those Offices in Rome at that time (d) Cestriens dissert posthum diss 2. cap. 7. pag. 227. and the whole Story is a Fiction taken out of a fabulous Tract called the Acts of Alexander yet this Legend Binius's Notes defend Of Xystus the next Pope nothing is memorable but that he is said by the Pontifical to be a Martyr Eusebius saith he died in Adrian's Twelfth year and mentions not his Martyrdom (e) Euseb lib. 4. c. 5. but Binius contradicts him and will have him to suffer in the 3d year of Antomnus (f) Lab. p. 554. Bin pag. 60. col ◠and this without any Authority for it but his own Telesphorus according to Eusebius was the Seventh Pope from St. Peter and came in the Twelfth year of Adrian †Euseb ut supr that is An. 130. But Binius following the Pontifical makes him the Eighth Pope and saith he entred the Third year of Antoninus that is Twelve years after and in the Notes on his Life (g) Lab. p. 559. Bin. pag. 63. col 2. upon the Pontificals saying he Ordained Thirteen Bishops in his Eleven years he observes that these Bishops were to be sent into divers parts of the World from whence he saith it is clear that the Pope was to take care not of Rome only but the whole World. But first no inference from so fabulous an Author as the Pontifical can be clear And secondly if there were so many Bishops really Ordained by Popes as the Pontifical doth pretend there are but Sixty three Bishops reckoned by him from S. Peter's death to this time which is near 100 years From whence if we grant the Matter of Fact it is rather clear That the Pope Ordained only some Italian Bishops near Rome for otherwise when so many Bishops were Martyred there must have been far more Ordained for the World in that space of time Hyginus the next Pope began saith Eusebius in the first year of Antoninus but Binius saith he was made Pope the Fifteenth of that Emperor the Reader will guess whether is to be trusted The Pontifical could find this Pope nothing to do but to distribute the Orders of the Clergy which Pope Clement according to him had done long before (h) Lab. p. 565. Bin. pag. 65. col 2. § 2. From the Notes on Pope Pius Life (i) Lab. p. 568. Bin. pag. 67. col 2. we may observe there was no great care of old taken about the Pope's Succession For Optatus S. Augustine and S. Hierom with the Old Pontifical before it was altered (k) Cestriens diss 2. cap. 11. pag. 65. place Anicetus before Pius but the Greeks place Puis before Anicetus and in this Binius thinks we are to believe them rather than the Latins The rest of the Notes are spent in vindicating an improbable Story of an Angel bringing a Decree about Easter to Hermes the Popes Brother who writ a Book about keeping it on the Lord's Day yet after all there is a Book of Hermes now extant that hath nothing in it about Easter and there was a Book of old writ by Hermes well known to the Greeks and almost unknown to the Latins though writ by a Pope's Brother read in the Eastern Churches and counted Apocryphal in the Western But we want another Angel to come and tell us whether that now extant be the same or no for Binius cannot resolve us and only shews his Folly in defending the absurd and incongruous Tales of the Pontifical Anicetus either lived before or after Pius and the Pontifical makes him very busie in Shaving his Priests Crowns never mentioning what he did to suppress those many Heretics who came to Rome in his time but it tells us he was Buried in the Coemetery of Calistus (l) Lab. p. 579. Bin. pag. 72. col 1. though Calistus who gave that Burial-place a name did not dye till Fifty years after Anicetus But Binius who is loath to own this gross Falshood saith You are to understand it in that ground which Calistus made a Burying-place afterward yet it unluckily falls out that Anicetus's Successor Pope Soter was also Buried according to the Pontifical in Calistus his Coemetery and afterwards Pope Zepherines's Burial-place is described to be not far from that of Calistus so well was Calistus's Coemetery known even before it was made a Coemetery and before he was Pope Eleutherius succeeded Soter and as the Pontifical saith he received a Letter from Lucius King of Britain that he might be made a Christian by his Command which hint probably first produced those two Epistles between this Pope and King Lucius (m) Usserii Antiq Brit. cap. 4 5 c. ap Spelm. Tom. I. Concil which Binius leaves out though he justifies the Story of which it were well we had better Evidence than the Pontifical This is certain the Epistles were forged in an Age when Men could write neither good Latin nor good Sense and I am apt to fancy if Isidore had put them into a Decretal they would have been somewhat more polite so that it is likely these Epistles were made by some Monks who thought it much for our Honour to have our Christianity from Rome § 3. This Century concludes with the bold Pope Victor of whose excommunicating the Eastern Bishops for not agreeing with him about Easter we have a large account in Eusebius (n) Euseb hist lib. 5. cap. 23 24 c. but of that there is nothing in the Pontifical only we are told he had a Council at Rome to which he called Theophilus Bishop of Alexandria and decreed Easter should be observed upon a Sunday c. Upon this hint and the Authority of a better Author we grant there were at these times divers Councils held about keeping Easter But the Editors of the Councils though Eusebius be the only credible Author which gives an Account of them presume to contradict him For Eusebius makes the Council at Caesarea in Palestina to be first and makes Theophilus of that City and Narcissus of Jerusalem Presidents of it but the Editors for the honour of the Pope place the Roman Council first (o) Lab. p. 596. Bin. pag. 79. col 1 2. Vid. Euseb lib. 5. cap. 22. and upon the bare Credit of the Pontifical who mistook Alexandria for Caesarea say That Theophilus was present at it whereas Eusebius saith This Roman Council was the Second called about this Question consisting of the Bishops about Rome Secondly The Editors place the Council of Caesarea affirming out of a suspicious Fragment of Bede who lived many Centuries after That it was Called by Victor 's Authority whereas Eusebius as we see assigns other Presidents to that Council yea they intitle all the other Councils about this Matter Under Victor though in Eusebius they are set down as independent upon one another The Bishops of each Country Calling them by their own Authority And though Binius's Notes (p) Lab.
Lab. p. 1555. Bin. pag. 260. col 2. An. Dom. 325. but because the Forger had nothing in his Eye but meerly to set off the Grandeur of Rome § 17. We are now come to the First and most famous General Council of Nice wherein the worst and most dangerous of all Heresies was suppressed and yet the pretended Judge of all Controversies and Supreme Head of the Church had so little share in this glorious Transaction that it is very uncertain in what Popes time it was called Sozomen and Nicephorus say it was in the time of Julius (i) Sozom. hist lib. 1. cap. 16. Niceph. lib. 8. cap. 14. Others think it was in Sylvester's time Phetius affirms it was in the times of both Sylvester and Julius (k) Phot. de 7. Synod though unhappily Pope Mark was between them two Yet this Council is introduced by a Preface a la Mode a Rome styled The History of the Council of Nice (l) Lab. Tom. II. pag. 3. Bin. pag. 262. wherein as well as in the Notes and various Editions of this famous Council all imaginable Artifice is used to abuse the Reader into a belief That Pope Sylvester not only called this Council and presided in it by his Legates but also confirmed it by his sole Authority afterwards For the clearer Confutation of which Falshoods we will consider First The Authority which convened this Council Secondly The President of it with the Order of Sitting in it and Subscribing to it Thirdly The Power which confirmed it Fourthly The number of the Canons Fifthly The true Sense of them Sixthly The Forgeries for Supremacy herein inserted Seventhly The corrupt Editions of the Council it self First As to the Authority convening it The Preface saith Constantine assembled it by Sylvester 's Authority (m) Lab. p. 3. Bin. pag. 262. The Notes affirm it was appointed by the Advice Counsel and Authority of Pope Sylvester and again Pope Sylvester by his Pontifical Authority decreed the celebration of a General Council (n) Lab. p. 63. C. Bin. pag. 291. col 1. To prove these vain Brags they cite Ruffinus whose Version of this Council they reject yet he only saith That Constantine convened it by the Advice of the Bishops However this is Advice not Authority and Advice of the Bishops in general not of Sylvester in particular and if any Bishops did give the Emperor particular Advice it was those of Alexandria and Constantinople not He of Rome Secondly They quote the Sixth General Council held 350 years after this of Nice and in other things rejected by the Romanists which saith this Council was called by Sylvester and Constantine But they quote falsly for that Sixth Synod puts the Emperor's Name first (o) Bin. Tom. III. par 1. pag. 194. and though they are no Evidence against Authors living in the time of the Nicene Council yet even this shews they thought the Emperor's Authority was chiefest in this Matter The Notes also cite the Pontifical which they have so often rejected as Fabulous and Sozomen as if they said the same thing But for Sozomen he never names Sylvester but saith Pope Julius was absent by reason of his great Age and the Pontifical only saith It was called by the Consent of Sylvester not by his Authority and indeed it was called by the consent of all Orthodox Bishops Wherefore there is no good Evidence that the Pope did call it But on the other side All the Ecclesiastical Historians do agree That Constantine Convened it by his own Authority and sent his Letters to Command the Bishops to meet at Nice (p) Euseb vit Constant lib. 3. cap. 6. Socrat. lib. 1. cap. 8. Theod. lib. 1. cap. 7. Sozom. lib. 1. cap. 17. and not one of them mentions Sylvester as having any hand in this Mâ—tter Yea to put us out of all doubt the very Council of Nice it self in their Synodal Epistle writ to Alexandria and extant in these very Editors (q) Lab. p. â—9 Bin. pag. 285. Baron An. 325. §. 117. expresly declares That they were Convened by Constantine's Command Which clear and convincing Proofs shew the Impudence as well as the Falshood of the Annalist and Annotator to talk so confidently of the Pope's Authority in this Matter who if he had as they pretend Convened this Council should have summoned more Western Bishops of which there were so few in this Council that it is plain Either Sylvester did not Summon them or they did not obey his Summons Secondly As to the President of this Council and the Order of Si ting in it and Subscribing to it The Preface and Notes falsly affirm That Hosius Vitus and Vincentius were all three the Pope's Legates and Presidents of this Council (r) Labbé p. 3 65. Bin. pag. 263 291. and vainly think if it had not been so it could not have been a General Council But if this be necessary to the Being of a General Council surely there is some good Evidence of it Quite contrary The Preface to the Sardican Council is of the Editors or their Friends making and so is no Proof Athanasius saith Hosius was a Prince in the Synods but not that he was President of this Synod or the Pope's Legate Cedrenus and Photius are too late Authors to out-weigh more Ancient and Authentic Writers yet they do not say as the Notes pretend That Sylvester by his Legates gave Authority to this Council Yea Photius places the Bishop of Constantinople before Sylvester and Julius even when he is speaking of the Chief Bishops who met at Nice and he is grosly mistaken also because neither of the Popes did meet there (s) Photii Nomocan pag. 163. Socrates only saith The Bishop of Rome 's Presbyters were his Proxies and present at this Council (t) Socrat. lib. 1. cap. 5. but hereby he excludes Hosius who was a Bishop from being a Legate and doth not at all prove Vitus and Vincentius were Presidents Sozomen names not Hosius but these two Presbyters as the Proxies of Pope Julius but reckons that Pope himself in the fourth place (u) Sozom. hist lib. 1. cap. 16. Though these Notes in citing Sozomen according to their usual sincerity place the Bishop of Rome first and all the other Patriarchs after him Finally They cite the Subscriptions to prove these Three were Legates and Presidents at Nice but Richerius a Learned Romanist saith These Subscriptions are of as little Credit as the Epistle to Sylvester (w) Richer de Concil gen lib. 1. cap. 2. § 6. and adds That the placing these Presbyters before the Bishops is a plain Proof That all these Subscriptions were invented in later Ages because the Pope's Legates never did precede any of the Patriarchs till the Council of Chalcedon (x) Id. ib. §. 8. As for Hosius he had been the Emperor's Legate long before and divers of the Ancients say He was very Eminent in this Council but not one
p. 598. Bin. pag. 80. col 1. brag of Apostolical and Universal Tradition The Bishops of Asia produced a contrary Tradition and called it Apostolical for keeping Easter at a different time which shews how uncertain a ground Tradition is for Articles of Faith when it varied so much in delivering down a practical Rite through little more than one Century And the Asian Bishops persisting in their Custom and despising Victor's Excommunication proves They knew nothing of his Supremacy or Infallibility in those days We grant Victor was in the right as to the time of Easter and that which he and other Councils now agreed on was agreed upon also at the Council of Nice but Binius stretches it too far when he pretends That general Council confirmed Victor's Sentence of Excommunition For Victor's Authority is never urged in the Nicene Council nor his Excommunication mentioned and we know from Eusebius That the Bishops of his own Opinion severely reproved him for offering to pass so rash a Sentence and to impose his Sense upon remote Churches So that thus far there is no genuine Proof of any Supremacy exercised or claimed by the Roman Church for the Decretals which only pretend to make it out are notorious Forgeries CHAP. III. Of the Forgeries in the Third Century An. Dom. 203. § 1. THis Century begins with the Life of Pope Zepherine who Sat Eight years saith the Pontifical but the Notes tell you He Sat Eighteen which is a small Error in that fabulous Author Yet the Editors believe upon his Credit that this Pope ordered Vessels of Glass to be used in the Mass (q) Lab. p. 603. Bin. pag. 81. col 1. and the Notes prove it by Pope Gregory the Great who lived Four hundred years after this time However if we allow the Matter of Fact upon the Testimonies of S. Hierom and Epiphanius it will follow That in those Ages when they used Glass Cups they did not believe Transubstantiation for if they had they would not have ventured Christ's Blood in so brittle a Vessel but have forbid the use of Glasses as they have done in the Roman Church since this Opinion came in among them (r) Daile de cult relig ap Latin. lib. 2. cap. 22. Under this Pope the Editors place an African Council and say it was Reprobated yet they cannot make it appear that this Pope so much as knew of it Nor was his Advice or Consent at all desired in that case which was never disputed at Rome till Pope Stephen's time as themselves confess viz. Fifty years after this Council was held from whence we learn That every Province in this Age believed they had sufficient Authority to determine Controversies in Religion among themselves without the Consent of the Bishop of Rome § 2. Though the Pontifical be guilty of many Errors in the Life of Calixtus and mistake the very Emperors under which he lived and died the Notes gloss them all fairly over (s) Lab. p. 608. Bin. pag. 83. col 1. and correct them by the Roman Martyrology which often follows the Pontifical and is as fabulous as that However we are told That Calixtus was buried Three Miles out of the City because the Law of the Twelve Tables forbid the Burying of a dead Body within the Walls Now I would know if this Law were in force how that can be true which the Pontifical and the Notes affirm and justifie That S. Peter Linus Cletus Euaristus Sixtus Telesphorus Hyginus Pius and Victor were All Buried in the Vatican And what shall we think of the Miracles done by their Relicks and at their Tombs if no Body know where they were first Buried Pope Urban the Successor of Calixtus is said in the Pontifical (t) Lab. p. 617. Bin. pag. 87. col 1. to be Buried in the Coemetery of Praetextatus which could not then be any Coemetery at all because Praetextatus was not Martyted till the Persecution under Maximinus which hapned many years after And if the Story of S. Cecily in the same Author be no Truer than his Chronology the Romanists worship a fictitious Saint The Pontifical is forced to feign That the Emperor Alexander Severus was a Persecutor contrary to his Character in all Histories of Credit and this only to make us think that Calixtus Urban and Pope Pontianus his Successor were Martyrs However though Eusebius knew not of their Martyrdom (u) Euseb hist lib. 6. cap. 15 17 22. the Roman Church adores them all as Martyrs and have peculiar Days dedicated to their Memories Antherus as the Pontifical says Sat Twelve years and One Month and the Notes say that he Sat only one Month (w) Lab. p. 629. Bin. pag. 92. col 1. so that there is but only Twelve years mistaken in this Popes Life And if he was Pope but one Month doubtless his Secretaries had need be very swift Writers or else they could not gather many in his time However Binius will make it out for he brings in a Poetical Hyperbole Of those Scribes who could write a Sentence before a man had spoken it and so were as quick at guessing as writing and applies this in very serious earnest to this Pope's Notaries to make us imagine there were many Acts of Martyrs writ out in this short-lived Pope's time § 3. Pope Fabian as Eusebius relates was chosen by occasion of a Dove 's lighting on his Head when the People were met to elect a Pope of which remarkable Story the fabulous Pontifical takes no notice but tells us That in this Popes time Novatus the Heretic came to Rome (x) Lab. p. 638. Bin. pag. 95. col 2. that is say the Notes Above a year after Pope Fabian was dead after the Vacancy and in Pope Cornelius 's time with such absurd Comments do these Gentlemen delight to cover the Ignorance and Falsehood of their Historian but such Excuses do only more expose him In this Pope's time were two Councils held one in Africa the other in Arabia and they Intitle them both under Fabian yet the only Authors who mention these Councils do not say Pope Fabian was concerned in either of them (y) Lab. p. 650. Bin. pag. 101. col 2. and therefore they were not under Fabian After this Pope's death there was a Vacancy of more than one whole year which the Editors to flatter the Papacy call in the style of Princes An Interregnum but alas their admired Monarchy was now turned into an Aristocracy and the Clergy governed the Roman Church to excuse which flaw in their visible Monarchical Succession the Notes say The Members next the Head knew it was their parts to do the office of the Head Which notable kind of substitution if it could be made out in the Body Natural Beheading would not be a Mortal punishment however they must say something to make us believe there was always a Visible Head of the Catholic Church or at least a Neck and Shoulders which
stood for an Head till Cornelius was chosen Pope And they called a Council as they pretend in this Vacancy and writ a Letter of their Determination to all the Churches in the World that they might all observe what the Empty Chair of Peter had ordered (z) Bin. p. 107. col 1. But if any one read the Letter it self it will appear that this Council was only a voluntary Assembly of the Clergy in Rome and they met only to confirm S. Cyprian's Opinion and only writ their Letter to him but never pretended either to be Judges over Cyprian or any other part of the Catholic Church Pope Cornelius his Life follows for whose Character we are more obliged to S. Cyprian's Epistles than to the Pontifical which invents an idle Story of a Dialogue between Cornelius and Decius the Emperor and though the Notes own (a) Lab p. 665 Bin. pag. 108. col 1. That Decius who is here pretended to Martyr him dyed the same Month in which Cornelius entred yet they will not own the Story to be false but boldly put in the Name of Volusianus into their Margen instead of Decius However the Breviary (b) Breviar Sixt. 5.16 die Septemb. retains the Fiction of Cornelius suffering under Decius as it doth also the Fable of his Translating the Bodies of S. Peter and S. Paul But let any considering Man compare the different ways of telling this Sham Story and he will easily discern that the Notes cannot reconcile them without flying to a Miracle (c) Lab. p. 667. Bin. pag. 108. col 1. It is evident they have told us the Body of S. Peter was in the Vatican when Pope Victor was there Buried An. 203 And there is no Author of Credit mentions their removal into the Catacumbae and so consequently no reason to believe they were fetcht back from thence in a time of Persecution Pope Gregory lived 350 years after this and was very apt to credit feigned Miracles and he differs much from the Pontifical so that probably the whole Story is forged by those who long after began superstitiously to adore the Relicks of Saints However it is read in the Roman Church Septemb. 16. and many devout People on the Credit of this Legend make Pilgrimages and offer Prayers and large Gifts to the Shrines of these two Apostles of whose true Relicks they can have none because their real Graves are not known In this Pope's time there were two Councils holden at Carthage two at Rome and one in Italy all which in the general Titles are said to be held under Cornelius (d) Lab. p. 714. Bin. pag. 126. col 1. though the Notes assure us That those two at Carthage were called by S. Cyprian's Authority and that the Italian Bishops made a Decree of their own besides that of Cornelius at Rome The Roman Councils indeed were holden under Cornelius as being Bishop of that City but we may observe He did not Authoritatively confirm the Sentence of the Council of Carthage but only contented to it We may also Note This African Council calls not Pope Cornelius Father but Brother and writes to him as one of their Collegues yea they do not except Cornelius when they Decree That if any of their Collegues agreed not to their Sentence he should answer it at the Day of Judgment (e) Lab. p. 718. Bin. pag. 128. col 1. Moreover in the same Letter there is an evident Testimony that the People in those days were prepared for Martyrdom by receiving the Eucharistical Cup (f) Lab. p. 717. Bin. pag. 127. col 2. which being now denied to the Laity the Editors pass it by without a Note yet soon after where the Council plainly speaks of Confessing the Name of Christ before Persecutors they have this impertinent Marginal Note From this and other places the necessity of Confession is confirmed As if this belonged to their new invented Auricular Confession § 4. The Notes find divers Faults in the Life of Pope Lucius yet they would palliate the grossest of all for the Pontifical says He was Beheaded by Valerian the Notes affirm it was by Gallus and Volusianus and yet the same Notes tell us The Pontifical in saying it was by Valerian may be very well and truly expounded (g) Lab. p. 720. Bin. pag. 128. col 2. The Reader must understand It may be so expounded by such kind of Notes as are designed to make gross Errors seem great Truths Pope Stephen who succeeded Lucius fell out with Cyprian and the African Bishops about the re-baptizing of Heretics which though it were the only memorable thing in this Popes Life the Pontifical never mentions And the Editors are are so used to put into the Title of all Councils Under such or such a Pope that in this Popes time they style those very Councils Sub Stephano which were called without his knowledge and which condemned his Opinion (h) Lab. p 751. pag. 760 c. Bin. pag. 137 141 145 c. as may be seen in the Councils of Carthage Iconium and Africa where so easily may Tradition be mistaken the Rebaptizing of Heretics is asserted to be an Apostolick Tradition though it were contrary to Pope Stephen's Opinion and the Tradition of the Roman Church And when Stephen on this account presumed to Excommunicate the Asian Bishops Firmilianus Bishop of Coesarea in a Letter to S. Cyprian (i) Lab. p. 751. Bin. pag. 141. col 2. Despises his Sentence compares the Pope to Judas complains of his Arrogance and esteems those to be very silly who took the Roman Bishop's word for an Apostolical Tradition from which that Church in many Instances had departed Moreover He calls him a Schismatic and affirms he had by this rash Sentence only cut himself off from the Unity of the Catholic Church S. Cyprian also and his Africans (k) Lab. p. 765. Bin. pag. 147. col 2. condemned this Pope as a Favourer of Heretics an Enemy to the Church and one who writ Contradictions and was void of Prudence describing him as an Innovator and bringer in of Traditions contrary to God's Word as one who obstinately presumed to prefer human Doctrines before Scripture I grant Pope Stephen was in the right in this Controversie yet doubtless if these Bishops had believed the Supremacy and Infallibility of the Pope and his Roman Council they could not have used him at this rate And the Editors are so concerned to cover this rough usage that they reprint an Epistle of S. Cyprian's Verbatim (l) Lab. p. 740. pag. 764. Bin. pag. 136. col 2. p. 146 col 2. after this Quarrel was grown hot which was writ while they two were Friends and contains very kind Words to Stephen which Blind is only to make us think that Cyprian submitted to the Pope at last though it is apparent he never did so Again the Reader may note that Labbè here prints a Tract of some Ancient Author to justify
59 60 here confesseth That he who Forged the Epistle of Boniface to Eulalius devised also these two Epistles to consult the Credit of Pope Zosimus and Pope Boniface who had cited a Canon out of the Nicene Council not found among the genuine 20 Canons From which we may observe First that Binius will cite those things for the Supremacy c. which he knows to be forged Secondly That the great design of all these Forged Records of Antiquity was either to cover the faults or consult the honour of the Roman Church which seems to have both employed and encouraged the Authors of these Pious Frauds because her Pretences could not be made out by any thing that was Authentic Julius succeeded Marcus in the same year in whose Life the Pontifical mistakes the Consuls Names and feigns he was banished Ten Months which Baronius proves to have been impossible (l) Baron An. 352. §. 2 3. He fills up this Popes story according to his manner with trifling matters and omits the only remarkable thing in his Life which was his concern in the Cause of Athanasius In this Popes name several Epistles are published The First from Julius to the Eastern Bishops may be proved fictitious not only by the Confession of Baronius and other Learned Romanists (m) Lab. p. 475 in Marg. Bin. pag. 384. col 1. but by divers other Arguments For is it probable that Julius would Only be solicitous about his Supremacy when he writ to the Arians and not once reprove them for their Heresie nor their persecuting Athanasius is it likely he should cite the Council of Nice falsly and feign so many ancient Decrees about the Primacy of the Pope and the Nullity of Councils not celebrated by his Authority This Forger saith Julius consented to the Nicene Council at the time of its celebration but the Romanists agree that it was held in Sylvesters time He imperiously forbids the Eastern Bishops to judge any Bishops without him and falsly tells them They all had received their Consecration from Rome yea with the fabulous Pontifical he mistakes the Consuls Name and puts Maximianus for Titianus Yet by this Forgery the Editors would prove that more than twenty Canons were made at Nice (n) Lab. Marg. pag. 477. Bin. pag. 385. col 1. and after Baronius had discarded it Binius by frivolous Notes strives to justifie it as speaking big for the Supremacy (o) Lab. p 480. Bin. pag. 386. col 1. Secondly Here is the Eastern Bishops Answer to Julius wherein though they call the Pope Father which was the usual Title of Bishops of great Sees yet they expresly deny his having any Authority over them and affirm he ought to be subject to the Canons as well as other Bishops So that there is no reason for Binius his Brag Lo how they own the Supremacy (p) Lab. Marg. pag. 482. Bin. pag. 386. col 2. For indeed they do not own it at all and yet the substance of this Epistle is genuine being found in Socrates and Sozomen The third Epistle from Julius to the Arians is owned by Baronius and others to be a Forgery (q) Lab. p. 483. Bin. pag. 387. col 2. and Binius in his Notes upon it saith It is false corrupted and stollen out of divers Authors (r) Bin. p. 391. col 1. yet the same Binius infamously quotes it over and over for the Supremacy the Nullity of Councils not called by the Pope and the number of the Nicene Canons The fourth Epistle of Julius comes not out of the Vatican but was preserved in Athanasius his Apology and is by all accounted genuine being writ in an humble style without any pretences to the Supremacy (s) Lab. p. 494. Bin. pag. 391. col 1. And here the Nicene Canon about the re-hearing in a New Synod a Cause not well judged before is rightly cited without mention of any final Appeal to Rome (t) Lab. p. 495. Bin. ut supr col 2. The power of all Bishops is supposed to be equal and not any greater power to belong to him that is fixed in a greater City Here Julius writes not his own Sense but the Sense of the Bishops of Italy who were assembled in a Synod at Rome of which great City Julius being Bishop ought by ancient custom to publish the Decrees of such Councils as were held in or or near that City (u) Lab. p. 513. Bin. pag. 395. col 1. but Binius falsly infers from hence That it was an honour due to his place to publish the Decrees made in all Synods And whereas when any thing was under debate concerning Alexandria the second Patriarchate Julius saith it was a Custom to write to the Roman Bishop who was the first Patriarch Binius stretcheth this and saith It was both agreeable to the Canons and Custom that no Bishop should be judged till the Popes definitive Sentence were heard (w) Lab. p. 516. Bin. pag. 396. col 1. The last Epistle also is genuine and writ in a modest style owning that Athanasius was not judged by the Pope alone but by a Synod of Bishops whose Judgment he supposes above his own (x) Ep. 4. ap Lab. Bin. pag. 396. col 2. and by these two Epistles we may discern the Impostures of those other Epistles which are Forged about this time in the Names of this and other Popes The Decrees attributed to this Pope are not suitable to the Age yet we may note the third Decree forbids a man to Marry his deceased Brothers Wife though his Brother had not known her Which was shamefully broken by that Pope who gave Licence to King Henry the 8th to marry his Brothers Wife and this Decree justifies his Divorce (y) Lab. p. 525. Bin. pag. 398. col 1. After these Epistles follows a Roman Synod wherein Julius with 117 Bishops confirm the Nicene Council but Labbé saith it is a hotch-potch made up out of many Authors and put into the form of a Council by Isidore (z) Lab. Marg. pag. 527. Bin. pag. 400. col 1. and it is dated with the same mistaken Consuls Felician and Maximian with which Julius his entrance into the Pontifical and all his Forged Epistles are dated for his genuine Epistles have no date yet Baronius (a) Baron An. 337. §. 67. and the Notes gravely dispute about the time of this Forged Council and the Bishops which were said to be in it meerly to perswade the Reader that the Nicene Council needed the Pope's Confirmation but since this Council is feigned it can be no evidence And therefore Binius gains nothing by alledging it in his Notes on the third Epistle but only to shew us that one falshood is the fittest prop for another § 20. Athanasius being restored to Alexandria An. Dom. 339. calls a Synod there of all the Bishops of his Province of which only the Synodical Epistle is now extant written as the Title
confirmed by the Emperour Again Constantins in his Epistle declares It was unreasonable to determine any thing in a Western Council against the Eastern Bishops Whence it appears he knew nothing of the Western Patriarchs claiming an Universal Supremacy over all the Churches both of the East and West and for this Reason Baronius leaves this genuine Epistle recorded in S. Hilary's Fragments out of his Annals We have also noted before that though the Orthodox Bishops in this Council who must know the matter say That Constantine was Baptized after the Council at Nice and soon after his Baptism translated to his deserved Rest as the Ancient Historians read that Passage and the Sense of the place shews they could mean it of none but Constantine (d) Theod. lib. 2. cap. 19. Sozom. lib. 4 cap. 17. collat cum Baron An. 350. §. 7. yet Baronius corrupts the Text and reads Constans instead of Constantine only to support the Fable of Constantine's being Baptized by Sylvester at Rome and the Editors follow him in that gross Corruption For they examine nothing which serves the Interest of Rome As for the Arian Synods this year at Seleucia and Constantinople I need make no Remarks on them because the Pope is not named in them and so there is no occasion for them to feign any thing Only one Forgery of Baronius must not be passed over That when Cyril of Hierusalem was deposed by an Arian Synod he is said to have appealed to greater Judges and yet he never named the Pope the reason of which Baronius saith was because the True Pope Liberius was then in Banishment (e) Baron An. 359. § 65. but hath he not often asserted Foelix was a Catholic and if Cyril had thought fit might he not have appealed to him But it is plain by Socrates that Cyril meant to appeal to the Emperour and his Delegates as all injured Bishops in that Age had used to do An. Dom. 362. § 25. Upon the restitution of Athanasius from his third Exile after the death of George the Arian Bishop he called a Council of Bishops at Alexandria for deciding some differences among the Catholics about the manner of explaining the Trinity and to agree on what terms Recanting Arians were to be received into the Church And though neither Athanasius nor any ancient Historian take any notice of the Pope in this eminent Action yet the Editors our of Baronius say It was called by the Advice and Authority of Liberius (f) Lab. p. 809. Bin. pag. 487. col 1. Baron An. 362. Pag. 73. and to make out the notorious Fiction of this Popes calling this Orthodox Council even while he was an Arian the Notes affirm Eusebius Bishop of Vercelles and Lucifer Calaritanus as the Popes Legates were present at it which they take out of Baronius who had before told us That Luciser Calaritanus was at that time at Antioch and sent two Deacons to Alexandria to subscribe for him yea this Synod writes their Synodical Letter to Eusebius Lucifer and other Bishops which plainly shews they were absent though it seems by Ruffinus that Eusebius came afterwards and subscribed to what had been agreed in the Council and was by the Authority of this Council not of the Pope sent into the East to procure peace among those Churches Nor have they any one Author to prove either he or Lucifer were the Pope's Legates nor any reason but because they were employed in great Actions though in that Age 't is plain the Popes were little concerned in any eminent business Moreover they bring in a Fragment of an Epistle writ according to the Ancient Custom by Liberius at his Entrance into the See of Rome to shew his Faith to Athanasius as if it were written now meerly to impose on the Reader a false Notion of his being at this time Orthodox and concerned in this Synod They also cite another Epistle of Athanasius to certifie Liberius what was done here but that Epistle is no where extant in Athanasius's Works but is cited out of the Acts of the second Nicene Council where there are more Forgeries than genuine Tracts quoted and besides the Epistle is directed not to the Pope but to one Ruffinianus and only mentions the Roman Churches approving what was done here but the Epistle being suspicious it is no good Evidence and we conclude with Nazianzen That Athanasius in this Synod gave Laws to the whole World (g) Baron An. 362. Tom. IV. p. 66. And Pope Liberius had no hand in it About this time there were divers Councils called in France by S. Hilary Bishop of Poictiers and the Catholic Faith was setled in them one of which was held at Paris and the Synodical Epistle is extant (h) Lab. p. 821. Bin pag. 490. col 1. yet the Pope is never named in it Nor yet in that Orthodox Synod at Alexandria wherein Athanasius and his Suffragan Bishops presented a Confession of their Faith to Jovian then newly made Emperour (i) Lab. p. 823. Bin. pag. 490. col 2. which shews that Liberius either was an Heretic at this time or else that he was very inconsiderable So that it is a strange Arrogance in the Editors to say that the Second Council at Antioch was under Liberius (k) Lab. p. 826. Bin. p. 491. col 1. when the very Notes say it was called together by Meletius and observe that many Arian Bishops did there recant their Heresie a thing which a little before they pretended could be done no where but at Rome in the Popes Presence An. Dom. 365. Upon Valentinian's advancement to the Empire the Eastern Bishops petition him to call a Council and he being then very busie told them they might call it where they pleased Which the Editors pretend was a declining to meddle in Church Affairs being a Lay-man But the Bishops Petition and his giving them liberty shews that the right of calling Councils was in him and so was also the confirming them as appears from the Bishops sending the Acts of this Council at Lampsacus to the Emperour Valens to be confirmed (l) Sozâ—m lib. 6. cap. 7. The same Bishops also sent their Legates with Letters to the Western Bishops and particularly to Liberius Bishop of Rome hoping Valentinian the other Emperour had been in that City but he being absent these Legates perswaded Liberius they were Orthodox upon which he writ back Letters in his own Name and in the Name of the other Western Bishops to own them for good Catholics (m) Socrat. hist lib. 4. cap. 11. Whence we may note First That the Eastern Bishop's Letter styles the Pope no more but Collegue and Brother Secondly That Liberius calls himself only Bishop of Italy Liberius Ep. Italiae alii Occidentis Episcopi But Baronius alters the Pointing Liberius Episcopus Italiae alii c. by that Trick hoping to conceal this mean Title (n) Ep. 11. Liberti ap Bin. p. 472.
of Nicomedia 's Letters were received by Julius after his death Baronius thus enlarges it Eusebius who had fled from the Judgment of the Roman Church was forced against his Will being dead as Socrates saith to come to the strict Tribunal of God Vid. Socrat. lib. 2. cap. 13. Baron An. 342. §. 43. Where Athanasius saith I went up to Rome that I might visit the Church and the Bishop Baronius ridiculously infers that when we find the Ancients speaking of THE Church and THE Bishop they mean the Roman Church and that Bishop of whom and in whom and by whom are all other Bishops An. 349. §. 6. Which Note is forced upon this place for here Rome is named in the same Sentence with the Church and the Bishop and so it must be understood of the Pope but without any advantage to him more than it would have been to the Bishop of Eugubium to say I went to Eugubium and visited the Church and the Bishop Again S. Hierom saith expresly that Acacius substituted Foelix an Arian to be Bishop of Rome in Liberius his stead Here Baronius pretends some Copies leave out the word Arian and so he reads it Substituted Foelix to be Bishop of Rome An. 355. §. 51. and because some such Parasites of Rome as himself who would not endure that ingrateful Truth of a Pope's being an Heretic had left out this word He boldly asserts it for the true Reading whereas not only Socrates expresly saith He was an Arian in Opinion but Hierom himself in his Chronicle affirms that Foelix was put in by the Arians and it is not like they would have put him in if he had not been of their party The Greek of Sozomen is no more but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but Baronius improves this by a flattering Paraphrase in these words Lest the Seat of Peter should be bespattered with any spot of Infamy An. 357. §. 43. But it is a bolder falsification of S. Chrysostom where he saith in one of his Sermons on a day celebrated in memory of two Martyrs Juventius and Maximus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to pervert this by his Latin Version thus The Martyrs which we this day worship whereas Chrysostom only saith The Martyrs which occasion us to meet this day Chrysost Tom. V. p. 534. Baron An. 362. pag. 48. Epiphanius expresly condemns those as Heretics who worship the Blessed Virgin and saith No man may adore Mary Baronius will not cite this place at large but adds to it these Words she is not to be worshiped as a God Which Falsification of the Father is designed to excuse their Churches Idolatrous worship of the Virgin Mary Epiphan haeres 79. Baron An. 373. p. 309. The restitution of Peter Bishop of Alexandria is by S. Hierom whom he cites with applause ascribed to the late Repentance of the Emperour Valens who recalled now at last the Orthodox from Banishment and Socrates only mentions Damasus's Letters which Peter took with him approving both his Creation and the Nicene Faith Yet he from hence notes the Supreme Power of the Pope by whose order the Bishop of Alexandria was restored to his Church in contempt of Valens his Authority and when he returned with the Popes Authority the People placed him in his Seat Socrat. lib. 4. cap. 30. Baron An. 377. pag. 325. Yea after this he pretends to cite Socrates as if he said Peter was received being restored by Damasus Id. An. 378. pag. 335. yet Damasus did no more in all this matter than barely to testifie that Peter was an Orthodox Bishop and that he believed him duly elected which is all that Socrates saith and which if any eminent Orthodox Bishops had testified it would equally have served the Bishop of Alexandria's Cause To conclude Baronius owns Paulinus to have been a credulous Man and very unskilful in Ecclesiastical History Baron Tom. V. An. 395. p. 15. yet thinking he had not spoken enough when he relates That a Church was adorned with Pictures he stretches this into Adorned with Sacred Images Id. An. 394. pag. 612. From all which Instances we may infer That the Cardinal would not stick at misquoting and misrepresenting his Authors when it might serve the Roman Interest § 3. Of this kind also we may reckon his crafty suppressing such Authorities in whole or in part as seem to cross the Opinions and Practices of their Church His leaving out a passage in Optatus wherein that Father makes the being in Communion with the Seven Churches of Asia a Note of a true Catholic was noted before Vid. supra §. 2. Baron An. 321. §. 5. And we may give many such like Instances Sozomen relates an Imperial Law wherein those are declared Heretics who do not hold the Faith which Damasus Bishop of Rome and Peter of Alexandria then held Sozom. lib. 7. cap. 4. p. 415. but the fraudulent Annalist leaves out Peter of Alexandria and mentions only Damasus as the sole standard of Catholic Faith Baron An. 378. pag. 339. When S. Hierom saith His Adversaries condemned him with Damasus and Peter Baronius bids us observe with what reverence the Pope's Enemies treated him for though they accused S. Hierom of Heresie yet against Damasus they durst not open their Mouth Baron An. 378. pag. 347. whereas S. Hierom protected himself by the Authority of the Bishop of Alexandria as well as by that of the Pope Again after a crafty Device to hide the evident Testimony which Gregory Nyssen gives against going in Pilgrimage to Jerusalem He slightly mentions an Epistle of S. Hierom which excellently confutes that then growing Superstition telling us That the Court of Heaven is as open from Britain as from Jerusalem Which remarkable Sentence and all the other learned Arguments of that Epistle he omits by design Hieron Ep. 13. Tom. l. p. 120. Baron An. 386. p. 454 455. though if it had countenanced this Superstition we should have had it cited at large In like manner afterwards when he had another fair occasion to cite this same Epistle which doth so effectually condemn Pilgrimages he will not quote one word out of it but barely mentions it and runs out into the Enquiry what time it was writ Baron An. 394. p. 613. I have given many more Instances of these fraudulent Concealments in my Discourse of Councils and therefore shall add no more here but only this That whoever reads Baronius's Annals hears no more generally than the Evidence of one side and that too enlarged if it be never so slight and commended if it be never so spurious but whatever makes against the Roman Church is depreciated and perverted or else clapt under Hatches and kept out of sight Of which we have an Instance in Eusebius who because he will not justifie their Forgeries about Constantine's Baptism and Donation though he be the best of all the Ecclesiastical Historians is never cited but with Reproaches and Calumnies Annal. 324. §. 143 144 152. An.
is no prejudice to the Truth of Marcellinus his fall though the Africans did not know of it nor S. Augustine no nor any of the African Church Yet in the next Page it is observed That there are very many Names of the Witnesses which prove his fall which are peculiar to the African Christians Now if these Names were peculiar to the Africans then these Witnesses were of the African Church Originally and then it is Morally impossible that they should never tell none of their Countrymen of so Famous a Transaction The Notes confess that these Acts often mention Libra occidua which is a Word invented after the Empire was divided into East and West And thence the same Notes infer these Acts were not writ in those Ancient times yet they make it a wonder that they were not seen in Africa in S. Augustine 's time or before Which is to wonder that they had not seen them in Africa before they were written It puzzles the Annotator to make out an excuse for that ridiculous Falshood in these Acts that Marcellinus was led into the Temple of Vesta and Isis and there Sacrificed to Hercules Jupiter and Saturn because these Gods were never placed nor Worshiped in the Temples of those female Deities Nor can he allow what the Acts say about this Council being held when Dioclesian was in his Persian War for he affirms it was held Two years after that War when Dioclesian had devested himself of the Empire and lived a private Life But then the Acts make Dioclesian to be present and in Rome when Marcellinus did Sacrifice and at this rate the Pope would have laied two years at least in his Apostacy which the Annotator must not endure To conclude we now see That a Council held no body knows where nor when concealed from all Ancient Authors writ in later times full of Barbarisms and Non-sense Falshoods and contradictions if it do but pretend to make out the Supremacy and Infallibity of the Pope and set him while he was an Apostate and falsly denied the Fact above a Council of Three hundred Innocent Bishops if it do but say the Pope though never so wicked cannot be judged by any but himself This Council shall be published by the Roman Editors and vindicated by partial Notes as if it were a most genuine and Authentic Truth From whence it is plain That these Editors and especially this Annotator hath no other measure of Truth and Falshood but the Interest of the Roman Church which they resolve to promote though it be by the most unjust means And this may suffice to observe for the Third Century A BRIEF ACCOUNT OF THE Roman Forgeries IN THE VOLUMES OF THE COUNCILS For the Fourth Century PART II. CHAPTER IV. Of the Forgeries in the Fourth Century § 1. THis Century begins with the Life of Marcellus An. Dom. 304. a Pope so obscure that Eusebius's Chronicle wholly omits him (a) Lab. Tom. III. pag. 947. Bin. Tom. I. pag. 185. col 2. and Theodoret knew nothing of him nor of Pope Eusebius but makes Melchiades immediate Successor to Marcellinus (b) Theod. hist lib. 1 cap. 3. It is very observable that these two unknown Popes in the Notes on their Lives are said to have sat Seven years between them And the Pontifical saith There was a Vacancy of Seven years after Marcellinus which Vacancy is also asserted by Anastasius Biblioth by Luit prandus Abbo Floriacens Cusanus and Genebrard (c) Richer de Eccles potestate cap 3. pag. 46. And though Baronius's and Binius's Notes deny this Seven years Vacancy it is upon meer Conjectures The Scandal of so long a Vacancy no doubt setting some of the old Parasites of Rome on work to invent two Popes Names and put them into the List from whence probably they have been foisted into Optatus and S. Augustine two Latin Fathers while the Greek Authors which these Forgers Understood not do continue Uncorrupted And truly nothing but the Names of these two Popes remain for no good Historian mentions any one Eminent Act done by either of them however the Annotator had rather fill up his Scene with empty Names of Feigned Popes who did nothing for Seven years together than let the Reader suppose the Catholic Church could so long want it s pretended Head. But though the Notes allow not the Authority of the Pontifical for the Vacancy they trust it for the fictitious Story of this Marcellus his Life and would have us believe That in a time of Persecution this Pope appointed Twenty five Churches in Rome to Baptize Converts and Bury Martyrs in and though the Laws and Customs of that City then forbad to Bury dead Bodies within the Walls we are to believe that the Tyrant Maxentius who made all these Martyrs and persecuted this very Pope consented to his breaking this Ancient Law. On the Credit of the same Pontifical we are told That a certain Lady called Lucina dedicated her House to this Pope while He was alive by the Title of S. Marcellus and that the Emperor turned it into a Stable and made the Pope his Beast-keeper there where Naked and cloathed with Sackcloth they are the Words of the Pontifical He soon after ended his days the 17th of the Kalends of February (d) Breviar Rom. Jan. 16. pag. 674. Which Fiction the Roman Breviary orders to be read to the Credulous People of that Communion for Lessons and tells them That Marcellus writ an Epistle to the Bishops of the Antiochian Province about the Roman Primacy and to prove Rome to be the Head of All Churches and that no Synod should be held without the Pope's Authority But this Epistle (e) Lab. p. 948. Bin. pag. 186. col 1. is owned by Labbé to be a Forgery patched up out of divers Modern Authors citing the Vulgar Latin Version and dated after Marcellus his death And it is very strange That times of Persecution should be a proper Season for a Pope to wrangle for his Supremacy Yet this Notorious Forgery saith Christ ordered S. Peter to Translate his Seat from Antioch to Rome and that the Apostles by Inspiration decreed That all Appeals should be made thither and no Council held but by the Authority of the Roman Church For which cause Binius vindicates it with Notes as full of Falsehood as the Epistle it self (f) Lab. p 950 Bin. pag. 187. col 1. His first Note of this Epistle being writ to one Solomon a Bishop is an oversight and belongs to the first Epistle of Pope Marcellinus (g) Bin. p. 175. col 2. Baron An. 296. §. 5. His next Notes about the Primacy and Power of Calling Synods cite an Apostolical and Nicene Canon for it but no such Canons are to be found He quotes also two Epistles one writ to Pope Foelix from Alexandria another writ by Pope Julius to the Eastern Churches for proof of this Supremacy and the same Annotator afterwards owns them both
rather derision than serious Arguments Sanders and Turrian observe That these Fathers forbid not Images which Christians might take away and hide but Pictures which they must leave exposed to Pagan abuses But might not this have been prevented by hanging up their Pictures in Frames and are not large Images as difficult to be removed and concealed as Pictures Yea doth not the present Roman Church adore Pictures as well as Images so that still this Canon condemns them Martinez fancies This Council forbid Painting on the Walls lest the Pictures should be deformed by the decay of those Walls But he forgets that the Council first forbids them to be any where in the Church and were not Walls as subject to decay in the time of the Second Nicene Council as they are now And had not those Fathers as great an honour for Pictures as these at Elliberis yet the Nicene Picture-Worshipers order them to be painted on Church-Walls Martinez adds That as times vary human Statutes vary and so the Second Council of Nice made a quite contrary Decree What! are Decrees of Councils about Matters of Divine Worship only human Statutes what will become of the Divine Authority and Apostolical Tradition pretended for this Worship of old at Nice and now at Rome if the Orders against it and for it be both human and mutable Statutes It is well however that the Patrons of Image-Worship do own they have altered and abrogated a Primitive Canon for one made Four hundred years after in times of Ignorance and Superstition and we know whether of the two we ought to prefer Baronius is more ingenuous who saith (x) Baron An. 305. §. 45. These Bishops at Elliberis chiefly endeavoured by strict Penalties to affright the Faithful from Idolatry wherefore they made the 34th 36th and 37th Canons and by comparing the First Canon with the Forty sixth it appears they dealt more severely with an Idolater than an Apostate From whence we infer That Pictures in Churches tend to Idolatry in this Councils Opinion Albaspinaeus whose Notes Labbé here prints (y) Lab. p. 998 would enervate this Canon by saying It forbids not the Saints Pictures but those which represented God and the Holy Trinity But it is not probale these Primitive Christians were so ignorant as to need any prohibition about such blasphemous Representations of God's Majesty And he brings no proof but his own bare Conjecture for this limitation of the Canon which Fancy if it were true would prove That the Saints were not worshiped or adored in that Age because nothing that was worshiped and adored was to be painted on the Walls and if that be meant only of God and the Trinity then nothing else but God and the Trinity was adored in those days Finally the former part of the Canon destroys this limitation by excluding Pictures in general out of Churches These are the various Fallacies by which these partial Editors would hide the manifest Novelty of their Churches Worship of Pictures which cannot be defended by all these Tricks I will only add That this genuine Ancient Council in the Fifty third Canon Orders The same Bishop who Excommunicated a Man to Absolve him and that if any other intermedled He should be called to an account for it (z) Lab. p. 976. Bin. pag. 196. C without excepting the Pope or taking notice of Marcellus's pretended claim of Appeals § 3. In the Year 306 was a Council at Carthage against the Donatists which never takes any notice of the Pope yet they put into the Title of it Under Marcellus (a) Lab. p. 1379. Bin. pag. 202. C But there is a worse Forgery in the Notes where S. Augustine is cited as saying That Cecilian Bishop of Carthage despised the Censures of the Donatists because he was joyned in Communion with the Bishop of the Roman Church from which all Catholic Communion was ever wont to be denominated But this is Baronius his false gloss not S. Augustine's words who only saith because he was united by Communicatory Letters both to the Roman Church wherein the Principality of the Catholic Church had always flourished and to other Lands from whence the Gospel came to Africa (b) Aug. ep 62. Tom. Il. p. 150. Vid. Baron An. 306. §. 40. Now there is great difference between a Mans being a Catholic because he was in Communion with Rome then Orthodox and with other Churches and his being a Catholic meerly for being in Communion with the Roman Bishop which is the modern and false notion of the word Catholic among Papists in our days But Binius was so convinced that S. Augustine's words confuted Baronius's Paraphrase that he cunningly leaves them out to make this commodious Sense of them go better down with careless Readers § 4. The next Pope Eusebius was so obscure as the Notes on his Life declare that no Writer mentions any thing of him that is memorable (c) Lab. p. 1380. Bin. pag. 203. col 1. and it is probable there never was such a Pope Yet the Pontifical saith The Cross was found in his time upon the 5th of the Nones of May which is the very Day on which the Roman Church now celebrates The Invention of the Cross And the Third Decretal Epistle of this Pope was devised on purpose to support this Story yet both Baronius and Binius reject it for a Fable even while their Church still observes that Holy-day There are Three Epistles forged for this Name of a Pope all which Labbé owns to be spurious (d) Lab. p. 1381. Bin. pag. 203. col 1. and I need not spend much time to prove it since they cite the Vulgar Latin Version and are mostly stollen out of Modern Authors as Labbe's Margen shews having only one Consul's Name for their Dates because no other was named in the Pontifical Besides the first Epistle uses the Phrase Pro salvatione servorum Dei which is not the Latin of that Age and talks of Rigorous Tortures used among Christians to make Witnesses confess Truth The second Epistle repeats the foolish Argument of Christ's whipping the Buyers and Sellers many of which were Lay-men out of the Temple to prove that God alone must judge Priests and out of a much later Roman Council suspected also of Forgery speaks of the Peoples not judging their Bishop unless he err in Matter of Faith and discourses of Edicts of Kings forbidding to try an ejected Bishop till he be restored to his place The third Epistle hath the Fable of the Invention of the Cross and all other Marks of Forgery on it yet Bellarmine cites it to prove the Pope's Succession to S. Peter in his Universal Monarchy and to make out Confirmation to be a Sacrament (e) Bellarm. de Pontif. Rom. lib. 2. cap. 14. de Confirm lib. 2. cap. 3. So little do those Writers value the credit of any Evidence if it do but make for their Churches Authority or support its Doctrines § 5.
of them affirms that Hosius was the Pope's Legate This is purely an Invention of Baronius but he only proves it by Conjectures (y) Baron An. 325. §. 20. The Truth is Constantine himself was the President of this Council and Sat on a Gilded Throne not as the Preface saith falsly Below all the Bishops but Above all the Bishops as Eusebius an Eye-witness relates (z) Euseb vit Constant lib. 3. cap. 10. and the Notes at last own He sat in the Chief Place (a) Lab. pag. 67. Bin. pag. 292. col 2. yea the Annalist confesseth He acted the part of a Moderator in it (b) Baron An. 325. §. 73. Richerius goes further saying It is clear by undoubted Testimonies that the Appointing and Convening of this Council depended on the Authority of Constantine who was the President thereof (c) Richer hist Con. cap. 2 §. 2 3 4. and he blames Baronius and Binius for wilfully mistaking the Pope's Consent which was requisite as he was Bishop of an Eminent Church for his Authority to which no Pope in that Age pretended It is true there were some Bishops who were Chief among the Ecclesiastics in this Council Eustathius Bishop of Antioch sat uppermost on the Right-side and opened the Synod with a Speech to Constantine (d) Theodoret. apud Baron An. 325. §. 54. Hence some and among the rest Pope Foelix in his Epistle to Zeno affirm He was President of this Council (e) Vid Richer hist Concil lib. 1. cap. 2. §. 8. Others say The Bishop of Alexandria presided and indeed all the Patriarchs present Sat above all others of the Clergy (f) Phot. lib. d. 7. Synod yet so as they all gave place to the Emperor when he came in And for the Pope's Legates Baronius and Bellarmin do contend in vain about the Places they had in this Council since no Ancient Author tells us they Sat above the Chief of the Bishops So that this also is a Forgery of the Papal Flatterers to give Countenance to their Churches feigned Supremacy Thirdly As to the Power which confirmed the Canons of this Council the ancient Historians do suppose that Constantine gave these Decrees their binding Power and Record his Letters to injoyn all to observe them (g) Vid Socrat. Sozom. Theodoret Ruffin ut supra And Eusebius who was there saith that The Emperor ratified the Decrees with his Seal (h) Euseb vit Constan lib. 1. cap. 37. But the Annalist and Annotator seek to efface this evidence by Railing at Eusebius and by devising many weak pretences to persuade the Credulous that Pope Sylvester confirmed this Council by his Authority and both the Preface and Notes tell us that this Synod writ a Letter to Sylvester for his confirmation and that he called a Council at Rome and writ back to Ratify what they had done (i) Lab. p. 6. pag. 7â— Bin. pag. 64. pag. 299. col 1. But whoever will but read these two Epistles will find the Latin so Barbarous and the Sense so Intricate that nothing is plain in them but that they are Forged (k) Lab p. 68. Bin. pag. 348. col 1. and Labbe's Margin tells us they are Fictions nor dare Baronius own them to be genuine (l) Baron An. 325. §. 37. and though Binius cite them for evidence in his Notes yet at some distance he tells us it is evident they are both Corrupted (m) Bin. p. 348. col 1. marg and again he says if they were not both extreme faulty and Commentitious they might be Evidence in this case (n) Idem p. 365. col 1. not ad Concil Rom. But Richerius is more Ingenuous and declares That these Epistles are prodigiously â—alse The Forger of them being so Ignorant as to call Macarius who was then Bishop of Jerusalem Bishop of Constantinople Yet our Annotator cites Dionysius Exiguus for a Witness of these Epistles whereas Richerius shews they were Forged by some Ignorant Monk long after Dionysius his time who mentions not the Pope 's confirming of these Canons nor doth he remember these Epistles but only saith it was agreed these Canons should be sent to Sylvester Bishop of Rome (o) Richer hist Concil lib. 1. cap. 2. §. 6. The Notes further urge a Roman Council under Pope Sylvester to prove his Confirming these Canons but that Council is a confessed Forgery it self and so proves nothing (p) Labbè marg pag. 412. Lastly The Annotator here and almost every where cites Socrates his speaking of an Ecclesiastical Canon that no Decrees of Councils should be valid withâ—ut the consent of the Roman Bishop (q) Socrat. histor lib. 2. cap. 13. But First Consent is not Confirmation It is the priviledge of every Patriarch as well as of him of Rome That a Generâ—l Council cannot be held without every one of their consents but this proves not their pretended sole and supreme Power of ratifying all Councils vested in the Pope Besides Socrates here only Historically relates what Pope Julius said in his own Case and therefore the Testimony relies on Julius his Credit and indeed that was a peculiar Case wherein when the Cause of Athanasius was referred by consent of all parties to Julius as Arbitrator the Arians took it out of his Hands against Athanasius his Mind and judged it in a Council to which Julius was not at all summoned which doubtless was very illegal and unjust But yet none can tell where this Ecclesiastical Canon was made which the angry and injured Pope here cites and therefore till it appear whence Julius had this Canon we must be excused if we give no great Deference to it and unless they cou'd prove it was Râ—corded before the Nicene Council it is very impertinent to expect the Nicene Fathers should Govern their Actions by it So that we conclude not Sylvester but Constantine confirmed this Council Fourthly As to the number of the Canons the Annotator also notoriously prevaricates He confesses that all the Greeks and particularly Theodoret and Ruffinus assert there were but Twenty Canons made there yea that the Sixth Council of Carthage within less than an Hundred years after a diligent search in the three Patriarchal Seats of Alexandria Antioch and Constantinople could find no more than Twenty Canons (r) Lab. p. 71. Bin. pag. 395. col 2. But the Notes conceal Gratian's naming no more but Twenty Canons and his saying there are but only Twenty Nicene Canons to be found in the Roman Church (s) Gratian. dist 16. cap. 10. cap. 13. For all this the Annotator boldly tells us That the truer Opinion or rather that which is most for the Popes interest is that more than Twenty Canons were made there But we will examine his and Baronius's reasons (t) Baron An. 325. §. 157. c. First They say there is no Decree about Easter among the Twenty Canons I reply There is a genuine Epistle of
Recantation to Pope Julius (g) Hosii Epist ap Baron An. 355. §. 661. before whom they had falsly accused Athanasius and who was the Arbitrator chosen to hear that Cause and so not as Pope but as a chosen Judge in that case was fittest to receive these mens Confessions Yet hence the Notes make this Inference That since this matter was greater than that a Synod at Milan though the Roman Presbyters were present could dispatch it and lest the ancient Custom of the Catholic Church should be broken viz. for eminent Heretics to abjure their Heresies only at Rome and be received into Communion by the Pope they sent them to Julius that having before him offered their Penitential Letter they might make their Confession the whole Roman Church locking on All which is their own Invention for the Authors from whom alone they have the notice of this Council say nothing of this kind and it is very certain that there was at this time no custom at all for Heretics to abjure at Rome more than at any other place many Heretics being frequently reconciled at other Churches There was also a peculiar reason why these two Heretics went thither and it cannot be proved that this Council sent them so that these are Forgeries devised to support their dear Supremacy and so we leave them Only noting That the Editors are not so happy in their Memory as their Invention for the next Page shews us a Council at Jerusalem wherein many Bishops who had described the Condemnation of Athanasius and therefore no doubt were Arians repented and recanted and so were restored to the Churches Communion without the trouble of going to Rome on this Errant A Council at Colen follows next which they say was in Julius his time and under Julius yet the Notes say they know not the time when it was held only the Bishops there assembled deposed a Bishop for Heresie by their own Authority without staying for the Pope's Advice though they were then about to send a Messenger to Rome to pray for them so little was the Popes Consent thought needful in that Age and perhaps it is in order to conceal this seeming neglect that the Notes (h) Bin. Not. p. 463. col 2. after they have approved far more improbable Stories which make for the honour of their Church reject the report of this Message to the Prince of the Apostles as fabulous and we are not concerned to vindicate it The last Council which they style under Julius was at Vasatis or Bazas in France yet the Notes affirm That Nectarius presided in it the time of it very uncertain (i) Lab. p. 728. Bin. pag. 464. col 1 2. and the Phrases used in the Canons of it shew it to be of much later date Besides this Council saith The Gloria-Patri was sung after the Psalms in all the Eastern Churches but Jo. Cassian who came out of the East in the next Century saith He haa never heard this Hymn sung after the Psalms in the Eastern Churches (k) Bin. Not. in Epist Damas Hieron pag. 506. col 1. Wherefore it is probable this Council was celebrated after Cassian's time when the Greek Churches had learned this Custom and yet these Editors place it a whole Century too soon because they would have us think that custom here mentioned of remembring the Pope in their daily Prayers was as ancient as the wrong date here assigned In Labbe's Edition here is added an account (l) Laâ—â— p. 729. ad pag. â—â—9 of three Councils against Photinus on which we need make no Remarks An. Dom. 352. § 23. Pope Liberius succeeded Julius whose Life with the Notes upon it are very diverting if we observe the Shifts and Artifices used by the Roman Parasites to excuse him from Heresie The Pontifical saith He was banished three years by Constantius for not consenting to the Arians in whose place Foelix was Ordained and he in a Council condemned Ursacius and Valens two Arian Bishops who in Revenge petitioned Constantins to revoke Liberius and he being thus restored consented to the Arians and the Emperour so far as to persecute and Martyr the Catholics and his Rival Foelix being a Catholic was deposed But this Fable is not fine enough for the Palates of Baronius and Binius who are to dress a Story to make the Reader believe that neither Liberius nor Foelix erred in Faith while they were Popes To confute which let it be considered that Binius confesseth Liberius consented to the depriving of Athanasius admitted Arians to his Communion and subscribed an Arian Confession of Faith as Athanasius Hilary and Hierom witness (m) Not. ad 7 Ep. Liber Lab pag. 751. Bin. pag. 470. col 1. and there are Arguments unanswerable to prove he was an Arian while he was Pope (n) Vid. Spalat de rep Eccl. l. 7. cap. 5. yea Binius in his own Notes twice confesseth That he unhappily fell (o) Lab. p. 741. Bin. p. 465. E. and that he basely fell (p) Lab. p. 743. Bin. p. 466. col 2. Yet to mince the matter he adds That by his Fall he cast a vile Blot on his Life and Manners and the Notes on the Sirmian Council say By offending against the Confession of Faith and the Law of Justice he cast a most base Blot on his Life and Manners (q) Lab. p. 783. Bin. pag. 479. col 2. What can be more ridiculous He erred in Faith and subscribed the Arian Confession therefore the blot was upon his Faith this did not concern his Life and Manners That Absurd Phrase is a meer blind to keep the Reader from discovering a Pope turning Heretic To which end they impudently say It is a false Calumny of the Heretics to say Liberius was infected with the Arian Heresie (r) Lab. p. 741. Bin. pag. 465. col 2. But I ask Whether Athanasius S. Hilary and S. Hierom who affirm this were Heretics Or was Platina an Heretic who saith Liberius did in all things agree with the Heretics To which the same Forgers have added As some would have it but those are not Photinus words who saith soon after He was of the same Opinion with the Arians (s) Platin. in vit Liber p 50. Eusebius Presbyter urbis Rome copit declarare Liberium Haereticum Partitor Sarish Aug. 14. And surely the Catholic People of Rome in his time took him for an Arian and as such would have no communion with him and therefore we conclude he was an Arian As for Foelix who was put into his place Baronius and Binius would excuse him by a false Latin Version of Socrates saying He was addicted to the Arian Sect but the Original Greek expresly declares He was in Opinion an Arian (t) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Socrat. lib. 2. cap. 29. And it is certain He was chosen by the Arians and communicated with them Ordaining Arians to be Priests and therefore the Catholic People at Rome
avoided his communion and S. Hierom saith He was an Arian As for the Story of his condemning Ursacius and Valens two of that Sect there is no better Authority for it than the fabulous Pontifical So that after all the devices of Bellarmin Baronius and Binius (u) Lab. p. 742. Bin. pag. 466. col 1 2. to save their Churches Infallibility we have two Popes at once falling so notoriously into the Arian Heresie that the Lay-people disowned their Communion This is more than suspicion of Heresie in S. Peter's Chair and proves that their infallible Guides for some years were Arian Heretics For this Liberius divers Epistles are published with a Preface before them which saith Two of them were feigned by the Arians (w) Lab. p. 744. Bin. pag. 467. col 1. yet these two are found in the Fragments of S. Hilary among which it is not probable there should be any Fiction of the Arians So that it is very likely these two Epistles are genuine but rejected by these Sycophants of Rome because they tell an ungrateful Truth viz. That Liberius did condemn Athanasius soon after he was made Pope And if we consider how inconstant he was it is very probable that he might condemn Athanasius twice first in the beginning of his Papacy as is said in these two Epistles of which he repented and then writ that Tenth Epistle to own he was in Communion with Athanasius and to tell him If he approved of his form of Faith it would tend much to the setling of his Judgment (x) Lâ—b p. 755 Bin. pâ—g 471. col 1. which is an odd Complement from an Infallible Head. Secondly He condemned Athanasius after his Banishment of which more shall be said hereafter But as to the particular Epistles we shall note That in the first which they say is genuine Liberius with other Bishops petition Constantins to order a Council to be held at Aquilcia (y) 〈◊〉 p 744. 〈◊〉 pâ—g 4â—7 col 1. Vid item Ep. 2. by which we see the Pope had not then assumed the power of calling Councils When he writ the 7th Epistle which they grant also to be genuine no doubt he was an Arian For he calls the Arian Bishops His most Beloved Brethren and declares his Consent to their just condemning of Athanasius together with his being in Communion with them and his receiving their Sirmian Creed as the Catholic Faith (z) Lab. p. 751. â—in pag. 469. col 2. So in the XIth Epistle which is certainly genuine and recorded by Socrates (a) Socrat. hist lib. 4. cap. 11. the Notes confess he was so easie as to receive the Semi-Arians to Communion and to commend their Faith as the same which was decreed at Nice But it is gross Flattery to call this only Being too easie it was in plain terms Being dâ—ceived and erring in Matters of Faith which spoils their Infallibilit (b) Lab. p. 757. Bin. pag. 472. col 1. as it also doth their Universal Supremacy for Liberius in the same Epistle to call himself Bishop of Italy referring only to the Suburbicarian Regions and saying He was the meaness of Bishops and rejoyced that those in the East did not submit to him but agree with him in Matters of Faith. Wherefore the XIIth or as Labbé calls it the XIVth Epistle which is writ to all Bishops is manifestly forged (c) Ep. 14. Lab. pag. 760. Ep. 12. Bin. pag. 472. col 2. And so are the two next from Liberius to Athanasius and from Athanasius to Liberius as both Labbé and Binius confess (d) Lab. p. 763. Bin. in Notis pag. 474. col 2. yet in one of these the Pope brags of his Authority over the Universal Church But the Forger was so bad at Chronology that while he strives to make this Pope look like an Orthodox Friend of Athanasius he absurdly brings him in even under Julian or Valens in one of whose Reigns this Epistle was written threatning Offenders with the Emperours Indignation with Deprivation yea with Proscription Banishment and Stripes (e) Lab. p. 767. Bin. pag. 474. col 2. I need not mention those Decrees which are attributed to Liberius whose Style betrays them and shews they belong to the later Ages and are placed here by the Collectors only to make them seem more ancient than really they are In Liberius's first year it is said There was a Council called at Rome by this Pope to clear Athanasius (f) Lab. p. 769. 〈◊〉 pag. 475. col 1. yet being sensible that their Authority would signifie very little they all agreed to petition the Emperour for a Council to Meet at Aquilâ—â—a to confirm what they had done at Rome Anno 355. there was a Council at Milan the Editors call it A General Council because it was with Constantins permission called by Liberius whose Legates also were present at it (g) Lab p. â—â—2 Bin. pag 476. col 1. But herein they grosly falsifie for Sozomen declares That Constantius summâ—ned all the Bishops to Milan (h) Sâ—â—â—m lib. 4 cap. 8. Socrat. lib. 2. cap. 29. and Barenius saith The Emperour called them together (i) Baron An. 355. § 2. Therefore if this was a General Council it was called by the Emperour and not by the Pope In the Notes on this Synod they say Constantius being yet a Catechumen ought not to be present at a lawful Council But this is Baronius his device to colour over the Forgery of Constantine's Baptism before the Council of Nice there being no Canon forbidding a Catechumen to be present in a Council or in a Church except only while the Sacrament was celebrating so that if Constantius had been bound by an Ecclesiastical Canon there being no Canon to hinder his presence in this Council Barenius assigns a wrong cause of his absence Again the Notes do very falsly suppose That Foelix though chosen by the Arians was a Catholic Pope (k) Lab. p. 773. For he was Ordained by three Arian Bishops at Milan as Athanasius declares (l) Athanas Epist ad Solitar and Socrates as we noted before saith He was in Opinion an Arian Nor is it probable when the Arians had got Liberius banished for not complying with them they should chuse a Catholic and an Enemy into so eminent a See or that the Catholic People of Rome should avoid the communion of Foelix if he were not an Arian 'T is true Sozomen speaks of some who said He kept to the Nicene Faith and was unblameable in Religion yet he adds he was accused for ordaining Arians and communicating with them (m) Sozom. lib. 4. cap. 10. But this bare Report raised perhaps by the Arians who still pretended to be Catholics and hold the Nicene Faith cannot outweigh such strong Reason and Matters of Fact as are here alledged to prove Foelix not only a Schismatical but also an Heretical Pope The Dialogue between Constantius and Pope Liberius at Milan here
Baron An. 365. pag. 153. Thirdly The Pope here saith He was the least of all Bishops and was glad their Opinion agreed with his and the rest of the Western Bishops Fourthly Yet after all these very Eastern Bishops were of the Macedonian party as the Title of their Letter in Socrates shews (o) Socrat. ut supr Baronius indeed leaves these words out of the Title but he confesses they were Semi-Arians So that the Popes Infallibility as being imposed on by Heretics in Mattets of Faith loses more by this Embassy than his Supremacy gains by it because the Legates were not sent to him alone but to all the Western Bishops Fifthly The Notes on this Council (p) Lab. p. 830. Bin. pag. 492. col 1. feign that besides these Communicatory Letters Liberius writ other Letters Commanding that ejected Bishops should be restored by the Apostolic Authority But this is one of Baronius his Forgeries (q) Baron An. 365. pag. 154. For S. Basil and also Sozomen cited by the Notes on the Council of Tyana (r) Lab. p. 836. Bin. pag 494. col 1. mention not the Legates shewing any other Letters at their return into the East but only the Communicatory Letters and since it appeared by them that the Western Bishops judged them Orthodox their Eastern Brethren did restore them And so also these Legates got the approbation of a Council in Sicily as they were returning home for the Sicilian Bishops by mistake took them for Orthodox when they saw the rest of the Western Bishops owned their Communion with them and so approved their Confession of Faith and therefore it is very impertinent in the Notes to say on this occasion (s) Concil Siciliae Lab. Bin. ut supr That the Authority of the Pope was so great that if he admitted even suspected Heretics to his Communion none presumed to reject them Whereas we know that afterwards the People of Rome rejected even the Pope himself for communicating with Semi-Arians The next thing which occurs is a Synod in Illyricum Convened at the request of Eusebius Bishop of Sebastia one of the Eastern Legates who while his Fellows stayed at Rome went into that Country and prevailed with the Bishops assembled there to send Elpidius a Brother and Collegue of their own with a Synodical Letter to the Eastern Bishops declaring they would communicate with them if their Faith was the same with that of Nice Now though this Synod do not mention the Pope yet Baronius and the Notes feign That Elpidius was the Pope's Legate (t) Lab. p. 832. Bin. pag. 493. Baron An. 365. pag. 155. whereas the Synod the Emperours Letter and Theodoret from whom this Story is taken mention Elpidius only as a Messenger sent from this Council When these Eastern Legates returned home there was a Council called at Tyana in Cappadocia (u) Lab. p. 836. Bin. pag. 494. col 1. wherein they shewed the Communicatory Letters which they had fraudulently obtained in the West upon which Letters those who had been ejected as Heretics and particularly Eustathius of Sebastia were restored to their Sees but neither Sozomen nor S. Basil say this was done by any special Letters of Liberius or by any Command of his yet if it had been so this would spoil this Popes Infallibility it being certain these restored Bishops were Heretics who Liberius poor Man thought to be good Catholics and he hath the more to answer for if this were done not by his Consent alone but by his Command also After this we have the Life of Pope Foelix about whom they differ so much that nothing is plain in his Story but this that little of him is certainly known The Pontifical in Liberius Life saith He died in peace but here it saith He was Martyred by Constantius for declaring him an Heretic and one who was rebaptized by Eusebius of Nicomedia Yet Constantius was not Baptized at all till after Foelix his pretended Martyrdom and he was Baptized then not by Eusebius but by one Euzoius Again The Pontifical allows him but to sit One year and three months and the Notes say This is right computing from Liberius Fall to his Return which as Sozomen affirms was but little before Foelix his Death (w) Lab. p. 843. Bin. pag. 490. col 2. Whereas these very Notes tell us a little before that Liberius was above two years in Exile (x) Lab. p. 742. Bin. pag. 466. col 1. therefore if he lived but a small time after Liberius's return he must sit above two years But Marcellinus who writ in that Age tells us Foelix lived eight years after Liberius was restored Which Baronius and the Notes would conceal to hide the Scandal that their Church must get by a long Schism and by an Heretical Pope of whom they will needs make a Martyr only upon the Credit of the Pontifical and a modern fallacious Inscription pretended to be found at Rome many Ages after belonging to some Foelix but which of them they know not The Epistles ascribed to this Pope contain so many and so gross Untruths that Labbé notes They are discarded by Baronius and other Learned Men as Isidores Wares (y) Lab. Marg. p. 844 849. adding That the third Epistle was stollen from Pope Martin the First in his Lateran Council (z) Id. Marg. pag. 856. And though Binius very often cite the two first Epistles yet in his Notes on them he owns they are of no credit (a) Lab. p. 849. Bin. pag. 499. col 1. For they Forge many Canons as made at Nice and tell that idle story of the true Copies of the Nicene Canons being burnt by the Arians (b) Richer hist Con lib. 1. cap. 1. §. 9. But it is certain the Forger of these Epistles was a Creature of the Popes because the Inscriptions of them are stuffed with false and flattering Titles and the Body of them nauseously and ridiculously press the Supremacy and the Universal Empire of the Roman Church § 26. The entrance of Damasus into the Papacy was not without Blood An. Dom. 367. for the People were divided and some standing for Damasus others for Ursicinus Damasus his Party being stronger slew many of their Adversaries in a Church as all the Writers of that Age testifie (c) Am. Marcel lib. 17. Ruffin lib. 2. cap. 10. Hieron in Chron. and though Ammianus be a Pagan Historian yet it is very probable which he writes that it was not Zeal but the ambition of living high and great that made Men contend so fiercely for the Papacy for S. Basil himself about this time taxes the Roman Church with Pride and S. Hierom the great Friend of that Church often reflects upon the pomp and luxury of the Clergy there So that the Notes on Damasus his Life do but glory in their Churches shame when from these Authors they boast of the Magnificence and Majesty of the Papacy (d) Lab. p.
the Notes say They can prove by firm Reasons that this Canon was forged by the Greeks But their Reasons are very frivolous They say Anatolius did not quote this Canon against Pope Leo I reply 'T is very probable he did because Leo saith He pleaded the Consent of many Bishops that is if Leo would have spoken out In this General Council Secondly They urge that this Canon is not mentioned in the Letter writ to Damasus I Answer They have told us before they sent their Acts to him and so need not repent them in this Letter Thirdly They talk of the Injury done to Timotheus Bishop of Alexandria but his Subscription is put to the Canons as well as the Creed and it doth not appear that ever he or any of his Successors contended for Precedence after this with the Patriarch of Constantinople And that the Modern Greeks did not forge this Canon is plain because Socrates and Sozomen both mention it (s) Socrat. lib. 5. cap. 2. Sozom. lib 7. cap. 8. and the Catholic Church always owned it for Authentic Yea in the Council of Chalcedon it is declared That the Bishop of Constantinople ought to have had the second place in the Factious Synod at Ephesus and he is reckoned in that fourth General Council next after the Pope whose Legates were there and yet durst not deny him the second place in which he sat and subscribed in that order having first had this Canon confirmed at Chalcedon So that all Churches but that of Rome submit to this General Council and they who pretend most to venerate them do despise and reject the Authority of General Councils if they oppose the ends of their Pride and Avarice To conclude Here is a General Council called and confirmed only by the Emperour assembled without the Pope or his Legates decreeing Matters of Faith and of Discipline yet every where owned and received as genuine except at Rome when Interest made them partial and still no less valued for that by all other Churches Which gives a severe Blow to the modern Pretences of their Papal Supremacy and Infallibility The same Year there was a Council at Aquileia in Italy wherein divers Arians were fully heard and fairly condemned Now this Council was called by the Emperour the Presidents of it being Valerian Bishop of Aquileia and Ambrose Bishop of Milan but Damasus is not named in it nor was he present at it in Person or by his Legates though this Council was called in Italy it self and designed to settle a Point of Faith But these Bishops as the Acts shew did not judge Heretics by the Popes Authority but by Scripture and by solid Arguments And they tell us It was then a Custom for the Eastern Bishops to hold their Councils in the East and the Western theirs in the West (t) Lab. p. 980. Bin. pag. 545 col 2. which argues they knew of no Universal Monarchy vested in the Pope and giving him power over all the Bishops both of the East and West For it was not Damasus but the Prefect of Italy who writ about this Synod to the Bishops of the East (u) Baron An. 381. pag. 386. Nor did this Council write to the Pope but to the Emperour to confirm their Sentence against Heretics wherefore Damasus had a limited Authority in those days not reaching so much as over all Italy and extended only to the Suburbicarian Regions out of which as being Damasus's peculiar Province Ursicinus his Antagonist for the Papacy was banished by the Emperour Valentinian (w) Baron An. 371. pag. 235. and therefore Sulpicius Severus calls him not Orbis but Urbis Episcopus (x) Sulpic. Sever. pag. 423. the Bishop of the City not of the World and speaking of Italy he saith in the next Page That the Supreme Authority at that time was in Damasus and S. Ambrose (y) Id. pag. 424. To these two therefore the Priscillian Heretics applied themselves when they were condemned by the Council of Caesar-Augusta or Saragosa in Spain in which Country the Sect first began but when they could not get these great Bishops to favour their Cause they corrupted the Emperours Ministers to procure a Rescript for their restitution (z) Lab. p. 1011. Bin. pag. 554 col 1. Now it is strange that this Council of Saragosa should bear the Title of under Damasus and that the Notes should affirm Sulpicius Severus plainly writes thus For if we read Sulpicius as above-cited we shall find that Damasus knew nothing of this Synod till long after it was risen so we may conclude this Invention of theirs is only to support their pretended Supremacy An Dom. 382. § 28. From a Passage in S. Hierom and the Inscription of the Letter writ from the Council at Constantinople the Editors gather That Paulinus Bishop of Antioch Epiphanius Bishop of Constantia in Cyprus and Ambrose with other of the Western Bishops met at Rome in Council this year which they call the Fourth Roman Councill under Damasus (a) Lab. p. 1014. Bin. pag. 554. col 2. who probably did preside in this Synod as all Bishops use to do in their own Cities but he did not call this Council for S. Hierom expresly saith The Emperours Letters called these Bishops to Rome (b) Hieron Ep. 27. And the Synodical Letter of the Constantinopolitan Fathers tell us That Damasus desired Theodosius to write to them also of the East to come to Rome Which shews that Damasus could not summon them by his own Authority but the Editors and Baronius out of a false Latin Version of Theodoret have put in the word Mandato which word is not in the Greek nor any thing answering to it (c) Theodor. lib. 5. cap. 9. Baron An. 382. pag. 397. Bâ—n pag. 539. col 2. and it was foisted in on purpose to perswade such as did not read the Original that the Pope had commanded the Eastern Bishops to come to Rome Again though the Notes confess the Acts of this Roman Council are lost so that it doth not appear what was done there Yet soon after they produce a long Canon for the Popes Supremacy and the Precedence of the Patriarchs feigning it was made in this Synod But if the Canon be not a Vatican Forgery which is very much to be suspected however it is Antedated one hundred and twelve years as Labbé confesses in his Margen for he saith it was decreed under Pope Gelasius An. 494 (d) Lab. p. 1014. Bin. pag. 554. col 2. But the Policy of laying this Canon here is to make a shew as if Damasus had then publickly declared against the Council of Constantinoples giving that Bishop the second place but their forging this Proof only shews they have no genuine Authority for it yet if they could prove that the Pope disliked this Precedence since it is certain that Constantinople did take the second place according to this Canon that would only shew that the
the World these are like them in nothing but the Name Baron An. 340. §. 10. item An. 363. p. 132. The like Outcry he makes upon Protestants for undeceiving some of those silly Nuns who have been decoyed into unlawful Vows meerly for Interest and Secular Ends and affirms the perswading these to Marry is worse than the Arian's ravishing and murthering them at Alexandria Baron An. 326. §. 29. Thus also he compares the Reformed Divines to the Eunomians who taught Their Faith alone would save them though their Lives were never so wicked Baron An. 360. §. 38. forgetting that their Priest's convert as they call it Murderers at the Gallows by teaching them this very Principle And to name no more Examples when S. Basil inveighs against those who despised the Ancient Customs of the Primitive Church He spitefully applies this to the Reformed Baron An. 363. pag. 131. Whereas in very Truth they of Rome have left off more Ancient Rites and brought in more new ones than any sort of Christians in the World. By these and many more Instances which might be given even out of this one Century it is evident that the whole design of his History is to make all the Doctrins and Practices of Rome seem to be Primitive and right and that he cares not how unlawful the Means be which he uses to gain this belief in his Reader § Yet to conclude we will observe That after all his evil-Methods there are many things which he could neither avoid relating nor yet excuse which condemn the Modern Roman Church I wonder how he could Commend Constantine for abolishing the Stews and the prostituting of Christian Women there and not observe That the Pope now tolerates these Abominations in Rome it self Baron An. 314. §. 74. Again how doth it agree with the INFALLIBILITY of the Pope to say That one Holy Spirit governs the Catholic Church so as to make the Bishops of all Ages and Places agree in the same Opinion Id. Ib. §. 76. If this be so what need one Bishop alone be made Infallible And if it be as he saith a Doct in taught by the Apostles and consequently true That the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father then the Pope who condemns this as an Heresie of the Greeks is not Infallible Baron An. 325. §. 70. If Constantine had known of this Infallibility lodged at Rome he would have sent thither for exact Copies of the Holy Scriptures and not to Eusebius in Palestina Baron An. 330. §. 23. If Damasus had this Infallible Spirit how came he after he was Pope to need to be instructed in the meaning of Scripture by S. Hierom Baron An. 379. pag. 353. Or if his Successor Siricius had been Infallible how could the Origenists who held such palpable Heresies that a Woman discovered them to be in an Error impose upon his Simplicity and get Letters Testimonial from this sole Judge of Heresie Baron An. 397. pag. 32. How came the Council of Alexandria to send their Decrees to Epiphanius S. Hierom and S. Chrysostom and not first send them to Anastasius who was Infallible And indeed Baronius cannot prove they were sent to him at all but by saying It is fit to believe they were sent Baron An. 399. p. 85. cum 88. Moreover many things in this Century related by these Annals look not favourably upon the SUPREMACY Constantine calls Eusebius's Election to the See of Antioch An advancement to the Bishopric of the Universal Church Baron An. 324. §. 152. which looks as if he knew nothing of the Pope's Pretences That Marcellus of Ancyra even when he was accused before Pope Julius should call him his Fellow-Minister would have been very Sawcy if he had known Julius to be the Supreme Bishop of the World Baron An. 341. §. 51. And if this Supremacy had been owned in former Ages how came the Eastern Bishops to be so angry at their being desired to come to Rome Baron An. 341. §. 56 57. yea how came they to Excommunicate the Pope for communicating with one whom they had judged a Criminal Id. An. 347. §. 64. It is not concerning the Pope but Athanasius that Nazianzen saith He did again prescribe Laws to the whole World Baron An. 362. pag. 66. It seems the Pope was not the Supreme Caller of Synods when S. Hierom speaking of a Council which he thought was not Authentic Asks What Emperour ordered it to be Convened Eod. An. pag. 80. We cannot find in any genuine Antiquity in this Age so great an Encomium of Rome as Nazianzen the Elder gives of Caesarea viz. That from the beginning it was and now is accounted the Mother of almost all Churches on which all the Christian World casts its Eye like a Circle drawn from a Center Baron An. 369. pag. 194. A man would guess the Pope's Authority reached no further than the Suburbicarian Regions because Ursicinus Damasus his Competitor was forbid by the Emperour from entring into Rome or the Suburbicarian Regions Baron An. 371. pag. 235. S. Basil was very unmannerly if not unjust had this Supremacy been then claimed to send his first Embassy unto Athanasius and tell him that He had the Care of all the Churches Baron An. eod p. 236 237 c. yea afterward when he did send into the West he directs his Epistle to the Italian and Gallican Bishops without mentioning the Pope in particular And truly Damasus if he were Supreme took little care of his Office since upon so pressing Occasions he would neither Answer S. Basil nor S. Hierom for a long time And S. Hierom was somewhat bold when he reproves the Ambition of Rome and said He would Follow no Chief but Christ Bar. An. 372. pag. 281 282. S. Ambrose also seems not to give that deference to the Mother of all Churches that he ought since he often Dined and made Feasts on the Saturday which was a Fast at Rome Baron An. 375. pag. 321. and had the Pope then been Supreme why did Ambrose make a Bishop at Sirmium in Illyria so far from his own City of Milan Idem An. 380. pag. 362. The same S. Ambrose also speaks of Supreme Bishops in Gallia Baron An. 392. p. 558. It is strange that Siricius the Supreme Pastor should let the Pagans set up an Altar to the Goddess of Victory in the Roman Capitol and that S. Ambrose should be the only Complainant in this Case Id. eod An. pag. 560. Finally if the Pope then had any Jurisdiction over the Eastern Churches why was not he consulted about Ordaining S. Chrysostom Bishop of Constantinople and how came the Patriarch of Alexandria to be sent to and to Ordain him Baron An. 397. pag. 44. These Instances shew the Supremacy of Rome was unknown in that Age And so was the INVOCATION of SAINTS and ADORING of RELICKS also as one might suspect by these Passages That the Holy Men of those Ages in their Dangers and Necessities are