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 (u) Bin. p. 285. Theod. lib. 1. cap. 9. 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 (w) Ambros ep 82. ad Episc Vercel 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 (x) Augustin Epist 110. 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 (y) Bin. Not. pag. 296. col 1. p. 297. col 2. Liers should have better Memories Fifthly They say the third Council of Carithage cites a Canon of Nice forbidding to receive the Sacrament after Dinner but if the place be considered as Richerius notes (z) Richer histor Concil lib. 1. cap. 3. §. 13. 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 (a) Bin. Not. in ep Julii pâ—g 395. col 2. 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 (b) Baron An. 325. §. 166. Richer lib. 1. cap. 3. §. 14. 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 (c) Sozom. histor lib. 3. cap. 19. 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 (d) Socrat. lib. 1. cap. 8. Sozom. lib. 1. cap. 22. but Pisanus and Nauclerus later Romish Authors (e) Pisanus ap Bin. pag. 343. col 1. Naucler Chron. pag. 606. 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 (f) Baron An. 325. §. 148 149 150. And Binius in his Notes (g) Lab. pag. 72. Bin. pag. 296. col 2. 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 (h) Lab. Bin. ut supr not in Can. 6. Whereas no Authentic Edition ever had any such beginning Dr. Beveridge gives us Eight several Versions besides the Original Greek which all want it (i) Beveridg Concil Tom. II. pag. 50. and it is impudently done of Binius to cite Alanus Copus saying That Dionysius Exiguus's Version had this
the Text of this Canon and put in Angulos for Angelos (h) Edit Merlini Pet. Crab. Barth Caranz 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 (i) Lab. p. 1526. Bin. pag. 250. col 1. 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 (k) Coloss II. ver 16 17 18. 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 Worship due to God alone Only as the Romanists now are so they were inclined to Worship Angels (l) Aug. de haeres Tom. VI. pag. 4 m. that is by Praying to them However we Protestants say with Theodoret We neither give them Divine Worship nor divide the Service due to the Divine Majesty between them and the true God (m) Theod. de Curand Graec. Off. Serm. 3. And when the Romanists can say this honestly and leave off Praying to them we will not tax them with this Canon Baronius hath one Device more viz. That the Angels which this Council says must not be Worshiped were not good Angels but Devils and the Genii adored by the Pagans For saith he the former Canon receives the Worship of the true Martyrs and rejects that of false Martyrs To which I Answer first It is false as was shewed that the former Canon receives the Worship of any Martyrs true or false Secondly Why doth not this Canon call these Pseudo-Angels as the former called those it rejected Pseudo-Martyrs if the Prohibitions were of the same kind Did ever any Christian call Devils Angels without some addition as Evil Angels Apostate Angels c Besides in that Age when this Council was held according to Baronius the worship of Daemons and the Tutelar Spirits was public not secret Idolatry so that it is manifest this Canon speaks not to Pagans but Heretical Christians And Theodoret shews That it was those Angels who gave the Law of Moses which were hereby forbid to be Prayed to and I hope neither Binius nor his Master will say these were Devils Wherefore this Canon plainly saith Praying to good Angels as They of Rome now do is Idolatry To conclude The Sixtieth Canon of this Council is the most ancient Account of the Canon of Scripture that ever was made by any Christian Synod being the same which the Church of England holds at this day for it leaves out all those Books of Judith Tobit Wisdom c. which we account not to be Canonical but our Annotator finding so Primitive a Council contradicting their new Trent Canon and not being able to reconcile the difference passeth this remarkable Canon by without any Note § 16. The reproachful Obscurity of Sylvester in this time of Action in all other Christian Churches puts the Editors upon giving us an heap of Forgeries together to colour over the Pope's doing nothing Remarkable for Nine or Ten years First We have an Epistle of the Primitive Church and Constantine's Munificence (o) Lab. p. 1528. Bin. pag. 250. col 2. But Gratian and the former Editors of Councils cited this as a Decretal Epistle of Melchiades to prove the Pope's Supremacy c. whereas the Forgery is so gross that our Annotator affirms it to be a Fiction of Isidore Mercator's patched up of Fragments stollen out of the History of the Nicene Council the Council of Chalcedon and S. Gregory's 24th Epistle and wofully Mis-timed (p) Lab. p. 1530. Bin. pag. 251. col 2. Yet being used to cite such Forgeries after this Confession he will not let it go without making some use of it for he Notes that what is said here of Constantine 's Donations to Melchiades and Sylvester is very true and may be firmly proved by Optatus Milevitanus Very strange Optatus mentions no Donation of Constantine to either of these Popes Vid. supr § 6. and therefore the Reader may note That false and weak Inferences or Quotations from manifest Forgeries are Firm Proofs with Baronius and Binius when they make for the Roman Interest but the best Canons of the most genuine Councils are of no value when they make against it After this follows that odious Forgery called Constantine's Donation wherein he is pretended to make over to the Pope the whole City of Rome and all the Western Empire with all kind of Ensigns of Imperial Majesty and all manner of Jurisdiction which Ridiculous Fiction Nauclerus saith Antoninus rejected in his Chronicle because it is not extant in any ancient Author but only in the Decretals (q) Naucler Chron. gen XI pag. 604. But our Editors print it without any Note of its being false yea with Notes upon it to prove it either true or very probable (r) Lab. p. 1534. Bin. pag. 251. col 2. p. 254. col 1. And Baronius introduces it with many Stories to make all that concerns the Popes temporal Greatness credible to an easie Reader (s) Baron An. 324. §. 117. yet at last to secure their Retreat from so indefensible a Post He and the Annotator make it a Fiction of the poor Greeks I shall therefore First prove it a Forgery and Secondly make it out That not the Greeks but the Pope's Creatures devised it First That it is a Fiction appears from divers Arguments For First who can believe Constantine so unjust first to give Rome and the Western Empire to the Pope and then to one of his Sons Or who can think the Pope so tame never to put in his Claim Secondly This Edict is grounded on the idle Story of Constantine's Baptism by Sylvester which out of Sylvester's Fabulous Acts is related at large in it but those Acts being as was shewed a meer Forgery this Edict must be so also Thirdly It represents Constantine who was born and brought up under Christian Parents and had setled Christianity before this as a meer Heathen till he met with Sylvester at this time Fourthly It pretends the whole Senate and all the Nobles joyned with the Emperor to give the Pope this Power But besides the folly of Constantine's delegating more Power than ever he himself had it
Circumcised Converts to Peter (e) Lab. pag. 21. Bin. pag 2. col 2. 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 fabulous Story of the Assumption of the Virgin Mary (f) Lab. pag. 24. Bin. pag. 3. col 2. 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 (g) Lab. pag. 53. Bin. pug 14. col 1. 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 (h) Lab. Bin. ibid. 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 (i) Lab. pag. 53. Bin. pag. 14. col 2. 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 (k) Vid. Beveridg Not. Concil Tom. II. pag. 18. 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 (l) Lab. pag. 55. Bin. pag. 15. col 1. 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 (m) Lab. pag. 56. Bin. pag. 15. col 2. 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 (n) Lab. pag. 60. Bin. pag 17. col 2. 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 (o) Tertul. de jejun adv Psycl cap. 14 15. 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 (p) Aug. ad Januar ep 118. cap. 2. ad Casulan Ep. 86. 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 diâ—fered 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 (q) Lab. pag. 6. Bin. pag. 18. col 1. 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 (r) Dr. Câ—sens Histor Canon Chap.
4. 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 (s) Lab. pag. 61 Bin. pag. 18. col 2. 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 at that time when he would have us believe these Canons were made and He also put in the Constitutions which are forged in the name of the Apostles who were to be set up as Authors also of these Canons And if that were so this 84th Canon being cleared from those two Corruptions is an Ancient and very Authentic Record of the true and genuine Books of Holy Scripture but the Romanists reject it as being a good evidence against their New Trent Canon § 3. To these Canons are joyned a pretended Council of the Apostles at Antioch first put into the Tomes of the Councils by Binius and continued by Labbè (t) Lab. pag 62. Bin. pag. 18. col 2. one Canon of which allows Christians to make an image of Christ But this notorius and improbable Forgery was never heard of in any Author till that infamous second Nicene Council which wanting proofs for Image-worship from genuine Antiquity impudently feigned such Authorities as this pretended Council § 4. The Pontifical or Lives of the Popes which begins here bears the Title of Pope Damasus but the Notes say Damasus was not Author of it being evidently patched up out of two different Authors containing contradictions almost in every Popes Life So that no account is to be made of a Writing so different from it self (u) Lab. pag. 63. Bin. pag. 19. col 2. Now if this be as it certainly is a True Character of the Pontifical Why do these Editors print it Why do the Notes so often cite it as good Hisstory Why do their Divines quote it as good Authority to prove their Modern Corruptions to have been primitive Rites (w) Harding against Jewel pag. 53. Dr. James corrup of Faith par 1. p. 22. Since it is a manifest Legend and contained at first nothing but the bare Names and continuance of the several Popes and was filled up by Isidore Mercator who forged the Decretal Epistles with many improbable Fictions unsuitable both to the Men and Times for which they were invented and designed to be a ground for those Decretal Epistles and to make the World believe that all the Popes were considerable for their Actions in all Ages as Dr. Peirson hath excellently proved in his Learned Posthumous Dissertation (x) Cestriens dissert posthum lib. 2. cap. 1 2. c. Yet not only these Editors of the Councils print this corrupt Legend but their very Breviaries and Missals generally appoint the Lessons out of it on the Festivals of these Ancient Popes publishing in the very Church in time of Divine Service these Fictions for the true ground of the Peoples Devotions on those Days I confess Binius out of Baronius hath Notes upon every Pope 's Life and rejects commonly some part of it but then it is such passages as no way concern the opinion or practice of the present Roman Church For the passages which do agree thereto though equally false he generally defends yea cites them to prove their Modern Faith and Usages But as we come to the several Popes Lives which these Editors make the grand direction in Ecclesiastical Chronology we shall observe the many and gross Errors contained in it We begin with the Life of S. Peter whom if we do allow to have been at Rome as this Author reports yet we cannot believe he ordained three Bishops for his Successors there in his Life-time viz. Linus Cletus and Clement Nor that he was Buried in three several places in Apollo 's Temple and besides Nero 's Pallace in the Vatican and besides the Triumphal Territory which this fabulous Writer affirms Nor will the Annotator admit that S. Peter could be Crucified by Nero in the 38th year after Christ 's Passion which was three years almost after Nero's own Death § 5. The next place ever since P. Crabs Edition is by the Roman Editors allotted to a Treatise of the Popes Supremacy (y) Lab. col 65. Bin. pag. 20. col 2. writ of late Times by some manifest Sycophant of the Roman Church yet placed here among the Venerable Antiquities of the Apostolic Age to clap a false Biass on the unwary Reader and make him apt to believe that which Richerius said is the main design of Bellarmin Baronius and Possevine in all their Works viz. that the Pope was made by Christ the infallible and absolute Monarch of the Church (z) Richer praesul ad histor Concil but the Tract it self makes out this high Claim chiefly by the Decretal Epistles which are now confessed to be Forgeries And by the Sayings of Popes who were not to be believed in their own case (a) John. V. 31. nemo sibi prosâ—ssor testis Tert. in Marcion lib. 5. To which are added some few Fragments of the Fathers falsly applied and certain false Arguments which have been confuted a thousand times So that the placing this Treatise here serves only to shew the Editors partiality to promote a bad Cause § 6. The Pontifical places Linus as S. Peters Successor but the Notes confess that the Fathers are not agreed about it (b) Lab pag. 72. Bin. pag. 24. col 1. They own that Tertullian Epiphanius and Ruffinus make Clement to succeed Peter and the late Learned Bishop of Chester proves Linus was dead before Peter (c) Cesiriens diss 2. cap. 2. Irenaeus doth not say as the Notes falsly cite him that Linus succeeded Peter in the Government of the universal Church (d) Iren. adv haer l. 3. c. 3. but only that Peter and Paul delivered the Administration of that Church to him which they had founded at Rome Which they might do in their Life time while they went to preach in other places The Epistle of Ignatius to Mary Cassibolite and the Verses attributed to Tertullian which they bring for proof of this Succession are confessed to be spurious Tracts St. Hierom is dubious and upon the whole matter there is no certainty who was Bishop of Rome next to the Apostles and therefore the Romanists build on an ill Bottom when they lay so great weight on their personal Succession § 7. The like Blunder there is about the next Pope The fabulous Pontifical makes Cletus succeed Linus and gives us several Lives of Cletus and Anacletus making them of several Nations and to have been Popes at different times putting Clement between them Yet the aforesaid Learned
to the Places near to him (a) Lab. p. 294. Bin. pag. 333. col 1. 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 (b) Bin. p. 358. col 1. 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 (c) Lab. Marg. pag. 106. but Binius prints it at large with all its Fictions and Impostures (d) Bin. p. 300. col 1. 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 (e) Richer hist Concil lib. 1. cap. 2. §. ult 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 (f) Bin. p. 301. col 2. 302. col 2. 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 (g) Bin. p. 316. col 1. 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 (h) Bin. p. 322. col 1. Fourthly It is here said to have been declared at Nice That every Bishop under God was the Head of his own Church (i) Bin. p. 325. col 2. 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 (k) Bin. pag. 328. col 1. 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 (l) Baron An. 325. §. 53. 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 (m) Bin p. 335. col 2. p. 341. col 1. 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 (n) Bin. p. 302. col 2. Vid. Rivet Crit. sacr l. 3. cap. 4. by their quoting a spurious Work under the name of Dionysius Areopagita which was as all agree writ after the Nicene Council many years (o) Bin. pag. 336. col 2. 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 (p) Bin. p. 337. col 1. Vid. Concil Ephesin Act. 7. 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 (q) Bin. p. 347. col 2. 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 (r) Baron An. 325. §. 182. 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 confuting 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 (s) Lab. p. 294. pag. 303. Bin. pag. 353. col 2. 358. col 1. And his Notes say the 72d Canon differs from the 13th and the 73d Canon is contrary to the 49th (t) Lab. p. 315. Bin. pag. 363. col 1 2. 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 (u) Lab. p. 412. Bin. pag. 365. col 1. Baron An. 325. §. 199. 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 Baronius 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 his Answer to them both which in the next Column he owns are false and feigned (w) Bin. p. 365. col 2 C And thus where the Supremacy is concern'd one Forgery serves for the Evidence of another The Council at Gangra is genuine and was an uncorrupted Remain of Primitive Antiquity till it fell into the hands of these Editors who have put the name of Osius Bishop of Corduba into the Title in their Latin Version and though that Name be not