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
Baronius owns that Hosius was Constantine's intimate Friend and his Legate into Egypt six years before and Socrates saith He was now again sent thither as the Emperor's Legate and no doubt if he did preside in this Council it was not as Sylvester's Legate whom no ancient Author records to have had any hand in this Council but as the Legate of Constantine After these two Councils is placed a Letter of this Emperors to Alexander and Arius taken out of Eusebius but is misplaced by the Editors since it is plain it was written in the beginning of the Controversie about Arius and not only before Constantine understood any thing of the matter but before these Councils at Alexandria But Baronius and the Editors place it here on purpose to Rail at Eusebius as if he put out an Arian Forgery whereas it is a great Truth and Constantine may well be supposed to write thus before he was rightly informed in the Case therefore those Gentlemen do not hurt Eusebius's Reputation but their own in accusing him so falsly upon the old Grudge of his not attesting their Forgeries devised and defended for the Honour of the Roman Church § 15. The Council of Laodicea though it do not appear any Pope knew of it till after it was Risen they resolve shall be held under some Pope the Title saith Under Sylvester Labbé's Margen saith Under Liberius An. 364 or 357 or Under Damasus 367 Whereas in truth it was under no Pope and being placed in the old Collections of Canons after those of Antioch and also mentioning the Photinians it must be held long after the Nicene Council But it was falsly placed before the Nicene Council by Baronius our Editor's main Guide to secure the Book of Judith by the Council of Nice's Authority And the Reasons given for this early placing it are very frivolous For first The softening of a Canon of Naeocaesarea is no certain Mark of time Secondly This Council rejects Judith out of the Canon of Scripture and so did the Council of Nice also for though S. Hierom when he had told us This Book is not of Authority sufficient to determine Controversies adds That the Nicene Synod is read to have computed it among Holy Writings S. Hierom only means They allowed it to be Read for Instruction but did not count it Canonical for doubtless he would not have rejected Judith if that Council had received it into the Canon And he saith elsewhere The Church indeed reads Judith Tobit and the Macchabees but receives them not among Canonical Scriptures and again A man may receive this Book as be pleaseth Herein therefore the Council of Laodicea doth not contradict the Council of Nice at all as these Notes falsly pretend Thirdly This Councels decreeing the same things which were decreed at Nice without naming it is no Argument it was held before that of Nice nothing being more ordinary than for later Councils to renew older Canons without citing the former Councils for them The Notes on the Second Canon at Laodicea which supposes Penitents to make their Confession by Prayer to God and mentions no Priest would willingly grast the use of their modern Sacramental Confession to a Priest upon this ancient Canon but it rather confutes than countenances that modern device Their labouring to expunge the Photinians out of the Seventh Canon since all the old Greek Copies have these words is meerly to justifie their false Date of this Council The Annotator on the Fifteenth Canon confesseth that S. Paul Commands all the People to joyn in the Hymns and that this Use continued to S. Hierom ' s time yet he owns their pretended Apostolical Church hath altered this Primitive Custom grounded on Holy Scripture and that for very frivolous Reasons But let it be observed That this Canon forbids not the People to bear a part in the Church Service but allows them not to begin or bring in any Hymns into the Public Service The Seventeenth Canon speaks of the Assemblies of the Faithful in two Latin Versions and the Greek is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet because the worst Latin Translation reads in Processionibus the Notes impertinently run out into a discourse of their Superstitious modern Processions for any thing serves them for an occasion to make their late Devices seem ancienter than they are The Thirty fourth Canon mentions and censures those who leaving the Martyrs of Christ go to false Martyrs And the Fifty first Canon mentions the Martyrs Feasts Upon which the Notes most falsly infer That the Martyrs were then adored with Religious Worship But this is only his Invention The Canon speaks not one word of Worshiping Martyrs but only whereas the Orthodox Christian Assemblies were generally in the Burial places of true Martyrs where they offered up Prayers to God Some it seems began to make separate Meetings in Places dedicated to False Martyrs and therefore the properest Note here would have been to have set out the Sin of Schism and the Pious Fraud as they call it of feigning false Martyrs of which their Church is highly guilty The Thirty fifth Canon expresly forbids leaving the Church of God and calling upon Angels which they say is an hidden kind of Idolatry and forsaking Christ the Son of God to go after Idolatry And Theodoret who lived soon after the true time of this Council saith Those who were for Moses ' s Law which was given by Angels brought in the Worship of them which Error reigned long in Phrygia and Pisidia and therefore the Councill of Laodicea in Phrygia did by a Law forbid the Praying to Angels Which Canon doth so evidently condemn the Roman Churches Prayers to the Angels as Idolatry that the former Editors of the Councils impudently corrupted the Text of this Canon and put in Angulos for Angelos as if the Council had only forbid Praying in private Corners whereas not only the Greek but the oldest Latin Copies and Theodoret have Angels But our Editors and Annotator having Baronius for their Guide venture to keep the true Reading Angels in the Text and put Angles into the Margen hoping by false Notes to ward off this severe Blow And first The Notes dare not produce the place of Theodoret at large then they strive to blunder the Reader with a distinction of Dulia and Latria which can signifie nothing here because the Canon and Theodoret both say It is Praying to Angels which is forbid and that the Romanists certainly do Again Baronius censures Theodoret for saying That such Heretics as were for Moses ' s Law brought in ANGEL-Worship But why doth he not censure S. Paul who saith That those who were Jewishly inclined and observed differences of Meats New-Moons and Sabbaths were the Inventers of Angel-Worship The Angelic-Heretics in Epiphanius and S. Augustine who came in afterwards did not as the Notes represent them say That Angels were to be worshiped with the
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
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
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
of their Rights and their Peace also Wherefore it is not probable that a Council should meet there at this time only to read an Epistle which was invented long after § 5. Upon the Death of Zosimus there were two Popes chosen Boniface and Eulalius and the Pontifical fairly tells us the Clergy were divided for seven Months and fifteen days and that both of them acted as Popes This Schism being notified to the Emperor by Symmachus the Prefect of the City he cites both the Pretenders to Ravenna and appoints divers Bishops to examine into the Cause but they not being able to agree whether had the better Title the Emperor defers the business till the Kalends of May and forbids both Parties to enter into Rome till a Council had met at Rome to determine this Controversie But Eulalius who before stood fairer of the two impatient of this delay contrary to the Emperors Command on the fifteenth of the Kalends of April goes into the City and causes great Factions there Upon which 250 Bishops met by the Emperors Order execute his Commands and declare Enlalius to be no Pope setting up Boniface Upon which passage I shall observe First That the Notes make but a vacancy of two days between Zosimus and Boniface and Baronius saith it was not vacant above one day Whereas it is plain from the Emperors Letters dated three or four Months after that neither of them was reckoned to be Pope and he writes to the African Bishops that he would have the Council meet by the Ides of June that the Papacy might be no longer void so that in truth the See was vacant till the Emperor had judged it on Boniface his side Baronius doth not like it should be said that the Emperor had any right to interpose in the Election of a Pope but Symmachus the Praefect of Rome saith expresly to Honorius it is your part to give judgment in this Matter and the Emperor did at first by his single Authority declare Eulalius to be rightly chosen But upon better information he revokes that Rescript and Commands that neither Party should have any advantage by what was past but all should be reserved intirely to his judgment And though he employed a Synod of Bishops to examine the Matter yet it appears in Baronius that the Emperors Edict was that which gave the Papacy to Boniface Which will appear more plainly by the first Epistle of Boniface and Honorius his Answer to it For after this Pope was in peaceable possession fearing the like mischief after his death which had hapned at his entrance he writes an humble Supplication to the Emperor to take care of this matter for the future And the Emperor writes back to Boniface declaring That if ever two should contend about the Papacy and be Ordained neither of them should be Pope but he who by a new Election should be taken out of the Clergy by the Emperors judgment and the Peoples consent This writing of the Popes among the Councils hath this Title The Supplication of Pope Boniface But Baronius thinking that too mean fraudulently leaves out the Title though the Humility of the Style sufficiently shews that the Pope believed that the Emperor was above him and whereas Boniface there calls the Church Our Mother as the Margin in Binius rightly reads it Baronius will have it to be your Mother and Labbè leaves out the Marginal and true Reading for it seems they think it below the Pope though not the Emperor to be a Son of the Church If the second Epistle of Boniface be genuine it shews that when Complaints were made to Rome out of the near adjoining Provinces the Popes even after they had given too much encouragement to Appeals were wont to refer the matters complained of to be examined and decided by the Bishops of those Provinces where the Fact was done But the Notes conclude from hence that the accusation of Bishops use to be referred to the Pope which is an universal Conclusion from Premises that will not bear it The third Epistle of Boniface contradicts all those which were writ before by Zosimus in favour of Patroclus Bishop of Arles for Boniface forbids Patroclus to exercise the Power granted him by the last Pope and decrees that Hilary Bishop of Narbon shall be Metropolitan and if he judged right then Zosimus judged wrong in this Cause For this Pope the Editors publish six Decrees one of which orders the differences among Bishops to be decided by the Metropolitan or however by the Primate of that Country from whose determination there was to be no Appeal The fourth Decree is certainly spurious because it not only forbids a Bishop to be brought before any Judge Civil or Military for any Crime but declares the Magistrate who presumes to do this shall lose his Girdle that is be put out of his Office Now doubtless it was not in the Popes power to give or take away Civil or Military Offices So that this hath been invented meerly by those who affected the Popes being supreme over Kings and Emperors and would have the Clergy exempt from all Secular Jurisdiction As to the Pelagian Controversie he writ nothing about it himself but we are told by Prosper that Boniface desired St. Augustine to answer the Books of the Pelagians and he shewed his Wisdom in putting the Cause into a better hand than his own We must now return to the business of the Legates sent into Africa by Pope Zosimus a little before his death who appeared in the sixth Council at Carthage not till the time of this Pope Boniface in order to justifie the Roman Churches Right to receive Appeals from all Churches The Title indeed falsly saith this Council was held about the manner of prosecuting Appeals but it is plain that the African Fathers questioned the right of appealing and had condemned before all Appeals to any Church beyond the Seas In this Council the Popes Legates produce a Canon which they say was made at Nice importing That if a Bishop were condemned in his own Country and appealed to Rome the Pope might write to the neighbouring Bishops to enquire again into the matter and decide it but if all this did not satisfie the Complainant the Pope might either send his Legates with his Authority to judge it there with the Bishops or leave it finally to those of that Country as he pleased Now this Canon was no sooner read but Alypius one of the African Bishops declared he could not find any such Canon in the Greek Copies of the Nicene Council and desired Aurelius who presided in the Council though the Popes Legates were there to send to the three other most famous Patriarchal Churches of Constantinople Alexandria and Antioch to search their Copies of the Nicene Council and that the Pope might be desired to send some thither also at the same time which
motion was so fair and so certain a way to find out the truth that the Legates yielded to it as they did also to have another Canon examined whether it were in the Nicene Council or no about the Appeals of the lower Clergy After which they resolve to annex a genuine Transcript of the Nicene Creed and Canons to the Acts of their Synod which concluded with a Letter to Boniface which the Editors had no mind to publish in this place but give it us elsewhere The Sum of it is they tell their honourable Brother that hearing he was in Zosimus place they had writ to him about Apiarius who had now confessed his Faults before them and begged pardon and was removed from officiating in his old Church but allowed to keep his Degree Then for the two Canons pretended to be made at Nice they say they had inserted them in their Acts till the true Copies of the Nicene Council came but if they were not found there they would not be compelled to endure such things as they had no mind to mention nor to suffer such intollerable burdens but they hoped while he was Pope they should not be used with such Insolence or Pride but that they should be dealt with by brotherly Charity adding that they had sent a Copy of their Acts by two of his Legates who might make them known to his Holiness This is the true though brief account of this Famous Council wherein the Roman Church was discovered to aim at Superiority and a usurped Jurisdiction and to practise it to the prejudice of the Faith and the Rights of other Churches Moreover it was here discovered that Rome to cover this injustice and irregularity had corrupted the Canons of the most famous of all Geneneral Councils and cited such Canons out of it as never were made there And now to wipe off this scandal Binius and Baronius stickle vehemently and try all their Art to get St. Peter's Ship off from these Rocks The former publishes long Notes the latter falls from writing History to dispute But all in vain for Binius after he hath falsly told us that it was the Antient Custom for Bishops and Priests to appeal to Rome and for the Africans to desire their Sentences to be confirmed by the Pope Confesses that the Popes Legates cited the Canons of Sardica under the name of those of Nice and that they were not to be found in the Originals of the Council of Nice kept in the other Patriarchal Sees But then he pretends the African Bishops did not as we do charge Zosimus with fraud and forgery I answer that how modestly soever they might speak of this Fact it really was a notorius Imposture and it was sufficient that they proved it to be so and writ plainly to both Boniface and Celestine as the Letters yet extant shew that they would never endure that usurped Power any more which the Popes by virtue of these feigned Canons had exercised And if rejecting Appeals to Rome be making a Schism 't is certain the Africans did not suffer them so long as the face of a Church remained there so that probably that Epistle of Boniface the second writ to Eulalius near an hundred years after may be true and had not been censured by Baronius and Binius but only because it supposes a Church might have Martyrs in it and be a true Church though it utterly disowned all subordination to Rome And I am sure they justifie many Epistles that are less probable if they make for the interest of the Pope Against this Baronius and the Notes Object that there was an Appeal made by an African Bishop of Fussala who for notorious Crimes was put out of his See by St. Augustine and others and it seems Boniface and Celestine both allowed this Appeal and heard his Cause and this these Flatterers of Rome think hapned at this time by the Providence of God But let it be considered that for so notorious a Criminal as this Bishop to appeal at this time is neither any credit to the Pope nor any proof that there were no African Canons at this time to prohibit it for it is likely enough that an ill Man who had no means to shelter himself from the Justice of his own Country but by appealing to those Popes who at that time pretended a Right to receive such Complaints would use that means of Appeal even though it were condemned in Africa So that his appealing doth not prove it was lawful nor that it was not forbid there Besides though St. Augustine writ modestly yet he intimates no more but that some such Sentences as he had passed on this Bishop of Fussala had been passed or approved by the Popes which only prove in Fact that some African Bishops had before this time appealed but he doth not say it was right yea we see the Councils in which he was present condemning it as an usurpation and great injustice ex malis moribus bonae Leges The thing had been practised till the Popes fostering Hereticks and lewd convicted Criminals opened the Eyes of the African Church and made them prohibit them and claim their antient Rights Again upon St. Augustine's Letter it appears the Pope did not proceed to restore this Bishop and it seems when former Popes had taken upon them to restore ejected Bishops they were forced to do it by strong hand even by sending Clerks with Soldiers to execute the Sentence which shews their Authority was not submitted to in Africa And the Bishops in their Letter to Celestinâ— boldly charge him never to send any such again for if they should submit to such proceedings they should be guilty of bringing Secular Violence into the Church of God The Notes go on to charge us Protestants for ignorantly and treacherously insulting over Zosimus as one that attempted to steal a Power to receive Appeals from Africa Whereas the African Bishops themselves prove the Fact And in the second Part I have produced a very antient Scholion which expresly censures these Popes for Imposture as well as Usurpation and I now add that Zonaras above 400 year before the Reformation saith in his Notes upon the Sardican Council That the Bishops of Old Rome from this Canon boasted a right to Appeals from Bishops in all Causes and falsly said it was made in the first Council of Nice which being propounded in the Council of Carthage was found not to be true as the Preface to that Council shows So that neither was this Canon made at Nice nor doth it decree that Appeals shall be made to him from all Bishops but only from those who were subject to him which at that time were almost all those of the West that is Macedon Thessaly Illiricum Greece Peloponesus and Epirus which afterwards were subjected to the Church of Constantinople so that Appeals from thence were to be made to that Patriarch for the future Wherefore we are not
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
be determined in that Province where it arose knowing that the Spirit of God would not be wanting to any Country where a Council of Bishops should meet so that none need fear to be injured since they might appeal to a greater Council of their own Province or to a Universal Synod Whereas if Judgment were to be given beyond the Seas many Witnesses must be wanting and many other things must hinder the finding out of truth They add That they could not find any Council which allowed his Holiness to send any Legates to hear Causes and for those Canons which Faustinus had produced as made at Nice they could find no such Canons in the Authentick Copies of that Council Finally They bid him not send any of his Clerks to execute his Sentence to which if they should submit they should seem to bring the vanity of Secular Arrogance into God's Church This is the Sum of this excellent Letter which disowns and condemns all Appeals and renounces the Popes jurisdiction over Africa with a modest intimation that his claim was grounded upon a notorious Forgery and therefore he is required to pretend to it no longer for that they will not submit to such an Usurpation Yet such is the Impudence of the Roman Editors that in a Marginal Note upon this Epistle they say these African Bishops desire the Pope to appoint another way of prosecuting Appeals Which is a gross contradicting the Text it self wherein all manner of Appeals and all ways of prosecuting them are utterly condemned but this was too harsh and therefore the Truth was to be daubed over with this plausible Fiction After this Binius presents us with another Edition of these African Canons and Epistles in Latin and Greek And Labbè newly publishes the Epistle of one Leporius who had been converted from Heresie and reconciled to the Church by the African Bishops by which we may learn that a Heretick need not go to Rome to recant as the Notes formerly affirmed There is nothing further observable before the Council of Ephesus except two Councils one at Rome wherein the Pope is said to make Cyril his Legate in the Cause of Nestorius the other at Alexandria in which Cyril is pretended to Act by this delegated power But this will be more properly considered in the History of that General Council where these Epistles are printed at large CHAP. II. Of the time from the Council of Ephesus till the Council of Chalcedon § 1. IN this Year was held the Third General Council at Ephesus upon the account of Nestorius who about three years before had been made Bishop of Constantinople and was at first believed to be both Pious and Orthodox but he had not sat long in that See before he began to publish certain Doctrines about our Saviour which gave great offence for he taught that Jesus Christ was two Persons one as the Son of God another as the Son of Man and therefore he denied the Blessed Virgin to be the Mother of God holding that the Person which was born of her was no more than a Meer Man Which Opinions not only made a Faction at Constantinople but caused Divisions among the Egyptian Monks whereupon St. Cyril first writ a Confutation of them to those Monks and then with great modesty admonished Nestorius of these Errors by divers Letters but he despised his Admonition justified the Doctrines and persecuted those who would not own them being supported by his Interest in the Imperial Court. Upon this Cyril called in Pope Celestine to his assistance sending him an account of what he had writ to Nestorius On the other side Nestorius also writ to Celestrine and sent his Sermons in which these Doctrines were contained for him to peruse The Pope by the advice of such Western Bishops as he could then get together takes the part of Cyril and offered him to join with him in condemning Nestorius if he did not recant But the Authority of these two Patriarchs of Rome and Alexandria not sufficing to condemn a Patriarch of Constantinople it was thought fit to desire the Emperor to call a General Council at Ephesus where Nestorius might appear and his Opinions be examined and the Emperor at length did agree to this Request Now that which we are to observe concerning this General Council shall be under these Heads First To enquire by whom it was called and convened Secondly Who presided in it Thirdly What is memorable in the Acts of it Fourthly Who confirmed the Decrees there made As to the first the Historical Preface before this Council labours to persuade us That Celestine commanded the Council to be called and the Notes after it say it was appointed by the Authority of Gelestine and gathered together by the counsel aid and assistance of Theodosius the Emperor The Cardinal goes further and saith Theodosius called it by the Authority of Celestine but when this is to be proved both the Notes and Baronius are content to make out that this Council was not called without the Popes consent which may be proved concerning every Orthodox Bishop that was there and so gives no peculiar advantage to the Bishop of Rome But as to the Convening it by his Authority nothing can be more false For by the Emperors first Letter to Cyril it appears that some then thought to order Matters of Religion by Power rather than by consulting in common in which words he reflects upon Pope Celestine and Cyril who thought by the Authority of their Private Synods at Rome and Alexandria to have condemned Nestorius who was a Patriarch as well as they and therefore the Emperor rightly considered that he could not be tried but by a General Council So that it seems Celestine at first had no mind such a Council should be called nor Cyril neither but when they saw their Authority was insufficient then Cyril put the Monks of Constantinople upon petitioning the Emperor to command a General Council to meet very speedily as their words are and the same Cyril put Juvenalis Bishop of Jerusalem upon writing to the Emperor for the same purpose Now why should not these Applications have been made to the Pope if the Council were to be called by his Authority Besides if Celestine had called it his Letter of Summons would appear but though none ever saw that the Emperors Edict is yet extant wherein he fixes the day and place for the Council to meet enjoyns Cyril with the Bishops of his Province to be there at that time and tells him he had writ to all other Metropolitans probably to Celestine among the rest to attend the Synod and not to meddle with this Matter till the meeting of this General Assembly from which whoever absented himself should not be excused Which is as full a proof that the Emperor called it by his Authority as is possible to be made and we need add nothing to it but this that
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
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
by the Judgment of Peter The same Notes a little after tell us That this Council committed the care of the Circumcised Converts to Peter which was a poor Preferment for that Apostle if Christ had made him Supreme Head and committed to him long before the Care of the whole Catholic Church To these Passages of Holy Scripture the Editors have tacked a sabulous Story of the Assumption of the Virgin Mary but they do not Cite one genuine Ancient Author to prove it That Book which bears the Title of Dionysius Areopagitus being invented many Ages after as Learned men on all sides now agree § 2. That Ancient Collection of Canons which were decreed by the Apostolical Men in divers Synods held during the Times of Persecution is published by these Editors under the Title of The Canons of the Holy Apostles and their Notes affirm They were made by the Authority of the Apostles yet they are not agreed either about their Number or Authority They print LXXXIV Canons but the Notes say only the first Fifty of them are Authentic but the rest may and ought also to be received since they contain nothing Two of them excepted viz. the 65th and 84th Canons which contradict the Roman Church but what is approved by some Popes Councils and Fathers Now if as they say the Apostles made them their Church hath been very negligent to lose the certain Account of their number and it is not very modest to pretend to try the Apostles Decrees by Popes Councils and Fathers yet it is plain they make no distinction between the first Fifty and the following Thirty four rejecting all that oppose their present Doctrine and Practice as may be seen in these Instances The Sixth Canon forbids a Bishop Priest or Deacon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to put away or be divorced from his Wife on pretence of Religion The Notes pervert the Sense of this Canon as if it only forbid Clergy Men to cast off the care of providing for their Wives and prove this Sense by a false Title which Dionysius Exiguus put to this Canon in his Version many Centuries after and by an Epistle of Pope Clement the First which all Men own now to be spurious and by an Epistle of Pope Gregory who lived in the Year 600 as if the Sense of Dionysius and Pope Gregory when Single life was superstitiously pressed upon the Clergy were good proof that Clergy Men did not live with their Wives many Ages before that superstitious Opinion was heard of 'T is certain the Greek Clergy are Married and cohabit with their Wives according to this Apostolical Canon and the Fifteenth Canon of the Sixth General Council And it is not unpleasant to observe That these Notes cite the Second Council of Nice to prove there were no Canons made in the Sixth General Council yet that very Nicene Council often Quotes and highly approves the 82d Canon of the Sixth General Council as giving some Countenance to their Image-Worship So that their wresting this Canon Apostolical from its genuine meaning upon such slight and false Evidence is in effect rejecting it The Ninth Canon orders All the Clergy and Laity who are in the Church to Receive the Sacrament unless they have a just Excuse But the Roman Church allows the People generally to stand by and look on and therefore though this be one of the Authentic Canons before said by them to be made by the Apostles after some shuffling to restrain it contrary to the very words of the Canon only to the Clergy The Notes say This whole Decree was made only by Human not by Divine Authority and is now abrogated by a contrary Custom So that if a Canon of the Apostles themselves contradict a Corrupt practice of their Church it must be abrogated and rejected The 17th Canon saith He that keeps a Concubine shall not be in any Order of the Clergy The Notes cite some of their Doctors who affirm That this Crime doth not make a Clerk irregular and that this Canon is now revoked The Annotator himself is of Opinion It is only public keeping a Concubine by reason of the Infamy which makes a Clergy-mans Orders void Wherefore such Sinners have now more favourable Casuists at Rome than the Apostles or Apostolical Men were The 65th Canon though it have as good Evidence for it as any of the rest is rejected by the Notes because it forbids Men to fast on Saturday which is now a Fasting-day at Rome The Notes say No Father mentions this Canon but presently own That Ignatius Clemens Romanus the Canons of the Sixth General Council Gregory Nyssen and Anastasius Nicaenus to which we add Tertullian do all speak of Saturday as a Day on which Fasting was forbid The Notes confess also That the eastern-Eastern-Church and the Church of Milan in S. Ambrose time allowed not Fasting upon Saturday yet after all they will not grant this Canon to be genuine only because it is very unlikely that the Church of Rome should contradict a Canon of the Apostles whereas we have already seen it makes no scruple to contradict them if they agree not with their practice The Notes indeed say but without any proof That Rome received the Saturday Fast from Peter and Paul yet they grant soon after That after the Heresie of Marcion was extinct the Roman Church did not only lawfully but piously Fast on Saturday So that this was a private Custom of the Roman Church in which it differed from all other Churches and they know not when it began nor who it came from yet for such a Customs sake they reject an Apostolical Canon The 69th Canon expresly enjoyns the Wednesday Fast and the Notes say That many Fathers mention it as of ancient Institution yea these Notes affirm It was certainly a Fast of the Apostles instituting being observed by the whole Church and not appointed by any Council but spoken of by Authors of greatest Antiquity Well then I hope the Roman Church whose Customs are all said to be Apostolical do keep this Wednesday Fast They tell you No This Wednesday Fast in their Church is changed into the Saturday Fast And so farewel to this Canon also Lastly the 84th Canon gives us a Canon of Scripture which doth not agree with the Trent Canon for it rejects Ecclesiasticus from being Canonical and mentions not Wisdom Tobit Judith nor in Old Copies the Book of Machabees which the Roman Church now say are Canonical Scripture And this is the true reason why the Notes reject this Canon They alledge indeed some other frivilous reasons such as the leaving out the Revelations and putting in Clements Constitutions But it seems very probable to me that it was not the Greeks as the Notes suggest but that Impostor who gave these Canons a false Title and called them the Apostles Canons which for carrying on his Pious Fraud left out the Revelations being not written
Presidents of it Yet not only Leo the Fourth but the famous Council of Nice approved of this Synod called and carried on without the Pope ' s knowledge or leave There is but one Canon in this Council which contradicts the Roman practice viz. The Ninth which allows Deacons to Marry and continue in their Office if they declared at their Ordination that they could not live Single This Canon therefore Baronius and Binius strive to corrupt with false Glosses The former saith We may by this Canon see how firmly Ministers single Life was asserted not only in the whole Catholick Church but in the East Now it is very strange that a private Canon of a Provincial Council which allows one Order of Ministers to Marry should shew it was the Opinion of the whole Church that none might Marry The latter in his Notes affirms That this among other Canons solidly proves that not only Priests but Deacons by the Apostolical Law were bound to Live without Wives But the Apostles certainly allowed Deacons to have Wives and this Canon was made on purpose that they might live with their Wives if they pleased The Notes proceed to say That Deacons ordained against their Will and protesting they could not contain were by these Fathers permitted to Marry after their Ordination provided they left off all Sacred Administrations and did not Communicate among the Priests in the Chancel but among the People Which is an impudent falsification There being no word of being Ordained unwillingly nor any reason why they should be Ordained who were to be reduced presently to Lay-communion Yea the Words of the Canon are express that if they did Marry they should continue in their Ministration So that these Editors make no Conscience to make these ancient Records to contradict themselves rather then let them seem to oppose their Churches present practice For which vile purpose there is another trick in the Notes on this Council For whereas the Eighteenth Canon speaks of Lay-persons which Vowed single Life as many had done in times of Persecution and afterwards broke their Vow that these were to be counted Bigamists The Notes on this Canon put these Words of the Thirteenth Canon Those who are of the Clergy c. Before their observation on the Eighteenth Canon on purpose to make the Reader think the Clergy in those days Vowed single Life as they do now at Rome § 13. The Council of Naeccaesarea according to these Editors was under Sylvester who is not once named in it nor doth it appear he knew of it They might also have left out Leo the Fourth's approving it Five hundred years after because the Notes say The Council of Nice allowed it which is much more for its Credit The same Notes say The first Canon orders the same thing which was decreed in the Thirty third Canon at Elliberis and the Ninth at Ancyra And if so that is not as they falsly gloss the Canon of Ancyra That the Clergy should live Single or be reduced to Lay Communion For in that Canon some of the Clergy are allowed to Marry and to continue to minister as Clergy-men still And the true Sense of this Naeocaesarean Canon is That whereas in times of Persecution when Marriage was inconvenient many Priests promised to live Single Now these only were not allowed to Marry afterward but when the Church had Peace the Nicene Council left all Clergy-men free to Marry or not as they pleased which shews That when the Reason of this Canon ceased they believed its Obligation did so also The Fifth Canon forbids a Catechumen who falls into Sin to enter into the Church By which the Notes say That Baronius had sharply censured Eusebius But it is plain that Baronius shews more Malice than Wit in that Censure Eusebius only relates Matter of Fact That Constantine was present in the Nicene Council and he with all ancient Authors agrees That Constantine was yet a Catechumen where then is the Crime Do not Baronius and Binius both agree that Constantine was present in the Council of Arles Ten years before his pretended Baptism at Rome And if it be said This Canon forbid it I ask Whether it be probable that an Emperor who as Baronius saith was Solutus Legibus Above the Civil Law should be proceeded against by a Canon of a small Provincial Council Wherefore Eusebius his only Crime is That he tells a Truth which happens to contradict the Lying Acts of Sylvester and consequently the Interest of Rome for which the Cardinal and Annotator can never forgive him The next place is assigned to a Roman Council under Sylvester wherein there was a famous Disputation between the Jews and Christians before Constantine and Helena but in the Notes we are told the Story is utterly false only attested by Sylvester's Acts which Swarm with Lies as they are now extant yet out of these Acts as now extant is the Forgery of Constantine's Baptism at Rome taken and therefore Baronius and Binius reject this Council as a meer Forgery But why do they not reject Constantine's Baptism as well as this Council since both rely on the same Author The Reason is plain That makes for the Interest of the Pope and This no way concerns and so it may pass for a Forgery as it is § 14. On occasion of Arius's Heresie now breaking out at Alexandria there was a Council of an Hundred Bishops called by Alexander Bishop of that City to Condemn him which first Council of Alexandria the Editors say was under Sylvester but it doth not appear that this Pope knew of it till Three years after An. 318 at which time Alexander gave notice of this Council not to Sylvester by name as the Notes falsly suggest but to all Catholic Bishops and in particular to the Bishop of Constantinople But for fear the Reader should observe That more respect was shewed to that Bishop than to the Pope the Editors have removed these Epistles of Alexander into the Body of the Nicene Council and only give us Notes upon them here in which the Annotator out of Baronius turns the Charge of Lying and Forgery of which themselves have been so often convicted upon us whom they falsly call Innovators Four years after followed a Second Council at Alexandria which the Notes hope to prove was under Sylvester because Athanasius saith This was a General Council and saith Hosins was there Upon this Baronius fancying nothing could be a General Council unless the Pope were present Personally or by his Legates conjectures Hosius was the Pope's Legate and in that capacity presided in this Council And the Notes positively affirm this Dream for a certain Truth But Athanasius calls many Synods General which were only Provincial and it is plain he had not the modern Roman Notion of a General Council because he never mentions Sylvester nor doth he say Hosius was his Legate But even
Worship due to God alone Only as the Romanists now are so they were inclined to Worship Angels that is by Praying to them However we Protestants say with Theodoret We neither give them Divine Worship nor divide the Service due to the Divine Majesty between them and the true God And when the Romanists can say this honestly and leave off Praying to them we will not tax them with this Canon Baronius hath one Device more viz. That the Angels which this Council says must not be Worshiped were not good Angels but Devils and the Genii adored by the Pagans For saith he the former Canon receives the Worship of the true Martyrs and rejects that of false Martyrs To which I Answer first It is false as was shewed that the former Canon receives the Worship of any Martyrs true or false Secondly Why doth not this Canon call these Pseudo-Angels as the former called those it rejected Pseudo-Martyrs if the Prohibitions were of the same kind Did ever any Christian call Devils Angels without some addition as Evil Angels Apostate Angels c Besides in that Age when this Council was held according to Baronius the worship of Daemons and the Tutelar Spirits was public not secret Idolatry so that it is manifest this Canon speaks not to Pagans but Heretical Christians And Theodoret shews That it was those Angels who gave the Law of Moses which were hereby forbid to be Prayed to and I hope neither Binius nor his Master will say these were Devils Wherefore this Canon plainly saith Praying to good Angels as They of Rome now do is Idolatry To conclude The Sixtieth Canon of this Council is the most ancient Account of the Canon of Scripture that ever was made by any Christian Synod being the same which the Church of England holds at this day for it leaves out all those Books of Judith Tobit Wisdom c. which we account not to be Canonical but our Annotator finding so Primitive a Council contradicting their new Trent Canon and not being able to reconcile the difference passeth this remarkable Canon by without any Note § 16. The reproachful Obscurity of Sylvester in this time of Action in all other Christian Churches puts the Editors upon giving us an heap of Forgeries together to colour over the Pope's doing nothing Remarkable for Nine or Ten years First We have an Epistle of the Primitive Church and Constantine's Munificence But Gratian and the former Editors of Councils cited this as a Decretal Epistle of Melchiades to prove the Pope's Supremacy c. whereas the Forgery is so gross that our Annotator affirms it to be a Fiction of Isidore Mercator's patched up of Fragments stollen out of the History of the Nicene Council the Council of Chalcedon and S. Gregory's 24th Epistle and wofully Mis-timed Yet being used to cite such Forgeries after this Confession he will not let it go without making some use of it for he Notes that what is said here of Constantine ' s Donations to Melchiades and Sylvester is very true and may be firmly proved by Optatus Milevitanus Very strange Optatus mentions no Donation of Constantine to either of these Popes Vid. supr § 6. and therefore the Reader may note That false and weak Inferences or Quotations from manifest Forgeries are Firm Proofs with Baronius and Binius when they make for the Roman Interest but the best Canons of the most genuine Councils are of no value when they make against it After this follows that odious Forgery called Constantine's Donation wherein he is pretended to make over to the Pope the whole City of Rome and all the Western Empire with all kind of Ensigns of Imperial Majesty and all manner of Jurisdiction which Ridiculous Fiction Nauclerus saith Antoninus rejected in his Chronicle because it is not extant in any ancient Author but only in the Decretals But our Editors print it without any Note of its being false yea with Notes upon it to prove it either true or very probable And Baronius introduces it with many Stories to make all that concerns the Popes temporal Greatness credible to an easie Reader yet at last to secure their Retreat from so indefensible a Post He and the Annotator make it a Fiction of the poor Greeks I shall therefore First prove it a Forgery and Secondly make it out That not the Greeks but the Pope's Creatures devised it First That it is a Fiction appears from divers Arguments For First who can believe Constantine so unjust first to give Rome and the Western Empire to the Pope and then to one of his Sons Or who can think the Pope so tame never to put in his Claim Secondly This Edict is grounded on the idle Story of Constantine's Baptisin by Sylvester which out of Sylvester's Fabulous Acts is related at large in it but those Acts being as was shewed a meer Forgery this Edict must be so also Thirdly It represents Constantine who was born and brought up under Christian Parents and had setled Christianity before this as a meer Heathen till he met with Sylvester at this time Fourthly It pretends the whole Senate and all the Nobles joyned with the Emperor to give the Pope this Power But besides the folly of Constantine's delegating more Power than ever he himself had it is most false to suppose That the whole Senate at this time were Christians for many of them continued Pagans long after Constantine's Death Baronius indeed out of Sylvester's Acts affirms That none of the Senate was converted before the Year 324 Forgetting that he had told us Divers Senators had given up their Names to Christ Twelve years before and that one or both of the Consuls were Christians two years before this So ill a Memory had the great Cardinal when his Cause obliged him to defend a Lye Fifthly It speaks of the Emperor's intending to build a City and call it by his own Name in the Province of Bizantium and his Resolution to transfer his Empire thither and yet before this the Edict had reckoned up Constantinople by name and Hierusalem as two of the Five Patriarchates and given Rome Jurisdiction over all the other Four Lastly It is Dated in the Fourth Consulship of Constantine with Gallicanus whereas Licinius was his Collegue in his Fourth Consulship which was in the Year of Christ 315 that is Nine years before the time fixed by Baronius for this pretended Baptism and that clearly shews the Story to be all Sham as all modest and learned Men of the Roman Church do now acknowledge But Baronius and our Annotator considering not barely the falshood of this Edict for that alone would not discourage them but observing also that it destroys the pretended Divine Right of the Pope's Supremacy grant it at last to be a Forgery but say It was devised by the Greeks Secondly Therefore I shall shew the Falshood of that Accusation For First they charge Balsamon with publishing it Now he
of Jerusalem Bishop of Constantinople Yet our Annotator cites Dionysius Exiguus for a Witness of these Epistles whereas Richerius shews they were Forged by some Ignorant Monk long after Dionysius his time who mentions not the Pope ' s confirming of these Canons nor doth he remember these Epistles but only saith it was agreed these Canons should be sent to Sylvester Bishop of Rome The Notes further urge a Roman Council under Pope Sylvester to prove his Confirming these Canons but that Council is a confessed Forgery it self and so proves nothing Lastly The Annotator here and almost every where cites Socrates his speaking of an Ecclesiastical Canon that no Decrees of Councils should be valid without the consent of the Roman Bishop But First Consent is not Confirmation It is the priviledge of every Patriarch as well as of him of Rome That a General Council cannot be held without every one of their consents but this proves not their pretended sole and supreme Power of ratifying all Councils vested in the Pope Besides Socrates here only Historically relates what Pope Julius said in his own Case and therefore the Testimony relies on Julius his Credit and indeed that was a peculiar Case wherein when the Cause of Athanasius was referred by consent of all parties to Julius as Arbitrator the Arians took it out of his Hands against Athanasius his Mind and judged it in a Council to which Julius was not at all summoned which doubtless was very illegal and unjust But yet none can tell where this Ecclesiastical Canon was made which the angry and injured Pope here cites and therefore till it appear whence Julius had this Canon we must be excused if we give no great Deference to it and unless they cou'd prove it was Recorded before the Nicene Council it is very impertinent to expect the Nicene Fathers should Govern their Actions by it So that we conclude not Sylvester but Constantine confirmed this Council Fourthly As to the number of the Canons the Annotator also notoriously prevaricates He confesses that all the Greeks and particularly Theodoret and Ruffinus assert there were but Twenty Canons made there yea that the Sixth Council of Carthage within less than an Hundred years after a diligent search in the three Patriarchal Seats of Alexandria Antioch and Constantinople could find no more than Twenty Canons But the Notes conceal Gratian's naming no more but Twenty Canons and his saying there are but only Twenty Nicene Canons to be found in the Roman Church For all this the Annotator boldly tells us That the truer Opinion or rather that which is most for the Popes interest is that more than Twenty Canons were made there But we will examine his and Baronius's reasons First They say there is no Decree about Easter among the Twenty Canons I reply There is a genuine Epistle of Constantine's in which this matter is determined with the reasons for it which is better than a bare Law without Arguments in a case which had been so much disputed nor could they make any acurate Canon about it till the exact time was Calculated which they referred not to the Pope but to the Bishop of Alexandria Secondly The Notes say S. Ambrose mentions a Canon made at Nice against Bigamists but Baronius himself confesseth that S. Ambrose only saith They treated of this matter but doth not affirm they made a Canon about it Thirdly They plead there was a Decree about the Canon of Scripture made at Nice which is not among these Twenty because S. Hierom saith he had Read that the Nicene Fathers computed Judith among the Books of Holy Scripture I reply S. Hierom only saith they computed it among Holy Writings that is as we shewed before § 15. among Books to be Read for instruction not to be quoted in Dispute For if S. Hierom had believed this Council did receive Judith for Canonical he would not have counted it as he doth to be Apocryphal So that this proves not that there were more Canons Fourthly The Notes affirm there is no Canon now extant here against a Bishops choosing his Successor in his Life time which S. Augustine saith was forbid in this Council which is a gross Untruth since the Eighth Canon forbids two Bishops should be in one City and the Notes own this was the very Canon meant by S. Augustine in the next Leaf Liers should have better Memories Fifthly They say the third Council of Carthage cites a Canon of Nice forbidding to receive the Sacrament after Dinner but if the place be considered as Richerius notes that Council only refers to a former African Synod which had decreed this and not to the Council of Nice Sixthly The Annotator speaks of a Canon about Appeals to Rome cited out of this Synod in the Sixth Council of Carthage but he was wiser than to tell us who cited this for a Nicene Canon for it was Pope Zosimus's Legate cited it and he was convicted of a notorious Falsification therein as shall be shewed in due place Seventhly He saith there was a Canon made at Nice but not to be found among the Twenty that a Cause tried in a lesser Synod might be judged over again in a greater and for this he cites the Fourth Epistle of Julius but in his Notes on that Epistle he confesseth this was no Canon made at Nice but only it was matter of Fact in that this great Synod did judge Arius over again who had before been judged at Alexandria Eightly The Notes say Atticus Bishop of Constantinople at Chalcedon did affirm that the Nicene Council agreed upon a Form of writing Communicatory Epistles which is not among these Twenty Canons I reply Baronius and he both own this Form was to be a Secret among the Bishops and if it had been put into a Canon Heretics might easily have counterfeited these Forms and so the design had been spoiled Lastly the Annotator cites Sozomen to proves that the Nicene Council added to the Gloria Patri the later part As it was in the beginning c. Whereas Sozomen in that place only speaks of such as praised God in Hymns agreeing to the Faith delivered at Nice but mentions no Canon or Form of words agreed on at Nice about these Hymns So that after all this shuffling it is very impertinent for this Annotator to brag that it is manifest there were more than Twenty Canons made in this Council and Nonsense to tell us that the Greeks who stifly maintain there were but Twenty Canons cannot deny but there were more than Twenty And for all his Confidence neither he nor Baronius dare defend those Eighty Canons which Turrian hath fathered on this Council and therefore whatever is more than these twenty or differing from them must pass among the many Forgeries of the Roman Church Fifthly As to the Sense of those Canons which oppose the Pope's Interest the Notes use many Impostures in expounding
his Answer to them both which in the next Column he owns are false and feigned And thus where the Supremacy is concern'd one Forgery serves for the Evidence of another The Council at Gangra is genuine and was an uncorrupted Remain of Primitive Antiquity till it fell into the hands of these Editors who have put the name of Osius Bishop of Corduba into the Title in their Latin Version and though that Name be not found in the Original Greek printed over against it yet from this Fiction of their own the Notes impudently say That this Synod was Convened by Sylvester ' s Authority and from Osius his presence in it Binius certainly gathers it was celebrated under this Pope but a little after he knows not in what year it was held and Baronius treats of this Council Anno 361 that is near 30 years after Sylvester's Death They tell us that Pope Symmachus in his 6th Roman Council approves this Synod but he mentions not Osius however Baronius guesses that the reason why Symmachus approved it was because Osius the Legate of the Apostolic See was there which groundless Conjecture and false Assertion Binius in his Notes turns into a positive Affirmation viz. That Osius was there as the Pope's Legate As to the occasion of calling this Council of Gangra it was to condemn one Eustathius whom Binius owns to have been a great Favourer of Monkish life and Sozomen saith he was a Monk yea the Synodical Epistle describes him as one who despised Marriage allowed not the administrations of Married Priests who had a separate way of Worship and a different garb from others making his Followers to abstain from Flesh profess Continency and renounce Propriety all which are the very Characters of a Monk of the Roman stamp and therefore it is wonder that Binius should give Sozomen and himself the Lye and say he was no propagator of Monkery and that it cannot be proved that he was a Monk yet at last he fancies Eustathius his Name was mistaken for Eutachus an Armenian Monk All which Blunders are only designed to keep the Reader from observing that a Monk was condemned for an Heretic yea and censured for holding those very Opinions which now pass currant among the Romish Fryers For which end also in his Notes on the 4th Canon he saith The Heretics that is Protestants foolishly apply this Canon to condemn the Celibacy of the Clergy whereas he saith it doth not concern Priests who have Wives but such as had Wives But I doubt it will prove the Romanists are the Heretics here For both this Canon and the Synodical Epistle have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signisies a Priest who now hath a Wife even as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Cor. vii 10. is those that have Wives and are actually married and so the best Version of this Canon is Presbyterum Conjugatum For by it all those are Anathematiz'd who affirm That men should not Communicate if a Married Priest say the Office That is this Primitive Council Anathematizes the Modern Church of Rome to hide the shame of which just Censure the Notes quarrel with Our preferring the Translation of their Friend Dionysius who turns the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ministrante before those Versions which turn it by Sacrificante as if Protestants did this out of a design to blot out the Memorial of the unbloody Sacrifice whereas that Greek word doth properly signifie Ministring and saying the Offices of the Church but no where is used properly for Sacrificing and it is apparent that Protestants do most religiously believe the Sacrament to be an unbloody Sacrifice and as such do make it a Memorial of Christs one bloody Sacrifice upon the Cross The Notes also blame these Eustathian Heretics for perswading the People to give them the dispensing of their Alms intended for the Poor contrary saith Binius to the Apostles Doctrine and Constitution Yet thus the Romish Fryers do at this day drawing the Peoples Alms to their Convents under pretence of being dispensers of them The same Notes are mistaken in saying That the Manicheans were forbid by their Doctrine to give any Alms to the Poor For S. Augustine who knew those Heretics best assirms That they only forbad their People to give Meat or Fruits to any Beggar who was not of their own Sect Lastly whereas this Council condemns the Eustathians for abhorring the Assemblies and Divine Offices used in the places where the Martyrs were commemorated Can. ult These Notes falsly pretend they were condemned for disapproving the Worship and Invocation of the holy Martyrs whereas it is plain by the Canon that the Martyrs were only Commemorated not Invocated nor Worshiped in those days and the expression in this place is only a Phrase to signifie the usual Assemblies of Orthodox Christians which were then frequently held in the Burying places of the Martyrs and these Heretics separated from those public Assemblies The Arians to revenge their Condemnation at Nice falsly accuse Athanasius to the Emperour Constantine who thereupon called a Council at Tyre which these Editors intitle The Council of Tyre under Sylvester Yet all the Ancients agree the Emperour Called it and their own Notes confess as much Only they pretend He Called this Council contrary to custom and his duty but this is notoriously false since Constantine had already called divers Councils and particularly that of Nice And as for Pope Sylvester he is not once named in this Council at Tyre which looks a little odly upon the pretended Supremacy that when the Catholic Cause lay at the stake we never hear one word of the Roman Bishop neither in this Council nor in all the succeeding Letters and Councils relating to Athanasius till that Cause was afterward brought before the Pope as an Arbitrator chosen by both parties § 19. Pope Marcus succeeded Sylvester and sat but eight Months yet that he might not seem to have done nothing The Forgers have invented an Epistle from Athanasius to this Pope desiring a true Copy of the Nicene Canons from Rome on pretence that the Arians had burnt theirs at Alexandria To which is annexed Marcus his Answer who saith he had sent him 70 Canons Now Binius hath often cited these Epistles to prove the Popes Supremacy and Infallibility and to shew there were more than twenty Canons made at Nice yet here His Notes bring five substantial Reasons to prove these Epistles forged and Labbé notes These Wares of Isidore are justly suspected by Baronius Bellarmine and other skilful Catholics nor doth Binius himself doubt of their being spurious Yea it is remarkable that this very Binius out of Baronius here confesseth That he who Forged the Epistle of Boniface to Eulalius devised also these two Epistles to consult the Credit of Pope Zosimus and Pope Boniface who had cited a Canon out of the Nicene Council not found among the
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
made Vows to St. John for his Deliverance But I see no reason to believe this Inscription to be so ancient as the time of this Hilary Leo's Successor An. 461. For in his Letter extant in the Council he relates the Story of his flight but-mentions no Saint at all only saith he trusted in the grace of Christ And this Style which is so like the Pagan Vows to their little Deities was above the Infant Superstition of that Age so that besides the improbability of an Inscription continuing legible for near twelve hundred years none who knows the time of Hilary can believe the invocation of Saints was so far advanced for a Man to forget God and Jesus Christ the only Deliverers of their Servants and publickly yea blasphemously to ascribe his deliverance to a Creature Rom. i. 25. Wherefore we conclude this Inscription was writ by some later Hand in times of gross Idolatry and Ignorance and that this which they call an Egregious Monument of Antiquity and an Argument for Invocation of Saints is nothing else but an Egregious Imposture and an Argument to prove the Fraud of those who set up false Doctrines by feigned Antiquity 'T is true in the 11th Action when Stephen whom Flavian had condemned in his life-time was deposed by the Council after his death some of the Bishops cried out Flavian lives after his death the Martyr hath prayed for us but this is far short of the aforesaid Inscription for they neither vow nor pray to the Martyr only since his Sentence was agreed to be just after his death they Rhetorically say this seemed as if Flavianus had prayed for them Yet this if it be genuine is the greatest step toward Invocation of Saints that I have seen in any Writing of this Age though it be no more than a Flourish proceeding from an excess of Admiration of Flavianus so lately martyred by Dioscorus the Mortal Enemy of this Council Concerning which Dioscorus for likeness of the Subject I observe the Notes say the Aegyptians gave him oh horrible Divine Honours and Religious Worship after his Death which means no more as Baronius the Author of the Story saith but that they worshipped him as a Saint and gave him such Religious Worship as they give to Saints Now the wary Romanists will not say these are Divine Honours much less were they such Honours as were paid to any Saints in this Age or some that followed But when Modern Writers speak of Ancient Times they often speak in Modern Phrases and so Binius took it to be the same thing to honour Dioscorus as a Saint and to give him Religious Worship because they at Rome now give Religious Worship to those they Canonize And this may suffice for this famous Council wherein Leo being all along Orthodox while the Patriarchs of most other great Sees had been either faulty or suspected had the greatest advantage imaginable to carry on his great Design of setting up for the Supremacy and though by this accident which he and his Legates improved higher Titles are given him than to any of his Predecessors or Successors for some Ages in any Council yet if the Forgeries and Corruptions be abated and the Fallacious Notes well understood there is no ground from any thing here said or done to think the Fathers at Chalcedon took this Pope for the sole supreme and visible Head of the Catholick Church An Appendix concerning Baronius's Annals § 1. THIS Century proving so full of various observations as to swell beyond our expectations we must here divert a-while to view the Errors in Barvnius lest the deferring these Observations to the last should make the Reader forget the Series of affairs already past by laying these matters too far from the History of that time to which these Notes belong and for brevity sake as well as for the clearer seeing into this Authors Fallacies we will follow our former Method And first we will observe that when he would set up any Doctrines or justifie any Practices of the Modern Corrupt Roman Church he generally cites spurious Authors or such as writ so long after this time that their Testimony is justly suspected since no Authors of this Age do mention any such thing The Miracle of Julia a Manichean Heretick Woman struck dead by Porphyrius Bishop of Gaza when he could not convert her by Arguments is taken out of a Latin Copy ascribed to one Mark a Deacon of Gaza very improbably but the stress of the Evidence lies upon the Credit of Metaphrastes Lipoman and Surius the Collectors of Legends who trade in few others but spurious Authors It were to be wished we had some better evidence of St. Ambrose's appearing after his death and promising Victory over the Goths than a Womans Testimony For both Orosius and St. Augustin who write of that Victory ascribe it wholly to the Power of God and mention no Saint concerned therein And Baronius cites both these as well as the credulous Paulinus who for advancing the credit of St. Ambrose records an Old-Wives Tale not supported by any credible evidence The ridiculous story of St. Paul's appearing to St. Chrysostom who is pretended to have had the Picture of St. Paul in his Study and to have discoursed with the sensless Image is not proved by any Author near that Age but by Leo the Philosopher and Emperor who lived 500 year after and writ a very Fabulous History of St. Chrysostom's Life and by a spurious Tract of Damascens who lived 450 year after Chrysostom's Death Yet upon these false Legends the Annalist triumphs over those who oppose Image-worship Like to this is that fabulous Story of Theophilus Bishop of Alexandria not being able to die in peace till the Image of St. Chysostom was brought to him and he had adored it which he hath no other Authority for than the aforesaid spurious Book ascribed to a late Author Damascen for the Writers of this Age mention no such thing And there can be no doubt but the Relation is false because St. Cyril Theophilus his Nephew and Successor continued for some time to have as ill an opinion of St. Chrysostom as his Uncle had to his last breath as his Letter to Atticus in Baronius shews And therefore there is a Story invented of a Vision appearing to St. Cyril by which he was terrified into a good opinion of St. Chrysostom But though the Quarrel he had at first to his memory be real this Apparition is feigned and proved by no elder nor better Authors than Nicetus and Nicephorus Another Forgery of St. Cyril's removing the Relicts of St. Mark and other Saints into a Church newly built in place of an Idol-temple and thereby clearing it from Evil Spirits hath no better Authority than certain Legends read in that woful Council of Nice which set up Image-worship 300 year after this Age The Revelation of the Relicks of St. Stephen pretended to
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 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
They further say That the Canons of Gangra were confirmed by Apostolical Autherity The Forger meant by Papal Authority But those Bishops at Gangra scarce knew who was then Pope And it is plain the Compiler of this Council had respect to a Forgery of later Ages where Osius of Corduba's name the pretended Legate of the Pope is added to the Synodical Letter from this Synod and therefore these Acts were devised long after this Council is pretended to have sitten And he must be a meer stranger to the History of this Time who reads here that Symmachus and his Council should say It is not lawful for the Emperor nor any other professing Piety c. For this supposes Anastasius no Heretick and that Popes then prescribed Laws to the Emperor of the East I conclude with a single remark upon the Notes on this forged Council which pretend Theodoric obeyed this Councils Decree in ordering the patrimony of the Church of Milan to be restored to Eustorgius who was not in this Council nor Bishop of Milan till eight years after And no doubt that Order was made by Theodoric in pure regard to Equity for it is no way likely that he had ever heard of this Council I conclude these Roman Councils with one remark relating to Mons du-Pin who hath taken things too much upon trust to be always trusted himself and therefore he publishes five of these six Councils for genuine and gives almost the Baronian Character of Symmachus But these Notes I hope will demonstrate he is mistaken both in his Man and these Synods and I only desire the Reader to compare his Account with these short Remarks § 2. There were few Councils abroad in this Popes time and he was not concerned in them The Council of Agatha now Agde in the Province of Narbon was called by the consent of Alaricus an Arrian King Caesarius Bishop of Arles was President of it and divers good Canons were made in it but Symmachus is not named so that our Editors only say it was held in the time of Symmachus I shall make no particular remark but on the Ninth Canon where Caesarius who was much devoted to promote that Celibacy of the Clergy which now was practised at Rome and the Council declare that the orders of Innocent and Siricius should be observed From whence we may Note that these Orders had not yet been generally obeyed in France and that a Popes Decretal was of no force there by vertue of the Authority of his See but became obligatory by the Gallican Churches acceptance and by turning it into a Canon in some Council of their own But that the usages of Rome did not prescribe to France is plain from the Notes on the xii Canon where it appears their Lent Fast was a total abstinence till evening none but the infirm being permitted to dine But the Roman Lent unless they have altered their old rule allows men to dine in Lent with variety of some sorts of meat and drink which is not so strict by much as this Gallican custom The first Council of Orleance is only said to be in Symmachus time but the Acts shew he was not consulted nor concerned in it The Bishops were summoned by the Precept of King Clovis who also gave them the heads of those things they were to treat of And when their Canons were drawn up they sent them not to Rome but to their King for Confirmation with this memorable address if those things which we have agreed on seem right to your judgment we desire your assent that so the Sentence of so many Bishops by the approbation of so great a Prince may be obeyed as being of greater Authority And Clovis was not wanting in respect to them for he stiles them Holy Lords and Popes most worthy of their Apostolical Seat By which it is manifest that Rome had then no Monopoly of these Titles I conclude that which relates to Pope Symmachus his time with one Remark that in the year 500 the Devout and learned African Fulgentius came on purpose to visit Rome But the writer of his life who acurately describes what the holy Man saw there and largely sets forth his View of Theodoric his visiting the Tombs of the Martyrs and saluting the Monks he met with speaks not one Syllable of the Pope whose Benediction one would think Fulgentius should have desired But whether the Schism yet continued or Symmachus his manner did not please the good Man ' its plain he took no notice of him § 3. Hormisda succeeded Symmachus and it seems by the Letter of Dorotheus that in his Election and not before the Schism at Rome ceased which began when Symmachus was chosen which shews that Symmachus having a strong party against him all his time could do nothing considerable This Pope Hormisda was either married before he was Pope or was very criminal for he had a Son i. e. Sylverius who as Liberatus testifies was Pope about twenty years after him This was a bold and active Pope and did labour much to reconcile the Eastern to the Western Church and at last in some measure effected it after the Greeks had been separated as Binius notes from the unity of the Church not Catholick but of Rome he means about 80 years From whence we may observe that a Church may be many years out of the Communion of the Roman Church and yet be a true Church for none till Baronius ever said the Eastern was not a true Church all the time of this Separation The Notes further tell us that King Clovis of France sent Hormisda a Golden Crown set with precious stones for a Present and thereby procured this reward from God that the Kingdom of the Franks still continues Which stuff is out of Baronius But the Story is as false as the inference for Sirmondus proves that King Clovis died Anno 511 that is three years before Hormisda was Pope Labbè who owns this to be an Error would correct the mistake and put in Childebert's name but he who told the Story could certainly have told the Kings right name wherefore we reject the whole Relation as fabulous And for the inference the Kingdom of Franks indeed like all other Kingdoms who sent no Crowns hath continued but not in Clovis his Posterity which is long since extinct We shall make more remarks on this Popes History in his Letters And many Epistles are lately found of this Popes in the Vatican or Forged there which we will now consider The First Epistle is certainly Forged it is directed to Remigius but names King Lovis or Clovis who was dead three year before as Labbè owns for which cause Sirmondus omitted it as Spurious and so P. de Marca counts it And it is almost the same with another feigned Epistle wherein the Pope is pretended to make a Spanish Bishop his Legate there
the Epistles of Leo and Gregory who was yet unborn the latter steals the beginning from an Epistle of Pope Innocent's and the rest is verbatim taken out of a spurious Epistle ascribed to Pope Dionysius And the date of this also is after Foelix his death But Binius boldly saith they are genuine and Baronius would persuade us the name of Foelix was put for Boniface which is an unlikely change Now if you ask why they vindicate such Trash I must Note it is for the sake of one dear Sentence viz. That the Roman Church in one of them is twice called the Head A phrase which is enough to make any Coin currant at Rome The Third Epistle was dated 15 year before Foelix was Pope till Sirmondus lately mended the Consuls name 't is said to be written to Caesarius Bishop of Arles who is here stiled not the Son but the Brother of the Pope But the matter of it is such mean stuff that the true Author will have no credit by it nor is it material whether it be genuine or no And by the way 't is somewhat odd that these forged or trifling Epistles should give Du-Pin ground for putting these two Popes into his Catalogue of Ecclesiastical Writers Labbè adds here a Form of Anathematizing the Manichaean Heresie wherein St. Augustin's Opinion guides the Affair The Pope is not concerned in reconciling Hereticks for the Authority of Rome was not so considerable in those days as these Men pretend 'T is true the Council of Orange owns they had some Capitulars sent from Rome against the Pelagians But Labbè's Notes say they were Sentences collected out of the Fathers especially St. Augustin and agreeable to holy Scripture Wherefore Binius falsly brags that this Controversie was determined by the Popes Authority it was determined by St. Augustin's Authority whose Doctrin Pope John the second saith the Roman Church then kept and followed Rome only furnished the Records toward it and a Clerk of the Rolls may as well be called the Determiner and Judge of a Suit where he produces any old writing as the Pope made Arbiter in this Case And it was the Gallican Synods Decree which made these Definitions to be of Force in France Sirmondus indeed pretends Pope Boniface confirmed this Council but acknowledges the confirmation came some time after though the modern Parasites had falsly placed this Papal confirmation before the Council But if we enquire more strictly it will appear this second Epistle of Boniface the Second which is the confirmation is Forged for it not only bears date the year after the Council but as Sirmondus owns it is dated seven Months before Boniface was Pope So that unless you will allow him to alter Dates at his pleasure this Pope did not confirm this Synod at all Only any thing must be genuine with these Men which gives countenance to the Papal usurpations The Notes upon this Council cite a Testimony out of Gennadius that Pope Foelix approved a Book writ by Caesarius against the Pelagians Which Testimony is not in my Edition of Gennadius and if that Author have writ any such thing he must mean Foelix the Third because he writ An. 492 which is above 30 year before this Foelix was Pope But when such learned Men as Prosper and Caesarius writ against an Heresie the Popes Celestine and Foelix gladly subscribed them not to give the Books any greater Authority but to prove themselves Orthodox and in Communion with men so famous for defending the Catholick Faith The Second or Third Council of Vaison was falsly placed by Binius under Pope John the second who was not Pope till two years after But Sirmondus rightly places it in this year in Foelix his time In the first Canon it would have appeared plainly that the Readers then had Wives allowed if the true reading had stood which must be Lectores suas uxores habentes recipiant But the Forgers have altered it in Binius thus sive uxores habuerint in Labbè thus sine uxore c. But the corrupters in both Editions have left this passage so abused that it is neither Grammar nor Sense The fourth Canon is double in Binius Labbè hath made it but one it orders That the Popes name shall be recited in the Gallican Offices Now to make this Canon seem more ancient the Parasites had hoisted up this Council 200 year even as high as Pope Julius where Binius shamelesly prints it But Sirmondus proves there could be no such French Council at that time And considering the Forgers have been so busie with this Canon I judge it very probable that it was made by a Council much later than this Age only it is clapt in here very abruptly to support an earlier Grandeur than the Popes at the time enjoyed I am sure it seems unlikely the Gallican Church should then pay this great respect to Rome § 8. Pope Boniface the Second succeeded Foelix but not by a clear Election for another party chose Dioscorus who had been Legate to Horsmida but he was either poysoned or died naturally within a Month and so Boniface kept the Chair His Malice however died not with his Rival For he called a Synod and got him anathematized after his Death for Simony Which crime Pope Agapetus a little after proved to be false and the Sentence extorted from the Clergy by Boniface ' s malicious craft So that the Sentence was revoked and Dioscorus with his party absolved Another Evidence of this Popes rashness was a Decree made also in this Synod That the Pope should name his Successor which was not only against the Canons which this Pope and his Council here had violated but against an express Law of the Gothick Princes and therefore when this fallible Pope saw his Error a little after he called another Synod and revoked this Decree confessing himself as Anastasius saith Guilty of Treason in making the former Order by which we may see in that Age it was Treason for the Pope in Council to Repeal a Royal Law Wherefore I wonder that Baronius should call that the wresting a presumtuous and usurped power out of the Goths hands which his poor Master owned to be Treason In short this Pope is only famous for his Errors and evil Deeds But to make him look great the Forgers have invented an Epistle for him containing many vaunts of the Roman Churches greatness and a pretended submission of the Church of Carthage after a very long separation from Rome even from the time of Aurelius Now though this came out of their own Shop it is so gross an untruth in the main That Binius and all their later Writers reject it But though I think the Epistle certainly Spurious and this submission forged yet it is true the African Churches even while they did own the Roman for an Orthodox Church had for a long time
this Author who though he had placed S. Peters Death so many years before Clement's Entrance as to leave room for two intermediate Popes yet here again repeats his old Fable of S. Peters delivering the Bishopric of Rome to Clement a sufficient proof there is neither Truth nor Certainty in the pretended Personal Succession of the first Popes § 9. From this Pope Clement down to the time of Syricius who lived 300 years after him there are printed in these Editors after every Popes Life divers Decretal Epistles pretended to be writ by the several Popes and Vindicated by Binius's Notes annexed to them Which were received in the Western Church for many Hundred years together as the genuine Decrees of these ancient and pious Popes transcribed into the Canon Law and cited for many Ages to justifie the Usurpations and defend the Corruptions of the Roman Church to determine Causes and decide Controversies in Religion And yet they are all notorious Forgeries so that since Learning was revived divers of the most Eminent Roman Writers have rejected them Card. Cusanus affirms That being compared with the times in which they are pretended to have been Writ they betray themselves Baronius calls them Late invented Evidences of no Credit and Apocryphal yea Labbé and Cossartius have in their Edition a Learned Preface to them proving them to be forged And in their Margin write almost against every Epistle This is suspected This is Isidores Wares c. and also note the very places of Authors who lived long after these Times out of which large Passages in them are stollen Verbatim Which clear Confession of our Adversaries may make some think it needless to confute them and unnecessary to charge this Forgery upon the Roman Church But I cannot think it sit wholly to pass them by because Turrian the Jesuit had the Confidence to defend them all as genuine and Binius in his Edition not only Vindicates them by a general Preface but by particular Notes labours to prove most of them Authentic and Labbé himself prints those Notes at large in his Edition so that such as do not look into his Margen may be deceived Besides this Confession of some Romanists comes too late to compensate for the injury done to the Truth by their Churches approving them so long And they still keep up the Supremacy and all their corrupt Practices and Opinions which were set up and cherished by these Forgeries they now take away the Scaffolds when the Building can stand alone they execute the Traytor but enjoy freely the benefit of his Treason Moreover while some Romanists condemn them others go on to cite them for good Authority Harding brags he had proved many Points of Faith by the Epistles of Clement Damasus Julius Melchiades Pontianus Sixtus Soter and Symmachus Dr. Tho. James shews the particular corrupt Doctrines and Practices which the late Roman Writers defend by the spurious Epistles of Clement Marcellus Marcus and Hormisda And the Learned Cook with infinite diligence hath cited the very Places of the Modern Champions for the Roman Opinions and shewed what Doctrines and Practices they do maintain by these Forged Epistles It is also well known that the Late Scriblers for that Religion do follow Bellarmin and Others in citing these Decretals for good Authority and that the Canon Law is in a great measure composed out of these Epistles by which Causes are determined at this day in all Popish Countries Therefore till the Romanists raze them and the Notes in their defence out of the Volumes of the Councils and expunge all the false Notions taken hence out of their Canon Law yea and leave citing them in their Disputes with us we cannot think it needless to shew the apparent Forgery of them but we will not enlarge so as to disprove the Particulars but put together here our Evidence against them all § 10. These Epistles though pretended to be writ in the first four Centuries were never heard of in the World till near 800 years after Christ About which time came out a Collection of Councils under the name of Isidore Hispalensis but whereas he died An. 636 and this Collector mentions the XIth Council of Toledo and the Sixth General Council which were held near Fifty years after this appears not to be the Work of that Isidore but of one Isidore Mercator and it was first brought into France by Riculphus B. of Mentz in which Collection these Decretal Epistles first appeared but the Learned Hincmarus of Rheims immediately discerned them to be an imposture and Writ against them as Baronius confesseth But though he own the Cheat he is not willing to grant the Roman Church had any hand in it yet that is as clear as the Forgery because Hincmarus was hated and prosecuted by the Pope and forced at last to Recant his Censure of these Epistles and not long after Benedictus Levita having Transcrib'd divers Passages out of them into his Capitulars got them confirmed at Rome which could not but cherish so advantagious a Fiction that supported the Supremacy which they then did so hotly stickle for and therefore though they came first to the Birth in Spain some conjecture they were all Hatched at Rome whose evil Designs and Interest they are contrived to serve But the Age was so Ignorant when they were Invented that there is such infamous and convincing Marks of Forgery upon them as makes it very easie to prove the Cheat beyond any possibility of doubting and we will here put the principal of them together under their proper Heads § 11. First The Style of these Decretals shews they were not writ within the four first Centuries wherein at Rome especially they writ Latin in a much more Elegant Style than is to be found here where the Phrases are modern harsh and sometimes barbarous so that the Reader is often puzled to reconcile them either to Grammar or Sense As for Example Pope Victor's Second Epistle which of old began with Enim and was mended by Binius with Semper enim but still there is false Latin in it viz. aliquos nocere fratres velle The like barbarous Style may be observed in the two Epistles of Pontianus and in many others But the genuine Epistles of Cornelius preserved in Eusebius and S. Cyprian are writ in a more polite Style and as Labbé notes These Epistles shew how much good Mony differs from counterfeit and how much Gold excels Counters The like difference there is between the Style of that genuine Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians and those silly Forgeries put out in his Name in the very Front of these Decretals from whence it undeniably follows That the Decretals were not writ in the Ages wherein the Latin Tongue flourished nor by those Popes whose Names they bear And this is further manifest by divers Words which were not used in the time of these Popes but
Pope Eusebius but makes Melchiades immediate Successor to Marcellinus It is very observable that these two unknown Popes in the Notes on their Lives are said to have sat Seven years between them And the Pontifical saith There was a Vacancy of Seven years after Marcellinus which Vacancy is also asserted by Anastasius Biblioth by Luitprandus Abbo Floriacens Cusanus and Genebrard And though Baronius's and Binius's Notes deny this Seven years Vacancy it is upon meer Conjectures The Scandal of so long a Vacancy no doubt setting some of the old Parasites of Rome on work to invent two Popes Names and put them into the List from whence probably they have been foisted into 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
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
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
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
genuine 20 Canons From which we may observe First that Binius will cite those things for the supremacy c. which he knows to be forged Secondly That the great design of all these Forged Records of Antiquity was either to cover the faults or consult the honour of the Roman Church which seems to have both employed and encouraged the Authors of these Pious Frauds because her Pretences could not be made out by any thing that was Authentic Julius succeeded Marcus in the same year in whose Life the Pontifical mistakes the Consuls Names and feigns he was banished Ten Months which Baronius proves to have been impossible He fills up this Popes story according to his manner with trisling matters and omits the only remarkable thing in his Life which was his concern in the Cause of Athanasius In this Popes name several Epistles are published The First from Julius to the Eastern Bishops may be proved fictitious not only by the Confession of Baronius and other Learned Romanists but by divers other Arguments For is it probable that Julius would Only be solicitous about his Supremacy when he writ to the Arians and not once reprove them for their Heresie nor their persecuting Athanasius is it likely he should cite the Council of Nice falsly and feign so many ancient Decrees about the Primacy of the Pope and the Nullity of Councils not celebrated by his Authority This Forger saith Julius consented to the Nicene Council at the time of its celebration but the Romanists agree that it was held in Sylvesters time He imperiously forbids the Eastern Bishops to judge any Bishops without him and falsly tells them They all had received their Consecration from Rome yea with the fabulous Pontisical he mistakes the Consuls Name and puts Maximianus for Titianus Yet by this Forgery the Editors would prove that more than twenty Canons were made at Nice and after Baronius had discarded it Binius by frivolous Notes strives to justifie it as speaking big for the Supremacy Secondly Here is the Eastern Bishops Answer to Julius wherein though they call the Pope Father which was the usual Title of Bishops of great Sees yet they expresly deny his having any Authority over them and affirm he ought to be subject to the Canons as well as other Bishops So that there is no reason for Binius his Brag Lo how they own the Supremacy For indeed they do not own it at all and yet the substance of this Epistle is genuine being found in Secrates and Sozomen The third Epistle from Julius to the Arians is owned by Baronius and others to be a Forgery and Binius in his Notes upon it saith It is false corrupted and stollen out of divers Authors yet the same Binius infamously quotes it over and over for the Supremacy the Nullity of Councils not called by the Pope and the number of the Nicene Canons The fourth Epistle of Julius comes not out of the Vatican but was preserved in Athanasius his Apology and is by all accounted genuine being writ in an humble style without any pretences to the Supremacy And here the Nicene Canon about the re-hearing in a New Synod a Cause not well judged before is rightly cited without mention of any final Appeal to Rome The power of all Bishops is supposed to be equal and not any greater power to belong to him that is fixed in a greater City Here Julius writes not his own Sense but the Sense of the Bishops of Italy who were assembled in a Synod at Rome of which great City Julius being Bishop ought by ancient custom to publish the Decrees of such Councils as were held in or or near that City but Binius falsly infers from hence That it was an honour due to his place to publish the Decrees made in all Synods And whereas when any thing was under debate concerning Alexandria the second Patriarchate Julius saith it was a Custom to write to the Roman Bishop who was the first Patriarch Binius stretcheth this and saith It was both agreeable to the Canons and Custom that no Bishop should be judged till the Popes definitive Sentence were heard The last Epistle also is genuine and writ in a modest style owning that Athanasius was not judged by the Pope alone but by a Synod of Bishops whose Judgment he supposes above his own and by these two Epistles we may discern the Impostures of those other Epistles which are Forged about this time in the Names of this and other Popes The Decrees attributed to this Pope are not suitable to the Age yet we may note the third Decree forbids a man to Marry his deceased Brothers Wife though his Brother had not known her Which was shamefully broken by that Pope who gave Licence to King Henry the 8th to marry his Brothers Wife and this Decree justifies his Divorce After these Epistles follows a Roman Synod wherein Julius with 117 Bishops confirm the Nicene Council but Labbé saith it is a hotch-potch made up out of many Authors and put into the form of a Council by Isidore and it is dated with the same mistaken Consuls Felician and Maximian with which Julius his entrance into the Pontifical and all his Forged Epistles are dated for his genuine Epistles have no date yet Baronius and the Notes gravely dispute about the time of this Forged Council and the Bishops which were said to be in it meerly to perswade the Reader that the Nicene Council needed the Pope's Confirmation but since this Council is feigned it can be no evidence And therefore Binius gains nothing by alledging it in his Notes on the third Epistle but only to shew us that one falshood is the fittest prop for another § 20. Athanasius being restored to Alexandria calls a Synod there of all the Bishops of his Province of which only the Synodical Epistle is now extant written as the Title declares To all the Catholic Bishops every where yet the Notes from Baronius say It was writ particularly to Julius whereas the Body of the Epistle saith The Arians have written to the Roman Bishop and perhaps speaking to other Bishops they have writ to you also So that this is a falshood devised for to make out the Supremacy which is not countenanced by this Epistle wherein we are told that Religion depends not on the greatness of any City Though the Notes say That Bishops had Honours and Jurisdiction given them suiting to the dignity of the Secular Praefects of their several Cities and thence Alexandria was reckoned the second Patriarchate and Antioch the third it follows naturally therefore Rome was the first Patriarchate But this Inference they will not make I shall only note that this Synod saith The lawful use of the Cup of the Lord was to make the People Drink from whence we gather that the Roman Church who denies the Cup to the People doth a very unlawful thing
particularly to Liberius Bishop of Rome hoping Valentinian the other Emperour had been in that City but he being absent these Legates perswaded Liberius they were Orthodox upon which he writ back Letters in his own Name and in the Name of the other Western Bishops to own them for good Catholics Whence we may note First That the Eastern Bishop's Letter styles the Pope no more but Collegue and Brother Secondly That Liberius calls himself only Bishop of Italy Liberius Ep. Italiae alii Occident is Episcopi But Baronius alters the Pointing Liberius Episcopus Italiae alii c. by that Trick hoping to conceal this mean Title Thirdly The Pope here saith He was the least of all Bishops and was glad their Opinion agreed with his and the rest of the Western Bishops Fourthly Yet after all these very Eastern Bishops were of the Macedonian party as the Title of their Letter in Socrates shews Baronius indeed leaves these words out of the Title but he confesses they were Semi-Arians So that the Popes Infallibility as being imposed on by Heretics in Mattets of Faith loses more by this Embassy than his Supremacy gains by it because the Legates were not sent to him alone but to all the Western Bishops Fifthly The Notes on this Council feign that besides these Communicatory Letters Liberius writ other Letters Commanding that ejected Bishops should be restored by the Apostolic Authority But this is one of Baronius his Forgeries For S. Basil and also Sozomen cited by the Notes on the Council of Tyana mention not the Legates shewing any other Letters at their return into the East but only the Communicatory Letters and since it appeared by them that the Western Bishops judged them Orthodox their Eastern Brethren did restore them And so also these Legates got the approbation of a Council in Sicily as they were returning home for the Sicilian Bishops by mistake took them for Orthodox when they saw the rest of the Western Bishops owned their Communion with them and so approved their Confession of Faith and therefore it is very impertinent in the Notes to say on this occasion That the Authority of the Pope was so great that if he admitted even suspected Heretics to his Communion none presumed to reject them Whereas we know that afterwards the People of Rome rejected even the Pope himself for communicating with Semi-Arians The next thing which occurs is a Synod in Illyricum Convened at the request of Eusebius Bishop of Sebastia one of the Eastern Legates who while his Fellows stayed at Rome went into that Country and prevailed with the Bishops assembled there to send Elpidius a Brother and Collegue of their own with a Synodical Letter to the Eastern Bishops declaring they would communicate with them if their Faith was the same with that of Nice Now though this Synod do not mention the Pope yet Baronius and the Notes feign That Elpidius was the Pope's Legate whereas the Synod the Emperours Letter and Theodoret from whom this Story is taken mention Elpidius only as a Messenger sent from this Council When these Eastern Legates returned home there was a Council called at Tyana in Cappadocia wherein they shewed the Communicatory Letters which they had fraudulently obtained in the West upon which Letters those who had been ejected as Heretics and particularly Eustathius of Sebastia were restored to their Sees but neither Sozomen nor S. Basil say this was done by any special Letters of Liberius or by any Command of his yet if it had been so this would spoil this Popes Infallibility it being certain these restored Bishops were Heretics who Liberius poor Man thought to be good Catholics and he hath the more to answer for if this were done not by his Consent alone but by his Command also After this we have the Life of Pope Foelix about whom they differ so much that nothing is plain in his Story but this that little of him is certainly known The Pontifical in Liberius Life saith He died in peace but here it saith He was Martyred by Constantius for declaring him an Heretic and one who was rebaptized by Eusebius of Nicomedia Yet Constantius was not Baptized at all till after Foelix his pretended Martyrdom and he was Baptized then not by Eusebius but by one Euzoius Again The Pontifical allows him but to sit One year and three months and the Notes say This is right computing from Liberius Fall to his Return which as Sozomen affirms was but little before Foelix his Death Whereas these very Notes tell us a little before that Liberius was above two years in Exile therefore if he lived but a small time after Liberius's return he must sit above two years But Marcellinus who writ in that Age tells us Foelix lived eight years after Liberius was restored Which Baronius and the Notes would conceal to hide the Scandal that their Church must get by a long Schism and by an Heretical Pope of whom they will needs make a Martyr only upon the Credit of the Pontifical and a modern fallacious Inscription pretended to be found at Rome many Ages after belonging to some Foelix but which of them they know not The Epistles ascribed to this Pope contain so many and so gross Untruths that Labbé notes They are discarded by Baronius and other Learned Men as Isidores Wares adding That the third Epistle was stollen from Pope Martin the First in his Lateran Council And though Binius very often cite the two first Epistles yet in his Notes on them he owns they are of no credit For they Forge many Canons as made at Nice and tell that idle story of the true Copies of the Nicene Canons being burnt by the Arians But it is certain the Forger of these Epistles was a Creature of the Popes because the Inscriptions of them are stuffed with false and flattering Titles and the Body of them nauseously and ridiculously press the Supremacy and the Universal Empire of the Roman Church § 26. The entrance of Damasus into the Papacy was not without Blood for the People were divided and some standing for Damasus others for Ursicinus Damasus his Party being stronger slew many of their Adversaries in a Church as all the Writers of that Age testifie and though Ammianus be a Pagan Historian yet it is very probable which he writes that it was not Zeal but the ambition of living high and great that made Men contend so fiercely for the Papacy for S. Basil himself about this time taxes the Roman Church with Pride and S. Hierom the great Friend of that Church often reflects upon the pomp and luxury of the Clergy there So that the Notes on Damasus his Life do but glory in their Churches shame when from these Authors they boast of the Magnificence and Majesty of the Papacy The Fabulous Pontifical was for many Ages pretended to be writ by this Damasus and he
who forged the Decretal Epistles invented one to Aurelius Bishop of Carthage 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
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
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
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
him long after that unjust Fact so that there is no reason to brag of this Pope as being the Judge and Patron of that glorious Confessor who alas died in his exile and excepting good wishes had no benefit by the Popes kindness Yea he was so far from being Judge that he referred this Cause of St. Chrysostom's to the Judgment of a Synod as Baronius himself afterwards declares So Theophilus of Alexandria also never did submit the Cause to Innocent as Baronius pretends nor did he take him for the supreme Judge in it but after all retained his obstinacy to his death So that if we do allow Pope Innocent to be right in his Judgment yet he either had little power or small courage to serve this great and good Man and what he did for him was in conjunction with other Bishops not by his single Authority Innocent's 31st Epistle is directed to Theophilus St. Chrysostom's mortal Enemy the Patriach of Alexandria wherein the Pope calls him Brother and saith he held Communion both with him and with Chrysostom also and wishes him to refer the Cause to a Synod and there let it be tried according to the Nicene Canons Now Baronius from hence notes that the Communion of the Roman Church was highly valued and that all were to hold Communion with those who were in Communion with Rome and therefore they were to stick to the Communion of Chrysostom But the very words of the Epistle confute this Gloss for such as followed the Popes example at that time were to communicate both with Chrysostom and Theophilus And I must observe that Innocent's advising Theophilus to come to a Synod and let this Cause be tried there according to the Nicene Canons this I say shews That the Pope did not then pretend to find any thing in the Nicene Canons for referring Causes by appeal to Rome but his two next Successors as shall be shewed presently forged such Canons soon after and pretended they were made at Nice After this follows a rescript of Honorius pretended to be writ to his Brother Arcadius wherein that Emperor saith Chrysostom's was a cause concerning the Bishops which ought to have been determined in a General Council and when either Party had sent Legates to the Bishop of Rome and those of Italy a final Sentence was to be expected from the Authority of them all But the Editors have forged a Title to this Letter wherein they say Episcopal Causes are to be tried by a Council of Bishops and to be examined and determined by the Popes Authority Where we see the forged Title expresly contradicts the Letter it self for that refers these Causes to a Council in the East with the consent of all the Bishops of Italy as well as the Pope but this Title is designed to persuade us that the Popes Authority was finally to determine all matters of this kind The 32th 33th and 34th Epistles of Innocent have nothing in them worth noting and if they be genuine their mean Style and many Incongruities are no credit to the Author After these Epistles Labbè publishes certain Canons sent from Rome to the Gallican Church by some Pope or other and because by Sirmondus his guess it was Innocent they are placed here there is nothing remarkable in them but the zeal of the Collector of these Canons to persuade the French to follow the peculiar Customs of Rome § 3. The Councils which the Editors place next and with the Title of Councils under Innocent were called indeed in his time but neither by his Authority nor so much as by his Advice The first Council of Milevis said to be under Innocent was as the Notes confess held under the Primacy of Xantippus and was held so soon after Anastasius his death that probably these African Fathers had not yet heard of Innocent's Election nor do the Acts of it mention any Pope The Council at the Oak wherein Chrysostom was deposed was called by and held under Theophilus Bishop of Alexandria wherein they proceeded to deprive an Eminent Patriarch without the knowledge or consent of the Pope and had not the Articles been false and the Sentence unjust it had never been revoked barely for wanting Innocent's approbation Labbè prints the Acts of this Synod which Binius had omitted About this time were frequent Synods held in Africa the Years and Order of which being uncertain the Editors have placed the Acts of them altogether and here we have only some Notes with the bare Titles On which we will make some few remarks First they are all here said to be held under Innocent but the Acts themselves intitle them to be held in such a year of the Emperor Secondly The Notes on the First African Council tell us of Legates sent to the Pope for obtaining some indulgence to the Donatists which Legates being returned they related in this Council what they had obtained from Anastasius Now this would make any one who doth not consult the Acts themselves printed on purpose in Pages far off to think the Pope was solely concerned in this matter which is an invention of Baronius But if we look back into the former Council we shall find these African Legates were sent in general to the parts beyond the Seas and to Venerius Bishop of Milan as well as to Anastasius Bishop of Rome And Baronius himself in the year when these Legates were first sent saith they were to go first to Rome and also to other transmarine Bishops and again Letters being sent to Anastasius and other Bishops of Italy Now the African Fathers applying to all these Bishops as well as to the Pope declares they did not look on him as sufficient alone to determine their Matters Besides they did not send to these Western Bishops to obtain indulgence as the Notes out of Baronius falsly pretend For they had decreed before to indulge them only desired the Western Bishops for the more credit to give their Suffrages to this Fact for so it would appear not to be only their single Opinion The Second African Council was not under Innocent as the Title pretends but under Aurelius as may be seen by the Acts and after the message from the Italian Bishops added to their own Authority would not work on the obstinacy of the Donatists they decree to send Legates to the Emperor Honorius to desire him to suppress them ordering these Legates to carry Letters of Communion to the Bishop of Rome and other Bishops of those parts and to receive other Letters of Communion from them in Italy to testifie they were Catholicks But a little after the Notes turn this into receiving Letters of Communion only from the Pope and infer from thence that none were Catholicks but such as were in Communion with the Bishop of Rome Whereas they should have added and with other Bishops of those parts and
And in the 6th 7th 8th and 9th Epistles he still advances this ill Man condemning Proculus Bishop of Marseilles and all others who opposed Patroclus in his most unjust usurpations and encroachments Yet Binius in his Notes confesseth that both his next Successors Boniface and Celestine did judge otherwise that is they took away this Primacy from Patroclus and censured him for his evil doings giving the Priviledges to Hilary Bishop of Narbon to whom of right they belonged So that here is Pope against Pope and Decretal against Decretal so odly do Causes go at Rome But by Zosimus his 11th and 12th Epistles it doth appear that the French Bishops despised the Popes Decrees and that Proculus went on in exercising his Primacy for all his being prohibited which looks not favourably on the Roman Supremacy As ill fortune had Pope Zosimus who was always on the wrong side in admitting the Appeal of Apiarius an African Priest who was excommunicated by Urban his own Bishop for most horrid Crimes which he afterwards confessed in an open Council as we shall shortly shew yet Zosimus thinking it for the honour of his See to have Appeals made to it from Foreign Parts admits this wicked Wretch to Communion commands the African Synod to receive him and threatens Vrban with an excommunication if he did not retract his Sentence But the African Fathers for all this went on to judge Apiarius as will be seen afterwards for Zosimus died before this Cause was ended I have deferred the consideration of Zosimus his 10th Epistle to the last place because it was the last he writ that is now extant in the Cause of Celestius and because it was writ to the Council of Carthage now assembled For the Pope after he had admitted Hereticks and evil Men to appeal to Rome was resolved to justifie the Fact and sent two Bishops Faustinus and Potentinus and two Priests Philip and Asellus his Legates into Africa with false Copies of the Nicene Canons to prove he ought to be appealed to in all Causes from all Provinces and probably by them or some little time before he sent this Tenth Epistle wherein he brags that Tradition and the Canons had given such great Authority to the Apostolical Seat that none might presume to question its Decrees with a great deal of such stuff about Christ's giving Peter the power to bind and loose and the Canons giving this to his Successor who was to have the care of all Churches and that since he held this place none might examine a Cause which he had determined c. Yet out of respect to the Africans he saith he had done nothing in the Cause of Celestius till they had deliberated about it and that this Cause was just in the same state as it lately was I relate this more at large because this unjust and ambitious Claim was the occasion of a famous Controversie that lasted many years after the death of Zosimus But as to the Letter the impertinency of it is very obvious for though he assume this Authority it is plain that St. Cyprian of old and the African Fathers afterward did not think it any presumption to confute the Decrees of Popes and to examine Causes which had been ill judged at Rome And in the Cause of Celestius whom Zosimus would not yet be induced to condemn the Council of Carthage as Prosper relates tell the Pope That they had resolved to confirm Pope Innocent ' s Sentence against him till he did openly confess the necessity of Grace And they went on with the judgment against Apiarius for all his Appeal to Rome and his being absolved there so that it is impudently done of the Roman Writers to go about to prove the Supremacy from a Popes evidence in his own Cause yea from a Claim which was denied and despised at the same time that it was made Another note I make on this Epistle is that it is dated but the 12th of the Ka. of April and Zosimus died in January following so that it is plain that he had not condemned Pelagius and Celestius nine Months before he died And though by those passages which Labbè hath published out of St. Augustine and Prosper it be certain he did censure this Heresie at last yet it could not be long before his death and therefore Zosimus was a manifest favourer of Hereticks almost all the time he was Pope and he may thank the African Fathers for his Repentance who though they were abused and injured by him hide as much as may be all his ill deeds in favour of Celestius and for the credit of Zosimus and the Catholick Cause only publish his latest Acts after he was by them convinced that Pelagianism was an Heresie But Celestius and his party openly exclaimed against Zosimus for a Turncoat The same year was that Council in Africa which the Editors intitle under Zosimus but really was against him For without regarding his suspending the Cause of Celestius they particularly condemned all the points of the Pelagian Heresie by Anathema's and order all Causes between Bishops to be tried in the Province where they arise and renew the Canon of Milevis that the Priests and inferior Clergy should be tried by their own Bishops and whoever should appeal to the parts beyond the Seas should not be received into Communion by any in Africa So that we see the African Church persisted in maintaining their Rights and condemning Appeals as they had very good reason considering the bold attempt of Zosimus to usurp a jurisdiction over them and his erroneous judging such Causes both of Faith and Manners as he had presumed to meddle in which hapning in other Provinces he broke the Canons of the ancient Councils by pretending to examine and decide them elsewhere forgetting that which Gratian had collected out of his own seventh Epistle and gives us here for Zosimus his Decree viz. That the Authority of the Roman See it self cannot make any new Order nor alter old ones against the Statutes of the Fathers So Gratian reads it and so Aeneas Sylvius cites it so also the Editors publish it here but some forging hand in the seventh Epistle hath put concedere instead of condere for fear this Sentence should take away from the Pope the power of making New Canons contrary to the Fathers Decrees a Priviledge of which Rome hath made more use than any Church in the World This Pope's time is concluded with a forged African Council at Telepte wherein it is pretended they only read the fourth Epistle of Siricius and thence the Notes and Baronius gather that the African Church shewed great respect to the See of Rome But first Labbè confessed before that this Epistle of Siricius was forged And Secondly the Story is ill timed for the African Church had never less reason to respect the Popes than now when they so manifestly robbed them both
Council deposes a Bishop of Ambrun uncanonically chosen and makes divers Decrees with his fellow Bishops who doubtless were not then so much enslaved to the Pope as in after times § 4. Leo the First succeeded Xystus being an active bold and aspiring Man so that he concerned himself in all the affairs of Christendom and every where laboured to advance the Roman Supremacy for which he had a favourable conjuncture by the misfortunes which then hapned to all other great Churches The Africans were under a cruel persecution the Eastern Church distracted with Heresie and a woful Schism the Orthodox Bishops in the East betrayed and oppressed by three of the four Patriarchs and the fourth of the Eastern Patriarchs condemned and murdered the Emperor of the West very young and he in the East a weak man and both governed by devout and zealous Women All which circumstances contributed to make Leo who was always Orthodox and powerful very great The Pontifical relates but few of his Actions and those with many mistakes but because all the following Councils give us so much of his Life I shall only make some remarks upon the Pontifical and take the rest in the order of time First 'T is said there he found out two Heresies the Eutychian and the Nestorian But the Nestorian Heresie was found out and condemned long before his time and as for Eutyches he was found out and censured by Flavianus Bishop of Constantinople before Leo took him for a Heretick yea he writ a kind Letter to this Heretick and two angry Letters in his behalf to the Emperor and Flavianus because he was excommunicated And till he was informed by the Bishop of Constantinople what dangerous Doctrines he held Leo inclined to be Eutyches friend for which indeed afterwards he made ample amends in assisting toward Eutyches condemnation Secondly The Pontifical variously and falsly reports the number of Bishops in the Council of Chalcedon and is mistaken in saying Pulcheria was present with Martianus there and that they confessed their Faith before the Council desiring them to send to Pope Leo to expound the Faith And that Leo after this did write a Tract condemning all Heresies all which are gross mistakes But it is true that he writ many Epistles and frequently shewed his approbation of the Council of Chalcedon and that he did prevail with Attila King of the Hunns to deal gently with Rome when it was in his power to have destroyed it 'T is very probable also that he added some passages to the Roman Office and that he ordered some to watch the Church of St. Peter and Paul to which in this Age many began to make Visits and Oblations But Binius his Notes add divers incredible Stories as that about the Hearse-Cloth which Bled when Leo clip'd it with Scissors which Gregory mentions near 200 year after only as a report which he could not cite any Author for And another Story or two out of Sophronius his Pratum Spirituale a Book stuffed with Fables as Baronius himself confesseth for having cited a false Story out of this Author he hath these words since he put so many lies together in this one Narration what credit can be given to the rest Yet Baronius himself cites this Author for Miracles and Visions very oft and in one place relates two Miracles out of Sophronius for the glory of that Epistle which Pope Leo writ to Flavianus against Eujyches and Nestorius An Epistle indeed very Orthodox and at that time very seasonable but far from meriting those prodigious Encomiums Baronius or the Legends give it who magnifie it as if it equalled the Creed and proved the Pope alone was to define all controversies of Faith to teach General Councils what they were to believe and to give Laws to all Bishops in the World But whatever excellency there is in this Epistle which is in number the Xth and printed in the Council of Chalcedon it is not to be ascribed to Pope Leo but to the learned Prosper who was his Amanuensis and wrote not only this but many other Letters for him so that the Sense and Phrase is Prosper's only they are writ in Leo's name as Gennadius testifies who lived but fifty year after Leo became Pope and the same is affirmed by Trithemius And we may observe that an Epistle of this very Prosper's against the Pelagians as we noted before went under Pope Celestine's name but far exceeded the Style of Celestine's own Letters I only add that Labbè here prints all these Epistles which bear Leo's name some of which I shall have occasion to consider afterwards The first Council of Orange Binius intitles under Leo but Labbè ashamed of that gross pretence leaves these words out For it was called by and held under Hilary Bishop of Arles who exercised the Jurisdiction of a Metropolitan and Primate in those parts and all the Bishops of those parts owned his Primacy and met at his Summons of which Binius takes no notice There were made in this Synod many good Canons for Discipline which were observed in the Gallican Church without any confirmation from the Pope At the end of this Council is published a Form of Excommunication and a very excellent Office for reconciling Penitents supposed to be made in this Council which proves Forms had then been long in use The second Council at Vasatis or Razai in France seems to me to be wrong dated for I observe the fourth Canon cites a passage out of St. Hierom with this Title One of the Fathers asserts c. Now St. Hierom died but 20 year before the date of this Council and could hardly so soon have been cited by the Title of One of the Fathers besides the sixth Canon cites one of the spurious Epistles of Clement forged after this Age. But the fifth Canon orders him who is aggrieved with the Sentence of his Bishop to appeal to a Synod which shews that reserving Causes to Rome was not allowed or used then The Editors have a Roman Council of Pope Leo's which was no more than a Solemn meeting of the Clergy and Laity to examine the Manichean Hereticks But there were two remarkable things in Leo's proceeding against them of which the Notes say nothing but Baronius informs us First That he discovered the Manicheans by their refusing to drink of the Cop in the Blessed Sacrament which this Pope counts a great impiety in this sort of People not foreseeing that his Successors would take the Cup away from all the People of that Church And this passage makes it clear that all the People at Rome who were Orthodox did receive the Cup then or else the Hereticks not receiving it could not have discovered them Secondly Baronius notes that because these Manicheans idolatrously adored the rising Sun Leo forbid the Orthodox People to use that innocent and ancient Custom of
held long after Celestine's death at St. Germans second coming hither So that in this Island the Roman Church was not considered in those days and one Sister Church desired help of another to repress Heresies without any recourse to Rome § 6. In a Synod held at Constantinople under Flavianus Eutyches a Monk was formally accused of Heresy for affirming that Christ had but one Nature after his Incarnation and that it was as much Nestorianism to hold two Natures as two Persons Upon which he was three several times cited before the Council and had sufficient time given but refusing to come till the time was expired and though he did come at last obstinately defending his Heresy he was unanimously condemned and by Flavianus and the whole Synod Excommunicated and Degraded which was a judicial proceeding agreeable to the ancient Canons Binius and Baronius in relating this make some remarks which must be considered For first when Eutyches saith He would subscribe the Nicene and Ephesine Councils so far as they were agreeable to Scripture They note this was more Haereticorum according to the manner of Hereticks But I would ask First Whether it be not true that the Decrees of Councils in matters of Faith are no further obligatory than they are proved by Scripture Secondly Whether the most Orthodox Fathers Athanasius Cyril c. did not always appeal to Scripture in the first place And the greatest Councils ever confirm their determinations first by Scripture Thirdly Whether any of the Adversaries of Eutyches in that Age did censure him for appealing first to Scripture Baronius himself cites Flavianus his Letter wherein he first alledges Scripture and then the Expositions of the Fathers And Pope Leo saith Eutyches erred by not having recourse to the Prophets Apostles and Evangelists but to himself so that it was no fault in Eutyches to prefer Scripture before the Fathers expositions nor to appeal to it but to expound it wrongfully was his Crime and that is more Haereticorum Secondly When Eutyches petitioned Theodosius in this case for a safe conduct to the Synod Binius adds to his Authors words that this was also after the manner of Hereticks Whereas it appears that divers of the Orthodox have applied themselves to the Emperors to assist and support them and none oftner than Pope Leo himself so that a thing done as frequently by the Orthodox as Hereticks can be no sign or mark of Heresy Thirdly Binius pretends that Eutyches appealed from this Synod to Pope Leo Now this is confuted by the very Acts of the Synod related in the Council of Chalcedon and recited by Baronius where it is said Eutyches appealed to the Council of the Roman Bishop and of the Bishops of Alexandria Hierusalem and Thessalonica yet they make as if this had been an Appeal only to the Pope Fourthly Binius notes the Appeal was not admitted I reply Pope Leo did so far receive Eutyches Letter that he writ three Epistles on his behalf before he was informed of the true State of the Case and quarrelled with Flavianus for condemning a convicted Heretick before he had consulted him But in truth there was no Appeal at all Flavianus did write indeed to Leo and probably to all other Patriarchs after the Canonical Judgment was over to acquaint them with his proceedings that so they might not break the Canons by admitting an Heretick in one Church who was Excommunicated in another But the Style of Flavianus his Letter shews that he need not ask Leo's leave to censure an Heretical Priest of his own Diocess nor doth he desire the Pope to confirm his Sentence but only to make it known So that Baronius falsly infers the Popes power to judge of Heresy and confirm all Sentences against them from this Letter of Flavianus And he as falsly makes the like inference from Eutyches writing to Leo as if he knew of what weight the Popes judgment was for which Councils in doubtful Cases use to stay and to which all the Catholick Church would certainly incline For Eutyches writ to other Bishops of Italy as well as the Pope as Baronius in that Page confesseth and considered Leo no otherwise than as one Eminent Bishop And this Synod of Constantinople stayed not for the Popes Judgment nor did those Bishops who despised the Decree of this Synod value Pope Leo's Judgment after he had declared for Flavianus So little truth is there in the Annalists pompous observations which only shew that all his aim is from every passage to extort some kind of colour for his dear Supremacy In the same year were two Synods one at Tyre the other at Berithus in the cause of one Ibas a Syrian Bishop wherein the Patriarch of Antioch and Constantinople were concerned but the Pope is not once mentioned in the whole proceedings But of the Cause it self we shall hear more afterward Theodosius the Emperor being deceived by Eutyches and Chrysapius one of his great Courtiers an Eunuch espouses the Quarrel of that Heretick and labours to have the Sentence which Flavianus passed against him in the late Synod revoked and Pope Leo was drawn into the same snare by the Letters of Eutyches and Theodosius till Flavianus had better informed him For Leo writ both to the Emperor and Flavianus on Eutyches behalf at first And whereas Baronius ought to blush for the Popes mistake he recites these two Letters and talks big of his being owned for the lawful and chief Judge in Ecclesiastil Controversies yea the supreme Judge of the Universal Church c. But though as an ingenuous Romanist observes Leo in all his Epistles boasts of the power of his Apostolical Seat as much as he can and more than by the Canons he ought to do yet neither of these Epistles say any such thing as Baronius infers from them And that Letter of Flavianus which delivered this infallible Judge from his mistake declares that Eutyches had received a just and Canonical Condemnation to which the Pope ought to consent and to joyn in it By which we see a Sentence against an Heretick was just before the Pope knew of it and that he and all Orthodox Bishops ought by their subsequent consents to ratifie what any one Bishop had Canonically done And since Eutyches was already rightly censured Flavianus requires Leo and no doubt other Eminent Bishops to publish their consent to it thereby to prevent the design of Eutyches which was to get a general Council called to judge his Cause over again Now this serves Baronius to brag that Flavianus knew there was no need of a general Council for that which the Popes Letters had defined A strange affection For when Pope Leo not first as Baronius saith falsly but last of all the Orthodox Bishops did stand up for Flavianus and write to confirm his Censure upon Eutyches that very Cause was tried over again in the Pseudo-general Council of Ephesus and the
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
Pope Leo for reproving Theodosius the Emperor gently and mildly when he was going to establish Heresie by a Pseudo-Synod Whereas Old Eli's Example may shew if the Emperor was his Inferior in this matter and the Pope his Ghostly Father that his Reproof ought to have been sharper yea he should have expresly prohibited the convening of this Council if his Authority was necessary to their Meeting and have not so meanly truckled as to send his Legates to a Synod which he judged needless yea dangerous And if we consider Leo's high Spirit this Submission shews he had no right to call a General Council nor power to hinder the Emperor from appointing one Again When the Pope by Prosper's help had writ a very seasonable and Orthodox Epistle against Eutyches the French Bishops were careful to have it exactly Transcribed but it follows not from hence That they would not vary one syllable from his Decrees For this respect was shewed not to the Authority of the See but to the excellency of the Epistle as appears in that the Gallican Bishops as hath been shewed rejected other Decrees both of this Pope and his Predecessors when they disliked them And Baronius owns a little after that these Bishops rejoyced that this Epistle contained their own sense as to the Faith and were glad that the Pope held the same Opinion that they had always held from the Tradition of their Ancestors So that this is no Proof as he would have it That the Pope was a Master presiding over all the Christian World For they judged of his Teaching and approved it because it agreed with their Churches ancient Tradition On no better grounds he gathers there was One only lawful Judge One Governor of Holy things always in the Church viz. the Pope From Theodoret's Epistle to Leo For first these Epistles are justly suspected as being not heard of till they came to light first out of the Vatican And secondly they are demonstrated to be spurious by divers Learned Men and especially this to Leo is shewed to contain manifest Contradictions Thirdly If this Epistle were genuine it must be considered that all the Patriarchs except the Roman were at that time either corrupted or oppressed and in that juncture Theodoret could appeal to none of them but Leo and so might well give him good words who alone was likely and able to assist him As for that Testimony wherein they much glory That Rome had the Supremacy over all Churches as their Translation speaks because it was always free from Heresie and no Heretick had sat there it supposes a long experience of the Church of Romes Integrity before this Priviledge was bestowed and if the Supremacy was given her for this Reason she ought to lose it again whenever any Heretical Pope shall get the Chair nor doth Theodoret at all suppose this impossible for the future Moreover he brags that Leo restored Theodoret and others deposed by this Pseudo Ephesine-Synod and infers That it was the Popes priviledge alone to restore Bishops deposed by a Council But the Misfortune is Theodoret was called an Heretick after the Pope had privately acquitted him and his Cause was to be tried over again at Chalcedon and till that Council restored him he remained suspended for all this pretended Priviledge of the Pope And before we leave him we may note that he used all his Interest to persuade the Emperor to call a lawful and impartial General Council as appears by all his Epistles to his several Friends which shews he knew it was in the Emperor's power alone to call one not in the Pope's to whom he would have written being in favour with him if he had had Authority in this Affair He reckons Attila's leaving to harrass the Eastern Empire to be a Divine Reward for Marcian's setling the true Religion there but presently tells us That this Scourge of God and other sad Judgments fell upon Italy and the Western Empire from whence he supposes the Reformation of all Eastern Heresies came and where he believes no Heresie could ever take place So miserably do Men expose themselves when they pretend to give Reasons for all God's Dispensations In the next year hapned the Famous Council of Chalcedon wherein divers of Baronius's Frauds have been already detected so that I am only to add That Leo was politick in pretending to give Anatolius a power to receive Recanting Bishops who had fallen into Eutyches Heresie and cunningly reserves the greater Cases to his own See But 't is plain Anatolius of Constantinople had as much power in the Provinces subject to him as the Pope had in Italy and the greater Cases were according to ancient Usage reserved to the next General Council where both the Bishop of Rome and Constantinoples Acts were to be re-examined and none of these Erring Bishops were restored but by that Council And finally he makes it a great Crime in Dioscorus to pretend to Lord it over Egypt and to say He had as much Authority there as the Emperor Yet the following Popes did and said as much in relation to Italy but Baronius cannot see any harm in that though Socrates did who saith That both the Bishops of Rome and Alexandria had exceeded the bounds of Priestly-power and fallen to a secular way of Ruling And this may suffice for this Part of the Period we have undertaken CHAP. IV. Roman Errors and Forgeries in the Councils from the end of the Fourth Council till An. Dom. 500. § 1. THE Synod of Alexandria is falsly styled in the Title under Leo For their own Text confesseth it was assembled by the Authority of Proterius Bishop of Alexandria The Second Council of Arles which Binius had antedated 70 year and put out with this false Title under Siricius is by Labbè placed here according to Sirmondus his direction The Council of Anjou in Binius is said to be held under Leo who is not once named in it Wherefore Labbè leaves out that false Inscription and only saith it was held in the 13th year of Pope Leo The 4th Canon of this Council is corrupted by Binius and Baronius For where the Text reads If any be coelibes unmarried they put into the Margen as a better reading if any be debiles weak Which is to make the Reader believe that all the Clergy then were unmarried whereas this Canon supposes many of them had Wives And the 11th Canon allows a married Man to be chosen Priest or Deacon the Popes Decrees not yet prevailing in France So that Labbè honestly strikes out debiles and keeps only the true reading d We note also that in the end of this 4th Canon such Clerks as meddle in surrendring Cities are excommunicated A Sentence which if it were now executed would put many Priests and Jesuits out of the Communion of the Church for their treachery to the Emperor and the King of
did not receive the Cup as well as the Bread For he saith in general This dividing the Mystery can never happen without a grand Sacriledge Now it is certain that when either an Heretical or Catholick Man or Woman receives but in one kind it doth happen that the Mystery is divided and therefore in Pope Gelasius Opinion the present Church of Rome is guilty of a grand Sacriledge in taking the Cup from the People And it seems the Editors thought Baronius had not sufficiently satisfied this Objection and therefore they cunningly leave it out of this Popes Decrees in both Editions With like craft they omit the Tract of Gelasius against Eutyches and only give a touch at it in the Notes and there also care is taken out of Baronius if any shall elsewhere meet with this piece to keep them from discerning that Pope Gelasius condemns Transubstantiation and expresly saith That the substance of Bread and Wine remains after the Consecration The words they cannot deny but first Baronius and Binius argue it was not writ by this Pope but by Gelasius Cyzicenus an Author as Orthodox and more ancient than Pope Gelasius but their Arguments are not so cogent as to outweigh the proofs that this Pope writ the Tract Labbè in his Margen saith that many learned men think it his Gennadius Contemporary with the Roman Gelasius and the Pontifical say he writ a Tract against Eutyches Fulgentius cites it as this Gelasius his Work Pope John the Second also ascribes it to his Predecessor Yea the Bibliotheca Patrum allowed by the Expurgators put it out under Pope Gelasius his name And at last Baronius himself is not against supposing it was his But then Secondly He manifestly perverts the Sense of the words before-cited being after long shuffling forced to this absurdity that by the substance he means the accidents of Bread and Wine remain Which makes this learned Pope so ignorant as to mistake the first rudiments of Logick and might almost shew he was an Heretick if his Comparison in that sense be applied to the two Natures of Christ for illustrating of which he brings it in For thus it would follow that Gelasius held nothing but the accidents of Christs Body or Human Nature remained after the Hypostatical Union Doubtless Contarenus his Brother Cardinal was wiser and honester in making no reply at the Colloquy of Ratasbon 1541 to this clear Testimony And it is great weakness in Baronius to brag what wonders he hath done by heaping up a parcel of falshoods and impertinence Before we dismiss this let it be noted that the Annalist and Binius not only allow but dispute for 500 forged Tracts and Epistles which support modern Popery but they devise innumerable things to baffle and disgrace the most genuine Writings that condemn their Innovations Which is Baronius his meaning when he gives this reason of his large digression about this Tract because out of it the Innovators take their Weapons But they who reject the old Writings of their own Doctors do more justly deserve that Title As to this Popes extraction Volatteran and Panvinius say his Father Valerius was a Bishop Which is now left out of the Pontifical and not mentioned in Baronius or the Notes But the omission signifies little there being so many instances of married Bishops that had Children Yea of Popes that were Sons or Grand-Children of Bishops or former Popes As to the time of this Pope's ingress Baronius places it An. 492 and upon the credit of the dates of a few Papal Epistles which are always suspicious and often forged he rejects the Authority of Marcellinus who lived at this time and died An. 534 in whose Chronicle Gelasius is said to be made Pope An. 494 that is two year later than Baronius places it § 8. If Marcellinus be in the right we may justly doubt of those three Epistles the 1st 2d and 9th which Baronius cites as writ before the year 494 The 1st hath no date and though the time of writing it be made an Evidence against Marcellinus his Account yet he brings no proof it was writ An. 492 but this Nothing hinders us from allowing these things between Euphemius and Gelasius to be done this year I reply the Testimony of a good Author of that Age who affirms Gelasius was not Pope till two years after hinders us from believing it was writ then But I will not however condemn the Epistle which is modest enough calling Euphemius Bishop of Constantinople his Brother and Fellow advanced to a Precedence by the favour of Christ And when he was pressed to declare by what Council Acacius was condemned he cites no Roman Council nor pretended Sentence of his Predecessor Foelix But saith he was condemned by the Council of Chalcedon but this he doth not make out The Second Epistle also wants a date and is by guess placed in this year by Baronius with this false remark That the Popes by Custom used to prescribe a Form of Belief to all the Faithful Whereas the Letter it self declares the Custom was For every new Pope to declare his Faith to the Neighbouring Bishops that they might know he was Orthodox Now there is a vast difference between prescribing a Form of Belief to others and labouring to get from them a Testimony of our believing aright The 4th Epistles true Title is The Monitory of Gelasius But in Binius these words Of the most blessed Pope are added which Labbè rightly omits In the Monitory it self observe First That Gelasius denies his Predecessor or he had condemned the Emperor Anastasius Secondly He saith the Church hath no power to absolve any after their death Thirdly He claims no power to make any new Canons but only to execute the old Which other Bishops may do Fourthly He cannot prove Appeals to Rome by any Canons but those of Sardica which were rejected by many and slights the Canons of Chalcedon received every where but at Rome Fifthly He very falsly pretends Acacius was only the Executer of the Roman Churches Sentence by whose sole Authority some Eastern Bishops were condemned But we know Acacius had condemned them long before any Sentence was given at Rome and scorned to act under the Pope Sixthly Where Gelasius in his own Cause vainly brags That the Canons have given the Judgment over all to the Apostolical Seat Binius and Labbè mend it in their Marginal Note and say The Canons and Christ gave it this power neither of which is true In the 5th Epistle Gelasius owns a Private Bishop for his Brother and declares that he himself cannot alter the Canons The Margen again here saith The Canons cannot be altered they should have said no not by the Pope But here they say too little as before they said too much which puts me in mind of Juvenal's Note Quisquam hominum est quem tu contentum videris uno Flagitio
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
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
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