by the Judgment of Peter The same Notes a little after tell us That this Council committed the care of the Circumcised Converts to Peter which was a poor Preferment for that Apostle if Christ had made him Supreme Head and committed to him long before the Care of the whole Catholic Church To these Passages of Holy Scripture the Editors have tacked a sabulous Story of the Assumption of the Virgin Mary but they do not Cite one genuine Ancient Author to prove it That Book which bears the Title of Dionysius Areopagitus being invented many Ages after as Learned men on all sides now agree § 2. That Ancient Collection of Canons which were decreed by the Apostolical Men in divers Synods held during the Times of Persecution is published by these Editors under the Title of The Canons of the Holy Apostles and their Notes affirm They were made by the Authority of the Apostles yet they are not agreed either about their Number or Authority They print LXXXIV Canons but the Notes say only the first Fifty of them are Authentic but the rest may and ought also to be received since they contain nothing Two of them excepted viz. the 65th and 84th Canons which contradict the Roman Church but what is approved by some Popes Councils and Fathers Now if as they say the Apostles made them their Church hath been very negligent to lose the certain Account of their number and it is not very modest to pretend to try the Apostles Decrees by Popes Councils and Fathers yet it is plain they make no distinction between the first Fifty and the following Thirty four rejecting all that oppose their present Doctrine and Practice as may be seen in these Instances The Sixth Canon forbids a Bishop Priest or Deacon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to put away or be divorced from his Wife on pretence of Religion The Notes pervert the Sense of this Canon as if it only forbid Clergy Men to cast off the care of providing for their Wives and prove this Sense by a false Title which Dionysius Exiguus put to this Canon in his Version many Centuries after and by an Epistle of Pope Clement the First which all Men own now to be spurious and by an Epistle of Pope Gregory who lived in the Year 600 as if the Sense of Dionysius and Pope Gregory when Single life was superstitiously pressed upon the Clergy were good proof that Clergy Men did not live with their Wives many Ages before that superstitious Opinion was heard of 'T is certain the Greek Clergy are Married and cohabit with their Wives according to this Apostolical Canon and the Fifteenth Canon of the Sixth General Council And it is not unpleasant to observe That these Notes cite the Second Council of Nice to prove there were no Canons made in the Sixth General Council yet that very Nicene Council often Quotes and highly approves the 82d Canon of the Sixth General Council as giving some Countenance to their Image-Worship So that their wresting this Canon Apostolical from its genuine meaning upon such slight and false Evidence is in effect rejecting it The Ninth Canon orders All the Clergy and Laity who are in the Church to Receive the Sacrament unless they have a just Excuse But the Roman Church allows the People generally to stand by and look on and therefore though this be one of the Authentic Canons before said by them to be made by the Apostles after some shuffling to restrain it contrary to the very words of the Canon only to the Clergy The Notes say This whole Decree was made only by Human not by Divine Authority and is now abrogated by a contrary Custom So that if a Canon of the Apostles themselves contradict a Corrupt practice of their Church it must be abrogated and rejected The 17th Canon saith He that keeps a Concubine shall not be in any Order of the Clergy The Notes cite some of their Doctors who affirm That this Crime doth not make a Clerk irregular and that this Canon is now revoked The Annotator himself is of Opinion It is only public keeping a Concubine by reason of the Infamy which makes a Clergy-mans Orders void Wherefore such Sinners have now more favourable Casuists at Rome than the Apostles or Apostolical Men were The 65th Canon though it have as good Evidence for it as any of the rest is rejected by the Notes because it forbids Men to fast on Saturday which is now a Fasting-day at Rome The Notes say No Father mentions this Canon but presently own That Ignatius Clemens Romanus the Canons of the Sixth General Council Gregory Nyssen and Anastasius Nicaenus to which we add Tertullian do all speak of Saturday as a Day on which Fasting was forbid The Notes confess also That the Eastern-Church and the Church of Milan in S. Ambrose time allowed not Fasting upon Saturday yet after all they will not grant this Canon to be genuine only because it is very unlikely that the Church of Rome should contradict a Canon of the Apostles whereas we have already seen it makes no scruple to contradict them if they agree not with their practice The Notes indeed say but without any proof That Rome received the Saturday Fast from Peter and Paul yet they grant soon after That after the Heresie of Marcion was extinct the Roman Church did not only lawfully but piously Fast on Saturday So that this was a private Custom of the Roman Church in which it differed from all other Churches and they know not when it began nor who it came from yet for such a Customs sake they reject an Apostolical Canon The 69th Canon expresly enjoyns the Wednesday Fast and the Notes say That many Fathers mention it as of ancient Institution yea these Notes affirm It was certainly a Fast of the Apostles instituting being observed by the whole Church and not appointed by any Council but spoken of by Authors of greatest Antiquity Well then I hope the Roman Church whose Customs are all said to be Apostolical do keep this Wednesday Fast They tell you No This Wednesday Fast in their Church is changed into the Saturday Fast And so farewel to this Canon also Lastly the 84th Canon gives us a Canon of Scripture which doth not agree with the Trent Canon for it rejects Ecclesiasticus from being Canonical and mentions not Wisdom Tobit Judith nor in Old Copies the Book of Machabees which the Roman Church now say are Canonical Scripture And this is the true reason why the Notes reject this Canon They alledge indeed some other frivilous reasons such as the leaving out the Revelations and putting in Clements Constitutions But it seems very probable to me that it was not the Greeks as the Notes suggest but that Impostor who gave these Canons a false Title and called them the Apostles Canons which for carrying on his Pious Fraud left out the Revelations being not written
Baronius owns that Hosius was Constantine's intimate Friend and his Legate into Egypt six years before and Socrates saith He was now again sent thither as the Emperor's Legate and no doubt if he did preside in this Council it was not as Sylvester's Legate whom no ancient Author records to have had any hand in this Council but as the Legate of Constantine After these two Councils is placed a Letter of this Emperors to Alexander and Arius taken out of Eusebius but is misplaced by the Editors since it is plain it was written in the beginning of the Controversie about Arius and not only before Constantine understood any thing of the matter but before these Councils at Alexandria But Baronius and the Editors place it here on purpose to Rail at Eusebius as if he put out an Arian Forgery whereas it is a great Truth and Constantine may well be supposed to write thus before he was rightly informed in the Case therefore those Gentlemen do not hurt Eusebius's Reputation but their own in accusing him so falsly upon the old Grudge of his not attesting their Forgeries devised and defended for the Honour of the Roman Church § 15. The Council of Laodicea though it do not appear any Pope knew of it till after it was Risen they resolve shall be held under some Pope the Title saith Under Sylvester Labbé's Margen saith Under Liberius An. 364 or 357 or Under Damasus 367 Whereas in truth it was under no Pope and being placed in the old Collections of Canons after those of Antioch and also mentioning the Photinians it must be held long after the Nicene Council But it was falsly placed before the Nicene Council by Baronius our Editor's main Guide to secure the Book of Judith by the Council of Nice's Authority And the Reasons given for this early placing it are very frivolous For first The softening of a Canon of Naeocaesarea is no certain Mark of time Secondly This Council rejects Judith out of the Canon of Scripture and so did the Council of Nice also for though S. Hierom when he had told us This Book is not of Authority sufficient to determine Controversies adds That the Nicene Synod is read to have computed it among Holy Writings S. Hierom only means They allowed it to be Read for Instruction but did not count it Canonical for doubtless he would not have rejected Judith if that Council had received it into the Canon And he saith elsewhere The Church indeed reads Judith Tobit and the Macchabees but receives them not among Canonical Scriptures and again A man may receive this Book as be pleaseth Herein therefore the Council of Laodicea doth not contradict the Council of Nice at all as these Notes falsly pretend Thirdly This Councels decreeing the same things which were decreed at Nice without naming it is no Argument it was held before that of Nice nothing being more ordinary than for later Councils to renew older Canons without citing the former Councils for them The Notes on the Second Canon at Laodicea which supposes Penitents to make their Confession by Prayer to God and mentions no Priest would willingly grast the use of their modern Sacramental Confession to a Priest upon this ancient Canon but it rather confutes than countenances that modern device Their labouring to expunge the Photinians out of the Seventh Canon since all the old Greek Copies have these words is meerly to justifie their false Date of this Council The Annotator on the Fifteenth Canon confesseth that S. Paul Commands all the People to joyn in the Hymns and that this Use continued to S. Hierom ' s time yet he owns their pretended Apostolical Church hath altered this Primitive Custom grounded on Holy Scripture and that for very frivolous Reasons But let it be observed That this Canon forbids not the People to bear a part in the Church Service but allows them not to begin or bring in any Hymns into the Public Service The Seventeenth Canon speaks of the Assemblies of the Faithful in two Latin Versions and the Greek is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet because the worst Latin Translation reads in Processionibus the Notes impertinently run out into a discourse of their Superstitious modern Processions for any thing serves them for an occasion to make their late Devices seem ancienter than they are The Thirty fourth Canon mentions and censures those who leaving the Martyrs of Christ go to false Martyrs And the Fifty first Canon mentions the Martyrs Feasts Upon which the Notes most falsly infer That the Martyrs were then adored with Religious Worship But this is only his Invention The Canon speaks not one word of Worshiping Martyrs but only whereas the Orthodox Christian Assemblies were generally in the Burial places of true Martyrs where they offered up Prayers to God Some it seems began to make separate Meetings in Places dedicated to False Martyrs and therefore the properest Note here would have been to have set out the Sin of Schism and the Pious Fraud as they call it of feigning false Martyrs of which their Church is highly guilty The Thirty fifth Canon expresly forbids leaving the Church of God and calling upon Angels which they say is an hidden kind of Idolatry and forsaking Christ the Son of God to go after Idolatry And Theodoret who lived soon after the true time of this Council saith Those who were for Moses ' s Law which was given by Angels brought in the Worship of them which Error reigned long in Phrygia and Pisidia and therefore the Councill of Laodicea in Phrygia did by a Law forbid the Praying to Angels Which Canon doth so evidently condemn the Roman Churches Prayers to the Angels as Idolatry that the former Editors of the Councils impudently corrupted the Text of this Canon and put in Angulos for Angelos as if the Council had only forbid Praying in private Corners whereas not only the Greek but the oldest Latin Copies and Theodoret have Angels But our Editors and Annotator having Baronius for their Guide venture to keep the true Reading Angels in the Text and put Angles into the Margen hoping by false Notes to ward off this severe Blow And first The Notes dare not produce the place of Theodoret at large then they strive to blunder the Reader with a distinction of Dulia and Latria which can signifie nothing here because the Canon and Theodoret both say It is Praying to Angels which is forbid and that the Romanists certainly do Again Baronius censures Theodoret for saying That such Heretics as were for Moses ' s Law brought in ANGEL-Worship But why doth he not censure S. Paul who saith That those who were Jewishly inclined and observed differences of Meats New-Moons and Sabbaths were the Inventers of Angel-Worship The Angelic-Heretics in Epiphanius and S. Augustine who came in afterwards did not as the Notes represent them say That Angels were to be worshiped with the
called The Mother and Head of all Churches and A Church which had never erred and the Pope is called Bishop of the Universal Church yet their being Forged is so notorious that Bellarmin Possevin and Baronius reject them Thirdly They likewise publish in these Nicene Acts an Epistle of Pope Julius wherein divers Canons for the Primacy are Fathered on this great Council And Pisanus is so bold and so vain as to defend this to be genuine by an Epistle of the Egyptians to Pope Foelix owned to be Forged and by other Decretal Epistles as false as this which he defends but it is so manifest a Forgery this of Pope Julius that the Editors themselves afterward reject it Fourthly Whereas the Ninth Canon of Chalcedon allows the Clergy to complain to the Primate or to the Bishop of the Royal City of Constantinople Notes are put upon this to falsifie that Canon which say That Constantinople is here put for Rome Fifthly Here is a Canon called the Thirty ninth of Nice which faith He that holds the See of Rome is the Head and Prince of all Patriarchs because he is first as Peter to whom power is given over all Christian Princes and People which must be a Forgery of some Roman Parasite because it not only contradicts the Sixth Canon of the genuine Council of Nice but the Eighth of these pretended Canons which limits the Bishop of Rome's Jurisdiction to the Places near to him However the Editors say Steuchus Turrian and Cope cite it and they print Turrian's Notes upon it which affirm it to agree with the Sixth Canon of the true Edition and would prove it genuine by no better Evidence than a Forged Decretal of Anacletus By which we see the most apparent Falshoods shall be published and defended if they do but promote the Supremacy Lastly We will make some Remarks on the Corrupt Editions of this Council First That of Alfonsus Pisanus is so Fabulous that Labbé for meer shame omits it but Binius prints it at large with all its Fictions and Impostures of which Richerius gives this Character By this History of Pisanus we may learn not what the Council of Nice was but what it should be to fit it for a Jesuits Palate for he hath scraped together all the Falshoods and Forgeries he could find for enlarging the number of the Canons But I must add that there are divers Passages in this Edition which will not serve the ends of the modern Roman Flatterers For first Pisanus his Greek Author highly extols Eusebius for which the Jesuit corrects him with a Note in the Margen Secondly The Orthodox Bishop bids the Philosopher believe that which was written but not to regard things unwritten because the Faith is grounded on Holy Scripture Whereas the Margen cautions the Reader not to think that this is spoken against Ecclesiastical Traditions though it be levelled at them Thirdly Hosius doth not subscribe as the Pope's Legates here do for Pope Sylvester wherefore this Compiler did not think him to be the Popes Legate Fourthly It is here said to have been declared at Nice That every Bishop under God was the Head of his own Church Fifthly Here is printed that part of the African Bishop's Letter to Celestine wherein they blame his Legate for falsly citing the Nicene Canons So also the LXXX Canons were not invented by a Through-paced Friend to the Roman Modern Interest and therefore probably Baronius will not defend them The 8th Canon as was noted limits the Pope's Jurisdiction to such places as were near him The 24th and 66th of these Canons clearly declare that some Bishops had Wives forbidding Bigamy and compelling them to take their first Wife again And there are other like Examples which are not worth setting down because they are all forged in later times as appears by their citing a fabulous Discourse out of the Life of S. Anthony falsly ascribed to the great Athanasius by their quoting a spurious Work under the name of Dionysius Areopagita which was as all agree writ after the Nicene Council many years By their giving the Patriarch of Antioch Jurisdiction over the Archbishop of Cyprus who was always free from that subjection as was declared long after in the Council of Ephesus Finally Though this Pisanus do impudently reject the true story of Paphnutius his advising to leave the Clergy at liberty to Marry which History is in his Author and in Gelasius Cyzicenus also Yet he magnifies a ridiculous Fiction afterward of two Bishops which signed the Nicene Faith after they were dead and buried A Fable so gross that Baronius rejects it with a Note which I wish he had often remembred viz. That it was not usual Among Christians to confirm the Faith by Miracles which was attested by more firm Evidences of Holy Scripture Secondly Turrians Edition of this Council repeats all these LXXX Canons and in his Preface and his Notes he vindicates them all and yet the Tracts which he cites to prove these Canons genuine are owned to be spurious by all modest Romanists and his Arguments are so trifling they are not worth consuting We will only note therefore that the 7th and the 40th of these Canons require that Synods shall be held twice a year which as Turrian confesseth agrees not with the custom of the Roman Church And his Notes say the 72d Canon differs from the 13th and the 73d Canon is contrary to the 49th but he will rather suppose the Holy Nicene Fathers contradicted themselves than own any of these Canons to be forged because some of them seem to favour the Pope's Supremacy As to the Edition of Gelasius Cyzicenus it is generally a very modest account of this Council and hath not many Errors in it but like all other ancient Authors it speaks very little of the Pope for which Reason Binius claps it under Hatches and will not produce it till the latter end of his Second Tome after the Council of Ephesus to convince us That all Authors are valued or slighted meerly as they promote or discourage the Usurpations of Rome § 18. To all these Impostures contrived to misrepresent this famous general Council there is tacked a Third Council at Rome under Sylvester in the presence of Constantine wherein that Pope with 275 Bishops are said to confirm the Nicene Council and make two or three new Canons But though it be certain and confessed by Binius and Baronius that Constantine was not then at Rome though the Style be barbarous and the Matter frivolous and the thing be a manifest Forgery contrived to carry on the grand Cheat of Sylvester's confirming the Council of Nice yet Barcnius and Binius who confess the Title to be false labour to prove this Synod to be true though Binius be forced to justifie it by the forged Letter of the Nicene Fathers to Sylvester and
and to differ with it a sure note of a Schismatick But S. Cyril's Reproving Atticus for restoring Chrysostom's Name into the Dyptics which was the known desire of Pope Innocent shews how little the rest of the Patriarchs valued the Judgment or the Authority of the Popes when they supposed them to be mistaken in the Case For none could or durst have so severely Censured the Opinion of a Person taken to be a Supream and Infallible Judge Again I wonder how Baronius could Record without some reflection S. Augustin's speaking of Orosius his Journey from Spain into Africa only out of Zeal to understand the Scriptures and his sending him to Palestine to S. Hierom on that Errand For according to the Cardinals Notion he should have been more zealous for Catholick Tradition than for Scripture and Rome was the only place both to learn that in perfection and by that to interpret the Scriptures unerringly and this was nearer to Spain than either Hippo or Bethlehem But while he owns that the Salvation of some after they had been purged by the Internal Fire was one of the Errors of Origen and counted an Error both by Orosius and Augustine it seems to look ill upon Purgatory which their modern Church hath made a Catholick Truth but the Primitive censured it as a false Doctrine The Reader also may note that when he is commending Theodosius for his Piery he magnifies him for fasting upon Wednesdays and Fridays the days now appointed for Abstinence by the Protestant Church of England So that a man may be a pious Catholick and not keep the Fasting-days appointed by the Roman Church viz. Fridays and Saturdays Moreover he contradicts himself when he saith According to the ancient usage of speaking by the Apostolical Seat is always to be understood the Roman Church Whereas he hath often owned the other Patriarchs Sees had the Title of Apostolical Thrones and Seats and a little after cites Sidonius calling Lupus Bishop of Troys a Bishop of Bishops who had sat a long time in an Apostolical Seat he cites Possidius in the Life of S. Augustine to prove the Pelagians were first condemned at Rome and then at Carthage But if the Reader consult that Author he will find that S. Augustine writ against them and that they went near to draw in first Innocent and then Zosimus to their party till the Councils of Holy African Bishops had with much labour persuaded first the one of these Popes and then the other that this was an abominable Heresie and contrary to the Catholick Faith All which the Cardinal leaves out and from half the story makes a false Marginal Note viz. That these Hereticks were first condemned at Rome and then at Carthage Which is every way false for if it be meant of Innocent's time it is certain that the African Councils under the Primate of Carthage yea that of Milevis had solemnly condemned Pelagianism before this Pope would openly condemn them he being under suspicion of favouring that Heresie to the last year of his Life and this Council of Carthage did condemn these Hereticks while Zosimus did defend them so that Africk not Rome first discovered and censured this Heresie He also falsly cites the Preface of S. Augustine's Books to Pope Boniface against the Pelagians telling us he affirms That the Pope being most eminent in the highest top of the Pastoral Watch-Tower did watch over all and from hence infers That though S. Augustine and others sometimes call the Pope Brother and Colleague yet still they own his supream Pastoral Power But all that S. Augustine there saith is this Communisque sit omnibus nobis qui fungimur Episcopatûs officio quamvis ipse in eo praeemineas celsiore fastigio specula pastoralis The Pastoral watching is common to all of us who are Bishops though you have the advantage of a higher station Which words only intimate the Dignity of the Roman See as to Order but plainly declare Bishops to have equal Obligations to guard the Church And whereas a little after from S. Augustine's modest Complement of sending these Books to Boniface to examine and correct he would infinuate something of Supremacy in Judging This is no more than the same Father used to do to all other Bishops to whom he dedicated his Books so he desires Claudius a private Bishop to read and judge of his Books against Julian dedicated to him This therefore ascribes no Infallibility to Rome and if S. Augustine himself had not judged better of Pelagianism than any Pope of these times it would not have been condemned there to this day After all these Instances of sincerity we cannot wonder that he falls upon the Reformed as Innovators for refusing to stand to a General Council and so worse than the Pelagians who desired one But this calumny will soon be dispelled if we call to mind the breach of Faith used to such as had trusted Rome in the Council of Constance the Tricks used by the Popes before the Council of Trent for many years together to avoid a General Council when the Reformed earnestly desired one and the great partiality of that packt Assembly at Trent who met not to examine or amend Abuses but to establish them and had resolved to condemn the Protestants before they heard them It is something odd that Baronius should quote Gelasius his Censure of the Legends and Acts of Martyrs That some of them were writ by Ideots and some by Hereticks wherefore the Roman Church then used not to read them in publick For this condemns him for filling so many Pages of his Annals with this Fabulous stuff and discovers an alteration in the Roman Church which of old was wiser and honester than to read those feigned Legends that in after Ages took up a great part of their publick Service We may further observe That Leporius an Arch-heretick recants in Africa and applies himself to the Gallican Bishops only without any notice taken of Rome or Pope Boniface which confutes what the Annalist often affirms That all great Hereticks were obliged to recant at Rome He publisheth a Rescript of Theodosius and bids us observe that it contains the principal Feasts received by the Christians Now these are Sundays Christmas and Epiphany Easter and Pentecost with the Memory of the Apostles Passions which is a Protestant Catalogue and there is not one Feast of our Blessed Lady Holy Cross Corpus Christi c. which are now so famous at Rome in all this number assigned by Theodosius which shews they are Innovations and the effects of modern Superstition He relates it as the Custom of S. Augustine and other Bishops as well as of Pope Celestine to salute Presbyters by the name of Sons and Bishops by the name of Brothers which looks not favourably on the Pope's Universal Superiority above all Bishops whatsoever When Pope Gregory grosly mistakes Sozomen's History for