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 Oâtatus 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 Marcellânus 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
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 Niâene 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
particularly to Liberius Bishop of Rome hoping Valentinian the other Emperour had been in that City but he being absent these Legates perswaded Liberius they were Orthodox upon which he writ back Letters in his own Name and in the Name of the other Western Bishops to own them for good Catholics Whence we may note First That the Eastern Bishop's Letter styles the Pope no more but Collegue and Brother Secondly That Liberius calls himself only Bishop of Italy Liberius Ep. Italiae alii Occident is Episcopi But Baronius alters the Pointing Liberius Episcopus Italiae alii c. by that Trick hoping to conceal this mean Title Thirdly The Pope here saith He was the least of all Bishops and was glad their Opinion agreed with his and the rest of the Western Bishops Fourthly Yet after all these very Eastern Bishops were of the Macedonian party as the Title of their Letter in Socrates shews Baronius indeed leaves these words out of the Title but he confesses they were Semi-Arians So that the Popes Infallibility as being imposed on by Heretics in Mattets of Faith loses more by this Embassy than his Supremacy gains by it because the Legates were not sent to him alone but to all the Western Bishops Fifthly The Notes on this Council feign that besides these Communicatory Letters Liberius writ other Letters Commanding that ejected Bishops should be restored by the Apostolic Authority But this is one of Baronius his Forgeries For S. Basil and also Sozomen cited by the Notes on the Council of Tyana mention not the Legates shewing any other Letters at their return into the East but only the Communicatory Letters and since it appeared by them that the Western Bishops judged them Orthodox their Eastern Brethren did restore them And so also these Legates got the approbation of a Council in Sicily as they were returning home for the Sicilian Bishops by mistake took them for Orthodox when they saw the rest of the Western Bishops owned their Communion with them and so approved their Confession of Faith and therefore it is very impertinent in the Notes to say on this occasion That the Authority of the Pope was so great that if he admitted even suspected Heretics to his Communion none presumed to reject them Whereas we know that afterwards the People of Rome rejected even the Pope himself for communicating with Semi-Arians The next thing which occurs is a Synod in Illyricum Convened at the request of Eusebius Bishop of Sebastia one of the Eastern Legates who while his Fellows stayed at Rome went into that Country and prevailed with the Bishops assembled there to send Elpidius a Brother and Collegue of their own with a Synodical Letter to the Eastern Bishops declaring they would communicate with them if their Faith was the same with that of Nice Now though this Synod do not mention the Pope yet Baronius and the Notes feign That Elpidius was the Pope's Legate whereas the Synod the Emperours Letter and Theodoret from whom this Story is taken mention Elpidius only as a Messenger sent from this Council When these Eastern Legates returned home there was a Council called at Tyana in Cappadocia wherein they shewed the Communicatory Letters which they had fraudulently obtained in the West upon which Letters those who had been ejected as Heretics and particularly Eustathius of Sebastia were restored to their Sees but neither Sozomen nor S. Basil say this was done by any special Letters of Liberius or by any Command of his yet if it had been so this would spoil this Popes Infallibility it being certain these restored Bishops were Heretics who Liberius poor Man thought to be good Catholics and he hath the more to answer for if this were done not by his Consent alone but by his Command also After this we have the Life of Pope Foelix about whom they differ so much that nothing is plain in his Story but this that little of him is certainly known The Pontifical in Liberius Life saith He died in peace but here it saith He was Martyred by Constantius for declaring him an Heretic and one who was rebaptized by Eusebius of Nicomedia Yet Constantius was not Baptized at all till after Foelix his pretended Martyrdom and he was Baptized then not by Eusebius but by one Euzoius Again The Pontifical allows him but to sit One year and three months and the Notes say This is right computing from Liberius Fall to his Return which as Sozomen affirms was but little before Foelix his Death Whereas these very Notes tell us a little before that Liberius was above two years in Exile therefore if he lived but a small time after Liberius's return he must sit above two years But Marcellinus who writ in that Age tells us Foelix lived eight years after Liberius was restored Which Baronius and the Notes would conceal to hide the Scandal that their Church must get by a long Schism and by an Heretical Pope of whom they will needs make a Martyr only upon the Credit of the Pontifical and a modern fallacious Inscription pretended to be found at Rome many Ages after belonging to some Foelix but which of them they know not The Epistles ascribed to this Pope contain so many and so gross Untruths that Labbé notes They are discarded by Baronius and other Learned Men as Isidores Wares adding That the third Epistle was stollen from Pope Martin the First in his Lateran Council And though Binius very often cite the two first Epistles yet in his Notes on them he owns they are of no credit For they Forge many Canons as made at Nice and tell that idle story of the true Copies of the Nicene Canons being burnt by the Arians But it is certain the Forger of these Epistles was a Creature of the Popes because the Inscriptions of them are stuffed with false and flattering Titles and the Body of them nauseously and ridiculously press the Supremacy and the Universal Empire of the Roman Church § 26. The entrance of Damasus into the Papacy was not without Blood for the People were divided and some standing for Damasus others for Ursicinus Damasus his Party being stronger slew many of their Adversaries in a Church as all the Writers of that Age testifie and though Ammianus be a Pagan Historian yet it is very probable which he writes that it was not Zeal but the ambition of living high and great that made Men contend so fiercely for the Papacy for S. Basil himself about this time taxes the Roman Church with Pride and S. Hierom the great Friend of that Church often reflects upon the pomp and luxury of the Clergy there So that the Notes on Damasus his Life do but glory in their Churches shame when from these Authors they boast of the Magnificence and Majesty of the Papacy The Fabulous Pontifical was for many Ages pretended to be writ by this Damasus and he
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
knew nothing of this Synod till long after it was risen so we may conclude this Invention of theirs is only to support their pretended Supremacy § 28. From a Passage in S. Hierom and the Inscription of the Letter writ from the Council at Constantinople the Editors gather That Paulinus Bishop of Antioch Epiphanius Bishop of Constantia in Cyprus and Ambrose with other of the Western Bishops met at Rome in Council this year which they call the Fourth Roman Council under Damasus who probably did preside in this Synod as all Bishops use to do in their own Cities but he did not call this Council for S. Hierom expresly saith The Emperours Letters called these Bishops to Rome And the Synodical Letter of the Constantinopolitan Fathers tell us That Damasus desired Theodosius to write to them also of the East to come to Rome Which shews that Damasus could not summon them by his own Authority but the Editors and Baronius out of a false Latin Version of Theodoret have put in the word Mandato which word is not in the Greek nor any thing answering to it and it was foisted in on purpose to perswade such as did not read the Original that the Pope had commanded the Eastern Bishops to come to Rome Again though the Notes confess the Acts of this Roman Council are lost so that it doth not appear what was done there Yet soon after they produce a long Canon for the Popes Supremacy and the Precedence of the Patriarchs feigning it was made in this Synod But if the Canon be not a Vatican Forgery which is very much to be suspected however it is Antedated one hundred and twelve years as Labbé confesses in his Margen for he saith it was decreed under Pope Gelasius An. 494. But the Policy of laying this Canon here is to make a shew as if Damasus had then publickly declared against the Council of Constantinoples giving that Bishop the second place but their forging this Proof only shews they have no genuine Authority for it yet if they could prove that the Pope disliked this Precedence since it is certain that Constantinople did take the second place according to this Canon that would only shew that the Popes Authority was not regarded Which also appears in the Case of Flavianus who as the Notes conjecture was in this Roman Synod deposed and Paulinus made Bishop of Antioch Yet still the greatest part of the World owned Flavianus for the true Bishop of that See and the Synod of Sides where Amphilocius Bishop of Iconium was President directed their Synodical Epistle to Plavianus as Patriarch of Antioch so that the Editors should not have styled that Council Under Damasus because they acted against his Mind And so did the Eastern Bishops who met again this year at Constantinople when the Pope had desired them to come to Rome and from this Meeting they writ that Synodical Epistle which the Editors here print over again and wherein they call Jerusalem The Mother of all Churches a Title now by Usurpation appropriated only to Rome § 29. Siricius succeeded Damasus but not without trouble for Ursicinus the Competitor of Damasus being yet alive and at Rome was declared Pope by a great party and Prosper's Chronicle makes him the next Pope after Damasus nor could Siricius get the Chair but by a Rescript from the Emperour Valentinian which condemned Ursicinus and established Siricius There is little or no notice of him before his Election and though he sat fifteen years as the Pontifical and Platina or thirteen as the Notes say there is very little worthy remarking done by him And it is very probable he was one of those ignorant Clergy-men with which the Roman Church was so well stored at that time that S. Hierom saith Not one of them did so much as pretend to Scholarship but this illiterate Faction who had proclaimed War against all Learning conspired also against him For we have reason to judge this Pope to be of their Party because S. Hierom left Rome in disgust as soon as Siricius came to be Pope and Paulinus who came in his time to Rome saith The City Pope proudly despised him yea Baronius owns That Ruffinus when he was fallen into Origen's Heresie imposed on the Simplicity of this Pope and got Communicatory Letters of him which also seems to spoil his Infallibility for which Ignorance is no proper qualification Yet wanting real Matter in this Pope's Life the Notes run out into the story of the death of Monica S. Augustine's Mother saying That when she died she was only solicitous to have the Mass offered up for her and this they prove out of Augustine's Confessions but the Fathers words are She only desired to be commemorated in the Offices when the Priest stood at the Altar Now there is a mighty difference between that ancient Custom of commemorating the Faithful departed which is allowed by the Church of England and the Popish way of offering Mass for the Souls of the Deceased a corruption of much later date than S. Augustine's time For this Pope are published divers Decretal Epistles which are the first that can pretend to be genuine and if they be really so it is plain that their Style is mean the Arguments trifling and the Scripture Proofs impertinent so that the Author was no Conjurer The first directed to Himerius is very severe against Marriage especially in the Clergy The Notes would perswade us It is not lawful Marriage which he calls Pollution as they say Calvin falsly affirms but if we read the Epistle he calls New Marriages that is the Marriage of such as had been Widows Pollution as well as those Marriages which were prohibited Again he foolishly attempts to prove Clergy-men ought not to Marry because S. Paul saith Those that are in the flesh cannot please God and though he confess it was usual for many Clergy-men to live with their Wives he calls that cohabitation the being polluted with carnal Concupiscence in his 4th Epistle So that he is justly taxed with speaking profanely of God's holy Ordinance and of contradicting S. Paul who excepted not the Clergy when he said Marriage is honourable in all men and the Bed undefiled Hebr. XIII 4. And probably it was the hot and bold discourses of Siricius and some other Writers of this time which provoked Jovinian not only to stand up for Marriage but to decry Single Life the merit of which had so possessed the minds of some great Men that they resolved to condemn Jovinian for an Heretic As for the second Epistle of Siricius to the Council at Milan relating to this Resolve it may be questioned whether it be genuine but that the style is harsh and barbarous is unquestionable The Answer to this Letter from Milan is evidently patched up out of divers Authors who writ upon this Subject However S. Ambrose and his Suffragans there call the Pope
it is very certain that divers of these pretended Decrees were not observed no not in France where these two Bishops lived for divers Ages after they are pretended to be sent thither Before I leave this Epistle I must observe that the last Section about the Canon of Scripture wherein all the Apocryphal Books are reckoned up as part of the Canon is a gross Forgery added to it 300 years after Innocent's death for Cresconius never saw this part of the Epistle nor doth he mention it under this Head though he cite the other parts of it so that if the whole Epistle be not forged yet this part of it is certainly spurious and added to it by a later hand as is at large demonstrated by Bishop Cosens in his History of the Canon of Scripture to which I refer the Reader noting only that the Council of Trent grounded their Decree about the Canon of Scripture not upon genuine Antiquity but palpable Forgeries and Corruptions In the following Epistles unto the twelfth there is nothing remarkable but some brags of the dignity of Rome and many pretences to a strict observance of the Ancient Canons which were no where oftner broken than in that Church Some think they are all forged because they want the Consuls names And the twelfth Epistle may pass in the same rank since it is dated with false Consuls viz. Julius the fourths time and Palladius but because it seems to shew that the Pope took care even of Foreign Churches Baronius resolves to amend it of his own head and puts in Theodosius and Palladius though still the number is false for Theodosius was the seventh time Consul with Palladius not the fourth and had not this Epistle made for the Popes Supremacy the Annalist would not have taken pains to mend it The thirteenth Epistle which passes in Binius for a famous testimony of Innocent's zeal in discovering the Pelagians and meriting Notes is the same with the beginning of the second Epistle of Foelix the fourth and Labbè saith it is a forgery of the counterfeit Isidore The fourteenth Epistle calls Antioch a Sister Church and from Peters being first there seems to confess it was the elder Sister and both that and the sixteenth Epistle speak of one Memoratus which Baronius will not allow to be the proper name of a Bishop because indeed there was no such Bishop in that time so that he expounds it of the Bishop remembred that is of Paulinus but the ill luck is that Paulinus is neither named before nor remembred in either of these two Epistles The Notes on the sixteenth Epistle mention it as a special usage of the Bishop of Rome not to restore any to his Communion unless they were corrected and amended but this was ever the rule of all good Bishops and of late is less observed at Rome than in any other Church The eighteenth Epistle maintains a very odd Opinion viz. That the Ordinations celebrated by Heretical Bishops are not so valid as the Baptism conferred by them and the Notes own that the Persons so Ordained may truly receive as they call it the Sacrament of Orders and yet neither receive the Spirit nor Grace no nor a power to exercise those Orders which seems to me a Riddle For I cannot apprehend how a Man can be said truly to receive an Office and yet neither receive Qualifications for it not any Right to exercise it The twenty second Epistle cites that place of Leviticus That a Priest shall marry a Virgin and affirms it as a Precept founded on Divine Authority and he censures the Macedonian Bishops as guilty of a breach of God's Law because they did not observe this Precept which every one knows to be a piece of the abrogated Ceremonial Law and the Annotator cannot with all his shufling bring the Pope off from the Heresie of pressing the Levitical Law as obligatory to Christians But there is one honest passage in this Epistle which contradicts what this Pope had often said before of the sinfulness of Priests Marriages for here he saith The Bond of Matrimony which is by Gods Commandment cannot be called sin However out of this Epistle which is a very weak one and dated only with one of the Consuls names the Editors feign a Council in Macedonia and a Message sent to the Pope for confirmation of their Acts which doth not appear at all in the Body of the Epistle And Baronius desires the Reader to note How great Majesty and Authority shined in the Apostolick See so that it was deemed an injury to require the Popes to repeat their former Orders Whereas if this Epistle be not forged it is no more but a nauseous repetition of the same Orders which he and his Predecessors had given over and over and the frequent harping upon the same string in all the Decretal Epistles especially as to the Marriage of the Clergy shews how little Majesty or Authority shined in the Popes since all the Countries to which they sent their Orders so generally despised them that every Pope for divers Ages was still urging this matter without that effect which they desired The twenty third Epistle was writ to some Synod or other they know not whether at Toledo or Tholouse as we noted before And the Jesuit Sirmondus in Labbe by elaborate conjectures and large additions probably of his own inventing had put it out more full and adorned it with Notes which pains the impartial Reader will think it doth not deserve The twenty fourth Epistle is dear to the Editors and Baronius because the Pope therein is his own witness that all Matters ought to be referred to his Apostolical See and that the Africans application to him was a due Veneration since all Episcopal Authority was derived from him 'T is true St. Augustine doth mention a Message sent to Innocent out of Africa but he adds that he writ back according to what was just and becoming a Bishop of an Apostolical See But as to this Epistle besides the hectoring language in the Preface there is neither Style nor Arguments but what are despicable and Erasmus did long since justly say In this Epistle there is neither Language nor Sense becoming so great a Prelate so that probably the whole may be a Fiction of some Roman Sycophant which is the more likely because Labbè owns that one of the Consuls names is wrong that is Junius is put for Palladius Erasmus adds that the twenty fifth Epistle is of the same grain with the former the Style is no better and the Matter of the same kind for he brags that whenever Matters of Faith are examined application must be made to the Apostollcal Fountain And yet this Pope as the Notes confess held the Eucharist ought to be given to Infants yea that it was necessary for them that is I suppose for their Salvation Now the
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
be determined in that Province where it arose knowing that the Spirit of God would not be wanting to any Country where a Council of Bishops should meet so that none need fear to be injured since they might appeal to a greater Council of their own Province or to a Universal Synod Whereas if Judgment were to be given beyond the Seas many Witnesses must be wanting and many other things must hinder the finding out of truth They add That they could not find any Council which allowed his Holiness to send any Legates to hear Causes and for those Canons which Faustinus had produced as made at Nice they could find no such Canons in the Authentick Copies of that Council Finally They bid him not send any of his Clerks to execute his Sentence to which if they should submit they should seem to bring the vanity of Secular Arrogance into God's Church This is the Sum of this excellent Letter which disowns and condemns all Appeals and renounces the Popes jurisdiction over Africa with a modest intimation that his claim was grounded upon a notorious Forgery and therefore he is required to pretend to it no longer for that they will not submit to such an Usurpation Yet such is the Impudence of the Roman Editors that in a Marginal Note upon this Epistle they say these African Bishops desire the Pope to appoint another way of prosecuting Appeals Which is a gross contradicting the Text it self wherein all manner of Appeals and all ways of prosecuting them are utterly condemned but this was too harsh and therefore the Truth was to be daubed over with this plausible Fiction After this Binius presents us with another Edition of these African Canons and Epistles in Latin and Greek And Labbè newly publishes the Epistle of one Leporius who had been converted from Heresie and reconciled to the Church by the African Bishops by which we may learn that a Heretick need not go to Rome to recant as the Notes formerly affirmed There is nothing further observable before the Council of Ephesus except two Councils one at Rome wherein the Pope is said to make Cyril his Legate in the Cause of Nestorius the other at Alexandria in which Cyril is pretended to Act by this delegated power But this will be more properly considered in the History of that General Council where these Epistles are printed at large CHAP. II. Of the time from the Council of Ephesus till the Council of Chalcedon § 1. IN this Year was held the Third General Council at Ephesus upon the account of Nestorius who about three years before had been made Bishop of Constantinople and was at first believed to be both Pious and Orthodox but he had not sat long in that See before he began to publish certain Doctrines about our Saviour which gave great offence for he taught that Jesus Christ was two Persons one as the Son of God another as the Son of Man and therefore he denied the Blessed Virgin to be the Mother of God holding that the Person which was born of her was no more than a Meer Man Which Opinions not only made a Faction at Constantinople but caused Divisions among the Egyptian Monks whereupon St. Cyril first writ a Confutation of them to those Monks and then with great modesty admonished Nestorius of these Errors by divers Letters but he despised his Admonition justified the Doctrines and persecuted those who would not own them being supported by his Interest in the Imperial Court. Upon this Cyril called in Pope Celestine to his assistance sending him an account of what he had writ to Nestorius On the other side Nestorius also writ to Celestrine and sent his Sermons in which these Doctrines were contained for him to peruse The Pope by the advice of such Western Bishops as he could then get together takes the part of Cyril and offered him to join with him in condemning Nestorius if he did not recant But the Authority of these two Patriarchs of Rome and Alexandria not sufficing to condemn a Patriarch of Constantinople it was thought fit to desire the Emperor to call a General Council at Ephesus where Nestorius might appear and his Opinions be examined and the Emperor at length did agree to this Request Now that which we are to observe concerning this General Council shall be under these Heads First To enquire by whom it was called and convened Secondly Who presided in it Thirdly What is memorable in the Acts of it Fourthly Who confirmed the Decrees there made As to the first the Historical Preface before this Council labours to persuade us That Celestine commanded the Council to be called and the Notes after it say it was appointed by the Authority of Gelestine and gathered together by the counsel aid and assistance of Theodosius the Emperor The Cardinal goes further and saith Theodosius called it by the Authority of Celestine but when this is to be proved both the Notes and Baronius are content to make out that this Council was not called without the Popes consent which may be proved concerning every Orthodox Bishop that was there and so gives no peculiar advantage to the Bishop of Rome But as to the Convening it by his Authority nothing can be more false For by the Emperors first Letter to Cyril it appears that some then thought to order Matters of Religion by Power rather than by consulting in common in which words he reflects upon Pope Celestine and Cyril who thought by the Authority of their Private Synods at Rome and Alexandria to have condemned Nestorius who was a Patriarch as well as they and therefore the Emperor rightly considered that he could not be tried but by a General Council So that it seems Celestine at first had no mind such a Council should be called nor Cyril neither but when they saw their Authority was insufficient then Cyril put the Monks of Constantinople upon petitioning the Emperor to command a General Council to meet very speedily as their words are and the same Cyril put Juvenalis Bishop of Jerusalem upon writing to the Emperor for the same purpose Now why should not these Applications have been made to the Pope if the Council were to be called by his Authority Besides if Celestine had called it his Letter of Summons would appear but though none ever saw that the Emperors Edict is yet extant wherein he fixes the day and place for the Council to meet enjoyns Cyril with the Bishops of his Province to be there at that time and tells him he had writ to all other Metropolitans probably to Celestine among the rest to attend the Synod and not to meddle with this Matter till the meeting of this General Assembly from which whoever absented himself should not be excused Which is as full a proof that the Emperor called it by his Authority as is possible to be made and we need add nothing to it but this that
the Synod it self every where declares it was called ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã by the Emperors Decree ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã by his Will and Summoned by his Letter yea the Pope himself saith I have obeyed your Pleasure as far as I was able and I do appear in the Council which you have commanded by those I have sent in my stead And when these Legates came to Ephesus they say we are come to the Synod which hath been appointed by the most Christian and Gracious Emperors So that it is a strange impudence of Baronius and Binius in despite of so clear evidence to pretend this Council was convened only by the Advice and Ministry of Theodosius but by the Authority of Pope Celestine Secondly The like prevarication they use about the President of this General Council for Bellarmine had made it a Maxim That in General Councils it was the Popes priviledge to preside by himself or his Legates and to moderate all as Supream Judge Wherefore the Preface to the Council saith Cyril was to preside by the command of Celestine and the Authority of the Apostolick See and the Notes say The Pope presided there by Cyril who had the Office of his Legate And a little after they produce all the Historians who writ after Evagrius An. Dom. 595. and because he saith Celestine had given Cyril his place they conclude thence that he was President of the Council by virtue of that Grant But indeed the first place belonged to Cyril as Patriarch of Alexandria in his own Right because the Bishop of Rome was absent and he of Constantinople was the Criminal to be tried yet Celestine had cunningly given him that which was his due without any gift for in his Letter to him long before the Council was called when the Synod at Rome had condemned Nestorius Celestine saith he might take to him both the Authority of his Throne and the Order of his Place which signifies no more than that Cyril might vote in Celestine's Name and add the Credit of the First Patriarch to his own Authority to make the Sentence against Nestorius the more Venerable And the beginning of the Acts distinguish Cyril's precedency from his holding Celestine's place if they be rightly pointed Cyril Bishop of Alexandria presiding and having the place of Celestine c. And so Zonaras understood it who saith Cyril of Alexandria presided and also had the place of Celestine thus also Balsamon So that it seems Cyril was President of the Council either by choice of the Fathers or in his own Right as the Chief Patriach present and he also voted in the place of Celestine who was absent and probably by virtue of that Representation also sate above all the other Patriarchs However this is certain that the Bishop of Ephesus Memnon who had no delegation from the Pope is also reckoned President of the Synod and he together with St. Cyril are often called ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã even thrice in one Epistle And again ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã yea these two are called the Head of the Council And all this without any mention of their having these Titles or this Power from the Pope Moreover we may observe that Cyril alone is sometimes called the President of this Council and the Party of John Bishop of Antioch charges him with usurping this place which was not given him by the Canons or the Emperor's Edict they valued not it seems the Popes Grant so that this Title is variously applied and no Argument can be formed from it for the Popes Supremacy who also sent three other Legates to this Synod to represent his Person and supply his Place as Celestine's own Letter declares Yea the Council it self declares that these three Legates Arcadius Projectus and Philip did supply Celestin's place Now it is not easie to understand how Cyril should be the Popes Legate and supply his Place and yet at the same time three other Legates need to be sent also to supply the same place unless we expound this Grant of the Popes to Cyril to signifie no more than a declaration that he would agree to all that Cyril voted for which is far from making him a formal Legate or for giving him that Authority which he had in this Council We conclude therefore that Cyril as the first Patriarch present and the most learned of all that opposed Nestorius and Memnon as Bishop of Ephesus where the Council was held were chosen Moderators by the Synod Nor is it likely that the Popes making these his Legates if that were true which Baronius only supposes but doth not prove would have given them any Power over the Council since Arcadius Projectus and Philip who really were the Popes Legates did not preside nor are they reckoned up in the first place no not in the Subscriptions which yet are not certainly genuine And when the Council sent two of these Legates among others on an Embassie to Constantinople they lay their Commands on them and threaten if they do not observe their Orders they would neither confirm their Acts nor yet receive them into Communion Which shews the Council was superior even to the Popes Legates and that their representing the Popes person did not intitle them to any Power over the Council which is that the Roman Parasites would make out Richerius exposes Baronius for saying Philip had a place before the Bishops because he was a Cardinal The first Seat and Vote therefore belonged to Cyril but Christ as these Fathers say properly was the Head of this General Council and was represented by the Holy Gospels placed above all on a Throne out of which all decisions were made not by any Humane Authority either of Cyril or Celestine himself Thirdly We shall next examine into the proceedings of this Council and see where the Editors have prevaricated therein for the interest of Rome as also what else therein is pertinent to our purpose Now these are First those things which hapned before and Secondly in the Council First Before the Council in Cyril's Letter to Nestorius he tells him that Celestine and the Bishops assembled at Rome had advised him to enquire whether those Papers were writ by Nestorius or no This they all falsly translate Celestino jubenté c. as if the Pope had a Power to command Cyril whereas the Original Word imports no more than an intimation given him to make this enquiry and that not by the Pope alone but by the whole Roman Synod Again since this Controversie began between two Patriarchs Cyril was so modest that he would not by his own single Authority Anathematize Nestorius till he had acquainted the Bishops both of the East and West with it yet he declares he had power to have done this if he pleased Now his forbearing to do this out of Prudence and Humility is by
true Oecumenical Council of Chalcedon Yea Theodosius while the matter lay before the Pope not staying for his Sentence calleth a second Council at Constantinople wherein a pacted party of Hereticks Friends revoked the Judgment passed on him by Flavianus And yet fearing this was not sufficient Eutiches moved by Dioscorus Patriarch of Alexandria to have a general Council called at Ephesus which might have sufficient Authority not only to restore Eutyches but to Condemn Flavianus though Leo should take his part § 7. This was the true occasion of calling this Second Council of Ephesus which as to the manner of calling the Persons present c. was a General Council But from the violent and unjust proceedings thereof is commonly stiled The Pseudo-Synod or the Thievish Council of Ephesus The Acts of this Council are recited at large in the Council of Chalcedon wherefore the Editors refer us thither only entertaining us here with Binius his Notes on which we will make some remarks First The Notes say the Emperor called this General Council usurping the Popes Authority against right and the custom of the Church Now here he first owns that the Emperor called it As to the pretended usurpation and breach of Custom it is certain the Pope never yet had called one General Council as we have particularly shewn in three General Councils before and they own it here so that undoubtedly the Emperor only followed the Custom of the Church and used that Right which his Ancestors had Besides let Binius or Baronius produce one syllable in all Leo's Epistles where that Pope so jealous of his Rights did once complain of any injury done him by the Emperor in calling this Synod His Legate owns in this very Council that the Pope had received such a Letter of Summons as the rest of the Patriarchs did receive and he obeyed this Summons and sent his Legates thither excusing his own absence without any reflection upon the Emperors having no Right to Summon him Yea had he known it was his Right to call a General Council why did he write so many Letters to Theodosuis and to Pulcherius humbly beseeching the Emperor to call a General Council in Italy Nothing can be clearer than that this pretence of Usurpation is a most notorious Falshood Secondly The Notes blame the Emperor for making Dioscorus President of this Council and Baronius calls this arrogating and usurping a Right never attempted before and he thinks God justly deprived Theodosius of his Life the year after for his wronging the Pope herein But we have shewed Osius was the Emperors Legate and by him made President of the Council at Nice and Cyril was by the Emperor made President in that of Ephesus As for this Council the Pope was not like to be there in Person Flavianus who should have had the second place was a Party whose Sentence was to be enquired into Domnus of Antioch was not altogether unsuspected but Eutyches friends had commended Dioscorus of Alexandria and Juvenalis of Hierusalem to the Emperor as impartial and fit to Judge and their Characters made them as the Case was supposed to stand to have right to that 'T is true the Popes Legates did murmur at this as Liberatus saith and the Legates at Chalcedon called this a usurpation in Dioscorus but neither this Council nor that did insist upon that matter Thirdly The Notes pretend Theodosius therefore summoned Leo to this Council because he knew the Council would be null without the Popes Authority But the Letter of Summons declares he called it by his own Authority and he writ no other Summons to Leo than he did to the Bishops of Alexandria and Jerusalem so that it may as well be said Theodosius knew their Authority was as necessary as the Popes but the truth is the consent of the great Patriarchs was so far necessary that they were to be duly summoned and if possible to be present but they had no Authority single as to the calling or disannulling of any Council Wherefore Fourthly Though it be rejected yet not because the Pope did not call it or preside in it as his Notes pretend but because of the unjust and violent proceedings used in it against which not only the Popes Legates but divers other Bishops did protest and oppose them even to the suffering of Banishment and Deprivation And here I must note a manifest contradiction in Baronius who in one page saith All the Bishops consented to the restitution of Eutyches and the deposing of Flavianus the Legates of the Apostolick See only opposing Dioscorus to his face Yet in the next page he reckons up some Bishops by name who suffered for opposing Dioscorus and adds out of Leo's Epistle to Pulcheria that many were deprived and banished for this opposition and others put in their places Lastly I only add that the Emperor being deceived by Eutyches confirmed the Decrees of this pseudo-Pseudo-Synod as his Ancestors were wont to do and for this reason the Acts of it were valid till they were disannulled by the General Council of Chalcedon and though the Pope disliked and complained of this Council he had no Authority to null all its Acts till another General Council was called Wherefore that Third Roman Council wherein Leo and the Bishops of Italy reprobated the Acts of this pseudo-Pseudo-Synod of Ephesus was not sufficient to repeal the Council it self but only to shew that those western Bishops would not receive it For if the Popes Council alone had made it null what need had their been of a General Council to do that over again Yea the Pope and this Roman Synod writ to the Emperor earnestly entreating him that all things might remain in the same state they were before any proceedings till a General Council could meet which shews that they did not believe their single Authority was sufficient to annul all that was done After this Roman Council it seems Dioscorus in his Private Council at Alexandria excommunicated Pope Leo and Baronius makes this a greater Crime than his confirming the Heresie of Eutyches and he with the Notes observe it as a wonder that whereas Ninety Bishops signed the Heresie of Eutyches only Ten could be found to subscribe the Excommunication of the Pope but the wonder ceases if we consider that Eutyches was restored in a General Council or that which was called so wherein there met an hundred twenty eight Bishops or their Deputies but the Pope was excommunicated in a Private Synod at Alexandria I shall not enlarge upon the cruel usage of Flavianus in this Pseudo-Synod of Ephesus who died soon after of the blows and wounds given him there nor remark how Baronius would make him a Martyr for the Popes Supremacy whereas he was a Martyr for the Orthodox Faith corrupted by Eutyches Nor shall I detain the Reader with any of his odd observations upon the flight of Hilary one of the Popes
Legates from this Council Anatolius being by Dioscorus advanced to the See of Constantinople in the room of Flavianus Leo had great reason to fear he was infected with the Heresie of Eutyches and therefore he very carefully sent three Legates to Constantinople to inform him whether Anatolius were Orthodox and to desire a General Council might be called by the Emperor and in Italy if he pleased as his Letter imports in the mean time if we may trust the Acts of one of these Legates coming out of the Vatican Anatolius calls a Council at Constantinople and in the presence of the Popes Legates owns himself Orthodox receives Pope Leo's Letter to Flavianus and condemns Eutyches and Nestorius and this the Editors publish with the Title of a Council at Constantinople Now though their own Author of the Vatican expresly says that Anatolius called this Council yet both Baronius and the Notes in the same page daringly affirm that the Popes Legates commanded all the neighbouring Bishops to meet in this Council Which is as false as that these Legates were sent to restore the lapsed Oriental Church and that both Theodosius and Anatolius and all the Eastern Bishops in all these Transactions owned the Pope to be the Supream Head of the Church These things are only to be found in Baronius his Inferences but no Author or Record of these proceedings hint any such thing The Legates chief business was to petition the Emperor for a General Council and it was usual when any new Patriarch was advanced that he should write an account of his Faith to all the other Patriarchs and Anatolius having been justly suspected was obliged to do it something more solemnly for Leo's satisfaction CHAP. III. Of the Council of Chalcedon being the Fourth General Council BEING to discourse of the Fourth General Council at Chalcedon we must observe that besides the partial Preface before it and the fallacious Notes after it published by the Editors the Acts of it are divided into three parts The first containing the Epistles and other Writings precedent to the Council The second containing the several Acts of it The third containing the Epistles and other Transcripts relating to that Council afterwards Of the first part I shall treat very briefly having spoken of divers things there collected in the former Chapter only noting now some of the Frauds and Errors in these preliminary Epistles And first I need not enlarge upon those false Stories in the Preface to this Council which I confuted before Anno 448 and Anno 449. That Eutyches appealed from Flavian ' s Council at Constantinople to the Pope That the Pope immediately became an Enemy to that Heretick That it was the highest Crime in Eutyches to appeal from the Pope to the Emperor Nor will it be necessary to insist upon the Prefacers owning that Theodosius called the Pseudo-Synod of Ephesus at Dioscorus his request and though Pope Leo did labour to hinder it yet he durst not but send his Legates to it who indeed did generously refuse to joyn in the condemnation of Flavianus But whereas the Prefacer pretends Flavianus appealed to the Apostolick See as if the Pope were alone fit to receive Appeals I must note First That de Marca confesses All the rest of the Patriarchs were his open Enemies and therefore he was compelled to apply to the Western Church for help and yet he did not Appeal to the Pope alone and Leo told Placidia that Flavianus Appealed not only to the Apostolick Throne but to all the Bishops of those parts and Leo saith the same thing in his own Epistles that the Appeal was to all the Churches of those parts and therefore all the Western Bishops joyned with Leo in desiring a Council might be held in Italy Which was when they were met in Council at Rome and had no doubt declared their dislike of Dioscorus's proceedings but it sufficiently confutes the Prefacers boast of Leo and his Councils rescinding the Acts of this Ephesine pseudo-Pseudo-Synod as if that had been sufficient to null all that was done there because if the Pope in that Council of Rome had sufficient Authority to have abrogated the Acts of Ephesus there was no need for them to desire a greater Council to re-examine this matter or for Leo as the Preface owns to engage the Western Emperor his Mother and his Empress to write to Theodosius to suffer the Transactions at Ephesus to be heard over again But Theodosius having called that Synod by his own Authority and being persuaded by Eutyches his Party that the proceedings in it were regular would not be prevailed on by any importunities to grant this request but he dying soon after and Marcian by marrying Pulcheria Sister and Heir to Theodosius coming to be Emperor consented to call a General Council but not as the Pope desired in Italy but in the East where the Controversie began and where by the Ancient Canons it was to be decided Which suffices to discover all those falshoods that are in that part of the Preface which concerns the things before this General Council In the Preleminary Epistles and Edicts which constitute the first part of the Council of Chalcedon we may observe many of the Titles of the Epistles are corrupted by Roman Parasites So in the first Epistle of Flavianus the true reading is to Leo Arch-Bishop of the elder Rome but they have made it Pope c. In Flavians second Epistle to Leo the Latin Copies leave out of the Title and Fellow minister So again Pope is put into the Latin Copy instead of Arch-Bishop in a Letter of Leo's to the Monks at Constantinople And in Leo's Epistle to Theodosius in the Latin for Leo Bishop there is put in these absurd words Leo Pope of the Catholick Church of the City of Rome And in his Epistle to the second Synod at Ephesus the Latin leaves out these Material Expressions to his beloved Brethren in the Lord greeting To conclude the Greek Title owns that Leo and his Roman Synod petitioned for a Council in Italy the Latin leaves this out though the body of the Letter do expresly declare that request Now these are plain Instances how little Credit is to be given to the Latin Copies of this Council and especially to these Titles which the Popes Flatterers have frequently corrupted and altered them from the modest Style used in those days And hence we may gather how frivolously Baronius argues from the Titles of Pope Leo's Epistles wherein he stiles himself Bishop of the Roman and of the Universal Church that the Popes then did use the style of Universal Bishop though St. Gregory expresly denies that ever any of his Predecessors used that profane new and proud Title but the Annalist makes bold to give Gregory the Lie meerly on the credit of these corrupted and fictitious Titles prefixed by forging Parasites for Leo's usual Inscription was
Leo the Bishop of Rome to c. so that where we see Bishop or Pope of the Catholick Church of Rome c. there 't is certain the Flatterers have been at work But as to more material observations when Flavianus had condemned Eutyches he doth not desire the Pope to confirm the Sentence which being regularly passed on him by his own Bishop in Council no man could relax as Leo himself grants But his Letter to Leo requires him to publish it to all the Bishops under his jurisdiction In Leo's Epistle to Julian one of his Legates the Latin Copy puts in nobis and makes Leo say there is one Doctrine and Teaching of the Holy Ghost in us and in you but the Greek reads in the whole Catholick Church Again it is commonly pretended that Pope Leo was utterly against the Emperors calling the second Council at Ephesus and that one reason which made all its proceedings null was because it was called without his consent But it appears by divers of this Popes Letters here published that he owned it a pious Resolution of the Emperor to call this Council and in observance of his Commands he sent his Legates to it So that he never pleaded his Authority in bar to the Emperors Right even when in his Judgment he thought there was no need of it And he declares that he sent these Legates not to preside there but to agree with them by common consent on such things as might be pleasing to God as his Letter to this Synod shews Num. 13. It appears by Petrus Chrysologus Bishop of Ravenna's Letter to Eutyches that he appealed to him as well as to the Pope for he excuses himself as unfit to judge a Cause that had been tried in a far Country especially upon hearing only one Party A Rule which if the Popes had duly observed they would not have received so many unjust Appeals 'T is true he refers him to Pope Leo's Epistle to Flavianus lately writ on this subject but Binius in his Notes falsly puts in that he warns him to rely on it as an Oracle of the Holy Ghost for he only saith there was now an Orthodox Pope in St. Peter's Chair who had taught the Faith aright in this Epistle which had been sent by Leo a little before to this and other Bishops of the West for their approbation But that of Leo himself in his Epistle to Theodosius shews he was no honester than he should be and deserved not so good a Character as the Bishop of Ravenna gives him for he impudently cites one of the Sardican Canons under the forged Title of the Nicene Canon made by all the Bishops in the World the Margin would excuse this by pretending that other Fathers cite these Sardican Canons under the Title of Nicene Canons but we know no ancient Fathers did so except Zosimus and Boniface his Predecessors who to their lasting infamy were convicted of this notorious Fraud in the Council of Carthage and therefore it was an odd piece of assurance in Leo so soon after to make use of the same detected Cheat. In another Epistle of his against Eutyches he saith In the mystical distribution of the spiritual Food that is given and received by which those who partake of the virtue of the Heavenly Food are changed into his Flesh who was made our Flesh which is point blank against their modern Opinion of Transubstantiation making the Bread to be Spiritual and Heavenly Food and the change to be not in the Elements but in the Receivers After this we have divers Epistles of the Western Emperor Valentinian of his Mother and Empress to Theodosius and Pulcheria writ at the request of Pope Leo to desire that Emperor to revoke the Judgment passed in the Pseudo-Synod of Ephesus which further proves the Pope had no Authority in himself to null those Acts for he would not have begged with Tears that which was in his own Power But the great use the Romanists make of these Letters is on account of some high Expressions in them about the Popes having a Power over all Bishops and a Principality among them But there is some doubt whether these Epistles are genuine the Story of their being at Rome the night after St. Peter's day not agreeing to the time when these pretended Epistles must be writ But if they be not forged Rome will gain nothing by these phrases which Leo put into their Mouths for he certainly endited these Letters for them as we may know by this Evidence that the Emperors Mother Galla Placidia who understood no more of the Canons than the Pope told her cites the Canon of Sardica for a Canon of Nice as Leo had done before and therefore ex ungue Leonem we may easily know the Penman of these Epistles Now when he bears witness only to himself his testimony is suspicious and of no weight at all and Theodosius valued these brags so little that he calls Leo only by the name of Patriarch in his answer and affirms the Nicene Canons were not broken and therefore he utterly rejected the request Yet Leo was forced to be content and to receive Anatolius chosen Bishop of Constantinople in this Synod of Ephesus into his Communion only desiring him to give an Account of his being Orthodox in the Faith that he might publish it to other Bishops Soon after which Theodosius died Marcianus succeeding and having no other Title to the Empire than his being married to Pulcheria he remitted much of the Majesty of Style in his Letters to Leo and other Bishops used by Theodosius and other Emperors But even when he complements the Pope in the highest strain he will not yield the Council should be called in Italy as the Pope desired but resolves to have it in the East in some City which he himself should choose Where we may see a notorious Forgery in Baronius and Binius for whereas the Emperor saith where it shall seem good to us Baronius turns nobis into vobis and Binius in his Notes follows him as if the Emperor had left it to the Pope to choose what City he pleased for the Council to meet Nay further Binius who reads it nobis in the Epistle yet in a Note before that Letter he saith it was where the Peope pleased and hath the Confidence to say in his Notes at the end of the Council that the Emperor writ to the Pope to appoint the place time and manner of calling this General Synod Than which nothing can be more false for the Pope would have had it in the West if he might have chosen but the Emperor Summoned the Bishops first to come to Nice as his Letters yet extant shew and thither the Popes first Letter to the Synod ought to be directed and I wish that ignorant hand which altered the Title and put in Chalcedon instead of Nice hath not put in
meant only that they had the principal Places in this General Council But the true President of this great Synod was the Emperor who when he was present sate above all the Bishops in the midst and his Legates the Lay-Judges in his absence sate there and these Representatives of the Emperor indeed had not only the most honourable place of all but some Authority over the Synod it self For they propounded or allowed all matters to be debated of them all Bishops even the Popes Legates desired leave to speak they summed up the Debates and generally gave the decisive Sentence and upon that followed the Acclamations so that these Judges performed all that the Modern Popes Legates in late Councils have taken upon them since their Supremacy hath been in its greatest Exaltation If they object that neither they nor the Emperor were allowed to be present when Dioscorus was condemned according to the Canons I Answer the Judges in a former Session after a full hearing of the Cause had determined if the Emperor consented that Dioscorus should have the same punishment which he had inflicted on Flavianus and that he and his Accomplices should by the Council be deposed from Episcopal Dignity according to the Canons to which Decree the whole Synod consented So that there was no more to be done in the third Session but only for the Bishops canonically to execute this Sentence upon Dioscorus and there was no occasion for the Emperor or the Lay-Judges to be present only his confirmation of this Sentence was so necessary that they writ both to Marcian and Pulcheria to desire their confimation thereof So that the chief Authority was in the Emperor and his Representatives the Bishops advising and they finally determining and confirming what was agreed upon so that they were properly the Presidents here Thirdly As to the Confirmation of all these Acts the Notes affirm That all which was decreed here concerning the Faith against Eutyches was confirmed and approved by Leo's Authority as the Fathers had desired of him in their Synodical Epistle but they pretend he annulled and made void the 28th Canon And this they pretend to prove not by the Synodical Epistle it self for that speaks only of the Emperors confirmation and never desires the Pope to ratifie the matters of Faith but saith he and they by his Legates had agreed on these points only they wish for his consent to the 28th Canon about the Primacy of Constantinople which his Legates had opposed And indeed they supposed they had his consent in all things which the Legates agreed to and so those passages cited by the Notes out of Leo's Epistle do not prove that he confirmed the Decrees of Faith otherwise than by giving his common suffrage to them by his Legates and agreeing with them afterwards And thus all other Bishops who were absent and had Legates there confirmed them as well as the Pope as for his dissent from that Canon and their brags that he had made it void we shall shew afterwards that it remained in force for all the Popes opposition But it may be observed how notoriously the Latin Version corrupts the Text to insinuate this Papal confirmation for in the Speech they made to the Emperor in the end of the Council the Latin hath these words Concilii hujus a vobis Congregati Praedicationem Petri sedis Authoritate roborantes implying that the Popes Authority was to confirm the determinations of the Council But the Greek hath a quite different sense viz. that the determinations of the Pope that is Leo's Epistle to Flavianus were confirmed by that Holy Council which the Emperor had gathered And not only that Speech but many other evidences do shew clearly that the Emperor confirmed the Decree of this Council For First In the end of divers Acts the Judges as the Emperors Legates do confirm what was agreed upon and sometimes promise to acquaint the Emperor for his confirmation Yea the Emperor in his Speech made to the Synod saith he came to the Synod to confirm the Faith and not to shew his Power as Baronius and the Latin Version reads it but the Greek more truly reads I came to the Synod to confirm what was agreed on c. which shews sufficiently that the Emperor was to confirm all the Acts Yea in that very Session wherein the Faith was subscribed by the Bishops the Emperor expresly confirms it and makes a penal Sanction against all that shall contradict or oppose it upon which the Fathers cried out thou hast confirmed the Orthodox Faith And a little while after the Council was ended the same Emperor put out two Edicts wherein he doth fully confirm the Decrees of this Holy Council adding in the later penalties to all that would not receive it Wherefore we can make no doubt that the main confirmation of the Acts of this Council was from the Emperor § 3. In the next place we will consider the several Sessions and Acts which were in number sixteen In the first Action Baronius by mistake affirms that the Emperor was present but the Acts shew that he was only present by his Legates the Lay-Judges who representing the Emperor the true President of this August Assembly sate in a more honourable place than the Popes Legates and here and always are named before them But the Champions of the Supremacy boast extreamly of the great words of the Popes Legates concerning the See of Rome who say in this first Action on the mention of Rome which is the Head of all Churches and the Greek seems to refer it to Pope Leo. To which may be added that the same Legates in the third Action though they do not call the Pope Head of the Universal Church as Bellarmine falsly cites their words yet they magnifie St. Peter as the Rock and groundwork of the Catholick Church and the Foundation of true Faith And in some other places they call the Pope Universal Bishop c. To which I answer The Council no where gives the Bishop of Rome any of these extravagant Titles and did so little regard these empty brags of the Legates that in the first Act the Judges do reject the very first request which Leo's Legates made to the Council and when they petitioned in Leo's name that Dioscorus might stand at the Bar the Judges bid him sit down And if we consider how zealous this ambitious Pope was for the Dignity of his See and that his Legates had been taught their Lesson at Rome we may justly argue from the Councils silence and the lower Style of Arch-Bishop which they give him that these big Thrasonical Titles were not believed nor approved by them for many things are reported in the Councils as said by particular persons which were not the Act of the whole Council for which reason Bellarmine egregiously prevaricates when he makes this whole General Council
this Session it is said That the Councils definition had confirmed Leo ' s Epistle and the Faith of Leo is commended because he believed as Cyril believed And after all the Bishops agreement was not sufficient to ratifie this definition of Faith till it was shewed to the Emperor as the last words import The Sixth Action was adorned with the presence of the Emperor Marcianus who made a Speech to the Fathers which Baronius by mistake saith was in the first Session telling them he was come to confirm the Faith they had agreed on as Constantine did not to shew his power Which is a clear and undeniable proof that the confirmation of their Decrees depended on the Emperor in whose presence the definition of Faith was read and subscribed by every one of the Bishops and he declared his Approbation thereof and in the open Synod appoints penalties for them who should after this call these Points into question And then he gives them some Rules to be formed into Canons because they related to Ecclesiastical Affairs after which having been highly Applauded by the Bishops he was petitioned to dimiss them but told them they must not depart for some few days and so took his leave of them Which shews that the Emperor who convened them had also the sole power to dissolve this general Council I shall add what Richerius observes upon that definition of Faith made in this Session that it contains many of the very words and expressions of the Athanasian Creed and though he doubt whether Athanasius did compose that Form which bears his name yet he saith It is now become the Creed of the Catholick Church and there is not a Tittle in it which is not agreeable to the Credit Holiness and Learning of Athanasius He notes also the policy of the Popes Legates who contrary to all ancient usage and to the Primitive simplicity of the former Councils do most impertinently put this Epithete to the Popes name Bishop of the Universal Church of the City of Rome But when I consider the absurdity of the expression and the frequent corruptions in these Acts why might not that bold hand who added to the Legates name President of the Council in this very place and in this Session where the Emperor being present certainly presided add this huffing Title to the Pope's name And if so it is a corruption and can be no ground for an Argument However 't is a great prejudice to all these Titles that when any others of the Council speak of the Pope they call him only Bishop or Archbishop and none but his own Legates load him with those vain Titles The Seventh Action contains only the Ratification of a private Agreement made between Maximus Bishop of Antioch and Juvenalis Bishop of Jerusalem concerning the extent of their Jurisdictions The Eighth Action was the case of Theodoret who having formerly favoured Nestorius yet being afterwards convinced of his Error was received into Communion by Pope Leo who had judged his cause and acquitted him before the Council met But for all that the case was heard over again and he called an Heretick and had been expelled the Council if he had not cleared himself over again by subscribing Leo's Epistle and Anathematizing Nestorius and Eutyches upon which he was restored to Communion and to his Bishoprick By which it is as clear as the Sun that the Council was above the Pope and had Authority to Judge over again the Causes he had determined and also that barely being in Communion with the Pope could not clear any Man from Heresie nor give him a right to the Communion of the Catholick Church And if the Epistles of Theodoret to Leo be genuin whereof there is good cause to doubt and this cause were referred to the Pope by Appeal as the Romanists brag This makes the matter worse and shews that the last Appeal is not to the Pope and that he cannot finally decide any cause which shall not be liable to be tried again in a general Council yea though it be as this was a Cause of Faith which utterly ruins the Infallibility The Ninth and Tenth Actions concern Ibas Bishop of Edessa who had been a Nestorian and was deposed by Dioscorus in the Pseudo Synod of Ephesus in which are these observables First The Emperor commanded a Lay-man and some Neighbouring Bishops to hear this Cause first at Tyre and then at Berytus so that even Provincial Councils did not meet without the Emperors Authority and the Popes universal supremacy was not known then For in the Council of Berytus Antioch is called an Apostolical Throne and the Council after they had restored him to his Bishoprick referred the cause between him and Nonnus who had been thrust into his place to Maximus Bishop of Antioch as the proper Judge of that matter No more is here to be noted but only that the Popes Legates and the whole Council desire that the Emperor would revoke and utterly annul the Ephesine false Synod For though the Pope had done this yet they knew that was insufficient since none but the Emperor had right effectually to confirm or null a Council which pretended to be Oecumenical To this Action Baronius and Binius tack another concerning an allowance to be made to maintain Domnus late Bishop of Antioch who had been deposed But they own this is not in the Greek nor was there any such thing in the Acts of the Council in Justinian's time who expresly affirms Domnus was dead before which is certainly true Wherefore the Cardinal owns they found this in an old Latin Copy in the Vatican the very Mint of Forgeries and this Action ought to be rejected as a mear Fiction The Eleventh and Twelfth Actions were spent in examing the cause of Bassianus and Stephanus both pretending to be Bishops of Ephesus wherein we may observe That Bassianus pleads he was duly elected by the suffrage of the Nobility People and Clergy of that City and the Emperor confirmed the Election for the Pope had not then usurped the nomination or confirmation of remote Bishops Again whereas Baronius brags that the Pope deposed Bassianus from the Bishoprick of Ephesus and cites the words of Stephen his Antagonist thus it is now four years since the Roman Bishop deposed Bassianus arguing from thence That it was the ancient usage for the Pope to depose Metropolitans He doth notoriously prevaricate for Stephen's words are since the Roman Bishop deposed him and the Bishop of Alexandria condemned him And a little before the same Stephen saith more fully That Bassianus was expelled by the holy Fathers Leo and Flavianus and the Bishops of Alexandria and Antioch By which the Reader may see there is no credit to be given to Baronius Quotations who always resolves by false Citations of Authors to ascribe that to the Pope alone which was done by him in conjunction with other Bishops
Pope Leo for reproving Theodosius the Emperor gently and mildly when he was going to establish Heresie by a pseudo-Pseudo-Synod Whereas Old Eli's Example may shew if the Emperor was his Inferior in this matter and the Pope his Ghostly Father that his Reproof ought to have been sharper yea he should have expresly prohibited the convening of this Council if his Authority was necessary to their Meeting and have not so meanly truckled as to send his Legates to a Synod which he judged needless yea dangerous And if we consider Leo's high Spirit this Submission shews he had no right to call a General Council nor power to hinder the Emperor from appointing one Again When the Pope by Prosper's help had writ a very seasonable and Orthodox Epistle against Eutyches the French Bishops were careful to have it exactly Transcribed but it follows not from hence That they would not vary one syllable from his Decrees For this respect was shewed not to the Authority of the See but to the excellency of the Epistle as appears in that the Gallican Bishops as hath been shewed rejected other Decrees both of this Pope and his Predecessors when they disliked them And Baronius owns a little after that these Bishops rejoyced that this Epistle contained their own sense as to the Faith and were glad that the Pope held the same Opinion that they had always held from the Tradition of their Ancestors So that this is no Proof as he would have it That the Pope was a Master presiding over all the Christian World For they judged of his Teaching and approved it because it agreed with their Churches ancient Tradition On no better grounds he gathers there was One only lawful Judge One Governor of Holy things always in the Church viz. the Pope From Theodoret's Epistle to Leo For first these Epistles are justly suspected as being not heard of till they came to light first out of the Vatican And secondly they are demonstrated to be spurious by divers Learned Men and especially this to Leo is shewed to contain manifest Contradictions Thirdly If this Epistle were genuine it must be considered that all the Patriarchs except the Roman were at that time either corrupted or oppressed and in that juncture Theodoret could appeal to none of them but Leo and so might well give him good words who alone was likely and able to assist him As for that Testimony wherein they much glory That Rome had the Supremacy over all Churches as their Translation speaks because it was always free from Heresie and no Heretick had sat there it supposes a long experience of the Church of Romes Integrity before this Priviledge was bestowed and if the Supremacy was given her for this Reason she ought to lose it again whenever any Heretical Pope shall get the Chair nor doth Theodoret at all suppose this impossible for the future Moreover he brags that Leo restored Theodoret and others deposed by this Pseudo Ephesine-Synod and infers That it was the Popes priviledge alone to restore Bishops deposed by a Council But the Misfortune is Theodoret was called an Heretick after the Pope had privately acquitted him and his Cause was to be tried over again at Chalcedon and till that Council restored him he remained suspended for all this pretended Priviledge of the Pope And before we leave him we may note that he used all his Interest to persuade the Emperor to call a lawful and impartial General Council as appears by all his Epistles to his several Friends which shews he knew it was in the Emperor's power alone to call one not in the Pope's to whom he would have written being in favour with him if he had had Authority in this Affair He reckons Attila's leaving to harrass the Eastern Empire to be a Divine Reward for Marcian's setling the true Religion there but presently tells us That this Scourge of God and other sad Judgments fell upon Italy and the Western Empire from whence he supposes the Reformation of all Eastern Heresies came and where he believes no Heresie could ever take place So miserably do Men expose themselves when they pretend to give Reasons for all God's Dispensations In the next year hapned the Famous Council of Chalcedon wherein divers of Baronius's Frauds have been already detected so that I am only to add That Leo was politick in pretending to give Anatolius a power to receive Recanting Bishops who had fallen into Eutyches Heresie and cunningly reserves the greater Cases to his own See But 't is plain Anatolius of Constantinople had as much power in the Provinces subject to him as the Pope had in Italy and the greater Cases were according to ancient Usage reserved to the next General Council where both the Bishop of Rome and Constantinoples Acts were to be re-examined and none of these Erring Bishops were restored but by that Council And finally he makes it a great Crime in Dioscorus to pretend to Lord it over Egypt and to say He had as much Authority there as the Emperor Yet the following Popes did and said as much in relation to Italy but Baronius cannot see any harm in that though Socrates did who saith That both the Bishops of Rome and Alexandria had exceeded the bounds of Priestly-power and fallen to a secular way of Ruling And this may suffice for this Part of the Period we have undertaken CHAP. IV. Roman Errors and Forgeries in the Councils from the end of the Fourth Council till An. Dom. 500. § 1. THE Synod of Alexandria is falsly styled in the Title under Leo For their own Text confesseth it was assembled by the Authority of Proterius Bishop of Alexandria The Second Council of Arles which Binius had antedated 70 year and put out with this false Title under Siricius is by Labbè placed here according to Sirmondus his direction The Council of Anjou in Binius is said to be held under Leo who is not once named in it Wherefore Labbè leaves out that false Inscription and only saith it was held in the 13th year of Pope Leo The 4th Canon of this Council is corrupted by Binius and Baronius For where the Text reads If any be coelibes unmarried they put into the Margen as a better reading if any be debiles weak Which is to make the Reader believe that all the Clergy then were unmarried whereas this Canon supposes many of them had Wives And the 11th Canon allows a married Man to be chosen Priest or Deacon the Popes Decrees not yet prevailing in France So that Labbè honestly strikes out debiles and keeps only the true reading d We note also that in the end of this 4th Canon such Clerks as meddle in surrendring Cities are excommunicated A Sentence which if it were now executed would put many Priests and Jesuits out of the Communion of the Church for their treachery to the Emperor and the King of
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
Whether it were Orthodox to say as the Scythian Monks did one of the Trinity was crucified for us Dioscorus the Popes Legate represented this Sentence to Hormisda as Heretical and that to allow it would open a gap to many Heresies The Pope first determined to refer the controversie to the Bishop of Constantinople as appears by another relation of Dioscorus though Baronius would conceal this by omitting the beginning of this Paper But probably Dioscorus durst not trust this Question with the Patriarch of Constantinople So that Hormisda not yet declaring himself Justinian writ to him that he and the Eastern Church thought this Sentence Orthodox and required his consent to their Faith which he further shews in another Epistle complaining of the Popes delays At last after a long time Hormisda writes a shuffling Letter to the Emperor wherein Baronius saith he utterly exploded this Sentence Yea Baronius owns afterward that this Pope would have all Catholicks abhor these words One of the Trinity suffered in the Flesh But this very Sentence afterward appeared to be True and Orthodox and they who condemned it were declared Hereticks Yea the Scythian Monks appealed from this Pope to that most learned and orthodox Father Fulgentius who declared they were in the right and that he believed as they did And finally one of the succeeding Popes joyned with Justinian and the Orthodox Christians to confirm this Sentence So that this Pope and his Legate were both on the Heretical side which spoils the Infallibility § 5. The Councils abroad in this Popes times take no notice of him yet bear the Title of being held under him The first Binius says was at Rhemes and he cites for this Flodoardus But Labbè calls this a Synod at an uncertain place and gives us Binius his Notes but cites the words of Flodoardus by which it appears that Rhemigius his being made the Popes Legate and calling this Synod there by a Legantine power are Fictions of Baronius and Binius taken out of the first forged Epistle of Hormisda and falsly charged upon Flodoardus who saith no such thing And Sirmondus with P. de Marca say Rhemigius was not the Popes Legate Which manifestly appears from two Epistles of his writ ten year after this feigned delegation concerning an Invasion made upon his jurisdiction wherein he never urges any sort of power as Legate but pleads his original right as a Metropolitan And from Baronius and his Plagiary citing Flodoardus at large for this compared with the words of that Author in Labbè the Reader may learn these Writers are never to be trusted in any Quotation relating to the Pope till the Authors be searched The Council of Tarragon was not under Hormisda though it were in his time The Bishops there acting independently on Rome whose Popes Decrees of dividing the Church Revenues into four parts they contradict and divide it only into three in the eighth Canon And in the eleventh they order concerning the Discipline of Monks the Gallican Canons shall above all others be observed Binius misplaces the Council of Pau Anno Dom. 509. But Labbè sets it in this year rightly it was called not by the Pope but by Sigismund King of Burgundy as all Provincial and National Synods in that age were the famous Alcimus Avitus was President of it and the Pope had no hand in it for which reason these lesser Councils are more sincere than any where Rome or the Pope is named for there the Forgers are always tempted to leave add or alter something The same year was a Council held at Gyrone in Spain not under the Pope but under John of Tarragon and though by Hormisda's forged Epistles he be pretended to have been the Pope's Legate and that he received Constitutions from Rome it is plain this Council proceeds upon its own Authority and makes its own Rules which shews these Fictions are of a later date The Council of Constantinople is falsly titled under Hormisda the Union was not yet made and Hormisda sent not his Legates till next year so that it is very trifling for the Editors to say it was partly reprobated at Rome because this Synod consisted only of Eastern Bishops called by Justin the Emperor and their own Patriarch John of Constantinople presided whom they call Most Holy and Blessed Father of Fathers Archbishop and Oecumenical Patriarch and of him and Justin only do they desire their Acts to be confirmed And not only they but two Eastern Synods also at Jerusalem and Tyre ratified these Decrees which gave them a sufficient Authority and it is but a Roman Fiction that these Acts were revoked upon the reconciling of the Eastern and Westrn Churches § 6. John the first succeeded Hormisda probably by the interest of Theodoric the Arrian Gothick King for he commanded him to go as his Embassador to the Eastern Emperor Justin to require him not to persecute the Arrians but restore to them their Churches which he had taken away Threatning he would use the Catholicks of Italy severely if this were not granted The Pontifical softens this with a gentle phrase Rogans misit as if Theodoric entreated the Pope to go on this ungrateful Errant but the Notes more truly affirm he forced him to take this Office However the Pope durst not disobey that King wherefore he went to Constantinople and did deliver this request to Justin so as to prevall for liberty to the Arrians in the East as all Authors before Baronius affirm But the Cardinal calls this a base blot of the Popes prevarication and therefore he with the Notes give Anastasius the lye and forsake him in this part of John's Story whom in all the rest they follow For Baronius will not allow that a Pope should do so vile a thing as to sollicit for Liberty of Conscience for Arrian Hereticks wherefore he pretends he encouraged Justin to go on in punishing them But they cannot prove this except by a forged Epistle writ in this Popes name and a mistaken passage out of Gregory of Tours who knew not the true Story but speaks of John's Embassy to Theodoric instead of Justin One Argument only Baronius urges which is Why Theodoric should imprison this Pope at his return and keep him prisoner till he dyed in that woful confinement if he had faithfully discharged his Embassy I answer from Paulus Diaconus That Theodoric was moved to anger because Justin the Catholick Emperor had received him so honourably and also as Baronius himself saith This Gothick King suspected the Romans were then laying Plots against him and confederating with Justin The Emperor So that doubtless he thought the Pope was in this design and so suffered him to dye in Prison Now all this proves that these Gothick Kings were absolute Lords over the Bishops of Rome and it looks like a Judgment on the Roman See
denied that usurped jurisdiction of Appeals from thence to Rome to which some Popes pretended which had made them stand at a distance from the See of Rome The Notes on this Epistle have a fallacious Argument however to prove the African Church could not so long remain divided from the Roman because if so they could have no true Martyrs all that time since the Fathers agree That Crown is only due to those who suffer in the Catholick Church I reply this may be very true and yet since no Father ever said that the particular Roman Church is the Catholick Church a Christian may dye a true Martyr if he die in the Communion of the Catholick Church though he hold no Communion with the Roman Church which was the case at this time or lately of many Eastern Churches Another Forgery out of the same Mint treads on the heels of this pretending to be a Copy of the Emperor Justin and Justinian's submission to this Pope wherein they are made to own the Supremacy of Rome to the highest pitch and to Curse all their Predecessors and Successors who did not maintain that Churches Priviledges But the cheat is so apparent the matter so improbable and ridiculous and the date so absurd that Baronius and both the Editors reject it So that I shall only note that a true Doctrine could not need so many Forgeries to support it and the interest they serve shews who employed these Forgers We have spoken before of Boniface's two Roman Councils one of them revoking what the other decreed The third is only in Labbè being a glorious Pageant drest up by the suspicious hand of a late Library-keeper to the Pope But it amounts to no more than the introducing a poor Greek Bishop or two to enquire what was said in the Roman Records and in the Popes Letters of the Authority of that Church So that the Pope and his Council were Judges and Witnesses in their own Cause and therefore their Evidence is of no great Credit And 't is very ominous that this Synod is dated in December that is two Months after Boniface's death who is said to have been present at all its Sessions To cover which evident mark of Forgery Holstenius gives Baronius and all other Writers the Lye about the time of Boniface's dying and keeps him alive some time longer only to give colour to this new-found Synod The Council of Toledo might be in Boniface's time but not under him For the King of Spain whom the Bishops here call their Lord called it and it was held sub Mantano saith Baronius under Montanus the Metropolitan to whom the Council saith Custom had given that Authority Wherefore he condemns Hereticks and exercises all sorts of jurisdiction belonging to a Primate without taking any notice of the Pope or of any delegated Power from him So that probably all those Epistles which make Legates in Spain about this time are forged § 9. John the second of that Name succeeded Boniface but Anastasius and Baronius cannot agree about the Date of his Election or his Death and Holstenius differs from both an Argument that this Pope made no great Figure However right or wrong we have divers of his Epistles The first to Valerius saith Labbè appears by many things to be spurious it is stollen out of the Epistles of Leo and Ithacius and dated with wrong Consuls And I must add Scripture is shamefully perverted by the Writer of this Epistle For he would prove that Christ was not created as to his Deity but only as to his Humanity by Ephes iv 24. and Coloss iii. 10. where St. Paul speaks of putting on the New Man which after God is created in Righteousness and true Holiness and is renewed in Knowledge after the Image of him that created him Had a Pope writ this I would have affirmed he was no Infallible Interpreter The next is an Epistle of Justinian to this Pope wherein the Emperor is pretended to declare his Faith was conformable in all things to the Roman Church and made to say he had subjected and united all the Churches of the East to the Pope who is the Head of all the Holy Churches with much more stuff of this kind This Letter is rejected by the learned Hottoman and many other very great Lawyers who Baronius calls a company of Hereticks and Petty Foggers But confutes their Arguments with false Reasoning and Forgeries as I shall shew when I come to note his Errors I shall now confine my self to prove the greatest part of this Epistle to be spurious For who can imagin Justinian who vindicated the Authority of his Patriarch at Constantinople as equal with Rome and by an Authentick Law declares that the Church of Constantinople is the Head of all other Churches Yea in the genuine part of this Epistle calls his Patriarch the Pope's Brother That he I say should here profess he had subjected all the Eastern Churches to Rome And how should he that differed from Pope Hormisda in his decision of the Question whether one Person of the Trinity suffered for us and made Pope John now yield to his Opinion and condemn his Predecessors notion declare he submitted his Faith in all things to the Pope But we need no conjectures for if the Reader look a little further among the Epistles of Agapetus he will see one of the boklest Impostures that ever was For there Justinian himself recites verbatim the Epistle which he had writ to Pope John and whatever is more in this Letter set out among John's Epistles than there is in that which is owned by the Emperor is an impudent Forgery added by some false Corrupter to serve the Roman Supremacy Now by comparing these two Epistles it appears the beginning and end of both are the same and may be genuine but in neither part is there one word of this subjection or the universal Supremacy And all that wretched Jargon comes in where it is corrupted viz. From Ideoque omnes Sacerdotes universi orientalis tractus subjicere till you come to these words Petimus ergo vestrum paternum Which when the Reader hath well noted he will admire that those who had the cunning to corrupt a Princes Letter by adding twice as much to it as he writ should be so silly to print the true Letter within a few Pages But doubtless God infatuates such Corrupters and the Devil owes a shame to Lyers The next Epistle from the Gothic King Athalaric was probably writ soon after John's Election since it mentions the Romans coming to that Prince to beg leave to chuse a Pope and both Athalario and the Senate made Laws to prevent Simony in the Election of the Pope as well as other Bishops And which Baronius saith was more Ignominious This Edict was Ingraven on a Marble Table and hung up before the Court of St. Peters for all to see it But
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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã and ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã which signifies by open force and secret fraud For ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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.
Mennas the most Holy and Blessed universal Arch. Bishop and Patriarch said And he adds to the end of this Sentence that it was according to what Hormisda and Agapetus had prescribed whereas this being the Sense of the Synod gave Authority to what the later of these Popes had done and the former Hormisda was dead before this matter came into Question And now I am upon the Account of this Council in Baronius I will also note that in citing an Author which saith Mennas obtained an Universal Bishopric he adds that is of the Churches subject to him Yet a little after he will not allow that Paraphrase when the same words are applyed to the Popes which shews his unfaithfulness in adding and his partiality in expounding two very ill properties in an Historian But to proceed with Binius and Labbè In the 5th Act there is a Syod at Constantinople held under John the Bishop there Anno 518 wherein he is called Most Holy and most Blessed Arch-Bishop Occumenical Patriarch and Father of Fathers Yet the Editors put first in the Margen and then into the Latin Text under Hormisda which words are not in the Greek and are absurd because the two Churches were not yet reconciled Which is plain because in the Acclamations they cry let the Names of Euphemius and Macedonius be restored to the Church Which were two of their Orthodox Patriarchs and followers of Acacius whose Names had been struck out of the Dypticks by Heretical Princes and stood then condemned by Hormisda And they cry again Are our Synodical powers gon away to Rome That is must we reject our Orthodox Patriarchs because Rome censures them But the Latin corrupt version reads Synodica Romana modo valeant which would alter the Sense and persuade such as cannot look into the Greek that Rome's Decrees were valid at Constantinople whereas they Decree contrary to the Pope In the Epistle from John of Jerusalem to the Patriarch of Constantinople the late Forgers have put in a Sentence to give some colour to the Worship of the Blessed Virgin which spoils the Sense The true reading is Do ye most holy pray for the same things that we do for it is the common duty of Bishops to intercede for the peace of the Churches and the Emperors Victory and long Life But into this they thrust in a line or two thus it is the common Duty of Bishops And pray ye to the Holy Glorious Virgin Mary the Mother of God with us to intercede for the peace of the Churches which is a new Piece put into an old Garment so foolishly that the Rent is very visible Finally the subscriptions to the fifth and last Act are corrupted For whereas the Roman Deacons Theophanes and Pelagius in all other Acts are placed after the Eastern Bishops here they are set before them in the Latin Version And whereas the Editors tell us that Justinian's Edict to confirm the Decrees of this Council is depraved in the Title to Mennas I confess it is so but the Roman Parasites have depraved it by cutting off all those Titles which the Novel here cited by them gives him viz. To Mennas the most Holy and most Blessed and Oecumenical Patriarch All which the Editors of the Council leave out To these Notes of the depraving these Acts we may add a few remarks on some passages that are genuine but oppose the late Notions of the Roman Church The Epistle of Agapetus was not writ to Peter alone as the Epistle pretends but to him and other Bishops whom the Pope calls in the first Line His beloved Brethren and to Mennas there he gives the Titles of Brother and fellow Bishop The Syrian Bishops Epistle to Justinian declares that Christ is the Head of the Church which Title the Pope had not yet claimed In the Epistle from John of Jerusalem to the Patriarch of Constantinople where Leo is called Archbishop and Patriarch of Rome we have this memorable Truth That Christ who gave the power of binding and loosing to Peter the chief of the Apostles gave it in general to the Episcopal Order Which confutes that Doctrine of all Bishops receiving this power from the Pope The Bishop of Tyre's Epistle to the Synod at Constantinople calls the See of Antioch which Severus the Heretick had invaded The Throne of the Apostolical Church of Antioch and makes one of his great crimes to be his admitting strange Clerks Canonically deprived by their own Bishop to officiate without the consent of such as had sentenced them A crime so often committed by the Popes that these uncanonical precedents are produced to prove he hath a priviledge so to do The Sentence of Mennas against this Severus and his Complices recites That they had contemned the Apostolical succession in the Church of Rome which had condemned them and set at nought both the Patriarchal Throne of Constantinople and the Synod under it Yea and the Apostolical Succession which the Lord and Saviour of all had setled in those holy places And above all had despised the Sentence of the Oriental Diocess decreed against them I So that their greatest fault was not the contemning the Popes Authority and Apostolical Succession was setled in other Churches by Christ as well as in that of Rome Lastly The Constitution of Justinian is made on purpose to give validity to the Sentence of the Pope and the Synod against Anthimius and the Hereticks declaring it was the custom for all preceding Orthodox Emperors to confirm the Decrees of Councils and it says in the conclusion this Law was published that none might be ignorant of those things which the Bishops had agreed on and the Emperor had confirmed So that it is a fallacious Note of the Editors Margen to say That it was the duty of Emperors to take care that the Decrees of the Fathers and the Pope were executed Which makes their Master to be no more than their Servant and under Officer In the Notes on this Council are many Falshoods which may be discovered by what is already observed Only we may consider some few of them more particularly As first He takes it upon Baronius his credit that Agapetus left the Western Bishops his Legates and that their Power continued after his decease and thence boldly but falsly affirms That these Legates procured the Synod to meet and that they condemned these Hereticks by the Authority of their deceased Master whose Legate also he feigns Mennas was and in express contradiction to the Council he will have these Italian Bishops to be Presidents with Mennas yet immediately calls him alone the President of this Synod Now all this is to impose upon the Reader as if nothing could be done without Papal Authority But we have proved that Justinian called and confirmed this Council and Mennas presided solely in it The Acts also take no notice of these Western Bishops
having any Legantine power from Agapetus and I shall shew presently that before this Council rose there was a new Pope chosen who should have renewed their Commission to make it valid but did not So that they must suppose the dead and the living Pope to have supream Authority both at once Who can swallow these gross Fictions Again Mennas and the Council declare That Pope followed the Canons in allowing Anthimius time to come in and Repent and therefore they followed him but Binius Notes turn this and say That Agapetus commanded the Synod to use this mercy But it is very pleasant to hear Clodius accuse and Binius complain of the Modern Greeks for forging the Title of Oecumenical Patriarch applied to John in his own Council of Constantinople But the Latins are even with them and far out-do them if it were so for they as we have seen have put in that Title for Agapetus into the Latin when it was not in the Greek and have left it out before Menuas name though in the Code it be given him So that they cannot fairly complain Yet after all I can prove by authentic Records of this Age That this Title of Oecumenical Patriarch was given to the Patriarch of both old and new Rome nor is this Council of John corrupted by the modern Greeks and Gregory is certainly mistaken in saying it was not used before his time But the weakest complaint of Forgery and the worst proof of it imaginable is that of Baronius and Binius who pretend the Greeks have fraudulently put the names of Euphemius and Macedonius Bishops of Constantinople before Pope Leo's and the Annalist and Annotator shew shameful ignorance in thinking to prove by the Liturgy of St. Mark that the Pope of Rome was prayed for first in all Churches For though in that Office God is desired to preserve Their most Holy and most Blessed Pope whom he did fore-ordain that his Holy Catholick and Apostolick Church should choose by their common Suffrages and also for their most holy Bishop Yet this being the Office used in the whole Alexandrian Patriarchate must be meant of the Alexandrian Patriarch who was called Pope ever since Athanasius his time and was the Bishop of that Church where these Prayers were made To prove which and shame this illiterate Exposition I shall produce Jac. Goar a rigid Papist the Editor of the Greek Euchologion who thus speaks The Greeks never name the supream Bishop of all he means him of Rome in publick wherefore Urban the Fourth desired of the Emperor Mich. Palaeologus An. Dom. 1263. that is 700 year after this that in their sacred Offices the Popes name should be recited out of the Dypticks with the other four Patriarchs as the first and chiefest sign of their union with Rome For which he Cites Nicetas lib. 5. Here therefore is a proof which proves only the mistake of them that produce it And for the Objection it is a known Custom for all Churches to name their own Patriarchs before those of other Churches so that it is no wonder that at Constantinople Euphemius's name should be placed before Leo's As soon as the Council under Mennas was ended the Decrees were sent to Peter Patriarch of Jerusalem who by the Command of the Emperor called a Council there to confirm them In this year Labbè places the Synod of Auvergne which met as the Preface owns by the precept of King Theodebert there is no Pope mentioned in it Binius places it in the year 541. under Vigilius but Sirmondus proves he was mistaken § 12. As soon as the news of Agapetus his death came to Rome Liberatus saith Sylverius was made Pope by Theodatus the Gothick King Anastasius saith it was after one Month and 28 days vacancy Which is very probable being a sufficient time for the intelligence to come from Constantinople and if we allow that Agapetus died about a Month before Mennas Council this entrance of Sylverius will prove to be while that Council sat Baronius saw this and fearing it would ruin his invention of the Western Bishops there being Agapetus his Legates he blunders the time of Sylverius's Election and though he reject Anastasius account on whom in many less probable Reports he often relies Yet he will not fix any other time and so leaves it uncertain only in general he and Binius say he was elected in the end of this year which cannot be because Agapetus certainly died in the Spring and it required no long time for the News to come from Constantinople As to this Sylverius it is certain from Liberatus he was the Son of Pope Hormisda and Baronius with Binius only conjecture that he was lawfully begotten they would prove it indeed by this Argument That otherwise he would have been irregular and the Roman Clergy would not have chosen him But they forget that his Election was not regular For Theodatus was in haste and would not stay for that but forced the Roman Clergy to subscribe having got money of Sylverius as their own Pontifical relates Baronius calls this fear and vile submission of the Roman Clergy their Clemency and a worthy Example yet confesses this Pope deserved to be kept out However being got into the sanctifying Chair he magnifies him but very unjustly for Procopius a creditable Author who was soon after at Rome with Bellisarius tells us Sylverius first swore to keep the City of Rome for Vitiges the Gothick King And so soon as Bellisarius came before it he was the principal instrument to persuade the Romans who had sworn with him to deliver up that City Baronius would conceal this Perjury and therefore though he cite Procopius here yet he saith no more than that Vitiges admonished the Pope and Senate to keep faithful to the Goths who indeed had been extreamly civil to the Roman Church and though they were Arrians yet as their Enemy Procopius tells us they had such a reverence for the holy places that they did not hurt the Churches of St. Peter or St. Paul yea they gave liberty to the Catholick Priests to serve God in their own way Which confutes the false Reports of their Cruelty in destroying the Churches and Bodies of the Martyrs at Rome mentioned in the Pontifical and in Paulus Diaconus However Sylverius turned once more as Procopius saith and was suspected by Bellisarius to have designed to betray the City of Rome once more to the Goths for which he deposed and banished him and Marcellinus an Author of great credit and of that time saith Sylverius favoured Vitiges and for that cause Bellisarius deposed him from his Bishoprick I know Liberatus a mortal Enemy to Vigilius would have this to be a Calumny invented by Theodora and carried on by Vigilius the succeeding Pope who had promised Bellisarius two Hundred Crowns to get Sylverius ejected and himself admitted and Anastasius
main business to shew it was contrary to that Council who forced him to condemn his own Epistle before they would receive him And if Binius and Baronius say this be false they give a General Council the Lye and Pope Gregory also who saith without doubt this Epistle is contrary to the definition at Chalcedon which was exactly followed by the 5th Council And since the Council of Chalcedon forbids all Writings for Nestorius such as this Epistle is and approve the Judgment of Photius and Eustathius who condemned this Epistle as Heretical and would not receive Ibas till he Anathematized Nestorius and his Doctrines 'T is certain that Council as well as the fifth did condemn Ibas his Epistle Chap. xxviii Again Baronius and Binius accuse the Council of divers defects first in omitting the Condemnation of Origen and giving only a brief touch upon it But this is a notorious Calumny for the 5th Council not only mention it transiently in saying they and Vigilius had condemned Origen now but expresly Anathematize Origen and his impious Writings And the Cardinal mistakes in saying they first handled the cause of Origen and then that of the three Chapters For Nicephorus saith they read the Libels against the impious Opinions of Origen the second Session But indeed this Council did not afresh condemn Origen but only mention his being condemned in that Age by most of the Bishops present in this Council about 15 year before in Menna's Synod upon an Edict of Justinian to which the Western Bishops had subscribed which both Evagrius Nicephorus and others mistake for this 5th Council So that the Cardinal and Binius are both out in charging the omission of Justinian's Edict as a defect in these Acts For that Edict was not sent to this 5th Council but to Menna's Synod and that Epistle which Binius hath added to these Acts as Justinian's is a late extract out of Justinian's large Decree Yea Didymus and Evagrius who they say were condemned in this 5th Council were not condemned there except in general words as holding with Origen in the point of praeexistence So that it is false and malicious in Baronius and Binius to charge Theodorus of Caesarea with stealing these things out of the Acts of this Council which were never in them upon an unjust surmise and slander of his being infected with Origens Heresie Chap. xxix Like to this is their pretence that these Acts want the Emperors Epistle which he and Binius add out of Cedrenus and thence insinuate the Acts are defective But Justinian's only true Epistle sent to the Council is extant in the Acts of which this is an Epitome by an ignorant hand which saith Eutyches approved the Opinions of Nestorius and that Nestorius was the Master of Theodorus whereas Justinian's true Letter and the Council teach that he was his Scholar And are not the Cardinal and Binius rare menders of Councils who would supply their pretended defects with such Stuff as this Chap. xxx Baronius also objects that the Constitution of Vigilius which evidently belongs to this Synod is known to be taken away out of the Acts It is granted it bears date the 14 of May upon which the fifth Collation of this Council was had but was sent to the Emperor first and by him considered and then offered to the Counsil the sixth Collation May 19th as Binius owns But indeed the Council never read this publickly nor named it or Vigilius to prevent offences they confuted it indeed and published his Letters to Rusticus and Sebastianus which contradict the Constitution but for his Credit as Baronius owns thought fit to say nothing of his Constitution And therefore if this Constitution were stollen out of the Acts it was by the Roman Church to cover their Fathers nakedness and conceal his Heresie Chap. xxxi Lastly He and Binius say the Acts want the assignation of a Patriarchal Seat to Jerusalem and taking two Provinces out of Antioch and two out of Alexandria to put under it which being by Leo opposed at Chalcedon was now passed contrary to the old Order established at Nice Which is not true for it had the Title of a Patriarchate long before this Council and the jurisdiction over the three Palestinas was assigned it at Chalcedon which Binius in his Notes on that Council and Baronius also expresly affirm Yet here in their Account of the 5th Council the Cardinal most falsly says Juvenalis got this Decree to pass in the absence of the Pope's Legates Baron an 553. pag. 441. But if we consult the Council The Popes Legates first spoke in this Cause and expresly gave their consent to it And though perhaps Pope Leo afterwards might oppose this as Baronius saith that only shews how little a Popes Authority was valued since in the Council of Mennas John Bishop of Jerusalem held a Synod and presided over all the Bishops of the three Palestinas And Baronius recites the Title of another Council at Jerusalem where Peter the Patriarch presided over all the Bishops of the three Palestinas 17 years before this fifth Council which shews that Jerusalem had the Title and Jurisdiction of a Patriarch by virtue of the Canon at Chalcedon and that Baronius and Binius are ridiculous and impudent to urge the want of a Fiction of Gul. Tyrius refuted by Berterius as a defect in the Acts of this General Council Chap. xxxii The Cardinal objects also spurious and false Additions made to these Acts And he instances in the Monothelites who in the sixth Synod are proved to have added 24 Leaves to these Acts as also two Epistles of Vigilius to Justinian and Theodora But though this be true yet those corrupt Additions were detected and razed out in the sixth Council and our Acts of the fifth Council have not one of those Heretical Additions but follow those true Copies which were extant in Gregory's time and those by which 70 years after his death the false Copies were detected in the sixth Council so that this is meer Sophistry As is also his Pretence That the Laws of Theodosius recited in the fifth Collation against Nestorius are different from those in the Code and in the Ephesine Council For there is but one Law against Nestorius in the Code different from these which mention his former Condemning the Nestorians but these Laws were against Diodorus and Theodorus as well as the Nestorians at the Armenian Monks Petition And note That all Theodosius his Laws against Hereticks are not in his Code for that Law in the Ephesine Council against the Nestorians was a true Law of this Emperours And another in the Council of Chalcedon which Baronius owns for true Laws of Theodosius yet neither of them are in the Code so that he may as well say those Acts are corrupted
him to stand or fall to his own Master not imitating Baronius his spite to Justinian in determining his final Estate An Appendix to this History IN Labbè's Edition there is subjoyned to this Council an Epistle of Vigilius to Eutychius and a dicourse of P. de Marca's upon it wherein it is extolled as a genuine writing and a sufficient confirmation of this 5th Council And though the foregoing History do abundantly confute this yet we will not pass it without some observations concerning this pompous piece of Forgery First In the Epistle Vigilius is made to say that he is and was of the same Faith with Eutychius and the rest of the Bishops at Constantinople But if so why did he exclaim that the Catholick Faith was in danger to be rooted up Or how came he to Anathematize Theodorus And why did he suffer so much for a matter that was not of Faith Secondly In this Epistle Vigilius Anathematizeth all that at any time believed the three Chapters ought to be received or defended and all that have endeavoured to hinder their being condemned Now is it probable he should curse all his Friends in Africa and in the Western Church yea and himself so dreadfully who had received and defended them and done all in his power to hinder their condemnation Thirdly This illustrious Monument as 't is called can be no confirmation of the 5th Council because it never names or so much as hints at that Council So that it can pass for no more than Vigilius his Recantation of his former Opinions and being writ after the Council seems to be designed for the Emperors private satisfaction For the Eastern Church then did not believe a Popes confirmation necessary to make a General Councils Decrees valid Fourthly This Epistle is dated in December and the Council arose but in June before which argues the falshood of it for it is not likely that he should so soon revoke his solemn constitution and make so great a change or if he did it is strange that living above two years after he did not receive some mark of Justinian's favour in all that time no nor return to his See in Peace As to the Dissertation of de Marca we may note that the years when and the place where this writing was found give just suspicions of its being an Imposture It was it seems found by a Greek An. 1276. in the Vatican and he pretended to Transcribe it out of a Manuscript there writ An. 753. Now the Original of these is dated two hundred years after the 5th Council and all that time no body ever heard of Vigilius his Confirmation and if this date be genuine it might very probably be invented at that time being the very time when the Eastern Church began contrary to the sentiments of Rome to pull down their Images and that was a fit season to produce Evidence that the Greeks ought to submit to the Latins whose Popes as they pretended had made all their General Councils Decrees Authentick And the date of the later Transcript is more suspicious still being the critical time when the poor Eastern Emperor Nich. Palaelogus for getting Money and Aid from the Pope was forced to send some corrupted Bishops to make a seeming Submission to and Union with the Roman Church and to carry on this design An. 1276. no doubt care was taken to find out or make this Epistle and send it into Greece And the Vatican whence it was taken is known to be the Mint and Ware-house of Forgeries So that every circumstance is suspicious And so is the Reason which the learned Patron of it gives why it is so valuable viz. because it vindicates the credit of the Roman See which was much lessened by the belief that the 5th Council was owned for a lawful and general though Vigilius opposed it Now at Rome where the Popes Authority is the main if not the sole point of Religion there have been innumerable Writings piously forged to carry on this great end and this seems to be of that sort only it appeared not early enough for Baronius to cite it however as our Author notes he guessed there was or foresaw there would be such a thing For he positively avers as was shewed upon meer conjecture that Vigilius did confirm the 5th Council But he and his party lay it down for a Maxim that nothing can be a General Council but what is confirmed by the Pope Therefore Evidence or not Evidence Binius and Baronius affirm it was so and they are as confident who never saw this Epistle as de Marca is who published it so that to through-paced Catholicks who take their words this Epistle is a needless discovery But let us see what Authority he hath to support this famous Confirmation He saith Evagrius witnesseth that Vigilius consented in writing but would not come to the Council But this consent was before the Synod met and is therefore plainly set down in Evagrius before the convening with which consent in writing both Justinian and the Council do often upbraid this inconstant Pope Nor can Evagrius be expounded of any subsequent consent since he goes on after this passage to relate the acts of the Council Nor do any of the later Greeks who follow him say any more than to imply Vigilius his precedent consent And the 6th Council relate the calling of the 5th Council after the agreement between Justinian and Vigilius nor can their words without manifest violence be stretched to this Confirmation which had it then been extant in the Greek Copy and as de Marca owns wanting in the Latin that Council had found out and observed this among other Variations The Testimony of Pelagius which our Author thinks so clear is no Evidence unless it be against this Epistle for he speaks not of Vigilius but of the Latin Church which came slowly to see their Error laboured a great while strove a long time even to suffering and would not of a sudden lose their labour till the Truth did appear This plainly refers to the Roman Clergy and Western Bishops who after Vigilius death stood out in defence of the three Chapters so stisly that Pelagius the 1st Vigilius his Successor could scarce find any to consecrate him And at last he was forced to get Narses to use violent Methods to bring them in to his Communion now this was three year after the Council But how could Vigilius his hasty turn in six Months time be called a slow change or a long striving And if Pelagius the second had known of Vigilius his confirming the 5th Council he would not have used so many shifts to ward off the force of his and the Roman Churches dissent which was objected this Epistle had stopt their Mouths for ever and if St. Gregory had known of it he had referred those who doubted of the Apostolical consent not to Pelagius his Epistle but to
defending them 't is plain they knew his Mind and do particularly confute his Constitution only sparing his name yea 't is Evident they lookt on him as a sickle Man and published nothing but his first and soundest Judgment and never ceased acting vigorously for all his dissent for the Greeks at Chalcedon had shewed they looked on a Councils Decrees as valid though the Pope opposed them After all he hath no Witnesses of his Exile but the fabulous Anastasius all the Greeks he confesses are silent as to his sufferings and so are all Authentick Latin Histories too The Epistle of Peter of Antioch was writ 500 year after and only speaks of some difference between Vigilius and Mennas which must be at his first coming to Constantinople Anno 547 but that is nothing to this time after the Council It seems strange that Vigilius should pass for so great a Politician by the art used in this Epistle for if it were his I should think he never intended to confirm the fifth Council by it because he never names it which silence must proceed either from his fear to anger the Western Bishops with whom he joyned still in heart or from his hope that the bare recanting his Opinions would cajole the Emperor and his Greeks and if we consider his Hypocrisie and often changes both of these might make him omit the naming the fifth Council But being a Forgery we need not any conjectures about the reason of a non-entity Yet if I were convinced Vigilius writ this Epistle I should believe the date was false and that this was his first Recantation after he came to Constantinople before this Synod met which is the most probable reason why he did not name this fifth Synod viz. because no such had yet been It was not the Greeks but the Latins who put this Epistle to the end of the Acts of the fifth Synod for in their Vatican it was first pretended to be found but whoever added it must be very weak to imagin an unlawful Synod could be confirmed by a Popes private Opinion delivered six months after or that any body else should receive a Council upon his Authority who did not own it himself Photius lived 300 year after this Council had been owned for a General Council and what he saith may well be explained of the Letters of his which were read in the Council importing that once he was of their mind The Arabick Manuscript is so full of mistakes that its Authority must be inconsiderable it says that the living and dead were never excommunicated before this Synod and that the Popes profession of Faith was writ not to Eutychius but to the Emperor Justinian And all these Testimonies amount to no more than that which the Emperor and the Council both gave out that Vigilius was as indeed he had often declared of the Councils Opinion 'T is certain Pelagius the first Vigilius his immediate successor and who was with him at Constantinople did own this for a General Council and if Vigilius had changed his mind as Pelagius had done so as to confirm the fifth Council he must have known of it and for his own vindication would have pleaded this Writing of Vigilius to satisfie the Western Bishops who rejected his Communion and his silence of Vigilius consent and confirmation is next to demonstration that he know of no such thing and that no such thing ever was As for all the rest they owned it for a lawful General Council but not one of them knew of the subsequent consent of Vigilius The next thing in de Marca is the consideration of the reasons moving Vigilius to make this Decree the first of which is notoriously false For this forged Epistle saith that now the whole World and the Church was restored to Peace and our Author thinks the Illyrican and African Bishops were now reconciled to the Condemners of the three Chapters Whereas 't is plain Liberatus did not write his Breviary till Vigilius his death that is two year after the date of this feigned Epistle and he shews how woful a Schism and Scandal there was then in the Church especially in Africa And Victor one of the African Bishops of that side died in restraint after he had suffered much in defence of the three Chapters thirteen years after As to the Western Bishops how could their being restored to Peace be a motive to Vigilius to recant An. 553. when three year after his successor Pelagius was struggling with them to bring them to Peace and could not do it then without some force And our Author owns that the French Spanish and Italian Bishops did not come in till Pelagius had been some time in the Chair and Baronius saith the same so that his first reason is not so much as true I shall only add that Justinian acted very sincerely in this matter and Leontius slanders him in supposing otherwise for his Judgment was that the three Chapters were to be condemned both Opinions and Persons the Heretical Doctrins and Hereticks too if they had not recanted But perhaps Vigilius might act dispensatively in this change for it is likely he still kept a Nestorian Heart only this spoils his second reason why Vigilius writ this Epistle viz. Christ having enlightned his Mind God revealing and he diligently enquiring was now come to the knowledge of the Truth For if after all Vigilius did only confirm them dispensatively that supposes he did not believe the points to be either necessary or true but only such as might be professed for peace sake and if that were all what an Hypocrite must this Pope be to talk of a change of his Mind and coming to know the truth by Illumination Revelaââon and Study In vain doth he and his Patron alledge the Example of St. Augustin St. Paul and St. Peter for did St. Augustin retract things and pretend to be convinced of his Mistakes only dispensatively that is secretly believing still they might be true Did St. Paul only believe the Gospel ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã after his Conversion Or was St. Peter a Jew in his Heart after he consented to discharge the Gentiles from the Ceremonies of the Law Pelagius the Second's Arguments are good as to the Roman Clergy who sincerely opposed the truth for a time but upon Conviction as sincerely embraced it But to apply these instances to such a Proteus and Dissembler as Vigilius is to prostitute them rather than defend him who often dispensed with himself in the duties of Morality If Vigilius had gon to the Council he might have learned those two Rules de Marca speaks of in six days without the help of Revelation But the feigned Epistle says nothing of such Rules it pretends that Vigilius now understood the Person and Writings of Theodorus and the Writings of Theodoret and Ibas against Cyril were Heretical and that it was his duty to pronounce them Heretical
know from Eusebius That the Bishops of his own Opinion severely reproved him for offering to pass so rash a Sentence and to impose his Sense upon remote Churches So that thus far there is no genuine Proof of any Supremacy exercised or claimed by the Roman Church for the Decretals which only pretend to make it out are notorious Forgeries CHAP. III. Of the Forgeries in the Third Century § 1. THis Century begins with the Life of Pope Zepherine who Sat Eight years saith the Pontifical but the Notes tell you He Sat Eighteen which is a small Error in that fabulous Author Yet the Editors believe upon his Credit that this Pope ordered Vessels of Glass to be used in the Mass and the Notes prove it by Pope Gregory the Great who lived Four hundred years after this time However if we allow the Matter of Fact upon the Testimonies of S. Hierom and Epiphanius it will follow That in those Ages when they used Glass Cups they did not believe Transubstantiation for if they had they would not have ventured Christ's Blood in so brittle a Vessel but have forbid the use of Glasses as they have done in the Roman Church since this Opinion came in among them Under this Pope the Editors place an African Council and say it was Reprobated yet they cannot make it appear that this Pope so much as knew of it Nor was his Advice or Consent at all desired in that case which was never disputed at Rome till Pope Stephen's time as themselves confess viz. Fifty years after this Council was held from whence we learn That every Province in this Age believed they had sufficient Authority to determine Controversies in Religion among themselves without the Consent of the Bishop of Rome § 2. Though the Pontifical be guilty of many Errors in the Life of Calixtus and mistake the very Emperors under which he lived and died the Notes gloss them all fairly over and correct them by the Roman Martyrology which often follows the Pontifical and is as fabulous as that However we are told That Calixtus was buried Three Miles out of the City because the Law of the Twelve Tables forbid the Burying of a dead Body within the Walls Now I would know if this Law were in force how that can be true which the Pontifical and the Notes affirm and justifie That S. Peter Linus Cletus Euaristus Sixtus Telesphorus Hyginus Pius and Victor were All Buried in the Vatican And what shall we think of the Miracles done by their Relicks and at their Tombs if no Body know where they were first Buried Pope Urban the Successor of Calixtus is said in the Pontifical to be Buried in the Coemetery of Praetextatus which could not then be any Coemetery at all because Praetextatus was not Martyted till the Persecution under Maximinus which hapned many years after And if the Story of S. Cecily in the same Author be no Truer than his Chronology the Romanists worship a fictitious Saint The Pontifical is forced to feign That the Emperor Alexander Severus was a Persecutor contrary to his Character in all Histories of Credit and this only to make us think that Calixtus Urban and Pope Pontianus his Successor were Martyrs However though Eusebius knew not of their Martyrdom the Roman Church adores them all as Martyrs and have peculiar Days dedicated to their Memories Antherus as the Pontifical says Sat Twelve years and One Month and the Notes say that he Sat only one Month so that there is but only Twelve years mistaken in this Popes Life And if he was Pope but one Month doubtless his Secretaries had need be very swift Writers or else they could not gather many in his time However Binius will make it out for he brings in a Poetical Hyperbole Of those Scribes who could write a Sentence before a man had spoken it and so were as quick at guessing as writing and applies this in very serious earnest to this Pope's Notaries to make us imagine there were many Acts of Martyrs writ out in this short-lived Pope's time § 3. Pope Fabian as Eusebius relates was chosen by occasion of a Dove 's lighting on his Head when the People were met to elect a Pope of which remarkable Story the fabulous Pontifical takes no notice but tells us That in this Popes time Novatus the Heretic came to Rome that is say the Notes Above a year after Pope Fabian was dead after the Vacancy and in Pope Cornelius ' s time with such absurd Comments do these Gentlemen delight to cover the Ignorance and Falsehood of their Historian but such Excuses do only more expose him In this Pope's time were two Councils held one in Africa the other in Arabia and they Intitle them both under Fabian yet the only Authors who mention these Councils do not say Pope Fabian was concerned in either of them and therefore they were not under Fabian After this Pope's death there was a Vacancy of more than one whole year which the Editors to slatter the Papacy call in the style of Princes An Interregnum but alas their admired Monarchy was now turned into an Aristocracy and the Clergy governed the Roman Church to excuse which flaw in their visible Monarchical Succession the Notes say The Members next the Head knew it was their parts to do the office of the Head Which notable kind of substitution if it could be made out in the Body Natural Beheading would not be a Mortal punishment however they must say something to make us believe there was always a Visible Head of the Catholic Church or at least a Neck and Shoulders which stood for an Head till Cornelius was chosen Pope And they called a Council as they pretend in this Vacancy and writ a Letter of their Determination to all the Churches in the World that they might all observe what the Empty Chair of Peter had ordered But if any one read the Letter it self it will appear that this Council was only a voluntary Assembly of the Clergy in Rome and they met only to confirm S. Cyprian's Opinion and only writ their Letter to him but never pretended either to be Judges over Cyprian or any other part of the Catholic Church Pope Cornelius his Life follows for whose Character we are more obliged to S. Cyprian's Epistles than to the Pontifical which invents an idle Story of a Dialogue between Cornelius and Decius the Emperor and though the Notes own That Decius who is here pretended to Martyr him dyed the same Month in which Cornelius entred yet they will not own the Story to be false but boldly put in the Name of Volusianus into their Margen instead of Decius However the Breviary retains the Fiction of Cornelius suffering under Decius as it doth also the Fable of his Translating the Bodies of S. Peter and S. Paul But let any considering Man compare the different ways of telling this Sham Story and he
will easily discern that the Notes cannot reconcile them without flying to a Miracle It is evident they have told us the Body of S. Peter was in the Vatican when Pope Victor was there Buried An. 203 And there is no Author of Credit mentions their removal into the Catacumbae and so consequently no reason to believe they were fetcht back from thence in a time of Persecution Pope Gregory lived 350 years after this and was very apt to credit feigned Miracles and he differs much from the Pontifical so that probably the whole Story is forged by those who long after began superstitiously to adore the Relicks of Saints However it is read in the Roman Church Septemb. 16. and many devout People on the Credit of this Legend make Pilgrimages and offer Prayers and large Gifts to the Shrines of these two Apostles of whose true Relicks they can have none because their real Graves are not known In this Pope's time there were two Councils holden at Carthage two at Rome and one in Italy all which in the general Titles are said to be held under Cornelius though the Notes assure us That those two at Carthage were called by S. Cyprian's Authority and that the Italian Bishops made a Decree of their own besides that of Cornelius at Rome The Roman Councils indeed were holden under Cornelius as being Bishop of that City but we may observe He did not Authoritatively confirm the Sentence of the Council of Carthage but only consented to it We may also Note This African Council calls not Pope Cornelius Father but Brother and writes to him as one of their Collegues yea they do not except Cornelius when they Decree That if any of their Collegues agreed not to their Sentence he should answer it at the Day of Judgment Moreover in the same Letter there is an evident Testimony that the People in those days were prepared for Martyrdom by receiving the Eucharistical Cup which being now denied to the Laity the Editors pass it by without a Note yet soon after where the Council plainly speaks of Confessing the Name of Christ before Persecutors they have this impertinent Marginal Note From this and other places the necessity of Confession is confirmed As if this belonged to their new invented Auricular Confession § 4. The Notes find divers Faults in the Life of Pope Lucius yet they would palliare the grossest of all for the Pontifical says He was Beheaded by Valerian the Notes affirm it was by Gallus and Volusiunus and yet the same Notes tell us The Pontifical in saying it was by Vulerian may be very well and truly expounded The Reader must understand It may be so expounded by such kind of Notes as are designed to make gress Errors seem great Truths Pope Stephen who succeeded Lucius fell out with Cyprian and the African Bishops about the re-baptizing of Heretics which though it were the only memorable thing in this Popes Life the Pontifical never mentions And the Editors are are so used to put into the Title of all Councils Under such or such a Pope that in this Popes time they style those very Councils Sub Stephano which were called without his knowledge and which condemned his Opinion as may be seen in the Councils of Carthage Iconium and Africa where so easily may Tradition be mistaken the Re-baptizing of Heretics is asserted to be an Apostolick Tradition though it were contrary to Pope Stephen's Opinion and the Tradition of the Roman Church And when Stephen on this account presumed to Excommunicate the Asian Bishops Firmilianus Bishop of Coesarea in a Letter to S. Cyprian Despises his Sentence compares the Pope to Judas complains of his Arrogance and esteems those to be very silly who took the Roman Bishop's word for an Apostolical Tradition from which that Church in many Instances had departed Moreover He calls him a Schismatic and affirms he had by this rash Sentence only cut himself off from the Unity of the Catholic Church S. Cyprian also and his Africans condemned this Pope as a Favourer of Heretics an Enemy to the Church and one who writ Contradictions and was void of Prudence describing him as an Innovator and bringer in of Traditions contrary to God's Word as one who obstinately presumed to prefer human Doctrines before Scripture I grant Pope Stephen was in the right in this Controversie yet doubtless if these Bishops had believed the Supremacy and Infallibility of the Pope and his Roman Council they could not have used him at this rate And the Editors are so concerned to cover this rough usage that they reprint an Epistle of S. Cyprian's Verbatim after this Quarrel was grown hot which was writ while they two were Friends and contains very kind Words to Stephen which Blind is only to make us think that Cyprian submitted to the Pope at last though it is apparent he never did so Again the Reader may note that Labbè here prints a Tract of some Ancient Author to justify the Pope's Opinion but though there be many good Arguments for it from other Topics the Argument from Tradition and the determination of the Roman Church is not urged in the whole Discourse which shews that these were no Arguments allowed in this Writers time Lastly whereas the third Council of Carthage severely censures Pope Stephen for taking upon him as Bishop of Bishops and for compelling his Equals by Tyrannical Terrors to obey him Binius impudently notes upon this that the Pope was called Bishop of Bishops to him was the last Refuge in Matters of Faith and his Determinations were received all the World over as the Oracles of the Holy Ghost Which is from his Usurping a Title and Authority to infer he had Right to them and to prove that all the World received his Determinations from a Story which shews that half the Christian World rejected them § 5. The Life of Sixtus the Second in the Pontifical is one heap of Errors for the Author seems to mistake him for Xystus the Philosopher and as the Notes confess make Decius raise a great Persecution against the Church Eight year after he was Dead He also places Valerian before Decius supposing them to Reign together and saying Sixtus was Beheaded by Valerian in Decius's time now Decius was slain two year before Valerian was Emperor Yet the Notes labour to colour over all these Contradictions to Salve the Credit of their Missals and Fabulous Maityrology Dionysius the next Pope is said to have been a Monk upon the credit of the Pontifical the Notes add that he Lived a Solitary Life before his Election yet the Modern Monks have given over that Primitive Custom and now croud into great Cities But the Pontifical is so miserably mistaken in the Consuls in this Popes Life placing those for his last Consuls who were so two years before those he Names for his first Consuls that nothing can be believed on this Authors credit
Pope Adrian and that is all the Authority he hath for this feigned Leprosy which Disease no Writer of Credit and Antiquity saith Constantine ever had no not that Malicious Zosimus who raked up all the Odious things against this Emperor he could devise and if ever he had been struck by Heaven with Leprosy no doubt he would have Blazed it abroad with great Pleasure § 10. The Book of Constantine's Munificence is grounded on the Fable of his Baptism and seems to be Forged by the same Hand with Sylvester's Acts So that we ought also to reject it as a Fiction Anastasius who put it out was the Pope ' s Library-keeper and whether he made it or found it in the Vatican that Shop of Lies as Richerius calls it the Credit of it is invalidated by reason no Author of Repute or Antiquity mentions any of these Gifts It says blasphemously Constantine gave a Saviour sitting five foot high so it calls a dead Image But if this were true why did not Adrian cite this in his Nicene Council Or why did this Emperor ' s Sister write to Eusebius Bishop of Coesarea for an Image of Christ when Sylvester could more easily have furnished her and by the way the Notes fraudulently mention this Message but do not relate how severely Eusebius reproved that Lady for seeking after a visible Image of Christ The Annotator also cites Paulinus to prove this Book of Munificence but he writ near 100 years after and though he speak of a fine Church of S. Peter in Rome yet he saith not that Constantine either founded or adorned it Baronius attempts to prove this Book by mear Conjectures by the Forged Acts and by Nicephorus a late Author whom he often taxes for Fictions but he can produce no ancient or eminent Author for it And yet it is certain if Constantine had given so many and so great gifts to the Head City of the World some of the most Famous Writers would have Recorded it Besides the Cardinal himself rejects both the idle Story of S. Agnes Temple attested by a Fiction ascribed to S. Ambrose told in this very Book and the apparent Falshood of Constantine's now burying his Mother in one of these Churches who was alive long after So that by his own Confession there are divers Falshoods in this Book and he had been more Ingenuous if he had owned the whole to be as it really is a Forgery § 11. The Editors now go back to the Council of Arles held as they say Anno 314 And it troubles them much to ward off the Blows which it gives to their beloved Supremacy For it was appointed by the Emperor upon an Appeal made to him by the Donatists to judge a cause over again which had been judged before by Melchiades and his Roman Council the Pope in Council it seems being not then taken to be Infallible 'T is true in the Title which these Editors give us this Council directs their Canons To their Lord and most Holy Brother Sylvester the Bishop and say they had sent them to him that all might know the Pope not excepted what they were to observe So that though in Respect they call him Lord yet they Stile him also a Brother and expect his obedience to their Decrees nor do they as the Notes pretend desire him to confirm these Canons But only require the Pope who held the larger Diocess that he would openly acquaint all with them as their Letter speaks That is as he was a Metropolitan to give notice of these Canons to all his Province which was then called a Diocess and Baronius is forced to point the Sentence salsly to make it sound toward his beloved Supremacy So in the First Canon Pope Sylvester is ordered by this Council to give notice to all of the Day on which Easter was to be observed That is he was to write to all his Neighbouring Bishops under his Jurisdiction about it not as the Notes say That he was to determine the day and by vertue of his Office to write to all the Bishops of the Christian World to observe it The Council had ordered the Day and command the Pope to give notice to all about him to keep it And in the Famous Nicene Council The Bishop of Alexandria living where Astronomy was well understood was appointed first to settle and then to certify the day of Easter yet none will infer from hence that he was the Head of the Catholic Church because he had this Duty imposed on him which as yet is more than the Council of Arles did put upon the Bishop of Rome Again the Notes are very angry at the Emperor for receiving the Donatists appeal from the Pope and his Council which they say Constantine owned to be an unjust and impious thing but they prove this only by a forged Epistle mentioned but now § 5. But it is certain Constantine though a Catechumen which they pretended was impossible at Nice was present in this Council and so he must act against his Conscience if he had thought it unjust and impious to judge in Ecclesiastical Causes And in this Emperor ' s Letter to Ablavius he saith God had committed all Earthly things to his ordering and in that to Celsus he promises to come into Africa to enquire and judge of things done both by the People and the Clergy And indeed Constantine by all his practice sufficiently declared he thought it lawful enough for him to judge in Ecclesiastical matters Finally the Notes say the Bishops met in this Council at the Emperor ' s request Now that shews it was not at the Pope ' s request but indeed Constantine's Letter to Chrestus expresly Commands the Bishops to meet The Notes also out of Balduinus or Optatus or rather from an obscure Fragment cited by him say Sylvester was President of this Council Baronius addeth of his own head namely by his Legates which guess Binius puts down for a certain truth But it is ridiculous to fancy that a pair of Priests and as many Deacons in that Age should sit above the Emperor when himself was present in that Council So that though we allow the Pope ' s Messengers to have been at this Council there is no proof that they presided in it We shall only add that instead of Arians in the Eighth Canon we must Read Africans or else we must not fix this Council so early as An. 314 at which time the Arians were not known by that name § 12. In the same year is placed the Council of Ancyra which the Editors do not as usually say was under Sylvester but only in his time and it is well they are so modest for doubtless he had no Hand in it the Notes confess that it was called by the Authority of Vitalis Bishop of Antioch Balsamon and Zonaras say Vitalis of Antioch Agricolaus of Caesarea and Basil of Amasea were the
Presidents of it Yet not only Leo the Fourth but the famous Council of Nice approved of this Synod called and carried on without the Pope ' s knowledge or leave There is but one Canon in this Council which contradicts the Roman practice viz. The Ninth which allows Deacons to Marry and continue in their Office if they declared at their Ordination that they could not live Single This Canon therefore Baronius and Binius strive to corrupt with false Glosses The former saith We may by this Canon see how firmly Ministers single Life was asserted not only in the whole Catholick Church but in the East Now it is very strange that a private Canon of a Provincial Council which allows one Order of Ministers to Marry should shew it was the Opinion of the whole Church that none might Marry The latter in his Notes affirms That this among other Canons solidly proves that not only Priests but Deacons by the Apostolical Law were bound to Live without Wives But the Apostles certainly allowed Deacons to have Wives and this Canon was made on purpose that they might live with their Wives if they pleased The Notes proceed to say That Deacons ordained against their Will and protesting they could not contain were by these Fathers permitted to Marry after their Ordination provided they left off all Sacred Administrations and did not Communicate among the Priests in the Chancel but among the People Which is an impudent falsification There being no word of being Ordained unwillingly nor any reason why they should be Ordained who were to be reduced presently to Lay-communion Yea the Words of the Canon are express that if they did Marry they should continue in their Ministration So that these Editors make no Conscience to make these ancient Records to contradict themselves rather then let them seem to oppose their Churches present practice For which vile purpose there is another trick in the Notes on this Council For whereas the Eighteenth Canon speaks of Lay-persons which Vowed single Life as many had done in times of Persecution and afterwards broke their Vow that these were to be counted Bigamists The Notes on this Canon put these Words of the Thirteenth Canon Those who are of the Clergy c. Before their observation on the Eighteenth Canon on purpose to make the Reader think the Clergy in those days Vowed single Life as they do now at Rome § 13. The Council of Naeccaesarea according to these Editors was under Sylvester who is not once named in it nor doth it appear he knew of it They might also have left out Leo the Fourth's approving it Five hundred years after because the Notes say The Council of Nice allowed it which is much more for its Credit The same Notes say The first Canon orders the same thing which was decreed in the Thirty third Canon at Elliberis and the Ninth at Ancyra And if so that is not as they falsly gloss the Canon of Ancyra That the Clergy should live Single or be reduced to Lay Communion For in that Canon some of the Clergy are allowed to Marry and to continue to minister as Clergy-men still And the true Sense of this Naeocaesarean Canon is That whereas in times of Persecution when Marriage was inconvenient many Priests promised to live Single Now these only were not allowed to Marry afterward but when the Church had Peace the Nicene Council left all Clergy-men free to Marry or not as they pleased which shews That when the Reason of this Canon ceased they believed its Obligation did so also The Fifth Canon forbids a Catechumen who falls into Sin to enter into the Church By which the Notes say That Baronius had sharply censured Eusebius But it is plain that Baronius shews more Malice than Wit in that Censure Eusebius only relates Matter of Fact That Constantine was present in the Nicene Council and he with all ancient Authors agrees That Constantine was yet a Catechumen where then is the Crime Do not Baronius and Binius both agree that Constantine was present in the Council of Arles Ten years before his pretended Baptism at Rome And if it be said This Canon forbid it I ask Whether it be probable that an Emperor who as Baronius saith was Solutus Legibus Above the Civil Law should be proceeded against by a Canon of a small Provincial Council Wherefore Eusebius his only Crime is That he tells a Truth which happens to contradict the Lying Acts of Sylvester and consequently the Interest of Rome for which the Cardinal and Annotator can never forgive him The next place is assigned to a Roman Council under Sylvester wherein there was a famous Disputation between the Jews and Christians before Constantine and Helena but in the Notes we are told the Story is utterly false only attested by Sylvester's Acts which Swarm with Lies as they are now extant yet out of these Acts as now extant is the Forgery of Constantine's Baptism at Rome taken and therefore Baronius and Binius reject this Council as a meer Forgery But why do they not reject Constantine's Baptism as well as this Council since both rely on the same Author The Reason is plain That makes for the Interest of the Pope and This no way concerns and so it may pass for a Forgery as it is § 14. On occasion of Arius's Heresie now breaking out at Alexandria there was a Council of an Hundred Bishops called by Alexander Bishop of that City to Condemn him which first Council of Alexandria the Editors say was under Sylvester but it doth not appear that this Pope knew of it till Three years after An. 318 at which time Alexander gave notice of this Council not to Sylvester by name as the Notes falsly suggest but to all Catholic Bishops and in particular to the Bishop of Constantinople But for fear the Reader should observe That more respect was shewed to that Bishop than to the Pope the Editors have removed these Epistles of Alexander into the Body of the Nicene Council and only give us Notes upon them here in which the Annotator out of Baronius turns the Charge of Lying and Forgery of which themselves have been so often convicted upon us whom they falsly call Innovators Four years after followed a Second Council at Alexandria which the Notes hope to prove was under Sylvester because Athanasius saith This was a General Council and saith Hosins was there Upon this Baronius fancying nothing could be a General Council unless the Pope were present Personally or by his Legates conjectures Hosius was the Pope's Legate and in that capacity presided in this Council And the Notes positively affirm this Dream for a certain Truth But Athanasius calls many Synods General which were only Provincial and it is plain he had not the modern Roman Notion of a General Council because he never mentions Sylvester nor doth he say Hosius was his Legate But even
Baronius owns that Hosius was Constantine's intimate Friend and his Legate into Egypt six years before and Socrates saith He was now again sent thither as the Emperor's Legate and no doubt if he did preside in this Council it was not as Sylvester's Legate whom no ancient Author records to have had any hand in this Council but as the Legate of Constantine After these two Councils is placed a Letter of this Emperors to Alexander and Arius taken out of Eusebius but is misplaced by the Editors since it is plain it was written in the beginning of the Controversie about Arius and not only before Constantine understood any thing of the matter but before these Councils at Alexandria But Baronius and the Editors place it here on purpose to Rail at Eusebius as if he put out an Arian Forgery whereas it is a great Truth and Constantine may well be supposed to write thus before he was rightly informed in the Case therefore those Gentlemen do not hurt Eusebius's Reputation but their own in accusing him so falsly upon the old Grudge of his not attesting their Forgeries devised and defended for the Honour of the Roman Church § 15. The Council of Laodicea though it do not appear any Pope knew of it till after it was Risen they resolve shall be held under some Pope the Title saith Under Sylvester Labbé's Margen saith Under Liberius An. 364 or 357 or Under Damasus 367 Whereas in truth it was under no Pope and being placed in the old Collections of Canons after those of Antioch and also mentioning the Photinians it must be held long after the Nicene Council But it was falsly placed before the Nicene Council by Baronius our Editor's main Guide to secure the Book of Judith by the Council of Nice's Authority And the Reasons given for this early placing it are very frivolous For first The softening of a Canon of Naeocaesarea is no certain Mark of time Secondly This Council rejects Judith out of the Canon of Scripture and so did the Council of Nice also for though S. Hierom when he had told us This Book is not of Authority sufficient to determine Controversies adds That the Nicene Synod is read to have computed it among Holy Writings S. Hierom only means They allowed it to be Read for Instruction but did not count it Canonical for doubtless he would not have rejected Judith if that Council had received it into the Canon And he saith elsewhere The Church indeed reads Judith Tobit and the Macchabees but receives them not among Canonical Scriptures and again A man may receive this Book as be pleaseth Herein therefore the Council of Laodicea doth not contradict the Council of Nice at all as these Notes falsly pretend Thirdly This Councels decreeing the same things which were decreed at Nice without naming it is no Argument it was held before that of Nice nothing being more ordinary than for later Councils to renew older Canons without citing the former Councils for them The Notes on the Second Canon at Laodicea which supposes Penitents to make their Confession by Prayer to God and mentions no Priest would willingly grast the use of their modern Sacramental Confession to a Priest upon this ancient Canon but it rather confutes than countenances that modern device Their labouring to expunge the Photinians out of the Seventh Canon since all the old Greek Copies have these words is meerly to justifie their false Date of this Council The Annotator on the Fifteenth Canon confesseth that S. Paul Commands all the People to joyn in the Hymns and that this Use continued to S. Hierom ' s time yet he owns their pretended Apostolical Church hath altered this Primitive Custom grounded on Holy Scripture and that for very frivolous Reasons But let it be observed That this Canon forbids not the People to bear a part in the Church Service but allows them not to begin or bring in any Hymns into the Public Service The Seventeenth Canon speaks of the Assemblies of the Faithful in two Latin Versions and the Greek is ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã yet because the worst Latin Translation reads in Processionibus the Notes impertinently run out into a discourse of their Superstitious modern Processions for any thing serves them for an occasion to make their late Devices seem ancienter than they are The Thirty fourth Canon mentions and censures those who leaving the Martyrs of Christ go to false Martyrs And the Fifty first Canon mentions the Martyrs Feasts Upon which the Notes most falsly infer That the Martyrs were then adored with Religious Worship But this is only his Invention The Canon speaks not one word of Worshiping Martyrs but only whereas the Orthodox Christian Assemblies were generally in the Burial places of true Martyrs where they offered up Prayers to God Some it seems began to make separate Meetings in Places dedicated to False Martyrs and therefore the properest Note here would have been to have set out the Sin of Schism and the Pious Fraud as they call it of feigning false Martyrs of which their Church is highly guilty The Thirty fifth Canon expresly forbids leaving the Church of God and calling upon Angels which they say is an hidden kind of Idolatry and forsaking Christ the Son of God to go after Idolatry And Theodoret who lived soon after the true time of this Council saith Those who were for Moses ' s Law which was given by Angels brought in the Worship of them which Error reigned long in Phrygia and Pisidia and therefore the Councill of Laodicea in Phrygia did by a Law forbid the Praying to Angels Which Canon doth so evidently condemn the Roman Churches Prayers to the Angels as Idolatry that the former Editors of the Councils impudently corrupted the Text of this Canon and put in Angulos for Angelos as if the Council had only forbid Praying in private Corners whereas not only the Greek but the oldest Latin Copies and Theodoret have Angels But our Editors and Annotator having Baronius for their Guide venture to keep the true Reading Angels in the Text and put Angles into the Margen hoping by false Notes to ward off this severe Blow And first The Notes dare not produce the place of Theodoret at large then they strive to blunder the Reader with a distinction of Dulia and Latria which can signifie nothing here because the Canon and Theodoret both say It is Praying to Angels which is forbid and that the Romanists certainly do Again Baronius censures Theodoret for saying That such Heretics as were for Moses ' s Law brought in ANGEL-Worship But why doth he not censure S. Paul who saith That those who were Jewishly inclined and observed differences of Meats New-Moons and Sabbaths were the Inventers of Angel-Worship The Angelic-Heretics in Epiphanius and S. Augustine who came in afterwards did not as the Notes represent them say That Angels were to be worshiped with the
did not write till An. 1180 yet the Notes out of Baronius do confess that a Pope quoted it An. 1054 that is near an Hundred years before Balsamon was born to justifie his Superiority over the Greek Church and therefore Balsamon was not the Inventer of it Secondly It doth the Greeks no good for it gives the Pope power over all their Patriarchs and reckons Constantinople as the last and lowest Patriarchate so that the Forger could not come out of that Church Thirdly It is grounded on the fabulous Acts of Sylvester writ in Latin and feigned in the Western World and its whole design is to advance the Pope above all Bishops Kings and Emperors and therefore no doubt it was advanced by a Friend of the Popes Fourthly The Notes confess That a Pope first set up this Edict to prove his Universal Supremacy not considering with Baronius it seems that it weakened his Title and the grave and learned Men of the Roman Church received it as Authentic for many Ages after We add That till the Reformation they cited it and writ in defence of it and though now their Point is gained they begin to renounce it yet the Advantage that Church got by it shews that they were the Forgers of it yea it seems Anno 1339 one Johannes Diaconus a Member of the Roman Church was thought to be the Author of it Fifthly Whoever considers how unwilling the Cardinal and our Annotator are to have it clearly rejected will be convinced that their Church gained by it and consequently invented it They labour to prove the Popes temporal Power granted hereby is both probable and true And though they own the French Princes Pipin and Charles who gave many Cities and Countries to S. Peter never mention this Edict yet they argue from their calling those Gifts A restoring them to the Church that they had respect to Constantine's Bounty These Authors also mention Pope Adrian's confirming this Edict and quote the Book of Constantine's Munificence shewed to be a Fable just now to justifie it They also would make out what it saith of the Images of Peter and Paul then kept at Rome by Eusebius but cite him falsly leaving out the main part of his Testimony viz. That it was only some who had such Images and that these imitated the Pagans herein from whence it will not follow That eminent Christians then placed them in their Churches In short Though they dare not say it is true yet they would not have it rejected as false because it gives their admired Church so much Riches and Power and therefore doubtless no Greeks but some of their Church invented this most notorious Forgery And Aeneas Sylvius observes That it was warily done of the Popes to let it be hotly disputed how far this Edict was good in Law that so the Edict it self might still be supposed valid it being their Interest it should be thought so This feigned Donation is followed by a Roman Council under Sylvester in the Preface whereof Sylvester is falsly pretended to have called the Nicene Council and in the body of which there is a Canon That none must judge the Chief Seat not the Emperor nor Kings nor Clergy nor People For the sake of which two advantagious Fictions Baronius and the Annotator defend and justifie this Synod though the Title be ridiculous the Style barbarous and the Matter of it as void of Sense as it is of probability Labbé indeed notes That the Condemning Photinus here shews it was put together by an unskilful Hand and rejects it as a Forgery very justly For Photinus as the Notes confess was not Condemned till long after nor were there any Christian Kings but Constantine the Emperor at that time Besides the Forger first says None of the Laity were present and yet in the next Page affirms That Calpharnius Praefect of the City was there and that Constantine and his Mother Helena subscribed it yea Baronius himself observes That this Council mistakes the Custom of the Roman Church where in that Age Presbyters use to sit in the presence of the Bishops but in this Fiction they are represented as standing with the Deacons Moreover it destroys the Donation Lies seldom hanging together for if Constantine had given the Pope such Supreme Power a few days before what need was there for these Bishops to grant the same thing or however why do they not remember Constantine's late Gift Lastly Arius who then gave so great Trouble to the Church is not mentioned here not as Baronius guesses because he was to be more solemnly Condemned at Nice the next year but because the Forger had nothing in his Eye but meerly to set off the Grandeur of Rome § 17. We are now come to the First and most famous General Council of Nice wherein the worst and most dangerous of all Heresies was suppressed and yet the pretended Judge of all Controversies and Supreme Head of the Church had so little share in this glorious Transaction that it is very uncertain in what Popes time it was called Sozomen and Nicephorus say it was in the time of Julius Others think it was in Sylvester's time Photius affirms it was in the times of both Sylvester and Julius though unhappily Pope Mark was between them two Yet this Council is introduced by a Preface a la Mode a Rome styled The History of the Council of Nice wherein as well as in the Notes and various Editions of this famous Council all imaginable Artifice is used to abuse the Reader into a belief That Pope Sylvester not only called this Council and presided in it by his Legates but also confirmed it by his sole Authority afterwards For the clearer Confutation of which Falshoods we will consider First The Authority which convened this Council Secondly The President of it with the Order of Sitting in it and Subscribing to it Thirdly The Power which confirmed it Fourthly The number of the Canons Fifthly The true Sense of them Sixthly The Forgeries for Supremacy herein inserted Seventhly The corrupt Editions of the Council it self First As to the Authority convening it The Preface saith Constantine assembled it by Sylvester ' s Authority The Notes affirm it was appointed by the Advice Counsel and Authority of Pope Sylvester and again Pope Sylvester by his Pontifical Authority decreed the celebration of a General Council To prove these vain Brags they cite Ruffinus whose Version of this Council they reject yet he only saith That Constantine convened it by the Advice of the Bishops However this is Advice not Authority and Advice of the Bishops in general not of Sylvester in particular and if any Bishops did give the Emperor particular Advice it was those of Alexandria and Constantinople not He of Rome Secondly They quote the Sixth General Council held 350 years after this of Nice and in other things rejected by the Romanists which saith
genuine 20 Canons From which we may observe First that Binius will cite those things for the supremacy c. which he knows to be forged Secondly That the great design of all these Forged Records of Antiquity was either to cover the faults or consult the honour of the Roman Church which seems to have both employed and encouraged the Authors of these Pious Frauds because her Pretences could not be made out by any thing that was Authentic Julius succeeded Marcus in the same year in whose Life the Pontifical mistakes the Consuls Names and feigns he was banished Ten Months which Baronius proves to have been impossible He fills up this Popes story according to his manner with trisling matters and omits the only remarkable thing in his Life which was his concern in the Cause of Athanasius In this Popes name several Epistles are published The First from Julius to the Eastern Bishops may be proved fictitious not only by the Confession of Baronius and other Learned Romanists but by divers other Arguments For is it probable that Julius would Only be solicitous about his Supremacy when he writ to the Arians and not once reprove them for their Heresie nor their persecuting Athanasius is it likely he should cite the Council of Nice falsly and feign so many ancient Decrees about the Primacy of the Pope and the Nullity of Councils not celebrated by his Authority This Forger saith Julius consented to the Nicene Council at the time of its celebration but the Romanists agree that it was held in Sylvesters time He imperiously forbids the Eastern Bishops to judge any Bishops without him and falsly tells them They all had received their Consecration from Rome yea with the fabulous Pontisical he mistakes the Consuls Name and puts Maximianus for Titianus Yet by this Forgery the Editors would prove that more than twenty Canons were made at Nice and after Baronius had discarded it Binius by frivolous Notes strives to justifie it as speaking big for the Supremacy Secondly Here is the Eastern Bishops Answer to Julius wherein though they call the Pope Father which was the usual Title of Bishops of great Sees yet they expresly deny his having any Authority over them and affirm he ought to be subject to the Canons as well as other Bishops So that there is no reason for Binius his Brag Lo how they own the Supremacy For indeed they do not own it at all and yet the substance of this Epistle is genuine being found in Secrates and Sozomen The third Epistle from Julius to the Arians is owned by Baronius and others to be a Forgery and Binius in his Notes upon it saith It is false corrupted and stollen out of divers Authors yet the same Binius infamously quotes it over and over for the Supremacy the Nullity of Councils not called by the Pope and the number of the Nicene Canons The fourth Epistle of Julius comes not out of the Vatican but was preserved in Athanasius his Apology and is by all accounted genuine being writ in an humble style without any pretences to the Supremacy And here the Nicene Canon about the re-hearing in a New Synod a Cause not well judged before is rightly cited without mention of any final Appeal to Rome The power of all Bishops is supposed to be equal and not any greater power to belong to him that is fixed in a greater City Here Julius writes not his own Sense but the Sense of the Bishops of Italy who were assembled in a Synod at Rome of which great City Julius being Bishop ought by ancient custom to publish the Decrees of such Councils as were held in or or near that City but Binius falsly infers from hence That it was an honour due to his place to publish the Decrees made in all Synods And whereas when any thing was under debate concerning Alexandria the second Patriarchate Julius saith it was a Custom to write to the Roman Bishop who was the first Patriarch Binius stretcheth this and saith It was both agreeable to the Canons and Custom that no Bishop should be judged till the Popes definitive Sentence were heard The last Epistle also is genuine and writ in a modest style owning that Athanasius was not judged by the Pope alone but by a Synod of Bishops whose Judgment he supposes above his own and by these two Epistles we may discern the Impostures of those other Epistles which are Forged about this time in the Names of this and other Popes The Decrees attributed to this Pope are not suitable to the Age yet we may note the third Decree forbids a man to Marry his deceased Brothers Wife though his Brother had not known her Which was shamefully broken by that Pope who gave Licence to King Henry the 8th to marry his Brothers Wife and this Decree justifies his Divorce After these Epistles follows a Roman Synod wherein Julius with 117 Bishops confirm the Nicene Council but Labbé saith it is a hotch-potch made up out of many Authors and put into the form of a Council by Isidore and it is dated with the same mistaken Consuls Felician and Maximian with which Julius his entrance into the Pontifical and all his Forged Epistles are dated for his genuine Epistles have no date yet Baronius and the Notes gravely dispute about the time of this Forged Council and the Bishops which were said to be in it meerly to perswade the Reader that the Nicene Council needed the Pope's Confirmation but since this Council is feigned it can be no evidence And therefore Binius gains nothing by alledging it in his Notes on the third Epistle but only to shew us that one falshood is the fittest prop for another § 20. Athanasius being restored to Alexandria calls a Synod there of all the Bishops of his Province of which only the Synodical Epistle is now extant written as the Title declares To all the Catholic Bishops every where yet the Notes from Baronius say It was writ particularly to Julius whereas the Body of the Epistle saith The Arians have written to the Roman Bishop and perhaps speaking to other Bishops they have writ to you also So that this is a falshood devised for to make out the Supremacy which is not countenanced by this Epistle wherein we are told that Religion depends not on the greatness of any City Though the Notes say That Bishops had Honours and Jurisdiction given them suiting to the dignity of the Secular Praefects of their several Cities and thence Alexandria was reckoned the second Patriarchate and Antioch the third it follows naturally therefore Rome was the first Patriarchate But this Inference they will not make I shall only note that this Synod saith The lawful use of the Cup of the Lord was to make the People Drink from whence we gather that the Roman Church who denies the Cup to the People doth a very unlawful thing
very diverting if we observe the Shifts and Artifices used by the Roman Parasites to excuse him from Heresie The Pontifical saith He was banished three years by Constantius for not consenting to the Asians in whose place Foelix was Ordained and he in a Council condemned Ursacius and Valens two Arian Bishops who in Revenge petitioned Constantius to revoke Liberius and he being thus restored consented to the Arians and the Emperour so far as to persecute and Martyr the Catholics and his Rival Foelix being a Catholic was deposed But this Fable is not fine enough for the Palates of Baronius and Binius who are to dress a Story to make the Reader believe that neither Liberius nor Foelix erred in Faith while they were Popes To confute which let it be considered that Binius confesseth Liberius consented to the depriving of Athanasius admitted Arians to his Communicn and subscribed an Arian Confession of Faith as Athanasius Hilary and Hierom witness and there are Arguments unanswerable to prove he was an Arian while he was Pope yea Binius in his own Notes twice confesseth That he unhappily fell and that he basely fell Yet to mince the matter he adds That by his Fall he cast a vile Blot on his Life and Manners and the Notes on the Sirmian Council say By offending against the Confession of Faith and the Law of Justice he cast a most base Blot on his Life and Manners What can be more ridiculous He erred in Faith and subscribed the Arian Confession therefore the blot was upon his Faith this did not concern his Life and Manners That Absurd Phrase is a meer blind to keep the Reader from discovering a Pope turning Heretic To which end they impudently say It is a false Calumny of the Heretics to say Liberius was infected with the Arian Heresie But I ask Whether Athanasius S. Hilary and S. Hieroin who affirm this were Heretics Or was Platina an Heretic who saith Liberius did in all things agree with the Heretics To which the same Forgers have added As some would have it but those are not Phetinus words who saith soon after He was of the same Opinion with the Arians And surely the Catholic People of Rome in his time took him for an Arian and as such would have no communion with him and therefore we conclude he was an Arian As for Foelix who was put into his place Baronius and Binius would excuse him by a false Latin Version of Socrates saying He was addicted to the Arian Sect but the Original Greek expresly declares He was in Opinion an Arian And it is certain He was chosen by the Arians and communicated with them Ordaining Arians to be Priests and therefore the Catholic People at Rome avoided his communion and S. Hierom saith He was an Arian As for the Story of his condemning Ursacius and Valens two of that Sect there is no better Authority for it than the fabulous Pontifical So that after all the devices of Bellarmin Bargnius and Binius to save their Churches Infallibility we have two Popes at once falling so notoriously into the Arian Heresie that the Lay-people disowned their Communion This is more than suspicion of Heresie in S. Peter's Chair and proves that their infallible Guides for some years were Arian Heretics For this Liberius divers Epistles are published with a Preface before them which saith Two of them were feigned by the Arians yet these two are found in the Fragments of S. Hilary among which it is not probable there should be any Fiction of the Arians So that it is very likely these two Epistles are genuine but rejected by these Sycophants of Rome because they tell an ungrateful Truth viz. That Liberius did condemn Athanasius soon after he was made Pope And if we consider how inconstant he was it is very probable that he might condemn Athanasius twice first in the beginning of his Papacy as is said in these two Epistles of which he repented and then writ that Tenth Epistle to own he was in Communion with Athanasius and to tell him If he approved of his form of Faith it would tend much to the setling of his Judgment which is an odd Complement from an Infallible Head Secondly He condemned Athanasius after his Banishment of which more shall be said hereafter But as to the particular Epistles we shall note That in the first which they say is genuine Liberius with other Bishops petition Constantius to order a Council to be held at Aquileia by which we see the Pope had not then assumed the power of calling Councils When he writ the 7th Epistle which they grant also to be genuine no doubt he was an Arian For he calls the Arian Bishops His most Beloved Brethren and declares his Consent to their just condemning of Athanasius together with his being in Communion with them and his receiving their Sirmian Creed as the Catholic Faith So in the XIth Epistle which is certainly genuine and recorded by Socrates the Notes confess he was so easie as to receive the Semi-Arians to Communion and to commend their Faith as the same which was decreed at Nice But it is gross Flattery to call this only Being too easie it was in plain terms Being deceived and erring in Matters of Faith which spoils their Infallibility as it also doth their Universal Supremacy for Liberius in the same Epistle to call himself Bishop of Italy referring only to the Suburbicarian Regions and saying He was the meanest of Bishops and rejoyced that those in the East did not submit to him but agree with him in Matters of Faith Wherefore the XIIth or as Labbé calls it the XIVth Epistle which is writ to all Bishops is manifestly forged And so are the two next from Liberius to Athanasius and from Athanasius to Liberius as both Labbé and Binius confess yet in one of these the Pope brags of his Authority over the Universal Church But the Forger was so bad at Chronology that while he strives to make this Pope look like an Orthodox Friend of Athanasius he absurdly brings him in even under Julian or Valens in one of whose Reigns this Epistle was written threatning Offenders with the Emperours Indignation with Deprivation yea with Proscription Banishment and Stripes I need not mention those Decrees which are attributed to Liberius whose Style betrays them and shews they belong to the later Ages and are placed here by the Collectors only to make them seem more ancient than really they are In Liberius's first year it is said There was a Council called at Rome by this Pope to clear Athanasius yet being sensible that their Authority would signifie very little they all agreed to petition the Emperour for a Council to Meet at Aquileia to confirm what they had done at Rome Anno 355. there was a Council at Milan the Editors call it A General Council because it was with Constantius
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 Constantiâs 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
who forged the Decretal Epistles invented one to Aurelius Bishop of Carthage wherein Damasus is feigned to send him at his Request all the Epistles writ by the Popes from S. Peter to his time and this of old was the Preface to the Decretal Epistles but the Forgery is so gross that Binius rejects it and if his affection for the Papacy had not biassed him he would also have rejected all the Epistles which are as errant Forgeries as this Preface The first and second Epistles written in Damasus his Name to Paulinus and the Eastern Bishops are suspicious The third Epistle of Damasus to Hierom is evidently Forged by some illiterate Monk but S. Hierom's Answer seems to be genuine yet the Notes reject it for no other reason but because it truly supposes the Pope and his Clergy were so ignorant as to need S. Hierom's help to make them understand the Psalms and affirms that Rome obeyed his directions in singing the Psalms and adding the Gloria Patri to them whereas whoever considers the Learning and Authority of S. Hierom in that Age will not think it at all improbable that he should teach the Roman Bishop And Binius is forced to cite this Epistle wrong in his Notes to get a seeming Argument against it for the Epistle doth not advise them to sing the Gloria Patri after the manner of the East as he quotes it but to sing it to shew their Consent to the Nicene Faith The fourth Epistle of Damasus to Stephen Archbishop of the Council of Mauritania with Stephen's Epistle to him are owned by Labbé to be both spurious But since they magnifie the Popes Supremacy Binius justifies them both for whose confutation let it be noted 1. That it is absurd to style a Man Archbishop of a Council Secondly That in this Epistle is quoted a forged Epistle of Foelix owned by Binius himself to be spurious Thirdly That place of Math. XVI is falsly quoted here and thus read Thou art Peter and upon thy foundation will I set the Pillars that is the Bishops of the Church Fourthly The later of them is dated with Flavius and Stillico who were not Consuls till Damasus had been in his Grave full twenty year as Labbé confesses wherefore we justly discard these gross Forgeries devised of old and defended now only to support the Popes usurped Power The fifth Epistle says The Institution of the Chorepiscopi was very wicked and extreme evil yet presently after it owns they were appointed in imitation of the LXX Disciples and were at first necessary for the Primitive Church it is also dated with Libius and The disius who were never Consuls in Damasus's time and finally Labbé owns that much of it is stollen out of the Epistles of later Popes yet Binius will not reject it because it hath some kind touches for the Supremacy The sixth Epistle to the Bishops of Illyricum passes Muster also with him though it be dated with Siricius and Ardaburus who were Consuls till 30 years after Damasus was dead The 7th Epistle is dated with the same Consuls yet Binius allows of it because in it the Pope pretends to give Laws not only to Italy but to all the World though Labbé confess the Cheat and owns it was stollen by Isidore out of Leo's 47th Epistle So unfortunate is their Supremacy that whatever seems to give any countenance to it always proves to be Forged The Decrees attributed to this Pope seem to have been the invention of later Ages for it is not probable Damasus would have Fathered a Lye upon the Nicene Council in saying It was decreed there that Lay-men should not meddle with Oblations or that he would say Such as broke the Canons were guilty of the Sin against the Holy Ghost Nor doth his Decree about the Pall agree to this Age. So that Damasus's Name hath for better credit been clapt to these Decrees by the modern Compilers who are the Guides to our Editors About this time the Arians having the Emperour Valens on their side began to grow bold but Athanasius condemned them in Egypt by divers Synods and upon his Admonition Damasus held two Synods at Rome in the first of which Ursacius and Valens two Arian Bishops were condemned and in the later Auxentius the Arian Bishop of Milan was deposed not by the Popes single Authority as the Notes and Baronius vainly pretend but by the common Suffrage of Ninety Bishops assembled with him as the words of Atbanasius and the very Councils Letter plainly shew And though Baronius here talks of the Popes sole Priviledge in deposing Bishops there are innumerable Instances of Bishops deposed without the Popes leave or knowledge and Auxentius valued and believed Damasus his Authority so little that notwithstanding this Sentence of the Pope in Council he kept his Bishopric till his Death Apollinar is having disseminated his Heresie at Antioch complaint was made to Damasus of one Vitalis who held those Errors but the Pope who had not the gift of discerning the Spirits was imposed on by his subscribing a plausible Confession of Faith so that he writ on his behalf to Paulinus Bishop of Antiâch 'T is true at the request of S. Basil Damasus did this year joyn with Peter Bishop of Alexandria who was then at Rome in condemning Apollinaris in a Roman Council but Nazianzen saith He did nât this till be was better instructed in the Points For at first as the Notes confess this Pope took Apollinaris for a picus and learned Man and so beld Communion with him till he understood by S. Basil ' s third Epistle that he was an Herctic I know they excuse this by saying that S. Basil himself and Nazianzen and S. Hierom were all at first under the same mistake with Damasus But then none of these ever were pretended to be Infallible Jadges in matters of Faith as Baronius holds Damasus was so that the mistake in them is pardonable but upon Baronius Principles I see not how Damasus his Infallibility can be secured when he was so long deceived by a Heretic and was forced to be instructed by a private Bishop at last even in cases of Heresie The next year a Council was held at Valentia in Dauphiné the true Title of which saith it was under Gratian and Valentinian the Emperours but the Editors put a new Title over it and say it was under Damasus who is not once named in it the French Bishops there assembled making Canons for their own Churches without asking the Popes leave or desiring his Confirmation Upon the death of Valens the Arian Emperour while Valentinian was yet very young Gratian managed both the Eastern and Western Empire and he makes a Law to suppress all Heresies and to take away the use of Churches from all such as were not in Communion with Damasus Bishop of Rome and Peter of Alexandria Theodoret indeed who as Baronius
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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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
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. forgeÌs 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 groââ he recants that Chroâology 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 Sââ 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
and made him understand the danger of this Heresie And we have noted before that Innocent's carriage in this matter rendred him suspected to be a favourer of Pelagius upon which the Africans not trusting to his Infallibility writ very plainly to him And after they had condemned Pelagius and Celestius in a Council of thirty seven Bishops at Carthage they writ another brisk Synodical Epistle to the Pope telling him that they intimated to him what they had done that the Authority of the Apostolical Seat might be added to their Decree because his Eminent Place gave more weight to his Doctrine and if he thought Pelagius was justly absolved yet his Errors and Impieties ought to be Anathematized by the Authority of the Apostolical See Now the reason of this Letter was not so much for the confirmation of their Acts as the Notes pretend upon any single Priviledge believed to be in the Pope as their Supream Head because they call him by the Title of their Brother both in the Title and the Letter but because the Pelagians had reported he was their Friend and a favourer of their Opinions which Report did very much mischief because of the Eminence of his See and therefore it concerned both the Pope for his own vindication and them also that he should wipe off this accusation And it appears both by St. Augustine and Prosper that at last Innocent did condemn this Heresie but this Synodical Epistle from Carthage dated An. 416. shews that he had not condemned it before the last year of his life for he died according to Baronius in July An. 417. So hard a thing was it for the African Fathers to get a pretended Infallible Judge to understand and censure a notorious Heresie I might now leave this Head but that I must first observe the confidence of Baronius who from one word in a verse of Prosper's will needs have Celestius a Disciple of Pelagius to have been first condemned at Rome after the antient manner that a new Heresie should be first Examined and Condemned by the first Seat But when he should make this out he owns that Pelagius and Celestius indeed were first condemned in Africa but he tells us their Heresies were condemned long before at Rome in the person of Jovinian But if it were true that Jovinian had held all the Heresies of Pelagius which is most false then we must attribute no great sagacity to Innocent as to condemning Heresies because 't is plain he did not know these were the same Heresies that Jovinian had held nor could he be brought to censure them till above four year after The Second Council of Milevis consisted of sixty Bishops the Title is under Pope Innocent But Baronius had told us before that the same Aurelius Bishop of Carthage presided in the former Council of Milevis and in this also so that neither of them were under any Pope The 22d Canon of this Council saith that he who thinks to appeal to a Tribunal beyond the Sea shall not be received into Communion by any in Africa Which is a clear prohibition of appeals to Rome and therefore Gratian either found or made this notorious addition to it unless they appeal to the See of Rome which is so gross a Forgery that Binius rejects it and out of Bellarmin expounds this passage only of prohibiting the inferiour Clergy Priests and Deacons c. to appeal beyond the Seas i. e. to Rome but he supposes that Bishops in Africk still had liberty of appealing thither according to the 17th Canon of Sardica But to confute this false Gloss let it be noted That these African Fathers profess in a following Council that they had never heard of any such Canon or of this Sardican Synod and so it is not likely they should be guided by it Again about ten years before upon a complaint to Innocent of some Bishops who being censured in Africa ran to Rome with Complaints this very Pope had written that Bishops should not lightly go to the Parts beyond the Seas And the Council in Africk confirmed that passage of the Popes Letter And since this would not restrain some Bishops here in this second Milevitan Council they make a Decree That Bishops Causes should be determined by Bishops either such as the Primate of Africk should appoint or such as the Parties chose by his consent And then they add this 22d Canon to confine all appeals of the inferior Clergy also to an African Synod or to their own Primate and then add this Clause recited before that those who appeal beyond the Seas shall not be received to Communion by any in Africa which certainly is the penalty relating to both Canons because in their Letter a few years after written to Pope Celestine they declare it is contrary to the Nicene Canons for the Pope to receive any into Communion by Appeal who have been censured in their own Province especially Bishops adding That his Holiness should as became him also forbid the wicked refuges of Priests and the lower Clergy c. That is not only the Appeals of Bishops but of Priests also which makes it as clear as the Sun that these Fathers at Milevis absolutely forbad all Appeals to Rome And they had great reason so to do not only because it was their right to judge finally all Causes in their own Province But because some Popes about this time had encouraged Hereticks and notorious wicked Men both Priests and Bishops who had fled from the just Censures of their own Church and found a Sanctuary and Shelter at Rome But of this more hereafter This second Council of Milevis writ also to Pope Innocent about the Pelagian Heresie to quicken him in providing some Remedies to prevent the spreading of that Infection supposing the eminency of his place would add much weight to his Censures if he would heartily appear against these Doctrines At the same time Aurelius and St. Augustin with three other eminent Bishops there writ a private Letter to their Lord and Brother as they call him Pope Innocent on the same subject in which they deal very plainly with him and give the reason why they writ so many Letters to him against this Heresie because they had heard that in Rome where the Heretick lived long there were many who favoured him on divers grounds some because they say that you have been persuaded such things were true but more because they do not think he holds those Opinions And doubtless it was this Report which rouzed up the Pope at last to condemn the Pelagians as may appear by our Notes upon his 26th Epistle which is in Answer to this Epistle of the five Bishops But that Answer as also the Answers to the two Councils Letters were not till January An. 417. as Baronius and Binius themselves compute which was but six Months before Innocent's death so long did this Pope
needed but two Arguments viz. those of the Popes Infallibility and Supremacy to have confounded all the pretences of this Schismatical Council and they are not so much as once mentioned Which is a certain Evidence that neither side knew of or believed these Papal Priviledges usurped in later times by that encroaching See Fourthly I come to consider the confirmation of the Acts of this general Council And this the Preface ascribes intirely to the Pope and so do the Notes after the Council upon the word Approved and so doth Baronius in several places But all this is without any just ground For the Preface saith he sent his Legates to confirm the Acts of the Council in his name and cites for this these words out of Celestine's Letter sent to the Synod by these Legates And what you derceâ shall be accounted defined and determined for the tranquility of all Churches But no such words are in that Epistle the Pope saying no more but only that he had sent these Persons to be present at their Acts and to confirm what he had long since decreed To which he hoped their Holiness would assent because they knew that which was determined was for the peace of all Churches The sense of which is that Celestine having long before Condemned Nestorius at Rome he sent his Legates to the general Council to get that Sentence confirmed and doubted not of their assent to it since this casting out of Nestorius the disturber of the Churches quiet would tend to the Peace of the whole Church So that this passage proves that the Council was to confirm the Popes Decree not that he was to confirm their Acts And the Synod in their Letter to Pope Celestine do expresly say That they had judged his Sentence against the Pelagians should remain firm and be valid c. adding that they had sent him the Acts of the Synod and the Subscriptions that he might know what was done But there is not one word desiring him to confirm their Decrees But as to the Emperors the case is clear For the Synod and the three Legates of the Pope address to them to Command that what this General Council had done against Nestorius might be in force being confirmed by their consent and approbation And they Petition the Emperors to make null and void the false Synods uncanonical proceedings against Cyril and Memnon And in another Relation to the Emperors they put both these requests together And Sozomen saith in express terms that the Emperor by his suffrage confirmed their Acts Yea these Testimonies are so express that Binius himself in his Notes at last grants That the Emperor dimissed the Bishops adding this Decree that the Sentence of this Holy General Council against Nestorius should stand in full force So that nothing but the prodigious partiality of Baronius and Binius for the Popes supremacy could put them upon inventing so groundless a Story as that of the Popes confirming the Decrees of this Council which he did no otherwise than all other eminent Orthodox Bishops that is by consenting to their Acts and applauding them afterwards § 2. Some other scattered passages there are which we will briefly put together here before we conclude this discourse The Preface boasts much of the words of Firmus Bishop of Caesarea and cites them thus that the Synod had followed that which Celestine had prescribed and being compelled by his Authority had passed Sentence on Nestorius and his Opinion and a little after Firmus his words are otherwise cited in the same Preface viz. That Celestine had prescribed a certain Rule for this business which the Council following observing diligently the form of the Canons they had inflicted the Canonical and Apostolical Judgment upon him and hence they infer that the Pope had commanded the Eastern Bishops to Decree over again and execute his Sentence against Nestorius Yea Baronius is so bold as to affirm That Celestine sent his Legates not to subject the Cause of Nestorius to a new Examination but only to see his Sentence Executed and that neither did he allow the Council any more than only to Execute his Decree nor did this general Council Arrogate any thing to it self but to Act according to his Sentence According to which account this Council of Ephesus was a mear mock Assembly and all these Bishops no more than Officers under the Pope to put his Decrees in Execution But that this is most notoriously false appears first from their false citing of the words of Firmus who truly quoted saith thus The Apostolical seat of Celestine formerly gave his suffrage and set a Pattern in this business And a little after which we also following have put in force that Form decreeing both a Canonical and Apostolical judgment against him The sense of which is this That whereas the Pope in his Roman Synod had condemned Nestorius unless he repented in ten days this general Council approving of that Sentence had upon Nestorius his refusal to appear after divers admonitions condemned him also So that he was now not only censured by one Apostolical See but canonically also by all the Bishops of a general Council And that this is the Sense is evident from the words of the Synod it self in the Preface to the Sentence by them pronounced being convinced by divers proof that Nestorius holds impious Opinions we are forced by the Canons and the Epistle of Celestine our Fellow-Minister even with Tears to come to this severe Sentence against him c. We see they name the Canons first and before Celestine's Epistle as laying an obligation upon them so to proceed and they call the Pope their Fellow-Minister nor was it his Authority but his having proceeded according to the Canons that laid the necessity upon this great Council to follow his Example and imitate the Pattern he had set them For nothing is plainer than that the Council did always intend to examin this Cause over again and for that reason they cited Nestorius and read first the Letters of Cyril and then of Celestine and after a full hearing both of the Fathers Opinions and of the Blasphemies collected out of Nestorius his Writings finding him finally obstinate they pronounce Sentence on him not in the Popes name but thus Our Lord Jesus Christ whom he hath Blasphemed by this Holy Council Decrees that Nestorius shall be deprived of his Episcopal dignity and shall be excluded out of the Communion of Bishops This certainly was an Original Decree in the name of the General Council and by the Authority they derived from Christ by which they gave force and validity to the Sentence formerly pronounced by the Pope and his Roman Council which had signified nothing against his Equal a Patriarch of the Eastern Church over whom he had no jurisdiction if it had not been thus confirmed So that it is a strange extravagance to
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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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
more solemn Worship By which one would imagin that in the time of this Council and ever since the Blessed Virgin had been worshipped as she is now at Rome but there is not one word of this true except only that she was there declared to be the Mother of God That Epistle of Cyril's from whence Baronius proves this saith nothing of either Praises or Worship given to the Blessed Virgin he saith indeed that when the people heard Nestorius was deposed they began with one voice to commend the Synod and to glorifie God because the Enemy of the Faith was cast down And when he had related what Honours the People did them by carrying Lamps and burning Incense before them he addâ Thus our Saviour manifested his Glory and his Power of doing all things to those who blasphemed him So that all this story of their praising and venerating the Blessed Virgin is his own Fiction as is also that other conjecture of his that the Synodal Epistle declares that John the Evangelist and Mary the Mother of God once lived together at Ephesus For that Synodal Epistle speaks only of two Churches there called by their Names So when he and Binius say it is believed that this Addition to the Angelical Salutation was then made Holy Mary Mother of God pray for us and Baronius adds that all the Faithfull use to say and often repeat this and teach it their Children even while they suck'd the Breasts But I ask Why doth any Man believe this Is it barely because Baronius says so Doth not he say an hundred false things to justifie the Corruptions of Rome Or can he produce one ancient Author about this time or of divers Ages after wherein this Phrase Mother of God pray for us is used It is certain he cannot and therefore this blasphemous addition is much later than the Council of Ephesus and the Custom of saying it and teaching it to their Children is a Scandalous Innovation brought in by the Roman Church in the Superstitious Ages and justly rejected by us who keep close to Antiquity in owning the Blessed Virgin to be the Mother of God but do not Worship her or Pray to her And thus much for the Council of Ephesus whose Acts being extant at large do abundantly confute the Popes Supremacy and set forth many other Usages and Practices of Rome to be Innovations and Corruptions § 3. After Celestine's death Pope Sixtus or Xystus the Third succeeded who sate about eight years but did few Memorable things In his younger days he was not only a Favourer but a Patron of the Pelagians though afterwards he writ against them and strenuously opposed them Wherefore Baronius doth not sufficiently prove those three Tracts Of Riches Of Evil Teachers and of Chastity which go under the name of this Pope were not his by saying there are divers Pelagian Doctrines in them since if they were writ in his youth Xystus was then a Pelagian himself This Pope writ as is said three Epistles two of which are put into the Council of Ephesus because they shew Xystus his Consent to what the Council had done and to Cyril's actings afterwards as to John Bishop of Antioch In the later of these Epistles there is a memorable Saying cited by Vincentius Lirinensis Let there be no liberty for Novelty hereafter since it is not convenient to add any thing unto that which is Old Had his Sucessors minded this good Rule the Roman Church had not added so many New Doctrines and Practices to those Old Ones which were received and used before Xystus his time The Pontifical relates a Sory of one Bassus who accused this Pope of Adultery and that a Synod of 56 Bishops convened by the Emperor's Order cleared him and condemned his Accuser Now for the greater credit of this Pope some have forged a third Epistle wherein he is made to signifie to them his purging himself upon Oath But Labbe condemns the whole Epistle as spurious and Binius rejects it because it is stolen in part out of Pope Fabian his third Epistle and because the Date is wrong for these Arguments will serve to condemn an Epistle that supposes a Pope accused and tried by his Peers whereas had it been for the Supremacy Binius would have justified it though it had these and greater faults Besides this Epistle some illiterate Monk hath forged the Acts of this Council wherein the Pope was tried and though there be neither Latin nor Sense in it being as dull as that of Sinuessa but the Inventor designing to do Honour to the Pope is very gently censured both by Baronius and Binius And to this they have tacked another such a Council of the Trial of Polychronius Bishop of Jerusalem before Pope Sixtus for attempting to challenge the Precedency before Rome c. And Binius confesseth not only that Pope Nicholas alledged this Council for good Authority but that the Modern Writers of their Church do so also Whereas he owns there was no such man Bishop of Jerusalem and that the whole Story and Acts are a Fiction of no credit in the World by which we may learn to be cautious how we trust the Roman Writers Ancient or Modern when they cite Records to support the Grandeur of the Church About this time Theodoret mentions a great Council at Constantinople under Theodosius about setling the Precedence of the Eastern Patriarchats on occasion of a Contest between the Churches of Alexandria Constantinople and Antioch Baronius and out of him Binius in relating this have added to Theodoret's words that Alexandria claimed the Priority before all the Eastern Bishops because he was the first Bishop of the Catholick Church after the Pope But the Quotation he produces out of Theodort Ep. 86. doth not so much as mention Rome nor the Pope So that they have invented that part of the Story to keep up their Churches Credit However this Council evidently shews that the Roman Church had nothing to do with the East they called great Councils without him and setled the Precedencies of their own Patriarchats without taking notice of the Pope As for Sixtus he made no figure in the World and all we hear of him further is that being warned by Leo his Deacon and Successor afterwards he discovered and prevented the Attempts of Julianus of Hecla a Pelagian Heretick who endeavoured to get into the Churches Communion as Prosper informs us An. 440. in Chron. In this year was held the Synod of Riez in the Province of Narbon dated by the Emperors and Consuls without any mention of the Pope For it was held under Hilary Bishop of Arles who first subscribes and is meant in the Canons by the name of the Metropolitan as Marca confesses And though Binius have no Notes to this purpose I must observe that this Hilary of Arles as Primate of those parts of France calls a Provincial
bowing toward the East for the peril of Idolatry Now had there been any Images adored in his time for the same reason he must rather have forbidden bowing down before them The second Council at Rome under Leo was in the Cause of Hilary Bishop of Acles who had justly deposed a scandalous Bishop in a Provincial Synod But he as such ill Men had often done flies to Rome to complain and Leo not considering the equity of the censure but Hilary's having acted as a Primate in those parts of France contrary to the Decrees of former Popes espouses this evil Bishops Quarrel being more concerned for his designed usurpation of a supremacy than the honour of the Church Upon this Hilary who was one of the most pious and learned Men of that Age goes on foot to Rome and requires the Pope to act more solito in the accustomed manner and not to admit such to Communion who had been justly condemned in their own Country and when he saw the Pope was resolved to break the Canons and set up his Supremacy by right or wrong he suddenly departs from Rome without taking any leave of Leo for which the Angry Pope writes to the Bishops of France declaring Hilary's Acts null and depriving him of his Power to Congregate Synods and Depose Bishops c. And though he brags much of his universal Authority c. in that Epistle yet knowing how little this would signifie to Hilary and the rest of the French Bishops he gets an Edict from the Emperor Valentinian to back his Orders which because there are some great words for the Popes Supremacy in it Baronius magnifies as worthy of perpetual Memory And since their Champions alledge this Edict as a proof of the Roman universal Supremacy I will observe upon it First That it was easie for the Pope to cite false Canons to a young and easy Emperor and persuade him that the Councils had given him this Supremacy as his Predecessors had lately done in Africa Secondly That the Pope probably drew up this Edict himself and so put in these Flourishes about his own Authority Which will be more plain if we consider that the Emperor Leo in one of his Edicts saith Constantinople is the Mother of the Orthodox Religion of all Christians with much more to this purpose but Baronius relating this saith Thus indeed Leo speaks thus but without doubt it was conceived in the words and writ in the Style of Acacius who swelled with Pride But Leo Bishop of Rome was as proud as Acacius and had more influence over Valentinian than Acacius ever had over the Emperor Leo wherefore in Baronius own words without doubt Valentinian ' s Edict was drawn up in Pope Leo ' s Style and so he is only a Witness in his own Cause Thirdly The Sentence of both the Emperor and the Pope was unjust and although Leo wheedled the Bishops of France to reject Hilary that Bishop still acted as Primate and called Synods afterwards so that this big-speaking Edict was neither believed nor obeyed as de Marca shews For indeed Hilary was Primate by Original right and the French Bishops stuck to him not only for his great Sanctity but because they feared the then growing Encroachments and Usurpations of Rome And finally Pope Hilary Leo's Successor determined this Controversie contrary to Leo's Decree by which we see how odly Causes go at Rome since some Popes were for the Primacy of Arles and some against it But when there was a stout Bishop there he kept his Post without regard to the Roman Sentence And now I hope the Reader will smile at Baronius his inference from this Edict of Valentinian's Thou seest clearly from hence saith he the Pope of Romes Authority over all Churches for he must be quick-sighted indeed who can see any more in this instance than an unjust and ineffective Claim § 5. Soon after Pope Leo had an opportunity to encroach upon the Churches of Spain for one Turibius a Bishop there who is called Leo's Notary and probably had been bread a Notary at Rome certifies the Pope that there were many Priscillian Hereticks there who confirmed their Errors by certain Apocryphal Writings full of Blasphemies Leo writes back to Turibius advising him to get a Council of all the Bishops in Spain and there to Condemn the Hereticks and their Apocryphal Books This advice Baronius calls his enjoyning a general Council more Majorum this being the right of the Pope of Rome And though he confesses the Bishops did not meet where the Pope advised nor could they meet in one place because they were under divers Kings and those Arians yet he desires us to observe from hence how weighty the Popes Authority was even with Barbarous and Arian Kings But alas any one may see he cannot make out that ever these Kings gave leave for any Council and it is more probable these Bishops met privately on this occasion yet they have made out of this A General Council of Spain And here they would have that rule of Faith first received from Leo and approved which is printed before in the first Council of Toledo And Baronius saith the word Filioque proceeding from the Father and the Son was first added in this Council to the Creed by the Authority of Pope Leo and brags much of the Popes supremacy even in matters of Faith on this occasion But first these words were put in by these Councils to check and discover Priscillian Hereticks not by any express order of the Pope and indeed Leo had been an ill Man if he had imposed an Article of Faith upon the Churches of Spain which as Baronius confesses was not received expresly at Rome till many Ages after Secondly These Spanish Bishops did not add these words to the ancient Creed but put them in by way of Explication into an Occasional Confession of their own Composing Thirdly Baronius himself notes that the Spaniards and French afterwards added it to their usual Creeds and at last Rome took this Addition from them And in the same place he commends the Northern Nations for adding these words and those of Rome for rejecting them a long time so that contradictory Actions may be it seems equally commended by those who can blow Hot and Cold with the same Breath About this time was held a great Council at Verulam in Britain by St. Garmanus a French Bishop called over by the Orthodox Britains to assist them in confuting and condemning the Pelagian Heresy as Math. of Westminster computes Baronius indeed pretends this hapned divers years before only because Prosper or some who have since corrupted his Chronicle affirms that Pope Celestine sent St. Germanus hither But most Historians agree the French Bishops from a Council of their own sent over this assistance to the British Church the first time without any order from Celestine and this Council of Verulam was
those words in it of saving the honour of St. Peter and of his Legates being sent to preside in the Council which passages might look favourably on the supremacy if they be genuine only they are no more but Leo's own Evidence in his own Cause After this the Council being assembled at Nice they with the Popes Legates desired the Emperors presence among them upon which he removed the Council to the City of Chalcedon and thither he afterward came to them On which I shall only note that Baronious and Binius have turned this Petition of the Council and Legates into a Declaration of the Legates alone for they pretend that the Emperor writ to the Council That it seemed good to the Popes Legates that he should be present Which is a false representation of the matter as the Emperors Letter shews § 2. We proceed now to the Council it self assembled at Chalcedon and will first consider these generals viz. 1st Who called it 2ly Who presided in it and in what Order they sate 3ly Who confirmed the Acts of it And secondly make some brief remarks on the particular Acts of this Council First As to the Authority by which it was convened Though the Preface had owned that Marcian called this Council yet the Notes affirm it was appointed by the Authority of Leo and by the advice assistance and help of Marcian congregated And again it is clear this General Council was convened by the Exhortation and Counsel of the Emperor but by the Command and Authority of the Pope And this they pretend to prove by the Epistle of the Bishops of Maesia writ some years after the Council which they cite thus Many holy Bishops meeting in the City of Chalcedon by the Command of Leo who is truly an head of Bishops but the Epistle adds and of the venerable Bishop and Patriarch Anatolius a Council was held which was confirmed under two Emperors But these fraudulent Editors leave out these last words which shew that these Bishops were as much called by the Authority of Anatolius as of Leo and also that the Emperors confirmed the Acts of this general Council which two things Binius would conceal from his Reader Now this accidental expression of six Bishops long after implying no more but only that Leo and Anatolius sent out the Emperors Summons to all Bishops the other three Patriarchs being not then of unsuspected fame is all they have to prove this egregious falshood of this Councils being called by the Popes sole Authority except an Epistle of Gelasius another Pope pleading his own Cause Whereas there are clear and express proofs almost innumerable that it was appointed and convened or called by the Emperors Authority For Leo was summoned himself by the Emperor and in obedience to that Summons excuses his own absence and sends his Legates to the Council And the Emperors general Letter strictly requiring all Bishops to be there is extant a Copy of which probably was delivered to the Pope And in the beginning of every Act it is expresly said The Synod met ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã c. by the command or divine Authority of the Emperors and it is so often repeated that this Council was called by the precept or command of the Emperor as makes it needless and impossible to cite all the places Liberatus the Deacon who writ some years after when the Popes had encroached something further saith at the Popes request the Emperor commanded this Council to be assembled which makes it a strange boldness in Baronius to affirm that the Emperor requested the Pope that a Council might be called which not only this Historian but the Emperors Letter in the next page contradicts Yea Leo himself in his 61st Epistle which the Notes cite with great applause owns the Council was gathered by the precept of the most Christian Princes c. and the Pope in divers of his Epistles owns the Authority of calling general Councils to be in the Emperor yea the Legates own in the very Council it self that the Council was summoned by the Emperors Authority So that for any of the Popes flatterers to pretend the contrary is to wink against the clearest light Secondly As to the Presidents of this Council the Historical Preface is very positive that the Apostolical Legates presided and the Notes prove it was a general Council because the Pope presided by his Legates But if that were essential to a General Council there was none before this of Chalcedon Here indeed three of the five Legates named by the Pope Paschafinus Lucentius and Boniface were allowed to sit uppermost on one side of the Bishops but Basilius and Julianus the other two who also were named Legates by the Pope were not owned by the Council under that Character and therefore had no precedency given them And if this be all they mean by the Legates presiding that they in right of the Pope had the first place among the Bishops we will not contend with them but if they suppose any Power or Authority these Legates had over the Council by this precedency we must deny that Baronius brags that all things were determined by the Popes Authority And the Notes before cited speak as if they had done all things in this Council yea the Latin version of the Council forgets the Title of Presidents thrice and claps it to the names of these Legates which Title is not in the Greek But if we examine into the matter these three Legates who were allowed by the Council had nothing more than the honour of sitting uppermost upon the left hand and sometimes speaking and subscribing first But in the twelfth Act concerning the Church of Ephesus over which the Patriarch of Constantinople claimed some Jurisdiction Anatolius speaks before the Popes Legate and by his direction the matter was determined And though both Baronius and the Notes boast That the Legates pronounced the sentence on Dioscorus in the Popes name as Presidents of the Council Yet if we consult the place we shall find that they twice asked the Synods Opinion of Dioscorus his Case and the whole Synod declared he was to be condemned yet the Legates durst not pronounce the Sentence till they asked if the Synod commanded them to give the Ecclesiastical Sentence and upon the Order of the Synod they first pronounced it and every Bishop single declared Dioscorus was deposed and excommunicated So that there was nothing of Authority in the Legates but only their speaking first and declaring that which the whole Council had agreed upon And because Anatolius commonly spoke in the second place therefore he is joyned with Leo and both of them together are called the Princes of this Council So in one of the Epistles after the Council Leo and Anatolius are said to have regularly presided herein By which Titles are
Synods command and then all she rest in order and the force of the Sentence depends upon the agreeing Votes of all And we see that though the Pope had before canonically deposed Dioscorus yet his Sentence was re-examined in a General Council This is certain that Anatolius of Constantinople and all the rest though in modester words did singly condemn Dioscorus and he was deposed and degraded by the Authority of the General Council and the free Votes of the several Bishops who as Pope Leo himself speaks had confirmed his Sentence with an assent which made the Cause uncapable of being tried any more And the Sentence which was published about his deposition as well as the Letter writ to Alexandria expresly declare that he was deposed and degraded by the Holy General Council c And the very same is affirmed in the Synodical Epistles writ to Martian and Pulcheria to desire them to confirm the Councils Sentence So that in vain do the Modern Romanists brag of the deposition of Dioscorus by the Popes Supream Authority for it was the opinion indeed of the Pope before the Council met that he ought to be deposed but it was the Authority of the Council ratified by the Emperor which actually deposed him In the fourth Act the Epistle of Pope Leo to Flavianus wherein the Heresie of Eutyches was confuted and condemned was subscribed by all the Bishops who severally declared they received it because it was agreeable to the Faith declared in the three former General Councils of Nice Constantinople and Ephesus and some of them add because it was agreeable to the Scripture and to the Expositions of the Orthodox Fathers Now had these Fathers believed the Pope to be Infallible in matters of Faith they must have received this Epistle only upon the Credit of the Pope whereas they now examin and judge of it by the Rules prescribed in former Councils and receive it not because the Enditer of it was Infallible but because he had kept close to former determinations in General Councils And since the business of this Council was to discover and condemn the Heresie of Eutyches against which new Sect no eminent Bishop but Leo had written therefore this Epistle was made a Test and all were obliged to subscribe it not as the Romanists brag because the See of Rome was to fix the Rule of Faith but because this was the only Writing then extant of this kind and we may as well prove that St. Cyril was the Supream Bishop of the World and the sole Arbiter of Faith because his Epistles were subscribed in the General Council of Ephesus as a Test to find out and condemn the Nestorians as infer the Roman Supremacy or Infallibility from the Bishops subscribing Leo's Epistle at Chalcedon We may further note in this Action that how confidently-soever modern Editors place the Councils of Constantinople and Ephesus under Damasus and Celestine the Popes Legates here plainly say the Council of Constantinople was held under the Emperor Theodosius and other Bishops affirm that Cyril was the President and Head of the Council at Ephesus Again it is to be noted that though Juvenalis of Jerusalem and four other Bishops who had joyned with Dioscorus in the Synod at Ephesus to condemn Flavianus repented and had subscribed Leo ' s Epistle and so declared themselves to be Orthodox yet the Council could not restore them to their Places till the Emperor by his Judges gave them leave to determine their Case It is also memorable that the Egyptian Bishops after their own Patriarch Dioscorus was deposed refused to sign the Epistle of Leo till they had a new Bishop of Alexandria under whose jurisdiction the Nicene Canons had put them and though the Popes Legates and many others urged they should subscribe immediately yet these Bishops were excused by the Council and their Plea allowed which shews that those who were under the Patriarch of Alexandria owed no subjection at all to Rome nor did they or the Council of Chalcedon think the Pope was really what his Legates flatteringly call him the Universal Arch-Bishop of Patriarch for then they could not have allowed this Plea Moreover 't is observable in this Act that Photius Bishop of Tyre affirms both Anatolius and Leo were the Presidents of this Council Also this Bishop in his Petition to the Emperors stiles them Lords of the Earth and Sea and of all Men Nations and Kindreds which shews that Titles are not to be strictly understood or to be made any ground for Argument since Complements were used then as well as now and therefore the Romanists should not attempt to prove a right from every flourishing Title bestowed on the Pope by those who speak of him In the Cause between this Photius of Tyre and Eustathius of Berytus there is a passage how one of these Bishops claimed a right to some Churches by the Imperial Edicts and the other by the Canons and he who claimed a right by the Canons got the better Yea the Council declared that Edicts ought not to prevail against the Canons From whence Baronius infers that Princes ought to learn from hence to make their Laws submit to the Ecclesiastical Canons But it must be noted this was not intended to be a Rule in all Cases only as to the old Rights of Bishops Jurisdictions and it was a Rule made now only upon this occasion and which is most remarkable the Judges tell the Council it was the Emperor's pleasure this Cause should be tried nor by the Edicts but by the Canons for which the Bishops gave that pious Emperor thanks And therefore it is a great fallacy to argue from hence that Ecclesiastical Canons are above the Laws of Princes in their own nature only in this Case the Good Emperor to oblige the Bishops suffered the Canons to prevail To conclude this Session ended with a confirmation of all things done by the Lay-Judges who declare they should remain firm and so the Session ended In the Fifth Action wherein the Matters of Faith were to be declared the Emperors Legates were present and prevented a Schism which was like to happen among the Bishops some of which would not consent to the Councils definition but the Lay-Judges from the Emperor advised the Dissenters to go with Anatolius and the Popes Legates and to confer among themselves so as they might agree otherwise they threatned that the Emperor resolved to call a Council in the West to which they must go to determin the difference From whence we may note that they knew of no single Person who could finally decide questions of Faith and though it was to be determined at Rome a general Council must do it there However this Method proved effectual and so they published their Faith unanimously annexing it to the Creeds of Nice and Constantinople We shall only note further that in the Acclamations made in
such Now this was so apparent a falsification that the later Copies of Gratian have mended it and made it nec non But this was not till that Church had seen Constantinople under the Turkish Yoke and in no capacity to vye with her In the Sixteenth Action the Popes Legates complain to the Judges before all the Council That this Canon was made after their departure and irregularly and desire it may be read They were answered by the Arch-Deacon of Constantinople that it was customary in General Councils to treat of Discipline after matters of Faith that they told the Popes Legates this and desired their concurrence as to what should be done for the Church of Constantinople but they refused saying they had other Orders upon this they acquainted the Judges and they commanded the Council to proceed and so they did nothing being done fraudulently but all publickly and canonically upon this the Canon aforesaid was read Then the Legates Objections were heard and answered First to his insinuation that it was fraudulently obtained The Bishops all declared and especially those of Pontus and Asia newly subjected to Constantinople that they consented and subscribed to this Canon without any circumvention or force voluntarily and freely Secondly whereas the Legates pretended it was contrary to the Nicene Canons and cite the sixth Canon of Nice falsly putting this forged Title That the Church of Rome always had the Primacy into the body of the Canon The Council first discovers the fallacy by reading a true and authentick Record of that Canon without that corrupt Addition though still Baronius and Binius blush not to argue from this feigned Addition and then was read the Canon of the second Council at Constantinople for in that Age the Popes Cause was to be judged by the Canons to both which this Canon of Chalcedon was thought so agreeable that the Bishops principally concerned declared again they had freely subscribed it as agreeable both to the Canons and Custom And Eusebius Bishop of Dorylaeum declares he read that Canon of Constantinople here confirmed to the Pope at Rome and he owned it Where by the way Baronius egregiously prevaricates in expounding hanc regulam that is this Canon of the second General Council of Eusebius his rule or confession of Faith quite contrary to the plain sense of the Bishop here To proceed whereas the Legates objected Thirdly That the Bishops of Constantinople had not formerly used the Rights now conserred on them the contrary is manifest both as to precedence since all the Acts of this Council shew that Anatolius sate and spoke in the second place next to the Popes Legates and they had said in the first Act that his due was the second place And as to Jurisdiction the very Bishops of these Provinces do in these Acts declare the Patriarchs of Constantinople had used it in their Countries and Dioceses for many years Upon which the Judges pronounce the Sentence and give the second place to Constantinople with the Patriarchal Jurisdiction over those Provinces named in the Canon to which the whole Council consents except the Popes Legate who entred his Protestation against it but still the Bishops stood firm to the Canon and the Judges declare it valid with which this General Council is concluded Baronius thinks the final Acclamations are wanting if they be so we may easily guess who rased them out even that Church which then and since hath opposed this Canon and would conceal that General Consent by which it passed But the last words are plain enough where the Judges say The whole Synod hath confirmed it even though the Legates did dissent I shall conclude this History of Fact when I have noted two Corruptions in favour of the Roman Church which are evident in this last Act. First The Latin Version affirms the Judges said Rome truly by the Canons had all the Primacy omnem Primatum but the Greek is ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã the Primacy before all others which is not a Supremacy over all other Bishops but the first place among them Again the Legates in the Latin Copy say The Apostolical See ought not to be humbled in our presence but the Greek is quite different that is the Apostolical Throne commanded that all things should be done in our presence But he who made the alteration was one who dream'd that this Canon was to humble Rome whereas it takes not away the first place from the Pope only gives the second equal Priviledges within its own bounds to Constantinople § 4. We shall now proceed to the third part concerning what was done after the Council and there will shew that this Canon was valid notwithstanding the dissent of the Popes Legates and Leo's furious endeavours to annull it The first thing after the Councils speech to the Emperor in the old Collectors of Councils was the Imperial Edicts by which the Decrees were confirmed but these late Editors have removed these into the third place And first set down a pretended Letter from the Council to the Pope which is done only to impose upon unwary Readers and make them think it was not the Emperor but the Pope who had the power of confirming the Acts. But as to the Epistle it self it was dated in the end of March four Months after the Council was separated and if it be not a Forgery as some vehemently suspect on the account of a foolish and improbable story in it of Euphemia's dead body confirming the true Faith by a Miracle it was writ not by the General Council but by Anatolius after he had heard of the Popes dislike of the twenty eighth Canon and therefore he doth not desire his consent to any other thing but only labours to gain his assent to this Cannon So that Baronius falsly argues from hence it was the custom to send the Decrees of General Councils to Rome to be confirmed by the Popes Authority For this Letter was not writ by a General Council nor doth it desire a confirmation of any thing but one Canon which stood firm notwithstanding the Pope always disallowed it I only note that where the original is ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã that is taking his wonted care the Latin reads consuete gubernando As if the Pope had by custom governed all Churches as far as Constantinople I observe also that Binius leaves out the date of this Epistle to the Pope which is later in time than either of the Imperial Edicts hoping by that means the cheat of placing it before those Edicts would be undiscovered and that easie People might judge it a formal Letter writ while the Council was sitting to Petition the Pope to confirm all they had done I shall not insist upon any more particulars but smile at Baronius who for a few Complements that the writer of this Letter gives the Pope draws a serious Argument for the Supremacy and would have all
Bishops even in a General Council to be Sons to their Holy Father the Pope To proceed the Edicts of the Emperor are dated one in February and the other in March and they do effectually confirm the Acts of the Council and ordain penalties on such as oppose the definitions of the Synod After this follow three Letters of Pope Leo dated all of one day directed to Anatolius Bishop of Constantinople and to the Emperor and Empress Marcianus and Pulcheria in all which he shews his consent to the other things done at Chalcedon but argues and exclaims against the 28th Canon saying in his Letter to Pulcheria that by the Authority of Peter he utterly makes it void But all this spoils the Cause for notwithstanding all his huffing this Canon did remain in Force for Liberatus who writ in the next Century saith The Judges and all the Bishops did not value the Legates protestation and though the Apostolical See still oppose it this which was confirmed by the Synod by the Emperors Patronage remains even till now and Almain of later times affirms the Constitution of the Council prevailed over the protestations of Leo against it For the Canons of general Councils do prevail over the opposite Decrees of Popes And the History of following times doth clearly shew that the Bishop of Constantinople was ever after this reckoned the second Patriarch and took his place accordingly in succeeding Councils and retained the jurisdiction over those Provinces which this Canon gives him Wherefore it is very weak in Baronius from some bold passages in Leo's Letters to draw this consequence that it is clearly in the sole power of the Pope to make void what 630 Bishops in Council the Emperor and Senate had agreed on and confirmed For the contrary is clear as the Sun that the Legates contradiction there and the Popes ranting afterwards for all his pretended Authority of St. Peter did not signify any thing towards a real annulling this Canon and the more he strove to do it the more he shewed his Pride to be above his Power And indeed General Councils were needless precarious and insignificant if any one Bishop were not to be concluded by the major vote or had a negative voice there But because the Pope argues as well as condemns let us hear his reasons against this Canon First He every where urges it is contrary to the Nicene Canon But this is false he and his Legates indeed pretend this but the Nicene Canon was read over in open Council and all of them unanimously agreed it did no way contradict it The Council of Nice declared those Patriarchates which Custom had then setled and since after that time Constantinople came to be the Imperial City the second General Council and this at Chalcedon had as good right to declare Constantinople a Patriarchate as the first at Nice had to declare others and since Precedency was purely of Ecclesiastical Institution and given as this Canon saith on consideration of the honours of the Cities when the Emperors had made this City equal to old Rome as to the Civil State the Council might allot it a suitable precedence in the Church which was a perfecting of the Nicene Canon and a proceeding upon the same reason but no contradiction to it Secondly Leo argues that this was a prejudice to the two Sees of Alexandria and Antioch which were elder Patriarchates and so ought to preceed Constantinople I reply Maximus Bishop of Antioch did not think this Canon any injury to him for he is the second who subscribed it and all-along in the several Sessions Anatolius sat and spoke before him And though Leo stood nicely upon his points in these matters we do not find other Bishops were of that temper they freely submitted to the Bishop of the imperial City especially since he only had a place before them but no Authority over any other Patriarch So that Leo need not make any objections for them who are not found to complain or to have thought themselves injured I shall not insist upon Leo's insinuation that this Canon was procured fraudulently and that Anatolius his Pride made him seek it and strive to impose upon the Council For every body sees the whole Council clears him of this and 't is plain Leo was far prouder than Anatolius he scorned a Second and feared in time he might prove an Equal But Anatolius only got that place confirmed to him in this Council which he and his predecessors had hold long before I might add here the elaborate Arguments of Baranius and Binius but fearing I have been already too tedious I shall refer the Reader to Richerius who discovers all their Fallacies and make some observations on the rest of these Letters after the Council In an Epistle of the Emperors to the Monks of Alexandria who disliked the Council of Chalcedon he recommends its definitions as agreeing to the Faith of Athanasius Theophilus and Cyril former Bishops of Alexandria which it seems was more considerable to them than the Faith of Leo in whom that Age knew of no Infallibility Again it is a good Rule in an Epistle of Leo's That none should seek his own advancement by the diminution of another which had he and his Successors observed they would not have degraded all the other Patriarchs to set themselves up as supreme over them all There may be some suspicion whether that Epistle of Leo to Maximus Bishop of Antioch be genuin however there is a very improbable story in it viz. That Juvenalis of Jerusalem had sought to get the jurisdiction of all Palestina in the famous General Council of Ephesus and that Cyril had writ to Leo to joyn with him in opposing that design whereas that Council of Ephesus was held nine years before Leo was Pope and therefore Leo could not be applied to as to any thing agitated in that Council After this follows a multitude of Epistles in answer to the complaints of the Aegyptian Bishops who adhered to this Council of Chalcedon and the Emperor Leo's Order to all Bishops to give the Sense of every Provincial Church concerning this General Council which some heretical Monks had questioned For this Emperor prudently avoided the charge and trouble of another General Council appointing the Metropolitans to call their own Bishops together at home and to send him their Opinion of this Council of Chalcedon which was universally owned by all in their several Letters to have been an Orthodox Council sufficiently approved and confirmed Now had the Pope then been infallible or thought to be so it had been sufficient to write to him alone and he could have told the Emperor the Sense of the Catholick Church but he was only writ to as other Bishops were to declare his own Opinion So that in this proceeding there are no marks of his Supremacy for the other Bishops confirm the Faith decreed in this Council as well as
Faith but because he agreed with the African and other Churches and now de Facto took the Orthodox Side Wherefore when Zosimus and other succeeding Popes favoured these Pelagians the Dignity of his See did not secure them from the Censures of the African Fathers as we shewed before § 3. We pass thirdly to his rare faculty of supposing things without any proof and sometimes making inferences from his own inventions for the advantage of Rome So when a few persecuted Eastern Bishops of Chrysostom's party fled to the Roman Church to avoid the Storm their own Patriarchs being all combined against them Baronius saith they fled to it as to their Mother being admonished by the examples of their Predecessors And he goes on to insinuate a very false thing viz. That all the Bishops who were persecuted by the Arrians in Constantin ' s time in the East fled to Rome Whereas only some few came both then and now and dire necessity had left them no choice nor other refuge Thus he resolves Ruffinus shall be a Pelagian Heretick and out of a Council whose Acts are not extant and the relation of it only saith Celestius was condemned there he will have Ruffinus condemned in that Council upon meer conjecture and can no other ways prove him a Heretick but by one Witness even this Heretick Celestius who being in a strait cited Ruffinus's words but probably very falsly so that one Heretick shall be sufficient evidence against a man that Baronius hates but many Orthodox Witnesses will not persuade him that Innocent favoured the Pelagians almost to the end of his Life It is an odd conjecture that St. Hierom would not translate any of Theophilus his Paschal Epistles after once he differed with Pope Innocent about restoring St. Chrysostom's name into the Dypticks For except another guess of his own without any manner of evidence there is no appearance that ever St. Hierom was concerned for St. Chrysostom's sufferings and it is certain he was kind with his Mortal Enemy Theophilus in the year of Christ 404 when he got him to be banished and it would be very strange that St. Hierom should refuse to translate any more of Theophilus's Epistles on the account of a quarrel between him and Pope Innocent about restoring Chrysostom's name into the Dypticks since the last Paschal Epistle translated by Hierom was writ Anno 404 and Baronius saith Theophilus writ every year one till Anno 412 but Chrysostom died not till Anno 407 and Innocent himself did not quarrel with Theophilus till long after the year 404 So that the Cardinal contradicts himself meerly to support an idle conjecture viz. That all Eminent Fathers loved and hated only those who were loved and hated by the Pope And into what Absurdities and Contradictions this Fancy hath led him may be seen by comparing those two places aforecited together and we may note that though it be certain Theophilus died unreconciled to Chrysostom's memory or to Innocent yet Baronius shews he was commended as a most approved Bishop for so it seems a man might be though he had a difference with the Bishop of Rome Again it is a bare supposition that the Priviledges of the Patriarch of Constantinople asserted in the Province of Illiricum by a Law of Theodosius was founded upon the false suggestions of Atticus For the very Law it self forbids innovations and requires the ancient Canons and Customs thus far observed should be in force on which Theodosius plainly grounds the Jurisdiction of the Bishop of Constantinople in this Province So that he refers to the Canon of the Second General Council of Constantinople and the usage ever since and how could this proceed from any false suggestions of Atticus To proceed Prosper relating Germanus his going into Britain as some think mistakes the time at least seventeen years and says nothing of St. Lupus his Companion in that Journey howbeit because Prosper saith the Pope sent St. Germanus Baronius will have him to be authentick contrary to all other Authors who affirm St. Germanus and Lupus were sent by a Gallican Council to whom a Petition from the British Bishops was sent However he affirms it for a certainty soon after that St. Germanus was the Popes Legate into Britain which he had but half proved before And one Author who speaks favourably of the Popes Authority shall be believed against many of equal Credit who speak otherwise I grant Prosper is a credible Writer only he is apt for the credit of the Cause always to bring in the Popes as Enemies to the Pelagians sometimes without reason and Constantine Bede with others who write of this journey into Britain and ascribe this mission to a French Council deserve more credit in that particular than he A little after upon Cyril's mentioning Nestorius's writing to the Roman Bishop in hopes to draw him to his Opinion Baronius supposes of his own Head that it was an ancient use in Controversies of Faith to write to the Bishop of Rome and that the part he chose was generally favoured so that if Nestorius could persuade him the whole Catholick Church would follow his Judgment which is all Chimaera for Pope Victor Stephen and Liberius of old Vigilius and Honorius afterward found opposition enough for all the dignity of their place when they seemed to other Bishops to take the wrong side From a fabulous Writer called Probus who hath given us a Legend of St. Patrick's Life he not only confidently affirms that Pope Celestine sent this Patrick to convert the Irish but infers from thence That it was clear to all men the Gospel was to be received from the Apostolical See for the conversion of the Pagans Whereas it is not clear that St. Patrick was sent from Rome but it is clear that other Heathen Countries have received the Gospel by the care of other Patriarchs and Eminent Bishops so that his Ground is but conjecture and the Superstructure wholly vain 'T is true indeed that Pope Leo to shew his Authority desired three Bishops of Sicily to appear in his annual Roman Council once a year and was the first Pope who put this Yoke upon them but how this new encroachment shews the ancient observance of holding Councils of Bishops twice a year is very hard to conjecture only when a Pope alters the Fathers Customs the Annalist will suppose he observes and confirms them And he could see no usurpation in this Popes calling the Sicilian Bishops yearly to Rome against the ancient Usage But when Dioscorus of Alexandria would have encroached upon the Bishops of Syria he blames him severely We shall not mention the Authority of the Writings of Athanasius Cyril and other Eminent Bishops of other Sees in Controversies of Faith But it is very imposing for Baronius to suppose The Pope presided as the Master over the whole Christian World and out of his high Throne taught all men
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
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
Spain many of whose Cities they have betrayed to the French The Notes falsly cite the first Canon and so doth Baronius saying it orders That the Clergy shall not against their Bishops Sentence seek to secular Tribunals and pretending this was in opposition to an Edict of Valentinian published the year before which restrained the Bishops Jurisdiction to matters of Religion unless the parties chose them Now the true words of the Canon are The Clergy shall not appeal from the Bishops Sentence nor seek to Secular Tribunals without consulting the Bishop And Valentinian's Law was of no force in France nor probably had these Bishops ever heard there was such a Law so that it is not likely they ever thought of opposing it Finally We observe that Baronius without any Authority falsly affirms that this Council was sent to Rome only to insinuate that it was to be confirmed there Whereas till Fronto-Ducaeus found the Manuscript in France they at Rome seem to have known nothing of it The Council of Vannes placed by Binius here by Sirmondus Authority is removed to An. 465. in Labbè Nothing in it is remarkable but that the Assembly desires not the Pope but the absent Bishops of their own Province to confirm the Canons thereof The Council of 73 Bishops at Constantinople was called by and held under Gennadius Patriarch of that City and so is falsly titled under Leo whose Legates do not subscribe it and so probably were not present at it Baronius indeed saith they were but proves it only by conjecture because Leo in an Epistle speaks of his Legates being come back to Rome the year after But the wonder is how Baronius and Binius who confess all the Acts are lost except one Canon about Simony came to know that Eutyches was condemned and the Council of Chalcedon confirmed in this Council However if it was confirmed no doubt the Greek Bishops would confirm the Canons of it with the rest to which the Popes Legates could not consent But since we hear of no difference it is like these Legates were not present § 2. Pope Hilary who succeeded Leo might justly be suspected of Heresie because he confirms no more than three General Councils omitting that of Constantinople which condemned Macedonius But since there is no evidence of this Universal Epistle confirming the other three Councils but only the fabulous Pontifical we may acquit him and perhaps even in the very Pontifical this Council may have been erased after the controversie of the Primacy was started However this being owned all along by the Catholick Church for a General Council it can suffer nothing by the Popes not confirming it he alone would deserve censure for not subscribing to it The Spanish Bishops who write to this Pope by their Countries being wasted by Euaricus the Goth were destitute of Power and desire Hilary to declare the Canons in some particular Cases hoping the persons concerned who despised them in their low estate might have more respect for a great Patriarch So that it is very Sophistical in the Annalist and Binius to draw consequences from hence for the Popes being the Supream Judge and having power to dispense with all Canons The Pope himself in his Answer pretends no such thing He only declares the Canons but dispenses with none Yet if he had such a power doubtless he ought to have used it in Irenaeus his Case But the third Epistle of Hilary writ about the same affair seems to discover that all these Epistles which talk so big of the Popes Supremacy are counterfeit For the Forger weary of inventing new Phrases steals the beginning verbatim out of those Epistles that are falsly ascribed to Zepherine and Fabian and were not extant until long after Pope Hilary's death And Labbè's Marginal Note on Binius Annotations shews he smelt out the Cheat if he durst have spoken freely The Notes on the 4th Epistle own that the Popes may be cajoled by false Stories and deceived in Matter of Fact and this so far as to condemn holier Bishops than themselves as Leo and this Hilary did in the cases of Hilary of Arles and Mammertus of Vienne And it is not easie to understand how he who mistakes Matter of Fact can infallibly apply the Law to a Fact wherein he is mistaken The 5th Epistle was writ three year before those that precede it and the Humility of the Style makes me think it the only genuine Letter as yet set down of this Pope for he writes to the Bishop of Arles not as a Son but as a Brother and takes it well that he advised him to keep close to the Ancient Canons The 9th Epistle shews that Mammertus his Piety was no protection to him against the injuries of the Roman Court But Binius doth penance for this in his Notes on the 11th Epistle though all his devices will neither excuse his Popes Morals in persecuting so great a Saint nor vindicate his Judgment who was so grosly mistaken There is but one Roman Council under this Pope called as is pretended to confirm his false Judgment about the Spanish Bishops for they absolve the guilty Sylvanus and condemn Irenaeus who was innocent And though this Popes being commonly in the wrong makes it probable he might get such a Council together yet the very Acts smell strong of Forgery as well as the former Epistles in these cases For besides their Stile Maximus Bishop of Turin is mentioned not only as present at it but speaking in it who died as Gennadius a Writer of that Age and Country affirms in the Reign of Honorius and the younger Theodosius that is above 40 year before this Council So that Baronius is very bold out of a suspected Council to correct a Writer who lived so near this time against the Authority of divers printed Copies And Binius is more audacious to cover this with an evident falsification of Gennadius as if he said Maximus lived under those Emperors but continued Bishop till this time And now let Baronius boast of the Acclamations of this Synod common in other Councils as a singular honour done to Hilary for after all it is plain he liked not the Canons of it so well as to give them a place in his Annals which here he fills up with other manifest impertinencies § 3. The next Pope was Simplicius whose appointing Weekly Confessors at Rome is far from proving what the Notes infer that their Sacramental Confession was instituted by Christ Nor is it for the credit of this Pope that three parts of seven in Rome it self were Arrians in his time But the Pontifical gives the reason of it and expresly charges him with dissimulation Which seems a just censure for though the Arrians and Photinians sadly infested the Western Church And though the Princes of that time were generally heretical yet poor
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
History where he saith It is dangerous to enquire after Truth among later Writers who are often found to write that which false rumors vain imagination private affection and sometimes Flattery suggested to their Minds to the great prejudice of Historical Truth Yet he borrows very many of his Relations concerning the Saints and ancient Practices from Modern Authors or from spurious Tracts of which this Period affords us these Instances § 1. They will have Porcarius the Abbot to have been a Martyr and celebrate his Martyrdom Aug. 12th and yet the History is taken out of a spurious Tract and he owns the Matter of Fact to be false His report of a Golden Saviour so they name an Image decked with precious Jewels made by the Emperor Valentinian at the request of Pope Sixtus hath no better Authority than the Epistle of Pope Adrian to Charlemain which is stuffed with Fables No Writer of this Age takes notice of it nor were such Images then used So that it need be no wonder that the Vandals did not plunder this rich Statue because in the time of their Sacking Rome it was not there But if some worshiper of Images about Adrian's time to gain repute to this Golden Statue ascribed a greater Antiquity to it than he ought as was usual in such cases Baronius doth ill to represent it as a Wonder that an Image was not stolen before it was made The respect that Childeric a Pagan King of France payed to St. Genovefa and the Miracles that occasioned it depends on the Credit of Surius and the Acts of that Virgin so that the Matter of fact is very suspicious and the large reflexion upon it is as frivolous in representing a Heathen King as more pious than those whom he calls Hereticks for venerating and worshiping the Saints for his Story proves nothing of his worshiping a Saint departed and if any living Saints could now be found in their Church I dare say the very Hereticks would give them great respect That Apparition of the Blessed Virgin to Leo before he was Emperor which the Annalist describes so prolixly hath no other nor better Author than Nicephorus who lived long after this Age and is by this very Historian often censured for a fabulous Writer Again to justifie an improbable Story of Caesarius while he was but a young Bishop imperiously commanding a greater and much elder Bishop than himself Eucherius Bishop of Lyons to work a Miracle taken out of a corrupted piece of Caesarius his Life He rejects the Chronology of Gennadius and talks of supposing two Bishops of Lyons named both of them Eucherius though no ancient Author mention any such thing The Relation of an Angels visibly waiting on St. Marcellus when he and his Monks went to Petition the Emperor against the making an Arrian Caesar is cunningly contrived For the Author notes that of all the company only some few witnesses fore ordained of God who had clearer Eyes than the rest saw this Angel And Zonaras a more credible Writer than the Deviser of these Acts who mentions the Story never heard of this Apparition at all However if these few sharp-sighted Gentlemen designed to impose upon the rest of the Monks the Plot was well laid that none but they should discern the Angel The Miracle of the Beam of Light appearing at the Election of St. Remigius the Apostle of the French is very suspicious because Sidonius who knew and admired him and lived at the same time is silent and the report is fetched from a Successor of his who writ or is pretended to have writ this above 300 year after Though Surius be one of his most common Authors for all his Legends yet he confesses great defects and many things which need correction are found in his Collection and he in the same Page taxes Nicephorus to be Erroneous yet hath no better Authors than he and Metaphrastes for the invention of the most Holy Garment of the Blessed Virgin which yet no doubt the ignorant People of the Roman Communion do mightily adore Such another Evidence is the Pratum Spirituale of Jo. Moschus falsly ascribed to Sophronius yet out of this he Records a very Scandalous Story that the Blessed Virgin declared to a devout Votaress of hers whom Zeno had abused by violence That she could not take vengeance on him for his Lust because this Emperor gave much Alms which teaches Rich Men how to continue as filthy as they please and be secured against the Divine Vengeance if any be so weak as to credit it It shews great partiality for any Story about the Relicks of the Saints in that Baronius rejects all the circumstances mentioned by Theodorus Lector about the Relicks of St. Eustatius and yet will have us believe the solemn removal of them to Antioch whereas we have reason to respect the Story it self to be false when the sole Author was grosly mistaken both in the time and effects of translating the Relicks But the business of the Annalist was to defend and allow every thing that seemed to make the veneration of Relicks ancient Nothing is more evident in this Age than that the Emperors or the Gothish Kings yea the Praefacts of Rome made Rules for the Election of the Popes and either confirmed or annulled them But whereas there is a Decree about Elections at Rome made in the vacancy of the See by the Roman Clergy and Basilius the Praefect which seems to be very genuine Baronius rejects it by the bare Authority of a Synod that hath been forged as shall be shewed on purpose to persuade the World that Princes had nothing to do in the Election of Popes The Story of the Apparition of St. Michael at Mount Garganus is cited only out of a late Author viz. Sigebert who lived above 600 year after this time And therefore the Cardinal ought not to have been so nice in mending a gross mistake in the Relation which shews the ignorance of the Inventor of this Fable but rather to have rejected the whole Fiction so absurdly related and so ill attested o With like industry Baronius defends two most ridiculous Fables about Images which Jo. Damascen cites out of Theodoret's Ecclesiastical History and yet the Facts happened as is pretended in the Reign of Anastasius who was not Emperor till 30 year after Theodoret's death Now rather than lose such Evidence for the Veneration of Images the Annalist falls to guessing who was the true Author of these Fables and first he thinks it was Theodorus Lector but he writ in Anastasius his time who ordered this Picture to be made so that he could not speak of this as an old Piece spoiled with moisture Wherefore at last he finds another Theodoret besides the famous Bishop of Cyrus but knows neither where nor when he lived So that such an obscure Writer is not a sufficient Witness to make great improbabilities
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 Epistles of Leo and Gregory who was yet unborn the latter steals the beginning from an Epistle of Pope Innocent's and the rest is verbatim taken out of a spurious Epistle ascribed to Pope Dionysius And the date of this also is after Foelix his death But Binius boldly saith they are genuine and Baronius would persuade us the name of Foelix was put for Boniface which is an unlikely change Now if you ask why they vindicate such Trash I must Note it is for the sake of one dear Sentence viz. That the Roman Church in one of them is twice called the Head A phrase which is enough to make any Coin currant at Rome The Third Epistle was dated 15 year before Foelix was Pope till Sirmondus lately mended the Consuls name 't is said to be written to Caesarius Bishop of Arles who is here stiled not the Son but the Brother of the Pope But the matter of it is such mean stuff that the true Author will have no credit by it nor is it material whether it be genuine or no And by the way 't is somewhat odd that these forged or trifling Epistles should give Du-Pin ground for putting these two Popes into his Catalogue of Ecclesiastical Writers Labbè adds here a Form of Anathematizing the Manichaean Heresie wherein St. Augustin's Opinion guides the Affair The Pope is not concerned in reconciling Hereticks for the Authority of Rome was not so considerable in those days as these Men pretend 'T is true the Council of Orange owns they had some Capitulars sent from Rome against the Pelagians But Labbè's Notes say they were Sentences collected out of the Fathers especially St. Augustin and agreeable to holy Scripture Wherefore Binius falsly brags that this Controversie was determined by the Popes Authority it was determined by St. Augustin's Authority whose Doctrin Pope John the second saith the Roman Church then kept and followed Rome only furnished the Records toward it and a Clerk of the Rolls may as well be called the Determiner and Judge of a Suit where he produces any old writing as the Pope made Arbiter in this Case And it was the Gallican Synods Decree which made these Definitions to be of Force in France Sirmondus indeed pretends Pope Boniface confirmed this Council but acknowledges the confirmation came some time after though the modern Parasites had falsly placed this Papal confirmation before the Council But if we enquire more strictly it will appear this second Epistle of Boniface the Second which is the confirmation is Forged for it not only bears date the year after the Council but as Sirmondus owns it is dated seven Months before Boniface was Pope So that unless you will allow him to alter Dates at his pleasure this Pope did not confirm this Synod at all Only any thing must be genuine with these Men which gives countenance to the Papal usurpations The Notes upon this Council cite a Testimony out of Gennadius that Pope Foelix approved a Book writ by Caesarius against the Pelagians Which Testimony is not in my Edition of Gennadius and if that Author have writ any such thing he must mean Foelix the Third because he writ An. 492 which is above 30 year before this Foelix was Pope But when such learned Men as Prosper and Caesarius writ against an Heresie the Popes Celestine and Foelix gladly subscribed them not to give the Books any greater Authority but to prove themselves Orthodox and in Communion with men so famous for defending the Catholick Faith The Second or Third Council of Vaison was falsly placed by Binius under Pope John the second who was not Pope till two years after But Sirmondus rightly places it in this year in Foelix his time In the first Canon it would have appeared plainly that the Readers then had Wives allowed if the true reading had stood which must be Lectores suas uxores habentes recipiant But the Forgers have altered it in Binius thus sive uxores habuerint in Labbè thus sine uxore c. But the corrupters in both Editions have left this passage so abused that it is neither Grammar nor Sense The fourth Canon is double in Binius Labbè hath made it but one it orders That the Popes name shall be recited in the Gallican Offices Now to make this Canon seem more ancient the Parasites had hoisted up this Council 200 year even as high as Pope Julius where Binius shamelesly prints it But Sirmondus proves there could be no such French Council at that time And considering the Forgers have been so busie with this Canon I judge it very probable that it was made by a Council much later than this Age only it is clapt in here very abruptly to support an earlier Grandeur than the Popes at the time enjoyed I am sure it seems unlikely the Gallican Church should then pay this great respect to Rome § 8. Pope Boniface the Second succeeded Foelix but not by a clear Election for another party chose Dioscorus who had been Legate to Horsmida but he was either poysoned or died naturally within a Month and so Boniface kept the Chair His Malice however died not with his Rival For he called a Synod and got him anathematized after his Death for Simony Which crime Pope Agapetus a little after proved to be false and the Sentence extorted from the Clergy by Boniface ' s malicious craft So that the Sentence was revoked and Dioscorus with his party absolved Another Evidence of this Popes rashness was a Decree made also in this Synod That the Pope should name his Successor which was not only against the Canons which this Pope and his Council here had violated but against an express Law of the Gothick Princes and therefore when this fallible Pope saw his Error a little after he called another Synod and revoked this Decree confessing himself as Anastasius saith Guilty of Treason in making the former Order by which we may see in that Age it was Treason for the Pope in Council to Repeal a Royal Law Wherefore I wonder that Baronius should call that the wresting a presumtuous and usurped power out of the Goths hands which his poor Master owned to be Treason In short this Pope is only famous for his Errors and evil Deeds But to make him look great the Forgers have invented an Epistle for him containing many vaunts of the Roman Churches greatness and a pretended submission of the Church of Carthage after a very long separation from Rome even from the time of Aurelius Now though this came out of their own Shop it is so gross an untruth in the main That Binius and all their later Writers reject it But though I think the Epistle certainly Spurious and this submission forged yet it is true the African Churches even while they did own the Roman for an Orthodox Church had for a long time
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
calls his Recanting not this Orthodox Explanation of the twelve Chapters as Vigilius pretends yea it was proved before Photius and Eustathius that Ibas said He would not have received Cyril if he had not Anathematized his Chapters Wherefore Ibas his Epistle was always Heretical and he an Heretick until he recanted and came over to Cyril's Faith but Vigilius falsly affirms him to have been Orthodox both before he rightly understood Cyril's meaning and afterwards and wrongfully supposes Cyril came over to Ibas who held two Persons but called them two Natures from all which it manifestly appears 1st That the dispute about this Epistle was a cause of Faith 2ly That Ibas his Epistle was Heretical 3ly That Vigilius and Baronius in this dispute take the Heretical side Chap. xiii Baronius further pretends that neither the asserting or denying these three Chapters could denominate Men Hereticks But this was fully disproved before see Chap. 5. And since this was a cause of Faith in which the whole 5th Council held contrary to Pope Vigilius it will follow that Men may contradict the Popes Decisions in Articles of Faith and be no Hereticks Yea since here the Pope was on the wrong side they who are to believe all such Decisions must sometimes be Hereticks Secondly Baronius falsly affirms that they who held contrary to the Pope herein were Schismaticks Convict 'T is true there was a Schism as he confesseth But Vigilius and his Party were the Schismaticks who separated from a General Council owned for such by all Catholicks Chap. xiv In the next place Baronius would excuse Vigilius from Heresie because he professed to hold the Faith of the Council of Chalcedon and writ his Constitution to defend it So did Victor so Facundus Hermianensis who writ for the three Chapters pretend Yea Vigilius himself in his Constitution pretends to maintain the Faith of that great Council But let it be considered that the 5th General Council after a strict examining all these pretences Anathematizes all that defend the three Chapters in the name of the Council of Chalcedon which Fact all Catholicks who approve this 5th Council must consent to And nothing is more usual with all sorts of Hereticks than to profess they believe as the Orthodox Councils and Fathers have believed yet they were condemned for all that pretence See particular instances of this as to the Eutychians Monothelites Nestorians and Modern Romanists in the learned Author Therefore Baronius his excuse is frivolous since Hereticks professions are as false and contradictory as their Doctrins And Vigilius would not forsake the three Chapters no not when they were proved contrary to the Council of Chalcedon and forbids any to write or speak against them so as he might never be convicted or convinced Chap. xv Baronius his third excuse for Vigilius is that he confirmed the 5th Council And Bellarmine saith he did confirm it Binius adds no Man doubts it But if Vigilius case be examined it will be found he changed four times in this Cause of Faith First While he was at Rome upon Justinian's first putting out the Edict he opposed it and stirred up Facundus a Nestorian to write against the Emperor in rude Language Yea Baronius in the same place Rails at Justinian for this Edict and Vigilius writ a threatning Letter to Constantinople against all that should joyn with the Emperor So that Vigilius Facundus and Baronius stand all Anathematized by the 5th Council for writing in defence of the three Chapters But Secondly As soon as Vigilius was come to Constantinople he changed his Mind and in a Council of 30 Bishops condemned the three Chapters which Facundus upbraids him with and Baronius confesses he writ a Book against them and sent it to Mennas Bishop of Constantinople and that he excommunicated Rusticus and Sebastianus two Roman Deacons with other defenders of the three Chapters and in those Epistles writ about these Men he calls this writing to Mennas his Constitution his Judgment by Peter's Authority For which the other Party called him a Deserter a Prevaricator c. and Victor saith that the African Bishops in a Synod excommunicated him yet Baronius owns these Bishops at that time were Catholicks Nor doth it excuse this Pope that he revoked this Constitution which condemned the three Chapters presently after it was published and made another Decree that all should keep silence till the General Council For this only shews him a Dissembler and a neutral in a Cause of Faith But Thirdly At the 5th Council Vigilius returns to his Vomit condemns the imperial Edict and defends the three Chapters as we shewed before and was so obstinate as to endure Banishment for this Opinion which though none suffered for but such as the 5th Council declared Hereticks Baronius calls an heavy persecution and indeed his suffering on this side shews he was always a Nestorian in his Heart But Fourthly Binius and Baronius say he changed again after the 5th Council and condemning the three Chapters was enlarged but died in his way home Yea they are confident that he did confirm the 5th Council and so condemn his late Constitution Which last change no ancient Author mentions And though this only could keep him from dying in Heresie yet this is a Fiction of Baronius who will say any thing to save a Popes credit an instance of which we have in his commending this Proteus for a Man of Wisdom and Constancy and in Binius his praising Vigilius for a prudent and pious Pope who imitated St. Paul in changing his Mind while Justinian who was always Orthodox and stood firm is by these Parasites decried as a wicked perfidious person So that Truth in others is Error and Error in a Pope is Truth yea if a Pope hold Contradiction he is always in the Right Chap. xvi But in this Account of Vigilius changes two of them are forged by Baronius First that Decree of silence is a Fable though it be so often mentioned in the Annals and though he say Vigilius decreed this Synodically and affirm that Theodorus and Mennas consented to it and that he and Justinian had promised to observe this silence Whereupon he pretends Vigilius excommunicated Theodorus and suspended Mennas And stoutly opposing Justinian who this year hung up his Edict in contradiction to this Decree of silence though he fled to St. Peter's Church and then to Chalcedon yet thence he thundred out his spiritual Darts against them all and rescinded the Emperors Decree Upon this Baronius says the Emperor revoked his Edict and Theodorus repented and submitted as did also Mennas and so all were content to be silent till the Council and great Joy followed thereupon Now this is all Fiction For first if there had been such a Decree for silence let
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
at that time when he would have us believe these Canons were made and He also put in the Constitutions which are forged in the name of the Apostles who were to be set up as Authors also of these Canons And if that were so this 84th Canon being cleared from those two Corruptions is an Ancient and very Authentic Record of the true and genuine Books of Holy Scripture but the Romanists reject it as being a good evidence against their New Trent Canon § 3. To these Canons are joyned a pretended Council of the Apostles at Antioch first put into the Tomes of the Councils by Binius and continued by Labbè one Canon of which allows Christians to make an image of Christ But this notorius and improbable Forgery was never heard of in any Author till that infamous second Nicene Council which wanting proofs for Image-worship from genuine Antiquity impudently feigned such Authorities as this pretended Council § 4. The Pontifical or Lives of the Popes which begins here bears the Title of Pope Damasus but the Notes say Damasus was not Author of it being evidently patched up out of two different Authors containing contradictions almost in every Popes Life So that no account is to be made of a Writing so different from it self Now if this be as it certainly is a True Character of the Pontifical Why do these Editors print it Why do the Notes so often cite it as good Hisstory Why do their Divines quote it as good Authority to prove their Modern Corruptions to have been primitive Rites Since it is a manifest Legend and contained at first nothing but the bare Names and continuance of the several Popes and was filled up by Isidore Mercator who forged the Decretal Epistles with many improbable Fictions unsuitable both to the Men and Times for which they were invented and designed to be a ground for those Decretal Epistles and to make the World believe that all the Popes were considerable for their Actions in all Ages as Dr. Peirson hath excellently proved in his Learned Post humous Dissertation Yet not only these Editors of the Councils print this corrupt Legend but their very Breviaries and Missals generally appoint the Lessons out of it on the Festivals of these Ancient Popes publishing in the very Church in time of Divine Service these Fictions for the true ground of the Peoples Devotions on those Days I confess Binius out of Baronius hath Notes upon every Pope ' s Life and rejects commonly some part of it but then it is such passages as no way concern the opinion or practice of the present Roman Church For the passages which do agree thereto though equally false he generally defends yea cites them to prove their Modern Faith and Usages But as we come to the several Popes Lives which these Editors make the grand direction in Ecclesiastical Chronology we shall observe the many and gross Errors contained in it We begin with the Life of S. Peter whom if we do allow to have been at Rome as this Author reports yet we cannot believe he ordained three Bishops for his Successors there in his Life-time viz. Linus Cletus and Clement Nor that he was Buried in three several places in Apollo ' s Temple and besides Nero ' s Pallace in the Vatican and besides the Triumphal Territory which this fabulous Writer affirms Nor will the Annotator admit that S. Peter could be Crucified by Nero in the 38th year after Christ ' s Passion which was three years almost after Nero's own Death § 5. The next place ever since P. Crabs Edition is by the Roman Editors allotted to a Treatise of the Popes Supremacy writ of late Times by some manifest Sycophant of the Roman Church yet placed here among the Venerable Antiquities of the Apostolic Age to clap a false Biass on the unwary Reader and make him apt to believe that which Richerius said is the main design of Bellarmin Baronius and Possevine in all their Works viz. that the Pope was made by Christ the infallible and absolute Monarch of the Church but the Tract it self makes out this high Claim chiefly by the Decretal Epistles which are now confessed to be Forgeries And by the Sayings of Popes who were not to be believed in their own case To which are added some few Fragments of the Fathers falsly applied and certain false Arguments which have been confuted a thousand times So that the placing this Treatise here serves only to shew the Editors partiality to promote a bad Cause § 6. The Pontifical places Linus as S. Peters Successor but the Notes confess that the Fathers are not agreed about it They own that Tertullian Epiphanius and Ruffinus make Clement to succeed Peter and the ãâã Learned Bishop of Chester proves Linus was dead before Peter Irenaeus doth not say as the Notes falsly cite him that Linus succeeded Peter in the Government of the universal Church but only that Peter and Paul delivered the Administration of that Church to him which they had founded at Rome Which they might do in their Life time while they went to preach in other places The Epistle of Ignatius to Mary Cassibolite and the Verses attributed to Tertullian which they bring for proof of this Succession are confessed to be spurious Tracts St. Hierom is dubious and upon the whole matter there is no certainty who was Bishop of Rome next to the Apostles and therefore the Romanists build on an ill Bottom when they lay so great weight on their personal Succession § 7. The like Blunder there is about the next Pope The fabulous Pontifical makes Cletus succeed Linus and gives us several Lives of Cletus and Anacletus making them of several Nations and to have been Popes at different times putting Clement between them Yet the aforesaid Learned Bishop of Chester proves these were only two names of the same Person But the Notes attempt to justifie the forged Pontifical by impudently affirming that Ignatius Anacletus contemporary Irenaeus Eusebius St. Augustine and Optatus were all mistaken or all wronged by their Transcribers who leave out Cletus But every Candid Reader will rather believe the Mistake to be in the Pontifical which is a meer heap of Errors and in the Roman Martyrology and Missal which blindly follow it rather than in those Eminent and Ancient Fathers And every one may see the Folly of the Romish Church which Venerates two several Saints on two several Days one of which never had a real Being for Cletus is but the abbreviation of Anacletus his Name § 8. After this we have the Life of Clement wherein the Pontifical makes him succeed Cletus under those Consuls which were in Office the next year after S. Peter's Martyrdom though he had assigned 23 years to Linus and Cletus his pretended Predecessors which years must all be expired in one years compass if this Account be true and one would admire the stupidity of
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
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
the Roman Church is much exalted with Pride and former evil Popes producing this as a Canon of Nice were discovered by a Council at Carthage as the Preface to that Council shews But this Canon whatever they pretend gives no more power to Rome than other Canons since it saith not absolutely that any who is deposed any where shall have liberty to appeal to the Pope for at that rate the Sardican Synod would contradict the General Councils it speaks only of him who is deposed by the Neighbouring Bishops and those of his Province and therefore doth not comprehend the Synod of the Primate Metropolitan or Patriarch so that if they be present and the Sentence be not barely by the Neighbouring Bishops the Pope may not re-hear it as this Canon orders And it only concerns those in the West Hosius and the Makers of these Canons being of those parts but in the East this Custom never was observed to this day I shall make one remark or two more and so dismiss this Council The Preface cites Sozomen to prove That Hosius and others writ to Julius to confirm these Canons But Sozomen only saith They writ to him to satisfie him that they had not contradicted the Nicene Canons and their Epistle which calls Julius their Fellow-Minister desires him to publish their Decrees to those in Sicily Sardinia and Italy which of old were Suburbicarian Regions but never speak of his confirming their Decrees Yet in their Epistle to the Church of Alexandria they pray them to give their Suffrage to the Councils determinations Which had it been writ to the Pope would have made his Creatures sufficiently triumph I observe also that upon the mention of the Church of Thessalonica in the 20th Canon the Notes pretend that this Church had an especial regard then because the Bishop of it was the Pope's Legate yet the first proof they give is that Pope Leo made Anastasius of Thessalonica his Legate an hundred years after and hence they say Bellarmine aptly proves the Popes Supremacy But the Inferences are as ridiculous as they are false and they get no advantage either to their Supremacy or Appeals by this Council § 22. The first Council of Carthage was appointed to suppress that dangerous Sect of the Donatists and though it bear the Title of under Julius yet this pretended universal Monarch is not mentioned by the Council or by any ancient Author as having any hand in this great Work which was managed by Gratus Bishop of Carthage and by the Emperours Legates In this Council were made fourteen excellent Canons which possibly the Romanists may reject because they never asked the Popes consent to hold this Council nor desired his confirmation to their Canons and whereas the Editors tell us Pope Leo the 4th who lived five hundred years after approved of this Council we must observe that the Catholic Church had put them into their Code and received them for Authentic long before without staying for any Approbation from the Bishop of Rome Soon after this there was a Council at Milan of which there was no mention but only in the Synodical Letter of the Bishops met at Ariminum An. 359. who say that the Presbyters of Rome were present at it they say not Presidents of it And there it seems Ursacius and Valens two Arian Heretics abjured their Heresie and recanted their false Evidence against Athanasius And either before or after this Synod it is not certain whether they went to Rome and in writing delivered their Recantation to Pope Julius before whom they had falsly accused Athanasius and who was the Arbitrator chosen to hear that Cause and so not as Pope but as a chosen Judge in that case was fittest to receive these mens Confessions Yet hence the Notes make this Inference That since this matter was greater than that a Synod at Milan though the Roman Presbyters were present could dispatch it and lest the ancient Custom of the Catholic Church should be broken viz. for eminent Heretics to abjure their Heresies only at Rome and be received into Communion by the Pope they sent them to Julius that having before him offered their Penitential Letter they might make their Confession the whole Roman Church looking on All which is their own Invention for the Authors from whom alone they have the notice of this Council say nothing of this kind and it is very certain that there was at this time no custom at all for Heretics to abjure at Rome more than at any other place many Heretics being frequently reconciled at other Churches There was also a peculiar reason why these two Heretics went thither and it cannot be proved that this Council sent them so that these are Forgeries devised to support their dear Supremacy and so we leave them Only noting That the Editors are not so happy in their Memory as their Invention for the next Page shews us a Council at Jerusalem wherein many Bishops who had described the Condemnation of Athanasius and therefore no doubt were Arians repented and recanted and so were restored to the Churches Communion without the trouble of going to Rome on this Errant A Council at Colen follows next which they say was in Julius his time and under Julius yet the Notes say they know not the time when it was held only the Bishops there assembled deposed a Bishop for Heresie by their own Authority without staying for the Pope's Advice though they were then about to send a Messenger to Rome to pray for them so little was the Popes Consent thought needful in that Age and perhaps it is in order to conceal this seeming neglect that the Notes after they have approved far more improbable Stories which make for the honour of their Church reject the report of this Message to the Prince of the Apostles as fabulous and we are not concerned to vindicate it The last Council which they style under Julius was at Vasatis or Bazas in France yet the Notes affirm That Nectarius presided in it the time of it very uncertain and the Phrases used in the Canons of it shew it to be of much later date Besides this Council saith The Gloria-Patri was sung after the Psalms in all the Eastern Churches but Jo. Cassian who came out of the East in the next Century saith He had never heard this Hymn sung after the Psalms in the Eastern Churches Wherefore it is probable this Council was celebrated after Cassian's time when the Greek Churches had learned this Custom and yet these Editors place it a whole Century too soon because they would have us think that custom here mentioned of remembring the Pope in their daily Prayers was as ancient as the wrong date here assigned In Labbe's Edition here is added an account of three Councils against Photinus on which we need make no Remarks § 23. Pope Liberius succeeded Julius whose Life with the Notes upon it are
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 hoâing 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 Theodâsius 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 aâfirm That none but a pertinacicus Heretic will aââirm 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 aââirm That Damasus summoned them to meet there by the Emperours Letters Sâcrates also and Sozomen expresly say The Emperour called this Synod at Constantinople Theodoret also doth aââirm 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 oâf 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
And in the 6th 7th 8th and 9th Epistles he still advances this ill Man condemning Proculus Bishop of Marseilles and all others who opposed Patroclus in his most unjust usurpations and encroachments Yet Binius in his Notes confesseth that both his next Successors Boniface and Celestine did judge otherwise that is they took away this Primacy from Patroclus and censured him for his evil doings giving the Priviledges to Hilary Bishop of Narbon to whom of right they belonged So that here is Pope against Pope and Decretal against Decretal so odly do Causes go at Rome But by Zosimus his 11th and 12th Epistles it doth appear that the French Bishops despised the Popes Decrees and that Proculus went on in exercising his Primacy for all his being prohibited which looks not favourably on the Roman Supremacy As ill fortune had Pope Zosimus who was always on the wrong side in admitting the Appeal of Apiarius an African Priest who was excommunicated by Urban his own Bishop for most horrid Crimes which he afterwards confessed in an open Council as we shall shortly shew yet Zosimus thinking it for the honour of his See to have Appeals made to it from Foreign Parts admits this wicked Wretch to Communion commands the African Synod to receive him and threatens Vrban with an excommunication if he did not retract his Sentence But the African Fathers for all this went on to judge Apiarius as will be seen afterwards for Zosimus died before this Cause was ended I have deferred the consideration of Zosimus his 10th Epistle to the last place because it was the last he writ that is now extant in the Cause of Celestius and because it was writ to the Council of Carthage now assembled For the Pope after he had admitted Hereticks and evil Men to appeal to Rome was resolved to justifie the Fact and sent two Bishops Faustinus and Potentinus and two Priests Philip and Asellus his Legates into Africa with false Copies of the Nicene Canons to prove he ought to be appealed to in all Causes from all Provinces and probably by them or some little time before he sent this Tenth Epistle wherein he brags that Tradition and the Canons had given such great Authority to the Apostolical Seat that none might presume to question its Decrees with a great deal of such stuff about Christ's giving Peter the power to bind and loose and the Canons giving this to his Successor who was to have the care of all Churches and that since he held this place none might examine a Cause which he had determined c. Yet out of respect to the Africans he saith he had done nothing in the Cause of Celestius till they had deliberated about it and that this Cause was just in the same state as it lately was I relate this more at large because this unjust and ambitious Claim was the occasion of a famous Controversie that lasted many years after the death of Zosimus But as to the Letter the impertinency of it is very obvious for though he assume this Authority it is plain that St. Cyprian of old and the African Fathers afterward did not think it any presumption to confute the Decrees of Popes and to examine Causes which had been ill judged at Rome And in the Cause of Celestius whom Zosimus would not yet be induced to condemn the Council of Carthage as Prosper relates tell the Pope That they had resolved to confirm Pope Innocent ' s Sentence against him till he did openly confess the necessity of Grace And they went on with the judgment against Apiarius for all his Appeal to Rome and his being absolved there so that it is impudently done of the Roman Writers to go about to prove the Supremacy from a Popes evidence in his own Cause yea from a Claim which was denied and despised at the same time that it was made Another note I make on this Epistle is that it is dated but the 12th of the Ka. of April and Zosimus died in January following so that it is plain that he had not condemned Pelagius and Celestius nine Months before he died And though by those passages which Labbè hath published out of St. Augustine and Prosper it be certain he did censure this Heresie at last yet it could not be long before his death and therefore Zosimus was a manifest favourer of Hereticks almost all the time he was Pope and he may thank the African Fathers for his Repentance who though they were abused and injured by him hide as much as may be all his ill deeds in favour of Celestius and for the credit of Zosimus and the Catholick Cause only publish his latest Acts after he was by them convinced that Pelagianism was an Heresie But Celestius and his party openly exclaimed against Zosimus for a Turncoat The same year was that Council in Africa which the Editors intitle under Zosimus but really was against him For without regarding his suspending the Cause of Celestius they particularly condemned all the points of the Pelagian Heresie by Anathema's and order all Causes between Bishops to be tried in the Province where they arise and renew the Canon of Milevis that the Priests and inferior Clergy should be tried by their own Bishops and whoever should appeal to the parts beyond the Seas should not be received into Communion by any in Africa So that we see the African Church persisted in maintaining their Rights and condemning Appeals as they had very good reason considering the bold attempt of Zosimus to usurp a jurisdiction over them and his erroneous judging such Causes both of Faith and Manners as he had presumed to meddle in which hapning in other Provinces he broke the Canons of the ancient Councils by pretending to examine and decide them elsewhere forgetting that which Gratian had collected out of his own seventh Epistle and gives us here for Zosimus his Decree viz. That the Authority of the Roman See it self cannot make any new Order nor alter old ones against the Statutes of the Fathers So Gratian reads it and so Aeneas Sylvius cites it so also the Editors publish it here but some forging hand in the seventh Epistle hath put concedere instead of condere for fear this Sentence should take away from the Pope the power of making New Canons contrary to the Fathers Decrees a Priviledge of which Rome hath made more use than any Church in the World This Pope's time is concluded with a forged African Council at Telepte wherein it is pretended they only read the fourth Epistle of Siricius and thence the Notes and Baronius gather that the African Church shewed great respect to the See of Rome But first Labbè confessed before that this Epistle of Siricius was forged And Secondly the Story is ill timed for the African Church had never less reason to respect the Popes than now when they so manifestly robbed them both
of their Rights and their Peace also Wherefore it is not probable that a Council should meet there at this time only to read an Epistle which was invented long after § 5. Upon the Death of Zosimus there were two Popes chosen Boniface and Eulalius and the Pontifical fairly tells us the Clergy were divided for seven Months and fifteen days and that both of them acted as Popes This Schism being notified to the Emperor by Symmachus the Prefect of the City he cites both the Pretenders to Ravenna and appoints divers Bishops to examine into the Cause but they not being able to agree whether had the better Title the Emperor defers the business till the Kalends of May and forbids both Parties to enter into Rome till a Council had met at Rome to determine this Controversie But Eulalius who before stood fairer of the two impatient of this delay contrary to the Emperors Command on the fifteenth of the Kalends of April goes into the City and causes great Factions there Upon which 250 Bishops met by the Emperors Order execute his Commands and declare Enlalius to be no Pope setting up Boniface Upon which passage I shall observe First That the Notes make but a vacancy of two days between Zosimus and Boniface and Baronius saith it was not vacant above one day Whereas it is plain from the Emperors Letters dated three or four Months after that neither of them was reckoned to be Pope and he writes to the African Bishops that he would have the Council meet by the Ides of June that the Papacy might be no longer void so that in truth the See was vacant till the Emperor had judged it on Boniface his side Baronius doth not like it should be said that the Emperor had any right to interpose in the Election of a Pope but Symmachus the Praefect of Rome saith expresly to Honorius it is your part to give judgment in this Matter and the Emperor did at first by his single Authority declare Eulalius to be rightly chosen But upon better information he revokes that Rescript and Commands that neither Party should have any advantage by what was past but all should be reserved intirely to his judgment And though he employed a Synod of Bishops to examine the Matter yet it appears in Baronius that the Emperors Edict was that which gave the Papacy to Boniface Which will appear more plainly by the first Epistle of Boniface and Honorius his Answer to it For after this Pope was in peaceable possession fearing the like mischief after his death which had hapned at his entrance he writes an humble Supplication to the Emperor to take care of this matter for the future And the Emperor writes back to Boniface declaring That if ever two should contend about the Papacy and be Ordained neither of them should be Pope but he who by a new Election should be taken out of the Clergy by the Emperors judgment and the Peoples consent This writing of the Popes among the Councils hath this Title The Supplication of Pope Boniface But Baronius thinking that too mean fraudulently leaves out the Title though the Humility of the Style sufficiently shews that the Pope believed that the Emperor was above him and whereas Boniface there calls the Church Our Mother as the Margin in Binius rightly reads it Baronius will have it to be your Mother and Labbè leaves out the Marginal and true Reading for it seems they think it below the Pope though not the Emperor to be a Son of the Church If the second Epistle of Boniface be genuine it shews that when Complaints were made to Rome out of the near adjoining Provinces the Popes even after they had given too much encouragement to Appeals were wont to refer the matters complained of to be examined and decided by the Bishops of those Provinces where the Fact was done But the Notes conclude from hence that the accusation of Bishops use to be referred to the Pope which is an universal Conclusion from Premises that will not bear it The third Epistle of Boniface contradicts all those which were writ before by Zosimus in favour of Patroclus Bishop of Arles for Boniface forbids Patroclus to exercise the Power granted him by the last Pope and decrees that Hilary Bishop of Narbon shall be Metropolitan and if he judged right then Zosimus judged wrong in this Cause For this Pope the Editors publish six Decrees one of which orders the differences among Bishops to be decided by the Metropolitan or however by the Primate of that Country from whose determination there was to be no Appeal The fourth Decree is certainly spurious because it not only forbids a Bishop to be brought before any Judge Civil or Military for any Crime but declares the Magistrate who presumes to do this shall lose his Girdle that is be put out of his Office Now doubtless it was not in the Popes power to give or take away Civil or Military Offices So that this hath been invented meerly by those who affected the Popes being supreme over Kings and Emperors and would have the Clergy exempt from all Secular Jurisdiction As to the Pelagian Controversie he writ nothing about it himself but we are told by Prosper that Boniface desired St. Augustine to answer the Books of the Pelagians and he shewed his Wisdom in putting the Cause into a better hand than his own We must now return to the business of the Legates sent into Africa by Pope Zosimus a little before his death who appeared in the sixth Council at Carthage not till the time of this Pope Boniface in order to justifie the Roman Churches Right to receive Appeals from all Churches The Title indeed falsly saith this Council was held about the manner of prosecuting Appeals but it is plain that the African Fathers questioned the right of appealing and had condemned before all Appeals to any Church beyond the Seas In this Council the Popes Legates produce a Canon which they say was made at Nice importing That if a Bishop were condemned in his own Country and appealed to Rome the Pope might write to the neighbouring Bishops to enquire again into the matter and decide it but if all this did not satisfie the Complainant the Pope might either send his Legates with his Authority to judge it there with the Bishops or leave it finally to those of that Country as he pleased Now this Canon was no sooner read but Alypius one of the African Bishops declared he could not find any such Canon in the Greek Copies of the Nicene Council and desired Aurelius who presided in the Council though the Popes Legates were there to send to the three other most famous Patriarchal Churches of Constantinople Alexandria and Antioch to search their Copies of the Nicene Council and that the Pope might be desired to send some thither also at the same time which
the first who charged the Popes with Usurpation and Imposture both in this Case But the flattering Notes go on and tell us that if the Controversy had been about the Right of Appeals and not about the manner of appealing the Popes Legates would have cited the 4th and 5th Canons of Sardica which treat of the Right of Appeals and not the 7th which treats only of the manner of prosecuting them Now this is an open Falshood for the first Canon the Legates cite is in the best Edition of the Sardican Canons the fifth and is about the Right of Bishops to appeal And the second they cite is the 14th Canon and it is about the Appeals of Priests and Deacons so that neither of the Canons cited is about the manner of prosecuting Appeals and the latter which the Notes call the 7th Canon of Sardica doth not mention Rome They proceed to tell us there were 217 Bishops first and last subscribed to this Council being a great Provincial Council which shews how unanimous the Africans were in condemning the Popes Usurpation As to the Popes Legates the Notes grant they did not preside there and truly it was not fit they should when their own Cause was to be examined and Rome was the criminal Church here to be tried Again The Note k impudently calls the fifth Canon of Sardica by the name of the seventh Canon and pretends the Africans did not like the latter way of prosecuting Appeals That is by the Popes sending Legates into Africk to hear these Causes but allowed him to delegate them upon an Appeal to rehear the Appellant Whereas the Council doth expresly reject the whole Canon as a Forgery and forbid all Appeals to the parts beyond the Seas so that this is only defending one Lie by another and cleansing a Blot with blotted fingers The next Note l gravely tells us that the words Sardican Council were falsly put into the Text of this Council because the Legates professed these Canons were made at Nice and because the African Fathers say they knew of no Sardican Council which had allowed of the Popes sending Legates c. Now all this pains might have been spared for these words Sardican Council are only in a corrupt Latin Edition but the Greek and Latin Copy which is the best hath no such words at all But we may note here very justly That these Popes were strangely insolent to cite two Canons of a poor obscure Council never heard of in Africa no not by the learned S. Austin as the Notes confess and daringly fix these Canons upon the most famous general Council that ever was especially since the Nicene Council doth expresly charge That every Bishops sentence shall stand good in his own Province so that he who is Excommunicated by some shall not be received by others Now the pretended Canon allows the Pope to receive any person Excommunicated by the Bishops of his own Province So that it expresly contradicts the Canons of the Nicene Council and yet the Popes confidently said it was made there Had the African Fathers believed them and submitted no doubt these two Canons and perhaps all the rest of that petty Synod had been imposed upon the World for genuin Canons of the Nicene Council by the Roman Church whose Emissaries have forged no less than 60 new Canons and published them under the name of that famous Council Before I leave this subject I must note that Baronius and Binius who here confess these two Canons were made at Sardica do in the Notes on the Nicene Council impudently cite them to prove there were more than twenty Canons made at Nice of which number they say were the Canons about Appeals produced in the sixth Council of Carthage Baronius hath one trick more For he saith the Council of Sardica was a General Council as well as that at Nice and of as great Authority and so it was all one which Council the Popes cited I have disproved this before and only note here that if the African Fathers had believed this doubtless they would not have put themselves to so great cost and trouble to send to three foreign and remote Churches to search out the Truth I must add that the Bishops assembled at Carthage thought the Nicene Canons so considerable that they annex a Copy of them to their Acts wherein this is remarkable That the sixth Canon is cited without that forged Preface which the Roman Writers of late would make a part of the Canon it self viz. The Roman Church hath always had the Primacy No such words appear in this African Copy wherefore we may conclude they have been invented since by some of the Popes Creatures § 6. Celestine succeeded Boniface yet so as the Notes confess the Faction of Eulalius would not communicate with him However he seems to have been very Orthodox as to the Pelagian Controversy though Laurentius Valla truly censures him for one of no great Learning the Style of his Epistles shewing he was no accurate Latinist and in his own Epistle to Nestorius yet extant in the Ephesine Council he confesses he understood no Greek So that whatever he did against Pelagius or Nestorius was done at the request and by the direction of Men more learned than himself However it was well that this Pope was so willing to assist S. Cyril against Nestorius and Prosper with others against the Pelagians for his See being eminent his appearing on the Orthodox side gave great countenance to their Cause and promoted the Condemnation of those Hereticks which the Notes and Baronius so extremely magnify as if he was the first who condemned them and that it was solely his Authority which suppressed them the falshood of which we shall shew presently The Pontifical saith He ordered the Psalms to be sung by way of Antiphon by all before the Sacrifice But if he first brought in this kind of singing them at Rome we are sure they had been sung so long before both in the East and at Milan and it seems it is no disparagement for the holy Roman See to follow other Churches The first Epistle of Celestine hath a great many Sections added to it in Binius which are a Collection made by Prosper or some Eminent Writer against the Pelagians But Labbè prints the Epistle by it self and then prints the Collections apart However it is thought Celestine approved them and so they are cited by divers Ancients under his name But if we compare the Matter or the Style of those Additions with the former part which is Celestine's genuin work it will easily be discovered that the Popes Authority was far more considerable than his Learning And if any Man wonder why this Collector is so careful to set down the Decrees of the Roman Church against this Heresy the reason is plainly expressed viz. That some secret Favourers of Pelagius considering the kindness he and his followers
consent Now if Theodora were so great a Friend to Hereticks as Baronius pretends 't is plain Vigilius then was a Favourite of hers which makes him still suspected to be inclined to Heresie But there is one mistake in this Epistle viz. That his Predecessor had granted a Pall to Caesarius which De Marca saith is false and affirms this Auxainus to have been the first Legate the Pope made in France A hopeful High-Priest to begin that Usurpation upon Metropolitans In this year was that Edict put out which condemned the three Chapters and here the Editors call it The Edict of the most pious Emperor Justinian containing a Confession of Faith and a Confutation of the Heresies that are contrary to the Catholick Church of God But for fear Vigilius and his Party might appear Heretical for opposing this Orthodox Edict the Editors will not print it here but thrust it on some hundred Pages further And put in here their false Comment before the Text hoping by the sham Stories in these Notes to take off the Readers aversation to this Heretical Pope But since all the Errors of these Notes are confuted at large in the History of the Fifth Council I will only name a few of them now viz. That Pelagius the Popes Secretary always opposed this Edict is false for he afterwards subscribed it He saith Vigilius Pontianus whose Letter is here printed and Facundus who writ against this Edict were Orthodox But the Fifth Council condemns all for Hereticks who wrote for the three Chapters ' here censured and none but Heretical Writers could take upon them to confute an Orthodox Confession of Faith The Decree of Vigilius for silence with his prudence and courage are all Fictions as shall be shewn in due place Vigilius had now been near three years at Constantinople and carried fair with Justinian so that doubtless he had signed his Edict which condemned the persons of Theodorus Theodoret and Ibas and their Heretical Writings yet here is an Epistle of his to a Scythian Bishop citing his Constitution which defends these three Chapters and wishes the persons of Theodorus c. might not be condemned as some favourers of Heresie desired Yet in the same Epistle he saith he had Suspended his two Deacons for defending the three Chapters and would shortly Excommunicate them Now what the Notes on this Epistle say That both the Opposers and Defenders of the three Chapters hated Vigilius is no wonder for he was false to all Parties and such trimming Sycophants who strive to please all get the favour of no body The Fifteenth Epistle to the Universal Church Baronius and the Editors do not censure but it is a meer Forgery being falsly dated as they own in the 26 of Justinian 552 they alter it to 551. Binius found but part of it in Baronius so prints no more But Labbé adds a great deal more not saying where he had it As to the matter of it the Story of this Popes sufferings at Constantinople is false and improbable not attested by any credible Writer of that time And whereas he saith he had Excommunicated and Deposed Theodorus Bishop of Caesarea and Suspended Mennas Patriarch of Constantinople that must be false because the Popes Legates in the sixth General Council affirm that Mennas died the 21st year of Justinian four year before the Date of this Letter An. 547 Wherefore this Epistle and the Instrument of Condemnation against Theodorus and Mennas are Forgeries And it is very unjust for Baronius and the Annotator on the credit of such stuff so rudely to rail at Justinian as if he were the vilest Heretick and greatest Monster upon Earth There are many other things in these Notes deserving censure viz. The affirming that Theodorus of Caesaria deposed Zoilus of Alexandria and put in Apollinaris whereas Liberatus expresly saith the Emperor did this The Stories of Justiman's revoking his Edict and of Theodorus and Mennas humble submission delivered in writing to Vigilius and of his absolving them are equally false and most improbable so that scarce any thing here can be trusted Were this Epistle genuine I would have observed that Pope Vigilius here saith he knew Justinian's Hand-writing And that utterly confutes Baronius and Suidas who say he was altogether illiterate I would also note That the Pope here affirms An. 551. he had been seven year out of his Country attending for the Peace of the Church Now if this be true he must leave Rome An. 544 that is three years before Baronius his Account and this will also prove some of his Epistles to Auxanius counterfeit being dated from Rome after that time But after all I reckon this false account of the Pope's Journey to be a sign that this Epistle is a Forgery only those who count it genuine ought to solve these difficulties There is nothing more in our Editors vere remarkable but only some few French Councils called by their own Kings and the Canons in them made by their own Bishops without any notice of Papal Authority and so without any Corruptions Wherefore we pass them and go on to the Fifth General Council where Vigilius will be brought on the Stage again An Epitome of Dr. Crakenthorp's Treatise of the Fifth General Council at Constantinople Anno 553. Chap. i. THE occasion of this Council was the Trio Capitulu or three Chapters about the Writings of Theodorus of Mopsvestia Theodoret against Cyril and the Epistle of Ibas to Maris which the Nestorians pretended was all approved by the Council of Chalcedon whereupon some doubted of the Authority of that Holy Council and the several Sects called from their having no one Head Acephali rejected it So that to appease this dangerous Schism Justinian set forth an Orthodox Edict to condemn those Writings And that not satisfying all Parties he assembled this Fifth General Council Chap. ii Pope Vigilius was then at Constantinople and often desired by the Bishops and commanded by the Emperor to be present Baronius falsly saith they had no regard to him yet he afterwards owns twenty Metropolitans and three Patriarchs invited him to come and offered him the Presidency urging him with a Promise under his Hand to to be there Vigilius first pretended to be Sick so they adjourned the first Session on his saying he would satisfie them next day Then he alledged there were but few Western Bishops but they shewed there were more with him at that time than had been in all the four former Great Councils He pretended also he would offer his Sense to the Emperor alone but the Emperor required him to do it to the Council So that the true reason why he would not be there was his Affection to the Nestorians and the three Chapters Chap. iii. Upon this the Council resolves to proceed without him which Cusanus saith ought to be done for the safety of
Faith as it did also that Controversie and by Providence shews us that a Pope may Err in matters of Faith Chap. xxiii After this he Rails at the Edict calling it a Seed plot of dissention and saying it was contrary to the three Chapters of the Council of Chalcedon and as Facundus affirms contrary to Justinian's own Faith and writ by Hereticks and the Cardinal saith it was writ by Theodorus Bishop of Caesarea against whom he every where Rails as a Factious and Schismatical Man yea an Heretick and obstinate Origenist a most wicked Wretch and a plague to the whole Church But as to the Edict it is in defence of the Council of Chalcedon and to say otherwise is to condemn the 5th General Council who often declare as much Yea Baronius elswhere in contradiction to himself saith this Edict is a Confession of Justinian ' s right Faith a Catechism and exact declaration of the Catholick Faith And he might as well call the Decrees of Nice or other General Councils Seed-plots of dissention yea the Gospel it self may be so calumniated Nor do Liberatus Facundus and Vigilius as he saith declare that Theodorus writ this Edict Liberatus only saith he suggested it to the Emperor to condemn the three Chapters by a Book to be dictated by the Emperor which he promised to do Facundus names not Theodorus but saith They were willing to believe it was writ by the Adversaries of the Truth which was but a conjecture and is as false as what he next speaks of it being contrary to the Emperors own Faith And Vigilius words cited by Baronius rightly construed shew only that when the Edict was read in the Pallace Theodorus required the Bishops to favour it by his words however this passage is taken out of a forged Epistle of Vigilius wherein Mennas is said to be excommunicated the 25th year of Justinian who died the 21st year of that Emperor So that none of his Evidence do prove that Theodorus writ this Edict And for his opposing Vigilius his Decree of silence we shewed before there was no such Decree nor could he lead Justinian into the Heresie of the Incorrupticolae because the Emperor never held it and his only Witnesses that Theodorus was an Origenist Heretick are Facundus and Liberatus Now Facundus is an Heretick condemned by the 5th General Council for writing in defence of the three Chapters and a malicious Enemy of Theodorus And so was Liberatus for which cause Bellarmine Baronius and Possevine advise us to read him cautiously especially in such things as he borrowed from the Nestorians and what he saith of the 5th Council Professae inimicitiae suspicionem habent mendacij And this is certainly so for how could he hold Origen's Heresies who subcribed the 5th Council wherein Origen is by name condemned And among other Bishops no doubt he had subscribed Justinian's Edict against Origen's Errors otherwise he could not have been so familiar with the Emperor nor so beloved by him as Liberatus the Author of this Calumny reports him to have been So that Theodorus was always Orthodox and his advising this Edict is no proof it was against the Faith Chap. xxiv Baronius and Binius do attempt after this to question the Acts of the 5th Council not indeed in any main thing concerning their not condemning or Vigilius not defending the three Chapters which is our Point but in lesser matters such as may be objected against all the General Councils in the World which therefore if the objections were true would not take away the Authority of this General Council whose Acts are as well preserved as any and better than any of the other Councils except Chalcedon that went before it Chap. xxv The first Corruption they charge these Acts with is that they add to the Acts of Chalcedon in reciting them these words which Jesus Christ our Lord is one of the Trinity which words some suspected of Eutychianism would have added to the Council of Chalcedon but could not obtain it But first it was no Eutychian Heretick who first said Christ was one of the Trinity Theodorus of Mopsvestia denied it but Proclus who was Orthodox affirmed it and taught it in an Epistle approved in the Council of Chalcedon and Justinian set out an Edict for it against the Nestorians who denied it wherein he also Anathematizes the Eutychians which Edict Pope John the second confirms and declares to be agreeable to the Apostolick Doctrin and to the Faith of the Roman Church Wherefore those Monks who affirmed one of the Trinity was Crucified could not be Eutychian Hereticks as Baronius falsly says But Baronius is a Nestorian who denies this Truth And those Monks did not seek to add it to the Council of Chalcedon only they declared against the Nestorians this was the Sense of that Council in the time of Hormisda who was Heretical in denying it nor doth the 5th Synod recite it as the words of the Council of Chalcedon but as their own words who were as Orthodox as any in the Council of Chalcedon and he is a Nestorian who denies it Chap. xxvi Baronius objects Secondly That in these Acts Ibas is said to have denied the Epistle to Maris to be his which he saith is false and Binius calls it a Lye and they both give this as an instance of the Corruption of these Acts They may as well prove Justinian's Edict corrupted and Pope Gregory's Epistles where it is said he durst not confess it yea that he denied it to be his And the 5th Council prove he did deny it by the interlocution of six Metropolitans at Chalcedon And though Baronius do say positively in one place that the true Acts of Chalcedon have it that lbas confessed it to be his Epistle yet he cites those very Acts and the second of Nice elsewhere saying it was found not to be the Epistle of Ibas and so it was condemned and he absolved And the truth of the matter is that Ibas denied at Chalcedon that ever he called Cyril an Heretick after the Union But we have proved before that he writ this Epistle divers years before that Union and therein called Cyril Heretick which is a denying the words of his own Epistle for which he is censured in the 5th Council Chap. xxvii He alledges that these Acts say the Council of Chalcedon condemned the Epistle of Ibas Which he saith is untrue and that he hath demonstrated the contrary out of the Acts of Chalcedon and Binius calls this another Lye both of them giving this as an instance that the Acts are corrupted But if so the whole Council is corrupted for they say over and over that this Epistle of Ibas was condemned by the definitions at Chalcedon and that they had demonstrated this and it was indeed their
of Constantine were false and invented by Malicious Heathens and so far as Zosimus and Sylvester's Acts agree he confutes them both and since he lived within an Hundred years after this time while some alive might possibly remember these Passages His early denial of these Fictions is better Evidence against them than Baronius and Binius's Testimony for them after Thirteen hundred years to serve a Turn and do Honour to that Church they resolve to Magnifie Fourthly The Notes speak of Sylvester's Returning to Rome in great glory which is not mentioned in Zosimus nor Sozomen and only relies on the Credit of these Acts Which have no Evidence to Attest them but Pope Adrian who perhaps forged them or however first produced these Acts in the Second Nicene Council Four hundred and Fifty years after Sylvester's time to prove the use of Images in Constantine's Days But the very Acts declare That Constantine who had Built and Adorned so many Churches and if Images or Pictures had then been used must have seen the Faces of S. Peter and S. Paul did not know the Faces of these two great Apostles till Sylvester shewed them their Images Whence we infer That the Acts are no good Proof for Images if they were Authentic and their being first cited in an Ignorant Council made up of Forgeries and False Stories gives us good Reason to believe them Spurious § 8. The Annotator in the next place asserts confidently That Constantine was Baptized at Rome by Sylvester Anno 324 But his Proofs are very weak viz. First He cites a Roman Council for this held the same year But the Style of that Council is so barbarous the Sentences so incoherent and the Matter of Fact so false that Labbé owns it is a Forgery and Binius confesses it is suspicious so that this can be no evidence Nor Secondly Anastasius Bibliothecarius who lived Five hundred and Fifty years after this time and was a meer Sycophant of the Popes to set up whose Supremacy then newly hatched he stuck at nothing and that spoils his Credit Thirdly Zosimus is a malicious Lying Writer as to Constantine and though he do say Constantine was Baptized at Rome he doth not affirm that Sylvester Baptized him Fourthly Sozomen only relates Zosimus his Story to confute it so that not one of his Witnesses do prove the matter Yet these Authors with a weak Conjecture That Constantine could not have been present in the Nicene Council if he had not been Baptized before which we will presently confute is all the Evidence that Baronius and these Notes can give for this incredible Story But on the other side there are many clear Proofs that he was baptized at Nicomedia a little before his death First Eusebius who lived at that time and knew Constantine very well and writ his History soon after doth affirm this And if it had been False many then alive who could remember it would doubtless have exposed him for so manifest a Fiction The Notes say he Forged this Story in favour of Constantius but he must be very Ridiculous if he would be obliged by a Story of his Father which many hundreds as well as himself must have then known to be a Falshood And Eusebius must be as silly as he was knavish to invent a Fable so easy to be disproved by living Witnesses But the Notes wrong Eusebius when they say he reports that Constantine died Impious and alienated from the Catholic Church For Eusebius saith he made a most Christian and Pious end However Eusebius by this Testimony brings upon himself all the Rage and Spite of Baronius and our Annotator who upon all occasions Blast this Holy and Learned Writer to whose pains they and all the Christian World are infinitely beholding and though while Eusebius's History continues it be almost the only true Record used by Baronius in complling his Annals yet he and Binius in every Page almost do revile him as an Arian and a Writer of Lies But there is so much Malice and so little probability in the Accusation that their own Writers and ours also do vindicate Ensebius from these Slanders and we could easily confute these Calumnies but only that in this Relation he is so certainly in the Right that we need not consider his Opinion in other things but will shew as to this particular he is supported by the best Evidence imaginable For Secondly Theodoret also saith that Constantine was Baptized a little before his Death at Nicomedia and though that Eusebius who was Bishop of that City was an Arian yet he dissembled his Heresie while Constantine lived and the Emperor had restored Athanasius contrary to this Bishop's mind wherefore though he was forced to make use of an Arian Bishop to Baptize him being taken ill in that City yet it will not follow that Constantine died an Arian Moreover that Constantine was Baptized at Nicomedia is attested also by Socrates and Sozomen and also by the Chronicles of Isidore and S. Hierom and by S. Ambrose in his Funeral Oration for Theodosius Yea Athanasius and a whole Synod at Ariminum do expresly declare that Constantine was Baptized a little before his Death that is Thirteen years after this pretended Baptism at Rome which last Testimony Baronius and the Notes presume to corrupt and contrary to all the best Copies and the necessary Sense of the place put Constans his Name into the Text instead of Constantine So that in fine the only Question is now Whether we will believe these two Modern partial Writers with those most Fabulous but as they call them most approved Acts of Sylvester first cited by Pope Adrian 450 years after Or we will believe the concurrent Witness of all the Ancient and Eminent Writers of that and the next Ages to whom if we give Credit then Constanstine's Baptism at Rome by Sylvester is a meer Forgery devised for the glory of the Roman Church and for that only reason so eagerly defended by this Annotator and the Annalist § 9. Together with this Fable we must also reject the Fiction of Constantine's Leprosy which was invented only that Sylvester might cure it and therefore the Notes prove it very slenderly viz. First By those Acts of Sylvester in which they confess there are many Errors Secondly By a Roman Council which is as manifest a Forgery as the Acts themselves Thirdly By a Metaphorical expression of Gregorius Turonensis a credulous Writer who lived 300 years after this and yet even he doth not expresly affirm it Fourthly But the Annotator tells us the Gentile Historians do confirm this though he names but one viz. Michael Glycas who unlucklily proves a Christian Monk living in Sicily Anno 1120 about 800 years after this time and long after Adrian and his Nicene Council had dispersed Sylvester's Acts out of which Glycas took this Fable upon Trust So that at last he only proves the Acts by the Acts themselves and by
to call Peter the Rock and Ground-work of the Catholick Church For it was only the Popes Domesticks called him so and had the Council foreseen the consequence they would expresly have opposed that which they only silently passed by as frivolous In the next place we may observe that it is said in this Council that the Emperor confirmed the Acts of the second Council at Ephesus therefore it was usual then for the Emperor so to do since this is alledged to prove that a lawful Council Again when the Acts of this second Council at Ephesus were read at Chalcedon the Greek plainly saith the Emperor by his Letters exhorted the Pope to be present there but the Latin Version corrupts the Text and puts in supplicarunt as if the Emperor had humbly supplicated the Pope to be there whereas one of his Legates a few lines before owned that the Pope had the same Form of Summons sent him that was sent to the other great Bishops Moreover in Eutyches Petition read in that Council Cyril is called the President of the third General Council at Ephesus without any mention of the Pope And we may further observe that the Heretick Eutyches in the Acts of the Council of Constantinople which condemned him is called Pope Eutyches that being a name formerly given to all Eminent Clergy-men especially in the East I shall make no more remarks upon this first Session which was spent in reading over and reviewing the Council of Constantinople wherein Eutyches was condemned and the Pseudo-Synod of Ephesus wherein Dioscorus absolved him because I have treated of both before It is sufficient to observe upon this full hearing the Council of Chalcedon condemned both Eutyches and Dioscorus and the Lay-Judges summ'd up the Act but there seems to be a Roman addition in the end of this first Act where it is thrust in without choerence and sense that Leo writ an Epistle to Flavianus which though it be true comes in very impertinently here but the Forger thought when the Writings of the Orthodox Fathers were mentioned that of Leo ought by all means to be mentioned right or wrong In the second Action there is nothing considerable but the reading of this very Epistle of Leo to Flavianus after the Nicene and Constantinopolitan Creed being written expresly about the Eutychian Heresie the main Cause to be then decided which was therefore received there as other Orthodox Writings were with general Acclamations but the Notes citing these Acclamations quote them imperfectly no further than these words Peter speaks by Leo But the Council goes on and says The Apostles and Cyril taught thus by which we may see it was the consonancy of Leo's Doctrine to the writings of the Apostles and of St. Cyril not the infallibility of his See which procured his Epistle this general applause Wherefore the Prefacer need not have mentioned these Acclamations as if they were only given to Leo's Epistle or had been made upon some single excellency peculiar to the Bishop of that See for both the Creeds and two of Cyril's Epistles had been honoured with such like Acclamations a little before The third Action contains the canonical deposition of Dioscorus after the Bishops had heard all the complaints against him cited him thrice and could not prevail with him to appear Now there being nothing to be done at this Session but to proceed according to the Canons of which the Bishops were the proper Executors they only met without Lay Judges which saith Binius is the most evident note of a General Council but in truth it is no note of any such matter for if that were not a General Council wherein some of the Lasty were present then there never was any General Council till this time and this single Act would then be the sole Regular Act of this General Council to such absurd consequences doth these mens blind zeal lead them The next thing to be noted is a corruption in the Titles of the Petitions which some of the Aegyptian Clergy offered to the Council against Dioscorus for the Greek hath no more but this The Petition of Theodorus the Deacon exhibited against Dioscorus but the Latin Version thrusts in Pope Leo's name thus exhibited to Pope Leo and the Council of Chalcedon and the same corruption is in the Titles of the following Petitions of Ischyrion Athanasius and Sophronius If it be objected that the Superscriptions of all these Petitions both in Greek and Latin are To the most Holy c. Universal Patriarch of Great Rome Leo and to the Holy General Council c. I reply these Superscriptions seem to be forged also For first Eusebius his Petition before mentions not Leo and these Petitions are addressed only to the Council there being not the least sentence in them peculiar to Leo or supposing him to see or read them so that these Superscriptions to an absent Bishop are non-sense and in all probability added by some Roman Transcribers as may be guessed by the great swelling Titles with which the Pope is loaded Again in the Summons sent to Dioscorus the third time it is declared that the Emperor had commanded the Bishops to hear this Cause the Greek word is ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã but the Latin softens it into permisit However whether the Emperor commanded or permitted the Bishops to hear this Cause it is plain that even in this Session consisting only of Clergy the Bishops had the Emperors leave and proceeded by his permission As to the Sentence it self the Preface the Notes and Baronius pretend it was pronounced in Leo's name and boast much of the Legates pronouncing it But if we consult the place we shall find that since no Lay-Judges were there the Popes Legates were as these Judges did in other Sessions to collect the Votes and then to sum them up and publish them and therefore after the enquiry was ended they ask what the Synod thought fit to be done which they do over and over again and till the Council expresly commanded them they did not pronounce the Sentence 'T is true these Legates had learned their Lessons so well at Rome that they contrive it in words very pompous The most Holy and Blessed Arch-Bishop of the Elder and Greater Rome Leo by us and by this present Synod with the most Blessed and Honourable Apostle Peter who is the Rock and Groundwork of the Catholick Church and he that is the Foundation of the Orthodox Faith that is Jesus Christ hath deprived him of his Episcopal Dignity and degraded him from all Ministration therefore let this most Holy General Council decree concerning the said Dioscorus what is agreeable to the Canons But these Rhetorical Flourishes coming only from the Popes Domesticks give him no right to them it is more material what Cardinal Cusanus observes that the Legates as sitting first in this Council first pronounce Sentence by the