imitates him in false-spelling the Consuls names and in joyning Men who were never Consuls together yea because that Fabulous Pontifical usually Names no Consuls but those in Office at Every Popes Entrance and Death This Forger of the Epistles dates them all either by the first or last Consuls of every Pope as if all the Popes had only written Epistles in their first and last years A Few Examples of these Errors shall suffice The Pontifical makes Pope Euaristus to enter when Valens and Vetus were Consuls and to be martyred when Gallus and Bradua were Consuls and so the Forger dates his first Epistle by the names of his first Consuls and the second Epistle by the Consuls of his last year But alas both the Pontifical and Epistles are wofully mistaken since Euaristus as Baronius proves entred the 13th year of Trajan that is fourteen years after the Consulship of Valens and Vetus and two years after the Consulship of Gallus and Bradua so that by this Account he writ Decretal Epistles long before he was Pope (m) Lab. p. 532. Bin. pag. 51. col 2. So also whereas Pope Alexander really sat in Adrian the Emperors time and Trajan was dead before his entrance yet one of his Epistles is dated with Trajan as one Consul and Helianus as the other but these two were never Consuls together (n) Lab. p. 542. Bin. pag 55. col 2. And his second Epistle is dated by the Consuls of Adrian's first year whereas Pope Alexander came but into his See in Adrian's third year I will not trouble my self with any more Instances because there are none of these Dates true and many of them with the Pontifical which guides the Forgery so grosly false as to make Popes write Epistles before they were chosen and after they were dead (o) Exempâ—i gratia Telesphori Ep. 1. Aniceti Ep. 1. Zepherin 1 2. Pontiani Ep. 2. Fabiani Ep. 3. Cornelii Ep. 1 2. in multis aliis which is an undeniable Evidence that the Inventer of these Epistles was a Modern Cheat ignorant of the true Times both of the Consuls and the Popes There are other Errors also besides the Dates which shew the Bungling Author of these Epistles neither understood Chronology nor History The Pontifical before it was corrected had made Anicetus Pope Pius his Predecessor and therefore Pius his third Epistle doth not reckon him among the Priests at Rome but puts in Eleutherius as one of Pius his Presbyters (p) Lab. p. 576. Bin. pag. 70. col 2. who was but a Deacon in the time of his Successor Anicetus (q) Euseb hist lib. 4. cap. 22. Brev. Rom. Maii 26. The same Epistle makes Cerinthus the Heretic to be alive and busie at Rome in seducing Men An. 166 yet Binius before tells us he was present in the Synod at Hierusalem An. Christi 51 at which Synod if he were but Nineteen years of Age he must in Pius his time have been 130 which is incredible but Binius saith this may be believed because the first Epistle of Pius mentions Hermes named by S. Paul Rom. XVI who set forth a Book about this time An. 158 which Hermes if he were but only 34 year old An. Christi 62 when S. Paul writ his Epistle to the Romans must be 130 years of Age when he set forth this Book but in conclusion the Story of Hermes and his Apocryphal Book is a meer Fable stollen out of the Pontifical (r) Lab. p. 572. Bin. pag. 68. col 2. and Binius hath no way to defend one of these Fictions but with another equally absurd Again Pope Victor is made to summon one Theophilus Bishop of Alexandria to a Council at Rome but there was no Theophilus Bishop therein Victor's time Severus was then Bishop of that See and this Theophilus was Bishop of Caesarea in Palestine (s) Lab. p. 593. Bin. pag. 78. col 1. Euseb lib. 5. cap. 22. but if Victor had really writ this Epistle he could not have made so gross a Mistake In like manner Antherus Epistle mentions one Eusebius as then Bishop of Alexandria (t) Lab. p. 630. Bin. pag. 92. col 2. who was not Bishop there till two or three Ages after (u) Dodwel ap Cestr diss 2. cap. 6. The first Epistle of Pope Fabian dated in his first year mentions Novatus the Heretic coming out of Africa to Rome and seducing Novatian with others (w) Lab. p. 636. Bin. pag. 92. col 2. but Baronius out of Eusebius and S. Cyprian assures us that Novatus came not to Rome till Fifteen years after (x) Baron An. 238. §. 9. Wherefore these Epistles were devised by a later Author who knew neither the History nor Chronology of those Ages for which he invented these Epistles but had only the Fabulous Pontifical in his eye and follows it in all its Errors and Absurdities So that since the Pontifical makes Pope Hyginus an Athenian Pope Pius an Italian and Pope Soter born in Campania Isidore forges three Epistles for Hyginus To the Athenians for Pius To his Italian Brethren 〈◊〉 Sâ—ter To all the Campanians And when the Pontificaâ— falsly devises several Superstitious Rites begun in the corrupt Ages and other Usages to have been first appointed by some of the Ancient Popes the said I idore upon that always forges an Epistle in those Popes Names to enjoyn those Rites and hence Pope Alexander writes an Epistle about Holy-Water (y) Epist 1. Alexander Sixtus about none but the Clergies touching Consecrated Vessels (z) Sixti Ep. 2. Telesphorus about keeping Lent Seven Weeks (a) Tâ—lesphâ—r Ep 1. Pius about keeping Easter upon Sunday (b) Pii Ep. 1. Anicetus about Shaving Priests Crowns (c) Aniceti Epist 1. Calixtus about four Ember Weeks (d) Calixti Epist 1. and so did other Popes whereas most of these Rites were setled long after and only prove these Epistles were forged by Isidore § 16. Now though it he so apparent and undeniable that these Epistles are Forged and consequently of no Authority yet the Roman Church hath made great use of them in the Ignorant Ages For Binius notes all along in his Margen what Sections of them are transcribed into their Canon Law and even in later times their Writers against the Protestants do commonly cite their Infamous Impostures to prove the Supremacy of the Pope his Infallibility and right to Appeals as also for the exemption of the Clergy their Celibacy and Habits and to prove their Mass with its Ceremonies Auricular Confession Apocryphal Books Tradition Chrism Veneration of Relicks and Martyrs c. and Cook in his Censura Patrum hath noted the several Epistles and the Authors which cite them saving us the labour of instancing And therefore we will only make a few general Observations upon this matter and so dismiss these Forgeries Observ I. That since the Romanists have no other genuine Ancient Authors to prove these New-Doctrines and
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
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
are the main Guide to the Editors and Annotator From him they take the Dates of all Councils and out of him they have added divers new Synods not extant in the older Editions of the Councils of which they can say no more than to abbreviate Baronius From him they borrow most of their plausible Notes by which they either paint over that which seems for the Interest of Rome or disparage what makes against it and therefore we have had often occasion to discover his Fallacies in all that part of his Annals which concerns the Councils but there are many other notorious Frauds and manifest Falshoods in that Author of which I shall here give some few Instances which may serve as a Caution to all that read his History and also as a Direction by which they may in other Centuries find out his manifold Errours and I shall confine the Examples here produced to the Fourth Century because that is the most largely treated of in this Discourse It is evident that all the Writers of the Roman side for many Ages have designed to impose upon the World in that their Disputants their Publishers of Councils and Historians do all agree for their Principles and Practices cannot be maintained by plain Truth The Methods used by Baronius in his Ecclesiastical Annals which he writ purely to serve the Interest of the Roman Church may be reduced to these Heads First His frequent quoting Forged and Spurious Tracts such as the Pontifical the Acts of the Martyrs the Ecclesiastical Tables that is the Roman Missal and Martyrology with other late and fabulous Writers such as Nicephorus Simeon Metaphrastes Laurentius Surius c. And the Reader shall find he very seldom cites any other Authors to prove the Great Actions of Primitive Popes or the dignity of the Roman Church and its pretended Priviledges As also to make out the Miracles done by many of their Saints and to be evidence for the Invocation of Saints Praying for the Dead Worshiping the Cross Relicks and Images for the Merits of Celibacy and Holiness of Monks or other Superstitions Some Examples of which in the Fourth Century are these He cites the Acts of Procopius which he confesseth need amending to prove the Adoration of the Cross Baron An. 308. p. 30. §. 19. he proves the same by the Acts of Gregory an Armenian Bishop which he owns do not satisfie many and by Euthymius a late Grecian Monk An. 1180 Id. An. 311. p. 57. §. 23. Thus he asserts Crispus his being Baptized with his Father Constantine only by Nicephorus and makes out Constantine's use of putting an Image of Christ on his Coyns only by the Acts of Damasus and by a Coyn which he himself confesseth had been adulterated Id. An. 324. pag. 233. §. 13 16. Constantine's Baptism in Rome is also proved by Anastasius Bibliothecarius who there hath the false Character of an Acurate Writer Ibid. p. 237. §. 30. and by the Acts of Sylvester which he himself disapproves of in many things Ibid. §. 31. and suspects that notwithstanding all these fabulous Authors his Reader will not credit the Story Ibid. p. 238. §. 32. The Legend of S. Agnes and her Temple at Rome he confesses Was made by an Unknown-hand under the Name of S. Ambrose yet he gives a long relation of it Ib. pag. 260. §. 107. So when Eusebius who writ acurately about the Temple built over the Sepulchre by Constantine saith nothing of Pictures in it he proves there was such there by the second Nicene Council Baron An. 326. pag. 353. §. 42. Eusebius's Greek Chronicle saith nothing of the Invention of the Cross but some Forger hath put it into the Latin Version of it therefore Baronius cites the corrupted Latin Translation to prove this Legend Id. ibid. The Miracles of S. Nicholas are all transcribed out of his Acts which were put together by Authors who lived above Five hundred years after his time and the genuine ancient Historians mention not one of them An. 326. p. 366. §. 86. Eusebius saith Constantine dedicated his new City of Constantinople to God but Baronius chooses to follow a later Writer of little credit viz. Nicephorus who saith in the Phrase of his own time He dedicated it to the Virgin Mary Ibid. An. 330. p. 396. §. 4. He makes a discourse about the use of the Pall in the Life of Pope Mark yet he can cite no Author but the fabulous Pontifical to prove it was used in his time An. 336. p. 458 §. 63. To prove the Arian Pope Foelix was a Martyr he cites an Inscription pretended to be found in a Grave at Rome where such Frauds are common about Twelve hundred years after his Death An. 357. pag. 715. §. 50. so he makes out the Martyrdom of divers under Julian by an Oration of Nectarius which he confesses is corrupted and by Nicephorus Annal. Tom. IV. An. 362. p. 21. 22. And a little after he tells long Stories of Martyrs at that time condemned by Julian at Rome which he proves by the Ecclesiastical Tables and by the Acts of the Martyrs yet he owns Julian was not at Rome at this time Eod. An. pag. 84. Prayers at the Graves of the Saints he would establish by a forged Book of the Lives of the Prophets which he cites under Epiphanius's name An. 373. pag. 309. So he would make out Prayers for the Dead used in this Age by feigned Writings which are ascribed to Ephraem Syrus An. 378. p. 332. The Miracles ascribed to Damasus cannot be proved by one Author of Credit but are set off with the forged Acts of Damasus and the modern Legends An. 384. p. 427. So also the Miracles ascribed to S. Chrysostom are not taken generally from any approved Authors but from his spurious Acts An. 386. pag. 468. and to name no more thus he proves the Adoration of the Cross by an Homily falsly ascribed to S. Chrysostom An. 397. Tom. V. p. 44. For his genuine Works do witness against this practice And now that he did not cite these Authorities out of ignorance is plain from his Confession for he saith of the Acts of the Martyrs That we might better have wanted many Truths concerning them than have had such a mixture of Errours as makes the whole suspected Baron An. 307. §. 33. p. 24. Tom III. And again speaking of the Acts of Gallicanus It is the manner of some to be ashamed to give a short Narrative of a great Affair and so according to their own Fancy they largely paraphrase on it Id. An. 330. §. 51. p. 410. And yet again in his Preface to the Roman Martyrology he tells us There was a sad loss of these Martyrs Acts in Diocletian 's time so that very few of them are to be found which may not in part be convicted of Mistakes Bar. Praecap ad Martyr c. 3. But Melch. Canus is more ingenuous and saith Diogenes Laertius writ the Lives of the Philosophers more honestly