rather derision than serious Arguments Sanders and Turrian observe That these Fathers forbid not Images which Christians might take away and hide but Pictures which they must leave exposed to Pagan abuses But might not this have been prevented by hanging up their Pictures in Frames and are not large Images as difficult to be removed and concealed as Pictures Yea doth not the present Roman Church adore Pictures as well as Images so that still this Canon condemns them Martinez fancies This Council forbid Painting on the Walls lest the Pictures should be deformed by the decay of those Walls But he forgets that the Council first forbids them to be any where in the Church and were not Walls as subject to decay in the time of the Second Nicene Council as they are now And had not those Fathers as great an honour for Pictures as these at Elliberis yet the Nicene Picture-Worshipers order them to be painted on Church-Walls Martinez adds That as times vary human Statutes vary and so the Second Council of Nice made a quite contrary Decree What! are Decrees of Councils about Matters of Divine Worship only human Statutes what will become of the Divine Authority and Apostolical Tradition pretended for this Worship of old at Nice and now at Rome if the Orders against it and for it be both human and mutable Statutes It is well however that the Patrons of Image-Worship do own they have altered and abrogated a Primitive Canon for one made Four hundred years after in times of Ignorance and Superstition and we know whether of the two we ought to prefer Baronius is more ingenuous who saith (x) Baron An. 305. §. 45. These Bishops at Elliberis chiefly endeavoured by strict Penalties to affright the Faithful from Idolatry wherefore they made the 34th 36th and 37th Canons and by comparing the First Canon with the Forty sixth it appears they dealt more severely with an Idolater than an Apostate From whence we infer That Pictures in Churches tend to Idolatry in this Councils Opinion Albaspinaeus whose Notes Labbé here prints (y) Lab. p. 998 would enervate this Canon by saying It forbids not the Saints Pictures but those which represented God and the Holy Trinity But it is not probale these Primitive Christians were so ignorant as to need any prohibition about such blasphemous Representations of God's Majesty And he brings no proof but his own bare Conjecture for this limitation of the Canon which Fancy if it were true would prove That the Saints were not worshiped or adored in that Age because nothing that was worshiped and adored was to be painted on the Walls and if that be meant only of God and the Trinity then nothing else but God and the Trinity was adored in those days Finally the former part of the Canon destroys this limitation by excluding Pictures in general out of Churches These are the various Fallacies by which these partial Editors would hide the manifest Novelty of their Churches Worship of Pictures which cannot be defended by all these Tricks I will only add That this genuine Ancient Council in the Fifty third Canon Orders The same Bishop who Excommunicated a Man to Absolve him and that if any other intermedled He should be called to an account for it (z) Lab. p. 976. Bin. pag. 196. C without excepting the Pope or taking notice of Marcellus's pretended claim of Appeals § 3. In the Year 306 was a Council at Carthage against the Donatists which never takes any notice of the Pope yet they put into the Title of it Under Marcellus (a) Lab. p. 1379. Bin. pag. 202. C But there is a worse Forgery in the Notes where S. Augustine is cited as saying That Cecilian Bishop of Carthage despised the Censures of the Donatists because he was joyned in Communion with the Bishop of the Roman Church from which all Catholic Communion was ever wont to be denominated But this is Baronius his false gloss not S. Augustine's words who only saith because he was united by Communicatory Letters both to the Roman Church wherein the Principality of the Catholic Church had always flourished and to other Lands from whence the Gospel came to Africa (b) Aug. ep 62. Tom. Il. p. 150. Vid. Baron An. 306. §. 40. Now there is great difference between a Mans being a Catholic because he was in Communion with Rome then Orthodox and with other Churches and his being a Catholic meerly for being in Communion with the Roman Bishop which is the modern and false notion of the word Catholic among Papists in our days But Binius was so convinced that S. Augustine's words confuted Baronius's Paraphrase that he cunningly leaves them out to make this commodious Sense of them go better down with careless Readers § 4. The next Pope Eusebius was so obscure as the Notes on his Life declare that no Writer mentions any thing of him that is memorable (c) Lab. p. 1380. Bin. pag. 203. col 1. and it is probable there never was such a Pope Yet the Pontifical saith The Cross was found in his time upon the 5th of the Nones of May which is the very Day on which the Roman Church now celebrates The Invention of the Cross And the Third Decretal Epistle of this Pope was devised on purpose to support this Story yet both Baronius and Binius reject it for a Fable even while their Church still observes that Holy-day There are Three Epistles forged for this Name of a Pope all which Labbé owns to be spurious (d) Lab. p. 1381. Bin. pag. 203. col 1. and I need not spend much time to prove it since they cite the Vulgar Latin Version and are mostly stollen out of Modern Authors as Labbe's Margen shews having only one Consul's Name for their Dates because no other was named in the Pontifical Besides the first Epistle uses the Phrase Pro salvatione servorum Dei which is not the Latin of that Age and talks of Rigorous Tortures used among Christians to make Witnesses confess Truth The second Epistle repeats the foolish Argument of Christ's whipping the Buyers and Sellers many of which were Lay-men out of the Temple to prove that God alone must judge Priests and out of a much later Roman Council suspected also of Forgery speaks of the Peoples not judging their Bishop unless he err in Matter of Faith and discourses of Edicts of Kings forbidding to try an ejected Bishop till he be restored to his place The third Epistle hath the Fable of the Invention of the Cross and all other Marks of Forgery on it yet Bellarmine cites it to prove the Pope's Succession to S. Peter in his Universal Monarchy and to make out Confirmation to be a Sacrament (e) Bellarm. de Pontif. Rom. lib. 2. cap. 14. de Confirm lib. 2. cap. 3. So little do those Writers value the credit of any Evidence if it do but make for their Churches Authority or support its Doctrines § 5.
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 (r) Baron An. 318. §. 22. c. 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 Baronius owns that Hosius was Constantine's intimate Friend and his Legate into Egypt six years before (s) Baron An. 312. §. 91 92. 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 (t) Bin. Not. p. 240. col 2. Baron An. 318. §. 91. 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 (u) Lab. p. 1495. Bin. pag. 241. Labbe'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 (w) Beveridg not Tom. II. pag. 193. 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 (x) Richer hist Conc. lib. 1. cap. 3. pag. 128. 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 (y) Hieron Ep. CXI Tom. III. p. 34. 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 (z) Id. Ep. 115. ibid. p. 39. and again A man may receive this Book as he pleaseth (a) Idem Ep. 10. Tom. I. pag. 96. Herein therefore the Council of Lacdicea doth not contradict the Council of Nice at all as these Notes falsly pretend Thirdly This Counc ls 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 graft the use of their modern Sacramental Confession to a Priest upon this ancient Canon (b) Lab. p. 1523. Bin pag. 248. col 2. 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 (c) Beveridg Not. Tom. II. p. 193. 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 (d) Lab. p. 1524. Bin. pag. 249. col 1. 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 (e) Lab. Bin. ibid. 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 (f) Lab. p. 1526. Bin. pag 250. col 1. 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 (g) Theodoret. in Coloss cap. 2. 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 Greeks received not its Canons into their Code and Pope Nicholas Epistle shews that the Eastern Church did not value its Authority only the Popes esteemed it because it seems to advance their power (m) Richer hist Concil lib. 1. cap. 3. 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 (n) Baron An. 347. §. 73. 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 (o) Lab. p. 690 691. Bin. pag. 448. col 1. 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 (p) Richer hist Con. lib. 1. cap. 3. And we add that Hosius neither cites any Divine Law no nor any precedent Canon or Custom for this but supposes it at the pleasure of this Synod to grant or deny Julius this privilege And yet if it were an express Law this being only a Western Synod doth not bind the whole Catholic Church Besides it is not said The Criminal shall appeal to Rome and have his Cause tryed there but only that the Pope if need were might order the Cause to be heard over again in the Province where it was first tryed and therefore Julius is only made a Judge of the necessity of a Re-hearing not of the Cause it self which according to the 5th Canon of Nice was to be decided in the Province where it was first moved And this rather condemns than countenances the modern Popish way of Trying foreign Causes at Rome by Appeal To this I will add an ancient Scholion on this Canon found in some old Copies From this Canon the Roman Church is much exalted with Pride and former evil Popes producing this as a Canon of Nice were discovered by a Council at Carthage as the Preface to that Council shews But this Canon whatever they pretend gives no more power to Rome than other Canons since it saith not absolutely that any who is deposed any where shall have liberty to appeal to the Pope for at that rate the Sardican Synod would contradict the General Councils it speaks only of him who is deposed by the Neighbouring Bishops and those of his Province and therefore doth not comprehend the Synod of the Primate Metropolitan or Patriarch so that if they be present and the Sentence be not barely by the Neighbouring Bishops the Pope may not re-hear it as this Canon orders And it only concerns those in the West Hosius and the Makers of these Canons being of those parts but in the East this Custom never was observed to this day (y) Schol. ap D. Bever Con. Tom. II. p. 199. 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 (z) Sozom. lib. 3. cap. 11. Lab. p. 625. Bin. pag. 424. and their Epistle which calls Julius their Fellow-Minister (a) Lab. p. 670. Bin. pag. 440. col 1. 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 (b) Lab. p. 662. Bin. pag. 437. col 2. Yet in their Epistle to the Church of Alexandria they pray them to give their Suffrage to the Councils determinations (c) Lab. p. 670. Bin. pag. 439. col 2. 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 (d) Lab. p. 692. Bin. pag. 448 col 2. But the Inferences are as ridiculous as they are false and they get no advantage either to their Supremacy or Appeals by this Council An Dom. 348. § 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 (e) Lab. p. 713. Bin. pag. 546. col 1. 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. (f) Baron An. 359. §. 16. Lab. p. 721. Bin. pag. 459. col 1. 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
avoided his communion and S. Hierom saith He was an Arian As for the Story of his condemning Ursacius and Valens two of that Sect there is no better Authority for it than the fabulous Pontifical So that after all the devices of Bellarmin Baronius and Binius (u) Lab. p. 742. Bin. pag. 466. col 1 2. to save their Churches Infallibility we have two Popes at once falling so notoriously into the Arian Heresie that the Lay-people disowned their Communion This is more than suspicion of Heresie in S. Peter's Chair and proves that their infallible Guides for some years were Arian Heretics For this Liberius divers Epistles are published with a Preface before them which saith Two of them were feigned by the Arians (w) Lab. p. 744. Bin. pag. 467. col 1. yet these two are found in the Fragments of S. Hilary among which it is not probable there should be any Fiction of the Arians So that it is very likely these two Epistles are genuine but rejected by these Sycophants of Rome because they tell an ungrateful Truth viz. That Liberius did condemn Athanasius soon after he was made Pope And if we consider how inconstant he was it is very probable that he might condemn Athanasius twice first in the beginning of his Papacy as is said in these two Epistles of which he repented and then writ that Tenth Epistle to own he was in Communion with Athanasius and to tell him If he approved of his form of Faith it would tend much to the setling of his Judgment (x) Lâ—b p. 755 Bin. pâ—g 471. col 1. which is an odd Complement from an Infallible Head. Secondly He condemned Athanasius after his Banishment of which more shall be said hereafter But as to the particular Epistles we shall note That in the first which they say is genuine Liberius with other Bishops petition Constantins to order a Council to be held at Aquilcia (y) 〈◊〉 p 744. 〈◊〉 pâ—g 4â—7 col 1. Vid item Ep. 2. by which we see the Pope had not then assumed the power of calling Councils When he writ the 7th Epistle which they grant also to be genuine no doubt he was an Arian For he calls the Arian Bishops His most Beloved Brethren and declares his Consent to their just condemning of Athanasius together with his being in Communion with them and his receiving their Sirmian Creed as the Catholic Faith (z) Lab. p. 751. â—in pag. 469. col 2. So in the XIth Epistle which is certainly genuine and recorded by Socrates (a) Socrat. hist lib. 4. cap. 11. the Notes confess he was so easie as to receive the Semi-Arians to Communion and to commend their Faith as the same which was decreed at Nice But it is gross Flattery to call this only Being too easie it was in plain terms Being dâ—ceived and erring in Matters of Faith which spoils their Infallibilit (b) Lab. p. 757. Bin. pag. 472. col 1. as it also doth their Universal Supremacy for Liberius in the same Epistle to call himself Bishop of Italy referring only to the Suburbicarian Regions and saying He was the meaness of Bishops and rejoyced that those in the East did not submit to him but agree with him in Matters of Faith. Wherefore the XIIth or as Labbé calls it the XIVth Epistle which is writ to all Bishops is manifestly forged (c) Ep. 14. Lab. pag. 760. Ep. 12. Bin. pag. 472. col 2. And so are the two next from Liberius to Athanasius and from Athanasius to Liberius as both Labbé and Binius confess (d) Lab. p. 763. Bin. in Notis pag. 474. col 2. yet in one of these the Pope brags of his Authority over the Universal Church But the Forger was so bad at Chronology that while he strives to make this Pope look like an Orthodox Friend of Athanasius he absurdly brings him in even under Julian or Valens in one of whose Reigns this Epistle was written threatning Offenders with the Emperours Indignation with Deprivation yea with Proscription Banishment and Stripes (e) Lab. p. 767. Bin. pag. 474. col 2. I need not mention those Decrees which are attributed to Liberius whose Style betrays them and shews they belong to the later Ages and are placed here by the Collectors only to make them seem more ancient than really they are In Liberius's first year it is said There was a Council called at Rome by this Pope to clear Athanasius (f) Lab. p. 769. 〈◊〉 pag. 475. col 1. yet being sensible that their Authority would signifie very little they all agreed to petition the Emperour for a Council to Meet at Aquilâ—â—a to confirm what they had done at Rome Anno 355. there was a Council at Milan the Editors call it A General Council because it was with Constantins permission called by Liberius whose Legates also were present at it (g) Lab p. â—â—2 Bin. pag 476. col 1. But herein they grosly falsifie for Sozomen declares That Constantius summâ—ned all the Bishops to Milan (h) Sâ—â—â—m lib. 4 cap. 8. Socrat. lib. 2. cap. 29. and Barenius saith The Emperour called them together (i) Baron An. 355. § 2. 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 Barenius 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 (k) Lab. p. 773. For he was Ordained by three Arian Bishops at Milan as Athanasius declares (l) Athanas Epist ad Solitar and Socrates as we noted before saith 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 (m) Sozom. lib. 4. cap. 10. 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
44. So he tells us The Body of S. John Baptist was burnt to Ashes except some Bones which were carried into Egypt to Athanasius And yet a little after S. Hierom affirms his Bones remained at Sebaste and wrought Miracles there Baron An. 362. pag. 56. As little Truth is there in his accusing Maximus the Emperour for presuming to judge of Bishops Causes Baron An. 385. pag. 441. whereas Maximus his Letter to Siricius which Baronius records Id. An. 387. pag. 474. declares He would call the Bishops to a Council in what City they pleased and refer it to them who were best skilled to determine these matters Again in order to justifie those feigned Relicks of Protasius and Gervasius shewed now at Rome he affirms That S. Ambrose gave part of them to several Bishops and some of them were brought to Rome Whereas S. Ambrose himself who knew best what was done assures us He buried the Bodies whole putting every Joynt in his own order Baron An. 387. pag. 468. Collat. cum Ambrose Ep. 85. And to name no more He brags that Idols were pulled down no where with more zeal than at Rome Baron An. 389 390. pag. 526. Yet in the same Page he tells us There was then newly dedicated an Altar there for sacrificing to the Heathen Gods So that we see designed Falshoods are not scrupled by him in things which seem to make for the honour of Rome or her Opinions § 6. We may also observe that for the same ends He makes innumerable false Inferences on purpose to pervert the Truth thus from S. Augustine's calling Melchiades A Father of Christian People as every Bishop is Baronius concludes that S. Augustine was for the Popes Supremacy Baron An. 313. §. 29. So from Bishops judging in Causes where the People referred their Differences to them he frequently infers A right in Bishops to judge in Temporal Matters Baron An. 319. §. 30. item An. 326. §. 100 c. item An. 398. pag. 61. 62. In like manner from Theodoret's mentioning a Canon of the Church in general and as his discourse shews referring to the Canon which forbids any Bishop to judge a Cause till both parties were present Baronius gathers that the Pope was supreme over the Bishop of Alexandria and that by the Canons of Nice Baron An. 325. §. 128. Again That the Pope was not beholding to the Council of Nice for his Supremacy which he had from Christ he proves by Pope Nicholas his Testimony who had the impudence in his own Cause and for his own Ends to tell this Story Five hundred years after Id. ib. §. 130. So he condemns the Arians for ejecting Bishops without staying for the Bishop of Rome's Sentence which he proves was unjust by an Epistle of Pope Julius which says The Arians should first have writ to all Bishops that so what was right might be determined by all Baron An. 336. §. 34. where Julius arrogates nothing to himself alone as Baronius falsly pretends And to make this single Priviledge of Rome the more credible he doth frequently apply what the Ancients say of all the Bishops of the West to the Pope Thus what S. Basil saith of all the Western Churches he applies only to Rome Baron An. 371. pag. 239. And when he recites two Epistles of S. Basil whose Title is to the Western Bishops and the whole discourse in it directed to many Bishops he feigns the Name of the Pope is left out or lost and concludes these Letters were peculiarly directed to him and this only to support the Roman Supremacy Baron An. 371. pag. 238 An. 372. pag. 269 270 271 c. and therefore he repeats over and over this matter and affirms it was an Embassy sent to the Pope Ibid. 273 274. Thus also when S. Ambrose saith The Western Bishops by their Judgment approved of his Ordination He infers that S. Ambrose implies It was confirmed by a public Decree of the Apostolical See Baron An. 375. pag. 320. And whereas Basil speaking of those Western Bishops in his time who he saith kept the Faith entirely Baronius infers from hence That their Successors and especially the Bishops of Rome have never erred since Baron An. 372. pag. 276. An. 373. pag. 310. Like to which is his inferring the usage of Praying to Saints from a pure Rhetorical flourish of Nazianzen's in one of his Orations Baron An. 372. pag. 285. And thus when S. Hierom uses all his Oratory to set off Virginity because that seems to make for the Roman Celibacy he takes him to be in good earnest and will have all his Reflexions upon Marriage to be solid Arguments Baron An. 382. pag. 402. though S. Hierom himself calls them Trifles Baron An. 350. pag. 540. But when he tells a sober Truth about the Ignorance of the Roman Clergy then the Cardinal tells us He speaks by way of Hyperbole Idem An. 385. pag 435. From which Instances it doth appear that our Annalist did not like an Historian endeavour to declare Truth but only to serve an Interest and a Party § 7. Lastly His Partiality notoriously appears where-ever the Church of Rome is any way concerned for when any thing of this kind comes in his way he puts off the Character of an Historian and turns Disputant labouring to confute the most ancient and authentic Authors if they seem to say any thing against that Church Thus we may observe what tedious digressions he makes about the Primacy of Rome in his discourse on the Nicene Council for which he twice makes Apologies Baron An. 325. §. 136 140. Again he runs out into a long and very impertinent dispute about the Worship of Images in an Age when no good Author mentions them as used in the Church Baron An. 362. pag. 18. In like manner He makes a long excursion to disprove an Authentic Story of Epiphanius tearing a Veil with a Picture wrought in it because such things were not fit to be in Churches Baron An. 392. p. 568. and he scarce ever meets with any of the Roman Corruptions mentioned in the most fabulous Authors but he leaves the History and enlarges into Remarks upon those Passages But if the Writer be never so eminent that touches any of these Sores his business always is to baffle the Evidence of which there is scarce one year in his Annals wherein there are not some Examples On the other side He takes every slight occasion to make the most spiteful Reflexions on all that he counts Enemies to the Roman Church Thus he applies the Bishop of Alexandria's description of the Arians to the Reformed Churches though it agree much better with these of his own Religion Baron An. 318. §. 30. Again He reviles us because we do not honour the Modern idle lewd Monks of their Communion as much as the Ancients did those holy and devout Monks which were in the Primitive Times though it be plain to all
Circumcised Converts to Peter (e) Lab. pag. 21. Bin. pag 2. col 2. 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 fabulous Story of the Assumption of the Virgin Mary (f) Lab. pag. 24. Bin. pag. 3. col 2. 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 (g) Lab. pag. 53. Bin. pug 14. col 1. 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 (h) Lab. Bin. ibid. 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 (i) Lab. pag. 53. Bin. pag. 14. col 2. 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 (k) Vid. Beveridg Not. Concil Tom. II. pag. 18. 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 (l) Lab. pag. 55. Bin. pag. 15. col 1. 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 (m) Lab. pag. 56. Bin. pag. 15. col 2. 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 (n) Lab. pag. 60. Bin. pag 17. col 2. 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 (o) Tertul. de jejun adv Psycl cap. 14 15. do all speak of Saturday as a Day on which Fasting was forbid The Notes confess also That the Eastern-Church and the Church of Milan in S. Ambrose time allowed not Fasting upon Saturday (p) Aug. ad Januar ep 118. cap. 2. ad Casulan Ep. 86. 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 diâ—fered 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 (q) Lab. pag. 6. Bin. pag. 18. col 1. 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 (r) Dr. Câ—sens Histor Canon Chap.
to be Forgeries (h) Bin. Not. in Epist Foel p. 499 Not. in Ep. Julii pag. 385. He falsly saith Dioscorus was Condemned at Chalcedon only for holding a Synod without the Pope's Consent whereas he is known to have been accused of many other Crimes His Text of Pasce oves is nothing to this purpose nor will Pope Pelagius his Word be taken in his own Cause His Story of Valentinian makes nothing for the Pope more than any other Bishop Yea the Bishops desiring him to call a Council shews They thought it was His Prerogative and Nicephorus relates his Answer to have been That he was so taken up with State Affairs that he had no leisure to enquire into those matters (i) Niceph. lib. 2. cap. 3. Whitak de Concil pag. 51. Wherefore after all this elaborate Sophistry to justifie a false Assertion of a Forged Epistle the Annotator hath only shewed his partiality for the Pope's Power but made no proof of it The second Epistle of this Marcellus to the Tyrant Maxentius is also a manifest Forgery (k) Lab. p. 951. Bin. pag. 387. col 1. part of it is taken out of his Successor Gregory's Epistles writ almost Three hundred years after this and it is highly improbable That a persecuted Pope should falsly as well as ridiculously to a Pagan Emperor quote the Laws of the Apostles and their Successors forbidding to persecute the Church and Clergy and also instruct him about the Roman Churches power in Calling Synods and Receiving Appeals and cite Clement's Forged Epistle as an Authority to Maxentius That Lay-men must not accuse Bishops The Notes indeed are unwilling to lose such precious Evidence and so pretend That Maxentius at this time dissembled himself to be a Christian but this Sham can signifie nothing to such as read the Epistle where Marcellus complains That he then persecuted him most unjustly and therefore he did not pretend to be a Christian at that time and consequently the whole Epistle is an absurd Forgery And so is that Decree subjoyned to it which supposes young Children offered to Monasteries and Shaved or Veiled there Customs which came up divers Centuries after this § 2. The Canons of Peter Bishop of Alexandria (l) Lab. p. 967. Bin. pag. 189. col 1. are genuine and a better Record of Ecclesiastical Discipline than any Pope to this time ever made the Reader also may observe the Bishop of Rome is not once named in these Canons and they plead Tradition for the Wednesday Fast contrary to the Roman Churches pretence of having an Apostolical Tradition to Fast on Saturday The Council of Elliberis in Spain An. Dom. 305. is by Binius placed under Pope Marcellus which Words Labbé leaves out of the Title (m) Lab. p. 967. E Bin. pag. 191. col 1. and justly for if there were such a Pope the Council takes no notice of him nor is it likely that Rome did know of this Council till many years after Yet it is both Ancient and Authentic though Mendoza in Labbé (n) Lab. p. 1030. reckons up divers Catholic Authors Caranza Canus Baronius c. who either wholly reject it or deny the 34th 35th 36th and 40th Canons of it which condemn the Opinions now held at Rome And though Binius because Pope Innocent approves it dare not reject it yet he publishes Notes to make the Reader believe it doth not condemn any of their Opinions or Practices The 13th Canon speaks of Virgins who dedicated themselves to God but mentions not their being Veiled or Living in Monasteries which Customs came in long after as the Authors cited in the Notes shew (o) Lab. p. 983. D Bin. pag 200. col 1. The 26th Canon calls it an Error to Fast upon Saturday But the Notes are so bold as to say The Error which this Council corrected was the not Fasting on Saturday whereas even these very Notes confess That the Eastern Churches and most of the Western Rome and some few others excepted together with the African Church did not Fast on Saturday but Wednesday yea those they Call the Apostolical Canons and Clement's Constitutions do both establish Wednesday Fast and condemn their pretended Apostolical Churches Saturday Fast and if divers in Spain as the Notes say in S. Hierom's and Pope Innocent's times did not Fast on Saturday and others then needed Arguments to settle them in this Roman practice It may be gathered from thence that in the time of this Council the Saturday Fast was esteemed an Error as it was also in that Age almost in all Christian Churches and so the very Words of the Canon import which Baronius saw and therefore (p) Baron Annal An. 305. §. 49. only saith There is mention of the Saturday Fast in this Synod and so passes it knowing it plainly contradicted the Roman Churches Tradition The 34th Canon under pain of Excommunication forbids the lighting Wax Candles in the places where the Martyrs were Buried q (p) Lab. p. 985. E Bin. pag. 201. col 1. which agrees with the Sentiments of the Primitive Church (r) Dailé de cultu Lat. lib. 2. chap. 15. Lactantius condemns Lighting Candles in God's Worship by day as a Paganish Superstition (s) Lactant. Instit lib. 6. cap. 2. S. Hierom saith It was used in his time only by such as did it to humor the silly Vulgar who had a Zeal without Knowledge (t) Hieron ad Ripar ep 53. Yet the Notes confess this is the Custom of the Roman Church for which only cause some of their Doctors reject this Canon since nothing must be Authentic which condemns their Novel Superstitions and these Notes make a miserable Blunder to excuse the matter but we are not concerned whether with the Annotator these Candles in the Day-light disturb the Spirits of the Living Saints by seeing an Heathenish Rite brought into the Church or with Baronius displease the Saints Deceased to behold so Superstitious a thing vainly devised for their honour Since it sufficiently appears the practice is novel and absurd and though now used at Rome condemned by the best Antiquity The Notes also give us one extraordinary distinction (u) Bin. Not. in 34 35 Can. p. 201. col 2. between the Souls of deceased Saints in Heaven and those in Purgatory which latter sort if they had been Saints one would think should need no such dreadful Scouring The 36th Canon determines That Pictures ought not to be in Churches and that none may Paint upon Walls that wich is worshiped (w) Lab. p. 986. Bin pag. 201. col 2. Which so expresly condemns the Roman Worship of Pictures and Images that the boldest Writers of that Church reject this Canon but others as the Notes say would gladly expound it so as to assert the honour and worship due to Holy Images which is a notable kind of Exposition to make a Canon assert that which it confutes But such transparent Fallacies deserve
the Pope 's knowledge or leave There is but one Canon in this Council which contradicts the Roman practice viz. The Ninth which allows Deacons to Marry and continue in their Office if they declared at their Ordination that they could not live Single This Canon therefore Baronius and Binius strive to corrupt with false Glosses The former saith We may by this Canon see how firmly Ministers single Life was asserted not only in the whole Catholick Church but in the East (e) Baron Ann. 314. §. 88. Now it is very strange that a private Canon of a Provincial Council which allows one Order of Ministers to Marry should shew it was the Opinion of the whole Church that none might Marry The latter in his Notes affirms That this among other Canons solidly proves that not only Priests but Deacons by the Apostolical Law were bound to Live without Wives (f) Lab. p. 1478. Bin. pag. 223. col 2. But the Apostles certainly allowed Deacons to have Wives and this Canon was made on purpose that they might live with their Wives if they pleased The Notes proceed to say That Deacons ordained against their Will and pr testing they could not contain were by these Fathers permitted to Marry after their Ordination provided they left off all Sacred Administrations and did not Communicate among the Priests in the Chancel but among the People Which is an impudent falsification There being no word of being Ordained unwillingly nor any reason why they should be Ordained who were to be reduced presently to Lay-communion Yea the Words of the Canon are express that if they did Marry they should continue in their Ministration (g) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vid Dever not Tom. II. p. 175. So that these Editors make no Conscience to make these ancient Records to contradict themselves rather then let them seem to oppose their Churches present practice For which vile purpose there is another trick in the Notes on this Council For whereas the Eighteenth Canon speaks of Lay-persons which Vowed single Life as many had done in times of Persecution and afterwards broke their Vow that these were to be counted Bigamists The Notes (h) Bin. p. 233. col 2. on this Canon put these Words of the Thirteenth Canon Those who are of the Clergy c. Before their observation on the Eighteenth Canon on purpose to make the Reader think the Clergy in those days Vowed single Life as they do now at Rome § 13. The Council of Naeccaesarea according to these Editors was under Sylvester (i) Lab. p. 1479. Bin. pag. 233. who is not once named in it nor doth it appear he knew of it They might also have left out Leo the Fourth's approving it Five hundred years after because the Notes say The Council of Nice allowed it which is much more for its Credit (k) Lab. p. 1489. Bin. pag. 236. col 2. The same Notes say The first Canon orders the same thing which was decreed in the Thirty third Canon at Elliberis and the Ninth at Ancyra And if so that is not as they falsly gloss the Canon of Ancyra That the Clergy should live Single or be reduced to Lay-Communion For in that Canon some of the Clergy are allowed to Marry and to continue to minister as Clergy-men still And the true Sense of this Naeocaesarean Canon is That whereas in times of Persecution when Marriage was inconvenient many Priests promised to live Single Now these only were not allowed to Marry afterward (l) Vid. Beveridg Not. in Concil Nicen. Tom. II. p. 180. but when the Church had Peace the Nicene Council left all Clergy-men free to Marry or not as they pleased which shews That when the Reason of this Canon ceased they believed its Obligation did so also The Fifth Canon forbids a Catechumen who falls into Sin to enter into the Church By which the Notes say That Baronius had sharply censured Eusebius (m) Vid. Baron An. 324. §. 49. But it is plain that Baronius shews more Malice than Wit in that Censure Eusebius only relates Matter of Fact That Constantine was present in the Nicene Council and he with all ancient Authors agrees That Constantine was yet a Catechumen where then is the Crime Do not Baronius and Binius both agree that Constantine was present in the Council of Arles Ten years before his pretended Baptism at Rome And if it be said This Canon forbid it I ask Whether it be probable that an Emperor who as Baronius saith was Solutus Legibus Above the Civil Law should be proceeded against by a Canon of a small Provincial Council Wherefore Eusebius his only Crime is That he tells a Truth which happens to contradict the Lying Acts of Sylvester and consequently the Interest of Rome for which the Cardinal and Annotator can never forgive him The next place is assigned to a Roman Council under Sylvester wherein there was a famous Disputation between the Jews and Christians before Constantine and Helena but in the Notes (n) Lab. p. 1491. Bin. pag. 237. col 1. Vid. Baron An. 315. §. 12. we are told the Story is utterly false only attested by Sylvester's Acts which Swarm with Lies as they are now extant yet out of these Acts as now extant is the Forgery of Constantine's Baptism at Rome taken and therefore Baronius and Binius reject this Council as a meer Forgery But why do they not reject Constantine's Baptism as well as this Council since both rely on the same Author The Reason is plain That makes for the Interest of the Pope and This no way concerns and so it may pass for a Forgery as it is § 14. On occasion of Arius's Heresie now breaking out at Alexandria An. Dom. 315. there was a Council of an Hundred Bishops called by Alexander Bishop of that City to Condemn him which first Council of Alexandria the Editors say was under Sylvester but it doth not appear that this Pope knew of it till Three years after (o) Lab. p. 1492. Bin. pag. 237. col 2. An. 318 at which time Alexander gave notice of this Council not to Sylvester by name as the Notes falsly suggest but to all Catholic Bishops and in particular to the Bishop of Constantinople But for fear the Reader should observe That more respect was shewed to that Bishop than to the Pope the Editors have removed these Epistles of Alexander into the Body of the Nicene Council and only give us Notes upon them here in which the Annotator out of Baronius turns the Charge of Lying and Forgery of which themselves have been so often convicted upon us whom they falsly call Innovators (p) Baron Annal 318. §. 18. Bin. pag. 239. col 1. Four years after followed a Second Council at Alexandria which the Notes hope to prove was under Sylvester (q) Lab. p. 1493. Bin. pag. 239. col 1. because Athanasius saith This was a General Council and saith Hosius was there
the Text of this Canon and put in Angulos for Angelos (h) Edit Merlini Pet. Crab. Barth Caranz 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 (i) Lab. p. 1526. Bin. pag. 250. col 1. 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 (k) Coloss II. ver 16 17 18. 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 Worship due to God alone Only as the Romanists now are so they were inclined to Worship Angels (l) Aug. de haeres Tom. VI. pag. 4 m. 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 (m) Theod. de Curand Graec. Off. Serm. 3. 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 (o) Lab. p. 1528. Bin. pag. 250. col 2. 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 (p) Lab. p. 1530. Bin. pag. 251. col 2. 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 (q) Naucler Chron. gen XI pag. 604. 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 (r) Lab. p. 1534. Bin. pag. 251. col 2. p. 254. col 1. And Baronius introduces it with many Stories to make all that concerns the Popes temporal Greatness credible to an easie Reader (s) Baron An. 324. §. 117. 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 Baptism 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
Constantine's in which this matter is determined with the reasons for it which is better than a bare Law without Arguments in a case which had been so much disputed (u) Bin. p. 285. Theod. lib. 1. cap. 9. nor could they make any acurate Canon about it till the exact time was Calculated which they referred not to the Pope but to the Bishop of Alexandria Secondly The Notes say S. Ambrose mentions a Canon made at Nice against Bigamists (w) Ambros ep 82. ad Episc Vercel but Baronius himself confesseth that S. Ambrose only saith They treated of this matter but doth not affirm they made a Canon about it Thirdly They plead there was a Decree about the Canon of Scripture made at Nice which is not among these Twenty because S. Hierom saith he had Read that the Nicene Fathers computed Judith among the Books of Holy Scripture I reply S. Hierom only saith they computed it among Holy Writings that is as we shewed before § 15. among Books to be Read for instruction not to be quoted in Dispute For if S. Hierom had believed this Council did receive Judith for Canonical he would not have counted it as he doth to be Apocryphal So that this proves not that there were more Canons Fourthly The Notes affirm there is no Canon now extant here against a Bishops choosing his Successor in his Life time which S. Augustine saith was forbid in this Council (x) Augustin Epist 110. which is a gross Untruth since the Eighth Canon forbids two Bishops should be in one City and the Notes own this was the very Canon meant by S. Augustine in the next Leaf (y) Bin. Not. pag. 296. col 1. p. 297. col 2. Liers should have better Memories Fifthly They say the third Council of Carithage cites a Canon of Nice forbidding to receive the Sacrament after Dinner but if the place be considered as Richerius notes (z) Richer histor Concil lib. 1. cap. 3. §. 13. that Council only refers to a former African Synod which had decreed this and not to the Council of Nice Sixthly The Annotator speaks of a Canon about Appeals to Rome cited out of this Synod in the Sixth Council of Carthage but he was wiser than to tell us who cited this for a Nicene Canon for it was Pope Zosimus's Legate cited it and he was convicted of a notorious Falsification therein as shall be shewed in due place Seventhly He saith there was a Canon made at Nice but not to be found among the Twenty that a Cause tried in a lesser Synod might be judged over again in a greater and for this he cites the Fourth Epistle of Julius but in his Notes on that Epistle (a) Bin. Not. in ep Julii pâ—g 395. col 2. he confesseth this was no Canon made at Nice but only it was matter of Fact in that this great Synod did judge Arius over again who had before been judged at Alexandria Eightly The Notes say Atticus Bishop of Constantinople at Chalcedon did affirm that the Nicene Council agreed upon a Form of writing Communicatory Epistles which is not among these Twenty Canons I reply Baronius and he both own this Form was to be a Secret among the Bishops and if it had been put into a Canon Heretics might easily have counterfeited these Forms and so the design had been spoiled (b) Baron An. 325. §. 166. Richer lib. 1. cap. 3. §. 14. Lastly the Annotator cites Sozomen to proves that the Nicene Council added to the Gloria Patri the later part As it was in the beginning c. Whereas Sozomen (c) Sozom. histor lib. 3. cap. 19. in that place only speaks of such as praised God in Hymns agreeing to the Faith delivered at Nice but mentions no Canon or Form of words agreed on at Nice about these Hymns So that after all this shuffling it is very impertinent for this Annotator to brag that it is manifest there were more than Twenty Canons made in this Council and Nonsense to tell us that the Greeks who stifly maintain there were but Twenty Canons cannot deny but there were more than Twenty And for all his Confidence neither he nor Baronius dare defend those Eighty Canons which Turrian hath fathered on this Council and therefore whatever is more than these twenty or differing from them must pass among the many Forgeries of the Roman Church Fifthly As to the Sense of those Canons which oppose the Pope's Interest the Notes use many Impostures in expounding them The Third Canon forbids the Clergy to cohabit with Women taken into their Houses unless they were so near of Kin as to avoid Suspicion and Scandal Which plainly supposes that they might have Wives because cohabiting with them could give no Suspicion nor Scandal And since the Canon names not Wives who were the most likely to dwell with their Husbands doubtless this Council did not suppose the cohabitation of the Clergy with their Wives to be unlawful Yea not only Socrates and Sozomen (d) Socrat. lib. 1. cap. 8. Sozom. lib. 1. cap. 22. but Pisanus and Nauclerus later Romish Authors (e) Pisanus ap Bin. pag. 343. col 1. Naucler Chron. pag. 606. relate the History of Paphnutius his Advice to the Council in this Point upon which the latter saith The Nicene Fathers allowed Priests to have Wives if they pleased Which full Evidence against their Churches practice doth so enrage Baronius that he not only denies this well-attested History but lays by the Character of an Historian and falls in his guessing-way to dispute against this manifest Truth (f) Baron An. 325. §. 148 149 150. And Binius in his Notes (g) Lab. pag. 72. Bin. pag. 296. col 2. out of him saith This Canon expresly forbids Clergy men the Use of their Wives after they were entred into Holy Orders rejects the History of Paphnutius and gives Socrates and Sozomen the Lye But we shall leave the Reader to judge whether he will give more Credit to the Words of the Canon and these Ancient impartial Historians or to the Corrupt Paraphrase and Impudent Assertions of these two notorious Sycophants who have so often been proved to govern themselves not by Truth but by Interest and Design The Sixth Canon reckons the Pope but Equal to other great Bishops and limits his Jurisdiction at which the Annalist and Annotator are much discomposed and by various Fictions and shuffling Pretences labour to pervert the true Sense of this famous Canon And first They say The beginning of it viz. The Roman Church hath always had the Primacy is wanting (h) Lab. Bin. ut supr not in Can. 6. Whereas no Authentic Edition ever had any such beginning Dr. Beveridge gives us Eight several Versions besides the Original Greek which all want it (i) Beveridg Concil Tom. II. pag. 50. and it is impudently done of Binius to cite Alanus Copus saying That Dionysius Exiguus's Version had this
beginning since that very Version is printed by Binius himself without any such Preamble (k) Lab. p. 45 46. Bin. pag. 276. but 't is all one to him true or false in his Notes he makes a foolish Paraphrase on this Forged Preface about the Divine Right of the Pope to his Supremacy whereas the plain Words of the genuine Canon shew That this Council grounded the Jurisdiction of these great Bishops only upon Ancient Custom (l) Richer hist Concil lib. 1. cap. 2. §. 11. Nor can it be gathered from this Canon That the Bishop of Rome then had any Superiority over him of Alexandria the one being allowed as much Power within his own Limits as the other had in his It is plain The Great Bishops are all here declared to be Equal without any Exception or Salvo upon the Bishop of Rome's account which would have been mentioned as well as the Rights of the Metropolitan of Caesarea are when the Bishop of Jerusalem's Place is assigned in the Seventh Canon if the Council of Nice had believed Rome had any right to a Supremacy over all the rest The Annotator is also angry at Ruffinus and though upon the Fourteenth Canon he says Ruffinus set down the true authentic Canons (m) Lab. p. 75. B. Bin. pag. 298. col 1. yet because his Version of this Sixth Canon limits the Pope's Jurisdiction to the Suburbicarian Regions He first falsly represents the Words of Ruffinus adding to them which above all others are subject peculiarly to the Diocess of the Roman Church and then Rails at the Version it self as evil erroneous and proceeding from his Ignorance But doubtless Ruffinus who lived so near the time of this Council and knew Rome and Italy so well understood the Pope's Jurisdiction at that time and the meaning of this Canon far better than Binius and therefore Baronius after he had condemned the Version yet strives to accommodate it to their new Roman Sense But there is full Evidence that these Suburbicarian Regions were only those Provinces which were under the Praefect of Rome that is some part of Italy and some of the adjacent Islands and these were all the Churches which were then under the Pope's Jurisdiction As may appear by the great difficulty which the succeeding Bishops of Rome found in the following Ages to bring Milan Aquileia and Ravenna Churches in Italy it self to be in subjection to them So that the Pope was so far from having an Universal Supremacy then that Balsamon is mistaken in thinking he was made Patriarch of all the Western Church for the very Fifth Canon which orders all Causes to be heard and finally ended in the same Province where they hapned not only destroys Appeals to Rome but shews that no Bishop did then pretend to so large a Jurisdiction Again these Notes frequently brag of that Version of this Canon which the Pope's Legate cited at Chalcedon (n) Concil Chalced. Act. 16. wherein the aforesaid forged Title of this Canon The Church of Rome hath always had the Primacy are quoted as part of the Canon it self But the Acts of that Council of Chalcedon shew That this Edition was discovered to be false by the Constantinopolitan Code then produced And if the Fathers there had believed this to be the true Reading they would not immediately have contradicted the first famous General Council by giving the Bishop of Constantinople equal Priviledges with him of Old Rome So that their Quoting a false baffled and rejected Version of this Canon rather pulls down than supports their dear Supremacy to maintain which they have nothing but Sophistry and Fraud as the next Section will shew Sixthly Therefore we will consider the Impostures and Fictions annexed to this Council to give colour to their feigned Supremacy And first because Eusebius speaks little of the Popes for he could not truly say much of them Baronius and the Annotator invent all the Calumnies against him imaginable and the former though he have little true History in his Annals for Three hundred years together which is not taken out of Eusebius Rails at him most unjustly as being an Arian a malicious fraudulent and partial Writer (o) Baron An. 318. §. 46. An. 324. §. 136. §. 143 §. 152. item An. 325. §. 192 c. And Binius treats this great Historian at the same rate But Athanasius expresly saith That Eusebius of Caesarea subscribed the Orthodox Faith (p) Athan. Apol. cont Arian p. 180. Socrates affirms also That he agreed to the Faith of the Nicene Council (q) Socrat. hist lib. 1. cap. 3. Pisanus his Greek Author of the History of this Council brings in Eusebius disputing against the Arians (r) Bin. p. 313. col 2. And Valesius in his Life clears him from this spightful Accusation which these Men invent meerly to be Revenged on him for not countenancing the Pope's Supremacy which is not his Fault but his Vertue because there was no such thing pretended to in his days Secondly These Editors publish a Letter of Athanasius to Pope Marcus with that Pope's Answer (s) Lab. p. 287. Bin. pag 326. col 1 2. among the Records of this Council and the Annotator often cites them to prove the Supremacy and Infallibility because the Roman Church is here called The Mother and Head of all Churches and A Church which had never erred and the Pope is called Bishop of the Universal Church yet their being Forged is so notorious that Bellarmin Possevin and Baronius (t) Baron An. Dom. 336. reject them Thirdly They likewise publish in these Nicene Acts an Epistle of Pope Julius wherein divers Canons for the Primacy are Fathered on this great Council (u) Bin. p. 328. col 2. And Pisanus is so bold and so vain as to defend this to be genuine by an Epistle of the Egyptians to Pope Foelix owned to be Forged (w) Bin. p. 499. col 1. and by other Decretal Epistles as false as this which he defends but it is so manifest a Forgery this of Pope Julius that the Editors themselves afterward reject it (x) Lab. p. 483. Bin. pag. 391. col 1. Fourthly Whereas the Ninth Canon of Chalcedon allows the Clergy to complain to the Primate or to the Bishop of the Royal City of Constantinople Notes are put upon this to falsifie that Canon which say That Constantinople is here put for Rome (y) Bin. p. 331. col 1. Fifthly Here is a Canon called the Thirty ninth of Nice which saith He that holds the See of Rome is the Head and Prince of all Patriarchs because he is first as Peter to whom power is given over all Christian Princes and People (z) Lab. p. 303. Bin. pag. 337. col 2. which must be a Forgery of some Roman Parasite because it not only contradicts the Sixth Canon of the genuine Council of Nice but the Eighth of these pretended Canons which limits the Bishop of Rome's Jurisdiction
found in the Original Greek printed over against it yet from this Fiction of their own (x) Lab. p. 414. Bin. pag. 366. col 1. 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 (y) Lab. p. 427 428. Bin. pag. 371. col 1. Baron An. 361. § 44. 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 (z) Sozom lib. 3. cap. 13. 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 (a) Bin. p. 367 c. 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 (b) Lab. p. 429. Bin. pag. 371. col 2. 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 (c) Lab. p 430. Bin. p. 372. col 2. But I doubt it will prove the Romanists are the Heretics here For both this Canon and the Synodical Epistle have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies 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 (d) Lab. p. 431. Bin. pag. 372. col 2. 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 (e) Lab. Bâ—n ut supra Yet thus the Rom sh 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 affirms That they only forbad their People to give Meat or Fruits to any Beggar who was not of their own Sect (f) Aug. de mor. Manich. lib. 2. Tom. l. pag. 177. 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 (g) Lab. p. 434. Bin. pag. 374. col 1. 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 An. Dom. 335. 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 (h) Lab. p. 435. Bin. pag. 374. col 1. 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 An. Dom. 336. § 19. Pope Marcus succeeded Sylvester and fat 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 (i) Lab. p. 469. 472. Bin. pag. 382. col 2 c. Yea it is remarkable that this very Binius out of Baronius (k) Baron An. 336. §.
Recantation to Pope Julius (g) Hosii Epist ap Baron An. 355. §. 661. before whom they had falsly accused Athanasius and who was the Arbitrator chosen to hear that Cause and so not as Pope but as a chosen Judge in that case was fittest to receive these mens Confessions Yet hence the Notes make this Inference That since this matter was greater than that a Synod at Milan though the Roman Presbyters were present could dispatch it and lest the ancient Custom of the Catholic Church should be broken viz. for eminent Heretics to abjure their Heresies only at Rome and be received into Communion by the Pope they sent them to Julius that having before him offered their Penitential Letter they might make their Confession the whole Roman Church locking on All which is their own Invention for the Authors from whom alone they have the notice of this Council say nothing of this kind and it is very certain that there was at this time no custom at all for Heretics to abjure at Rome more than at any other place many Heretics being frequently reconciled at other Churches There was also a peculiar reason why these two Heretics went thither and it cannot be proved that this Council sent them so that these are Forgeries devised to support their dear Supremacy and so we leave them Only noting That the Editors are not so happy in their Memory as their Invention for the next Page shews us a Council at Jerusalem wherein many Bishops who had described the Condemnation of Athanasius and therefore no doubt were Arians repented and recanted and so were restored to the Churches Communion without the trouble of going to Rome on this Errant A Council at Colen follows next which they say was in Julius his time and under Julius yet the Notes say they know not the time when it was held only the Bishops there assembled deposed a Bishop for Heresie by their own Authority without staying for the Pope's Advice though they were then about to send a Messenger to Rome to pray for them so little was the Popes Consent thought needful in that Age and perhaps it is in order to conceal this seeming neglect that the Notes (h) Bin. Not. p. 463. col 2. after they have approved far more improbable Stories which make for the honour of their Church reject the report of this Message to the Prince of the Apostles as fabulous and we are not concerned to vindicate it The last Council which they style under Julius was at Vasatis or Bazas in France yet the Notes affirm That Nectarius presided in it the time of it very uncertain (i) Lab. p. 728. Bin. pag. 464. col 1 2. and the Phrases used in the Canons of it shew it to be of much later date Besides this Council saith The Gloria-Patri was sung after the Psalms in all the Eastern Churches but Jo. Cassian who came out of the East in the next Century saith He haa never heard this Hymn sung after the Psalms in the Eastern Churches (k) Bin. Not. in Epist Damas Hieron pag. 506. col 1. Wherefore it is probable this Council was celebrated after Cassian's time when the Greek Churches had learned this Custom and yet these Editors place it a whole Century too soon because they would have us think that custom here mentioned of remembring the Pope in their daily Prayers was as ancient as the wrong date here assigned In Labbe's Edition here is added an account (l) Laâ—â— p. 729. ad pag. â—â—9 of three Councils against Photinus on which we need make no Remarks An. Dom. 352. § 23. Pope Liberius succeeded Julius whose Life with the Notes upon it are very diverting if we observe the Shifts and Artifices used by the Roman Parasites to excuse him from Heresie The Pontifical saith He was banished three years by Constantius for not consenting to the Arians in whose place Foelix was Ordained and he in a Council condemned Ursacius and Valens two Arian Bishops who in Revenge petitioned Constantins to revoke Liberius and he being thus restored consented to the Arians and the Emperour so far as to persecute and Martyr the Catholics and his Rival Foelix being a Catholic was deposed But this Fable is not fine enough for the Palates of Baronius and Binius who are to dress a Story to make the Reader believe that neither Liberius nor Foelix erred in Faith while they were Popes To confute which let it be considered that Binius confesseth Liberius consented to the depriving of Athanasius admitted Arians to his Communion and subscribed an Arian Confession of Faith as Athanasius Hilary and Hierom witness (m) Not. ad 7 Ep. Liber Lab pag. 751. Bin. pag. 470. col 1. and there are Arguments unanswerable to prove he was an Arian while he was Pope (n) Vid. Spalat de rep Eccl. l. 7. cap. 5. yea Binius in his own Notes twice confesseth That he unhappily fell (o) Lab. p. 741. Bin. p. 465. E. and that he basely fell (p) Lab. p. 743. Bin. p. 466. col 2. Yet to mince the matter he adds That by his Fall he cast a vile Blot on his Life and Manners and the Notes on the Sirmian Council say By offending against the Confession of Faith and the Law of Justice he cast a most base Blot on his Life and Manners (q) Lab. p. 783. Bin. pag. 479. col 2. What can be more ridiculous He erred in Faith and subscribed the Arian Confession therefore the blot was upon his Faith this did not concern his Life and Manners That Absurd Phrase is a meer blind to keep the Reader from discovering a Pope turning Heretic To which end they impudently say It is a false Calumny of the Heretics to say Liberius was infected with the Arian Heresie (r) Lab. p. 741. Bin. pag. 465. col 2. But I ask Whether Athanasius S. Hilary and S. Hierom who affirm this were Heretics Or was Platina an Heretic who saith Liberius did in all things agree with the Heretics To which the same Forgers have added As some would have it but those are not Photinus words who saith soon after He was of the same Opinion with the Arians (s) Platin. in vit Liber p 50. Eusebius Presbyter urbis Rome copit declarare Liberium Haereticum Partitor Sarish Aug. 14. And surely the Catholic People of Rome in his time took him for an Arian and as such would have no communion with him and therefore we conclude he was an Arian As for Foelix who was put into his place Baronius and Binius would excuse him by a false Latin Version of Socrates saying He was addicted to the Arian Sect but the Original Greek expresly declares He was in Opinion an Arian (t) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Socrat. lib. 2. cap. 29. And it is certain He was chosen by the Arians and communicated with them Ordaining Arians to be Priests and therefore the Catholic People at Rome
confirmed by the Emperour Again Constantins in his Epistle declares It was unreasonable to determine any thing in a Western Council against the Eastern Bishops Whence it appears he knew nothing of the Western Patriarchs claiming an Universal Supremacy over all the Churches both of the East and West and for this Reason Baronius leaves this genuine Epistle recorded in S. Hilary's Fragments out of his Annals We have also noted before that though the Orthodox Bishops in this Council who must know the matter say That Constantine was Baptized after the Council at Nice and soon after his Baptism translated to his deserved Rest as the Ancient Historians read that Passage and the Sense of the place shews they could mean it of none but Constantine (d) Theod. lib. 2. cap. 19. Sozom. lib. 4 cap. 17. collat cum Baron An. 350. §. 7. yet Baronius corrupts the Text and reads Constans instead of Constantine only to support the Fable of Constantine's being Baptized by Sylvester at Rome and the Editors follow him in that gross Corruption For they examine nothing which serves the Interest of Rome As for the Arian Synods this year at Seleucia and Constantinople I need make no Remarks on them because the Pope is not named in them and so there is no occasion for them to feign any thing Only one Forgery of Baronius must not be passed over That when Cyril of Hierusalem was deposed by an Arian Synod he is said to have appealed to greater Judges and yet he never named the Pope the reason of which Baronius saith was because the True Pope Liberius was then in Banishment (e) Baron An. 359. § 65. but hath he not often asserted Foelix was a Catholic and if Cyril had thought fit might he not have appealed to him But it is plain by Socrates that Cyril meant to appeal to the Emperour and his Delegates as all injured Bishops in that Age had used to do An. Dom. 362. § 25. Upon the restitution of Athanasius from his third Exile after the death of George the Arian Bishop he called a Council of Bishops at Alexandria for deciding some differences among the Catholics about the manner of explaining the Trinity and to agree on what terms Recanting Arians were to be received into the Church And though neither Athanasius nor any ancient Historian take any notice of the Pope in this eminent Action yet the Editors our of Baronius say It was called by the Advice and Authority of Liberius (f) Lab. p. 809. Bin. pag. 487. col 1. Baron An. 362. Pag. 73. and to make out the notorious Fiction of this Popes calling this Orthodox Council even while he was an Arian the Notes affirm Eusebius Bishop of Vercelles and Lucifer Calaritanus as the Popes Legates were present at it which they take out of Baronius who had before told us That Luciser Calaritanus was at that time at Antioch and sent two Deacons to Alexandria to subscribe for him yea this Synod writes their Synodical Letter to Eusebius Lucifer and other Bishops which plainly shews they were absent though it seems by Ruffinus that Eusebius came afterwards and subscribed to what had been agreed in the Council and was by the Authority of this Council not of the Pope sent into the East to procure peace among those Churches Nor have they any one Author to prove either he or Lucifer were the Pope's Legates nor any reason but because they were employed in great Actions though in that Age 't is plain the Popes were little concerned in any eminent business Moreover they bring in a Fragment of an Epistle writ according to the Ancient Custom by Liberius at his Entrance into the See of Rome to shew his Faith to Athanasius as if it were written now meerly to impose on the Reader a false Notion of his being at this time Orthodox and concerned in this Synod They also cite another Epistle of Athanasius to certifie Liberius what was done here but that Epistle is no where extant in Athanasius's Works but is cited out of the Acts of the second Nicene Council where there are more Forgeries than genuine Tracts quoted and besides the Epistle is directed not to the Pope but to one Ruffinianus and only mentions the Roman Churches approving what was done here but the Epistle being suspicious it is no good Evidence and we conclude with Nazianzen That Athanasius in this Synod gave Laws to the whole World (g) Baron An. 362. Tom. IV. p. 66. And Pope Liberius had no hand in it About this time there were divers Councils called in France by S. Hilary Bishop of Poictiers and the Catholic Faith was setled in them one of which was held at Paris and the Synodical Epistle is extant (h) Lab. p. 821. Bin pag. 490. col 1. yet the Pope is never named in it Nor yet in that Orthodox Synod at Alexandria wherein Athanasius and his Suffragan Bishops presented a Confession of their Faith to Jovian then newly made Emperour (i) Lab. p. 823. Bin. pag. 490. col 2. which shews that Liberius either was an Heretic at this time or else that he was very inconsiderable So that it is a strange Arrogance in the Editors to say that the Second Council at Antioch was under Liberius (k) Lab. p. 826. Bin. p. 491. col 1. when the very Notes say it was called together by Meletius and observe that many Arian Bishops did there recant their Heresie a thing which a little before they pretended could be done no where but at Rome in the Popes Presence An. Dom. 365. Upon Valentinian's advancement to the Empire the Eastern Bishops petition him to call a Council and he being then very busie told them they might call it where they pleased Which the Editors pretend was a declining to meddle in Church Affairs being a Lay-man But the Bishops Petition and his giving them liberty shews that the right of calling Councils was in him and so was also the confirming them as appears from the Bishops sending the Acts of this Council at Lampsacus to the Emperour Valens to be confirmed (l) Sozâ—m lib. 6. cap. 7. The same Bishops also sent their Legates with Letters to the Western Bishops and particularly to Liberius Bishop of Rome hoping Valentinian the other Emperour had been in that City but he being absent these Legates perswaded Liberius they were Orthodox upon which he writ back Letters in his own Name and in the Name of the other Western Bishops to own them for good Catholics (m) Socrat. hist lib. 4. cap. 11. Whence we may note First That the Eastern Bishop's Letter styles the Pope no more but Collegue and Brother Secondly That Liberius calls himself only Bishop of Italy Liberius Ep. Italiae alii Occidentis Episcopi But Baronius alters the Pointing Liberius Episcopus Italiae alii c. by that Trick hoping to conceal this mean Title (n) Ep. 11. Liberti ap Bin. p. 472.
true Title of which saith it was under Gratian and Valentinian the Emperours but the Editors put a new Title over it and say it was under Damasus (q) Lab. p. 904. Bin. pag. 516. col 1. who is not once named in it the French Bishops there assembled making Canons for their own Churches without asking the Popes leave or desiring his Confirmation An. Dom. 378. Upon the death of Valens the Arian Emperour while Valentinian was yet very young Gratian managed both the Eastern and Western Empire and he makes a Law to suppress all Heresies and to take away the use of Churches from all such as were not in Communion with Damasus Bishop of Rome and Peter of Alexandria (r) Sozom. lib. â— cap. 4. Socrat lib. 5. cap. 2. Theodoret indeed who as Baronius owns is much mistaken in his relating this matter s Theod. lib. 5. cap. 2. Baron An. 378. pag. 339. names only Damasus in his report of this Law and Bâ—ronius cites the Law out of him meerly to make it seem as if Damasus were made the sole Standard of Catholic Communion though the Original Law still extant (t) God. Justin lib. 1. tit 1. de sum Trin. Ll. 1. and all other Historians name Peter of Alexandria as equal with Damasus perhaps the Reader may wonder there is no other Patriarch named in this Law but it must be observed that Antiâ—ch at this time had two Orthodox Bishops who separated from each other Meletius and Paulinus to make up which unhappy Schism there was a Synod this year held at Antioch under Damasus (u) Lab. p. 908. Bin. pag. 517. col 1. say the Editors but in truth under the Emperours Legate who was sent to see a Peace concluded between these two Bishops by the advice of the Council there assembled And Damasus had so little interest in this Council that Meletius was generally approved for the true Bishop and Paulinus whose party the Pope favoured ordered only to come in after Meletius his Death (w) Socrat. lib. 5. cap. 5. Sozom. lib. 7. cap. 3. Theod. lib. 5. c. 3. So that since this Council acted contrary to the mind of Damasus it is very improper to say it was held under him § 27. The second General Council at Constantinople was Called by the Emperour Theodosius An. Dom. 381. whom Gratian had taken for his Partner in the Empire and assigned him for his share the Eastern Provinces where this pious Prince finding great differences in Religion he Convened this Council to confirm the Nicene Faith to settle Ecclesiastical Matters and to determine the Affairs of the See of Constantinople This Council the Editors introduce with a Preface or general History and conclude it with partial and false Notes hoping to perswade the World that it was both called and all the good things which they had done with which Letter probably they sent as was usual a Transcript of all their Acts And Photius saith That Damasus Bishop of Rome afterwards agreed with these Bishops and confirmed what they had done (m) Photius de 7 Synod cap. 2. that is by consenting to it which is no more than every absent Bishop may do who in a large Sense may be said to confirm a Council when he agrees to the Acts of it after they are brought to him Thirdly The Authority of this Council is undoubted having been ever called and accounted the Second General Council and so it is reckoned in all places where the General Councils are mentioned which Title it had not as Bellarmin vainly suggests Because at the time when this was assembled in the East the Western Bishops met at Rome For that obscure Synod is not taken notice of while this is every where celebrated as held at Constantinople and consisting of one hundred and fifty Bishops which were they who met in the East (n) Lab. p. 967. Bin. pag. 541. col 2. As for Damasus Baronius cannot prove he was concerned in it but by we think and we may believe (o) Baron An. 380 p 359. An. 381. p. 368. yet he elsewhere boldly says Damasus gave it Supreme Authority (p) Idem p. 382. and the Annotator makes it impossible for any Council to be general unless the Pope or his Legates be there Now he and all others call this A General Council And yet he saith That neither Pope Damasus nor his Legates were Presidents of it nor was he or any Western Bishop in it Whence we learn That there may be a General Council at which the Pope is not present by himself nor by his Legates and of which neither he nor they are Presidents Fourthly As to the Creed and Canons here made the modern Romanists without any proof suppose that Damasus allowed the former and not the later But if he allowed the famous Creed here made I ask Whether it then had these words And from the Son or no If it had why do the Notes say That these words were added to it by the Bishops of Spain and the Authority of Pope Leo long after (q) Lab. p. 972. Bin. pag. 543. col 2. But if these words were wanting as they seem to confess when they say The Roman Church long used this Creed without this addition then I must desire to know how a Man of their Church can be secure of his Faith if what was as they say confirmed by Damasus in a General Council may be al ered by a few Bishops and another Pope without any General Council As to the Canons Damasus made no objection against them in his time and it is very certain that the Bishop of Constantinople after this Council always had the second place For as the first General Council at Nice gave old Rome the first place as being the Imperial City so this second General Council doubted not but when Constantinople was become new Rome and an Imperial City also they had power to give it the second place and suitable Priviledges Yea the Notes confess that S. Chrysostem by virtue of this Canon placed and displaced divers Bishops in Asia and the 4th General Council at Chalcâ—den without regarding the dissent of the Popes Legates allowed the Bishop of Constantinople the second place and made his Priviledges equal to those of Old Rome (r) Vid. Concil Chaleed Can. 28. Subscrip ibid. which Precedence and Power that Bishop long returned notwithstanding the endeavours of the envious Popes And Gregory never objected against thâ—se Canons till he began to fear the growing Greatness of the Patriarch of Constantinople but when that Church and Empire was sinking and there appeared no danger on that side to the Popes then Innocent the Third is said by the Notes to revive and allow this Canon again by which we see that nothing but Interest governs that Church and guides her Bishops in allowing or discarding any Councel For now again when the Reformed begin to urge this Canon Baronius and
the Notes say They can prove by firm Reasons that this Canon was forged by the Greeks But their Reasons are very frivolous They say Anatolius did not quote this Canon against Pope Leo I reply 'T is very probable he did because Leo saith He pleaded the Consent of many Bishops that is if Leo would have spoken out In this General Council Secondly They urge that this Canon is not mentioned in the Letter writ to Damasus I Answer They have told us before they sent their Acts to him and so need not repent them in this Letter Thirdly They talk of the Injury done to Timotheus Bishop of Alexandria but his Subscription is put to the Canons as well as the Creed and it doth not appear that ever he or any of his Successors contended for Precedence after this with the Patriarch of Constantinople And that the Modern Greeks did not forge this Canon is plain because Socrates and Sozomen both mention it (s) Socrat. lib. 5. cap. 2. Sozom. lib 7. cap. 8. and the Catholic Church always owned it for Authentic Yea in the Council of Chalcedon it is declared That the Bishop of Constantinople ought to have had the second place in the Factious Synod at Ephesus and he is reckoned in that fourth General Council next after the Pope whose Legates were there and yet durst not deny him the second place in which he sat and subscribed in that order having first had this Canon confirmed at Chalcedon So that all Churches but that of Rome submit to this General Council and they who pretend most to venerate them do despise and reject the Authority of General Councils if they oppose the ends of their Pride and Avarice To conclude Here is a General Council called and confirmed only by the Emperour assembled without the Pope or his Legates decreeing Matters of Faith and of Discipline yet every where owned and received as genuine except at Rome when Interest made them partial and still no less valued for that by all other Churches Which gives a severe Blow to the modern Pretences of their Papal Supremacy and Infallibility The same Year there was a Council at Aquileia in Italy wherein divers Arians were fully heard and fairly condemned Now this Council was called by the Emperour the Presidents of it being Valerian Bishop of Aquileia and Ambrose Bishop of Milan but Damasus is not named in it nor was he present at it in Person or by his Legates though this Council was called in Italy it self and designed to settle a Point of Faith But these Bishops as the Acts shew did not judge Heretics by the Popes Authority but by Scripture and by solid Arguments And they tell us It was then a Custom for the Eastern Bishops to hold their Councils in the East and the Western theirs in the West (t) Lab. p. 980. Bin. pag. 545 col 2. which argues they knew of no Universal Monarchy vested in the Pope and giving him power over all the Bishops both of the East and West For it was not Damasus but the Prefect of Italy who writ about this Synod to the Bishops of the East (u) Baron An. 381. pag. 386. Nor did this Council write to the Pope but to the Emperour to confirm their Sentence against Heretics wherefore Damasus had a limited Authority in those days not reaching so much as over all Italy and extended only to the Suburbicarian Regions out of which as being Damasus's peculiar Province Ursicinus his Antagonist for the Papacy was banished by the Emperour Valentinian (w) Baron An. 371. pag. 235. and therefore Sulpicius Severus calls him not Orbis but Urbis Episcopus (x) Sulpic. Sever. pag. 423. the Bishop of the City not of the World and speaking of Italy he saith in the next Page That the Supreme Authority at that time was in Damasus and S. Ambrose (y) Id. pag. 424. To these two therefore the Priscillian Heretics applied themselves when they were condemned by the Council of Caesar-Augusta or Saragosa in Spain in which Country the Sect first began but when they could not get these great Bishops to favour their Cause they corrupted the Emperours Ministers to procure a Rescript for their restitution (z) Lab. p. 1011. Bin. pag. 554 col 1. Now it is strange that this Council of Saragosa should bear the Title of under Damasus and that the Notes should affirm Sulpicius Severus plainly writes thus For if we read Sulpicius as above-cited we shall find that Damasus knew nothing of this Synod till long after it was risen so we may conclude this Invention of theirs is only to support their pretended Supremacy An Dom. 382. § 28. From a Passage in S. Hierom and the Inscription of the Letter writ from the Council at Constantinople the Editors gather That Paulinus Bishop of Antioch Epiphanius Bishop of Constantia in Cyprus and Ambrose with other of the Western Bishops met at Rome in Council this year which they call the Fourth Roman Councill under Damasus (a) Lab. p. 1014. Bin. pag. 554. col 2. who probably did preside in this Synod as all Bishops use to do in their own Cities but he did not call this Council for S. Hierom expresly saith The Emperours Letters called these Bishops to Rome (b) Hieron Ep. 27. And the Synodical Letter of the Constantinopolitan Fathers tell us That Damasus desired Theodosius to write to them also of the East to come to Rome Which shews that Damasus could not summon them by his own Authority but the Editors and Baronius out of a false Latin Version of Theodoret have put in the word Mandato which word is not in the Greek nor any thing answering to it (c) Theodor. lib. 5. cap. 9. Baron An. 382. pag. 397. Bâ—n pag. 539. col 2. and it was foisted in on purpose to perswade such as did not read the Original that the Pope had commanded the Eastern Bishops to come to Rome Again though the Notes confess the Acts of this Roman Council are lost so that it doth not appear what was done there Yet soon after they produce a long Canon for the Popes Supremacy and the Precedence of the Patriarchs feigning it was made in this Synod But if the Canon be not a Vatican Forgery which is very much to be suspected however it is Antedated one hundred and twelve years as Labbé confesses in his Margen for he saith it was decreed under Pope Gelasius An. 494 (d) Lab. p. 1014. Bin. pag. 554. col 2. But the Policy of laying this Canon here is to make a shew as if Damasus had then publickly declared against the Council of Constantinoples giving that Bishop the second place but their forging this Proof only shews they have no genuine Authority for it yet if they could prove that the Pope disliked this Precedence since it is certain that Constantinople did take the second place according to this Canon that would only shew that the
Usurper of the Empire and seem to be genuine but we need not wonder at the Tyrants speaking so kind things of the Pope in them since it was his interest to Flatter the Bishop of that potent City § 30. This Maximus having seized on the Northwest parts of the Empire summoned a Council at Bourdeaux which the Editors without any ground style under Siricius wherein the Bishops of the Gallican Church again condemned the Priscillianists and they appealed not to the Pope but to the Emperour Maximus (s) Lab. p. 1030. Bâ—n pag. 563. col 2. who was so far from favouring these Heretics that at the instance of Ithacius a Catholic Bishop he caused them to be put to death for their Heresie Which cruel Sentence so displeased Theognistus and other Orthodox Bishops that they Excommunicated Ithacius and all his Party who had procured these Heretics to be put to death and S. Martin S. Ambrose and the best Men of that Age would not communicate with any of these Bishops who had prosecuted Men to death for Heresie no not though Ithacius and his Adherents were absolved from Theognistus his Excommunication in a Council which Maximus had called at Triers Now the Notes fearing the Reader should observe That many Popes and Bishops of their Communion have done just as Ithacius did viz. persecuted such as they call Heretics to death and delivered them up to the Secular Magistrate to be executed tell us That it was not an ill thing in Ithacius to procure the death of these Heretics but his Fault was in the violence of his Proceedings and in his not interposing such a Protestation as their Church uses on these occasions Wherein when they have made it necessary for the Magistrate to put an Heretic to death they solemnly declare they wish he would amend and do not desire his Execution (t) Lab. p. 1038. Bin. pag. 564. col 1. Baron An. 386. pag. 451. But as this Protestation is a piece of notorious Hypocrisie unknown to those Ages so we may be sure so apparent a Sham would not have excused Ithacius whose Communion as Sulpicius Severus shews was renounced by S. Ambrose S. Martin and Others purely because they thought it unlawful especially for Clergy-men to procure any persons to be put to death for their Opinion though it were Heresie Wherefore these Holy Bishops if they were now alive must renounce the Communion of the Roman Church for the same reason for which they renounced the Communion of Ithacius even for their frequent procuring Heretics to be put to death and this is so plain that all their shuffling Notes cannot wash their Bishops hands from Blood nor fit them in S. Ambrose and S. Martin's Opinion to celebrate the Eucharist with other Christians There had been as we noted a long Schism at Antioch between Paulinus of whose side was the Pope An. Dom. 398. and many Western Bishops and Flavianus who was supported by the Eastern Bishops and now Paulinus dying one Evagrius was irregularly chosen to succeed him and keep up the Schism and though Flavianus was owned for the true Bishop by the second General Council and he it was who ordained S. Chrysostom and obtained a Pardon from Theodosius for those Citizens of Antioch who had broke down the Statues of that Emperour and his Empress yet at the Instance of some Western Bishops the Emperour was perswaded to cite him to a Council which he had called at Capua in which S. Ambrose was present but Flavianus not willing to have his Enemies to be his Judges did easily excuse his Non-appearance to the Emperour and the Synod thereupon referred the Matter between him and Evagrius unto Theophilus Patriarch of Alexandria to whose decision Flavianus refusing to stand he appealed to Theodosius on which occasion S. Ambrose writing to Theophilus wishes rather Flavianus had referred the Matter to his Brother the Bishop of Rome because saith he you would probably have judged it if it had come before you so as he would have liked (u) Ambros â—d Theophil ep 78. Which implies no more than that Theophilus and Siricius were both of one mind in this case of Flavianus yet on this slight occasion the Notes say That the Synod made Theophilus Arbitrator on condition he should offer his Sentence to be approved and confirmed by the Roman Church (w) Lab. p. 1039 Bin. pag. 564. col 1. Which is a meer Forgery for Theophilus was made absolute Arbitrator by the Synod and this is not the Councils wish but S. Ambroses and after all Flavianus did not think a Western Synod had any power over him and therefore he rejected the Arbitration of Theophilus the Council and Pope Siricius also with whom though he did not communicate yet he was always owned to be true Bishop of Antioch § 31. The Second Council at Arles is supposed to be held about this time because the Followers of Photinus and Bonosus were there condemned Wherefore they say It was in the time of Siricius but under him it could not be since the Bishops there assembled do not name him nor do they except the Bishop of Romes Supreme Power when they refer all Ecclesiastical Matters to the final decision of their own Metropolitan and his Synod and declare that every Bishop who receives a person Excommunicated by another shall be guilty of Schism Yet the Editors are so apt to dote upon the Popes managing all Councils that they here style a meeting of the Novatian Heretics at Angaris in Bithynia (x) Lab. p. 1041. Bin. pag. 566. col 2. A Synod under Siricius and call poor Socrates a Novatian for barely relating a Matter of Fact concerning the Novatians An. Dom. 393. At this time there was a great Council at Hippo which the Notes sometimes call a General and sometimes a Plenary Council because most of the African Bishops were there and the Original dates it with the Consuls of this year but the Editors clap a New Title to it saying it was under Siricius who in all probability had no hand in it nor knew any thing of it Yet here were made many of those famous Canons for Discipline by which the African Church was governed But they are more wary in the next Council of Constantinople at which many Bishops were present and among them the two Patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch being summoned in the absence of the Emperour by his Prefect Ruffinus and they will not venture to say This was under Siricius for the Matters treated on it wholly related to the Eastern Church and in that Age they rarely allowed the Pope to concern himself in their Affairs No nor in Afric neither where Anno 395 there were Councils held both by the Orthodox and the Donatists which are dated by the Consuls and no notice is taken of the Pope (y) Lab. p. 1153. Bin. pag. 567. col 2. We shall only observe that upon one of these Councils the Notes say It is a
an honourable mention of him Yet in the African Councils where he is named with respect they joyn Venerius Bishop of Milan with him and call them Their Brethren and Fellow-Bishops (k) Baron An. 401. p. 128 129. As for the qualifications of Anastasius S. Hierom gives him great Encomiums but it must be observed that at this time Hierom had charged Ruffinus with broaching the Heresies of Origen at Rome and he being then at Bethlem could not beat down these Opinions without the Popes help And indeed when Ruffinus came first to Rome he was received kindly by the last Pope Siricius and Anastasius did not perceive any Errours in Ruffinus or Origen till S. Hierom upon Pammachius Information had opened his Eyes and at last it was three years before this Pope could be made so sensible of this Heresie as to condemn it So that notwithstanding his Infallibility if S. Hierom and his Friends had not discovered these Errours they might in a little time have been declared for Orthodox Truths at Rome but Anastasius condemning them at last did wonderfully oblige S. Hierom and this was the occasion of many of his Commendations For this Pope are published three Decretal Epistles though Baronius mentions but two and condemns the first for a Forgery and so doth Labbé (l) Lab. p. 1191. Bin. pag. 585. col 2. Baron An. 402. pag. 161. It is directed to the Bishops of Germany and Burgundy and yet Burgundy did not receive the Christian Faith till the Year 413 it is also dated with the Consuls of the Year 385 that is Fourteen years before Anastasius was Pope The matter of it is grounded on the Pontifical which speaks of a Decree made by this Pope for the Priests at Rome to stand up at the Gospel which the Forger of this Epistle turns into a general Law and makes it be prescribed to the Germans The Words of it are stollen out of the Epistles of Pope Gregory and Leo (m) Gregor lib. 12 Ep. 32. Leon. Ep. 2. ad Episc Ital. yet out of this Forgery they cite that Passage for the Supremacy where the German Bishops are advised to send to him as the Head. The second Epistle (n) Lab. p. 1193. Bin. pag. 586. col 2. is also spurious being dated fifteen or sixteen years after Anastasius his death and stollen out of Leo's 59th Epistle As for the third Epistle it is certain he did write to John Bishop of Jerusalem but it may be doubted whether this be the Epistle or no (o) Lab. p. 1194. Bin. pag. 586. col 2. if it be genuine it argues the Pope was no good Oratour because it is writ in mean Latin yet that was the only Language he understood for he declares in this Epistle That he knew not who Origen was nor what Opinions he held till his Works were translated into Latin. So that any Heretic who had writ in Greek in this Pope's time had been safe enough from the Censure of this Infallible Judge The Notes dispute about the fourth Council of Carthage whether it were under Pope Zosimus or Anastasius (p) Lab. p. 1208. Bin pag. 591. col 1. but it was under neither the true Title of it shewing it was dated by the Consuls Names and Called by Aurelius Bishop of Carthage who made many excellent Canons here without any assistance from the Pope The 51st 52d and 53d Canons of this Council order Monks to get their Living not by Begging but by honest Labour and the Notes shew This was the Primitive use (q) Lab. p. 1210. Bin. pag. 592. col 1. which condemns those vast numbers of Idle Monks and Mendicant Fryers now allowed in the Church of Rome The hundredth Canon absolutely forbids a Woman to presume to Baptize but the Notes (r) Lab. p. 1211. Bin. ut supr because this practice is permitted in their Church add to this Canon these words unless in case of necessity and except when no Priest is present Which shews how little reverence they have for ancient Canons since they add to them or diminish them as they please to make them agree with their modern Corruptions In the fifth Council of Carthage Can. 3. Bishops and Priests are forbid to accompany with their Wives 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is at the time of their being to Officiate but in their Latin Copies it is altered thus according to their own or to their former Statutes which makes it a general and total Prohibition But the Greek words of this Canon are cited and expounded at the great Council in Trullo where many African Bishops were present as importing only a Prohibition of accompanying their Wives when their turns came to Minister (s) Lab. p. 1219. Bin. pag. 594. col 2. Beveridg Concil Tom. II. pag. 130. which is the true sense of this Canon though the Romanists for their Churches Credit would impose another The fourteenth Canon of this Council takes notice of the feigned Relicks of Martyrs and of Altars built in Fields and High-ways upon pretended Dreams and Revolutions upon which Canon there is no note at all (t) Lab. p. 1217. Bin. pag. 594. col 1. because they know if all the feigned Relicks were to be thrown away and all the Altars built upon Dreams and false Revelations pulled down in the present Roman Church as was ordered at Carthage by this Canon there would be very few left to carry on their gainful Trade which hath thrived wonderfully by these Impostures This Century concludes with a Council at Alexandria which they style under Anastasius (u) Bin. p. 595. but it was called by Theophilus who found out and condemned the Errours of Origen long before poor Anastasius knew any thing of the matter The Notes indeed say This Synod sent their Decrees to Pope Anastasius to Epiphanius Chrysostom and Hierom But though they place 〈◊〉 Pope foremost there is no proof that they were sent to him at all Baronius only conjectures they did and saith It is fit we should believe this (w) Baron An. 399 p. 85 88. but it is certain Theophilus sent these Decrees to Epiphanius to Chrysostom and Hierom and from this last hand it is like Anastasius received them long after because it was more than two years after this Synod before S. Hierom could perswade Anastasius to condemn these Opinions of Origen which this Council first censured Wherefore it was happy for the Church that there were wiser Men in it than he who is pretended to be the supreme and sole Judge of Heresie And thus we have finished our Remarks upon the Councils in the first four Centuries in all which the Reader I hope hath seen such designs to advance the Supremacy and cover the Corruptions of Rome that he will scarce credit any thing they say for their own Advantage in any of the succeeding Volumes AN APPENDIX CONCERNING BARONIUS HIS ANNALS § 1. THE large and elaborate Volumes of Cardinal Baronius
Bishop of Chester proves these were only two names of the same Person (e) Cestriens diss 2. cap. 1. But the Notes attempt to justifie the forged Pontifical by impudently affirming (f) Lab. pag. 74. Bin. pag. 25. col 1. that Ignatius Anacletus contemporary Irenaeus Eusebius St. Augustine and Optatus were all mistaken or all wronged by their Transcribers who leave out Cletus But every Candid Reader will rather believe the Mistake to be in the Pontifical which is a meer heap of Errors and in the Roman Martyrology and Missal which blindly follow it rather than in those Eminent and Ancient Fathers And every one may see the Folly of the Romish Church which Venerates two several Saints on two several Days one of which never had a real Being for Cletus is but the abbreviation of Anacletus his Name § 8. After this we have the Life of Clement wherein the Pontifical makes him succeed Cletus under those Consuls which were in Office the next year after S. Peter's Martyrdom though he had assigned 23 years to Linus and Cletus his pretended Predecessors (g) Lab. pag. 75. Bin. pag. 25. col 1. which years must all be expired in one years compass if this Account be true and one would admire the stupidity of this Author who though he had placed S. Peters Death so many years before Clement's Entrance as to leave room for two intermediate Popes yet here again repeats his old Fable of S. Peters delivering the Bishopric of Rome to Clement a sufficient proof there is neither Truth nor Certainty in the pretended Personal Succession of the first Popes § 9. From this Pope Clement down to the time of Syricius who lived 300 years after him there are printed in these Editors after every Popes Life divers Decretal Epistles pretended to be writ by the several Popes and Vindicated by Binius's Notes annexed to them Which were received in the Western Church for many Hundred years together as the genuine Decrees of these ancient and pious Popes transcribed into the Canon Law and cited for many Ages to justifie the Usurpations and defend the Corruptions of the Roman Church to determine Causes and decide Controversies in Religion And yet they are all notorious Forgeries so that since Learning was revived divers of the most Eminent Roman Writers have rejected them Card. Cusanus affirms That being compared with the times in which they are pretended to have been Writ they betray themselves (h) Cusan de Concord Cath. l. 3. Baronius calls them Late invented Evidences of no Credit and Apocryphal (i) Baron An. 865. §. 7. An. 102. § 6 7 yea Labbé and Cossartius have in their Edition a Learned Preface to them proving them to be forged (k) Labbé pag. 78. 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 fit 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 (l) Bin. pag. 26. col 1. 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 (m) Hard. against Jewel pag. 22. 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 (n) Dr. James Cor. of Fath. Part l. pag. 4 20 69. 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 (o) Rob. Coci Censura Patr. per totum 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 (p) Baron Annal An. 865. §. 4 5 6 7 8. 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 Levitae 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
is no prejudice to the Truth of Marcellinus his fall though the Africans did not know of it nor S. Augustine no nor any of the African Church Yet in the next Page it is observed That there are very many Names of the Witnesses which prove his fall which are peculiar to the African Christians Now if these Names were peculiar to the Africans then these Witnesses were of the African Church Originally and then it is Morally impossible that they should never tell none of their Countrymen of so Famous a Transaction The Notes confess that these Acts often mention Libra occidua which is a Word invented after the Empire was divided into East and West And thence the same Notes infer these Acts were not writ in those Ancient times yet they make it a wonder that they were not seen in Africa in S. Augustine 's time or before Which is to wonder that they had not seen them in Africa before they were written It puzzles the Annotator to make out an excuse for that ridiculous Falshood in these Acts that Marcellinus was led into the Temple of Vesta and Isis and there Sacrificed to Hercules Jupiter and Saturn because these Gods were never placed nor Worshiped in the Temples of those female Deities Nor can he allow what the Acts say about this Council being held when Dioclesian was in his Persian War for he affirms it was held Two years after that War when Dioclesian had devested himself of the Empire and lived a private Life But then the Acts make Dioclesian to be present and in Rome when Marcellinus did Sacrifice and at this rate the Pope would have laied two years at least in his Apostacy which the Annotator must not endure To conclude we now see That a Council held no body knows where nor when concealed from all Ancient Authors writ in later times full of Barbarisms and Non-sense Falshoods and contradictions if it do but pretend to make out the Supremacy and Infallibity of the Pope and set him while he was an Apostate and falsly denied the Fact above a Council of Three hundred Innocent Bishops if it do but say the Pope though never so wicked cannot be judged by any but himself This Council shall be published by the Roman Editors and vindicated by partial Notes as if it were a most genuine and Authentic Truth From whence it is plain That these Editors and especially this Annotator hath no other measure of Truth and Falshood but the Interest of the Roman Church which they resolve to promote though it be by the most unjust means And this may suffice to observe for the Third Century A BRIEF ACCOUNT OF THE Roman Forgeries IN THE VOLUMES OF THE COUNCILS For the Fourth Century PART II. CHAPTER IV. Of the Forgeries in the Fourth Century § 1. THis Century begins with the Life of Marcellus An. Dom. 304. a Pope so obscure that Eusebius's Chronicle wholly omits him (a) Lab. Tom. III. pag. 947. Bin. Tom. I. pag. 185. col 2. and Theodoret knew nothing of him nor of Pope Eusebius but makes Melchiades immediate Successor to Marcellinus (b) Theod. hist lib. 1 cap. 3. It is very observable that these two unknown Popes in the Notes on their Lives are said to have sat Seven years between them And the Pontifical saith There was a Vacancy of Seven years after Marcellinus which Vacancy is also asserted by Anastasius Biblioth by Luit prandus Abbo Floriacens Cusanus and Genebrard (c) Richer de Eccles potestate cap 3. pag. 46. And though Baronius's and Binius's Notes deny this Seven years Vacancy it is upon meer Conjectures The Scandal of so long a Vacancy no doubt setting some of the old Parasites of Rome on work to invent two Popes Names and put them into the List from whence probably they have been foisted into Optatus and S. Augustine two Latin Fathers while the Greek Authors which these Forgers Understood not do continue Uncorrupted And truly nothing but the Names of these two Popes remain for no good Historian mentions any one Eminent Act done by either of them however the Annotator had rather fill up his Scene with empty Names of Feigned Popes who did nothing for Seven years together than let the Reader suppose the Catholic Church could so long want it s pretended Head. But though the Notes allow not the Authority of the Pontifical for the Vacancy they trust it for the fictitious Story of this Marcellus his Life and would have us believe That in a time of Persecution this Pope appointed Twenty five Churches in Rome to Baptize Converts and Bury Martyrs in and though the Laws and Customs of that City then forbad to Bury dead Bodies within the Walls we are to believe that the Tyrant Maxentius who made all these Martyrs and persecuted this very Pope consented to his breaking this Ancient Law. On the Credit of the same Pontifical we are told That a certain Lady called Lucina dedicated her House to this Pope while He was alive by the Title of S. Marcellus and that the Emperor turned it into a Stable and made the Pope his Beast-keeper there where Naked and cloathed with Sackcloth they are the Words of the Pontifical He soon after ended his days the 17th of the Kalends of February (d) Breviar Rom. Jan. 16. pag. 674. Which Fiction the Roman Breviary orders to be read to the Credulous People of that Communion for Lessons and tells them That Marcellus writ an Epistle to the Bishops of the Antiochian Province about the Roman Primacy and to prove Rome to be the Head of All Churches and that no Synod should be held without the Pope's Authority But this Epistle (e) Lab. p. 948. Bin. pag. 186. col 1. is owned by Labbé to be a Forgery patched up out of divers Modern Authors citing the Vulgar Latin Version and dated after Marcellus his death And it is very strange That times of Persecution should be a proper Season for a Pope to wrangle for his Supremacy Yet this Notorious Forgery saith Christ ordered S. Peter to Translate his Seat from Antioch to Rome and that the Apostles by Inspiration decreed That all Appeals should be made thither and no Council held but by the Authority of the Roman Church For which cause Binius vindicates it with Notes as full of Falsehood as the Epistle it self (f) Lab. p 950 Bin. pag. 187. col 1. His first Note of this Epistle being writ to one Solomon a Bishop is an oversight and belongs to the first Epistle of Pope Marcellinus (g) Bin. p. 175. col 2. Baron An. 296. §. 5. His next Notes about the Primacy and Power of Calling Synods cite an Apostolical and Nicene Canon for it but no such Canons are to be found He quotes also two Epistles one writ to Pope Foelix from Alexandria another writ by Pope Julius to the Eastern Churches for proof of this Supremacy and the same Annotator afterwards owns them both
is most false to suppose That the whole Senate at this time were Christians for many of them continued Pagans long after Constantine's Death Baronius indeed out of Sylvester's Acts affirms That none of the Senate was converted before the Year 324 (t) Baron An. 324. §. 76. Forgetting that he had told us Divers Senators had given up their Names to Christ Twelve years before (u) Id. An. 312. §. 75 76. and that one or both of the Consuls were Christians two years before this (w) Id. An. 322. §. 1. So ill a Memory had the great Cardinal when his Cause obliged him to defend a Lye. Fifthly It speaks of the Emperor's intending to build a City and call it by his own Name in the Province of Bizantium and his Resolution to transfer his Empire thither and yet before this the Edict had reckoned up Constantinople by name and Hierusalem as two of the Five Patriarchates and given Rome Jurisdiction over all the other Four. Lastly It is Dated in the Fourth Consulship of Constantine with Gallicanus whereas Licinius was his Collegue in his Fourth Consulship which was in the Year of Christ 315 that is Nine years before the time fixed by Baronius for this pretended Baptism and that clearly shews the Story to be all Sham as all modest and learned Men of the Roman Church do now acknowledge But Baronius and our Annotaâ—or considering not barely the falshood of this Edict for that alone would not discourage them but observing also that it destroys the pretended Divine Right of the Pope's Supremacy grant it at last to be a Forgery but say It was devised by the Greeks Secondly Therefore I shall shew the Falshood of that Accusation For First they charge Balsamon with publishing it Now he did not write till An. 1180 yet the Notes out of Baronius do confess that a Pope quoted it An. 1054 that is near an Hundred years before Balsamen was born to justifie his Superiority over the Greek Church and therefore Balsamon was not the Inventer of it Secondly It doth the Greeks no good for it gives the Pope power over all their Patriarchs and reckons Constantinople as the last and lowest Patriarchate so that the Forger could not come out of that Church Thirdly It is grounded on the fabulous Acts of Sylvester writ in Latin and feigned in the Western World and its whole design is to advance the Pope above all Bishops Kings and Emperors and therefore no doubt it was advanced by a Friend of the Popes Fourthly The Notes confess That a Pope first set up this Edict to prove his Universal Supremacy not considering with Baronius it seems that it weakened his Title and the grave and learned Men of the Roman Church received it as Authentic for many Ages after We add That till the Reformation they cited it and writ in defence of it and though now their Point is gained they begin to renounce it yet the Advantage that Church got by it shews that they were the Forgers of it yea it seems Anno 1339 one Johannes Diaconus a Member of the Roman Church was thought to be the Author of it Fifthly Whoever considers how unwilling the Cardinal and our Annotator are to have it clearly reâ—ected will be convinced that their Church gained by it and consequently invented it They labour to prove the Popâ—s temporal Power granted hereby is both probable and true (x) Lab. p. 1539. Bin. pag. 254. col 1. And though they own the French Princes Pipin and Charles who gave many Cities and Countries to S. Peter never mention this Edict yet they argue from their calling those Gifts A restoring them to the Church that they had respect to Constantine's Bounty (y) Lab. p. 1540. Bin. pag. 254. col 2. These Authors also mention Pope Adrian's confirming this Edict and quote the Book of Constantine's Munificence shewed to be a Fable just now to justifie it (z) Lab. p. 1541. Bin. pag. 255. col 1. They also would make out what it saith of the Images of Peter and Paul then kept at Rome by Eusebius but cite him falsly leaving out the main part of his Testimony viz. That it was only some who had such Images and that these imitated the Pagans herein from whence it will not follow That eminent Christians then placed them in their Churches (a) Lab. Bin. ut supr Baron An. 324. §. 40. In short Though they dare not say it is true yet they would not have it rejected as false because it gives their admired Church so much Riches and Power and therefore doubtless no Greeks but some of their Church invented this most notorious Forgery And Aeneas Sylvius observes That it was warily done of the Popes to let it be hotly disputed how far this Edict was good in Law that so the Edict it self might still be supposed valid (b) Aene. Sylv. dial de Donat. Constantini it being their Interest it should be thought so This feigned Donation is followed by a Roman Council under Sylvester in the Preface whereof Sylvester is falsly pretended to have called the Nicene Council and in the body of which there is a Canon That none must judge the Chief Seat not the Emperor nor Kings nor Clergy nor People For the sake of which two advantagious Fictions Baronius and the Annotator defend and justifie this Synod (c) Baron An. 324. §. 29 30 130. Bin. not p. 260. though the Title be ridiculous the Style barbarous and the Matter of it as void of Sense as it is of probability Labbé indeed notes That the Condemning Photinus here shews it was put together by an unskilful Hand (d) Lab. Marg. pag. 1542. and rejects it as a Forgery very justly For Photinus as the Notes confess was not Condemned till long after (e) Bin. p. 260. col 1. nor were there any Christian Kings but Constantine the Emperor at that time Besides the Forger first says None of the Laity were present and yet in the next Page affirms That Calpharnius Praefect of the City was there and that Constantine and his Mother Helena subscribed it (f) Lab. p. 1547. Bin. pag. 256. col 2. pag. 257. col 2. yea Baronius himself observes That this Council mistakes the Custom of the Roman Church where in that Age Presbyters use to sit in the presence of the Bishops but in this Fiction they are represented as standing with the Deacons (g) Baron An. 324. §. 124. Moreover it destroys the Donation Lies seldom hanging together for if Constantine had given the Pope such Supreme Power a few days before what need was there for these Bishops to grant the same thing or however why do they not remember Constantine's late Gift Lastly Arius who then gave so great Trouble to the Church is not mentioned here not as Baronius guesses because he was to be more solemnly Condemned at Nice the next year (h) Baron An. 324. §. 27.
of them affirms that Hosius was the Pope's Legate This is purely an Invention of Baronius but he only proves it by Conjectures (y) Baron An. 325. §. 20. The Truth is Constantine himself was the President of this Council and Sat on a Gilded Throne not as the Preface saith falsly Below all the Bishops but Above all the Bishops as Eusebius an Eye-witness relates (z) Euseb vit Constant lib. 3. cap. 10. and the Notes at last own He sat in the Chief Place (a) Lab. pag. 67. Bin. pag. 292. col 2. yea the Annalist confesseth He acted the part of a Moderator in it (b) Baron An. 325. §. 73. Richerius goes further saying It is clear by undoubted Testimonies that the Appointing and Convening of this Council depended on the Authority of Constantine who was the President thereof (c) Richer hist Con. cap. 2 §. 2 3 4. and he blames Baronius and Binius for wilfully mistaking the Pope's Consent which was requisite as he was Bishop of an Eminent Church for his Authority to which no Pope in that Age pretended It is true there were some Bishops who were Chief among the Ecclesiastics in this Council Eustathius Bishop of Antioch sat uppermost on the Right-side and opened the Synod with a Speech to Constantine (d) Theodoret. apud Baron An. 325. §. 54. Hence some and among the rest Pope Foelix in his Epistle to Zeno affirm He was President of this Council (e) Vid Richer hist Concil lib. 1. cap. 2. §. 8. Others say The Bishop of Alexandria presided and indeed all the Patriarchs present Sat above all others of the Clergy (f) Phot. lib. d. 7. Synod yet so as they all gave place to the Emperor when he came in And for the Pope's Legates Baronius and Bellarmin do contend in vain about the Places they had in this Council since no Ancient Author tells us they Sat above the Chief of the Bishops So that this also is a Forgery of the Papal Flatterers to give Countenance to their Churches feigned Supremacy Thirdly As to the Power which confirmed the Canons of this Council the ancient Historians do suppose that Constantine gave these Decrees their binding Power and Record his Letters to injoyn all to observe them (g) Vid Socrat. Sozom. Theodoret Ruffin ut supra And Eusebius who was there saith that The Emperor ratified the Decrees with his Seal (h) Euseb vit Constan lib. 1. cap. 37. But the Annalist and Annotator seek to efface this evidence by Railing at Eusebius and by devising many weak pretences to persuade the Credulous that Pope Sylvester confirmed this Council by his Authority and both the Preface and Notes tell us that this Synod writ a Letter to Sylvester for his confirmation and that he called a Council at Rome and writ back to Ratify what they had done (i) Lab. p. 6. pag. 7â— Bin. pag. 64. pag. 299. col 1. But whoever will but read these two Epistles will find the Latin so Barbarous and the Sense so Intricate that nothing is plain in them but that they are Forged (k) Lab p. 68. Bin. pag. 348. col 1. and Labbe's Margin tells us they are Fictions nor dare Baronius own them to be genuine (l) Baron An. 325. §. 37. and though Binius cite them for evidence in his Notes yet at some distance he tells us it is evident they are both Corrupted (m) Bin. p. 348. col 1. marg and again he says if they were not both extreme faulty and Commentitious they might be Evidence in this case (n) Idem p. 365. col 1. not ad Concil Rom. But Richerius is more Ingenuous and declares That these Epistles are prodigiously â—alse The Forger of them being so Ignorant as to call Macarius who was then Bishop of Jerusalem Bishop of Constantinople Yet our Annotator cites Dionysius Exiguus for a Witness of these Epistles whereas Richerius shews they were Forged by some Ignorant Monk long after Dionysius his time who mentions not the Pope 's confirming of these Canons nor doth he remember these Epistles but only saith it was agreed these Canons should be sent to Sylvester Bishop of Rome (o) Richer hist Concil lib. 1. cap. 2. §. 6. The Notes further urge a Roman Council under Pope Sylvester to prove his Confirming these Canons but that Council is a confessed Forgery it self and so proves nothing (p) Labbè marg pag. 412. Lastly The Annotator here and almost every where cites Socrates his speaking of an Ecclesiastical Canon that no Decrees of Councils should be valid withâ—ut the consent of the Roman Bishop (q) Socrat. histor lib. 2. cap. 13. But First Consent is not Confirmation It is the priviledge of every Patriarch as well as of him of Rome That a Generâ—l Council cannot be held without every one of their consents but this proves not their pretended sole and supreme Power of ratifying all Councils vested in the Pope Besides Socrates here only Historically relates what Pope Julius said in his own Case and therefore the Testimony relies on Julius his Credit and indeed that was a peculiar Case wherein when the Cause of Athanasius was referred by consent of all parties to Julius as Arbitrator the Arians took it out of his Hands against Athanasius his Mind and judged it in a Council to which Julius was not at all summoned which doubtless was very illegal and unjust But yet none can tell where this Ecclesiastical Canon was made which the angry and injured Pope here cites and therefore till it appear whence Julius had this Canon we must be excused if we give no great Deference to it and unless they cou'd prove it was Râ—corded before the Nicene Council it is very impertinent to expect the Nicene Fathers should Govern their Actions by it So that we conclude not Sylvester but Constantine confirmed this Council Fourthly As to the number of the Canons the Annotator also notoriously prevaricates He confesses that all the Greeks and particularly Theodoret and Ruffinus assert there were but Twenty Canons made there yea that the Sixth Council of Carthage within less than an Hundred years after a diligent search in the three Patriarchal Seats of Alexandria Antioch and Constantinople could find no more than Twenty Canons (r) Lab. p. 71. Bin. pag. 395. col 2. But the Notes conceal Gratian's naming no more but Twenty Canons and his saying there are but only Twenty Nicene Canons to be found in the Roman Church (s) Gratian. dist 16. cap. 10. cap. 13. For all this the Annotator boldly tells us That the truer Opinion or rather that which is most for the Popes interest is that more than Twenty Canons were made there But we will examine his and Baronius's reasons (t) Baron An. 325. §. 157. c. First They say there is no Decree about Easter among the Twenty Canons I reply There is a genuine Epistle of
to the Places near to him (a) Lab. p. 294. Bin. pag. 333. col 1. However the Editors say Steuchus Turrian and Cope cite it and they print Turrian's Notes upon it which affirm it to agree with the Sixth Canon of the true Edition and would prove it genuine by no better Evidence than a Forged Decretal of Anacletus (b) Bin. p. 358. col 1. By which we see the most apparent Falshoods shall be published and defended if they do but promote the Supremacy Lastly We will make some Remarks on the Corrupt Editions of this Council First That of Alfonsus Pisanus is so Fabulous that Labbé for meer shame omits it (c) Lab. Marg. pag. 106. but Binius prints it at large with all its Fictions and Impostures (d) Bin. p. 300. col 1. of which Richerius gives this Character By this History of Pisanus we may learn not what the Council of Nice was but what it should be to fit it for a Jesuits Palate for he hath scraped together all the Falshoods and Forgeries he could find for enlarging the number of the Canons (e) Richer hist Concil lib. 1. cap. 2. §. ult But I must add that there are divers Passages in this Edition which will not serve the ends of the modern Roman Flatterers For first Pisanus his Greek Author highly extols Eusebius (f) Bin. p. 301. col 2. 302. col 2. for which the Jesuit corrects him with a Note in the Margen Secondly The Orthodox Bishop bids the Philosopher believe that which was written but not to regard things unwritten because the Faith is grounded on Holy Scripture (g) Bin. p. 316. col 1. Whereas the Margen cautions the Reader not to think that this is spoken against Ecclesiastical Traditions though it be levelled at them Thirdly Hosius doth not subscribe as the Pope's Legates here do for Pope Sylvester wherefore this Compiler did not think him to be the Popes Legate (h) Bin. p. 322. col 1. Fourthly It is here said to have been declared at Nice That every Bishop under God was the Head of his own Church (i) Bin. p. 325. col 2. Fifthly Here is printed that part of the African Bishop's Letter to Celestine wherein they blame his Legate for falsly citing the Nicene Canons (k) Bin. pag. 328. col 1. So also the LXXX Canons were not invented by a Through-paced Friend to the Roman Modern Interest and therefore probably Baronius will not defend them (l) Baron An. 325. §. 53. The 8th Canon as was noted limits the Pope's Jurisdiction to such places as were near him The 24th and 66th of these Canons clearly declare that some Bishops had Wives (m) Bin p. 335. col 2. p. 341. col 1. forbidding Bigamy and compelling them to take their first Wife again And there are other like Examples which are not worth setting down because they are all forged in later times as appears by their citing a fabulous Discourse out of the Life of S. Anthony falsly ascribed to the great Athanasius (n) Bin. p. 302. col 2. Vid. Rivet Crit. sacr l. 3. cap. 4. by their quoting a spurious Work under the name of Dionysius Areopagita which was as all agree writ after the Nicene Council many years (o) Bin. pag. 336. col 2. By their giving the Patriarch of Antioch Jurisdiction over the Archbishop of Cyprus who was always free from that subjection as was declared long after in the Council of Ephesus (p) Bin. p. 337. col 1. Vid. Concil Ephesin Act. 7. Finally Though this Pisanus do impudently reject the true story of Paphnutius his advising to leave the Clergy at liberty to Marry which History is in his Author and in Gelasius Cyzicenus also Yet he magnifies a ridiculous Fiction afterward of two Bishops which signed the Nicene Faith after they were dead and buried (q) Bin. p. 347. col 2. A Fable so gross that Baronius rejects it with a Note which I wish he had often remembred viz. That it was not usual Among Christians to confirm the Faith by Miracles which was attested by more firm Evidences of Holy Scripture (r) Baron An. 325. §. 182. Secondly Turrians Edition of this Council repeats all these LXXX Canons and in his Preface and his Notes he vindicates them all and yet the Tracts which he cites to prove these Canons genuine are owned to be spurious by all modest Romanists and his Arguments are so trifling they are not worth confuting We will only note therefore that the 7th and the 40th of these Canons require that Synods shall be held twice a year which as Turrian confesseth agrees not with the custom of the Roman Church (s) Lab. p. 294. pag. 303. Bin. pag. 353. col 2. 358. col 1. And his Notes say the 72d Canon differs from the 13th and the 73d Canon is contrary to the 49th (t) Lab. p. 315. Bin. pag. 363. col 1 2. but he will rather suppose the Holy Nicene Fathers contradicted themselves than own any of these Canons to be forged because some of them seem to favour the Pope's Supremacy As to the Edition of Gelasius Cyzicenus it is generally a very modest account of this Council and hath not many Errors in it but like all other ancient Authors it speaks very little of the Pope for which Reason Binius claps it under Hatches and will not produce it till the latter end of his Second Tome after the Council of Ephesus to convince us That all Authors are valued or slighted meerly as they promote or discourage the Usurpations of Rome § 18. To all these Impostures contrived to misrepresent this famous general Council there is tacked a Third Council at Rome under Sylvester in the presence of Constantine wherein that Pope with 275 Bishops are said to confirm the Nicene Council and make two or three new Canons (u) Lab. p. 412. Bin. pag. 365. col 1. Baron An. 325. §. 199. But though it be certain and confessed by Binius and Baronius that Constantine was not then at Rome though the Style be barbarous and the Matter frivolous and the thing be a manifest Forgery contrived to carry on the grand Cheat of Sylvester's confirming the Council of Nice yet Baronius and Binius who confess the Title to be false labour to prove this Synod to be true though Binius be forced to justifie it by the forged Letter of the Nicene Fathers to Sylvester and his Answer to them both which in the next Column he owns are false and feigned (w) Bin. p. 365. col 2 C And thus where the Supremacy is concern'd one Forgery serves for the Evidence of another The Council at Gangra is genuine and was an uncorrupted Remain of Primitive Antiquity till it fell into the hands of these Editors who have put the name of Osius Bishop of Corduba into the Title in their Latin Version and though that Name be not
59 60 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 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 (l) Baron An. 352. §. 2 3. He fills up this Popes story according to his manner with trifling 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 (m) Lab. p. 475 in Marg. Bin. pag. 384. col 1. 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 Pontifical 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 (n) Lab. Marg. pag. 477. Bin. pag. 385. col 1. and after Baronius had discarded it Binius by frivolous Notes strives to justifie it as speaking big for the Supremacy (o) Lab. p 480. Bin. pag. 386. col 1. 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 (p) Lab. Marg. pag. 482. Bin. pag. 386. col 2. For indeed they do not own it at all and yet the substance of this Epistle is genuine being found in Socrates and Sozomen The third Epistle from Julius to the Arians is owned by Baronius and others to be a Forgery (q) Lab. p. 483. Bin. pag. 387. col 2. and Binius in his Notes upon it saith It is false corrupted and stollen out of divers Authors (r) Bin. p. 391. col 1. 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 (s) Lab. p. 494. Bin. pag. 391. col 1. 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 (t) Lab. p. 495. Bin. ut supr col 2. 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 (u) Lab. p. 513. Bin. pag. 395. col 1. 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 (w) Lab. p. 516. Bin. pag. 396. col 1. 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 (x) Ep. 4. ap Lab. Bin. pag. 396. col 2. 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 (y) Lab. p. 525. Bin. pag. 398. col 1. 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 (z) Lab. Marg. pag. 527. Bin. pag. 400. col 1. 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 (a) Baron An. 337. §. 67. 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 An. Dom. 339. 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 (b) Baron An. 339. §. 2. §. 11. say It was writ particularly to Julius whereas the Body of the Epistle saith The Arians have written to the Roman Bishop and perhaps speaking to other Bishops they have writ to you also So that this is a falshood devised for to make out the Supremacy which is not countenanced by this Epistle wherein we are told that Religion depends not on the greatness of any City Though the Notes say That Bishops had Honours and Jurisdiction given them suiting to the dignity of the Secular Praefects of their several Cities and thence Alexandria was reckoned the second Patriarchate and Antioch the third (c) Lab. p. 534. Bin pag. 401. col 2. it follows naturally therefore Rome was the first Patriarchate But this Inference they will not make I shall only note that this Synod saith The lawful use of the Cup of the Lord was to make the People Drink (d) Lab. p. 547. Bin. pag. 404. col 2. from whence we gather that the Roman Church who denies the Cup to the People doth a very unlawful thing and leaves off the lawful use of the holy Chalice An. Dom. 341. The Council of Antioch is by the Editors said to be held under Julius (e) Lab. p. 559. Bin. pag. 407. yet it was called by Constantius on occasion of dedicating a new Church there and the Notes say the Emperour not only called it but being present there caused such Decrees as he pleased to pass in it (f) Lab. p. 588. Bin. p. 416. col 1. yea it is evident they valued Pope Julius so little that they judged quite otherwise than he had done in the case of Athanasius and therefore the Romanists rail at this Synod as a Conventicle of Arians and in the last Roman Edition saith Richerius (g) Richer hist Conc. lib. 1. cap. 4. have left out these Canons as not favouring the practice of the Roman Court. However Baronius saith Among 97 Bishops only 36 were Arians (h) Baron An. 341. §. 4 5. and the Canons made here are excellent Rules for Discipline having been received into the Code of the Universal Church before S. Chrysostom's time confirm'd by the Council of Chalcedon allowed by S. Hillary and as Gratian saith received by the Catholics and the Learned Richerius hath fully answered all the Cavils of Binius and Baronius by which they would invalidate them So that we need only make some few Remarks on this Council and so dismiss it The 12th Canon Orders a Bishop who was deposed to appeal to a Synod of Bishops and allowed none to be restored unless it were by a greater number of Bishops than had deposed him (i) Lab. p. 595. Bin. pag. 417. col 2. But they exclaim against this as a device of the Arians to take away that Apostolical and ancient Law and Custom of appealing to Rome which they say was always observed till now But hitherto they could never produce any such Law nor prove any such Custom nor did S. Chrysostom ever appeal to Rome but desired to be restored by a greater Synod as this Canon requires (k) Socrat. lib. 6. cap. 16. Vid. Bever Concil Tom. II. pag. 191. and when his Enemies made that impossible then indeed he objected that this Canon was made by Arians yet the Canon remained in force and was generally received in that Age. Nor did the Sardican Council revoke it as Binius falsly saith (l) Lab. p. 597. Bin. pag. 418. col 2. Vid. Richer ut supr For though they put a new Complement on the Pope yet they did not take away the ancient method of appealing from a lesser Synod to a greater The second Canon decrees That such as come to Church to hear part of the Service and do not receive the Sacrament shall be Excommunicated This the Notes say was to condemn the old Audian Heretics (m) Lab. p. 596. Bin. pag 418. col 1. but it evidently condemns the new Roman Heretics who since they exalted their Wafer into a God expect the People should only gaze at and adore it most part of the year and excuse them though they often go away without receiving it The 25th Canon forbids Bishops to commit the Treasures and Fruits of the Church to their Kinsmen Brethren and Sons Upon which Binius hath no Note knowing it reflected on the Roman Churches Custom where the Popes generally give all they can to their scandalous Nipotismo Next to this Council of Antioch is placed a second Synod at Rome under Pope Julius in the Cause of Athanasius (n) Lab. p. 604. Bin. pag. 419. col ◠but Baronius places it before that of Antioch An. 340. § 1. And though the Cardinal confess That Athanasius and his Enemies by consent had referred this matter to Julius his Arbitration and that Athanasius came to Rome after this Reference was made yet he vainly remarks on this matter in these words Behold Reader the ancient usage for injured Bishops to come even out of the East to the Roman Bishop for redress (o) Baron An. 340. §. 2. But this is one of the first Instances and was a meer Arbitration by consent and the ancient Usage since the Emperours became Christians was to appeal to them as these Parties had done before it was referred to the Pope In this Roman Council it is pretended Athanasius delivered his Creed but the Acts of the Council being lost and the Roman Archives being a repository neither safe nor creditable we can have no Evidence from thence of the Truth and Antiquity of this excellent Composure One thing however is remarkable that Baronius and Binius charge the Greeks with taking away those words and the Son out of this Creed and add that they falsly pretended this was a late addition of the Latins (p) Lab. p. 605. Bin. pag. 420. col 1. Baron An 340. §. 12. Yet Baronius himself owns that the Western Church added these words and the Son to the Nicene Creed above an hundred years after (q) Baron An. 447. so that they accuse the poor Greeks for keeping the Creed as Athanasius made it and as their own Church used to recite the Nicene Creed for many years after An. Dom. 34◠The year following Julius held a third Synod at Rome and in it read the Letter of the Eastern Bishops wherein they wonder he should cite them to Rome and so value himself upon the greatness of his City as on that account to take upon him to judge them concerning things which they had determined in their own Synods Nor durst Julius challenge any Authority over them by reason of the Eminence of his City (r) Baron An. 341. §. 56 57. Only he pleads for Athanasius who being Bishop of an Apostolical See viz. Alexandria ought not to have been condemned by them till they had writ to
all the Western Bishops and especially to him as Bishop of the first See that so all of them viz. in Council might have determined the matter according to right (s) Id. An. 342. §. 28 30. But Baronius and Binius turn this into their being obliged to write to the Pope and to receive what he had defined And Binius infers from the Popes writing this Synodical Letter from a Council held in his own City of Rome though the Synod expresly command him to write the Epistle That in respect to the Pope and according to ancient Custom it was his right to publish Whatever was agreed on in Councils (t) Lab. p. 608. Bin. pag. 420 col 2. But such false Consequences from Premisses that will not bear them only shew the Arguers partiality After this we have nothing remarkable but a second Council at Antioch held by the Arians yet bearing this Title under Julius (u) Lab. p. 608. Bin. 420. col 2. wherein the Arians made a New Creed and sent four Bishops to give Constans the Emperour and all the Western Bishops an account of their Faith and they met these Legates in a Council at Milain and though it doth not appear Julius was present yet Baronius makes as if this Embassy from the East was sent to Julius chiefly to desire Communion with him (w) Baron An. 344. §. 4. and Binius saith They desired to be received into the Communion of the Roman Church (x) Lab. p. 614. Bin. pag. 422. col 1. But the ancient Historians assure us they desired not the Communion of the Roman only but of the whole Western Church of which that was then esteemed no more than one eminent part § 21. The Sardican Synod An. Dom. 347. which saith some kind things of Rome is prodigiously magnified by the Editors who place an History before it and partial Notes after it which are full of Falsities and designed Misrepresentations Baronius also spends one whole year in setting it off to the best advantage but all their Frauds will be discovered by considering First By whom it was called Secondly Who presided in it Thirdly Of what number of Bishops it consisted And Fourthly What Authority the Canons of it have First As to the Calling it the Preface falsly states the occasion thereof For it is plain Athanasius did not as that reports leave the whole judgment of his Cause to the Pope (y) Lab. p. 624. Bin. pag. 423. nor did he as is there said Fly to Rome as the Mother of all Churches and the Rock of Faith This is the Prefacers meer Invention For Athanasius went to Rome as to the place agreed on by both sides for Arbitrating this matter and the other party so little valued the Pope's decision in his favour that they would neither restore Athanasius nor receive him into Communion upon it which made Julius complain to the Emperour Constans who writ to his Brother Constantius about it but that Letter did not produce this Council as the Preface fully sets out but only procured a fruitless Embassy of three Eastern Bishops to Rome It was the personal Addresses of Athanasius and Paulus Bishop of Constantinople to Constans when they found the Pope had no power to restore them which caused both the Emperours to give order for this Council to meet as Sozomen Socrates and Theodoret affirm (z) Sozem. lib. 3. cap. 19. Socrat. lib. 2. cap. 16. Theod. lib. 2. cap. 5. And the Bishops in their Epistle do expresly say They were called together by the most Religious Emperours (a) Lab. p. 670. Bin. pag. 440. But Baronius fraudulently leaves out this beginning of the Bishops Letter (b) Baron An. â—47 §. 31. and the bold Writer of the Preface saith This Council was called by the Popes Authority And the Notes offer some Reasons to justifie this Falshood yea they cite the aforesaid Authors who plainly declare it was called by both the Emperours to prove it was called by the Pope but they offer nothing material to make this out 'T is true Socrates saith Some absent Bishops complained of the shortness of time and blamed Julius for it (c) Not. ad Concil Sardic Lab. pag. 685. Bin. pag. 445. col 1. Vid. Richer histor Concil lib. 1. cap. 3. but that doth not prove the Council was called by his Authority only it supposes he might advise the Emperour to make them meet speedily but still that is no sign of full power Secondly As to the President of this Council The Preface saith boldly That Hosius Archidamus and Philoxenus presided in the Name of Julius But first it doth not appear that Hosius was the Popes Legate only as an eminent Confessor he had a chief place in it whence Sozomen saith Osius and Protogenes were chief of the Western Bishops here assembled (d) Sozom. lib. 3. cap. 11. That is Osius as an ancient Confessor and Protogenes as Bishop of Sardia where the Council was held but as for Archidamus and Philoxenus they are not in the Latin Copies of the Subscribers (e) Lab. p. 658. Bin. pag. 436. col 1. And Athanasius only saith Julius subscribed by these two Presbyters which shews that Hosius was not the Popes Legate for he subscribed in his own name and that these Presbyters who were his Legates were not Presidents of the Council Thirdly They magnifie the number of Bishops also in this Synod to make it look like a General Council where accounts differ they take the largest (f) Baron An. 347. §. 3 4. and falsly cite Athanasius as if he said it consisted of 376 Bishops and so exceeded the first Council of Nice (g) Lab. p. 685. Bin. pag. 446. col 1. Baron ut supr §. 75. Whereas Athanasius expresly reckons only 170 who met at the City of Sardica (h) Athanas Epist ad Solitar p. 818. and when many of the Eastern Bishops withdrew there were not one hundred left to pass the Decrees of this Council 'T is true Athanasius affirms that 344 Bishops signed the Decree to restore him but many of these hands were got from Orthodox Bishops who were not at the Council (i) Idem Apol. 2. p. 767 768. So that this was never counted or called a General Council by any but these partial Romanists for though the Emperour seem to have designed it General at first (k) Socrat. lib. 2. cap. 16. yet so few came to it and they who came agreed so ill the Eastern Bishops generally forsaking it that it is called frequently A Council of the Western Church and so Epiphanius in Baronius describes it (l) Baron An. 347. §. 42. Fourthly The little regard paid to its Canons afterwards shews it was no General Council Richerius a moderate and learned Romanist proves That this Council was not extant in Greek in the time of Dionysius Exiguus so that he and Pope Leo the 4th reckon it after all the Councils of Note
mark of the Donatists being of the Synagogue of Antichrist that they named the several Parties among them from the Leaders and Founders of their several Sects and were not content with the Name of Christians from Christ Which Note reflects upon the Monks of their own Church who are called Benedictines Dominicans and Franciscans from the Founders of their several Orders In the Council of Turin An. Dom. 397. composed of the Gallican Bishops they decided the Case of Primacy between the Bishop of Arles and Vienna without advising with the Pope and determined they would not communicate with Foelix a Bishop of Ithacius his Party according to the Letters of Ambrose of Blessed Memory Bishop of Milan and of the Bishop of Rome Now here the Roman Advocates are much disturbed to find S. Ambrose his Name before Siricius and when they repeat this Passage in the Notes they falsly set the Pope's Name first contrary to the express words of the fifth Canon and impudently pretend That the Bishop of Rome by his place was the ordinary Judge who should be communicated with and Ambrose was only made so by the Popes Delegation (z) Lab. p. 1157 1158. Bin. pag. 568. 569. But how absurd is it if this were so for the Council to place the Name of the Delegate before his who gave him power And every one may see that this Council was directed to mark this Decree principally by S. Ambrose his Advice and secondarily by the Popes for at that time Ambrose his Fame and Interest was greater than that of Siricius yet after all the Council decreed this not by the Authority of either of these Bishops as the Notes pretend but only by their Information and upon their Advice by these Letters which were not first read as they pretend but after four other businesses were dispatched An. Dom. 397 c. The Canons of divers African Councils held at Carthage and elsewhere have been put together long since and collected into one Code which makes the time and order of the Councils wherein they were made somewhat difficult but since the Canons were always held Authentic we need not with the Editors be much concerned for their exact order or for reducing them to the years of the Pope because they were neither called nor ratified by his Authority Yea the Notes say It was never heard that any but the Bishop of Carthage called a Council there his Letters gave Summons to it he presided over it and first gave his Suffrage in it and that even when Faustinus an Italian Bishop the Popes Legate was present (a) Lab. p. 1163. Bin. pag 573. col 1 2. As for the particular Canons of the third Council the Nineteenth saith That the Readers shall either profess Continence or they shall be compelled to Marry but they feign old Copies which say They shall not be allowed to Read if they will not contain (b) Lab. p. 1170. Bin. pag. 575. col 1. the falshood of which appears by the 25th Canon in the Greek and Latin Edition where this is said of the Clergy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Except the Readers which they translate Quamvis Lectorum (c) Bin p. 580. on purpose to make us think that the command of Celibacy upon which that Age too much doted reached the lowest order of the Clergy even Readers contrary to the express words of the Canons And to the second Council of Carthage where only Bishops Priests and Deacons are under an obligation to live single (d) Bin. p. 571. Secondly The 26th Canon of the third Council forbids the Bishop of the first See to be called by the Title of Prince or Chief of Bishops Gratian goes on neither may the Roman Bishop be called Universal (e) Lab. p. 1170. Bin. pag. 575. col 2. Gratian. Decret part 1. dist 99. The Notes tax Gratian indeed for adding this Sentence but if he did it was out of Pope Gregory who saith That no Patriarch ought to be called Universal Besides considering how apt the Editors are to strike out words not Agreeable to the Interest of Rome it is more probable that some of the Popes Friends lately left these words out than that Gratian put them in And since this Council forbid Appeals to foreign Judicatures with peculiar respect to Rome to which some of the Criminal Clergy then began to appeal (f) Lab. p. 1171. Bin. pag. 581. col 2. it is not unlikely these Fathers might resolve to check as well the Title as the Jurisdiction then beginning to be set up which encouraged these Appeals Thirdly The 47th Canon in the Latin and the 24th in the Greek and Latin Edition speaking of such Books as are so far Canonical that they may be read in Churches reckon up some of those Books which we call Apocryphal upon which the Notes triumph (g) Lab. p. 1177. Bin. pag. 580. col 1. but let it be observed that we grant some of these Books to be so far Canonical that they may be read for instruction of Manners and also we may note that the best Editions of these African Canons leave out all the Books of Macchabees and Baruch which are foisted into their later Latin Copies (h) Cosen's History of the Canon p. 112. pag. 113. And it is plain the whole Canon is falsly placed in this Council under Siricius because Pope Boniface who came not into the Papacy till above twenty years after is named in it as Bishop of Rome yet after all these devices it doth not declare what Books are strictly Canonical and so will not justifie the Decree at Trent Fourthly In the 48th Canon of the Latin Version the Council agrees to advise about the Donatists with Siricius Bishop of Rome and Simplicianus Bishop of Milan not giving any more deference to one of these Bishops than to the other but looking on them as equally fit to advise them Yet the Notes boldly say They advise with the Pope because they knew he presided as a Bishop and Doctor over the Catholic Church but with the Bishop of Milan only as a Man every where famous for his Learning (i) Lab. p. 1183. Bin. pag. 584. col 2. Which is a meer Fiction of their own for the words of the Canon shew that these Fathers did not believe either of them had any Authority over them only they desired their advice joyntly as being both Eminent and Neighbouring Bishops and their prohibiting Appeals shews they knew nothing of the Popes presiding over the Catholic Church An. Dom. 398. § 32. Anastasius was the last Pope in this Century of whom there would have been as little notice taken as of Many of his Predecessors if it had not been his good fortune to be known both to S. Hierom and S. Augustine and to assist the latter in suppressing the Donatists and the former in condemning the Errours of Origen for which cause these two Fathers make
than the Christians have writ those of the Saints Melch. Can. Can. loc Theol. l. 11. p. 333. Yet you rarely have any better Evidence than these for most of the Roman Doctrines and Rites And though Nicephorus and the Modern Greeks be frequently taxed by him for giving easie faith to feigned Stories and for gross Mistakes An. 306. §. 12. pag. 3. Tom. IV. An. 363. p. 105. yet when they tell never such improbable Tales for the Roman Interest then they are cited with great applause Now it is a clear evidence of an ill Cause when they can find no other Proofs but such spurious Writings as these of which practice I have here given but a few Instances but 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 Aug. de Civ Dei lib. 18. c. 53. 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 Baron An. 313. §. 17. 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 Athanas de decret in Arian Baronius saith He proves it especially by Dionysius the holy Roman Pope and by Dionysius Bishop of Alexandria Baron An. 325. §. 69. 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 Leon. ep 53. ap Baron An. 325. §. 28. 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 Baron An. 319. §. 6. whereas it is manifest that Epiphanius both there and elsewhere plainly uses Romania for the Roman Empire Epiphan contra Manich. haer 66. contr Arian haer 69. 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 Opt. Milev lib. 2. pag. 48. Baldvin notis pag. 184. 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 Baron An. 321. §. 5. 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 Opt. Milev lib. 2. pag. 50. 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 Baron An. 324. §. 105. 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 Id. ib. §. 114. 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 Baron An. 325. §. 197. 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 Baron An 329. §. 7 8. 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 An. 341. §. 43 44. When Socrates only saith Eusebius
4. the Book of Machabees which the Roman Church now say are Canonical Scripture And this is the true reason why the Notes reject this Canon (s) Lab. pag. 61 Bin. pag. 18. col 2. They alledge indeed some other frivilous reasons such as the leaving out the Revelations and putting in Clements Constitutions But it seems very probable to me that it was not the Greeks as the Notes suggest but that Impostor who gave these Canons a false Title and called them the Apostles Canons which for carrying on his Pious Fraud left out the Revelations being not written at that time when he would have us believe these Canons were made and He also put in the Constitutions which are forged in the name of the Apostles who were to be set up as Authors also of these Canons And if that were so this 84th Canon being cleared from those two Corruptions is an Ancient and very Authentic Record of the true and genuine Books of Holy Scripture but the Romanists reject it as being a good evidence against their New Trent Canon § 3. To these Canons are joyned a pretended Council of the Apostles at Antioch first put into the Tomes of the Councils by Binius and continued by Labbè (t) Lab. pag 62. Bin. pag. 18. col 2. one Canon of which allows Christians to make an image of Christ But this notorius and improbable Forgery was never heard of in any Author till that infamous second Nicene Council which wanting proofs for Image-worship from genuine Antiquity impudently feigned such Authorities as this pretended Council § 4. The Pontifical or Lives of the Popes which begins here bears the Title of Pope Damasus but the Notes say Damasus was not Author of it being evidently patched up out of two different Authors containing contradictions almost in every Popes Life So that no account is to be made of a Writing so different from it self (u) Lab. pag. 63. Bin. pag. 19. col 2. Now if this be as it certainly is a True Character of the Pontifical Why do these Editors print it Why do the Notes so often cite it as good Hisstory Why do their Divines quote it as good Authority to prove their Modern Corruptions to have been primitive Rites (w) Harding against Jewel pag. 53. Dr. James corrup of Faith par 1. p. 22. Since it is a manifest Legend and contained at first nothing but the bare Names and continuance of the several Popes and was filled up by Isidore Mercator who forged the Decretal Epistles with many improbable Fictions unsuitable both to the Men and Times for which they were invented and designed to be a ground for those Decretal Epistles and to make the World believe that all the Popes were considerable for their Actions in all Ages as Dr. Peirson hath excellently proved in his Learned Posthumous Dissertation (x) Cestriens dissert posthum lib. 2. cap. 1 2. c. Yet not only these Editors of the Councils print this corrupt Legend but their very Breviaries and Missals generally appoint the Lessons out of it on the Festivals of these Ancient Popes publishing in the very Church in time of Divine Service these Fictions for the true ground of the Peoples Devotions on those Days I confess Binius out of Baronius hath Notes upon every Pope 's Life and rejects commonly some part of it but then it is such passages as no way concern the opinion or practice of the present Roman Church For the passages which do agree thereto though equally false he generally defends yea cites them to prove their Modern Faith and Usages But as we come to the several Popes Lives which these Editors make the grand direction in Ecclesiastical Chronology we shall observe the many and gross Errors contained in it We begin with the Life of S. Peter whom if we do allow to have been at Rome as this Author reports yet we cannot believe he ordained three Bishops for his Successors there in his Life-time viz. Linus Cletus and Clement Nor that he was Buried in three several places in Apollo 's Temple and besides Nero 's Pallace in the Vatican and besides the Triumphal Territory which this fabulous Writer affirms Nor will the Annotator admit that S. Peter could be Crucified by Nero in the 38th year after Christ 's Passion which was three years almost after Nero's own Death § 5. The next place ever since P. Crabs Edition is by the Roman Editors allotted to a Treatise of the Popes Supremacy (y) Lab. col 65. Bin. pag. 20. col 2. writ of late Times by some manifest Sycophant of the Roman Church yet placed here among the Venerable Antiquities of the Apostolic Age to clap a false Biass on the unwary Reader and make him apt to believe that which Richerius said is the main design of Bellarmin Baronius and Possevine in all their Works viz. that the Pope was made by Christ the infallible and absolute Monarch of the Church (z) Richer praesul ad histor Concil but the Tract it self makes out this high Claim chiefly by the Decretal Epistles which are now confessed to be Forgeries And by the Sayings of Popes who were not to be believed in their own case (a) John. V. 31. nemo sibi prosâ—ssor testis Tert. in Marcion lib. 5. To which are added some few Fragments of the Fathers falsly applied and certain false Arguments which have been confuted a thousand times So that the placing this Treatise here serves only to shew the Editors partiality to promote a bad Cause § 6. The Pontifical places Linus as S. Peters Successor but the Notes confess that the Fathers are not agreed about it (b) Lab pag. 72. Bin. pag. 24. col 1. They own that Tertullian Epiphanius and Ruffinus make Clement to succeed Peter and the late Learned Bishop of Chester proves Linus was dead before Peter (c) Cesiriens diss 2. cap. 2. Irenaeus doth not say as the Notes falsly cite him that Linus succeeded Peter in the Government of the universal Church (d) Iren. adv haer l. 3. c. 3. but only that Peter and Paul delivered the Administration of that Church to him which they had founded at Rome Which they might do in their Life time while they went to preach in other places The Epistle of Ignatius to Mary Cassibolite and the Verses attributed to Tertullian which they bring for proof of this Succession are confessed to be spurious Tracts St. Hierom is dubious and upon the whole matter there is no certainty who was Bishop of Rome next to the Apostles and therefore the Romanists build on an ill Bottom when they lay so great weight on their personal Succession § 7. The like Blunder there is about the next Pope The fabulous Pontifical makes Cletus succeed Linus and gives us several Lives of Cletus and Anacletus making them of several Nations and to have been Popes at different times putting Clement between them Yet the aforesaid Learned