4. the Book of Machabees which the Roman Church now say are Canonical Scripture And this is the true reason why the Notes reject this Canon (s) Lab. pag. 61 Bin. pag. 18. col 2. They alledge indeed some other frivilous reasons such as the leaving out the Revelations and putting in Clements Constitutions But it seems very probable to me that it was not the Greeks as the Notes suggest but that Impostor who gave these Canons a false Title and called them the Apostles Canons which for carrying on his Pious Fraud left out the Revelations being not written 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 (t) Lab. pag 62. Bin. pag. 18. col 2. 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 (u) Lab. pag. 63. Bin. pag. 19. col 2. 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 (w) Harding against Jewel pag. 53. Dr. James corrup of Faith par 1. p. 22. 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 Posthumous Dissertation (x) Cestriens dissert posthum lib. 2. cap. 1 2. c. 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 (y) Lab. col 65. Bin. pag. 20. col 2. 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 (z) Richer praesul ad histor Concil 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 (a) John. V. 31. nemo sibi prosâ—ssor testis Tert. in Marcion lib. 5. 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 (b) Lab pag. 72. Bin. pag. 24. col 1. They own that Tertullian Epiphanius and Ruffinus make Clement to succeed Peter and the late Learned Bishop of Chester proves Linus was dead before Peter (c) Cesiriens diss 2. cap. 2. Irenaeus doth not say as the Notes falsly cite him that Linus succeeded Peter in the Government of the universal Church (d) Iren. adv haer l. 3. c. 3. 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
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 (r) Baron An. 318. §. 22. c. 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 (s) Baron An. 312. §. 91 92. 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 (t) Bin. Not. p. 240. col 2. Baron An. 318. §. 91. 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 (u) Lab. p. 1495. Bin. pag. 241. Labbe'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 (w) Beveridg not Tom. II. pag. 193. 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 (x) Richer hist Conc. lib. 1. cap. 3. pag. 128. 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 (y) Hieron Ep. CXI Tom. III. p. 34. 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 (z) Id. Ep. 115. ibid. p. 39. and again A man may receive this Book as he pleaseth (a) Idem Ep. 10. Tom. I. pag. 96. Herein therefore the Council of Lacdicea doth not contradict the Council of Nice at all as these Notes falsly pretend Thirdly This Counc ls 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 graft the use of their modern Sacramental Confession to a Priest upon this ancient Canon (b) Lab. p. 1523. Bin pag. 248. col 2. 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 (c) Beveridg Not. Tom. II. p. 193. 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 (d) Lab. p. 1524. Bin. pag. 249. col 1. 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 (e) Lab. Bin. ibid. 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 (f) Lab. p. 1526. Bin. pag 250. col 1. 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 (g) Theodoret. in Coloss cap. 2. 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 (h) Edit Merlini Pet. Crab. Barth Caranz 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 (i) Lab. p. 1526. Bin. pag. 250. col 1. 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 (k) Coloss II. ver 16 17 18. 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 Worship due to God alone Only as the Romanists now are so they were inclined to Worship Angels (l) Aug. de haeres Tom. VI. pag. 4 m. that is by Praying to them However we Protestants say with Theodoret We neither give them Divine Worship nor divide the Service due to the Divine Majesty between them and the true God (m) Theod. de Curand Graec. Off. Serm. 3. And when the Romanists can say this honestly and leave off Praying to them we will not tax them with this Canon Baronius hath one Device more viz. That the Angels which this Council says must not be Worshiped were not good Angels but Devils and the Genii adored by the Pagans For saith he the former Canon receives the Worship of the true Martyrs and rejects that of false Martyrs To which I Answer first It is false as was shewed that the former Canon receives the Worship of any Martyrs true or false Secondly Why doth not this Canon call these Pseudo-Angels as the former called those it rejected Pseudo-Martyrs if the Prohibitions were of the same kind Did ever any Christian call Devils Angels without some addition as Evil Angels Apostate Angels c Besides in that Age when this Council was held according to Baronius the worship of Daemons and the Tutelar Spirits was public not secret Idolatry so that it is manifest this Canon speaks not to Pagans but Heretical Christians And Theodoret shews That it was those Angels who gave the Law of Moses which were hereby forbid to be Prayed to and I hope neither Binius nor his Master will say these were Devils Wherefore this Canon plainly saith Praying to good Angels as They of Rome now do is Idolatry To conclude The Sixtieth Canon of this Council is the most ancient Account of the Canon of Scripture that ever was made by any Christian Synod being the same which the Church of England holds at this day for it leaves out all those Books of Judith Tobit Wisdom c. which we account not to be Canonical but our Annotator finding so Primitive a Council contradicting their new Trent Canon and not being able to reconcile the difference passeth this remarkable Canon by without any Note § 16. The reproachful Obscurity of Sylvester in this time of Action in all other Christian Churches puts the Editors upon giving us an heap of Forgeries together to colour over the Pope's doing nothing Remarkable for Nine or Ten years First We have an Epistle of the Primitive Church and Constantine's Munificence (o) Lab. p. 1528. Bin. pag. 250. col 2. But Gratian and the former Editors of Councils cited this as a Decretal Epistle of Melchiades to prove the Pope's Supremacy c. whereas the Forgery is so gross that our Annotator affirms it to be a Fiction of Isidore Mercator's patched up of Fragments stollen out of the History of the Nicene Council the Council of Chalcedon and S. Gregory's 24th Epistle and wofully Mis-timed (p) Lab. p. 1530. Bin. pag. 251. col 2. Yet being used to cite such Forgeries after this Confession he will not let it go without making some use of it for he Notes that what is said here of Constantine 's Donations to Melchiades and Sylvester is very true and may be firmly proved by Optatus Milevitanus Very strange Optatus mentions no Donation of Constantine to either of these Popes Vid. supr § 6. and therefore the Reader may note That false and weak Inferences or Quotations from manifest Forgeries are Firm Proofs with Baronius and Binius when they make for the Roman Interest but the best Canons of the most genuine Councils are of no value when they make against it After this follows that odious Forgery called Constantine's Donation wherein he is pretended to make over to the Pope the whole City of Rome and all the Western Empire with all kind of Ensigns of Imperial Majesty and all manner of Jurisdiction which Ridiculous Fiction Nauclerus saith Antoninus rejected in his Chronicle because it is not extant in any ancient Author but only in the Decretals (q) Naucler Chron. gen XI pag. 604. But our Editors print it without any Note of its being false yea with Notes upon it to prove it either true or very probable (r) Lab. p. 1534. Bin. pag. 251. col 2. p. 254. col 1. And Baronius introduces it with many Stories to make all that concerns the Popes temporal Greatness credible to an easie Reader (s) Baron An. 324. §. 117. yet at last to secure their Retreat from so indefensible a Post He and the Annotator make it a Fiction of the poor Greeks I shall therefore First prove it a Forgery and Secondly make it out That not the Greeks but the Pope's Creatures devised it First That it is a Fiction appears from divers Arguments For First who can believe Constantine so unjust first to give Rome and the Western Empire to the Pope and then to one of his Sons Or who can think the Pope so tame never to put in his Claim Secondly This Edict is grounded on the idle Story of Constantine's Baptism by Sylvester which out of Sylvester's Fabulous Acts is related at large in it but those Acts being as was shewed a meer Forgery this Edict must be so also Thirdly It represents Constantine who was born and brought up under Christian Parents and had setled Christianity before this as a meer Heathen till he met with Sylvester at this time Fourthly It pretends the whole Senate and all the Nobles joyned with the Emperor to give the Pope this Power But besides the folly of Constantine's delegating more Power than ever he himself had it
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 An. Dom. 397. 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 (z) Lab. p. 1157 1158. Bin. pag. 568. 569. 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 An. Dom. 397 c. 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 (a) Lab. p. 1163. Bin. pag 573. col 1 2. 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 (b) Lab. p. 1170. Bin. pag. 575. col 1. the falshood of which appears by the 25th Canon in the Greek and Latin Edition where this is said of the Clergy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Except the Readers which they translate Quamvis Lectorum (c) Bin p. 580. 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 (d) Bin. p. 571. 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 Universal (e) Lab. p. 1170. Bin. pag. 575. col 2. Gratian. Decret part 1. dist 99. 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 Universal 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 (f) Lab. p. 1171. Bin. pag. 581. col 2. 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 (g) Lab. p. 1177. Bin. pag. 580. col 1. 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 (h) Cosen's History of the Canon p. 112. pag. 113. 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 Siricius 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 (i) Lab. p. 1183. Bin. pag. 584. col 2. Which is a meer Fiction of their own for the words of the Canon shew that these Fathers did not believe either of them had any Authority over them only they desired their advice joyntly as being both Eminent and Neighbouring Bishops and their prohibiting Appeals shews they knew nothing of the Popes presiding over the Catholic Church An. Dom. 398. § 32. Anastasius was the last Pope in this Century of whom there would have been as little notice taken as of Many of his Predecessors if it had not been his good fortune to be known both to S. Hierom and S. Augustine and to assist the latter in suppressing the Donatists and the former in condemning the Errours of Origen for which cause these two Fathers make
Quotations and feigned Tales to set up the Credit of the Roman Church and its corrupt Opinions and Practices that to discover them all would require almost as many Volumes as his Annals make So that we must content our selves with some of the plainest Instances which fall into this Matter of the Councils and will set them in a clear Light and shew they are as contrary to Reason as they are to true History Which Vndertaking we hope will be many ways useful First It will tend to the ease of those who intend to read over the Tomes of the Councils or the Annals of Baronius and save them much time and pains by presenting the principal Errors of those great Volumes at one View which they would spend a long time in searching after if they were to gather them up as they lye dispersed Secondly It may be very useful to those who desire to be rightly informed in the Controversies between us and the Roman Church because it will give them a clear prospect of what Councils and other Antiquities are Authentic and may be allowed for Evidence in this Dispute wherein our Adversaries have so little regard to their own Honour that generally one half of their Evidence is such as they have either forged or corrupted Thirdly It will be necessary by way of Antidote to prepare those who by reading Books so full of Infection may by these plausible Falsifications be in danger to be seduced into a great esteem of the Opinions and Practices of the Roman Church when they find so many seemingly ancient Tracts and Councils brought in to justifie her in all things and see by this false Light all Ecclesiastical History and Records so modelled as to perswade their Readers That in the purest Christian Times all things were believed and done in the Catholic Church just as they are now at Rome But when it shall appear that all this is a continued Series and train of Impostures it will render their Notions and Practices not only suspected but odious as needing such vile and base Artifices to make them seem agreeable to true Antiquity To this it may be Objected That divers of the Modern Writers of this Church and especially the most Learned do now own divers of these Forgeries which we here detect to have been spurious and therefore it seems needless to prove that which they have already granted us I reply That none of them own all these Corruptions and divers of their Authors cite them very confidently to this very day and still the things themselves stand in their most approved Editions of Councils and the Remarks are only in Marginal Notes But since they were believed in those Ages while their Supremacy and other Novel Doctrins were setting up and were urged for good Proofs till these Opinions had taken root it is not satisfaction enough to renounce that Evidence of which they now have no more need unless they disclaim the Doctrins also to which they first gave Credit And till they do this it is fit the World should know by what False-Evidence they first gained these Points For if a Man should get an Estate by Bribing his Jury and his Witnesses it is not enough for him to confess these Persons were Suborned unless he restore the Ill-gotten Lands and till he restore them he ought to be upbraided with his Bribery even after he hath acknowledged it Secondly It may be alledged That Junius River and Daillé abroad Perkins Cook and James at home have taken great pains on this Subject and that the Learned Author of the Historical Examination of the Authority of General Councils printed at London 1688. hath already handled this Argument I Answer That the Six former are chiefly concerned in the Tracts of particular Fathers and make few Remarks on the Councils The last indeed keeps close to the Great Councils but passes over the Small ones and any who compares this Discourse with that will find the Design the Method and Instances so different that this Discourse will still be useful in its kind as that will be also For here in an acurate Order all the Frauds of that Church are put together throughout every Century not only what have been observed by others but many now first taken notice of and not observed before And indeed the Instances of these Frauds are so many that we have been forced to give but brief Touches upon divers of the Particulars and could neither enlarge upon single Instances nor adorn the Style our business being chiefly to direct the younger Students in Ecclesiastical Antiquity and if our Remarks be but so clear as to be understood by and useful to them we have our Aim And it is hoped this may suffice to prove That the genuine Records of Councils do condemn the Modern Doctrin Worship and Discipline of the Roman Church and that whatever in these Editions of them seems to countenance those things are Forgeries and Corruptions devised on purpose to set a false gloss upon their Modern Inventions The Methodical Discovery whereof may convince any unprejudiced Man That Ours is the truly Ancient and Catholic Religion and Theirs a Device of later times which cannot be rendred any way agreeable to the Primitive Writings without innumerable Impostures and Falsifications A BRIEF ACCOUNT OF THE Roman Forgeries IN THE VOLUMES OF THE COUNCILS For the First Three Centuries PART I. CHAPTER I. Of the Forgeries in the First Century § 1. THE Volumes of the COUNCILS in the Edition of Labbe and Cossartius begin with divers Tracts and in Binius's Edition with several Epistles designed to prepossess the Reader with false Notions of the Popes supreme Power over Councils and his Parties high Reverence for them as also of the Protestants having corrupted or else rejected the greatest part of them But this whole Discourse will sufficiently shew the notorious untruth both of their boasting concerning Their own side and of their Censures concerning Ours In the Account of Scripture Councils where they pretend to recite the words of Scripture they add for to give colour to their new Supremacy That Peter stood up as the Principal and Head (a) Lab. Tom. III. pag. 18. Bin. Tom. I. par 1. pag. 1. And again as the Supreme and Head (b) Ibid. pag. 20. Bin. pag. 2. S. Luke in the Acts Chap. VI. 2. saith The Twelve Apostles gave the multitude leave to elect Seven Deacons Binius's Notes say They had this leave by the favour and grant of Peter (c) Bin. pag. 1. col 2. F. S. Luke Chap. XV. declares That the Question about Circumcision was finally determined by S. James who also cited Scripture for his determination ver 16 17. But Binius's Notes say This matter was determined not by Scripture but by the Suffrage of the Apostles and by the Judgment of Peter (d) Lab. pag. 20. Bin. pag 2. col 1. The same Notes a little after tell us That this Council committed the care of the
Circumcised Converts to Peter (e) Lab. pag. 21. Bin. pag 2. col 2. which was a poor Preferment for that Apostle if Christ had made him Supreme Head and committed to him long before the Care of the whole Catholic Church To these Passages of Holy Scripture the Editors have tacked a fabulous Story of the Assumption of the Virgin Mary (f) Lab. pag. 24. Bin. pag. 3. col 2. but they do not Cite one genuine Ancient Author to prove it That Book which bears the Title of Dionysius Areopagitus being invented many Ages after as Learned men on all sides now agree § 2. That Ancient Collection of Canons which were decreed by the Apostolical Men in divers Synods held during the Times of Persecution is published by these Editors under the Title of The Canons of the Holy Apostles and their Notes affirm They were made by the Authority of the Apostles (g) Lab. pag. 53. Bin. pug 14. col 1. yet they are not agreed either about their Number or Authority They print LXXXIV Canons but the Notes say only the first Fifty of them are Authentic but the rest may and ought also to be received since they contain nothing Two of them excepted viz. the 65th and 84th Canons which contradict the Roman Church but what is approved by some Popes Councils and Fathers (h) Lab. Bin. ibid. Now if as they say the Apostles made them their Church hath been very negligent to lose the certain Account of their number and it is not very modest to pretend to try the Apostles Decrees by Popes Councils and Fathers yet it is plain they make no distinction between the first Fifty and the following Thirty four rejecting all that oppose their present Doctrine and Practice as may be seen in these Instances The Sixth Canon forbids a Bishop Priest or Deacon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to put away or be divorced from his Wife on pretence of Religion The Notes pervert the Sense of this Canon as if it only forbid Clergy Men to cast off the care of providing for their Wives and prove this Sense (i) Lab. pag. 53. Bin. pag. 14. col 2. by a false Title which Dionysius Exiguus put to this Canon in his Version many Centuries after and by an Epistle of Pope Clement the First which all Men own now to be spurious and by an Epistle of Pope Gregory who lived in the Year 600 as if the Sense of Dionysius and Pope Gregory when Single life was superstitiously pressed upon the Clergy were good proof that Clergy Men did not live with their Wives many Ages before that superstitious Opinion was heard of 'T is certain the Greek Clergy are Married and cohabit with their Wives according to this Apostolical Canon and the Fifteenth Canon of the Sixth General Council And it is not unpleasant to observe That these Notes cite the Second Council of Nice to prove there were no Canons made in the Sixth General Council yet that very Nicene Council often Quotes and highly approves the 82d Canon of the Sixth General Council as giving some Countenance to their Image-Worship So that their wresting this Canon Apostolical from its genuine meaning (k) Vid. Beveridg Not. Concil Tom. II. pag. 18. upon such slight and false Evidence is in effect rejecting it The Ninth Canon orders All the Clergy and Laity who are in the Church to Receive the Sacrament unless they have a just Excuse (l) Lab. pag. 55. Bin. pag. 15. col 1. But the Roman Church allows the People generally to stand by and look on and therefore though this be one of the Authentic Canons before said by them to be made by the Apostles after some shuffling to restrain it contrary to the very words of the Canon only to the Clergy The Notes say This whole Decree was made only by Human not by Divine Authority and is now abrogated by a contrary Custom So that if a Canon of the Apostles themselves contradict a Corrupt practice of their Church it must be abrogated and rejected The 17th Canon saith He that keeps a Concubine shall not be in any Order of the Clergy The Notes cite some of their Doctors who affirm That this Crime doth not make a Clerk irregular (m) Lab. pag. 56. Bin. pag. 15. col 2. and that this Canon is now revoked The Annotator himself is of Opinion It is only public keeping a Concubine by reason of the Infamy which makes a Clergy-mans Orders void Wherefore such Sinners have now more favourable Casuists at Rome than the Apostles or Apostolical Men were The 65th Canon though it have as good Evidence for it as any of the rest is rejected by the Notes (n) Lab. pag. 60. Bin. pag 17. col 2. because it forbids Men to fast on Saturday which is now a Fasting-day at Rome The Notes say No Father mentions this Canon but presently own That Ignatius Clemens Romanus the Canons of the Sixth General Council Gregory Nyssen and Anastasius Nicaenus to which we add Tertullian (o) Tertul. de jejun adv Psycl cap. 14 15. do all speak of Saturday as a Day on which Fasting was forbid The Notes confess also That the Eastern-Church and the Church of Milan in S. Ambrose time allowed not Fasting upon Saturday (p) Aug. ad Januar ep 118. cap. 2. ad Casulan Ep. 86. yet after all they will not grant this Canon to be genuine only because it is very unlikely that the Church of Rome should contradict a Canon of the Apostles whereas we have already seen it makes no scruple to contradict them if they agree not with their practice The Notes indeed say but without any proof That Rome received the Saturday Fast from Peter and Paul yet they grant soon after That after the Heresie of Marcion was extinct the Roman Church did not only lawfully but piously Fast on Saturday So that this was a private Custom of the Roman Church in which it diâ—fered from all other Churches and they know not when it began nor who it came from yet for such a Customs sake they reject an Apostolical Canon The 69th Canon expresly enjoyns the Wednesday Fast and the Notes say That many Fathers mention it as of ancient Institution yea these Notes affirm It was certainly a Fast of the Apostles instituting being observed by the whole Church and not appointed by any Council but spoken of by Authors of greatest Antiquity (q) Lab. pag. 6. Bin. pag. 18. col 1. Well then I hope the Roman Church whose Customs are all said to be Apostolical do keep this Wednesday Fast They tell you No This Wednesday Fast in their Church is changed into the Saturday Fast And so farewel to this Canon also Lastly the 84th Canon gives us a Canon of Scripture which doth not agree with the Trent Canon for it rejects Ecclesiasticus from being Canonical and mentions not Wisdom Tobit Judith nor in Old Copies (r) Dr. Câ—sens Histor Canon Chap.
those Offices in Rome at that time (d) Cestriens dissert posthum diss 2. cap. 7. pag. 227. and the whole Story is a Fiction taken out of a fabulous Tract called the Acts of Alexander yet this Legend Binius's Notes defend Of Xystus the next Pope nothing is memorable but that he is said by the Pontifical to be a Martyr Eusebius saith he died in Adrian's Twelfth year and mentions not his Martyrdom (e) Euseb lib. 4. c. 5. but Binius contradicts him and will have him to suffer in the 3d year of Antomnus (f) Lab. p. 554. Bin pag. 60. col ◠and this without any Authority for it but his own Telesphorus according to Eusebius was the Seventh Pope from St. Peter and came in the Twelfth year of Adrian †Euseb ut supr that is An. 130. But Binius following the Pontifical makes him the Eighth Pope and saith he entred the Third year of Antoninus that is Twelve years after and in the Notes on his Life (g) Lab. p. 559. Bin. pag. 63. col 2. upon the Pontificals saying he Ordained Thirteen Bishops in his Eleven years he observes that these Bishops were to be sent into divers parts of the World from whence he saith it is clear that the Pope was to take care not of Rome only but the whole World. But first no inference from so fabulous an Author as the Pontifical can be clear And secondly if there were so many Bishops really Ordained by Popes as the Pontifical doth pretend there are but Sixty three Bishops reckoned by him from S. Peter's death to this time which is near 100 years From whence if we grant the Matter of Fact it is rather clear That the Pope Ordained only some Italian Bishops near Rome for otherwise when so many Bishops were Martyred there must have been far more Ordained for the World in that space of time Hyginus the next Pope began saith Eusebius in the first year of Antoninus but Binius saith he was made Pope the Fifteenth of that Emperor the Reader will guess whether is to be trusted The Pontifical could find this Pope nothing to do but to distribute the Orders of the Clergy which Pope Clement according to him had done long before (h) Lab. p. 565. Bin. pag. 65. col 2. § 2. From the Notes on Pope Pius Life (i) Lab. p. 568. Bin. pag. 67. col 2. we may observe there was no great care of old taken about the Pope's Succession For Optatus S. Augustine and S. Hierom with the Old Pontifical before it was altered (k) Cestriens diss 2. cap. 11. pag. 65. place Anicetus before Pius but the Greeks place Puis before Anicetus and in this Binius thinks we are to believe them rather than the Latins The rest of the Notes are spent in vindicating an improbable Story of an Angel bringing a Decree about Easter to Hermes the Popes Brother who writ a Book about keeping it on the Lord's Day yet after all there is a Book of Hermes now extant that hath nothing in it about Easter and there was a Book of old writ by Hermes well known to the Greeks and almost unknown to the Latins though writ by a Pope's Brother read in the Eastern Churches and counted Apocryphal in the Western But we want another Angel to come and tell us whether that now extant be the same or no for Binius cannot resolve us and only shews his Folly in defending the absurd and incongruous Tales of the Pontifical Anicetus either lived before or after Pius and the Pontifical makes him very busie in Shaving his Priests Crowns never mentioning what he did to suppress those many Heretics who came to Rome in his time but it tells us he was Buried in the Coemetery of Calistus (l) Lab. p. 579. Bin. pag. 72. col 1. though Calistus who gave that Burial-place a name did not dye till Fifty years after Anicetus But Binius who is loath to own this gross Falshood saith You are to understand it in that ground which Calistus made a Burying-place afterward yet it unluckily falls out that Anicetus's Successor Pope Soter was also Buried according to the Pontifical in Calistus his Coemetery and afterwards Pope Zepherines's Burial-place is described to be not far from that of Calistus so well was Calistus's Coemetery known even before it was made a Coemetery and before he was Pope Eleutherius succeeded Soter and as the Pontifical saith he received a Letter from Lucius King of Britain that he might be made a Christian by his Command which hint probably first produced those two Epistles between this Pope and King Lucius (m) Usserii Antiq Brit. cap. 4 5 c. ap Spelm. Tom. I. Concil which Binius leaves out though he justifies the Story of which it were well we had better Evidence than the Pontifical This is certain the Epistles were forged in an Age when Men could write neither good Latin nor good Sense and I am apt to fancy if Isidore had put them into a Decretal they would have been somewhat more polite so that it is likely these Epistles were made by some Monks who thought it much for our Honour to have our Christianity from Rome § 3. This Century concludes with the bold Pope Victor of whose excommunicating the Eastern Bishops for not agreeing with him about Easter we have a large account in Eusebius (n) Euseb hist lib. 5. cap. 23 24 c. but of that there is nothing in the Pontifical only we are told he had a Council at Rome to which he called Theophilus Bishop of Alexandria and decreed Easter should be observed upon a Sunday c. Upon this hint and the Authority of a better Author we grant there were at these times divers Councils held about keeping Easter But the Editors of the Councils though Eusebius be the only credible Author which gives an Account of them presume to contradict him For Eusebius makes the Council at Caesarea in Palestina to be first and makes Theophilus of that City and Narcissus of Jerusalem Presidents of it but the Editors for the honour of the Pope place the Roman Council first (o) Lab. p. 596. Bin. pag. 79. col 1 2. Vid. Euseb lib. 5. cap. 22. and upon the bare Credit of the Pontifical who mistook Alexandria for Caesarea say That Theophilus was present at it whereas Eusebius saith This Roman Council was the Second called about this Question consisting of the Bishops about Rome Secondly The Editors place the Council of Caesarea affirming out of a suspicious Fragment of Bede who lived many Centuries after That it was Called by Victor 's Authority whereas Eusebius as we see assigns other Presidents to that Council yea they intitle all the other Councils about this Matter Under Victor though in Eusebius they are set down as independent upon one another The Bishops of each Country Calling them by their own Authority And though Binius's Notes (p) Lab.
a Saviour sitting five foot high so it calls a dead Image (n) Lab. p. 1420. Bin. Not pag. 219. col 1. 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 (o) Not. Y. Bin. pag. 219. col 2. Lab. p. 1421. 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 (p) Baron An. 324. §. 72. 75. 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 (q) Baron An. 324. §. 107. and the apparent Falshood of Constantine's now burying his Mother in one of these Churches who was alive long after (r) Idem An. 324. §. 114. 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 An. Dom. 314. § 11. The Editors now go back to the Council of Arles held as they say Anno 314 (s) Lab. p. 1425. Bin. pag. 220. col 1. 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 (t) Lab. p. 1434. Bin. pag. 223. col 2. 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 falsly to make it sound toward his beloved Supremacy (u) Baron An. 314. §. 68. 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 (w) Lab. p. 1434. Bin. pag. 224. col 1. Baron An. 314. §. 58. 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 (x) Not in Concil Aret. Bin. pag. 221. col 2. 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 (y) Baron Ann. 316. §. 62. 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 (z) Lab. p. 1423 Bin. pag. 222. col 2. 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 (a) Baron Ann. 314. §. 51. 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 (b) Lab. p. 1455. Bin. pag. 225. 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 (c) Lab. p. 1478. Bin. pag. 232. col 2. Balsamon and Zonaras say Vitalis of Antioch Agricolaus of Caesarea and Basil of Amasea were the Presidents of it (d) Beveridg Council Tom. I. pag. 375. Yet not only Leo the Fourth but the famous Council of Nice approved of this Synod called and carried on without
Constantine's in which this matter is determined with the reasons for it which is better than a bare Law without Arguments in a case which had been so much disputed (u) Bin. p. 285. Theod. lib. 1. cap. 9. nor could they make any acurate Canon about it till the exact time was Calculated which they referred not to the Pope but to the Bishop of Alexandria Secondly The Notes say S. Ambrose mentions a Canon made at Nice against Bigamists (w) Ambros ep 82. ad Episc Vercel but Baronius himself confesseth that S. Ambrose only saith They treated of this matter but doth not affirm they made a Canon about it Thirdly They plead there was a Decree about the Canon of Scripture made at Nice which is not among these Twenty because S. Hierom saith he had Read that the Nicene Fathers computed Judith among the Books of Holy Scripture I reply S. Hierom only saith they computed it among Holy Writings that is as we shewed before § 15. among Books to be Read for instruction not to be quoted in Dispute For if S. Hierom had believed this Council did receive Judith for Canonical he would not have counted it as he doth to be Apocryphal So that this proves not that there were more Canons Fourthly The Notes affirm there is no Canon now extant here against a Bishops choosing his Successor in his Life time which S. Augustine saith was forbid in this Council (x) Augustin Epist 110. which is a gross Untruth since the Eighth Canon forbids two Bishops should be in one City and the Notes own this was the very Canon meant by S. Augustine in the next Leaf (y) Bin. Not. pag. 296. col 1. p. 297. col 2. Liers should have better Memories Fifthly They say the third Council of Carithage cites a Canon of Nice forbidding to receive the Sacrament after Dinner but if the place be considered as Richerius notes (z) Richer histor Concil lib. 1. cap. 3. §. 13. that Council only refers to a former African Synod which had decreed this and not to the Council of Nice Sixthly The Annotator speaks of a Canon about Appeals to Rome cited out of this Synod in the Sixth Council of Carthage but he was wiser than to tell us who cited this for a Nicene Canon for it was Pope Zosimus's Legate cited it and he was convicted of a notorious Falsification therein as shall be shewed in due place Seventhly He saith there was a Canon made at Nice but not to be found among the Twenty that a Cause tried in a lesser Synod might be judged over again in a greater and for this he cites the Fourth Epistle of Julius but in his Notes on that Epistle (a) Bin. Not. in ep Julii pâ—g 395. col 2. he confesseth this was no Canon made at Nice but only it was matter of Fact in that this great Synod did judge Arius over again who had before been judged at Alexandria Eightly The Notes say Atticus Bishop of Constantinople at Chalcedon did affirm that the Nicene Council agreed upon a Form of writing Communicatory Epistles which is not among these Twenty Canons I reply Baronius and he both own this Form was to be a Secret among the Bishops and if it had been put into a Canon Heretics might easily have counterfeited these Forms and so the design had been spoiled (b) Baron An. 325. §. 166. Richer lib. 1. cap. 3. §. 14. Lastly the Annotator cites Sozomen to proves that the Nicene Council added to the Gloria Patri the later part As it was in the beginning c. Whereas Sozomen (c) Sozom. histor lib. 3. cap. 19. in that place only speaks of such as praised God in Hymns agreeing to the Faith delivered at Nice but mentions no Canon or Form of words agreed on at Nice about these Hymns So that after all this shuffling it is very impertinent for this Annotator to brag that it is manifest there were more than Twenty Canons made in this Council and Nonsense to tell us that the Greeks who stifly maintain there were but Twenty Canons cannot deny but there were more than Twenty And for all his Confidence neither he nor Baronius dare defend those Eighty Canons which Turrian hath fathered on this Council and therefore whatever is more than these twenty or differing from them must pass among the many Forgeries of the Roman Church Fifthly As to the Sense of those Canons which oppose the Pope's Interest the Notes use many Impostures in expounding them The Third Canon forbids the Clergy to cohabit with Women taken into their Houses unless they were so near of Kin as to avoid Suspicion and Scandal Which plainly supposes that they might have Wives because cohabiting with them could give no Suspicion nor Scandal And since the Canon names not Wives who were the most likely to dwell with their Husbands doubtless this Council did not suppose the cohabitation of the Clergy with their Wives to be unlawful Yea not only Socrates and Sozomen (d) Socrat. lib. 1. cap. 8. Sozom. lib. 1. cap. 22. but Pisanus and Nauclerus later Romish Authors (e) Pisanus ap Bin. pag. 343. col 1. Naucler Chron. pag. 606. relate the History of Paphnutius his Advice to the Council in this Point upon which the latter saith The Nicene Fathers allowed Priests to have Wives if they pleased Which full Evidence against their Churches practice doth so enrage Baronius that he not only denies this well-attested History but lays by the Character of an Historian and falls in his guessing-way to dispute against this manifest Truth (f) Baron An. 325. §. 148 149 150. And Binius in his Notes (g) Lab. pag. 72. Bin. pag. 296. col 2. out of him saith This Canon expresly forbids Clergy men the Use of their Wives after they were entred into Holy Orders rejects the History of Paphnutius and gives Socrates and Sozomen the Lye But we shall leave the Reader to judge whether he will give more Credit to the Words of the Canon and these Ancient impartial Historians or to the Corrupt Paraphrase and Impudent Assertions of these two notorious Sycophants who have so often been proved to govern themselves not by Truth but by Interest and Design The Sixth Canon reckons the Pope but Equal to other great Bishops and limits his Jurisdiction at which the Annalist and Annotator are much discomposed and by various Fictions and shuffling Pretences labour to pervert the true Sense of this famous Canon And first They say The beginning of it viz. The Roman Church hath always had the Primacy is wanting (h) Lab. Bin. ut supr not in Can. 6. Whereas no Authentic Edition ever had any such beginning Dr. Beveridge gives us Eight several Versions besides the Original Greek which all want it (i) Beveridg Concil Tom. II. pag. 50. and it is impudently done of Binius to cite Alanus Copus saying That Dionysius Exiguus's Version had this
than the Christians have writ those of the Saints Melch. Can. Can. loc Theol. l. 11. p. 333. Yet you rarely have any better Evidence than these for most of the Roman Doctrines and Rites And though Nicephorus and the Modern Greeks be frequently taxed by him for giving easie faith to feigned Stories and for gross Mistakes An. 306. §. 12. pag. 3. Tom. IV. An. 363. p. 105. yet when they tell never such improbable Tales for the Roman Interest then they are cited with great applause Now it is a clear evidence of an ill Cause when they can find no other Proofs but such spurious Writings as these of which practice I have here given but a few Instances but the diligent Reader will observe this to be customary with Baronius not only in this fourth Century but in every part of his Annals § 2. Another Artifice is to corrupt the Words or the Sense of genuine Authors of which we will select also a few Instances in the same Century S. Augustine barely names Peter as one whom the Pagans did Calumniate Aug. de Civ Dei lib. 18. c. 53. but Baronius brings this in with this Preface That they did this because they saw Peter extremely magnified especially at Rome where he had fixed his Seat and then he saith S. Augustine records this c. whereas this is his own Invention to set off the glory of Rome Baron An. 313. §. 17. So when Athanasius is proving that the Fathers before the Nicene Council used the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and first names Dionysius Bishop of Alexandria and then Dionysius Bishop of Rome Athanas de decret in Arian Baronius saith He proves it especially by Dionysius the holy Roman Pope and by Dionysius Bishop of Alexandria Baron An. 325. §. 69. inverting the Order and putting a Note of Eminence on the Pope contrary to the Words and Sense of Athanasius Again he cites Pope Leo who is no Evidence in his own Cause and yet Baronius would make him say more than he doth even where he saith more than he should say For he cites his 53d Epistle to shew that Leo affirmed the sixth Canon of Nice allowed to the Church of Alexandria the second and to that of Antioch the third Seat which had before been conferred on them by Rome But the very words of Leo cited by Baronius shew this to be false for Leo saith not that these Sees had their Dignity or Order from Rome but the former from S. Mark the later from Peter's first Preaching there Leon. ep 53. ap Baron An. 325. §. 28. Moreover to make his Reader fancy the Roman and the Catholic Church was all one of old he mentions out of Epiphanius Constantine's writing an Epistle to all Romania Which Name saith he we sometimes find used for the Catholic Church Baron An. 319. §. 6. whereas it is manifest that Epiphanius both there and elsewhere plainly uses Romania for the Roman Empire Epiphan contra Manich. haer 66. contr Arian haer 69. and Baronius did not find it used either in him or in any other ancient Author in any other sense That Period in Optatus which Baronius cites with great applause if it be not added by some ignorant Zealot of the Roman side is a scandal to the Learning of that Father for he derives the Syriac word Cephas from the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and by that ridiculous Etymology would draw as contemptible a consequence viz. That Peter was Head of the Apostles and again he seems wilfully to pervert the Precept of S. Paul Rom. XII 13. Distributing to the necessities of the Saints which in Optatus's Reading is Communicating with the Memories of the Saints that is as he applies it with Rome where there are the Memorials of two of the Apostles I could wish for Optatus's Credit that these weak Passages were spurious or buried in silence and the Learned Baldwin is ashamed of this gross Errour Opt. Milev lib. 2. pag. 48. Baldvin notis pag. 184. But Baronius thinks though they make for the dishonour of the Father they tend to the Credit of Rome and so he cites them in great pomp and puts them in a whole Line to make them look more plausible the Head of the Apostles whence he was called Cephas so Optatus But Binius adds deducing the Interpretation from the Greek Word for in Syriac it signifies an hard Stone Baron An. 321. §. 5. and then glories extremely as if Optatus had made Communion with Rome the sole Note of a Catholic Whereas in the next Page but one Optatus goes on You cannot prove you have any Communion with the Seven Churches of Asia and yet if you be out of the Communion of those Churches you are to be accounted Aliens Which Passage Baronius very fraudulently leaves out Opt. Milev lib. 2. pag. 50. because it shews a true Catholic must not only be in Communion with Rome but also with all other Orthodox Churches To proceed Even in spurious Authors he useth this Artifice for that Forged Book of Constantine's Munificence only saith He placed a piece of the Cross in a Church which he had built But Baronius relates it That he placed it there with most Religious Worship Baron An. 324. §. 105. and a little after he perceiving that Fabulous Author had supposed Constantine buried his Mother long before she died puts in of his own head But this i. e. the putting his Mother in a Porphyry Coffin was done afterward Id. ib. §. 114. Speaking of the Bishops returning home from the Council of Nice he saith They took with them the Rule of Faith confirmed by the Pope of Rome to be communicated to their People and to absent Bishops But no Historian Ancient or Authentic mentions any preceding Confirmation of the Nicene Creed by the Pope who was one of the absent Bishops to whom it was to be communicated wherefore those words Of its being confirmed by the Pope are invented and added to the story by Baronius Baron An. 325. §. 197. He observes That Constantine confesses he was not fit to judge in the Case of Athanasius because Ecclesiastical Matters were to be judged among the Clergy Which he proves by Constantine's Letter there recited but Constantine's Letter is not directed to the Clergy but To the People of the Catholic Church at Alexandria And his Words are to the People who lived on the Place and knew the Matters of Fact and therefore he saith to them It is proper for you and not for me to judge of that Affair Baron An 329. §. 7 8. so that Baronius forceth his own Sense upon the Emperour And when Theodoret speaketh of time for Repentance according to the Canons of the Church he adds that is for Satisfaction Which Popish Satisfaction he would also prove out of a Canon at Antioch which only mentions confessing the Fault and bringing forth fruits meet for Repentance An. 341. §. 43 44. When Socrates only saith Eusebius