p. 598. Bin. pag. 80. col 1. brag of Apostolical and Universal Tradition The Bishops of Asia produced a contrary Tradition and called it Apostolical for keeping Easter at a different time which shews how uncertain a ground Tradition is for Articles of Faith when it varied so much in delivering down a practical Rite through little more than one Century And the Asian Bishops persisting in their Custom and despising Victor's Excommunication proves They knew nothing of his Supremacy or Infallibility in those days We grant Victor was in the right as to the time of Easter and that which he and other Councils now agreed on was agreed upon also at the Council of Nice but Binius stretches it too far when he pretends That general Council confirmed Victor's Sentence of Excommunition For Victor's Authority is never urged in the Nicene Council nor his Excommunication mentioned and we know from Eusebius That the Bishops of his own Opinion severely reproved him for offering to pass so rash a Sentence and to impose his Sense upon remote Churches So that thus far there is no genuine Proof of any Supremacy exercised or claimed by the Roman Church for the Decretals which only pretend to make it out are notorious Forgeries CHAP. III. Of the Forgeries in the Third Century An. Dom. 203. § 1. THis Century begins with the Life of Pope Zepherine who Sat Eight years saith the Pontifical but the Notes tell you He Sat Eighteen which is a small Error in that fabulous Author Yet the Editors believe upon his Credit that this Pope ordered Vessels of Glass to be used in the Mass (q) Lab. p. 603. Bin. pag. 81. col 1. and the Notes prove it by Pope Gregory the Great who lived Four hundred years after this time However if we allow the Matter of Fact upon the Testimonies of S. Hierom and Epiphanius it will follow That in those Ages when they used Glass Cups they did not believe Transubstantiation for if they had they would not have ventured Christ's Blood in so brittle a Vessel but have forbid the use of Glasses as they have done in the Roman Church since this Opinion came in among them (r) Daile de cult relig ap Latin. lib. 2. cap. 22. Under this Pope the Editors place an African Council and say it was Reprobated yet they cannot make it appear that this Pope so much as knew of it Nor was his Advice or Consent at all desired in that case which was never disputed at Rome till Pope Stephen's time as themselves confess viz. Fifty years after this Council was held from whence we learn That every Province in this Age believed they had sufficient Authority to determine Controversies in Religion among themselves without the Consent of the Bishop of Rome § 2. Though the Pontifical be guilty of many Errors in the Life of Calixtus and mistake the very Emperors under which he lived and died the Notes gloss them all fairly over (s) Lab. p. 608. Bin. pag. 83. col 1. and correct them by the Roman Martyrology which often follows the Pontifical and is as fabulous as that However we are told That Calixtus was buried Three Miles out of the City because the Law of the Twelve Tables forbid the Burying of a dead Body within the Walls Now I would know if this Law were in force how that can be true which the Pontifical and the Notes affirm and justifie That S. Peter Linus Cletus Euaristus Sixtus Telesphorus Hyginus Pius and Victor were All Buried in the Vatican And what shall we think of the Miracles done by their Relicks and at their Tombs if no Body know where they were first Buried Pope Urban the Successor of Calixtus is said in the Pontifical (t) Lab. p. 617. Bin. pag. 87. col 1. to be Buried in the Coemetery of Praetextatus which could not then be any Coemetery at all because Praetextatus was not Martyted till the Persecution under Maximinus which hapned many years after And if the Story of S. Cecily in the same Author be no Truer than his Chronology the Romanists worship a fictitious Saint The Pontifical is forced to feign That the Emperor Alexander Severus was a Persecutor contrary to his Character in all Histories of Credit and this only to make us think that Calixtus Urban and Pope Pontianus his Successor were Martyrs However though Eusebius knew not of their Martyrdom (u) Euseb hist lib. 6. cap. 15 17 22. the Roman Church adores them all as Martyrs and have peculiar Days dedicated to their Memories Antherus as the Pontifical says Sat Twelve years and One Month and the Notes say that he Sat only one Month (w) Lab. p. 629. Bin. pag. 92. col 1. so that there is but only Twelve years mistaken in this Popes Life And if he was Pope but one Month doubtless his Secretaries had need be very swift Writers or else they could not gather many in his time However Binius will make it out for he brings in a Poetical Hyperbole Of those Scribes who could write a Sentence before a man had spoken it and so were as quick at guessing as writing and applies this in very serious earnest to this Pope's Notaries to make us imagine there were many Acts of Martyrs writ out in this short-lived Pope's time § 3. Pope Fabian as Eusebius relates was chosen by occasion of a Dove 's lighting on his Head when the People were met to elect a Pope of which remarkable Story the fabulous Pontifical takes no notice but tells us That in this Popes time Novatus the Heretic came to Rome (x) Lab. p. 638. Bin. pag. 95. col 2. that is say the Notes Above a year after Pope Fabian was dead after the Vacancy and in Pope Cornelius 's time with such absurd Comments do these Gentlemen delight to cover the Ignorance and Falsehood of their Historian but such Excuses do only more expose him In this Pope's time were two Councils held one in Africa the other in Arabia and they Intitle them both under Fabian yet the only Authors who mention these Councils do not say Pope Fabian was concerned in either of them (y) Lab. p. 650. Bin. pag. 101. col 2. and therefore they were not under Fabian After this Pope's death there was a Vacancy of more than one whole year which the Editors to flatter the Papacy call in the style of Princes An Interregnum but alas their admired Monarchy was now turned into an Aristocracy and the Clergy governed the Roman Church to excuse which flaw in their visible Monarchical Succession the Notes say The Members next the Head knew it was their parts to do the office of the Head Which notable kind of substitution if it could be made out in the Body Natural Beheading would not be a Mortal punishment however they must say something to make us believe there was always a Visible Head of the Catholic Church or at least a Neck and Shoulders which
rather derision than serious Arguments Sanders and Turrian observe That these Fathers forbid not Images which Christians might take away and hide but Pictures which they must leave exposed to Pagan abuses But might not this have been prevented by hanging up their Pictures in Frames and are not large Images as difficult to be removed and concealed as Pictures Yea doth not the present Roman Church adore Pictures as well as Images so that still this Canon condemns them Martinez fancies This Council forbid Painting on the Walls lest the Pictures should be deformed by the decay of those Walls But he forgets that the Council first forbids them to be any where in the Church and were not Walls as subject to decay in the time of the Second Nicene Council as they are now And had not those Fathers as great an honour for Pictures as these at Elliberis yet the Nicene Picture-Worshipers order them to be painted on Church-Walls Martinez adds That as times vary human Statutes vary and so the Second Council of Nice made a quite contrary Decree What! are Decrees of Councils about Matters of Divine Worship only human Statutes what will become of the Divine Authority and Apostolical Tradition pretended for this Worship of old at Nice and now at Rome if the Orders against it and for it be both human and mutable Statutes It is well however that the Patrons of Image-Worship do own they have altered and abrogated a Primitive Canon for one made Four hundred years after in times of Ignorance and Superstition and we know whether of the two we ought to prefer Baronius is more ingenuous who saith (x) Baron An. 305. §. 45. These Bishops at Elliberis chiefly endeavoured by strict Penalties to affright the Faithful from Idolatry wherefore they made the 34th 36th and 37th Canons and by comparing the First Canon with the Forty sixth it appears they dealt more severely with an Idolater than an Apostate From whence we infer That Pictures in Churches tend to Idolatry in this Councils Opinion Albaspinaeus whose Notes Labbé here prints (y) Lab. p. 998 would enervate this Canon by saying It forbids not the Saints Pictures but those which represented God and the Holy Trinity But it is not probale these Primitive Christians were so ignorant as to need any prohibition about such blasphemous Representations of God's Majesty And he brings no proof but his own bare Conjecture for this limitation of the Canon which Fancy if it were true would prove That the Saints were not worshiped or adored in that Age because nothing that was worshiped and adored was to be painted on the Walls and if that be meant only of God and the Trinity then nothing else but God and the Trinity was adored in those days Finally the former part of the Canon destroys this limitation by excluding Pictures in general out of Churches These are the various Fallacies by which these partial Editors would hide the manifest Novelty of their Churches Worship of Pictures which cannot be defended by all these Tricks I will only add That this genuine Ancient Council in the Fifty third Canon Orders The same Bishop who Excommunicated a Man to Absolve him and that if any other intermedled He should be called to an account for it (z) Lab. p. 976. Bin. pag. 196. C without excepting the Pope or taking notice of Marcellus's pretended claim of Appeals § 3. In the Year 306 was a Council at Carthage against the Donatists which never takes any notice of the Pope yet they put into the Title of it Under Marcellus (a) Lab. p. 1379. Bin. pag. 202. C But there is a worse Forgery in the Notes where S. Augustine is cited as saying That Cecilian Bishop of Carthage despised the Censures of the Donatists because he was joyned in Communion with the Bishop of the Roman Church from which all Catholic Communion was ever wont to be denominated But this is Baronius his false gloss not S. Augustine's words who only saith because he was united by Communicatory Letters both to the Roman Church wherein the Principality of the Catholic Church had always flourished and to other Lands from whence the Gospel came to Africa (b) Aug. ep 62. Tom. Il. p. 150. Vid. Baron An. 306. §. 40. Now there is great difference between a Mans being 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 (c) Lab. p. 1380. Bin. pag. 203. col 1. 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 to 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 (d) Lab. p. 1381. Bin. pag. 203. col 1. 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 Matter 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 (e) Bellarm. de Pontif. Rom. lib. 2. cap. 14. de Confirm lib. 2. cap. 3. 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.
a Saviour sitting five foot high so it calls a dead Image (n) Lab. p. 1420. Bin. Not pag. 219. col 1. But if this were true why did not Adrian cite this in his Nicene Council Or why did this Emperor 's Sister write to Eusebius Bishop of Coesarea for an Image of Christ when Sylvester could more easily have furnished her and by the way the Notes fraudulently mention this Message (o) Not. Y. Bin. pag. 219. col 2. Lab. p. 1421. but do not relate how severely Eusebius reproved that Lady for seeking after a visible Image of Christ The Annotator also cites Paulinus to prove this Book of Munificence but he writ near 100 years after and though he speak of a fine Church of S. Peter in Rome yet he saith not that Constantine either founded or adorned it Baronius attempts to prove this Book by mear Conjectures by the Forged Acts and by Nicephorus a late Author whom he often taxes for Fictions (p) Baron An. 324. §. 72. 75. but he can produce no ancient or eminent Author for it And yet it is certain if Constantine had given so many and so great gifts to the Head City of the World some of the most Famous Writers would have Recorded it Besides the Cardinal himself rejects both the idle Story of S. Agnes Temple attested by a Fiction ascribed to S. Ambrose told in this very Book (q) Baron An. 324. §. 107. and the apparent Falshood of Constantine's now burying his Mother in one of these Churches who was alive long after (r) Idem An. 324. §. 114. So that by his own Confession there are divers Falshoods in this Book and he had been more Ingenuous if he had owned the whole to be as it really is a Forgery An. Dom. 314. § 11. The Editors now go back to the Council of Arles held as they say Anno 314 (s) Lab. p. 1425. Bin. pag. 220. col 1. And it troubles them much to ward off the Blows which it gives to their beloved Supremacy For it was appointed by the Emperor upon an Appeal made to him by the Donatists to judge a cause over again which had been judged before by Melchiades and his Roman Council the Pope in Council it seems being not then taken to be Infallible 'T is true in the Title which these Editors give us this Council directs their Canons To their Lord and most Holy Brother Sylvester the Bishop and say they had sent them to him that all might know the Pope not excepted what they were to observe So that though in Respect they call him Lord yet they Stile him also a Brother and expect his obedience to their Decrees nor do they as the Notes pretend desire him to confirm these Canons (t) Lab. p. 1434. Bin. pag. 223. col 2. But only require the Pope who held the larger Diocess that he would openly acquaint all with them as their Letter speaks That is as he was a Metropolitan to give notice of these Canons to all his Province which was then called a Diocess and Baronius is forced to point the Sentence falsly to make it sound toward his beloved Supremacy (u) Baron An. 314. §. 68. So in the First Canon Pope Sylvester is ordered by this Council to give notice to all of the Day on which Easter was to be observed That is he was to write to all his Neighbouring Bishops under his Jurisdiction about it not as the Notes say (w) Lab. p. 1434. Bin. pag. 224. col 1. Baron An. 314. §. 58. That he was to determine the day and by vertue of his Office to write to all the Bishops of the Christian World to observe it The Council had ordered the Day and command the Pope to give notice to all about him to keep it And in the Famous Nicene Council The Bishop of Alexandria living where Astronomy was well understood was appointed first to settle and then to certify the day of Easter yet none will infer from hence that he was the Head of the Catholic Church because he had this Duty imposed on him which as yet is more than the Council of Arles did put upon the Bishop of Rome Again the Notes are very angry at the Emperor for receiving the Donatists appeal from the Pope and his Council which they say Constantine owned to be an unjust and impious thing (x) Not in Concil Aret. Bin. pag. 221. col 2. but they prove this only by a forged Epistle mentioned but now § 5. But it is certain Constantine though a Catechumen which they pretended was impossible at Nice was present in this Council and so he must act against his Conscience if he had thought it unjust and impious to judge in Ecclesiastical Causes And in this Emperor 's Letter to Ablavius he saith God had committed all Earthly things to his ordering and in that to Celsus he promises to come into Africa to enquire and judge of things done both by the People and the Clergy (y) Baron Ann. 316. §. 62. And indeed Constantine by all his practice sufficiently declared he thought it lawful enough for him to judge in Ecclesiastical matters Finally the Notes say the Bishops met in this Council at the Emperor 's request (z) Lab. p. 1423 Bin. pag. 222. col 2. Now that shews it was not at the Pope 's request but indeed Constantine's Letter to Chrestus expresly Commands the Bishops to meet The Notes also out of Balduinus or Optatus or rather from an obscure Fragment cited by him say Sylvester was President of this Council Baronius addeth of his own head namely by his Legates (a) Baron Ann. 314. §. 51. which guess Binius puts down for a certain truth But it is ridiculous to fancy that a pair of Priests and as many Deacons in that Age should sit above the Emperor when himself was present in that Council So that though we allow the Pope 's Messengers to have been at this Council there is no proof that they presided in it We shall only add that instead of Arians in the Eighth Canon we must Read Africans or else we must not fix this Council so early as An. 314 at which time the Arians were not known by that name § 12. In the same year is placed the Council of Ancyra which the Editors do not as usually say was under Sylvester but only in his time (b) Lab. p. 1455. Bin. pag. 225. and it is well they are so modest for doubtless he had no Hand in it the Notes confess that it was called by the Authority of Vitalis Bishop of Antioch (c) Lab. p. 1478. Bin. pag. 232. col 2. Balsamon and Zonaras say Vitalis of Antioch Agricolaus of Caesarea and Basil of Amasea were the Presidents of it (d) Beveridg Council Tom. I. pag. 375. Yet not only Leo the Fourth but the famous Council of Nice approved of this Synod called and carried on without
beginning since that very Version is printed by Binius himself without any such Preamble (k) Lab. p. 45 46. Bin. pag. 276. but 't is all one to him true or false in his Notes he makes a foolish Paraphrase on this Forged Preface about the Divine Right of the Pope to his Supremacy whereas the plain Words of the genuine Canon shew That this Council grounded the Jurisdiction of these great Bishops only upon Ancient Custom (l) Richer hist Concil lib. 1. cap. 2. §. 11. Nor can it be gathered from this Canon That the Bishop of Rome then had any Superiority over him of Alexandria the one being allowed as much Power within his own Limits as the other had in his It is plain The Great Bishops are all here declared to be Equal without any Exception or Salvo upon the Bishop of Rome's account which would have been mentioned as well as the Rights of the Metropolitan of Caesarea are when the Bishop of Jerusalem's Place is assigned in the Seventh Canon if the Council of Nice had believed Rome had any right to a Supremacy over all the rest The Annotator is also angry at Ruffinus and though upon the Fourteenth Canon he says Ruffinus set down the true authentic Canons (m) Lab. p. 75. B. Bin. pag. 298. col 1. yet because his Version of this Sixth Canon limits the Pope's Jurisdiction to the Suburbicarian Regions He first falsly represents the Words of Ruffinus adding to them which above all others are subject peculiarly to the Diocess of the Roman Church and then Rails at the Version it self as evil erroneous and proceeding from his Ignorance But doubtless Ruffinus who lived so near the time of this Council and knew Rome and Italy so well understood the Pope's Jurisdiction at that time and the meaning of this Canon far better than Binius and therefore Baronius after he had condemned the Version yet strives to accommodate it to their new Roman Sense But there is full Evidence that these Suburbicarian Regions were only those Provinces which were under the Praefect of Rome that is some part of Italy and some of the adjacent Islands and these were all the Churches which were then under the Pope's Jurisdiction As may appear by the great difficulty which the succeeding Bishops of Rome found in the following Ages to bring Milan Aquileia and Ravenna Churches in Italy it self to be in subjection to them So that the Pope was so far from having an Universal Supremacy then that Balsamon is mistaken in thinking he was made Patriarch of all the Western Church for the very Fifth Canon which orders all Causes to be heard and finally ended in the same Province where they hapned not only destroys Appeals to Rome but shews that no Bishop did then pretend to so large a Jurisdiction Again these Notes frequently brag of that Version of this Canon which the Pope's Legate cited at Chalcedon (n) Concil Chalced. Act. 16. wherein the aforesaid forged Title of this Canon The Church of Rome hath always had the Primacy are quoted as part of the Canon it self But the Acts of that Council of Chalcedon shew That this Edition was discovered to be false by the Constantinopolitan Code then produced And if the Fathers there had believed this to be the true Reading they would not immediately have contradicted the first famous General Council by giving the Bishop of Constantinople equal Priviledges with him of Old Rome So that their Quoting a false baffled and rejected Version of this Canon rather pulls down than supports their dear Supremacy to maintain which they have nothing but Sophistry and Fraud as the next Section will shew Sixthly Therefore we will consider the Impostures and Fictions annexed to this Council to give colour to their feigned Supremacy And first because Eusebius speaks little of the Popes for he could not truly say much of them Baronius and the Annotator invent all the Calumnies against him imaginable and the former though he have little true History in his Annals for Three hundred years together which is not taken out of Eusebius Rails at him most unjustly as being an Arian a malicious fraudulent and partial Writer (o) Baron An. 318. §. 46. An. 324. §. 136. §. 143 §. 152. item An. 325. §. 192 c. And Binius treats this great Historian at the same rate But Athanasius expresly saith That Eusebius of Caesarea subscribed the Orthodox Faith (p) Athan. Apol. cont Arian p. 180. Socrates affirms also That he agreed to the Faith of the Nicene Council (q) Socrat. hist lib. 1. cap. 3. Pisanus his Greek Author of the History of this Council brings in Eusebius disputing against the Arians (r) Bin. p. 313. col 2. And Valesius in his Life clears him from this spightful Accusation which these Men invent meerly to be Revenged on him for not countenancing the Pope's Supremacy which is not his Fault but his Vertue because there was no such thing pretended to in his days Secondly These Editors publish a Letter of Athanasius to Pope Marcus with that Pope's Answer (s) Lab. p. 287. Bin. pag 326. col 1 2. among the Records of this Council and the Annotator often cites them to prove the Supremacy and Infallibility because the Roman Church is here called The Mother and Head of all Churches and A Church which had never erred and the Pope is called Bishop of the Universal Church yet their being Forged is so notorious that Bellarmin Possevin and Baronius (t) Baron An. Dom. 336. reject them Thirdly They likewise publish in these Nicene Acts an Epistle of Pope Julius wherein divers Canons for the Primacy are Fathered on this great Council (u) Bin. p. 328. col 2. And Pisanus is so bold and so vain as to defend this to be genuine by an Epistle of the Egyptians to Pope Foelix owned to be Forged (w) Bin. p. 499. col 1. and by other Decretal Epistles as false as this which he defends but it is so manifest a Forgery this of Pope Julius that the Editors themselves afterward reject it (x) Lab. p. 483. Bin. pag. 391. col 1. Fourthly Whereas the Ninth Canon of Chalcedon allows the Clergy to complain to the Primate or to the Bishop of the Royal City of Constantinople Notes are put upon this to falsifie that Canon which say That Constantinople is here put for Rome (y) Bin. p. 331. col 1. Fifthly Here is a Canon called the Thirty ninth of Nice which saith He that holds the See of Rome is the Head and Prince of all Patriarchs because he is first as Peter to whom power is given over all Christian Princes and People (z) Lab. p. 303. Bin. pag. 337. col 2. which must be a Forgery of some Roman Parasite because it not only contradicts the Sixth Canon of the genuine Council of Nice but the Eighth of these pretended Canons which limits the Bishop of Rome's Jurisdiction
44. 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 Baron An. 362. pag. 56. As little Truth is there in his accusing Maximus the Emperour for presuming to judge of Bishops Causes Baron An. 385. pag. 441. whereas Maximus his Letter to Siricius which Baronius records Id. An. 387. pag. 474. 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 Bodies whole putting every Joynt in his own order Baron An. 387. pag. 468. Collat. cum Ambrose Ep. 85. And to name no more He brags that Idols were pulled down no where with more zeal than at Rome Baron An. 389 390. pag. 526. Yet in the same Page he tells us There was then newly dedicated an Altar 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 Baron An. 313. §. 29. 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 Baron An. 319. §. 30. item An. 326. §. 100 c. item An. 398. pag. 61. 62. 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 Baron An. 325. §. 128. 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 Id. ib. §. 130. 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 Baron An. 336. §. 34. where Julius arrogates nothing to himself alone as Baronius falsly pretends And to make this single Priviledge of Rome the more credible he doth frequently apply what the Ancients say of all the Bishops of the West to the Pope Thus what S. Basil saith of all the Western Churches he applies only to Rome Baron An. 371. pag. 239. And when he recites two Epistles of S. Basil whose Title is to the Western Bishops and the whole discourse in it directed to many Bishops he feigns the Name of the Pope is left out or lost and concludes these Letters were peculiarly directed to him and this only to support the Roman Supremacy Baron An. 371. pag. 238 An. 372. pag. 269 270 271 c. and therefore he repeats over and over this matter and affirms it was an Embassy sent to the Pope Ibid. 273 274. Thus also when S. Ambrose saith The Western Bishops by their Judgment approved of his Ordination He infers that S. Ambrose implies It was confirmed by a public Decree of the Apostolical See Baron An. 375. pag. 320. And whereas Basil speaking of those Western Bishops in his time who he saith kept the Faith entirely Baronius infers from hence That their Successors and especially the Bishops of Rome have never erred since Baron An. 372. pag. 276. An. 373. pag. 310. Like to which is his inferring the usage of Praying to Saints from a pure Rhetorical flourish of Nazianzen's in one of his Orations Baron An. 372. pag. 285. And thus when S. Hierom uses all his Oratory to set off Virginity because that seems to make for the Roman Celibacy he takes him to be in good earnest and will have all his Reflexions upon Marriage to be solid Arguments Baron An. 382. pag. 402. though S. Hierom himself calls them Trifles Baron An. 350. pag. 540. But when he tells a sober Truth about the Ignorance of the Roman Clergy then the Cardinal tells us He speaks by way of Hyperbole Idem An. 385. pag 435. From which Instances it doth appear that our Annalist did not like an Historian endeavour to declare Truth but only to serve an Interest and a Party § 7. Lastly His Partiality notoriously appears where-ever the Church of Rome is any way concerned for when any thing of this kind comes in his way he puts off the Character of an Historian and turns Disputant labouring to confute the most ancient and authentic Authors if they seem to say any thing against that Church Thus we may observe what tedious digressions he makes about the Primacy of Rome in his discourse on the Nicene Council for which he twice makes Apologies Baron An. 325. §. 136 140. Again he runs out into a long and very impertinent dispute about the Worship of Images in an Age when no good Author mentions them as used in the Church Baron An. 362. pag. 18. In like manner He makes a long excursion to disprove an Authentic Story of Epiphanius tearing a Veil with a Picture wrought in it because such things were not fit to be in Churches Baron An. 392. p. 568. and he scarce ever meets with any of the Roman Corruptions mentioned in the most fabulous Authors but he leaves the History and enlarges into Remarks upon those Passages But if the Writer be never so eminent that touches any of these Sores his business always is to baffle the Evidence of which there is scarce one year in his Annals wherein there are not some Examples On the other side He takes every slight occasion to make the most spiteful Reflexions on all that he counts Enemies to the Roman Church Thus he applies the Bishop of Alexandria's description of the Arians to the Reformed Churches though it agree much better with these of his own Religion Baron An. 318. §. 30. Again He reviles us because we do not honour the Modern idle lewd Monks of their Communion as much as the Ancients did those holy and devout Monks which were in the Primitive Times though it be plain to all
the Pope's Opinion but though there be many good Arguments for it from other Topics the Argument from Tradition and the determination of the Roman Church is not urged in the whole Discourse (m) Lab. p. 770. which shews that these were no Arguments allowed in this Writers time Lastly whereas the third Council of Carthage severely censures Pope Stephen for taking upon him as Bishop of Bishops and for compelling his Equals by Tyrannical Terrors to obey him (n) Lab. p. 786. Bin. pag. 149. col 2. p. 154. col 2. Binius impudently notes upon this that the Pope was called Bishop of Bishops to him was the last Refuge in Matters of Faith and his Determinations were received all the World over as the Oracles of the Holy Ghost Which is from his Usurping a Title and Authority to infer he had Right to them and to prove that all the World received his Determinations from a Story which shews that half the Christian World rejected them § 5. The Life of Sixtus the Second in the Pontifical is one heap of Errors for the Author seems to mistake him for Xystus the Philosopher and as the Notes confess make Decius raise a great Persecution against the Church Eight year after he was Dead He also places Valerian before Decius supposing them to Reign together and saying Sixtus was Beheaded by Valerian in Decius's time (o) Lab. p. 819. Bin. pag. 155. col 1. now Decius was slain two year before Valerian was Emperor Yet the Notes labour to colour over all these Contradictions to Salve the Credit of their Missals and Fabulous Martyrology Dionysius the next Pope is said to have been a Monk upon the credit of the Pontifical (p) Lab. p. 827. Bin. pag. 158. col 1. the Notes add that he Lived a Solitary Life before his Election yet the Modern Monks have given over that Primitive Custom and now croud into great Cities But the Pontifical is so miserably mistaken in the Consuls in this Popes Life placing those for his last Consuls who were so two years before those he Names for his first Consuls that nothing can be believed on this Authors credit Under this Pope the Editors have feigned a Council at Rome to which Dionysius Bishop of Alexandria was Cited and so far obeyed the Order as to write an Epistle to clear himself for which they cite Athanasius (q) Lab. p. 830. Bin. pag. 160. col 1. But we must never trust their Quotations where the Supremacy is concerned without looking into the Authors they cite And Athanasius only saith Dionysius of Alexandria was accused at Rome and writ to the Pope to know the Articles complained of who sent him an Account upon which he vindicated himself by an Apology But what is all this to a Roman Council or a citing Dionysius thither There were also two Councils at Antioch about this time as Eusebius tells us (r) Euseb hist lib. 7. cap. 22. But the Editors of their own Head put in that the first of them was appointed by Dionysius Bishop of Rome to whom the chief care of the Church was committed Whereas Eusebius never mentions this Pope as being either concerned in the Council or consulted about it but if they will have it under Dionysius then we may infer that this Pope approved a saying of this Council viz. That they knew of no other Mediator between God and Man but only Christ Jesus The Second Council of Antioch is intituled also Under Pope Dionysius Yet it appears by Eusebius (s) Euseb hist lib. 7. cap. 24. that this Pope knew not of the Council till they by their Synodical Epistle informed him of it after they were risen And in that Epistle they joyn him and Maximus Bishop of Alexandria together as Collegues and equals not desiring either of them to confirm their Decrees but acquainting them with their proceedings they required them to shew their consent by writing Communicatory Letters to Domnus who was put in by them Bishop of Antioch in the Room of Paulus Samosatenus ejected for Hersie and though this Domnus his Father Demetrianus had been Bishop of Antiocb before yet we hear of no Papal Dispensation to allow him to succeed there We may also observe that Firmilianus who in Pope Stephens time so much despised the Popes Authority and Infallibility is by this Council called a Man of blessed Memory By which we see how little any Ancient and genuine Councils do countenance the Supremacy of the Roman Church and what need they had to forge Evidence who would have it taken for a Primitive Doctrine § 6. That Foelix the First was a Martyr is proved only by the Pontifical and the Roman Martyrology which often blindly follows it but why may not the Pontifical be mistaken in the Martyrdom as well as the Notes confess it to be in the Consuls (t) Lab. p. 903. Bin. pag. 163. col 1. And the base Partiality of the Notes appears soon after in citing a place of S. Cyprian as if he desired to know the Days on which the Martyrs suffered that he might offer a Sacrifice for them by Names on their Anniversaries (u) Cypr lib. 3. ep 6. vel epist 37. pag. 81. vid. Dailè de cult relig Lat. lib. 3. cap. 3. pag. 352. whereas Cyprian speaks of the Confessors who died privately in Prisons of whose Names he desires to be informed that he might celebrate their Memory among the Martyrs Now there is a great difference between S. Cyprian's and the Protestants practice to Commemorate the Saints departed and the Roman way of offering the Sacrifice of the Mass for the deceased Yet the Notes would suborn S. Cyprian to give in evidence for this corrupt practice Pope Eutychianus lived not long before Eusebiu's time and he saith he only sat ten Months (w) Euseb hist lib. 7. cap. 26. The Pontifical allows him thirteen Months but the Notes boldly say he was Pope Eight years (x) Lab. p. 913. Bin. pag. 167. col 2. and this only upon the Names of two Consuls set down in the Pontifical and the credit of the Roman Martyrology but since these two are scarce ever right in their Chronology we ought to believe Eusebius rather than the Annotator and his despicable Witnesses His Successor Gaius lived in Eusebius's own time and he affirms he sat Fifteen years (y) Euseb hist lib. 7. cap. 26. but the Pontifical allots to him Eleven years only and so doth the Breviary (z) Brev. Roman April 22. both of them making him Dioclesian's Kinsman which Eusebius knew nothing of The Notes out of Baronius contradict them all and ascribe to him Twelve years making him Dioclesian's Nephew and yet the Pontifical saith both that he fled from Dioclesian's Persecution and died a Confessor Yet was Crowned with Martyrdom with his Brother Gabinius which Non-sense Baronius and the Notes also defend § 7. This Century is concluded by the Uunfortunate Marcellinus who as the
the Pope 's knowledge or leave There is but one Canon in this Council which contradicts the Roman practice viz. The Ninth which allows Deacons to Marry and continue in their Office if they declared at their Ordination that they could not live Single This Canon therefore Baronius and Binius strive to corrupt with false Glosses The former saith We may by this Canon see how firmly Ministers single Life was asserted not only in the whole Catholick Church but in the East (e) Baron Ann. 314. §. 88. Now it is very strange that a private Canon of a Provincial Council which allows one Order of Ministers to Marry should shew it was the Opinion of the whole Church that none might Marry The latter in his Notes affirms That this among other Canons solidly proves that not only Priests but Deacons by the Apostolical Law were bound to Live without Wives (f) Lab. p. 1478. Bin. pag. 223. col 2. But the Apostles certainly allowed Deacons to have Wives and this Canon was made on purpose that they might live with their Wives if they pleased The Notes proceed to say That Deacons ordained against their Will and pr testing they could not contain were by these Fathers permitted to Marry after their Ordination provided they left off all Sacred Administrations and did not Communicate among the Priests in the Chancel but among the People Which is an impudent falsification There being no word of being Ordained unwillingly nor any reason why they should be Ordained who were to be reduced presently to Lay-communion Yea the Words of the Canon are express that if they did Marry they should continue in their Ministration (g) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vid Dever not Tom. II. p. 175. So that these Editors make no Conscience to make these ancient Records to contradict themselves rather then let them seem to oppose their Churches present practice For which vile purpose there is another trick in the Notes on this Council For whereas the Eighteenth Canon speaks of Lay-persons which Vowed single Life as many had done in times of Persecution and afterwards broke their Vow that these were to be counted Bigamists The Notes (h) Bin. p. 233. col 2. on this Canon put these Words of the Thirteenth Canon Those who are of the Clergy c. Before their observation on the Eighteenth Canon on purpose to make the Reader think the Clergy in those days Vowed single Life as they do now at Rome § 13. The Council of Naeccaesarea according to these Editors was under Sylvester (i) Lab. p. 1479. Bin. pag. 233. who is not once named in it nor doth it appear he knew of it They might also have left out Leo the Fourth's approving it Five hundred years after because the Notes say The Council of Nice allowed it which is much more for its Credit (k) Lab. p. 1489. Bin. pag. 236. col 2. The same Notes say The first Canon orders the same thing which was decreed in the Thirty third Canon at Elliberis and the Ninth at Ancyra And if so that is not as they falsly gloss the Canon of Ancyra That the Clergy should live Single or be reduced to Lay-Communion For in that Canon some of the Clergy are allowed to Marry and to continue to minister as Clergy-men still And the true Sense of this Naeocaesarean Canon is That whereas in times of Persecution when Marriage was inconvenient many Priests promised to live Single Now these only were not allowed to Marry afterward (l) Vid. Beveridg Not. in Concil Nicen. Tom. II. p. 180. but when the Church had Peace the Nicene Council left all Clergy-men free to Marry or not as they pleased which shews That when the Reason of this Canon ceased they believed its Obligation did so also The Fifth Canon forbids a Catechumen who falls into Sin to enter into the Church By which the Notes say That Baronius had sharply censured Eusebius (m) Vid. Baron An. 324. §. 49. But it is plain that Baronius shews more Malice than Wit in that Censure Eusebius only relates Matter of Fact That Constantine was present in the Nicene Council and he with all ancient Authors agrees That Constantine was yet a Catechumen where then is the Crime Do not Baronius and Binius both agree that Constantine was present in the Council of Arles Ten years before his pretended Baptism at Rome And if it be said This Canon forbid it I ask Whether it be probable that an Emperor who as Baronius saith was Solutus Legibus Above the Civil Law should be proceeded against by a Canon of a small Provincial Council Wherefore Eusebius his only Crime is That he tells a Truth which happens to contradict the Lying Acts of Sylvester and consequently the Interest of Rome for which the Cardinal and Annotator can never forgive him The next place is assigned to a Roman Council under Sylvester wherein there was a famous Disputation between the Jews and Christians before Constantine and Helena but in the Notes (n) Lab. p. 1491. Bin. pag. 237. col 1. Vid. Baron An. 315. §. 12. we are told the Story is utterly false only attested by Sylvester's Acts which Swarm with Lies as they are now extant yet out of these Acts as now extant is the Forgery of Constantine's Baptism at Rome taken and therefore Baronius and Binius reject this Council as a meer Forgery But why do they not reject Constantine's Baptism as well as this Council since both rely on the same Author The Reason is plain That makes for the Interest of the Pope and This no way concerns and so it may pass for a Forgery as it is § 14. On occasion of Arius's Heresie now breaking out at Alexandria An. Dom. 315. there was a Council of an Hundred Bishops called by Alexander Bishop of that City to Condemn him which first Council of Alexandria the Editors say was under Sylvester but it doth not appear that this Pope knew of it till Three years after (o) Lab. p. 1492. Bin. pag. 237. col 2. An. 318 at which time Alexander gave notice of this Council not to Sylvester by name as the Notes falsly suggest but to all Catholic Bishops and in particular to the Bishop of Constantinople But for fear the Reader should observe That more respect was shewed to that Bishop than to the Pope the Editors have removed these Epistles of Alexander into the Body of the Nicene Council and only give us Notes upon them here in which the Annotator out of Baronius turns the Charge of Lying and Forgery of which themselves have been so often convicted upon us whom they falsly call Innovators (p) Baron Annal 318. §. 18. Bin. pag. 239. col 1. Four years after followed a Second Council at Alexandria which the Notes hope to prove was under Sylvester (q) Lab. p. 1493. Bin. pag. 239. col 1. because Athanasius saith This was a General Council and saith Hosius was there
of them affirms that Hosius was the Pope's Legate This is purely an Invention of Baronius but he only proves it by Conjectures (y) Baron An. 325. §. 20. The Truth is Constantine himself was the President of this Council and Sat on a Gilded Throne not as the Preface saith falsly Below all the Bishops but Above all the Bishops as Eusebius an Eye-witness relates (z) Euseb vit Constant lib. 3. cap. 10. and the Notes at last own He sat in the Chief Place (a) Lab. pag. 67. Bin. pag. 292. col 2. yea the Annalist confesseth He acted the part of a Moderator in it (b) Baron An. 325. §. 73. Richerius goes further saying It is clear by undoubted Testimonies that the Appointing and Convening of this Council depended on the Authority of Constantine who was the President thereof (c) Richer hist Con. cap. 2 §. 2 3 4. and he blames Baronius and Binius for wilfully mistaking the Pope's Consent which was requisite as he was Bishop of an Eminent Church for his Authority to which no Pope in that Age pretended It is true there were some Bishops who were Chief among the Ecclesiastics in this Council Eustathius Bishop of Antioch sat uppermost on the Right-side and opened the Synod with a Speech to Constantine (d) Theodoret. apud Baron An. 325. §. 54. Hence some and among the rest Pope Foelix in his Epistle to Zeno affirm He was President of this Council (e) Vid Richer hist Concil lib. 1. cap. 2. §. 8. Others say The Bishop of Alexandria presided and indeed all the Patriarchs present Sat above all others of the Clergy (f) Phot. lib. d. 7. Synod yet so as they all gave place to the Emperor when he came in And for the Pope's Legates Baronius and Bellarmin do contend in vain about the Places they had in this Council since no Ancient Author tells us they Sat above the Chief of the Bishops So that this also is a Forgery of the Papal Flatterers to give Countenance to their Churches feigned Supremacy Thirdly As to the Power which confirmed the Canons of this Council the ancient Historians do suppose that Constantine gave these Decrees their binding Power and Record his Letters to injoyn all to observe them (g) Vid Socrat. Sozom. Theodoret Ruffin ut supra And Eusebius who was there saith that The Emperor ratified the Decrees with his Seal (h) Euseb vit Constan lib. 1. cap. 37. But the Annalist and Annotator seek to efface this evidence by Railing at Eusebius and by devising many weak pretences to persuade the Credulous that Pope Sylvester confirmed this Council by his Authority and both the Preface and Notes tell us that this Synod writ a Letter to Sylvester for his confirmation and that he called a Council at Rome and writ back to Ratify what they had done (i) Lab. p. 6. pag. 7â— Bin. pag. 64. pag. 299. col 1. But whoever will but read these two Epistles will find the Latin so Barbarous and the Sense so Intricate that nothing is plain in them but that they are Forged (k) Lab p. 68. Bin. pag. 348. col 1. and Labbe's Margin tells us they are Fictions nor dare Baronius own them to be genuine (l) Baron An. 325. §. 37. and though Binius cite them for evidence in his Notes yet at some distance he tells us it is evident they are both Corrupted (m) Bin. p. 348. col 1. marg and again he says if they were not both extreme faulty and Commentitious they might be Evidence in this case (n) Idem p. 365. col 1. not ad Concil Rom. But Richerius is more Ingenuous and declares That these Epistles are prodigiously â—alse The Forger of them being so Ignorant as to call Macarius who was then Bishop 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 (o) Richer hist Concil lib. 1. cap. 2. §. 6. 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 (p) Labbè marg pag. 412. Lastly The Annotator here and almost every where cites Socrates his speaking of an Ecclesiastical Canon that no Decrees of Councils should be valid withâ—ut the consent of the Roman Bishop (q) Socrat. histor lib. 2. cap. 13. But First Consent is not Confirmation It is the priviledge of every Patriarch as well as of him of Rome That a Generâ—l 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 Râ—corded 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 (r) Lab. p. 71. Bin. pag. 395. col 2. 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 (s) Gratian. dist 16. cap. 10. cap. 13. 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 (t) Baron An. 325. §. 157. c. First They say there is no Decree about Easter among the Twenty Canons I reply There is a genuine Epistle of
to the Places near to him (a) Lab. p. 294. Bin. pag. 333. col 1. However the Editors say Steuchus Turrian and Cope cite it and they print Turrian's Notes upon it which affirm it to agree with the Sixth Canon of the true Edition and would prove it genuine by no better Evidence than a Forged Decretal of Anacletus (b) Bin. p. 358. col 1. By which we see the most apparent Falshoods shall be published and defended if they do but promote the Supremacy Lastly We will make some Remarks on the Corrupt Editions of this Council First That of Alfonsus Pisanus is so Fabulous that Labbé for meer shame omits it (c) Lab. Marg. pag. 106. but Binius prints it at large with all its Fictions and Impostures (d) Bin. p. 300. col 1. of which Richerius gives this Character By this History of Pisanus we may learn not what the Council of Nice was but what it should be to fit it for a Jesuits Palate for he hath scraped together all the Falshoods and Forgeries he could find for enlarging the number of the Canons (e) Richer hist Concil lib. 1. cap. 2. §. ult But I must add that there are divers Passages in this Edition which will not serve the ends of the modern Roman Flatterers For first Pisanus his Greek Author highly extols Eusebius (f) Bin. p. 301. col 2. 302. col 2. for which the Jesuit corrects him with a Note in the Margen Secondly The Orthodox Bishop bids the Philosopher believe that which was written but not to regard things unwritten because the Faith is grounded on Holy Scripture (g) Bin. p. 316. col 1. Whereas the Margen cautions the Reader not to think that this is spoken against Ecclesiastical Traditions though it be levelled at them Thirdly Hosius doth not subscribe as the Pope's Legates here do for Pope Sylvester wherefore this Compiler did not think him to be the Popes Legate (h) Bin. p. 322. col 1. Fourthly It is here said to have been declared at Nice That every Bishop under God was the Head of his own Church (i) Bin. p. 325. col 2. Fifthly Here is printed that part of the African Bishop's Letter to Celestine wherein they blame his Legate for falsly citing the Nicene Canons (k) Bin. pag. 328. col 1. So also the LXXX Canons were not invented by a Through-paced Friend to the Roman Modern Interest and therefore probably Baronius will not defend them (l) Baron An. 325. §. 53. The 8th Canon as was noted limits the Pope's Jurisdiction to such places as were near him The 24th and 66th of these Canons clearly declare that some Bishops had Wives (m) Bin p. 335. col 2. p. 341. col 1. forbidding Bigamy and compelling them to take their first Wife again And there are other like Examples which are not worth setting down because they are all forged in later times as appears by their citing a fabulous Discourse out of the Life of S. Anthony falsly ascribed to the great Athanasius (n) Bin. p. 302. col 2. Vid. Rivet Crit. sacr l. 3. cap. 4. by their quoting a spurious Work under the name of Dionysius Areopagita which was as all agree writ after the Nicene Council many years (o) Bin. pag. 336. col 2. By their giving the Patriarch of Antioch Jurisdiction over the Archbishop of Cyprus who was always free from that subjection as was declared long after in the Council of Ephesus (p) Bin. p. 337. col 1. Vid. Concil Ephesin Act. 7. Finally Though this Pisanus do impudently reject the true story of Paphnutius his advising to leave the Clergy at liberty to Marry which History is in his Author and in Gelasius Cyzicenus also Yet he magnifies a ridiculous Fiction afterward of two Bishops which signed the Nicene Faith after they were dead and buried (q) Bin. p. 347. col 2. A Fable so gross that Baronius rejects it with a Note which I wish he had often remembred viz. That it was not usual Among Christians to confirm the Faith by Miracles which was attested by more firm Evidences of Holy Scripture (r) Baron An. 325. §. 182. Secondly Turrians Edition of this Council repeats all these LXXX Canons and in his Preface and his Notes he vindicates them all and yet the Tracts which he cites to prove these Canons genuine are owned to be spurious by all modest Romanists and his Arguments are so trifling they are not worth confuting We will only note therefore that the 7th and the 40th of these Canons require that Synods shall be held twice a year which as Turrian confesseth agrees not with the custom of the Roman Church (s) Lab. p. 294. pag. 303. Bin. pag. 353. col 2. 358. col 1. And his Notes say the 72d Canon differs from the 13th and the 73d Canon is contrary to the 49th (t) Lab. p. 315. Bin. pag. 363. col 1 2. but he will rather suppose the Holy Nicene Fathers contradicted themselves than own any of these Canons to be forged because some of them seem to favour the Pope's Supremacy As to the Edition of Gelasius Cyzicenus it is generally a very modest account of this Council and hath not many Errors in it but like all other ancient Authors it speaks very little of the Pope for which Reason Binius claps it under Hatches and will not produce it till the latter end of his Second Tome after the Council of Ephesus to convince us That all Authors are valued or slighted meerly as they promote or discourage the Usurpations of Rome § 18. To all these Impostures contrived to misrepresent this famous general Council there is tacked a Third Council at Rome under Sylvester in the presence of Constantine wherein that Pope with 275 Bishops are said to confirm the Nicene Council and make two or three new Canons (u) Lab. p. 412. Bin. pag. 365. col 1. Baron An. 325. §. 199. But though it be certain and confessed by Binius and Baronius that Constantine was not then at Rome though the Style be barbarous and the Matter frivolous and the thing be a manifest Forgery contrived to carry on the grand Cheat of Sylvester's confirming the Council of Nice yet Baronius and Binius who confess the Title to be false labour to prove this Synod to be true though Binius be forced to justifie it by the forged Letter of the Nicene Fathers to Sylvester and his Answer to them both which in the next Column he owns are false and feigned (w) Bin. p. 365. col 2 C 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
declares To all the Catholic Bishops every where yet the Notes from Baronius (b) Baron An. 339. §. 2. §. 11. say It was writ particularly to Julius whereas the Body of the Epistle saith The Arians have written to the Roman Bishop and perhaps speaking to other Bishops they have writ to you also So that this is a falshood devised for to make out the Supremacy which is not countenanced by this Epistle wherein we are told that Religion depends not on the greatness of any City Though the Notes say That Bishops had Honours and Jurisdiction given them suiting to the dignity of the Secular Praefects of their several Cities and thence Alexandria was reckoned the second Patriarchate and Antioch the third (c) Lab. p. 534. Bin pag. 401. col 2. it follows naturally therefore Rome was the first Patriarchate But this Inference they will not make I shall only note that this Synod saith The lawful use of the Cup of the Lord was to make the People Drink (d) Lab. p. 547. Bin. pag. 404. col 2. from whence we gather that the Roman Church who denies the Cup to the People doth a very unlawful thing and leaves off the lawful use of the holy Chalice An. Dom. 341. The Council of Antioch is by the Editors said to be held under Julius (e) Lab. p. 559. Bin. pag. 407. yet it was called by Constantius on occasion of dedicating a new Church there and the Notes say the Emperour not only called it but being present there caused such Decrees as he pleased to pass in it (f) Lab. p. 588. Bin. p. 416. col 1. yea it is evident they valued Pope Julius so little that they judged quite otherwise than he had done in the case of Athanasius and therefore the Romanists rail at this Synod as a Conventicle of Arians and in the last Roman Edition saith Richerius (g) Richer hist Conc. lib. 1. cap. 4. have left out these Canons as not favouring the practice of the Roman Court. However Baronius saith Among 97 Bishops only 36 were Arians (h) Baron An. 341. §. 4 5. and the Canons made here are excellent Rules for Discipline having been received into the Code of the Universal Church before S. Chrysostom's time confirm'd by the Council of Chalcedon allowed by S. Hillary and as Gratian saith received by the Catholics and the Learned Richerius hath fully answered all the Cavils of Binius and Baronius by which they would invalidate them So that we need only make some few Remarks on this Council and so dismiss it The 12th Canon Orders a Bishop who was deposed to appeal to a Synod of Bishops and allowed none to be restored unless it were by a greater number of Bishops than had deposed him (i) Lab. p. 595. Bin. pag. 417. col 2. But they exclaim against this as a device of the Arians to take away that Apostolical and ancient Law and Custom of appealing to Rome which they say was always observed till now But hitherto they could never produce any such Law nor prove any such Custom nor did S. Chrysostom ever appeal to Rome but desired to be restored by a greater Synod as this Canon requires (k) Socrat. lib. 6. cap. 16. Vid. Bever Concil Tom. II. pag. 191. and when his Enemies made that impossible then indeed he objected that this Canon was made by Arians yet the Canon remained in force and was generally received in that Age. Nor did the Sardican Council revoke it as Binius falsly saith (l) Lab. p. 597. Bin. pag. 418. col 2. Vid. Richer ut supr For though they put a new Complement on the Pope yet they did not take away the ancient method of appealing from a lesser Synod to a greater The second Canon decrees That such as come to Church to hear part of the Service and do not receive the Sacrament shall be Excommunicated This the Notes say was to condemn the old Audian Heretics (m) Lab. p. 596. Bin. pag 418. col 1. but it evidently condemns the new Roman Heretics who since they exalted their Wafer into a God expect the People should only gaze at and adore it most part of the year and excuse them though they often go away without receiving it The 25th Canon forbids Bishops to commit the Treasures and Fruits of the Church to their Kinsmen Brethren and Sons Upon which Binius hath no Note knowing it reflected on the Roman Churches Custom where the Popes generally give all they can to their scandalous Nipotismo Next to this Council of Antioch is placed a second Synod at Rome under Pope Julius in the Cause of Athanasius (n) Lab. p. 604. Bin. pag. 419. col ◠but Baronius places it before that of Antioch An. 340. § 1. And though the Cardinal confess That Athanasius and his Enemies by consent had referred this matter to Julius his Arbitration and that Athanasius came to Rome after this Reference was made yet he vainly remarks on this matter in these words Behold Reader the ancient usage for injured Bishops to come even out of the East to the Roman Bishop for redress (o) Baron An. 340. §. 2. But this is one of the first Instances and was a meer Arbitration by consent and the ancient Usage since the Emperours became Christians was to appeal to them as these Parties had done before it was referred to the Pope In this Roman Council it is pretended Athanasius delivered his Creed but the Acts of the Council being lost and the Roman Archives being a repository neither safe nor creditable we can have no Evidence from thence of the Truth and Antiquity of this excellent Composure One thing however is remarkable that Baronius and Binius charge the Greeks with taking away those words and the Son out of this Creed and add that they falsly pretended this was a late addition of the Latins (p) Lab. p. 605. Bin. pag. 420. col 1. Baron An 340. §. 12. Yet Baronius himself owns that the Western Church added these words and the Son to the Nicene Creed above an hundred years after (q) Baron An. 447. so that they accuse the poor Greeks for keeping the Creed as Athanasius made it and as their own Church used to recite the Nicene Creed for many years after An. Dom. 34◠The year following Julius held a third Synod at Rome and in it read the Letter of the Eastern Bishops wherein they wonder he should cite them to Rome and so value himself upon the greatness of his City as on that account to take upon him to judge them concerning things which they had determined in their own Synods Nor durst Julius challenge any Authority over them by reason of the Eminence of his City (r) Baron An. 341. §. 56 57. Only he pleads for Athanasius who being Bishop of an Apostolical See viz. Alexandria ought not to have been condemned by them till they had writ to
all the Western Bishops and especially to him as Bishop of the first See that so all of them viz. in Council might have determined the matter according to right (s) Id. An. 342. §. 28 30. But Baronius and Binius turn this into their being obliged to write to the Pope and to receive what he had defined And Binius infers from the Popes writing this Synodical Letter from a Council held in his own City of Rome though the Synod expresly command him to write the Epistle That in respect to the Pope and according to ancient Custom it was his right to publish Whatever was agreed on in Councils (t) Lab. p. 608. Bin. pag. 420 col 2. But such false Consequences from Premisses that will not bear them only shew the Arguers partiality After this we have nothing remarkable but a second Council at Antioch held by the Arians yet bearing this Title under Julius (u) Lab. p. 608. Bin. 420. col 2. wherein the Arians made a New Creed and sent four Bishops to give Constans the Emperour and all the Western Bishops an account of their Faith and they met these Legates in a Council at Milain and though it doth not appear Julius was present yet Baronius makes as if this Embassy from the East was sent to Julius chiefly to desire Communion with him (w) Baron An. 344. §. 4. and Binius saith They desired to be received into the Communion of the Roman Church (x) Lab. p. 614. Bin. pag. 422. col 1. But the ancient Historians assure us they desired not the Communion of the Roman only but of the whole Western Church of which that was then esteemed no more than one eminent part § 21. The Sardican Synod An. Dom. 347. which saith some kind things of Rome is prodigiously magnified by the Editors who place an History before it and partial Notes after it which are full of Falsities and designed Misrepresentations Baronius also spends one whole year in setting it off to the best advantage but all their Frauds will be discovered by considering First 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 (y) Lab. p. 624. Bin. pag. 423. 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 (z) Sozem. lib. 3. cap. 19. Socrat. lib. 2. cap. 16. Theod. lib. 2. cap. 5. And the Bishops in their Epistle do expresly say They were called together by the most Religious Emperours (a) Lab. p. 670. Bin. pag. 440. But Baronius fraudulently leaves out this beginning of the Bishops Letter (b) Baron An. â—47 §. 31. 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 (c) Not. ad Concil Sardic Lab. pag. 685. Bin. pag. 445. col 1. Vid. Richer histor Concil lib. 1. cap. 3. 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 (d) Sozom. lib. 3. cap. 11. That is Osius as an ancient Confessor and Protogenes as Bishop of Sardia where the Council was held but as for Archidamus and Philoxenus they are not in the Latin Copies of the Subscribers (e) Lab. p. 658. Bin. pag. 436. col 1. 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 (f) Baron An. 347. §. 3 4. and falsly cite Athanasius as if he said it consisted of 376 Bishops and so exceeded the first Council of Nice (g) Lab. p. 685. Bin. pag. 446. col 1. Baron ut supr §. 75. Whereas Athanasius expresly reckons only 170 who met at the City of Sardica (h) Athanas Epist ad Solitar p. 818. 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 (i) Idem Apol. 2. p. 767 768. 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 (k) Socrat. lib. 2. cap. 16. 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 (l) Baron An. 347. §. 42. 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
Recantation to Pope Julius (g) Hosii Epist ap Baron An. 355. §. 661. 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 locking 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 (h) Bin. Not. p. 463. col 2. 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 (i) Lab. p. 728. Bin. pag. 464. col 1 2. 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 haa never heard this Hymn sung after the Psalms in the Eastern Churches (k) Bin. Not. in Epist Damas Hieron pag. 506. col 1. 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 (l) Laâ—â— p. 729. ad pag. â—â—9 of three Councils against Photinus on which we need make no Remarks An. Dom. 352. § 23. Pope Liberius succeeded Julius whose Life with the Notes upon it are very diverting if we observe the Shifts and Artifices used by the Roman Parasites to excuse him from Heresie The Pontifical saith He was banished three years by Constantius for not consenting to the Arians in whose place Foelix was Ordained and he in a Council condemned Ursacius and Valens two Arian Bishops who in Revenge petitioned Constantins to revoke Liberius and he being thus restored consented to the Arians and the Emperour so far as to persecute and Martyr the Catholics and his Rival Foelix being a Catholic was deposed But this Fable is not fine enough for the Palates of Baronius and Binius who are to dress a Story to make the Reader believe that neither Liberius nor Foelix erred in Faith while they were Popes To confute which let it be considered that Binius confesseth Liberius consented to the depriving of Athanasius admitted Arians to his Communion and subscribed an Arian Confession of Faith as Athanasius Hilary and Hierom witness (m) Not. ad 7 Ep. Liber Lab pag. 751. Bin. pag. 470. col 1. and there are Arguments unanswerable to prove he was an Arian while he was Pope (n) Vid. Spalat de rep Eccl. l. 7. cap. 5. yea Binius in his own Notes twice confesseth That he unhappily fell (o) Lab. p. 741. Bin. p. 465. E. and that he basely fell (p) Lab. p. 743. Bin. p. 466. col 2. Yet to mince the matter he adds That by his Fall he cast a vile Blot on his Life and Manners and the Notes on the Sirmian Council say By offending against the Confession of Faith and the Law of Justice he cast a most base Blot on his Life and Manners (q) Lab. p. 783. Bin. pag. 479. col 2. What can be more ridiculous He erred in Faith and subscribed the Arian Confession therefore the blot was upon his Faith this did not concern his Life and Manners That Absurd Phrase is a meer blind to keep the Reader from discovering a Pope turning Heretic To which end they impudently say It is a false Calumny of the Heretics to say Liberius was infected with the Arian Heresie (r) Lab. p. 741. Bin. pag. 465. col 2. But I ask Whether Athanasius S. Hilary and S. Hierom who affirm this were Heretics Or was Platina an Heretic who saith Liberius did in all things agree with the Heretics To which the same Forgers have added As some would have it but those are not Photinus words who saith soon after He was of the same Opinion with the Arians (s) Platin. in vit Liber p 50. Eusebius Presbyter urbis Rome copit declarare Liberium Haereticum Partitor Sarish Aug. 14. And surely the Catholic People of Rome in his time took him for an Arian and as such would have no communion with him and therefore we conclude he was an Arian As for Foelix who was put into his place Baronius and Binius would excuse him by a false Latin Version of Socrates saying He was addicted to the Arian Sect but the Original Greek expresly declares He was in Opinion an Arian (t) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Socrat. lib. 2. cap. 29. And it is certain He was chosen by the Arians and communicated with them Ordaining Arians to be Priests and therefore the Catholic People at Rome
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 (n) Lab. p. 775. Bin. pag. 478. col 1. 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 Athanasius'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 An. Dom. 357. 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 (o) Lab. p. 783. Bin. pag. 479. col 2. 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 (p) Baron An. 357. §. 33 34 35. as Baronius confesseth and though that Author had produced divers Ancient Writers expresly testifying That he subscribed Heresie (q) Baron ibid. §. 32. 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 (r) Id. ibid. § 37. Though elsewhere he saith Athanasius rejected all these Arian Forms which wanted Consubstantial as Heretical (s) Baron An. 359. §. 10. 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 (t) Marcelin ad Faust Hieron Chronic. 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 (u) Baron An. 357. §. 59. ad §. 63. 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 saith 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 (w) Sozom. lib. 4. cap. 17. 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 (x) Id. cap. 18. I Answer Sozomen must be mistaken in this unless we seign 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 (y) Socrat. lib. 4. cap. 11. 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 Vid. Baron Andal An 362. pag. 58. An. 371. p. 246. But it is a great prejudice to Liberius his Repentance that though Athanasius speak of him as having been once his Friend and report his Apostacy yet he never mentions his turning Catholic again Wherefore we conclude that all these Fictions and falsifying of Evidence and slight Conjectures in Baronius and the Notes are intended only to blind the Reader and hinder his finding out an Heretical Pope whose Fall is clear his continuance in his Heresie very probable and his Repentance if it be true came too late to save his Churches Infallibility though it might be soon enough to save his own Soul. The Editors style the Council at Ariminum An. Dom. 359. A General Council and yet dare not say as usually under Liberius who had no hand in it for it was called by the Emperour Constantius as all Writers agree (z) Sulpic. Sever. histor lib. 2. so that it seems there may be A General approved Council as they style this (a) Lab. p. 792. Bin. pag. 482. col 1. which the Pope doth not call Moreover the Emperour in his first Epistle orders the Bishops to send him their Decrees that he might confirm them (b) Lab. p. 794. Bin. pag. 482. col 2. and though Baronius saith this was done like an Heretical Emperour yet the Orthodox Bishops observed his Order and call it Obeying the Command of God and his Pious Edict (c) Baron An. 352. §. 6. §. 15. Wherefore this General Council was both called and
confirmed by the Emperour Again Constantins in his Epistle declares It was unreasonable to determine any thing in a Western Council against the Eastern Bishops Whence it appears he knew nothing of the Western Patriarchs claiming an Universal Supremacy over all the Churches both of the East and West and for this Reason Baronius leaves this genuine Epistle recorded in S. Hilary's Fragments out of his Annals We have also noted before that though the Orthodox Bishops in this Council who must know the matter say That Constantine was Baptized after the Council at Nice and soon after his Baptism translated to his deserved Rest as the Ancient Historians read that Passage and the Sense of the place shews they could mean it of none but Constantine (d) Theod. lib. 2. cap. 19. Sozom. lib. 4 cap. 17. collat cum Baron An. 350. §. 7. yet Baronius corrupts the Text and reads Constans instead of Constantine only to support the Fable of Constantine's being Baptized by Sylvester at Rome and the Editors follow him in that gross Corruption For they examine nothing which serves the Interest of Rome As for the Arian Synods this year at Seleucia and Constantinople I need make no Remarks on them because the Pope is not named in them and so there is no occasion for them to feign any thing Only one Forgery of Baronius must not be passed over That when Cyril of Hierusalem was deposed by an Arian Synod he is said to have appealed to greater Judges and yet he never named the Pope the reason of which Baronius saith was because the True Pope Liberius was then in Banishment (e) Baron An. 359. § 65. but hath he not often asserted Foelix was a Catholic and if Cyril had thought fit might he not have appealed to him But it is plain by Socrates that Cyril meant to appeal to the Emperour and his Delegates as all injured Bishops in that Age had used to do An. Dom. 362. § 25. Upon the restitution of Athanasius from his third Exile after the death of George the Arian Bishop he called a Council of Bishops at Alexandria for deciding some differences among the Catholics about the manner of explaining the Trinity and to agree on what terms Recanting Arians were to be received into the Church And though neither Athanasius nor any ancient Historian take any notice of the Pope in this eminent Action yet the Editors our of Baronius say It was called by the Advice and Authority of Liberius (f) Lab. p. 809. Bin. pag. 487. col 1. Baron An. 362. Pag. 73. and to make out the notorious Fiction of this Popes calling this Orthodox Council even while he was an Arian the Notes affirm Eusebius Bishop of Vercelles and Lucifer Calaritanus as the Popes Legates were present at it which they take out of Baronius who had before told us That Luciser Calaritanus was at that time at Antioch and sent two Deacons to Alexandria to subscribe for him yea this Synod writes their Synodical Letter to Eusebius Lucifer and other Bishops which plainly shews they were absent though it seems by Ruffinus that Eusebius came afterwards and subscribed to what had been agreed in the Council and was by the Authority of this Council not of the Pope sent into the East to procure peace among those Churches Nor have they any one Author to prove either he or Lucifer were the Pope's Legates nor any reason but because they were employed in great Actions though in that Age 't is plain the Popes were little concerned in any eminent business Moreover they bring in a Fragment of an Epistle writ according to the Ancient Custom by Liberius at his Entrance into the See of Rome to shew his Faith to Athanasius as if it were written now meerly to impose on the Reader a false Notion of his being at this time Orthodox and concerned in this Synod They also cite another Epistle of Athanasius to certifie Liberius what was done here but that Epistle is no where extant in Athanasius's Works but is cited out of the Acts of the second Nicene Council where there are more Forgeries than genuine Tracts quoted and besides the Epistle is directed not to the Pope but to one Ruffinianus and only mentions the Roman Churches approving what was done here but the Epistle being suspicious it is no good Evidence and we conclude with Nazianzen That Athanasius in this Synod gave Laws to the whole World (g) Baron An. 362. Tom. IV. p. 66. And Pope Liberius had no hand in it About this time there were divers Councils called in France by S. Hilary Bishop of Poictiers and the Catholic Faith was setled in them one of which was held at Paris and the Synodical Epistle is extant (h) Lab. p. 821. Bin pag. 490. col 1. yet the Pope is never named in it Nor yet in that Orthodox Synod at Alexandria wherein Athanasius and his Suffragan Bishops presented a Confession of their Faith to Jovian then newly made Emperour (i) Lab. p. 823. Bin. pag. 490. col 2. which shews that Liberius either was an Heretic at this time or else that he was very inconsiderable So that it is a strange Arrogance in the Editors to say that the Second Council at Antioch was under Liberius (k) Lab. p. 826. Bin. p. 491. col 1. when the very Notes say it was called together by Meletius and observe that many Arian Bishops did there recant their Heresie a thing which a little before they pretended could be done no where but at Rome in the Popes Presence An. Dom. 365. Upon Valentinian's advancement to the Empire the Eastern Bishops petition him to call a Council and he being then very busie told them they might call it where they pleased Which the Editors pretend was a declining to meddle in Church Affairs being a Lay-man But the Bishops Petition and his giving them liberty shews that the right of calling Councils was in him and so was also the confirming them as appears from the Bishops sending the Acts of this Council at Lampsacus to the Emperour Valens to be confirmed (l) Sozâ—m lib. 6. cap. 7. The same Bishops also sent their Legates with Letters to the Western Bishops and particularly to Liberius Bishop of Rome hoping Valentinian the other Emperour had been in that City but he being absent these Legates perswaded Liberius they were Orthodox upon which he writ back Letters in his own Name and in the Name of the other Western Bishops to own them for good Catholics (m) Socrat. hist lib. 4. cap. 11. Whence we may note First That the Eastern Bishop's Letter styles the Pope no more but Collegue and Brother Secondly That Liberius calls himself only Bishop of Italy Liberius Ep. Italiae alii Occidentis Episcopi But Baronius alters the Pointing Liberius Episcopus Italiae alii c. by that Trick hoping to conceal this mean Title (n) Ep. 11. Liberti ap Bin. p. 472.
true Title of which saith it was under Gratian and Valentinian the Emperours but the Editors put a new Title over it and say it was under Damasus (q) Lab. p. 904. Bin. pag. 516. col 1. who is not once named in it the French Bishops there assembled making Canons for their own Churches without asking the Popes leave or desiring his Confirmation An. Dom. 378. Upon the death of Valens the Arian Emperour while Valentinian was yet very young Gratian managed both the Eastern and Western Empire and he makes a Law to suppress all Heresies and to take away the use of Churches from all such as were not in Communion with Damasus Bishop of Rome and Peter of Alexandria (r) Sozom. lib. â— cap. 4. Socrat lib. 5. cap. 2. Theodoret indeed who as Baronius owns is much mistaken in his relating this matter s Theod. lib. 5. cap. 2. Baron An. 378. pag. 339. names only Damasus in his report of this Law and Bâ—ronius cites the Law out of him meerly to make it seem as if Damasus were made the sole Standard of Catholic Communion though the Original Law still extant (t) God. Justin lib. 1. tit 1. de sum Trin. Ll. 1. and all other Historians name Peter of Alexandria as equal with Damasus perhaps the Reader may wonder there is no other Patriarch named in this Law but it must be observed that Antiâ—ch at this time had two Orthodox Bishops who separated from each other Meletius and Paulinus to make up which unhappy Schism there was a Synod this year held at Antioch under Damasus (u) Lab. p. 908. Bin. pag. 517. col 1. say the Editors but in truth under the Emperours Legate who was sent to see a Peace concluded between these two Bishops by the advice of the Council there assembled And Damasus had so little interest in this Council that Meletius was generally approved for the true Bishop and Paulinus whose party the Pope favoured ordered only to come in after Meletius his Death (w) Socrat. lib. 5. cap. 5. Sozom. lib. 7. cap. 3. Theod. lib. 5. c. 3. So that since this Council acted contrary to the mind of Damasus it is very improper to say it was held under him § 27. The second General Council at Constantinople was Called by the Emperour Theodosius An. Dom. 381. whom Gratian had taken for his Partner in the Empire and assigned him for his share the Eastern Provinces where this pious Prince finding great differences in Religion he Convened this Council to confirm the Nicene Faith to settle Ecclesiastical Matters and to determine the Affairs of the See of Constantinople This Council the Editors introduce with a Preface or general History and conclude it with partial and false Notes hoping to perswade the World that it was both called and all the good things which they had done with which Letter probably they sent as was usual a Transcript of all their Acts And Photius saith That Damasus Bishop of Rome afterwards agreed with these Bishops and confirmed what they had done (m) Photius de 7 Synod cap. 2. that is by consenting to it which is no more than every absent Bishop may do who in a large Sense may be said to confirm a Council when he agrees to the Acts of it after they are brought to him Thirdly The Authority of this Council is undoubted having been ever called and accounted the Second General Council and so it is reckoned in all places where the General Councils are mentioned which Title it had not as Bellarmin vainly suggests Because at the time when this was assembled in the East the Western Bishops met at Rome For that obscure Synod is not taken notice of while this is every where celebrated as held at Constantinople and consisting of one hundred and fifty Bishops which were they who met in the East (n) Lab. p. 967. Bin. pag. 541. col 2. As for Damasus Baronius cannot prove he was concerned in it but by we think and we may believe (o) Baron An. 380 p 359. An. 381. p. 368. yet he elsewhere boldly says Damasus gave it Supreme Authority (p) Idem p. 382. 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 (q) Lab. p. 972. Bin. pag. 543. col 2. 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. Chrysostem by virtue of this Canon placed and displaced divers Bishops in Asia and the 4th General Council at Chalcâ—den 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 (r) Vid. Concil Chaleed Can. 28. Subscrip ibid. which Precedence and Power that Bishop long returned notwithstanding the endeavours of the envious Popes And Gregory never objected against thâ—se 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 Councel 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 (s) Socrat. lib. 5. cap. 2. Sozom. lib 7. cap. 8. 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 (t) Lab. p. 980. Bin. pag. 545 col 2. 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 (u) Baron An. 381. pag. 386. 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 (w) Baron An. 371. pag. 235. and therefore Sulpicius Severus calls him not Orbis but Urbis Episcopus (x) Sulpic. Sever. pag. 423. 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 (y) Id. pag. 424. 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 (z) Lab. p. 1011. Bin. pag. 554 col 1. 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 knew nothing of this Synod till long after it was risen so we may conclude this Invention of theirs is only to support their pretended Supremacy An Dom. 382. § 28. From a Passage in S. Hierom and the Inscription of the Letter writ from the Council at Constantinople the Editors gather That Paulinus Bishop of Antioch Epiphanius Bishop of Constantia in Cyprus and Ambrose with other of the Western Bishops met at Rome in Council this year which they call the Fourth Roman Councill under Damasus (a) Lab. p. 1014. Bin. pag. 554. col 2. who probably did preside in this Synod as all Bishops use to do in their own Cities but he did not call this Council for S. Hierom expresly saith The Emperours Letters called these Bishops to Rome (b) Hieron Ep. 27. And the Synodical Letter of the Constantinopolitan Fathers tell us That Damasus desired Theodosius to write to them also of the East to come to Rome Which shews that Damasus could not summon them by his own Authority but the Editors and Baronius out of a false Latin Version of Theodoret have put in the word Mandato which word is not in the Greek nor any thing answering to it (c) Theodor. lib. 5. cap. 9. Baron An. 382. pag. 397. Bâ—n pag. 539. col 2. and it was foisted in on purpose to perswade such as did not read the Original that the Pope had commanded the Eastern Bishops to come to Rome Again though the Notes confess the Acts of this Roman Council are lost so that it doth not appear what was done there Yet soon after they produce a long Canon for the Popes Supremacy and the Precedence of the Patriarchs feigning it was made in this Synod But if the Canon be not a Vatican Forgery which is very much to be suspected however it is Antedated one hundred and twelve years as Labbé confesses in his Margen for he saith it was decreed under Pope Gelasius An. 494 (d) Lab. p. 1014. Bin. pag. 554. col 2. But the Policy of laying this Canon here is to make a shew as if Damasus had then publickly declared against the Council of Constantinoples giving that Bishop the second place but their forging this Proof only shews they have no genuine Authority for it yet if they could prove that the Pope disliked this Precedence since it is certain that Constantinople did take the second place according to this Canon that would only shew that the
Usurper of the Empire and seem to be genuine but we need not wonder at the Tyrants speaking so kind things of the Pope in them since it was his interest to Flatter the Bishop of that potent City § 30. This Maximus having seized on the Northwest parts of the Empire summoned a Council at Bourdeaux which the Editors without any ground style under Siricius wherein the Bishops of the Gallican Church again condemned the Priscillianists and they appealed not to the Pope but to the Emperour Maximus (s) Lab. p. 1030. Bâ—n pag. 563. col 2. who was so far from favouring these Heretics that at the instance of Ithacius a Catholic Bishop he caused them to be put to death for their Heresie Which cruel Sentence so displeased Theognistus and other Orthodox Bishops that they Excommunicated Ithacius and all his Party who had procured these Heretics to be put to death and S. Martin S. Ambrose and the best Men of that Age would not communicate with any of these Bishops who had prosecuted Men to death for Heresie no not though Ithacius and his Adherents were absolved from Theognistus his Excommunication in a Council which Maximus had called at Triers Now the Notes fearing the Reader should observe That many Popes and Bishops of their Communion have done just as Ithacius did viz. persecuted such as they call Heretics to death and delivered them up to the Secular Magistrate to be executed tell us That it was not an ill thing in Ithacius to procure the death of these Heretics but his Fault was in the violence of his Proceedings and in his not interposing such a Protestation as their Church uses on these occasions Wherein when they have made it necessary for the Magistrate to put an Heretic to death they solemnly declare they wish he would amend and do not desire his Execution (t) Lab. p. 1038. Bin. pag. 564. col 1. Baron An. 386. pag. 451. But as this Protestation is a piece of notorious Hypocrisie unknown to those Ages so we may be sure so apparent a Sham would not have excused Ithacius whose Communion as Sulpicius Severus shews was renounced by S. Ambrose S. Martin and Others purely because they thought it unlawful especially for Clergy-men to procure any persons to be put to death for their Opinion though it were Heresie Wherefore these Holy Bishops if they were now alive must renounce the Communion of the Roman Church for the same reason for which they renounced the Communion of Ithacius even for their frequent procuring Heretics to be put to death and this is so plain that all their shuffling Notes cannot wash their Bishops hands from Blood nor fit them in S. Ambrose and S. Martin's Opinion to celebrate the Eucharist with other Christians There had been as we noted a long Schism at Antioch between Paulinus of whose side was the Pope An. Dom. 398. and many Western Bishops and Flavianus who was supported by the Eastern Bishops and now Paulinus dying one Evagrius was irregularly chosen to succeed him and keep up the Schism and though Flavianus was owned for the true Bishop by the second General Council and he it was who ordained S. Chrysostom and obtained a Pardon from Theodosius for those Citizens of Antioch who had broke down the Statues of that Emperour and his Empress yet at the Instance of some Western Bishops the Emperour was perswaded to cite him to a Council which he had called at Capua in which S. Ambrose was present but Flavianus not willing to have his Enemies to be his Judges did easily excuse his Non-appearance to the Emperour and the Synod thereupon referred the Matter between him and Evagrius unto Theophilus Patriarch of Alexandria to whose decision Flavianus refusing to stand he appealed to Theodosius on which occasion S. Ambrose writing to Theophilus wishes rather Flavianus had referred the Matter to his Brother the Bishop of Rome because saith he you would probably have judged it if it had come before you so as he would have liked (u) Ambros â—d Theophil ep 78. Which implies no more than that Theophilus and Siricius were both of one mind in this case of Flavianus yet on this slight occasion the Notes say That the Synod made Theophilus Arbitrator on condition he should offer his Sentence to be approved and confirmed by the Roman Church (w) Lab. p. 1039 Bin. pag. 564. col 1. Which is a meer Forgery for Theophilus was made absolute Arbitrator by the Synod and this is not the Councils wish but S. Ambroses and after all Flavianus did not think a Western Synod had any power over him and therefore he rejected the Arbitration of Theophilus the Council and Pope Siricius also with whom though he did not communicate yet he was always owned to be true Bishop of Antioch § 31. The Second Council at Arles is supposed to be held about this time because the Followers of Photinus and Bonosus were there condemned Wherefore they say It was in the time of Siricius but under him it could not be since the Bishops there assembled do not name him nor do they except the Bishop of Romes Supreme Power when they refer all Ecclesiastical Matters to the final decision of their own Metropolitan and his Synod and declare that every Bishop who receives a person Excommunicated by another shall be guilty of Schism Yet the Editors are so apt to dote upon the Popes managing all Councils that they here style a meeting of the Novatian Heretics at Angaris in Bithynia (x) Lab. p. 1041. Bin. pag. 566. col 2. A Synod under Siricius and call poor Socrates a Novatian for barely relating a Matter of Fact concerning the Novatians An. Dom. 393. At this time there was a great Council at Hippo which the Notes sometimes call a General and sometimes a Plenary Council because most of the African Bishops were there and the Original dates it with the Consuls of this year but the Editors clap a New Title to it saying it was under Siricius who in all probability had no hand in it nor knew any thing of it Yet here were made many of those famous Canons for Discipline by which the African Church was governed But they are more wary in the next Council of Constantinople at which many Bishops were present and among them the two Patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch being summoned in the absence of the Emperour by his Prefect Ruffinus and they will not venture to say This was under Siricius for the Matters treated on it wholly related to the Eastern Church and in that Age they rarely allowed the Pope to concern himself in their Affairs No nor in Afric neither where Anno 395 there were Councils held both by the Orthodox and the Donatists which are dated by the Consuls and no notice is taken of the Pope (y) Lab. p. 1153. Bin. pag. 567. col 2. We shall only observe that upon one of these Councils the Notes say It is a
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 (k) Baron An. 401. p. 128 129. 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 (l) Lab. p. 1191. Bin. pag. 585. col 2. Baron An. 402. pag. 161. 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 (m) Gregor lib. 12 Ep. 32. Leon. Ep. 2. ad Episc Ital. 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 (n) Lab. p. 1193. Bin. pag. 586. col 2. 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 (o) Lab. p. 1194. Bin. pag. 586. col 2. 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 knew 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 (p) Lab. p. 1208. Bin pag. 591. col 1. 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 (q) Lab. p. 1210. Bin. pag. 592. col 1. which condemns those 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) Lab. p. 1211. Bin. ut supr 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 Carthage Can. 3. Bishops and Priests are forbid to accompany with their Wives 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 (s) Lab. p. 1219. Bin. pag. 594. col 2. Beveridg Concil Tom. II. pag. 130. 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 (t) Lab. p. 1217. Bin. pag. 594. col 1. 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 be 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 (u) Bin. p. 595. 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 〈◊〉 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 (w) Baron An. 399 p. 85 88. 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 than 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 § 1. THE large and elaborate Volumes of Cardinal Baronius
325. §. 192 193. Et An. 336. §. 7 8. Item An. 340. §. 40 c. 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 Baron An. 312. §. 58. yea against his own peculiar Notion That Constantine was then a Pagan and durst not do any act to make him seem a Christian Id. ibid. §. 62. Again To colour their Worship of Images He barely supposes that the Pagan Senate dedicated a Golden Image of Christ to Constantine Baron An. 312. §. 68 69. He argues only from Conjectures to prove the Munificence of that Emperour to Rome Baron An. 324. §. 72. 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 supposes without any proof that Constantine knew the Supreme Power over all Christians was in the Church of Rome Eod. An. §. 117. He produces nothing but meer Conjectures that Osius was the Pope's Legate yet he boldly draws rare Inferences from this Eod. An. §. 127. He doth but guess and take it for granted that the Nicene Council was called by the Advice of Pope Sylvester Eod. An. §. ult 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 Baron An. 342. §. 42. So he tells us He had said before that Damasus favoured Gregory Nazianzen in his being elected to be Bishop of Constantinople Baron An. 380 pag. 362. He supposes this indeed a little before Ibid. p. 359. But all Ancient Authors say and he himself affirms That Peter Bishop of Alexandria did institute him into that Bishopric Idem p. 355. 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 Baron An. 389. p. 513. 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 Baron An. 395. §. 621. 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 Baron An. 397. pag. 28 29. 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 Baron An. 313. §. 18 19. He cites S. Augustine saying Constantine when Coecilian'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 Baron An. 316. §. 59 62. Collat. cum §. 60. 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 Baron An. 324. §. 39. whereas he saith He was a Catechumen and out of the Gospel had imbibed the Christian Meekness eight years before Id. An. 316. §. 65. He also affirms That in the Year 324 there was as yet none of the Senatours believed the Christian Faith Baron An. 324. §. 76. And yet he saith Two year before this that one or both the Consuls were Christians Id. An. 322. §. 1. yea in the year 312. He reckons up many Senatours who had given up their Names to Christ Id. An. 312. §. 75 76. Thus he contradicts himself by following those Lying Acts of Sylvester 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 Baron An. 325. §. 16. whereas all the Authentic Historians say The Bishops rose up when he entred in and paid him a great respect Idem ibid. §. 52. 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 Baron An. 326. §. 51 54. 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 Baron An. 328 §. 20. 21. yea in the year 340 he saith Athanasius first brought the Institution of Monks to Rome Id. An. 340. §. 8. 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 Baron An. 336. §. 44. Collat. cum An. 340. §. 38. 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 Baron An. 340. §. 2. 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 Baron An. 362. pag. 37. Yet a little after he brings in this Artemius arguing with Julian about the burning of this Temple Ibid. p.
4. the Book of Machabees which the Roman Church now say are Canonical Scripture And this is the true reason why the Notes reject this Canon (s) Lab. pag. 61 Bin. pag. 18. col 2. They alledge indeed some other frivilous reasons such as the leaving out the Revelations and putting in Clements Constitutions But it seems very probable to me that it was not the Greeks as the Notes suggest but that Impostor who gave these Canons a false Title and called them the Apostles Canons which for carrying on his Pious Fraud left out the Revelations being not written at that time when he would have us believe these Canons were made and He also put in the Constitutions which are forged in the name of the Apostles who were to be set up as Authors also of these Canons And if that were so this 84th Canon being cleared from those two Corruptions is an Ancient and very Authentic Record of the true and genuine Books of Holy Scripture but the Romanists reject it as being a good evidence against their New Trent Canon § 3. To these Canons are joyned a pretended Council of the Apostles at Antioch first put into the Tomes of the Councils by Binius and continued by Labbè (t) Lab. pag 62. Bin. pag. 18. col 2. one Canon of which allows Christians to make an image of Christ But this notorius and improbable Forgery was never heard of in any Author till that infamous second Nicene Council which wanting proofs for Image-worship from genuine Antiquity impudently feigned such Authorities as this pretended Council § 4. The Pontifical or Lives of the Popes which begins here bears the Title of Pope Damasus but the Notes say Damasus was not Author of it being evidently patched up out of two different Authors containing contradictions almost in every Popes Life So that no account is to be made of a Writing so different from it self (u) Lab. pag. 63. Bin. pag. 19. col 2. Now if this be as it certainly is a True Character of the Pontifical Why do these Editors print it Why do the Notes so often cite it as good Hisstory Why do their Divines quote it as good Authority to prove their Modern Corruptions to have been primitive Rites (w) Harding against Jewel pag. 53. Dr. James corrup of Faith par 1. p. 22. Since it is a manifest Legend and contained at first nothing but the bare Names and continuance of the several Popes and was filled up by Isidore Mercator who forged the Decretal Epistles with many improbable Fictions unsuitable both to the Men and Times for which they were invented and designed to be a ground for those Decretal Epistles and to make the World believe that all the Popes were considerable for their Actions in all Ages as Dr. Peirson hath excellently proved in his Learned Posthumous Dissertation (x) Cestriens dissert posthum lib. 2. cap. 1 2. c. Yet not only these Editors of the Councils print this corrupt Legend but their very Breviaries and Missals generally appoint the Lessons out of it on the Festivals of these Ancient Popes publishing in the very Church in time of Divine Service these Fictions for the true ground of the Peoples Devotions on those Days I confess Binius out of Baronius hath Notes upon every Pope 's Life and rejects commonly some part of it but then it is such passages as no way concern the opinion or practice of the present Roman Church For the passages which do agree thereto though equally false he generally defends yea cites them to prove their Modern Faith and Usages But as we come to the several Popes Lives which these Editors make the grand direction in Ecclesiastical Chronology we shall observe the many and gross Errors contained in it We begin with the Life of S. Peter whom if we do allow to have been at Rome as this Author reports yet we cannot believe he ordained three Bishops for his Successors there in his Life-time viz. Linus Cletus and Clement Nor that he was Buried in three several places in Apollo 's Temple and besides Nero 's Pallace in the Vatican and besides the Triumphal Territory which this fabulous Writer affirms Nor will the Annotator admit that S. Peter could be Crucified by Nero in the 38th year after Christ 's Passion which was three years almost after Nero's own Death § 5. The next place ever since P. Crabs Edition is by the Roman Editors allotted to a Treatise of the Popes Supremacy (y) Lab. col 65. Bin. pag. 20. col 2. writ of late Times by some manifest Sycophant of the Roman Church yet placed here among the Venerable Antiquities of the Apostolic Age to clap a false Biass on the unwary Reader and make him apt to believe that which Richerius said is the main design of Bellarmin Baronius and Possevine in all their Works viz. that the Pope was made by Christ the infallible and absolute Monarch of the Church (z) Richer praesul ad histor Concil but the Tract it self makes out this high Claim chiefly by the Decretal Epistles which are now confessed to be Forgeries And by the Sayings of Popes who were not to be believed in their own case (a) John. V. 31. nemo sibi prosâ—ssor testis Tert. in Marcion lib. 5. To which are added some few Fragments of the Fathers falsly applied and certain false Arguments which have been confuted a thousand times So that the placing this Treatise here serves only to shew the Editors partiality to promote a bad Cause § 6. The Pontifical places Linus as S. Peters Successor but the Notes confess that the Fathers are not agreed about it (b) Lab pag. 72. Bin. pag. 24. col 1. They own that Tertullian Epiphanius and Ruffinus make Clement to succeed Peter and the late Learned Bishop of Chester proves Linus was dead before Peter (c) Cesiriens diss 2. cap. 2. Irenaeus doth not say as the Notes falsly cite him that Linus succeeded Peter in the Government of the universal Church (d) Iren. adv haer l. 3. c. 3. but only that Peter and Paul delivered the Administration of that Church to him which they had founded at Rome Which they might do in their Life time while they went to preach in other places The Epistle of Ignatius to Mary Cassibolite and the Verses attributed to Tertullian which they bring for proof of this Succession are confessed to be spurious Tracts St. Hierom is dubious and upon the whole matter there is no certainty who was Bishop of Rome next to the Apostles and therefore the Romanists build on an ill Bottom when they lay so great weight on their personal Succession § 7. The like Blunder there is about the next Pope The fabulous Pontifical makes Cletus succeed Linus and gives us several Lives of Cletus and Anacletus making them of several Nations and to have been Popes at different times putting Clement between them Yet the aforesaid Learned
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 (q) Lab. p. 595. Bin. pag. 79. col 1. 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 (r) Rob. Coci Censurae pag. 33. The like barbarous Style may be observed in the two Epistles of Pontianus (s) Lab. p. 622. Bin. pag. 90 91. and in many others But the genuine Epistles of Cornelius preserved in Eusebius and S. Cyprian (t) Ep. 3 5. Cornel. Lab. pag. 683 c. Bin. pag. 111 112 113. 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 diâ—ference there is between the Style of that genuine Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians (u) Edit Lab. pag. 116. and those silly Forgeries put out in his Name in the very Front of these Decretals (w) Lab. p. 82 c. Bin. pag. 27 c. 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 are often put into these Epistles Such is Religiositas for Piety and Universitas for the World in the Decretals of Dionysius (x) Lab. p. 827. Bin. pag. 158. such is Miles for a Servant and Senior for a Lord in the Decrees of Pope Pius (y) Lab. p. 576. Bâ—n p. 71. col 2. which are Words not heard of till the time of the French Empire in that sense Such is the Phrase of making Oblation to redeem mens Sins and the Name of the Mass in Fabian's Decrees (z) Lab. p. 650. Bin. pag. 101. Pope Gaius his Decretal Epistle mentions Pagans but that Name was not used for the Gentils till Optatus Milevitanus his time who first used it in that Sense saith Baronius (a) Lab. p. 925. Bin. pag. 172. col 2. Moreover innumerable places in these Epistles mention Primates and Patriarchs arch-Arch-Bishops and Metropolitans c. which Words were not used in the Christian Church in the time of those Popes who are pretended to have writ about them As for Example The first Epistle of Clement (b) Lab. pag. 91. Bin. pag. 30. col 2. the second Epistle of Anacletus (c) Lab. p. 526. Bin. pag. 47. col 2. and many others but no Christian Writer ever used the Word Patriarch for a Christian Bishop till Socrates Scholasticus who writ An. 442 (d) Beveridg Annot. in Concil Nicen. Tom. II. p. 52. In like manner we find the Word Apocrisary in Anacletus's first Epistle (e) Lab. p. 511. Bin. pag. 42. col 2. and also in the second Epistle of Zepherine (f) Lab. p. 606. Bin. pag. 82. col 2. yet Meursius in his Glossary cannot find any elder Authority for it than Constantine's Donation forged after that Emperor's time and owns the Name was not heard of before Gloss p. 43. The Name of Archdeacon also is in Clements second Epistle (g) Lab. pag. 98. Bin. pag. 34. col 2. and in Pope Lucius's Decrees (h) Lab. p. 727. Bin. pag. 131. col 2. but the Office and Title did not come into the Church till many years after And finally the Name of a Diocesan for a Christian Bishop is put into Calixtus second Epistle (i) Lab. p 612. Bin. pag. 85. col 1. but was not used in that Sense till long after his time All which prove these Epistles were writ in the later barbarous Ages and not in the time of those Popes whose Names they bear § 12. The same may be proved Secondly by the Matter of these Epistles which is no way suitable to those grave and Pious Popes who lived in times when the Church was pestered with Heresies and oppressed with Persecutions yet these Epistles do not either confute those Heresies nor comfort the Christians under Persecutions But speak great Words of the Roman Supremacy and of Appeals of the exemption and priviledges of Bishops and Clergy Men of splendid Altars and rich Vessels for Divine Administrations and the like which make it incredible they could be writ in an Age of suffering Instances of this we have in Clements first Epistle (k) Lab. p. 91. Bin. pag. 30. where he Orders Primates and Patriarchs to be placed in such Cities as the Heathens of Old had Arch-Flamins in Whereas the Heathens then had Flamines and Priests in all Cities His third Epistle (l) Lab. p. 103. Bin. pag. 36. col 1. is directed to all Princes greater and less and Commands them to obey their Bishops Whereas all Princes in the World at that time were Gentils The like absurdity appears in Calixtus first Epistle where he gives Laws to the Emperors and all others professing piety (m) Lab. p. 609. Bin. pag. 83. col 2. as if Heliogabulus and Caracalla had been under his Command And in the second Epistle of Sixtus Ano. 260 who threatens to Excommunicate the Princes of Spain who spoiled their Bishops (n) Lab. p. 822. Bin. pag. 157. col 1. though all Princes then were Heathens Marcellinus also in a time of Persecution under a Heathen Emperor gives direction what is to be done by an Emperor professing the true Faith (o) Lab. p. 934. Bin. pag. 176. col 2. Who can imagin Anacletus Anno Dom. 104 should speak of Priests in little Villages and of Cities which anciently had Primates and Patriarchs or tell us in Trajans time That Rome had cast away her Heathen Rites (p) Lab. p. 528. Bin. pag. 49. Or that he should affirm the Christian people were generally Enemies to their Priests and Command the Bishops to visit the Thresholds of S. Peter's Church before it was Built (q) Decreta ejus Lab. pag. 532. Bin. pag. 51. col 2. Is it likely Euaristus the next Pope should declare That Children could not Inherit their Parents Estates if they were not Baptized by a Christian Priest (r) Lab. p. 533. Bin. pag. 52. col 1. or suppose Churches and Altars consecrated long before the Memory of any Man in the Parish (s) Lab. p.
541. Bin. pag. 54. col 1. Could Pope Xystus in Adrian's Persecution brag that Rome was the Head over all Bishops and also a Refuge to such as were spoiled by Christian People (t) Lab. p. 558. Bin. pag. 62. col 2. Were there in Pope Hyginus time as his Decrees pretend More Churches and larger than the Revenue belonging to them could repair (u) Lab. p. 568. Bin. pag. 67. col 2. Is it propable Pope Pius should complain Anno 158 That Christians should Sacrilegiously take away whole Farms dedicated to Pious Uses Yet this complaint is found in his second Epistle (w) Lab. p. 574. Bin. pag. 70. col 2. And Binius Notes justify this by a forged Decretal of Urban the First and by proving that in the time of Constantine 140 Years after the Heathens had taken Houses from the Christians The Decree for Vailing Nuns at 25 years of Age must be of later time because it is certain no Nuns were vailed then nor were any under Sixty years Old allowed to profess Virginity (x) Cestriens diss 2. cap. 6. §. 16. c. When all Christians were so constantly present at Divine Offices and received the Sacrament Weekly what need was there for Pope Soter to decree No Priest should say Mass unless two were present and that all should Communicate on Maunday-Thursday (y) Lab. p. 587. Bin. pag. 75. col 1. How could there be Secular Laws forbidding the People to conspire against their Bishop as Calixtus Decretal pretends (z) Lab. p. 612. Bin. pag. 85. col 1. or how could he mention the Laws of the Roman and Greek Emperors so long before the Empire was divided (a) Ibid. Had Bishops in Pope Urbans time power to Banish and Imprison the Sacrilegious or had they high Seats in the form of a Throne Erected for them in Churches as his Epistle pretends (b) Lab. p. 618. Bin. pag. 87. col 2. Could the next Pope by his Decree hinder Heathens and Enemies to the Christian Clergy from accusing them as the first Epistle of Pontianus gives out (c) Lab. p. 623. Bin. pag 90. col 1. Antherus Epistle charges Bishops in those times with changing their Churches out of ambition and covetousness (d) Lab. p. 634. Bin. pag. 94. col 2. even while nothing but Martyrdom was to be got by being a Bishop And Fabian is made to charge the Faithful with spoiling their Bishops and citing them before the Lay-Tribunals (e) Lab. p. 636. Bin. pag. 95. col 2. which is not credible of the Christians of that Age Cornelius his genuine Epistle saith The Christians durst not meet at Prayers in any known Rooms no not in Cellars under ground (f) Lab. p. 682. Bin. pag. 113. col 1. But the Pontifical and one of his Forged Decretals pretend that this same Pope had liberty to Bury the Apostle S. Peter's Body in Apollo's Temple the Vatican and the golden Mount that is in three places I suppose at once (g) Lab. p. 668. Bin. pag. 109. col 2. Lucius a Martyred Pope makes it a wonder that in his days Churches should be spoiled of their Oblations and Ministers vexed (h) Lab. p. 721. Bin. pag. 129. col 1. Pope Stephen threatens to make Slaves of Clerks who accuse their Bishop and forbids Lay-men to complain of the Clergy (i) Lab. p. 732. Bin. pag. 134. col 1. Doth it consist with the poverty of those Ages for Eutychianus to decree That Martyrs should be Buried in Purple (k) Lab. p. 913. Bin. pag. 167. col 2. or with its charity for the same Pope to forbid Christians to pray for Hereticks (l) Lab. p. 921. Bin. pag. 171. col 1. when our Lord bids them pray for their Enemies I should tire the Reader and my self if I proceeded to Rake together any more Instances and these may suffice to shew That these Epistles were not writ in those early Ages § 13. Thirdly The same may be proved from the many Absurdities found in these Decretals arguing the Author to be Illiterate and Ignorant Whereas the Popes whose Names they falsly bear were prudent and Learned Men however well skilled in Holy Scripture Yet Anacletus is made to say that the Apostles chose the LXX Disciples (m) Lab. p. 527. Bin. pag. 48. col 2. which the Gospel affirms were chosen by Christ himself He also weakly derives Cephas the Syriac Name of Peter signifying a Stone from the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and saith it signifies a Head and proves Peter's Supremacy by this silly mistake (n) Lab. p. 529. Bin. pag. 49. col 2. Vid. Causab in Baron pag. 98. It looks very ridiculously in Pope Antherus in his Epistle to say it is not fit for one in my Mean condition to judge others nor to say any thing of the Ministers of the Churches (o) Lab. p. 630. Bin. pag. 92. col 2. but indeed the Forger stole these Words out of S. Hieroms first Epistle to Heliodorus and foolishly applied them to the Pope The Decretal of Stephen tells the Gallican Church what the Holy Apostolic and Universal Church had undertaken to observe as if they had been no part of the Universal Church (p) Lab. p. 729. Bin. pag. 132. col 2. But nothing is more Ridiculous than the foolish Expositions of Scripture which Popes ought to interpret Infallibly but these Epistles make Pope Alexander prove that Holy-water doth sanctify by Heb. ix 13 14. where the Ashes of an Heifer are said to Purify the unclean and the Blood of Christ to purge the Conscience And he interprets Hos iv 8. where the Priests are said to eat up the Sins of the People of blotting out their Sins by their Prayers (q) Epist Alex. 1. Bin. pag. 57 Ep. 2. Bin. p. 59. Pope Pius proves Bishops are only to be judged by God because John II. Christ drove the Buyers and Sellers out of the Temple with his own hands (r) Lab. p. 571. Bin. pag. 68. col 2. Pope Anicetus proves Priests ought to shave their Crowns because S. Paul saith It is a shame for Men to have long hair 1 Cor. XI (s) Lab. p. 581. Bin. pag. 72. col 2. which the Apostle speaks of Lay-men as well as Clergy-men and so the same Logic would prove that Lay-men also should shave their Crowns Pope Soter proves that Nuns must not touch the Holy Vessels by S. Pauls saying 2 Cor. XI He had espoused the Corinthians both Men and Women to one Husband even Christ (t) Lab. p. 584. Bin. pag. 75. col 1. Pope Stephen proves That Bishops ought not to be disturbed by that place in the Psalms The Heavens declare the glory of God and the Firmament sheweth his handy work (u) Lab. p. 732. Bin pag. 134. col 1. And to name no More Pope Foelix is very happy in that he can make out That we ought not to persecute and disturb Our Brethren
Practices by but are forced generally to place these apparent Forgeries in the Fore-front of all their Authorities we may conclude these Points of their Religion are all Innovations unheard of in the Primitive Ages so that Isidore was forced to invent these Epistles almost 800 years after Christ to give some shew of Antiquity to them and these Points were in those Ignorant-Times mistaken by this means for Primitive Usages and Opinions and so got footing in the World under that disguise but now that the Fallacy is discovered the Doctrines and Practices ought to be disowned as well as the Epistles on which they are built Observ II. There are many other Points of the Roman Religion which are not so much as mentioned in any of these Forged Epistles such as Worship of Images Formal Praying to the Saints and to the Virgin Mary Transubstantiation Half-Communion and Adoration of the Host Purgatory Indulgences and Justification by Merits with some others Now these are so New that in Isidore's time when he invented these Epistles they were not heard of nor received no not in the Roman Church for if they had no doubt this Impostor who was so zealous to get Credit for all the Opinions and Usages of that Church which he knew of would have made some Popes write Epistles to justifie these also and his silence concerning them makes it more than probable that these were all invented since the year of Christ 800. Observ III. Though the later Romanists frequently cite these Forged Decretals yet no genuine Author or Historian for Seven hundred years after Christ did ever Quote or Mention them no not so much as any of the Popes themselves in all that Period Now it is morally impossible so many important Points should be so clearly decided by so many Ancient Bishops of so Famous a Church and yet no Author ever take notice of it And doubtless when the Popes attempted to be Supreme and claimed Appeals about the year 400 Zosimus and Boniface who quarrelled with the Eastern and African Bishops about these Points and were so hard put to it for Evidence as to feign some private Canons were made at the first general Council of Nice would certainly have cited these Epistles which are so clear Evidence for their pretences if they had either seen or heard of them but they do not once name them in all that Controversie which shews they were not then in being yea those who know Church History do clearly discern that the main Points setled by these Epistles were things disputed of about the Seventh and Eighth Centuries a little before Isidore's time and therefore these Forgeries must never be cited for to prove any Point to be Ancient or Primitive § 17. Obs IV. Though the Inventer of these Epistles was so zealous a Bigot for the Roman Cause yet many things are to be found in them which contradict the present Tenents of that Church For whereas the Pope now claims an Universal Supremacy even over Jerusalem it self Clement's first Epistle is directed to James the Bishop of Bishop's Ruling the Hebrew Church at Jerusalem and all the Churches every where founded by Divine providence (e) Lab. pag. 82. Bin. pag. 27. Anacletus first Epistle orders all the Clergy present to receive under pain of Excommunication (f) Lab. p. 511. Bin. pag. 42. col 1. which is not observed now in the Roman Church Pope Telesphorus orders a Mass on the Night before Christmas and forbids any to begin Mass before nine a Clock (g) Lab. p. 562. Bin. pag. 64. col 2. But Binius confesses their Church doth not now observe either of these Orders Pope Hyginus forbids all foreign Jurisdiction because it is unfit they should be Judged abroad who have Judges at home (h) Lab. p. 567. Bin. pag. 66. col 2. So the third Epistle of Pope Fabian appoints that every Cause shall be tried where the Crime is committed which passage is also in a genuine Epistle of S. Cyprian to Cornelius (i) Lab. p. 698. Bin. pag. 119. col 2. And all foreign Jurisdiction is again forbid in Pope Felix his second Epistle (k) Lab. p. 906. Bin. pag. 164. col 2. which passages do utterly destroy Appeals to Rome unless they can prove all the Crimes in the World are committed there The second Epistle of Fabian allows the People to reprove their Bishop if he Err in matters of Faith (l) Lab. p. 640. Bin. pag. 97. col 1. the same Liberty also is given to the People in Cornelius second Epistle (m) Lab. p. 671. Bin. pag. 110. col 2. which seems to make the People Judges in Matter of Faith a thing which the Modern Romanists charge upon the Protestants as a great Error From these and many other passages we may see that these Impostures do not in all Points agree with the present Roman Church § 18. I have now done with the Epistles themselves and proved them to be apparent Forgeries I will only give the Reader some cautions about those partial Notes printed on them both in Binius and Labbè which though they frequently correct confute and alter divers passages in these Epistles Yet if any thing look kindly upon the Roman Church they magnifie and vindicate it but if it seem to condemn any of their Usages they reject and slight it For Example Pope Pius cites Coloss XI 18. against worshiping Angels and the Notes reject both S. Hierom's and Theodoret's Exposition of the place as Reflecting on their Churches practice adding that S. Paul condemned Cerinthus in that place for giving too much Honour to Angels Yet Binius soon after tells us that Cerinthus was so far from Teaching they were to be Adored that he thought they were to be Hated as Authors of Evil (n) Not Bin. in 1. Ep. Pii Lab. pag. 571. Bin. pag. 68. Pope Zepherine cites the Apostolical Canons for the Priviledges of his See and saith there were but Seventy of them (o) Lab. p. 605. Bin. pag. 81. col 2. But Binius in his Notes saith he refers to the Seventy third Canon Yet if the Reader consult that Seventy third Canon the Pope's See is not named there yea that Canon forbids a Bishop to Appeal from his Neighbor Bishop unless it be to a Council Out of Calixtus first Epistle which Labbè owns to be a manifest Forgery Binius Notes cite a Testimoy for the Supremacy calling it an evident Testimony and worthy to be Noted (p) Lab. p. 609. Bin. pag. 83. col 2. Pontianus in his Exile brags ridiculously about the Dignity of Priests in his second Epistle (q) Lab. p. 624. Bin. pag. 90. col 1. And Binius his Notes vindicate this improbable Forgery by a spurious Epistle attributed to Ignatius which saith the Laity must be subject to the Deacons but Binius cites it thus The Laity of which number are all Kings even the most Christian Kings must be subject to the Deacons by
which falsifying the Quotation he makes the meanest Deacon in the Roman Church superior to the French King Again in the Vacancy after Fabian the Clergy of Rome and S. Cyprian writ to each other (r) Lab. p. 654. Bin. pag. 103. col 1. Where though the Roman Clergy write with all respect to the Clergy of Carthage and give them humble Advice not Commands yea and thank S. Cyprian for his humility in acquainting them with his Affairs not as Judges of his concerns but Partners in his Counsels Binius notes that these Letters do sufficiently shew the Prerogative of the Roman Church and that S. Cyprian not only desired the Counsel but submitted to the Judgment of Rome The first Epistle of Cornelius tells a false story out of the Pontifical about his removing the Bodies of S. Peter and Paul and though Binius own this part of the Epistle to be Forged Yet in his Notes on the Pontifical (s) Lab. p. 667. Bin. pag. 108. col 1. he strives to reconcile the differing ways of relating this Fabulous Translation and flies to Miracles to make those Lies hang together Cornelius third Epistle is genuine being preserved in Greek by Eusebius and yet Binius prints a corrupt Latin Version with it which where the Greek speaks of one Bishop in a Catholic Church Reads it in this Catholic Church and the Notes (t) Bin. p. 112. col 2. impudently prove by this Corruption that the Pope is the sole Bishop of the whole Catholic Church Of which Labbè was so much ashamed that he prints Valesius's Latin Version of this Epistle wherein the ground of Binius his Observation is quite taken away S. Cyprian hath several Epistles printed among the Decretals wherein are many things which overthrow the Roman Supremacy and Infallibility upon which no remark is placed but an obscure passage wherein S. Cyprian saith that whether he or Cornelius should be the Survivor must continue his Payers for the afflicted Christians (u) Lab. p. 703. Bin. pag. 120. There it is impertiently noted That the deceased pray for the living Pope Stephen's second Epistle asserts Primates were in use before Christianity (w) Lab. p. 732. Bin. pag. 134. col 1. Binius in his Notes out of Baronius saith Heredotus confesses the same thing but Labbè declares that some body had imposed upon Baronius for there is no such thing to be found in Herodotus and Adrian in Vopiscus his other Authority evidently speaks of the Christian Bishop of Alexandria (x) Scriptor Histor August pag. 960. Wherefore Pope Stephen or he that made the Epistle for him was mistaken It is an impudent thing also in Binius to note upon one of S. Cyprian's Letters about Basilides and Martialis You see the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome For these two Bishops were justly condemned in Spain and unjustly absolved by the Pope after which S. Cyprian condemns them again only certifying the Bishop of Rome that he had justly nulled his Absolution so that we may rather note You see the Primacy of the Bishop of Carthage (y) Bin. p. 136. col 1. Pope Eutychianus first Epistle following the Erroneous Pontifical (z) Lab. p. 914. Bin. pag. 168. col 1. Orders that only Beans and Grapes shall be offered on the Altar Binius saith this is the Fourth Canon of the Apostles whereas that fourth Canon doth not name Beans and the Third Canon forbids all kind of Pulse to be offered on the Altar so that the Impostor was deceived and Binius becomes Ridiculous by attempting to defend him I shall not need produce any more instances these will suffice to warn those who study the Councils not to rely upon any thing in these Notes which are so full of partiality and Errors of weak reasonings and false Quotations of ignorant and wilful Mistakes that there is little heed to be given to them § 19. I doubt I have been too tedious in discovering the Forgeries of these Decretal Epistles but the Reader must consider they take up the greatest part of this first Period in the Volumes of the Councils and we have here considered them all together And now we have nothing to observe in this Century except the Apostolical Constitutions which are left out in Binius but printed in Labbè in Greek and Latin next after Clement's genuine Epistle to the Corinthians Now the Constitutions are a very ancient Forgery compiled about the end of the Fourth and beginning of the Fifth Century of the Rites of which Ages they give a very good account and have little or nothing in them to justify the more Modern Corruptions of Rome for which cause it is likely Binius omitted them But if we know before-hand that the Apostles did not make them nor Clement Bishop of Rome collect them and can pardon the boldness of making the Apostles the speakers they are useful to be read as a writing composed in the Fourth or Fifth Age. CHAP. II. Of the Forgeries in the Second Century § 1. THis Period begins with the Life of Anacletus who was made Pope as they say An. 104. but the Fabulous Pontifical brings him in the 10th Confulship of Domitian that is just upon the fictitious Cletus his death and before Clement entred who yet is there said to be his Predecessor so blundered and uncertain is that ignorant Writer yet except what he saith no other Author mentions any deeds of Anacletus and though Binius in his Notes affirm Anacletus was most famous for many eminent deeds s (a) Lab. p. 511. Bin. pag. 42. col 1. yet he cannot name one of them Euaristus his Life follows whom the Pontifical and the Breviary of Sixtus the Fifth (b) Lab. p. 532. Bin. pag. 5 1. col 2. make to have been Pope in the time of Domitian Nerva and Trajan but Binius out of Baronius takes upon him to correct both the Pontifical and the Roman Office also assuring us he began in the 13th year of Trajan but alas these first Bishops of Rome were so obscure that nothing but their Name is upon Record in Authentic Authors And what is said in the â—ontifical and the Notes concerning their several Parents Countries times of sitting in that See and all their Actions almost are meer Impostures of later Ages as the Learned Dr. Pierson proves in his afore-cited Posthumous Dissertation Alexander's Life is next wherein Binius again corrects the Pontifical and the Breviary which say He Ruled the Church in the days of Trajan (c) Lab. p. 541. Bin. pag. 55. col 1. Brev. Sixt. 5. in Maii 3. affirming he entred not On the Papacy till Adrian's time But there was more need to Correct the Breviary of his Infallible Church for those fabulous Lessons it orders to be read in the Church on this Popes day about Alexander's converting Hermes a Praefect of Rome Quirinus a Tribune and Balbina his Daughter who also is Sainted yet after all there were no such persons in
stood for an Head till Cornelius was chosen Pope And they called a Council as they pretend in this Vacancy and writ a Letter of their Determination to all the Churches in the World that they might all observe what the Empty Chair of Peter had ordered (z) Bin. p. 107. col 1. But if any one read the Letter it self it will appear that this Council was only a voluntary Assembly of the Clergy in Rome and they met only to confirm S. Cyprian's Opinion and only writ their Letter to him but never pretended either to be Judges over Cyprian or any other part of the Catholic Church Pope Cornelius his Life follows for whose Character we are more obliged to S. Cyprian's Epistles than to the Pontifical which invents an idle Story of a Dialogue between Cornelius and Decius the Emperor and though the Notes own (a) Lab p. 665 Bin. pag. 108. col 1. That Decius who is here pretended to Martyr him dyed the same Month in which Cornelius entred yet they will not own the Story to be false but boldly put in the Name of Volusianus into their Margen instead of Decius However the Breviary (b) Breviar Sixt. 5.16 die Septemb. retains the Fiction of Cornelius suffering under Decius as it doth also the Fable of his Translating the Bodies of S. Peter and S. Paul But let any considering Man compare the different ways of telling this Sham Story and he will easily discern that the Notes cannot reconcile them without flying to a Miracle (c) Lab. p. 667. Bin. pag. 108. col 1. It is evident they have told us the Body of S. Peter was in the Vatican when Pope Victor was there Buried An. 203 And there is no Author of Credit mentions their removal into the Catacumbae and so consequently no reason to believe they were fetcht back from thence in a time of Persecution Pope Gregory lived 350 years after this and was very apt to credit feigned Miracles and he differs much from the Pontifical so that probably the whole Story is forged by those who long after began superstitiously to adore the Relicks of Saints However it is read in the Roman Church Septemb. 16. and many devout People on the Credit of this Legend make Pilgrimages and offer Prayers and large Gifts to the Shrines of these two Apostles of whose true Relicks they can have none because their real Graves are not known In this Pope's time there were two Councils holden at Carthage two at Rome and one in Italy all which in the general Titles are said to be held under Cornelius (d) Lab. p. 714. Bin. pag. 126. col 1. though the Notes assure us That those two at Carthage were called by S. Cyprian's Authority and that the Italian Bishops made a Decree of their own besides that of Cornelius at Rome The Roman Councils indeed were holden under Cornelius as being Bishop of that City but we may observe He did not Authoritatively confirm the Sentence of the Council of Carthage but only contented to it We may also Note This African Council calls not Pope Cornelius Father but Brother and writes to him as one of their Collegues yea they do not except Cornelius when they Decree That if any of their Collegues agreed not to their Sentence he should answer it at the Day of Judgment (e) Lab. p. 718. Bin. pag. 128. col 1. Moreover in the same Letter there is an evident Testimony that the People in those days were prepared for Martyrdom by receiving the Eucharistical Cup (f) Lab. p. 717. Bin. pag. 127. col 2. which being now denied to the Laity the Editors pass it by without a Note yet soon after where the Council plainly speaks of Confessing the Name of Christ before Persecutors they have this impertinent Marginal Note From this and other places the necessity of Confession is confirmed As if this belonged to their new invented Auricular Confession § 4. The Notes find divers Faults in the Life of Pope Lucius yet they would palliate the grossest of all for the Pontifical says He was Beheaded by Valerian the Notes affirm it was by Gallus and Volusianus and yet the same Notes tell us The Pontifical in saying it was by Valerian may be very well and truly expounded (g) Lab. p. 720. Bin. pag. 128. col 2. The Reader must understand It may be so expounded by such kind of Notes as are designed to make gross Errors seem great Truths Pope Stephen who succeeded Lucius fell out with Cyprian and the African Bishops about the re-baptizing of Heretics which though it were the only memorable thing in this Popes Life the Pontifical never mentions And the Editors are are so used to put into the Title of all Councils Under such or such a Pope that in this Popes time they style those very Councils Sub Stephano which were called without his knowledge and which condemned his Opinion (h) Lab. p 751. pag. 760 c. Bin. pag. 137 141 145 c. as may be seen in the Councils of Carthage Iconium and Africa where so easily may Tradition be mistaken the Rebaptizing of Heretics is asserted to be an Apostolick Tradition though it were contrary to Pope Stephen's Opinion and the Tradition of the Roman Church And when Stephen on this account presumed to Excommunicate the Asian Bishops Firmilianus Bishop of Coesarea in a Letter to S. Cyprian (i) Lab. p. 751. Bin. pag. 141. col 2. Despises his Sentence compares the Pope to Judas complains of his Arrogance and esteems those to be very silly who took the Roman Bishop's word for an Apostolical Tradition from which that Church in many Instances had departed Moreover He calls him a Schismatic and affirms he had by this rash Sentence only cut himself off from the Unity of the Catholic Church S. Cyprian also and his Africans (k) Lab. p. 765. Bin. pag. 147. col 2. condemned this Pope as a Favourer of Heretics an Enemy to the Church and one who writ Contradictions and was void of Prudence describing him as an Innovator and bringer in of Traditions contrary to God's Word as one who obstinately presumed to prefer human Doctrines before Scripture I grant Pope Stephen was in the right in this Controversie yet doubtless if these Bishops had believed the Supremacy and Infallibility of the Pope and his Roman Council they could not have used him at this rate And the Editors are so concerned to cover this rough usage that they reprint an Epistle of S. Cyprian's Verbatim (l) Lab. p. 740. pag. 764. Bin. pag. 136. col 2. p. 146 col 2. after this Quarrel was grown hot which was writ while they two were Friends and contains very kind Words to Stephen which Blind is only to make us think that Cyprian submitted to the Pope at last though it is apparent he never did so Again the Reader may note that Labbè here prints a Tract of some Ancient Author to justify
Pontifical tells us did Sacrifice to Idols (a) Lab. p. 930. Bin. pag. 174. col 2. and S. Augustine in the Notes plainly supposes it to be true Yet the Annotator who dares not deny it labours to Amuse the Reader by saying this Story may be plainly refuted and proved false by divers probable Reasons out of Baronius but because their Missals and Martyrology do own the thing he will not go that way to Work What then Doth he clearly charge the Infallible Judge with Apostacy No he saith He seemed to deny the Faith by External acts that is Sacrificing to Idols Yet by his Internal acts it seems Binius knew his thoughts he did not believe any thing contrary to the Faith And truly this is an early Instance of Jesuitical Equivocation But we may make the same Excuse for all the Apostates in the World and it is plain the Notes care not what they say to protect their dear Infallibility against the most convincing Truths About the very time of this Pope 's Apostacy was held a Council at Cirta in Africk and though S. Augustine the Author from whom they have all they know about it say not one Word of Marcellinus Yet the Editors and Annotator both put in these Words that it was under Marcellinus (b) Lab. p. 936. Bin. pag. 177. col 1 2. Where I cannot but wonder that since they have invented a Council in the same year to set poor Marcellinus Right again after his Apostacy they did not place that Council first and then their reconciled Penitent might with a better Grace have sat at Cirta and Condemned such as fell in the Persecution But the most Infamous Forgery is the Ridiculous Council of Sinuessa (c) Lab. p. 938. Bin. pag. 178. devised by some dull Monk who could write neither good Sense nor true Latin inspired only by a blind Zeal for the Roman Church whose Infallible Head must be cleared from Apostacy though it be by the absurdest Fictions imaginable For he feigns this Apostate Pope met Three-hundred Bishops near Sinuessa in Dioclesian's time in a Cave which would hold but Fifty of them at once and their business was only to hear Marcellinus condemn himself and to tell him he could be Judged by none The two first Copies of this Council were so stuffed with Barbarisms false Latin and Nonsense and so contrary to each other that some Body took Pains out of both to devise a third Copy and by changing and adding at pleasure brought it at last to some tolerable Sense Surius and Binius print all three Copies but Labbè and the Collectio regia leave out the two Originals and only publish the Third drest up by a late Hand which in time may pass for the true account of this Council But the two first Copies in Binius yet extant will give the Reader a good proof into what depths of Ignorance the Monks were fallen when such Unintelligible and Incoherent stuff as this and the Letters Forged between the Council of Nice and Pope Sylvester which are in the same Style were designed to support the Roman Supremacy and Infallibility I shall not reflect upon the Absurdity of making the Pope his own Judge when he denies the Fact nor the Contradiction of the Councils saying often They must not judge him and yet declaring soon after That they have Condemned him (d) Bin. p. 179. 180 183. Whoever will but read this Council over shall find diversion enough if Blunders and Dulness be diverting to them I shall therefore principally note the gross Partiality and Fallacies of the Notes in colouring over this bare-faced Forgery First the Annotator accuses the Century Writers and English Innovators for rejecting this Rare Council as a Forgery of the Donatists he should have said of the Romish Monks yet he makes more Objections against it than he himself can answer Protestants wonder that Three-hundred Bishops should dare to meet in times of Persecution He replies a far less number did meet on a slighter occasion Fifty years before which is but a very indifferent Proof Well but to magnify the occasion he saith By this Pope's fall not only the Roman Church but the whole Christian Religion was in extreme danger and in the President of the Catholic Faith the very Foundation of the Church was shaken and almost ruined Yet a little before he had told us out of S. Augustine that Marcellinus's fall did no prejudice to the Church and had affirmed that the ill Deeds of Bishops may hurt themselves but cannot prejudice the Churches Orthodox Doctrine (e) Bin. p. 175. col 1. 2. Again he proves it could not be an Invention of the Donatists because they never knew of it yet presently he owns they objected it to the Catholics and therefore must know of it all that S. Augustine saith being only that they could not prove it After this Baronius and he say that no Writer doth mention this City of Sinuessa nor is there any Memory of such a place or Cave Which is a great mistake in them both For Livy Cicero Ovid Martial and Pliny do all speak of Sinuessa (f) Ferarij Lexic Geograph p. 199. and Alexander ab Alexandro mentions a famous High-way leading from Rome to this City (g) Al. ab Alexand gen dier lib. 3. cap. 13. And if an Earthquake have since Overthrown it that will not prove there was no such City then all the Wonder is that these Gentlemen should defend a Council for genuine which they thought had been held in Utopia The Notes proceed to tell us that Very many most Learned Men not Hereticks I suppose by very strong Arguments have laboured to prove these Acts spurious But he who values no Arguments against the Supremacy not only thinks them not to be false but judges them worthy of great Esteem for their Venerable Antiquity and for their Majesty which extorts Reverence even from the unwilling Now their Antiquity cannot be proved by one Old Author and their Majesty is so little that they extort Laughter and Contempt from the gravest Reader Let us therefore hear his Reason for this Approbation it is because they are believed by general consent of all He forgets that he said but now very many and very Learned Men did not believe them And because they are received and retained without any Controversy to this Day in the Martyrologies and Breviaries of the Roman and other Churches (h) Brev. Roman April 26. So that at last all the Authority for this Council is the Roman Martyrology and Breviary which are Modern Collections out of the Fabulous Pontifical and other Forged Acts of Martyrs And though their own Learned Men by good Arguments prove the things to be false yet if they be Read in a Breviary c. these Falshoods become true and Catholics receive them without Controversy Yea they cite the Transcript of a Forgery to prove the Original to be a Truth Again the Notes say it
is no prejudice to the Truth of Marcellinus his fall though the Africans did not know of it nor S. Augustine no nor any of the African Church Yet in the next Page it is observed That there are very many Names of the Witnesses which prove his fall which are peculiar to the African Christians Now if these Names were peculiar to the Africans then these Witnesses were of the African Church Originally and then it is Morally impossible that they should never tell none of their Countrymen of so Famous a Transaction The Notes confess that these Acts often mention Libra occidua which is a Word invented after the Empire was divided into East and West And thence the same Notes infer these Acts were not writ in those Ancient times yet they make it a wonder that they were not seen in Africa in S. Augustine 's time or before Which is to wonder that they had not seen them in Africa before they were written It puzzles the Annotator to make out an excuse for that ridiculous Falshood in these Acts that Marcellinus was led into the Temple of Vesta and Isis and there Sacrificed to Hercules Jupiter and Saturn because these Gods were never placed nor Worshiped in the Temples of those female Deities Nor can he allow what the Acts say about this Council being held when Dioclesian was in his Persian War for he affirms it was held Two years after that War when Dioclesian had devested himself of the Empire and lived a private Life But then the Acts make Dioclesian to be present and in Rome when Marcellinus did Sacrifice and at this rate the Pope would have laied two years at least in his Apostacy which the Annotator must not endure To conclude we now see That a Council held no body knows where nor when concealed from all Ancient Authors writ in later times full of Barbarisms and Non-sense Falshoods and contradictions if it do but pretend to make out the Supremacy and Infallibity of the Pope and set him while he was an Apostate and falsly denied the Fact above a Council of Three hundred Innocent Bishops if it do but say the Pope though never so wicked cannot be judged by any but himself This Council shall be published by the Roman Editors and vindicated by partial Notes as if it were a most genuine and Authentic Truth From whence it is plain That these Editors and especially this Annotator hath no other measure of Truth and Falshood but the Interest of the Roman Church which they resolve to promote though it be by the most unjust means And this may suffice to observe for the Third Century A BRIEF ACCOUNT OF THE Roman Forgeries IN THE VOLUMES OF THE COUNCILS For the Fourth Century PART II. CHAPTER IV. Of the Forgeries in the Fourth Century § 1. THis Century begins with the Life of Marcellus An. Dom. 304. a Pope so obscure that Eusebius's Chronicle wholly omits him (a) Lab. Tom. III. pag. 947. Bin. Tom. I. pag. 185. col 2. and Theodoret knew nothing of him nor of Pope Eusebius but makes Melchiades immediate Successor to Marcellinus (b) Theod. hist lib. 1 cap. 3. 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 Luit prandus Abbo Floriacens Cusanus and Genebrard (c) Richer de Eccles potestate cap 3. pag. 46. 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 Optatus 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 (d) Breviar Rom. Jan. 16. pag. 674. Which Fiction the Roman Breviary orders to be read to the Credulous People of that Communion for Lessons 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 (e) Lab. p. 948. Bin. pag. 186. col 1. 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 strange 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 (f) Lab. p 950 Bin. pag. 187. col 1. His first Note of this Epistle being writ to one Solomon a Bishop is an oversight and belongs to the first Epistle of Pope Marcellinus (g) Bin. p. 175. col 2. Baron An. 296. §. 5. 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 (h) Bin. Not. in Epist Foel p. 499 Not. in Ep. Julii pag. 385. 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 Pasce 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 (i) Niceph. lib. 2. cap. 3. Whitak de Concil pag. 51. 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 (k) Lab. p. 951. Bin. pag. 387. col 1. 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 Bishop of Alexandria (l) Lab. p. 967. Bin. pag. 189. col 1. 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 An. Dom. 305. is by Binius placed under Pope Marcellus which Words Labbé leaves out of the Title (m) Lab. p. 967. E Bin. pag. 191. col 1. 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 (n) Lab. p. 1030. 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 (o) Lab. p. 983. D Bin. pag 200. col 1. The 26th Canon calls it an Error to Fast upon Saturday But the Notes are so bold as to say The Error which this Council corrected was the not Fasting on Saturday whereas even these very Notes confess That the Eastern Churches and most of the Western Rome and some few others excepted together with the African Church did not Fast on Saturday but Wednesday yea those they Call the Apostolical Canons and Clement's Constitutions do both establish Wednesday Fast and condemn their pretended Apostolical Churches Saturday Fast and if divers in Spain as the Notes say in S. Hierom's and Pope Innocent's times did not Fast on Saturday and others then needed Arguments to settle them in this Roman practice It may be gathered from thence that in the time of this Council the Saturday Fast was esteemed an Error as it was also in that Age almost in all Christian Churches and so the very Words of the Canon import which Baronius saw and therefore (p) Baron Annal An. 305. §. 49. only saith There is mention of the Saturday Fast in this Synod and so passes it knowing it plainly contradicted the Roman Churches Tradition The 34th Canon under pain of Excommunication forbids the lighting Wax Candles in the places where the Martyrs were Buried q (p) Lab. p. 985. E Bin. pag. 201. col 1. which agrees with the Sentiments of the Primitive Church (r) Dailé de cultu Lat. lib. 2. chap. 15. Lactantius condemns Lighting Candles in God's Worship by day as a Paganish Superstition (s) Lactant. Instit lib. 6. cap. 2. S. Hierom saith It was used in his time only by such as did it to humor the silly Vulgar who had a Zeal without Knowledge (t) Hieron ad Ripar ep 53. Yet the Notes confess this is the Custom of the Roman Church for which only cause some of their Doctors reject this Canon since nothing must be Authentic which condemns their Novel Superstitions and these Notes make a miserable Blunder to excuse the matter but we are not concerned whether with the Annotator these Candles in the Day-light disturb the Spirits of the Living Saints by seeing an Heathenish Rite brought into the Church or with Baronius displease the Saints Deceased to behold so Superstitious a thing vainly devised for their honour Since it sufficiently appears the practice is novel and absurd and though now used at Rome condemned by the best Antiquity The Notes also give us one extraordinary distinction (u) Bin. Not. in 34 35 Can. p. 201. col 2. between the Souls of deceased Saints in Heaven and those in Purgatory which latter sort if they had been Saints one would think should need no such dreadful Scouring The 36th Canon determines That Pictures ought not to be in Churches and that none may Paint upon Walls that wich is worshiped (w) Lab. p. 986. Bin pag. 201. col 2. Which so expresly condemns the Roman Worship of Pictures and Images that the boldest Writers of that Church reject this Canon but others as the Notes say would gladly expound it so as to assert the honour and worship due to Holy Images which is a notable kind of Exposition to make a Canon assert that which it confutes But such transparent Fallacies deserve
is most false to suppose That the whole Senate at this time were Christians for many of them continued Pagans long after Constantine's Death Baronius indeed out of Sylvester's Acts affirms That none of the Senate was converted before the Year 324 (t) Baron An. 324. §. 76. Forgetting that he had told us Divers Senators had given up their Names to Christ Twelve years before (u) Id. An. 312. §. 75 76. and that one or both of the Consuls were Christians two years before this (w) Id. An. 322. §. 1. So ill a Memory had the great Cardinal when his Cause obliged him to defend a Lye. Fifthly It speaks of the Emperor's intending to build a City and call it by his own Name in the Province of Bizantium and his Resolution to transfer his Empire thither and yet before this the Edict had reckoned up Constantinople by name and Hierusalem as two of the Five Patriarchates and given Rome Jurisdiction over all the other Four. Lastly It is Dated in the Fourth Consulship of Constantine with Gallicanus whereas Licinius was his Collegue in his Fourth Consulship which was in the Year of Christ 315 that is Nine years before the time fixed by Baronius for this pretended Baptism and that clearly shews the Story to be all Sham as all modest and learned Men of the Roman Church do now acknowledge But Baronius and our Annotaâ—or considering not barely the falshood of this Edict for that alone would not discourage them but observing also that it destroys the pretended Divine Right of the Pope's Supremacy grant it at last to be a Forgery but say It was devised by the Greeks Secondly Therefore I shall shew the Falshood of that Accusation For First they charge Balsamon with publishing it Now he did not write till An. 1180 yet the Notes out of Baronius do confess that a Pope quoted it An. 1054 that is near an Hundred years before Balsamen was born to justifie his Superiority over the Greek Church and therefore Balsamon was not the Inventer of it Secondly It doth the Greeks no good for it gives the Pope power over all their Patriarchs and reckons Constantinople as the last and lowest Patriarchate so that the Forger could not come out of that Church Thirdly It is grounded on the fabulous Acts of Sylvester writ in Latin and feigned in the Western World and its whole design is to advance the Pope above all Bishops Kings and Emperors and therefore no doubt it was advanced by a Friend of the Popes Fourthly The Notes confess That a Pope first set up this Edict to prove his Universal Supremacy not considering with Baronius it seems that it weakened his Title and the grave and learned Men of the Roman Church received it as Authentic for many Ages after We add That till the Reformation they cited it and writ in defence of it and though now their Point is gained they begin to renounce it yet the Advantage that Church got by it shews that they were the Forgers of it yea it seems Anno 1339 one Johannes Diaconus a Member of the Roman Church was thought to be the Author of it Fifthly Whoever considers how unwilling the Cardinal and our Annotator are to have it clearly reâ—ected will be convinced that their Church gained by it and consequently invented it They labour to prove the Popâ—s temporal Power granted hereby is both probable and true (x) Lab. p. 1539. Bin. pag. 254. col 1. And though they own the French Princes Pipin and Charles who gave many Cities and Countries to S. Peter never mention this Edict yet they argue from their calling those Gifts A restoring them to the Church that they had respect to Constantine's Bounty (y) Lab. p. 1540. Bin. pag. 254. col 2. These Authors also mention Pope Adrian's confirming this Edict and quote the Book of Constantine's Munificence shewed to be a Fable just now to justifie it (z) Lab. p. 1541. Bin. pag. 255. col 1. They also would make out what it saith of the Images of Peter and Paul then kept at Rome by Eusebius but cite him falsly leaving out the main part of his Testimony viz. That it was only some who had such Images and that these imitated the Pagans herein from whence it will not follow That eminent Christians then placed them in their Churches (a) Lab. Bin. ut supr Baron An. 324. §. 40. In short Though they dare not say it is true yet they would not have it rejected as false because it gives their admired Church so much Riches and Power and therefore doubtless no Greeks but some of their Church invented this most notorious Forgery And Aeneas Sylvius observes That it was warily done of the Popes to let it be hotly disputed how far this Edict was good in Law that so the Edict it self might still be supposed valid (b) Aene. Sylv. dial de Donat. Constantini it being their Interest it should be thought so This feigned Donation is followed by a Roman Council under Sylvester in the Preface whereof Sylvester is falsly pretended to have called the Nicene Council and in the body of which there is a Canon That none must judge the Chief Seat not the Emperor nor Kings nor Clergy nor People For the sake of which two advantagious Fictions Baronius and the Annotator defend and justifie this Synod (c) Baron An. 324. §. 29 30 130. Bin. not p. 260. though the Title be ridiculous the Style barbarous and the Matter of it as void of Sense as it is of probability Labbé indeed notes That the Condemning Photinus here shews it was put together by an unskilful Hand (d) Lab. Marg. pag. 1542. and rejects it as a Forgery very justly For Photinus as the Notes confess was not Condemned till long after (e) Bin. p. 260. col 1. nor were there any Christian Kings but Constantine the Emperor at that time Besides the Forger first says None of the Laity were present and yet in the next Page affirms That Calpharnius Praefect of the City was there and that Constantine and his Mother Helena subscribed it (f) Lab. p. 1547. Bin. pag. 256. col 2. pag. 257. col 2. yea Baronius himself observes That this Council mistakes the Custom of the Roman Church where in that Age Presbyters use to sit in the presence of the Bishops but in this Fiction they are represented as standing with the Deacons (g) Baron An. 324. §. 124. Moreover it destroys the Donation Lies seldom hanging together for if Constantine had given the Pope such Supreme Power a few days before what need was there for these Bishops to grant the same thing or however why do they not remember Constantine's late Gift Lastly Arius who then gave so great Trouble to the Church is not mentioned here not as Baronius guesses because he was to be more solemnly Condemned at Nice the next year (h) Baron An. 324. §. 27.
Constantine's in which this matter is determined with the reasons for it which is better than a bare Law without Arguments in a case which had been so much disputed (u) Bin. p. 285. Theod. lib. 1. cap. 9. nor could they make any acurate Canon about it till the exact time was Calculated which they referred not to the Pope but to the Bishop of Alexandria Secondly The Notes say S. Ambrose mentions a Canon made at Nice against Bigamists (w) Ambros ep 82. ad Episc Vercel but Baronius himself confesseth that S. Ambrose only saith They treated of this matter but doth not affirm they made a Canon about it Thirdly They plead there was a Decree about the Canon of Scripture made at Nice which is not among these Twenty because S. Hierom saith he had Read that the Nicene Fathers computed Judith among the Books of Holy Scripture I reply S. Hierom only saith they computed it among Holy Writings that is as we shewed before § 15. among Books to be Read for instruction not to be quoted in Dispute For if S. Hierom had believed this Council did receive Judith for Canonical he would not have counted it as he doth to be Apocryphal So that this proves not that there were more Canons Fourthly The Notes affirm there is no Canon now extant here against a Bishops choosing his Successor in his Life time which S. Augustine saith was forbid in this Council (x) Augustin Epist 110. which is a gross Untruth since the Eighth Canon forbids two Bishops should be in one City and the Notes own this was the very Canon meant by S. Augustine in the next Leaf (y) Bin. Not. pag. 296. col 1. p. 297. col 2. Liers should have better Memories Fifthly They say the third Council of Carithage cites a Canon of Nice forbidding to receive the Sacrament after Dinner but if the place be considered as Richerius notes (z) Richer histor Concil lib. 1. cap. 3. §. 13. that Council only refers to a former African Synod which had decreed this and not to the Council of Nice Sixthly The Annotator speaks of a Canon about Appeals to Rome cited out of this Synod in the Sixth Council of Carthage but he was wiser than to tell us who cited this for a Nicene Canon for it was Pope Zosimus's Legate cited it and he was convicted of a notorious Falsification therein as shall be shewed in due place Seventhly He saith there was a Canon made at Nice but not to be found among the Twenty that a Cause tried in a lesser Synod might be judged over again in a greater and for this he cites the Fourth Epistle of Julius but in his Notes on that Epistle (a) Bin. Not. in ep Julii pâ—g 395. col 2. he confesseth this was no Canon made at Nice but only it was matter of Fact in that this great Synod did judge Arius over again who had before been judged at Alexandria Eightly The Notes say Atticus Bishop of Constantinople at Chalcedon did affirm that the Nicene Council agreed upon a Form of writing Communicatory Epistles which is not among these Twenty Canons I reply Baronius and he both own this Form was to be a Secret among the Bishops and if it had been put into a Canon Heretics might easily have counterfeited these Forms and so the design had been spoiled (b) Baron An. 325. §. 166. Richer lib. 1. cap. 3. §. 14. Lastly the Annotator cites Sozomen to proves that the Nicene Council added to the Gloria Patri the later part As it was in the beginning c. Whereas Sozomen (c) Sozom. histor lib. 3. cap. 19. in that place only speaks of such as praised God in Hymns agreeing to the Faith delivered at Nice but mentions no Canon or Form of words agreed on at Nice about these Hymns So that after all this shuffling it is very impertinent for this Annotator to brag that it is manifest there were more than Twenty Canons made in this Council and Nonsense to tell us that the Greeks who stifly maintain there were but Twenty Canons cannot deny but there were more than Twenty And for all his Confidence neither he nor Baronius dare defend those Eighty Canons which Turrian hath fathered on this Council and therefore whatever is more than these twenty or differing from them must pass among the many Forgeries of the Roman Church Fifthly As to the Sense of those Canons which oppose the Pope's Interest the Notes use many Impostures in expounding them The Third Canon forbids the Clergy to cohabit with Women taken into their Houses unless they were so near of Kin as to avoid Suspicion and Scandal Which plainly supposes that they might have Wives because cohabiting with them could give no Suspicion nor Scandal And since the Canon names not Wives who were the most likely to dwell with their Husbands doubtless this Council did not suppose the cohabitation of the Clergy with their Wives to be unlawful Yea not only Socrates and Sozomen (d) Socrat. lib. 1. cap. 8. Sozom. lib. 1. cap. 22. but Pisanus and Nauclerus later Romish Authors (e) Pisanus ap Bin. pag. 343. col 1. Naucler Chron. pag. 606. relate the History of Paphnutius his Advice to the Council in this Point upon which the latter saith The Nicene Fathers allowed Priests to have Wives if they pleased Which full Evidence against their Churches practice doth so enrage Baronius that he not only denies this well-attested History but lays by the Character of an Historian and falls in his guessing-way to dispute against this manifest Truth (f) Baron An. 325. §. 148 149 150. And Binius in his Notes (g) Lab. pag. 72. Bin. pag. 296. col 2. out of him saith This Canon expresly forbids Clergy men the Use of their Wives after they were entred into Holy Orders rejects the History of Paphnutius and gives Socrates and Sozomen the Lye But we shall leave the Reader to judge whether he will give more Credit to the Words of the Canon and these Ancient impartial Historians or to the Corrupt Paraphrase and Impudent Assertions of these two notorious Sycophants who have so often been proved to govern themselves not by Truth but by Interest and Design The Sixth Canon reckons the Pope but Equal to other great Bishops and limits his Jurisdiction at which the Annalist and Annotator are much discomposed and by various Fictions and shuffling Pretences labour to pervert the true Sense of this famous Canon And first They say The beginning of it viz. The Roman Church hath always had the Primacy is wanting (h) Lab. Bin. ut supr not in Can. 6. Whereas no Authentic Edition ever had any such beginning Dr. Beveridge gives us Eight several Versions besides the Original Greek which all want it (i) Beveridg Concil Tom. II. pag. 50. and it is impudently done of Binius to cite Alanus Copus saying That Dionysius Exiguus's Version had this
860. Bin. pag. 503. col 2. The Fabulous Pontifical was for many Ages pretended to be writ by this Damasus and he who forged the Decretal Epistles invented one to Aurelius Bishop of Carthage (e) Lab. p. 862. Bin. pag. 503. col 2. wherein Damasus is feigned to send him at his Request all the Epistles writ by the Popes from S. Peter to his time and this of old was the Preface to the Decretal Epistles but the Forgery is so gross that Binius rejects it and if his affection for the Papacy had not biassed him he would also have rejected all the Epistles which are as errant Forgeries as this Preface The first and second Epistles written in Damasus his Name to Paulinus and the Eastern Bishops are suspicious The third Epistle of Damasus to Hierom is evidently Forged by some illiterate Monk but S. Hierom's Answer seems to be genuine yet the Notes reject it (f) Lab. p. 868. Bin. pag. 506. col 1. for no other reason but because it truly supposes the Pope and his Clergy were so ignorant as to need S. Hierom's help to make them understand the Psalms and affirms that Rome obeyed his directions in singing the Psalms and adding the Gloria Patri to them whereas whoever considers the Learning and Authority of S. Hierom in that Age will not think it at all improbable that he should teach the Roman Bishop And Binius is forced to cite this Epistle wrong in his Notes to get a seeming Argument against it for the Epistle doth not advise them to sing the Gloria Patri after the manner of the East as he quotes it but to sing it to shew their Consent to the Nicene Faith. The fourth Epistle of Damasus to Stephen Archbishop of the Council of Mauritania with Stephen's Epistle to him are owned by Labbé to be both spurious (g) Lab. Marg. pag. 869. Bin. pag. 506 c. But since they magnifie the Popes Supremacy Binius justifies them both for whose confutation let it be noted 1. That it is absurd to style a Man Archbishop of a Council Secondly That in this Epistle is quoted a forged Epistle of Foelix owned by Binius himself to be spurious (h) Bin. p. 499. Thirdly That place of Math. XVI is falsly quoted here and thus read Thou art Peter and upon thy foundation will I set the Pillars that is the Bishops of the Church Fourthly The later of them is dated with Flavius and Stillico who were not Consuls till Damasus had been in his Grave full twenty year as Labbé confesses wherefore we justly discard these gross Forgeries devised of old and defended now only to support the Popes usurped Power The fifth Epistle says The Institution of the Chorepiscopi was very wicked and extreme evil yet presently after it owns they were appointed in imitation of the LXX Disciples and were at first necessary for the Primitive Church it is also dated with Libius and Theodosius who were never Consuls in Damasus's time and finally Labbé owns that much of it is stollen out of the Epistles of later Popes (i) Lab. p. 876. Bin. pag. 509. col 1. yet Binius will not reject it because it hath some kind touches for the Supremacy The sixth Epistle to the Bishops of Illyricum passes Muster also with him though it be dated with Siricius and Ardaburus who were Consuls till 30 years after Damasus was dead (k) Lab. p. 882. Bin. pag. 511. col 1. The 7th Epistle is dated with the same Consuls yet Binius allows of it because in it the Pope pretends to give Laws not only to Italy but to all the World though Labbé confess the Cheat and owns it was stollen by Isidore out of Leo's 47th Epistle (l) Lab. p. 883. Bin. pag. 511. col 2. So unfortunate is their Supremacy that whatever seems to give any countenance to it always proves to be Forged The Decrees attributed to this Pope seem to have been the invention of later Ages for it is not probable Damasus would have Fathered a Lye upon the Nicene Council in saying It was decreed there that Lay-men should not meddle with Oblations (m) Lab. p. 885. Bin. pag. 512. col 1. or that he would say Such as broke the Canons were guilty of the Sin against the Holy-Ghost Nor doth his Decree about the Pall agree to this Age. So that Damasus's Name hath for better credit been clapt to these Decrees by the modern Compilers who are the Guides to our Editors About this time the Arians having the Emperour Valens on their side began to grow bold An. Dom. 369. but Athanasius condemned them in Egypt by divers Synods and upon his Admonition Damasus held two Synods at Rome in the first of which Ursacius and Valens two Arian Bishops were condemned and in the later Auxentius the Arian Bishop of Milan was deposed not by the Popes single Authority as the Notes and Baronius vainly pretend (n) Bin. p. 512. 513. Baron An. 369. pag. 190 c. but by the common Suffrage of Ninety Bishops assembled with him as the words of Athanasius and the very Councils Letter plainly shew And though Baronius here talks of the Popes sole Priviledge in deposing Bishops there are innumerable Instances of Bishops deposed without the Popes leave or knowledge and Auxentius valued and believed Damasus his Authority so little that notwithstanding this Sentence of the Pope in Council he kept his Bishopric till his Death An. Dom. 373. Apollinaris having disseminated his Heresie at Antioch complaint was made â—o Damasus of one Vitalis who held those Errors but the Pope who had not the gift of discerning the Spirits was imposed on by his subscribing a plausible Confession of Faith so that he writ on his behalf to Paulinus Bishop of Antiâ—ch (o) Baron An. 373. pag. 301. 'T is true at the request of S. Basil Damasus did this year joyn with Peter Bishop of Alexandria who was then at Rome in condemning Apollinaris in a Roman Council (p) Lab. p. 895. Bin. pag. 514. col 1. but Nazianzen saith He did nâ—t this till he was better instructed in the Points For at first as the Notes confess this Pope took Apollinaris for a piâ—us and learned Man and so held Communion with him till he understood by S. Basil 's third Epistle that he was an Heretic I know they excuse this by saying that S. Basil himself and Nazianzen and S. Hierom were all at first under the same mâ—stake with Damasus But then none of these ever were pretended to be Infallible Judges in matters of Faith as Baronius holds Damasus was so that the mistake in them is pardonable but upon Baronius Principles I see not how Damasus his Infallibility can be secured when he was so long deceived by a Heretic and was forced to be instructed by a private Bishop at last even in cases of Heresie The next year a Council was held at Valentia in Dauphiné the
Popes Authority was not regarded Which also appears in the Case of Flavianus who as the Notes conjecture was in this Roman Synod deposed and Paulinus made Bishop of Antioch Yet still the greatest part of the World owned Flavianus for the true Bishop of that See and the Synod of Sides where Amphilocius Bishop of Iconium was President directed their Synodical Epistle to Flavianus as Patriarch of Antioch (e) Lab. p. 1015. Bin. pag. 556. col 2. Baron An. 383. so that the Editors should not have styled that Council Under Damasus because they acted against his Mind And so did the Eastern Bishops who met again this year at Constantinople when the Pope had desired them to come to Rome and from this Meeting they writ that Synodical Epistle which the Editors here print over again and wherein they call Jerusalem The Mother of all Churches a Title now by Usurpation appropriated only to Rome § 29. Siricius succeeded Damasus An. Dom. 385. but not without trouble for Ursicinus the Competitor of Damasus being yet alive and at Rome was declared Pope by a great party and Prosper's Chronicle makes him the next Pope after Damasus (f) Baron An. 384. pag. 327. nor could Siricius get the Chair but by a Rescript from the Emperour Valentinian which condemned Ursicinus and established Siricius (g) Baron An. 385. pag. 335. There is little or no notice of him before his Election and though he sat fifteen years as the Pontifical and Platina or thirteen as the Notes say there is very little worthy remarking done by him And it is very probable he was one of those ignorant Clergy-men with which the Roman Church was so well stored at that time that S. Hierom saith Not one of them did so much as pretend to Scholarship but this illiterate Faction who had proclaimed War against all Learning conspired also against him (h) Hierom. in Praef. ad Didym de Spir. Sancto For we have reason to judge this Pope to be of their Party because S. Hierom left Rome in disgust as soon as Siricius came to be Pope and Paulinus who came in his time to Rome saith The City Pope proudly despised him (i) Paulin. ad Sever. Epist 1. yea Baronius owns That Ruffinus when he was fallen into Origen 's Heresie imposed on the Simplicity of this Pope and got Communicatory Letters of him (k) Baron An. 397. pag. 32. ex Hieron ep 16. which also seems to spoil his Infallibility for which Ignorance is no proper qualification Yet wanting real Matter in this Pope's Life the Notes run out into the story of the death of Monica S. Augustine's Mother saying That when she died she was only solicitous to have the Mass offered up for her (l) Lab. p. 1016. Bin. pag. 557. col 1. and this they prove out of Augustine's Confessions but the Fathers words are She only desired to be commemorated in the Offices when the Priest stood at the Altar Now there is a mighty difference between that ancient Custom of commemorating the Faithful departed which is allowed by the Church of England and the Popish way of offering Mass for the Souls of the Deceased a corruption of much later date than S. Augustine's time For this Pope are published divers Decretal Epistles which are the first that can pretend to be genuine and if they be really so it is plain that their Style is mean the Arguments trifling and the Scripture Proofs impertinent so that the Author was no Conjurer The first directed to Himerius is very severe against Marriage especially in the Clergy The Notes would perswade us It is not lawful Marriage which he calls Pollution as they say Calvin falsly affirms (m) Lab. p. 1022. Bin. pag. 559. col 2. but if we read the Epistle he calls New Marriages that is the Marriage of such as had been Widows Pollution as well as those Marriages which were prohibited Again he foolishly attempts to prove Clergy-men ought not to Marry because S. Paul saith Those that are in the flesh cannot please God and though he confess it was usual for many Clergy-men to live with their Wives he calls that cohabitation the being polluted with carnal Concupiscence in his 4th Epistle So that he is justly taxed with speaking profanely of God's holy Ordinance and of contradicting S. Paul who excepted not the Clergy when he said Marriage is honourable in all me and the Bed undefiled Hebr. XIII 4. And probably it was the hot and bold discourses of Siricius and some other Writers of this time which provoked Jovinian not only to stand up for Marriage but to decry Single Life the merit of which had so possessed the minds of some great Men that they resolved to condemn Jovinian for an Heretic As for the second Epistle of Siricius to the Council at Milan relating to this Resolve it may be questioned whether it be genuine but that the style is harsh and barbarous is unquestionable The Answer to this Letter from Milan is evidently patched up out of divers Authors who writ upon this Subject However S. Ambrose and his Suffragans there call the Pope Brother even when they Complement him as a great Master and Doctor (n) Lab. p. 1024. Bin pag. 560. 561. which smells strong of the Forge and if this Epistle were made up there then the Notes need not triumph so much when it says upon Jovinians being condemned at Rome That the Bishop of Rome had looked well to the Gate committed to him that is say they the Gate of the whole Church of which Christ made S. Peter 's Successor the Door-keepers (o) Lab. p. 102◠Bin. pag. 561. col 1. Baron An. 390. pag. 536. But if the Epistle be true it only commends the Pope for looking well to the Gate of his own Church at Rome as they had done to their Gate at Milan having turned him out of that Church before The third Epistle of Siricius is like the former for style and sense yet the Editors will not reject it because the Pope saith He hath the care of all the Churches (p) Lab. p. 1027. Bin. p. 561. col 2. but let it be noted that Aurelius Bishop of Carthage uses the same words of himself a little after (q) Bin. p. 577. col 1. and there Binius notes That Aurelius means of the Churches of Africa only not of the whole World So we may say justly of Siricius here that he means He had the Care of the Suburbicarian Churches not those of the whole World. For the fourth Epistle said to be writ from a Roman Council calls the Pope no more but a Primate (r) Lab. p. 1029. Bin. pag. 562. col 1. and that Title belonged to the Bishop of Carthage as well as to him of Rome but indeed Labbé honestly confesses this fourth Epistle to be stollen out of Innocent's Epistle to Victricius The fifth and sixth Epistle are writ by Maximus an
mark of the Donatists being of the Synagogue of Antichrist that they named the several Parties among them from the Leaders and Founders of their several Sects and were not content with the Name of Christians from Christ Which Note reflects upon the Monks of their own Church who are called Benedictines Dominicans and Franciscans from the Founders of their several Orders In the Council of Turin An. Dom. 397. composed of the Gallican Bishops they decided the Case of Primacy between the Bishop of Arles and Vienna without advising with the Pope and determined they would not communicate with Foelix a Bishop of Ithacius his Party according to the Letters of Ambrose of Blessed Memory Bishop of Milan and of the Bishop of Rome Now here the Roman Advocates are much disturbed to find S. Ambrose his Name before Siricius and when they repeat this Passage in the Notes they falsly set the Pope's Name first contrary to the express words of the fifth Canon and impudently pretend That the Bishop of Rome by his place was the ordinary Judge who should be communicated with and Ambrose was only made so by the Popes Delegation (z) Lab. p. 1157 1158. Bin. pag. 568. 569. But how absurd is it if this were so for the Council to place the Name of the Delegate before his who gave him power And every one may see that this Council was directed to mark this Decree principally by S. Ambrose his Advice and secondarily by the Popes for at that time Ambrose his Fame and Interest was greater than that of Siricius yet after all the Council decreed this not by the Authority of either of these Bishops as the Notes pretend but only by their Information and upon their Advice by these Letters which were not first read as they pretend but after four other businesses were dispatched An. Dom. 397 c. The Canons of divers African Councils held at Carthage and elsewhere have been put together long since and collected into one Code which makes the time and order of the Councils wherein they were made somewhat difficult but since the Canons were always held Authentic we need not with the Editors be much concerned for their exact order or for reducing them to the years of the Pope because they were neither called nor ratified by his Authority Yea the Notes say It was never heard that any but the Bishop of Carthage called a Council there his Letters gave Summons to it he presided over it and first gave his Suffrage in it and that even when Faustinus an Italian Bishop the Popes Legate was present (a) Lab. p. 1163. Bin. pag 573. col 1 2. As for the particular Canons of the third Council the Nineteenth saith That the Readers shall either profess Continence or they shall be compelled to Marry but they feign old Copies which say They shall not be allowed to Read if they will not contain (b) Lab. p. 1170. Bin. pag. 575. col 1. the falshood of which appears by the 25th Canon in the Greek and Latin Edition where this is said of the Clergy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Except the Readers which they translate Quamvis Lectorum (c) Bin p. 580. on purpose to make us think that the command of Celibacy upon which that Age too much doted reached the lowest order of the Clergy even Readers contrary to the express words of the Canons And to the second Council of Carthage where only Bishops Priests and Deacons are under an obligation to live single (d) Bin. p. 571. Secondly The 26th Canon of the third Council forbids the Bishop of the first See to be called by the Title of Prince or Chief of Bishops Gratian goes on neither may the Roman Bishop be called Universal (e) Lab. p. 1170. Bin. pag. 575. col 2. Gratian. Decret part 1. dist 99. The Notes tax Gratian indeed for adding this Sentence but if he did it was out of Pope Gregory who saith That no Patriarch ought to be called Universal Besides considering how apt the Editors are to strike out words not Agreeable to the Interest of Rome it is more probable that some of the Popes Friends lately left these words out than that Gratian put them in And since this Council forbid Appeals to foreign Judicatures with peculiar respect to Rome to which some of the Criminal Clergy then began to appeal (f) Lab. p. 1171. Bin. pag. 581. col 2. it is not unlikely these Fathers might resolve to check as well the Title as the Jurisdiction then beginning to be set up which encouraged these Appeals Thirdly The 47th Canon in the Latin and the 24th in the Greek and Latin Edition speaking of such Books as are so far Canonical that they may be read in Churches reckon up some of those Books which we call Apocryphal upon which the Notes triumph (g) Lab. p. 1177. Bin. pag. 580. col 1. but let it be observed that we grant some of these Books to be so far Canonical that they may be read for instruction of Manners and also we may note that the best Editions of these African Canons leave out all the Books of Macchabees and Baruch which are foisted into their later Latin Copies (h) Cosen's History of the Canon p. 112. pag. 113. And it is plain the whole Canon is falsly placed in this Council under Siricius because Pope Boniface who came not into the Papacy till above twenty years after is named in it as Bishop of Rome yet after all these devices it doth not declare what Books are strictly Canonical and so will not justifie the Decree at Trent Fourthly In the 48th Canon of the Latin Version the Council agrees to advise about the Donatists with Siricius Bishop of Rome and Simplicianus Bishop of Milan not giving any more deference to one of these Bishops than to the other but looking on them as equally fit to advise them Yet the Notes boldly say They advise with the Pope because they knew he presided as a Bishop and Doctor over the Catholic Church but with the Bishop of Milan only as a Man every where famous for his Learning (i) Lab. p. 1183. Bin. pag. 584. col 2. Which is a meer Fiction of their own for the words of the Canon shew that these Fathers did not believe either of them had any Authority over them only they desired their advice joyntly as being both Eminent and Neighbouring Bishops and their prohibiting Appeals shews they knew nothing of the Popes presiding over the Catholic Church An. Dom. 398. § 32. Anastasius was the last Pope in this Century of whom there would have been as little notice taken as of Many of his Predecessors if it had not been his good fortune to be known both to S. Hierom and S. Augustine and to assist the latter in suppressing the Donatists and the former in condemning the Errours of Origen for which cause these two Fathers make
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 Vid. Socrat. lib. 2. cap. 13. Baron An. 342. §. 43. 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 An. 349. §. 6. 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 An. 355. §. 51. and because some such Parasites of Rome as himself who would not endure that ingrateful Truth of a Pope's being an Heretic had left out this word He boldly asserts it for the true Reading whereas not only Socrates expresly saith He was an Arian in Opinion but Hierom himself in his Chronicle affirms that Foelix was put in by the Arians and it is not like they would have put him in if he had not been of their party The Greek of Sozomen is no more but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but Baronius improves this by a flattering Paraphrase in these words Lest the Seat of Peter should be bespattered with any spot of Infamy An. 357. §. 43. But it is a bolder falsification of S. Chrysostom where he saith in one of his Sermons on a day celebrated in memory of two Martyrs Juventius and Maximus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to pervert this by his Latin Version thus The Martyrs which we this day worship whereas Chrysostom only saith The Martyrs which occasion us to meet this day Chrysost Tom. V. p. 534. Baron An. 362. pag. 48. 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 Epiphan haeres 79. Baron An. 373. p. 309. 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 Socrates 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 Socrat. lib. 4. cap. 30. Baron An. 377. pag. 325. Yea after this he pretends to cite Socrates as if he said Peter was received being restored by Damasus Id. An. 378. pag. 335. 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 Baron Tom. V. An. 395. p. 15. 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 Id. An. 394. pag. 612. 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 crafty 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 Vid. supra §. 2. Baron An. 321. §. 5. And we may give many such like Instances Sozomen 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 Sozom. lib. 7. cap. 4. p. 415. but the fraudulent Annalist leaves out Peter of Alexandria and mentions only Damasus as the sole standard of Catholic Faith Baron An. 378. pag. 339. 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 Baron An. 378. pag. 347. 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 Hieron Ep. 13. Tom. l. p. 120. Baron An. 386. p. 454 455. 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 Baron An. 394. p. 613. 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 Annal. 324. §. 143 144 152. An.
said only to have prayed to God not to the Blessed Virgin or to Saints and Angels for help So did Alexander Bishop of Constantinople against Arius Baron An. 336. §. 47. so did Parthenius against the Pagans An. 337. §. 41. so did Constantius the Emperour for Recovery of his Health An. 338. §. 11. so also did those Persian Martyrs An. 343. §. 16. Thus Euphrates an Eminent Bishop implores only the help of Christ against an illusion of the Devil An. 348. §. 9. The Christians who translated the Bones of Babylas the Martyr did not Pray to him but Praised God An. 362. pag. 40. and Macedonius an holy Monk is observed only to call upon God Night and Day An. 388. pag. 477. Arcadius the Emperour in an Earthquade prayed to the Lord the only preserver of the Humble An. 396. pag. 21. Porphyrius Bishop of Gaza and his People called only upon Christ not upon any Saints An. 398. pag. 71. So that all these used the Protestant way of Worship And the Romanists must be very unsafe in their Worship of Saints since Baronius confesses one of their Catalogues of Saints puts in the Names of two Hereticks as good Catholic Saints Baron An. 340. §. 41. An. 341. §. 11. So also as to the Adoration of Relicks the Faithful in Persia did not keep the Body of their Martyr to Worship but buried it in a Tomb An. 343. §. 16. So S. Anthony the Primitive Hermit fearing and disliking this Superstition ordered his Body to be put into a private and unknown Grave according to the Custom of the Catholic Church Baron An. 358. §. 23. and therefore Metaphrastes his sole Evidence will not pass for the Legend of translating the Bodies of S. Andrew and S. Luke to Constantinople Ibid. §. 25. 'T is true this Superstition was then creeping in and some Cheaters did begin to sell the Bones of False Martyrs a Trade used at Rome for many Ages but Theodosius his Law severely punished this Crime Baron An. 386. pag. 455. Which ridiculous Imposture Julian the witty Apostate had justly exposed some years before as being contrary to Scripture and to the Christian Law Id. An. 362. pag. 92. An. 361. p. 36. To proceed Had the Altars been then used to be adorned with IMAGES as they are now at Rome the Faithful would not have been so surprized at bringing in an Image and placing it on the Altar as Optatus saith they were Baron An. 348. §. 33. and Baronius can find no Precedent for carrying Images in Procession to procure Rain but the Pagan Superstition Baron An. 362. pag. 60. In S. Ambroses time the Virgins Apartment in the Church was not adorned with Pictures or Images but after the Protestant way with Sentences of Holy Scripture Baron An. 377. pag. 327. Theodosius should have excepted the Images of the Saints when he forbad the honouring any Images void of Sense with lighting Tapers offering Incense and Garlands to them Baron An. 392. pag. 562. So that doubtless this is an INNOVATION in their Church and so are many other of their Rites The Pope's Bull to choose a Stranger to be Bishop of a Church whereof he never had been a Member was unknown when Pope Julius condemned this Practice Baron An. 341. §. 17. The Custom of putting the Wafer in the Communicant's Mouth as Baronius confesseth was unknown in this Century when Protestant like they took it into their hands Baron An. 361. p. 2. In S. Augustine's time the People at Rome Fasted on Wednesdays which use they have now left off Baron An. 388. pag. 495. When the Rites of Burial used at Christian Funerals are described by Nazianzen on occasion of the Funeral of Caesarius there is no mention of any Prayers for his Soul for that Superstition was not then allowed Baron An. 368. pag. 179. The carrying a Cross before them in Procession cannot be made out in this Age but by the spurious Acts of Martyrs cited by Metaphrastes Baron An. 398. p. 71. But lest I tire the Reader I will conclude with one or two Instances more to shew the difference between Modern Rome and this Age Their Monks now are not like those of that time but resemble the Messalian Heretics who pretended to Pray continually and never used any labour and claimed all mens Alms as due only to them who said that Marriages might be dissolved seducing Children from their Parents and boasting they were pure from Sin yea wearing Sackcloth that all may see it Baron An. 361. §. 35 ad §. 39. Theodosius made a Law to banish Monks from Cities and oblige them to retire into Desert places Baron An. 390. pag. 537. But the Modern Monks are all for Noble Seats in the best frequented 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 Baron An. 360. §. 27 28. 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