Fast upon Saturday But the Notes are so bold as to say The Error which this Council corrected was the not Fasting on Saturday whereas even these very Notes confess That the Eastern Churches and most of the Western Rome and some few others excepted together with the African Church did not Fast on Saturday but Wednesday yea those they Call the Apostolical Canons and Clement's Constitutions do both establish Wednesday Fast and condemn their pretended Apostolical Churches Saturday Fast and if divers in Spain as the Notes say in S. Hierom's and Pope Innocent's times did not Fast on Saturday and others then needed Arguments to settle them in this Roman practice It may be gathered from thence that in the time of this Council the Saturday Fast was esteemed an Error as it was also in that Age almost in all Christian Churches and so the very Words of the Canon import which Baronius saw and therefore only saith There is mention of the Saturday Fast in this Synod and so passes it knowing it plainly contradicted the Roman Churches Tradition The 34th Canon under pain of Excommunication forbids the lighting Wax Candles in the places where the Martyrs were Buried q which agrees with the Sentiments of the Primitive Church Lactantius condemns Lighting Candles in God's Worship by day as a Paganish Superstition S. Hierom faith It was used in his time only by such as did it to humor the silly Vulgar who had a Zeal without Knowledge Yet the Notes confess this is the Custom of the Roman Church for which only cause some of their Doctors reject this Canon since nothing must be Authentic which condemns their Novel Superstitions and these Notes make a miserable Blunder to excuse the matter but we are not concerned whether with the Annotator these Candles in the Day-light disturb the Spirits of the Living Saints by seeing an Heathenish Rite brought into the Church or with Baronius displease the Saints Deceased to behold so Superstitious a thing vainly devised for their honour Since it sufficiently appears the practice is novel and absurd and though now used at Rome condemned by the best Antiquity The Notes also give us one extraordinary distinction between the Souls of deceased Saints in Heaven and those in Purgatory which latter sort if they had been Saints one would think should need no such dreadful Scouring The 36th Canon determines That Pictures ought not to be in Churches and that none may Paint upon Walls that wich is worshiped Which so expresly condemns the Roman-Worship of Pictures and Images that the boldest Writers of that Church reject this Canon but others as the Notes say would gladly expound it so as to assert the honour and worship due to Holy Images which is a notable kind of Exposition to make a Canon assert that which it confutes But such transparent Fallacies deserve 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 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 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 without excepting the Pope or taking notice of Marcellus's pretended claim of Appeals § 3. In the Year 306 was a Council at Cartbage against the Donatists which never takes any notice of the Pope yet they put into the Title of it Under Marcellus 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 Now there is great difference between a Mans being
this Council was called by Sylvester and Constantine But they quote falsly for that Sixth Synod puts the Emperor's Name first and though they are no Evidence against Authors living in the time of the Niâ—ene 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 and not one of them mentions Sylvester as having any hand in this Matter 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 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 Sitting 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 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 Socrates only saith The Bishop of Rome ' s Presbyters were his Proxies and present at this Counoil 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 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 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 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 of them affirms that Hosius was the Pope's Legate This is purely an Invention of Baronius but he only proves it by Conjectures 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 and the Notes at last own He sat in the Chief Place yea the Annalist confesseth He acted the part of a Moderator in it 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 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 Hence some and among the rest Pope Foelix in his Epistle to Zeno affirm He was President of this Council Others say The Bishop of Alexandria presided and indeed all the Patriarchs present Sat above all others of the Clergy 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 And Eusebius who was there saith that The Emperor ratified the Decrees with his Seal 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 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 and Labbe's Margin tells us they are Fictions nor dare Baronius own them to be genuine and though Binius cite them for evidence in his Notes yet at some distance he tells us it is evident they are both Corrupted and again he says if they were not both extreme faulty and Commentitious they might be Evidence in this case But Richerius is more Ingenuous and declares That these Epistles are prodigiously salse The Forger of them being so Ignorant as to call Macarius who was then Bishop
By whom it was called Secondly Who presided in it Thirdly Of what number of Bishops it consisted And Fourthly What Authority the Canons of it have First As to the Calling it the Preface falsly states the occasion thereof For it is plain Athanasius did not as that reports leave the whole judgment of his Cause to the Pope nor did he as is there said Fly to Rome as the Mother of all Churches and the Rock of Faith This is the Prefacers meer Invention For Athanasius went to Rome as to the place agreed on by both sides for Arbitrating this matter and the other party so little valued the Pope's decision in his favour that they would neither restore Athanasius nor receive him into Communion upon it which made Julius complain to the Emperour Constans who writ to his Brother Constantius about it but that Letter did not produce this Council as the Preface fully sets out but only procured a fruitless Embassy of three Eastern Bishops to Rome It was the personal Addresses of Athanasius and Paulus Bishop of Constantinople to Constans when they found the Pope had no power to restore them which caused both the Emperours to give order for this Council to meet as Sozomen Socrates and Theodoret affirm And the Bishops in their Epistle do expresly say They were called together by the most Religious Emperours But Baronius fraudulently leaves out this beginning of the Bishops Letter and the bold Writer of the Preface saith This Council was called by the Popes Authority And the Notes offer some Reasons to justifie this Falshood yea they cite the aforesaid Authors who plainly declare it was called by both the Emperours to prove it was called by the Pope but they offer nothing material to make this out 'T is true Socrates saith Some absent Bishops complained of the shortness of time and blamed Julius for it but that doth not prove the Council was called by his Authority only it supposes he might advise the Emperour to make them meet speedily but still that is no sign of full power Secondly As to the President of this Council The Preface saith boldly That Hosius Archidamus and Philoxenus presided in the Name of Julius But first it doth not appear that Hosius was the Popes Legate only as an eminent Confessor he had a chief place in it whence Sozomen saith Osius and Protogenes were chief of the Western Bishops here assembled That is Osius as an ancient Confessor and Protogenes as Bishop of Sardic where the Council was held but as for Archidamus and Philoxenus they are not in the Latin Copies of the Subscribers And Athanasius only saith Julius subscribed by these two Presbyters which shews that Hosius was not the Popes Legate for he subscribed in his own name and that these Presbyters who were his Legates were not Presidents of the Council Thirdly They magnifie the number of Bishops also in this Synod to make it look like a General Council where accounts differ they take the largest and falsly cite Athanasius as if he said it consisted of 376 Bishops and so exceeded the first Council of Nice Whereas Athanasius expresly reckons only 170 who met at the City of Sardica and when many of the Eastern Bishops withdrew there were not one hundred left to pass the Decrees of this Council 'T is true Athanasius affirms that 344 Bishops signed the Decree to restore him but many of these hands were got from Orthodox Bishops who were not at the Council So that this was never counted or called a General Council by any but these partial Romanists for though the Emperour seem to have designed it General at first yet so few came to it and they who came agreed so ill the Eastern Bishops generally forsaking it that it is called frequently A Council of the Western Church and so Epiphanius in Baronius describes it Fourthly The little regard paid to its Canons afterwards shews it was no General Council Richerius a moderate and learned Romanist proves That this Council was not extant in Greek in the time of Dionysius Exiguus so that he and Pope Leo the 4th reckon it after all the Councils of Note The Greeks received not its Canons into their Code and Pope Nicholas Epistle shows that the Eastern Church did not value its Authority only the Popes esteemed it because it seems to advance their power The African Church of old valued this Council as little for a Synod of Bishops there among whom were S. Augustine and Alypius were ignorant of any Sardican Council but one held by the Arians Baronius tries all his art to palliate this matter but after all his Conjectures it is plain it was of no repute in Africa because when two Popes Zosimus and Boniface afterwards cited the Decrees of Sardica as Canons of Nice the Fraud was discovered and when they were found not to be Nicene Canons They would not receive them as Canons of Sardica but flatly rejected them which shews that these African Fathers did neither take this Sardican Synod for a General Council nor for an Authentic Provincial Council And therefore whatever is here said in favour of the Roman Church is of no great weight However the Champions of Rome magnifie the 4th Canon of this Council where in case a Bishop judge that he is condemned unjustly Hosius saith If it please you let us honour the memory of Peter the Apostle and let those who have judged such a Bishop write to Julius Bishop of Rome that so if need be the Judgment may be reviewed by the Bishops of the Province and he may appoint some to hear the Cause c. Now here the Notes talk big and claim a Supremacy and Appeals as due to the Pope by Divine Right But Richerius well observes It is Nonsence to ascribe that to a human Law and Privilege or to the Decree of a Council which was due before to the Pope by the Law of God And we add that Hosius neither cites any Divine Law no nor any precedent Canon or Custom for this but supposes it at the pleasure of this Synod to grant or deny Julius this privilege And yet if it were an express Law this being only a Western Synod doth not bind the whole Catholic Church Besides it is not said The Criminal shall appeal to Rome and have his Cause tryed there but only that the Pope if need were might order the Cause to be heard over again in the Province where it was first tryed and therefore Julius is only made a Judge of the necessity of a Re hearing not of the Cause it self which according to the 5th Canon of Nice was to be decided in the Province where it was first moved And this rather condemns than countenances the modern Popish way of Trying foreign Causes at Rome by Appeal To this I will add an ancient Scholion on this Canon found in some old Copies From this Canon
owns is much mistaken in his relating this matter names only Damasus in his report of this Law and Baronius cites the Law out of him meerly to make it seem as if Damasus were made the sole Standard of Catholic Communion though the Original Law still extant and all other Historians name Peter of Alexandria as equal with Damasus perhaps the Reader may wonder there is no other Patriarch named in this Law but it must be observed that Anticch at this time had two Orthodox Bishops who separated from each other Meletius and Paulinus to make up which unhappy Schism there was a Synod this year held at Antioch under Damasus say the Editors but in truth under the Emperours Legate who was sent to see a Peace concluded between these two Bishops by the advice of the Council there assembled And Damasus had so little interest in this Council that Meletius was generally approved for the true Bishop and Paulinus whose party the Pope favoured ordered only to come in after Meletius his Death So that since this Council acted contrary to the mind of Damasus it is very improper to say it was held under him § 27. The second General Council at Constantinople was Called by the Emperour Theodosius whom Gratian had taken for his Paitner in the Empire and assigned him for his share the Eastern Provinces where this pious Prince finding great differences in Religion he Convened this Council to confirm the Nicene Faith to fettle Ecclesiastical Matters and to determine the Affairs of the See of Constantinople This Council the Editors introduce with a Preface or general History and conclude it with partial and false Notes hoâ—ing to perswade the World that it was both called and confirmed by the Pope For which end we read in the Preface That Theodosius made a Law for all to follow the Faith which the Apostle Peter delivered to the Romans and which Pope Damasus preached which shews as if the Pope were the sole preserver of the Faith whereas the Law it self truly cited runs thus which Pope Damasus and Peter Bishop of Alexandria a man of Apostolical Sanctity are known to follow And in another Law of the same Emperours next year those are declared to be Catholics and capable of Benefices who were in Communion with the Bishops of Constantinople Alexandria Laodicea Tarsus and Iconium and in that Law neither Damasus nor Rome are mentioned which shews it was not the peculiar priviledge of any See for its Bishop to be made the standard of Catholic Communion but the known Orthodox Opinion of that Bishop who sat in this or that eminent Church The rest of the Forgeries in this Council will best appear by considering First By whom this Council was called Secondly By whom it was confirmed Thirdly What Authority hath been aseribed to it And Fourthly Whether the Canons and Creed ascribed to it be Authentic First As to the Calling this Council Baronius had twice guessed but never proved that Damasus moved Theodâ—sius to call it this the Preface improves and saith It was called by the Emperour not without Damasus his Authority and the Title before the Notes advance it still gathered say they by the Authority of Pope Damasus and the favour of Theodosius But when this is to be proved their Evidence is pretended Monuments in the Vatican that Shop of Forgeries the testimony of later Popes in their own cause and some very remote Conjectures and fraudulent Inferences Yet at last they aâ—firm That none but a pertinacicus Heretic will aâ—â—irm that this Pious Emperour who was most observant of the Sacred Canons would call this Synod By which bold Censure they condemn not only all the ancient Historians but all the Fathers here assembled for pertinacious Heretics For the Councils Letter to Theodosius saith We were called together by your Epistle and when they were to have met at Rome they aâ—â—irm That Damasus summoned them to meet there by the Emperours Letters Sâ—crates also and Sozomen expresly say The Emperour called this Synod at Constantinople Theodoret also doth aâ—â—irm the same though the Notes strive to pervert his words But Richerius a Learned Romanist hath fully cleared this Point and shewed that Theodosius called this General Council by his sole Authority And the Acts of the sixth General Council with Photius cited falsly in these Notes do only import that the Pope gave a subsequent consent to it which is no proof that he was concerned in calling it Secondly As to the confirming it the Preface and the Notes considently aver That they sent their Acts to Damasus to be approved and he did confirm them yet they tell us that Pope Gregory above 200 year after declared That the Church of Rome as yet neither had nor received the Acts of this Council I know they would shuffle oâ—f this Contradiction by pretending that Damasus confirmed only the Matters of Faith not the Canons But first Gregory denies their having the Acts of this Council and the Acts contain Matters of Faith as well as Canons Secondly they can not shew any proof that Damasus made any distinction If he confirmed any thing it was all for if subsequent consent be confirmation then he consented to all and confirmed all that was done here But in our Sense of giving an Authentic Character to this Councils Decrees Theodosius alone confirmed them for the Bishops desire him by his Picus Edict to confirm the Decrees of this Synod And they writ not to Damasus till the year after the Synod and their Letter was directed not to him alone but to Ambrose and other Western Bishops with him nor do they in it desire any confirmation from him or any of them but say That they and all others ought to approve of their Faith and rejoyce with them for all the good things which they had done with which Letter probably they sent as was usual a Transcript of all their Acts And Photius saith That Damasus Bishop of Rome afterwards agreed with these Bishops and confirmed what they had done that is by consenting to it which is no more than every absent Bishop may do who in a large Sense may be said to confirm a Council when he agrees to the Acts of it after they are brought to him Thirdly The Authority of this Council is undoubted having been ever called and accounted the Second General Council and so it is reckoned in all places where the General Councils are mentioned which Title it had not as Bellarmin vainly suggests Because at the time when this was assembled in the East the Western Bishops met at Rome For that obscure Synod is not taken notice of while this is every where celebrated as held at Constantinople and consisting of one hundred and fifty Bishops which were they who met in the East As for Damasus Baronius cannot prove he was concerned in it but by we think and we may
believe yet he elsewhere boldly says Damasus gave it Supreme Authority and the Annotator makes it impossible for any Council to be general unless the Pope or his Legates be there Now he and all others call this A General Council And yet he saith That neither Pope Damasus nor his Legates were Presidents of it nor was he or any Western Bishop in it Whence we learn That there may be a General Council at which the Pope is not present by himself nor by his Legates and of which neither he nor they are Presidents Fourthly As to the Creed and Canons here made the modern Romanists without any proof suppose that Damasus allowed the former and not the later But if he allowed the famous Creed here made I ask Whether it then had these words And from the Son or no If it had why do the Notes say That these words were added to it by the Bishops of Spain and the Authority of Pope Leo long after But if these words were wanting as they seem to confess when they say The Roman Church long used this Creed without this addition then I must desire to know how a Man of their Church can be secure of his Faith if what was as they say confirmed by Damasus in a General Council may be al ered by a few Bishops and another Pope without any General Council As to the Canons Damasus made no objection against them in his time and it is very certain that the Bishop of Constantinople after this Council always had the second place For as the first General Council at Nice gave old Rome the first place as being the Imperial City so this second General Council doubted not but when Constantinople was become new Rome and an Imperial City also they had power to give it the second place and suitable Priviledges Yea the Notes confess that S. Chrysostom by virtue of this Canon placed and displaced divers Bishops in Asia and the 4th General Council at Chalcedon without regarding the dissent of the Popes Legates allowed the Bishop of Constantinople the second place and made his Priviledges equal to those of Old Rome which Precedence and Power that Bishop long retained notwithstanding the endeavours of the envious Popes And Gregory never objected against these Canons till he began to fear the growing Greatness of the Patriarch of Constantinople but when that Church and Empire was sinking and there appeared no danger on that side to the Popes then Innocent the Third is said by the Notes to revive and allow this Canon again by which we see that nothing but Interest governs that Church and guides her Bishops in allowing or discarding any Council For now again when the Reformed begin to urge this Canon Baronius and 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 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 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 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 and therefore Sulpicius Severus calls him not Orbis but Urbis Episcopus 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 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 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
him long after that unjust Fact so that there is no reason to brag of this Pope as being the Judge and Patron of that glorious Confessor who alas died in his exile and excepting good wishes had no benefit by the Popes kindness Yea he was so far from being Judge that he referred this Cause of St. Chrysostom's to the Judgment of a Synod as Baronius himself afterwards declares So Theophilus of Alexandria also never did submit the Cause to Innocent as Baronius pretends nor did he take him for the supreme Judge in it but after all retained his obstinacy to his death So that if we do allow Pope Innocent to be right in his Judgment yet he either had little power or small courage to serve this great and good Man and what he did for him was in conjunction with other Bishops not by his single Authority Innocent's 31st Epistle is directed to Theophilus St. Chrysostom's mortal Enemy the Patriach of Alexandria wherein the Pope calls him Brother and saith he held Communion both with him and with Chrysostom also and wishes him to refer the Cause to a Synod and there let it be tried according to the Nicene Canons Now Baronius from hence notes that the Communion of the Roman Church was highly valued and that all were to hold Communion with those who were in Communion with Rome and therefore they were to stick to the Communion of Chrysostom But the very words of the Epistle confute this Gloss for such as followed the Popes example at that time were to communicate both with Chrysostom and Theophilus And I must observe that Innocent's advising Theophilus to come to a Synod and let this Cause be tried there according to the Nicene Canons this I say shews That the Pope did not then pretend to find any thing in the Nicene Canons for referring Causes by appeal to Rome but his two next Successors as shall be shewed presently forged such Canons soon after and pretended they were made at Nice After this follows a rescript of Honorius pretended to be writ to his Brother Arcadius wherein that Emperor saith Chrysostom's was a cause concerning the Bishops which ought to have been determined in a General Council and when either Party had sent Legates to the Bishop of Rome and those of Italy a final Sentence was to be expected from the Authority of them all But the Editors have forged a Title to this Letter wherein they say Episcopal Causes are to be tried by a Council of Bishops and to be examined and determined by the Popes Authority Where we see the forged Title expresly contradicts the Letter it self for that refers these Causes to a Council in the East with the consent of all the Bishops of Italy as well as the Pope but this Title is designed to persuade us that the Popes Authority was finally to determine all matters of this kind The 32th 33th and 34th Epistles of Innocent have nothing in them worth noting and if they be genuine their mean Style and many Incongruities are no credit to the Author After these Epistles Labbè publishes certain Canons sent from Rome to the Gallican Church by some Pope or other and because by Sirmondus his guess it was Innocent they are placed here there is nothing remarkable in them but the zeal of the Collector of these Canons to persuade the French to follow the peculiar Customs of Rome § 3. The Councils which the Editors place next and with the Title of Councils under Innocent were called indeed in his time but neither by his Authority nor so much as by his Advice The first Council of Milevis said to be under Innocent was as the Notes confess held under the Primacy of Xantippus and was held so soon after Anastasius his death that probably these African Fathers had not yet heard of Innocent's Election nor do the Acts of it mention any Pope The Council at the Oak wherein Chrysostom was deposed was called by and held under Theophilus Bishop of Alexandria wherein they proceeded to deprive an Eminent Patriarch without the knowledge or consent of the Pope and had not the Articles been false and the Sentence unjust it had never been revoked barely for wanting Innocent's approbation Labbè prints the Acts of this Synod which Binius had omitted About this time were frequent Synods held in Africa the Years and Order of which being uncertain the Editors have placed the Acts of them altogether and here we have only some Notes with the bare Titles On which we will make some few remarks First they are all here said to be held under Innocent but the Acts themselves intitle them to be held in such a year of the Emperor Secondly The Notes on the First African Council tell us of Legates sent to the Pope for obtaining some indulgence to the Donatists which Legates being returned they related in this Council what they had obtained from Anastasius Now this would make any one who doth not consult the Acts themselves printed on purpose in Pages far off to think the Pope was solely concerned in this matter which is an invention of Baronius But if we look back into the former Council we shall find these African Legates were sent in general to the parts beyond the Seas and to Venerius Bishop of Milan as well as to Anastasius Bishop of Rome And Baronius himself in the year when these Legates were first sent saith they were to go first to Rome and also to other transmarine Bishops and again Letters being sent to Anastasius and other Bishops of Italy Now the African Fathers applying to all these Bishops as well as to the Pope declares they did not look on him as sufficient alone to determine their Matters Besides they did not send to these Western Bishops to obtain indulgence as the Notes out of Baronius falsly pretend For they had decreed before to indulge them only desired the Western Bishops for the more credit to give their Suffrages to this Fact for so it would appear not to be only their single Opinion The Second African Council was not under Innocent as the Title pretends but under Aurelius as may be seen by the Acts and after the message from the Italian Bishops added to their own Authority would not work on the obstinacy of the Donatists they decree to send Legates to the Emperor Honorius to desire him to suppress them ordering these Legates to carry Letters of Communion to the Bishop of Rome and other Bishops of those parts and to receive other Letters of Communion from them in Italy to testifie they were Catholicks But a little after the Notes turn this into receiving Letters of Communion only from the Pope and infer from thence that none were Catholicks but such as were in Communion with the Bishop of Rome Whereas they should have added and with other Bishops of those parts and
talk as if a whole general Council in that Age were convened to no other end but only to execute the Popes Decree blindly without any enquiry into the merits of the Cause And Celestine's own Letter cited by Baronius to make out this Fiction declares he believes the Spirit of God was present with the Council of which there had been no need if all their business had been only to execute a Sentence passed before There is also great prevarication used by the Cardinal and Binius about the case of John B. of Antioch one of the Patriarchs summoned to this Council This John was Nestorius his old Friend for they had both been bred in the Church of Antioch and he having as Baronius relates received Letters both from Celestine and Cyril before the general Council was called importing that Nestorius was Condemned both at Rome and Alexandira if he did not recant within ten days writes to Nestorius to perswade him for peace sake to yield telling him what trouble was like to befal him after these Letters were published Here Baronius puts into the Text these Letters that is of the Pope of Rome As if the Pope were the sole Judge in this matter and his Authority alone to be feared whereas the Epistle it self tells Nestorius he had received many Letters one from Celestine and all the rest from Cyril So that this Parenthesis contradicts the Text and was designed to deceive the Reader But to go on with the History though Nestorius would not submit to John upon this Admonition yet he had no mind to condemn him and therefore he came late to Ephesus after the Council was assembled and when he was come would not appear nor joyn with the Bishops there but with a party of his own held an opposite Synod and condemned Cyril and Memnon with the rest as unjustly proceeding against Nestorius and by false Suggestions to the Emperor he procured both Cyril and Memnon to be Imprisoned Now among others in the Orthodox Council who resented these illegal Acts Juvenalis Bishop of Jerusalem saith That John of Antioch ought to have appeared and purged himself considering the Holy Great and General Council and the Apostolical seat of old Rome therein represented and that he ought to obey and reverence the Apostolical and Holy Church of Jerusalem by which especially according to Apostolical Order and Tradition the Church of Antioch was to be directed and judged alluding no doubt to that passage Acts xv where the Errors arising at Antioch were rectified and condemned in the Council at Jerusalem But Baronius falsly cites these words of Juvenalis as if he had said John ought to have appeared at least because of the Legates sent from Rome especially since by Apostolical Order and ancient Tradition it was become a custom that the See of Antioch should always be directed and judged by that of Rome And Binus in his Notes transcribes this Sentence as Baronius had perverted mangled and falsified it Which Forgery being so easily confuted by looking back into the Acts of the Council and so apparently devised to support the Papal Supremacy is enough to shew how little these Writers are to be trusted when fictions or lying will serve the ends of their darling Church After this the Preface-tells us that though John still continued obstinate the Synod referred the deposing of him to the Popes pleasure as if they had done nothing in this matter themselves But the Councils Letter to Celestine says That though they might justly proceed against him with all the severity he had used against Cyril yet resolving to overcome his rashness with moderation they referred that to Celestine ' s judgment but in the mean time they had Excommunicated him and his party and deprived them of all Episcopal power so that they could hurt none by their Censures Therefore the Council both Excommunicated and deprived him by their own Authority and only left it to the Pope whether any greater severity should be used against him or no 'T is true not only the Pope but the Emperor afterwards moved that means should be used to reconcile this Bishop and his Party to the Catholick Church by suspending this Sentence a while and procuring a meeting between Cyril and John But still it must not be denied both that the Council censured him their own Authority and that Cyril without any leave from the Pope did upon John's condemning Nestorius receive him into the Communion of the Catholick Church Yet because Sixtus the Successor of Pope Celestine among other Bishops was certified of this thence the Notes and Baronius infer that this reconciliation also was by the Authority of the See of Rome Whereas Cyril's own Letter shews that the Terms of admitting John to Communion were prescribed by the Council and the Emperor and that Cyril alone effected this great work We may further observe Binius in his Notes tells us that after the condemnation of Nestorius the Fathers shouted forth the praise of Celestine who had censured him before And Baronius saith the Acclamations followed the condemning of Nestorius in which they wonderfully praised Celestine as the Synodal Letter to the Emperor testifies By which a Man would think that Celestine had the only Glory of this Action But if we look into the first Act of the Council there are no Acclamations expressed there at all after the condemnation of Nestorius and the Synodical Letter to the Emperor cited by Baronius hath no more but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 viz. that they praised Celestine which imports only their commending his Sentence whereas in that first Act every one of the Bishops present makes a particular Encomium in the praise of Cyril's Faith as being in all things agreeing to the Nicene Creed which fills up at least forty pages together in Labbe's Edition As for the Acclamations they are in the second Act and in them Cyril is equally praised with Celestine for the Fathers say To Celestine another Paul to Cyril another Paul to Celestine keeper of the Faith to Celestine agreeing with the Synod to Celestine the whole Synod gives thanks one Celestine one Cyril one Faith of the Synod one Faith of the whole World This was just after the reading of Celestine's Letter brought by his Legates to the Council yet we see even when the occasion led them only to speak of the Pope the Fathers joyn Cyril with him knowing that Celestine's Sentence as well as his Information was owing intirely to Cyril's Learning and Zeal Moreover we have another touch of their sincerity about the Virgin Mary For Baronius calls the people of Ephesus The Virgins Clients Subjects and Worshippers adding That as they had once cried out great is Diana so now being converted they set out Mary the Mother of God with high and incessant Praises and persevered to venerate her with a more willing Service and to address to her by a
Wine to the People as they did and provide both newly Consecrated for the Sick when there is occasion but reserve neither for Worship Which was the usage of the first and purest times And why may not we forbid the needless reserving of the Sacrament in either kind as well as they may prohibit it in one kind But so insatiable is his desire to extol the Roman Church that though he cite all he can find of this sort good and bad he wishes in one place he could find some things which are not to be found that he might let his style run out on so luscious a Subject We note also that how much soever the Romanists here in the Reign of King James the Second were for Toleration because it was their Interest Baronius highly commends the severe Penal Laws made by Arcadius and Honorius against such as differed from the established way of Worship and profession of Faith for Baronius is always a bitter Enemy to Toleration and stiffly opposes the taking away any Penal Laws Moreover it is observable that though his Office be to write an History and relate Matter of Fact When he comes to S. Hierom's Book against Vigilantius he puts on the Character of a Disputant and makes large digressions to the Hereticks as he calls the Reformed to justifie such a Veneration of Relicks and such a kind of worship of Saints as Rome uses at this day which kind of Veneration and Worship S. Hierom would have condemned as well as Vigilantius had it been practised in that Age. He notes that upon the difference between Theophilus and the Pope about S. Chrysostom a Council of Carthage writ to Innocent That the Churches of Rome and Alexandria should keep that Peace mutually which the Lord enjoyned Which shews those African Fathers did not think one of these Churches superior in Authority to the other for if so they had no need to write to Innocent but only to Theophilus to submit to the Supream Bishop For that was the only way to settle a Peace if Innocent's Supremacy had been then allowed And it is a vain and false Conjecture that if Theophilus had writ any Paschal Epistles after his difference with Innocent no Catholick would have received them For divers Eminent and Orthodox Bishops writ to Theophilus and received Letters from him after this yea Synesius himself writes to him to determine a Question by the Authority of his Apostolical Succession and he lived and died with the repute of a Catholick though as I have shewed he never did yield to Pope Innocent in the case of S. Chrysostom Alike groundless is his Conjecture That Arcadius laboured to wipe out the stains he had contracted in persecuting S. Chrysostom by translating the Relicks of the Prophet Samuel and by going into a Martyrs Temple and there praying not to the Martyr observe that but to God For if we set aside the two forged Epistles recorded by Baronius pag. 259. there is no good Evidence that Arcadius at the time when the aforesaid Acts were done was convinced he had done any fault in the affair of S. Chrysostom wherefore he could have no design to purge himself from a Fault he did not own at that time In the next year he spoils one Argument to prove theirs the true Church viz. by Miracles since he owns Atticus Bishop of Constantinople did work a Miracle even before he held Communion with the Roman Church So that if Miracles prove a true Church then a Church that separates from the Roman Communion may be a true Church Of which also we have another Instance soon after where the Church of Antioch was in a difference with Rome for many years Theodoret saith 85 years yet all that while she was owned by the best Catholicks for a true Church Nor do I see how that can be true which Baronius affirms That the cause of restoring the Eastern Bishops to Communion in Chrysostom ' s case was only decided by Pope Innocent since Alexander of Antioch did transact this affair in the East and 24 Western Bishops subscribed with Innocent in the West to testifie their consent to this Agreement of Alexanders yea Thodoret ascribes this not to the Pope alone but to all the Bishops of the West But the Annalist will have all things done by the Pope alone right or wrong Poor Socrates is branded for a Novatian Heretick because he saith It was not the usage of the Catholick Church to persecute Yet the Emperor Marcian and Pope Gregory who were both I hope very good Catholicks say the same thing and therefore we may discern Baronius his Spirit in being so bitter against all who censure Persecuting In the same Year we may see that the Bishops under Theophilus Jurisdiction for all his quarrel at that time with the Pope did reserve the greater Cases to his decision and yet were very good Catholicks all the while When a Bishop pleads for Mercy to such as have principally offended the Church those Intercessions with Pious Magistrates ought to have the force of Commands But to make a general Inference from hence That Bishops ought to command things agreeable to the Christian Law to Magistrates is to stretch the Instance too far But there is another obvious Note from S. Augustine's petitioning and urging Marcellinus to spare the Hereticks and not execute the severity of the Temporal Laws upon them which Baronius would not observe viz. That the Primitive Bishops used their power and interest to get Hereticks spared by Secular Magistrates whereas the Inquisitors use their power now to oblige the Lay-Magistrates to kill and destroy them Further it is observable that he takes upon him to interpret Gods Judgments in favour of his own Party and thus he expounds the Goths invading France to be a punishment for the Heresies there broke out which Salvian more piously makes to be a Scourge for their Immoralities But I note that it was but two year before that Alaricus wasted Italy and took Rome it self yet Baronius could not discern any Heresies there but his general Maxim is That God is wont to bring destruction on those Countries where Heresies arise Now one might observe Leo's attempts to usurp a Supremacy over all other Bishops and the many pious Frauds used and beginning now to be countenanced at Rome about false Relicks and feigned Miracles were as probable occasions of the Divine Judgments in Italy as those he assigns in France To proceed I cannot apprehend how Atticus could have so little Wit in his Anger against Rome as to call Paulinus and Evagrius successively Bishops of Antioch Schismaticks meerly for Communicating with the Roman Church and this in a Letter to so great a Patriarch as S. Cyril if he had known it to be then generally acknowledged as Baronius often pretends that to be in Communion with Rome was a certain sign of a Catholick
The Date of this Epistle must be false being An. 490 that is two years before as they reckon Gelasius was Pope Labbè would mend it by antedating the entrance of Gelasius forgetting that he had printed an Epistle of Foelix to Thalassius dated that year his Invention therefore was better than his Memory The 6th Epistle shews that notwithstanding the Popes fair pretences to an Universal Jurisdiction his neighbour Bishops in Dalmatia did not own it but looked on him as a busie-body for medling in their affairs and suspected the Snake of Usurpation lay under the florid Leaves of his seeming care of all the Churches The 7th Epistle is briefly and imperfectly set down by Baronius because he would conceal from his Reader that Gelasius makes Purgatory and Limbus Infantum a Pelagian Opinion Let them saith he take away that third place which they have made recipiendis parvulis for receiving little Children And since we read of no more but the right hand and left let them not make them stay on the left hand for want of Baptism but permit them by the Baptism of Regeneration to pass to the right Which illustrious Testimony the Editors would obscure by reading decipiendis parvulis for deceiving Children But if that were the true Reading it shews this Pope thought none but Children and Fools would believe a Third place invented by the Pelagians since Scripture speaks but of two viz. Heaven and Hell It is a trifling Note on this Epistle That Gelasius admonished some Bishops of Italy against Pelagianism not fearing two Princes one of which was an Eutychian the other an Arrian Heretick For what cared these Princes for the Popes Letters against the Heresies of others so long as he let them alone and never admonished them of their own Heresies The 8th Epistle was writ to one of these Heretical Princes viz. to Anastasius and the Pope is scandalously silent about his Heresie nor doth he once reprove his Errors in the Faith but only labours even by false pretences to justifie his Supremacy which gave too just a ground for that Emperor and his Eastern Bishops to tax this Pope of secular Pride a fault very visible in all his Writings on this Subject Further we may note that this Epistle was of old inscribed thus Bishop Gelasius to the most glorious Emperor Anastasius but the Editors have left out the Emperor's Epithet for fear he should look bigger than the Pope Also where the Pope prays that no Contagion may stain his See and hopes it never will which plainly supposes it was possible Rome might Err otherwise he had mocked God in praying against that which could not happen and assurance had left no place for hope if the Popes were absolutely Infallible Yet here the Marginal Note is The Apostolical See cannot Err Which may caution the Reader not to trust their Margent nor Index for there is often more in the Inscription than can be found in the Box. The 9th Epistle being dated An. 494. was odly cited by Baronius to prove that Gelasius was made Pope in An. 492. It seems to be a Collection of divers Canons put together no Body knows by what Pope And one thing is very strange that whereas the Preface owns the Clergy were almost starved in many of the Churches of Italy Yet the Epistle impertinently takes great care that the Rents be divided into four parts as if all things had then been as plentiful as ever And whereas these Rules are sent to the Bishops of Lucania near Naples the Pope's forbidding them to dedicate Churches without his Licence is by the Marginal Note made a General Rule for all Countries but falsly since the Bishops of the East of Afric Gaul c. did never ask the Popes Licence in that Age to consecrate Churches The 13th Epistle is a bold attempt toward an Universal Supremacy For Gelasius finding the Bishop of Constantinople at his Heels and come up almost to a level with him uses his utmost effort to make a few Rascian Bishops believe he was set over the whole Church But he shews more Art and Learning than Truth or Honesty in this Argument asserting these downright Falshoods First That the Canons order all the World to Appeal to Rome and suffer none to Appeal from thence But Bellarmin knowing these Canons where those despicable ones of Sardica and that even those did not intend to oblige the whole World in citing this passage changes Canones appellari voluerint into appellandum est So that he chuses to leave it indefinite that all must appeal to Rome rather than undertake to tell us with Gelasius how that See came by this Right Secondly That the Roman Church by its single Authority absolved Athanasius Chrysostom and Flavian and condemned Dioscorus as this little Pope brags which is as true as it is that the Roman Church alone decreed the Council of Chalcedon should be received she alone pardoned the Bishops that lapsed in the Ephesine latrociny and by her Authority cast out the obstinate Which this Epistle audaciously asserts though there are more untruths than lines in the whole passage And if liberty be not deny'd us we appeal to all the Authentic Historians of those Ages who utterly confute these vain brags Yet Bellarmin adds to this extravagant pretence of Romes alone decreeing the Council of Chalcedon these words by her single Authority But Launoy blushes for him and says what Gelasius here saith is not strictly true and that he needs a very benign Interpreter that is one who will not call a Spade a Spade But let this Pope's assertions be never so false they serve to advance the ends of the Roman Supremacy and therefore you shall find no more of this long Epistle in the Annals but only this hectoring passage Though he unluckily confesseth immediately after that Gelasius did no manner of good with all this And no wonder since that Age as well as this knew his pretences were unjust his reasoning fallacious and his instances false Thirdly He asserts that Pope Leo vacated the Canons of Chalcedon 'T is true he did it as far as lay in him who measured Right only by Interest But we have shewed they remained in full force in all other parts of the Church notwithstanding his dissent openly declared Fourthly He affirms that the care of all the Churches about Constantinople was given to Acacius by the Apostolick See Which is as hath been proved a notorious Falshood of which this Epistle is so full that one would suspect it was the Off-spring of a much later Age. 'T is certain the Title is very unusual Gelasius Bishop of the City of Rome c. And the date is false the Consul named is Victor whose year was 70 year before Baronius and the Editors of their own head mend it and read Viator and Labbè tells us in the Margin that some things are wanting in this Epistle
before And the 7th Epistle intimates that Contumeliosus a French Criminal Bishop whose Cause was decided by Pope John had appealed again to Agapetus which shews a Papal Decree was not decisive But either the Pope or this Letter hath had ill Luck because it contains in the decretal part a flat contradiction both forbidding and allowing this Bishop to say Mass wherefore if we do not reject them we may throw them by as very inconsiderable Once more the Editors abuse us with their old Forgery of Exemplar Precum their Corrupt rule of Faith which cannot without the highest impudence be put upon Justinian and they confess here the Consuls are mistaken a whole year yet they presume to mend it and obtrude it for genuine And Baronius would have us believe Justinian did now repeat this profession of his Faith upon the falsest and slightest conjectures that can be imagined § II. The Council of Constantinople about the deposition of Anthimius and the Condemnation of Severus and his followers was held as Binius confesses in the general Title after Agapetus his death and as oft as this Council mentions him he is called of happy Memory Yet in the Title on the Top Binius saith It was held under Agapetus and Mennas which absurdity of a Council being held under a dead Pope moved Labbè to say it was under Mennas The History of this Council may be had from Du-Pin But the Remarks on those things in it which either condemn the Errors or savour of the Forgeries of Rome are my business Wherefore I will first make some general observations on the whole Secondly consider the depravations in the Acts. Thirdly examine the falshoods in the Notes First This Council was called to re-examine and confirm the Sentence of Pope Agapetus and it consisted all but five of Eastern Bishops to whom Justinian sent this Sentence for their Approbation And Agapetus himself in a Letter writ a little before his death desires the Eastern Bishops to signifie to him That they did approve of the judgment of the Apostolical Seat Which shews that neither the Emperor the Pope nor this Council did then take the Bishop of Rome to be the sole nor highest Judge Secondly Mennas the Patriarch was the President of this Council and sat above and before those five Bishops which the Annalist and Annotator say were the Legates of Agapetus and the Representatives of the Roman Church Thirdly it is certain the Emperor Justinian convened this Council by his own sole Authority for every Action owns They met by his Pious Command and that his care had gathered this Holy Synod together And it is as certain that he only could and did confirm it for Mennas the President having heard the Synods Opinion desires the Emperor may be acquainted with it Because nothing ought to be done in the Church without his Royal Consent and Command And he finally did confirm their Decree by a special Edict which made it valid So that this Council utterly confutes the Popes pretended right to convene all Councils for which in this Age nothing but Forged evidence is produced Fourthly Though Baronius and also Binius do affirm that Agapetus did both depose Anthimius and chuse Mennas neither of them is true if they mean the Pope did it by his own Authority for before the Council Justinian as this Synod often declares did assist Agapetus and made the Holy Canons Authentic in deposing Anthimius And because he thought it was scarce yet Canonically done he gets the Sentence against him confirmed by this Council As for Mennas he was only consecrated by the Pope who in his own Letter saith Mennas was elected by the favour of the Emperor and the consent of the chief Men the Monks and all Orthodox Christians yea the Council declares the Emperor chose him by the general suffrage So that these are false pretences designed to set up a single Authority in the Pope unknown to that Age. Secondly In the Acts of this Council there are divers instances of the hand of a Roman depraver The Title of the Monks Petition as Binius Margen saith is not in the Greek yet he hath it both in Greek and Latain d and so hath Labbè But it must be the addition of a Later Hand the Greek being the Original it is full of great swelling Words applied to Agapetus alone But the Text speaks to more than one Do not ye suffer O ye most blessed Which ye O most blessed defending receive ye our Petition and generally it runs in the plural number So that it was addressed to the Pope with other Bishops The like corruption we meet with also in the Letter of the Eastern Bishops where the Title now is only to Agapetus but the Text speaks to more than one yea where the Greek is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Latin Version of Rome changes it into Beatissime and Sanctissime adding Pater Which shews the Forgers Fingers have been here The aforesaid Petition of the Monks mentions an Image of Justinian abused by the Hereticks The Greek calls it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Image of that Servant of God The Roman Version is imaginem Dei veri The Image of the true God As if these Heriticks had been Iconoclasts before that controversie was heard of In the Bishops Letter the Greek reads 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies by open force and secret fraud For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a Warlike Engine to batter with The Translator dreams of Manichaean Errors which are nothing to the purpose here In the Epistle of the Syrian Bishops to Justinian the Greek saith The Pope deserved to follow the Emperors pious Footsteps and so Labbè reads it in the Latin But in Binius for fear this should look mean we have it Vestra pia vestigia digna facienti The Title of Hormisda's Epistle to Epiphanius is corrupted in Latin by the addition of these words which are not in the Greek wherein he delegates to him the power of a Vicar of the Apostolical Seat in receiving Penitents Which is confuted by the Epistle it self which speaks of the Church of Constantinople not as subjected but united to the Roman and doth not command but desire Epiphanius to joyn his care and diligence to the Popes as they now had one friendship both in Faith and Communion yea Hormisda promises to act by the same measures which he recommends to Epiphanius Baronius hath another corruption of his own in a Letter from the Monks of Hierusalem and Syria for where they desire Justinian to cut off all that do not communicate with the universal Church of God and the Apostolical Seat He leaves out the universal Church and puts in nothing but the Apostolical Seat In the same page he cuts off Mennas Title before the Sentence be pronounced viz.
with Paulus Diaconus follow his Account But the two former Authors are in this case more worthy of Credit however this is certain Bellisarius did depose and banish Sylverius and got Vigilius Elected who fearing his Rival should be restored got him at last into his Hands and barbarously caused him to be starved to death This is a sad Story of two Popes Sylverius uncanonically elected a Simoniack and a perjured Person and Vigilius a favourer of Hereticks one that is said to have hired false Witness and to have given Mony to make the See void and at last a Murtherer Which shews how little reason there is for Baronius and the Notes to make such a stir which was the true Pope of these two They will have Sylverius to remain the rightful Pope while he lived and so Rail freely at Vigilius as an Heretick and Bloody Usurper But they cannot prove this by any Evidence but only by a manifestly forged Epistle of Sylverius And the contrary is very certain because the Emperor the Gallican Churches and all did own Vigilius for the true Pope long before Sylverius his death and he openly acted as such all that time Wherefore we must reject that Dream of Baronius who saith without any ground that Vigilius did Abdicate the Papacy for six days upon the death of his Competitor and got himself new chosen and this purged him of all Crimes and in a moment made him a Saint and a rare Pope He would force this Fiction out of Anastasius who in like Cases he generally despises who only saith the See was void six days but plainly means after Sylverius was deposed for he reckons Vigilius his time from thence allotting him above 17 years and 6 Months that is near two years more than Baronius allows There are but two Epistles ascribed to Sylverius and they are the only Evidence to prove him the true Pope after he was Deposed yet it is certain both are Forged The first charges Vigilius with Simony yea excommunicates and deprives him for usurping the Papacy it is dated with the name of Basilius whereas Baronius and the Annotator say there was no such Consul in his time And Labbè saith it is to be rejected for the Barbarity of the Style and other reasons and concludes the mistake of the Consul shews the bold ignorance of Mercator the Author of this Imposture Now observe for the ingenuity and credit of Baronius that this Epistle not only serves him to clear Sylverius from Simony and to prove him the true Pope but he calls this odious Forgery The Sword of the Spirit the Word of God and the Exercise of that Power which he had to Absolve or Damn Eternally all People which is no less than Blasphemy The Second Epistle to Amator is so gross a Fiction that both Baronius and Binius reject it being contrary to the true History delivered by Liberatus whom the Notes call the most faithful Writer of this time Labbè agrees with them that it is spurious and shews that Mercator stole it out of Gregory's Epistles wishing that the like censure which is passed on this were passed upon many more of these Writings But the Letter of Amator to Sylverius which Labbè saith Learned men suspect to be as false as the Popes answer to it Baronius will have to be genuine and from this slight Forgery alone he proves That all the Catholick World groaned together at the ignominies put upon the Bishop of the Universal Church A rare Historian Whose Assertions and his Evidence are both false Binius places the Second Council of Orleance in this year but Labbe from Sirmondus puts it three years sooner An. 533. in the time of Pope John the Second it was called as the Preface saith by the Command of the King of France and made very good Canons without Papal Advice or Authority Binius his Notes here blunder this and the following Council and will keep King Clovis alive three year longer than Nature allowed him to support a Fable of this Kings giving the Pope a Golden Crown An. 514. whereas he died An. 511. The Third Council of Orleans Binius sets An. 540. But Labbè more truly places it here However it takes no notice of any Pope though Vigilius about this time is pretended to have writ to Caesarius Bishop of Arles This Synod made divers Canons for Discipline and by the second Canon it appears they were zealous for the Celibate of the Clergy But the fourth shews that hitherto the Canons in this case had not been obeyed and the ninth Canon Decrees That if any Clerks having Wives or Concubines were ignorantly ordained they should not be removed § 13. Vigilius was made Pope immediately after Sylverius was deposed and while the Goths belieged Bellisarius in Rome which was in this year But the Editors from Baronius write An. 540. upon this entrance to cover the Fable of his new Election after the death of Sylverius But he must come in in the year 537 For Marcellinus places Vigilius his death An. 554. which makes up the 17 years and odd time that Anastasius truly allots Vigilius whose Successor Pelagius entred as Baronius and the Editors own An. 555 which is but 15 whole year from that year 540 in which they say he entred and from which they falsly compute his time who writ Letters dated An. 538 and acted in all things as the sole true Pope from the time Sylverius was deposed which was according to Anastasius after he had sat one year and five Months and he followed Writers of undoubted credit that is Marcellinus who places his deposition and Vigilius his entrance An. 537 so doth Genebrard who with Platina allow Sylverius only some odd time above one year in which all Writers before Baronius agree His invention therefore it was to ascribe above 4 years to Sylverius that this false Chronology might cover his devisable of a new Election of Vigilius An. 540. which we justly reject as an idle Fable invented to save the Honour of the Roman Chair Yet it is well Baronius did not think Vigilius the true Pope all this time for by that means we have his true Character who he saith was driven on with the Whirlwind of Ambition and like Lucifer fell from Heaven that his Sacriledge cried out on every side he calls him a Schismatick a Simoniack an Usurper a wretched Man an Heretick a Wolf a Thief a false Bishop and an Antichrist aggravating his Crimes with all his Rhetorick wherein he rather exceeds the Bounds of Modesty than of Truth for he really was extreamly wicked and beyond the power of the sanctifying Chair it self to make him Holy We have so fully described the Acts of this Pope and all the false Stories about him in the following History of the Fifth General Council that we may here pass him by with a few brief Remarks First Liberatus assures us
the Church when the Pope is resolved not to come and herein they follow the Example of the Council of Chalcedon who proceeded without the Popes Legates when they would not stay and join with them Wherefore in the third Collation this 5th Council declared the true Faith and in the 4th and 5th examine the Cause of Theodorus and Theodoret On the fifth day saith Baronius Pope Vigilius sent his Constitution to the Council being made by the advice of 16 Bishops and 3 Deacons and designed to oblige the whole Church the Western agreeing with him in it and delivered by Apostolical Authority Wherein he confirms the three Chapters declaring 1st That Theodorus of Mopsvestia cannot be condemned after his death 2ly That Theodoret's name should not be taxed 3ly That Ibas Epistle to Maris was Catholick and both he and that Epistle received by the Council of Chalcedon as Catholick and Orthodox But Binius cuts off the five last Columns which are added by Baronius and Labbè and which shew how fully Vigilius confirmed all the three Chapters Chap. iv In the 6th Collation the Council having received this Constitution do notwithstanding go on to examine Ibas Epistle And wonder any dare presume to say it was received by the Council of Chalcedon Which Baronius owns was levelled at Vigilius though out of respect he be not named And after a strict Examination They pronounce that the approvers of this Epistle are Followers of Theodorus and Nestorius the Hereticks They shew the Council at Chalcedon owns God was made Man which this Epistle calls Apollinarism That Council confesses Mary to be the Mother of God the Epistle denies it They commend the Council of Ephesus and Cyril's twelve Chapters condemning Nestorius Ibas condemns the Council of Ephesus defends Nestorius and calls Cyril an Heretick and his 12 Chapters impious They stuck to Cyril's Faith and the Nicene Creed he condemns Cyril's Faith and commends Theodorus his Creed They held two Natures but one Person in Christ He is for two Persons also Whereupon this 5th Council Decree the whole Epistle to be Heretical and Anathematize all as Hereticks who receive it And for this reason Binius leaves out of his Edition the most of that part of Vigilius's Constitution which concerns Ibas his Epistle And Baronius who puts it in with the Nestorians would excuse it by saying the latter part of this Epistle is Orthodox But the Council condemns the whole Epistle and all that say any part of it is right and all that write for it or defend it So that Pope Vigilius Baronius Bellarmine and all the Writers for this Heretical Epistle were and are accursed by the Sentence of this General Council And if as Baronius pretends the Popes Legates at Chalcedon say that Ibas appeared a Catholick by this Epistle the 5th Council shews the Fathers at Chalcedon condemned it not heeding what two or three said Baronius urges as the Nestorians did that Eunomius said at Chalcedon the latter end of Ibas Epistle was Orthodox but the 5th Council saith this is a Calumny and cite the very words of Eunomius out of the Council at Chalcedon which import that Ibas was innocent after he had agreed with Cyril and renounced his Epistle which he had done in the Acts before Photius and Eustathius The 7th Collation of this 5th Council was only repeating and approving former Acts In the 8th Collation Baronius owns this Council condemned the three Chapters contrary to Vigilius Decree and Anathematize all that did defend them that is Vigilius whom Baronius often commends as a defender of them Yea they declare them Hereticks by the Doctrin of the Scriptures and holy Fathers and of the four former Councils All which therefore Vigilius contradicted in his Constitution And whatever Baronius first says to disparage this Council it was ratified by the 6th Council by the seventh or second Nicene Council Act. 6. yea and as Baronius confesseth by all succeeding General Councils by the Popes Pelagius Gregory the Great Agatho Leo the second and by all succeeding Popes who were sworn to observe all the General Councils and this among others To which we may add the Councils of Basil and Constance and all the Catholick Church till Leo the 10th's Lateran Council An. 1516 which contrary to the Catholick Faith decreed no Council could condemn a Pope Wherefore we may conclude Vigilius was a condemned Heretick Chap. v. Now let us examine Baronius his shifts and those Binius learns from him First they pretend this was not a point of Faith but concerned only persons Which is most false For the Emperor Justinian calls it a matter of Faith so doth the 5th Council it self declare Yea Vigilius in his Constitution calls the condemning these three Chapters Erring from the Faith and Facundus the Apologist for them saith the opposing them was rooting out the Catholick and Apostolick Faith On the other side Pope Pelagius saith they are contrary to the Faith and to receive them is to overthrow the Faith of Ephesus which Epistle Gregory the Great confirms Bellarmine saith that is de fide which a Council defines to be so and calls the opposers of it Hereticks and accurseth them And Baronius calls the Emperors Edict for the three Chapters Sanctio de fide Catholica and Fidei decretum So that it must be a matter of Faith And Gregory the Great was mistaken if he meant that this 5th Council handled no matters of Faith but treated of Persons For the contrary is manifest But indeed Gregory means they altered no point of Faith established at Chalcedon as some in his time fancied only condemning the persons there examined but still it was by shewing they held notorious Heresies Chap. vi But to consider the three Chapters severally The first was about Theodorus of Mopsvestia who as Vigilius saith should not be condemned after he was dead citing Leo and Gelasius for it as having decreed it for a point of Faith But on the other side St. Austin declares if Caecilian were guilty of the Crimes objected 100 years after his death he would Anathematize him Pelagius urges and approves of this Doctrin of St. Austin and saith Leo agreed with him The same is proved in the 5th Council to have been the Opinion of St. Cyril of the African Council c. Thus also Domnus was condemned at Chalcedon after his death and many of the old Hereticks Honorius was condemned by name sixty years after his death Yea Baronius who urges this in excuse of Vigilius in one place in another declares that it is a mistake and that the Church of Rome doth condemn Men after their death So as he is forced to commend and condemn the same Fact and to excuse this reason of Vigilius he
Anastasius speaks only of one banishment of Vigilius for refusing to restore Anthimius near two years after his coming to Constantinople in the life-time of Theodora who died Anno 548 according to Baronius and this is the banishment from which Vigilius was released at the intreaty of Narses according to Anastasius and so both Bellarmin and Sanders affirm from the Pontifical Wherefore they and all Writers place this banishment of Vigilius divers years before the fifth Council held Anno 553 So that the Exile after the fifth Council is a meer Forgery of Baronius who openly contradicts his Author as if he mistook the time only because the real time of Vigilius's Exile will not serve his design to excuse the Pope from dying in Heresie He rejects a Story about Vigilius told by Anastasius as a manifest Lye only because neither Facundus nor Procopius mention it By which Arguing it will appear not only that Vigilius was not banished after the fifth Council but that he was not banished at all because neither Victor Liberatus Evagrius nor Procopius who then lived and Victor is very particular in naming all that were exiled for this Cause do not once mention Vigilius his being banished no nor Photius Zonaras Cedrenus Glicas nor Nicephorus And Platina with other Western Writers take up this Fable upon the credit of Anastasius and Baronius improves it to serve a turn But Baronius asks If it be likely Justinian would spare Vigilius I reply Yes because he was a weak and inconstant man and he having so great a Post Justinian chose rather to connive at him than to harden others by punishing him whom he represents to the fifth Council as one who condemned the three Chapters for which Reason also he is not condemned by Name in the 5th Council Secondly Baronius tells us of great Liberties Gifts c. given to Vigilius upon his release and sending home which he brings as a proof of his consent to the fifth Council Whereas that Sanction granting some Priviledges to Italy is dated in August the 28th year of Justinian and Vigilius according to Victor an Eye-witness died not till the 31st of Justinian So that these Liberties were promised to Vigilius and other Romans long before the Council while Vigilius and the Emperour were very kind viz. in the 23th of Justinian but performed five year after yet three years before Vigilius death and so his dying before his return with these Priviledges is a Fiction But Baronius by meer guess places it falsly in Justinian's 29th years beginning only to colour the Fable His last Argument is from Liberatus saying he died afflicted by the Eutychians but was not crowned I reply he despises Leberatus Testimony as to an Epistle of Vigilius But Liberatus saith not he was banished or put to death for his Opinions yea he counts his condemning the three Chapters Heresie and doth not tell us how he suffered or died so that he is no Witness to this Fiction but an Evidence against it Chap. xviii Baronius's last exception is that this was no lawful General Council nor had any Authority till Vigilius confirmed it And Binius saith his Sentence gave it the Title of a General Council But we have shewed before this was a lawful General Council received by the whole Catholick Church Now they grant it was not confirmed till after it was parted and that it was never gathered by the Holy Ghost so that his Act afterwards cannot make a nullity valid The Cardinal and Binius both tell us it was no General Council at first being called though the Pope resisted and contradicted it yet Binius had said before Vigilius called the 5th Council by his Pontifical Authority Baronius also saith the Emperor called it according to the sentence of Vigilius And the Council charge Vigilius with promising in writing to meet with them and his own Letter printed there declares his consent to the assembling this Council Yet if he had opposed it so did Damasus the second Council at Constantinople which was held repugnante Damaso yet is accounted a lawful General Council and Cusanus saith if the Pope be negligent or refractory the Emperor may call a General Council And though he was not personally present in this Council yet he sent his Constitution which was his Decree ex Cathedra But saith Baronius their sentence was contrary to the Popes Decree and therefore it cannot be a lawful General Council Bellarmine also urges this for a Rule but the matter of Fact sufficiently confutes them since this Council which did Decree contrary to the Popes Sentence is and was always held lawful So was the second General Council good and valid being confirmed by an imperial Edict in July An. 381 though Damasus did not so much as hear of it till after the Council of Aquileia held in September that year and it seems by Pope Gregory that the Roman Church till his time had not received the Canons of it Yea the third Canon which Damasus and Leo both condemned and which Binius saith the Roman Church rejects to this day Yet all the while it was held Authentick and by it Anatolius held the second place at Chalcedon and Eutychius in the 5th Council by it St. Chrysostom deposed and ordained Bishops and held a Council in Asia So that both Canons and Custom had setled this Rule as is proved in the Council of Chalcedon And Justinian made those Canons of this second Council to be inserted into the Dypticks and to be read in Churches So that Canons are good and valid without the Popes Approbation as well as Councils whose Decrees have their force from the Subscriptions of the major part of Bishops there present though two of the Popes Legates or ten others did dissent especially when the Emperor confirms them by his Edict as Constantine did those of Nice Theodosius those of the second General Council c. In like manner Justinian confirmed this 5th Council And so it was valid without the Popes consent though absent Bishops others as well as those of Rome were desired to confirm a Council after it was past not to give any new Authority to it but to preserve Unity and to shew the Orthodoxy of these absent Bishops Chap. xx Omitting the 19th Chapter which treats of General Councils at large we proceed to Baronius lesser and remoter objections against this Council He begins with Justinian who called and confirmed it whom he taxes 1st for want of learning calling him an illiterate man who could not read a Letter for which he cites Suidas a late fabulous yea an Heretical Author But Platina commends Justinian for his great Learning and Wit So also Trithemius who with Possevine reckon him among Ecclesiastical Writers Pope Agatho and the 6th Council cite him as one of the
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 but Binius contradicts him and will have him to suffer in the 3d year of Antoninus 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 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 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 § 2. From the Notes on Pope Pius Life 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 place Anicetus before Pius but the Greeks place Pius 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 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 Amcetus'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 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 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 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 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
this Council But the two first Copies in Binius yet extant will give the Reader a good proof into what depths of Ignorance the Monks were fallen when such Unintelligible and Incoherent stuff as this and the Letters Forged between the Council of Nice and Pope Sylvester which are in the same Style were designed to support the Roman Supremacy and Infallibility I shall not reflect upon the Absurdity of making the Pope his own Judge when he denies the Fact nor the Contradiction of the Councils saying often They must not judge him and yet declaring soon after That they have Condemned him Whoever will but read this Council over shall find diversion enough if Blunders and Dulness be diverting to them I shall therefore principally note the gross Partiality and Fallacies of the Notes in colouring over this bare-faced Forgery First the Annotator accuses the Century Writers and English Innovators for rejecting this Rare Council as a Forgery of the Donatists he should have said of the Romish Monks yet he makes more Objections against it than he himself can answer Protestants wonder that Three-hundred Bishops should dare to meet in times of Persecution He replies a far less number did meet on a slighter occasion Fifty years before which is but a very indifferent Proof Well but to magnify the occasion he saith By this Pope's fall not only the Roman Church but the whole Christian Religion was in extreme danger and in the President of the Catholic Faith the very Foundation of the Church was shaken and almost ruined Yet a little before he had told us out of S. Augustine that Marcellinus's fall did no prejudice to the Church and had affirmed that the ill Deeds of Bishops may hurt themselves but cannot prejudice the Churches Orthodox Doctrine Again he proves it could not be an Invention of the Donatists because they never knew of it yet presently he owns they objected it to the Catholics and therefore must know of it all that S. Augustine saith being only that they could not prove it After this Baronius and he say that no Writer doth mention this City of Sinuessa nor is there any Memory of such a place or Cave Which is a great mistake in them both For Livy Cicero Ovid Martial and Pliny do all speak of Sinuessa and Alexander ab Alexandro mentions a famous High-way leading from Rome to this City And if an Earthquake have since Overthrown it that will not prove there was no such City then all the Wonder is that these Gentlemen should defend a Council for genuine which they thought had been held in Utopia The Notes proceed to tell us that Very many most Learned Men not Hereticks I suppose by very strong Arguments have laboured to prove these Acts spurious But he who values no Arguments against the Supremacy not only thinks them not to be false but judges them worthy of great Esteem for their Venerable Antiquity and for their Majesty which extorts Reverence even from the unwilling Now their Antiquity cannot be proved by one Old Author and their Majesty is so little that they extort Laughter and Contempt from the gravest Reader Let us therefore hear his Reason for this Approbation it is because they are believed by general consent of all He forgets that he said but now very many and very Learned Men did not believe them And because they are received and retained without any Controversy to this Day in the Martyrologies and Breviaries of the Roman and other Churches So that at last all the Authority for this Council is the Roman Martyrology and Breviary which are Modern Collections out of the Fabulous Pontifical and other Forged Acts of Martyrs And though their own Learned Men by good Arguments prove the things to be false yet if they be Read in a Breviary c. these Falshoods become true and Catholics receive them without Controversy Yea they cite the Transcript of a Forgery to prove the Original to be a Truth Again the Notes say it 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 a Pope so obscure that Eusebius's Chronicle wholly omits him and Theodoret knew nothing of him nor of
Pope Eusebius but makes Melchiades immediate Successor to Marcellinus 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 Luitprandus Abbo Floriacens Cusanus and Genebrard 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 Oâ—tatus 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 Which Fiction the Roman Breviary orders to be read to the Credulous People of that Communion for Lessions 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 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 strage 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 His first Note of this Epistle being writ to one Solomon a Bishop is an oversight and belongs to the first Epistle of Pope Marcellâ—nus 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 to be Forgeries He falsly saith Dioscorus was Condemned at Chalcedon only for holding a Synod without the Pope's Consent whereas he is known to have been accused of many other Crimes His Text of Fasce oves is nothing to this purpose nor will Pope Pelagius his Word be taken in his own Cause His Story of Valentinian makes nothing for the Pope more than any other Bishop Yea the Bishops desiring him to call a Council shews They thought it was His Prerogative and Nicephorus relates his Answer to have been That he was so taken up with State Affairs that he had no leisure to enquire into those matters Wherefore after all this elaborate Sophistry to justifie a false Assertion of a Forged Epistle the Annotator hath only shewed his partiality for the Pope's Power but made no proof of it The second Epistle of this Marcellus to the Tyrant Maxentius is also a manifest Forgery part of it is taken out of his Successor Gregory's Epistles writ almost Three hundred years after this and it is highly improbable That a persecuted Pope should falsly as well as ridiculously to a Pagan Emperor quote the Laws of the Apostles and their Successors forbidding to persecute the Church and Clergy and also instruct him about the Roman Churches power in Calling Synods and Receiving Appeals and cite Clement's Forged Epistle as an Authority to Maxentius That Lay-men must not accuse Bishops The Notes indeed are unwilling to lose such precious Evidence and so pretend That Maxentius at this time dissembled himself to be a Christian but this Sham can signifie nothing to such as read the Epistle where Marcellus complains That he then persecuted him most unjustly and therefore he did not pretend to be a Christian at that time and consequently the whole Epistle is an absurd Forgery And so is that Decree subjoyned to it which supposes young Children offered to Monasteries and Shaved or Veiled there Customs which came up divers Centuries after this § 2. The Canons of Peter Bishops of Alexandria are genuine and a better Record of Ecclesiastical Discipline than any Pope to this time ever made the Reader also may observe the Bishop of Rome is not once named in these Canons and they plead Tradition for the Wednesday Fast contrary to the Roman Churches pretence of having an Apostolical Tradition to Fast on Saturday The Council of Elliberis in Spain is by Binius placed under Pope Marcellus which Words Labbé leaves out of the Title and justly for if there were such a Pope the Council takes no notice of him nor is it likely that Rome did know of this Council till many years after Yet it is both Ancient and Authentic though Mendoza in Labbé reckons up divers Catholic Authors Caranza Canus Baronius c. who either wholly reject it or deny the 34th 35th 36th and 40th Canons of it which condemn the Opinions now held at Rome And though Binius because Pope Innocent approves it dare not reject it yet he publishes Notes to make the Reader believe it doth not condemn any of their Opinions or Practices The 13th Canon speaks of Virgins who dedicated themselves to God but mentions not their being Veiled or Living in Monasteries which Customs came in long after as the Authors cited in the Notes shew The 26th Canon calls it an Error to
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 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 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 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 Matters 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 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. The Seven years Vacancy being now expired Melchiades was chosen Pope and Sat Three years and Seven Months according to the Pontifical and though the Ecclesiastical Tables as they call them generally follow this Author yet Baronius here by them corrects the Pontifical and allows Melchiades only Two Years and Two Months But all this is Conjecture for he grants the Consuls in the Pontifical are so false that they cannot be reconciled to Truth whence it follows That the Decretal Epistle ascribed to this Pope whose Matter is taken from the Pontifical and whose Date is by those who were not Consuls till after Melchiades's Death must be false also Yet the Notes defend this Forged Epistle and Bellarmine cites it for the Supremacy and for Confirmations being a Sacrament whereas the beginning of it is stollen out of Celestine's Epistle to the French it quotes the Vulgar Translation and cites an Apostolical Priviledge granted to Rome for the sole right of Trying Bishops to justifie which The Notes cite the 73d and 74th Apostolical Canons but those Canons order Bishops to judge an offending Bishop and make the last appeal to a Synod without taking any notice of Rome or of this pretended Priviledge Again this Feigned Epistle impudently makes Confirmation more venerable than Baptism and the Notes defend that bold Expression But we cannot but wonder since they assert That Bishops by Gods Law have the sole power of Confirming the same Men should grant That the Pope can give a Priest leave to Confirm Which yet they say changes not the Divine Right of Bishops That is in plain terms One mans sole Right may be delegated to another by a Third person without any injury to him who had the sole Right After this follows a Council at Rome under Melchiades wherein the Pope by delegation from the Emperor is joyned in Commission with Three French Bishops who are called his Collegues to hear the Donatists complaint against Cecilian Bishop of Carthage and Constantine not only received the Donatists first Appeal and delegated this Cause to Melchiades and his Fellow Commissioners but upon a second Complaint ordered this Matter to be heard over again in a French Council which the Pope in Council had determined Now this so clearly shews that the Pope was not Supreme Judge in those days that Baronius and Binius are hard put to it to Blunder this Instance The Notes say Constantine was yet raw in the Faith and yet they say also He knew by God's Law nothing was to be done without the chief Bishop But they are forced to prove this by a false Translation of Constantine's Epistle to Melchiades the words of which in Greek are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which in their Version is As the most holy Law of God requires but Valesius's Translation which Labbé gives us is As is agreeable to the most Venerable Law That is as all men know to the Imperial Laws So that Constantine only says He had ordered the Accusers and Accused all to appear at Rome before these delegated Judges as the Venerable Laws which order both Parties to be present when a Cause is tryed do require and by the help of a false Translation this occasion is made use of to make the Credulous believe That God's Law required all Causes should be tryed at Rome Whereas it is apparent by this Instance That a Cause once Tryed there before the Pope might be tryed over again in France if the Emperor pleased The two following Epistles of Constantine out of Pithaeus his Manuscript are very suspicious the first speaks more magnificently of Christ than one who as they say was so raw in the Faith was like to do And in it Constantine is made to decline Judging in Bishops Causes which is a protestation against his own Act and contradiction to the second Epistle wherein He declares that this Episcopal Cause shall be tryed before himself Nor is this first Epistle Recorded in Eusebius or agreeable to Constantine's Style so that we suppose that was devised by such as designed to persuade Princes That Bishops were above them For which purpose Baronius here cites a Law of this Emperor to Ablavius Giving men leave to choose Bishops for their Judges and not allowing them after that to appeal to Secular Courts because they had been heard by Judges of their own choosing But Baronius perverts this to signifie That Bishops were above Secular Judges by their ordinary Jurisdiction whereas they were not so in any
speak of him as having been once his Friend and report his Apostacy yet he never mentions his turning Catholic again Wherefore we conclude that all these Fictions and falsifying of Evidence and slight Conjectures in Baronius and the Notes are intended only to blind the Reader and hinder his finding out an Heretical Pope whose Fall is clear his continuance in his Heresie very probable and his Repentance if it be true came too late to save his Churches Infallibility though it might be soon enough to save his own Soul The Editors style the Council at Ariminum A General Council and yet dare not say as usually under Liberius who had no hand in it for it was called by the Emperour Constantius as all Writers agree so that it seems there may be A General approved Council as they style this which the Pope doth not call Moreover the Emperour in his first Epistle orders the Bishops to send him their Decrees that he might confirm them and though Baronius saith this was done like an Heretical Emperour yet the Orthodox Bishops observed his Order and call it Obeying the Command of God and his Pious Edict Wherefore this General Council was both called and confirmed by the Emperour Again Constantiâ—s in his Epistle declares It was unreasonable to determine any thing in a Western Council against the Fastern 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 Epistie 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 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 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 § 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 out of Baronius say It was called by the Advice and Authority of Liberius 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 Lucifer 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 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 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 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 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 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 The same Bishops also sent their Legates with Letters to the Western Bishops and
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 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 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 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 Secrates 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 Yea after this he pretends to cite Socrates as if he said Peter was received being restored by Damasus 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 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 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 crasty 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 And we may give many such like Instances Sozemen 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 but the fraudulent Annalist leaves out Peter of Alexandria and mentions only Damasus as the sole standard of Catholic Faith 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 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 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 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 and whatever he saith against them is either concealed or the force of it taken off by reviling him as an Arian § 4. Another Artifice of our Annalist is first to suppose things which make for the honour of his Church without any manner of proof and then to take his own Suppositions for grounds of Argument Thus he supposes that Constantine gave S. Peter thanks for his Victory without any evidence from History yea against his own peculiar Notion That Constantine was then a Pagan and durst not do any act to make him seem a Christian Again To colour their Worship of Images He barely supposes that the Pagan Senate dedicated a Golden Image of Christ to Constantine He argues only from Conjectures to prove the Munisicence of that Emperour to Rome whereas if so eminent a Prince had given such great Gifts to the most famous City in the World doubtless some Author would have mentioned it and not have left the Cardinal to prove this by random Guesses Again He supposos without any proof that Constantine knew the Supreme Power over all Christians was in the Church of Rome He produces nothing but meer Conjectures that Osius was the Pope's Legate yet he boldly draws rare Inferences from this He doth but guess and take it for granted that the Nicene Council was called by the Advice of Pope Sylvester yet this is a Foundation for the Supremacy and i know not what Thus when he hath no Author to prove that Athanasius venerated the Martyrs he makes it out with Who can doubt it and it is fit to believe he did so So he tells us He had said before that Damasus favoured Gregory Nazianzen in his being elected to be Bishop of Constantinople He
him his Fellow-Minister would have been very Sawey if he had known Julius to be the Supreme Bishop of the World 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 yea how came they to Excommunicate the Pope for communicating with one whom they had judged a Criminal It is not concerning the Pope but Athanasius that Nazianzen saith He did again prescribe Laws to the whole World 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 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 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 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 Churche 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 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 and had the Pope then been Supreme why did Ambrose make a Bishop at Sirmium in Iliyria so far from his own City of Milan The same S. Ambrose also speaks of Supreme Bishops in Gallia 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 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 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 said only to have prayed to God not to the Blessed Virgin or to Saints and Angels for help So did Alexander Bishop of Constantinople against Arius so did Parthenius against the Pagans so did Constantius the Emperour for Recovery of his Health so also did those Persian Martyrs Thus Euphrates an Eminent Bishop implores only the help of Christ against an illusion of the Devil The Christians who translated the Bones of Babylas the Martyr did not Pray to him but Praised God and Macedonius an holy Monk is observed only to call upon God Night and Day Arcadius the Emperour in an Earthquade prayed to the Lord the only preserver of the Humble Porphyrius Bishop of Gaza and his People called only upon Christ not upon any Saints So that all these used the Protestant way of Worship And the Romanists must be very unsafe in their Worship of Saints since Baronius confesses one of their Catalogues of Saints puts in the Names of two Hereticks as good Catholic Saints So also as to the Adoration of Relicks the Faithful in Persia did not keep the Body of their Martyr to Worship but buried it in a Tomb So S. Anthony the Primitive Hermit fearing and disliking this Superstition ordered his Body to be put into a private and unknown Grave according to the Custom of the Catholic Church and therefore Metaphrastes his sole Evidence will not pass for the Legend of translating the Bodies of S. Andrew and S. Luke to Constantinople 'T is true this Superstition was then creeping in and some Cheaters did begin to sell the Bones of False Martyrs a Trade used at Rome for many Ages but Theodosius his Law severely punished this Crime Which ridiculous Imposture Julian the witty Apostate had justly exposed some years before as being contrary to Scripture and to the Christian Law To proceed Had the Altars been then used to be adorned with IMAGES as they are now at Rome the Faithful would not have been so surprized at bringing in an Image and placing it on the Altar as Optatus saith they were and Baronius can find no Precedent for carrying Images in Procession to procure Rain but the Pagan Superstition In S. Ambroses time the Virgins Apartment in the Church was not adorned with Pictures or Images but after the Protestant way with Sentences of Holy Scripture Theodosius should have excepted the Images of the Saints when he forbad the honouring any Images void of Sense with lighting Tapers offering Incense and Garlands to them So that doubtless this is an INNOVATION in their Church and so are many other of their Rites The Pope's Bull to choose a Stranger to be Bishop of a Church whereof he never had been a Member was unknown when Pope Julius condemned this Practice The Custom of putting the Wafer in the Communicant's Mouth as Baronius confesseth was unknown in this Century when Protestant like they took it into their hands In S. Augustine's time the People at Rome Fasted on Wednesdays which use they have now left off When the Rites of Burial used at Christian Funerals are described by Nazianzen on occasion of the Funeral of Caesarius there is no mention of any Prayers for his Soul for that Superstition was not then allowed The carrying a Cross before them in Procession cannot be made out in this Age but by the spurious Act of Martyrs cited by Metaphrastes But lest I tire the Reader I will conclude with one or two Instances more to shew the difference between Modern Rome and this Age Their Monks now are not like those of that time but resemble the Messalian Heretics who pretended to Pray continually and never used any labour and claimed all mens Alms as due only to them who said that Marriages might be dissolved seducing Children from their Parents and boasting they were pure from Sin yea wearing Sackcloth that all may see it Theodosius made a Law to banish Monks from Cities
and oblige them to retire into Desert places But the Modern Monks are all for Noble Seats in the best freqnented Cities so that these and those are vastly different Finally He makes the Persecuting Spirit of Macedonius and the Patience of Athanasius a mark to distinguish Truth from Heresie Now if we apply this Mark as none are greater Persecutors than the Romanists so we must conclude none are further from the Truth And now by these few Instances within the compass of one Century the Reader may judge what Truth there can be in that Religion that needs so many Frauds to hide its Faults and what trust can be given to that Historian who to serve an ill Cause makes no scruple to use all these kinds of Deceit This may warn all that design to peruse these Annals not to rely upon any of his Authorities or Arguments without examining and also not to take every thing for Primitive and Ancient which he pretends to be so This may suffice for this Volume and if we proceed we shall make the like Remarks on the following Tomes to shew that their Religion is made up of Falshoods and cannot be defended without Lying and Forgery which is the great support of their Evil Cause FINIS Glory be to the GOD of Truth Imprimatur 26 March 1695. C. Alston R. P. D. HEN. Episc Lond. Ã Sacris THE CHURCH HISTORY Clear'd from the Roman forgeries And Corruptions found in the COUNCILS and BAR ONIUS FROM The Year 400 till the end of the Fifth General Council An. Dom. 553. Being the Third and Fourth Parts of the Roman Forgeries By THOMAS COMBER D. D. Dean of DURHAM For we have not followed cunningly devised Fables 2 Pet. I. 16. LONDON Printed by Samuel Roycroft for Robert Clavell at the Peacock at the West-End of S. Pauls 1695. TO THE Most Reverend Father in GOD JOHN By Divine Providence Lord Archbishop of YORK Primate of ENGLAND AND METROPOLITAN May it please your Grace WHen I formerly had the Honour of Your Acquaintance tho' at a distance I reckon'd it none of my least Felicities But since that happy Providence that delivered these Nations brought Your Grace nearer to Illustrate these Northern Regions with Your excellent Doctrine and warm them with Your pious Example I could not better express my extraordinary Satisfaction and my Duty both than by presenting these Papers to Your Grace who have suffered so much from the Romish Party and done so much to prevent their once growing and dangerous Errors These Collections were all made when this Church was threatned to have their Corruptions imposed on us and the First Part was ready for the Press while that Cloud hung over our Heads This Second Part hath been hindred by divers necessary Avocations but now comes to appear under Your Grace's auspicious Patronage and if it be so happy also to gain Your Approbation that will recommend it to all that know Your Grace's solid Judgment and Undisguised Integrity Frauds and Forgeries are naturally Your Aversation and therefore the discovery of so great a heap of them may I hope be acceptable to Your Grace not on your own Account to whom probably here is nothing New but because this Essay may assist young Divines and such as begin to read Church-History at a cheap and easy rate to distinguish Truth from Falshood in matters of great importance I shall add no more since to give your Grace your just Character is as needless as it would be difficult for me and would not be pleasing to your Grace only I shall most heartily pray That the Church may be long happy in Your Conduct and that he may be reckoned among Your Grace's Friends who is My Lord Your Grace's most faithful Servant and Your True Honourer THO COMBER THE PREFACE ANTIQUITY seems so Naturally to challenge Veneration from all succeeding Times that it gives a Value to many things which have nothing else to recommend them But the Records of former Ages especially those relating to the Faith and Practice of the Church while it was in its purity and splendor are by all sober Men accounted truly Sacred Yet no Writings have suffered more by fraudulent Hands than these For most of them being for many Ages in the custody of those who had a new Authority to set up and were to contrive new Doctrines to furnish and support it with Wealth and Power their Interest obliged them to corrupt all genuine Ecclesiastical History and to invent innumerable spurious Pieces under great and ancient Names thereby to impose upon the ignorant Ages and make them imagine their later Devices were of Apostolical or at least Primitive Original And this is done with so much Artifice and Cunning that a careless Reader of the Ecclestastical Story as they represent it is in danger of being persuaded That the Modern Roman Church is in all things conformable to the Primitive from which it differs as much as Darkness doth from Light To prevent which fatal Mistake I think no Time can be better spent no Pains more usefully employed than in correcting the History of the Ancient Church and discovering the various Falsifications thereof Wherefore I have now pursued and enlarged my Design of remarking the Roman Frauds and Forgeries in their Editions of the Councils and in Baronius by rectifying the History of the Church and all Passages relating to it as I go along having proceeded as far as the Middle of the Sixth Century A Period which contains Three of the first Five General Councils and is memorable for variety of most important Transactions It was in this time that the most refined Hereticks disturbed the Church and the barbarous Nations broke into the Roman Empire and setled in divers parts of it And while the former employed the Pens of the Learned and the later diverted the Thoughts of the declining Emperors Rome had an unlucky Opportunity to serve the ends of her aspiring Ambition and to lay the Foundation of her future Grandeur Which Projects were furthered by a great decay not only of Learning but of Piety and good Manners toward the End of this time which made way for divers Superstitions to creep into the Worship and many Irregularities to grow up in the Discipline of the Christian Church Yet still there were many Learned and pious Writers who laboured to defend the Faith to check all sorts of Vsurpations and to keep up the Primitive Purity and good Order So that the Editors of these Councils and Baronius have been put to all their shifts to feign an Agreement between the Records of this Period and the Modern Doctrines and Practices of their Church foisting in many Legends and spurious Tracts and corrupting the Words as well as forcing the Sense of the genuine Writings of these Ages Of which Proceedings I was in hopes to have found both an exact Account and a just Censure in the lately published Work of the Learned Monsieur Du Pin And it must be
confessed he hath owned more of these ill Practices than any Writer of that Church and suffered for telling more Truth than the Roman Cause can bear Yet after all either by the prejudices of his Education or the influence of his Superiors and the disadvantage of his Circumstances many things of this kind are omitted which are necessary for us to know And though I would advise Young Students of Ecclesiastical Antiquity whose service I aim at to Read those Elaborate Collections Yet I cannot assure them they may every where depend on them The best method to know the wole Truth is to Read over the Councils themselves and compare them as they go on with Baronius's Annals and both with these brief Remarks which will so unfold that Mystery of Rome's corrupting and falsifying the Church-History and Writings of these times that a diligent observer will hereby be enabled without a Guide to discover more of these Errors than our designed brevity would allow us to set down And such a Reader may not only safely peruse the Historians and Disputants of that side but will soon arrive at the Skill to confute all their Arguments which are supported by disguising of Ancient Records And as his discovery of the Roman Frauds will give him a just aversation for that Church so his seeing that our Church rejects these Arts of deceiving and needs no false or feigned Evidence must give him as true a value for it since we appeal to all uncorrupted Antiquity Our Pastors can say with S. Peter We have not followed cunningly devised Fables Deceit in Human Affairs is equally Odious and Mischievous But in Religious Matters it is highly Impious and Intollerable because it not only misleads Men in matters relating to their Eternal Salvation But as a Learned Prince used to say it makes God himself an Instrument of the Crime and a Party to the holy Cheat To this Horrid Degree of Guilt may the design of imposing false and gainful Doctrines drive partial Men. But the Mischief is prevented as soon as it is discovered wherefore I hope these Papers which so plainly expose this sort of Falsifications may set the History of these Times in a clearer Light and not only help to undeceive some well meaning and misled Romanists but to Establish the Inquisitive and Ingenious Members of this rightly Reformed Church for whose Safety and Prosperity the Author daily Prays and to whose Service he Dedicates all his Labours THE CONTENTS PART III. CENT V. Chap. I OF the Time before the Council of Ephesus Page 1 Chap. II. Of the Time from the Council of Ephesus till the Council of Chalcedon p. 47 Chap. III. Of the Council of Chalcedon being the Fourth General Council p. 84 An Appendix concerning Baronius's Annals p. 122 Chap IV. Roman Errors and Forgeries in the Councils from the end of the Fourth Council till An. Dom. 500. p. 157 An Appendix concerning Baronius his Annals p. 189 PART IV. CENT VI. Chap. I. Errors and Forgeries in the Councils from the Year 500 to the End of the Fifth General Council An Dom. 553. p. 218 An Epitome of Dr. Crakenthorp's Treatise of the Fifth General Council at Constantinople Anno 553. p. 279 ERRATA PAg. 10. lin 11. read fourth time p. 14. l. 4. those words Quibus verbis c. were to be in the Margen at * p. 15. l. 24. r. noting in the p. 21. l. 18. r. prove themselves p. 26. l. 26. 1. to assert p 51. l. 21. r. from giving p. 62. l. 3. r. divers proofs p. 64. l. 35. r. him by their p. 66. l. 29. dele when p. 68. l. 16. r. yet the inventor p. 69. Marg. at l. 33 r. amplificatorem p. 74. l. 5. r. That inded Leo p. 76. l. 4. r. S. Germanus p. 79. l. 24 r. a strange assertion ib. l. 32. r. a packed party p. 80. l. 31. r. Pulcheria p. 92. l. 21. r. forgeÌ„s the title p. 108. l. 28. r. made to these p. 113. l. penul r. Emperors patronage p. 134. l. 11. r. Constantius his time p. 152. l. 16. r. the pilgrimages p. 153. l. 17. r. Legates of p. 161. lin ult p. 162. l. 1 r. Pontificate p. 279 l. 19. r. Theodoret p. 289. l. 14. r. and again by p. 301. l. 23. r. and Marcian ib. l. 24. r. commend Justinian p. 402. 403. wrong numbred for 302 303. p. 302. l. 13. r. Agathias ibid. penult ult r. Justin Roman Forgeries IN THE COUNCILS PART III. CENT V. CHAP. I. Of the time before the Council of Ephesus § 1. THE Editors of the Councils being generally the Popes Creatures seem not so much concerned to give us a true Account of what was done as to make their Readers believe that all the Affairs of the whole Christian World were managed solely by the Bishop of Rome and every thing determined by his single Authority Thus the first Council of Toledo was held in Spain under Patronus Bishop of that City The Title says it was held in the time of Pope Anastasius and notes the Name of the Consul for that year 400. But Baronius finding an Epistle of Pope Innocent writ to a Council of Toledo five years after this relating to the Priscillian Hereticks then abounding in Spain purely to make us think the Bishops of Spain could do nothing without the Pope removes this Council down to the Year 405. Yet afterwards in his Appendix perceiving the trick was too groâ—â— he recants that Chroâ—ology and restores it to its true Year Anno 400. But after all this Epistle of Pope Innocent is by some suspected to be forged and Sirmondus confesseth that all the Old Books cite this Epistle as written to a Council at Tholouse so that he and Baronius probably altered the reading and put in Toledo instead of Tholouse because this was the more Famous Council and they had a mind it should be thought that all eminent Councils expected the Popes Letters before they durst act Whereas this Council of Toledo makes it plain that they censured the Priscillianists and absolued such as recanted purely by their own Authority And when they thought fit to acquaint other Churches abroad with what they had done they send an Embassie not only to the Pope but to Simplicianus Bishop of Milan whose Judgment and Authority they value as equal with the Popes And here we must observe that Baranius and the Annotator seeing it was a reflection upon the Popes to have a Bishop of Milan ranked equal with the Pope affirm without any Proof that St. Ambrose and his Successor Simplicianus were only the Pope Legates and that these Spanish Bishops would communicate with none but such as the Apostolical Sâ—â— did communicate with Whereas they have the principal regard to the See of Milan and in the definitive Sentence name only St. Ambrose though some Forger hath there manifestly put in these words add also what Siricius advised And in
the Council of Turin which Baronius cites St. Ambrose is named before the Pope yea it is manifest by divers African Councils that they gave equal respect at least to the Judgment and Authority of the Bishop of Milan as to those of Rome So that it is ridiculous and absurd to fancy that St. Ambrose and his Successors who were greater Men than the Popes for Learning and Reputation were the Legates of Rome and this hath been invented meerly to aggrandize that See And for that same reason they have stusted into the Body of this Council a Rule of Faith against the Priscillianists transmitted from some Bishop of Spain with the Precept of Pope Leo who was not Pope till forty years after this Council Yea Binius in the very Title of this Council would have it confirmed by another Pope that lived divers Centuries after of which Labbè was so ashamed that he hath struck that whole Sentence out of his Edition As to the Canons of this Council I shall only remark That the first of them lays a very gentle punishment upon Deacons and Priests who lived with their Wives before a late Interdict which is no more but the prohibiting them to ascend to any higher Order And no wonder they touched this point so gently for this prohibiting Wives to the Clergy was never heard of in Spain till Siricius who died about three years before advised it in his Epistle to Himerius and therefore Innocent in his third Epistle said Siricius was the Author of this form of Ecclesiastical Discipline that is of the Clergies Celibacy and adds that those who had not received his Decree were worthy of pardon And by the many and repeated Canons made in Spain afterward in this Matter it appears the inferior Clergy would not follow the Popes advice The fourteenth Canon shews that the Primitive way of receiving the Communion was by the peoples taking it into their hands as they do now in our Church And the Notes confess that the Roman Custom of taking it into their mouths out of the Priests hand is an innovation brought in after the corrupt Doctrine of Transubstantiation had begot many superstitious Conceits about this Holy Sacrament the altering of the Doctrine occasioning this change in the way of receiving Whereas the Protestant Churches which retain the Primitive Doctrine keep also the Primitive Rite of Communicating To this Council are tack'd divers Decrees which belong to some Council of Toledo or other but the Collectors Burchard Ivo c. not knowing to which have cited them under this General Title out of the Council of Toledo and so the Editors place them all here But most of them do belong to later times and the name of Theodorus Arch-Bishop of Canterbury in one of these Fragments shews it was made 300 years after this time We have in the next place two African Councils said to be under Anastasius though indeed they were under the Bishop of Carthage The former of these decrees an Embassie shall be sent both to Anastasius Bishop of Rome and Venerius Bishop of Milan for a supply of Clergy-men of whom at that time they had great scarcity in Africa The other African Council determines they will receive such Donatists as recanted their Errors into the same Orders of Clergy which they had before they were reconciled to the Church provided the Bishop of Rome Milan and other Bishops of Italy to whom they sent a second Embassie consented to it Now here though all the Italian Bishops were applied to and he of Milan by name as well as the Bishops of Rome and though it was not their Authority but their Advice and Brotherly Consent which the African Bishops expected yet Baronius and Binius tell us it is certain that Anastasius did give them licence to receive these Donatists in this manner because St. Augustin said they did receive them Whereas St. Augustine never mentions any licence from the Pope and his leave or consent was no more desired than the leave of other eminent Bishops only the Annalist and his followers were to make this look as an indulgence granted from Rome alone § 2. Pope Innocent succeeded Anastasius who had the good fortune to be convinced by St. Augustine and other Bishops more learned than himself that Pelagius and Celestius were Hereticks and so to joyn with the Orthodox in condemning them for which he is highly commended by St. Augustine St. Hierom and by Prosper who were glad they had the Bishop of so powerful and great a City of their side and so was poor St. Chrysostom also whose Cause he espoused when Theophilus of Alexandria and the Empress oppressed him and by that means Innocent also got a good Character from St. Chrysostom and his Friends in the East But some think it was rather his good fortune than his judgment which made him take the right side The Pontifical fills up his Life as usually with frivolous matters But two things very remarkable are omitted there the one is a passage in Zosimus viz. That when Alaricus first besieged Rome and the Pagans there said the City would never be happy till the Gentile Rites were restored The Praefect communicates this to Pope Innocent who valuing the safety of the City before his own Opinion privately gave them leave to do what they desired The other is That when Rome was taken afterwards by Alarious Pope Innocent was gone out of the City to Ravenna and did not return till all was quiet and therefore I cannot with Baronius think that St. Hierom compares Pope Innocent to Jeremiah the Prophet for Jeremiah staid among God's People and preached to them but Innocent was gone out of Rome long before it was seized by the Goths Further we may observe that whereas St. Hierom advised a Noble Roman Virgin to beware of the Pelagian Hereticks and to hold the Faith of Holy Innocent Baronius is so transported with this that he quotes it twice in one year and thus enlarges on it That St. Hierom knew the Faith was kept more pure and certainly in the Seat of Peter than by Augustine or any other Bishop so that the Waters of Salvation were to be taken more pure out of the Fountain than out of any Rivers which absurd Gloss is easily confuted by considering that this Lady was a Member of the Roman Church and so ought to hold the Faith of her own Bishop especially since he was at that time Orthodox and this was all St. Hierom referred to For he doth not at all suppose the Roman See was infallible nor did he make any Comparison between Augustine and Innocent since he well knew that in point of Learning and Orthodox Judgment Augustine was far above this Pope who indeed derived all the skill he had as to the condemning Pelagius from the African Fountains and especially from St. Augustine Besides nothing is more common than
then it had appeared that this was no peculiar priviledge of any one See but related to all Sees which then were filled with Catholick Bishops I shall note only that in these Notes the Emperor is stiled The Lord of the General Council which Title the Roman Parasites of late have robbed him of and given it to the Popes The eighth Council of Africa petitions the Emperor Honorius to revoke that Edict whereby he had granted liberty of Conscience to the Donatists and the Notes out of Baronius make it so meritorious a thing to revoke this scandalous and mischievous Indulgence that this made Honorius so blessed as to have Rome quitted by Alaricus three days after he had taken it but our English Romanists when an Indulgence served their ends counted it meritorious in that Prince who granted the Sects such an Indulgence here for we must note that Things are good or evil just as they serve their interest or disserve it The Synod of Ptolemais in Egypt whereby Andronicus a Tyrannical Officer was excommunicated is strangely magnified by Baronius saying that Synesius Bishop of Ptolemais knew that when he was made a Bishop he was elected by God to give Laws to Princes And a little after he tells us He deposed Andronicus from his Tribunal adding that this shews how great the Power of Bishops was even to the deposing of evil Governors But after all there is no more of this true but only that Synesius gives notice to his neighbour Churches by circular Letters that he had excommunicated Andronicus who seems to have been a Military Officer in a little Egyptian Town and was guilty of most horrid Cruelties and notorious Crimes But what is this to Kings and Princes And the words which he cites out of Synesius 89th Epistle which falsly translates we have put him down from his Tribunal are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. We have here taken him off from the Seat of Mourners that is Synesius tells Theophilus his Patriarch and Superior that though he had justly put Andronicus among the Penitents yet now upon his sorrow and repentance they had there absolved him and taken him out of that sad station where the Penitents were wont to stand and if Theophilus approved of this mercy shewed Andronicus he should hope God might yet forgive him Now was not the Cardinal hard put to it for an instance of a Bishops deposing a King when he is forced to falsifie his Author and use the words which express a restauration to the Communion of the Church to prove a deposing from a Throne It seems he could not or would not distinguish a Captain or petty Magistrate from a King nor a Stool of Repentance from a Princes Throne This it is to serve a Cause About this time was held that famous Conference at Carthage between the Catholicks and the Donatists Seven Bishops of each side being chosen to dispute before Marcellinus a Count sent by the Emperor to hear this Cause Now Baronius tells us that this Marcellinus was not called simply a Judge but had the Title of Cognitor because it was not allowed to a Lay-man to act as a Judge in Ecclesiastical Matters But Cognitor is often used by the best Authors for a Judge and cognoscere Causam is to hear a Cause Dies Cognitionis is the day of Tryal And which is more the Emperors Edict calls him by the title of Judex Our will is you shall sit in that Disputation in the principal place as Judge and Baronius in the very page before cites St. Augustine speaking of Marcellinus by this Character ipse Judex And as he moderated in the Disputation so in the Conclusion he pronounces the Sentence and the Emperor confirms it which if the Pope had done in Person or by his Legate to be sure that had been ground enough to prove him the Universal and Infallible Judge in all Causes This is certain Honorius did judge in this Cause by his Legate Marcellinus and Baronius who use to quarrel at other Emperors for medling in these Cases tells us God rewarded him for the pains he took about setling the True Religion But as to the Pope he was not concerned in this Famous Dispute and which is very remarkable though the Main Dispute be about the Catholick Church and the Orthodox alledge the Churches beyond the Seas as being in Communion with them and so prove them Catholicks yet they do not once name the Roman Church apart as if communicating with that Church or its Bishop were any special evidence of their being Catholicks Indeed they name Innocent once but give him no other title but Bishop of Rome Whereas if these African Fathers had believed the Pope to be the Supream Head of the Catholick Church and that all of his Communion and only such were Catholicks this Dispute had been soon ended and they had nothing to prove to the Donatists but their Communion with Pope Innocent And I remember Baronius argues that Caecilianus Bishop of Carthage was a Catholick because he had Communicatory Letters from the Church of Rome but the place he cites to prove it out of St. Augustine is this When he that is Caecilianus saw himself in Communion with the Roman Church in which the eminence of an Apostolical See always flourished and with other Countries from whence the Gospel came to Africa c. By which it is plain that it was Communion with other Churches as well as Rome which proved Caecilianus a Catholick And I know not where Baronius found another passage which he affirms was proved in this Conference viz. That the first Head of the Church was demonstrated by the succession of the Roman Bishops to be in Peter's Chair For there is not one word to this purpose in that Conference which is printed by the Editors here So that till better Authority be produced this must stand for a devisable of the Annalists Nothing after this occurs which is remarkable till the Council at Lidda or Diospolis in Palestina wherein Pelagius imposed upon fourteen Bishops a pretended recantation of his Heretical Opinions and was by them absolved Binius his Title of this Synod is that it was under Innocent But Labbè fearing this might imply the Popes consent to a Hereticks absolution hath struck that out However we have Baronius his word for it that no Letters were written to the Pope from this Synod only some Lay-men brought him the Acts of it And he Good Man not so cunning at finding out Hereticks as the African Bishops confesses he could neither approve nor blame the Judgment of these Bishops of Palestina And Pelagius himself though he could not finally deceive the Roman Church yet he hoped he might gain the Pope to his party and did attempt it yea 't is very probable he had succeeded if St. Augustin and other African Fathers had not instructed the Pope
the Roman Editors in their Preface and Notes ascribed most falsly to his want of Power and Authority Thirdly In the Protestation of the Clergy of Constantinople they prove themselves Orthodox because they held the same Faith with the Church of Antioch and that which was held by Eustathius Bishop there in the time of the Nicene Council making no mention of Rome at all And though now the Faith of the Roman Church is pretended to be the sole Infallible Rule of what is Orthodox it was not thought so then For Pope Celestine himself saith Nestorius is to be condemned unless he profess the Faith of the Roman and the Alexandrian Churches and that which the Catholick Church held And the Pope repeats this in his Epistle to Nestorius and in that to John Bishop of Antioch So that the Roman Church was then only a part of the Catholick Church as that of Alexandria was had it then been as now it is said to be the same with the Catholick Church the Pope was guilty in three several Epistles of a notorious Tautology for according to the modern Style it had been enough to have said Nestorius must profess he held the Faith of the Roman Catholick Church So when Cyril had informed John of Antioch that the Roman Synod had condemned Nestorius and writ to him to the Bishop of Thessalonica to those of Macedon and to him of Jerusalem to joyn in this Sentence Cyril adds that he of Antioch must comply with this Decree unless he would be deprived of the Communion of the whole Western Church and of these other Great Men This passage the Preface cites to prove that Cyril made use of the Popes Authority as his Chief Weapon in this Cause but it is plain he doth not so much as mention the Pope or the Roman Church alone nor doth he urge the danger of losing the Communion of that Church singly considered but of all the Western Churches and divers eminent ones in the East and it was the Popes agreeing with all these that made his Communion so valuable Fourthly as to the Titles of these Epistles which were writ before the Council we may observe that Nestorius writes to Celestine as to his Brother and saith he would converse with him as one Brother use to do with another which shews that as Patriarchs they were upon equal ground 'T is true Cyril who was as eminent for his Modesty as his Learning calls Celestine by the Title of his Lord from which the Romanists would draw conclusions for their Supremacy but we note that in the same Epistle he calls John of Antioch also his Lord beloved Brother and Fellow-minister which very words Cyril uses when he speaks of Celestine in his Epistle to Juvenal Bishop of Jerusalem calling the Pope there his Lord most Religious Brother and Fellow-minister yea such was the Humility of those Primitive Bishops that they frequently stiled their Equals and Inferiors their Lords so Cyril calls Acacius Bishop of Beraea So John Bishop of Antioch calls Nestorius his Lord and the same Title in the same Epistle he bestows upon Archelaus Bishop of Mindus a small City And of this we might give many more instances but these may suffice to expose those vain Arguers who from some such Titles bestowed on the Roman Bishop think to establish his Universal Supremacy Fifthly Among all these preliminary Epistles there are none meaner both for Style and Sense than those of Pope Celestine yet Baronius brags of that to Nestorius as the Principal Thing which confuted him calling it a Divine Epistle But alas it is infinitely short of Cyril's Letters the Phrase is very ordinary the Periods intricate the Arguments such as might have been used against any Heretick and his Application of the Holy Texts very odd as when the Church of Constantinople discovered Nestorius to be a Heretick he saith he may use St. Paul's words we know not what to pray for as we ought However there is one remarkable Passage in it a little after where he saith Those things which the Apostles have fully and plainly declared to us ought neither to be augmented nor diminished Had his Successors observed this Rule a great part of their Trent Articles had never been established And it had been well if the Editors had not in that very Page left out by design one of Celestine's own words For he threatens Nestorius that if after this third Admonition he did not amend he should be utterly excommunicated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by his Synod and by a Council of all Christians Here they leave out 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and translate it ab Universitate Collegii conventu Christianorum as if the Pope alone had power to separate a Patriarch from the Communion of the Universal Church whereas even when the Western Bishops joyned with him St. Cyril notes that those who submitted not to their Decree would only lose the Communion of the Western Church And if this Sentence were confirmed in the East too then indeed Nestorius and his party as Celestine intimates would be cast out of the Universal Church Sixthly In Cyril's Letter to Nestorius there is this remarkable Saying That Peter and John were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of equal Dignity as they were both Apostles and Holy Disciples which shews for all the brags of the Popes Legate in the Council that Peter was the Head of the Faith and of the Apostles they did not believe there was any difference as to Power and Dignity among the Apostles and that saying must pass for a piece of Flattery and is not to be regarded because it comes from a Creature of the Popes and one of his own House who by the Canons was no lawful evidence Seventhly In the Emperor's Commission to Candidianus one of his great Officers who was to preside in the Council we may see the Emperor gives him power to appoint what Causes and Questions shall be first treated of and to forbid any pecuniary or criminal Causes to be tried there which shews that the Emperor reserved the Power of managing and ordering the Synod to himself and made a Lay-man his representative for that purpose Secondly As to the Passages in the Council if the Preface and the Names before the Acts be genuine of which there is some doubt we may note that it is there declared the Council met by the Emperors Command and that Cyril is mentioned first both in his own Right as the chief Patriarch present and as he had the precedence due to Celestine here called Arch-Bishop of the Roman Church a Title given to Cyril afterwards whose Legate he is no where said to be but only to have his place that is to sit first as the Pope would have done had he been there Moreover it is remarkable that the Council begins without the Popes Legates who did not come till
made Vows to St. John for his Deliverance But I see no reason to believe this Inscription to be so ancient as the time of this Hilary Leo's Successor An. 461. For in his Letter extant in the Council he relates the Story of his flight but-mentions no Saint at all only saith he trusted in the grace of Christ And this Style which is so like the Pagan Vows to their little Deities was above the Infant Superstition of that Age so that besides the improbability of an Inscription continuing legible for near twelve hundred years none who knows the time of Hilary can believe the invocation of Saints was so far advanced for a Man to forget God and Jesus Christ the only Deliverers of their Servants and publickly yea blasphemously to ascribe his deliverance to a Creature Rom. i. 25. Wherefore we conclude this Inscription was writ by some later Hand in times of gross Idolatry and Ignorance and that this which they call an Egregious Monument of Antiquity and an Argument for Invocation of Saints is nothing else but an Egregious Imposture and an Argument to prove the Fraud of those who set up false Doctrines by feigned Antiquity 'T is true in the 11th Action when Stephen whom Flavian had condemned in his life-time was deposed by the Council after his death some of the Bishops cried out Flavian lives after his death the Martyr hath prayed for us but this is far short of the aforesaid Inscription for they neither vow nor pray to the Martyr only since his Sentence was agreed to be just after his death they Rhetorically say this seemed as if Flavianus had prayed for them Yet this if it be genuine is the greatest step toward Invocation of Saints that I have seen in any Writing of this Age though it be no more than a Flourish proceeding from an excess of Admiration of Flavianus so lately martyred by Dioscorus the Mortal Enemy of this Council Concerning which Dioscorus for likeness of the Subject I observe the Notes say the Aegyptians gave him oh horrible Divine Honours and Religious Worship after his Death which means no more as Baronius the Author of the Story saith but that they worshipped him as a Saint and gave him such Religious Worship as they give to Saints Now the wary Romanists will not say these are Divine Honours much less were they such Honours as were paid to any Saints in this Age or some that followed But when Modern Writers speak of Ancient Times they often speak in Modern Phrases and so Binius took it to be the same thing to honour Dioscorus as a Saint and to give him Religious Worship because they at Rome now give Religious Worship to those they Canonize And this may suffice for this famous Council wherein Leo being all along Orthodox while the Patriarchs of most other great Sees had been either faulty or suspected had the greatest advantage imaginable to carry on his great Design of setting up for the Supremacy and though by this accident which he and his Legates improved higher Titles are given him than to any of his Predecessors or Successors for some Ages in any Council yet if the Forgeries and Corruptions be abated and the Fallacious Notes well understood there is no ground from any thing here said or done to think the Fathers at Chalcedon took this Pope for the sole supreme and visible Head of the Catholick Church An Appendix concerning Baronius's Annals § 1. THIS Century proving so full of various observations as to swell beyond our expectations we must here divert a-while to view the Errors in Barvnius lest the deferring these Observations to the last should make the Reader forget the Series of affairs already past by laying these matters too far from the History of that time to which these Notes belong and for brevity sake as well as for the clearer seeing into this Authors Fallacies we will follow our former Method And first we will observe that when he would set up any Doctrines or justifie any Practices of the Modern Corrupt Roman Church he generally cites spurious Authors or such as writ so long after this time that their Testimony is justly suspected since no Authors of this Age do mention any such thing The Miracle of Julia a Manichean Heretick Woman struck dead by Porphyrius Bishop of Gaza when he could not convert her by Arguments is taken out of a Latin Copy ascribed to one Mark a Deacon of Gaza very improbably but the stress of the Evidence lies upon the Credit of Metaphrastes Lipoman and Surius the Collectors of Legends who trade in few others but spurious Authors It were to be wished we had some better evidence of St. Ambrose's appearing after his death and promising Victory over the Goths than a Womans Testimony For both Orosius and St. Augustin who write of that Victory ascribe it wholly to the Power of God and mention no Saint concerned therein And Baronius cites both these as well as the credulous Paulinus who for advancing the credit of St. Ambrose records an Old-Wives Tale not supported by any credible evidence The ridiculous story of St. Paul's appearing to St. Chrysostom who is pretended to have had the Picture of St. Paul in his Study and to have discoursed with the sensless Image is not proved by any Author near that Age but by Leo the Philosopher and Emperor who lived 500 year after and writ a very Fabulous History of St. Chrysostom's Life and by a spurious Tract of Damascens who lived 450 year after Chrysostom's Death Yet upon these false Legends the Annalist triumphs over those who oppose Image-worship Like to this is that fabulous Story of Theophilus Bishop of Alexandria not being able to die in peace till the Image of St. Chysostom was brought to him and he had adored it which he hath no other Authority for than the aforesaid spurious Book ascribed to a late Author Damascen for the Writers of this Age mention no such thing And there can be no doubt but the Relation is false because St. Cyril Theophilus his Nephew and Successor continued for some time to have as ill an opinion of St. Chrysostom as his Uncle had to his last breath as his Letter to Atticus in Baronius shews And therefore there is a Story invented of a Vision appearing to St. Cyril by which he was terrified into a good opinion of St. Chrysostom But though the Quarrel he had at first to his memory be real this Apparition is feigned and proved by no elder nor better Authors than Nicetus and Nicephorus Another Forgery of St. Cyril's removing the Relicts of St. Mark and other Saints into a Church newly built in place of an Idol-temple and thereby clearing it from Evil Spirits hath no better Authority than certain Legends read in that woful Council of Nice which set up Image-worship 300 year after this Age The Revelation of the Relicks of St. Stephen pretended to
in which there were divers Bishops married by their Modern Corrupt Roman Standard And this sincere Father must be made to mock God and deceive Men and exposed as a Notorious Liar and Dissembler rather than there should seem to be any difference between the Primitive Church and theirs in the point of the Clergies Marriage Again he observes out of St. Augustin that he accounted the Council of Sardica heretical because Julius Bishop of Rome was condemned there and he infers that whatever was said or done against the Pope was of evil Fame among the Antients But if St. Augustin had not been misrepresented there had been no room for this fallacious Note St. Augustin blames this Council in the second place cited as heretical for condemning Athanasius and doth not mention Pope Julius there at all and in the former place he names Athanasius first and Julius only in the second place and he blames them not for condemning him as Bishop of Rome but because he was Orthodox as Athanasius was Wherefore Baronius leaves out the main part of St. Augustin's Argument only to bring in a false and flattering Inference for the Popes Supremacy And I have observed before he falsly gathers that the Roman Church was the sole Standard of Catholick Communion in Cecilian's time from a place where St. Augustin saith Cecilian of Carthage was a Catholick because he was in Communion with the Roman Church and other Lands from whence the Gospel came into Africa that is he was in Communion with the Eastern as well as the Western Church But Baronius is so dazled with Rome that where that is found in any Sentence he can see nothing else And therefore when he cites this very place again a little after he would prove that Carthage owned a right in the Roman Church to receive Appeals and this contrary to the express Protestation of that African Council wherein St. Augustin was present and the place it self doth not mention any Appeals and speaks of Communion with other Churches as well as Rome and so would equally prove a right in other Bishops as well as the Pope to receive Appeals from Africa if that had been spoken of there Further from Socrates his relation of a Bishop of Gyzicum named by Sisinnius Patriarch of Constantinople but not received by reason of their mistaking a late Law made to confirm the Priviledges of that See of Constantinople and this in the time of a mild and quiet Bishop he infers that this Patriarch challenged no right no not in Hollospont by the Canon of any General Council Now his naming a Bishop for this City shews he challenged a right which was well known to be his due both by the Canon of the second General Council and by this late Law but a peaceable Mans receding from his right after he hath made his claim rather than provoke a Factious City is no proof there was no right as Baronius doth pretend I observe also that the Latin Version of an Epistle to the Council of Ephesus hath these words cujus Reliquias praesentes veneramini Which is to abuse the Reader into an apprehension that the Relicks of St. John were worshipped in that Age But the Greek word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which imports no more than that they were honoured which is far less than that which Rome now gives even to feigned Relicks of uncertain Saints A like Falshood about the People of Ephesus worshipping the Blessed Virgin I noted before Again he manifestly perverts a Phrase of Theodosius the Eastern Emperor in his Epistle to Acacius where he advises the Nestorians to shew themselves approved-Bishops of the Roman Religion which Baronius pretends respects the Western Church of Old Rome in Italy but the Emperor plainly refers to his own Empire in the East which was then generally Orthodox and against Nestorius Constantinople is often called Rome without any other addition and Romania or the Roman Empire is in many Authors of these Ages put only for the Eastern part of it It is also very odd that he should cite Basil's Epistles to prove that the Roman Church was wont to send Legates to regulate Affairs in the Eastern Churches Whereas St. Basil in many Epistles grievously complains of the Pride of the West and of their despising the Calamities of the East not so much as giving them that Brotherly Aid which they might expect when they were in great distress but there is not one syllable of any jurisdiction which the Pope then did so much as pretend to over those Eastern Churches Leo was the first who ventured to make any steps towards this Usurpation an hundred years after St. Basil's time To this device we may add his silent passing by all that makes against the Roman Church but being large in his Notes upon any thing which seems to make for it How many words doth he every where use when one is described to be Orthodox for communicating with an Orthodox Pope but when those are declared to be Orthodox who communicated with the Patriarchs of Constantinople Alexandria and Antioch at that time differing from the Pope we have not one observation of the honour of those Sees Thus though he cite innumerable heretical and illiterate Writings meerly to confirm some incredible Miracle or superstitious Practice without any Censure passed on them yet when he comes to mention the Imperfect work on St. Mathew ascribed to St. Chrysostom which many Roman Writers highly commend as writ by a Catholick Antient and Learned Author he falls into a fit of railing against it as Heretical and what not because in that Book we are told The Scripture is the only rule by which true Christians may judge of the right Faith Which Sentence though it condemn the new Romish way yet it is agreeable to the Primitive and most Orthodox Fathers who very often say the same thing And Baronius relates a little before that a certain Bishop who wrought Miracles and converted many Pagans charged his new Converts to apply themselves diligently to read the Holy Scriptures Moreover he brings in a Quotation out of St. Augustin with a long Preface because he designs to misapply it to justifie the Roman Supremacy But the place it self plainly supposes the Western to be but one part of the Catholick Church only he thinks the Authority of Latin Fathers alone and of Innocent a Successor of the Apostles Chief of this Western Church might suffice his Adversary who was one of the Latin Church And as to Innocent's Opinion he might be sure it would agree with what the African Councils had declared and the Roman Church constantly held with other Churches Where we see Innocent is only set out as the first in Order of Dignity in the Western Church and his Opinion supposed to be right not because of the Infallibility of his See or any Supream Power in him to judge in matters of
the Catholick Faith and all this only because Leo had the good Fortune by his Secretary Prosper's help to write one Orthodox Epistle against Eutyches in a lucky time when a Council was to be called to condemn that Heresie As to the Author of it Eutyches it was always a Rule in the Church to receive even the Inventors of Heresies if they would renounce their Errors So that for Leo to say in his Letter to the Council of Chalcedon he thought they might deal so with Eutyches is no manner of ground for Baronius to suppose that this was a special Favour indulged to that General Council by the Pope contrary to Ecclesiastical Laws and Customs For it is well known that a General Council in that Age gave Laws to the Pope but did not receive any from him and whatever Leo's Opinion might be the Council were sole Judges of the terms on which Eutyches was to be restored and had he Recanted they would have received him into Communion by their own Authority since Arius Nestorius and Pelagius had that Favour offered them by former Councils and Eutyches would have found the like Kindness here if the Pope had said nothing at all of the matter Wherefore the Annalist hath crouded many Falshoods into a few Lines only to persuade his weak Readers That the Pope was above a General Council And to make him seem above all the other Patriarchs he supposes from a Letter of Theodosius the Emperor which he never saw and which is not extant That the Emperor writ to Rome about the Succession of Anatolius at Constantinople knowing it to be the Head of all Churches This is a groundless Conjecture because he doth not so much as know in what style Theodosius writ and it was an Ancient Custom for to give Notice to all the absent Patriarchs when any New one was elected and the Patriarch Elect even he of Rome was obliged to satisfie the rest by Letters that he held the Orthodox Faith Certain it is that Theodosius valued not Leo much because he confirmed the Condemnation of Flavionus though he knew that Pope and his Legates were of his side and it is plain by the best Historians that he died in this Opinion Nor can Baronius prove that Theodosius repented of that mistaken Judgment otherwise than by Nioephorus an Author of no credit when single or that he Obeyed the Pope before his death for this last he can cite no Author at all and it is not only a Conjecture of his own but a very false one For the last Letter that ever Theodosius writ to Valentinian not many Months before his death shews how little he esteemed Leo's Request for a new General Council and how close he stuck to Dioscorus Leo's Enemy and therefore he could not write after this to Leo as Head of the Church His Successor indeed Marcianus had some reason to Caress the Pope and therefore he writes more respectfully to him than other Emperors had used to do Yet even in that first Letter of his he must be very sagacious who can discorn what Baronius again supposes That Marcian turned his Eyes to the Chief visible Head of the Church resolving to do all things by his command or as he phrases it to be at his beck For even in this highest strain of Complement Marcian saith no more but that since Leo had a principal Bishoprick among the true Believers he desires him to pray for him that he might resolve to call a Council with Leo ' s consent to take away all Error and settle a general Peace Which implies the power of calling Councils was in the Emperor and the Popes part was only to consent as one of the Chief Bishops who was there to meet and consult And if Marcian had known or believed Leo to be the sole Supream Judge of all Controversies he would not have been at the trouble of Calling a General Council but referred all to him § 4. The rest of my Observations on Baronius shall be put in Order of Time for the better assistance of the Reader and not under those several Heads which doth too much separate and confound things When S. Hierom after three years labouring with Pope Anastasius had at last got him and the Roman Church to condemn Ruffinus he then at that time prudently appeals to the Roman Churches Faith for Trial Whether he or Ruffinus were the better Catholick But Baronius when he hath cited some words of S. Hierom against Ruffinus to this purpose grosly prevaricates when he infers You see it was an undoubted Maxim customary in the Mouths of all the Ancients and a necessary consequence That if one were said to follow the Roman Faith he must needs be a Catholick For if we hear one Father when he had the Pope on his side in a particular Controversie say this This is not all the Ancients And many of them describe themselves as being of the Faith of Athanasius Cyril Flavianus c. or holding the Faith of the Churches of Alexandria Antioch Constantinople c. to prove themselves Catholick and if S. Hierom did instance now in Rome the consequence depended on the Orthodoxness of the present Pope not on the Infallibility of his See And Pope Gelasius afterward confesseth That the Roman Church in this Point was guided intirely by S. Hierom She thought as he thought So that to make a General conclusion from such a special Case is very unreasonable and S. Hierom himself a little after is cited declaring the Consent of many Churches is of greater Authority than that of the Roman alone It had been well if their Roman Church had considered the peril of Idolatry when they went about to establish the use or Images as Baronius tells us Theodosius did when he made a Law to prohibit any Adoration to be given to his own Statues because such worship as exceeds the dignity of Human Nature is to be reserved to the Divine Majesty In the same place he relates how S. Chrysostom reproved the People for their folly at the dedication of the Empresses Statue because it is easie in those matters to run into the sin of Idolatry Which Observations of his own stand on Record in these Annals to condemn that Church which orders Veneration and all other expressions of Reverence to be made to all sorts of Images of the Saints Again he exposes his dear Church in observing That the Ancients preserved both the consecrated Elements of the Sacrament in the Church But no sooner had he condemned us for not following this ancient Usage but he mentions as great an Innovation in their own Church for he owns they have forbid the preserving any thing but the species of Bread Now I would ask Who differ most from Antiquity they who totally take away one part of the Sacrament from the People and keep only the Bread to be worshipped Or we who give both Bread and
did not receive the Cup as well as the Bread For he saith in general This dividing the Mystery can never happen without a grand Sacriledge Now it is certain that when either an Heretical or Catholick Man or Woman receives but in one kind it doth happen that the Mystery is divided and therefore in Pope Gelasius Opinion the present Church of Rome is guilty of a grand Sacriledge in taking the Cup from the People And it seems the Editors thought Baronius had not sufficiently satisfied this Objection and therefore they cunningly leave it out of this Popes Decrees in both Editions With like craft they omit the Tract of Gelasius against Eutyches and only give a touch at it in the Notes and there also care is taken out of Baronius if any shall elsewhere meet with this piece to keep them from discerning that Pope Gelasius condemns Transubstantiation and expresly saith That the substance of Bread and Wine remains after the Consecration The words they cannot deny but first Baronius and Binius argue it was not writ by this Pope but by Gelasius Cyzicenus an Author as Orthodox and more ancient than Pope Gelasius but their Arguments are not so cogent as to outweigh the proofs that this Pope writ the Tract Labbè in his Margen saith that many learned men think it his Gennadius Contemporary with the Roman Gelasius and the Pontifical say he writ a Tract against Eutyches Fulgentius cites it as this Gelasius his Work Pope John the Second also ascribes it to his Predecessor Yea the Bibliotheca Patrum allowed by the Expurgators put it out under Pope Gelasius his name And at last Baronius himself is not against supposing it was his But then Secondly He manifestly perverts the Sense of the words before-cited being after long shuffling forced to this absurdity that by the substance he means the accidents of Bread and Wine remain Which makes this learned Pope so ignorant as to mistake the first rudiments of Logick and might almost shew he was an Heretick if his Comparison in that sense be applied to the two Natures of Christ for illustrating of which he brings it in For thus it would follow that Gelasius held nothing but the accidents of Christs Body or Human Nature remained after the Hypostatical Union Doubtless Contarenus his Brother Cardinal was wiser and honester in making no reply at the Colloquy of Ratasbon 1541 to this clear Testimony And it is great weakness in Baronius to brag what wonders he hath done by heaping up a parcel of falshoods and impertinence Before we dismiss this let it be noted that the Annalist and Binius not only allow but dispute for 500 forged Tracts and Epistles which support modern Popery but they devise innumerable things to baffle and disgrace the most genuine Writings that condemn their Innovations Which is Baronius his meaning when he gives this reason of his large digression about this Tract because out of it the Innovators take their Weapons But they who reject the old Writings of their own Doctors do more justly deserve that Title As to this Popes extraction Volatteran and Panvinius say his Father Valerius was a Bishop Which is now left out of the Pontifical and not mentioned in Baronius or the Notes But the omission signifies little there being so many instances of married Bishops that had Children Yea of Popes that were Sons or Grand-Children of Bishops or former Popes As to the time of this Pope's ingress Baronius places it An. 492 and upon the credit of the dates of a few Papal Epistles which are always suspicious and often forged he rejects the Authority of Marcellinus who lived at this time and died An. 534 in whose Chronicle Gelasius is said to be made Pope An. 494 that is two year later than Baronius places it § 8. If Marcellinus be in the right we may justly doubt of those three Epistles the 1st 2d and 9th which Baronius cites as writ before the year 494 The 1st hath no date and though the time of writing it be made an Evidence against Marcellinus his Account yet he brings no proof it was writ An. 492 but this Nothing hinders us from allowing these things between Euphemius and Gelasius to be done this year I reply the Testimony of a good Author of that Age who affirms Gelasius was not Pope till two years after hinders us from believing it was writ then But I will not however condemn the Epistle which is modest enough calling Euphemius Bishop of Constantinople his Brother and Fellow advanced to a Precedence by the favour of Christ And when he was pressed to declare by what Council Acacius was condemned he cites no Roman Council nor pretended Sentence of his Predecessor Foelix But saith he was condemned by the Council of Chalcedon but this he doth not make out The Second Epistle also wants a date and is by guess placed in this year by Baronius with this false remark That the Popes by Custom used to prescribe a Form of Belief to all the Faithful Whereas the Letter it self declares the Custom was For every new Pope to declare his Faith to the Neighbouring Bishops that they might know he was Orthodox Now there is a vast difference between prescribing a Form of Belief to others and labouring to get from them a Testimony of our believing aright The 4th Epistles true Title is The Monitory of Gelasius But in Binius these words Of the most blessed Pope are added which Labbè rightly omits In the Monitory it self observe First That Gelasius denies his Predecessor or he had condemned the Emperor Anastasius Secondly He saith the Church hath no power to absolve any after their death Thirdly He claims no power to make any new Canons but only to execute the old Which other Bishops may do Fourthly He cannot prove Appeals to Rome by any Canons but those of Sardica which were rejected by many and slights the Canons of Chalcedon received every where but at Rome Fifthly He very falsly pretends Acacius was only the Executer of the Roman Churches Sentence by whose sole Authority some Eastern Bishops were condemned But we know Acacius had condemned them long before any Sentence was given at Rome and scorned to act under the Pope Sixthly Where Gelasius in his own Cause vainly brags That the Canons have given the Judgment over all to the Apostolical Seat Binius and Labbè mend it in their Marginal Note and say The Canons and Christ gave it this power neither of which is true In the 5th Epistle Gelasius owns a Private Bishop for his Brother and declares that he himself cannot alter the Canons The Margen again here saith The Canons cannot be altered they should have said no not by the Pope But here they say too little as before they said too much which puts me in mind of Juvenal's Note Quisquam hominum est quem tu contentum videris uno Flagitio
Name-sake Anastasius wherein 't is plain he thinks the Quarrel about Acacius now deceased no just ground for the two Churches to separate from each other Yet for the scandal he had given his Opinion was that his Name alone ought to be left out of the Dypticks but withal he approves of the Baptism and Orders he had given and justifies this by good proofs of Scripture Gratian holds this last Decree to be illegal and uncanonical because it contradicts the determinations of some of his Predecessors But impartial Readers will see that his Opinion is better confirmed by Reason and Scripture than the contrary ever was by any Pope that held it Nor ought the Notes to say Anastasius decreed this by a dispensation grounded on his Apostolical Authority For it is an Orthodox Truth That the Crimes of the dispensers of Sacraments and Holy Orders especially if it be only Schism do not invalidate them to such as in their integrity receive them So that unless a Pope need a dispensation to tell Truth here is no occasion for any dispensing Power This Epistle is followed by a Memorial given by the Legates of Alexandria to the Popes Legates then at Constantinople for an Union between the two Churches which they speak of as equal Sister Churches and give no hint of any subjection due from them to Rome which they think had unfortunately mistaken them as guilty of Heresie Nor doth Anastasius in the former Letter to the Emperor pretend to any power that he had over Alexandria but desires the Emperor by his Wisdom and Authority to reduce them to the Catholic Faith calling him the Vicar appointed by God to preside in the Earth Which the modern Roman Writers think too great a complement to a Lay Prince Upon the death of Anastasius the Roman Clergy were divided and chose two Popes Laurentius and Symmachus But after a warm and long contest both parties agreed to refer it to an Heretical Gothish King viz. Theodoric to declare an Infallibly Orthodox Head of the Church Who modestly referred it to a Synod of Bishops and they at last confirmed the Election of Symmachus The Notes call this a Schism of the universal Church But it was no more than a Schism of that particular Church of Rome and had no influence that we hear of upon the whole Catholick Church Only a Legend cited out of the fabulous Dialogues which disparage the Name of Gregory the Great tells us that Paschasius a learned and holy Roman Deacon was seen after his death in an odd Purgatory of hot Water condemned thither as Symmachus Friends told the story for taking part with Laurentius But it seems when this Fable was made praying to Saints was not in fashion for Paschasius desires the Bishop that saw him to pray to the Lord to release him The Notes also here cite a very idle story of an Image which bled when it was shot but Damascen is his Author who lived 250 year after this and whose stories about Images are generally ridiculous and incredible But 't is more material to observe that this Pope Symmachus was charged with notorious Crimes and the Papal power was then so low that the Roman Clergy petitioned an Arrian King to send Visiters to try the Pope who submitted to this Judicature authorized say the Notes by this excellent Prince And the Bishops as they observe not only acquitted the Pope but were so wise as to conceal the fault of which he was accused But if that were so great a piece of Wisdom Ennodius who then writ an Apology for him and Baronius and Binius who now would vindicate him shew no great discretion in confessing he was accused of Adultery For which if it were true he deserved a worse Purgatory than his Antagonist Paschasius The Epistles published in Symmachus's name are Eleven The two first of which were formerly directed to Caesarius but now they alter the Title and inscribe them to Eonius It seems the Forger was no good Chronologer and the Stile is so barbarous the Sense so obscure and the Matter so jejune that it would be a Scandal to any Pope to have writ them And if Symmachus writ these the 5th and 8th may be discerned by their Style to have been endited for him by a more able hand that is by Ennodius who Binius supposes did write the 8th Epistle However this Pope is very free in blaming his Predecessor for decreeing contrary to the ancient Custom But he scruples not to break many Canons at once by ordering that the Popes for the future shall name their Successors In the 7th Epistle of Symmachus the Editors and Baronius have manifestly corrupted the Text reading ist a quidem ego for ista quidem nego But the Sense shews the Forgery for the Emperor had charged the Pope for excommunicating him in the case of Acacius Symmachus replies I deny these things we have not Excommunicated you O Emperor but Acacius leave him and you are quit of his Excommunication if you do not thrust your self into his Excommunication you are not Excommunicated by us if you do you are Excommunicated by your self not by us So that whether you stick to him or leave him however you are not Excommunicated by us We see the Pope over and over declares they had not by any particular Sentence Excommunicated the Emperor at Rome it was only Acacius in particular and his Followers in general who were sentenced there in which Sentence if the Emperor wilfully involved himself they who had done nothing against him could not justly be blamed as if they had Excommunicated him Now to bring in this Sentence with ista quidem Ego is to make the Pope contradict himself and confess he had Excommunicated the Emperor which he utterly denies and therefore ista quidem Nego must be the true Reading and that bold Forgery of turning it into Ego was made on purpose to set up an early Precedent for the Pope's having Excommunicated Emperors Finally The Margen of the same Epistle to carry on the same holy Cheat observes That the Pope's Dignity is greater than the Emperors But this is not in the Text where Symmachus thus expresseth himself I will not say it is a greater but an equal power So that when the Pope had stretcht a little they go much further and dare tell greater Untruths than he And here we shall conclude this Century because the first Synod said to be held under this Pope ought to be dated after the year 500 and belongs to the next Age To which we shall proceed with Gods assistance hereafter when we have first in our usual method noted some remarkable Errors in Baronius that are within this Period but have not fallen in our way as we treated of the Councils of this time An Appendix concerning Baronius his Annals THE Cardinal hath given a just but severe censure of his own
most religiously kept to the Honour of God himself as the principal time of his most solemn Worship Baronius also wrongs Zeno the Emperor in saying that his Edict for Union did Anathematize the Council of Chalcedon For the words of the Edict shew the contrary since Zeno only Anathematizes them who believed not according to the Nicene Creed whether in the Council of Chalcedon or in any other Council and the Cardinal himself in the next page only charges Zeno with tacitly abrogating the Council of Chalcedon and Liberatus affirms the Emperor was angry with John Talaia for not relishing the Council of Chalcedon Yea the Zealots against this General Council at Alexandria renounced the Communion of Peter because by subscribing this Edict of Union he had refused openly to Anathematize the Council of Chalcedon all which shews that this Edict did not condemn that Council Liberatus saith no more but that the Papers were taken away lest they should be delivered to the Catholicks to whom they were written But Baronius out of this affirms That the Pope writ to the Clergy the Monks and Orthodox Laity as if he had seen the Titles of the several Letters and cites Liberatus for his Evidence In like manner he brings in the words of Liberatus after a Fictitious Letter of a Roman Synod And cites him thus These Letters being given to Acacius he would not receive them c. By which one would imagine that Liberatus had attested this feigned Synodical Letter but this Author speaks only of that Epistle of Foelix which Baronius had cited three pages before and knew nothing of any Synodical Epistle Thus he cites part of an Oration made at the dedication of a Church which had been an Idols Temple but now was consecrated to the memory of Christ and of St. Peter and St. Paul and though there be not one Syllable in the words cited of any worship of Saints yet Baronius concludes that this is enough to intimate that the worship of the Saints did always flourish not only among the Bishops of this new dedicated Church but among all Catholicks But he must be very willing to believe a false Doctrin that will receive it from a bold Conclusion that hath no Premisses Again To give credit to a Relation of St. Michael's appearing and being worshiped at Rome in this Age he cites a Poet who says nothing of the worship of St. Michael and he would also insinuate that this Drepanius lived about this time to make this Superstition seem more ancient Whereas it is well known that Drepanius Florus writ about the year 650 that is 150 year after this Age and 50 year after Pope Gregory at which time many Corruptions and gross Ignorance were visible in the Church We may also note That Baronius corrects Marcellinus's Chronicle about the ingress of Pope Anastasius out of the Pontifical whereas Marcellinus lived at that time and brought down his Chronicle to the year 534 and so is a very credible Author But in the same page our Annalist shews how grosly the Pontifical is mistaken in point of time speaking of things as done under one Pope that were done under another and affirming such and such Facts done to Persons that were dead long before Yet not only here but in many places this mistaken Author is the sole Standard of Baronius his Chronology And whereas Theodorus Lector who writ An. 518. expresly saith King Theodorick called a Synod at Rome The Cardinal rejects his Testimony and out of the Pontifical and some spurious Acts affirms that Pope Symmachus called this Synod For those are the best Authors that speak of their side § 3. With like artifice our Author conceals some part of the Truth which might prejudice his Cause As for instance he notes as a peculiar piece of impudence and madness in Timothy Aelurus the Invader of the See of Alexandria that he darted forth his Anathema's against the Roman Bishops and makes a dismal representation of that Crime But the Epistle which relates the Story saith he Anathematized Anatolius Arch-bishop of Constantinople and Basilius of Antioch as well as Leo Bishop of Rome So that there is no reason to conceal that in his Recapitulation but only to make the Pope look higher and greater than he was in those days Liberatus no doubt was better informed what passed at Alexandria than Leo could he at Rome so that his account that Timothy Aelurus was immediately sent into Banishment by the Emperor from Alexandria is far more credible than that which Baronius deduces from Pope Leo's Letters of his coming first to Constantinople But the Cardinal corrects Liberatus by Conjectures meerly to persuade the World that the Emperor obeyed the Pope in Banishing that Heretick whereas the Writers of that time say he did it by advice of a Synod at Constantinople It is also observable that when he speaks of Epistles writ or Messages sent to the Bishop of Rome by any new Patriarch he always adds de more according to Custom But though it was as much according to Custom for every new Patriarch to write to the Bishop of Constantinople or to him of Antioch c. to notifie his Election and declare his being in the Communion of the Catholick Church Yet there Baronius leaves out thole words according to Custom § 4. But there are more Instances of his obscuring the Truth by false reasoning and particularly by supposing things as certain which are not proved and then making Inferences from thence and offering such Conclusions for manifest Truths Thus upon Supposition that the Pope was then above the Emperor and that nothing relating to the Church could be done without the Roman Bishop He introduces an Edict of Marcian's with a Letter of Pope Leo's and with this Phrase The Emperor Marcian obeyed Pope Leo Whereas that Letter of Leo hath no relation to the Edict and is an humble Petition to the Emperor to get his Letter to Flavian well translated into Greek and sent to Alexandria to clear him from an imputation of Heresie falsly laid to his charge But the Edict takes no notice of Leo or his Epistle or of the Roman Church but charges the Alexandrians to follow the Nicene Faith as it was prosessed by their own Bishops Athanasius Theophilus and Cyril And though there be a mistake in the Month the Year is right and it is dated three years after Leo's Epistle to Marcian But the Cardinal alters the date and would add to the Sense only to support his mistaken Supposition Anatolius Bishop of Constantinople might perhaps regulate some of the Officers or Clergy of his Church at the request of Pope Leo but it doth not appear that either Leo did pretend to command Anatolius nor that Anatolius owned he had any Authority over him And it is certain that for all Leo's huffing the Patriarchs of Constantinople did keep the place
and yet he makes no remark of any Judgment on him There are many Evidences that Baronius did not understand Greek and one instance of it is that when he had named the Heretical Bishop of Antioch Petrus Cnapheus that is in Greek Peter the Fuller he adds of his own idemque Fullo nuncupatus est the same Man is called also Peter the Fuller That Baronius is mistaken as to Ambrosius Aurelianus who was saluted Emperor in Britain both as to the person and time is made evident by our learned Country man Archbishop Usher To whom the Reader is referred for a more exact account of that famous Man It is very impertinent in Baronius to upbraid the Reformed Christians of these days with the miraculous Confession of the Orthodox in Africa whose Tongues being cut out by the cruel Arrians they still spoke plainly and owned the true Faith For we confess the same Faith that they did and have the same and no more Sacraments But though these Bishops did then say they held the Faith that then was held in the Roman Church that belongs not to the present Romanists who have added new Articles to their Creed new Sacraments and set up many new Objects for Worship So that if those African Martyrs and Confessors were now alive they would no more own these than they did the Vandals The censure of Nicephorus who lived in a superstitious Age and the Fictions devised in the second Nicene Council to support Image-worship are no way credible Xenaias if ever there were such a Man was not the first who said the Images of Christ and the Saints were not to be adored and it seems by his affirming that Worship in Spirit and Truth was only acceptable to Christ that he had Read the holy Scripture more considerately than those at Rome now who overlook the second Commandment and many other places which expresly condemn their Idolatry So that for ought appears from any Author of his time now extant this Xenaias was an Orthodox Christian however in this point Baronius hath missed Binius and others touching the Age of Faustus the Semi-pelagian as also the time of the two Councils in France relating to his Opinions But these and some other Errors are learnedly and acurately corrected by the famous Vossius in his Pelagian History to which I refer the Reader for his own satisfaction How often doth our Annalist censure the Eastern Emperors and Patriarchs for tolerating Hereticks How many dreadful Judgments in his way of interpreting Providence doth he note came upon them for this single Crime Yet here we have an Heretical Emperor tolerated all his Reign for 17 year together and his name allowed in the Dypticks by many Successive Popes for near 30 year after his death Surely he will not own so many Infallible Guides before Hormisda were ignorant of Zeno's Heresie and if they did know it their fault in tolerating him and owning his Memory is much greater How much so ever therefore he would magnifie his Roman Bishops care of the Catholick Faith when Truth comes out the Bishops of Constantinople in this Age did more Service to the Faith than the Popes and Euphemius threatned Anastasius the Emperor into professing the right Faith while Foelix flattered him which is a good reason why the pious Eastern Bishops chose to communicate with the Patriarchs of Constantinople rather than with the Popes while the Churches were divided It seems the Emperor Anastasius in a controversie about the Sense of the Council of Chalcedon falsly thought to procure Peace by imposing silence both on the Catholicks and Hereticks And he is censured for this vain hope But in a like case that happened afterward Pope Vigilius also decreed as he saith both sides should keep silence and this he calls a Prudent care to preserve the Church from danger So that Baronius makes that to be praise-worthy in a Pope which is a grievous Crime in any Body else Such partiality is very unbecoming in any Writer but chiefly in an Historian He gives it us as an ingenious Argument of Pope Gelasius That the cause between him and Acacius could not be judged at Constantinople where the same persons were Enemies Witnesses and Judges But this Pope aiming at his Adversary like an unskilful Fencer hits himself For this is a very strong Reason why Acacius his Cause should not be judged by the Pope an Enemy a Witness and a Judge When a most pious Bishop the main support of the Catholick Cause was deposed and banished viz. Euphemius the Annalist saith he deserved to be abdicated by Gods just Judgment for not obeying the Popes in abdicating Acacius his Name and he pretends the Fathers say there can be no Confessors or Martyrs out of the Roman Churuh Whereas Cyril the Monk cited by our Historian saith Euphemius was impiously deposed from his See and exclaims against the wicked injustice of this Fact which this Mans prejudice makes him call Gods just Judgment But God doth not punish Men for that which is no fault and it was none in Euphemius not to submit to the Pope's most unjust claim of a Superiority over his Church which had been exempted by two General Councils from all subjection and advanced to the second place among the Patriarchs As for his other assertion no Father of credit can be produced that did appropriate Martyrdom or Confessorship to those in Communion with Rome Yea this very Age produced a great many Bishops and holy Monks such as Elias Daniel Stylites St. Sabas c. who did not communicate with the Pope but took part in this contest with Euphemius who then were and still are even by Baronius called Martyrs and Consessors Yea the Cardinal himself asserts that those who were slain or suffered any thing in a petty contest at Rome meerly about the choice of a Pope were Martyrs and Confessors though no Article of Faith came into the dispute And doubtless he cannot rob these Eastern Martyrs and Confessors who suffered by Hereticks only for the true Faith of their deserved Titles In like manner he uses Paschasius a learned and pious Roman Deacon who never separated from the Catholick Church but when two ambitious Candidates scandalously strove for the Papal Chair he chanced to take the less fortunate side And this he counts dying in Schism and without any Authority takes it for granted that he repented of it before his death because otherwise he thinks it was impossible he should be saved The ground of these remarks is an idle Legend out of the fabulous Dialogues ascribed to St. Gregory But the Principles of making it Schism and a mortal Sin to mistake in a Popes Election are his own To conclude this sort of observations it is very hard that Symmachus should long expect Letters from Anastasius the Emperour more majorum when the controversie was yet scarce decided who was Pope he or
Laurentius And as for the mos majorum that would have obliged Symmachus first to write to the Emperor as his Predecessors use to do I need not make a new Head to observe what excursions he often hath to dispute for the Roman side which in an Historian is not allowable since he is to relate pure matter of Fact and neither to commend a Friend nor reproach an Enemy unjustly There are many of these digressions about Acacius the Bishop of Constantinople against whom he most bitterly inveighs for a long time together and treats him with language so rude and scurrilous that one would think he was some Monster or Devil incarnate Yet at last his greatest Crime is in comparison of which all his other faults were light ones he opposed the Pope who attempted to usurp a Jurisdiction over him and to rob him and his See of the Priviledges which General Councils had granted to Constantinople Otherwise as hath been shewed he was a most Pious and Orthodox Man And Zeno the Emperor who stood by his own Bishop in this just Cause cannot escape many severe lashes from this partial Historian who frequently goes out of his way and takes every little occasion to aggravate his Miscarriages yea to rail at him without any cause It is agreed by all impartial Historians that the Emperor Valentinian the Third did advance Ravenna to be a Patriarchal Seat An. Dom. 432 and that it held this Dignity without any dependance on the See of Rome till after the middle of the 7th Century And how they strugled to keep those Liberties many years after may be seen in a late Eminent Author But Baronius who allows a thousand Forgeries for Rome every where disputes against this Priviledge and condemns all that the Bishops of Ravenna did And here takes a boasting threatning Letter of the Pope's to be very good evidence that all the Priviledges of the Church of Ravenna flowed from Rome But besides that his Witness is a party we may note the Priviledges were so large that we may be sure the Roman Church never granted them their ambition to be absolutely Supream not allowing them to endure any Equal especially in Italy Again we have a digression about the hard usage of the Popes Legates at Constantinople and he not only aggravates their Sufferings beyond what either his Authors say or the truth will bear But also takes occasion to tell you that this is the way of Hereticks to act by Violence and Terror and to treat the Pious with Clubs Swords and Prisons instead of Charity and Peace Now if this be the character of Hereticks the Roman Church that always did and still doth proceed thus where it hath power may fairly pass for an Heretical Church And as for the ground of this unlucky observation Zeno and Acacius did nothing but what all wise Governors would have done for since these Legates of the Popes came to justifie an usurped Authority and to disturb the quiet of the Church at Constantinople their Letters which were judged Seditious were taken from them and they without any hurt to their persons secured till Time and Discourse had made them sensible how ill an errand they came upon So that being convinced of the Justice of Acacius proceedings they communicated with him and let fall the Popes business I have touched that frivolous excursion about the worship of Images before I only note now that if Petrus Cnapheus did oppose that idle Superstition in its first rise he was more Orthodox than any who promoted it as to that point And it may be the later Historians who doted upon the worship of Images may have given this Peter a worse name than he deserved Lying Characters of all Iconoclasts being as common with them as other fabulous Stories which abound in the Writers of this Controversie above all others From two passages out of the Additions to Gennadius writ by some unknown hand mentioning two Books one of Honoratus Bishop of Marseils approved by Gelasius and another of Gennadius his own presented to that Pope and one Example of John Talaias Apology sent to his sole Patron the fame Gelasius Our Historian largely digresses to prove that the Pope was the sole Judge of all Writers and Writings and talks as if he was the only Censor librorum in that Age Whereas I can name him divers other Bishops of less eminent Sees that had twice as many Books sent to them for their approbation yet none of their Successors were so vain as to challenge any Right from thence to judge of Orthodox Books And for the Decree of Gelasius about Apocryphal Writings it is a meer Imposture He complains of the Arrogance of the Constantinopolitan See which insulted over that of Rome as a Captive and under a barbarous Yoke But he will scarce allow us to pity the Roman Church since he runs out into vain boasting that the Popes had the same Vigor Authority Power and Majesty now that they had in the best times But his Account of the little regard given to this Pope Gelasius and his Predecessors Letters and Sentences in this Controversie confutes his Brags and proves this Authority and Majesty was only in imagination § 6. After all these Artifices used by the Annalist for the interest of the Roman Church one would not think any thing should be left that reflected either upon the present Doctrin or Practice of Rome Yet Truth like the Light cannot be concealed with all his Artifices It appears that Pope Leo was but a mean Astronomer since he could not Calculate the true time of Easter himself but was forced to write to others to inform him and when the Infallible Guide is forced to enquire of many Fallible persons to direct him in his Decrees it seems he is left to the same dull way that other Mortals use for their information And at this rate Learning must be of more use to the Head of the Church than Infallibility He commends the barbarous Suevians and Vandals for sparing a Monastery in one of their Cruel Invasions and reproaches the Reformed in France who had burnt very many Monasteries and Churches at which he thinks they may blush But doubtless Lewis the 14th hath more cause for blushing since he professes that Religion that gives an extraordinary reverence to Monasteries and yet without scruple Burns Demolishes and Destroys often where he Conquers By a Letter writ to the Emperor Leo by Anatolius it appears that the Eastern Emperors consulted the Bishops of Constantinople in causes of Faith And ordered them to consult the Canons and enquire into the violations of them yea to give notice to the Pope of such offences And after all the Emperor was to give these Canons their due Force by appointing the Punishment due to such as had broken them Which proceeding was thought very regular then but the present Roman Court will not allow it though Pope Leo
himself begs of the Emperor not commands him as our Historian words it to use this remedy to the Church not only to degrade Heretical Clerks but to banish them from the City yet now they will not have Princes to judge or punish Clerks Nor will Baronius allow the Emperor a Right to call a General Council without the Pope's consent But the Letter of Pope Leo from whence he infers this shews He was commanded by the Emperor to come to a Council which Order the Pope reverently received and wished he could have obeyed it but modestly hopes to be excused by the Emperors approving the Reasons he offers why there was no need of such a Council So that the Authority was then in the Emperor and the Pope was to obey or excuse himself by just Reasons And as to the confirmation Pope Leo saith The Council of Chalcedon was confirmed by the Authority of Marcian the Emperor and by his consent yea he owns the definitions of that Council were above him for what was defined there he durst not call to a new scanning Thus things stood then but Rome is now above this If it were so excellent and pious a Law that none should force Women to be Nuns nor any to be vailed till she were forty years old till which Age she was to remain free to marry if she pleased How comes it to pass that nothing is more common now than to carry young Women against their Wills into Nunneries and to make them take the Vows at fourteen or fifteen These practices may be gainful but they are very wicked and contrary to the Laws both of Church and State in elder and purer times We may observe a visible difference between the Prayers and Usages of holy Men in this ancient Age and those of the modern times St. Marcian takes the holy Gospel in his hand and directs his Prayers only to Christ to avert a dreadful Fire But later Legends represent their modern Saints taking up Crucifixes Relicks or the Host and praying to the blessed Virgin or to deceased Saints in all cases of danger So that any considering Reader may see that the Primitive Worship was not like to that now used in the Roman Church Again if the Matter of Fact be true that Pope Hilary forbid the Emperor Anthemius to allow any Conventicles of the Macedonian Hereticks in Rome for which we have no proof but the boasting Letter of a Bigotted Pope viz. Gelasius yet supposing this were so the Note of the Annalist is very Erroneous viz. That Heresies could not be planted at Rome so easily as at Constantinople For Pelagius and Caelestius who were as great Hereticks as Eutyches and Aelurus were sheltered at Rome a long time And the Bishops of Constantinople did more against Eutyches and his Heresie than the Popes against Pelagius And since a little after three parts of seven in Rome were Arrians tolerated by the Pope methinks we should not have the Purity of Rome extolled at this rate as if no Weed of Heresie could grow there It is but five years after this that Baronius himself owns that Ricimer seized on St. Agathus Church in Rome where he and the Arrians held their publick Assemblies in spight of the Popes who were not wont to oppose Princes who had great power and only trampled on such as were weak In the Relation of Cyril the Monk which Baronius so highly commends it is not much for the credit of Rome that a Catholick Bishop of Jerusalem Martyrius sends a Legate to the Emperor to assist him in suppressing the Eutychian Hereticks and not the Pope And that a Saint from Heaven should call Jerusalem the Mother of Churches For this Title is now wholly appropriated to Rome But as to the Embassy sent to the Emperor against the Hereticks Martyrius took the right course for Pope Simplicius in his Letter to the same Emperor saith The Imperial Authority only can keep the Sheepfold of our Lords slock pure from the contagion of Heresie which shews the Pope's power was not considerable at that time It is something remarkable also That Pope Foelix in his Letter to Zeno the Emperor should affirm That Eustathius Bishop of Antioch was the President of those Three hundred and eighteen Fathers assembled at Nice For now they will allow no General Council to be Authentick wherein the Bishop of Rome or his Legates do not preside The Romanists proceedings against the Reformed at their Councils of Constance and Trent where some were Burnt for a Terror and the oppressed party who held the right Faith were cited before their Adversaries who took upon them to judge in their own Cause these proceedings I say were an exact Transcript of the Arrian Methods in Asrick when they resolved under the cover of a Conference to suppress the Orthodox Catholicks In the Story of finding St. Barnabas Relicks we may observe all the Prayers and Hymns were directed only to God and Christ not any to this or any other Saint from which we may learn That piece of Superstition which now makes up so great a part of the Roman Offices was unknown to those Ages and St. Barnabas declares the chief Bishop of Cyprus is not subject to any Patriarch he doth not except the Pope so that this Apostle seems not to have believed St. Peter's Universal Supremacy Baronius presents us also with a Confession of Faith made by one Lucidus and approved by a Synod of Bishops wherein he declares that he believes Eternal Fire and the Flames of Hell prepared for deadly Sins But there is not one word of Purgatory which shews there was no such place invented or at least believed by the Catholicks then And the 7th Epistle of Pope Gelasius as we noted signifies that he knew of no other places in the next World but Heaven and Hell To conclude the Annalist shuts up this Century with a Melancholy Note That at this time there was not one Christian Catholick Prince in the World He might also have added that all the Eastern Patriarchs were separated from the Communion of the Roman Church although three of them that were Orthodox communicated with one another And he might have noted also that at this juncture there was no certain Pope and an Heretical Prince was then Judge of the pretences of Symmachus and Laurentius the Rivals for that See But the true Faith can subsist as well without a Pope as without Orthodox Princes the Church being founded on Christ that invincible Rock against which the Gates of Hell can never prevail The End of the Fifth Centry PART IV. CENT VI. CHAP. I. Errors and Forgeries in the Councils from the Year 500 to the End of the Fifth General Council An. Dom. 553. § 1. WE referred the Councils said to be held under Pope Symmachus to the begining of this Century And the first Six are pretended to be held at Rome
The first was to prevent Mens seeking Bishopricks especially the Papacy while the See was full On which we may note the Cunning of this Pope who probably had got the Papey by this means yet sees fit to condemn a Fault after he had made his advantage by it The Fourth Canon plainly supposes that the Pope will name his Successor unless he die suddenly which is expresly contrary to the ancient Canons which the Notes can neither totally conceal nor fairly excuse But I look upon the Acts to be intirely forged in the later Times as the gross barbarity of the Style shews and 't is not probable that 72 Italian Bishops should come to Rome as so many Cyphers only to applaud what this Pope did ignorantly and Uncanonically decree 'T is certain there was a Synod at Rome called by the Arrian King Theodoric which is perhaps suppressed by the Editors lest it should discover the Regal Power was then above the Papal And this new Stuff seems to be put into the old Garment to fill up the Rent Now Baronius and Binius place this Synod before the Kal. of May An. 499. and fall foul upon Theodorus Lector for saying That Theodoric called this Synod whereas he knew nothing of this Fiction He saith indeed That after the Schism had lasted Three years which must be An. 501. since Pope Anastasius died An. 498. Theodoric who then Ruled all at Rome called a Synod of Bishops and setled Symmachus in the Papal Chair So that according to him no body called this Synod of the Editors nor was Symmachus yet Pope but these are devices to make the Schism seem shorter than it was But Theodorus is of better Credit than the Annalist and Cassiodorus shews that this Schism was not fully ended until Symmachus his death 13 or 14 years after For he saith That in his Consulship An. 514 he had united the Roman Clergy and People and restored the desired Concord to that Church So that 't is certain there was a Schisin at this time and long after The Second Roman Council under Symmachus hath no Voucher but Anastasius who pretends it was called to condemn Potrus Altinensis King Theodoric's Visitor as an Invader of the Roman See But 't is no way probable this yet unsetled Pope durst do so bold a thing considering Theodoric to whose Arbitration they had submitted this and commended him for determining it by a Bishp was then at Rome in great glory loved and admired both by the Synod and People But the sport is Binius and Baronius do not agree whether this were a distinct Synod or only one Action of another Synod called Palmaria however the dispute being about so frivolous a Fiction we shall not interpose 'T is probable upon Theodoric's having declared Symmachus the true Pope his Enemies accused him of heinous Crimes To cover which a Synod is patch'd up so full of Barbarisms False Latin and Non-sense that it seems to have been writ by that Ignorant Hand who forged the ridiculous Council of Sinuessa for Pope Marcellinus and the design of both is the same viz. to make us think that a Pope cannot be judged by a Council neither for Idolatry nor for Adultery Besides the Forger mistakes the Consul's Names and Ruffus Magnus put in as Colleague to Faustus Avienus instead of Pompeius who is by two undoubted Writers of this Age joyned with Avienus as the Notes and Annalist confess who yet have the confidence to say these Acts are genuine But it seems they scarce think so for these Acts say expresly The Council was called by the Precept of Theodoric and own that they could decree nothing without that Princes knowledge Yet these Parasites contradict their so commended Acts and affirm this Synod was called by the Pope who was the Criminal yea though they immediately after print some suspicious Precepts of Theodoric about his calling and directing this whole process If the whole were not fictitious I might note That there is a manifest Corruption in the Acts for where the Roman Churches Grandeur is said to flow First from S. Peter ' s Merit then following our Lord's Command and the Authority of General Councils The Period is not sense and jussione Domini seems put in to make the Flattery still grosser But the Editor's Margin hath a glorious Note on this blunder and Baronius cites it with great Triumph Another Trick the Notes put upon these Acts which in the next Sentence declare that Symmachus and his Bishops desired Letters from the King's Clemency for calling this Synod Which the Annotator turns as if the King desired the Popes Letters and though he was an Arrian durst not call it without such Letters which Note is as false as it is impertinent For we see by Theodorus Lector That Theodoric did call the real Council And Zonaras saith Theodoric calling a Council rejected Laurentius and confirmed the Bishoprick of Rome to Symmachus And they must be able to out-face the Sun who out of a falsly expounded Period would prove that the Kings of that Age called no Councils without the Popes consent Symmachus his 4th Roman Synod of which Baronius makes the two former to be only divers Acts is said to be held when Avienus Junior was Consul but the name of his Colleague is omitted which was Probus This makes it somewhat suspicious but the business of it confirms that Suspicion which was to revoke two Laws made in a Roman Synod after Simplicius his Death wherein according to ancient Custom Basilius Praefect for Odoacer King of Italy was present with some Bishops and the Roman Clergy The first Law was That no Pope should be elected without the consent of the King of Italy then Lord of Rome The other That no Pope Bishop or other Clergy-man should alienate things given to the Church Which Laws they pretend to annul because they were both made by Lay-men and not subscribed by any Pope But first It is certain that Lay Princes made many Laws in Ecclesiastical Affairs by Advice of their Clergy and these were frequently confirmed in Synods Secondly These Laws were made in a Council of the Clergy as appears by that Title Sanctitati vestrae used by Basilius and Eulalius in this Council confesses these Laws were made some Bishops consenting to them Moreover the deceased Pope had directed the making these Laws And the Annotator who here objects They were made in the Vacancy of the See in another place saith The Roman Clergy well knew that when the Pope the visible Head of the Church was taken away it was their part by ancient Custom as the nearest Members to the Head and Administrators of Peter ' s Church to take care of the Vniversal Church Wherefore he cannot fairly deny but the Roman Clergy had power in the Vacancy to confirm a Law relating to the good ordering of their own Church And the bloody
time there was a great Council at Hippo which the Notes sometimes call a General and sometimes a Plenary Council because most of the African Bishops were there and the Original dates it with the Consuls of this year but the Editors clap a New Title to it saying it was under Siricius who in all probability had no hand in it nor knew any thing of it Yet here were made many of those famous Canons for Discipline by which the African Church was governed But they are more wary in the next Council of Constantinople at which many Bishops were present and among them the two Patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch being summoned in the absence of the Emperour by his Prefect Ruffinus and they will not venture to say This was under Siricius for the Matters treated on it wholly related to the Eastern Church and in that Age they rarely allowed the Pope to concern himself in their Affairs No nor in Afric neither where Anno 395 there were Councils held both by the Orthodox and the Donatists which are dated by the Consuls and no notice is taken of the Pope We shall only observe that upon one of these Councils the Notes say It is a mark of the Donatists being of the Synagogue of Antichrist that they named the several Parties among them from the Leaders and Founders of their several Sects and were not content with the Name of Christians from Christ Which Note reflects upon the Monks of their own Church who are called Benedictines Dominicans and Franciscans from the Founders of their several Orders In the Council of Turin composed of the Gallican Bishops they decided the Case of Primacy between the Bishop of Arles and Vienna without advising with the Pope and determined they would not communicate with Foelix a Bishop of Ithacius his Party according to the Letters of Ambrose of Blessed Memory Bishop of Milan and of the Bishop of Rome Now here the Roman Advocates are much disturbed to find S. Ambrose his Name before Siricius and when they repeat this Passage in the Notes they falsly set the Pope's Name first contrary to the express words of the fifth Canon and impudently pretend That the Bishop of Rome by his place was the ordinary Judge who should be communicated with and Ambrose was only made so by the Popes Delegation But how absurd is it if this were so for the Council to place the Name of the Delegate before his who gave him power And every one may see that this Council was directed to mark this Decree principally by S. Ambrose his Advice and secondarily by the Popes for at that time Ambrose his Fame and Interest was greater than that of Siricius yet after all the Council decreed this not by the Authority of either of these Bishops as the Notes pretend but only by their Information and upon their Advice by these Letters which were not first read as they pretend but after four other businesses were dispatched The Canons of divers African Councils held at Carthage and elsewhere have been put together long since and collected into one Code which makes the time and order of the Councils wherein they were made somewhat difficult but since the Canons were always held Authentic we need not with the Editors be much concerned for their exact order or for reducing them to the years of the Pope because they were neither called nor ratified by his Authority Yea the Notes say It was never heard that any but the Bishop of Carthage called a Council there his Letters gave Summons to it he presided over it and first gave his Suffrage in it and that even when Faustinus an Italian Bishop the Popes Legate was present As for the particular Canons of the third Council the Nineteenth saith That the Readers shall either profess Continence or they shall be compelled to Marry but they feign old Copies which say They shall not be allowed to Read if they will not contain the falshood of which appears by the 25th Canon in the Greek and Latin Edition where this is said of the Clergy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Except the Readers which they translate Quamvis Lectoram on purpose to make us think that the command of Celibacy upon which that Age too much doted reached the lowest order of the Clergy even Readers contrary to the express words of the Canons And to the second Council of Carthage where only Bishops Priests and Deacons are under an obligation to live single Secondly The 26th Canon of the third Council forbids the Bishop of the first See to be called by the Title of Prince or Chief of Bishops Gratian goes on neither may the Roman Bishop be called Vniversal The Notes tax Gratian indeed for adding this Sentence but if he did it was out of Pope Gregory who saith That no Patriarch ought to be called Vniversal Besides considering how apt the Editors are to strike out words not Agreeable to the Interest of Rome it is more probable that some of the Popes Friends lately left these words out than that Gratian put them in And since this Council forbid Appeals to foreign Judicatures with peculiar respect to Rome to which some of the Criminal Clergy then began to appeal it is not unlikely these Fathers might resolve to check as well the Title as the Jurisdiction then beginning to be set up which encouraged these Appeals Thirdly The 47th Canon in the Latin and the 24th in the Greek and Latin Edition speaking of such Books as are so far Canonical that they may be read in Churches reckon up some of those Books which we call Apocryphal upon which the Notes triumph but let it be observed that we grant some of these Books to be so far Canonical that they may be read for instruction of Manners and also we may note that the best Editions of these African Canons leave out all the Books of Macchabees and Baruch which are foisted into their later Latin Copies And it is plain the whole Canon is falsly placed in this Council under Siricius because Pope Boniface who came not into the Papacy till above twenty years after is named in it as Bishop of Rome yet after all these devices it doth not declare what Books are strictly Canonical and so will not justifie the Decree at Trent Fourthly In the 48th Canon of the Latin Version the Council agrees to advise about the Donatists with Stricius Bishop of Rome and Simplicianus Bishop of Milan not giving any more deference to one of these Bishops than to the other but looking on them as equally fit to advise them Yet the Notes boldly say They advise with the Pope because they knew he presided as a Bishop and Doctor over the Catholic Church but with the Bishop of Milan only as a Man every where famous for his Learning Which is a meer Fiction of their own for the words of the Canon shew that these
Fathers did not believe either of them had any Authority over them only they desired their advice joyntly as being both Eminent and Neighbouring Bishops and their prohibiting Appeals shews they knew nothing of the Popes presiding over the Catholic Church § 32. Anastasius was the last Pope in this Century of whom there would have been as little notice taken as of Many of his Predecessors if it had not been his good fortune to be known both to S. Hierom and S. Augustine and to assist the latter in suppressing the Donatists and the former in condemning the Errours of Origen for which cause these two Fathers make an honourable mention of him Yet in the African Councils where he is named with respect they joyn Venerius Bishop of Milan with him and call them Their Brethren and Fellow Bishops As for the qualifications of Anastasius S. Hierom gives him great Encomiums but it must be observed that at this time Hierom had charged Ruffinus with broaching the Heresies of Origen at Rome and he being then at Bethlem could not beat down these Opinions without the Popes help And indeed when Ruffinus came first to Rome he was received kindly by the last Pope Siricius and Anastasius did not perceive any Errours in Ruffinus or Origen till S. Hierom upon Pammachius Information had opened his Eyes and at last it was three years before this Pope could be made so sensible of this Heresie as to condemn it So that notwithstanding his Infallibility if S. Hierom and his Friends had not discovered these Errours they might in a little time have been declared for Orthodox Truths at Rome but Anastasius condemning them at last did wonderfully oblige S. Hierom and this was the occasion of many of his Commendations For this Pope are published three Decretal Epistles though Baronius mentions but two and condemns the first for a Forgery and so doth Labbé It is directed to the Bishops of Germany and Burgundy and yet Burgundy did not receive the Christian Faith till the Year 413 it is also dated with the Consuls of the Year 385 that is Fourteen years before Anastasius was Pope The matter of it is grounded on the Pontifical which speaks of a Decree made by this Pope for the Priests at Rome to stand up at the Gospel which the Forger of this Epistle turns into a general Law and makes it be prescribed to the Germans The Words of it are stollen out of the Epistles of Pope Gregory and Leo yet out of this Forgery they cite that Passage for the Supremacy where the German Bishops are advised to send to him as the Head The second Epistle is also spurious being dated fifteen or sixteen years after Anastasius his death and stollen out of Leo's 59th Epistle As for the third Epistle it is certain he did write to John Bishop of Jerusalem but it may be doubted whether this be the Epistle or no if it be genuine it argues the Pope was no good Oratour because it is writ in mean Latin yet that was the only Language he understood for he declares in this Epistle That he know not who Origen was nor what Opinions he held till his Works were translated into Latin So that any Heretic who had writ in Greek in this Pope's time had been safe enough from the Censure of this Infallible Judge The Notes dispute about the fourth Council of Carthage whether it were under Pope Zosimus or Anastasius but it was under neither the true Title of it shewing it was dated by the Consuls Names and Called by Aurelius Bishop of Carthage who made many excellent Canons here without any assistance from the Pope The 51st 52d and 53d Canons of this Council order Monks to get their Living not by Begging but by honest Labour and the Notes shew This was the Primitive use which condemns these vast numbers of Idle Monks and Mendicant Fryers now allowed in the Church of Rome The hundredth Canon absolutely forbids a Woman to presume to Baptize but the Notes r because this practice is permitted in their Church add to this Canon these words unless in case of necessity and except when no Priest is present Which shews how little reverence they have for ancient Canons since they add to them or diminish them as they please to make them agree with their modern Corruptions In the fifth Council of Cartbage Can. 3. Bishops and Priests are forbid to accompany with their Wives 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is at the time of their being to Officiate but in their Latin Copies it is altered thus according to their own or to their former Statutes which makes it a general and total Prohibition But the Greek words of this Canon are cited and expounded at the great Council in Trullo where many African Bishops were present as importing only a Prohibition of accompanying their Wives when their turns came to Minister which is the true sense of this Canon though the Romanists for their Churches Credit would impose another The fourteenth Canon of this Council takes notice of the feigned Relicks of Martyrs and of Altars built in Fields and High-ways upon pretended Dreams and Revolutions upon which Canon there is no note at all because they know if all the feigned Relicks were to be thrown away and all the Altars built upon Dreams and false Revelations pulled down in the present Roman Church as was ordered at Carthage by this Canon there would bè very few left to carry on their gainful Trade which hath thrived wonderfully by these Impostures This Century concludes with a Council at Alexandria which they style under Anastasius but it was called by Theophilus who found out and condemned the Errours of Origen long before poor Anastasius knew any thing of the matter The Notes indeed say This Synod sent their Decrees to Pope Anastasius to Epiphanius Chrysostom and Hierom But though they place the Pope foremost there is no proof that they were sent to him at all Baronius only conjectures they did and saith It is fit we should believe this but it is certain Theophilus sent these Decrees to Epiphanius to Chrysostom and Hierom and from this last hand it is like Anastasius received them long after because it was more that two years after this Synod before S. Hierom could perswade Anastasius to condemn these Opinions of Origen which this Council first censured Wherefore it was happy for the Church that there were wiser Men in it than he who is pretended to be the supreme and sole Judge of Heresie And thus we have finished our Remarks upon the Councils in the first four Centuries in all which the Reader I hope hath seen such designs to advance the Supremacy and cover the Corruptions of Rome that he will scarce credit any thing they say for their own Advantage in any of the succeeding Volumes AN APPENDIX CONCERNING BARONIUS HIS ANNALS §I THE large and elaborate Volumes of Cardinal Baronius are
Contest not yet appeased occasioned by a double election which was lately submitted to be judged by Theodoric makes it very improbable this Law should be repealed now when so fresh an instance convinced them that their Schisms would be endless and intolerable if Princes did not interpose And Symmachus must be an ill man when he got the Chair purely by Theodoric's approbation to kick down the step upon which he was raised and to take away his right to confirm by whom his doubtful Title was confirmed And finally neither this Theodoric nor his Successors did ever take any notice of this Repeal but in every vacancy did interpose So that I take this Synod to be a Fiction to cover over the Power that a Lay Prince here exercised in making a Pope or if there ever were such a Synod it was despised and the Law was in force after this assembly had revoked it And thus all Baronius his Oratory about Symmachus his courage and exalting himself above Kings and Princes vanishes into air and is as false as this Popes excommunicating Anastasius the Emperor in this Synod which is only proved by a corrupt reading of ego for nego as I shewed before For the other Law to forbid alienations they pretend to repeal it meerly because it was made by Lay-men which is false But the Clergy here reestablish it If the Acts were genuine I should guess this was to put it in the Clergies power to dispense with themselves and their Canon whenever they had a mind to be sacrilegious Since while a Royal Law forbad it a Royal Licence must be first obtained which would be hard to procure But the power of Theodoric and Symmachus his circumstances then make it clear he durst not repeal a Law of the Prince So that it seems to be forged Wherefore I will make but two remarks more First upon that Sentence in the Acts Quia non licuit Laico statuendi in Ecclesiâ praeter Papam Romanum habere aliquam Potestatem That no Layman but the Pope shall have any power to decree in the Church Which passage supposes the Pope a Lay-man and is too ridiculous to be spoken by Laurentius Bishop of Milan Secondly on the Notes I remark that it is very strange this Synod should excommunicate Anastasius for communicating with Hereticks supposed since the former Synod complements Theodoric à professed Arrian the worst of Hereticks with the Titles of most pious and most holy If the former were as true as this latter of giving these titles is it would more need to be excused than this But the truth is the Popes were then so low that they were forced to give flatering Titles both to the Emperor and the Gothick Kings whatever Religion they were of After this Council is added an Apology writ to answer a Paper now suppressed against Symmachus by Ennodius wherein as far as appears by the Objections he cites and the Answers he gives the Accusers of this Pope were too hard for his Apologist The Annalist and Binius highly magnifie this Tract yet the former confesseth by the harshness of the style and the horrid unevenness of a false Copy the quickest wit can scarce apprehend it As to the matter of it the Author huffs at a rate which shews more zeal than judgment and we note First that he clearly owns Theodoric called the Synod that absolved Symmachus and therein confutes both his admirers Baronius and Binius Secondly whereas his objectors rightly urge that the Apostle commands us not to keep company with a Brother that is a Fornicator as Symmachus was said to be Ennodius saith it is the Prophet David and not the Apostle which gives this advice Thirdly he ridiculously affirms that S. Peter who was not innocent transmitted Innocence as an inheritance to the Popes and wonders any should fancy or imagine that a Pope should not be holy who hath so high a dignity and is praeordained as he blasphemously speaks to be the Foundation on which the weight of the Church leans as if the very Chair gave grace to a prostigate Wretch Fourthly He falsifies the Scripture in saying Samuel appealed to the Lord that men might not exmaine him Whereas the Text expresly saith he appealed to the People before the Lord and the King and challenged the People to prove any ill thing upon him 1 Sam. xii 3. Fifthly his Maxim That Peter's Successors were only to be judged by God was not believed by the Councils of Constance and Basil nor by Theodoric nor any who had a hand in censuring or deposing any Bishops of Rome Lastly if this Book which is so Barbarous in its style so abounding in railing and mistakes and so void of true reason were approved and applauded in the Fifth Council We may guess at the Qualifications of those Bishops who sat in it As for the Editors and Baronius it is enough that it pleads for a Pope for they must extol it The Fifth Roman Synod hath all the marks of Forgery imaginable for the Consuls are not named and the Indiction is also false as Baronius confesseth And he with Binius own that the Subscriptions are so monstrously falsified that many Bishops are named here who were at the Council of Chalcedon 52 years before and belonged to the Eastern Church who also had been long ago dead and buried And it is highly improbable that 216 Bishops should meet only to approve such stuff and to order this Book to be inserted among the Apostolical Decrees to be obeyed by all as they were This phrase also smels of a late Forgery for in the time of this pretended Synod the name of Apostolical Decrees was not appropriated to Papal decisions nor were their Decretals universally Obeyed For we see that in Rome it self a great party both despised and writ against Pope Symmachus his Synodical absolution Again here is that foolish Sentence That the sheep must not judge their Pastor unless he err in Faith nor yet accuse him but for injustice which is undoubtedly stolen out of a Decretal Epistle forged by Mercator long after this time and it is wrong applied too if Symmachus were so unjust as to rob his neighbors of their Chastity Wherefore the very Book of Ennodius is suspicious and this Synod is most certainly Forged to save the credit of an ill Pope The Sixth Roman Council hath no date but the Subscriptions are certainly forged having like the former the names of many Eastern Bishops who could not be in this Synod The Acts are a Rhapsody out of some later Councils against Sacriledge as appears by divers barbarous phrases and some expressions that are the dialect of more modern Ages such as that of mens giving to the Church for the remission of their Sins aeternae vitae mercatione and for purchasing eternalllife The declaring also that the Sacrilegious are manifest Hereticks is too absurd for this Age.
They further say That the Canons of Gangra were confirmed by Apostolical Autherity The Forger meant by Papal Authority But those Bishops at Gangra scarce knew who was then Pope And it is plain the Compiler of this Council had respect to a Forgery of later Ages where Osius of Corduba's name the pretended Legate of the Pope is added to the Synodical Letter from this Synod and therefore these Acts were devised long after this Council is pretended to have sitten And he must be a meer stranger to the History of this Time who reads here that Symmachus and his Council should say It is not lawful for the Emperor nor any other professing Piety c. For this supposes Anastasius no Heretick and that Popes then prescribed Laws to the Emperor of the East I conclude with a single remark upon the Notes on this forged Council which pretend Theodoric obeyed this Councils Decree in ordering the patrimony of the Church of Milan to be restored to Eustorgius who was not in this Council nor Bishop of Milan till eight years after And no doubt that Order was made by Theodoric in pure regard to Equity for it is no way likely that he had ever heard of this Council I conclude these Roman Councils with one remark relating to Mons du-Pin who hath taken things too much upon trust to be always trusted himself and therefore he publishes five of these six Councils for genuine and gives almost the Baronian Character of Symmachus But these Notes I hope will demonstrate he is mistaken both in his Man and these Synods and I only desire the Reader to compare his Account with these short Remarks § 2. There were few Councils abroad in this Popes time and he was not concerned in them The Council of Agatha now Agde in the Province of Narbon was called by the consent of Alaricus an Arrian King Caesarius Bishop of Arles was President of it and divers good Canons were made in it but Symmachus is not named so that our Editors only say it was held in the time of Symmachus I shall make no particular remark but on the Ninth Canon where Caesarius who was much devoted to promote that Celibacy of the Clergy which now was practised at Rome and the Council declare that the orders of Innocent and Siricius should be observed From whence we may Note that these Orders had not yet been generally obeyed in France and that a Popes Decretal was of no force there by vertue of the Authority of his See but became obligatory by the Gallican Churches acceptance and by turning it into a Canon in some Council of their own But that the usages of Rome did not prescribe to France is plain from the Notes on the xii Canon where it appears their Lent Fast was a total abstinence till evening none but the infirm being permitted to dine But the Roman Lent unless they have altered their old rule allows men to dine in Lent with variety of some sorts of meat and drink which is not so strict by much as this Gallican custom The first Council of Orleance is only said to be in Symmachus time but the Acts shew he was not consulted nor concerned in it The Bishops were summoned by the Precept of King Clovis who also gave them the heads of those things they were to treat of And when their Canons were drawn up they sent them not to Rome but to their King for Confirmation with this memorable address if those things which we have agreed on seem right to your judgment we desire your assent that so the Sentence of so many Bishops by the approbation of so great a Prince may be obeyed as being of greater Authority And Clovis was not wanting in respect to them for he stiles them Holy Lords and Popes most worthy of their Apostolical Seat By which it is manifest that Rome had then no Monopoly of these Titles I conclude that which relates to Pope Symmachus his time with one Remark that in the year 500 the Devout and learned African Fulgentius came on purpose to visit Rome But the writer of his life who acurately describes what the holy Man saw there and largely sets forth his View of Theodoric his visiting the Tombs of the Martyrs and saluting the Monks he met with speaks not one Syllable of the Pope whose Benediction one would think Fulgentius should have desired But whether the Schism yet continued or Symmachus his manner did not please the good Man ' its plain he took no notice of him § 3. Hormisda succeeded Symmachus and it seems by the Letter of Dorotheus that in his Election and not before the Schism at Rome ceased which began when Symmachus was chosen which shews that Symmachus having a strong party against him all his time could do nothing considerable This Pope Hormisda was either married before he was Pope or was very criminal for he had a Son i. e. Sylverius who as Liberatus testifies was Pope about twenty years after him This was a bold and active Pope and did labour much to reconcile the Eastern to the Western Church and at last in some measure effected it after the Greeks had been separated as Binius notes from the unity of the Church not Catholick but of Rome he means about 80 years From whence we may observe that a Church may be many years out of the Communion of the Roman Church and yet be a true Church for none till Baronius ever said the Eastern was not a true Church all the time of this Separation The Notes further tell us that King Clovis of France sent Hormisda a Golden Crown set with precious stones for a Present and thereby procured this reward from God that the Kingdom of the Franks still continues Which stuff is out of Baronius But the Story is as false as the inference for Sirmondus proves that King Clovis died Anno 511 that is three years before Hormisda was Pope Labbè who owns this to be an Error would correct the mistake and put in Childebert's name but he who told the Story could certainly have told the Kings right name wherefore we reject the whole Relation as fabulous And for the inference the Kingdom of Franks indeed like all other Kingdoms who sent no Crowns hath continued but not in Clovis his Posterity which is long since extinct We shall make more remarks on this Popes History in his Letters And many Epistles are lately found of this Popes in the Vatican or Forged there which we will now consider The First Epistle is certainly Forged it is directed to Remigius but names King Lovis or Clovis who was dead three year before as Labbè owns for which cause Sirmondus omitted it as Spurious and so P. de Marca counts it And it is almost the same with another feigned Epistle wherein the Pope is pretended to make a Spanish Bishop his Legate there