did not write till An. 1180 yet the Notes out of Baronius do confess that a Pope quoted it An. 1054 that is near an Hundred years before Balsamon was born to justifie his Superiority over the Greek Church and therefore Balsamon was not the Inventer of it Secondly It doth the Greeks no good for it gives the Pope power over all their Patriarchs and reckons Constantinople as the last and lowest Patriarchate so that the Forger could not come out of that Church Thirdly It is grounded on the fabulous Acts of Sylvester writ in Latin and feigned in the Western World and its whole design is to advance the Pope above all Bishops Kings and Emperors and therefore no doubt it was advanced by a Friend of the Popes Fourthly The Notes confess That a Pope first set up this Edict to prove his Universal Supremacy not considering with Baronius it seems that it weakened his Title and the grave and learned Men of the Roman Church received it as Authentic for many Ages after We add That till the Reformation they cited it and writ in defence of it and though now their Point is gained they begin to renounce it yet the Advantage that Church got by it shews that they were the Forgers of it yea it seems Anno 1339 one Johannes Diaconus a Member of the Roman Church was thought to be the Author of it Fifthly Whoever considers how unwilling the Cardinal and our Annotator are to have it clearly rejected will be convinced that their Church gained by it and consequently invented it They labour to prove the Popes temporal Power granted hereby is both probable and true And though they own the French Princes Pipin and Charles who gave many Cities and Countries to S. Peter never mention this Edict yet they argue from their calling those Gifts A restoring them to the Church that they had respect to Constantine's Bounty These Authors also mention Pope Adrian's confirming this Edict and quote the Book of Constantine's Munificence shewed to be a Fable just now to justifie it They also would make out what it saith of the Images of Peter and Paul then kept at Rome by Eusebius but cite him falsly leaving out the main part of his Testimony viz. That it was only some who had such Images and that these imitated the Pagans herein from whence it will not follow That eminent Christians then placed them in their Churches In short Though they dare not say it is true yet they would not have it rejected as false because it gives their admired Church so much Riches and Power and therefore doubtless no Greeks but some of their Church invented this most notorious Forgery And Aeneas Sylvius observes That it was warily done of the Popes to let it be hotly disputed how far this Edict was good in Law that so the Edict it self might still be supposed valid it being their Interest it should be thought so This feigned Donation is followed by a Roman Council under Sylvester in the Preface whereof Sylvester is falsly pretended to have called the Nicene Council and in the body of which there is a Canon That none must judge the Chief Seat not the Emperor nor Kings nor Clergy nor People For the sake of which two advantagious Fictions Baronius and the Annotator defend and justifie this Synod though the Title be ridiculous the Style barbarous and the Matter of it as void of Sense as it is of probability Labbé indeed notes That the Condemning Photinus here shews it was put together by an unskilful Hand and rejects it as a Forgery very justly For Photinus as the Notes confess was not Condemned till long after nor were there any Christian Kings but Constantine the Emperor at that time Besides the Forger first says None of the Laity were present and yet in the next Page affirms That Calpharnius Praefect of the City was there and that Constantine and his Mother Helena subscribed it yea Baronius himself observes That this Council mistakes the Custom of the Roman Church where in that Age Presbyters use to sit in the presence of the Bishops but in this Fiction they are represented as standing with the Deacons Moreover it destroys the Donation Lies seldom hanging together for if Constantine had given the Pope such Supreme Power a few days before what need was there for these Bishops to grant the same thing or however why do they not remember Constantine's late Gift Lastly Arius who then gave so great Trouble to the Church is not mentioned here not as Baronius guesses because he was to be more solemnly Condemned at Nice the next year but because the Forger had nothing in his Eye but meerly to set off the Grandeur of Rome § 17. We are now come to the First and most famous General Council of Nice wherein the worst and most dangerous of all Heresies was suppressed and yet the pretended Judge of all Controversies and Supreme Head of the Church had so little share in this glorious Transaction that it is very uncertain in what Popes time it was called Sozomen and Nicephorus say it was in the time of Julius Others think it was in Sylvester's time Photius affirms it was in the times of both Sylvester and Julius though unhappily Pope Mark was between them two Yet this Council is introduced by a Preface a la Mode a Rome styled The History of the Council of Nice wherein as well as in the Notes and various Editions of this famous Council all imaginable Artifice is used to abuse the Reader into a belief That Pope Sylvester not only called this Council and presided in it by his Legates but also confirmed it by his sole Authority afterwards For the clearer Confutation of which Falshoods we will consider First The Authority which convened this Council Secondly The President of it with the Order of Sitting in it and Subscribing to it Thirdly The Power which confirmed it Fourthly The number of the Canons Fifthly The true Sense of them Sixthly The Forgeries for Supremacy herein inserted Seventhly The corrupt Editions of the Council it self First As to the Authority convening it The Preface saith Constantine assembled it by Sylvester ' s Authority The Notes affirm it was appointed by the Advice Counsel and Authority of Pope Sylvester and again Pope Sylvester by his Pontifical Authority decreed the celebration of a General Council To prove these vain Brags they cite Ruffinus whose Version of this Council they reject yet he only saith That Constantine convened it by the Advice of the Bishops However this is Advice not Authority and Advice of the Bishops in general not of Sylvester in particular and if any Bishops did give the Emperor particular Advice it was those of Alexandria and Constantinople not He of Rome Secondly They quote the Sixth General Council held 350 years after this of Nice and in other things rejected by the Romanists which saith
are often put into these Epistles Such is Religiositas for Piety and Universitas for the World in the Decretals of Dionysius such is Miles for a Servant and Senior for a Lord in the Decrees of Pope Pius which are Words not heard of till the time of the French Empire in that sense Such is the Phrase of making Oblation to redeem mens Sins and the Name of the Mass in Fabian's Decrees Pope Gaius his Decretal Epistle mentions Pagans but that Name was not used for the Gentils till Optatus Milevitanus his time who first used it in that Sense saith Baronius Moreover innumerable places in these Epistles mention Primates and Patriarchs Arch-Bishops and Metropolitans c. which Words were not used in the Christian Church in the time of those Popes who are pretended to have writ about them As for Example The first Epistle of Clement the second Epistle of Anacletus and many others but no Christian Writer ever used the Word Patriarch for a Christian Bishop till Socrates Scholasticus who writ An. 442 In like manner we find the Word Apocrisary in Anacletus's first Epistle and also in the second Epistle of Zepherine yet Meursius in his Glossary cannot find any elder Authority for it than Constantine's Donation forged after that Emperor's time and owns the Name was not heard of before Gloss p. 43. The Name of Archdeacon also is in Clements second Epistle and in Pope Lucius's Decrees but the Office and Title did not come into the Church till many years after And finally the Name of a Diocesan for a Christian Bishop is put into Calixtus second Epistle but was not used in that Sense till long after his time All which prove these Epistles were writ in the later barbarous Ages and not in the time of those Popes whose Names they bear § 12. The same may be proved Secondly by the Matter of these Epistles which is no way suitable to those grave and Pious Popes who lived in times when the Church was pestered with Heresies and oppressed with Persecutions yet these Epistles do not either confute those Heresies nor comfort the Christians under Persecutions But speak great Words of the Roman Supremacy and of Appeals of the exemption and priviledges of Bishops and Clergy Men of splendid Altars and rich Vessels for Divine Administrations and the like which make it incredible they could be writ in an Age of suffering Instances of this we have in Clements first Epistle where he Orders Primates and Patriarchs to be placed in such Cities as the Heathens of Old had Arch-Flamins in Whereas the Heathensthen had Flamines and Priests in all Cities His third Epistle is directed to all Princes greater and less and Commands them to obey their Bishops Whereas all Princes in the World at that time were Gentils The like absurdity appears in Calixtus first Epistle where he gives Laws to the Emperors and all others professing piety as if Heliogabulus and Caracalla had been under his Command And in the second Epistle of Sixtus Ano. 260 who threatens to Excommunicate the Princes of Spain who spoiled their Bishops though all Princes then were Heathens Marcellinus also in a time of Persecution under a Heathen Emperor gives direction what is to be done by an Emperor professing the true Faith Who can imagin Anacletus Anno Dom. 104 should speak of Priests in little Villages and of Cities which anciently had Primates and Patriarchs or tell us in Trajans time That Rome had cast away her Heathen Rites Or that he should affirm the Christian people were generally Enemies to their Priests and Command the Bishops to visit the Thresholds of S. Peter's Church before it was Built Is it likely Euaristus the next Pope should declare That Children could not Inherit their Parents Estates if they were not Baptized by a Christian Priest or suppose Churches and Altars consecrated long before the Memory of any Man in the Parish Could Pope Xystus in Adrian's Persecution brag that Rome was the Head over all Bishops and also a Refuge to such as were spoiled by Christian People Were there in Pope Hyginus time as his Decrees pretend More Churches and larger than the Revenue belonging to them could repair Is it propable Pope Pius should complain Anno 158 That Christians should Sacrilegiously take away whole Farms dedicated to Pious Uses Yet this complaint is found in his second Epistle And Binius Notes justify this by a forged Decretal of Urban the First and by proving that in the time of Constantine 140 Years after the Heathens had taken Houses from the Christians The Decree for Vailing Nuns at 25 years of Age must be of later time because it is certain no Nuns were vailed then nor were any under Sixty years Old allowed to profess Virginity When all Christians were so constantly present at Divine Offices and received the Sacrament Weekly what need was there for Pope Soter to decree No Priest should say Mass unless two were present and that all should Communicate on Maunday-Thursday How could there be Secular Laws forbidding the People to conspire against their Bishop as Calixtus Decretal pretends or how could he mention the Laws of the Roman and Greek Emperors so long before the Empire was divided Had Bishops in Pope Urbans time power to Banish and Imprison the Sacrilegious or had they high Seats in the form of a Throne Erected for them in Churches as his Epistle pretends Could the next Pope by his Decree hinder Heathens and Enemies to the Christian Clergy from accusing them as the first Epistle of Pontianus gives out Antherus Epistle charges Bishops in those times with changing their Churches out of ambition and covetousness even while nothing but Martyrdom was to be got by being a Bishop And Fabian is made to charge the Faithful with spoiling their Bishops and citing them before the Lay Tribunals which is not credible of the Christians of that Age Cornelius his genuine Epistle saith The Christians durst not meet at Prayers in any known Rooms no not in Cellars under ground But the Pontifical and one of his Forged Decretals pretend that this same Pope had liberty to Bury the Apostle S. Peter's Body in Apollo's Temple the Vatican and the golden Mount that is in three places I suppose at once Lucius a Martyred Pope makes it a wonder that in his days Churches should be spoiled of their Oblations and Ministers vexed Pope Stephen threatens to make Slaves of Clerks who accuse their Bishop and forbids Lay-men to complain of the Clergy Doth it consist with the poverty of those Ages for Eutychianus to decree That Martyrs should be Buried in Purple or with its charitv for the same Pope to forbid Christians to pray for Hereticks when our Lord bids them pray for their Enemies I should tire the Reader and my self if I
Pope Eusebius but makes Melchiades immediate Successor to Marcellinus It is very observable that these two unknown Popes in the Notes on their Lives are said to have sat Seven years between them And the Pontifical saith There was a Vacancy of Seven years after Marcellinus which Vacancy is also asserted by Anastasius Biblioth by Luitprandus Abbo Floriacens Cusanus and Genebrard And though Baronius's and Binius's Notes deny this Seven years Vacancy it is upon meer Conjectures The Scandal of so long a Vacancy no doubt setting some of the old Parasites of Rome on work to invent two Popes Names and put them into the List from whence probably they have been foisted into Oâ—tatus and S. Augustine two Latin Fathers while the Greek Authors which these Forgers Understood not do continue Uncorrupted And truly nothing but the Names of these two Popes remain for no good Historian mentions any one Eminent Act done by either of them however the Annotator had rather fill up his Scene with empty Names of Feigned Popes who did nothing for Seven years together than let the Reader suppose the Catholic Church could so long want it s pretended Head But though the Notes allow not the Authority of the Pontifical for the Vacancy they trust it for the fictitious Story of this Marcellus his Life and would have us believe That in a time of Persecution this Pope appointed Twenty five Churches in Rome to Baptize Converts and Bury Martyrs in and though the Laws and Customs of that City then forbad to Bury dead Bodies within the Walls we are to believe that the Tyrant Maxentius who made all these Martyrs and persecuted this very Pope consented to his breaking this Ancient Law On the Credit of the same Pontifical we are told That a certain Lady called Lucina dedicated her House to this Pope while He was alive by the Title of S. Marcellus and that the Emperor turned it into a Stable and made the Pope his Beast-keeper there where Naked and cloathed with Sackcloth they are the Words of the Pontifical He soon after ended his days the 17th of the Kalends of February Which Fiction the Roman Breviary orders to be read to the Credulous People of that Communion for Lessions and tells them That Marcellus writ an Epistle to the Bishops of the Antiochian Province about the Roman Primacy and to prove Rome to be the Head of All Churches and that no Synod should be held without the Pope's Authority But this Epistle is owned by Labbé to be a Forgery patched up out of divers Modern Authors citing the Vulgar Latin Version and dated after Marcellus his death And it is very strage That times of Persecution should be a proper Season for a Pope to wrangle for his Supremacy Yet this Notorious Forgery saith Christ ordered S. Peter to Translate his Seat from Antioch to Rome and that the Apostles by Inspiration decreed That all Appeals should be made thither and no Council held but by the Authority of the Roman Church For which cause Binius vindicates it with Notes as full of Falsehood as the Epistle it self His first Note of this Epistle being writ to one Solomon a Bishop is an oversight and belongs to the first Epistle of Pope Marcellâ—nus His next Notes about the Primacy and Power of Calling Synods cite an Apostolical and Nicene Canon for it but no such Canons are to be found He quotes also two Epistles one writ to Pope Foelix from Alexandria another writ by Pope Julius to the Eastern Churches for proof of this Supremacy and the same Annotator afterwards owns them both to be Forgeries He falsly saith Dioscorus was Condemned at Chalcedon only for holding a Synod without the Pope's Consent whereas he is known to have been accused of many other Crimes His Text of Fasce oves is nothing to this purpose nor will Pope Pelagius his Word be taken in his own Cause His Story of Valentinian makes nothing for the Pope more than any other Bishop Yea the Bishops desiring him to call a Council shews They thought it was His Prerogative and Nicephorus relates his Answer to have been That he was so taken up with State Affairs that he had no leisure to enquire into those matters Wherefore after all this elaborate Sophistry to justifie a false Assertion of a Forged Epistle the Annotator hath only shewed his partiality for the Pope's Power but made no proof of it The second Epistle of this Marcellus to the Tyrant Maxentius is also a manifest Forgery part of it is taken out of his Successor Gregory's Epistles writ almost Three hundred years after this and it is highly improbable That a persecuted Pope should falsly as well as ridiculously to a Pagan Emperor quote the Laws of the Apostles and their Successors forbidding to persecute the Church and Clergy and also instruct him about the Roman Churches power in Calling Synods and Receiving Appeals and cite Clement's Forged Epistle as an Authority to Maxentius That Lay-men must not accuse Bishops The Notes indeed are unwilling to lose such precious Evidence and so pretend That Maxentius at this time dissembled himself to be a Christian but this Sham can signifie nothing to such as read the Epistle where Marcellus complains That he then persecuted him most unjustly and therefore he did not pretend to be a Christian at that time and consequently the whole Epistle is an absurd Forgery And so is that Decree subjoyned to it which supposes young Children offered to Monasteries and Shaved or Veiled there Customs which came up divers Centuries after this § 2. The Canons of Peter Bishops of Alexandria are genuine and a better Record of Ecclesiastical Discipline than any Pope to this time ever made the Reader also may observe the Bishop of Rome is not once named in these Canons and they plead Tradition for the Wednesday Fast contrary to the Roman Churches pretence of having an Apostolical Tradition to Fast on Saturday The Council of Elliberis in Spain is by Binius placed under Pope Marcellus which Words Labbé leaves out of the Title and justly for if there were such a Pope the Council takes no notice of him nor is it likely that Rome did know of this Council till many years after Yet it is both Ancient and Authentic though Mendoza in Labbé reckons up divers Catholic Authors Caranza Canus Baronius c. who either wholly reject it or deny the 34th 35th 36th and 40th Canons of it which condemn the Opinions now held at Rome And though Binius because Pope Innocent approves it dare not reject it yet he publishes Notes to make the Reader believe it doth not condemn any of their Opinions or Practices The 13th Canon speaks of Virgins who dedicated themselves to God but mentions not their being Veiled or Living in Monasteries which Customs came in long after as the Authors cited in the Notes shew The 26th Canon calls it an Error to
a Catholic because he was in Communion with Rome then Orthodox and with other Churches and his being a Catholic meerly for being in Communion with the Roman Bishop which is the modern and false notion of the word Catholic among Papists in our days But Binius was so convinced that S. Augustine's words confuted Baronius's Paraphrase that he cunningly leaves them out to make this commodious Sense of them go better down with careless Readers § 4. The next Pope Eusebius was so obscure as the Notes on his Life declare that no Writer mentions any thing of him that is memorable and it is probable there never was such a Pope Yet the Pontifical saith The Cross was found in his time upon the 5th of the Nones of May which is the very Day on which the Roman Church now celebrates The Invention of the Cross And the Third Decretal Epistle of this Pope was devised on purpose support this Story yet both Baronius and Binius reject it for a Fable even while their Church still observes that Holy-day There are Three Epistles forged for this Name of a Pope all which Labbé owns to be spurious and I need not spend much time to prove it since they cite the Vulgar Latin Version and are mostly stollen out of Modern Authors as Labbe's Margen shews having only one Consul's Name for their Dates because no other was named in the Pontifical Besides the first Epistle uses the Phrase Pro salvatione servorum Dei which is not the Latin of that Age and talks of Rigorous Tortures used among Christians to make Witnesses confess Truth The second Epistle repeats the foolish Argument of Christ's whipping the Buyers and Sellers many of which were Lay-men out of the Temple to prove that God alone must judge Priests and out of a much later Roman Council suspected also of Forgery speaks of the Peoples not judging their Bishop unless he err in Matters of Faith and discourses of Edicts of Kings forbidding to try an ejected Bishop till he be restored to his place The third Epistle hath the Fable of the Invention of the Cross and all other Marks of Forgery on it yet Bellarmine cites it to prove the Pope's Succession to S. Peter in his Universal Monarchy and to make out Confirmation to be a Sacrament So little do those Writers value the credit of any Evidence if it do but make for their Churches Authority or support its Doctrines § 5. The Seven years Vacancy being now expired Melchiades was chosen Pope and Sat Three years and Seven Months according to the Pontifical and though the Ecclesiastical Tables as they call them generally follow this Author yet Baronius here by them corrects the Pontifical and allows Melchiades only Two Years and Two Months But all this is Conjecture for he grants the Consuls in the Pontifical are so false that they cannot be reconciled to Truth whence it follows That the Decretal Epistle ascribed to this Pope whose Matter is taken from the Pontifical and whose Date is by those who were not Consuls till after Melchiades's Death must be false also Yet the Notes defend this Forged Epistle and Bellarmine cites it for the Supremacy and for Confirmations being a Sacrament whereas the beginning of it is stollen out of Celestine's Epistle to the French it quotes the Vulgar Translation and cites an Apostolical Priviledge granted to Rome for the sole right of Trying Bishops to justifie which The Notes cite the 73d and 74th Apostolical Canons but those Canons order Bishops to judge an offending Bishop and make the last appeal to a Synod without taking any notice of Rome or of this pretended Priviledge Again this Feigned Epistle impudently makes Confirmation more venerable than Baptism and the Notes defend that bold Expression But we cannot but wonder since they assert That Bishops by Gods Law have the sole power of Confirming the same Men should grant That the Pope can give a Priest leave to Confirm Which yet they say changes not the Divine Right of Bishops That is in plain terms One mans sole Right may be delegated to another by a Third person without any injury to him who had the sole Right After this follows a Council at Rome under Melchiades wherein the Pope by delegation from the Emperor is joyned in Commission with Three French Bishops who are called his Collegues to hear the Donatists complaint against Cecilian Bishop of Carthage and Constantine not only received the Donatists first Appeal and delegated this Cause to Melchiades and his Fellow Commissioners but upon a second Complaint ordered this Matter to be heard over again in a French Council which the Pope in Council had determined Now this so clearly shews that the Pope was not Supreme Judge in those days that Baronius and Binius are hard put to it to Blunder this Instance The Notes say Constantine was yet raw in the Faith and yet they say also He knew by God's Law nothing was to be done without the chief Bishop But they are forced to prove this by a false Translation of Constantine's Epistle to Melchiades the words of which in Greek are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which in their Version is As the most holy Law of God requires but Valesius's Translation which Labbé gives us is As is agreeable to the most Venerable Law That is as all men know to the Imperial Laws So that Constantine only says He had ordered the Accusers and Accused all to appear at Rome before these delegated Judges as the Venerable Laws which order both Parties to be present when a Cause is tryed do require and by the help of a false Translation this occasion is made use of to make the Credulous believe That God's Law required all Causes should be tryed at Rome Whereas it is apparent by this Instance That a Cause once Tryed there before the Pope might be tryed over again in France if the Emperor pleased The two following Epistles of Constantine out of Pithaeus his Manuscript are very suspicious the first speaks more magnificently of Christ than one who as they say was so raw in the Faith was like to do And in it Constantine is made to decline Judging in Bishops Causes which is a protestation against his own Act and contradiction to the second Epistle wherein He declares that this Episcopal Cause shall be tryed before himself Nor is this first Epistle Recorded in Eusebius or agreeable to Constantine's Style so that we suppose that was devised by such as designed to persuade Princes That Bishops were above them For which purpose Baronius here cites a Law of this Emperor to Ablavius Giving men leave to choose Bishops for their Judges and not allowing them after that to appeal to Secular Courts because they had been heard by Judges of their own choosing But Baronius perverts this to signifie That Bishops were above Secular Judges by their ordinary Jurisdiction whereas they were not so in any
this Council was called by Sylvester and Constantine But they quote falsly for that Sixth Synod puts the Emperor's Name first and though they are no Evidence against Authors living in the time of the Niâ—ene Council yet even this shews they thought the Emperor's Authority was chiefest in this Matter The Notes also cite the Pontifical which they have so often rejected as Fabulous and Sozomen as if they said the same thing But for Sozomen he never names Sylvester but saith Pope Julius was absent by reason of his great Age and the Pontifical only saith It was called by the Consent of Sylvester not by his Authority and indeed it was called by the consent of all Orthodox Bishops Wherefore there is no good Evidence that the Pope did call it But on the other side All the Ecclesiastical Historians do agree That Constantine Convened it by his own Authority and sent his Letters to Command the Bishops to meet at Nice and not one of them mentions Sylvester as having any hand in this Matter Yea to put us out of all doubt the very Council of Nice it self in their Synodal Epistle writ to Alexandria and extant in these very Editors expresly declares That they were Convened by Constantine's Command Which clear and convincing Proofs shew the Impudence as well as the Falshood of the Annalist and Annotator to talk so confidently of the Pope's Authority in this Matter who if he had as they pretend Convened this Council should have summoned more Western Bishops of which there were so few in this Council that it is plain Either Sylvester did not Summon them or they did not obey his Summons Secondly As to the President of this Council and the Order of Sitting in it and Subscribing to it The Preface and Notes falsly affirm That Hosius Vitus and Vincentius were all three the Pope's Legates and Presidents of this Council and vainly think if it had not been so it could not have been a General Council But if this be necessary to the Being of a General Council surely there is some good Evidence of it Quite contrary The Preface to the Sardican Council is of the Editors or their Friends making and so is no Proof Athanasius saith Hosius was a Prince in the Synods but not that he was President of this Synod or the Pope's Legate Cedrenus and Photius are too late Authors to out-weigh more Ancient and Authentic Writers yet they do not say as the Notes pretend That Sylvester by his Legates gave Authority to this Council Yea Photius places the Bishop of Constantinople before Sylvester and Julius even when he is speaking of the Chief Bishops who met at Nice and he is grosly mistaken also because neither of the Popes did meet there Socrates only saith The Bishop of Rome ' s Presbyters were his Proxies and present at this Counoil but hereby he excludes Hosius who was a Bishop from being a Legate and doth not at all prove Vitus and Vincentius were Presidents Sozomen names not Hosius but these two Presbyters as the Proxies of Pope Julius but reckons that Pope himself in the fourth place Though these Notes in citing Sozomen according to their usual sincerity place the Bishop of Rome first and all the other Patriarchs after him Finally They cite the Subscriptions to prove these Three were Legates and Presidents at Nice but Richerius a Learned Romanist saith These Subscriptions are of as little Credit as the Epistle to Sylvester and adds That the placing these Presbyters before the Bishops is a plain Proof That all these Subscriptions were invented in later Ages because the Pope's Legates never did precede any of the Patriarchs till the Council of Chalcedon As for Hosius he had been the Emperor's Legate long before and divers of the Ancients say He was very Eminent in this Council but not one of them affirms that Hosius was the Pope's Legate This is purely an Invention of Baronius but he only proves it by Conjectures The Truth is Constantine himself was the President of this Council and Sat on a Gilded Throne not as the Preface saith falsly Below all the Bishops but Above all the Bishops as Eusebius an Eye-witness relates and the Notes at last own He sat in the Chief Place yea the Annalist confesseth He acted the part of a Moderator in it Richerius goes further saying It is clear by undoubted Testimonies that the Appointing and Convening of this Council depended on the Authority of Constantine who was the President thereof and he blames Baronius and Binius for wilfully mistaking the Pope's Consent which was requisite as he was Bishop of an Eminent Church for his Authority to which no Pope in that Age pretended It is true there were some Bishops who were Chief among the Ecclesiastics in this Council Eustathius Bishop of Antioch sat uppermost on the Right-side and opened the Synod with a Speech to Constantine Hence some and among the rest Pope Foelix in his Epistle to Zeno affirm He was President of this Council Others say The Bishop of Alexandria presided and indeed all the Patriarchs present Sat above all others of the Clergy yet so as they all gave place to the Emperor when he came in And for the Pope's Legates Baronius and Bellarmin do contend in vain about the Places they had in this Council since no Ancient Author tells us they Sat above the Chief of the Bishops So that this also is a Forgery of the Papal Flatterers to give Countenance to their Churches feigned Supremacy Thirdly As to the Power which confirmed the Canons of this Council the ancient Historians do suppose that Constantine gave these Decrees their binding Power and Record his Letters to injoyn all to observe them And Eusebius who was there saith that The Emperor ratified the Decrees with his Seal But the Annalist and Annotator seek to efface this evidence by Railing at Eusebius and by devising many weak pretences to persuade the Credulous that Pope Sylvester confirmed this Council by his Authority and both the Preface and Notes tell us that this Synod writ a Letter to Sylvester for his confirmation and that he called a Council at Rome and writ back to Ratify what they had done But whoever will but read these two Epistles will find the Latin so Barbarous and the Sense so Intricate that nothing is plain in them but that they are Forged and Labbe's Margin tells us they are Fictions nor dare Baronius own them to be genuine and though Binius cite them for evidence in his Notes yet at some distance he tells us it is evident they are both Corrupted and again he says if they were not both extreme faulty and Commentitious they might be Evidence in this case But Richerius is more Ingenuous and declares That these Epistles are prodigiously salse The Forger of them being so Ignorant as to call Macarius who was then Bishop
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
them The Third Canon forbids the Clergy to cohabit with Women taken into their Houses unless they were so near of Kin as to avoid Suspicion and Scandal Which plainly supposes that they might have Wives because cohabiting with them could give no Suspicion nor Scandal And since the Canon names not Wives who were the most likely to dwell with their Husbands doubtless this Council did not suppose the cohabitation of the Clergy with their Wives to be unlawful Yea not only Socrates and Sozomen but Pisanus and Nauclerus later Romish Authors relate the History of Paphnutius his Advice to the Council in this Point upon which the latter saith The Nicene Fathers allowed Priests to have Wives if they pleased Which full Evidence against their Churches practice doth so enrage Baronius that he not only denies this well-attested History but lays by the Character of an Historian and falls in his guessing-way to dispute against this manifest Truth And Binius in his Notes out of him saith This Canon expresly forbids Clergy men the Use of their Wives after they were entred into Holy Orders rejects the History of Paphnutius and gives Socrates and Sozomen the Lye But we shall leave the Reader to judge whether he will give more Credit to the Words of the Canon and these Ancient impartial Historians or to the Corrupt Paraphrase and Impudent Assertions of these two notorious Sycophants who have so often been proved to govern themselves not by Truth but by Interest and Design The Sixth Canon reckons the Pope but Equal to other great Bishops and limits his Jurisdiction at which the Annalist and Annotator are much discomposed and by various Fictions and shuffling Pretences labour to pervert the true Sense of this famous Canon And first They say The beginning of it viz. The Roman Church hath always had the Primacy is wanting Whereas no Authentic Edition ever had any such beginning Dr. Beveridge gives us Eight several Versions besides the Original Greek which all want it and it is impudently done of Binius to cite Alanus Copus saying That Dionysius Exiguus ' s Version had this beginning since that very Version is printed by Binius himself without any such Preamble but 't is all one to him true or false in his Notes he makes a foolish Paraphrase on this Forged Preface about the Divine Right of the Pope to his Supremacy whereas the plain Words of the genuine Canon shew That this Council grounded the Jurisdiction of these great Bishops only upon Ancient Custom Nor can it be gathered from this Canon That the Bishop of Rome then had any Superiority over him of Alexandria the one being allowed as much Power within his own Limits as the other had in his It is plain The Great Bishops are all here declared to be Equal without any Exception or Salvo upon the Bishop of Rome's account which would have been mentioned as well as the Rights of the Metropolitan of Caesarea are when the Bishop of Jerusalem's Place is assigned in the Seventh Canon if the Council of Nice had believed Rome had any right to a Supremacy over all the rest The Annotator is also angry at Russinus and though upon the Fourteenth Canon he says Ruffinus set down the true authentic Canons yet because his Version of this Sixth Canon limits the Pope's Jurisdiction to the Suburbicarian Regions He first falsly represents the Words of Ruffinus adding to them which above all others are subject peculiarly to the Diocess of the Roman Church and then Rails at the Version it self as evil erroneous and proceeding from his Ignorance But doubtless Ruffinus who lived so near the time of this Council and knew Rome and Italy so well understood the Pope's Jurisdiction at that time and the meaning of this Canon far better than Binius and therefore Baronius after he had condemned the Version yet strives to accommodate it to their new Roman Sense But there is full Evidence that these Suburbicarian Regions were only those Provinces which were under the Praefect of Rome that is some part of Italy and some of the adjacent Islands and these were all the Churches which were then under the Pope's Jurisdiction As may appear by the great difficulty which the succeeding Bishops of Rome found in the following Ages to bring Milan Aquileia and Ravenna Churches in Italy it self to be in subjection to them So that the Pope was so far from having an Universal Supremacy then that Balsamon is mistaken in thinking he was made Patriarch of all the Western Church for the very Fifth Canon which orders all Causes to be heard and finally ended in the same Province where they hapned not only destroys Appeals to Rome but shews that no Bishop did then pretend to so large a Jurisdiction Again these Notes frequently brag of that Version of this Canon which the Pope's Legate cited at Chalcedon wherein the aforesaid sorged Title of this Canon The Church of Rome hath always had the Primacy are quoted as part of the Canon it self But the Acts of that Council of Chalcedon shew That this Edition was discovered to be false by the Constantinopolitan Code then produced And if the Fathers there had believed this to be the true Reading they would not immediately have contradicted the first famous General Council by giving the Bishop of Constantinople equal Priviledges with him of Old Rome So that their Quoting a false baffled and rejected Version of this Canon rather pulls down than supports their dear Supremacy to maintain which they have nothing but Sophistry and Fraud as the next Section will shew Sixthly Therefore we will consider the Impostures and Fictions annexed to this Council to give colour to their feigned Supremacy And first because Eusebius speaks little of the Popes for he could not truly say much of them Baronius and the Annotator invent all the Calumnies against him imaginable and the former though he have little true History in his Annals for Three hundred years together which is not taken out of Eusebius Rails at him most unjustly as being an Arian a malicious fraudulent and partial Writer And Binius treats this great Historian at the same rate But Athanasius expresly saith That Eusebius of Caesarea subscribed the Orthodox Faith Socrates affirms also That he agreed to the Faith of the Nicene Council Pisanus his Greek Author of the History of this Council brings in Eusebius disputing against the Arians And Valesius in his Life clears him from this spightful Accusation which these Men invent meerly to be Revenged on him for not countenancing the Pope's Supremacy which is not his Fault but his Vertue because there was no such thing pretended to in his days Secondly These Editors publish a Letter of Athanasius to Pope Marcus with that Pope's Answer among the Records of this Council and the Annotator often cites them to prove the Supremacy and Infallibility because the Roman Church is here
genuine 20 Canons From which we may observe First that Binius will cite those things for the supremacy c. which he knows to be forged Secondly That the great design of all these Forged Records of Antiquity was either to cover the faults or consult the honour of the Roman Church which seems to have both employed and encouraged the Authors of these Pious Frauds because her Pretences could not be made out by any thing that was Authentic Julius succeeded Marcus in the same year in whose Life the Pontifical mistakes the Consuls Names and feigns he was banished Ten Months which Baronius proves to have been impossible He fills up this Popes story according to his manner with trisling matters and omits the only remarkable thing in his Life which was his concern in the Cause of Athanasius In this Popes name several Epistles are published The First from Julius to the Eastern Bishops may be proved fictitious not only by the Confession of Baronius and other Learned Romanists but by divers other Arguments For is it probable that Julius would Only be solicitous about his Supremacy when he writ to the Arians and not once reprove them for their Heresie nor their persecuting Athanasius is it likely he should cite the Council of Nice falsly and feign so many ancient Decrees about the Primacy of the Pope and the Nullity of Councils not celebrated by his Authority This Forger saith Julius consented to the Nicene Council at the time of its celebration but the Romanists agree that it was held in Sylvesters time He imperiously forbids the Eastern Bishops to judge any Bishops without him and falsly tells them They all had received their Consecration from Rome yea with the fabulous Pontisical he mistakes the Consuls Name and puts Maximianus for Titianus Yet by this Forgery the Editors would prove that more than twenty Canons were made at Nice and after Baronius had discarded it Binius by frivolous Notes strives to justifie it as speaking big for the Supremacy Secondly Here is the Eastern Bishops Answer to Julius wherein though they call the Pope Father which was the usual Title of Bishops of great Sees yet they expresly deny his having any Authority over them and affirm he ought to be subject to the Canons as well as other Bishops So that there is no reason for Binius his Brag Lo how they own the Supremacy For indeed they do not own it at all and yet the substance of this Epistle is genuine being found in Secrates and Sozomen The third Epistle from Julius to the Arians is owned by Baronius and others to be a Forgery and Binius in his Notes upon it saith It is false corrupted and stollen out of divers Authors yet the same Binius infamously quotes it over and over for the Supremacy the Nullity of Councils not called by the Pope and the number of the Nicene Canons The fourth Epistle of Julius comes not out of the Vatican but was preserved in Athanasius his Apology and is by all accounted genuine being writ in an humble style without any pretences to the Supremacy And here the Nicene Canon about the re-hearing in a New Synod a Cause not well judged before is rightly cited without mention of any final Appeal to Rome The power of all Bishops is supposed to be equal and not any greater power to belong to him that is fixed in a greater City Here Julius writes not his own Sense but the Sense of the Bishops of Italy who were assembled in a Synod at Rome of which great City Julius being Bishop ought by ancient custom to publish the Decrees of such Councils as were held in or or near that City but Binius falsly infers from hence That it was an honour due to his place to publish the Decrees made in all Synods And whereas when any thing was under debate concerning Alexandria the second Patriarchate Julius saith it was a Custom to write to the Roman Bishop who was the first Patriarch Binius stretcheth this and saith It was both agreeable to the Canons and Custom that no Bishop should be judged till the Popes definitive Sentence were heard The last Epistle also is genuine and writ in a modest style owning that Athanasius was not judged by the Pope alone but by a Synod of Bishops whose Judgment he supposes above his own and by these two Epistles we may discern the Impostures of those other Epistles which are Forged about this time in the Names of this and other Popes The Decrees attributed to this Pope are not suitable to the Age yet we may note the third Decree forbids a man to Marry his deceased Brothers Wife though his Brother had not known her Which was shamefully broken by that Pope who gave Licence to King Henry the 8th to marry his Brothers Wife and this Decree justifies his Divorce After these Epistles follows a Roman Synod wherein Julius with 117 Bishops confirm the Nicene Council but Labbé saith it is a hotch-potch made up out of many Authors and put into the form of a Council by Isidore and it is dated with the same mistaken Consuls Felician and Maximian with which Julius his entrance into the Pontifical and all his Forged Epistles are dated for his genuine Epistles have no date yet Baronius and the Notes gravely dispute about the time of this Forged Council and the Bishops which were said to be in it meerly to perswade the Reader that the Nicene Council needed the Pope's Confirmation but since this Council is feigned it can be no evidence And therefore Binius gains nothing by alledging it in his Notes on the third Epistle but only to shew us that one falshood is the fittest prop for another § 20. Athanasius being restored to Alexandria calls a Synod there of all the Bishops of his Province of which only the Synodical Epistle is now extant written as the Title declares To all the Catholic Bishops every where yet the Notes from Baronius say It was writ particularly to Julius whereas the Body of the Epistle saith The Arians have written to the Roman Bishop and perhaps speaking to other Bishops they have writ to you also So that this is a falshood devised for to make out the Supremacy which is not countenanced by this Epistle wherein we are told that Religion depends not on the greatness of any City Though the Notes say That Bishops had Honours and Jurisdiction given them suiting to the dignity of the Secular Praefects of their several Cities and thence Alexandria was reckoned the second Patriarchate and Antioch the third it follows naturally therefore Rome was the first Patriarchate But this Inference they will not make I shall only note that this Synod saith The lawful use of the Cup of the Lord was to make the People Drink from whence we gather that the Roman Church who denies the Cup to the People doth a very unlawful thing
By whom it was called Secondly Who presided in it Thirdly Of what number of Bishops it consisted And Fourthly What Authority the Canons of it have First As to the Calling it the Preface falsly states the occasion thereof For it is plain Athanasius did not as that reports leave the whole judgment of his Cause to the Pope nor did he as is there said Fly to Rome as the Mother of all Churches and the Rock of Faith This is the Prefacers meer Invention For Athanasius went to Rome as to the place agreed on by both sides for Arbitrating this matter and the other party so little valued the Pope's decision in his favour that they would neither restore Athanasius nor receive him into Communion upon it which made Julius complain to the Emperour Constans who writ to his Brother Constantius about it but that Letter did not produce this Council as the Preface fully sets out but only procured a fruitless Embassy of three Eastern Bishops to Rome It was the personal Addresses of Athanasius and Paulus Bishop of Constantinople to Constans when they found the Pope had no power to restore them which caused both the Emperours to give order for this Council to meet as Sozomen Socrates and Theodoret affirm And the Bishops in their Epistle do expresly say They were called together by the most Religious Emperours But Baronius fraudulently leaves out this beginning of the Bishops Letter and the bold Writer of the Preface saith This Council was called by the Popes Authority And the Notes offer some Reasons to justifie this Falshood yea they cite the aforesaid Authors who plainly declare it was called by both the Emperours to prove it was called by the Pope but they offer nothing material to make this out 'T is true Socrates saith Some absent Bishops complained of the shortness of time and blamed Julius for it but that doth not prove the Council was called by his Authority only it supposes he might advise the Emperour to make them meet speedily but still that is no sign of full power Secondly As to the President of this Council The Preface saith boldly That Hosius Archidamus and Philoxenus presided in the Name of Julius But first it doth not appear that Hosius was the Popes Legate only as an eminent Confessor he had a chief place in it whence Sozomen saith Osius and Protogenes were chief of the Western Bishops here assembled That is Osius as an ancient Confessor and Protogenes as Bishop of Sardic where the Council was held but as for Archidamus and Philoxenus they are not in the Latin Copies of the Subscribers And Athanasius only saith Julius subscribed by these two Presbyters which shews that Hosius was not the Popes Legate for he subscribed in his own name and that these Presbyters who were his Legates were not Presidents of the Council Thirdly They magnifie the number of Bishops also in this Synod to make it look like a General Council where accounts differ they take the largest and falsly cite Athanasius as if he said it consisted of 376 Bishops and so exceeded the first Council of Nice Whereas Athanasius expresly reckons only 170 who met at the City of Sardica and when many of the Eastern Bishops withdrew there were not one hundred left to pass the Decrees of this Council 'T is true Athanasius affirms that 344 Bishops signed the Decree to restore him but many of these hands were got from Orthodox Bishops who were not at the Council So that this was never counted or called a General Council by any but these partial Romanists for though the Emperour seem to have designed it General at first yet so few came to it and they who came agreed so ill the Eastern Bishops generally forsaking it that it is called frequently A Council of the Western Church and so Epiphanius in Baronius describes it Fourthly The little regard paid to its Canons afterwards shews it was no General Council Richerius a moderate and learned Romanist proves That this Council was not extant in Greek in the time of Dionysius Exiguus so that he and Pope Leo the 4th reckon it after all the Councils of Note The Greeks received not its Canons into their Code and Pope Nicholas Epistle shows that the Eastern Church did not value its Authority only the Popes esteemed it because it seems to advance their power The African Church of old valued this Council as little for a Synod of Bishops there among whom were S. Augustine and Alypius were ignorant of any Sardican Council but one held by the Arians Baronius tries all his art to palliate this matter but after all his Conjectures it is plain it was of no repute in Africa because when two Popes Zosimus and Boniface afterwards cited the Decrees of Sardica as Canons of Nice the Fraud was discovered and when they were found not to be Nicene Canons They would not receive them as Canons of Sardica but flatly rejected them which shews that these African Fathers did neither take this Sardican Synod for a General Council nor for an Authentic Provincial Council And therefore whatever is here said in favour of the Roman Church is of no great weight However the Champions of Rome magnifie the 4th Canon of this Council where in case a Bishop judge that he is condemned unjustly Hosius saith If it please you let us honour the memory of Peter the Apostle and let those who have judged such a Bishop write to Julius Bishop of Rome that so if need be the Judgment may be reviewed by the Bishops of the Province and he may appoint some to hear the Cause c. Now here the Notes talk big and claim a Supremacy and Appeals as due to the Pope by Divine Right But Richerius well observes It is Nonsence to ascribe that to a human Law and Privilege or to the Decree of a Council which was due before to the Pope by the Law of God And we add that Hosius neither cites any Divine Law no nor any precedent Canon or Custom for this but supposes it at the pleasure of this Synod to grant or deny Julius this privilege And yet if it were an express Law this being only a Western Synod doth not bind the whole Catholic Church Besides it is not said The Criminal shall appeal to Rome and have his Cause tryed there but only that the Pope if need were might order the Cause to be heard over again in the Province where it was first tryed and therefore Julius is only made a Judge of the necessity of a Re hearing not of the Cause it self which according to the 5th Canon of Nice was to be decided in the Province where it was first moved And this rather condemns than countenances the modern Popish way of Trying foreign Causes at Rome by Appeal To this I will add an ancient Scholion on this Canon found in some old Copies From this Canon
very diverting if we observe the Shifts and Artifices used by the Roman Parasites to excuse him from Heresie The Pontifical saith He was banished three years by Constantius for not consenting to the Asians in whose place Foelix was Ordained and he in a Council condemned Ursacius and Valens two Arian Bishops who in Revenge petitioned Constantius to revoke Liberius and he being thus restored consented to the Arians and the Emperour so far as to persecute and Martyr the Catholics and his Rival Foelix being a Catholic was deposed But this Fable is not fine enough for the Palates of Baronius and Binius who are to dress a Story to make the Reader believe that neither Liberius nor Foelix erred in Faith while they were Popes To confute which let it be considered that Binius confesseth Liberius consented to the depriving of Athanasius admitted Arians to his Communicn and subscribed an Arian Confession of Faith as Athanasius Hilary and Hierom witness and there are Arguments unanswerable to prove he was an Arian while he was Pope yea Binius in his own Notes twice confesseth That he unhappily fell and that he basely fell Yet to mince the matter he adds That by his Fall he cast a vile Blot on his Life and Manners and the Notes on the Sirmian Council say By offending against the Confession of Faith and the Law of Justice he cast a most base Blot on his Life and Manners What can be more ridiculous He erred in Faith and subscribed the Arian Confession therefore the blot was upon his Faith this did not concern his Life and Manners That Absurd Phrase is a meer blind to keep the Reader from discovering a Pope turning Heretic To which end they impudently say It is a false Calumny of the Heretics to say Liberius was infected with the Arian Heresie But I ask Whether Athanasius S. Hilary and S. Hieroin who affirm this were Heretics Or was Platina an Heretic who saith Liberius did in all things agree with the Heretics To which the same Forgers have added As some would have it but those are not Phetinus words who saith soon after He was of the same Opinion with the Arians And surely the Catholic People of Rome in his time took him for an Arian and as such would have no communion with him and therefore we conclude he was an Arian As for Foelix who was put into his place Baronius and Binius would excuse him by a false Latin Version of Socrates saying He was addicted to the Arian Sect but the Original Greek expresly declares He was in Opinion an Arian And it is certain He was chosen by the Arians and communicated with them Ordaining Arians to be Priests and therefore the Catholic People at Rome avoided his communion and S. Hierom saith He was an Arian As for the Story of his condemning Ursacius and Valens two of that Sect there is no better Authority for it than the fabulous Pontifical So that after all the devices of Bellarmin Bargnius and Binius to save their Churches Infallibility we have two Popes at once falling so notoriously into the Arian Heresie that the Lay-people disowned their Communion This is more than suspicion of Heresie in S. Peter's Chair and proves that their infallible Guides for some years were Arian Heretics For this Liberius divers Epistles are published with a Preface before them which saith Two of them were feigned by the Arians yet these two are found in the Fragments of S. Hilary among which it is not probable there should be any Fiction of the Arians So that it is very likely these two Epistles are genuine but rejected by these Sycophants of Rome because they tell an ungrateful Truth viz. That Liberius did condemn Athanasius soon after he was made Pope And if we consider how inconstant he was it is very probable that he might condemn Athanasius twice first in the beginning of his Papacy as is said in these two Epistles of which he repented and then writ that Tenth Epistle to own he was in Communion with Athanasius and to tell him If he approved of his form of Faith it would tend much to the setling of his Judgment which is an odd Complement from an Infallible Head Secondly He condemned Athanasius after his Banishment of which more shall be said hereafter But as to the particular Epistles we shall note That in the first which they say is genuine Liberius with other Bishops petition Constantius to order a Council to be held at Aquileia by which we see the Pope had not then assumed the power of calling Councils When he writ the 7th Epistle which they grant also to be genuine no doubt he was an Arian For he calls the Arian Bishops His most Beloved Brethren and declares his Consent to their just condemning of Athanasius together with his being in Communion with them and his receiving their Sirmian Creed as the Catholic Faith So in the XIth Epistle which is certainly genuine and recorded by Socrates the Notes confess he was so easie as to receive the Semi-Arians to Communion and to commend their Faith as the same which was decreed at Nice But it is gross Flattery to call this only Being too easie it was in plain terms Being deceived and erring in Matters of Faith which spoils their Infallibility as it also doth their Universal Supremacy for Liberius in the same Epistle to call himself Bishop of Italy referring only to the Suburbicarian Regions and saying He was the meanest of Bishops and rejoyced that those in the East did not submit to him but agree with him in Matters of Faith Wherefore the XIIth or as Labbé calls it the XIVth Epistle which is writ to all Bishops is manifestly forged And so are the two next from Liberius to Athanasius and from Athanasius to Liberius as both Labbé and Binius confess yet in one of these the Pope brags of his Authority over the Universal Church But the Forger was so bad at Chronology that while he strives to make this Pope look like an Orthodox Friend of Athanasius he absurdly brings him in even under Julian or Valens in one of whose Reigns this Epistle was written threatning Offenders with the Emperours Indignation with Deprivation yea with Proscription Banishment and Stripes I need not mention those Decrees which are attributed to Liberius whose Style betrays them and shews they belong to the later Ages and are placed here by the Collectors only to make them seem more ancient than really they are In Liberius's first year it is said There was a Council called at Rome by this Pope to clear Athanasius yet being sensible that their Authority would signifie very little they all agreed to petition the Emperour for a Council to Meet at Aquileia to confirm what they had done at Rome Anno 355. there was a Council at Milan the Editors call it A General Council because it was with Constantius
believe yet he elsewhere boldly says Damasus gave it Supreme Authority and the Annotator makes it impossible for any Council to be general unless the Pope or his Legates be there Now he and all others call this A General Council And yet he saith That neither Pope Damasus nor his Legates were Presidents of it nor was he or any Western Bishop in it Whence we learn That there may be a General Council at which the Pope is not present by himself nor by his Legates and of which neither he nor they are Presidents Fourthly As to the Creed and Canons here made the modern Romanists without any proof suppose that Damasus allowed the former and not the later But if he allowed the famous Creed here made I ask Whether it then had these words And from the Son or no If it had why do the Notes say That these words were added to it by the Bishops of Spain and the Authority of Pope Leo long after But if these words were wanting as they seem to confess when they say The Roman Church long used this Creed without this addition then I must desire to know how a Man of their Church can be secure of his Faith if what was as they say confirmed by Damasus in a General Council may be al ered by a few Bishops and another Pope without any General Council As to the Canons Damasus made no objection against them in his time and it is very certain that the Bishop of Constantinople after this Council always had the second place For as the first General Council at Nice gave old Rome the first place as being the Imperial City so this second General Council doubted not but when Constantinople was become new Rome and an Imperial City also they had power to give it the second place and suitable Priviledges Yea the Notes confess that S. Chrysostom by virtue of this Canon placed and displaced divers Bishops in Asia and the 4th General Council at Chalcedon without regarding the dissent of the Popes Legates allowed the Bishop of Constantinople the second place and made his Priviledges equal to those of Old Rome which Precedence and Power that Bishop long retained notwithstanding the endeavours of the envious Popes And Gregory never objected against these Canons till he began to fear the growing Greatness of the Patriarch of Constantinople but when that Church and Empire was sinking and there appeared no danger on that side to the Popes then Innocent the Third is said by the Notes to revive and allow this Canon again by which we see that nothing but Interest governs that Church and guides her Bishops in allowing or discarding any Council For now again when the Reformed begin to urge this Canon Baronius and the Notes say They can prove by firm Reasons that this Canon was forged by the Greeks But their Reasons are very frivolous They say Anatolius did not quote this Canon against Pope Leo I reply 'T is very probable he did because Leo saith He pleaded the Consent of many Bishops that is if Leo would have spoken out In this General Council Secondly They urge that this Canon is not mentioned in the Letter writ to Damasus I Answer They have told us before they sent their Acts to him and so need not repent them in this Letter Thirdly They talk of the Injury done to Timotheus Bishop of Alexandria but his Subscription is put to the Canons as well as the Creed and it doth not appear that ever he or any of his Successors contended for Precedence after this with the Patriarch of Constantinople And that the Modern Greeks did not forge this Canon is plain because Socrates and Sozomen both mention it and the Catholic Church always owned it for Authentic Yea in the Council of Chalcedon it is declared That the Bishop of Constantinople ought to have had the second place in the Factious Synod at Ephesus and he is reckoned in that fourth General Council next after the Pope whose Legates were there and yet durst not deny him the second place in which he sat and subscribed in that order having first had this Canon confirmed at Chalcedon So that all Churches but that of Rome submit to this General Council and they who pretend most to venerate them do despise and reject the Authority of General Councils if they oppose the ends of their Pride and Avarice To conclude Here is a General Council called and confirmed only by the Emperour assembled without the Pope or his Legates decreeing Matters of Faith and of Discipline yet every where owned and received as genuine except at Rome when Interest made them partial and still no less valued for that by all other Churches Which gives a severe Blow to the modern Pretences of their Papal Supremacy and Infallibility The same Year there was a Council at Aquileia in Italy wherein divers Arians were fully heard and fairly condemned Now this Council was called by the Emperour the Presidents of it being Valerian Bishop of Aquileia and Ambrose Bishop of Milan but Damasus is not named in it nor was he present at it in Person or by his Legates though this Council was called in Italy it self and designed to settle a Point of Faith But these Bishops as the Acts shew did not judge Heretics by the Popes Authority but by Scripture and by solid Arguments And they tell us It was then a Custom for the Eastern Bishops to hold their Councils in the East and the Western theirs in the West which argues they knew of no Universal Monarchy vested in the Pope and giving him power over all the Bishops both of the East and West For it was not Damasus but the Prefect of Italy who writ about this Synod to the Bishops of the East Nor did this Council write to the Pope but to the Emperour to confirm their Sentence against Heretics wherefore Damasus had a limited Authority in those days not reaching so much as over all Italy and extended only to the Suburbicarian Regions out of which as being Damasus's peculiar Province Ursicinus his Antagonist for the Papacy was banished by the Emperour Valentinian and therefore Sulpicius Severus calls him not Orbis but Urbis Episcopus the Bishop of the City not of the World and speaking of Italy he saith in the next Page That the Supreme Authority at that time was in Damasus and S. Ambrose To these two therefore the Priscillian Heretics applied themselves when they were condemned by the Council of Caesar-Augusta or Saragosa in Spain in which Country the Sect first began but when they could not get these great Bishops to favour their Cause they corrupted the Emperours Ministers to procure a Rescript for their restitution Now it is strange that this Council of Saragosa should bear the Title of under Damasus and that the Notes should affirm Sulpicius Severus plainly writes thus For if we read Sulpicius as above-cited we shall find that Damasus
Brother even when they Complement him as a great Master and Doctor which smells strong of the Forge and if this Epistle were made up there then the Notes need not triumph so much when it says upon Jovinians being condemned at Rome That the Bishop of Rome had looked well to the Gate committed to him that is say they the Gate of the whole Church of which Christ made S. Peter's Successor the Door-keepers But if the Epistle be true it only commends the Pope for looking well to the Gate of his own Church at Rome as they had done to their Gate at Milan having turned him out of that Church before The third Epistle of Siricius is like the former for style and sense yet the Editors will not reject it because the Pope saith He hath the care of all the Churches but let it be noted that Aurelius Bishop of Carthage uses the same words of himself a little after and there Binius notes That Aurelius means of the Churches of Africa only not of the whole World So we may say justly of Siricius here that he means He had the Care of the Suburbicarian Churches not those of the whole World For the fourth Epistle said to be writ from a Roman Council calls the Pope no more but a Primate and that Title belonged to the Bishop of Carthage as well as to him of Rome but indeed Labbé honestly confesses this fourth Epistle to be stollen out of Innocent's Epistle to Victricius The fifth and sixth Epistles are writ by Maximus an Usurper of the Empire and seem to be genuine but we need not wonder at the Tyrants speaking so kind things of the Pope in them since it was his interest to Flatter the Bishop of that potent City § 30. This Maximus having seized on the Northwest parts of the Empire summoned a Council at Bourdeaux which the Editors without any ground style under Siricius wherein the Bishops of the Gaâ—ican Church again condemned the Priscillianists and they appealed not to the Pope but to the Emperour Maximus who was so far from favouring these Heretics that at the instance of Ithacius a Catholic Bishop he caused them to be put to death for their Heresie Which cruel Sentence so displeased Theognistus and other Orthodox Bishops that they Excommunicated Ithacius and all his Party who had procured these Heretics to be put to death and S. Martin S. Ambrose and the best Men of that Age would not communicate with any of these Bishops who had prosecuted Men to death for Heresie no not though Ithacius and his Adherents were absolved from Theognistus his Excommunication in a Council which Maximus had called at Triers Now the Notes fearing the Reader should observe That many Popes and Bishops of their Communion have done just as Ithacius did viz. persecuted such as they call Heretics to death and delivered them up to the Secular Magistrate to be executed tell us That it was not an ill thing in Ithacius to procure the death of these Heretics but his Fault was in the violence of his Proceedings and in his not interposing such a Protestation as their Church uses on these occasions Wherein when they have made it necessary for the Magistrate to put an Heretic to death they solemnly declare they wish he would amend and do not desire his Execution But as this Protestation is a piece of notorious Hypocrisie unknown to those Ages so we may be sure so apparent a Sham would not have excused Ithacius whose Communion as Sulpicius Severus shews was renounced by S. Ambrose S. Martin and Others purely because they thought it unlawful especially for Clergy-men to procure any persons to be put to death for their Opinion though it were Heresie Wherefore these Holy Bishops if they were now alive must renounce the Communion of the Roman Church for the same reason for which they renounced the Communion of Ithacius even for their frequent procuring Heretics to be put to death and this is so plain that all their shuflling Notes cannot wash their Bishops hands from Blood nor fit them in S. Ambrose and S. Martin's Opinion to celebrate the Eucharist with other Christians There had been as we noted a long Schism at Antioch between Paulinus of whose side was the Pope and many Western Bishops and Flavianus who was supported by the Eastern Bishops and now Paulinus dying one Evagrius was irregularly chosen to succeed him and keep up the Schism and though Flavianus was owned for the true Bishop by the second General Council and he it was who ordained S. Chrysostom and obtained a Pardon from Theodosius for those Citizens of Antioch who had broke down the Statues of that Emperour and his Empress yet at the Instance of some Western Bishops the Emperour was perswaded to cite him to a Council which he had called at Capua in which S. Ambrose was present but Flavianus not willing to have his Enemies to be his Judges did easily excuse his Non appearance to the Emperour and the Synod thereupon referred the Matter between him and Evagrius unto Theoplalus Patriarch of Alexandria to whose decision Flavianus refusing to stand he appealed to Theodosius on which occasion S. Ambrose writing to Theophilus wishes rather Flavianus had referred the Matter to his Brother the Bishop of Rome because saith he you would probably have judged it if it had come before you so as he would have liked Which implies no more than that Theophilus and Siricius were both of one mind in this case of Flavianus yet on this slight occasion the Notes say That the Synod made Theophilus Arbitrator on condition he should offer his Sentence to be approved and confirmed by the Roman Church Which is a meer Forgery for Theophilus was made absolute Arbitrator by the Synod and this is not the Councils wish but S. Ambroses and after all Flavianus did not think a Western Synod had any power over him and therefore he rejected the Arbitration of Theophilus the Council and Pope Siricius also with whom though he did not communicate yet he was always owned to be true Bishop of Antioch § 31. The Second Council at Arles is supposed to be held about this time because the Followers of Photinus and Bonosus were there condemned Wherefore they say It was in the time of Siricius but under him it could not be since the Bishops there assembled do not name him nor do they except the Bishop of Romes Supreme Power when they refer all Ecclesiastical Matters to the final decision of their own Metropolitan and his Synod and declare that every Bishop who receives a person Excommunicated by another shall be guilty of Schism Yet the Editors are so apt to dote upon the Popes managing all Councils that they here style a meeting of the Novatian Heretics at Angaris in Bithynia A Synod under Siricius and call poor Socrates a Novatian for barely relating a Matter of Fact concerning the Novatians At this
time there was a great Council at Hippo which the Notes sometimes call a General and sometimes a Plenary Council because most of the African Bishops were there and the Original dates it with the Consuls of this year but the Editors clap a New Title to it saying it was under Siricius who in all probability had no hand in it nor knew any thing of it Yet here were made many of those famous Canons for Discipline by which the African Church was governed But they are more wary in the next Council of Constantinople at which many Bishops were present and among them the two Patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch being summoned in the absence of the Emperour by his Prefect Ruffinus and they will not venture to say This was under Siricius for the Matters treated on it wholly related to the Eastern Church and in that Age they rarely allowed the Pope to concern himself in their Affairs No nor in Afric neither where Anno 395 there were Councils held both by the Orthodox and the Donatists which are dated by the Consuls and no notice is taken of the Pope We shall only observe that upon one of these Councils the Notes say It is a mark of the Donatists being of the Synagogue of Antichrist that they named the several Parties among them from the Leaders and Founders of their several Sects and were not content with the Name of Christians from Christ Which Note reflects upon the Monks of their own Church who are called Benedictines Dominicans and Franciscans from the Founders of their several Orders In the Council of Turin composed of the Gallican Bishops they decided the Case of Primacy between the Bishop of Arles and Vienna without advising with the Pope and determined they would not communicate with Foelix a Bishop of Ithacius his Party according to the Letters of Ambrose of Blessed Memory Bishop of Milan and of the Bishop of Rome Now here the Roman Advocates are much disturbed to find S. Ambrose his Name before Siricius and when they repeat this Passage in the Notes they falsly set the Pope's Name first contrary to the express words of the fifth Canon and impudently pretend That the Bishop of Rome by his place was the ordinary Judge who should be communicated with and Ambrose was only made so by the Popes Delegation But how absurd is it if this were so for the Council to place the Name of the Delegate before his who gave him power And every one may see that this Council was directed to mark this Decree principally by S. Ambrose his Advice and secondarily by the Popes for at that time Ambrose his Fame and Interest was greater than that of Siricius yet after all the Council decreed this not by the Authority of either of these Bishops as the Notes pretend but only by their Information and upon their Advice by these Letters which were not first read as they pretend but after four other businesses were dispatched The Canons of divers African Councils held at Carthage and elsewhere have been put together long since and collected into one Code which makes the time and order of the Councils wherein they were made somewhat difficult but since the Canons were always held Authentic we need not with the Editors be much concerned for their exact order or for reducing them to the years of the Pope because they were neither called nor ratified by his Authority Yea the Notes say It was never heard that any but the Bishop of Carthage called a Council there his Letters gave Summons to it he presided over it and first gave his Suffrage in it and that even when Faustinus an Italian Bishop the Popes Legate was present As for the particular Canons of the third Council the Nineteenth saith That the Readers shall either profess Continence or they shall be compelled to Marry but they feign old Copies which say They shall not be allowed to Read if they will not contain the falshood of which appears by the 25th Canon in the Greek and Latin Edition where this is said of the Clergy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Except the Readers which they translate Quamvis Lectoram on purpose to make us think that the command of Celibacy upon which that Age too much doted reached the lowest order of the Clergy even Readers contrary to the express words of the Canons And to the second Council of Carthage where only Bishops Priests and Deacons are under an obligation to live single Secondly The 26th Canon of the third Council forbids the Bishop of the first See to be called by the Title of Prince or Chief of Bishops Gratian goes on neither may the Roman Bishop be called Vniversal The Notes tax Gratian indeed for adding this Sentence but if he did it was out of Pope Gregory who saith That no Patriarch ought to be called Vniversal Besides considering how apt the Editors are to strike out words not Agreeable to the Interest of Rome it is more probable that some of the Popes Friends lately left these words out than that Gratian put them in And since this Council forbid Appeals to foreign Judicatures with peculiar respect to Rome to which some of the Criminal Clergy then began to appeal it is not unlikely these Fathers might resolve to check as well the Title as the Jurisdiction then beginning to be set up which encouraged these Appeals Thirdly The 47th Canon in the Latin and the 24th in the Greek and Latin Edition speaking of such Books as are so far Canonical that they may be read in Churches reckon up some of those Books which we call Apocryphal upon which the Notes triumph but let it be observed that we grant some of these Books to be so far Canonical that they may be read for instruction of Manners and also we may note that the best Editions of these African Canons leave out all the Books of Macchabees and Baruch which are foisted into their later Latin Copies And it is plain the whole Canon is falsly placed in this Council under Siricius because Pope Boniface who came not into the Papacy till above twenty years after is named in it as Bishop of Rome yet after all these devices it doth not declare what Books are strictly Canonical and so will not justifie the Decree at Trent Fourthly In the 48th Canon of the Latin Version the Council agrees to advise about the Donatists with Stricius Bishop of Rome and Simplicianus Bishop of Milan not giving any more deference to one of these Bishops than to the other but looking on them as equally fit to advise them Yet the Notes boldly say They advise with the Pope because they knew he presided as a Bishop and Doctor over the Catholic Church but with the Bishop of Milan only as a Man every where famous for his Learning Which is a meer Fiction of their own for the words of the Canon shew that these
it is very certain that divers of these pretended Decrees were not observed no not in France where these two Bishops lived for divers Ages after they are pretended to be sent thither Before I leave this Epistle I must observe that the last Section about the Canon of Scripture wherein all the Apocryphal Books are reckoned up as part of the Canon is a gross Forgery added to it 300 years after Innocent's death for Cresconius never saw this part of the Epistle nor doth he mention it under this Head though he cite the other parts of it so that if the whole Epistle be not forged yet this part of it is certainly spurious and added to it by a later hand as is at large demonstrated by Bishop Cosens in his History of the Canon of Scripture to which I refer the Reader noting only that the Council of Trent grounded their Decree about the Canon of Scripture not upon genuine Antiquity but palpable Forgeries and Corruptions In the following Epistles unto the twelfth there is nothing remarkable but some brags of the dignity of Rome and many pretences to a strict observance of the Ancient Canons which were no where oftner broken than in that Church Some think they are all forged because they want the Consuls names And the twelfth Epistle may pass in the same rank since it is dated with false Consuls viz. Julius the fourths time and Palladius but because it seems to shew that the Pope took care even of Foreign Churches Baronius resolves to amend it of his own head and puts in Theodosius and Palladius though still the number is false for Theodosius was the seventh time Consul with Palladius not the fourth and had not this Epistle made for the Popes Supremacy the Annalist would not have taken pains to mend it The thirteenth Epistle which passes in Binius for a famous testimony of Innocent's zeal in discovering the Pelagians and meriting Notes is the same with the beginning of the second Epistle of Foelix the fourth and Labbè saith it is a forgery of the counterfeit Isidore The fourteenth Epistle calls Antioch a Sister Church and from Peters being first there seems to confess it was the elder Sister and both that and the sixteenth Epistle speak of one Memoratus which Baronius will not allow to be the proper name of a Bishop because indeed there was no such Bishop in that time so that he expounds it of the Bishop remembred that is of Paulinus but the ill luck is that Paulinus is neither named before nor remembred in either of these two Epistles The Notes on the sixteenth Epistle mention it as a special usage of the Bishop of Rome not to restore any to his Communion unless they were corrected and amended but this was ever the rule of all good Bishops and of late is less observed at Rome than in any other Church The eighteenth Epistle maintains a very odd Opinion viz. That the Ordinations celebrated by Heretical Bishops are not so valid as the Baptism conferred by them and the Notes own that the Persons so Ordained may truly receive as they call it the Sacrament of Orders and yet neither receive the Spirit nor Grace no nor a power to exercise those Orders which seems to me a Riddle For I cannot apprehend how a Man can be said truly to receive an Office and yet neither receive Qualifications for it not any Right to exercise it The twenty second Epistle cites that place of Leviticus That a Priest shall marry a Virgin and affirms it as a Precept founded on Divine Authority and he censures the Macedonian Bishops as guilty of a breach of God's Law because they did not observe this Precept which every one knows to be a piece of the abrogated Ceremonial Law and the Annotator cannot with all his shufling bring the Pope off from the Heresie of pressing the Levitical Law as obligatory to Christians But there is one honest passage in this Epistle which contradicts what this Pope had often said before of the sinfulness of Priests Marriages for here he saith The Bond of Matrimony which is by Gods Commandment cannot be called sin However out of this Epistle which is a very weak one and dated only with one of the Consuls names the Editors feign a Council in Macedonia and a Message sent to the Pope for confirmation of their Acts which doth not appear at all in the Body of the Epistle And Baronius desires the Reader to note How great Majesty and Authority shined in the Apostolick See so that it was deemed an injury to require the Popes to repeat their former Orders Whereas if this Epistle be not forged it is no more but a nauseous repetition of the same Orders which he and his Predecessors had given over and over and the frequent harping upon the same string in all the Decretal Epistles especially as to the Marriage of the Clergy shews how little Majesty or Authority shined in the Popes since all the Countries to which they sent their Orders so generally despised them that every Pope for divers Ages was still urging this matter without that effect which they desired The twenty third Epistle was writ to some Synod or other they know not whether at Toledo or Tholouse as we noted before And the Jesuit Sirmondus in Labbe by elaborate conjectures and large additions probably of his own inventing had put it out more full and adorned it with Notes which pains the impartial Reader will think it doth not deserve The twenty fourth Epistle is dear to the Editors and Baronius because the Pope therein is his own witness that all Matters ought to be referred to his Apostolical See and that the Africans application to him was a due Veneration since all Episcopal Authority was derived from him 'T is true St. Augustine doth mention a Message sent to Innocent out of Africa but he adds that he writ back according to what was just and becoming a Bishop of an Apostolical See But as to this Epistle besides the hectoring language in the Preface there is neither Style nor Arguments but what are despicable and Erasmus did long since justly say In this Epistle there is neither Language nor Sense becoming so great a Prelate so that probably the whole may be a Fiction of some Roman Sycophant which is the more likely because Labbè owns that one of the Consuls names is wrong that is Junius is put for Palladius Erasmus adds that the twenty fifth Epistle is of the same grain with the former the Style is no better and the Matter of the same kind for he brags that whenever Matters of Faith are examined application must be made to the Apostollcal Fountain And yet this Pope as the Notes confess held the Eucharist ought to be given to Infants yea that it was necessary for them that is I suppose for their Salvation Now the
Council of Trent hath determined otherwise so that the Romanists must grant this Pope erred even in defining things necessary to Salvation unless they will allow the whole Epistle forged by some later hand who whatever Binius say to the contrary hath dated it with the Consuls of the year after Innocent's death according to the best Chronologers The twenty sixth Epistle as the Notes confess was writ to Aurelius Augustine and three more eminent Bishops of Africa by Pope Innocent to clear himself from the suspicion of being a Favourer and Protector of the Pelagian Heresie and by computation also this proves the very year in which he died according to most accounts Now if in those days it had been believed as it is now at Rome that the Pope had been Infallible and could not err in Matters of Faith no Man durst have raised this suspicion nor would any have regarded it and Innocent's best way of vindication had been only to have told them he was Pope and sate in the Holy Infallible Chair but now his labouring to clear himself by an Epistle shews it was possible he might err As to the Epistle it self Erasmus saith Innocent answers after his fashion being fierce rather than learned and more ready to condemn than instruct and whosoever reads it will find that to be a true Character of this Epistle To these is subjoined a Letter of St. Chrysostom's to Innocent in Latin only in Binius but in both Greek and Latin in Labbè The Phrase of which is so polite the Matter so pious and solid that Gold doth not excel Lead more than this genuine piece of the Golden-mouth'd Father doth all the former Epistles of the Pope who if he writ those Decretals was far more below St. Chrysostom in Learning than he pretended to be above him in Dignity I confess the Editors would persuade us to think this Epistle was writ only to Innocent and to him it is superscribed in Savil's Greek Edition thus To innocent Bishop of Rome but the Roman Parasites have added to this Title To my most reverend and pious Lord but this hath been lately invented for Domino meo is not in the Title in Baronius And the Epistle it self seems plainly to have been written to many for towards the end he saith Therefore my most venerable Lords since you see these things are thus use your utmost study and diligence to repress this injustice that is broke into the Church and the Phrase doth every where suppose it was writ to divers Western Bishops and Baronius in the end of the Epistle hath these words We have writ this also to Venerius Bishop of Milan and to Chromatius Bishop of Aquileia Quibus verbis Rom. Episcopi primatum erigit iisdem Venerij Chromatij primatum erexisset so that since St. Chrysostom writ to all the eminent Bishops of Italy as well as to the Pope it is unjustly done of Baronius to say That Chrysostom fled to his only refuge viz. to the Roman Church which he knew to be above all other Churches and to have power to correct the ill-deeds of others There is one thing more remarkable in this Epistle St. Chrysostom tells the Western Bishops that being oppressed by Theophilus and his party he appealed not to the Pope but to a Synod yea Innocent himself saith There was great need to have a Synod called for this cause of St. Chrysostoms So that neither did St. Chrysostom appeal to the Roman Church alone nor durst Innocent take upon him to judge in this matter As for those two Epistles of Innocent's one to Chrysostom and another to the Clergy of Constantinople which are certainly genuine as being preserved in Sozomen and not derived from the Roman Mint These two Epistles I say are in an humble Style and so well written that they make all the former Decretals which come from Rome justly to be suspected as forged and spurious The second Epistle of Chrysostom's which follows these two seems also to have been written to other Bishops as well as Innocent for it runs generally in the plural number but they who would have us believe the Pope alone did all the business of the Church have falsified one place in it where St. Chrysostom saith ye have shewed your selves loving Fathers towards us There the Latin is in Binius in the singular Paternam ergo nos benevolentiam declarasti But Labbè thought fit to mend this corruption and reads it in the plural declarastis ye have declared But the grossest Forgery of all in this cause of St. Chrysostom are the Letters that are pretended to pars between Innocent and the Emperor Arcadius wherein first Innocent excommunicates Arcadius and Eudoxia the Empress for their injustice to St. Chrysostom And then the Emperor writes first one submissive Letter to desire him to absolve them to which the Pope consents yet after all this Arcadius doth again write another Letter to excuse himself and tells the Pope Eudoxia was very sick upon the grief for her fault And all these Letters are said to be writ after St. Chrysostom was dead But that which discovers the cheat is that all the ancient Historians do with one consent agree that Eudoxia the Empress was dead three years before St. Chrysostom which is attosted by Socrates Sozomen and Marcellinus and the same is affirmed by learned Modern Authors The first who affirmed the contrary was Georgius Alexandrinus a fabulus Writer who lived above 300 years after this time and he was followed by Nicephorus Glycer and Gonnadius which are all the Authorities Baronius can produce for these Forged Epistles only he countenances them true or false because this is an instance of a Pope who excommunicated an Emperor and serves them for a good proof that the Roman Bishop is above the greatest Princes But Labbè spoils the Argument by noting the Margen that Eudoxia died before St. Chrysostom and so these Letters are notorious Forgeries Before I leave this matter I must observe that Baronius his great design was to represent Pope Innocent as the chief yea and almost sole Instrument in vindicating the injuries done to St. Chrysostom and therefore he tells us That Innocent would not communicate with the Bishops of the East unless they would put his name into the Tables and he cites Theodores to prove this but Theodoret's very words are That the western Bishops would not communicate with them but on that condition So when the Adversaries of St. Chrysostom hearing that complaints of their proceedings were made among others to the Pope sent some to give an account of what they had done Baronius without any proof dreams of a sentence passed by Innocent to null what they had done whereas it appears the same year that Pope Innocent writ very frientlly to Theophilus the chief Agent in Chrysostom's condemnation and held communion with
then it had appeared that this was no peculiar priviledge of any one See but related to all Sees which then were filled with Catholick Bishops I shall note only that in these Notes the Emperor is stiled The Lord of the General Council which Title the Roman Parasites of late have robbed him of and given it to the Popes The eighth Council of Africa petitions the Emperor Honorius to revoke that Edict whereby he had granted liberty of Conscience to the Donatists and the Notes out of Baronius make it so meritorious a thing to revoke this scandalous and mischievous Indulgence that this made Honorius so blessed as to have Rome quitted by Alaricus three days after he had taken it but our English Romanists when an Indulgence served their ends counted it meritorious in that Prince who granted the Sects such an Indulgence here for we must note that Things are good or evil just as they serve their interest or disserve it The Synod of Ptolemais in Egypt whereby Andronicus a Tyrannical Officer was excommunicated is strangely magnified by Baronius saying that Synesius Bishop of Ptolemais knew that when he was made a Bishop he was elected by God to give Laws to Princes And a little after he tells us He deposed Andronicus from his Tribunal adding that this shews how great the Power of Bishops was even to the deposing of evil Governors But after all there is no more of this true but only that Synesius gives notice to his neighbour Churches by circular Letters that he had excommunicated Andronicus who seems to have been a Military Officer in a little Egyptian Town and was guilty of most horrid Cruelties and notorious Crimes But what is this to Kings and Princes And the words which he cites out of Synesius 89th Epistle which falsly translates we have put him down from his Tribunal are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. We have here taken him off from the Seat of Mourners that is Synesius tells Theophilus his Patriarch and Superior that though he had justly put Andronicus among the Penitents yet now upon his sorrow and repentance they had there absolved him and taken him out of that sad station where the Penitents were wont to stand and if Theophilus approved of this mercy shewed Andronicus he should hope God might yet forgive him Now was not the Cardinal hard put to it for an instance of a Bishops deposing a King when he is forced to falsifie his Author and use the words which express a restauration to the Communion of the Church to prove a deposing from a Throne It seems he could not or would not distinguish a Captain or petty Magistrate from a King nor a Stool of Repentance from a Princes Throne This it is to serve a Cause About this time was held that famous Conference at Carthage between the Catholicks and the Donatists Seven Bishops of each side being chosen to dispute before Marcellinus a Count sent by the Emperor to hear this Cause Now Baronius tells us that this Marcellinus was not called simply a Judge but had the Title of Cognitor because it was not allowed to a Lay-man to act as a Judge in Ecclesiastical Matters But Cognitor is often used by the best Authors for a Judge and cognoscere Causam is to hear a Cause Dies Cognitionis is the day of Tryal And which is more the Emperors Edict calls him by the title of Judex Our will is you shall sit in that Disputation in the principal place as Judge and Baronius in the very page before cites St. Augustine speaking of Marcellinus by this Character ipse Judex And as he moderated in the Disputation so in the Conclusion he pronounces the Sentence and the Emperor confirms it which if the Pope had done in Person or by his Legate to be sure that had been ground enough to prove him the Universal and Infallible Judge in all Causes This is certain Honorius did judge in this Cause by his Legate Marcellinus and Baronius who use to quarrel at other Emperors for medling in these Cases tells us God rewarded him for the pains he took about setling the True Religion But as to the Pope he was not concerned in this Famous Dispute and which is very remarkable though the Main Dispute be about the Catholick Church and the Orthodox alledge the Churches beyond the Seas as being in Communion with them and so prove them Catholicks yet they do not once name the Roman Church apart as if communicating with that Church or its Bishop were any special evidence of their being Catholicks Indeed they name Innocent once but give him no other title but Bishop of Rome Whereas if these African Fathers had believed the Pope to be the Supream Head of the Catholick Church and that all of his Communion and only such were Catholicks this Dispute had been soon ended and they had nothing to prove to the Donatists but their Communion with Pope Innocent And I remember Baronius argues that Caecilianus Bishop of Carthage was a Catholick because he had Communicatory Letters from the Church of Rome but the place he cites to prove it out of St. Augustine is this When he that is Caecilianus saw himself in Communion with the Roman Church in which the eminence of an Apostolical See always flourished and with other Countries from whence the Gospel came to Africa c. By which it is plain that it was Communion with other Churches as well as Rome which proved Caecilianus a Catholick And I know not where Baronius found another passage which he affirms was proved in this Conference viz. That the first Head of the Church was demonstrated by the succession of the Roman Bishops to be in Peter's Chair For there is not one word to this purpose in that Conference which is printed by the Editors here So that till better Authority be produced this must stand for a devisable of the Annalists Nothing after this occurs which is remarkable till the Council at Lidda or Diospolis in Palestina wherein Pelagius imposed upon fourteen Bishops a pretended recantation of his Heretical Opinions and was by them absolved Binius his Title of this Synod is that it was under Innocent But Labbè fearing this might imply the Popes consent to a Hereticks absolution hath struck that out However we have Baronius his word for it that no Letters were written to the Pope from this Synod only some Lay-men brought him the Acts of it And he Good Man not so cunning at finding out Hereticks as the African Bishops confesses he could neither approve nor blame the Judgment of these Bishops of Palestina And Pelagius himself though he could not finally deceive the Roman Church yet he hoped he might gain the Pope to his party and did attempt it yea 't is very probable he had succeeded if St. Augustin and other African Fathers had not instructed the Pope
of their Rights and their Peace also Wherefore it is not probable that a Council should meet there at this time only to read an Epistle which was invented long after § 5. Upon the Death of Zosimus there were two Popes chosen Boniface and Eulalius and the Pontifical fairly tells us the Clergy were divided for seven Months and fifteen days and that both of them acted as Popes This Schism being notified to the Emperor by Symmachus the Prefect of the City he cites both the Pretenders to Ravenna and appoints divers Bishops to examine into the Cause but they not being able to agree whether had the better Title the Emperor defers the business till the Kalends of May and forbids both Parties to enter into Rome till a Council had met at Rome to determine this Controversie But Eulalius who before stood fairer of the two impatient of this delay contrary to the Emperors Command on the fifteenth of the Kalends of April goes into the City and causes great Factions there Upon which 250 Bishops met by the Emperors Order execute his Commands and declare Enlalius to be no Pope setting up Boniface Upon which passage I shall observe First That the Notes make but a vacancy of two days between Zosimus and Boniface and Baronius saith it was not vacant above one day Whereas it is plain from the Emperors Letters dated three or four Months after that neither of them was reckoned to be Pope and he writes to the African Bishops that he would have the Council meet by the Ides of June that the Papacy might be no longer void so that in truth the See was vacant till the Emperor had judged it on Boniface his side Baronius doth not like it should be said that the Emperor had any right to interpose in the Election of a Pope but Symmachus the Praefect of Rome saith expresly to Honorius it is your part to give judgment in this Matter and the Emperor did at first by his single Authority declare Eulalius to be rightly chosen But upon better information he revokes that Rescript and Commands that neither Party should have any advantage by what was past but all should be reserved intirely to his judgment And though he employed a Synod of Bishops to examine the Matter yet it appears in Baronius that the Emperors Edict was that which gave the Papacy to Boniface Which will appear more plainly by the first Epistle of Boniface and Honorius his Answer to it For after this Pope was in peaceable possession fearing the like mischief after his death which had hapned at his entrance he writes an humble Supplication to the Emperor to take care of this matter for the future And the Emperor writes back to Boniface declaring That if ever two should contend about the Papacy and be Ordained neither of them should be Pope but he who by a new Election should be taken out of the Clergy by the Emperors judgment and the Peoples consent This writing of the Popes among the Councils hath this Title The Supplication of Pope Boniface But Baronius thinking that too mean fraudulently leaves out the Title though the Humility of the Style sufficiently shews that the Pope believed that the Emperor was above him and whereas Boniface there calls the Church Our Mother as the Margin in Binius rightly reads it Baronius will have it to be your Mother and Labbè leaves out the Marginal and true Reading for it seems they think it below the Pope though not the Emperor to be a Son of the Church If the second Epistle of Boniface be genuine it shews that when Complaints were made to Rome out of the near adjoining Provinces the Popes even after they had given too much encouragement to Appeals were wont to refer the matters complained of to be examined and decided by the Bishops of those Provinces where the Fact was done But the Notes conclude from hence that the accusation of Bishops use to be referred to the Pope which is an universal Conclusion from Premises that will not bear it The third Epistle of Boniface contradicts all those which were writ before by Zosimus in favour of Patroclus Bishop of Arles for Boniface forbids Patroclus to exercise the Power granted him by the last Pope and decrees that Hilary Bishop of Narbon shall be Metropolitan and if he judged right then Zosimus judged wrong in this Cause For this Pope the Editors publish six Decrees one of which orders the differences among Bishops to be decided by the Metropolitan or however by the Primate of that Country from whose determination there was to be no Appeal The fourth Decree is certainly spurious because it not only forbids a Bishop to be brought before any Judge Civil or Military for any Crime but declares the Magistrate who presumes to do this shall lose his Girdle that is be put out of his Office Now doubtless it was not in the Popes power to give or take away Civil or Military Offices So that this hath been invented meerly by those who affected the Popes being supreme over Kings and Emperors and would have the Clergy exempt from all Secular Jurisdiction As to the Pelagian Controversie he writ nothing about it himself but we are told by Prosper that Boniface desired St. Augustine to answer the Books of the Pelagians and he shewed his Wisdom in putting the Cause into a better hand than his own We must now return to the business of the Legates sent into Africa by Pope Zosimus a little before his death who appeared in the sixth Council at Carthage not till the time of this Pope Boniface in order to justifie the Roman Churches Right to receive Appeals from all Churches The Title indeed falsly saith this Council was held about the manner of prosecuting Appeals but it is plain that the African Fathers questioned the right of appealing and had condemned before all Appeals to any Church beyond the Seas In this Council the Popes Legates produce a Canon which they say was made at Nice importing That if a Bishop were condemned in his own Country and appealed to Rome the Pope might write to the neighbouring Bishops to enquire again into the matter and decide it but if all this did not satisfie the Complainant the Pope might either send his Legates with his Authority to judge it there with the Bishops or leave it finally to those of that Country as he pleased Now this Canon was no sooner read but Alypius one of the African Bishops declared he could not find any such Canon in the Greek Copies of the Nicene Council and desired Aurelius who presided in the Council though the Popes Legates were there to send to the three other most famous Patriarchal Churches of Constantinople Alexandria and Antioch to search their Copies of the Nicene Council and that the Pope might be desired to send some thither also at the same time which
be determined in that Province where it arose knowing that the Spirit of God would not be wanting to any Country where a Council of Bishops should meet so that none need fear to be injured since they might appeal to a greater Council of their own Province or to a Universal Synod Whereas if Judgment were to be given beyond the Seas many Witnesses must be wanting and many other things must hinder the finding out of truth They add That they could not find any Council which allowed his Holiness to send any Legates to hear Causes and for those Canons which Faustinus had produced as made at Nice they could find no such Canons in the Authentick Copies of that Council Finally They bid him not send any of his Clerks to execute his Sentence to which if they should submit they should seem to bring the vanity of Secular Arrogance into God's Church This is the Sum of this excellent Letter which disowns and condemns all Appeals and renounces the Popes jurisdiction over Africa with a modest intimation that his claim was grounded upon a notorious Forgery and therefore he is required to pretend to it no longer for that they will not submit to such an Usurpation Yet such is the Impudence of the Roman Editors that in a Marginal Note upon this Epistle they say these African Bishops desire the Pope to appoint another way of prosecuting Appeals Which is a gross contradicting the Text it self wherein all manner of Appeals and all ways of prosecuting them are utterly condemned but this was too harsh and therefore the Truth was to be daubed over with this plausible Fiction After this Binius presents us with another Edition of these African Canons and Epistles in Latin and Greek And Labbè newly publishes the Epistle of one Leporius who had been converted from Heresie and reconciled to the Church by the African Bishops by which we may learn that a Heretick need not go to Rome to recant as the Notes formerly affirmed There is nothing further observable before the Council of Ephesus except two Councils one at Rome wherein the Pope is said to make Cyril his Legate in the Cause of Nestorius the other at Alexandria in which Cyril is pretended to Act by this delegated power But this will be more properly considered in the History of that General Council where these Epistles are printed at large CHAP. II. Of the time from the Council of Ephesus till the Council of Chalcedon § 1. IN this Year was held the Third General Council at Ephesus upon the account of Nestorius who about three years before had been made Bishop of Constantinople and was at first believed to be both Pious and Orthodox but he had not sat long in that See before he began to publish certain Doctrines about our Saviour which gave great offence for he taught that Jesus Christ was two Persons one as the Son of God another as the Son of Man and therefore he denied the Blessed Virgin to be the Mother of God holding that the Person which was born of her was no more than a Meer Man Which Opinions not only made a Faction at Constantinople but caused Divisions among the Egyptian Monks whereupon St. Cyril first writ a Confutation of them to those Monks and then with great modesty admonished Nestorius of these Errors by divers Letters but he despised his Admonition justified the Doctrines and persecuted those who would not own them being supported by his Interest in the Imperial Court. Upon this Cyril called in Pope Celestine to his assistance sending him an account of what he had writ to Nestorius On the other side Nestorius also writ to Celestrine and sent his Sermons in which these Doctrines were contained for him to peruse The Pope by the advice of such Western Bishops as he could then get together takes the part of Cyril and offered him to join with him in condemning Nestorius if he did not recant But the Authority of these two Patriarchs of Rome and Alexandria not sufficing to condemn a Patriarch of Constantinople it was thought fit to desire the Emperor to call a General Council at Ephesus where Nestorius might appear and his Opinions be examined and the Emperor at length did agree to this Request Now that which we are to observe concerning this General Council shall be under these Heads First To enquire by whom it was called and convened Secondly Who presided in it Thirdly What is memorable in the Acts of it Fourthly Who confirmed the Decrees there made As to the first the Historical Preface before this Council labours to persuade us That Celestine commanded the Council to be called and the Notes after it say it was appointed by the Authority of Gelestine and gathered together by the counsel aid and assistance of Theodosius the Emperor The Cardinal goes further and saith Theodosius called it by the Authority of Celestine but when this is to be proved both the Notes and Baronius are content to make out that this Council was not called without the Popes consent which may be proved concerning every Orthodox Bishop that was there and so gives no peculiar advantage to the Bishop of Rome But as to the Convening it by his Authority nothing can be more false For by the Emperors first Letter to Cyril it appears that some then thought to order Matters of Religion by Power rather than by consulting in common in which words he reflects upon Pope Celestine and Cyril who thought by the Authority of their Private Synods at Rome and Alexandria to have condemned Nestorius who was a Patriarch as well as they and therefore the Emperor rightly considered that he could not be tried but by a General Council So that it seems Celestine at first had no mind such a Council should be called nor Cyril neither but when they saw their Authority was insufficient then Cyril put the Monks of Constantinople upon petitioning the Emperor to command a General Council to meet very speedily as their words are and the same Cyril put Juvenalis Bishop of Jerusalem upon writing to the Emperor for the same purpose Now why should not these Applications have been made to the Pope if the Council were to be called by his Authority Besides if Celestine had called it his Letter of Summons would appear but though none ever saw that the Emperors Edict is yet extant wherein he fixes the day and place for the Council to meet enjoyns Cyril with the Bishops of his Province to be there at that time and tells him he had writ to all other Metropolitans probably to Celestine among the rest to attend the Synod and not to meddle with this Matter till the meeting of this General Assembly from which whoever absented himself should not be excused Which is as full a proof that the Emperor called it by his Authority as is possible to be made and we need add nothing to it but this that
the Synod it self every where declares it was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the Emperors Decree 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by his Will and Summoned by his Letter yea the Pope himself saith I have obeyed your Pleasure as far as I was able and I do appear in the Council which you have commanded by those I have sent in my stead And when these Legates came to Ephesus they say we are come to the Synod which hath been appointed by the most Christian and Gracious Emperors So that it is a strange impudence of Baronius and Binius in despite of so clear evidence to pretend this Council was convened only by the Advice and Ministry of Theodosius but by the Authority of Pope Celestine Secondly The like prevarication they use about the President of this General Council for Bellarmine had made it a Maxim That in General Councils it was the Popes priviledge to preside by himself or his Legates and to moderate all as Supream Judge Wherefore the Preface to the Council saith Cyril was to preside by the command of Celestine and the Authority of the Apostolick See and the Notes say The Pope presided there by Cyril who had the Office of his Legate And a little after they produce all the Historians who writ after Evagrius An. Dom. 595. and because he saith Celestine had given Cyril his place they conclude thence that he was President of the Council by virtue of that Grant But indeed the first place belonged to Cyril as Patriarch of Alexandria in his own Right because the Bishop of Rome was absent and he of Constantinople was the Criminal to be tried yet Celestine had cunningly given him that which was his due without any gift for in his Letter to him long before the Council was called when the Synod at Rome had condemned Nestorius Celestine saith he might take to him both the Authority of his Throne and the Order of his Place which signifies no more than that Cyril might vote in Celestine's Name and add the Credit of the First Patriarch to his own Authority to make the Sentence against Nestorius the more Venerable And the beginning of the Acts distinguish Cyril's precedency from his holding Celestine's place if they be rightly pointed Cyril Bishop of Alexandria presiding and having the place of Celestine c. And so Zonaras understood it who saith Cyril of Alexandria presided and also had the place of Celestine thus also Balsamon So that it seems Cyril was President of the Council either by choice of the Fathers or in his own Right as the Chief Patriach present and he also voted in the place of Celestine who was absent and probably by virtue of that Representation also sate above all the other Patriarchs However this is certain that the Bishop of Ephesus Memnon who had no delegation from the Pope is also reckoned President of the Synod and he together with St. Cyril are often called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 even thrice in one Epistle And again 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yea these two are called the Head of the Council And all this without any mention of their having these Titles or this Power from the Pope Moreover we may observe that Cyril alone is sometimes called the President of this Council and the Party of John Bishop of Antioch charges him with usurping this place which was not given him by the Canons or the Emperor's Edict they valued not it seems the Popes Grant so that this Title is variously applied and no Argument can be formed from it for the Popes Supremacy who also sent three other Legates to this Synod to represent his Person and supply his Place as Celestine's own Letter declares Yea the Council it self declares that these three Legates Arcadius Projectus and Philip did supply Celestin's place Now it is not easie to understand how Cyril should be the Popes Legate and supply his Place and yet at the same time three other Legates need to be sent also to supply the same place unless we expound this Grant of the Popes to Cyril to signifie no more than a declaration that he would agree to all that Cyril voted for which is far from making him a formal Legate or for giving him that Authority which he had in this Council We conclude therefore that Cyril as the first Patriarch present and the most learned of all that opposed Nestorius and Memnon as Bishop of Ephesus where the Council was held were chosen Moderators by the Synod Nor is it likely that the Popes making these his Legates if that were true which Baronius only supposes but doth not prove would have given them any Power over the Council since Arcadius Projectus and Philip who really were the Popes Legates did not preside nor are they reckoned up in the first place no not in the Subscriptions which yet are not certainly genuine And when the Council sent two of these Legates among others on an Embassie to Constantinople they lay their Commands on them and threaten if they do not observe their Orders they would neither confirm their Acts nor yet receive them into Communion Which shews the Council was superior even to the Popes Legates and that their representing the Popes person did not intitle them to any Power over the Council which is that the Roman Parasites would make out Richerius exposes Baronius for saying Philip had a place before the Bishops because he was a Cardinal The first Seat and Vote therefore belonged to Cyril but Christ as these Fathers say properly was the Head of this General Council and was represented by the Holy Gospels placed above all on a Throne out of which all decisions were made not by any Humane Authority either of Cyril or Celestine himself Thirdly We shall next examine into the proceedings of this Council and see where the Editors have prevaricated therein for the interest of Rome as also what else therein is pertinent to our purpose Now these are First those things which hapned before and Secondly in the Council First Before the Council in Cyril's Letter to Nestorius he tells him that Celestine and the Bishops assembled at Rome had advised him to enquire whether those Papers were writ by Nestorius or no This they all falsly translate Celestino jubenté c. as if the Pope had a Power to command Cyril whereas the Original Word imports no more than an intimation given him to make this enquiry and that not by the Pope alone but by the whole Roman Synod Again since this Controversie began between two Patriarchs Cyril was so modest that he would not by his own single Authority Anathematize Nestorius till he had acquainted the Bishops both of the East and West with it yet he declares he had power to have done this if he pleased Now his forbearing to do this out of Prudence and Humility is by
the three Sessions of the first Act was over But there is one notorious falshood both in the Notes and in Baronius which they devise purely in favour of the Pope and to make him seem to have had some Supremacy in this Council For they say that in the very first Action Peter a Priest of Alexandria did read that which Pope Celestine and Cyril writ against Nestorius Whereas the Acts of the Council shew the contrary namely that though Peter did say he had those Epistles of Celestine and Cyril in his hands yet the Council ordered that the Emperors Edict by which they were convened should be read in the first place and it was read accordingly Binius by false translating the Acts saith Peter offered to read these Epistles first but Labbè honestly alters that corrupt Version and saith only he had them in his hands to do with them as the Synod pleased But we see the Synod did not allow them to be read in the first place and afterwards when these Epistles were called for Cyril's Epistle to Nestorius was first read and approved by the whole Synod to be Orthodox not because it was agreeable to the opinion of Celestine whom they do not once name but because it was conformable to the Council of Nice Yea the whole Council had confirmed the Faith of Cyril and unanimously condemned Nestorius before they called upon the Notary to read the Epistle of Celestine Arch-Bishop of Rome So that the matters contained in that Popes Epistle could neither be the sole nor principal Motive to the Council to condemn Nestorius For after the reading this Epistle they also read other Writings of Cyril upon this Subject and then heard the Opinions of the Ancient Doctors Martyrs and Orthodox Fathers recited as also a Collection of the Blasphemies contained in Nestorius his Works and the Epistle of Capreolus Bishop of Carthage declaring his consent to their proceedings After all which they both pronounce and subscribe the solemn Sentence of deposing and excommunicating Nestorius according to the Canons and agreeable to the Decree mentioned in the Letter of Celestine but the Sentence was passed in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ the true and supream President of this Assembly And all this was done before Arcadius Projectus and Philip the Popes Legates came to Ephesus and yet their absence was never objected by Nestorius as if that had invalidated these Acts. Further we may observe that an Oath was given in this Council only upon the Holy Gospels according to the Protestant usage not upon any relicts of the Saints as the practice is now at Rome In the second Action both Baronlus and Binius add a word to the Text and make the Popes Legate call the Pope when he speaks to the Synod vestrum Caput your Head and Baronius bids the Reader observe that Philip the Popes Legate in open Synod professed the Bishop of Rome was the Head of the Cà tholick Church and other Bishops members under this Head But first this word vestrum is forged by Baronius and Binius the Greek having no more than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Labbè hath been so much ashamed of this addition that he leaves out vestro and the sense of the place is that upon the Councils Acclamations by way of approving Celestines Letter as Orthodox Philip gives them thanks that by their Holy Voices they as Holy Members had agreed to an Holy Head he doth not say to their Holy Head yet if he had the whole Synod and the three Legates particularly in a solemn Relation to the Emperor call Cyril the Head of the Bishops here assembled but he would be ridiculous who should thence infer That Cyril was the perpetual Head of the whole Catholick Church yet we may more justly prove that from an Act of the whole Council than Baronius doth the Popes Supremacy from a Rhodomontado of his own Legate who barely said this the Council neither approving nor disapproving of what he said in favour of his own Bishop And no doubt the Orthodox Patriarchs might any of them properly be called by this Title of an Head For Cyril yea Memnon Bishop of Ephesus are so stiled in the Councils Petition to the Emperor to set them at liberty lest the Synod want an Head and all the Bishops of the World lie under an heavy burden of grief for want of their Presidents So that it is plain by these Titles in those days no more was meant than that the Bishops to whom they are applied had some eminent place in the Church and in this General Council not that all or any one who is called an Head had or ought to have any supream standing Jurisdiction in all times over the whole Catholick Church So when the Council calls Alexandria the greater Seat and Jerusalem is called an Apostolical Church and Pope Celestine stiles Cyril an Apostolical Man none of those Churches did ever draw any consequences from these passages that their Bishops were Supream Judges over the whole Catholick Church that absurdity is peculiar to the Parasites of Rome who make this Inference from every Honourable Title that is any where or upon any occasion by way of Complement or seriously bestowed upon the Pope but since others had the same Titles given them upon Occasion it is plain there is no good ground for such Conclusions It is further memorable that when John Patriarch of Antioch would have usurped a Jurisdiction over the Bishops of Cyprus the Council of Ephesus decreed that no Bishop should have or assume any Power over those Provinces which had not been under him or his Predecessors before that time which Decree plainly condemns the Bishop of Rome usurping a Jurisdiction over this Island of Britain since the Ephesine Council because it was not under any of the Popes either then or of many years after Finally we may note that John Patriarch of Antioch being secretly a favourer of Nestorius would not joyn with Cyril or Celestine in condemning him but held a separate Council with such Bishops as were of his party and there they Excommunicated and Deposed Cyril and Memnon with all that joyned with them On the other side the lawful general Council Excommunicated John of Antioch and his accomplices and afterwards upon his Repentance Cyril declares he restored him to Communion upon the terms prescribed by the true Council of Ephesus Now if the Pope of Rome had then been known and believed to be the supreme head of the Catholick Church and the only infallible Judge in matters of Faith how could the Bishop of Antioch so much as pretend to Condemn that side on which Celestine was or to reject that Council wherein his Legates sat and voted against him Or how came the Pious Emperor Theodosius and his Officers so openly and so long to abet the party of John of Antioch against that of Celestine and Cyril There
bowing toward the East for the peril of Idolatry Now had there been any Images adored in his time for the same reason he must rather have forbidden bowing down before them The second Council at Rome under Leo was in the Cause of Hilary Bishop of Acles who had justly deposed a scandalous Bishop in a Provincial Synod But he as such ill Men had often done flies to Rome to complain and Leo not considering the equity of the censure but Hilary's having acted as a Primate in those parts of France contrary to the Decrees of former Popes espouses this evil Bishops Quarrel being more concerned for his designed usurpation of a supremacy than the honour of the Church Upon this Hilary who was one of the most pious and learned Men of that Age goes on foot to Rome and requires the Pope to act more solito in the accustomed manner and not to admit such to Communion who had been justly condemned in their own Country and when he saw the Pope was resolved to break the Canons and set up his Supremacy by right or wrong he suddenly departs from Rome without taking any leave of Leo for which the Angry Pope writes to the Bishops of France declaring Hilary's Acts null and depriving him of his Power to Congregate Synods and Depose Bishops c. And though he brags much of his universal Authority c. in that Epistle yet knowing how little this would signifie to Hilary and the rest of the French Bishops he gets an Edict from the Emperor Valentinian to back his Orders which because there are some great words for the Popes Supremacy in it Baronius magnifies as worthy of perpetual Memory And since their Champions alledge this Edict as a proof of the Roman universal Supremacy I will observe upon it First That it was easie for the Pope to cite false Canons to a young and easy Emperor and persuade him that the Councils had given him this Supremacy as his Predecessors had lately done in Africa Secondly That the Pope probably drew up this Edict himself and so put in these Flourishes about his own Authority Which will be more plain if we consider that the Emperor Leo in one of his Edicts saith Constantinople is the Mother of the Orthodox Religion of all Christians with much more to this purpose but Baronius relating this saith Thus indeed Leo speaks thus but without doubt it was conceived in the words and writ in the Style of Acacius who swelled with Pride But Leo Bishop of Rome was as proud as Acacius and had more influence over Valentinian than Acacius ever had over the Emperor Leo wherefore in Baronius own words without doubt Valentinian ' s Edict was drawn up in Pope Leo ' s Style and so he is only a Witness in his own Cause Thirdly The Sentence of both the Emperor and the Pope was unjust and although Leo wheedled the Bishops of France to reject Hilary that Bishop still acted as Primate and called Synods afterwards so that this big-speaking Edict was neither believed nor obeyed as de Marca shews For indeed Hilary was Primate by Original right and the French Bishops stuck to him not only for his great Sanctity but because they feared the then growing Encroachments and Usurpations of Rome And finally Pope Hilary Leo's Successor determined this Controversie contrary to Leo's Decree by which we see how odly Causes go at Rome since some Popes were for the Primacy of Arles and some against it But when there was a stout Bishop there he kept his Post without regard to the Roman Sentence And now I hope the Reader will smile at Baronius his inference from this Edict of Valentinian's Thou seest clearly from hence saith he the Pope of Romes Authority over all Churches for he must be quick-sighted indeed who can see any more in this instance than an unjust and ineffective Claim § 5. Soon after Pope Leo had an opportunity to encroach upon the Churches of Spain for one Turibius a Bishop there who is called Leo's Notary and probably had been bread a Notary at Rome certifies the Pope that there were many Priscillian Hereticks there who confirmed their Errors by certain Apocryphal Writings full of Blasphemies Leo writes back to Turibius advising him to get a Council of all the Bishops in Spain and there to Condemn the Hereticks and their Apocryphal Books This advice Baronius calls his enjoyning a general Council more Majorum this being the right of the Pope of Rome And though he confesses the Bishops did not meet where the Pope advised nor could they meet in one place because they were under divers Kings and those Arians yet he desires us to observe from hence how weighty the Popes Authority was even with Barbarous and Arian Kings But alas any one may see he cannot make out that ever these Kings gave leave for any Council and it is more probable these Bishops met privately on this occasion yet they have made out of this A General Council of Spain And here they would have that rule of Faith first received from Leo and approved which is printed before in the first Council of Toledo And Baronius saith the word Filioque proceeding from the Father and the Son was first added in this Council to the Creed by the Authority of Pope Leo and brags much of the Popes supremacy even in matters of Faith on this occasion But first these words were put in by these Councils to check and discover Priscillian Hereticks not by any express order of the Pope and indeed Leo had been an ill Man if he had imposed an Article of Faith upon the Churches of Spain which as Baronius confesses was not received expresly at Rome till many Ages after Secondly These Spanish Bishops did not add these words to the ancient Creed but put them in by way of Explication into an Occasional Confession of their own Composing Thirdly Baronius himself notes that the Spaniards and French afterwards added it to their usual Creeds and at last Rome took this Addition from them And in the same place he commends the Northern Nations for adding these words and those of Rome for rejecting them a long time so that contradictory Actions may be it seems equally commended by those who can blow Hot and Cold with the same Breath About this time was held a great Council at Verulam in Britain by St. Garmanus a French Bishop called over by the Orthodox Britains to assist them in confuting and condemning the Pelagian Heresy as Math. of Westminster computes Baronius indeed pretends this hapned divers years before only because Prosper or some who have since corrupted his Chronicle affirms that Pope Celestine sent St. Germanus hither But most Historians agree the French Bishops from a Council of their own sent over this assistance to the British Church the first time without any order from Celestine and this Council of Verulam was
those words in it of saving the honour of St. Peter and of his Legates being sent to preside in the Council which passages might look favourably on the supremacy if they be genuine only they are no more but Leo's own Evidence in his own Cause After this the Council being assembled at Nice they with the Popes Legates desired the Emperors presence among them upon which he removed the Council to the City of Chalcedon and thither he afterward came to them On which I shall only note that Baronious and Binius have turned this Petition of the Council and Legates into a Declaration of the Legates alone for they pretend that the Emperor writ to the Council That it seemed good to the Popes Legates that he should be present Which is a false representation of the matter as the Emperors Letter shews § 2. We proceed now to the Council it self assembled at Chalcedon and will first consider these generals viz. 1st Who called it 2ly Who presided in it and in what Order they sate 3ly Who confirmed the Acts of it And secondly make some brief remarks on the particular Acts of this Council First As to the Authority by which it was convened Though the Preface had owned that Marcian called this Council yet the Notes affirm it was appointed by the Authority of Leo and by the advice assistance and help of Marcian congregated And again it is clear this General Council was convened by the Exhortation and Counsel of the Emperor but by the Command and Authority of the Pope And this they pretend to prove by the Epistle of the Bishops of Maesia writ some years after the Council which they cite thus Many holy Bishops meeting in the City of Chalcedon by the Command of Leo who is truly an head of Bishops but the Epistle adds and of the venerable Bishop and Patriarch Anatolius a Council was held which was confirmed under two Emperors But these fraudulent Editors leave out these last words which shew that these Bishops were as much called by the Authority of Anatolius as of Leo and also that the Emperors confirmed the Acts of this general Council which two things Binius would conceal from his Reader Now this accidental expression of six Bishops long after implying no more but only that Leo and Anatolius sent out the Emperors Summons to all Bishops the other three Patriarchs being not then of unsuspected fame is all they have to prove this egregious falshood of this Councils being called by the Popes sole Authority except an Epistle of Gelasius another Pope pleading his own Cause Whereas there are clear and express proofs almost innumerable that it was appointed and convened or called by the Emperors Authority For Leo was summoned himself by the Emperor and in obedience to that Summons excuses his own absence and sends his Legates to the Council And the Emperors general Letter strictly requiring all Bishops to be there is extant a Copy of which probably was delivered to the Pope And in the beginning of every Act it is expresly said The Synod met 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. by the command or divine Authority of the Emperors and it is so often repeated that this Council was called by the precept or command of the Emperor as makes it needless and impossible to cite all the places Liberatus the Deacon who writ some years after when the Popes had encroached something further saith at the Popes request the Emperor commanded this Council to be assembled which makes it a strange boldness in Baronius to affirm that the Emperor requested the Pope that a Council might be called which not only this Historian but the Emperors Letter in the next page contradicts Yea Leo himself in his 61st Epistle which the Notes cite with great applause owns the Council was gathered by the precept of the most Christian Princes c. and the Pope in divers of his Epistles owns the Authority of calling general Councils to be in the Emperor yea the Legates own in the very Council it self that the Council was summoned by the Emperors Authority So that for any of the Popes flatterers to pretend the contrary is to wink against the clearest light Secondly As to the Presidents of this Council the Historical Preface is very positive that the Apostolical Legates presided and the Notes prove it was a general Council because the Pope presided by his Legates But if that were essential to a General Council there was none before this of Chalcedon Here indeed three of the five Legates named by the Pope Paschafinus Lucentius and Boniface were allowed to sit uppermost on one side of the Bishops but Basilius and Julianus the other two who also were named Legates by the Pope were not owned by the Council under that Character and therefore had no precedency given them And if this be all they mean by the Legates presiding that they in right of the Pope had the first place among the Bishops we will not contend with them but if they suppose any Power or Authority these Legates had over the Council by this precedency we must deny that Baronius brags that all things were determined by the Popes Authority And the Notes before cited speak as if they had done all things in this Council yea the Latin version of the Council forgets the Title of Presidents thrice and claps it to the names of these Legates which Title is not in the Greek But if we examine into the matter these three Legates who were allowed by the Council had nothing more than the honour of sitting uppermost upon the left hand and sometimes speaking and subscribing first But in the twelfth Act concerning the Church of Ephesus over which the Patriarch of Constantinople claimed some Jurisdiction Anatolius speaks before the Popes Legate and by his direction the matter was determined And though both Baronius and the Notes boast That the Legates pronounced the sentence on Dioscorus in the Popes name as Presidents of the Council Yet if we consult the place we shall find that they twice asked the Synods Opinion of Dioscorus his Case and the whole Synod declared he was to be condemned yet the Legates durst not pronounce the Sentence till they asked if the Synod commanded them to give the Ecclesiastical Sentence and upon the Order of the Synod they first pronounced it and every Bishop single declared Dioscorus was deposed and excommunicated So that there was nothing of Authority in the Legates but only their speaking first and declaring that which the whole Council had agreed upon And because Anatolius commonly spoke in the second place therefore he is joyned with Leo and both of them together are called the Princes of this Council So in one of the Epistles after the Council Leo and Anatolius are said to have regularly presided herein By which Titles are
this Session it is said That the Councils definition had confirmed Leo ' s Epistle and the Faith of Leo is commended because he believed as Cyril believed And after all the Bishops agreement was not sufficient to ratifie this definition of Faith till it was shewed to the Emperor as the last words import The Sixth Action was adorned with the presence of the Emperor Marcianus who made a Speech to the Fathers which Baronius by mistake saith was in the first Session telling them he was come to confirm the Faith they had agreed on as Constantine did not to shew his power Which is a clear and undeniable proof that the confirmation of their Decrees depended on the Emperor in whose presence the definition of Faith was read and subscribed by every one of the Bishops and he declared his Approbation thereof and in the open Synod appoints penalties for them who should after this call these Points into question And then he gives them some Rules to be formed into Canons because they related to Ecclesiastical Affairs after which having been highly Applauded by the Bishops he was petitioned to dimiss them but told them they must not depart for some few days and so took his leave of them Which shews that the Emperor who convened them had also the sole power to dissolve this general Council I shall add what Richerius observes upon that definition of Faith made in this Session that it contains many of the very words and expressions of the Athanasian Creed and though he doubt whether Athanasius did compose that Form which bears his name yet he saith It is now become the Creed of the Catholick Church and there is not a Tittle in it which is not agreeable to the Credit Holiness and Learning of Athanasius He notes also the policy of the Popes Legates who contrary to all ancient usage and to the Primitive simplicity of the former Councils do most impertinently put this Epithete to the Popes name Bishop of the Universal Church of the City of Rome But when I consider the absurdity of the expression and the frequent corruptions in these Acts why might not that bold hand who added to the Legates name President of the Council in this very place and in this Session where the Emperor being present certainly presided add this huffing Title to the Pope's name And if so it is a corruption and can be no ground for an Argument However 't is a great prejudice to all these Titles that when any others of the Council speak of the Pope they call him only Bishop or Archbishop and none but his own Legates load him with those vain Titles The Seventh Action contains only the Ratification of a private Agreement made between Maximus Bishop of Antioch and Juvenalis Bishop of Jerusalem concerning the extent of their Jurisdictions The Eighth Action was the case of Theodoret who having formerly favoured Nestorius yet being afterwards convinced of his Error was received into Communion by Pope Leo who had judged his cause and acquitted him before the Council met But for all that the case was heard over again and he called an Heretick and had been expelled the Council if he had not cleared himself over again by subscribing Leo's Epistle and Anathematizing Nestorius and Eutyches upon which he was restored to Communion and to his Bishoprick By which it is as clear as the Sun that the Council was above the Pope and had Authority to Judge over again the Causes he had determined and also that barely being in Communion with the Pope could not clear any Man from Heresie nor give him a right to the Communion of the Catholick Church And if the Epistles of Theodoret to Leo be genuin whereof there is good cause to doubt and this cause were referred to the Pope by Appeal as the Romanists brag This makes the matter worse and shews that the last Appeal is not to the Pope and that he cannot finally decide any cause which shall not be liable to be tried again in a general Council yea though it be as this was a Cause of Faith which utterly ruins the Infallibility The Ninth and Tenth Actions concern Ibas Bishop of Edessa who had been a Nestorian and was deposed by Dioscorus in the Pseudo Synod of Ephesus in which are these observables First The Emperor commanded a Lay-man and some Neighbouring Bishops to hear this Cause first at Tyre and then at Berytus so that even Provincial Councils did not meet without the Emperors Authority and the Popes universal supremacy was not known then For in the Council of Berytus Antioch is called an Apostolical Throne and the Council after they had restored him to his Bishoprick referred the cause between him and Nonnus who had been thrust into his place to Maximus Bishop of Antioch as the proper Judge of that matter No more is here to be noted but only that the Popes Legates and the whole Council desire that the Emperor would revoke and utterly annul the Ephesine false Synod For though the Pope had done this yet they knew that was insufficient since none but the Emperor had right effectually to confirm or null a Council which pretended to be Oecumenical To this Action Baronius and Binius tack another concerning an allowance to be made to maintain Domnus late Bishop of Antioch who had been deposed But they own this is not in the Greek nor was there any such thing in the Acts of the Council in Justinian's time who expresly affirms Domnus was dead before which is certainly true Wherefore the Cardinal owns they found this in an old Latin Copy in the Vatican the very Mint of Forgeries and this Action ought to be rejected as a mear Fiction The Eleventh and Twelfth Actions were spent in examing the cause of Bassianus and Stephanus both pretending to be Bishops of Ephesus wherein we may observe That Bassianus pleads he was duly elected by the suffrage of the Nobility People and Clergy of that City and the Emperor confirmed the Election for the Pope had not then usurped the nomination or confirmation of remote Bishops Again whereas Baronius brags that the Pope deposed Bassianus from the Bishoprick of Ephesus and cites the words of Stephen his Antagonist thus it is now four years since the Roman Bishop deposed Bassianus arguing from thence That it was the ancient usage for the Pope to depose Metropolitans He doth notoriously prevaricate for Stephen's words are since the Roman Bishop deposed him and the Bishop of Alexandria condemned him And a little before the same Stephen saith more fully That Bassianus was expelled by the holy Fathers Leo and Flavianus and the Bishops of Alexandria and Antioch By which the Reader may see there is no credit to be given to Baronius Quotations who always resolves by false Citations of Authors to ascribe that to the Pope alone which was done by him in conjunction with other Bishops
the Pope nor did his ratifying it make it needless for the Emperor to require the sentiments of others § 5. We have no more to add to this but only to make a few brief Remarks upon such passages in Binius's Notes upon this Council as have not yet come under our consideration The Miracle of Euphemia the Martyrs taking the Orthodox Confession of Faith into her Hand so long after her Death and Burial and casting away that which was Heretical is only hinted at in that suspicious Epistle from the Council But the Notes and Baronius cite for the formal story no Author elder than Metaphrastes who lived above 450 years after and if we consider how he and the later Writers who mention it vary and contradict one another in the time and manner of this pretended Miracle we shall easily discern the whole Story to be a Fiction A little after the Notes say that they highly injure this Holy Council who say the Epistle of Ibas which is Heretical and contains the praises of Hereticks and the condemnation of the Orthodox was received and approved by the Fathers at Chalcedon for those who say so joyn with the Nestorians But alass it proves very unluckily that it was Pope Vigilius who said this and who was condemned for an Heretick for this and other things of like nature by the fifth General Council and Binius knew this well enough but because it was a Friend he conceals his Name Again he tells us of one Julianus Bishop of Coos that he was the Popes Legate and so he is called indeed in the Subscriptions sometimes but let it be noted that the Pope doth not name this Julianus in his Letter to the Council among his Legates but Paschasinus Lucentius and Boniface with one Basilius are there said to be his Legates And yet this Basilius never appeared in the Council which makes a very Learned Man conjecture that the Fathers at Chalcedon rejected two of those whom the Pope had nominated for Legates viz. this Basilius and Julianus the former not being admitted into the Council and the later having no other place than what his own See gave him so that Baronius his observation concerning this Julianus his speaking Latin as the dignity of the Roman See required will not prove him properly a Legate or if it do then the Council placed the Popes Legates as they pleased Moreover the Notes call the excommunicating of the Pope by Dioscorus scelus inauditum an unheard-of-wickedness and a little after they say That Dioscorus was the first that ever was known to excommunicate the Pope or had committed this unheard-of-wickedness But why all this Doth the Council say such a Fact was never attempted nor heard of before No that is their addition for we have heard of Asian and African Bishops who took themselves to have as much Power to excommunicate Victor and Stephen Bishops of Rome as they had to Excommunicate them And we have heard of Liberius and Foelix whose Communion was renounced by the Orthodox and therefore Dioscorus's fault was his excommunicating an Orthodox Patriarch in a pack'd private heretical Synod not because this Patriarch was Bishop of Rome for had Leo deserved this Sentence by holding Heresie no doubt a greater Council would afterward have ratified it and joyned with Dioscorus In the account which the Notes give of the third Session we are told that Dioscorus was accused for wasting the Goods left to the Poor and Pious Uses by a Noble Lady deceased so that no Incense could be offered for her Soul And Binius and Baronius hence infer that they used then to pray for the Dead But if we look into the Council this will appear an invention of their own for there is no mention of praying for that Ladies Soul or offering in coâ—â—e for it to God but only that Dioscorus by spending 〈◊〉 Gifts riotously had as much as in him lay hindred the offering a sweet Savour to God out of her oblation Now whether this sweet Savour be meant literally of Incense then used in Christian Churches or allegorically of Alms so called Philip. iv 18. yet still there is not the least intimation that either of these were offered for the Lady or her Soul or any Prayers made for her after her Decease Yet this false Inference is nauseously repeated again afterwards In which last place Binius saith Dioscorus his with holding the Wheat which the Emperor gave to the Churches of Lybia so that the terrible and unbloody Sacrifice could not be offered there is a clear Testimony for the Mass Whereas it is only an evidence that the Eucharist was made of Wheat and that they received a large Morsel as we Protestants do of the Holy Bread and when it is called an unbloody Sacrifice I think that to be a Testimony they did not believe the natural and true Blood of Christ was there by Transubstantiation It is also very false to say That after the Cause of Sabinianus Act. 14. the Council was ended the Assembly dissolved when the Legates and Judges went out and that the Eastern Bishops staid behind clandestinly In which Words there are more falshoods than Lines For if the Council was ended how came the whole Council to meet again without a new Summons the very next day Again the Legates went out indeed but it was after the Judges not before them as the Notes insinuate and the Judges went out because the Causes were all heard and only the Canons to be treated of but before they went they ordered the Bishops to make some Canons So that to say the Council was ended and the Synod dissolved because none but the Bishops staid is ridiculous and contradicts his Note upon the third Session where he makes it a most clear evidence of a General Council when the Bishops meet without Lay Judges If he say the Popes Legates did not stay I reply they were desired to stay and their peevish absence could not hinder the Councils proceedings no more than Dioscorus his absenting and the Acts were next day approved as good though done without them and there it was also proved that the Council did not act clandestinly yea it is very absurd to say the going out of three Men from 627 who staid behind could make the Synod which remained to be a Clandestine Assembly So that we may wonder at the boldness of these Editors who in spite to the 28th Canon upon false grounds condemn those Actions which were examined justified and approved by this whole General Council We have in the next place an old Inscription pretended to have been made in a Chappel built by Hilary the Legate of Pope Leo after his wondrous escape from the Pseudo-Synod of Ephesus in these words To his Deliverer St. John the Evangelist Hilary the Bishop and Servant of Christ Which Inscription gives Baronius and the Notes occasion to affirm that he had prayed and
Wine to the People as they did and provide both newly Consecrated for the Sick when there is occasion but reserve neither for Worship Which was the usage of the first and purest times And why may not we forbid the needless reserving of the Sacrament in either kind as well as they may prohibit it in one kind But so insatiable is his desire to extol the Roman Church that though he cite all he can find of this sort good and bad he wishes in one place he could find some things which are not to be found that he might let his style run out on so luscious a Subject We note also that how much soever the Romanists here in the Reign of King James the Second were for Toleration because it was their Interest Baronius highly commends the severe Penal Laws made by Arcadius and Honorius against such as differed from the established way of Worship and profession of Faith for Baronius is always a bitter Enemy to Toleration and stiffly opposes the taking away any Penal Laws Moreover it is observable that though his Office be to write an History and relate Matter of Fact When he comes to S. Hierom's Book against Vigilantius he puts on the Character of a Disputant and makes large digressions to the Hereticks as he calls the Reformed to justifie such a Veneration of Relicks and such a kind of worship of Saints as Rome uses at this day which kind of Veneration and Worship S. Hierom would have condemned as well as Vigilantius had it been practised in that Age. He notes that upon the difference between Theophilus and the Pope about S. Chrysostom a Council of Carthage writ to Innocent That the Churches of Rome and Alexandria should keep that Peace mutually which the Lord enjoyned Which shews those African Fathers did not think one of these Churches superior in Authority to the other for if so they had no need to write to Innocent but only to Theophilus to submit to the Supream Bishop For that was the only way to settle a Peace if Innocent's Supremacy had been then allowed And it is a vain and false Conjecture that if Theophilus had writ any Paschal Epistles after his difference with Innocent no Catholick would have received them For divers Eminent and Orthodox Bishops writ to Theophilus and received Letters from him after this yea Synesius himself writes to him to determine a Question by the Authority of his Apostolical Succession and he lived and died with the repute of a Catholick though as I have shewed he never did yield to Pope Innocent in the case of S. Chrysostom Alike groundless is his Conjecture That Arcadius laboured to wipe out the stains he had contracted in persecuting S. Chrysostom by translating the Relicks of the Prophet Samuel and by going into a Martyrs Temple and there praying not to the Martyr observe that but to God For if we set aside the two forged Epistles recorded by Baronius pag. 259. there is no good Evidence that Arcadius at the time when the aforesaid Acts were done was convinced he had done any fault in the affair of S. Chrysostom wherefore he could have no design to purge himself from a Fault he did not own at that time In the next year he spoils one Argument to prove theirs the true Church viz. by Miracles since he owns Atticus Bishop of Constantinople did work a Miracle even before he held Communion with the Roman Church So that if Miracles prove a true Church then a Church that separates from the Roman Communion may be a true Church Of which also we have another Instance soon after where the Church of Antioch was in a difference with Rome for many years Theodoret saith 85 years yet all that while she was owned by the best Catholicks for a true Church Nor do I see how that can be true which Baronius affirms That the cause of restoring the Eastern Bishops to Communion in Chrysostom ' s case was only decided by Pope Innocent since Alexander of Antioch did transact this affair in the East and 24 Western Bishops subscribed with Innocent in the West to testifie their consent to this Agreement of Alexanders yea Thodoret ascribes this not to the Pope alone but to all the Bishops of the West But the Annalist will have all things done by the Pope alone right or wrong Poor Socrates is branded for a Novatian Heretick because he saith It was not the usage of the Catholick Church to persecute Yet the Emperor Marcian and Pope Gregory who were both I hope very good Catholicks say the same thing and therefore we may discern Baronius his Spirit in being so bitter against all who censure Persecuting In the same Year we may see that the Bishops under Theophilus Jurisdiction for all his quarrel at that time with the Pope did reserve the greater Cases to his decision and yet were very good Catholicks all the while When a Bishop pleads for Mercy to such as have principally offended the Church those Intercessions with Pious Magistrates ought to have the force of Commands But to make a general Inference from hence That Bishops ought to command things agreeable to the Christian Law to Magistrates is to stretch the Instance too far But there is another obvious Note from S. Augustine's petitioning and urging Marcellinus to spare the Hereticks and not execute the severity of the Temporal Laws upon them which Baronius would not observe viz. That the Primitive Bishops used their power and interest to get Hereticks spared by Secular Magistrates whereas the Inquisitors use their power now to oblige the Lay-Magistrates to kill and destroy them Further it is observable that he takes upon him to interpret Gods Judgments in favour of his own Party and thus he expounds the Goths invading France to be a punishment for the Heresies there broke out which Salvian more piously makes to be a Scourge for their Immoralities But I note that it was but two year before that Alaricus wasted Italy and took Rome it self yet Baronius could not discern any Heresies there but his general Maxim is That God is wont to bring destruction on those Countries where Heresies arise Now one might observe Leo's attempts to usurp a Supremacy over all other Bishops and the many pious Frauds used and beginning now to be countenanced at Rome about false Relicks and feigned Miracles were as probable occasions of the Divine Judgments in Italy as those he assigns in France To proceed I cannot apprehend how Atticus could have so little Wit in his Anger against Rome as to call Paulinus and Evagrius successively Bishops of Antioch Schismaticks meerly for Communicating with the Roman Church and this in a Letter to so great a Patriarch as S. Cyril if he had known it to be then generally acknowledged as Baronius often pretends that to be in Communion with Rome was a certain sign of a Catholick
Pope Leo for reproving Theodosius the Emperor gently and mildly when he was going to establish Heresie by a Pseudo-Synod Whereas Old Eli's Example may shew if the Emperor was his Inferior in this matter and the Pope his Ghostly Father that his Reproof ought to have been sharper yea he should have expresly prohibited the convening of this Council if his Authority was necessary to their Meeting and have not so meanly truckled as to send his Legates to a Synod which he judged needless yea dangerous And if we consider Leo's high Spirit this Submission shews he had no right to call a General Council nor power to hinder the Emperor from appointing one Again When the Pope by Prosper's help had writ a very seasonable and Orthodox Epistle against Eutyches the French Bishops were careful to have it exactly Transcribed but it follows not from hence That they would not vary one syllable from his Decrees For this respect was shewed not to the Authority of the See but to the excellency of the Epistle as appears in that the Gallican Bishops as hath been shewed rejected other Decrees both of this Pope and his Predecessors when they disliked them And Baronius owns a little after that these Bishops rejoyced that this Epistle contained their own sense as to the Faith and were glad that the Pope held the same Opinion that they had always held from the Tradition of their Ancestors So that this is no Proof as he would have it That the Pope was a Master presiding over all the Christian World For they judged of his Teaching and approved it because it agreed with their Churches ancient Tradition On no better grounds he gathers there was One only lawful Judge One Governor of Holy things always in the Church viz. the Pope From Theodoret's Epistle to Leo For first these Epistles are justly suspected as being not heard of till they came to light first out of the Vatican And secondly they are demonstrated to be spurious by divers Learned Men and especially this to Leo is shewed to contain manifest Contradictions Thirdly If this Epistle were genuine it must be considered that all the Patriarchs except the Roman were at that time either corrupted or oppressed and in that juncture Theodoret could appeal to none of them but Leo and so might well give him good words who alone was likely and able to assist him As for that Testimony wherein they much glory That Rome had the Supremacy over all Churches as their Translation speaks because it was always free from Heresie and no Heretick had sat there it supposes a long experience of the Church of Romes Integrity before this Priviledge was bestowed and if the Supremacy was given her for this Reason she ought to lose it again whenever any Heretical Pope shall get the Chair nor doth Theodoret at all suppose this impossible for the future Moreover he brags that Leo restored Theodoret and others deposed by this Pseudo Ephesine-Synod and infers That it was the Popes priviledge alone to restore Bishops deposed by a Council But the Misfortune is Theodoret was called an Heretick after the Pope had privately acquitted him and his Cause was to be tried over again at Chalcedon and till that Council restored him he remained suspended for all this pretended Priviledge of the Pope And before we leave him we may note that he used all his Interest to persuade the Emperor to call a lawful and impartial General Council as appears by all his Epistles to his several Friends which shews he knew it was in the Emperor's power alone to call one not in the Pope's to whom he would have written being in favour with him if he had had Authority in this Affair He reckons Attila's leaving to harrass the Eastern Empire to be a Divine Reward for Marcian's setling the true Religion there but presently tells us That this Scourge of God and other sad Judgments fell upon Italy and the Western Empire from whence he supposes the Reformation of all Eastern Heresies came and where he believes no Heresie could ever take place So miserably do Men expose themselves when they pretend to give Reasons for all God's Dispensations In the next year hapned the Famous Council of Chalcedon wherein divers of Baronius's Frauds have been already detected so that I am only to add That Leo was politick in pretending to give Anatolius a power to receive Recanting Bishops who had fallen into Eutyches Heresie and cunningly reserves the greater Cases to his own See But 't is plain Anatolius of Constantinople had as much power in the Provinces subject to him as the Pope had in Italy and the greater Cases were according to ancient Usage reserved to the next General Council where both the Bishop of Rome and Constantinoples Acts were to be re-examined and none of these Erring Bishops were restored but by that Council And finally he makes it a great Crime in Dioscorus to pretend to Lord it over Egypt and to say He had as much Authority there as the Emperor Yet the following Popes did and said as much in relation to Italy but Baronius cannot see any harm in that though Socrates did who saith That both the Bishops of Rome and Alexandria had exceeded the bounds of priestly-Priestly-power and fallen to a secular way of Ruling And this may suffice for this Part of the Period we have undertaken CHAP. IV. Roman Errors and Forgeries in the Councils from the end of the Fourth Council till An. Dom. 500. § 1. THE Synod of Alexandria is falsly styled in the Title under Leo For their own Text confesseth it was assembled by the Authority of Proterius Bishop of Alexandria The Second Council of Arles which Binius had antedated 70 year and put out with this false Title under Siricius is by Labbè placed here according to Sirmondus his direction The Council of Anjou in Binius is said to be held under Leo who is not once named in it Wherefore Labbè leaves out that false Inscription and only saith it was held in the 13th year of Pope Leo The 4th Canon of this Council is corrupted by Binius and Baronius For where the Text reads If any be coelibes unmarried they put into the Margen as a better reading if any be debiles weak Which is to make the Reader believe that all the Clergy then were unmarried whereas this Canon supposes many of them had Wives And the 11th Canon allows a married Man to be chosen Priest or Deacon the Popes Decrees not yet prevailing in France So that Labbè honestly strikes out debiles and keeps only the true reading d We note also that in the end of this 4th Canon such Clerks as meddle in surrendring Cities are excommunicated A Sentence which if it were now executed would put many Priests and Jesuits out of the Communion of the Church for their treachery to the Emperor and the King of
Spain many of whose Cities they have betrayed to the French The Notes falsly cite the first Canon and so doth Baronius saying it orders That the Clergy shall not against their Bishops Sentence seek to secular Tribunals and pretending this was in opposition to an Edict of Valentinian published the year before which restrained the Bishops Jurisdiction to matters of Religion unless the parties chose them Now the true words of the Canon are The Clergy shall not appeal from the Bishops Sentence nor seek to Secular Tribunals without consulting the Bishop And Valentinian's Law was of no force in France nor probably had these Bishops ever heard there was such a Law so that it is not likely they ever thought of opposing it Finally We observe that Baronius without any Authority falsly affirms that this Council was sent to Rome only to insinuate that it was to be confirmed there Whereas till Fronto-Ducaeus found the Manuscript in France they at Rome seem to have known nothing of it The Council of Vannes placed by Binius here by Sirmondus Authority is removed to An. 465. in Labbè Nothing in it is remarkable but that the Assembly desires not the Pope but the absent Bishops of their own Province to confirm the Canons thereof The Council of 73 Bishops at Constantinople was called by and held under Gennadius Patriarch of that City and so is falsly titled under Leo whose Legates do not subscribe it and so probably were not present at it Baronius indeed saith they were but proves it only by conjecture because Leo in an Epistle speaks of his Legates being come back to Rome the year after But the wonder is how Baronius and Binius who confess all the Acts are lost except one Canon about Simony came to know that Eutyches was condemned and the Council of Chalcedon confirmed in this Council However if it was confirmed no doubt the Greek Bishops would confirm the Canons of it with the rest to which the Popes Legates could not consent But since we hear of no difference it is like these Legates were not present § 2. Pope Hilary who succeeded Leo might justly be suspected of Heresie because he confirms no more than three General Councils omitting that of Constantinople which condemned Macedonius But since there is no evidence of this Universal Epistle confirming the other three Councils but only the fabulous Pontifical we may acquit him and perhaps even in the very Pontifical this Council may have been erased after the controversie of the Primacy was started However this being owned all along by the Catholick Church for a General Council it can suffer nothing by the Popes not confirming it he alone would deserve censure for not subscribing to it The Spanish Bishops who write to this Pope by their Countries being wasted by Euaricus the Goth were destitute of Power and desire Hilary to declare the Canons in some particular Cases hoping the persons concerned who despised them in their low estate might have more respect for a great Patriarch So that it is very Sophistical in the Annalist and Binius to draw consequences from hence for the Popes being the Supream Judge and having power to dispense with all Canons The Pope himself in his Answer pretends no such thing He only declares the Canons but dispenses with none Yet if he had such a power doubtless he ought to have used it in Irenaeus his Case But the third Epistle of Hilary writ about the same affair seems to discover that all these Epistles which talk so big of the Popes Supremacy are counterfeit For the Forger weary of inventing new Phrases steals the beginning verbatim out of those Epistles that are falsly ascribed to Zepherine and Fabian and were not extant until long after Pope Hilary's death And Labbè's Marginal Note on Binius Annotations shews he smelt out the Cheat if he durst have spoken freely The Notes on the 4th Epistle own that the Popes may be cajoled by false Stories and deceived in Matter of Fact and this so far as to condemn holier Bishops than themselves as Leo and this Hilary did in the cases of Hilary of Arles and Mammertus of Vienne And it is not easie to understand how he who mistakes Matter of Fact can infallibly apply the Law to a Fact wherein he is mistaken The 5th Epistle was writ three year before those that precede it and the Humility of the Style makes me think it the only genuine Letter as yet set down of this Pope for he writes to the Bishop of Arles not as a Son but as a Brother and takes it well that he advised him to keep close to the Ancient Canons The 9th Epistle shews that Mammertus his Piety was no protection to him against the injuries of the Roman Court But Binius doth penance for this in his Notes on the 11th Epistle though all his devices will neither excuse his Popes Morals in persecuting so great a Saint nor vindicate his Judgment who was so grosly mistaken There is but one Roman Council under this Pope called as is pretended to confirm his false Judgment about the Spanish Bishops for they absolve the guilty Sylvanus and condemn Irenaeus who was innocent And though this Popes being commonly in the wrong makes it probable he might get such a Council together yet the very Acts smell strong of Forgery as well as the former Epistles in these cases For besides their Stile Maximus Bishop of Turin is mentioned not only as present at it but speaking in it who died as Gennadius a Writer of that Age and Country affirms in the Reign of Honorius and the younger Theodosius that is above 40 year before this Council So that Baronius is very bold out of a suspected Council to correct a Writer who lived so near this time against the Authority of divers printed Copies And Binius is more audacious to cover this with an evident falsification of Gennadius as if he said Maximus lived under those Emperors but continued Bishop till this time And now let Baronius boast of the Acclamations of this Synod common in other Councils as a singular honour done to Hilary for after all it is plain he liked not the Canons of it so well as to give them a place in his Annals which here he fills up with other manifest impertinencies § 3. The next Pope was Simplicius whose appointing Weekly Confessors at Rome is far from proving what the Notes infer that their Sacramental Confession was instituted by Christ Nor is it for the credit of this Pope that three parts of seven in Rome it self were Arrians in his time But the Pontifical gives the reason of it and expresly charges him with dissimulation Which seems a just censure for though the Arrians and Photinians sadly infested the Western Church And though the Princes of that time were generally heretical yet poor
entrusted him with But not a syllable of his Subjection to the Pope or of any Office derived from him § 4. The Council of Tours Binius places here under Simplicius Labbè 21 years sooner under Pope Hilary but the truth is that it was held An. 461. but under no Pope at all For they desire no other but their absent Brethren Bishops of that Province to confirm their Canons by their consent The Notes on this Council mention the Fasts and Vigils which Perpetuus the 6th Bishop of Tours instituted for his Church Recorded by an old Historian of that place And 't is very plain they differ extreamly from those used at Rome which shews how unreasonable it is in the Modern Roman Church to impose their Fasts Feasts and other Rites upon all Churches in the World The Council of Arles in the cause of Faustus assembled to examin Points of Faith doth not so much as mention the Pope so that surely they did not take him for an infallible Judge Labbè's Notes boast that one De Champs hath confuted Bishop Usher's censure of the Epistles of Faustus and Lucidus and of this Council which approved them But before the Reader credit this let him hear that most learned Primate who modestly excuses the Council but strongly proves that Faustus was a Semi-pelagian Heretick And if he did not feign the consent of this and another Council to his Doctrins this will be one instance that Councils may Err in matters of Faith § 5. Foelix the Third who followed Simplicius was much bolder and openly reproved the Emperor and Acacius for that which he called a Fault But the Notes falsifie when they say That in the beginning of his Pontificat he rejected proscribed and cursed the most wicked Zeno's Henoticon Edict for Union anathematizing all that subscribed it For Euagrius recites this Edict and neither saith Foelix condemned it nor condemns it himself and Foelix former Letters treat both Zeno and Acacius with all respect nor do they curse either of them on the account of this Edict Theodorus Lector indeed saith That when all the Patriarchs besides agreed to Zeno's Edict for Union Foelix of Rome 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 joyned not with him Which only implies his not communicating with the Emperor in that point But Binius hath improved this into proscribing cursing and anathematizing the Edict The First Epistle of Foelix to Acacius often calls him Brother which shews as if then he did not reject his Communion and neither this nor the second to Zeno do at all mention the Emperors Edict for Union but quarrels only about matters of Jurisdiction being not so much concerned for any Heretical Opinions as for keeping up his claim to a pretended Supremacy However some suspect both these Epistles as being without date and because that to Acacius seems to contradict Liberatus But I think they may be allowed for genuine The Second Epistle to Zeno is writ with modesty yet wants not good advice The Pope owning it his Duty to write to the Emperor upon his coming into the See of Rome and he rather intreats than either commands or threatens But it is certain if this Epistle be genuine it is not perfect wanting that account of the African Persecution which Euagrius saith was mentioned in this Epistle It is said Foelix writ three Letters to Petrus Cnapheus the Heretical Bishop of Antioch of which only two are extant and it is well if both be not Forgeries incepi sententiare contrate is a Phrase that smells of the later Ages when the Flatterers of Rome coyned great variety of this kind of Epistles to make the World think that an Heretical Patriarch could be deposed by none but the Pope But this very Letter owns that Acacius and his Council had also deposed this Peter of Antioch as well as the Pope and his And Baronius saith Acacius did it first But the Cardinal thought it worth his while to corrupt this suspicious Epistle wherein Foelix saith He was condemned by me and those who together with me do govern the Apostolical Throne Which Phrase plainly shews that the Pope did not Rule alone as a Monarch at Rome but the Italian Bishops had a share in that Power To avoid which Truth Baronius and they that follow him falsifie it and read condemned by me and by them who being constituted under me govern Episcopal Seats The true reading implies the Bishops are co-ordinate with the Pope but the Corruption is to make us believe they are only his creatures substitutes and delegates The Fifth Epistle to Zeno speaks honourably of Acacius as an Orthodox Archbishop commending him for opposing Petrus Cnapheus It is noted by a learned Man that excepting fabulous Inscriptions the name Archbishop is here first found among the Latins But I rather observe that Foelix here reads that famous Text for the Supremacy Math. xvi in this manner and upon this Confession will I build my Church So it is read often in Gelasiui Epistles on the Confession of Peter will I build my Church Which shews it is not a casual expression but a Testimony that at Rome it self in that Age it was not believed this Promise belonged so much to St. Peter's Person as to his Faith nor to his Successors any longer than they held that Confession Of the 6th Epistle we shall speak when we come to Foelix his second Roman Council The Corrupters Fingers have been busie with the Title of the 7th Epistle which as Labbè notes out of Justellus was writ only to the Bishops of Sicily but they who are to support an Universal Supremacy have changed it thus To all Bishops And the date is falsified also being pretended to be writ by a Roman Council held in March An. Dom. 487. yet it is dated in the year after March 488. But if they will have it genuine let them observe that the Pope here saith speaking of a Point of Faith He knows not but in this case the Spirit of God may have informed them of something that had escaped his Knowledge promising to hear them if they can find anything omitted by him Let them read this and reconcile it with Infallibility if they can The Decree of Foelix about the subjection of Kings to Bishops is neither agreeable to the Age nor to the Style of this Popes other Writings to the Emperor so that we cannot credit it though Labbè hath put it into an Epistle to Zeno because this Epistle speaks of the deposition of Acacius as a thing past August 1st 484 But the Margen of the next Epistle saith Acacius was deposed July 28 488 And it is probable that both the Sentence and the Synod are spurious coyned out of a hint in the Pontifical viz. That Foelix did condemn Acacius in a Synod Which was ground enough for the Parasites to frame a Council But how little credit is to be given
and some are read otherways in Justellus Manuscript And again he observes that instead of these words Apostolicae sedi frequentèr datum est it is now read Apostolica sedes frequentèr ut dictum est c. which makes a great alteration in the Sense The former implying only a delegated power the later an original power of absolving all persons So that if the whole be not a Forgery yet it is now corrupted in many places by the bold Champions of the Supremacy to whom nothing was Sacred Yea we are told it comes out of the Vatican Mint restored and mended we know what that means as far as was fit by Baronius So that the Impartial Reader may judge what credit is to be given to this Epistle out of which they often prove their Supremacy written by a bigotted Pope who scrupled not at any thing to advance his See if it be genuine and transcribed by such as are convicted of repeated Corruptions Labbè gives us two other imperfect Epistles of Gelasius about his renouncing Communion with those who kept Acacius his Name in their Dypticks as most of the Eastern Bishops then did But in these the Pope humbly saith It is not for my Humility to pass Sentence concerning a difference reaching through the World my part being to take care of my own Salvation Which is so different from the style of his former Epistles that if these be genuine those are suspicious But since all these Epistles of Simplicius Foelix and Gelasius make so soul a matter of Acacius his Case let me once for all here give his Character and state that business That he was Orthodox in all points is manifest by his Epistle against Peter of Antioch And by his forcing Basiliscus to revoke his Edict against the Council of Chalcedon And while the Pope flattered that Heretical Usurper Acacius made all the Bishops who had subscribed it recant He also ejected Peter of Antioch for Heresie before the Pope knew of it and excommunicated Peter of Alexandria yea deposed him when he maintained his Heresie And would not admit him to Communion again till he had professed the Catholic Faith and by name expresly received the Council of Chalcedon 'T is true this Bishop proved himself a Dissembler by Apostatizing afterward but that was not the Popes Quarrel at Acacius the Roman Bishops were jealous of the Bishop of Constantinoples growing power who flourished under the Eastern Emperors while their Church was obscured under a Barbarous King And Acacius by the Emperors consent without consulting the Pope put in and put out the Eastern Bishops as he thought fit pretending this power was given him by the Councils of Constantinople and Chalcedon This galled the Popes and therefore in the pretended Sentence of Foelix he is charged as one that usurped others Provinces contrary to the Nicene Canons This check'd the universal Supremacy that Rome had then been for some time aiming at so that they could have forgiven any Heresie rather than this attempt Which appears by this That though Pelagianism had spread it self all over the Western Church and Eutyches Heresie prevailed in the East yea a great part of Rome it self was Arrian we find few or no Popes Letters against these Violators of the Faith as if they with Tiberius left Christ to revenge his own injuries But all their outcry is against Acacius whom they would never forgive living nor dead for touching their Jurisdiction that was dearer to them than all the Articles of their Creed But while they hated him the whole Eastern Church took his part and he continued to exercise his Office in spight of all the Popes Sentences until his death leaving behind him so good a Character that Suidas saith If ever any man were truly venerable it was Acacius Yea it was a long time before the Greeks could be persuaded either by the promises or threatnings of Rome to put his Name out of the Dypticks though the union of the East and West depended at last upon that single Point They objected that he subscribed the Edict for Union made by Zeno. I reply so did three Patriarchs more and that Edict contained no Heresie nor did it condemn the Council of Chalcedon They urge also that he rejected John Talaia an Orthodox Bishop of Alexandria But that was because he believed him perjured and consequently unduly elected To conclude Acacius was a good Man and those who will consider the matter impartially will think the Popes deserve no commendation for their stiffness and violence in this Contest After the Epistles follow some Tracts of Gelasius The first of which is about Excommunication Wherein there is one passage that afflicts Baronius For the Pope saith Christ hath separated the Kings Office and the Bishops So that Bishops must not challenge Royal Dignity nor meddle in secular Affairs nor may Kings administer Holy things But the Cardinal will have the Roman Bishop to have at least Regal Power and Kings to be subject to Ecclesiasticks who he thinks may meddle in Temporal Affairs tho' Kings must not in Sacred matters citing for this an Epistle of Gelasius But I should rather think the Epistle forged if it did contradict this Tract tho' Baronius wrests the words he cites and omits a passage that immediately follows them viz. The Ecclesiastical Rulers obey your Laws which shews Bishops were then subject to Princes And the next Tract against the profane Pagan Festivals shews that the Pope had no shadow of Regal power at Rome in those days For Gelasius only declares them unlawful and saith he will deliver his own Soul in persuading the Christians to forbear them But it was the Senates part to forbid them and take them away and his Predecessors were to Petition the Emperor as he owns to abolish such impieties So that Baronius his huffing Preface to this argument against these Paganish Feasts is very ridiculous You may see saith he how he exalts himself against the Emperor and though the City was under a Gothic King he prescribes Laws to Rome without asking leave of an Impious Prince He hath good Eyes I am sure who in this Sermon or Discourse can see either any exercise of Authority or Law prescribed only indeed it is a pious and rational exhortation § 9. A Roman Council under Gelasius is placed next said to consist of 70 Bishops convened to settle the Canon of Scripture and to distinguish genuine from spurious Authors But the whole seems a meer Forgery For first the Publishers are not agreed upon what Pope to Father it Divers Manuscripts in Labbè ascribe it to Hormisda who sat 20. Years after this Another very old Book calls it A Declaration of Holy Scripture c. with Gelasius his Annotations The Decree in Gratian and in Justellus his Manuscript wants all the Books of the Old and New Testament Wherein also all the
The first was to prevent Mens seeking Bishopricks especially the Papacy while the See was full On which we may note the Cunning of this Pope who probably had got the Papey by this means yet sees fit to condemn a Fault after he had made his advantage by it The Fourth Canon plainly supposes that the Pope will name his Successor unless he die suddenly which is expresly contrary to the ancient Canons which the Notes can neither totally conceal nor fairly excuse But I look upon the Acts to be intirely forged in the later Times as the gross barbarity of the Style shews and 't is not probable that 72 Italian Bishops should come to Rome as so many Cyphers only to applaud what this Pope did ignorantly and Uncanonically decree 'T is certain there was a Synod at Rome called by the Arrian King Theodoric which is perhaps suppressed by the Editors lest it should discover the Regal Power was then above the Papal And this new Stuff seems to be put into the old Garment to fill up the Rent Now Baronius and Binius place this Synod before the Kal. of May An. 499. and fall foul upon Theodorus Lector for saying That Theodoric called this Synod whereas he knew nothing of this Fiction He saith indeed That after the Schism had lasted Three years which must be An. 501. since Pope Anastasius died An. 498. Theodoric who then Ruled all at Rome called a Synod of Bishops and setled Symmachus in the Papal Chair So that according to him no body called this Synod of the Editors nor was Symmachus yet Pope but these are devices to make the Schism seem shorter than it was But Theodorus is of better Credit than the Annalist and Cassiodorus shews that this Schism was not fully ended until Symmachus his death 13 or 14 years after For he saith That in his Consulship An. 514 he had united the Roman Clergy and People and restored the desired Concord to that Church So that 't is certain there was a Schisin at this time and long after The Second Roman Council under Symmachus hath no Voucher but Anastasius who pretends it was called to condemn Potrus Altinensis King Theodoric's Visitor as an Invader of the Roman See But 't is no way probable this yet unsetled Pope durst do so bold a thing considering Theodoric to whose Arbitration they had submitted this and commended him for determining it by a Bishp was then at Rome in great glory loved and admired both by the Synod and People But the sport is Binius and Baronius do not agree whether this were a distinct Synod or only one Action of another Synod called Palmaria however the dispute being about so frivolous a Fiction we shall not interpose 'T is probable upon Theodoric's having declared Symmachus the true Pope his Enemies accused him of heinous Crimes To cover which a Synod is patch'd up so full of Barbarisms False Latin and Non-sense that it seems to have been writ by that Ignorant Hand who forged the ridiculous Council of Sinuessa for Pope Marcellinus and the design of both is the same viz. to make us think that a Pope cannot be judged by a Council neither for Idolatry nor for Adultery Besides the Forger mistakes the Consul's Names and Ruffus Magnus put in as Colleague to Faustus Avienus instead of Pompeius who is by two undoubted Writers of this Age joyned with Avienus as the Notes and Annalist confess who yet have the confidence to say these Acts are genuine But it seems they scarce think so for these Acts say expresly The Council was called by the Precept of Theodoric and own that they could decree nothing without that Princes knowledge Yet these Parasites contradict their so commended Acts and affirm this Synod was called by the Pope who was the Criminal yea though they immediately after print some suspicious Precepts of Theodoric about his calling and directing this whole process If the whole were not fictitious I might note That there is a manifest Corruption in the Acts for where the Roman Churches Grandeur is said to flow First from S. Peter ' s Merit then following our Lord's Command and the Authority of General Councils The Period is not sense and jussione Domini seems put in to make the Flattery still grosser But the Editor's Margin hath a glorious Note on this blunder and Baronius cites it with great Triumph Another Trick the Notes put upon these Acts which in the next Sentence declare that Symmachus and his Bishops desired Letters from the King's Clemency for calling this Synod Which the Annotator turns as if the King desired the Popes Letters and though he was an Arrian durst not call it without such Letters which Note is as false as it is impertinent For we see by Theodorus Lector That Theodoric did call the real Council And Zonaras saith Theodoric calling a Council rejected Laurentius and confirmed the Bishoprick of Rome to Symmachus And they must be able to out-face the Sun who out of a falsly expounded Period would prove that the Kings of that Age called no Councils without the Popes consent Symmachus his 4th Roman Synod of which Baronius makes the two former to be only divers Acts is said to be held when Avienus Junior was Consul but the name of his Colleague is omitted which was Probus This makes it somewhat suspicious but the business of it confirms that Suspicion which was to revoke two Laws made in a Roman Synod after Simplicius his Death wherein according to ancient Custom Basilius Praefect for Odoacer King of Italy was present with some Bishops and the Roman Clergy The first Law was That no Pope should be elected without the consent of the King of Italy then Lord of Rome The other That no Pope Bishop or other Clergy-man should alienate things given to the Church Which Laws they pretend to annul because they were both made by Lay-men and not subscribed by any Pope But first It is certain that Lay Princes made many Laws in Ecclesiastical Affairs by Advice of their Clergy and these were frequently confirmed in Synods Secondly These Laws were made in a Council of the Clergy as appears by that Title Sanctitati vestrae used by Basilius and Eulalius in this Council confesses these Laws were made some Bishops consenting to them Moreover the deceased Pope had directed the making these Laws And the Annotator who here objects They were made in the Vacancy of the See in another place saith The Roman Clergy well knew that when the Pope the visible Head of the Church was taken away it was their part by ancient Custom as the nearest Members to the Head and Administrators of Peter ' s Church to take care of the Vniversal Church Wherefore he cannot fairly deny but the Roman Clergy had power in the Vacancy to confirm a Law relating to the good ordering of their own Church And the bloody
But the Reader must beware of all such Epistles being generally writ by later Parasites of Rome who would have it thought that all the Eminent Bishops in the World acted by a Power delegated from the Pope The Second and Fourth Epistles are this Popes excuse why he did not go but send his Legates to a Council in the East unto which the Emperor Anastasius had summoned him more majorum Which shews that as yet the Emperors had the power of calling Councils and sent their Precepts to the Pope himself The Fifth Epistle is also to excuse Hormisda's not going The Title of which is false viz. That it was a new thing for a Pope to be called to a Council by the Emperor For the Letter it self only saith there is no Example of a Pope going in person to a Council in Foreign Parts But as to the Summons that was no new thing for Pope Celestine was called to Ephesus by Theodosius and Leo to Chalcedon by the Emperor Marcian And in this Letter Hormisda highly commends Anastasius for Writing to him to be there in person and says God moved the Emperor to write this The Third Epistle is a reply to Dorotheus Bishop of Thessalonica who calls the Pope his Fellow Minister in the Inscription But Binius contrary both to Baronius and Labbè corrupts the Title and Text of the Epistle of Dorotheus reading Patri instead of Papae and twice in six lines putting venerando capiti nostro for vestro Now the true reading I have writ this to your venerable Head means no more but to your self Whereas the corruption tends to impose upon the Reader a false conceipt viz. That the Pope was the Father and Head of all Bishops The Sixth Epistle shews that Hormisda for two years after his advancement into the infallible Chair took Anastasius for an Orthodox Emperor But Baronius had exposed him as a known Heretick and Persecutor of the Orthodox many years before and Binius Notes charge him with the Eutychian Heresie at this very time Which shews Hormisda was very meanly qualified for an universal Judge in matters of Faith I add that in this Epistle the Pope declares He will throw himself down at the Emperors Feet for the Service of the Church But after-times have seen an Emperor falling down at the Popes Feet and kissing his Slipper The Title of the Epistle of John Bishop of Nicopolis calls the Pope if it be genuine Father of Fathers and Prince of all Bishops However it can only mean That the Pope was a chief Bishop because in the same Title he styles him his fellow Minister and in the Epistle saith his Predecessor Alciso was a Prince of Bishops who was only an Archbishop over a few Suffragans and there were but eight Bishops in this Synod of Epirus of whose complying with the Pope Baronius brags as if all the Eastern Church had submitted In the Eighth Epistle the Pope distinguishes the Apostolical that is the Roman from the general Catholick Church where he affirms that these Hereticks were Condemned both by the one and the other After the Ninth Epistle we have a Paper called a Form of Faith pretended to be sent with these Letters to be subscribed by these Bishops of Epirus but yet is dated the year after these Letters and hath other marks of Forgery the matter of it being not designed to secure the Articles of the Old Creeds but to enslave all Churches to believe implicitely as the Church of Rome did which is so grosly flattered in it that Hormisda might well blush at it and must take those who would subscribe it for his Vassals But doubtless this was devised after the Supremacy and Infallibility were got much higher And we may observe the Forger of it not only claps it in here but makes Justin the Emperor sign it and send it to Pope Boniface after that Emperor and Pope were both dead where Binius and Labbè condemn it for an Imposture And the deviser of it is so fond of it that he hath thrust it in most falsly and impertinently in four or five several places of the Councils After all the Noise of the Subjection of the Eastern Churches to the Roman all the Letters of this time mention no more than the Agreement and Concord of the Eastern and Western Churches So Avitus enquires if they were reconciled and a Concord was made Justin the Emperor saith he laboured pro Concordia c. And Hormisda himself speaks of it as an Union and a receiving the Bishop of Constantinople into an Unity of Communion Which shews the Eastern Church owed no subjection then to Rome The instructions to the Legates last cited are something suspicious and look like the Work of a later Hand But Binius is so taken with them that he Prints them again verbatini whereas Labbè omits them the second time The Seventeenth Epistle shews that this Pope under pretence of admitting inferior Bishops to his Communion broke in upon the Ancient Rights and Customs of Metropolitans freeing their Suffragans from the obedience they owed to their Superiors by the Canons And a little after because Dorotheus opposed this usurpation the Pope represents him as having forsaken Christ a piece of Cant that is common with every petty Sect in respect of all that are not of their party And indeed the Epistle of Anastasius which follows this 22d Epistle declares that Hormisda was a stubborn and unmerciful man and not only slighted the Emperor and injured him but pretended to command him which he saith He will not bear or as Baronius out of the Pontifical hath it he told the Pope He would Command and not be Commanded which was not spoken in fury but like a Prince and had all his Successors kept the Reins so stiff they had curbed all the Papal usurpations yea wholly prevented them The Relation of the Syrian Monks which we have here in Latin is corrupted in the Title and abused by a silly Translator The Title is with great swelling words directed to Hormisda but the Text speaks to a whole Synod of Bishops and says Rise ye up holy Fathers and The Flock cometh to you true Pastors and Doctors to whom the Salvation of all is committed yet the Title appropriates all to the Pope single where the Translator for Oecumenical Patriarch a name which is often given also to the Bishop of Constantinople ignorantly or by design hath universae orbis Terrae Patriarchae And he calls the Western Legate Angelum vestrum your Angel 'T is probable also some such Hand hath put in vos estis caput omnium Ye not the Pope alone are the Head of all where our Editors marginal Note is The Pope is the Head of all But the boldest Forgery of all is That Binius and Labbè make these Monks in the end of their Epistle accurse Acacius Bishop of Constantinople who
did communicate with the Hereticks which is added by the Editors For in Baronius Acacius his name is not once mentioned neither in his Edition at Antwerp 1596. nor in that at Venice 1601. So that we can scarce trust any thing which comes through such Mens hands The Twenty fourth Epistle which pretends to make John Bishop of Tarragon the Popes Legate and speaks of his coming to Italy and having Papal Constitutions sent him not only confirms our Note that all such kind of Epistles are forged but is certainly spurious it self For in this year 517 this John presided in the Council of Gyrone in Spain where he and his fellow Bishops made Canons and take no notice of the Pope or any Legantine Power And the Editors differ about the date of this Epistle And probably the next Epistle containing the Constitutions is forged also being directed to all the Bishops of Spain who were not then under any one King nor Primate And whereas this Letter speaks of peaceable times it is certain these Gothick Arrian Kings were almost continually at War with France and with each other However the Inventer of these Epistles is not very Modern For he makes Christ the Head of the Church and Bishops to be his Vicars And Penitents are here forbid to be chosen Bishops because they could not decently absolve others who had openly confessed their own Sins before the People Which shews the Pope was not Christs sole Vicar then And that there was no Auricular Confession when this was writ § 3. Justin being upon Anastasius his death unexpectedly made Emperor gives the Pope notice of it and requires his Prayers This Hormisda if his Letter be genuine craftily calls offering up the first fruits of his Empire to St. Peter And the Notes add That it was the ancient use to certifie the Pope of the new elected Emperor and to request him to confirm and consecrate him But I have shewed it was a much more ancient Custom for the Pope to certifie the Emperor of his Election Only when an Emperor came to the Throne without a good Title which was Justin's case it was such an Emperor's interest to gain the Pope's favour But as for either Consecration or Confirmation there is not one word of it that is a device out of Baronius Brain and the Annotator takes it from him of trust and he was owned Emperor by all long before this notice The Epistle of John Bishop of Constantinople in the Title calls Hormisda His most Holy Brother and Fellow-Minister and in the Letter he calls him Most dear Brother in Christ which Phrases Epiphanius also his Successor uses in his Epistle to the same Pope And from John's Epistle we learn that when Old Rome left out the names of the Patriarches of Constantinople in their Dypticks These put out the Popes name from their Dypticks which shews no subjection was owned or expected and that the Eastern Church was on even ground with the Pope in those days despising his Communion as much as he did theirs An Epistle writ to Caesarius Bishop of Arles this year is suspicious because Baronius had mentioned his Will and Testament ten year before But if he were now alive we must correct the Title in Binius where he is called The Vicar of the Apostolick See in France Which words are so manifest a Forgery that Labbè left them out But we may suspect the whole since the Pope never names his last Embassy before this time received from the Emperor and Patriarch of Constantinople when he pretends to give an Account of the Affairs in the East to this Caesarius The Legates Instructions here begin as the former did viz. When by Gods Mercy ye come into the Eastern parts c. and the Legates in their third Suggestion ascribe their safe Journy only to Gods Mercy So that probably those words in the first instructions and the Prayers of the Apostles are added by a later hand when they used so often to pray to Saints as to give them a share of the Glory due to God for his Mercy The same hand to countenance the same practice seems to have corrupted the Thirty seventh Epistle where Hormisdu tells Justinian He did daily and humbly beseech the Apostle Peter that God might give a speedy issue to his endeavours Which borders both on Blasphemy and Nonsense but probably the true reading was apud B. Petrum obsecramus That the Pope pray'd daily at St. Peter's Church to God for Justinian's speedy success That the Eastern and Western Church were united about this time is true but I am apt to believe that those many particular circumstances which Baronius and these Editors have out of a sort of reports of the Popes Legates Letters and other Papers lately found it seems in the Vatican are of later invention The Epistle of John Bishop of Constantinople wherein he is pretended to subscribe that flattering confession of Faith formerly said to be subscribed by the Bishops of Epirus is certainly a Forgery that some Parasite hath transcribed as often as any Eminent person was reconciled to the Pope and therefore a little after as I noted but now he ascribes the same Form to the Emperor Justin three years after he was dead There is no proof of this John's subscribing any such Paper but only the relation of Dioscorus one of the Pope's Legates which is certainly false because he saith That at this time An. 519. John consented to rase the names of Phravites Euphemius Macedonius and Timotheus out of the Dypticks as well as the name of Acacius upon which Baronius Triumphs most extreamly But without any cause for if he had not craftily omitted an Epistle of Justinian's writ the next year which is in Binius it would have appeared that the Eastern Church would not yield to rase out any more names but only that of Acacius But Baronius hath later Epistles of Justinian which expresly say a year after this pretended rasing out the names of Euphemius c. that only Acacius his Name was left out of the Dypticks and that the scruple about the other names was not to be medled with for the Eastern Bishops would never yield that point And Justin the Emperor saith the same to Hormisda yea in the year 521 we find the Emperor still requiring the Pope should communicate with those who only left out Acacius his name but kept in the other Bishops names All which is sufficient to prove this Story of Dioscorus to be a meer Fiction Yet it may be confirmed also by the Chronicle of Victor who mentions no Bishops name of Constantinople but Acacius that was rejected when the Emperor Justin reconciled the Eastern and Western Bishops And no Writers of this or the next Age do mention this pretended submission of John of Constantinople Marcellinus Cassiodorus Euagrius and Paulus Diaconus are wholly silent in this
Mennas the most Holy and Blessed universal Arch. Bishop and Patriarch said And he adds to the end of this Sentence that it was according to what Hormisda and Agapetus had prescribed whereas this being the Sense of the Synod gave Authority to what the later of these Popes had done and the former Hormisda was dead before this matter came into Question And now I am upon the Account of this Council in Baronius I will also note that in citing an Author which saith Mennas obtained an Universal Bishopric he adds that is of the Churches subject to him Yet a little after he will not allow that Paraphrase when the same words are applyed to the Popes which shews his unfaithfulness in adding and his partiality in expounding two very ill properties in an Historian But to proceed with Binius and Labbè In the 5th Act there is a Syod at Constantinople held under John the Bishop there Anno 518 wherein he is called Most Holy and most Blessed Arch-Bishop Occumenical Patriarch and Father of Fathers Yet the Editors put first in the Margen and then into the Latin Text under Hormisda which words are not in the Greek and are absurd because the two Churches were not yet reconciled Which is plain because in the Acclamations they cry let the Names of Euphemius and Macedonius be restored to the Church Which were two of their Orthodox Patriarchs and followers of Acacius whose Names had been struck out of the Dypticks by Heretical Princes and stood then condemned by Hormisda And they cry again Are our Synodical powers gon away to Rome That is must we reject our Orthodox Patriarchs because Rome censures them But the Latin corrupt version reads Synodica Romana modo valeant which would alter the Sense and persuade such as cannot look into the Greek that Rome's Decrees were valid at Constantinople whereas they Decree contrary to the Pope In the Epistle from John of Jerusalem to the Patriarch of Constantinople the late Forgers have put in a Sentence to give some colour to the Worship of the Blessed Virgin which spoils the Sense The true reading is Do ye most holy pray for the same things that we do for it is the common duty of Bishops to intercede for the peace of the Churches and the Emperors Victory and long Life But into this they thrust in a line or two thus it is the common Duty of Bishops And pray ye to the Holy Glorious Virgin Mary the Mother of God with us to intercede for the peace of the Churches which is a new Piece put into an old Garment so foolishly that the Rent is very visible Finally the subscriptions to the fifth and last Act are corrupted For whereas the Roman Deacons Theophanes and Pelagius in all other Acts are placed after the Eastern Bishops here they are set before them in the Latin Version And whereas the Editors tell us that Justinian's Edict to confirm the Decrees of this Council is depraved in the Title to Mennas I confess it is so but the Roman Parasites have depraved it by cutting off all those Titles which the Novel here cited by them gives him viz. To Mennas the most Holy and most Blessed and Oecumenical Patriarch All which the Editors of the Council leave out To these Notes of the depraving these Acts we may add a few remarks on some passages that are genuine but oppose the late Notions of the Roman Church The Epistle of Agapetus was not writ to Peter alone as the Epistle pretends but to him and other Bishops whom the Pope calls in the first Line His beloved Brethren and to Mennas there he gives the Titles of Brother and fellow Bishop The Syrian Bishops Epistle to Justinian declares that Christ is the Head of the Church which Title the Pope had not yet claimed In the Epistle from John of Jerusalem to the Patriarch of Constantinople where Leo is called Archbishop and Patriarch of Rome we have this memorable Truth That Christ who gave the power of binding and loosing to Peter the chief of the Apostles gave it in general to the Episcopal Order Which confutes that Doctrine of all Bishops receiving this power from the Pope The Bishop of Tyre's Epistle to the Synod at Constantinople calls the See of Antioch which Severus the Heretick had invaded The Throne of the Apostolical Church of Antioch and makes one of his great crimes to be his admitting strange Clerks Canonically deprived by their own Bishop to officiate without the consent of such as had sentenced them A crime so often committed by the Popes that these uncanonical precedents are produced to prove he hath a priviledge so to do The Sentence of Mennas against this Severus and his Complices recites That they had contemned the Apostolical succession in the Church of Rome which had condemned them and set at nought both the Patriarchal Throne of Constantinople and the Synod under it Yea and the Apostolical Succession which the Lord and Saviour of all had setled in those holy places And above all had despised the Sentence of the Oriental Diocess decreed against them I So that their greatest fault was not the contemning the Popes Authority and Apostolical Succession was setled in other Churches by Christ as well as in that of Rome Lastly The Constitution of Justinian is made on purpose to give validity to the Sentence of the Pope and the Synod against Anthimius and the Hereticks declaring it was the custom for all preceding Orthodox Emperors to confirm the Decrees of Councils and it says in the conclusion this Law was published that none might be ignorant of those things which the Bishops had agreed on and the Emperor had confirmed So that it is a fallacious Note of the Editors Margen to say That it was the duty of Emperors to take care that the Decrees of the Fathers and the Pope were executed Which makes their Master to be no more than their Servant and under Officer In the Notes on this Council are many Falshoods which may be discovered by what is already observed Only we may consider some few of them more particularly As first He takes it upon Baronius his credit that Agapetus left the Western Bishops his Legates and that their Power continued after his decease and thence boldly but falsly affirms That these Legates procured the Synod to meet and that they condemned these Hereticks by the Authority of their deceased Master whose Legate also he feigns Mennas was and in express contradiction to the Council he will have these Italian Bishops to be Presidents with Mennas yet immediately calls him alone the President of this Synod Now all this is to impose upon the Reader as if nothing could be done without Papal Authority But we have proved that Justinian called and confirmed this Council and Mennas presided solely in it The Acts also take no notice of these Western Bishops
with Paulus Diaconus follow his Account But the two former Authors are in this case more worthy of Credit however this is certain Bellisarius did depose and banish Sylverius and got Vigilius Elected who fearing his Rival should be restored got him at last into his Hands and barbarously caused him to be starved to death This is a sad Story of two Popes Sylverius uncanonically elected a Simoniack and a perjured Person and Vigilius a favourer of Hereticks one that is said to have hired false Witness and to have given Mony to make the See void and at last a Murtherer Which shews how little reason there is for Baronius and the Notes to make such a stir which was the true Pope of these two They will have Sylverius to remain the rightful Pope while he lived and so Rail freely at Vigilius as an Heretick and Bloody Usurper But they cannot prove this by any Evidence but only by a manifestly forged Epistle of Sylverius And the contrary is very certain because the Emperor the Gallican Churches and all did own Vigilius for the true Pope long before Sylverius his death and he openly acted as such all that time Wherefore we must reject that Dream of Baronius who saith without any ground that Vigilius did Abdicate the Papacy for six days upon the death of his Competitor and got himself new chosen and this purged him of all Crimes and in a moment made him a Saint and a rare Pope He would force this Fiction out of Anastasius who in like Cases he generally despises who only saith the See was void six days but plainly means after Sylverius was deposed for he reckons Vigilius his time from thence allotting him above 17 years and 6 Months that is near two years more than Baronius allows There are but two Epistles ascribed to Sylverius and they are the only Evidence to prove him the true Pope after he was Deposed yet it is certain both are Forged The first charges Vigilius with Simony yea excommunicates and deprives him for usurping the Papacy it is dated with the name of Basilius whereas Baronius and the Annotator say there was no such Consul in his time And Labbè saith it is to be rejected for the Barbarity of the Style and other reasons and concludes the mistake of the Consul shews the bold ignorance of Mercator the Author of this Imposture Now observe for the ingenuity and credit of Baronius that this Epistle not only serves him to clear Sylverius from Simony and to prove him the true Pope but he calls this odious Forgery The Sword of the Spirit the Word of God and the Exercise of that Power which he had to Absolve or Damn Eternally all People which is no less than Blasphemy The Second Epistle to Amator is so gross a Fiction that both Baronius and Binius reject it being contrary to the true History delivered by Liberatus whom the Notes call the most faithful Writer of this time Labbè agrees with them that it is spurious and shews that Mercator stole it out of Gregory's Epistles wishing that the like censure which is passed on this were passed upon many more of these Writings But the Letter of Amator to Sylverius which Labbè saith Learned men suspect to be as false as the Popes answer to it Baronius will have to be genuine and from this slight Forgery alone he proves That all the Catholick World groaned together at the ignominies put upon the Bishop of the Universal Church A rare Historian Whose Assertions and his Evidence are both false Binius places the Second Council of Orleance in this year but Labbe from Sirmondus puts it three years sooner An. 533. in the time of Pope John the Second it was called as the Preface saith by the Command of the King of France and made very good Canons without Papal Advice or Authority Binius his Notes here blunder this and the following Council and will keep King Clovis alive three year longer than Nature allowed him to support a Fable of this Kings giving the Pope a Golden Crown An. 514. whereas he died An. 511. The Third Council of Orleans Binius sets An. 540. But Labbè more truly places it here However it takes no notice of any Pope though Vigilius about this time is pretended to have writ to Caesarius Bishop of Arles This Synod made divers Canons for Discipline and by the second Canon it appears they were zealous for the Celibate of the Clergy But the fourth shews that hitherto the Canons in this case had not been obeyed and the ninth Canon Decrees That if any Clerks having Wives or Concubines were ignorantly ordained they should not be removed § 13. Vigilius was made Pope immediately after Sylverius was deposed and while the Goths belieged Bellisarius in Rome which was in this year But the Editors from Baronius write An. 540. upon this entrance to cover the Fable of his new Election after the death of Sylverius But he must come in in the year 537 For Marcellinus places Vigilius his death An. 554. which makes up the 17 years and odd time that Anastasius truly allots Vigilius whose Successor Pelagius entred as Baronius and the Editors own An. 555 which is but 15 whole year from that year 540 in which they say he entred and from which they falsly compute his time who writ Letters dated An. 538 and acted in all things as the sole true Pope from the time Sylverius was deposed which was according to Anastasius after he had sat one year and five Months and he followed Writers of undoubted credit that is Marcellinus who places his deposition and Vigilius his entrance An. 537 so doth Genebrard who with Platina allow Sylverius only some odd time above one year in which all Writers before Baronius agree His invention therefore it was to ascribe above 4 years to Sylverius that this false Chronology might cover his devisable of a new Election of Vigilius An. 540. which we justly reject as an idle Fable invented to save the Honour of the Roman Chair Yet it is well Baronius did not think Vigilius the true Pope all this time for by that means we have his true Character who he saith was driven on with the Whirlwind of Ambition and like Lucifer fell from Heaven that his Sacriledge cried out on every side he calls him a Schismatick a Simoniack an Usurper a wretched Man an Heretick a Wolf a Thief a false Bishop and an Antichrist aggravating his Crimes with all his Rhetorick wherein he rather exceeds the Bounds of Modesty than of Truth for he really was extreamly wicked and beyond the power of the sanctifying Chair it self to make him Holy We have so fully described the Acts of this Pope and all the false Stories about him in the following History of the Fifth General Council that we may here pass him by with a few brief Remarks First Liberatus assures us
They further say That the Canons of Gangra were confirmed by Apostolical Autherity The Forger meant by Papal Authority But those Bishops at Gangra scarce knew who was then Pope And it is plain the Compiler of this Council had respect to a Forgery of later Ages where Osius of Corduba's name the pretended Legate of the Pope is added to the Synodical Letter from this Synod and therefore these Acts were devised long after this Council is pretended to have sitten And he must be a meer stranger to the History of this Time who reads here that Symmachus and his Council should say It is not lawful for the Emperor nor any other professing Piety c. For this supposes Anastasius no Heretick and that Popes then prescribed Laws to the Emperor of the East I conclude with a single remark upon the Notes on this forged Council which pretend Theodoric obeyed this Councils Decree in ordering the patrimony of the Church of Milan to be restored to Eustorgius who was not in this Council nor Bishop of Milan till eight years after And no doubt that Order was made by Theodoric in pure regard to Equity for it is no way likely that he had ever heard of this Council I conclude these Roman Councils with one remark relating to Mons du-Pin who hath taken things too much upon trust to be always trusted himself and therefore he publishes five of these six Councils for genuine and gives almost the Baronian Character of Symmachus But these Notes I hope will demonstrate he is mistaken both in his Man and these Synods and I only desire the Reader to compare his Account with these short Remarks § 2. There were few Councils abroad in this Popes time and he was not concerned in them The Council of Agatha now Agde in the Province of Narbon was called by the consent of Alaricus an Arrian King Caesarius Bishop of Arles was President of it and divers good Canons were made in it but Symmachus is not named so that our Editors only say it was held in the time of Symmachus I shall make no particular remark but on the Ninth Canon where Caesarius who was much devoted to promote that Celibacy of the Clergy which now was practised at Rome and the Council declare that the orders of Innocent and Siricius should be observed From whence we may Note that these Orders had not yet been generally obeyed in France and that a Popes Decretal was of no force there by vertue of the Authority of his See but became obligatory by the Gallican Churches acceptance and by turning it into a Canon in some Council of their own But that the usages of Rome did not prescribe to France is plain from the Notes on the xii Canon where it appears their Lent Fast was a total abstinence till evening none but the infirm being permitted to dine But the Roman Lent unless they have altered their old rule allows men to dine in Lent with variety of some sorts of meat and drink which is not so strict by much as this Gallican custom The first Council of Orleance is only said to be in Symmachus time but the Acts shew he was not consulted nor concerned in it The Bishops were summoned by the Precept of King Clovis who also gave them the heads of those things they were to treat of And when their Canons were drawn up they sent them not to Rome but to their King for Confirmation with this memorable address if those things which we have agreed on seem right to your judgment we desire your assent that so the Sentence of so many Bishops by the approbation of so great a Prince may be obeyed as being of greater Authority And Clovis was not wanting in respect to them for he stiles them Holy Lords and Popes most worthy of their Apostolical Seat By which it is manifest that Rome had then no Monopoly of these Titles I conclude that which relates to Pope Symmachus his time with one Remark that in the year 500 the Devout and learned African Fulgentius came on purpose to visit Rome But the writer of his life who acurately describes what the holy Man saw there and largely sets forth his View of Theodoric his visiting the Tombs of the Martyrs and saluting the Monks he met with speaks not one Syllable of the Pope whose Benediction one would think Fulgentius should have desired But whether the Schism yet continued or Symmachus his manner did not please the good Man ' its plain he took no notice of him § 3. Hormisda succeeded Symmachus and it seems by the Letter of Dorotheus that in his Election and not before the Schism at Rome ceased which began when Symmachus was chosen which shews that Symmachus having a strong party against him all his time could do nothing considerable This Pope Hormisda was either married before he was Pope or was very criminal for he had a Son i. e. Sylverius who as Liberatus testifies was Pope about twenty years after him This was a bold and active Pope and did labour much to reconcile the Eastern to the Western Church and at last in some measure effected it after the Greeks had been separated as Binius notes from the unity of the Church not Catholick but of Rome he means about 80 years From whence we may observe that a Church may be many years out of the Communion of the Roman Church and yet be a true Church for none till Baronius ever said the Eastern was not a true Church all the time of this Separation The Notes further tell us that King Clovis of France sent Hormisda a Golden Crown set with precious stones for a Present and thereby procured this reward from God that the Kingdom of the Franks still continues Which stuff is out of Baronius But the Story is as false as the inference for Sirmondus proves that King Clovis died Anno 511 that is three years before Hormisda was Pope Labbè who owns this to be an Error would correct the mistake and put in Childebert's name but he who told the Story could certainly have told the Kings right name wherefore we reject the whole Relation as fabulous And for the inference the Kingdom of Franks indeed like all other Kingdoms who sent no Crowns hath continued but not in Clovis his Posterity which is long since extinct We shall make more remarks on this Popes History in his Letters And many Epistles are lately found of this Popes in the Vatican or Forged there which we will now consider The First Epistle is certainly Forged it is directed to Remigius but names King Lovis or Clovis who was dead three year before as Labbè owns for which cause Sirmondus omitted it as Spurious and so P. de Marca counts it And it is almost the same with another feigned Epistle wherein the Pope is pretended to make a Spanish Bishop his Legate there
having any Legantine power from Agapetus and I shall shew presently that before this Council rose there was a new Pope chosen who should have renewed their Commission to make it valid but did not So that they must suppose the dead and the living Pope to have supream Authority both at once Who can swallow these gross Fictions Again Mennas and the Council declare That Pope followed the Canons in allowing Anthimius time to come in and Repent and therefore they followed him but Binius Notes turn this and say That Agapetus commanded the Synod to use this mercy But it is very pleasant to hear Clodius accuse and Binius complain of the Modern Greeks for forging the Title of Oecumenical Patriarch applied to John in his own Council of Constantinople But the Latins are even with them and far out-do them if it were so for they as we have seen have put in that Title for Agapetus into the Latin when it was not in the Greek and have left it out before Menuas name though in the Code it be given him So that they cannot fairly complain Yet after all I can prove by authentic Records of this Age That this Title of Oecumenical Patriarch was given to the Patriarch of both old and new Rome nor is this Council of John corrupted by the modern Greeks and Gregory is certainly mistaken in saying it was not used before his time But the weakest complaint of Forgery and the worst proof of it imaginable is that of Baronius and Binius who pretend the Greeks have fraudulently put the names of Euphemius and Macedonius Bishops of Constantinople before Pope Leo's and the Annalist and Annotator shew shameful ignorance in thinking to prove by the Liturgy of St. Mark that the Pope of Rome was prayed for first in all Churches For though in that Office God is desired to preserve Their most Holy and most Blessed Pope whom he did fore-ordain that his Holy Catholick and Apostolick Church should choose by their common Suffrages and also for their most holy Bishop Yet this being the Office used in the whole Alexandrian Patriarchate must be meant of the Alexandrian Patriarch who was called Pope ever since Athanasius his time and was the Bishop of that Church where these Prayers were made To prove which and shame this illiterate Exposition I shall produce Jac. Goar a rigid Papist the Editor of the Greek Euchologion who thus speaks The Greeks never name the supream Bishop of all he means him of Rome in publick wherefore Urban the Fourth desired of the Emperor Mich. Palaeologus An. Dom. 1263. that is 700 year after this that in their sacred Offices the Popes name should be recited out of the Dypticks with the other four Patriarchs as the first and chiefest sign of their union with Rome For which he Cites Nicetas lib. 5. Here therefore is a proof which proves only the mistake of them that produce it And for the Objection it is a known Custom for all Churches to name their own Patriarchs before those of other Churches so that it is no wonder that at Constantinople Euphemius's name should be placed before Leo's As soon as the Council under Mennas was ended the Decrees were sent to Peter Patriarch of Jerusalem who by the Command of the Emperor called a Council there to confirm them In this year Labbè places the Synod of Auvergne which met as the Preface owns by the precept of King Theodebert there is no Pope mentioned in it Binius places it in the year 541. under Vigilius but Sirmondus proves he was mistaken § 12. As soon as the news of Agapetus his death came to Rome Liberatus saith Sylverius was made Pope by Theodatus the Gothick King Anastasius saith it was after one Month and 28 days vacancy Which is very probable being a sufficient time for the intelligence to come from Constantinople and if we allow that Agapetus died about a Month before Mennas Council this entrance of Sylverius will prove to be while that Council sat Baronius saw this and fearing it would ruin his invention of the Western Bishops there being Agapetus his Legates he blunders the time of Sylverius's Election and though he reject Anastasius account on whom in many less probable Reports he often relies Yet he will not fix any other time and so leaves it uncertain only in general he and Binius say he was elected in the end of this year which cannot be because Agapetus certainly died in the Spring and it required no long time for the News to come from Constantinople As to this Sylverius it is certain from Liberatus he was the Son of Pope Hormisda and Baronius with Binius only conjecture that he was lawfully begotten they would prove it indeed by this Argument That otherwise he would have been irregular and the Roman Clergy would not have chosen him But they forget that his Election was not regular For Theodatus was in haste and would not stay for that but forced the Roman Clergy to subscribe having got money of Sylverius as their own Pontifical relates Baronius calls this fear and vile submission of the Roman Clergy their Clemency and a worthy Example yet confesses this Pope deserved to be kept out However being got into the sanctifying Chair he magnifies him but very unjustly for Procopius a creditable Author who was soon after at Rome with Bellisarius tells us Sylverius first swore to keep the City of Rome for Vitiges the Gothick King And so soon as Bellisarius came before it he was the principal instrument to persuade the Romans who had sworn with him to deliver up that City Baronius would conceal this Perjury and therefore though he cite Procopius here yet he saith no more than that Vitiges admonished the Pope and Senate to keep faithful to the Goths who indeed had been extreamly civil to the Roman Church and though they were Arrians yet as their Enemy Procopius tells us they had such a reverence for the holy places that they did not hurt the Churches of St. Peter or St. Paul yea they gave liberty to the Catholick Priests to serve God in their own way Which confutes the false Reports of their Cruelty in destroying the Churches and Bodies of the Martyrs at Rome mentioned in the Pontifical and in Paulus Diaconus However Sylverius turned once more as Procopius saith and was suspected by Bellisarius to have designed to betray the City of Rome once more to the Goths for which he deposed and banished him and Marcellinus an Author of great credit and of that time saith Sylverius favoured Vitiges and for that cause Bellisarius deposed him from his Bishoprick I know Liberatus a mortal Enemy to Vigilius would have this to be a Calumny invented by Theodora and carried on by Vigilius the succeeding Pope who had promised Bellisarius two Hundred Crowns to get Sylverius ejected and himself admitted and Anastasius