Fables about the translation of the Relicks of St. Stephen to Constantinople out of late and unfaithful Authors such as Cedrenus Nicephorus Nicetus c. but he himself observes that they do not agree as to the time nor the quantity of the Relicks translated And this disagreement should have made him suspect the whole for an Imposture And if the Reader consider what incredible Stories are told of the Miracles wrought by the Relicks of this one Martyr in Sardinia Africk Spain Palestine and Constantinople c. he must believe they cut his Body into as many pieces as there were Stones thrown at him and will wonder how the Body could become whole again and be intirely translated out of Palestine in the year 439. What Theodoret relates of one African Virgin Captive may be believed to be true and that Relation hath no Miracle in it But when Ado of Vienna writ the Acts of another Virgin called Julia captivated at the same time he hath stuffed the Story with Miracles and the only reason of this difference is that this later Author writ his Martyrology Anno 850 that is above 400 year after when Legends grew to be more in Fashion The Annalist takes great pains to prove certain Homilies which some ascribe to Eusebius Emissenus others to Faustus Rhegiensis others to Caesarius of Arles to be the work of Eucherius Bishop of Lyons but as the Author is uncertain the matter of them is justly to be condemned being full of Superstitions and some that came not in till the corrupter and later Ages However Baronius was obliged to get these Homilies ascribed to some Writer of good repute since many of the evil Practices and Errors of their Church which cannot be justified by known and genuine Authors are defended by such obscure Tracts as this Again we have a very absurd Story of St. Cyril's convincing a Monk that Melchisedech was not the Son of God by a Revelation made to the Monk himself who had fallen into that Error But that Fable of Cyril's being a Monk upon Mount Carmel is so gross that he rejects it with this Note That a vehement desire to seem of Antient Extraction makes Men sometimes to dote which Remark is most true of almost all the Monastick Orders of the Roman Church for Aventinus an excellent Historian of their own Communion affirms he had discovered the Monks were wont to delight the Minds of the vile Populace with feigned Tales invented for gain to make the Original of their Temples more Noble and August He brings in a ridiculous Story of an Image of the Blessed Virgin found in a Cypress Tree and of a Church built in the place by one Cyrus Bishop of Smirna but the credit of this relies only upon Nicephorus a modern and fabulous Author And at the same place he brings in a Fiction of an Image of our Saviour wounded by a Jew but he knows not when this matter hapned he thinks not till after the second Nicene Council but why then doth he mention it in this Age No doubt to abuse his Reader into a belief that Images were then in use But the Story it self is all over Legend and not more Authentick for being recorded in their publick Monuments and read in some Churches in the corrupt Ages in which there are the grossest Romances imaginable A little after he taxeth Nicephorus for unfaithfulness and great mistakes in his Relations yet immediately he cites him as good evidence for Relicks belonging to the Blessed Virgin In the next year we have two ridiculous Stories the one of St. Stephens praying to St. Peter and St. Paul to spare his Chappel when Mets was sack'd and burn'd by the Hunns the other of a Drunken Man shut up all Night in St. Peter's Church at Rome and heard St. Peter and St. Paul talking together But telling their Discourse next morning he was struck blind Upon which last Miracle Baronius gathers that blind Men may see great benefits are received by the intercession of Saints But I should rather think he was blind indeed that could not discern these to be meer Fables and truly the only Author he cites for them is Gregory Turonensis who lived 150 year after and is full of these Fictions contradicting even Salvian who lived in that Country at this very time But it is observable that the Writers of the Lives of St. Lupus and Anianus cited in this very place do mention these Holy Men as praying only to God in these Calamities For the direct invocation of Saints was not used no not when those Lives were written Again after the Council of Chalcedon had been confirmed by the most Legal and Authentick ways it is very ridiculous in this great Annalist to cite so many frivolous Stories out of Legends how some Ignorant and Enthusiastical Monks confirmed it or were convinced by Miracles that it was a Genuine and Orthodox Council For he cites no better Author than Surius for these Fables yet relates them with great confidence but this Cause needs no such evidence § 2. Secondly We will note some passages in genuine Authors which he hath corrupted to serve a turn He that reads Baronius his Note in the year 402. that it was an Ancient Custom to paint the Saints in the Churches and that they use to worship them with kindling Lamps before them would imagine this Superstition was ancient in the beginning of the Fifth Century whereas the Author he cites for this is Venantius Fortunatus who lived till the year 600. that is 200 year after and though he speak of a Picture drawn on a Wall and a Lamp beside it doth not mention that as any worship to the Picture that is Baronius's own addition Again when he cites a Law of Theodosius prohibiting the Jews to burn any Cross in contempt of Christianity he adds that they burnt the Cross together with our Saviour crucified on it but that is his own invention the custom of making a Cross alone being indeed very ancient but the adding the Figure of our Saviour to it which they call properly a Crucifix is but a late device and seems not at all to be referred to in that Law To proceed he makes Synesius a notorious dissembler when he declares he had most solemnly protested to Theophilus who was to consecrate him Bishop of Prolemais that he would not accept that Order unless he might live with his Wife as before time Now whoever reads that Letter may see that Synesius professes he tells truth in this relation yea he solemnly calls God and Men to witness that it is true he observes Truth is one of God's Attributes and most pleasing to him Yet Baronius will have him to use the Art of Lying in all these protestations because forsooth he cannot think Theophilus would ordain a Bishop who should live with and have Children by his Wife that is he measures the Primitive Church
him his Fellow-Minister would have been very Sawey if he had known Julius to be the Supreme Bishop of the World And if this Supremacy had been owned in former Ages how came the Eastern Bishops to be so angry at their being desired to come to Rome yea how came they to Excommunicate the Pope for communicating with one whom they had judged a Criminal It is not concerning the Pope but Athanasius that Nazianzen saith He did again prescribe Laws to the whole World It seems the Pope was not the Supreme Caller of Synods when S. Hierom speaking of a Council which he thought was not Authentic Asks What Emperour ordered it to be Convened We cannot find in any genuine Antiquity in this Age so great an Encomium of Rome as Nazianzen the Elder gives of Caesarea viz. That from the beginning it was and now is accounted the Mother of almost all Churches on which all the Christian World casts its Eye like a Circle drawn from a Center A man would guess the Pope's Authority reached no further than the Suburbicarian Regions because Ursicinus Damasus his Competitor was forbid by the Emperour from entring into Rome or the Suburbicarian Regions S. Basil was very unmannerly if not unjust had this Supremacy been then claimed to send his first Embassy unto Athanasius and tell him that He had the Care of all the Churche yea afterward when he did send into the West he directs his Epistle to the Italian and Gallican Bishops without mentioning the Pope in particular And truly Damasus if he were Supreme took little care of his Office since upon so pressing Occasions he would neither Answer S. Basil nor S. Hierom for a long time And S. Hierom was somewhat bold when he reproves the Ambition of Rome and said He would Follow no Chief but Christ S. Ambrose also seems not to give that deference to the Mother of all Churches that he ought since he often Dined and made Feasts on the Saturday which was a Fast at Rome and had the Pope then been Supreme why did Ambrose make a Bishop at Sirmium in Iliyria so far from his own City of Milan The same S. Ambrose also speaks of Supreme Bishops in Gallia It is strange that Siricius the Supreme Pastor should let the Pagans set up an Altar to the Goddess of Victory in the Roman Capitol and that S. Ambrose should be the only Complainant in this Case Finally if the Pope then had any Jurisdiction over the Eastern Churches why was not he consulted about Ordaining S. Chrysostom Bishop of Constantinople and how came the Patriarch of Alexandria to be sent to and to Ordain him These Instances shew the Supremacy of Rome was unknown in that Age And so was the INVOCATION of SAINTS and ADORING of RELICKS also as one might suspect by these Passages That the Holy Men of those Ages in their Dangers and Necessities are said only to have prayed to God not to the Blessed Virgin or to Saints and Angels for help So did Alexander Bishop of Constantinople against Arius so did Parthenius against the Pagans so did Constantius the Emperour for Recovery of his Health so also did those Persian Martyrs Thus Euphrates an Eminent Bishop implores only the help of Christ against an illusion of the Devil The Christians who translated the Bones of Babylas the Martyr did not Pray to him but Praised God and Macedonius an holy Monk is observed only to call upon God Night and Day Arcadius the Emperour in an Earthquade prayed to the Lord the only preserver of the Humble Porphyrius Bishop of Gaza and his People called only upon Christ not upon any Saints So that all these used the Protestant way of Worship And the Romanists must be very unsafe in their Worship of Saints since Baronius confesses one of their Catalogues of Saints puts in the Names of two Hereticks as good Catholic Saints So also as to the Adoration of Relicks the Faithful in Persia did not keep the Body of their Martyr to Worship but buried it in a Tomb So S. Anthony the Primitive Hermit fearing and disliking this Superstition ordered his Body to be put into a private and unknown Grave according to the Custom of the Catholic Church and therefore Metaphrastes his sole Evidence will not pass for the Legend of translating the Bodies of S. Andrew and S. Luke to Constantinople 'T is true this Superstition was then creeping in and some Cheaters did begin to sell the Bones of False Martyrs a Trade used at Rome for many Ages but Theodosius his Law severely punished this Crime Which ridiculous Imposture Julian the witty Apostate had justly exposed some years before as being contrary to Scripture and to the Christian Law To proceed Had the Altars been then used to be adorned with IMAGES as they are now at Rome the Faithful would not have been so surprized at bringing in an Image and placing it on the Altar as Optatus saith they were and Baronius can find no Precedent for carrying Images in Procession to procure Rain but the Pagan Superstition In S. Ambroses time the Virgins Apartment in the Church was not adorned with Pictures or Images but after the Protestant way with Sentences of Holy Scripture Theodosius should have excepted the Images of the Saints when he forbad the honouring any Images void of Sense with lighting Tapers offering Incense and Garlands to them So that doubtless this is an INNOVATION in their Church and so are many other of their Rites The Pope's Bull to choose a Stranger to be Bishop of a Church whereof he never had been a Member was unknown when Pope Julius condemned this Practice The Custom of putting the Wafer in the Communicant's Mouth as Baronius confesseth was unknown in this Century when Protestant like they took it into their hands In S. Augustine's time the People at Rome Fasted on Wednesdays which use they have now left off When the Rites of Burial used at Christian Funerals are described by Nazianzen on occasion of the Funeral of Caesarius there is no mention of any Prayers for his Soul for that Superstition was not then allowed The carrying a Cross before them in Procession cannot be made out in this Age but by the spurious Act of Martyrs cited by Metaphrastes But lest I tire the Reader I will conclude with one or two Instances more to shew the difference between Modern Rome and this Age Their Monks now are not like those of that time but resemble the Messalian Heretics who pretended to Pray continually and never used any labour and claimed all mens Alms as due only to them who said that Marriages might be dissolved seducing Children from their Parents and boasting they were pure from Sin yea wearing Sackcloth that all may see it Theodosius made a Law to banish Monks from Cities
Name-sake Anastasius wherein 't is plain he thinks the Quarrel about Acacius now deceased no just ground for the two Churches to separate from each other Yet for the scandal he had given his Opinion was that his Name alone ought to be left out of the Dypticks but withal he approves of the Baptism and Orders he had given and justifies this by good proofs of Scripture Gratian holds this last Decree to be illegal and uncanonical because it contradicts the determinations of some of his Predecessors But impartial Readers will see that his Opinion is better confirmed by Reason and Scripture than the contrary ever was by any Pope that held it Nor ought the Notes to say Anastasius decreed this by a dispensation grounded on his Apostolical Authority For it is an Orthodox Truth That the Crimes of the dispensers of Sacraments and Holy Orders especially if it be only Schism do not invalidate them to such as in their integrity receive them So that unless a Pope need a dispensation to tell Truth here is no occasion for any dispensing Power This Epistle is followed by a Memorial given by the Legates of Alexandria to the Popes Legates then at Constantinople for an Union between the two Churches which they speak of as equal Sister Churches and give no hint of any subjection due from them to Rome which they think had unfortunately mistaken them as guilty of Heresie Nor doth Anastasius in the former Letter to the Emperor pretend to any power that he had over Alexandria but desires the Emperor by his Wisdom and Authority to reduce them to the Catholic Faith calling him the Vicar appointed by God to preside in the Earth Which the modern Roman Writers think too great a complement to a Lay Prince Upon the death of Anastasius the Roman Clergy were divided and chose two Popes Laurentius and Symmachus But after a warm and long contest both parties agreed to refer it to an Heretical Gothish King viz. Theodoric to declare an Infallibly Orthodox Head of the Church Who modestly referred it to a Synod of Bishops and they at last confirmed the Election of Symmachus The Notes call this a Schism of the universal Church But it was no more than a Schism of that particular Church of Rome and had no influence that we hear of upon the whole Catholick Church Only a Legend cited out of the fabulous Dialogues which disparage the Name of Gregory the Great tells us that Paschasius a learned and holy Roman Deacon was seen after his death in an odd Purgatory of hot Water condemned thither as Symmachus Friends told the story for taking part with Laurentius But it seems when this Fable was made praying to Saints was not in fashion for Paschasius desires the Bishop that saw him to pray to the Lord to release him The Notes also here cite a very idle story of an Image which bled when it was shot but Damascen is his Author who lived 250 year after this and whose stories about Images are generally ridiculous and incredible But 't is more material to observe that this Pope Symmachus was charged with notorious Crimes and the Papal power was then so low that the Roman Clergy petitioned an Arrian King to send Visiters to try the Pope who submitted to this Judicature authorized say the Notes by this excellent Prince And the Bishops as they observe not only acquitted the Pope but were so wise as to conceal the fault of which he was accused But if that were so great a piece of Wisdom Ennodius who then writ an Apology for him and Baronius and Binius who now would vindicate him shew no great discretion in confessing he was accused of Adultery For which if it were true he deserved a worse Purgatory than his Antagonist Paschasius The Epistles published in Symmachus's name are Eleven The two first of which were formerly directed to Caesarius but now they alter the Title and inscribe them to Eonius It seems the Forger was no good Chronologer and the Stile is so barbarous the Sense so obscure and the Matter so jejune that it would be a Scandal to any Pope to have writ them And if Symmachus writ these the 5th and 8th may be discerned by their Style to have been endited for him by a more able hand that is by Ennodius who Binius supposes did write the 8th Epistle However this Pope is very free in blaming his Predecessor for decreeing contrary to the ancient Custom But he scruples not to break many Canons at once by ordering that the Popes for the future shall name their Successors In the 7th Epistle of Symmachus the Editors and Baronius have manifestly corrupted the Text reading ist a quidem ego for ista quidem nego But the Sense shews the Forgery for the Emperor had charged the Pope for excommunicating him in the case of Acacius Symmachus replies I deny these things we have not Excommunicated you O Emperor but Acacius leave him and you are quit of his Excommunication if you do not thrust your self into his Excommunication you are not Excommunicated by us if you do you are Excommunicated by your self not by us So that whether you stick to him or leave him however you are not Excommunicated by us We see the Pope over and over declares they had not by any particular Sentence Excommunicated the Emperor at Rome it was only Acacius in particular and his Followers in general who were sentenced there in which Sentence if the Emperor wilfully involved himself they who had done nothing against him could not justly be blamed as if they had Excommunicated him Now to bring in this Sentence with ista quidem Ego is to make the Pope contradict himself and confess he had Excommunicated the Emperor which he utterly denies and therefore ista quidem Nego must be the true Reading and that bold Forgery of turning it into Ego was made on purpose to set up an early Precedent for the Pope's having Excommunicated Emperors Finally The Margen of the same Epistle to carry on the same holy Cheat observes That the Pope's Dignity is greater than the Emperors But this is not in the Text where Symmachus thus expresseth himself I will not say it is a greater but an equal power So that when the Pope had stretcht a little they go much further and dare tell greater Untruths than he And here we shall conclude this Century because the first Synod said to be held under this Pope ought to be dated after the year 500 and belongs to the next Age To which we shall proceed with Gods assistance hereafter when we have first in our usual method noted some remarkable Errors in Baronius that are within this Period but have not fallen in our way as we treated of the Councils of this time An Appendix concerning Baronius his Annals THE Cardinal hath given a just but severe censure of his own
himself begs of the Emperor not commands him as our Historian words it to use this remedy to the Church not only to degrade Heretical Clerks but to banish them from the City yet now they will not have Princes to judge or punish Clerks Nor will Baronius allow the Emperor a Right to call a General Council without the Pope's consent But the Letter of Pope Leo from whence he infers this shews He was commanded by the Emperor to come to a Council which Order the Pope reverently received and wished he could have obeyed it but modestly hopes to be excused by the Emperors approving the Reasons he offers why there was no need of such a Council So that the Authority was then in the Emperor and the Pope was to obey or excuse himself by just Reasons And as to the confirmation Pope Leo saith The Council of Chalcedon was confirmed by the Authority of Marcian the Emperor and by his consent yea he owns the definitions of that Council were above him for what was defined there he durst not call to a new scanning Thus things stood then but Rome is now above this If it were so excellent and pious a Law that none should force Women to be Nuns nor any to be vailed till she were forty years old till which Age she was to remain free to marry if she pleased How comes it to pass that nothing is more common now than to carry young Women against their Wills into Nunneries and to make them take the Vows at fourteen or fifteen These practices may be gainful but they are very wicked and contrary to the Laws both of Church and State in elder and purer times We may observe a visible difference between the Prayers and Usages of holy Men in this ancient Age and those of the modern times St. Marcian takes the holy Gospel in his hand and directs his Prayers only to Christ to avert a dreadful Fire But later Legends represent their modern Saints taking up Crucifixes Relicks or the Host and praying to the blessed Virgin or to deceased Saints in all cases of danger So that any considering Reader may see that the Primitive Worship was not like to that now used in the Roman Church Again if the Matter of Fact be true that Pope Hilary forbid the Emperor Anthemius to allow any Conventicles of the Macedonian Hereticks in Rome for which we have no proof but the boasting Letter of a Bigotted Pope viz. Gelasius yet supposing this were so the Note of the Annalist is very Erroneous viz. That Heresies could not be planted at Rome so easily as at Constantinople For Pelagius and Caelestius who were as great Hereticks as Eutyches and Aelurus were sheltered at Rome a long time And the Bishops of Constantinople did more against Eutyches and his Heresie than the Popes against Pelagius And since a little after three parts of seven in Rome were Arrians tolerated by the Pope methinks we should not have the Purity of Rome extolled at this rate as if no Weed of Heresie could grow there It is but five years after this that Baronius himself owns that Ricimer seized on St. Agathus Church in Rome where he and the Arrians held their publick Assemblies in spight of the Popes who were not wont to oppose Princes who had great power and only trampled on such as were weak In the Relation of Cyril the Monk which Baronius so highly commends it is not much for the credit of Rome that a Catholick Bishop of Jerusalem Martyrius sends a Legate to the Emperor to assist him in suppressing the Eutychian Hereticks and not the Pope And that a Saint from Heaven should call Jerusalem the Mother of Churches For this Title is now wholly appropriated to Rome But as to the Embassy sent to the Emperor against the Hereticks Martyrius took the right course for Pope Simplicius in his Letter to the same Emperor saith The Imperial Authority only can keep the Sheepfold of our Lords slock pure from the contagion of Heresie which shews the Pope's power was not considerable at that time It is something remarkable also That Pope Foelix in his Letter to Zeno the Emperor should affirm That Eustathius Bishop of Antioch was the President of those Three hundred and eighteen Fathers assembled at Nice For now they will allow no General Council to be Authentick wherein the Bishop of Rome or his Legates do not preside The Romanists proceedings against the Reformed at their Councils of Constance and Trent where some were Burnt for a Terror and the oppressed party who held the right Faith were cited before their Adversaries who took upon them to judge in their own Cause these proceedings I say were an exact Transcript of the Arrian Methods in Asrick when they resolved under the cover of a Conference to suppress the Orthodox Catholicks In the Story of finding St. Barnabas Relicks we may observe all the Prayers and Hymns were directed only to God and Christ not any to this or any other Saint from which we may learn That piece of Superstition which now makes up so great a part of the Roman Offices was unknown to those Ages and St. Barnabas declares the chief Bishop of Cyprus is not subject to any Patriarch he doth not except the Pope so that this Apostle seems not to have believed St. Peter's Universal Supremacy Baronius presents us also with a Confession of Faith made by one Lucidus and approved by a Synod of Bishops wherein he declares that he believes Eternal Fire and the Flames of Hell prepared for deadly Sins But there is not one word of Purgatory which shews there was no such place invented or at least believed by the Catholicks then And the 7th Epistle of Pope Gelasius as we noted signifies that he knew of no other places in the next World but Heaven and Hell To conclude the Annalist shuts up this Century with a Melancholy Note That at this time there was not one Christian Catholick Prince in the World He might also have added that all the Eastern Patriarchs were separated from the Communion of the Roman Church although three of them that were Orthodox communicated with one another And he might have noted also that at this juncture there was no certain Pope and an Heretical Prince was then Judge of the pretences of Symmachus and Laurentius the Rivals for that See But the true Faith can subsist as well without a Pope as without Orthodox Princes the Church being founded on Christ that invincible Rock against which the Gates of Hell can never prevail The End of the Fifth Centry PART IV. CENT VI. CHAP. I. Errors and Forgeries in the Councils from the Year 500 to the End of the Fifth General Council An. Dom. 553. § 1. WE referred the Councils said to be held under Pope Symmachus to the begining of this Century And the first Six are pretended to be held at Rome
Fast upon Saturday But the Notes are so bold as to say The Error which this Council corrected was the not Fasting on Saturday whereas even these very Notes confess That the Eastern Churches and most of the Western Rome and some few others excepted together with the African Church did not Fast on Saturday but Wednesday yea those they Call the Apostolical Canons and Clement's Constitutions do both establish Wednesday Fast and condemn their pretended Apostolical Churches Saturday Fast and if divers in Spain as the Notes say in S. Hierom's and Pope Innocent's times did not Fast on Saturday and others then needed Arguments to settle them in this Roman practice It may be gathered from thence that in the time of this Council the Saturday Fast was esteemed an Error as it was also in that Age almost in all Christian Churches and so the very Words of the Canon import which Baronius saw and therefore only saith There is mention of the Saturday Fast in this Synod and so passes it knowing it plainly contradicted the Roman Churches Tradition The 34th Canon under pain of Excommunication forbids the lighting Wax Candles in the places where the Martyrs were Buried q which agrees with the Sentiments of the Primitive Church Lactantius condemns Lighting Candles in God's Worship by day as a Paganish Superstition S. Hierom faith It was used in his time only by such as did it to humor the silly Vulgar who had a Zeal without Knowledge Yet the Notes confess this is the Custom of the Roman Church for which only cause some of their Doctors reject this Canon since nothing must be Authentic which condemns their Novel Superstitions and these Notes make a miserable Blunder to excuse the matter but we are not concerned whether with the Annotator these Candles in the Day-light disturb the Spirits of the Living Saints by seeing an Heathenish Rite brought into the Church or with Baronius displease the Saints Deceased to behold so Superstitious a thing vainly devised for their honour Since it sufficiently appears the practice is novel and absurd and though now used at Rome condemned by the best Antiquity The Notes also give us one extraordinary distinction between the Souls of deceased Saints in Heaven and those in Purgatory which latter sort if they had been Saints one would think should need no such dreadful Scouring The 36th Canon determines That Pictures ought not to be in Churches and that none may Paint upon Walls that wich is worshiped Which so expresly condemns the Roman-Worship of Pictures and Images that the boldest Writers of that Church reject this Canon but others as the Notes say would gladly expound it so as to assert the honour and worship due to Holy Images which is a notable kind of Exposition to make a Canon assert that which it confutes But such transparent Fallacies deserve rather derision than serious Arguments Sanders and Turrian observe That these Fathers forbid not Images which Christians might take away and hide but Pictures which they must leave exposed to Pagan abuses But might not this have been prevented by hanging up their Pictures in Frames and are not large Images as difficult to be removed and concealed as Pictures Yea doth not the present Roman Church adore Pictures as well as Images so that still this Canon condemns them Martinez fancies This Council forbid Painting on the Walls lest the Pictures should be deformed by the decay of those Walls But he forgets that the Council first forbids them to be any where in the Church and were not Walls as subject to decay in the time of the Second Nicene Council as they are now And had not those Fathers as great an honour for Pictures as these at Elliberis yet the Nicene Picture-Worshipers order them to be painted on Church-Walls Martinez adds That as times vary human Statutes vary and so the Second Council of Nice made a quite contrary Decree What! are Decrees of Councils about Matters of Divine Worship only human Statutes what will become of the Divine Authority and Apostolical Tradition pretended for this Worship of old at Nice and now at Rome if the Orders against it and for it be both human and mutable Statutes It is well however that the Patrons of Image-Worship do own they have altered and abrogated a Primitive Canon for one made Four hundred years after in times of Ignorance and Superstition and we know whether of the two we ought to prefer Baronius is more ingenuous who saith These Bishops at Elliberis chiefly endeavoured by strict Penalties to affright the Faithful from Idolatry wherefore they made the 34th 36th and 37th Canons and by comparing the First Canon with the Forty sixth it appears they dealt more severely with an Idolater than an Apostate From whence we infer That Pictures in Churches tend to Idolatry in this Councils Opinion Albaspinaeus whose Notes Labbé here prints would enervate this Canon by saying It forbids not the Saints Pictures but those which represented God and the Holy Trinity But it is not probale these Primitive Christians were so ignorant as to need any prohibition about such blasphemous Representations of God's Majesty And he brings no proof but his own bare Conjecture for this limitation of the Canon which Fancy if it were true would prove That the Saints were not worshiped or adored in that Age because nothing that was worshiped and adored was to be painted on the Walls and if that be meant only of God and the Trinity then nothing else but God and the Trinity was adored in those days Finally the former part of the Canon destroys this limitation by excluding Pictures in general out of Churches These are the various Fallacies by which these partial Editors would hide the manifest Novelty of their Churches Worship of Pictures which cannot be defended by all these Tricks I will only add That this genuine Ancient Council in the Fifty third Canon Orders The same Bishop who Excommunicated a Man to Absolve him and that if any other intermedled He should be called to an account for it without excepting the Pope or taking notice of Marcellus's pretended claim of Appeals § 3. In the Year 306 was a Council at Cartbage against the Donatists which never takes any notice of the Pope yet they put into the Title of it Under Marcellus But there is a worse Forgery in the Notes where S. Augustine is cited as saying That Cecilian Bishop of Carthage despised the Censures of the Donatists because he was joyned in Communion with the Bishop of the Roman Church from which all Catholic Communion was ever wont to be denominated But this is Baronius his false gloss not S. Augustine's words who only saith because he was united by Communicatory Letters both to the Roman Church wherein the Principality of the Catholic Church had always flourished and to other Lands from whence the Gospel came to Africa Now there is great difference between a Mans being
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
made Vows to St. John for his Deliverance But I see no reason to believe this Inscription to be so ancient as the time of this Hilary Leo's Successor An. 461. For in his Letter extant in the Council he relates the Story of his flight but-mentions no Saint at all only saith he trusted in the grace of Christ And this Style which is so like the Pagan Vows to their little Deities was above the Infant Superstition of that Age so that besides the improbability of an Inscription continuing legible for near twelve hundred years none who knows the time of Hilary can believe the invocation of Saints was so far advanced for a Man to forget God and Jesus Christ the only Deliverers of their Servants and publickly yea blasphemously to ascribe his deliverance to a Creature Rom. i. 25. Wherefore we conclude this Inscription was writ by some later Hand in times of gross Idolatry and Ignorance and that this which they call an Egregious Monument of Antiquity and an Argument for Invocation of Saints is nothing else but an Egregious Imposture and an Argument to prove the Fraud of those who set up false Doctrines by feigned Antiquity 'T is true in the 11th Action when Stephen whom Flavian had condemned in his life-time was deposed by the Council after his death some of the Bishops cried out Flavian lives after his death the Martyr hath prayed for us but this is far short of the aforesaid Inscription for they neither vow nor pray to the Martyr only since his Sentence was agreed to be just after his death they Rhetorically say this seemed as if Flavianus had prayed for them Yet this if it be genuine is the greatest step toward Invocation of Saints that I have seen in any Writing of this Age though it be no more than a Flourish proceeding from an excess of Admiration of Flavianus so lately martyred by Dioscorus the Mortal Enemy of this Council Concerning which Dioscorus for likeness of the Subject I observe the Notes say the Aegyptians gave him oh horrible Divine Honours and Religious Worship after his Death which means no more as Baronius the Author of the Story saith but that they worshipped him as a Saint and gave him such Religious Worship as they give to Saints Now the wary Romanists will not say these are Divine Honours much less were they such Honours as were paid to any Saints in this Age or some that followed But when Modern Writers speak of Ancient Times they often speak in Modern Phrases and so Binius took it to be the same thing to honour Dioscorus as a Saint and to give him Religious Worship because they at Rome now give Religious Worship to those they Canonize And this may suffice for this famous Council wherein Leo being all along Orthodox while the Patriarchs of most other great Sees had been either faulty or suspected had the greatest advantage imaginable to carry on his great Design of setting up for the Supremacy and though by this accident which he and his Legates improved higher Titles are given him than to any of his Predecessors or Successors for some Ages in any Council yet if the Forgeries and Corruptions be abated and the Fallacious Notes well understood there is no ground from any thing here said or done to think the Fathers at Chalcedon took this Pope for the sole supreme and visible Head of the Catholick Church An Appendix concerning Baronius's Annals § 1. THIS Century proving so full of various observations as to swell beyond our expectations we must here divert a-while to view the Errors in Barvnius lest the deferring these Observations to the last should make the Reader forget the Series of affairs already past by laying these matters too far from the History of that time to which these Notes belong and for brevity sake as well as for the clearer seeing into this Authors Fallacies we will follow our former Method And first we will observe that when he would set up any Doctrines or justifie any Practices of the Modern Corrupt Roman Church he generally cites spurious Authors or such as writ so long after this time that their Testimony is justly suspected since no Authors of this Age do mention any such thing The Miracle of Julia a Manichean Heretick Woman struck dead by Porphyrius Bishop of Gaza when he could not convert her by Arguments is taken out of a Latin Copy ascribed to one Mark a Deacon of Gaza very improbably but the stress of the Evidence lies upon the Credit of Metaphrastes Lipoman and Surius the Collectors of Legends who trade in few others but spurious Authors It were to be wished we had some better evidence of St. Ambrose's appearing after his death and promising Victory over the Goths than a Womans Testimony For both Orosius and St. Augustin who write of that Victory ascribe it wholly to the Power of God and mention no Saint concerned therein And Baronius cites both these as well as the credulous Paulinus who for advancing the credit of St. Ambrose records an Old-Wives Tale not supported by any credible evidence The ridiculous story of St. Paul's appearing to St. Chrysostom who is pretended to have had the Picture of St. Paul in his Study and to have discoursed with the sensless Image is not proved by any Author near that Age but by Leo the Philosopher and Emperor who lived 500 year after and writ a very Fabulous History of St. Chrysostom's Life and by a spurious Tract of Damascens who lived 450 year after Chrysostom's Death Yet upon these false Legends the Annalist triumphs over those who oppose Image-worship Like to this is that fabulous Story of Theophilus Bishop of Alexandria not being able to die in peace till the Image of St. Chysostom was brought to him and he had adored it which he hath no other Authority for than the aforesaid spurious Book ascribed to a late Author Damascen for the Writers of this Age mention no such thing And there can be no doubt but the Relation is false because St. Cyril Theophilus his Nephew and Successor continued for some time to have as ill an opinion of St. Chrysostom as his Uncle had to his last breath as his Letter to Atticus in Baronius shews And therefore there is a Story invented of a Vision appearing to St. Cyril by which he was terrified into a good opinion of St. Chrysostom But though the Quarrel he had at first to his memory be real this Apparition is feigned and proved by no elder nor better Authors than Nicetus and Nicephorus Another Forgery of St. Cyril's removing the Relicts of St. Mark and other Saints into a Church newly built in place of an Idol-temple and thereby clearing it from Evil Spirits hath no better Authority than certain Legends read in that woful Council of Nice which set up Image-worship 300 year after this Age The Revelation of the Relicks of St. Stephen pretended to
be writ by Lucian is transcribed by the Annalist but it contains many improbable lies and frivolous impertinencies such as Gamaliel the Master of St. Paul being a Priest and that St. Stephen's body was exposed to Wild Beasts by the command of Wicked Princes and that the way to engage St. Stephen Gamaliel and the rest to interceed for them was to build a Chappel over their Relicks with many more absurd passages So that indeed it is fitter to be derided or left to the Moths and Batts than to stand in a Church History y He cites for this one of St. Augustin's Sermons de diversis but it is supposititious and therefore can be no evidence for this Fable And it is a mighty prejudice to the whole Relation that St. Hierom who lived at Bethlehem at this very time doth not confirm it no not in his fierce discourse against the mistaken Opinion of Vigilantius who as he thought denied even common respect to be shewed to the Bones of Martyrs And it is like Sozomen did not like the story because he ends his History with a promise to give an Account of the invention of these Relicks of St. Stephen but he omits it Though he writes out another Legend there of the finding the Body of Zechary the Prophet of which he brings no other proof but that he had been told this Story But it is very unlikely that the Jews should have no regard to the Bodies of their own Prophets nor know of any vertue in them and yet after so many hundred years the Christians should find such power in their supposed Dust And it is one of the greatest Blots upon the latter end of this Century that their Superstition made them too credulous and apt to be imposed on with Fables of this kind in which there is scarce any verisimilitude or shadow of probability Which led the following Ages into greater Errors and had worse effects than were foreseen by those easie and well-meaning writers who hastily took up these false reports Which Note I am obliged to insert here to caution the Reader against divers relations of Miracles in Baronius about this time for some of which he cites Authors who are in other things credible enough To proceed it is no great credit for the Pope that he and the Western Bishops mistook the time of Easter a whole Month and were reproved by a miraculous appearance of Water in the Font on the right day of Easter if the story be true However to confirm this relation Baronius hath put together a great many such like Miracles but writ by later Authors Cassiodorus An. 514. Gregory Turonensis An. 590. Sophronius An. 630. when all Men doted on these reports But it is a little hard that he should charge the Reformed Christians with being mad for not believing these suspicious relations and accuse them with deriding the consecration of baptismal Water which is a known practice in all regular Protestant Churches A litle after he would prove the antiquity of the Mass by a spurious Sermon faslly ascribed to St. Augustin viz. de temp Ser. 251. And he transcribes a suspicious Epistle full of improbable Stories for nine pages together about the Miracles wrought by St. Stevens Relicks which Epistle he would prove by another Tract equally fabulous which some say was writ by Evodius an African Bishop others think it was only dedicated to him in which are Domnus and Domna after the Gallican Fashion in later Ages for Dominus and Domina But the judicious Reader who compares these Legends with other writings of this learned Age will easily discern both these Tracts to be Forgeries of the modern superstitious Times So that perhaps one Miracle-monger made them both And Baronius had justified neither of them if he had remembred what himself says of a spurious Tract of the Acts of St. Hierom viz. That the candor of Ecclesiastical truth and the modesty of Christian sincerity abhors always that which is feigned rejects and accurses all that is spurious The true Faith always bitterly hating and severely punishing every lye with the Author of it But his practice is every where contrary to this profession And soon after he cites the Lives of the Fathers under Theodoret's name to prove the efficacy of St. John Baptist's prayers as to the Conversion of the Marcionites whereas the Epistle of Theodoret there cited ascribes it to the divine ayd And this fabulous Book of the Lives of the Fathers is despicable for its gross absurdities and can be none of Theodorets because it contains many Miracles that Simeon Stylites wrought after his death and Baronius himself owns That Theodoret dyed seven year before this Simeon Yet this is the Man who is so severe an Enemy to all feigned Tracts who again cites the Rules for conjugal Chastity as prescribed by St. Augustin but finds them only in a forged Sermon de Temp. pag. 244. falsly ascribed to that modest Father Wherein there is so much Obscenity as cannot be supposed to proceed out of St. Augustin's mouth in publick and such as is hardly fit for Christian Ears besides many things that would be hissed at in any sober Auditory Again he cites Sophronius his Pratum spirituale as a Book of good credit and relating an Apparition of the Blessed Virgin as it truly happened Whereas both Possevine and Baronius himself confess this Book to be full of Fables and of no credit and the Author of it lived above 200 year after in a credulous and ignorant as well as a superstitious Age whose name was not Sophronius but Joannes Moschus Upon whose credit he would not have relied so much had he observed a rule of his own That he who writes the History of his own time is of greater Authority than he who writes after many Ages Which Rule he breaks in the very next Page by justifying a Legend writ by Gregory the Author of the Dialogues long after the year 600 and cited by Eulogius of Corduba An. 847. concerning Paulinus of Nola who died An. 431. as a Writer of Paulinus own Age testifies there Whereas if this Fable were true as those late Writers relate it Paulinus must be alive 45 years after so that he credits later Writers in contradiction to those of the same Age. We have often seen modern Authors describing the holy Men of this and former Ages with Images Crucifixes c. but Constantius who about this time writ the life of St. Germanus mentions no Images or Crucifix among that which he left at his death but only a Box of Relicks the sole point wherein Superstion was advanced as yet And whereas late Writers of the Saints Lives speak of Addresses to the Blessed Virgin to deceased Saints c. this old Author mentions only Prayers to God for those other kind of Prayers were not used in this Age. A little after he tells more