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
know from Eusebius That the Bishops of his own Opinion severely reproved him for offering to pass so rash a Sentence and to impose his Sense upon remote Churches So that thus far there is no genuine Proof of any Supremacy exercised or claimed by the Roman Church for the Decretals which only pretend to make it out are notorious Forgeries CHAP. III. Of the Forgeries in the Third Century § 1. THis Century begins with the Life of Pope Zepherine who Sat Eight years saith the Pontifical but the Notes tell you He Sat Eighteen which is a small Error in that fabulous Author Yet the Editors believe upon his Credit that this Pope ordered Vessels of Glass to be used in the Mass and the Notes prove it by Pope Gregory the Great who lived Four hundred years after this time However if we allow the Matter of Fact upon the Testimonies of S. Hierom and Epiphanius it will follow That in those Ages when they used Glass Cups they did not believe Transubstantiation for if they had they would not have ventured Christ's Blood in so brittle a Vessel but have forbid the use of Glasses as they have done in the Roman Church since this Opinion came in among them Under this Pope the Editors place an African Council and say it was Reprobated yet they cannot make it appear that this Pope so much as knew of it Nor was his Advice or Consent at all desired in that case which was never disputed at Rome till Pope Stephen's time as themselves confess viz. Fifty years after this Council was held from whence we learn That every Province in this Age believed they had sufficient Authority to determine Controversies in Religion among themselves without the Consent of the Bishop of Rome § 2. Though the Pontifical be guilty of many Errors in the Life of Calixtus and mistake the very Emperors under which he lived and died the Notes gloss them all fairly over and correct them by the Roman Martyrology which often follows the Pontifical and is as fabulous as that However we are told That Calixtus was buried Three Miles out of the City because the Law of the Twelve Tables forbid the Burying of a dead Body within the Walls Now I would know if this Law were in force how that can be true which the Pontifical and the Notes affirm and justifie That S. Peter Linus Cletus Euaristus Sixtus Telesphorus Hyginus Pius and Victor were All Buried in the Vatican And what shall we think of the Miracles done by their Relicks and at their Tombs if no Body know where they were first Buried Pope Urban the Successor of Calixtus is said in the Pontifical to be Buried in the Coemetery of Praetextatus which could not then be any Coemetery at all because Praetextatus was not Martyted till the Persecution under Maximinus which hapned many years after And if the Story of S. Cecily in the same Author be no Truer than his Chronology the Romanists worship a fictitious Saint The Pontifical is forced to feign That the Emperor Alexander Severus was a Persecutor contrary to his Character in all Histories of Credit and this only to make us think that Calixtus Urban and Pope Pontianus his Successor were Martyrs However though Eusebius knew not of their Martyrdom the Roman Church adores them all as Martyrs and have peculiar Days dedicated to their Memories Antherus as the Pontifical says Sat Twelve years and One Month and the Notes say that he Sat only one Month so that there is but only Twelve years mistaken in this Popes Life And if he was Pope but one Month doubtless his Secretaries had need be very swift Writers or else they could not gather many in his time However Binius will make it out for he brings in a Poetical Hyperbole Of those Scribes who could write a Sentence before a man had spoken it and so were as quick at guessing as writing and applies this in very serious earnest to this Pope's Notaries to make us imagine there were many Acts of Martyrs writ out in this short-lived Pope's time § 3. Pope Fabian as Eusebius relates was chosen by occasion of a Dove 's lighting on his Head when the People were met to elect a Pope of which remarkable Story the fabulous Pontifical takes no notice but tells us That in this Popes time Novatus the Heretic came to Rome that is say the Notes Above a year after Pope Fabian was dead after the Vacancy and in Pope Cornelius ' s time with such absurd Comments do these Gentlemen delight to cover the Ignorance and Falsehood of their Historian but such Excuses do only more expose him In this Pope's time were two Councils held one in Africa the other in Arabia and they Intitle them both under Fabian yet the only Authors who mention these Councils do not say Pope Fabian was concerned in either of them and therefore they were not under Fabian After this Pope's death there was a Vacancy of more than one whole year which the Editors to slatter the Papacy call in the style of Princes An Interregnum but alas their admired Monarchy was now turned into an Aristocracy and the Clergy governed the Roman Church to excuse which flaw in their visible Monarchical Succession the Notes say The Members next the Head knew it was their parts to do the office of the Head Which notable kind of substitution if it could be made out in the Body Natural Beheading would not be a Mortal punishment however they must say something to make us believe there was always a Visible Head of the Catholic Church or at least a Neck and Shoulders which stood for an Head till Cornelius was chosen Pope And they called a Council as they pretend in this Vacancy and writ a Letter of their Determination to all the Churches in the World that they might all observe what the Empty Chair of Peter had ordered But if any one read the Letter it self it will appear that this Council was only a voluntary Assembly of the Clergy in Rome and they met only to confirm S. Cyprian's Opinion and only writ their Letter to him but never pretended either to be Judges over Cyprian or any other part of the Catholic Church Pope Cornelius his Life follows for whose Character we are more obliged to S. Cyprian's Epistles than to the Pontifical which invents an idle Story of a Dialogue between Cornelius and Decius the Emperor and though the Notes own That Decius who is here pretended to Martyr him dyed the same Month in which Cornelius entred yet they will not own the Story to be false but boldly put in the Name of Volusianus into their Margen instead of Decius However the Breviary retains the Fiction of Cornelius suffering under Decius as it doth also the Fable of his Translating the Bodies of S. Peter and S. Paul But let any considering Man compare the different ways of telling this Sham Story and he
Fast upon Saturday But the Notes are so bold as to say The Error which this Council corrected was the not Fasting on Saturday whereas even these very Notes confess That the Eastern Churches and most of the Western Rome and some few others excepted together with the African Church did not Fast on Saturday but Wednesday yea those they Call the Apostolical Canons and Clement's Constitutions do both establish Wednesday Fast and condemn their pretended Apostolical Churches Saturday Fast and if divers in Spain as the Notes say in S. Hierom's and Pope Innocent's times did not Fast on Saturday and others then needed Arguments to settle them in this Roman practice It may be gathered from thence that in the time of this Council the Saturday Fast was esteemed an Error as it was also in that Age almost in all Christian Churches and so the very Words of the Canon import which Baronius saw and therefore only saith There is mention of the Saturday Fast in this Synod and so passes it knowing it plainly contradicted the Roman Churches Tradition The 34th Canon under pain of Excommunication forbids the lighting Wax Candles in the places where the Martyrs were Buried q which agrees with the Sentiments of the Primitive Church Lactantius condemns Lighting Candles in God's Worship by day as a Paganish Superstition S. Hierom faith It was used in his time only by such as did it to humor the silly Vulgar who had a Zeal without Knowledge Yet the Notes confess this is the Custom of the Roman Church for which only cause some of their Doctors reject this Canon since nothing must be Authentic which condemns their Novel Superstitions and these Notes make a miserable Blunder to excuse the matter but we are not concerned whether with the Annotator these Candles in the Day-light disturb the Spirits of the Living Saints by seeing an Heathenish Rite brought into the Church or with Baronius displease the Saints Deceased to behold so Superstitious a thing vainly devised for their honour Since it sufficiently appears the practice is novel and absurd and though now used at Rome condemned by the best Antiquity The Notes also give us one extraordinary distinction between the Souls of deceased Saints in Heaven and those in Purgatory which latter sort if they had been Saints one would think should need no such dreadful Scouring The 36th Canon determines That Pictures ought not to be in Churches and that none may Paint upon Walls that wich is worshiped Which so expresly condemns the Roman-Worship of Pictures and Images that the boldest Writers of that Church reject this Canon but others as the Notes say would gladly expound it so as to assert the honour and worship due to Holy Images which is a notable kind of Exposition to make a Canon assert that which it confutes But such transparent Fallacies deserve rather derision than serious Arguments Sanders and Turrian observe That these Fathers forbid not Images which Christians might take away and hide but Pictures which they must leave exposed to Pagan abuses But might not this have been prevented by hanging up their Pictures in Frames and are not large Images as difficult to be removed and concealed as Pictures Yea doth not the present Roman Church adore Pictures as well as Images so that still this Canon condemns them Martinez fancies This Council forbid Painting on the Walls lest the Pictures should be deformed by the decay of those Walls But he forgets that the Council first forbids them to be any where in the Church and were not Walls as subject to decay in the time of the Second Nicene Council as they are now And had not those Fathers as great an honour for Pictures as these at Elliberis yet the Nicene Picture-Worshipers order them to be painted on Church-Walls Martinez adds That as times vary human Statutes vary and so the Second Council of Nice made a quite contrary Decree What! are Decrees of Councils about Matters of Divine Worship only human Statutes what will become of the Divine Authority and Apostolical Tradition pretended for this Worship of old at Nice and now at Rome if the Orders against it and for it be both human and mutable Statutes It is well however that the Patrons of Image-Worship do own they have altered and abrogated a Primitive Canon for one made Four hundred years after in times of Ignorance and Superstition and we know whether of the two we ought to prefer Baronius is more ingenuous who saith These Bishops at Elliberis chiefly endeavoured by strict Penalties to affright the Faithful from Idolatry wherefore they made the 34th 36th and 37th Canons and by comparing the First Canon with the Forty sixth it appears they dealt more severely with an Idolater than an Apostate From whence we infer That Pictures in Churches tend to Idolatry in this Councils Opinion Albaspinaeus whose Notes Labbé here prints would enervate this Canon by saying It forbids not the Saints Pictures but those which represented God and the Holy Trinity But it is not probale these Primitive Christians were so ignorant as to need any prohibition about such blasphemous Representations of God's Majesty And he brings no proof but his own bare Conjecture for this limitation of the Canon which Fancy if it were true would prove That the Saints were not worshiped or adored in that Age because nothing that was worshiped and adored was to be painted on the Walls and if that be meant only of God and the Trinity then nothing else but God and the Trinity was adored in those days Finally the former part of the Canon destroys this limitation by excluding Pictures in general out of Churches These are the various Fallacies by which these partial Editors would hide the manifest Novelty of their Churches Worship of Pictures which cannot be defended by all these Tricks I will only add That this genuine Ancient Council in the Fifty third Canon Orders The same Bishop who Excommunicated a Man to Absolve him and that if any other intermedled He should be called to an account for it without excepting the Pope or taking notice of Marcellus's pretended claim of Appeals § 3. In the Year 306 was a Council at Cartbage against the Donatists which never takes any notice of the Pope yet they put into the Title of it Under Marcellus But there is a worse Forgery in the Notes where S. Augustine is cited as saying That Cecilian Bishop of Carthage despised the Censures of the Donatists because he was joyned in Communion with the Bishop of the Roman Church from which all Catholic Communion was ever wont to be denominated But this is Baronius his false gloss not S. Augustine's words who only saith because he was united by Communicatory Letters both to the Roman Church wherein the Principality of the Catholic Church had always flourished and to other Lands from whence the Gospel came to Africa Now there is great difference between a Mans being
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
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
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
him to stand or fall to his own Master not imitating Baronius his spite to Justinian in determining his final Estate An Appendix to this History IN Labbè's Edition there is subjoyned to this Council an Epistle of Vigilius to Eutychius and a dicourse of P. de Marca's upon it wherein it is extolled as a genuine writing and a sufficient confirmation of this 5th Council And though the foregoing History do abundantly confute this yet we will not pass it without some observations concerning this pompous piece of Forgery First In the Epistle Vigilius is made to say that he is and was of the same Faith with Eutychius and the rest of the Bishops at Constantinople But if so why did he exclaim that the Catholick Faith was in danger to be rooted up Or how came he to Anathematize Theodorus And why did he suffer so much for a matter that was not of Faith Secondly In this Epistle Vigilius Anathematizeth all that at any time believed the three Chapters ought to be received or defended and all that have endeavoured to hinder their being condemned Now is it probable he should curse all his Friends in Africa and in the Western Church yea and himself so dreadfully who had received and defended them and done all in his power to hinder their condemnation Thirdly This illustrious Monument as 't is called can be no confirmation of the 5th Council because it never names or so much as hints at that Council So that it can pass for no more than Vigilius his Recantation of his former Opinions and being writ after the Council seems to be designed for the Emperors private satisfaction For the Eastern Church then did not believe a Popes confirmation necessary to make a General Councils Decrees valid Fourthly This Epistle is dated in December and the Council arose but in June before which argues the falshood of it for it is not likely that he should so soon revoke his solemn constitution and make so great a change or if he did it is strange that living above two years after he did not receive some mark of Justinian's favour in all that time no nor return to his See in Peace As to the Dissertation of de Marca we may note that the years when and the place where this writing was found give just suspicions of its being an Imposture It was it seems found by a Greek An. 1276. in the Vatican and he pretended to Transcribe it out of a Manuscript there writ An. 753. Now the Original of these is dated two hundred years after the 5th Council and all that time no body ever heard of Vigilius his Confirmation and if this date be genuine it might very probably be invented at that time being the very time when the Eastern Church began contrary to the sentiments of Rome to pull down their Images and that was a fit season to produce Evidence that the Greeks ought to submit to the Latins whose Popes as they pretended had made all their General Councils Decrees Authentick And the date of the later Transcript is more suspicious still being the critical time when the poor Eastern Emperor Nich. Palaelogus for getting Money and Aid from the Pope was forced to send some corrupted Bishops to make a seeming Submission to and Union with the Roman Church and to carry on this design An. 1276. no doubt care was taken to find out or make this Epistle and send it into Greece And the Vatican whence it was taken is known to be the Mint and Ware-house of Forgeries So that every circumstance is suspicious And so is the Reason which the learned Patron of it gives why it is so valuable viz. because it vindicates the credit of the Roman See which was much lessened by the belief that the 5th Council was owned for a lawful and general though Vigilius opposed it Now at Rome where the Popes Authority is the main if not the sole point of Religion there have been innumerable Writings piously forged to carry on this great end and this seems to be of that sort only it appeared not early enough for Baronius to cite it however as our Author notes he guessed there was or foresaw there would be such a thing For he positively avers as was shewed upon meer conjecture that Vigilius did confirm the 5th Council But he and his party lay it down for a Maxim that nothing can be a General Council but what is confirmed by the Pope Therefore Evidence or not Evidence Binius and Baronius affirm it was so and they are as confident who never saw this Epistle as de Marca is who published it so that to through-paced Catholicks who take their words this Epistle is a needless discovery But let us see what Authority he hath to support this famous Confirmation He saith Evagrius witnesseth that Vigilius consented in writing but would not come to the Council But this consent was before the Synod met and is therefore plainly set down in Evagrius before the convening with which consent in writing both Justinian and the Council do often upbraid this inconstant Pope Nor can Evagrius be expounded of any subsequent consent since he goes on after this passage to relate the acts of the Council Nor do any of the later Greeks who follow him say any more than to imply Vigilius his precedent consent And the 6th Council relate the calling of the 5th Council after the agreement between Justinian and Vigilius nor can their words without manifest violence be stretched to this Confirmation which had it then been extant in the Greek Copy and as de Marca owns wanting in the Latin that Council had found out and observed this among other Variations The Testimony of Pelagius which our Author thinks so clear is no Evidence unless it be against this Epistle for he speaks not of Vigilius but of the Latin Church which came slowly to see their Error laboured a great while strove a long time even to suffering and would not of a sudden lose their labour till the Truth did appear This plainly refers to the Roman Clergy and Western Bishops who after Vigilius death stood out in defence of the three Chapters so stisly that Pelagius the 1st Vigilius his Successor could scarce find any to consecrate him And at last he was forced to get Narses to use violent Methods to bring them in to his Communion now this was three year after the Council But how could Vigilius his hasty turn in six Months time be called a slow change or a long striving And if Pelagius the second had known of Vigilius his confirming the 5th Council he would not have used so many shifts to ward off the force of his and the Roman Churches dissent which was objected this Epistle had stopt their Mouths for ever and if St. Gregory had known of it he had referred those who doubted of the Apostolical consent not to Pelagius his Epistle but to
appointed by Christ to be the absolute Monarch and Infallible Judge of his Church And since the Notes chiefly follow Baronius we have as we go along in every Period noted several of the designed Falshoods and of the Contradictions Errors and Mistakes in his Annals Which History is so full of Forgeries false Quotations and feigned Tales to set up the Credit of the Roman Church and its corrupt Opinions and Practices that to discover them all would require almost as many Volumes as his Annals make So that we must content our selves with some of the plainest Instances which fall into this Matter of the Councils and will set them in a clear Light and shew they are as contrary to Reason as they are to true History Which Vndertaking we hope will be many ways useful First It will tend to the ease of those who intend to read over the Tomes of the Councils or the Annals of Baronius and save them much time and pains by presenting the principal Errors of those great Volumes at one View which they would spend a long time in searching after if they were to gather them up as they lye dispersed Secondly It may be very useful to those who desire to be rightly informed in the Controversies between us and the Roman Church because it will give them a clear prospect of what Councils and other Antiquities are Authentic and may be allowed for Evidence in this Dispute wherein our Adversaries have so little regard to their own Honour that generally one half of their Evidence is such as they have either forged or corrupted Thirdly It will be necessary by way of Antidote to prepare those who by reading Books so full of Infection may by these plausible Falsifications be in danger to be seduced into a great esteem of the Opinions and Practices of the Roman Church when they find so many seemingly ancient Tracts and Councils brought in to justifie her in all things and see by this false Light all Ecclesiastical History and Records so modelled as to perswade their Readers That in the purest Christian Times all things were believed and done in the Catholic Church just as they are now at Rome But when it shall appear that all this is a continued Series and train of Impostures it will render their Notions and Practices not only suspected but odious as needing such vile and base Artifices to make them seem agreeable to true Antiquity To this it may be Objected That divers of the Modern Writers of this Church and especially the most Learned do now own divers of these Forgeries which we here detect to have been spurious and therefore it seems needless to prove that which they have already granted us I reply That none of them own all these Corruptions and divers of their Authors cite them very confidently to this very day and still the things themselves stand in their most approved Editions of Councils and the Remarks are only in Marginal Notes But since they were believed in those Ages while their Supremacy and other Novel Doctrins were setting up and were urged for good Proofs till these Opinions had taken root it is not satisfaction enough to renounce that Evidence of which they now have no more need unless they disclaim the Doctrins also to which they first gave Credit And till they do this it is fit the World should know by what False Evidence they first gained these Points For if a Man should get an Estate by Bribing his Iury and his Witnesses it is not enough for him to confess these Persons were Suborned unless he restore the Ill gotten Lands and till he restore them he ought to be upbraided with his Bribery even after he hath acknowledged it Secondly It may be alledged That Junius River and Daillé abroad Perkins Cook and James at home have taken great pains on this Subject and that the Learned Author of the Historieal Examination of the Authority of General Councils printed at London 1688. hath already handled this Argument I Answer That the Six former are chiefly concerned in the Tracts of particular Fathers and make few Remarks on the Councils The last indeed keeps close to the Great Councils but passes over the Small ones and any who compares this Discourse with that will find the Design the Method and Instances so different that this Discourse will still be useful in its kind as that will be also For here in an acurate Order all the Frauds of that Church are put together throughout every Century not only what have been observed by others but many now first taken notice of and not observed before And indeed the Instances of these Frauds are so many that we have been forced to give but brief Touches upon divers of the Particulars and could neither enlarge upon single Instances nor adorn the Style our business being chiefly to direct the younger Students in Ecclesiastical Antiquity and if our Remakrs be but so clear as to be understood by and useful to them we have our Aim And it is hoped this may suffice to prove That the genuine Records of Councils do condemn the Modern Doctrin Worship and Discipline of the Roman Church and that whatever in these Editions of them seems to countenance those things are Forgeries and Corruptions devised on purpose to set a false gloss upon their Modern Inventions The Methodical Discovery whereof may convince any unprejudiced Man That Ours is the truly Ancient and Catholic Religion and Theirs a Device of later times which cannot be rendred any way agreeable to the Primitive Writings without innumerable Impostures and Falsifications A BRIEF ACCOUNT OF THE Roman Forgeries IN THE VOLUMES OF THE COUNCILS For the First Three Centuries PART I. CHAPTER I. Of the Forgeries in the First Century § 1. THE Volumes of the COUNCILS in the Edition of Labbe and Cossartius begin with divers Tracts and in Binius's Edition with several Epistles designed to prepossess the Reader with false Notions of the Popes supreme Power over Councils and his Parties high Reverence for them as also of the Protestants having corrupted or else rejected the greatest part of them But this whole Discourse will sufficiently shew the notorious untruth both of their boasting concerning Their own side and of their Censures concerning Ours In the Account of Scripture Councils where they pretend to recite the words of Scripture they add for to give colour to their new Supremacy That Peter stood up as the Principal and Head And again as the Supreme and Head S. Luke in the Acts Chap. VI. 2. saith The Twelve Apostles gave the multitude leave to elect Seven Deacons Binius's Notes say They had this leave by the favour and grant of Peter S. Luke Chap. XV. declares That the Question about Circumcision was finally determined by S. James who also cited Scripture for his determination ver 16 17. But Binius's Notes say This matter was determined not by Scripture but by the Suffrage of the Apostles and
at that time when he would have us believe these Canons were made and He also put in the Constitutions which are forged in the name of the Apostles who were to be set up as Authors also of these Canons And if that were so this 84th Canon being cleared from those two Corruptions is an Ancient and very Authentic Record of the true and genuine Books of Holy Scripture but the Romanists reject it as being a good evidence against their New Trent Canon § 3. To these Canons are joyned a pretended Council of the Apostles at Antioch first put into the Tomes of the Councils by Binius and continued by Labbè one Canon of which allows Christians to make an image of Christ But this notorius and improbable Forgery was never heard of in any Author till that infamous second Nicene Council which wanting proofs for Image-worship from genuine Antiquity impudently feigned such Authorities as this pretended Council § 4. The Pontifical or Lives of the Popes which begins here bears the Title of Pope Damasus but the Notes say Damasus was not Author of it being evidently patched up out of two different Authors containing contradictions almost in every Popes Life So that no account is to be made of a Writing so different from it self Now if this be as it certainly is a True Character of the Pontifical Why do these Editors print it Why do the Notes so often cite it as good Hisstory Why do their Divines quote it as good Authority to prove their Modern Corruptions to have been primitive Rites Since it is a manifest Legend and contained at first nothing but the bare Names and continuance of the several Popes and was filled up by Isidore Mercator who forged the Decretal Epistles with many improbable Fictions unsuitable both to the Men and Times for which they were invented and designed to be a ground for those Decretal Epistles and to make the World believe that all the Popes were considerable for their Actions in all Ages as Dr. Peirson hath excellently proved in his Learned Post humous Dissertation Yet not only these Editors of the Councils print this corrupt Legend but their very Breviaries and Missals generally appoint the Lessons out of it on the Festivals of these Ancient Popes publishing in the very Church in time of Divine Service these Fictions for the true ground of the Peoples Devotions on those Days I confess Binius out of Baronius hath Notes upon every Pope ' s Life and rejects commonly some part of it but then it is such passages as no way concern the opinion or practice of the present Roman Church For the passages which do agree thereto though equally false he generally defends yea cites them to prove their Modern Faith and Usages But as we come to the several Popes Lives which these Editors make the grand direction in Ecclesiastical Chronology we shall observe the many and gross Errors contained in it We begin with the Life of S. Peter whom if we do allow to have been at Rome as this Author reports yet we cannot believe he ordained three Bishops for his Successors there in his Life-time viz. Linus Cletus and Clement Nor that he was Buried in three several places in Apollo ' s Temple and besides Nero ' s Pallace in the Vatican and besides the Triumphal Territory which this fabulous Writer affirms Nor will the Annotator admit that S. Peter could be Crucified by Nero in the 38th year after Christ ' s Passion which was three years almost after Nero's own Death § 5. The next place ever since P. Crabs Edition is by the Roman Editors allotted to a Treatise of the Popes Supremacy writ of late Times by some manifest Sycophant of the Roman Church yet placed here among the Venerable Antiquities of the Apostolic Age to clap a false Biass on the unwary Reader and make him apt to believe that which Richerius said is the main design of Bellarmin Baronius and Possevine in all their Works viz. that the Pope was made by Christ the infallible and absolute Monarch of the Church but the Tract it self makes out this high Claim chiefly by the Decretal Epistles which are now confessed to be Forgeries And by the Sayings of Popes who were not to be believed in their own case To which are added some few Fragments of the Fathers falsly applied and certain false Arguments which have been confuted a thousand times So that the placing this Treatise here serves only to shew the Editors partiality to promote a bad Cause § 6. The Pontifical places Linus as S. Peters Successor but the Notes confess that the Fathers are not agreed about it They own that Tertullian Epiphanius and Ruffinus make Clement to succeed Peter and the 〈◊〉 Learned Bishop of Chester proves Linus was dead before Peter Irenaeus doth not say as the Notes falsly cite him that Linus succeeded Peter in the Government of the universal Church but only that Peter and Paul delivered the Administration of that Church to him which they had founded at Rome Which they might do in their Life time while they went to preach in other places The Epistle of Ignatius to Mary Cassibolite and the Verses attributed to Tertullian which they bring for proof of this Succession are confessed to be spurious Tracts St. Hierom is dubious and upon the whole matter there is no certainty who was Bishop of Rome next to the Apostles and therefore the Romanists build on an ill Bottom when they lay so great weight on their personal Succession § 7. The like Blunder there is about the next Pope The fabulous Pontifical makes Cletus succeed Linus and gives us several Lives of Cletus and Anacletus making them of several Nations and to have been Popes at different times putting Clement between them Yet the aforesaid Learned Bishop of Chester proves these were only two names of the same Person But the Notes attempt to justifie the forged Pontifical by impudently affirming that Ignatius Anacletus contemporary Irenaeus Eusebius St. Augustine and Optatus were all mistaken or all wronged by their Transcribers who leave out Cletus But every Candid Reader will rather believe the Mistake to be in the Pontifical which is a meer heap of Errors and in the Roman Martyrology and Missal which blindly follow it rather than in those Eminent and Ancient Fathers And every one may see the Folly of the Romish Church which Venerates two several Saints on two several Days one of which never had a real Being for Cletus is but the abbreviation of Anacletus his Name § 8. After this we have the Life of Clement wherein the Pontifical makes him succeed Cletus under those Consuls which were in Office the next year after S. Peter's Martyrdom though he had assigned 23 years to Linus and Cletus his pretended Predecessors which years must all be expired in one years compass if this Account be true and one would admire the stupidity of
this Author who though he had placed S. Peters Death so many years before Clement's Entrance as to leave room for two intermediate Popes yet here again repeats his old Fable of S. Peters delivering the Bishopric of Rome to Clement a sufficient proof there is neither Truth nor Certainty in the pretended Personal Succession of the first Popes § 9. From this Pope Clement down to the time of Syricius who lived 300 years after him there are printed in these Editors after every Popes Life divers Decretal Epistles pretended to be writ by the several Popes and Vindicated by Binius's Notes annexed to them Which were received in the Western Church for many Hundred years together as the genuine Decrees of these ancient and pious Popes transcribed into the Canon Law and cited for many Ages to justifie the Usurpations and defend the Corruptions of the Roman Church to determine Causes and decide Controversies in Religion And yet they are all notorious Forgeries so that since Learning was revived divers of the most Eminent Roman Writers have rejected them Card. Cusanus affirms That being compared with the times in which they are pretended to have been Writ they betray themselves Baronius calls them Late invented Evidences of no Credit and Apocryphal yea Labbé and Cossartius have in their Edition a Learned Preface to them proving them to be forged And in their Margin write almost against every Epistle This is suspected This is Isidores Wares c. and also note the very places of Authors who lived long after these Times out of which large Passages in them are stollen Verbatim Which clear Confession of our Adversaries may make some think it needless to confute them and unnecessary to charge this Forgery upon the Roman Church But I cannot think it sit wholly to pass them by because Turrian the Jesuit had the Confidence to defend them all as genuine and Binius in his Edition not only Vindicates them by a general Preface but by particular Notes labours to prove most of them Authentic and Labbé himself prints those Notes at large in his Edition so that such as do not look into his Margen may be deceived Besides this Confession of some Romanists comes too late to compensate for the injury done to the Truth by their Churches approving them so long And they still keep up the Supremacy and all their corrupt Practices and Opinions which were set up and cherished by these Forgeries they now take away the Scaffolds when the Building can stand alone they execute the Traytor but enjoy freely the benefit of his Treason Moreover while some Romanists condemn them others go on to cite them for good Authority Harding brags he had proved many Points of Faith by the Epistles of Clement Damasus Julius Melchiades Pontianus Sixtus Soter and Symmachus Dr. Tho. James shews the particular corrupt Doctrines and Practices which the late Roman Writers defend by the spurious Epistles of Clement Marcellus Marcus and Hormisda And the Learned Cook with infinite diligence hath cited the very Places of the Modern Champions for the Roman Opinions and shewed what Doctrines and Practices they do maintain by these Forged Epistles It is also well known that the Late Scriblers for that Religion do follow Bellarmin and Others in citing these Decretals for good Authority and that the Canon Law is in a great measure composed out of these Epistles by which Causes are determined at this day in all Popish Countries Therefore till the Romanists raze them and the Notes in their defence out of the Volumes of the Councils and expunge all the false Notions taken hence out of their Canon Law yea and leave citing them in their Disputes with us we cannot think it needless to shew the apparent Forgery of them but we will not enlarge so as to disprove the Particulars but put together here our Evidence against them all § 10. These Epistles though pretended to be writ in the first four Centuries were never heard of in the World till near 800 years after Christ About which time came out a Collection of Councils under the name of Isidore Hispalensis but whereas he died An. 636 and this Collector mentions the XIth Council of Toledo and the Sixth General Council which were held near Fifty years after this appears not to be the Work of that Isidore but of one Isidore Mercator and it was first brought into France by Riculphus B. of Mentz in which Collection these Decretal Epistles first appeared but the Learned Hincmarus of Rheims immediately discerned them to be an imposture and Writ against them as Baronius confesseth But though he own the Cheat he is not willing to grant the Roman Church had any hand in it yet that is as clear as the Forgery because Hincmarus was hated and prosecuted by the Pope and forced at last to Recant his Censure of these Epistles and not long after Benedictus Levita having Transcrib'd divers Passages out of them into his Capitulars got them confirmed at Rome which could not but cherish so advantagious a Fiction that supported the Supremacy which they then did so hotly stickle for and therefore though they came first to the Birth in Spain some conjecture they were all Hatched at Rome whose evil Designs and Interest they are contrived to serve But the Age was so Ignorant when they were Invented that there is such infamous and convincing Marks of Forgery upon them as makes it very easie to prove the Cheat beyond any possibility of doubting and we will here put the principal of them together under their proper Heads § 11. First The Style of these Decretals shews they were not writ within the four first Centuries wherein at Rome especially they writ Latin in a much more Elegant Style than is to be found here where the Phrases are modern harsh and sometimes barbarous so that the Reader is often puzled to reconcile them either to Grammar or Sense As for Example Pope Victor's Second Epistle which of old began with Enim and was mended by Binius with Semper enim but still there is false Latin in it viz. aliquos nocere fratres velle The like barbarous Style may be observed in the two Epistles of Pontianus and in many others But the genuine Epistles of Cornelius preserved in Eusebius and S. Cyprian are writ in a more polite Style and as Labbé notes These Epistles shew how much good Mony differs from counterfeit and how much Gold excels Counters The like difference there is between the Style of that genuine Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians and those silly Forgeries put out in his Name in the very Front of these Decretals from whence it undeniably follows That the Decretals were not writ in the Ages wherein the Latin Tongue flourished nor by those Popes whose Names they bear And this is further manifest by divers Words which were not used in the time of these Popes but
Epistles are Forged and consequently of no Authority yet the Roman Church hath made great use of them in the Ignorant Ages For Binius notes all along in his Margen what Sections of them are transcribed into their Canon Law and even in later times their Writers against the Protestants do commonly cite their Infamous Impostures to prove the Supremacy of the Pope his Infallibility and right to Appeals as also for the exemption of the Clergy their Celibacy and Habits and to prove their Mass with its Ceremonies Auricular Confession Apocryphal Books Tradition Chrism Veneration of Relicks and Martyrs c. and Cook in his Censura Patrum hath noted the several Epistles and the Authors which cite them saving us the labour of instancing And therefore we will only make a few general Observations upon this matter and so dismiss these Forgeries Observ I. That since the Romanists have no other genuine Ancient Authors to prove these New Doctrines and Practices by but are forced generally to place these apparent Forgeries in the Fore-front of all their Authorities we may conclude these Points of their Religion are all Innovations unheard of in the Primitive Ages so that Isidore was forced to invent these Epistles almost 800 years after Christ to give some shew of Antiquity to them and these Points were in those Ignorant Times mistaken by this means for Primitive Usages and Opinions and so got footing in the World under that disguise but now that the Fallacy is discovered the Doctrines and Practices ought to be disowned as well as the Epistles on which they are built Observ II. There are many other Points of the Roman Religion which are not so much as mentioned in any of these Forged Epistles such as Worship of Images Formal Praying to the Saints and to the Virgin Mary Transubstantiation Half-Communion and Adoration of the Host Purgatory Indulgences and Justification by Merits with some others Now these are so New that in Isidore's time when he invented these Epistles they were not heard of nor received no not in the Roman Church for if they had no doubt this Impostor who was so zealous to get Credit for all the Opinions and Usages of that Church which he knew of would have made some Popes write Epistles to justifie these also and his silence concerning them makes it more than probable that these were all invented since the year of Christ 800. Observ III. Though the later Romanists frequently cite these Forged Decretals yet no genuine Author or Historian for Seven hundred years after Christ did ever Quote or Mention them no not so much as any of the Popes themselves in all that Period Now it is morally impossible so many important Points should be so clearly decided by so many Ancient Bishops of so Famous a Church and yet no Author ever take notice of it And doubtless when the Popes attempted to be Supreme and claimed Appeals about the year 400 Zosimus and Boniface who quarrelled with the Eastern and African Bishops about these Points and were so hard put to it for Evidence as to seign some private Canons were made at the first general Council of Nice would certainly have cited these Epistles which are so clear Evidence for their pretences if they had either seen or heard of them but they do not once name them in all that Controversie which shews they were not then in being yea those who know Church History do clearly discern that the main Points setled by these Epistles were things disputed of about the Seventh and Eighth Centuries a little before Isidore's time and therefore these Forgeries must never be cited for to prove any Point to be Ancient or Primitive § 17. Obs IV. Though the Inventer of these Epistles was so zealous a Bigot for the Roman Cause yet many things are to be found in them which contradict the present Tenents of that Church For whereas the Pope now claims an Universal Supremacy even over Jerusalem it self Clement's first Epistle is directed to James the Bishop of Bishop's Ruling the Hebrew Church at Jerusalem and all the Churches every where founded by Divine providence Anacletus first Epistle orders all the Clergy present to receive under pain of Excommunication which is not observed now in the Roman Church Pope Telesphorus orders a Mass on the Night before Christmas and forbids any to begin Mass before nine a Cleek But Binius confesses their Church doth not now observe either of these Orders Pope Hyginus forbids all foreign Jurisdiction because it is unfit they should be Judged abroad who have Judges at home So the third Epistle of Pope Fabian appoints that every Cause shall be tried where the Crime is committed which passage is also in a genuine Epistle of S. Cyprian to Cornelius And all foreign Jurisdiction is again forbid in Pope Felix his second Epistle which passages do utterly destroy Appeals to Rome unless they can prove all the Crimes in the World are committed there The second Epistle of Fabian allows the People to reprove their Bishop if he Err in matters of Faith the same Liberty also is given to the People in Cornelius second Epistle which seems to make the People Judges in Matter of Faith a thing which the Modern Romanists charge upon the Protestants as a great Error From these and many other passages we may see that these Impostures do not in all Points agree with the present Roman Church § 18. I have now done with the Epistles themselves and proved them to be apparent Forgeries I will only give the Reader some cautions about those partial Notes printed on them both in Binius and Labbè which though they frequently correct confute and alter divers passages in these Epistles Yet if any thing look kindly upon the Roman Church they magnifie and vindicate it but if it seem to condemn any of their Usages they reject and slight it For Example Pope Pius cites Coloss XI 18. against worshiping Angels and the Notes reject both S. Hierom's and Theodoret's Exposition of the place as Reflecting on their Churches practice adding that S. Paul condemned Cerinthus in that place for giving too much Honour to Angels Yet Binius soon after tells us that Cerinthus was so far from Teaching they were to be Adored that he thought they were to be Hated as Authors of Evil Pope Zepherine cites the Apostolical Canons for the Priviledges of his See and saith there were but Seventy of them But Binius in his Notes saith he refers to the Seventy third Canon Yet if the Reader consult that Seventy third Canon the Pope's See is not named there yea that Canon forbids a Bishop to Appeal from his Neighbor Bishop unless it be to a Council Out of Calixtus fust Epistle which Labbè owns to be a manifest Forgery Binius Notes cite a Testimoy for the Supremacy calling it an evident Testimony and worthy to be Noted Pontianus in his Exile brags ridiculously about the
of Jerusalem Bishop of Constantinople Yet our Annotator cites Dionysius Exiguus for a Witness of these Epistles whereas Richerius shews they were Forged by some Ignorant Monk long after Dionysius his time who mentions not the Pope ' s confirming of these Canons nor doth he remember these Epistles but only saith it was agreed these Canons should be sent to Sylvester Bishop of Rome The Notes further urge a Roman Council under Pope Sylvester to prove his Confirming these Canons but that Council is a confessed Forgery it self and so proves nothing Lastly The Annotator here and almost every where cites Socrates his speaking of an Ecclesiastical Canon that no Decrees of Councils should be valid without the consent of the Roman Bishop But First Consent is not Confirmation It is the priviledge of every Patriarch as well as of him of Rome That a General Council cannot be held without every one of their consents but this proves not their pretended sole and supreme Power of ratifying all Councils vested in the Pope Besides Socrates here only Historically relates what Pope Julius said in his own Case and therefore the Testimony relies on Julius his Credit and indeed that was a peculiar Case wherein when the Cause of Athanasius was referred by consent of all parties to Julius as Arbitrator the Arians took it out of his Hands against Athanasius his Mind and judged it in a Council to which Julius was not at all summoned which doubtless was very illegal and unjust But yet none can tell where this Ecclesiastical Canon was made which the angry and injured Pope here cites and therefore till it appear whence Julius had this Canon we must be excused if we give no great Deference to it and unless they cou'd prove it was Recorded before the Nicene Council it is very impertinent to expect the Nicene Fathers should Govern their Actions by it So that we conclude not Sylvester but Constantine confirmed this Council Fourthly As to the number of the Canons the Annotator also notoriously prevaricates He confesses that all the Greeks and particularly Theodoret and Ruffinus assert there were but Twenty Canons made there yea that the Sixth Council of Carthage within less than an Hundred years after a diligent search in the three Patriarchal Seats of Alexandria Antioch and Constantinople could find no more than Twenty Canons But the Notes conceal Gratian's naming no more but Twenty Canons and his saying there are but only Twenty Nicene Canons to be found in the Roman Church For all this the Annotator boldly tells us That the truer Opinion or rather that which is most for the Popes interest is that more than Twenty Canons were made there But we will examine his and Baronius's reasons First They say there is no Decree about Easter among the Twenty Canons I reply There is a genuine Epistle of Constantine's in which this matter is determined with the reasons for it which is better than a bare Law without Arguments in a case which had been so much disputed nor could they make any acurate Canon about it till the exact time was Calculated which they referred not to the Pope but to the Bishop of Alexandria Secondly The Notes say S. Ambrose mentions a Canon made at Nice against Bigamists but Baronius himself confesseth that S. Ambrose only saith They treated of this matter but doth not affirm they made a Canon about it Thirdly They plead there was a Decree about the Canon of Scripture made at Nice which is not among these Twenty because S. Hierom saith he had Read that the Nicene Fathers computed Judith among the Books of Holy Scripture I reply S. Hierom only saith they computed it among Holy Writings that is as we shewed before § 15. among Books to be Read for instruction not to be quoted in Dispute For if S. Hierom had believed this Council did receive Judith for Canonical he would not have counted it as he doth to be Apocryphal So that this proves not that there were more Canons Fourthly The Notes affirm there is no Canon now extant here against a Bishops choosing his Successor in his Life time which S. Augustine saith was forbid in this Council which is a gross Untruth since the Eighth Canon forbids two Bishops should be in one City and the Notes own this was the very Canon meant by S. Augustine in the next Leaf Liers should have better Memories Fifthly They say the third Council of Carthage cites a Canon of Nice forbidding to receive the Sacrament after Dinner but if the place be considered as Richerius notes that Council only refers to a former African Synod which had decreed this and not to the Council of Nice Sixthly The Annotator speaks of a Canon about Appeals to Rome cited out of this Synod in the Sixth Council of Carthage but he was wiser than to tell us who cited this for a Nicene Canon for it was Pope Zosimus's Legate cited it and he was convicted of a notorious Falsification therein as shall be shewed in due place Seventhly He saith there was a Canon made at Nice but not to be found among the Twenty that a Cause tried in a lesser Synod might be judged over again in a greater and for this he cites the Fourth Epistle of Julius but in his Notes on that Epistle he confesseth this was no Canon made at Nice but only it was matter of Fact in that this great Synod did judge Arius over again who had before been judged at Alexandria Eightly The Notes say Atticus Bishop of Constantinople at Chalcedon did affirm that the Nicene Council agreed upon a Form of writing Communicatory Epistles which is not among these Twenty Canons I reply Baronius and he both own this Form was to be a Secret among the Bishops and if it had been put into a Canon Heretics might easily have counterfeited these Forms and so the design had been spoiled Lastly the Annotator cites Sozomen to proves that the Nicene Council added to the Gloria Patri the later part As it was in the beginning c. Whereas Sozomen in that place only speaks of such as praised God in Hymns agreeing to the Faith delivered at Nice but mentions no Canon or Form of words agreed on at Nice about these Hymns So that after all this shuffling it is very impertinent for this Annotator to brag that it is manifest there were more than Twenty Canons made in this Council and Nonsense to tell us that the Greeks who stifly maintain there were but Twenty Canons cannot deny but there were more than Twenty And for all his Confidence neither he nor Baronius dare defend those Eighty Canons which Turrian hath fathered on this Council and therefore whatever is more than these twenty or differing from them must pass among the many Forgeries of the Roman Church Fifthly As to the Sense of those Canons which oppose the Pope's Interest the Notes use many Impostures in expounding
Brother even when they Complement him as a great Master and Doctor which smells strong of the Forge and if this Epistle were made up there then the Notes need not triumph so much when it says upon Jovinians being condemned at Rome That the Bishop of Rome had looked well to the Gate committed to him that is say they the Gate of the whole Church of which Christ made S. Peter's Successor the Door-keepers But if the Epistle be true it only commends the Pope for looking well to the Gate of his own Church at Rome as they had done to their Gate at Milan having turned him out of that Church before The third Epistle of Siricius is like the former for style and sense yet the Editors will not reject it because the Pope saith He hath the care of all the Churches but let it be noted that Aurelius Bishop of Carthage uses the same words of himself a little after and there Binius notes That Aurelius means of the Churches of Africa only not of the whole World So we may say justly of Siricius here that he means He had the Care of the Suburbicarian Churches not those of the whole World For the fourth Epistle said to be writ from a Roman Council calls the Pope no more but a Primate and that Title belonged to the Bishop of Carthage as well as to him of Rome but indeed Labbé honestly confesses this fourth Epistle to be stollen out of Innocent's Epistle to Victricius The fifth and sixth Epistles are writ by Maximus an Usurper of the Empire and seem to be genuine but we need not wonder at the Tyrants speaking so kind things of the Pope in them since it was his interest to Flatter the Bishop of that potent City § 30. This Maximus having seized on the Northwest parts of the Empire summoned a Council at Bourdeaux which the Editors without any ground style under Siricius wherein the Bishops of the Gaâ—ican Church again condemned the Priscillianists and they appealed not to the Pope but to the Emperour Maximus who was so far from favouring these Heretics that at the instance of Ithacius a Catholic Bishop he caused them to be put to death for their Heresie Which cruel Sentence so displeased Theognistus and other Orthodox Bishops that they Excommunicated Ithacius and all his Party who had procured these Heretics to be put to death and S. Martin S. Ambrose and the best Men of that Age would not communicate with any of these Bishops who had prosecuted Men to death for Heresie no not though Ithacius and his Adherents were absolved from Theognistus his Excommunication in a Council which Maximus had called at Triers Now the Notes fearing the Reader should observe That many Popes and Bishops of their Communion have done just as Ithacius did viz. persecuted such as they call Heretics to death and delivered them up to the Secular Magistrate to be executed tell us That it was not an ill thing in Ithacius to procure the death of these Heretics but his Fault was in the violence of his Proceedings and in his not interposing such a Protestation as their Church uses on these occasions Wherein when they have made it necessary for the Magistrate to put an Heretic to death they solemnly declare they wish he would amend and do not desire his Execution But as this Protestation is a piece of notorious Hypocrisie unknown to those Ages so we may be sure so apparent a Sham would not have excused Ithacius whose Communion as Sulpicius Severus shews was renounced by S. Ambrose S. Martin and Others purely because they thought it unlawful especially for Clergy-men to procure any persons to be put to death for their Opinion though it were Heresie Wherefore these Holy Bishops if they were now alive must renounce the Communion of the Roman Church for the same reason for which they renounced the Communion of Ithacius even for their frequent procuring Heretics to be put to death and this is so plain that all their shuflling Notes cannot wash their Bishops hands from Blood nor fit them in S. Ambrose and S. Martin's Opinion to celebrate the Eucharist with other Christians There had been as we noted a long Schism at Antioch between Paulinus of whose side was the Pope and many Western Bishops and Flavianus who was supported by the Eastern Bishops and now Paulinus dying one Evagrius was irregularly chosen to succeed him and keep up the Schism and though Flavianus was owned for the true Bishop by the second General Council and he it was who ordained S. Chrysostom and obtained a Pardon from Theodosius for those Citizens of Antioch who had broke down the Statues of that Emperour and his Empress yet at the Instance of some Western Bishops the Emperour was perswaded to cite him to a Council which he had called at Capua in which S. Ambrose was present but Flavianus not willing to have his Enemies to be his Judges did easily excuse his Non appearance to the Emperour and the Synod thereupon referred the Matter between him and Evagrius unto Theoplalus Patriarch of Alexandria to whose decision Flavianus refusing to stand he appealed to Theodosius on which occasion S. Ambrose writing to Theophilus wishes rather Flavianus had referred the Matter to his Brother the Bishop of Rome because saith he you would probably have judged it if it had come before you so as he would have liked Which implies no more than that Theophilus and Siricius were both of one mind in this case of Flavianus yet on this slight occasion the Notes say That the Synod made Theophilus Arbitrator on condition he should offer his Sentence to be approved and confirmed by the Roman Church Which is a meer Forgery for Theophilus was made absolute Arbitrator by the Synod and this is not the Councils wish but S. Ambroses and after all Flavianus did not think a Western Synod had any power over him and therefore he rejected the Arbitration of Theophilus the Council and Pope Siricius also with whom though he did not communicate yet he was always owned to be true Bishop of Antioch § 31. The Second Council at Arles is supposed to be held about this time because the Followers of Photinus and Bonosus were there condemned Wherefore they say It was in the time of Siricius but under him it could not be since the Bishops there assembled do not name him nor do they except the Bishop of Romes Supreme Power when they refer all Ecclesiastical Matters to the final decision of their own Metropolitan and his Synod and declare that every Bishop who receives a person Excommunicated by another shall be guilty of Schism Yet the Editors are so apt to dote upon the Popes managing all Councils that they here style a meeting of the Novatian Heretics at Angaris in Bithynia A Synod under Siricius and call poor Socrates a Novatian for barely relating a Matter of Fact concerning the Novatians At this
nothing to himself alone as Baronius falsly pretends And to make this single Priviledge of Rome the more credible he doth frequently apply what the Ancients say of all the Bishops of the West to the Pope Thus what S. Basil saith of all the Western Churches he applies only to Rome And when he recites two Epistles of S. Basil whose Title is to the Western Bishops and the whole discourse in it directed to many Bishops he feigns the Name of the Pope is left out or lost and concludes these Letters were peculiarly directed to him and this only to support the Roman Supremacy and therefore he repeats over and over this matter and affirms it was an Embassy sent to the Pope Thus also when S. Ambrose saith The Western Bishops ' by their Judgment approved of his Ordination He infers that S. Ambrose implies It was confirmed by a public Decree of the Apostolical See And whereas Basil speaking of those Western Bishops in his time who he saith kept the Faith entirely Baronius infers from hence That their Successors and especially the Bishops of Rome have never erred since Like to which is his inferring the usage of Praying to Saints from a pure Rhetorical flourish of Nazianzen's in one of his Orations And thus when S. Hierom uses all his Oratory to set off Virginity because that seems to make for the Roman Celibacy he takes him to be in good earnest and will have all his Reflexions upon Marriage to be solid Arguments though S. Hierom himself calls them Trifles But when he tells a sober Truth about the Ignorance of the Roman Clergy then the Cardinal tells us He speaks by way of Hyperbole From which Instances it doth appear that our Annalist did not like an Historian endeavour to declare Truth but only to serve an Interest and a Party § 7. Lastly His Partiality notoriously appears where-ever the Church of Rome is any way concerned for when any thing of this kind comes in his way he puts off the Character of an Historian and turns Disputant labouring to confute the most ancient and authentic Authors if they seem to say any thing against that Church Thus we may observe what tedious digressions he makes about the Primacy of Rome in his discourse on the Nicene Council for which he twice makes Apologies Again he runs out into a long and very impertinent dispute about the Worship of Images in an Age when no good Author mentions them as used in the Church In like manner He makes a long excursion to disprove an Authentic Story of Epiphanius tearing a Veil with a Picture wrought in it because such things were not fit to be in Churches and he scarce ever meets with any of the Roman Corruptions mentioned in the most fabulous Authors but he leaves the History and enlarges into Remarks upon those Passages But if the Writer be never so eminent that touches any of these Sores his business always is to bafâ—le the Evidence of which there is scarce one year in his Annals wherein there are not some Examples On the other side He takes every slight occasion to make the most spiteful Reflexions on all that he counts Enemies to the Roman Church Thus he applies the Bishop of Alexandria's description of the Arians to the Reformed Churches though it agree much better with these of his own Religion Again He reviles us because we do not honour the Modern idle lewd Monks of their Communion as much as the Ancients did those holy and devout Monks which were in the Primitive Times though it be plain to all the World these are like them in nothing but the Name The like Outcry he makes upon Protestants for undeceiving some of those silly Nuns who have been decoyed into unlawful Vows meerly for Interest and Secular Ends and affirms the perswading these to Marry is worse than the Arian's ravishing and murthering them at Alexandria Thus also he compares the Reformed Divines to the Eunomians who taught Their Faith alone would save them though their Lives were never so wicked forgetting that their Priest's convert as they call it Murderers at the Gallows by teaching them this very Principle And to name no more Examples when S. Basil inveighs against those who despised the Ancient Customs of the Primitive Church He spitefully applies this to the Reformed Whereas in very Truth they of Rome have left off more Ancient Rites and brought in more new ones than any sort of Christians in the World By these and many more Instances which might be given even out of this one Century it is evident that the whole design of his History is to make all the Doctrins and Practices of Rome seem to be Primitive and right and that he cares not how unlawful the Means be which he uses to gain this belief in his Reader § Yet to conclude we will observe That after all his evil-Methods there are many things which he could neither avoid relating nor yet excuse which condemn the Modern Roman Church I wonder how he could Commend Constantine for abolishing the Stews and the prostituting of Christian Women there and not observe That the Pope now tolerates these Abominations in Rome it self Again how doth it agree with the INFALLIBILITY of the Pope to say That one Holy Spirit governs the Catholic Church so as to make the Bishops of all Ages and Places agree in the same Opinion If this be so what need one Bishop alone be made Infallible And if it be as he saith a Doctrin taught by the Apostles and consequently true That the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father then the Pope who condemns this as an Heresie of the Greeks is not Infallible If Constantine had known of this Infallibility lodged at Rome he would have sent thither for exact Copies of the Holy Scriptures and not to Eusebius in Palestina If Damasus had this Infallible Spirit how came he after he was Pope to need to be instructed in the meaning of Scripture by S. Hierom Or if his Successor Siricius had been Infallible how could the Origenists who held such palpable Heresies that a Woman discovered them to be in an Error impose upon his Simplicity and get Letters Testimonial from this sole Judge of Heresie How came the Council of Alexandria to send their Decrees to Epiphanius S. Hierom and S. Chrysostom and not first send them to Anastasius who was Infallible And indeed Baronius cannot prove they were sent to him at all but by saying It is fit to believe they were sent Moreover many things in this Century related by these Annals look not favourably upon the SUPREMACY Constantine calls Eusebius's Election to the See of Antioch An advancement to the Bishopric of the Universal Church which looks as if he knew nothing of the Pope's Pretences That Marcellus of Ancyra even when he was accused before Pope Julius should call
for some Eminent Bishops to be named as the Standard of Catholick Communion not from any Priviledge of their See but because at that time they were Orthodox So the Bishops of Constantinople Alexandria and Antioch are named in a Rescript of Arcadius the Emperor with this Character that such as did not hold Communion with them should be cast out of the Church And thus Athanasius Ambrose Cyril and others eminent for being Orthodox have been made the Touchstones of Mens Faith such passing for true Believers only who held the same Faith with them For this Pope there are divers Epistles published upon which and the partial Notes upon them we will make some brief remarks The first Epistle to Decentius Bishop of Eugubium was writ the last year of Innocent Anno 416. but is placed first because it talks big of St. Peter and of the duty of other Churches to conform to the Roman usages But there are some passages in it which make it questionable whether this Pope writ it or if he did shew his ignorance and gross mistakes for the Author affirms That no Apostle but Peter did Institute Churches Ordain Priests and Preach in Italy France Spain Africa Sicily and the adjacent Islands Whereas the Scripture testifies that St. Paul did institute the Church at Rome and preached in Italy and most of the Ecclesiastical Writers affirm that St. James preached in Spain 2ly He enjoyns the Saturday Fast which was a peculiar Custom of the Roman Church not observed in the East nor at Milan nor almost in any other Churches of divers Ages after and we may observe that among all Innocent's Reasons for it there is not one word of the Blessed Virgin who was not worshiped in those days as she is now by the Romanists who now pretend to observe this Saturday Fast peculiarly to the honour of the Virgin Mary 3ly He allows not only Priests but also Lay Christians to give extream Unction to the Sick if the Oyl be but consecrated by a Bishop In which point the Roman Church hath since altered her Opinion and I doubt not but they will call this now a manifest error The second Epistle to Victricius as Labbè confesseth is patched up out of the fourth Epistle of Siricius and the seventh of Pope Zachary And the Centuriators note concerning all these Epistles which go under Innocent's Name That sometimes whole Paragraphs are taken out of the Epistles of both former and later Popes which is a ground to suspect that most of them are not genuine However there hath been a later hand employed to foist in a passage or two into this Epistle for whereas the First Writer declares that all Causes shall be determined in the Province where they happen some have put in a Sentence excepting the reverence due to the Roman Church into the Body of the Section and an exception of reserving the greater Causes for the Apostolick See in the end of that Section which make the whole Decree null and contradict the Nicene Canon cited there And whereas the former sentence was meer non-sense in Binius Labbè hath put two words siue praejudicie into his Edition to make this gross Addition seem coherent and conceal the Forgery Again the Author of this Epistle in his zeal against the Clergies Marriage falsly cites it for Scripture That God's Priests must marry but once and it is but a poor excuse which Labbè makes that Tertullian had cited this as out of Leviticus since the infallible Interpreter of Scripture should have corrected his Error and not have countenanced an addition to the Holy Text to serve an ill Cause 3ly The Writer shews himself grosly ignorant of the Courses of the Jewish Priests when he saith they did not depart from the Temple nor go to their House in the year of their Ministration Whereas every one knows that there was but 24 Courses of the Priests and that every Family ministred but one Week at a time from Sabbath to Sabbath Yet this Author makes the same mistake again in the third Epistle and considently talks again of the year of their Course 4ly Whereas St. Paul had declared Marriage honourable in all Men without excepting Ministers and the Bed undefiled This Impudent Epistolizer calls the use of Marriage in the Clergy a being stained with Carnal Concupisence and expounds that place Those who are in the Flesh cannot please God of such Marriages making the Apostle contradict himself by this sensless and false Gloss But notwithstanding all these pernicious and absurd Errors Baronius and Binius do extreamly magnifie the Pope upon this occasion as being that Original Fountain from whence the most Famous Bishops of the World used to draw Water knowing of what great Strength and Authority these things were which came from the Apostolical See But first If these Epistles be forged which is very probable then all these brags and bold inferences are vain if they be true and were writ by Innocent they may justly blush that such poor stuff should come from the Bishop of so great a See and however it will not follow that the Roman Bishop was the Head of the Catholick Church because Victricius and Exuperius writ to him for advice For how many more and greater Bishops writ to St. Basil St. Augustine yea to Isidore of Peleusium and St. Hieroin who were only Priests and how far do their Answers exceed those of the Pope Yet none will be so ridiculous to magnifie the See of Coesarea or Hippo or the Monasteries of Peleusium and Bethlehem as if they were the very Fountains of Religion or these Persons the Heads of the Catholick Church I will only add that Orosius is noted by Baronius himself to have consulted with St. Augustine and St. Hierom about matters of Faith and greater concernment by far than these and not with Innocent his pretended Original Fountain so that every one doubtless did not take the Pope for the sole infallible Oracle in those days The third Epistle to Exuperius is liable to all the Objections against the former Labbè saith it is patch'd up out of Siricius Epistle to Himerius the second Epistle of Celestine and one of Leo to Theodorus and therefore probably it is forged Or if we grant it genuine it looks not very favourably upon their Modern Pretence to Infallibility for the Pope here says he will answer according to the measure of his understanding and confesses that by Conference he added to his Knowledge and while he was answering others always learned something himself The Notes also are much mistaken in arguing from two Bishops enquiring of Pope Innocent's sense in some matters of Discipline That all the Catholick Church ought to keep the Decrees of the Apostolick See For there were many hundred Bishops in those and other Provinces who never enquired after the Bishop of Rome's customs nor desired his advice and
it is very certain that divers of these pretended Decrees were not observed no not in France where these two Bishops lived for divers Ages after they are pretended to be sent thither Before I leave this Epistle I must observe that the last Section about the Canon of Scripture wherein all the Apocryphal Books are reckoned up as part of the Canon is a gross Forgery added to it 300 years after Innocent's death for Cresconius never saw this part of the Epistle nor doth he mention it under this Head though he cite the other parts of it so that if the whole Epistle be not forged yet this part of it is certainly spurious and added to it by a later hand as is at large demonstrated by Bishop Cosens in his History of the Canon of Scripture to which I refer the Reader noting only that the Council of Trent grounded their Decree about the Canon of Scripture not upon genuine Antiquity but palpable Forgeries and Corruptions In the following Epistles unto the twelfth there is nothing remarkable but some brags of the dignity of Rome and many pretences to a strict observance of the Ancient Canons which were no where oftner broken than in that Church Some think they are all forged because they want the Consuls names And the twelfth Epistle may pass in the same rank since it is dated with false Consuls viz. Julius the fourths time and Palladius but because it seems to shew that the Pope took care even of Foreign Churches Baronius resolves to amend it of his own head and puts in Theodosius and Palladius though still the number is false for Theodosius was the seventh time Consul with Palladius not the fourth and had not this Epistle made for the Popes Supremacy the Annalist would not have taken pains to mend it The thirteenth Epistle which passes in Binius for a famous testimony of Innocent's zeal in discovering the Pelagians and meriting Notes is the same with the beginning of the second Epistle of Foelix the fourth and Labbè saith it is a forgery of the counterfeit Isidore The fourteenth Epistle calls Antioch a Sister Church and from Peters being first there seems to confess it was the elder Sister and both that and the sixteenth Epistle speak of one Memoratus which Baronius will not allow to be the proper name of a Bishop because indeed there was no such Bishop in that time so that he expounds it of the Bishop remembred that is of Paulinus but the ill luck is that Paulinus is neither named before nor remembred in either of these two Epistles The Notes on the sixteenth Epistle mention it as a special usage of the Bishop of Rome not to restore any to his Communion unless they were corrected and amended but this was ever the rule of all good Bishops and of late is less observed at Rome than in any other Church The eighteenth Epistle maintains a very odd Opinion viz. That the Ordinations celebrated by Heretical Bishops are not so valid as the Baptism conferred by them and the Notes own that the Persons so Ordained may truly receive as they call it the Sacrament of Orders and yet neither receive the Spirit nor Grace no nor a power to exercise those Orders which seems to me a Riddle For I cannot apprehend how a Man can be said truly to receive an Office and yet neither receive Qualifications for it not any Right to exercise it The twenty second Epistle cites that place of Leviticus That a Priest shall marry a Virgin and affirms it as a Precept founded on Divine Authority and he censures the Macedonian Bishops as guilty of a breach of God's Law because they did not observe this Precept which every one knows to be a piece of the abrogated Ceremonial Law and the Annotator cannot with all his shufling bring the Pope off from the Heresie of pressing the Levitical Law as obligatory to Christians But there is one honest passage in this Epistle which contradicts what this Pope had often said before of the sinfulness of Priests Marriages for here he saith The Bond of Matrimony which is by Gods Commandment cannot be called sin However out of this Epistle which is a very weak one and dated only with one of the Consuls names the Editors feign a Council in Macedonia and a Message sent to the Pope for confirmation of their Acts which doth not appear at all in the Body of the Epistle And Baronius desires the Reader to note How great Majesty and Authority shined in the Apostolick See so that it was deemed an injury to require the Popes to repeat their former Orders Whereas if this Epistle be not forged it is no more but a nauseous repetition of the same Orders which he and his Predecessors had given over and over and the frequent harping upon the same string in all the Decretal Epistles especially as to the Marriage of the Clergy shews how little Majesty or Authority shined in the Popes since all the Countries to which they sent their Orders so generally despised them that every Pope for divers Ages was still urging this matter without that effect which they desired The twenty third Epistle was writ to some Synod or other they know not whether at Toledo or Tholouse as we noted before And the Jesuit Sirmondus in Labbe by elaborate conjectures and large additions probably of his own inventing had put it out more full and adorned it with Notes which pains the impartial Reader will think it doth not deserve The twenty fourth Epistle is dear to the Editors and Baronius because the Pope therein is his own witness that all Matters ought to be referred to his Apostolical See and that the Africans application to him was a due Veneration since all Episcopal Authority was derived from him 'T is true St. Augustine doth mention a Message sent to Innocent out of Africa but he adds that he writ back according to what was just and becoming a Bishop of an Apostolical See But as to this Epistle besides the hectoring language in the Preface there is neither Style nor Arguments but what are despicable and Erasmus did long since justly say In this Epistle there is neither Language nor Sense becoming so great a Prelate so that probably the whole may be a Fiction of some Roman Sycophant which is the more likely because Labbè owns that one of the Consuls names is wrong that is Junius is put for Palladius Erasmus adds that the twenty fifth Epistle is of the same grain with the former the Style is no better and the Matter of the same kind for he brags that whenever Matters of Faith are examined application must be made to the Apostollcal Fountain And yet this Pope as the Notes confess held the Eucharist ought to be given to Infants yea that it was necessary for them that is I suppose for their Salvation Now the
The Date of this Epistle must be false being An. 490 that is two years before as they reckon Gelasius was Pope Labbè would mend it by antedating the entrance of Gelasius forgetting that he had printed an Epistle of Foelix to Thalassius dated that year his Invention therefore was better than his Memory The 6th Epistle shews that notwithstanding the Popes fair pretences to an Universal Jurisdiction his neighbour Bishops in Dalmatia did not own it but looked on him as a busie-body for medling in their affairs and suspected the Snake of Usurpation lay under the florid Leaves of his seeming care of all the Churches The 7th Epistle is briefly and imperfectly set down by Baronius because he would conceal from his Reader that Gelasius makes Purgatory and Limbus Infantum a Pelagian Opinion Let them saith he take away that third place which they have made recipiendis parvulis for receiving little Children And since we read of no more but the right hand and left let them not make them stay on the left hand for want of Baptism but permit them by the Baptism of Regeneration to pass to the right Which illustrious Testimony the Editors would obscure by reading decipiendis parvulis for deceiving Children But if that were the true Reading it shews this Pope thought none but Children and Fools would believe a Third place invented by the Pelagians since Scripture speaks but of two viz. Heaven and Hell It is a trifling Note on this Epistle That Gelasius admonished some Bishops of Italy against Pelagianism not fearing two Princes one of which was an Eutychian the other an Arrian Heretick For what cared these Princes for the Popes Letters against the Heresies of others so long as he let them alone and never admonished them of their own Heresies The 8th Epistle was writ to one of these Heretical Princes viz. to Anastasius and the Pope is scandalously silent about his Heresie nor doth he once reprove his Errors in the Faith but only labours even by false pretences to justifie his Supremacy which gave too just a ground for that Emperor and his Eastern Bishops to tax this Pope of secular Pride a fault very visible in all his Writings on this Subject Further we may note that this Epistle was of old inscribed thus Bishop Gelasius to the most glorious Emperor Anastasius but the Editors have left out the Emperor's Epithet for fear he should look bigger than the Pope Also where the Pope prays that no Contagion may stain his See and hopes it never will which plainly supposes it was possible Rome might Err otherwise he had mocked God in praying against that which could not happen and assurance had left no place for hope if the Popes were absolutely Infallible Yet here the Marginal Note is The Apostolical See cannot Err Which may caution the Reader not to trust their Margent nor Index for there is often more in the Inscription than can be found in the Box. The 9th Epistle being dated An. 494. was odly cited by Baronius to prove that Gelasius was made Pope in An. 492. It seems to be a Collection of divers Canons put together no Body knows by what Pope And one thing is very strange that whereas the Preface owns the Clergy were almost starved in many of the Churches of Italy Yet the Epistle impertinently takes great care that the Rents be divided into four parts as if all things had then been as plentiful as ever And whereas these Rules are sent to the Bishops of Lucania near Naples the Pope's forbidding them to dedicate Churches without his Licence is by the Marginal Note made a General Rule for all Countries but falsly since the Bishops of the East of Afric Gaul c. did never ask the Popes Licence in that Age to consecrate Churches The 13th Epistle is a bold attempt toward an Universal Supremacy For Gelasius finding the Bishop of Constantinople at his Heels and come up almost to a level with him uses his utmost effort to make a few Rascian Bishops believe he was set over the whole Church But he shews more Art and Learning than Truth or Honesty in this Argument asserting these downright Falshoods First That the Canons order all the World to Appeal to Rome and suffer none to Appeal from thence But Bellarmin knowing these Canons where those despicable ones of Sardica and that even those did not intend to oblige the whole World in citing this passage changes Canones appellari voluerint into appellandum est So that he chuses to leave it indefinite that all must appeal to Rome rather than undertake to tell us with Gelasius how that See came by this Right Secondly That the Roman Church by its single Authority absolved Athanasius Chrysostom and Flavian and condemned Dioscorus as this little Pope brags which is as true as it is that the Roman Church alone decreed the Council of Chalcedon should be received she alone pardoned the Bishops that lapsed in the Ephesine latrociny and by her Authority cast out the obstinate Which this Epistle audaciously asserts though there are more untruths than lines in the whole passage And if liberty be not deny'd us we appeal to all the Authentic Historians of those Ages who utterly confute these vain brags Yet Bellarmin adds to this extravagant pretence of Romes alone decreeing the Council of Chalcedon these words by her single Authority But Launoy blushes for him and says what Gelasius here saith is not strictly true and that he needs a very benign Interpreter that is one who will not call a Spade a Spade But let this Pope's assertions be never so false they serve to advance the ends of the Roman Supremacy and therefore you shall find no more of this long Epistle in the Annals but only this hectoring passage Though he unluckily confesseth immediately after that Gelasius did no manner of good with all this And no wonder since that Age as well as this knew his pretences were unjust his reasoning fallacious and his instances false Thirdly He asserts that Pope Leo vacated the Canons of Chalcedon 'T is true he did it as far as lay in him who measured Right only by Interest But we have shewed they remained in full force in all other parts of the Church notwithstanding his dissent openly declared Fourthly He affirms that the care of all the Churches about Constantinople was given to Acacius by the Apostolick See Which is as hath been proved a notorious Falshood of which this Epistle is so full that one would suspect it was the Off-spring of a much later Age. 'T is certain the Title is very unusual Gelasius Bishop of the City of Rome c. And the date is false the Consul named is Victor whose year was 70 year before Baronius and the Editors of their own head mend it and read Viator and Labbè tells us in the Margin that some things are wanting in this Epistle
Name-sake Anastasius wherein 't is plain he thinks the Quarrel about Acacius now deceased no just ground for the two Churches to separate from each other Yet for the scandal he had given his Opinion was that his Name alone ought to be left out of the Dypticks but withal he approves of the Baptism and Orders he had given and justifies this by good proofs of Scripture Gratian holds this last Decree to be illegal and uncanonical because it contradicts the determinations of some of his Predecessors But impartial Readers will see that his Opinion is better confirmed by Reason and Scripture than the contrary ever was by any Pope that held it Nor ought the Notes to say Anastasius decreed this by a dispensation grounded on his Apostolical Authority For it is an Orthodox Truth That the Crimes of the dispensers of Sacraments and Holy Orders especially if it be only Schism do not invalidate them to such as in their integrity receive them So that unless a Pope need a dispensation to tell Truth here is no occasion for any dispensing Power This Epistle is followed by a Memorial given by the Legates of Alexandria to the Popes Legates then at Constantinople for an Union between the two Churches which they speak of as equal Sister Churches and give no hint of any subjection due from them to Rome which they think had unfortunately mistaken them as guilty of Heresie Nor doth Anastasius in the former Letter to the Emperor pretend to any power that he had over Alexandria but desires the Emperor by his Wisdom and Authority to reduce them to the Catholic Faith calling him the Vicar appointed by God to preside in the Earth Which the modern Roman Writers think too great a complement to a Lay Prince Upon the death of Anastasius the Roman Clergy were divided and chose two Popes Laurentius and Symmachus But after a warm and long contest both parties agreed to refer it to an Heretical Gothish King viz. Theodoric to declare an Infallibly Orthodox Head of the Church Who modestly referred it to a Synod of Bishops and they at last confirmed the Election of Symmachus The Notes call this a Schism of the universal Church But it was no more than a Schism of that particular Church of Rome and had no influence that we hear of upon the whole Catholick Church Only a Legend cited out of the fabulous Dialogues which disparage the Name of Gregory the Great tells us that Paschasius a learned and holy Roman Deacon was seen after his death in an odd Purgatory of hot Water condemned thither as Symmachus Friends told the story for taking part with Laurentius But it seems when this Fable was made praying to Saints was not in fashion for Paschasius desires the Bishop that saw him to pray to the Lord to release him The Notes also here cite a very idle story of an Image which bled when it was shot but Damascen is his Author who lived 250 year after this and whose stories about Images are generally ridiculous and incredible But 't is more material to observe that this Pope Symmachus was charged with notorious Crimes and the Papal power was then so low that the Roman Clergy petitioned an Arrian King to send Visiters to try the Pope who submitted to this Judicature authorized say the Notes by this excellent Prince And the Bishops as they observe not only acquitted the Pope but were so wise as to conceal the fault of which he was accused But if that were so great a piece of Wisdom Ennodius who then writ an Apology for him and Baronius and Binius who now would vindicate him shew no great discretion in confessing he was accused of Adultery For which if it were true he deserved a worse Purgatory than his Antagonist Paschasius The Epistles published in Symmachus's name are Eleven The two first of which were formerly directed to Caesarius but now they alter the Title and inscribe them to Eonius It seems the Forger was no good Chronologer and the Stile is so barbarous the Sense so obscure and the Matter so jejune that it would be a Scandal to any Pope to have writ them And if Symmachus writ these the 5th and 8th may be discerned by their Style to have been endited for him by a more able hand that is by Ennodius who Binius supposes did write the 8th Epistle However this Pope is very free in blaming his Predecessor for decreeing contrary to the ancient Custom But he scruples not to break many Canons at once by ordering that the Popes for the future shall name their Successors In the 7th Epistle of Symmachus the Editors and Baronius have manifestly corrupted the Text reading ist a quidem ego for ista quidem nego But the Sense shews the Forgery for the Emperor had charged the Pope for excommunicating him in the case of Acacius Symmachus replies I deny these things we have not Excommunicated you O Emperor but Acacius leave him and you are quit of his Excommunication if you do not thrust your self into his Excommunication you are not Excommunicated by us if you do you are Excommunicated by your self not by us So that whether you stick to him or leave him however you are not Excommunicated by us We see the Pope over and over declares they had not by any particular Sentence Excommunicated the Emperor at Rome it was only Acacius in particular and his Followers in general who were sentenced there in which Sentence if the Emperor wilfully involved himself they who had done nothing against him could not justly be blamed as if they had Excommunicated him Now to bring in this Sentence with ista quidem Ego is to make the Pope contradict himself and confess he had Excommunicated the Emperor which he utterly denies and therefore ista quidem Nego must be the true Reading and that bold Forgery of turning it into Ego was made on purpose to set up an early Precedent for the Pope's having Excommunicated Emperors Finally The Margen of the same Epistle to carry on the same holy Cheat observes That the Pope's Dignity is greater than the Emperors But this is not in the Text where Symmachus thus expresseth himself I will not say it is a greater but an equal power So that when the Pope had stretcht a little they go much further and dare tell greater Untruths than he And here we shall conclude this Century because the first Synod said to be held under this Pope ought to be dated after the year 500 and belongs to the next Age To which we shall proceed with Gods assistance hereafter when we have first in our usual method noted some remarkable Errors in Baronius that are within this Period but have not fallen in our way as we treated of the Councils of this time An Appendix concerning Baronius his Annals THE Cardinal hath given a just but severe censure of his own
and priviledges granted by the Council of Chalcedon So that the Cardinals Inferences grounded on supposing that Leo exercised jurisdiction over and took away the Priviledges from Anatolius are not only weak but very absurd He supposes Acacius was the Enditer of an Edict of Leo the Emperor touching the Priviledges of the See of Constantinople and then harangues upon his Ambition and severely taxeth his Pride But he brings no proof but his own conjecture that Acaoius did procure this Edict Yet if he did it only confirms the ancient Priviledges of that See and those it was then in possession of and if this make him appear proud as Lucifer as the Cardinal intimates How many Edicts with ten times loftier Stiles have the Popes procured or forged to set up and support their Supremacy Yet we find no censures of them nor no inferences but in their commendation It is a false supposition that Acacius was stirred up by the Letters of Pope Simplicius to oppose the Heretical attempts of the Usurper Basiliscus For as we have proved before Simplicius flattered this Tyrant at the same time when Acacius moved by his own Zeal for the Catholick Faith opposed him But it is the Cardinals design to make all good Deeds owe their original only to the Popes and to blacken all that Acacius did because he would not truckle to the Papal Chair Otherwise when Basiliscus doth no more but restore the Rights that Constantinople had before his time as the words of the Edict shew and Theodorus Lector affirms nothing but that the Rights of that See were restored why should it be a Crime in Acacius to procure this Confirmation from Basiliscus I dare say Baronius thinks it no fault in Boniface to get the Primacy of Rome established by Phocas a Bloodier Tyrant and greater Usurper than Basiliscus A little after upon the bare Affirmation of an interested and partial Pope he saith Acacius governed the Eastern Provinces by a power delegated from the Pope and upon this supposition he explains the lapsed Asian Bishops Supplication to him as if it was on the account of his being the Popes Legate But nothing can be falser for if Acacius would have submitted to such a Delagation the Popes and he had never fallen out so that nothing is more certain than that he ever despised such a delegated power and exercised jurisdiction over those Asian Bishops by an Authority granted him by Councils and Imperial rescripts That is by as good right as the Pope had in Italy Another false supposition is that Timothy the Orthodox Bishop of Alexandria sent the Petition of such as had fallen in the time of his heretical Predecessors to Rome to beg Pardon and to desire they might be readmitted into the Church and thence he infers That the absolution from the crime of Heresie was wont to be reserved to the Pope A Note so false and absurd that we must suppose those Millions of Hereticks which on their repentance were absolved all the World over in all Ages without consulting the Pope were not rightly absolved if this were True But he builds it on a Rotten Foundation The Letter of Simplicius whence he deduces it saying no more but that this Timothy of Alexandria had sent him a Copy of this Petition to shew upon what terms he had readmitted them to the Communion of the Church and the Pope thought his proceedings were unexceptionable But there is not a word of their desiring a Pardon from Rome or of the Popes granting it much less of that Patriarchal Church of Alexandria's wanting power to reconcile its own Members which was setled on it by the Council of Nice as amply as the Roman Churches was Soon after he supposes no Election of a Patriarch of Alexandria or Antioch was good and valid unless it were confirmed by the Pope Now he draws this consequence from a Letter of Simplicius which only says that upon Zeno the Emperors charging John Talaia the elect Bishop of Alexandria with Perjury who had endeavoured to get the Pope to own his Communion Simplicius would not confirm him upon so eminent a Persons objection Which confirming signifies no more than the Popes giving him Communicatory Letters as to an Orthodox Bishop which was requisite for every Patriarch to grant to any New-Elected Patriarch as well as the Pope And that it signifies no more is plain from hence because though afterwards this John's election was approved at Rome yet that confirmation did not make him Bishop of Alexandria So that a Papal confirmation in those days gave no Bishop a Title and was no more but a Testimonial of their Communicating with him at Rome and judging him Orthodox And John Talaia desired such a Confirmation as this from Acacius as well as from the Pope as Liberatus affirms and the miscarriage of those Letters it seems was one reason why Acacius opposed his Election He reckons up a great many things in his opinion grievous Crimes done by Zeno the Emperor but that saith he which is more odious than all the monstrous wickednesses is that an Emperor should establish a Decree about matters of Faith Now this is all on supposition that Princes are not to meddle in the setling the True Religion But if he look into Sacred or Ecclesiastical Story he shall find nothing hath been more usual than for the most Religious Princes to confirm the true and condemn false Religions and therefore if this Uniting Edict of Zeno were Orthodox of which we do not now dispute the making it was no Crime as all The next Year he repeats the Story of John Talaia his appealing to the Pope and because in this Age they have made him the Supreme Judge over the whole Church Baronius saith he appealed to him as to the lawful Judge But Liberatus out of whom he hath the Story shews he applyed to the Pope only as an Intercessor and persuaded him to write to Acacius in his behalf And indeed the Popes definitive Sentence in those days would have done him no good Wherefore he only desired he would use his interest in Acacius to reconcile him to the Emperor but all in vain Which shews that the Eastern Church did not then believe the Pope was a lawful Judge in this Case It is a bold stroke under such a Pope as Simplicius who submitted to the Eastern Emperors who in Baronius Opinion were Schismaticks and to the Arrian Gothic Kings in Italy and who could purge his own City from Heresie but connived at the Arrians who possessed neer half Rome for the Historian to brag that the Popes Majesty and Authority shined as bright as under Constantine or Theodosius and as vain a boast that their Universal Power was as great under Pagan persecuting Emperors as at any other time For he never hath nor never can make this out and the History of all Ages shews that the Popes power was very inconsiderable at first and
matter And if we consider how the Scene is dressed up with variety of Letters lately found out we shall be tempted to think this part of the Epistles are forged yet we may allow what Baronius saith that this abundance of Letters may make us that read them now know more of this case than they who lived in that Age knew if they never saw these Letters For 't is probable neither Hormisda nor his Legates nor Justin Justinian c. did ever see these Epistles that now appear under their names so that we may very well know more than they did but the reason is only because we know more than is true We may discover some marks of Forgery in divers of these Papers As that most of them want the Consuls Names and are not dated That Germanus says he was received in Procession with Wax Candles and Crosses a Custom of a later date for we have no Crosses in another Procession described by a Writer of that time The calling Hormisda in one of the Letters Arch-Bishop of the Universal Church and the Emperors giving the Popes Legate the Title of His Angel These with many other things that might be observed make it probable these Papers were Invented for a Pattern to the poor Greeks when the design of subjecting them to the Latin Church was on foot in later Ages § 4. To proceed Whereas Justinian in one particular point desires the Opinion of Hormisda and complements him so far as to tell him He will believe that to be Orthodox which he shall answer Baronius prints this in great Letters and Binius from this particular Assertion draws a general Inference in his Margen viz. That which is defined by the Pope is to be received by all for the Catholick Faith A Consequence so absurd that Labbè is ashamed of it and leaves it out as well he might since Justinian did not agree with the Pope in this Question after he had received his Answer And the dissenting Eastern Bishops at this time reckoned Hormisda to be a Nestorian if we can credit any of these Papers So that doubtless Justinian never thought a Pope Infallible In another Epistle ascribed to John of Constantinople not so very truckling as the former that Bishop is made to say by the help of the Intercession of the Holy and Consubstantial Trinity and of the glorious and true Mother of God A Phrase too absurd for any Bishop to use For with whom should the Trinity intercede or what can be more ridiculous than equalling the Virgins Intercession to the Trinity unless it be the making the Trinity pray to it self Labbè boldly attempts to mend this Sentence but without Authority and after all it s evidently writ by a later Hand If the next relation of Germanus be true it appears No cause of a Bishop of the East could be tried at Rome without the consent of the Emperor who expresly forbids the trying the Cause of Dorotheus at Rome though the Pope earnestly desired it might be judged there as Baronius also confesseth By the relation from the Synod at Constantinople it appears that they call their new elected Patriarch Epiphanius The Popes own Brother and fellow Minister and count their joynt endeavours to be one Brothers helping another Binius strives to blunder this by printing it Germanum vestrum as if it were the proper name of the Popes Legate But Labbè honestly restores the true reading germanum vestrum The Epistle next to this bears the name of Justinianus Augustus yet is dated Anno 520 which is a gross mistake for he was not styled Augustus till near seven year after as Baronius owns Anno 527. Yea after this Justinian is styled Vir illustris and for certain was not Emperor when this Letter is said to be writ The Notes after Hormisda's 70th Epistle do bitterly inveigh against Johannes Maxentius and the Scythian Monks as notorious Lyers and Eutychian Hereticks and Labbè is more severe in his Censure than Binius or Baronius But they are all mistaken For this Maxentius was entirely Orthodox and defended the Council of Chalcedon against the Eutychians as is fully proved by two learned and judicious Writers Bishop Usher and Forbesius And we may be sure Baronius first invented this false accusation thinking it impossible any Man but a Heretick could write against the Pope to be revenged on Maxentius for so bold a Fact But in the Age before Cochlaeus a Papist or Catholick as Baronius calls him did honestly put out Maxentius his Works as an Orthodox Writer though Maxentius do write against the Epistle under Hormisda's Name to Possessor an African Bishop and proves whoever was the Author of that Epistle was a Lyer and an Heretick as were also Possessor and Dioscorus one of the Popes Legates and he further justifies himself and the Scythian Monks blaming the Pope for banishing them from Rome Saying amongst other thing If the Bishop of Rome should prohibit us to confess Christ the Son to be one of the Holy and undivided Trinity the Church would never yield to him nor respect him as an Orthodox Bishop but utterly Accurse him as an Heretick So that no body then believed the Pope to be Infallible and for Hormisda Maxentius suspects him to be a favourer of Pelagianism The Emperor Justin speaking of the Church of Hierusalem saith that all men shew tantum favorem the Editors read tamen only to blunder the Period so much favour to it as to the Mother of the Christian Name that none dare separate from it Had this been said of Rome how would the Parasites have Triumphed Yet wanting real Encomiums in the next Paper they steal one and where the Eastern Clergy speak of their own Churches which had not swerved from the Faith delivered to them The Editors apply this to Rome and say in the Margen The Roman Church never deviated from right Doctrin But the Reader will find there is no mention of the Roman Church in that place only S. Peter who founded that of Antioch is pointed at a little before Before Hormisáa's 77th Epistle there is one of Justinian to Hormisda wherein he declares that after the Controversie was setled ultra non patiemur they blunder it by reading nos patiemur He will not suffer any one under that Government to stir any more in it Which is a brisk Order to the Pope in a cause of Religion For which reason and because it shews that he and the Greeks would not yield to leave out any Name but that of Acacius Baronius omits it and only prints the answer to it For this was writ the year after the pretended consent of the Patriarch of Constantinople to rase out Euthymius and Macedonius with other Names out of the Dypticks We cannot leave this Pope without some remarks on his carriage in answer to the Question propounded to him by Justinian viz.
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