this Council was called by Sylvester and Constantine But they quote falsly for that Sixth Synod puts the Emperor's Name first and though they are no Evidence against Authors living in the time of the Niâ—ene Council yet even this shews they thought the Emperor's Authority was chiefest in this Matter The Notes also cite the Pontifical which they have so often rejected as Fabulous and Sozomen as if they said the same thing But for Sozomen he never names Sylvester but saith Pope Julius was absent by reason of his great Age and the Pontifical only saith It was called by the Consent of Sylvester not by his Authority and indeed it was called by the consent of all Orthodox Bishops Wherefore there is no good Evidence that the Pope did call it But on the other side All the Ecclesiastical Historians do agree That Constantine Convened it by his own Authority and sent his Letters to Command the Bishops to meet at Nice and not one of them mentions Sylvester as having any hand in this Matter Yea to put us out of all doubt the very Council of Nice it self in their Synodal Epistle writ to Alexandria and extant in these very Editors expresly declares That they were Convened by Constantine's Command Which clear and convincing Proofs shew the Impudence as well as the Falshood of the Annalist and Annotator to talk so confidently of the Pope's Authority in this Matter who if he had as they pretend Convened this Council should have summoned more Western Bishops of which there were so few in this Council that it is plain Either Sylvester did not Summon them or they did not obey his Summons Secondly As to the President of this Council and the Order of Sitting in it and Subscribing to it The Preface and Notes falsly affirm That Hosius Vitus and Vincentius were all three the Pope's Legates and Presidents of this Council and vainly think if it had not been so it could not have been a General Council But if this be necessary to the Being of a General Council surely there is some good Evidence of it Quite contrary The Preface to the Sardican Council is of the Editors or their Friends making and so is no Proof Athanasius saith Hosius was a Prince in the Synods but not that he was President of this Synod or the Pope's Legate Cedrenus and Photius are too late Authors to out-weigh more Ancient and Authentic Writers yet they do not say as the Notes pretend That Sylvester by his Legates gave Authority to this Council Yea Photius places the Bishop of Constantinople before Sylvester and Julius even when he is speaking of the Chief Bishops who met at Nice and he is grosly mistaken also because neither of the Popes did meet there Socrates only saith The Bishop of Rome ' s Presbyters were his Proxies and present at this Counoil but hereby he excludes Hosius who was a Bishop from being a Legate and doth not at all prove Vitus and Vincentius were Presidents Sozomen names not Hosius but these two Presbyters as the Proxies of Pope Julius but reckons that Pope himself in the fourth place Though these Notes in citing Sozomen according to their usual sincerity place the Bishop of Rome first and all the other Patriarchs after him Finally They cite the Subscriptions to prove these Three were Legates and Presidents at Nice but Richerius a Learned Romanist saith These Subscriptions are of as little Credit as the Epistle to Sylvester and adds That the placing these Presbyters before the Bishops is a plain Proof That all these Subscriptions were invented in later Ages because the Pope's Legates never did precede any of the Patriarchs till the Council of Chalcedon As for Hosius he had been the Emperor's Legate long before and divers of the Ancients say He was very Eminent in this Council but not one of them affirms that Hosius was the Pope's Legate This is purely an Invention of Baronius but he only proves it by Conjectures 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 and the Notes at last own He sat in the Chief Place yea the Annalist confesseth He acted the part of a Moderator in it 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 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 Hence some and among the rest Pope Foelix in his Epistle to Zeno affirm He was President of this Council Others say The Bishop of Alexandria presided and indeed all the Patriarchs present Sat above all others of the Clergy 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 And Eusebius who was there saith that The Emperor ratified the Decrees with his Seal 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 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 and Labbe's Margin tells us they are Fictions nor dare Baronius own them to be genuine and though Binius cite them for evidence in his Notes yet at some distance he tells us it is evident they are both Corrupted and again he says if they were not both extreme faulty and Commentitious they might be Evidence in this case But Richerius is more Ingenuous and declares That these Epistles are prodigiously salse The Forger of them being so Ignorant as to call Macarius who was then Bishop
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 but Pisanus and Nauclerus later Romish Authors 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 And Binius in his Notes 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 Whereas no Authentic Edition ever had any such beginning Dr. Beveridge gives us Eight several Versions besides the Original Greek which all want it and it is impudently done of Binius to cite Alanus Copus saying That Dionysius Exiguus ' s Version had this beginning since that very Version is printed by Binius himself without any such Preamble 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 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 Russinus and though upon the Fourteenth Canon he says Ruffinus set down the true authentic Canons 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 wherein the aforesaid sorged 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 And Binius treats this great Historian at the same rate But Athanasius expresly saith That Eusebius of Caesarea subscribed the Orthodox Faith Socrates affirms also That he agreed to the Faith of the Nicene Council Pisanus his Greek Author of the History of this Council brings in Eusebius disputing against the Arians 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 among the Records of this Council and the Annotator often cites them to prove the Supremacy and Infallibility because the Roman Church is here
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 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 so that it seems there may be A General approved Council as they style this 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 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 Wherefore this General Council was both called and confirmed by the Emperour Again Constantiâ—s in his Epistle declares It was unreasonable to determine any thing in a Western Council against the Fastern 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 Epistie 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 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 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 § 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 out of Baronius say It was called by the Advice and Authority of Liberius 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 Lucifer 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 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 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 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 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 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 The same Bishops also sent their Legates with Letters to the Western Bishops and
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 We shall only observe that upon one of these Councils the Notes say It is a 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 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 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 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 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 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 Lectoram 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 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 Vniversal 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 Vniversal 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 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 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 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 Stricius 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 Which is a meer Fiction of their own for the words of the Canon shew that these
motion was so fair and so certain a way to find out the truth that the Legates yielded to it as they did also to have another Canon examined whether it were in the Nicene Council or no about the Appeals of the lower Clergy After which they resolve to annex a genuine Transcript of the Nicene Creed and Canons to the Acts of their Synod which concluded with a Letter to Boniface which the Editors had no mind to publish in this place but give it us elsewhere The Sum of it is they tell their honourable Brother that hearing he was in Zosimus place they had writ to him about Apiarius who had now confessed his Faults before them and begged pardon and was removed from officiating in his old Church but allowed to keep his Degree Then for the two Canons pretended to be made at Nice they say they had inserted them in their Acts till the true Copies of the Nicene Council came but if they were not found there they would not be compelled to endure such things as they had no mind to mention nor to suffer such intollerable burdens but they hoped while he was Pope they should not be used with such Insolence or Pride but that they should be dealt with by brotherly Charity adding that they had sent a Copy of their Acts by two of his Legates who might make them known to his Holiness This is the true though brief account of this Famous Council wherein the Roman Church was discovered to aim at Superiority and a usurped Jurisdiction and to practise it to the prejudice of the Faith and the Rights of other Churches Moreover it was here discovered that Rome to cover this injustice and irregularity had corrupted the Canons of the most famous of all Geneneral Councils and cited such Canons out of it as never were made there And now to wipe off this scandal Binius and Baronius stickle vehemently and try all their Art to get St. Peter's Ship off from these Rocks The former publishes long Notes the latter falls from writing History to dispute But all in vain for Binius after he hath falsly told us that it was the Antient Custom for Bishops and Priests to appeal to Rome and for the Africans to desire their Sentences to be confirmed by the Pope Confesses that the Popes Legates cited the Canons of Sardica under the name of those of Nice and that they were not to be found in the Originals of the Council of Nice kept in the other Patriarchal Sees But then he pretends the African Bishops did not as we do charge Zosimus with fraud and forgery I answer that how modestly soever they might speak of this Fact it really was a notorius Imposture and it was sufficient that they proved it to be so and writ plainly to both Boniface and Celestine as the Letters yet extant shew that they would never endure that usurped Power any more which the Popes by virtue of these feigned Canons had exercised And if rejecting Appeals to Rome be making a Schism 't is certain the Africans did not suffer them so long as the face of a Church remained there so that probably that Epistle of Boniface the second writ to Eulalius near an hundred years after may be true and had not been censured by Baronius and Binius but only because it supposes a Church might have Martyrs in it and be a true Church though it utterly disowned all subordination to Rome And I am sure they justifie many Epistles that are less probable if they make for the interest of the Pope Against this Baronius and the Notes Object that there was an Appeal made by an African Bishop of Fussala who for notorious Crimes was put out of his See by St. Augustine and others and it seems Boniface and Celestine both allowed this Appeal and heard his Cause and this these Flatterers of Rome think hapned at this time by the Providence of God But let it be considered that for so notorious a Criminal as this Bishop to appeal at this time is neither any credit to the Pope nor any proof that there were no African Canons at this time to prohibit it for it is likely enough that an ill Man who had no means to shelter himself from the Justice of his own Country but by appealing to those Popes who at that time pretended a Right to receive such Complaints would use that means of Appeal even though it were condemned in Africa So that his appealing doth not prove it was lawful nor that it was not forbid there Besides though St. Augustine writ modestly yet he intimates no more but that some such Sentences as he had passed on this Bishop of Fussala had been passed or approved by the Popes which only prove in Fact that some African Bishops had before this time appealed but he doth not say it was right yea we see the Councils in which he was present condemning it as an usurpation and great injustice ex malis moribus bonae Leges The thing had been practised till the Popes fostering Hereticks and lewd convicted Criminals opened the Eyes of the African Church and made them prohibit them and claim their antient Rights Again upon St. Augustine's Letter it appears the Pope did not proceed to restore this Bishop and it seems when former Popes had taken upon them to restore ejected Bishops they were forced to do it by strong hand even by sending Clerks with Soldiers to execute the Sentence which shews their Authority was not submitted to in Africa And the Bishops in their Letter to Celestinâ— boldly charge him never to send any such again for if they should submit to such proceedings they should be guilty of bringing Secular Violence into the Church of God The Notes go on to charge us Protestants for ignorantly and treacherously insulting over Zosimus as one that attempted to steal a Power to receive Appeals from Africa Whereas the African Bishops themselves prove the Fact And in the second Part I have produced a very antient Scholion which expresly censures these Popes for Imposture as well as Usurpation and I now add that Zonaras above 400 year before the Reformation saith in his Notes upon the Sardican Council That the Bishops of Old Rome from this Canon boasted a right to Appeals from Bishops in all Causes and falsly said it was made in the first Council of Nice which being propounded in the Council of Carthage was found not to be true as the Preface to that Council shows So that neither was this Canon made at Nice nor doth it decree that Appeals shall be made to him from all Bishops but only from those who were subject to him which at that time were almost all those of the West that is Macedon Thessaly Illiricum Greece Peloponesus and Epirus which afterwards were subjected to the Church of Constantinople so that Appeals from thence were to be made to that Patriarch for the future Wherefore we are not
the three Sessions of the first Act was over But there is one notorious falshood both in the Notes and in Baronius which they devise purely in favour of the Pope and to make him seem to have had some Supremacy in this Council For they say that in the very first Action Peter a Priest of Alexandria did read that which Pope Celestine and Cyril writ against Nestorius Whereas the Acts of the Council shew the contrary namely that though Peter did say he had those Epistles of Celestine and Cyril in his hands yet the Council ordered that the Emperors Edict by which they were convened should be read in the first place and it was read accordingly Binius by false translating the Acts saith Peter offered to read these Epistles first but Labbè honestly alters that corrupt Version and saith only he had them in his hands to do with them as the Synod pleased But we see the Synod did not allow them to be read in the first place and afterwards when these Epistles were called for Cyril's Epistle to Nestorius was first read and approved by the whole Synod to be Orthodox not because it was agreeable to the opinion of Celestine whom they do not once name but because it was conformable to the Council of Nice Yea the whole Council had confirmed the Faith of Cyril and unanimously condemned Nestorius before they called upon the Notary to read the Epistle of Celestine Arch-Bishop of Rome So that the matters contained in that Popes Epistle could neither be the sole nor principal Motive to the Council to condemn Nestorius For after the reading this Epistle they also read other Writings of Cyril upon this Subject and then heard the Opinions of the Ancient Doctors Martyrs and Orthodox Fathers recited as also a Collection of the Blasphemies contained in Nestorius his Works and the Epistle of Capreolus Bishop of Carthage declaring his consent to their proceedings After all which they both pronounce and subscribe the solemn Sentence of deposing and excommunicating Nestorius according to the Canons and agreeable to the Decree mentioned in the Letter of Celestine but the Sentence was passed in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ the true and supream President of this Assembly And all this was done before Arcadius Projectus and Philip the Popes Legates came to Ephesus and yet their absence was never objected by Nestorius as if that had invalidated these Acts. Further we may observe that an Oath was given in this Council only upon the Holy Gospels according to the Protestant usage not upon any relicts of the Saints as the practice is now at Rome In the second Action both Baronlus and Binius add a word to the Text and make the Popes Legate call the Pope when he speaks to the Synod vestrum Caput your Head and Baronius bids the Reader observe that Philip the Popes Legate in open Synod professed the Bishop of Rome was the Head of the Cà tholick Church and other Bishops members under this Head But first this word vestrum is forged by Baronius and Binius the Greek having no more than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Labbè hath been so much ashamed of this addition that he leaves out vestro and the sense of the place is that upon the Councils Acclamations by way of approving Celestines Letter as Orthodox Philip gives them thanks that by their Holy Voices they as Holy Members had agreed to an Holy Head he doth not say to their Holy Head yet if he had the whole Synod and the three Legates particularly in a solemn Relation to the Emperor call Cyril the Head of the Bishops here assembled but he would be ridiculous who should thence infer That Cyril was the perpetual Head of the whole Catholick Church yet we may more justly prove that from an Act of the whole Council than Baronius doth the Popes Supremacy from a Rhodomontado of his own Legate who barely said this the Council neither approving nor disapproving of what he said in favour of his own Bishop And no doubt the Orthodox Patriarchs might any of them properly be called by this Title of an Head For Cyril yea Memnon Bishop of Ephesus are so stiled in the Councils Petition to the Emperor to set them at liberty lest the Synod want an Head and all the Bishops of the World lie under an heavy burden of grief for want of their Presidents So that it is plain by these Titles in those days no more was meant than that the Bishops to whom they are applied had some eminent place in the Church and in this General Council not that all or any one who is called an Head had or ought to have any supream standing Jurisdiction in all times over the whole Catholick Church So when the Council calls Alexandria the greater Seat and Jerusalem is called an Apostolical Church and Pope Celestine stiles Cyril an Apostolical Man none of those Churches did ever draw any consequences from these passages that their Bishops were Supream Judges over the whole Catholick Church that absurdity is peculiar to the Parasites of Rome who make this Inference from every Honourable Title that is any where or upon any occasion by way of Complement or seriously bestowed upon the Pope but since others had the same Titles given them upon Occasion it is plain there is no good ground for such Conclusions It is further memorable that when John Patriarch of Antioch would have usurped a Jurisdiction over the Bishops of Cyprus the Council of Ephesus decreed that no Bishop should have or assume any Power over those Provinces which had not been under him or his Predecessors before that time which Decree plainly condemns the Bishop of Rome usurping a Jurisdiction over this Island of Britain since the Ephesine Council because it was not under any of the Popes either then or of many years after Finally we may note that John Patriarch of Antioch being secretly a favourer of Nestorius would not joyn with Cyril or Celestine in condemning him but held a separate Council with such Bishops as were of his party and there they Excommunicated and Deposed Cyril and Memnon with all that joyned with them On the other side the lawful general Council Excommunicated John of Antioch and his accomplices and afterwards upon his Repentance Cyril declares he restored him to Communion upon the terms prescribed by the true Council of Ephesus Now if the Pope of Rome had then been known and believed to be the supreme head of the Catholick Church and the only infallible Judge in matters of Faith how could the Bishop of Antioch so much as pretend to Condemn that side on which Celestine was or to reject that Council wherein his Legates sat and voted against him Or how came the Pious Emperor Theodosius and his Officers so openly and so long to abet the party of John of Antioch against that of Celestine and Cyril There
needed but two Arguments viz. those of the Popes Infallibility and Supremacy to have confounded all the pretences of this Schismatical Council and they are not so much as once mentioned Which is a certain Evidence that neither side knew of or believed these Papal Priviledges usurped in later times by that encroaching See Fourthly I come to consider the confirmation of the Acts of this general Council And this the Preface ascribes intirely to the Pope and so do the Notes after the Council upon the word Approved and so doth Baronius in several places But all this is without any just ground For the Preface saith he sent his Legates to confirm the Acts of the Council in his name and cites for this these words out of Celestine's Letter sent to the Synod by these Legates And what you derce◠shall be accounted defined and determined for the tranquility of all Churches But no such words are in that Epistle the Pope saying no more but only that he had sent these Persons to be present at their Acts and to confirm what he had long since decreed To which he hoped their Holiness would assent because they knew that which was determined was for the peace of all Churches The sense of which is that Celestine having long before Condemned Nestorius at Rome he sent his Legates to the general Council to get that Sentence confirmed and doubted not of their assent to it since this casting out of Nestorius the disturber of the Churches quiet would tend to the Peace of the whole Church So that this passage proves that the Council was to confirm the Popes Decree not that he was to confirm their Acts And the Synod in their Letter to Pope Celestine do expresly say That they had judged his Sentence against the Pelagians should remain firm and be valid c. adding that they had sent him the Acts of the Synod and the Subscriptions that he might know what was done But there is not one word desiring him to confirm their Decrees But as to the Emperors the case is clear For the Synod and the three Legates of the Pope address to them to Command that what this General Council had done against Nestorius might be in force being confirmed by their consent and approbation And they Petition the Emperors to make null and void the false Synods uncanonical proceedings against Cyril and Memnon And in another Relation to the Emperors they put both these requests together And Sozomen saith in express terms that the Emperor by his suffrage confirmed their Acts Yea these Testimonies are so express that Binius himself in his Notes at last grants That the Emperor dimissed the Bishops adding this Decree that the Sentence of this Holy General Council against Nestorius should stand in full force So that nothing but the prodigious partiality of Baronius and Binius for the Popes supremacy could put them upon inventing so groundless a Story as that of the Popes confirming the Decrees of this Council which he did no otherwise than all other eminent Orthodox Bishops that is by consenting to their Acts and applauding them afterwards § 2. Some other scattered passages there are which we will briefly put together here before we conclude this discourse The Preface boasts much of the words of Firmus Bishop of Caesarea and cites them thus that the Synod had followed that which Celestine had prescribed and being compelled by his Authority had passed Sentence on Nestorius and his Opinion and a little after Firmus his words are otherwise cited in the same Preface viz. That Celestine had prescribed a certain Rule for this business which the Council following observing diligently the form of the Canons they had inflicted the Canonical and Apostolical Judgment upon him and hence they infer that the Pope had commanded the Eastern Bishops to Decree over again and execute his Sentence against Nestorius Yea Baronius is so bold as to affirm That Celestine sent his Legates not to subject the Cause of Nestorius to a new Examination but only to see his Sentence Executed and that neither did he allow the Council any more than only to Execute his Decree nor did this general Council Arrogate any thing to it self but to Act according to his Sentence According to which account this Council of Ephesus was a mear mock Assembly and all these Bishops no more than Officers under the Pope to put his Decrees in Execution But that this is most notoriously false appears first from their false citing of the words of Firmus who truly quoted saith thus The Apostolical seat of Celestine formerly gave his suffrage and set a Pattern in this business And a little after which we also following have put in force that Form decreeing both a Canonical and Apostolical judgment against him The sense of which is this That whereas the Pope in his Roman Synod had condemned Nestorius unless he repented in ten days this general Council approving of that Sentence had upon Nestorius his refusal to appear after divers admonitions condemned him also So that he was now not only censured by one Apostolical See but canonically also by all the Bishops of a general Council And that this is the Sense is evident from the words of the Synod it self in the Preface to the Sentence by them pronounced being convinced by divers proof that Nestorius holds impious Opinions we are forced by the Canons and the Epistle of Celestine our Fellow-Minister even with Tears to come to this severe Sentence against him c. We see they name the Canons first and before Celestine's Epistle as laying an obligation upon them so to proceed and they call the Pope their Fellow-Minister nor was it his Authority but his having proceeded according to the Canons that laid the necessity upon this great Council to follow his Example and imitate the Pattern he had set them For nothing is plainer than that the Council did always intend to examin this Cause over again and for that reason they cited Nestorius and read first the Letters of Cyril and then of Celestine and after a full hearing both of the Fathers Opinions and of the Blasphemies collected out of Nestorius his Writings finding him finally obstinate they pronounce Sentence on him not in the Popes name but thus Our Lord Jesus Christ whom he hath Blasphemed by this Holy Council Decrees that Nestorius shall be deprived of his Episcopal dignity and shall be excluded out of the Communion of Bishops This certainly was an Original Decree in the name of the General Council and by the Authority they derived from Christ by which they gave force and validity to the Sentence formerly pronounced by the Pope and his Roman Council which had signified nothing against his Equal a Patriarch of the Eastern Church over whom he had no jurisdiction if it had not been thus confirmed So that it is a strange extravagance to
Legates from this Council Anatolius being by Dioscorus advanced to the See of Constantinople in the room of Flavianus Leo had great reason to fear he was infected with the Heresie of Eutyches and therefore he very carefully sent three Legates to Constantinople to inform him whether Anatolius were Orthodox and to desire a General Council might be called by the Emperor and in Italy if he pleased as his Letter imports in the mean time if we may trust the Acts of one of these Legates coming out of the Vatican Anatolius calls a Council at Constantinople and in the presence of the Popes Legates owns himself Orthodox receives Pope Leo's Letter to Flavianus and condemns Eutyches and Nestorius and this the Editors publish with the Title of a Council at Constantinople Now though their own Author of the Vatican expresly says that Anatolius called this Council yet both Baronius and the Notes in the same page daringly affirm that the Popes Legates commanded all the neighbouring Bishops to meet in this Council Which is as false as that these Legates were sent to restore the lapsed Oriental Church and that both Theodosius and Anatolius and all the Eastern Bishops in all these Transactions owned the Pope to be the Supream Head of the Church These things are only to be found in Baronius his Inferences but no Author or Record of these proceedings hint any such thing The Legates chief business was to petition the Emperor for a General Council and it was usual when any new Patriarch was advanced that he should write an account of his Faith to all the other Patriarchs and Anatolius having been justly suspected was obliged to do it something more solemnly for Leo's satisfaction CHAP. III. Of the Council of Chalcedon being the Fourth General Council BEING to discourse of the Fourth General Council at Chalcedon we must observe that besides the partial Preface before it and the fallacious Notes after it published by the Editors the Acts of it are divided into three parts The first containing the Epistles and other Writings precedent to the Council The second containing the several Acts of it The third containing the Epistles and other Transcripts relating to that Council afterwards Of the first part I shall treat very briefly having spoken of divers things there collected in the former Chapter only noting now some of the Frauds and Errors in these preliminary Epistles And first I need not enlarge upon those false Stories in the Preface to this Council which I confuted before Anno 448 and Anno 449. That Eutyches appealed from Flavian ' s Council at Constantinople to the Pope That the Pope immediately became an Enemy to that Heretick That it was the highest Crime in Eutyches to appeal from the Pope to the Emperor Nor will it be necessary to insist upon the Prefacers owning that Theodosius called the Pseudo-Synod of Ephesus at Dioscorus his request and though Pope Leo did labour to hinder it yet he durst not but send his Legates to it who indeed did generously refuse to joyn in the condemnation of Flavianus But whereas the Prefacer pretends Flavianus appealed to the Apostolick See as if the Pope were alone fit to receive Appeals I must note First That de Marca confesses All the rest of the Patriarchs were his open Enemies and therefore he was compelled to apply to the Western Church for help and yet he did not Appeal to the Pope alone and Leo told Placidia that Flavianus Appealed not only to the Apostolick Throne but to all the Bishops of those parts and Leo saith the same thing in his own Epistles that the Appeal was to all the Churches of those parts and therefore all the Western Bishops joyned with Leo in desiring a Council might be held in Italy Which was when they were met in Council at Rome and had no doubt declared their dislike of Dioscorus's proceedings but it sufficiently confutes the Prefacers boast of Leo and his Councils rescinding the Acts of this Ephesine Pseudo-Synod as if that had been sufficient to null all that was done there because if the Pope in that Council of Rome had sufficient Authority to have abrogated the Acts of Ephesus there was no need for them to desire a greater Council to re-examine this matter or for Leo as the Preface owns to engage the Western Emperor his Mother and his Empress to write to Theodosius to suffer the Transactions at Ephesus to be heard over again But Theodosius having called that Synod by his own Authority and being persuaded by Eutyches his Party that the proceedings in it were regular would not be prevailed on by any importunities to grant this request but he dying soon after and Marcian by marrying Pulcheria Sister and Heir to Theodosius coming to be Emperor consented to call a General Council but not as the Pope desired in Italy but in the East where the Controversie began and where by the Ancient Canons it was to be decided Which suffices to discover all those falshoods that are in that part of the Preface which concerns the things before this General Council In the Preleminary Epistles and Edicts which constitute the first part of the Council of Chalcedon we may observe many of the Titles of the Epistles are corrupted by Roman Parasites So in the first Epistle of Flavianus the true reading is to Leo Arch-Bishop of the elder Rome but they have made it Pope c. In Flavians second Epistle to Leo the Latin Copies leave out of the Title and Fellow minister So again Pope is put into the Latin Copy instead of Arch-Bishop in a Letter of Leo's to the Monks at Constantinople And in Leo's Epistle to Theodosius in the Latin for Leo Bishop there is put in these absurd words Leo Pope of the Catholick Church of the City of Rome And in his Epistle to the second Synod at Ephesus the Latin leaves out these Material Expressions to his beloved Brethren in the Lord greeting To conclude the Greek Title owns that Leo and his Roman Synod petitioned for a Council in Italy the Latin leaves this out though the body of the Letter do expresly declare that request Now these are plain Instances how little Credit is to be given to the Latin Copies of this Council and especially to these Titles which the Popes Flatterers have frequently corrupted and altered them from the modest Style used in those days And hence we may gather how frivolously Baronius argues from the Titles of Pope Leo's Epistles wherein he stiles himself Bishop of the Roman and of the Universal Church that the Popes then did use the style of Universal Bishop though St. Gregory expresly denies that ever any of his Predecessors used that profane new and proud Title but the Annalist makes bold to give Gregory the Lie meerly on the credit of these corrupted and fictitious Titles prefixed by forging Parasites for Leo's usual Inscription was
And it appears that the principal right over Ephesus was in the Patriarch of Constantinople whence it was pleaded by the Friends of Bassianus that Proclus of Constontinople who had the right received him to Communion And Stephen urges that Flavianus of Constanstinople expelled him afterwards And therefore it is remarkable that in the twefth Action where the Sentence was to be pronounced Anatolius Bishop of Constantinople declares his Judgment before the Popes Legates and is always named before them in all that Session where a Cause was to be decided concerning a Church which was specially under his jurisdiction by which it appears the principal Person in the deposing of Bassianus was the Patriarch of Constantinople who probably desired the other great Patriarchs concurrence for the better credit of his Sentence Moreover it is to be noted that though Pope Leo favoured the cause of Stephen and writ an Epistle in his behalf mentioned in the Council The Popes favour did him no service for his Cause was tried over again and he deposed by this general Council as well as Bassianus and this by the consent of the Popes Legates who notwithstanding their big words did not believe it unlawful for a general Council to contradict a determination of the Popes The Thirteenth and Fourteenth Actions concern only the Causes of private Bishops who had complained to the Emperor not to the Pope of injury done them and the Emperor appointed them to be finally determined by the Council and so the Bishop of Nichomedias's Jurisdiction was cleared and the Bishop of Nice ordered to be content only with the honour of a Metropolitan And in the fourteenth Action Athanasius was setled in the Bishoprick of Perrhaea and Sabinianus who claimed it ordered to keep the honour of a Bishop and to be maintained out of the Profits of that Church as the Patriarch of Antiooh should direct Nothing is remarkable in them but only that the Lay Judges pronounce the Decree and not the Popes Legates and then the Synod consent The Fifteenth Action contains the Canons of this General Council for Ecclesiastical Discipline three of which were recommended to the Fathers by the Emperor to be formed into Canons So that in obedience to the Emperor they were obliged to make some Ecclesiastical Rules And one of these is the fourth Canon which decrees that all Monks every where shall be subject to the Bishop of that Diocess wherein their Monastery is built which being a genuine Canon of a General Council not objected against by the Popes Legates it is somewhat strange that the Modern Popes have no regard to it but daily and openly break it in defiance of the Primitive Discipline by exempting all Monasteries from due subjection to their own Bishop and this meerly out of policy to make the Monks intirely depend upon the Pope and serve his interests The ninth Canon ordains that the Causes betwen Clergy-men shall be tried before their own Bishop and not in Secular Courts and if a Bishop have a complaint against his Metropolitan he shall go to the Primate of the Diocess or appeal to the See of Constantinople Which Canon Pope Nicholus resolved to force into his interest and so ridiculously expounds the Primate of the Diocess is meant the Bishop of Rome who is Primate of all Dioceses Turrian as boldly expounds it the Primate of the universal Diocess And Binius in his Notes will have the word to signifie the Prince of the Christian Diocess But all these feigned additions and forced glosses will not help them because the Canon gives leave to the Party injured to complain either to the Bishop of Constantinople or to the Pope at his own choice which sets that Patriarch upon equal ground with him of Rome But the Original Word signifies an Order of Bishops below a Patriarch but above a Metropolitan and the Canon expresly limits Appeals either to be made by these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Primates who had Jurisdiction over the Province or to the Patriarch of Constantinople which shews that this Council never thought of any Right that Rome then had to receive Appeals from all parts of the World And if any question why the Pope is not here named at least for the Western Churches Appeals as well as the Patriarch of Constantinople for the Eastern I take the true reason to be the absence of the Popes Legates from this Session consisting only of Oriental Bishops for which reason they modestly refused to decree any thing concerning Discipline in the West leaving affairs there to proceed according to parity of Reason We may add that the Latin Version of the sixteenth Canon hath put in the word confitentes into the Body of the Canon which is not in the Original but Labbè leaves out this corruption But that which hath occasioned the greatest Controversie is the twenty eighth Canon wherein this Council confirms the Decrees of the Fathers and the second Council of Constantinoples Canon about the Priviledges of that See For as the Fathers had given the See of Rome its priviledges because it was the Imperial City for the same reason the second General Council gave like honour to the See of Constantinople and would have it also even in Ecclesiastical Affairs to be advanced to the second place And they order that the Bishop of Constantinople should ordain and have a Jurisdiction over all the Metropolitans of the Dioceses of Pontus Asia and Thrace The Modern Romanists do all they can to suppress or baffle this Canon The Editors put a Note before it that it is not in their Greek Manuscripts but that is no wonder since it hath been long the design of their Church to conceal this Canon but that such a Canon was really made at Chalcedon is apparent not only from the sixteenth Action where it was read at large and allowed by the whole Council and confirmed by the Lay-Judges notwithstanding the opposition of the Popes Legates But it is also found in all the Greek Collectors cited in Photius his Nomo-Canon writ above 900 year ago and is also extant in that old Latin Interpreter who put out the Canons before Dionisius exiguus that is soon after the year 500 So that there is no doubt but this Canon was really made at Chalcedon Yet Gratian would not cite it under the name of a Canon of Chalcedon but quotes it out of the sixth General Council wherein there are almost the same words but his old Editions which were in use while the Roman Primacy was setting up had grosly corrupted the main words of it and instead of the affirmative etiam in rebus Ecclesiasticis non secus ac illam extolli c. it was in him non tamen in rebus Ecclesiasticis magnificetur ut illa which quite alters the sense and makes it seem as if the Council had not spoken of any Ecclesiastical Priviledges whereas they speak of no other but
and priviledges granted by the Council of Chalcedon So that the Cardinals Inferences grounded on supposing that Leo exercised jurisdiction over and took away the Priviledges from Anatolius are not only weak but very absurd He supposes Acacius was the Enditer of an Edict of Leo the Emperor touching the Priviledges of the See of Constantinople and then harangues upon his Ambition and severely taxeth his Pride But he brings no proof but his own conjecture that Acaoius did procure this Edict Yet if he did it only confirms the ancient Priviledges of that See and those it was then in possession of and if this make him appear proud as Lucifer as the Cardinal intimates How many Edicts with ten times loftier Stiles have the Popes procured or forged to set up and support their Supremacy Yet we find no censures of them nor no inferences but in their commendation It is a false supposition that Acacius was stirred up by the Letters of Pope Simplicius to oppose the Heretical attempts of the Usurper Basiliscus For as we have proved before Simplicius flattered this Tyrant at the same time when Acacius moved by his own Zeal for the Catholick Faith opposed him But it is the Cardinals design to make all good Deeds owe their original only to the Popes and to blacken all that Acacius did because he would not truckle to the Papal Chair Otherwise when Basiliscus doth no more but restore the Rights that Constantinople had before his time as the words of the Edict shew and Theodorus Lector affirms nothing but that the Rights of that See were restored why should it be a Crime in Acacius to procure this Confirmation from Basiliscus I dare say Baronius thinks it no fault in Boniface to get the Primacy of Rome established by Phocas a Bloodier Tyrant and greater Usurper than Basiliscus A little after upon the bare Affirmation of an interested and partial Pope he saith Acacius governed the Eastern Provinces by a power delegated from the Pope and upon this supposition he explains the lapsed Asian Bishops Supplication to him as if it was on the account of his being the Popes Legate But nothing can be falser for if Acacius would have submitted to such a Delagation the Popes and he had never fallen out so that nothing is more certain than that he ever despised such a delegated power and exercised jurisdiction over those Asian Bishops by an Authority granted him by Councils and Imperial rescripts That is by as good right as the Pope had in Italy Another false supposition is that Timothy the Orthodox Bishop of Alexandria sent the Petition of such as had fallen in the time of his heretical Predecessors to Rome to beg Pardon and to desire they might be readmitted into the Church and thence he infers That the absolution from the crime of Heresie was wont to be reserved to the Pope A Note so false and absurd that we must suppose those Millions of Hereticks which on their repentance were absolved all the World over in all Ages without consulting the Pope were not rightly absolved if this were True But he builds it on a Rotten Foundation The Letter of Simplicius whence he deduces it saying no more but that this Timothy of Alexandria had sent him a Copy of this Petition to shew upon what terms he had readmitted them to the Communion of the Church and the Pope thought his proceedings were unexceptionable But there is not a word of their desiring a Pardon from Rome or of the Popes granting it much less of that Patriarchal Church of Alexandria's wanting power to reconcile its own Members which was setled on it by the Council of Nice as amply as the Roman Churches was Soon after he supposes no Election of a Patriarch of Alexandria or Antioch was good and valid unless it were confirmed by the Pope Now he draws this consequence from a Letter of Simplicius which only says that upon Zeno the Emperors charging John Talaia the elect Bishop of Alexandria with Perjury who had endeavoured to get the Pope to own his Communion Simplicius would not confirm him upon so eminent a Persons objection Which confirming signifies no more than the Popes giving him Communicatory Letters as to an Orthodox Bishop which was requisite for every Patriarch to grant to any New-Elected Patriarch as well as the Pope And that it signifies no more is plain from hence because though afterwards this John's election was approved at Rome yet that confirmation did not make him Bishop of Alexandria So that a Papal confirmation in those days gave no Bishop a Title and was no more but a Testimonial of their Communicating with him at Rome and judging him Orthodox And John Talaia desired such a Confirmation as this from Acacius as well as from the Pope as Liberatus affirms and the miscarriage of those Letters it seems was one reason why Acacius opposed his Election He reckons up a great many things in his opinion grievous Crimes done by Zeno the Emperor but that saith he which is more odious than all the monstrous wickednesses is that an Emperor should establish a Decree about matters of Faith Now this is all on supposition that Princes are not to meddle in the setling the True Religion But if he look into Sacred or Ecclesiastical Story he shall find nothing hath been more usual than for the most Religious Princes to confirm the true and condemn false Religions and therefore if this Uniting Edict of Zeno were Orthodox of which we do not now dispute the making it was no Crime as all The next Year he repeats the Story of John Talaia his appealing to the Pope and because in this Age they have made him the Supreme Judge over the whole Church Baronius saith he appealed to him as to the lawful Judge But Liberatus out of whom he hath the Story shews he applyed to the Pope only as an Intercessor and persuaded him to write to Acacius in his behalf And indeed the Popes definitive Sentence in those days would have done him no good Wherefore he only desired he would use his interest in Acacius to reconcile him to the Emperor but all in vain Which shews that the Eastern Church did not then believe the Pope was a lawful Judge in this Case It is a bold stroke under such a Pope as Simplicius who submitted to the Eastern Emperors who in Baronius Opinion were Schismaticks and to the Arrian Gothic Kings in Italy and who could purge his own City from Heresie but connived at the Arrians who possessed neer half Rome for the Historian to brag that the Popes Majesty and Authority shined as bright as under Constantine or Theodosius and as vain a boast that their Universal Power was as great under Pagan persecuting Emperors as at any other time For he never hath nor never can make this out and the History of all Ages shews that the Popes power was very inconsiderable at first and
and yet he makes no remark of any Judgment on him There are many Evidences that Baronius did not understand Greek and one instance of it is that when he had named the Heretical Bishop of Antioch Petrus Cnapheus that is in Greek Peter the Fuller he adds of his own idemque Fullo nuncupatus est the same Man is called also Peter the Fuller That Baronius is mistaken as to Ambrosius Aurelianus who was saluted Emperor in Britain both as to the person and time is made evident by our learned Country man Archbishop Usher To whom the Reader is referred for a more exact account of that famous Man It is very impertinent in Baronius to upbraid the Reformed Christians of these days with the miraculous Confession of the Orthodox in Africa whose Tongues being cut out by the cruel Arrians they still spoke plainly and owned the true Faith For we confess the same Faith that they did and have the same and no more Sacraments But though these Bishops did then say they held the Faith that then was held in the Roman Church that belongs not to the present Romanists who have added new Articles to their Creed new Sacraments and set up many new Objects for Worship So that if those African Martyrs and Confessors were now alive they would no more own these than they did the Vandals The censure of Nicephorus who lived in a superstitious Age and the Fictions devised in the second Nicene Council to support Image-worship are no way credible Xenaias if ever there were such a Man was not the first who said the Images of Christ and the Saints were not to be adored and it seems by his affirming that Worship in Spirit and Truth was only acceptable to Christ that he had Read the holy Scripture more considerately than those at Rome now who overlook the second Commandment and many other places which expresly condemn their Idolatry So that for ought appears from any Author of his time now extant this Xenaias was an Orthodox Christian however in this point Baronius hath missed Binius and others touching the Age of Faustus the Semi-pelagian as also the time of the two Councils in France relating to his Opinions But these and some other Errors are learnedly and acurately corrected by the famous Vossius in his Pelagian History to which I refer the Reader for his own satisfaction How often doth our Annalist censure the Eastern Emperors and Patriarchs for tolerating Hereticks How many dreadful Judgments in his way of interpreting Providence doth he note came upon them for this single Crime Yet here we have an Heretical Emperor tolerated all his Reign for 17 year together and his name allowed in the Dypticks by many Successive Popes for near 30 year after his death Surely he will not own so many Infallible Guides before Hormisda were ignorant of Zeno's Heresie and if they did know it their fault in tolerating him and owning his Memory is much greater How much so ever therefore he would magnifie his Roman Bishops care of the Catholick Faith when Truth comes out the Bishops of Constantinople in this Age did more Service to the Faith than the Popes and Euphemius threatned Anastasius the Emperor into professing the right Faith while Foelix flattered him which is a good reason why the pious Eastern Bishops chose to communicate with the Patriarchs of Constantinople rather than with the Popes while the Churches were divided It seems the Emperor Anastasius in a controversie about the Sense of the Council of Chalcedon falsly thought to procure Peace by imposing silence both on the Catholicks and Hereticks And he is censured for this vain hope But in a like case that happened afterward Pope Vigilius also decreed as he saith both sides should keep silence and this he calls a Prudent care to preserve the Church from danger So that Baronius makes that to be praise-worthy in a Pope which is a grievous Crime in any Body else Such partiality is very unbecoming in any Writer but chiefly in an Historian He gives it us as an ingenious Argument of Pope Gelasius That the cause between him and Acacius could not be judged at Constantinople where the same persons were Enemies Witnesses and Judges But this Pope aiming at his Adversary like an unskilful Fencer hits himself For this is a very strong Reason why Acacius his Cause should not be judged by the Pope an Enemy a Witness and a Judge When a most pious Bishop the main support of the Catholick Cause was deposed and banished viz. Euphemius the Annalist saith he deserved to be abdicated by Gods just Judgment for not obeying the Popes in abdicating Acacius his Name and he pretends the Fathers say there can be no Confessors or Martyrs out of the Roman Churuh Whereas Cyril the Monk cited by our Historian saith Euphemius was impiously deposed from his See and exclaims against the wicked injustice of this Fact which this Mans prejudice makes him call Gods just Judgment But God doth not punish Men for that which is no fault and it was none in Euphemius not to submit to the Pope's most unjust claim of a Superiority over his Church which had been exempted by two General Councils from all subjection and advanced to the second place among the Patriarchs As for his other assertion no Father of credit can be produced that did appropriate Martyrdom or Confessorship to those in Communion with Rome Yea this very Age produced a great many Bishops and holy Monks such as Elias Daniel Stylites St. Sabas c. who did not communicate with the Pope but took part in this contest with Euphemius who then were and still are even by Baronius called Martyrs and Consessors Yea the Cardinal himself asserts that those who were slain or suffered any thing in a petty contest at Rome meerly about the choice of a Pope were Martyrs and Confessors though no Article of Faith came into the dispute And doubtless he cannot rob these Eastern Martyrs and Confessors who suffered by Hereticks only for the true Faith of their deserved Titles In like manner he uses Paschasius a learned and pious Roman Deacon who never separated from the Catholick Church but when two ambitious Candidates scandalously strove for the Papal Chair he chanced to take the less fortunate side And this he counts dying in Schism and without any Authority takes it for granted that he repented of it before his death because otherwise he thinks it was impossible he should be saved The ground of these remarks is an idle Legend out of the fabulous Dialogues ascribed to St. Gregory But the Principles of making it Schism and a mortal Sin to mistake in a Popes Election are his own To conclude this sort of observations it is very hard that Symmachus should long expect Letters from Anastasius the Emperour more majorum when the controversie was yet scarce decided who was Pope he or
before And the 7th Epistle intimates that Contumeliosus a French Criminal Bishop whose Cause was decided by Pope John had appealed again to Agapetus which shews a Papal Decree was not decisive But either the Pope or this Letter hath had ill Luck because it contains in the decretal part a flat contradiction both forbidding and allowing this Bishop to say Mass wherefore if we do not reject them we may throw them by as very inconsiderable Once more the Editors abuse us with their old Forgery of Exemplar Precum their Corrupt rule of Faith which cannot without the highest impudence be put upon Justinian and they confess here the Consuls are mistaken a whole year yet they presume to mend it and obtrude it for genuine And Baronius would have us believe Justinian did now repeat this profession of his Faith upon the falsest and slightest conjectures that can be imagined § II. The Council of Constantinople about the deposition of Anthimius and the Condemnation of Severus and his followers was held as Binius confesses in the general Title after Agapetus his death and as oft as this Council mentions him he is called of happy Memory Yet in the Title on the Top Binius saith It was held under Agapetus and Mennas which absurdity of a Council being held under a dead Pope moved Labbè to say it was under Mennas The History of this Council may be had from Du-Pin But the Remarks on those things in it which either condemn the Errors or savour of the Forgeries of Rome are my business Wherefore I will first make some general observations on the whole Secondly consider the depravations in the Acts. Thirdly examine the falshoods in the Notes First This Council was called to re-examine and confirm the Sentence of Pope Agapetus and it consisted all but five of Eastern Bishops to whom Justinian sent this Sentence for their Approbation And Agapetus himself in a Letter writ a little before his death desires the Eastern Bishops to signifie to him That they did approve of the judgment of the Apostolical Seat Which shews that neither the Emperor the Pope nor this Council did then take the Bishop of Rome to be the sole nor highest Judge Secondly Mennas the Patriarch was the President of this Council and sat above and before those five Bishops which the Annalist and Annotator say were the Legates of Agapetus and the Representatives of the Roman Church Thirdly it is certain the Emperor Justinian convened this Council by his own sole Authority for every Action owns They met by his Pious Command and that his care had gathered this Holy Synod together And it is as certain that he only could and did confirm it for Mennas the President having heard the Synods Opinion desires the Emperor may be acquainted with it Because nothing ought to be done in the Church without his Royal Consent and Command And he finally did confirm their Decree by a special Edict which made it valid So that this Council utterly confutes the Popes pretended right to convene all Councils for which in this Age nothing but Forged evidence is produced Fourthly Though Baronius and also Binius do affirm that Agapetus did both depose Anthimius and chuse Mennas neither of them is true if they mean the Pope did it by his own Authority for before the Council Justinian as this Synod often declares did assist Agapetus and made the Holy Canons Authentic in deposing Anthimius And because he thought it was scarce yet Canonically done he gets the Sentence against him confirmed by this Council As for Mennas he was only consecrated by the Pope who in his own Letter saith Mennas was elected by the favour of the Emperor and the consent of the chief Men the Monks and all Orthodox Christians yea the Council declares the Emperor chose him by the general suffrage So that these are false pretences designed to set up a single Authority in the Pope unknown to that Age. Secondly In the Acts of this Council there are divers instances of the hand of a Roman depraver The Title of the Monks Petition as Binius Margen saith is not in the Greek yet he hath it both in Greek and Latain d and so hath Labbè But it must be the addition of a Later Hand the Greek being the Original it is full of great swelling Words applied to Agapetus alone But the Text speaks to more than one Do not ye suffer O ye most blessed Which ye O most blessed defending receive ye our Petition and generally it runs in the plural number So that it was addressed to the Pope with other Bishops The like corruption we meet with also in the Letter of the Eastern Bishops where the Title now is only to Agapetus but the Text speaks to more than one yea where the Greek is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Latin Version of Rome changes it into Beatissime and Sanctissime adding Pater Which shews the Forgers Fingers have been here The aforesaid Petition of the Monks mentions an Image of Justinian abused by the Hereticks The Greek calls it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Image of that Servant of God The Roman Version is imaginem Dei veri The Image of the true God As if these Heriticks had been Iconoclasts before that controversie was heard of In the Bishops Letter the Greek reads 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies by open force and secret fraud For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a Warlike Engine to batter with The Translator dreams of Manichaean Errors which are nothing to the purpose here In the Epistle of the Syrian Bishops to Justinian the Greek saith The Pope deserved to follow the Emperors pious Footsteps and so Labbè reads it in the Latin But in Binius for fear this should look mean we have it Vestra pia vestigia digna facienti The Title of Hormisda's Epistle to Epiphanius is corrupted in Latin by the addition of these words which are not in the Greek wherein he delegates to him the power of a Vicar of the Apostolical Seat in receiving Penitents Which is confuted by the Epistle it self which speaks of the Church of Constantinople not as subjected but united to the Roman and doth not command but desire Epiphanius to joyn his care and diligence to the Popes as they now had one friendship both in Faith and Communion yea Hormisda promises to act by the same measures which he recommends to Epiphanius Baronius hath another corruption of his own in a Letter from the Monks of Hierusalem and Syria for where they desire Justinian to cut off all that do not communicate with the universal Church of God and the Apostolical Seat He leaves out the universal Church and puts in nothing but the Apostolical Seat In the same page he cuts off Mennas Title before the Sentence be pronounced viz.
having any Legantine power from Agapetus and I shall shew presently that before this Council rose there was a new Pope chosen who should have renewed their Commission to make it valid but did not So that they must suppose the dead and the living Pope to have supream Authority both at once Who can swallow these gross Fictions Again Mennas and the Council declare That Pope followed the Canons in allowing Anthimius time to come in and Repent and therefore they followed him but Binius Notes turn this and say That Agapetus commanded the Synod to use this mercy But it is very pleasant to hear Clodius accuse and Binius complain of the Modern Greeks for forging the Title of Oecumenical Patriarch applied to John in his own Council of Constantinople But the Latins are even with them and far out-do them if it were so for they as we have seen have put in that Title for Agapetus into the Latin when it was not in the Greek and have left it out before Menuas name though in the Code it be given him So that they cannot fairly complain Yet after all I can prove by authentic Records of this Age That this Title of Oecumenical Patriarch was given to the Patriarch of both old and new Rome nor is this Council of John corrupted by the modern Greeks and Gregory is certainly mistaken in saying it was not used before his time But the weakest complaint of Forgery and the worst proof of it imaginable is that of Baronius and Binius who pretend the Greeks have fraudulently put the names of Euphemius and Macedonius Bishops of Constantinople before Pope Leo's and the Annalist and Annotator shew shameful ignorance in thinking to prove by the Liturgy of St. Mark that the Pope of Rome was prayed for first in all Churches For though in that Office God is desired to preserve Their most Holy and most Blessed Pope whom he did fore-ordain that his Holy Catholick and Apostolick Church should choose by their common Suffrages and also for their most holy Bishop Yet this being the Office used in the whole Alexandrian Patriarchate must be meant of the Alexandrian Patriarch who was called Pope ever since Athanasius his time and was the Bishop of that Church where these Prayers were made To prove which and shame this illiterate Exposition I shall produce Jac. Goar a rigid Papist the Editor of the Greek Euchologion who thus speaks The Greeks never name the supream Bishop of all he means him of Rome in publick wherefore Urban the Fourth desired of the Emperor Mich. Palaeologus An. Dom. 1263. that is 700 year after this that in their sacred Offices the Popes name should be recited out of the Dypticks with the other four Patriarchs as the first and chiefest sign of their union with Rome For which he Cites Nicetas lib. 5. Here therefore is a proof which proves only the mistake of them that produce it And for the Objection it is a known Custom for all Churches to name their own Patriarchs before those of other Churches so that it is no wonder that at Constantinople Euphemius's name should be placed before Leo's As soon as the Council under Mennas was ended the Decrees were sent to Peter Patriarch of Jerusalem who by the Command of the Emperor called a Council there to confirm them In this year Labbè places the Synod of Auvergne which met as the Preface owns by the precept of King Theodebert there is no Pope mentioned in it Binius places it in the year 541. under Vigilius but Sirmondus proves he was mistaken § 12. As soon as the news of Agapetus his death came to Rome Liberatus saith Sylverius was made Pope by Theodatus the Gothick King Anastasius saith it was after one Month and 28 days vacancy Which is very probable being a sufficient time for the intelligence to come from Constantinople and if we allow that Agapetus died about a Month before Mennas Council this entrance of Sylverius will prove to be while that Council sat Baronius saw this and fearing it would ruin his invention of the Western Bishops there being Agapetus his Legates he blunders the time of Sylverius's Election and though he reject Anastasius account on whom in many less probable Reports he often relies Yet he will not fix any other time and so leaves it uncertain only in general he and Binius say he was elected in the end of this year which cannot be because Agapetus certainly died in the Spring and it required no long time for the News to come from Constantinople As to this Sylverius it is certain from Liberatus he was the Son of Pope Hormisda and Baronius with Binius only conjecture that he was lawfully begotten they would prove it indeed by this Argument That otherwise he would have been irregular and the Roman Clergy would not have chosen him But they forget that his Election was not regular For Theodatus was in haste and would not stay for that but forced the Roman Clergy to subscribe having got money of Sylverius as their own Pontifical relates Baronius calls this fear and vile submission of the Roman Clergy their Clemency and a worthy Example yet confesses this Pope deserved to be kept out However being got into the sanctifying Chair he magnifies him but very unjustly for Procopius a creditable Author who was soon after at Rome with Bellisarius tells us Sylverius first swore to keep the City of Rome for Vitiges the Gothick King And so soon as Bellisarius came before it he was the principal instrument to persuade the Romans who had sworn with him to deliver up that City Baronius would conceal this Perjury and therefore though he cite Procopius here yet he saith no more than that Vitiges admonished the Pope and Senate to keep faithful to the Goths who indeed had been extreamly civil to the Roman Church and though they were Arrians yet as their Enemy Procopius tells us they had such a reverence for the holy places that they did not hurt the Churches of St. Peter or St. Paul yea they gave liberty to the Catholick Priests to serve God in their own way Which confutes the false Reports of their Cruelty in destroying the Churches and Bodies of the Martyrs at Rome mentioned in the Pontifical and in Paulus Diaconus However Sylverius turned once more as Procopius saith and was suspected by Bellisarius to have designed to betray the City of Rome once more to the Goths for which he deposed and banished him and Marcellinus an Author of great credit and of that time saith Sylverius favoured Vitiges and for that cause Bellisarius deposed him from his Bishoprick I know Liberatus a mortal Enemy to Vigilius would have this to be a Calumny invented by Theodora and carried on by Vigilius the succeeding Pope who had promised Bellisarius two Hundred Crowns to get Sylverius ejected and himself admitted and Anastasius
are often put into these Epistles Such is Religiositas for Piety and Universitas for the World in the Decretals of Dionysius such is Miles for a Servant and Senior for a Lord in the Decrees of Pope Pius 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 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 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 the second Epistle of Anacletus and many others but no Christian Writer ever used the Word Patriarch for a Christian Bishop till Socrates Scholasticus who writ An. 442 In like manner we find the Word Apocrisary in Anacletus's first Epistle and also in the second Epistle of Zepherine 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 and in Pope Lucius's Decrees 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 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 where he Orders Primates and Patriarchs to be placed in such Cities as the Heathens of Old had Arch-Flamins in Whereas the Heathensthen had Flamines and Priests in all Cities His third Epistle 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 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 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 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 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 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 or suppose Churches and Altars consecrated long before the Memory of any Man in the Parish 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 Were there in Pope Hyginus time as his Decrees pretend More Churches and larger than the Revenue belonging to them could repair 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 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 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 How could there be Secular Laws forbidding the People to conspire against their Bishop as Calixtus Decretal pretends or how could he mention the Laws of the Roman and Greek Emperors so long before the Empire was divided 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 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 Antherus Epistle charges Bishops in those times with changing their Churches out of ambition and covetousness 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 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 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 Lucius a Martyred Pope makes it a wonder that in his days Churches should be spoiled of their Oblations and Ministers vexed Pope Stephen threatens to make Slaves of Clerks who accuse their Bishop and forbids Lay-men to complain of the Clergy Doth it consist with the poverty of those Ages for Eutychianus to decree That Martyrs should be Buried in Purple or with its charitv for the same Pope to forbid Christians to pray for Hereticks when our Lord bids them pray for their Enemies I should tire the Reader and my self if I
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 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 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 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 Antioch 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 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 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 The Pontifical allows him thirteen Months but the Notes boldly say he was Pope Eight years 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 but the Pontifical allots to him Eleven years only and so doth the Breviary 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 Pontifical tells us did Sacrifice to Idols 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 Misâ—als 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 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 re conciled 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 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
Pope Adrian and that is all the Authority he hath for this feigned Leprosy which Disease no Writer of Credit and Antiquity saith Constantine ever had no not that Malicious Zosimus who raked up all the Odious things against this Emperor he could devise and if ever he had been struck by Heaven with Leprosy no doubt he would have Blazed it abroad with great Pleasure § 10. The Book of Constantine's Munificence is grounded on the Fable of his Baptism and seems to be Forged by the same Hand with Sylvester's Acts So that we ought also to reject it as a Fiction Anastasius who put it out was the Pope ' s Library-keeper and whether he made it or found it in the Vatican that Shop of Lies as Richerius calls it the Credit of it is invalidated by reason no Author of Repute or Antiquity mentions any of these Gifts It says blasphemously Constantine gave a Saviour sitting five foot high so it calls a dead Image But if this were true why did not Adrian cite this in his Nicene Council Or why did this Emperor ' s Sister write to Eusebius Bishop of Coesarea for an Image of Christ when Sylvester could more easily have furnished her and by the way the Notes fraudulently mention this Message but do not relate how severely Eusebius reproved that Lady for seeking after a visible Image of Christ The Annotator also cites Paulinus to prove this Book of Munificence but he writ near 100 years after and though he speak of a fine Church of S. Peter in Rome yet he saith not that Constantine either founded or adorned it Baronius attempts to prove this Book by mear Conjectures by the Forged Acts and by Nicephorus a late Author whom he often taxes for Fictions but he can produce no ancient or eminent Author for it And yet it is certain if Constantine had given so many and so great gifts to the Head City of the World some of the most Famous Writers would have Recorded it Besides the Cardinal himself rejects both the idle Story of S. Agnes Temple attested by a Fiction ascribed to S. Ambrose told in this very Book and the apparent Falshood of Constantine's now burying his Mother in one of these Churches who was alive long after So that by his own Confession there are divers Falshoods in this Book and he had been more Ingenuous if he had owned the whole to be as it really is a Forgery § 11. The Editors now go back to the Council of Arles held as they say Anno 314 And it troubles them much to ward off the Blows which it gives to their beloved Supremacy For it was appointed by the Emperor upon an Appeal made to him by the Donatists to judge a cause over again which had been judged before by Melchiades and his Roman Council the Pope in Council it seems being not then taken to be Infallible 'T is true in the Title which these Editors give us this Council directs their Canons To their Lord and most Holy Brother Sylvester the Bishop and say they had sent them to him that all might know the Pope not excepted what they were to observe So that though in Respect they call him Lord yet they Stile him also a Brother and expect his obedience to their Decrees nor do they as the Notes pretend desire him to confirm these Canons But only require the Pope who held the larger Diocess that he would openly acquaint all with them as their Letter speaks That is as he was a Metropolitan to give notice of these Canons to all his Province which was then called a Diocess and Baronius is forced to point the Sentence salsly to make it sound toward his beloved Supremacy So in the First Canon Pope Sylvester is ordered by this Council to give notice to all of the Day on which Easter was to be observed That is he was to write to all his Neighbouring Bishops under his Jurisdiction about it not as the Notes say That he was to determine the day and by vertue of his Office to write to all the Bishops of the Christian World to observe it The Council had ordered the Day and command the Pope to give notice to all about him to keep it And in the Famous Nicene Council The Bishop of Alexandria living where Astronomy was well understood was appointed first to settle and then to certify the day of Easter yet none will infer from hence that he was the Head of the Catholic Church because he had this Duty imposed on him which as yet is more than the Council of Arles did put upon the Bishop of Rome Again the Notes are very angry at the Emperor for receiving the Donatists appeal from the Pope and his Council which they say Constantine owned to be an unjust and impious thing but they prove this only by a forged Epistle mentioned but now § 5. But it is certain Constantine though a Catechumen which they pretended was impossible at Nice was present in this Council and so he must act against his Conscience if he had thought it unjust and impious to judge in Ecclesiastical Causes And in this Emperor ' s Letter to Ablavius he saith God had committed all Earthly things to his ordering and in that to Celsus he promises to come into Africa to enquire and judge of things done both by the People and the Clergy And indeed Constantine by all his practice sufficiently declared he thought it lawful enough for him to judge in Ecclesiastical matters Finally the Notes say the Bishops met in this Council at the Emperor ' s request Now that shews it was not at the Pope ' s request but indeed Constantine's Letter to Chrestus expresly Commands the Bishops to meet The Notes also out of Balduinus or Optatus or rather from an obscure Fragment cited by him say Sylvester was President of this Council Baronius addeth of his own head namely by his Legates which guess Binius puts down for a certain truth But it is ridiculous to fancy that a pair of Priests and as many Deacons in that Age should sit above the Emperor when himself was present in that Council So that though we allow the Pope ' s Messengers to have been at this Council there is no proof that they presided in it We shall only add that instead of Arians in the Eighth Canon we must Read Africans or else we must not fix this Council so early as An. 314 at which time the Arians were not known by that name § 12. In the same year is placed the Council of Ancyra which the Editors do not as usually say was under Sylvester but only in his time and it is well they are so modest for doubtless he had no Hand in it the Notes confess that it was called by the Authority of Vitalis Bishop of Antioch Balsamon and Zonaras say Vitalis of Antioch Agricolaus of Caesarea and Basil of Amasea were the
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 Balsamon 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 rejected will be convinced that their Church gained by it and consequently invented it They labour to prove the Popes temporal Power granted hereby is both probable and true 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 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 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 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 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 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 and rejects it as a Forgery very justly For Photinus as the Notes confess was not Condemned till long after 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 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 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 but because the Forger had nothing in his Eye but meerly to set off the Grandeur of Rome § 17. We are now come to the First and most famous General Council of Nice wherein the worst and most dangerous of all Heresies was suppressed and yet the pretended Judge of all Controversies and Supreme Head of the Church had so little share in this glorious Transaction that it is very uncertain in what Popes time it was called Sozomen and Nicephorus say it was in the time of Julius Others think it was in Sylvester's time Photius affirms it was in the times of both Sylvester and Julius though unhappily Pope Mark was between them two Yet this Council is introduced by a Preface a la Mode a Rome styled The History of the Council of Nice wherein as well as in the Notes and various Editions of this famous Council all imaginable Artifice is used to abuse the Reader into a belief That Pope Sylvester not only called this Council and presided in it by his Legates but also confirmed it by his sole Authority afterwards For the clearer Confutation of which Falshoods we will consider First The Authority which convened this Council Secondly The President of it with the Order of Sitting in it and Subscribing to it Thirdly The Power which confirmed it Fourthly The number of the Canons Fifthly The true Sense of them Sixthly The Forgeries for Supremacy herein inserted Seventhly The corrupt Editions of the Council it self First As to the Authority convening it The Preface saith Constantine assembled it by Sylvester ' s Authority The Notes affirm it was appointed by the Advice Counsel and Authority of Pope Sylvester and again Pope Sylvester by his Pontifical Authority decreed the celebration of a General Council To prove these vain Brags they cite Ruffinus whose Version of this Council they reject yet he only saith That Constantine convened it by the Advice of the Bishops However this is Advice not Authority and Advice of the Bishops in general not of Sylvester in particular and if any Bishops did give the Emperor particular Advice it was those of Alexandria and Constantinople not He of Rome Secondly They quote the Sixth General Council held 350 years after this of Nice and in other things rejected by the Romanists which saith
By whom it was called Secondly Who presided in it Thirdly Of what number of Bishops it consisted And Fourthly What Authority the Canons of it have First As to the Calling it the Preface falsly states the occasion thereof For it is plain Athanasius did not as that reports leave the whole judgment of his Cause to the Pope nor did he as is there said Fly to Rome as the Mother of all Churches and the Rock of Faith This is the Prefacers meer Invention For Athanasius went to Rome as to the place agreed on by both sides for Arbitrating this matter and the other party so little valued the Pope's decision in his favour that they would neither restore Athanasius nor receive him into Communion upon it which made Julius complain to the Emperour Constans who writ to his Brother Constantius about it but that Letter did not produce this Council as the Preface fully sets out but only procured a fruitless Embassy of three Eastern Bishops to Rome It was the personal Addresses of Athanasius and Paulus Bishop of Constantinople to Constans when they found the Pope had no power to restore them which caused both the Emperours to give order for this Council to meet as Sozomen Socrates and Theodoret affirm And the Bishops in their Epistle do expresly say They were called together by the most Religious Emperours But Baronius fraudulently leaves out this beginning of the Bishops Letter and the bold Writer of the Preface saith This Council was called by the Popes Authority And the Notes offer some Reasons to justifie this Falshood yea they cite the aforesaid Authors who plainly declare it was called by both the Emperours to prove it was called by the Pope but they offer nothing material to make this out 'T is true Socrates saith Some absent Bishops complained of the shortness of time and blamed Julius for it but that doth not prove the Council was called by his Authority only it supposes he might advise the Emperour to make them meet speedily but still that is no sign of full power Secondly As to the President of this Council The Preface saith boldly That Hosius Archidamus and Philoxenus presided in the Name of Julius But first it doth not appear that Hosius was the Popes Legate only as an eminent Confessor he had a chief place in it whence Sozomen saith Osius and Protogenes were chief of the Western Bishops here assembled That is Osius as an ancient Confessor and Protogenes as Bishop of Sardic where the Council was held but as for Archidamus and Philoxenus they are not in the Latin Copies of the Subscribers And Athanasius only saith Julius subscribed by these two Presbyters which shews that Hosius was not the Popes Legate for he subscribed in his own name and that these Presbyters who were his Legates were not Presidents of the Council Thirdly They magnifie the number of Bishops also in this Synod to make it look like a General Council where accounts differ they take the largest and falsly cite Athanasius as if he said it consisted of 376 Bishops and so exceeded the first Council of Nice Whereas Athanasius expresly reckons only 170 who met at the City of Sardica and when many of the Eastern Bishops withdrew there were not one hundred left to pass the Decrees of this Council 'T is true Athanasius affirms that 344 Bishops signed the Decree to restore him but many of these hands were got from Orthodox Bishops who were not at the Council So that this was never counted or called a General Council by any but these partial Romanists for though the Emperour seem to have designed it General at first yet so few came to it and they who came agreed so ill the Eastern Bishops generally forsaking it that it is called frequently A Council of the Western Church and so Epiphanius in Baronius describes it Fourthly The little regard paid to its Canons afterwards shews it was no General Council Richerius a moderate and learned Romanist proves That this Council was not extant in Greek in the time of Dionysius Exiguus so that he and Pope Leo the 4th reckon it after all the Councils of Note The Greeks received not its Canons into their Code and Pope Nicholas Epistle shows that the Eastern Church did not value its Authority only the Popes esteemed it because it seems to advance their power The African Church of old valued this Council as little for a Synod of Bishops there among whom were S. Augustine and Alypius were ignorant of any Sardican Council but one held by the Arians Baronius tries all his art to palliate this matter but after all his Conjectures it is plain it was of no repute in Africa because when two Popes Zosimus and Boniface afterwards cited the Decrees of Sardica as Canons of Nice the Fraud was discovered and when they were found not to be Nicene Canons They would not receive them as Canons of Sardica but flatly rejected them which shews that these African Fathers did neither take this Sardican Synod for a General Council nor for an Authentic Provincial Council And therefore whatever is here said in favour of the Roman Church is of no great weight However the Champions of Rome magnifie the 4th Canon of this Council where in case a Bishop judge that he is condemned unjustly Hosius saith If it please you let us honour the memory of Peter the Apostle and let those who have judged such a Bishop write to Julius Bishop of Rome that so if need be the Judgment may be reviewed by the Bishops of the Province and he may appoint some to hear the Cause c. Now here the Notes talk big and claim a Supremacy and Appeals as due to the Pope by Divine Right But Richerius well observes It is Nonsence to ascribe that to a human Law and Privilege or to the Decree of a Council which was due before to the Pope by the Law of God And we add that Hosius neither cites any Divine Law no nor any precedent Canon or Custom for this but supposes it at the pleasure of this Synod to grant or deny Julius this privilege And yet if it were an express Law this being only a Western Synod doth not bind the whole Catholic Church Besides it is not said The Criminal shall appeal to Rome and have his Cause tryed there but only that the Pope if need were might order the Cause to be heard over again in the Province where it was first tryed and therefore Julius is only made a Judge of the necessity of a Re hearing not of the Cause it self which according to the 5th Canon of Nice was to be decided in the Province where it was first moved And this rather condemns than countenances the modern Popish way of Trying foreign Causes at Rome by Appeal To this I will add an ancient Scholion on this Canon found in some old Copies From this Canon
the Roman Church is much exalted with Pride and former evil Popes producing this as a Canon of Nice were discovered by a Council at Carthage as the Preface to that Council shews But this Canon whatever they pretend gives no more power to Rome than other Canons since it saith not absolutely that any who is deposed any where shall have liberty to appeal to the Pope for at that rate the Sardican Synod would contradict the General Councils it speaks only of him who is deposed by the Neighbouring Bishops and those of his Province and therefore doth not comprehend the Synod of the Primate Metropolitan or Patriarch so that if they be present and the Sentence be not barely by the Neighbouring Bishops the Pope may not re-hear it as this Canon orders And it only concerns those in the West Hosius and the Makers of these Canons being of those parts but in the East this Custom never was observed to this day I shall make one remark or two more and so dismiss this Council The Preface cites Sozomen to prove That Hosius and others writ to Julius to confirm these Canons But Sozomen only saith They writ to him to satisfie him that they had not contradicted the Nicene Canons and their Epistle which calls Julius their Fellow-Minister desires him to publish their Decrees to those in Sicily Sardinia and Italy which of old were Suburbicarian Regions but never speak of his confirming their Decrees Yet in their Epistle to the Church of Alexandria they pray them to give their Suffrage to the Councils determinations Which had it been writ to the Pope would have made his Creatures sufficiently triumph I observe also that upon the mention of the Church of Thessalonica in the 20th Canon the Notes pretend that this Church had an especial regard then because the Bishop of it was the Pope's Legate yet the first proof they give is that Pope Leo made Anastasius of Thessalonica his Legate an hundred years after and hence they say Bellarmine aptly proves the Popes Supremacy But the Inferences are as ridiculous as they are false and they get no advantage either to their Supremacy or Appeals by this Council § 22. The first Council of Carthage was appointed to suppress that dangerous Sect of the Donatists and though it bear the Title of under Julius yet this pretended universal Monarch is not mentioned by the Council or by any ancient Author as having any hand in this great Work which was managed by Gratus Bishop of Carthage and by the Emperours Legates In this Council were made fourteen excellent Canons which possibly the Romanists may reject because they never asked the Popes consent to hold this Council nor desired his confirmation to their Canons and whereas the Editors tell us Pope Leo the 4th who lived five hundred years after approved of this Council we must observe that the Catholic Church had put them into their Code and received them for Authentic long before without staying for any Approbation from the Bishop of Rome Soon after this there was a Council at Milan of which there was no mention but only in the Synodical Letter of the Bishops met at Ariminum An. 359. who say that the Presbyters of Rome were present at it they say not Presidents of it And there it seems Ursacius and Valens two Arian Heretics abjured their Heresie and recanted their false Evidence against Athanasius And either before or after this Synod it is not certain whether they went to Rome and in writing delivered their Recantation to Pope Julius before whom they had falsly accused Athanasius and who was the Arbitrator chosen to hear that Cause and so not as Pope but as a chosen Judge in that case was fittest to receive these mens Confessions Yet hence the Notes make this Inference That since this matter was greater than that a Synod at Milan though the Roman Presbyters were present could dispatch it and lest the ancient Custom of the Catholic Church should be broken viz. for eminent Heretics to abjure their Heresies only at Rome and be received into Communion by the Pope they sent them to Julius that having before him offered their Penitential Letter they might make their Confession the whole Roman Church looking on All which is their own Invention for the Authors from whom alone they have the notice of this Council say nothing of this kind and it is very certain that there was at this time no custom at all for Heretics to abjure at Rome more than at any other place many Heretics being frequently reconciled at other Churches There was also a peculiar reason why these two Heretics went thither and it cannot be proved that this Council sent them so that these are Forgeries devised to support their dear Supremacy and so we leave them Only noting That the Editors are not so happy in their Memory as their Invention for the next Page shews us a Council at Jerusalem wherein many Bishops who had described the Condemnation of Athanasius and therefore no doubt were Arians repented and recanted and so were restored to the Churches Communion without the trouble of going to Rome on this Errant A Council at Colen follows next which they say was in Julius his time and under Julius yet the Notes say they know not the time when it was held only the Bishops there assembled deposed a Bishop for Heresie by their own Authority without staying for the Pope's Advice though they were then about to send a Messenger to Rome to pray for them so little was the Popes Consent thought needful in that Age and perhaps it is in order to conceal this seeming neglect that the Notes after they have approved far more improbable Stories which make for the honour of their Church reject the report of this Message to the Prince of the Apostles as fabulous and we are not concerned to vindicate it The last Council which they style under Julius was at Vasatis or Bazas in France yet the Notes affirm That Nectarius presided in it the time of it very uncertain and the Phrases used in the Canons of it shew it to be of much later date Besides this Council saith The Gloria-Patri was sung after the Psalms in all the Eastern Churches but Jo. Cassian who came out of the East in the next Century saith He had never heard this Hymn sung after the Psalms in the Eastern Churches Wherefore it is probable this Council was celebrated after Cassian's time when the Greek Churches had learned this Custom and yet these Editors place it a whole Century too soon because they would have us think that custom here mentioned of remembring the Pope in their daily Prayers was as ancient as the wrong date here assigned In Labbe's Edition here is added an account of three Councils against Photinus on which we need make no Remarks § 23. Pope Liberius succeeded Julius whose Life with the Notes upon it are
believe yet he elsewhere boldly says Damasus gave it Supreme Authority and the Annotator makes it impossible for any Council to be general unless the Pope or his Legates be there Now he and all others call this A General Council And yet he saith That neither Pope Damasus nor his Legates were Presidents of it nor was he or any Western Bishop in it Whence we learn That there may be a General Council at which the Pope is not present by himself nor by his Legates and of which neither he nor they are Presidents Fourthly As to the Creed and Canons here made the modern Romanists without any proof suppose that Damasus allowed the former and not the later But if he allowed the famous Creed here made I ask Whether it then had these words And from the Son or no If it had why do the Notes say That these words were added to it by the Bishops of Spain and the Authority of Pope Leo long after But if these words were wanting as they seem to confess when they say The Roman Church long used this Creed without this addition then I must desire to know how a Man of their Church can be secure of his Faith if what was as they say confirmed by Damasus in a General Council may be al ered by a few Bishops and another Pope without any General Council As to the Canons Damasus made no objection against them in his time and it is very certain that the Bishop of Constantinople after this Council always had the second place For as the first General Council at Nice gave old Rome the first place as being the Imperial City so this second General Council doubted not but when Constantinople was become new Rome and an Imperial City also they had power to give it the second place and suitable Priviledges Yea the Notes confess that S. Chrysostom by virtue of this Canon placed and displaced divers Bishops in Asia and the 4th General Council at Chalcedon without regarding the dissent of the Popes Legates allowed the Bishop of Constantinople the second place and made his Priviledges equal to those of Old Rome which Precedence and Power that Bishop long retained notwithstanding the endeavours of the envious Popes And Gregory never objected against these Canons till he began to fear the growing Greatness of the Patriarch of Constantinople but when that Church and Empire was sinking and there appeared no danger on that side to the Popes then Innocent the Third is said by the Notes to revive and allow this Canon again by which we see that nothing but Interest governs that Church and guides her Bishops in allowing or discarding any Council For now again when the Reformed begin to urge this Canon Baronius and the Notes say They can prove by firm Reasons that this Canon was forged by the Greeks But their Reasons are very frivolous They say Anatolius did not quote this Canon against Pope Leo I reply 'T is very probable he did because Leo saith He pleaded the Consent of many Bishops that is if Leo would have spoken out In this General Council Secondly They urge that this Canon is not mentioned in the Letter writ to Damasus I Answer They have told us before they sent their Acts to him and so need not repent them in this Letter Thirdly They talk of the Injury done to Timotheus Bishop of Alexandria but his Subscription is put to the Canons as well as the Creed and it doth not appear that ever he or any of his Successors contended for Precedence after this with the Patriarch of Constantinople And that the Modern Greeks did not forge this Canon is plain because Socrates and Sozomen both mention it and the Catholic Church always owned it for Authentic Yea in the Council of Chalcedon it is declared That the Bishop of Constantinople ought to have had the second place in the Factious Synod at Ephesus and he is reckoned in that fourth General Council next after the Pope whose Legates were there and yet durst not deny him the second place in which he sat and subscribed in that order having first had this Canon confirmed at Chalcedon So that all Churches but that of Rome submit to this General Council and they who pretend most to venerate them do despise and reject the Authority of General Councils if they oppose the ends of their Pride and Avarice To conclude Here is a General Council called and confirmed only by the Emperour assembled without the Pope or his Legates decreeing Matters of Faith and of Discipline yet every where owned and received as genuine except at Rome when Interest made them partial and still no less valued for that by all other Churches Which gives a severe Blow to the modern Pretences of their Papal Supremacy and Infallibility The same Year there was a Council at Aquileia in Italy wherein divers Arians were fully heard and fairly condemned Now this Council was called by the Emperour the Presidents of it being Valerian Bishop of Aquileia and Ambrose Bishop of Milan but Damasus is not named in it nor was he present at it in Person or by his Legates though this Council was called in Italy it self and designed to settle a Point of Faith But these Bishops as the Acts shew did not judge Heretics by the Popes Authority but by Scripture and by solid Arguments And they tell us It was then a Custom for the Eastern Bishops to hold their Councils in the East and the Western theirs in the West which argues they knew of no Universal Monarchy vested in the Pope and giving him power over all the Bishops both of the East and West For it was not Damasus but the Prefect of Italy who writ about this Synod to the Bishops of the East Nor did this Council write to the Pope but to the Emperour to confirm their Sentence against Heretics wherefore Damasus had a limited Authority in those days not reaching so much as over all Italy and extended only to the Suburbicarian Regions out of which as being Damasus's peculiar Province Ursicinus his Antagonist for the Papacy was banished by the Emperour Valentinian and therefore Sulpicius Severus calls him not Orbis but Urbis Episcopus the Bishop of the City not of the World and speaking of Italy he saith in the next Page That the Supreme Authority at that time was in Damasus and S. Ambrose To these two therefore the Priscillian Heretics applied themselves when they were condemned by the Council of Caesar-Augusta or Saragosa in Spain in which Country the Sect first began but when they could not get these great Bishops to favour their Cause they corrupted the Emperours Ministers to procure a Rescript for their restitution Now it is strange that this Council of Saragosa should bear the Title of under Damasus and that the Notes should affirm Sulpicius Severus plainly writes thus For if we read Sulpicius as above-cited we shall find that Damasus
Brother even when they Complement him as a great Master and Doctor 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 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 but let it be noted that Aurelius Bishop of Carthage uses the same words of himself a little after 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 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 Epistles are writ by Maximus an 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 Gaâ—ican Church again condemned the Priscillianists and they appealed not to the Pope but to the Emperour Maximus 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 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 shuflling 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 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 Theoplalus 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 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 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 A Synod under Siricius and call poor Socrates a Novatian for barely relating a Matter of Fact concerning the Novatians At this
Fathers did not believe either of them had any Authority over them only they desired their advice joyntly as being both Eminent and Neighbouring Bishops and their prohibiting Appeals shews they knew nothing of the Popes presiding over the Catholic Church § 32. Anastasius was the last Pope in this Century of whom there would have been as little notice taken as of Many of his Predecessors if it had not been his good fortune to be known both to S. Hierom and S. Augustine and to assist the latter in suppressing the Donatists and the former in condemning the Errours of Origen for which cause these two Fathers make an honourable mention of him Yet in the African Councils where he is named with respect they joyn Venerius Bishop of Milan with him and call them Their Brethren and Fellow Bishops As for the qualifications of Anastasius S. Hierom gives him great Encomiums but it must be observed that at this time Hierom had charged Ruffinus with broaching the Heresies of Origen at Rome and he being then at Bethlem could not beat down these Opinions without the Popes help And indeed when Ruffinus came first to Rome he was received kindly by the last Pope Siricius and Anastasius did not perceive any Errours in Ruffinus or Origen till S. Hierom upon Pammachius Information had opened his Eyes and at last it was three years before this Pope could be made so sensible of this Heresie as to condemn it So that notwithstanding his Infallibility if S. Hierom and his Friends had not discovered these Errours they might in a little time have been declared for Orthodox Truths at Rome but Anastasius condemning them at last did wonderfully oblige S. Hierom and this was the occasion of many of his Commendations For this Pope are published three Decretal Epistles though Baronius mentions but two and condemns the first for a Forgery and so doth Labbé It is directed to the Bishops of Germany and Burgundy and yet Burgundy did not receive the Christian Faith till the Year 413 it is also dated with the Consuls of the Year 385 that is Fourteen years before Anastasius was Pope The matter of it is grounded on the Pontifical which speaks of a Decree made by this Pope for the Priests at Rome to stand up at the Gospel which the Forger of this Epistle turns into a general Law and makes it be prescribed to the Germans The Words of it are stollen out of the Epistles of Pope Gregory and Leo yet out of this Forgery they cite that Passage for the Supremacy where the German Bishops are advised to send to him as the Head The second Epistle is also spurious being dated fifteen or sixteen years after Anastasius his death and stollen out of Leo's 59th Epistle As for the third Epistle it is certain he did write to John Bishop of Jerusalem but it may be doubted whether this be the Epistle or no if it be genuine it argues the Pope was no good Oratour because it is writ in mean Latin yet that was the only Language he understood for he declares in this Epistle That he know not who Origen was nor what Opinions he held till his Works were translated into Latin So that any Heretic who had writ in Greek in this Pope's time had been safe enough from the Censure of this Infallible Judge The Notes dispute about the fourth Council of Carthage whether it were under Pope Zosimus or Anastasius but it was under neither the true Title of it shewing it was dated by the Consuls Names and Called by Aurelius Bishop of Carthage who made many excellent Canons here without any assistance from the Pope The 51st 52d and 53d Canons of this Council order Monks to get their Living not by Begging but by honest Labour and the Notes shew This was the Primitive use which condemns these vast numbers of Idle Monks and Mendicant Fryers now allowed in the Church of Rome The hundredth Canon absolutely forbids a Woman to presume to Baptize but the Notes r because this practice is permitted in their Church add to this Canon these words unless in case of necessity and except when no Priest is present Which shews how little reverence they have for ancient Canons since they add to them or diminish them as they please to make them agree with their modern Corruptions In the fifth Council of Cartbage Can. 3. Bishops and Priests are forbid to accompany with their Wives 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is at the time of their being to Officiate but in their Latin Copies it is altered thus according to their own or to their former Statutes which makes it a general and total Prohibition But the Greek words of this Canon are cited and expounded at the great Council in Trullo where many African Bishops were present as importing only a Prohibition of accompanying their Wives when their turns came to Minister which is the true sense of this Canon though the Romanists for their Churches Credit would impose another The fourteenth Canon of this Council takes notice of the feigned Relicks of Martyrs and of Altars built in Fields and High-ways upon pretended Dreams and Revolutions upon which Canon there is no note at all because they know if all the feigned Relicks were to be thrown away and all the Altars built upon Dreams and false Revelations pulled down in the present Roman Church as was ordered at Carthage by this Canon there would bè very few left to carry on their gainful Trade which hath thrived wonderfully by these Impostures This Century concludes with a Council at Alexandria which they style under Anastasius but it was called by Theophilus who found out and condemned the Errours of Origen long before poor Anastasius knew any thing of the matter The Notes indeed say This Synod sent their Decrees to Pope Anastasius to Epiphanius Chrysostom and Hierom But though they place the Pope foremost there is no proof that they were sent to him at all Baronius only conjectures they did and saith It is fit we should believe this but it is certain Theophilus sent these Decrees to Epiphanius to Chrysostom and Hierom and from this last hand it is like Anastasius received them long after because it was more that two years after this Synod before S. Hierom could perswade Anastasius to condemn these Opinions of Origen which this Council first censured Wherefore it was happy for the Church that there were wiser Men in it than he who is pretended to be the supreme and sole Judge of Heresie And thus we have finished our Remarks upon the Councils in the first four Centuries in all which the Reader I hope hath seen such designs to advance the Supremacy and cover the Corruptions of Rome that he will scarce credit any thing they say for their own Advantage in any of the succeeding Volumes AN APPENDIX CONCERNING BARONIUS HIS ANNALS §I THE large and elaborate Volumes of Cardinal Baronius are
him his Fellow-Minister would have been very Sawey if he had known Julius to be the Supreme Bishop of the World And if this Supremacy had been owned in former Ages how came the Eastern Bishops to be so angry at their being desired to come to Rome yea how came they to Excommunicate the Pope for communicating with one whom they had judged a Criminal It is not concerning the Pope but Athanasius that Nazianzen saith He did again prescribe Laws to the whole World It seems the Pope was not the Supreme Caller of Synods when S. Hierom speaking of a Council which he thought was not Authentic Asks What Emperour ordered it to be Convened We cannot find in any genuine Antiquity in this Age so great an Encomium of Rome as Nazianzen the Elder gives of Caesarea viz. That from the beginning it was and now is accounted the Mother of almost all Churches on which all the Christian World casts its Eye like a Circle drawn from a Center A man would guess the Pope's Authority reached no further than the Suburbicarian Regions because Ursicinus Damasus his Competitor was forbid by the Emperour from entring into Rome or the Suburbicarian Regions S. Basil was very unmannerly if not unjust had this Supremacy been then claimed to send his first Embassy unto Athanasius and tell him that He had the Care of all the Churche yea afterward when he did send into the West he directs his Epistle to the Italian and Gallican Bishops without mentioning the Pope in particular And truly Damasus if he were Supreme took little care of his Office since upon so pressing Occasions he would neither Answer S. Basil nor S. Hierom for a long time And S. Hierom was somewhat bold when he reproves the Ambition of Rome and said He would Follow no Chief but Christ S. Ambrose also seems not to give that deference to the Mother of all Churches that he ought since he often Dined and made Feasts on the Saturday which was a Fast at Rome and had the Pope then been Supreme why did Ambrose make a Bishop at Sirmium in Iliyria so far from his own City of Milan The same S. Ambrose also speaks of Supreme Bishops in Gallia It is strange that Siricius the Supreme Pastor should let the Pagans set up an Altar to the Goddess of Victory in the Roman Capitol and that S. Ambrose should be the only Complainant in this Case Finally if the Pope then had any Jurisdiction over the Eastern Churches why was not he consulted about Ordaining S. Chrysostom Bishop of Constantinople and how came the Patriarch of Alexandria to be sent to and to Ordain him These Instances shew the Supremacy of Rome was unknown in that Age And so was the INVOCATION of SAINTS and ADORING of RELICKS also as one might suspect by these Passages That the Holy Men of those Ages in their Dangers and Necessities are 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 so did Parthenius against the Pagans so did Constantius the Emperour for Recovery of his Health so also did those Persian Martyrs Thus Euphrates an Eminent Bishop implores only the help of Christ against an illusion of the Devil The Christians who translated the Bones of Babylas the Martyr did not Pray to him but Praised God and Macedonius an holy Monk is observed only to call upon God Night and Day Arcadius the Emperour in an Earthquade prayed to the Lord the only preserver of the Humble Porphyrius Bishop of Gaza and his People called only upon Christ not upon any Saints 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 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 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 and therefore Metaphrastes his sole Evidence will not pass for the Legend of translating the Bodies of S. Andrew and S. Luke to Constantinople '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 Which ridiculous Imposture Julian the witty Apostate had justly exposed some years before as being contrary to Scripture and to the Christian Law 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 and Baronius can find no Precedent for carrying Images in Procession to procure Rain but the Pagan Superstition 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 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 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 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 In S. Augustine's time the People at Rome Fasted on Wednesdays which use they have now left off 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 The carrying a Cross before them in Procession cannot be made out in this Age but by the spurious Act of Martyrs cited by Metaphrastes 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 Theodosius made a Law to banish Monks from Cities
the Council of Turin which Baronius cites St. Ambrose is named before the Pope yea it is manifest by divers African Councils that they gave equal respect at least to the Judgment and Authority of the Bishop of Milan as to those of Rome So that it is ridiculous and absurd to fancy that St. Ambrose and his Successors who were greater Men than the Popes for Learning and Reputation were the Legates of Rome and this hath been invented meerly to aggrandize that See And for that same reason they have stusted into the Body of this Council a Rule of Faith against the Priscillianists transmitted from some Bishop of Spain with the Precept of Pope Leo who was not Pope till forty years after this Council Yea Binius in the very Title of this Council would have it confirmed by another Pope that lived divers Centuries after of which Labbè was so ashamed that he hath struck that whole Sentence out of his Edition As to the Canons of this Council I shall only remark That the first of them lays a very gentle punishment upon Deacons and Priests who lived with their Wives before a late Interdict which is no more but the prohibiting them to ascend to any higher Order And no wonder they touched this point so gently for this prohibiting Wives to the Clergy was never heard of in Spain till Siricius who died about three years before advised it in his Epistle to Himerius and therefore Innocent in his third Epistle said Siricius was the Author of this form of Ecclesiastical Discipline that is of the Clergies Celibacy and adds that those who had not received his Decree were worthy of pardon And by the many and repeated Canons made in Spain afterward in this Matter it appears the inferior Clergy would not follow the Popes advice The fourteenth Canon shews that the Primitive way of receiving the Communion was by the peoples taking it into their hands as they do now in our Church And the Notes confess that the Roman Custom of taking it into their mouths out of the Priests hand is an innovation brought in after the corrupt Doctrine of Transubstantiation had begot many superstitious Conceits about this Holy Sacrament the altering of the Doctrine occasioning this change in the way of receiving Whereas the Protestant Churches which retain the Primitive Doctrine keep also the Primitive Rite of Communicating To this Council are tack'd divers Decrees which belong to some Council of Toledo or other but the Collectors Burchard Ivo c. not knowing to which have cited them under this General Title out of the Council of Toledo and so the Editors place them all here But most of them do belong to later times and the name of Theodorus Arch-Bishop of Canterbury in one of these Fragments shews it was made 300 years after this time We have in the next place two African Councils said to be under Anastasius though indeed they were under the Bishop of Carthage The former of these decrees an Embassie shall be sent both to Anastasius Bishop of Rome and Venerius Bishop of Milan for a supply of Clergy-men of whom at that time they had great scarcity in Africa The other African Council determines they will receive such Donatists as recanted their Errors into the same Orders of Clergy which they had before they were reconciled to the Church provided the Bishop of Rome Milan and other Bishops of Italy to whom they sent a second Embassie consented to it Now here though all the Italian Bishops were applied to and he of Milan by name as well as the Bishops of Rome and though it was not their Authority but their Advice and Brotherly Consent which the African Bishops expected yet Baronius and Binius tell us it is certain that Anastasius did give them licence to receive these Donatists in this manner because St. Augustin said they did receive them Whereas St. Augustine never mentions any licence from the Pope and his leave or consent was no more desired than the leave of other eminent Bishops only the Annalist and his followers were to make this look as an indulgence granted from Rome alone § 2. Pope Innocent succeeded Anastasius who had the good fortune to be convinced by St. Augustine and other Bishops more learned than himself that Pelagius and Celestius were Hereticks and so to joyn with the Orthodox in condemning them for which he is highly commended by St. Augustine St. Hierom and by Prosper who were glad they had the Bishop of so powerful and great a City of their side and so was poor St. Chrysostom also whose Cause he espoused when Theophilus of Alexandria and the Empress oppressed him and by that means Innocent also got a good Character from St. Chrysostom and his Friends in the East But some think it was rather his good fortune than his judgment which made him take the right side The Pontifical fills up his Life as usually with frivolous matters But two things very remarkable are omitted there the one is a passage in Zosimus viz. That when Alaricus first besieged Rome and the Pagans there said the City would never be happy till the Gentile Rites were restored The Praefect communicates this to Pope Innocent who valuing the safety of the City before his own Opinion privately gave them leave to do what they desired The other is That when Rome was taken afterwards by Alarious Pope Innocent was gone out of the City to Ravenna and did not return till all was quiet and therefore I cannot with Baronius think that St. Hierom compares Pope Innocent to Jeremiah the Prophet for Jeremiah staid among God's People and preached to them but Innocent was gone out of Rome long before it was seized by the Goths Further we may observe that whereas St. Hierom advised a Noble Roman Virgin to beware of the Pelagian Hereticks and to hold the Faith of Holy Innocent Baronius is so transported with this that he quotes it twice in one year and thus enlarges on it That St. Hierom knew the Faith was kept more pure and certainly in the Seat of Peter than by Augustine or any other Bishop so that the Waters of Salvation were to be taken more pure out of the Fountain than out of any Rivers which absurd Gloss is easily confuted by considering that this Lady was a Member of the Roman Church and so ought to hold the Faith of her own Bishop especially since he was at that time Orthodox and this was all St. Hierom referred to For he doth not at all suppose the Roman See was infallible nor did he make any Comparison between Augustine and Innocent since he well knew that in point of Learning and Orthodox Judgment Augustine was far above this Pope who indeed derived all the skill he had as to the condemning Pelagius from the African Fountains and especially from St. Augustine Besides nothing is more common than
of their Rights and their Peace also Wherefore it is not probable that a Council should meet there at this time only to read an Epistle which was invented long after § 5. Upon the Death of Zosimus there were two Popes chosen Boniface and Eulalius and the Pontifical fairly tells us the Clergy were divided for seven Months and fifteen days and that both of them acted as Popes This Schism being notified to the Emperor by Symmachus the Prefect of the City he cites both the Pretenders to Ravenna and appoints divers Bishops to examine into the Cause but they not being able to agree whether had the better Title the Emperor defers the business till the Kalends of May and forbids both Parties to enter into Rome till a Council had met at Rome to determine this Controversie But Eulalius who before stood fairer of the two impatient of this delay contrary to the Emperors Command on the fifteenth of the Kalends of April goes into the City and causes great Factions there Upon which 250 Bishops met by the Emperors Order execute his Commands and declare Enlalius to be no Pope setting up Boniface Upon which passage I shall observe First That the Notes make but a vacancy of two days between Zosimus and Boniface and Baronius saith it was not vacant above one day Whereas it is plain from the Emperors Letters dated three or four Months after that neither of them was reckoned to be Pope and he writes to the African Bishops that he would have the Council meet by the Ides of June that the Papacy might be no longer void so that in truth the See was vacant till the Emperor had judged it on Boniface his side Baronius doth not like it should be said that the Emperor had any right to interpose in the Election of a Pope but Symmachus the Praefect of Rome saith expresly to Honorius it is your part to give judgment in this Matter and the Emperor did at first by his single Authority declare Eulalius to be rightly chosen But upon better information he revokes that Rescript and Commands that neither Party should have any advantage by what was past but all should be reserved intirely to his judgment And though he employed a Synod of Bishops to examine the Matter yet it appears in Baronius that the Emperors Edict was that which gave the Papacy to Boniface Which will appear more plainly by the first Epistle of Boniface and Honorius his Answer to it For after this Pope was in peaceable possession fearing the like mischief after his death which had hapned at his entrance he writes an humble Supplication to the Emperor to take care of this matter for the future And the Emperor writes back to Boniface declaring That if ever two should contend about the Papacy and be Ordained neither of them should be Pope but he who by a new Election should be taken out of the Clergy by the Emperors judgment and the Peoples consent This writing of the Popes among the Councils hath this Title The Supplication of Pope Boniface But Baronius thinking that too mean fraudulently leaves out the Title though the Humility of the Style sufficiently shews that the Pope believed that the Emperor was above him and whereas Boniface there calls the Church Our Mother as the Margin in Binius rightly reads it Baronius will have it to be your Mother and Labbè leaves out the Marginal and true Reading for it seems they think it below the Pope though not the Emperor to be a Son of the Church If the second Epistle of Boniface be genuine it shews that when Complaints were made to Rome out of the near adjoining Provinces the Popes even after they had given too much encouragement to Appeals were wont to refer the matters complained of to be examined and decided by the Bishops of those Provinces where the Fact was done But the Notes conclude from hence that the accusation of Bishops use to be referred to the Pope which is an universal Conclusion from Premises that will not bear it The third Epistle of Boniface contradicts all those which were writ before by Zosimus in favour of Patroclus Bishop of Arles for Boniface forbids Patroclus to exercise the Power granted him by the last Pope and decrees that Hilary Bishop of Narbon shall be Metropolitan and if he judged right then Zosimus judged wrong in this Cause For this Pope the Editors publish six Decrees one of which orders the differences among Bishops to be decided by the Metropolitan or however by the Primate of that Country from whose determination there was to be no Appeal The fourth Decree is certainly spurious because it not only forbids a Bishop to be brought before any Judge Civil or Military for any Crime but declares the Magistrate who presumes to do this shall lose his Girdle that is be put out of his Office Now doubtless it was not in the Popes power to give or take away Civil or Military Offices So that this hath been invented meerly by those who affected the Popes being supreme over Kings and Emperors and would have the Clergy exempt from all Secular Jurisdiction As to the Pelagian Controversie he writ nothing about it himself but we are told by Prosper that Boniface desired St. Augustine to answer the Books of the Pelagians and he shewed his Wisdom in putting the Cause into a better hand than his own We must now return to the business of the Legates sent into Africa by Pope Zosimus a little before his death who appeared in the sixth Council at Carthage not till the time of this Pope Boniface in order to justifie the Roman Churches Right to receive Appeals from all Churches The Title indeed falsly saith this Council was held about the manner of prosecuting Appeals but it is plain that the African Fathers questioned the right of appealing and had condemned before all Appeals to any Church beyond the Seas In this Council the Popes Legates produce a Canon which they say was made at Nice importing That if a Bishop were condemned in his own Country and appealed to Rome the Pope might write to the neighbouring Bishops to enquire again into the matter and decide it but if all this did not satisfie the Complainant the Pope might either send his Legates with his Authority to judge it there with the Bishops or leave it finally to those of that Country as he pleased Now this Canon was no sooner read but Alypius one of the African Bishops declared he could not find any such Canon in the Greek Copies of the Nicene Council and desired Aurelius who presided in the Council though the Popes Legates were there to send to the three other most famous Patriarchal Churches of Constantinople Alexandria and Antioch to search their Copies of the Nicene Council and that the Pope might be desired to send some thither also at the same time which
the first who charged the Popes with Usurpation and Imposture both in this Case But the flattering Notes go on and tell us that if the Controversy had been about the Right of Appeals and not about the manner of appealing the Popes Legates would have cited the 4th and 5th Canons of Sardica which treat of the Right of Appeals and not the 7th which treats only of the manner of prosecuting them Now this is an open Falshood for the first Canon the Legates cite is in the best Edition of the Sardican Canons the fifth and is about the Right of Bishops to appeal And the second they cite is the 14th Canon and it is about the Appeals of Priests and Deacons so that neither of the Canons cited is about the manner of prosecuting Appeals and the latter which the Notes call the 7th Canon of Sardica doth not mention Rome They proceed to tell us there were 217 Bishops first and last subscribed to this Council being a great Provincial Council which shews how unanimous the Africans were in condemning the Popes Usurpation As to the Popes Legates the Notes grant they did not preside there and truly it was not fit they should when their own Cause was to be examined and Rome was the criminal Church here to be tried Again The Note k impudently calls the fifth Canon of Sardica by the name of the seventh Canon and pretends the Africans did not like the latter way of prosecuting Appeals That is by the Popes sending Legates into Africk to hear these Causes but allowed him to delegate them upon an Appeal to rehear the Appellant Whereas the Council doth expresly reject the whole Canon as a Forgery and forbid all Appeals to the parts beyond the Seas so that this is only defending one Lie by another and cleansing a Blot with blotted fingers The next Note l gravely tells us that the words Sardican Council were falsly put into the Text of this Council because the Legates professed these Canons were made at Nice and because the African Fathers say they knew of no Sardican Council which had allowed of the Popes sending Legates c. Now all this pains might have been spared for these words Sardican Council are only in a corrupt Latin Edition but the Greek and Latin Copy which is the best hath no such words at all But we may note here very justly That these Popes were strangely insolent to cite two Canons of a poor obscure Council never heard of in Africa no not by the learned S. Austin as the Notes confess and daringly fix these Canons upon the most famous general Council that ever was especially since the Nicene Council doth expresly charge That every Bishops sentence shall stand good in his own Province so that he who is Excommunicated by some shall not be received by others Now the pretended Canon allows the Pope to receive any person Excommunicated by the Bishops of his own Province So that it expresly contradicts the Canons of the Nicene Council and yet the Popes confidently said it was made there Had the African Fathers believed them and submitted no doubt these two Canons and perhaps all the rest of that petty Synod had been imposed upon the World for genuin Canons of the Nicene Council by the Roman Church whose Emissaries have forged no less than 60 new Canons and published them under the name of that famous Council Before I leave this subject I must note that Baronius and Binius who here confess these two Canons were made at Sardica do in the Notes on the Nicene Council impudently cite them to prove there were more than twenty Canons made at Nice of which number they say were the Canons about Appeals produced in the sixth Council of Carthage Baronius hath one trick more For he saith the Council of Sardica was a General Council as well as that at Nice and of as great Authority and so it was all one which Council the Popes cited I have disproved this before and only note here that if the African Fathers had believed this doubtless they would not have put themselves to so great cost and trouble to send to three foreign and remote Churches to search out the Truth I must add that the Bishops assembled at Carthage thought the Nicene Canons so considerable that they annex a Copy of them to their Acts wherein this is remarkable That the sixth Canon is cited without that forged Preface which the Roman Writers of late would make a part of the Canon it self viz. The Roman Church hath always had the Primacy No such words appear in this African Copy wherefore we may conclude they have been invented since by some of the Popes Creatures § 6. Celestine succeeded Boniface yet so as the Notes confess the Faction of Eulalius would not communicate with him However he seems to have been very Orthodox as to the Pelagian Controversy though Laurentius Valla truly censures him for one of no great Learning the Style of his Epistles shewing he was no accurate Latinist and in his own Epistle to Nestorius yet extant in the Ephesine Council he confesses he understood no Greek So that whatever he did against Pelagius or Nestorius was done at the request and by the direction of Men more learned than himself However it was well that this Pope was so willing to assist S. Cyril against Nestorius and Prosper with others against the Pelagians for his See being eminent his appearing on the Orthodox side gave great countenance to their Cause and promoted the Condemnation of those Hereticks which the Notes and Baronius so extremely magnify as if he was the first who condemned them and that it was solely his Authority which suppressed them the falshood of which we shall shew presently The Pontifical saith He ordered the Psalms to be sung by way of Antiphon by all before the Sacrifice But if he first brought in this kind of singing them at Rome we are sure they had been sung so long before both in the East and at Milan and it seems it is no disparagement for the holy Roman See to follow other Churches The first Epistle of Celestine hath a great many Sections added to it in Binius which are a Collection made by Prosper or some Eminent Writer against the Pelagians But Labbè prints the Epistle by it self and then prints the Collections apart However it is thought Celestine approved them and so they are cited by divers Ancients under his name But if we compare the Matter or the Style of those Additions with the former part which is Celestine's genuin work it will easily be discovered that the Popes Authority was far more considerable than his Learning And if any Man wonder why this Collector is so careful to set down the Decrees of the Roman Church against this Heresy the reason is plainly expressed viz. That some secret Favourers of Pelagius considering the kindness he and his followers
had found at Rome professed they would stand by the Decrees of that Church His second Epistle hath nothing memorable in it but that the Pope thinks the affairs of the Province of Narbon to be things far remote which shews they had not then usually intermedled with the concerns of all the Churches in the World A little after he saith we of the Clergy ought to be distinguished from the Laity by our Doctrin not by our Garments by our Conversation not by our Habit by our purity of Mind not our Dress Which looks as if he would abrogate wholly the distinct Habits of the Clergy and persuade them and the Laity to go alike Which gross notion the Notes labour to cover as well as they can by pretending he for bids only new Fashions of Habit to the Clergy But if it were so this would reflect upon the various Habits of every several Order of Monks And yet if we look well upon the Text he positively dislikes all Habits which may distinguish the Clergy from the Laity which now adays Protestants account a Fanatical Opinion Most of the following Epistles are printed in the Council of Ephesus and shall there be considered It suffices to observe here That the 9th Epistle to the Emperor Theodosius owns that Arcadius and Projectus were to represent his Person in the Council of Ephesus which the Emperor had Commanded to be held Therefore Cyril did not represent Pope Celestine and not the Pope but the Emperor called that Council The 10th Epistle affirms that the care which Kings take in the matters of Religion is not ineffectual which shews that Baronius had no reason to be so severe upon all those Princes who medled with Religious Affairs Out of the 12th Epistle to Theodosius we may note that Atticus late Bishop of Constantinople is said to be of most reverend Memory and a most couragious defender of the Catholick Faith And in Celestine's Epistle to Nestorius Atticus of blessed memory a Teacher of the Catholick Faith But this very Bishop had a long contest with the Bishops of Rome and was Excommunicated by Pope Innocent and he on the otherside valued this so little that he Excommunicated those who were in Communion with Rome and calls Paulinus and Evagrius and their adherents among which was the Pope by no gentler a name than that of Schismaticks So that how Orthodox so-ever he might be in any other things 't is plain he did not believe the Roman Church Infallible nor think it was necessary to be in Communion with it And though he erred as they now believe at Rome in so main a Point yet while he was at open Enmity with the Pope Baronius tells us he wrought a Miracle so that a Man would think Miracles are no proof of the true Church Another passage in this Epistle is Memorable viz. That Celestine saith Nestorius was Excommunicated by the general sentence of the Bishops Which the Reader must remember when the flattering Notes any where say the Sentence against this Heretick was solely the Act of Celestine And indeed Baronius having recited his 11th 12th 13th and 14th Epistles boasts of him as if God had raised him up to stand in the gap against those Hereticks which then infested the Church and gives him all the Glory of the Victory over them Whereas if Prosper and Cyril had writ no better against Pelagius and Nestorius than Celestine it is to be feared that these Heresies had not been censured in that Age. Yet in the main he was a good Pope and had the fortune to take the right side in these Controversies and therefore is highly commended by divers of the Orthodox and he is very free in returning the Complements For in his last Epistle he calls Cyril an Apostolical Man and Maximtanus of Constantinople he styles his Colleague And this may suffice for this Popes Epistles We are entertained next with another Collection of African Councils held as they say under Pope Boniface and Celestine but the Titles mention no Pope at all nor were they called by any Pope but by the Bishop of Carthage who presided in them even when the Popes Legates were present We have taken notice of most of these before and therefore shall pass them over very briefly In one of them they resolve to send a Legate to their holy Brethren and fellow Bishops Anastasius of Rome and Vencrius of Milan putting them so equally into the Scale that the Pope is only first named A little after Aurelius Bishop of Carthage saith That he by God's appointment sustained the care of all the Churches The Margin tells us he means in Africa but I must note that if a Pope had said so in this Age though he could mean no more than the Churches of the Suburbicarian Regions these Gentlemen would have stretched that to all the World Another Council in the twelfth Consulship of Honorius and the eighth of Theodosius had a Canon in some ancient Copy wherein these Fathers Anathematize them that hold any middle place between Heaven and Hell to which unbaptized Infants go and they expresly declare that whoever is deprived of the Right Hand must fall into the Left and that no Catholick doubts but he is with the Devil who is not a Coheir with Christ Now this looks so foul upon Limbus Infantum and Purgatory the later Inventions of Rome that their Parasites have left this Canon out in other Copies of this Council And here it is printed in a different Character as if it were no genuine piece of the Council only because it condemns the modern Opinion of the Roman Church but the impartial Reader will conclude that the Ancient Copy of this Canon was elder than either Purgatory or Limbus Infantum Here also the Editors print at large the two famous Epistles of the African Bishops to two Popes successively Boniface and Celestine wherein they do utterly condemn Appeals to Rome and discover the forgery of those pretended Nicene Canons by which their Legates attempted to justifie them I have given an account of the former of these Letters in the Life of Boniface And I shall add here that the latter Epistle to their honourable Brother Celestine writ some years after shews the Africans continued still in the same mind for therein they acquaint him that they had called a Council and though Apiarius alledged the Priviledge of the Roman Church which had received him unlawfully to Communion they examined his Cause and at last he confessed his notorious Crimes Wherefore they earnestly desire the Pope not so easily to receive Complaints from thence nor admit those to his Communion whom they had excommunicated for they shew that the Nicene Council forbids this both as to Bishops Presbyters and Lay-men without any derogation to the priviledge of the African Church committing all the Clergy to their own Metropolitan and wisely ordering every business to
the Roman Editors in their Preface and Notes ascribed most falsly to his want of Power and Authority Thirdly In the Protestation of the Clergy of Constantinople they prove themselves Orthodox because they held the same Faith with the Church of Antioch and that which was held by Eustathius Bishop there in the time of the Nicene Council making no mention of Rome at all And though now the Faith of the Roman Church is pretended to be the sole Infallible Rule of what is Orthodox it was not thought so then For Pope Celestine himself saith Nestorius is to be condemned unless he profess the Faith of the Roman and the Alexandrian Churches and that which the Catholick Church held And the Pope repeats this in his Epistle to Nestorius and in that to John Bishop of Antioch So that the Roman Church was then only a part of the Catholick Church as that of Alexandria was had it then been as now it is said to be the same with the Catholick Church the Pope was guilty in three several Epistles of a notorious Tautology for according to the modern Style it had been enough to have said Nestorius must profess he held the Faith of the Roman Catholick Church So when Cyril had informed John of Antioch that the Roman Synod had condemned Nestorius and writ to him to the Bishop of Thessalonica to those of Macedon and to him of Jerusalem to joyn in this Sentence Cyril adds that he of Antioch must comply with this Decree unless he would be deprived of the Communion of the whole Western Church and of these other Great Men This passage the Preface cites to prove that Cyril made use of the Popes Authority as his Chief Weapon in this Cause but it is plain he doth not so much as mention the Pope or the Roman Church alone nor doth he urge the danger of losing the Communion of that Church singly considered but of all the Western Churches and divers eminent ones in the East and it was the Popes agreeing with all these that made his Communion so valuable Fourthly as to the Titles of these Epistles which were writ before the Council we may observe that Nestorius writes to Celestine as to his Brother and saith he would converse with him as one Brother use to do with another which shews that as Patriarchs they were upon equal ground 'T is true Cyril who was as eminent for his Modesty as his Learning calls Celestine by the Title of his Lord from which the Romanists would draw conclusions for their Supremacy but we note that in the same Epistle he calls John of Antioch also his Lord beloved Brother and Fellow-minister which very words Cyril uses when he speaks of Celestine in his Epistle to Juvenal Bishop of Jerusalem calling the Pope there his Lord most Religious Brother and Fellow-minister yea such was the Humility of those Primitive Bishops that they frequently stiled their Equals and Inferiors their Lords so Cyril calls Acacius Bishop of Beraea So John Bishop of Antioch calls Nestorius his Lord and the same Title in the same Epistle he bestows upon Archelaus Bishop of Mindus a small City And of this we might give many more instances but these may suffice to expose those vain Arguers who from some such Titles bestowed on the Roman Bishop think to establish his Universal Supremacy Fifthly Among all these preliminary Epistles there are none meaner both for Style and Sense than those of Pope Celestine yet Baronius brags of that to Nestorius as the Principal Thing which confuted him calling it a Divine Epistle But alas it is infinitely short of Cyril's Letters the Phrase is very ordinary the Periods intricate the Arguments such as might have been used against any Heretick and his Application of the Holy Texts very odd as when the Church of Constantinople discovered Nestorius to be a Heretick he saith he may use St. Paul's words we know not what to pray for as we ought However there is one remarkable Passage in it a little after where he saith Those things which the Apostles have fully and plainly declared to us ought neither to be augmented nor diminished Had his Successors observed this Rule a great part of their Trent Articles had never been established And it had been well if the Editors had not in that very Page left out by design one of Celestine's own words For he threatens Nestorius that if after this third Admonition he did not amend he should be utterly excommunicated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by his Synod and by a Council of all Christians Here they leave out 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and translate it ab Universitate Collegii conventu Christianorum as if the Pope alone had power to separate a Patriarch from the Communion of the Universal Church whereas even when the Western Bishops joyned with him St. Cyril notes that those who submitted not to their Decree would only lose the Communion of the Western Church And if this Sentence were confirmed in the East too then indeed Nestorius and his party as Celestine intimates would be cast out of the Universal Church Sixthly In Cyril's Letter to Nestorius there is this remarkable Saying That Peter and John were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of equal Dignity as they were both Apostles and Holy Disciples which shews for all the brags of the Popes Legate in the Council that Peter was the Head of the Faith and of the Apostles they did not believe there was any difference as to Power and Dignity among the Apostles and that saying must pass for a piece of Flattery and is not to be regarded because it comes from a Creature of the Popes and one of his own House who by the Canons was no lawful evidence Seventhly In the Emperor's Commission to Candidianus one of his great Officers who was to preside in the Council we may see the Emperor gives him power to appoint what Causes and Questions shall be first treated of and to forbid any pecuniary or criminal Causes to be tried there which shews that the Emperor reserved the Power of managing and ordering the Synod to himself and made a Lay-man his representative for that purpose Secondly As to the Passages in the Council if the Preface and the Names before the Acts be genuine of which there is some doubt we may note that it is there declared the Council met by the Emperors Command and that Cyril is mentioned first both in his own Right as the chief Patriarch present and as he had the precedence due to Celestine here called Arch-Bishop of the Roman Church a Title given to Cyril afterwards whose Legate he is no where said to be but only to have his place that is to sit first as the Pope would have done had he been there Moreover it is remarkable that the Council begins without the Popes Legates who did not come till
talk as if a whole general Council in that Age were convened to no other end but only to execute the Popes Decree blindly without any enquiry into the merits of the Cause And Celestine's own Letter cited by Baronius to make out this Fiction declares he believes the Spirit of God was present with the Council of which there had been no need if all their business had been only to execute a Sentence passed before There is also great prevarication used by the Cardinal and Binius about the case of John B. of Antioch one of the Patriarchs summoned to this Council This John was Nestorius his old Friend for they had both been bred in the Church of Antioch and he having as Baronius relates received Letters both from Celestine and Cyril before the general Council was called importing that Nestorius was Condemned both at Rome and Alexandira if he did not recant within ten days writes to Nestorius to perswade him for peace sake to yield telling him what trouble was like to befal him after these Letters were published Here Baronius puts into the Text these Letters that is of the Pope of Rome As if the Pope were the sole Judge in this matter and his Authority alone to be feared whereas the Epistle it self tells Nestorius he had received many Letters one from Celestine and all the rest from Cyril So that this Parenthesis contradicts the Text and was designed to deceive the Reader But to go on with the History though Nestorius would not submit to John upon this Admonition yet he had no mind to condemn him and therefore he came late to Ephesus after the Council was assembled and when he was come would not appear nor joyn with the Bishops there but with a party of his own held an opposite Synod and condemned Cyril and Memnon with the rest as unjustly proceeding against Nestorius and by false Suggestions to the Emperor he procured both Cyril and Memnon to be Imprisoned Now among others in the Orthodox Council who resented these illegal Acts Juvenalis Bishop of Jerusalem saith That John of Antioch ought to have appeared and purged himself considering the Holy Great and General Council and the Apostolical seat of old Rome therein represented and that he ought to obey and reverence the Apostolical and Holy Church of Jerusalem by which especially according to Apostolical Order and Tradition the Church of Antioch was to be directed and judged alluding no doubt to that passage Acts xv where the Errors arising at Antioch were rectified and condemned in the Council at Jerusalem But Baronius falsly cites these words of Juvenalis as if he had said John ought to have appeared at least because of the Legates sent from Rome especially since by Apostolical Order and ancient Tradition it was become a custom that the See of Antioch should always be directed and judged by that of Rome And Binus in his Notes transcribes this Sentence as Baronius had perverted mangled and falsified it Which Forgery being so easily confuted by looking back into the Acts of the Council and so apparently devised to support the Papal Supremacy is enough to shew how little these Writers are to be trusted when fictions or lying will serve the ends of their darling Church After this the Preface-tells us that though John still continued obstinate the Synod referred the deposing of him to the Popes pleasure as if they had done nothing in this matter themselves But the Councils Letter to Celestine says That though they might justly proceed against him with all the severity he had used against Cyril yet resolving to overcome his rashness with moderation they referred that to Celestine ' s judgment but in the mean time they had Excommunicated him and his party and deprived them of all Episcopal power so that they could hurt none by their Censures Therefore the Council both Excommunicated and deprived him by their own Authority and only left it to the Pope whether any greater severity should be used against him or no 'T is true not only the Pope but the Emperor afterwards moved that means should be used to reconcile this Bishop and his Party to the Catholick Church by suspending this Sentence a while and procuring a meeting between Cyril and John But still it must not be denied both that the Council censured him their own Authority and that Cyril without any leave from the Pope did upon John's condemning Nestorius receive him into the Communion of the Catholick Church Yet because Sixtus the Successor of Pope Celestine among other Bishops was certified of this thence the Notes and Baronius infer that this reconciliation also was by the Authority of the See of Rome Whereas Cyril's own Letter shews that the Terms of admitting John to Communion were prescribed by the Council and the Emperor and that Cyril alone effected this great work We may further observe Binius in his Notes tells us that after the condemnation of Nestorius the Fathers shouted forth the praise of Celestine who had censured him before And Baronius saith the Acclamations followed the condemning of Nestorius in which they wonderfully praised Celestine as the Synodal Letter to the Emperor testifies By which a Man would think that Celestine had the only Glory of this Action But if we look into the first Act of the Council there are no Acclamations expressed there at all after the condemnation of Nestorius and the Synodical Letter to the Emperor cited by Baronius hath no more but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 viz. that they praised Celestine which imports only their commending his Sentence whereas in that first Act every one of the Bishops present makes a particular Encomium in the praise of Cyril's Faith as being in all things agreeing to the Nicene Creed which fills up at least forty pages together in Labbe's Edition As for the Acclamations they are in the second Act and in them Cyril is equally praised with Celestine for the Fathers say To Celestine another Paul to Cyril another Paul to Celestine keeper of the Faith to Celestine agreeing with the Synod to Celestine the whole Synod gives thanks one Celestine one Cyril one Faith of the Synod one Faith of the whole World This was just after the reading of Celestine's Letter brought by his Legates to the Council yet we see even when the occasion led them only to speak of the Pope the Fathers joyn Cyril with him knowing that Celestine's Sentence as well as his Information was owing intirely to Cyril's Learning and Zeal Moreover we have another touch of their sincerity about the Virgin Mary For Baronius calls the people of Ephesus The Virgins Clients Subjects and Worshippers adding That as they had once cried out great is Diana so now being converted they set out Mary the Mother of God with high and incessant Praises and persevered to venerate her with a more willing Service and to address to her by a
more solemn Worship By which one would imagin that in the time of this Council and ever since the Blessed Virgin had been worshipped as she is now at Rome but there is not one word of this true except only that she was there declared to be the Mother of God That Epistle of Cyril's from whence Baronius proves this saith nothing of either Praises or Worship given to the Blessed Virgin he saith indeed that when the people heard Nestorius was deposed they began with one voice to commend the Synod and to glorifie God because the Enemy of the Faith was cast down And when he had related what Honours the People did them by carrying Lamps and burning Incense before them he add◠Thus our Saviour manifested his Glory and his Power of doing all things to those who blasphemed him So that all this story of their praising and venerating the Blessed Virgin is his own Fiction as is also that other conjecture of his that the Synodal Epistle declares that John the Evangelist and Mary the Mother of God once lived together at Ephesus For that Synodal Epistle speaks only of two Churches there called by their Names So when he and Binius say it is believed that this Addition to the Angelical Salutation was then made Holy Mary Mother of God pray for us and Baronius adds that all the Faithfull use to say and often repeat this and teach it their Children even while they suck'd the Breasts But I ask Why doth any Man believe this Is it barely because Baronius says so Doth not he say an hundred false things to justifie the Corruptions of Rome Or can he produce one ancient Author about this time or of divers Ages after wherein this Phrase Mother of God pray for us is used It is certain he cannot and therefore this blasphemous addition is much later than the Council of Ephesus and the Custom of saying it and teaching it to their Children is a Scandalous Innovation brought in by the Roman Church in the Superstitious Ages and justly rejected by us who keep close to Antiquity in owning the Blessed Virgin to be the Mother of God but do not Worship her or Pray to her And thus much for the Council of Ephesus whose Acts being extant at large do abundantly confute the Popes Supremacy and set forth many other Usages and Practices of Rome to be Innovations and Corruptions § 3. After Celestine's death Pope Sixtus or Xystus the Third succeeded who sate about eight years but did few Memorable things In his younger days he was not only a Favourer but a Patron of the Pelagians though afterwards he writ against them and strenuously opposed them Wherefore Baronius doth not sufficiently prove those three Tracts Of Riches Of Evil Teachers and of Chastity which go under the name of this Pope were not his by saying there are divers Pelagian Doctrines in them since if they were writ in his youth Xystus was then a Pelagian himself This Pope writ as is said three Epistles two of which are put into the Council of Ephesus because they shew Xystus his Consent to what the Council had done and to Cyril's actings afterwards as to John Bishop of Antioch In the later of these Epistles there is a memorable Saying cited by Vincentius Lirinensis Let there be no liberty for Novelty hereafter since it is not convenient to add any thing unto that which is Old Had his Sucessors minded this good Rule the Roman Church had not added so many New Doctrines and Practices to those Old Ones which were received and used before Xystus his time The Pontifical relates a Sory of one Bassus who accused this Pope of Adultery and that a Synod of 56 Bishops convened by the Emperor's Order cleared him and condemned his Accuser Now for the greater credit of this Pope some have forged a third Epistle wherein he is made to signifie to them his purging himself upon Oath But Labbe condemns the whole Epistle as spurious and Binius rejects it because it is stolen in part out of Pope Fabian his third Epistle and because the Date is wrong for these Arguments will serve to condemn an Epistle that supposes a Pope accused and tried by his Peers whereas had it been for the Supremacy Binius would have justified it though it had these and greater faults Besides this Epistle some illiterate Monk hath forged the Acts of this Council wherein the Pope was tried and though there be neither Latin nor Sense in it being as dull as that of Sinuessa but the Inventor designing to do Honour to the Pope is very gently censured both by Baronius and Binius And to this they have tacked another such a Council of the Trial of Polychronius Bishop of Jerusalem before Pope Sixtus for attempting to challenge the Precedency before Rome c. And Binius confesseth not only that Pope Nicholas alledged this Council for good Authority but that the Modern Writers of their Church do so also Whereas he owns there was no such man Bishop of Jerusalem and that the whole Story and Acts are a Fiction of no credit in the World by which we may learn to be cautious how we trust the Roman Writers Ancient or Modern when they cite Records to support the Grandeur of the Church About this time Theodoret mentions a great Council at Constantinople under Theodosius about setling the Precedence of the Eastern Patriarchats on occasion of a Contest between the Churches of Alexandria Constantinople and Antioch Baronius and out of him Binius in relating this have added to Theodoret's words that Alexandria claimed the Priority before all the Eastern Bishops because he was the first Bishop of the Catholick Church after the Pope But the Quotation he produces out of Theodort Ep. 86. doth not so much as mention Rome nor the Pope So that they have invented that part of the Story to keep up their Churches Credit However this Council evidently shews that the Roman Church had nothing to do with the East they called great Councils without him and setled the Precedencies of their own Patriarchats without taking notice of the Pope As for Sixtus he made no figure in the World and all we hear of him further is that being warned by Leo his Deacon and Successor afterwards he discovered and prevented the Attempts of Julianus of Hecla a Pelagian Heretick who endeavoured to get into the Churches Communion as Prosper informs us An. 440. in Chron. In this year was held the Synod of Riez in the Province of Narbon dated by the Emperors and Consuls without any mention of the Pope For it was held under Hilary Bishop of Arles who first subscribes and is meant in the Canons by the name of the Metropolitan as Marca confesses And though Binius have no Notes to this purpose I must observe that this Hilary of Arles as Primate of those parts of France calls a Provincial
Council deposes a Bishop of Ambrun uncanonically chosen and makes divers Decrees with his fellow Bishops who doubtless were not then so much enslaved to the Pope as in after times § 4. Leo the First succeeded Xystus being an active bold and aspiring Man so that he concerned himself in all the affairs of Christendom and every where laboured to advance the Roman Supremacy for which he had a favourable conjuncture by the misfortunes which then hapned to all other great Churches The Africans were under a cruel persecution the Eastern Church distracted with Heresie and a woful Schism the Orthodox Bishops in the East betrayed and oppressed by three of the four Patriarchs and the fourth of the Eastern Patriarchs condemned and murdered the Emperor of the West very young and he in the East a weak man and both governed by devout and zealous Women All which circumstances contributed to make Leo who was always Orthodox and powerful very great The Pontifical relates but few of his Actions and those with many mistakes but because all the following Councils give us so much of his Life I shall only make some remarks upon the Pontifical and take the rest in the order of time First 'T is said there he found out two Heresies the Eutychian and the Nestorian But the Nestorian Heresie was found out and condemned long before his time and as for Eutyches he was found out and censured by Flavianus Bishop of Constantinople before Leo took him for a Heretick yea he writ a kind Letter to this Heretick and two angry Letters in his behalf to the Emperor and Flavianus because he was excommunicated And till he was informed by the Bishop of Constantinople what dangerous Doctrines he held Leo inclined to be Eutyches friend for which indeed afterwards he made ample amends in assisting toward Eutyches condemnation Secondly The Pontifical variously and falsly reports the number of Bishops in the Council of Chalcedon and is mistaken in saying Pulcheria was present with Martianus there and that they confessed their Faith before the Council desiring them to send to Pope Leo to expound the Faith And that Leo after this did write a Tract condemning all Heresies all which are gross mistakes But it is true that he writ many Epistles and frequently shewed his approbation of the Council of Chalcedon and that he did prevail with Attila King of the Hunns to deal gently with Rome when it was in his power to have destroyed it 'T is very probable also that he added some passages to the Roman Office and that he ordered some to watch the Church of St. Peter and Paul to which in this Age many began to make Visits and Oblations But Binius his Notes add divers incredible Stories as that about the Hearse-Cloth which Bled when Leo clip'd it with Scissors which Gregory mentions near 200 year after only as a report which he could not cite any Author for And another Story or two out of Sophronius his Pratum Spirituale a Book stuffed with Fables as Baronius himself confesseth for having cited a false Story out of this Author he hath these words since he put so many lies together in this one Narration what credit can be given to the rest Yet Baronius himself cites this Author for Miracles and Visions very oft and in one place relates two Miracles out of Sophronius for the glory of that Epistle which Pope Leo writ to Flavianus against Eujyches and Nestorius An Epistle indeed very Orthodox and at that time very seasonable but far from meriting those prodigious Encomiums Baronius or the Legends give it who magnifie it as if it equalled the Creed and proved the Pope alone was to define all controversies of Faith to teach General Councils what they were to believe and to give Laws to all Bishops in the World But whatever excellency there is in this Epistle which is in number the Xth and printed in the Council of Chalcedon it is not to be ascribed to Pope Leo but to the learned Prosper who was his Amanuensis and wrote not only this but many other Letters for him so that the Sense and Phrase is Prosper's only they are writ in Leo's name as Gennadius testifies who lived but fifty year after Leo became Pope and the same is affirmed by Trithemius And we may observe that an Epistle of this very Prosper's against the Pelagians as we noted before went under Pope Celestine's name but far exceeded the Style of Celestine's own Letters I only add that Labbè here prints all these Epistles which bear Leo's name some of which I shall have occasion to consider afterwards The first Council of Orange Binius intitles under Leo but Labbè ashamed of that gross pretence leaves these words out For it was called by and held under Hilary Bishop of Arles who exercised the Jurisdiction of a Metropolitan and Primate in those parts and all the Bishops of those parts owned his Primacy and met at his Summons of which Binius takes no notice There were made in this Synod many good Canons for Discipline which were observed in the Gallican Church without any confirmation from the Pope At the end of this Council is published a Form of Excommunication and a very excellent Office for reconciling Penitents supposed to be made in this Council which proves Forms had then been long in use The second Council at Vasatis or Razai in France seems to me to be wrong dated for I observe the fourth Canon cites a passage out of St. Hierom with this Title One of the Fathers asserts c. Now St. Hierom died but 20 year before the date of this Council and could hardly so soon have been cited by the Title of One of the Fathers besides the sixth Canon cites one of the spurious Epistles of Clement forged after this Age. But the fifth Canon orders him who is aggrieved with the Sentence of his Bishop to appeal to a Synod which shews that reserving Causes to Rome was not allowed or used then The Editors have a Roman Council of Pope Leo's which was no more than a Solemn meeting of the Clergy and Laity to examine the Manichean Hereticks But there were two remarkable things in Leo's proceeding against them of which the Notes say nothing but Baronius informs us First That he discovered the Manicheans by their refusing to drink of the Cop in the Blessed Sacrament which this Pope counts a great impiety in this sort of People not foreseeing that his Successors would take the Cup away from all the People of that Church And this passage makes it clear that all the People at Rome who were Orthodox did receive the Cup then or else the Hereticks not receiving it could not have discovered them Secondly Baronius notes that because these Manicheans idolatrously adored the rising Sun Leo forbid the Orthodox People to use that innocent and ancient Custom of
bowing toward the East for the peril of Idolatry Now had there been any Images adored in his time for the same reason he must rather have forbidden bowing down before them The second Council at Rome under Leo was in the Cause of Hilary Bishop of Acles who had justly deposed a scandalous Bishop in a Provincial Synod But he as such ill Men had often done flies to Rome to complain and Leo not considering the equity of the censure but Hilary's having acted as a Primate in those parts of France contrary to the Decrees of former Popes espouses this evil Bishops Quarrel being more concerned for his designed usurpation of a supremacy than the honour of the Church Upon this Hilary who was one of the most pious and learned Men of that Age goes on foot to Rome and requires the Pope to act more solito in the accustomed manner and not to admit such to Communion who had been justly condemned in their own Country and when he saw the Pope was resolved to break the Canons and set up his Supremacy by right or wrong he suddenly departs from Rome without taking any leave of Leo for which the Angry Pope writes to the Bishops of France declaring Hilary's Acts null and depriving him of his Power to Congregate Synods and Depose Bishops c. And though he brags much of his universal Authority c. in that Epistle yet knowing how little this would signifie to Hilary and the rest of the French Bishops he gets an Edict from the Emperor Valentinian to back his Orders which because there are some great words for the Popes Supremacy in it Baronius magnifies as worthy of perpetual Memory And since their Champions alledge this Edict as a proof of the Roman universal Supremacy I will observe upon it First That it was easie for the Pope to cite false Canons to a young and easy Emperor and persuade him that the Councils had given him this Supremacy as his Predecessors had lately done in Africa Secondly That the Pope probably drew up this Edict himself and so put in these Flourishes about his own Authority Which will be more plain if we consider that the Emperor Leo in one of his Edicts saith Constantinople is the Mother of the Orthodox Religion of all Christians with much more to this purpose but Baronius relating this saith Thus indeed Leo speaks thus but without doubt it was conceived in the words and writ in the Style of Acacius who swelled with Pride But Leo Bishop of Rome was as proud as Acacius and had more influence over Valentinian than Acacius ever had over the Emperor Leo wherefore in Baronius own words without doubt Valentinian ' s Edict was drawn up in Pope Leo ' s Style and so he is only a Witness in his own Cause Thirdly The Sentence of both the Emperor and the Pope was unjust and although Leo wheedled the Bishops of France to reject Hilary that Bishop still acted as Primate and called Synods afterwards so that this big-speaking Edict was neither believed nor obeyed as de Marca shews For indeed Hilary was Primate by Original right and the French Bishops stuck to him not only for his great Sanctity but because they feared the then growing Encroachments and Usurpations of Rome And finally Pope Hilary Leo's Successor determined this Controversie contrary to Leo's Decree by which we see how odly Causes go at Rome since some Popes were for the Primacy of Arles and some against it But when there was a stout Bishop there he kept his Post without regard to the Roman Sentence And now I hope the Reader will smile at Baronius his inference from this Edict of Valentinian's Thou seest clearly from hence saith he the Pope of Romes Authority over all Churches for he must be quick-sighted indeed who can see any more in this instance than an unjust and ineffective Claim § 5. Soon after Pope Leo had an opportunity to encroach upon the Churches of Spain for one Turibius a Bishop there who is called Leo's Notary and probably had been bread a Notary at Rome certifies the Pope that there were many Priscillian Hereticks there who confirmed their Errors by certain Apocryphal Writings full of Blasphemies Leo writes back to Turibius advising him to get a Council of all the Bishops in Spain and there to Condemn the Hereticks and their Apocryphal Books This advice Baronius calls his enjoyning a general Council more Majorum this being the right of the Pope of Rome And though he confesses the Bishops did not meet where the Pope advised nor could they meet in one place because they were under divers Kings and those Arians yet he desires us to observe from hence how weighty the Popes Authority was even with Barbarous and Arian Kings But alas any one may see he cannot make out that ever these Kings gave leave for any Council and it is more probable these Bishops met privately on this occasion yet they have made out of this A General Council of Spain And here they would have that rule of Faith first received from Leo and approved which is printed before in the first Council of Toledo And Baronius saith the word Filioque proceeding from the Father and the Son was first added in this Council to the Creed by the Authority of Pope Leo and brags much of the Popes supremacy even in matters of Faith on this occasion But first these words were put in by these Councils to check and discover Priscillian Hereticks not by any express order of the Pope and indeed Leo had been an ill Man if he had imposed an Article of Faith upon the Churches of Spain which as Baronius confesses was not received expresly at Rome till many Ages after Secondly These Spanish Bishops did not add these words to the ancient Creed but put them in by way of Explication into an Occasional Confession of their own Composing Thirdly Baronius himself notes that the Spaniards and French afterwards added it to their usual Creeds and at last Rome took this Addition from them And in the same place he commends the Northern Nations for adding these words and those of Rome for rejecting them a long time so that contradictory Actions may be it seems equally commended by those who can blow Hot and Cold with the same Breath About this time was held a great Council at Verulam in Britain by St. Garmanus a French Bishop called over by the Orthodox Britains to assist them in confuting and condemning the Pelagian Heresy as Math. of Westminster computes Baronius indeed pretends this hapned divers years before only because Prosper or some who have since corrupted his Chronicle affirms that Pope Celestine sent St. Germanus hither But most Historians agree the French Bishops from a Council of their own sent over this assistance to the British Church the first time without any order from Celestine and this Council of Verulam was
Leo the Bishop of Rome to c. so that where we see Bishop or Pope of the Catholick Church of Rome c. there 't is certain the Flatterers have been at work But as to more material observations when Flavianus had condemned Eutyches he doth not desire the Pope to confirm the Sentence which being regularly passed on him by his own Bishop in Council no man could relax as Leo himself grants But his Letter to Leo requires him to publish it to all the Bishops under his jurisdiction In Leo's Epistle to Julian one of his Legates the Latin Copy puts in nobis and makes Leo say there is one Doctrine and Teaching of the Holy Ghost in us and in you but the Greek reads in the whole Catholick Church Again it is commonly pretended that Pope Leo was utterly against the Emperors calling the second Council at Ephesus and that one reason which made all its proceedings null was because it was called without his consent But it appears by divers of this Popes Letters here published that he owned it a pious Resolution of the Emperor to call this Council and in observance of his Commands he sent his Legates to it So that he never pleaded his Authority in bar to the Emperors Right even when in his Judgment he thought there was no need of it And he declares that he sent these Legates not to preside there but to agree with them by common consent on such things as might be pleasing to God as his Letter to this Synod shews Num. 13. It appears by Petrus Chrysologus Bishop of Ravenna's Letter to Eutyches that he appealed to him as well as to the Pope for he excuses himself as unfit to judge a Cause that had been tried in a far Country especially upon hearing only one Party A Rule which if the Popes had duly observed they would not have received so many unjust Appeals 'T is true he refers him to Pope Leo's Epistle to Flavianus lately writ on this subject but Binius in his Notes falsly puts in that he warns him to rely on it as an Oracle of the Holy Ghost for he only saith there was now an Orthodox Pope in St. Peter's Chair who had taught the Faith aright in this Epistle which had been sent by Leo a little before to this and other Bishops of the West for their approbation But that of Leo himself in his Epistle to Theodosius shews he was no honester than he should be and deserved not so good a Character as the Bishop of Ravenna gives him for he impudently cites one of the Sardican Canons under the forged Title of the Nicene Canon made by all the Bishops in the World the Margin would excuse this by pretending that other Fathers cite these Sardican Canons under the Title of Nicene Canons but we know no ancient Fathers did so except Zosimus and Boniface his Predecessors who to their lasting infamy were convicted of this notorious Fraud in the Council of Carthage and therefore it was an odd piece of assurance in Leo so soon after to make use of the same detected Cheat. In another Epistle of his against Eutyches he saith In the mystical distribution of the spiritual Food that is given and received by which those who partake of the virtue of the Heavenly Food are changed into his Flesh who was made our Flesh which is point blank against their modern Opinion of Transubstantiation making the Bread to be Spiritual and Heavenly Food and the change to be not in the Elements but in the Receivers After this we have divers Epistles of the Western Emperor Valentinian of his Mother and Empress to Theodosius and Pulcheria writ at the request of Pope Leo to desire that Emperor to revoke the Judgment passed in the Pseudo-Synod of Ephesus which further proves the Pope had no Authority in himself to null those Acts for he would not have begged with Tears that which was in his own Power But the great use the Romanists make of these Letters is on account of some high Expressions in them about the Popes having a Power over all Bishops and a Principality among them But there is some doubt whether these Epistles are genuine the Story of their being at Rome the night after St. Peter's day not agreeing to the time when these pretended Epistles must be writ But if they be not forged Rome will gain nothing by these phrases which Leo put into their Mouths for he certainly endited these Letters for them as we may know by this Evidence that the Emperors Mother Galla Placidia who understood no more of the Canons than the Pope told her cites the Canon of Sardica for a Canon of Nice as Leo had done before and therefore ex ungue Leonem we may easily know the Penman of these Epistles Now when he bears witness only to himself his testimony is suspicious and of no weight at all and Theodosius valued these brags so little that he calls Leo only by the name of Patriarch in his answer and affirms the Nicene Canons were not broken and therefore he utterly rejected the request Yet Leo was forced to be content and to receive Anatolius chosen Bishop of Constantinople in this Synod of Ephesus into his Communion only desiring him to give an Account of his being Orthodox in the Faith that he might publish it to other Bishops Soon after which Theodosius died Marcianus succeeding and having no other Title to the Empire than his being married to Pulcheria he remitted much of the Majesty of Style in his Letters to Leo and other Bishops used by Theodosius and other Emperors But even when he complements the Pope in the highest strain he will not yield the Council should be called in Italy as the Pope desired but resolves to have it in the East in some City which he himself should choose Where we may see a notorious Forgery in Baronius and Binius for whereas the Emperor saith where it shall seem good to us Baronius turns nobis into vobis and Binius in his Notes follows him as if the Emperor had left it to the Pope to choose what City he pleased for the Council to meet Nay further Binius who reads it nobis in the Epistle yet in a Note before that Letter he saith it was where the Peope pleased and hath the Confidence to say in his Notes at the end of the Council that the Emperor writ to the Pope to appoint the place time and manner of calling this General Synod Than which nothing can be more false for the Pope would have had it in the West if he might have chosen but the Emperor Summoned the Bishops first to come to Nice as his Letters yet extant shew and thither the Popes first Letter to the Synod ought to be directed and I wish that ignorant hand which altered the Title and put in Chalcedon instead of Nice hath not put in
those words in it of saving the honour of St. Peter and of his Legates being sent to preside in the Council which passages might look favourably on the supremacy if they be genuine only they are no more but Leo's own Evidence in his own Cause After this the Council being assembled at Nice they with the Popes Legates desired the Emperors presence among them upon which he removed the Council to the City of Chalcedon and thither he afterward came to them On which I shall only note that Baronious and Binius have turned this Petition of the Council and Legates into a Declaration of the Legates alone for they pretend that the Emperor writ to the Council That it seemed good to the Popes Legates that he should be present Which is a false representation of the matter as the Emperors Letter shews § 2. We proceed now to the Council it self assembled at Chalcedon and will first consider these generals viz. 1st Who called it 2ly Who presided in it and in what Order they sate 3ly Who confirmed the Acts of it And secondly make some brief remarks on the particular Acts of this Council First As to the Authority by which it was convened Though the Preface had owned that Marcian called this Council yet the Notes affirm it was appointed by the Authority of Leo and by the advice assistance and help of Marcian congregated And again it is clear this General Council was convened by the Exhortation and Counsel of the Emperor but by the Command and Authority of the Pope And this they pretend to prove by the Epistle of the Bishops of Maesia writ some years after the Council which they cite thus Many holy Bishops meeting in the City of Chalcedon by the Command of Leo who is truly an head of Bishops but the Epistle adds and of the venerable Bishop and Patriarch Anatolius a Council was held which was confirmed under two Emperors But these fraudulent Editors leave out these last words which shew that these Bishops were as much called by the Authority of Anatolius as of Leo and also that the Emperors confirmed the Acts of this general Council which two things Binius would conceal from his Reader Now this accidental expression of six Bishops long after implying no more but only that Leo and Anatolius sent out the Emperors Summons to all Bishops the other three Patriarchs being not then of unsuspected fame is all they have to prove this egregious falshood of this Councils being called by the Popes sole Authority except an Epistle of Gelasius another Pope pleading his own Cause Whereas there are clear and express proofs almost innumerable that it was appointed and convened or called by the Emperors Authority For Leo was summoned himself by the Emperor and in obedience to that Summons excuses his own absence and sends his Legates to the Council And the Emperors general Letter strictly requiring all Bishops to be there is extant a Copy of which probably was delivered to the Pope And in the beginning of every Act it is expresly said The Synod met 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. by the command or divine Authority of the Emperors and it is so often repeated that this Council was called by the precept or command of the Emperor as makes it needless and impossible to cite all the places Liberatus the Deacon who writ some years after when the Popes had encroached something further saith at the Popes request the Emperor commanded this Council to be assembled which makes it a strange boldness in Baronius to affirm that the Emperor requested the Pope that a Council might be called which not only this Historian but the Emperors Letter in the next page contradicts Yea Leo himself in his 61st Epistle which the Notes cite with great applause owns the Council was gathered by the precept of the most Christian Princes c. and the Pope in divers of his Epistles owns the Authority of calling general Councils to be in the Emperor yea the Legates own in the very Council it self that the Council was summoned by the Emperors Authority So that for any of the Popes flatterers to pretend the contrary is to wink against the clearest light Secondly As to the Presidents of this Council the Historical Preface is very positive that the Apostolical Legates presided and the Notes prove it was a general Council because the Pope presided by his Legates But if that were essential to a General Council there was none before this of Chalcedon Here indeed three of the five Legates named by the Pope Paschafinus Lucentius and Boniface were allowed to sit uppermost on one side of the Bishops but Basilius and Julianus the other two who also were named Legates by the Pope were not owned by the Council under that Character and therefore had no precedency given them And if this be all they mean by the Legates presiding that they in right of the Pope had the first place among the Bishops we will not contend with them but if they suppose any Power or Authority these Legates had over the Council by this precedency we must deny that Baronius brags that all things were determined by the Popes Authority And the Notes before cited speak as if they had done all things in this Council yea the Latin version of the Council forgets the Title of Presidents thrice and claps it to the names of these Legates which Title is not in the Greek But if we examine into the matter these three Legates who were allowed by the Council had nothing more than the honour of sitting uppermost upon the left hand and sometimes speaking and subscribing first But in the twelfth Act concerning the Church of Ephesus over which the Patriarch of Constantinople claimed some Jurisdiction Anatolius speaks before the Popes Legate and by his direction the matter was determined And though both Baronius and the Notes boast That the Legates pronounced the sentence on Dioscorus in the Popes name as Presidents of the Council Yet if we consult the place we shall find that they twice asked the Synods Opinion of Dioscorus his Case and the whole Synod declared he was to be condemned yet the Legates durst not pronounce the Sentence till they asked if the Synod commanded them to give the Ecclesiastical Sentence and upon the Order of the Synod they first pronounced it and every Bishop single declared Dioscorus was deposed and excommunicated So that there was nothing of Authority in the Legates but only their speaking first and declaring that which the whole Council had agreed upon And because Anatolius commonly spoke in the second place therefore he is joyned with Leo and both of them together are called the Princes of this Council So in one of the Epistles after the Council Leo and Anatolius are said to have regularly presided herein By which Titles are
this Session it is said That the Councils definition had confirmed Leo ' s Epistle and the Faith of Leo is commended because he believed as Cyril believed And after all the Bishops agreement was not sufficient to ratifie this definition of Faith till it was shewed to the Emperor as the last words import The Sixth Action was adorned with the presence of the Emperor Marcianus who made a Speech to the Fathers which Baronius by mistake saith was in the first Session telling them he was come to confirm the Faith they had agreed on as Constantine did not to shew his power Which is a clear and undeniable proof that the confirmation of their Decrees depended on the Emperor in whose presence the definition of Faith was read and subscribed by every one of the Bishops and he declared his Approbation thereof and in the open Synod appoints penalties for them who should after this call these Points into question And then he gives them some Rules to be formed into Canons because they related to Ecclesiastical Affairs after which having been highly Applauded by the Bishops he was petitioned to dimiss them but told them they must not depart for some few days and so took his leave of them Which shews that the Emperor who convened them had also the sole power to dissolve this general Council I shall add what Richerius observes upon that definition of Faith made in this Session that it contains many of the very words and expressions of the Athanasian Creed and though he doubt whether Athanasius did compose that Form which bears his name yet he saith It is now become the Creed of the Catholick Church and there is not a Tittle in it which is not agreeable to the Credit Holiness and Learning of Athanasius He notes also the policy of the Popes Legates who contrary to all ancient usage and to the Primitive simplicity of the former Councils do most impertinently put this Epithete to the Popes name Bishop of the Universal Church of the City of Rome But when I consider the absurdity of the expression and the frequent corruptions in these Acts why might not that bold hand who added to the Legates name President of the Council in this very place and in this Session where the Emperor being present certainly presided add this huffing Title to the Pope's name And if so it is a corruption and can be no ground for an Argument However 't is a great prejudice to all these Titles that when any others of the Council speak of the Pope they call him only Bishop or Archbishop and none but his own Legates load him with those vain Titles The Seventh Action contains only the Ratification of a private Agreement made between Maximus Bishop of Antioch and Juvenalis Bishop of Jerusalem concerning the extent of their Jurisdictions The Eighth Action was the case of Theodoret who having formerly favoured Nestorius yet being afterwards convinced of his Error was received into Communion by Pope Leo who had judged his cause and acquitted him before the Council met But for all that the case was heard over again and he called an Heretick and had been expelled the Council if he had not cleared himself over again by subscribing Leo's Epistle and Anathematizing Nestorius and Eutyches upon which he was restored to Communion and to his Bishoprick By which it is as clear as the Sun that the Council was above the Pope and had Authority to Judge over again the Causes he had determined and also that barely being in Communion with the Pope could not clear any Man from Heresie nor give him a right to the Communion of the Catholick Church And if the Epistles of Theodoret to Leo be genuin whereof there is good cause to doubt and this cause were referred to the Pope by Appeal as the Romanists brag This makes the matter worse and shews that the last Appeal is not to the Pope and that he cannot finally decide any cause which shall not be liable to be tried again in a general Council yea though it be as this was a Cause of Faith which utterly ruins the Infallibility The Ninth and Tenth Actions concern Ibas Bishop of Edessa who had been a Nestorian and was deposed by Dioscorus in the Pseudo Synod of Ephesus in which are these observables First The Emperor commanded a Lay-man and some Neighbouring Bishops to hear this Cause first at Tyre and then at Berytus so that even Provincial Councils did not meet without the Emperors Authority and the Popes universal supremacy was not known then For in the Council of Berytus Antioch is called an Apostolical Throne and the Council after they had restored him to his Bishoprick referred the cause between him and Nonnus who had been thrust into his place to Maximus Bishop of Antioch as the proper Judge of that matter No more is here to be noted but only that the Popes Legates and the whole Council desire that the Emperor would revoke and utterly annul the Ephesine false Synod For though the Pope had done this yet they knew that was insufficient since none but the Emperor had right effectually to confirm or null a Council which pretended to be Oecumenical To this Action Baronius and Binius tack another concerning an allowance to be made to maintain Domnus late Bishop of Antioch who had been deposed But they own this is not in the Greek nor was there any such thing in the Acts of the Council in Justinian's time who expresly affirms Domnus was dead before which is certainly true Wherefore the Cardinal owns they found this in an old Latin Copy in the Vatican the very Mint of Forgeries and this Action ought to be rejected as a mear Fiction The Eleventh and Twelfth Actions were spent in examing the cause of Bassianus and Stephanus both pretending to be Bishops of Ephesus wherein we may observe That Bassianus pleads he was duly elected by the suffrage of the Nobility People and Clergy of that City and the Emperor confirmed the Election for the Pope had not then usurped the nomination or confirmation of remote Bishops Again whereas Baronius brags that the Pope deposed Bassianus from the Bishoprick of Ephesus and cites the words of Stephen his Antagonist thus it is now four years since the Roman Bishop deposed Bassianus arguing from thence That it was the ancient usage for the Pope to depose Metropolitans He doth notoriously prevaricate for Stephen's words are since the Roman Bishop deposed him and the Bishop of Alexandria condemned him And a little before the same Stephen saith more fully That Bassianus was expelled by the holy Fathers Leo and Flavianus and the Bishops of Alexandria and Antioch By which the Reader may see there is no credit to be given to Baronius Quotations who always resolves by false Citations of Authors to ascribe that to the Pope alone which was done by him in conjunction with other Bishops
such Now this was so apparent a falsification that the later Copies of Gratian have mended it and made it nec non But this was not till that Church had seen Constantinople under the Turkish Yoke and in no capacity to vye with her In the Sixteenth Action the Popes Legates complain to the Judges before all the Council That this Canon was made after their departure and irregularly and desire it may be read They were answered by the Arch-Deacon of Constantinople that it was customary in General Councils to treat of Discipline after matters of Faith that they told the Popes Legates this and desired their concurrence as to what should be done for the Church of Constantinople but they refused saying they had other Orders upon this they acquainted the Judges and they commanded the Council to proceed and so they did nothing being done fraudulently but all publickly and canonically upon this the Canon aforesaid was read Then the Legates Objections were heard and answered First to his insinuation that it was fraudulently obtained The Bishops all declared and especially those of Pontus and Asia newly subjected to Constantinople that they consented and subscribed to this Canon without any circumvention or force voluntarily and freely Secondly whereas the Legates pretended it was contrary to the Nicene Canons and cite the sixth Canon of Nice falsly putting this forged Title That the Church of Rome always had the Primacy into the body of the Canon The Council first discovers the fallacy by reading a true and authentick Record of that Canon without that corrupt Addition though still Baronius and Binius blush not to argue from this feigned Addition and then was read the Canon of the second Council at Constantinople for in that Age the Popes Cause was to be judged by the Canons to both which this Canon of Chalcedon was thought so agreeable that the Bishops principally concerned declared again they had freely subscribed it as agreeable both to the Canons and Custom And Eusebius Bishop of Dorylaeum declares he read that Canon of Constantinople here confirmed to the Pope at Rome and he owned it Where by the way Baronius egregiously prevaricates in expounding hanc regulam that is this Canon of the second General Council of Eusebius his rule or confession of Faith quite contrary to the plain sense of the Bishop here To proceed whereas the Legates objected Thirdly That the Bishops of Constantinople had not formerly used the Rights now conserred on them the contrary is manifest both as to precedence since all the Acts of this Council shew that Anatolius sate and spoke in the second place next to the Popes Legates and they had said in the first Act that his due was the second place And as to Jurisdiction the very Bishops of these Provinces do in these Acts declare the Patriarchs of Constantinople had used it in their Countries and Dioceses for many years Upon which the Judges pronounce the Sentence and give the second place to Constantinople with the Patriarchal Jurisdiction over those Provinces named in the Canon to which the whole Council consents except the Popes Legate who entred his Protestation against it but still the Bishops stood firm to the Canon and the Judges declare it valid with which this General Council is concluded Baronius thinks the final Acclamations are wanting if they be so we may easily guess who rased them out even that Church which then and since hath opposed this Canon and would conceal that General Consent by which it passed But the last words are plain enough where the Judges say The whole Synod hath confirmed it even though the Legates did dissent I shall conclude this History of Fact when I have noted two Corruptions in favour of the Roman Church which are evident in this last Act. First The Latin Version affirms the Judges said Rome truly by the Canons had all the Primacy omnem Primatum but the Greek is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Primacy before all others which is not a Supremacy over all other Bishops but the first place among them Again the Legates in the Latin Copy say The Apostolical See ought not to be humbled in our presence but the Greek is quite different that is the Apostolical Throne commanded that all things should be done in our presence But he who made the alteration was one who dream'd that this Canon was to humble Rome whereas it takes not away the first place from the Pope only gives the second equal Priviledges within its own bounds to Constantinople § 4. We shall now proceed to the third part concerning what was done after the Council and there will shew that this Canon was valid notwithstanding the dissent of the Popes Legates and Leo's furious endeavours to annull it The first thing after the Councils speech to the Emperor in the old Collectors of Councils was the Imperial Edicts by which the Decrees were confirmed but these late Editors have removed these into the third place And first set down a pretended Letter from the Council to the Pope which is done only to impose upon unwary Readers and make them think it was not the Emperor but the Pope who had the power of confirming the Acts. But as to the Epistle it self it was dated in the end of March four Months after the Council was separated and if it be not a Forgery as some vehemently suspect on the account of a foolish and improbable story in it of Euphemia's dead body confirming the true Faith by a Miracle it was writ not by the General Council but by Anatolius after he had heard of the Popes dislike of the twenty eighth Canon and therefore he doth not desire his consent to any other thing but only labours to gain his assent to this Cannon So that Baronius falsly argues from hence it was the custom to send the Decrees of General Councils to Rome to be confirmed by the Popes Authority For this Letter was not writ by a General Council nor doth it desire a confirmation of any thing but one Canon which stood firm notwithstanding the Pope always disallowed it I only note that where the original is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is taking his wonted care the Latin reads consuete gubernando As if the Pope had by custom governed all Churches as far as Constantinople I observe also that Binius leaves out the date of this Epistle to the Pope which is later in time than either of the Imperial Edicts hoping by that means the cheat of placing it before those Edicts would be undiscovered and that easie People might judge it a formal Letter writ while the Council was sitting to Petition the Pope to confirm all they had done I shall not insist upon any more particulars but smile at Baronius who for a few Complements that the writer of this Letter gives the Pope draws a serious Argument for the Supremacy and would have all
Bishops even in a General Council to be Sons to their Holy Father the Pope To proceed the Edicts of the Emperor are dated one in February and the other in March and they do effectually confirm the Acts of the Council and ordain penalties on such as oppose the definitions of the Synod After this follow three Letters of Pope Leo dated all of one day directed to Anatolius Bishop of Constantinople and to the Emperor and Empress Marcianus and Pulcheria in all which he shews his consent to the other things done at Chalcedon but argues and exclaims against the 28th Canon saying in his Letter to Pulcheria that by the Authority of Peter he utterly makes it void But all this spoils the Cause for notwithstanding all his huffing this Canon did remain in Force for Liberatus who writ in the next Century saith The Judges and all the Bishops did not value the Legates protestation and though the Apostolical See still oppose it this which was confirmed by the Synod by the Emperors Patronage remains even till now and Almain of later times affirms the Constitution of the Council prevailed over the protestations of Leo against it For the Canons of general Councils do prevail over the opposite Decrees of Popes And the History of following times doth clearly shew that the Bishop of Constantinople was ever after this reckoned the second Patriarch and took his place accordingly in succeeding Councils and retained the jurisdiction over those Provinces which this Canon gives him Wherefore it is very weak in Baronius from some bold passages in Leo's Letters to draw this consequence that it is clearly in the sole power of the Pope to make void what 630 Bishops in Council the Emperor and Senate had agreed on and confirmed For the contrary is clear as the Sun that the Legates contradiction there and the Popes ranting afterwards for all his pretended Authority of St. Peter did not signify any thing towards a real annulling this Canon and the more he strove to do it the more he shewed his Pride to be above his Power And indeed General Councils were needless precarious and insignificant if any one Bishop were not to be concluded by the major vote or had a negative voice there But because the Pope argues as well as condemns let us hear his reasons against this Canon First He every where urges it is contrary to the Nicene Canon But this is false he and his Legates indeed pretend this but the Nicene Canon was read over in open Council and all of them unanimously agreed it did no way contradict it The Council of Nice declared those Patriarchates which Custom had then setled and since after that time Constantinople came to be the Imperial City the second General Council and this at Chalcedon had as good right to declare Constantinople a Patriarchate as the first at Nice had to declare others and since Precedency was purely of Ecclesiastical Institution and given as this Canon saith on consideration of the honours of the Cities when the Emperors had made this City equal to old Rome as to the Civil State the Council might allot it a suitable precedence in the Church which was a perfecting of the Nicene Canon and a proceeding upon the same reason but no contradiction to it Secondly Leo argues that this was a prejudice to the two Sees of Alexandria and Antioch which were elder Patriarchates and so ought to preceed Constantinople I reply Maximus Bishop of Antioch did not think this Canon any injury to him for he is the second who subscribed it and all-along in the several Sessions Anatolius sat and spoke before him And though Leo stood nicely upon his points in these matters we do not find other Bishops were of that temper they freely submitted to the Bishop of the imperial City especially since he only had a place before them but no Authority over any other Patriarch So that Leo need not make any objections for them who are not found to complain or to have thought themselves injured I shall not insist upon Leo's insinuation that this Canon was procured fraudulently and that Anatolius his Pride made him seek it and strive to impose upon the Council For every body sees the whole Council clears him of this and 't is plain Leo was far prouder than Anatolius he scorned a Second and feared in time he might prove an Equal But Anatolius only got that place confirmed to him in this Council which he and his predecessors had hold long before I might add here the elaborate Arguments of Baranius and Binius but fearing I have been already too tedious I shall refer the Reader to Richerius who discovers all their Fallacies and make some observations on the rest of these Letters after the Council In an Epistle of the Emperors to the Monks of Alexandria who disliked the Council of Chalcedon he recommends its definitions as agreeing to the Faith of Athanasius Theophilus and Cyril former Bishops of Alexandria which it seems was more considerable to them than the Faith of Leo in whom that Age knew of no Infallibility Again it is a good Rule in an Epistle of Leo's That none should seek his own advancement by the diminution of another which had he and his Successors observed they would not have degraded all the other Patriarchs to set themselves up as supreme over them all There may be some suspicion whether that Epistle of Leo to Maximus Bishop of Antioch be genuin however there is a very improbable story in it viz. That Juvenalis of Jerusalem had sought to get the jurisdiction of all Palestina in the famous General Council of Ephesus and that Cyril had writ to Leo to joyn with him in opposing that design whereas that Council of Ephesus was held nine years before Leo was Pope and therefore Leo could not be applied to as to any thing agitated in that Council After this follows a multitude of Epistles in answer to the complaints of the Aegyptian Bishops who adhered to this Council of Chalcedon and the Emperor Leo's Order to all Bishops to give the Sense of every Provincial Church concerning this General Council which some heretical Monks had questioned For this Emperor prudently avoided the charge and trouble of another General Council appointing the Metropolitans to call their own Bishops together at home and to send him their Opinion of this Council of Chalcedon which was universally owned by all in their several Letters to have been an Orthodox Council sufficiently approved and confirmed Now had the Pope then been infallible or thought to be so it had been sufficient to write to him alone and he could have told the Emperor the Sense of the Catholick Church but he was only writ to as other Bishops were to declare his own Opinion So that in this proceeding there are no marks of his Supremacy for the other Bishops confirm the Faith decreed in this Council as well as
in which there were divers Bishops married by their Modern Corrupt Roman Standard And this sincere Father must be made to mock God and deceive Men and exposed as a Notorious Liar and Dissembler rather than there should seem to be any difference between the Primitive Church and theirs in the point of the Clergies Marriage Again he observes out of St. Augustin that he accounted the Council of Sardica heretical because Julius Bishop of Rome was condemned there and he infers that whatever was said or done against the Pope was of evil Fame among the Antients But if St. Augustin had not been misrepresented there had been no room for this fallacious Note St. Augustin blames this Council in the second place cited as heretical for condemning Athanasius and doth not mention Pope Julius there at all and in the former place he names Athanasius first and Julius only in the second place and he blames them not for condemning him as Bishop of Rome but because he was Orthodox as Athanasius was Wherefore Baronius leaves out the main part of St. Augustin's Argument only to bring in a false and flattering Inference for the Popes Supremacy And I have observed before he falsly gathers that the Roman Church was the sole Standard of Catholick Communion in Cecilian's time from a place where St. Augustin saith Cecilian of Carthage was a Catholick because he was in Communion with the Roman Church and other Lands from whence the Gospel came into Africa that is he was in Communion with the Eastern as well as the Western Church But Baronius is so dazled with Rome that where that is found in any Sentence he can see nothing else And therefore when he cites this very place again a little after he would prove that Carthage owned a right in the Roman Church to receive Appeals and this contrary to the express Protestation of that African Council wherein St. Augustin was present and the place it self doth not mention any Appeals and speaks of Communion with other Churches as well as Rome and so would equally prove a right in other Bishops as well as the Pope to receive Appeals from Africa if that had been spoken of there Further from Socrates his relation of a Bishop of Gyzicum named by Sisinnius Patriarch of Constantinople but not received by reason of their mistaking a late Law made to confirm the Priviledges of that See of Constantinople and this in the time of a mild and quiet Bishop he infers that this Patriarch challenged no right no not in Hollospont by the Canon of any General Council Now his naming a Bishop for this City shews he challenged a right which was well known to be his due both by the Canon of the second General Council and by this late Law but a peaceable Mans receding from his right after he hath made his claim rather than provoke a Factious City is no proof there was no right as Baronius doth pretend I observe also that the Latin Version of an Epistle to the Council of Ephesus hath these words cujus Reliquias praesentes veneramini Which is to abuse the Reader into an apprehension that the Relicks of St. John were worshipped in that Age But the Greek word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which imports no more than that they were honoured which is far less than that which Rome now gives even to feigned Relicks of uncertain Saints A like Falshood about the People of Ephesus worshipping the Blessed Virgin I noted before Again he manifestly perverts a Phrase of Theodosius the Eastern Emperor in his Epistle to Acacius where he advises the Nestorians to shew themselves approved-approved-Bishops of the Roman Religion which Baronius pretends respects the Western Church of Old Rome in Italy but the Emperor plainly refers to his own Empire in the East which was then generally Orthodox and against Nestorius Constantinople is often called Rome without any other addition and Romania or the Roman Empire is in many Authors of these Ages put only for the Eastern part of it It is also very odd that he should cite Basil's Epistles to prove that the Roman Church was wont to send Legates to regulate Affairs in the Eastern Churches Whereas St. Basil in many Epistles grievously complains of the Pride of the West and of their despising the Calamities of the East not so much as giving them that Brotherly Aid which they might expect when they were in great distress but there is not one syllable of any jurisdiction which the Pope then did so much as pretend to over those Eastern Churches Leo was the first who ventured to make any steps towards this Usurpation an hundred years after St. Basil's time To this device we may add his silent passing by all that makes against the Roman Church but being large in his Notes upon any thing which seems to make for it How many words doth he every where use when one is described to be Orthodox for communicating with an Orthodox Pope but when those are declared to be Orthodox who communicated with the Patriarchs of Constantinople Alexandria and Antioch at that time differing from the Pope we have not one observation of the honour of those Sees Thus though he cite innumerable heretical and illiterate Writings meerly to confirm some incredible Miracle or superstitious Practice without any Censure passed on them yet when he comes to mention the Imperfect work on St. Mathew ascribed to St. Chrysostom which many Roman Writers highly commend as writ by a Catholick Antient and Learned Author he falls into a fit of railing against it as Heretical and what not because in that Book we are told The Scripture is the only rule by which true Christians may judge of the right Faith Which Sentence though it condemn the new Romish way yet it is agreeable to the Primitive and most Orthodox Fathers who very often say the same thing And Baronius relates a little before that a certain Bishop who wrought Miracles and converted many Pagans charged his new Converts to apply themselves diligently to read the Holy Scriptures Moreover he brings in a Quotation out of St. Augustin with a long Preface because he designs to misapply it to justifie the Roman Supremacy But the place it self plainly supposes the Western to be but one part of the Catholick Church only he thinks the Authority of Latin Fathers alone and of Innocent a Successor of the Apostles Chief of this Western Church might suffice his Adversary who was one of the Latin Church And as to Innocent's Opinion he might be sure it would agree with what the African Councils had declared and the Roman Church constantly held with other Churches Where we see Innocent is only set out as the first in Order of Dignity in the Western Church and his Opinion supposed to be right not because of the Infallibility of his See or any Supream Power in him to judge in matters of
Faith but because he agreed with the African and other Churches and now de Facto took the Orthodox Side Wherefore when Zosimus and other succeeding Popes favoured these Pelagians the Dignity of his See did not secure them from the Censures of the African Fathers as we shewed before § 3. We pass thirdly to his rare faculty of supposing things without any proof and sometimes making inferences from his own inventions for the advantage of Rome So when a few persecuted Eastern Bishops of Chrysostom's party fled to the Roman Church to avoid the Storm their own Patriarchs being all combined against them Baronius saith they fled to it as to their Mother being admonished by the examples of their Predecessors And he goes on to insinuate a very false thing viz. That all the Bishops who were persecuted by the Arrians in Constantin ' s time in the East fled to Rome Whereas only some few came both then and now and dire necessity had left them no choice nor other refuge Thus he resolves Ruffinus shall be a Pelagian Heretick and out of a Council whose Acts are not extant and the relation of it only saith Celestius was condemned there he will have Ruffinus condemned in that Council upon meer conjecture and can no other ways prove him a Heretick but by one Witness even this Heretick Celestius who being in a strait cited Ruffinus's words but probably very falsly so that one Heretick shall be sufficient evidence against a man that Baronius hates but many Orthodox Witnesses will not persuade him that Innocent favoured the Pelagians almost to the end of his Life It is an odd conjecture that St. Hierom would not translate any of Theophilus his Paschal Epistles after once he differed with Pope Innocent about restoring St. Chrysostom's name into the Dypticks For except another guess of his own without any manner of evidence there is no appearance that ever St. Hierom was concerned for St. Chrysostom's sufferings and it is certain he was kind with his Mortal Enemy Theophilus in the year of Christ 404 when he got him to be banished and it would be very strange that St. Hierom should refuse to translate any more of Theophilus's Epistles on the account of a quarrel between him and Pope Innocent about restoring Chrysostom's name into the Dypticks since the last Paschal Epistle translated by Hierom was writ Anno 404 and Baronius saith Theophilus writ every year one till Anno 412 but Chrysostom died not till Anno 407 and Innocent himself did not quarrel with Theophilus till long after the year 404 So that the Cardinal contradicts himself meerly to support an idle conjecture viz. That all Eminent Fathers loved and hated only those who were loved and hated by the Pope And into what Absurdities and Contradictions this Fancy hath led him may be seen by comparing those two places aforecited together and we may note that though it be certain Theophilus died unreconciled to Chrysostom's memory or to Innocent yet Baronius shews he was commended as a most approved Bishop for so it seems a man might be though he had a difference with the Bishop of Rome Again it is a bare supposition that the Priviledges of the Patriarch of Constantinople asserted in the Province of Illiricum by a Law of Theodosius was founded upon the false suggestions of Atticus For the very Law it self forbids innovations and requires the ancient Canons and Customs thus far observed should be in force on which Theodosius plainly grounds the Jurisdiction of the Bishop of Constantinople in this Province So that he refers to the Canon of the Second General Council of Constantinople and the usage ever since and how could this proceed from any false suggestions of Atticus To proceed Prosper relating Germanus his going into Britain as some think mistakes the time at least seventeen years and says nothing of St. Lupus his Companion in that Journey howbeit because Prosper saith the Pope sent St. Germanus Baronius will have him to be authentick contrary to all other Authors who affirm St. Germanus and Lupus were sent by a Gallican Council to whom a Petition from the British Bishops was sent However he affirms it for a certainty soon after that St. Germanus was the Popes Legate into Britain which he had but half proved before And one Author who speaks favourably of the Popes Authority shall be believed against many of equal Credit who speak otherwise I grant Prosper is a credible Writer only he is apt for the credit of the Cause always to bring in the Popes as Enemies to the Pelagians sometimes without reason and Constantine Bede with others who write of this journey into Britain and ascribe this mission to a French Council deserve more credit in that particular than he A little after upon Cyril's mentioning Nestorius's writing to the Roman Bishop in hopes to draw him to his Opinion Baronius supposes of his own Head that it was an ancient use in Controversies of Faith to write to the Bishop of Rome and that the part he chose was generally favoured so that if Nestorius could persuade him the whole Catholick Church would follow his Judgment which is all Chimaera for Pope Victor Stephen and Liberius of old Vigilius and Honorius afterward found opposition enough for all the dignity of their place when they seemed to other Bishops to take the wrong side From a fabulous Writer called Probus who hath given us a Legend of St. Patrick's Life he not only confidently affirms that Pope Celestine sent this Patrick to convert the Irish but infers from thence That it was clear to all men the Gospel was to be received from the Apostolical See for the conversion of the Pagans Whereas it is not clear that St. Patrick was sent from Rome but it is clear that other Heathen Countries have received the Gospel by the care of other Patriarchs and Eminent Bishops so that his Ground is but conjecture and the Superstructure wholly vain 'T is true indeed that Pope Leo to shew his Authority desired three Bishops of Sicily to appear in his annual Roman Council once a year and was the first Pope who put this Yoke upon them but how this new encroachment shews the ancient observance of holding Councils of Bishops twice a year is very hard to conjecture only when a Pope alters the Fathers Customs the Annalist will suppose he observes and confirms them And he could see no usurpation in this Popes calling the Sicilian Bishops yearly to Rome against the ancient Usage But when Dioscorus of Alexandria would have encroached upon the Bishops of Syria he blames him severely We shall not mention the Authority of the Writings of Athanasius Cyril and other Eminent Bishops of other Sees in Controversies of Faith But it is very imposing for Baronius to suppose The Pope presided as the Master over the whole Christian World and out of his high Throne taught all men
Wine to the People as they did and provide both newly Consecrated for the Sick when there is occasion but reserve neither for Worship Which was the usage of the first and purest times And why may not we forbid the needless reserving of the Sacrament in either kind as well as they may prohibit it in one kind But so insatiable is his desire to extol the Roman Church that though he cite all he can find of this sort good and bad he wishes in one place he could find some things which are not to be found that he might let his style run out on so luscious a Subject We note also that how much soever the Romanists here in the Reign of King James the Second were for Toleration because it was their Interest Baronius highly commends the severe Penal Laws made by Arcadius and Honorius against such as differed from the established way of Worship and profession of Faith for Baronius is always a bitter Enemy to Toleration and stiffly opposes the taking away any Penal Laws Moreover it is observable that though his Office be to write an History and relate Matter of Fact When he comes to S. Hierom's Book against Vigilantius he puts on the Character of a Disputant and makes large digressions to the Hereticks as he calls the Reformed to justifie such a Veneration of Relicks and such a kind of worship of Saints as Rome uses at this day which kind of Veneration and Worship S. Hierom would have condemned as well as Vigilantius had it been practised in that Age. He notes that upon the difference between Theophilus and the Pope about S. Chrysostom a Council of Carthage writ to Innocent That the Churches of Rome and Alexandria should keep that Peace mutually which the Lord enjoyned Which shews those African Fathers did not think one of these Churches superior in Authority to the other for if so they had no need to write to Innocent but only to Theophilus to submit to the Supream Bishop For that was the only way to settle a Peace if Innocent's Supremacy had been then allowed And it is a vain and false Conjecture that if Theophilus had writ any Paschal Epistles after his difference with Innocent no Catholick would have received them For divers Eminent and Orthodox Bishops writ to Theophilus and received Letters from him after this yea Synesius himself writes to him to determine a Question by the Authority of his Apostolical Succession and he lived and died with the repute of a Catholick though as I have shewed he never did yield to Pope Innocent in the case of S. Chrysostom Alike groundless is his Conjecture That Arcadius laboured to wipe out the stains he had contracted in persecuting S. Chrysostom by translating the Relicks of the Prophet Samuel and by going into a Martyrs Temple and there praying not to the Martyr observe that but to God For if we set aside the two forged Epistles recorded by Baronius pag. 259. there is no good Evidence that Arcadius at the time when the aforesaid Acts were done was convinced he had done any fault in the affair of S. Chrysostom wherefore he could have no design to purge himself from a Fault he did not own at that time In the next year he spoils one Argument to prove theirs the true Church viz. by Miracles since he owns Atticus Bishop of Constantinople did work a Miracle even before he held Communion with the Roman Church So that if Miracles prove a true Church then a Church that separates from the Roman Communion may be a true Church Of which also we have another Instance soon after where the Church of Antioch was in a difference with Rome for many years Theodoret saith 85 years yet all that while she was owned by the best Catholicks for a true Church Nor do I see how that can be true which Baronius affirms That the cause of restoring the Eastern Bishops to Communion in Chrysostom ' s case was only decided by Pope Innocent since Alexander of Antioch did transact this affair in the East and 24 Western Bishops subscribed with Innocent in the West to testifie their consent to this Agreement of Alexanders yea Thodoret ascribes this not to the Pope alone but to all the Bishops of the West But the Annalist will have all things done by the Pope alone right or wrong Poor Socrates is branded for a Novatian Heretick because he saith It was not the usage of the Catholick Church to persecute Yet the Emperor Marcian and Pope Gregory who were both I hope very good Catholicks say the same thing and therefore we may discern Baronius his Spirit in being so bitter against all who censure Persecuting In the same Year we may see that the Bishops under Theophilus Jurisdiction for all his quarrel at that time with the Pope did reserve the greater Cases to his decision and yet were very good Catholicks all the while When a Bishop pleads for Mercy to such as have principally offended the Church those Intercessions with Pious Magistrates ought to have the force of Commands But to make a general Inference from hence That Bishops ought to command things agreeable to the Christian Law to Magistrates is to stretch the Instance too far But there is another obvious Note from S. Augustine's petitioning and urging Marcellinus to spare the Hereticks and not execute the severity of the Temporal Laws upon them which Baronius would not observe viz. That the Primitive Bishops used their power and interest to get Hereticks spared by Secular Magistrates whereas the Inquisitors use their power now to oblige the Lay-Magistrates to kill and destroy them Further it is observable that he takes upon him to interpret Gods Judgments in favour of his own Party and thus he expounds the Goths invading France to be a punishment for the Heresies there broke out which Salvian more piously makes to be a Scourge for their Immoralities But I note that it was but two year before that Alaricus wasted Italy and took Rome it self yet Baronius could not discern any Heresies there but his general Maxim is That God is wont to bring destruction on those Countries where Heresies arise Now one might observe Leo's attempts to usurp a Supremacy over all other Bishops and the many pious Frauds used and beginning now to be countenanced at Rome about false Relicks and feigned Miracles were as probable occasions of the Divine Judgments in Italy as those he assigns in France To proceed I cannot apprehend how Atticus could have so little Wit in his Anger against Rome as to call Paulinus and Evagrius successively Bishops of Antioch Schismaticks meerly for Communicating with the Roman Church and this in a Letter to so great a Patriarch as S. Cyril if he had known it to be then generally acknowledged as Baronius often pretends that to be in Communion with Rome was a certain sign of a Catholick
and to differ with it a sure note of a Schismatick But S. Cyril's Reproving Atticus for restoring Chrysostom's Name into the Dyptics which was the known desire of Pope Innocent shews how little the rest of the Patriarchs valued the Judgment or the Authority of the Popes when they supposed them to be mistaken in the Case For none could or durst have so severely Censured the Opinion of a Person taken to be a Supream and Infallible Judge Again I wonder how Baronius could Record without some reflection S. Augustin's speaking of Orosius his Journey from Spain into Africa only out of Zeal to understand the Scriptures and his sending him to Palestine to S. Hierom on that Errand For according to the Cardinals Notion he should have been more zealous for Catholick Tradition than for Scripture and Rome was the only place both to learn that in perfection and by that to interpret the Scriptures unerringly and this was nearer to Spain than either Hippo or Bethlehem But while he owns that the Salvation of some after they had been purged by the Internal Fire was one of the Errors of Origen and counted an Error both by Orosius and Augustine it seems to look ill upon Purgatory which their modern Church hath made a Catholick Truth but the Primitive censured it as a false Doctrine The Reader also may note that when he is commending Theodosius for his Piery he magnifies him for fasting upon Wednesdays and Fridays the days now appointed for Abstinence by the Protestant Church of England So that a man may be a pious Catholick and not keep the Fasting-days appointed by the Roman Church viz. Fridays and Saturdays Moreover he contradicts himself when he saith According to the ancient usage of speaking by the Apostolical Seat is always to be understood the Roman Church Whereas he hath often owned the other Patriarchs Sees had the Title of Apostolical Thrones and Seats and a little after cites Sidonius calling Lupus Bishop of Troys a Bishop of Bishops who had sat a long time in an Apostolical Seat he cites Possidius in the Life of S. Augustine to prove the Pelagians were first condemned at Rome and then at Carthage But if the Reader consult that Author he will find that S. Augustine writ against them and that they went near to draw in first Innocent and then Zosimus to their party till the Councils of Holy African Bishops had with much labour persuaded first the one of these Popes and then the other that this was an abominable Heresie and contrary to the Catholick Faith All which the Cardinal leaves out and from half the story makes a false Marginal Note viz. That these Hereticks were first condemned at Rome and then at Carthage Which is every way false for if it be meant of Innocent's time it is certain that the African Councils under the Primate of Carthage yea that of Milevis had solemnly condemned Pelagianism before this Pope would openly condemn them he being under suspicion of favouring that Heresie to the last year of his Life and this Council of Carthage did condemn these Hereticks while Zosimus did defend them so that Africk not Rome first discovered and censured this Heresie He also falsly cites the Preface of S. Augustine's Books to Pope Boniface against the Pelagians telling us he affirms That the Pope being most eminent in the highest top of the Pastoral Watch-Tower did watch over all and from hence infers That though S. Augustine and others sometimes call the Pope Brother and Colleague yet still they own his supream Pastoral Power But all that S. Augustine there saith is this Communisque sit omnibus nobis qui fungimur Episcopatûs officio quamvis ipse in eo praeemineas celsiore fastigio specula pastoralis The Pastoral watching is common to all of us who are Bishops though you have the advantage of a higher station Which words only intimate the Dignity of the Roman See as to Order but plainly declare Bishops to have equal Obligations to guard the Church And whereas a little after from S. Augustine's modest Complement of sending these Books to Boniface to examine and correct he would infinuate something of Supremacy in Judging This is no more than the same Father used to do to all other Bishops to whom he dedicated his Books so he desires Claudius a private Bishop to read and judge of his Books against Julian dedicated to him This therefore ascribes no Infallibility to Rome and if S. Augustine himself had not judged better of Pelagianism than any Pope of these times it would not have been condemned there to this day After all these Instances of sincerity we cannot wonder that he falls upon the Reformed as Innovators for refusing to stand to a General Council and so worse than the Pelagians who desired one But this calumny will soon be dispelled if we call to mind the breach of Faith used to such as had trusted Rome in the Council of Constance the Tricks used by the Popes before the Council of Trent for many years together to avoid a General Council when the Reformed earnestly desired one and the great partiality of that packt Assembly at Trent who met not to examine or amend Abuses but to establish them and had resolved to condemn the Protestants before they heard them It is something odd that Baronius should quote Gelasius his Censure of the Legends and Acts of Martyrs That some of them were writ by Ideots and some by Hereticks wherefore the Roman Church then used not to read them in publick For this condemns him for filling so many Pages of his Annals with this Fabulous stuff and discovers an alteration in the Roman Church which of old was wiser and honester than to read those feigned Legends that in after Ages took up a great part of their publick Service We may further observe That Leporius an Arch-heretick recants in Africa and applies himself to the Gallican Bishops only without any notice taken of Rome or Pope Boniface which confutes what the Annalist often affirms That all great Hereticks were obliged to recant at Rome He publisheth a Rescript of Theodosius and bids us observe that it contains the principal Feasts received by the Christians Now these are Sundays Christmas and Epiphany Easter and Pentecost with the Memory of the Apostles Passions which is a Protestant Catalogue and there is not one Feast of our Blessed Lady Holy Cross Corpus Christi c. which are now so famous at Rome in all this number assigned by Theodosius which shews they are Innovations and the effects of modern Superstition He relates it as the Custom of S. Augustine and other Bishops as well as of Pope Celestine to salute Presbyters by the name of Sons and Bishops by the name of Brothers which looks not favourably on the Pope's Universal Superiority above all Bishops whatsoever When Pope Gregory grosly mistakes Sozomen's History for
Theodoret's Baronius had better have owned it for none ever thought Popes infallible in their Quotations but the Cardinal resolves right or wrong to vindicate Gregory who rejects Sozomen's History for that passage which is in Theodoret but is not in Sozomen so rashly do Popes judge sometimes The Passage is about commending Theodorus of Mopsvestia as an Orthodox Father to the time of his death which Theodoret doth affirm but Sozomen only mentions this Theodorus his Conversion by S. Chrysostom but saith no more of him and Baronius is forced to feign this Passage was in that Part of Sozomen which was long since lost and which probably S. Gregory himself never saw however Baronius knows nothing what was there written and therefore it is very boldly done to suppose a thing for a certain Truth which he could never know any thing of only to save the Credit of a Pope who had little or no skill in Greek Authors Again 't is apparently partial in him where he produces some ancient Testimonies of the French being wont to break their words to restrain this in modern Times only to that part of them which is Reformed while he boasts of his Catholicks as the justest Men in the World To confute which the Perjury and Treachery of the Leaguers in our Fathers time and the many Promises and Engagements broken to the late Hugonots in our days are abundantly sufficient He takes it for a proof that the Eastern Bishops use to refer Causes of the greatest moment to the Pope because one Daniel a French Bishop fled out of his own Country for his Crimes probably into the East was complained of to the Pope being Uncanonically Ordained which Complaint the Pope transmits to the Bishops of the Province of Narbon as the proper Judges in that matter so that this Cause was not referred to him at all only he was desired to acquaint those with it who ought to determine that Point Moreover he makes it a certain Evidence that Socrates was an Heretick because he complains of Nestorius for urging the Emperor to persecute Hereticks as soon as ever he was Ordained Bishop of Constantinople But this Kingdom hath found Romanists when it was their Interest to censure Men as Hereticks for the contrary viz. for only insisting upon the execution of some gentle Penal Laws upon such as differed from the established Religion He commends S. Cyril for his Modesty in not mentioning the Fault of Theodosius his abetting Nestorius yet he upon bare Surmizes speaks very opprobriously of Theodosius upon this account and reflects upon all Kings and Sovereigns as inclined to follow his Example Now if the silence of these things proves Cyril's Modesty who must needs know whether Theodosius were guilty of this or no Doth it not prove somebodie 's Immodesty to rail by meer Conjectures at Theodosius and all Princes To proceed It is a very false consequence from Cyril's calling in Celestine to his assistance against Nestorius and that Popes condemning the Heretick in his private Council at Rome That it was the Ancient custom from the beginning for S. Peter's Chair alone to determine controversies of Faith and condemn Heresies with their Authors as they arise For Cyril had first condemned this Heretick and his Opinions and the Pope only came in as his Second yet after all it was necessary that a General Council should condemn him which had been needless if the Pope alone or in conjunction with another Patriarch had been sufficient Again he cites two Authors only for Celestine's sending a Pall and a Mitre to S. Cyril and these Writers lived 8 or 900 year after this time and he rejects some part of their account as fabulous yet from this Evidence he would prove That Cyril was Celestine ' s Legate in the Council of Ephesus But he must have better proof than this to make us believe so incredible a thing We may further note that where Possidius is so particular in the circumstances of S. Augustine's death he mentions nothing of any Image of the Blessed Virgin or the Saints no Crucifix placed before him but only the Penitential Psalms were writ out and fastned on the Wall which he read over as he lay on his Death-bed Nor doth he mention any Office said for his Soul after he was dead but only an Office for commending his Body to the Grave which shews these were devised in later and more Superstitious Times Baronius indeed supposes the word Sacrificium to signifie the Mass here but it seems to signifie no more than the usual Office at putting the Body into the Grave in hopes of a joyful Resurrection But though nothing be more evident even in these Annals to a Judicious Reader than the many Innovations in Doctrin and Worship made by the modern Roman Church contrary to the Decrees of Councils the Judgment and Practice of the Ancient Fathers the Annalist a little after upon Capreolus Bishop of Carthage his affirming that to be the true Faith which is delivered by the Fathers flies out into foul Language against the Reformed Churches for Innovations and reviving Heresies condemned by the Fathers Whereas we freely refer it to those Ancients to judge between us Whether they or we come nearer to the Doctrin and Usages of pure Antiquity and can from substantial Evidence prove them to be the Innovators I will only note That in this Epistle of Capreolus this Bishop calls the Emperor His Lord and his Son Upon which Baronius makes no Remark because he would have it thought that no Bishop but only the Pope did ever call the Emperor Son For he alone is to be the Father of all Princes and all Bishops also A little after he interprets that woful destruction of the Emperor's Army in Africa to be a Divine Judgment upon him for countenancing the Heretical party at Ephesus Though not many Pages from hence he lays all the blame of this Connivance upon the Treachery of the Emperor's Domesticks and he may find as great Defeats hapning often when the Emperors did take the Catholick part So true is that of Solomon No man knoweth either love or hatred by all that is before him All things come alike to all c. Ecclesix 1 2. 'T is remarkable what Baronius saith of a very dubious Rescript of Valentinian cited for the Authority of the Seâ— of Ravenna by the Friends of that Bishoprick The love of our Country is an imperious thing yea a Tyrant which compels an Historian to defend those things which if they were said of another place he would utterly explode which with the rest there said is so applicable to the Cardinal as to Rome that the only wonder is he did not see how severe a Censure he as David once did upon Nathan's Parable here passeth upon himself Again he forgets that the Miracle out of Prosper concerning a Maid who could not swallow a piece of the Sacramental Bread
entrusted him with But not a syllable of his Subjection to the Pope or of any Office derived from him § 4. The Council of Tours Binius places here under Simplicius Labbè 21 years sooner under Pope Hilary but the truth is that it was held An. 461. but under no Pope at all For they desire no other but their absent Brethren Bishops of that Province to confirm their Canons by their consent The Notes on this Council mention the Fasts and Vigils which Perpetuus the 6th Bishop of Tours instituted for his Church Recorded by an old Historian of that place And 't is very plain they differ extreamly from those used at Rome which shews how unreasonable it is in the Modern Roman Church to impose their Fasts Feasts and other Rites upon all Churches in the World The Council of Arles in the cause of Faustus assembled to examin Points of Faith doth not so much as mention the Pope so that surely they did not take him for an infallible Judge Labbè's Notes boast that one De Champs hath confuted Bishop Usher's censure of the Epistles of Faustus and Lucidus and of this Council which approved them But before the Reader credit this let him hear that most learned Primate who modestly excuses the Council but strongly proves that Faustus was a Semi-pelagian Heretick And if he did not feign the consent of this and another Council to his Doctrins this will be one instance that Councils may Err in matters of Faith § 5. Foelix the Third who followed Simplicius was much bolder and openly reproved the Emperor and Acacius for that which he called a Fault But the Notes falsifie when they say That in the beginning of his Pontificat he rejected proscribed and cursed the most wicked Zeno's Henoticon Edict for Union anathematizing all that subscribed it For Euagrius recites this Edict and neither saith Foelix condemned it nor condemns it himself and Foelix former Letters treat both Zeno and Acacius with all respect nor do they curse either of them on the account of this Edict Theodorus Lector indeed saith That when all the Patriarchs besides agreed to Zeno's Edict for Union Foelix of Rome 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 joyned not with him Which only implies his not communicating with the Emperor in that point But Binius hath improved this into proscribing cursing and anathematizing the Edict The First Epistle of Foelix to Acacius often calls him Brother which shews as if then he did not reject his Communion and neither this nor the second to Zeno do at all mention the Emperors Edict for Union but quarrels only about matters of Jurisdiction being not so much concerned for any Heretical Opinions as for keeping up his claim to a pretended Supremacy However some suspect both these Epistles as being without date and because that to Acacius seems to contradict Liberatus But I think they may be allowed for genuine The Second Epistle to Zeno is writ with modesty yet wants not good advice The Pope owning it his Duty to write to the Emperor upon his coming into the See of Rome and he rather intreats than either commands or threatens But it is certain if this Epistle be genuine it is not perfect wanting that account of the African Persecution which Euagrius saith was mentioned in this Epistle It is said Foelix writ three Letters to Petrus Cnapheus the Heretical Bishop of Antioch of which only two are extant and it is well if both be not Forgeries incepi sententiare contrate is a Phrase that smells of the later Ages when the Flatterers of Rome coyned great variety of this kind of Epistles to make the World think that an Heretical Patriarch could be deposed by none but the Pope But this very Letter owns that Acacius and his Council had also deposed this Peter of Antioch as well as the Pope and his And Baronius saith Acacius did it first But the Cardinal thought it worth his while to corrupt this suspicious Epistle wherein Foelix saith He was condemned by me and those who together with me do govern the Apostolical Throne Which Phrase plainly shews that the Pope did not Rule alone as a Monarch at Rome but the Italian Bishops had a share in that Power To avoid which Truth Baronius and they that follow him falsifie it and read condemned by me and by them who being constituted under me govern Episcopal Seats The true reading implies the Bishops are co-ordinate with the Pope but the Corruption is to make us believe they are only his creatures substitutes and delegates The Fifth Epistle to Zeno speaks honourably of Acacius as an Orthodox Archbishop commending him for opposing Petrus Cnapheus It is noted by a learned Man that excepting fabulous Inscriptions the name Archbishop is here first found among the Latins But I rather observe that Foelix here reads that famous Text for the Supremacy Math. xvi in this manner and upon this Confession will I build my Church So it is read often in Gelasiui Epistles on the Confession of Peter will I build my Church Which shews it is not a casual expression but a Testimony that at Rome it self in that Age it was not believed this Promise belonged so much to St. Peter's Person as to his Faith nor to his Successors any longer than they held that Confession Of the 6th Epistle we shall speak when we come to Foelix his second Roman Council The Corrupters Fingers have been busie with the Title of the 7th Epistle which as Labbè notes out of Justellus was writ only to the Bishops of Sicily but they who are to support an Universal Supremacy have changed it thus To all Bishops And the date is falsified also being pretended to be writ by a Roman Council held in March An. Dom. 487. yet it is dated in the year after March 488. But if they will have it genuine let them observe that the Pope here saith speaking of a Point of Faith He knows not but in this case the Spirit of God may have informed them of something that had escaped his Knowledge promising to hear them if they can find anything omitted by him Let them read this and reconcile it with Infallibility if they can The Decree of Foelix about the subjection of Kings to Bishops is neither agreeable to the Age nor to the Style of this Popes other Writings to the Emperor so that we cannot credit it though Labbè hath put it into an Epistle to Zeno because this Epistle speaks of the deposition of Acacius as a thing past August 1st 484 But the Margen of the next Epistle saith Acacius was deposed July 28 488 And it is probable that both the Sentence and the Synod are spurious coyned out of a hint in the Pontifical viz. That Foelix did condemn Acacius in a Synod Which was ground enough for the Parasites to frame a Council But how little credit is to be given
and some are read otherways in Justellus Manuscript And again he observes that instead of these words Apostolicae sedi frequentèr datum est it is now read Apostolica sedes frequentèr ut dictum est c. which makes a great alteration in the Sense The former implying only a delegated power the later an original power of absolving all persons So that if the whole be not a Forgery yet it is now corrupted in many places by the bold Champions of the Supremacy to whom nothing was Sacred Yea we are told it comes out of the Vatican Mint restored and mended we know what that means as far as was fit by Baronius So that the Impartial Reader may judge what credit is to be given to this Epistle out of which they often prove their Supremacy written by a bigotted Pope who scrupled not at any thing to advance his See if it be genuine and transcribed by such as are convicted of repeated Corruptions Labbè gives us two other imperfect Epistles of Gelasius about his renouncing Communion with those who kept Acacius his Name in their Dypticks as most of the Eastern Bishops then did But in these the Pope humbly saith It is not for my Humility to pass Sentence concerning a difference reaching through the World my part being to take care of my own Salvation Which is so different from the style of his former Epistles that if these be genuine those are suspicious But since all these Epistles of Simplicius Foelix and Gelasius make so soul a matter of Acacius his Case let me once for all here give his Character and state that business That he was Orthodox in all points is manifest by his Epistle against Peter of Antioch And by his forcing Basiliscus to revoke his Edict against the Council of Chalcedon And while the Pope flattered that Heretical Usurper Acacius made all the Bishops who had subscribed it recant He also ejected Peter of Antioch for Heresie before the Pope knew of it and excommunicated Peter of Alexandria yea deposed him when he maintained his Heresie And would not admit him to Communion again till he had professed the Catholic Faith and by name expresly received the Council of Chalcedon 'T is true this Bishop proved himself a Dissembler by Apostatizing afterward but that was not the Popes Quarrel at Acacius the Roman Bishops were jealous of the Bishop of Constantinoples growing power who flourished under the Eastern Emperors while their Church was obscured under a Barbarous King And Acacius by the Emperors consent without consulting the Pope put in and put out the Eastern Bishops as he thought fit pretending this power was given him by the Councils of Constantinople and Chalcedon This galled the Popes and therefore in the pretended Sentence of Foelix he is charged as one that usurped others Provinces contrary to the Nicene Canons This check'd the universal Supremacy that Rome had then been for some time aiming at so that they could have forgiven any Heresie rather than this attempt Which appears by this That though Pelagianism had spread it self all over the Western Church and Eutyches Heresie prevailed in the East yea a great part of Rome it self was Arrian we find few or no Popes Letters against these Violators of the Faith as if they with Tiberius left Christ to revenge his own injuries But all their outcry is against Acacius whom they would never forgive living nor dead for touching their Jurisdiction that was dearer to them than all the Articles of their Creed But while they hated him the whole Eastern Church took his part and he continued to exercise his Office in spight of all the Popes Sentences until his death leaving behind him so good a Character that Suidas saith If ever any man were truly venerable it was Acacius Yea it was a long time before the Greeks could be persuaded either by the promises or threatnings of Rome to put his Name out of the Dypticks though the union of the East and West depended at last upon that single Point They objected that he subscribed the Edict for Union made by Zeno. I reply so did three Patriarchs more and that Edict contained no Heresie nor did it condemn the Council of Chalcedon They urge also that he rejected John Talaia an Orthodox Bishop of Alexandria But that was because he believed him perjured and consequently unduly elected To conclude Acacius was a good Man and those who will consider the matter impartially will think the Popes deserve no commendation for their stiffness and violence in this Contest After the Epistles follow some Tracts of Gelasius The first of which is about Excommunication Wherein there is one passage that afflicts Baronius For the Pope saith Christ hath separated the Kings Office and the Bishops So that Bishops must not challenge Royal Dignity nor meddle in secular Affairs nor may Kings administer Holy things But the Cardinal will have the Roman Bishop to have at least Regal Power and Kings to be subject to Ecclesiasticks who he thinks may meddle in Temporal Affairs tho' Kings must not in Sacred matters citing for this an Epistle of Gelasius But I should rather think the Epistle forged if it did contradict this Tract tho' Baronius wrests the words he cites and omits a passage that immediately follows them viz. The Ecclesiastical Rulers obey your Laws which shews Bishops were then subject to Princes And the next Tract against the profane Pagan Festivals shews that the Pope had no shadow of Regal power at Rome in those days For Gelasius only declares them unlawful and saith he will deliver his own Soul in persuading the Christians to forbear them But it was the Senates part to forbid them and take them away and his Predecessors were to Petition the Emperor as he owns to abolish such impieties So that Baronius his huffing Preface to this argument against these Paganish Feasts is very ridiculous You may see saith he how he exalts himself against the Emperor and though the City was under a Gothic King he prescribes Laws to Rome without asking leave of an Impious Prince He hath good Eyes I am sure who in this Sermon or Discourse can see either any exercise of Authority or Law prescribed only indeed it is a pious and rational exhortation § 9. A Roman Council under Gelasius is placed next said to consist of 70 Bishops convened to settle the Canon of Scripture and to distinguish genuine from spurious Authors But the whole seems a meer Forgery For first the Publishers are not agreed upon what Pope to Father it Divers Manuscripts in Labbè ascribe it to Hormisda who sat 20. Years after this Another very old Book calls it A Declaration of Holy Scripture c. with Gelasius his Annotations The Decree in Gratian and in Justellus his Manuscript wants all the Books of the Old and New Testament Wherein also all the
credible yet he takes this for a mighty and clear Miracle wrought by God at Constantinople in the East on purpose to confute the Arrian Princes then Reigning in Africa Italy and Gaul Who in all probability never heard of this Story and would much sooner have believed it if it had been done in their own Country It is very improbable that later Authors should know so exactly all the little Acts Sayings and Miracles of St. Benedict and yet differ almost 30 year about the year of his Birth nor are they agreed about his Age and Death This minds me of a Comical Authors remark upon such as pretend to Pray and Preach Extempore by an Hour-glass As if the Spirit could teach them what to say but not how much It is doubtless a strong suspicion that most of the Relations were invented after the time of this Saint little noted in his own days was forgotten Yet I see not how the time of writing the Dialogues called Gregory's should prove Marianus Scotus Sigebert and Trithemius mistaken in saying Benedict was born in the year 507 Because if Gregory the second which is very probable were the Author of those fabulous Dialogues he was made Pope An. 714. in an Age of Legends and so Benedict dying An. 603 might have four Abbots his Successors before this heap of Fables was put together which are very unworthy of Gregory the 1st Pope It is worth noting that this Benedict despised Learning and Study and ran away from School an ill Omen that his followers the Monks should help to ruin all polite literature and bring in that ignorance which covered all Christendom for many Ages For what other could be expected from such a Founder that was knowingly ignorant and wisely unlearned as this Gregory speaks But it was not only his Case for St. Francis another Founder of Monkery bids his Followers if they cannot Read never to learn any Letters but above all to take heed they may be inspired with the Spirit Yea he makes reading much and getting Books to be one of his bad signs These illiterate Patrons were fit to lead on an Army of Ignoramus Fryers to extinguish the Light of Learning that their false Doctrins and cheating Practices might pass undiscovered in the darkness they had made Further we may observe that the Cardinal severely Taxes Trithemius and other Monkish Writers for falsly feigning that many Eminent Men who preceded Benedict in time were Monks of his Order out of a blind Zeal to set up its glory But he considers not that the same blind Zeal hath put these Authors out of whom he brings innumerable Stories upon saying very false things for the glory of their Order which probably never were done upon the face of the Earth So that he should have better Authority than these partial Monks for the Miracles of their own Saints Theodorus Lector heaped up many scattered Reports without care and is not of the best credit especially in case of Relicks but his single Testimony is enough to make Baronius believe That God takes care of a dead Saints Bones in an Earthquake which probably might swallow up many living Saints who often suffer in such Common Calamities Those Miracles of St. Remigius which are impiously equalled to them that the Apostles wrought have no better evidence than two Authors Aimonius and Hincmarus who writ about 400 year after For that Epistle of Hormisda wherein that Pope makes Remigius his Legate is like the rest of that kind a manifest Forgery For he mentions Clovis the modern name of Ludovicus as if he were the King of France and newly Baptized whereas Clovis died at least four year before Hormisda was Pope and was Baptized near twenty year before this Letter is pretended to be writ From which Examples though but few it appears Baronius his evidence for Miracles and other things that tend to support the Superstitions of Rome are generally forged or suspicious Authors § 2. But when he cites genuine Writers in such Points he often corrupts their Sense and sometimes their Words For instance Baronius pretends that an intire Edict of Marcian's is imperfect meerly because he cannot find in it any particular expressions to take away the Primacy of the See of Constantinople Whereas this Edict clearly confirms the Canon of Chalcedon which had given the second place to Constantinople by this very Emperor Marcian's consent And it is something odd that our Annalist by meer fancy should assert even with confidence than an Emperor of the East should revoke by an Edict and a Bishop of Constantinople renounce a Priviledge granted by that same Emperor and in a General Council to that Church a few years before Again He insinuates that St. Severine allowed the Worship of Saints departed now used in the Roman Church But the Authors he cites Euagrius and Eugippius though they writ many years after St. Severine's death have not one word of any deliverance by the praying to Saints But one of them saith they were freed from the Famin by the Providence of God And the other affirms they praised God for hearing St. Severine ' s Prayers in this Calamity So that Severine prayed only to God and the People of that Age praised him alone And how can this excite the Posterity of that Nation at this day to pray to St. Severine so long after his decease What Victor saith of those who suffered death by the Arrian Persecution in Africa That the Romans would count them Martyrs must be meant either of the Roman Captives in Africk or of the Roman Church in Italy who looked on these Sufferers as their Brethren and of the same Faith and so reckoned them Martyrs But to stretch this Phrase to signifie that then the words Roman and Catholick were of the same import is very unreasonable and what Victor never dreamed of 'T is very suspicious that Ecdicius did not get his wonderful Victory over the Goths by praying to St. Martin because that History is related by two Authors one very Authentick that is Sidonius who might have been and probably was an Eye-witness who doth not once name St. Martin The other Gregory of Tours that lived near 150 years after and he mentions it indeed as done by the invocation of the Saint of his Church But Baronius in the next year taxes him with writing things that could not be credited Wherefore he should rather have drawn his conclusion from the living and certain Historian if Truth had been the business of these Annals The Emperor Leo's Edict is solely designed for the keeping holy the Lords-days which are the Festivals properly dedicated to the Majesty of the Most High But the Annalist expounds this of all Feast-days to give more colour to the scandalous usage of their Church where more reverence is given to a little Saints-day than to the Sunday which from the Creation or however from the Apostles times was
most religiously kept to the Honour of God himself as the principal time of his most solemn Worship Baronius also wrongs Zeno the Emperor in saying that his Edict for Union did Anathematize the Council of Chalcedon For the words of the Edict shew the contrary since Zeno only Anathematizes them who believed not according to the Nicene Creed whether in the Council of Chalcedon or in any other Council and the Cardinal himself in the next page only charges Zeno with tacitly abrogating the Council of Chalcedon and Liberatus affirms the Emperor was angry with John Talaia for not relishing the Council of Chalcedon Yea the Zealots against this General Council at Alexandria renounced the Communion of Peter because by subscribing this Edict of Union he had refused openly to Anathematize the Council of Chalcedon all which shews that this Edict did not condemn that Council Liberatus saith no more but that the Papers were taken away lest they should be delivered to the Catholicks to whom they were written But Baronius out of this affirms That the Pope writ to the Clergy the Monks and Orthodox Laity as if he had seen the Titles of the several Letters and cites Liberatus for his Evidence In like manner he brings in the words of Liberatus after a Fictitious Letter of a Roman Synod And cites him thus These Letters being given to Acacius he would not receive them c. By which one would imagine that Liberatus had attested this feigned Synodical Letter but this Author speaks only of that Epistle of Foelix which Baronius had cited three pages before and knew nothing of any Synodical Epistle Thus he cites part of an Oration made at the dedication of a Church which had been an Idols Temple but now was consecrated to the memory of Christ and of St. Peter and St. Paul and though there be not one Syllable in the words cited of any worship of Saints yet Baronius concludes that this is enough to intimate that the worship of the Saints did always flourish not only among the Bishops of this new dedicated Church but among all Catholicks But he must be very willing to believe a false Doctrin that will receive it from a bold Conclusion that hath no Premisses Again To give credit to a Relation of St. Michael's appearing and being worshiped at Rome in this Age he cites a Poet who says nothing of the worship of St. Michael and he would also insinuate that this Drepanius lived about this time to make this Superstition seem more ancient Whereas it is well known that Drepanius Florus writ about the year 650 that is 150 year after this Age and 50 year after Pope Gregory at which time many Corruptions and gross Ignorance were visible in the Church We may also note That Baronius corrects Marcellinus's Chronicle about the ingress of Pope Anastasius out of the Pontifical whereas Marcellinus lived at that time and brought down his Chronicle to the year 534 and so is a very credible Author But in the same page our Annalist shews how grosly the Pontifical is mistaken in point of time speaking of things as done under one Pope that were done under another and affirming such and such Facts done to Persons that were dead long before Yet not only here but in many places this mistaken Author is the sole Standard of Baronius his Chronology And whereas Theodorus Lector who writ An. 518. expresly saith King Theodorick called a Synod at Rome The Cardinal rejects his Testimony and out of the Pontifical and some spurious Acts affirms that Pope Symmachus called this Synod For those are the best Authors that speak of their side § 3. With like artifice our Author conceals some part of the Truth which might prejudice his Cause As for instance he notes as a peculiar piece of impudence and madness in Timothy Aelurus the Invader of the See of Alexandria that he darted forth his Anathema's against the Roman Bishops and makes a dismal representation of that Crime But the Epistle which relates the Story saith he Anathematized Anatolius Arch-bishop of Constantinople and Basilius of Antioch as well as Leo Bishop of Rome So that there is no reason to conceal that in his Recapitulation but only to make the Pope look higher and greater than he was in those days Liberatus no doubt was better informed what passed at Alexandria than Leo could he at Rome so that his account that Timothy Aelurus was immediately sent into Banishment by the Emperor from Alexandria is far more credible than that which Baronius deduces from Pope Leo's Letters of his coming first to Constantinople But the Cardinal corrects Liberatus by Conjectures meerly to persuade the World that the Emperor obeyed the Pope in Banishing that Heretick whereas the Writers of that time say he did it by advice of a Synod at Constantinople It is also observable that when he speaks of Epistles writ or Messages sent to the Bishop of Rome by any new Patriarch he always adds de more according to Custom But though it was as much according to Custom for every new Patriarch to write to the Bishop of Constantinople or to him of Antioch c. to notifie his Election and declare his being in the Communion of the Catholick Church Yet there Baronius leaves out thole words according to Custom § 4. But there are more Instances of his obscuring the Truth by false reasoning and particularly by supposing things as certain which are not proved and then making Inferences from thence and offering such Conclusions for manifest Truths Thus upon Supposition that the Pope was then above the Emperor and that nothing relating to the Church could be done without the Roman Bishop He introduces an Edict of Marcian's with a Letter of Pope Leo's and with this Phrase The Emperor Marcian obeyed Pope Leo Whereas that Letter of Leo hath no relation to the Edict and is an humble Petition to the Emperor to get his Letter to Flavian well translated into Greek and sent to Alexandria to clear him from an imputation of Heresie falsly laid to his charge But the Edict takes no notice of Leo or his Epistle or of the Roman Church but charges the Alexandrians to follow the Nicene Faith as it was prosessed by their own Bishops Athanasius Theophilus and Cyril And though there be a mistake in the Month the Year is right and it is dated three years after Leo's Epistle to Marcian But the Cardinal alters the date and would add to the Sense only to support his mistaken Supposition Anatolius Bishop of Constantinople might perhaps regulate some of the Officers or Clergy of his Church at the request of Pope Leo but it doth not appear that either Leo did pretend to command Anatolius nor that Anatolius owned he had any Authority over him And it is certain that for all Leo's huffing the Patriarchs of Constantinople did keep the place
Contest not yet appeased occasioned by a double election which was lately submitted to be judged by Theodoric makes it very improbable this Law should be repealed now when so fresh an instance convinced them that their Schisms would be endless and intolerable if Princes did not interpose And Symmachus must be an ill man when he got the Chair purely by Theodoric's approbation to kick down the step upon which he was raised and to take away his right to confirm by whom his doubtful Title was confirmed And finally neither this Theodoric nor his Successors did ever take any notice of this Repeal but in every vacancy did interpose So that I take this Synod to be a Fiction to cover over the Power that a Lay Prince here exercised in making a Pope or if there ever were such a Synod it was despised and the Law was in force after this assembly had revoked it And thus all Baronius his Oratory about Symmachus his courage and exalting himself above Kings and Princes vanishes into air and is as false as this Popes excommunicating Anastasius the Emperor in this Synod which is only proved by a corrupt reading of ego for nego as I shewed before For the other Law to forbid alienations they pretend to repeal it meerly because it was made by Lay-men which is false But the Clergy here reestablish it If the Acts were genuine I should guess this was to put it in the Clergies power to dispense with themselves and their Canon whenever they had a mind to be sacrilegious Since while a Royal Law forbad it a Royal Licence must be first obtained which would be hard to procure But the power of Theodoric and Symmachus his circumstances then make it clear he durst not repeal a Law of the Prince So that it seems to be forged Wherefore I will make but two remarks more First upon that Sentence in the Acts Quia non licuit Laico statuendi in Ecclesiâ praeter Papam Romanum habere aliquam Potestatem That no Layman but the Pope shall have any power to decree in the Church Which passage supposes the Pope a Lay-man and is too ridiculous to be spoken by Laurentius Bishop of Milan Secondly on the Notes I remark that it is very strange this Synod should excommunicate Anastasius for communicating with Hereticks supposed since the former Synod complements Theodoric à professed Arrian the worst of Hereticks with the Titles of most pious and most holy If the former were as true as this latter of giving these titles is it would more need to be excused than this But the truth is the Popes were then so low that they were forced to give flatering Titles both to the Emperor and the Gothick Kings whatever Religion they were of After this Council is added an Apology writ to answer a Paper now suppressed against Symmachus by Ennodius wherein as far as appears by the Objections he cites and the Answers he gives the Accusers of this Pope were too hard for his Apologist The Annalist and Binius highly magnifie this Tract yet the former confesseth by the harshness of the style and the horrid unevenness of a false Copy the quickest wit can scarce apprehend it As to the matter of it the Author huffs at a rate which shews more zeal than judgment and we note First that he clearly owns Theodoric called the Synod that absolved Symmachus and therein confutes both his admirers Baronius and Binius Secondly whereas his objectors rightly urge that the Apostle commands us not to keep company with a Brother that is a Fornicator as Symmachus was said to be Ennodius saith it is the Prophet David and not the Apostle which gives this advice Thirdly he ridiculously affirms that S. Peter who was not innocent transmitted Innocence as an inheritance to the Popes and wonders any should fancy or imagine that a Pope should not be holy who hath so high a dignity and is praeordained as he blasphemously speaks to be the Foundation on which the weight of the Church leans as if the very Chair gave grace to a prostigate Wretch Fourthly He falsifies the Scripture in saying Samuel appealed to the Lord that men might not exmaine him Whereas the Text expresly saith he appealed to the People before the Lord and the King and challenged the People to prove any ill thing upon him 1 Sam. xii 3. Fifthly his Maxim That Peter's Successors were only to be judged by God was not believed by the Councils of Constance and Basil nor by Theodoric nor any who had a hand in censuring or deposing any Bishops of Rome Lastly if this Book which is so Barbarous in its style so abounding in railing and mistakes and so void of true reason were approved and applauded in the Fifth Council We may guess at the Qualifications of those Bishops who sat in it As for the Editors and Baronius it is enough that it pleads for a Pope for they must extol it The Fifth Roman Synod hath all the marks of Forgery imaginable for the Consuls are not named and the Indiction is also false as Baronius confesseth And he with Binius own that the Subscriptions are so monstrously falsified that many Bishops are named here who were at the Council of Chalcedon 52 years before and belonged to the Eastern Church who also had been long ago dead and buried And it is highly improbable that 216 Bishops should meet only to approve such stuff and to order this Book to be inserted among the Apostolical Decrees to be obeyed by all as they were This phrase also smels of a late Forgery for in the time of this pretended Synod the name of Apostolical Decrees was not appropriated to Papal decisions nor were their Decretals universally Obeyed For we see that in Rome it self a great party both despised and writ against Pope Symmachus his Synodical absolution Again here is that foolish Sentence That the sheep must not judge their Pastor unless he err in Faith nor yet accuse him but for injustice which is undoubtedly stolen out of a Decretal Epistle forged by Mercator long after this time and it is wrong applied too if Symmachus were so unjust as to rob his neighbors of their Chastity Wherefore the very Book of Ennodius is suspicious and this Synod is most certainly Forged to save the credit of an ill Pope The Sixth Roman Council hath no date but the Subscriptions are certainly forged having like the former the names of many Eastern Bishops who could not be in this Synod The Acts are a Rhapsody out of some later Councils against Sacriledge as appears by divers barbarous phrases and some expressions that are the dialect of more modern Ages such as that of mens giving to the Church for the remission of their Sins aeternae vitae mercatione and for purchasing eternalllife The declaring also that the Sacrilegious are manifest Hereticks is too absurd for this Age.
Whether it were Orthodox to say as the Scythian Monks did one of the Trinity was crucified for us Dioscorus the Popes Legate represented this Sentence to Hormisda as Heretical and that to allow it would open a gap to many Heresies The Pope first determined to refer the controversie to the Bishop of Constantinople as appears by another relation of Dioscorus though Baronius would conceal this by omitting the beginning of this Paper But probably Dioscorus durst not trust this Question with the Patriarch of Constantinople So that Hormisda not yet declaring himself Justinian writ to him that he and the Eastern Church thought this Sentence Orthodox and required his consent to their Faith which he further shews in another Epistle complaining of the Popes delays At last after a long time Hormisda writes a shuffling Letter to the Emperor wherein Baronius saith he utterly exploded this Sentence Yea Baronius owns afterward that this Pope would have all Catholicks abhor these words One of the Trinity suffered in the Flesh But this very Sentence afterward appeared to be True and Orthodox and they who condemned it were declared Hereticks Yea the Scythian Monks appealed from this Pope to that most learned and orthodox Father Fulgentius who declared they were in the right and that he believed as they did And finally one of the succeeding Popes joyned with Justinian and the Orthodox Christians to confirm this Sentence So that this Pope and his Legate were both on the Heretical side which spoils the Infallibility § 5. The Councils abroad in this Popes times take no notice of him yet bear the Title of being held under him The first Binius says was at Rhemes and he cites for this Flodoardus But Labbè calls this a Synod at an uncertain place and gives us Binius his Notes but cites the words of Flodoardus by which it appears that Rhemigius his being made the Popes Legate and calling this Synod there by a Legantine power are Fictions of Baronius and Binius taken out of the first forged Epistle of Hormisda and falsly charged upon Flodoardus who saith no such thing And Sirmondus with P. de Marca say Rhemigius was not the Popes Legate Which manifestly appears from two Epistles of his writ ten year after this feigned delegation concerning an Invasion made upon his jurisdiction wherein he never urges any sort of power as Legate but pleads his original right as a Metropolitan And from Baronius and his Plagiary citing Flodoardus at large for this compared with the words of that Author in Labbè the Reader may learn these Writers are never to be trusted in any Quotation relating to the Pope till the Authors be searched The Council of Tarragon was not under Hormisda though it were in his time The Bishops there acting independently on Rome whose Popes Decrees of dividing the Church Revenues into four parts they contradict and divide it only into three in the eighth Canon And in the eleventh they order concerning the Discipline of Monks the Gallican Canons shall above all others be observed Binius misplaces the Council of Pau Anno Dom. 509. But Labbè sets it in this year rightly it was called not by the Pope but by Sigismund King of Burgundy as all Provincial and National Synods in that age were the famous Alcimus Avitus was President of it and the Pope had no hand in it for which reason these lesser Councils are more sincere than any where Rome or the Pope is named for there the Forgers are always tempted to leave add or alter something The same year was a Council held at Gyrone in Spain not under the Pope but under John of Tarragon and though by Hormisda's forged Epistles he be pretended to have been the Pope's Legate and that he received Constitutions from Rome it is plain this Council proceeds upon its own Authority and makes its own Rules which shews these Fictions are of a later date The Council of Constantinople is falsly titled under Hormisda the Union was not yet made and Hormisda sent not his Legates till next year so that it is very trifling for the Editors to say it was partly reprobated at Rome because this Synod consisted only of Eastern Bishops called by Justin the Emperor and their own Patriarch John of Constantinople presided whom they call Most Holy and Blessed Father of Fathers Archbishop and Oecumenical Patriarch and of him and Justin only do they desire their Acts to be confirmed And not only they but two Eastern Synods also at Jerusalem and Tyre ratified these Decrees which gave them a sufficient Authority and it is but a Roman Fiction that these Acts were revoked upon the reconciling of the Eastern and Westrn Churches § 6. John the first succeeded Hormisda probably by the interest of Theodoric the Arrian Gothick King for he commanded him to go as his Embassador to the Eastern Emperor Justin to require him not to persecute the Arrians but restore to them their Churches which he had taken away Threatning he would use the Catholicks of Italy severely if this were not granted The Pontifical softens this with a gentle phrase Rogans misit as if Theodoric entreated the Pope to go on this ungrateful Errant but the Notes more truly affirm he forced him to take this Office However the Pope durst not disobey that King wherefore he went to Constantinople and did deliver this request to Justin so as to prevall for liberty to the Arrians in the East as all Authors before Baronius affirm But the Cardinal calls this a base blot of the Popes prevarication and therefore he with the Notes give Anastasius the lye and forsake him in this part of John's Story whom in all the rest they follow For Baronius will not allow that a Pope should do so vile a thing as to sollicit for Liberty of Conscience for Arrian Hereticks wherefore he pretends he encouraged Justin to go on in punishing them But they cannot prove this except by a forged Epistle writ in this Popes name and a mistaken passage out of Gregory of Tours who knew not the true Story but speaks of John's Embassy to Theodoric instead of Justin One Argument only Baronius urges which is Why Theodoric should imprison this Pope at his return and keep him prisoner till he dyed in that woful confinement if he had faithfully discharged his Embassy I answer from Paulus Diaconus That Theodoric was moved to anger because Justin the Catholick Emperor had received him so honourably and also as Baronius himself saith This Gothick King suspected the Romans were then laying Plots against him and confederating with Justin The Emperor So that doubtless he thought the Pope was in this design and so suffered him to dye in Prison Now all this proves that these Gothick Kings were absolute Lords over the Bishops of Rome and it looks like a Judgment on the Roman See
denied that usurped jurisdiction of Appeals from thence to Rome to which some Popes pretended which had made them stand at a distance from the See of Rome The Notes on this Epistle have a fallacious Argument however to prove the African Church could not so long remain divided from the Roman because if so they could have no true Martyrs all that time since the Fathers agree That Crown is only due to those who suffer in the Catholick Church I reply this may be very true and yet since no Father ever said that the particular Roman Church is the Catholick Church a Christian may dye a true Martyr if he die in the Communion of the Catholick Church though he hold no Communion with the Roman Church which was the case at this time or lately of many Eastern Churches Another Forgery out of the same Mint treads on the heels of this pretending to be a Copy of the Emperor Justin and Justinian's submission to this Pope wherein they are made to own the Supremacy of Rome to the highest pitch and to Curse all their Predecessors and Successors who did not maintain that Churches Priviledges But the cheat is so apparent the matter so improbable and ridiculous and the date so absurd that Baronius and both the Editors reject it So that I shall only note that a true Doctrine could not need so many Forgeries to support it and the interest they serve shews who employed these Forgers We have spoken before of Boniface's two Roman Councils one of them revoking what the other decreed The third is only in Labbè being a glorious Pageant drest up by the suspicious hand of a late Library-keeper to the Pope But it amounts to no more than the introducing a poor Greek Bishop or two to enquire what was said in the Roman Records and in the Popes Letters of the Authority of that Church So that the Pope and his Council were Judges and Witnesses in their own Cause and therefore their Evidence is of no great Credit And 't is very ominous that this Synod is dated in December that is two Months after Boniface's death who is said to have been present at all its Sessions To cover which evident mark of Forgery Holstenius gives Baronius and all other Writers the Lye about the time of Boniface's dying and keeps him alive some time longer only to give colour to this new-found Synod The Council of Toledo might be in Boniface's time but not under him For the King of Spain whom the Bishops here call their Lord called it and it was held sub Mantano saith Baronius under Montanus the Metropolitan to whom the Council saith Custom had given that Authority Wherefore he condemns Hereticks and exercises all sorts of jurisdiction belonging to a Primate without taking any notice of the Pope or of any delegated Power from him So that probably all those Epistles which make Legates in Spain about this time are forged § 9. John the second of that Name succeeded Boniface but Anastasius and Baronius cannot agree about the Date of his Election or his Death and Holstenius differs from both an Argument that this Pope made no great Figure However right or wrong we have divers of his Epistles The first to Valerius saith Labbè appears by many things to be spurious it is stollen out of the Epistles of Leo and Ithacius and dated with wrong Consuls And I must add Scripture is shamefully perverted by the Writer of this Epistle For he would prove that Christ was not created as to his Deity but only as to his Humanity by Ephes iv 24. and Coloss iii. 10. where St. Paul speaks of putting on the New Man which after God is created in Righteousness and true Holiness and is renewed in Knowledge after the Image of him that created him Had a Pope writ this I would have affirmed he was no Infallible Interpreter The next is an Epistle of Justinian to this Pope wherein the Emperor is pretended to declare his Faith was conformable in all things to the Roman Church and made to say he had subjected and united all the Churches of the East to the Pope who is the Head of all the Holy Churches with much more stuff of this kind This Letter is rejected by the learned Hottoman and many other very great Lawyers who Baronius calls a company of Hereticks and Petty Foggers But confutes their Arguments with false Reasoning and Forgeries as I shall shew when I come to note his Errors I shall now confine my self to prove the greatest part of this Epistle to be spurious For who can imagin Justinian who vindicated the Authority of his Patriarch at Constantinople as equal with Rome and by an Authentick Law declares that the Church of Constantinople is the Head of all other Churches Yea in the genuine part of this Epistle calls his Patriarch the Pope's Brother That he I say should here profess he had subjected all the Eastern Churches to Rome And how should he that differed from Pope Hormisda in his decision of the Question whether one Person of the Trinity suffered for us and made Pope John now yield to his Opinion and condemn his Predecessors notion declare he submitted his Faith in all things to the Pope But we need no conjectures for if the Reader look a little further among the Epistles of Agapetus he will see one of the boklest Impostures that ever was For there Justinian himself recites verbatim the Epistle which he had writ to Pope John and whatever is more in this Letter set out among John's Epistles than there is in that which is owned by the Emperor is an impudent Forgery added by some false Corrupter to serve the Roman Supremacy Now by comparing these two Epistles it appears the beginning and end of both are the same and may be genuine but in neither part is there one word of this subjection or the universal Supremacy And all that wretched Jargon comes in where it is corrupted viz. From Ideoque omnes Sacerdotes universi orientalis tractus subjicere till you come to these words Petimus ergo vestrum paternum Which when the Reader hath well noted he will admire that those who had the cunning to corrupt a Princes Letter by adding twice as much to it as he writ should be so silly to print the true Letter within a few Pages But doubtless God infatuates such Corrupters and the Devil owes a shame to Lyers The next Epistle from the Gothic King Athalaric was probably writ soon after John's Election since it mentions the Romans coming to that Prince to beg leave to chuse a Pope and both Athalario and the Senate made Laws to prevent Simony in the Election of the Pope as well as other Bishops And which Baronius saith was more Ignominious This Edict was Ingraven on a Marble Table and hung up before the Court of St. Peters for all to see it But
to me it seems more Ignominious that the Letter shews some of the late Candidates for the Papacy had sacrilegiously sold the holy Vessels to buy Voices These no doubt were like to make hopeful Heads of the Universal Church Baronius is angry at this Letter and Edict and I suppose places it falsly after the forged Epistle of Justinian had aggrandized this Pope but do what he can the Kings reckoning him among other Patriarchs and making Laws for Papal Elections and his giving him no huffing Titles do clearly demonstrate that Popes then were not so great as our Annalist would make them seem and I wonder with what face he can say This Law was not against the Clergy but the Lay-men When the Law it self and the occasion of it confutes him The Third Epistle may be genuine wherein he doth well to say that according to the Decrees of his Predecessors the Roman Church ever kept and followed the Doctrin of St. Augustin and if they had never followed any other Guide there would not have been so many false Doctrins brought in to that Church However the great impertinence of divers Scriptures here cited shews this Pope to be no great Divine and one of his proofs I doubt is forged for I cannot in Exod. xxiv or any other place find these words You shall see your life hanging on a Tree Now to feign such a Prophesie must be a horrid Sin being literally adding to Gods word to which a grievous Curse is due The Epistle from Reparatus and his African Council to this Pope is more likely to be true because there is nothing of his Universal Supremacy in it They call him Holy Brother and Fellow-Priest nor do they expect Laws but desire advice from him Yea they require him to exclude from his Communion such of the African Clergy as came from them to Rome without leave which shews the African Church still opposed Appeals to the Pope The First Council under this Pope was called at Rome wherein He decreed according to Justinian's desire That it might Orthodoxly be said One of the Trinity was crucified for us in the Flesh Now this Decree puts Baronius and Binius to stretch their Wits to save the Infallibility For Pope Hormisda had before judicially determined the quite contrary in a cause of Faith viz. That it could not be Orthodoxly said so So that these Parasites are to prove both parts of a contradiction true and that two Popes who defined directly contrary to one another were both in the right Now here they shufflle and palliate this matter calling Pope John's disannulling Hormisda's Decree to be only a declaring his Opinion how far this Sentence may and how far it may not be held But before Baronius compares this Sentence with the Heretical Addition to the Trisagion and tells us the Popes Legates in Hormisda ' s time thought it was utterly to be rejected And that the Eutychians were the Authors of it yea he magnifies Hormisda for condemning it Yet Pope John says it is an Orthodox Sentence though still divers Monks at Rome did not believe him nor receive it But took Hormisda to have been in the right and so far questioned John's Infallibility that as Liberatus notos They forsook his Communion and for my part I cannot see but one of these Popes must necessarily be an Heretick In this year they place a genuine Record of a conscience at Constantinople between the Catholick and Severian Hereticks o But Binius Notes own this Conference was held before Justinian writ to Pope John for his Opinion and therefore it should have been placed before that Popes Roman Council and is fraudulently set after to make it seem as if the East had followed Rome in this Decision To this Conference the Eastern Bishops were summoned by the Emperor and their own chief Patriarch And we may here observe First That Hypatius Bishop of Ephesus was Prolocutor and is compared to St. Peter the Apostle Secondly When they speak of the Opinions of the Fathers cited by Cyril in the Council at Ephesus against Nesterius they reckon two Popes Foelix and Julius promiscuously with the rest giving them no precedence no mark of special priviledge Thirdly They reject divers Epistles that bore the names of Orthodox Fathers pretended to be kept among the Records at Alexandria as forged and corrupted by their Heretical Bishops and say they must be excused from receiving their Enemies for Evidence Which just Rule if the Romanists allow us in our Disputes with them the Controversie would soon be ended Fourthly Hypatius truly affirms that the Eastern and Western Churches were long time divided about the manner of expressing themselves as to the Trinity the Orientals suspecting the Occidentals to be Sabellians and these imagining those of the East were Arrians till Athanasius at last reconciled them by understanding of both Tongues which shews that neither side pretended to Infallibility And that Learning is the fittest qualification for a Judge of Controversies Lastly They say their Holy Mother the Catholick and Apostolick Church of God held it was Orthodox to say that one of the Trinity did suffer for us in the Flesh Now this could not be meant of the Roman Church where Hormisda's contrary Definition was still in force nor do they name the Pope in all their Conference So that Binius is mistaken in his Notion that Justinian contrived this Conference to unite the Bishops of the East with Rome for he took no notice of the late Popes Sentence but designed this Conference to settle the Truth and for all the pretence of Union and Subjection in Hormisda's time the Churches of the East and West were not united till after this when Pope John consented to their Desinition and owned that not his Predecessor but they were in the right § 10. The time of Pope Agapetus entrance and death is not certainly known Anastasius and from him Du Pin allow him not one whole year Baronius and Binius would have him sit longer but can only prove it by the dates of some Epistles which are not genuine 'T is certain he was dead before May 536. when Mennas Council at Constantinople met wherefore he must enter in the year 535. The truest account of him is to be had in Liberatus a Writer that knew him Who saith He was well skilled in the Canons and being sent by the Gothick King Theodatus on an Embassy to Justinian to divert his Army from Italy he arrived at Constantinople where he honourably received the Emperors Messenger but would not admit Anthimius to his Presence After this he saw the Emperor delivered his Embassy which was rejected However as Christs Embassador neither the Princes nor the Empress could prevail with him to communicate with the lately ordained Bishop of Constantinople Anthimius unless he would prove himself Orthodox and return to the Church which he had deserted Upon
Mennas the most Holy and Blessed universal Arch. Bishop and Patriarch said And he adds to the end of this Sentence that it was according to what Hormisda and Agapetus had prescribed whereas this being the Sense of the Synod gave Authority to what the later of these Popes had done and the former Hormisda was dead before this matter came into Question And now I am upon the Account of this Council in Baronius I will also note that in citing an Author which saith Mennas obtained an Universal Bishopric he adds that is of the Churches subject to him Yet a little after he will not allow that Paraphrase when the same words are applyed to the Popes which shews his unfaithfulness in adding and his partiality in expounding two very ill properties in an Historian But to proceed with Binius and Labbè In the 5th Act there is a Syod at Constantinople held under John the Bishop there Anno 518 wherein he is called Most Holy and most Blessed Arch-Bishop Occumenical Patriarch and Father of Fathers Yet the Editors put first in the Margen and then into the Latin Text under Hormisda which words are not in the Greek and are absurd because the two Churches were not yet reconciled Which is plain because in the Acclamations they cry let the Names of Euphemius and Macedonius be restored to the Church Which were two of their Orthodox Patriarchs and followers of Acacius whose Names had been struck out of the Dypticks by Heretical Princes and stood then condemned by Hormisda And they cry again Are our Synodical powers gon away to Rome That is must we reject our Orthodox Patriarchs because Rome censures them But the Latin corrupt version reads Synodica Romana modo valeant which would alter the Sense and persuade such as cannot look into the Greek that Rome's Decrees were valid at Constantinople whereas they Decree contrary to the Pope In the Epistle from John of Jerusalem to the Patriarch of Constantinople the late Forgers have put in a Sentence to give some colour to the Worship of the Blessed Virgin which spoils the Sense The true reading is Do ye most holy pray for the same things that we do for it is the common duty of Bishops to intercede for the peace of the Churches and the Emperors Victory and long Life But into this they thrust in a line or two thus it is the common Duty of Bishops And pray ye to the Holy Glorious Virgin Mary the Mother of God with us to intercede for the peace of the Churches which is a new Piece put into an old Garment so foolishly that the Rent is very visible Finally the subscriptions to the fifth and last Act are corrupted For whereas the Roman Deacons Theophanes and Pelagius in all other Acts are placed after the Eastern Bishops here they are set before them in the Latin Version And whereas the Editors tell us that Justinian's Edict to confirm the Decrees of this Council is depraved in the Title to Mennas I confess it is so but the Roman Parasites have depraved it by cutting off all those Titles which the Novel here cited by them gives him viz. To Mennas the most Holy and most Blessed and Oecumenical Patriarch All which the Editors of the Council leave out To these Notes of the depraving these Acts we may add a few remarks on some passages that are genuine but oppose the late Notions of the Roman Church The Epistle of Agapetus was not writ to Peter alone as the Epistle pretends but to him and other Bishops whom the Pope calls in the first Line His beloved Brethren and to Mennas there he gives the Titles of Brother and fellow Bishop The Syrian Bishops Epistle to Justinian declares that Christ is the Head of the Church which Title the Pope had not yet claimed In the Epistle from John of Jerusalem to the Patriarch of Constantinople where Leo is called Archbishop and Patriarch of Rome we have this memorable Truth That Christ who gave the power of binding and loosing to Peter the chief of the Apostles gave it in general to the Episcopal Order Which confutes that Doctrine of all Bishops receiving this power from the Pope The Bishop of Tyre's Epistle to the Synod at Constantinople calls the See of Antioch which Severus the Heretick had invaded The Throne of the Apostolical Church of Antioch and makes one of his great crimes to be his admitting strange Clerks Canonically deprived by their own Bishop to officiate without the consent of such as had sentenced them A crime so often committed by the Popes that these uncanonical precedents are produced to prove he hath a priviledge so to do The Sentence of Mennas against this Severus and his Complices recites That they had contemned the Apostolical succession in the Church of Rome which had condemned them and set at nought both the Patriarchal Throne of Constantinople and the Synod under it Yea and the Apostolical Succession which the Lord and Saviour of all had setled in those holy places And above all had despised the Sentence of the Oriental Diocess decreed against them I So that their greatest fault was not the contemning the Popes Authority and Apostolical Succession was setled in other Churches by Christ as well as in that of Rome Lastly The Constitution of Justinian is made on purpose to give validity to the Sentence of the Pope and the Synod against Anthimius and the Hereticks declaring it was the custom for all preceding Orthodox Emperors to confirm the Decrees of Councils and it says in the conclusion this Law was published that none might be ignorant of those things which the Bishops had agreed on and the Emperor had confirmed So that it is a fallacious Note of the Editors Margen to say That it was the duty of Emperors to take care that the Decrees of the Fathers and the Pope were executed Which makes their Master to be no more than their Servant and under Officer In the Notes on this Council are many Falshoods which may be discovered by what is already observed Only we may consider some few of them more particularly As first He takes it upon Baronius his credit that Agapetus left the Western Bishops his Legates and that their Power continued after his decease and thence boldly but falsly affirms That these Legates procured the Synod to meet and that they condemned these Hereticks by the Authority of their deceased Master whose Legate also he feigns Mennas was and in express contradiction to the Council he will have these Italian Bishops to be Presidents with Mennas yet immediately calls him alone the President of this Synod Now all this is to impose upon the Reader as if nothing could be done without Papal Authority But we have proved that Justinian called and confirmed this Council and Mennas presided solely in it The Acts also take no notice of these Western Bishops
the Church when the Pope is resolved not to come and herein they follow the Example of the Council of Chalcedon who proceeded without the Popes Legates when they would not stay and join with them Wherefore in the third Collation this 5th Council declared the true Faith and in the 4th and 5th examine the Cause of Theodorus and Theodoret On the fifth day saith Baronius Pope Vigilius sent his Constitution to the Council being made by the advice of 16 Bishops and 3 Deacons and designed to oblige the whole Church the Western agreeing with him in it and delivered by Apostolical Authority Wherein he confirms the three Chapters declaring 1st That Theodorus of Mopsvestia cannot be condemned after his death 2ly That Theodoret's name should not be taxed 3ly That Ibas Epistle to Maris was Catholick and both he and that Epistle received by the Council of Chalcedon as Catholick and Orthodox But Binius cuts off the five last Columns which are added by Baronius and Labbè and which shew how fully Vigilius confirmed all the three Chapters Chap. iv In the 6th Collation the Council having received this Constitution do notwithstanding go on to examine Ibas Epistle And wonder any dare presume to say it was received by the Council of Chalcedon Which Baronius owns was levelled at Vigilius though out of respect he be not named And after a strict Examination They pronounce that the approvers of this Epistle are Followers of Theodorus and Nestorius the Hereticks They shew the Council at Chalcedon owns God was made Man which this Epistle calls Apollinarism That Council confesses Mary to be the Mother of God the Epistle denies it They commend the Council of Ephesus and Cyril's twelve Chapters condemning Nestorius Ibas condemns the Council of Ephesus defends Nestorius and calls Cyril an Heretick and his 12 Chapters impious They stuck to Cyril's Faith and the Nicene Creed he condemns Cyril's Faith and commends Theodorus his Creed They held two Natures but one Person in Christ He is for two Persons also Whereupon this 5th Council Decree the whole Epistle to be Heretical and Anathematize all as Hereticks who receive it And for this reason Binius leaves out of his Edition the most of that part of Vigilius's Constitution which concerns Ibas his Epistle And Baronius who puts it in with the Nestorians would excuse it by saying the latter part of this Epistle is Orthodox But the Council condemns the whole Epistle and all that say any part of it is right and all that write for it or defend it So that Pope Vigilius Baronius Bellarmine and all the Writers for this Heretical Epistle were and are accursed by the Sentence of this General Council And if as Baronius pretends the Popes Legates at Chalcedon say that Ibas appeared a Catholick by this Epistle the 5th Council shews the Fathers at Chalcedon condemned it not heeding what two or three said Baronius urges as the Nestorians did that Eunomius said at Chalcedon the latter end of Ibas Epistle was Orthodox but the 5th Council saith this is a Calumny and cite the very words of Eunomius out of the Council at Chalcedon which import that Ibas was innocent after he had agreed with Cyril and renounced his Epistle which he had done in the Acts before Photius and Eustathius The 7th Collation of this 5th Council was only repeating and approving former Acts In the 8th Collation Baronius owns this Council condemned the three Chapters contrary to Vigilius Decree and Anathematize all that did defend them that is Vigilius whom Baronius often commends as a defender of them Yea they declare them Hereticks by the Doctrin of the Scriptures and holy Fathers and of the four former Councils All which therefore Vigilius contradicted in his Constitution And whatever Baronius first says to disparage this Council it was ratified by the 6th Council by the seventh or second Nicene Council Act. 6. yea and as Baronius confesseth by all succeeding General Councils by the Popes Pelagius Gregory the Great Agatho Leo the second and by all succeeding Popes who were sworn to observe all the General Councils and this among others To which we may add the Councils of Basil and Constance and all the Catholick Church till Leo the 10th's Lateran Council An. 1516 which contrary to the Catholick Faith decreed no Council could condemn a Pope Wherefore we may conclude Vigilius was a condemned Heretick Chap. v. Now let us examine Baronius his shifts and those Binius learns from him First they pretend this was not a point of Faith but concerned only persons Which is most false For the Emperor Justinian calls it a matter of Faith so doth the 5th Council it self declare Yea Vigilius in his Constitution calls the condemning these three Chapters Erring from the Faith and Facundus the Apologist for them saith the opposing them was rooting out the Catholick and Apostolick Faith On the other side Pope Pelagius saith they are contrary to the Faith and to receive them is to overthrow the Faith of Ephesus which Epistle Gregory the Great confirms Bellarmine saith that is de fide which a Council defines to be so and calls the opposers of it Hereticks and accurseth them And Baronius calls the Emperors Edict for the three Chapters Sanctio de fide Catholica and Fidei decretum So that it must be a matter of Faith And Gregory the Great was mistaken if he meant that this 5th Council handled no matters of Faith but treated of Persons For the contrary is manifest But indeed Gregory means they altered no point of Faith established at Chalcedon as some in his time fancied only condemning the persons there examined but still it was by shewing they held notorious Heresies Chap. vi But to consider the three Chapters severally The first was about Theodorus of Mopsvestia who as Vigilius saith should not be condemned after he was dead citing Leo and Gelasius for it as having decreed it for a point of Faith But on the other side St. Austin declares if Caecilian were guilty of the Crimes objected 100 years after his death he would Anathematize him Pelagius urges and approves of this Doctrin of St. Austin and saith Leo agreed with him The same is proved in the 5th Council to have been the Opinion of St. Cyril of the African Council c. Thus also Domnus was condemned at Chalcedon after his death and many of the old Hereticks Honorius was condemned by name sixty years after his death Yea Baronius who urges this in excuse of Vigilius in one place in another declares that it is a mistake and that the Church of Rome doth condemn Men after their death So as he is forced to commend and condemn the same Fact and to excuse this reason of Vigilius he
disputes for both sides of a Contradiction As to our Saviours words of binding and loosing on Earth Math 18. which Gelasius and Vigilius cite they respect the living Ministers on Earth and not the Persons bound or loosed And Leo and Gelasius both speak of loosing Persons who dyed Excommunicate and Impenitent which they held unlawful but neither of them say with Vigilius That an Heretick who is not discovered till after his death and dyed in Heresie may not be condemned then Chap. vii Vigilius pretends in the second place that this Theodorus dyed in the peace of the Church which objection is taken notice of both by Justinian and the 5th Council and largely disproved by shewing he was condemned as an Heretick by all Churches for that he dyed in his impiety and the Council say it is a Lye to affirm the contrary Wherefore Baronius falsly saith Vigilius knew he dyed in the Communion of the Church For even Binius saith this cannot be believed because Justinian's Edict witnesseth the contrary even that he dyed in Heresie So that unless an Heretick be in the Communion of the Church Theodorus dyed not in that Communion Chap. viii The Popes third reason is that neither the Fathers nor Councils had condemned Theodorus particularly not Cyril nor Proclus nor the Synods of Ephesus or Chalcedon But the 5th Council cites the very words of Cyril and Proclus which declare him an Heretick and condemn him They cite the words of Cyril to John of Antioch in the Council of Ephesus which say there were two Sons Also Cyril's Epistle approved at Chalcedon saith the Council of Ephesus Anathematized not only Nestorius but all that taught as he did And Nestorius being Theodorus his Scholar as the Emperor shews the 5th Council doubts not to affirm he was condemned in the former great Council So Pelagius the second saith the Ephesine Council condemned Theodorus and his Creed Vigilius indeed denies it was his Creed but Cyril saith it was his and produced it under his name in the Council of Ephesus and condemned it So the not mentioning his name in the Anathema is but a fallacious proof of his being not condemned there But when the Nestorians began to shroud themselves under his name then a Synod in Armenia condemned him by name and Proclus exhorted them so to do as Cyril affirms and Cyril there condemns him by name So did Theodosius and Valentiniam by their Edicts which the 5th Council cites The Church of Mopsvestia put his name out of the Dypticks And Sergius Bishop of Cyrus was deposed for reckoning his name among the Orthodox Bishops Wherefore the 5th Council rightly declares That the Catholick Church had cast out Theodorus after his death for his impious Writings But Pope Vigilius cites two forged Epistles of Cyril and Proclus to shew that neither of them condemned Theodorus And with the Nestorians he denies that these Impious Writings were composed by Theodorus But the Armenian Synod St. Cyril Justinian and the 5th Council all say they were writ by Theodorus the same is also affirmed by Pope Pelagius As for what Vigilius objects that the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon were against condemning Theodorus after his death Liberatus fortunes to say the same And Baronius who takes no notice of Vigilius severely taxes Liberatus for this as a Nestorian falshood charged on the Council of Chalcedon And Binius saith it is contrary to Cyril's Writings received at Ephesus and to the Acts at Chalcedon Finally Vigilius most falsly saith the Emperor Justinian himself as if he quoted the Acts of Chalcedon in his Edict for the Trinity is for clearing Theodorus which is so gross a slander as can scarce be paralleld For Justinian in that very Edict condemns Nestorius and all that Teach with him yea he censures Theodorus by name in a particular Epistle writ to this 5th Council On these frivolous and false grounds Vigilius Decrees none shall condemn Theodorus But the 5th Council without scruple justly condemns both him and all that held with him or defended him that is Pope Vigilius for one Chap. ix Secondly Vigilius held the Heretical side as to the Writings of Theodoret whose person after renouncing his former Heresie all agree to be Catholick So that this is a point of Doctrin not concerning a person Yet first Vigilius pretends Theodoret did not write these Papers against Cyril alledged under his name as he saith appeared to the Council at Chalcedon which is most false For Binius owns he writ against Cyril and defended both Nestorius and Theodorus and Baronius over and over confesseth the same thing So doth Liberatus cap. 4. and Pope Pelagius ep 7. and the Councils both of Ephesus and Chalcedon Yea Theodoret himself in his Epistles cited in the 5th Council and by Pope Pelagius owns it So that it is a wonder Vigilius durst urge so weak and false a thing But he objects The Council of Chalcedon only required him to renounce Nestorius not to condemn his own Writings Which is a meer fallacy for he writ for Nestorius and against Cyrils twelve Chapters Now since he condemned all the Doctrins of Nestorius at Chalcedon and also subscribed the twelve Chapters he did really and virtually though not by name Anathematize his own Writings Yea Pelagius saith expresly he did condemn his own Writings And though at the Council of Chalcedon this General Condemnation sufficed yet when the Nestorians in the time of Justinian defended themselves by Theodoret's Writings it was necessary to condemn them expresly and by name Thirdly Vigilius saith Cyril on the Union with the Eastern Bishops required none of them to renounce their own Writings Which signifies nothing since Cyril made them all Anathematize Nestorius whose Cause they had defended before he would communicate with them Wherefore Vigilius falsly concludes those Writings innocent which so vigorously defend Nestorius his Doctrin and if he and Theodoret vindicated these Writings after they had condemned Nestorius they contradict themselves condemn only a name but held the Heretical Doctrins still Which is plain also from Vigilius his affirming That the Council of Chalcedon would have no Nestorian Doctrins condemned under Theodoret's name That Council did condemn all that defended Nestorius of which these very Writings of Theodoret were the chief But he there recanting his Errors they condemned those Errors when they declared him Orthodox And it was Vigilius favour for Nestorianism which makes him so Zealous for Theodoret's Nestorian Writings Chap. x. Thirdly Vigilius held the Heretical side as to Ibas his Epistle affirming that the Council of Chalcedon pronounced it to be Orthodox But the 5th Council expresly say the Council of Chalcedon did condemn and cast it out Again Vigilius saith the whole Council of Chalcedon agreed with Pascasinus
Anastasius speaks only of one banishment of Vigilius for refusing to restore Anthimius near two years after his coming to Constantinople in the life-time of Theodora who died Anno 548 according to Baronius and this is the banishment from which Vigilius was released at the intreaty of Narses according to Anastasius and so both Bellarmin and Sanders affirm from the Pontifical Wherefore they and all Writers place this banishment of Vigilius divers years before the fifth Council held Anno 553 So that the Exile after the fifth Council is a meer Forgery of Baronius who openly contradicts his Author as if he mistook the time only because the real time of Vigilius's Exile will not serve his design to excuse the Pope from dying in Heresie He rejects a Story about Vigilius told by Anastasius as a manifest Lye only because neither Facundus nor Procopius mention it By which Arguing it will appear not only that Vigilius was not banished after the fifth Council but that he was not banished at all because neither Victor Liberatus Evagrius nor Procopius who then lived and Victor is very particular in naming all that were exiled for this Cause do not once mention Vigilius his being banished no nor Photius Zonaras Cedrenus Glicas nor Nicephorus And Platina with other Western Writers take up this Fable upon the credit of Anastasius and Baronius improves it to serve a turn But Baronius asks If it be likely Justinian would spare Vigilius I reply Yes because he was a weak and inconstant man and he having so great a Post Justinian chose rather to connive at him than to harden others by punishing him whom he represents to the fifth Council as one who condemned the three Chapters for which Reason also he is not condemned by Name in the 5th Council Secondly Baronius tells us of great Liberties Gifts c. given to Vigilius upon his release and sending home which he brings as a proof of his consent to the fifth Council Whereas that Sanction granting some Priviledges to Italy is dated in August the 28th year of Justinian and Vigilius according to Victor an Eye-witness died not till the 31st of Justinian So that these Liberties were promised to Vigilius and other Romans long before the Council while Vigilius and the Emperour were very kind viz. in the 23th of Justinian but performed five year after yet three years before Vigilius death and so his dying before his return with these Priviledges is a Fiction But Baronius by meer guess places it falsly in Justinian's 29th years beginning only to colour the Fable His last Argument is from Liberatus saying he died afflicted by the Eutychians but was not crowned I reply he despises Leberatus Testimony as to an Epistle of Vigilius But Liberatus saith not he was banished or put to death for his Opinions yea he counts his condemning the three Chapters Heresie and doth not tell us how he suffered or died so that he is no Witness to this Fiction but an Evidence against it Chap. xviii Baronius's last exception is that this was no lawful General Council nor had any Authority till Vigilius confirmed it And Binius saith his Sentence gave it the Title of a General Council But we have shewed before this was a lawful General Council received by the whole Catholick Church Now they grant it was not confirmed till after it was parted and that it was never gathered by the Holy Ghost so that his Act afterwards cannot make a nullity valid The Cardinal and Binius both tell us it was no General Council at first being called though the Pope resisted and contradicted it yet Binius had said before Vigilius called the 5th Council by his Pontifical Authority Baronius also saith the Emperor called it according to the sentence of Vigilius And the Council charge Vigilius with promising in writing to meet with them and his own Letter printed there declares his consent to the assembling this Council Yet if he had opposed it so did Damasus the second Council at Constantinople which was held repugnante Damaso yet is accounted a lawful General Council and Cusanus saith if the Pope be negligent or refractory the Emperor may call a General Council And though he was not personally present in this Council yet he sent his Constitution which was his Decree ex Cathedra But saith Baronius their sentence was contrary to the Popes Decree and therefore it cannot be a lawful General Council Bellarmine also urges this for a Rule but the matter of Fact sufficiently confutes them since this Council which did Decree contrary to the Popes Sentence is and was always held lawful So was the second General Council good and valid being confirmed by an imperial Edict in July An. 381 though Damasus did not so much as hear of it till after the Council of Aquileia held in September that year and it seems by Pope Gregory that the Roman Church till his time had not received the Canons of it Yea the third Canon which Damasus and Leo both condemned and which Binius saith the Roman Church rejects to this day Yet all the while it was held Authentick and by it Anatolius held the second place at Chalcedon and Eutychius in the 5th Council by it St. Chrysostom deposed and ordained Bishops and held a Council in Asia So that both Canons and Custom had setled this Rule as is proved in the Council of Chalcedon And Justinian made those Canons of this second Council to be inserted into the Dypticks and to be read in Churches So that Canons are good and valid without the Popes Approbation as well as Councils whose Decrees have their force from the Subscriptions of the major part of Bishops there present though two of the Popes Legates or ten others did dissent especially when the Emperor confirms them by his Edict as Constantine did those of Nice Theodosius those of the second General Council c. In like manner Justinian confirmed this 5th Council And so it was valid without the Popes consent though absent Bishops others as well as those of Rome were desired to confirm a Council after it was past not to give any new Authority to it but to preserve Unity and to shew the Orthodoxy of these absent Bishops Chap. xx Omitting the 19th Chapter which treats of General Councils at large we proceed to Baronius lesser and remoter objections against this Council He begins with Justinian who called and confirmed it whom he taxes 1st for want of learning calling him an illiterate man who could not read a Letter for which he cites Suidas a late fabulous yea an Heretical Author But Platina commends Justinian for his great Learning and Wit So also Trithemius who with Possevine reckon him among Ecclesiastical Writers Pope Agatho and the 6th Council cite him as one of the
him to stand or fall to his own Master not imitating Baronius his spite to Justinian in determining his final Estate An Appendix to this History IN Labbè's Edition there is subjoyned to this Council an Epistle of Vigilius to Eutychius and a dicourse of P. de Marca's upon it wherein it is extolled as a genuine writing and a sufficient confirmation of this 5th Council And though the foregoing History do abundantly confute this yet we will not pass it without some observations concerning this pompous piece of Forgery First In the Epistle Vigilius is made to say that he is and was of the same Faith with Eutychius and the rest of the Bishops at Constantinople But if so why did he exclaim that the Catholick Faith was in danger to be rooted up Or how came he to Anathematize Theodorus And why did he suffer so much for a matter that was not of Faith Secondly In this Epistle Vigilius Anathematizeth all that at any time believed the three Chapters ought to be received or defended and all that have endeavoured to hinder their being condemned Now is it probable he should curse all his Friends in Africa and in the Western Church yea and himself so dreadfully who had received and defended them and done all in his power to hinder their condemnation Thirdly This illustrious Monument as 't is called can be no confirmation of the 5th Council because it never names or so much as hints at that Council So that it can pass for no more than Vigilius his Recantation of his former Opinions and being writ after the Council seems to be designed for the Emperors private satisfaction For the Eastern Church then did not believe a Popes confirmation necessary to make a General Councils Decrees valid Fourthly This Epistle is dated in December and the Council arose but in June before which argues the falshood of it for it is not likely that he should so soon revoke his solemn constitution and make so great a change or if he did it is strange that living above two years after he did not receive some mark of Justinian's favour in all that time no nor return to his See in Peace As to the Dissertation of de Marca we may note that the years when and the place where this writing was found give just suspicions of its being an Imposture It was it seems found by a Greek An. 1276. in the Vatican and he pretended to Transcribe it out of a Manuscript there writ An. 753. Now the Original of these is dated two hundred years after the 5th Council and all that time no body ever heard of Vigilius his Confirmation and if this date be genuine it might very probably be invented at that time being the very time when the Eastern Church began contrary to the sentiments of Rome to pull down their Images and that was a fit season to produce Evidence that the Greeks ought to submit to the Latins whose Popes as they pretended had made all their General Councils Decrees Authentick And the date of the later Transcript is more suspicious still being the critical time when the poor Eastern Emperor Nich. Palaelogus for getting Money and Aid from the Pope was forced to send some corrupted Bishops to make a seeming Submission to and Union with the Roman Church and to carry on this design An. 1276. no doubt care was taken to find out or make this Epistle and send it into Greece And the Vatican whence it was taken is known to be the Mint and Ware-house of Forgeries So that every circumstance is suspicious And so is the Reason which the learned Patron of it gives why it is so valuable viz. because it vindicates the credit of the Roman See which was much lessened by the belief that the 5th Council was owned for a lawful and general though Vigilius opposed it Now at Rome where the Popes Authority is the main if not the sole point of Religion there have been innumerable Writings piously forged to carry on this great end and this seems to be of that sort only it appeared not early enough for Baronius to cite it however as our Author notes he guessed there was or foresaw there would be such a thing For he positively avers as was shewed upon meer conjecture that Vigilius did confirm the 5th Council But he and his party lay it down for a Maxim that nothing can be a General Council but what is confirmed by the Pope Therefore Evidence or not Evidence Binius and Baronius affirm it was so and they are as confident who never saw this Epistle as de Marca is who published it so that to through-paced Catholicks who take their words this Epistle is a needless discovery But let us see what Authority he hath to support this famous Confirmation He saith Evagrius witnesseth that Vigilius consented in writing but would not come to the Council But this consent was before the Synod met and is therefore plainly set down in Evagrius before the convening with which consent in writing both Justinian and the Council do often upbraid this inconstant Pope Nor can Evagrius be expounded of any subsequent consent since he goes on after this passage to relate the acts of the Council Nor do any of the later Greeks who follow him say any more than to imply Vigilius his precedent consent And the 6th Council relate the calling of the 5th Council after the agreement between Justinian and Vigilius nor can their words without manifest violence be stretched to this Confirmation which had it then been extant in the Greek Copy and as de Marca owns wanting in the Latin that Council had found out and observed this among other Variations The Testimony of Pelagius which our Author thinks so clear is no Evidence unless it be against this Epistle for he speaks not of Vigilius but of the Latin Church which came slowly to see their Error laboured a great while strove a long time even to suffering and would not of a sudden lose their labour till the Truth did appear This plainly refers to the Roman Clergy and Western Bishops who after Vigilius death stood out in defence of the three Chapters so stisly that Pelagius the 1st Vigilius his Successor could scarce find any to consecrate him And at last he was forced to get Narses to use violent Methods to bring them in to his Communion now this was three year after the Council But how could Vigilius his hasty turn in six Months time be called a slow change or a long striving And if Pelagius the second had known of Vigilius his confirming the 5th Council he would not have used so many shifts to ward off the force of his and the Roman Churches dissent which was objected this Epistle had stopt their Mouths for ever and if St. Gregory had known of it he had referred those who doubted of the Apostolical consent not to Pelagius his Epistle but to
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 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 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 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 Post humous Dissertation 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 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 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 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 They own that Tertullian Epiphanius and Ruffinus make Clement to succeed Peter and the 〈◊〉 Learned Bishop of Chester proves Linus was dead before Peter Irenaeus doth not say as the Notes falsly cite him that Linus succeeded Peter in the Government of the universal Church 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 Bishop of Chester proves these were only two names of the same Person But the Notes attempt to justifie the forged Pontifical by impudently affirming that Ignatius Anacletus contemporary Irenaeus Eusebius St. Augustine and Optatus were all mistaken or all wronged by their Transcribers who leave out Cletus But every Candid Reader will rather believe the Mistake to be in the Pontifical which is a meer heap of Errors and in the Roman Martyrology and Missal which blindly follow it rather than in those Eminent and Ancient Fathers And every one may see the Folly of the Romish Church which Venerates two several Saints on two several Days one of which never had a real Being for Cletus is but the abbreviation of Anacletus his Name § 8. After this we have the Life of Clement wherein the Pontifical makes him succeed Cletus under those Consuls which were in Office the next year after S. Peter's Martyrdom though he had assigned 23 years to Linus and Cletus his pretended Predecessors which years must all be expired in one years compass if this Account be true and one would admire the stupidity of
Epistles are Forged and consequently of no Authority yet the Roman Church hath made great use of them in the Ignorant Ages For Binius notes all along in his Margen what Sections of them are transcribed into their Canon Law and even in later times their Writers against the Protestants do commonly cite their Infamous Impostures to prove the Supremacy of the Pope his Infallibility and right to Appeals as also for the exemption of the Clergy their Celibacy and Habits and to prove their Mass with its Ceremonies Auricular Confession Apocryphal Books Tradition Chrism Veneration of Relicks and Martyrs c. and Cook in his Censura Patrum hath noted the several Epistles and the Authors which cite them saving us the labour of instancing And therefore we will only make a few general Observations upon this matter and so dismiss these Forgeries Observ I. That since the Romanists have no other genuine Ancient Authors to prove these New Doctrines and Practices by but are forced generally to place these apparent Forgeries in the Fore-front of all their Authorities we may conclude these Points of their Religion are all Innovations unheard of in the Primitive Ages so that Isidore was forced to invent these Epistles almost 800 years after Christ to give some shew of Antiquity to them and these Points were in those Ignorant Times mistaken by this means for Primitive Usages and Opinions and so got footing in the World under that disguise but now that the Fallacy is discovered the Doctrines and Practices ought to be disowned as well as the Epistles on which they are built Observ II. There are many other Points of the Roman Religion which are not so much as mentioned in any of these Forged Epistles such as Worship of Images Formal Praying to the Saints and to the Virgin Mary Transubstantiation Half-Communion and Adoration of the Host Purgatory Indulgences and Justification by Merits with some others Now these are so New that in Isidore's time when he invented these Epistles they were not heard of nor received no not in the Roman Church for if they had no doubt this Impostor who was so zealous to get Credit for all the Opinions and Usages of that Church which he knew of would have made some Popes write Epistles to justifie these also and his silence concerning them makes it more than probable that these were all invented since the year of Christ 800. Observ III. Though the later Romanists frequently cite these Forged Decretals yet no genuine Author or Historian for Seven hundred years after Christ did ever Quote or Mention them no not so much as any of the Popes themselves in all that Period Now it is morally impossible so many important Points should be so clearly decided by so many Ancient Bishops of so Famous a Church and yet no Author ever take notice of it And doubtless when the Popes attempted to be Supreme and claimed Appeals about the year 400 Zosimus and Boniface who quarrelled with the Eastern and African Bishops about these Points and were so hard put to it for Evidence as to seign some private Canons were made at the first general Council of Nice would certainly have cited these Epistles which are so clear Evidence for their pretences if they had either seen or heard of them but they do not once name them in all that Controversie which shews they were not then in being yea those who know Church History do clearly discern that the main Points setled by these Epistles were things disputed of about the Seventh and Eighth Centuries a little before Isidore's time and therefore these Forgeries must never be cited for to prove any Point to be Ancient or Primitive § 17. Obs IV. Though the Inventer of these Epistles was so zealous a Bigot for the Roman Cause yet many things are to be found in them which contradict the present Tenents of that Church For whereas the Pope now claims an Universal Supremacy even over Jerusalem it self Clement's first Epistle is directed to James the Bishop of Bishop's Ruling the Hebrew Church at Jerusalem and all the Churches every where founded by Divine providence Anacletus first Epistle orders all the Clergy present to receive under pain of Excommunication which is not observed now in the Roman Church Pope Telesphorus orders a Mass on the Night before Christmas and forbids any to begin Mass before nine a Cleek But Binius confesses their Church doth not now observe either of these Orders Pope Hyginus forbids all foreign Jurisdiction because it is unfit they should be Judged abroad who have Judges at home So the third Epistle of Pope Fabian appoints that every Cause shall be tried where the Crime is committed which passage is also in a genuine Epistle of S. Cyprian to Cornelius And all foreign Jurisdiction is again forbid in Pope Felix his second Epistle which passages do utterly destroy Appeals to Rome unless they can prove all the Crimes in the World are committed there The second Epistle of Fabian allows the People to reprove their Bishop if he Err in matters of Faith the same Liberty also is given to the People in Cornelius second Epistle which seems to make the People Judges in Matter of Faith a thing which the Modern Romanists charge upon the Protestants as a great Error From these and many other passages we may see that these Impostures do not in all Points agree with the present Roman Church § 18. I have now done with the Epistles themselves and proved them to be apparent Forgeries I will only give the Reader some cautions about those partial Notes printed on them both in Binius and Labbè which though they frequently correct confute and alter divers passages in these Epistles Yet if any thing look kindly upon the Roman Church they magnifie and vindicate it but if it seem to condemn any of their Usages they reject and slight it For Example Pope Pius cites Coloss XI 18. against worshiping Angels and the Notes reject both S. Hierom's and Theodoret's Exposition of the place as Reflecting on their Churches practice adding that S. Paul condemned Cerinthus in that place for giving too much Honour to Angels Yet Binius soon after tells us that Cerinthus was so far from Teaching they were to be Adored that he thought they were to be Hated as Authors of Evil Pope Zepherine cites the Apostolical Canons for the Priviledges of his See and saith there were but Seventy of them But Binius in his Notes saith he refers to the Seventy third Canon Yet if the Reader consult that Seventy third Canon the Pope's See is not named there yea that Canon forbids a Bishop to Appeal from his Neighbor Bishop unless it be to a Council Out of Calixtus fust Epistle which Labbè owns to be a manifest Forgery Binius Notes cite a Testimoy for the Supremacy calling it an evident Testimony and worthy to be Noted Pontianus in his Exile brags ridiculously about the
Dignity of Priests in his second Epistle 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 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 he strives to reconcile the differing ways of relating this Fabulous Translation and slies 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 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 There it is impertiently noted That the deceased pray for the living Pope Stephen's second Epistle asserts Primates were in use before Christianity Binius in his Notes out of Baronius saith Herodotus 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 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 Pope Eutychianus first Epistle following the Erroneous Pontifical 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 Consulship 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 yet he cannot name one of them Euaristus his Life follows whom the Pontifical and the Breviary of Sixtus the Fifth 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 Pontifical 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 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 those Offices in Rome at that time and the whole Story is a Fiction taken out of a fabulous Tract called the Acts of Alexander yet this Legend Binius's Notes defend Of Xystus
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 § 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 slatter 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 consented 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 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 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 palliare the grossest of all for the Pontifical says He was Beheaded by Valerian the Notes affirm it was by Gallus and Volusiunus and yet the same Notes tell us The Pontifical in saying it was by Vulerian may be very well and truly expounded The Reader must understand It may be so expounded by such kind of Notes as are designed to make gress 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 as may be seen in the Councils of Carthage Iconium and Africa where so easily may Tradition be mistaken the Re-baptizing 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 Maityrology Dionysius the next Pope is said to have been a Monk upon the credit of the Pontifical 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
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 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 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 and Alexander ab Alexandro mentions a famous High-way leading from Rome to this City 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 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 a Pope so obscure that Eusebius's Chronicle wholly omits him and Theodoret knew nothing of him nor of
Pope Eusebius but makes Melchiades immediate Successor to Marcellinus It is very observable that these two unknown Popes in the Notes on their Lives are said to have sat Seven years between them And the Pontifical saith There was a Vacancy of Seven years after Marcellinus which Vacancy is also asserted by Anastasius Biblioth by Luitprandus Abbo Floriacens Cusanus and Genebrard And though Baronius's and Binius's Notes deny this Seven years Vacancy it is upon meer Conjectures The Scandal of so long a Vacancy no doubt setting some of the old Parasites of Rome on work to invent two Popes Names and put them into the List from whence probably they have been foisted into Oâ—tatus and S. Augustine two Latin Fathers while the Greek Authors which these Forgers Understood not do continue Uncorrupted And truly nothing but the Names of these two Popes remain for no good Historian mentions any one Eminent Act done by either of them however the Annotator had rather fill up his Scene with empty Names of Feigned Popes who did nothing for Seven years together than let the Reader suppose the Catholic Church could so long want it s pretended Head But though the Notes allow not the Authority of the Pontifical for the Vacancy they trust it for the fictitious Story of this Marcellus his Life and would have us believe That in a time of Persecution this Pope appointed Twenty five Churches in Rome to Baptize Converts and Bury Martyrs in and though the Laws and Customs of that City then forbad to Bury dead Bodies within the Walls we are to believe that the Tyrant Maxentius who made all these Martyrs and persecuted this very Pope consented to his breaking this Ancient Law On the Credit of the same Pontifical we are told That a certain Lady called Lucina dedicated her House to this Pope while He was alive by the Title of S. Marcellus and that the Emperor turned it into a Stable and made the Pope his Beast-keeper there where Naked and cloathed with Sackcloth they are the Words of the Pontifical He soon after ended his days the 17th of the Kalends of February Which Fiction the Roman Breviary orders to be read to the Credulous People of that Communion for Lessions and tells them That Marcellus writ an Epistle to the Bishops of the Antiochian Province about the Roman Primacy and to prove Rome to be the Head of All Churches and that no Synod should be held without the Pope's Authority But this Epistle is owned by Labbé to be a Forgery patched up out of divers Modern Authors citing the Vulgar Latin Version and dated after Marcellus his death And it is very strage That times of Persecution should be a proper Season for a Pope to wrangle for his Supremacy Yet this Notorious Forgery saith Christ ordered S. Peter to Translate his Seat from Antioch to Rome and that the Apostles by Inspiration decreed That all Appeals should be made thither and no Council held but by the Authority of the Roman Church For which cause Binius vindicates it with Notes as full of Falsehood as the Epistle it self His first Note of this Epistle being writ to one Solomon a Bishop is an oversight and belongs to the first Epistle of Pope Marcellâ—nus His next Notes about the Primacy and Power of Calling Synods cite an Apostolical and Nicene Canon for it but no such Canons are to be found He quotes also two Epistles one writ to Pope Foelix from Alexandria another writ by Pope Julius to the Eastern Churches for proof of this Supremacy and the same Annotator afterwards owns them both to be Forgeries He falsly saith Dioscorus was Condemned at Chalcedon only for holding a Synod without the Pope's Consent whereas he is known to have been accused of many other Crimes His Text of Fasce oves is nothing to this purpose nor will Pope Pelagius his Word be taken in his own Cause His Story of Valentinian makes nothing for the Pope more than any other Bishop Yea the Bishops desiring him to call a Council shews They thought it was His Prerogative and Nicephorus relates his Answer to have been That he was so taken up with State Affairs that he had no leisure to enquire into those matters Wherefore after all this elaborate Sophistry to justifie a false Assertion of a Forged Epistle the Annotator hath only shewed his partiality for the Pope's Power but made no proof of it The second Epistle of this Marcellus to the Tyrant Maxentius is also a manifest Forgery part of it is taken out of his Successor Gregory's Epistles writ almost Three hundred years after this and it is highly improbable That a persecuted Pope should falsly as well as ridiculously to a Pagan Emperor quote the Laws of the Apostles and their Successors forbidding to persecute the Church and Clergy and also instruct him about the Roman Churches power in Calling Synods and Receiving Appeals and cite Clement's Forged Epistle as an Authority to Maxentius That Lay-men must not accuse Bishops The Notes indeed are unwilling to lose such precious Evidence and so pretend That Maxentius at this time dissembled himself to be a Christian but this Sham can signifie nothing to such as read the Epistle where Marcellus complains That he then persecuted him most unjustly and therefore he did not pretend to be a Christian at that time and consequently the whole Epistle is an absurd Forgery And so is that Decree subjoyned to it which supposes young Children offered to Monasteries and Shaved or Veiled there Customs which came up divers Centuries after this § 2. The Canons of Peter Bishops of Alexandria are genuine and a better Record of Ecclesiastical Discipline than any Pope to this time ever made the Reader also may observe the Bishop of Rome is not once named in these Canons and they plead Tradition for the Wednesday Fast contrary to the Roman Churches pretence of having an Apostolical Tradition to Fast on Saturday The Council of Elliberis in Spain is by Binius placed under Pope Marcellus which Words Labbé leaves out of the Title and justly for if there were such a Pope the Council takes no notice of him nor is it likely that Rome did know of this Council till many years after Yet it is both Ancient and Authentic though Mendoza in Labbé reckons up divers Catholic Authors Caranza Canus Baronius c. who either wholly reject it or deny the 34th 35th 36th and 40th Canons of it which condemn the Opinions now held at Rome And though Binius because Pope Innocent approves it dare not reject it yet he publishes Notes to make the Reader believe it doth not condemn any of their Opinions or Practices The 13th Canon speaks of Virgins who dedicated themselves to God but mentions not their being Veiled or Living in Monasteries which Customs came in long after as the Authors cited in the Notes shew The 26th Canon calls it an Error to
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 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 which agrees with the Sentiments of the Primitive Church Lactantius condemns Lighting Candles in God's Worship by day as a Paganish Superstition S. Hierom faith It was used in his time only by such as did it to humor the silly Vulgar who had a Zeal without Knowledge 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 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 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 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 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 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 without excepting the Pope or taking notice of Marcellus's pretended claim of Appeals § 3. In the Year 306 was a Council at Cartbage against the Donatists which never takes any notice of the Pope yet they put into the Title of it Under Marcellus 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 Now there is great difference between a Mans being
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 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 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 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 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 Fifthly Here is a Canon called the Thirty ninth of Nice which faith 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 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 to the Places near to him 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 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 but Binius prints it at large with all its Fictions and Impostures 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 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 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 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 Fourthly It is here said to have been declared at Nice That every Bishop under God was the Head of his own Church 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 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 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 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 by their quoting a spurious Work under the name of Dionysius Areopagita which was as all agree writ after the Nicene Council many years 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 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 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 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 consuting 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 And his Notes say the 72d Canon differs from the 13th and the 73d Canon is contrary to the 49th 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 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 Barcnius 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
and leaves off the lawful use of the holy Chalice The Council of Antioch is by the Editors said to be held under Julius 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 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 have left out these Canons as not favouring the practice of the Roman Court. However Baronius saith Among 97 Bishops only 36 were Arians 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 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 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 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 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 Kinsinen 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 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 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 Yet Baronius himself owns that the Western Church added these words and the Son to the Nicene Creed above an hundred years after 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 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 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 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 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 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 and Binius saith They desired to be received into the Communion of the Roman Church 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 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
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 Asians in whose place Foelix was Ordained and he in a Council condemned Ursacius and Valens two Arian Bishops who in Revenge petitioned Constantius 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 Communicn and subscribed an Arian Confession of Faith as Athanasius Hilary and Hierom witness and there are Arguments unanswerable to prove he was an Arian while he was Pope yea Binius in his own Notes twice confesseth That he unhappily fell and that he basely fell 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 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 But I ask Whether Athanasius S. Hilary and S. Hieroin 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 Phetinus words who saith soon after He was of the same Opinion with the Arians 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 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 avoided his communion and S. Hierom saith He was an Arian As for the Story of his condemning Ursacius and Valens two of that Sect there is no better Authority for it than the fabulous Pontifical So that after all the devices of Bellarmin Bargnius and Binius to save their Churches Infallibility we have two Popes at once falling so notoriously into the Arian Heresie that the Lay-people disowned their Communion This is more than suspicion of Heresie in S. Peter's Chair and proves that their infallible Guides for some years were Arian Heretics For this Liberius divers Epistles are published with a Preface before them which saith Two of them were feigned by the Arians yet these two are found in the Fragments of S. Hilary among which it is not probable there should be any Fiction of the Arians So that it is very likely these two Epistles are genuine but rejected by these Sycophants of Rome because they tell an ungrateful Truth viz. That Liberius did condemn Athanasius soon after he was made Pope And if we consider how inconstant he was it is very probable that he might condemn Athanasius twice first in the beginning of his Papacy as is said in these two Epistles of which he repented and then writ that Tenth Epistle to own he was in Communion with Athanasius and to tell him If he approved of his form of Faith it would tend much to the setling of his Judgment which is an odd Complement from an Infallible Head Secondly He condemned Athanasius after his Banishment of which more shall be said hereafter But as to the particular Epistles we shall note That in the first which they say is genuine Liberius with other Bishops petition Constantius to order a Council to be held at Aquileia by which we see the Pope had not then assumed the power of calling Councils When he writ the 7th Epistle which they grant also to be genuine no doubt he was an Arian For he calls the Arian Bishops His most Beloved Brethren and declares his Consent to their just condemning of Athanasius together with his being in Communion with them and his receiving their Sirmian Creed as the Catholic Faith So in the XIth Epistle which is certainly genuine and recorded by Socrates the Notes confess he was so easie as to receive the Semi-Arians to Communion and to commend their Faith as the same which was decreed at Nice But it is gross Flattery to call this only Being too easie it was in plain terms Being deceived and erring in Matters of Faith which spoils their Infallibility as it also doth their Universal Supremacy for Liberius in the same Epistle to call himself Bishop of Italy referring only to the Suburbicarian Regions and saying He was the meanest of Bishops and rejoyced that those in the East did not submit to him but agree with him in Matters of Faith Wherefore the XIIth or as Labbé calls it the XIVth Epistle which is writ to all Bishops is manifestly forged And so are the two next from Liberius to Athanasius and from Athanasius to Liberius as both Labbé and Binius confess yet in one of these the Pope brags of his Authority over the Universal Church But the Forger was so bad at Chronology that while he strives to make this Pope look like an Orthodox Friend of Athanasius he absurdly brings him in even under Julian or Valens in one of whose Reigns this Epistle was written threatning Offenders with the Emperours Indignation with Deprivation yea with Proscription Banishment and Stripes I need not mention those Decrees which are attributed to Liberius whose Style betrays them and shews they belong to the later Ages and are placed here by the Collectors only to make them seem more ancient than really they are In Liberius's first year it is said There was a Council called at Rome by this Pope to clear Athanasius yet being sensible that their Authority would signifie very little they all agreed to petition the Emperour for a Council to Meet at Aquileia to confirm what they had done at Rome Anno 355. there was a Council at Milan the Editors call it A General Council because it was with Constantius
permission called by Liberius whose Legates also were present at it But herein they grosly falsifie for Sozomen declares That Constantius summoned all the Bishops to Milan and Baronius saith The Emperour called them together Therefore if this was a General Council it was called by the Emperour and not by the Pope In the Notes on this Synod they say Constantius being yet a Catechumen ought not to be present at a lawful Council But this is Baronius his device to colour over the Forgery of Constantine's Baptism before the Council of Nice there being no Canon forbidding a Catechumen to be present in a Council or in a Church except only while the Sacrament was celebrating so that if Constantius had been bound by an Ecclesiastical Canon there being no Canon to hinder his presence in this Council Baronius assigns a wrong cause of his absence Again the Notes do very falsly suppose That Foelix though chosen by the Arians was a Catholic Pope For he was Ordained by three Arian Bishops at Milan as Atbanasius declares and Socrates as we noted before faith He was in Opinion an Arian Nor is it probable when the Arians had got Liberius banished for not complying with them they should chuse a Catholic and an Enemy into so eminent a See or that the Catholic People of Rome should avoid the communion of Foelix if he were not an Arian 'T is true Sozomen speaks of some who said He kept to the Nicene Faith and was unblameable in Religion yet he adds he was accused for ordaining Arians and communicating with them But this bare Report raised perhaps by the Arians who still pretended to be Catholics and hold the Nicene Faith cannot outweigh such strong Reason and Matters of Fact as are here alledged to prove Foelix not only a Schismatical but also an Heretical Pope The Dialogue between Constantius and Pope Liberius at Milan here published shews That at this time he refused either to condemn Athanasius or communicate with the Arians and was banished into Thrace for this refusal But the Reader may justly wonder he should never mention his Supremacy and Universal Authority when Constantius asked him If he were so considerable a part of the World that he would alone stand for Athanasius and when he advised him to embrace the Communion of the Churches how properly might he have here told him he was Head of all Churches and those who did not communicate with him were no Churches Again Why doth this Pope offer to go to Alexandria and hear Achanasius's cause there which had been twice judged at Rome Surely he knew nothing of these last and highest Appeals in all Causes The Popes of after-Ages claimed this as a right of their See yet it must be granted that Liberius was ignorant of that priviledge § 24. The Council at Sirmium was called by Constantius and consisted of Arian Bishops who though they condemned Photinus his gross Heresie yet would not put the word Consubstantial into any of the three Creeds which they here composed however the Editors call it A General Council partly rejected Perhaps because Pope Liberius approved it who here openly Fell into the Arian Heresie and that not by constraint as the Notes pretend For out of his Banishment he writ to the Eastern Bishops assuring them he had condemned Athanasius and would communicate with them in their form of Faith and therefore he desired them to intercede for his release and restitution to his Bishopric The ambition of regaining which great place was the cause of his Fall as Baronius confesseth and though that Author had produced divers Ancient Writers expresly testifying That he subscribed Heresie Yet a little after he again denies that Liberius was an Heretic pretending that he only sign'd the first Confession of Sirmium which was not downright Heresie Though elsewhere he saith Athanasius rejected all these Arian Forms which wanted Consubstantial as Heretical and declares that the Catholic People of Rome esteemed Liberius to be an Heretic and would not have Communion with him for which he cruelly persecuted them Nay he brags of it as a singular Providence that Foelix who was a Schismatical Pope in his Exile upon Liberius's Fall suddenly became a Catholic and a lawful Pope which still supposes Liberius was an Heretic as doth also Baronius his Fiction of Liberius's speedy Repentance and Foelix his dying soon after his Adversaries return to Rome For the Writers of that Age say Foelix lived eight years after and for Liberius his Repentance though many Authors expresly speak of his falling into Heresie none are very clear in his returning or however none suppose it to be so long before his Death as Baronius doth whose design in this History is not to serve Truth but to clear S. Peter's Chair from the imputation of Heresie and therefore he makes this out chiefly by Conjectures The testimonies of Damasus and Siricius being parties and partial for the honour of their own See are no good Evidence if they did speak of his early Repentance but Damasus only faith The Bishop of Rome did not consent to the Faith of Ariminum Baronius adds This was Liberius I reply That Damasus was of Foelix his party before his own advancement to be Pope and so it is more probable that he meant Foelix Again the Catholic Bishop's Letter from Ariminum only says The Arian Decrees created discord at Rome that is there were then two Factions there one of which and probably that of Liberius did agree to these Decrees the other rejected them Baronius adds to the Bishops Letter these Decrees created Factions because the Pope of Rome opposed them But this will not clear Liberius since both Factions were headed by a Pope Baronius goes on to tell us that Sozomen affirms Liberius was turned out of his Church for not consenting to the Faith at Ariminum I Answer Sozomen must be mistaken in this unless we feign a double Exile of Liberius which no good Author mentions and which Baronius will not allow As for the Epistle of Liberius to Athanasius it was writ no doubt before he had condemned him or else he ought to have confessed his Fault as well as his Faith to that great Man I grant Socrates doth say That Liberius required the Semi-Arians and Macedonians to consent to the Nicene Faith in the time of Valens but this was Nine years after his return and not long before his Death yet then Liberius was imposed on in Matters of Faith by these Bishops whom he calls Orthodox for they were still Heretical and did not heartily agree to the Nicene Faith so that his Infallibility was deceived And though S. Ambrose call Liberius Of happy Memory where he cites a Sermon of his that is a Phrase which the Primitive Charity used of some Men not altogether Orthodox ◠But it is a great prejudice to Liberius his Repentance that though Athanasius
who forged the Decretal Epistles invented one to Aurelius Bishop of Carthage 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 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 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 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 The disius 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 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 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 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 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 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 but by the common Suffrage of Ninety Bishops assembled with him as the words of Atbanasius 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 Apollinar is having disseminated his Heresie at Antioch complaint was made to 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 '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 but Nazianzen saith He did nâ—t this till be was better instructed in the Points For at first as the Notes confess this Pope took Apollinaris for a picus and learned Man and so beld Communion with him till he understood by S. Basil ' s third Epistle that he was an Herctic I know they excuse this by saying that S. Basil himself and Nazianzen and S. Hierom were all at first under the same mistake with Damasus But then none of these ever were pretended to be Infallible Jadges 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 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 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 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 Theodoret indeed who as Baronius
owns is much mistaken in his relating this matter names only Damasus in his report of this Law and Baronius cites the Law out of him meerly to make it seem as if Damasus were made the sole Standard of Catholic Communion though the Original Law still extant and all other Historians name Peter of Alexandria as equal with Damasus perhaps the Reader may wonder there is no other Patriarch named in this Law but it must be observed that Anticch at this time had two Orthodox Bishops who separated from each other Meletius and Paulinus to make up which unhappy Schism there was a Synod this year held at Antioch under Damasus say the Editors but in truth under the Emperours Legate who was sent to see a Peace concluded between these two Bishops by the advice of the Council there assembled And Damasus had so little interest in this Council that Meletius was generally approved for the true Bishop and Paulinus whose party the Pope favoured ordered only to come in after Meletius his Death So that since this Council acted contrary to the mind of Damasus it is very improper to say it was held under him § 27. The second General Council at Constantinople was Called by the Emperour Theodosius whom Gratian had taken for his Paitner in the Empire and assigned him for his share the Eastern Provinces where this pious Prince finding great differences in Religion he Convened this Council to confirm the Nicene Faith to fettle Ecclesiastical Matters and to determine the Affairs of the See of Constantinople This Council the Editors introduce with a Preface or general History and conclude it with partial and false Notes hoâ—ing to perswade the World that it was both called and confirmed by the Pope For which end we read in the Preface That Theodosius made a Law for all to follow the Faith which the Apostle Peter delivered to the Romans and which Pope Damasus preached which shews as if the Pope were the sole preserver of the Faith whereas the Law it self truly cited runs thus which Pope Damasus and Peter Bishop of Alexandria a man of Apostolical Sanctity are known to follow And in another Law of the same Emperours next year those are declared to be Catholics and capable of Benefices who were in Communion with the Bishops of Constantinople Alexandria Laodicea Tarsus and Iconium and in that Law neither Damasus nor Rome are mentioned which shews it was not the peculiar priviledge of any See for its Bishop to be made the standard of Catholic Communion but the known Orthodox Opinion of that Bishop who sat in this or that eminent Church The rest of the Forgeries in this Council will best appear by considering First By whom this Council was called Secondly By whom it was confirmed Thirdly What Authority hath been aseribed to it And Fourthly Whether the Canons and Creed ascribed to it be Authentic First As to the Calling this Council Baronius had twice guessed but never proved that Damasus moved Theodâ—sius to call it this the Preface improves and saith It was called by the Emperour not without Damasus his Authority and the Title before the Notes advance it still gathered say they by the Authority of Pope Damasus and the favour of Theodosius But when this is to be proved their Evidence is pretended Monuments in the Vatican that Shop of Forgeries the testimony of later Popes in their own cause and some very remote Conjectures and fraudulent Inferences Yet at last they aâ—firm That none but a pertinacicus Heretic will aâ—â—irm that this Pious Emperour who was most observant of the Sacred Canons would call this Synod By which bold Censure they condemn not only all the ancient Historians but all the Fathers here assembled for pertinacious Heretics For the Councils Letter to Theodosius saith We were called together by your Epistle and when they were to have met at Rome they aâ—â—irm That Damasus summoned them to meet there by the Emperours Letters Sâ—crates also and Sozomen expresly say The Emperour called this Synod at Constantinople Theodoret also doth aâ—â—irm the same though the Notes strive to pervert his words But Richerius a Learned Romanist hath fully cleared this Point and shewed that Theodosius called this General Council by his sole Authority And the Acts of the sixth General Council with Photius cited falsly in these Notes do only import that the Pope gave a subsequent consent to it which is no proof that he was concerned in calling it Secondly As to the confirming it the Preface and the Notes considently aver That they sent their Acts to Damasus to be approved and he did confirm them yet they tell us that Pope Gregory above 200 year after declared That the Church of Rome as yet neither had nor received the Acts of this Council I know they would shuffle oâ—f this Contradiction by pretending that Damasus confirmed only the Matters of Faith not the Canons But first Gregory denies their having the Acts of this Council and the Acts contain Matters of Faith as well as Canons Secondly they can not shew any proof that Damasus made any distinction If he confirmed any thing it was all for if subsequent consent be confirmation then he consented to all and confirmed all that was done here But in our Sense of giving an Authentic Character to this Councils Decrees Theodosius alone confirmed them for the Bishops desire him by his Picus Edict to confirm the Decrees of this Synod And they writ not to Damasus till the year after the Synod and their Letter was directed not to him alone but to Ambrose and other Western Bishops with him nor do they in it desire any confirmation from him or any of them but say That they and all others ought to approve of their Faith and rejoyce with them for all the good things which they had done with which Letter probably they sent as was usual a Transcript of all their Acts And Photius saith That Damasus Bishop of Rome afterwards agreed with these Bishops and confirmed what they had done that is by consenting to it which is no more than every absent Bishop may do who in a large Sense may be said to confirm a Council when he agrees to the Acts of it after they are brought to him Thirdly The Authority of this Council is undoubted having been ever called and accounted the Second General Council and so it is reckoned in all places where the General Councils are mentioned which Title it had not as Bellarmin vainly suggests Because at the time when this was assembled in the East the Western Bishops met at Rome For that obscure Synod is not taken notice of while this is every where celebrated as held at Constantinople and consisting of one hundred and fifty Bishops which were they who met in the East As for Damasus Baronius cannot prove he was concerned in it but by we think and we may
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 § 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 Council under Damasus 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 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 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. 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 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 Plavianus as Patriarch of Antioch 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 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 nor could Siricius get the Chair but by a Rescript from the Emperour Valentinian which condemned Ursicinus and established Siricius 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 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 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 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 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 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 men 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
the diligent Reader will observe this to be customary with Baronius not only in this fourth Century but in every part of his Annals § 2. Another Artifice is to corrupt the Words or the Sense of genuine Authors of which we will select also a few Instances in the same Century S. Augustine barely names Peter as one whom the Pagans did Calumniate but Baronius brings this in with this Preface That they did this because they saw Peter extremely magnified especially at Rome where he had fixed his Seat and then he saith S. Augustine records this c. whereas this is his own Invention to set off the glory of Rome So when Athanasius is proving that the Fathers before the Nicene Council used the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and first names Dionysius Bishop of Alexandria and then Dionysius Bishop of Rome Baronius saith He proves it especially by Dionysius the holy Roman Pope and by Dionysius Bishop of Alexandria inverting the Order and putting a Note of Eminence on the Pope contrary to the Words and Sense of Athanasius Again he cites Pope Leo who is no Evidence in his own Cause and yet Baronius would make him say more than he doth even where he saith more than he should say For he cites his 53d Epistle to shew that Leo affirmed the sixth Canon of Nice allowed to the Church of Alexandria the second and to that of Antioch the third Seat which had before been conferred on them by Rome But the very words of Leo cited by Baronius shew this to be false for Leo saith not that these Sees had their Dignity or Order from Rome but the former from S. Mark the later from Peter's first Preaching there Moreover to make his Reader fancy the Roman and the Catholic Church was all one of old he mentions out of Epiphanius Constantine's writing an Epistle to all Romania Which Name saith he we sometimes find used for the Catholic Church whereas it is manifest that Epiphanius both there and elsewhere plainly uses Romania for the Roman Empire and Baronius did not find it used either in him or in any other ancient Author in any other sense That Period in Optatus which Baronius cites with great applause if it be not added by some ignorant Zealot of the Roman side is a scandal to the Learning of that Father for he derives the Syriac word Cephas from the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and by that ridiculous Etymology would draw as contemptible a consequence viz. That Peter was Head of the Apostles and again he seems wilfully to pervert the Precept of S. Paul Rom. XII 13. Distributing to the necessities of the Saints which in Optatus's Reading is Communicating with the Memories of the Saints that is as he applies it with Rome where there are the Memorials of two of the Apostles I could wish for Optatus's Credit that these weak Passages were spurious or buried in silence and the Learned Baldwin is ashamed of this gross Errour But Baronius thinks though they make for the dishonour of the Father they tend to the Credit of Rome and so he cites them in great pomp and puts them in a whole Line to make them look more plausible the Head of the Apostles whence he was called Cephas so Optatus But Binius adds deducing the Interpretation from the Greek Word for in Syriac it signifies an hard Stone and then glories extremely as if Optatus had made Communion with Rome the sole Note of a Catholic Whereas in the next Page but one Optatus goes on You cannot prove you have any Communion with the Seven Churches of Asia and yet if you be out of the Communion of those Churches you are to be accounted Aliens Which Passage Baronius very fraudulently leaves out because it shews a true Catholic must not only be in Communion with Rome but also with all other Orthodox Churches To proceed Even in spurious Authors he useth this Artifice for that Forged Book of Constantine's Munificence only saith He placed a piece of the Cross in a Church which he had built But Baronius relates it That he placed it there with most Religious Worship and a little after he perceiving that Fabulous Author had supposed Constantine buried his Mother long before she died puts in of his own head But this i. e. the putting his Mother in a Porphyry Coffin was done afterward Speaking of the Bishops returning home from the Council of Nice he saith They took with them the Rule of Faith confirmed by the Pope of Rome to be communicated to their People and to absent Bishops But no Historian Ancient or Authentic mentions any preceding Confirmation of the Nicene Creed by the Pope who was one of the absent Bishops to whom it was to be communicated wherefore those words Of its being confirmed by the Pope are invented and added to the story by Baronius He observes That Constantine confesses he was not fit to judge in the Case of Athanasius because Ecclesiastical Matters were to be judged among the Clergy Which he proves by Constantine's Letter there recited but Constantine's Letter is not directed to the Clergy but To the People of the Catholic Church at Alexandria And his Words are to the People who lived on the Place and knew the Matters of Fact and therefore he saith to them It is proper for you and not for me to judge of that Affair so that Baronius forceth his own Sense upon the Emperour And when Theodoret speaketh of time for Repentance according to the Canons of the Church he adds that is for Satisfaction Which Popish Satisfaction he would also prove out of a Canon at Antioch which only mentions confessing the Fault and bringing forth fruits meet for Repentance When Socrates only saith Eusebius of Nicomedia ' s Letters were received by Julius after his death Baronius thus enlarges it Eusebius who had fled from the Judgment of the Roman Church was forced against his Will being dead as Socrates saith to come to the strict Tribunal of God Where Athanasius saith I went up to Rome that I might visit the Church and the Bishop Baronius ridiculously infers that when we find the Ancients speaking of THE Church and THE Bishop they mean the Roman Church and that Bishop of whom and in whom and by whom are all other Bishops Which Note is forced upon this place for here Rome is named in the same Sentence with the Church and the Bishop and so it must be understood of the Pope but without any advantage to him more than it would have been to the Bishop of Eugubium to say I went to Eugubium and visited the Church and the Bishop Again S. Hierom saith expresly that Acacius substituted Foelix an Arian to be Bishop of Rome in Liberius his stead Here Baronius pretends some Copies leave out the word Arian and so he reads it Substituted Foelix to be Bishop of Rome and because some such
Parasites of Rome as himself who would not endure that ingrateful Truth of a Pope's being an Heretic had left out this word He boldly asserts it for the true Reading whereas not only Socrates expresly saith He was an Arian in Opinion but Hierom himself in his Chronicle affirms that Foelix was put in by the Arians and it is not like they would have put him in if he had not been of their party The Greek of Sozomen is no more but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but Baronius improves this by a flattering Paraphrase in these words Lest the Seat of Peter should be bespattered with any spot of Infamy But it is a bolder falsification of S. Chrysostom where he saith in one of his Sermons on a day celebrated in memory of two Martyrs Juventius and Maximus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to pervert this by his Latin Version thus The Martyrs which we this day worship whereas Chrysostom only saith The Martyrs which occasion us to meet this day Epiphanius expresly condemns those as Heretics who worship the Blessed Virgin and saith No man may adore Mary Baronius will not cite this place at large but adds to it these Words she is not to be worshiped as a God Which Falsification of the Father is designed to excuse their Churches Idolatrous worship of the Virgin Mary The restitution of Peter Bishop of Alexandria is by S. Hierom whom he cites with applause ascribed to the late Repentance of the Emperour Valens who recalled now at last the Orthodox from Banishment and Secrates only mentions Damasus's Letters which Peter took with him approving both his Creation and the Nicene Faith Yet he from hence notes the Supreme Power of the Pope by whose order the Bishop of Alexandria was restored to his Church in contempt of Valens his Authority and when he returned with the Popes Authority the People placed him in his Seat Yea after this he pretends to cite Socrates as if he said Peter was received being restored by Damasus yet Damasus did no more in all this matter than barely to testifie that Peter was an Orthodox Bishop and that he believed him duly elected which is all that Socrates saith and which if any eminent Orthodox Bishops had testified it would equally have served the Bishop of Alexandria's Cause To conclude Baronius owns Paulinus to have been a credulous Man and very unskilful in Ecclesiastical History yet thinking he had not spoken enough when he relates That a Church was adorned with Pictures he stretches this into Adorned with Sacred Images From all which Instances we may infer That the Cardinal would not stick at misquoting and misrepresenting his Authors when it might serve the Roman Interest § 3. Of this kind also we may reckon his crasty suppressing such Authorities in whole or in part as seem to cross the Opinions and Practices of their Church His leaving out a passage in Optatus wherein that Father makes the being in Communion with the Seven Churches of Asia a Note of a true Catholic was noted before And we may give many such like Instances Sozemen relates an Imperial Law wherein those are declared Heretics who do not hold the Faith which Damasus Bishop of Rome and Peter of Alexandria then held but the fraudulent Annalist leaves out Peter of Alexandria and mentions only Damasus as the sole standard of Catholic Faith When S. Hierom saith His Adversaries condemned him with Damasus and Peter Baronius bids us observe with what reverence the Pope's Enemies treated him for though they accused S. Hierom of Heresie yet against Damasus they durst not open their Mouth whereas S. Hierom protected himself by the Authority of the Bishop of Alexandria as well as by that of the Pope Again after a crafty Device to hide the evident Testimony which Gregory Nyssen gives against going in Pilgrimage to Jerusalem He slightly mentions an Epistle of S. Hierom which excellently confutes that then growing Superstition telling us That the Court of Heaven is as open from Britain as from Jerusalem Which remarkable Sentence and all the other learned Arguments of that Epistle he omits by design though if it had countenanced this Superstition we should have had it cited at large In like manner afterwards when he had another fair occasion to cite this same Epistle which doth so effectually condemn Pilgrimages he will not quote one word out of it but barely mentions it and runs out into the Enquiry what time it was writ I have given many more Instances of these fraudulent Concealments in my Discourse of Councils and therefore shall add no more here but only this That whoever reads Baronius's Annals hears no more generally than the Evidence of one side and that too enlarged if it be never so slight and commended if it be never so spurious but whatever makes against the Roman Church is depreciated and perverted or else clapt under Hatches and kept out of sight Of which we have an Instance in Eusebius who because he will not justifie their Forgeries about Constantine's Baptism and Donation though he be the best of all the Ecclesiastical Historians is never cited but with Reproaches and Calumnies and whatever he saith against them is either concealed or the force of it taken off by reviling him as an Arian § 4. Another Artifice of our Annalist is first to suppose things which make for the honour of his Church without any manner of proof and then to take his own Suppositions for grounds of Argument Thus he supposes that Constantine gave S. Peter thanks for his Victory without any evidence from History yea against his own peculiar Notion That Constantine was then a Pagan and durst not do any act to make him seem a Christian Again To colour their Worship of Images He barely supposes that the Pagan Senate dedicated a Golden Image of Christ to Constantine He argues only from Conjectures to prove the Munisicence of that Emperour to Rome whereas if so eminent a Prince had given such great Gifts to the most famous City in the World doubtless some Author would have mentioned it and not have left the Cardinal to prove this by random Guesses Again He supposos without any proof that Constantine knew the Supreme Power over all Christians was in the Church of Rome He produces nothing but meer Conjectures that Osius was the Pope's Legate yet he boldly draws rare Inferences from this He doth but guess and take it for granted that the Nicene Council was called by the Advice of Pope Sylvester yet this is a Foundation for the Supremacy and i know not what Thus when he hath no Author to prove that Athanasius venerated the Martyrs he makes it out with Who can doubt it and it is fit to believe he did so So he tells us He had said before that Damasus favoured Gregory Nazianzen in his being elected to be Bishop of Constantinople He
supposes this indeed a little before But all Ancient Authors say and he himself affirms That Peter Bishop of Alexandria did institute him into that Bishopric He only supposes Siricius desired Theodosius to banish the Manichees from Rome but the Rescript is not directed to him but to Albinus the Praefect and except the fabulous Pontifical there is no Evidence that Siricius was concerned in this matter Theodoret saith The Emperour chose Telemachus into the number of Martyrs but Baronius supposes This was done not only by the Emperour's Care but by the Ecclesiastical Authority of the Pope To conclude He affirms by guess That S. Nicetus came out of Dacia into Italy to Visit the Apostles Tombs and to consult the Apostolical Seat but no Author makes this out Now how can any Reader trust an Historian who in relating things done many Ages ago takes the liberty to invent and suppose whatever will serve a present Turn § 5. Add to this that he scruples not to contradict himself and to tell manifest Untruths to carry on the Interest of Rome which we shall prove by these Examples He affirms Coelicianus Bishop of Carthage relied upon one defence The Communion of the Apostolic See but immediately he tells us That he was supported by Constantine ' s favour He cites S. Augustine saying Constantine when Coelician's Cause was referred to him was a Christian Emperour yea he cites a Letter of Constantine writ in a most Christian style and yet he feigns that Coelicianus delayed his appearing before this Emperour because he thought it unfit that a Bishop should be judged by a Lay-man not yet Baptized And again Eight years after this he represents Constantine as a meer Pagan who had never heard of Peter or Paul and took them for some Heathen Deities whereas he saith He was a Catechumen and out of the Gospel had imbibed the Christian Meekness eight years before He also affirms That in the Year 324 there was as yet none of the Senatours believed the Christian Faith And yet he saith Two year before this that one or both the Consuls were Christians yea in the year 312. He reckons up many Senatours who had given up their Names to Christ Thus he contradicts himself by following those Lying Acts of Syl vester in order to support the false Story of Constantine's being Baptized at Rome Soon after out of a Fabulous Author he talks very big of the low Reverence which Constantine paid to the Bishops at the Nicene Council whereas all the Authentic Historians say The Bishops rose up when he entred in and paid him a great respect And when he hath told many incredible Legends about the Nails of the Cross and-seems to grant that divers false Nails have been adored for the true he excuses his abused Catholics for their mistaken Worship of false Relics saying That their Faith excuses their Fault so that Lies may be innocently told and believed it seems at Rome Again he affirms there were Monks at Rome in the year 328 and proves this by what S. Augustine saw there at least fifty years after yea in the year 340 he saith Athanasius first brought the Institution of Monks to Rome which is a manifest contradiction To proceed I wonder with what Face he could commend Athanasius for speaking charitably of the Heretic Arius after he was dead when he reviles Eusebius after his death And never mentions any of the Protestant Doctors deceased but with the bitterest Malice and in the most spightful Language he can invent If Charity were a Vertue in Athanasius then Malice must be a Vice in him He largely relates many Appeals to the Emperour in the case of Athanasius and yet when at last the Bishop of Rome was chosen Arbitrator in this Case and this but once He cries out Behold Reader the ancient Custom c. Whereas since the Emperours were Christians it was the Custom to appeal first to him as his History abundantly proves He very largely commends the Acts of Martyrs but by following them falls into many Absurdities as where he tells us That the Pagan Temple of Daphne at Antioch was burnt two days after the Martyrdom of Artemius Yet a little after he brings in this Artemius arguing with Julian about the burning of this Temple So he tells us The Body of S. John Baptist was burnt to Ashes except some Bones which were carried into Egypt to Athanasius And yet a little after S. Hierom affirms his Bones remained at Sebaste and wrought Miracles there As little Truth is there in his accusing Maximus the Emperour for presuming to judge of Bishops Causes whereas Maximus his Letter to Siricius which Baronius records declares He would call the Bishops to a Council in what City they pleased and refer it to them who were best skilled to determine these matters Again in order to justifie those feigned Relicks of Protasius and Gervasius shewed now at Rome he affirms That S. Ambrose gave part of them to several Bishops and some of them were brought to Rome Whereas S. Ambrose himself who knew best what was done assures us He buried the Rodies whole putting every Joynt in his own order And to name no more He brags that Idols were pulled down no where with more zeal than at Rome Yet in the same Page he tells us There was then newly dedicated an Alter there for sacrificing to the Heathen Gods So that we see designed Falshoods are not scrupled by him in things which seem to make for the honour of Rome or her Opinions § 6. We may also observe that for the same ends He makes innumerable false Inferences on purpose to pervert the Truth thus from S. Augustine's calling Melchiades A Father of Christian People as every Bishop is Baronius concludes that S. Augustine was for the Popes Supremacy So from Bishops judging in Causes where the People referred their Differences to them he frequently infers A right in Bishops to judge in Temporal Matters In like manner from Theodoret's mentioning a Canon of the Church in general and as his discourse shews referring to the Canon which forbids any Bishop to judge a Cause till both parties were present Baronius gathers that the Pope was supreme over the Bishop of Alexandria and that by the Canons of Nice Again That the Pope was not beholding to the Council of Nice for his Supremacy which he had from Christ he proves by Pope Nicholas his Testimony who had the impudence in his own Cause and for his own Ends to tell this Story Five hundred years after So he condemns the Arians for ejecting Bishops without staying for the Bishop of Rome's Sentence which he proves was unjust by an Epistle of Pope Julius which says The Arians should first have writ to all Bishops that so what was right might be determined by all where Julius arrogates
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 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 and therefore he repeats over and over this matter and affirms it was an Embassy sent to the Pope 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 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 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 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 though S. Hierom himself calls them Trifles 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 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 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 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 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 bafâ—le 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 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 World these are like them in nothing but the Name The like Outcry he makes upon Protestants for undeceiving some of those silly Nuns who have been decoyed into unlawful Vows meerly for Interest and Secular Ends and affirms the perswading these to Marry is worse than the Arian's ravishing and murthering them at Alexandria Thus also he compares the Reformed Divines to the Eunomians who taught Their Faith alone would save them though their Lives were never so wicked forgetting that their Priest's convert as they call it Murderers at the Gallows by teaching them this very Principle And to name no more Examples when S. Basil inveighs against those who despised the Ancient Customs of the Primitive Church He spitefully applies this to the Reformed Whereas in very Truth they of Rome have left off more Ancient Rites and brought in more new ones than any sort of Christians in the World By these and many more Instances which might be given even out of this one Century it is evident that the whole design of his History is to make all the Doctrins and Practices of Rome seem to be Primitive and right and that he cares not how unlawful the Means be which he uses to gain this belief in his Reader § Yet to conclude we will observe That after all his evil-Methods there are many things which he could neither avoid relating nor yet excuse which condemn the Modern Roman Church I wonder how he could Commend Constantine for abolishing the Stews and the prostituting of Christian Women there and not observe That the Pope now tolerates these Abominations in Rome it self Again how doth it agree with the INFALLIBILITY of the Pope to say That one Holy Spirit governs the Catholic Church so as to make the Bishops of all Ages and Places agree in the same Opinion If this be so what need one Bishop alone be made Infallible And if it be as he saith a Doctrin taught by the Apostles and consequently true That the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father then the Pope who condemns this as an Heresie of the Greeks is not Infallible If Constantine had known of this Infallibility lodged at Rome he would have sent thither for exact Copies of the Holy Scriptures and not to Eusebius in Palestina If Damasus had this Infallible Spirit how came he after he was Pope to need to be instructed in the meaning of Scripture by S. Hierom Or if his Successor Siricius had been Infallible how could the Origenists who held such palpable Heresies that a Woman discovered them to be in an Error impose upon his Simplicity and get Letters Testimonial from this sole Judge of Heresie How came the Council of Alexandria to send their Decrees to Epiphanius S. Hierom and S. Chrysostom and not first send them to Anastasius who was Infallible And indeed Baronius cannot prove they were sent to him at all but by saying It is fit to believe they were sent Moreover many things in this Century related by these Annals look not favourably upon the SUPREMACY Constantine calls Eusebius's Election to the See of Antioch An advancement to the Bishopric of the Universal Church which looks as if he knew nothing of the Pope's Pretences That Marcellus of Ancyra even when he was accused before Pope Julius should call
for some Eminent Bishops to be named as the Standard of Catholick Communion not from any Priviledge of their See but because at that time they were Orthodox So the Bishops of Constantinople Alexandria and Antioch are named in a Rescript of Arcadius the Emperor with this Character that such as did not hold Communion with them should be cast out of the Church And thus Athanasius Ambrose Cyril and others eminent for being Orthodox have been made the Touchstones of Mens Faith such passing for true Believers only who held the same Faith with them For this Pope there are divers Epistles published upon which and the partial Notes upon them we will make some brief remarks The first Epistle to Decentius Bishop of Eugubium was writ the last year of Innocent Anno 416. but is placed first because it talks big of St. Peter and of the duty of other Churches to conform to the Roman usages But there are some passages in it which make it questionable whether this Pope writ it or if he did shew his ignorance and gross mistakes for the Author affirms That no Apostle but Peter did Institute Churches Ordain Priests and Preach in Italy France Spain Africa Sicily and the adjacent Islands Whereas the Scripture testifies that St. Paul did institute the Church at Rome and preached in Italy and most of the Ecclesiastical Writers affirm that St. James preached in Spain 2ly He enjoyns the Saturday Fast which was a peculiar Custom of the Roman Church not observed in the East nor at Milan nor almost in any other Churches of divers Ages after and we may observe that among all Innocent's Reasons for it there is not one word of the Blessed Virgin who was not worshiped in those days as she is now by the Romanists who now pretend to observe this Saturday Fast peculiarly to the honour of the Virgin Mary 3ly He allows not only Priests but also Lay Christians to give extream Unction to the Sick if the Oyl be but consecrated by a Bishop In which point the Roman Church hath since altered her Opinion and I doubt not but they will call this now a manifest error The second Epistle to Victricius as Labbè confesseth is patched up out of the fourth Epistle of Siricius and the seventh of Pope Zachary And the Centuriators note concerning all these Epistles which go under Innocent's Name That sometimes whole Paragraphs are taken out of the Epistles of both former and later Popes which is a ground to suspect that most of them are not genuine However there hath been a later hand employed to foist in a passage or two into this Epistle for whereas the First Writer declares that all Causes shall be determined in the Province where they happen some have put in a Sentence excepting the reverence due to the Roman Church into the Body of the Section and an exception of reserving the greater Causes for the Apostolick See in the end of that Section which make the whole Decree null and contradict the Nicene Canon cited there And whereas the former sentence was meer non-sense in Binius Labbè hath put two words siue praejudicie into his Edition to make this gross Addition seem coherent and conceal the Forgery Again the Author of this Epistle in his zeal against the Clergies Marriage falsly cites it for Scripture That God's Priests must marry but once and it is but a poor excuse which Labbè makes that Tertullian had cited this as out of Leviticus since the infallible Interpreter of Scripture should have corrected his Error and not have countenanced an addition to the Holy Text to serve an ill Cause 3ly The Writer shews himself grosly ignorant of the Courses of the Jewish Priests when he saith they did not depart from the Temple nor go to their House in the year of their Ministration Whereas every one knows that there was but 24 Courses of the Priests and that every Family ministred but one Week at a time from Sabbath to Sabbath Yet this Author makes the same mistake again in the third Epistle and considently talks again of the year of their Course 4ly Whereas St. Paul had declared Marriage honourable in all Men without excepting Ministers and the Bed undefiled This Impudent Epistolizer calls the use of Marriage in the Clergy a being stained with Carnal Concupisence and expounds that place Those who are in the Flesh cannot please God of such Marriages making the Apostle contradict himself by this sensless and false Gloss But notwithstanding all these pernicious and absurd Errors Baronius and Binius do extreamly magnifie the Pope upon this occasion as being that Original Fountain from whence the most Famous Bishops of the World used to draw Water knowing of what great Strength and Authority these things were which came from the Apostolical See But first If these Epistles be forged which is very probable then all these brags and bold inferences are vain if they be true and were writ by Innocent they may justly blush that such poor stuff should come from the Bishop of so great a See and however it will not follow that the Roman Bishop was the Head of the Catholick Church because Victricius and Exuperius writ to him for advice For how many more and greater Bishops writ to St. Basil St. Augustine yea to Isidore of Peleusium and St. Hieroin who were only Priests and how far do their Answers exceed those of the Pope Yet none will be so ridiculous to magnifie the See of Coesarea or Hippo or the Monasteries of Peleusium and Bethlehem as if they were the very Fountains of Religion or these Persons the Heads of the Catholick Church I will only add that Orosius is noted by Baronius himself to have consulted with St. Augustine and St. Hierom about matters of Faith and greater concernment by far than these and not with Innocent his pretended Original Fountain so that every one doubtless did not take the Pope for the sole infallible Oracle in those days The third Epistle to Exuperius is liable to all the Objections against the former Labbè saith it is patch'd up out of Siricius Epistle to Himerius the second Epistle of Celestine and one of Leo to Theodorus and therefore probably it is forged Or if we grant it genuine it looks not very favourably upon their Modern Pretence to Infallibility for the Pope here says he will answer according to the measure of his understanding and confesses that by Conference he added to his Knowledge and while he was answering others always learned something himself The Notes also are much mistaken in arguing from two Bishops enquiring of Pope Innocent's sense in some matters of Discipline That all the Catholick Church ought to keep the Decrees of the Apostolick See For there were many hundred Bishops in those and other Provinces who never enquired after the Bishop of Rome's customs nor desired his advice and
it is very certain that divers of these pretended Decrees were not observed no not in France where these two Bishops lived for divers Ages after they are pretended to be sent thither Before I leave this Epistle I must observe that the last Section about the Canon of Scripture wherein all the Apocryphal Books are reckoned up as part of the Canon is a gross Forgery added to it 300 years after Innocent's death for Cresconius never saw this part of the Epistle nor doth he mention it under this Head though he cite the other parts of it so that if the whole Epistle be not forged yet this part of it is certainly spurious and added to it by a later hand as is at large demonstrated by Bishop Cosens in his History of the Canon of Scripture to which I refer the Reader noting only that the Council of Trent grounded their Decree about the Canon of Scripture not upon genuine Antiquity but palpable Forgeries and Corruptions In the following Epistles unto the twelfth there is nothing remarkable but some brags of the dignity of Rome and many pretences to a strict observance of the Ancient Canons which were no where oftner broken than in that Church Some think they are all forged because they want the Consuls names And the twelfth Epistle may pass in the same rank since it is dated with false Consuls viz. Julius the fourths time and Palladius but because it seems to shew that the Pope took care even of Foreign Churches Baronius resolves to amend it of his own head and puts in Theodosius and Palladius though still the number is false for Theodosius was the seventh time Consul with Palladius not the fourth and had not this Epistle made for the Popes Supremacy the Annalist would not have taken pains to mend it The thirteenth Epistle which passes in Binius for a famous testimony of Innocent's zeal in discovering the Pelagians and meriting Notes is the same with the beginning of the second Epistle of Foelix the fourth and Labbè saith it is a forgery of the counterfeit Isidore The fourteenth Epistle calls Antioch a Sister Church and from Peters being first there seems to confess it was the elder Sister and both that and the sixteenth Epistle speak of one Memoratus which Baronius will not allow to be the proper name of a Bishop because indeed there was no such Bishop in that time so that he expounds it of the Bishop remembred that is of Paulinus but the ill luck is that Paulinus is neither named before nor remembred in either of these two Epistles The Notes on the sixteenth Epistle mention it as a special usage of the Bishop of Rome not to restore any to his Communion unless they were corrected and amended but this was ever the rule of all good Bishops and of late is less observed at Rome than in any other Church The eighteenth Epistle maintains a very odd Opinion viz. That the Ordinations celebrated by Heretical Bishops are not so valid as the Baptism conferred by them and the Notes own that the Persons so Ordained may truly receive as they call it the Sacrament of Orders and yet neither receive the Spirit nor Grace no nor a power to exercise those Orders which seems to me a Riddle For I cannot apprehend how a Man can be said truly to receive an Office and yet neither receive Qualifications for it not any Right to exercise it The twenty second Epistle cites that place of Leviticus That a Priest shall marry a Virgin and affirms it as a Precept founded on Divine Authority and he censures the Macedonian Bishops as guilty of a breach of God's Law because they did not observe this Precept which every one knows to be a piece of the abrogated Ceremonial Law and the Annotator cannot with all his shufling bring the Pope off from the Heresie of pressing the Levitical Law as obligatory to Christians But there is one honest passage in this Epistle which contradicts what this Pope had often said before of the sinfulness of Priests Marriages for here he saith The Bond of Matrimony which is by Gods Commandment cannot be called sin However out of this Epistle which is a very weak one and dated only with one of the Consuls names the Editors feign a Council in Macedonia and a Message sent to the Pope for confirmation of their Acts which doth not appear at all in the Body of the Epistle And Baronius desires the Reader to note How great Majesty and Authority shined in the Apostolick See so that it was deemed an injury to require the Popes to repeat their former Orders Whereas if this Epistle be not forged it is no more but a nauseous repetition of the same Orders which he and his Predecessors had given over and over and the frequent harping upon the same string in all the Decretal Epistles especially as to the Marriage of the Clergy shews how little Majesty or Authority shined in the Popes since all the Countries to which they sent their Orders so generally despised them that every Pope for divers Ages was still urging this matter without that effect which they desired The twenty third Epistle was writ to some Synod or other they know not whether at Toledo or Tholouse as we noted before And the Jesuit Sirmondus in Labbe by elaborate conjectures and large additions probably of his own inventing had put it out more full and adorned it with Notes which pains the impartial Reader will think it doth not deserve The twenty fourth Epistle is dear to the Editors and Baronius because the Pope therein is his own witness that all Matters ought to be referred to his Apostolical See and that the Africans application to him was a due Veneration since all Episcopal Authority was derived from him 'T is true St. Augustine doth mention a Message sent to Innocent out of Africa but he adds that he writ back according to what was just and becoming a Bishop of an Apostolical See But as to this Epistle besides the hectoring language in the Preface there is neither Style nor Arguments but what are despicable and Erasmus did long since justly say In this Epistle there is neither Language nor Sense becoming so great a Prelate so that probably the whole may be a Fiction of some Roman Sycophant which is the more likely because Labbè owns that one of the Consuls names is wrong that is Junius is put for Palladius Erasmus adds that the twenty fifth Epistle is of the same grain with the former the Style is no better and the Matter of the same kind for he brags that whenever Matters of Faith are examined application must be made to the Apostollcal Fountain And yet this Pope as the Notes confess held the Eucharist ought to be given to Infants yea that it was necessary for them that is I suppose for their Salvation Now the
Council of Trent hath determined otherwise so that the Romanists must grant this Pope erred even in defining things necessary to Salvation unless they will allow the whole Epistle forged by some later hand who whatever Binius say to the contrary hath dated it with the Consuls of the year after Innocent's death according to the best Chronologers The twenty sixth Epistle as the Notes confess was writ to Aurelius Augustine and three more eminent Bishops of Africa by Pope Innocent to clear himself from the suspicion of being a Favourer and Protector of the Pelagian Heresie and by computation also this proves the very year in which he died according to most accounts Now if in those days it had been believed as it is now at Rome that the Pope had been Infallible and could not err in Matters of Faith no Man durst have raised this suspicion nor would any have regarded it and Innocent's best way of vindication had been only to have told them he was Pope and sate in the Holy Infallible Chair but now his labouring to clear himself by an Epistle shews it was possible he might err As to the Epistle it self Erasmus saith Innocent answers after his fashion being fierce rather than learned and more ready to condemn than instruct and whosoever reads it will find that to be a true Character of this Epistle To these is subjoined a Letter of St. Chrysostom's to Innocent in Latin only in Binius but in both Greek and Latin in Labbè The Phrase of which is so polite the Matter so pious and solid that Gold doth not excel Lead more than this genuine piece of the Golden-mouth'd Father doth all the former Epistles of the Pope who if he writ those Decretals was far more below St. Chrysostom in Learning than he pretended to be above him in Dignity I confess the Editors would persuade us to think this Epistle was writ only to Innocent and to him it is superscribed in Savil's Greek Edition thus To innocent Bishop of Rome but the Roman Parasites have added to this Title To my most reverend and pious Lord but this hath been lately invented for Domino meo is not in the Title in Baronius And the Epistle it self seems plainly to have been written to many for towards the end he saith Therefore my most venerable Lords since you see these things are thus use your utmost study and diligence to repress this injustice that is broke into the Church and the Phrase doth every where suppose it was writ to divers Western Bishops and Baronius in the end of the Epistle hath these words We have writ this also to Venerius Bishop of Milan and to Chromatius Bishop of Aquileia Quibus verbis Rom. Episcopi primatum erigit iisdem Venerij Chromatij primatum erexisset so that since St. Chrysostom writ to all the eminent Bishops of Italy as well as to the Pope it is unjustly done of Baronius to say That Chrysostom fled to his only refuge viz. to the Roman Church which he knew to be above all other Churches and to have power to correct the ill-deeds of others There is one thing more remarkable in this Epistle St. Chrysostom tells the Western Bishops that being oppressed by Theophilus and his party he appealed not to the Pope but to a Synod yea Innocent himself saith There was great need to have a Synod called for this cause of St. Chrysostoms So that neither did St. Chrysostom appeal to the Roman Church alone nor durst Innocent take upon him to judge in this matter As for those two Epistles of Innocent's one to Chrysostom and another to the Clergy of Constantinople which are certainly genuine as being preserved in Sozomen and not derived from the Roman Mint These two Epistles I say are in an humble Style and so well written that they make all the former Decretals which come from Rome justly to be suspected as forged and spurious The second Epistle of Chrysostom's which follows these two seems also to have been written to other Bishops as well as Innocent for it runs generally in the plural number but they who would have us believe the Pope alone did all the business of the Church have falsified one place in it where St. Chrysostom saith ye have shewed your selves loving Fathers towards us There the Latin is in Binius in the singular Paternam ergo nos benevolentiam declarasti But Labbè thought fit to mend this corruption and reads it in the plural declarastis ye have declared But the grossest Forgery of all in this cause of St. Chrysostom are the Letters that are pretended to pars between Innocent and the Emperor Arcadius wherein first Innocent excommunicates Arcadius and Eudoxia the Empress for their injustice to St. Chrysostom And then the Emperor writes first one submissive Letter to desire him to absolve them to which the Pope consents yet after all this Arcadius doth again write another Letter to excuse himself and tells the Pope Eudoxia was very sick upon the grief for her fault And all these Letters are said to be writ after St. Chrysostom was dead But that which discovers the cheat is that all the ancient Historians do with one consent agree that Eudoxia the Empress was dead three years before St. Chrysostom which is attosted by Socrates Sozomen and Marcellinus and the same is affirmed by learned Modern Authors The first who affirmed the contrary was Georgius Alexandrinus a fabulus Writer who lived above 300 years after this time and he was followed by Nicephorus Glycer and Gonnadius which are all the Authorities Baronius can produce for these Forged Epistles only he countenances them true or false because this is an instance of a Pope who excommunicated an Emperor and serves them for a good proof that the Roman Bishop is above the greatest Princes But Labbè spoils the Argument by noting the Margen that Eudoxia died before St. Chrysostom and so these Letters are notorious Forgeries Before I leave this matter I must observe that Baronius his great design was to represent Pope Innocent as the chief yea and almost sole Instrument in vindicating the injuries done to St. Chrysostom and therefore he tells us That Innocent would not communicate with the Bishops of the East unless they would put his name into the Tables and he cites Theodores to prove this but Theodoret's very words are That the western Bishops would not communicate with them but on that condition So when the Adversaries of St. Chrysostom hearing that complaints of their proceedings were made among others to the Pope sent some to give an account of what they had done Baronius without any proof dreams of a sentence passed by Innocent to null what they had done whereas it appears the same year that Pope Innocent writ very frientlly to Theophilus the chief Agent in Chrysostom's condemnation and held communion with
then it had appeared that this was no peculiar priviledge of any one See but related to all Sees which then were filled with Catholick Bishops I shall note only that in these Notes the Emperor is stiled The Lord of the General Council which Title the Roman Parasites of late have robbed him of and given it to the Popes The eighth Council of Africa petitions the Emperor Honorius to revoke that Edict whereby he had granted liberty of Conscience to the Donatists and the Notes out of Baronius make it so meritorious a thing to revoke this scandalous and mischievous Indulgence that this made Honorius so blessed as to have Rome quitted by Alaricus three days after he had taken it but our English Romanists when an Indulgence served their ends counted it meritorious in that Prince who granted the Sects such an Indulgence here for we must note that Things are good or evil just as they serve their interest or disserve it The Synod of Ptolemais in Egypt whereby Andronicus a Tyrannical Officer was excommunicated is strangely magnified by Baronius saying that Synesius Bishop of Ptolemais knew that when he was made a Bishop he was elected by God to give Laws to Princes And a little after he tells us He deposed Andronicus from his Tribunal adding that this shews how great the Power of Bishops was even to the deposing of evil Governors But after all there is no more of this true but only that Synesius gives notice to his neighbour Churches by circular Letters that he had excommunicated Andronicus who seems to have been a Military Officer in a little Egyptian Town and was guilty of most horrid Cruelties and notorious Crimes But what is this to Kings and Princes And the words which he cites out of Synesius 89th Epistle which falsly translates we have put him down from his Tribunal are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. We have here taken him off from the Seat of Mourners that is Synesius tells Theophilus his Patriarch and Superior that though he had justly put Andronicus among the Penitents yet now upon his sorrow and repentance they had there absolved him and taken him out of that sad station where the Penitents were wont to stand and if Theophilus approved of this mercy shewed Andronicus he should hope God might yet forgive him Now was not the Cardinal hard put to it for an instance of a Bishops deposing a King when he is forced to falsifie his Author and use the words which express a restauration to the Communion of the Church to prove a deposing from a Throne It seems he could not or would not distinguish a Captain or petty Magistrate from a King nor a Stool of Repentance from a Princes Throne This it is to serve a Cause About this time was held that famous Conference at Carthage between the Catholicks and the Donatists Seven Bishops of each side being chosen to dispute before Marcellinus a Count sent by the Emperor to hear this Cause Now Baronius tells us that this Marcellinus was not called simply a Judge but had the Title of Cognitor because it was not allowed to a Lay-man to act as a Judge in Ecclesiastical Matters But Cognitor is often used by the best Authors for a Judge and cognoscere Causam is to hear a Cause Dies Cognitionis is the day of Tryal And which is more the Emperors Edict calls him by the title of Judex Our will is you shall sit in that Disputation in the principal place as Judge and Baronius in the very page before cites St. Augustine speaking of Marcellinus by this Character ipse Judex And as he moderated in the Disputation so in the Conclusion he pronounces the Sentence and the Emperor confirms it which if the Pope had done in Person or by his Legate to be sure that had been ground enough to prove him the Universal and Infallible Judge in all Causes This is certain Honorius did judge in this Cause by his Legate Marcellinus and Baronius who use to quarrel at other Emperors for medling in these Cases tells us God rewarded him for the pains he took about setling the True Religion But as to the Pope he was not concerned in this Famous Dispute and which is very remarkable though the Main Dispute be about the Catholick Church and the Orthodox alledge the Churches beyond the Seas as being in Communion with them and so prove them Catholicks yet they do not once name the Roman Church apart as if communicating with that Church or its Bishop were any special evidence of their being Catholicks Indeed they name Innocent once but give him no other title but Bishop of Rome Whereas if these African Fathers had believed the Pope to be the Supream Head of the Catholick Church and that all of his Communion and only such were Catholicks this Dispute had been soon ended and they had nothing to prove to the Donatists but their Communion with Pope Innocent And I remember Baronius argues that Caecilianus Bishop of Carthage was a Catholick because he had Communicatory Letters from the Church of Rome but the place he cites to prove it out of St. Augustine is this When he that is Caecilianus saw himself in Communion with the Roman Church in which the eminence of an Apostolical See always flourished and with other Countries from whence the Gospel came to Africa c. By which it is plain that it was Communion with other Churches as well as Rome which proved Caecilianus a Catholick And I know not where Baronius found another passage which he affirms was proved in this Conference viz. That the first Head of the Church was demonstrated by the succession of the Roman Bishops to be in Peter's Chair For there is not one word to this purpose in that Conference which is printed by the Editors here So that till better Authority be produced this must stand for a devisable of the Annalists Nothing after this occurs which is remarkable till the Council at Lidda or Diospolis in Palestina wherein Pelagius imposed upon fourteen Bishops a pretended recantation of his Heretical Opinions and was by them absolved Binius his Title of this Synod is that it was under Innocent But Labbè fearing this might imply the Popes consent to a Hereticks absolution hath struck that out However we have Baronius his word for it that no Letters were written to the Pope from this Synod only some Lay-men brought him the Acts of it And he Good Man not so cunning at finding out Hereticks as the African Bishops confesses he could neither approve nor blame the Judgment of these Bishops of Palestina And Pelagius himself though he could not finally deceive the Roman Church yet he hoped he might gain the Pope to his party and did attempt it yea 't is very probable he had succeeded if St. Augustin and other African Fathers had not instructed the Pope
and made him understand the danger of this Heresie And we have noted before that Innocent's carriage in this matter rendred him suspected to be a favourer of Pelagius upon which the Africans not trusting to his Infallibility writ very plainly to him And after they had condemned Pelagius and Celestius in a Council of thirty seven Bishops at Carthage they writ another brisk Synodical Epistle to the Pope telling him that they intimated to him what they had done that the Authority of the Apostolical Seat might be added to their Decree because his Eminent Place gave more weight to his Doctrine and if he thought Pelagius was justly absolved yet his Errors and Impieties ought to be Anathematized by the Authority of the Apostolical See Now the reason of this Letter was not so much for the confirmation of their Acts as the Notes pretend upon any single Priviledge believed to be in the Pope as their Supream Head because they call him by the Title of their Brother both in the Title and the Letter but because the Pelagians had reported he was their Friend and a favourer of their Opinions which Report did very much mischief because of the Eminence of his See and therefore it concerned both the Pope for his own vindication and them also that he should wipe off this accusation And it appears both by St. Augustine and Prosper that at last Innocent did condemn this Heresie but this Synodical Epistle from Carthage dated An. 416. shews that he had not condemned it before the last year of his life for he died according to Baronius in July An. 417. So hard a thing was it for the African Fathers to get a pretended Infallible Judge to understand and censure a notorious Heresie I might now leave this Head but that I must first observe the confidence of Baronius who from one word in a verse of Prosper's will needs have Celestius a Disciple of Pelagius to have been first condemned at Rome after the antient manner that a new Heresie should be first Examined and Condemned by the first Seat But when he should make this out he owns that Pelagius and Celestius indeed were first condemned in Africa but he tells us their Heresies were condemned long before at Rome in the person of Jovinian But if it were true that Jovinian had held all the Heresies of Pelagius which is most false then we must attribute no great sagacity to Innocent as to condemning Heresies because 't is plain he did not know these were the same Heresies that Jovinian had held nor could he be brought to censure them till above four year after The Second Council of Milevis consisted of sixty Bishops the Title is under Pope Innocent But Baronius had told us before that the same Aurelius Bishop of Carthage presided in the former Council of Milevis and in this also so that neither of them were under any Pope The 22d Canon of this Council saith that he who thinks to appeal to a Tribunal beyond the Sea shall not be received into Communion by any in Africa Which is a clear prohibition of appeals to Rome and therefore Gratian either found or made this notorious addition to it unless they appeal to the See of Rome which is so gross a Forgery that Binius rejects it and out of Bellarmin expounds this passage only of prohibiting the inferiour Clergy Priests and Deacons c. to appeal beyond the Seas i. e. to Rome but he supposes that Bishops in Africk still had liberty of appealing thither according to the 17th Canon of Sardica But to confute this false Gloss let it be noted That these African Fathers profess in a following Council that they had never heard of any such Canon or of this Sardican Synod and so it is not likely they should be guided by it Again about ten years before upon a complaint to Innocent of some Bishops who being censured in Africa ran to Rome with Complaints this very Pope had written that Bishops should not lightly go to the Parts beyond the Seas And the Council in Africk confirmed that passage of the Popes Letter And since this would not restrain some Bishops here in this second Milevitan Council they make a Decree That Bishops Causes should be determined by Bishops either such as the Primate of Africk should appoint or such as the Parties chose by his consent And then they add this 22d Canon to confine all appeals of the inferior Clergy also to an African Synod or to their own Primate and then add this Clause recited before that those who appeal beyond the Seas shall not be received to Communion by any in Africa which certainly is the penalty relating to both Canons because in their Letter a few years after written to Pope Celestine they declare it is contrary to the Nicene Canons for the Pope to receive any into Communion by Appeal who have been censured in their own Province especially Bishops adding That his Holiness should as became him also forbid the wicked refuges of Priests and the lower Clergy c. That is not only the Appeals of Bishops but of Priests also which makes it as clear as the Sun that these Fathers at Milevis absolutely forbad all Appeals to Rome And they had great reason so to do not only because it was their right to judge finally all Causes in their own Province But because some Popes about this time had encouraged Hereticks and notorious wicked Men both Priests and Bishops who had fled from the just Censures of their own Church and found a Sanctuary and Shelter at Rome But of this more hereafter This second Council of Milevis writ also to Pope Innocent about the Pelagian Heresie to quicken him in providing some Remedies to prevent the spreading of that Infection supposing the eminency of his place would add much weight to his Censures if he would heartily appear against these Doctrines At the same time Aurelius and St. Augustin with three other eminent Bishops there writ a private Letter to their Lord and Brother as they call him Pope Innocent on the same subject in which they deal very plainly with him and give the reason why they writ so many Letters to him against this Heresie because they had heard that in Rome where the Heretick lived long there were many who favoured him on divers grounds some because they say that you have been persuaded such things were true but more because they do not think he holds those Opinions And doubtless it was this Report which rouzed up the Pope at last to condemn the Pelagians as may appear by our Notes upon his 26th Epistle which is in Answer to this Epistle of the five Bishops But that Answer as also the Answers to the two Councils Letters were not till January An. 417. as Baronius and Binius themselves compute which was but six Months before Innocent's death so long did this Pope
And in the 6th 7th 8th and 9th Epistles he still advances this ill Man condemning Proculus Bishop of Marseilles and all others who opposed Patroclus in his most unjust usurpations and encroachments Yet Binius in his Notes confesseth that both his next Successors Boniface and Celestine did judge otherwise that is they took away this Primacy from Patroclus and censured him for his evil doings giving the Priviledges to Hilary Bishop of Narbon to whom of right they belonged So that here is Pope against Pope and Decretal against Decretal so odly do Causes go at Rome But by Zosimus his 11th and 12th Epistles it doth appear that the French Bishops despised the Popes Decrees and that Proculus went on in exercising his Primacy for all his being prohibited which looks not favourably on the Roman Supremacy As ill fortune had Pope Zosimus who was always on the wrong side in admitting the Appeal of Apiarius an African Priest who was excommunicated by Urban his own Bishop for most horrid Crimes which he afterwards confessed in an open Council as we shall shortly shew yet Zosimus thinking it for the honour of his See to have Appeals made to it from Foreign Parts admits this wicked Wretch to Communion commands the African Synod to receive him and threatens Vrban with an excommunication if he did not retract his Sentence But the African Fathers for all this went on to judge Apiarius as will be seen afterwards for Zosimus died before this Cause was ended I have deferred the consideration of Zosimus his 10th Epistle to the last place because it was the last he writ that is now extant in the Cause of Celestius and because it was writ to the Council of Carthage now assembled For the Pope after he had admitted Hereticks and evil Men to appeal to Rome was resolved to justifie the Fact and sent two Bishops Faustinus and Potentinus and two Priests Philip and Asellus his Legates into Africa with false Copies of the Nicene Canons to prove he ought to be appealed to in all Causes from all Provinces and probably by them or some little time before he sent this Tenth Epistle wherein he brags that Tradition and the Canons had given such great Authority to the Apostolical Seat that none might presume to question its Decrees with a great deal of such stuff about Christ's giving Peter the power to bind and loose and the Canons giving this to his Successor who was to have the care of all Churches and that since he held this place none might examine a Cause which he had determined c. Yet out of respect to the Africans he saith he had done nothing in the Cause of Celestius till they had deliberated about it and that this Cause was just in the same state as it lately was I relate this more at large because this unjust and ambitious Claim was the occasion of a famous Controversie that lasted many years after the death of Zosimus But as to the Letter the impertinency of it is very obvious for though he assume this Authority it is plain that St. Cyprian of old and the African Fathers afterward did not think it any presumption to confute the Decrees of Popes and to examine Causes which had been ill judged at Rome And in the Cause of Celestius whom Zosimus would not yet be induced to condemn the Council of Carthage as Prosper relates tell the Pope That they had resolved to confirm Pope Innocent ' s Sentence against him till he did openly confess the necessity of Grace And they went on with the judgment against Apiarius for all his Appeal to Rome and his being absolved there so that it is impudently done of the Roman Writers to go about to prove the Supremacy from a Popes evidence in his own Cause yea from a Claim which was denied and despised at the same time that it was made Another note I make on this Epistle is that it is dated but the 12th of the Ka. of April and Zosimus died in January following so that it is plain that he had not condemned Pelagius and Celestius nine Months before he died And though by those passages which Labbè hath published out of St. Augustine and Prosper it be certain he did censure this Heresie at last yet it could not be long before his death and therefore Zosimus was a manifest favourer of Hereticks almost all the time he was Pope and he may thank the African Fathers for his Repentance who though they were abused and injured by him hide as much as may be all his ill deeds in favour of Celestius and for the credit of Zosimus and the Catholick Cause only publish his latest Acts after he was by them convinced that Pelagianism was an Heresie But Celestius and his party openly exclaimed against Zosimus for a Turncoat The same year was that Council in Africa which the Editors intitle under Zosimus but really was against him For without regarding his suspending the Cause of Celestius they particularly condemned all the points of the Pelagian Heresie by Anathema's and order all Causes between Bishops to be tried in the Province where they arise and renew the Canon of Milevis that the Priests and inferior Clergy should be tried by their own Bishops and whoever should appeal to the parts beyond the Seas should not be received into Communion by any in Africa So that we see the African Church persisted in maintaining their Rights and condemning Appeals as they had very good reason considering the bold attempt of Zosimus to usurp a jurisdiction over them and his erroneous judging such Causes both of Faith and Manners as he had presumed to meddle in which hapning in other Provinces he broke the Canons of the ancient Councils by pretending to examine and decide them elsewhere forgetting that which Gratian had collected out of his own seventh Epistle and gives us here for Zosimus his Decree viz. That the Authority of the Roman See it self cannot make any new Order nor alter old ones against the Statutes of the Fathers So Gratian reads it and so Aeneas Sylvius cites it so also the Editors publish it here but some forging hand in the seventh Epistle hath put concedere instead of condere for fear this Sentence should take away from the Pope the power of making New Canons contrary to the Fathers Decrees a Priviledge of which Rome hath made more use than any Church in the World This Pope's time is concluded with a forged African Council at Telepte wherein it is pretended they only read the fourth Epistle of Siricius and thence the Notes and Baronius gather that the African Church shewed great respect to the See of Rome But first Labbè confessed before that this Epistle of Siricius was forged And Secondly the Story is ill timed for the African Church had never less reason to respect the Popes than now when they so manifestly robbed them both
Synods command and then all she rest in order and the force of the Sentence depends upon the agreeing Votes of all And we see that though the Pope had before canonically deposed Dioscorus yet his Sentence was re-examined in a General Council This is certain that Anatolius of Constantinople and all the rest though in modester words did singly condemn Dioscorus and he was deposed and degraded by the Authority of the General Council and the free Votes of the several Bishops who as Pope Leo himself speaks had confirmed his Sentence with an assent which made the Cause uncapable of being tried any more And the Sentence which was published about his deposition as well as the Letter writ to Alexandria expresly declare that he was deposed and degraded by the Holy General Council c And the very same is affirmed in the Synodical Epistles writ to Martian and Pulcheria to desire them to confirm the Councils Sentence So that in vain do the Modern Romanists brag of the deposition of Dioscorus by the Popes Supream Authority for it was the opinion indeed of the Pope before the Council met that he ought to be deposed but it was the Authority of the Council ratified by the Emperor which actually deposed him In the fourth Act the Epistle of Pope Leo to Flavianus wherein the Heresie of Eutyches was confuted and condemned was subscribed by all the Bishops who severally declared they received it because it was agreeable to the Faith declared in the three former General Councils of Nice Constantinople and Ephesus and some of them add because it was agreeable to the Scripture and to the Expositions of the Orthodox Fathers Now had these Fathers believed the Pope to be Infallible in matters of Faith they must have received this Epistle only upon the Credit of the Pope whereas they now examin and judge of it by the Rules prescribed in former Councils and receive it not because the Enditer of it was Infallible but because he had kept close to former determinations in General Councils And since the business of this Council was to discover and condemn the Heresie of Eutyches against which new Sect no eminent Bishop but Leo had written therefore this Epistle was made a Test and all were obliged to subscribe it not as the Romanists brag because the See of Rome was to fix the Rule of Faith but because this was the only Writing then extant of this kind and we may as well prove that St. Cyril was the Supream Bishop of the World and the sole Arbiter of Faith because his Epistles were subscribed in the General Council of Ephesus as a Test to find out and condemn the Nestorians as infer the Roman Supremacy or Infallibility from the Bishops subscribing Leo's Epistle at Chalcedon We may further note in this Action that how confidently-soever modern Editors place the Councils of Constantinople and Ephesus under Damasus and Celestine the Popes Legates here plainly say the Council of Constantinople was held under the Emperor Theodosius and other Bishops affirm that Cyril was the President and Head of the Council at Ephesus Again it is to be noted that though Juvenalis of Jerusalem and four other Bishops who had joyned with Dioscorus in the Synod at Ephesus to condemn Flavianus repented and had subscribed Leo ' s Epistle and so declared themselves to be Orthodox yet the Council could not restore them to their Places till the Emperor by his Judges gave them leave to determine their Case It is also memorable that the Egyptian Bishops after their own Patriarch Dioscorus was deposed refused to sign the Epistle of Leo till they had a new Bishop of Alexandria under whose jurisdiction the Nicene Canons had put them and though the Popes Legates and many others urged they should subscribe immediately yet these Bishops were excused by the Council and their Plea allowed which shews that those who were under the Patriarch of Alexandria owed no subjection at all to Rome nor did they or the Council of Chalcedon think the Pope was really what his Legates flatteringly call him the Universal Arch-Bishop of Patriarch for then they could not have allowed this Plea Moreover 't is observable in this Act that Photius Bishop of Tyre affirms both Anatolius and Leo were the Presidents of this Council Also this Bishop in his Petition to the Emperors stiles them Lords of the Earth and Sea and of all Men Nations and Kindreds which shews that Titles are not to be strictly understood or to be made any ground for Argument since Complements were used then as well as now and therefore the Romanists should not attempt to prove a right from every flourishing Title bestowed on the Pope by those who speak of him In the Cause between this Photius of Tyre and Eustathius of Berytus there is a passage how one of these Bishops claimed a right to some Churches by the Imperial Edicts and the other by the Canons and he who claimed a right by the Canons got the better Yea the Council declared that Edicts ought not to prevail against the Canons From whence Baronius infers that Princes ought to learn from hence to make their Laws submit to the Ecclesiastical Canons But it must be noted this was not intended to be a Rule in all Cases only as to the old Rights of Bishops Jurisdictions and it was a Rule made now only upon this occasion and which is most remarkable the Judges tell the Council it was the Emperor's pleasure this Cause should be tried nor by the Edicts but by the Canons for which the Bishops gave that pious Emperor thanks And therefore it is a great fallacy to argue from hence that Ecclesiastical Canons are above the Laws of Princes in their own nature only in this Case the Good Emperor to oblige the Bishops suffered the Canons to prevail To conclude this Session ended with a confirmation of all things done by the Lay-Judges who declare they should remain firm and so the Session ended In the Fifth Action wherein the Matters of Faith were to be declared the Emperors Legates were present and prevented a Schism which was like to happen among the Bishops some of which would not consent to the Councils definition but the Lay-Judges from the Emperor advised the Dissenters to go with Anatolius and the Popes Legates and to confer among themselves so as they might agree otherwise they threatned that the Emperor resolved to call a Council in the West to which they must go to determin the difference From whence we may note that they knew of no single Person who could finally decide questions of Faith and though it was to be determined at Rome a general Council must do it there However this Method proved effectual and so they published their Faith unanimously annexing it to the Creeds of Nice and Constantinople We shall only note further that in the Acclamations made in
Fables about the translation of the Relicks of St. Stephen to Constantinople out of late and unfaithful Authors such as Cedrenus Nicephorus Nicetus c. but he himself observes that they do not agree as to the time nor the quantity of the Relicks translated And this disagreement should have made him suspect the whole for an Imposture And if the Reader consider what incredible Stories are told of the Miracles wrought by the Relicks of this one Martyr in Sardinia Africk Spain Palestine and Constantinople c. he must believe they cut his Body into as many pieces as there were Stones thrown at him and will wonder how the Body could become whole again and be intirely translated out of Palestine in the year 439. What Theodoret relates of one African Virgin Captive may be believed to be true and that Relation hath no Miracle in it But when Ado of Vienna writ the Acts of another Virgin called Julia captivated at the same time he hath stuffed the Story with Miracles and the only reason of this difference is that this later Author writ his Martyrology Anno 850 that is above 400 year after when Legends grew to be more in Fashion The Annalist takes great pains to prove certain Homilies which some ascribe to Eusebius Emissenus others to Faustus Rhegiensis others to Caesarius of Arles to be the work of Eucherius Bishop of Lyons but as the Author is uncertain the matter of them is justly to be condemned being full of Superstitions and some that came not in till the corrupter and later Ages However Baronius was obliged to get these Homilies ascribed to some Writer of good repute since many of the evil Practices and Errors of their Church which cannot be justified by known and genuine Authors are defended by such obscure Tracts as this Again we have a very absurd Story of St. Cyril's convincing a Monk that Melchisedech was not the Son of God by a Revelation made to the Monk himself who had fallen into that Error But that Fable of Cyril's being a Monk upon Mount Carmel is so gross that he rejects it with this Note That a vehement desire to seem of Antient Extraction makes Men sometimes to dote which Remark is most true of almost all the Monastick Orders of the Roman Church for Aventinus an excellent Historian of their own Communion affirms he had discovered the Monks were wont to delight the Minds of the vile Populace with feigned Tales invented for gain to make the Original of their Temples more Noble and August He brings in a ridiculous Story of an Image of the Blessed Virgin found in a Cypress Tree and of a Church built in the place by one Cyrus Bishop of Smirna but the credit of this relies only upon Nicephorus a modern and fabulous Author And at the same place he brings in a Fiction of an Image of our Saviour wounded by a Jew but he knows not when this matter hapned he thinks not till after the second Nicene Council but why then doth he mention it in this Age No doubt to abuse his Reader into a belief that Images were then in use But the Story it self is all over Legend and not more Authentick for being recorded in their publick Monuments and read in some Churches in the corrupt Ages in which there are the grossest Romances imaginable A little after he taxeth Nicephorus for unfaithfulness and great mistakes in his Relations yet immediately he cites him as good evidence for Relicks belonging to the Blessed Virgin In the next year we have two ridiculous Stories the one of St. Stephens praying to St. Peter and St. Paul to spare his Chappel when Mets was sack'd and burn'd by the Hunns the other of a Drunken Man shut up all Night in St. Peter's Church at Rome and heard St. Peter and St. Paul talking together But telling their Discourse next morning he was struck blind Upon which last Miracle Baronius gathers that blind Men may see great benefits are received by the intercession of Saints But I should rather think he was blind indeed that could not discern these to be meer Fables and truly the only Author he cites for them is Gregory Turonensis who lived 150 year after and is full of these Fictions contradicting even Salvian who lived in that Country at this very time But it is observable that the Writers of the Lives of St. Lupus and Anianus cited in this very place do mention these Holy Men as praying only to God in these Calamities For the direct invocation of Saints was not used no not when those Lives were written Again after the Council of Chalcedon had been confirmed by the most Legal and Authentick ways it is very ridiculous in this great Annalist to cite so many frivolous Stories out of Legends how some Ignorant and Enthusiastical Monks confirmed it or were convinced by Miracles that it was a Genuine and Orthodox Council For he cites no better Author than Surius for these Fables yet relates them with great confidence but this Cause needs no such evidence § 2. Secondly We will note some passages in genuine Authors which he hath corrupted to serve a turn He that reads Baronius his Note in the year 402. that it was an Ancient Custom to paint the Saints in the Churches and that they use to worship them with kindling Lamps before them would imagine this Superstition was ancient in the beginning of the Fifth Century whereas the Author he cites for this is Venantius Fortunatus who lived till the year 600. that is 200 year after and though he speak of a Picture drawn on a Wall and a Lamp beside it doth not mention that as any worship to the Picture that is Baronius's own addition Again when he cites a Law of Theodosius prohibiting the Jews to burn any Cross in contempt of Christianity he adds that they burnt the Cross together with our Saviour crucified on it but that is his own invention the custom of making a Cross alone being indeed very ancient but the adding the Figure of our Saviour to it which they call properly a Crucifix is but a late device and seems not at all to be referred to in that Law To proceed he makes Synesius a notorious dissembler when he declares he had most solemnly protested to Theophilus who was to consecrate him Bishop of Prolemais that he would not accept that Order unless he might live with his Wife as before time Now whoever reads that Letter may see that Synesius professes he tells truth in this relation yea he solemnly calls God and Men to witness that it is true he observes Truth is one of God's Attributes and most pleasing to him Yet Baronius will have him to use the Art of Lying in all these protestations because forsooth he cannot think Theophilus would ordain a Bishop who should live with and have Children by his Wife that is he measures the Primitive Church
the Catholick Faith and all this only because Leo had the good Fortune by his Secretary Prosper's help to write one Orthodox Epistle against Eutyches in a lucky time when a Council was to be called to condemn that Heresie As to the Author of it Eutyches it was always a Rule in the Church to receive even the Inventors of Heresies if they would renounce their Errors So that for Leo to say in his Letter to the Council of Chalcedon he thought they might deal so with Eutyches is no manner of ground for Baronius to suppose that this was a special Favour indulged to that General Council by the Pope contrary to Ecclesiastical Laws and Customs For it is well known that a General Council in that Age gave Laws to the Pope but did not receive any from him and whatever Leo's Opinion might be the Council were sole Judges of the terms on which Eutyches was to be restored and had he Recanted they would have received him into Communion by their own Authority since Arius Nestorius and Pelagius had that Favour offered them by former Councils and Eutyches would have found the like Kindness here if the Pope had said nothing at all of the matter Wherefore the Annalist hath crouded many Falshoods into a few Lines only to persuade his weak Readers That the Pope was above a General Council And to make him seem above all the other Patriarchs he supposes from a Letter of Theodosius the Emperor which he never saw and which is not extant That the Emperor writ to Rome about the Succession of Anatolius at Constantinople knowing it to be the Head of all Churches This is a groundless Conjecture because he doth not so much as know in what style Theodosius writ and it was an Ancient Custom for to give Notice to all the absent Patriarchs when any New one was elected and the Patriarch Elect even he of Rome was obliged to satisfie the rest by Letters that he held the Orthodox Faith Certain it is that Theodosius valued not Leo much because he confirmed the Condemnation of Flavionus though he knew that Pope and his Legates were of his side and it is plain by the best Historians that he died in this Opinion Nor can Baronius prove that Theodosius repented of that mistaken Judgment otherwise than by Nioephorus an Author of no credit when single or that he Obeyed the Pope before his death for this last he can cite no Author at all and it is not only a Conjecture of his own but a very false one For the last Letter that ever Theodosius writ to Valentinian not many Months before his death shews how little he esteemed Leo's Request for a new General Council and how close he stuck to Dioscorus Leo's Enemy and therefore he could not write after this to Leo as Head of the Church His Successor indeed Marcianus had some reason to Caress the Pope and therefore he writes more respectfully to him than other Emperors had used to do Yet even in that first Letter of his he must be very sagacious who can discorn what Baronius again supposes That Marcian turned his Eyes to the Chief visible Head of the Church resolving to do all things by his command or as he phrases it to be at his beck For even in this highest strain of Complement Marcian saith no more but that since Leo had a principal Bishoprick among the true Believers he desires him to pray for him that he might resolve to call a Council with Leo ' s consent to take away all Error and settle a general Peace Which implies the power of calling Councils was in the Emperor and the Popes part was only to consent as one of the Chief Bishops who was there to meet and consult And if Marcian had known or believed Leo to be the sole Supream Judge of all Controversies he would not have been at the trouble of Calling a General Council but referred all to him § 4. The rest of my Observations on Baronius shall be put in Order of Time for the better assistance of the Reader and not under those several Heads which doth too much separate and confound things When S. Hierom after three years labouring with Pope Anastasius had at last got him and the Roman Church to condemn Ruffinus he then at that time prudently appeals to the Roman Churches Faith for Trial Whether he or Ruffinus were the better Catholick But Baronius when he hath cited some words of S. Hierom against Ruffinus to this purpose grosly prevaricates when he infers You see it was an undoubted Maxim customary in the Mouths of all the Ancients and a necessary consequence That if one were said to follow the Roman Faith he must needs be a Catholick For if we hear one Father when he had the Pope on his side in a particular Controversie say this This is not all the Ancients And many of them describe themselves as being of the Faith of Athanasius Cyril Flavianus c. or holding the Faith of the Churches of Alexandria Antioch Constantinople c. to prove themselves Catholick and if S. Hierom did instance now in Rome the consequence depended on the Orthodoxness of the present Pope not on the Infallibility of his See And Pope Gelasius afterward confesseth That the Roman Church in this Point was guided intirely by S. Hierom She thought as he thought So that to make a General conclusion from such a special Case is very unreasonable and S. Hierom himself a little after is cited declaring the Consent of many Churches is of greater Authority than that of the Roman alone It had been well if their Roman Church had considered the peril of Idolatry when they went about to establish the use or Images as Baronius tells us Theodosius did when he made a Law to prohibit any Adoration to be given to his own Statues because such worship as exceeds the dignity of Human Nature is to be reserved to the Divine Majesty In the same place he relates how S. Chrysostom reproved the People for their folly at the dedication of the Empresses Statue because it is easie in those matters to run into the sin of Idolatry Which Observations of his own stand on Record in these Annals to condemn that Church which orders Veneration and all other expressions of Reverence to be made to all sorts of Images of the Saints Again he exposes his dear Church in observing That the Ancients preserved both the consecrated Elements of the Sacrament in the Church But no sooner had he condemned us for not following this ancient Usage but he mentions as great an Innovation in their own Church for he owns they have forbid the preserving any thing but the species of Bread Now I would ask Who differ most from Antiquity they who totally take away one part of the Sacrament from the People and keep only the Bread to be worshipped Or we who give both Bread and
dipped in Wine being possessed but was cured by drinking of the Cup manifestly shews the Innovation of the Roman Church in that it declares they used then to dip the Bread in Wine and thought it lawful to give the Cup to the Laity whereas now they only give the people a dry Wafer It was certainly a great oversight in the Armenian Bishops according to him who makes the Pope the sole Judge of Heresie to send to Proclus of Constantinople to know whether the Writings of Theodorus of Mopsvestia were Orthodox or no Yet Liberatus an ancient Author affirms they did this secundum morem according to Custom So that neither Liberatus nor the Armenians knew of any Custom to go only to Rome out of the East to enquire concerning the true Faith had they known this no doubt they would have sent a little further Moreover he highly extols the Piety of Florentius the Praetorian Praefect who finding the Tax paid by the Curtezans of Constantinople to the Exchequer hindred their expulsion from that City gave Lands of his own to compensate the Publick damage that he might get those Infamous Women banished forgetting all the while the Impiety of the Pope and Cardinals who now tolerate them for a little scandalous Pension paid to their Treasury at Rome He also saith It is a Pelagian Principle and Heresie to hold That no Rich man can be saved unless he give all his Estate to the Poor Yet he knew many hundred Monasteries which have been and are endowed with great Estates upon a Principle nothing different from this which is preached frequently to rich Men and Women dying in their Churches Communion by cunning and covetous Priests and Jesuits It is manifest partiality also in him to affirm it was a Judgment of God to deliver Carthage to the Vandals because there was Pagan Idolatry practised in that City But the same kind of Idolatry was continued in Rome notwithstanding all endeavours to root it out till the Goths took it but the Annalist doth not expound that Calamity after the same manner Thus he exclaims against the Cruelty of Gensericus the Vandal for persecuting the Orthodox Bishops upon the bare naming of Pharaoh Nehuchadnezzar or Holofernes in their Sermons pretending it was meant of him Whereas had he lived to this Age he might have seen a King intituled The most Christian instigated by the Jesuits to persecute the Reformed Pastors for the same pretended Fault It is remarkable that Theodoret when he writes to a Bishop of Alexandria proves himself Orthodox because his Faith was the same with the former Bishops of that See viz. Alexander Athanasius Achillas Theophilus and Cyril as also with S. Basil and Gregory the Lights of the World The Pope is not named so that doubtless he was not the sole Standard of Catholick Communion then if he had the name of one Pope had been more to Theodoret's purpose than all these Again That Pope Leo writes as imperiously to Dioscorus of Alexandria as he use to do to others is very true but it no where appears that Dioscorus observed his Orders Much less will it follow from hence That Leo was the Master set over all Churches such assuming of Empire over our Equals may indeed shew our Ambition but it will not prove our Right It is obvious to all that read Baronius how he strains all things that are said of S. Peter to apply them to the Roman Church but the Reader may note how silently he passes it by when our Gildas calls the British Bishops Sees here in this Island the Seats of Peter But this may satisfie all impartial Men that the Ancients accounted other Bishops the Successors of S. Peter as well as the Pope though now he alone usurps that and many other Priviledges of Old enjoyed in common by others as well as by the Bishop of Rome Again he spoils the Old famous Story of the Conversion of Spain by S. James wherein the Spaniards so much pride themselves out of a zealous partiality for Rome which inclines him to affirm That Spain first received the Gospel from the Roman Church Which Notion may in time lessen the Pilgrimaes to S. James of Compostella and calls in question the Devotion of those many Thousands who have believed his Body to be there and worship his Relicks in that place with great assurance Soon after upon occasion of Turibius complaining of the Apocryphal Books used by the Priscillian Hereticks in Spain the Cardinal shews the necessity of suppressing all Books that are against the Catholick Doctrin and urges the Bishop of Spain to suppress a Book writ by one John de Roa about the Rights of Princes containing Doctrins as he saith which he could not learn from the Jesuits Fryers or Clergy of Spain Now how many Books as Apocryphal as those of the old Hereticks and as extravagant for the Rights of the Pope as any that ever were writ on any Subject in the World doth Baronius cite approve and admire But one Book that speaks for the Prince and the Civil Rights of Men must by no means be endured 'T is observable also That when Theodoret was suspected of Heresie he appeals to a Council in which the Bishops and Magistrates may meet and the Judges may determin what is consonant to the Apostolical Doctrin Now if it had been known and believed then that the Popes Communion was enough to make a man a Catholick and he had been the sole Judge why did not Theodoret in one word appeal to the Pope and say he was in Communion with Leo Bishop of Rome He approves Theodoret's Censure of Dioscorus for invading the Rights of other Dioceses contrary to the Canons of Nice and Constantinople and he blames Dioscorus for his Pride and Ambition but though the Pope labour to invade all Dioceses and make all the Bishops in the World his Vassals contrary to Law Equity and Primitive Usage this is no Crime in a Friend Baronius is miserably put to it about the Epistle of Ibas judged by two Councils to be Heretical yet approved by the Infallible Chair This makes him contradict himself strangly for here he saith This was really Ibas his Epistle as the Tenth Action at Chalcedon teaches and himself confessed and the Opinion of the Apostolick Legates of Maximus of Antioch and others confirm it and Ibas was proved a Catholick by it But Baronius had before cited the Tenth Action at Chalcedon to prove That this Epistle in that Council was found not to be Ibas Epistle and so the Epistle was condemned and he absolved And in the former place as well as elsewhere he affirms the Epistle contained Blasphemy and Heresie yet Pope Vigilius approved it and the Cardinal saith Ibas was by this Epistle found to be a Catholick He that can make these Contradictions friends or reconcile them to the Infallibility erit mihi magnus Apollo He commends
Simplicius did nothing and till he had been eight years Pope Baronius cannot pick up one Memoir concerning him except a few Brags of an interested Successor of his concerning his resisting the Eastern Emperors which are both false and incredible Yea the Annals shew that all the great Affairs of this time were managed by S. Epiphanius Bishop of Pavy who far outshined Simplicius Wherefore I wonder that Du Pin should say He was very full of business all the time of his Popedom since for more than half that time there is no true account of his doing any thing And when he did begin to write Baronius owns He did no good by any of his Letters yet a little before having a bad Memory he had ridiculously boasted That Simplicius in the midst of the Arrian fury governed the See with the same Authority and freedom that his Predecessors had done bearing the Causes of all the World depriving and restoring Bishops correcting Emperors opposing barbarous Kings and sitting as Arbiter and Judge in all things over the East and West as he saith he hath proved in the several years of his Pontifical Let the Reader search and try if he can find this proved On the contrary this Pope flattered all Parties and truckled to the Heretical Usurper Basilius as I shall shew presently nor durst he attempt to do Justice to a persecuted Orthodox Bishop of Alexandria because as an old faithful Historian tells us Zeno the Emperor had forbidden him It is so common for the Roman Forgers to invent sham Epistles in which the Pope is feigned to make Eminent Bishops his Legates in all parts of the World that no doubt this Popes first Epistle to Zeno Bishop of Sevil which hath no date is spurious And therefore it is of no force that the Notes infer from such a Forgery That the care of the whole Church was committed to the Pope by God The 4th Epistle tells the Emperor to whom it was writ That none doubted of his Orthodox mind and that be did as certainly imitate Marcian and Leo in their Faith as he did succeed them in their Empire Now this Letter as Baronius and the Editors say was writ to Zeno and they own it to be at least prudent dissimulation for the Notes on the Life of Simplicius affirm Zeno was an Eutychian Heretick But indeed it was inexcusable Flattery or as the Pontifical calls it downright Dissembling And the Crime is worse because upon a strict enquiry this Epistle appears to be writ to that Heretical Usurper Basiliscus Labbè's Margen from an old Manuscript reads it to Basiliscus and Zeno really was deposed a whole year before this Epistle was writ for Timotheus Aelurus his coming to Constantinople mentioned here by Simplicius was in the time of Basiliscus after Zeno's deposition as an Authentick Author relates and the true date of Simplicius his Epistle shews it was writ in Basiliscus his time and so doth also the Chronicle of Marcellinus a Book writ near that time But for all this Baronius quarrels with Marcellinus contradicts Theodorus Lector alters the date of the Epistle and keeps Zeno on the Throne a year longer before his deposing than ancient Writers do allow and all this to conceal his holy Fathers wicked flattering of an Heretick and Usurper But I hope the Reader will believe old and disinteressed Historians before the partial Annalist The 5th Epistle writ at the same time to Acacius Patriarch of Constantinople shews that it was solely in the Emperors power to call a General Council Since Timothy of Alexandria applied to the Emperor for such a Council and Simplicius with Acacius joyned in addresses to the Emperor against it In the Notes on the 8th Epistle where Euagrius only mentioned a bare report of the Martyr Theclas appearing to Zeno They out of Baronius add that she prayed and interceded for Zeno Which invention is to countenance the Martyrs praying for us The date of this Epistle being in October 477 and as the Notes say writ to Zeno after he was restored and had sent to Simplicius an Orthodox confession of Faith This date I say shews that the 4th Epistle before spoken of must have been written to Basiliscus for that is dated in January 476 at which time Zeno was deposed and Basiliscus after he had reigned two years as Euagrius writes was ejected by Zeno about July 477 long before which time Simplicius had writ that flattering Letter to the Usurper The Forgers have corrupted the Title and Conclusion of Acacius his Epistle to Simplicius For Simplicius in a genuine Epistle calls Acacius his beloved Brother Epistle 18 But here by turning Patriarchae into Patri they make Acacius style Simplicius Most blessed Lord and Holy Father Archbishop c. Which corruption owned by Labbè shews how little credit is to be given to the Pompous Titles of these Epistles which are frequently feigned by the modern Roman Parasites Upon the 14th Epistle they note in the Margen The Pope dispenses with the Nicene Canon for peace sake and in favour of the Emperor This relates to the hasty election and ordination of Stephen Patriarch of Antioch which the Emperor and Acacius were forced to dispatch somewhat uncanonically for fear of a Sedition in that City and on that account they desired the Pope however to own him as an Orthodox Patriarch since they had resolved this single Example should be no precedent for the future The Pope like a true Signior Placebo assents to all tamely and allows of their resolution which was not as the Notes on the 15th Epistle falsly say any Condition that Simplicius prescribed to the Emperor but a Rule that Zeno had made for himself before the Pope knew of the Ordination of Stephen The 16th Epistle declares that Simplicius had taken Calendion the new Bishop of Antioch into his Communion and call him his Brother and Fellow-Bishop The Notes calls this the Popes confirming Calendion in the See of Antioch Whereas it was no more than his owning him for an Orthodox Brother yea Calendion was thus far confirmed by Acacius for at his request Acacius had declared himself of his Communion before he writ to the Pope These Notes also falsly say Acacius was made the Popes Legate which is a groundless Fiction of Baronius For if Acacius had acted in ordaining and deposing the Eastern Patriarchs only as the Popes Legate there had been no Quarrel between him and Rome And how improbable is it that he who contended for the Supremacy of the whole Eastern Church with the Pope and who is taxed by Baronius to be one that thirsted after nothing so much as the Primacy that he I say should accept of a Legantine power from Rome Yea Simplicius his 17th Epistle doth not say any such thing but speaks of their Obligation to mutual Love and of the Patriarchal Office committed to him as a Talent God had
did not receive the Cup as well as the Bread For he saith in general This dividing the Mystery can never happen without a grand Sacriledge Now it is certain that when either an Heretical or Catholick Man or Woman receives but in one kind it doth happen that the Mystery is divided and therefore in Pope Gelasius Opinion the present Church of Rome is guilty of a grand Sacriledge in taking the Cup from the People And it seems the Editors thought Baronius had not sufficiently satisfied this Objection and therefore they cunningly leave it out of this Popes Decrees in both Editions With like craft they omit the Tract of Gelasius against Eutyches and only give a touch at it in the Notes and there also care is taken out of Baronius if any shall elsewhere meet with this piece to keep them from discerning that Pope Gelasius condemns Transubstantiation and expresly saith That the substance of Bread and Wine remains after the Consecration The words they cannot deny but first Baronius and Binius argue it was not writ by this Pope but by Gelasius Cyzicenus an Author as Orthodox and more ancient than Pope Gelasius but their Arguments are not so cogent as to outweigh the proofs that this Pope writ the Tract Labbè in his Margen saith that many learned men think it his Gennadius Contemporary with the Roman Gelasius and the Pontifical say he writ a Tract against Eutyches Fulgentius cites it as this Gelasius his Work Pope John the Second also ascribes it to his Predecessor Yea the Bibliotheca Patrum allowed by the Expurgators put it out under Pope Gelasius his name And at last Baronius himself is not against supposing it was his But then Secondly He manifestly perverts the Sense of the words before-cited being after long shuffling forced to this absurdity that by the substance he means the accidents of Bread and Wine remain Which makes this learned Pope so ignorant as to mistake the first rudiments of Logick and might almost shew he was an Heretick if his Comparison in that sense be applied to the two Natures of Christ for illustrating of which he brings it in For thus it would follow that Gelasius held nothing but the accidents of Christs Body or Human Nature remained after the Hypostatical Union Doubtless Contarenus his Brother Cardinal was wiser and honester in making no reply at the Colloquy of Ratasbon 1541 to this clear Testimony And it is great weakness in Baronius to brag what wonders he hath done by heaping up a parcel of falshoods and impertinence Before we dismiss this let it be noted that the Annalist and Binius not only allow but dispute for 500 forged Tracts and Epistles which support modern Popery but they devise innumerable things to baffle and disgrace the most genuine Writings that condemn their Innovations Which is Baronius his meaning when he gives this reason of his large digression about this Tract because out of it the Innovators take their Weapons But they who reject the old Writings of their own Doctors do more justly deserve that Title As to this Popes extraction Volatteran and Panvinius say his Father Valerius was a Bishop Which is now left out of the Pontifical and not mentioned in Baronius or the Notes But the omission signifies little there being so many instances of married Bishops that had Children Yea of Popes that were Sons or Grand-Children of Bishops or former Popes As to the time of this Pope's ingress Baronius places it An. 492 and upon the credit of the dates of a few Papal Epistles which are always suspicious and often forged he rejects the Authority of Marcellinus who lived at this time and died An. 534 in whose Chronicle Gelasius is said to be made Pope An. 494 that is two year later than Baronius places it § 8. If Marcellinus be in the right we may justly doubt of those three Epistles the 1st 2d and 9th which Baronius cites as writ before the year 494 The 1st hath no date and though the time of writing it be made an Evidence against Marcellinus his Account yet he brings no proof it was writ An. 492 but this Nothing hinders us from allowing these things between Euphemius and Gelasius to be done this year I reply the Testimony of a good Author of that Age who affirms Gelasius was not Pope till two years after hinders us from believing it was writ then But I will not however condemn the Epistle which is modest enough calling Euphemius Bishop of Constantinople his Brother and Fellow advanced to a Precedence by the favour of Christ And when he was pressed to declare by what Council Acacius was condemned he cites no Roman Council nor pretended Sentence of his Predecessor Foelix But saith he was condemned by the Council of Chalcedon but this he doth not make out The Second Epistle also wants a date and is by guess placed in this year by Baronius with this false remark That the Popes by Custom used to prescribe a Form of Belief to all the Faithful Whereas the Letter it self declares the Custom was For every new Pope to declare his Faith to the Neighbouring Bishops that they might know he was Orthodox Now there is a vast difference between prescribing a Form of Belief to others and labouring to get from them a Testimony of our believing aright The 4th Epistles true Title is The Monitory of Gelasius But in Binius these words Of the most blessed Pope are added which Labbè rightly omits In the Monitory it self observe First That Gelasius denies his Predecessor or he had condemned the Emperor Anastasius Secondly He saith the Church hath no power to absolve any after their death Thirdly He claims no power to make any new Canons but only to execute the old Which other Bishops may do Fourthly He cannot prove Appeals to Rome by any Canons but those of Sardica which were rejected by many and slights the Canons of Chalcedon received every where but at Rome Fifthly He very falsly pretends Acacius was only the Executer of the Roman Churches Sentence by whose sole Authority some Eastern Bishops were condemned But we know Acacius had condemned them long before any Sentence was given at Rome and scorned to act under the Pope Sixthly Where Gelasius in his own Cause vainly brags That the Canons have given the Judgment over all to the Apostolical Seat Binius and Labbè mend it in their Marginal Note and say The Canons and Christ gave it this power neither of which is true In the 5th Epistle Gelasius owns a Private Bishop for his Brother and declares that he himself cannot alter the Canons The Margen again here saith The Canons cannot be altered they should have said no not by the Pope But here they say too little as before they said too much which puts me in mind of Juvenal's Note Quisquam hominum est quem tu contentum videris uno Flagitio
The Date of this Epistle must be false being An. 490 that is two years before as they reckon Gelasius was Pope Labbè would mend it by antedating the entrance of Gelasius forgetting that he had printed an Epistle of Foelix to Thalassius dated that year his Invention therefore was better than his Memory The 6th Epistle shews that notwithstanding the Popes fair pretences to an Universal Jurisdiction his neighbour Bishops in Dalmatia did not own it but looked on him as a busie-body for medling in their affairs and suspected the Snake of Usurpation lay under the florid Leaves of his seeming care of all the Churches The 7th Epistle is briefly and imperfectly set down by Baronius because he would conceal from his Reader that Gelasius makes Purgatory and Limbus Infantum a Pelagian Opinion Let them saith he take away that third place which they have made recipiendis parvulis for receiving little Children And since we read of no more but the right hand and left let them not make them stay on the left hand for want of Baptism but permit them by the Baptism of Regeneration to pass to the right Which illustrious Testimony the Editors would obscure by reading decipiendis parvulis for deceiving Children But if that were the true Reading it shews this Pope thought none but Children and Fools would believe a Third place invented by the Pelagians since Scripture speaks but of two viz. Heaven and Hell It is a trifling Note on this Epistle That Gelasius admonished some Bishops of Italy against Pelagianism not fearing two Princes one of which was an Eutychian the other an Arrian Heretick For what cared these Princes for the Popes Letters against the Heresies of others so long as he let them alone and never admonished them of their own Heresies The 8th Epistle was writ to one of these Heretical Princes viz. to Anastasius and the Pope is scandalously silent about his Heresie nor doth he once reprove his Errors in the Faith but only labours even by false pretences to justifie his Supremacy which gave too just a ground for that Emperor and his Eastern Bishops to tax this Pope of secular Pride a fault very visible in all his Writings on this Subject Further we may note that this Epistle was of old inscribed thus Bishop Gelasius to the most glorious Emperor Anastasius but the Editors have left out the Emperor's Epithet for fear he should look bigger than the Pope Also where the Pope prays that no Contagion may stain his See and hopes it never will which plainly supposes it was possible Rome might Err otherwise he had mocked God in praying against that which could not happen and assurance had left no place for hope if the Popes were absolutely Infallible Yet here the Marginal Note is The Apostolical See cannot Err Which may caution the Reader not to trust their Margent nor Index for there is often more in the Inscription than can be found in the Box. The 9th Epistle being dated An. 494. was odly cited by Baronius to prove that Gelasius was made Pope in An. 492. It seems to be a Collection of divers Canons put together no Body knows by what Pope And one thing is very strange that whereas the Preface owns the Clergy were almost starved in many of the Churches of Italy Yet the Epistle impertinently takes great care that the Rents be divided into four parts as if all things had then been as plentiful as ever And whereas these Rules are sent to the Bishops of Lucania near Naples the Pope's forbidding them to dedicate Churches without his Licence is by the Marginal Note made a General Rule for all Countries but falsly since the Bishops of the East of Afric Gaul c. did never ask the Popes Licence in that Age to consecrate Churches The 13th Epistle is a bold attempt toward an Universal Supremacy For Gelasius finding the Bishop of Constantinople at his Heels and come up almost to a level with him uses his utmost effort to make a few Rascian Bishops believe he was set over the whole Church But he shews more Art and Learning than Truth or Honesty in this Argument asserting these downright Falshoods First That the Canons order all the World to Appeal to Rome and suffer none to Appeal from thence But Bellarmin knowing these Canons where those despicable ones of Sardica and that even those did not intend to oblige the whole World in citing this passage changes Canones appellari voluerint into appellandum est So that he chuses to leave it indefinite that all must appeal to Rome rather than undertake to tell us with Gelasius how that See came by this Right Secondly That the Roman Church by its single Authority absolved Athanasius Chrysostom and Flavian and condemned Dioscorus as this little Pope brags which is as true as it is that the Roman Church alone decreed the Council of Chalcedon should be received she alone pardoned the Bishops that lapsed in the Ephesine latrociny and by her Authority cast out the obstinate Which this Epistle audaciously asserts though there are more untruths than lines in the whole passage And if liberty be not deny'd us we appeal to all the Authentic Historians of those Ages who utterly confute these vain brags Yet Bellarmin adds to this extravagant pretence of Romes alone decreeing the Council of Chalcedon these words by her single Authority But Launoy blushes for him and says what Gelasius here saith is not strictly true and that he needs a very benign Interpreter that is one who will not call a Spade a Spade But let this Pope's assertions be never so false they serve to advance the ends of the Roman Supremacy and therefore you shall find no more of this long Epistle in the Annals but only this hectoring passage Though he unluckily confesseth immediately after that Gelasius did no manner of good with all this And no wonder since that Age as well as this knew his pretences were unjust his reasoning fallacious and his instances false Thirdly He asserts that Pope Leo vacated the Canons of Chalcedon 'T is true he did it as far as lay in him who measured Right only by Interest But we have shewed they remained in full force in all other parts of the Church notwithstanding his dissent openly declared Fourthly He affirms that the care of all the Churches about Constantinople was given to Acacius by the Apostolick See Which is as hath been proved a notorious Falshood of which this Epistle is so full that one would suspect it was the Off-spring of a much later Age. 'T is certain the Title is very unusual Gelasius Bishop of the City of Rome c. And the date is false the Consul named is Victor whose year was 70 year before Baronius and the Editors of their own head mend it and read Viator and Labbè tells us in the Margin that some things are wanting in this Epistle
Name-sake Anastasius wherein 't is plain he thinks the Quarrel about Acacius now deceased no just ground for the two Churches to separate from each other Yet for the scandal he had given his Opinion was that his Name alone ought to be left out of the Dypticks but withal he approves of the Baptism and Orders he had given and justifies this by good proofs of Scripture Gratian holds this last Decree to be illegal and uncanonical because it contradicts the determinations of some of his Predecessors But impartial Readers will see that his Opinion is better confirmed by Reason and Scripture than the contrary ever was by any Pope that held it Nor ought the Notes to say Anastasius decreed this by a dispensation grounded on his Apostolical Authority For it is an Orthodox Truth That the Crimes of the dispensers of Sacraments and Holy Orders especially if it be only Schism do not invalidate them to such as in their integrity receive them So that unless a Pope need a dispensation to tell Truth here is no occasion for any dispensing Power This Epistle is followed by a Memorial given by the Legates of Alexandria to the Popes Legates then at Constantinople for an Union between the two Churches which they speak of as equal Sister Churches and give no hint of any subjection due from them to Rome which they think had unfortunately mistaken them as guilty of Heresie Nor doth Anastasius in the former Letter to the Emperor pretend to any power that he had over Alexandria but desires the Emperor by his Wisdom and Authority to reduce them to the Catholic Faith calling him the Vicar appointed by God to preside in the Earth Which the modern Roman Writers think too great a complement to a Lay Prince Upon the death of Anastasius the Roman Clergy were divided and chose two Popes Laurentius and Symmachus But after a warm and long contest both parties agreed to refer it to an Heretical Gothish King viz. Theodoric to declare an Infallibly Orthodox Head of the Church Who modestly referred it to a Synod of Bishops and they at last confirmed the Election of Symmachus The Notes call this a Schism of the universal Church But it was no more than a Schism of that particular Church of Rome and had no influence that we hear of upon the whole Catholick Church Only a Legend cited out of the fabulous Dialogues which disparage the Name of Gregory the Great tells us that Paschasius a learned and holy Roman Deacon was seen after his death in an odd Purgatory of hot Water condemned thither as Symmachus Friends told the story for taking part with Laurentius But it seems when this Fable was made praying to Saints was not in fashion for Paschasius desires the Bishop that saw him to pray to the Lord to release him The Notes also here cite a very idle story of an Image which bled when it was shot but Damascen is his Author who lived 250 year after this and whose stories about Images are generally ridiculous and incredible But 't is more material to observe that this Pope Symmachus was charged with notorious Crimes and the Papal power was then so low that the Roman Clergy petitioned an Arrian King to send Visiters to try the Pope who submitted to this Judicature authorized say the Notes by this excellent Prince And the Bishops as they observe not only acquitted the Pope but were so wise as to conceal the fault of which he was accused But if that were so great a piece of Wisdom Ennodius who then writ an Apology for him and Baronius and Binius who now would vindicate him shew no great discretion in confessing he was accused of Adultery For which if it were true he deserved a worse Purgatory than his Antagonist Paschasius The Epistles published in Symmachus's name are Eleven The two first of which were formerly directed to Caesarius but now they alter the Title and inscribe them to Eonius It seems the Forger was no good Chronologer and the Stile is so barbarous the Sense so obscure and the Matter so jejune that it would be a Scandal to any Pope to have writ them And if Symmachus writ these the 5th and 8th may be discerned by their Style to have been endited for him by a more able hand that is by Ennodius who Binius supposes did write the 8th Epistle However this Pope is very free in blaming his Predecessor for decreeing contrary to the ancient Custom But he scruples not to break many Canons at once by ordering that the Popes for the future shall name their Successors In the 7th Epistle of Symmachus the Editors and Baronius have manifestly corrupted the Text reading ist a quidem ego for ista quidem nego But the Sense shews the Forgery for the Emperor had charged the Pope for excommunicating him in the case of Acacius Symmachus replies I deny these things we have not Excommunicated you O Emperor but Acacius leave him and you are quit of his Excommunication if you do not thrust your self into his Excommunication you are not Excommunicated by us if you do you are Excommunicated by your self not by us So that whether you stick to him or leave him however you are not Excommunicated by us We see the Pope over and over declares they had not by any particular Sentence Excommunicated the Emperor at Rome it was only Acacius in particular and his Followers in general who were sentenced there in which Sentence if the Emperor wilfully involved himself they who had done nothing against him could not justly be blamed as if they had Excommunicated him Now to bring in this Sentence with ista quidem Ego is to make the Pope contradict himself and confess he had Excommunicated the Emperor which he utterly denies and therefore ista quidem Nego must be the true Reading and that bold Forgery of turning it into Ego was made on purpose to set up an early Precedent for the Pope's having Excommunicated Emperors Finally The Margen of the same Epistle to carry on the same holy Cheat observes That the Pope's Dignity is greater than the Emperors But this is not in the Text where Symmachus thus expresseth himself I will not say it is a greater but an equal power So that when the Pope had stretcht a little they go much further and dare tell greater Untruths than he And here we shall conclude this Century because the first Synod said to be held under this Pope ought to be dated after the year 500 and belongs to the next Age To which we shall proceed with Gods assistance hereafter when we have first in our usual method noted some remarkable Errors in Baronius that are within this Period but have not fallen in our way as we treated of the Councils of this time An Appendix concerning Baronius his Annals THE Cardinal hath given a just but severe censure of his own
Laurentius And as for the mos majorum that would have obliged Symmachus first to write to the Emperor as his Predecessors use to do I need not make a new Head to observe what excursions he often hath to dispute for the Roman side which in an Historian is not allowable since he is to relate pure matter of Fact and neither to commend a Friend nor reproach an Enemy unjustly There are many of these digressions about Acacius the Bishop of Constantinople against whom he most bitterly inveighs for a long time together and treats him with language so rude and scurrilous that one would think he was some Monster or Devil incarnate Yet at last his greatest Crime is in comparison of which all his other faults were light ones he opposed the Pope who attempted to usurp a Jurisdiction over him and to rob him and his See of the Priviledges which General Councils had granted to Constantinople Otherwise as hath been shewed he was a most Pious and Orthodox Man And Zeno the Emperor who stood by his own Bishop in this just Cause cannot escape many severe lashes from this partial Historian who frequently goes out of his way and takes every little occasion to aggravate his Miscarriages yea to rail at him without any cause It is agreed by all impartial Historians that the Emperor Valentinian the Third did advance Ravenna to be a Patriarchal Seat An. Dom. 432 and that it held this Dignity without any dependance on the See of Rome till after the middle of the 7th Century And how they strugled to keep those Liberties many years after may be seen in a late Eminent Author But Baronius who allows a thousand Forgeries for Rome every where disputes against this Priviledge and condemns all that the Bishops of Ravenna did And here takes a boasting threatning Letter of the Pope's to be very good evidence that all the Priviledges of the Church of Ravenna flowed from Rome But besides that his Witness is a party we may note the Priviledges were so large that we may be sure the Roman Church never granted them their ambition to be absolutely Supream not allowing them to endure any Equal especially in Italy Again we have a digression about the hard usage of the Popes Legates at Constantinople and he not only aggravates their Sufferings beyond what either his Authors say or the truth will bear But also takes occasion to tell you that this is the way of Hereticks to act by Violence and Terror and to treat the Pious with Clubs Swords and Prisons instead of Charity and Peace Now if this be the character of Hereticks the Roman Church that always did and still doth proceed thus where it hath power may fairly pass for an Heretical Church And as for the ground of this unlucky observation Zeno and Acacius did nothing but what all wise Governors would have done for since these Legates of the Popes came to justifie an usurped Authority and to disturb the quiet of the Church at Constantinople their Letters which were judged Seditious were taken from them and they without any hurt to their persons secured till Time and Discourse had made them sensible how ill an errand they came upon So that being convinced of the Justice of Acacius proceedings they communicated with him and let fall the Popes business I have touched that frivolous excursion about the worship of Images before I only note now that if Petrus Cnapheus did oppose that idle Superstition in its first rise he was more Orthodox than any who promoted it as to that point And it may be the later Historians who doted upon the worship of Images may have given this Peter a worse name than he deserved Lying Characters of all Iconoclasts being as common with them as other fabulous Stories which abound in the Writers of this Controversie above all others From two passages out of the Additions to Gennadius writ by some unknown hand mentioning two Books one of Honoratus Bishop of Marseils approved by Gelasius and another of Gennadius his own presented to that Pope and one Example of John Talaias Apology sent to his sole Patron the fame Gelasius Our Historian largely digresses to prove that the Pope was the sole Judge of all Writers and Writings and talks as if he was the only Censor librorum in that Age Whereas I can name him divers other Bishops of less eminent Sees that had twice as many Books sent to them for their approbation yet none of their Successors were so vain as to challenge any Right from thence to judge of Orthodox Books And for the Decree of Gelasius about Apocryphal Writings it is a meer Imposture He complains of the Arrogance of the Constantinopolitan See which insulted over that of Rome as a Captive and under a barbarous Yoke But he will scarce allow us to pity the Roman Church since he runs out into vain boasting that the Popes had the same Vigor Authority Power and Majesty now that they had in the best times But his Account of the little regard given to this Pope Gelasius and his Predecessors Letters and Sentences in this Controversie confutes his Brags and proves this Authority and Majesty was only in imagination § 6. After all these Artifices used by the Annalist for the interest of the Roman Church one would not think any thing should be left that reflected either upon the present Doctrin or Practice of Rome Yet Truth like the Light cannot be concealed with all his Artifices It appears that Pope Leo was but a mean Astronomer since he could not Calculate the true time of Easter himself but was forced to write to others to inform him and when the Infallible Guide is forced to enquire of many Fallible persons to direct him in his Decrees it seems he is left to the same dull way that other Mortals use for their information And at this rate Learning must be of more use to the Head of the Church than Infallibility He commends the barbarous Suevians and Vandals for sparing a Monastery in one of their Cruel Invasions and reproaches the Reformed in France who had burnt very many Monasteries and Churches at which he thinks they may blush But doubtless Lewis the 14th hath more cause for blushing since he professes that Religion that gives an extraordinary reverence to Monasteries and yet without scruple Burns Demolishes and Destroys often where he Conquers By a Letter writ to the Emperor Leo by Anatolius it appears that the Eastern Emperors consulted the Bishops of Constantinople in causes of Faith And ordered them to consult the Canons and enquire into the violations of them yea to give notice to the Pope of such offences And after all the Emperor was to give these Canons their due Force by appointing the Punishment due to such as had broken them Which proceeding was thought very regular then but the present Roman Court will not allow it though Pope Leo
himself begs of the Emperor not commands him as our Historian words it to use this remedy to the Church not only to degrade Heretical Clerks but to banish them from the City yet now they will not have Princes to judge or punish Clerks Nor will Baronius allow the Emperor a Right to call a General Council without the Pope's consent But the Letter of Pope Leo from whence he infers this shews He was commanded by the Emperor to come to a Council which Order the Pope reverently received and wished he could have obeyed it but modestly hopes to be excused by the Emperors approving the Reasons he offers why there was no need of such a Council So that the Authority was then in the Emperor and the Pope was to obey or excuse himself by just Reasons And as to the confirmation Pope Leo saith The Council of Chalcedon was confirmed by the Authority of Marcian the Emperor and by his consent yea he owns the definitions of that Council were above him for what was defined there he durst not call to a new scanning Thus things stood then but Rome is now above this If it were so excellent and pious a Law that none should force Women to be Nuns nor any to be vailed till she were forty years old till which Age she was to remain free to marry if she pleased How comes it to pass that nothing is more common now than to carry young Women against their Wills into Nunneries and to make them take the Vows at fourteen or fifteen These practices may be gainful but they are very wicked and contrary to the Laws both of Church and State in elder and purer times We may observe a visible difference between the Prayers and Usages of holy Men in this ancient Age and those of the modern times St. Marcian takes the holy Gospel in his hand and directs his Prayers only to Christ to avert a dreadful Fire But later Legends represent their modern Saints taking up Crucifixes Relicks or the Host and praying to the blessed Virgin or to deceased Saints in all cases of danger So that any considering Reader may see that the Primitive Worship was not like to that now used in the Roman Church Again if the Matter of Fact be true that Pope Hilary forbid the Emperor Anthemius to allow any Conventicles of the Macedonian Hereticks in Rome for which we have no proof but the boasting Letter of a Bigotted Pope viz. Gelasius yet supposing this were so the Note of the Annalist is very Erroneous viz. That Heresies could not be planted at Rome so easily as at Constantinople For Pelagius and Caelestius who were as great Hereticks as Eutyches and Aelurus were sheltered at Rome a long time And the Bishops of Constantinople did more against Eutyches and his Heresie than the Popes against Pelagius And since a little after three parts of seven in Rome were Arrians tolerated by the Pope methinks we should not have the Purity of Rome extolled at this rate as if no Weed of Heresie could grow there It is but five years after this that Baronius himself owns that Ricimer seized on St. Agathus Church in Rome where he and the Arrians held their publick Assemblies in spight of the Popes who were not wont to oppose Princes who had great power and only trampled on such as were weak In the Relation of Cyril the Monk which Baronius so highly commends it is not much for the credit of Rome that a Catholick Bishop of Jerusalem Martyrius sends a Legate to the Emperor to assist him in suppressing the Eutychian Hereticks and not the Pope And that a Saint from Heaven should call Jerusalem the Mother of Churches For this Title is now wholly appropriated to Rome But as to the Embassy sent to the Emperor against the Hereticks Martyrius took the right course for Pope Simplicius in his Letter to the same Emperor saith The Imperial Authority only can keep the Sheepfold of our Lords slock pure from the contagion of Heresie which shews the Pope's power was not considerable at that time It is something remarkable also That Pope Foelix in his Letter to Zeno the Emperor should affirm That Eustathius Bishop of Antioch was the President of those Three hundred and eighteen Fathers assembled at Nice For now they will allow no General Council to be Authentick wherein the Bishop of Rome or his Legates do not preside The Romanists proceedings against the Reformed at their Councils of Constance and Trent where some were Burnt for a Terror and the oppressed party who held the right Faith were cited before their Adversaries who took upon them to judge in their own Cause these proceedings I say were an exact Transcript of the Arrian Methods in Asrick when they resolved under the cover of a Conference to suppress the Orthodox Catholicks In the Story of finding St. Barnabas Relicks we may observe all the Prayers and Hymns were directed only to God and Christ not any to this or any other Saint from which we may learn That piece of Superstition which now makes up so great a part of the Roman Offices was unknown to those Ages and St. Barnabas declares the chief Bishop of Cyprus is not subject to any Patriarch he doth not except the Pope so that this Apostle seems not to have believed St. Peter's Universal Supremacy Baronius presents us also with a Confession of Faith made by one Lucidus and approved by a Synod of Bishops wherein he declares that he believes Eternal Fire and the Flames of Hell prepared for deadly Sins But there is not one word of Purgatory which shews there was no such place invented or at least believed by the Catholicks then And the 7th Epistle of Pope Gelasius as we noted signifies that he knew of no other places in the next World but Heaven and Hell To conclude the Annalist shuts up this Century with a Melancholy Note That at this time there was not one Christian Catholick Prince in the World He might also have added that all the Eastern Patriarchs were separated from the Communion of the Roman Church although three of them that were Orthodox communicated with one another And he might have noted also that at this juncture there was no certain Pope and an Heretical Prince was then Judge of the pretences of Symmachus and Laurentius the Rivals for that See But the true Faith can subsist as well without a Pope as without Orthodox Princes the Church being founded on Christ that invincible Rock against which the Gates of Hell can never prevail The End of the Fifth Centry PART IV. CENT VI. CHAP. I. Errors and Forgeries in the Councils from the Year 500 to the End of the Fifth General Council An. Dom. 553. § 1. WE referred the Councils said to be held under Pope Symmachus to the begining of this Century And the first Six are pretended to be held at Rome
The first was to prevent Mens seeking Bishopricks especially the Papacy while the See was full On which we may note the Cunning of this Pope who probably had got the Papey by this means yet sees fit to condemn a Fault after he had made his advantage by it The Fourth Canon plainly supposes that the Pope will name his Successor unless he die suddenly which is expresly contrary to the ancient Canons which the Notes can neither totally conceal nor fairly excuse But I look upon the Acts to be intirely forged in the later Times as the gross barbarity of the Style shews and 't is not probable that 72 Italian Bishops should come to Rome as so many Cyphers only to applaud what this Pope did ignorantly and Uncanonically decree 'T is certain there was a Synod at Rome called by the Arrian King Theodoric which is perhaps suppressed by the Editors lest it should discover the Regal Power was then above the Papal And this new Stuff seems to be put into the old Garment to fill up the Rent Now Baronius and Binius place this Synod before the Kal. of May An. 499. and fall foul upon Theodorus Lector for saying That Theodoric called this Synod whereas he knew nothing of this Fiction He saith indeed That after the Schism had lasted Three years which must be An. 501. since Pope Anastasius died An. 498. Theodoric who then Ruled all at Rome called a Synod of Bishops and setled Symmachus in the Papal Chair So that according to him no body called this Synod of the Editors nor was Symmachus yet Pope but these are devices to make the Schism seem shorter than it was But Theodorus is of better Credit than the Annalist and Cassiodorus shews that this Schism was not fully ended until Symmachus his death 13 or 14 years after For he saith That in his Consulship An. 514 he had united the Roman Clergy and People and restored the desired Concord to that Church So that 't is certain there was a Schisin at this time and long after The Second Roman Council under Symmachus hath no Voucher but Anastasius who pretends it was called to condemn Potrus Altinensis King Theodoric's Visitor as an Invader of the Roman See But 't is no way probable this yet unsetled Pope durst do so bold a thing considering Theodoric to whose Arbitration they had submitted this and commended him for determining it by a Bishp was then at Rome in great glory loved and admired both by the Synod and People But the sport is Binius and Baronius do not agree whether this were a distinct Synod or only one Action of another Synod called Palmaria however the dispute being about so frivolous a Fiction we shall not interpose 'T is probable upon Theodoric's having declared Symmachus the true Pope his Enemies accused him of heinous Crimes To cover which a Synod is patch'd up so full of Barbarisms False Latin and Non-sense that it seems to have been writ by that Ignorant Hand who forged the ridiculous Council of Sinuessa for Pope Marcellinus and the design of both is the same viz. to make us think that a Pope cannot be judged by a Council neither for Idolatry nor for Adultery Besides the Forger mistakes the Consul's Names and Ruffus Magnus put in as Colleague to Faustus Avienus instead of Pompeius who is by two undoubted Writers of this Age joyned with Avienus as the Notes and Annalist confess who yet have the confidence to say these Acts are genuine But it seems they scarce think so for these Acts say expresly The Council was called by the Precept of Theodoric and own that they could decree nothing without that Princes knowledge Yet these Parasites contradict their so commended Acts and affirm this Synod was called by the Pope who was the Criminal yea though they immediately after print some suspicious Precepts of Theodoric about his calling and directing this whole process If the whole were not fictitious I might note That there is a manifest Corruption in the Acts for where the Roman Churches Grandeur is said to flow First from S. Peter ' s Merit then following our Lord's Command and the Authority of General Councils The Period is not sense and jussione Domini seems put in to make the Flattery still grosser But the Editor's Margin hath a glorious Note on this blunder and Baronius cites it with great Triumph Another Trick the Notes put upon these Acts which in the next Sentence declare that Symmachus and his Bishops desired Letters from the King's Clemency for calling this Synod Which the Annotator turns as if the King desired the Popes Letters and though he was an Arrian durst not call it without such Letters which Note is as false as it is impertinent For we see by Theodorus Lector That Theodoric did call the real Council And Zonaras saith Theodoric calling a Council rejected Laurentius and confirmed the Bishoprick of Rome to Symmachus And they must be able to out-face the Sun who out of a falsly expounded Period would prove that the Kings of that Age called no Councils without the Popes consent Symmachus his 4th Roman Synod of which Baronius makes the two former to be only divers Acts is said to be held when Avienus Junior was Consul but the name of his Colleague is omitted which was Probus This makes it somewhat suspicious but the business of it confirms that Suspicion which was to revoke two Laws made in a Roman Synod after Simplicius his Death wherein according to ancient Custom Basilius Praefect for Odoacer King of Italy was present with some Bishops and the Roman Clergy The first Law was That no Pope should be elected without the consent of the King of Italy then Lord of Rome The other That no Pope Bishop or other Clergy-man should alienate things given to the Church Which Laws they pretend to annul because they were both made by Lay-men and not subscribed by any Pope But first It is certain that Lay Princes made many Laws in Ecclesiastical Affairs by Advice of their Clergy and these were frequently confirmed in Synods Secondly These Laws were made in a Council of the Clergy as appears by that Title Sanctitati vestrae used by Basilius and Eulalius in this Council confesses these Laws were made some Bishops consenting to them Moreover the deceased Pope had directed the making these Laws And the Annotator who here objects They were made in the Vacancy of the See in another place saith The Roman Clergy well knew that when the Pope the visible Head of the Church was taken away it was their part by ancient Custom as the nearest Members to the Head and Administrators of Peter ' s Church to take care of the Vniversal Church Wherefore he cannot fairly deny but the Roman Clergy had power in the Vacancy to confirm a Law relating to the good ordering of their own Church And the bloody
But the Reader must beware of all such Epistles being generally writ by later Parasites of Rome who would have it thought that all the Eminent Bishops in the World acted by a Power delegated from the Pope The Second and Fourth Epistles are this Popes excuse why he did not go but send his Legates to a Council in the East unto which the Emperor Anastasius had summoned him more majorum Which shews that as yet the Emperors had the power of calling Councils and sent their Precepts to the Pope himself The Fifth Epistle is also to excuse Hormisda's not going The Title of which is false viz. That it was a new thing for a Pope to be called to a Council by the Emperor For the Letter it self only saith there is no Example of a Pope going in person to a Council in Foreign Parts But as to the Summons that was no new thing for Pope Celestine was called to Ephesus by Theodosius and Leo to Chalcedon by the Emperor Marcian And in this Letter Hormisda highly commends Anastasius for Writing to him to be there in person and says God moved the Emperor to write this The Third Epistle is a reply to Dorotheus Bishop of Thessalonica who calls the Pope his Fellow Minister in the Inscription But Binius contrary both to Baronius and Labbè corrupts the Title and Text of the Epistle of Dorotheus reading Patri instead of Papae and twice in six lines putting venerando capiti nostro for vestro Now the true reading I have writ this to your venerable Head means no more but to your self Whereas the corruption tends to impose upon the Reader a false conceipt viz. That the Pope was the Father and Head of all Bishops The Sixth Epistle shews that Hormisda for two years after his advancement into the infallible Chair took Anastasius for an Orthodox Emperor But Baronius had exposed him as a known Heretick and Persecutor of the Orthodox many years before and Binius Notes charge him with the Eutychian Heresie at this very time Which shews Hormisda was very meanly qualified for an universal Judge in matters of Faith I add that in this Epistle the Pope declares He will throw himself down at the Emperors Feet for the Service of the Church But after-times have seen an Emperor falling down at the Popes Feet and kissing his Slipper The Title of the Epistle of John Bishop of Nicopolis calls the Pope if it be genuine Father of Fathers and Prince of all Bishops However it can only mean That the Pope was a chief Bishop because in the same Title he styles him his fellow Minister and in the Epistle saith his Predecessor Alciso was a Prince of Bishops who was only an Archbishop over a few Suffragans and there were but eight Bishops in this Synod of Epirus of whose complying with the Pope Baronius brags as if all the Eastern Church had submitted In the Eighth Epistle the Pope distinguishes the Apostolical that is the Roman from the general Catholick Church where he affirms that these Hereticks were Condemned both by the one and the other After the Ninth Epistle we have a Paper called a Form of Faith pretended to be sent with these Letters to be subscribed by these Bishops of Epirus but yet is dated the year after these Letters and hath other marks of Forgery the matter of it being not designed to secure the Articles of the Old Creeds but to enslave all Churches to believe implicitely as the Church of Rome did which is so grosly flattered in it that Hormisda might well blush at it and must take those who would subscribe it for his Vassals But doubtless this was devised after the Supremacy and Infallibility were got much higher And we may observe the Forger of it not only claps it in here but makes Justin the Emperor sign it and send it to Pope Boniface after that Emperor and Pope were both dead where Binius and Labbè condemn it for an Imposture And the deviser of it is so fond of it that he hath thrust it in most falsly and impertinently in four or five several places of the Councils After all the Noise of the Subjection of the Eastern Churches to the Roman all the Letters of this time mention no more than the Agreement and Concord of the Eastern and Western Churches So Avitus enquires if they were reconciled and a Concord was made Justin the Emperor saith he laboured pro Concordia c. And Hormisda himself speaks of it as an Union and a receiving the Bishop of Constantinople into an Unity of Communion Which shews the Eastern Church owed no subjection then to Rome The instructions to the Legates last cited are something suspicious and look like the Work of a later Hand But Binius is so taken with them that he Prints them again verbatini whereas Labbè omits them the second time The Seventeenth Epistle shews that this Pope under pretence of admitting inferior Bishops to his Communion broke in upon the Ancient Rights and Customs of Metropolitans freeing their Suffragans from the obedience they owed to their Superiors by the Canons And a little after because Dorotheus opposed this usurpation the Pope represents him as having forsaken Christ a piece of Cant that is common with every petty Sect in respect of all that are not of their party And indeed the Epistle of Anastasius which follows this 22d Epistle declares that Hormisda was a stubborn and unmerciful man and not only slighted the Emperor and injured him but pretended to command him which he saith He will not bear or as Baronius out of the Pontifical hath it he told the Pope He would Command and not be Commanded which was not spoken in fury but like a Prince and had all his Successors kept the Reins so stiff they had curbed all the Papal usurpations yea wholly prevented them The Relation of the Syrian Monks which we have here in Latin is corrupted in the Title and abused by a silly Translator The Title is with great swelling words directed to Hormisda but the Text speaks to a whole Synod of Bishops and says Rise ye up holy Fathers and The Flock cometh to you true Pastors and Doctors to whom the Salvation of all is committed yet the Title appropriates all to the Pope single where the Translator for Oecumenical Patriarch a name which is often given also to the Bishop of Constantinople ignorantly or by design hath universae orbis Terrae Patriarchae And he calls the Western Legate Angelum vestrum your Angel 'T is probable also some such Hand hath put in vos estis caput omnium Ye not the Pope alone are the Head of all where our Editors marginal Note is The Pope is the Head of all But the boldest Forgery of all is That Binius and Labbè make these Monks in the end of their Epistle accurse Acacius Bishop of Constantinople who
matter And if we consider how the Scene is dressed up with variety of Letters lately found out we shall be tempted to think this part of the Epistles are forged yet we may allow what Baronius saith that this abundance of Letters may make us that read them now know more of this case than they who lived in that Age knew if they never saw these Letters For 't is probable neither Hormisda nor his Legates nor Justin Justinian c. did ever see these Epistles that now appear under their names so that we may very well know more than they did but the reason is only because we know more than is true We may discover some marks of Forgery in divers of these Papers As that most of them want the Consuls Names and are not dated That Germanus says he was received in Procession with Wax Candles and Crosses a Custom of a later date for we have no Crosses in another Procession described by a Writer of that time The calling Hormisda in one of the Letters Arch-Bishop of the Universal Church and the Emperors giving the Popes Legate the Title of His Angel These with many other things that might be observed make it probable these Papers were Invented for a Pattern to the poor Greeks when the design of subjecting them to the Latin Church was on foot in later Ages § 4. To proceed Whereas Justinian in one particular point desires the Opinion of Hormisda and complements him so far as to tell him He will believe that to be Orthodox which he shall answer Baronius prints this in great Letters and Binius from this particular Assertion draws a general Inference in his Margen viz. That which is defined by the Pope is to be received by all for the Catholick Faith A Consequence so absurd that Labbè is ashamed of it and leaves it out as well he might since Justinian did not agree with the Pope in this Question after he had received his Answer And the dissenting Eastern Bishops at this time reckoned Hormisda to be a Nestorian if we can credit any of these Papers So that doubtless Justinian never thought a Pope Infallible In another Epistle ascribed to John of Constantinople not so very truckling as the former that Bishop is made to say by the help of the Intercession of the Holy and Consubstantial Trinity and of the glorious and true Mother of God A Phrase too absurd for any Bishop to use For with whom should the Trinity intercede or what can be more ridiculous than equalling the Virgins Intercession to the Trinity unless it be the making the Trinity pray to it self Labbè boldly attempts to mend this Sentence but without Authority and after all it s evidently writ by a later Hand If the next relation of Germanus be true it appears No cause of a Bishop of the East could be tried at Rome without the consent of the Emperor who expresly forbids the trying the Cause of Dorotheus at Rome though the Pope earnestly desired it might be judged there as Baronius also confesseth By the relation from the Synod at Constantinople it appears that they call their new elected Patriarch Epiphanius The Popes own Brother and fellow Minister and count their joynt endeavours to be one Brothers helping another Binius strives to blunder this by printing it Germanum vestrum as if it were the proper name of the Popes Legate But Labbè honestly restores the true reading germanum vestrum The Epistle next to this bears the name of Justinianus Augustus yet is dated Anno 520 which is a gross mistake for he was not styled Augustus till near seven year after as Baronius owns Anno 527. Yea after this Justinian is styled Vir illustris and for certain was not Emperor when this Letter is said to be writ The Notes after Hormisda's 70th Epistle do bitterly inveigh against Johannes Maxentius and the Scythian Monks as notorious Lyers and Eutychian Hereticks and Labbè is more severe in his Censure than Binius or Baronius But they are all mistaken For this Maxentius was entirely Orthodox and defended the Council of Chalcedon against the Eutychians as is fully proved by two learned and judicious Writers Bishop Usher and Forbesius And we may be sure Baronius first invented this false accusation thinking it impossible any Man but a Heretick could write against the Pope to be revenged on Maxentius for so bold a Fact But in the Age before Cochlaeus a Papist or Catholick as Baronius calls him did honestly put out Maxentius his Works as an Orthodox Writer though Maxentius do write against the Epistle under Hormisda's Name to Possessor an African Bishop and proves whoever was the Author of that Epistle was a Lyer and an Heretick as were also Possessor and Dioscorus one of the Popes Legates and he further justifies himself and the Scythian Monks blaming the Pope for banishing them from Rome Saying amongst other thing If the Bishop of Rome should prohibit us to confess Christ the Son to be one of the Holy and undivided Trinity the Church would never yield to him nor respect him as an Orthodox Bishop but utterly Accurse him as an Heretick So that no body then believed the Pope to be Infallible and for Hormisda Maxentius suspects him to be a favourer of Pelagianism The Emperor Justin speaking of the Church of Hierusalem saith that all men shew tantum favorem the Editors read tamen only to blunder the Period so much favour to it as to the Mother of the Christian Name that none dare separate from it Had this been said of Rome how would the Parasites have Triumphed Yet wanting real Encomiums in the next Paper they steal one and where the Eastern Clergy speak of their own Churches which had not swerved from the Faith delivered to them The Editors apply this to Rome and say in the Margen The Roman Church never deviated from right Doctrin But the Reader will find there is no mention of the Roman Church in that place only S. Peter who founded that of Antioch is pointed at a little before Before Hormisáa's 77th Epistle there is one of Justinian to Hormisda wherein he declares that after the Controversie was setled ultra non patiemur they blunder it by reading nos patiemur He will not suffer any one under that Government to stir any more in it Which is a brisk Order to the Pope in a cause of Religion For which reason and because it shews that he and the Greeks would not yield to leave out any Name but that of Acacius Baronius omits it and only prints the answer to it For this was writ the year after the pretended consent of the Patriarch of Constantinople to rase out Euthymius and Macedonius with other Names out of the Dypticks We cannot leave this Pope without some remarks on his carriage in answer to the Question propounded to him by Justinian viz.
that whereas they had been so bitter against Acacius and other Orthodox Bishops of Constantinople for only conversing with supposed Hereticks one of their own Popes was forced to plead that the worst of all Hereticks the Arrians might have the publick exercise of their Religion allowed by Law I take no notice of the Miracles ascribed to this Pope because the fabulous Gregorian Dialogues are the only Evidence for them The Roman Mint hath Coined two Epistles for this Pope of which Labbè saith many things prove that they are both forged The first is patched up out of the fragments of many other Popes Letters and that passage of the Sheeps reproving their Pastor if he Err in the Faith is originally stollen out of a feigned Epistle under Pope Fabian's name Baronius and Binius both confess a false date viz. Olybrius and Maximus being Consuls who were never in office together and if we read Id. Junij Maximo Consule John was not made Pope till two Months after nor will Olybrio Consule mend the matter with Id. Junij because this Pope dyed the 27th of May in that year However though they cannot reconcile these Errors the Notes and Baronius would have this Forgery pass for genuine to clear the Pope from serving the Arrian interest The second Epistle is also Fictitious being a Rhapsody out of Leo's Epistles and some places of Scripture and dated after this Pope was dead So that we must reject them both together with the Legend of his Consecrating Arrian Churches for the Orthodox in defiance to King Theodoric which Baronius and Binius would have us believe The Council of Lerida in Spain was not as Binius saith under John but under Sergius Bishop of Tarragon who presided in it and in the 16 Canon is called the Bishop of the first See a Title common to all Primates of old but lately engrossed by the Pope In the Fragments of this Council there is a method of canonically purging Clerks accused of Crimes but it cannot belong to this Council as Labbè owns because it mentions Leo the Third and Charlemaign who lived near 300 year after this Synod was held In the same year was another Spanish Council at Valencia in Pope John's time but he is not once named in it and the Canons were made by the Bishops of the Province Wherefore Binius falsly Titles it under Pope John The same year was held the Council of Arles which Binius miscalls the third but was truly the fourth Council there This Synod was placed wrong formerly An. 453 when one Opilio was Consul with Vincomalus but another Opilio was Consul with Rusticus this year An. 524 and Caesarius his Subscription to it shews this is the true date of it Binius is here twice mistaken First In his old Title of sub Johanne Secondly In printing the Epistle of Faustus in this place as if this Council of Arles were that which Faustus pretended confirmed his Pelagian Errors But Labbè saith Binius is mistaken and 't is certain he was quite out In Labbè we have here a singular Example of the modesty of Fulgentius who was very justly chosen President of an African Synod But perceiving a certain Bishop took this ill in the next Council he renounced the Seat and Dignity procuring that Bishop to sit before him resolving not to defend the Primacy he deserved saith the Author where it would make a breach of Charity And oh how happy had Christendom been if the Popes had followed this Pattern Who at this time had renounced the Communion of more than half the Christian World chiefly for not submitting to their Primacy and in every Age since have Qarrelled with all that would not allow them that claim The Council of Carthage under Boniface Bishop there Stiles him Bishop of the first See It never names the Pope and makes it very clear that this Primate did order all things in that Province without any dependance on Rome § 7. Foelix the Fourth was named by King Theodoric who being now Lord of Rome did of right propose him to the Clergy as a Candidate for the Papacy void by Johns death The Notes pretend this was an usurpation and Baronius for this Rails bitterly at Theodoric calling it an arrogant Fact and giving him the Title of a cruel Barbarian a dreadful Tyrant and impious Arrian adding that this was the cause of Gods destroying him But for all this rage this is no more than what all Princes then did in their own Dominions And these Editors a little before printed an Epistle wherein it is said That Epiphanius was made Bishop of Constantinople by the Election of Justin and the Empress with the consent of the Nobles Priests and People And Hormisda in the 76th Epistle saith he was rightly elected Which shews that the Eastern Emperors did not learn this of the Gothick Kings but these learned of the Emperors to name the Bishops of their chief Cities And Theodoric ever exercised this Right as the case of Symmachus shewed us before Wherefore that Law of Ordoacer that the Pope should be elected by the Princes consent remained still in force and Symmachus his pretended Repeal of it is either forged or else these Kings despised all Papal Councils which abridged them of their right In the Notes on this Popes Life we have a fabulous Vision of some doting Hermit who fancied he saw Theodoric's Soul thrown into the Vulcanian Kettles This out of Gregory's Dialogues is Foundation enough for them to Triumph in his Damnation who resolve to find out some Vision or Dream to perswade easie Readers that all Princes who injured any Pope were sent to Eternal Flames Again the Notes pretend that Justinian's Ecclesiastical Laws were made by the Bishops of Constantinople and put out in that Emperors name But why might not Justinian make his own Laws about Church matters as Constantine and all his Successors to this time had done No doubt he and they used in such cases to advise with their own Bishops But these Parasites of Rome are angry that the Pope is not the sole Law-maker in Causes Ecclesiastical now he was not so much as consulted in these Laws being then the Subject of another Prince And what they object of Justinian's speaking honourably of Zeno and Anastasius his Predecessors Enemies to Rome confirms me in the Opinion that Justinian in composing these Laws took no advice from St. Peter's Chair We may justly suspect most of these Papal Epistles out of which the Canonists for some Ages fetcht those Rules by which they oppressed the Christian World because if a Pope neither did nor writ any thing remarkable the Forgers invented Business and Letters for him as they have done for Pope John and this Foelix whose two first Epistles Labbè declares to be spurious and shews the former is made up out of the Forgeries in Pope Eleutherius name as also out of
with Paulus Diaconus follow his Account But the two former Authors are in this case more worthy of Credit however this is certain Bellisarius did depose and banish Sylverius and got Vigilius Elected who fearing his Rival should be restored got him at last into his Hands and barbarously caused him to be starved to death This is a sad Story of two Popes Sylverius uncanonically elected a Simoniack and a perjured Person and Vigilius a favourer of Hereticks one that is said to have hired false Witness and to have given Mony to make the See void and at last a Murtherer Which shews how little reason there is for Baronius and the Notes to make such a stir which was the true Pope of these two They will have Sylverius to remain the rightful Pope while he lived and so Rail freely at Vigilius as an Heretick and Bloody Usurper But they cannot prove this by any Evidence but only by a manifestly forged Epistle of Sylverius And the contrary is very certain because the Emperor the Gallican Churches and all did own Vigilius for the true Pope long before Sylverius his death and he openly acted as such all that time Wherefore we must reject that Dream of Baronius who saith without any ground that Vigilius did Abdicate the Papacy for six days upon the death of his Competitor and got himself new chosen and this purged him of all Crimes and in a moment made him a Saint and a rare Pope He would force this Fiction out of Anastasius who in like Cases he generally despises who only saith the See was void six days but plainly means after Sylverius was deposed for he reckons Vigilius his time from thence allotting him above 17 years and 6 Months that is near two years more than Baronius allows There are but two Epistles ascribed to Sylverius and they are the only Evidence to prove him the true Pope after he was Deposed yet it is certain both are Forged The first charges Vigilius with Simony yea excommunicates and deprives him for usurping the Papacy it is dated with the name of Basilius whereas Baronius and the Annotator say there was no such Consul in his time And Labbè saith it is to be rejected for the Barbarity of the Style and other reasons and concludes the mistake of the Consul shews the bold ignorance of Mercator the Author of this Imposture Now observe for the ingenuity and credit of Baronius that this Epistle not only serves him to clear Sylverius from Simony and to prove him the true Pope but he calls this odious Forgery The Sword of the Spirit the Word of God and the Exercise of that Power which he had to Absolve or Damn Eternally all People which is no less than Blasphemy The Second Epistle to Amator is so gross a Fiction that both Baronius and Binius reject it being contrary to the true History delivered by Liberatus whom the Notes call the most faithful Writer of this time Labbè agrees with them that it is spurious and shews that Mercator stole it out of Gregory's Epistles wishing that the like censure which is passed on this were passed upon many more of these Writings But the Letter of Amator to Sylverius which Labbè saith Learned men suspect to be as false as the Popes answer to it Baronius will have to be genuine and from this slight Forgery alone he proves That all the Catholick World groaned together at the ignominies put upon the Bishop of the Universal Church A rare Historian Whose Assertions and his Evidence are both false Binius places the Second Council of Orleance in this year but Labbe from Sirmondus puts it three years sooner An. 533. in the time of Pope John the Second it was called as the Preface saith by the Command of the King of France and made very good Canons without Papal Advice or Authority Binius his Notes here blunder this and the following Council and will keep King Clovis alive three year longer than Nature allowed him to support a Fable of this Kings giving the Pope a Golden Crown An. 514. whereas he died An. 511. The Third Council of Orleans Binius sets An. 540. But Labbè more truly places it here However it takes no notice of any Pope though Vigilius about this time is pretended to have writ to Caesarius Bishop of Arles This Synod made divers Canons for Discipline and by the second Canon it appears they were zealous for the Celibate of the Clergy But the fourth shews that hitherto the Canons in this case had not been obeyed and the ninth Canon Decrees That if any Clerks having Wives or Concubines were ignorantly ordained they should not be removed § 13. Vigilius was made Pope immediately after Sylverius was deposed and while the Goths belieged Bellisarius in Rome which was in this year But the Editors from Baronius write An. 540. upon this entrance to cover the Fable of his new Election after the death of Sylverius But he must come in in the year 537 For Marcellinus places Vigilius his death An. 554. which makes up the 17 years and odd time that Anastasius truly allots Vigilius whose Successor Pelagius entred as Baronius and the Editors own An. 555 which is but 15 whole year from that year 540 in which they say he entred and from which they falsly compute his time who writ Letters dated An. 538 and acted in all things as the sole true Pope from the time Sylverius was deposed which was according to Anastasius after he had sat one year and five Months and he followed Writers of undoubted credit that is Marcellinus who places his deposition and Vigilius his entrance An. 537 so doth Genebrard who with Platina allow Sylverius only some odd time above one year in which all Writers before Baronius agree His invention therefore it was to ascribe above 4 years to Sylverius that this false Chronology might cover his devisable of a new Election of Vigilius An. 540. which we justly reject as an idle Fable invented to save the Honour of the Roman Chair Yet it is well Baronius did not think Vigilius the true Pope all this time for by that means we have his true Character who he saith was driven on with the Whirlwind of Ambition and like Lucifer fell from Heaven that his Sacriledge cried out on every side he calls him a Schismatick a Simoniack an Usurper a wretched Man an Heretick a Wolf a Thief a false Bishop and an Antichrist aggravating his Crimes with all his Rhetorick wherein he rather exceeds the Bounds of Modesty than of Truth for he really was extreamly wicked and beyond the power of the sanctifying Chair it self to make him Holy We have so fully described the Acts of this Pope and all the false Stories about him in the following History of the Fifth General Council that we may here pass him by with a few brief Remarks First Liberatus assures us
Faith as it did also that Controversie and by Providence shews us that a Pope may Err in matters of Faith Chap. xxiii After this he Rails at the Edict calling it a Seed plot of dissention and saying it was contrary to the three Chapters of the Council of Chalcedon and as Facundus affirms contrary to Justinian's own Faith and writ by Hereticks and the Cardinal saith it was writ by Theodorus Bishop of Caesarea against whom he every where Rails as a Factious and Schismatical Man yea an Heretick and obstinate Origenist a most wicked Wretch and a plague to the whole Church But as to the Edict it is in defence of the Council of Chalcedon and to say otherwise is to condemn the 5th General Council who often declare as much Yea Baronius elswhere in contradiction to himself saith this Edict is a Confession of Justinian ' s right Faith a Catechism and exact declaration of the Catholick Faith And he might as well call the Decrees of Nice or other General Councils Seed-plots of dissention yea the Gospel it self may be so calumniated Nor do Liberatus Facundus and Vigilius as he saith declare that Theodorus writ this Edict Liberatus only saith he suggested it to the Emperor to condemn the three Chapters by a Book to be dictated by the Emperor which he promised to do Facundus names not Theodorus but saith They were willing to believe it was writ by the Adversaries of the Truth which was but a conjecture and is as false as what he next speaks of it being contrary to the Emperors own Faith And Vigilius words cited by Baronius rightly construed shew only that when the Edict was read in the Pallace Theodorus required the Bishops to favour it by his words however this passage is taken out of a forged Epistle of Vigilius wherein Mennas is said to be excommunicated the 25th year of Justinian who died the 21st year of that Emperor So that none of his Evidence do prove that Theodorus writ this Edict And for his opposing Vigilius his Decree of silence we shewed before there was no such Decree nor could he lead Justinian into the Heresie of the Incorrupticolae because the Emperor never held it and his only Witnesses that Theodorus was an Origenist Heretick are Facundus and Liberatus Now Facundus is an Heretick condemned by the 5th General Council for writing in defence of the three Chapters and a malicious Enemy of Theodorus And so was Liberatus for which cause Bellarmine Baronius and Possevine advise us to read him cautiously especially in such things as he borrowed from the Nestorians and what he saith of the 5th Council Professae inimicitiae suspicionem habent mendacij And this is certainly so for how could he hold Origen's Heresies who subcribed the 5th Council wherein Origen is by name condemned And among other Bishops no doubt he had subscribed Justinian's Edict against Origen's Errors otherwise he could not have been so familiar with the Emperor nor so beloved by him as Liberatus the Author of this Calumny reports him to have been So that Theodorus was always Orthodox and his advising this Edict is no proof it was against the Faith Chap. xxiv Baronius and Binius do attempt after this to question the Acts of the 5th Council not indeed in any main thing concerning their not condemning or Vigilius not defending the three Chapters which is our Point but in lesser matters such as may be objected against all the General Councils in the World which therefore if the objections were true would not take away the Authority of this General Council whose Acts are as well preserved as any and better than any of the other Councils except Chalcedon that went before it Chap. xxv The first Corruption they charge these Acts with is that they add to the Acts of Chalcedon in reciting them these words which Jesus Christ our Lord is one of the Trinity which words some suspected of Eutychianism would have added to the Council of Chalcedon but could not obtain it But first it was no Eutychian Heretick who first said Christ was one of the Trinity Theodorus of Mopsvestia denied it but Proclus who was Orthodox affirmed it and taught it in an Epistle approved in the Council of Chalcedon and Justinian set out an Edict for it against the Nestorians who denied it wherein he also Anathematizes the Eutychians which Edict Pope John the second confirms and declares to be agreeable to the Apostolick Doctrin and to the Faith of the Roman Church Wherefore those Monks who affirmed one of the Trinity was Crucified could not be Eutychian Hereticks as Baronius falsly says But Baronius is a Nestorian who denies this Truth And those Monks did not seek to add it to the Council of Chalcedon only they declared against the Nestorians this was the Sense of that Council in the time of Hormisda who was Heretical in denying it nor doth the 5th Synod recite it as the words of the Council of Chalcedon but as their own words who were as Orthodox as any in the Council of Chalcedon and he is a Nestorian who denies it Chap. xxvi Baronius objects Secondly That in these Acts Ibas is said to have denied the Epistle to Maris to be his which he saith is false and Binius calls it a Lye and they both give this as an instance of the Corruption of these Acts They may as well prove Justinian's Edict corrupted and Pope Gregory's Epistles where it is said he durst not confess it yea that he denied it to be his And the 5th Council prove he did deny it by the interlocution of six Metropolitans at Chalcedon And though Baronius do say positively in one place that the true Acts of Chalcedon have it that lbas confessed it to be his Epistle yet he cites those very Acts and the second of Nice elsewhere saying it was found not to be the Epistle of Ibas and so it was condemned and he absolved And the truth of the matter is that Ibas denied at Chalcedon that ever he called Cyril an Heretick after the Union But we have proved before that he writ this Epistle divers years before that Union and therein called Cyril Heretick which is a denying the words of his own Epistle for which he is censured in the 5th Council Chap. xxvii He alledges that these Acts say the Council of Chalcedon condemned the Epistle of Ibas Which he saith is untrue and that he hath demonstrated the contrary out of the Acts of Chalcedon and Binius calls this another Lye both of them giving this as an instance that the Acts are corrupted But if so the whole Council is corrupted for they say over and over that this Epistle of Ibas was condemned by the definitions at Chalcedon and that they had demonstrated this and it was indeed their
as these because those Laws are not there Chap. xxxiii Again Baronius saith That Epistle of Theodoret's to Nestorius intimating his agreeing with that Heretick and rejecting Cyril after the Union is a spurious addition to these Acts which he proves by Leontius who affirms some such Letters to be fictitious But will the Cardinal allow him to be good Evidence where he makes but 22 Canonical Books of the Old Testament And doth he not commend Theodorus of Mopsvestia and Diodorus and deny that ever Theodoret agreed with Nestorius But even Baronius owns him to have been a Nestorian so that in this case Leontius is of no Credit But that which is yet more strange That the Cardinal in contradiction to himself repeats and owns this very Epistle read in the fifth Council to have been writ by Theodoret after the Union to Nestorius and that he favoured him still yet he brags there is no mention of Theodoret's being addicted to Nestorius after the Peace made and that his Epistles to Dioscorus and Leo sufficiently wipe off that Aspersion But those Epistles are suspicious as first appearing out of a Vatican Copy And whereas the Union with Cyril was made An. 432. these Epistles were writ long after that to Dioscorus An. 444 and that to Leo An. 449. So that if these Epistles were genuine they do not prove he was Orthodox till ten or twelve year after the Union But two things prove them spurious First Theodoret boasts in them both that he had been 26 years a Bishop and a Preacher at Antioch yet none ever reproved his Doctrin yea that his Sense and the Churches always agreed having never been accused by any nor accused any Which is an horrid falshood for had he not been reproved by Cyril deposed by a General Council and subscribed the Condemnation of Cyril Secondly In both these Epistles he saith he had been 26 years a Bishop yet one was writ 5 years after the other and by Baronius his Computation he was but 21 years a Bishop when he writ to Dioscorus being made Bishop Anno 423. And his History which mentions the Translation of the Body of S. Chrysostom and so must be writ seven years after the Union commends Theodorus of Mopsvestia for Orthodox shews he was a Nestorian then Baronius would wipe off this by pretending he writ his History before the Quarrel about Nestorius but in the same place saith He follows Sozomen whose Book came out An. 439. in commending Theodorus So that after all his shifts Theodoret was a Favourer of Nestorius An. 436. when he writ that Epistle read in this fifth Council and long after Chap. xxxiv Baronius and Binius say The Acts are corrupted because they affirm an Epistle to John of Antioch wherein the Author rejoyces for Cyril's death was writ by Theodoret which they affirm was writ by an Impostor because John was dead seven years before Cyril I Reply That is a Mistake for John was made Bishop An. 427. and according to Nicephorus sat 18 years which reaches to the year 444. in which Baronius saith Cyril died But suppose John were dead when Theodoret writ this Baronius of all men should not make this a mark of Forgery who allows Clement's Epistle writ to James Bishop of Hierusalem who had been dead 30 year for genuine and so doth Binius And the Cardinal cites and commends an Epistle of Theodosius as authentick writ to S. Chrysostom 30 years after he was dead And Secondly the Epistle is Theodoret's but the Inscription only which should be to Domnus is mistaken for it is as plain by his Sermon before Domnus after Cyril's death which we have also in the fifth Council as by this Epistle that Theodoret was an Enemy to Cyril after his death and Baronins may well pardon the Error in the inscription of John's Name for Domnus for he allows innumerable Epistles Edicts c. to be genuine notwithstanding Errors in the Title and therefore for so small a mistake in the Title of an Epistle should not ask What credit is to be given to such Acts His own Annals have many greater Mistakes as the Author proves yet he would have us credit them Yea in this reckoning of John of Antioch's dying seven years before Cyril he mistakes the whole time almost according to Nicephorus and four years by his own reckoning of John's entring An. 427 dying 436 yet sitting 13 years for so John did not dye till 440 that is four year before S. Cyril And the Epistles of Theodoret to Dioscoras and Leo on which he depends for his Arithmetick are one or both of them forged We conclude therefore that the Epistle mentioned in the fifth Council was Theodoret's who was a Nestorian after S. Cyril's death and he writ it to Domnus not to John Bishop of Antioch Chap. xxxv But he who accuseth the fifth Council for Forgeries doth follow many forged Writings himself in his discourse about it First The Confession of Faith made by Mennas Theodorus of Caesarea and others by way of submission recorded in the very Constitution of Vigilius is Forged For as to the Matter of it How is it likely the Eastern Bishops should say They allowed all the Acts of the former four Councils made by consent of the Pope's Legates Or ask him pardon for Injuries which they say they had never done to him Or how agrees this with Baronius his saying Theodorus asked pardon for his Scoffs and Contumelies against Vigilius or with Vigilius his form of Excommunication of Theodorus for despising his Authority As to the time this Confession and Submission is said to be made after the Decree for Taciturnity which was never made viz. An. 552. And we have proved Mennas was dead five year before and that Theodorus did always stand firm against the three Chapters Secondly He cites one Eustathius out of Surius who is proved Fabulons before Thirdly The Epistles of Theodoret which were shewed before to be forged And we add That for all his brags to Dioscorus An. 444. he writes a kind Letter to Irenaeus a Nestorian deposed Bishop of Tyre And another to Nomus wherein he rails at the pious Emperour Theodosius by whom he and other Nestorians were deposed and his Writings forbidden while as he falsly asserts Arians and all other Hereticks were tolerated Theodoret therefore was a Nestorian 16 year after the Union with Cyril and these Epistles are Forged which say the contrary Fourthly He cites the Action at Chalcedon concerning Domnus which is a Vatican Forgery For it is not in the Greek nor in Liberatus Evagrius nor Nicephorus and that Domnus for whom subsistence is provided in this Forged Action was dead before the Council of Chalcedon as both Justinian and the fifth Council witness who for all Baronius frivolous Objections to support this Forgery must needs have truer Copies
this Authentick Confirmation of Vigilius himself It is well when de Marca resolves to support the tottering credit of this Pope that he hath no better Evidence of Theodorus of Caesarea's favouring Hereticks than Facundus a condemned Nestorian and Liberatus who writes so partially for that side it is plain their spite to Theodorus was for his zeal against Nestorius and for giving the Emperor that wholsome and necessary advice to condemn all those Men and their Writings under which the Nestorians sheltered themselves and it is shewed before that he was no favourer either of Origen or the Acephali Yet this defender of Vigilius reflects on Justinian's Edict approved by a General Council upon the single Testimony of a convicted Heretick who writes so bitterly against the Truth that he is not to be believed nor esteemed as any thing but a bigotted and provoked Adversary Only our Author passes by one thing which is that Facundus and Liberatus both Rail at Vigilius for desetting their Party and look upon him after his coming to the Emperor as one that took the Heretical side which shews they knew nothing of his latter change As to what he saith That there was nothing of Faith controverted in this Council but only concerning Persons This is fully answered before And I will only note the weakness of this distinction For what difference is there between condemning a Mans Heretical Opinions and condemning that Man for holding those Opinions Suppose the Arians should pretend that because Arius was condemned at Nice the Controversie there was about a Person not about the Faith Will de Marca allow that distinction And the like may be said of Macedonius Eutyches and Nestorius in former Councils Certain it is that in this Council the Writings or Opinions of Theodorus and his Person also are condemned and so are the Opinions of Theodoret and Ibas before their Recantation but not their Persons and the main Question in the fifth Council Whether those Writings of these three there cited were Heretical which I think is a matter of Faith and not of Persons Wherefore since the Nestorian Hereticks gloried in these Writings the Question whether they should be condemned or no was not as he pretended concerning discipline and so there is no room for his impertinent distinction of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unless Vigilius had a Dispensation to defend Heretical Writings and his wavering was not prudence but perfidiousness in such a Case Facundus may be a good witness that Vigilius confirmed the three Chapters before his coming to Constantinople and perhaps he might suspend Mennas after his coming to that City as de Marca out of Theophanes saith But since Mennas died that very year as is proved by the Acts of the sixth Council at Constantinople where they must needs know the time of their own Patriarchs death but in the preceding Century All the rest of his Story is manifest Forgery viz. his delivering his Decree to Mennas An. 548. after he was dead and he would prove this by a meer and gross imposture which is Vigilius Epistle to Theodorus where in September 552 the Pope is made to Excommunicate Theodorus and suspend Mennas who had been dead five year Yet in another forged Epistle set down at large in Labbè in February the year before the same Pope tells the Catholick Church he had excommunicated and deposed Theodorus and the other six Months ago Yet these apparent Fictions de Marca gravely cites as good Evidence and in truth he hath no other Testimonies but these two spurious Epistles and the incoherent stuff of Anastasius Biblioth to prove that Vigilius was persecuted by Justinian at all or that he ever opposed him after he came to the City of Constantinople till the Council met De Marca grants Facundus after this called him a Prevaricator and we find about that very time wherein those sham Epistles lay the Scene of Justinian's persecuting him for Excommunicating Theodorus and the Condemners of the three Chapters by good Evidence under Vigilius own Hand that this Pope Excommunicated two Roman Deacons for defending the three Chapters full three year after his coming to Justinian So that this learned Author should not bring such stuff in for Evidence Yet again he quotes an Epistle of the Roman Clergy to the Legatories now newly published which is as palpable an imposture as any of the former For therein the Clergy of Italy tell a long Story to the French Legates upon hear-say to inform them what Vigilius was then doing and suffering at Constantinople where these Legates then were and whereas they might so easily have informed France of this by Letters from Rome they desire the Legates to write this from Constantinople to the Gallican Church Again these rare Clerks say that Dacius Bishop of Milan had been absent from his Church 15 or 16 year till ' all the Bishops of his ordaining were dead so that vast multitudes died for want of Baptism it seems neither Lay-men nor Presbyters might then Baptize But if Dacius did fly from Milan when it was taken by the Goths and never visited them till now he had been absent but 13 year at most but that stay is not probable considering how good a Bishop he was The long History therefore of Vigilius his returning to his Vomit and of his being persecuted by Justinian depending on nothing but forged relations is to be wholly rejected and that Letter which Eutychius writ to Vigilius to have the three Chapters condemned in a lawful Council whereunto Vigilius by Letter consented in January 554 was not writ upon Eutychius first promotion to the See of Constantinople in which he had sat now almost six years being chosen immediately upon the death of Mennas but was writ purely on occasion of the designed Council and the Patriarch professeth his Faith in it not on the account of his entrance on his promotion but to remove the scandal which the Nestorians laid upon such as condemned the three Chapters as if they did not assent to the former Councils especially that of Chalcedon Vigilius only covered his Nestorian principles with these shifts and his main Argument of the paucity of Western Bishops is abundantly confuted by the Councils shewing there were more of them present then at Constantinople than had been in any former General Council And the event shewed that neither his absence nor dissenting could hinder this which our Author wrongfully calls an imperfect meeting from being universally received as a General Council The Constitution of Vigilius is proved Heretical before and de Marca gives a very weak reason to prove it was not read in the fifth Council For how could Justinian be so silly as to suppose he could keep the Bishops then assembled ignorant of Vigilius his aversion to condemning the three Chapters when he would not come at them and if de Marca say true suffered such injuries for
defending them 't is plain they knew his Mind and do particularly confute his Constitution only sparing his name yea 't is Evident they lookt on him as a sickle Man and published nothing but his first and soundest Judgment and never ceased acting vigorously for all his dissent for the Greeks at Chalcedon had shewed they looked on a Councils Decrees as valid though the Pope opposed them After all he hath no Witnesses of his Exile but the fabulous Anastasius all the Greeks he confesses are silent as to his sufferings and so are all Authentick Latin Histories too The Epistle of Peter of Antioch was writ 500 year after and only speaks of some difference between Vigilius and Mennas which must be at his first coming to Constantinople Anno 547 but that is nothing to this time after the Council It seems strange that Vigilius should pass for so great a Politician by the art used in this Epistle for if it were his I should think he never intended to confirm the fifth Council by it because he never names it which silence must proceed either from his fear to anger the Western Bishops with whom he joyned still in heart or from his hope that the bare recanting his Opinions would cajole the Emperor and his Greeks and if we consider his Hypocrisie and often changes both of these might make him omit the naming the fifth Council But being a Forgery we need not any conjectures about the reason of a non-entity Yet if I were convinced Vigilius writ this Epistle I should believe the date was false and that this was his first Recantation after he came to Constantinople before this Synod met which is the most probable reason why he did not name this fifth Synod viz. because no such had yet been It was not the Greeks but the Latins who put this Epistle to the end of the Acts of the fifth Synod for in their Vatican it was first pretended to be found but whoever added it must be very weak to imagin an unlawful Synod could be confirmed by a Popes private Opinion delivered six months after or that any body else should receive a Council upon his Authority who did not own it himself Photius lived 300 year after this Council had been owned for a General Council and what he saith may well be explained of the Letters of his which were read in the Council importing that once he was of their mind The Arabick Manuscript is so full of mistakes that its Authority must be inconsiderable it says that the living and dead were never excommunicated before this Synod and that the Popes profession of Faith was writ not to Eutychius but to the Emperor Justinian And all these Testimonies amount to no more than that which the Emperor and the Council both gave out that Vigilius was as indeed he had often declared of the Councils Opinion 'T is certain Pelagius the first Vigilius his immediate successor and who was with him at Constantinople did own this for a General Council and if Vigilius had changed his mind as Pelagius had done so as to confirm the fifth Council he must have known of it and for his own vindication would have pleaded this Writing of Vigilius to satisfie the Western Bishops who rejected his Communion and his silence of Vigilius consent and confirmation is next to demonstration that he know of no such thing and that no such thing ever was As for all the rest they owned it for a lawful General Council but not one of them knew of the subsequent consent of Vigilius The next thing in de Marca is the consideration of the reasons moving Vigilius to make this Decree the first of which is notoriously false For this forged Epistle saith that now the whole World and the Church was restored to Peace and our Author thinks the Illyrican and African Bishops were now reconciled to the Condemners of the three Chapters Whereas 't is plain Liberatus did not write his Breviary till Vigilius his death that is two year after the date of this feigned Epistle and he shews how woful a Schism and Scandal there was then in the Church especially in Africa And Victor one of the African Bishops of that side died in restraint after he had suffered much in defence of the three Chapters thirteen years after As to the Western Bishops how could their being restored to Peace be a motive to Vigilius to recant An. 553. when three year after his successor Pelagius was struggling with them to bring them to Peace and could not do it then without some force And our Author owns that the French Spanish and Italian Bishops did not come in till Pelagius had been some time in the Chair and Baronius saith the same so that his first reason is not so much as true I shall only add that Justinian acted very sincerely in this matter and Leontius slanders him in supposing otherwise for his Judgment was that the three Chapters were to be condemned both Opinions and Persons the Heretical Doctrins and Hereticks too if they had not recanted But perhaps Vigilius might act dispensatively in this change for it is likely he still kept a Nestorian Heart only this spoils his second reason why Vigilius writ this Epistle viz. Christ having enlightned his Mind God revealing and he diligently enquiring was now come to the knowledge of the Truth For if after all Vigilius did only confirm them dispensatively that supposes he did not believe the points to be either necessary or true but only such as might be professed for peace sake and if that were all what an Hypocrite must this Pope be to talk of a change of his Mind and coming to know the truth by Illumination Revelaâ—â—on and Study In vain doth he and his Patron alledge the Example of St. Augustin St. Paul and St. Peter for did St. Augustin retract things and pretend to be convinced of his Mistakes only dispensatively that is secretly believing still they might be true Did St. Paul only believe the Gospel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 after his Conversion Or was St. Peter a Jew in his Heart after he consented to discharge the Gentiles from the Ceremonies of the Law Pelagius the Second's Arguments are good as to the Roman Clergy who sincerely opposed the truth for a time but upon Conviction as sincerely embraced it But to apply these instances to such a Proteus and Dissembler as Vigilius is to prostitute them rather than defend him who often dispensed with himself in the duties of Morality If Vigilius had gon to the Council he might have learned those two Rules de Marca speaks of in six days without the help of Revelation But the feigned Epistle says nothing of such Rules it pretends that Vigilius now understood the Person and Writings of Theodorus and the Writings of Theodoret and Ibas against Cyril were Heretical and that it was his duty to pronounce them Heretical
the next Pope nothing is memorable but that he is said by the Pontifical to be a Martyr Eusebius saith he died in Adrian's Twelfth year and mentions not his Martyrdom but Binius contradicts him and will have him to suffer in the 3d year of Antoninus and this without any Authority for it but his own Telesphorus according to Eusebius was the Seventh Pope from St. Peter and came in the Twelfth year of Adrian that is An. 130. But Binius following the Pontifical makes him the Eighth Pope and saith he entred the Third year of Antoninus that is Twelve years after and in the Notes on his Life upon the Pontificals saying he Ordained Thirteen Bishops in his Eleven years he observes that these Bishops were to be sent into divers parts of the World from whence he saith it is clear that the Pope was to take care not of Rome only but the whole World But first no inference from so fabulous an Author as the Pontifical can be clear And secondly if there were so many Bishops really Ordained by Popes as the Pontifical doth pretend there are but Sixty three Bishops reckoned by him from S. Peter's death to this time which is near 100 years From whence if we grant the Matter of Fact it is rather clear That the Pope Ordained only some Italian Bishops near Rome for otherwise when so many Bishops were Martyred there must have been far more Ordained for the World in that space of time Hyginus the next Pope began saith Eusebius in the first year of Antoninus but Binius saith he was made Pope the Fifteenth of that Emperor the Reader will guess whether is to be trusted The Pontifical could find this Pope nothing to do but to distribute the Orders of the Clergy which Pope Clement according to him had done long before § 2. From the Notes on Pope Pius Life we may observe there was no great care of old taken about the Pope's Succession For Optatus S. Augustine and S. Hierom with the Old Pontifical before it was altered place Anicetus before Pius but the Greeks place Pius before Anicetus and in this Binius thinks we are to believe them rather than the Latins The rest of the Notes are spent in vindicating an improbable Story of an Angel bringing a Decree about Easter to Hermes the Popes Brother who writ a Book about keeping it on the Lord's Day yet after all there is a Book of Hermes now extant that hath nothing in it about Easter and there was a Book of old writ by Hermes well known to the Greeks and almost unknown to the Latins though writ by a Pope's Brother read in the Eastern Churches and counted Apocryphal in the Western But we want another Angel to come and tell us whether that now extant be the same or no for Binius cannot resolve us and only shews his Folly in defending the absurd and incongruous Tales of the Pontifical Anicetus either lived before or after Pius and the Pontifical makes him very busie in Shaving his Priests Crowns never mentioning what he did to suppress those many Heretics who came to Rome in his time but it tells us he was Buried in the Coemetery of Calistus though Calistus who gave that Burial-place a name did not dye till Fifty years after Anicetus But Binius who is loath to own this gross Falshood saith You are to understand it in that ground which Calistus made a Burying-place afterward yet it unluckily falls out that Amcetus's Successor Pope Soter was also Buried according to the Pontifical in Calistus his Coemetery and afterwards Pope Zepherines's Burial-place is described to be not far from that of Calistus so well was Calistus's Coemetery known even before it was made a Coemetery and before he was Pope Eleutherius succeeded Soter and as the Pontifical saith he received a Letter from Lucius King of Britain that he might be made a Christian by his Command which hint probably first produced those two Epistles between this Pope and King Lucius which Binius leaves out though he justifies the Story of which it were well we had better Evidence than the Pontifical This is certain the Epistles were forged in an Age when Men could write neither good Latin nor good Sense and I am apt to fancy if Isidore had put them into a Decretal they would have been somewhat more polite so that it is likely these Epistles were made by some Monks who thought it much for our Honour to have our Christianity from Rome § 3. This Century concludes with the bold Pope Victor of whose excommunicating the Eastern Bishops for not agreeing with him about Easter we have a large account in Eusebius but of that there is nothing in the Pontifical only we are told he had a Council at Rome to which he called Theophilus Bishop of Alexandria and decreed Easter should be observed upon a Sunday c. Upon this hint and the Authority of a better Author we grant there were at these times divers Councils held about keeping Easter But the Editors of the Councils though Eusebius be the only credible Author which gives an Account of them presume to contradict him For Eusebius makes the Council at Caesarea in Palestina to be first and makes Theophilus of that City and Narcissus of Jerusalem Presidents of it but the Editors for the honour of the Pope place the Roman Council first and upon the bare Credit of the Pontifical who mistook Alexandria for Caesarea say That Theophilus was present at it whereas Eusebius saith This Roman Council was the Second called about this Question consisting of the Bishops about Rome Secondly The Editors place the Council of Caesarea affirming out of a suspicious Fragment of Bede who lived many Centuries after That it was Called by Victor ' s Authority whereas Eusebius as we see assigns other Presidents to that Council yea they intitle all the other Councils about this Matter Under Victor though in Eusebius they are set down as independent upon one another The Bishops of each Country Calling them by their own Authority And though Binius's Notes 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
stuff about the Primacy and the order of Patriarchs is omitted Yea the Notes in Gratian own that formerly it went no further than to item gesta Sanctorum Martyrum So that the beginning and end that is four parts in six are Forged by their own Confession Yea the whole as Binius grants is so confused that in many places it is impossible to read it yet they say they have ventured to mend it as well as they can But after all their correcting or rather corrupting it the Copies do not agree Some want the Book of Judith and the 2d of Macchabees Some have only one Book of Kings and one of Chronicles Some reckon but two Books of Solomon some three and others five Some ascribe Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus to the Son of Syrach And after all as to the Canon it agrees neither with the Council of Laodicea nor with that of Carthage nor indeed with it self whatever Binius vainly brags And is not this a rare Foundation for the Trent Fathers to build their mistaken Decree upon As to the rest of it That passage that the Roman is preferred before all other Churches not by any Synodal Decrees but by the Voice of Christ c. is not only a modern addition as appears by Gratian and Justellus Manuscript which omit it but it contradicts the 4th Epistle of Gelasius which saith The supream power over all is not given to any by the Canons but to the Apostolical Church The order also of the Patriarchal Sees added since the time of Gratian is drawn up contrary to the Canons of Constantinople and Chalcedon The account of Councils make the Emperors Constantine and Theodosius Presidents of the two first General Councils Marcian and Anatolius of the 4th without naming Leo and only mentions Celestine's consent to the third Council So that this piece was coyned before the Pope pretended all Councils void wherein he or his Legates did not preside And that passage That the Acts of the Martyrs are not read in the Roman Church because many of them are writ by anonymous mistaken weak and Heretical Authors was writ before that Church had stuffed all her Offices so full of lying Legends and ridiculous Romances about the Saints the reading of which before the Reformation took up a third part of the Priests time upon Festival days But upon the whole I dare aver it is not Gelasius his work but most of it forged by Isidore Mercator 300 Year after the time of this pretended Council Wherefore it ought not to be cited as evidence on their side There is a 2d Roman Council under Gelasius to absolve Misenus one of the Popes Legates who had betrayed his Master and now repented But admit the matter of Fact be true yet the bad style and barbarous phrase of these Acts are strong suspicions of their being Forged § 10. Anastasius the 2d succeeded Gelasius according to Marcellinus Chronicle an Author of that time or in the year 498. But Nauclerus places his Election out of some other Author An. 492 Baronius and the Editors without Authority correct both these and place his entrance An. 496 The matter is not great and serves only to shew us the obscurity of the Popes in that Age whose Times are so differently related in History that we may be sure they were not made as now at Rome an Aera to reckon Councils and all other Church matters by The Author of the Pontifical who writ after the quarrel about Acacius was over saith hard things of this Pope viz. 1st That his Clergy rejected him because without any Council he communicated with Photinus a Deacon of Thessalonica a Man of Acacius party And 2ly because he would privately have restored Acacius For which also he saith by the Divine Judgment he was struck with death Now all this was allowed for truth by their own Writers before Baronius And both Ivo and Gratian received it for Authentic History and placed it in their collections But since the partial Cardinal writ not to discover truth but to disprove all that seemed to reflect on the Roman See Gratian is corrected in later Editions with a Note which contradicts the Text and the Editors Notes out of Baronius which extol the Pontifical to the Skies when it reports the greatest falshoods for the honour of Rome here say that Book is erroneous and faulty yea they charge them all to be Hereticks that spread these reports largely disputing that all this is false But in vain For 1st as to his allowing the name of Acacius to be restored in the Dypticks which is the meaning of voluit revocare Acacium in the Pontifical This is certainly true For the Emperor Justin expresly affirms this Pope did communicate with Acacius his party as the Notes own and they cannot disprove it but by falsifying an Epistle of Pope Symmachus and reading ego for nego as shall be shewed presently Nor is it any wonder that one Pope should approve what his Predecessors had condemned and if this be true Anastasius judged better than former Popes whose Eyes were dazeled so by Ambition that they could not see the Truth 2ly As to his communicating with Photinus without a Council the Notes finally do not deny it and it seems Foelix the Senator doubted not if Anastasius had lived to have engaged him to subscribe Zeno's Edict for Union so that he was likely enough to be moderate toward Acacius his party Only I do not think he would as the Notes pretend venture upon his single Authority to absolve Photinus if he had been condemned by a Council because in that Age the Popes did not exercise any such power 3dly As to his being strook with death by voiding his Bowels it might be true nor can I think as the Notes suggest that all the Authors above cited are mistaken and put the Pope for the Emperor who died by Thunder because the Deaths were very different And though Binius say it was about the same time that is very false for the Pope died An. 598 in the Emperor's Seventh Year But the Emperor lived near twenty year longer and died not till An. 517. So that those Historians must be very dull who could not distinguish two such different things happening to two Persons at so great a distance of time and place but took it for the same story Yet after all it may be this Pope died a natural death and that this slander of his dying by Gods Judgment might be the invention of the next Age after the Popes had got Acacius to be declared a Schismatick for then the Writers were to blacken all his Friends by such Fables as these And now that turn is served Baronius would wipe off the stain again meerly because Anastasius was a Bishop of Rome How probable this guess is I leave the Reader to judge There is but one Epistle of this Pope writ to the Emperor his
this Anthimius resigned and went off yet still was under the Emperors Protection Yet Agapetus by the favour of the Prince consecrated Mennas Patriarch of Constantinople and having designed Pelagius his Deacon to remain there as his Resident he prepared to return to Italy but dyed at Constantinople Most of that which is added to this is feigned by Anastastus and the later Writers except what another contemporary Cassiodorus writes of Agapetus that he was so poor that the Sacred Plate of St. Peters Church was forced to be Pawned for Mony to defray the Charges of this Embassy But Anastasius his Fictions about the Popes quarreling with Justinian about his Faith and the Emperors humbling himself and adoring the Pope afterwards have no truth at all in them No nor those Miracles which Binius notes and Baronius pretended this Pope did in his Journey for they have no other Evidence for them than those fabulous Legends Gregory's Dialogues and the Pratum Spirituale And no Writer of Credit or that lived in that Age knew of any such thing The fore-named Authors for the credit of the Roman Martyrology where Agapetus death is set down on the 12 of the Kal. of October will have that be the right day of his dying But I can hardly think he dyed so long before Mennas Council which was in May 536. and there he is spoken of as lately deceased I shall only note that Baronius blunders his own Account wofully by citing a Constitution of Justinian directed to Anthimius as still Bishop of Constantinople dated on the Ides of August 536 long after Agapetus death And upon this he Rails at Theodora and Justinian and 't is true the Law is so dated and titled in the Novels But there must be a fault either in the name of Anthimius put instead of Menna's or in the Consuls because the same Emperor directs another Constitution to Menna in the same Month and the same Year and some Copies read its date 17 Kal. of August 536. which is the 16 of July Wherefore the Annalist should be cautious how he makes Characters of Princes on the uncertain Credit of these Dates The Copy of Justinian's Letter to John the Second before stuffed with Forgeries and undated is here printed without the Additions and dated in January saith Binius in June saith Labbè An. 533. And it assures us John's confirmation before related is spurious because here it is offered again to be confirmed by Agapetus the day before the Ides of March An. 535. And this Popes Confirmation is dated at Constantinople four days after the Emperors Epistle But Anastasius faith The Pope came not to Constantinople till the 10 of the Kal. of May and Justinian's Letter supposes him then at Rome and if so how could the Pope receive and answer this Letter in four days time But if Agapetus were at Constantinople what need the Emperor write to him or date his Letter from that City So that I suspect the Confirmation to be a Forgery and Labbè himself notes These things are not coherent For which we have a good reason in Lactantius who saith Ea enim est mendaciorum natura ut cohaerere non possunt Yet Binius is so immodest as to stretch this seigned Confirmation to be a solemn confirming of all Justinian's Edicts and Constitutions in matters of Faith Whereas that Emperor sent the Constitutions to the Pope and other Patriarchs to be executed not to be confirmed he only advised with his Bishops about them but his own Authority was enough to ratifie them To this is subjoyned that nauseous Forgery called Exemplar precum which hath been printed by the Editors four or five times over with variety of Titles and here is ridiculously applied to Justinian The matter of Agapetus Second and Third Epistle to the African Bishops and Reparatus is not exceptionable for the Pope calls them his most loving Brothers and owns it was not agreeable to the Canons to receive Clerks from Africk without their Letter wherefore he would forbear it as they had enjoyned He confesses also the Rights of a Metropolitan to be in the Bishop of Carthage But there are some suspicions that they are not genuine for they say they were sent by Liberatus Now he had been at Rome a little before and can scarce be supposed to be got back to Afric and to return to Rome by the 5th of the Ides of September And which is worse as Labbè truly observes Liberatus himself who writes the Story of Agapetus speaks but of one Journey to Rome and says nothing of this second And besides 't is dated Post Cons Paulini which is wrong unless they call Bellisarius his year by that name which is An. 535. And then Agapetus was at Constantinople So that we may fear the Forgers who would have it thought all the World applied to Rome have been at work here However if the third Letter be genuine we learn from it that Agapetus came into the Papacy in Winter for it seems Reparatus had writ to Pope John but while his Messengers were staied by the Winter from Sailing he heard in Afric of Agapetus his Election Baronius here affirms that the Pope now sent Decretal Letters to be published in Africa which are not extant But I believe there never were any such Letters for his advice might be accepted there perhaps but his Decretals then had no Authority in that Church The Fourth Epistle to Justinian is very suspicious being dated with no Consuls as the rest use to be it mentions also the Popes sending Legates on the Ides of October which if it were An. 534. he was not then Pope if the next year Agapetus must then be at Constantinople or dead there the 12 of the Kal. of that Month if the Roman Martyrology be true Wherefore we need not be startled at that incredible passage That Justinian had elevated the Roman See by such Titles of Charity and Bounty as exceeded their desires and hopes For the Letter is not genuine And I dare say the Parasites will not urge this because they think 't is Justice not Charity and Right not human Bounty which gives Rome the highest Titles and we are of Opinion no Titles can exceed that Churches desires though they may its deserts Since Binius suspects the 5th Epistle as dated before Agapetus was Pope and Labbè saith many things prove it false and more than suspected of imposture as being stolen out of Hormisda's and Leo's Letters and naming Theodatus Consul who never bore that Office We may without more ado reject it only noting the Forger resolved right or wrong to make the Pope the Mawl of all Hereticks The two Epistles to Caesarius supposing them genuine are very frivolous the 6th being only to tell him that Ecclesiastical Goods must not be alienated Which he knew better than the Pope and Symmachus had writ this to him above 30 Year