supposes this indeed a little before But all Ancient Authors say and he himself affirms That Peter Bishop of Alexandria did institute him into that Bishopric He only supposes Siricius desired Theodosius to banish the Manichees from Rome but the Rescript is not directed to him but to Albinus the Praefect and except the fabulous Pontifical there is no Evidence that Siricius was concerned in this matter Theodoret saith The Emperour chose Telemachus into the number of Martyrs but Baronius supposes This was done not only by the Emperour's Care but by the Ecclesiastical Authority of the Pope To conclude He affirms by guess That S. Nicetus came out of Dacia into Italy to Visit the Apostles Tombs and to consult the Apostolical Seat but no Author makes this out Now how can any Reader trust an Historian who in relating things done many Ages ago takes the liberty to invent and suppose whatever will serve a present Turn § 5. Add to this that he scruples not to contradict himself and to tell manifest Untruths to carry on the Interest of Rome which we shall prove by these Examples He affirms Coelicianus Bishop of Carthage relied upon one defence The Communion of the Apostolic See but immediately he tells us That he was supported by Constantine ' s favour He cites S. Augustine saying Constantine when Coelician's Cause was referred to him was a Christian Emperour yea he cites a Letter of Constantine writ in a most Christian style and yet he feigns that Coelicianus delayed his appearing before this Emperour because he thought it unfit that a Bishop should be judged by a Lay-man not yet Baptized And again Eight years after this he represents Constantine as a meer Pagan who had never heard of Peter or Paul and took them for some Heathen Deities whereas he saith He was a Catechumen and out of the Gospel had imbibed the Christian Meekness eight years before He also affirms That in the Year 324 there was as yet none of the Senatours believed the Christian Faith And yet he saith Two year before this that one or both the Consuls were Christians yea in the year 312. He reckons up many Senatours who had given up their Names to Christ Thus he contradicts himself by following those Lying Acts of Syl vester in order to support the false Story of Constantine's being Baptized at Rome Soon after out of a Fabulous Author he talks very big of the low Reverence which Constantine paid to the Bishops at the Nicene Council whereas all the Authentic Historians say The Bishops rose up when he entred in and paid him a great respect And when he hath told many incredible Legends about the Nails of the Cross and-seems to grant that divers false Nails have been adored for the true he excuses his abused Catholics for their mistaken Worship of false Relics saying That their Faith excuses their Fault so that Lies may be innocently told and believed it seems at Rome Again he affirms there were Monks at Rome in the year 328 and proves this by what S. Augustine saw there at least fifty years after yea in the year 340 he saith Athanasius first brought the Institution of Monks to Rome which is a manifest contradiction To proceed I wonder with what Face he could commend Athanasius for speaking charitably of the Heretic Arius after he was dead when he reviles Eusebius after his death And never mentions any of the Protestant Doctors deceased but with the bitterest Malice and in the most spightful Language he can invent If Charity were a Vertue in Athanasius then Malice must be a Vice in him He largely relates many Appeals to the Emperour in the case of Athanasius and yet when at last the Bishop of Rome was chosen Arbitrator in this Case and this but once He cries out Behold Reader the ancient Custom c. Whereas since the Emperours were Christians it was the Custom to appeal first to him as his History abundantly proves He very largely commends the Acts of Martyrs but by following them falls into many Absurdities as where he tells us That the Pagan Temple of Daphne at Antioch was burnt two days after the Martyrdom of Artemius Yet a little after he brings in this Artemius arguing with Julian about the burning of this Temple So he tells us The Body of S. John Baptist was burnt to Ashes except some Bones which were carried into Egypt to Athanasius And yet a little after S. Hierom affirms his Bones remained at Sebaste and wrought Miracles there As little Truth is there in his accusing Maximus the Emperour for presuming to judge of Bishops Causes whereas Maximus his Letter to Siricius which Baronius records declares He would call the Bishops to a Council in what City they pleased and refer it to them who were best skilled to determine these matters Again in order to justifie those feigned Relicks of Protasius and Gervasius shewed now at Rome he affirms That S. Ambrose gave part of them to several Bishops and some of them were brought to Rome Whereas S. Ambrose himself who knew best what was done assures us He buried the Rodies whole putting every Joynt in his own order And to name no more He brags that Idols were pulled down no where with more zeal than at Rome Yet in the same Page he tells us There was then newly dedicated an Alter there for sacrificing to the Heathen Gods So that we see designed Falshoods are not scrupled by him in things which seem to make for the honour of Rome or her Opinions § 6. We may also observe that for the same ends He makes innumerable false Inferences on purpose to pervert the Truth thus from S. Augustine's calling Melchiades A Father of Christian People as every Bishop is Baronius concludes that S. Augustine was for the Popes Supremacy So from Bishops judging in Causes where the People referred their Differences to them he frequently infers A right in Bishops to judge in Temporal Matters In like manner from Theodoret's mentioning a Canon of the Church in general and as his discourse shews referring to the Canon which forbids any Bishop to judge a Cause till both parties were present Baronius gathers that the Pope was supreme over the Bishop of Alexandria and that by the Canons of Nice Again That the Pope was not beholding to the Council of Nice for his Supremacy which he had from Christ he proves by Pope Nicholas his Testimony who had the impudence in his own Cause and for his own Ends to tell this Story Five hundred years after So he condemns the Arians for ejecting Bishops without staying for the Bishop of Rome's Sentence which he proves was unjust by an Epistle of Pope Julius which says The Arians should first have writ to all Bishops that so what was right might be determined by all where Julius arrogates
and made him understand the danger of this Heresie And we have noted before that Innocent's carriage in this matter rendred him suspected to be a favourer of Pelagius upon which the Africans not trusting to his Infallibility writ very plainly to him And after they had condemned Pelagius and Celestius in a Council of thirty seven Bishops at Carthage they writ another brisk Synodical Epistle to the Pope telling him that they intimated to him what they had done that the Authority of the Apostolical Seat might be added to their Decree because his Eminent Place gave more weight to his Doctrine and if he thought Pelagius was justly absolved yet his Errors and Impieties ought to be Anathematized by the Authority of the Apostolical See Now the reason of this Letter was not so much for the confirmation of their Acts as the Notes pretend upon any single Priviledge believed to be in the Pope as their Supream Head because they call him by the Title of their Brother both in the Title and the Letter but because the Pelagians had reported he was their Friend and a favourer of their Opinions which Report did very much mischief because of the Eminence of his See and therefore it concerned both the Pope for his own vindication and them also that he should wipe off this accusation And it appears both by St. Augustine and Prosper that at last Innocent did condemn this Heresie but this Synodical Epistle from Carthage dated An. 416. shews that he had not condemned it before the last year of his life for he died according to Baronius in July An. 417. So hard a thing was it for the African Fathers to get a pretended Infallible Judge to understand and censure a notorious Heresie I might now leave this Head but that I must first observe the confidence of Baronius who from one word in a verse of Prosper's will needs have Celestius a Disciple of Pelagius to have been first condemned at Rome after the antient manner that a new Heresie should be first Examined and Condemned by the first Seat But when he should make this out he owns that Pelagius and Celestius indeed were first condemned in Africa but he tells us their Heresies were condemned long before at Rome in the person of Jovinian But if it were true that Jovinian had held all the Heresies of Pelagius which is most false then we must attribute no great sagacity to Innocent as to condemning Heresies because 't is plain he did not know these were the same Heresies that Jovinian had held nor could he be brought to censure them till above four year after The Second Council of Milevis consisted of sixty Bishops the Title is under Pope Innocent But Baronius had told us before that the same Aurelius Bishop of Carthage presided in the former Council of Milevis and in this also so that neither of them were under any Pope The 22d Canon of this Council saith that he who thinks to appeal to a Tribunal beyond the Sea shall not be received into Communion by any in Africa Which is a clear prohibition of appeals to Rome and therefore Gratian either found or made this notorious addition to it unless they appeal to the See of Rome which is so gross a Forgery that Binius rejects it and out of Bellarmin expounds this passage only of prohibiting the inferiour Clergy Priests and Deacons c. to appeal beyond the Seas i. e. to Rome but he supposes that Bishops in Africk still had liberty of appealing thither according to the 17th Canon of Sardica But to confute this false Gloss let it be noted That these African Fathers profess in a following Council that they had never heard of any such Canon or of this Sardican Synod and so it is not likely they should be guided by it Again about ten years before upon a complaint to Innocent of some Bishops who being censured in Africa ran to Rome with Complaints this very Pope had written that Bishops should not lightly go to the Parts beyond the Seas And the Council in Africk confirmed that passage of the Popes Letter And since this would not restrain some Bishops here in this second Milevitan Council they make a Decree That Bishops Causes should be determined by Bishops either such as the Primate of Africk should appoint or such as the Parties chose by his consent And then they add this 22d Canon to confine all appeals of the inferior Clergy also to an African Synod or to their own Primate and then add this Clause recited before that those who appeal beyond the Seas shall not be received to Communion by any in Africa which certainly is the penalty relating to both Canons because in their Letter a few years after written to Pope Celestine they declare it is contrary to the Nicene Canons for the Pope to receive any into Communion by Appeal who have been censured in their own Province especially Bishops adding That his Holiness should as became him also forbid the wicked refuges of Priests and the lower Clergy c. That is not only the Appeals of Bishops but of Priests also which makes it as clear as the Sun that these Fathers at Milevis absolutely forbad all Appeals to Rome And they had great reason so to do not only because it was their right to judge finally all Causes in their own Province But because some Popes about this time had encouraged Hereticks and notorious wicked Men both Priests and Bishops who had fled from the just Censures of their own Church and found a Sanctuary and Shelter at Rome But of this more hereafter This second Council of Milevis writ also to Pope Innocent about the Pelagian Heresie to quicken him in providing some Remedies to prevent the spreading of that Infection supposing the eminency of his place would add much weight to his Censures if he would heartily appear against these Doctrines At the same time Aurelius and St. Augustin with three other eminent Bishops there writ a private Letter to their Lord and Brother as they call him Pope Innocent on the same subject in which they deal very plainly with him and give the reason why they writ so many Letters to him against this Heresie because they had heard that in Rome where the Heretick lived long there were many who favoured him on divers grounds some because they say that you have been persuaded such things were true but more because they do not think he holds those Opinions And doubtless it was this Report which rouzed up the Pope at last to condemn the Pelagians as may appear by our Notes upon his 26th Epistle which is in Answer to this Epistle of the five Bishops But that Answer as also the Answers to the two Councils Letters were not till January An. 417. as Baronius and Binius themselves compute which was but six Months before Innocent's death so long did this Pope
of their Rights and their Peace also Wherefore it is not probable that a Council should meet there at this time only to read an Epistle which was invented long after § 5. Upon the Death of Zosimus there were two Popes chosen Boniface and Eulalius and the Pontifical fairly tells us the Clergy were divided for seven Months and fifteen days and that both of them acted as Popes This Schism being notified to the Emperor by Symmachus the Prefect of the City he cites both the Pretenders to Ravenna and appoints divers Bishops to examine into the Cause but they not being able to agree whether had the better Title the Emperor defers the business till the Kalends of May and forbids both Parties to enter into Rome till a Council had met at Rome to determine this Controversie But Eulalius who before stood fairer of the two impatient of this delay contrary to the Emperors Command on the fifteenth of the Kalends of April goes into the City and causes great Factions there Upon which 250 Bishops met by the Emperors Order execute his Commands and declare Enlalius to be no Pope setting up Boniface Upon which passage I shall observe First That the Notes make but a vacancy of two days between Zosimus and Boniface and Baronius saith it was not vacant above one day Whereas it is plain from the Emperors Letters dated three or four Months after that neither of them was reckoned to be Pope and he writes to the African Bishops that he would have the Council meet by the Ides of June that the Papacy might be no longer void so that in truth the See was vacant till the Emperor had judged it on Boniface his side Baronius doth not like it should be said that the Emperor had any right to interpose in the Election of a Pope but Symmachus the Praefect of Rome saith expresly to Honorius it is your part to give judgment in this Matter and the Emperor did at first by his single Authority declare Eulalius to be rightly chosen But upon better information he revokes that Rescript and Commands that neither Party should have any advantage by what was past but all should be reserved intirely to his judgment And though he employed a Synod of Bishops to examine the Matter yet it appears in Baronius that the Emperors Edict was that which gave the Papacy to Boniface Which will appear more plainly by the first Epistle of Boniface and Honorius his Answer to it For after this Pope was in peaceable possession fearing the like mischief after his death which had hapned at his entrance he writes an humble Supplication to the Emperor to take care of this matter for the future And the Emperor writes back to Boniface declaring That if ever two should contend about the Papacy and be Ordained neither of them should be Pope but he who by a new Election should be taken out of the Clergy by the Emperors judgment and the Peoples consent This writing of the Popes among the Councils hath this Title The Supplication of Pope Boniface But Baronius thinking that too mean fraudulently leaves out the Title though the Humility of the Style sufficiently shews that the Pope believed that the Emperor was above him and whereas Boniface there calls the Church Our Mother as the Margin in Binius rightly reads it Baronius will have it to be your Mother and Labbè leaves out the Marginal and true Reading for it seems they think it below the Pope though not the Emperor to be a Son of the Church If the second Epistle of Boniface be genuine it shews that when Complaints were made to Rome out of the near adjoining Provinces the Popes even after they had given too much encouragement to Appeals were wont to refer the matters complained of to be examined and decided by the Bishops of those Provinces where the Fact was done But the Notes conclude from hence that the accusation of Bishops use to be referred to the Pope which is an universal Conclusion from Premises that will not bear it The third Epistle of Boniface contradicts all those which were writ before by Zosimus in favour of Patroclus Bishop of Arles for Boniface forbids Patroclus to exercise the Power granted him by the last Pope and decrees that Hilary Bishop of Narbon shall be Metropolitan and if he judged right then Zosimus judged wrong in this Cause For this Pope the Editors publish six Decrees one of which orders the differences among Bishops to be decided by the Metropolitan or however by the Primate of that Country from whose determination there was to be no Appeal The fourth Decree is certainly spurious because it not only forbids a Bishop to be brought before any Judge Civil or Military for any Crime but declares the Magistrate who presumes to do this shall lose his Girdle that is be put out of his Office Now doubtless it was not in the Popes power to give or take away Civil or Military Offices So that this hath been invented meerly by those who affected the Popes being supreme over Kings and Emperors and would have the Clergy exempt from all Secular Jurisdiction As to the Pelagian Controversie he writ nothing about it himself but we are told by Prosper that Boniface desired St. Augustine to answer the Books of the Pelagians and he shewed his Wisdom in putting the Cause into a better hand than his own We must now return to the business of the Legates sent into Africa by Pope Zosimus a little before his death who appeared in the sixth Council at Carthage not till the time of this Pope Boniface in order to justifie the Roman Churches Right to receive Appeals from all Churches The Title indeed falsly saith this Council was held about the manner of prosecuting Appeals but it is plain that the African Fathers questioned the right of appealing and had condemned before all Appeals to any Church beyond the Seas In this Council the Popes Legates produce a Canon which they say was made at Nice importing That if a Bishop were condemned in his own Country and appealed to Rome the Pope might write to the neighbouring Bishops to enquire again into the matter and decide it but if all this did not satisfie the Complainant the Pope might either send his Legates with his Authority to judge it there with the Bishops or leave it finally to those of that Country as he pleased Now this Canon was no sooner read but Alypius one of the African Bishops declared he could not find any such Canon in the Greek Copies of the Nicene Council and desired Aurelius who presided in the Council though the Popes Legates were there to send to the three other most famous Patriarchal Churches of Constantinople Alexandria and Antioch to search their Copies of the Nicene Council and that the Pope might be desired to send some thither also at the same time which
motion was so fair and so certain a way to find out the truth that the Legates yielded to it as they did also to have another Canon examined whether it were in the Nicene Council or no about the Appeals of the lower Clergy After which they resolve to annex a genuine Transcript of the Nicene Creed and Canons to the Acts of their Synod which concluded with a Letter to Boniface which the Editors had no mind to publish in this place but give it us elsewhere The Sum of it is they tell their honourable Brother that hearing he was in Zosimus place they had writ to him about Apiarius who had now confessed his Faults before them and begged pardon and was removed from officiating in his old Church but allowed to keep his Degree Then for the two Canons pretended to be made at Nice they say they had inserted them in their Acts till the true Copies of the Nicene Council came but if they were not found there they would not be compelled to endure such things as they had no mind to mention nor to suffer such intollerable burdens but they hoped while he was Pope they should not be used with such Insolence or Pride but that they should be dealt with by brotherly Charity adding that they had sent a Copy of their Acts by two of his Legates who might make them known to his Holiness This is the true though brief account of this Famous Council wherein the Roman Church was discovered to aim at Superiority and a usurped Jurisdiction and to practise it to the prejudice of the Faith and the Rights of other Churches Moreover it was here discovered that Rome to cover this injustice and irregularity had corrupted the Canons of the most famous of all Geneneral Councils and cited such Canons out of it as never were made there And now to wipe off this scandal Binius and Baronius stickle vehemently and try all their Art to get St. Peter's Ship off from these Rocks The former publishes long Notes the latter falls from writing History to dispute But all in vain for Binius after he hath falsly told us that it was the Antient Custom for Bishops and Priests to appeal to Rome and for the Africans to desire their Sentences to be confirmed by the Pope Confesses that the Popes Legates cited the Canons of Sardica under the name of those of Nice and that they were not to be found in the Originals of the Council of Nice kept in the other Patriarchal Sees But then he pretends the African Bishops did not as we do charge Zosimus with fraud and forgery I answer that how modestly soever they might speak of this Fact it really was a notorius Imposture and it was sufficient that they proved it to be so and writ plainly to both Boniface and Celestine as the Letters yet extant shew that they would never endure that usurped Power any more which the Popes by virtue of these feigned Canons had exercised And if rejecting Appeals to Rome be making a Schism 't is certain the Africans did not suffer them so long as the face of a Church remained there so that probably that Epistle of Boniface the second writ to Eulalius near an hundred years after may be true and had not been censured by Baronius and Binius but only because it supposes a Church might have Martyrs in it and be a true Church though it utterly disowned all subordination to Rome And I am sure they justifie many Epistles that are less probable if they make for the interest of the Pope Against this Baronius and the Notes Object that there was an Appeal made by an African Bishop of Fussala who for notorious Crimes was put out of his See by St. Augustine and others and it seems Boniface and Celestine both allowed this Appeal and heard his Cause and this these Flatterers of Rome think hapned at this time by the Providence of God But let it be considered that for so notorious a Criminal as this Bishop to appeal at this time is neither any credit to the Pope nor any proof that there were no African Canons at this time to prohibit it for it is likely enough that an ill Man who had no means to shelter himself from the Justice of his own Country but by appealing to those Popes who at that time pretended a Right to receive such Complaints would use that means of Appeal even though it were condemned in Africa So that his appealing doth not prove it was lawful nor that it was not forbid there Besides though St. Augustine writ modestly yet he intimates no more but that some such Sentences as he had passed on this Bishop of Fussala had been passed or approved by the Popes which only prove in Fact that some African Bishops had before this time appealed but he doth not say it was right yea we see the Councils in which he was present condemning it as an usurpation and great injustice ex malis moribus bonae Leges The thing had been practised till the Popes fostering Hereticks and lewd convicted Criminals opened the Eyes of the African Church and made them prohibit them and claim their antient Rights Again upon St. Augustine's Letter it appears the Pope did not proceed to restore this Bishop and it seems when former Popes had taken upon them to restore ejected Bishops they were forced to do it by strong hand even by sending Clerks with Soldiers to execute the Sentence which shews their Authority was not submitted to in Africa And the Bishops in their Letter to Celestinâ boldly charge him never to send any such again for if they should submit to such proceedings they should be guilty of bringing Secular Violence into the Church of God The Notes go on to charge us Protestants for ignorantly and treacherously insulting over Zosimus as one that attempted to steal a Power to receive Appeals from Africa Whereas the African Bishops themselves prove the Fact And in the second Part I have produced a very antient Scholion which expresly censures these Popes for Imposture as well as Usurpation and I now add that Zonaras above 400 year before the Reformation saith in his Notes upon the Sardican Council That the Bishops of Old Rome from this Canon boasted a right to Appeals from Bishops in all Causes and falsly said it was made in the first Council of Nice which being propounded in the Council of Carthage was found not to be true as the Preface to that Council shows So that neither was this Canon made at Nice nor doth it decree that Appeals shall be made to him from all Bishops but only from those who were subject to him which at that time were almost all those of the West that is Macedon Thessaly Illiricum Greece Peloponesus and Epirus which afterwards were subjected to the Church of Constantinople so that Appeals from thence were to be made to that Patriarch for the future Wherefore we are not
be determined in that Province where it arose knowing that the Spirit of God would not be wanting to any Country where a Council of Bishops should meet so that none need fear to be injured since they might appeal to a greater Council of their own Province or to a Universal Synod Whereas if Judgment were to be given beyond the Seas many Witnesses must be wanting and many other things must hinder the finding out of truth They add That they could not find any Council which allowed his Holiness to send any Legates to hear Causes and for those Canons which Faustinus had produced as made at Nice they could find no such Canons in the Authentick Copies of that Council Finally They bid him not send any of his Clerks to execute his Sentence to which if they should submit they should seem to bring the vanity of Secular Arrogance into God's Church This is the Sum of this excellent Letter which disowns and condemns all Appeals and renounces the Popes jurisdiction over Africa with a modest intimation that his claim was grounded upon a notorious Forgery and therefore he is required to pretend to it no longer for that they will not submit to such an Usurpation Yet such is the Impudence of the Roman Editors that in a Marginal Note upon this Epistle they say these African Bishops desire the Pope to appoint another way of prosecuting Appeals Which is a gross contradicting the Text it self wherein all manner of Appeals and all ways of prosecuting them are utterly condemned but this was too harsh and therefore the Truth was to be daubed over with this plausible Fiction After this Binius presents us with another Edition of these African Canons and Epistles in Latin and Greek And Labbè newly publishes the Epistle of one Leporius who had been converted from Heresie and reconciled to the Church by the African Bishops by which we may learn that a Heretick need not go to Rome to recant as the Notes formerly affirmed There is nothing further observable before the Council of Ephesus except two Councils one at Rome wherein the Pope is said to make Cyril his Legate in the Cause of Nestorius the other at Alexandria in which Cyril is pretended to Act by this delegated power But this will be more properly considered in the History of that General Council where these Epistles are printed at large CHAP. II. Of the time from the Council of Ephesus till the Council of Chalcedon § 1. IN this Year was held the Third General Council at Ephesus upon the account of Nestorius who about three years before had been made Bishop of Constantinople and was at first believed to be both Pious and Orthodox but he had not sat long in that See before he began to publish certain Doctrines about our Saviour which gave great offence for he taught that Jesus Christ was two Persons one as the Son of God another as the Son of Man and therefore he denied the Blessed Virgin to be the Mother of God holding that the Person which was born of her was no more than a Meer Man Which Opinions not only made a Faction at Constantinople but caused Divisions among the Egyptian Monks whereupon St. Cyril first writ a Confutation of them to those Monks and then with great modesty admonished Nestorius of these Errors by divers Letters but he despised his Admonition justified the Doctrines and persecuted those who would not own them being supported by his Interest in the Imperial Court. Upon this Cyril called in Pope Celestine to his assistance sending him an account of what he had writ to Nestorius On the other side Nestorius also writ to Celestrine and sent his Sermons in which these Doctrines were contained for him to peruse The Pope by the advice of such Western Bishops as he could then get together takes the part of Cyril and offered him to join with him in condemning Nestorius if he did not recant But the Authority of these two Patriarchs of Rome and Alexandria not sufficing to condemn a Patriarch of Constantinople it was thought fit to desire the Emperor to call a General Council at Ephesus where Nestorius might appear and his Opinions be examined and the Emperor at length did agree to this Request Now that which we are to observe concerning this General Council shall be under these Heads First To enquire by whom it was called and convened Secondly Who presided in it Thirdly What is memorable in the Acts of it Fourthly Who confirmed the Decrees there made As to the first the Historical Preface before this Council labours to persuade us That Celestine commanded the Council to be called and the Notes after it say it was appointed by the Authority of Gelestine and gathered together by the counsel aid and assistance of Theodosius the Emperor The Cardinal goes further and saith Theodosius called it by the Authority of Celestine but when this is to be proved both the Notes and Baronius are content to make out that this Council was not called without the Popes consent which may be proved concerning every Orthodox Bishop that was there and so gives no peculiar advantage to the Bishop of Rome But as to the Convening it by his Authority nothing can be more false For by the Emperors first Letter to Cyril it appears that some then thought to order Matters of Religion by Power rather than by consulting in common in which words he reflects upon Pope Celestine and Cyril who thought by the Authority of their Private Synods at Rome and Alexandria to have condemned Nestorius who was a Patriarch as well as they and therefore the Emperor rightly considered that he could not be tried but by a General Council So that it seems Celestine at first had no mind such a Council should be called nor Cyril neither but when they saw their Authority was insufficient then Cyril put the Monks of Constantinople upon petitioning the Emperor to command a General Council to meet very speedily as their words are and the same Cyril put Juvenalis Bishop of Jerusalem upon writing to the Emperor for the same purpose Now why should not these Applications have been made to the Pope if the Council were to be called by his Authority Besides if Celestine had called it his Letter of Summons would appear but though none ever saw that the Emperors Edict is yet extant wherein he fixes the day and place for the Council to meet enjoyns Cyril with the Bishops of his Province to be there at that time and tells him he had writ to all other Metropolitans probably to Celestine among the rest to attend the Synod and not to meddle with this Matter till the meeting of this General Assembly from which whoever absented himself should not be excused Which is as full a proof that the Emperor called it by his Authority as is possible to be made and we need add nothing to it but this that
the 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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã by his Synod and by a Council of all Christians Here they leave out ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã of equal Dignity as they were both Apostles and Holy Disciples which shews for all the brags of the Popes Legate in the Council that Peter was the Head of the Faith and of the Apostles they did not believe there was any difference as to Power and Dignity among the Apostles and that saying must pass for a piece of Flattery and is not to be regarded because it comes from a Creature of the Popes and one of his own House who by the Canons was no lawful evidence Seventhly In the Emperor's Commission to Candidianus one of his great Officers who was to preside in the Council we may see the Emperor gives him power to appoint what Causes and Questions shall be first treated of and to forbid any pecuniary or criminal Causes to be tried there which shews that the Emperor reserved the Power of managing and ordering the Synod to himself and made a Lay-man his representative for that purpose Secondly As to the Passages in the Council if the Preface and the Names before the Acts be genuine of which there is some doubt we may note that it is there declared the Council met by the Emperors Command and that Cyril is mentioned first both in his own Right as the chief Patriarch present and as he had the precedence due to Celestine here called Arch-Bishop of the Roman Church a Title given to Cyril afterwards whose Legate he is no where said to be but only to have his place that is to sit first as the Pope would have done had he been there Moreover it is remarkable that the Council begins without the Popes Legates who did not come till
Synods command and then all she rest in order and the force of the Sentence depends upon the agreeing Votes of all And we see that though the Pope had before canonically deposed Dioscorus yet his Sentence was re-examined in a General Council This is certain that Anatolius of Constantinople and all the rest though in modester words did singly condemn Dioscorus and he was deposed and degraded by the Authority of the General Council and the free Votes of the several Bishops who as Pope Leo himself speaks had confirmed his Sentence with an assent which made the Cause uncapable of being tried any more And the Sentence which was published about his deposition as well as the Letter writ to Alexandria expresly declare that he was deposed and degraded by the Holy General Council c And the very same is affirmed in the Synodical Epistles writ to Martian and Pulcheria to desire them to confirm the Councils Sentence So that in vain do the Modern Romanists brag of the deposition of Dioscorus by the Popes Supream Authority for it was the opinion indeed of the Pope before the Council met that he ought to be deposed but it was the Authority of the Council ratified by the Emperor which actually deposed him In the fourth Act the Epistle of Pope Leo to Flavianus wherein the Heresie of Eutyches was confuted and condemned was subscribed by all the Bishops who severally declared they received it because it was agreeable to the Faith declared in the three former General Councils of Nice Constantinople and Ephesus and some of them add because it was agreeable to the Scripture and to the Expositions of the Orthodox Fathers Now had these Fathers believed the Pope to be Infallible in matters of Faith they must have received this Epistle only upon the Credit of the Pope whereas they now examin and judge of it by the Rules prescribed in former Councils and receive it not because the Enditer of it was Infallible but because he had kept close to former determinations in General Councils And since the business of this Council was to discover and condemn the Heresie of Eutyches against which new Sect no eminent Bishop but Leo had written therefore this Epistle was made a Test and all were obliged to subscribe it not as the Romanists brag because the See of Rome was to fix the Rule of Faith but because this was the only Writing then extant of this kind and we may as well prove that St. Cyril was the Supream Bishop of the World and the sole Arbiter of Faith because his Epistles were subscribed in the General Council of Ephesus as a Test to find out and condemn the Nestorians as infer the Roman Supremacy or Infallibility from the Bishops subscribing Leo's Epistle at Chalcedon We may further note in this Action that how confidently-soever modern Editors place the Councils of Constantinople and Ephesus under Damasus and Celestine the Popes Legates here plainly say the Council of Constantinople was held under the Emperor Theodosius and other Bishops affirm that Cyril was the President and Head of the Council at Ephesus Again it is to be noted that though Juvenalis of Jerusalem and four other Bishops who had joyned with Dioscorus in the Synod at Ephesus to condemn Flavianus repented and had subscribed Leo ' s Epistle and so declared themselves to be Orthodox yet the Council could not restore them to their Places till the Emperor by his Judges gave them leave to determine their Case It is also memorable that the Egyptian Bishops after their own Patriarch Dioscorus was deposed refused to sign the Epistle of Leo till they had a new Bishop of Alexandria under whose jurisdiction the Nicene Canons had put them and though the Popes Legates and many others urged they should subscribe immediately yet these Bishops were excused by the Council and their Plea allowed which shews that those who were under the Patriarch of Alexandria owed no subjection at all to Rome nor did they or the Council of Chalcedon think the Pope was really what his Legates flatteringly call him the Universal Arch-Bishop of Patriarch for then they could not have allowed this Plea Moreover 't is observable in this Act that Photius Bishop of Tyre affirms both Anatolius and Leo were the Presidents of this Council Also this Bishop in his Petition to the Emperors stiles them Lords of the Earth and Sea and of all Men Nations and Kindreds which shews that Titles are not to be strictly understood or to be made any ground for Argument since Complements were used then as well as now and therefore the Romanists should not attempt to prove a right from every flourishing Title bestowed on the Pope by those who speak of him In the Cause between this Photius of Tyre and Eustathius of Berytus there is a passage how one of these Bishops claimed a right to some Churches by the Imperial Edicts and the other by the Canons and he who claimed a right by the Canons got the better Yea the Council declared that Edicts ought not to prevail against the Canons From whence Baronius infers that Princes ought to learn from hence to make their Laws submit to the Ecclesiastical Canons But it must be noted this was not intended to be a Rule in all Cases only as to the old Rights of Bishops Jurisdictions and it was a Rule made now only upon this occasion and which is most remarkable the Judges tell the Council it was the Emperor's pleasure this Cause should be tried nor by the Edicts but by the Canons for which the Bishops gave that pious Emperor thanks And therefore it is a great fallacy to argue from hence that Ecclesiastical Canons are above the Laws of Princes in their own nature only in this Case the Good Emperor to oblige the Bishops suffered the Canons to prevail To conclude this Session ended with a confirmation of all things done by the Lay-Judges who declare they should remain firm and so the Session ended In the Fifth Action wherein the Matters of Faith were to be declared the Emperors Legates were present and prevented a Schism which was like to happen among the Bishops some of which would not consent to the Councils definition but the Lay-Judges from the Emperor advised the Dissenters to go with Anatolius and the Popes Legates and to confer among themselves so as they might agree otherwise they threatned that the Emperor resolved to call a Council in the West to which they must go to determin the difference From whence we may note that they knew of no single Person who could finally decide questions of Faith and though it was to be determined at Rome a general Council must do it there However this Method proved effectual and so they published their Faith unanimously annexing it to the Creeds of Nice and Constantinople We shall only note further that in the Acclamations made in
And it appears that the principal right over Ephesus was in the Patriarch of Constantinople whence it was pleaded by the Friends of Bassianus that Proclus of Constontinople who had the right received him to Communion And Stephen urges that Flavianus of Constanstinople expelled him afterwards And therefore it is remarkable that in the twefth Action where the Sentence was to be pronounced Anatolius Bishop of Constantinople declares his Judgment before the Popes Legates and is always named before them in all that Session where a Cause was to be decided concerning a Church which was specially under his jurisdiction by which it appears the principal Person in the deposing of Bassianus was the Patriarch of Constantinople who probably desired the other great Patriarchs concurrence for the better credit of his Sentence Moreover it is to be noted that though Pope Leo favoured the cause of Stephen and writ an Epistle in his behalf mentioned in the Council The Popes favour did him no service for his Cause was tried over again and he deposed by this general Council as well as Bassianus and this by the consent of the Popes Legates who notwithstanding their big words did not believe it unlawful for a general Council to contradict a determination of the Popes The Thirteenth and Fourteenth Actions concern only the Causes of private Bishops who had complained to the Emperor not to the Pope of injury done them and the Emperor appointed them to be finally determined by the Council and so the Bishop of Nichomedias's Jurisdiction was cleared and the Bishop of Nice ordered to be content only with the honour of a Metropolitan And in the fourteenth Action Athanasius was setled in the Bishoprick of Perrhaea and Sabinianus who claimed it ordered to keep the honour of a Bishop and to be maintained out of the Profits of that Church as the Patriarch of Antiooh should direct Nothing is remarkable in them but only that the Lay Judges pronounce the Decree and not the Popes Legates and then the Synod consent The Fifteenth Action contains the Canons of this General Council for Ecclesiastical Discipline three of which were recommended to the Fathers by the Emperor to be formed into Canons So that in obedience to the Emperor they were obliged to make some Ecclesiastical Rules And one of these is the fourth Canon which decrees that all Monks every where shall be subject to the Bishop of that Diocess wherein their Monastery is built which being a genuine Canon of a General Council not objected against by the Popes Legates it is somewhat strange that the Modern Popes have no regard to it but daily and openly break it in defiance of the Primitive Discipline by exempting all Monasteries from due subjection to their own Bishop and this meerly out of policy to make the Monks intirely depend upon the Pope and serve his interests The ninth Canon ordains that the Causes betwen Clergy-men shall be tried before their own Bishop and not in Secular Courts and if a Bishop have a complaint against his Metropolitan he shall go to the Primate of the Diocess or appeal to the See of Constantinople Which Canon Pope Nicholus resolved to force into his interest and so ridiculously expounds the Primate of the Diocess is meant the Bishop of Rome who is Primate of all Dioceses Turrian as boldly expounds it the Primate of the universal Diocess And Binius in his Notes will have the word to signifie the Prince of the Christian Diocess But all these feigned additions and forced glosses will not help them because the Canon gives leave to the Party injured to complain either to the Bishop of Constantinople or to the Pope at his own choice which sets that Patriarch upon equal ground with him of Rome But the Original Word signifies an Order of Bishops below a Patriarch but above a Metropolitan and the Canon expresly limits Appeals either to be made by these ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Primates who had Jurisdiction over the Province or to the Patriarch of Constantinople which shews that this Council never thought of any Right that Rome then had to receive Appeals from all parts of the World And if any question why the Pope is not here named at least for the Western Churches Appeals as well as the Patriarch of Constantinople for the Eastern I take the true reason to be the absence of the Popes Legates from this Session consisting only of Oriental Bishops for which reason they modestly refused to decree any thing concerning Discipline in the West leaving affairs there to proceed according to parity of Reason We may add that the Latin Version of the sixteenth Canon hath put in the word confitentes into the Body of the Canon which is not in the Original but Labbè leaves out this corruption But that which hath occasioned the greatest Controversie is the twenty eighth Canon wherein this Council confirms the Decrees of the Fathers and the second Council of Constantinoples Canon about the Priviledges of that See For as the Fathers had given the See of Rome its priviledges because it was the Imperial City for the same reason the second General Council gave like honour to the See of Constantinople and would have it also even in Ecclesiastical Affairs to be advanced to the second place And they order that the Bishop of Constantinople should ordain and have a Jurisdiction over all the Metropolitans of the Dioceses of Pontus Asia and Thrace The Modern Romanists do all they can to suppress or baffle this Canon The Editors put a Note before it that it is not in their Greek Manuscripts but that is no wonder since it hath been long the design of their Church to conceal this Canon but that such a Canon was really made at Chalcedon is apparent not only from the sixteenth Action where it was read at large and allowed by the whole Council and confirmed by the Lay-Judges notwithstanding the opposition of the Popes Legates But it is also found in all the Greek Collectors cited in Photius his Nomo-Canon writ above 900 year ago and is also extant in that old Latin Interpreter who put out the Canons before Dionisius exiguus that is soon after the year 500 So that there is no doubt but this Canon was really made at Chalcedon Yet Gratian would not cite it under the name of a Canon of Chalcedon but quotes it out of the sixth General Council wherein there are almost the same words but his old Editions which were in use while the Roman Primacy was setting up had grosly corrupted the main words of it and instead of the affirmative etiam in rebus Ecclesiasticis non secus ac illam extolli c. it was in him non tamen in rebus Ecclesiasticis magnificetur ut illa which quite alters the sense and makes it seem as if the Council had not spoken of any Ecclesiastical Priviledges whereas they speak of no other but
denied that usurped jurisdiction of Appeals from thence to Rome to which some Popes pretended which had made them stand at a distance from the See of Rome The Notes on this Epistle have a fallacious Argument however to prove the African Church could not so long remain divided from the Roman because if so they could have no true Martyrs all that time since the Fathers agree That Crown is only due to those who suffer in the Catholick Church I reply this may be very true and yet since no Father ever said that the particular Roman Church is the Catholick Church a Christian may dye a true Martyr if he die in the Communion of the Catholick Church though he hold no Communion with the Roman Church which was the case at this time or lately of many Eastern Churches Another Forgery out of the same Mint treads on the heels of this pretending to be a Copy of the Emperor Justin and Justinian's submission to this Pope wherein they are made to own the Supremacy of Rome to the highest pitch and to Curse all their Predecessors and Successors who did not maintain that Churches Priviledges But the cheat is so apparent the matter so improbable and ridiculous and the date so absurd that Baronius and both the Editors reject it So that I shall only note that a true Doctrine could not need so many Forgeries to support it and the interest they serve shews who employed these Forgers We have spoken before of Boniface's two Roman Councils one of them revoking what the other decreed The third is only in Labbè being a glorious Pageant drest up by the suspicious hand of a late Library-keeper to the Pope But it amounts to no more than the introducing a poor Greek Bishop or two to enquire what was said in the Roman Records and in the Popes Letters of the Authority of that Church So that the Pope and his Council were Judges and Witnesses in their own Cause and therefore their Evidence is of no great Credit And 't is very ominous that this Synod is dated in December that is two Months after Boniface's death who is said to have been present at all its Sessions To cover which evident mark of Forgery Holstenius gives Baronius and all other Writers the Lye about the time of Boniface's dying and keeps him alive some time longer only to give colour to this new-found Synod The Council of Toledo might be in Boniface's time but not under him For the King of Spain whom the Bishops here call their Lord called it and it was held sub Mantano saith Baronius under Montanus the Metropolitan to whom the Council saith Custom had given that Authority Wherefore he condemns Hereticks and exercises all sorts of jurisdiction belonging to a Primate without taking any notice of the Pope or of any delegated Power from him So that probably all those Epistles which make Legates in Spain about this time are forged § 9. John the second of that Name succeeded Boniface but Anastasius and Baronius cannot agree about the Date of his Election or his Death and Holstenius differs from both an Argument that this Pope made no great Figure However right or wrong we have divers of his Epistles The first to Valerius saith Labbè appears by many things to be spurious it is stollen out of the Epistles of Leo and Ithacius and dated with wrong Consuls And I must add Scripture is shamefully perverted by the Writer of this Epistle For he would prove that Christ was not created as to his Deity but only as to his Humanity by Ephes iv 24. and Coloss iii. 10. where St. Paul speaks of putting on the New Man which after God is created in Righteousness and true Holiness and is renewed in Knowledge after the Image of him that created him Had a Pope writ this I would have affirmed he was no Infallible Interpreter The next is an Epistle of Justinian to this Pope wherein the Emperor is pretended to declare his Faith was conformable in all things to the Roman Church and made to say he had subjected and united all the Churches of the East to the Pope who is the Head of all the Holy Churches with much more stuff of this kind This Letter is rejected by the learned Hottoman and many other very great Lawyers who Baronius calls a company of Hereticks and Petty Foggers But confutes their Arguments with false Reasoning and Forgeries as I shall shew when I come to note his Errors I shall now confine my self to prove the greatest part of this Epistle to be spurious For who can imagin Justinian who vindicated the Authority of his Patriarch at Constantinople as equal with Rome and by an Authentick Law declares that the Church of Constantinople is the Head of all other Churches Yea in the genuine part of this Epistle calls his Patriarch the Pope's Brother That he I say should here profess he had subjected all the Eastern Churches to Rome And how should he that differed from Pope Hormisda in his decision of the Question whether one Person of the Trinity suffered for us and made Pope John now yield to his Opinion and condemn his Predecessors notion declare he submitted his Faith in all things to the Pope But we need no conjectures for if the Reader look a little further among the Epistles of Agapetus he will see one of the boklest Impostures that ever was For there Justinian himself recites verbatim the Epistle which he had writ to Pope John and whatever is more in this Letter set out among John's Epistles than there is in that which is owned by the Emperor is an impudent Forgery added by some false Corrupter to serve the Roman Supremacy Now by comparing these two Epistles it appears the beginning and end of both are the same and may be genuine but in neither part is there one word of this subjection or the universal Supremacy And all that wretched Jargon comes in where it is corrupted viz. From Ideoque omnes Sacerdotes universi orientalis tractus subjicere till you come to these words Petimus ergo vestrum paternum Which when the Reader hath well noted he will admire that those who had the cunning to corrupt a Princes Letter by adding twice as much to it as he writ should be so silly to print the true Letter within a few Pages But doubtless God infatuates such Corrupters and the Devil owes a shame to Lyers The next Epistle from the Gothic King Athalaric was probably writ soon after John's Election since it mentions the Romans coming to that Prince to beg leave to chuse a Pope and both Athalario and the Senate made Laws to prevent Simony in the Election of the Pope as well as other Bishops And which Baronius saith was more Ignominious This Edict was Ingraven on a Marble Table and hung up before the Court of St. Peters for all to see it But
the Church when the Pope is resolved not to come and herein they follow the Example of the Council of Chalcedon who proceeded without the Popes Legates when they would not stay and join with them Wherefore in the third Collation this 5th Council declared the true Faith and in the 4th and 5th examine the Cause of Theodorus and Theodoret On the fifth day saith Baronius Pope Vigilius sent his Constitution to the Council being made by the advice of 16 Bishops and 3 Deacons and designed to oblige the whole Church the Western agreeing with him in it and delivered by Apostolical Authority Wherein he confirms the three Chapters declaring 1st That Theodorus of Mopsvestia cannot be condemned after his death 2ly That Theodoret's name should not be taxed 3ly That Ibas Epistle to Maris was Catholick and both he and that Epistle received by the Council of Chalcedon as Catholick and Orthodox But Binius cuts off the five last Columns which are added by Baronius and Labbè and which shew how fully Vigilius confirmed all the three Chapters Chap. iv In the 6th Collation the Council having received this Constitution do notwithstanding go on to examine Ibas Epistle And wonder any dare presume to say it was received by the Council of Chalcedon Which Baronius owns was levelled at Vigilius though out of respect he be not named And after a strict Examination They pronounce that the approvers of this Epistle are Followers of Theodorus and Nestorius the Hereticks They shew the Council at Chalcedon owns God was made Man which this Epistle calls Apollinarism That Council confesses Mary to be the Mother of God the Epistle denies it They commend the Council of Ephesus and Cyril's twelve Chapters condemning Nestorius Ibas condemns the Council of Ephesus defends Nestorius and calls Cyril an Heretick and his 12 Chapters impious They stuck to Cyril's Faith and the Nicene Creed he condemns Cyril's Faith and commends Theodorus his Creed They held two Natures but one Person in Christ He is for two Persons also Whereupon this 5th Council Decree the whole Epistle to be Heretical and Anathematize all as Hereticks who receive it And for this reason Binius leaves out of his Edition the most of that part of Vigilius's Constitution which concerns Ibas his Epistle And Baronius who puts it in with the Nestorians would excuse it by saying the latter part of this Epistle is Orthodox But the Council condemns the whole Epistle and all that say any part of it is right and all that write for it or defend it So that Pope Vigilius Baronius Bellarmine and all the Writers for this Heretical Epistle were and are accursed by the Sentence of this General Council And if as Baronius pretends the Popes Legates at Chalcedon say that Ibas appeared a Catholick by this Epistle the 5th Council shews the Fathers at Chalcedon condemned it not heeding what two or three said Baronius urges as the Nestorians did that Eunomius said at Chalcedon the latter end of Ibas Epistle was Orthodox but the 5th Council saith this is a Calumny and cite the very words of Eunomius out of the Council at Chalcedon which import that Ibas was innocent after he had agreed with Cyril and renounced his Epistle which he had done in the Acts before Photius and Eustathius The 7th Collation of this 5th Council was only repeating and approving former Acts In the 8th Collation Baronius owns this Council condemned the three Chapters contrary to Vigilius Decree and Anathematize all that did defend them that is Vigilius whom Baronius often commends as a defender of them Yea they declare them Hereticks by the Doctrin of the Scriptures and holy Fathers and of the four former Councils All which therefore Vigilius contradicted in his Constitution And whatever Baronius first says to disparage this Council it was ratified by the 6th Council by the seventh or second Nicene Council Act. 6. yea and as Baronius confesseth by all succeeding General Councils by the Popes Pelagius Gregory the Great Agatho Leo the second and by all succeeding Popes who were sworn to observe all the General Councils and this among others To which we may add the Councils of Basil and Constance and all the Catholick Church till Leo the 10th's Lateran Council An. 1516 which contrary to the Catholick Faith decreed no Council could condemn a Pope Wherefore we may conclude Vigilius was a condemned Heretick Chap. v. Now let us examine Baronius his shifts and those Binius learns from him First they pretend this was not a point of Faith but concerned only persons Which is most false For the Emperor Justinian calls it a matter of Faith so doth the 5th Council it self declare Yea Vigilius in his Constitution calls the condemning these three Chapters Erring from the Faith and Facundus the Apologist for them saith the opposing them was rooting out the Catholick and Apostolick Faith On the other side Pope Pelagius saith they are contrary to the Faith and to receive them is to overthrow the Faith of Ephesus which Epistle Gregory the Great confirms Bellarmine saith that is de fide which a Council defines to be so and calls the opposers of it Hereticks and accurseth them And Baronius calls the Emperors Edict for the three Chapters Sanctio de fide Catholica and Fidei decretum So that it must be a matter of Faith And Gregory the Great was mistaken if he meant that this 5th Council handled no matters of Faith but treated of Persons For the contrary is manifest But indeed Gregory means they altered no point of Faith established at Chalcedon as some in his time fancied only condemning the persons there examined but still it was by shewing they held notorious Heresies Chap. vi But to consider the three Chapters severally The first was about Theodorus of Mopsvestia who as Vigilius saith should not be condemned after he was dead citing Leo and Gelasius for it as having decreed it for a point of Faith But on the other side St. Austin declares if Caecilian were guilty of the Crimes objected 100 years after his death he would Anathematize him Pelagius urges and approves of this Doctrin of St. Austin and saith Leo agreed with him The same is proved in the 5th Council to have been the Opinion of St. Cyril of the African Council c. Thus also Domnus was condemned at Chalcedon after his death and many of the old Hereticks Honorius was condemned by name sixty years after his death Yea Baronius who urges this in excuse of Vigilius in one place in another declares that it is a mistake and that the Church of Rome doth condemn Men after their death So as he is forced to commend and condemn the same Fact and to excuse this reason of Vigilius he
THE CHURCH HISTORY Clear'd from the Roman Forgeries And Corruptions found in the COUNCILS and BARONIUS In Four Parts FROM The Beginning of Christianity to the End of the Fifth General Council 553. By THOMAS COMBER D. D. Dean of DURHAM For we have not followed cunningly devised Fables 2 Pet. I. 16. LONDON Printed by Samuel Roycroft for Robert Clavell at the Peacock at the West-End of S. Pauls 1695. Imprimatur Martii 2. 1688 9. T. Alston R. P. D. HEN. Episc Lond. à Sacris Domesticis TO THE Most Reverend Father in GOD THOMAS By Divine Providence Lord Arch-Bishop of YORK PRIMATE OF ENGLAND AND METROPOLITAN May it please your Grace THere is nothing more Pleasant in it self nor more Vseful to those of the Sacred Function than the Study of Ecclesiastical Antiquity But yet many of that Order have not the Advantage or the Opportunity to acquire this Knowledge from the Original Authors and therefore are forced to seek it in the Roman Editions of the Councils and the Modern Historians of that Church Where every thing is misrepresented and placed in so False a Light that its hard to find out what is Truth Some of the genuine Remains of Antiquity they have concealed but they have falsified and altered more and added so much to the Primitive Records especially in the first Four Centuries that near Three Parts of Four both in Baronius and the Councils are modern Forgeries manifest Legends and impertinent Excursions into Sophistical Vindications of the later Doctrins and Practices of Rome It would therefore be a Work worthy of this excellent Church in so Learned an Age to make an acurate Collection of that and only that which is true and certain in the Primitive History and Councils 'T is true divers Eminent Men have made some steps toward it but it is too great an Vndertaking for any One Man to accomplish as appears by that generous Project of Dr. Thomas James Proposed to the Most Learned Primate of Ireland to employ a Select Company of both Universities with due Assistances and Encouragement for the perfecting this Design Wherefore in the mean time it may be serviceable to gather together some Materials for so Noble a purpose and that first encouraged me to make these Observations as I was Reading the Annals of Baronius with the Councils Which I have by the Advice of some of my Friends Methodically digested in this little Tract and I hope it may be useful not only to direct such as apply themselves to this kind of Study but also to confirm others of Our own Communion in their firm Adherence to their Excellent Religion when they see so many plain Evidences That all the Roman Churches Pretences to Antiquity both in Doctrin and Worship are founded on and maintained by little else but those Forgeries and Corruptions by which they Imposed upon the Ignorant and Easie World for Six or Seven Centuries together These Pious Frauds as They counted them did indeed then advance their Interest and establish their Errors but now when they are detected by this Discerning Generation they prove their utter Shame and did not Secular Advantages and Implicit Faith or Fear and Inquisitions hinder those under their Yoke from being acquainted or however from owning these unfaithful Actings of their Spiritual Guides These Discoveries would not only secure Our People but make many Converts from Them But My Lord whatever the Work or the Success be I am obliged to lay it at Your Graces Feet as the first thing I have made Public since Your Graces happy Advancement to the Government of this Church whereof I am a Member and wherein by Your Graces Influence I shall study to serve the Primitive-Protestant-Church of England Which I beseech Almighty GOD to defend from all its Enemies and long to preserve Your Grace to be a Support and an Honour to it So Prays MY LORD Your Graces most Dutiful Son and Servant THO COMBER York Aug. 20. 1689. THE Introduction WHen Campian long ago undertook to defend the Roman Cause he boasted that He was strengthned with the firm and powerful Guard of all the Councils and that all the General Councils were on his side Which vain Brag the Writers from the Roman Church do frequently repeat to this very day But he that with Judgment and Diligence shall peruse their own allowed Editions of the Councils will easily discover the falshood of this Assertion For there is such adding and expunging such altering and disguising things in the Body of the Councils and such excusing falsifying and shuffling in the Notes that a Judicious Reader will soon perceive these Venerable Records truly set down and explained do not favour them But these Corruptions are carried on with such Confidence and Cunning that an unexeperienced and unwary Student may be imposed on by this specious shew of Venerable Antiquity For their sakes therefore it 's necessary to take a short view of that Fraud and Policy which is so commonly made use of in those Editions of the Councils which pass through the Roman Mint especially in those which are in most use among us viz. The Edition of Severinus Binius and that of Labbé and Cossartius wherein Binius his Notes are printed verbatim Which useful design was begun by a Learned and Ingenious Gentleman in a Tract entituled Roman Forgeries printed at London An. 1673 But that Author doth not follow the exact order of Time nor doth he go much beyond the Nicene Council and even in that Period he left out many plain Instances And whereas he died before he had proceeded any further I resolved to begin where he left off But for Methods sake and to make thid Discourse more entire I have begun with the first Century and so proceeded according to the order of the several Councils only writing more briefly upon the Three first Centuries which were largely treated of in that Author before deducing the account of these Impostures down to the end of the Fourth Century and shewing as I go along what Artifices have been used by the Editors and Annotator to dress up these Ancient Evidences so as to make them look favourably upon their great Diana the Supremacy and other Corruptions of the Roman Church To this end they have published many spurious Councils many counterfeit Canons and forged Decretals and for such as are genuine they have frequently altered the Text both by Additions and Diminutions and have so disguised the Sense by partial and fallacious Notes that it will be evident by the Remarks here made upon them their business in the publishing these Volumes was not to promote the Truth but to serve a Party Nor can any thing else be expected from Binius his Notes which as he owns in his Preface He took out of Baronius Bellarmin and Possevin The design of which three Men saith Richerius an ingenuous Sorbon Doctor is evident to all Men to have been no other but to prove the Pope was
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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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
his Answer to them both which in the next Column he owns are false and feigned And thus where the Supremacy is concern'd one Forgery serves for the Evidence of another The Council at Gangra is genuine and was an uncorrupted Remain of Primitive Antiquity till it fell into the hands of these Editors who have put the name of Osius Bishop of Corduba into the Title in their Latin Version and though that Name be not found in the Original Greek printed over against it yet from this Fiction of their own the Notes impudently say That this Synod was Convened by Sylvester ' s Authority and from Osius his presence in it Binius certainly gathers it was celebrated under this Pope but a little after he knows not in what year it was held and Baronius treats of this Council Anno 361 that is near 30 years after Sylvester's Death They tell us that Pope Symmachus in his 6th Roman Council approves this Synod but he mentions not Osius however Baronius guesses that the reason why Symmachus approved it was because Osius the Legate of the Apostolic See was there which groundless Conjecture and false Assertion Binius in his Notes turns into a positive Affirmation viz. That Osius was there as the Pope's Legate As to the occasion of calling this Council of Gangra it was to condemn one Eustathius whom Binius owns to have been a great Favourer of Monkish life and Sozomen saith he was a Monk yea the Synodical Epistle describes him as one who despised Marriage allowed not the administrations of Married Priests who had a separate way of Worship and a different garb from others making his Followers to abstain from Flesh profess Continency and renounce Propriety all which are the very Characters of a Monk of the Roman stamp and therefore it is wonder that Binius should give Sozomen and himself the Lye and say he was no propagator of Monkery and that it cannot be proved that he was a Monk yet at last he fancies Eustathius his Name was mistaken for Eutachus an Armenian Monk All which Blunders are only designed to keep the Reader from observing that a Monk was condemned for an Heretic yea and censured for holding those very Opinions which now pass currant among the Romish Fryers For which end also in his Notes on the 4th Canon he saith The Heretics that is Protestants foolishly apply this Canon to condemn the Celibacy of the Clergy whereas he saith it doth not concern Priests who have Wives but such as had Wives But I doubt it will prove the Romanists are the Heretics here For both this Canon and the Synodical Epistle have ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã which signisies a Priest who now hath a Wife even as ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 1 Cor. vii 10. is those that have Wives and are actually married and so the best Version of this Canon is Presbyterum Conjugatum For by it all those are Anathematiz'd who affirm That men should not Communicate if a Married Priest say the Office That is this Primitive Council Anathematizes the Modern Church of Rome to hide the shame of which just Censure the Notes quarrel with Our preferring the Translation of their Friend Dionysius who turns the word ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Ministrante before those Versions which turn it by Sacrificante as if Protestants did this out of a design to blot out the Memorial of the unbloody Sacrifice whereas that Greek word doth properly signifie Ministring and saying the Offices of the Church but no where is used properly for Sacrificing and it is apparent that Protestants do most religiously believe the Sacrament to be an unbloody Sacrifice and as such do make it a Memorial of Christs one bloody Sacrifice upon the Cross The Notes also blame these Eustathian Heretics for perswading the People to give them the dispensing of their Alms intended for the Poor contrary saith Binius to the Apostles Doctrine and Constitution Yet thus the Romish Fryers do at this day drawing the Peoples Alms to their Convents under pretence of being dispensers of them The same Notes are mistaken in saying That the Manicheans were forbid by their Doctrine to give any Alms to the Poor For S. Augustine who knew those Heretics best assirms That they only forbad their People to give Meat or Fruits to any Beggar who was not of their own Sect Lastly whereas this Council condemns the Eustathians for abhorring the Assemblies and Divine Offices used in the places where the Martyrs were commemorated Can. ult These Notes falsly pretend they were condemned for disapproving the Worship and Invocation of the holy Martyrs whereas it is plain by the Canon that the Martyrs were only Commemorated not Invocated nor Worshiped in those days and the expression in this place is only a Phrase to signifie the usual Assemblies of Orthodox Christians which were then frequently held in the Burying places of the Martyrs and these Heretics separated from those public Assemblies The Arians to revenge their Condemnation at Nice falsly accuse Athanasius to the Emperour Constantine who thereupon called a Council at Tyre which these Editors intitle The Council of Tyre under Sylvester Yet all the Ancients agree the Emperour Called it and their own Notes confess as much Only they pretend He Called this Council contrary to custom and his duty but this is notoriously false since Constantine had already called divers Councils and particularly that of Nice And as for Pope Sylvester he is not once named in this Council at Tyre which looks a little odly upon the pretended Supremacy that when the Catholic Cause lay at the stake we never hear one word of the Roman Bishop neither in this Council nor in all the succeeding Letters and Councils relating to Athanasius till that Cause was afterward brought before the Pope as an Arbitrator chosen by both parties § 19. Pope Marcus succeeded Sylvester and sat but eight Months yet that he might not seem to have done nothing The Forgers have invented an Epistle from Athanasius to this Pope desiring a true Copy of the Nicene Canons from Rome on pretence that the Arians had burnt theirs at Alexandria To which is annexed Marcus his Answer who saith he had sent him 70 Canons Now Binius hath often cited these Epistles to prove the Popes Supremacy and Infallibility and to shew there were more than twenty Canons made at Nice yet here His Notes bring five substantial Reasons to prove these Epistles forged and Labbé notes These Wares of Isidore are justly suspected by Baronius Bellarmine and other skilful Catholics nor doth Binius himself doubt of their being spurious Yea it is remarkable that this very Binius out of Baronius here confesseth That he who Forged the Epistle of Boniface to Eulalius devised also these two Epistles to consult the Credit of Pope Zosimus and Pope Boniface who had cited a Canon out of the Nicene Council not found among the
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
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 â But it is a great prejudice to Liberius his Repentance that though Athanasius
believe yet he elsewhere boldly says Damasus gave it Supreme Authority and the Annotator makes it impossible for any Council to be general unless the Pope or his Legates be there Now he and all others call this A General Council And yet he saith That neither Pope Damasus nor his Legates were Presidents of it nor was he or any Western Bishop in it Whence we learn That there may be a General Council at which the Pope is not present by himself nor by his Legates and of which neither he nor they are Presidents Fourthly As to the Creed and Canons here made the modern Romanists without any proof suppose that Damasus allowed the former and not the later But if he allowed the famous Creed here made I ask Whether it then had these words And from the Son or no If it had why do the Notes say That these words were added to it by the Bishops of Spain and the Authority of Pope Leo long after But if these words were wanting as they seem to confess when they say The Roman Church long used this Creed without this addition then I must desire to know how a Man of their Church can be secure of his Faith if what was as they say confirmed by Damasus in a General Council may be al ered by a few Bishops and another Pope without any General Council As to the Canons Damasus made no objection against them in his time and it is very certain that the Bishop of Constantinople after this Council always had the second place For as the first General Council at Nice gave old Rome the first place as being the Imperial City so this second General Council doubted not but when Constantinople was become new Rome and an Imperial City also they had power to give it the second place and suitable Priviledges Yea the Notes confess that S. Chrysostom by virtue of this Canon placed and displaced divers Bishops in Asia and the 4th General Council at Chalcedon without regarding the dissent of the Popes Legates allowed the Bishop of Constantinople the second place and made his Priviledges equal to those of Old Rome which Precedence and Power that Bishop long retained notwithstanding the endeavours of the envious Popes And Gregory never objected against these Canons till he began to fear the growing Greatness of the Patriarch of Constantinople but when that Church and Empire was sinking and there appeared no danger on that side to the Popes then Innocent the Third is said by the Notes to revive and allow this Canon again by which we see that nothing but Interest governs that Church and guides her Bishops in allowing or discarding any Council For now again when the Reformed begin to urge this Canon Baronius and the Notes say They can prove by firm Reasons that this Canon was forged by the Greeks But their Reasons are very frivolous They say Anatolius did not quote this Canon against Pope Leo I reply 'T is very probable he did because Leo saith He pleaded the Consent of many Bishops that is if Leo would have spoken out In this General Council Secondly They urge that this Canon is not mentioned in the Letter writ to Damasus I Answer They have told us before they sent their Acts to him and so need not repent them in this Letter Thirdly They talk of the Injury done to Timotheus Bishop of Alexandria but his Subscription is put to the Canons as well as the Creed and it doth not appear that ever he or any of his Successors contended for Precedence after this with the Patriarch of Constantinople And that the Modern Greeks did not forge this Canon is plain because Socrates and Sozomen both mention it and the Catholic Church always owned it for Authentic Yea in the Council of Chalcedon it is declared That the Bishop of Constantinople ought to have had the second place in the Factious Synod at Ephesus and he is reckoned in that fourth General Council next after the Pope whose Legates were there and yet durst not deny him the second place in which he sat and subscribed in that order having first had this Canon confirmed at Chalcedon So that all Churches but that of Rome submit to this General Council and they who pretend most to venerate them do despise and reject the Authority of General Councils if they oppose the ends of their Pride and Avarice To conclude Here is a General Council called and confirmed only by the Emperour assembled without the Pope or his Legates decreeing Matters of Faith and of Discipline yet every where owned and received as genuine except at Rome when Interest made them partial and still no less valued for that by all other Churches Which gives a severe Blow to the modern Pretences of their Papal Supremacy and Infallibility The same Year there was a Council at Aquileia in Italy wherein divers Arians were fully heard and fairly condemned Now this Council was called by the Emperour the Presidents of it being Valerian Bishop of Aquileia and Ambrose Bishop of Milan but Damasus is not named in it nor was he present at it in Person or by his Legates though this Council was called in Italy it self and designed to settle a Point of Faith But these Bishops as the Acts shew did not judge Heretics by the Popes Authority but by Scripture and by solid Arguments And they tell us It was then a Custom for the Eastern Bishops to hold their Councils in the East and the Western theirs in the West which argues they knew of no Universal Monarchy vested in the Pope and giving him power over all the Bishops both of the East and West For it was not Damasus but the Prefect of Italy who writ about this Synod to the Bishops of the East Nor did this Council write to the Pope but to the Emperour to confirm their Sentence against Heretics wherefore Damasus had a limited Authority in those days not reaching so much as over all Italy and extended only to the Suburbicarian Regions out of which as being Damasus's peculiar Province Ursicinus his Antagonist for the Papacy was banished by the Emperour Valentinian and therefore Sulpicius Severus calls him not Orbis but Urbis Episcopus the Bishop of the City not of the World and speaking of Italy he saith in the next Page That the Supreme Authority at that time was in Damasus and S. Ambrose To these two therefore the Priscillian Heretics applied themselves when they were condemned by the Council of Caesar-Augusta or Saragosa in Spain in which Country the Sect first began but when they could not get these great Bishops to favour their Cause they corrupted the Emperours Ministers to procure a Rescript for their restitution Now it is strange that this Council of Saragosa should bear the Title of under Damasus and that the Notes should affirm Sulpicius Severus plainly writes thus For if we read Sulpicius as above-cited we shall find that Damasus
and oblige them to retire into Desert places But the Modern Monks are all for Noble Seats in the best freqnented Cities so that these and those are vastly different Finally He makes the Persecuting Spirit of Macedonius and the Patience of Athanasius a mark to distinguish Truth from Heresie Now if we apply this Mark as none are greater Persecutors than the Romanists so we must conclude none are further from the Truth And now by these few Instances within the compass of one Century the Reader may judge what Truth there can be in that Religion that needs so many Frauds to hide its Faults and what trust can be given to that Historian who to serve an ill Cause makes no scruple to use all these kinds of Deceit This may warn all that design to peruse these Annals not to rely upon any of his Authorities or Arguments without examining and also not to take every thing for Primitive and Ancient which he pretends to be so This may suffice for this Volume and if we proceed we shall make the like Remarks on the following Tomes to shew that their Religion is made up of Falshoods and cannot be defended without Lying and Forgery which is the great support of their Evil Cause FINIS Glory be to the GOD of Truth Imprimatur 26 March 1695. C. Alston R. P. D. HEN. Episc Lond. Ã Sacris THE CHURCH HISTORY Clear'd from the Roman forgeries And Corruptions found in the COUNCILS and BAR ONIUS FROM The Year 400 till the end of the Fifth General Council An. Dom. 553. Being the Third and Fourth Parts of the Roman Forgeries By THOMAS COMBER D. D. Dean of DURHAM For we have not followed cunningly devised Fables 2 Pet. I. 16. LONDON Printed by Samuel Roycroft for Robert Clavell at the Peacock at the West-End of S. Pauls 1695. TO THE Most Reverend Father in GOD JOHN By Divine Providence Lord Archbishop of YORK Primate of ENGLAND AND METROPOLITAN May it please your Grace WHen I formerly had the Honour of Your Acquaintance tho' at a distance I reckon'd it none of my least Felicities But since that happy Providence that delivered these Nations brought Your Grace nearer to Illustrate these Northern Regions with Your excellent Doctrine and warm them with Your pious Example I could not better express my extraordinary Satisfaction and my Duty both than by presenting these Papers to Your Grace who have suffered so much from the Romish Party and done so much to prevent their once growing and dangerous Errors These Collections were all made when this Church was threatned to have their Corruptions imposed on us and the First Part was ready for the Press while that Cloud hung over our Heads This Second Part hath been hindred by divers necessary Avocations but now comes to appear under Your Grace's auspicious Patronage and if it be so happy also to gain Your Approbation that will recommend it to all that know Your Grace's solid Judgment and Undisguised Integrity Frauds and Forgeries are naturally Your Aversation and therefore the discovery of so great a heap of them may I hope be acceptable to Your Grace not on your own Account to whom probably here is nothing New but because this Essay may assist young Divines and such as begin to read Church-History at a cheap and easy rate to distinguish Truth from Falshood in matters of great importance I shall add no more since to give your Grace your just Character is as needless as it would be difficult for me and would not be pleasing to your Grace only I shall most heartily pray That the Church may be long happy in Your Conduct and that he may be reckoned among Your Grace's Friends who is My Lord Your Grace's most faithful Servant and Your True Honourer THO COMBER THE PREFACE ANTIQUITY seems so Naturally to challenge Veneration from all succeeding Times that it gives a Value to many things which have nothing else to recommend them But the Records of former Ages especially those relating to the Faith and Practice of the Church while it was in its purity and splendor are by all sober Men accounted truly Sacred Yet no Writings have suffered more by fraudulent Hands than these For most of them being for many Ages in the custody of those who had a new Authority to set up and were to contrive new Doctrines to furnish and support it with Wealth and Power their Interest obliged them to corrupt all genuine Ecclesiastical History and to invent innumerable spurious Pieces under great and ancient Names thereby to impose upon the ignorant Ages and make them imagine their later Devices were of Apostolical or at least Primitive Original And this is done with so much Artifice and Cunning that a careless Reader of the Ecclestastical Story as they represent it is in danger of being persuaded That the Modern Roman Church is in all things conformable to the Primitive from which it differs as much as Darkness doth from Light To prevent which fatal Mistake I think no Time can be better spent no Pains more usefully employed than in correcting the History of the Ancient Church and discovering the various Falsifications thereof Wherefore I have now pursued and enlarged my Design of remarking the Roman Frauds and Forgeries in their Editions of the Councils and in Baronius by rectifying the History of the Church and all Passages relating to it as I go along having proceeded as far as the Middle of the Sixth Century A Period which contains Three of the first Five General Councils and is memorable for variety of most important Transactions It was in this time that the most refined Hereticks disturbed the Church and the barbarous Nations broke into the Roman Empire and setled in divers parts of it And while the former employed the Pens of the Learned and the later diverted the Thoughts of the declining Emperors Rome had an unlucky Opportunity to serve the ends of her aspiring Ambition and to lay the Foundation of her future Grandeur Which Projects were furthered by a great decay not only of Learning but of Piety and good Manners toward the End of this time which made way for divers Superstitions to creep into the Worship and many Irregularities to grow up in the Discipline of the Christian Church Yet still there were many Learned and pious Writers who laboured to defend the Faith to check all sorts of Vsurpations and to keep up the Primitive Purity and good Order So that the Editors of these Councils and Baronius have been put to all their shifts to feign an Agreement between the Records of this Period and the Modern Doctrines and Practices of their Church foisting in many Legends and spurious Tracts and corrupting the Words as well as forcing the Sense of the genuine Writings of these Ages Of which Proceedings I was in hopes to have found both an exact Account and a just Censure in the lately published Work of the Learned Monsieur Du Pin And it must be
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
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 first who charged the Popes with Usurpation and Imposture both in this Case But the flattering Notes go on and tell us that if the Controversy had been about the Right of Appeals and not about the manner of appealing the Popes Legates would have cited the 4th and 5th Canons of Sardica which treat of the Right of Appeals and not the 7th which treats only of the manner of prosecuting them Now this is an open Falshood for the first Canon the Legates cite is in the best Edition of the Sardican Canons the fifth and is about the Right of Bishops to appeal And the second they cite is the 14th Canon and it is about the Appeals of Priests and Deacons so that neither of the Canons cited is about the manner of prosecuting Appeals and the latter which the Notes call the 7th Canon of Sardica doth not mention Rome They proceed to tell us there were 217 Bishops first and last subscribed to this Council being a great Provincial Council which shews how unanimous the Africans were in condemning the Popes Usurpation As to the Popes Legates the Notes grant they did not preside there and truly it was not fit they should when their own Cause was to be examined and Rome was the criminal Church here to be tried Again The Note k impudently calls the fifth Canon of Sardica by the name of the seventh Canon and pretends the Africans did not like the latter way of prosecuting Appeals That is by the Popes sending Legates into Africk to hear these Causes but allowed him to delegate them upon an Appeal to rehear the Appellant Whereas the Council doth expresly reject the whole Canon as a Forgery and forbid all Appeals to the parts beyond the Seas so that this is only defending one Lie by another and cleansing a Blot with blotted fingers The next Note l gravely tells us that the words Sardican Council were falsly put into the Text of this Council because the Legates professed these Canons were made at Nice and because the African Fathers say they knew of no Sardican Council which had allowed of the Popes sending Legates c. Now all this pains might have been spared for these words Sardican Council are only in a corrupt Latin Edition but the Greek and Latin Copy which is the best hath no such words at all But we may note here very justly That these Popes were strangely insolent to cite two Canons of a poor obscure Council never heard of in Africa no not by the learned S. Austin as the Notes confess and daringly fix these Canons upon the most famous general Council that ever was especially since the Nicene Council doth expresly charge That every Bishops sentence shall stand good in his own Province so that he who is Excommunicated by some shall not be received by others Now the pretended Canon allows the Pope to receive any person Excommunicated by the Bishops of his own Province So that it expresly contradicts the Canons of the Nicene Council and yet the Popes confidently said it was made there Had the African Fathers believed them and submitted no doubt these two Canons and perhaps all the rest of that petty Synod had been imposed upon the World for genuin Canons of the Nicene Council by the Roman Church whose Emissaries have forged no less than 60 new Canons and published them under the name of that famous Council Before I leave this subject I must note that Baronius and Binius who here confess these two Canons were made at Sardica do in the Notes on the Nicene Council impudently cite them to prove there were more than twenty Canons made at Nice of which number they say were the Canons about Appeals produced in the sixth Council of Carthage Baronius hath one trick more For he saith the Council of Sardica was a General Council as well as that at Nice and of as great Authority and so it was all one which Council the Popes cited I have disproved this before and only note here that if the African Fathers had believed this doubtless they would not have put themselves to so great cost and trouble to send to three foreign and remote Churches to search out the Truth I must add that the Bishops assembled at Carthage thought the Nicene Canons so considerable that they annex a Copy of them to their Acts wherein this is remarkable That the sixth Canon is cited without that forged Preface which the Roman Writers of late would make a part of the Canon it self viz. The Roman Church hath always had the Primacy No such words appear in this African Copy wherefore we may conclude they have been invented since by some of the Popes Creatures § 6. Celestine succeeded Boniface yet so as the Notes confess the Faction of Eulalius would not communicate with him However he seems to have been very Orthodox as to the Pelagian Controversy though Laurentius Valla truly censures him for one of no great Learning the Style of his Epistles shewing he was no accurate Latinist and in his own Epistle to Nestorius yet extant in the Ephesine Council he confesses he understood no Greek So that whatever he did against Pelagius or Nestorius was done at the request and by the direction of Men more learned than himself However it was well that this Pope was so willing to assist S. Cyril against Nestorius and Prosper with others against the Pelagians for his See being eminent his appearing on the Orthodox side gave great countenance to their Cause and promoted the Condemnation of those Hereticks which the Notes and Baronius so extremely magnify as if he was the first who condemned them and that it was solely his Authority which suppressed them the falshood of which we shall shew presently The Pontifical saith He ordered the Psalms to be sung by way of Antiphon by all before the Sacrifice But if he first brought in this kind of singing them at Rome we are sure they had been sung so long before both in the East and at Milan and it seems it is no disparagement for the holy Roman See to follow other Churches The first Epistle of Celestine hath a great many Sections added to it in Binius which are a Collection made by Prosper or some Eminent Writer against the Pelagians But Labbè prints the Epistle by it self and then prints the Collections apart However it is thought Celestine approved them and so they are cited by divers Ancients under his name But if we compare the Matter or the Style of those Additions with the former part which is Celestine's genuin work it will easily be discovered that the Popes Authority was far more considerable than his Learning And if any Man wonder why this Collector is so careful to set down the Decrees of the Roman Church against this Heresy the reason is plainly expressed viz. That some secret Favourers of Pelagius considering the kindness he and his followers
needed but two Arguments viz. those of the Popes Infallibility and Supremacy to have confounded all the pretences of this Schismatical Council and they are not so much as once mentioned Which is a certain Evidence that neither side knew of or believed these Papal Priviledges usurped in later times by that encroaching See Fourthly I come to consider the confirmation of the Acts of this general Council And this the Preface ascribes intirely to the Pope and so do the Notes after the Council upon the word Approved and so doth Baronius in several places But all this is without any just ground For the Preface saith he sent his Legates to confirm the Acts of the Council in his name and cites for this these words out of Celestine's Letter sent to the Synod by these Legates And what you derceâ shall be accounted defined and determined for the tranquility of all Churches But no such words are in that Epistle the Pope saying no more but only that he had sent these Persons to be present at their Acts and to confirm what he had long since decreed To which he hoped their Holiness would assent because they knew that which was determined was for the peace of all Churches The sense of which is that Celestine having long before Condemned Nestorius at Rome he sent his Legates to the general Council to get that Sentence confirmed and doubted not of their assent to it since this casting out of Nestorius the disturber of the Churches quiet would tend to the Peace of the whole Church So that this passage proves that the Council was to confirm the Popes Decree not that he was to confirm their Acts And the Synod in their Letter to Pope Celestine do expresly say That they had judged his Sentence against the Pelagians should remain firm and be valid c. adding that they had sent him the Acts of the Synod and the Subscriptions that he might know what was done But there is not one word desiring him to confirm their Decrees But as to the Emperors the case is clear For the Synod and the three Legates of the Pope address to them to Command that what this General Council had done against Nestorius might be in force being confirmed by their consent and approbation And they Petition the Emperors to make null and void the false Synods uncanonical proceedings against Cyril and Memnon And in another Relation to the Emperors they put both these requests together And Sozomen saith in express terms that the Emperor by his suffrage confirmed their Acts Yea these Testimonies are so express that Binius himself in his Notes at last grants That the Emperor dimissed the Bishops adding this Decree that the Sentence of this Holy General Council against Nestorius should stand in full force So that nothing but the prodigious partiality of Baronius and Binius for the Popes supremacy could put them upon inventing so groundless a Story as that of the Popes confirming the Decrees of this Council which he did no otherwise than all other eminent Orthodox Bishops that is by consenting to their Acts and applauding them afterwards § 2. Some other scattered passages there are which we will briefly put together here before we conclude this discourse The Preface boasts much of the words of Firmus Bishop of Caesarea and cites them thus that the Synod had followed that which Celestine had prescribed and being compelled by his Authority had passed Sentence on Nestorius and his Opinion and a little after Firmus his words are otherwise cited in the same Preface viz. That Celestine had prescribed a certain Rule for this business which the Council following observing diligently the form of the Canons they had inflicted the Canonical and Apostolical Judgment upon him and hence they infer that the Pope had commanded the Eastern Bishops to Decree over again and execute his Sentence against Nestorius Yea Baronius is so bold as to affirm That Celestine sent his Legates not to subject the Cause of Nestorius to a new Examination but only to see his Sentence Executed and that neither did he allow the Council any more than only to Execute his Decree nor did this general Council Arrogate any thing to it self but to Act according to his Sentence According to which account this Council of Ephesus was a mear mock Assembly and all these Bishops no more than Officers under the Pope to put his Decrees in Execution But that this is most notoriously false appears first from their false citing of the words of Firmus who truly quoted saith thus The Apostolical seat of Celestine formerly gave his suffrage and set a Pattern in this business And a little after which we also following have put in force that Form decreeing both a Canonical and Apostolical judgment against him The sense of which is this That whereas the Pope in his Roman Synod had condemned Nestorius unless he repented in ten days this general Council approving of that Sentence had upon Nestorius his refusal to appear after divers admonitions condemned him also So that he was now not only censured by one Apostolical See but canonically also by all the Bishops of a general Council And that this is the Sense is evident from the words of the Synod it self in the Preface to the Sentence by them pronounced being convinced by divers proof that Nestorius holds impious Opinions we are forced by the Canons and the Epistle of Celestine our Fellow-Minister even with Tears to come to this severe Sentence against him c. We see they name the Canons first and before Celestine's Epistle as laying an obligation upon them so to proceed and they call the Pope their Fellow-Minister nor was it his Authority but his having proceeded according to the Canons that laid the necessity upon this great Council to follow his Example and imitate the Pattern he had set them For nothing is plainer than that the Council did always intend to examin this Cause over again and for that reason they cited Nestorius and read first the Letters of Cyril and then of Celestine and after a full hearing both of the Fathers Opinions and of the Blasphemies collected out of Nestorius his Writings finding him finally obstinate they pronounce Sentence on him not in the Popes name but thus Our Lord Jesus Christ whom he hath Blasphemed by this Holy Council Decrees that Nestorius shall be deprived of his Episcopal dignity and shall be excluded out of the Communion of Bishops This certainly was an Original Decree in the name of the General Council and by the Authority they derived from Christ by which they gave force and validity to the Sentence formerly pronounced by the Pope and his Roman Council which had signified nothing against his Equal a Patriarch of the Eastern Church over whom he had no jurisdiction if it had not been thus confirmed So that it is a strange extravagance to
Council deposes a Bishop of Ambrun uncanonically chosen and makes divers Decrees with his fellow Bishops who doubtless were not then so much enslaved to the Pope as in after times § 4. Leo the First succeeded Xystus being an active bold and aspiring Man so that he concerned himself in all the affairs of Christendom and every where laboured to advance the Roman Supremacy for which he had a favourable conjuncture by the misfortunes which then hapned to all other great Churches The Africans were under a cruel persecution the Eastern Church distracted with Heresie and a woful Schism the Orthodox Bishops in the East betrayed and oppressed by three of the four Patriarchs and the fourth of the Eastern Patriarchs condemned and murdered the Emperor of the West very young and he in the East a weak man and both governed by devout and zealous Women All which circumstances contributed to make Leo who was always Orthodox and powerful very great The Pontifical relates but few of his Actions and those with many mistakes but because all the following Councils give us so much of his Life I shall only make some remarks upon the Pontifical and take the rest in the order of time First 'T is said there he found out two Heresies the Eutychian and the Nestorian But the Nestorian Heresie was found out and condemned long before his time and as for Eutyches he was found out and censured by Flavianus Bishop of Constantinople before Leo took him for a Heretick yea he writ a kind Letter to this Heretick and two angry Letters in his behalf to the Emperor and Flavianus because he was excommunicated And till he was informed by the Bishop of Constantinople what dangerous Doctrines he held Leo inclined to be Eutyches friend for which indeed afterwards he made ample amends in assisting toward Eutyches condemnation Secondly The Pontifical variously and falsly reports the number of Bishops in the Council of Chalcedon and is mistaken in saying Pulcheria was present with Martianus there and that they confessed their Faith before the Council desiring them to send to Pope Leo to expound the Faith And that Leo after this did write a Tract condemning all Heresies all which are gross mistakes But it is true that he writ many Epistles and frequently shewed his approbation of the Council of Chalcedon and that he did prevail with Attila King of the Hunns to deal gently with Rome when it was in his power to have destroyed it 'T is very probable also that he added some passages to the Roman Office and that he ordered some to watch the Church of St. Peter and Paul to which in this Age many began to make Visits and Oblations But Binius his Notes add divers incredible Stories as that about the Hearse-Cloth which Bled when Leo clip'd it with Scissors which Gregory mentions near 200 year after only as a report which he could not cite any Author for And another Story or two out of Sophronius his Pratum Spirituale a Book stuffed with Fables as Baronius himself confesseth for having cited a false Story out of this Author he hath these words since he put so many lies together in this one Narration what credit can be given to the rest Yet Baronius himself cites this Author for Miracles and Visions very oft and in one place relates two Miracles out of Sophronius for the glory of that Epistle which Pope Leo writ to Flavianus against Eujyches and Nestorius An Epistle indeed very Orthodox and at that time very seasonable but far from meriting those prodigious Encomiums Baronius or the Legends give it who magnifie it as if it equalled the Creed and proved the Pope alone was to define all controversies of Faith to teach General Councils what they were to believe and to give Laws to all Bishops in the World But whatever excellency there is in this Epistle which is in number the Xth and printed in the Council of Chalcedon it is not to be ascribed to Pope Leo but to the learned Prosper who was his Amanuensis and wrote not only this but many other Letters for him so that the Sense and Phrase is Prosper's only they are writ in Leo's name as Gennadius testifies who lived but fifty year after Leo became Pope and the same is affirmed by Trithemius And we may observe that an Epistle of this very Prosper's against the Pelagians as we noted before went under Pope Celestine's name but far exceeded the Style of Celestine's own Letters I only add that Labbè here prints all these Epistles which bear Leo's name some of which I shall have occasion to consider afterwards The first Council of Orange Binius intitles under Leo but Labbè ashamed of that gross pretence leaves these words out For it was called by and held under Hilary Bishop of Arles who exercised the Jurisdiction of a Metropolitan and Primate in those parts and all the Bishops of those parts owned his Primacy and met at his Summons of which Binius takes no notice There were made in this Synod many good Canons for Discipline which were observed in the Gallican Church without any confirmation from the Pope At the end of this Council is published a Form of Excommunication and a very excellent Office for reconciling Penitents supposed to be made in this Council which proves Forms had then been long in use The second Council at Vasatis or Razai in France seems to me to be wrong dated for I observe the fourth Canon cites a passage out of St. Hierom with this Title One of the Fathers asserts c. Now St. Hierom died but 20 year before the date of this Council and could hardly so soon have been cited by the Title of One of the Fathers besides the sixth Canon cites one of the spurious Epistles of Clement forged after this Age. But the fifth Canon orders him who is aggrieved with the Sentence of his Bishop to appeal to a Synod which shews that reserving Causes to Rome was not allowed or used then The Editors have a Roman Council of Pope Leo's which was no more than a Solemn meeting of the Clergy and Laity to examine the Manichean Hereticks But there were two remarkable things in Leo's proceeding against them of which the Notes say nothing but Baronius informs us First That he discovered the Manicheans by their refusing to drink of the Cop in the Blessed Sacrament which this Pope counts a great impiety in this sort of People not foreseeing that his Successors would take the Cup away from all the People of that Church And this passage makes it clear that all the People at Rome who were Orthodox did receive the Cup then or else the Hereticks not receiving it could not have discovered them Secondly Baronius notes that because these Manicheans idolatrously adored the rising Sun Leo forbid the Orthodox People to use that innocent and ancient Custom of
held long after Celestine's death at St. Germans second coming hither So that in this Island the Roman Church was not considered in those days and one Sister Church desired help of another to repress Heresies without any recourse to Rome § 6. In a Synod held at Constantinople under Flavianus Eutyches a Monk was formally accused of Heresy for affirming that Christ had but one Nature after his Incarnation and that it was as much Nestorianism to hold two Natures as two Persons Upon which he was three several times cited before the Council and had sufficient time given but refusing to come till the time was expired and though he did come at last obstinately defending his Heresy he was unanimously condemned and by Flavianus and the whole Synod Excommunicated and Degraded which was a judicial proceeding agreeable to the ancient Canons Binius and Baronius in relating this make some remarks which must be considered For first when Eutyches saith He would subscribe the Nicene and Ephesine Councils so far as they were agreeable to Scripture They note this was more Haereticorum according to the manner of Hereticks But I would ask First Whether it be not true that the Decrees of Councils in matters of Faith are no further obligatory than they are proved by Scripture Secondly Whether the most Orthodox Fathers Athanasius Cyril c. did not always appeal to Scripture in the first place And the greatest Councils ever confirm their determinations first by Scripture Thirdly Whether any of the Adversaries of Eutyches in that Age did censure him for appealing first to Scripture Baronius himself cites Flavianus his Letter wherein he first alledges Scripture and then the Expositions of the Fathers And Pope Leo saith Eutyches erred by not having recourse to the Prophets Apostles and Evangelists but to himself so that it was no fault in Eutyches to prefer Scripture before the Fathers expositions nor to appeal to it but to expound it wrongfully was his Crime and that is more Haereticorum Secondly When Eutyches petitioned Theodosius in this case for a safe conduct to the Synod Binius adds to his Authors words that this was also after the manner of Hereticks Whereas it appears that divers of the Orthodox have applied themselves to the Emperors to assist and support them and none oftner than Pope Leo himself so that a thing done as frequently by the Orthodox as Hereticks can be no sign or mark of Heresy Thirdly Binius pretends that Eutyches appealed from this Synod to Pope Leo Now this is confuted by the very Acts of the Synod related in the Council of Chalcedon and recited by Baronius where it is said Eutyches appealed to the Council of the Roman Bishop and of the Bishops of Alexandria Hierusalem and Thessalonica yet they make as if this had been an Appeal only to the Pope Fourthly Binius notes the Appeal was not admitted I reply Pope Leo did so far receive Eutyches Letter that he writ three Epistles on his behalf before he was informed of the true State of the Case and quarrelled with Flavianus for condemning a convicted Heretick before he had consulted him But in truth there was no Appeal at all Flavianus did write indeed to Leo and probably to all other Patriarchs after the Canonical Judgment was over to acquaint them with his proceedings that so they might not break the Canons by admitting an Heretick in one Church who was Excommunicated in another But the Style of Flavianus his Letter shews that he need not ask Leo's leave to censure an Heretical Priest of his own Diocess nor doth he desire the Pope to confirm his Sentence but only to make it known So that Baronius falsly infers the Popes power to judge of Heresy and confirm all Sentences against them from this Letter of Flavianus And he as falsly makes the like inference from Eutyches writing to Leo as if he knew of what weight the Popes judgment was for which Councils in doubtful Cases use to stay and to which all the Catholick Church would certainly incline For Eutyches writ to other Bishops of Italy as well as the Pope as Baronius in that Page confesseth and considered Leo no otherwise than as one Eminent Bishop And this Synod of Constantinople stayed not for the Popes Judgment nor did those Bishops who despised the Decree of this Synod value Pope Leo's Judgment after he had declared for Flavianus So little truth is there in the Annalists pompous observations which only shew that all his aim is from every passage to extort some kind of colour for his dear Supremacy In the same year were two Synods one at Tyre the other at Berithus in the cause of one Ibas a Syrian Bishop wherein the Patriarch of Antioch and Constantinople were concerned but the Pope is not once mentioned in the whole proceedings But of the Cause it self we shall hear more afterward Theodosius the Emperor being deceived by Eutyches and Chrysapius one of his great Courtiers an Eunuch espouses the Quarrel of that Heretick and labours to have the Sentence which Flavianus passed against him in the late Synod revoked and Pope Leo was drawn into the same snare by the Letters of Eutyches and Theodosius till Flavianus had better informed him For Leo writ both to the Emperor and Flavianus on Eutyches behalf at first And whereas Baronius ought to blush for the Popes mistake he recites these two Letters and talks big of his being owned for the lawful and chief Judge in Ecclesiastil Controversies yea the supreme Judge of the Universal Church c. But though as an ingenuous Romanist observes Leo in all his Epistles boasts of the power of his Apostolical Seat as much as he can and more than by the Canons he ought to do yet neither of these Epistles say any such thing as Baronius infers from them And that Letter of Flavianus which delivered this infallible Judge from his mistake declares that Eutyches had received a just and Canonical Condemnation to which the Pope ought to consent and to joyn in it By which we see a Sentence against an Heretick was just before the Pope knew of it and that he and all Orthodox Bishops ought by their subsequent consents to ratifie what any one Bishop had Canonically done And since Eutyches was already rightly censured Flavianus requires Leo and no doubt other Eminent Bishops to publish their consent to it thereby to prevent the design of Eutyches which was to get a general Council called to judge his Cause over again Now this serves Baronius to brag that Flavianus knew there was no need of a general Council for that which the Popes Letters had defined A strange affection For when Pope Leo not first as Baronius saith falsly but last of all the Orthodox Bishops did stand up for Flavianus and write to confirm his Censure upon Eutyches that very Cause was tried over again in the Pseudo-general Council of Ephesus and the
those words in it of saving the honour of St. Peter and of his Legates being sent to preside in the Council which passages might look favourably on the supremacy if they be genuine only they are no more but Leo's own Evidence in his own Cause After this the Council being assembled at Nice they with the Popes Legates desired the Emperors presence among them upon which he removed the Council to the City of Chalcedon and thither he afterward came to them On which I shall only note that Baronious and Binius have turned this Petition of the Council and Legates into a Declaration of the Legates alone for they pretend that the Emperor writ to the Council That it seemed good to the Popes Legates that he should be present Which is a false representation of the matter as the Emperors Letter shews § 2. We proceed now to the Council it self assembled at Chalcedon and will first consider these generals viz. 1st Who called it 2ly Who presided in it and in what Order they sate 3ly Who confirmed the Acts of it And secondly make some brief remarks on the particular Acts of this Council First As to the Authority by which it was convened Though the Preface had owned that Marcian called this Council yet the Notes affirm it was appointed by the Authority of Leo and by the advice assistance and help of Marcian congregated And again it is clear this General Council was convened by the Exhortation and Counsel of the Emperor but by the Command and Authority of the Pope And this they pretend to prove by the Epistle of the Bishops of Maesia writ some years after the Council which they cite thus Many holy Bishops meeting in the City of Chalcedon by the Command of Leo who is truly an head of Bishops but the Epistle adds and of the venerable Bishop and Patriarch Anatolius a Council was held which was confirmed under two Emperors But these fraudulent Editors leave out these last words which shew that these Bishops were as much called by the Authority of Anatolius as of Leo and also that the Emperors confirmed the Acts of this general Council which two things Binius would conceal from his Reader Now this accidental expression of six Bishops long after implying no more but only that Leo and Anatolius sent out the Emperors Summons to all Bishops the other three Patriarchs being not then of unsuspected fame is all they have to prove this egregious falshood of this Councils being called by the Popes sole Authority except an Epistle of Gelasius another Pope pleading his own Cause Whereas there are clear and express proofs almost innumerable that it was appointed and convened or called by the Emperors Authority For Leo was summoned himself by the Emperor and in obedience to that Summons excuses his own absence and sends his Legates to the Council And the Emperors general Letter strictly requiring all Bishops to be there is extant a Copy of which probably was delivered to the Pope And in the beginning of every Act it is expresly said The Synod met ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã c. by the command or divine Authority of the Emperors and it is so often repeated that this Council was called by the precept or command of the Emperor as makes it needless and impossible to cite all the places Liberatus the Deacon who writ some years after when the Popes had encroached something further saith at the Popes request the Emperor commanded this Council to be assembled which makes it a strange boldness in Baronius to affirm that the Emperor requested the Pope that a Council might be called which not only this Historian but the Emperors Letter in the next page contradicts Yea Leo himself in his 61st Epistle which the Notes cite with great applause owns the Council was gathered by the precept of the most Christian Princes c. and the Pope in divers of his Epistles owns the Authority of calling general Councils to be in the Emperor yea the Legates own in the very Council it self that the Council was summoned by the Emperors Authority So that for any of the Popes flatterers to pretend the contrary is to wink against the clearest light Secondly As to the Presidents of this Council the Historical Preface is very positive that the Apostolical Legates presided and the Notes prove it was a general Council because the Pope presided by his Legates But if that were essential to a General Council there was none before this of Chalcedon Here indeed three of the five Legates named by the Pope Paschafinus Lucentius and Boniface were allowed to sit uppermost on one side of the Bishops but Basilius and Julianus the other two who also were named Legates by the Pope were not owned by the Council under that Character and therefore had no precedency given them And if this be all they mean by the Legates presiding that they in right of the Pope had the first place among the Bishops we will not contend with them but if they suppose any Power or Authority these Legates had over the Council by this precedency we must deny that Baronius brags that all things were determined by the Popes Authority And the Notes before cited speak as if they had done all things in this Council yea the Latin version of the Council forgets the Title of Presidents thrice and claps it to the names of these Legates which Title is not in the Greek But if we examine into the matter these three Legates who were allowed by the Council had nothing more than the honour of sitting uppermost upon the left hand and sometimes speaking and subscribing first But in the twelfth Act concerning the Church of Ephesus over which the Patriarch of Constantinople claimed some Jurisdiction Anatolius speaks before the Popes Legate and by his direction the matter was determined And though both Baronius and the Notes boast That the Legates pronounced the sentence on Dioscorus in the Popes name as Presidents of the Council Yet if we consult the place we shall find that they twice asked the Synods Opinion of Dioscorus his Case and the whole Synod declared he was to be condemned yet the Legates durst not pronounce the Sentence till they asked if the Synod commanded them to give the Ecclesiastical Sentence and upon the Order of the Synod they first pronounced it and every Bishop single declared Dioscorus was deposed and excommunicated So that there was nothing of Authority in the Legates but only their speaking first and declaring that which the whole Council had agreed upon And because Anatolius commonly spoke in the second place therefore he is joyned with Leo and both of them together are called the Princes of this Council So in one of the Epistles after the Council Leo and Anatolius are said to have regularly presided herein By which Titles are
to call Peter the Rock and Ground-work of the Catholick Church For it was only the Popes Domesticks called him so and had the Council foreseen the consequence they would expresly have opposed that which they only silently passed by as frivolous In the next place we may observe that it is said in this Council that the Emperor confirmed the Acts of the second Council at Ephesus therefore it was usual then for the Emperor so to do since this is alledged to prove that a lawful Council Again when the Acts of this second Council at Ephesus were read at Chalcedon the Greek plainly saith the Emperor by his Letters exhorted the Pope to be present there but the Latin Version corrupts the Text and puts in supplicarunt as if the Emperor had humbly supplicated the Pope to be there whereas one of his Legates a few lines before owned that the Pope had the same Form of Summons sent him that was sent to the other great Bishops Moreover in Eutyches Petition read in that Council Cyril is called the President of the third General Council at Ephesus without any mention of the Pope And we may further observe that the Heretick Eutyches in the Acts of the Council of Constantinople which condemned him is called Pope Eutyches that being a name formerly given to all Eminent Clergy-men especially in the East I shall make no more remarks upon this first Session which was spent in reading over and reviewing the Council of Constantinople wherein Eutyches was condemned and the Pseudo-Synod of Ephesus wherein Dioscorus absolved him because I have treated of both before It is sufficient to observe upon this full hearing the Council of Chalcedon condemned both Eutyches and Dioscorus and the Lay-Judges summ'd up the Act but there seems to be a Roman addition in the end of this first Act where it is thrust in without choerence and sense that Leo writ an Epistle to Flavianus which though it be true comes in very impertinently here but the Forger thought when the Writings of the Orthodox Fathers were mentioned that of Leo ought by all means to be mentioned right or wrong In the second Action there is nothing considerable but the reading of this very Epistle of Leo to Flavianus after the Nicene and Constantinopolitan Creed being written expresly about the Eutychian Heresie the main Cause to be then decided which was therefore received there as other Orthodox Writings were with general Acclamations but the Notes citing these Acclamations quote them imperfectly no further than these words Peter speaks by Leo But the Council goes on and says The Apostles and Cyril taught thus by which we may see it was the consonancy of Leo's Doctrine to the writings of the Apostles and of St. Cyril not the infallibility of his See which procured his Epistle this general applause Wherefore the Prefacer need not have mentioned these Acclamations as if they were only given to Leo's Epistle or had been made upon some single excellency peculiar to the Bishop of that See for both the Creeds and two of Cyril's Epistles had been honoured with such like Acclamations a little before The third Action contains the canonical deposition of Dioscorus after the Bishops had heard all the complaints against him cited him thrice and could not prevail with him to appear Now there being nothing to be done at this Session but to proceed according to the Canons of which the Bishops were the proper Executors they only met without Lay Judges which saith Binius is the most evident note of a General Council but in truth it is no note of any such matter for if that were not a General Council wherein some of the Lasty were present then there never was any General Council till this time and this single Act would then be the sole Regular Act of this General Council to such absurd consequences doth these mens blind zeal lead them The next thing to be noted is a corruption in the Titles of the Petitions which some of the Aegyptian Clergy offered to the Council against Dioscorus for the Greek hath no more but this The Petition of Theodorus the Deacon exhibited against Dioscorus but the Latin Version thrusts in Pope Leo's name thus exhibited to Pope Leo and the Council of Chalcedon and the same corruption is in the Titles of the following Petitions of Ischyrion Athanasius and Sophronius If it be objected that the Superscriptions of all these Petitions both in Greek and Latin are To the most Holy c. Universal Patriarch of Great Rome Leo and to the Holy General Council c. I reply these Superscriptions seem to be forged also For first Eusebius his Petition before mentions not Leo and these Petitions are addressed only to the Council there being not the least sentence in them peculiar to Leo or supposing him to see or read them so that these Superscriptions to an absent Bishop are non-sense and in all probability added by some Roman Transcribers as may be guessed by the great swelling Titles with which the Pope is loaded Again in the Summons sent to Dioscorus the third time it is declared that the Emperor had commanded the Bishops to hear this Cause the Greek word is ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã but the Latin softens it into permisit However whether the Emperor commanded or permitted the Bishops to hear this Cause it is plain that even in this Session consisting only of Clergy the Bishops had the Emperors leave and proceeded by his permission As to the Sentence it self the Preface the Notes and Baronius pretend it was pronounced in Leo's name and boast much of the Legates pronouncing it But if we consult the place we shall find that since no Lay-Judges were there the Popes Legates were as these Judges did in other Sessions to collect the Votes and then to sum them up and publish them and therefore after the enquiry was ended they ask what the Synod thought fit to be done which they do over and over again and till the Council expresly commanded them they did not pronounce the Sentence 'T is true these Legates had learned their Lessons so well at Rome that they contrive it in words very pompous The most Holy and Blessed Arch-Bishop of the Elder and Greater Rome Leo by us and by this present Synod with the most Blessed and Honourable Apostle Peter who is the Rock and Groundwork of the Catholick Church and he that is the Foundation of the Orthodox Faith that is Jesus Christ hath deprived him of his Episcopal Dignity and degraded him from all Ministration therefore let this most Holy General Council decree concerning the said Dioscorus what is agreeable to the Canons But these Rhetorical Flourishes coming only from the Popes Domesticks give him no right to them it is more material what Cardinal Cusanus observes that the Legates as sitting first in this Council first pronounce Sentence by the
this Session it is said That the Councils definition had confirmed Leo ' s Epistle and the Faith of Leo is commended because he believed as Cyril believed And after all the Bishops agreement was not sufficient to ratifie this definition of Faith till it was shewed to the Emperor as the last words import The Sixth Action was adorned with the presence of the Emperor Marcianus who made a Speech to the Fathers which Baronius by mistake saith was in the first Session telling them he was come to confirm the Faith they had agreed on as Constantine did not to shew his power Which is a clear and undeniable proof that the confirmation of their Decrees depended on the Emperor in whose presence the definition of Faith was read and subscribed by every one of the Bishops and he declared his Approbation thereof and in the open Synod appoints penalties for them who should after this call these Points into question And then he gives them some Rules to be formed into Canons because they related to Ecclesiastical Affairs after which having been highly Applauded by the Bishops he was petitioned to dimiss them but told them they must not depart for some few days and so took his leave of them Which shews that the Emperor who convened them had also the sole power to dissolve this general Council I shall add what Richerius observes upon that definition of Faith made in this Session that it contains many of the very words and expressions of the Athanasian Creed and though he doubt whether Athanasius did compose that Form which bears his name yet he saith It is now become the Creed of the Catholick Church and there is not a Tittle in it which is not agreeable to the Credit Holiness and Learning of Athanasius He notes also the policy of the Popes Legates who contrary to all ancient usage and to the Primitive simplicity of the former Councils do most impertinently put this Epithete to the Popes name Bishop of the Universal Church of the City of Rome But when I consider the absurdity of the expression and the frequent corruptions in these Acts why might not that bold hand who added to the Legates name President of the Council in this very place and in this Session where the Emperor being present certainly presided add this huffing Title to the Pope's name And if so it is a corruption and can be no ground for an Argument However 't is a great prejudice to all these Titles that when any others of the Council speak of the Pope they call him only Bishop or Archbishop and none but his own Legates load him with those vain Titles The Seventh Action contains only the Ratification of a private Agreement made between Maximus Bishop of Antioch and Juvenalis Bishop of Jerusalem concerning the extent of their Jurisdictions The Eighth Action was the case of Theodoret who having formerly favoured Nestorius yet being afterwards convinced of his Error was received into Communion by Pope Leo who had judged his cause and acquitted him before the Council met But for all that the case was heard over again and he called an Heretick and had been expelled the Council if he had not cleared himself over again by subscribing Leo's Epistle and Anathematizing Nestorius and Eutyches upon which he was restored to Communion and to his Bishoprick By which it is as clear as the Sun that the Council was above the Pope and had Authority to Judge over again the Causes he had determined and also that barely being in Communion with the Pope could not clear any Man from Heresie nor give him a right to the Communion of the Catholick Church And if the Epistles of Theodoret to Leo be genuin whereof there is good cause to doubt and this cause were referred to the Pope by Appeal as the Romanists brag This makes the matter worse and shews that the last Appeal is not to the Pope and that he cannot finally decide any cause which shall not be liable to be tried again in a general Council yea though it be as this was a Cause of Faith which utterly ruins the Infallibility The Ninth and Tenth Actions concern Ibas Bishop of Edessa who had been a Nestorian and was deposed by Dioscorus in the Pseudo Synod of Ephesus in which are these observables First The Emperor commanded a Lay-man and some Neighbouring Bishops to hear this Cause first at Tyre and then at Berytus so that even Provincial Councils did not meet without the Emperors Authority and the Popes universal supremacy was not known then For in the Council of Berytus Antioch is called an Apostolical Throne and the Council after they had restored him to his Bishoprick referred the cause between him and Nonnus who had been thrust into his place to Maximus Bishop of Antioch as the proper Judge of that matter No more is here to be noted but only that the Popes Legates and the whole Council desire that the Emperor would revoke and utterly annul the Ephesine false Synod For though the Pope had done this yet they knew that was insufficient since none but the Emperor had right effectually to confirm or null a Council which pretended to be Oecumenical To this Action Baronius and Binius tack another concerning an allowance to be made to maintain Domnus late Bishop of Antioch who had been deposed But they own this is not in the Greek nor was there any such thing in the Acts of the Council in Justinian's time who expresly affirms Domnus was dead before which is certainly true Wherefore the Cardinal owns they found this in an old Latin Copy in the Vatican the very Mint of Forgeries and this Action ought to be rejected as a mear Fiction The Eleventh and Twelfth Actions were spent in examing the cause of Bassianus and Stephanus both pretending to be Bishops of Ephesus wherein we may observe That Bassianus pleads he was duly elected by the suffrage of the Nobility People and Clergy of that City and the Emperor confirmed the Election for the Pope had not then usurped the nomination or confirmation of remote Bishops Again whereas Baronius brags that the Pope deposed Bassianus from the Bishoprick of Ephesus and cites the words of Stephen his Antagonist thus it is now four years since the Roman Bishop deposed Bassianus arguing from thence That it was the ancient usage for the Pope to depose Metropolitans He doth notoriously prevaricate for Stephen's words are since the Roman Bishop deposed him and the Bishop of Alexandria condemned him And a little before the same Stephen saith more fully That Bassianus was expelled by the holy Fathers Leo and Flavianus and the Bishops of Alexandria and Antioch By which the Reader may see there is no credit to be given to Baronius Quotations who always resolves by false Citations of Authors to ascribe that to the Pope alone which was done by him in conjunction with other Bishops
Pope Leo for reproving Theodosius the Emperor gently and mildly when he was going to establish Heresie by a Pseudo-Synod Whereas Old Eli's Example may shew if the Emperor was his Inferior in this matter and the Pope his Ghostly Father that his Reproof ought to have been sharper yea he should have expresly prohibited the convening of this Council if his Authority was necessary to their Meeting and have not so meanly truckled as to send his Legates to a Synod which he judged needless yea dangerous And if we consider Leo's high Spirit this Submission shews he had no right to call a General Council nor power to hinder the Emperor from appointing one Again When the Pope by Prosper's help had writ a very seasonable and Orthodox Epistle against Eutyches the French Bishops were careful to have it exactly Transcribed but it follows not from hence That they would not vary one syllable from his Decrees For this respect was shewed not to the Authority of the See but to the excellency of the Epistle as appears in that the Gallican Bishops as hath been shewed rejected other Decrees both of this Pope and his Predecessors when they disliked them And Baronius owns a little after that these Bishops rejoyced that this Epistle contained their own sense as to the Faith and were glad that the Pope held the same Opinion that they had always held from the Tradition of their Ancestors So that this is no Proof as he would have it That the Pope was a Master presiding over all the Christian World For they judged of his Teaching and approved it because it agreed with their Churches ancient Tradition On no better grounds he gathers there was One only lawful Judge One Governor of Holy things always in the Church viz. the Pope From Theodoret's Epistle to Leo For first these Epistles are justly suspected as being not heard of till they came to light first out of the Vatican And secondly they are demonstrated to be spurious by divers Learned Men and especially this to Leo is shewed to contain manifest Contradictions Thirdly If this Epistle were genuine it must be considered that all the Patriarchs except the Roman were at that time either corrupted or oppressed and in that juncture Theodoret could appeal to none of them but Leo and so might well give him good words who alone was likely and able to assist him As for that Testimony wherein they much glory That Rome had the Supremacy over all Churches as their Translation speaks because it was always free from Heresie and no Heretick had sat there it supposes a long experience of the Church of Romes Integrity before this Priviledge was bestowed and if the Supremacy was given her for this Reason she ought to lose it again whenever any Heretical Pope shall get the Chair nor doth Theodoret at all suppose this impossible for the future Moreover he brags that Leo restored Theodoret and others deposed by this Pseudo Ephesine-Synod and infers That it was the Popes priviledge alone to restore Bishops deposed by a Council But the Misfortune is Theodoret was called an Heretick after the Pope had privately acquitted him and his Cause was to be tried over again at Chalcedon and till that Council restored him he remained suspended for all this pretended Priviledge of the Pope And before we leave him we may note that he used all his Interest to persuade the Emperor to call a lawful and impartial General Council as appears by all his Epistles to his several Friends which shews he knew it was in the Emperor's power alone to call one not in the Pope's to whom he would have written being in favour with him if he had had Authority in this Affair He reckons Attila's leaving to harrass the Eastern Empire to be a Divine Reward for Marcian's setling the true Religion there but presently tells us That this Scourge of God and other sad Judgments fell upon Italy and the Western Empire from whence he supposes the Reformation of all Eastern Heresies came and where he believes no Heresie could ever take place So miserably do Men expose themselves when they pretend to give Reasons for all God's Dispensations In the next year hapned the Famous Council of Chalcedon wherein divers of Baronius's Frauds have been already detected so that I am only to add That Leo was politick in pretending to give Anatolius a power to receive Recanting Bishops who had fallen into Eutyches Heresie and cunningly reserves the greater Cases to his own See But 't is plain Anatolius of Constantinople had as much power in the Provinces subject to him as the Pope had in Italy and the greater Cases were according to ancient Usage reserved to the next General Council where both the Bishop of Rome and Constantinoples Acts were to be re-examined and none of these Erring Bishops were restored but by that Council And finally he makes it a great Crime in Dioscorus to pretend to Lord it over Egypt and to say He had as much Authority there as the Emperor Yet the following Popes did and said as much in relation to Italy but Baronius cannot see any harm in that though Socrates did who saith That both the Bishops of Rome and Alexandria had exceeded the bounds of Priestly-power and fallen to a secular way of Ruling And this may suffice for this Part of the Period we have undertaken CHAP. IV. Roman Errors and Forgeries in the Councils from the end of the Fourth Council till An. Dom. 500. § 1. THE Synod of Alexandria is falsly styled in the Title under Leo For their own Text confesseth it was assembled by the Authority of Proterius Bishop of Alexandria The Second Council of Arles which Binius had antedated 70 year and put out with this false Title under Siricius is by Labbè placed here according to Sirmondus his direction The Council of Anjou in Binius is said to be held under Leo who is not once named in it Wherefore Labbè leaves out that false Inscription and only saith it was held in the 13th year of Pope Leo The 4th Canon of this Council is corrupted by Binius and Baronius For where the Text reads If any be coelibes unmarried they put into the Margen as a better reading if any be debiles weak Which is to make the Reader believe that all the Clergy then were unmarried whereas this Canon supposes many of them had Wives And the 11th Canon allows a married Man to be chosen Priest or Deacon the Popes Decrees not yet prevailing in France So that Labbè honestly strikes out debiles and keeps only the true reading d We note also that in the end of this 4th Canon such Clerks as meddle in surrendring Cities are excommunicated A Sentence which if it were now executed would put many Priests and Jesuits out of the Communion of the Church for their treachery to the Emperor and the King of
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
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
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
Pope Eusebius but makes Melchiades immediate Successor to Marcellinus It is very observable that these two unknown Popes in the Notes on their Lives are said to have sat Seven years between them And the Pontifical saith There was a Vacancy of Seven years after Marcellinus which Vacancy is also asserted by Anastasius Biblioth by Luitprandus Abbo Floriacens Cusanus and Genebrard And though Baronius's and Binius's Notes deny this Seven years Vacancy it is upon meer Conjectures The Scandal of so long a Vacancy no doubt setting some of the old Parasites of Rome on work to invent two Popes Names and put them into the List from whence probably they have been foisted into Oâtatus and S. Augustine two Latin Fathers while the Greek Authors which these Forgers Understood not do continue Uncorrupted And truly nothing but the Names of these two Popes remain for no good Historian mentions any one Eminent Act done by either of them however the Annotator had rather fill up his Scene with empty Names of Feigned Popes who did nothing for Seven years together than let the Reader suppose the Catholic Church could so long want it s pretended Head But though the Notes allow not the Authority of the Pontifical for the Vacancy they trust it for the fictitious Story of this Marcellus his Life and would have us believe That in a time of Persecution this Pope appointed Twenty five Churches in Rome to Baptize Converts and Bury Martyrs in and though the Laws and Customs of that City then forbad to Bury dead Bodies within the Walls we are to believe that the Tyrant Maxentius who made all these Martyrs and persecuted this very Pope consented to his breaking this Ancient Law On the Credit of the same Pontifical we are told That a certain Lady called Lucina dedicated her House to this Pope while He was alive by the Title of S. Marcellus and that the Emperor turned it into a Stable and made the Pope his Beast-keeper there where Naked and cloathed with Sackcloth they are the Words of the Pontifical He soon after ended his days the 17th of the Kalends of February Which Fiction the Roman Breviary orders to be read to the Credulous People of that Communion for Lessions and tells them That Marcellus writ an Epistle to the Bishops of the Antiochian Province about the Roman Primacy and to prove Rome to be the Head of All Churches and that no Synod should be held without the Pope's Authority But this Epistle is owned by Labbé to be a Forgery patched up out of divers Modern Authors citing the Vulgar Latin Version and dated after Marcellus his death And it is very strage That times of Persecution should be a proper Season for a Pope to wrangle for his Supremacy Yet this Notorious Forgery saith Christ ordered S. Peter to Translate his Seat from Antioch to Rome and that the Apostles by Inspiration decreed That all Appeals should be made thither and no Council held but by the Authority of the Roman Church For which cause Binius vindicates it with Notes as full of Falsehood as the Epistle it self His first Note of this Epistle being writ to one Solomon a Bishop is an oversight and belongs to the first Epistle of Pope Marcellânus His next Notes about the Primacy and Power of Calling Synods cite an Apostolical and Nicene Canon for it but no such Canons are to be found He quotes also two Epistles one writ to Pope Foelix from Alexandria another writ by Pope Julius to the Eastern Churches for proof of this Supremacy and the same Annotator afterwards owns them both to be Forgeries He falsly saith Dioscorus was Condemned at Chalcedon only for holding a Synod without the Pope's Consent whereas he is known to have been accused of many other Crimes His Text of Fasce oves is nothing to this purpose nor will Pope Pelagius his Word be taken in his own Cause His Story of Valentinian makes nothing for the Pope more than any other Bishop Yea the Bishops desiring him to call a Council shews They thought it was His Prerogative and Nicephorus relates his Answer to have been That he was so taken up with State Affairs that he had no leisure to enquire into those matters Wherefore after all this elaborate Sophistry to justifie a false Assertion of a Forged Epistle the Annotator hath only shewed his partiality for the Pope's Power but made no proof of it The second Epistle of this Marcellus to the Tyrant Maxentius is also a manifest Forgery part of it is taken out of his Successor Gregory's Epistles writ almost Three hundred years after this and it is highly improbable That a persecuted Pope should falsly as well as ridiculously to a Pagan Emperor quote the Laws of the Apostles and their Successors forbidding to persecute the Church and Clergy and also instruct him about the Roman Churches power in Calling Synods and Receiving Appeals and cite Clement's Forged Epistle as an Authority to Maxentius That Lay-men must not accuse Bishops The Notes indeed are unwilling to lose such precious Evidence and so pretend That Maxentius at this time dissembled himself to be a Christian but this Sham can signifie nothing to such as read the Epistle where Marcellus complains That he then persecuted him most unjustly and therefore he did not pretend to be a Christian at that time and consequently the whole Epistle is an absurd Forgery And so is that Decree subjoyned to it which supposes young Children offered to Monasteries and Shaved or Veiled there Customs which came up divers Centuries after this § 2. The Canons of Peter Bishops of Alexandria are genuine and a better Record of Ecclesiastical Discipline than any Pope to this time ever made the Reader also may observe the Bishop of Rome is not once named in these Canons and they plead Tradition for the Wednesday Fast contrary to the Roman Churches pretence of having an Apostolical Tradition to Fast on Saturday The Council of Elliberis in Spain is by Binius placed under Pope Marcellus which Words Labbé leaves out of the Title and justly for if there were such a Pope the Council takes no notice of him nor is it likely that Rome did know of this Council till many years after Yet it is both Ancient and Authentic though Mendoza in Labbé reckons up divers Catholic Authors Caranza Canus Baronius c. who either wholly reject it or deny the 34th 35th 36th and 40th Canons of it which condemn the Opinions now held at Rome And though Binius because Pope Innocent approves it dare not reject it yet he publishes Notes to make the Reader believe it doth not condemn any of their Opinions or Practices The 13th Canon speaks of Virgins who dedicated themselves to God but mentions not their being Veiled or Living in Monasteries which Customs came in long after as the Authors cited in the Notes shew The 26th Canon calls it an Error to
Cause of this kind but only when they were extraordinarily chosen Arbitrators and so Sozomen expounds this Law § 6. We are now arrived at the time of Pope Sylvester who living about the time when Constantine publickly professed Christianity and being Pope when the Nicene Council was called yet no Author of Credit records his being much concerned in these grand Revolutions Upon which the Annalist and our Editors rake into all kind of Forgeries and devise most improbable Stories to set off Pope Sylvester as very considerable but we shall look into the Original of the Emperor's becoming a Christian which will discover all their Fallacies Constantine was born of Christian Parents and brought up under them and was Thirty years old when he entred on the Empire And from the Year 306 He professed openly he was a Christian Making Laws to encourage Converts and to suppress Paganism throughout his Empire Building and Endowing Churches and granting great Immunities to the Clergy yet all this while He took no notice of Marcellus Eusebius or Melchiades S. Peter's Successors and pretended Monarchs of the Church After Seven years having Vanquished Maxentius at Rome they say He gave to the Pope his Palace of the Lateran The Notes cite Optatus for this but he only saith A Council of Nineteen Bishops met in the Lateran but it doth not follow from thence that Constantine had then given the Pope this fair Palace Again Baronius without any ancient Author for it saith That Constantive gave S. Peter thanks for his Victory over Maxentius yet at the same time he affirms He was yet a Pagan and durst not by his Acts declare himself a Christian Very strange Were not Building Churches setling Christianity by a Law giving his Palace to the Pope and as they say Fixing the Trophy of the Cross in the midst of Rome Acts sufficient to declare him a Christian No He must be a Pagan Eleven years after this and a Persecutor yea in the year 324 He was so meer a Heathen as to know nothing of the Christian Rites but what an Egyptian taught him After he had openly professed this Religion Eighteen years He had forgot it all and turned so great a Tyrant that Pope Sylvester who had no great mind to be a Martyr ran away into the Mount Soracte or was banished thither But Constantine after He had been Ten years Pope never had heard of him till being struck with a Leprosie mentioned in no Authentic Writer two glorious Persons whose Faces he knew not appeared to the Emperor and ordered him to send for Pope Sylvester to cure him who when He was come first shewed Constantine these two glorious Persons were S. Peter and S. Paul and then Cured him made him a Christian and Baptized him Which idle and self-contradicting Romance is magnified by Baronius's and Binius's Notes but we will now confute it as briefly as we can § 7. First This whole Story is devised to exalt the Glory of the Roman Church to make Men believe the Pope could work Miracles and that the first Christian Emperor was Baptized at Rome But then it casts such a blot upon Constantine's Memory and feigns such odious and incredible things of him as no wise Man can believe concerning a Prince who S. Augustine saith was a Christian Eight years before this And whoever reads in Baronius the History of the first Ten years of Sylvester from An. 314 till An. 324 and observes what glorious Things he saith of Constantine's Religious Laws his Piety to God his Zeal for Christianity his Respect to Confessors and his Bounty to Bishops his taking part with the Catholics against Heretics and Schismatics He can never believe this scandalous Story of so excellent a Prince But in all this Period of Time Baronius himself cannot find one Evidence That ever Constantine had any correspondence with Sylvester and therefore Christianity was setled in the Empire without the Pope's help To cover which great Truth some dull but zealous Monk long since invented this Sham Story to save the Credit of Rome and the Annalist and these Notes strive to defend it Secondly This Fable chiefly relies on the Credit of the Pontifical so often proved false and upon the repute of Sylvester's Acts But the Annotator at first ominously Charges them both with Falshood the former mistakes the Time of the Vacancy and the latter he saith is wrong in making Melchiades ordain Sylvester a Priest he being Ordained by Marcellinus long before Baronius also confesseth That these Acts of Sylvester are so false in many particulars that it shakes the Credit of the whole But it is very strange after he who is so concerned for their Reputation had found so many Flaws in them he should justifie them even where they contradict all the Historians of the Age which can spring from nothing but a Resolution to maintain every thing which made for the Credit of the Roman See Thirdly The Notes say not only the Acts of Sylvester but Zosimus and Sozomen do both attest this Story Now first Zosimus was a Pagan and Baronius and Binius confess He tells many Malicious Lies of Constantine for suppressing the Heathen Religion and though they confute the rest of his Calumnies they defend his Relation of Constantine's Baptism as sounding something like those forged Acts and though his Account of it reflect as much upon Constantine as is possible yet the Annalist and Annotator labour to prove this Spightful Heathen to be a truer Historian than Sozomen Socrates or Eusebius whom they represent as Lyars and Flatterers not to be believed against Zosimus Yet there is a mighty difference between this Pagan's History of the Baptism of Constantine and that in Sylvester's Acts Zosimus saith It was a Spaniard named Aegyptius lately by the Court Ladies brought acquainted with Constantine who advised him to be Baptized and this the Notes say was Hosius yet it is plain Hosius was Constantine's Intimate Friend and his Legate into Egypt Twelve years before z Besides Zosimus doth not name Sylvester and only designed by his Relation to blacken Constantine and represent Christianity as a Sanctuary for Villanies which could not be expiated among the Pagans But the Acts discourse of a Persecution and a Leprosie and make Peter and Paul the Advisers of Constantine's Baptism and their business is only to set up Sylvester's Name And the Stories like all Falshoods do not hang together As for Sozomen he is no Evidence for Sylvester's Acts nor doth he once name that Pope in the place cited He only confutes the scandalous Stories which Zosimus had falsly told of Constantine shewing how improbable it is that this Emperor after he had Reigned nigh Twenty years should need a New Conversion and how unlikely it must be that the Pagans would not have found out some Rites to expiate him that so they might secure him in their Religion So that he is a Witness That these Reports
Pope Adrian and that is all the Authority he hath for this feigned Leprosy which Disease no Writer of Credit and Antiquity saith Constantine ever had no not that Malicious Zosimus who raked up all the Odious things against this Emperor he could devise and if ever he had been struck by Heaven with Leprosy no doubt he would have Blazed it abroad with great Pleasure § 10. The Book of Constantine's Munificence is grounded on the Fable of his Baptism and seems to be Forged by the same Hand with Sylvester's Acts So that we ought also to reject it as a Fiction Anastasius who put it out was the Pope ' s Library-keeper and whether he made it or found it in the Vatican that Shop of Lies as Richerius calls it the Credit of it is invalidated by reason no Author of Repute or Antiquity mentions any of these Gifts It says blasphemously Constantine gave a Saviour sitting five foot high so it calls a dead Image But if this were true why did not Adrian cite this in his Nicene Council Or why did this Emperor ' s Sister write to Eusebius Bishop of Coesarea for an Image of Christ when Sylvester could more easily have furnished her and by the way the Notes fraudulently mention this Message but do not relate how severely Eusebius reproved that Lady for seeking after a visible Image of Christ The Annotator also cites Paulinus to prove this Book of Munificence but he writ near 100 years after and though he speak of a fine Church of S. Peter in Rome yet he saith not that Constantine either founded or adorned it Baronius attempts to prove this Book by mear Conjectures by the Forged Acts and by Nicephorus a late Author whom he often taxes for Fictions but he can produce no ancient or eminent Author for it And yet it is certain if Constantine had given so many and so great gifts to the Head City of the World some of the most Famous Writers would have Recorded it Besides the Cardinal himself rejects both the idle Story of S. Agnes Temple attested by a Fiction ascribed to S. Ambrose told in this very Book and the apparent Falshood of Constantine's now burying his Mother in one of these Churches who was alive long after So that by his own Confession there are divers Falshoods in this Book and he had been more Ingenuous if he had owned the whole to be as it really is a Forgery § 11. The Editors now go back to the Council of Arles held as they say Anno 314 And it troubles them much to ward off the Blows which it gives to their beloved Supremacy For it was appointed by the Emperor upon an Appeal made to him by the Donatists to judge a cause over again which had been judged before by Melchiades and his Roman Council the Pope in Council it seems being not then taken to be Infallible 'T is true in the Title which these Editors give us this Council directs their Canons To their Lord and most Holy Brother Sylvester the Bishop and say they had sent them to him that all might know the Pope not excepted what they were to observe So that though in Respect they call him Lord yet they Stile him also a Brother and expect his obedience to their Decrees nor do they as the Notes pretend desire him to confirm these Canons But only require the Pope who held the larger Diocess that he would openly acquaint all with them as their Letter speaks That is as he was a Metropolitan to give notice of these Canons to all his Province which was then called a Diocess and Baronius is forced to point the Sentence salsly to make it sound toward his beloved Supremacy So in the First Canon Pope Sylvester is ordered by this Council to give notice to all of the Day on which Easter was to be observed That is he was to write to all his Neighbouring Bishops under his Jurisdiction about it not as the Notes say That he was to determine the day and by vertue of his Office to write to all the Bishops of the Christian World to observe it The Council had ordered the Day and command the Pope to give notice to all about him to keep it And in the Famous Nicene Council The Bishop of Alexandria living where Astronomy was well understood was appointed first to settle and then to certify the day of Easter yet none will infer from hence that he was the Head of the Catholic Church because he had this Duty imposed on him which as yet is more than the Council of Arles did put upon the Bishop of Rome Again the Notes are very angry at the Emperor for receiving the Donatists appeal from the Pope and his Council which they say Constantine owned to be an unjust and impious thing but they prove this only by a forged Epistle mentioned but now § 5. But it is certain Constantine though a Catechumen which they pretended was impossible at Nice was present in this Council and so he must act against his Conscience if he had thought it unjust and impious to judge in Ecclesiastical Causes And in this Emperor ' s Letter to Ablavius he saith God had committed all Earthly things to his ordering and in that to Celsus he promises to come into Africa to enquire and judge of things done both by the People and the Clergy And indeed Constantine by all his practice sufficiently declared he thought it lawful enough for him to judge in Ecclesiastical matters Finally the Notes say the Bishops met in this Council at the Emperor ' s request Now that shews it was not at the Pope ' s request but indeed Constantine's Letter to Chrestus expresly Commands the Bishops to meet The Notes also out of Balduinus or Optatus or rather from an obscure Fragment cited by him say Sylvester was President of this Council Baronius addeth of his own head namely by his Legates which guess Binius puts down for a certain truth But it is ridiculous to fancy that a pair of Priests and as many Deacons in that Age should sit above the Emperor when himself was present in that Council So that though we allow the Pope ' s Messengers to have been at this Council there is no proof that they presided in it We shall only add that instead of Arians in the Eighth Canon we must Read Africans or else we must not fix this Council so early as An. 314 at which time the Arians were not known by that name § 12. In the same year is placed the Council of Ancyra which the Editors do not as usually say was under Sylvester but only in his time and it is well they are so modest for doubtless he had no Hand in it the Notes confess that it was called by the Authority of Vitalis Bishop of Antioch Balsamon and Zonaras say Vitalis of Antioch Agricolaus of Caesarea and Basil of Amasea were the
of Jerusalem Bishop of Constantinople Yet our Annotator cites Dionysius Exiguus for a Witness of these Epistles whereas Richerius shews they were Forged by some Ignorant Monk long after Dionysius his time who mentions not the Pope ' s confirming of these Canons nor doth he remember these Epistles but only saith it was agreed these Canons should be sent to Sylvester Bishop of Rome The Notes further urge a Roman Council under Pope Sylvester to prove his Confirming these Canons but that Council is a confessed Forgery it self and so proves nothing Lastly The Annotator here and almost every where cites Socrates his speaking of an Ecclesiastical Canon that no Decrees of Councils should be valid without the consent of the Roman Bishop But First Consent is not Confirmation It is the priviledge of every Patriarch as well as of him of Rome That a General Council cannot be held without every one of their consents but this proves not their pretended sole and supreme Power of ratifying all Councils vested in the Pope Besides Socrates here only Historically relates what Pope Julius said in his own Case and therefore the Testimony relies on Julius his Credit and indeed that was a peculiar Case wherein when the Cause of Athanasius was referred by consent of all parties to Julius as Arbitrator the Arians took it out of his Hands against Athanasius his Mind and judged it in a Council to which Julius was not at all summoned which doubtless was very illegal and unjust But yet none can tell where this Ecclesiastical Canon was made which the angry and injured Pope here cites and therefore till it appear whence Julius had this Canon we must be excused if we give no great Deference to it and unless they cou'd prove it was Recorded before the Nicene Council it is very impertinent to expect the Nicene Fathers should Govern their Actions by it So that we conclude not Sylvester but Constantine confirmed this Council Fourthly As to the number of the Canons the Annotator also notoriously prevaricates He confesses that all the Greeks and particularly Theodoret and Ruffinus assert there were but Twenty Canons made there yea that the Sixth Council of Carthage within less than an Hundred years after a diligent search in the three Patriarchal Seats of Alexandria Antioch and Constantinople could find no more than Twenty Canons But the Notes conceal Gratian's naming no more but Twenty Canons and his saying there are but only Twenty Nicene Canons to be found in the Roman Church For all this the Annotator boldly tells us That the truer Opinion or rather that which is most for the Popes interest is that more than Twenty Canons were made there But we will examine his and Baronius's reasons First They say there is no Decree about Easter among the Twenty Canons I reply There is a genuine Epistle of Constantine's in which this matter is determined with the reasons for it which is better than a bare Law without Arguments in a case which had been so much disputed nor could they make any acurate Canon about it till the exact time was Calculated which they referred not to the Pope but to the Bishop of Alexandria Secondly The Notes say S. Ambrose mentions a Canon made at Nice against Bigamists but Baronius himself confesseth that S. Ambrose only saith They treated of this matter but doth not affirm they made a Canon about it Thirdly They plead there was a Decree about the Canon of Scripture made at Nice which is not among these Twenty because S. Hierom saith he had Read that the Nicene Fathers computed Judith among the Books of Holy Scripture I reply S. Hierom only saith they computed it among Holy Writings that is as we shewed before § 15. among Books to be Read for instruction not to be quoted in Dispute For if S. Hierom had believed this Council did receive Judith for Canonical he would not have counted it as he doth to be Apocryphal So that this proves not that there were more Canons Fourthly The Notes affirm there is no Canon now extant here against a Bishops choosing his Successor in his Life time which S. Augustine saith was forbid in this Council which is a gross Untruth since the Eighth Canon forbids two Bishops should be in one City and the Notes own this was the very Canon meant by S. Augustine in the next Leaf Liers should have better Memories Fifthly They say the third Council of Carthage cites a Canon of Nice forbidding to receive the Sacrament after Dinner but if the place be considered as Richerius notes that Council only refers to a former African Synod which had decreed this and not to the Council of Nice Sixthly The Annotator speaks of a Canon about Appeals to Rome cited out of this Synod in the Sixth Council of Carthage but he was wiser than to tell us who cited this for a Nicene Canon for it was Pope Zosimus's Legate cited it and he was convicted of a notorious Falsification therein as shall be shewed in due place Seventhly He saith there was a Canon made at Nice but not to be found among the Twenty that a Cause tried in a lesser Synod might be judged over again in a greater and for this he cites the Fourth Epistle of Julius but in his Notes on that Epistle he confesseth this was no Canon made at Nice but only it was matter of Fact in that this great Synod did judge Arius over again who had before been judged at Alexandria Eightly The Notes say Atticus Bishop of Constantinople at Chalcedon did affirm that the Nicene Council agreed upon a Form of writing Communicatory Epistles which is not among these Twenty Canons I reply Baronius and he both own this Form was to be a Secret among the Bishops and if it had been put into a Canon Heretics might easily have counterfeited these Forms and so the design had been spoiled Lastly the Annotator cites Sozomen to proves that the Nicene Council added to the Gloria Patri the later part As it was in the beginning c. Whereas Sozomen in that place only speaks of such as praised God in Hymns agreeing to the Faith delivered at Nice but mentions no Canon or Form of words agreed on at Nice about these Hymns So that after all this shuffling it is very impertinent for this Annotator to brag that it is manifest there were more than Twenty Canons made in this Council and Nonsense to tell us that the Greeks who stifly maintain there were but Twenty Canons cannot deny but there were more than Twenty And for all his Confidence neither he nor Baronius dare defend those Eighty Canons which Turrian hath fathered on this Council and therefore whatever is more than these twenty or differing from them must pass among the many Forgeries of the Roman Church Fifthly As to the Sense of those Canons which oppose the Pope's Interest the Notes use many Impostures in expounding
the Roman Church is much exalted with Pride and former evil Popes producing this as a Canon of Nice were discovered by a Council at Carthage as the Preface to that Council shews But this Canon whatever they pretend gives no more power to Rome than other Canons since it saith not absolutely that any who is deposed any where shall have liberty to appeal to the Pope for at that rate the Sardican Synod would contradict the General Councils it speaks only of him who is deposed by the Neighbouring Bishops and those of his Province and therefore doth not comprehend the Synod of the Primate Metropolitan or Patriarch so that if they be present and the Sentence be not barely by the Neighbouring Bishops the Pope may not re-hear it as this Canon orders And it only concerns those in the West Hosius and the Makers of these Canons being of those parts but in the East this Custom never was observed to this day I shall make one remark or two more and so dismiss this Council The Preface cites Sozomen to prove That Hosius and others writ to Julius to confirm these Canons But Sozomen only saith They writ to him to satisfie him that they had not contradicted the Nicene Canons and their Epistle which calls Julius their Fellow-Minister desires him to publish their Decrees to those in Sicily Sardinia and Italy which of old were Suburbicarian Regions but never speak of his confirming their Decrees Yet in their Epistle to the Church of Alexandria they pray them to give their Suffrage to the Councils determinations Which had it been writ to the Pope would have made his Creatures sufficiently triumph I observe also that upon the mention of the Church of Thessalonica in the 20th Canon the Notes pretend that this Church had an especial regard then because the Bishop of it was the Pope's Legate yet the first proof they give is that Pope Leo made Anastasius of Thessalonica his Legate an hundred years after and hence they say Bellarmine aptly proves the Popes Supremacy But the Inferences are as ridiculous as they are false and they get no advantage either to their Supremacy or Appeals by this Council § 22. The first Council of Carthage was appointed to suppress that dangerous Sect of the Donatists and though it bear the Title of under Julius yet this pretended universal Monarch is not mentioned by the Council or by any ancient Author as having any hand in this great Work which was managed by Gratus Bishop of Carthage and by the Emperours Legates In this Council were made fourteen excellent Canons which possibly the Romanists may reject because they never asked the Popes consent to hold this Council nor desired his confirmation to their Canons and whereas the Editors tell us Pope Leo the 4th who lived five hundred years after approved of this Council we must observe that the Catholic Church had put them into their Code and received them for Authentic long before without staying for any Approbation from the Bishop of Rome Soon after this there was a Council at Milan of which there was no mention but only in the Synodical Letter of the Bishops met at Ariminum An. 359. who say that the Presbyters of Rome were present at it they say not Presidents of it And there it seems Ursacius and Valens two Arian Heretics abjured their Heresie and recanted their false Evidence against Athanasius And either before or after this Synod it is not certain whether they went to Rome and in writing delivered their Recantation to Pope Julius before whom they had falsly accused Athanasius and who was the Arbitrator chosen to hear that Cause and so not as Pope but as a chosen Judge in that case was fittest to receive these mens Confessions Yet hence the Notes make this Inference That since this matter was greater than that a Synod at Milan though the Roman Presbyters were present could dispatch it and lest the ancient Custom of the Catholic Church should be broken viz. for eminent Heretics to abjure their Heresies only at Rome and be received into Communion by the Pope they sent them to Julius that having before him offered their Penitential Letter they might make their Confession the whole Roman Church looking on All which is their own Invention for the Authors from whom alone they have the notice of this Council say nothing of this kind and it is very certain that there was at this time no custom at all for Heretics to abjure at Rome more than at any other place many Heretics being frequently reconciled at other Churches There was also a peculiar reason why these two Heretics went thither and it cannot be proved that this Council sent them so that these are Forgeries devised to support their dear Supremacy and so we leave them Only noting That the Editors are not so happy in their Memory as their Invention for the next Page shews us a Council at Jerusalem wherein many Bishops who had described the Condemnation of Athanasius and therefore no doubt were Arians repented and recanted and so were restored to the Churches Communion without the trouble of going to Rome on this Errant A Council at Colen follows next which they say was in Julius his time and under Julius yet the Notes say they know not the time when it was held only the Bishops there assembled deposed a Bishop for Heresie by their own Authority without staying for the Pope's Advice though they were then about to send a Messenger to Rome to pray for them so little was the Popes Consent thought needful in that Age and perhaps it is in order to conceal this seeming neglect that the Notes after they have approved far more improbable Stories which make for the honour of their Church reject the report of this Message to the Prince of the Apostles as fabulous and we are not concerned to vindicate it The last Council which they style under Julius was at Vasatis or Bazas in France yet the Notes affirm That Nectarius presided in it the time of it very uncertain and the Phrases used in the Canons of it shew it to be of much later date Besides this Council saith The Gloria-Patri was sung after the Psalms in all the Eastern Churches but Jo. Cassian who came out of the East in the next Century saith He had never heard this Hymn sung after the Psalms in the Eastern Churches Wherefore it is probable this Council was celebrated after Cassian's time when the Greek Churches had learned this Custom and yet these Editors place it a whole Century too soon because they would have us think that custom here mentioned of remembring the Pope in their daily Prayers was as ancient as the wrong date here assigned In Labbe's Edition here is added an account of three Councils against Photinus on which we need make no Remarks § 23. Pope Liberius succeeded Julius whose Life with the Notes upon it are
Fathers did not believe either of them had any Authority over them only they desired their advice joyntly as being both Eminent and Neighbouring Bishops and their prohibiting Appeals shews they knew nothing of the Popes presiding over the Catholic Church § 32. Anastasius was the last Pope in this Century of whom there would have been as little notice taken as of Many of his Predecessors if it had not been his good fortune to be known both to S. Hierom and S. Augustine and to assist the latter in suppressing the Donatists and the former in condemning the Errours of Origen for which cause these two Fathers make an honourable mention of him Yet in the African Councils where he is named with respect they joyn Venerius Bishop of Milan with him and call them Their Brethren and Fellow Bishops As for the qualifications of Anastasius S. Hierom gives him great Encomiums but it must be observed that at this time Hierom had charged Ruffinus with broaching the Heresies of Origen at Rome and he being then at Bethlem could not beat down these Opinions without the Popes help And indeed when Ruffinus came first to Rome he was received kindly by the last Pope Siricius and Anastasius did not perceive any Errours in Ruffinus or Origen till S. Hierom upon Pammachius Information had opened his Eyes and at last it was three years before this Pope could be made so sensible of this Heresie as to condemn it So that notwithstanding his Infallibility if S. Hierom and his Friends had not discovered these Errours they might in a little time have been declared for Orthodox Truths at Rome but Anastasius condemning them at last did wonderfully oblige S. Hierom and this was the occasion of many of his Commendations For this Pope are published three Decretal Epistles though Baronius mentions but two and condemns the first for a Forgery and so doth Labbé It is directed to the Bishops of Germany and Burgundy and yet Burgundy did not receive the Christian Faith till the Year 413 it is also dated with the Consuls of the Year 385 that is Fourteen years before Anastasius was Pope The matter of it is grounded on the Pontifical which speaks of a Decree made by this Pope for the Priests at Rome to stand up at the Gospel which the Forger of this Epistle turns into a general Law and makes it be prescribed to the Germans The Words of it are stollen out of the Epistles of Pope Gregory and Leo yet out of this Forgery they cite that Passage for the Supremacy where the German Bishops are advised to send to him as the Head The second Epistle is also spurious being dated fifteen or sixteen years after Anastasius his death and stollen out of Leo's 59th Epistle As for the third Epistle it is certain he did write to John Bishop of Jerusalem but it may be doubted whether this be the Epistle or no if it be genuine it argues the Pope was no good Oratour because it is writ in mean Latin yet that was the only Language he understood for he declares in this Epistle That he know not who Origen was nor what Opinions he held till his Works were translated into Latin So that any Heretic who had writ in Greek in this Pope's time had been safe enough from the Censure of this Infallible Judge The Notes dispute about the fourth Council of Carthage whether it were under Pope Zosimus or Anastasius but it was under neither the true Title of it shewing it was dated by the Consuls Names and Called by Aurelius Bishop of Carthage who made many excellent Canons here without any assistance from the Pope The 51st 52d and 53d Canons of this Council order Monks to get their Living not by Begging but by honest Labour and the Notes shew This was the Primitive use which condemns these vast numbers of Idle Monks and Mendicant Fryers now allowed in the Church of Rome The hundredth Canon absolutely forbids a Woman to presume to Baptize but the Notes r because this practice is permitted in their Church add to this Canon these words unless in case of necessity and except when no Priest is present Which shews how little reverence they have for ancient Canons since they add to them or diminish them as they please to make them agree with their modern Corruptions In the fifth Council of Cartbage Can. 3. Bishops and Priests are forbid to accompany with their Wives ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã that is at the time of their being to Officiate but in their Latin Copies it is altered thus according to their own or to their former Statutes which makes it a general and total Prohibition But the Greek words of this Canon are cited and expounded at the great Council in Trullo where many African Bishops were present as importing only a Prohibition of accompanying their Wives when their turns came to Minister which is the true sense of this Canon though the Romanists for their Churches Credit would impose another The fourteenth Canon of this Council takes notice of the feigned Relicks of Martyrs and of Altars built in Fields and High-ways upon pretended Dreams and Revolutions upon which Canon there is no note at all because they know if all the feigned Relicks were to be thrown away and all the Altars built upon Dreams and false Revelations pulled down in the present Roman Church as was ordered at Carthage by this Canon there would bè very few left to carry on their gainful Trade which hath thrived wonderfully by these Impostures This Century concludes with a Council at Alexandria which they style under Anastasius but it was called by Theophilus who found out and condemned the Errours of Origen long before poor Anastasius knew any thing of the matter The Notes indeed say This Synod sent their Decrees to Pope Anastasius to Epiphanius Chrysostom and Hierom But though they place the Pope foremost there is no proof that they were sent to him at all Baronius only conjectures they did and saith It is fit we should believe this but it is certain Theophilus sent these Decrees to Epiphanius to Chrysostom and Hierom and from this last hand it is like Anastasius received them long after because it was more that two years after this Synod before S. Hierom could perswade Anastasius to condemn these Opinions of Origen which this Council first censured Wherefore it was happy for the Church that there were wiser Men in it than he who is pretended to be the supreme and sole Judge of Heresie And thus we have finished our Remarks upon the Councils in the first four Centuries in all which the Reader I hope hath seen such designs to advance the Supremacy and cover the Corruptions of Rome that he will scarce credit any thing they say for their own Advantage in any of the succeeding Volumes AN APPENDIX CONCERNING BARONIUS HIS ANNALS §I THE large and elaborate Volumes of Cardinal Baronius are
the diligent Reader will observe this to be customary with Baronius not only in this fourth Century but in every part of his Annals § 2. Another Artifice is to corrupt the Words or the Sense of genuine Authors of which we will select also a few Instances in the same Century S. Augustine barely names Peter as one whom the Pagans did Calumniate but Baronius brings this in with this Preface That they did this because they saw Peter extremely magnified especially at Rome where he had fixed his Seat and then he saith S. Augustine records this c. whereas this is his own Invention to set off the glory of Rome So when Athanasius is proving that the Fathers before the Nicene Council used the word ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã and first names Dionysius Bishop of Alexandria and then Dionysius Bishop of Rome Baronius saith He proves it especially by Dionysius the holy Roman Pope and by Dionysius Bishop of Alexandria inverting the Order and putting a Note of Eminence on the Pope contrary to the Words and Sense of Athanasius Again he cites Pope Leo who is no Evidence in his own Cause and yet Baronius would make him say more than he doth even where he saith more than he should say For he cites his 53d Epistle to shew that Leo affirmed the sixth Canon of Nice allowed to the Church of Alexandria the second and to that of Antioch the third Seat which had before been conferred on them by Rome But the very words of Leo cited by Baronius shew this to be false for Leo saith not that these Sees had their Dignity or Order from Rome but the former from S. Mark the later from Peter's first Preaching there Moreover to make his Reader fancy the Roman and the Catholic Church was all one of old he mentions out of Epiphanius Constantine's writing an Epistle to all Romania Which Name saith he we sometimes find used for the Catholic Church whereas it is manifest that Epiphanius both there and elsewhere plainly uses Romania for the Roman Empire and Baronius did not find it used either in him or in any other ancient Author in any other sense That Period in Optatus which Baronius cites with great applause if it be not added by some ignorant Zealot of the Roman side is a scandal to the Learning of that Father for he derives the Syriac word Cephas from the Greek ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã and by that ridiculous Etymology would draw as contemptible a consequence viz. That Peter was Head of the Apostles and again he seems wilfully to pervert the Precept of S. Paul Rom. XII 13. Distributing to the necessities of the Saints which in Optatus's Reading is Communicating with the Memories of the Saints that is as he applies it with Rome where there are the Memorials of two of the Apostles I could wish for Optatus's Credit that these weak Passages were spurious or buried in silence and the Learned Baldwin is ashamed of this gross Errour But Baronius thinks though they make for the dishonour of the Father they tend to the Credit of Rome and so he cites them in great pomp and puts them in a whole Line to make them look more plausible the Head of the Apostles whence he was called Cephas so Optatus But Binius adds deducing the Interpretation from the Greek Word for in Syriac it signifies an hard Stone and then glories extremely as if Optatus had made Communion with Rome the sole Note of a Catholic Whereas in the next Page but one Optatus goes on You cannot prove you have any Communion with the Seven Churches of Asia and yet if you be out of the Communion of those Churches you are to be accounted Aliens Which Passage Baronius very fraudulently leaves out because it shews a true Catholic must not only be in Communion with Rome but also with all other Orthodox Churches To proceed Even in spurious Authors he useth this Artifice for that Forged Book of Constantine's Munificence only saith He placed a piece of the Cross in a Church which he had built But Baronius relates it That he placed it there with most Religious Worship and a little after he perceiving that Fabulous Author had supposed Constantine buried his Mother long before she died puts in of his own head But this i. e. the putting his Mother in a Porphyry Coffin was done afterward Speaking of the Bishops returning home from the Council of Nice he saith They took with them the Rule of Faith confirmed by the Pope of Rome to be communicated to their People and to absent Bishops But no Historian Ancient or Authentic mentions any preceding Confirmation of the Nicene Creed by the Pope who was one of the absent Bishops to whom it was to be communicated wherefore those words Of its being confirmed by the Pope are invented and added to the story by Baronius He observes That Constantine confesses he was not fit to judge in the Case of Athanasius because Ecclesiastical Matters were to be judged among the Clergy Which he proves by Constantine's Letter there recited but Constantine's Letter is not directed to the Clergy but To the People of the Catholic Church at Alexandria And his Words are to the People who lived on the Place and knew the Matters of Fact and therefore he saith to them It is proper for you and not for me to judge of that Affair so that Baronius forceth his own Sense upon the Emperour And when Theodoret speaketh of time for Repentance according to the Canons of the Church he adds that is for Satisfaction Which Popish Satisfaction he would also prove out of a Canon at Antioch which only mentions confessing the Fault and bringing forth fruits meet for Repentance When Socrates only saith Eusebius of Nicomedia ' s Letters were received by Julius after his death Baronius thus enlarges it Eusebius who had fled from the Judgment of the Roman Church was forced against his Will being dead as Socrates saith to come to the strict Tribunal of God Where Athanasius saith I went up to Rome that I might visit the Church and the Bishop Baronius ridiculously infers that when we find the Ancients speaking of THE Church and THE Bishop they mean the Roman Church and that Bishop of whom and in whom and by whom are all other Bishops Which Note is forced upon this place for here Rome is named in the same Sentence with the Church and the Bishop and so it must be understood of the Pope but without any advantage to him more than it would have been to the Bishop of Eugubium to say I went to Eugubium and visited the Church and the Bishop Again S. Hierom saith expresly that Acacius substituted Foelix an Arian to be Bishop of Rome in Liberius his stead Here Baronius pretends some Copies leave out the word Arian and so he reads it Substituted Foelix to be Bishop of Rome and because some such
Parasites of Rome as himself who would not endure that ingrateful Truth of a Pope's being an Heretic had left out this word He boldly asserts it for the true Reading whereas not only Socrates expresly saith He was an Arian in Opinion but Hierom himself in his Chronicle affirms that Foelix was put in by the Arians and it is not like they would have put him in if he had not been of their party The Greek of Sozomen is no more but ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã but Baronius improves this by a flattering Paraphrase in these words Lest the Seat of Peter should be bespattered with any spot of Infamy But it is a bolder falsification of S. Chrysostom where he saith in one of his Sermons on a day celebrated in memory of two Martyrs Juventius and Maximus ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã to pervert this by his Latin Version thus The Martyrs which we this day worship whereas Chrysostom only saith The Martyrs which occasion us to meet this day Epiphanius expresly condemns those as Heretics who worship the Blessed Virgin and saith No man may adore Mary Baronius will not cite this place at large but adds to it these Words she is not to be worshiped as a God Which Falsification of the Father is designed to excuse their Churches Idolatrous worship of the Virgin Mary The restitution of Peter Bishop of Alexandria is by S. Hierom whom he cites with applause ascribed to the late Repentance of the Emperour Valens who recalled now at last the Orthodox from Banishment and Secrates only mentions Damasus's Letters which Peter took with him approving both his Creation and the Nicene Faith Yet he from hence notes the Supreme Power of the Pope by whose order the Bishop of Alexandria was restored to his Church in contempt of Valens his Authority and when he returned with the Popes Authority the People placed him in his Seat Yea after this he pretends to cite Socrates as if he said Peter was received being restored by Damasus yet Damasus did no more in all this matter than barely to testifie that Peter was an Orthodox Bishop and that he believed him duly elected which is all that Socrates saith and which if any eminent Orthodox Bishops had testified it would equally have served the Bishop of Alexandria's Cause To conclude Baronius owns Paulinus to have been a credulous Man and very unskilful in Ecclesiastical History yet thinking he had not spoken enough when he relates That a Church was adorned with Pictures he stretches this into Adorned with Sacred Images From all which Instances we may infer That the Cardinal would not stick at misquoting and misrepresenting his Authors when it might serve the Roman Interest § 3. Of this kind also we may reckon his crasty suppressing such Authorities in whole or in part as seem to cross the Opinions and Practices of their Church His leaving out a passage in Optatus wherein that Father makes the being in Communion with the Seven Churches of Asia a Note of a true Catholic was noted before And we may give many such like Instances Sozemen relates an Imperial Law wherein those are declared Heretics who do not hold the Faith which Damasus Bishop of Rome and Peter of Alexandria then held but the fraudulent Annalist leaves out Peter of Alexandria and mentions only Damasus as the sole standard of Catholic Faith When S. Hierom saith His Adversaries condemned him with Damasus and Peter Baronius bids us observe with what reverence the Pope's Enemies treated him for though they accused S. Hierom of Heresie yet against Damasus they durst not open their Mouth whereas S. Hierom protected himself by the Authority of the Bishop of Alexandria as well as by that of the Pope Again after a crafty Device to hide the evident Testimony which Gregory Nyssen gives against going in Pilgrimage to Jerusalem He slightly mentions an Epistle of S. Hierom which excellently confutes that then growing Superstition telling us That the Court of Heaven is as open from Britain as from Jerusalem Which remarkable Sentence and all the other learned Arguments of that Epistle he omits by design though if it had countenanced this Superstition we should have had it cited at large In like manner afterwards when he had another fair occasion to cite this same Epistle which doth so effectually condemn Pilgrimages he will not quote one word out of it but barely mentions it and runs out into the Enquiry what time it was writ I have given many more Instances of these fraudulent Concealments in my Discourse of Councils and therefore shall add no more here but only this That whoever reads Baronius's Annals hears no more generally than the Evidence of one side and that too enlarged if it be never so slight and commended if it be never so spurious but whatever makes against the Roman Church is depreciated and perverted or else clapt under Hatches and kept out of sight Of which we have an Instance in Eusebius who because he will not justifie their Forgeries about Constantine's Baptism and Donation though he be the best of all the Ecclesiastical Historians is never cited but with Reproaches and Calumnies and whatever he saith against them is either concealed or the force of it taken off by reviling him as an Arian § 4. Another Artifice of our Annalist is first to suppose things which make for the honour of his Church without any manner of proof and then to take his own Suppositions for grounds of Argument Thus he supposes that Constantine gave S. Peter thanks for his Victory without any evidence from History yea against his own peculiar Notion That Constantine was then a Pagan and durst not do any act to make him seem a Christian Again To colour their Worship of Images He barely supposes that the Pagan Senate dedicated a Golden Image of Christ to Constantine He argues only from Conjectures to prove the Munisicence of that Emperour to Rome whereas if so eminent a Prince had given such great Gifts to the most famous City in the World doubtless some Author would have mentioned it and not have left the Cardinal to prove this by random Guesses Again He supposos without any proof that Constantine knew the Supreme Power over all Christians was in the Church of Rome He produces nothing but meer Conjectures that Osius was the Pope's Legate yet he boldly draws rare Inferences from this He doth but guess and take it for granted that the Nicene Council was called by the Advice of Pope Sylvester yet this is a Foundation for the Supremacy and i know not what Thus when he hath no Author to prove that Athanasius venerated the Martyrs he makes it out with Who can doubt it and it is fit to believe he did so So he tells us He had said before that Damasus favoured Gregory Nazianzen in his being elected to be Bishop of Constantinople He
the Council of Turin which Baronius cites St. Ambrose is named before the Pope yea it is manifest by divers African Councils that they gave equal respect at least to the Judgment and Authority of the Bishop of Milan as to those of Rome So that it is ridiculous and absurd to fancy that St. Ambrose and his Successors who were greater Men than the Popes for Learning and Reputation were the Legates of Rome and this hath been invented meerly to aggrandize that See And for that same reason they have stusted into the Body of this Council a Rule of Faith against the Priscillianists transmitted from some Bishop of Spain with the Precept of Pope Leo who was not Pope till forty years after this Council Yea Binius in the very Title of this Council would have it confirmed by another Pope that lived divers Centuries after of which Labbè was so ashamed that he hath struck that whole Sentence out of his Edition As to the Canons of this Council I shall only remark That the first of them lays a very gentle punishment upon Deacons and Priests who lived with their Wives before a late Interdict which is no more but the prohibiting them to ascend to any higher Order And no wonder they touched this point so gently for this prohibiting Wives to the Clergy was never heard of in Spain till Siricius who died about three years before advised it in his Epistle to Himerius and therefore Innocent in his third Epistle said Siricius was the Author of this form of Ecclesiastical Discipline that is of the Clergies Celibacy and adds that those who had not received his Decree were worthy of pardon And by the many and repeated Canons made in Spain afterward in this Matter it appears the inferior Clergy would not follow the Popes advice The fourteenth Canon shews that the Primitive way of receiving the Communion was by the peoples taking it into their hands as they do now in our Church And the Notes confess that the Roman Custom of taking it into their mouths out of the Priests hand is an innovation brought in after the corrupt Doctrine of Transubstantiation had begot many superstitious Conceits about this Holy Sacrament the altering of the Doctrine occasioning this change in the way of receiving Whereas the Protestant Churches which retain the Primitive Doctrine keep also the Primitive Rite of Communicating To this Council are tack'd divers Decrees which belong to some Council of Toledo or other but the Collectors Burchard Ivo c. not knowing to which have cited them under this General Title out of the Council of Toledo and so the Editors place them all here But most of them do belong to later times and the name of Theodorus Arch-Bishop of Canterbury in one of these Fragments shews it was made 300 years after this time We have in the next place two African Councils said to be under Anastasius though indeed they were under the Bishop of Carthage The former of these decrees an Embassie shall be sent both to Anastasius Bishop of Rome and Venerius Bishop of Milan for a supply of Clergy-men of whom at that time they had great scarcity in Africa The other African Council determines they will receive such Donatists as recanted their Errors into the same Orders of Clergy which they had before they were reconciled to the Church provided the Bishop of Rome Milan and other Bishops of Italy to whom they sent a second Embassie consented to it Now here though all the Italian Bishops were applied to and he of Milan by name as well as the Bishops of Rome and though it was not their Authority but their Advice and Brotherly Consent which the African Bishops expected yet Baronius and Binius tell us it is certain that Anastasius did give them licence to receive these Donatists in this manner because St. Augustin said they did receive them Whereas St. Augustine never mentions any licence from the Pope and his leave or consent was no more desired than the leave of other eminent Bishops only the Annalist and his followers were to make this look as an indulgence granted from Rome alone § 2. Pope Innocent succeeded Anastasius who had the good fortune to be convinced by St. Augustine and other Bishops more learned than himself that Pelagius and Celestius were Hereticks and so to joyn with the Orthodox in condemning them for which he is highly commended by St. Augustine St. Hierom and by Prosper who were glad they had the Bishop of so powerful and great a City of their side and so was poor St. Chrysostom also whose Cause he espoused when Theophilus of Alexandria and the Empress oppressed him and by that means Innocent also got a good Character from St. Chrysostom and his Friends in the East But some think it was rather his good fortune than his judgment which made him take the right side The Pontifical fills up his Life as usually with frivolous matters But two things very remarkable are omitted there the one is a passage in Zosimus viz. That when Alaricus first besieged Rome and the Pagans there said the City would never be happy till the Gentile Rites were restored The Praefect communicates this to Pope Innocent who valuing the safety of the City before his own Opinion privately gave them leave to do what they desired The other is That when Rome was taken afterwards by Alarious Pope Innocent was gone out of the City to Ravenna and did not return till all was quiet and therefore I cannot with Baronius think that St. Hierom compares Pope Innocent to Jeremiah the Prophet for Jeremiah staid among God's People and preached to them but Innocent was gone out of Rome long before it was seized by the Goths Further we may observe that whereas St. Hierom advised a Noble Roman Virgin to beware of the Pelagian Hereticks and to hold the Faith of Holy Innocent Baronius is so transported with this that he quotes it twice in one year and thus enlarges on it That St. Hierom knew the Faith was kept more pure and certainly in the Seat of Peter than by Augustine or any other Bishop so that the Waters of Salvation were to be taken more pure out of the Fountain than out of any Rivers which absurd Gloss is easily confuted by considering that this Lady was a Member of the Roman Church and so ought to hold the Faith of her own Bishop especially since he was at that time Orthodox and this was all St. Hierom referred to For he doth not at all suppose the Roman See was infallible nor did he make any Comparison between Augustine and Innocent since he well knew that in point of Learning and Orthodox Judgment Augustine was far above this Pope who indeed derived all the skill he had as to the condemning Pelagius from the African Fountains and especially from St. Augustine Besides nothing is more common than
Council of Trent hath determined otherwise so that the Romanists must grant this Pope erred even in defining things necessary to Salvation unless they will allow the whole Epistle forged by some later hand who whatever Binius say to the contrary hath dated it with the Consuls of the year after Innocent's death according to the best Chronologers The twenty sixth Epistle as the Notes confess was writ to Aurelius Augustine and three more eminent Bishops of Africa by Pope Innocent to clear himself from the suspicion of being a Favourer and Protector of the Pelagian Heresie and by computation also this proves the very year in which he died according to most accounts Now if in those days it had been believed as it is now at Rome that the Pope had been Infallible and could not err in Matters of Faith no Man durst have raised this suspicion nor would any have regarded it and Innocent's best way of vindication had been only to have told them he was Pope and sate in the Holy Infallible Chair but now his labouring to clear himself by an Epistle shews it was possible he might err As to the Epistle it self Erasmus saith Innocent answers after his fashion being fierce rather than learned and more ready to condemn than instruct and whosoever reads it will find that to be a true Character of this Epistle To these is subjoined a Letter of St. Chrysostom's to Innocent in Latin only in Binius but in both Greek and Latin in Labbè The Phrase of which is so polite the Matter so pious and solid that Gold doth not excel Lead more than this genuine piece of the Golden-mouth'd Father doth all the former Epistles of the Pope who if he writ those Decretals was far more below St. Chrysostom in Learning than he pretended to be above him in Dignity I confess the Editors would persuade us to think this Epistle was writ only to Innocent and to him it is superscribed in Savil's Greek Edition thus To innocent Bishop of Rome but the Roman Parasites have added to this Title To my most reverend and pious Lord but this hath been lately invented for Domino meo is not in the Title in Baronius And the Epistle it self seems plainly to have been written to many for towards the end he saith Therefore my most venerable Lords since you see these things are thus use your utmost study and diligence to repress this injustice that is broke into the Church and the Phrase doth every where suppose it was writ to divers Western Bishops and Baronius in the end of the Epistle hath these words We have writ this also to Venerius Bishop of Milan and to Chromatius Bishop of Aquileia Quibus verbis Rom. Episcopi primatum erigit iisdem Venerij Chromatij primatum erexisset so that since St. Chrysostom writ to all the eminent Bishops of Italy as well as to the Pope it is unjustly done of Baronius to say That Chrysostom fled to his only refuge viz. to the Roman Church which he knew to be above all other Churches and to have power to correct the ill-deeds of others There is one thing more remarkable in this Epistle St. Chrysostom tells the Western Bishops that being oppressed by Theophilus and his party he appealed not to the Pope but to a Synod yea Innocent himself saith There was great need to have a Synod called for this cause of St. Chrysostoms So that neither did St. Chrysostom appeal to the Roman Church alone nor durst Innocent take upon him to judge in this matter As for those two Epistles of Innocent's one to Chrysostom and another to the Clergy of Constantinople which are certainly genuine as being preserved in Sozomen and not derived from the Roman Mint These two Epistles I say are in an humble Style and so well written that they make all the former Decretals which come from Rome justly to be suspected as forged and spurious The second Epistle of Chrysostom's which follows these two seems also to have been written to other Bishops as well as Innocent for it runs generally in the plural number but they who would have us believe the Pope alone did all the business of the Church have falsified one place in it where St. Chrysostom saith ye have shewed your selves loving Fathers towards us There the Latin is in Binius in the singular Paternam ergo nos benevolentiam declarasti But Labbè thought fit to mend this corruption and reads it in the plural declarastis ye have declared But the grossest Forgery of all in this cause of St. Chrysostom are the Letters that are pretended to pars between Innocent and the Emperor Arcadius wherein first Innocent excommunicates Arcadius and Eudoxia the Empress for their injustice to St. Chrysostom And then the Emperor writes first one submissive Letter to desire him to absolve them to which the Pope consents yet after all this Arcadius doth again write another Letter to excuse himself and tells the Pope Eudoxia was very sick upon the grief for her fault And all these Letters are said to be writ after St. Chrysostom was dead But that which discovers the cheat is that all the ancient Historians do with one consent agree that Eudoxia the Empress was dead three years before St. Chrysostom which is attosted by Socrates Sozomen and Marcellinus and the same is affirmed by learned Modern Authors The first who affirmed the contrary was Georgius Alexandrinus a fabulus Writer who lived above 300 years after this time and he was followed by Nicephorus Glycer and Gonnadius which are all the Authorities Baronius can produce for these Forged Epistles only he countenances them true or false because this is an instance of a Pope who excommunicated an Emperor and serves them for a good proof that the Roman Bishop is above the greatest Princes But Labbè spoils the Argument by noting the Margen that Eudoxia died before St. Chrysostom and so these Letters are notorious Forgeries Before I leave this matter I must observe that Baronius his great design was to represent Pope Innocent as the chief yea and almost sole Instrument in vindicating the injuries done to St. Chrysostom and therefore he tells us That Innocent would not communicate with the Bishops of the East unless they would put his name into the Tables and he cites Theodores to prove this but Theodoret's very words are That the western Bishops would not communicate with them but on that condition So when the Adversaries of St. Chrysostom hearing that complaints of their proceedings were made among others to the Pope sent some to give an account of what they had done Baronius without any proof dreams of a sentence passed by Innocent to null what they had done whereas it appears the same year that Pope Innocent writ very frientlly to Theophilus the chief Agent in Chrysostom's condemnation and held communion with
then it had appeared that this was no peculiar priviledge of any one See but related to all Sees which then were filled with Catholick Bishops I shall note only that in these Notes the Emperor is stiled The Lord of the General Council which Title the Roman Parasites of late have robbed him of and given it to the Popes The eighth Council of Africa petitions the Emperor Honorius to revoke that Edict whereby he had granted liberty of Conscience to the Donatists and the Notes out of Baronius make it so meritorious a thing to revoke this scandalous and mischievous Indulgence that this made Honorius so blessed as to have Rome quitted by Alaricus three days after he had taken it but our English Romanists when an Indulgence served their ends counted it meritorious in that Prince who granted the Sects such an Indulgence here for we must note that Things are good or evil just as they serve their interest or disserve it The Synod of Ptolemais in Egypt whereby Andronicus a Tyrannical Officer was excommunicated is strangely magnified by Baronius saying that Synesius Bishop of Ptolemais knew that when he was made a Bishop he was elected by God to give Laws to Princes And a little after he tells us He deposed Andronicus from his Tribunal adding that this shews how great the Power of Bishops was even to the deposing of evil Governors But after all there is no more of this true but only that Synesius gives notice to his neighbour Churches by circular Letters that he had excommunicated Andronicus who seems to have been a Military Officer in a little Egyptian Town and was guilty of most horrid Cruelties and notorious Crimes But what is this to Kings and Princes And the words which he cites out of Synesius 89th Epistle which falsly translates we have put him down from his Tribunal are these ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã c. We have here taken him off from the Seat of Mourners that is Synesius tells Theophilus his Patriarch and Superior that though he had justly put Andronicus among the Penitents yet now upon his sorrow and repentance they had there absolved him and taken him out of that sad station where the Penitents were wont to stand and if Theophilus approved of this mercy shewed Andronicus he should hope God might yet forgive him Now was not the Cardinal hard put to it for an instance of a Bishops deposing a King when he is forced to falsifie his Author and use the words which express a restauration to the Communion of the Church to prove a deposing from a Throne It seems he could not or would not distinguish a Captain or petty Magistrate from a King nor a Stool of Repentance from a Princes Throne This it is to serve a Cause About this time was held that famous Conference at Carthage between the Catholicks and the Donatists Seven Bishops of each side being chosen to dispute before Marcellinus a Count sent by the Emperor to hear this Cause Now Baronius tells us that this Marcellinus was not called simply a Judge but had the Title of Cognitor because it was not allowed to a Lay-man to act as a Judge in Ecclesiastical Matters But Cognitor is often used by the best Authors for a Judge and cognoscere Causam is to hear a Cause Dies Cognitionis is the day of Tryal And which is more the Emperors Edict calls him by the title of Judex Our will is you shall sit in that Disputation in the principal place as Judge and Baronius in the very page before cites St. Augustine speaking of Marcellinus by this Character ipse Judex And as he moderated in the Disputation so in the Conclusion he pronounces the Sentence and the Emperor confirms it which if the Pope had done in Person or by his Legate to be sure that had been ground enough to prove him the Universal and Infallible Judge in all Causes This is certain Honorius did judge in this Cause by his Legate Marcellinus and Baronius who use to quarrel at other Emperors for medling in these Cases tells us God rewarded him for the pains he took about setling the True Religion But as to the Pope he was not concerned in this Famous Dispute and which is very remarkable though the Main Dispute be about the Catholick Church and the Orthodox alledge the Churches beyond the Seas as being in Communion with them and so prove them Catholicks yet they do not once name the Roman Church apart as if communicating with that Church or its Bishop were any special evidence of their being Catholicks Indeed they name Innocent once but give him no other title but Bishop of Rome Whereas if these African Fathers had believed the Pope to be the Supream Head of the Catholick Church and that all of his Communion and only such were Catholicks this Dispute had been soon ended and they had nothing to prove to the Donatists but their Communion with Pope Innocent And I remember Baronius argues that Caecilianus Bishop of Carthage was a Catholick because he had Communicatory Letters from the Church of Rome but the place he cites to prove it out of St. Augustine is this When he that is Caecilianus saw himself in Communion with the Roman Church in which the eminence of an Apostolical See always flourished and with other Countries from whence the Gospel came to Africa c. By which it is plain that it was Communion with other Churches as well as Rome which proved Caecilianus a Catholick And I know not where Baronius found another passage which he affirms was proved in this Conference viz. That the first Head of the Church was demonstrated by the succession of the Roman Bishops to be in Peter's Chair For there is not one word to this purpose in that Conference which is printed by the Editors here So that till better Authority be produced this must stand for a devisable of the Annalists Nothing after this occurs which is remarkable till the Council at Lidda or Diospolis in Palestina wherein Pelagius imposed upon fourteen Bishops a pretended recantation of his Heretical Opinions and was by them absolved Binius his Title of this Synod is that it was under Innocent But Labbè fearing this might imply the Popes consent to a Hereticks absolution hath struck that out However we have Baronius his word for it that no Letters were written to the Pope from this Synod only some Lay-men brought him the Acts of it And he Good Man not so cunning at finding out Hereticks as the African Bishops confesses he could neither approve nor blame the Judgment of these Bishops of Palestina And Pelagius himself though he could not finally deceive the Roman Church yet he hoped he might gain the Pope to his party and did attempt it yea 't is very probable he had succeeded if St. Augustin and other African Fathers had not instructed the Pope
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
had found at Rome professed they would stand by the Decrees of that Church His second Epistle hath nothing memorable in it but that the Pope thinks the affairs of the Province of Narbon to be things far remote which shews they had not then usually intermedled with the concerns of all the Churches in the World A little after he saith we of the Clergy ought to be distinguished from the Laity by our Doctrin not by our Garments by our Conversation not by our Habit by our purity of Mind not our Dress Which looks as if he would abrogate wholly the distinct Habits of the Clergy and persuade them and the Laity to go alike Which gross notion the Notes labour to cover as well as they can by pretending he for bids only new Fashions of Habit to the Clergy But if it were so this would reflect upon the various Habits of every several Order of Monks And yet if we look well upon the Text he positively dislikes all Habits which may distinguish the Clergy from the Laity which now adays Protestants account a Fanatical Opinion Most of the following Epistles are printed in the Council of Ephesus and shall there be considered It suffices to observe here That the 9th Epistle to the Emperor Theodosius owns that Arcadius and Projectus were to represent his Person in the Council of Ephesus which the Emperor had Commanded to be held Therefore Cyril did not represent Pope Celestine and not the Pope but the Emperor called that Council The 10th Epistle affirms that the care which Kings take in the matters of Religion is not ineffectual which shews that Baronius had no reason to be so severe upon all those Princes who medled with Religious Affairs Out of the 12th Epistle to Theodosius we may note that Atticus late Bishop of Constantinople is said to be of most reverend Memory and a most couragious defender of the Catholick Faith And in Celestine's Epistle to Nestorius Atticus of blessed memory a Teacher of the Catholick Faith But this very Bishop had a long contest with the Bishops of Rome and was Excommunicated by Pope Innocent and he on the otherside valued this so little that he Excommunicated those who were in Communion with Rome and calls Paulinus and Evagrius and their adherents among which was the Pope by no gentler a name than that of Schismaticks So that how Orthodox so-ever he might be in any other things 't is plain he did not believe the Roman Church Infallible nor think it was necessary to be in Communion with it And though he erred as they now believe at Rome in so main a Point yet while he was at open Enmity with the Pope Baronius tells us he wrought a Miracle so that a Man would think Miracles are no proof of the true Church Another passage in this Epistle is Memorable viz. That Celestine saith Nestorius was Excommunicated by the general sentence of the Bishops Which the Reader must remember when the flattering Notes any where say the Sentence against this Heretick was solely the Act of Celestine And indeed Baronius having recited his 11th 12th 13th and 14th Epistles boasts of him as if God had raised him up to stand in the gap against those Hereticks which then infested the Church and gives him all the Glory of the Victory over them Whereas if Prosper and Cyril had writ no better against Pelagius and Nestorius than Celestine it is to be feared that these Heresies had not been censured in that Age. Yet in the main he was a good Pope and had the fortune to take the right side in these Controversies and therefore is highly commended by divers of the Orthodox and he is very free in returning the Complements For in his last Epistle he calls Cyril an Apostolical Man and Maximtanus of Constantinople he styles his Colleague And this may suffice for this Popes Epistles We are entertained next with another Collection of African Councils held as they say under Pope Boniface and Celestine but the Titles mention no Pope at all nor were they called by any Pope but by the Bishop of Carthage who presided in them even when the Popes Legates were present We have taken notice of most of these before and therefore shall pass them over very briefly In one of them they resolve to send a Legate to their holy Brethren and fellow Bishops Anastasius of Rome and Vencrius of Milan putting them so equally into the Scale that the Pope is only first named A little after Aurelius Bishop of Carthage saith That he by God's appointment sustained the care of all the Churches The Margin tells us he means in Africa but I must note that if a Pope had said so in this Age though he could mean no more than the Churches of the Suburbicarian Regions these Gentlemen would have stretched that to all the World Another Council in the twelfth Consulship of Honorius and the eighth of Theodosius had a Canon in some ancient Copy wherein these Fathers Anathematize them that hold any middle place between Heaven and Hell to which unbaptized Infants go and they expresly declare that whoever is deprived of the Right Hand must fall into the Left and that no Catholick doubts but he is with the Devil who is not a Coheir with Christ Now this looks so foul upon Limbus Infantum and Purgatory the later Inventions of Rome that their Parasites have left this Canon out in other Copies of this Council And here it is printed in a different Character as if it were no genuine piece of the Council only because it condemns the modern Opinion of the Roman Church but the impartial Reader will conclude that the Ancient Copy of this Canon was elder than either Purgatory or Limbus Infantum Here also the Editors print at large the two famous Epistles of the African Bishops to two Popes successively Boniface and Celestine wherein they do utterly condemn Appeals to Rome and discover the forgery of those pretended Nicene Canons by which their Legates attempted to justifie them I have given an account of the former of these Letters in the Life of Boniface And I shall add here that the latter Epistle to their honourable Brother Celestine writ some years after shews the Africans continued still in the same mind for therein they acquaint him that they had called a Council and though Apiarius alledged the Priviledge of the Roman Church which had received him unlawfully to Communion they examined his Cause and at last he confessed his notorious Crimes Wherefore they earnestly desire the Pope not so easily to receive Complaints from thence nor admit those to his Communion whom they had excommunicated for they shew that the Nicene Council forbids this both as to Bishops Presbyters and Lay-men without any derogation to the priviledge of the African Church committing all the Clergy to their own Metropolitan and wisely ordering every business to
talk as if a whole general Council in that Age were convened to no other end but only to execute the Popes Decree blindly without any enquiry into the merits of the Cause And Celestine's own Letter cited by Baronius to make out this Fiction declares he believes the Spirit of God was present with the Council of which there had been no need if all their business had been only to execute a Sentence passed before There is also great prevarication used by the Cardinal and Binius about the case of John B. of Antioch one of the Patriarchs summoned to this Council This John was Nestorius his old Friend for they had both been bred in the Church of Antioch and he having as Baronius relates received Letters both from Celestine and Cyril before the general Council was called importing that Nestorius was Condemned both at Rome and Alexandira if he did not recant within ten days writes to Nestorius to perswade him for peace sake to yield telling him what trouble was like to befal him after these Letters were published Here Baronius puts into the Text these Letters that is of the Pope of Rome As if the Pope were the sole Judge in this matter and his Authority alone to be feared whereas the Epistle it self tells Nestorius he had received many Letters one from Celestine and all the rest from Cyril So that this Parenthesis contradicts the Text and was designed to deceive the Reader But to go on with the History though Nestorius would not submit to John upon this Admonition yet he had no mind to condemn him and therefore he came late to Ephesus after the Council was assembled and when he was come would not appear nor joyn with the Bishops there but with a party of his own held an opposite Synod and condemned Cyril and Memnon with the rest as unjustly proceeding against Nestorius and by false Suggestions to the Emperor he procured both Cyril and Memnon to be Imprisoned Now among others in the Orthodox Council who resented these illegal Acts Juvenalis Bishop of Jerusalem saith That John of Antioch ought to have appeared and purged himself considering the Holy Great and General Council and the Apostolical seat of old Rome therein represented and that he ought to obey and reverence the Apostolical and Holy Church of Jerusalem by which especially according to Apostolical Order and Tradition the Church of Antioch was to be directed and judged alluding no doubt to that passage Acts xv where the Errors arising at Antioch were rectified and condemned in the Council at Jerusalem But Baronius falsly cites these words of Juvenalis as if he had said John ought to have appeared at least because of the Legates sent from Rome especially since by Apostolical Order and ancient Tradition it was become a custom that the See of Antioch should always be directed and judged by that of Rome And Binus in his Notes transcribes this Sentence as Baronius had perverted mangled and falsified it Which Forgery being so easily confuted by looking back into the Acts of the Council and so apparently devised to support the Papal Supremacy is enough to shew how little these Writers are to be trusted when fictions or lying will serve the ends of their darling Church After this the Preface-tells us that though John still continued obstinate the Synod referred the deposing of him to the Popes pleasure as if they had done nothing in this matter themselves But the Councils Letter to Celestine says That though they might justly proceed against him with all the severity he had used against Cyril yet resolving to overcome his rashness with moderation they referred that to Celestine ' s judgment but in the mean time they had Excommunicated him and his party and deprived them of all Episcopal power so that they could hurt none by their Censures Therefore the Council both Excommunicated and deprived him by their own Authority and only left it to the Pope whether any greater severity should be used against him or no 'T is true not only the Pope but the Emperor afterwards moved that means should be used to reconcile this Bishop and his Party to the Catholick Church by suspending this Sentence a while and procuring a meeting between Cyril and John But still it must not be denied both that the Council censured him their own Authority and that Cyril without any leave from the Pope did upon John's condemning Nestorius receive him into the Communion of the Catholick Church Yet because Sixtus the Successor of Pope Celestine among other Bishops was certified of this thence the Notes and Baronius infer that this reconciliation also was by the Authority of the See of Rome Whereas Cyril's own Letter shews that the Terms of admitting John to Communion were prescribed by the Council and the Emperor and that Cyril alone effected this great work We may further observe Binius in his Notes tells us that after the condemnation of Nestorius the Fathers shouted forth the praise of Celestine who had censured him before And Baronius saith the Acclamations followed the condemning of Nestorius in which they wonderfully praised Celestine as the Synodal Letter to the Emperor testifies By which a Man would think that Celestine had the only Glory of this Action But if we look into the first Act of the Council there are no Acclamations expressed there at all after the condemnation of Nestorius and the Synodical Letter to the Emperor cited by Baronius hath no more but ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã viz. that they praised Celestine which imports only their commending his Sentence whereas in that first Act every one of the Bishops present makes a particular Encomium in the praise of Cyril's Faith as being in all things agreeing to the Nicene Creed which fills up at least forty pages together in Labbe's Edition As for the Acclamations they are in the second Act and in them Cyril is equally praised with Celestine for the Fathers say To Celestine another Paul to Cyril another Paul to Celestine keeper of the Faith to Celestine agreeing with the Synod to Celestine the whole Synod gives thanks one Celestine one Cyril one Faith of the Synod one Faith of the whole World This was just after the reading of Celestine's Letter brought by his Legates to the Council yet we see even when the occasion led them only to speak of the Pope the Fathers joyn Cyril with him knowing that Celestine's Sentence as well as his Information was owing intirely to Cyril's Learning and Zeal Moreover we have another touch of their sincerity about the Virgin Mary For Baronius calls the people of Ephesus The Virgins Clients Subjects and Worshippers adding That as they had once cried out great is Diana so now being converted they set out Mary the Mother of God with high and incessant Praises and persevered to venerate her with a more willing Service and to address to her by a
bowing toward the East for the peril of Idolatry Now had there been any Images adored in his time for the same reason he must rather have forbidden bowing down before them The second Council at Rome under Leo was in the Cause of Hilary Bishop of Acles who had justly deposed a scandalous Bishop in a Provincial Synod But he as such ill Men had often done flies to Rome to complain and Leo not considering the equity of the censure but Hilary's having acted as a Primate in those parts of France contrary to the Decrees of former Popes espouses this evil Bishops Quarrel being more concerned for his designed usurpation of a supremacy than the honour of the Church Upon this Hilary who was one of the most pious and learned Men of that Age goes on foot to Rome and requires the Pope to act more solito in the accustomed manner and not to admit such to Communion who had been justly condemned in their own Country and when he saw the Pope was resolved to break the Canons and set up his Supremacy by right or wrong he suddenly departs from Rome without taking any leave of Leo for which the Angry Pope writes to the Bishops of France declaring Hilary's Acts null and depriving him of his Power to Congregate Synods and Depose Bishops c. And though he brags much of his universal Authority c. in that Epistle yet knowing how little this would signifie to Hilary and the rest of the French Bishops he gets an Edict from the Emperor Valentinian to back his Orders which because there are some great words for the Popes Supremacy in it Baronius magnifies as worthy of perpetual Memory And since their Champions alledge this Edict as a proof of the Roman universal Supremacy I will observe upon it First That it was easie for the Pope to cite false Canons to a young and easy Emperor and persuade him that the Councils had given him this Supremacy as his Predecessors had lately done in Africa Secondly That the Pope probably drew up this Edict himself and so put in these Flourishes about his own Authority Which will be more plain if we consider that the Emperor Leo in one of his Edicts saith Constantinople is the Mother of the Orthodox Religion of all Christians with much more to this purpose but Baronius relating this saith Thus indeed Leo speaks thus but without doubt it was conceived in the words and writ in the Style of Acacius who swelled with Pride But Leo Bishop of Rome was as proud as Acacius and had more influence over Valentinian than Acacius ever had over the Emperor Leo wherefore in Baronius own words without doubt Valentinian ' s Edict was drawn up in Pope Leo ' s Style and so he is only a Witness in his own Cause Thirdly The Sentence of both the Emperor and the Pope was unjust and although Leo wheedled the Bishops of France to reject Hilary that Bishop still acted as Primate and called Synods afterwards so that this big-speaking Edict was neither believed nor obeyed as de Marca shews For indeed Hilary was Primate by Original right and the French Bishops stuck to him not only for his great Sanctity but because they feared the then growing Encroachments and Usurpations of Rome And finally Pope Hilary Leo's Successor determined this Controversie contrary to Leo's Decree by which we see how odly Causes go at Rome since some Popes were for the Primacy of Arles and some against it But when there was a stout Bishop there he kept his Post without regard to the Roman Sentence And now I hope the Reader will smile at Baronius his inference from this Edict of Valentinian's Thou seest clearly from hence saith he the Pope of Romes Authority over all Churches for he must be quick-sighted indeed who can see any more in this instance than an unjust and ineffective Claim § 5. Soon after Pope Leo had an opportunity to encroach upon the Churches of Spain for one Turibius a Bishop there who is called Leo's Notary and probably had been bread a Notary at Rome certifies the Pope that there were many Priscillian Hereticks there who confirmed their Errors by certain Apocryphal Writings full of Blasphemies Leo writes back to Turibius advising him to get a Council of all the Bishops in Spain and there to Condemn the Hereticks and their Apocryphal Books This advice Baronius calls his enjoyning a general Council more Majorum this being the right of the Pope of Rome And though he confesses the Bishops did not meet where the Pope advised nor could they meet in one place because they were under divers Kings and those Arians yet he desires us to observe from hence how weighty the Popes Authority was even with Barbarous and Arian Kings But alas any one may see he cannot make out that ever these Kings gave leave for any Council and it is more probable these Bishops met privately on this occasion yet they have made out of this A General Council of Spain And here they would have that rule of Faith first received from Leo and approved which is printed before in the first Council of Toledo And Baronius saith the word Filioque proceeding from the Father and the Son was first added in this Council to the Creed by the Authority of Pope Leo and brags much of the Popes supremacy even in matters of Faith on this occasion But first these words were put in by these Councils to check and discover Priscillian Hereticks not by any express order of the Pope and indeed Leo had been an ill Man if he had imposed an Article of Faith upon the Churches of Spain which as Baronius confesses was not received expresly at Rome till many Ages after Secondly These Spanish Bishops did not add these words to the ancient Creed but put them in by way of Explication into an Occasional Confession of their own Composing Thirdly Baronius himself notes that the Spaniards and French afterwards added it to their usual Creeds and at last Rome took this Addition from them And in the same place he commends the Northern Nations for adding these words and those of Rome for rejecting them a long time so that contradictory Actions may be it seems equally commended by those who can blow Hot and Cold with the same Breath About this time was held a great Council at Verulam in Britain by St. Garmanus a French Bishop called over by the Orthodox Britains to assist them in confuting and condemning the Pelagian Heresy as Math. of Westminster computes Baronius indeed pretends this hapned divers years before only because Prosper or some who have since corrupted his Chronicle affirms that Pope Celestine sent St. Germanus hither But most Historians agree the French Bishops from a Council of their own sent over this assistance to the British Church the first time without any order from Celestine and this Council of Verulam was
Leo the Bishop of Rome to c. so that where we see Bishop or Pope of the Catholick Church of Rome c. there 't is certain the Flatterers have been at work But as to more material observations when Flavianus had condemned Eutyches he doth not desire the Pope to confirm the Sentence which being regularly passed on him by his own Bishop in Council no man could relax as Leo himself grants But his Letter to Leo requires him to publish it to all the Bishops under his jurisdiction In Leo's Epistle to Julian one of his Legates the Latin Copy puts in nobis and makes Leo say there is one Doctrine and Teaching of the Holy Ghost in us and in you but the Greek reads in the whole Catholick Church Again it is commonly pretended that Pope Leo was utterly against the Emperors calling the second Council at Ephesus and that one reason which made all its proceedings null was because it was called without his consent But it appears by divers of this Popes Letters here published that he owned it a pious Resolution of the Emperor to call this Council and in observance of his Commands he sent his Legates to it So that he never pleaded his Authority in bar to the Emperors Right even when in his Judgment he thought there was no need of it And he declares that he sent these Legates not to preside there but to agree with them by common consent on such things as might be pleasing to God as his Letter to this Synod shews Num. 13. It appears by Petrus Chrysologus Bishop of Ravenna's Letter to Eutyches that he appealed to him as well as to the Pope for he excuses himself as unfit to judge a Cause that had been tried in a far Country especially upon hearing only one Party A Rule which if the Popes had duly observed they would not have received so many unjust Appeals 'T is true he refers him to Pope Leo's Epistle to Flavianus lately writ on this subject but Binius in his Notes falsly puts in that he warns him to rely on it as an Oracle of the Holy Ghost for he only saith there was now an Orthodox Pope in St. Peter's Chair who had taught the Faith aright in this Epistle which had been sent by Leo a little before to this and other Bishops of the West for their approbation But that of Leo himself in his Epistle to Theodosius shews he was no honester than he should be and deserved not so good a Character as the Bishop of Ravenna gives him for he impudently cites one of the Sardican Canons under the forged Title of the Nicene Canon made by all the Bishops in the World the Margin would excuse this by pretending that other Fathers cite these Sardican Canons under the Title of Nicene Canons but we know no ancient Fathers did so except Zosimus and Boniface his Predecessors who to their lasting infamy were convicted of this notorious Fraud in the Council of Carthage and therefore it was an odd piece of assurance in Leo so soon after to make use of the same detected Cheat. In another Epistle of his against Eutyches he saith In the mystical distribution of the spiritual Food that is given and received by which those who partake of the virtue of the Heavenly Food are changed into his Flesh who was made our Flesh which is point blank against their modern Opinion of Transubstantiation making the Bread to be Spiritual and Heavenly Food and the change to be not in the Elements but in the Receivers After this we have divers Epistles of the Western Emperor Valentinian of his Mother and Empress to Theodosius and Pulcheria writ at the request of Pope Leo to desire that Emperor to revoke the Judgment passed in the Pseudo-Synod of Ephesus which further proves the Pope had no Authority in himself to null those Acts for he would not have begged with Tears that which was in his own Power But the great use the Romanists make of these Letters is on account of some high Expressions in them about the Popes having a Power over all Bishops and a Principality among them But there is some doubt whether these Epistles are genuine the Story of their being at Rome the night after St. Peter's day not agreeing to the time when these pretended Epistles must be writ But if they be not forged Rome will gain nothing by these phrases which Leo put into their Mouths for he certainly endited these Letters for them as we may know by this Evidence that the Emperors Mother Galla Placidia who understood no more of the Canons than the Pope told her cites the Canon of Sardica for a Canon of Nice as Leo had done before and therefore ex ungue Leonem we may easily know the Penman of these Epistles Now when he bears witness only to himself his testimony is suspicious and of no weight at all and Theodosius valued these brags so little that he calls Leo only by the name of Patriarch in his answer and affirms the Nicene Canons were not broken and therefore he utterly rejected the request Yet Leo was forced to be content and to receive Anatolius chosen Bishop of Constantinople in this Synod of Ephesus into his Communion only desiring him to give an Account of his being Orthodox in the Faith that he might publish it to other Bishops Soon after which Theodosius died Marcianus succeeding and having no other Title to the Empire than his being married to Pulcheria he remitted much of the Majesty of Style in his Letters to Leo and other Bishops used by Theodosius and other Emperors But even when he complements the Pope in the highest strain he will not yield the Council should be called in Italy as the Pope desired but resolves to have it in the East in some City which he himself should choose Where we may see a notorious Forgery in Baronius and Binius for whereas the Emperor saith where it shall seem good to us Baronius turns nobis into vobis and Binius in his Notes follows him as if the Emperor had left it to the Pope to choose what City he pleased for the Council to meet Nay further Binius who reads it nobis in the Epistle yet in a Note before that Letter he saith it was where the Peope pleased and hath the Confidence to say in his Notes at the end of the Council that the Emperor writ to the Pope to appoint the place time and manner of calling this General Synod Than which nothing can be more false for the Pope would have had it in the West if he might have chosen but the Emperor Summoned the Bishops first to come to Nice as his Letters yet extant shew and thither the Popes first Letter to the Synod ought to be directed and I wish that ignorant hand which altered the Title and put in Chalcedon instead of Nice hath not put in
meant only that they had the principal Places in this General Council But the true President of this great Synod was the Emperor who when he was present sate above all the Bishops in the midst and his Legates the Lay-Judges in his absence sate there and these Representatives of the Emperor indeed had not only the most honourable place of all but some Authority over the Synod it self For they propounded or allowed all matters to be debated of them all Bishops even the Popes Legates desired leave to speak they summed up the Debates and generally gave the decisive Sentence and upon that followed the Acclamations so that these Judges performed all that the Modern Popes Legates in late Councils have taken upon them since their Supremacy hath been in its greatest Exaltation If they object that neither they nor the Emperor were allowed to be present when Dioscorus was condemned according to the Canons I Answer the Judges in a former Session after a full hearing of the Cause had determined if the Emperor consented that Dioscorus should have the same punishment which he had inflicted on Flavianus and that he and his Accomplices should by the Council be deposed from Episcopal Dignity according to the Canons to which Decree the whole Synod consented So that there was no more to be done in the third Session but only for the Bishops canonically to execute this Sentence upon Dioscorus and there was no occasion for the Emperor or the Lay-Judges to be present only his confirmation of this Sentence was so necessary that they writ both to Marcian and Pulcheria to desire their confimation thereof So that the chief Authority was in the Emperor and his Representatives the Bishops advising and they finally determining and confirming what was agreed upon so that they were properly the Presidents here Thirdly As to the Confirmation of all these Acts the Notes affirm That all which was decreed here concerning the Faith against Eutyches was confirmed and approved by Leo's Authority as the Fathers had desired of him in their Synodical Epistle but they pretend he annulled and made void the 28th Canon And this they pretend to prove not by the Synodical Epistle it self for that speaks only of the Emperors confirmation and never desires the Pope to ratifie the matters of Faith but saith he and they by his Legates had agreed on these points only they wish for his consent to the 28th Canon about the Primacy of Constantinople which his Legates had opposed And indeed they supposed they had his consent in all things which the Legates agreed to and so those passages cited by the Notes out of Leo's Epistle do not prove that he confirmed the Decrees of Faith otherwise than by giving his common suffrage to them by his Legates and agreeing with them afterwards And thus all other Bishops who were absent and had Legates there confirmed them as well as the Pope as for his dissent from that Canon and their brags that he had made it void we shall shew afterwards that it remained in force for all the Popes opposition But it may be observed how notoriously the Latin Version corrupts the Text to insinuate this Papal confirmation for in the Speech they made to the Emperor in the end of the Council the Latin hath these words Concilii hujus a vobis Congregati Praedicationem Petri sedis Authoritate roborantes implying that the Popes Authority was to confirm the determinations of the Council But the Greek hath a quite different sense viz. that the determinations of the Pope that is Leo's Epistle to Flavianus were confirmed by that Holy Council which the Emperor had gathered And not only that Speech but many other evidences do shew clearly that the Emperor confirmed the Decree of this Council For First In the end of divers Acts the Judges as the Emperors Legates do confirm what was agreed upon and sometimes promise to acquaint the Emperor for his confirmation Yea the Emperor in his Speech made to the Synod saith he came to the Synod to confirm the Faith and not to shew his Power as Baronius and the Latin Version reads it but the Greek more truly reads I came to the Synod to confirm what was agreed on c. which shews sufficiently that the Emperor was to confirm all the Acts Yea in that very Session wherein the Faith was subscribed by the Bishops the Emperor expresly confirms it and makes a penal Sanction against all that shall contradict or oppose it upon which the Fathers cried out thou hast confirmed the Orthodox Faith And a little while after the Council was ended the same Emperor put out two Edicts wherein he doth fully confirm the Decrees of this Holy Council adding in the later penalties to all that would not receive it Wherefore we can make no doubt that the main confirmation of the Acts of this Council was from the Emperor § 3. In the next place we will consider the several Sessions and Acts which were in number sixteen In the first Action Baronius by mistake affirms that the Emperor was present but the Acts shew that he was only present by his Legates the Lay-Judges who representing the Emperor the true President of this August Assembly sate in a more honourable place than the Popes Legates and here and always are named before them But the Champions of the Supremacy boast extreamly of the great words of the Popes Legates concerning the See of Rome who say in this first Action on the mention of Rome which is the Head of all Churches and the Greek seems to refer it to Pope Leo. To which may be added that the same Legates in the third Action though they do not call the Pope Head of the Universal Church as Bellarmine falsly cites their words yet they magnifie St. Peter as the Rock and groundwork of the Catholick Church and the Foundation of true Faith And in some other places they call the Pope Universal Bishop c. To which I answer The Council no where gives the Bishop of Rome any of these extravagant Titles and did so little regard these empty brags of the Legates that in the first Act the Judges do reject the very first request which Leo's Legates made to the Council and when they petitioned in Leo's name that Dioscorus might stand at the Bar the Judges bid him sit down And if we consider how zealous this ambitious Pope was for the Dignity of his See and that his Legates had been taught their Lesson at Rome we may justly argue from the Councils silence and the lower Style of Arch-Bishop which they give him that these big Thrasonical Titles were not believed nor approved by them for many things are reported in the Councils as said by particular persons which were not the Act of the whole Council for which reason Bellarmine egregiously prevaricates when he makes this whole General Council
the Pope nor did his ratifying it make it needless for the Emperor to require the sentiments of others § 5. We have no more to add to this but only to make a few brief Remarks upon such passages in Binius's Notes upon this Council as have not yet come under our consideration The Miracle of Euphemia the Martyrs taking the Orthodox Confession of Faith into her Hand so long after her Death and Burial and casting away that which was Heretical is only hinted at in that suspicious Epistle from the Council But the Notes and Baronius cite for the formal story no Author elder than Metaphrastes who lived above 450 years after and if we consider how he and the later Writers who mention it vary and contradict one another in the time and manner of this pretended Miracle we shall easily discern the whole Story to be a Fiction A little after the Notes say that they highly injure this Holy Council who say the Epistle of Ibas which is Heretical and contains the praises of Hereticks and the condemnation of the Orthodox was received and approved by the Fathers at Chalcedon for those who say so joyn with the Nestorians But alass it proves very unluckily that it was Pope Vigilius who said this and who was condemned for an Heretick for this and other things of like nature by the fifth General Council and Binius knew this well enough but because it was a Friend he conceals his Name Again he tells us of one Julianus Bishop of Coos that he was the Popes Legate and so he is called indeed in the Subscriptions sometimes but let it be noted that the Pope doth not name this Julianus in his Letter to the Council among his Legates but Paschasinus Lucentius and Boniface with one Basilius are there said to be his Legates And yet this Basilius never appeared in the Council which makes a very Learned Man conjecture that the Fathers at Chalcedon rejected two of those whom the Pope had nominated for Legates viz. this Basilius and Julianus the former not being admitted into the Council and the later having no other place than what his own See gave him so that Baronius his observation concerning this Julianus his speaking Latin as the dignity of the Roman See required will not prove him properly a Legate or if it do then the Council placed the Popes Legates as they pleased Moreover the Notes call the excommunicating of the Pope by Dioscorus scelus inauditum an unheard-of-wickedness and a little after they say That Dioscorus was the first that ever was known to excommunicate the Pope or had committed this unheard-of-wickedness But why all this Doth the Council say such a Fact was never attempted nor heard of before No that is their addition for we have heard of Asian and African Bishops who took themselves to have as much Power to excommunicate Victor and Stephen Bishops of Rome as they had to Excommunicate them And we have heard of Liberius and Foelix whose Communion was renounced by the Orthodox and therefore Dioscorus's fault was his excommunicating an Orthodox Patriarch in a pack'd private heretical Synod not because this Patriarch was Bishop of Rome for had Leo deserved this Sentence by holding Heresie no doubt a greater Council would afterward have ratified it and joyned with Dioscorus In the account which the Notes give of the third Session we are told that Dioscorus was accused for wasting the Goods left to the Poor and Pious Uses by a Noble Lady deceased so that no Incense could be offered for her Soul And Binius and Baronius hence infer that they used then to pray for the Dead But if we look into the Council this will appear an invention of their own for there is no mention of praying for that Ladies Soul or offering in coââe for it to God but only that Dioscorus by spending ãâã Gifts riotously had as much as in him lay hindred the offering a sweet Savour to God out of her oblation Now whether this sweet Savour be meant literally of Incense then used in Christian Churches or allegorically of Alms so called Philip. iv 18. yet still there is not the least intimation that either of these were offered for the Lady or her Soul or any Prayers made for her after her Decease Yet this false Inference is nauseously repeated again afterwards In which last place Binius saith Dioscorus his with holding the Wheat which the Emperor gave to the Churches of Lybia so that the terrible and unbloody Sacrifice could not be offered there is a clear Testimony for the Mass Whereas it is only an evidence that the Eucharist was made of Wheat and that they received a large Morsel as we Protestants do of the Holy Bread and when it is called an unbloody Sacrifice I think that to be a Testimony they did not believe the natural and true Blood of Christ was there by Transubstantiation It is also very false to say That after the Cause of Sabinianus Act. 14. the Council was ended the Assembly dissolved when the Legates and Judges went out and that the Eastern Bishops staid behind clandestinly In which Words there are more falshoods than Lines For if the Council was ended how came the whole Council to meet again without a new Summons the very next day Again the Legates went out indeed but it was after the Judges not before them as the Notes insinuate and the Judges went out because the Causes were all heard and only the Canons to be treated of but before they went they ordered the Bishops to make some Canons So that to say the Council was ended and the Synod dissolved because none but the Bishops staid is ridiculous and contradicts his Note upon the third Session where he makes it a most clear evidence of a General Council when the Bishops meet without Lay Judges If he say the Popes Legates did not stay I reply they were desired to stay and their peevish absence could not hinder the Councils proceedings no more than Dioscorus his absenting and the Acts were next day approved as good though done without them and there it was also proved that the Council did not act clandestinly yea it is very absurd to say the going out of three Men from 627 who staid behind could make the Synod which remained to be a Clandestine Assembly So that we may wonder at the boldness of these Editors who in spite to the 28th Canon upon false grounds condemn those Actions which were examined justified and approved by this whole General Council We have in the next place an old Inscription pretended to have been made in a Chappel built by Hilary the Legate of Pope Leo after his wondrous escape from the Pseudo-Synod of Ephesus in these words To his Deliverer St. John the Evangelist Hilary the Bishop and Servant of Christ Which Inscription gives Baronius and the Notes occasion to affirm that he had prayed and
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
Theodoret's Baronius had better have owned it for none ever thought Popes infallible in their Quotations but the Cardinal resolves right or wrong to vindicate Gregory who rejects Sozomen's History for that passage which is in Theodoret but is not in Sozomen so rashly do Popes judge sometimes The Passage is about commending Theodorus of Mopsvestia as an Orthodox Father to the time of his death which Theodoret doth affirm but Sozomen only mentions this Theodorus his Conversion by S. Chrysostom but saith no more of him and Baronius is forced to feign this Passage was in that Part of Sozomen which was long since lost and which probably S. Gregory himself never saw however Baronius knows nothing what was there written and therefore it is very boldly done to suppose a thing for a certain Truth which he could never know any thing of only to save the Credit of a Pope who had little or no skill in Greek Authors Again 't is apparently partial in him where he produces some ancient Testimonies of the French being wont to break their words to restrain this in modern Times only to that part of them which is Reformed while he boasts of his Catholicks as the justest Men in the World To confute which the Perjury and Treachery of the Leaguers in our Fathers time and the many Promises and Engagements broken to the late Hugonots in our days are abundantly sufficient He takes it for a proof that the Eastern Bishops use to refer Causes of the greatest moment to the Pope because one Daniel a French Bishop fled out of his own Country for his Crimes probably into the East was complained of to the Pope being Uncanonically Ordained which Complaint the Pope transmits to the Bishops of the Province of Narbon as the proper Judges in that matter so that this Cause was not referred to him at all only he was desired to acquaint those with it who ought to determine that Point Moreover he makes it a certain Evidence that Socrates was an Heretick because he complains of Nestorius for urging the Emperor to persecute Hereticks as soon as ever he was Ordained Bishop of Constantinople But this Kingdom hath found Romanists when it was their Interest to censure Men as Hereticks for the contrary viz. for only insisting upon the execution of some gentle Penal Laws upon such as differed from the established Religion He commends S. Cyril for his Modesty in not mentioning the Fault of Theodosius his abetting Nestorius yet he upon bare Surmizes speaks very opprobriously of Theodosius upon this account and reflects upon all Kings and Sovereigns as inclined to follow his Example Now if the silence of these things proves Cyril's Modesty who must needs know whether Theodosius were guilty of this or no Doth it not prove somebodie 's Immodesty to rail by meer Conjectures at Theodosius and all Princes To proceed It is a very false consequence from Cyril's calling in Celestine to his assistance against Nestorius and that Popes condemning the Heretick in his private Council at Rome That it was the Ancient custom from the beginning for S. Peter's Chair alone to determine controversies of Faith and condemn Heresies with their Authors as they arise For Cyril had first condemned this Heretick and his Opinions and the Pope only came in as his Second yet after all it was necessary that a General Council should condemn him which had been needless if the Pope alone or in conjunction with another Patriarch had been sufficient Again he cites two Authors only for Celestine's sending a Pall and a Mitre to S. Cyril and these Writers lived 8 or 900 year after this time and he rejects some part of their account as fabulous yet from this Evidence he would prove That Cyril was Celestine ' s Legate in the Council of Ephesus But he must have better proof than this to make us believe so incredible a thing We may further note that where Possidius is so particular in the circumstances of S. Augustine's death he mentions nothing of any Image of the Blessed Virgin or the Saints no Crucifix placed before him but only the Penitential Psalms were writ out and fastned on the Wall which he read over as he lay on his Death-bed Nor doth he mention any Office said for his Soul after he was dead but only an Office for commending his Body to the Grave which shews these were devised in later and more Superstitious Times Baronius indeed supposes the word Sacrificium to signifie the Mass here but it seems to signifie no more than the usual Office at putting the Body into the Grave in hopes of a joyful Resurrection But though nothing be more evident even in these Annals to a Judicious Reader than the many Innovations in Doctrin and Worship made by the modern Roman Church contrary to the Decrees of Councils the Judgment and Practice of the Ancient Fathers the Annalist a little after upon Capreolus Bishop of Carthage his affirming that to be the true Faith which is delivered by the Fathers flies out into foul Language against the Reformed Churches for Innovations and reviving Heresies condemned by the Fathers Whereas we freely refer it to those Ancients to judge between us Whether they or we come nearer to the Doctrin and Usages of pure Antiquity and can from substantial Evidence prove them to be the Innovators I will only note That in this Epistle of Capreolus this Bishop calls the Emperor His Lord and his Son Upon which Baronius makes no Remark because he would have it thought that no Bishop but only the Pope did ever call the Emperor Son For he alone is to be the Father of all Princes and all Bishops also A little after he interprets that woful destruction of the Emperor's Army in Africa to be a Divine Judgment upon him for countenancing the Heretical party at Ephesus Though not many Pages from hence he lays all the blame of this Connivance upon the Treachery of the Emperor's Domesticks and he may find as great Defeats hapning often when the Emperors did take the Catholick part So true is that of Solomon No man knoweth either love or hatred by all that is before him All things come alike to all c. Ecclesix 1 2. 'T is remarkable what Baronius saith of a very dubious Rescript of Valentinian cited for the Authority of the Seâ of Ravenna by the Friends of that Bishoprick The love of our Country is an imperious thing yea a Tyrant which compels an Historian to defend those things which if they were said of another place he would utterly explode which with the rest there said is so applicable to the Cardinal as to Rome that the only wonder is he did not see how severe a Censure he as David once did upon Nathan's Parable here passeth upon himself Again he forgets that the Miracle out of Prosper concerning a Maid who could not swallow a piece of the Sacramental Bread
to the Pontifical in this Popes History Baronius declares when he notes that Author is not to be trusted in his Report That Misenus and Vitalis were sent to Constantinople three years after this Synod at Rome And it seems neither Euphemius Bishop of Constantinople nor Pope Gelasius knew of this Roman Synod For when Euphemius asked In what Synod his Predecessor Acacius was condemned Gelasius mentions no Roman Synod but saith there was no need of any particular Council since he was condemned by the general Sentence of the Council of Chalcedon and upon that ground the Roman Church rejected Acacius his Communion There are in Labbè divers other Epistles ascribed to Foelix one to Zeno said to be writ some time after the death of Acacius wherein the Pope extols that Emperour for his care of Religion and the reverence of Divine Worship which shews that Foelix did not so stifly renounce Zeno's Communion nor damn his Edict for Union so severely as Binius pretends The rest of these Epistles I pass though most of them be suspicious § 6. The first Roman Council under Foelix may be true as far as concerns the Condemnation of Peter Mongus the Heretical Bishop of Alexandria though there is nothing to prove it but the two first suspected Epistles of Foelix However if there were such a Synod it shews how little regard was had to the Pope and his Council in those days since John whose side Rome took did never get admittance to the See of Alexandria and Peter Mongus kept that Chair for all the Popes Sentence And if the other Peter Cnapheus the Heretical Bishop of Antioch was condemned here it is certain he was condemned before by Acacius at Constantinople But that Evidence of Acacius his being Orthodox hath not discouraged the Parasites from forging a pretended Citation in the name of this Roman Synod to call Acacius to Rome there to answer the Matters charged against him But 't is so improbable Foelix should attempt this against one who thought himself his equal if not superior that now-a-days the Romanists allow not these Processes but count them spurious There is a second Roman Council placed in this year wherein Acacius and the two Peters of Alexandria and Antioch are all said to be condemned But let it be noted that whereas the 6th Epistle of Foelix saith he had deposed Acacius in a Synod in August 484 and at that time Baronius places his deposition Yet here we have a Synodical Letter condemning him over again dated above a year after viz. Octob. 485 which Date Baronius and Binius fraudulently leave out But Labbè sets it down in the Margen and so discovers the cheat Upon the whole matter this Condemnation of Acacius was done they know not when and 't is probable all these Letters and Synods were invented after the Controversie for precedence between Rome and Constantinople grew high meerly to put weight into the Roman Scale But one corruption of this suspicious Synodical Epistle I cannot pass being a passage evidently put in by a later Forger For whereas this Letter makes the Italian Bishops call the Pope their Prince and Head by way of limitation who ought to preside in the Synods of Italy And tell those to whom they writ that therefore they had by Tutus sent the Sentence underneath which pleased the Synod at St. Peters and which holy Foelix their Head Pope and Archbishop had decreed Some later Hand hath broken the Sense and absurdly thrust into the midst of this Sentence these incoherent words Who is the Head of all the Lord saying to St. Peter the Apostle Thou art Peter c. Math. xvi Which words the 318 Fathers at Nice following gave the Authority and Confirmation of matters to the holy Church of Rome both which even to our Age all Successions by the grace of Christ have kept and then comes in Therefore as we have said we have by Tutus sent c. 'T is plain they are forced to put in these words as we have said to tye these latter words to the former And whoever considers the incoherence the impertinence the sham story of the Fathers at Nice and the many Ages supposed from that Council of Nice to this time which was but barely 160 years will conclude this Passage is a Corruption upon a Corruption to support the Supremacy while such stuff passed for Authentick proof to an ignorant Age. The Third Roman Council under Foelix as we noted on his 7th Epistle lies under the same suspicion being dated with the Consuls of the year 488 yet is said to be read in Council the year before An. 487 and from an Epistle to one Neighbouring Country is now made a Letter to all Bishops § 7. Gelasius succeeded Foelix in the Roman See a man of more wit and learning than most of his Predecessors for which cause it is thought he was called Scholasticus before St. Gregory's time and that it was he that corrected and set out the Roman Offices The Pontifical relates that the Manichees being discovered at Rome in his time he made a Decree That those who would not receive the Sacrament in both kinds should receive it in neither and declares it to be a grand Sacriledge for any to divide the holy Mysteries Now these Hereticks refusing the Cup were to be discovered by the Priests taking care that all the People received the Cup as well as the Bread But this happens to condemn the modern use at Rome of denying the Cup to the People as a grand Sacriledge wherefore all Hands and Wits are at work to ward off this fatal Blow Binius in his Margen feigns That Gelasius ordered the Sacrament to be received in both kinds for a time But if it had not been the Custom at Rome to receive in both kinds before the Manichees had never been discovered It is very plain Gelasius confirms the old Custom and thinks it in all times a Sacriledge to receive but one half Wherefore Labbè hath left out this pitiful Note The Editors of Gratian cover this blot by Forging this false Title to the Decree The Priest ought not to receive the Body of Christ without the Blood But Gelasius speaks principally if not only of the People and this Sense supposes most of the Roman Clergy to be Manichean Hereticks Therefore Baronius rejects this Excuse as frivolous but takes as bad a method to salve up this business for he manifestly perverts the sense of the Decree pretending the Manichees superstition made it Sacriledge only in them to reject the Cup but it is none in the Catholick People not to receive it nor in the Church to forbid it But this is meer Shophistry for it was certainly the Custom even at Rome in Gelasius his time and many Ages after for all the Orthodox People to receive in both kinds and he calls it Sacriledge in any of the People who
grew up by degrees being larger or narrower in old times as it happened to be savoured or opposed by Kings and Emperors But it was never very great till the Popes had ruined both Empires of the East and West From this immoderate conceit of the Papal Authority in that Age proceeds that mistaken observation That Pope Foelix and Gelasius rejecting the Books of Faustus Rhegiensis was more than all the pious and learned Writings of S. Caesarius S. Avitus and the famous Fulgentius who in peculiar Tracts confuted Faustus They must be very good blind Catholicks doubtless who reject an Opinion rather upon the bare Authority of the Pope than upon the solid Aurguments from Scripture Reason and Antiquity urged by the most famous Orthodox Writers Baronius taking it for granted that to be a Catholic and to be in Communion with the Roman Church is one and the same thing wonders that the Orthodox in the East should communicate with Euphemius the Orthodox Bishop of Constantinople and main defender of the Council of Chalcedon who did not communicate with the Bishop of Rome And hence he supposes the Eastern Catholicks were in the dark and could not distinguish Friends from Foes Whereas it is the Annalists prejudices that put him into this Mist The Catholicks of the East cleerly saw their great Patriarch was truly Orthodox and knew no such Principle as the Cardinal dreams of Wherefore they did not think an Orthodox Bishop less Orthodox because Rome rejected him for not submitting to their Usurpations So that this instance utterly confutes his Supposition and shews how unjustly he calls us and others Hereticks meerly for not submitting to the Popes Supremacy though we hold the Articles of the Catholic Faith in all other Points Of this we have a further proof in the next Year when Elias Bishop of Jerusalem owned by Baronius for a good Catholick while the Quarrel continued between the Bishops of Rome and Constantinople which that Author Taxes as a Schism upon both sides This Elias communicated only with Euphemius and is highly commended for so doing since Euphemius was a sound Catholic and defended the Council of Chalcedon Baronius indeed pretends Euphemius was not yet condemned by Gelasius but his Predecessor had condemned Acacius and all that were his partakers and Gelasius was hotter in this Quarrel than Foelix which Elias of Hierusalem knew and yet took the contrary side to the Popes as the safer for a good Catholic Therefore it could not be the opinion of that Age that holding Communion with Rome was necessary to denominate a man a good Catholick or to free him from the guilt of Schism To conclude these examples Who can value all those Pompous Consequences which he draws about the Popes Supremacy Appeals c. from the vain brags of an Ambitious Bishop of Rome which were despised by those to whom he sent them and ought not to be regarded by us who know his partiality and consider he speaks in his own cause But we may note this is the best evidence they have and therefore they must make as much of it as they can Our Lord Jesus did not desire to bear witness to himself But his pretended Vicar knowing the weakness of his claim most unjustly Decrees That when the Priviledges of the Apostolick See are in question he will not have any Judge of them but himself And if he be Party Witness and Judge we may guess which way the Cause will go § 5. In the next place we will note some of those absurdities and contradictions wherein his Zeal to serve a party hath intangled this learned Historian For Example The Cardinal brings in Leo opposing the advancement of Jerusalem to a Patriarchate and taxes Juvenalis the Bishop there for arrogating this Primacy to himself Forgetting that he himself had declared that the Council of Chalcedon had setled this Primacy upon him As for what he produces out of Leo that Cyril writ to him against this and with earnest Prayers desired him to oppose it either Leo feigns this Story or the Epistle is suspicious since it is very unlikely that so great a Bishop as St. Cyril should write so humbly as to beg a favour of Leo then but Arch-deacon of Rome But Leo did not like Juvenalis his advancement and therefore Baronius must condemn it though granted in a general Council And though he say here Juvenalis had nothing of a good Bishop in him and sought the Primacy by evil arts and forged writings contrary to the Nicene Council Yet soon after he tells that Simeon Stylites and the devout Euthymius the gratest Saints of that Age gave Juvenalis a good Character and charged the Empress Eudocia to communicate with him I confess I cannot easily understand how any Man can more evidently blow hot and cold as occasion serves than Baronius doth in these different Characters of the same Bishop He relates three wonderful if not incredible Stories of St. Leo and the last though justified by an ancient Picture which is proof enough sometimes for a serviceable Miracle he utterly rejects as a Fable The reason of which is that the two former instances tended to the Popes credit but this last reflected something on his Memory Otherwise we should have had some Author or other to attest it at least as good as Sophronius But this poor Fable wants a Father and issaid to be unworthy of Christian Ears and to want all ancient Authority It is observable that those which he calls the most faithful Acts of Daniel Stylites and would have this Saint pass for a Prophet relate that after a great Fire was begun in the City of Constantinople and other endeavours to quench it proved vain they went to Daniel to pray for them who foretold them that the Fire should cease after seven days and so it came to pass Yet Euogrius a more credible Author saith The Fire endured but four days and some say six But his Faithful Acts will have it burn seven days after the Citizens came to Daniel We may note also That these Legends ascribe the saving the whole City one to Daniel's another to St. Mercellus his Prayers a third brings in St. Marcian's Prayers as the means of preserving one Church And Baronius calls all these consentientia dicta agreeing Reports But an impartial Historian would have discerned the difference and rejected them all as Fictions For Truth is one but Fables have infinite varieties He makes a severe reflexion upon the Emperor Leo for making an Eutychian Heretick his Admiral and imputes the loss of the Fleet to that sinful choice and his tolerating of Hereticks But unless he could prove all Tolerating Princes were conquered and all Heretical Generals beaten there is no strength in the reflexion Besides he forgets that his Majestick Pope Simplicius tolerated the Arrians who about this time possessed almost half the City of Rome
Laurentius And as for the mos majorum that would have obliged Symmachus first to write to the Emperor as his Predecessors use to do I need not make a new Head to observe what excursions he often hath to dispute for the Roman side which in an Historian is not allowable since he is to relate pure matter of Fact and neither to commend a Friend nor reproach an Enemy unjustly There are many of these digressions about Acacius the Bishop of Constantinople against whom he most bitterly inveighs for a long time together and treats him with language so rude and scurrilous that one would think he was some Monster or Devil incarnate Yet at last his greatest Crime is in comparison of which all his other faults were light ones he opposed the Pope who attempted to usurp a Jurisdiction over him and to rob him and his See of the Priviledges which General Councils had granted to Constantinople Otherwise as hath been shewed he was a most Pious and Orthodox Man And Zeno the Emperor who stood by his own Bishop in this just Cause cannot escape many severe lashes from this partial Historian who frequently goes out of his way and takes every little occasion to aggravate his Miscarriages yea to rail at him without any cause It is agreed by all impartial Historians that the Emperor Valentinian the Third did advance Ravenna to be a Patriarchal Seat An. Dom. 432 and that it held this Dignity without any dependance on the See of Rome till after the middle of the 7th Century And how they strugled to keep those Liberties many years after may be seen in a late Eminent Author But Baronius who allows a thousand Forgeries for Rome every where disputes against this Priviledge and condemns all that the Bishops of Ravenna did And here takes a boasting threatning Letter of the Pope's to be very good evidence that all the Priviledges of the Church of Ravenna flowed from Rome But besides that his Witness is a party we may note the Priviledges were so large that we may be sure the Roman Church never granted them their ambition to be absolutely Supream not allowing them to endure any Equal especially in Italy Again we have a digression about the hard usage of the Popes Legates at Constantinople and he not only aggravates their Sufferings beyond what either his Authors say or the truth will bear But also takes occasion to tell you that this is the way of Hereticks to act by Violence and Terror and to treat the Pious with Clubs Swords and Prisons instead of Charity and Peace Now if this be the character of Hereticks the Roman Church that always did and still doth proceed thus where it hath power may fairly pass for an Heretical Church And as for the ground of this unlucky observation Zeno and Acacius did nothing but what all wise Governors would have done for since these Legates of the Popes came to justifie an usurped Authority and to disturb the quiet of the Church at Constantinople their Letters which were judged Seditious were taken from them and they without any hurt to their persons secured till Time and Discourse had made them sensible how ill an errand they came upon So that being convinced of the Justice of Acacius proceedings they communicated with him and let fall the Popes business I have touched that frivolous excursion about the worship of Images before I only note now that if Petrus Cnapheus did oppose that idle Superstition in its first rise he was more Orthodox than any who promoted it as to that point And it may be the later Historians who doted upon the worship of Images may have given this Peter a worse name than he deserved Lying Characters of all Iconoclasts being as common with them as other fabulous Stories which abound in the Writers of this Controversie above all others From two passages out of the Additions to Gennadius writ by some unknown hand mentioning two Books one of Honoratus Bishop of Marseils approved by Gelasius and another of Gennadius his own presented to that Pope and one Example of John Talaias Apology sent to his sole Patron the fame Gelasius Our Historian largely digresses to prove that the Pope was the sole Judge of all Writers and Writings and talks as if he was the only Censor librorum in that Age Whereas I can name him divers other Bishops of less eminent Sees that had twice as many Books sent to them for their approbation yet none of their Successors were so vain as to challenge any Right from thence to judge of Orthodox Books And for the Decree of Gelasius about Apocryphal Writings it is a meer Imposture He complains of the Arrogance of the Constantinopolitan See which insulted over that of Rome as a Captive and under a barbarous Yoke But he will scarce allow us to pity the Roman Church since he runs out into vain boasting that the Popes had the same Vigor Authority Power and Majesty now that they had in the best times But his Account of the little regard given to this Pope Gelasius and his Predecessors Letters and Sentences in this Controversie confutes his Brags and proves this Authority and Majesty was only in imagination § 6. After all these Artifices used by the Annalist for the interest of the Roman Church one would not think any thing should be left that reflected either upon the present Doctrin or Practice of Rome Yet Truth like the Light cannot be concealed with all his Artifices It appears that Pope Leo was but a mean Astronomer since he could not Calculate the true time of Easter himself but was forced to write to others to inform him and when the Infallible Guide is forced to enquire of many Fallible persons to direct him in his Decrees it seems he is left to the same dull way that other Mortals use for their information And at this rate Learning must be of more use to the Head of the Church than Infallibility He commends the barbarous Suevians and Vandals for sparing a Monastery in one of their Cruel Invasions and reproaches the Reformed in France who had burnt very many Monasteries and Churches at which he thinks they may blush But doubtless Lewis the 14th hath more cause for blushing since he professes that Religion that gives an extraordinary reverence to Monasteries and yet without scruple Burns Demolishes and Destroys often where he Conquers By a Letter writ to the Emperor Leo by Anatolius it appears that the Eastern Emperors consulted the Bishops of Constantinople in causes of Faith And ordered them to consult the Canons and enquire into the violations of them yea to give notice to the Pope of such offences And after all the Emperor was to give these Canons their due Force by appointing the Punishment due to such as had broken them Which proceeding was thought very regular then but the present Roman Court will not allow it though Pope Leo
himself begs of the Emperor not commands him as our Historian words it to use this remedy to the Church not only to degrade Heretical Clerks but to banish them from the City yet now they will not have Princes to judge or punish Clerks Nor will Baronius allow the Emperor a Right to call a General Council without the Pope's consent But the Letter of Pope Leo from whence he infers this shews He was commanded by the Emperor to come to a Council which Order the Pope reverently received and wished he could have obeyed it but modestly hopes to be excused by the Emperors approving the Reasons he offers why there was no need of such a Council So that the Authority was then in the Emperor and the Pope was to obey or excuse himself by just Reasons And as to the confirmation Pope Leo saith The Council of Chalcedon was confirmed by the Authority of Marcian the Emperor and by his consent yea he owns the definitions of that Council were above him for what was defined there he durst not call to a new scanning Thus things stood then but Rome is now above this If it were so excellent and pious a Law that none should force Women to be Nuns nor any to be vailed till she were forty years old till which Age she was to remain free to marry if she pleased How comes it to pass that nothing is more common now than to carry young Women against their Wills into Nunneries and to make them take the Vows at fourteen or fifteen These practices may be gainful but they are very wicked and contrary to the Laws both of Church and State in elder and purer times We may observe a visible difference between the Prayers and Usages of holy Men in this ancient Age and those of the modern times St. Marcian takes the holy Gospel in his hand and directs his Prayers only to Christ to avert a dreadful Fire But later Legends represent their modern Saints taking up Crucifixes Relicks or the Host and praying to the blessed Virgin or to deceased Saints in all cases of danger So that any considering Reader may see that the Primitive Worship was not like to that now used in the Roman Church Again if the Matter of Fact be true that Pope Hilary forbid the Emperor Anthemius to allow any Conventicles of the Macedonian Hereticks in Rome for which we have no proof but the boasting Letter of a Bigotted Pope viz. Gelasius yet supposing this were so the Note of the Annalist is very Erroneous viz. That Heresies could not be planted at Rome so easily as at Constantinople For Pelagius and Caelestius who were as great Hereticks as Eutyches and Aelurus were sheltered at Rome a long time And the Bishops of Constantinople did more against Eutyches and his Heresie than the Popes against Pelagius And since a little after three parts of seven in Rome were Arrians tolerated by the Pope methinks we should not have the Purity of Rome extolled at this rate as if no Weed of Heresie could grow there It is but five years after this that Baronius himself owns that Ricimer seized on St. Agathus Church in Rome where he and the Arrians held their publick Assemblies in spight of the Popes who were not wont to oppose Princes who had great power and only trampled on such as were weak In the Relation of Cyril the Monk which Baronius so highly commends it is not much for the credit of Rome that a Catholick Bishop of Jerusalem Martyrius sends a Legate to the Emperor to assist him in suppressing the Eutychian Hereticks and not the Pope And that a Saint from Heaven should call Jerusalem the Mother of Churches For this Title is now wholly appropriated to Rome But as to the Embassy sent to the Emperor against the Hereticks Martyrius took the right course for Pope Simplicius in his Letter to the same Emperor saith The Imperial Authority only can keep the Sheepfold of our Lords slock pure from the contagion of Heresie which shews the Pope's power was not considerable at that time It is something remarkable also That Pope Foelix in his Letter to Zeno the Emperor should affirm That Eustathius Bishop of Antioch was the President of those Three hundred and eighteen Fathers assembled at Nice For now they will allow no General Council to be Authentick wherein the Bishop of Rome or his Legates do not preside The Romanists proceedings against the Reformed at their Councils of Constance and Trent where some were Burnt for a Terror and the oppressed party who held the right Faith were cited before their Adversaries who took upon them to judge in their own Cause these proceedings I say were an exact Transcript of the Arrian Methods in Asrick when they resolved under the cover of a Conference to suppress the Orthodox Catholicks In the Story of finding St. Barnabas Relicks we may observe all the Prayers and Hymns were directed only to God and Christ not any to this or any other Saint from which we may learn That piece of Superstition which now makes up so great a part of the Roman Offices was unknown to those Ages and St. Barnabas declares the chief Bishop of Cyprus is not subject to any Patriarch he doth not except the Pope so that this Apostle seems not to have believed St. Peter's Universal Supremacy Baronius presents us also with a Confession of Faith made by one Lucidus and approved by a Synod of Bishops wherein he declares that he believes Eternal Fire and the Flames of Hell prepared for deadly Sins But there is not one word of Purgatory which shews there was no such place invented or at least believed by the Catholicks then And the 7th Epistle of Pope Gelasius as we noted signifies that he knew of no other places in the next World but Heaven and Hell To conclude the Annalist shuts up this Century with a Melancholy Note That at this time there was not one Christian Catholick Prince in the World He might also have added that all the Eastern Patriarchs were separated from the Communion of the Roman Church although three of them that were Orthodox communicated with one another And he might have noted also that at this juncture there was no certain Pope and an Heretical Prince was then Judge of the pretences of Symmachus and Laurentius the Rivals for that See But the true Faith can subsist as well without a Pope as without Orthodox Princes the Church being founded on Christ that invincible Rock against which the Gates of Hell can never prevail The End of the Fifth Centry PART IV. CENT VI. CHAP. I. Errors and Forgeries in the Councils from the Year 500 to the End of the Fifth General Council An. Dom. 553. § 1. WE referred the Councils said to be held under Pope Symmachus to the begining of this Century And the first Six are pretended to be held at Rome
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.
before And the 7th Epistle intimates that Contumeliosus a French Criminal Bishop whose Cause was decided by Pope John had appealed again to Agapetus which shews a Papal Decree was not decisive But either the Pope or this Letter hath had ill Luck because it contains in the decretal part a flat contradiction both forbidding and allowing this Bishop to say Mass wherefore if we do not reject them we may throw them by as very inconsiderable Once more the Editors abuse us with their old Forgery of Exemplar Precum their Corrupt rule of Faith which cannot without the highest impudence be put upon Justinian and they confess here the Consuls are mistaken a whole year yet they presume to mend it and obtrude it for genuine And Baronius would have us believe Justinian did now repeat this profession of his Faith upon the falsest and slightest conjectures that can be imagined § II. The Council of Constantinople about the deposition of Anthimius and the Condemnation of Severus and his followers was held as Binius confesses in the general Title after Agapetus his death and as oft as this Council mentions him he is called of happy Memory Yet in the Title on the Top Binius saith It was held under Agapetus and Mennas which absurdity of a Council being held under a dead Pope moved Labbè to say it was under Mennas The History of this Council may be had from Du-Pin But the Remarks on those things in it which either condemn the Errors or savour of the Forgeries of Rome are my business Wherefore I will first make some general observations on the whole Secondly consider the depravations in the Acts. Thirdly examine the falshoods in the Notes First This Council was called to re-examine and confirm the Sentence of Pope Agapetus and it consisted all but five of Eastern Bishops to whom Justinian sent this Sentence for their Approbation And Agapetus himself in a Letter writ a little before his death desires the Eastern Bishops to signifie to him That they did approve of the judgment of the Apostolical Seat Which shews that neither the Emperor the Pope nor this Council did then take the Bishop of Rome to be the sole nor highest Judge Secondly Mennas the Patriarch was the President of this Council and sat above and before those five Bishops which the Annalist and Annotator say were the Legates of Agapetus and the Representatives of the Roman Church Thirdly it is certain the Emperor Justinian convened this Council by his own sole Authority for every Action owns They met by his Pious Command and that his care had gathered this Holy Synod together And it is as certain that he only could and did confirm it for Mennas the President having heard the Synods Opinion desires the Emperor may be acquainted with it Because nothing ought to be done in the Church without his Royal Consent and Command And he finally did confirm their Decree by a special Edict which made it valid So that this Council utterly confutes the Popes pretended right to convene all Councils for which in this Age nothing but Forged evidence is produced Fourthly Though Baronius and also Binius do affirm that Agapetus did both depose Anthimius and chuse Mennas neither of them is true if they mean the Pope did it by his own Authority for before the Council Justinian as this Synod often declares did assist Agapetus and made the Holy Canons Authentic in deposing Anthimius And because he thought it was scarce yet Canonically done he gets the Sentence against him confirmed by this Council As for Mennas he was only consecrated by the Pope who in his own Letter saith Mennas was elected by the favour of the Emperor and the consent of the chief Men the Monks and all Orthodox Christians yea the Council declares the Emperor chose him by the general suffrage So that these are false pretences designed to set up a single Authority in the Pope unknown to that Age. Secondly In the Acts of this Council there are divers instances of the hand of a Roman depraver The Title of the Monks Petition as Binius Margen saith is not in the Greek yet he hath it both in Greek and Latain d and so hath Labbè But it must be the addition of a Later Hand the Greek being the Original it is full of great swelling Words applied to Agapetus alone But the Text speaks to more than one Do not ye suffer O ye most blessed Which ye O most blessed defending receive ye our Petition and generally it runs in the plural number So that it was addressed to the Pope with other Bishops The like corruption we meet with also in the Letter of the Eastern Bishops where the Title now is only to Agapetus but the Text speaks to more than one yea where the Greek is ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã and ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã The Latin Version of Rome changes it into Beatissime and Sanctissime adding Pater Which shews the Forgers Fingers have been here The aforesaid Petition of the Monks mentions an Image of Justinian abused by the Hereticks The Greek calls it ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã The Image of that Servant of God The Roman Version is imaginem Dei veri The Image of the true God As if these Heriticks had been Iconoclasts before that controversie was heard of In the Bishops Letter the Greek reads ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã which signifies by open force and secret fraud For ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã is a Warlike Engine to batter with The Translator dreams of Manichaean Errors which are nothing to the purpose here In the Epistle of the Syrian Bishops to Justinian the Greek saith The Pope deserved to follow the Emperors pious Footsteps and so Labbè reads it in the Latin But in Binius for fear this should look mean we have it Vestra pia vestigia digna facienti The Title of Hormisda's Epistle to Epiphanius is corrupted in Latin by the addition of these words which are not in the Greek wherein he delegates to him the power of a Vicar of the Apostolical Seat in receiving Penitents Which is confuted by the Epistle it self which speaks of the Church of Constantinople not as subjected but united to the Roman and doth not command but desire Epiphanius to joyn his care and diligence to the Popes as they now had one friendship both in Faith and Communion yea Hormisda promises to act by the same measures which he recommends to Epiphanius Baronius hath another corruption of his own in a Letter from the Monks of Hierusalem and Syria for where they desire Justinian to cut off all that do not communicate with the universal Church of God and the Apostolical Seat He leaves out the universal Church and puts in nothing but the Apostolical Seat In the same page he cuts off Mennas Title before the Sentence be pronounced viz.
disputes for both sides of a Contradiction As to our Saviours words of binding and loosing on Earth Math 18. which Gelasius and Vigilius cite they respect the living Ministers on Earth and not the Persons bound or loosed And Leo and Gelasius both speak of loosing Persons who dyed Excommunicate and Impenitent which they held unlawful but neither of them say with Vigilius That an Heretick who is not discovered till after his death and dyed in Heresie may not be condemned then Chap. vii Vigilius pretends in the second place that this Theodorus dyed in the peace of the Church which objection is taken notice of both by Justinian and the 5th Council and largely disproved by shewing he was condemned as an Heretick by all Churches for that he dyed in his impiety and the Council say it is a Lye to affirm the contrary Wherefore Baronius falsly saith Vigilius knew he dyed in the Communion of the Church For even Binius saith this cannot be believed because Justinian's Edict witnesseth the contrary even that he dyed in Heresie So that unless an Heretick be in the Communion of the Church Theodorus dyed not in that Communion Chap. viii The Popes third reason is that neither the Fathers nor Councils had condemned Theodorus particularly not Cyril nor Proclus nor the Synods of Ephesus or Chalcedon But the 5th Council cites the very words of Cyril and Proclus which declare him an Heretick and condemn him They cite the words of Cyril to John of Antioch in the Council of Ephesus which say there were two Sons Also Cyril's Epistle approved at Chalcedon saith the Council of Ephesus Anathematized not only Nestorius but all that taught as he did And Nestorius being Theodorus his Scholar as the Emperor shews the 5th Council doubts not to affirm he was condemned in the former great Council So Pelagius the second saith the Ephesine Council condemned Theodorus and his Creed Vigilius indeed denies it was his Creed but Cyril saith it was his and produced it under his name in the Council of Ephesus and condemned it So the not mentioning his name in the Anathema is but a fallacious proof of his being not condemned there But when the Nestorians began to shroud themselves under his name then a Synod in Armenia condemned him by name and Proclus exhorted them so to do as Cyril affirms and Cyril there condemns him by name So did Theodosius and Valentiniam by their Edicts which the 5th Council cites The Church of Mopsvestia put his name out of the Dypticks And Sergius Bishop of Cyrus was deposed for reckoning his name among the Orthodox Bishops Wherefore the 5th Council rightly declares That the Catholick Church had cast out Theodorus after his death for his impious Writings But Pope Vigilius cites two forged Epistles of Cyril and Proclus to shew that neither of them condemned Theodorus And with the Nestorians he denies that these Impious Writings were composed by Theodorus But the Armenian Synod St. Cyril Justinian and the 5th Council all say they were writ by Theodorus the same is also affirmed by Pope Pelagius As for what Vigilius objects that the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon were against condemning Theodorus after his death Liberatus fortunes to say the same And Baronius who takes no notice of Vigilius severely taxes Liberatus for this as a Nestorian falshood charged on the Council of Chalcedon And Binius saith it is contrary to Cyril's Writings received at Ephesus and to the Acts at Chalcedon Finally Vigilius most falsly saith the Emperor Justinian himself as if he quoted the Acts of Chalcedon in his Edict for the Trinity is for clearing Theodorus which is so gross a slander as can scarce be paralleld For Justinian in that very Edict condemns Nestorius and all that Teach with him yea he censures Theodorus by name in a particular Epistle writ to this 5th Council On these frivolous and false grounds Vigilius Decrees none shall condemn Theodorus But the 5th Council without scruple justly condemns both him and all that held with him or defended him that is Pope Vigilius for one Chap. ix Secondly Vigilius held the Heretical side as to the Writings of Theodoret whose person after renouncing his former Heresie all agree to be Catholick So that this is a point of Doctrin not concerning a person Yet first Vigilius pretends Theodoret did not write these Papers against Cyril alledged under his name as he saith appeared to the Council at Chalcedon which is most false For Binius owns he writ against Cyril and defended both Nestorius and Theodorus and Baronius over and over confesseth the same thing So doth Liberatus cap. 4. and Pope Pelagius ep 7. and the Councils both of Ephesus and Chalcedon Yea Theodoret himself in his Epistles cited in the 5th Council and by Pope Pelagius owns it So that it is a wonder Vigilius durst urge so weak and false a thing But he objects The Council of Chalcedon only required him to renounce Nestorius not to condemn his own Writings Which is a meer fallacy for he writ for Nestorius and against Cyrils twelve Chapters Now since he condemned all the Doctrins of Nestorius at Chalcedon and also subscribed the twelve Chapters he did really and virtually though not by name Anathematize his own Writings Yea Pelagius saith expresly he did condemn his own Writings And though at the Council of Chalcedon this General Condemnation sufficed yet when the Nestorians in the time of Justinian defended themselves by Theodoret's Writings it was necessary to condemn them expresly and by name Thirdly Vigilius saith Cyril on the Union with the Eastern Bishops required none of them to renounce their own Writings Which signifies nothing since Cyril made them all Anathematize Nestorius whose Cause they had defended before he would communicate with them Wherefore Vigilius falsly concludes those Writings innocent which so vigorously defend Nestorius his Doctrin and if he and Theodoret vindicated these Writings after they had condemned Nestorius they contradict themselves condemn only a name but held the Heretical Doctrins still Which is plain also from Vigilius his affirming That the Council of Chalcedon would have no Nestorian Doctrins condemned under Theodoret's name That Council did condemn all that defended Nestorius of which these very Writings of Theodoret were the chief But he there recanting his Errors they condemned those Errors when they declared him Orthodox And it was Vigilius favour for Nestorianism which makes him so Zealous for Theodoret's Nestorian Writings Chap. x. Thirdly Vigilius held the Heretical side as to Ibas his Epistle affirming that the Council of Chalcedon pronounced it to be Orthodox But the 5th Council expresly say the Council of Chalcedon did condemn and cast it out Again Vigilius saith the whole Council of Chalcedon agreed with Pascasinus
calls his Recanting not this Orthodox Explanation of the twelve Chapters as Vigilius pretends yea it was proved before Photius and Eustathius that Ibas said He would not have received Cyril if he had not Anathematized his Chapters Wherefore Ibas his Epistle was always Heretical and he an Heretick until he recanted and came over to Cyril's Faith but Vigilius falsly affirms him to have been Orthodox both before he rightly understood Cyril's meaning and afterwards and wrongfully supposes Cyril came over to Ibas who held two Persons but called them two Natures from all which it manifestly appears 1st That the dispute about this Epistle was a cause of Faith 2ly That Ibas his Epistle was Heretical 3ly That Vigilius and Baronius in this dispute take the Heretical side Chap. xiii Baronius further pretends that neither the asserting or denying these three Chapters could denominate Men Hereticks But this was fully disproved before see Chap. 5. And since this was a cause of Faith in which the whole 5th Council held contrary to Pope Vigilius it will follow that Men may contradict the Popes Decisions in Articles of Faith and be no Hereticks Yea since here the Pope was on the wrong side they who are to believe all such Decisions must sometimes be Hereticks Secondly Baronius falsly affirms that they who held contrary to the Pope herein were Schismaticks Convict 'T is true there was a Schism as he confesseth But Vigilius and his Party were the Schismaticks who separated from a General Council owned for such by all Catholicks Chap. xiv In the next place Baronius would excuse Vigilius from Heresie because he professed to hold the Faith of the Council of Chalcedon and writ his Constitution to defend it So did Victor so Facundus Hermianensis who writ for the three Chapters pretend Yea Vigilius himself in his Constitution pretends to maintain the Faith of that great Council But let it be considered that the 5th General Council after a strict examining all these pretences Anathematizes all that defend the three Chapters in the name of the Council of Chalcedon which Fact all Catholicks who approve this 5th Council must consent to And nothing is more usual with all sorts of Hereticks than to profess they believe as the Orthodox Councils and Fathers have believed yet they were condemned for all that pretence See particular instances of this as to the Eutychians Monothelites Nestorians and Modern Romanists in the learned Author Therefore Baronius his excuse is frivolous since Hereticks professions are as false and contradictory as their Doctrins And Vigilius would not forsake the three Chapters no not when they were proved contrary to the Council of Chalcedon and forbids any to write or speak against them so as he might never be convicted or convinced Chap. xv Baronius his third excuse for Vigilius is that he confirmed the 5th Council And Bellarmine saith he did confirm it Binius adds no Man doubts it But if Vigilius case be examined it will be found he changed four times in this Cause of Faith First While he was at Rome upon Justinian's first putting out the Edict he opposed it and stirred up Facundus a Nestorian to write against the Emperor in rude Language Yea Baronius in the same place Rails at Justinian for this Edict and Vigilius writ a threatning Letter to Constantinople against all that should joyn with the Emperor So that Vigilius Facundus and Baronius stand all Anathematized by the 5th Council for writing in defence of the three Chapters But Secondly As soon as Vigilius was come to Constantinople he changed his Mind and in a Council of 30 Bishops condemned the three Chapters which Facundus upbraids him with and Baronius confesses he writ a Book against them and sent it to Mennas Bishop of Constantinople and that he excommunicated Rusticus and Sebastianus two Roman Deacons with other defenders of the three Chapters and in those Epistles writ about these Men he calls this writing to Mennas his Constitution his Judgment by Peter's Authority For which the other Party called him a Deserter a Prevaricator c. and Victor saith that the African Bishops in a Synod excommunicated him yet Baronius owns these Bishops at that time were Catholicks Nor doth it excuse this Pope that he revoked this Constitution which condemned the three Chapters presently after it was published and made another Decree that all should keep silence till the General Council For this only shews him a Dissembler and a neutral in a Cause of Faith But Thirdly At the 5th Council Vigilius returns to his Vomit condemns the imperial Edict and defends the three Chapters as we shewed before and was so obstinate as to endure Banishment for this Opinion which though none suffered for but such as the 5th Council declared Hereticks Baronius calls an heavy persecution and indeed his suffering on this side shews he was always a Nestorian in his Heart But Fourthly Binius and Baronius say he changed again after the 5th Council and condemning the three Chapters was enlarged but died in his way home Yea they are confident that he did confirm the 5th Council and so condemn his late Constitution Which last change no ancient Author mentions And though this only could keep him from dying in Heresie yet this is a Fiction of Baronius who will say any thing to save a Popes credit an instance of which we have in his commending this Proteus for a Man of Wisdom and Constancy and in Binius his praising Vigilius for a prudent and pious Pope who imitated St. Paul in changing his Mind while Justinian who was always Orthodox and stood firm is by these Parasites decried as a wicked perfidious person So that Truth in others is Error and Error in a Pope is Truth yea if a Pope hold Contradiction he is always in the Right Chap. xvi But in this Account of Vigilius changes two of them are forged by Baronius First that Decree of silence is a Fable though it be so often mentioned in the Annals and though he say Vigilius decreed this Synodically and affirm that Theodorus and Mennas consented to it and that he and Justinian had promised to observe this silence Whereupon he pretends Vigilius excommunicated Theodorus and suspended Mennas And stoutly opposing Justinian who this year hung up his Edict in contradiction to this Decree of silence though he fled to St. Peter's Church and then to Chalcedon yet thence he thundred out his spiritual Darts against them all and rescinded the Emperors Decree Upon this Baronius says the Emperor revoked his Edict and Theodorus repented and submitted as did also Mennas and so all were content to be silent till the Council and great Joy followed thereupon Now this is all Fiction For first if there had been such a Decree for silence let
venerable Fathers and Witnesses of the Truth Liberatus an Enemy of his mentions his writing a Book against the Acephali Procopius speaks of his great diligence in reading the Christian Writings So that Gotofred in his Preface to the Institutes shews this is a meer a Calumny of Suidas but Baronius greedily repeats it over and over of pure malice to this learned Emperor His second Quarrel at him is for presuming to meddle in Causes of Faith and making Laws for Priests But did not all the Religious Kings of Judah do so Did not Constantine the two Theodosij and Martin the same And the 5th Council highly commend him for it The Code of Theodosius his Code and the Authenticks sufficiently prove this was done by the best of Princes Thirdly He reproaches him for his sacrilegious Fury in persecuting Vigilius Now I have proved before this beating and banishing of the Pope is a meer Fable and if he was persecuted or rather punished it was for Heresie and Constantine Theodosius the elder and younger and Martian are commended for the same Acts against the Arrians Macedonians Nestorians and Eutychians and St. Augustin justifies this proceeding Fourthly He charges him with falling into the Heresie of the Incorrupticolae in his last days writing an Edict for it and madly persecuting all the Orthodox especially Eutychius Bishop of Constantinople for opposing it for which he Rails intollerably at him saying all Authors Greek and Latin attest this Finally he dooms him to Hell for this But first Justinian did not publish such an Edict as Evagrius and Nicephorus his two main Witnesses attest and Baronius owns as much And Victor Bishop of Tunen who suffered under Justinian Imprisonment and speaks hardly of him is silent as to this Edict but shews he continued constant to his Edict against the three Chapters to his very death wherein he owns all the former General Councils And it is so far from truth that all Writers Greek and Latin charge him with that Heresie that neither Procopius Agathus Victor nor Liberatus do it nor Damascen though he treat of this Heresie nor Marcellinus Bede nor Anastasius Suidas saith he was most Orthodox Aimonius and Paulus Diaconus affirm he was for his Faith a Catholick And twenty other eminent Writers cited by this Author do all give him a great Character and Pope Gregory with many others after his death bestow on him the Title of Pious and of sacred Memory Baronius names but three Authors for this Slander First Nicephorus whom Possevine calls Heretical and Erroneous in History and the Cardinal in this Relation judges him to be a Fool and generally he is but Evagrius his Ape His second Witness is Eustathias But Surius is generally stuffed with fabulous Writers and such is this Eustathius falsly pretended to have writ Eutychius his Life for neither Photius Trithemius Possevine nor Sixtus Senensis mention any such Writer And the Story is full of Lyes for he makes Eutychius to come to Constantinople to the 5th Council and then to be chosen Bishop after Mennas death who died five years before this Council And this Eutychius was chosen full four years before it And he reckons that Eutychius was Banished twelve years whereas two years after his Banishment he crowned Justinius and was actually Patriarch when Justinius was sick and nominated Tiberius his associate and so could not as this Fabler pretends be desired from Banishment after Tiberius Reign began with Justin yet to make out this Lye Anastasius his latine Version of Nicephorus adds ten years to John Successor of Eutychius and makes him sit twelve year and seven Months who in Nicephorus sat but two years and seven Months 'T is true Eutychius was Banished by Justinian but it was for Prophesying of his Successors and for holding the Heresie of Origen as Pope Gregory witnesseth against which Justinian had put out an Edict and which was sentenced in the 5th Council And it was for opposing this Edict not an Heretical Edict that Eutychius was Banished So that thirdly Baronius hath no Author for this Slander of Justinian's being an Heretick but Evagrius who is owned by all to be a most fabulous Author as is proved in the History here very fully by many instances Now what is his credit against so many truer and better Historians Finally Whereas Baronius reviles Justinian as a destroyer of the Empire and the Church This Author largely proves out of the best Historians that Justinian was a Wise Pious and Victorious Prince the best Emperor as to his Laws his Buildings his Wars and his Love to Religion that ever sat on the Throne Imperial to which the Reader is referred Chap. xxi In like manner the Cardinal reviles Theodora the Empress as a Wicked Heretical Sacrilegious Mad Woman strook with death by Heavens vengeance upon Vigilius Excommunicating her But other Authors say she was like her Husband in her Studies and Manners Yea the Emperor gives her an excellent Character in his very Laws He also and the 6th Council after her death call her a Woman of Pious Memory Nor ought Baronius to revile her for thrusting Anthimius an Heretical Monster into the See of Constantinople as he doth An. 535. pag. 226. ut supr since there he owns that at his Election he seemed a Chatholick and that she favoured him as Orthodox yea he carried it so as to seem such to all As to her contending with Vigilius two years about the Restitution of Anthimius which Baronius relates An 547. pag. 357. it is a meer Fable for that Cause of Anthimius was determined long before and Victor saith that Vigilius and Theodora agreed after he came to Constantinople and that she persuaded him to condemn the three Chapters And he who best knew saith it was Pope Agapetus who excommunicated Theodora then favouring the Acephali So that Vigilius is by the Scribes mistake put for Agapetus in Gregory as appears by his speaking of the taking of Rome by the Goths immediately after which was the Sacking it by Vitiges after Agapetus his time or by Totilas which was not after but before this pretended Sentence of Vigilius against Theodora viz. that year Vigilius came to Constantinople From all which it is manifest that this Pope did never Excommunicate Theodora at all who in her latter Days was Orthodox but hated by the Nestorians for joyning with Justinian in condemning the three Chapters which also raises Baronius his spleen against her Chap. xxii His next attempt is against the three Chapters which he wishes had been condemned to Eternal silence buried and extinguished adding it had been better for the Church they had never been spoken of viz. because of the Troubles ensuing I reply so there was about the words ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã But this settled the true
Faith as it did also that Controversie and by Providence shews us that a Pope may Err in matters of Faith Chap. xxiii After this he Rails at the Edict calling it a Seed plot of dissention and saying it was contrary to the three Chapters of the Council of Chalcedon and as Facundus affirms contrary to Justinian's own Faith and writ by Hereticks and the Cardinal saith it was writ by Theodorus Bishop of Caesarea against whom he every where Rails as a Factious and Schismatical Man yea an Heretick and obstinate Origenist a most wicked Wretch and a plague to the whole Church But as to the Edict it is in defence of the Council of Chalcedon and to say otherwise is to condemn the 5th General Council who often declare as much Yea Baronius elswhere in contradiction to himself saith this Edict is a Confession of Justinian ' s right Faith a Catechism and exact declaration of the Catholick Faith And he might as well call the Decrees of Nice or other General Councils Seed-plots of dissention yea the Gospel it self may be so calumniated Nor do Liberatus Facundus and Vigilius as he saith declare that Theodorus writ this Edict Liberatus only saith he suggested it to the Emperor to condemn the three Chapters by a Book to be dictated by the Emperor which he promised to do Facundus names not Theodorus but saith They were willing to believe it was writ by the Adversaries of the Truth which was but a conjecture and is as false as what he next speaks of it being contrary to the Emperors own Faith And Vigilius words cited by Baronius rightly construed shew only that when the Edict was read in the Pallace Theodorus required the Bishops to favour it by his words however this passage is taken out of a forged Epistle of Vigilius wherein Mennas is said to be excommunicated the 25th year of Justinian who died the 21st year of that Emperor So that none of his Evidence do prove that Theodorus writ this Edict And for his opposing Vigilius his Decree of silence we shewed before there was no such Decree nor could he lead Justinian into the Heresie of the Incorrupticolae because the Emperor never held it and his only Witnesses that Theodorus was an Origenist Heretick are Facundus and Liberatus Now Facundus is an Heretick condemned by the 5th General Council for writing in defence of the three Chapters and a malicious Enemy of Theodorus And so was Liberatus for which cause Bellarmine Baronius and Possevine advise us to read him cautiously especially in such things as he borrowed from the Nestorians and what he saith of the 5th Council Professae inimicitiae suspicionem habent mendacij And this is certainly so for how could he hold Origen's Heresies who subcribed the 5th Council wherein Origen is by name condemned And among other Bishops no doubt he had subscribed Justinian's Edict against Origen's Errors otherwise he could not have been so familiar with the Emperor nor so beloved by him as Liberatus the Author of this Calumny reports him to have been So that Theodorus was always Orthodox and his advising this Edict is no proof it was against the Faith Chap. xxiv Baronius and Binius do attempt after this to question the Acts of the 5th Council not indeed in any main thing concerning their not condemning or Vigilius not defending the three Chapters which is our Point but in lesser matters such as may be objected against all the General Councils in the World which therefore if the objections were true would not take away the Authority of this General Council whose Acts are as well preserved as any and better than any of the other Councils except Chalcedon that went before it Chap. xxv The first Corruption they charge these Acts with is that they add to the Acts of Chalcedon in reciting them these words which Jesus Christ our Lord is one of the Trinity which words some suspected of Eutychianism would have added to the Council of Chalcedon but could not obtain it But first it was no Eutychian Heretick who first said Christ was one of the Trinity Theodorus of Mopsvestia denied it but Proclus who was Orthodox affirmed it and taught it in an Epistle approved in the Council of Chalcedon and Justinian set out an Edict for it against the Nestorians who denied it wherein he also Anathematizes the Eutychians which Edict Pope John the second confirms and declares to be agreeable to the Apostolick Doctrin and to the Faith of the Roman Church Wherefore those Monks who affirmed one of the Trinity was Crucified could not be Eutychian Hereticks as Baronius falsly says But Baronius is a Nestorian who denies this Truth And those Monks did not seek to add it to the Council of Chalcedon only they declared against the Nestorians this was the Sense of that Council in the time of Hormisda who was Heretical in denying it nor doth the 5th Synod recite it as the words of the Council of Chalcedon but as their own words who were as Orthodox as any in the Council of Chalcedon and he is a Nestorian who denies it Chap. xxvi Baronius objects Secondly That in these Acts Ibas is said to have denied the Epistle to Maris to be his which he saith is false and Binius calls it a Lye and they both give this as an instance of the Corruption of these Acts They may as well prove Justinian's Edict corrupted and Pope Gregory's Epistles where it is said he durst not confess it yea that he denied it to be his And the 5th Council prove he did deny it by the interlocution of six Metropolitans at Chalcedon And though Baronius do say positively in one place that the true Acts of Chalcedon have it that lbas confessed it to be his Epistle yet he cites those very Acts and the second of Nice elsewhere saying it was found not to be the Epistle of Ibas and so it was condemned and he absolved And the truth of the matter is that Ibas denied at Chalcedon that ever he called Cyril an Heretick after the Union But we have proved before that he writ this Epistle divers years before that Union and therein called Cyril Heretick which is a denying the words of his own Epistle for which he is censured in the 5th Council Chap. xxvii He alledges that these Acts say the Council of Chalcedon condemned the Epistle of Ibas Which he saith is untrue and that he hath demonstrated the contrary out of the Acts of Chalcedon and Binius calls this another Lye both of them giving this as an instance that the Acts are corrupted But if so the whole Council is corrupted for they say over and over that this Epistle of Ibas was condemned by the definitions at Chalcedon and that they had demonstrated this and it was indeed their
main business to shew it was contrary to that Council who forced him to condemn his own Epistle before they would receive him And if Binius and Baronius say this be false they give a General Council the Lye and Pope Gregory also who saith without doubt this Epistle is contrary to the definition at Chalcedon which was exactly followed by the 5th Council And since the Council of Chalcedon forbids all Writings for Nestorius such as this Epistle is and approve the Judgment of Photius and Eustathius who condemned this Epistle as Heretical and would not receive Ibas till he Anathematized Nestorius and his Doctrines 'T is certain that Council as well as the fifth did condemn Ibas his Epistle Chap. xxviii Again Baronius and Binius accuse the Council of divers defects first in omitting the Condemnation of Origen and giving only a brief touch upon it But this is a notorious Calumny for the 5th Council not only mention it transiently in saying they and Vigilius had condemned Origen now but expresly Anathematize Origen and his impious Writings And the Cardinal mistakes in saying they first handled the cause of Origen and then that of the three Chapters For Nicephorus saith they read the Libels against the impious Opinions of Origen the second Session But indeed this Council did not afresh condemn Origen but only mention his being condemned in that Age by most of the Bishops present in this Council about 15 year before in Menna's Synod upon an Edict of Justinian to which the Western Bishops had subscribed which both Evagrius Nicephorus and others mistake for this 5th Council So that the Cardinal and Binius are both out in charging the omission of Justinian's Edict as a defect in these Acts For that Edict was not sent to this 5th Council but to Menna's Synod and that Epistle which Binius hath added to these Acts as Justinian's is a late extract out of Justinian's large Decree Yea Didymus and Evagrius who they say were condemned in this 5th Council were not condemned there except in general words as holding with Origen in the point of praeexistence So that it is false and malicious in Baronius and Binius to charge Theodorus of Caesarea with stealing these things out of the Acts of this Council which were never in them upon an unjust surmise and slander of his being infected with Origens Heresie Chap. xxix Like to this is their pretence that these Acts want the Emperors Epistle which he and Binius add out of Cedrenus and thence insinuate the Acts are defective But Justinian's only true Epistle sent to the Council is extant in the Acts of which this is an Epitome by an ignorant hand which saith Eutyches approved the Opinions of Nestorius and that Nestorius was the Master of Theodorus whereas Justinian's true Letter and the Council teach that he was his Scholar And are not the Cardinal and Binius rare menders of Councils who would supply their pretended defects with such Stuff as this Chap. xxx Baronius also objects that the Constitution of Vigilius which evidently belongs to this Synod is known to be taken away out of the Acts It is granted it bears date the 14 of May upon which the fifth Collation of this Council was had but was sent to the Emperor first and by him considered and then offered to the Counsil the sixth Collation May 19th as Binius owns But indeed the Council never read this publickly nor named it or Vigilius to prevent offences they confuted it indeed and published his Letters to Rusticus and Sebastianus which contradict the Constitution but for his Credit as Baronius owns thought fit to say nothing of his Constitution And therefore if this Constitution were stollen out of the Acts it was by the Roman Church to cover their Fathers nakedness and conceal his Heresie Chap. xxxi Lastly He and Binius say the Acts want the assignation of a Patriarchal Seat to Jerusalem and taking two Provinces out of Antioch and two out of Alexandria to put under it which being by Leo opposed at Chalcedon was now passed contrary to the old Order established at Nice Which is not true for it had the Title of a Patriarchate long before this Council and the jurisdiction over the three Palestinas was assigned it at Chalcedon which Binius in his Notes on that Council and Baronius also expresly affirm Yet here in their Account of the 5th Council the Cardinal most falsly says Juvenalis got this Decree to pass in the absence of the Pope's Legates Baron an 553. pag. 441. But if we consult the Council The Popes Legates first spoke in this Cause and expresly gave their consent to it And though perhaps Pope Leo afterwards might oppose this as Baronius saith that only shews how little a Popes Authority was valued since in the Council of Mennas John Bishop of Jerusalem held a Synod and presided over all the Bishops of the three Palestinas And Baronius recites the Title of another Council at Jerusalem where Peter the Patriarch presided over all the Bishops of the three Palestinas 17 years before this fifth Council which shews that Jerusalem had the Title and Jurisdiction of a Patriarch by virtue of the Canon at Chalcedon and that Baronius and Binius are ridiculous and impudent to urge the want of a Fiction of Gul. Tyrius refuted by Berterius as a defect in the Acts of this General Council Chap. xxxii The Cardinal objects also spurious and false Additions made to these Acts And he instances in the Monothelites who in the sixth Synod are proved to have added 24 Leaves to these Acts as also two Epistles of Vigilius to Justinian and Theodora But though this be true yet those corrupt Additions were detected and razed out in the sixth Council and our Acts of the fifth Council have not one of those Heretical Additions but follow those true Copies which were extant in Gregory's time and those by which 70 years after his death the false Copies were detected in the sixth Council so that this is meer Sophistry As is also his Pretence That the Laws of Theodosius recited in the fifth Collation against Nestorius are different from those in the Code and in the Ephesine Council For there is but one Law against Nestorius in the Code different from these which mention his former Condemning the Nestorians but these Laws were against Diodorus and Theodorus as well as the Nestorians at the Armenian Monks Petition And note That all Theodosius his Laws against Hereticks are not in his Code for that Law in the Ephesine Council against the Nestorians was a true Law of this Emperours And another in the Council of Chalcedon which Baronius owns for true Laws of Theodosius yet neither of them are in the Code so that he may as well say those Acts are corrupted