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
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
permission called by Liberius whose Legates also were present at it But herein they grosly falsifie for Sozomen declares That Constantius summoned all the Bishops to Milan and Baronius saith The Emperour called them together Therefore if this was a General Council it was called by the Emperour and not by the Pope In the Notes on this Synod they say Constantius being yet a Catechumen ought not to be present at a lawful Council But this is Baronius his device to colour over the Forgery of Constantine's Baptism before the Council of Nice there being no Canon forbidding a Catechumen to be present in a Council or in a Church except only while the Sacrament was celebrating so that if Constantius had been bound by an Ecclesiastical Canon there being no Canon to hinder his presence in this Council Baronius assigns a wrong cause of his absence Again the Notes do very falsly suppose That Foelix though chosen by the Arians was a Catholic Pope For he was Ordained by three Arian Bishops at Milan as Atbanasius declares and Socrates as we noted before faith He was in Opinion an Arian Nor is it probable when the Arians had got Liberius banished for not complying with them they should chuse a Catholic and an Enemy into so eminent a See or that the Catholic People of Rome should avoid the communion of Foelix if he were not an Arian 'T is true Sozomen speaks of some who said He kept to the Nicene Faith and was unblameable in Religion yet he adds he was accused for ordaining Arians and communicating with them But this bare Report raised perhaps by the Arians who still pretended to be Catholics and hold the Nicene Faith cannot outweigh such strong Reason and Matters of Fact as are here alledged to prove Foelix not only a Schismatical but also an Heretical Pope The Dialogue between Constantius and Pope Liberius at Milan here published shews That at this time he refused either to condemn Athanasius or communicate with the Arians and was banished into Thrace for this refusal But the Reader may justly wonder he should never mention his Supremacy and Universal Authority when Constantius asked him If he were so considerable a part of the World that he would alone stand for Athanasius and when he advised him to embrace the Communion of the Churches how properly might he have here told him he was Head of all Churches and those who did not communicate with him were no Churches Again Why doth this Pope offer to go to Alexandria and hear Achanasius's cause there which had been twice judged at Rome Surely he knew nothing of these last and highest Appeals in all Causes The Popes of after-Ages claimed this as a right of their See yet it must be granted that Liberius was ignorant of that priviledge § 24. The Council at Sirmium was called by Constantius and consisted of Arian Bishops who though they condemned Photinus his gross Heresie yet would not put the word Consubstantial into any of the three Creeds which they here composed however the Editors call it A General Council partly rejected Perhaps because Pope Liberius approved it who here openly Fell into the Arian Heresie and that not by constraint as the Notes pretend For out of his Banishment he writ to the Eastern Bishops assuring them he had condemned Athanasius and would communicate with them in their form of Faith and therefore he desired them to intercede for his release and restitution to his Bishopric The ambition of regaining which great place was the cause of his Fall as Baronius confesseth and though that Author had produced divers Ancient Writers expresly testifying That he subscribed Heresie Yet a little after he again denies that Liberius was an Heretic pretending that he only sign'd the first Confession of Sirmium which was not downright Heresie Though elsewhere he saith Athanasius rejected all these Arian Forms which wanted Consubstantial as Heretical and declares that the Catholic People of Rome esteemed Liberius to be an Heretic and would not have Communion with him for which he cruelly persecuted them Nay he brags of it as a singular Providence that Foelix who was a Schismatical Pope in his Exile upon Liberius's Fall suddenly became a Catholic and a lawful Pope which still supposes Liberius was an Heretic as doth also Baronius his Fiction of Liberius's speedy Repentance and Foelix his dying soon after his Adversaries return to Rome For the Writers of that Age say Foelix lived eight years after and for Liberius his Repentance though many Authors expresly speak of his falling into Heresie none are very clear in his returning or however none suppose it to be so long before his Death as Baronius doth whose design in this History is not to serve Truth but to clear S. Peter's Chair from the imputation of Heresie and therefore he makes this out chiefly by Conjectures The testimonies of Damasus and Siricius being parties and partial for the honour of their own See are no good Evidence if they did speak of his early Repentance but Damasus only faith The Bishop of Rome did not consent to the Faith of Ariminum Baronius adds This was Liberius I reply That Damasus was of Foelix his party before his own advancement to be Pope and so it is more probable that he meant Foelix Again the Catholic Bishop's Letter from Ariminum only says The Arian Decrees created discord at Rome that is there were then two Factions there one of which and probably that of Liberius did agree to these Decrees the other rejected them Baronius adds to the Bishops Letter these Decrees created Factions because the Pope of Rome opposed them But this will not clear Liberius since both Factions were headed by a Pope Baronius goes on to tell us that Sozomen affirms Liberius was turned out of his Church for not consenting to the Faith at Ariminum I Answer Sozomen must be mistaken in this unless we feign a double Exile of Liberius which no good Author mentions and which Baronius will not allow As for the Epistle of Liberius to Athanasius it was writ no doubt before he had condemned him or else he ought to have confessed his Fault as well as his Faith to that great Man I grant Socrates doth say That Liberius required the Semi-Arians and Macedonians to consent to the Nicene Faith in the time of Valens but this was Nine years after his return and not long before his Death yet then Liberius was imposed on in Matters of Faith by these Bishops whom he calls Orthodox for they were still Heretical and did not heartily agree to the Nicene Faith so that his Infallibility was deceived And though S. Ambrose call Liberius Of happy Memory where he cites a Sermon of his that is a Phrase which the Primitive Charity used of some Men not altogether Orthodox ◠But it is a great prejudice to Liberius his Repentance that though Athanasius
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
a Catholic because he was in Communion with Rome then Orthodox and with other Churches and his being a Catholic meerly for being in Communion with the Roman Bishop which is the modern and false notion of the word Catholic among Papists in our days But Binius was so convinced that S. Augustine's words confuted Baronius's Paraphrase that he cunningly leaves them out to make this commodious Sense of them go better down with careless Readers § 4. The next Pope Eusebius was so obscure as the Notes on his Life declare that no Writer mentions any thing of him that is memorable and it is probable there never was such a Pope Yet the Pontifical saith The Cross was found in his time upon the 5th of the Nones of May which is the very Day on which the Roman Church now celebrates The Invention of the Cross And the Third Decretal Epistle of this Pope was devised on purpose support this Story yet both Baronius and Binius reject it for a Fable even while their Church still observes that Holy-day There are Three Epistles forged for this Name of a Pope all which Labbé owns to be spurious and I need not spend much time to prove it since they cite the Vulgar Latin Version and are mostly stollen out of Modern Authors as Labbe's Margen shews having only one Consul's Name for their Dates because no other was named in the Pontifical Besides the first Epistle uses the Phrase Pro salvatione servorum Dei which is not the Latin of that Age and talks of Rigorous Tortures used among Christians to make Witnesses confess Truth The second Epistle repeats the foolish Argument of Christ's whipping the Buyers and Sellers many of which were Lay-men out of the Temple to prove that God alone must judge Priests and out of a much later Roman Council suspected also of Forgery speaks of the Peoples not judging their Bishop unless he err in Matters of Faith and discourses of Edicts of Kings forbidding to try an ejected Bishop till he be restored to his place The third Epistle hath the Fable of the Invention of the Cross and all other Marks of Forgery on it yet Bellarmine cites it to prove the Pope's Succession to S. Peter in his Universal Monarchy and to make out Confirmation to be a Sacrament So little do those Writers value the credit of any Evidence if it do but make for their Churches Authority or support its Doctrines § 5. The Seven years Vacancy being now expired Melchiades was chosen Pope and Sat Three years and Seven Months according to the Pontifical and though the Ecclesiastical Tables as they call them generally follow this Author yet Baronius here by them corrects the Pontifical and allows Melchiades only Two Years and Two Months But all this is Conjecture for he grants the Consuls in the Pontifical are so false that they cannot be reconciled to Truth whence it follows That the Decretal Epistle ascribed to this Pope whose Matter is taken from the Pontifical and whose Date is by those who were not Consuls till after Melchiades's Death must be false also Yet the Notes defend this Forged Epistle and Bellarmine cites it for the Supremacy and for Confirmations being a Sacrament whereas the beginning of it is stollen out of Celestine's Epistle to the French it quotes the Vulgar Translation and cites an Apostolical Priviledge granted to Rome for the sole right of Trying Bishops to justifie which The Notes cite the 73d and 74th Apostolical Canons but those Canons order Bishops to judge an offending Bishop and make the last appeal to a Synod without taking any notice of Rome or of this pretended Priviledge Again this Feigned Epistle impudently makes Confirmation more venerable than Baptism and the Notes defend that bold Expression But we cannot but wonder since they assert That Bishops by Gods Law have the sole power of Confirming the same Men should grant That the Pope can give a Priest leave to Confirm Which yet they say changes not the Divine Right of Bishops That is in plain terms One mans sole Right may be delegated to another by a Third person without any injury to him who had the sole Right After this follows a Council at Rome under Melchiades wherein the Pope by delegation from the Emperor is joyned in Commission with Three French Bishops who are called his Collegues to hear the Donatists complaint against Cecilian Bishop of Carthage and Constantine not only received the Donatists first Appeal and delegated this Cause to Melchiades and his Fellow Commissioners but upon a second Complaint ordered this Matter to be heard over again in a French Council which the Pope in Council had determined Now this so clearly shews that the Pope was not Supreme Judge in those days that Baronius and Binius are hard put to it to Blunder this Instance The Notes say Constantine was yet raw in the Faith and yet they say also He knew by God's Law nothing was to be done without the chief Bishop But they are forced to prove this by a false Translation of Constantine's Epistle to Melchiades the words of which in Greek are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which in their Version is As the most holy Law of God requires but Valesius's Translation which Labbé gives us is As is agreeable to the most Venerable Law That is as all men know to the Imperial Laws So that Constantine only says He had ordered the Accusers and Accused all to appear at Rome before these delegated Judges as the Venerable Laws which order both Parties to be present when a Cause is tryed do require and by the help of a false Translation this occasion is made use of to make the Credulous believe That God's Law required all Causes should be tryed at Rome Whereas it is apparent by this Instance That a Cause once Tryed there before the Pope might be tryed over again in France if the Emperor pleased The two following Epistles of Constantine out of Pithaeus his Manuscript are very suspicious the first speaks more magnificently of Christ than one who as they say was so raw in the Faith was like to do And in it Constantine is made to decline Judging in Bishops Causes which is a protestation against his own Act and contradiction to the second Epistle wherein He declares that this Episcopal Cause shall be tryed before himself Nor is this first Epistle Recorded in Eusebius or agreeable to Constantine's Style so that we suppose that was devised by such as designed to persuade Princes That Bishops were above them For which purpose Baronius here cites a Law of this Emperor to Ablavius Giving men leave to choose Bishops for their Judges and not allowing them after that to appeal to Secular Courts because they had been heard by Judges of their own choosing But Baronius perverts this to signifie That Bishops were above Secular Judges by their ordinary Jurisdiction whereas they were not so in any
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
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
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
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.
that whereas they had been so bitter against Acacius and other Orthodox Bishops of Constantinople for only conversing with supposed Hereticks one of their own Popes was forced to plead that the worst of all Hereticks the Arrians might have the publick exercise of their Religion allowed by Law I take no notice of the Miracles ascribed to this Pope because the fabulous Gregorian Dialogues are the only Evidence for them The Roman Mint hath Coined two Epistles for this Pope of which Labbè saith many things prove that they are both forged The first is patched up out of the fragments of many other Popes Letters and that passage of the Sheeps reproving their Pastor if he Err in the Faith is originally stollen out of a feigned Epistle under Pope Fabian's name Baronius and Binius both confess a false date viz. Olybrius and Maximus being Consuls who were never in office together and if we read Id. Junij Maximo Consule John was not made Pope till two Months after nor will Olybrio Consule mend the matter with Id. Junij because this Pope dyed the 27th of May in that year However though they cannot reconcile these Errors the Notes and Baronius would have this Forgery pass for genuine to clear the Pope from serving the Arrian interest The second Epistle is also Fictitious being a Rhapsody out of Leo's Epistles and some places of Scripture and dated after this Pope was dead So that we must reject them both together with the Legend of his Consecrating Arrian Churches for the Orthodox in defiance to King Theodoric which Baronius and Binius would have us believe The Council of Lerida in Spain was not as Binius saith under John but under Sergius Bishop of Tarragon who presided in it and in the 16 Canon is called the Bishop of the first See a Title common to all Primates of old but lately engrossed by the Pope In the Fragments of this Council there is a method of canonically purging Clerks accused of Crimes but it cannot belong to this Council as Labbè owns because it mentions Leo the Third and Charlemaign who lived near 300 year after this Synod was held In the same year was another Spanish Council at Valencia in Pope John's time but he is not once named in it and the Canons were made by the Bishops of the Province Wherefore Binius falsly Titles it under Pope John The same year was held the Council of Arles which Binius miscalls the third but was truly the fourth Council there This Synod was placed wrong formerly An. 453 when one Opilio was Consul with Vincomalus but another Opilio was Consul with Rusticus this year An. 524 and Caesarius his Subscription to it shews this is the true date of it Binius is here twice mistaken First In his old Title of sub Johanne Secondly In printing the Epistle of Faustus in this place as if this Council of Arles were that which Faustus pretended confirmed his Pelagian Errors But Labbè saith Binius is mistaken and 't is certain he was quite out In Labbè we have here a singular Example of the modesty of Fulgentius who was very justly chosen President of an African Synod But perceiving a certain Bishop took this ill in the next Council he renounced the Seat and Dignity procuring that Bishop to sit before him resolving not to defend the Primacy he deserved saith the Author where it would make a breach of Charity And oh how happy had Christendom been if the Popes had followed this Pattern Who at this time had renounced the Communion of more than half the Christian World chiefly for not submitting to their Primacy and in every Age since have Qarrelled with all that would not allow them that claim The Council of Carthage under Boniface Bishop there Stiles him Bishop of the first See It never names the Pope and makes it very clear that this Primate did order all things in that Province without any dependance on Rome § 7. Foelix the Fourth was named by King Theodoric who being now Lord of Rome did of right propose him to the Clergy as a Candidate for the Papacy void by Johns death The Notes pretend this was an usurpation and Baronius for this Rails bitterly at Theodoric calling it an arrogant Fact and giving him the Title of a cruel Barbarian a dreadful Tyrant and impious Arrian adding that this was the cause of Gods destroying him But for all this rage this is no more than what all Princes then did in their own Dominions And these Editors a little before printed an Epistle wherein it is said That Epiphanius was made Bishop of Constantinople by the Election of Justin and the Empress with the consent of the Nobles Priests and People And Hormisda in the 76th Epistle saith he was rightly elected Which shews that the Eastern Emperors did not learn this of the Gothick Kings but these learned of the Emperors to name the Bishops of their chief Cities And Theodoric ever exercised this Right as the case of Symmachus shewed us before Wherefore that Law of Ordoacer that the Pope should be elected by the Princes consent remained still in force and Symmachus his pretended Repeal of it is either forged or else these Kings despised all Papal Councils which abridged them of their right In the Notes on this Popes Life we have a fabulous Vision of some doting Hermit who fancied he saw Theodoric's Soul thrown into the Vulcanian Kettles This out of Gregory's Dialogues is Foundation enough for them to Triumph in his Damnation who resolve to find out some Vision or Dream to perswade easie Readers that all Princes who injured any Pope were sent to Eternal Flames Again the Notes pretend that Justinian's Ecclesiastical Laws were made by the Bishops of Constantinople and put out in that Emperors name But why might not Justinian make his own Laws about Church matters as Constantine and all his Successors to this time had done No doubt he and they used in such cases to advise with their own Bishops But these Parasites of Rome are angry that the Pope is not the sole Law-maker in Causes Ecclesiastical now he was not so much as consulted in these Laws being then the Subject of another Prince And what they object of Justinian's speaking honourably of Zeno and Anastasius his Predecessors Enemies to Rome confirms me in the Opinion that Justinian in composing these Laws took no advice from St. Peter's Chair We may justly suspect most of these Papal Epistles out of which the Canonists for some Ages fetcht those Rules by which they oppressed the Christian World because if a Pope neither did nor writ any thing remarkable the Forgers invented Business and Letters for him as they have done for Pope John and this Foelix whose two first Epistles Labbè declares to be spurious and shews the former is made up out of the Forgeries in Pope Eleutherius name as also out of