Pope Eusebius but makes Melchiades immediate Successor to Marcellinus It is very observable that these two unknown Popes in the Notes on their Lives are said to have sat Seven years between them And the Pontifical saith There was a Vacancy of Seven years after Marcellinus which Vacancy is also asserted by Anastasius Biblioth by Luitprandus Abbo Floriacens Cusanus and Genebrard And though Baronius's and Binius's Notes deny this Seven years Vacancy it is upon meer Conjectures The Scandal of so long a Vacancy no doubt setting some of the old Parasites of Rome on work to invent two Popes Names and put them into the List from whence probably they have been foisted into Oâ—tatus and S. Augustine two Latin Fathers while the Greek Authors which these Forgers Understood not do continue Uncorrupted And truly nothing but the Names of these two Popes remain for no good Historian mentions any one Eminent Act done by either of them however the Annotator had rather fill up his Scene with empty Names of Feigned Popes who did nothing for Seven years together than let the Reader suppose the Catholic Church could so long want it s pretended Head But though the Notes allow not the Authority of the Pontifical for the Vacancy they trust it for the fictitious Story of this Marcellus his Life and would have us believe That in a time of Persecution this Pope appointed Twenty five Churches in Rome to Baptize Converts and Bury Martyrs in and though the Laws and Customs of that City then forbad to Bury dead Bodies within the Walls we are to believe that the Tyrant Maxentius who made all these Martyrs and persecuted this very Pope consented to his breaking this Ancient Law On the Credit of the same Pontifical we are told That a certain Lady called Lucina dedicated her House to this Pope while He was alive by the Title of S. Marcellus and that the Emperor turned it into a Stable and made the Pope his Beast-keeper there where Naked and cloathed with Sackcloth they are the Words of the Pontifical He soon after ended his days the 17th of the Kalends of February Which Fiction the Roman Breviary orders to be read to the Credulous People of that Communion for Lessions and tells them That Marcellus writ an Epistle to the Bishops of the Antiochian Province about the Roman Primacy and to prove Rome to be the Head of All Churches and that no Synod should be held without the Pope's Authority But this Epistle is owned by Labbé to be a Forgery patched up out of divers Modern Authors citing the Vulgar Latin Version and dated after Marcellus his death And it is very strage That times of Persecution should be a proper Season for a Pope to wrangle for his Supremacy Yet this Notorious Forgery saith Christ ordered S. Peter to Translate his Seat from Antioch to Rome and that the Apostles by Inspiration decreed That all Appeals should be made thither and no Council held but by the Authority of the Roman Church For which cause Binius vindicates it with Notes as full of Falsehood as the Epistle it self His first Note of this Epistle being writ to one Solomon a Bishop is an oversight and belongs to the first Epistle of Pope Marcellâ—nus His next Notes about the Primacy and Power of Calling Synods cite an Apostolical and Nicene Canon for it but no such Canons are to be found He quotes also two Epistles one writ to Pope Foelix from Alexandria another writ by Pope Julius to the Eastern Churches for proof of this Supremacy and the same Annotator afterwards owns them both to be Forgeries He falsly saith Dioscorus was Condemned at Chalcedon only for holding a Synod without the Pope's Consent whereas he is known to have been accused of many other Crimes His Text of Fasce oves is nothing to this purpose nor will Pope Pelagius his Word be taken in his own Cause His Story of Valentinian makes nothing for the Pope more than any other Bishop Yea the Bishops desiring him to call a Council shews They thought it was His Prerogative and Nicephorus relates his Answer to have been That he was so taken up with State Affairs that he had no leisure to enquire into those matters Wherefore after all this elaborate Sophistry to justifie a false Assertion of a Forged Epistle the Annotator hath only shewed his partiality for the Pope's Power but made no proof of it The second Epistle of this Marcellus to the Tyrant Maxentius is also a manifest Forgery part of it is taken out of his Successor Gregory's Epistles writ almost Three hundred years after this and it is highly improbable That a persecuted Pope should falsly as well as ridiculously to a Pagan Emperor quote the Laws of the Apostles and their Successors forbidding to persecute the Church and Clergy and also instruct him about the Roman Churches power in Calling Synods and Receiving Appeals and cite Clement's Forged Epistle as an Authority to Maxentius That Lay-men must not accuse Bishops The Notes indeed are unwilling to lose such precious Evidence and so pretend That Maxentius at this time dissembled himself to be a Christian but this Sham can signifie nothing to such as read the Epistle where Marcellus complains That he then persecuted him most unjustly and therefore he did not pretend to be a Christian at that time and consequently the whole Epistle is an absurd Forgery And so is that Decree subjoyned to it which supposes young Children offered to Monasteries and Shaved or Veiled there Customs which came up divers Centuries after this § 2. The Canons of Peter Bishops of Alexandria are genuine and a better Record of Ecclesiastical Discipline than any Pope to this time ever made the Reader also may observe the Bishop of Rome is not once named in these Canons and they plead Tradition for the Wednesday Fast contrary to the Roman Churches pretence of having an Apostolical Tradition to Fast on Saturday The Council of Elliberis in Spain is by Binius placed under Pope Marcellus which Words Labbé leaves out of the Title and justly for if there were such a Pope the Council takes no notice of him nor is it likely that Rome did know of this Council till many years after Yet it is both Ancient and Authentic though Mendoza in Labbé reckons up divers Catholic Authors Caranza Canus Baronius c. who either wholly reject it or deny the 34th 35th 36th and 40th Canons of it which condemn the Opinions now held at Rome And though Binius because Pope Innocent approves it dare not reject it yet he publishes Notes to make the Reader believe it doth not condemn any of their Opinions or Practices The 13th Canon speaks of Virgins who dedicated themselves to God but mentions not their being Veiled or Living in Monasteries which Customs came in long after as the Authors cited in the Notes shew The 26th Canon calls it an Error to
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
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
the Roman Editors in their Preface and Notes ascribed most falsly to his want of Power and Authority Thirdly In the Protestation of the Clergy of Constantinople they prove themselves Orthodox because they held the same Faith with the Church of Antioch and that which was held by Eustathius Bishop there in the time of the Nicene Council making no mention of Rome at all And though now the Faith of the Roman Church is pretended to be the sole Infallible Rule of what is Orthodox it was not thought so then For Pope Celestine himself saith Nestorius is to be condemned unless he profess the Faith of the Roman and the Alexandrian Churches and that which the Catholick Church held And the Pope repeats this in his Epistle to Nestorius and in that to John Bishop of Antioch So that the Roman Church was then only a part of the Catholick Church as that of Alexandria was had it then been as now it is said to be the same with the Catholick Church the Pope was guilty in three several Epistles of a notorious Tautology for according to the modern Style it had been enough to have said Nestorius must profess he held the Faith of the Roman Catholick Church So when Cyril had informed John of Antioch that the Roman Synod had condemned Nestorius and writ to him to the Bishop of Thessalonica to those of Macedon and to him of Jerusalem to joyn in this Sentence Cyril adds that he of Antioch must comply with this Decree unless he would be deprived of the Communion of the whole Western Church and of these other Great Men This passage the Preface cites to prove that Cyril made use of the Popes Authority as his Chief Weapon in this Cause but it is plain he doth not so much as mention the Pope or the Roman Church alone nor doth he urge the danger of losing the Communion of that Church singly considered but of all the Western Churches and divers eminent ones in the East and it was the Popes agreeing with all these that made his Communion so valuable Fourthly as to the Titles of these Epistles which were writ before the Council we may observe that Nestorius writes to Celestine as to his Brother and saith he would converse with him as one Brother use to do with another which shews that as Patriarchs they were upon equal ground 'T is true Cyril who was as eminent for his Modesty as his Learning calls Celestine by the Title of his Lord from which the Romanists would draw conclusions for their Supremacy but we note that in the same Epistle he calls John of Antioch also his Lord beloved Brother and Fellow-minister which very words Cyril uses when he speaks of Celestine in his Epistle to Juvenal Bishop of Jerusalem calling the Pope there his Lord most Religious Brother and Fellow-minister yea such was the Humility of those Primitive Bishops that they frequently stiled their Equals and Inferiors their Lords so Cyril calls Acacius Bishop of Beraea So John Bishop of Antioch calls Nestorius his Lord and the same Title in the same Epistle he bestows upon Archelaus Bishop of Mindus a small City And of this we might give many more instances but these may suffice to expose those vain Arguers who from some such Titles bestowed on the Roman Bishop think to establish his Universal Supremacy Fifthly Among all these preliminary Epistles there are none meaner both for Style and Sense than those of Pope Celestine yet Baronius brags of that to Nestorius as the Principal Thing which confuted him calling it a Divine Epistle But alas it is infinitely short of Cyril's Letters the Phrase is very ordinary the Periods intricate the Arguments such as might have been used against any Heretick and his Application of the Holy Texts very odd as when the Church of Constantinople discovered Nestorius to be a Heretick he saith he may use St. Paul's words we know not what to pray for as we ought However there is one remarkable Passage in it a little after where he saith Those things which the Apostles have fully and plainly declared to us ought neither to be augmented nor diminished Had his Successors observed this Rule a great part of their Trent Articles had never been established And it had been well if the Editors had not in that very Page left out by design one of Celestine's own words For he threatens Nestorius that if after this third Admonition he did not amend he should be utterly excommunicated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by his Synod and by a Council of all Christians Here they leave out 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and translate it ab Universitate Collegii conventu Christianorum as if the Pope alone had power to separate a Patriarch from the Communion of the Universal Church whereas even when the Western Bishops joyned with him St. Cyril notes that those who submitted not to their Decree would only lose the Communion of the Western Church And if this Sentence were confirmed in the East too then indeed Nestorius and his party as Celestine intimates would be cast out of the Universal Church Sixthly In Cyril's Letter to Nestorius there is this remarkable Saying That Peter and John were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of equal Dignity as they were both Apostles and Holy Disciples which shews for all the brags of the Popes Legate in the Council that Peter was the Head of the Faith and of the Apostles they did not believe there was any difference as to Power and Dignity among the Apostles and that saying must pass for a piece of Flattery and is not to be regarded because it comes from a Creature of the Popes and one of his own House who by the Canons was no lawful evidence Seventhly In the Emperor's Commission to Candidianus one of his great Officers who was to preside in the Council we may see the Emperor gives him power to appoint what Causes and Questions shall be first treated of and to forbid any pecuniary or criminal Causes to be tried there which shews that the Emperor reserved the Power of managing and ordering the Synod to himself and made a Lay-man his representative for that purpose Secondly As to the Passages in the Council if the Preface and the Names before the Acts be genuine of which there is some doubt we may note that it is there declared the Council met by the Emperors Command and that Cyril is mentioned first both in his own Right as the chief Patriarch present and as he had the precedence due to Celestine here called Arch-Bishop of the Roman Church a Title given to Cyril afterwards whose Legate he is no where said to be but only to have his place that is to sit first as the Pope would have done had he been there Moreover it is remarkable that the Council begins without the Popes Legates who did not come till
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
did not receive the Cup as well as the Bread For he saith in general This dividing the Mystery can never happen without a grand Sacriledge Now it is certain that when either an Heretical or Catholick Man or Woman receives but in one kind it doth happen that the Mystery is divided and therefore in Pope Gelasius Opinion the present Church of Rome is guilty of a grand Sacriledge in taking the Cup from the People And it seems the Editors thought Baronius had not sufficiently satisfied this Objection and therefore they cunningly leave it out of this Popes Decrees in both Editions With like craft they omit the Tract of Gelasius against Eutyches and only give a touch at it in the Notes and there also care is taken out of Baronius if any shall elsewhere meet with this piece to keep them from discerning that Pope Gelasius condemns Transubstantiation and expresly saith That the substance of Bread and Wine remains after the Consecration The words they cannot deny but first Baronius and Binius argue it was not writ by this Pope but by Gelasius Cyzicenus an Author as Orthodox and more ancient than Pope Gelasius but their Arguments are not so cogent as to outweigh the proofs that this Pope writ the Tract Labbè in his Margen saith that many learned men think it his Gennadius Contemporary with the Roman Gelasius and the Pontifical say he writ a Tract against Eutyches Fulgentius cites it as this Gelasius his Work Pope John the Second also ascribes it to his Predecessor Yea the Bibliotheca Patrum allowed by the Expurgators put it out under Pope Gelasius his name And at last Baronius himself is not against supposing it was his But then Secondly He manifestly perverts the Sense of the words before-cited being after long shuffling forced to this absurdity that by the substance he means the accidents of Bread and Wine remain Which makes this learned Pope so ignorant as to mistake the first rudiments of Logick and might almost shew he was an Heretick if his Comparison in that sense be applied to the two Natures of Christ for illustrating of which he brings it in For thus it would follow that Gelasius held nothing but the accidents of Christs Body or Human Nature remained after the Hypostatical Union Doubtless Contarenus his Brother Cardinal was wiser and honester in making no reply at the Colloquy of Ratasbon 1541 to this clear Testimony And it is great weakness in Baronius to brag what wonders he hath done by heaping up a parcel of falshoods and impertinence Before we dismiss this let it be noted that the Annalist and Binius not only allow but dispute for 500 forged Tracts and Epistles which support modern Popery but they devise innumerable things to baffle and disgrace the most genuine Writings that condemn their Innovations Which is Baronius his meaning when he gives this reason of his large digression about this Tract because out of it the Innovators take their Weapons But they who reject the old Writings of their own Doctors do more justly deserve that Title As to this Popes extraction Volatteran and Panvinius say his Father Valerius was a Bishop Which is now left out of the Pontifical and not mentioned in Baronius or the Notes But the omission signifies little there being so many instances of married Bishops that had Children Yea of Popes that were Sons or Grand-Children of Bishops or former Popes As to the time of this Pope's ingress Baronius places it An. 492 and upon the credit of the dates of a few Papal Epistles which are always suspicious and often forged he rejects the Authority of Marcellinus who lived at this time and died An. 534 in whose Chronicle Gelasius is said to be made Pope An. 494 that is two year later than Baronius places it § 8. If Marcellinus be in the right we may justly doubt of those three Epistles the 1st 2d and 9th which Baronius cites as writ before the year 494 The 1st hath no date and though the time of writing it be made an Evidence against Marcellinus his Account yet he brings no proof it was writ An. 492 but this Nothing hinders us from allowing these things between Euphemius and Gelasius to be done this year I reply the Testimony of a good Author of that Age who affirms Gelasius was not Pope till two years after hinders us from believing it was writ then But I will not however condemn the Epistle which is modest enough calling Euphemius Bishop of Constantinople his Brother and Fellow advanced to a Precedence by the favour of Christ And when he was pressed to declare by what Council Acacius was condemned he cites no Roman Council nor pretended Sentence of his Predecessor Foelix But saith he was condemned by the Council of Chalcedon but this he doth not make out The Second Epistle also wants a date and is by guess placed in this year by Baronius with this false remark That the Popes by Custom used to prescribe a Form of Belief to all the Faithful Whereas the Letter it self declares the Custom was For every new Pope to declare his Faith to the Neighbouring Bishops that they might know he was Orthodox Now there is a vast difference between prescribing a Form of Belief to others and labouring to get from them a Testimony of our believing aright The 4th Epistles true Title is The Monitory of Gelasius But in Binius these words Of the most blessed Pope are added which Labbè rightly omits In the Monitory it self observe First That Gelasius denies his Predecessor or he had condemned the Emperor Anastasius Secondly He saith the Church hath no power to absolve any after their death Thirdly He claims no power to make any new Canons but only to execute the old Which other Bishops may do Fourthly He cannot prove Appeals to Rome by any Canons but those of Sardica which were rejected by many and slights the Canons of Chalcedon received every where but at Rome Fifthly He very falsly pretends Acacius was only the Executer of the Roman Churches Sentence by whose sole Authority some Eastern Bishops were condemned But we know Acacius had condemned them long before any Sentence was given at Rome and scorned to act under the Pope Sixthly Where Gelasius in his own Cause vainly brags That the Canons have given the Judgment over all to the Apostolical Seat Binius and Labbè mend it in their Marginal Note and say The Canons and Christ gave it this power neither of which is true In the 5th Epistle Gelasius owns a Private Bishop for his Brother and declares that he himself cannot alter the Canons The Margen again here saith The Canons cannot be altered they should have said no not by the Pope But here they say too little as before they said too much which puts me in mind of Juvenal's Note Quisquam hominum est quem tu contentum videris uno Flagitio
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
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
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 Practices by but are forced generally to place these apparent Forgeries in the Fore-front of all their Authorities we may conclude these Points of their Religion are all Innovations unheard of in the Primitive Ages so that Isidore was forced to invent these Epistles almost 800 years after Christ to give some shew of Antiquity to them and these Points were in those Ignorant Times mistaken by this means for Primitive Usages and Opinions and so got footing in the World under that disguise but now that the Fallacy is discovered the Doctrines and Practices ought to be disowned as well as the Epistles on which they are built Observ II. There are many other Points of the Roman Religion which are not so much as mentioned in any of these Forged Epistles such as Worship of Images Formal Praying to the Saints and to the Virgin Mary Transubstantiation Half-Communion and Adoration of the Host Purgatory Indulgences and Justification by Merits with some others Now these are so New that in Isidore's time when he invented these Epistles they were not heard of nor received no not in the Roman Church for if they had no doubt this Impostor who was so zealous to get Credit for all the Opinions and Usages of that Church which he knew of would have made some Popes write Epistles to justifie these also and his silence concerning them makes it more than probable that these were all invented since the year of Christ 800. Observ III. Though the later Romanists frequently cite these Forged Decretals yet no genuine Author or Historian for Seven hundred years after Christ did ever Quote or Mention them no not so much as any of the Popes themselves in all that Period Now it is morally impossible so many important Points should be so clearly decided by so many Ancient Bishops of so Famous a Church and yet no Author ever take notice of it And doubtless when the Popes attempted to be Supreme and claimed Appeals about the year 400 Zosimus and Boniface who quarrelled with the Eastern and African Bishops about these Points and were so hard put to it for Evidence as to seign some private Canons were made at the first general Council of Nice would certainly have cited these Epistles which are so clear Evidence for their pretences if they had either seen or heard of them but they do not once name them in all that Controversie which shews they were not then in being yea those who know Church History do clearly discern that the main Points setled by these Epistles were things disputed of about the Seventh and Eighth Centuries a little before Isidore's time and therefore these Forgeries must never be cited for to prove any Point to be Ancient or Primitive § 17. Obs IV. Though the Inventer of these Epistles was so zealous a Bigot for the Roman Cause yet many things are to be found in them which contradict the present Tenents of that Church For whereas the Pope now claims an Universal Supremacy even over Jerusalem it self Clement's first Epistle is directed to James the Bishop of Bishop's Ruling the Hebrew Church at Jerusalem and all the Churches every where founded by Divine providence Anacletus first Epistle orders all the Clergy present to receive under pain of Excommunication which is not observed now in the Roman Church Pope Telesphorus orders a Mass on the Night before Christmas and forbids any to begin Mass before nine a Cleek But Binius confesses their Church doth not now observe either of these Orders Pope Hyginus forbids all foreign Jurisdiction because it is unfit they should be Judged abroad who have Judges at home So the third Epistle of Pope Fabian appoints that every Cause shall be tried where the Crime is committed which passage is also in a genuine Epistle of S. Cyprian to Cornelius And all foreign Jurisdiction is again forbid in Pope Felix his second Epistle which passages do utterly destroy Appeals to Rome unless they can prove all the Crimes in the World are committed there The second Epistle of Fabian allows the People to reprove their Bishop if he Err in matters of Faith the same Liberty also is given to the People in Cornelius second Epistle which seems to make the People Judges in Matter of Faith a thing which the Modern Romanists charge upon the Protestants as a great Error From these and many other passages we may see that these Impostures do not in all Points agree with the present Roman Church § 18. I have now done with the Epistles themselves and proved them to be apparent Forgeries I will only give the Reader some cautions about those partial Notes printed on them both in Binius and Labbè which though they frequently correct confute and alter divers passages in these Epistles Yet if any thing look kindly upon the Roman Church they magnifie and vindicate it but if it seem to condemn any of their Usages they reject and slight it For Example Pope Pius cites Coloss XI 18. against worshiping Angels and the Notes reject both S. Hierom's and Theodoret's Exposition of the place as Reflecting on their Churches practice adding that S. Paul condemned Cerinthus in that place for giving too much Honour to Angels Yet Binius soon after tells us that Cerinthus was so far from Teaching they were to be Adored that he thought they were to be Hated as Authors of Evil Pope Zepherine cites the Apostolical Canons for the Priviledges of his See and saith there were but Seventy of them But Binius in his Notes saith he refers to the Seventy third Canon Yet if the Reader consult that Seventy third Canon the Pope's See is not named there yea that Canon forbids a Bishop to Appeal from his Neighbor Bishop unless it be to a Council Out of Calixtus fust Epistle which Labbè owns to be a manifest Forgery Binius Notes cite a Testimoy for the Supremacy calling it an evident Testimony and worthy to be Noted Pontianus in his Exile brags ridiculously about the
supposes this indeed a little before But all Ancient Authors say and he himself affirms That Peter Bishop of Alexandria did institute him into that Bishopric He only supposes Siricius desired Theodosius to banish the Manichees from Rome but the Rescript is not directed to him but to Albinus the Praefect and except the fabulous Pontifical there is no Evidence that Siricius was concerned in this matter Theodoret saith The Emperour chose Telemachus into the number of Martyrs but Baronius supposes This was done not only by the Emperour's Care but by the Ecclesiastical Authority of the Pope To conclude He affirms by guess That S. Nicetus came out of Dacia into Italy to Visit the Apostles Tombs and to consult the Apostolical Seat but no Author makes this out Now how can any Reader trust an Historian who in relating things done many Ages ago takes the liberty to invent and suppose whatever will serve a present Turn § 5. Add to this that he scruples not to contradict himself and to tell manifest Untruths to carry on the Interest of Rome which we shall prove by these Examples He affirms Coelicianus Bishop of Carthage relied upon one defence The Communion of the Apostolic See but immediately he tells us That he was supported by Constantine ' s favour He cites S. Augustine saying Constantine when Coelician's Cause was referred to him was a Christian Emperour yea he cites a Letter of Constantine writ in a most Christian style and yet he feigns that Coelicianus delayed his appearing before this Emperour because he thought it unfit that a Bishop should be judged by a Lay-man not yet Baptized And again Eight years after this he represents Constantine as a meer Pagan who had never heard of Peter or Paul and took them for some Heathen Deities whereas he saith He was a Catechumen and out of the Gospel had imbibed the Christian Meekness eight years before He also affirms That in the Year 324 there was as yet none of the Senatours believed the Christian Faith And yet he saith Two year before this that one or both the Consuls were Christians yea in the year 312. He reckons up many Senatours who had given up their Names to Christ Thus he contradicts himself by following those Lying Acts of Syl vester in order to support the false Story of Constantine's being Baptized at Rome Soon after out of a Fabulous Author he talks very big of the low Reverence which Constantine paid to the Bishops at the Nicene Council whereas all the Authentic Historians say The Bishops rose up when he entred in and paid him a great respect And when he hath told many incredible Legends about the Nails of the Cross and-seems to grant that divers false Nails have been adored for the true he excuses his abused Catholics for their mistaken Worship of false Relics saying That their Faith excuses their Fault so that Lies may be innocently told and believed it seems at Rome Again he affirms there were Monks at Rome in the year 328 and proves this by what S. Augustine saw there at least fifty years after yea in the year 340 he saith Athanasius first brought the Institution of Monks to Rome which is a manifest contradiction To proceed I wonder with what Face he could commend Athanasius for speaking charitably of the Heretic Arius after he was dead when he reviles Eusebius after his death And never mentions any of the Protestant Doctors deceased but with the bitterest Malice and in the most spightful Language he can invent If Charity were a Vertue in Athanasius then Malice must be a Vice in him He largely relates many Appeals to the Emperour in the case of Athanasius and yet when at last the Bishop of Rome was chosen Arbitrator in this Case and this but once He cries out Behold Reader the ancient Custom c. Whereas since the Emperours were Christians it was the Custom to appeal first to him as his History abundantly proves He very largely commends the Acts of Martyrs but by following them falls into many Absurdities as where he tells us That the Pagan Temple of Daphne at Antioch was burnt two days after the Martyrdom of Artemius Yet a little after he brings in this Artemius arguing with Julian about the burning of this Temple So he tells us The Body of S. John Baptist was burnt to Ashes except some Bones which were carried into Egypt to Athanasius And yet a little after S. Hierom affirms his Bones remained at Sebaste and wrought Miracles there As little Truth is there in his accusing Maximus the Emperour for presuming to judge of Bishops Causes whereas Maximus his Letter to Siricius which Baronius records declares He would call the Bishops to a Council in what City they pleased and refer it to them who were best skilled to determine these matters Again in order to justifie those feigned Relicks of Protasius and Gervasius shewed now at Rome he affirms That S. Ambrose gave part of them to several Bishops and some of them were brought to Rome Whereas S. Ambrose himself who knew best what was done assures us He buried the Rodies whole putting every Joynt in his own order And to name no more He brags that Idols were pulled down no where with more zeal than at Rome Yet in the same Page he tells us There was then newly dedicated an Alter there for sacrificing to the Heathen Gods So that we see designed Falshoods are not scrupled by him in things which seem to make for the honour of Rome or her Opinions § 6. We may also observe that for the same ends He makes innumerable false Inferences on purpose to pervert the Truth thus from S. Augustine's calling Melchiades A Father of Christian People as every Bishop is Baronius concludes that S. Augustine was for the Popes Supremacy So from Bishops judging in Causes where the People referred their Differences to them he frequently infers A right in Bishops to judge in Temporal Matters In like manner from Theodoret's mentioning a Canon of the Church in general and as his discourse shews referring to the Canon which forbids any Bishop to judge a Cause till both parties were present Baronius gathers that the Pope was supreme over the Bishop of Alexandria and that by the Canons of Nice Again That the Pope was not beholding to the Council of Nice for his Supremacy which he had from Christ he proves by Pope Nicholas his Testimony who had the impudence in his own Cause and for his own Ends to tell this Story Five hundred years after So he condemns the Arians for ejecting Bishops without staying for the Bishop of Rome's Sentence which he proves was unjust by an Epistle of Pope Julius which says The Arians should first have writ to all Bishops that so what was right might be determined by all where Julius arrogates
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
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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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
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
matter And if we consider how the Scene is dressed up with variety of Letters lately found out we shall be tempted to think this part of the Epistles are forged yet we may allow what Baronius saith that this abundance of Letters may make us that read them now know more of this case than they who lived in that Age knew if they never saw these Letters For 't is probable neither Hormisda nor his Legates nor Justin Justinian c. did ever see these Epistles that now appear under their names so that we may very well know more than they did but the reason is only because we know more than is true We may discover some marks of Forgery in divers of these Papers As that most of them want the Consuls Names and are not dated That Germanus says he was received in Procession with Wax Candles and Crosses a Custom of a later date for we have no Crosses in another Procession described by a Writer of that time The calling Hormisda in one of the Letters Arch-Bishop of the Universal Church and the Emperors giving the Popes Legate the Title of His Angel These with many other things that might be observed make it probable these Papers were Invented for a Pattern to the poor Greeks when the design of subjecting them to the Latin Church was on foot in later Ages § 4. To proceed Whereas Justinian in one particular point desires the Opinion of Hormisda and complements him so far as to tell him He will believe that to be Orthodox which he shall answer Baronius prints this in great Letters and Binius from this particular Assertion draws a general Inference in his Margen viz. That which is defined by the Pope is to be received by all for the Catholick Faith A Consequence so absurd that Labbè is ashamed of it and leaves it out as well he might since Justinian did not agree with the Pope in this Question after he had received his Answer And the dissenting Eastern Bishops at this time reckoned Hormisda to be a Nestorian if we can credit any of these Papers So that doubtless Justinian never thought a Pope Infallible In another Epistle ascribed to John of Constantinople not so very truckling as the former that Bishop is made to say by the help of the Intercession of the Holy and Consubstantial Trinity and of the glorious and true Mother of God A Phrase too absurd for any Bishop to use For with whom should the Trinity intercede or what can be more ridiculous than equalling the Virgins Intercession to the Trinity unless it be the making the Trinity pray to it self Labbè boldly attempts to mend this Sentence but without Authority and after all it s evidently writ by a later Hand If the next relation of Germanus be true it appears No cause of a Bishop of the East could be tried at Rome without the consent of the Emperor who expresly forbids the trying the Cause of Dorotheus at Rome though the Pope earnestly desired it might be judged there as Baronius also confesseth By the relation from the Synod at Constantinople it appears that they call their new elected Patriarch Epiphanius The Popes own Brother and fellow Minister and count their joynt endeavours to be one Brothers helping another Binius strives to blunder this by printing it Germanum vestrum as if it were the proper name of the Popes Legate But Labbè honestly restores the true reading germanum vestrum The Epistle next to this bears the name of Justinianus Augustus yet is dated Anno 520 which is a gross mistake for he was not styled Augustus till near seven year after as Baronius owns Anno 527. Yea after this Justinian is styled Vir illustris and for certain was not Emperor when this Letter is said to be writ The Notes after Hormisda's 70th Epistle do bitterly inveigh against Johannes Maxentius and the Scythian Monks as notorious Lyers and Eutychian Hereticks and Labbè is more severe in his Censure than Binius or Baronius But they are all mistaken For this Maxentius was entirely Orthodox and defended the Council of Chalcedon against the Eutychians as is fully proved by two learned and judicious Writers Bishop Usher and Forbesius And we may be sure Baronius first invented this false accusation thinking it impossible any Man but a Heretick could write against the Pope to be revenged on Maxentius for so bold a Fact But in the Age before Cochlaeus a Papist or Catholick as Baronius calls him did honestly put out Maxentius his Works as an Orthodox Writer though Maxentius do write against the Epistle under Hormisda's Name to Possessor an African Bishop and proves whoever was the Author of that Epistle was a Lyer and an Heretick as were also Possessor and Dioscorus one of the Popes Legates and he further justifies himself and the Scythian Monks blaming the Pope for banishing them from Rome Saying amongst other thing If the Bishop of Rome should prohibit us to confess Christ the Son to be one of the Holy and undivided Trinity the Church would never yield to him nor respect him as an Orthodox Bishop but utterly Accurse him as an Heretick So that no body then believed the Pope to be Infallible and for Hormisda Maxentius suspects him to be a favourer of Pelagianism The Emperor Justin speaking of the Church of Hierusalem saith that all men shew tantum favorem the Editors read tamen only to blunder the Period so much favour to it as to the Mother of the Christian Name that none dare separate from it Had this been said of Rome how would the Parasites have Triumphed Yet wanting real Encomiums in the next Paper they steal one and where the Eastern Clergy speak of their own Churches which had not swerved from the Faith delivered to them The Editors apply this to Rome and say in the Margen The Roman Church never deviated from right Doctrin But the Reader will find there is no mention of the Roman Church in that place only S. Peter who founded that of Antioch is pointed at a little before Before Hormisáa's 77th Epistle there is one of Justinian to Hormisda wherein he declares that after the Controversie was setled ultra non patiemur they blunder it by reading nos patiemur He will not suffer any one under that Government to stir any more in it Which is a brisk Order to the Pope in a cause of Religion For which reason and because it shews that he and the Greeks would not yield to leave out any Name but that of Acacius Baronius omits it and only prints the answer to it For this was writ the year after the pretended consent of the Patriarch of Constantinople to rase out Euthymius and Macedonius with other Names out of the Dypticks We cannot leave this Pope without some remarks on his carriage in answer to the Question propounded to him by Justinian viz.
THE CHURCH HISTORY Clear'd from the Roman Forgeries And Corruptions found in the COUNCILS and BARONIUS In Four Parts FROM The Beginning of Christianity to the End of the Fifth General Council 553. By THOMAS COMBER D. D. Dean of DURHAM For we have not followed cunningly devised Fables 2 Pet. I. 16. LONDON Printed by Samuel Roycroft for Robert Clavell at the Peacock at the West-End of S. Pauls 1695. Imprimatur Martii 2. 1688 9. T. Alston R. P. D. HEN. Episc Lond. à Sacris Domesticis TO THE Most Reverend Father in GOD THOMAS By Divine Providence Lord Arch-Bishop of YORK PRIMATE OF ENGLAND AND METROPOLITAN May it please your Grace THere is nothing more Pleasant in it self nor more Vseful to those of the Sacred Function than the Study of Ecclesiastical Antiquity But yet many of that Order have not the Advantage or the Opportunity to acquire this Knowledge from the Original Authors and therefore are forced to seek it in the Roman Editions of the Councils and the Modern Historians of that Church Where every thing is misrepresented and placed in so False a Light that its hard to find out what is Truth Some of the genuine Remains of Antiquity they have concealed but they have falsified and altered more and added so much to the Primitive Records especially in the first Four Centuries that near Three Parts of Four both in Baronius and the Councils are modern Forgeries manifest Legends and impertinent Excursions into Sophistical Vindications of the later Doctrins and Practices of Rome It would therefore be a Work worthy of this excellent Church in so Learned an Age to make an acurate Collection of that and only that which is true and certain in the Primitive History and Councils 'T is true divers Eminent Men have made some steps toward it but it is too great an Vndertaking for any One Man to accomplish as appears by that generous Project of Dr. Thomas James Proposed to the Most Learned Primate of Ireland to employ a Select Company of both Universities with due Assistances and Encouragement for the perfecting this Design Wherefore in the mean time it may be serviceable to gather together some Materials for so Noble a purpose and that first encouraged me to make these Observations as I was Reading the Annals of Baronius with the Councils Which I have by the Advice of some of my Friends Methodically digested in this little Tract and I hope it may be useful not only to direct such as apply themselves to this kind of Study but also to confirm others of Our own Communion in their firm Adherence to their Excellent Religion when they see so many plain Evidences That all the Roman Churches Pretences to Antiquity both in Doctrin and Worship are founded on and maintained by little else but those Forgeries and Corruptions by which they Imposed upon the Ignorant and Easie World for Six or Seven Centuries together These Pious Frauds as They counted them did indeed then advance their Interest and establish their Errors but now when they are detected by this Discerning Generation they prove their utter Shame and did not Secular Advantages and Implicit Faith or Fear and Inquisitions hinder those under their Yoke from being acquainted or however from owning these unfaithful Actings of their Spiritual Guides These Discoveries would not only secure Our People but make many Converts from Them But My Lord whatever the Work or the Success be I am obliged to lay it at Your Graces Feet as the first thing I have made Public since Your Graces happy Advancement to the Government of this Church whereof I am a Member and wherein by Your Graces Influence I shall study to serve the Primitive-Protestant-Church of England Which I beseech Almighty GOD to defend from all its Enemies and long to preserve Your Grace to be a Support and an Honour to it So Prays MY LORD Your Graces most Dutiful Son and Servant THO COMBER York Aug. 20. 1689. THE Introduction WHen Campian long ago undertook to defend the Roman Cause he boasted that He was strengthned with the firm and powerful Guard of all the Councils and that all the General Councils were on his side Which vain Brag the Writers from the Roman Church do frequently repeat to this very day But he that with Judgment and Diligence shall peruse their own allowed Editions of the Councils will easily discover the falshood of this Assertion For there is such adding and expunging such altering and disguising things in the Body of the Councils and such excusing falsifying and shuffling in the Notes that a Judicious Reader will soon perceive these Venerable Records truly set down and explained do not favour them But these Corruptions are carried on with such Confidence and Cunning that an unexeperienced and unwary Student may be imposed on by this specious shew of Venerable Antiquity For their sakes therefore it 's necessary to take a short view of that Fraud and Policy which is so commonly made use of in those Editions of the Councils which pass through the Roman Mint especially in those which are in most use among us viz. The Edition of Severinus Binius and that of Labbé and Cossartius wherein Binius his Notes are printed verbatim Which useful design was begun by a Learned and Ingenious Gentleman in a Tract entituled Roman Forgeries printed at London An. 1673 But that Author doth not follow the exact order of Time nor doth he go much beyond the Nicene Council and even in that Period he left out many plain Instances And whereas he died before he had proceeded any further I resolved to begin where he left off But for Methods sake and to make thid Discourse more entire I have begun with the first Century and so proceeded according to the order of the several Councils only writing more briefly upon the Three first Centuries which were largely treated of in that Author before deducing the account of these Impostures down to the end of the Fourth Century and shewing as I go along what Artifices have been used by the Editors and Annotator to dress up these Ancient Evidences so as to make them look favourably upon their great Diana the Supremacy and other Corruptions of the Roman Church To this end they have published many spurious Councils many counterfeit Canons and forged Decretals and for such as are genuine they have frequently altered the Text both by Additions and Diminutions and have so disguised the Sense by partial and fallacious Notes that it will be evident by the Remarks here made upon them their business in the publishing these Volumes was not to promote the Truth but to serve a Party Nor can any thing else be expected from Binius his Notes which as he owns in his Preface He took out of Baronius Bellarmin and Possevin The design of which three Men saith Richerius an ingenuous Sorbon Doctor is evident to all Men to have been no other but to prove the Pope was
this Author who though he had placed S. Peters Death so many years before Clement's Entrance as to leave room for two intermediate Popes yet here again repeats his old Fable of S. Peters delivering the Bishopric of Rome to Clement a sufficient proof there is neither Truth nor Certainty in the pretended Personal Succession of the first Popes § 9. From this Pope Clement down to the time of Syricius who lived 300 years after him there are printed in these Editors after every Popes Life divers Decretal Epistles pretended to be writ by the several Popes and Vindicated by Binius's Notes annexed to them Which were received in the Western Church for many Hundred years together as the genuine Decrees of these ancient and pious Popes transcribed into the Canon Law and cited for many Ages to justifie the Usurpations and defend the Corruptions of the Roman Church to determine Causes and decide Controversies in Religion And yet they are all notorious Forgeries so that since Learning was revived divers of the most Eminent Roman Writers have rejected them Card. Cusanus affirms That being compared with the times in which they are pretended to have been Writ they betray themselves Baronius calls them Late invented Evidences of no Credit and Apocryphal yea Labbé and Cossartius have in their Edition a Learned Preface to them proving them to be forged And in their Margin write almost against every Epistle This is suspected This is Isidores Wares c. and also note the very places of Authors who lived long after these Times out of which large Passages in them are stollen Verbatim Which clear Confession of our Adversaries may make some think it needless to confute them and unnecessary to charge this Forgery upon the Roman Church But I cannot think it sit wholly to pass them by because Turrian the Jesuit had the Confidence to defend them all as genuine and Binius in his Edition not only Vindicates them by a general Preface but by particular Notes labours to prove most of them Authentic and Labbé himself prints those Notes at large in his Edition so that such as do not look into his Margen may be deceived Besides this Confession of some Romanists comes too late to compensate for the injury done to the Truth by their Churches approving them so long And they still keep up the Supremacy and all their corrupt Practices and Opinions which were set up and cherished by these Forgeries they now take away the Scaffolds when the Building can stand alone they execute the Traytor but enjoy freely the benefit of his Treason Moreover while some Romanists condemn them others go on to cite them for good Authority Harding brags he had proved many Points of Faith by the Epistles of Clement Damasus Julius Melchiades Pontianus Sixtus Soter and Symmachus Dr. Tho. James shews the particular corrupt Doctrines and Practices which the late Roman Writers defend by the spurious Epistles of Clement Marcellus Marcus and Hormisda And the Learned Cook with infinite diligence hath cited the very Places of the Modern Champions for the Roman Opinions and shewed what Doctrines and Practices they do maintain by these Forged Epistles It is also well known that the Late Scriblers for that Religion do follow Bellarmin and Others in citing these Decretals for good Authority and that the Canon Law is in a great measure composed out of these Epistles by which Causes are determined at this day in all Popish Countries Therefore till the Romanists raze them and the Notes in their defence out of the Volumes of the Councils and expunge all the false Notions taken hence out of their Canon Law yea and leave citing them in their Disputes with us we cannot think it needless to shew the apparent Forgery of them but we will not enlarge so as to disprove the Particulars but put together here our Evidence against them all § 10. These Epistles though pretended to be writ in the first four Centuries were never heard of in the World till near 800 years after Christ About which time came out a Collection of Councils under the name of Isidore Hispalensis but whereas he died An. 636 and this Collector mentions the XIth Council of Toledo and the Sixth General Council which were held near Fifty years after this appears not to be the Work of that Isidore but of one Isidore Mercator and it was first brought into France by Riculphus B. of Mentz in which Collection these Decretal Epistles first appeared but the Learned Hincmarus of Rheims immediately discerned them to be an imposture and Writ against them as Baronius confesseth But though he own the Cheat he is not willing to grant the Roman Church had any hand in it yet that is as clear as the Forgery because Hincmarus was hated and prosecuted by the Pope and forced at last to Recant his Censure of these Epistles and not long after Benedictus Levita having Transcrib'd divers Passages out of them into his Capitulars got them confirmed at Rome which could not but cherish so advantagious a Fiction that supported the Supremacy which they then did so hotly stickle for and therefore though they came first to the Birth in Spain some conjecture they were all Hatched at Rome whose evil Designs and Interest they are contrived to serve But the Age was so Ignorant when they were Invented that there is such infamous and convincing Marks of Forgery upon them as makes it very easie to prove the Cheat beyond any possibility of doubting and we will here put the principal of them together under their proper Heads § 11. First The Style of these Decretals shews they were not writ within the four first Centuries wherein at Rome especially they writ Latin in a much more Elegant Style than is to be found here where the Phrases are modern harsh and sometimes barbarous so that the Reader is often puzled to reconcile them either to Grammar or Sense As for Example Pope Victor's Second Epistle which of old began with Enim and was mended by Binius with Semper enim but still there is false Latin in it viz. aliquos nocere fratres velle The like barbarous Style may be observed in the two Epistles of Pontianus and in many others But the genuine Epistles of Cornelius preserved in Eusebius and S. Cyprian are writ in a more polite Style and as Labbé notes These Epistles shew how much good Mony differs from counterfeit and how much Gold excels Counters The like difference there is between the Style of that genuine Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians and those silly Forgeries put out in his Name in the very Front of these Decretals from whence it undeniably follows That the Decretals were not writ in the Ages wherein the Latin Tongue flourished nor by those Popes whose Names they bear And this is further manifest by divers Words which were not used in the time of these Popes but
owns is much mistaken in his relating this matter names only Damasus in his report of this Law and Baronius cites the Law out of him meerly to make it seem as if Damasus were made the sole Standard of Catholic Communion though the Original Law still extant and all other Historians name Peter of Alexandria as equal with Damasus perhaps the Reader may wonder there is no other Patriarch named in this Law but it must be observed that Anticch at this time had two Orthodox Bishops who separated from each other Meletius and Paulinus to make up which unhappy Schism there was a Synod this year held at Antioch under Damasus say the Editors but in truth under the Emperours Legate who was sent to see a Peace concluded between these two Bishops by the advice of the Council there assembled And Damasus had so little interest in this Council that Meletius was generally approved for the true Bishop and Paulinus whose party the Pope favoured ordered only to come in after Meletius his Death So that since this Council acted contrary to the mind of Damasus it is very improper to say it was held under him § 27. The second General Council at Constantinople was Called by the Emperour Theodosius whom Gratian had taken for his Paitner in the Empire and assigned him for his share the Eastern Provinces where this pious Prince finding great differences in Religion he Convened this Council to confirm the Nicene Faith to fettle Ecclesiastical Matters and to determine the Affairs of the See of Constantinople This Council the Editors introduce with a Preface or general History and conclude it with partial and false Notes hoâ—ing to perswade the World that it was both called and confirmed by the Pope For which end we read in the Preface That Theodosius made a Law for all to follow the Faith which the Apostle Peter delivered to the Romans and which Pope Damasus preached which shews as if the Pope were the sole preserver of the Faith whereas the Law it self truly cited runs thus which Pope Damasus and Peter Bishop of Alexandria a man of Apostolical Sanctity are known to follow And in another Law of the same Emperours next year those are declared to be Catholics and capable of Benefices who were in Communion with the Bishops of Constantinople Alexandria Laodicea Tarsus and Iconium and in that Law neither Damasus nor Rome are mentioned which shews it was not the peculiar priviledge of any See for its Bishop to be made the standard of Catholic Communion but the known Orthodox Opinion of that Bishop who sat in this or that eminent Church The rest of the Forgeries in this Council will best appear by considering First By whom this Council was called Secondly By whom it was confirmed Thirdly What Authority hath been aseribed to it And Fourthly Whether the Canons and Creed ascribed to it be Authentic First As to the Calling this Council Baronius had twice guessed but never proved that Damasus moved Theodâ—sius to call it this the Preface improves and saith It was called by the Emperour not without Damasus his Authority and the Title before the Notes advance it still gathered say they by the Authority of Pope Damasus and the favour of Theodosius But when this is to be proved their Evidence is pretended Monuments in the Vatican that Shop of Forgeries the testimony of later Popes in their own cause and some very remote Conjectures and fraudulent Inferences Yet at last they aâ—firm That none but a pertinacicus Heretic will aâ—â—irm that this Pious Emperour who was most observant of the Sacred Canons would call this Synod By which bold Censure they condemn not only all the ancient Historians but all the Fathers here assembled for pertinacious Heretics For the Councils Letter to Theodosius saith We were called together by your Epistle and when they were to have met at Rome they aâ—â—irm That Damasus summoned them to meet there by the Emperours Letters Sâ—crates also and Sozomen expresly say The Emperour called this Synod at Constantinople Theodoret also doth aâ—â—irm the same though the Notes strive to pervert his words But Richerius a Learned Romanist hath fully cleared this Point and shewed that Theodosius called this General Council by his sole Authority And the Acts of the sixth General Council with Photius cited falsly in these Notes do only import that the Pope gave a subsequent consent to it which is no proof that he was concerned in calling it Secondly As to the confirming it the Preface and the Notes considently aver That they sent their Acts to Damasus to be approved and he did confirm them yet they tell us that Pope Gregory above 200 year after declared That the Church of Rome as yet neither had nor received the Acts of this Council I know they would shuffle oâ—f this Contradiction by pretending that Damasus confirmed only the Matters of Faith not the Canons But first Gregory denies their having the Acts of this Council and the Acts contain Matters of Faith as well as Canons Secondly they can not shew any proof that Damasus made any distinction If he confirmed any thing it was all for if subsequent consent be confirmation then he consented to all and confirmed all that was done here But in our Sense of giving an Authentic Character to this Councils Decrees Theodosius alone confirmed them for the Bishops desire him by his Picus Edict to confirm the Decrees of this Synod And they writ not to Damasus till the year after the Synod and their Letter was directed not to him alone but to Ambrose and other Western Bishops with him nor do they in it desire any confirmation from him or any of them but say That they and all others ought to approve of their Faith and rejoyce with them for all the good things which they had done with which Letter probably they sent as was usual a Transcript of all their Acts And Photius saith That Damasus Bishop of Rome afterwards agreed with these Bishops and confirmed what they had done that is by consenting to it which is no more than every absent Bishop may do who in a large Sense may be said to confirm a Council when he agrees to the Acts of it after they are brought to him Thirdly The Authority of this Council is undoubted having been ever called and accounted the Second General Council and so it is reckoned in all places where the General Councils are mentioned which Title it had not as Bellarmin vainly suggests Because at the time when this was assembled in the East the Western Bishops met at Rome For that obscure Synod is not taken notice of while this is every where celebrated as held at Constantinople and consisting of one hundred and fifty Bishops which were they who met in the East As for Damasus Baronius cannot prove he was concerned in it but by we think and we may
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 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 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 Baronius saith He proves it especially by Dionysius the holy Roman Pope and by Dionysius Bishop of Alexandria 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 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 whereas it is manifest that Epiphanius both there and elsewhere plainly uses Romania for the Roman Empire 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 When Socrates only saith Eusebius of Nicomedia ' s Letters were received by Julius after his death Baronius thus enlarges it Eusebius who had fled from the Judgment of the Roman Church was forced against his Will being dead as Socrates saith to come to the strict Tribunal of God Where Athanasius saith I went up to Rome that I might visit the Church and the Bishop Baronius ridiculously infers that when we find the Ancients speaking of THE Church and THE Bishop they mean the Roman Church and that Bishop of whom and in whom and by whom are all other Bishops Which Note is forced upon this place for here Rome is named in the same Sentence with the Church and the Bishop and so it must be understood of the Pope but without any advantage to him more than it would have been to the Bishop of Eugubium to say I went to Eugubium and visited the Church and the Bishop Again S. Hierom saith expresly that Acacius substituted Foelix an Arian to be Bishop of Rome in Liberius his stead Here Baronius pretends some Copies leave out the word Arian and so he reads it Substituted Foelix to be Bishop of Rome and because some such
Parasites of Rome as himself who would not endure that ingrateful Truth of a Pope's being an Heretic had left out this word He boldly asserts it for the true Reading whereas not only Socrates expresly saith He was an Arian in Opinion but Hierom himself in his Chronicle affirms that Foelix was put in by the Arians and it is not like they would have put him in if he had not been of their party The Greek of Sozomen is no more but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but Baronius improves this by a flattering Paraphrase in these words Lest the Seat of Peter should be bespattered with any spot of Infamy But it is a bolder falsification of S. Chrysostom where he saith in one of his Sermons on a day celebrated in memory of two Martyrs Juventius and Maximus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to pervert this by his Latin Version thus The Martyrs which we this day worship whereas Chrysostom only saith The Martyrs which occasion us to meet this day Epiphanius expresly condemns those as Heretics who worship the Blessed Virgin and saith No man may adore Mary Baronius will not cite this place at large but adds to it these Words she is not to be worshiped as a God Which Falsification of the Father is designed to excuse their Churches Idolatrous worship of the Virgin Mary The restitution of Peter Bishop of Alexandria is by S. Hierom whom he cites with applause ascribed to the late Repentance of the Emperour Valens who recalled now at last the Orthodox from Banishment and Secrates only mentions Damasus's Letters which Peter took with him approving both his Creation and the Nicene Faith Yet he from hence notes the Supreme Power of the Pope by whose order the Bishop of Alexandria was restored to his Church in contempt of Valens his Authority and when he returned with the Popes Authority the People placed him in his Seat Yea after this he pretends to cite Socrates as if he said Peter was received being restored by Damasus yet Damasus did no more in all this matter than barely to testifie that Peter was an Orthodox Bishop and that he believed him duly elected which is all that Socrates saith and which if any eminent Orthodox Bishops had testified it would equally have served the Bishop of Alexandria's Cause To conclude Baronius owns Paulinus to have been a credulous Man and very unskilful in Ecclesiastical History yet thinking he had not spoken enough when he relates That a Church was adorned with Pictures he stretches this into Adorned with Sacred Images From all which Instances we may infer That the Cardinal would not stick at misquoting and misrepresenting his Authors when it might serve the Roman Interest § 3. Of this kind also we may reckon his crasty suppressing such Authorities in whole or in part as seem to cross the Opinions and Practices of their Church His leaving out a passage in Optatus wherein that Father makes the being in Communion with the Seven Churches of Asia a Note of a true Catholic was noted before And we may give many such like Instances Sozemen relates an Imperial Law wherein those are declared Heretics who do not hold the Faith which Damasus Bishop of Rome and Peter of Alexandria then held but the fraudulent Annalist leaves out Peter of Alexandria and mentions only Damasus as the sole standard of Catholic Faith When S. Hierom saith His Adversaries condemned him with Damasus and Peter Baronius bids us observe with what reverence the Pope's Enemies treated him for though they accused S. Hierom of Heresie yet against Damasus they durst not open their Mouth whereas S. Hierom protected himself by the Authority of the Bishop of Alexandria as well as by that of the Pope Again after a crafty Device to hide the evident Testimony which Gregory Nyssen gives against going in Pilgrimage to Jerusalem He slightly mentions an Epistle of S. Hierom which excellently confutes that then growing Superstition telling us That the Court of Heaven is as open from Britain as from Jerusalem Which remarkable Sentence and all the other learned Arguments of that Epistle he omits by design though if it had countenanced this Superstition we should have had it cited at large In like manner afterwards when he had another fair occasion to cite this same Epistle which doth so effectually condemn Pilgrimages he will not quote one word out of it but barely mentions it and runs out into the Enquiry what time it was writ I have given many more Instances of these fraudulent Concealments in my Discourse of Councils and therefore shall add no more here but only this That whoever reads Baronius's Annals hears no more generally than the Evidence of one side and that too enlarged if it be never so slight and commended if it be never so spurious but whatever makes against the Roman Church is depreciated and perverted or else clapt under Hatches and kept out of sight Of which we have an Instance in Eusebius who because he will not justifie their Forgeries about Constantine's Baptism and Donation though he be the best of all the Ecclesiastical Historians is never cited but with Reproaches and Calumnies and whatever he saith against them is either concealed or the force of it taken off by reviling him as an Arian § 4. Another Artifice of our Annalist is first to suppose things which make for the honour of his Church without any manner of proof and then to take his own Suppositions for grounds of Argument Thus he supposes that Constantine gave S. Peter thanks for his Victory without any evidence from History yea against his own peculiar Notion That Constantine was then a Pagan and durst not do any act to make him seem a Christian Again To colour their Worship of Images He barely supposes that the Pagan Senate dedicated a Golden Image of Christ to Constantine He argues only from Conjectures to prove the Munisicence of that Emperour to Rome whereas if so eminent a Prince had given such great Gifts to the most famous City in the World doubtless some Author would have mentioned it and not have left the Cardinal to prove this by random Guesses Again He supposos without any proof that Constantine knew the Supreme Power over all Christians was in the Church of Rome He produces nothing but meer Conjectures that Osius was the Pope's Legate yet he boldly draws rare Inferences from this He doth but guess and take it for granted that the Nicene Council was called by the Advice of Pope Sylvester yet this is a Foundation for the Supremacy and i know not what Thus when he hath no Author to prove that Athanasius venerated the Martyrs he makes it out with Who can doubt it and it is fit to believe he did so So he tells us He had said before that Damasus favoured Gregory Nazianzen in his being elected to be Bishop of Constantinople He
and oblige them to retire into Desert places But the Modern Monks are all for Noble Seats in the best freqnented Cities so that these and those are vastly different Finally He makes the Persecuting Spirit of Macedonius and the Patience of Athanasius a mark to distinguish Truth from Heresie Now if we apply this Mark as none are greater Persecutors than the Romanists so we must conclude none are further from the Truth And now by these few Instances within the compass of one Century the Reader may judge what Truth there can be in that Religion that needs so many Frauds to hide its Faults and what trust can be given to that Historian who to serve an ill Cause makes no scruple to use all these kinds of Deceit This may warn all that design to peruse these Annals not to rely upon any of his Authorities or Arguments without examining and also not to take every thing for Primitive and Ancient which he pretends to be so This may suffice for this Volume and if we proceed we shall make the like Remarks on the following Tomes to shew that their Religion is made up of Falshoods and cannot be defended without Lying and Forgery which is the great support of their Evil Cause FINIS Glory be to the GOD of Truth Imprimatur 26 March 1695. C. Alston R. P. D. HEN. Episc Lond. Ã Sacris THE CHURCH HISTORY Clear'd from the Roman forgeries And Corruptions found in the COUNCILS and BAR ONIUS FROM The Year 400 till the end of the Fifth General Council An. Dom. 553. Being the Third and Fourth Parts of the Roman Forgeries By THOMAS COMBER D. D. Dean of DURHAM For we have not followed cunningly devised Fables 2 Pet. I. 16. LONDON Printed by Samuel Roycroft for Robert Clavell at the Peacock at the West-End of S. Pauls 1695. TO THE Most Reverend Father in GOD JOHN By Divine Providence Lord Archbishop of YORK Primate of ENGLAND AND METROPOLITAN May it please your Grace WHen I formerly had the Honour of Your Acquaintance tho' at a distance I reckon'd it none of my least Felicities But since that happy Providence that delivered these Nations brought Your Grace nearer to Illustrate these Northern Regions with Your excellent Doctrine and warm them with Your pious Example I could not better express my extraordinary Satisfaction and my Duty both than by presenting these Papers to Your Grace who have suffered so much from the Romish Party and done so much to prevent their once growing and dangerous Errors These Collections were all made when this Church was threatned to have their Corruptions imposed on us and the First Part was ready for the Press while that Cloud hung over our Heads This Second Part hath been hindred by divers necessary Avocations but now comes to appear under Your Grace's auspicious Patronage and if it be so happy also to gain Your Approbation that will recommend it to all that know Your Grace's solid Judgment and Undisguised Integrity Frauds and Forgeries are naturally Your Aversation and therefore the discovery of so great a heap of them may I hope be acceptable to Your Grace not on your own Account to whom probably here is nothing New but because this Essay may assist young Divines and such as begin to read Church-History at a cheap and easy rate to distinguish Truth from Falshood in matters of great importance I shall add no more since to give your Grace your just Character is as needless as it would be difficult for me and would not be pleasing to your Grace only I shall most heartily pray That the Church may be long happy in Your Conduct and that he may be reckoned among Your Grace's Friends who is My Lord Your Grace's most faithful Servant and Your True Honourer THO COMBER THE PREFACE ANTIQUITY seems so Naturally to challenge Veneration from all succeeding Times that it gives a Value to many things which have nothing else to recommend them But the Records of former Ages especially those relating to the Faith and Practice of the Church while it was in its purity and splendor are by all sober Men accounted truly Sacred Yet no Writings have suffered more by fraudulent Hands than these For most of them being for many Ages in the custody of those who had a new Authority to set up and were to contrive new Doctrines to furnish and support it with Wealth and Power their Interest obliged them to corrupt all genuine Ecclesiastical History and to invent innumerable spurious Pieces under great and ancient Names thereby to impose upon the ignorant Ages and make them imagine their later Devices were of Apostolical or at least Primitive Original And this is done with so much Artifice and Cunning that a careless Reader of the Ecclestastical Story as they represent it is in danger of being persuaded That the Modern Roman Church is in all things conformable to the Primitive from which it differs as much as Darkness doth from Light To prevent which fatal Mistake I think no Time can be better spent no Pains more usefully employed than in correcting the History of the Ancient Church and discovering the various Falsifications thereof Wherefore I have now pursued and enlarged my Design of remarking the Roman Frauds and Forgeries in their Editions of the Councils and in Baronius by rectifying the History of the Church and all Passages relating to it as I go along having proceeded as far as the Middle of the Sixth Century A Period which contains Three of the first Five General Councils and is memorable for variety of most important Transactions It was in this time that the most refined Hereticks disturbed the Church and the barbarous Nations broke into the Roman Empire and setled in divers parts of it And while the former employed the Pens of the Learned and the later diverted the Thoughts of the declining Emperors Rome had an unlucky Opportunity to serve the ends of her aspiring Ambition and to lay the Foundation of her future Grandeur Which Projects were furthered by a great decay not only of Learning but of Piety and good Manners toward the End of this time which made way for divers Superstitions to creep into the Worship and many Irregularities to grow up in the Discipline of the Christian Church Yet still there were many Learned and pious Writers who laboured to defend the Faith to check all sorts of Vsurpations and to keep up the Primitive Purity and good Order So that the Editors of these Councils and Baronius have been put to all their shifts to feign an Agreement between the Records of this Period and the Modern Doctrines and Practices of their Church foisting in many Legends and spurious Tracts and corrupting the Words as well as forcing the Sense of the genuine Writings of these Ages Of which Proceedings I was in hopes to have found both an exact Account and a just Censure in the lately published Work of the Learned Monsieur Du Pin And it must be
for some Eminent Bishops to be named as the Standard of Catholick Communion not from any Priviledge of their See but because at that time they were Orthodox So the Bishops of Constantinople Alexandria and Antioch are named in a Rescript of Arcadius the Emperor with this Character that such as did not hold Communion with them should be cast out of the Church And thus Athanasius Ambrose Cyril and others eminent for being Orthodox have been made the Touchstones of Mens Faith such passing for true Believers only who held the same Faith with them For this Pope there are divers Epistles published upon which and the partial Notes upon them we will make some brief remarks The first Epistle to Decentius Bishop of Eugubium was writ the last year of Innocent Anno 416. but is placed first because it talks big of St. Peter and of the duty of other Churches to conform to the Roman usages But there are some passages in it which make it questionable whether this Pope writ it or if he did shew his ignorance and gross mistakes for the Author affirms That no Apostle but Peter did Institute Churches Ordain Priests and Preach in Italy France Spain Africa Sicily and the adjacent Islands Whereas the Scripture testifies that St. Paul did institute the Church at Rome and preached in Italy and most of the Ecclesiastical Writers affirm that St. James preached in Spain 2ly He enjoyns the Saturday Fast which was a peculiar Custom of the Roman Church not observed in the East nor at Milan nor almost in any other Churches of divers Ages after and we may observe that among all Innocent's Reasons for it there is not one word of the Blessed Virgin who was not worshiped in those days as she is now by the Romanists who now pretend to observe this Saturday Fast peculiarly to the honour of the Virgin Mary 3ly He allows not only Priests but also Lay Christians to give extream Unction to the Sick if the Oyl be but consecrated by a Bishop In which point the Roman Church hath since altered her Opinion and I doubt not but they will call this now a manifest error The second Epistle to Victricius as Labbè confesseth is patched up out of the fourth Epistle of Siricius and the seventh of Pope Zachary And the Centuriators note concerning all these Epistles which go under Innocent's Name That sometimes whole Paragraphs are taken out of the Epistles of both former and later Popes which is a ground to suspect that most of them are not genuine However there hath been a later hand employed to foist in a passage or two into this Epistle for whereas the First Writer declares that all Causes shall be determined in the Province where they happen some have put in a Sentence excepting the reverence due to the Roman Church into the Body of the Section and an exception of reserving the greater Causes for the Apostolick See in the end of that Section which make the whole Decree null and contradict the Nicene Canon cited there And whereas the former sentence was meer non-sense in Binius Labbè hath put two words siue praejudicie into his Edition to make this gross Addition seem coherent and conceal the Forgery Again the Author of this Epistle in his zeal against the Clergies Marriage falsly cites it for Scripture That God's Priests must marry but once and it is but a poor excuse which Labbè makes that Tertullian had cited this as out of Leviticus since the infallible Interpreter of Scripture should have corrected his Error and not have countenanced an addition to the Holy Text to serve an ill Cause 3ly The Writer shews himself grosly ignorant of the Courses of the Jewish Priests when he saith they did not depart from the Temple nor go to their House in the year of their Ministration Whereas every one knows that there was but 24 Courses of the Priests and that every Family ministred but one Week at a time from Sabbath to Sabbath Yet this Author makes the same mistake again in the third Epistle and considently talks again of the year of their Course 4ly Whereas St. Paul had declared Marriage honourable in all Men without excepting Ministers and the Bed undefiled This Impudent Epistolizer calls the use of Marriage in the Clergy a being stained with Carnal Concupisence and expounds that place Those who are in the Flesh cannot please God of such Marriages making the Apostle contradict himself by this sensless and false Gloss But notwithstanding all these pernicious and absurd Errors Baronius and Binius do extreamly magnifie the Pope upon this occasion as being that Original Fountain from whence the most Famous Bishops of the World used to draw Water knowing of what great Strength and Authority these things were which came from the Apostolical See But first If these Epistles be forged which is very probable then all these brags and bold inferences are vain if they be true and were writ by Innocent they may justly blush that such poor stuff should come from the Bishop of so great a See and however it will not follow that the Roman Bishop was the Head of the Catholick Church because Victricius and Exuperius writ to him for advice For how many more and greater Bishops writ to St. Basil St. Augustine yea to Isidore of Peleusium and St. Hieroin who were only Priests and how far do their Answers exceed those of the Pope Yet none will be so ridiculous to magnifie the See of Coesarea or Hippo or the Monasteries of Peleusium and Bethlehem as if they were the very Fountains of Religion or these Persons the Heads of the Catholick Church I will only add that Orosius is noted by Baronius himself to have consulted with St. Augustine and St. Hierom about matters of Faith and greater concernment by far than these and not with Innocent his pretended Original Fountain so that every one doubtless did not take the Pope for the sole infallible Oracle in those days The third Epistle to Exuperius is liable to all the Objections against the former Labbè saith it is patch'd up out of Siricius Epistle to Himerius the second Epistle of Celestine and one of Leo to Theodorus and therefore probably it is forged Or if we grant it genuine it looks not very favourably upon their Modern Pretence to Infallibility for the Pope here says he will answer according to the measure of his understanding and confesses that by Conference he added to his Knowledge and while he was answering others always learned something himself The Notes also are much mistaken in arguing from two Bishops enquiring of Pope Innocent's sense in some matters of Discipline That all the Catholick Church ought to keep the Decrees of the Apostolick See For there were many hundred Bishops in those and other Provinces who never enquired after the Bishop of Rome's customs nor desired his advice and
Council of Trent hath determined otherwise so that the Romanists must grant this Pope erred even in defining things necessary to Salvation unless they will allow the whole Epistle forged by some later hand who whatever Binius say to the contrary hath dated it with the Consuls of the year after Innocent's death according to the best Chronologers The twenty sixth Epistle as the Notes confess was writ to Aurelius Augustine and three more eminent Bishops of Africa by Pope Innocent to clear himself from the suspicion of being a Favourer and Protector of the Pelagian Heresie and by computation also this proves the very year in which he died according to most accounts Now if in those days it had been believed as it is now at Rome that the Pope had been Infallible and could not err in Matters of Faith no Man durst have raised this suspicion nor would any have regarded it and Innocent's best way of vindication had been only to have told them he was Pope and sate in the Holy Infallible Chair but now his labouring to clear himself by an Epistle shews it was possible he might err As to the Epistle it self Erasmus saith Innocent answers after his fashion being fierce rather than learned and more ready to condemn than instruct and whosoever reads it will find that to be a true Character of this Epistle To these is subjoined a Letter of St. Chrysostom's to Innocent in Latin only in Binius but in both Greek and Latin in Labbè The Phrase of which is so polite the Matter so pious and solid that Gold doth not excel Lead more than this genuine piece of the Golden-mouth'd Father doth all the former Epistles of the Pope who if he writ those Decretals was far more below St. Chrysostom in Learning than he pretended to be above him in Dignity I confess the Editors would persuade us to think this Epistle was writ only to Innocent and to him it is superscribed in Savil's Greek Edition thus To innocent Bishop of Rome but the Roman Parasites have added to this Title To my most reverend and pious Lord but this hath been lately invented for Domino meo is not in the Title in Baronius And the Epistle it self seems plainly to have been written to many for towards the end he saith Therefore my most venerable Lords since you see these things are thus use your utmost study and diligence to repress this injustice that is broke into the Church and the Phrase doth every where suppose it was writ to divers Western Bishops and Baronius in the end of the Epistle hath these words We have writ this also to Venerius Bishop of Milan and to Chromatius Bishop of Aquileia Quibus verbis Rom. Episcopi primatum erigit iisdem Venerij Chromatij primatum erexisset so that since St. Chrysostom writ to all the eminent Bishops of Italy as well as to the Pope it is unjustly done of Baronius to say That Chrysostom fled to his only refuge viz. to the Roman Church which he knew to be above all other Churches and to have power to correct the ill-deeds of others There is one thing more remarkable in this Epistle St. Chrysostom tells the Western Bishops that being oppressed by Theophilus and his party he appealed not to the Pope but to a Synod yea Innocent himself saith There was great need to have a Synod called for this cause of St. Chrysostoms So that neither did St. Chrysostom appeal to the Roman Church alone nor durst Innocent take upon him to judge in this matter As for those two Epistles of Innocent's one to Chrysostom and another to the Clergy of Constantinople which are certainly genuine as being preserved in Sozomen and not derived from the Roman Mint These two Epistles I say are in an humble Style and so well written that they make all the former Decretals which come from Rome justly to be suspected as forged and spurious The second Epistle of Chrysostom's which follows these two seems also to have been written to other Bishops as well as Innocent for it runs generally in the plural number but they who would have us believe the Pope alone did all the business of the Church have falsified one place in it where St. Chrysostom saith ye have shewed your selves loving Fathers towards us There the Latin is in Binius in the singular Paternam ergo nos benevolentiam declarasti But Labbè thought fit to mend this corruption and reads it in the plural declarastis ye have declared But the grossest Forgery of all in this cause of St. Chrysostom are the Letters that are pretended to pars between Innocent and the Emperor Arcadius wherein first Innocent excommunicates Arcadius and Eudoxia the Empress for their injustice to St. Chrysostom And then the Emperor writes first one submissive Letter to desire him to absolve them to which the Pope consents yet after all this Arcadius doth again write another Letter to excuse himself and tells the Pope Eudoxia was very sick upon the grief for her fault And all these Letters are said to be writ after St. Chrysostom was dead But that which discovers the cheat is that all the ancient Historians do with one consent agree that Eudoxia the Empress was dead three years before St. Chrysostom which is attosted by Socrates Sozomen and Marcellinus and the same is affirmed by learned Modern Authors The first who affirmed the contrary was Georgius Alexandrinus a fabulus Writer who lived above 300 years after this time and he was followed by Nicephorus Glycer and Gonnadius which are all the Authorities Baronius can produce for these Forged Epistles only he countenances them true or false because this is an instance of a Pope who excommunicated an Emperor and serves them for a good proof that the Roman Bishop is above the greatest Princes But Labbè spoils the Argument by noting the Margen that Eudoxia died before St. Chrysostom and so these Letters are notorious Forgeries Before I leave this matter I must observe that Baronius his great design was to represent Pope Innocent as the chief yea and almost sole Instrument in vindicating the injuries done to St. Chrysostom and therefore he tells us That Innocent would not communicate with the Bishops of the East unless they would put his name into the Tables and he cites Theodores to prove this but Theodoret's very words are That the western Bishops would not communicate with them but on that condition So when the Adversaries of St. Chrysostom hearing that complaints of their proceedings were made among others to the Pope sent some to give an account of what they had done Baronius without any proof dreams of a sentence passed by Innocent to null what they had done whereas it appears the same year that Pope Innocent writ very frientlly to Theophilus the chief Agent in Chrysostom's condemnation and held communion with
remain under the suspicion of being a favourer of Pelagianism § 4. Zosimus succeeded Innocent in his Chair and in his partial affection for the Pelagians his life as it is writ in the Pontifical hath nothing in it that is remarkable for his time was very short but one Year two Months and eleven Days according to the Pontifical or One Year four Months and seven Days as Binius in his Notes though Labbè correct both him and Baronius and says it was nine Months and nine Days above a year that he sat and he follows Prosper who then lived in this Account and therefore it is the most certain As to his Acts Baronius prepares his Reader for his entrance by telling us out of the Pontifical and Gennadius That Innocent made a Decree for the Universal Church against the Pelagians and Zosimus afterward promulged it But we shall see presently that he was very slow in publishing any Censures against these Hereticks For though both Baronius and Binius would colour over the matter yet Labbè very honestly confesseth that Pope Zosimus was deceived by the Craft of Celestius and he proves it out of St. Augustin and Marius Mercator a Writer of that very time whose admonition is printed in Labbè owns that Zosimus was imposed on by this Heretick till the African Fathers had better informed him in these matters so that the Church was rarely well provided of an Infallible Head in the mean time who was only zealous to affect his Primacy but had not sense enough to judge of Heresie till he was informed of it from better Divines This Pope is said to have writ thirteen Epistles The first by the want of a good Style and the barrenness of the Matter may probably enough be genuine having nothing worthy of note in it except some impertinent brags of the Authority of his See The second Epistle is a declaration of some of the Roman Clergy excommunicated who had fled to Ravenna to complain of the Pope a Baronius and the Notes meerly guess these to be favourers of Pelagius but it seems more probable that they were Catholicks who disliked the Popes proceedings while he favoured Celestius which it is certain he did till the year 418. was well advanced in which this Epistle is dated for he writ his fourth Epistle for those Hereticks the 11th of the Kalends of October doubtless in the year after his third Epistle which is dated An. 417. As to that third Epistle Zosimus declares that upon a solemn and judicial examination of Celestius the Scholar of Pelagius he found him clear of the Heresies with which he was charged in Africa and cites his Accusers to come to Rome within two Months or he should be intirely restored to Communion At the same rate he talks in the fourth Epistle pleading the Cause of both Pelagius and Celestius declaring them innocent and representing Heros and Lazarus two holy Bishops of France as ill Men and false Accusers railing at Timasius and Jacobus who had been converted from this Heresie by St. Augustin as meer Calumniators boasting all along that the Cause was by appeal referred to him and magnifying the Authority of his Apostolical Seat With this Epistle also he sent into Africa Pelagius his Confession of Faith which Zosimus took to be very Orthodox and doubted not but the African Fathers would think his Faith to be unblameable whereas in that whole Confession there is not one clear acknowledgment of the absolute necessity of God's Grace or of the necessity of Infant Baptism to wash away Original Sin which were the Main Errors that Pelagius was charged with So that we see a Pope an Infallible Judge either out of Ignorance or evil Principles deceived both in Matters of Faith and of Fact mistaking Heresie for Truth condemning the Innocent and Orthodox and absolving the most notorious Hereticks Now let us enquire how Baronius and Binius bring him off They say first that Zosimus could not if he would reject this Confession of Faith because they said if they had erred they desired Zosimus to correct whatever he thought to be wrong And that they were ready in all things of Faith to believe as the Pope believed Now this is no manner of Excuse but rather an Aggravation that after so fair an offer the Pope did not rectifie their Errors this shews either that he did not understand the Question or that he was as much a Heretick as they especially since he not only passed over their Errors but commends them and pleads their Cause Yea Baronius himself saith this Confession contained a manifest Error and bad things in it far from the Catholick Faith yet still the Pope could not or would not see these Errors in matters of Faith so that here was a manifest failure in their pretended Infallibility at a time when there was great need of it to condemn a dangerous Heresie which the Pope was so unacquainted with that in his Third Epistle he calls these Disputes Ensuaring Questions and Foolish Contentions which rather destroyed than edified I further add that in Pelagius his Confession of Faith which he pretended to be the Faith of the Roman Church the Holy Ghost is said only to proceed from the Father the Filioque is not added and though the Popes of later times have condemned that omission as Heresie in the Greeks Zosimus here passes by that also and takes all for sound Doctrine Secondly As to matter of Fact Orosius and the African Fathers believed Heros and Lazarus to be holy Bishops and Orthodox Men and Prosper who might know them personally testifies as much of Heros But Baronius and Binius say Celestius had belied them to Zosimus and so excuse the Pope from blame But if Celestius did raise these Scandals Zosimus made them his own by believing and publishing them and he who took upon him so much Authority as to judge a Cause should not have espoused one of the Parties so far as to take all they said of their Adversaries to be true Yet thus this Pope dealt with Timasius and Jacobus also Like to this was his Judgment about Patroclus Bishop of Arles and the Priviledges of that See For as Prosper informs us Heros an holy Man Scholar of St. Martin though free from all Crimes was expelled out of his Bishoprick by the People and Patroclus put in his place whom Baronius calls an Vsurper And when afterward he was slain he saith it was God's just judgment upon him to avenge his wickedness who had invaded a worthy Mans See and also disturbed the rights of his Neighbour Bishops But Zosimus in his fifth Epistle makes him the Primate of all those parts of France on pretence that Trophimus was sent from Rome and was the first Bishop there and that it was his ancient right and allows none to come from thence to Rome without Letters dimissory from this Patroclus
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
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 derce◠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
And it appears that the principal right over Ephesus was in the Patriarch of Constantinople whence it was pleaded by the Friends of Bassianus that Proclus of Constontinople who had the right received him to Communion And Stephen urges that Flavianus of Constanstinople expelled him afterwards And therefore it is remarkable that in the twefth Action where the Sentence was to be pronounced Anatolius Bishop of Constantinople declares his Judgment before the Popes Legates and is always named before them in all that Session where a Cause was to be decided concerning a Church which was specially under his jurisdiction by which it appears the principal Person in the deposing of Bassianus was the Patriarch of Constantinople who probably desired the other great Patriarchs concurrence for the better credit of his Sentence Moreover it is to be noted that though Pope Leo favoured the cause of Stephen and writ an Epistle in his behalf mentioned in the Council The Popes favour did him no service for his Cause was tried over again and he deposed by this general Council as well as Bassianus and this by the consent of the Popes Legates who notwithstanding their big words did not believe it unlawful for a general Council to contradict a determination of the Popes The Thirteenth and Fourteenth Actions concern only the Causes of private Bishops who had complained to the Emperor not to the Pope of injury done them and the Emperor appointed them to be finally determined by the Council and so the Bishop of Nichomedias's Jurisdiction was cleared and the Bishop of Nice ordered to be content only with the honour of a Metropolitan And in the fourteenth Action Athanasius was setled in the Bishoprick of Perrhaea and Sabinianus who claimed it ordered to keep the honour of a Bishop and to be maintained out of the Profits of that Church as the Patriarch of Antiooh should direct Nothing is remarkable in them but only that the Lay Judges pronounce the Decree and not the Popes Legates and then the Synod consent The Fifteenth Action contains the Canons of this General Council for Ecclesiastical Discipline three of which were recommended to the Fathers by the Emperor to be formed into Canons So that in obedience to the Emperor they were obliged to make some Ecclesiastical Rules And one of these is the fourth Canon which decrees that all Monks every where shall be subject to the Bishop of that Diocess wherein their Monastery is built which being a genuine Canon of a General Council not objected against by the Popes Legates it is somewhat strange that the Modern Popes have no regard to it but daily and openly break it in defiance of the Primitive Discipline by exempting all Monasteries from due subjection to their own Bishop and this meerly out of policy to make the Monks intirely depend upon the Pope and serve his interests The ninth Canon ordains that the Causes betwen Clergy-men shall be tried before their own Bishop and not in Secular Courts and if a Bishop have a complaint against his Metropolitan he shall go to the Primate of the Diocess or appeal to the See of Constantinople Which Canon Pope Nicholus resolved to force into his interest and so ridiculously expounds the Primate of the Diocess is meant the Bishop of Rome who is Primate of all Dioceses Turrian as boldly expounds it the Primate of the universal Diocess And Binius in his Notes will have the word to signifie the Prince of the Christian Diocess But all these feigned additions and forced glosses will not help them because the Canon gives leave to the Party injured to complain either to the Bishop of Constantinople or to the Pope at his own choice which sets that Patriarch upon equal ground with him of Rome But the Original Word signifies an Order of Bishops below a Patriarch but above a Metropolitan and the Canon expresly limits Appeals either to be made by these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Primates who had Jurisdiction over the Province or to the Patriarch of Constantinople which shews that this Council never thought of any Right that Rome then had to receive Appeals from all parts of the World And if any question why the Pope is not here named at least for the Western Churches Appeals as well as the Patriarch of Constantinople for the Eastern I take the true reason to be the absence of the Popes Legates from this Session consisting only of Oriental Bishops for which reason they modestly refused to decree any thing concerning Discipline in the West leaving affairs there to proceed according to parity of Reason We may add that the Latin Version of the sixteenth Canon hath put in the word confitentes into the Body of the Canon which is not in the Original but Labbè leaves out this corruption But that which hath occasioned the greatest Controversie is the twenty eighth Canon wherein this Council confirms the Decrees of the Fathers and the second Council of Constantinoples Canon about the Priviledges of that See For as the Fathers had given the See of Rome its priviledges because it was the Imperial City for the same reason the second General Council gave like honour to the See of Constantinople and would have it also even in Ecclesiastical Affairs to be advanced to the second place And they order that the Bishop of Constantinople should ordain and have a Jurisdiction over all the Metropolitans of the Dioceses of Pontus Asia and Thrace The Modern Romanists do all they can to suppress or baffle this Canon The Editors put a Note before it that it is not in their Greek Manuscripts but that is no wonder since it hath been long the design of their Church to conceal this Canon but that such a Canon was really made at Chalcedon is apparent not only from the sixteenth Action where it was read at large and allowed by the whole Council and confirmed by the Lay-Judges notwithstanding the opposition of the Popes Legates But it is also found in all the Greek Collectors cited in Photius his Nomo-Canon writ above 900 year ago and is also extant in that old Latin Interpreter who put out the Canons before Dionisius exiguus that is soon after the year 500 So that there is no doubt but this Canon was really made at Chalcedon Yet Gratian would not cite it under the name of a Canon of Chalcedon but quotes it out of the sixth General Council wherein there are almost the same words but his old Editions which were in use while the Roman Primacy was setting up had grosly corrupted the main words of it and instead of the affirmative etiam in rebus Ecclesiasticis non secus ac illam extolli c. it was in him non tamen in rebus Ecclesiasticis magnificetur ut illa which quite alters the sense and makes it seem as if the Council had not spoken of any Ecclesiastical Priviledges whereas they speak of no other but
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
Fables about the translation of the Relicks of St. Stephen to Constantinople out of late and unfaithful Authors such as Cedrenus Nicephorus Nicetus c. but he himself observes that they do not agree as to the time nor the quantity of the Relicks translated And this disagreement should have made him suspect the whole for an Imposture And if the Reader consider what incredible Stories are told of the Miracles wrought by the Relicks of this one Martyr in Sardinia Africk Spain Palestine and Constantinople c. he must believe they cut his Body into as many pieces as there were Stones thrown at him and will wonder how the Body could become whole again and be intirely translated out of Palestine in the year 439. What Theodoret relates of one African Virgin Captive may be believed to be true and that Relation hath no Miracle in it But when Ado of Vienna writ the Acts of another Virgin called Julia captivated at the same time he hath stuffed the Story with Miracles and the only reason of this difference is that this later Author writ his Martyrology Anno 850 that is above 400 year after when Legends grew to be more in Fashion The Annalist takes great pains to prove certain Homilies which some ascribe to Eusebius Emissenus others to Faustus Rhegiensis others to Caesarius of Arles to be the work of Eucherius Bishop of Lyons but as the Author is uncertain the matter of them is justly to be condemned being full of Superstitions and some that came not in till the corrupter and later Ages However Baronius was obliged to get these Homilies ascribed to some Writer of good repute since many of the evil Practices and Errors of their Church which cannot be justified by known and genuine Authors are defended by such obscure Tracts as this Again we have a very absurd Story of St. Cyril's convincing a Monk that Melchisedech was not the Son of God by a Revelation made to the Monk himself who had fallen into that Error But that Fable of Cyril's being a Monk upon Mount Carmel is so gross that he rejects it with this Note That a vehement desire to seem of Antient Extraction makes Men sometimes to dote which Remark is most true of almost all the Monastick Orders of the Roman Church for Aventinus an excellent Historian of their own Communion affirms he had discovered the Monks were wont to delight the Minds of the vile Populace with feigned Tales invented for gain to make the Original of their Temples more Noble and August He brings in a ridiculous Story of an Image of the Blessed Virgin found in a Cypress Tree and of a Church built in the place by one Cyrus Bishop of Smirna but the credit of this relies only upon Nicephorus a modern and fabulous Author And at the same place he brings in a Fiction of an Image of our Saviour wounded by a Jew but he knows not when this matter hapned he thinks not till after the second Nicene Council but why then doth he mention it in this Age No doubt to abuse his Reader into a belief that Images were then in use But the Story it self is all over Legend and not more Authentick for being recorded in their publick Monuments and read in some Churches in the corrupt Ages in which there are the grossest Romances imaginable A little after he taxeth Nicephorus for unfaithfulness and great mistakes in his Relations yet immediately he cites him as good evidence for Relicks belonging to the Blessed Virgin In the next year we have two ridiculous Stories the one of St. Stephens praying to St. Peter and St. Paul to spare his Chappel when Mets was sack'd and burn'd by the Hunns the other of a Drunken Man shut up all Night in St. Peter's Church at Rome and heard St. Peter and St. Paul talking together But telling their Discourse next morning he was struck blind Upon which last Miracle Baronius gathers that blind Men may see great benefits are received by the intercession of Saints But I should rather think he was blind indeed that could not discern these to be meer Fables and truly the only Author he cites for them is Gregory Turonensis who lived 150 year after and is full of these Fictions contradicting even Salvian who lived in that Country at this very time But it is observable that the Writers of the Lives of St. Lupus and Anianus cited in this very place do mention these Holy Men as praying only to God in these Calamities For the direct invocation of Saints was not used no not when those Lives were written Again after the Council of Chalcedon had been confirmed by the most Legal and Authentick ways it is very ridiculous in this great Annalist to cite so many frivolous Stories out of Legends how some Ignorant and Enthusiastical Monks confirmed it or were convinced by Miracles that it was a Genuine and Orthodox Council For he cites no better Author than Surius for these Fables yet relates them with great confidence but this Cause needs no such evidence § 2. Secondly We will note some passages in genuine Authors which he hath corrupted to serve a turn He that reads Baronius his Note in the year 402. that it was an Ancient Custom to paint the Saints in the Churches and that they use to worship them with kindling Lamps before them would imagine this Superstition was ancient in the beginning of the Fifth Century whereas the Author he cites for this is Venantius Fortunatus who lived till the year 600. that is 200 year after and though he speak of a Picture drawn on a Wall and a Lamp beside it doth not mention that as any worship to the Picture that is Baronius's own addition Again when he cites a Law of Theodosius prohibiting the Jews to burn any Cross in contempt of Christianity he adds that they burnt the Cross together with our Saviour crucified on it but that is his own invention the custom of making a Cross alone being indeed very ancient but the adding the Figure of our Saviour to it which they call properly a Crucifix is but a late device and seems not at all to be referred to in that Law To proceed he makes Synesius a notorious dissembler when he declares he had most solemnly protested to Theophilus who was to consecrate him Bishop of Prolemais that he would not accept that Order unless he might live with his Wife as before time Now whoever reads that Letter may see that Synesius professes he tells truth in this relation yea he solemnly calls God and Men to witness that it is true he observes Truth is one of God's Attributes and most pleasing to him Yet Baronius will have him to use the Art of Lying in all these protestations because forsooth he cannot think Theophilus would ordain a Bishop who should live with and have Children by his Wife that is he measures the Primitive Church
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
Simplicius did nothing and till he had been eight years Pope Baronius cannot pick up one Memoir concerning him except a few Brags of an interested Successor of his concerning his resisting the Eastern Emperors which are both false and incredible Yea the Annals shew that all the great Affairs of this time were managed by S. Epiphanius Bishop of Pavy who far outshined Simplicius Wherefore I wonder that Du Pin should say He was very full of business all the time of his Popedom since for more than half that time there is no true account of his doing any thing And when he did begin to write Baronius owns He did no good by any of his Letters yet a little before having a bad Memory he had ridiculously boasted That Simplicius in the midst of the Arrian fury governed the See with the same Authority and freedom that his Predecessors had done bearing the Causes of all the World depriving and restoring Bishops correcting Emperors opposing barbarous Kings and sitting as Arbiter and Judge in all things over the East and West as he saith he hath proved in the several years of his Pontifical Let the Reader search and try if he can find this proved On the contrary this Pope flattered all Parties and truckled to the Heretical Usurper Basilius as I shall shew presently nor durst he attempt to do Justice to a persecuted Orthodox Bishop of Alexandria because as an old faithful Historian tells us Zeno the Emperor had forbidden him It is so common for the Roman Forgers to invent sham Epistles in which the Pope is feigned to make Eminent Bishops his Legates in all parts of the World that no doubt this Popes first Epistle to Zeno Bishop of Sevil which hath no date is spurious And therefore it is of no force that the Notes infer from such a Forgery That the care of the whole Church was committed to the Pope by God The 4th Epistle tells the Emperor to whom it was writ That none doubted of his Orthodox mind and that be did as certainly imitate Marcian and Leo in their Faith as he did succeed them in their Empire Now this Letter as Baronius and the Editors say was writ to Zeno and they own it to be at least prudent dissimulation for the Notes on the Life of Simplicius affirm Zeno was an Eutychian Heretick But indeed it was inexcusable Flattery or as the Pontifical calls it downright Dissembling And the Crime is worse because upon a strict enquiry this Epistle appears to be writ to that Heretical Usurper Basiliscus Labbè's Margen from an old Manuscript reads it to Basiliscus and Zeno really was deposed a whole year before this Epistle was writ for Timotheus Aelurus his coming to Constantinople mentioned here by Simplicius was in the time of Basiliscus after Zeno's deposition as an Authentick Author relates and the true date of Simplicius his Epistle shews it was writ in Basiliscus his time and so doth also the Chronicle of Marcellinus a Book writ near that time But for all this Baronius quarrels with Marcellinus contradicts Theodorus Lector alters the date of the Epistle and keeps Zeno on the Throne a year longer before his deposing than ancient Writers do allow and all this to conceal his holy Fathers wicked flattering of an Heretick and Usurper But I hope the Reader will believe old and disinteressed Historians before the partial Annalist The 5th Epistle writ at the same time to Acacius Patriarch of Constantinople shews that it was solely in the Emperors power to call a General Council Since Timothy of Alexandria applied to the Emperor for such a Council and Simplicius with Acacius joyned in addresses to the Emperor against it In the Notes on the 8th Epistle where Euagrius only mentioned a bare report of the Martyr Theclas appearing to Zeno They out of Baronius add that she prayed and interceded for Zeno Which invention is to countenance the Martyrs praying for us The date of this Epistle being in October 477 and as the Notes say writ to Zeno after he was restored and had sent to Simplicius an Orthodox confession of Faith This date I say shews that the 4th Epistle before spoken of must have been written to Basiliscus for that is dated in January 476 at which time Zeno was deposed and Basiliscus after he had reigned two years as Euagrius writes was ejected by Zeno about July 477 long before which time Simplicius had writ that flattering Letter to the Usurper The Forgers have corrupted the Title and Conclusion of Acacius his Epistle to Simplicius For Simplicius in a genuine Epistle calls Acacius his beloved Brother Epistle 18 But here by turning Patriarchae into Patri they make Acacius style Simplicius Most blessed Lord and Holy Father Archbishop c. Which corruption owned by Labbè shews how little credit is to be given to the Pompous Titles of these Epistles which are frequently feigned by the modern Roman Parasites Upon the 14th Epistle they note in the Margen The Pope dispenses with the Nicene Canon for peace sake and in favour of the Emperor This relates to the hasty election and ordination of Stephen Patriarch of Antioch which the Emperor and Acacius were forced to dispatch somewhat uncanonically for fear of a Sedition in that City and on that account they desired the Pope however to own him as an Orthodox Patriarch since they had resolved this single Example should be no precedent for the future The Pope like a true Signior Placebo assents to all tamely and allows of their resolution which was not as the Notes on the 15th Epistle falsly say any Condition that Simplicius prescribed to the Emperor but a Rule that Zeno had made for himself before the Pope knew of the Ordination of Stephen The 16th Epistle declares that Simplicius had taken Calendion the new Bishop of Antioch into his Communion and call him his Brother and Fellow-Bishop The Notes calls this the Popes confirming Calendion in the See of Antioch Whereas it was no more than his owning him for an Orthodox Brother yea Calendion was thus far confirmed by Acacius for at his request Acacius had declared himself of his Communion before he writ to the Pope These Notes also falsly say Acacius was made the Popes Legate which is a groundless Fiction of Baronius For if Acacius had acted in ordaining and deposing the Eastern Patriarchs only as the Popes Legate there had been no Quarrel between him and Rome And how improbable is it that he who contended for the Supremacy of the whole Eastern Church with the Pope and who is taxed by Baronius to be one that thirsted after nothing so much as the Primacy that he I say should accept of a Legantine power from Rome Yea Simplicius his 17th Epistle doth not say any such thing but speaks of their Obligation to mutual Love and of the Patriarchal Office committed to him as a Talent God had
did communicate with the Hereticks which is added by the Editors For in Baronius Acacius his name is not once mentioned neither in his Edition at Antwerp 1596. nor in that at Venice 1601. So that we can scarce trust any thing which comes through such Mens hands The Twenty fourth Epistle which pretends to make John Bishop of Tarragon the Popes Legate and speaks of his coming to Italy and having Papal Constitutions sent him not only confirms our Note that all such kind of Epistles are forged but is certainly spurious it self For in this year 517 this John presided in the Council of Gyrone in Spain where he and his fellow Bishops made Canons and take no notice of the Pope or any Legantine Power And the Editors differ about the date of this Epistle And probably the next Epistle containing the Constitutions is forged also being directed to all the Bishops of Spain who were not then under any one King nor Primate And whereas this Letter speaks of peaceable times it is certain these Gothick Arrian Kings were almost continually at War with France and with each other However the Inventer of these Epistles is not very Modern For he makes Christ the Head of the Church and Bishops to be his Vicars And Penitents are here forbid to be chosen Bishops because they could not decently absolve others who had openly confessed their own Sins before the People Which shews the Pope was not Christs sole Vicar then And that there was no Auricular Confession when this was writ § 3. Justin being upon Anastasius his death unexpectedly made Emperor gives the Pope notice of it and requires his Prayers This Hormisda if his Letter be genuine craftily calls offering up the first fruits of his Empire to St. Peter And the Notes add That it was the ancient use to certifie the Pope of the new elected Emperor and to request him to confirm and consecrate him But I have shewed it was a much more ancient Custom for the Pope to certifie the Emperor of his Election Only when an Emperor came to the Throne without a good Title which was Justin's case it was such an Emperor's interest to gain the Pope's favour But as for either Consecration or Confirmation there is not one word of it that is a device out of Baronius Brain and the Annotator takes it from him of trust and he was owned Emperor by all long before this notice The Epistle of John Bishop of Constantinople in the Title calls Hormisda His most Holy Brother and Fellow-Minister and in the Letter he calls him Most dear Brother in Christ which Phrases Epiphanius also his Successor uses in his Epistle to the same Pope And from John's Epistle we learn that when Old Rome left out the names of the Patriarches of Constantinople in their Dypticks These put out the Popes name from their Dypticks which shews no subjection was owned or expected and that the Eastern Church was on even ground with the Pope in those days despising his Communion as much as he did theirs An Epistle writ to Caesarius Bishop of Arles this year is suspicious because Baronius had mentioned his Will and Testament ten year before But if he were now alive we must correct the Title in Binius where he is called The Vicar of the Apostolick See in France Which words are so manifest a Forgery that Labbè left them out But we may suspect the whole since the Pope never names his last Embassy before this time received from the Emperor and Patriarch of Constantinople when he pretends to give an Account of the Affairs in the East to this Caesarius The Legates Instructions here begin as the former did viz. When by Gods Mercy ye come into the Eastern parts c. and the Legates in their third Suggestion ascribe their safe Journy only to Gods Mercy So that probably those words in the first instructions and the Prayers of the Apostles are added by a later hand when they used so often to pray to Saints as to give them a share of the Glory due to God for his Mercy The same hand to countenance the same practice seems to have corrupted the Thirty seventh Epistle where Hormisdu tells Justinian He did daily and humbly beseech the Apostle Peter that God might give a speedy issue to his endeavours Which borders both on Blasphemy and Nonsense but probably the true reading was apud B. Petrum obsecramus That the Pope pray'd daily at St. Peter's Church to God for Justinian's speedy success That the Eastern and Western Church were united about this time is true but I am apt to believe that those many particular circumstances which Baronius and these Editors have out of a sort of reports of the Popes Legates Letters and other Papers lately found it seems in the Vatican are of later invention The Epistle of John Bishop of Constantinople wherein he is pretended to subscribe that flattering confession of Faith formerly said to be subscribed by the Bishops of Epirus is certainly a Forgery that some Parasite hath transcribed as often as any Eminent person was reconciled to the Pope and therefore a little after as I noted but now he ascribes the same Form to the Emperor Justin three years after he was dead There is no proof of this John's subscribing any such Paper but only the relation of Dioscorus one of the Pope's Legates which is certainly false because he saith That at this time An. 519. John consented to rase the names of Phravites Euphemius Macedonius and Timotheus out of the Dypticks as well as the name of Acacius upon which Baronius Triumphs most extreamly But without any cause for if he had not craftily omitted an Epistle of Justinian's writ the next year which is in Binius it would have appeared that the Eastern Church would not yield to rase out any more names but only that of Acacius But Baronius hath later Epistles of Justinian which expresly say a year after this pretended rasing out the names of Euphemius c. that only Acacius his Name was left out of the Dypticks and that the scruple about the other names was not to be medled with for the Eastern Bishops would never yield that point And Justin the Emperor saith the same to Hormisda yea in the year 521 we find the Emperor still requiring the Pope should communicate with those who only left out Acacius his name but kept in the other Bishops names All which is sufficient to prove this Story of Dioscorus to be a meer Fiction Yet it may be confirmed also by the Chronicle of Victor who mentions no Bishops name of Constantinople but Acacius that was rejected when the Emperor Justin reconciled the Eastern and Western Bishops And no Writers of this or the next Age do mention this pretended submission of John of Constantinople Marcellinus Cassiodorus Euagrius and Paulus Diaconus are wholly silent in this
of the Council of Chalcedon than his Vatican now affords And indeed Domnus was deposed in the Ephesine Pseudo-Synod all whose Acts were declared void at Chalcedon except that which deposed Domnus then deceased and put in Maximus at Antioch Fifthly Baronius cites Auastasius's Lives of the Popes who is always full of Fables especially in Vigilius his Life in which are more Lies than Lines For he makes his Entrance to be when Bellisarius warred against Vitiges who he saith was taken by John the Bloody and brought to Rome by Bellisarius and Vigilius who gave Bellisarius the Sacrament to bring Vitiges safe to Justinian But John and Narses were both absent at the taking of Ravenna where Vitiges freely submitted to Bellisarius who kept him there till he carried him by Sea to Constantinople So that Vitiges came not to Rome at all Secondly Anastasius says The Emperour then enquired of Bellisarius how he had placed Vigilius in Silverius room and thanked him for it But Silverius was deposed and Vigilius put in three years before yea Justinian had writ to Vigilius and knew that Silverius was dead a year before and Vigilius had writ to the Emperour the year before Bellisarius came with Vitiges to Constantinople and Binius saith Justinian did not thank Bellisarius Thirdly Anastasius talks of Bellisarius being sent into Africk and of his killing Gontharis and offering great Spoils in his return at Rome to Vigilius c. But after this Bellisarius was not sent into Africk but into Persia where he stayed three years and it was Ariobindus and Artabanus who were sent into Africk the latter of which treacherously killed Gontharis So that Bellisarius offered no Vandal Spoils at all or if as Binius would have it he did when he wan Rome from Vitiges that was in Silverius his time so that is false also Fourthly Anastasius makes Theodora write at this time to Vigilius To come to Constantinople and restore Anthimus which he refused Binius after Baronius makes this a Miraculous change and says it was just upon Silverius his death at his first step into the See But if it was after Gontharis was slain it was not till the 19th of Justinian five years or six years after Vigilius was made Pope And the Change is as false as The time for Liberatus saith Vigilius did perform his Promise to the Empress and writ as she desired but afterwards it seems he finding the Emperour resolute did confirm the Deposition of Anthimus So that Anastasius his Story of Theodora's writing to Vigilius after Gontharis was slain is a Fable And Victor who then lived saith Vigilius was called to Constantinople by the Emperour not about Anthimus but to condemn the three Chapters in his Nineteenth year Fifthly Anastasius fables That the Romans accused Vigilius of Murder c. and that Anthimus Sorbo was sent by the Empress to seize him by force which he did the People abusing and cursing him as he went out of Rome and thus he was violently carried by Sicily to Constantinople to which place coming on Christmas Even the Emperour met and kissed him with Tears and the People sang The Lord cometh But Baronius gives him the Lye as doth also Binius For Vigilius voluntarily went from Rome in the 11th year of the Gothic War An. 546. toward Constantinople and staying long in Sicily arrived at the Court about April of the year following Sixthly Anastasius tells a long Story after Vigilius came to Constantinople of the Contests between him and the Emperour with his Empress about restoring Anthimus which the Pope refusing they tore him from the Altar of S. Euphemia cruelly used him imprisoned and banished him Which are all Fables for Anthimus was deposed Ten years before and his Cause forgot the three Chapters being now the only dispute yea Baronius and Binius who would have something of this true make the buffeting of Vigilius and his flight to Euphemia's Church to happen four years after Theodorus's death and indeed in Pope Agapetus's time there was some such Contest about Anthimus which Anastasius fabulously applies to Vigilius and Baronius with Binius do cherish the Fiction Seventhly Anastasius tells us how the Goths after this made Totilas King who besieged and took Rome but spared the People and lived like a Father among them But Totilas was made King four or five year before Vigilius came to Constantinople and took Rome while he was in Sicily and was so cruel as to kill all the Citizens they met and intended to ruin both City and People had not Pelagius and Bellisarius stayed his Rage from places and persons however he made a woful desolation there Eighthly Anastasius saith Narses was sent at the same time into Italy and Totilas with many Goths were slain by the help saith Baronius of the Blessed Virgin But first he mistakes the time for Narses overcame not Totilas till six year after his first sacking Rome in the 18th year of the Gothick War and Binius with Baronius foolishly ascribe it to the Year wherein Justinian revoked his Edict which he never revoked at all and this Binius saith was the 10th year of Totilas as Benedict had predicted But Baronius proves Benedict a false Prophet for he truly places Totilas his death in the 11th year As to the help of the Blessed Virgin mentioned both by Baronius and Binius Procopius saith Narses did ascribe the Victory wholly to God and Evagrius doth not mention his praying to or relying on the Virgin but speaks of a Report by some of the Blessed Virgins appearing to him from God with notice when to fight but doth not affirm it for truth yet the Cardinal proves invocation of Sains by this Fable Lastly after this victory Anastasius tells us the Roman Clergy in a body desired Narses if Vigilius and the Clergy banished with him were yet alive they might be recalled whereas Vigilius was then at Constantinople and never banished at all yea the 5th Council was assembled that year in which Totilas was slain yet hence Baronius on the credit of this Fabulous Author invents a story of Vigilius Banishment after the 5th Council Chap. xxxvi Finally Baronius overlooking the Ambition Treachery and Heresie of Vigilius can find but one ill thing in his life which is his going to Constantinople when the Emperor required him this he saith was always fatal to the Catholick Church for the Pope to leave Rome Was it so when the Popes removed for 70 years to Avignion Was it so when Agaperus 10 years before came to Constantinople No saith Baronius that was lucky God sent him and the power of the Apostolick seat was thereby demonstrated So that the difference was in the Men Agapetus was a steddy Catholic Vigilius an Heretical Hypocrite Whose life
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