for some Eminent Bishops to be named as the Standard of Catholick Communion not from any Priviledge of their See but because at that time they were Orthodox So the Bishops of Constantinople Alexandria and Antioch are named in a Rescript of Arcadius the Emperor with this Character that such as did not hold Communion with them should be cast out of the Church And thus Athanasius Ambrose Cyril and others eminent for being Orthodox have been made the Touchstones of Mens Faith such passing for true Believers only who held the same Faith with them For this Pope there are divers Epistles published upon which and the partial Notes upon them we will make some brief remarks The first Epistle to Decentius Bishop of Eugubium was writ the last year of Innocent Anno 416. but is placed first because it talks big of St. Peter and of the duty of other Churches to conform to the Roman usages But there are some passages in it which make it questionable whether this Pope writ it or if he did shew his ignorance and gross mistakes for the Author affirms That no Apostle but Peter did Institute Churches Ordain Priests and Preach in Italy France Spain Africa Sicily and the adjacent Islands Whereas the Scripture testifies that St. Paul did institute the Church at Rome and preached in Italy and most of the Ecclesiastical Writers affirm that St. James preached in Spain 2ly He enjoyns the Saturday Fast which was a peculiar Custom of the Roman Church not observed in the East nor at Milan nor almost in any other Churches of divers Ages after and we may observe that among all Innocent's Reasons for it there is not one word of the Blessed Virgin who was not worshiped in those days as she is now by the Romanists who now pretend to observe this Saturday Fast peculiarly to the honour of the Virgin Mary 3ly He allows not only Priests but also Lay Christians to give extream Unction to the Sick if the Oyl be but consecrated by a Bishop In which point the Roman Church hath since altered her Opinion and I doubt not but they will call this now a manifest error The second Epistle to Victricius as Labbè confesseth is patched up out of the fourth Epistle of Siricius and the seventh of Pope Zachary And the Centuriators note concerning all these Epistles which go under Innocent's Name That sometimes whole Paragraphs are taken out of the Epistles of both former and later Popes which is a ground to suspect that most of them are not genuine However there hath been a later hand employed to foist in a passage or two into this Epistle for whereas the First Writer declares that all Causes shall be determined in the Province where they happen some have put in a Sentence excepting the reverence due to the Roman Church into the Body of the Section and an exception of reserving the greater Causes for the Apostolick See in the end of that Section which make the whole Decree null and contradict the Nicene Canon cited there And whereas the former sentence was meer non-sense in Binius Labbè hath put two words siue praejudicie into his Edition to make this gross Addition seem coherent and conceal the Forgery Again the Author of this Epistle in his zeal against the Clergies Marriage falsly cites it for Scripture That God's Priests must marry but once and it is but a poor excuse which Labbè makes that Tertullian had cited this as out of Leviticus since the infallible Interpreter of Scripture should have corrected his Error and not have countenanced an addition to the Holy Text to serve an ill Cause 3ly The Writer shews himself grosly ignorant of the Courses of the Jewish Priests when he saith they did not depart from the Temple nor go to their House in the year of their Ministration Whereas every one knows that there was but 24 Courses of the Priests and that every Family ministred but one Week at a time from Sabbath to Sabbath Yet this Author makes the same mistake again in the third Epistle and considently talks again of the year of their Course 4ly Whereas St. Paul had declared Marriage honourable in all Men without excepting Ministers and the Bed undefiled This Impudent Epistolizer calls the use of Marriage in the Clergy a being stained with Carnal Concupisence and expounds that place Those who are in the Flesh cannot please God of such Marriages making the Apostle contradict himself by this sensless and false Gloss But notwithstanding all these pernicious and absurd Errors Baronius and Binius do extreamly magnifie the Pope upon this occasion as being that Original Fountain from whence the most Famous Bishops of the World used to draw Water knowing of what great Strength and Authority these things were which came from the Apostolical See But first If these Epistles be forged which is very probable then all these brags and bold inferences are vain if they be true and were writ by Innocent they may justly blush that such poor stuff should come from the Bishop of so great a See and however it will not follow that the Roman Bishop was the Head of the Catholick Church because Victricius and Exuperius writ to him for advice For how many more and greater Bishops writ to St. Basil St. Augustine yea to Isidore of Peleusium and St. Hieroin who were only Priests and how far do their Answers exceed those of the Pope Yet none will be so ridiculous to magnifie the See of Coesarea or Hippo or the Monasteries of Peleusium and Bethlehem as if they were the very Fountains of Religion or these Persons the Heads of the Catholick Church I will only add that Orosius is noted by Baronius himself to have consulted with St. Augustine and St. Hierom about matters of Faith and greater concernment by far than these and not with Innocent his pretended Original Fountain so that every one doubtless did not take the Pope for the sole infallible Oracle in those days The third Epistle to Exuperius is liable to all the Objections against the former Labbè saith it is patch'd up out of Siricius Epistle to Himerius the second Epistle of Celestine and one of Leo to Theodorus and therefore probably it is forged Or if we grant it genuine it looks not very favourably upon their Modern Pretence to Infallibility for the Pope here says he will answer according to the measure of his understanding and confesses that by Conference he added to his Knowledge and while he was answering others always learned something himself The Notes also are much mistaken in arguing from two Bishops enquiring of Pope Innocent's sense in some matters of Discipline That all the Catholick Church ought to keep the Decrees of the Apostolick See For there were many hundred Bishops in those and other Provinces who never enquired after the Bishop of Rome's customs nor desired his advice and
then it had appeared that this was no peculiar priviledge of any one See but related to all Sees which then were filled with Catholick Bishops I shall note only that in these Notes the Emperor is stiled The Lord of the General Council which Title the Roman Parasites of late have robbed him of and given it to the Popes The eighth Council of Africa petitions the Emperor Honorius to revoke that Edict whereby he had granted liberty of Conscience to the Donatists and the Notes out of Baronius make it so meritorious a thing to revoke this scandalous and mischievous Indulgence that this made Honorius so blessed as to have Rome quitted by Alaricus three days after he had taken it but our English Romanists when an Indulgence served their ends counted it meritorious in that Prince who granted the Sects such an Indulgence here for we must note that Things are good or evil just as they serve their interest or disserve it The Synod of Ptolemais in Egypt whereby Andronicus a Tyrannical Officer was excommunicated is strangely magnified by Baronius saying that Synesius Bishop of Ptolemais knew that when he was made a Bishop he was elected by God to give Laws to Princes And a little after he tells us He deposed Andronicus from his Tribunal adding that this shews how great the Power of Bishops was even to the deposing of evil Governors But after all there is no more of this true but only that Synesius gives notice to his neighbour Churches by circular Letters that he had excommunicated Andronicus who seems to have been a Military Officer in a little Egyptian Town and was guilty of most horrid Cruelties and notorious Crimes But what is this to Kings and Princes And the words which he cites out of Synesius 89th Epistle which falsly translates we have put him down from his Tribunal are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. We have here taken him off from the Seat of Mourners that is Synesius tells Theophilus his Patriarch and Superior that though he had justly put Andronicus among the Penitents yet now upon his sorrow and repentance they had there absolved him and taken him out of that sad station where the Penitents were wont to stand and if Theophilus approved of this mercy shewed Andronicus he should hope God might yet forgive him Now was not the Cardinal hard put to it for an instance of a Bishops deposing a King when he is forced to falsifie his Author and use the words which express a restauration to the Communion of the Church to prove a deposing from a Throne It seems he could not or would not distinguish a Captain or petty Magistrate from a King nor a Stool of Repentance from a Princes Throne This it is to serve a Cause About this time was held that famous Conference at Carthage between the Catholicks and the Donatists Seven Bishops of each side being chosen to dispute before Marcellinus a Count sent by the Emperor to hear this Cause Now Baronius tells us that this Marcellinus was not called simply a Judge but had the Title of Cognitor because it was not allowed to a Lay-man to act as a Judge in Ecclesiastical Matters But Cognitor is often used by the best Authors for a Judge and cognoscere Causam is to hear a Cause Dies Cognitionis is the day of Tryal And which is more the Emperors Edict calls him by the title of Judex Our will is you shall sit in that Disputation in the principal place as Judge and Baronius in the very page before cites St. Augustine speaking of Marcellinus by this Character ipse Judex And as he moderated in the Disputation so in the Conclusion he pronounces the Sentence and the Emperor confirms it which if the Pope had done in Person or by his Legate to be sure that had been ground enough to prove him the Universal and Infallible Judge in all Causes This is certain Honorius did judge in this Cause by his Legate Marcellinus and Baronius who use to quarrel at other Emperors for medling in these Cases tells us God rewarded him for the pains he took about setling the True Religion But as to the Pope he was not concerned in this Famous Dispute and which is very remarkable though the Main Dispute be about the Catholick Church and the Orthodox alledge the Churches beyond the Seas as being in Communion with them and so prove them Catholicks yet they do not once name the Roman Church apart as if communicating with that Church or its Bishop were any special evidence of their being Catholicks Indeed they name Innocent once but give him no other title but Bishop of Rome Whereas if these African Fathers had believed the Pope to be the Supream Head of the Catholick Church and that all of his Communion and only such were Catholicks this Dispute had been soon ended and they had nothing to prove to the Donatists but their Communion with Pope Innocent And I remember Baronius argues that Caecilianus Bishop of Carthage was a Catholick because he had Communicatory Letters from the Church of Rome but the place he cites to prove it out of St. Augustine is this When he that is Caecilianus saw himself in Communion with the Roman Church in which the eminence of an Apostolical See always flourished and with other Countries from whence the Gospel came to Africa c. By which it is plain that it was Communion with other Churches as well as Rome which proved Caecilianus a Catholick And I know not where Baronius found another passage which he affirms was proved in this Conference viz. That the first Head of the Church was demonstrated by the succession of the Roman Bishops to be in Peter's Chair For there is not one word to this purpose in that Conference which is printed by the Editors here So that till better Authority be produced this must stand for a devisable of the Annalists Nothing after this occurs which is remarkable till the Council at Lidda or Diospolis in Palestina wherein Pelagius imposed upon fourteen Bishops a pretended recantation of his Heretical Opinions and was by them absolved Binius his Title of this Synod is that it was under Innocent But Labbè fearing this might imply the Popes consent to a Hereticks absolution hath struck that out However we have Baronius his word for it that no Letters were written to the Pope from this Synod only some Lay-men brought him the Acts of it And he Good Man not so cunning at finding out Hereticks as the African Bishops confesses he could neither approve nor blame the Judgment of these Bishops of Palestina And Pelagius himself though he could not finally deceive the Roman Church yet he hoped he might gain the Pope to his party and did attempt it yea 't is very probable he had succeeded if St. Augustin and other African Fathers had not instructed the Pope
had found at Rome professed they would stand by the Decrees of that Church His second Epistle hath nothing memorable in it but that the Pope thinks the affairs of the Province of Narbon to be things far remote which shews they had not then usually intermedled with the concerns of all the Churches in the World A little after he saith we of the Clergy ought to be distinguished from the Laity by our Doctrin not by our Garments by our Conversation not by our Habit by our purity of Mind not our Dress Which looks as if he would abrogate wholly the distinct Habits of the Clergy and persuade them and the Laity to go alike Which gross notion the Notes labour to cover as well as they can by pretending he for bids only new Fashions of Habit to the Clergy But if it were so this would reflect upon the various Habits of every several Order of Monks And yet if we look well upon the Text he positively dislikes all Habits which may distinguish the Clergy from the Laity which now adays Protestants account a Fanatical Opinion Most of the following Epistles are printed in the Council of Ephesus and shall there be considered It suffices to observe here That the 9th Epistle to the Emperor Theodosius owns that Arcadius and Projectus were to represent his Person in the Council of Ephesus which the Emperor had Commanded to be held Therefore Cyril did not represent Pope Celestine and not the Pope but the Emperor called that Council The 10th Epistle affirms that the care which Kings take in the matters of Religion is not ineffectual which shews that Baronius had no reason to be so severe upon all those Princes who medled with Religious Affairs Out of the 12th Epistle to Theodosius we may note that Atticus late Bishop of Constantinople is said to be of most reverend Memory and a most couragious defender of the Catholick Faith And in Celestine's Epistle to Nestorius Atticus of blessed memory a Teacher of the Catholick Faith But this very Bishop had a long contest with the Bishops of Rome and was Excommunicated by Pope Innocent and he on the otherside valued this so little that he Excommunicated those who were in Communion with Rome and calls Paulinus and Evagrius and their adherents among which was the Pope by no gentler a name than that of Schismaticks So that how Orthodox so-ever he might be in any other things 't is plain he did not believe the Roman Church Infallible nor think it was necessary to be in Communion with it And though he erred as they now believe at Rome in so main a Point yet while he was at open Enmity with the Pope Baronius tells us he wrought a Miracle so that a Man would think Miracles are no proof of the true Church Another passage in this Epistle is Memorable viz. That Celestine saith Nestorius was Excommunicated by the general sentence of the Bishops Which the Reader must remember when the flattering Notes any where say the Sentence against this Heretick was solely the Act of Celestine And indeed Baronius having recited his 11th 12th 13th and 14th Epistles boasts of him as if God had raised him up to stand in the gap against those Hereticks which then infested the Church and gives him all the Glory of the Victory over them Whereas if Prosper and Cyril had writ no better against Pelagius and Nestorius than Celestine it is to be feared that these Heresies had not been censured in that Age. Yet in the main he was a good Pope and had the fortune to take the right side in these Controversies and therefore is highly commended by divers of the Orthodox and he is very free in returning the Complements For in his last Epistle he calls Cyril an Apostolical Man and Maximtanus of Constantinople he styles his Colleague And this may suffice for this Popes Epistles We are entertained next with another Collection of African Councils held as they say under Pope Boniface and Celestine but the Titles mention no Pope at all nor were they called by any Pope but by the Bishop of Carthage who presided in them even when the Popes Legates were present We have taken notice of most of these before and therefore shall pass them over very briefly In one of them they resolve to send a Legate to their holy Brethren and fellow Bishops Anastasius of Rome and Vencrius of Milan putting them so equally into the Scale that the Pope is only first named A little after Aurelius Bishop of Carthage saith That he by God's appointment sustained the care of all the Churches The Margin tells us he means in Africa but I must note that if a Pope had said so in this Age though he could mean no more than the Churches of the Suburbicarian Regions these Gentlemen would have stretched that to all the World Another Council in the twelfth Consulship of Honorius and the eighth of Theodosius had a Canon in some ancient Copy wherein these Fathers Anathematize them that hold any middle place between Heaven and Hell to which unbaptized Infants go and they expresly declare that whoever is deprived of the Right Hand must fall into the Left and that no Catholick doubts but he is with the Devil who is not a Coheir with Christ Now this looks so foul upon Limbus Infantum and Purgatory the later Inventions of Rome that their Parasites have left this Canon out in other Copies of this Council And here it is printed in a different Character as if it were no genuine piece of the Council only because it condemns the modern Opinion of the Roman Church but the impartial Reader will conclude that the Ancient Copy of this Canon was elder than either Purgatory or Limbus Infantum Here also the Editors print at large the two famous Epistles of the African Bishops to two Popes successively Boniface and Celestine wherein they do utterly condemn Appeals to Rome and discover the forgery of those pretended Nicene Canons by which their Legates attempted to justifie them I have given an account of the former of these Letters in the Life of Boniface And I shall add here that the latter Epistle to their honourable Brother Celestine writ some years after shews the Africans continued still in the same mind for therein they acquaint him that they had called a Council and though Apiarius alledged the Priviledge of the Roman Church which had received him unlawfully to Communion they examined his Cause and at last he confessed his notorious Crimes Wherefore they earnestly desire the Pope not so easily to receive Complaints from thence nor admit those to his Communion whom they had excommunicated for they shew that the Nicene Council forbids this both as to Bishops Presbyters and Lay-men without any derogation to the priviledge of the African Church committing all the Clergy to their own Metropolitan and wisely ordering every business to
the three Sessions of the first Act was over But there is one notorious falshood both in the Notes and in Baronius which they devise purely in favour of the Pope and to make him seem to have had some Supremacy in this Council For they say that in the very first Action Peter a Priest of Alexandria did read that which Pope Celestine and Cyril writ against Nestorius Whereas the Acts of the Council shew the contrary namely that though Peter did say he had those Epistles of Celestine and Cyril in his hands yet the Council ordered that the Emperors Edict by which they were convened should be read in the first place and it was read accordingly Binius by false translating the Acts saith Peter offered to read these Epistles first but Labbè honestly alters that corrupt Version and saith only he had them in his hands to do with them as the Synod pleased But we see the Synod did not allow them to be read in the first place and afterwards when these Epistles were called for Cyril's Epistle to Nestorius was first read and approved by the whole Synod to be Orthodox not because it was agreeable to the opinion of Celestine whom they do not once name but because it was conformable to the Council of Nice Yea the whole Council had confirmed the Faith of Cyril and unanimously condemned Nestorius before they called upon the Notary to read the Epistle of Celestine Arch-Bishop of Rome So that the matters contained in that Popes Epistle could neither be the sole nor principal Motive to the Council to condemn Nestorius For after the reading this Epistle they also read other Writings of Cyril upon this Subject and then heard the Opinions of the Ancient Doctors Martyrs and Orthodox Fathers recited as also a Collection of the Blasphemies contained in Nestorius his Works and the Epistle of Capreolus Bishop of Carthage declaring his consent to their proceedings After all which they both pronounce and subscribe the solemn Sentence of deposing and excommunicating Nestorius according to the Canons and agreeable to the Decree mentioned in the Letter of Celestine but the Sentence was passed in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ the true and supream President of this Assembly And all this was done before Arcadius Projectus and Philip the Popes Legates came to Ephesus and yet their absence was never objected by Nestorius as if that had invalidated these Acts. Further we may observe that an Oath was given in this Council only upon the Holy Gospels according to the Protestant usage not upon any relicts of the Saints as the practice is now at Rome In the second Action both Baronlus and Binius add a word to the Text and make the Popes Legate call the Pope when he speaks to the Synod vestrum Caput your Head and Baronius bids the Reader observe that Philip the Popes Legate in open Synod professed the Bishop of Rome was the Head of the Cà tholick Church and other Bishops members under this Head But first this word vestrum is forged by Baronius and Binius the Greek having no more than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Labbè hath been so much ashamed of this addition that he leaves out vestro and the sense of the place is that upon the Councils Acclamations by way of approving Celestines Letter as Orthodox Philip gives them thanks that by their Holy Voices they as Holy Members had agreed to an Holy Head he doth not say to their Holy Head yet if he had the whole Synod and the three Legates particularly in a solemn Relation to the Emperor call Cyril the Head of the Bishops here assembled but he would be ridiculous who should thence infer That Cyril was the perpetual Head of the whole Catholick Church yet we may more justly prove that from an Act of the whole Council than Baronius doth the Popes Supremacy from a Rhodomontado of his own Legate who barely said this the Council neither approving nor disapproving of what he said in favour of his own Bishop And no doubt the Orthodox Patriarchs might any of them properly be called by this Title of an Head For Cyril yea Memnon Bishop of Ephesus are so stiled in the Councils Petition to the Emperor to set them at liberty lest the Synod want an Head and all the Bishops of the World lie under an heavy burden of grief for want of their Presidents So that it is plain by these Titles in those days no more was meant than that the Bishops to whom they are applied had some eminent place in the Church and in this General Council not that all or any one who is called an Head had or ought to have any supream standing Jurisdiction in all times over the whole Catholick Church So when the Council calls Alexandria the greater Seat and Jerusalem is called an Apostolical Church and Pope Celestine stiles Cyril an Apostolical Man none of those Churches did ever draw any consequences from these passages that their Bishops were Supream Judges over the whole Catholick Church that absurdity is peculiar to the Parasites of Rome who make this Inference from every Honourable Title that is any where or upon any occasion by way of Complement or seriously bestowed upon the Pope but since others had the same Titles given them upon Occasion it is plain there is no good ground for such Conclusions It is further memorable that when John Patriarch of Antioch would have usurped a Jurisdiction over the Bishops of Cyprus the Council of Ephesus decreed that no Bishop should have or assume any Power over those Provinces which had not been under him or his Predecessors before that time which Decree plainly condemns the Bishop of Rome usurping a Jurisdiction over this Island of Britain since the Ephesine Council because it was not under any of the Popes either then or of many years after Finally we may note that John Patriarch of Antioch being secretly a favourer of Nestorius would not joyn with Cyril or Celestine in condemning him but held a separate Council with such Bishops as were of his party and there they Excommunicated and Deposed Cyril and Memnon with all that joyned with them On the other side the lawful general Council Excommunicated John of Antioch and his accomplices and afterwards upon his Repentance Cyril declares he restored him to Communion upon the terms prescribed by the true Council of Ephesus Now if the Pope of Rome had then been known and believed to be the supreme head of the Catholick Church and the only infallible Judge in matters of Faith how could the Bishop of Antioch so much as pretend to Condemn that side on which Celestine was or to reject that Council wherein his Legates sat and voted against him Or how came the Pious Emperor Theodosius and his Officers so openly and so long to abet the party of John of Antioch against that of Celestine and Cyril There
talk as if a whole general Council in that Age were convened to no other end but only to execute the Popes Decree blindly without any enquiry into the merits of the Cause And Celestine's own Letter cited by Baronius to make out this Fiction declares he believes the Spirit of God was present with the Council of which there had been no need if all their business had been only to execute a Sentence passed before There is also great prevarication used by the Cardinal and Binius about the case of John B. of Antioch one of the Patriarchs summoned to this Council This John was Nestorius his old Friend for they had both been bred in the Church of Antioch and he having as Baronius relates received Letters both from Celestine and Cyril before the general Council was called importing that Nestorius was Condemned both at Rome and Alexandira if he did not recant within ten days writes to Nestorius to perswade him for peace sake to yield telling him what trouble was like to befal him after these Letters were published Here Baronius puts into the Text these Letters that is of the Pope of Rome As if the Pope were the sole Judge in this matter and his Authority alone to be feared whereas the Epistle it self tells Nestorius he had received many Letters one from Celestine and all the rest from Cyril So that this Parenthesis contradicts the Text and was designed to deceive the Reader But to go on with the History though Nestorius would not submit to John upon this Admonition yet he had no mind to condemn him and therefore he came late to Ephesus after the Council was assembled and when he was come would not appear nor joyn with the Bishops there but with a party of his own held an opposite Synod and condemned Cyril and Memnon with the rest as unjustly proceeding against Nestorius and by false Suggestions to the Emperor he procured both Cyril and Memnon to be Imprisoned Now among others in the Orthodox Council who resented these illegal Acts Juvenalis Bishop of Jerusalem saith That John of Antioch ought to have appeared and purged himself considering the Holy Great and General Council and the Apostolical seat of old Rome therein represented and that he ought to obey and reverence the Apostolical and Holy Church of Jerusalem by which especially according to Apostolical Order and Tradition the Church of Antioch was to be directed and judged alluding no doubt to that passage Acts xv where the Errors arising at Antioch were rectified and condemned in the Council at Jerusalem But Baronius falsly cites these words of Juvenalis as if he had said John ought to have appeared at least because of the Legates sent from Rome especially since by Apostolical Order and ancient Tradition it was become a custom that the See of Antioch should always be directed and judged by that of Rome And Binus in his Notes transcribes this Sentence as Baronius had perverted mangled and falsified it Which Forgery being so easily confuted by looking back into the Acts of the Council and so apparently devised to support the Papal Supremacy is enough to shew how little these Writers are to be trusted when fictions or lying will serve the ends of their darling Church After this the Preface-tells us that though John still continued obstinate the Synod referred the deposing of him to the Popes pleasure as if they had done nothing in this matter themselves But the Councils Letter to Celestine says That though they might justly proceed against him with all the severity he had used against Cyril yet resolving to overcome his rashness with moderation they referred that to Celestine ' s judgment but in the mean time they had Excommunicated him and his party and deprived them of all Episcopal power so that they could hurt none by their Censures Therefore the Council both Excommunicated and deprived him by their own Authority and only left it to the Pope whether any greater severity should be used against him or no 'T is true not only the Pope but the Emperor afterwards moved that means should be used to reconcile this Bishop and his Party to the Catholick Church by suspending this Sentence a while and procuring a meeting between Cyril and John But still it must not be denied both that the Council censured him their own Authority and that Cyril without any leave from the Pope did upon John's condemning Nestorius receive him into the Communion of the Catholick Church Yet because Sixtus the Successor of Pope Celestine among other Bishops was certified of this thence the Notes and Baronius infer that this reconciliation also was by the Authority of the See of Rome Whereas Cyril's own Letter shews that the Terms of admitting John to Communion were prescribed by the Council and the Emperor and that Cyril alone effected this great work We may further observe Binius in his Notes tells us that after the condemnation of Nestorius the Fathers shouted forth the praise of Celestine who had censured him before And Baronius saith the Acclamations followed the condemning of Nestorius in which they wonderfully praised Celestine as the Synodal Letter to the Emperor testifies By which a Man would think that Celestine had the only Glory of this Action But if we look into the first Act of the Council there are no Acclamations expressed there at all after the condemnation of Nestorius and the Synodical Letter to the Emperor cited by Baronius hath no more but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 viz. that they praised Celestine which imports only their commending his Sentence whereas in that first Act every one of the Bishops present makes a particular Encomium in the praise of Cyril's Faith as being in all things agreeing to the Nicene Creed which fills up at least forty pages together in Labbe's Edition As for the Acclamations they are in the second Act and in them Cyril is equally praised with Celestine for the Fathers say To Celestine another Paul to Cyril another Paul to Celestine keeper of the Faith to Celestine agreeing with the Synod to Celestine the whole Synod gives thanks one Celestine one Cyril one Faith of the Synod one Faith of the whole World This was just after the reading of Celestine's Letter brought by his Legates to the Council yet we see even when the occasion led them only to speak of the Pope the Fathers joyn Cyril with him knowing that Celestine's Sentence as well as his Information was owing intirely to Cyril's Learning and Zeal Moreover we have another touch of their sincerity about the Virgin Mary For Baronius calls the people of Ephesus The Virgins Clients Subjects and Worshippers adding That as they had once cried out great is Diana so now being converted they set out Mary the Mother of God with high and incessant Praises and persevered to venerate her with a more willing Service and to address to her by a
this Session it is said That the Councils definition had confirmed Leo ' s Epistle and the Faith of Leo is commended because he believed as Cyril believed And after all the Bishops agreement was not sufficient to ratifie this definition of Faith till it was shewed to the Emperor as the last words import The Sixth Action was adorned with the presence of the Emperor Marcianus who made a Speech to the Fathers which Baronius by mistake saith was in the first Session telling them he was come to confirm the Faith they had agreed on as Constantine did not to shew his power Which is a clear and undeniable proof that the confirmation of their Decrees depended on the Emperor in whose presence the definition of Faith was read and subscribed by every one of the Bishops and he declared his Approbation thereof and in the open Synod appoints penalties for them who should after this call these Points into question And then he gives them some Rules to be formed into Canons because they related to Ecclesiastical Affairs after which having been highly Applauded by the Bishops he was petitioned to dimiss them but told them they must not depart for some few days and so took his leave of them Which shews that the Emperor who convened them had also the sole power to dissolve this general Council I shall add what Richerius observes upon that definition of Faith made in this Session that it contains many of the very words and expressions of the Athanasian Creed and though he doubt whether Athanasius did compose that Form which bears his name yet he saith It is now become the Creed of the Catholick Church and there is not a Tittle in it which is not agreeable to the Credit Holiness and Learning of Athanasius He notes also the policy of the Popes Legates who contrary to all ancient usage and to the Primitive simplicity of the former Councils do most impertinently put this Epithete to the Popes name Bishop of the Universal Church of the City of Rome But when I consider the absurdity of the expression and the frequent corruptions in these Acts why might not that bold hand who added to the Legates name President of the Council in this very place and in this Session where the Emperor being present certainly presided add this huffing Title to the Pope's name And if so it is a corruption and can be no ground for an Argument However 't is a great prejudice to all these Titles that when any others of the Council speak of the Pope they call him only Bishop or Archbishop and none but his own Legates load him with those vain Titles The Seventh Action contains only the Ratification of a private Agreement made between Maximus Bishop of Antioch and Juvenalis Bishop of Jerusalem concerning the extent of their Jurisdictions The Eighth Action was the case of Theodoret who having formerly favoured Nestorius yet being afterwards convinced of his Error was received into Communion by Pope Leo who had judged his cause and acquitted him before the Council met But for all that the case was heard over again and he called an Heretick and had been expelled the Council if he had not cleared himself over again by subscribing Leo's Epistle and Anathematizing Nestorius and Eutyches upon which he was restored to Communion and to his Bishoprick By which it is as clear as the Sun that the Council was above the Pope and had Authority to Judge over again the Causes he had determined and also that barely being in Communion with the Pope could not clear any Man from Heresie nor give him a right to the Communion of the Catholick Church And if the Epistles of Theodoret to Leo be genuin whereof there is good cause to doubt and this cause were referred to the Pope by Appeal as the Romanists brag This makes the matter worse and shews that the last Appeal is not to the Pope and that he cannot finally decide any cause which shall not be liable to be tried again in a general Council yea though it be as this was a Cause of Faith which utterly ruins the Infallibility The Ninth and Tenth Actions concern Ibas Bishop of Edessa who had been a Nestorian and was deposed by Dioscorus in the Pseudo Synod of Ephesus in which are these observables First The Emperor commanded a Lay-man and some Neighbouring Bishops to hear this Cause first at Tyre and then at Berytus so that even Provincial Councils did not meet without the Emperors Authority and the Popes universal supremacy was not known then For in the Council of Berytus Antioch is called an Apostolical Throne and the Council after they had restored him to his Bishoprick referred the cause between him and Nonnus who had been thrust into his place to Maximus Bishop of Antioch as the proper Judge of that matter No more is here to be noted but only that the Popes Legates and the whole Council desire that the Emperor would revoke and utterly annul the Ephesine false Synod For though the Pope had done this yet they knew that was insufficient since none but the Emperor had right effectually to confirm or null a Council which pretended to be Oecumenical To this Action Baronius and Binius tack another concerning an allowance to be made to maintain Domnus late Bishop of Antioch who had been deposed But they own this is not in the Greek nor was there any such thing in the Acts of the Council in Justinian's time who expresly affirms Domnus was dead before which is certainly true Wherefore the Cardinal owns they found this in an old Latin Copy in the Vatican the very Mint of Forgeries and this Action ought to be rejected as a mear Fiction The Eleventh and Twelfth Actions were spent in examing the cause of Bassianus and Stephanus both pretending to be Bishops of Ephesus wherein we may observe That Bassianus pleads he was duly elected by the suffrage of the Nobility People and Clergy of that City and the Emperor confirmed the Election for the Pope had not then usurped the nomination or confirmation of remote Bishops Again whereas Baronius brags that the Pope deposed Bassianus from the Bishoprick of Ephesus and cites the words of Stephen his Antagonist thus it is now four years since the Roman Bishop deposed Bassianus arguing from thence That it was the ancient usage for the Pope to depose Metropolitans He doth notoriously prevaricate for Stephen's words are since the Roman Bishop deposed him and the Bishop of Alexandria condemned him And a little before the same Stephen saith more fully That Bassianus was expelled by the holy Fathers Leo and Flavianus and the Bishops of Alexandria and Antioch By which the Reader may see there is no credit to be given to Baronius Quotations who always resolves by false Citations of Authors to ascribe that to the Pope alone which was done by him in conjunction with other Bishops
in which there were divers Bishops married by their Modern Corrupt Roman Standard And this sincere Father must be made to mock God and deceive Men and exposed as a Notorious Liar and Dissembler rather than there should seem to be any difference between the Primitive Church and theirs in the point of the Clergies Marriage Again he observes out of St. Augustin that he accounted the Council of Sardica heretical because Julius Bishop of Rome was condemned there and he infers that whatever was said or done against the Pope was of evil Fame among the Antients But if St. Augustin had not been misrepresented there had been no room for this fallacious Note St. Augustin blames this Council in the second place cited as heretical for condemning Athanasius and doth not mention Pope Julius there at all and in the former place he names Athanasius first and Julius only in the second place and he blames them not for condemning him as Bishop of Rome but because he was Orthodox as Athanasius was Wherefore Baronius leaves out the main part of St. Augustin's Argument only to bring in a false and flattering Inference for the Popes Supremacy And I have observed before he falsly gathers that the Roman Church was the sole Standard of Catholick Communion in Cecilian's time from a place where St. Augustin saith Cecilian of Carthage was a Catholick because he was in Communion with the Roman Church and other Lands from whence the Gospel came into Africa that is he was in Communion with the Eastern as well as the Western Church But Baronius is so dazled with Rome that where that is found in any Sentence he can see nothing else And therefore when he cites this very place again a little after he would prove that Carthage owned a right in the Roman Church to receive Appeals and this contrary to the express Protestation of that African Council wherein St. Augustin was present and the place it self doth not mention any Appeals and speaks of Communion with other Churches as well as Rome and so would equally prove a right in other Bishops as well as the Pope to receive Appeals from Africa if that had been spoken of there Further from Socrates his relation of a Bishop of Gyzicum named by Sisinnius Patriarch of Constantinople but not received by reason of their mistaking a late Law made to confirm the Priviledges of that See of Constantinople and this in the time of a mild and quiet Bishop he infers that this Patriarch challenged no right no not in Hollospont by the Canon of any General Council Now his naming a Bishop for this City shews he challenged a right which was well known to be his due both by the Canon of the second General Council and by this late Law but a peaceable Mans receding from his right after he hath made his claim rather than provoke a Factious City is no proof there was no right as Baronius doth pretend I observe also that the Latin Version of an Epistle to the Council of Ephesus hath these words cujus Reliquias praesentes veneramini Which is to abuse the Reader into an apprehension that the Relicks of St. John were worshipped in that Age But the Greek word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which imports no more than that they were honoured which is far less than that which Rome now gives even to feigned Relicks of uncertain Saints A like Falshood about the People of Ephesus worshipping the Blessed Virgin I noted before Again he manifestly perverts a Phrase of Theodosius the Eastern Emperor in his Epistle to Acacius where he advises the Nestorians to shew themselves approved-Bishops of the Roman Religion which Baronius pretends respects the Western Church of Old Rome in Italy but the Emperor plainly refers to his own Empire in the East which was then generally Orthodox and against Nestorius Constantinople is often called Rome without any other addition and Romania or the Roman Empire is in many Authors of these Ages put only for the Eastern part of it It is also very odd that he should cite Basil's Epistles to prove that the Roman Church was wont to send Legates to regulate Affairs in the Eastern Churches Whereas St. Basil in many Epistles grievously complains of the Pride of the West and of their despising the Calamities of the East not so much as giving them that Brotherly Aid which they might expect when they were in great distress but there is not one syllable of any jurisdiction which the Pope then did so much as pretend to over those Eastern Churches Leo was the first who ventured to make any steps towards this Usurpation an hundred years after St. Basil's time To this device we may add his silent passing by all that makes against the Roman Church but being large in his Notes upon any thing which seems to make for it How many words doth he every where use when one is described to be Orthodox for communicating with an Orthodox Pope but when those are declared to be Orthodox who communicated with the Patriarchs of Constantinople Alexandria and Antioch at that time differing from the Pope we have not one observation of the honour of those Sees Thus though he cite innumerable heretical and illiterate Writings meerly to confirm some incredible Miracle or superstitious Practice without any Censure passed on them yet when he comes to mention the Imperfect work on St. Mathew ascribed to St. Chrysostom which many Roman Writers highly commend as writ by a Catholick Antient and Learned Author he falls into a fit of railing against it as Heretical and what not because in that Book we are told The Scripture is the only rule by which true Christians may judge of the right Faith Which Sentence though it condemn the new Romish way yet it is agreeable to the Primitive and most Orthodox Fathers who very often say the same thing And Baronius relates a little before that a certain Bishop who wrought Miracles and converted many Pagans charged his new Converts to apply themselves diligently to read the Holy Scriptures Moreover he brings in a Quotation out of St. Augustin with a long Preface because he designs to misapply it to justifie the Roman Supremacy But the place it self plainly supposes the Western to be but one part of the Catholick Church only he thinks the Authority of Latin Fathers alone and of Innocent a Successor of the Apostles Chief of this Western Church might suffice his Adversary who was one of the Latin Church And as to Innocent's Opinion he might be sure it would agree with what the African Councils had declared and the Roman Church constantly held with other Churches Where we see Innocent is only set out as the first in Order of Dignity in the Western Church and his Opinion supposed to be right not because of the Infallibility of his See or any Supream Power in him to judge in matters of
Wine to the People as they did and provide both newly Consecrated for the Sick when there is occasion but reserve neither for Worship Which was the usage of the first and purest times And why may not we forbid the needless reserving of the Sacrament in either kind as well as they may prohibit it in one kind But so insatiable is his desire to extol the Roman Church that though he cite all he can find of this sort good and bad he wishes in one place he could find some things which are not to be found that he might let his style run out on so luscious a Subject We note also that how much soever the Romanists here in the Reign of King James the Second were for Toleration because it was their Interest Baronius highly commends the severe Penal Laws made by Arcadius and Honorius against such as differed from the established way of Worship and profession of Faith for Baronius is always a bitter Enemy to Toleration and stiffly opposes the taking away any Penal Laws Moreover it is observable that though his Office be to write an History and relate Matter of Fact When he comes to S. Hierom's Book against Vigilantius he puts on the Character of a Disputant and makes large digressions to the Hereticks as he calls the Reformed to justifie such a Veneration of Relicks and such a kind of worship of Saints as Rome uses at this day which kind of Veneration and Worship S. Hierom would have condemned as well as Vigilantius had it been practised in that Age. He notes that upon the difference between Theophilus and the Pope about S. Chrysostom a Council of Carthage writ to Innocent That the Churches of Rome and Alexandria should keep that Peace mutually which the Lord enjoyned Which shews those African Fathers did not think one of these Churches superior in Authority to the other for if so they had no need to write to Innocent but only to Theophilus to submit to the Supream Bishop For that was the only way to settle a Peace if Innocent's Supremacy had been then allowed And it is a vain and false Conjecture that if Theophilus had writ any Paschal Epistles after his difference with Innocent no Catholick would have received them For divers Eminent and Orthodox Bishops writ to Theophilus and received Letters from him after this yea Synesius himself writes to him to determine a Question by the Authority of his Apostolical Succession and he lived and died with the repute of a Catholick though as I have shewed he never did yield to Pope Innocent in the case of S. Chrysostom Alike groundless is his Conjecture That Arcadius laboured to wipe out the stains he had contracted in persecuting S. Chrysostom by translating the Relicks of the Prophet Samuel and by going into a Martyrs Temple and there praying not to the Martyr observe that but to God For if we set aside the two forged Epistles recorded by Baronius pag. 259. there is no good Evidence that Arcadius at the time when the aforesaid Acts were done was convinced he had done any fault in the affair of S. Chrysostom wherefore he could have no design to purge himself from a Fault he did not own at that time In the next year he spoils one Argument to prove theirs the true Church viz. by Miracles since he owns Atticus Bishop of Constantinople did work a Miracle even before he held Communion with the Roman Church So that if Miracles prove a true Church then a Church that separates from the Roman Communion may be a true Church Of which also we have another Instance soon after where the Church of Antioch was in a difference with Rome for many years Theodoret saith 85 years yet all that while she was owned by the best Catholicks for a true Church Nor do I see how that can be true which Baronius affirms That the cause of restoring the Eastern Bishops to Communion in Chrysostom ' s case was only decided by Pope Innocent since Alexander of Antioch did transact this affair in the East and 24 Western Bishops subscribed with Innocent in the West to testifie their consent to this Agreement of Alexanders yea Thodoret ascribes this not to the Pope alone but to all the Bishops of the West But the Annalist will have all things done by the Pope alone right or wrong Poor Socrates is branded for a Novatian Heretick because he saith It was not the usage of the Catholick Church to persecute Yet the Emperor Marcian and Pope Gregory who were both I hope very good Catholicks say the same thing and therefore we may discern Baronius his Spirit in being so bitter against all who censure Persecuting In the same Year we may see that the Bishops under Theophilus Jurisdiction for all his quarrel at that time with the Pope did reserve the greater Cases to his decision and yet were very good Catholicks all the while When a Bishop pleads for Mercy to such as have principally offended the Church those Intercessions with Pious Magistrates ought to have the force of Commands But to make a general Inference from hence That Bishops ought to command things agreeable to the Christian Law to Magistrates is to stretch the Instance too far But there is another obvious Note from S. Augustine's petitioning and urging Marcellinus to spare the Hereticks and not execute the severity of the Temporal Laws upon them which Baronius would not observe viz. That the Primitive Bishops used their power and interest to get Hereticks spared by Secular Magistrates whereas the Inquisitors use their power now to oblige the Lay-Magistrates to kill and destroy them Further it is observable that he takes upon him to interpret Gods Judgments in favour of his own Party and thus he expounds the Goths invading France to be a punishment for the Heresies there broke out which Salvian more piously makes to be a Scourge for their Immoralities But I note that it was but two year before that Alaricus wasted Italy and took Rome it self yet Baronius could not discern any Heresies there but his general Maxim is That God is wont to bring destruction on those Countries where Heresies arise Now one might observe Leo's attempts to usurp a Supremacy over all other Bishops and the many pious Frauds used and beginning now to be countenanced at Rome about false Relicks and feigned Miracles were as probable occasions of the Divine Judgments in Italy as those he assigns in France To proceed I cannot apprehend how Atticus could have so little Wit in his Anger against Rome as to call Paulinus and Evagrius successively Bishops of Antioch Schismaticks meerly for Communicating with the Roman Church and this in a Letter to so great a Patriarch as S. Cyril if he had known it to be then generally acknowledged as Baronius often pretends that to be in Communion with Rome was a certain sign of a Catholick
Name-sake Anastasius wherein 't is plain he thinks the Quarrel about Acacius now deceased no just ground for the two Churches to separate from each other Yet for the scandal he had given his Opinion was that his Name alone ought to be left out of the Dypticks but withal he approves of the Baptism and Orders he had given and justifies this by good proofs of Scripture Gratian holds this last Decree to be illegal and uncanonical because it contradicts the determinations of some of his Predecessors But impartial Readers will see that his Opinion is better confirmed by Reason and Scripture than the contrary ever was by any Pope that held it Nor ought the Notes to say Anastasius decreed this by a dispensation grounded on his Apostolical Authority For it is an Orthodox Truth That the Crimes of the dispensers of Sacraments and Holy Orders especially if it be only Schism do not invalidate them to such as in their integrity receive them So that unless a Pope need a dispensation to tell Truth here is no occasion for any dispensing Power This Epistle is followed by a Memorial given by the Legates of Alexandria to the Popes Legates then at Constantinople for an Union between the two Churches which they speak of as equal Sister Churches and give no hint of any subjection due from them to Rome which they think had unfortunately mistaken them as guilty of Heresie Nor doth Anastasius in the former Letter to the Emperor pretend to any power that he had over Alexandria but desires the Emperor by his Wisdom and Authority to reduce them to the Catholic Faith calling him the Vicar appointed by God to preside in the Earth Which the modern Roman Writers think too great a complement to a Lay Prince Upon the death of Anastasius the Roman Clergy were divided and chose two Popes Laurentius and Symmachus But after a warm and long contest both parties agreed to refer it to an Heretical Gothish King viz. Theodoric to declare an Infallibly Orthodox Head of the Church Who modestly referred it to a Synod of Bishops and they at last confirmed the Election of Symmachus The Notes call this a Schism of the universal Church But it was no more than a Schism of that particular Church of Rome and had no influence that we hear of upon the whole Catholick Church Only a Legend cited out of the fabulous Dialogues which disparage the Name of Gregory the Great tells us that Paschasius a learned and holy Roman Deacon was seen after his death in an odd Purgatory of hot Water condemned thither as Symmachus Friends told the story for taking part with Laurentius But it seems when this Fable was made praying to Saints was not in fashion for Paschasius desires the Bishop that saw him to pray to the Lord to release him The Notes also here cite a very idle story of an Image which bled when it was shot but Damascen is his Author who lived 250 year after this and whose stories about Images are generally ridiculous and incredible But 't is more material to observe that this Pope Symmachus was charged with notorious Crimes and the Papal power was then so low that the Roman Clergy petitioned an Arrian King to send Visiters to try the Pope who submitted to this Judicature authorized say the Notes by this excellent Prince And the Bishops as they observe not only acquitted the Pope but were so wise as to conceal the fault of which he was accused But if that were so great a piece of Wisdom Ennodius who then writ an Apology for him and Baronius and Binius who now would vindicate him shew no great discretion in confessing he was accused of Adultery For which if it were true he deserved a worse Purgatory than his Antagonist Paschasius The Epistles published in Symmachus's name are Eleven The two first of which were formerly directed to Caesarius but now they alter the Title and inscribe them to Eonius It seems the Forger was no good Chronologer and the Stile is so barbarous the Sense so obscure and the Matter so jejune that it would be a Scandal to any Pope to have writ them And if Symmachus writ these the 5th and 8th may be discerned by their Style to have been endited for him by a more able hand that is by Ennodius who Binius supposes did write the 8th Epistle However this Pope is very free in blaming his Predecessor for decreeing contrary to the ancient Custom But he scruples not to break many Canons at once by ordering that the Popes for the future shall name their Successors In the 7th Epistle of Symmachus the Editors and Baronius have manifestly corrupted the Text reading ist a quidem ego for ista quidem nego But the Sense shews the Forgery for the Emperor had charged the Pope for excommunicating him in the case of Acacius Symmachus replies I deny these things we have not Excommunicated you O Emperor but Acacius leave him and you are quit of his Excommunication if you do not thrust your self into his Excommunication you are not Excommunicated by us if you do you are Excommunicated by your self not by us So that whether you stick to him or leave him however you are not Excommunicated by us We see the Pope over and over declares they had not by any particular Sentence Excommunicated the Emperor at Rome it was only Acacius in particular and his Followers in general who were sentenced there in which Sentence if the Emperor wilfully involved himself they who had done nothing against him could not justly be blamed as if they had Excommunicated him Now to bring in this Sentence with ista quidem Ego is to make the Pope contradict himself and confess he had Excommunicated the Emperor which he utterly denies and therefore ista quidem Nego must be the true Reading and that bold Forgery of turning it into Ego was made on purpose to set up an early Precedent for the Pope's having Excommunicated Emperors Finally The Margen of the same Epistle to carry on the same holy Cheat observes That the Pope's Dignity is greater than the Emperors But this is not in the Text where Symmachus thus expresseth himself I will not say it is a greater but an equal power So that when the Pope had stretcht a little they go much further and dare tell greater Untruths than he And here we shall conclude this Century because the first Synod said to be held under this Pope ought to be dated after the year 500 and belongs to the next Age To which we shall proceed with Gods assistance hereafter when we have first in our usual method noted some remarkable Errors in Baronius that are within this Period but have not fallen in our way as we treated of the Councils of this time An Appendix concerning Baronius his Annals THE Cardinal hath given a just but severe censure of his own
most religiously kept to the Honour of God himself as the principal time of his most solemn Worship Baronius also wrongs Zeno the Emperor in saying that his Edict for Union did Anathematize the Council of Chalcedon For the words of the Edict shew the contrary since Zeno only Anathematizes them who believed not according to the Nicene Creed whether in the Council of Chalcedon or in any other Council and the Cardinal himself in the next page only charges Zeno with tacitly abrogating the Council of Chalcedon and Liberatus affirms the Emperor was angry with John Talaia for not relishing the Council of Chalcedon Yea the Zealots against this General Council at Alexandria renounced the Communion of Peter because by subscribing this Edict of Union he had refused openly to Anathematize the Council of Chalcedon all which shews that this Edict did not condemn that Council Liberatus saith no more but that the Papers were taken away lest they should be delivered to the Catholicks to whom they were written But Baronius out of this affirms That the Pope writ to the Clergy the Monks and Orthodox Laity as if he had seen the Titles of the several Letters and cites Liberatus for his Evidence In like manner he brings in the words of Liberatus after a Fictitious Letter of a Roman Synod And cites him thus These Letters being given to Acacius he would not receive them c. By which one would imagine that Liberatus had attested this feigned Synodical Letter but this Author speaks only of that Epistle of Foelix which Baronius had cited three pages before and knew nothing of any Synodical Epistle Thus he cites part of an Oration made at the dedication of a Church which had been an Idols Temple but now was consecrated to the memory of Christ and of St. Peter and St. Paul and though there be not one Syllable in the words cited of any worship of Saints yet Baronius concludes that this is enough to intimate that the worship of the Saints did always flourish not only among the Bishops of this new dedicated Church but among all Catholicks But he must be very willing to believe a false Doctrin that will receive it from a bold Conclusion that hath no Premisses Again To give credit to a Relation of St. Michael's appearing and being worshiped at Rome in this Age he cites a Poet who says nothing of the worship of St. Michael and he would also insinuate that this Drepanius lived about this time to make this Superstition seem more ancient Whereas it is well known that Drepanius Florus writ about the year 650 that is 150 year after this Age and 50 year after Pope Gregory at which time many Corruptions and gross Ignorance were visible in the Church We may also note That Baronius corrects Marcellinus's Chronicle about the ingress of Pope Anastasius out of the Pontifical whereas Marcellinus lived at that time and brought down his Chronicle to the year 534 and so is a very credible Author But in the same page our Annalist shews how grosly the Pontifical is mistaken in point of time speaking of things as done under one Pope that were done under another and affirming such and such Facts done to Persons that were dead long before Yet not only here but in many places this mistaken Author is the sole Standard of Baronius his Chronology And whereas Theodorus Lector who writ An. 518. expresly saith King Theodorick called a Synod at Rome The Cardinal rejects his Testimony and out of the Pontifical and some spurious Acts affirms that Pope Symmachus called this Synod For those are the best Authors that speak of their side § 3. With like artifice our Author conceals some part of the Truth which might prejudice his Cause As for instance he notes as a peculiar piece of impudence and madness in Timothy Aelurus the Invader of the See of Alexandria that he darted forth his Anathema's against the Roman Bishops and makes a dismal representation of that Crime But the Epistle which relates the Story saith he Anathematized Anatolius Arch-bishop of Constantinople and Basilius of Antioch as well as Leo Bishop of Rome So that there is no reason to conceal that in his Recapitulation but only to make the Pope look higher and greater than he was in those days Liberatus no doubt was better informed what passed at Alexandria than Leo could he at Rome so that his account that Timothy Aelurus was immediately sent into Banishment by the Emperor from Alexandria is far more credible than that which Baronius deduces from Pope Leo's Letters of his coming first to Constantinople But the Cardinal corrects Liberatus by Conjectures meerly to persuade the World that the Emperor obeyed the Pope in Banishing that Heretick whereas the Writers of that time say he did it by advice of a Synod at Constantinople It is also observable that when he speaks of Epistles writ or Messages sent to the Bishop of Rome by any new Patriarch he always adds de more according to Custom But though it was as much according to Custom for every new Patriarch to write to the Bishop of Constantinople or to him of Antioch c. to notifie his Election and declare his being in the Communion of the Catholick Church Yet there Baronius leaves out thole words according to Custom § 4. But there are more Instances of his obscuring the Truth by false reasoning and particularly by supposing things as certain which are not proved and then making Inferences from thence and offering such Conclusions for manifest Truths Thus upon Supposition that the Pope was then above the Emperor and that nothing relating to the Church could be done without the Roman Bishop He introduces an Edict of Marcian's with a Letter of Pope Leo's and with this Phrase The Emperor Marcian obeyed Pope Leo Whereas that Letter of Leo hath no relation to the Edict and is an humble Petition to the Emperor to get his Letter to Flavian well translated into Greek and sent to Alexandria to clear him from an imputation of Heresie falsly laid to his charge But the Edict takes no notice of Leo or his Epistle or of the Roman Church but charges the Alexandrians to follow the Nicene Faith as it was prosessed by their own Bishops Athanasius Theophilus and Cyril And though there be a mistake in the Month the Year is right and it is dated three years after Leo's Epistle to Marcian But the Cardinal alters the date and would add to the Sense only to support his mistaken Supposition Anatolius Bishop of Constantinople might perhaps regulate some of the Officers or Clergy of his Church at the request of Pope Leo but it doth not appear that either Leo did pretend to command Anatolius nor that Anatolius owned he had any Authority over him And it is certain that for all Leo's huffing the Patriarchs of Constantinople did keep the place
grew up by degrees being larger or narrower in old times as it happened to be savoured or opposed by Kings and Emperors But it was never very great till the Popes had ruined both Empires of the East and West From this immoderate conceit of the Papal Authority in that Age proceeds that mistaken observation That Pope Foelix and Gelasius rejecting the Books of Faustus Rhegiensis was more than all the pious and learned Writings of S. Caesarius S. Avitus and the famous Fulgentius who in peculiar Tracts confuted Faustus They must be very good blind Catholicks doubtless who reject an Opinion rather upon the bare Authority of the Pope than upon the solid Aurguments from Scripture Reason and Antiquity urged by the most famous Orthodox Writers Baronius taking it for granted that to be a Catholic and to be in Communion with the Roman Church is one and the same thing wonders that the Orthodox in the East should communicate with Euphemius the Orthodox Bishop of Constantinople and main defender of the Council of Chalcedon who did not communicate with the Bishop of Rome And hence he supposes the Eastern Catholicks were in the dark and could not distinguish Friends from Foes Whereas it is the Annalists prejudices that put him into this Mist The Catholicks of the East cleerly saw their great Patriarch was truly Orthodox and knew no such Principle as the Cardinal dreams of Wherefore they did not think an Orthodox Bishop less Orthodox because Rome rejected him for not submitting to their Usurpations So that this instance utterly confutes his Supposition and shews how unjustly he calls us and others Hereticks meerly for not submitting to the Popes Supremacy though we hold the Articles of the Catholic Faith in all other Points Of this we have a further proof in the next Year when Elias Bishop of Jerusalem owned by Baronius for a good Catholick while the Quarrel continued between the Bishops of Rome and Constantinople which that Author Taxes as a Schism upon both sides This Elias communicated only with Euphemius and is highly commended for so doing since Euphemius was a sound Catholic and defended the Council of Chalcedon Baronius indeed pretends Euphemius was not yet condemned by Gelasius but his Predecessor had condemned Acacius and all that were his partakers and Gelasius was hotter in this Quarrel than Foelix which Elias of Hierusalem knew and yet took the contrary side to the Popes as the safer for a good Catholic Therefore it could not be the opinion of that Age that holding Communion with Rome was necessary to denominate a man a good Catholick or to free him from the guilt of Schism To conclude these examples Who can value all those Pompous Consequences which he draws about the Popes Supremacy Appeals c. from the vain brags of an Ambitious Bishop of Rome which were despised by those to whom he sent them and ought not to be regarded by us who know his partiality and consider he speaks in his own cause But we may note this is the best evidence they have and therefore they must make as much of it as they can Our Lord Jesus did not desire to bear witness to himself But his pretended Vicar knowing the weakness of his claim most unjustly Decrees That when the Priviledges of the Apostolick See are in question he will not have any Judge of them but himself And if he be Party Witness and Judge we may guess which way the Cause will go § 5. In the next place we will note some of those absurdities and contradictions wherein his Zeal to serve a party hath intangled this learned Historian For Example The Cardinal brings in Leo opposing the advancement of Jerusalem to a Patriarchate and taxes Juvenalis the Bishop there for arrogating this Primacy to himself Forgetting that he himself had declared that the Council of Chalcedon had setled this Primacy upon him As for what he produces out of Leo that Cyril writ to him against this and with earnest Prayers desired him to oppose it either Leo feigns this Story or the Epistle is suspicious since it is very unlikely that so great a Bishop as St. Cyril should write so humbly as to beg a favour of Leo then but Arch-deacon of Rome But Leo did not like Juvenalis his advancement and therefore Baronius must condemn it though granted in a general Council And though he say here Juvenalis had nothing of a good Bishop in him and sought the Primacy by evil arts and forged writings contrary to the Nicene Council Yet soon after he tells that Simeon Stylites and the devout Euthymius the gratest Saints of that Age gave Juvenalis a good Character and charged the Empress Eudocia to communicate with him I confess I cannot easily understand how any Man can more evidently blow hot and cold as occasion serves than Baronius doth in these different Characters of the same Bishop He relates three wonderful if not incredible Stories of St. Leo and the last though justified by an ancient Picture which is proof enough sometimes for a serviceable Miracle he utterly rejects as a Fable The reason of which is that the two former instances tended to the Popes credit but this last reflected something on his Memory Otherwise we should have had some Author or other to attest it at least as good as Sophronius But this poor Fable wants a Father and issaid to be unworthy of Christian Ears and to want all ancient Authority It is observable that those which he calls the most faithful Acts of Daniel Stylites and would have this Saint pass for a Prophet relate that after a great Fire was begun in the City of Constantinople and other endeavours to quench it proved vain they went to Daniel to pray for them who foretold them that the Fire should cease after seven days and so it came to pass Yet Euogrius a more credible Author saith The Fire endured but four days and some say six But his Faithful Acts will have it burn seven days after the Citizens came to Daniel We may note also That these Legends ascribe the saving the whole City one to Daniel's another to St. Mercellus his Prayers a third brings in St. Marcian's Prayers as the means of preserving one Church And Baronius calls all these consentientia dicta agreeing Reports But an impartial Historian would have discerned the difference and rejected them all as Fictions For Truth is one but Fables have infinite varieties He makes a severe reflexion upon the Emperor Leo for making an Eutychian Heretick his Admiral and imputes the loss of the Fleet to that sinful choice and his tolerating of Hereticks But unless he could prove all Tolerating Princes were conquered and all Heretical Generals beaten there is no strength in the reflexion Besides he forgets that his Majestick Pope Simplicius tolerated the Arrians who about this time possessed almost half the City of Rome
and yet he makes no remark of any Judgment on him There are many Evidences that Baronius did not understand Greek and one instance of it is that when he had named the Heretical Bishop of Antioch Petrus Cnapheus that is in Greek Peter the Fuller he adds of his own idemque Fullo nuncupatus est the same Man is called also Peter the Fuller That Baronius is mistaken as to Ambrosius Aurelianus who was saluted Emperor in Britain both as to the person and time is made evident by our learned Country man Archbishop Usher To whom the Reader is referred for a more exact account of that famous Man It is very impertinent in Baronius to upbraid the Reformed Christians of these days with the miraculous Confession of the Orthodox in Africa whose Tongues being cut out by the cruel Arrians they still spoke plainly and owned the true Faith For we confess the same Faith that they did and have the same and no more Sacraments But though these Bishops did then say they held the Faith that then was held in the Roman Church that belongs not to the present Romanists who have added new Articles to their Creed new Sacraments and set up many new Objects for Worship So that if those African Martyrs and Confessors were now alive they would no more own these than they did the Vandals The censure of Nicephorus who lived in a superstitious Age and the Fictions devised in the second Nicene Council to support Image-worship are no way credible Xenaias if ever there were such a Man was not the first who said the Images of Christ and the Saints were not to be adored and it seems by his affirming that Worship in Spirit and Truth was only acceptable to Christ that he had Read the holy Scripture more considerately than those at Rome now who overlook the second Commandment and many other places which expresly condemn their Idolatry So that for ought appears from any Author of his time now extant this Xenaias was an Orthodox Christian however in this point Baronius hath missed Binius and others touching the Age of Faustus the Semi-pelagian as also the time of the two Councils in France relating to his Opinions But these and some other Errors are learnedly and acurately corrected by the famous Vossius in his Pelagian History to which I refer the Reader for his own satisfaction How often doth our Annalist censure the Eastern Emperors and Patriarchs for tolerating Hereticks How many dreadful Judgments in his way of interpreting Providence doth he note came upon them for this single Crime Yet here we have an Heretical Emperor tolerated all his Reign for 17 year together and his name allowed in the Dypticks by many Successive Popes for near 30 year after his death Surely he will not own so many Infallible Guides before Hormisda were ignorant of Zeno's Heresie and if they did know it their fault in tolerating him and owning his Memory is much greater How much so ever therefore he would magnifie his Roman Bishops care of the Catholick Faith when Truth comes out the Bishops of Constantinople in this Age did more Service to the Faith than the Popes and Euphemius threatned Anastasius the Emperor into professing the right Faith while Foelix flattered him which is a good reason why the pious Eastern Bishops chose to communicate with the Patriarchs of Constantinople rather than with the Popes while the Churches were divided It seems the Emperor Anastasius in a controversie about the Sense of the Council of Chalcedon falsly thought to procure Peace by imposing silence both on the Catholicks and Hereticks And he is censured for this vain hope But in a like case that happened afterward Pope Vigilius also decreed as he saith both sides should keep silence and this he calls a Prudent care to preserve the Church from danger So that Baronius makes that to be praise-worthy in a Pope which is a grievous Crime in any Body else Such partiality is very unbecoming in any Writer but chiefly in an Historian He gives it us as an ingenious Argument of Pope Gelasius That the cause between him and Acacius could not be judged at Constantinople where the same persons were Enemies Witnesses and Judges But this Pope aiming at his Adversary like an unskilful Fencer hits himself For this is a very strong Reason why Acacius his Cause should not be judged by the Pope an Enemy a Witness and a Judge When a most pious Bishop the main support of the Catholick Cause was deposed and banished viz. Euphemius the Annalist saith he deserved to be abdicated by Gods just Judgment for not obeying the Popes in abdicating Acacius his Name and he pretends the Fathers say there can be no Confessors or Martyrs out of the Roman Churuh Whereas Cyril the Monk cited by our Historian saith Euphemius was impiously deposed from his See and exclaims against the wicked injustice of this Fact which this Mans prejudice makes him call Gods just Judgment But God doth not punish Men for that which is no fault and it was none in Euphemius not to submit to the Pope's most unjust claim of a Superiority over his Church which had been exempted by two General Councils from all subjection and advanced to the second place among the Patriarchs As for his other assertion no Father of credit can be produced that did appropriate Martyrdom or Confessorship to those in Communion with Rome Yea this very Age produced a great many Bishops and holy Monks such as Elias Daniel Stylites St. Sabas c. who did not communicate with the Pope but took part in this contest with Euphemius who then were and still are even by Baronius called Martyrs and Consessors Yea the Cardinal himself asserts that those who were slain or suffered any thing in a petty contest at Rome meerly about the choice of a Pope were Martyrs and Confessors though no Article of Faith came into the dispute And doubtless he cannot rob these Eastern Martyrs and Confessors who suffered by Hereticks only for the true Faith of their deserved Titles In like manner he uses Paschasius a learned and pious Roman Deacon who never separated from the Catholick Church but when two ambitious Candidates scandalously strove for the Papal Chair he chanced to take the less fortunate side And this he counts dying in Schism and without any Authority takes it for granted that he repented of it before his death because otherwise he thinks it was impossible he should be saved The ground of these remarks is an idle Legend out of the fabulous Dialogues ascribed to St. Gregory But the Principles of making it Schism and a mortal Sin to mistake in a Popes Election are his own To conclude this sort of observations it is very hard that Symmachus should long expect Letters from Anastasius the Emperour more majorum when the controversie was yet scarce decided who was Pope he or
himself begs of the Emperor not commands him as our Historian words it to use this remedy to the Church not only to degrade Heretical Clerks but to banish them from the City yet now they will not have Princes to judge or punish Clerks Nor will Baronius allow the Emperor a Right to call a General Council without the Pope's consent But the Letter of Pope Leo from whence he infers this shews He was commanded by the Emperor to come to a Council which Order the Pope reverently received and wished he could have obeyed it but modestly hopes to be excused by the Emperors approving the Reasons he offers why there was no need of such a Council So that the Authority was then in the Emperor and the Pope was to obey or excuse himself by just Reasons And as to the confirmation Pope Leo saith The Council of Chalcedon was confirmed by the Authority of Marcian the Emperor and by his consent yea he owns the definitions of that Council were above him for what was defined there he durst not call to a new scanning Thus things stood then but Rome is now above this If it were so excellent and pious a Law that none should force Women to be Nuns nor any to be vailed till she were forty years old till which Age she was to remain free to marry if she pleased How comes it to pass that nothing is more common now than to carry young Women against their Wills into Nunneries and to make them take the Vows at fourteen or fifteen These practices may be gainful but they are very wicked and contrary to the Laws both of Church and State in elder and purer times We may observe a visible difference between the Prayers and Usages of holy Men in this ancient Age and those of the modern times St. Marcian takes the holy Gospel in his hand and directs his Prayers only to Christ to avert a dreadful Fire But later Legends represent their modern Saints taking up Crucifixes Relicks or the Host and praying to the blessed Virgin or to deceased Saints in all cases of danger So that any considering Reader may see that the Primitive Worship was not like to that now used in the Roman Church Again if the Matter of Fact be true that Pope Hilary forbid the Emperor Anthemius to allow any Conventicles of the Macedonian Hereticks in Rome for which we have no proof but the boasting Letter of a Bigotted Pope viz. Gelasius yet supposing this were so the Note of the Annalist is very Erroneous viz. That Heresies could not be planted at Rome so easily as at Constantinople For Pelagius and Caelestius who were as great Hereticks as Eutyches and Aelurus were sheltered at Rome a long time And the Bishops of Constantinople did more against Eutyches and his Heresie than the Popes against Pelagius And since a little after three parts of seven in Rome were Arrians tolerated by the Pope methinks we should not have the Purity of Rome extolled at this rate as if no Weed of Heresie could grow there It is but five years after this that Baronius himself owns that Ricimer seized on St. Agathus Church in Rome where he and the Arrians held their publick Assemblies in spight of the Popes who were not wont to oppose Princes who had great power and only trampled on such as were weak In the Relation of Cyril the Monk which Baronius so highly commends it is not much for the credit of Rome that a Catholick Bishop of Jerusalem Martyrius sends a Legate to the Emperor to assist him in suppressing the Eutychian Hereticks and not the Pope And that a Saint from Heaven should call Jerusalem the Mother of Churches For this Title is now wholly appropriated to Rome But as to the Embassy sent to the Emperor against the Hereticks Martyrius took the right course for Pope Simplicius in his Letter to the same Emperor saith The Imperial Authority only can keep the Sheepfold of our Lords slock pure from the contagion of Heresie which shews the Pope's power was not considerable at that time It is something remarkable also That Pope Foelix in his Letter to Zeno the Emperor should affirm That Eustathius Bishop of Antioch was the President of those Three hundred and eighteen Fathers assembled at Nice For now they will allow no General Council to be Authentick wherein the Bishop of Rome or his Legates do not preside The Romanists proceedings against the Reformed at their Councils of Constance and Trent where some were Burnt for a Terror and the oppressed party who held the right Faith were cited before their Adversaries who took upon them to judge in their own Cause these proceedings I say were an exact Transcript of the Arrian Methods in Asrick when they resolved under the cover of a Conference to suppress the Orthodox Catholicks In the Story of finding St. Barnabas Relicks we may observe all the Prayers and Hymns were directed only to God and Christ not any to this or any other Saint from which we may learn That piece of Superstition which now makes up so great a part of the Roman Offices was unknown to those Ages and St. Barnabas declares the chief Bishop of Cyprus is not subject to any Patriarch he doth not except the Pope so that this Apostle seems not to have believed St. Peter's Universal Supremacy Baronius presents us also with a Confession of Faith made by one Lucidus and approved by a Synod of Bishops wherein he declares that he believes Eternal Fire and the Flames of Hell prepared for deadly Sins But there is not one word of Purgatory which shews there was no such place invented or at least believed by the Catholicks then And the 7th Epistle of Pope Gelasius as we noted signifies that he knew of no other places in the next World but Heaven and Hell To conclude the Annalist shuts up this Century with a Melancholy Note That at this time there was not one Christian Catholick Prince in the World He might also have added that all the Eastern Patriarchs were separated from the Communion of the Roman Church although three of them that were Orthodox communicated with one another And he might have noted also that at this juncture there was no certain Pope and an Heretical Prince was then Judge of the pretences of Symmachus and Laurentius the Rivals for that See But the true Faith can subsist as well without a Pope as without Orthodox Princes the Church being founded on Christ that invincible Rock against which the Gates of Hell can never prevail The End of the Fifth Centry PART IV. CENT VI. CHAP. I. Errors and Forgeries in the Councils from the Year 500 to the End of the Fifth General Council An. Dom. 553. § 1. WE referred the Councils said to be held under Pope Symmachus to the begining of this Century And the first Six are pretended to be held at Rome
They further say That the Canons of Gangra were confirmed by Apostolical Autherity The Forger meant by Papal Authority But those Bishops at Gangra scarce knew who was then Pope And it is plain the Compiler of this Council had respect to a Forgery of later Ages where Osius of Corduba's name the pretended Legate of the Pope is added to the Synodical Letter from this Synod and therefore these Acts were devised long after this Council is pretended to have sitten And he must be a meer stranger to the History of this Time who reads here that Symmachus and his Council should say It is not lawful for the Emperor nor any other professing Piety c. For this supposes Anastasius no Heretick and that Popes then prescribed Laws to the Emperor of the East I conclude with a single remark upon the Notes on this forged Council which pretend Theodoric obeyed this Councils Decree in ordering the patrimony of the Church of Milan to be restored to Eustorgius who was not in this Council nor Bishop of Milan till eight years after And no doubt that Order was made by Theodoric in pure regard to Equity for it is no way likely that he had ever heard of this Council I conclude these Roman Councils with one remark relating to Mons du-Pin who hath taken things too much upon trust to be always trusted himself and therefore he publishes five of these six Councils for genuine and gives almost the Baronian Character of Symmachus But these Notes I hope will demonstrate he is mistaken both in his Man and these Synods and I only desire the Reader to compare his Account with these short Remarks § 2. There were few Councils abroad in this Popes time and he was not concerned in them The Council of Agatha now Agde in the Province of Narbon was called by the consent of Alaricus an Arrian King Caesarius Bishop of Arles was President of it and divers good Canons were made in it but Symmachus is not named so that our Editors only say it was held in the time of Symmachus I shall make no particular remark but on the Ninth Canon where Caesarius who was much devoted to promote that Celibacy of the Clergy which now was practised at Rome and the Council declare that the orders of Innocent and Siricius should be observed From whence we may Note that these Orders had not yet been generally obeyed in France and that a Popes Decretal was of no force there by vertue of the Authority of his See but became obligatory by the Gallican Churches acceptance and by turning it into a Canon in some Council of their own But that the usages of Rome did not prescribe to France is plain from the Notes on the xii Canon where it appears their Lent Fast was a total abstinence till evening none but the infirm being permitted to dine But the Roman Lent unless they have altered their old rule allows men to dine in Lent with variety of some sorts of meat and drink which is not so strict by much as this Gallican custom The first Council of Orleance is only said to be in Symmachus time but the Acts shew he was not consulted nor concerned in it The Bishops were summoned by the Precept of King Clovis who also gave them the heads of those things they were to treat of And when their Canons were drawn up they sent them not to Rome but to their King for Confirmation with this memorable address if those things which we have agreed on seem right to your judgment we desire your assent that so the Sentence of so many Bishops by the approbation of so great a Prince may be obeyed as being of greater Authority And Clovis was not wanting in respect to them for he stiles them Holy Lords and Popes most worthy of their Apostolical Seat By which it is manifest that Rome had then no Monopoly of these Titles I conclude that which relates to Pope Symmachus his time with one Remark that in the year 500 the Devout and learned African Fulgentius came on purpose to visit Rome But the writer of his life who acurately describes what the holy Man saw there and largely sets forth his View of Theodoric his visiting the Tombs of the Martyrs and saluting the Monks he met with speaks not one Syllable of the Pope whose Benediction one would think Fulgentius should have desired But whether the Schism yet continued or Symmachus his manner did not please the good Man ' its plain he took no notice of him § 3. Hormisda succeeded Symmachus and it seems by the Letter of Dorotheus that in his Election and not before the Schism at Rome ceased which began when Symmachus was chosen which shews that Symmachus having a strong party against him all his time could do nothing considerable This Pope Hormisda was either married before he was Pope or was very criminal for he had a Son i. e. Sylverius who as Liberatus testifies was Pope about twenty years after him This was a bold and active Pope and did labour much to reconcile the Eastern to the Western Church and at last in some measure effected it after the Greeks had been separated as Binius notes from the unity of the Church not Catholick but of Rome he means about 80 years From whence we may observe that a Church may be many years out of the Communion of the Roman Church and yet be a true Church for none till Baronius ever said the Eastern was not a true Church all the time of this Separation The Notes further tell us that King Clovis of France sent Hormisda a Golden Crown set with precious stones for a Present and thereby procured this reward from God that the Kingdom of the Franks still continues Which stuff is out of Baronius But the Story is as false as the inference for Sirmondus proves that King Clovis died Anno 511 that is three years before Hormisda was Pope Labbè who owns this to be an Error would correct the mistake and put in Childebert's name but he who told the Story could certainly have told the Kings right name wherefore we reject the whole Relation as fabulous And for the inference the Kingdom of Franks indeed like all other Kingdoms who sent no Crowns hath continued but not in Clovis his Posterity which is long since extinct We shall make more remarks on this Popes History in his Letters And many Epistles are lately found of this Popes in the Vatican or Forged there which we will now consider The First Epistle is certainly Forged it is directed to Remigius but names King Lovis or Clovis who was dead three year before as Labbè owns for which cause Sirmondus omitted it as Spurious and so P. de Marca counts it And it is almost the same with another feigned Epistle wherein the Pope is pretended to make a Spanish Bishop his Legate there
denied that usurped jurisdiction of Appeals from thence to Rome to which some Popes pretended which had made them stand at a distance from the See of Rome The Notes on this Epistle have a fallacious Argument however to prove the African Church could not so long remain divided from the Roman because if so they could have no true Martyrs all that time since the Fathers agree That Crown is only due to those who suffer in the Catholick Church I reply this may be very true and yet since no Father ever said that the particular Roman Church is the Catholick Church a Christian may dye a true Martyr if he die in the Communion of the Catholick Church though he hold no Communion with the Roman Church which was the case at this time or lately of many Eastern Churches Another Forgery out of the same Mint treads on the heels of this pretending to be a Copy of the Emperor Justin and Justinian's submission to this Pope wherein they are made to own the Supremacy of Rome to the highest pitch and to Curse all their Predecessors and Successors who did not maintain that Churches Priviledges But the cheat is so apparent the matter so improbable and ridiculous and the date so absurd that Baronius and both the Editors reject it So that I shall only note that a true Doctrine could not need so many Forgeries to support it and the interest they serve shews who employed these Forgers We have spoken before of Boniface's two Roman Councils one of them revoking what the other decreed The third is only in Labbè being a glorious Pageant drest up by the suspicious hand of a late Library-keeper to the Pope But it amounts to no more than the introducing a poor Greek Bishop or two to enquire what was said in the Roman Records and in the Popes Letters of the Authority of that Church So that the Pope and his Council were Judges and Witnesses in their own Cause and therefore their Evidence is of no great Credit And 't is very ominous that this Synod is dated in December that is two Months after Boniface's death who is said to have been present at all its Sessions To cover which evident mark of Forgery Holstenius gives Baronius and all other Writers the Lye about the time of Boniface's dying and keeps him alive some time longer only to give colour to this new-found Synod The Council of Toledo might be in Boniface's time but not under him For the King of Spain whom the Bishops here call their Lord called it and it was held sub Mantano saith Baronius under Montanus the Metropolitan to whom the Council saith Custom had given that Authority Wherefore he condemns Hereticks and exercises all sorts of jurisdiction belonging to a Primate without taking any notice of the Pope or of any delegated Power from him So that probably all those Epistles which make Legates in Spain about this time are forged § 9. John the second of that Name succeeded Boniface but Anastasius and Baronius cannot agree about the Date of his Election or his Death and Holstenius differs from both an Argument that this Pope made no great Figure However right or wrong we have divers of his Epistles The first to Valerius saith Labbè appears by many things to be spurious it is stollen out of the Epistles of Leo and Ithacius and dated with wrong Consuls And I must add Scripture is shamefully perverted by the Writer of this Epistle For he would prove that Christ was not created as to his Deity but only as to his Humanity by Ephes iv 24. and Coloss iii. 10. where St. Paul speaks of putting on the New Man which after God is created in Righteousness and true Holiness and is renewed in Knowledge after the Image of him that created him Had a Pope writ this I would have affirmed he was no Infallible Interpreter The next is an Epistle of Justinian to this Pope wherein the Emperor is pretended to declare his Faith was conformable in all things to the Roman Church and made to say he had subjected and united all the Churches of the East to the Pope who is the Head of all the Holy Churches with much more stuff of this kind This Letter is rejected by the learned Hottoman and many other very great Lawyers who Baronius calls a company of Hereticks and Petty Foggers But confutes their Arguments with false Reasoning and Forgeries as I shall shew when I come to note his Errors I shall now confine my self to prove the greatest part of this Epistle to be spurious For who can imagin Justinian who vindicated the Authority of his Patriarch at Constantinople as equal with Rome and by an Authentick Law declares that the Church of Constantinople is the Head of all other Churches Yea in the genuine part of this Epistle calls his Patriarch the Pope's Brother That he I say should here profess he had subjected all the Eastern Churches to Rome And how should he that differed from Pope Hormisda in his decision of the Question whether one Person of the Trinity suffered for us and made Pope John now yield to his Opinion and condemn his Predecessors notion declare he submitted his Faith in all things to the Pope But we need no conjectures for if the Reader look a little further among the Epistles of Agapetus he will see one of the boklest Impostures that ever was For there Justinian himself recites verbatim the Epistle which he had writ to Pope John and whatever is more in this Letter set out among John's Epistles than there is in that which is owned by the Emperor is an impudent Forgery added by some false Corrupter to serve the Roman Supremacy Now by comparing these two Epistles it appears the beginning and end of both are the same and may be genuine but in neither part is there one word of this subjection or the universal Supremacy And all that wretched Jargon comes in where it is corrupted viz. From Ideoque omnes Sacerdotes universi orientalis tractus subjicere till you come to these words Petimus ergo vestrum paternum Which when the Reader hath well noted he will admire that those who had the cunning to corrupt a Princes Letter by adding twice as much to it as he writ should be so silly to print the true Letter within a few Pages But doubtless God infatuates such Corrupters and the Devil owes a shame to Lyers The next Epistle from the Gothic King Athalaric was probably writ soon after John's Election since it mentions the Romans coming to that Prince to beg leave to chuse a Pope and both Athalario and the Senate made Laws to prevent Simony in the Election of the Pope as well as other Bishops And which Baronius saith was more Ignominious This Edict was Ingraven on a Marble Table and hung up before the Court of St. Peters for all to see it But
Presidents of it Yet not only Leo the Fourth but the famous Council of Nice approved of this Synod called and carried on without the Pope ' s knowledge or leave There is but one Canon in this Council which contradicts the Roman practice viz. The Ninth which allows Deacons to Marry and continue in their Office if they declared at their Ordination that they could not live Single This Canon therefore Baronius and Binius strive to corrupt with false Glosses The former saith We may by this Canon see how firmly Ministers single Life was asserted not only in the whole Catholick Church but in the East Now it is very strange that a private Canon of a Provincial Council which allows one Order of Ministers to Marry should shew it was the Opinion of the whole Church that none might Marry The latter in his Notes affirms That this among other Canons solidly proves that not only Priests but Deacons by the Apostolical Law were bound to Live without Wives But the Apostles certainly allowed Deacons to have Wives and this Canon was made on purpose that they might live with their Wives if they pleased The Notes proceed to say That Deacons ordained against their Will and protesting they could not contain were by these Fathers permitted to Marry after their Ordination provided they left off all Sacred Administrations and did not Communicate among the Priests in the Chancel but among the People Which is an impudent falsification There being no word of being Ordained unwillingly nor any reason why they should be Ordained who were to be reduced presently to Lay-communion Yea the Words of the Canon are express that if they did Marry they should continue in their Ministration So that these Editors make no Conscience to make these ancient Records to contradict themselves rather then let them seem to oppose their Churches present practice For which vile purpose there is another trick in the Notes on this Council For whereas the Eighteenth Canon speaks of Lay-persons which Vowed single Life as many had done in times of Persecution and afterwards broke their Vow that these were to be counted Bigamists The Notes on this Canon put these Words of the Thirteenth Canon Those who are of the Clergy c. Before their observation on the Eighteenth Canon on purpose to make the Reader think the Clergy in those days Vowed single Life as they do now at Rome § 13. The Council of Naeccaesarea according to these Editors was under Sylvester who is not once named in it nor doth it appear he knew of it They might also have left out Leo the Fourth's approving it Five hundred years after because the Notes say The Council of Nice allowed it which is much more for its Credit The same Notes say The first Canon orders the same thing which was decreed in the Thirty third Canon at Elliberis and the Ninth at Ancyra And if so that is not as they falsly gloss the Canon of Ancyra That the Clergy should live Single or be reduced to Lay Communion For in that Canon some of the Clergy are allowed to Marry and to continue to minister as Clergy-men still And the true Sense of this Naeocaesarean Canon is That whereas in times of Persecution when Marriage was inconvenient many Priests promised to live Single Now these only were not allowed to Marry afterward but when the Church had Peace the Nicene Council left all Clergy-men free to Marry or not as they pleased which shews That when the Reason of this Canon ceased they believed its Obligation did so also The Fifth Canon forbids a Catechumen who falls into Sin to enter into the Church By which the Notes say That Baronius had sharply censured Eusebius But it is plain that Baronius shews more Malice than Wit in that Censure Eusebius only relates Matter of Fact That Constantine was present in the Nicene Council and he with all ancient Authors agrees That Constantine was yet a Catechumen where then is the Crime Do not Baronius and Binius both agree that Constantine was present in the Council of Arles Ten years before his pretended Baptism at Rome And if it be said This Canon forbid it I ask Whether it be probable that an Emperor who as Baronius saith was Solutus Legibus Above the Civil Law should be proceeded against by a Canon of a small Provincial Council Wherefore Eusebius his only Crime is That he tells a Truth which happens to contradict the Lying Acts of Sylvester and consequently the Interest of Rome for which the Cardinal and Annotator can never forgive him The next place is assigned to a Roman Council under Sylvester wherein there was a famous Disputation between the Jews and Christians before Constantine and Helena but in the Notes we are told the Story is utterly false only attested by Sylvester's Acts which Swarm with Lies as they are now extant yet out of these Acts as now extant is the Forgery of Constantine's Baptism at Rome taken and therefore Baronius and Binius reject this Council as a meer Forgery But why do they not reject Constantine's Baptism as well as this Council since both rely on the same Author The Reason is plain That makes for the Interest of the Pope and This no way concerns and so it may pass for a Forgery as it is § 14. On occasion of Arius's Heresie now breaking out at Alexandria there was a Council of an Hundred Bishops called by Alexander Bishop of that City to Condemn him which first Council of Alexandria the Editors say was under Sylvester but it doth not appear that this Pope knew of it till Three years after An. 318 at which time Alexander gave notice of this Council not to Sylvester by name as the Notes falsly suggest but to all Catholic Bishops and in particular to the Bishop of Constantinople But for fear the Reader should observe That more respect was shewed to that Bishop than to the Pope the Editors have removed these Epistles of Alexander into the Body of the Nicene Council and only give us Notes upon them here in which the Annotator out of Baronius turns the Charge of Lying and Forgery of which themselves have been so often convicted upon us whom they falsly call Innovators Four years after followed a Second Council at Alexandria which the Notes hope to prove was under Sylvester because Athanasius saith This was a General Council and saith Hosins was there Upon this Baronius fancying nothing could be a General Council unless the Pope were present Personally or by his Legates conjectures Hosius was the Pope's Legate and in that capacity presided in this Council And the Notes positively affirm this Dream for a certain Truth But Athanasius calls many Synods General which were only Provincial and it is plain he had not the modern Roman Notion of a General Council because he never mentions Sylvester nor doth he say Hosius was his Legate But even
speak of him as having been once his Friend and report his Apostacy yet he never mentions his turning Catholic again Wherefore we conclude that all these Fictions and falsifying of Evidence and slight Conjectures in Baronius and the Notes are intended only to blind the Reader and hinder his finding out an Heretical Pope whose Fall is clear his continuance in his Heresie very probable and his Repentance if it be true came too late to save his Churches Infallibility though it might be soon enough to save his own Soul The Editors style the Council at Ariminum A General Council and yet dare not say as usually under Liberius who had no hand in it for it was called by the Emperour Constantius as all Writers agree so that it seems there may be A General approved Council as they style this which the Pope doth not call Moreover the Emperour in his first Epistle orders the Bishops to send him their Decrees that he might confirm them and though Baronius saith this was done like an Heretical Emperour yet the Orthodox Bishops observed his Order and call it Obeying the Command of God and his Pious Edict Wherefore this General Council was both called and confirmed by the Emperour Again Constantiâ—s in his Epistle declares It was unreasonable to determine any thing in a Western Council against the Fastern Bishops Whence it appears he knew nothing of the Western Patriarchs claiming an Universal Supremacy over all the Churches both of the East and West and for this Reason Baronius leaves this genuine Epistie recorded in S. Hilary's Fragments out of his Annals We have also noted before that though the Orthodox Bishops in this Council who must know the matter say That Constantine was Baptized after the Council at Nice and soon after his Baptism translated to his deserved Rest as the Ancient Historians read that Passage and the Sense of the place shews they could mean it of none but Constantine yet Baronius corrupts the Text and reads Constans instead of Constantine only to support the Fable of Constantine's being Baptized by Sylvester at Rome and the Editors follow him in that gross Corruption For they examine nothing which serves the Interest of Rome As for the Arian Synods this year at Seleucia and Constantinople I need make no Remarks on them because the Pope is not named in them and so there is no occasion for them to feign any thing Only one Forgery of Baronius must not be passed over That when Cyril of Hierusalem was deposed by an Arian Synod he is said to have appealed to greater Judges and yet he never named the Pope the reason of which Baronius saith was because the True Pope Liberius was then in Banishment but hath he not often asserted Foelix was a Catholic and if Cyril had thought fit might he not have appealed to him But it is plain by Socrates that Cyril meant to appeal to the Emperour and his Delegates as all injured Bishops in that Age had used to do § 25. Upon the restitution of Athanasius from his third Exile after the death of George the Arian Bishop he called a Council of Bishops at Alexandria for deciding some differences among the Catholics about the manner of explaining the Trinity and to agree on what terms Recanting Arians were to be received into the Church And though neither Athanasius nor any ancient Historian take any notice of the Pope in this eminent Action yet the Editors out of Baronius say It was called by the Advice and Authority of Liberius and to make out the notorious Fiction of this Popes calling this Orthodox Council even while he was an Arian the Notes affirm Eusebius Bishop of Vercelles and Lucifer Calaritanus as the Popes Legates were present at it which they take out of Baronius who had before told us That Lucifer Calaritanus was at that time at Antioch and sent two Deacons to Alexandria to subscribe for him yea this Synod writes their Synodical Letter to Eusebius Lucifer and other Bishops which plainly shews they were absent though it seems by Ruffinus that Eusebius came afterwards and subscribed to what had been agreed in the Council and was by the Authority of this Council not of the Pope sent into the East to procure peace among those Churches Nor have they any one Author to prove either he or Lucifer were the Pope's Legates nor any reason but because they were employed in great Actions though in that Age 't is plain the Popes were little concerned in any eminent business Moreover they bring in a Fragment of an Epistle writ according to the Ancient Custom by Liberius at his Entrance into the See of Rome to shew his Faith to Athanasius as if it were written now meerly to impose on the Reader a false Notion of his being at this time Orthodox and concerned in this Synod They also cite another Epistle of Athanasius to certifie Liberius what was done here but that Epistle is no where extant in Athanasius's Works but is cited out of the Acts of the second Nicene Council where there are more Forgeries than genuine Tracts quoted and besides the Epistle is directed not to the Pope but to one Ruffinianus and only mentions the Roman Churches approving what was done here but the Epistle being suspicious it is no good Evidence and we conclude with Nazianzen That Athanasius in this Synod gave Laws to the whole World And Pope Liberius had no hand in it About this time there were divers Councils called in France by S. Hilary Bishop of Poictiers and the Catholic Faith was setled in them one of which was held at Paris and the Synodical Epistle is extant yet the Pope is never named in it Nor yet in that Orthodox Synod at Alexandria wherein Athanasius and his Suffragan Bishops presented a Confession of their Faith to Jovian then newly made Emperour which shews that Liberius either was an Heretic at this time or else that he was very inconsiderable So that it is a strange Arrogance in the Editors to say that the Second Council at Antioch was under Liberius when the very Notes say it was called together by Meletius and observe that many Arian Bishops did there recant their Heresie a thing which a little before they pretended could be done no where but at Rome in the Popes Presence Upon Valentinian's advancement to the Empire the Eastern Bishops petition him to call a Council and he being then very busie told them they might call it where they pleased Which the Editors pretend was a declining to meddle in Church Affairs being a Lay-man But the Bishops Petition and his giving them liberty shews that the right of calling Councils was in him and so was also the confirming them as appears from the Bishops sending the Acts of this Council at Lampsacus to the Emperour Valens to be confirmed The same Bishops also sent their Legates with Letters to the Western Bishops and
particularly to Liberius Bishop of Rome hoping Valentinian the other Emperour had been in that City but he being absent these Legates perswaded Liberius they were Orthodox upon which he writ back Letters in his own Name and in the Name of the other Western Bishops to own them for good Catholics Whence we may note First That the Eastern Bishop's Letter styles the Pope no more but Collegue and Brother Secondly That Liberius calls himself only Bishop of Italy Liberius Ep. Italiae alii Occident is Episcopi But Baronius alters the Pointing Liberius Episcopus Italiae alii c. by that Trick hoping to conceal this mean Title Thirdly The Pope here saith He was the least of all Bishops and was glad their Opinion agreed with his and the rest of the Western Bishops Fourthly Yet after all these very Eastern Bishops were of the Macedonian party as the Title of their Letter in Socrates shews Baronius indeed leaves these words out of the Title but he confesses they were Semi-Arians So that the Popes Infallibility as being imposed on by Heretics in Mattets of Faith loses more by this Embassy than his Supremacy gains by it because the Legates were not sent to him alone but to all the Western Bishops Fifthly The Notes on this Council feign that besides these Communicatory Letters Liberius writ other Letters Commanding that ejected Bishops should be restored by the Apostolic Authority But this is one of Baronius his Forgeries For S. Basil and also Sozomen cited by the Notes on the Council of Tyana mention not the Legates shewing any other Letters at their return into the East but only the Communicatory Letters and since it appeared by them that the Western Bishops judged them Orthodox their Eastern Brethren did restore them And so also these Legates got the approbation of a Council in Sicily as they were returning home for the Sicilian Bishops by mistake took them for Orthodox when they saw the rest of the Western Bishops owned their Communion with them and so approved their Confession of Faith and therefore it is very impertinent in the Notes to say on this occasion That the Authority of the Pope was so great that if he admitted even suspected Heretics to his Communion none presumed to reject them Whereas we know that afterwards the People of Rome rejected even the Pope himself for communicating with Semi-Arians The next thing which occurs is a Synod in Illyricum Convened at the request of Eusebius Bishop of Sebastia one of the Eastern Legates who while his Fellows stayed at Rome went into that Country and prevailed with the Bishops assembled there to send Elpidius a Brother and Collegue of their own with a Synodical Letter to the Eastern Bishops declaring they would communicate with them if their Faith was the same with that of Nice Now though this Synod do not mention the Pope yet Baronius and the Notes feign That Elpidius was the Pope's Legate whereas the Synod the Emperours Letter and Theodoret from whom this Story is taken mention Elpidius only as a Messenger sent from this Council When these Eastern Legates returned home there was a Council called at Tyana in Cappadocia wherein they shewed the Communicatory Letters which they had fraudulently obtained in the West upon which Letters those who had been ejected as Heretics and particularly Eustathius of Sebastia were restored to their Sees but neither Sozomen nor S. Basil say this was done by any special Letters of Liberius or by any Command of his yet if it had been so this would spoil this Popes Infallibility it being certain these restored Bishops were Heretics who Liberius poor Man thought to be good Catholics and he hath the more to answer for if this were done not by his Consent alone but by his Command also After this we have the Life of Pope Foelix about whom they differ so much that nothing is plain in his Story but this that little of him is certainly known The Pontifical in Liberius Life saith He died in peace but here it saith He was Martyred by Constantius for declaring him an Heretic and one who was rebaptized by Eusebius of Nicomedia Yet Constantius was not Baptized at all till after Foelix his pretended Martyrdom and he was Baptized then not by Eusebius but by one Euzoius Again The Pontifical allows him but to sit One year and three months and the Notes say This is right computing from Liberius Fall to his Return which as Sozomen affirms was but little before Foelix his Death Whereas these very Notes tell us a little before that Liberius was above two years in Exile therefore if he lived but a small time after Liberius's return he must sit above two years But Marcellinus who writ in that Age tells us Foelix lived eight years after Liberius was restored Which Baronius and the Notes would conceal to hide the Scandal that their Church must get by a long Schism and by an Heretical Pope of whom they will needs make a Martyr only upon the Credit of the Pontifical and a modern fallacious Inscription pretended to be found at Rome many Ages after belonging to some Foelix but which of them they know not The Epistles ascribed to this Pope contain so many and so gross Untruths that Labbé notes They are discarded by Baronius and other Learned Men as Isidores Wares adding That the third Epistle was stollen from Pope Martin the First in his Lateran Council And though Binius very often cite the two first Epistles yet in his Notes on them he owns they are of no credit For they Forge many Canons as made at Nice and tell that idle story of the true Copies of the Nicene Canons being burnt by the Arians But it is certain the Forger of these Epistles was a Creature of the Popes because the Inscriptions of them are stuffed with false and flattering Titles and the Body of them nauseously and ridiculously press the Supremacy and the Universal Empire of the Roman Church § 26. The entrance of Damasus into the Papacy was not without Blood for the People were divided and some standing for Damasus others for Ursicinus Damasus his Party being stronger slew many of their Adversaries in a Church as all the Writers of that Age testifie and though Ammianus be a Pagan Historian yet it is very probable which he writes that it was not Zeal but the ambition of living high and great that made Men contend so fiercely for the Papacy for S. Basil himself about this time taxes the Roman Church with Pride and S. Hierom the great Friend of that Church often reflects upon the pomp and luxury of the Clergy there So that the Notes on Damasus his Life do but glory in their Churches shame when from these Authors they boast of the Magnificence and Majesty of the Papacy The Fabulous Pontifical was for many Ages pretended to be writ by this Damasus and he
the Roman Editors in their Preface and Notes ascribed most falsly to his want of Power and Authority Thirdly In the Protestation of the Clergy of Constantinople they prove themselves Orthodox because they held the same Faith with the Church of Antioch and that which was held by Eustathius Bishop there in the time of the Nicene Council making no mention of Rome at all And though now the Faith of the Roman Church is pretended to be the sole Infallible Rule of what is Orthodox it was not thought so then For Pope Celestine himself saith Nestorius is to be condemned unless he profess the Faith of the Roman and the Alexandrian Churches and that which the Catholick Church held And the Pope repeats this in his Epistle to Nestorius and in that to John Bishop of Antioch So that the Roman Church was then only a part of the Catholick Church as that of Alexandria was had it then been as now it is said to be the same with the Catholick Church the Pope was guilty in three several Epistles of a notorious Tautology for according to the modern Style it had been enough to have said Nestorius must profess he held the Faith of the Roman Catholick Church So when Cyril had informed John of Antioch that the Roman Synod had condemned Nestorius and writ to him to the Bishop of Thessalonica to those of Macedon and to him of Jerusalem to joyn in this Sentence Cyril adds that he of Antioch must comply with this Decree unless he would be deprived of the Communion of the whole Western Church and of these other Great Men This passage the Preface cites to prove that Cyril made use of the Popes Authority as his Chief Weapon in this Cause but it is plain he doth not so much as mention the Pope or the Roman Church alone nor doth he urge the danger of losing the Communion of that Church singly considered but of all the Western Churches and divers eminent ones in the East and it was the Popes agreeing with all these that made his Communion so valuable Fourthly as to the Titles of these Epistles which were writ before the Council we may observe that Nestorius writes to Celestine as to his Brother and saith he would converse with him as one Brother use to do with another which shews that as Patriarchs they were upon equal ground 'T is true Cyril who was as eminent for his Modesty as his Learning calls Celestine by the Title of his Lord from which the Romanists would draw conclusions for their Supremacy but we note that in the same Epistle he calls John of Antioch also his Lord beloved Brother and Fellow-minister which very words Cyril uses when he speaks of Celestine in his Epistle to Juvenal Bishop of Jerusalem calling the Pope there his Lord most Religious Brother and Fellow-minister yea such was the Humility of those Primitive Bishops that they frequently stiled their Equals and Inferiors their Lords so Cyril calls Acacius Bishop of Beraea So John Bishop of Antioch calls Nestorius his Lord and the same Title in the same Epistle he bestows upon Archelaus Bishop of Mindus a small City And of this we might give many more instances but these may suffice to expose those vain Arguers who from some such Titles bestowed on the Roman Bishop think to establish his Universal Supremacy Fifthly Among all these preliminary Epistles there are none meaner both for Style and Sense than those of Pope Celestine yet Baronius brags of that to Nestorius as the Principal Thing which confuted him calling it a Divine Epistle But alas it is infinitely short of Cyril's Letters the Phrase is very ordinary the Periods intricate the Arguments such as might have been used against any Heretick and his Application of the Holy Texts very odd as when the Church of Constantinople discovered Nestorius to be a Heretick he saith he may use St. Paul's words we know not what to pray for as we ought However there is one remarkable Passage in it a little after where he saith Those things which the Apostles have fully and plainly declared to us ought neither to be augmented nor diminished Had his Successors observed this Rule a great part of their Trent Articles had never been established And it had been well if the Editors had not in that very Page left out by design one of Celestine's own words For he threatens Nestorius that if after this third Admonition he did not amend he should be utterly excommunicated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by his Synod and by a Council of all Christians Here they leave out 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and translate it ab Universitate Collegii conventu Christianorum as if the Pope alone had power to separate a Patriarch from the Communion of the Universal Church whereas even when the Western Bishops joyned with him St. Cyril notes that those who submitted not to their Decree would only lose the Communion of the Western Church And if this Sentence were confirmed in the East too then indeed Nestorius and his party as Celestine intimates would be cast out of the Universal Church Sixthly In Cyril's Letter to Nestorius there is this remarkable Saying That Peter and John were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of equal Dignity as they were both Apostles and Holy Disciples which shews for all the brags of the Popes Legate in the Council that Peter was the Head of the Faith and of the Apostles they did not believe there was any difference as to Power and Dignity among the Apostles and that saying must pass for a piece of Flattery and is not to be regarded because it comes from a Creature of the Popes and one of his own House who by the Canons was no lawful evidence Seventhly In the Emperor's Commission to Candidianus one of his great Officers who was to preside in the Council we may see the Emperor gives him power to appoint what Causes and Questions shall be first treated of and to forbid any pecuniary or criminal Causes to be tried there which shews that the Emperor reserved the Power of managing and ordering the Synod to himself and made a Lay-man his representative for that purpose Secondly As to the Passages in the Council if the Preface and the Names before the Acts be genuine of which there is some doubt we may note that it is there declared the Council met by the Emperors Command and that Cyril is mentioned first both in his own Right as the chief Patriarch present and as he had the precedence due to Celestine here called Arch-Bishop of the Roman Church a Title given to Cyril afterwards whose Legate he is no where said to be but only to have his place that is to sit first as the Pope would have done had he been there Moreover it is remarkable that the Council begins without the Popes Legates who did not come till
more solemn Worship By which one would imagin that in the time of this Council and ever since the Blessed Virgin had been worshipped as she is now at Rome but there is not one word of this true except only that she was there declared to be the Mother of God That Epistle of Cyril's from whence Baronius proves this saith nothing of either Praises or Worship given to the Blessed Virgin he saith indeed that when the people heard Nestorius was deposed they began with one voice to commend the Synod and to glorifie God because the Enemy of the Faith was cast down And when he had related what Honours the People did them by carrying Lamps and burning Incense before them he add◠Thus our Saviour manifested his Glory and his Power of doing all things to those who blasphemed him So that all this story of their praising and venerating the Blessed Virgin is his own Fiction as is also that other conjecture of his that the Synodal Epistle declares that John the Evangelist and Mary the Mother of God once lived together at Ephesus For that Synodal Epistle speaks only of two Churches there called by their Names So when he and Binius say it is believed that this Addition to the Angelical Salutation was then made Holy Mary Mother of God pray for us and Baronius adds that all the Faithfull use to say and often repeat this and teach it their Children even while they suck'd the Breasts But I ask Why doth any Man believe this Is it barely because Baronius says so Doth not he say an hundred false things to justifie the Corruptions of Rome Or can he produce one ancient Author about this time or of divers Ages after wherein this Phrase Mother of God pray for us is used It is certain he cannot and therefore this blasphemous addition is much later than the Council of Ephesus and the Custom of saying it and teaching it to their Children is a Scandalous Innovation brought in by the Roman Church in the Superstitious Ages and justly rejected by us who keep close to Antiquity in owning the Blessed Virgin to be the Mother of God but do not Worship her or Pray to her And thus much for the Council of Ephesus whose Acts being extant at large do abundantly confute the Popes Supremacy and set forth many other Usages and Practices of Rome to be Innovations and Corruptions § 3. After Celestine's death Pope Sixtus or Xystus the Third succeeded who sate about eight years but did few Memorable things In his younger days he was not only a Favourer but a Patron of the Pelagians though afterwards he writ against them and strenuously opposed them Wherefore Baronius doth not sufficiently prove those three Tracts Of Riches Of Evil Teachers and of Chastity which go under the name of this Pope were not his by saying there are divers Pelagian Doctrines in them since if they were writ in his youth Xystus was then a Pelagian himself This Pope writ as is said three Epistles two of which are put into the Council of Ephesus because they shew Xystus his Consent to what the Council had done and to Cyril's actings afterwards as to John Bishop of Antioch In the later of these Epistles there is a memorable Saying cited by Vincentius Lirinensis Let there be no liberty for Novelty hereafter since it is not convenient to add any thing unto that which is Old Had his Sucessors minded this good Rule the Roman Church had not added so many New Doctrines and Practices to those Old Ones which were received and used before Xystus his time The Pontifical relates a Sory of one Bassus who accused this Pope of Adultery and that a Synod of 56 Bishops convened by the Emperor's Order cleared him and condemned his Accuser Now for the greater credit of this Pope some have forged a third Epistle wherein he is made to signifie to them his purging himself upon Oath But Labbe condemns the whole Epistle as spurious and Binius rejects it because it is stolen in part out of Pope Fabian his third Epistle and because the Date is wrong for these Arguments will serve to condemn an Epistle that supposes a Pope accused and tried by his Peers whereas had it been for the Supremacy Binius would have justified it though it had these and greater faults Besides this Epistle some illiterate Monk hath forged the Acts of this Council wherein the Pope was tried and though there be neither Latin nor Sense in it being as dull as that of Sinuessa but the Inventor designing to do Honour to the Pope is very gently censured both by Baronius and Binius And to this they have tacked another such a Council of the Trial of Polychronius Bishop of Jerusalem before Pope Sixtus for attempting to challenge the Precedency before Rome c. And Binius confesseth not only that Pope Nicholas alledged this Council for good Authority but that the Modern Writers of their Church do so also Whereas he owns there was no such man Bishop of Jerusalem and that the whole Story and Acts are a Fiction of no credit in the World by which we may learn to be cautious how we trust the Roman Writers Ancient or Modern when they cite Records to support the Grandeur of the Church About this time Theodoret mentions a great Council at Constantinople under Theodosius about setling the Precedence of the Eastern Patriarchats on occasion of a Contest between the Churches of Alexandria Constantinople and Antioch Baronius and out of him Binius in relating this have added to Theodoret's words that Alexandria claimed the Priority before all the Eastern Bishops because he was the first Bishop of the Catholick Church after the Pope But the Quotation he produces out of Theodort Ep. 86. doth not so much as mention Rome nor the Pope So that they have invented that part of the Story to keep up their Churches Credit However this Council evidently shews that the Roman Church had nothing to do with the East they called great Councils without him and setled the Precedencies of their own Patriarchats without taking notice of the Pope As for Sixtus he made no figure in the World and all we hear of him further is that being warned by Leo his Deacon and Successor afterwards he discovered and prevented the Attempts of Julianus of Hecla a Pelagian Heretick who endeavoured to get into the Churches Communion as Prosper informs us An. 440. in Chron. In this year was held the Synod of Riez in the Province of Narbon dated by the Emperors and Consuls without any mention of the Pope For it was held under Hilary Bishop of Arles who first subscribes and is meant in the Canons by the name of the Metropolitan as Marca confesses And though Binius have no Notes to this purpose I must observe that this Hilary of Arles as Primate of those parts of France calls a Provincial
Council deposes a Bishop of Ambrun uncanonically chosen and makes divers Decrees with his fellow Bishops who doubtless were not then so much enslaved to the Pope as in after times § 4. Leo the First succeeded Xystus being an active bold and aspiring Man so that he concerned himself in all the affairs of Christendom and every where laboured to advance the Roman Supremacy for which he had a favourable conjuncture by the misfortunes which then hapned to all other great Churches The Africans were under a cruel persecution the Eastern Church distracted with Heresie and a woful Schism the Orthodox Bishops in the East betrayed and oppressed by three of the four Patriarchs and the fourth of the Eastern Patriarchs condemned and murdered the Emperor of the West very young and he in the East a weak man and both governed by devout and zealous Women All which circumstances contributed to make Leo who was always Orthodox and powerful very great The Pontifical relates but few of his Actions and those with many mistakes but because all the following Councils give us so much of his Life I shall only make some remarks upon the Pontifical and take the rest in the order of time First 'T is said there he found out two Heresies the Eutychian and the Nestorian But the Nestorian Heresie was found out and condemned long before his time and as for Eutyches he was found out and censured by Flavianus Bishop of Constantinople before Leo took him for a Heretick yea he writ a kind Letter to this Heretick and two angry Letters in his behalf to the Emperor and Flavianus because he was excommunicated And till he was informed by the Bishop of Constantinople what dangerous Doctrines he held Leo inclined to be Eutyches friend for which indeed afterwards he made ample amends in assisting toward Eutyches condemnation Secondly The Pontifical variously and falsly reports the number of Bishops in the Council of Chalcedon and is mistaken in saying Pulcheria was present with Martianus there and that they confessed their Faith before the Council desiring them to send to Pope Leo to expound the Faith And that Leo after this did write a Tract condemning all Heresies all which are gross mistakes But it is true that he writ many Epistles and frequently shewed his approbation of the Council of Chalcedon and that he did prevail with Attila King of the Hunns to deal gently with Rome when it was in his power to have destroyed it 'T is very probable also that he added some passages to the Roman Office and that he ordered some to watch the Church of St. Peter and Paul to which in this Age many began to make Visits and Oblations But Binius his Notes add divers incredible Stories as that about the Hearse-Cloth which Bled when Leo clip'd it with Scissors which Gregory mentions near 200 year after only as a report which he could not cite any Author for And another Story or two out of Sophronius his Pratum Spirituale a Book stuffed with Fables as Baronius himself confesseth for having cited a false Story out of this Author he hath these words since he put so many lies together in this one Narration what credit can be given to the rest Yet Baronius himself cites this Author for Miracles and Visions very oft and in one place relates two Miracles out of Sophronius for the glory of that Epistle which Pope Leo writ to Flavianus against Eujyches and Nestorius An Epistle indeed very Orthodox and at that time very seasonable but far from meriting those prodigious Encomiums Baronius or the Legends give it who magnifie it as if it equalled the Creed and proved the Pope alone was to define all controversies of Faith to teach General Councils what they were to believe and to give Laws to all Bishops in the World But whatever excellency there is in this Epistle which is in number the Xth and printed in the Council of Chalcedon it is not to be ascribed to Pope Leo but to the learned Prosper who was his Amanuensis and wrote not only this but many other Letters for him so that the Sense and Phrase is Prosper's only they are writ in Leo's name as Gennadius testifies who lived but fifty year after Leo became Pope and the same is affirmed by Trithemius And we may observe that an Epistle of this very Prosper's against the Pelagians as we noted before went under Pope Celestine's name but far exceeded the Style of Celestine's own Letters I only add that Labbè here prints all these Epistles which bear Leo's name some of which I shall have occasion to consider afterwards The first Council of Orange Binius intitles under Leo but Labbè ashamed of that gross pretence leaves these words out For it was called by and held under Hilary Bishop of Arles who exercised the Jurisdiction of a Metropolitan and Primate in those parts and all the Bishops of those parts owned his Primacy and met at his Summons of which Binius takes no notice There were made in this Synod many good Canons for Discipline which were observed in the Gallican Church without any confirmation from the Pope At the end of this Council is published a Form of Excommunication and a very excellent Office for reconciling Penitents supposed to be made in this Council which proves Forms had then been long in use The second Council at Vasatis or Razai in France seems to me to be wrong dated for I observe the fourth Canon cites a passage out of St. Hierom with this Title One of the Fathers asserts c. Now St. Hierom died but 20 year before the date of this Council and could hardly so soon have been cited by the Title of One of the Fathers besides the sixth Canon cites one of the spurious Epistles of Clement forged after this Age. But the fifth Canon orders him who is aggrieved with the Sentence of his Bishop to appeal to a Synod which shews that reserving Causes to Rome was not allowed or used then The Editors have a Roman Council of Pope Leo's which was no more than a Solemn meeting of the Clergy and Laity to examine the Manichean Hereticks But there were two remarkable things in Leo's proceeding against them of which the Notes say nothing but Baronius informs us First That he discovered the Manicheans by their refusing to drink of the Cop in the Blessed Sacrament which this Pope counts a great impiety in this sort of People not foreseeing that his Successors would take the Cup away from all the People of that Church And this passage makes it clear that all the People at Rome who were Orthodox did receive the Cup then or else the Hereticks not receiving it could not have discovered them Secondly Baronius notes that because these Manicheans idolatrously adored the rising Sun Leo forbid the Orthodox People to use that innocent and ancient Custom of
held long after Celestine's death at St. Germans second coming hither So that in this Island the Roman Church was not considered in those days and one Sister Church desired help of another to repress Heresies without any recourse to Rome § 6. In a Synod held at Constantinople under Flavianus Eutyches a Monk was formally accused of Heresy for affirming that Christ had but one Nature after his Incarnation and that it was as much Nestorianism to hold two Natures as two Persons Upon which he was three several times cited before the Council and had sufficient time given but refusing to come till the time was expired and though he did come at last obstinately defending his Heresy he was unanimously condemned and by Flavianus and the whole Synod Excommunicated and Degraded which was a judicial proceeding agreeable to the ancient Canons Binius and Baronius in relating this make some remarks which must be considered For first when Eutyches saith He would subscribe the Nicene and Ephesine Councils so far as they were agreeable to Scripture They note this was more Haereticorum according to the manner of Hereticks But I would ask First Whether it be not true that the Decrees of Councils in matters of Faith are no further obligatory than they are proved by Scripture Secondly Whether the most Orthodox Fathers Athanasius Cyril c. did not always appeal to Scripture in the first place And the greatest Councils ever confirm their determinations first by Scripture Thirdly Whether any of the Adversaries of Eutyches in that Age did censure him for appealing first to Scripture Baronius himself cites Flavianus his Letter wherein he first alledges Scripture and then the Expositions of the Fathers And Pope Leo saith Eutyches erred by not having recourse to the Prophets Apostles and Evangelists but to himself so that it was no fault in Eutyches to prefer Scripture before the Fathers expositions nor to appeal to it but to expound it wrongfully was his Crime and that is more Haereticorum Secondly When Eutyches petitioned Theodosius in this case for a safe conduct to the Synod Binius adds to his Authors words that this was also after the manner of Hereticks Whereas it appears that divers of the Orthodox have applied themselves to the Emperors to assist and support them and none oftner than Pope Leo himself so that a thing done as frequently by the Orthodox as Hereticks can be no sign or mark of Heresy Thirdly Binius pretends that Eutyches appealed from this Synod to Pope Leo Now this is confuted by the very Acts of the Synod related in the Council of Chalcedon and recited by Baronius where it is said Eutyches appealed to the Council of the Roman Bishop and of the Bishops of Alexandria Hierusalem and Thessalonica yet they make as if this had been an Appeal only to the Pope Fourthly Binius notes the Appeal was not admitted I reply Pope Leo did so far receive Eutyches Letter that he writ three Epistles on his behalf before he was informed of the true State of the Case and quarrelled with Flavianus for condemning a convicted Heretick before he had consulted him But in truth there was no Appeal at all Flavianus did write indeed to Leo and probably to all other Patriarchs after the Canonical Judgment was over to acquaint them with his proceedings that so they might not break the Canons by admitting an Heretick in one Church who was Excommunicated in another But the Style of Flavianus his Letter shews that he need not ask Leo's leave to censure an Heretical Priest of his own Diocess nor doth he desire the Pope to confirm his Sentence but only to make it known So that Baronius falsly infers the Popes power to judge of Heresy and confirm all Sentences against them from this Letter of Flavianus And he as falsly makes the like inference from Eutyches writing to Leo as if he knew of what weight the Popes judgment was for which Councils in doubtful Cases use to stay and to which all the Catholick Church would certainly incline For Eutyches writ to other Bishops of Italy as well as the Pope as Baronius in that Page confesseth and considered Leo no otherwise than as one Eminent Bishop And this Synod of Constantinople stayed not for the Popes Judgment nor did those Bishops who despised the Decree of this Synod value Pope Leo's Judgment after he had declared for Flavianus So little truth is there in the Annalists pompous observations which only shew that all his aim is from every passage to extort some kind of colour for his dear Supremacy In the same year were two Synods one at Tyre the other at Berithus in the cause of one Ibas a Syrian Bishop wherein the Patriarch of Antioch and Constantinople were concerned but the Pope is not once mentioned in the whole proceedings But of the Cause it self we shall hear more afterward Theodosius the Emperor being deceived by Eutyches and Chrysapius one of his great Courtiers an Eunuch espouses the Quarrel of that Heretick and labours to have the Sentence which Flavianus passed against him in the late Synod revoked and Pope Leo was drawn into the same snare by the Letters of Eutyches and Theodosius till Flavianus had better informed him For Leo writ both to the Emperor and Flavianus on Eutyches behalf at first And whereas Baronius ought to blush for the Popes mistake he recites these two Letters and talks big of his being owned for the lawful and chief Judge in Ecclesiastil Controversies yea the supreme Judge of the Universal Church c. But though as an ingenuous Romanist observes Leo in all his Epistles boasts of the power of his Apostolical Seat as much as he can and more than by the Canons he ought to do yet neither of these Epistles say any such thing as Baronius infers from them And that Letter of Flavianus which delivered this infallible Judge from his mistake declares that Eutyches had received a just and Canonical Condemnation to which the Pope ought to consent and to joyn in it By which we see a Sentence against an Heretick was just before the Pope knew of it and that he and all Orthodox Bishops ought by their subsequent consents to ratifie what any one Bishop had Canonically done And since Eutyches was already rightly censured Flavianus requires Leo and no doubt other Eminent Bishops to publish their consent to it thereby to prevent the design of Eutyches which was to get a general Council called to judge his Cause over again Now this serves Baronius to brag that Flavianus knew there was no need of a general Council for that which the Popes Letters had defined A strange affection For when Pope Leo not first as Baronius saith falsly but last of all the Orthodox Bishops did stand up for Flavianus and write to confirm his Censure upon Eutyches that very Cause was tried over again in the Pseudo-general Council of Ephesus and the
Legates from this Council Anatolius being by Dioscorus advanced to the See of Constantinople in the room of Flavianus Leo had great reason to fear he was infected with the Heresie of Eutyches and therefore he very carefully sent three Legates to Constantinople to inform him whether Anatolius were Orthodox and to desire a General Council might be called by the Emperor and in Italy if he pleased as his Letter imports in the mean time if we may trust the Acts of one of these Legates coming out of the Vatican Anatolius calls a Council at Constantinople and in the presence of the Popes Legates owns himself Orthodox receives Pope Leo's Letter to Flavianus and condemns Eutyches and Nestorius and this the Editors publish with the Title of a Council at Constantinople Now though their own Author of the Vatican expresly says that Anatolius called this Council yet both Baronius and the Notes in the same page daringly affirm that the Popes Legates commanded all the neighbouring Bishops to meet in this Council Which is as false as that these Legates were sent to restore the lapsed Oriental Church and that both Theodosius and Anatolius and all the Eastern Bishops in all these Transactions owned the Pope to be the Supream Head of the Church These things are only to be found in Baronius his Inferences but no Author or Record of these proceedings hint any such thing The Legates chief business was to petition the Emperor for a General Council and it was usual when any new Patriarch was advanced that he should write an account of his Faith to all the other Patriarchs and Anatolius having been justly suspected was obliged to do it something more solemnly for Leo's satisfaction CHAP. III. Of the Council of Chalcedon being the Fourth General Council BEING to discourse of the Fourth General Council at Chalcedon we must observe that besides the partial Preface before it and the fallacious Notes after it published by the Editors the Acts of it are divided into three parts The first containing the Epistles and other Writings precedent to the Council The second containing the several Acts of it The third containing the Epistles and other Transcripts relating to that Council afterwards Of the first part I shall treat very briefly having spoken of divers things there collected in the former Chapter only noting now some of the Frauds and Errors in these preliminary Epistles And first I need not enlarge upon those false Stories in the Preface to this Council which I confuted before Anno 448 and Anno 449. That Eutyches appealed from Flavian ' s Council at Constantinople to the Pope That the Pope immediately became an Enemy to that Heretick That it was the highest Crime in Eutyches to appeal from the Pope to the Emperor Nor will it be necessary to insist upon the Prefacers owning that Theodosius called the Pseudo-Synod of Ephesus at Dioscorus his request and though Pope Leo did labour to hinder it yet he durst not but send his Legates to it who indeed did generously refuse to joyn in the condemnation of Flavianus But whereas the Prefacer pretends Flavianus appealed to the Apostolick See as if the Pope were alone fit to receive Appeals I must note First That de Marca confesses All the rest of the Patriarchs were his open Enemies and therefore he was compelled to apply to the Western Church for help and yet he did not Appeal to the Pope alone and Leo told Placidia that Flavianus Appealed not only to the Apostolick Throne but to all the Bishops of those parts and Leo saith the same thing in his own Epistles that the Appeal was to all the Churches of those parts and therefore all the Western Bishops joyned with Leo in desiring a Council might be held in Italy Which was when they were met in Council at Rome and had no doubt declared their dislike of Dioscorus's proceedings but it sufficiently confutes the Prefacers boast of Leo and his Councils rescinding the Acts of this Ephesine Pseudo-Synod as if that had been sufficient to null all that was done there because if the Pope in that Council of Rome had sufficient Authority to have abrogated the Acts of Ephesus there was no need for them to desire a greater Council to re-examine this matter or for Leo as the Preface owns to engage the Western Emperor his Mother and his Empress to write to Theodosius to suffer the Transactions at Ephesus to be heard over again But Theodosius having called that Synod by his own Authority and being persuaded by Eutyches his Party that the proceedings in it were regular would not be prevailed on by any importunities to grant this request but he dying soon after and Marcian by marrying Pulcheria Sister and Heir to Theodosius coming to be Emperor consented to call a General Council but not as the Pope desired in Italy but in the East where the Controversie began and where by the Ancient Canons it was to be decided Which suffices to discover all those falshoods that are in that part of the Preface which concerns the things before this General Council In the Preleminary Epistles and Edicts which constitute the first part of the Council of Chalcedon we may observe many of the Titles of the Epistles are corrupted by Roman Parasites So in the first Epistle of Flavianus the true reading is to Leo Arch-Bishop of the elder Rome but they have made it Pope c. In Flavians second Epistle to Leo the Latin Copies leave out of the Title and Fellow minister So again Pope is put into the Latin Copy instead of Arch-Bishop in a Letter of Leo's to the Monks at Constantinople And in Leo's Epistle to Theodosius in the Latin for Leo Bishop there is put in these absurd words Leo Pope of the Catholick Church of the City of Rome And in his Epistle to the second Synod at Ephesus the Latin leaves out these Material Expressions to his beloved Brethren in the Lord greeting To conclude the Greek Title owns that Leo and his Roman Synod petitioned for a Council in Italy the Latin leaves this out though the body of the Letter do expresly declare that request Now these are plain Instances how little Credit is to be given to the Latin Copies of this Council and especially to these Titles which the Popes Flatterers have frequently corrupted and altered them from the modest Style used in those days And hence we may gather how frivolously Baronius argues from the Titles of Pope Leo's Epistles wherein he stiles himself Bishop of the Roman and of the Universal Church that the Popes then did use the style of Universal Bishop though St. Gregory expresly denies that ever any of his Predecessors used that profane new and proud Title but the Annalist makes bold to give Gregory the Lie meerly on the credit of these corrupted and fictitious Titles prefixed by forging Parasites for Leo's usual Inscription was
Leo the Bishop of Rome to c. so that where we see Bishop or Pope of the Catholick Church of Rome c. there 't is certain the Flatterers have been at work But as to more material observations when Flavianus had condemned Eutyches he doth not desire the Pope to confirm the Sentence which being regularly passed on him by his own Bishop in Council no man could relax as Leo himself grants But his Letter to Leo requires him to publish it to all the Bishops under his jurisdiction In Leo's Epistle to Julian one of his Legates the Latin Copy puts in nobis and makes Leo say there is one Doctrine and Teaching of the Holy Ghost in us and in you but the Greek reads in the whole Catholick Church Again it is commonly pretended that Pope Leo was utterly against the Emperors calling the second Council at Ephesus and that one reason which made all its proceedings null was because it was called without his consent But it appears by divers of this Popes Letters here published that he owned it a pious Resolution of the Emperor to call this Council and in observance of his Commands he sent his Legates to it So that he never pleaded his Authority in bar to the Emperors Right even when in his Judgment he thought there was no need of it And he declares that he sent these Legates not to preside there but to agree with them by common consent on such things as might be pleasing to God as his Letter to this Synod shews Num. 13. It appears by Petrus Chrysologus Bishop of Ravenna's Letter to Eutyches that he appealed to him as well as to the Pope for he excuses himself as unfit to judge a Cause that had been tried in a far Country especially upon hearing only one Party A Rule which if the Popes had duly observed they would not have received so many unjust Appeals 'T is true he refers him to Pope Leo's Epistle to Flavianus lately writ on this subject but Binius in his Notes falsly puts in that he warns him to rely on it as an Oracle of the Holy Ghost for he only saith there was now an Orthodox Pope in St. Peter's Chair who had taught the Faith aright in this Epistle which had been sent by Leo a little before to this and other Bishops of the West for their approbation But that of Leo himself in his Epistle to Theodosius shews he was no honester than he should be and deserved not so good a Character as the Bishop of Ravenna gives him for he impudently cites one of the Sardican Canons under the forged Title of the Nicene Canon made by all the Bishops in the World the Margin would excuse this by pretending that other Fathers cite these Sardican Canons under the Title of Nicene Canons but we know no ancient Fathers did so except Zosimus and Boniface his Predecessors who to their lasting infamy were convicted of this notorious Fraud in the Council of Carthage and therefore it was an odd piece of assurance in Leo so soon after to make use of the same detected Cheat. In another Epistle of his against Eutyches he saith In the mystical distribution of the spiritual Food that is given and received by which those who partake of the virtue of the Heavenly Food are changed into his Flesh who was made our Flesh which is point blank against their modern Opinion of Transubstantiation making the Bread to be Spiritual and Heavenly Food and the change to be not in the Elements but in the Receivers After this we have divers Epistles of the Western Emperor Valentinian of his Mother and Empress to Theodosius and Pulcheria writ at the request of Pope Leo to desire that Emperor to revoke the Judgment passed in the Pseudo-Synod of Ephesus which further proves the Pope had no Authority in himself to null those Acts for he would not have begged with Tears that which was in his own Power But the great use the Romanists make of these Letters is on account of some high Expressions in them about the Popes having a Power over all Bishops and a Principality among them But there is some doubt whether these Epistles are genuine the Story of their being at Rome the night after St. Peter's day not agreeing to the time when these pretended Epistles must be writ But if they be not forged Rome will gain nothing by these phrases which Leo put into their Mouths for he certainly endited these Letters for them as we may know by this Evidence that the Emperors Mother Galla Placidia who understood no more of the Canons than the Pope told her cites the Canon of Sardica for a Canon of Nice as Leo had done before and therefore ex ungue Leonem we may easily know the Penman of these Epistles Now when he bears witness only to himself his testimony is suspicious and of no weight at all and Theodosius valued these brags so little that he calls Leo only by the name of Patriarch in his answer and affirms the Nicene Canons were not broken and therefore he utterly rejected the request Yet Leo was forced to be content and to receive Anatolius chosen Bishop of Constantinople in this Synod of Ephesus into his Communion only desiring him to give an Account of his being Orthodox in the Faith that he might publish it to other Bishops Soon after which Theodosius died Marcianus succeeding and having no other Title to the Empire than his being married to Pulcheria he remitted much of the Majesty of Style in his Letters to Leo and other Bishops used by Theodosius and other Emperors But even when he complements the Pope in the highest strain he will not yield the Council should be called in Italy as the Pope desired but resolves to have it in the East in some City which he himself should choose Where we may see a notorious Forgery in Baronius and Binius for whereas the Emperor saith where it shall seem good to us Baronius turns nobis into vobis and Binius in his Notes follows him as if the Emperor had left it to the Pope to choose what City he pleased for the Council to meet Nay further Binius who reads it nobis in the Epistle yet in a Note before that Letter he saith it was where the Peope pleased and hath the Confidence to say in his Notes at the end of the Council that the Emperor writ to the Pope to appoint the place time and manner of calling this General Synod Than which nothing can be more false for the Pope would have had it in the West if he might have chosen but the Emperor Summoned the Bishops first to come to Nice as his Letters yet extant shew and thither the Popes first Letter to the Synod ought to be directed and I wish that ignorant hand which altered the Title and put in Chalcedon instead of Nice hath not put in
meant only that they had the principal Places in this General Council But the true President of this great Synod was the Emperor who when he was present sate above all the Bishops in the midst and his Legates the Lay-Judges in his absence sate there and these Representatives of the Emperor indeed had not only the most honourable place of all but some Authority over the Synod it self For they propounded or allowed all matters to be debated of them all Bishops even the Popes Legates desired leave to speak they summed up the Debates and generally gave the decisive Sentence and upon that followed the Acclamations so that these Judges performed all that the Modern Popes Legates in late Councils have taken upon them since their Supremacy hath been in its greatest Exaltation If they object that neither they nor the Emperor were allowed to be present when Dioscorus was condemned according to the Canons I Answer the Judges in a former Session after a full hearing of the Cause had determined if the Emperor consented that Dioscorus should have the same punishment which he had inflicted on Flavianus and that he and his Accomplices should by the Council be deposed from Episcopal Dignity according to the Canons to which Decree the whole Synod consented So that there was no more to be done in the third Session but only for the Bishops canonically to execute this Sentence upon Dioscorus and there was no occasion for the Emperor or the Lay-Judges to be present only his confirmation of this Sentence was so necessary that they writ both to Marcian and Pulcheria to desire their confimation thereof So that the chief Authority was in the Emperor and his Representatives the Bishops advising and they finally determining and confirming what was agreed upon so that they were properly the Presidents here Thirdly As to the Confirmation of all these Acts the Notes affirm That all which was decreed here concerning the Faith against Eutyches was confirmed and approved by Leo's Authority as the Fathers had desired of him in their Synodical Epistle but they pretend he annulled and made void the 28th Canon And this they pretend to prove not by the Synodical Epistle it self for that speaks only of the Emperors confirmation and never desires the Pope to ratifie the matters of Faith but saith he and they by his Legates had agreed on these points only they wish for his consent to the 28th Canon about the Primacy of Constantinople which his Legates had opposed And indeed they supposed they had his consent in all things which the Legates agreed to and so those passages cited by the Notes out of Leo's Epistle do not prove that he confirmed the Decrees of Faith otherwise than by giving his common suffrage to them by his Legates and agreeing with them afterwards And thus all other Bishops who were absent and had Legates there confirmed them as well as the Pope as for his dissent from that Canon and their brags that he had made it void we shall shew afterwards that it remained in force for all the Popes opposition But it may be observed how notoriously the Latin Version corrupts the Text to insinuate this Papal confirmation for in the Speech they made to the Emperor in the end of the Council the Latin hath these words Concilii hujus a vobis Congregati Praedicationem Petri sedis Authoritate roborantes implying that the Popes Authority was to confirm the determinations of the Council But the Greek hath a quite different sense viz. that the determinations of the Pope that is Leo's Epistle to Flavianus were confirmed by that Holy Council which the Emperor had gathered And not only that Speech but many other evidences do shew clearly that the Emperor confirmed the Decree of this Council For First In the end of divers Acts the Judges as the Emperors Legates do confirm what was agreed upon and sometimes promise to acquaint the Emperor for his confirmation Yea the Emperor in his Speech made to the Synod saith he came to the Synod to confirm the Faith and not to shew his Power as Baronius and the Latin Version reads it but the Greek more truly reads I came to the Synod to confirm what was agreed on c. which shews sufficiently that the Emperor was to confirm all the Acts Yea in that very Session wherein the Faith was subscribed by the Bishops the Emperor expresly confirms it and makes a penal Sanction against all that shall contradict or oppose it upon which the Fathers cried out thou hast confirmed the Orthodox Faith And a little while after the Council was ended the same Emperor put out two Edicts wherein he doth fully confirm the Decrees of this Holy Council adding in the later penalties to all that would not receive it Wherefore we can make no doubt that the main confirmation of the Acts of this Council was from the Emperor § 3. In the next place we will consider the several Sessions and Acts which were in number sixteen In the first Action Baronius by mistake affirms that the Emperor was present but the Acts shew that he was only present by his Legates the Lay-Judges who representing the Emperor the true President of this August Assembly sate in a more honourable place than the Popes Legates and here and always are named before them But the Champions of the Supremacy boast extreamly of the great words of the Popes Legates concerning the See of Rome who say in this first Action on the mention of Rome which is the Head of all Churches and the Greek seems to refer it to Pope Leo. To which may be added that the same Legates in the third Action though they do not call the Pope Head of the Universal Church as Bellarmine falsly cites their words yet they magnifie St. Peter as the Rock and groundwork of the Catholick Church and the Foundation of true Faith And in some other places they call the Pope Universal Bishop c. To which I answer The Council no where gives the Bishop of Rome any of these extravagant Titles and did so little regard these empty brags of the Legates that in the first Act the Judges do reject the very first request which Leo's Legates made to the Council and when they petitioned in Leo's name that Dioscorus might stand at the Bar the Judges bid him sit down And if we consider how zealous this ambitious Pope was for the Dignity of his See and that his Legates had been taught their Lesson at Rome we may justly argue from the Councils silence and the lower Style of Arch-Bishop which they give him that these big Thrasonical Titles were not believed nor approved by them for many things are reported in the Councils as said by particular persons which were not the Act of the whole Council for which reason Bellarmine egregiously prevaricates when he makes this whole General Council
to call Peter the Rock and Ground-work of the Catholick Church For it was only the Popes Domesticks called him so and had the Council foreseen the consequence they would expresly have opposed that which they only silently passed by as frivolous In the next place we may observe that it is said in this Council that the Emperor confirmed the Acts of the second Council at Ephesus therefore it was usual then for the Emperor so to do since this is alledged to prove that a lawful Council Again when the Acts of this second Council at Ephesus were read at Chalcedon the Greek plainly saith the Emperor by his Letters exhorted the Pope to be present there but the Latin Version corrupts the Text and puts in supplicarunt as if the Emperor had humbly supplicated the Pope to be there whereas one of his Legates a few lines before owned that the Pope had the same Form of Summons sent him that was sent to the other great Bishops Moreover in Eutyches Petition read in that Council Cyril is called the President of the third General Council at Ephesus without any mention of the Pope And we may further observe that the Heretick Eutyches in the Acts of the Council of Constantinople which condemned him is called Pope Eutyches that being a name formerly given to all Eminent Clergy-men especially in the East I shall make no more remarks upon this first Session which was spent in reading over and reviewing the Council of Constantinople wherein Eutyches was condemned and the Pseudo-Synod of Ephesus wherein Dioscorus absolved him because I have treated of both before It is sufficient to observe upon this full hearing the Council of Chalcedon condemned both Eutyches and Dioscorus and the Lay-Judges summ'd up the Act but there seems to be a Roman addition in the end of this first Act where it is thrust in without choerence and sense that Leo writ an Epistle to Flavianus which though it be true comes in very impertinently here but the Forger thought when the Writings of the Orthodox Fathers were mentioned that of Leo ought by all means to be mentioned right or wrong In the second Action there is nothing considerable but the reading of this very Epistle of Leo to Flavianus after the Nicene and Constantinopolitan Creed being written expresly about the Eutychian Heresie the main Cause to be then decided which was therefore received there as other Orthodox Writings were with general Acclamations but the Notes citing these Acclamations quote them imperfectly no further than these words Peter speaks by Leo But the Council goes on and says The Apostles and Cyril taught thus by which we may see it was the consonancy of Leo's Doctrine to the writings of the Apostles and of St. Cyril not the infallibility of his See which procured his Epistle this general applause Wherefore the Prefacer need not have mentioned these Acclamations as if they were only given to Leo's Epistle or had been made upon some single excellency peculiar to the Bishop of that See for both the Creeds and two of Cyril's Epistles had been honoured with such like Acclamations a little before The third Action contains the canonical deposition of Dioscorus after the Bishops had heard all the complaints against him cited him thrice and could not prevail with him to appear Now there being nothing to be done at this Session but to proceed according to the Canons of which the Bishops were the proper Executors they only met without Lay Judges which saith Binius is the most evident note of a General Council but in truth it is no note of any such matter for if that were not a General Council wherein some of the Lasty were present then there never was any General Council till this time and this single Act would then be the sole Regular Act of this General Council to such absurd consequences doth these mens blind zeal lead them The next thing to be noted is a corruption in the Titles of the Petitions which some of the Aegyptian Clergy offered to the Council against Dioscorus for the Greek hath no more but this The Petition of Theodorus the Deacon exhibited against Dioscorus but the Latin Version thrusts in Pope Leo's name thus exhibited to Pope Leo and the Council of Chalcedon and the same corruption is in the Titles of the following Petitions of Ischyrion Athanasius and Sophronius If it be objected that the Superscriptions of all these Petitions both in Greek and Latin are To the most Holy c. Universal Patriarch of Great Rome Leo and to the Holy General Council c. I reply these Superscriptions seem to be forged also For first Eusebius his Petition before mentions not Leo and these Petitions are addressed only to the Council there being not the least sentence in them peculiar to Leo or supposing him to see or read them so that these Superscriptions to an absent Bishop are non-sense and in all probability added by some Roman Transcribers as may be guessed by the great swelling Titles with which the Pope is loaded Again in the Summons sent to Dioscorus the third time it is declared that the Emperor had commanded the Bishops to hear this Cause the Greek word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but the Latin softens it into permisit However whether the Emperor commanded or permitted the Bishops to hear this Cause it is plain that even in this Session consisting only of Clergy the Bishops had the Emperors leave and proceeded by his permission As to the Sentence it self the Preface the Notes and Baronius pretend it was pronounced in Leo's name and boast much of the Legates pronouncing it But if we consult the place we shall find that since no Lay-Judges were there the Popes Legates were as these Judges did in other Sessions to collect the Votes and then to sum them up and publish them and therefore after the enquiry was ended they ask what the Synod thought fit to be done which they do over and over again and till the Council expresly commanded them they did not pronounce the Sentence 'T is true these Legates had learned their Lessons so well at Rome that they contrive it in words very pompous The most Holy and Blessed Arch-Bishop of the Elder and Greater Rome Leo by us and by this present Synod with the most Blessed and Honourable Apostle Peter who is the Rock and Groundwork of the Catholick Church and he that is the Foundation of the Orthodox Faith that is Jesus Christ hath deprived him of his Episcopal Dignity and degraded him from all Ministration therefore let this most Holy General Council decree concerning the said Dioscorus what is agreeable to the Canons But these Rhetorical Flourishes coming only from the Popes Domesticks give him no right to them it is more material what Cardinal Cusanus observes that the Legates as sitting first in this Council first pronounce Sentence by the
Bishops even in a General Council to be Sons to their Holy Father the Pope To proceed the Edicts of the Emperor are dated one in February and the other in March and they do effectually confirm the Acts of the Council and ordain penalties on such as oppose the definitions of the Synod After this follow three Letters of Pope Leo dated all of one day directed to Anatolius Bishop of Constantinople and to the Emperor and Empress Marcianus and Pulcheria in all which he shews his consent to the other things done at Chalcedon but argues and exclaims against the 28th Canon saying in his Letter to Pulcheria that by the Authority of Peter he utterly makes it void But all this spoils the Cause for notwithstanding all his huffing this Canon did remain in Force for Liberatus who writ in the next Century saith The Judges and all the Bishops did not value the Legates protestation and though the Apostolical See still oppose it this which was confirmed by the Synod by the Emperors Patronage remains even till now and Almain of later times affirms the Constitution of the Council prevailed over the protestations of Leo against it For the Canons of general Councils do prevail over the opposite Decrees of Popes And the History of following times doth clearly shew that the Bishop of Constantinople was ever after this reckoned the second Patriarch and took his place accordingly in succeeding Councils and retained the jurisdiction over those Provinces which this Canon gives him Wherefore it is very weak in Baronius from some bold passages in Leo's Letters to draw this consequence that it is clearly in the sole power of the Pope to make void what 630 Bishops in Council the Emperor and Senate had agreed on and confirmed For the contrary is clear as the Sun that the Legates contradiction there and the Popes ranting afterwards for all his pretended Authority of St. Peter did not signify any thing towards a real annulling this Canon and the more he strove to do it the more he shewed his Pride to be above his Power And indeed General Councils were needless precarious and insignificant if any one Bishop were not to be concluded by the major vote or had a negative voice there But because the Pope argues as well as condemns let us hear his reasons against this Canon First He every where urges it is contrary to the Nicene Canon But this is false he and his Legates indeed pretend this but the Nicene Canon was read over in open Council and all of them unanimously agreed it did no way contradict it The Council of Nice declared those Patriarchates which Custom had then setled and since after that time Constantinople came to be the Imperial City the second General Council and this at Chalcedon had as good right to declare Constantinople a Patriarchate as the first at Nice had to declare others and since Precedency was purely of Ecclesiastical Institution and given as this Canon saith on consideration of the honours of the Cities when the Emperors had made this City equal to old Rome as to the Civil State the Council might allot it a suitable precedence in the Church which was a perfecting of the Nicene Canon and a proceeding upon the same reason but no contradiction to it Secondly Leo argues that this was a prejudice to the two Sees of Alexandria and Antioch which were elder Patriarchates and so ought to preceed Constantinople I reply Maximus Bishop of Antioch did not think this Canon any injury to him for he is the second who subscribed it and all-along in the several Sessions Anatolius sat and spoke before him And though Leo stood nicely upon his points in these matters we do not find other Bishops were of that temper they freely submitted to the Bishop of the imperial City especially since he only had a place before them but no Authority over any other Patriarch So that Leo need not make any objections for them who are not found to complain or to have thought themselves injured I shall not insist upon Leo's insinuation that this Canon was procured fraudulently and that Anatolius his Pride made him seek it and strive to impose upon the Council For every body sees the whole Council clears him of this and 't is plain Leo was far prouder than Anatolius he scorned a Second and feared in time he might prove an Equal But Anatolius only got that place confirmed to him in this Council which he and his predecessors had hold long before I might add here the elaborate Arguments of Baranius and Binius but fearing I have been already too tedious I shall refer the Reader to Richerius who discovers all their Fallacies and make some observations on the rest of these Letters after the Council In an Epistle of the Emperors to the Monks of Alexandria who disliked the Council of Chalcedon he recommends its definitions as agreeing to the Faith of Athanasius Theophilus and Cyril former Bishops of Alexandria which it seems was more considerable to them than the Faith of Leo in whom that Age knew of no Infallibility Again it is a good Rule in an Epistle of Leo's That none should seek his own advancement by the diminution of another which had he and his Successors observed they would not have degraded all the other Patriarchs to set themselves up as supreme over them all There may be some suspicion whether that Epistle of Leo to Maximus Bishop of Antioch be genuin however there is a very improbable story in it viz. That Juvenalis of Jerusalem had sought to get the jurisdiction of all Palestina in the famous General Council of Ephesus and that Cyril had writ to Leo to joyn with him in opposing that design whereas that Council of Ephesus was held nine years before Leo was Pope and therefore Leo could not be applied to as to any thing agitated in that Council After this follows a multitude of Epistles in answer to the complaints of the Aegyptian Bishops who adhered to this Council of Chalcedon and the Emperor Leo's Order to all Bishops to give the Sense of every Provincial Church concerning this General Council which some heretical Monks had questioned For this Emperor prudently avoided the charge and trouble of another General Council appointing the Metropolitans to call their own Bishops together at home and to send him their Opinion of this Council of Chalcedon which was universally owned by all in their several Letters to have been an Orthodox Council sufficiently approved and confirmed Now had the Pope then been infallible or thought to be so it had been sufficient to write to him alone and he could have told the Emperor the Sense of the Catholick Church but he was only writ to as other Bishops were to declare his own Opinion So that in this proceeding there are no marks of his Supremacy for the other Bishops confirm the Faith decreed in this Council as well as
made Vows to St. John for his Deliverance But I see no reason to believe this Inscription to be so ancient as the time of this Hilary Leo's Successor An. 461. For in his Letter extant in the Council he relates the Story of his flight but-mentions no Saint at all only saith he trusted in the grace of Christ And this Style which is so like the Pagan Vows to their little Deities was above the Infant Superstition of that Age so that besides the improbability of an Inscription continuing legible for near twelve hundred years none who knows the time of Hilary can believe the invocation of Saints was so far advanced for a Man to forget God and Jesus Christ the only Deliverers of their Servants and publickly yea blasphemously to ascribe his deliverance to a Creature Rom. i. 25. Wherefore we conclude this Inscription was writ by some later Hand in times of gross Idolatry and Ignorance and that this which they call an Egregious Monument of Antiquity and an Argument for Invocation of Saints is nothing else but an Egregious Imposture and an Argument to prove the Fraud of those who set up false Doctrines by feigned Antiquity 'T is true in the 11th Action when Stephen whom Flavian had condemned in his life-time was deposed by the Council after his death some of the Bishops cried out Flavian lives after his death the Martyr hath prayed for us but this is far short of the aforesaid Inscription for they neither vow nor pray to the Martyr only since his Sentence was agreed to be just after his death they Rhetorically say this seemed as if Flavianus had prayed for them Yet this if it be genuine is the greatest step toward Invocation of Saints that I have seen in any Writing of this Age though it be no more than a Flourish proceeding from an excess of Admiration of Flavianus so lately martyred by Dioscorus the Mortal Enemy of this Council Concerning which Dioscorus for likeness of the Subject I observe the Notes say the Aegyptians gave him oh horrible Divine Honours and Religious Worship after his Death which means no more as Baronius the Author of the Story saith but that they worshipped him as a Saint and gave him such Religious Worship as they give to Saints Now the wary Romanists will not say these are Divine Honours much less were they such Honours as were paid to any Saints in this Age or some that followed But when Modern Writers speak of Ancient Times they often speak in Modern Phrases and so Binius took it to be the same thing to honour Dioscorus as a Saint and to give him Religious Worship because they at Rome now give Religious Worship to those they Canonize And this may suffice for this famous Council wherein Leo being all along Orthodox while the Patriarchs of most other great Sees had been either faulty or suspected had the greatest advantage imaginable to carry on his great Design of setting up for the Supremacy and though by this accident which he and his Legates improved higher Titles are given him than to any of his Predecessors or Successors for some Ages in any Council yet if the Forgeries and Corruptions be abated and the Fallacious Notes well understood there is no ground from any thing here said or done to think the Fathers at Chalcedon took this Pope for the sole supreme and visible Head of the Catholick Church An Appendix concerning Baronius's Annals § 1. THIS Century proving so full of various observations as to swell beyond our expectations we must here divert a-while to view the Errors in Barvnius lest the deferring these Observations to the last should make the Reader forget the Series of affairs already past by laying these matters too far from the History of that time to which these Notes belong and for brevity sake as well as for the clearer seeing into this Authors Fallacies we will follow our former Method And first we will observe that when he would set up any Doctrines or justifie any Practices of the Modern Corrupt Roman Church he generally cites spurious Authors or such as writ so long after this time that their Testimony is justly suspected since no Authors of this Age do mention any such thing The Miracle of Julia a Manichean Heretick Woman struck dead by Porphyrius Bishop of Gaza when he could not convert her by Arguments is taken out of a Latin Copy ascribed to one Mark a Deacon of Gaza very improbably but the stress of the Evidence lies upon the Credit of Metaphrastes Lipoman and Surius the Collectors of Legends who trade in few others but spurious Authors It were to be wished we had some better evidence of St. Ambrose's appearing after his death and promising Victory over the Goths than a Womans Testimony For both Orosius and St. Augustin who write of that Victory ascribe it wholly to the Power of God and mention no Saint concerned therein And Baronius cites both these as well as the credulous Paulinus who for advancing the credit of St. Ambrose records an Old-Wives Tale not supported by any credible evidence The ridiculous story of St. Paul's appearing to St. Chrysostom who is pretended to have had the Picture of St. Paul in his Study and to have discoursed with the sensless Image is not proved by any Author near that Age but by Leo the Philosopher and Emperor who lived 500 year after and writ a very Fabulous History of St. Chrysostom's Life and by a spurious Tract of Damascens who lived 450 year after Chrysostom's Death Yet upon these false Legends the Annalist triumphs over those who oppose Image-worship Like to this is that fabulous Story of Theophilus Bishop of Alexandria not being able to die in peace till the Image of St. Chysostom was brought to him and he had adored it which he hath no other Authority for than the aforesaid spurious Book ascribed to a late Author Damascen for the Writers of this Age mention no such thing And there can be no doubt but the Relation is false because St. Cyril Theophilus his Nephew and Successor continued for some time to have as ill an opinion of St. Chrysostom as his Uncle had to his last breath as his Letter to Atticus in Baronius shews And therefore there is a Story invented of a Vision appearing to St. Cyril by which he was terrified into a good opinion of St. Chrysostom But though the Quarrel he had at first to his memory be real this Apparition is feigned and proved by no elder nor better Authors than Nicetus and Nicephorus Another Forgery of St. Cyril's removing the Relicts of St. Mark and other Saints into a Church newly built in place of an Idol-temple and thereby clearing it from Evil Spirits hath no better Authority than certain Legends read in that woful Council of Nice which set up Image-worship 300 year after this Age The Revelation of the Relicks of St. Stephen pretended to
Faith but because he agreed with the African and other Churches and now de Facto took the Orthodox Side Wherefore when Zosimus and other succeeding Popes favoured these Pelagians the Dignity of his See did not secure them from the Censures of the African Fathers as we shewed before § 3. We pass thirdly to his rare faculty of supposing things without any proof and sometimes making inferences from his own inventions for the advantage of Rome So when a few persecuted Eastern Bishops of Chrysostom's party fled to the Roman Church to avoid the Storm their own Patriarchs being all combined against them Baronius saith they fled to it as to their Mother being admonished by the examples of their Predecessors And he goes on to insinuate a very false thing viz. That all the Bishops who were persecuted by the Arrians in Constantin ' s time in the East fled to Rome Whereas only some few came both then and now and dire necessity had left them no choice nor other refuge Thus he resolves Ruffinus shall be a Pelagian Heretick and out of a Council whose Acts are not extant and the relation of it only saith Celestius was condemned there he will have Ruffinus condemned in that Council upon meer conjecture and can no other ways prove him a Heretick but by one Witness even this Heretick Celestius who being in a strait cited Ruffinus's words but probably very falsly so that one Heretick shall be sufficient evidence against a man that Baronius hates but many Orthodox Witnesses will not persuade him that Innocent favoured the Pelagians almost to the end of his Life It is an odd conjecture that St. Hierom would not translate any of Theophilus his Paschal Epistles after once he differed with Pope Innocent about restoring St. Chrysostom's name into the Dypticks For except another guess of his own without any manner of evidence there is no appearance that ever St. Hierom was concerned for St. Chrysostom's sufferings and it is certain he was kind with his Mortal Enemy Theophilus in the year of Christ 404 when he got him to be banished and it would be very strange that St. Hierom should refuse to translate any more of Theophilus's Epistles on the account of a quarrel between him and Pope Innocent about restoring Chrysostom's name into the Dypticks since the last Paschal Epistle translated by Hierom was writ Anno 404 and Baronius saith Theophilus writ every year one till Anno 412 but Chrysostom died not till Anno 407 and Innocent himself did not quarrel with Theophilus till long after the year 404 So that the Cardinal contradicts himself meerly to support an idle conjecture viz. That all Eminent Fathers loved and hated only those who were loved and hated by the Pope And into what Absurdities and Contradictions this Fancy hath led him may be seen by comparing those two places aforecited together and we may note that though it be certain Theophilus died unreconciled to Chrysostom's memory or to Innocent yet Baronius shews he was commended as a most approved Bishop for so it seems a man might be though he had a difference with the Bishop of Rome Again it is a bare supposition that the Priviledges of the Patriarch of Constantinople asserted in the Province of Illiricum by a Law of Theodosius was founded upon the false suggestions of Atticus For the very Law it self forbids innovations and requires the ancient Canons and Customs thus far observed should be in force on which Theodosius plainly grounds the Jurisdiction of the Bishop of Constantinople in this Province So that he refers to the Canon of the Second General Council of Constantinople and the usage ever since and how could this proceed from any false suggestions of Atticus To proceed Prosper relating Germanus his going into Britain as some think mistakes the time at least seventeen years and says nothing of St. Lupus his Companion in that Journey howbeit because Prosper saith the Pope sent St. Germanus Baronius will have him to be authentick contrary to all other Authors who affirm St. Germanus and Lupus were sent by a Gallican Council to whom a Petition from the British Bishops was sent However he affirms it for a certainty soon after that St. Germanus was the Popes Legate into Britain which he had but half proved before And one Author who speaks favourably of the Popes Authority shall be believed against many of equal Credit who speak otherwise I grant Prosper is a credible Writer only he is apt for the credit of the Cause always to bring in the Popes as Enemies to the Pelagians sometimes without reason and Constantine Bede with others who write of this journey into Britain and ascribe this mission to a French Council deserve more credit in that particular than he A little after upon Cyril's mentioning Nestorius's writing to the Roman Bishop in hopes to draw him to his Opinion Baronius supposes of his own Head that it was an ancient use in Controversies of Faith to write to the Bishop of Rome and that the part he chose was generally favoured so that if Nestorius could persuade him the whole Catholick Church would follow his Judgment which is all Chimaera for Pope Victor Stephen and Liberius of old Vigilius and Honorius afterward found opposition enough for all the dignity of their place when they seemed to other Bishops to take the wrong side From a fabulous Writer called Probus who hath given us a Legend of St. Patrick's Life he not only confidently affirms that Pope Celestine sent this Patrick to convert the Irish but infers from thence That it was clear to all men the Gospel was to be received from the Apostolical See for the conversion of the Pagans Whereas it is not clear that St. Patrick was sent from Rome but it is clear that other Heathen Countries have received the Gospel by the care of other Patriarchs and Eminent Bishops so that his Ground is but conjecture and the Superstructure wholly vain 'T is true indeed that Pope Leo to shew his Authority desired three Bishops of Sicily to appear in his annual Roman Council once a year and was the first Pope who put this Yoke upon them but how this new encroachment shews the ancient observance of holding Councils of Bishops twice a year is very hard to conjecture only when a Pope alters the Fathers Customs the Annalist will suppose he observes and confirms them And he could see no usurpation in this Popes calling the Sicilian Bishops yearly to Rome against the ancient Usage But when Dioscorus of Alexandria would have encroached upon the Bishops of Syria he blames him severely We shall not mention the Authority of the Writings of Athanasius Cyril and other Eminent Bishops of other Sees in Controversies of Faith But it is very imposing for Baronius to suppose The Pope presided as the Master over the whole Christian World and out of his high Throne taught all men
the Catholick Faith and all this only because Leo had the good Fortune by his Secretary Prosper's help to write one Orthodox Epistle against Eutyches in a lucky time when a Council was to be called to condemn that Heresie As to the Author of it Eutyches it was always a Rule in the Church to receive even the Inventors of Heresies if they would renounce their Errors So that for Leo to say in his Letter to the Council of Chalcedon he thought they might deal so with Eutyches is no manner of ground for Baronius to suppose that this was a special Favour indulged to that General Council by the Pope contrary to Ecclesiastical Laws and Customs For it is well known that a General Council in that Age gave Laws to the Pope but did not receive any from him and whatever Leo's Opinion might be the Council were sole Judges of the terms on which Eutyches was to be restored and had he Recanted they would have received him into Communion by their own Authority since Arius Nestorius and Pelagius had that Favour offered them by former Councils and Eutyches would have found the like Kindness here if the Pope had said nothing at all of the matter Wherefore the Annalist hath crouded many Falshoods into a few Lines only to persuade his weak Readers That the Pope was above a General Council And to make him seem above all the other Patriarchs he supposes from a Letter of Theodosius the Emperor which he never saw and which is not extant That the Emperor writ to Rome about the Succession of Anatolius at Constantinople knowing it to be the Head of all Churches This is a groundless Conjecture because he doth not so much as know in what style Theodosius writ and it was an Ancient Custom for to give Notice to all the absent Patriarchs when any New one was elected and the Patriarch Elect even he of Rome was obliged to satisfie the rest by Letters that he held the Orthodox Faith Certain it is that Theodosius valued not Leo much because he confirmed the Condemnation of Flavionus though he knew that Pope and his Legates were of his side and it is plain by the best Historians that he died in this Opinion Nor can Baronius prove that Theodosius repented of that mistaken Judgment otherwise than by Nioephorus an Author of no credit when single or that he Obeyed the Pope before his death for this last he can cite no Author at all and it is not only a Conjecture of his own but a very false one For the last Letter that ever Theodosius writ to Valentinian not many Months before his death shews how little he esteemed Leo's Request for a new General Council and how close he stuck to Dioscorus Leo's Enemy and therefore he could not write after this to Leo as Head of the Church His Successor indeed Marcianus had some reason to Caress the Pope and therefore he writes more respectfully to him than other Emperors had used to do Yet even in that first Letter of his he must be very sagacious who can discorn what Baronius again supposes That Marcian turned his Eyes to the Chief visible Head of the Church resolving to do all things by his command or as he phrases it to be at his beck For even in this highest strain of Complement Marcian saith no more but that since Leo had a principal Bishoprick among the true Believers he desires him to pray for him that he might resolve to call a Council with Leo ' s consent to take away all Error and settle a general Peace Which implies the power of calling Councils was in the Emperor and the Popes part was only to consent as one of the Chief Bishops who was there to meet and consult And if Marcian had known or believed Leo to be the sole Supream Judge of all Controversies he would not have been at the trouble of Calling a General Council but referred all to him § 4. The rest of my Observations on Baronius shall be put in Order of Time for the better assistance of the Reader and not under those several Heads which doth too much separate and confound things When S. Hierom after three years labouring with Pope Anastasius had at last got him and the Roman Church to condemn Ruffinus he then at that time prudently appeals to the Roman Churches Faith for Trial Whether he or Ruffinus were the better Catholick But Baronius when he hath cited some words of S. Hierom against Ruffinus to this purpose grosly prevaricates when he infers You see it was an undoubted Maxim customary in the Mouths of all the Ancients and a necessary consequence That if one were said to follow the Roman Faith he must needs be a Catholick For if we hear one Father when he had the Pope on his side in a particular Controversie say this This is not all the Ancients And many of them describe themselves as being of the Faith of Athanasius Cyril Flavianus c. or holding the Faith of the Churches of Alexandria Antioch Constantinople c. to prove themselves Catholick and if S. Hierom did instance now in Rome the consequence depended on the Orthodoxness of the present Pope not on the Infallibility of his See And Pope Gelasius afterward confesseth That the Roman Church in this Point was guided intirely by S. Hierom She thought as he thought So that to make a General conclusion from such a special Case is very unreasonable and S. Hierom himself a little after is cited declaring the Consent of many Churches is of greater Authority than that of the Roman alone It had been well if their Roman Church had considered the peril of Idolatry when they went about to establish the use or Images as Baronius tells us Theodosius did when he made a Law to prohibit any Adoration to be given to his own Statues because such worship as exceeds the dignity of Human Nature is to be reserved to the Divine Majesty In the same place he relates how S. Chrysostom reproved the People for their folly at the dedication of the Empresses Statue because it is easie in those matters to run into the sin of Idolatry Which Observations of his own stand on Record in these Annals to condemn that Church which orders Veneration and all other expressions of Reverence to be made to all sorts of Images of the Saints Again he exposes his dear Church in observing That the Ancients preserved both the consecrated Elements of the Sacrament in the Church But no sooner had he condemned us for not following this ancient Usage but he mentions as great an Innovation in their own Church for he owns they have forbid the preserving any thing but the species of Bread Now I would ask Who differ most from Antiquity they who totally take away one part of the Sacrament from the People and keep only the Bread to be worshipped Or we who give both Bread and
and to differ with it a sure note of a Schismatick But S. Cyril's Reproving Atticus for restoring Chrysostom's Name into the Dyptics which was the known desire of Pope Innocent shews how little the rest of the Patriarchs valued the Judgment or the Authority of the Popes when they supposed them to be mistaken in the Case For none could or durst have so severely Censured the Opinion of a Person taken to be a Supream and Infallible Judge Again I wonder how Baronius could Record without some reflection S. Augustin's speaking of Orosius his Journey from Spain into Africa only out of Zeal to understand the Scriptures and his sending him to Palestine to S. Hierom on that Errand For according to the Cardinals Notion he should have been more zealous for Catholick Tradition than for Scripture and Rome was the only place both to learn that in perfection and by that to interpret the Scriptures unerringly and this was nearer to Spain than either Hippo or Bethlehem But while he owns that the Salvation of some after they had been purged by the Internal Fire was one of the Errors of Origen and counted an Error both by Orosius and Augustine it seems to look ill upon Purgatory which their modern Church hath made a Catholick Truth but the Primitive censured it as a false Doctrine The Reader also may note that when he is commending Theodosius for his Piery he magnifies him for fasting upon Wednesdays and Fridays the days now appointed for Abstinence by the Protestant Church of England So that a man may be a pious Catholick and not keep the Fasting-days appointed by the Roman Church viz. Fridays and Saturdays Moreover he contradicts himself when he saith According to the ancient usage of speaking by the Apostolical Seat is always to be understood the Roman Church Whereas he hath often owned the other Patriarchs Sees had the Title of Apostolical Thrones and Seats and a little after cites Sidonius calling Lupus Bishop of Troys a Bishop of Bishops who had sat a long time in an Apostolical Seat he cites Possidius in the Life of S. Augustine to prove the Pelagians were first condemned at Rome and then at Carthage But if the Reader consult that Author he will find that S. Augustine writ against them and that they went near to draw in first Innocent and then Zosimus to their party till the Councils of Holy African Bishops had with much labour persuaded first the one of these Popes and then the other that this was an abominable Heresie and contrary to the Catholick Faith All which the Cardinal leaves out and from half the story makes a false Marginal Note viz. That these Hereticks were first condemned at Rome and then at Carthage Which is every way false for if it be meant of Innocent's time it is certain that the African Councils under the Primate of Carthage yea that of Milevis had solemnly condemned Pelagianism before this Pope would openly condemn them he being under suspicion of favouring that Heresie to the last year of his Life and this Council of Carthage did condemn these Hereticks while Zosimus did defend them so that Africk not Rome first discovered and censured this Heresie He also falsly cites the Preface of S. Augustine's Books to Pope Boniface against the Pelagians telling us he affirms That the Pope being most eminent in the highest top of the Pastoral Watch-Tower did watch over all and from hence infers That though S. Augustine and others sometimes call the Pope Brother and Colleague yet still they own his supream Pastoral Power But all that S. Augustine there saith is this Communisque sit omnibus nobis qui fungimur Episcopatûs officio quamvis ipse in eo praeemineas celsiore fastigio specula pastoralis The Pastoral watching is common to all of us who are Bishops though you have the advantage of a higher station Which words only intimate the Dignity of the Roman See as to Order but plainly declare Bishops to have equal Obligations to guard the Church And whereas a little after from S. Augustine's modest Complement of sending these Books to Boniface to examine and correct he would infinuate something of Supremacy in Judging This is no more than the same Father used to do to all other Bishops to whom he dedicated his Books so he desires Claudius a private Bishop to read and judge of his Books against Julian dedicated to him This therefore ascribes no Infallibility to Rome and if S. Augustine himself had not judged better of Pelagianism than any Pope of these times it would not have been condemned there to this day After all these Instances of sincerity we cannot wonder that he falls upon the Reformed as Innovators for refusing to stand to a General Council and so worse than the Pelagians who desired one But this calumny will soon be dispelled if we call to mind the breach of Faith used to such as had trusted Rome in the Council of Constance the Tricks used by the Popes before the Council of Trent for many years together to avoid a General Council when the Reformed earnestly desired one and the great partiality of that packt Assembly at Trent who met not to examine or amend Abuses but to establish them and had resolved to condemn the Protestants before they heard them It is something odd that Baronius should quote Gelasius his Censure of the Legends and Acts of Martyrs That some of them were writ by Ideots and some by Hereticks wherefore the Roman Church then used not to read them in publick For this condemns him for filling so many Pages of his Annals with this Fabulous stuff and discovers an alteration in the Roman Church which of old was wiser and honester than to read those feigned Legends that in after Ages took up a great part of their publick Service We may further observe That Leporius an Arch-heretick recants in Africa and applies himself to the Gallican Bishops only without any notice taken of Rome or Pope Boniface which confutes what the Annalist often affirms That all great Hereticks were obliged to recant at Rome He publisheth a Rescript of Theodosius and bids us observe that it contains the principal Feasts received by the Christians Now these are Sundays Christmas and Epiphany Easter and Pentecost with the Memory of the Apostles Passions which is a Protestant Catalogue and there is not one Feast of our Blessed Lady Holy Cross Corpus Christi c. which are now so famous at Rome in all this number assigned by Theodosius which shews they are Innovations and the effects of modern Superstition He relates it as the Custom of S. Augustine and other Bishops as well as of Pope Celestine to salute Presbyters by the name of Sons and Bishops by the name of Brothers which looks not favourably on the Pope's Universal Superiority above all Bishops whatsoever When Pope Gregory grosly mistakes Sozomen's History for
Spain many of whose Cities they have betrayed to the French The Notes falsly cite the first Canon and so doth Baronius saying it orders That the Clergy shall not against their Bishops Sentence seek to secular Tribunals and pretending this was in opposition to an Edict of Valentinian published the year before which restrained the Bishops Jurisdiction to matters of Religion unless the parties chose them Now the true words of the Canon are The Clergy shall not appeal from the Bishops Sentence nor seek to Secular Tribunals without consulting the Bishop And Valentinian's Law was of no force in France nor probably had these Bishops ever heard there was such a Law so that it is not likely they ever thought of opposing it Finally We observe that Baronius without any Authority falsly affirms that this Council was sent to Rome only to insinuate that it was to be confirmed there Whereas till Fronto-Ducaeus found the Manuscript in France they at Rome seem to have known nothing of it The Council of Vannes placed by Binius here by Sirmondus Authority is removed to An. 465. in Labbè Nothing in it is remarkable but that the Assembly desires not the Pope but the absent Bishops of their own Province to confirm the Canons thereof The Council of 73 Bishops at Constantinople was called by and held under Gennadius Patriarch of that City and so is falsly titled under Leo whose Legates do not subscribe it and so probably were not present at it Baronius indeed saith they were but proves it only by conjecture because Leo in an Epistle speaks of his Legates being come back to Rome the year after But the wonder is how Baronius and Binius who confess all the Acts are lost except one Canon about Simony came to know that Eutyches was condemned and the Council of Chalcedon confirmed in this Council However if it was confirmed no doubt the Greek Bishops would confirm the Canons of it with the rest to which the Popes Legates could not consent But since we hear of no difference it is like these Legates were not present § 2. Pope Hilary who succeeded Leo might justly be suspected of Heresie because he confirms no more than three General Councils omitting that of Constantinople which condemned Macedonius But since there is no evidence of this Universal Epistle confirming the other three Councils but only the fabulous Pontifical we may acquit him and perhaps even in the very Pontifical this Council may have been erased after the controversie of the Primacy was started However this being owned all along by the Catholick Church for a General Council it can suffer nothing by the Popes not confirming it he alone would deserve censure for not subscribing to it The Spanish Bishops who write to this Pope by their Countries being wasted by Euaricus the Goth were destitute of Power and desire Hilary to declare the Canons in some particular Cases hoping the persons concerned who despised them in their low estate might have more respect for a great Patriarch So that it is very Sophistical in the Annalist and Binius to draw consequences from hence for the Popes being the Supream Judge and having power to dispense with all Canons The Pope himself in his Answer pretends no such thing He only declares the Canons but dispenses with none Yet if he had such a power doubtless he ought to have used it in Irenaeus his Case But the third Epistle of Hilary writ about the same affair seems to discover that all these Epistles which talk so big of the Popes Supremacy are counterfeit For the Forger weary of inventing new Phrases steals the beginning verbatim out of those Epistles that are falsly ascribed to Zepherine and Fabian and were not extant until long after Pope Hilary's death And Labbè's Marginal Note on Binius Annotations shews he smelt out the Cheat if he durst have spoken freely The Notes on the 4th Epistle own that the Popes may be cajoled by false Stories and deceived in Matter of Fact and this so far as to condemn holier Bishops than themselves as Leo and this Hilary did in the cases of Hilary of Arles and Mammertus of Vienne And it is not easie to understand how he who mistakes Matter of Fact can infallibly apply the Law to a Fact wherein he is mistaken The 5th Epistle was writ three year before those that precede it and the Humility of the Style makes me think it the only genuine Letter as yet set down of this Pope for he writes to the Bishop of Arles not as a Son but as a Brother and takes it well that he advised him to keep close to the Ancient Canons The 9th Epistle shews that Mammertus his Piety was no protection to him against the injuries of the Roman Court But Binius doth penance for this in his Notes on the 11th Epistle though all his devices will neither excuse his Popes Morals in persecuting so great a Saint nor vindicate his Judgment who was so grosly mistaken There is but one Roman Council under this Pope called as is pretended to confirm his false Judgment about the Spanish Bishops for they absolve the guilty Sylvanus and condemn Irenaeus who was innocent And though this Popes being commonly in the wrong makes it probable he might get such a Council together yet the very Acts smell strong of Forgery as well as the former Epistles in these cases For besides their Stile Maximus Bishop of Turin is mentioned not only as present at it but speaking in it who died as Gennadius a Writer of that Age and Country affirms in the Reign of Honorius and the younger Theodosius that is above 40 year before this Council So that Baronius is very bold out of a suspected Council to correct a Writer who lived so near this time against the Authority of divers printed Copies And Binius is more audacious to cover this with an evident falsification of Gennadius as if he said Maximus lived under those Emperors but continued Bishop till this time And now let Baronius boast of the Acclamations of this Synod common in other Councils as a singular honour done to Hilary for after all it is plain he liked not the Canons of it so well as to give them a place in his Annals which here he fills up with other manifest impertinencies § 3. The next Pope was Simplicius whose appointing Weekly Confessors at Rome is far from proving what the Notes infer that their Sacramental Confession was instituted by Christ Nor is it for the credit of this Pope that three parts of seven in Rome it self were Arrians in his time But the Pontifical gives the reason of it and expresly charges him with dissimulation Which seems a just censure for though the Arrians and Photinians sadly infested the Western Church And though the Princes of that time were generally heretical yet poor
to the Pontifical in this Popes History Baronius declares when he notes that Author is not to be trusted in his Report That Misenus and Vitalis were sent to Constantinople three years after this Synod at Rome And it seems neither Euphemius Bishop of Constantinople nor Pope Gelasius knew of this Roman Synod For when Euphemius asked In what Synod his Predecessor Acacius was condemned Gelasius mentions no Roman Synod but saith there was no need of any particular Council since he was condemned by the general Sentence of the Council of Chalcedon and upon that ground the Roman Church rejected Acacius his Communion There are in Labbè divers other Epistles ascribed to Foelix one to Zeno said to be writ some time after the death of Acacius wherein the Pope extols that Emperour for his care of Religion and the reverence of Divine Worship which shews that Foelix did not so stifly renounce Zeno's Communion nor damn his Edict for Union so severely as Binius pretends The rest of these Epistles I pass though most of them be suspicious § 6. The first Roman Council under Foelix may be true as far as concerns the Condemnation of Peter Mongus the Heretical Bishop of Alexandria though there is nothing to prove it but the two first suspected Epistles of Foelix However if there were such a Synod it shews how little regard was had to the Pope and his Council in those days since John whose side Rome took did never get admittance to the See of Alexandria and Peter Mongus kept that Chair for all the Popes Sentence And if the other Peter Cnapheus the Heretical Bishop of Antioch was condemned here it is certain he was condemned before by Acacius at Constantinople But that Evidence of Acacius his being Orthodox hath not discouraged the Parasites from forging a pretended Citation in the name of this Roman Synod to call Acacius to Rome there to answer the Matters charged against him But 't is so improbable Foelix should attempt this against one who thought himself his equal if not superior that now-a-days the Romanists allow not these Processes but count them spurious There is a second Roman Council placed in this year wherein Acacius and the two Peters of Alexandria and Antioch are all said to be condemned But let it be noted that whereas the 6th Epistle of Foelix saith he had deposed Acacius in a Synod in August 484 and at that time Baronius places his deposition Yet here we have a Synodical Letter condemning him over again dated above a year after viz. Octob. 485 which Date Baronius and Binius fraudulently leave out But Labbè sets it down in the Margen and so discovers the cheat Upon the whole matter this Condemnation of Acacius was done they know not when and 't is probable all these Letters and Synods were invented after the Controversie for precedence between Rome and Constantinople grew high meerly to put weight into the Roman Scale But one corruption of this suspicious Synodical Epistle I cannot pass being a passage evidently put in by a later Forger For whereas this Letter makes the Italian Bishops call the Pope their Prince and Head by way of limitation who ought to preside in the Synods of Italy And tell those to whom they writ that therefore they had by Tutus sent the Sentence underneath which pleased the Synod at St. Peters and which holy Foelix their Head Pope and Archbishop had decreed Some later Hand hath broken the Sense and absurdly thrust into the midst of this Sentence these incoherent words Who is the Head of all the Lord saying to St. Peter the Apostle Thou art Peter c. Math. xvi Which words the 318 Fathers at Nice following gave the Authority and Confirmation of matters to the holy Church of Rome both which even to our Age all Successions by the grace of Christ have kept and then comes in Therefore as we have said we have by Tutus sent c. 'T is plain they are forced to put in these words as we have said to tye these latter words to the former And whoever considers the incoherence the impertinence the sham story of the Fathers at Nice and the many Ages supposed from that Council of Nice to this time which was but barely 160 years will conclude this Passage is a Corruption upon a Corruption to support the Supremacy while such stuff passed for Authentick proof to an ignorant Age. The Third Roman Council under Foelix as we noted on his 7th Epistle lies under the same suspicion being dated with the Consuls of the year 488 yet is said to be read in Council the year before An. 487 and from an Epistle to one Neighbouring Country is now made a Letter to all Bishops § 7. Gelasius succeeded Foelix in the Roman See a man of more wit and learning than most of his Predecessors for which cause it is thought he was called Scholasticus before St. Gregory's time and that it was he that corrected and set out the Roman Offices The Pontifical relates that the Manichees being discovered at Rome in his time he made a Decree That those who would not receive the Sacrament in both kinds should receive it in neither and declares it to be a grand Sacriledge for any to divide the holy Mysteries Now these Hereticks refusing the Cup were to be discovered by the Priests taking care that all the People received the Cup as well as the Bread But this happens to condemn the modern use at Rome of denying the Cup to the People as a grand Sacriledge wherefore all Hands and Wits are at work to ward off this fatal Blow Binius in his Margen feigns That Gelasius ordered the Sacrament to be received in both kinds for a time But if it had not been the Custom at Rome to receive in both kinds before the Manichees had never been discovered It is very plain Gelasius confirms the old Custom and thinks it in all times a Sacriledge to receive but one half Wherefore Labbè hath left out this pitiful Note The Editors of Gratian cover this blot by Forging this false Title to the Decree The Priest ought not to receive the Body of Christ without the Blood But Gelasius speaks principally if not only of the People and this Sense supposes most of the Roman Clergy to be Manichean Hereticks Therefore Baronius rejects this Excuse as frivolous but takes as bad a method to salve up this business for he manifestly perverts the sense of the Decree pretending the Manichees superstition made it Sacriledge only in them to reject the Cup but it is none in the Catholick People not to receive it nor in the Church to forbid it But this is meer Shophistry for it was certainly the Custom even at Rome in Gelasius his time and many Ages after for all the Orthodox People to receive in both kinds and he calls it Sacriledge in any of the People who
did not receive the Cup as well as the Bread For he saith in general This dividing the Mystery can never happen without a grand Sacriledge Now it is certain that when either an Heretical or Catholick Man or Woman receives but in one kind it doth happen that the Mystery is divided and therefore in Pope Gelasius Opinion the present Church of Rome is guilty of a grand Sacriledge in taking the Cup from the People And it seems the Editors thought Baronius had not sufficiently satisfied this Objection and therefore they cunningly leave it out of this Popes Decrees in both Editions With like craft they omit the Tract of Gelasius against Eutyches and only give a touch at it in the Notes and there also care is taken out of Baronius if any shall elsewhere meet with this piece to keep them from discerning that Pope Gelasius condemns Transubstantiation and expresly saith That the substance of Bread and Wine remains after the Consecration The words they cannot deny but first Baronius and Binius argue it was not writ by this Pope but by Gelasius Cyzicenus an Author as Orthodox and more ancient than Pope Gelasius but their Arguments are not so cogent as to outweigh the proofs that this Pope writ the Tract Labbè in his Margen saith that many learned men think it his Gennadius Contemporary with the Roman Gelasius and the Pontifical say he writ a Tract against Eutyches Fulgentius cites it as this Gelasius his Work Pope John the Second also ascribes it to his Predecessor Yea the Bibliotheca Patrum allowed by the Expurgators put it out under Pope Gelasius his name And at last Baronius himself is not against supposing it was his But then Secondly He manifestly perverts the Sense of the words before-cited being after long shuffling forced to this absurdity that by the substance he means the accidents of Bread and Wine remain Which makes this learned Pope so ignorant as to mistake the first rudiments of Logick and might almost shew he was an Heretick if his Comparison in that sense be applied to the two Natures of Christ for illustrating of which he brings it in For thus it would follow that Gelasius held nothing but the accidents of Christs Body or Human Nature remained after the Hypostatical Union Doubtless Contarenus his Brother Cardinal was wiser and honester in making no reply at the Colloquy of Ratasbon 1541 to this clear Testimony And it is great weakness in Baronius to brag what wonders he hath done by heaping up a parcel of falshoods and impertinence Before we dismiss this let it be noted that the Annalist and Binius not only allow but dispute for 500 forged Tracts and Epistles which support modern Popery but they devise innumerable things to baffle and disgrace the most genuine Writings that condemn their Innovations Which is Baronius his meaning when he gives this reason of his large digression about this Tract because out of it the Innovators take their Weapons But they who reject the old Writings of their own Doctors do more justly deserve that Title As to this Popes extraction Volatteran and Panvinius say his Father Valerius was a Bishop Which is now left out of the Pontifical and not mentioned in Baronius or the Notes But the omission signifies little there being so many instances of married Bishops that had Children Yea of Popes that were Sons or Grand-Children of Bishops or former Popes As to the time of this Pope's ingress Baronius places it An. 492 and upon the credit of the dates of a few Papal Epistles which are always suspicious and often forged he rejects the Authority of Marcellinus who lived at this time and died An. 534 in whose Chronicle Gelasius is said to be made Pope An. 494 that is two year later than Baronius places it § 8. If Marcellinus be in the right we may justly doubt of those three Epistles the 1st 2d and 9th which Baronius cites as writ before the year 494 The 1st hath no date and though the time of writing it be made an Evidence against Marcellinus his Account yet he brings no proof it was writ An. 492 but this Nothing hinders us from allowing these things between Euphemius and Gelasius to be done this year I reply the Testimony of a good Author of that Age who affirms Gelasius was not Pope till two years after hinders us from believing it was writ then But I will not however condemn the Epistle which is modest enough calling Euphemius Bishop of Constantinople his Brother and Fellow advanced to a Precedence by the favour of Christ And when he was pressed to declare by what Council Acacius was condemned he cites no Roman Council nor pretended Sentence of his Predecessor Foelix But saith he was condemned by the Council of Chalcedon but this he doth not make out The Second Epistle also wants a date and is by guess placed in this year by Baronius with this false remark That the Popes by Custom used to prescribe a Form of Belief to all the Faithful Whereas the Letter it self declares the Custom was For every new Pope to declare his Faith to the Neighbouring Bishops that they might know he was Orthodox Now there is a vast difference between prescribing a Form of Belief to others and labouring to get from them a Testimony of our believing aright The 4th Epistles true Title is The Monitory of Gelasius But in Binius these words Of the most blessed Pope are added which Labbè rightly omits In the Monitory it self observe First That Gelasius denies his Predecessor or he had condemned the Emperor Anastasius Secondly He saith the Church hath no power to absolve any after their death Thirdly He claims no power to make any new Canons but only to execute the old Which other Bishops may do Fourthly He cannot prove Appeals to Rome by any Canons but those of Sardica which were rejected by many and slights the Canons of Chalcedon received every where but at Rome Fifthly He very falsly pretends Acacius was only the Executer of the Roman Churches Sentence by whose sole Authority some Eastern Bishops were condemned But we know Acacius had condemned them long before any Sentence was given at Rome and scorned to act under the Pope Sixthly Where Gelasius in his own Cause vainly brags That the Canons have given the Judgment over all to the Apostolical Seat Binius and Labbè mend it in their Marginal Note and say The Canons and Christ gave it this power neither of which is true In the 5th Epistle Gelasius owns a Private Bishop for his Brother and declares that he himself cannot alter the Canons The Margen again here saith The Canons cannot be altered they should have said no not by the Pope But here they say too little as before they said too much which puts me in mind of Juvenal's Note Quisquam hominum est quem tu contentum videris uno Flagitio
But the Reader must beware of all such Epistles being generally writ by later Parasites of Rome who would have it thought that all the Eminent Bishops in the World acted by a Power delegated from the Pope The Second and Fourth Epistles are this Popes excuse why he did not go but send his Legates to a Council in the East unto which the Emperor Anastasius had summoned him more majorum Which shews that as yet the Emperors had the power of calling Councils and sent their Precepts to the Pope himself The Fifth Epistle is also to excuse Hormisda's not going The Title of which is false viz. That it was a new thing for a Pope to be called to a Council by the Emperor For the Letter it self only saith there is no Example of a Pope going in person to a Council in Foreign Parts But as to the Summons that was no new thing for Pope Celestine was called to Ephesus by Theodosius and Leo to Chalcedon by the Emperor Marcian And in this Letter Hormisda highly commends Anastasius for Writing to him to be there in person and says God moved the Emperor to write this The Third Epistle is a reply to Dorotheus Bishop of Thessalonica who calls the Pope his Fellow Minister in the Inscription But Binius contrary both to Baronius and Labbè corrupts the Title and Text of the Epistle of Dorotheus reading Patri instead of Papae and twice in six lines putting venerando capiti nostro for vestro Now the true reading I have writ this to your venerable Head means no more but to your self Whereas the corruption tends to impose upon the Reader a false conceipt viz. That the Pope was the Father and Head of all Bishops The Sixth Epistle shews that Hormisda for two years after his advancement into the infallible Chair took Anastasius for an Orthodox Emperor But Baronius had exposed him as a known Heretick and Persecutor of the Orthodox many years before and Binius Notes charge him with the Eutychian Heresie at this very time Which shews Hormisda was very meanly qualified for an universal Judge in matters of Faith I add that in this Epistle the Pope declares He will throw himself down at the Emperors Feet for the Service of the Church But after-times have seen an Emperor falling down at the Popes Feet and kissing his Slipper The Title of the Epistle of John Bishop of Nicopolis calls the Pope if it be genuine Father of Fathers and Prince of all Bishops However it can only mean That the Pope was a chief Bishop because in the same Title he styles him his fellow Minister and in the Epistle saith his Predecessor Alciso was a Prince of Bishops who was only an Archbishop over a few Suffragans and there were but eight Bishops in this Synod of Epirus of whose complying with the Pope Baronius brags as if all the Eastern Church had submitted In the Eighth Epistle the Pope distinguishes the Apostolical that is the Roman from the general Catholick Church where he affirms that these Hereticks were Condemned both by the one and the other After the Ninth Epistle we have a Paper called a Form of Faith pretended to be sent with these Letters to be subscribed by these Bishops of Epirus but yet is dated the year after these Letters and hath other marks of Forgery the matter of it being not designed to secure the Articles of the Old Creeds but to enslave all Churches to believe implicitely as the Church of Rome did which is so grosly flattered in it that Hormisda might well blush at it and must take those who would subscribe it for his Vassals But doubtless this was devised after the Supremacy and Infallibility were got much higher And we may observe the Forger of it not only claps it in here but makes Justin the Emperor sign it and send it to Pope Boniface after that Emperor and Pope were both dead where Binius and Labbè condemn it for an Imposture And the deviser of it is so fond of it that he hath thrust it in most falsly and impertinently in four or five several places of the Councils After all the Noise of the Subjection of the Eastern Churches to the Roman all the Letters of this time mention no more than the Agreement and Concord of the Eastern and Western Churches So Avitus enquires if they were reconciled and a Concord was made Justin the Emperor saith he laboured pro Concordia c. And Hormisda himself speaks of it as an Union and a receiving the Bishop of Constantinople into an Unity of Communion Which shews the Eastern Church owed no subjection then to Rome The instructions to the Legates last cited are something suspicious and look like the Work of a later Hand But Binius is so taken with them that he Prints them again verbatini whereas Labbè omits them the second time The Seventeenth Epistle shews that this Pope under pretence of admitting inferior Bishops to his Communion broke in upon the Ancient Rights and Customs of Metropolitans freeing their Suffragans from the obedience they owed to their Superiors by the Canons And a little after because Dorotheus opposed this usurpation the Pope represents him as having forsaken Christ a piece of Cant that is common with every petty Sect in respect of all that are not of their party And indeed the Epistle of Anastasius which follows this 22d Epistle declares that Hormisda was a stubborn and unmerciful man and not only slighted the Emperor and injured him but pretended to command him which he saith He will not bear or as Baronius out of the Pontifical hath it he told the Pope He would Command and not be Commanded which was not spoken in fury but like a Prince and had all his Successors kept the Reins so stiff they had curbed all the Papal usurpations yea wholly prevented them The Relation of the Syrian Monks which we have here in Latin is corrupted in the Title and abused by a silly Translator The Title is with great swelling words directed to Hormisda but the Text speaks to a whole Synod of Bishops and says Rise ye up holy Fathers and The Flock cometh to you true Pastors and Doctors to whom the Salvation of all is committed yet the Title appropriates all to the Pope single where the Translator for Oecumenical Patriarch a name which is often given also to the Bishop of Constantinople ignorantly or by design hath universae orbis Terrae Patriarchae And he calls the Western Legate Angelum vestrum your Angel 'T is probable also some such Hand hath put in vos estis caput omnium Ye not the Pope alone are the Head of all where our Editors marginal Note is The Pope is the Head of all But the boldest Forgery of all is That Binius and Labbè make these Monks in the end of their Epistle accurse Acacius Bishop of Constantinople who
to me it seems more Ignominious that the Letter shews some of the late Candidates for the Papacy had sacrilegiously sold the holy Vessels to buy Voices These no doubt were like to make hopeful Heads of the Universal Church Baronius is angry at this Letter and Edict and I suppose places it falsly after the forged Epistle of Justinian had aggrandized this Pope but do what he can the Kings reckoning him among other Patriarchs and making Laws for Papal Elections and his giving him no huffing Titles do clearly demonstrate that Popes then were not so great as our Annalist would make them seem and I wonder with what face he can say This Law was not against the Clergy but the Lay-men When the Law it self and the occasion of it confutes him The Third Epistle may be genuine wherein he doth well to say that according to the Decrees of his Predecessors the Roman Church ever kept and followed the Doctrin of St. Augustin and if they had never followed any other Guide there would not have been so many false Doctrins brought in to that Church However the great impertinence of divers Scriptures here cited shews this Pope to be no great Divine and one of his proofs I doubt is forged for I cannot in Exod. xxiv or any other place find these words You shall see your life hanging on a Tree Now to feign such a Prophesie must be a horrid Sin being literally adding to Gods word to which a grievous Curse is due The Epistle from Reparatus and his African Council to this Pope is more likely to be true because there is nothing of his Universal Supremacy in it They call him Holy Brother and Fellow-Priest nor do they expect Laws but desire advice from him Yea they require him to exclude from his Communion such of the African Clergy as came from them to Rome without leave which shews the African Church still opposed Appeals to the Pope The First Council under this Pope was called at Rome wherein He decreed according to Justinian's desire That it might Orthodoxly be said One of the Trinity was crucified for us in the Flesh Now this Decree puts Baronius and Binius to stretch their Wits to save the Infallibility For Pope Hormisda had before judicially determined the quite contrary in a cause of Faith viz. That it could not be Orthodoxly said so So that these Parasites are to prove both parts of a contradiction true and that two Popes who defined directly contrary to one another were both in the right Now here they shufflle and palliate this matter calling Pope John's disannulling Hormisda's Decree to be only a declaring his Opinion how far this Sentence may and how far it may not be held But before Baronius compares this Sentence with the Heretical Addition to the Trisagion and tells us the Popes Legates in Hormisda ' s time thought it was utterly to be rejected And that the Eutychians were the Authors of it yea he magnifies Hormisda for condemning it Yet Pope John says it is an Orthodox Sentence though still divers Monks at Rome did not believe him nor receive it But took Hormisda to have been in the right and so far questioned John's Infallibility that as Liberatus notos They forsook his Communion and for my part I cannot see but one of these Popes must necessarily be an Heretick In this year they place a genuine Record of a conscience at Constantinople between the Catholick and Severian Hereticks o But Binius Notes own this Conference was held before Justinian writ to Pope John for his Opinion and therefore it should have been placed before that Popes Roman Council and is fraudulently set after to make it seem as if the East had followed Rome in this Decision To this Conference the Eastern Bishops were summoned by the Emperor and their own chief Patriarch And we may here observe First That Hypatius Bishop of Ephesus was Prolocutor and is compared to St. Peter the Apostle Secondly When they speak of the Opinions of the Fathers cited by Cyril in the Council at Ephesus against Nesterius they reckon two Popes Foelix and Julius promiscuously with the rest giving them no precedence no mark of special priviledge Thirdly They reject divers Epistles that bore the names of Orthodox Fathers pretended to be kept among the Records at Alexandria as forged and corrupted by their Heretical Bishops and say they must be excused from receiving their Enemies for Evidence Which just Rule if the Romanists allow us in our Disputes with them the Controversie would soon be ended Fourthly Hypatius truly affirms that the Eastern and Western Churches were long time divided about the manner of expressing themselves as to the Trinity the Orientals suspecting the Occidentals to be Sabellians and these imagining those of the East were Arrians till Athanasius at last reconciled them by understanding of both Tongues which shews that neither side pretended to Infallibility And that Learning is the fittest qualification for a Judge of Controversies Lastly They say their Holy Mother the Catholick and Apostolick Church of God held it was Orthodox to say that one of the Trinity did suffer for us in the Flesh Now this could not be meant of the Roman Church where Hormisda's contrary Definition was still in force nor do they name the Pope in all their Conference So that Binius is mistaken in his Notion that Justinian contrived this Conference to unite the Bishops of the East with Rome for he took no notice of the late Popes Sentence but designed this Conference to settle the Truth and for all the pretence of Union and Subjection in Hormisda's time the Churches of the East and West were not united till after this when Pope John consented to their Desinition and owned that not his Predecessor but they were in the right § 10. The time of Pope Agapetus entrance and death is not certainly known Anastasius and from him Du Pin allow him not one whole year Baronius and Binius would have him sit longer but can only prove it by the dates of some Epistles which are not genuine 'T is certain he was dead before May 536. when Mennas Council at Constantinople met wherefore he must enter in the year 535. The truest account of him is to be had in Liberatus a Writer that knew him Who saith He was well skilled in the Canons and being sent by the Gothick King Theodatus on an Embassy to Justinian to divert his Army from Italy he arrived at Constantinople where he honourably received the Emperors Messenger but would not admit Anthimius to his Presence After this he saw the Emperor delivered his Embassy which was rejected However as Christs Embassador neither the Princes nor the Empress could prevail with him to communicate with the lately ordained Bishop of Constantinople Anthimius unless he would prove himself Orthodox and return to the Church which he had deserted Upon
having any Legantine power from Agapetus and I shall shew presently that before this Council rose there was a new Pope chosen who should have renewed their Commission to make it valid but did not So that they must suppose the dead and the living Pope to have supream Authority both at once Who can swallow these gross Fictions Again Mennas and the Council declare That Pope followed the Canons in allowing Anthimius time to come in and Repent and therefore they followed him but Binius Notes turn this and say That Agapetus commanded the Synod to use this mercy But it is very pleasant to hear Clodius accuse and Binius complain of the Modern Greeks for forging the Title of Oecumenical Patriarch applied to John in his own Council of Constantinople But the Latins are even with them and far out-do them if it were so for they as we have seen have put in that Title for Agapetus into the Latin when it was not in the Greek and have left it out before Menuas name though in the Code it be given him So that they cannot fairly complain Yet after all I can prove by authentic Records of this Age That this Title of Oecumenical Patriarch was given to the Patriarch of both old and new Rome nor is this Council of John corrupted by the modern Greeks and Gregory is certainly mistaken in saying it was not used before his time But the weakest complaint of Forgery and the worst proof of it imaginable is that of Baronius and Binius who pretend the Greeks have fraudulently put the names of Euphemius and Macedonius Bishops of Constantinople before Pope Leo's and the Annalist and Annotator shew shameful ignorance in thinking to prove by the Liturgy of St. Mark that the Pope of Rome was prayed for first in all Churches For though in that Office God is desired to preserve Their most Holy and most Blessed Pope whom he did fore-ordain that his Holy Catholick and Apostolick Church should choose by their common Suffrages and also for their most holy Bishop Yet this being the Office used in the whole Alexandrian Patriarchate must be meant of the Alexandrian Patriarch who was called Pope ever since Athanasius his time and was the Bishop of that Church where these Prayers were made To prove which and shame this illiterate Exposition I shall produce Jac. Goar a rigid Papist the Editor of the Greek Euchologion who thus speaks The Greeks never name the supream Bishop of all he means him of Rome in publick wherefore Urban the Fourth desired of the Emperor Mich. Palaeologus An. Dom. 1263. that is 700 year after this that in their sacred Offices the Popes name should be recited out of the Dypticks with the other four Patriarchs as the first and chiefest sign of their union with Rome For which he Cites Nicetas lib. 5. Here therefore is a proof which proves only the mistake of them that produce it And for the Objection it is a known Custom for all Churches to name their own Patriarchs before those of other Churches so that it is no wonder that at Constantinople Euphemius's name should be placed before Leo's As soon as the Council under Mennas was ended the Decrees were sent to Peter Patriarch of Jerusalem who by the Command of the Emperor called a Council there to confirm them In this year Labbè places the Synod of Auvergne which met as the Preface owns by the precept of King Theodebert there is no Pope mentioned in it Binius places it in the year 541. under Vigilius but Sirmondus proves he was mistaken § 12. As soon as the news of Agapetus his death came to Rome Liberatus saith Sylverius was made Pope by Theodatus the Gothick King Anastasius saith it was after one Month and 28 days vacancy Which is very probable being a sufficient time for the intelligence to come from Constantinople and if we allow that Agapetus died about a Month before Mennas Council this entrance of Sylverius will prove to be while that Council sat Baronius saw this and fearing it would ruin his invention of the Western Bishops there being Agapetus his Legates he blunders the time of Sylverius's Election and though he reject Anastasius account on whom in many less probable Reports he often relies Yet he will not fix any other time and so leaves it uncertain only in general he and Binius say he was elected in the end of this year which cannot be because Agapetus certainly died in the Spring and it required no long time for the News to come from Constantinople As to this Sylverius it is certain from Liberatus he was the Son of Pope Hormisda and Baronius with Binius only conjecture that he was lawfully begotten they would prove it indeed by this Argument That otherwise he would have been irregular and the Roman Clergy would not have chosen him But they forget that his Election was not regular For Theodatus was in haste and would not stay for that but forced the Roman Clergy to subscribe having got money of Sylverius as their own Pontifical relates Baronius calls this fear and vile submission of the Roman Clergy their Clemency and a worthy Example yet confesses this Pope deserved to be kept out However being got into the sanctifying Chair he magnifies him but very unjustly for Procopius a creditable Author who was soon after at Rome with Bellisarius tells us Sylverius first swore to keep the City of Rome for Vitiges the Gothick King And so soon as Bellisarius came before it he was the principal instrument to persuade the Romans who had sworn with him to deliver up that City Baronius would conceal this Perjury and therefore though he cite Procopius here yet he saith no more than that Vitiges admonished the Pope and Senate to keep faithful to the Goths who indeed had been extreamly civil to the Roman Church and though they were Arrians yet as their Enemy Procopius tells us they had such a reverence for the holy places that they did not hurt the Churches of St. Peter or St. Paul yea they gave liberty to the Catholick Priests to serve God in their own way Which confutes the false Reports of their Cruelty in destroying the Churches and Bodies of the Martyrs at Rome mentioned in the Pontifical and in Paulus Diaconus However Sylverius turned once more as Procopius saith and was suspected by Bellisarius to have designed to betray the City of Rome once more to the Goths for which he deposed and banished him and Marcellinus an Author of great credit and of that time saith Sylverius favoured Vitiges and for that cause Bellisarius deposed him from his Bishoprick I know Liberatus a mortal Enemy to Vigilius would have this to be a Calumny invented by Theodora and carried on by Vigilius the succeeding Pope who had promised Bellisarius two Hundred Crowns to get Sylverius ejected and himself admitted and Anastasius
with Paulus Diaconus follow his Account But the two former Authors are in this case more worthy of Credit however this is certain Bellisarius did depose and banish Sylverius and got Vigilius Elected who fearing his Rival should be restored got him at last into his Hands and barbarously caused him to be starved to death This is a sad Story of two Popes Sylverius uncanonically elected a Simoniack and a perjured Person and Vigilius a favourer of Hereticks one that is said to have hired false Witness and to have given Mony to make the See void and at last a Murtherer Which shews how little reason there is for Baronius and the Notes to make such a stir which was the true Pope of these two They will have Sylverius to remain the rightful Pope while he lived and so Rail freely at Vigilius as an Heretick and Bloody Usurper But they cannot prove this by any Evidence but only by a manifestly forged Epistle of Sylverius And the contrary is very certain because the Emperor the Gallican Churches and all did own Vigilius for the true Pope long before Sylverius his death and he openly acted as such all that time Wherefore we must reject that Dream of Baronius who saith without any ground that Vigilius did Abdicate the Papacy for six days upon the death of his Competitor and got himself new chosen and this purged him of all Crimes and in a moment made him a Saint and a rare Pope He would force this Fiction out of Anastasius who in like Cases he generally despises who only saith the See was void six days but plainly means after Sylverius was deposed for he reckons Vigilius his time from thence allotting him above 17 years and 6 Months that is near two years more than Baronius allows There are but two Epistles ascribed to Sylverius and they are the only Evidence to prove him the true Pope after he was Deposed yet it is certain both are Forged The first charges Vigilius with Simony yea excommunicates and deprives him for usurping the Papacy it is dated with the name of Basilius whereas Baronius and the Annotator say there was no such Consul in his time And Labbè saith it is to be rejected for the Barbarity of the Style and other reasons and concludes the mistake of the Consul shews the bold ignorance of Mercator the Author of this Imposture Now observe for the ingenuity and credit of Baronius that this Epistle not only serves him to clear Sylverius from Simony and to prove him the true Pope but he calls this odious Forgery The Sword of the Spirit the Word of God and the Exercise of that Power which he had to Absolve or Damn Eternally all People which is no less than Blasphemy The Second Epistle to Amator is so gross a Fiction that both Baronius and Binius reject it being contrary to the true History delivered by Liberatus whom the Notes call the most faithful Writer of this time Labbè agrees with them that it is spurious and shews that Mercator stole it out of Gregory's Epistles wishing that the like censure which is passed on this were passed upon many more of these Writings But the Letter of Amator to Sylverius which Labbè saith Learned men suspect to be as false as the Popes answer to it Baronius will have to be genuine and from this slight Forgery alone he proves That all the Catholick World groaned together at the ignominies put upon the Bishop of the Universal Church A rare Historian Whose Assertions and his Evidence are both false Binius places the Second Council of Orleance in this year but Labbe from Sirmondus puts it three years sooner An. 533. in the time of Pope John the Second it was called as the Preface saith by the Command of the King of France and made very good Canons without Papal Advice or Authority Binius his Notes here blunder this and the following Council and will keep King Clovis alive three year longer than Nature allowed him to support a Fable of this Kings giving the Pope a Golden Crown An. 514. whereas he died An. 511. The Third Council of Orleans Binius sets An. 540. But Labbè more truly places it here However it takes no notice of any Pope though Vigilius about this time is pretended to have writ to Caesarius Bishop of Arles This Synod made divers Canons for Discipline and by the second Canon it appears they were zealous for the Celibate of the Clergy But the fourth shews that hitherto the Canons in this case had not been obeyed and the ninth Canon Decrees That if any Clerks having Wives or Concubines were ignorantly ordained they should not be removed § 13. Vigilius was made Pope immediately after Sylverius was deposed and while the Goths belieged Bellisarius in Rome which was in this year But the Editors from Baronius write An. 540. upon this entrance to cover the Fable of his new Election after the death of Sylverius But he must come in in the year 537 For Marcellinus places Vigilius his death An. 554. which makes up the 17 years and odd time that Anastasius truly allots Vigilius whose Successor Pelagius entred as Baronius and the Editors own An. 555 which is but 15 whole year from that year 540 in which they say he entred and from which they falsly compute his time who writ Letters dated An. 538 and acted in all things as the sole true Pope from the time Sylverius was deposed which was according to Anastasius after he had sat one year and five Months and he followed Writers of undoubted credit that is Marcellinus who places his deposition and Vigilius his entrance An. 537 so doth Genebrard who with Platina allow Sylverius only some odd time above one year in which all Writers before Baronius agree His invention therefore it was to ascribe above 4 years to Sylverius that this false Chronology might cover his devisable of a new Election of Vigilius An. 540. which we justly reject as an idle Fable invented to save the Honour of the Roman Chair Yet it is well Baronius did not think Vigilius the true Pope all this time for by that means we have his true Character who he saith was driven on with the Whirlwind of Ambition and like Lucifer fell from Heaven that his Sacriledge cried out on every side he calls him a Schismatick a Simoniack an Usurper a wretched Man an Heretick a Wolf a Thief a false Bishop and an Antichrist aggravating his Crimes with all his Rhetorick wherein he rather exceeds the Bounds of Modesty than of Truth for he really was extreamly wicked and beyond the power of the sanctifying Chair it self to make him Holy We have so fully described the Acts of this Pope and all the false Stories about him in the following History of the Fifth General Council that we may here pass him by with a few brief Remarks First Liberatus assures us
Vigilius did make good his promise to Theodora the Empress and communicated with Hereticks Anastasius a later Author of no credit denies this and Binius is so fond of this Popeexcusing Fiction that he puts into the Text these words See how Vigilius though he came by evil means into the Papacy as soon as he got into that holy Chair established by Gods Promise was changed into another Man condemning the Heresie he had promised to approve Which false and foolish Parenthesis Labbè was ashamed of and leaves it out Secondly There are very many idle Stories in Anastasius his life of this Pope some of which I will briefly recite the bare relation of them being enough to disprove them viz. That when the People of Rome had accused Vigilius for a Murderer and got the Empress to send for him Prisoner to Constantinople the Romans as he was going off first desired his Prayers and then threw Stones at him That though he was brought Prisoner to Justinian yet the Emperor met and kissed him and the People sang that Hymn Behold the Lord the King cometh c. Which being applied to the Pope is Blasphemy and so the Editors and Baronius counted it as did also Pope Simplicius when the Heretical Bishop of Alexandria entring into Constantinople permitted his Party to sing the words of an Hymn only due to Christ The rest shall be observed in the History of the 5th Council where we may find also the Blunders Fictions and Contradictions of the Notes exposed and so will mention but few of them here viz. That Vigilius cunningly Abdicated the Papacy after the death of Sylverius and got himself new-elected by the Roman Clergy who were divinely inspired in that act That Vigilius was a Catholick and only polluted by communicating with Hereticks which was a horrid Crime formerly in Acacius That Bellisarius was denied a Triumph at Constantinople for his ill usage of the Pope That Vigilius Anathematized the Empress Theodora and that God thereupon destroyed her That the Roman Church is so secured by Providence that it is no blot to it if we can prove this Pope Simoniacal and Heretical I ask by the way why then do they tell so many Lies to cover this That the Eastern Bishops depended upon Vigilius his Judgment and stayed till he came to Constantinople before they would subscribe the Edict against the three Chatpers That Justinian after his coming revoked this Edict That the Pope finally confirmed the 5th Council And lastly That it was Sacriledge in the Emperour to presume to depose or confirm a Pope All which we shall shew to be notorius Falshoods The first Epistle of Vigilius is writ to three notorious Hereticks wherein he assures them he holds the same Faith with them and is so heretical that the Editors are ashamed of it and print only the beginning of it pretending from Baronius that some Eutychian writ it in his name But the Reader will remember that the Annalist always condemns genuine Writings if they reflect on the Pope and justifies Forgeries if they magnifie him of which this is another clear instance for Liberatus who was a little before called the most faithful Writer of his time hath this Epistle at large and affirms Vigilius writ it Yea Victor Tuennensis hath recorded it as this Popes almost in the same syllables in his Chronicle who is another Credible Writer of that Age. And both these Africans did ever after look on Vigilius as an Heretick for this and so he was but secretly for fear of Justinian To whom about this time Vigilius openly writ an Orthodox Letter though Baronius and the Editors place it Anno 540. and call it his 4th Epistle pretending it was writ after Baronius his invented new election and when the Holy Chair had set him right in Faith But my reason why I judge it writ Anno 538 soon after his entrance is because it was customary for a new Pope to write to the Emperor and give an Account of his Faith and since Vigilius had been advanced by Justinian it is not at all likely he should stay almost three years before he sent an Embassy to enquire if he were Orthodox and this Epistle having no Date they have clapt to it another to Mennas with a Date that smells of Forgery because the Emperors Embassador is made to subscribe to the Popes Letter Anno 540 which is a thing so unusual that either Justinian highly suspected Vigilius or this Postscript is added by Mercator However it being certain that Vigilius had writ privately to Anthimius Severus and Theodosius that he was of the same Faith with them and it being also probable that he writ these open Letters to Justinian and Mennas at the same time wherein he anathematizes those three Hereticks by name and professes himself Orthodox this proves him a most egregious Hypocrite and Dissembler in points of Faith I shall only briefly note on this fourth Epistle that Vigilius reckning up the names of his immediate Predecessors names not Sylverius among them which seems to intimate he was then alive And Secondly if Mercator did not thrust in that Sentence That to disturb or diminish the Priviledges of the Apostolical Seat appeared as bad as violating the Faith If this say be not a latter Addition we may infer That Vigilius was more concerned for the power of his See than for the Faith That which the Editors call the Second Epistle was writ to one Eutherius Anno 538 And though they and Baronius say he was then no true Pope yet the Collectors of the Decretal Epistles did not think so for they have put this among the Decretals of true Popes Du Pin hath well observed that the latter part of this Epistle is forged by Mercator where Vigilius is supposed so ignorant of Greek after he had lived long in Greece as to derive Cephas the name of St. Peter from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an Head And in this corrupt part is that absurd Sentence That no true Believer was ignorant that all Churches had their beginning from Rome Which though a Forgery serves the Editors to note upon in the Margen The Church of Rome is the Mother and Mistress of all Churches Of which they have no better evidence than such Trash and so must be content with such as they have The Third Epistle to Caesarius Bishop of Arles was writ in the same year and proves that Vigilius was taken for the true Pope as well by this eminent Father as by Eutherius Anno 538. The Sixth Seventh and Eighth Epistles are writ to Auxanius Successor to Caesarius and shew Vigilius was then so much at the Emperors devotion that he durst not grant a Pall to a French Bishop without the leave of Justinian and when he had above a year after got this leave he tells Auxanius he was obliged to pray for the Emperor and the Empress who had given their
consent Now if Theodora were so great a Friend to Hereticks as Baronius pretends 't is plain Vigilius then was a Favourite of hers which makes him still suspected to be inclined to Heresie But there is one mistake in this Epistle viz. That his Predecessor had granted a Pall to Caesarius which De Marca saith is false and affirms this Auxainus to have been the first Legate the Pope made in France A hopeful High-Priest to begin that Usurpation upon Metropolitans In this year was that Edict put out which condemned the three Chapters and here the Editors call it The Edict of the most pious Emperor Justinian containing a Confession of Faith and a Confutation of the Heresies that are contrary to the Catholick Church of God But for fear Vigilius and his Party might appear Heretical for opposing this Orthodox Edict the Editors will not print it here but thrust it on some hundred Pages further And put in here their false Comment before the Text hoping by the sham Stories in these Notes to take off the Readers aversation to this Heretical Pope But since all the Errors of these Notes are confuted at large in the History of the Fifth Council I will only name a few of them now viz. That Pelagius the Popes Secretary always opposed this Edict is false for he afterwards subscribed it He saith Vigilius Pontianus whose Letter is here printed and Facundus who writ against this Edict were Orthodox But the Fifth Council condemns all for Hereticks who wrote for the three Chapters ' here censured and none but Heretical Writers could take upon them to confute an Orthodox Confession of Faith The Decree of Vigilius for silence with his prudence and courage are all Fictions as shall be shewn in due place Vigilius had now been near three years at Constantinople and carried fair with Justinian so that doubtless he had signed his Edict which condemned the persons of Theodorus Theodoret and Ibas and their Heretical Writings yet here is an Epistle of his to a Scythian Bishop citing his Constitution which defends these three Chapters and wishes the persons of Theodorus c. might not be condemned as some favourers of Heresie desired Yet in the same Epistle he saith he had Suspended his two Deacons for defending the three Chapters and would shortly Excommunicate them Now what the Notes on this Epistle say That both the Opposers and Defenders of the three Chapters hated Vigilius is no wonder for he was false to all Parties and such trimming Sycophants who strive to please all get the favour of no body The Fifteenth Epistle to the Universal Church Baronius and the Editors do not censure but it is a meer Forgery being falsly dated as they own in the 26 of Justinian 552 they alter it to 551. Binius found but part of it in Baronius so prints no more But Labbé adds a great deal more not saying where he had it As to the matter of it the Story of this Popes sufferings at Constantinople is false and improbable not attested by any credible Writer of that time And whereas he saith he had Excommunicated and Deposed Theodorus Bishop of Caesarea and Suspended Mennas Patriarch of Constantinople that must be false because the Popes Legates in the sixth General Council affirm that Mennas died the 21st year of Justinian four year before the Date of this Letter An. 547 Wherefore this Epistle and the Instrument of Condemnation against Theodorus and Mennas are Forgeries And it is very unjust for Baronius and the Annotator on the credit of such stuff so rudely to rail at Justinian as if he were the vilest Heretick and greatest Monster upon Earth There are many other things in these Notes deserving censure viz. The affirming that Theodorus of Caesaria deposed Zoilus of Alexandria and put in Apollinaris whereas Liberatus expresly saith the Emperor did this The Stories of Justiman's revoking his Edict and of Theodorus and Mennas humble submission delivered in writing to Vigilius and of his absolving them are equally false and most improbable so that scarce any thing here can be trusted Were this Epistle genuine I would have observed that Pope Vigilius here saith he knew Justinian's Hand-writing And that utterly confutes Baronius and Suidas who say he was altogether illiterate I would also note That the Pope here affirms An. 551. he had been seven year out of his Country attending for the Peace of the Church Now if this be true he must leave Rome An. 544 that is three years before Baronius his Account and this will also prove some of his Epistles to Auxanius counterfeit being dated from Rome after that time But after all I reckon this false account of the Pope's Journey to be a sign that this Epistle is a Forgery only those who count it genuine ought to solve these difficulties There is nothing more in our Editors vere remarkable but only some few French Councils called by their own Kings and the Canons in them made by their own Bishops without any notice of Papal Authority and so without any Corruptions Wherefore we pass them and go on to the Fifth General Council where Vigilius will be brought on the Stage again An Epitome of Dr. Crakenthorp's Treatise of the Fifth General Council at Constantinople Anno 553. Chap. i. THE occasion of this Council was the Trio Capitulu or three Chapters about the Writings of Theodorus of Mopsvestia Theodoret against Cyril and the Epistle of Ibas to Maris which the Nestorians pretended was all approved by the Council of Chalcedon whereupon some doubted of the Authority of that Holy Council and the several Sects called from their having no one Head Acephali rejected it So that to appease this dangerous Schism Justinian set forth an Orthodox Edict to condemn those Writings And that not satisfying all Parties he assembled this Fifth General Council Chap. ii Pope Vigilius was then at Constantinople and often desired by the Bishops and commanded by the Emperor to be present Baronius falsly saith they had no regard to him yet he afterwards owns twenty Metropolitans and three Patriarchs invited him to come and offered him the Presidency urging him with a Promise under his Hand to to be there Vigilius first pretended to be Sick so they adjourned the first Session on his saying he would satisfie them next day Then he alledged there were but few Western Bishops but they shewed there were more with him at that time than had been in all the four former Great Councils He pretended also he would offer his Sense to the Emperor alone but the Emperor required him to do it to the Council So that the true reason why he would not be there was his Affection to the Nestorians and the three Chapters Chap. iii. Upon this the Council resolves to proceed without him which Cusanus saith ought to be done for the safety of
the Church when the Pope is resolved not to come and herein they follow the Example of the Council of Chalcedon who proceeded without the Popes Legates when they would not stay and join with them Wherefore in the third Collation this 5th Council declared the true Faith and in the 4th and 5th examine the Cause of Theodorus and Theodoret On the fifth day saith Baronius Pope Vigilius sent his Constitution to the Council being made by the advice of 16 Bishops and 3 Deacons and designed to oblige the whole Church the Western agreeing with him in it and delivered by Apostolical Authority Wherein he confirms the three Chapters declaring 1st That Theodorus of Mopsvestia cannot be condemned after his death 2ly That Theodoret's name should not be taxed 3ly That Ibas Epistle to Maris was Catholick and both he and that Epistle received by the Council of Chalcedon as Catholick and Orthodox But Binius cuts off the five last Columns which are added by Baronius and Labbè and which shew how fully Vigilius confirmed all the three Chapters Chap. iv In the 6th Collation the Council having received this Constitution do notwithstanding go on to examine Ibas Epistle And wonder any dare presume to say it was received by the Council of Chalcedon Which Baronius owns was levelled at Vigilius though out of respect he be not named And after a strict Examination They pronounce that the approvers of this Epistle are Followers of Theodorus and Nestorius the Hereticks They shew the Council at Chalcedon owns God was made Man which this Epistle calls Apollinarism That Council confesses Mary to be the Mother of God the Epistle denies it They commend the Council of Ephesus and Cyril's twelve Chapters condemning Nestorius Ibas condemns the Council of Ephesus defends Nestorius and calls Cyril an Heretick and his 12 Chapters impious They stuck to Cyril's Faith and the Nicene Creed he condemns Cyril's Faith and commends Theodorus his Creed They held two Natures but one Person in Christ He is for two Persons also Whereupon this 5th Council Decree the whole Epistle to be Heretical and Anathematize all as Hereticks who receive it And for this reason Binius leaves out of his Edition the most of that part of Vigilius's Constitution which concerns Ibas his Epistle And Baronius who puts it in with the Nestorians would excuse it by saying the latter part of this Epistle is Orthodox But the Council condemns the whole Epistle and all that say any part of it is right and all that write for it or defend it So that Pope Vigilius Baronius Bellarmine and all the Writers for this Heretical Epistle were and are accursed by the Sentence of this General Council And if as Baronius pretends the Popes Legates at Chalcedon say that Ibas appeared a Catholick by this Epistle the 5th Council shews the Fathers at Chalcedon condemned it not heeding what two or three said Baronius urges as the Nestorians did that Eunomius said at Chalcedon the latter end of Ibas Epistle was Orthodox but the 5th Council saith this is a Calumny and cite the very words of Eunomius out of the Council at Chalcedon which import that Ibas was innocent after he had agreed with Cyril and renounced his Epistle which he had done in the Acts before Photius and Eustathius The 7th Collation of this 5th Council was only repeating and approving former Acts In the 8th Collation Baronius owns this Council condemned the three Chapters contrary to Vigilius Decree and Anathematize all that did defend them that is Vigilius whom Baronius often commends as a defender of them Yea they declare them Hereticks by the Doctrin of the Scriptures and holy Fathers and of the four former Councils All which therefore Vigilius contradicted in his Constitution And whatever Baronius first says to disparage this Council it was ratified by the 6th Council by the seventh or second Nicene Council Act. 6. yea and as Baronius confesseth by all succeeding General Councils by the Popes Pelagius Gregory the Great Agatho Leo the second and by all succeeding Popes who were sworn to observe all the General Councils and this among others To which we may add the Councils of Basil and Constance and all the Catholick Church till Leo the 10th's Lateran Council An. 1516 which contrary to the Catholick Faith decreed no Council could condemn a Pope Wherefore we may conclude Vigilius was a condemned Heretick Chap. v. Now let us examine Baronius his shifts and those Binius learns from him First they pretend this was not a point of Faith but concerned only persons Which is most false For the Emperor Justinian calls it a matter of Faith so doth the 5th Council it self declare Yea Vigilius in his Constitution calls the condemning these three Chapters Erring from the Faith and Facundus the Apologist for them saith the opposing them was rooting out the Catholick and Apostolick Faith On the other side Pope Pelagius saith they are contrary to the Faith and to receive them is to overthrow the Faith of Ephesus which Epistle Gregory the Great confirms Bellarmine saith that is de fide which a Council defines to be so and calls the opposers of it Hereticks and accurseth them And Baronius calls the Emperors Edict for the three Chapters Sanctio de fide Catholica and Fidei decretum So that it must be a matter of Faith And Gregory the Great was mistaken if he meant that this 5th Council handled no matters of Faith but treated of Persons For the contrary is manifest But indeed Gregory means they altered no point of Faith established at Chalcedon as some in his time fancied only condemning the persons there examined but still it was by shewing they held notorious Heresies Chap. vi But to consider the three Chapters severally The first was about Theodorus of Mopsvestia who as Vigilius saith should not be condemned after he was dead citing Leo and Gelasius for it as having decreed it for a point of Faith But on the other side St. Austin declares if Caecilian were guilty of the Crimes objected 100 years after his death he would Anathematize him Pelagius urges and approves of this Doctrin of St. Austin and saith Leo agreed with him The same is proved in the 5th Council to have been the Opinion of St. Cyril of the African Council c. Thus also Domnus was condemned at Chalcedon after his death and many of the old Hereticks Honorius was condemned by name sixty years after his death Yea Baronius who urges this in excuse of Vigilius in one place in another declares that it is a mistake and that the Church of Rome doth condemn Men after their death So as he is forced to commend and condemn the same Fact and to excuse this reason of Vigilius he
disputes for both sides of a Contradiction As to our Saviours words of binding and loosing on Earth Math 18. which Gelasius and Vigilius cite they respect the living Ministers on Earth and not the Persons bound or loosed And Leo and Gelasius both speak of loosing Persons who dyed Excommunicate and Impenitent which they held unlawful but neither of them say with Vigilius That an Heretick who is not discovered till after his death and dyed in Heresie may not be condemned then Chap. vii Vigilius pretends in the second place that this Theodorus dyed in the peace of the Church which objection is taken notice of both by Justinian and the 5th Council and largely disproved by shewing he was condemned as an Heretick by all Churches for that he dyed in his impiety and the Council say it is a Lye to affirm the contrary Wherefore Baronius falsly saith Vigilius knew he dyed in the Communion of the Church For even Binius saith this cannot be believed because Justinian's Edict witnesseth the contrary even that he dyed in Heresie So that unless an Heretick be in the Communion of the Church Theodorus dyed not in that Communion Chap. viii The Popes third reason is that neither the Fathers nor Councils had condemned Theodorus particularly not Cyril nor Proclus nor the Synods of Ephesus or Chalcedon But the 5th Council cites the very words of Cyril and Proclus which declare him an Heretick and condemn him They cite the words of Cyril to John of Antioch in the Council of Ephesus which say there were two Sons Also Cyril's Epistle approved at Chalcedon saith the Council of Ephesus Anathematized not only Nestorius but all that taught as he did And Nestorius being Theodorus his Scholar as the Emperor shews the 5th Council doubts not to affirm he was condemned in the former great Council So Pelagius the second saith the Ephesine Council condemned Theodorus and his Creed Vigilius indeed denies it was his Creed but Cyril saith it was his and produced it under his name in the Council of Ephesus and condemned it So the not mentioning his name in the Anathema is but a fallacious proof of his being not condemned there But when the Nestorians began to shroud themselves under his name then a Synod in Armenia condemned him by name and Proclus exhorted them so to do as Cyril affirms and Cyril there condemns him by name So did Theodosius and Valentiniam by their Edicts which the 5th Council cites The Church of Mopsvestia put his name out of the Dypticks And Sergius Bishop of Cyrus was deposed for reckoning his name among the Orthodox Bishops Wherefore the 5th Council rightly declares That the Catholick Church had cast out Theodorus after his death for his impious Writings But Pope Vigilius cites two forged Epistles of Cyril and Proclus to shew that neither of them condemned Theodorus And with the Nestorians he denies that these Impious Writings were composed by Theodorus But the Armenian Synod St. Cyril Justinian and the 5th Council all say they were writ by Theodorus the same is also affirmed by Pope Pelagius As for what Vigilius objects that the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon were against condemning Theodorus after his death Liberatus fortunes to say the same And Baronius who takes no notice of Vigilius severely taxes Liberatus for this as a Nestorian falshood charged on the Council of Chalcedon And Binius saith it is contrary to Cyril's Writings received at Ephesus and to the Acts at Chalcedon Finally Vigilius most falsly saith the Emperor Justinian himself as if he quoted the Acts of Chalcedon in his Edict for the Trinity is for clearing Theodorus which is so gross a slander as can scarce be paralleld For Justinian in that very Edict condemns Nestorius and all that Teach with him yea he censures Theodorus by name in a particular Epistle writ to this 5th Council On these frivolous and false grounds Vigilius Decrees none shall condemn Theodorus But the 5th Council without scruple justly condemns both him and all that held with him or defended him that is Pope Vigilius for one Chap. ix Secondly Vigilius held the Heretical side as to the Writings of Theodoret whose person after renouncing his former Heresie all agree to be Catholick So that this is a point of Doctrin not concerning a person Yet first Vigilius pretends Theodoret did not write these Papers against Cyril alledged under his name as he saith appeared to the Council at Chalcedon which is most false For Binius owns he writ against Cyril and defended both Nestorius and Theodorus and Baronius over and over confesseth the same thing So doth Liberatus cap. 4. and Pope Pelagius ep 7. and the Councils both of Ephesus and Chalcedon Yea Theodoret himself in his Epistles cited in the 5th Council and by Pope Pelagius owns it So that it is a wonder Vigilius durst urge so weak and false a thing But he objects The Council of Chalcedon only required him to renounce Nestorius not to condemn his own Writings Which is a meer fallacy for he writ for Nestorius and against Cyrils twelve Chapters Now since he condemned all the Doctrins of Nestorius at Chalcedon and also subscribed the twelve Chapters he did really and virtually though not by name Anathematize his own Writings Yea Pelagius saith expresly he did condemn his own Writings And though at the Council of Chalcedon this General Condemnation sufficed yet when the Nestorians in the time of Justinian defended themselves by Theodoret's Writings it was necessary to condemn them expresly and by name Thirdly Vigilius saith Cyril on the Union with the Eastern Bishops required none of them to renounce their own Writings Which signifies nothing since Cyril made them all Anathematize Nestorius whose Cause they had defended before he would communicate with them Wherefore Vigilius falsly concludes those Writings innocent which so vigorously defend Nestorius his Doctrin and if he and Theodoret vindicated these Writings after they had condemned Nestorius they contradict themselves condemn only a name but held the Heretical Doctrins still Which is plain also from Vigilius his affirming That the Council of Chalcedon would have no Nestorian Doctrins condemned under Theodoret's name That Council did condemn all that defended Nestorius of which these very Writings of Theodoret were the chief But he there recanting his Errors they condemned those Errors when they declared him Orthodox And it was Vigilius favour for Nestorianism which makes him so Zealous for Theodoret's Nestorian Writings Chap. x. Thirdly Vigilius held the Heretical side as to Ibas his Epistle affirming that the Council of Chalcedon pronounced it to be Orthodox But the 5th Council expresly say the Council of Chalcedon did condemn and cast it out Again Vigilius saith the whole Council of Chalcedon agreed with Pascasinus
it be noted Domnus was condemned at Chalcedon for an Heretick in that he decreed silence should be kept about Cyril's twelve Chapters And by that Rule Vigilius would have been Heretical for his Decree Whereas the truth is he never made any such Decree for Justinian affirms that from his first coming to Constantinople until the Council he always was for condemning the three Chapters and as the Emperors messenger affirms to the 5th Council then assembled he often promised to joyn with them in it Nor did Vigilius observe his own Decree which is pretended to be made An. 547. the 21st of Justinian and to have silenced all Disputes For in the 22d year of that Emperor the two Roman Deacons above named accused Vigilius for condeming the three Chapters by their Leuers to divers Bishops In Justinian's 23d year Vigilius purges himself to Valentinianus from these Slanders by appealing to his Judgment sent unto Mennas to which he declares he then adhered In the Emperors 24th year he writ the like Apology to Aurelianus and as Baronius proves the same year he published his Sentence against Rusticus Sabinianus and others for defending the three Chapters Now how could he by word and writing thus sentence and punish all that disliked his Condemnation of the three Chapters and appeal to his Judgment in that case if there had been a revocation of it and a Synodal Decree of Taciturnity three year before Nor did Justinian know of or consent to any such Decree for Victor saith in his 22d year he writ for the Condemnation of the three Chapters compelling divers Bishops to condemn them The next year the Illyrian Bishops persuaded the Emperor not to proceed so so did Faeundus in the 24th year but he that year called the Council at Mopsvestia to condemn Theodorus In his 25th year Victor and Liberatus declared he dealt with the African Primates and Bishops to condemn these Chapters and got Zoilus Patriarch of Alexandria deprived for refusing it and in his 26th year just before the Council he Banished several obstinate Afrirican Bishops So it is very ridiculous in Baronius to speak of the Emperor's publishing his Edict An. 25th since it was published long before and to pretend he revoked it the next year since Justinian every year writ and acted in the defence of it We add that neither did Theodorus and the Catholicks observe this Decree of silence for Vigilius sentences them for writing against the defenders of these Chapters No nor yet did the Hereticks value it for they writ warmly for the three Chapters all that time Yea Victor notes that the Illyrian Synod in the 23d year of Justinian and the African in the 24th writ for the three Chapters Well but Baronius cites publick Acts for this Decree and the subsequent agreement between Vigilius and Mennas But these Acts are forged being dated An. 25. Justin An. 10. post consul Basil where Baronius places the suspension of Mennas and his submission next year after But Mennas died the 21st year of Justinian that is five year before as the Popes Legates prove in the sixth General Council and by that shew these Publick Acts were forged yea Baronius who here cites these Acts to colour over this Fable there owns the Acts to be forged and expresly says Mennas certainly died in the 21st year of Justinian So that we may conclude this Decree of Silence and Mennas suspension with the rest are a notorious Fable invented only to save the Credit of Pope Vigilius Chap. xvii And so is his confirming the fifth Council either before or after his supposed Exile which Baronius and others so boldly affirm For that he did not confirm it neither during its Session nor soon after Baronius proves because his Letters would then have been annexed to the Council And he confesses the Reason moving Pelagius the next Pope to confirm it was That he found the Eastern Church in a Schism by Vigilius his Constitution which could not have been if Vigilius in his Life had revoked that Constitution Again the Western Church rejected the fifth Council all the time of Vigilius for there could be found but two Western Bishops who would consecrate Pelagius after he was chosen Pope because be condemned the three Chapters saith Victor and as Baronius adds because they abhorred the fifth General Council yea a Council at Aquileia condemned the fifth Council An. 554 urging that Pope Vigilius did not agree with it and in this Opinion they remained till Pelagius the second 20 years after Vigilius death and more An. 577. instructed them that the Apostolick Seat understanding the Controversie better after Vigilius his time had changed its Judgment which Letter of this Pelagius is annexed to the fifth Council and by Binius compared to the Epistle of Leo to Flavianus Which Argument shews that Pelagius never heard that Vigilius changed his Judgment or confirmed the fifth Council As to Evagrius who saith Baronius with all the Greek Writers do affirm that Vigilius by his Letters consented to the Council since he did not this during the Council nor shortly after being banished we must assert he consented when he was freed from Exile So the Cardinal I Reply This is very fallacious for neither Evagrius nor any Greek Writer say any more than That Vigilius did by Letter consent to the fifth Synod But Evagrius adds yet would not be present in it By which it is clear the Historian means nothing but that consent which by word and writing he had often given as to the Synods Opinion before they met of which the fifth Council often complains because he denied it and flew off afterwards and it was these precedent Writings that both Nicephorus s and Photius mean Wherefore it is falsly done of Baronius to apply this to a subsequent Decree for confirming the fifth Council after it was ended Baronius his last Argument is That since Vigilius was banished for not consenting to the fifth Synod 't is not likely he should be released till he had confirmed it But first the consequence is not good for Justinian might restore him to gratifie so great a Subject as Narses and Narses might intreat the Emperour to oblige the Roman Clergy who then were Enemies to the fifth Synod Secondly which is worse The whole story of this Banishment and Release is fabulous For no Author but Anastasius mentions this last Exile who is very fabulous and here much mistaken for he saith Pelagius was present at this Release and then set free Whereas Victor who then was at Constantinople saith Vigilius died in Sicily the 16th year after Basilius his Consulship and that Pelagius was not re-called from banishment till the year after Vigilius his death and so could not as Anastasius saith be released with him Besides
Anastasius speaks only of one banishment of Vigilius for refusing to restore Anthimius near two years after his coming to Constantinople in the life-time of Theodora who died Anno 548 according to Baronius and this is the banishment from which Vigilius was released at the intreaty of Narses according to Anastasius and so both Bellarmin and Sanders affirm from the Pontifical Wherefore they and all Writers place this banishment of Vigilius divers years before the fifth Council held Anno 553 So that the Exile after the fifth Council is a meer Forgery of Baronius who openly contradicts his Author as if he mistook the time only because the real time of Vigilius's Exile will not serve his design to excuse the Pope from dying in Heresie He rejects a Story about Vigilius told by Anastasius as a manifest Lye only because neither Facundus nor Procopius mention it By which Arguing it will appear not only that Vigilius was not banished after the fifth Council but that he was not banished at all because neither Victor Liberatus Evagrius nor Procopius who then lived and Victor is very particular in naming all that were exiled for this Cause do not once mention Vigilius his being banished no nor Photius Zonaras Cedrenus Glicas nor Nicephorus And Platina with other Western Writers take up this Fable upon the credit of Anastasius and Baronius improves it to serve a turn But Baronius asks If it be likely Justinian would spare Vigilius I reply Yes because he was a weak and inconstant man and he having so great a Post Justinian chose rather to connive at him than to harden others by punishing him whom he represents to the fifth Council as one who condemned the three Chapters for which Reason also he is not condemned by Name in the 5th Council Secondly Baronius tells us of great Liberties Gifts c. given to Vigilius upon his release and sending home which he brings as a proof of his consent to the fifth Council Whereas that Sanction granting some Priviledges to Italy is dated in August the 28th year of Justinian and Vigilius according to Victor an Eye-witness died not till the 31st of Justinian So that these Liberties were promised to Vigilius and other Romans long before the Council while Vigilius and the Emperour were very kind viz. in the 23th of Justinian but performed five year after yet three years before Vigilius death and so his dying before his return with these Priviledges is a Fiction But Baronius by meer guess places it falsly in Justinian's 29th years beginning only to colour the Fable His last Argument is from Liberatus saying he died afflicted by the Eutychians but was not crowned I reply he despises Leberatus Testimony as to an Epistle of Vigilius But Liberatus saith not he was banished or put to death for his Opinions yea he counts his condemning the three Chapters Heresie and doth not tell us how he suffered or died so that he is no Witness to this Fiction but an Evidence against it Chap. xviii Baronius's last exception is that this was no lawful General Council nor had any Authority till Vigilius confirmed it And Binius saith his Sentence gave it the Title of a General Council But we have shewed before this was a lawful General Council received by the whole Catholick Church Now they grant it was not confirmed till after it was parted and that it was never gathered by the Holy Ghost so that his Act afterwards cannot make a nullity valid The Cardinal and Binius both tell us it was no General Council at first being called though the Pope resisted and contradicted it yet Binius had said before Vigilius called the 5th Council by his Pontifical Authority Baronius also saith the Emperor called it according to the sentence of Vigilius And the Council charge Vigilius with promising in writing to meet with them and his own Letter printed there declares his consent to the assembling this Council Yet if he had opposed it so did Damasus the second Council at Constantinople which was held repugnante Damaso yet is accounted a lawful General Council and Cusanus saith if the Pope be negligent or refractory the Emperor may call a General Council And though he was not personally present in this Council yet he sent his Constitution which was his Decree ex Cathedra But saith Baronius their sentence was contrary to the Popes Decree and therefore it cannot be a lawful General Council Bellarmine also urges this for a Rule but the matter of Fact sufficiently confutes them since this Council which did Decree contrary to the Popes Sentence is and was always held lawful So was the second General Council good and valid being confirmed by an imperial Edict in July An. 381 though Damasus did not so much as hear of it till after the Council of Aquileia held in September that year and it seems by Pope Gregory that the Roman Church till his time had not received the Canons of it Yea the third Canon which Damasus and Leo both condemned and which Binius saith the Roman Church rejects to this day Yet all the while it was held Authentick and by it Anatolius held the second place at Chalcedon and Eutychius in the 5th Council by it St. Chrysostom deposed and ordained Bishops and held a Council in Asia So that both Canons and Custom had setled this Rule as is proved in the Council of Chalcedon And Justinian made those Canons of this second Council to be inserted into the Dypticks and to be read in Churches So that Canons are good and valid without the Popes Approbation as well as Councils whose Decrees have their force from the Subscriptions of the major part of Bishops there present though two of the Popes Legates or ten others did dissent especially when the Emperor confirms them by his Edict as Constantine did those of Nice Theodosius those of the second General Council c. In like manner Justinian confirmed this 5th Council And so it was valid without the Popes consent though absent Bishops others as well as those of Rome were desired to confirm a Council after it was past not to give any new Authority to it but to preserve Unity and to shew the Orthodoxy of these absent Bishops Chap. xx Omitting the 19th Chapter which treats of General Councils at large we proceed to Baronius lesser and remoter objections against this Council He begins with Justinian who called and confirmed it whom he taxes 1st for want of learning calling him an illiterate man who could not read a Letter for which he cites Suidas a late fabulous yea an Heretical Author But Platina commends Justinian for his great Learning and Wit So also Trithemius who with Possevine reckon him among Ecclesiastical Writers Pope Agatho and the 6th Council cite him as one of the
of the Council of Chalcedon than his Vatican now affords And indeed Domnus was deposed in the Ephesine Pseudo-Synod all whose Acts were declared void at Chalcedon except that which deposed Domnus then deceased and put in Maximus at Antioch Fifthly Baronius cites Auastasius's Lives of the Popes who is always full of Fables especially in Vigilius his Life in which are more Lies than Lines For he makes his Entrance to be when Bellisarius warred against Vitiges who he saith was taken by John the Bloody and brought to Rome by Bellisarius and Vigilius who gave Bellisarius the Sacrament to bring Vitiges safe to Justinian But John and Narses were both absent at the taking of Ravenna where Vitiges freely submitted to Bellisarius who kept him there till he carried him by Sea to Constantinople So that Vitiges came not to Rome at all Secondly Anastasius says The Emperour then enquired of Bellisarius how he had placed Vigilius in Silverius room and thanked him for it But Silverius was deposed and Vigilius put in three years before yea Justinian had writ to Vigilius and knew that Silverius was dead a year before and Vigilius had writ to the Emperour the year before Bellisarius came with Vitiges to Constantinople and Binius saith Justinian did not thank Bellisarius Thirdly Anastasius talks of Bellisarius being sent into Africk and of his killing Gontharis and offering great Spoils in his return at Rome to Vigilius c. But after this Bellisarius was not sent into Africk but into Persia where he stayed three years and it was Ariobindus and Artabanus who were sent into Africk the latter of which treacherously killed Gontharis So that Bellisarius offered no Vandal Spoils at all or if as Binius would have it he did when he wan Rome from Vitiges that was in Silverius his time so that is false also Fourthly Anastasius makes Theodora write at this time to Vigilius To come to Constantinople and restore Anthimus which he refused Binius after Baronius makes this a Miraculous change and says it was just upon Silverius his death at his first step into the See But if it was after Gontharis was slain it was not till the 19th of Justinian five years or six years after Vigilius was made Pope And the Change is as false as The time for Liberatus saith Vigilius did perform his Promise to the Empress and writ as she desired but afterwards it seems he finding the Emperour resolute did confirm the Deposition of Anthimus So that Anastasius his Story of Theodora's writing to Vigilius after Gontharis was slain is a Fable And Victor who then lived saith Vigilius was called to Constantinople by the Emperour not about Anthimus but to condemn the three Chapters in his Nineteenth year Fifthly Anastasius fables That the Romans accused Vigilius of Murder c. and that Anthimus Sorbo was sent by the Empress to seize him by force which he did the People abusing and cursing him as he went out of Rome and thus he was violently carried by Sicily to Constantinople to which place coming on Christmas Even the Emperour met and kissed him with Tears and the People sang The Lord cometh But Baronius gives him the Lye as doth also Binius For Vigilius voluntarily went from Rome in the 11th year of the Gothic War An. 546. toward Constantinople and staying long in Sicily arrived at the Court about April of the year following Sixthly Anastasius tells a long Story after Vigilius came to Constantinople of the Contests between him and the Emperour with his Empress about restoring Anthimus which the Pope refusing they tore him from the Altar of S. Euphemia cruelly used him imprisoned and banished him Which are all Fables for Anthimus was deposed Ten years before and his Cause forgot the three Chapters being now the only dispute yea Baronius and Binius who would have something of this true make the buffeting of Vigilius and his flight to Euphemia's Church to happen four years after Theodorus's death and indeed in Pope Agapetus's time there was some such Contest about Anthimus which Anastasius fabulously applies to Vigilius and Baronius with Binius do cherish the Fiction Seventhly Anastasius tells us how the Goths after this made Totilas King who besieged and took Rome but spared the People and lived like a Father among them But Totilas was made King four or five year before Vigilius came to Constantinople and took Rome while he was in Sicily and was so cruel as to kill all the Citizens they met and intended to ruin both City and People had not Pelagius and Bellisarius stayed his Rage from places and persons however he made a woful desolation there Eighthly Anastasius saith Narses was sent at the same time into Italy and Totilas with many Goths were slain by the help saith Baronius of the Blessed Virgin But first he mistakes the time for Narses overcame not Totilas till six year after his first sacking Rome in the 18th year of the Gothick War and Binius with Baronius foolishly ascribe it to the Year wherein Justinian revoked his Edict which he never revoked at all and this Binius saith was the 10th year of Totilas as Benedict had predicted But Baronius proves Benedict a false Prophet for he truly places Totilas his death in the 11th year As to the help of the Blessed Virgin mentioned both by Baronius and Binius Procopius saith Narses did ascribe the Victory wholly to God and Evagrius doth not mention his praying to or relying on the Virgin but speaks of a Report by some of the Blessed Virgins appearing to him from God with notice when to fight but doth not affirm it for truth yet the Cardinal proves invocation of Sains by this Fable Lastly after this victory Anastasius tells us the Roman Clergy in a body desired Narses if Vigilius and the Clergy banished with him were yet alive they might be recalled whereas Vigilius was then at Constantinople and never banished at all yea the 5th Council was assembled that year in which Totilas was slain yet hence Baronius on the credit of this Fabulous Author invents a story of Vigilius Banishment after the 5th Council Chap. xxxvi Finally Baronius overlooking the Ambition Treachery and Heresie of Vigilius can find but one ill thing in his life which is his going to Constantinople when the Emperor required him this he saith was always fatal to the Catholick Church for the Pope to leave Rome Was it so when the Popes removed for 70 years to Avignion Was it so when Agaperus 10 years before came to Constantinople No saith Baronius that was lucky God sent him and the power of the Apostolick seat was thereby demonstrated So that the difference was in the Men Agapetus was a steddy Catholic Vigilius an Heretical Hypocrite Whose life
this Authentick Confirmation of Vigilius himself It is well when de Marca resolves to support the tottering credit of this Pope that he hath no better Evidence of Theodorus of Caesarea's favouring Hereticks than Facundus a condemned Nestorian and Liberatus who writes so partially for that side it is plain their spite to Theodorus was for his zeal against Nestorius and for giving the Emperor that wholsome and necessary advice to condemn all those Men and their Writings under which the Nestorians sheltered themselves and it is shewed before that he was no favourer either of Origen or the Acephali Yet this defender of Vigilius reflects on Justinian's Edict approved by a General Council upon the single Testimony of a convicted Heretick who writes so bitterly against the Truth that he is not to be believed nor esteemed as any thing but a bigotted and provoked Adversary Only our Author passes by one thing which is that Facundus and Liberatus both Rail at Vigilius for desetting their Party and look upon him after his coming to the Emperor as one that took the Heretical side which shews they knew nothing of his latter change As to what he saith That there was nothing of Faith controverted in this Council but only concerning Persons This is fully answered before And I will only note the weakness of this distinction For what difference is there between condemning a Mans Heretical Opinions and condemning that Man for holding those Opinions Suppose the Arians should pretend that because Arius was condemned at Nice the Controversie there was about a Person not about the Faith Will de Marca allow that distinction And the like may be said of Macedonius Eutyches and Nestorius in former Councils Certain it is that in this Council the Writings or Opinions of Theodorus and his Person also are condemned and so are the Opinions of Theodoret and Ibas before their Recantation but not their Persons and the main Question in the fifth Council Whether those Writings of these three there cited were Heretical which I think is a matter of Faith and not of Persons Wherefore since the Nestorian Hereticks gloried in these Writings the Question whether they should be condemned or no was not as he pretended concerning discipline and so there is no room for his impertinent distinction of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unless Vigilius had a Dispensation to defend Heretical Writings and his wavering was not prudence but perfidiousness in such a Case Facundus may be a good witness that Vigilius confirmed the three Chapters before his coming to Constantinople and perhaps he might suspend Mennas after his coming to that City as de Marca out of Theophanes saith But since Mennas died that very year as is proved by the Acts of the sixth Council at Constantinople where they must needs know the time of their own Patriarchs death but in the preceding Century All the rest of his Story is manifest Forgery viz. his delivering his Decree to Mennas An. 548. after he was dead and he would prove this by a meer and gross imposture which is Vigilius Epistle to Theodorus where in September 552 the Pope is made to Excommunicate Theodorus and suspend Mennas who had been dead five year Yet in another forged Epistle set down at large in Labbè in February the year before the same Pope tells the Catholick Church he had excommunicated and deposed Theodorus and the other six Months ago Yet these apparent Fictions de Marca gravely cites as good Evidence and in truth he hath no other Testimonies but these two spurious Epistles and the incoherent stuff of Anastasius Biblioth to prove that Vigilius was persecuted by Justinian at all or that he ever opposed him after he came to the City of Constantinople till the Council met De Marca grants Facundus after this called him a Prevaricator and we find about that very time wherein those sham Epistles lay the Scene of Justinian's persecuting him for Excommunicating Theodorus and the Condemners of the three Chapters by good Evidence under Vigilius own Hand that this Pope Excommunicated two Roman Deacons for defending the three Chapters full three year after his coming to Justinian So that this learned Author should not bring such stuff in for Evidence Yet again he quotes an Epistle of the Roman Clergy to the Legatories now newly published which is as palpable an imposture as any of the former For therein the Clergy of Italy tell a long Story to the French Legates upon hear-say to inform them what Vigilius was then doing and suffering at Constantinople where these Legates then were and whereas they might so easily have informed France of this by Letters from Rome they desire the Legates to write this from Constantinople to the Gallican Church Again these rare Clerks say that Dacius Bishop of Milan had been absent from his Church 15 or 16 year till ' all the Bishops of his ordaining were dead so that vast multitudes died for want of Baptism it seems neither Lay-men nor Presbyters might then Baptize But if Dacius did fly from Milan when it was taken by the Goths and never visited them till now he had been absent but 13 year at most but that stay is not probable considering how good a Bishop he was The long History therefore of Vigilius his returning to his Vomit and of his being persecuted by Justinian depending on nothing but forged relations is to be wholly rejected and that Letter which Eutychius writ to Vigilius to have the three Chapters condemned in a lawful Council whereunto Vigilius by Letter consented in January 554 was not writ upon Eutychius first promotion to the See of Constantinople in which he had sat now almost six years being chosen immediately upon the death of Mennas but was writ purely on occasion of the designed Council and the Patriarch professeth his Faith in it not on the account of his entrance on his promotion but to remove the scandal which the Nestorians laid upon such as condemned the three Chapters as if they did not assent to the former Councils especially that of Chalcedon Vigilius only covered his Nestorian principles with these shifts and his main Argument of the paucity of Western Bishops is abundantly confuted by the Councils shewing there were more of them present then at Constantinople than had been in any former General Council And the event shewed that neither his absence nor dissenting could hinder this which our Author wrongfully calls an imperfect meeting from being universally received as a General Council The Constitution of Vigilius is proved Heretical before and de Marca gives a very weak reason to prove it was not read in the fifth Council For how could Justinian be so silly as to suppose he could keep the Bishops then assembled ignorant of Vigilius his aversion to condemning the three Chapters when he would not come at them and if de Marca say true suffered such injuries for
The first was to prevent Mens seeking Bishopricks especially the Papacy while the See was full On which we may note the Cunning of this Pope who probably had got the Papey by this means yet sees fit to condemn a Fault after he had made his advantage by it The Fourth Canon plainly supposes that the Pope will name his Successor unless he die suddenly which is expresly contrary to the ancient Canons which the Notes can neither totally conceal nor fairly excuse But I look upon the Acts to be intirely forged in the later Times as the gross barbarity of the Style shews and 't is not probable that 72 Italian Bishops should come to Rome as so many Cyphers only to applaud what this Pope did ignorantly and Uncanonically decree 'T is certain there was a Synod at Rome called by the Arrian King Theodoric which is perhaps suppressed by the Editors lest it should discover the Regal Power was then above the Papal And this new Stuff seems to be put into the old Garment to fill up the Rent Now Baronius and Binius place this Synod before the Kal. of May An. 499. and fall foul upon Theodorus Lector for saying That Theodoric called this Synod whereas he knew nothing of this Fiction He saith indeed That after the Schism had lasted Three years which must be An. 501. since Pope Anastasius died An. 498. Theodoric who then Ruled all at Rome called a Synod of Bishops and setled Symmachus in the Papal Chair So that according to him no body called this Synod of the Editors nor was Symmachus yet Pope but these are devices to make the Schism seem shorter than it was But Theodorus is of better Credit than the Annalist and Cassiodorus shews that this Schism was not fully ended until Symmachus his death 13 or 14 years after For he saith That in his Consulship An. 514 he had united the Roman Clergy and People and restored the desired Concord to that Church So that 't is certain there was a Schisin at this time and long after The Second Roman Council under Symmachus hath no Voucher but Anastasius who pretends it was called to condemn Potrus Altinensis King Theodoric's Visitor as an Invader of the Roman See But 't is no way probable this yet unsetled Pope durst do so bold a thing considering Theodoric to whose Arbitration they had submitted this and commended him for determining it by a Bishp was then at Rome in great glory loved and admired both by the Synod and People But the sport is Binius and Baronius do not agree whether this were a distinct Synod or only one Action of another Synod called Palmaria however the dispute being about so frivolous a Fiction we shall not interpose 'T is probable upon Theodoric's having declared Symmachus the true Pope his Enemies accused him of heinous Crimes To cover which a Synod is patch'd up so full of Barbarisms False Latin and Non-sense that it seems to have been writ by that Ignorant Hand who forged the ridiculous Council of Sinuessa for Pope Marcellinus and the design of both is the same viz. to make us think that a Pope cannot be judged by a Council neither for Idolatry nor for Adultery Besides the Forger mistakes the Consul's Names and Ruffus Magnus put in as Colleague to Faustus Avienus instead of Pompeius who is by two undoubted Writers of this Age joyned with Avienus as the Notes and Annalist confess who yet have the confidence to say these Acts are genuine But it seems they scarce think so for these Acts say expresly The Council was called by the Precept of Theodoric and own that they could decree nothing without that Princes knowledge Yet these Parasites contradict their so commended Acts and affirm this Synod was called by the Pope who was the Criminal yea though they immediately after print some suspicious Precepts of Theodoric about his calling and directing this whole process If the whole were not fictitious I might note That there is a manifest Corruption in the Acts for where the Roman Churches Grandeur is said to flow First from S. Peter ' s Merit then following our Lord's Command and the Authority of General Councils The Period is not sense and jussione Domini seems put in to make the Flattery still grosser But the Editor's Margin hath a glorious Note on this blunder and Baronius cites it with great Triumph Another Trick the Notes put upon these Acts which in the next Sentence declare that Symmachus and his Bishops desired Letters from the King's Clemency for calling this Synod Which the Annotator turns as if the King desired the Popes Letters and though he was an Arrian durst not call it without such Letters which Note is as false as it is impertinent For we see by Theodorus Lector That Theodoric did call the real Council And Zonaras saith Theodoric calling a Council rejected Laurentius and confirmed the Bishoprick of Rome to Symmachus And they must be able to out-face the Sun who out of a falsly expounded Period would prove that the Kings of that Age called no Councils without the Popes consent Symmachus his 4th Roman Synod of which Baronius makes the two former to be only divers Acts is said to be held when Avienus Junior was Consul but the name of his Colleague is omitted which was Probus This makes it somewhat suspicious but the business of it confirms that Suspicion which was to revoke two Laws made in a Roman Synod after Simplicius his Death wherein according to ancient Custom Basilius Praefect for Odoacer King of Italy was present with some Bishops and the Roman Clergy The first Law was That no Pope should be elected without the consent of the King of Italy then Lord of Rome The other That no Pope Bishop or other Clergy-man should alienate things given to the Church Which Laws they pretend to annul because they were both made by Lay-men and not subscribed by any Pope But first It is certain that Lay Princes made many Laws in Ecclesiastical Affairs by Advice of their Clergy and these were frequently confirmed in Synods Secondly These Laws were made in a Council of the Clergy as appears by that Title Sanctitati vestrae used by Basilius and Eulalius in this Council confesses these Laws were made some Bishops consenting to them Moreover the deceased Pope had directed the making these Laws And the Annotator who here objects They were made in the Vacancy of the See in another place saith The Roman Clergy well knew that when the Pope the visible Head of the Church was taken away it was their part by ancient Custom as the nearest Members to the Head and Administrators of Peter ' s Church to take care of the Vniversal Church Wherefore he cannot fairly deny but the Roman Clergy had power in the Vacancy to confirm a Law relating to the good ordering of their own Church And the bloody
Contest not yet appeased occasioned by a double election which was lately submitted to be judged by Theodoric makes it very improbable this Law should be repealed now when so fresh an instance convinced them that their Schisms would be endless and intolerable if Princes did not interpose And Symmachus must be an ill man when he got the Chair purely by Theodoric's approbation to kick down the step upon which he was raised and to take away his right to confirm by whom his doubtful Title was confirmed And finally neither this Theodoric nor his Successors did ever take any notice of this Repeal but in every vacancy did interpose So that I take this Synod to be a Fiction to cover over the Power that a Lay Prince here exercised in making a Pope or if there ever were such a Synod it was despised and the Law was in force after this assembly had revoked it And thus all Baronius his Oratory about Symmachus his courage and exalting himself above Kings and Princes vanishes into air and is as false as this Popes excommunicating Anastasius the Emperor in this Synod which is only proved by a corrupt reading of ego for nego as I shewed before For the other Law to forbid alienations they pretend to repeal it meerly because it was made by Lay-men which is false But the Clergy here reestablish it If the Acts were genuine I should guess this was to put it in the Clergies power to dispense with themselves and their Canon whenever they had a mind to be sacrilegious Since while a Royal Law forbad it a Royal Licence must be first obtained which would be hard to procure But the power of Theodoric and Symmachus his circumstances then make it clear he durst not repeal a Law of the Prince So that it seems to be forged Wherefore I will make but two remarks more First upon that Sentence in the Acts Quia non licuit Laico statuendi in Ecclesiâ praeter Papam Romanum habere aliquam Potestatem That no Layman but the Pope shall have any power to decree in the Church Which passage supposes the Pope a Lay-man and is too ridiculous to be spoken by Laurentius Bishop of Milan Secondly on the Notes I remark that it is very strange this Synod should excommunicate Anastasius for communicating with Hereticks supposed since the former Synod complements Theodoric à professed Arrian the worst of Hereticks with the Titles of most pious and most holy If the former were as true as this latter of giving these titles is it would more need to be excused than this But the truth is the Popes were then so low that they were forced to give flatering Titles both to the Emperor and the Gothick Kings whatever Religion they were of After this Council is added an Apology writ to answer a Paper now suppressed against Symmachus by Ennodius wherein as far as appears by the Objections he cites and the Answers he gives the Accusers of this Pope were too hard for his Apologist The Annalist and Binius highly magnifie this Tract yet the former confesseth by the harshness of the style and the horrid unevenness of a false Copy the quickest wit can scarce apprehend it As to the matter of it the Author huffs at a rate which shews more zeal than judgment and we note First that he clearly owns Theodoric called the Synod that absolved Symmachus and therein confutes both his admirers Baronius and Binius Secondly whereas his objectors rightly urge that the Apostle commands us not to keep company with a Brother that is a Fornicator as Symmachus was said to be Ennodius saith it is the Prophet David and not the Apostle which gives this advice Thirdly he ridiculously affirms that S. Peter who was not innocent transmitted Innocence as an inheritance to the Popes and wonders any should fancy or imagine that a Pope should not be holy who hath so high a dignity and is praeordained as he blasphemously speaks to be the Foundation on which the weight of the Church leans as if the very Chair gave grace to a prostigate Wretch Fourthly He falsifies the Scripture in saying Samuel appealed to the Lord that men might not exmaine him Whereas the Text expresly saith he appealed to the People before the Lord and the King and challenged the People to prove any ill thing upon him 1 Sam. xii 3. Fifthly his Maxim That Peter's Successors were only to be judged by God was not believed by the Councils of Constance and Basil nor by Theodoric nor any who had a hand in censuring or deposing any Bishops of Rome Lastly if this Book which is so Barbarous in its style so abounding in railing and mistakes and so void of true reason were approved and applauded in the Fifth Council We may guess at the Qualifications of those Bishops who sat in it As for the Editors and Baronius it is enough that it pleads for a Pope for they must extol it The Fifth Roman Synod hath all the marks of Forgery imaginable for the Consuls are not named and the Indiction is also false as Baronius confesseth And he with Binius own that the Subscriptions are so monstrously falsified that many Bishops are named here who were at the Council of Chalcedon 52 years before and belonged to the Eastern Church who also had been long ago dead and buried And it is highly improbable that 216 Bishops should meet only to approve such stuff and to order this Book to be inserted among the Apostolical Decrees to be obeyed by all as they were This phrase also smels of a late Forgery for in the time of this pretended Synod the name of Apostolical Decrees was not appropriated to Papal decisions nor were their Decretals universally Obeyed For we see that in Rome it self a great party both despised and writ against Pope Symmachus his Synodical absolution Again here is that foolish Sentence That the sheep must not judge their Pastor unless he err in Faith nor yet accuse him but for injustice which is undoubtedly stolen out of a Decretal Epistle forged by Mercator long after this time and it is wrong applied too if Symmachus were so unjust as to rob his neighbors of their Chastity Wherefore the very Book of Ennodius is suspicious and this Synod is most certainly Forged to save the credit of an ill Pope The Sixth Roman Council hath no date but the Subscriptions are certainly forged having like the former the names of many Eastern Bishops who could not be in this Synod The Acts are a Rhapsody out of some later Councils against Sacriledge as appears by divers barbarous phrases and some expressions that are the dialect of more modern Ages such as that of mens giving to the Church for the remission of their Sins aeternae vitae mercatione and for purchasing eternalllife The declaring also that the Sacrilegious are manifest Hereticks is too absurd for this Age.