; that it was void of natural and unblameable affections, &c. which Opinions he purposed to compel both Priests and Bishops to subscribe: but they put him off, as expecting the Opinion (not of the Pope, but) of Anastasius Bishop of Antioch, then famous for his skill and gravity: But Anastasius would not be moved, and Justinian threatning to banish him, dyed before he did it, or published his Edict. So hard was it then to escape Heresie.

§ 2. So hot was Iustinian in this Error, Some late Historians tell us of incredible numbers of the Egyptian Christians whom Iastinian destroyed in this blind zeal for Christ, but I find no such thing in the old Historians though it was too bad.that he ejected Eutychius that resisted him at Constantinople, saith Niceph. l. 17. c. 29. Iulianus Halicarnas. and Gainas raised this, holding that Christ's hunger, thirst and suffering, were all immediately voluntary, and not as ours by natural necessity. They said that as we all hold Christs Body incorruptible after his resurrection, so did they before it, yet consubstantial with ours. The Orthodox distinguished of Corruption:

1. Blameless Passions of Hunger, Thirst, Weariness, &c. 2. Dissolution of the Bodies Elements. The first they said Christ was subject to before the Resurrection, but not after (nor we:) The later not at all. The Hereticks that held the contrary, were called the Aphthartodocitae, saith Nicephorus, [Quá multi mortales correpti sunt, non solum ex eis qui honores & magistratus gesserunt, sed eitam Hierarchae primarii, & Monachi vitâ illustres, & ex sacerdotali ordine alii, ut ipse Imperator Justinianus.] The Hereticators and Damners are divided about Iustinian's soul and name; some place him yet in Heaven, and others in Hell. If it be true that Nicephorus saith of him, my Vote should go against the Damners, viz. [Nil tale de Christo propter summum ipsius erga illum amorem & desiderium audire constituerit: Princeps etenim iste tanto in Christum pietatis ardore flagrasse, ab eis qui res illius memoriae posteritati mandarunt, dicitur, quanto alius, qui ante eum imperium obtinuerunt, nemo, termaximo illo Constantino semper excepto: Itaque propter vehementem in Christum amorem illius gratiâ multa etiam violenter fecit, &c. And if it came from vehement love to Christ, all I will say is, 1. Let him that is without Error, be the first in damning him. 2. But it was just with God to leave him to be numbered with Hereticks, who was so blindly zealous in executing the Sentences of Hereticating Prelates: (The Case of Nestorius, and many others before.)

§ 3. In his time the Indian Auxumites turned to Christ, and Iustinian joyfully sent them a Bishop.

And I take it for more dishonour to the Bishops than to him, that Nicephorus p. 178saith, c. 32. [In Pontifices quos admodum de Sodomorum haeresi insanire compererat, acerbe, seu potius faede, Justinianus animadvertit.—

And it is noted (ibid.) that in a Famine he commanded Flesh to be sold in Lent; but the People would dye rather than buy it, and break their Customs.

§ 4. CLXVI. An. 540. A Council of 25 Bishops at Orleance, made some Canons of Discipline.☞ The 3d Canon about Ordaining Bishops, layeth down the old Rule, [Qui praeponendus est omnibus, ab omnibus eligatur,] that is, of the Clergy and People: (The Churches yet were no greater than that all the People could join in choosing the Bishop.) The 10th Canon dissolveth incestuous Marriages made after Baptism, but not those made before (as if the reason were not the same!) The 27th Canon finding some too Iewish in keeping the Lord's-day, that would not use a Horse or Chariot to carry them, nor would dress Meat, or do any thing to the adorning of their Houses, or themselves, forbiddeth only grosser labours, which hinder the holy duties of the day.

§ 5. CLXVII. The Canones Barcinonenses, speak of the order of Liturgy, that Clerks must cut their Beards, but not shave their Beards, and such like.

§ 6. CLXVIII. (To pass the Concil. Byzazenum, as having nothing noted of it) Anno 541. a Concil. Arvernense decreed (under King Theodebert) one Canon, which, if practised, had been worth many Kingdoms, Ca. 2. [That no one seek the sacred honour of a Bishop by Votes, but by Merits: nor seem to get a Divine Office,☞ rebus, sed moribus: and that he ascend to the top of that eminent dignity, by the ELECTION of ALL, and not by the FAVOR of a FEW: That in choosing Priests there be the greatest Care, because they should be irreprehensible, who must rule in correcting others, &c.

§ 7. CLXIX. An. 545. Another Council at Orleance under King Childebert, among other Orders, saith, Can. 3. that the Synod forbiddeth the Citizens to celebrate Easter out of the City; because they must keep the principal Festivities in the presence of the Bishop,☞ where the holy Assembly must be kept. But if any have a necessity to go abroad, let him ask leave of the Bishop.] This Canon, and many other to the same purpose tell us, that then the Infidels were still so many, that a Bishop's City-Church could all meet in his presence in one place.

The 5th Canon decreeth, that a Bishop shall be ordained in his own Church which he is to oversee; which implieth, that then ordinarily there was but one Episcopal Church. And indeed it was long before the Countrey meetings were any other than Oratories or Chappels that had no Altars, nor any but the Bishops Church.

Much ado many Councils made to keep Priests and Bishops from Wives, and to restrain them from Fornication.

§ 8. CLXX. In a Synod at Constantinople, An. 547. the business was debated de tribus Capitulis.

§ 9. Here the occasion of this stir must be noted. One Theodorus Bishop of Caesar. Cap. was an Eutychian, but for his skill in business, was great with the Emperor. He thought if he could but cast any slur on the Calcedom Council, it would justifie their Cause: And the Emperor being speaking against the Eutychians, p. 179(or Acephali) Theodorus told him that he might easily bring them all in, if he would but condemn Theodorus Mopsuestenus, and the Writings of Theodoret, and the Epistle of Ibas against Cyril, which the Council had received, it would satisfie them. This seemed to the Emperor a happy way of concord (the Empress putting him on) and so he set himself earnestly to effect it. These three men had been accounted Nestorians, and two of them had written smartly against Cyril as heretical and turbulent; but yet renouncing Nestorius they were received, and justified at Calcedon against their Accusers. And if one may judge impartially by the Evidence that is left us, they seem to have been far wiser and better men than the majority of the Bishops of those times: But neither Learning, Piety, nor soundness in the Faith, is any security in such times, against Hereticaters, that can but get the upper hand and major vote. And Ignorance usually is most proud and loud, most confident and furious; and such can easilier make wise men pass for Hereticks, than learn of them to be wise. But the final judgment sets a strait.

When Iustinian was earnestly set upon this Project, the Defenders of the Calcedon Council perceived themselves in a difficulty; should they condemn these three men, they would seem to condemn the Council (about which there had been such a stir in the Empire:) And they should seem to justifie the Eutychians, and to strengthen them: And if Council were against Council, it would dishonour Councils: And if they should refuse the Condemnation, they would seem to desert Cyril, and the first Ephesian Council, and perhaps might be called Nestorians; but, worst of all, they should displease the Emperor, and might occasion his favouring the Eutychians. Therefore they took this prudent course, to put off the business to a General Council, and to delay till then the Emperors attempts.

But the Emperor did first publish his Edict, in which after the Confession of his Faith, and praise of the four Councils, he addeth ten Curses (Anathematisms, according to the Custom and Religion of those times) of which the three last are against the tria Capitula, or the Councils seeming approbation of the three forenamed men. The Bishops resisted a great while, but at last were forced to submit.

§ 10. CLXXI. To this purpose Vigilius Romanus had a meeting of about 30 Bishops,Constant. an. 547. where Vigilius yielding was called a Desertor, as prevaricating to please the Emperor; he got them to give in their reasons on both sides in writing, and then gave all to the Emperor's party, and persuaded the rest to silence and communion till a Council, because it was not a Controversie about Faith, but about Persons.

§ 11. The Emperor's Party (acted by Theodore Caesar▪) got some Bishops to assemble at Mops…est. An. 550. to prepare a Condemnation of their former Bishop Theodore, by saying that his name was not in their Book.

§ 12. CLXXII. King Childebert called another Council at Orleance, where many old disciplinary Canons were repeated: Among others, Can. 9. That no Lay-man be made a Bishop without a years time to learn his Function. (You may conjecture what Scholars they were then!) Can. 10. That none get a Bishoprick p. 180by gifts, or seeking; but with the will of the King, by the election of the Clergy and the Lay-people.☞ Can. 11. Also (as the ancient Canons have decreed) let none be made Bishop to an unwilling People (or without the Peoples consent) nor let the People or the Clergy be inclined to consent, by the oppression of persons in power (which is not lawful to be spoken:) But if it be otherwise done, let the Bishop be for ever deposed from his obtained honour of Pontificate, who is ordained rather by force, than lawful decree.☞ C. While one Bishop is living, let not any other be there made Bishop; unless perhaps in his place, who is ejected for some capital Crime. Can. 21. Though all Priests, and others, must be careful to relieve the Poor with necessaries, yet especially every Bishop must from the Church-house as far as they can, administer necessaries for food and rayment to such as are in weakness both in his Territories and his City, &c.]

Note I. Were those Bishopricks any bigger than our Parishes of Market-Towns with the Chappelleries? where 1. All the Laity met to choose the Bishop. 2. Where the Bishop could know and relieve all the Poor. 3. And this from the domus Ecclesiae, which was but one.

II. Our Nonconformists plead, that according to these ancient Canons, 1. Those Bishops are no Bishops who came not in by any choice or consent of the People or Clergy, but by power are imposed on the most unwilling. 2. That those Ministers that were never deposed for any Crime, are not to be forsaken by their Flocks, nor imposed persons thrust into their places, accepted by the People, while the first hath true right.

§ 13. CLXXIII. We come now to that which they will needs call the fifth General Council at Constantinople, An. 553. of 165 Bishops. In which let these particulars be noted. 1. That Iustinian's Letters or Formulae were first read, in which he expresly affirmeth, that it was the Emperors that called the former General Councils, and he that called this. 2. That he lamenteth the divisions which former Councils had left unhealed: saying, [The followers of Nestorius and Eutyches made so great trouble in the holy Churches of God, that divisions and schisms were made in them, and the Churches had no Communion with one another: For no man that travelled from one City to another, did presume to communicate, nor any Clerk that went from one City to another, to go into the Church.] Here was lamentable separation indeed. 3. That Iustinian was made believe, that these divisions would be healed, if the tria Capitula of the Council of Calcedon were but condemned: For the Eutychians did so much boast of Cyril, being confident that they did but follow him, and his first Ephesian Council, that if he were vindicated, he thought they would be satisfied. 4. And he thought that the three Bishops were indeed so far to be condemned, having disgraced Cyril, and favored Nestorius, and the other was Nestorius's Master. 5. That the receiving and the cursing of the Council of Calcedon, having hitherto been the great Contest among the Bishops, some were loth now to cast so great a dishonour upon it, and to give the Eutychians so much cause to boast; supposing they would but be the more confirmed in their opposition.

§ 14. Note also, that Vigilius Bishop of Rome was then at Constantinople, but came not to the Council, nor sent any Legate to it: But the Emperor tells the p. 181Council, That when Vigilius Bishop of Rome came to that City, the Emperor exactly opened to him all things about the tria Capitula, and asked him what he thought of them; and that Vigilius not once nor twice, but often in writing, and without writing, anathematized the impious tria Capitula.] And that he had shewed that he was ever of the same judgment, &c.

And they had made Iustinian believe, that Ibas in his Epistle denieth God the Word to be made man, and the Virgin Mary to be the Mother of God.]

§ 15. The Emperor's Writing being read, at the next meeting the Council sent to Vigilius to sit with them, but he still refused, alledging, That there were few of the Western Bishops there. To which their answer is notable, that [The meeting of all the rest ought not to be delayed for the Western Bishops: For in all the four General Councils, there was never found a multitude of the Western Bishops, but only two or three Bishops, ☜and a few Clerks. But now you are here, and many Italian Bishops are at hand, and many of Africa, Illyricum, &c. And if he would not meet them, they must do it without him. They urged him also with the Emperor's words, that he being alone, had oft in writing, and without writing, condemned the tria Capitula, and the Emperor desired him but to do that with others, which he had done by himself. But yet Vigilius would not come: Whether it was because he understood not Greek, and so should be a contemned Cypher (for he saith, They all knew that he understood it not) or whether it was to avoid the Censure that he had before incurred, or both, is not known. For you must understand, that Vigilius had suffered defamation at Rome already, as a Revolter from the Calcedon Council, for joining herein with the Emperor in the beginning, and his chief interest lay at home.

§ 16. Theodorus Mopsuestenus Writings are searched; and though he is highly extolled by many good Authors, yet many passages recited in the Council, and after by Vigilius, do shew either the error of his judgment, or his unskilfulness in speaking; for they are not justifiable. But if every Papist voluminous Writer should be damned as a Heretick, whose Writings have more and greater Errors than the Council gathered out of Theodore Mepsuostenus, it would be a hard reward for their exceeding labours. When such men as Tostatus, Aquinas, Scotus, Ockam, Durandus, &c. Bellarmine, Baronius, Suarez, Vasquez, Cajetane, &c. have spent their days in diligent labours, how easie a matter is it for a proud idle Drone that doth nothing or worse, to gather as many and as great Errors out of their Works, as were in many then counted Hereticks. But the approbation of God, who pardoneth failings, will be the comfort of such as improve their Talents; when the slothful, unprofitable Servant shall be condemned, and quarrelling with the imperfections of the diligent will not save them.

It is evident that Theodore and Nestorius acknowledged Christ's Godhead and Manhood, Soul and Body, and the personal Union of them. But they were none of them perfect in Logick and Metaphysicks, nor so spake as that no man could blame their words.

§ 17. Next the words of learned Theodorite are scanned; and many very smart passages against Cyril are recited: Many verbal Controversies are repeated. Theodorite is accused for saying, That Mary begat not God in the nature of God; p. 182but Man as united to the Godhead;☞ That Christ was forsaken, suffered, hungered, slept, was ignorant of that day and hour, &c. as man, and not as God: That it was not God that was ignorant, (he meant not as God, or not the Deity) but the form of a Servant, which knew no more than the Deity revealed: And so of many other properties or acts of the Humanity, he saith, It was not Deus Verbum that wept, that learnt obedience, &c. meaning only not quâ Deus, or not Deitas, for want of care in speaking. And Ep. ad Ioh. Antioch. (Bin. p. 559.) it's apparent that he also misunderstood Cyril, and thought he held that by Unity of Natures, the Deity was properly become very flesh. A severe Epist. ad Ioan. Antioch, against Cyril after his death is there charged on him, in which he with great saltness rejoiceth in his death, [Miserum illum nec ad similitudinem aliorum dimisit nostrarum animarum gubernator diutius eorum potiri, quae videntur esse delectabilia; sed crescentem quotidie viri malignitatem sciens & corpori Ecclesiae nocentem, quasi pestem quandam amputavit & abstulit opprobrium à filiis Israel: Laetificabit superstites ejus discessio: Contristavit verò forsitan mortuos, & timor est ne praegravati ejus conversatione, iterum ad nos remittant, vel illos diffugiat qui eum abducunt, sicut ille tyrannus Cyri Ciliciam: Procurandum est igitur, & oportet tuam Sanctitatem maxime hanc suscipere festinantiam, & jubere collegio mortuos asportantium lapidem aliquem maximum & gravissimum Sepulchro imponere, ne iterum huc perveniret & instabilem voluntatem iterum demonstraret: Infernis nova dogmata adferat: Ibi diu noctuque sicut vult sermocinetur: Non enim timemus ne & illos divideret—silet miser invitus: Nudata illus facta alligant linguam, obstruunt os, fraenant sensum.—Ideo plango miserum & ploro: Nec enim puram mihi delectationem fecit mortis ejus denunciatio, sed dolore permixtam: Laetor & jucundor ejusmodi pestilentiâ commune Ecclesiae videns liberatum: Contristor vero & ploro cogitans quod nec requiem malorum miserabilis susceperit, sed majora & pejora pertentans defunctus est; somniavit enim, ut dicunt, & regiam urbem perturbare, & tuam Sanctitatem accusare, utpote ea colentem: Sed vidit Deus & non despexit: Immisit fimum in os ejus, & fraenum in labia ejus, &c.

Binnius thinketh some bad man fathered this falsly on Theodoret, I would hope so too: But it's strange that the Council fathered it on him, and none did vindicate him. And the next Charge (Bin. p. 559.) rebuketh his Charity, viz. his Speech at Antioch in the presence of Domnus, [Nemo neminem jam cogit blasphemare—non jam est contentio: Oriens & Aegyptus sub uno jugo est: Mortua est invidia; & cum eo obruta est contentio: requiescant Theopathitae.] Is not this of the same kind? And this is not denied to be his. Whosoever it was, it was sad that Bishops should have such minds, and use such words of one another, especially if it be as I confidently believe, viz. that not distinguishing the concrete from the abstract, and Qui Deus, from Quâ Deus, they both meant the same thing, and differed but about the aptitude of words, for want of explication and distinction.

§ 18. In brief, After the reading of many Papers, and Ibas Epistles, the tria Capitula were condemned, viz. Theodore Mopsuest. and the writings of Theodoret against Cyril, and Ibas Epistle. And so the Emperor found the Council as obedient as he desired.

p. 183§ 19. But Vigilius Bishop of Rome, who would not come to the Council, now giveth in his Constitutum, or his own judgment upon the whole Case, and that with great moderation. He first reciteth many passages of Theodore Mopsuest. which he renounceth; and he dispraiseth the passages of Theodoret and Ibas, but he refuseth to join in the anathematizing of them, alledging that good men have their errors, and instancing in many whose errors were noted, and yet their persons not condemned, especially when they had either recanted them, or better explained their words: And he noteth that it would be a great injury to the Calcedon Council, to have its own members now thus condemned, that were by them accepted. [Quid enim aliud est mendaces aut simulantes professionem rectae fidei Patres in sancta Calced. Synodo residentes ostendere, quam dicere aliquos ex eis similia sapuisse Nestorio; quorum judicio Nestorium ejusque dogmata fuisse damnata.]

And soberly he saith, [It is not lawful to pass any new judgment on the persons of the dead, but we must leave all men in the case that death found them, and in special Theodore Mopsuest. what the Fathers did is evident from what is said; I dare not condemn him by my sentence, nor yield that any one else condemn him: but far be it from me to admit his wrong opinions.]

This was the right way: If they had all dealt as wisely and Christian-like, Counsels had not been the Confounders of the Churches.

§ 20. Nicephorus nameth many of Origen's Errors that were condemned in this Council, but it is not found in the Acts. Binnius doubteth not but the Origenists stole them out, and falsified the Records, and also forged those Epistles of Vigilius, in which the opinion of One Operation is asserted. But will they allow us equally to suspect such Records as have been kept at Rome?

§ 21. What good this Council did, and how the peaceable Emperor attained the end that Theodore Caesar. promised him, of uniting Dissenters, I shall tell you but in the words of Binnius (who followeth Baronius in almost all) What Theodore Caesar. promised, that the Eutychian Hereticks called Hesitants, when the three Capitula were condemned, would receive the holy Calcedon Council, was not obtained, when this was ended; but rather a most grievous mischief was added to the Church: For when the Defenders of the three Capitula, with Vigilius the Pope did not acquiesce in the Councils decree, the whole Catholick Church was torn by Schism; and which is worse, the Emperor stir'd up Persecution, in which he deposed or banished Vigilius (holding to his Constitutum) Victor. Afric. and others.

§ 22. I do impartially commend Vigilius's moderate Constitutum, but I must needs say that there needeth no other instance than Vigilius, that Interest is a Law to some Roman Bishops, and that their pretences of Infallibility, Tradition and Antiquity, notwithstanding they have changed their very Faith, or judgment of Councils at least, as their wordly motives changed. Vigilius first flattered the Emperor, and joined with him against the tria Capitula, Conc. Calced. that is against Theodore Mopsu. Theodoret and Ibas three Bishops, saith Binnius p. 608. [Seeing therefore that before this Council a Schism arose in the Western and Africane Church, because Vigilius had consented to the Emperor's opinion, it became p. 184necessary, for the avoiding of Schism, Sacriledge and Scandal, that he should publish his Constitutum, in defence of the tria Capitula, by vertue whereof the Western Churches should be united, and the contempt of the Calcedon Council should be avoided, which the Impugners of the tria Capitula did fraudulently contrive; and that the Universal Church should learn by this example, that no man that dyed in the true Faith, should be condemned when he is dead: But, (did Vigilius stop here?) No, saith Binnius, [But when after the end of his Council the Church received yet greater damage, and the Emperor persecuted them that contradicted the Synod**And would not Papists have Princes do so?, and it was feared that the whole East would be divided and separated from the Roman and Western Church, unless the Bishop of Rome approved the fifth Synod, then Pope Vigilius, in a Cause which could bring no prejudice to the Orthodox Faith, did well and justly change his former sentence, and approved the Synodal Decree, for condemning the tria Capitula, and revoked and made void his Constitutum, which he before published in defence of the tria Capitula. The prudent and pious Pope (that came to the Popedom by Bribery, Tyranny, and Murder of his Predecessor) did in this prudently imitate St. Paul about Circumcision, &c.

O what certainty and constancy is here in the Papal judgment; For a Pope about one Cause to judge for it, against it, and for it again in so short a time? And all this upon reason of Policy and State. Did the same so often change, and prove first true, and then false, and then true again?

But the Papists excuse is, that it was de Personis, non de Fide. Answ. But 1. Is it lawful to take the same thing for true and false, good and bad de Personis, as our interest requireth? 2. Why are the Persons condemned but on supposition that their Faith was condemnable? 3. You confess that it was for the advantage of the Eutychian Faith, and the depression of the Faith of the Calcedon Council, that the tria Capitula were condemned.

Reader, If all this will not tell thee how much need there is of a surer and more stable support of our Faith than Popes and Councils, yea and better means of the Churches Unity and Concord, I must take thee for unteachable: what have such Councils done, but set the Churches together by the ears?

§ 23. Liberatus in his Breviary saith, (c. 3. 10. 24.) that Theodore Mopsu. his Works were approved by Proclus, Iohan. Antioch. the Emperor, the Council of Calced. &c. But Binnius saith, Nimis impudenter & incautè: Yet all acknowledge Liberatus a most credible Historian, and lived in Iustinian's time. He saith also, that Nefandissimum haereticum Theodoretus & Sozomenus laudarunt adeo ut hac de causá uterque magnam nominis sui jacturam passus fuerit, &c. But wise men are apt to think as hardly of such as can cry out Nefandissimum haereticum against all that speak as unskilfully as this man did, as of charitable men that praise them for what is good, while they disown their frailties and imperfections: If it be as he saith, many thought that …heodoret assumed his own name from this Theod…re, by reason of his high esteem of him, it's like he had some special worth, though he hath many culpable expressions. And Sozomen is an Historian of so deserved reputation, that it seemeth to me no argument of Pope Gregory's Infallibility, that he saith, lib. 6. ep. 95. Sozomenùm ejusque Historiam sedes Apostolica p. 185recipere recusat; quoniam multa mentitur, & Theodorum Mopsuestiae nimium laudat, atque ad diem obitus sui magnum Doctorem Ecclesiae fuisse perhibet.] I think the Author of Gregory's Dialogues did plura mentiri, and yet that Gregory was Magnus Ecclesiae Doctor.

§ 24. The Controversie whether Vigilius were the Author of the Epistle to Menna, I pass by: But, methinks, Binnius is very partial to justifie so much what he did after Silverius's death, as beginning then to have right to his Papacy, and to give him so differing a Character (from Sanctissimus Papa) before, while he possessed the same Seat, as these words of his express, [Cum omnium, &c. seeing that Villany (or Crime) of Vigilius, did exceed the Crimes of all Schismaticks, by which making a bargain with Hereticks, and giving money by a Lay-man, he by force expelled Silverius Bishop of the prime Seat, and spoiled of his Priestly induments (or attire) banished him into an Island, and there caused him to dye, it should seem no wonder to any man, if a desperate wretch (homo perditus,) the buyer of another's Seat, and a violent Invader, a Wolf, a Thief, a Robber, not entering by the true door, a false (or counterfeit) Bishop, and as it were Antichrist, the lawful Pastor and Bishop being yet living, did add most pernicious Heresie to his Schism.] Yet this man became the most holy Pope, by the vertue of his place, as soon as he had but murdered Silverius, and was accepted in his stead, and then it became impossible for him to err in the Faith.

§ 25. CLXXIV. Anno 553. A Council was called at Ierusalem by Iustinian's☜ Command, who sent to them the Acts of the Constantine Council de tribus Capitulis, to be by them received; the Bishops all received it readily, save one Alexander Abysis, who was therefore banished, and coming to Constantinople, say Baronius and Binnius, was swallowed up, and buried by an Earthquake. If this was true, no marvel if it confirmed the Emperor in his way: But I doubt the obedient Bishops were too ready to receive such reports.

§ 26. CLXXV. The same year 553. the Western Bishops held a Council at Aquileia, ☜out of the Emperor's power, where, as Defenders of the Council of Calcedon, they condemned the fifth Constantine Council aforesaid, and (so saith Binnius) separated themselves from the Unity of the Catholick Church, and so continued for near an Hundred years, till the time of Pope Sergius, who reduced them.☜ Were not these great Councils and Bishops great Healers of the Church, that about condemning some written Sentences of three dead men, thus raise a War among the Churches? Were Hereticks or Hereticaters the great Dividers?

§ 27. But here followeth a Case that raiseth a great doubt before us, Whether the Pope alone, or all his Western Bishops, when they differ from him, are the Church? After the death of Vigilius, the Secular Power procured Pelagius the Archdeacon to be made Pope; the Western Bishops disclaiming Iustinian's Council, and Pelagius obediently receiving it (and the Popedom,) there could not be three Bishops got that would ordain him, as the Canons required, so that a Presbyter Ostiensis was fain to do it.

Besides the Question (Which now was the Church?) here are other hard Questions to be solved.

p. 186Qu. 1. Whether Iustinian's Election of a Pope was valid? And if so, Whether other various Electors may do it as validly?

Qu. 2. Whether a Presbyter's Ordination of a Bishop or Pope was valid? If so, Whether Presbyters may not ordain Presbyters?

Qu. 3. Whether this Pope was truly Head of the Catholick Church, when his Bishops obeyed him not?

Qu. 4. Whether it was then believed at Rome itself, and in the West, that a General Council, approved by the Pope, was either infallible, or necessarily to be obeyed?

Qu. 5. Whether it be true which W. Iohnson, alias Terret, often tells me, That it is not possible that there can be any Schism in the Catholick Church, because of the essentiality of its Union?

§ 28. Note that this Pope Pelagius, because his Bishops rejected him and the Council, got Narses the General to compel them: And then who can doubt but he was Pope, and they his Subjects?

But Narses scrupled it, lest he should be guilty of Persecution; Iustinian's Pope Pelagius telleth him, it is no sin, and bids him not fear it; for it's no Persecution which compels not men to sin: but all that separate from the Pope, and assemble separatedly do sin, and are damned Schismaticks; therefore he desireth him to send the Bishops of Aquileia, Milan, and the rest that yield not, Prisoners to Constantinople. Narses obeyeth the Pope and Emperor; the Bishops excommunicate Narses; the Pope writeth to him, that it is no news for erring Bishops to take themselves for the Catholick Church, and to forbid others their Communion, and counselleth him to go on and repress them. And the Civil Sword and the Ecclesiastical were thus engaged in a Roman War; one Bishop Sapandus of Ares in France the Pope got specially to stick to him, whom therefore he commended to King Childebert, &c.

§ 29. CLXXVI. A Council at Paris deposed Bishop Saphoracus for some great Crime.

§ 30. While the Romans were resolving to subject themselves to the Goths again, because the Pope made Narses their Persecutor, Narses took it so ill, that he went away from them, but the Pope drew back, and he**Bar…nius contradicteth Anastasius & others in this point. shortly died. Bellisarius also was ruined, and Iustinian himself shortly dyed. Binnius saith it is reported that he had no Learning, and thinketh that his Civil Laws were Tribonian's, and his Ecclesiastical Theodorus Caesariensis's. And saith that the Church rejecteth his Laws of Usury, Churches and Ecclesiastical Persons, as arrogant Usurpations. Qu. Whether the Roman Power was then understood by Princes or People?

§ 31. CLXXVIII. Another Synod at Paris repeated nine old Canons: ☞The 8th was, [No man may be ordained a Bishop against the will of the Citizens; nor any but whom the election of the People and the Clerks, shall seek with plenary will; none shall be put in by the command of the Prince, &c.

§ 32. CLXXIX. An. 563. in the time of Pope Iohn 3d. (not he, but) Theodomire, alias**Baronius thinks that Theodomire was Father to …. Ariamire King of the Sueves, called a small Council at Braccara in Galicia, where eight Bishops opened so much of the Priscillian Heresie, as p. 187may tell us it was worthy to be detested (not much unlike the Manichees;) and many old Canons they recited: But I could have wished that they had not made a mans diet the note of his Heresie, and a sufficient cause of his conviction and damnation. The Priscillianists (as these say) would not eat flesh, nor herbs boil'd with flesh.☜ This Council ordered that if any that abstained from flesh, did not eat herbs boiled with flesh, he should be taken for an Heretick. This is not conformable to Paul's Rules or Spirit.

§ 33. This Council ordered that none should be buried within the Church, which Binnius well sets home. And whereas Priscillian taught that in the Liturgy [the Pax vobis, Peace be unto you] should be said only by the Bishop, and Dominus vobiscum by the Priest, the Council contradicted him. 1. We see here what Trifles divided men! 2. We see that yet the Churches usually were no bigger than met in one place with the Bishop, or might do: For it is supposed that every Church-Assembly had a Bishop present to say his part.

§ 34. Thedomirus the Suevian King, under whom this Council was held, was the first of that race that turned Orthodox; all the Sueves before him (with the Goths) having been Arrians.

§ 35. CLXXX. Anno 566. The contest about choice of Bishops grew sharp. King Clotharius made one Emerius Bishop Santoniensis; the Canons had before decreed that Kings should choose none, but all the People and the Clerks, and the Metropolitan ordain him. The King's Bishop is deposed by a Concil. Santoniense, of which Leontius of Bourdeaux was chief. They sent the King word of it by a Presbyter: The King filled a Cart with Thorns, and laid the Priest on them, and sent him into Banishment, and forced the Bishop to submit to his will.

§ 36. That it may be known that neither Popes,☜ Councils, nor consenting Bishops divided Diocesses and Parishes, here Binnius giveth us at large, first Constantine's divisions in Spain, and next the fuller division of King Wamba. Bin. p. 649, &c.

§ 37. CLXXXI. At Tours in France (eight Bishops) in a Provincial Council, revived many Canons of the old matter, (to keep Bishops and Priests from Women) Can. 13. The Bishop may keep his Wife as a Sister, to govern his house: But Can. 20. Priests that will keep Wives, must have some Witnesses to lie in the same Chamber, to see that they lie not with them. And Can. 14. Episcopum, Episcopam non habentem, nulla sequatur turba mulierum, &c.

Can. 21. They say, [Those that the Law commandeth to be put to death, if they desire to hear the Preacher, we will have to be convicted unto life, (that is, not to dye:) For they are to be slain with the sword of the mouth, and deprived of Communion, if they will not observe the Decrees of the Seniors left them, and do despise to hear their Pastor, and will not be separate.] Some Sectaries among us are of the same mind, against putting penitent Malefactors to death.

§ 38. CLXXXII. Anno 570. There was a Council at Lyons of Fourteen Bishops, who recited six Canons to restrain the Vices of the Clergy: Binnius, out of Greg. Turon. tells you the occasion was, that one Salonius and Sagittarius, as soon as they were made Bishops, being then at their own will, broke out into p. 188Slaughters, Murders, Adulteries, and other wickedness. And Victor Bishop of Tricas. keeping his Birth-day, they sent a Troop with Swords and Arrows, who cut his Cloaths, beat his Servants, and carried away all his Provision, leaving him with reproach: The King Gunthram hearing of it, called this Synod, which found them guilty, and deposed them: They tell the King that they are unjustly cast out, and get his leave to go to the Pope, Iohn 3d. The Pope writeth to the King to have them, as wronged men, restored, (this was the Papal Justice and Reformation:) The King chideth, but restoreth them; but they grew never the better afterward, but asking pardon of Bishop Victor, he forgave them, and for that was afterward excommunicate.

§ 39. CLXXXIII. An. 572. a Council was called under King Ariomire at Braccara of 12 Bishops: They are mostly forbidding Bishops to take money for their Ordinations, Consecrations, and other Actions. And the first Canon requireth them to walk to all their Parishes, and see that the Clerks did things rightly; that Catechumens learnt the Creed, and to preach to the People to forbear Murder, Adultery, Perjury, False-witness, and other mortal Sins, to do as they would be done by, and to believe the Resurrection, Judgment and Recompence according to Works.

§ 40. CLXXXIV. An. 572. a Concilium Lucense did receive from Martin Bishop of Braccara 84. old Canons, of which the 67th was against reading Apocrypha, ☞or any thing but the Canon of the Old and New Testament in Church.

§ 41. After Iustinian's death, his Sisters Son Iustinus was Emperor, a sensual and covetous man, who murdered presently a Kinsman of his own name, upon suspicion that he was too great; yet he drew up a good Profession of Faith, exhorting all the Bishops to agree in it: But Chosroes, King of Persia, invaded his Empire, because the Greater Armenia (which was then under the Persians, as the Lesser was under the Romans) to avoid the Persians persecutions, had revolted to the Empire, and destroyed their Rulers: The Persians conquered so much of the Eastern part of the Empire, and Iustine's Soldiers made so little resistance as drove him out of his wits; and his Wife, by intreaty, got the Persians to make a Truce. Tiberius was then made Caesar, and afterward Emperor upon Iustine's death; and Iustinian his Captain repelled the Persians, and recovered much of what they had conquered.

§ 42. An. 576. Divers Kings of France by War among themselves destroyed Churches, and confounded all; and a Council at Paris was called, but in vain, to have persuaded them to Peace.

§ 43. After Benedictus, Pelagius 2d was Bishop at Rome; Tiberius an excellent Emperor quickly dyed, and by his choice Mauritius succeeded him. Pelagius (by Gregory his Deacon) wrote against the Bishops that would not condemn the tria Capitula: And when all his writings prevailed not, he got Smaragdus the Exorchate to force them by the Sword: (The great remedy which Rome hath trusted to.)

§ 44. CLXXXV. M…veus Son and Heir to Chilperic King of France, marrying his Uncles Widow, offended his Father, and fled to St. Martin's Church p. 189at Tours, and forced Bishop Gregory to give him the Sacrament. The King could not get the Bishop to deliver him up; he fled, and the King called a Synod at Paris to judge Pretextatus a Bishop, whom he accused for marrying him, and confederating with him.

§ 45. CLXXXVI. The two Bishops forenamed, Salonius and Sagittarius, being again accused of Adultery and Murder, and being freed by professing Repentance, King Guntheramus called a Cubilone Synod, and accused them of Treason, and so deposed and banished them.

§ 46. CLXXXVII. An. 582. King Gunthram called a Synod at Mascou, to revive the old Canons for restraining the Lust and Vices of the Bishops and Clergy.

§ 47. CLXXXVIII. An. 583. A Concil. Brenacense is called, to try Gregory Bishop of Tours, falsly accused of charging the Queen of living in Adultery with a Bishop; an Archdeacon and a Deacon bore false Witness: but all came to light, and Gregory was cleared by his Oath.

§ 48. CLXXXIX. An. 587. A Council at Constantinople increased the Church-divisions which continue to this day, wherein Iohn Bishop of Constantinople was decreed to be called, The Universal Bishop, which Pope Pelagius could not endure▪ O what hath this Question done to the World, Who shall be the chief or greatest? So much of the image and work of Satan hath been found in the professed Servants of a crucified Saviour, and in those that have worshipped the Cross!

In this Synod Gregory Bishop of Antioch was tryed, and acquitted of a false Accusation of Incest with his Sister another man's wise.

§ 49. Pelagius writeth against Iohn's Universal Title, saying, [Universalitatis nomen quod sibi illicitè usurpavit, nolite attendere, &c. Nullus enim Patriarcharum **No not the Roman.hoc tam profano vocabulo unquam utatur: quia si summus Patriarcha Universalis dicitur, Patriarcharum nomen caeteris derogatur. Sed absit hoc, absit à fidelis cujusquam mente hoc sibi vel velle quempiam arripere, unde honorem fratrum suorum imminuere ex quantulâcunque parte videatur. Quàpropter Charitas vestra neminem unquam suis in Epistolis Universalem nominet, ne sibi debitum subtrahat cum alteri honorem offert indebitum. Adversarius enim noster Diabolus qui contra humiles saeviens sicut Leo rugiens circuit, quaerens quem devoret, non jam, ut cernimus caulas circuit.—Omnia qui soli uni Capiti cohaerent, videlicet Christo, per electionem pompatici sermonis ejusdem Christi sibi studeat membra subjuga…e. Nec mirum quod ille tentater qui initium omnis peccati scit esse superbiam, &c. And so he goeth on, exhorting them rather to dye, than to submit to the Title Universal, and resolving Excommunication against the User of it.

§ 50. Binnius saith, It is ridiculous hence to impugn the Primacy of the Church: But Qu. 1. Is it not impudent after this, for them to use the Title of Universal? Qu. 2. Doth not this allow us to separate from them that usurp it?☜ Qu. 3. Doth not Pelagius here plainly distinguish between the place of Prime Patriarch which he claimeth, and Universal Bishop or Patriarch which he damneth. Qu. 4. Doth he not describe this damned Usurpation, to be a subjecting all Christ's members to himself? Qu. 5. Doth not the Pope now use both the p. 190name and thing as far as he can attain it? Qu. 6. Did not Pelagius and Gregory know that Iohn did no more intend to put down all other Patriarchs or Bishops by this Title, than the Pope doth? Qu. 7. Doth not the Pope now claim that as by Divine Right, which Iohn claimed but as of Humane? Modesty can deny none of this.

§ 51. CXC. An. 587. Nine Bishops at Lyons repeated six old Canons about Women, &c.

§ 52. CXCI. An. 589. King Gunthram finding all things grow worse, and that all was long of the Bishops onelyonly, (saith Binnius) called a Council at Mascou, where the stricter keeping of the Lords-day was commanded.

§ 53. Here Binnius noteth that Priscus is called Patriarch, and that the Bishops of Venice, Istria and Liguria, continuing still separate from Rome, chose Paulinus Bishop of Aquileia their Patriarch, [Quem sibi loco summi Pontificis supremum Antistitem constituerent.]☞ Qu. Did the Bishops then believe that the Pope's Universal Government was essential to the Catholick Church? And that none were the Church but his Subjects?

§ 54. CXCII. King Gunthram, An. 589. by a Council at Valence, setled his Benevolences on the Churches.

§ 55. CXCIII. An. 589. At Toletum King Recaredus called a Council, and renounced Arrianism, and recited several Canons; among others, that Bishops and Priests Wives might dwell with them, but not lie with them. And they lament and condemn the practice of such as kill their children, appointing them sharp discipline without capital punishment. (Had the Church power to free Murderers from death, as they long did, Was this holy Reformation?)

The 11th Canon saith, That they found that in many Churches of Spain, men filthily and not regularly did Penance, that they might sin as oft as they would, and be as oft reconciled by the Priests, &c. Many reforming Canons were here made. There were 67 Subscribers besides the King, and of divers Cities two Bishops, which was unusual.

§ 56. CXCIV. (Passing by a meeting at Rome) Another Council at Narbon was held by Recaredus, who brought over the Goths from Arrianism.

§ 57. The Emperor Mauritius, though a great and excellent person, was ruined by the mad and uncurable mutinies of his Soldiers, and at last, with his Family, cruelly murdered by Phocas, one of his Captains; a terrible warning to Princes not to trust too much to Armies.

§ 58. All this while the opposers of the Calcedon Council kept up, and were divided in the East into many Parties among themselves: Among others, the great Peripatetic Iohan. Philoponus was their most learned Defender, writing with such subtilty, that the Natures really two, were to be called One Compound Nature, as the Soul and Body of a man are, as (saith Nicephorus) was not easie to be answered (by which, how much of the Controversie was de Nomine & de Notione Logicâ, let the Reader further judge;) he that will see some of his words, may read them in Niceph. l. 18. c. 45, 47, 48. his Notions made men call him a Tritheite.

§ 59. Iacobus Zanzalus being a great Promoter of the Party, many ever p. 191since have from him been called Iacobites: And the divided Parties that opposed the Council, called the other Melchites, that is Royalists, because they took them that followed the Council, to do it meerly in obedience to the Emperor, (for it was not the Pope then that was the Master of Councils.

§ 60. Among the Armenians also some raised the like Heresies about the Natures of Christ, some thinking his Deity was instead of a Soul to his Body, &c. To which they added superstitious Fasts, and worshipping the Cross, and such like, not pleading Reason, but old Tradition for their Errors, saying they had them from Gregory, vide Niceph. l. 18. c. 53, 54. But I must go forward.

§ 61. Pelagius dying, Gregory called Magnus, succeeded him at Rome: He continued the Controversie about the Title of Universal Bishop, writing many Epistles against it: He flattered Phocas the murderous Tyrant, with a Laetentur Coeli & exultet Terra, &c. yet was one of the best and wisest of their Bishops. He sent Augustine into England, who oppressed the British Church, and converted the Saxon King of Kent. He introduced more Superstitions, and greatly altered the Liturgy. Of which read Mr. T. Iones of the Hearts Sovereign.

§ 62. CXCIV. A Concilium Hispalense of eight Bishops recited three Canons.

§ 63. CXCV. Mauritius before his death, desired Gregory to call a Synod at Rome, to draw in the Western Bishops that separated, and to cast them out if they disobeyed:☜ which he did, and they refusing his Summons, Severus of Aquileia, and other Bishops were ruined. They thought God destroyed Mauritius for persecuting them. Gregory thought God would have them destroyed as Schismaticks. The Bishops of Rome for near an hundred years were forced the more to please the Emperor, because their own Bishops had cast them off, and set up another Head against them.

§ 64. CXCVI. An. 590. A Concil. Antisiodorense made divers Canons against Superstitions, and some too superstitious (as that Women must not take the Sacrament in their bare hands, &c.)

§ 65. I find it so tedious to mention all the little Synods, that henceforth I shall take but little notice of them, but of the greater only.

One under Recaredus at Caesar-Augusta, made three Canons about the Arrians.

One in Numidia displeased Gregory.

§ 66. A Council at Poitiers was called on occasion of two Nuns, daughters to the King of France, that broke out of the Nunnery, with many more, and accused the Abbess, and got men together, and stript her stark naked, and drew her out, and set all France in a Commotion, and were forced to do Penance.

A Council was called at Metz, to reduce the Bishop of Rhemes convict of Treason (for Bishops that were Traytors or Murderers were not to dye.)

A Synod at Rome under Gregory absolved a Priest of Calcedon condemned by Iohn of Constantinople; what one did, the other undid.

An. 597. Under King Recaredus, 13 Bishops made two Canons for Priests Chastity, &c.

p. 192Another under him, An. 598. A Concil: Ostiense made two such more.

An. 599. A Council at Constantinople did we know not what.

An. 599. Under King Recaredus, 12 Bishops at Barcinon made four Canons against Bishops Bribery, &c.

A Council of 20 Bishops, 14 Presbyters, and 4 Deacons at Rome made a Canon for Monks.

Another there, An. 601. against a false Monk.

Another at Byzacen against a Bishop.

Another in Numidia about a Bishop and a Deacon.

§ 67. Gregory dying, Sabinian succeeded him, who reproached him, and would have had his Books burnt as unsound, saith Onuphrius: And, saith Sigebert, Gregory appeared to him in a Vision, and reproving him for that and Covetousness, knockt him on the head, and he dyed.

§ 68. Boniface 3d succeeded, chosen by Phocas the Murderer, who hating his own Bishop of Const. Cyriacus, ordered that Rome should be the chief Church.

§ 69. A Council at Rome forbad chusing a Pope, till the former had been three days dead, because they sold their Votes for money.

§ 70. Boniface the 4th is made Pope, and Phocas giveth him the Pagan Temple, called Pantheom, for Christian Worship. In his time, Phocas was killed by Heraclius, as he had kill'd Mauritius.

§ 71. An. 610. A Council at Toletum, under King Gundemar, about the Bishop of Toletum's Primacy, which the King setleth by Edict.

§ 72. A Council at Tarraca under King Sisebutus took the shortest way, and only confirmed what had been before done for Priests Chastity.

§ 73. Deus dedit was next Pope, in whose time the Persians conquered Ierusalem, and carried away the Bishop, and (they say) the Cross.

§ 74. Boniface 5th succeeded: Heraclius the Emperor is worsted by the Persians, who would not give him Peace, unless the Empire would renounce Christ, and worship the Sun; Heraclius overthroweth them; Mahomet now riseth, and maketh a Religion of many Heresies.

§ 75. At a Synod at Mascou, Agrestinus accused Columbanus of Superstition, for Crossing Spoons, &c. but was refelled.

§ 76. Seven or eight Bishops at Hispalis, condemned the Eutychians, and called them Acephali.