The church history clear'd from the Roman forgeries and corruptions found in the councils and Baronius in four parts : from the beginning of Christianity, to the end of the fifth general council, 553 / by Thomas Comber ...

The church history clear'd from the Roman forgeries and corruptions found in the councils and Baronius in four parts : from the beginning of Christianity, to the end of the fifth general council, 553 / by Thomas Comber ...

Table of contents

Title page

§

TO THE Most Reverend Father in GOD, THOMAS, (By Divine Providence) Lord Arch-Bishop of YORK, PRIMATE OF ENGLAND, AND METROPOLITAN.

THE Introduction.

[1]

A BRIEF ACCOUNT OF THE Roman Forgeries, IN THE VOLUMES OF THE COUNCILS, For the First Three Centuries.

PART I.

CHAPTER I.

CHAP. II.

CHAP. III.

[2]

A BRIEF ACCOUNT OF THE Roman Forgeries, IN THE VOLUMES OF THE COUNCILS, For the Fourth Century.

PART II.

CHAPTER IV.

AN APPENDIX CONCERNING BARONIUS HIS ANNALS.

[3]

Title page

TO THE Most Reverend Father in GOD, JOHN, By Divine Providence Lord Archbishop of YORK, Primate of ENGLAND, AND METROPOLITAN.

THE PREFACE.

THE CONTENTS.

ERRATA.

Roman Forgeries IN THE COUNCILS.

PART III. CENT. V.

CHAP. I.

CHAP. II.

CHAP. III.

An Appendix concerning Baronius's Annals.

CHAP. IV.

An Appendix concerning Baronius his Annals.

[4]

PART IV. CENT. VI.

CHAP. I.

An Epitome of Dr. Crakenthorp's Treatise of the Fifth General Council at Constantinople, Anno 553.

An Appendix to this History.

Books printed for, and Sold by R. Clavel, at the Peacock in St. Paul's Church-yard.

§

§

[Page]

THE CHURCH HISTORY Clear'd from the Roman Forgeries And Corruptions found in the COUNCILS and BARONIUS: In Four Parts.

FROM The Beginning of Christianity, to the End of the Fifth General Council, 553.

By THOMAS COMBER, D. D. Dean of DURHAM.

For we have not followed cunningly devised Fables,

2 Pet. I. 16.

LONDON.

Printed by Samuel Roycroft, for Robert Clavell at the Peacock at the West-End of S. Pauls, 1695.

§

§

[Page]

Imprimatur,

Martii 2. 1688/9.

T. Alston R. P. D. HEN. Episc. Lond. à Sacris Domesticis.

[Page]

TO THE Most Reverend Father in GOD, THOMAS, (By Divine Providence) Lord Arch-Bishop of YORK, PRIMATE OF ENGLAND, AND METROPOLITAN.

[Page]

[Page]

May it please your Grace,

THere is nothing more Pleasant in it self, nor more Ʋseful to those of the Sacred Function, than the Study of Ecclesiastical Antiquity: But yet [Page] many of that Order have not the Advantage or the Opportunity to acquire this Knowledge from the Original Authors, and therefore are forced to seek it in the Roman Editions of the Councils, and the Modern Historians of that Church: Where every thing is misrepresented and placed in so False a Light, that its hard to find out what is Truth. Some of the genuine Remains of Antiquity they have concealed, but they have falsified and altered more, and added so much to the Primitive Records, especially in the first Four Centuries, that near Three Parts of Four (both in Baronius and the Councils) are modern Forgeries, manifest Legends, and impertinent Excursions into Sophistical Vindications, of the later Doctrins and [Page] Practices of Rome. It would therefore be a Work worthy of this excellent Church in so Learned an Age, to make an acurate Collection of that, and only that which is true and certain in the Primitive History and Councils. 'Tis true, divers Eminent Men have made some steps toward it; but it is too great an Ʋndertaking for any One Man to accomplish, as appears by that generous Project of Dr. Thomas James, Proposed to the Most Learned Primate of Ireland, to employ a Select Company of both Universities, with due Assistances and Encouragement for the perfecting this Design: Wherefore in the mean time, it may be serviceable to gather together some Materials for so Noble a purpose, and that first encouraged me to make these Observations as I [Page] was Reading the Annals of Baronius with the Councils: Which I have (by the Advice of some of my Friends) Methodically digested in this little Tract; and I hope it may be useful, not only to direct such as apply themselves to this kind of Study, but also to confirm others of Our own Communion in their firm Adherence to their Excellent Religion, when they see so many plain Evidences, That all the Roman Churches Pretences to Antiquity (both in Doctrin and Worship) are founded on, and maintained by little else, but those Forgeries and Corruptions, by which they Imposed upon the Ignorant and Easie World for Six or Seven Centuries together. These Pious Frauds (as They counted them) did indeed then advance their Interest, and establish [Page] their Errors; but now when they are detected by this Discerning Generation, they prove their utter Shame; and did not Secular Advantages and Implicit Faith, or Fear and Inquisitions hinder those under their Yoke from being acquainted, or however from owning these unfaithful Actings of their Spiritual Guides; These Discoveries would not only secure Our People, but make many Converts from Them.

But (My Lord) whatever the Work or the Success be, I am obliged to lay it at Your Graces Feet, as the first thing I have made Public since Your Graces happy Advancement to the Government of this Church, whereof I am a Member, and wherein by Your Graces Influence I shall study to serve the Primitive-Protestant-Church of England. Which I beseech Almighty [Page] GOD to defend from all its Enemies, and long to preserve Your Grace, to be a Support and an Honour to it. So Prays,

MY LORD,

Your Graces most Dutiful Son and Servant, THO: COMBER.

York, Aug. 20. 1689.

THE Introduction.

[Page]

WHen Campian long ago undertook to defend the Roman Cause, he boasted, that He was strengthned with the firm and powerful Guard of all the Councils, and that all the General Councils were on his side Campian. decem rat. pag. 24, & 30.. Which vain Brag the Writers from the Roman Church do frequently repeat to this very day. But he that with Judgment and Diligence shall peruse their own allowed Editions of the Councils, will easily discover the falshood of this Assertion: For there is such adding and expunging, such altering and disguising things in the Body of the Councils, and such excusing, falsifying, and shuffling in the Notes, that a Judicious Reader will soon perceive these Venerable Records, truly set down and explained, do not favour them. But these Corruptions are carried on with such Confidence and Cunning, that an unexeperienced and unwary Student, may be imposed on by this specious shew of Venerable Antiquity: For their sakes therefore, it's necessary to take a short view of that Fraud and Policy, which is so commonly made use of in those Editions of the Councils which pass through the Roman Mint, especially in those which are in most use among us, viz. The Edition of Severinus Binius Edit. Binii Concil. omn. Colon. 1618., and that of [Page] Labbé and Cossartius Edit. Lab. & Cossart. Paris, An. 1671., wherein Binius his Notes are printed verbatim. Which useful design was begun by a Learned and Ingenious Gentleman, in a Tract entituled Roman Forgeries, printed at London, An. 1673: But that Author doth not follow the exact order of Time, nor doth he go much beyond the Nicene Council, and even in that Period he left out many plain Instances; And whereas he died, before he had proceeded any further; I resolved to begin where he left off: But for Methods sake, and to make thid Discourse more entire, I have begun with the first Century, and so proceeded according to the order of the several Councils (only writing more briefly upon the Three first Centuries, which were largely treated of in that Author before) deducing the account of these Impostures down to the end of the Fourth Century, and shewing (as I go along) what Artifices have been used by the Editors and Annotator to dress up these Ancient Evidences, so as to make them look favourably upon their great Diana, the Supremacy and other Corruptions of the Roman Church. To this end they have published many spurious Councils, many counterfeit Canons and forged Decretals; and for such as are genuine, they have frequently altered the Text, both by Additions and Diminutions, and have so disguised the Sense by partial and fallacious Notes, that it will be evident (by the Remarks here made upon them) their business in the publishing these Volumes, was not to promote the Truth, but to serve a Party. Nor can any thing else be expected from Binius his Notes, which (as he owns in his Preface) He took out of Baronius, Bellarmin and Possevin: The design of which three Men (saith Richerius an ingenuous Sorbon Doctor) is evident to all Men to have been no other, but to prove the Pope was appointed by [Page]Christ to be the absolute Monarch, and Infallible Judge of his Church Richer. Praef. ad hist. Concil. pag. 4.. And since the Notes chiefly follow Baronius, we have, as we go along, in every Period noted several of the designed Falshoods, and of the Contradictions, Errors and Mistakes in his Annals. Which History is so full of Forgeries, false Quotations, and feigned Tales to set up the Credit of the Roman Church, and its corrupt Opinions and Practices, that to discover them all would require almost as many Volumes as his Annals make: So that we must content our selves with some of the plainest Instances which fall into this Matter of the Councils, and will set them in a clear Light, and shew they are as contrary to Reason, as they are to true History. Which Ʋndertaking we hope will be many ways useful: First, It will tend to the ease of those who intend to read over the Tomes of the Councils, or the Annals of Baronius, and save them much time and pains by presenting the principal Errors of those great Volumes at one View, which they would spend a long time in searching after, if they were to gather them up as they lye dispersed. Secondly, It may be very useful to those who desire to be rightly informed in the Controversies between us and the Roman Church, because it will give them a clear prospect of what Councils and other Antiquities are Authentic, and may be allowed for Evidence in this Dispute; wherein our Adversaries have so little regard to their own Honour, that generally one half of their Evidence is such as they have either forged or corrupted. Thirdly, It will be necessary (by way of Antidote) to prepare those, who by reading Books so full of Infection, may by these plausible Falsifications be in [Page] danger to be seduced into a great esteem of the Opinions and Practices of the Roman Church; when they find so many seemingly ancient Tracts and Councils brought in to justifie her in all things, and see (by this false Light) all Ecclesiastical History and Records so modelled, as to perswade their Readers, That in the purest Christian Times, all things were believed and done in the Catholic Church just as they are now at Rome. But when it shall appear, that all this is a continued Series and train of Impostures, it will render their Notions and Practices, not only suspected, but odious, as needing such vile and base Artifices, to make them seem agreeable to true Antiquity.

To this it may be Objected, That divers of the Modern Writers of this Church, and especially the most Learned, do now own divers of these Forgeries which we here detect to have been spurious, and therefore it seems needless to prove that which they have already granted us. I reply, That none of them own all these Corruptions, and divers of their Authors cite them very confidently to this very day, and still the things themselves stand in their most approved Editions of Councils, and the Remarks are only in Marginal Notes. But since they were believed in those Ages, while their Supremacy and other Novel Doctrins were setting up, and were urged for good Proofs, till these Opinions had taken root; it is not satisfaction enough to renounce that Evidence, of which they now have no more need, unless they disclaim the Doctrins also to which they first gave Credit: And till they do this, it is fit the World should know by what False Evidence they first gained these Points. For, if a Man should get an [Page] Estate by Bribing his Iury and his Witnesses, it is not enough for him to confess these Persons were Suborned, unless he restore the Ill gotten Lands; and till he restore them, he ought to be upbraided with his Bribery, even after he hath acknowledged it. Secondly, It may be alledged, That Junius, River and Daillé abroad; Perkins, Cook and James at home; have taken great pains on this Subject, and that the Learned Author of the Historieal Examination of the Authority of General Councils, printed at London, 1688. hath already handled this Argument. I Answer, That the Six former are chiefly concerned in the Tracts of particular Fathers, and make few Remarks on the Councils: The last indeed keeps close to the Great Councils, but passes over the Small ones; and any who compares this Discourse with that, will find the Design, the Method and Instances so different, that this Discourse will still be useful in its kind, as that will be also: For here, in an acurate Order, all the Frauds of that Church are put together throughout every Century, not only what have been observed by others, but many now first taken notice of, and not observed before. And indeed, the Instances of these Frauds are so many, that we have been forced to give but brief Touches upon divers of the Particulars, and could neither enlarge upon single Instances, nor adorn the Style; our business being chiefly to direct the younger Students in Ecclesiastical Antiquity; and if our Remakrs be but so clear as to be understood by, and useful to them, we have our Aim. And it is hoped this may suffice to prove, That the genuine Records of Councils do condemn the Modern Doctrin, Worship and Discipline of the Roman Church, [Page] and that whatever in these Editions of them seems to countenance those things, are Forgeries and Corruptions devised on purpose to set a false gloss upon their Modern Inventions. The Methodical Discovery whereof may convince any unprejudiced Man, That Ours is the truly Ancient and Catholic Religion, and Theirs a Device of later times, which cannot be rendred any way agreeable to the Primitive Writings, without innumerable Impostures and Falsifications.

§

§

[Page]

A BRIEF ACCOUNT OF THE Roman Forgeries, IN THE VOLUMES OF THE COUNCILS, For the First Three Centuries.

PART I.

CHAPTER I.

Of the Forgeries in the First Century.

§. 1. THE Volumes of the COUNCILS in the Edition of Labbe and Cossartius, begin with divers Tracts; and in Binius's Edition with several Epistles, designed to prepossess the Reader with false Notions of the Popes supreme Power over Councils, and his Parties high Reverence for [Page] them, as also of the Protestants having corrupted or else rejected the greatest part of them: But this whole Discourse will sufficiently shew the notorious untruth, both of their boasting concerning Their own side, and of their Censures concerning Ours. In the Account of Scripture Councils, where they pretend to recite the words of Scripture, they add, for to give colour to their new Supremacy, That Peter stood up, as the Principal and Head Lab. Tom. III. pag. 18. & Bin. Tom. I. par. 1. pag. 1.; And again, as the Supreme and Head Ibid. pag. 20. Bin. pag. 2.. S. Luke in the Acts, Chap. VI. 2. saith, The Twelve Apostles gave the multitude leave to elect Seven Deacons. Binius's Notes say, They had this leave by the favour and grant of Peter Bin. pag. 1. col. 2. F.. S. Luke, Chap. XV. declares, That the Question about Circumcision was finally determined by S. James, who also cited Scripture for his determination, ver. 16, 17. But Binius's Notes say, This matter was determined, not by Scripture, but by the Suffrage of the Apostles, and by the Judgment of Peter Lab. pag. 20. Bin. pag. 2. col. 1.. The same Notes a little after tell us, That this Council committed the care of the Circumcised Converts to Peter 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 sabulous Story of the Assumption of the Virgin Mary 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 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 [Page]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 ibid. Lab. & Bin.. 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 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. 'Tis 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 Vid. Beveridg. Not. Concil. Tom. II. pag. 18. upon such slight and false Evidence, is in effect rejecting it.

[Page] The Ninth Canon orders All the Clergy and Laity who are in the Church, to Receive the Sacrament, unless they have a just Excuse 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 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 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 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 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 [Page]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 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 Dr. Cosens 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 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 [Page] 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 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 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 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 Post humous Dissertation 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 [Page] 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 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 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 [Page] to be believed in their own case John. V. 31. nemo sibi & professor, & tellis. Tert. in Mar [...]n. 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 Lab pag. 72. Bin. pag. 24. col. 1.: They own that Tertullian, Epiphanius and Ruffinus make Clement to succeed Peter; and the [...] Learned Bishop of Chester proves, Linus was dead before Peter Cestriens. 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 Iren. adv. [...] 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 Bishop of Chester, proves these were only two names of the same Person Cestriens. diss. 2. cap. 1.; But the Notes attempt to justifie the forged Pontifical, by impudently affirming Lab. pag. 74. Bin. pag. 25. col. 1. that Ignatius, (Anacletus contemporary) Irenaeus, Eusebius, St. Augustine and Optatus, were all mistaken, or all wronged by their Transcribers, who leave out Cletus: But every Candid Reader [Page] will rather believe the Mistake to be in the Pontifical (which is a meer heap of Errors) and in the Roman Martyrology and Missal, which blindly follow it, rather than in those Eminent and Ancient Fathers: And every one may see the Folly of the Romish Church, which Venerates two several Saints, on two several Days, one of which never had a real Being; for Cletus is but the abbreviation of Anacletus his Name.

§. 8. After this we have the Life of Clement, wherein the Pontifical makes him succeed Cletus, under those Consuls which were in Office the next year after S. Peter's Martyrdom, though he had assigned 23 years to Linus and Cletus, his pretended Predecessors Lab. pag. 75. Bin. pag. 25. col. 1.; which years must all be expired in one years compass, if this Account be true; and one would admire the stupidity of this Author, who though he had placed S. Peters Death so many years before Clement's Entrance, as to leave room for two intermediate Popes; yet here again repeats his old Fable of S. Peters delivering the Bishopric of Rome to Clement; a sufficient proof there is neither Truth nor Certainty in the pretended Personal Succession of the first Popes.

§. 9. From this Pope Clement down to the time of Syricius, who lived 300 years after him, there are printed in these Editors, after every Popes Life, divers Decretal Epistles, pretended to be writ by the several Popes, and Vindicated by Binius's Notes annexed to them: Which were received in the Western Church for many Hundred years together as the genuine Decrees of these ancient and pious Popes, transcribed into the Canon Law; and cited for many Ages to justifie the Usurpations, and defend the Corruptions of the Roman Church, to determine Causes and decide Controversies in Religion: And yet they are all notorious Forgeries; so that since Learning was revived, divers of the most Eminent Roman Writers have rejected them. [Page] Card. Cusanus affirms, That being compared with the times in which they are pretended to have been Writ, they betray themselves Cusan. de Concord. Cath. l. 3.. Baronius calls them, Late invented Evidences of no Credit, and Apocryphal Baron. An. 865. §. 7. & An. 102. § 6, 7; yea, Labbé and Cossartius have in their Edition a Learned Preface to them, proving them to be forged Labbé pag. 78.: And in their Margin write almost against every Epistle, This is suspected; This is Isidores Wares, &c. and also note the very places of Authors who lived long after these Times, out of which large Passages in them are stollen Verbatim. Which clear Confession of our Adversaries may make some think it needless to confute them, and unnecessary to charge this Forgery upon the Roman Church: But I cannot think it sit wholly to pass them by; because Turrian the Jesuit had the Confidence to defend them all as genuine; and Binius in his Edition, not only Vindicates them by a general Preface Bin. pag. 26. col. 1., but by particular Notes labours to prove most of them Authentic; and Labbé himself prints those Notes at large in his Edition, so that such as do not look into his Margen, may be deceived. Besides, this Confession of some Romanists comes too late to compensate for the injury done to the Truth, by their Churches approving them so long: And they still keep up the Supremacy, and all their corrupt Practices and Opinions, which were set up and cherished by these Forgeries; they now take away the Scaffolds, when the Building can stand alone; they execute the Traytor, but enjoy freely the benefit of his Treason. Moreover, while some Romanists condemn them, others go on to cite them for good Authority: Harding brags, he had proved many Points of Faith by the Epistles of Clement Damasus, Julius Melchiades, Pontianus, Sixtus, Soter, and Symmachus Hard. against Jewel, pag. 22.: Dr. Tho. James shews the particular corrupt Doctrines and Practices, which the late Roman Writers defend by the spurious Epistles of Clement, Marcellus, Marcus, and Hormisda Dr. James Cor. of Fath. Part I. pag. 4, 20, & 69.: And the Learned Cook with infinite diligence, hath cited the very Places of the Modern Champions for the Roman Opinions, and shewed [Page] what Doctrines and Practices they do maintain by these Forged Epistles Rob. Coci Censura Patr. per totum.. It is also well known, that the Late Scriblers for that Religion do follow Bellarmin and Others, in citing these Decretals for good Authority, and that the Canon Law is in a great measure composed out of these Epistles; by which, Causes are determined at this day in all Popish Countries: Therefore till the Romanists raze them and the Notes in their defence, out of the Volumes of the Councils, and expunge all the false Notions taken hence, out of their Canon Law; yea, and leave citing them in their Disputes with us, we cannot think it needless to shew the apparent Forgery of them; but we will not enlarge so as to disprove the Particulars, but put together here our Evidence against them all.

§. 10. These Epistles, though pretended to be writ in the first four Centuries, were never heard of in the World till near 800 years after Christ: About which time came out a Collection of Councils under the name of Isidore Hispalensis; but whereas he died An. 636, and this Collector mentions the XIth Council of Toledo and the Sixth General Council, which were held near Fifty years after, this appears not to be the Work of that Isidore, but of one Isidore Mercator, and it was first brought into France by Riculphus B. of Mentz, in which Collection these Decretal Epistles first appeared; but the Learned Hincmarus of Rheims immediately discerned them to be an imposture, and Writ against them, as Baronius confesseth Baron. Annal. An. 865. §. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8.: But though he own the Cheat, he is not willing to grant the Roman Church had any hand in it, yet that is as clear as the Forgery; because Hincmarus was hated and prosecuted by the Pope, and forced at last to Recant his Censure of these Epistles; and not long after Benedictus Levita having Transcrib'd divers Passages out of them into his Capitulars, got them confirmed at Rome, which could not but cherish so advantagious a Fiction that supported the Supremacy, which they then did so hotly stickle for; and therefore [Page] though they came first to the Birth in Spain; some conjecture they were all Hatched at Rome, whose evil Designs and Interest they are contrived to serve: But the Age was so Ignorant when they were Invented, that there is such infamous and convincing Marks of Forgery upon them, as makes it very easie to prove the Cheat beyond any possibility of doubting; and we will here put the principal of them together under their proper Heads.

§. 11. First, The Style of these Decretals shews they were not writ within the four first Centuries, wherein (at Rome especially) they writ Latin in a much more Elegant Style than is to be found here, where the Phrases are modern, harsh, and sometimes barbarous, so that the Reader is often puzled to reconcile them either to Grammar or Sense: As for Example, Pope Victor's Second Epistle Lab. p. 595. Bin. pag. 79. col. 1., which of old began with Enim, and was mended by Binius with Semper enim; but still there is false Latin in it, viz. aliquos nocere fratres velle Rob. Coci Censurae pag. 33.. The like barbarous Style may be observed in the two Epistles of Pontianus Lab. p. 622. Bin. pag. 90, & 91., and in many others: But the genuine Epistles of Cornelius, preserved in Eusebius and S. Cyprian Ep. 3 & 5. Cornel. Lab. pag. 683, &c. Bin pag. 111, 112, 113., are writ in a more polite Style; and as Labbé notes, These Epistles shew how much good Mony differs from counterfeit, and how much Gold excels Counters: The like difference there is between the Style of that genuine Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians Edit. Lab. pag. 116., and those silly Forgeries put out in his Name in the very Front of these Decretals Lab. p. 82, &c. Bin. pag. 27, &c.; from whence it undeniably follows, That the Decretals were not writ in the Ages wherein the Latin Tongue flourished, nor by those Popes whose Names they bear. And this is further manifest by divers Words, which were not used in the time of these Popes, but are often put into these Epistles: Such is Religiositas for Piety, and Universitas for the World, in the Decretals of Dionysius Lab. p. 827. Bin. pag. 158.; such is Miles for a Servant, and Senior for a Lord, in the Decrees of Pope Pius Lab. p. 576. Bin. p. 71. col. 2., which are Words not heard of till [Page] the time of the French Empire, in that sense: Such is the Phrase of making Oblation to redeem mens Sins, and the Name of the Mass in Fabian's Decrees Lab. p. 650. Bin. pag. 101.. Pope Gaius his Decretal Epistle mentions Pagans, but that Name was not used for the Gentils till Optatus Milevitanus his time, who first used it in that Sense, saith Baronius Lab. p. 925. Bin. pag. 172. col. 2.. Moreover, innumerable places in these Epistles mention Primates and Patriarchs, Arch-Bishops and Metropolitans, &c. which Words were not used in the Christian Church in the time of those Popes, who are pretended to have writ about them; As for Example, The first Epistle of Clement Lab. pag 91. Bin. pag. 30. col. 2., the second Epistle of Anacletus Lab. p. 526. Bin. pag. 47. col. 2., and many others; but no Christian Writer ever used the Word Patriarch for a Christian Bishop till Socrates Scholasticus, who writ An. 442 Beveridg. Annot. in Concil. Nicen. Tom. II. p. 52.. In like manner we find the Word Apocrisary in Anacletus's first Epistle Lab. p. 511. Bin. pag. 42. col. 2., and also in the second Epistle of Zepherine Lab. p. 606. Bin. pag. 82. col. 2.; yet Meursius in his Glossary cannot find any elder Authority for it than Constantine's Donation (forged after that Emperor's time), and owns the Name was not heard of before, Gloss. p. 43. The Name of Archdeacon also is in Clements second Epistle Lab. pag. 98. Bin. pag. 34. col. 2., and in Pope Lucius's Decrees Lab. p. 727. Bin. pag. 131. col. 2.; but the Office and Title did not come into the Church till many years after: And finally, the Name of a Diocesan for a Christian Bishop, is put into Calixtus second Epistle Lab. p 612. Bin. pag. 85. col. 1., but was not used in that Sense till long after his time. All which prove these Epistles were writ in the later barbarous Ages, and not in the time of those Popes, whose Names they bear.

§. 12. The same may be proved Secondly, by the Matter of these Epistles, which is no way suitable to those grave and Pious Popes, who lived in times when the Church was pestered with Heresies, and oppressed with Persecutions; yet these Epistles do not either confute those Heresies, nor comfort the Christians under Persecutions; But speak great Words of the Roman Supremacy, and of Appeals, of the exemption and priviledges [Page] of Bishops and Clergy Men, of splendid Altars and rich Vessels for Divine Administrations, and the like, which make it incredible they could be writ in an Age of suffering: Instances of this we have in Clements first Epistle Lab. p. 91. Bin. pag. 30.; where he Orders Primates and Patriarchs, to be placed in such Cities as the Heathens, of Old had Arch-Flamins in: Whereas the Heathensthen had Flamines and Priests in all Cities: His third Epistle Lab. p. 103. Bin. pag. 36. col. 1. is directed to all Princes greater and less, and Commands them to obey their Bishops: Whereas all Princes in the World at that time were Gentils: The like absurdity appears in Calixtus first Epistle, where he gives Laws to the Emperors and all others professing piety Lab. p. 609. Bin. pag. 83. col. 2., as if Heliogabulus and Caracalla had been under his Command: And in the second Epistle of Sixtus, Ano. 260, who threatens to Excommunicate the Princes of Spain, who spoiled their Bishops Lab. p. 822. Bin. pag. 157. col. 1., though all Princes then were Heathens: Marcellinus also in a time of Persecution, under a Heathen Emperor gives direction what is to be done by an Emperor professing the true Faith Lab. p. 934. Bin. pag. 176. col. 2.; Who can imagin, Anacletus Anno Dom. 104, should speak of Priests in little Villages, and of Cities which anciently had Primates and Patriarchs, or tell us in Trajans time, That Rome had cast away her Heathen Rites Lab. p. 528. Bin. pag. 49.? Or that he should affirm the Christian people were generally Enemies to their Priests; and Command the Bishops to visit the Thresholds of S. Peter's Church (before it was Built Decreta ejus Lab. pag. 532. Bin. pag. 51. col. 2.?) Is it likely Euaristus the next Pope, should declare, That Children could not Inherit their Parents Estates, if they were not Baptized by a Christian Priest Lab. p. 533. Bin. pag. 52. col. 1.; or suppose Churches and Altars consecrated long before the Memory of any Man in the Parish Lab. p. 541. Bin. pag. 54. col. 1.? Could Pope Xystus in Adrian's Persecution brag, that Rome was the Head over all Bishops, and also a Refuge to such as were spoiled by Christian People Lab. p. 558. Bin. pag. 62. col. 2.? Were there in Pope Hyginus time, (as his Decrees pretend) More Churches and larger than the Revenue belonging to them could repair Lab. p. 568. Bin. pag. 67. col. 2.? Is it propable Pope Pius should complain Anno 158, That Christians should Sacrilegiously[Page]take away whole Farms dedicated to Pious Uses? Yet this complaint is found in his second Epistle Lab. p. 574. Bin. pag. 70. col. 2.; And Binius Notes justify this by a forged Decretal of Urban the First, and by proving that in the time of Constantine (140 Years after) the Heathens had taken Houses from the Christians: The Decree for Vailing Nuns at 25 years of Age must be of later time, because it is certain no Nuns were vailed then, nor were any under Sixty years Old allowed to profess Virginity Cestriens. diss. 2. cap. 6. §. 16. &c.: When all Christians were so constantly present at Divine Offices, and received the Sacrament Weekly; what need was there for Pope Soter to decree, No Priest should say Mass unless two were present, and that all should Communicate on Maunday-Thursday Lab. p. 587. Bin. pag. 75. col. 1.? How could there be Secular Laws forbidding the People to conspire against their Bishop, as Calixtus Decretal pretends Lab. p. 612. Bin. pag. 85. col. 1.? or how could he mention the Laws of the Roman and Greek Emperors, so long before the Empire was divided Ibid.? Had Bishops in Pope Urbans time power to Banish and Imprison the Sacrilegious? or had they high Seats in the form of a Throne, Erected for them in Churches, as his Epistle pretends Lab. p. 618 Bin. pag. 87. col. 2.? Could the next Pope by his Decree hinder Heathens and Enemies to the Christian Clergy from accusing them? as the first Epistle of Pontianus gives out Lab. p. 623. Bin. pag, 90. col. 1.. Antherus Epistle charges Bishops in those times with changing their Churches out of ambition and covetousness Lab. p. 634. Bin. pag. 94. col. 2., even while nothing but Martyrdom was to be got by being a Bishop: And Fabian is made to charge the Faithful, with spoiling their Bishops, and citing them before the Lay Tribunals Lab. p. 636▪ Bin. pag. 95. col. 2.; which is not credible of the Christians of that Age: Cornelius his genuine Epistle saith; The Christians durst not meet at Prayers in any known Rooms, no not in Cellars under ground Lab. p. 682. Bin. pag. 113. col. 1.. But the Pontifical and one of his Forged Decretals, pretend that this same Pope had liberty to Bury the Apostle S. Peter's Body in Apollo's Temple, the Vatican and the golden Mount, that is, in three places (I suppose) at once Lab. p. 668. Bin. pag. 109. col. 2.: Lucius a Martyred Pope makes it a wonder, that in his days Churches should be spoiled of their Oblations and Ministers [Page]vexed Lab. p. 721. Bin. pag. 129. col. 1.; Pope Stephen threatens to make Slaves of Clerks, who accuse their Bishop, and forbids Lay-men to complain of the Clergy Lab. p. 732. Bin. pag. 134. col. 1.; Doth it consist with the poverty of those Ages, for Eutychianus to decree That Martyrs should be Buried in Purple Lab. p. 913. Bin. pag. 167. col. 2.? or with its charitv, for the same Pope to forbid Christians to pray for Hereticks Lab. p. 921. Bin. pag. 171. col. 1.; when our Lord bids them pray for their Enemies? I should tire the Reader and my self, if I proceeded to Rake together any more Instances; and these may suffice to shew, That these Epistles were not writ in those early Ages.

§. 13. Thirdly, The same may be proved from the many Absurdities found in these Decretals, arguing the Author to be Illiterate and Ignorant; Whereas the Popes, whose Names they falsly bear, were prudent and Learned Men; however well skilled in Holy Scripture: Yet Anacletus is made to say, that the Apostles chose the LXX Disciples Lab. p. 527. Bin. pag. 48. col. 2., which the Gospel affirms were chosen by Christ himself: He also weakly derives Cephas (the Syriac Name of Peter, signifying a Stone) from the Greek word [...], and saith it signifies a Head, and proves Peter's Supremacy by this silly mistake Lab. p. 529. Bin. pag. 49. col. 2. Vid. Causab. in Baron. pag. 98.: It looks very ridiculously in Pope Antherus in his Epistle to say, it is not fit for one in my Mean condition to judge others, nor to say any thing of the Ministers of the Churches Lab. p. 630. Bin. pag. 92. col. 2.; but indeed the Forger stole these Words out of S. Hieroms first Epistle to Heliodorus, and foolishly applied them to the Pope: The Decretal of Stephen tells the Gallican Church, what the Holy Apostolic and Universal Church had undertaken to observe, as if they had been no part of the Universal Church Lab. p. 729. Bin. pag. 132. col. 2.: But nothing is more Ridiculous than the foolish Expositions of Scripture, which Popes ought to interpret Infallibly; but these Epistles make Pope Alexander prove, that Holy-water doth sanctify, by Heb. ix. 13, 14. where the Ashes of an Heifer are said to Purify the unclean, and the Blood of Christ to purge the Conscience: And he interprets Hos. iv. 8. where the Priests are said to [Page]eat up the Sins of the People, of blotting out their Sins by their Prayers Epist. Alex. 1. Bin. pag. 57, & Ep. 2. Bin. p. 59.; Pope Pius proves Bishops are only to be judged by God, because (John II.) Christ drove the Buyers and Sellers out of the Temple with his own hands Lab. p. 571. Bin. pag. 68. col. 2.. Pope Anicetus proves, Priests ought to shave their Crowns, because S. Paul saith, It is a shame for Men to have long hair, 1 Cor. XI. Lab. p. 581. Bin. pag. 72. col. 2.; which the Apostle speaks of Lay-men as well as Clergy-men, and so the same Logic would prove, that Lay-men also should shave their Crowns. Pope Soter proves, that Nuns must not touch the Holy Vessels, by S. Pauls saying, 2 Cor. XI. He had espoused the Corinthians (both Men and Women) to one Husband, even Christ Lab. p. 584. Bin. pag. 75. col. 1.. Pope Stephen proves, That Bishops cught not to be disturbed, by that place in the Psalms, The Heavens declare the glory of God, and the Firmament sheweth his handy work Lab. p 732. Bin pag. 134. col. 1.; And to name no More, Pope Foelix is very happy in that he can make out, That we ought not to persecute and disturb Our Brethren, from Rom. V. 1, 2. When we were Enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son: And from Math. X. Fear not them which can kill the body, &c. he proves, We must not persecute nor disturb Preachers and Doctors, because their Souls do not dye with their Bodies Lab. p. 906. Bin. pag. 164. col. 2.. All these impertinent Inferences from Holy Scripture, shew the Forger of these Epistles was some ignorant and impudent Impostor; but none can suppose those holy Primitive Bishops would abuse Scripture and themselves at this rate.

§. 14. Fourthly, this further appears, From many Quotations in these Epistles, which are taken verbatim out of Authors, that lived and writ long after all these Popes were dead, in whose Names these Epistles are forged; wherefore they could not write them. Now this infallible Mark of their Forgery appears first, in that these Epistles do all generally cite Scripture, according to S. Hieroms Translation De Marca makes this an insallible Note, that these Epistles are forged. De Concord. lib. 3. cap. 5., which was not made in their days; yet Clement in his 4th and 5th Epistles, Euaristus in both his Epistles, Telesphorus in [Page] his Decretal, and indeed all the rest of them who have occasion to quote Scripture, do use the very Words of S. Hierom, and that sometimes for a whole Page together, as the Reader will find by comparing these Quotations with the Vulgar Latin Bible. But Learned Men know that the Latin Fathers, who lived before S. Hierom's Translation was extant, used another Version very different from that, and even Pope Cornelius in that genuine Epistle of his, which is preserved in S. Cyprian, doth not follow S. Hierom's Translation Lab. p. 68 [...]. Bin. pag. 113. col. 2.; but his Forged ones do: Which is a Proof undeniable, That he who Forged these Epistles, lived after S. Hierom's Translation was grown common. Besides; Anacletus is made to cite a long Passage verbatim out of S. Hierom's Epistle to Nepotian, which was writ almost 300 years after his time Ep. 3. Anacl [...]ti, Lab. 529. [...]in. 49.. Pope Eleutherius cites a Law out of the Theodosian Code, Judicantem cuncta rimari oportet, &c. Lab. p. 588. Bin. pag. 76. col. 1., which was made 300 years after this Popes death, and this convinced Contius and Baronius, that this Epistle was Forged after Theodosius his Reign; yet Binius hath the Impudence to say, Perhaps the Code borrowed this Passage from the Epistle; but Labbé is so ashamed of this bold Falsehood, that in his Margen he writes, Binius in this is mistaken; and he had reason for that Note, since this is not the only place in the seigned Decretals where the Code is cited. Labbé owns that the second forged Epistle for Pope Eutychianus quotes a Law verbatim out of Cod. Theod. lib. 9. Tit. [...], & 2. Lab. p. 917. Bin. pag. 169. col. [...].. Pope Zepherine also cites Imperial Laws and Edicts, Forbidding Men to cite a Bishop despoiled of his goods, into any Secular Judicature, till all were restored Lab. p. 606. Bin. pag. 82. col. 2. the same Passage also is cited out of the Secular Laws in Pope Stephen's second Epistle Lab. p. 732. Pin. pag. 134. col. 1.. But it is most certain there could be no such Laws in these Popes times who lived under Pagan Emperors; nor a Law to forbid the People to conspire against their Bishops, which yet Calixtus cites in his second Epistle Lab. p. 612. Bin. pag. 85. col. 1.. Moreover, Antherus cites a long Passage, word for word, out of S. Hierom's Epistle [Page] to Heliodorus Lab. p. 630. Bin. pag. 92. col. 2.; Pope Lucius is made to use (as Labbé confesseth) the Words of his Successor Agatho, in the Sixth Council of Constantinople, 300 years after Lab. p. 721. Bin. pag. 129. col. 1.: And yet Bellarmin cites this place of the Forged Epistle twice, to prove the Pope's Infallibility, Bell. de Rom. Pontif. l 4. c. 3. & de Verb. Dei, lib. 3. cap. 5. Pope Sixtus the Second, His first Epistle is stollen most of it out of Ithacius and Varimadus, who lived many Ages after him Lab. p. 820. Bin. pag. 156.. In Eutychianus's first Epistle, there are two whole Pages transcribed out of his Successor, Pope Leo's 97th Epistle Lab. p. 914. Bin. pag. 168. col. 1.: And Gains his Decretal Epistle, steals two large Passages from the same Pope Leo's twelfth Sermon on the Passion, and his 97th Epistle Lab. p. 925. Bin. pag. 172. col. 2.. Finally, whosoever will take pains to observe Labbe's Margen shall find, that he with great diligence hath marked in the Margen of all these Forged Epistles, the very places of later Authors out of which they are stollen, and transcribed by their cheating Composer, who patcht them up together out of the Writings of S. Hilary, S. Hierom, Pope Leo, Innocent, Gelasius, and Gregory, &c. who lived many years after all these Popes were dead, which is an Unanswerable Proof, that they could not be writ by those whose Names they bear.

§ 15. Fifthly, Those Popes could not but know their own Times; and if they had writ them, they could not have been mistaken in Chronology, or in the Date of their Epistles; but the Forger of them had so little skill in the Times for which he invented them, that he is almost every where erroneous in his Computation. The two first Epistles of Clement are written to S. James after S. Peter's death; yet it is confessed by Binius, S. James dyed six or seven years before S. Peter. Binius would solve this by saying, The Name of James crept into the Title instead of Simeon; but alass! the Name of James is repeated often in the very Body of the Epistles, and that proves them Forged Lab. p. 82. & pag. 98. Bin. pag. 27, & pag. 34.. The Names of the Consuls also by which most of these Epistles are Dated, must have been right if they had [Page] been writ by these old Bishops of Rome, who could not be ignorant of the true Consuls in their own time; but alas! they are so generally false, that Binius in his Notes, in vain labours to excuse some few of them, and is forced to own the rest to be false; so that Surius was more cunning to leave all the Consuls Names out of his Edition, Because (he saith) Calvin takes occasion from thence to despise all the Epistles Praesat. Laur. Surii ap. Lab. Tom. 1. pag. 13.; and doubtless the Dates are as true as the Epistles, both having sufficient Marks upon them of a Modern Impostor, unskilled in those Times. And it is evident, that the Pontifical names the same false Consuls, so that either one Author forged the Popes Lives and their Epistles, or the Inventer of these Epistles took the Consuls Names so constantly from the Pontifical, that he imitates him in false-spelling the Consuls names, and in joyning Men who were never Consuls together; yea, because that Fabulous Pontifical usually Names no Consuls, but those in Office at Every Popes Entrance and Death, This Forger of the Epistles dates them all either by the first or last Consuls of every Pope, as if all the Popes had only written Epistles in their first and last years: A Few Examples of these Errors shall suffice.

The Pontifical makes Pope Euaristus to enter when Valens and Vetus were Consuls, and to be martyred when Gallus and Bradua were Consuls, and so the Forger dates his first Epistle by the names of his first Consuls, and the second Epistle by the Consuls of his last year: But alas! both the Pontifical and Epistles are wofully mistaken, since Euaristus (as Baronius proves) entred the 13th year of Trajan, that is, fourteen years after the Consulship of Valens and Vetus, and two years after the Consulship of Gallus and Bradua; so that by this Account he writ Decretal Epistles long before he was Pope Lab. p. 532. Bin. pag. 51. col. 2.: So also, whereas Pope Alexander really sat in Adrian the Emperors time, and Trajan was dead before his entrance, yet one of his Epistles is dated with Trajan as one Consul, and Helianus [Page] as the other; but these two were never Consuls together Lab. p. 542. Bin. pag. 55. col. 2.: And his second Epistle is dated by the Consuls of Adrian's first yea [...], whereas Pope Alexander came but into his See in Adrian's third year. I will not trouble my self with any more Instances, because there are none of these Dates true, and many of them with the Pontifical (which guides the Forgery) so grosly false, as to make Popes write Epistles before they were chosen, and after they were dead Exempli gratia, Telesphori Ep. 1. A [...]ceti Ep. 1. Zepherin. 1 & 2. Pontiani Ep. 2. Fabiani Ep. 3. Cornelis Ep. 1, 2. & in mult [...] aliis.; which is an undeniable Evidence, that the Inventer of these Epistles was a Modern Cheat, ignorant of the true Times both of the Consuls and the Popes. There are other Errors also besides the Dates, which shew, the Bungling Author of these Epistles neither understood Chronology nor History. The Pontifical, before it was corrected, had made Anicetus Pope, Pius his Predecessor; and therefore Pius his third Epistle doth not reckon him among the Priests at Rome, but puts in Eleutherius as one of Pius his Presbyters Lab. p. 576. Bin. pag. 70. col. 2., who was but a Deacon in the time of his Successor Anicetus Euseb. hist. lib. 4. cap. 22. & Brev. Rom. Ma [...] 26.. The same Epistle makes Cerinthus the Heretic to be alive, and busie at Rome in seducing Men, An. 166; yet Binius before tells us he was present in the Synod at Hierusalem An. Christi 51, at which Synod, if he were but Nineteen years of Age, he must in Pius his time have been 130, which is incredible; but Binius saith, this may be believed, because the first Epistle of Pius mentions Hermes (named by S. Paul, Rom. XVI.) who set forth a Book about this time An. 158; which Hermes, if he were but only 34 year old An. Christi 62, when S. Paul writ his Epistle to the Romans, must be 130 years of Age, when he set forth this Book; but in conclusion, the Story of Hermes and his Apocryphal Book is a meer Fable, stollen out of the Pontifical Lab. p. 572. Bin. pag. 68. col. 2., and Binius hath no way to defend one of these Fictions, but with another equally absurd. Again, Pope Victor is made to summon one Theophilus (Bishop of Alexandria) to a Council at Rome; but there was no Theophilus Bishop there in Victor's time, Severus was then Bishop of that See, and this Theophilus [Page] was Bishop of Caesarea in Palestine Lab. p. 593. Bin. pag. 78. col. 1. Euseb. lib. 5. cap. 22.; but if Victor had really writ this Epistle, he could not have made so gross a Mistake: In like manner Antherus Epistle mentions one Eusebius, as then Bishop of Alexandria Lab. p. 630. Bin. pag. 92. col. 2., who was not Bishop there till two or three Ages after Dodwel. ap. Cestr. diss. 2. cap. 6.. The first Epistle of Pope Fabian, dated in his first year, mentions Novatus the Heretic coming out of Africa to Rome, and seducing Novatian, with others Lab. p. 636. Bin. pag. 92. col. 2.; but Baronius out of Eusebius and S. Cyprian assures us, that Novatus came not to Rome till Fifteen years after Baron. An. 238. §. 9.. Wherefore these Epistles were devised by a later Author, who knew neither the History nor Chronology of those Ages for which he invented these Epistles; but had only the Fabulous Pontifical in his eye, and follows it in all its Errors and Absurdities: So that since the Pontifical makes Pope Hyginus an Athenian, Pope Pius an Italian, and Pope Soter born in Campania; Isidore forges three Epistles for H [...]ginus, To the Athenians; for Pius, To his Italian Brethren; for Soter, To all the Campanians: And when the Pontifical falsly devises several Superstitious Rites, begun in the corrupt Ages, and other Usages, to have been first appointed by some of the Ancient Popes, the said Isidore upon that always forges an Epistle in those Popes Names to enjoyn those Rites; and hence Pope Alexander writes an Epistle about Holy-Water Epist. 1. Alexander.; Sixtus, about none but the Clergies touching Consecrated Vessels Sixti Ep. 2.; Telesphorus, about keeping Lent Seven Weeks Telesphor. Ep 1.; Pius, about keeping Easter upon Sunday Pii Ep. 1.; Anicetus, about Shaving Priests Crowns Aniceti Epist 1.; Calixtus, about four Ember Weeks Calixti Epist. 1.; and so did other Popes, whereas most of these Rites were setled long after, and only prove these Epistles were forged by Isidore.

[Page] §. 16. Now though it be so apparent and undensable, that these Epistles are Forged, and consequently of no Authority; yet the Roman Church hath made great use of them in the Ignorant Ages: For Binius notes all along in his Margen, what Sections of them are transcribed into their Canon Law; and even in later times their Writers against the Protestants do commonly cite their Infamous Impostures, to prove the Supremacy of the Pope, his Infallibility, and right to Appeals; as also for the exemption of the Clergy, their Celibacy and Habits, and to prove their Mass with its Ceremonies, Auricular Confession, Apocryphal Books, Tradition, Chrism, Veneration of Relicks and Martyrs, &c. and Cook in his Censura Patrum, hath noted the several Epistles, and the Authors which cite them, saving us the labour of instancing: And therefore we will only make a few general Observations upon this matter, and so dismiss these Forgeries.

Observ. I. That since the Romanists have no other genuine Ancient Authors, to prove these New Doctrines and Practices by; but are forced generally to place these apparent Forgeries in the Fore-front of all their Authorities, we may conclude these Points of their Religion are all Innovations, unheard of in the Primitive Ages; so that Isidore was forced to invent these Epistles almost 800 years after Christ, to give some shew of Antiquity to them; and these Points were in those Ignorant Times mistaken by this means, for Primitive Usages and Opinions, and so got footing in the World under that disguise; but now that the Fallacy is discovered, the Doctrines and Practices ought to be disowned as well, as the Epistles on which they are built.

Observ II. There are many other Points of the Roman Religion, which are not so much as mentioned in any of these Forged Epistles, such as Worship of Images, Formal Praying to the Saints, and to the Virgin Mary; Transubstantiation, Half-Communion, and Adoration[Page]of the Host, Purgatory, Indulgences, and Justification by Merits, with some others. Now these are so New, that in Isidore's time, when he invented these Epistles they were not heard of nor received, no not in the Roman Church; for if they had, no doubt this Impostor, who was so zealous to get Credit for all the Opinions and Usages of that Church which he knew of, would have made some Popes write Epistles to justifie these also, and his silence concerning them makes it more than probable, that these were all invented since the year of Christ 800.

Observ. III. Though the later Romanists frequently cite these Forged Decretals, yet no genuine Author or Historian for Seven hundred years after Christ did ever Quote or Mention them, no not so much as any of the Popes themselves in all that Period. Now it is morally impossible so many important Points should be so clearly decided by so many Ancient Bishops of so Famous a Church, and yet no Author ever take notice of it. And doubtless when the Popes attempted to be Supreme, and claimed Appeals about the year 400, Zosimus and Boniface, who quarrelled with the Eastern and African Bishops about these Points, and were so hard put to it for Evidence, as to seign some private Canons were made at the first general Council of Nice, would certainly have cited these Epistles, which are so clear Evidence for their pretences, if they had either seen or heard of them; but they do not once name them in all that Controversie, which shews they were not then in being; yea, those who know Church History, do clearly discern, that the main Points setled by these Epistles, were things disputed of about the Seventh and Eighth Centuries, a little before Isidore's time; and therefore these Forgeries must never be cited for to prove any Point to be Ancient or Primitive.

[Page] §. 17. Obs. IV. Though the Inventer of these Epistles was so zealous a Bigot for the Roman Cause, yet many things are to be found in them, which contradict the present Tenents of that Church. For whereas the Pope now claims an Universal Supremacy even over Jerusalem it self; Clement's first Epistle is directed to James the Bishop of Bishop's, Ruling the Hebrew Church at Jerusalem, and all the Churches every where founded by Divine providence Lab. pag. 82. Bin. pag. 27.. Anacletus first Epistle orders all the Clergy present to receive, under pain of Excommunication Lab. p. 511. Bin. pag. 42. col. 1.; which is not observed now in the Roman Church: Pope Telesphorus orders a Mass on the Night before Christmas, and forbids any to begin Mass, before nine a Cleek Lab. p. 562. Bin. pag. 64. col. 2.; But Binius confesses their Church doth not now observe either of these Orders: Pope Hyginus forbids all foreign Jurisdiction, because it is unfit, they should be Judged abroad, who have Judges at home Lab. p. 567. Bin. pag. 66. col. 2.; So the third Epistle of Pope Fabian, appoints that every Cause shall be tried where the Crime is committed; which passage is also in a genuine Epistle of S. Cyprian to Cornelius Lab. p. 698. Bin. pag. 119. col. 2.. And all foreign Jurisdiction is again forbid in Pope Felix his second Epistle Lab p. 906. Bin. pag. 164. col. 2., which passages do utterly destroy Appeals to Rome, unless they can prove all the Crimes in the World are committed there: The second Epistle of Fabian allows the People to reprove their Bishop if he Err in matters of Faith Lab. p. 640. Bin. pag. 97. col. 1.; the same Liberty also is given to the People, in Cornelius second Epistle Lab. p. 671. Bin. pag. 110. col. 2.; which seems to make the People Judges in Matter of Faith, a thing which the Modern Romanists charge upon the Protestants as a great Error: From these and many other passages we may see, that these Impostures do not in all Points agree with the present Roman Church.

§. 18. I have now done with the Epistles themselves, and proved them to be apparent Forgeries; I will only give the Reader some cautions about those partial Notes, printed on them both in Binius and Labbè, which though they frequently correct, confute and alter divers passages [Page] in these Epistles; Yet if any thing look kindly upon the Roman Church, they magnifie and vindicate it; but if it seem to condemn any of their Usages, they reject and slight it: For Example, Pope Pius cites Coloss. XI. 18. against worshiping Angels, and the Notes, reject both S. Hierom's and Theodoret's Exposition of the place, as Reflecting on their Churches practice, adding that S. Paul condemned Cerinthus in that place, for giving too much Honour to Angels; Yet Binius soon after tells us that Cerinthus was so far from Teaching they were to be Adored, that he thought they were to be Hated as Authors of Evil Not Bin. in 1. Ep. Pii. Lab. pag. 571. Bin. pag. 68.. Pope Zepherine cites the Apostolical Canons for the Priviledges of his See, and saith there were but Seventy of them Lab. p. 605. Bin. pag. 81. col. 2.: But Binius in his Notes saith he refers to the Seventy third Canon: Yet if the Reader consult that Seventy third Canon, the Pope's See is not named there; yea, that Canon forbids a Bishop to Appeal from his Neighbor Bishop, unless it be to a Council: Out of Calixtus fust Epistle which Labbè owns to be a manifest Forgery; Binius Notes cite a Testimoy for the Supremacy, calling it an evident Testimony and worthy to be Noted Lab. p. 609. Bin. pag. 83. col. 2.; Pontianus in his Exile brags, ridiculously about the Dignity of Priests, in his second Epistle Lab. p. 624. Bin. pag. 90. col. 1.. And Binius his Notes vindicate this improbable Forgery by a spurious Epistle attributed to Ignatius, which saith—the Laity must be subject to the Deacons: but Binius cites it thus—The Laity, of which number are all Kings, even the most Christian Kings, must be subject to the Deacons; by which falsifying the Quotation, he makes the meanest Deacon in the Roman Church superior to the French King: Again, in the Vacancy after Fabian, the Clergy of Rome and S. Cyprian writ to each other Lab. p. 654. Bin. pag. 103. col. 1.: Where though the Roman Clergy write with all respect to the Clergy of Carthage, and give them humble Advice, not Commands; yea, and thank S. Cyprian for his humility, in acquainting them with his Affairs, not as Judges of his concerns, but Partners in his Counsels. Binius notes that these Letters do sufficiently shew the Prerogative of the Roman Church—and that S. Cyprian not only desired the [Page]Counsel, but submitted to the Judgment of Rome. The first Epistle of Cornelius tells a false story out of the Pontifical about his removing the Bodies of S. Peter and Paul; and though Binius own this part of the Epistle to be Forged; Yet in his Notes on the Pontifical Lab. p. 667. Bin. pag. 108. col. 1., he strives to reconcile the differing ways of relating this Fabulous Translation, and slies to Miracles to make those Lies hang together. Cornelius third Epistle is genuine, being preserved in Greek by Eusebius, and yet Binius prints a corrupt Latin Version with it, which where the Greek speaks of one Bishop in a Catholic Church—Reads it—in this Catholic Church; and the Notes Bin. p. 112. col. 2. impudently prove by this Corruption, that the Pope is the sole Bishop of the whole Catholic Church: Of which Labbè was so much ashamed, that he prints Valesius's Latin Version of this Epistle, wherein the ground of Binius his Observation is quite taken away. S Cyprian hath several Epistles printed among the Decretals, wherein are many things which overthrow the Roman Supremacy and Infallibility, upon which no remark is placed, but an obscure passage wherein S. Cyprian saith, that whether he or Cornelius should be the Survivor, must continue his Payers for the afflicted Christians Lab. p. 703. Bin. pag. 120.. There it is impertiently noted, That the deceased pray for the living: Pope Stephen's second Epistle asserts, Primates were in use before Christianity Lab. p. 732. Bin. pag. 134. col. 1.. Binius in his Notes out of Baronius, saith Herodotus confesses the same thing; but Labbè declares that some body had imposed upon Baronius, for there is no such thing to be found in Herodotus; and Adrian in Vopiscus (his other Authority) evidently speaks of the Christian Bishop of Alexandria Scriptor. Histor. August. pag. 960.: Wherefore Pope Stephen, or he that made the Epistle for him, was mistaken: It is an impudent thing also in Binius to note upon one of S. Cyprian's Letters about Basilides and Martialis, You see the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome: For these two Bishops were justly condemned in Spain, and unjustly absolved by the Pope, after which S. Cyprian condemns them again, only certifying the Bishop of Rome that he had justly nulled his Absolution; so that we may [Page] rather note, You see the Primacy of the Bishop of Carthage Bin. p. 136. col. 1.. Pope Eutychianus first Epistle following the Erroneous Pontifical Lab. p. 914. Bin. pag. 168. col. 1., Orders that only Beans and Grapes shall be offered on the Altar: Binius saith this is the Fourth Canon of the Apostles, whereas that fourth Canon doth not name Beans, and the Third Canon forbids all kind of Pulse to be offered on the Altar; so that the Impostor was deceived, and Binius becomes Ridiculous by attempting to defend him: I shall not need produce any more instances, these will suffice to warn those who study the Councils, not to rely upon any thing in these Notes, which are so full of partiality and Errors, of weak reasonings and false Quotations, of ignorant and wilful Mistakes, that there is little heed to be given to them.

§. 19. I doubt I have been too tedious in discovering the Forgeries of these Decretal Epistles; but the Reader must consider they take up the greatest part of this first Period in the Volumes of the Councils, and we have here considered them all together: And now we have nothing to observe in this Century, except the Apostolical Constitutions, which are left out in Binius, but printed in Labbè, in Greek and Latin, next after Clement's genuine Epistle to the Corinthians: Now the Constitutions are a very ancient Forgery, compiled about the end of the Fourth, and beginning of the Fifth Century, of the Rites of which Ages they give a very good account, and have little or nothing in them, to justify the more Modern Corruptions of Rome; for which cause it is likely Binius omitted them: But if we know before hand that the Apostles did not make them, nor Clement Bishop of Rome collect them, and can pardon the boldness of making the Apostles the speakers, they are useful to be read, as a writing composed in the Fourth or Fifth Age.

[Page]

CHAP. II.

Of the Forgeries in the Second Century.

§. 1. THis Period begins with the Life of Anacletus, who was made Pope, as they say, An. 104. but the Fabulous Pontifical brings him in, the 10th Consulship of Domitian, that is, just upon the fictitious Cletus his death, and before Clement entred, who yet is there said to be his Predecessor; so blundered and uncertain is that ignorant Writer; yet, except what he saith, no other Author mentions any deeds of Anacletus; and though Binius in his Notes affirm, Anacletus was most famous for many eminent deeds (s), yet he cannot name (a) Lab. p. 511. Bin. pag. 42. col. 1. one of them.

Euaristus his Life follows, whom the Pontifical and the Breviary of Sixtus the Fifth Lab. p. 532. Bin. pag. 51. col 2., make to have been Pope in the time of Domitian, Nerva and Trajan; but Binius out of Baronius takes upon him to correct both the Pontifical and the Roman Office also, assuring us he began in the 13th year of Trajan; but alas! these first Bishops of Rome were so obscure, that nothing but their Name is upon Record in Authentic Authors. And what is said in the Pontifical, and the Notes, concerning their several Parents, Countries, times of sitting in that See, and all their Actions almost, are meer Impostures of later Ages, as the Learned Dr. Pierson proves in his afore-cited Posthumous Dissertation.

Alexander's Life is next, wherein Binius again corrects the Pontifical and the Breviary; which say, He Ruled the Church in the days of Trajan Lab. p. 541. Bin. pag. 55. col. 1. Brev. Sixt. 5. in Ma [...] 3.; affirming, he entred not On the Papacy till Adrian's time: But there was more need to Correct the Breviary of his Infallible Church, for those fabulous Lessons it orders to be read in the Church on this Popes day, about Alexander's converting Hermes a Praefect of Rome, Quirinus [Page] a Tribune and Balbina his Daughter, who also is Sainted; yet after all, there were no such persons in those Offices in Rome at that time Cestriens. dissert. pos [...]hum. diss. 2. cap. 7. pag. 227.; and the whole Story is a Fiction taken out of a fabulous Tract called the Acts of Alexander, yet this Legend Binius's Notes defend.

Of Xystus, the next Pope, nothing is memorable, but that he is said by the Pontifical to be a Martyr. Eusebius saith, he died in Adrian's Twelfth year, and mentions not his Martyrdom Euseb. lib. 4. c. 5.; but Binius contradicts him, and will have him to suffer in the 3d year of Antoninus Lab. p. 554. Bin. pag. 60. col. 2.; and this without any Authority for it, but his own.

Telesphorus, according to Eusebius, was the Seventh Pope from St. Peter, and came in the Twelfth year of Adrian Euseb. ut supr., that is, An. 130. But Binius following the Pontifical, makes him the Eighth Pope, and saith he entred the Third year of Antoninus, that is, Twelve years after; and in the Notes on his Life Lab. p. 559. Bin. pag. 63. col. 2., upon the Pontificals saying, he Ordained Thirteen Bishops in his Eleven years, he observes, that these Bishops were to be sent into divers parts of the World; from whence (he saith) it is clear that the Pope was to take care not of Rome only, but the whole World. But first, no inference from so fabulous an Author, as the Pontifical, can be clear: And secondly, if there were so many Bishops really Ordained by Popes, as the Pontifical doth pretend, there are but Sixty three Bishops reckoned by him from S. Peter's death to this time, which is near 100 years. From whence (if we grant the Matter of Fact) it is rather clear, That the Pope Ordained only some Italian Bishops near Rome; for otherwise when so many Bishops were Martyred, there must have been far more Ordained for the World in that space of time.

Hyginus, the next Pope, began (saith Eusebius) in the first year of Antoninus; but Binius saith, he was made Pope the Fifteenth of that Emperor; the Reader will guess whether is to be trusted: The Pontifical could find this Pope nothing to do, but to distribute the Orders [Page] of the Clergy, which Pope Clement (according to him) had done long before Lab. p. 565. Bin. pag. 65. col. 2..

§. 2. From the Notes on Pope Pius Life Lab. p. 568. Bin. pag 67. col. 2., we may observe there was no great care of old taken about the Pope's Succession: For Optatus, S. Augustine, and S. Hierom, with the Old Pontifical (before it was altered Cestrieus. diss. 2. cap. 11. pag. 65., place Anicetus before Pius, but the Greeks place Pius before Anicetus; and in this Binius thinks we are to believe them rather than the Latins. The rest of the Notes are spent in vindicating an improbable Story, of an Angel bringing a Decree about Easter to Hermes the Popes Brother, who writ a Book about keeping it on the Lord's Day; yet after all there is a Book of Hermes now extant that hath nothing in it about Easter; and there was a Book of old writ by Hermes, well known to the Greeks, and almost unknown to the Latins (though writ by a Pope's Brother) read in the Eastern Churches, and counted Apocryphal in the Western: But we want another Angel to come and tell us, whether that now extant be the same or no, for Binius cannot resolve us, and only shews his Folly in defending the absurd and incongruous Tales of the Pontifical.

Anicetus either lived before or after Pius, and the Pontifical makes him very busie in Shaving his Priests Crowns, never mentioning what he did to suppress those many Heretics who came to Rome in his time; but it tells us he was Buried in the Coemetery of Calistus Lab. p. 579. Bin. pag. 72. col. 1., though Calistus (who gave that Burial-place a name) did not dye till Fifty years after Anicetus. But Binius (who is loath to own this gross Falshood) saith, You are to understand it in that ground which Calistus made a Burying-place afterward; yet it unluckily falls out, that Amcetus's Successor.

Pope Soter was also Buried (according to the Pontifical) in Calistus his Coemetery; and afterwards Pope Zepherines's Burial-place is described to be not far from that of Calistus, so well was Calistus's Coemetery known, [Page] even before it was made a Coemetery, and before he was Pope.

Eleutherius succeeded Soter, and as the Pontifical saith, he received a Letter from Lucius King of Britain, that he might be made a Christian by his Command; which hint probably first produced those two Epistles between this Pope and King Lucius Usserii Antiq. Brit cap. 4, 5, &c. & ap. Spelm. Tom. I. Concil., which Binius leaves out, though he justifies the Story, of which it were well we had better Evidence than the Pontifical. This is certain, the Epistles were forged in an Age when Men could write neither good Latin, nor good Sense; and I am apt to fancy, if Isidore had put them into a Decretal, they would have been somewhat more polite; so that it is likely these Epistles were made by some Monks, who thought it much for our Honour, to have our Christianity from Rome.

§. 3. This Century concludes with the bold Pope Victor, of whose excommunicating the Eastern Bishops (for not agreeing with him about Easter) we have a large account in Eusebius Euseb. hist. lib. 5. cap. 23, 24, &c.; but of that there is nothing in the Pontifical; only we are told he had a Council at Rome, to which he called Theophilus (Bishop of Alexandria) and decreed Easter should be observed upon a Sunday, &c. Upon this hint, and the Authority of a better Author, we grant there were at these times divers Councils held about keeping Easter: But the Editors of the Councils (though Eusebius be the only credible Author which gives an Account of them) presume to contradict him. For Eusebius makes the Council at Caesarea in Palestina to be first, and makes Theophilus of that City, and Narcissus of Jerusalem, Presidents of it; but the Editors (for the honour of the Pope) place the Roman Council first Lab. p. 596. Bin. pag. 79. col. 1, 2. Vid. Euseb. lib. 5. cap. 22., and upon the bare Credit of the Pontifical (who mistook Alexandria for Caesarea) say, That Theophilus was present at it; whereas Eusebius saith, This Roman Council was the Second called about this Question, consisting of the Bishops about Rome. Secondly, The Editors place the [Page] Council of Caesarea, affirming out of a suspicious Fragment of Bede (who lived many Centuries after,) That it was Called by Victor's Authority; whereas Eusebius (as we see) assigns other Presidents to that Council; yea, they intitle all the other Councils about this Matter, Under Victor; though in Eusebius they are set down as independent upon one another, The Bishops of each Country Calling them by their own Authority. And though Binius's Notes Lab. p. 598. Bin. pag. 80. col. 1. brag of Apostolical and Universal Tradition; The Bishops of Asia produced a contrary Tradition, and called it Apostolical, for keeping Easter at a different time; which shews how uncertain a ground Tradition is for Articles of Faith, when it varied so much in delivering down a practical Rite through little more than one Century: And the Asian Bishops persisting in their Custom, and despising Victor's Excommunication, proves, They knew nothing of his Supremacy or Infallibility in those days. We grant Victor was in the right as to the time of Easter, and that which he and other Councils now agreed on, was agreed upon also at the Council of Nice; but Binius stretches it too far when he pretends, That general Council confirmed Victor's Sentence of Excommunition: For Victor's Authority is never urged in the Nicene Council, nor his Excommunication mentioned; and we know from Eusebius, That the Bishops of his own Opinion severely reproved him for offering to pass so rash a Sentence, and to impose his Sense upon remote Churches: So that thus far there is no genuine Proof of any Supremacy exercised or claimed by the Roman Church; for the Decretals, which only pretend to make it out, are notorious Forgeries.

[Page]

CHAP. III.

Of the Forgeries in the Third Century.

§. 1. THis Century begins with the Life of Pope An. Dom. 203. Zepherine, who Sat Eight years, saith the Pontifical; but the Notes tell you, He Sat Eighteen, which is a small Error in that fabulous Author: Yet the Editors believe upon his Credit, that this Pope ordered Vessels of Glass to be used in the Mass Lab. p. 603. Bin. pag. 81. col. 1.; and the Notes prove it by Pope Gregory the Great, who lived Four hundred years after this time. However, if we allow the Matter of Fact upon the Testimonies of S. Hierom and Epiphanius; it will follow, That in those Ages (when they used Glass Cups) they did not believe Transubstantiation; for if they had, they would not have ventured Christ's Blood in so brittle a Vessel, but have forbid the use of Glasses, as they have done in the Roman Church since this Opinion came in among them Dailé de cult. relig. ap. Latin. lib. 2. cap. 22..

Under this Pope the Editors place an African Council, and say it was Reprobated; yet they cannot make it appear, that this Pope so much as knew of it. Nor was his Advice or Consent at all desired in that case, which was never disputed at Rome till Pope Stephen's time (as themselves confess) viz. Fifty years after this. Council was held; from whence we learn, That every Province in this Age believed they had sufficient Authority to determine Controversies in Religion among themselves, without the Consent of the Bishop of Rome.

[Page] §. 2. Though the Pontifical be guilty of many Errors in the Life of Calixtus, and mistake the very Emperors under which he lived and died, the Notes gloss them all fairly over Lab. p. 608. Bin. pag. 83. col. 1., and correct them by the Roman Martyrology, which often follows the Pontifical, and is as fabulous as that. However we are told, That Calixtus was buried Three Miles out of the City; because the Law of the Twelve Tables forbid the Burying of a dead Body within the Walls. Now I would know, if this Law were in force, how that can be true which the Pontifical and the Notes affirm and justifie, That S. Peter, Linus, Cletus, Euaristus, Sixtus, Telesphorus, Hyginus, Pius, and Victor, were All Buried in the Vatican? And what shall we think of the Miracles done by their Relicks and at their Tombs, if no Body know where they were first Buried?

Pope Urban, the Successor of Calixtus, is said in the Pontifical Lab. p. 617. Bin. pag. 87. col. 1., to be Buried in the Coemetery of Praetextatus, which could not then be any Coemetery at all, because Praetextatus was not Martyted till the Persecution under Maximinus, which hapned many years after: And if the Story of S. Cecily in the same Author, be no Truer than his Chronology, the Romanists worship a fictitious Saint.

The Pontifical is forced to feign, That the Emperor Alexander Severus was a Persecutor, contrary to his Character in all Histories of Credit; and this only to make us think, that Calixtus, Urban, and Pope Pontianus his Successor, were Martyrs. However though Eusebius knew not of their Martyrdom Euseb. hist. lib. 6. cap. 15, 17, & 22., the Roman Church adores them all as Martyrs, and have peculiar Days dedicated to their Memories.

Antherus (as the Pontifical says) Sat Twelve years and One Month; and the Notes say, that he Sat only one Month Lab. p. 629. Bin. pag. 92. col. 1.; so that there is but only Twelve years mistaken in this Popes Life: And if he was Pope but one Month, doubtless his Secretaries had need be very swift Writers, or else they could not gather many in [Page] his time. However Binius will make it out, for he brings in a Poetical Hyperbole, Of those Scribes, who could write a Sentence before a man had spoken it; and so were as quick at guessing as writing; and applies this in very serious earnest to this Pope's Notaries, to make us imagine, there were many Acts of Martyrs writ out in this short-lived Pope's time.

§. 3. Pope Fabian, as Eusebius relates, was chosen by occasion of a Dove's lighting on his Head, when the People were met to elect a Pope; of which remarkable Story the fabulous Pontifical takes no notice, but tells us, That in this Popes time Novatus the Heretic came to Rome Lab. p. 638. Bin. pag. 95. col. 2.; that is, say the Notes, Above a year after Pope Fabian was dead, after the Vacancy, and in Pope Cornelius's time; with such absurd Comments do these Gentlemen delight to cover the Ignorance and Falsehood of their Historian; but such Excuses do only more expose him. In this Pope's time were two Councils held, one in Africa, the other in Arabia, and they Intitle them both under Fabian; yet the only Authors, who mention these Councils, do not say Pope Fabian was concerned in either of them Lab. p. 650. Bin. pag. 101. col. 2., and therefore they were not under Fabian.

After this Pope's death there was a Vacancy of more than one whole year, which the Editors, to slatter the Papacy, call (in the style of Princes) An Interregnum; but alas! their admired Monarchy, was now turned into an Aristocracy, and the Clergy governed the Roman Church; to excuse which flaw in their visible Monarchical Succession, the Notes say, The Members next the Head knew it was their parts, to do the office of the Head: Which notable kind of substitution, if it could be made out in the Body Natural, Beheading would not be a Mortal punishment; however, they must say something to make us believe there was always a Visible Head of the Catholic Church, or at least a Neck and Shoulders, which stood for an Head, till Cornelius was chosen Pope: And they called a Council (as they [Page] pretend) in this Vacancy, and writ a Letter of their Determination to all the Churches in the World, that they might all observe what the Empty Chair of Peter had ordered Bin. p. 107. col. 1.. But if any one read the Letter it self, it will appear that this Council was only a voluntary Assembly of the Clergy in Rome, and they met only to confirm S. Cyprian's Opinion, and only writ their Letter to him; but never pretended either to be Judges over Cyprian, or any other part of the Catholic Church.

Pope Cornelius his Life follows, for whose Character we are more obliged to S. Cyprian's Epistles, than to the Pontifical, which invents an idle Story of a Dialogue between Cornelius and Decius the Emperor; and though the Notes own Lab. p. 565 Bin. pag. 108. col. 1., That Decius (who is here pretended to Martyr him) dyed the same Month in which Cornelius entred; yet they will not own the Story to be false, but boldly put in the Name of Volusianus into their Margen instead of Decius. However, the Breviary Breviar. Sixt. 5. 16 dic Septemb. retains the Fiction of Cornelius suffering under Decius, as it doth also the Fable of his Translating the Bodies of S. Peter and S. Paul: But let any considering Man compare the different ways of telling this Sham Story, and he will easily discern, that the Notes cannot reconcile them without flying to a Miracle Lab. p. 567. Bin. pag. 108. col. 1.. It is evident they have told us, the Body of S. Peter was in the Vatican, when Pope Victor was there Buried, An. 203: And there is no Author of Credit mentions their removal into the Catacumbae, and so consequently no reason to believe they were fetcht back from thence in a time of Persecution. Pope Gregory lived 350 years after this, and was very apt to credit feigned Miracles, and he differs much from the Pontifical; so that probably the whole Story is forged, by those who long after began superstitiously to adore the Relicks of Saints. However, it is read in the Roman Church Septemb. 16. and many devout People on the Credit of this Legend make Pilgrimages, and offer Prayers and large Gifts, to the Shrines of these [Page] two Apostles, of whose true Relicks they can have none, because their real Graves are not known.

In this Pope's time there were two Councils holden at Carthage, two at Rome, and one in Italy; all which in the general Titles are said to be held under Cornelius Lab. p. 714. Bin. pag. 126. col. 1.; though the Notes assure us, That those two at Carthage were called by S. Cyprian's Authority, and that the Italian Bishops made a Decree of their own, besides that of Cornelius at Rome. The Roman Councils indeed were holden under Cornelius, as being Bishop of that City; but we may observe, He did not Authoritatively confirm the Sentence of the Council of Carthage, but only consented to it. We may also Note, This African Council calls not Pope Cornelius Father, but Brother, and writes to him as one of their Collegues; yea, they do not except Cornelius, when they Decree, That if any of their Collegues agreed not to their Sentence, he should answer it at the Day of Judgment Lab. p. 718. Bin. pag. 128. col. 1.. Moreover, in the same Letter there is an evident Testimony, that the People in those days were prepared for Martyrdom, by receiving the Eucharistical Cup Lab. p. 717. Bin. pag. 127. col. 2.; which being now denied to the Laity, the Editors pass it by without a Note; yet soon after, where the Council plainly speaks of Confessing the Name of Christ before Persecutors; they have this impertinent Marginal Note, From this and other places, the necessity of Confession is confirmed: As if this belonged to their new invented Auricular Confession.

§. 4. The Notes find divers Faults in the Life of Pope Lucius, yet they would palliare the grossest of all; for the Pontifical says, He was Beheaded by Valerian; the Notes affirm it was by Gallus and Volusiunus; and yet the same Notes tell us, The Pontifical (in saying it was by Vulerian) may be very well and truly expounded Lab. p. 720. Bin. pag. 128. col. 2.. The Reader must understand, It may be so expounded by such kind of Notes, as are designed to make gress Errors seem great Truths.

[Page] Pope Stephen, who succeeded Lucius, fell out with Cyprian and the African Bishops, about the re-baptizing of Heretics, which (though it were the only memorable thing in this Popes Life) the Pontifical never mentions: And the Editors are are so used to put into the Title of all Councils, Under such or such a Pope, that in this Popes time they style those very Councils, Sub Stephano, which were called without his knowledge, and which condemned his Opinion Lab. p 751. pag. 760, &c. Bin. pag. 137, 141, 145, &c., as may be seen in the Councils of Carthage, Iconium, and Africa, where (so easily may Tradition be mistaken) the Re-baptizing of Heretics is asserted to be an Apostolick Tradition, though it were contrary to Pope Stephen's Opinion, and the Tradition of the Roman Church. And when Stephen on this account presumed to Excommunicate the Asian Bishops, Firmilianus (Bishop of Coesarea) in a Letter to S. Cyprian Lab. p. 751. Bin. pag. 141. col. 2., Despises his Sentence, compares the Pope to Judas, complains of his Arrogance, and esteems those to be very silly who took the Roman Bishop's word for an Apostolical Tradition; from which that Church in many Instances had departed. Moreover, He calls him a Schismatic, and affirms, he had by this rash Sentence only cut himself off from the Unity of the Catholic Church. S. Cyprian also, and his Africans Lab. p. 765. Bin. pag. 147. col. 2., condemned this Pope as a Favourer of Heretics, an Enemy to the Church, and one who writ Contradictions, and was void of Prudence; describing him as an Innovator and bringer in of Traditions, contrary to God's Word, as one who obstinately presumed to prefer human Doctrines before Scripture. I grant Pope Stephen was in the right in this Controversie; yet doubtless, if these Bishops had believed the Supremacy, and Infallibility of the Pope and his Roman Council, they could not have used him at this rate: And the Editors are so concerned to cover this rough usage, that they reprint an Epistle of S. Cyprian's Verbatim Lab. p. 740. & pag. 764. Bin. pag. 136. col. 2. & p. 146. col. 2., after this Quarrel was grown hot, which was writ while they two were Friends, and contains very kind Words to Stephen; which Blind is only to make us [Page] think that Cyprian submitted to the Pope at last, though it is apparent he never did so: Again, the Reader may note that Labbè here prints a Tract of some Ancient Author, to justify the Pope's Opinion; but though there be many good Arguments for it from other Topics, the Argument from Tradition, and the determination of the Roman Church, is not urged in the whole Discourse Lab. p. 770., which shews that these were no Arguments allowed in this Writers time: Lastly whereas the third Council of Carthage, severely censures Pope Stephen for taking upon him as Bishop of Bishops, and for compelling his Equals by Tyrannical Terrors to obey him Lab. p. 786. Bin. pag. 149. col. 2. & p. 154. col. 2.: Binius impudently notes upon this, that the Pope was called Bishop of Bishops, to him was the last Refuge in Matters of Faith, and his Determinations were received all the World over as the Oracles of the Holy Ghost: Which is from his Usurping a Title and Authority, to infer he had Right to them; and to prove that all the World received his Determinations, from a Story which shews, that half the Christian World rejected them.

§. 5. The Life of Sixtus the Second, in the Pontifical is one heap of Errors, for the Author seems to mistake him for Xystus the Philosopher; and as the Notes confess, make Decius raise a great Persecution against the Church, Eight year after he was Dead. He also places Valerian before Decius, supposing them to Reign together, and saying Sixtus was Beheaded by Valerian in Decius's time Lab. p. 819. Bin. pag. 155. col. 1.; now Decius was slain two year before Valerian was Emperor: Yet the Notes labour to colour over all these Contradictions, to Salve the Credit of their Missals and Fabulous Maityrology.

Dionysius the next Pope, is said to have been a Monk, upon the credit of the Pontifical Lab. p. 827. Bin. pag. 158. col. 1.; the Notes add that he Lived a Solitary Life, before his Election; yet the Modern Monks have given over that Primitive Custom, and now croud into great Cities: But the Pontifical is so miserably mistaken in the Consuls in this Popes Life, placing those for his last Consuls who were so, two years [Page] before those he Names for his first Consuls, that nothing can be believed on this Authors credit. Under this Pope the Editors have feigned a Council at Rome, to which Dionysius Bishop of Alexandria was Cited, and so far obeyed the Order, as to write an Epistle to clear himself, for which they cite Athanasius Lab. p. 830. Bin. pag. 160. col. 1.: But we must never trust their Quotations where the Supremacy is concerned, without looking into the Authors they cite: And Athanasius only saith Dionysius of Alexandria was accused at Rome, and writ to the Pope to know the Articles complained of, who sent him an Account, upon which he vindicated himself by an Apology: But what is all this to a Roman Council, or a citing Dionysius thither? There were also two Councils at Antioch, about this time as Eusebius tells us Euseb. hist. lib. 7. cap. 22.; But the Editors of their own Head put in that the first of them, was appointed by Dionysius Bishop of Rome, to whom the chief care of the Church was committed—Whereas Eusebius never mentions this Pope as being either concerned in the Council, or consulted about it: but if they will have it under Dionysius, then we may infer, that this Pope approved a saying of this Council, viz. That they knew of no other Mediator between God and Man but only Christ Jesus. The Second Council of Antioch is intituled also, Under Pope Dionysius: Yet it appears by Eusebius Euseb. hist. lib. 7. cap. 24., that this Pope knew not of the Council, till they by their Synodical Epistle informed him of it after they were risen: And in that Epistle they joyn him, and Maximus Bishop of Alexandria together as Collegues and equals, not desiring either of them to confirm their Decrees; but acquainting them with their proceedings, they required them to shew their consent by writing Communicatory Letters to Domnus, who was put in by them, Bishop of Antioch, in the Room of Paulus Samosatenus, ejected for Hersie; and though this Domnus his Father, Demetrianus had been Bishop of Antioch before, yet we hear of no Papal Dispensation to allow him to succeed there: We may also observe, that Firmilianus (who in Pope Stephens [Page] time so much despised the Popes Authority and Infallibility) is by this Council called a Man of blessed Memory: By which we see how little any Ancient and genuine Councils do countenance the Supremacy of the Roman Church, and what need they had to forge Evidence, who would have it taken for a Primitive Doctrine.

§. 6. That Foelix the First was a Martyr, is proved only by the Pontifical, and the Roman Martyrology which often blindly follows it: but why may not the Pontifical be mistaken in the Martyrdom, as well as the Notes confess it to be in the Consuls Lab. p. 903. Bin. pag. 163. col. 1.? And the base Partiality of the Notes appears soon after in citing a place of S. Cyprian, as if he desired to know the Days on which the Martyrs suffered, that he might offer a Sacrifice for them by Names on their Anniversaries Cypr. lib. 3. ep. 6. vel epist. 37. pag. 81. vid. Da [...]lè de cult. relig. Lat. lib. 3. cap. 3. pag. 352.; whereas Cyprian speaks of the Confessors who died privately in Prisons, of whose Names he desires to be informed, that he might celebrate their Memory among the Martyrs: Now there is a great difference between S. Cyprian's and the Protestants practice, to Commemorate the Saints departed; and the Roman way, of offering the Sacrifice of the Mass for the deceased: Yet the Notes would suborn S. Cyprian to give in evidence for this corrupt practice.

Pope Eutychianus lived not long before Eusebiu's time, and he saith he only sat ten Months Euseb. hist. lib. 7. cap. 26.; The Pontifical allows him thirteen Months, but the Notes boldly say he was Pope Eight years Lab. p. 913. Bin. pag. 167. col. 2., and this only upon the Names of two Consuls set down in the Pontifical, and the credit of the Roman Martyrology; but since these two are scarce ever right in their Chronology, we ought to believe Eusebius rather than the Annotator and his despicable Witnesses.

His Successor Gaius lived in Eusebius's own time, and he affirms he sat Fifteen years Euseb. hist. lib. 7. cap. 26.; but the Pontifical allots to him Eleven years only, and so doth the Breviary Brev. Roman. April. 22.; both of them making him Dioclesian's Kinsman, (which Eusebius knew nothing of;) The Notes out of Baronius contradict them all, and ascribe to him Twelve years, [Page] making him Dioclesian's Nephew; and yet the Pontifical saith both that he fled from Dioclesian's Persecution, and died a Confessor. Yet was Crowned with Martyrdom with his Brother Gabinius; which Non-sense Baronius and the Notes also defend.

§. 7. This Century is concluded by the Uunfortunate Marcellinus, who as the Pontifical tells us, did Sacrifice to Idols Lab. p. 930. Bin. pag. 174. col. 2.; and S. Augustine in the Notes plainly supposes it to be true: Yet the Annotator (who dares not deny it) labours to Amuse the Reader by saying, this Story may be plainly refuted and proved false by divers probable Reasons out of Baronius; but because their Mis [...]als and Martyrology do own the thing, he will not go that way to Work: What then? Doth he clearly charge the Infallible Judge with Apostacy? No, he saith, He seemed to deny the Faith by External acts, (that is, Sacrificing to Idols;) Yet by his Internal acts, (it seems Binius knew his thoughts) he did not believe any thing contrary to the Faith: And truly this is an early Instance of Jesuitical Equivocation: But we may make the same Excuse for all the Apostates in the World; and it is plain the Notes care not what they say, to protect their dear Infallibility against the most convincing Truths.

About the very time of this Pope's Apostacy was held a Council at Cirta in Africk; and though S. Augustine, the Author from whom they have all they know about it, say not one Word of Marcellinus, Yet the Editors and Annotator both, put in these Words, that it was under Marcellinus Lab. p. 936. Bin. pag. 177. col. 1, 2.; Where I cannot but wonder, that (since they have invented a Council in the same year to set poor Marcellinus Right again, after his Apostacy;) they did not place that Council first, and then their re conciled Penitent might with a better Grace, have sat at Cirta and Condemned such as fell in the Persecution.

But the most Infamous Forgery, is the Ridiculous Council of Sinuessa Lab. p. 938. Bin. pag. 178., devised by some dull Monk, who could write neither good Sense nor true Latin, inspired only by a blind Zeal for the Roman Church, whose [Page] Infallible Head must be cleared from Apostacy, though it be by the absurdest Fictions imaginable: For he feigns this Apostate Pope met Three-hundred Bishops near Sinuessa, in Dioclesian's time in a Cave, which would hold but Fifty of them at once, and their business was only to hear Marcellinus condemn himself, and to tell him he could be Judged by none. The two first Copies of this Council were so stuffed with Barbarisms, false Latin and Nonsense, and so contrary to each other, that some Body took Pains out of both to devise a third Copy, and by changing and adding at pleasure, brought it at last to some tolerable Sense: Surius and Binius print all three Copies, but Labbè and the Collectio regia leave out the two Originals, and only publish the Third, drest up by a late Hand, which in time may pass for the true account of this Council. But the two first Copies in Binius, yet extant, will give the Reader a good proof into what depths of Ignorance the Monks were fallen, when such Unintelligible and Incoherent stuff as this, and the Letters Forged between the Council of Nice and Pope Sylvester, (which are in the same Style,) were designed to support the Roman Supremacy and Infallibility. I shall not reflect upon the Absurdity, of making the Pope his own Judge, when he denies the Fact, nor the Contradiction of the Councils, saying often They must not judge him; and yet declaring soon after That they have Condemned him Bin. p. 179. 180, & 183.: Whoever will but read this Council over, shall find diversion enough, if Blunders and Dulness be diverting to them. I shall therefore principally note the gross Partiality and Fallacies of the Notes, in colouring over this bare-faced Forgery: First, the Annotator accuses the Century Writers, and English Innovators for rejecting this Rare Council as a Forgery of the Donatists, he should have said of the Romish Monks; yet he makes more Objections against it, than he himself can answer: Protestants wonder that Three-hundred Bishops should dare to meet in times of Persecution: He replies, a far less number did meet on a slighter occasion Fifty [Page] years before, which is but a very indifferent Proof: Well, but to magnify the occasion, he saith, By this Pope's fall, not only the Roman Church, but the whole Christian Religion was in extreme danger; and in the President of the Catholic Faith, the very Foundation of the Church was shaken and almost ruined: Yet a little before he had told us out of S. Augustine, that Marcellinus's fall did no prejudice to the Church, and had affirmed that the ill Deeds of Bishops may hurt themselves, but cannot prejudice the Churches Orthodox Doctrine Bin. p. 175. col. 1. 2.: Again, he proves it could not be an Invention of the Donatists, because they never knew of it; yet presently he owns they objected it to the Catholics, and therefore must know of it, all that S. Augustine saith, being only that they could not prove it: After this Baronius and he say, that no Writer doth mention this City of Sinuessa, nor is there any Memory of such a place or Cave: Which is a great mistake in them both. For Livy, Cicero, Ovid, Martial and Pliny, do all speak of Sinuessa Ferarij Lexic. Geograph. p. 199., and Alexander ab Alexandro, mentions a famous High-way, leading from Rome to this City Al. ab. Alexand. gen. dier. lib. 3. cap. 13.. And if an Earthquake have since Overthrown it, that will not prove there was no such City then: all the Wonder is that these Gentlemen should defend a Council for genuine, which they thought had been held in Utopia: The Notes proceed to tell us that Very many most Learned Men, (not Hereticks, I suppose) by very strong Arguments have laboured to prove these Acts spurious: But he (who values no Arguments against the Supremacy,) not only thinks them not to be false, but judges them worthy of great Esteem for their Venerable Antiquity, and for their Majesty which extorts Reverence even from the unwilling: Now their Antiquity cannot be proved by one Old Author, and their Majesty is so little, that they extort Laughter and Contempt from the gravest Reader: Let us therefore hear his Reason for this Approbation, it is because they are believed by general consent of all; (He forgets that he said but now, very many and very Learned Men did not believe them;) And because they are received and retained [Page]without any Controversy to this Day, in the Martyrologies and Breviaries of the Roman and other Churches Brev. Roman. April. 26.: So that at last, all the Authority for this Council is the Roman Martyrology and Breviary; which are Modern Collections, out of the Fabulous Pontifical and other Forged Acts of Martyrs; And though their own Learned Men by good Arguments prove the things to be false, yet if they be Read in a Breviary, &c. these Falshoods become true, and Catholics receive them without Controversy: Yea, they cite the Transcript of a Forgery to prove the Original to be a Truth. Again, the Notes say it is no prejudice to the Truth of Marcellinus his fall, though the Africans did not know of it, nor S. Augustine, no nor any of the African Church: Yet in the next Page it is observed, That there are very many Names of the Witnesses which prove his fall, which are peculiar to the African Christians: Now if these Names were peculiar to the Africans, then these Witnesses were of the African Church Originally, and then it is Morally impossible, that they should never tell none of their Countrymen, of so Famous a Transaction: The Notes confess that these Acts often mention Libra occidua; which is a Word invented after the Empire was divided into East and West: And thence the same Notes infer, these Acts were not writ in those Ancient times; yet they make it a wonder, that they were not seen in Africa in S. Augustine's time or before: Which is to wonder that they had not seen them in Africa, before they were written: It puzzles the Annotator to make out an excuse for that ridiculous Falshood in these Acts, that Marcellinus was led into the Temple of Vesta, and Isis, and there Sacrificed to Hercules, Jupiter and Saturn; because these Gods were never placed, nor Worshiped in the Temples of those female Deities: Nor can he allow what the Acts say about this Council, being held when Dioclesian was in his Persian War; for he affirms it was held Two years after that War, when Dioclesian had devested himself of the Empire, and lived a private Life; But then the Acts make Dioclesian to be present, and in Rome when Marcellinus did Sacrifice; [Page] and at this rate the Pope would have laied two years at least in his Apostacy, which the Annotator must not endure. To conclude, we now see, That a Council held no body knows where nor when, concealed from all Ancient Authors, writ in later times, full of Barbarisms, and Non-sense, Falshoods and contradictions, if it do but pretend to make out the Supremacy and Infallibity of the Pope, and set him (while he was an Apostate and falsly denied the Fact,) above a Council of Three hundred Innocent Bishops; if it do but say the Pope, though never so wicked, cannot be judged by any but himself: This Council shall be published by the Roman Editors, and vindicated by partial Notes, as if it were a most genuine and Authentic Truth: From whence it is plain, That these Editors, and especially this Annotator hath no other measure of Truth and Falshood, but the Interest of the Roman Church, which they resolve to promote, though it be by the most unjust means. And this may suffice to observe for the Third Century.

§

§

[Page]

[Page]

A BRIEF ACCOUNT OF THE Roman Forgeries, IN THE VOLUMES OF THE COUNCILS, For the Fourth Century.

PART II.

CHAPTER IV.

Of the Forgeries in the Fourth Century.

§. 1. THis Century begins with the Life of Marcellus, An. Dom. 304. a Pope so obscure, that Eusebius's Chronicle wholly omits him Lab. Tom. III. pag. 947. Bin. Tom. I. pag. 185. col. 2.; and Theodoret knew nothing of him, nor of Pope Eusebius, but makes Melchiades immediate Successor to Marcellinus [Page] Theod. hist. lib. 1 cap. 3.. It is very observable, that these two unknown Popes, in the Notes on their Lives, are said to have sat Seven years between them: And the Pontifical saith, There was a Vacancy of Seven years after Marcellinus, which Vacancy is also asserted by Anastasius Biblioth. by Luitprandus, Abbo Floriacens. Cusanus, and Genebrard Richer. de Eccles. potestate cap 3. pag. 46.. And though Baronius's and Binius's Notes, deny this Seven years Vacancy, it is upon meer Conjectures: The Scandal of so long a Vacancy no doubt, setting some of the old Parasites of Rome on work, to invent two Popes Names and put them into the List, from whence probably they have been foisted into O [...]tatus and S. Augustine, two Latin Fathers, while the Greek Authors (which these Forgers Understood not) do continue Uncorrupted: And truly nothing but the Names of these two Popes remain; for no good Historian mentions any one Eminent Act done by either of them; however, the Annotator had rather fill up his Scene with empty Names of Feigned Popes, who did nothing for Seven years together, than let the Reader suppose the Catholic Church could so long want its pretended Head. But though the Notes allow not the Authority of the Pontifical for the Vacancy, they trust it for the fictitious Story of this Marcellus his Life, and would have us believe, That in a time of Persecution this Pope appointed Twenty five Churches in Rome, to Baptize Converts and Bury Martyrs in; and though the Laws and Customs of that City then, forbad to Bury dead Bodies within the Walls, we are to believe that the Tyrant Maxentius (who made all these Martyrs, and persecuted this very Pope) consented to his breaking this Ancient Law. On the Credit of the same Pontifical we are told, That a certain Lady, called Lucina, dedicated her House to this Pope (while He was alive) by the Title of S. Marcellus; and that the Emperor turned it into a Stable, and made the Pope his Beast-keeper there, where Naked, and cloathed with Sackcloth, (they are the Words of the Pontifical) He soon [Page] after ended his days, the 17th of the Kalends of February Breviar. Rom. Jan. 16. pag. 674.. Which Fiction the Roman Breviary orders to be read to the Credulous People of that Communion for Lessions; and tells them, That Marcellus writ an Epistle to the Bishops of the Antiochian Province about the Roman Primacy, and to prove Rome to be the Head of All Churches, and that no Synod should be held without the Pope's Authority. But this Epistle Lab. p. 94 [...]. Bin. pag. 186. col. 1. is owned by Labbé to be a Forgery, patched up out of divers Modern Authors, citing the Vulgar Latin Version, and dated after Marcellus his death: And it is very strage, That times of Persecution should be a proper Season for a Pope to wrangle for his Supremacy: Yet this Notorious Forgery saith, Christ ordered S. Peter, to Translate his Seat from Antioch to Rome; and that the Apostles by Inspiration decreed, That all Appeals should be made thither, and no Council held, but by the Authority of the Roman Church. For which cause Binius vindicates it with Notes as full of Falsehood as the Epistle it self Lab. p. 950. Bin. pag. 187. col. 1.: His first Note of this Epistle being writ to one Solomon a Bishop, is an oversight, and belongs to the first Epistle of Pope Marcell [...]nus Bin. p. 175. col. 2. Baron. An. 296. §. 5.. His next Notes about the Primacy and Power of Calling Synods, cite an Apostolical and Nicene Canon for it; but no such Canons are to be found. He quotes also two Epistles, one writ to Pope Foelix from Alexandria; another writ by Pope Julius, to the Eastern Churches, for proof of this Supremacy; and the same Annotator afterwards owns them both to be Forgeries Bin. Not. in Epist. Foel. p. 499 & Not. in Ep. Julii, pag. 385.. He falsly saith, Dioscorus was Condemned at Chalcedon, only for holding a Synod without the Pope's Consent; whereas he is known to have been accused of many other Crimes. His Text of Fasce oves, is nothing to this purpose; nor will Pope Pelagius his Word be taken in his own Cause. His Story of Valentinian makes nothing for the Pope, more than any other Bishop; Yea, the Bishops desiring him to call a Council, shews, They thought it was His Prerogative; and Nicephorus relates his Answer to have [Page] been, That he was so taken up with State Affairs, that he had no leisure to enquire into those matters Niceph. lib. 2. cap. 3. & Whitak. de Concil. pag. 51.: Wherefore after all this elaborate Sophistry, to justifie a false Assertion of a Forged Epistle, the Annotator hath only shewed his partiality for the Pope's Power, but made no proof of it.

The second Epistle of this Marcellus (to the Tyrant Maxentius) is also a manifest Forgery Lab. p. 951. Bin. pag. 387. col. 1.; part of it is taken out of his Successor Gregory's Epistles, writ almost Three hundred years after this; and it is highly improbable, That a persecuted Pope should falsly, as well as ridiculously, to a Pagan Emperor, quote the Laws of the Apostles, and their Successors, forbidding to persecute the Church and Clergy; and also instruct him about the Roman Churches power in Calling Synods, and Receiving Appeals; and cite Clement's Forged Epistle as an Authority to Maxentius, That Lay-men must not accuse Bishops. The Notes indeed are unwilling to lose such precious Evidence, and so pretend, That Maxentius at this time dissembled himself, to be a Christian; but this Sham can signifie nothing to such as read the Epistle, where Marcellus complains, That he then persecuted him most unjustly, and therefore he did not pretend to be a Christian at that time; and consequently the whole Epistle is an absurd Forgery: And so is that Decree subjoyned to it, which supposes young Children offered to Monasteries, and Shaved or Veiled there; Customs which came up divers Centuries after this.

§. 2. The Canons of Peter, Bishops of Alexandria Lab. p. 967. Bin. pag. 189. col. 1., are genuine, and a better Record of Ecclesiastical Discipline, than any Pope to this time ever made; the Reader also may observe, the Bishop of Rome is not once named in these Canons; and they plead Tradition for the Wednesday Fast, contrary to the Roman Churches pretence, of having an Apostolical Tradition, to Fast on Saturday.

[Page] The Council of Elliberis in Spain, is by Binius An. Dom. 305. placed under Pope Marcellus; which Words Labbé leaves out of the Title Lab. p. 967. E. Bin. pag. 191. col. 1., and justly; for if there were such a Pope, the Council takes no notice of him, nor is it likely, that Rome did know of this Council till many years after. Yet it is both Ancient and Authentic, though Mendoza in Labbé Lab. p. 1030., reckons up divers Catholic Authors, Caranza, Canus, Baronius, &c. who either wholly reject it, or deny the 34th, 35th, 36th, and 40th Canons of it, which condemn the Opinions now held at Rome: And though Binius (because Pope Innocent approves it) dare not reject it; yet he publishes Notes to make the Reader believe, it doth not condemn any of their Opinions or Practices.

The 13th Canon speaks of Virgins, who dedicated themselves to God; but mentions not their being Veiled, or Living in Monasteries; which Customs came in long after, as the Authors cited in the Notes shew Lab. p. 983. D Bin. pag. 200. col. 1..

The 26th Canon calls it an Error, to 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 Baron. Annal. An. 305. §. 49. only saith, There is mention of the Saturday Fast in this [Page]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 (p) Lab. p. 985. E Bin. pag. 201. col. 1. Sentiments of the Primitive Church Dailé de cultu Lat. lib. 2. chap. 15.. Lactantius condemns Lighting Candles in God's Worship by day, as a Paganish Superstition Lactant. Instit. lib. 6. cap. 2.. 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 Hieron. ad Ripar. ep. 53.. 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 Bin. Not. in 34 & 35 Can p. 201. col. 2., 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 Lab. p. 986. Bin pag. 201. col. 2.: 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 [Page] 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 Baron. An. 305. §. 45., 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 Lab. p. 998) would enervate this Canon, by saying, It forbids not the Saints [Page]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 Lab. p. 976. Bin. pag. 196. C; 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 Lab. p 1379. Bin. pag. 202. C. 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 Aug. cp. 62. Tom. Il. p. 150. Vid. Baron. An. 306. §. 40.. [Page] Now there is great difference between a Mans being a Catholic, because he was in Communion with Rome (then Orthodox) and with other Churches; and his being a Catholic meerly for being in Communion with the Roman Bishop, which is the modern and false notion of the word Catholic, among Papists, in our days: But Binius was so convinced, that S. Augustine's words confuted Baronius's Paraphrase, that he cunningly leaves them out, to make this commodious Sense of them go better down with careless Readers.

§. 4. The next Pope Eusebius, was so obscure, (as the Notes on his Life declare) that no Writer mentions any thing of him that is memorable Lab. p. 1380, Bin. pag. 203. col. 1.; and it is probable, there never was such a Pope: Yet the Pontifical saith, The Cross was found in his time, upon the 5th of the Nones of May, which is the very Day on which the Roman Church now celebrates The Invention of the Cross: And the Third Decretal Epistle of this Pope, was devised on purpose support this Story; yet both Baronius and Binius reject it for a Fable, even while their Church still observes that Holy-day. There are Three Epistles forged for this Name of a Pope, all which Labbé owns to be spurious Lab. p. 1381. Bin. pag. 203. col. 1.; and I need not spend much time to prove it, since they cite the Vulgar Latin Version, and are mostly stollen out of Modern Authors, (as Labbe's Margen shews) having only one Consul's Name for their Dates, because no other was named in the Pontifical. Besides, the first Epistle uses the Phrase, Pro salvatione servorum Dei, which is not the Latin of that Age; and talks of Rigorous Tortures used among Christians, to make Witnesses confess Truth. The second Epistle repeats the foolish Argument, of Christ's whipping the Buyers and Sellers (many of which were Lay-men) out of the Temple, to prove, that God alone must judge Priests; and out of a much later Roman Council, (suspected also of Forgery) speaks of the Peoples not [Page]judging their Bishop, unless he err in Matters of Faith—; and discourses of Edicts of Kings, forbidding to try an ejected Bishop, till he be restored to his place. The third Epistle hath the Fable of the Invention of the Cross, and all other Marks of Forgery on it; yet Bellarmine cites it to prove, the Pope's Succession to S. Peter, in his Universal Monarchy; and to make out Confirmation to be a Sacrament Bellarm. de Pontif. Rom. lib. 2. cap. 14. & de Confirm. lib. 2. cap. 3. So little do those Writers value the credit of any Evidence, if it do but make for their Churches Authority, or support its Doctrines.

§ 5. The Seven years Vacancy being now expired, Melchiades was chosen Pope, and Sat Three years and Seven Months, according to the Pontifical Lab. p. 1394. Bin. pag 209. col. 1.; and though the Ecclesiastical Tables (as they call them) generally follow this Author; yet Baronius here by them corrects the Pontifical, and allows Melchiades only Two Years and Two Months: But all this is Conjecture, for he grants the Consuls in the Pontifical are so false, that they cannot be reconciled to Truth Baren. An. 311. §. 43.; whence it follows, That the Decretal Epistle ascribed to this Pope, whose Matter is taken from the Pontifical, and whose Date is by those who were not Consuls till after Melchiades's Death Lab. p. 1400. A. in Marg., must be false also: Yet the Notes defend this Forged Epistle, and Bellarmine cites it for the Supremacy, and for Confirmations being a Sacrament Bellarmin. ubi supra (c)., whereas the beginning of it is stollen out of Celestine's Epistle to the French Lab. p. 1395. D, E.; it quotes the Vulgar Translation, and cites an Apostolical Priviledge granted to Rome, for the sole right of Trying Bishops; to justifie which, The Notes cite the 73d and 74th Apostolical Canons; but those Canons, order Bishops to judge an offending Bishop, and make the last appeal to a Synod, without taking any notice of Rome, or of this pretended Priviledge. Again, this Feigned Epistle impudently makes Confirmation more venerable than Baptism; and the Notes defend that bold Expression: But we cannot but wonder, [Page] (since they assert, That Bishops by Gods Law have the sole power of Confirming;) the same Men should grant, That the Pope can give a Priest leave to Confirm, Which yet (they say) changes not the Divine Right of Bishops Lab. p. 1400. Bin. p. 211. col. 2.; That is in plain terms, One mans sole Right may be delegated to another, by a Third person, without any injury to him who had the sole Right.

After this follows a Council at Rome under Melchiades, wherein the Pope, by delegation from the Emperor, is joyned in Commission with Three French Bishops, (who are called his Collegues) to hear the Donatists complaint against Cecilian Bishop of Carthage Lab. p. 1401. Bin. pag. 212. col. 1., and Constantine not only received the Donatists first Appeal, and delegated this Cause to Melchiades and his Fellow Commissioners; but upon a second Complaint, ordered this Matter to be heard over again in a French Council, which the Pope in Council had determined. Now this so clearly shews, that the Pope was not Supreme Judge in those days, that Baronius and Binius are hard put to it, to Blunder this Instance: The Notes say, Constantine was yet raw in the Faith; and yet they say also, He knew by God's Law, nothing was to be done without the chief Bishop. But they are forced to prove this by a false Translation of Constantine's Epistle to Melchiades Lab. p. 1407. Bin. pag. 212. col. 2., the words of which in Greek are, [...], which in their Version is, As the most holy Law of God requires; but Valesius's Translation (which Labbé gives us) is, As is agreeable to the most Venerable Law; That is, (as all men know) to the Imperial Laws: So that Constantine only says, He had ordered the Accusers and Accused, all to appear at Rome before these delegated Judges, as the Venerable Laws (which order both Parties to be present when a Cause is tryed) do require; and by the help of a false Translation this occasion is made use of, to make the Credulous believe, That God's Law required all Causes should be tryed at Rome: Whereas it is apparent by this Instance, That a Cause once Tryed there before the Pope, [Page] might be tryed over again in France, if the Emperor pleased.

The two following Epistles of Constantine out of Pithaeus his Manuscript Lab. p. 1430. Bin. pag. 213., are very suspicious; the first speaks more magnificently of Christ than one who (as they say) was so raw in the Faith was like to do: And in it Constantine is made to decline Judging in Bishops Causes; which is a protestation against his own Act, and contradiction to the second Epistle, wherein He declares, that this Episcopal Cause shall be tryed before himself: Nor is this first Epistle Recorded in Eusebius, or agreeable to Constantine's Style; so that we suppose, that was devised by such as designed to persuade Princes, That Bishops were above them: For which purpose Baronius here cites a Law of this Emperor to Ablavius Baron. An. 314. §. 38, 39., Giving men leave to choose Bishops for their Judges, and not allowing them after that to appeal to Secular Courts; because they had been heard by Judges of their own choosing: But Baronius perverts this, to signifie, That Bishops were above Secular Judges by their ordinary Jurisdiction, whereas they were not so in any Cause of this kind, but only when they were extraordinarily chosen Arbitrators; and so Sozomen expounds this Law.

§. 6. We are now arrived at the time of Pope Sylvester, An Dom. 314. who living about the time when Constantine publickly professed Christianity, and being Pope when the Nicene Council was called; yet no Author of Credit, records his being much concerned in these grand Revolutions: Upon which the Annalist, and our Editors rake into all kind of Forgeries, and devise most improbable Stories, to set off Pope Sylvester as very considerable; but we shall look into the Original of the Emperor's becoming a Christian, which will discover all their Fallacies.

Constantine was born of Christian Parents, and brought up under them, and was Thirty years old when he entred on the Empire. And from the Year 306 Baron. An. 306. §. 14. [Page] He professed openly he was a Christian, Making Laws to encourage Converts, and to suppress Paganism throughout his Empire, Building and Endowing Churches, and granting great Immunities to the Clergy; yet all this while He took no notice of Marcellus, Eusebius, or Melchiades, S. Peter's Successors, and pretended Monarchs of the Church. After Seven years having Vanquished Maxentius at Rome, they say, He gave to the Pope his Palace of the Lateran Lab. p. 1394. Bin. pag. 209. col. 1. Baron. An. 312. §. 82, & §. 85.: The Notes cite Optatus for this; but he only saith, A Council of Nineteen Bishops met in the Lateran; but it doth not follow from thence, that Constantine had then given the Pope this fair Palace. Again, Baronius (without any ancient Author for it) saith, That Constantive gave S. Peter thanks for his Victory over Maxentius; yet at the same time he affirms, He was yet a Pagan, and durst not by his Acts declare himself a Christian Baron. An. 312. §. 58, & §. 62.. Very strange! Were not Building Churches, setling Christianity by a Law, giving his Palace to the Pope, and (as they say) Fixing the Trophy of the Cross in the midst of Rome Bin. p. 208 col. 2., Acts sufficient to declare him a Christian? No, He must be a Pagan Eleven years after this, and a Persecutor; yea, in the year 324 He was so meer a Heathen as to know nothing of the Christian Rites, but what an Egyptian taught him. After he had openly professed this Religion Eighteen years, He had forgot it all, and turned so great a Tyrant, that Pope Sylvester (who had no great mind to be a Martyr) ran away into the Mount Soracte, or was banished thither: But Constantine, after He had been Ten years Pope, never had heard of him, till being struck with a Leprosie (mentioned in no Authentic Writer) two glorious Persons, whose Faces he knew not, appeared to the Emperor, and ordered him to send for Pope Sylvester to cure him; who (when He was come) first shewed Constantine these two glorious Persons were S. Peter and S. Paul, and then Cured him; made him a Christian, and Baptized him. Which idle and self-contradicting Romance is magnified by [Page] Baronius's and Binius's Notes; but we will now confute it as briefly as we can.

§. 7. First, This whole Story is devised, to exalt the Glory of the Roman Church; to make Men believe the Pope could work Miracles, and that the first Christian Emperor was Baptized at Rome: But then it casts such a blot upon Constantine's Memory, and feigns such odious and incredible things of him, as no wise Man can believe concerning a Prince, who S. Augustine saith, was a Christian Eight years before this Baron. An. 316. §. 59, & 62, 63.. And whoever reads in Baronius, the History of the first Ten years of Sylvester, from An. 314 till An. 324, and observes what glorious Things he saith of Constantine's Religious Laws, his Piety to God, his Zeal for Christianity, his Respect to Confessors, and his Bounty to Bishops; his taking part with the Catholics against Heretics and Schismatics: He can never believe this scandalous Story of so excellent a Prince. But in all this Period of Time, Baronius himself cannot find one Evidence, That ever Constantine had any correspondence with Sylvester, and therefore Christianity was setled in the Empire without the Pope's help: To cover which great Truth, some dull (but zealous Monk) long since invented this Sham Story, to save the Credit of Rome; and the Annalist and these Notes strive to defend it.

Secondly, This Fable chiefly relies on the Credit of the Pontifical, (so often proved false) and upon the repute of Sylvester's Acts: But the Annotator at first ominously Charges them both with Falshood Lab. p. 14 16. Bin. pag. 217. col. 1.; the former mistakes the Time of the Vacancy, and the latter (he saith) is wrong in making Melchiades ordain Sylvester a Priest, he being Ordained by Marcellinus long before. Baronius also confesseth, That these Acts of Sylvester are so false in many particulars, that it shakes the Credit of the whole Baron. Annal. 311. §. 59. & An. 315. §. 10, 11, & 12. & An. 324. §. 41.. But it is very strange, after he (who is so concerned for their Reputation) had found so many Flaws in them, he should justifie them even where [Page] they contradict all the Historians of the Age; which can spring from nothing but a Resolution to maintain every thing which made for the Credit of the Roman See.

Thirdly, The Notes say not only the Acts of Sylvester, but Zosimus and Sozomen do both attest this Story: Now first, Zosimus was a Pagan, and Baronius and Binius confess, He tells many Malicious Lies of Constantine, for suppressing the Heathen Religion; and though they confute the rest of his Calumnies, they defend his Relation of Constantine's Baptism, as sounding something like those forged Acts Baron. An. 324. §. 17.; and though his Account of it reflect as much upon Constantine, as is possible; yet the Annalist and Annotator labour to prove this Spightful Heathen to be a truer Historian, than Sozomen, Socrates, or Eusebius, whom they represent as Lyars and Flatterers, not to be believed against Zosimus. Yet there is a mighty difference between this Pagan's History of the Baptism of Constantine, and that in Sylvester's Acts: Zosimus saith, It was a Spaniard, named Aegyptius, lately by the Court Ladies brought acquainted with Constantine, who advised him to be Baptized; and this the Notes say was Hosius; yet it is plain, Hosius was Constantine's Intimate Friend, and his Legate into Egypt Twelve years before (z). Besides, (x) Baron An. 312. §. 91. Zosimus doth not name Sylvester, and only designed by his Relation to blacken Constantine, and represent Christianity as a Sanctuary for Villanies, which could not be expiated among the Pagans: But the Acts discourse of a Persecution, and a Leprosie, and make Peter and Paul the Advisers of Constantine's Baptism; and their business is only to set up Sylvester's Name. And the Stories (like all Falshoods) do not hang together: As for Sozomen, he is no Evidence for Sylvester's Acts, nor doth he once name that Pope in the place cited Sozom. hist. lib. 1. cap. 5.. He only confutes the scandalous Stories, which Zosimus had falsly told of Constantine, shewing how improbable it is, that this Emperor (after he had Reigned nigh Twenty years) should need a New [Page] Conversion; and how unlikely it must be, that the Pagans would not have found out some Rites to expiate him, that so they might secure him in their Religion: So that he is a Witness, That these Reports of Constantine were false, and invented by Malicious Heathens, and so far as Zosimus and Sylvester's Acts agree, he confutes them both; and since he lived within an Hundred years after this time, while some alive might possibly remember these Passages; His early denial of these Fictions is better Evidence against them, than Baronius and Binius's Testimony for them, after Thirteen hundred years; to serve a Turn, and do Honour to that Church they resolve to Magnifie.

Fourthly, The Notes speak of Sylvester's Returning to Rome in great glory; which is not mentioned in Zosimus nor Sozomen, and only relies on the Credit of these Acts Lab. p. 14 17. Bin. pag. 217.: Which have no Evidence to Attest them, but Pope Adrian, who perhaps forged them; or however, first produced these Acts in the Second Nicene Council, Four hundred and Fifty years after Sylvester's time, to prove the use of Images in Constantine's Days. But the very Acts declare, That Constantine (who had Built and Adorned so many Churches, and if Images or Pictures had then been used, must have seen the Faces of S. Peter and S. Paul) did not know the Faces of these two great Apostles, till Sylvester shewed them their Images. Whence we infer, That the Acts are no good Proof for Images, if they were Authentic; and their being first cited in an Ignorant Council, made up of Forgeries and False Stories, gives us good Reason to believe them Spurious.

§. 8. The Annotator in the next place asserts confidently, That Constantine was Baptized at Rome by Sylvester, Anno 324 Lab. p. 14 17. Bin. pag. 217. col. 2.: But his Proofs are very weak, viz. First, He cites a Roman Council for this, held the same year: But the Style of that Council is so barbarous, the Sentences so incoherent, and the Matter of [Page] Fact so false, that Labbé owns it is a Forgery, and Binius confesses it is suspicious Lab. p. 15 44. Bin. pag. 256.; so that this can be no evidence: Nor Secondly, Anastasius Bibliothecarius, who lived Five hundred and Fifty years after this time, and was a meer Sycophant of the Popes, to set up whose Supremacy (then newly hatched) he stuck at nothing, and that spoils his Credit. Thirdly, Zosimus is a malicious Lying Writer, as to Constantine; and though he do say, Constantine was Baptized at Rome, he doth not affirm, that Sylvester Baptized him: Fourthly, Sozomen only relates Zosimus his Story to confute it; so that not one of his Witnesses do prove the matter: Yet these Authors with a weak Conjecture, That Constantine could not have been present in the Nicene Council, if he had not been Baptized before (which we will presently confute) is all the Evidence that Baronius and these Notes can give for this incredible Story: But on the other side, there are many clear Proofs, that he was baptized at Nicomedia, a little before his death.

First, Eusebius (who lived at that time, and knew Constantine very well, and writ his History soon after) doth affirm this: And if it had been False, many then alive who could remember it, would doubtless have exposed him for so manifest a Fiction. The Notes say he Forged this Story in favour of Constantius; but he must be very Ridiculous, if he would be obliged by a Story of his Father, which many hundreds as well as himself, must have then known to be a Falshood; And Eusebius must be as silly as he was knavish, to invent a Fable so easy to be disproved by living Witnesses: But the Notes wrong Eusebius, when they say, he reports that Constantine died Impious and alienated from the Catholic Church; For Eusebius saith he made a most Christian and Pious end: However Eusebius by this Testimony brings upon himself, all the Rage and Spite of Baronius and our Annotator, who upon all occasions Blast this Holy and Learned Writer, to whose pains they and all the Christian World are infinitely beholding; and though while Eusebius's History continues, it be almost the only [Page] true Record used by Baronius in complling his Annals; yet he and Binius in every Page almost do revile him as an Arian and a Writer of Lies: But there is so much Malice, and so little probability in the Accusation, that their own Writers and ours also do vindicate Ensebius from these Slanders Valesij. praes. ad edit. Euseb. Dr. Cave life of Euseb. pag. 31., and we could easily confute these Calumnies, but only that in this Relation he is so certainly in the Right, that we need not consider his Opinion in other things, but will shew as to this particular he is supported by the best Evidence imaginable. For

Secondly, Theodoret also saith, that Constantine was Baptized a little before his Death at Nicomedia Theodoret. hist. lib. 1. cap. 32; and though that Eusebius, who was Bishop of that City, was an Arian, yet he dissembled his Heresie while Constantine lived, and the Emperor had restored Athanasius, contrary to this Bishop's mind; wherefore though he was forced to make use of an Arian Bishop to Baptize him, being taken ill in that City, yet it will not follow that Constantine died an Arian: Moreover that Constantine was Baptized at Nicomedia, is attested also by Socrates Socrat. hist. lib. 1. cap. 26. and Sozomen Sozom. lib. 2. cap. 32.; and also by the Chronicles of Isidore and S. Hierom Baron. An. 324. §. 47., and by S. Ambrose in his Funeral Oration for Theodosius; Yea, Athanasius and a whole Synod at Ariminum, do expresly declare, that Constantine was Baptized a little before his Death; that is, Thirteen years after this pretended Baptism at Rome Athanas. de Synod. pag. 243. Epistol. Synod. Arim. ap. Socrat. lib. 2. cap. 29. & Sozom. lib. 4. cap. 17., which last Testimony Baronius and the Notes presume to corrupt, and contrary to all the best Copies, and the necessary Sense of the place, put Constans his Name into the Text instead of Constantine: So that in fine the only Question is now, Whether we will believe these two Modern partial Writers, with those most Fabulous (but as they call them most approved) Acts of Sylvester, first cited by Pope Adrian 450 years after: Or we will believe the concurrent Witness of all the Ancient and Eminent Writers of that and the next Ages; to whom if we give Credit, then Constanstine's Baptism at Rome by Sylvester, is a meer Forgery devised for [Page] the glory of the Roman Church, and for that only reason so eagerly defended by this Annotator and the Annalist.

§. 9. Together with this Fable we must also reject the Fiction of Constantine's Leprosy, which was invented only that Sylvester might cure it Lab. p. 1419. Bin. pag. 218. col. 2.; and therefore the Notes prove it very slenderly, viz. First, By those Acts of Sylvester, in which they confess there are many Errors Vid. ibid. & Baron. Annal. 324. §. 97.: Secondly, By a Roman Council, which is as manifest a Forgery as the Acts themselves: Thirdly, By a Metaphorical expression of Gregorius Turonensis, a credulous Writer, who lived 300 years after this, and yet even he doth not expresly affirm it. Fourthly, But the Annotator tells us the Gentile Historians do confirm this, though he names but one, viz. Michael Glycas, who unlucklily proves a Christian Monk, living in Sicily, Anno 1120, about 800 years after this time, and long after Adrian and his Nicene Council had dispersed Sylvester's Acts, out of which Glycas took this Fable upon Trust: So that at last he only proves the Acts, by the Acts themselves and by Pope Adrian; and that is all the Authority he hath for this feigned Leprosy, which Disease no Writer (of Credit and Antiquity) saith Constantine, ever had; no not that Malicious Zosimus, who raked up all the Odious things against this Emperor he could devise; and if ever he had been struck by Heaven with Leprosy, no doubt he would have Blazed it abroad with great Pleasure.

§. 10. The Book of Constantine's Munificence, is grounded on the Fable of his Baptism, and seems to be Forged by the same Hand with Sylvester's Acts: So that we ought also to reject it as a Fiction: Anastasius, who put it out, was the Pope's Library-keeper; and whether he made it, or found it in the Vatican, that Shop of Lies (as Richerius calls it) the Credit of it is invalidated, by reason, no Author of Repute or Antiquity, mentions any of these Gifts: It says blasphemously, Constantine gave a [Page]Saviour sitting five foot high (so it calls a dead Image Lab. p. 1420. Bin. Not pag. 219. col. 1.;) But if this were true, why did not Adrian cite this in his Nicene Council? Or why did this Emperor's Sister write to Eusebius Bishop of Coesarea for an Image of Christ, when Sylvester could more easily have furnished her? and by the way, the Notes fraudulently mention this Message Not. Y. Bin. pag. 219. col. 2. & Lab. p. 1421., but do not relate how severely Eusebius reproved that Lady for seeking after a visible Image of Christ: The Annotator also cites Paulinus to prove this Book of Munificence; but he writ near 100 years after; and though he speak of a fine Church of S. Peter in Rome; yet he saith not that Constantine either founded or adorned it: Baronius attempts to prove this Book by mear Conjectures, by the Forged Acts, and by Nicephorus, a late Author, whom he often taxes for Fictions Baron. An. 324. §. 72. & 75.; but he can produce no ancient or eminent Author for it: And yet it is certain, if Constantine, had given so many and so great gifts to the Head City of the World, some of the most Famous Writers would have Recorded it: Besides, the Cardinal himself rejects both the idle Story of S. Agnes Temple, (attested by a Fiction ascribed to S. Ambrose) told in this very Book Baron. An. 324. §. 107.; and the apparent Falshood of Constantine's now burying his Mother in one of these Churches, who was alive long after Idem, An. 324. §. 114.: So that by his own Confession there are divers Falshoods in this Book; and he had been more Ingenuous if he had owned the whole to be (as it really is) a Forgery.

§. 11. The Editors now go back to the Council of An. Dom. 314. Arles, held (as they say) Anno 314 Lab. p. 1425. Bin. pag. 220. col. 1.: And it troubles them much, to ward off the Blows which it gives to their beloved Supremacy: For it was appointed by the Emperor, upon an Appeal made to him by the Donatists, to judge a cause over again, which had been judged before by Melchiades and his Roman Council; (the Pope in Council it seems, being not then taken to be Infallible:) 'Tis true, in the Title, which these Editors give us, this Council directs their Canons, To their Lord, [Page]and most Holy Brother Sylvester the Bishop, and say, they had sent them to him, that all might know (the Pope not excepted) what they were to observe: So that though in Respect they call him Lord, yet they Stile him also a Brother, and expect his obedience to their Decrees; nor do they (as the Notes pretend,) desire him to confirm these Canons Lab. p. 1434. Bin. pag. 223. col. 2.; But only require the Pope who held the larger Diocess, that he would openly acquaint all with them, as their Letter speaks: That is, as he was a Metropolitan, to give notice of these Canons to all his Province, which was then called a Diocess; and Baronius is forced to point the Sentence salsly to make it sound, toward his beloved Supremacy Baron An. 314. §. 68.. So in the First Canon, Pope Sylvester is ordered by this Council to give notice to all, of the Day on which Easter was to be observed: That is, he was to write to all his Neighbouring Bishops under his Jurisdiction about it, not as the Notes say Lab. p. 1434. Bin. pag. 224. col. 1. Baron An. 314. §. 58.; That he was to determine the day, and by vertue of his Office to write to all the Bishops of the Christian World to observe it: The Council had ordered the Day, and command the Pope to give notice to all about him to keep it. And in the Famous Nicene Council, The Bishop of Alexandria (living where Astronomy was well understood) was appointed first to settle, and then to certify the day of Easter; yet none will infer from hence, that he was the Head of the Catholic Church, because he had this Duty imposed on him, which as yet, is more than the Council of Arles did put upon the Bishop of Rome: Again, the Notes are very angry at the Emperor, for receiving the Donatists appeal from the Pope and his Council, which they say Constantine owned to be an unjust and impious thing Not in Concil Aret. Bin. pag. 221. col. 2.; but they prove this only by a forged Epistle mentioned but now, § 5. But it is certain Constantine, (though a Catechumen, which they pretended was impossible at Nice) was present in this Council, and so he must act against his Conscience, if he had thought it unjust, and impious to judge in Ecclesiastical Causes: And in this Emperor's Letter to Ablavius, he saith; God had committed all Earthly things to his [Page]ordering: and in that to Celsus he promises to come into Africa, to enquire and judge of things done both by the People and the Clergy Baron. Ann. 316. 62.. And indeed Constantine, by all his practice sufficiently declared, he thought it lawful enough for him to judge in Ecclesiastical matters. Finally, the Notes say the Bishops met in this Council, at the Emperor's request Lab. p. 1423 Bin. pag. 222. col. 2.; Now that shews it was not at the Pope's request; but indeed Constantine's Letter to Chrestus, expresly Commands the Bishops to meet; The Notes also out of Balduinus or Optatus, (or rather from an obscure Fragment cited by him) say, Sylvester was President of this Council; Baronius addeth of his own head—namely by his Legates Baron. Ann. 314. §. 51., which guess Binius puts down for a certain truth: But it is ridiculous to fancy that a pair of Priests, and as many Deacons in that Age, should sit above the Emperor, when himself was present in that Council; So that though we allow the Pope's Messengers to have been at this Council, there is no proof that they presided in it: We shall only add, that instead of Arians in the Eighth Canon, we must Read Africans: or else we must not fix this Council so early as An. 314, at which time the Arians were not known by that name.

§. 12. In the same year is placed the Council of Ancyra, which the Editors do not (as usually) say was under Sylvester, but only in his time Lab. p. 1455. Bin. pag. 225.; and it is well they are so modest; for doubtless he had no Hand in it; the Notes confess that it was called by the Authority of Vitalis Bishop of Antioch Lab. p. 1478. Bin. pag. 232. col. 2.: Balsamon and Zonaras say Vitalis of Antioch, Agricolaus of Caesarea, and Basil of Amasea, were the Presidents of it Beveridg. Concil Tom. I. pag. 375.. Yet not only Leo the Fourth, but the famous Council of Nice, approved of this Synod called and carried on without the Pope's knowledge or leave: There is but one Canon in this Council which contradicts the Roman practice, viz. The Ninth, which allows Deacons to Marry and continue in their Office, if they declared at their Ordination that they could not live Single: This Canon therefore [Page] Baronius and Binius strive to corrupt with false Glosses: The former saith, We may by this Canon see how firmly Ministers single Life was asserted, not only in the whole Catholick Church but in the East Baron. Ann. 314. §. 88.. Now it is very strange, that a private Canon of a Provincial Council, which allows one Order of Ministers to Marry, should shew it was the Opinion of the whole Church, that none might Marry: The latter in his Notes affirms That, this among other Canons solidly proves, that not only Priests, but Deacons (by the Apostolical Law) were bound to Live without Wives Lab. p. 1478. Bin. pag. 223. col. 2.: But the Apostles certainly allowed Deacons to have Wives; and this Canon was made on purpose, that they might live with their Wives, if they pleased: The Notes proceed to say, That Deacons ordained against their Will, and protesting they could not contain, were by these Fathers permitted to Marry after their Ordination, provided they left off all Sacred Administrations, and did not Communicate among the Priests in the Chancel, but among the People: Which is an impudent falsification; There being no word of being Ordained unwillingly; nor any reason why they should be Ordained, who were to be reduced presently to Lay-communion: Yea, the Words of the Canon are express, that if they did Marry, they should continue in their Ministration [...]. Vid. Bever. not. Tom. II. p. 175.; So that these Editors make no Conscience, to make these ancient Records to contradict themselves, rather then let them seem to oppose their Churches present practice: For which vile purpose there is another trick in the Notes on this Council; For whereas the Eighteenth Canon speaks of Lay-persons which Vowed single Life, (as many had done in times of Persecution) and afterwards broke their Vow, that these were to be counted Bigamists; The Notes Bin. p. 233. col. 2. on this Canon, put these Words of the Thirteenth Canon, Those who are of the Clergy, &c. Before their observation on the Eighteenth Canon, on purpose to make the Reader think the Clergy in those days, Vowed single Life as they do now at Rome.

[Page] §. 13. The Council of Naeccaesarea (according to these Editors) was under Sylvester Lab. p. 1479. Bin. pag. 233., who is not once named in it, nor doth it appear he knew of it: They might also have left out Leo the Fourth's approving it Five hundred years after, because the Notes say, The Council of Nice allowed it, which is much more for its Credit Lab. p. 1489. Bin. pag. 236. col. 2.. The same Notes say, The first Canon orders the same thing, which was decreed in the Thirty third Canon at Elliberis, and the Ninth at Ancyra: And if so, that is not, (as they falsly gloss the Canon of Ancyra) That the Clergy should live Single, or be reduced to Lay Communion? For in that Canon some of the Clergy are allowed to Marry, and to continue to minister as Clergy-men still. And the true Sense of this Naeocaesarean Canon is, That whereas in times of Persecution, when Marriage was inconvenient, many Priests promised to live Single: Now these only were not allowed to Marry afterward Vid. Beveridg. Not. in Concil. Nicen. Tom. II. p. 180.; but when the Church had Peace, the Nicene Council left all Clergy-men free, to Marry or not, as they pleased; which shews, That when the Reason of this Canon ceased, they believed its Obligation did so also. The Fifth Canon forbids a Catechumen, who falls into Sin, to enter into the Church: By which the Notes say, That Baronius had sharply censured Eusebius Vid. Baron. An 324. §. 49.: But it is plain, that Baronius shews more Malice than Wit in that Censure: Eusebius only relates Matter of Fact, That Constantine was present in the Nicene Council, and he (with all ancient Authors) agrees, That Constantine was yet a Catechumen; where then is the Crime? Do not Baronius and Binius both agree, that Constantine was present in the Council of Arles, Ten years before his pretended Baptism at Rome? And if it be said, This Canon forbid it: I ask, Whether it be probable, that an Emperor (who, as Baronius saith, was Solutus Legibus, Above the Civil Law) should be proceeded against by a Canon of a small Provincial Council? Wherefore Eusebius his only Crime is, That he tells a Truth, which happens to contradict the Lying [Page] Acts of Sylvester, and consequently the Interest of Rome, for which the Cardinal and Annotator can never forgive him.

The next place is assigned to a Roman Council, under Sylvester, wherein there was a famous Disputation between the Jews and Christians, before Constantine and Helena; but in the Notes Lab. p. 1491. Bin. pag. 237. col. 1. Vid. Baron. An. 315. §. 12. we are told the Story is utterly false, only attested by Sylvester's Acts, which Swarm with Lies, as they are now extant; (yet out of these Acts, as now extant, is the Forgery of Constantine's Baptism at Rome taken;) and therefore Baronius and Binius reject this Council as a meer Forgery. But why do they not reject Constantine's Baptism, as well as this Council, since both rely on the same Author? The Reason is plain, That makes for the Interest of the Pope, and This no way concerns; and so it may pass for a Forgery, as it is.

§. 14. On occasion of Arius's Heresie now breaking An. Dom. 315. out at Alexandria, there was a Council of an Hundred Bishops called by Alexander, Bishop of that City, to Condemn him; which first Council of Alexandria (the Editors say) was under Sylvester; but it doth not appear that this Pope knew of it till Three years after Lab. p. 1492. Bin. pag. 237. col. 2., An. 318; at which time Alexander gave notice of this Council (not to Sylvester by name, as the Notes falsly suggest, but) to all Catholic Bishops, and in particular to the Bishop of Constantinople. But for fear the Reader should observe, That more respect was shewed to that Bishop, than to the Pope, the Editors have removed these Epistles of Alexander into the Body of the Nicene Council, and only give us Notes upon them here, in which the Annotator out of Baronius turns the Charge of Lying and Forgery, of which themselves have been so often convicted, upon us, whom they falsly call Innovators Baron. Annal. 318. §. 18. Bin. pag. 239. col. 1.. Four years after followed a Second Council at Alexandria, which the Notes hope to prove was under Sylvester Lab. p. 1493. Bin. pag. 239. col. 1., because Athanasius saith, This was a General Council, and [Page] saith, Hosins was there: Upon this Baronius, fancying nothing could be a General Council unless the Pope were present Personally or by his Legates, conjectures Hosius was the Pope's Legate, and in that capacity presided in this Council Baron. An. 318. §. 22, &c.: And the Notes positively affirm this Dream for a certain Truth. But Athanasius calls many Synods General, which were only Provincial; and it is plain, he had not the modern Roman Notion of a General Council, because he never mentions Sylvester, nor doth he say, Hosius was his Legate. But even Baronius owns, that Hosius was Constantine's intimate Friend, and his Legate into Egypt six years before Baron. An. 312. §. 91, & 92.; 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 Bin. Not. p. 240. col. 2. & Baron. An. 318. §. 91. 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 Lab. p. 1495. Bin. pag. 241.; Labbé's Margen saith, Under Liberius, An. 364, or 357; or, Under Damasus 367: [Page] 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 Beveridg. not. Tom. II. pag. 193.: 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 Richer. hist. Conc. lib. 1. cap. 3. pag. 128.. 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 Hieron. Ep. CXI. Tom. III. p. 34.. 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 Id. Ep. 115. ibid. p. 39.; and again, A man may receive this Book as be pleaseth Idem Ep. 10. Tom. I. pag. 96.. 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 Lab. p. 1523. Bin pag. 248. col. 2.; 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 Beveridg. Not. Tom. II. p. 193., is meerly to justifie their false Date of this Council. The Annotator [Page] 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 Lab. p. 1524. Bin. pag. 249. col. 1.. 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 Lab. & Bin. ibid.. 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 Lab. p. 1526. Bin. pag 250. col. 1. 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 [Page]Law forbid the Praying to Angels Theodoret. in Coloss. cap. 2.. 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 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 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 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 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 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 [Page]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 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 [Page] 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 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 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 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 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 [Page] is grounded on the idle Story of Constantine's Baptisin 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 is most false to suppose, That the whole Senate at this time were Christians; for many of them continued Pagans long after Constantine's Death. Baronius indeed (out of Sylvester's Acts) affirms, That none of the Senate was converted before the Year 324 Baron. An. 324. §. 76.. Forgetting that he had told us, Divers Senators had given up their Names to Christ Twelve years before Id. An. 312. §. 75, & 76.; and that one or both of the Consuls were Christians two years before this Id. An. 322. §. 1.. So ill a Memory had the great Cardinal, when his Cause obliged him to defend a Lye. Fifthly, It speaks of the Emperor's intending to build a City, and call it by his own Name, in the Province of Bizantium, and his Resolution to transfer his Empire thither; and yet before this, the Edict had reckoned up Constantinople by name, and Hierusalem, as two of the Five Patriarchates, and given Rome Jurisdiction over all the other Four. Lastly, It is Dated in the Fourth Consulship of Constantine with Gallicanus, whereas Licinius was his Collegue in his Fourth Consulship, which was in the Year of Christ 315, that is, Nine years before the time fixed by Baronius for this pretended Baptism; and that clearly shews the Story to be all Sham, as all modest and learned Men of the Roman Church do now acknowledge: But Baronius, and our Annotator, considering not barely the falshood of this Edict, (for that alone would not discourage them;) but observing also, that it destroys the pretended Divine Right of the Pope's [Page] Supremacy, grant it at last to be a Forgery, but say, It was devised by the Greeks. Secondly, Therefore I shall shew the Falshood of that Accusation: For, First, they charge Balsamon with publishing it; Now he did not write till An. 1180, yet the Notes out of Baronius do confess, that a Pope quoted it An. 1054, (that is, near an Hundred years before Balsamon was born) to justifie his Superiority over the Greek Church; and therefore Balsamon was not the Inventer of it: Secondly, It doth the Greeks no good, for it gives the Pope power over all their Patriarchs, and reckons Constantinople as the last and lowest Patriarchate, so that the Forger could not come out of that Church. Thirdly, It is grounded on the fabulous Acts of Sylvester, writ in Latin, and feigned in the Western World; and its whole design is to advance the Pope above all Bishops, Kings, and Emperors; and therefore no doubt it was advanced by a Friend of the Popes. Fourthly, The Notes confess, That a Pope first set up this Edict, to prove his Universal Supremacy, (not considering with Baronius, it seems, that it weakened his Title) and the grave and learned Men of the Roman Church received it as Authentic for many Ages after. We add, That till the Reformation they cited it, and writ in defence of it; and though now their Point is gained they begin to renounce it, yet the Advantage that Church got by it, shews, that they were the Forgers of it; yea, it seems Anno 1339 one Johannes Diaconus, a Member of the Roman Church, was thought to be the Author of it. Fifthly, Whoever considers how unwilling the Cardinal and our Annotator are to have it clearly rejected, will be convinced, that their Church gained by it, and consequently invented it. They labour to prove, the Popes temporal Power granted hereby, is both probable and true Lab. p. 1539. Bin. pag. 254. col. 1.: And though they own the French Princes, Pipin and Charles, who gave many Cities and Countries to S. Peter, never mention this Edict; yet they argue from their calling those Gifts, A restoring them to the Church, that they had respect [Page] to Constantine's Bounty Lab. p. 1540. Bin. pag. 254. col. 2.. These Authors also mention Pope Adrian's confirming this Edict, and quote the Book of Constantine's Munificence (shewed to be a Fable just now) to justifie it Lab. p. 1541. Bin. pag. 255. col. 1.. They also would make out what it saith of the Images of Peter and Paul, then kept at Rome, by Eusebius, but cite him falsly, leaving out the main part of his Testimony; viz. That it was only some who had such Images, and that these imitated the Pagans herein; from whence it will not follow, That eminent Christians then placed them in their Churches Lab. & Bin. ut supr. Baron. An. 324. §. 40.. In short, Though they dare not say it is true, yet they would not have it rejected as false, because it gives their admired Church so much Riches and Power; and therefore doubtless no Greeks, but some of their Church invented this most notorious Forgery: And Aeneas Sylvius observes, That it was warily done of the Popes, to let it be hotly disputed how far this Edict was good in Law, that so the Edict it self might still be supposed valid Aene. Sylv. dial. de Donat. Constantini., it being their Interest it should be thought so.

This feigned Donation is followed by a Roman Council under Sylvester, in the Preface whereof Sylvester is falsly pretended to have called the Nicene Council; and in the body of which there is a Canon, That none must judge the Chief Seat; not the Emperor, nor Kings, nor Clergy, nor People. For the sake of which two advantagious Fictions, Baronius and the Annotator, defend and justifie this Synod Baron. An. 324. §. 29, 30, & 130. Bin. not. p. 260.; though the Title be ridiculous, the Style barbarous, and the Matter of it as void of Sense as it is of probability. Labbé indeed notes, That the Condemning Photinus here shews, it was put together by an unskilful Hand Lab. Marg. pag. 1542., and rejects it as a Forgery very justly: For Photinus (as the Notes confess) was not Condemned till long after Bin. p. 260. col. 1.; nor were there any Christian Kings, but Constantine the Emperor at that time. Besides, the Forger first says, None of the Laity were present; and yet in the next Page affirms, That Calpharnius (Praefect of the City) was there, and that Constantine and his Mother Helena [Page] subscribed it Lab. p. 1547. Bin. pag. 256. col. 2. & pag. 257. col. 2.; yea, Baronius himself observes, That this Council mistakes the Custom of the Roman Church, where in that Age Presbyters use to sit in the presence of the Bishops; but in this Fiction, they are represented as standing with the Deacons Baron. An. 324. §. 124.. Moreover, it destroys the Donation (Lies seldom hanging together;) for if Constantine had given the Pope such Supreme Power a few days before, what need was there for these Bishops to grant the same thing; or however, why do they not remember Constantine's late Gift? Lastly, Arius (who then gave so great Trouble to the Church) is not mentioned here; not (as Baronius guesses) because he was to be more solemnly Condemned at Nice the next year Baron. An. 324. §. 27. Lab. p. 1555. Bin. pag. 260. col. 2. An. Dom. 325.; but because the Forger had nothing in his Eye, but meerly to set off the Grandeur of Rome.

§. 17. We are now come to the First and most famous General Council of Nice, wherein the worst and most dangerous of all Heresies was suppressed; and yet the pretended Judge of all Controversies, and Supreme Head of the Church, had so little share in this glorious Transaction, that it is very uncertain in what Popes time it was called: Sozomen and Nicephorus say, it was in the time of Julius Sozom. hist. lib. 1. cap. 16. Niceph. lib. 8. cap. 14.; Others think it was in Sylvester's time; Photius affirms, it was in the times of both Sylvester and Julius Phot. de 7. Synod., though unhappily Pope Mark was between them two: Yet this Council is introduced by a Preface a la Mode a Rome, styled, The History of the Council of Nice Lab. Tom. II. pag. 3. Bin. pag. 262., wherein (as well as in the Notes and various Editions of this famous Council) all imaginable Artifice is used to abuse the Reader into a belief, That Pope Sylvester not only called this Council, and presided in it by his Legates; but also confirmed it by his sole Authority afterwards. For the clearer Confutation of which Falshoods, we will consider, First, The Authority which convened this Council. Secondly, The President of it, with the Order of Sitting in it, and Subscribing to it. Thirdly, [Page] The Power which confirmed it. Fourthly, The number of the Canons. Fifthly, The true Sense of them, Sixthly, The Forgeries for Supremacy herein inserted. Seventhly, The corrupt Editions of the Council it self.

First, As to the Authority convening it. The Preface saith, Constantine assembled it by Sylvester's Authority Lab. p. 3. & Bin. pag. 262.: The Notes affirm,—it was appointed by the Advice, Counsel, and Authority of Pope Sylvester; and again,—Pope Sylvester, by his Pontifical Authority, decreed the celebration of a General Council Lab. p. 63. C. Bin. pag. 291. col. 1.. To prove these vain Brags, they cite Ruffinus (whose Version of this Council they reject;) yet he only saith, That Constantine convened it by the Advice of the Bishops: However, this is Advice, not Authority; and Advice of the Bishops in general, not of Sylvester in particular; and if any Bishops did give the Emperor particular Advice, it was those of Alexandria and Constantinople, not He of Rome. Secondly, They quote the Sixth General Council (held 350 years after this of Nice, and in other things rejected by the Romanists) which saith,—this Council was called by Sylvester and Constantine: But they quote falsly, for that Sixth Synod puts the Emperor's Name first Bin. Tom. III. par. 1. pag. 194.; and though they are no Evidence against Authors living in the time of the Ni [...]ene Council; yet even this shews, they thought the Emperor's Authority was chiefest in this Matter. The Notes also cite the Pontifical (which they have so often rejected as Fabulous) and Sozomen, as if they said the same thing: But for Sozomen, he never names Sylvester; but saith, Pope Julius was absent by reason of his great Age; and the Pontifical only saith; It was called by the Consent of Sylvester; not by his Authority; and indeed it was called by the consent of all Orthodox Bishops: Wherefore there is no good Evidence, that the Pope did call it. But on the other side, All the Ecclesiastical Historians do agree, That Constantine Convened it by his own, Authority, and sent his Letters to Command the Bishops to meet at Nice Euseb. vit. Constant. lib. 3. cap. 6. Socrat. lib. 1. cap. 8. Theod. lib. 1. cap. 7. Sozom. lib. 1. cap. 17.; and not one of them mentions. [Page] Sylvester, as having any hand in this Matter: Yea, (to put us out of all doubt) the very Council of Nice it self (in their Synodal Epistle writ to Alexandria, and extant in these very Editors Lab. p. 59. Bin. pag. 285. & Baron. An. 325. §. 117.) expresly declares, That they were Convened by Constantine's Command. Which clear and convincing Proofs, shew the Impudence, as well as the Falshood of the Annalist and Annotator, to talk so confidently of the Pope's Authority in this Matter; who, if he had (as they pretend) Convened this Council, should have summoned more Western Bishops, of which there were so few in this Council, that it is plain, Either Sylvester did not Summon them, or they did not obey his Summons.

Secondly, As to the President of this Council, and the Order of Sitting in it, and Subscribing to it: The Preface and Notes falsly affirm, That Hosius, Vitus, and Vincentius were all three the Pope's Legates, and Presidents of this Council Labbé p. 3, & 65. Bin. pag. 263, & 291.; and vainly think, if it had not been so, it could not have been a General Council: But if this be necessary to the Being of a General Council, surely there is some good Evidence of it. Quite contrary! The Preface to the Sardican Council is of the Editors, or their Friends making, and so is no Proof: Athanasius saith, Hosius was a Prince in the Synods; but not that he was President of this Synod, or the Pope's Legate. Cedrenus and Photius are too late Authors to out-weigh more Ancient and Authentic Writers; yet they do not say, (as the Notes pretend) That Sylvester, by his Legates, gave Authority to this Council: Yea, Photius. places the Bishop of Constantinople before Sylvester and Julius, even when he is speaking of the Chief Bishops, who met at Nice; and he is grosly mistaken also, because neither of the Popes did meet there Photii Nomocan. pag. 163.. Socrates only saith, The Bishop of Rome's Presbyters were his Proxies, and present at this Counoil Socrat. lib. 1. cap. 5.; but hereby he excludes Hosius (who was a Bishop) from being a Legate, and doth not at all prove Vitus and Vincentius were Presidents. Sozomen names not Hosius, but these two Presbyters as the Proxies of Pope Julius; but reckons that Pope [Page] himself in the fourth place Sozom. hist. lib. 1. cap. 16.. Though these Notes in citing Sozomen (according to their usual sincerity) place the Bishop of Rome first, and all the other Patriarchs after him. Finally, They cite the Subscriptions to prove, these Three were Legates and Presidents at Nice; but Richerius (a Learned Romanist) saith, These Subscriptions are of as little Credit, as the Epistle to Sylvester Richer. de Concil. gen. lib. 1. cap. 2. § 6.; and adds, That the placing these Presbyters before the Bishops, is a plain Proof, That all these Subscriptions were invented in later Ages; because the Pope's Legates never did precede any of the Patriarchs, till the Council of Chalcedon Id. ib. §. 8.. As for Hosius, he had been the Emperor's Legate long before, and divers of the Ancients say, He was very Eminent in this Council; but not one of them affirms, that Hosius was the Pope's Legate: This is purely an Invention of Baronius; but he only proves it by Conjectures Baron. An. 325. §. 20.. The Truth is, Constantine himself was the President of this Council, and Sat on a Gilded Throne (not as the Preface saith falsly, Below all the Bishops; but) Above all the Bishops, as Eusebius an Eye-witness relates Euseb. vit. Constant. lib. 3. cap. 10.; and the Notes at last own, He sat in the Chief Place Lab. pag. 67. Bin. pag. 292. col. 2.; yea, the Annalist confesseth, He acted the part of a Moderator in it Baron. An. 325. §. 73.. Richerius goes further, saying, It is clear by undoubted Testimonies, that the Appointing and Convening of this Council depended on the Authority of Constantine, who was the President thereof Richer. hist. Con. cap. 2 §. 2, 3, 4.; and he blames Baronius and Binius, for wilfully mistaking the Pope's Consent (which was requisite, as he was Bishop of an Eminent Church) for his Authority, to which no Pope in that Age pretended. It is true, there were some Bishops, who were Chief among the Ecclesiastics in this Council: Eustathius, Bishop of Antioch sat uppermost on the Right-side, and opened the Synod with a Speech to Constantine Theodoret. apud Baron. An. 325. §. 54.: Hence some (and among the rest Pope Foelix, in his Epistle to Zeno) affirm, He was President of this Council Vid. Richer. hist. Concil. lib. 1. cap. 2. §. 8.: Others say, The Bishop of Alexandria presided; and indeed all the Patriarchs present, Sat above all others of the Clergy Phot. lib. de 7. Synod.; yet so, as they all gave place to the Emperor, [Page] when he came in. And for the Pope's Legates, Baronius and Bellarmin do contend in vain about the Places they had in this Council since no Ancient Author tells us, they Sat above the Chief of the Bishops: So that this also is a Forgery of the Papal Flatterers, to give Countenance to their Churches feigned Supremacy.

Thirdly, As to the Power which confirmed the Canons of this Council; the ancient Historians do suppose that Constantine gave these Decrees their binding Power, and Record his Letters, to injoyn all to observe them Vid Socrat. Sozom. Theodoret. & Ruffin. ut supra.. And Eusebius who was there, saith, that The Emperor ratified the Decrees with his Seal Euseb. vit. Constan. lib. 1. cap. 37.; But the Annalist and Annotator seek to efface this evidence, by Railing at Eusebius, and by devising many weak pretences, to persuade the Credulous, that Pope Sylvester confirmed this Council by his Authority; and both the Preface and Notes tell us, that this Synod writ a Letter to Sylvester for his confirmation, and that he called a Council at Rome; and writ back to Ratify what they had done Lab. p. 6. & pag. 77. Bin. pag. 64. & pag. 299. col. 1.: But whoever will but read these two Epistles, will find the Latin so Barbarous and the Sense so Intricate, that nothing is plain in them, but that they are Forged Lab. p. 68. Bin. pag. 348. col. 1.; and Labbe's Margin tells us they are Fictions, nor dare Baronius own them to be genuine Baron. An. 325. §. 37.; and though Binius cite them for evidence in his Notes, yet at some distance he tells us, it is evident they are both Corrupted Bin. p. 348. col. 1. marg.; and again he says, if they were not both extreme faulty and Commentitious, they might be Evidence in this case Idem p. 365. col. 1. not. ad. Concil. Rom.: But Richerius is more Ingenuous, and declares, That these Epistles are prodigiously salse, The Forger of them being so Ignorant as to call Macarius, (who was then Bishop of Jerusalem) Bishop of Constantinople: Yet our Annotator cites Dionysius Exiguus for a Witness of these Epistles; whereas Richerius shews, they were Forged by some Ignorant Monk long after Dionysius his time, who mentions not the Pope's confirming of these Canons; nor doth he remember these Epistles; but only saith it was agreed, these Canons should be sent to Sylvester Bishop of Rome Richer hist. Concil. lib. 1. cap. 2. §. 6.; [Page] The Notes further urge, a Roman Council under Pope Sylvester, to prove his Confirming these Canons; but that Council is a confessed Forgery it self, and so proves nothing Labbè marg. pag. 412.. Lastly, The Annotator here (and almost every where) cites Socrates his speaking of an Ecclesiastical Canon, that no Decrees of Councils should be valid without the consent of the Roman Bishop Socrat. histor. lib. 2. cap. 13.. But First, Consent is not Confirmation; It is the priviledge of every Patriarch as well as of him of Rome, That a General Council cannot be held without every one of their consents; but this proves not their pretended sole and supreme Power of ratifying all Councils vested in the Pope: Besides, Socrates here only Historically relates what Pope Julius said in his own Case; and therefore the Testimony relies on Julius his Credit; and indeed that was a peculiar Case, wherein, when the Cause of Athanasius was referred by consent of all parties to Julius as Arbitrator, the Arians took it out of his Hands against Athanasius his Mind; and judged it in a Council, to which Julius was not at all summoned, which doubtless was very illegal and unjust: But yet none can tell, where this Ecclesiastical Canon was made, which the angry and injured Pope here cites; and therefore till it appear whence Julius had this Canon, we must be excused, if we give no great Deference to it; and unless they cou'd prove it was Recorded before the Nicene Council, it is very impertinent to expect the Nicene Fathers should Govern their Actions by it. So that we conclude not Sylvester, but Constantine confirmed this Council.

Fourthly, As to the number of the Canons the Annotator also notoriously prevaricates; He confesses that all the Greeks, and particularly Theodoret and Ruffinus, assert there were but Twenty Canons made there; yea, that the Sixth Council of Carthage, (within less than an Hundred years,) after a diligent search in the three Patriarchal Seats of Alexandria, Antioch and Constantinople, could find no more than Twenty Canons Lab. p. 71. Bin. pag. 395. col. 2.: But the Notes conceal Gratian's naming no more but Twenty Canons, and his saying, there are but only Twenty Nicene Canons to be [Page]found in the Roman Church Gratian. dist. 16. cap. 10. & cap. 13.. For all this the Annotator boldly tells us, That the truer Opinion, (or rather that which is most for the Popes interest) is, that more than Twenty Canons were made there: But we will examine his and Baronius's reasons Baron. An. 325. §. 157. &c.. First, They say there is no Decree about Easter among the Twenty Canons: I reply, There is a genuine Epistle of Constantine's, in which this matter is determined with the reasons for it, which is better than a bare Law without Arguments, in a case which had been so much disputed 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 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 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 Bin. Not. pag. 296. col. 1. & p. 297. col. 2.: Liers should have better Memories: Fifthly, They say the third Council of Carthage cites a Canon of Nice, forbidding to receive the Sacrament after Dinner; but if the place be considered (as Richerius notes Richer. histor. Concil. lib. 1. cap. 3. §. 13.) that Council [Page] 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 Bin. Not. in. ep. Julij. pag. 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 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 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

[Page] 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 Socrat. lib. 1. cap. 8. Sozom. lib. 1. cap. 22.; but Pisanus and Nauclerus, later Romish Authors 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 Baron. An. 325. §. 148, 149, 150.. And Binius in his Notes Lib. 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 Lab. & Bin. ut supr. not. in Can. 6.: Whereas no Authentic Edition ever had any such beginning. [Page] Dr. Beveridge gives us Eight several Versions, besides the Original Greek, which all want it 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 beginning; since that very Version is printed by Binius himself, without any such Preamble Lab. p. 45, 46. Bin. pag. 276.; but 'tis all one to him, true or false, in his Notes, he makes a foolish Paraphrase on this Forged Preface, about the Divine Right of the Pope to his Supremacy; whereas the plain Words of the genuine Canon shew, That this Council grounded the Jurisdiction of these great Bishops only upon Ancient Custom Richer. hist. Concil lib. 1. cap. 2. §. 11.: Nor can it be gathered from this Canon, That the Bishop of Rome then had any Superiority over him of Alexandria; the one being allowed as much Power within his own Limits, as the other had in his. It is plain, The Great Bishops are all here declared to be Equal, without any Exception or Salvo, upon the Bishop of Rome's account; which would have been mentioned, as well as the Rights of the Metropolitan of Caesarea are, when the Bishop of Jerusalem's Place is assigned in the Seventh Canon, if the Council of Nice had believed, Rome had any right to a Supremacy over all the rest. The Annotator is also angry at Russinus; and though upon the Fourteenth Canon he says, Ruffinus set down the true authentic Canons Lab. p. 75. B. Bin. pag. 298. col. 1.; yet because his Version of this Sixth Canon limits the Pope's Jurisdiction to the Suburbicarian Regions; He first falsly represents the Words of Ruffinus, adding to them,—which above all others are subject peculiarly to the Diocess of the Roman Church; and then Rails at the Version it self, as evil, erroneous, and proceeding from his Ignorance: But doubtless Ruffinus, who lived so near the time of this Council, and knew Rome and Italy so well, understood the Pope's Jurisdiction at that time, and the meaning of this Canon far better than Binius; and therefore Baronius (after he had condemned the Version) yet strives to accommodate it to their new Roman Sense. But there is full Evidence, that these Suburbicarian Regions were only those Provinces which [Page]were under the Praefect of Rome; that is, some part of Italy, and some of the adjacent Islands; and these were all the Churches which were then under the Pope's Jurisdiction: As may appear by the great difficulty which the succeeding Bishops of Rome found in the following Ages, to bring Milan, Aquileia, and Ravenna (Churches in Italy it self) to be in subjection to them: So that the Pope was so far from having an Universal Supremacy then, that Balsamon is mistaken in thinking he was made Patriarch of all the Western Church; for the very Fifth Canon, which orders all Causes to be heard and finally ended in the same Province where they hapned, not only destroys Appeals to Rome, but shews that no Bishop did then pretend to so large a Jurisdiction. Again, these Notes frequently brag of that Version of this Canon, which the Pope's Legate cited at Chalcedon Concil. Chalced. Act. 16.; wherein the aforesaid sorged Title of this Canon [The Church of Rome hath always had the Primacy] are quoted as part of the Canon it self: But the Acts of that Council of Chalcedon shew, That this Edition was discovered to be false by the Constantinopolitan Code, then produced: And if the Fathers there had believed this to be the true Reading, they would not immediately have contradicted the first famous General Council, by giving the Bishop of Constantinople equal Priviledges with him of Old Rome: So that their Quoting a false, baffled, and rejected Version of this Canon; rather pulls down, than supports their dear Supremacy; to maintain which they have nothing but Sophistry and Fraud, as the next Section will shew.

Sixthly, Therefore we will consider the Impostures and Fictions annexed to this Council, to give colour to their feigned Supremacy: And first, because Eusebius speaks little of the Popes, for he could not truly say much of them; Baronius and the Annotator invent all the Calumnies against him imaginable; and the former (though he have little true History in his Annals for Three hundred years together, which is not taken out of Eusebius) Rails at him most unjustly, as being [Page] an Arian; a malicious, fraudulent, and partial Writer Baron. An. 318. §. 46. An. 324. §. 136. §. 143, & §. 152. item An. 325. §. 192 &c.. And Binius treats this great Historian at the same rate: But Athanasius expresly saith, That Eusebius of Caesarea subscribed the Orthodox Faith Athan. Apol. cont. Arian p. 180.. Socrates affirms also, That he agreed to the Faith of the Nicene Council Socrat. hist. lib. 1 cap. 3.. Pisanus, his Greek Author of the History of this Council, brings in Eusebius disputing against the Arians Bin. p. 313. col. 2.: And Valesius, in his Life, clears him from this spightful Accusation, which these Men invent meerly to be Revenged on him, for not countenancing the Pope's Supremacy; which is not his Fault, but his Vertue, because there was no such thing pretended to in his days. Secondly, These Editors publish a Letter of Athanasius to Pope Marcus, with that Pope's Answer Lab. p. 287. Bin. pag 326. col. 1, & 2., among the Records of this Council; and the Annotator often cites them, to prove the Supremacy and Infallibility; because the Roman Church is here 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 Baron. An. Dom. 336. 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 Bin. p. 328. col. 2.: 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 Bin. p. 499. col. 1.), 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 Lab. p. 483. Bin. pag. 391. col. 1.. 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 Bin. p. 331. col. 1.. 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 Lab. p. 303. Bin. pag. 337. col. 2., which must be [Page] 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 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 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 Lab. Marg. pag. 106.; but Binius prints it at large, with all its Fictions and Impostures 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 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 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 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 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 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 [Page] Nicene Canons 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 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 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 Bin. p. 302. col. 2. Vid. Rivet. Cait. 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 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 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 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 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 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 Lab. p. 294. & pag. 303. Bin. pag. 353. col. 2. & 358. col. 1.: And his Notes say, [Page] the 72d Canon differs from the 13th, and the 73d Canon is contrary to the 49th 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 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 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 his Answer to them, both which in the next Column he owns are false and feigned 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 found in the Original Greek printed over against it; yet from [Page] this Fiction of their own Lab. p. 414. Bin. pag. 366. col. 1. the Notes impudently say, That this Synod was Convened by Sylvester's Authority, and from Osius his presence in it, Binius certainly gathers it was celebrated under this Pope; but a little after he knows not in what year it was held; and Baronius treats of this Council Anno 361, that is, near 30 years after Sylvester's Death Lab. p. 427, & 428. Bin. pag. 371. col. 1. Baron. An. 361. § 14.. They tell us that Pope Symmachus in his 6th Roman Council approves this Synod, but he mentions not Osius; however Baronius guesses, that the reason why Symmachus approved it was, because Osius the Legate of the Apostolic See was there; which groundless Conjecture and false Assertion, Binius in his Notes turns into a positive Affirmation, viz. That Osius was there as the Pope's Legate. As to the occasion of calling this Council of Gangra, it was to condemn one Eustathius, whom Binius owns to have been a great Favourer of Monkish life, and Sozomen saith, he was a Monk Sozom. lib. 3. cap. 13.; yea, the Synodical Epistle describes him as one who despised Marriage, allowed not the administrations of Married Priests, who had a separate way of Worship, and a different garb from others, making his Followers to abstain from Flesh, profess Continency, and renounce Propriety Bin. p. 367, &c.; all which are the very Characters of a Monk of the Roman stamp; and therefore it is wonder that Binius should give Sozomen and himself the Lye, and say he was no propagator of Monkery, and that it cannot be proved that he was a Monk; yet at last he fancies Eustathius his Name was mistaken for Eutachus an Armenian Monk Lab. p. 129. Bin. pag. 371. col. 2.. All which Blunders are only designed to keep the Reader from observing, that a Monk was condemned for an Heretic, yea, and censured for holding those very Opinions, which now pass currant among the Romish Fryers For which end also in his Notes on the 4th Canon, he saith, The Heretics (that is, Protestants) foolishly apply this Canon to condemn the Celibacy of the Clergy, whereas (he saith) it doth not concern Priests who have Wives, but such as had Wives Lab. p. 430. Bin. p. 372. col. 2.. But I doubt it will prove the Romanists are the Heretics here: For both this Canon, [Page] and the Synodical Epistle, have [ [...],] which signisies a Priest who now hath a Wife; even as [ [...]] 1 Cor. vii. 10. is those that have Wives, and are actually married; and so the best Version of this Canon is Presbyterum Conjugatum: For by it all those are Anathematiz'd, who affirm, That men should not Communicate, if a Married Priest say the Office: That is, this Primitive Council Anathematizes the Modern Church of Rome, to hide the shame of which just Censure the Notes quarrel with Our preferring the Translation of their Friend Dionysius, who turns the word [ [...]] Ministrante; before those Versions which turn it by Sacrificante; as if Protestants did this out of a design to blot out the Memorial of the unbloody Sacrifice Lab. p. 431. Bin. pag. 372. col. 2.; whereas that Greek word doth properly signifie Ministring and saying the Offices of the Church, but no where is used properly for Sacrificing; and it is apparent, that Protestants do most religiously believe the Sacrament to be an unbloody Sacrifice, and as such, do make it a Memorial of Christs one bloody Sacrifice upon the Cross.

The Notes also blame these Eustathian Heretics for perswading the People to give them the dispensing of their Alms intended for the Poor, contrary (saith Binius) to the Apostles Doctrine and Constitution Lab. & Bin. ut supra.. Yet thus the Romish Fryers do at this day, drawing the Peoples Alms to their Convents under pretence of being dispensers of them. The same Notes are mistaken in saying, That the Manicheans were forbid by their Doctrine to give any Alms to the Poor: For S. Augustine (who knew those Heretics best) assirms, That they only forbad their People, to give Meat or Fruits—to any Beggar who was not of their own Sect Aug. de mor. Manich. lib. 2. Tom. I. pag. 177.. Lastly, whereas this Council condemns the Eustathians, for abhorring the Assemblies and Divine Offices used in the places where the Martyrs were commemorated, Can. ult. These Notes falsly pretend they were condemned, for disapproving the Worship and Invocation of the holy Martyrs Lab. p. 434. Bin. pag. 374. col. 1.; whereas it is plain by the Canon, that the Martyrs were only Commemorated, not Invocated nor Worshiped in those days; and the expression [Page] in this place, is only a Phrase to signifie the usual Assemblies of Orthodox Christians, which were then frequently held in the Burying places of the Martyrs, and these Heretics separated from those public Assemblies.

The Arians, to revenge their Condemnation at Nice, falsly accuse Athanasius to the Emperour Constantine, An. Dom. 335. who thereupon called a Council at Tyre, which these Editors intitle, The Council of Tyre under Sylvester Lab. p. 435. Bin. pag. 374. col. 1.. Yet all the Ancients agree the Emperour Called it, and their own Notes confess as much: Only they pretend, He Called this Council contrary to custom and his duty; but this is notoriously false, since Constantine had already called divers Councils, and particularly that of Nice. And as for Pope Sylvester, he is not once named in this Council at Tyre, which looks a little odly upon the pretended Supremacy, that when the Catholic Cause lay at the stake, we never hear one word of the Roman Bishop, neither in this Council, nor in all the succeeding Letters and Councils relating to Athanasius, till that Cause was afterward brought before the Pope, as an Arbitrator chosen by both parties.

§. 19. Pope Marcus succeeded Sylvester, and sat but eight Months; yet, that he might not seem to have An. Dom. 336. done nothing, The Forgers have invented an Epistle from Athanasius to this Pope, desiring a true Copy of the Nicene Canons from Rome on pretence, that the Arians had burnt theirs at Alexandria: To which is annexed Marcus his Answer, who saith he had sent him 70 Canons. Now Binius hath often cited these Epistles, to prove the Popes Supremacy and Infallibility, and to shew there were more than twenty Canons made at Nice, yet here His Notes bring five substantial Reasons, to prove these Epistles forged; and Labbé notes, These Wares of Isidore are justly suspected by Baronius, Bellarmine, and other skilful Catholics, nor doth Binius himself doubt of their being spurious Lab. p. 469, & 472. Bin. pag. 382. col. 2, &c.. Yea, it is remarkable, that this very Binius out of Baronius Baron. An. 336. §. 59, & 60. here confesseth, That he who Forged the Epistle of Boniface to Eulalius, devised also [Page]these two Epistles, to consult the Credit of Pope Zosimus and Pope Boniface, who had cited a Canon out of the Nicene Council, not found among the genuine 20 Canons. From which we may observe, First, that Binius will cite those things for the supremacy, &c. which he knows to be forged. Secondly, That the great design of all these Forged Records of Antiquity was either to cover the faults, or consult the honour of the Roman Church, which seems to have both employed and encouraged the Authors of these Pious Frauds, because her Pretences could not be made out by any thing that was Authentic.

Julius succeeded Marcus in the same year, in whose Life the Pontifical mistakes the Consuls Names, and feigns he was banished Ten Months, which Baronius proves to have been impossible Baron. An. 352. §. 2, & 3., He fills up this Popes story (according to his manner) with trisling matters, and omits the only remarkable thing in his Life, which was his concern in the Cause of Athanasius. In this Popes name several Epistles are published: The First from Julius to the Eastern Bishops may be proved fictitious, not only by the Confession of Baronius and other Learned Romanists Lab. p. 475. in Marg. Bin. pag. 384. col. 1., but by divers other Arguments. For is it probable, that Julius would Only be solicitous about his Supremacy when he writ to the Arians, and not once reprove them for their Heresie, nor their persecuting Athanasius? is it likely he should cite the Council of Nice falsly, and feign so many ancient Decrees about the Primacy of the Pope, and the Nullity of Councils not celebrated by his Authority? This Forger saith, Julius consented to the Nicene Council at the time of its celebration; but the Romanists agree that it was held in Sylvesters time. He imperiously forbids the Eastern Bishops to judge any Bishops without him, and falsly tells them, They all had received their Consecration from Rome, yea, with the fabulous Pontisical he mistakes the Consuls Name, and puts Maximianus for Titianus. Yet by this Forgery the Editors would prove, that more than twenty Canons [Page] were made at Nice Lab. Marg. pag. 477. Bin. pag. 385. col. 1., and (after Baronius had discarded it) Binius by frivolous Notes strives to justifie it as speaking big for the Supremacy Lab. p. 480. Bin. pag. 386. col. 1.. Secondly, Here is the Eastern Bishops Answer to Julius, wherein though they call the Pope Father, which was the usual Title of Bishops of great Sees; yet they expresly deny his having any Authority over them, and affirm he ought to be subject to the Canons, as well as other Bishops: So that there is no reason for Binius his Brag, Lo, how they own the Supremacy Lab. Marg. pag. 482. Bin. pag. 386. col. 2.! For indeed they do not own it at all, and yet the substance of this Epistle is genuine, being found in Secrates and Sozomen. The third Epistle from Julius to the Arians, is owned by Baronius and others to be a Forgery Lab. p. 483. Bin. pag. 387. col. 2.; and Binius in his Notes upon it saith, It is false, corrupted, and stollen out of divers Authors Bin. p. 391. col. 1., yet the same Binius infamously quotes it over and over for the Supremacy, the Nullity of Councils not called by the Pope, and the number of the Nicene Canons. The fourth Epistle of Julius comes not out of the Vatican, but was preserved in Athanasius his Apology, and is by all accounted genuine, being writ in an humble style, without any pretences to the Supremacy Lab. p. 494. Bin. pag. 391. col. 1.. And here the Nicene Canon (about the re-hearing in a New Synod, a Cause not well judged before) is rightly cited, without mention of any final Appeal to Rome Lab. p. 495. Bin. ut supr. col. [...].; The power of all Bishops is supposed to be equal, and not any greater power to belong to him that is fixed in a greater City. Here Julius writes not his own Sense, but the Sense of the Bishops of Italy, who were assembled in a Synod at Rome, of which great City Julius being Bishop ought, by ancient custom, to publish the Decrees of such Councils as were held in or or near that City Lab. p. 513. Bin. pag. 395. col. 1.; but Binius falsly infers from hence, That it was an honour due to his place, to publish the Decrees made in all Synods. And whereas, when any thing was under debate concerning Alexandria (the second Patriarchate) Julius saith, it was a Custom, to write to the Roman Bishop (who was the first Patriarch,) Binius stretcheth this and saith, It was [Page]both agreeable to the Canons and Custom, that no Bishop should be judged till the Popes definitive Sentence were heard Lab. p. 516. Bin. pag. 396. col. 1.. The last Epistle also is genuine, and writ in a modest style, owning that Athanasius was not judged by the Pope alone, but by a Synod of Bishops, whose Judgment he supposes above his own Ep. 4. ap. Lab. Bin. pag. 396. col. 2., and by these two Epistles we may discern the Impostures of those other Epistles, which are Forged about this time in the Names of this and other Popes. The Decrees attributed to this Pope are not suitable to the Age, yet we may note, the third Decree forbids a man to Marry his deceased Brothers Wife, though his Brother had not known her: Which was shamefully broken by that Pope, who gave Licence to King Henry the 8th to marry his Brothers Wife, and this Decree justifies his Divorce Lab. p. 525. Bin. pag. 398. col. 1..

After these Epistles follows a Roman Synod, wherein Julius with 117 Bishops confirm the Nicene Council; but Labbé saith, it is a hotch-potch made up out of many Authors, and put into the form of a Council by Isidore Lab. Marg. pag. 527. Bin. pag. 400. col. 1., and it is dated with the same mistaken Consuls, Felician and Maximian, with which Julius his entrance into the Pontifical, and all his Forged Epistles are dated (for his genuine Epistles have no date;) yet Baronius Baron. An. 337. §. 67. and the Notes gravely dispute about the time of this Forged Council, and the Bishops which were said to be in it; meerly to perswade the Reader, that the Nicene Council needed the Pope's Confirmation; but since this Council is feigned, it can be no evidence: And therefore Binius gains nothing by alledging it in his Notes on the third Epistle, but only to shew us, that one falshood is the fittest prop for another.

§. 20. Athanasius being restored to Alexandria, calls a An. Dom. 339. Synod there of all the Bishops of his Province, of which only the Synodical Epistle is now extant, written as the Title declares, To all the Catholic Bishops every where; yet the Notes from Baronius Baron. An. 339. §. 2. & §. 11. say, It was writ particularly[Page]to Julius; whereas the Body of the Epistle saith, The Arians have written to the Roman Bishop, and perhaps (speaking to other Bishops) they have writ to you also: So that this is a falshood devised for to make out the Supremacy, which is not countenanced by this Epistle, wherein we are told, that Religion depends not on the greatness of any City: Though the Notes say, That Bishops had Honours and Jurisdiction given them, suiting to the dignity of the Secular Praefects of their several Cities; and thence Alexandria was reckoned the second Patriarchate, and Antioch the third Lab. p. 534. Bin pag. 401. col. 2., it follows naturally, therefore Rome was the first Patriarchate: But this Inference they will not make: I shall only note that this Synod saith, The lawful use of the Cup of the Lord was to make the People Drink Lab. p. 547. Bin. pag. 404. col. 2.; from whence we gather, that the Roman Church (who denies the Cup to the People) doth a very unlawful thing, and leaves off the lawful use of the holy Chalice.

The Council of Antioch, is by the Editors said to be An. Dom. 341. held under Julius Lab. p. 559. Bin. pag. 407., yet it was called by Constantius on occasion of dedicating a new Church there; and the Notes say, the Emperour not only called it, but being present there, caused such Decrees as he pleased to pass in it Lab. p. 588. Bin. p. 416. col. 1.; yea, it is evident they valued Pope Julius so little, that they judged quite otherwise than he had done in the case of Athanasius, and therefore the Romanists rail at this Synod as a Conventicle of Arians, and in the last Roman Edition (saith Richerius (g)) have left out these Canons as not favouring the (x) Richer. hist. Conc. lib. 1. cap. 4. practice of the Roman Court. However Baronius saith, Among 97 Bishops, only 36 were Arians Baron. An. 341. §. 4, & 5.; and the Canons made here are excellent Rules for Discipline, having been received into the Code of the Universal Church before S. Chrysostom's time, confirm'd by the Council of Chalcedon, allowed by S. Hillary, and (as Gratian saith) received by the Catholics; and the Learned Richerius hath fully answered all the Cavils of Binius and Baronius, by which they would invalidate them: So that we need only make some few Remarks [Page] on this Council, and so dismiss it. The 12th Canon Orders a Bishop who was deposed, to appeal to a Synod of Bishops, and allowed none to be restored, unless it were by a greater number of Bishops than had deposed him Lab. p. 595. Bin. pag. 417. col. 2.. But they exclaim against this as a device of the Arians, to take away that Apostolical and ancient Law and Custom of appealing to Rome, which (they say) was always observed till now: But hitherto they could never produce any such Law, nor prove any such Custom; nor did S. Chrysostom ever appeal to Rome, but desired to be restored by a greater Synod, as this Canon requires Socrat. lib. 6. cap. 16. Vid. Bever. Concil. Tom. II. pag. 191., and when his Enemies made that impossible, then indeed he objected that this Canon was made by Arians; yet the Canon remained in force, and was generally received in that Age. Nor did the Sardican Council revoke it (as Binius falsly saith Lab. p. 597. Bin. pag. 418. col. 2. Vid. Richer. ut supr.: For though they put a new Complement on the Pope, yet they did not take away the ancient method of appealing from a lesser Synod to a greater. The second Canon decrees, That such as come to Church to hear part of the Service, and do not receive the Sacrament, shall be Excommunicated. This the Notes say was to condemn the old Audian Heretics Lab. p. 596. Bin. pag 418. col. 1.; but it evidently condemns the new Roman Heretics, who since they exalted their Wafer into a God, expect the People should only gaze at, and adore it most part of the year, and excuse them, though they often go away without receiving it. The 25th Canon forbids Bishops to commit the Treasures and Fruits of the Church to their Kinsinen, Brethren and Sons: Upon which Binius hath no Note, knowing it reflected on the Roman Churches Custom, where the Popes generally give all they can to their scandalous Nipotismo.

Next to this Council of Antioch, is placed a second Synod at Rome, under Pope Julius, in the Cause of Athanasius Lab. p. 604. Bin. pag. 419. col. 1.; but Baronius places it before that of Antioch, An. 340. §. 1. And though the Cardinal confess, That Athanasius and his Enemies by consent had referred this matter to Julius his Arbitration, and that Athanasius came to Rome after this Reference was made; yet he [Page] vainly remarks on this matter, in these words, Behold, Reader, the ancient usage for injured Bishops, to come even out of the East to the Roman Bishop for redress Baron. An. 340. §. 2.. But this is one of the first Instances, and was a meer Arbitration by consent; and the ancient Usage since the Emperours became Christians was to appeal to them, as these Parties had done, before it was referred to the Pope. In this Roman Council it is pretended Athanasius delivered his Creed; but the Acts of the Council being lost, and the Roman Archives being a repository neither safe nor creditable, we can have no Evidence from thence of the Truth and Antiquity of this excellent Composure. One thing however is remarkable, that Baronius and Binius charge the Greeks with taking away those words [and the Son] out of this Creed, and add, that they falsly pretended, this was a late addition of the Latins Lab. p. 605. Bin. pag. 420. col. 1. Baron. An. 340. §. 12.. Yet Baronius himself owns, that the Western Church added these words [and the Son] to the Nicene Creed, above an hundred years after Baron.. An. 447.; so that they accuse the poor Greeks for keeping the Creed, as Athanasius made it, and as their own Church used to recite the Nicene Creed for many years after.

The year following Julius held a third Synod at An. Dom. 342. Rome, and in it read the Letter of the Eastern Bishops, wherein they wonder he should cite them to Rome, and so value himself upon the greatness of his City, as on that account to take upon him to judge them concerning things which they had determined in their own Synods. Nor durst Julius challenge any Authority over them, by reason of the Eminence of his City Baron An. 341. §. 56, 57.: Only he pleads for Athanasius, who being Bishop of an Apostolical See, viz. Alexandria, ought not to have been condemned by them, till they had writ to all the Western Bishops, and especially to him as Bishop of the first See, that so all of them, (viz. in Council) might have determined the matter according to right Id. An. 342. §. 28, 30.. But Baronius and Binius turn this into their being obliged to write to the Pope, and to receive what he had defined: And Binius infers, from [Page] the Popes writing this Synodical Letter from a Council held in his own City of Rome (though the Synod expresly command him to write the Epistle) That in respect to the Pope, and according to ancient Custom, it was his right to publish Whatever was agreed on in Councils Lab. p. 607. Bin. pag. 420. col. 2.. But such false Consequences from Premisses that will not bear them, only shew the Arguers partiality.

After this we have nothing remarkable, but a second Council at Antioch, held by the Arians, yet bearing this Title under Julius Lab. p. 608. Bin. 420. col. 2., wherein the Arians made a New Creed, and sent four Bishops to give Constans the Emperour and all the Western Bishops an account of their Faith, and they met these Legates in a Council at Milain; and though it doth not appear Julius was present, yet Baronius makes as if this Embassy from the East was sent to Julius, chiefly to desire Communion with him Baron. An. 344. §. 4.; and Binius saith, They desired to be received into the Communion of the Roman Church Lib. p. 614. Bin. pag. 422. col. 1.. But the ancient Historians assure us, they desired not the Communion of the Roman only; but of the whole Western Church, of which that was then esteemed no more than one eminent part.

§. 21. The Sardican Synod, which saith some kind An. Dom. 347. things of Rome, is prodigiously magnified by the Editors, who place an History before it, and partial Notes after it, which are full of Falsities and designed Misrepresentations: Baronius also spends one whole year in setting it off to the best advantage; but all their Frauds will be discovered, by considering, First, By whom it was called: Secondly, Who presided in it: Thirdly, Of what number of Bishops it consisted: And, Fourthly, What Authority the Canons of it have.

First, As to the Calling it, the Preface falsly states the occasion thereof: For it is plain Athanasius did not (as that reports) leave the whole judgment of his Cause to the Pope Lab. p. 624. Bin. pag. 423.; nor did he (as is there said) Fly to Rome, as the Mother of all Churches, and the Rock of Faith: This is the Prefacers meer Invention. For Athanasius went to [Page] Rome as to the place agreed on by both sides for Arbitrating this matter; and the other party so little valued the Pope's decision in his favour, that they would neither restore Athanasius, nor receive him into Communion upon it; which made Julius complain to the Emperour Constans, who writ to his Brother Constantius about it; but that Letter did not produce this Council (as the Preface fully sets out) but only procured a fruitless Embassy of three Eastern Bishops to Rome. It was the personal Addresses of Athanasius and Paulus, Bishop of Constantinople, to Constans (when they found the Pope had no power to restore them) which caused both the Emperours to give order for this Council to meet, as Sozomen, Socrates and Theodoret affirm Sozom. lib. 3. cap. 19. Socrat. lib. 2. cap. 16. Theod. lib. 2. cap. 5.. And the Bishops in their Epistle do expresly say, They were called together by the most Religious Emperours Lab. p. 670. Bin. pag. 440.: But Baronius fraudulently leaves out this beginning of the Bishops Letter Baron. An. 347. §. 31.; and the bold Writer of the Preface saith, This Council was called by the Popes Authority: And the Notes offer some Reasons to justifie this Falshood, yea, they cite the aforesaid Authors, who plainly declare it was called by both the Emperours, to prove, it was called by the Pope; but they offer nothing material to make this out. 'Tis true, Socrates saith, Some absent Bishops complained of the shortness of time, and blamed Julius for it Not. ad Concil. Sardic. Lab. pag. 685. Bin. pag. 445. col. 1. Vid. Richer. histor. Concil. lib. 1. cap. 3.; but that doth not prove the Council was called by his Authority, only it supposes, he might advise the Emperour to make them meet speedily; but still that is no sign of full power.

Secondly, As to the President of this Council, The Preface saith boldly, That Hosius, Archidamus, and Philoxenus presided in the Name of Julius. But first, it doth not appear that Hosius was the Popes Legate, only as an eminent Confessor he had a chief place in it; whence Sozomen saith, Osius and Protogenes were chief of the Western Bishops here assembled Sozom. lib. 3. cap. 11.: That is, Osius as an ancient Confessor, and Protogenes as Bishop of Sardic, where the Council was held; but as for Archidamus and Philoxenus, they are not in the Latin Copies of the Subscribers Lab. p. 658. Bin. pag. 436. col. 1.. And Athanasius only saith, Julius subscribed[Page]by these two Presbyters; which shews, that Hosius was not the Popes Legate (for he subscribed in his own name) and that these Presbyters who were his Legates, were not Presidents of the Council.

Thirdly, They magnifie the number of Bishops also in this Synod, to make it look like a General Council; where accounts differ they take the largest Baron. An. 347. §. 3, 4., and falsly cite Athanasius, as if he said it consisted of 376 Bishops, and so exceeded the first Council of Nice Lab. p. 685. Bin. pag. 446. col. 1. Baron. ut supr. §. 75.. Whereas Athanasius expresly reckons only 170, who met at the City of Sardica Athanas. Epist. ad Solitar. p. 818.; and when many of the Eastern Bishops withdrew, there were not one hundred left to pass the Decrees of this Council. 'Tis true, Athanasius affirms, that 344 Bishops signed the Decree to restore him; but many of these hands were got from Orthodox Bishops, who were not at the Council Idem Apol. 2. p. 767, & 768.: So that this was never counted or called a General Council by any, but these partial Romanists; for though the Emperour seem to have designed it General at first Socrat. lib. 2 cap. 16., yet so few came to it, and they who came agreed so ill (the Eastern Bishops generally forsaking it) that it is called frequently, A Council of the Western Church, and so Epiphanius in Baronius describes it Baron. An. 347. §. 42..

Fourthly, The little regard paid to its Canons afterwards shews it was no General Council. Richerius, a moderate and learned Romanist proves, That this Council was not extant in Greek in the time of Dionysius Exiguus, so that he and Pope Leo the 4th reckon it after all the Councils of Note: The Greeks received not its Canons into their Code, and Pope Nicholas Epistle shows, that the Eastern Church did not value its Authority, only the Popes esteemed it, because it seems to advance their power Richer. hist. Concil. lib. 1. cap. 3.. The African Church of old valued this Council as little; for a Synod of Bishops there (among whom were S. Augustine and Alypius) were ignorant of any Sardican Council, but one held by the Arians. Baronius tries all his art to palliate this matter Baron. An. 347. §. 73.; but after all his Conjectures it is plain, it was of no repute [Page] in Africa, because when two Popes Zosimus and Boniface afterwards cited the Decrees of Sardica as Canons of Nice, the Fraud was discovered, and when they were found not to be Nicene Canons, They would not receive them as Canons of Sardica, but flatly rejected them; which shews, that these African Fathers did neither take this Sardican Synod for a General Council, nor for an Authentic Provincial Council: And therefore whatever is here said in favour of the Roman Church, is of no great weight. However the Champions of Rome magnifie the 4th Canon of this Council, where in case a Bishop judge that he is condemned unjustly, Hosius saith, If it please you, let us honour the memory of Peter the Apostle, and let those who have judged such a Bishop write to Julius Bishop of Rome, that so (if need be) the Judgment may be reviewed by the Bishops of the Province, and he may appoint some to hear the Cause, &c. Now here the Notes talk big, and claim a Supremacy and Appeals as due to the Pope by Divine Right Lab. p. 690, & 691. Bin. pag. 448. col. 1.: But Richerius well observes, It is Nonsence, to ascribe that to a human Law and Privilege, or to the Decree of a Council, which was due before to the Pope by the Law of God Richer. hist. Con. lib. 1. cap. 3.. And we add, that Hosius neither cites any Divine Law, no nor any precedent Canon or Custom for this, but supposes it at the pleasure of this Synod to grant or deny Julius this privilege: And yet if it were an express Law, this being only a Western Synod, doth not bind the whole Catholic Church. Besides, it is not said, The Criminal shall appeal to Rome, and have his Cause tryed there; but only, that the Pope (if need were) might order the Cause to be heard over again in the Province where it was first tryed; and therefore Julius is only made a Judge of the necessity of a Re hearing, not of the Cause it self, which according to the 5th Canon of Nice was to be decided in the Province where it was first moved. And this rather condemns than countenances the modern Popish way of Trying foreign Causes at Rome by Appeal. To this I will add an ancient Scholion on this Canon found in some old [Page] Copies: From this Canon the Roman Church is much exalted with Pride; and former evil Popes producing this as a Canon of Nice, were discovered by a Council at Carthage, as the Preface to that Council shews: But this Canon (whatever they pretend) gives no more power to Rome than other Canons, since it saith not absolutely, that any who is deposed any where shall have liberty to appeal to the Pope; for at that rate the Sardican Synod would contradict the General Councils; it speaks only of him who is deposed by the Neighbouring Bishops and those of his Province, and therefore doth not comprehend the Synod of the Primate Metropolitan, or Patriarch; so that if they be present, and the Sentence be not barely by the Neighbouring Bishops, the Pope may not re-hear it, as this Canon orders: And it only concerns those in the West, Hosius and the Makers of these Canons being of those parts; but in the East this Custom never was observed to this day Schol. ap: D. Bever. Conc. Tom. II. p. 199.. I shall make one remark or two more, and so dismiss this Council. The Preface cites Sozomen, to prove, That Hosius and others writ to Julius to confirm these Canons: But Sozomen only saith, They writ to him, to satisfie him that they had not contradicted the Nicene Canons Sozom. lib. 3. cap. 11. Lab. p. 625. Bin. pag. 424.; and their Epistle (which calls Julius their Fellow-Minister) Lab. p. 670. Bin. pag. 440. col. 1., desires him, to publish their Decrees, to those in Sicily, Sardinia and Italy, (which of old were Suburbicarian Regions,) but never speak of his confirming their Decrees Lab. p. 662. Bin. pag. 437. col. 2.. Yet in their Epistle to the Church of Alexandria, they pray them to give their Suffrage to the Councils determinations Lab. p. 670. Bin. pag. 439. col. 2.: Which, had it been writ to the Pope, would have made his Creatures sufficiently triumph. I observe also, that upon the mention of the Church of Thessalonica in the 20th Canon, the Notes pretend, that this Church had an especial regard then, because the Bishop of it was the Pope's Legate; yet the first proof they give, is, that Pope Leo made Anastasius of Thessalonica his Legate an hundred years after; and hence (they say) Bellarmine aptly proves the Popes Supremacy Lab. p. 692. Bin. pag. 448. col. 2.: But the Inferences are as ridiculous as they are false, and they get no advantage either to their Supremacy or Appeals by this Council.

[Page] §. 22. The first Council of Carthage was appointed to An Dom. 348. suppress that dangerous Sect of the Donatists; and though it bear the Title of under Julius, yet this pretended universal Monarch is not mentioned by the Council, or by any ancient Author, as having any hand in this great Work, which was managed by Gratus Bishop of Carthage, and by the Emperours Legates Lab. p. 713. Bin. pag. 546. col. 1.. In this Council were made fourteen excellent Canons, which possibly the Romanists may reject, because they never asked the Popes consent to hold this Council, nor desired his confirmation to their Canons; and whereas the Editors tell us, Pope Leo the 4th (who lived five hundred years after) approved of this Council, we must observe that the Catholic Church had put them into their Code, and received them for Authentic long before, without staying for any Approbation from the Bishop of Rome.

Soon after this, there was a Council at Milan, of which there was no mention, but only in the Synodical Letter of the Bishops met at Ariminum, An. 359. Baron. An. 359. §. 16. Lab. p. 721. Bin. pag. 459. col. 1.; who say, that the Presbyters of Rome were present at it; they say not, Presidents of it: And there it seems Ursacius and Valens, two Arian Heretics, abjured their Heresie, and recanted their false Evidence against Athanasius. And either before or after this Synod (it is not certain whether) they went to Rome, and in writing delivered their Recantation to Pope Julius Hosti Epist. ap. Baron. An. 355. §. 661., before whom they had falsly accused Athanasius, and who was the Arbitrator chosen to hear that Cause, and so not as Pope, but as a chosen Judge in that case, was fittest to receive these mens Confessions: Yet hence the Notes make this Inference, That since this matter was greater, than that a Synod at Milan (though the Roman Presbyters were present) could dispatch it, and lest the ancient Custom of the Catholic Church should be broken, viz. for eminent Heretics to abjure their Heresies only at Rome, and be received into Communion by the Pope; they sent them to Julius, that having before him offered their Penitential [Page]Letter, they might make their Confession, the whole Roman Church looking on. All which is their own Invention; for the Authors from whom alone they have the notice of this Council say nothing of this kind, and it is very certain that there was at this time, no custom at all for Heretics to abjure at Rome, more than at any other place, many Heretics being frequently reconciled at other Churches. There was also a peculiar reason why these two Heretics went thither, and it cannot be proved that this Council sent them; so that these are Forgeries, devised to support their dear Supremacy, and so we leave them: Only noting, That the Editors are not so happy in their Memory as their Invention; for the next Page shews us a Council at Jerusalem, wherein many Bishops (who had described the Condemnation of Athanasius, and therefore no doubt were Arians) repented and recanted, and so were restored to the Churches Communion, without the trouble of going to Rome on this Errant.

A Council at Colen follows next, which they say was in Julius his time, and under Julius; yet the Notes say, they know not the time when it was held, only the Bishops there assembled deposed a Bishop for Heresie by their own Authority, without staying for the Pope's Advice, though they were then about to send a Messenger to Rome to pray for them; so little was the Popes Consent thought needful in that Age; and perhaps it is in order to conceal this seeming neglect, that the Notes Bin. Not p. 463. col. 2. (after they have approved far more improbable Stories, which make for the honour of their Church) reject the report of this Message to the Prince of the Apostles as fabulous, and we are not concerned to vindicate it.

The last Council which they style under Julius, was at Vasatis, or Bazas in France; yet the Notes affirm, That Nectarius presided in it; the time of it very uncertain Lab. p. 728. Bin. pag. 464. col. 1. & 2., and the Phrases used in the Canons of it, shew it to be of much later date. Besides this Council saith, The Gloria-Patri was sung after the Psalms in all the [Page]Eastern Churches; but Jo. Cassian, who came out of the East in the next Century, saith, He had never heard this Hymn sung after the Psalms in the Eastern Churches Bin. Not. in Epist. Damas. & Hieron. pag. 506. col. 1.: Wherefore it is probable this Council was celebrated after Cassian's time, when the Greek Churches had learned this Custom; and yet these Editors place it a whole Century too soon, because they would have us think that custom here mentioned, of remembring the Pope in their daily Prayers, was as ancient as the wrong date here assigned. In Labbe's Edition here is added an account Lab. à p. 729. ad pag. 739. of three Councils against Photinus, on which we need make no Remarks.

§. 23. Pope Liberius succeeded Julius, whose Life with An. Dom. 352. the Notes upon it are very diverting, if we observe the Shifts and Artifices used by the Roman Parasites to excuse him from Heresie. The Pontifical saith, He was banished three years by Constantius, for not consenting to the Asians, in whose place Foelix was Ordained, and he in a Council condemned Ursacius and Valens, two Arian Bishops, who in Revenge petitioned Constantius to revoke Liberius; and he being thus restored, consented to the Arians and the Emperour, so far as to persecute and Martyr the Catholics, and his Rival Foelix being a Catholic, was deposed. But this Fable is not fine enough for the Palates of Baronius and Binius, who are to dress a Story to make the Reader believe, that neither Liberius nor Foelix erred in Faith while they were Popes. To confute which let it be considered, that Binius confesseth, Liberius consented to the depriving of Athanasius, admitted Arians to his Communicn, and subscribed an Arian Confession of Faith; as Athanasius, Hilary and Hierom, witness Not. ad 7 Ep. laber. Lab. pag. 751. Bin. pag. 470. col. 1.; and there are Arguments unanswerable to prove, he was an Arian while he was Pope Vid. Spalat. de rep. Ecel. l. 7. cap. 5.; yea, Binius in his own Notes twice confesseth, That he unhappily fell Lab. p. 741. Bin. p. 465. E.; and that, he basely fell Lab. p. 743. Bin. pag. 466. col. 2.. Yet to mince the matter, he adds, That by his Fall he cast a vile Blot on his Life and Manners; and the Notes on the Sirmian Council say, By offending against the Confession of [Page]Faith, and the Law of Justice, he cast a most base Blot on his Life and Manners Lab. p. 783. Bin. pag. 479. col. 2.. What can be more ridiculous! He erred in Faith, and subscribed the Arian Confession, therefore the blot was upon his Faith; this did not concern his Life and Manners. That Absurd Phrase is a meer blind to keep the Reader from discovering a Pope turning Heretic: To which end they impudently say, It is a false Calumny of the Heretics to say, Liberius was infected with the Arian Heresie Lab. p. 741. Bin. pag. 465. col. 2.. But I ask, Whether Athanasius, S. Hilary and S. Hieroin (who affirm this) were Heretics? Or was Platina an Heretic, who saith, Liberius did in all things agree with the Heretics: To which the same Forgers have added, [As some would have it;] but those are not Phetinus words, who saith soon after, He was of the same Opinion with the Arians Platin. in vit. Liber. p. 50. Eusebius Presbyter urbis Romoe copit declarare Liberium Haereticum. Portitor. Sarish Aug. 14.. And surely the Catholic People of Rome in his time took him for an Arian, and as such would have no communion with him, and therefore we conclude he was an Arian. As for Foelix, who was put into his place, Baronius and Binius would excuse him by a false Latin Version of Socrates, saying, He was addicted to the Arian Sect; but the Original Greek expresly declares, He was in Opinion an Arian [...]. Socrat. lib. 2. cap. 29.. And it is certain, He was chosen by the Arians, and communicated with them, Ordaining Arians to be Priests; and therefore the Catholic People at Rome avoided his communion, and S. Hierom saith, He was an Arian. As for the Story of his condemning Ursacius and Valens, two of that Sect, there is no better Authority for it, than the fabulous Pontifical. So that after all the devices of Bellarmin, Bargnius and Binius Lab. p. 742. Bin. pag. 466. col. 1, & 2., to save their Churches Infallibility, we have two Popes at once falling so notoriously into the Arian Heresie, that the Lay-people disowned their Communion: This is more than suspicion of Heresie in S. Peter's Chair, and proves, that their infallible Guides for some years were Arian Heretics.

For this Liberius divers Epistles are published, with a Preface before them, which saith, Two of them were feigned by the Arians Lab. p. 744. Bin. pag. 467. col. 1.; yet these two are found in the [Page]Fragments of S. Hilary, among which it is not probable there should be any Fiction of the Arians. So that it is very likely these two Epistles are genuine, but rejected by these Sycophants of Rome, because they tell an ungrateful Truth, viz. That Liberius did condemn Athanasius soon after he was made Pope. And if we consider how inconstant he was, it is very probable that he might condemn Athanasius twice, first in the beginning of his Papacy, as is said in these two Epistles, of which he repented, and then writ that Tenth Epistle, to own he was in Communion with Athanasius, and to tell him, If he approved of his form of Faith, it would tend much to the setling of his Judgment Lab. p. 755. Ban. pag. 471. col. 1., which is an odd Complement from an Infallible Head. Secondly He condemned Athanasius after his Banishment, of which more shall be said hereafter: But as to the particular Epistles, we shall note, That in the first (which they say is genuine) Liberius with other Bishops petition Constantius, to order a Council to be held at Aquileia Lab. p. 744. Bin. pag. 467. col. 1. Vid item Ep. 2.; by which we see the Pope had not then assumed the power of calling Councils. When he writ the 7th Epistle (which they grant also to be genuine) no doubt he was an Arian: For he calls the Arian Bishops, His most Beloved Brethren, and declares his Consent to their just condemning of Athanasius, together with his being in Communion with them, and his receiving their Sirmian Creed, as the Catholic Faith Lab. p. 751. Bin. pag. 469. col. 2.. So in the XIth Epistle (which is certainly genuine and recorded by Socrates Socrat. hist. lib. 4. cap. 11.,) the Notes confess, he was so easie, as to receive the Semi-Arians to Communion, and to commend their Faith, as the same which was decreed at Nice: But it is gross Flattery, to call this only, Being too easie; it was in plain terms, Being deceived, and erring in Matters of Faith; which spoils their Infallibility Lab. p. 757. Bin. pag. 472. col. 1., as it also doth their Universal Supremacy; for Liberius in the same Epistle to call himself, Bishop of Italy (referring only to the Suburbicarian Regions) and saying, He was the meanest of Bishops, and rejoyced that those in the East did (not submit to him, but) agree with him in Matters of Faith. Wherefore the XIIth or (as Labbé calls it) the [Page] XIVth Epistle, which is writ to all Bishops, is manifestly forged Ep. 14. Lab. pag. 760. Ep. 12. Bin. pag. 472. col. 2.: And so are the two next, from Liberius to Athanasius, and from Athanasius to Liberius, as both Labbé and Binius confess Lab. p. 763. Bin. in Notis pag. 474. col. 2.; yet in one of these the Pope brags of his Authority over the Universal Church: But the Forger was so bad at Chronology, that while he strives to make this Pope look like an Orthodox Friend of Athanasius, he absurdly brings him in, even under Julian or Valens (in one of whose Reigns this Epistle was written,) threatning Offenders with the Emperours Indignation, with Deprivation, yea, with Proscription, Banishment and Stripes Lab. p. 767. Bin. pag. 474. col. 2.. I need not mention those Decrees which are attributed to Liberius, whose Style betrays them, and shews they belong to the later Ages, and are placed here by the Collectors, only to make them seem more ancient than really they are.

In Liberius's first year it is said, There was a Council called at Rome by this Pope, to clear Athanasius Lab. p. 769. Bin. pag. 475. col. 1.; yet being sensible that their Authority would signifie very little, they all agreed to petition the Emperour for a Council to Meet at Aquileia, to confirm what they had done at Rome. Anno 355. there was a Council at Milan, the Editors call it, A General Council, because it was with Constantius permission, called by Liberius, whose Legates also were present at it Lab. p. 772. Bin. pag. 476. col. 1.. But herein they grosly falsifie, for Sozomen declares, That Constantius summoned all the Bishops to Milan Sozom. lib. 4 cap. 8. Socrat. lib. 2. cap. 29.; and Baronius saith, The Emperour called them together Baron. An. 355. §. 2.. Therefore if this was a General Council, it was called by the Emperour, and not by the Pope: In the Notes on this Synod they say, Constantius being yet a Catechumen, ought not to be present at a lawful Council. But this is Baronius his device, to colour over the Forgery of Constantine's Baptism before the Council of Nice, there being no Canon forbidding a Catechumen to be present in a Council, or in a Church, except only while the Sacrament was celebrating; so that if Constantius had been bound by an Ecclesiastical Canon, there being no Canon to hinder his presence in this Council, Baronius assigns a wrong [Page] cause of his absence. Again, the Notes do very falsly suppose, That Foelix, though chosen by the Arians, was a Catholic Pope Lab. p. 773.: For he was Ordained by three Arian Bishops at Milan, as Atbanasius declares Athanas. Epist. ad Solitar.; and Socrates, as we noted before, faith, He was in Opinion an Arian. Nor is it probable, when the Arians had got Liberius banished, for not complying with them, they should chuse a Catholic and an Enemy into so eminent a See; or that the Catholic People of Rome should avoid the communion of Foelix, if he were not an Arian. 'Tis true, Sozomen speaks of some who said, He kept to the Nicene Faith, and was unblameable in Religion; yet he adds,—he was accused for ordaining Arians, and communicating with them Sozom. lib. 4. cap. 10.. But this bare Report, raised perhaps by the Arians (who still pretended to be Catholics, and hold the Nicene Faith) cannot outweigh such strong Reason and Matters of Fact, as are here alledged to prove Foelix, not only a Schismatical, but also an Heretical Pope.

The Dialogue between Constantius and Pope Liberius at Milan, (here published) shews, That at this time he refused either to condemn Athanasius, or communicate with the Arians, and was banished into Thrace for this refusal: But the Reader may justly wonder he should never mention his Supremacy and Universal Authority, when Constantius asked him, If he were so considerable a part of the World, that he would alone stand for Athanasius; and when he advised him, to embrace the Communion of the Churches Lab. p. 775. Bin. pag. 478. col. 1., how properly might he have here told him, he was Head of all Churches, and those who did not communicate with him were no Churches? Again, Why doth this Pope offer to go to Alexandria, and hear Achanasius's cause there, which had been twice judged at Rome? Surely he knew nothing of these last and highest Appeals in all Causes: The Popes of after-Ages claimed this as a right of their See; yet it must be granted, that Liberius was ignorant of that priviledge.

[Page] §. 24. The Council at Sirmium was called by Constantius, An. Dom. 357. and consisted of Arian Bishops, who though they condemned Photinus his gross Heresie, yet would not put the word Consubstantial into any of the three Creeds, which they here composed, however the Editors call it, A General Council partly rejected: Perhaps, because Pope Liberius approved it, who here openly Fell into the Arian Heresie; and that, not by constraint (as the Notes pretend Lab. p. 783. Bin. pag. 479. col. 2.): For out of his Banishment he writ to the Eastern Bishops, assuring them he had condemned Athanasius, and would communicate with them in their form of Faith, and therefore he desired them to intercede for his release and restitution to his Bishopric. The ambition of regaining which great place was the cause of his Fall Baron. An. 357. §. 33, 34, & 35., as Baronius confesseth; and though that Author had produced divers Ancient Writers expresly testifying, That he subscribed Heresie Baron. ibid. §. 32.. Yet a little after he again denies, that Liberius was an Heretic; pretending, that he only sign'd the first Confession of Sirmium, which was not downright Heresie Id. ibid. §. 37.. Though elsewhere he saith, Athanasius rejected all these Arian Forms (which wanted, Consubstantial) as Heretical Baron. An. 359. §. 10., and declares that the Catholic People of Rome esteemed Liberius to be an Heretic, and would not have Communion with him, for which he cruelly persecuted them. Nay, he brags of it as a singular Providence, that Foelix (who was a Schismatical Pope in his Exile) upon Liberius's Fall, suddenly became a Catholic and a lawful Pope, which still supposes Liberius was an Heretic, as doth also Baronius his Fiction of Liberius's speedy Repentance, and Foelix his dying soon after his Adversaries return to Rome: For the Writers of that Age say, Foelix lived eight years after Marcelin. ad Faust. & Hieron. Chronic.; and for Liberius his Repentance, though many Authors expresly speak of his falling into Heresie, none are very clear in his returning, or however, none suppose it to be so long before his Death, as Baronius doth; whose design in this [Page] History is not to serve Truth, but to clear S. Peter's Chair from the imputation of Heresie, and therefore he makes this out chiefly by Conjectures Baron. An. 357. §. 59.—ad—§. 63.. The testimonies of Damasus and Siricius being parties and partial for the honour of their own See, are no good Evidence if they did speak of his early Repentance; but Damasus only faith, The Bishop of Rome did not consent to the Faith of Ariminum: Baronius adds, This was Liberius. I reply, That Damasus was of Foelix his party, before his own advancement to be Pope, and so it is more probable that he meant Foelix. Again, the Catholic Bishop's Letter from Ariminum only says, The Arian Decrees created discord at Rome Sozom. lib. 4. cap. 17.; that is, there were then two Factions there, one of which (and probably that of Liberius) did agree to these Decrees, the other rejected them. Baronius adds to the Bishops Letter,—these Decrees created Factions, because the Pope of Rome opposed them: But this will not clear Liberius, since both Factions were headed by a Pope. Baronius goes on to tell us, that Sozomen affirms, Liberius was turned out of his Church, for not consenting to the Faith at Ariminum Id. cap. 18.. I Answer, Sozomen must be mistaken in this, unless we feign a double Exile of Liberius, which no good Author mentions, and which Baronius will not allow. As for the Epistle of Liberius to Athanasius, it was writ no doubt before he had condemned him, or else he ought to have confessed his Fault, as well as his Faith to that great Man. I grant Socrates doth say, That Liberius required the Semi-Arians and Macedonians, to consent to the Nicene Faith in the time of Valens Socrat. lib. 4. cap. 11.; but this was Nine years after his return, and not long before his Death, yet then Liberius was imposed on in Matters of Faith by these Bishops, whom he calls Orthodox; for they were still Heretical, and did not heartily agree to the Nicene Faith, so that his Infallibility was deceived: And though S. Ambrose call Liberius [Of happy Memory] where he cites a Sermon of his; that is Vid. Baron. Andal. An 362. pag. 58. & An. 371. p. 246. a Phrase which the Primitive Charity used of some Men not altogether Orthodox •: But it is a great prejudice [Page] to Liberius his Repentance, that though Athanasius speak of him as having been once his Friend, and report his Apostacy, yet he never mentions his turning Catholic again. Wherefore we conclude, that all these Fictions, and falsifying of Evidence and slight Conjectures in Baronius and the Notes, are intended only to blind the Reader, and hinder his finding out an Heretical Pope, whose Fall is clear, his continuance in his Heresie very probable, and his Repentance (if it be true) came too late to save his Churches Infallibility, though it might be soon enough to save his own Soul.

The Editors style the Council at Ariminum, A General An. Dom. 359. Council, and yet dare not say, as usually, under Liberius, who had no hand in it, for it was called by the Emperour Constantius, as all Writers agree Sulp [...]. Sever. histor. lib. 2.; so that it seems there may be A General approved Council (as they style this Lab. p. 792. Bin. pag. 482. col. 1., which the Pope doth not call. Moreover, the Emperour in his first Epistle orders the Bishops to send him their Decrees, that he might confirm them Lab. p. 794. Bin. pag. 482. col. 2. [...]; and though Baronius saith this was done like an Heretical Emperour, yet the Orthodox Bishops observed his Order, and call it, Obeying the Command of God, and his Pious Edict Baron. An. 359. §. 6. & §. 15.: Wherefore this General Council was both called and confirmed by the Emperour. Again, Constanti [...]s in his Epistle declares, It was unreasonable to determine any thing in a Western Council against the Fastern Bishops. Whence it appears, he knew nothing of the Western Patriarchs claiming an Universal Supremacy over all the Churches, both of the East and West; and for this Reason Baronius leaves this genuine Epistie (recorded in S. Hilary's Fragments) out of his Annals: We have also noted before, that though the Orthodox Bishops in this Council (who must know the matter) say, That Constantine was Baptized after the Council at Nice, and soon after his Baptism translated to his deserved Rest; as the Ancient Historians read that Passage, and the Sense of the place shews they could mean it of none but Constantine Theod. lib. 2. cap. 19. Sozom. lib. 4. cap. 17. collat. cum Baron. An. 350. §. 7.; yet [Page] Baronius corrupts the Text, and reads Constans instead of Constantine, only to support the Fable of Constantine's being Baptized by Sylvester at Rome, and the Editors follow him in that gross Corruption: For they examine nothing which serves the Interest of Rome. As for the Arian Synods this year at Seleucia and Constantinople, I need make no Remarks on them, because the Pope is not named in them, and so there is no occasion for them to feign any thing. Only one Forgery of Baronius must not be passed over: That when Cyril of Hierusalem was deposed by an Arian Synod, he is said to have appealed to greater Judges, and yet he never named the Pope; the reason of which (Baronius saith) was, because the True Pope Liberius was then in Banishment Baron. An. 359: §. 65.; but hath he not often asserted Foelix was a Catholic, and if Cyril had thought fit, might he not have appealed to him? But it is plain by Socrates, that Cyril meant to appeal to the Emperour and his Delegates, as all injured Bishops in that Age had used to do.

§. 25. Upon the restitution of Athanasius from his third Exile after the death of George the Arian Bishop, An. Dom. 362. he called a Council of Bishops at Alexandria, for deciding some differences among the Catholics about the manner of explaining the Trinity, and to agree on what terms Recanting Arians were to be received into the Church. And though neither Athanasius, nor any ancient Historian take any notice of the Pope in this eminent Action; yet the Editors out of Baronius say, It was called by the Advice and Authority of Liberius Lab. p. 809. Bin. pag. 487. col. 1. Baron. An. 362. pag. 73.; and to make out the notorious Fiction of this Popes calling this Orthodox Council (even while he was an Arian) the Notes affirm, Eusebius Bishop of Vercelles and Lucifer Calaritanus, as the Popes Legates were present at it; which they take out of Baronius, who had before told us, That Lucifer Calaritanus was at that time at Antioch, and sent two Deacons to Alexandria to subscribe for him; yea, this Synod writes their Synodical Letter to Eusebius, [Page]Lucifer and other Bishops, which plainly shews they were absent; though it seems by Ruffinus, that Eusebius came afterwards, and subscribed to what had been agreed in the Council, and was by the Authority of this Council (not of the Pope) sent into the East to procure peace among those Churches: Nor have they any one Author to prove either he or Lucifer were the Pope's Legates, nor any reason, but because they were employed in great Actions, though in that Age ('tis plain) the Popes were little concerned in any eminent business. Moreover, they bring in a Fragment of an Epistle, writ (according to the Ancient Custom) by Liberius at his Entrance into the See of Rome, to shew his Faith to Athanasius, as if it were written now, meerly to impose on the Reader a false Notion of his being at this time Orthodox, and concerned in this Synod. They also cite another Epistle of Athanasius, to certifie Liberius what was done here; but that Epistle is no where extant in Athanasius's Works, but is cited out of the Acts of the second Nicene Council, where there are more Forgeries than genuine Tracts quoted; and besides, the Epistle is directed not to the Pope, but to one Ruffinianus, and only mentions the Roman Churches approving what was done here; but the Epistle being suspicious, it is no good Evidence, and we conclude with Nazianzen, That Athanasius in this Synod gave Laws to the whole World Baron. An. 362. Tom. IV. p. 66.: And Pope Liberius had no hand in it.

About this time there were divers Councils called in France by S. Hilary Bishop of Poictiers, and the Catholic Faith was setled in them, one of which was held at Paris, and the Synodical Epistle is extant Lab. p. 821. Bin. pag. 490. col. 1.; yet the Pope is never named in it. Nor yet in that Orthodox Synod at Alexandria, wherein Athanasius and his Suffragan Bishops presented a Confession of their Faith to Jovian, then newly made Emperour Lab. p. 823, Bin. pag. 490. col. 2., which shews, that Liberius either was an Heretic at this time, or else that he was very inconsiderable: So that it is a strange Arrogance in the Editors to say, that the Second Council [Page]at Antioch was under Liberius Lab. p. 826. Bin. p. 491. col. 1., when the very Notes say, it was called together by Meletius, and observe, that many Arian Bishops did there recant their Heresie; a thing, which a little before they pretended could be done no where but at Rome, in the Popes Presence.

Upon Valentinian's advancement to the Empire, the An. Dom. 365. Eastern Bishops petition him to call a Council, and he (being then very busie) told them, they might call it where they pleased: Which the Editors pretend was a declining to meddle in Church Affairs, being a Lay-man: But the Bishops Petition, and his giving them liberty, shews, that the right of calling Councils was in him, and so was also the confirming them, as appears from the Bishops sending the Acts of this Council (at Lampsacus) to the Emperour Valens to be confirmed Sezen. lib. 6. cap. 7.. The same Bishops also sent their Legates with Letters to the Western Bishops, and particularly to Liberius Bishop of Rome, hoping Valentinian the other Emperour had been in that City; but he being absent, these Legates, perswaded Liberius they were Orthodox; upon which he writ back Letters in his own Name, and in the Name of the other Western Bishops, to own them for good Catholics Socrat. hist. lib. 4 cap. 11.. Whence we may note, First, That the Eastern Bishop's Letter styles the Pope no more but Collegue and Brother. Secondly, That Liberius calls himself only Bishop of Italy, Liberius Ep. Italiae, & alii Occident is Episcopi: But Baronius alters the Pointing, Liberius Episcopus, Italiae & alii, &c. by that Trick, hoping to conceal this mean Title Ep. 11. Liberti ap. Bin. p. 472. Baron. An. 365. pag. 153.. Thirdly, The Pope here saith, He was the least of all Bishops, and was glad their Opinion agreed with his and the rest of the Western Bishops. Fourthly, Yet after all these very Eastern Bishops were of the Macedonian party, as the Title of their Letter in Socrates shews Socrat. ut supr.. Baronius indeed leaves these words out of the Title, but he confesses they were Semi-Arians: So that the Popes Infallibility, (as being imposed on by Heretics in Mattets of Faith) loses more by this Embassy, than his Supremacy gains [Page] by it, because the Legates were not sent to him alone, but to all the Western Bishops. Fifthly, The Notes on this Council Lab. p. 830. Bin. pag. 492. col. 1. feign, that besides these Communicatory Letters, Liberius writ other Letters, Commanding that ejected Bishops should be restored by the Apostolic Authority: But this is one of Baronius his Forgeries Baron. An. 365. pag. 154.. For S. Basil, and also Sozomen, cited by the Notes on the Council of Tyana Lab. p. 836. Bin pag 494. col. 1., mention not the Legates shewing any other Letters at their return into the East, but only the Communicatory Letters; and since it appeared by them, that the Western Bishops judged them Orthodox, their Eastern Brethren did restore them: And so also these Legates got the approbation of a Council in Sicily, as they were returning home; for the Sicilian Bishops by mistake took them for Orthodox, when they saw the rest of the Western Bishops owned their Communion with them, and so approved their Confession of Faith; and therefore it is very impertinent in the Notes to say on this occasion Concil. Siciliae, Lab. & Bin. ut supr., That the Authority of the Pope was so great, that if he admitted even suspected Heretics to his Communion, none presumed to reject them. Whereas we know that afterwards, the People of Rome rejected even the Pope himself, for communicating with Semi-Arians.

The next thing which occurs is a Synod in Illyricum, Convened at the request of Eusebius Bishop of Sebastia, one of the Eastern Legates, who (while his Fellows stayed at Rome) went into that Country, and prevailed with the Bishops assembled there, to send Elpidius a Brother and Collegue of their own, with a Synodical Letter to the Eastern Bishops; declaring, they would communicate with them, if their Faith was the same with that of Nice. Now though this Synod do not mention the Pope, yet Baronius and the Notes feign, That Elpidius was the Pope's Legate Lab. p. 832. Bin. pag. 493. Baron. An. 365. pag. 155.; whereas the Synod, the Emperours Letter, and Theodoret (from whom this Story is taken) mention Elpidius only as a Messenger sent from this Council.

[Page] When these Eastern Legates returned home, there was a Council called at Tyana in Cappadocia Lab. p. 836. Bin. pag. 494. col. 1., wherein they shewed the Communicatory Letters which they had fraudulently obtained in the West; upon which Letters, those who had been ejected as Heretics, and particularly Eustathius of Sebastia, were restored to their Sees; but neither Sozomen nor S. Basil say, this was done by any special Letters of Liberius, or by any Command of his; yet if it had been so, this would spoil this Popes Infallibility, it being certain these restored Bishops were Heretics, who Liberius, poor Man! thought to be good Catholics, and he hath the more to answer for, if this were done not by his Consent alone, but by his Command also.

After this we have the Life of Pope Foelix, about whom they differ so much, that nothing is plain in his Story, but this, that little of him is certainly known. The Pontifical in Liberius Life saith, He died in peace; but here it saith, He was Martyred by Constantius, for declaring him an Heretic, and one who was rebaptized by Eusebius of Nicomedia: Yet Constantius was not Baptized at all till after Foelix his pretended Martyrdom, and he was Baptized then (not by Eusebius, but) by one Euzoius. Again, The Pontifical allows him but to sit One year and three months, and the Notes say, This is right, computing from Liberius Fall to his Return; which (as Sozomen affirms) was but little before Foelix his Death Lab. p. 843. Bin. pag. 490. col. 2.: Whereas these very Notes tell us, a little before, that Liberius was above two years in Exile Lab. p. 742. Bin. pag. 466. col. 1.; therefore if he lived but a small time after Liberius's return, he must sit above two years: But Marcellinus (who writ in that Age) tells us, Foelix lived eight years after Liberius was restored; Which Baronius and the Notes would conceal, to hide the Scandal that their Church must get by a long Schism, and by an Heretical Pope, of whom they will needs make a Martyr, only upon the Credit of the Pontifical, and a modern fallacious Inscription, pretended to be found at Rome many Ages after, belonging to some Foelix, but which of them they know not.

[Page] The Epistles ascribed to this Pope contain so many and so gross Untruths, that Labbé notes, They are discarded by Baronius and other Learned Men, as Isidores Wares Lab. Marg. p. 844, & 849.; adding, That the third Epistle was stollen from Pope Martin the First, in his Lateran Council Id. Marg. pag. 856.. And though Binius very often cite the two first Epistles, yet in his Notes on them he owns, they are of no credit Lab. p. 849. Bin. pag. 499. col. 1.: For they Forge many Canons as made at Nice, and tell that idle story of the true Copies of the Nicene Canons being burnt by the Arians Richer. hift. Con. lib. 1. cap. 1. §. 9.. But it is certain the Forger of these Epistles was a Creature of the Popes, because the Inscriptions of them are stuffed with false and flattering Titles, and the Body of them nauseously and ridiculously press the Supremacy, and the Universal Empire of the Roman Church.

§. 26. The entrance of Damasus into the Papacy An. Dom. 367. was not without Blood, for the People were divided, and some standing for Damasus, others for Ursicinus, Damasus his Party being stronger, slew many of their Adversaries in a Church, as all the Writers of that Age testifie Am. Marceli. lib. 17. Ruffin. lib. 2. cap. 10. Hieron. in Chron.; and though Ammianus be a Pagan Historian, yet it is very probable which he writes, that it was not Zeal, but the ambition of living high and great, that made Men contend so fiercely for the Papacy; for S. Basil himself about this time taxes the Roman Church with Pride; and S. Hierom, the great Friend of that Church, often reflects upon the pomp and luxury of the Clergy there: So that the Notes on Damasus his Life do but glory in their Churches shame, when from these Authors they boast of the Magnificence and Majesty of the Papacy Lab. p. 860. Bin. pag. 503. col. 2.. The Fabulous Pontifical was for many Ages pretended to be writ by this Damasus, and he who forged the Decretal Epistles, invented one to Aurelius Bishop of Carthage Lab. p. 862. Bin. pag. 503. col. 2.; wherein Damasus is feigned to send him (at his Request) all the Epistles writ by the Popes from S. Peter, to his time, and this of old was the Preface to the Decretal Epistles; but the Forgery is so gross that Binius rejects [Page] it, and if his affection for the Papacy had not biassed him, he would also have rejected all the Epistles, which are as errant Forgeries as this Preface. The first and second Epistles written in Damasus his Name to Paulinus, and the Eastern Bishops, are suspicious The third Epistle of Damasus to Hierom is evidently Forged by some illiterate Monk; but S. Hierom's Answer seems to be genuine; yet the Notes reject it Lab. p. 868. Bin. pag. 506. col. 1. for no other reason, but because it truly supposes the Pope and his Clergy were so ignorant, as to need S. Hierom's help to make them understand the Psalms, and affirms, that Rome obeyed his directions in singing the Psalms, and adding the Gloria Patri to them; whereas whoever considers the Learning and Authority of S. Hierom in that Age, will not think it at all improbable, that he should teach the Roman Bishop. And Binius is forced to cite this Epistle wrong in his Notes, to get a seeming Argument against it; for the Epistle doth not advise them to sing the Gloria Patri after the manner of the East (as he quotes it;) but to sing it, to shew their Consent to the Nicene Faith. The fourth Epistle of Damasus, to Stephen Archbishop of the Council of Mauritania, with Stephen's Epistle to him, are owned by Labbé to be both spurious Lab. Marg. pag. 869. Bin. pag. 506, &c.. But since they magnifie the Popes Supremacy, Binius justifies them both; for whose confutation let it be noted, 1. That it is absurd to style a Man Archbishop of a Council: Secondly, That in this Epistle is quoted a forged Epistle of Foelix, owned by Binius himself to be spurious Bin. p. 499.: Thirdly, That place of Math. XVI. is falsly quoted here, and thus read, Thou art Peter, and upon thy foundation will I set the Pillars (that is, the Bishops) of the Church: Fourthly, The later of them is dated with Flavius and Stillico, who were not Consuls till Damasus had been in his Grave full twenty year, as Labbé confesses; wherefore we justly discard these gross Forgeries devised of old, and defended now only to support the Popes usurped Power. The fifth Epistle says, The Institution of the Chorepiscopi was very wicked and extreme evil; yet presently [Page] after it owns, they were appointed in imitation of the LXX Disciples, and were at first necessary for the Primitive Church; it is also dated with Libius and The disius, who were never Consuls in Damasus's time, and finally Labbé owns, that much of it is stollen out of the Epistles of later Popes Lab. p. 876. Bin. pag. 509. col. 1.; yet Binius will not reject it, because it hath some kind touches for the Supremacy. The sixth Epistle to the Bishops of Illyricum passes Muster also with him, though it be dated with Siricius and Ardaburus, who were Consuls till 30 years after Damasus was dead Lab. p. 882. Bin. pag. 511. col. 1.. The 7th Epistle is dated with the same Consuls; yet Binius allows of it, because in it the Pope pretends to give Laws not only to Italy, but to all the World, though Labbé confess the Cheat, and owns it was stollen by Isidore out of Leo's 47th Epistle Lab. p. 883. Bin. pag. 511. col. 2.. So unfortunate is their Supremacy, that whatever seems to give any countenance to it, always proves to be Forged. The Decrees attributed to this Pope seem to have been the invention of later Ages; for it is not probable Damasus would have Fathered a Lye upon the Nicene Council, in saying, It was decreed there, that Lay-men should not meddle with Oblations Lab. p. 885. Bin. pag. 512. col. 1.; or that he would say, Such as broke the Canons, were guilty of the Sin against the Holy Ghost: Nor doth his Decree about the Pall agree to this Age. So that Damasus's Name hath for better credit been clapt to these Decrees by the modern Compilers, who are the Guides to our Editors.

About this time the Arians having the Emperour An. Dom. 369. Valens on their side, began to grow bold; but Athanasius condemned them in Egypt by divers Synods, and upon his Admonition Damasus held two Synods at Rome, in the first of which, Ursacius and Valens, two Arian Bishops were condemned, and in the later, Auxentius the Arian Bishop of Milan was deposed; not by the Popes single Authority, as the Notes and Baronius vainly pretend Bin. p. 512, & 513. Baron. An. 369. pag. 190, &c., but by the common Suffrage of Ninety Bishops assembled with him, as the words of Atbanasius, and the very Councils Letter plainly shew. And though Baronius here talks of the Popes sole Priviledge in deposing [Page] Bishops, there are innumerable Instances of Bishops deposed without the Popes leave or knowledge; and Auxentius valued and believed Damasus his Authority so little, that notwithstanding this Sentence of the Pope in Council, he kept his Bishopric till his Death.

Apollinar is having disseminated his Heresie at Antioch, Au. Dom. 373. complaint was made to Damasus of one Vitalis who held those Errors; but the Pope (who had not the gift of discerning the Spirits) was imposed on by his subscribing a plausible Confession of Faith, so that he writ on his behalf to Paulinus Bishop of Anti [...]ch Baren. An. 373. pag 301.. 'Tis true, at the request of S. Basil, Damasus did this year joyn with Peter, Bishop of Alexandria (who was then at Rome) in condemning Apollinaris in a Roman Council Lab. p. 895. Bin. pag. 514. col. 1.; but Nazianzen saith, He did n [...]t this till be was better instructed in the Points: For at first (as the Notes confess) this Pope took Apollinaris for a picus and learned Man; and so beld Communion with him till he understood by S. Basil's third Epistle, that he was an Herctic. I know they excuse this by saying, that S. Basil himself, and Nazianzen and S. Hierom were all at first under the same mistake with Damasus: But then none of these ever were pretended to be Infallible Jadges in matters of Faith, as Baronius holds Damasus was; so that the mistake in them is pardonable, but upon Baronius Principles I see not how Damasus his Infallibility can be secured, when he was so long deceived by a Heretic, and was forced to be instructed by a private Bishop at last, even in cases of Heresie.

The next year a Council was held at Valentia in Dauphiné, the true Title of which saith, it was under Gratian and Valentinian (the Emperours;) but the Editors put a new Title over it, and say it was under Damasus Lab. p. 904. Bin. pag. 516. col. 1. who is not once named in it; the French Bishops there assembled making Canons for their own Churches, without asking the Popes leave, or desiring his Confirmation.

Upon the death of Valens the Arian Emperour, while An. Dom. 378. Valentinian was yet very young, Gratian managed both [Page] the Eastern and Western Empire, and he makes a Law to suppress all Heresies, and to take away the use of Churches from all such as were not in Communion with Damasus Bishop of Rome, and Peter of Alexandria Sozom. lib. 7▪ cap. 4. Secrat. lib. 5. cap. 2. Theodoret indeed (who as Baronius owns is much mistaken in his relating this matter Theod. lib. 5. cap. 2. & Baron. An 37 [...]. pag. 339.) names only Damasus in his report of this Law; and Baronius cites the Law out of him, meerly to make it seem as if Damasus were made the sole Standard of Catholic Communion, though the Original Law still extant Cod. [...]. lib. I. tit. I. de sum. Trin. Ll. I., and all other Historians, name Peter of Alexandria as equal with Damasus: perhaps the Reader may wonder there is no other Patriarch named in this Law; but it must be observed, that Anticch at this time had two Orthodox Bishops, who separated from each other, Meletius and Paulinus, to make up which unhappy Schism there was a Synod this year held at Antioch, under Damasus Lab. p. 908. Bin. pag. 517. col. I., say the Editors; but in truth, under the Emperours Legate,, who was sent to see a Peace concluded between these two Bishops by the advice of the Council there assembled: And Damasus had so little interest in this Council, that Meletius was generally approved for the true Bishop, and Paulinus (whose party the Pope favoured) ordered only to come in after Meletius his Death Socrat. lib. 5. cap. 5. Sozom. lib. 7. cap. 3. [...]. lib. 5. c. 3.: So that since this Council acted contrary to the mind of Damasus, it is very improper to say, it was held under him.

§. 27. The second General Council at Constantinople An. Dom. 381. was Called by the Emperour Theodosius, whom Gratian had taken for his Paitner in the Empire, and assigned him for his share the Eastern Provinces; where this pious Prince finding great differences in Religion, he Convened this Council to confirm the Nicene Faith, to fettle Ecclesiastical Matters, and to determine the Affairs of the See of Constantinople. This Council the Editors introduce with a Preface or general History, and conclude it with partial and false Notes, ho [...]ing to perswade the World, that it was both called and [Page] confirmed by the Pope: For which end we read in the Preface, That Theodosius made a Law for all to follow the Faith, which the Apostle Peter delivered to the Romans, and which Pope Damasus preached Lab. p. 915. Bin. pag. 521.; which shews, as if the Pope were the sole preserver of the Faith; whereas the Law it self truly cited runs thus,—which Pope Damasus, and Peter Bishop of Alexandria, a man of Apostolical Sanctity, are known to follow Cod. Justion. ut supr. & Baron. An 380. pag. 358.. And in another Law of the same Emperours next year, those are declared to be Catholics, and capable of Benefices, who were in Communion with the Bishops of Constantinople, Alexandria, Laodicea, Tarsus and Iconium Baron. An. 381. pag. 384.; and in that Law neither Damasus nor Rome are mentioned; which shews, it was not the peculiar priviledge of any See, for its Bishop to be made the standard of Catholic Communion, but the known Orthodox Opinion of that Bishop who sat in this or that eminent Church. The rest of the Forgeries in this Council, will best appear by considering, First, By whom this Council was called: Secondly, By whom it was confirmed: Thirdly, What Authority hath been aseribed to it: And, Fourthly, Whether the Canons and Creed ascribed to it be Authentic.

First, As to the Calling this Council, Baronius had twice guessed, but never proved that Damasus moved Theod [...]sius to call it Baron An. 380. pag. 359. & pag. 362.; this the Preface improves and saith, It was called by the Emperour, not without Damasus his Authority; and the Title before the Notes, advance it still,—gathered (say they) by the Authority of Pope Damasus, and the favour of Theodosius Bin. p. 540.. But when this is to be proved, their Evidence is, pretended Monuments in the Vatican, that Shop of Forgeries; the testimony of later Popes in their own cause, and some very remote Conjectures and fraudulent Inferences: Yet at last they a [...]firm, That none but a pertinacicus Heretic will a [...]irm, that this Pious Emperour, who was most observant of the Sacred Canons would call this Synod Lab. p. 968. Bin. pag. 542. col. 1.. By which bold Censure, they condemn not only all the ancient Historians, but all the Fathers here assembled [Page] for pertinacious Heretics: For the Councils Letter to Theodosius saith, We were called together by your Epistle Lab. p. 946. Bin. pag. 533.; and when they were to have met at Rome, they a [...]irm, That Damasus summoned them to meet there, by the Emperours Letters Ep. ad Damasum ap. Bin. pag. 539.. S [...]crates also and Sozomen expresly say, The Emperour called this Synod at Constantinople Socrat. lib. 5. cap. 8. Sozom. lib. 7. c. 7. Theodoret also doth a [...]irm the same Theod. lib. 5. cap. 7., though the Notes strive to pervert his words: But Richerius, a Learned Romanist Richer. hist. Concil. lib. 1. cap. 5. §. 1, & 2. hath fully cleared this Point, and shewed that Theodosius called this General Council by his sole Authority. And the Acts of the sixth General Council, with Photius (cited falsly in these Notes) do only import, that the Pope gave a subsequent consent to it, which is no proof that he was concerned in calling it.

Secondly, As to the confirming it, the Preface and the Notes considently aver, That they sent their Acts to Damasus to be approved, and he did confirm them Lab. p. 917. & pag. 967. Bin. pag. 521, & 541.; yet they tell us, that Pope Gregory above 200 year after declared, That the Church of Rome as yet neither had, nor received the Acts of this Council. I know they would shuffle o [...]f this Contradiction, by pretending that Damasus confirmed only the Matters of Faith, not the Canons: But first, Gregory denies their having the Acts of this Council, and the Acts contain Matters of Faith as well as Canons; Secondly, they can not shew any proof, that Damasus made any distinction: If he confirmed any thing, it was all; for if subsequent consent be confirmation, then he consented to all, and confirmed all that was done here. But in our Sense of giving an Authentic Character to this Councils Decrees, Theodosius alone confirmed them; for the Bishops desire him, by his Picus Edict to confirm the Decrees of this Synod Lab. p. 946. Bin. pag. 533.: And they writ not to Damasus till the year after the Synod, and their Letter was directed not to him alone, but to Ambrose and other Western Bishops with him Theoder. lib. 5. cap. 9. nor do they in it desire any confirmation from him or any of them, but say, That they and all others ought to approve of their Faith, and rejoyce with them for [Page]all the good things which they had done; with which Letter probably they sent (as was usual) a Transcript of all their Acts: And Photius saith, That Damasus, Bishop of Rome afterwards agreed with these Bishops, and confirmed what they had done Phrius de 7 Synod. cap. 2.; that is, by consenting to it, which is no more than every absent Bishop may do, who in a large Sense may be said to confirm a Council, when he agrees to the Acts of it after they are brought to him.

Thirdly, The Authority of this Council is undoubted, having been ever called and accounted the Second General Council, and so it is reckoned in all places where the General Councils are mentioned, which Title it had not, as Bellarmin vainly suggests, Because at the time when this was assembled in the East, the Western Bishops met at Rome: For that obscure Synod is not taken notice of, while this is every where celebrated, as held at Constantinople, and consisting of one hundred and fifty Bishops, which were they who met in the East Lab. p. 967. Bin. pag. 541. col. 2. As for Damasus, Baronius cannot prove he was concerned in it, but by we think, and we may believe Baron. An. 380 p 359. & An. 381. p. 368.; yet he elsewhere boldly says, Damasus gave it Supreme Authority Idem p. 382.; and the Annotator makes it impossible for any Council to be general, unless the Pope or his Legates be there. Now he and all others call this A General Council: And yet he saith, That neither Pope Damasus, nor his Legates were Presidents of it, nor was he or any Western Bishop in it. Whence we learn, That there may be a General Council, at which the Pope is not present, by himself, nor by his Legates, and of which neither he nor they are Presidents.

Fourthly, As to the Creed and Canons here made, the modern Romanists without any proof suppose, that Damasus allowed the former, and not the later: But if he allowed the famous Creed here made, I ask, Whether it then had these words [And from the Son] or no? If it had, why do the Notes say, That these words were added to it by the Bishops of Spain and the Authority of Pope Leo long after Lab. p. 972. Bin. pag. 543. col. 2.? But if these words [Page] were wanting, as they seem to confess, (when they say, The Roman Church long used this Creed without this addition) then I must desire to know, how a Man of their Church can be secure of his Faith, if what was (as they say) confirmed by Damasus in a General Council, may be al ered by a few Bishops and another Pope, without any General Council? As to the Canons, Damasus made no objection against them in his time, and it is very certain that the Bishop of Constantinople after this Council, always had the second place. For as the first General Council at Nice gave old Rome the first place, as being the Imperial City; so this second General Council doubted not, but when Constantinople was become new Rome, and an Imperial City also; they had power to give it the second place, and suitable Priviledges. Yea, the Notes confess, that S. Chrysostom, by virtue of this Canon, placed and displaced divers Bishops in Asia, and the 4th General Council at Chalcedon (without regarding the dissent of the Popes Legates) allowed the Bishop of Constantinople the second place, and made his Priviledges equal to those of Old Rome Vid. Concil. Chalced. Can. 28. & Subscrip. ibid.; which Precedence and Power that Bishop long retained, notwithstanding the endeavours of the envious Popes: And Gregory never objected against these Canons, till he began to fear the growing Greatness of the Patriarch of Constantinople; but when that Church and Empire was sinking, and there appeared no danger on that side to the Popes, then Innocent the Third is said by the Notes, to revive and allow this Canon again; by which we see, that nothing but Interest governs that Church, and guides her Bishops in allowing or discarding any Council: For now again, when the Reformed begin to urge this Canon, Baronius and the Notes say, They can prove by firm Reasons, that this Canon was forged by the Greeks: But their Reasons are very frivolous, They say Anatolius did not quote this Canon against Pope Leo: I reply, 'Tis very probable he did, because Leo saith, He pleaded the Consent of many Bishops; that is, (if Leo would have spoken out) In this General [Page]Council. Secondly, They urge that this Canon is not mentioned in the Letter writ to Damasus. I Answer, They have told us before, they sent their Acts to him, and so need not repent them in this Letter. Thirdly, They talk of the Injury done to Timotheus Bishop of Alexandria; but his Subscription is put to the Canons as well as the Creed, and it doth not appear that ever he or any of his Successors contended for Precedence after this, with the Patriarch of Constantinople: And that the Modern Greeks did not forge this Canon is plain, because Socrates and Sozomen both mention it Socrat. lib. 5. cap. 2. Sozem. lib 7. cap. 8.; and the Catholic Church always owned it for Authentic. Yea, in the Council of Chalcedon it is declared, That the Bishop of Constantinople ought to have had the second place in the Factious Synod at Ephesus, and he is reckoned in that fourth General Council next after the Pope, whose Legates were there, and yet durst not deny him the second place, in which he sat and subscribed in that order, having first had this Canon confirmed at Chalcedon: So that all Churches, but that of Rome, submit to this General Council; and they who pretend most to venerate them, do despise and reject the Authority of General Councils, if they oppose the ends of their Pride and Avarice. To conclude, Here is a General Council called and confirmed only by the Emperour, assembled without the Pope or his Legates, decreeing Matters of Faith and of Discipline, yet every where owned and received as genuine, except at Rome, when Interest made them partial, and still no less valued for that by all other Churches: Which gives a severe Blow to the modern Pretences of their Papal Supremacy and Infallibility.

The same Year there was a Council at Aquileia in Italy, wherein divers Arians were fully heard and fairly condemned. Now this Council was called by the Emperour, the Presidents of it being Valerian Bishop of Aquileia, and Ambrose Bishop of Milan; but Damasus is not named in it, nor was he present at it in Person, or by his Legates, though this Council was called in Italy [Page] it self, and designed to settle a Point of Faith: But these Bishops (as the Acts shew) did not judge Heretics by the Popes Authority, but by Scripture and by solid Arguments: And they tell us, It was then a Custom for the Eastern Bishops to hold their Councils in the East, and the Western theirs in the West Lab. p. 980. Bin. pag. 545 col. 2.; which argues, they knew of no Universal Monarchy, vested in the Pope, and giving him power over all the Bishops, both of the East and West. For it was not Damasus, but the Prefect of Italy, who writ about this Synod to the Bishops of the East Baron. An 281. pag. 386.: Nor did this Council write to the Pope, but to the Emperour, to confirm their Sentence against Heretics; wherefore Damasus had a limited Authority in those days, not reaching so much as over all Italy, and extended only to the Suburbicarian Regions, out of which, as being Damasus's peculiar Province, Ursicinus his Antagonist for the Papacy, was banished by the Emperour Valentinian Baron. An. 371. pag. 235.; and therefore Sulpicius Severus calls him not Orbis, but Urbis Episcopus Sulpic. Sever. pag. 423., the Bishop of the City, not of the World; and speaking of Italy, he saith in the next Page, That the Supreme Authority at that time was in Damasus, and S. Ambrose Id. pag. 424.. To these two therefore the Priscillian Heretics applied themselves, when they were condemned by the Council of Caesar-Augusta, or Saragosa in Spain, in which Country the Sect first began; but when they could not get these great Bishops to favour their Cause, they corrupted the Emperours Ministers, to procure a Rescript for their restitution Lab. p. 1011. Bin. pag. 554. col. 1.. Now it is strange that this Council of Saragosa should bear the Title of [under Damasus,] and that the Notes should affirm, Sulpicius Severus plainly writes thus: For if we read Sulpicius as above-cited, we shall find that Damasus knew nothing of this Synod till long after it was risen; so we may conclude this Invention of theirs is only to support their pretended Supremacy.

[Page] §. 28. From a Passage in S. Hierom, and the Inscription of the Letter writ from the Council at Constantinople, An Dom. 382. the Editors gather, That Paulinus Bishop of Antioch, Epiphanius Bishop of Constantia in Cyprus, and Ambrose, with other of the Western Bishops, met at Rome in Council this year, which they call the Fourth Roman Council under Damasus Lab. p. 1014. Bin pag. 554. col. 2.; who probably did preside in this Synod, as all Bishops use to do in their own Cities; but he did not call this Council, for S. Hierom expresly saith, The Emperours Letters called these Bishops to Rome Hieron. Ep. 27.. And the Synodical Letter of the Constantinopolitan Fathers tell us, That Damasus desired Theodosius to write to them also of the East to come to Rome: Which shews that Damasus could not summon them by his own Authority; but the Editors and Baronius, out of a false Latin Version of Theodoret, have put in the word [Mandato,] which word is not in the Greek, nor any thing answering to it Theodor. lib. 5. cap. 9. Baron. An. 382. pag. 397. & Ben. pag. 539. col. 2.; and it was foisted in on purpose, to perswade such as did not read the Original, that the Pope had commanded the Eastern Bishops to come to Rome. Again, though the Notes confess, the Acts of this Roman Council are lost, so that it doth not appear what was done there. Yet soon after they produce a long Canon for the Popes Supremacy, and the Precedence of the Patriarchs; feigning it was made in this Synod. But if the Canon be not a Vatican Forgery (which is very much to be suspected) however it is Antedated one hundred and twelve years, as Labbé confesses in his Margen; for he saith, it was decreed under Pope Gelasius, An. 494. Lab. p. 1014. Bin. pag. 554. col. 2.. But the Policy of laying this Canon here, is to make a shew as if Damasus had then publickly declared against the Council of Constantinoples giving that Bishop the second place; but their forging this Proof only shews, they have no genuine Authority for it; yet if they could prove that the Pope disliked this Precedence, since it is certain that Constantinople did take the second place according to this Canon, that would only shew that the Popes Authority was not [Page] regarded. Which also appears in the Case of Flavianus, who (as the Notes conjecture) was in this Roman Synod deposed, and Paulinus made Bishop of Antioch: Yet still the greatest part of the World owned Flavianus for the true Bishop of that See, and the Synod of Sides, where Amphilocius Bishop of Iconium was President, directed their Synodical Epistle to Plavianus, as Patriarch of Antioch Lab. p. 1015. Bin. pag. 556. col. 2. Baron. An. 383.; so that the Editors should not have styled that Council, Under Damasus; because they acted against his Mind: And so did the Eastern Bishops, who met again this year at Constantinople, when the Pope had desired them to come to Rome, and from this Meeting they writ that Synodical Epistle which the Editors here print over again, and wherein they call Jerusalem, The Mother of all Churches; a Title now by Usurpation appropriated only to Rome.

§. 29. Siricius succeeded Damasus, but not without An. Dom. 385. trouble; for Ursicinus, the Competitor of Damasus, being yet alive and at Rome, was declared Pope by a great party, and Prosper's Chronicle makes him the next Pope after Damasus Baron. An. 384. pag 327.; nor could Siricius get the Chair, but by a Rescript from the Emperour Valentinian, which condemned Ursicinus, and established Siricius Baron.. An. 385. pag. 335.. There is little or no notice of him before his Election, and though he sat fifteen years (as the Pontifical and Platina,) or thirteen (as the Notes say) there is very little worthy remarking done by him: And it is very probable he was one of those ignorant Clergy-men with which the Roman Church was so well stored at that time, that S. Hierom saith, Not one of them did so much as pretend to Scholarship; but this illiterate Faction, who had proclaimed War against all Learning, conspired also against him Hieron in Praef ad Didym. de Spir. Sancto.. For we have reason to judge this Pope to be of their Party, because S. Hierom left Rome in disgust, as soon as Siricius came to be Pope; and Paulinus who came in his time to Rome saith, The City Pope proudly despised him Paulin. ad Sever. Epist. 1.; yea, Baronius owns, That Ruffinus, when he was fallen into Origen's Heresie, imposed[Page]on the Simplicity of this Pope, and got Communicatory Letters of him Baron. An. 397. pag. 32. ex Hieron. cp. 16.; which also seems to spoil his Infallibility, for which Ignorance is no proper qualification. Yet wanting real Matter in this Pope's Life, the Notes run out into the story of the death of Monica, S. Augustine's Mother, saying, That when she died, she was only solicitous to have the Mass offered up for her Lab. p. 1016. Bin. pag. 557. col. 1., and this they prove out of Augustine's Confessions; but the Fathers words are, She only desired to be commemorated in the Offices, when the Priest stood at the Altar. Now there is a mighty difference between that ancient Custom of commemorating the Faithful departed, which is allowed by the Church of England, and the Popish way of offering Mass for the Souls of the Deceased, a corruption of much later date than S. Augustine's time.

For this Pope are published divers Decretal Epistles, which are the first that can pretend to be genuine; and if they be really so, it is plain, that their Style is mean, the Arguments trifling, and the Scripture Proofs impertinent; so that the Author was no Conjurer. The first directed to Himerius is very severe against Marriage, especially in the Clergy: The Notes would perswade us, It is not lawful Marriage, which he calls Pollution (as they say Calvin falsly affirms Lab. p. 1022. Bin. pag. 559. col. 2.;) but if we read the Epistle, he calls New Marriages (that is, the Marriage of such as had been Widows) Pollution, as well as those Marriages which were prohibited. Again, he foolishly attempts to prove, Clergy-men ought not to Marry, because S. Paul saith, Those that are in the flesh cannot please God; and though he confess it was usual for many Clergy-men to live with their Wives, he calls that cohabitation, the being polluted with carnal Concupiscence, in his 4th Epistle: So that he is justly taxed with speaking profanely of God's holy Ordinance, and of contradicting S. Paul, who excepted not the Clergy, when he said, Marriage is honourable in all men, and the Bed undefiled, Hebr. XIII. 4. And probably it was the hot and bold discourses of Siricius and some other Writers of this time, which provoked [Page] Jovinian, not only to stand up for Marriage, but to decry Single Life, the merit of which had so possessed the minds of some great Men, that they resolved to condemn Jovinian for an Heretic. As for the second Epistle of Siricius to the Council at Milan, relating to this Resolve, it may be questioned whether it be genuine; but that the style is harsh and barbarous is unquestionable. The Answer to this Letter from Milan is evidently patched up out of divers Authors who writ upon this Subject. However S. Ambrose and his Suffragans there, call the Pope Brother, even when they Complement him, as a great Master and Doctor Lab. p. 1024. Bin pag. 560, & 561., which smells strong of the Forge; and if this Epistle were made up there, then the Notes need not triumph so much, when it says, (upon Jovinians being condemned at Rome) That the Bishop of Rome had looked well to the Gate committed to him; that is (say they) the Gate of the whole Church of which Christ made S. Peter's Successor the Door-keepers Lab. p. 1027. Bin. pag. 561. col. 1. Baron. An. 390. pag. 536.. But if the Epistle be true, it only commends the Pope for looking well to the Gate of his own Church at Rome, as they had done to their Gate at Milan, having turned him out of that Church before. The third Epistle of Siricius is like the former for style and sense, yet the Editors will not reject it, because the Pope saith, He hath the care of all the Churches Lab. p. 1027. Bin. p. 561. col. 2.; but let it be noted, that Aurelius Bishop of Carthage uses the same words of himself a little after Bin. p. 577. col. 1., and there Binius notes, That Aurelius means, of the Churches of Africa only, not of the whole World: So we may say justly of Siricius here, that he means, He had the Care of the Suburbicarian Churches, not those of the whole World. For the fourth Epistle (said to be writ from a Roman Council) calls the Pope no more but a Primate Lab. p. 1029, Bin. pag. 562. col. 1., and that Title belonged to the Bishop of Carthage, as well as to him of Rome; but indeed Labbé honestly confesses this fourth Epistle to be stollen out of Innocent's Epistle to Victricius. The fifth and sixth Epistles are writ by Maximus, an Usurper of the Empire, and seem to be genuine; but we need not wonder at the Tyrants speaking so kind things of [Page] the Pope in them, since it was his interest to Flatter the Bishop of that potent City.

§. 30. This Maximus having seized on the Northwest parts of the Empire, summoned a Council at Bourdeaux which the Editors without any ground style, under Siricius) wherein the Bishops of the Ga [...]ican Church again condemned the Priscillianists, and they appealed (not to the Pope, but) to the Emperour Maximus Lab. p. 1030. Bin. pag. 563. col. 2.) who was so far from favouring these Heretics, that at the instance of Ithacius, a Catholic Bishop, he caused them to be put to death for their Heresie: Which cruel Sentence so displeased Theognistus and other Orthodox Bishops, that they Excommunicated Ithacius and all his Party, who had procured these Heretics to be put to death; and S. Martin, S. Ambrose, and the best Men of that Age, would not communicate with any of these Bishops, who had prosecuted Men to death for Heresie; no not though Ithacius and his Adherents were absolved from Theognistus his Excommunication in a Council which Maximus had called at Triers. Now the Notes, fearing the Reader should observe, That many Popes and Bishops of their Communion have done just as Ithacius did, viz. persecuted, such as they call Heretics, to death, and delivered them up to the Secular Magistrate to be executed, tell us, That it was not an ill thing in Ithacius to procure the death of these Heretics, but his Fault was in the violence of his Proceedings, and in his not interposing such a Protestation as their Church uses on these occasions. Wherein, when they have made it necessary for the Magistrate to put an Heretic to death, they solemnly declare, they wish he would amend, and do not desire his Execution Lab. p. 1038. Bin. pag. 564. col. 1. Baron. An. 386. pag. 451.. But as this Protestation is a piece of notorious Hypocrisie unknown to those Ages; so we may be sure so apparent a Sham would not have excused Ithacius, whose Communion (as Sulpicius Severus shews) was renounced by S. Ambrose, S. Martin and Others, purely because they thought it unlawful, especially for Clergy-men, to procure any [Page] persons to be put to death for their Opinion, though it were Heresie. Wherefore these Holy Bishops, if they were now alive, must renounce the Communion of the Roman Church for the same reason, for which they renounced the Communion of Ithacius, even for their frequent procuring Heretics to be put to death; and this is so plain, that all their shuflling Notes cannot wash their Bishops hands from Blood, nor fit them in S. Ambrose and S. Martin's Opinion, to celebrate the Eucharist with other Christians.

There had been (as we noted) a long Schism at An. Dom. 398. Antioch, between Paulinus (of whose side was the Pope, and many Western Bishops) and Flavianus, who was supported by the Eastern Bishops; and now Paulinus dying, one Evagrius was irregularly chosen to succeed him, and keep up the Schism; and though Flavianus was owned for the true Bishop by the second General Council, and he it was who ordained S. Chrysostom, and obtained a Pardon from Theodosius for those Citizens of Antioch, who had broke down the Statues of that Emperour and his Empress; yet at the Instance of some Western Bishops the Emperour was perswaded to cite him to a Council, which he had called at Capua, in which S. Ambrose was present; but Flavianus not willing to have his Enemies to be his Judges, did easily excuse his Non appearance to the Emperour, and the Synod thereupon referred the Matter between him and Evagrius unto Theoplalus, Patriarch of Alexandria, to whose decision Flavianus refusing to stand, he appealed to Theodosius; on which occasion S. Ambrose writing to Theophilus, wishes rather Flavianus had referred the Matter to his Brother the Bishop of Rome, because (saith he) you would probably have judged it (if it had come before you) so as he would have liked Ambros. ad Theophil. ep. 78.. Which implies no more, than that Theophilus and Siricius were both of one mind in this case of Flavianus; yet on this slight occasion the Notes say, That the Synod made Theophilus Arbitrator on condition, he should offer his Sentence to be approved and confirmed by the Roman [Page]Church [...] [...]039 [...]. 564. col. 1.: Which is a meer Forgery; for Theophilus was made absolute Arbitrator by the Synod, and this is not the Councils wish, but S. Ambroses; and after all Flavianus did not think a Western Synod had any power over him; and therefore he rejected the Arbitration of Theophilus, the Council, and Pope Siricius also, with whom though he did not communicate, yet he was always owned to be true Bishop of Antioch.

§. 31. The Second Council at Arles is supposed to be held about this time, because the Followers of Photinus and Bonosus were there condemned: Wherefore they say, It was in the time of Siricius; but under him it could not be, since the Bishops there assembled do not name him, nor do they except the Bishop of Romes Supreme Power, when they refer all Ecclesiastical Matters to the final decision of their own Metropolitan and his Synod, and declare, that every Bishop who receives a person Excommunicated by another, shall be guilty of Schism. Yet the Editors are so apt to dote upon the Popes managing all Councils, that they here style a meeting of the Novatian Heretics at Angaris in Bithynia Lab. p. 1041. Bin. pag. 566. col. 2., A Synod under Siricius; and call poor Socrates a Novatian, for barely relating a Matter of Fact concerning the Novatians.

At this time there was a great Council at Hippo, An. Dom. 393. which the Notes sometimes call a General, and sometimes a Plenary Council, because most of the African Bishops were there, and the Original dates it with the Consuls of this year; but the Editors clap a New Title to it, saying, it was under Siricius; who in all probability had no hand in it, nor knew any thing of it: Yet here were made many of those famous Canons for Discipline, by which the African Church was governed. But they are more wary in the next Council of Constantinople, at which many Bishops were present, and among them the two Patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch; being summoned (in the absence of the Emperour) by his Prefect Ruffinus; and they will not [Page] venture to say, This was under Siricius, for the Matters treated on it wholly related to the Eastern Church, and in that Age they rarely allowed the Pope to concern himself in their Affairs: No nor in Afric neither, where (Anno 395) there were Councils held both by the Orthodox and the Donatists, which are dated by the Consuls, and no notice is taken of the Pope Lab. p. 1153. Bin. pag. 567. col. 2.. We shall only observe, that upon one of these Councils the Notes say, It is a mark of the Donatists, being of the Synagogue of Antichrist, that they named the several Parties among them from the Leaders and Founders of their several Sects, and were not content with the Name of Christians from Christ. Which Note reflects upon the Monks of their own Church, who are called Benedictines, Dominicans, and Franciscans, from the Founders of their several Orders.

In the Council of Turin, composed of the Gallican An. Dom. 397. Bishops, they decided the Case of Primacy between the Bishop of Arles and Vienna, without advising with the Pope, and determined they would not communicate with Foelix, a Bishop of Ithacius his Party, according to the Letters of Ambrose, of Blessed Memory, Bishop of Milan, and of the Bishop of Rome. Now, here the Roman Advocates are much disturbed to find S. Ambrose his Name before Siricius; and when they repeat this Passage in the Notes, they falsly set the Pope's Name first, contrary to the express words of the fifth Canon, and impudently pretend, That the Bishop of Rome, by his place, was the ordinary Judge who should be communicated with, and Ambrose was only made so by the Popes Delegation Lab. p. 1157, & 1158. Bin. pag. 568, & 569.. But, how absurd is it (if this were so) for the Council to place the Name of the Delegate, before his who gave him power? And every one may see, that this Council was directed to mark this Decree principally by S. Ambrose his Advice, and secondarily by the Popes; for at that time Ambrose his Fame and Interest was greater than that of Siricius; yet after all, the Council decreed this, not by the Authority of either of these Bishops (as the Notes [Page] pretend,) but only by their Information, and upon their Advice by these Letters, which were not first read (as they pretend) but after four other businesses were dispatched.

The Canons of divers African Councils, held at Carthage and elsewhere, have been put together long An. Dom. 397, &c. since, and collected into one Code, which makes the time and order of the Councils wherein they were made, somewhat difficult; but since the Canons were always held Authentic, we need not (with the Editors) be much concerned for their exact order, or for reducing them to the years of the Pope, because they were neither called nor ratified by his Authority. Yea, the Notes say, It was never heard that any, but the Bishop of Carthage called a Council there, his Letters gave Summons to it, he presided over it, and first gave his Suffrage in it,—and that even when Faustinus (an Italian Bishop) the Popes Legate was present Lab. p. 1163. Bin. pag 573. col. 1, & 2.. As for the particular Canons of the third Council, the Nineteenth saith, That the Readers shall either profess Continence; or they shall be compelled to Marry; but they feign old Copies which say, They shall not be allowed to Read, if they will not contain Lab. p. 1170. Bin. pag. 575. col. 1.; the falshood of which appears by the 25th Canon in the Greek and Latin Edition, where this is said of the Clergy, [...]; that is, Except the Readers, which they translate, Quamvis Lectoram Bin p. 580., on purpose to make us think, that the command of Celibacy (upon which that Age too much doted) reached the lowest order of the Clergy, even Readers; contrary to the express words of the Canons. And to the second Council of Carthage, where only Bishops, Priests and Deacons are under an obligation to live single Bin. p. 571.. Secondly, The 26th Canon of the third Council forbids the Bishop of the first See, to be called by the Title of Prince, or Chief of Bishops, (Gratian goes on) neither may the Roman Bishop be called Ʋniversal Lab. p. 1170. Bin. pag. 575. col. 2. & Gratian. Decret. part 1. dist. 99.. The Notes tax Gratian indeed for adding this Sentence; but if he did, it was out of Pope Gregory, who saith, That [Page]no Patriarch ought to be called Ʋniversal. Besides, considering how apt the Editors are to strike out words not Agreeable to the Interest of Rome, it is more probable that some of the Popes Friends lately left these words out, than that Gratian put them in: And since this Council forbid Appeals to foreign Judicatures with peculiar respect to Rome, to which some of the Criminal Clergy then began to appeal Lab. p. 1171. Bin. pag. 581. col. 2., it is not unlikely these Fathers might resolve to check as well the Title, as the Jurisdiction (then beginning to be set up) which encouraged these Appeals. Thirdly, The 47th Canon in the Latin, and the 24th in the Greek and Latin Edition, speaking of such Books, as are so far Canonical that they may be read in Churches, reckon up some of those Books which we call Apocryphal, upon which the Notes triumph Lab. p. 1177. Bin. pag. 580. col. 1.; but let it be observed, that we grant some of these Books to be so far Canonical, that they may be read for instruction of Manners; and also we may note, that the best Editions of these African Canons leave out all the Books of Macchabees and Baruch (which are foisted into their later Latin Copies Cosen's History of the Canon p. 112. & pag. 113.). And it is plain, the whole Canon is falsly placed in this Council under Siricius, because Pope Boniface (who came not into the Papacy till above twenty years after) is named in it as Bishop of Rome; yet after all these devices, it doth not declare what Books are strictly Canonical, and so will not justifie the Decree at Trent. Fourthly, In the 48th Canon of the Latin Version, the Council agrees to advise about the Donatists, with Stricius Bishop of Rome, and Simplicianus Bishop of Milan, not giving any more deference to one of these Bishops than to the other, but looking on them as equally fit to advise them: Yet the Notes boldly say, They advise with the Pope, because they knew he presided, as a Bishop and Doctor, over the Catholic Church; but with the Bishop of Milan only, as a Man every where famous for his Learning Lab. p. 1183. Bin. pag. 584. col. 2.. Which is a meer Fiction of their own, for the words of the Canon shew, that these Fathers did not believe either of them [Page] had any Authority over them, only they desired their advice joyntly, as being both Eminent and Neighbouring Bishops, and their prohibiting Appeals shews, they knew nothing of the Popes presiding over the Catholic Church.

§. 32. Anastasius was the last Pope in this Century, An. Dom. 398. of whom there would have been as little notice taken, as of Many of his Predecessors, if it had not been his good fortune to be known, both to S. Hierom and S. Augustine, and to assist the latter in suppressing the Donatists, and the former in condemning the Errours of Origen, for which cause these two Fathers make an honourable mention of him. Yet in the African Councils, where he is named with respect, they joyn Venerius Bishop of Milan with him, and call them Their Brethren and Fellow Bishops Baron. An. 401. p. 128, & 129.. As for the qualifications of Anastasius, S. Hierom gives him great Encomiums; but it must be observed, that at this time Hierom had charged Ruffinus with broaching the Heresies of Origen at Rome, and he being then at Bethlem, could not beat down these Opinions without the Popes help. And indeed, when Ruffinus came first to Rome he was received kindly by the last Pope Siricius, and Anastasius did not perceive any Errours in Ruffinus or Origen, till S. Hierom (upon Pammachius Information) had opened his Eyes; and at last, it was three years before this Pope could be made so sensible of this Heresie, as to condemn it: So that notwithstanding his Infallibility, if S. Hierom and his Friends had not discovered these Errours, they might in a little time have been declared for Orthodox Truths at Rome; but Anastasius condemning them at last, did wonderfully oblige S. Hierom, and this was the occasion of many of his Commendations. For this Pope are published three Decretal Epistles, though Baronius mentions but two, and condemns the first for a Forgery, and so doth Labbé Lab. p. 1191. Bin. pag. 585. col. 2. Baron. An. 402. pag. 161.; It is directed to the Bishops of Germany and Burgundy, and yet Burgundy [Page] did not receive the Christian Faith till the Year 413; it is also dated with the Consuls of the Year 385, that is, Fourteen years before Anastasius was Pope. The matter of it is grounded on the Pontifical, which speaks of a Decree made by this Pope for the Priests at Rome to stand up at the Gospel; which the Forger of this Epistle turns into a general Law, and makes it be prescribed to the Germans. The Words of it are stollen out of the Epistles of Pope Gregory and Leo Gregor. lib. 12 Ep. 32. Leon. Ep 2. ad Episc. Ital.; yet out of this Forgery they cite that Passage for the Supremacy, where the German Bishops are advised to send to him as the Head. The second Epistle Lab. p. 1193. Bin. pag. 586. col. 2. is also spurious, being dated fifteen or sixteen years after Anastasius his death, and stollen out of Leo's 59th Epistle. As for the third Epistle, it is certain he did write to John, Bishop of Jerusalem, but it may be doubted whether this be the Epistle or no Lab. p. 1194. Bin. pag. 586. col. 2.; if it be genuine, it argues the Pope was no good Oratour, because it is writ in mean Latin; yet that was the only Language he understood, for he declares in this Epistle, That he know not who Origen was, nor what Opinions he held, till his Works were translated into Latin. So that any Heretic who had writ in Greek in this Pope's time, had been safe enough from the Censure of this Infallible Judge.

The Notes dispute about the fourth Council of Carthage, whether it were under Pope Zosimus or Anastasius Lab. p. 1208. Bin. pag. 591. col. 1.; but it was under neither, the true Title of it shewing it was dated by the Consuls Names, and Called by Aurelius Bishop of Carthage, who made many excellent Canons here without any assistance from the Pope. The 51st, 52d and 53d Canons of this Council order Monks to get their Living, not by Begging, but by honest Labour; and the Notes shew, This was the Primitive use Lab. p. 1210. Bin. pag. 592. col. 1.; which condemns these vast numbers of Idle Monks and Mendicant Fryers, now allowed in the Church of Rome. The hundredth Canon absolutely forbids a Woman to presume to Baptize; [Page] but the Notes (r), (because this practice is permitted II. apr. in their Church) add to this Canon these words, unless in case of necessity, and except when no Priest is present. Which shews how little reverence they have for ancient Canons, since they add to them, or diminish them, as they please to make them agree with their modern Corruptions.

In the fifth Council of Cartbage, Can. 3. Bishops and Priests are forbid to accompany with their Wives [...], that is, at the time of their being to Officiate; but in their Latin Copies it is altered thus,—according to their own, (or, to their former) Statutes; which makes it a general and total Prohibition: But the Greek words of this Canon are cited, and expounded at the great Council in Trullo, where many African Bishops were present, as importing only a Prohibition of accompanying their Wives, when their turns came to Minister Lab. p. 1219. Bin. pag. 594. col. 2. Beveridg. Concil. Tom. II. pag. 130.; which is the true sense of this Canon, though the Romanists, for their Churches Credit would impose another. The fourteenth Canon of this Council takes notice of the feigned Relicks of Martyrs, and of Altars built in Fields and High-ways, upon pretended Dreams and Revolutions; upon which Canon there is no note at all Lab. p. 1217. Bin. pag. 594. col. 1., because they know, if all the feigned Relicks were to be thrown away, and all the Altars built upon Dreams and false Revelations pulled down in the present Roman Church, (as was ordered at Carthage by this Canon) there would bè very few left to carry on their gainful Trade, which hath thrived wonderfully by these Impostures.

This Century concludes with a Council at Alexandria, which they style under Anastasius Bin. p. 595.; but it was called by Theophilus, who found out and condemned the Errours of Origen long before poor Anastasius knew any thing of the matter. The Notes indeed say, This Synod sent their Decrees to Pope Anastasius, to Epiphanius, Chrysostom and Hierom: But though they place the Pope foremost, there is no proof that they were sent [Page] to him at all. Baronius only conjectures they did, and saith, It is fit we should believe this Baron. An. 399. p. 85, & 88.; but it is certain Theophilus sent these Decrees to Epiphanius to Chrysostom and Hierom; and from this last hand it is like Anastasius received them long after, because it was more that two years after this Synod, before S. Hierom could perswade Anastasius to condemn these Opinions of Origen, which this Council first censured: Wherefore it was happy for the Church, that there were wiser Men in it than he who is pretended to be the supreme and sole Judge of Heresie. And thus we have finished our Remarks upon the Councils in the first four Centuries, in all which the Reader (I hope) hath seen such designs to advance the Supremacy, and cover the Corruptions of Rome, that he will scarce credit any thing they say for their own Advantage in any of the succeeding Volumes.

[Page]

[Page]

AN APPENDIX CONCERNING BARONIUS HIS ANNALS.

§I. THE large and elaborate Volumes of Cardinal Baronius, are the main Guide to the Editors and Annotator: From him they take the Dates of all Councils, and out of him they have added divers new Synods not extant in the older Editions of the Councils, of which they can say no more, than to abbreviate Baronius: From him they borrow most of their plausible Notes, by which they either paint over that which seems for the Interest of Rome, or disparage what makes against it; and therefore we have had often occasion to discover his Fallacies in all that part of his Annals which concerns the Councils; but there are many other notorious [Page] Frauds and manifest Falshoods in that Author, of which I shall here give some few Instances, which may serve as a Caution to all that read his History, and also as a Direction by which they may in other Centuries find out his manifold Errours; and I shall confine the Examples here produced to the Fourth Century, because that is the most largely treated of in this Discourse.

It is evident, that all the Writers of the Roman side, for many Ages have designed to impose upon the World; in that, their Disputants, their Publishers of Councils, and Historians do all agree; for their Principles and Practices cannot be maintained by plain Truth. The Methods used by Baronius, in his Ecclesiastical Annals (which he writ purely to serve the Interest of the Roman Church) may be reduced to these Heads:

First, His frequent quoting Forged and Spurious Tracts; such as the Pontifical, the Acts of the Martyrs, the Ecclesiastical Tables (that is, the Roman Missal and Martyrology) with other late and fabulous Writers, such as Nicephorus, Simeon, Metaphrastes, Laurentius Surius, &c. And the Reader shall find, he very seldom cites any other Authors to prove the Great Actions of Primitive Popes, or the dignity of the Roman Church, and its pretended Priviledges: As also to make out the Miracles done by many of their Saints, and to be evidence for the Invocation of Saints, Praying for the Dead, Worshiping the Cross, Relicks and Images; for the Merits of Celibacy and Holiness of Monks, or other Superstitions. Some Examples of which in the Fourth Century are these: He cites the Acts of Procopius, which he confesseth need amending, to prove the Adoration of the Cross Baron. An. 308 p. 30. §. 19.; he proves the same by the Acts of Gregory an Armenian Bishop, which he owns do not satisfie many; and by Euthymius, a late Grecian Monk, An. 1180 Id. An. 311. p. 57. §. 23.. Thus he asserts Crispus his being Baptized with his Father Constantine, only by Nicephorus, and makes out Constantine's use of putting an [Page] Image of Christ on his Coyns, only by the Acts of Damasus, and by a Coyn which he himself confesseth had been adulterated Id. An. 324. pag. 233. §. 13, & 16.. Constantine's Baptism in Rome is also proved by Anastasius Bibliothecarius, who there hath the false Character of an Acurate Writer Ibid. p. 237. §. 30., and by the Acts of Sylvester, which he himself disapproves of in many things Ibid. §. 31.; and suspects, that notwithstanding all these fabulous Authors, his Reader will not credit the Story Ibid. p. 238. §. 32.. The Legend of S. Agnes and her Temple at Rome, he confesses, Was made by an Unknown-hand under the Name of S. Ambrose; yet he gives a long relation of it Ib. pag. 260. §. 107.. So when Eusebius, who writ acurately about the Temple built over the Sepulchre by Constantine, saith nothing of Pictures in it, he proves there was such there by the second Nicene Council Baron An. 326. pag. 353. §. 42.. Eusebius's Greek Chronicle saith nothing of the Invention of the Cross, but some Forger hath put it into the Latin Version of it; therefore Baronius cites the corrupted Latin Translation to prove this Legend Id. ibid.. The Miracles of S. Nicholas are all transcribed out of his Acts, which were put together by Authors who lived above Five hundred years after his time, and the genuine ancient Historians mention not one of them An. 326. p. 366. §. 86.. Eusebius saith, Constantine dedicated his new City of Constantinople to God; but Baronius chooses to follow a later Writer of little credit, viz. Nicephorus; who saith (in the Phrase of his own time) He dedicated it to the Virgin Mary Ibid. An. 330. p. 396. §. 4.. He makes a discourse about the use of the Pall in the Life of Pope Mark; yet he can cite no Author, but the fabulous Pontifical, to prove it was used in his time An. 336. p. 458 §. 63.. To prove the Arian Pope Foelix was a Martyr, he cites an Inscription pretended to be found in a Grave at Rome (where such Frauds are common) about Twelve hundred years after his Death An. 357. pag. 715. §. 50.; so he makes out the Martyrdom of divers under Julian by an Oration of Nectarius (which he confesses is corrupted) and by Nicephorus Annal. Tom. IV. An. 362. p. 21, & 22.: And a little after he tells long Stories of Martyrs at that time condemned by Julian at [Page] Rome, which he proves by the Ecclesiastical Tables, and by the Acts of the Martyrs; yet he owns Julian was not at Rome at this time Eod. An. pag. 84.. Prayers at the Graves of the Saints he would establish by a forged Book of the Lives of the Prophets, which he cites under Epiphanius's name An. 373. pag. 309.: So he would make out Prayers for the Dead, used in this Age, by feigned Writings, which are ascribed to Ephraem Syrus An. 378. p. 332.. The Miracles ascribed to Damasus cannot be proved by one Author of Credit, but are set off with the forged Acts of Damasus, and the modern Legends An. 384. p. 427.. So also the Miracles ascribed to S. Chrysostom, are not taken generally from any approved Authors, but from his spurious Acts An. 386. pag. 468.; and (to name no more) thus he proves the Adoration of the Cross by an Homily falsly ascribed to S. Chrysostom An. 397. Tom. V. p. 44.: For his genuine Works do witness against this practice. And now that he did not cite these Authorities out of ignorance, is plain from his Confession; for he saith of the Acts of the Martyrs, That we might better have wanted many Truths concerning them, than have had such a mixture of Errours as makes the whole suspected Baron. An. 307. §. 33. p. 24. Tom III.. And again, speaking of the Acts of Gallicanus, It is the manner of some to be ashamed, to give a short Narrative of a great Affair, and so according to their own Fancy they largely paraphrase on it Id. An. 330. §. 51. p. 410.: And yet again in his Preface to the Roman Martyrology he tells us, There was a sad loss of these Martyrs Acts in Diocletian's time, so that very few of them are to be found, which may not in part be convicted of Mistakes Bar. Praecap. ad Martyr. c. 3.. But Melch. Canus is more ingenuous, and saith, Diogenes Laertius writ the Lives of the Philosophers more honestly, than the Christians have writ those of the Saints Melch. Can. Can loc. Theol. l. 11. p. 333.: Yet you rarely have any better Evidence than these, for most of the Roman Doctrines and Rites. And though Nicephorus and the Modern Greeks be frequently taxed by him, for giving easie faith to feigned Stories, and for gross Mistakes An. 306. §. 12. pag. 3. & Tom. IV. An. 363. p. 105.; yet when they tell never such improbable Tales for the Roman Interest, then they are cited with great applause. Now it is a clear evidence of an ill Cause, [Page] when they can find no other Proofs but such spurious Writings as these; of which practice I have here given but a few Instances; but the diligent Reader will observe this to be customary with Baronius, not only in this fourth Century, but in every part of his Annals.

§. 2. Another Artifice is to corrupt the Words or the Sense of genuine Authors, of which we will select also a few Instances, in the same Century. S. Augustine barely names Peter as one whom the Pagans did Calumniate Aug. de Civ. Dei, iib. 18. c. 53.; but Baronius brings this in with this Preface, That they did this, because they saw Peter extremely magnified, especially at Rome where he had fixed his Seat; and then he saith, S. Augustine records this, &c. whereas this is his own Invention, to set off the glory of Rome Baron. An. 313. §. 17.. So when Athanasius is proving, that the Fathers before the Nicene Council used the word [...], and first names Dionysius Bishop of Alexandria, and then Dionysius Bishop of Rome Athanas. de decret. in Arian.. Baronius saith, He proves it especially by Dionysius the holy Roman Pope, and by Dionysius Bishop of Alexandria Baron. An. 325. §. 69., inverting the Order, and putting a Note of Eminence on the Pope, contrary to the Words and Sense of Athanasius. Again, he cites Pope Leo (who is no Evidence in his own Cause); and yet Baronius would make him say more than he doth, even where he saith more than he should say: For he cites his 53d Epistle to shew, that Leo affirmed the sixth Canon of Nice, allowed to the Church of Alexandria the second, and to that of Antioch the third Seat, which had before been conferred on them by Rome. But the very words of Leo, cited by Baronius, shew this to be false; for Leo saith not, that these Sees had their Dignity or Order from Rome, but the former from S. Mark, the later from Peter's first Preaching there Leon. cp. 53. ap. Baron. An. 325. §. 28.. Moreover, to make his Reader fancy the Roman and the Catholic Church was all one of old, he mentions out of Epiphanius, Constantine's writing an Epistle to all Romania, [Page]Which Name (saith he) we sometimes find used for the Catholic Church Baron. An. 319. §. 6.; whereas it is manifest, that Epiphanius both there and elsewhere plainly uses Romania for the Roman Empire Epiphan. contra Manich. haer. 66. & contr. Arian. haer. 69.; and Baronius did not find it used either in him, or in any other ancient Author, in any other sense. That Period in Optatus, which Baronius cites with great applause (if it be not added by some ignorant Zealot of the Roman side) is a scandal to the Learning of that Father, for he derives the Syriac word, Cephas, from the Greek [...], and by that ridiculous Etymology would draw as contemptible a consequence, viz. That Peter was Head of the Apostles; and again he seems wilfully to pervert the Precept of S. Paul, Rom. XII. 13. Distributing to the necessities of the Saints; which in Optatus's Reading is, Communicating with the Memories of the Saints; that is, (as he applies it) with Rome, where there are the Memorials of two of the Apostles. I could wish for Optatus's Credit that these weak Passages were spurious, or buried in silence; and the Learned Baldwin is ashamed of this gross Errour Opt. Milev. lib. 2. pag. 48. Baldvin. notis, pag. 184.: But Baronius thinks, though they make for the dishonour of the Father, they tend to the Credit of Rome, and so he cites them in great pomp, and puts them in a whole Line to make them look more plausible,—the Head of the Apostles, whence he was called Cephas (so Optatus: But Binius adds) deducing the Interpretation from the Greek Word, for in Syriac it signifies an hard Stone Baron. An. 321. §. 5.; and then glories extremely, as if Optatus had made Communion with Rome the sole Note of a Catholic. Whereas in the next Page but one, Optatus goes on,—You cannot prove you have any Communion with the Seven Churches of Asia,—and yet if you be out of the Communion of those Churches, you are to be accounted Aliens. Which Passage Baronius very fraudulently leaves out Opt. Milev. lib. 2. pag. 50., because it shews a true Catholic must not only be in Communion with Rome, but also with all other Orthodox Churches,

[Page] To proceed, Even in spurious Authors he useth this Artifice; for that Forged Book of Constantine's Munificence only saith, He placed a piece of the Cross, in a Church which he had built: But Baronius relates it That he placed it there with most Religious Worship Baron. An. 324. §. 105.; and a little after he perceiving that Fabulous Author had supposed Constantine buried his Mother long before she died, puts in of his own head, But this (i. e. the putting his Mother in a Porphyry Coffin) was done afterward Id. ib. §. 114.. Speaking of the Bishops returning home from the Council of Nice, he saith, They took with them the Rule of Faith, confirmed by the Pope of Rome, to be communicated to their People, and to absent Bishops: But no Historian, Ancient or Authentic, mentions any preceding Confirmation of the Nicene Creed by the Pope, who was one of the absent Bishops, to whom it was to be communicated; wherefore those words, Of its being confirmed by the Pope, are invented and added to the story by Baronius Baron. An. 325. §. 197.. He observes, That Constantine confesses, he was not fit to judge in the Case of Athanasius, because Ecclesiastical Matters were to be judged among the Clergy: Which he proves by Constantine's Letter there recited; but Constantine's Letter is not directed to the Clergy, but To the People of the Catholic Church at Alexandria: And his Words are to the People who lived on the Place, and knew the Matters of Fact; and therefore he saith to them, It is proper for you, and not for me to judge of that Affair Baron. An. 329. §. 7, 8.; so that Baronius forceth his own Sense upon the Emperour. And when Theodoret speaketh of—time for Repentance according to the Canons of the Church, he adds,—that is, for Satisfaction. Which Popish Satisfaction he would also prove out of a Canon at Antioch, which only mentions confessing the Fault, and bringing forth fruits meet for Repentance An. 341. §. 43, & 44.. When Socrates only saith, Eusebius of Nicomedia's Letters were received by Julius after his death; Baronius thus enlarges it, Eusebius, who had fled from the Judgment of the Roman Church was [Page]forced against his Will, being dead (as Socrates saith) to come to the strict Tribunal of God Vid. Socrat. lib. 2. cap. 13. Baron. An. 342. §. 43.. Where Athanasius saith, I went up to Rome, that I might visit the Church and the Bishop: Baronius ridiculously infers, that when we find the Ancients speaking of THE Church and THE Bishop, they mean the Roman Church and that Bishop, of whom, and in whom, and by whom are all other Bishops An. 349. §. 6.. Which Note is forced upon this place, for here Rome is named in the same Sentence with the Church and the Bishop, and so it must be understood of the Pope; but without any advantage to him more than it would have been to the Bishop of Eugubium, to say, I went to Eugubium and visited the Church and the Bishop. Again, S. Hierom saith expresly, that Acacius substituted Foelix an Arian to be Bishop of Rome in Liberius his stead. Here Baronius pretends some Copies leave out the word Arian, and so he reads it, Substituted Foelix to be Bishop of Rome An. 355. §. 51.; and because some such Parasites of Rome as himself, who would not endure that ingrateful Truth of a Pope's being an Heretic, had left out this word, He boldly asserts it for the true Reading; whereas not only Socrates expresly saith, He was an Arian in Opinion; but Hierom himself in his Chronicle affirms, that Foelix was put in by the Arians; and it is not like they would have put him in, if he had not been of their party. The Greek of Sozomen is no more but [...], but Baronius improves this by a flattering Paraphrase in these words, Lest the Seat of Peter should be bespattered with any spot of Infamy An. 357. §. 43.. But it is a bolder falsification of S. Chrysostom, where he saith (in one of his Sermons, on a day celebrated in memory of two Martyrs, Juventius and Maximus)— [...]; to pervert this by his Latin Version thus, The Martyrs which we this day worship; whereas Chrysostom only saith, The Martyrs which occasion us to meet this day Chrysost. Tom. V. p. 534. Baron. An. 362. pag. 48.. Epiphanius expresly condemns those as Heretics who worship the Blessed Virgin, and saith, [Page] No man may adore Mary. Baronius will not cite this place at large, but adds to it these Words,—she is not to be worshiped as a God: Which Falsification of the Father is designed to excuse their Churches Idolatrous worship of the Virgin Mary Epiphan. haeres. 79. Baron. An. 375. p. 309.. The restitution of Peter Bishop of Alexandria is by S. Hierom (whom he cites with applause) ascribed to the late Repentance of the Emperour Valens: who recalled (now at last) the Orthodox from Banishment; and Secrates only mentions Damasus's Letters, which Peter took with him, approving both his Creation and the Nicene Faith: Yet he from hence notes the Supreme Power of the Pope, by whose order the Bishop of Alexandria was restored to his Church, in contempt of Valens his Authority; and when he returned with the Popes Authority, the People placed him in his Seat Socrat. lib. 4. cap. 30. & Baron. An. 377. pag. 325.. Yea, after this he pretends to cite Socrates, as if he said, Peter was received, being restored by Damasus Id. An. 378. pag. 335.; yet Damasus did no more in all this matter, than barely to testifie that Peter was an Orthodox Bishop, and that he believed him duly elected; which is all that Socrates saith, and which if any eminent Orthodox Bishops had testified, it would equally have served the Bishop of Alexandria's Cause. To conclude, Baronius owns Paulinus, to have been a credulous Man, and very unskilful in Ecclesiastical History Baron. Tom. V. An. 395. p. 15.; yet thinking he had not spoken enough, when he relates, That a Church was adorned with Pictures; he stretches this into, Adorned with Sacred Images Id. An. 394. pag. 612.. From all which Instances we may infer, That the Cardinal would not stick at misquoting and misrepresenting his Authors, when it might serve the Roman Interest.

§. 3. Of this kind also we may reckon his crasty suppressing such Authorities, in whole or in part, as seem to cross the Opinions and Practices of their Church. His leaving out a passage in Optatus, wherein that Father makes the being in Communion with the Seven Churches of Asia a Note of a true Catholic, [Page] was noted before Vid. supra §. 2. & Baron. An. 321. §. 5.. And we may give many such like Instances: Sozemen relates an Imperial Law, wherein those are declared Heretics, who do not hold the Faith, which Damasus Bishop of Rome and Peter of Alexandria then held Sozom. lib. 7. cap. 4. p. 415.; but the fraudulent Annalist leaves out Peter of Alexandria, and mentions only Damasus as the sole standard of Catholic Faith Faren. An. 378. pag. 339.. When S. Hierom saith, His Adversaries condemned him with Damasus and Peter: Baronius bids us observe, with what reverence the Pope's Enemies treated him; for though they accused S. Hierom of Heresie, yet against Damasus they durst not open their Mouth Baron. An. 378. pag. 347.; whereas S. Hierom protected himself by the Authority of the Bishop of Alexandria, as well as by that of the Pope. Again, after a crafty Device to hide the evident Testimony which Gregory Nyssen gives, against going in Pilgrimage to Jerusalem, He slightly mentions an Epistle of S. Hierom, which excellently confutes that then growing Superstition; telling us, That the Court of Heaven is as open from Britain as from Jerusalem. Which remarkable Sentence, and all the other learned Arguments of that Epistle he omits by design Hieron. Ep. 13. Tom 1. p. 120. Baron. An. 386. p. 454, 455.; though if it had countenanced this Superstition, we should have had it cited at large. In like manner afterwards, when he had another fair occasion to cite this same Epistle, which doth so effectually condemn Pilgrimages, he will not quote one word out of it, but barely mentions it, and runs out into the Enquiry, what time it was writ Baron. An. 394. p. 613.. I have given many more Instances of these fraudulent Concealments in my Discourse of Councils, and therefore shall add no more here, but only this, That whoever reads Baronius's Annals, hears no more generally than the Evidence of one side, and that too, enlarged, if it be never so slight, and commended, if it be never so spurious; but whatever makes against the Roman Church is depreciated and perverted, or else clapt under Hatches, and kept out of sight: Of which we have an Instance in Eusebius, who because he will not justifie their [Page] Forgeries about Constantine's Baptism and Donation, (though he be the best of all the Ecclesiastical Historians) is never cited, but with Reproaches and Calumnies Anna'. 324. §. 143, 144, & 152. An. 325. §. 192, & 193. Et An. 336. §. 7, 8. Item An. 340. §. 40, &c.; and whatever he saith against them, is either concealed, or the force of it taken off, by reviling him as an Arian.

§. 4. Another Artifice of our Annalist is, first to suppose things which make for the honour of his Church, without any manner of proof, and then to take his own Suppositions for grounds of Argument. Thus he supposes, that Constantine gave S. Peter thanks for his Victory, without any evidence from History Baron. An. 312. §. 58.; yea, against his own peculiar Notion, That Constantine was then a Pagan, and durst not do any act to make him seem a Christian Id. ibid. §. 62.. Again, To colour their Worship of Images, He barely supposes, that the Pagan Senate dedicated a Golden Image of Christ to Constantine Baron. An. 312. §. 68, 69.: He argues only from Conjectures, to prove the Munisicence of that Emperour to Rome Baron. An. 324. §. 72.; whereas, if so eminent a Prince had given such great Gifts to the most famous City in the World, doubtless some Author would have mentioned it, and not have left the Cardinal to prove this by random Guesses. Again, He supposos without any proof, that Constantine knew the Supreme Power over all Christians, was in the Church of Rome Eod. An. §. 117.; He produces nothing but meer Conjectures, that Osius was the Pope's Legate; yet he boldly draws rare Inferences from this Eod. An. §. 127.. He doth but guess and take it for granted, that the Nicene Council was called by the Advice of Pope Sylvester Eod. An. §. ult.; yet this is a Foundation for the Supremacy, and i know not what. Thus, when he hath no Author to prove, that Athanasius venerated the Martyrs, he makes it out with Who can doubt it?—and it is fit to believe he did so Baron. An. 342. §. 42.. So he tells us, He had said before, that Damasus favoured Gregory Nazianzen in his being elected to be Bishop of Constantinople Baron. An. 380. pag. 362.. He supposes this [Page] indeed a little before Ibid. p. 359.: But all Ancient Authors say, and he himself affirms, That Peter (Bishop of Alexandria) did institute him into that Bishopric Idem p. 355.. He only supposes Siricius desired Theodosius to banish the Manichees from Rome; but the Rescript is not directed to him, but to Albinus the Praefect; and (except the fabulous Pontifical) there is no Evidence that Siricius was concerned in this matter Baron. An. 389. p. 513.. Theodoret saith, The Emperour chose Telemachus into the number of Martyrs; but Baronius supposes, This was done not only by the Emperour's Care, but by the Ecclesiastical Authority of the Pope Baron. An. 395 §. 621.. To conclude, He affirms by guess, That S. Nicetus came out of Dacia into Italy, to Visit the Apostles Tombs, and to consult the Apostolical Seat Baron. An. 397. pag. 28, & 29.; but no Author makes this out. Now, how can any Reader trust an Historian, who in relating things done many Ages ago, takes the liberty to invent and suppose whatever will serve a present Turn?

§. 5. Add to this that he scruples not to contradict himself, and to tell manifest: Untruths to carry on the Interest of Rome, which we shall prove by these Examples: He affirms Coelicianus (Bishop of Carthage) relied upon one defence, The Communion of the Apostolic See; but immediately he tells us, That he was supported by Constantine's favour Baron. An. 313. §. 18, 19.. He cites S. Augustine, saying, Constantine (when Coelician's Cause was referred to him) was a Christian Emperour; yea, he cites a Letter of Constantine, writ in a most Christian style; and yet he feigns, that Coelicianus delayed his appearing before this Emperour, because he thought it unfit that a Bishop should be judged by a Lay-man, not yet Baptized Baron. An. 316. §. 59, & 62. Collat. cum §. 60.. And again, Eight years after this he represents Constantine as a meer Pagan, who had never heard of Peter or Paul, and took them for some Heathen Deities Baron. An. 324. §. 39.; whereas he saith, He was a Catechumen, and out of the Gospel had imbibed the Christian Meekness eight years before Id. An. 316. §. 65.. [Page] He also affirms, That in the Year 324 there was as yet none of the Senatours believed the Christian Faith Baron. An. 324. §. 76.. And yet he saith, Two year before this, that one or both the Consuls were Christians Id. An. 322. §. 1.; yea, in the year 312. He reckons up many Senatours, who had given up their Names to Christ Id. An. 312. §. 75. & 76.. Thus he contradicts himself by following those Lying Acts of Syl vester, in order to support the false Story of Constantine's being Baptized at Rome. Soon after, out of a Fabulous Author he talks very big of the low Reverence which Constantine paid to the Bishops at the Nicene Council Baron. An. 325. §. 16.; whereas all the Authentic Historians say, The Bishops rose up when he entred in, and paid him a great respect Idem ibid. §. 52.. And when he hath told many incredible Legends about the Nails of the Cross, and-seems to grant that divers false Nails have been adored for the true, he excuses his abused Catholics for their mistaken Worship of false Relics, saying, That their Faith excuses their Fault Baron. An. 326. §. 51,—& 54.; so that Lies may be innocently told and believed (it seems) at Rome. Again he affirms, there were Monks at Rome in the year 328, and proves this by what S. Augustine saw there at least fifty years after Baron. An. 328 §. 20, & 21.; yea, in the year 340 he saith, Athanasius first brought the Institution of Monks to Rome Id. An. 340. §. 8., which is a manifest contradiction.

To proceed, I wonder with what Face he could commend Athanasius for speaking charitably of the Heretic Arius, after he was dead, when he reviles Eusebius after his death Baron. An. 336. §. 44. Collat. cum An. 340. §. 38.; And never mentions any of the Protestant Doctors deceased, but with the bitterest Malice, and in the most spightful Language he can invent: If Charity were a Vertue in Athanasius, then Malice must be a Vice in him. He largely relates many Appeals to the Emperour in the case of Athanasius, and yet when at last the Bishop of Rome was chosen Arbitrator in this Case, and this but once, He cries out, Behold, Reader, the ancient Custom! &c. Whereas since the Emperours were [Page] Christians, it was the Custom to appeal first to him, as his History abundantly proves Baron. An. 340. §. 2.. He very largely commends the Acts of Martyrs, but by following them falls into many Absurdities; as where he tells us, That the Pagan Temple of Daphne at Antioch was burnt two days after the Martyrdom of Artemius Baron. An. 362. pag. 37.: Yet a little after he brings in this Artemius arguing with Julian, about the burning of this Temple Ibid. p. 44.. So he tells us, The Body of S. John Baptist was burnt to Ashes, except some Bones which were carried into Egypt to Athanasius: And yet a little after S. Hierom affirms, his Bones remained at Sebaste, and wrought Miracles there Baron. An. 362. pag. 56.. As little Truth is there in his accusing Maximus the Emperour for presuming to judge of Bishops Causes Baron. An. 385. pag. 441.; whereas Maximus his Letter to Siricius (which Baronius records Id. An. 387. pag. 474. declares, He would call the Bishops to a Council in what City they pleased, and refer it to them (who were best skilled) to determine these matters. Again, in order to justifie those feigned Relicks of Protasius and Gervasius shewed now at Rome, he affirms, That S. Ambrose gave part of them to several Bishops, and some of them were brought to Rome: Whereas S. Ambrose himself (who knew best what was done) assures us, He buried the Rodies whole, putting every Joynt in his own order Baron. An. 387. pag. 468. Collat. cum Ambrose Ep. 85.. And to name no more, He brags, that Idols were pulled down no where with more zeal, than at Rome Baron. An. 389, & 390. pag. 526.. Yet in the same Page he tells us, There was then newly dedicated an Alter there for sacrificing to the Heathen Gods: So that we see, designed Falshoods are not scrupled by him in things which seem to make for the honour of Rome, or her Opinions.

[Page] §. 6. We may also observe, that for the same ends He makes innumerable false Inferences on purpose to pervert the Truth; thus from S. Augustine's calling Melchiades, A Father of Christian People, (as every Bishop is) Baronius concludes, that S. Augustine was for the Popes Supremacy Baron. An. 313. §. 29.: So from Bishops judging in Causes where the People referred their Differences to them, he frequently infers, A right in Bishops, to judge in Temporal Matters Baron. An. 319. §. 30. item An. 326. §. 100 &c. item An. 398. pag. 61. & 62.: In like manner from Theodoret's, mentioning a Canon of the Church in general, and (as his discourse shews) referring to the Canon, which forbids any Bishop to judge a Cause till both parties were present, Baronius gathers, that the Pope was supreme over the Bishop of Alexandria, and that by the Canons of Nice Baron. An. 325. §. 128.. Again, That the Pope was not beholding to the Council of Nice for his Supremacy, which he had from Christ, he proves by Pope Nicholas his Testimony, who had the impudence in his own Cause and for his own Ends, to tell this Story Five hundred years after Id. ib. §. 130.: So he condemns the Arians, for ejecting Bishops without staying for the Bishop of Rome's Sentence, which he proves was unjust by an Epistle of Pope Julius, which says, The Arians should first have writ to all Bishops, that so what was right might be determined by all Baron. An. 336. §. 34.; where Julius arrogates nothing to himself alone, as Baronius falsly pretends. And to make this single Priviledge of Rome the more credible, he doth frequently apply what the Ancients say of all the Bishops of the West, to the Pope: Thus what S. Basil saith of all the Western Churches, he applies only to Rome Baron. An. 371. pag. 239.: And when he recites two Epistles of S. Basil, whose Title is to the Western Bishops, and the whole discourse in it directed to many Bishops, he feigns the Name of the Pope is left out or lost, and concludes these Letters were peculiarly directed to him, and this only to support the Roman Supremacy Baron. An. 371. pag. 238, & An. 372. pag. 269, 270, 271, &c.; and therefore he repeats over and over this matter, and affirms, it was [Page] an Embassy sent to the Pope Ibid. 273, 274.. Thus also when S. Ambrose saith, The Western Bishops' by their Judgment approved of his Ordination: He infers that S. Ambrose implies, It was confirmed by a public Decree of the Apostolical See Baron. An. 375. pag. 320.. And whereas Basil speaking of those Western Bishops in his time, who (he saith) kept the Faith entirely; Baronius infers from hence, That their Successors, and especially the Bishops of Rome, have never erred since Baron. An. 372. pag. 276. & An. 373. pag. 310.. Like to which is his inferring the usage of Praying to Saints from a pure Rhetorical flourish of Nazianzen's, in one of his Orations Baron. An. 372. pag. 285.. And thus when S. Hierom uses all his Oratory to set off Virginity, because that seems to make for the Roman Celibacy, he takes him to be in good earnest, and will have all his Reflexions upon Marriage to be solid Arguments Baron. An. 382. pag. 402., though S. Hierom himself calls them Trifles Baron. An. 390 pag 540.. But when he tells a sober Truth about the Ignorance of the Roman Clergy, then the Cardinal tells us, He speaks by way of Hyperbole Idem An. 385. pag 435.. From which Instances it doth appear, that our Annalist did not, like an Historian, endeavour to declare Truth, but only to serve an Interest and a Party.

§. 7. Lastly, His Partiality notoriously appears whereever the Church of Rome is any way concerned; for when any thing of this kind comes in his way, he puts off the Character of an Historian and turns Disputant, labouring to confute the most ancient and authentic Authors, if they seem to say any thing against that Church. Thus we may observe what tedious digressions he makes about the Primacy of Rome in his discourse on the Nicene Council, for which he twice makes Apologies Baron. An. 325. §. 136, & 140.. Again, he runs out into a long and very impertinent dispute about the Worship of Images, in an Age when no good Author mentions them as used in the Church Baron. An. 362. pag. 18.. In like manner, He makes a long excursion to disprove an Authentic Story of Epiphanius, tearing a Veil with [Page] a Picture wrought in it, because such things were not fit to be in Churches Baron. An. 392. p. 568.; and he scarce ever meets with any of the Roman Corruptions, mentioned in the most fabulous Authors, but he leaves the History, and enlarges into Remarks upon those Passages. But if the Writer be never so eminent, that touches any of these Sores, his business always is, to baf [...]le the Evidence; of which there is scarce one year in his Annals, wherein there are not some Examples. On the other side, He takes every slight occasion to make the most spiteful Reflexions on all that he counts Enemies to the Roman Church: Thus he applies the Bishop of Alexandria's description of the Arians to the Reformed Churches, though it agree much better with these of his own Religion Baron. An. 318. §. 80.. Again, He reviles us, because we do not honour the Modern idle lewd Monks of their Communion, as much as the Ancients did those holy and devout Monks, which were in the Primitive Times, though it be plain to all the World, these are like them in nothing but the Name Baron. An. 340. §. 10. item An. 363. p. 132.. The like Outcry he makes upon Protestants, for undeceiving some of those silly Nuns, who have been decoyed into unlawful Vows, meerly for Interest and Secular Ends; and affirms the perswading these to Marry, is worse than the Arian's ravishing and murthering them at Alexandria Baron. An. 326. §. 29.. Thus also he compares the Reformed Divines to the Eunomians, who taught, Their Faith alone would save them, though their Lives were never so wicked Baron. An. 360. §. 38.; forgetting that their Priest's convert (as they call it) Murderers at the Gallows, by teaching them this very Principle. And, to name no more Examples, when S. Basil inveighs against those who despised the Ancient Customs of the Primitive Church, He spitefully applies this to the Reformed Baron. An. 363. pag. 131.. Whereas in very Truth, they of Rome have left off more Ancient Rites, and brought in more new ones, than any sort of Christians in the World. By these and many more Instances which might be given, even out of this [Page] one Century, it is evident, that the whole design of his History is to make all the Doctrins and Practices of Rome seem to be Primitive and right, and that he cares not how unlawful the Means be which he uses, to gain this belief in his Reader.

§. Yet to conclude, we will observe, That after all his evil-Methods there are many things which he could neither avoid relating, nor yet excuse, which condemn the Modern Roman Church. I wonder how he could Commend Constantine for abolishing the Stews, and the prostituting of Christian Women there; and not observe, That the Pope now tolerates these Abominations in Rome it self Baren An. 314. §. 74.. Again, how doth it agree with the INFALLIBILITY of the Pope, to say, That one Holy Spirit governs the Catholic Church, so as to make the Bishops of all Ages and Places agree in the same Opinion Id. Ib. §. 76.? If this be so, what need one Bishop alone be made Infallible? And if it be (as he saith) a Doctrin taught by the Apostles, and consequently true, That the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father; then the Pope, who condemns this as an Heresie of the Greeks, is not Infallible Baron. An. 325. §. 70.. If Constantine had known of this Infallibility lodged at Rome, he would have sent thither for exact Copies of the Holy Scriptures, and not to Eusebius in Palestina Baron. An. 330. §. 23.. If Damasus had this Infallible Spirit, how came he (after he was Pope) to need to be instructed in the meaning of Scripture by S. Hierom Baron. An. 379. pag. 353.? Or, if his Successor Siricius had been Infallible, how could the Origenists (who held such palpable Heresies, that a Woman discovered them to be in an Error) impose upon his Simplicity; and get Letters Testimonial from this sole Judge of Heresie Baron. An. 397. pag. 32.? How came the Council of Alexandria to send their Decrees to Epiphanius, S. Hierom and S. Chrysostom, and not first send them to Anastasius, who was Infallible? And indeed Baronius cannot prove they were sent to him at all, but by saying, It is fit to believe, they were sent Baron. An. 399. p. 85. cum 88.. [Page] Moreover, many things in this Century related by these Annals, look not favourably upon the SUPREMACY. Constantine calls Eusebius's Election to the See of Antioch, An advancement to the Bishopric of the Universal Church Baron. An. 324. §. 152., which looks as if he knew nothing of the Pope's Pretences: That Marcellus of Ancyra, even when he was accused before Pope Julius, should call him his Fellow-Minister, would have been very Sawey, if he had known Julius to be the Supreme Bishop of the World Baron. An. 341. §. 51.. 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 Baron. An. 341. §. 56, & 57.; yea, how came they to Excommunicate the Pope, for communicating with one whom they had judged a Criminal Id. An. 347. §. 64.? It is not concerning the Pope, but Athanasius, that Nazianzen saith, He did again prescribe Laws to the whole World Baron. An. 362. pag. 66.: 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 Eod. An. pag. 80.. 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 Baron. An. 369. pag. 194.. 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 Baron. An. 371. pag. 235.. 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; Baron. An. cod. p. 236, 237, &c.; 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) [Page] 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 Bar. An. 372. pag. 281, 282.. 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 Baron. An. 375. pag 321.; 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 Idem An. 380. pag. 362.? The same S. Ambrose also speaks of Supreme Bishops in Gallia Baron. An. 392 p. 558.. 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 Id. cod. An. pag. 560.. 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 Baron. An. 397. pag. 14.? 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 Baron. An. 336. §. 47.; so did Parthenius against the Pagans An. 337. §. 41.; so did Constantius the Emperour, for Recovery of his Health An 338. §. 11.; so also did those Persian Martyrs An. 343. §. 16.. Thus Euphrates, an Eminent Bishop, implores only the help of Christ against an illusion of the Devil An. 348. §. 9.. The Christians who translated the Bones of Babylas the Martyr, did not Pray to him, but Praised God An. 362. pag. 40.; and Macedonius, an holy Monk, is observed only to call upon God Night and Day An. 388. pag. 477.. Arcadius the [Page] Emperour in an Earthquade prayed to the Lord, the only preserver of the Humble An. 396. pag. 21.. Porphyrius, Bishop of Gaza, and his People, called only upon Christ, not upon any Saints An. 398. pag. 71.: 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 Baron. An. 340. §. 41. & An. 341. §. 11.. 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 An. 343. §. 16.. 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 Baron. An. 358. §. 23.; and therefore Metaphrastes his sole Evidence will not pass, for the Legend of translating the Bodies of S. Andrew and S. Luke to Constantinople Ibid. §. 25.. 'Tis 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 Baron. An. 386. pag. 455.: Which ridiculous Imposture, Julian the witty Apostate had justly exposed some years before, as being contrary to Scripture and to the Christian Law Id. An. 362. pag. 92. & An. 361. p. 36..

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 Baron. An. 348. §. 33.; and Baronius can find no Precedent for carrying Images in Procession to procure Rain, but the Pagan Superstition Baron. An. 362. pag. 60.. 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 Baron. An. 377. pag. 327.. Theodosius should have excepted the Images of the Saints, when he forbad the honouring any Images void of Sense, with lighting Tapers, offering Incense [Page] and Garlands to them Baron. An. 392. pag. 562.: 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 Baron. An. 341. §. 17.. 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 Baron. An. 361. p. 2.. In S. Augustine's time the People at Rome Fasted on Wednesdays which use they have now left off Baron. An. 388. pag. 495.. 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 Baron. An. 368. pag. 179.. 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. Baron. An. 398. p. 71.. 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 Baron. An. 361. §. 35, ad §. 39.. Theodosius made a Law to banish Monks from Cities, and oblige them to retire into Desert places Baron. An. 390. pag. 537.: But the Modern Monks are all for Noble Seats in the best freqnented Cities; so that these and those are vastly different. Finally, He makes the Persecuting Spirit of Macedonius, and the Patience of Athanasius, a mark to distinguish Truth from Heresie: Now, if we apply this Mark; as none are greater Persecutors than the Romanists, so we must conclude none are further from the Truth Baron. An. 360. §. 27, & 28..

[Page] And now by these few Instances, within the compass of one Century, the Reader may judge what Truth there can be in that Religion, that needs so many Frauds to hide its Faults; and what trust can be given to that Historian, who to serve an ill Cause, makes no scruple to use all these kinds of Deceit. This may warn all that design to peruse these Annals, not to rely upon any of his Authorities or Arguments without examining, and also not to take every thing for Primitive and Ancient, which he pretends to be so. This may suffice for this Volume, and (if we proceed) we shall make the like Remarks on the following Tomes; to shew, that their Religion is made up of Falshoods, and cannot be defended without Lying and Forgery, which is the great support of their Evil Cause.

FINIS.

Glory be to the GOD of Truth.

§

§

§

[Page]

Imprimatur

26 March, 1695.

C. Alston, R. P. D. HEN. Episc. Lond. à Sacris.

§

[Page]

THE CHURCH HISTORY Clear'd from the Roman forgeries And Corruptions found in the COUNCILS and BAR ONIUS: FROM The Year 400, till the end of the Fifth General Council, An. Dom. 553.

Being the Third and Fourth Parts of the Roman Forgeries.

By THOMAS COMBER, D. D. Dean of DURHAM.

For we have not followed cunningly devised Fables, 2 Pet. I. 16.

LONDON.

Printed by Samuel Roycroft, for Robert Clavell at the Peacock at the West-End of S. Pauls, 1695.

[Page]

[Page]

TO THE Most Reverend Father in GOD, JOHN, By Divine Providence Lord Archbishop of YORK, Primate of ENGLAND, AND METROPOLITAN.

May it please your Grace,

WHen I formerly had the Honour of Your Acquaintance, tho' at a distance, I reckon'd it none of my least Felicities: But since [Page] that happy Providence that delivered these Nations, brought Your Grace nearer, to Illustrate these Northern Regions with Your excellent Doctrine, and warm them with Your pious Example; I could not better express my extraordinary Satisfaction and my Duty both, than by presenting these Papers to Your Grace, who have suffered so much from the Romish Party, and done so much to prevent their once growing and dangerous Errors.

These Collections were all made, when this Church was threatned to have their Corruptions imposed on us; and the First Part was ready for the Press while that Cloud hung over our Heads. This Second Part hath been hindred [Page] by divers necessary Avocations, but now comes to appear under Your Grace's auspicious Patronage; and if it be so happy also to gain Your Approbation, that will recommend it to all that know Your Grace's solid Judgment and Undisguised Integrity. Frauds and Forgeries are naturally Your Aversation, and therefore the discovery of so great a heap of them, may I hope be acceptable to Your Grace; not on your own Account, to whom probably here is nothing New; but because this Essay may assist young Divines and such as begin to read Church-History, at a cheap and easy rate to distinguish Truth from Falshood in matters of great importance. I shall add no more, [Page] since to give your Grace your just Character, is as needless as it would be difficult for me, and would not be pleasing to your Grace; only I shall most heartily pray, That the Church may be long happy in Your Conduct, and that he may be reckoned among Your Grace's Friends, who is,

My Lord,

Your Grace's most faithful Servant, and Your True Honourer, THO: COMBER.

[Page]

THE PREFACE.

ANTIQUITY seems so Naturally to challenge Veneration from all succeeding Times, that it gives a Value to many things which have nothing else to recommend them: But the Records of former Ages, especially those relating to the Faith and Practice of the Church, while it was in its purity and splendor, are by all sober Men accounted truly Sacred. Yet no Writings have suffered more by fraudulent Hands than these: For most of them being for many Ages in the custody of those, who had a new Authority to set up, and were to contrive new Doctrines to furnish and support it with Wealth and Power, their Interest obliged them to corrupt all genuine Ecclesiastical History, and to invent innumerable spurious [Page] Pieces, under great and ancient Names, thereby to impose upon the ignorant Ages, and make them imagine, their later Devices were of Apostolical, or at least Primitive Original: And this is done with so much Artifice and Cunning, that a careless Reader of the Ecclestastical Story (as they represent it) is in danger of being persuaded, That the Modern Roman Church is in all things conformable to the Primitive, from which it differs as much as Darkness doth from Light: To prevent which fatal Mistake, I think no Time can be better spent, no Pains more usefully employed, than in correcting the History of the Ancient Church, and discovering the various Falsifications thereof.

Wherefore I have now pursued and enlarged my Design of remarking the Roman Frauds and Forgeries in their Editions of the Councils, and in Baronius, by rectifying the History of the Church, and all Passages relating to it, as I go along; having proceeded as far as the Middle of the Sixth Century: A Period which contains Three of the first Five General Councils, and is memorable for variety of most important Transactions. It was in this time that the most refined Hereticks [Page] disturbed the Church, and the barbarous Nations broke into the Roman Empire, and setled in divers parts of it. And while the former employed the Pens of the Learned, and the later diverted the Thoughts of the declining Emperors, Rome had an unlucky Opportunity to serve the ends of her aspiring Ambition, and to lay the Foundation of her future Grandeur: Which Projects were furthered by a great decay, not only of Learning, but of Piety and good Manners, toward the End of this time, which made way for divers Superstitions to creep into the Worship, and many Irregularities to grow up in the Discipline of the Christian Church. Yet still there were many Learned and pious Writers, who laboured to defend the Faith, to check all sorts of Ʋsurpations, and to keep up the Primitive Purity and good Order: So that the Editors of these Councils and Baronius have been put to all their shifts, to feign an Agreement between the Records of this Period, and the Modern Doctrines and Practices of their Church, foisting in many Legends and spurious Tracts, and corrupting the Words, as well as forcing the Sense of the genuine Writings of these Ages.

[Page] Of which Proceedings I was in hopes to have found, both an exact Account and a just Censure in the lately published Work of the Learned Monsieur. Du Pin New Hist. of Eccles. Writers, &c. Lond. 1693.. And it must be confessed he hath owned more of these ill Practices, than any Writer of that Church, and suffered for telling more Truth than the Roman Cause can bear. Yet after all, either by the prejudices of his Education, or the influence of his Superiors, and the disadvantage of his Circumstances, many things of this kind are omitted, which are necessary for us to know: And though I would advise Young Students of Ecclesiastical Antiquity (whose service I aim at) to Read those Elaborate Collections; Yet I cannot assure them, they may every where depend on them.

The best method to know the wole Truth, is to Read over the Councils themselves, and compare them, as they go on, with Baronius's Annals, and both with these brief Remarks; which will so unfold that Mystery of Rome's corrupting and falsifying the Church-History and Writings of these times, that a diligent observer will hereby be enabled (without a Guide) to discover more of these Errors, than our [Page] designed brevity would allow us to set down: And such a Reader may not only safely peruse the Historians and Disputants of that side, but will soon arrive at the Skill to confute all their Arguments, which are supported by disguising of Ancient Records: And as his discovery of the Roman Frauds, will give him a just aversation for that Church; so his seeing that our Church rejects these Arts of deceiving, and needs no false or feigned Evidence, must give him as true a value for it; since we appeal to all uncorrupted Antiquity, Our Pastors can say with S. Peter, We have not followed cunningly devised Fables 2 Peter I. 16.. Deceit in Human Affairs, is equally Odious and Mischievous: But in Religious Matters it is highly Impious and Intollerable; because it not only misleads Men in matters relating to their Eternal Salvation: But (as a Learned Prince used to say,) it makes God himself an Instrument of the Crime, and a Party to the holy Cheat Dum homines decipunt, Deum ipsum interponunt tanquam sceleris mediatorem: Rex Alfons. apud Phil. Camerar. hor. subs. Tom. III. pag. 127.: To this Horrid Degree of Guilt, may the design of imposing false and gainful Doctrines drive partial Men. But the Mischief is prevented as soon as [Page] it is discovered; wherefore I hope these Papers, which so plainly expose this sort of Falsifications, may set the History of these Times in a clearer Light; and not only help to undeceive some well meaning and misled Romanists, but to Establish the Inquisitive and Ingenious Members of this rightly Reformed Church, for whose Safety and Prosperity the Author daily Prays, and to whose Service he Dedicates all his Labours.

[Page]

THE CONTENTS.

PART III. CENT. V.

Chap. I OF the Time before the Council of Ephesus, Page 1

Chap. II. Of the Time from the Council of Ephesus, till the Council of Chalcedon, p. 47

Chap. III. Of the Council of Chalcedon, being the Fourth General Council, p. 84

An Appendix concerning Baronius's Annals, p. 122

Chap IV. Roman Errors and Forgeries in the Councils, from the end of the Fourth Council, till An. Dom. 500. p. 157

An Appendix concerning Baronius his Annals, p. 189

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. p. 218

An Epitome of Dr. Crakenthorp's Treatise of the Fifth General Council at Constantinople, Anno 553. p. 279

[Page]

ERRATA.

PAg. 10. lin. 11. read, fourth time, p. 14. l. 4. those words Quibus verbis, &c. were to be in the Margen at (*), p. 15. l. 24. r. noting in the, p. 21. l. 18. r. prove themselves, p. 26. l. 26. 1. to assert, p 51. l. 21. r. from giving, p. 62. l. 3. r. divers proofs, p. 64. l. 35. r. him by their, p. 66. l. 29. (dele) when, p. 68. l. 16. r. yet the inventor, p. 69. Marg. at l. 33, r. amplificatorem, p. 74. l. 5. r. That inded Leo, p. 76. l. 4. r. S. Germanus, p. 79. l. 24 r. a strange assertion, ib. l. 32. r. a packed party, p. 80. l. 31. r. Pulcheria, p. 92. l. 21. r. forgēs the title, p. 108. l. 28. r. made to these, p. 113. l. penul. r. Emperors patronage, p. 134. l. 11. r. Constantius his time, p. 152. l. 16. r. the pilgrimages, p. 153. l. 17. r. Legates; of, p. 161. lin. ult. & p. 162. l. 1, r. Pontificate, p. 279 l. 19. r. Theodoret, p. 289. l. 14. r. and again by, p. 301. l. 23. r. and Marcian, ib. l. 24. r. commend Justinian, p. 402. & 403. wrong numbred for 302, 303. p. 302. l. 13. r. Agathias (ibid.) penult. & ult, r. Justin.

[Page]

Roman Forgeries IN THE COUNCILS.

PART III. CENT. V.

CHAP. I.

Of the time before the Council of Ephesus.

§. 1. THE Editors of the Councils being An. Do. 400 generally the Popes Creatures, seem not so much concerned to give us a true Account of what was done, as to make their Readers believe, that all the Affairs of the whole Christian World were managed solely by the Bishop of Rome, and every thing determined by his single Authority: Thus the first Council. of Toledo was Bin. Tom. 1. Par. 2. pag. 596. Lab. Tom. 2. Col. 122 [...]. held in Spain, under Patronus, Bishop of that City: The Title says it was held in the time of Pope Anastasius, and [Page] notes the Name of the Consul for that year, 400. But Baronius finding an Epistle of Pope Innocent writ to a Council of Toledo five years after this Epist. 23. P. Innoc. ap. Baron. An. 405. pag. 235. (relating to the Priscillian Hereticks then abounding in Spain.) purely to make us think the Bishops of Spain could do nothing without the Pope, removes this Council down to the Year 405. Yet afterwards in his Appendix, perceiving the trick was too gro [...], he recants that Chro [...]ology, and restores it to its true Year Anno 400. Baron. Ap. pend. ad Tom. 5. pag. 691. But after all, this Epistle of Pope Innocent is by some suspected to be forged; and Sirmondus confesseth, that all the Old Books cite this Epistle as written to a Council at Tholouse Lab. pag. 1279.; so that he and Baronius, probably altered the reading, and put in Toledo instead of Tholouse, because this was the more Famous Council; and they had a mind it should be thought that all eminent Councils expected the Popes Letters before they durst act: Whereas this Council of Toledo, makes it plain, that they censured the Priscillianists, and absolued such as recanted purely by their own Authority. And when they thought fit to acquaint other Churches abroad with what they had done, they send an Embassie, not only to the Pope, but to Simplicianus, Bishop of Milan, whose Judgment and Authority they value as equal with the Popes Bin. pag. 602. & not. pag. 606. Lab. col. 1231. not. col. 1240.. And here we must observe, that Baranius and the Annotator (seeing it was a reflection upon the Popes to have a Bishop of Milan ranked equal with the Pope) affirm (without any Proof) that St. Ambrose and his Successor Simplicianus were only the Pope, Legates, and that these Spanish Bishops would communicate with none but such as the Apostolical S [...] did communicate with Bin. notes.. Whereas they have the principal regard to the See of Milan, and in the definitive Sentence name only St. Ambrose ut supra: ita Lab. Baron., though some Forger hath there manifestly put in these words, add also what Siricius advised: And in the Council of Turin, which Baronius cites, St. Ambrose is named before the Pope; yea it is manifest by divers African Councils About this time., that they gave equal respect at least to the Judgment and [Page] Authority of the Bishop of Milan, as to those of Rome Baron. An. 405. & appen. ad Tom. 3. pag. 693.. So that it is ridiculous and absurd to fancy that St. Ambrose and his Successors (who were greater Men than the Popes for Learning and Reputation) were the Legates of Rome; and this hath been invented meerly to aggrandize that See. And for that same reason they have stusted into the Body of this Council a Rule of Faith against the Priscillianists, transmitted from some Bishop of Spain with the Precept of Pope Leo, who was not Pope till forty years after this Council Bin. pag. 599. Lab. col. 1227.. Yea, Binius in the very Title of this Council, would have it confirmed by another Pope that lived divers Centuries after, of which Labbè was so ashamed, that he hath struck that whole Sentence out of his Edition Vid. Titul. Concil. ap. Bin. & Lab.. As to the Canons of this Council I shall only remark: That the first of them lays a very gentle punishment upon Deacons and Priests who lived with their Wives, before a late Interdict, which is no more but the prohibiting them to ascend to any higher Order Concil. Tol. 1. can. 1. Bin. p. 597. Lab. col. 1223.. And no wonder they touched this point so gently, for this prohibiting Wives to the Clergy was never heard of in Spain till Siricius (who died about three years before) advised it in his Epistle to Himerius, and therefore Innocent in his third Epistle said, Siricius was the Author of this form of Ecclesiastical Discipline, that is, of the Clergies Celibacy: and adds, that those who had not received his Decree were worthy of pardon Innoc. cp. 3. Bin. pag. 612. Lab. col. 1254.: And by the many and repeated Canons made in Spain afterward in this Matter, it appears, the inferior Clergy would not follow the Popes advice. The fourteenth Canon Concil. Tol. can. 14. Bin. p. 598. Lab. col. 1225. shews that the Primitive way of receiving the Communion, was by the peoples taking it into their hands, as they do now in our Church: And the Notes confess, that the Roman Custom of taking it into their mouths out of the Priests hand is an innovation Not. Bin. pag. 598. Lab. col. 1239., brought in after the corrupt Doctrine of Transubstantiation had begot many superstitious Conceits about this Holy Sacrament, the altering of the Doctrine occasioning this change in the way of receiving: Whereas the Protestant Churches [Page] which retain the Primitive Doctrine, keep also the Primitive Rite of Communicating. To this Council are tack'd divers Decrees which belong to some Council of Toledo or other; but the Collectors, Burchard, Ivo, &c. not knowing to which, have cited them under this General Title, out of the Council of Toledo, and so the Editors place them all here Bin. pag. 602. Lab. col. 1231.. But most of them do belong to later times, and the name of Theodorus, Arch-Bishop of Canterbury, in one of these Fragments shews it was made 300 years after this time Bin. pag. 604. Lab. col. 1236. An. Dom. 401..

We have in the next place two African Councils said to be under Anastasius, though indeed they were under the Bishop of Carthage: The former of these, decrees an Embassie shall be sent both to Anastasius, Bishop of Rome, and Venerius, Bishop of Milan, for a supply of Clergy-men, of whom at that time they had great scarcity in Africa Bin. pag. 606. Lab. col. 1241.. The other African Council determines they will receive such Donatists as recanted their Errors, into the same Orders of Clergy which they had, before they were reconciled to the Church, provided the Bishop of Rome, Milan and other Bishops of Italy (to whom they sent a second Embassie) consented to it: Now here, though all the Italian Bishops were applied to, and he of Milan by name, as well as the Bishops of Rome; and though it was not their Authority, but their Advice and Brotherly Consent, which the African Bishops expected; yet Baronius and Binius tell us, it is certain that Anastasius did give them licence to receive these Donatists in this manner, because St. Augustin said they did receive them Bin. pag. 607. Lab. col. 1242. Baron. An. 401. pag. 130.. Whereas St. Augustine never mentions any licence from the Pope, and his leave or consent was no more desired than the leave of other eminent Bishops, only the Annalist and his followers were to make this look as an indulgence granted from Rome alone.

[Page] §. 2. Pope Innocent succeeded Anastasius, who had the An. Dom. 402. good fortune to be convinced (by St. Augustine, and other Bishops more learned than himself) that Pelagius and Celestius were Hereticks, and so to joyn with the Orthodox in condemning them, for which he is highly commended by St. Augustine, St. Hierom, and by Prosper, who were glad they had the Bishop of so powerful and great a City of their side; and so was poor St. Chrysostom also, whose Cause he espoused when Theophilus of Alexandria and the Empress oppressed him; and by that means Innocent also got a good Character from St. Chrysostom and his Friends in the East: But some think it was rather his good fortune than his judgment, which made him take the right side: The Pontifical fills up his Life, as usually, with frivolous matters Bin. pag. 607. Lab. col. 1242.. But two things very remarkable are omitted there, the one is a passage in Zosimus, viz. That when Alaricus first besieged Rome, and the Pagans there, said the City would never be happy till the Gentile Rites were restored, The Praefect communicates this to Pope Innocent, who valuing the safety of the City before his own Opinion, privately gave them leave to do what they desired Zosim. hist. lib. 5. pag. 816.. The other is, That when Rome was taken afterwards by Alarious, Pope Innocent was gone out of the City to Ravenna, and did not return till all was quiet; and therefore I cannot with Baronius think that St. Hierom compares Pope Innocent to Jeremiah the Prophet Baron. An. 410. pag. 301.; for Jeremiah staid among God's People and preached to them, but Innocent was gone out of Rome long before it was seized by the Goths. Further we may observe, that whereas St. Hierom advised a Noble Roman Virgin to beware of the Pelagian Hereticks, and to hold the Faith of Holy Innocent Hieron. ad Dem. ep. 8. pag. 75.: Baronius is so transported with this, that he quotes it twice in one year, and thus enlarges on it, That St. Hierom knew the Faith was kept more pure and certainly in the Seat of Peter, than by Augustine or any other Bishop, so that the Waters of Salvation were to be taken more pure out of the Fountain than out of [Page]any Rivers Baron. An. 413. pag. 354, & 358.; which absurd Gloss is easily confuted by considering, that this Lady was a Member of the Roman Church, and so ought to hold the Faith of her own Bishop, especially since he was at that time Orthodox; and this was all St. Hierom referred to: For he doth not at all suppose the Roman See was infallible, nor did he make any Comparison between Augustine and Innocent, since he well knew that in point of Learning and Orthodox Judgment Augustine was far above this Pope, who indeed derived all the skill he had as to the condemning Pelagius from the African Fountains, and especially from St. Augustine: Besides, nothing is more common than for some Eminent Bishops to be named as the Standard of Catholick Communion, not from any Priviledge of their See, but because at that time they were Orthodox: So the Bishops of Constantinople, Alexandria and Antioch are named in a Rescript of Arcadius the Emperor, with this Character, that such as did not hold Communion with them should be cast out of the Church Baron. An. 404. pag. 202.. And thus Athanasius, Ambrose, Cyril and others, eminent for being Orthodox, have been made the Touchstones of Mens Faith, such passing for true Believers only, who held the same Faith with them.

For this Pope there are divers Epistles published, upon which and the partial Notes upon them we will make some brief remarks.

The first Epistle to Decentius, Bishop of Eugubium, was writ the last year of Innocent Anno 416. Bin. marg. pag. 609. Lab. marg. col. 1248. but is placed first, because it talks big of St. Peter, and of the duty of other Churches to conform to the Roman usages: But there are some passages in it which make it questionable whether this Pope writ it; or, if he did, shew his ignorance and gross mistakes; for the Author affirms, That no Apostle but Peter did Institute Churches, Ordain Priests and Preach in Italy, France, Spain, Africa, Sicily and the adjacent Islands Innoc. ep. 1. Bin. pag. 608. Lab. col. 1248.. Whereas the Scripture testifies that St. Paul did institute the Church at Rome and preached in Italy; and most of the Ecclesiastical [Page] Writers affirm that St. James preached in Spain. 2ly. He enjoyns the Saturday Fast Bin. pag. 609. Lab. col. 1246. which was a peculiar Custom of the Roman Church not observed in the East, nor at Milan, nor almost in any other Churches of divers Ages after; and we may observe that among all Innocent's Reasons for it, there is not one word of the Blessed Virgin, who was not worshiped in those days, as she is now by the Romanists, who now pretend to observe this Saturday Fast peculiarly to the honour of the Virgin Mary. 3ly. He allows not only Priests, but also Lay Christians to give extream Unction to the Sick, if the Oyl be but consecrated by a Bishop Innoc. ep. 1. §. 8. Bin. ibid. Lab. col. 1238.. In which point the Roman Church hath since altered her Opinion, and I doubt not but they will call this now, a manifest error.

The second Epistle to Victricius (as Labbè confesseth) is patched up out of the fourth Epistle of Siricius and the seventh of Pope Zachary Bin. marg. pag. 610, & 611. Lab. col. 1252, 1253.. And the Centuriators note concerning all these Epistles which go under Innocent's Name, That sometimes whole Paragraphs are taken out of the Epistles of both former and later Popes Magdeb. Cent. 5. pag. 1233., which is a ground to suspect that most of them are not genuine: However there hath been a later hand employed to foist in a passage or two into this Epistle; for whereas the First Writer declares that, all Causes shall be determined in the Province where they happen, some have put in a Sentence [excepting the reverence due to the Roman Church] into the Body of the Section; and an exception of reserving the greater Causes for the Apostolick See, in the end of that Section Bin. pag. 611. Lab. col. 1250., which make the whole Decree null, and contradict the Nicene Canon cited there: And whereas the former sentence was meer non-sense in Binius, Labbè hath put two words (siue praejudicie) into his Edition, to make this gross Addition seem coherent, and conceal the Forgery: Again, the Author of this Epistle in his zeal against the Clergies Marriage, falsly cites it for Scripture, That God's Priests must marry but once Bin. ib. §. 6. Lab. col. 1251.; and it is but a poor excuse which Labbè makes, that Tertullian had cited this as out [Page] of Leviticus, since the infallible Interpreter of Scripture should have corrected his Error, and not have countenanced an addition to the Holy Text to serve an ill Cause. 3ly. The Writer shews himself grosly ignorant of the Courses of the Jewish Priests, when he saith, they did not depart from the Temple nor go to their House in the year of their Ministration Ibid. ap. Bin. Lab. § 9.. Whereas every one knows that there was but 24 Courses of the Priests, and that every Family ministred but one Week at a time from Sabbath to Sabbath See Selden of Christ's Nativity, pag. 58, &c.. Yet this Author makes the same mistake again in the third Epistle, and considently talks again of the year of their Course. 4ly. Whereas St. Paul had declared Marriage honourable in all Men (without excepting Ministers) and the Bed undefiled Heb. XIII. 4.. This Impudent Epistolizer calls the use of Marriage in the Clergy a being stained with Carnal Concupisence, and expounds that place, Those who are in the Flesh cannot please God Rom. VIII. 8.; of such Marriages Ibid. §. 9., making the Apostle contradict himself by this sensless and false Gloss: But notwithstanding all these pernicious and absurd Errors, Baronius and Binius do extreamly magnifie the Pope upon this occasion, as being that Original Fountain from whence the most Famous Bishops of the World used to draw Water, knowing of what great Strength and Authority these things were which came from the Apostolical See Not. in cp. 2. Bin. pag. 612. Lab. col. 1253. Baron. An. 406. pag. 249.. But first, If these Epistles be forged (which is very probable) then all these brags and bold inferences are vain; if they be true and were writ by Innocent, they may justly blush, that such poor stuff should come from the Bishop of so great a See; and however it will not follow that the Roman Bishop was the Head of the Catholick Church, because Victricius and Exuperius writ to him for advice. For how many more and greater Bishops writ to St. Basil, St. Augustine; yea to Isidore of Peleusium and St. Hieroin who were only Priests? and how far do their Answers exceed those of the Pope? Yet none will be so ridiculous to magnifie the See of Coesarea or Hippo, or the Monasteries of Peleusium and Bethlehem, as if they were [Page] the very Fountains of Religion, or these Persons the Heads of the Catholick Church: I will only add, that Orosius is noted by Baronius himself to have consulted with St. Augustine and St. Hierom, (about matters of Faith, and greater concernment by far than these) and not with Innocent his pretended Original Fountain Baron. An. 414. pag. 363.; so that every one doubtless did not take the Pope for the sole infallible Oracle in those days.

The third Epistle to Exuperius is liable to all the Objections against the former: Labbè saith it is patch'd up out of Siricius Epistle to Himerius, the second Epistle of Celestine, and one of Leo to Theodorus Lab. col. 1254, &c. in marg.; and therefore probably it is forged: Or if we grant it genuine, it looks not very favourably upon their Modern Pretence to Infallibility; for the Pope here says, he will answer according to the measure of his understanding; and confesses, that by Conference he added to his Knowledge; and while he was answering others, always learned something himself Bin. pag. 612. Lab. col. 1254.. The Notes also are much mistaken in arguing from two Bishops enquiring of Pope Innocent's sense in some matters of Discipline, That all the Catholick Church ought to keep the Decrees of the Apostolick See Notis Bin. pag. 613. Lab. col. 1257.. For there were many hundred Bishops in those and other Provinces, who never enquired after the Bishop of Rome's customs, nor desired his advice; and it is very certain that divers of these pretended Decrees were not observed, no not in France (where these two Bishops lived) for divers Ages after they are pretended to be sent thither. Before I leave this Epistle I must observe, that the last Section about the Canon of Scripture, wherein all the Apocryphal Books are reckoned up as part of the Canon Ep. 3. Innoc. §. 7. Bin. p. 613. Lab. col. 1256., is a gross Forgery added to it 300 years after Innocent's death; for Cresconius never saw this part of the Epistle, nor doth he mention it under this Head, though he cite the other parts of it; so that if the whole Epistle be not forged, yet this part of it is certainly spurious, and added to it by a later hand, as is at large demonstrated by Bishop Cosens in his History of the Canon of Scripture, to which I refer the Reader [Page] Cous. Schol. Hist. An. 405. pag. 118., noting only that the Council of Trent grounded their Decree about the Canon of Scripture, not upon genuine Antiquity, but palpable Forgeries and Corruptions.

In the following Epistles unto the twelfth, there is nothing remarkable, but some brags of the dignity of Rome, and many pretences to a strict observance of the Ancient Canons, which were no where oftner broken than in that Church: Some think they are all forged, because they want the Consuls names Bin. pag. 614, &c. Lab. col. 1260, &c.. And the twelfth Epistle may pass in the same rank, since it is dated with false Consuls, viz. Julius the fourths time, and Palladius Bin. pag. 615. Lab. col. 1264.; but because it seems to shew that the Pope took care even of Foreign Churches, Baronius resolves to amend it of his own head, and puts in Theodosius and Palladius, though still the number is false Baron. An. 416. num. 30. pag. 393.; for Theodosius was the seventh time Consul with Palladius, not the fourth; and had not this Epistle made for the Popes Supremacy, the Annalist would not have taken pains to mend it.

The thirteenth Epistle, which passes in Binius for a famous testimony of Innocent's zeal in discovering the Pelagians Bin. pag. 616., and meriting Notes, is the same with the beginning of the second Epistle of Foelix the fourth Bin. Tom. 2. Par. 1. p. 637.; and Labbè saith it is a forgery of the counterfeit Isidore Lab. marg. col. 1265.. The fourteenth Epistle calls Antioch a Sister Church, and from Peters being first there seems to confess it was the elder Sister; and both that and the sixteenth Epistle speak of one Memoratus, which Baronius will not allow to be the proper name of a Bishop, because indeed there was no such Bishop in that time; so that he expounds it of the Bishop remembred, that is, of Paulinus; but the ill luck is, that Paulinus is neither named before, nor remembred in either of these two Epistles Bin. ut supr. Lab. col. 1256. Baron. An. 408. pag. 275.. The Notes on the sixteenth Epistle mention it as a special usage of the Bishop of Rome, not to restore any to his Communion, unless they were corrected and amended; but this was ever the rule of all good Bishops, and of late is less observed at Rome than in any other Church. The eighteenth Epistle maintains [Page] a very odd Opinion, viz. That the Ordinations celebrated by Heretical Bishops are not so valid as the Baptism conferred by them; and the Notes Bin. pag. 618. Lab. col. 1270. own that the Persons so Ordained may truly receive (as they call it) the Sacrament of Orders, and yet neither receive the Spirit, nor Grace, no nor a power to exercise those Orders, which seems to me a Riddle. For I cannot apprehend how a Man can be said truly to receive an Office, and yet neither receive Qualifications for it, not any Right to exercise it. The twenty second Epistle cites that place of Leviticus, That a Priest shall marry a Virgin, and affirms it as a Precept founded on Divine Authority; and he censures the Macedonian Bishops as guilty of a breach of God's Law, because they did not observe this Precept, which every one knows to be a piece of the abrogated Ceremonial Law; and the Annotator cannot with all his shufling bring the Pope off from the Heresie of pressing the Levitical Law as obligatory to Christians Bin. pag. 619. Lab. col. 1272. not. 1276.: But there is one honest passage in this Epistle which contradicts what this Pope had often said before of the sinfulness of Priests Marriages; for here he saith, The Bond of Matrimony, which is by Gods Commandment, cannot be called sin: However out of this Epistle (which is a very weak one, and dated only with one of the Consuls names) the Editors feign a Council in Macedonia Bin. pag. 701. Lab. 1524. and a Message sent to the Pope for confirmation of their Acts (which doth not appear at all in the Body of the Epistle). And Baronius desires the Reader to note, How great Majesty and Authority shined in the Apostolick See, so that it was deemed an injury to require the Popes to repeat their former Orders Baron. [...]n. 414. pag. 365.. Whereas if this Epistle be not forged, it is no more but a nauseous repetition of the same Orders which he and his Predecessors had given over and over; and the frequent harping upon the same string, in all the Decretal Epistles, especially as to the Marriage of the Clergy, shews how little Majesty or Authority shined in the Popes, since all the Countries to which they sent their Orders, so generally despised them, that every Pope for divers Ages [Page] was still urging this matter without that effect which they desired. The twenty third Epistle was writ to some Synod or other, they know not whether at Toledo or Tholouse, as we noted before Bin. pag. 621. Lab. col. 1277.. And the Jesuit Sirmondus in Labbe, by elaborate conjectures, and large additions (probably of his own inventing) had put it out more full, and adorned it with Notes Lab. col. 1279., which pains the impartial Reader will think it doth not deserve. The twenty fourth Epistle is dear to the Editors and Baronius, because the Pope therein is his own witness, that all Matters ought to be referred to his Apostolical See, and that the Africans application to him was a due Veneration, since all Episcopal Authority was derived from him Bin. pag. 621. Lab. col. 1283.. 'Tis true, St. Augustine doth mention a Message sent to Innocent out of Africa; but he adds that, he writ back according to what was just and becoming a Bishop of an Apostolical See Aug. Bonif. ep. 106.. But as to this Epistle, besides the hectoring language in the Preface, there is neither Style nor Arguments but what are despicable; and Erasmus did long since justly say, In this Epistle, there is neither Language nor Sense becoming so great a Prelate Not. Marg. in Ep. 91. inter Ep. Aug. edit. Erasm. p. 86.; so that probably the whole may be a Fiction of some Roman Sycophant, which is the more likely, because Labbè owns that one of the Consuls names is wrong, that is, Junius is put for Palladius Lab. col. 1287.: Erasmus adds, that the twenty fifth Epistle is of the same grain with the former Not. marg. in 93 ep. inter ep. Aug. edit. Erasm. p. 88., the Style is no better, and the Matter of the same kind; for he brags that whenever Matters of Faith are examined, application must be made to the Apostollcal Fountain. And yet this Pope, as the Notes confess, held the Eucharist ought to be given to Infants, yea that it was necessary for them Bin. pag. 624. Lab. col. 1289., that is (I suppose) for their Salvation: Now the Council of Trent hath determined otherwise, so that the Romanists must grant, this Pope erred even in defining things necessary to Salvation; unless they will allow the whole Epistle forged by some later hand, who (whatever Binius say to the contrary) hath dated it with the Consuls of the year after Innocent's death, according to [Page] the best Chronologers. The twenty sixth Epistle (as the Notes confess) was writ to Aurelius, Augustine and three more eminent Bishops of Africa, by Pope Innocent, to clear himself from the suspicion of being a Favourer and Protector of the Pelagian Heresie Bin. not. pag. 625. Lab. col. 1292.; and by computation also this proves the very year in which he died (according to most accounts). Now if in those days it had been believed (as it is now at Rome) that the Pope had been Infallible, and could not err in Matters of Faith, no Man durst have raised this suspicion, nor would any have regarded it; and Innocent's best way of vindication had been only to have told them he was Pope and sate in the Holy Infallible Chair; but now his labouring to clear himself by an Epistle, shews it was possible he might err. As to the Epistle it self, Erasmus saith, Innocent answers after his fashion, being fierce rather than learned, and more ready to condemn than instruct Not. Erasm. in ep. 96. inter ep. August. pag. 90.; and whosoever reads it will find that to be a true Character of this Epistle: To these is subjoined a Letter of St. Chrysostom's to Innocent, in Latin only in Binius Bin. p. 625., but in both Greek and Latin in Labbè Lab. col. 1291.. The Phrase of which is so polite, the Matter so pious and solid, that Gold doth not excel Lead, more than this genuine piece of the Golden-mouth'd Father doth all the former Epistles of the Pope, who (if he writ those Decretals) was far more below St. Chrysostom in Learning than he pretended to be above him in Dignity: I confess the Editors would persuade us to think this Epistle was writ only to Innocent, and to him it is superscribed in Savil's Greek Edition, thus, To innocent Bishop of Rome Chrysost. Tom. 7. pag. 154. edit. Sar.; but the Roman Parasites have added to this Title, To my most reverend and pious Lord; but this hath been lately invented, for [Domino meo] is not in the Title in Baronius Baron. An. 402. pag. 192.. And the Epistle it self seems plainly to have been written to many; for towards the end, he saith, Therefore my most venerable Lords, since you see these things are thus, use your utmost study and diligence to repress this injustice that is broke into the Church Bin. pag. 626. col. 2. Lab. col. 1300.; and the Phrase doth every where suppose it was writ [Page] to divers Western Bishops; and Baronius in the end of the Epistle hath these words, We have writ this also to Venerius Bishop of Milan, and to Chromatius Bishop of Aquileia Baron. An. 404. pag. 195.; Quibus verbis Rom. Episcopi primatum erigit, iisdem Venerij & Chromatij primatum erexisset Lannoy ep. 3. p. 15.: so that since St. Chrysostom writ to all the eminent Bishops of Italy as well as to the Pope, it is unjustly done of Baronius, to say, That Chrysostom fled to his only refuge, viz. to the Roman Church, which he knew to be above all other Churches, and to have power to correct the ill-deeds of others Id. ibid. pag. 192.. There is one thing more remarkable in this Epistle, St. Chrysostom tells the Western Bishops, that being oppressed by Theophilus and his party, he appealed (not to the Pope, but) to a Synod; yea, Innocent himself saith, There was great need to have a Synod called for this cause of St. Chrysostoms Innoc. ep. 29. Bin. pag. 627. Lab. col. 1304.. So that neither did St. Chrysostom appeal to the Roman Church alone, nor durst Innocent take upon him to judge in this matter. As for those two Epistles of Innocent's, one to Chrysostom, and another to the Clergy of Constantinople (which are certainly genuine, as being preserved in Sozomen Sozom. lib. 8. cap. 26. pag. 471, &c. and not derived from the Roman Mint); These two Epistles (I say) are in an humble Style, and so well written Bin. pag. 627. Lab. col. 1301. that they make all the former Decretals which come from Rome, justly to be suspected as forged and spurious. The second Epistle of Chrysostom's which follows these two, seems also to have been written to other Bishops as well as Innocent, for it runs generally in the plural number; but they who would have us believe the Pope alone did all the business of the Church, have falsified one place in it, where St. Chrysostom saith, ye have shewed your selves loving Fathers towards us: There the Latin is in Binius in the singular, Paternam ergo nos benevolentiam declarasti Bin. pag. 627. col. 20. F.. But Labbè thought fit to mend this corruption, and reads it in the plural, declarastis, ye have declared Lab. col. 1305.. But the grossest Forgery of all in this cause of St. Chrysostom are the Letters that are pretended to pars between Innocent and the Emperor Arcadius, [Page] wherein first Innocent excommunicates Arcadius, and Eudoxia the Empress, for their injustice to St. Chrysostom Innoc. ep. 30. Bin. pag. 628. Lab. col. 1308.. And then the Emperor writes first one submissive Letter Bim. ib. Lab. col. 1309. to desire him to absolve them, to which the Pope consents Lab. solus ibid.; yet after all this, Arcadius doth again write another Letter to excuse himself and tells the Pope, Eudoxia was very sick upon the grief for her fault Lab. col. 1313. Baron. An. 407. pag. 259.: And all these Letters are said to be writ after St. Chrysostom was dead. But that which discovers the cheat is, that all the ancient Historians do with one consent agree that Eudoxia the Empress was dead three years before St. Chrysostom, which is attosted by Socrates, Sozomen and Marcellinus Socrat. lib. 6. cap. 19, 20, 21. Sozom. lib. 8. cap. 27, 28. Marcell. Chron. pag. 13.; and the same is affirmed by learned Modern Authors Vid. Ap. Coci censuram. pag. 113.. The first who affirmed the contrary was Georgius Alexandrinus, a fabulus Writer, who lived above 300 years after this time, and he was followed by Nicephorus, Glycer and Gonnadius Baron. An. 404. pag. 220., which are all the Authorities Baronius can produce for these Forged Epistles; only he countenances them, true or false, because this is an instance of a Pope who excommunicated an Emperor, and serves them for a good proof that the Roman Bishop is above the greatest Princes: But Labbè spoils the Argument by noting the Margen, that Eudoxia died before St. Chrysostom Lab. marg. col. 1308., and so these Letters are notorious Forgeries. Before I leave this matter I must observe that Baronius his great design was to represent Pope Innocent as the chief, yea and almost sole Instrument in vindicating the injuries done to St. Chrysostom, and therefore he tells us, That Innocent would not communicate with the Bishops of the East, unless they would put his name into the Tables; and he cites Theodores to prove this; but Theodoret's very words are, That the western Bishops would not communicate with them, but on that condition Baron. An. 407. pag. 258.. So when the Adversaries of St. Chrysostom (hearing that complaints of their proceedings were made among others to the Pope) sent some to give an account of what they had done, Baronius (without any proof) dreams of a sentence passed by Innocent to null what [Page] they had done Idem. An. 404. pag. 207.; whereas it appears the same year, that Pope Innocent writ very frientlly to Theophilus the chief Agent in Chrysostom's condemnation, and held communion with him long after that unjust Fact Ibid. pag. 196.; so that there is no reason to brag of this Pope, as being the Judge and Patron of that glorious Confessor Baron. An. 406. pag. 144.. who alas, died in his exile, and (excepting good wishes) had no benefit by the Popes kindness: Yea, he was so far from being Judge, that he referred this Cause of St. Chrysostom's to the Judgment of a Synod Baron. An. 404. pag. 196., as Baronius himself afterwards declares: So Theophilus of Alexandria also never did submit the Cause to Innocent as Baronius pretends Id. ibid. pag. 192., nor did he take him for the supreme Judge in it; but after all, retained his obstinacy to his death: So that if we do allow Pope Innocent to be right in his Judgment, yet he either had little power or small courage to serve this great and good Man; and what he did for him was in conjunction with other Bishops, not by his single Authority. Innocent's 31st. Epistle is directed to Theophilus (St. Chrysostom's mortal Enemy) the Patriach of Alexandria, wherein the Pope calls him Brother, and saith he held Communion both with him and with Chrysostom also, and wishes him to refer the Cause to a Synod, and there let it be tried according to the Nicene Canons Bin. pag. 628. Lab. col. 1311.. Now Baronius from hence notes, that the Communion of the Roman Church was highly valued, and that all were to hold Communion with those who were in Communion with Rome, and therefore they were to stick to the Communion of Chrysostom Baron. An. 404. p. 196. ut supr.: But the very words of the Epistle confute this Gloss; for such as followed the Popes example at that time, were to communicate both with Chrysostom and Theophilus And I must observe that Innocent's advising Theophilus to come to a Synod and let this Cause be tried there according to the Nicene Canons; this (I say) shews, That the Pope did not then pretend to find any thing in the Nicene Canons, for referring Causes by appeal to Rome; but his two next Successors (as shall be shewed presently) forged [Page] such Canons soon after, and pretended they were made at Nice. After this follows a rescript of Honorius, pretended to be writ to his Brother Arcadius Bin. pag. 628. Lab. col. 1311.; wherein that Emperor saith, Chrysostom's was a cause concerning the Bishops, which ought to have been determined in a General Council, and when either Party had sent Legates to the Bishop of Rome and those of Italy, a final Sentence was to be expected from the Authority of them all: But the Editors have forged a Title to this Letter, wherein they say, Episcopal Causes are to be tried by a Council of Bishops, and to be examined and determined by the Popes Authority: Where we see the forged Title expresly contradicts the Letter it self; for that refers these Causes to a Council in the East with the consent of all the Bishops of Italy as well as the Pope; but this Title is designed to persuade us, that the Popes Authority was finally to determine all matters of this kind. The 32th 33th and 34th Epistles of Innocent have nothing in them worth noting, and if they be genuine, their mean Style and many Incongruities are no credit to the Author Bin. pag. 629. Lab. col. 1315..

After these Epistles Labbè publishes certain Canons sent from Rome to the Gallican Church, by some Pope or other; and because by Sirmondus his guess, it was Innocent, they are placed here Lab. col. 1316, ad 1322.; there is nothing remarkable in them, but the zeal of the Collector of these Canons to persuade the French to follow the peculiar Customs of Rome.

§. 3. The Councils which the Editors place next, and with the Title of Councils under Innocent, were called indeed in his time, but neither by his Authority, nor so much as by his Advice: The first Council of Milevis, An. Dom. 402. said to be under Innocent, was (as the Notes confess) held under the Primacy of Xantippus Bin. pag. 630. Lab. col. 1323., and was held so soon after Anastasius his death, that probably these African Fathers had not yet heard of Innocent's Election, nor do the Acts of it mention any Pope: The Council An. Dom. 403. at the Oak, wherein Chrysostom was deposed, was called by, and held under Theophilus Bishop of Alexandria, [Page] wherein they proceeded to deprive an Eminent Patriarch without the knowledge or consent of the Pope; and had not the Articles been false and the Sentence unjust, it had never been revoked barely for wanting Innocent's approbation Bin. pag. 631.. Labbè prints the Acts of this Synod which Binius had omitted Lab. col. 1334.. About this time were frequent Synods held in Africa; the Years and Order of which being uncertain, the Editors have placed the Acts of them altogether Bin. pag. 744. Lab. col. 1104.; and here we have only some Notes with the bare Titles: On which we will make some few remarks: First, they are all here said to be held under Innocent, but the Acts themselves intitle them to be held in such a year of the Emperor. Secondly, The Notes on the First African Council tell us of Legates sent to the Pope for obtaining some indulgence to the Donatists; which Legates being returned, they related in this Council, what they had obtained from Anastasius Bin. pag. 631. col. 2. Lab. col. 1332.. Now this would make any one, who doth not consult the Acts themselves (printed on purpose in Pages far off) to think, the Pope was solely concerned in this matter, which is an invention of Baronius Baron. An. 403. pag. 181. & An. 405. pag. 234.. But if we look back into the former Council, we shall find these African Legates were sent in general to the parts beyond the Seas, and to Venerius Bishop of Milan as well as to Anastasius Bishop of Rome Bin. pag. 745. col. 1. Lab. col. 1081, &c.. And Baronius himself in the year when these Legates were first sent, saith, they were to go first to Rome, and also to other transmarine Bishops Baron. An. 401. pag. 129.; and again, Letters being sent to Anastasius and other Bishops of Italy Ibid. pag. 130.. Now the African Fathers applying to all these Bishops as well as to the Pope, declares they did not look on him as sufficient alone to determine their Matters: Besides, they did not send to these Western Bishops to obtain indulgence (as the Notes out of Baronius falsly pretend); For they had decreed before to indulge them, only desired the Western Bishops for the more credit, to give their Suffrages to this Fact; for so it would appear not to be only their single Opinion. The Second African Council was not under An. Dom. 404. Innocent, as the Title pretends Bin. pag. 631. Lab. col. 1332., but under Aurelius, [Page] as may be seen by the Acts; and after the message from the Italian Bishops, added to their own Authority, would not work on the obstinacy of the Donatists, they decree to send Legates to the Emperor Honorius to desire him to suppress them, ordering these Legates to carry Letters of Communion to the Bishop of Rome, and other Bishops of those parts, and to receive other Letters of Communion from them in Italy to testifie they An. Dom. 407. were Catholicks: But a little after the Notes, turn this into receiving Letters of Communion only from the Pope Concil. Afric. 4. Bin. pag 632. col. 2. Lab. col. 1233., and infer from thence, that none were Catholicks but such as were in Communion with the Bishop of Rome: Whereas they should have added, and with other Bishops of those parts; and then it had appeared, that this was no peculiar priviledge of any one See, but related to all Sees which then were filled with Catholick Bishops. I shall note only, that in these Notes the Emperor is stiled The Lord of the General Council Bin. & Lab. ibid., which Title the Roman Parasites of late have robbed him of, and given it to the Popes.

The eighth Council of Africa petitions the Emperor An. Dom. 410. Honorius to revoke that Edict, whereby he had granted liberty of Conscience to the Donatists; and the Notes out of Baronius make it so meritorious a thing to revoke this scandalous and mischievous Indulgence, that this made Honorius so blessed as to have Rome quitted by Alaricus three days after he had taken it Bin. pag. 633. Lab. col. 1335.; but our English Romanists, when an Indulgence served their ends, counted it meritorious in that Prince who granted the Sects such an Indulgence here, for we must note that Things are good or evil just as they serve their interest, or disserve it.

The Synod of Ptolemais in Egypt Bin: & Lab. ibid., whereby Andronicus, An. Dom. 411. a Tyrannical Officer, was excommunicated; is strangely magnified by Baronius, saying, that Synesius Bishop of Ptolemais, knew that when he was made a Bishop, he was elected by God to give Laws to Princes: And a little after he tells us, He deposed Andronicus from his Tribunal; adding, that this shews how great the Power of Bishops was, [Page]even to the deposing of evil Governors Baron. An. 311. pag. 328, 329.. But after all, there is no more of this true, but only that Synesius gives notice to his neighbour Churches by circular Letters that he had excommunicated Andronicus, who seems to have been a Military Officer in a little Egyptian Town, and was guilty of most horrid Cruelties and notorious Crimes Synes. ep. 57, 58.: But what is this to Kings and Princes? And the words which he cites out of Synesius 89th Epistle, which falsly translates, we have put him down from his Tribunal, are these, [...], &c. We have here taken him off from the Seat of Mourners; that is, Synesius tells Theophilus his Patriarch and Superior, that though he had justly put Andronicus among the Penitents, yet now upon his sorrow and repentance, they had there absolved him and taken him out of that sad station where the Penitents were wont to stand; and if Theophilus approved of this mercy shewed Andronicus, he should hope God might yet forgive him Vid. Causab. pref. ad exerc. in Baron. & lege ep. 89. Synes. ap. Baron. ibid. pag. 329.. Now was not the Cardinal hard put to it for an instance of a Bishops deposing a King, when he is forced to falsifie his Author, and use the words which express a restauration to the Communion of the Church, to prove a deposing from a Throne? It seems he could not or would not distinguish a Captain or petty Magistrate from a King; nor a Stool of Repentance from a Princes Throne: This it is to serve a Cause.

About this time was held that famous Conference at Carthage between the Catholicks and the Donatists. Seven Bishops of each side being chosen to dispute before Marcellinus a Count sent by the Emperor to hear this Cause Bin. à pag. 634, ad 698. Lab. à col. 1336, ad 1506.. Now Baronius tells us that this Marcellinus was not called simply a Judge, but had the Title of Cognitor, because it was not allowed to a Lay-man to act as a Judge in Ecclesiastical Matters Baron. An. 411. pag. 318.. But Cognitor is often used by the best Authors for a Judge, and cognoscere Causam, is, to hear a Cause; Dies Cognitionis, is, the day of Tryal: And which is more, the Emperors Edict calls him by the title of Judex; Our will is, you shall sit [Page]in that Disputation in the principal place, as Judge Inter Gesta Bin. pag. 647. Lab. col. 1346.; and Baronius in the very page before cites St. Augustine speaking of Marcellinus by this Character, ipse Judex Baron. ut supr. pag. 317, & pag. 322.. And as he moderated in the Disputation, so in the Conclusion he pronounces the Sentence, and the Emperor confirms it Bin. pag. 698. & Lab. col. 1506.; which if the Pope had done in Person, or by his Legate, to be sure that had been ground enough to prove him the Universal and Infallible Judge in all Causes. This is certain, Honorius did judge in this Cause by his Legate Marcellinus, and Baronius (who use to quarrel at other Emperors for medling in these Cases) tells us God rewarded him for the pains he took about setling the True Religion Baron. An. 411. pag. 322.. But as to the Pope he was not concerned in this Famous Dispute; and which is very remarkable, though the Main Dispute be about the Catholick Church, and the Orthodox alledge the Churches beyond the Seas as being in Communion with them, and so prove them Catholicks; yet they do not once name the Roman Church apart, as if communicating with that Church or its Bishop were any special evidence of their being Catholicks: Indeed they name Innocent once, but give him no other title but Bishop of Rome: Whereas if these African Fathers had believed the Pope to be the Supream Head of the Catholick Church, and that all of his Communion, and only such were Catholicks, this Dispute had been soon ended, and they had nothing to prove to the Donatists, but their Communion with Pope Innocent. And I remember Baronius argues that Caecilianus, Bishop of Carthage, was a Catholick, because he had Communicatory Letters from the Church of Rome; but the place he cites to prove it out of St. Augustine is this, When he (that is, Caecilianus) saw himself in Communion with the Roman Church, (in which the eminence of an Apostolical See always flourished) and with other Countries from whence the Gospel came to Africa, &c. Aug. ep. 162. ap. Baron. An. 412. pag. 336.. By which it is plain, that it was Communion with other Churches as well as Rome which proved Caecilianus a Catholick: And I know not where Baronius found another passage, which [Page] he affirms was proved in this Conference, viz. That the first Head of the Church was demonstrated by the succession of the Roman Bishops to be in Peter's Chair Baron. An. 411. pag. 320.: For there is not one word to this purpose in that Conference which is printed by the Editors here: So that till better Authority be produced, this must stand for a devisable of the Annalists.

Nothing after this occurs which is remarkable, till An. Dom. 415. the Council at Lidda or Diospolis in Palestina, wherein Pelagius imposed upon fourteen Bishops a pretended recantation of his Heretical Opinions, and was by them absolved Bin. pag. 701. Lab. col. 15 [...]9.. Binius his Title of this Synod is, that it was under Innocent: But Labbè (fearing this might imply the Popes consent to a Hereticks absolution) hath struck that out. However we have Baronius his word for it, that no Letters were written to the Pope from this Synod Baron. An. 416. pag. 388., only some Lay-men brought him the Acts of it. And he, Good Man (not so cunning at finding out Hereticks as the African Bishops) confesses he could neither approve nor blame the Judgment of these Bishops of Palestina Vid. Innoc. ep. 26. & Bin. not. p. 702. Lab. col. 1532.. And Pelagius himself, though he could not finally deceive the Roman Church, yet he hoped he might gain the Pope to his party, and did attempt it; yea 'tis very probable he had succeeded, if St. Augustin and other African Fathers had not instructed the Pope, and made him understand the danger of this Heresie: And (we have noted before) that Innocent's carriage in this matter rendred him suspected to be a favourer of Pelagius Baron. An. 416. pag. 388.; upon which the Africans (not trusting to his Infallibility) writ very plainly to him: And after they had condemned Pelagius and Celestius in a Council of thirty seven Bishops at Carthage, they writ another brisk Synodical Epistle to the Pope, telling him, that they intimated to him what they had done, that the Authority of the Apostolical Seat might be added to their Decree, because his Eminent Place gave more weight to his Doctrine; and if he thought Pelagius was justly absolved, yet his Errors and Impieties ought to be Anathematized by the Authority of [Page]the Apostolical See Concil. Carthag. Bin. pag. 702, &c. Lab. col. 1533.. Now the reason of this Letter, was not so much for the confirmation of their Acts (as the Notes pretend) upon any single Priviledge believed to be in the Pope, as their Supream Head; because they call him by the Title of their Brother, both in the Title and the Letter; but because the Pelagians had reported he was their Friend, and a favourer of their Opinions; which Report did very much mischief because of the Eminence of his See, and therefore it concerned both the Pope for his own vindication, and them also, that he should wipe off this accusation: And it appears both by St. Augustine and Prosper, that at last Innocent did condemn this Heresie; but this Synodical Epistle from Carthage, dated An. 416. shews that he had not condemned it before the last year of his life; for he died (according to Baronius) in July An. 417. So hard a thing was it for the African Fathers to get a pretended Infallible Judge to understand and censure a notorious Heresie. I might now leave this Head, but that I must first observe the confidence of Baronius, who from one word in a verse of Prosper's, will needs have Celestius a Disciple of Pelagius, to have been first condemned at Rome, after the antient manner, that a new Heresie should be first Examined and Condemned by the first Seat Baron. An. 412. pag. 340.. But when he should make this out, he owns that Pelagius and Celestius indeed were first condemned in Africa, but he tells us their Heresies were condemned long before at Rome in the person of Jovinian: But if it were true that Jovinian had held all the Heresies of Pelagius (which is most false) then we must attribute no great sagacity to Innocent as to condemning Heresies, because 'tis plain he did not know these were the same Heresies that Jovinian had held, nor could he be brought to censure them, till above four year after.

The Second Council of Milevis consisted of sixty Bishops, An. Dom. 416. the Title is, under Pope Innocent Bin. pag. 704. Lab. col. 1537.. But Baronius had told us before, that the same Aurelius, Bishop of Carthage, presided in the former Council of Milevis, and [Page]in this also Baron: An. 402. pag. 164.; so that neither of them were under any Pope: The 22d Canon of this Council saith, that he who thinks to appeal to a Tribunal beyond the Sea, shall not be received into Communion by any in Africa Bin. pag. 705. Lab. col. 1543.: Which is a clear prohibition of appeals to Rome; and therefore Gratian either found or made this notorious addition to it, unless they appeal to the See of Rome Not. Bin. pag. 710. Lab. col. 1554., which is so gross a Forgery that Binius rejects it, and out of Bellarmin expounds this passage only, of prohibiting the inferiour Clergy, Priests and Deacons, &c. to appeal beyond the Seas, i. e. to Rome; but he supposes that Bishops in Africk still had liberty of appealing thither according to the 17th Canon of Sardica: But to confute this false Gloss, let it be noted, That these African Fathers profess in a following Council, that they had never heard of any such Canon, or of this Sardican Synod, and so it is not likely they should be guided by it: Again, about ten years before upon a complaint to Innocent of some Bishops, who being censured in Africa, ran to Rome with Complaints, this very Pope had written, that Bishops should not lightly go to the Parts beyond the Seas: And the Council in Africk confirmed that passage of the Popes Letter Bin. pag. 752. Lab. col. 1112.. And since this would not restrain some Bishops here in this second Milevitan Council, they make a Decree, That Bishops Causes should be determined by Bishops, either such as the Primate (of Africk) should appoint, or such as the Parties chose by his consent Bin. pag. 705. Lab. col. 1542.: And then they add this 22d Canon to confine all appeals of the inferior Clergy also to an African Synod, or to their own Primate; and then add this Clause recited before, that those who appeal beyond the Seas, shall not be received to Communion by any in Africa: which certainly is the penalty relating to both Canons; because in their Letter a few years after written to Pope Celestine, they declare it is contrary to the Nicene Canons for the Pope to receive any into Communion by Appeal, who have been censured in their own Province, especially Bishops, adding, That his Holiness should (as became him) also forbid the wicked refuges of Priests and the [Page]lower Clergy, &c. That is, not only the Appeals of Bishops, but of Priests also Epist. ad Celest. ap Bin. pag. 757. Lab. col. 1675., which makes it as clear as the Sun, that these Fathers at Milevis absolutely forbad all Appeals to Rome. And they had great reason so to do, not only because it was their right to judge finally all Causes in their own Province: But because some Popes about this time had encouraged Hereticks and notorious wicked Men, both Priests and Bishops who had fled from the just Censures of their own Church, and found a Sanctuary and Shelter at Rome: But of this more hereafter. This second Council of Milevis writ also to Pope Innocent about the Pelagian Heresie, to quicken him in providing some Remedies to prevent the spreading of that Infection, supposing the eminency of his place would add much weight to his Censures, if he would heartily appear against these Doctrines Bin. pag. 706. Lab. col. 1546.. At the same time Aurelius and St. Augustin with three other eminent Bishops there, writ a private Letter to their Lord and Brother (as they call him) Pope Innocent, on the same subject Bin. pag. 707. Lab. col. 1546.; in which they deal very plainly with him, and give the reason why they writ so many Letters to him against this Heresie, because they had heard that in Rome (where the Heretick lived long) there were many who favoured him on divers grounds; some, because they say that you have been persuaded such things were true; but more because they do not think he holds those Opinions. And doubtless it was this Report which rouzed up the Pope at last to condemn the Pelagians, as may appear by our Notes upon his 26th Epistle, which is in Answer to this Epistle of the five Bishops: But that Answer, as also the Answers to the two Councils Letters were not till January An. 417. as Baronius and Binius themselves compute Bin. pag. 703. in not. ad Concil. Carthag. Lab. col. 1536., which was but six Months before Innocent's death; so long did this Pope remain under the suspicion of being a favourer of Pelagianism.

[Page] §. 4. Zosimus succeeded Innocent in his Chair, and in An. Dom. 417. his partial affection for the Pelagians; his life as it is writ in the Pontifical, hath nothing in it that is remarkable Bin. pag. 710. Lab. col. 1554., for his time was very short, but one Year, two Months and eleven Days according to the Pontifical, or One Year, four Months and seven Days as Binius in his Notes; though Labbè correct both him and Baronius, and says it was nine Months and nine Days above a year that he sat; and he follows Prosper (who then lived) in this Account, and therefore it is the most certain. As to his Acts, Baronius prepares his Reader for his entrance, by telling us out of the Pontifical and Gennadius, That Innocent made a Decree for the Universal Church against the Pelagians; and Zosimus afterward promulged it Baron. An. 417. pag. 396.. But we shall see presently that he was very slow in publishing any Censures against these Hereticks: For though both Baronius and Binius would colour over the matter, yet Labbè very honestly confesseth, that Pope Zosimus was deceived by the Craft of Celestius, and he proves it out of St. Augustin Lab. not. col. 1560.; and Marius Mercator a Writer of that very time (whose admonition is printed in Labbè) owns that Zosimus was imposed on by this Heretick, till the African Fathers had better informed him in these matters Lab. col. 1513. scil. in Marij Merc. commonitorio. Vide item not. Sirmond. in Ap. Lab. col. 1815.; so that the Church was rarely well provided of an Infallible Head in the mean time, who was only zealous to affect his Primacy, but had not sense enough to judge of Heresie till he was informed of it from better Divines.

This Pope is said to have writ thirteen Epistles; The first by the want of a good Style and the barrenness of the Matter, may probably enough be genuine Bin. pag. 711. Lab. col. 1556., having nothing worthy of note in it, except some impertinent brags of the Authority of his See. The second Epistle is a declaration of some of the Roman Clergy excommunicated, who had fled to Ravenna to complain of the Pope (a). Baronius and the Notes meerly (r) Bin. ibid. Lab. col. 1557. guess these to be favourers of Pelagius; but it seems more [Page] probable that they were Catholicks who disliked the Popes proceedings while he favoured Celestius, which it is certain he did, till the year 418. was well advanced (in which this Epistle is dated,) for he writ his fourth Epistle for those Hereticks, the 11th of the Kalends of October Bin. pag. 714. Lab. col. 1560., doubtless in the year after his third Epistle, which is dated An. 417. As to that third Epistle, Zosimus declares, that upon a solemn and judicial examination of Celestius (the Scholar of Pelagius) he found him clear of the Heresies with which he was charged in Africa, and cites his Accusers to come to Rome within two Months, or he should be intirely restored to Communion Bin. pag. 712. Lab. col. 1558.. At the same rate he talks in the fourth Epistle, pleading the Cause of both Pelagius and Celestius, declaring them innocent, and representing Heros and Lazarus (two holy Bishops of France) as ill Men and false Accusers; railing at Timasius and Jacobus, who had been converted from this Heresie by St. Augustin, as meer Calumniators, boasting all along that the Cause was by appeal referred to him, and magnifying the Authority of his Apostolical Seat Bin. pag. 713. Lab. col. 1561.. With this Epistle also he sent into Africa Pelagius his Confession of Faith, which Zosimus took to be very Orthodox, and doubted not but the African Fathers would think his Faith to be unblameable; whereas in that whole Confession, there is not one clear acknowledgment of the absolute necessity of God's Grace, or of the necessity of Infant Baptism to wash away Original Sin, which were the Main Errors that Pelagius was charged with Bin. pag. 714. Lab. col. 1563.: So that we see a Pope, an Infallible Judge, either out of Ignorance or evil Principles, deceived both in Matters of Faith and of Fact, mistaking Heresie for Truth, condemning the Innocent and Orthodox, and absolving the most notorious Hereticks. Now let us enquire how Baronius and Binius bring him off: They say first, that Zosimus could not, if he would reject this Confession of Faith, because they said, if they had erred, they desired Zosimus to correct whatever he thought to be wrong Notis ad ep. 3.: And that they were ready in all things of [Page]Faith to believe as the Pope believed Not. ad cp. 4. Baron. An. 417. pag. 405, 406, &c.. Now this is no manner of Excuse, but rather an Aggravation, that after so fair an offer the Pope did not rectifie their Errors; this shews either that he did not understand the Question, or that he was as much a Heretick as they, especially since he not only passed over their Errors, but commends them and pleads their Cause: Yea, Baronius himself saith, this Confession contained a manifest Error, and bad things in it far from the Catholick Faith Baron. An. 418. pag. 410.; yet still the Pope could not or would not see these Errors in matters of Faith; so that here was a manifest failure in their pretended Infallibility, at a time when there was great need of it, to condemn a dangerous Heresie, which the Pope was so unacquainted with, that in his Third Epistle he calls these Disputes Ensuaring Questions, and Foolish Contentions, which rather destroyed than edified: I further add, that in Pelagius his Confession of Faith, which he pretended to be the Faith of the Roman Church; the Holy Ghost is said only to proceed from the Father, the Filioque is not added; and though the Popes of later times have condemned that omission as Heresie in the Greeks, Zosimus here passes by that also, and takes all for sound Doctrine.

Secondly, As to matter of Fact, Orosius and the African Fathers, believed Heros and Lazarus to be holy Bishops, and Orthodox Men; and Prosper (who might know them personally) testifies as much of Heros Not. Bin. ad cp. 3.: But Baronius and Binius say Celestius had belied them to Zosimus, and so excuse the Pope from blame: But if Celestius did raise these Scandals, Zosimus made them his own by believing and publishing them; and he who took upon him so much Authority as to judge a Cause, should not have espoused one of the Parties so far, as to take all they said of their Adversaries to be true: Yet thus this Pope dealt with Timasius and Jacobus also. Like to this was his Judgment about Patroclus Bishop of Arles, and the Priviledges of that See; For (as Prosper informs us) Heros, an holy Man, Scholar of St. Martin, though free from all Crimes, was expelled[Page]out of his Bishoprick by the People, and Patroclus put in his place ibid. An. 422. pag. 475., whom Baronius calls an Ʋsurper Baron. An. 412. pag. 345.: And when afterward he was slain, he saith, it was God's just judgment upon him to avenge his wickedness, who had invaded a worthy Mans See, and also disturbed the rights of his Neighbour Bishops Id. An. 426. pag. 500.. But Zosimus in his fifth Epistle, makes him the Primate of all those parts of France, on pretence that Trophimus was sent from Rome, and was the first Bishop there, and that it was his ancient right; and allows none to come from thence to Rome without Letters dimissory from this Patroclus Bin. pag. 715. Lab. col. 1567.. And in the 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th Epistles, he still advances this ill Man, condemning Proculus Bishop of Marseilles, and all others who opposed Patroclus in his most unjust usurpations and encroachments: Yet Binius in his Notes confesseth, that both his next Successors, Boniface and Celestine did judge otherwise Notis ad ep. 5.; that is, they took away this Primacy from Patroclus, and censured him for his evil doings, giving the Priviledges to Hilary Bishop of Narbon, to whom of right they belonged Bonif. ep. 3. pag. 721.: So that here is Pope against Pope, and Decretal against Decretal; so odly do Causes go at Rome: But by Zosimus his 11th and 12th Epistles it doth appear, that the French Bishops despised the Popes Decrees, and that Proculus went on in exercising his Primacy for all his being prohibited Bin. pag. 717. Lab. col. 1573., which looks not favourably on the Roman Supremacy. As ill fortune had Pope Zosimus (who was always on the wrong side) in admitting the Appeal of Apiarius, an African Priest, who was excommunicated by Urban his own Bishop for most horrid Crimes, which he afterwards confessed in an open Council (as we shall shortly shew;) yet Zosimus thinking it for the honour of his See to have Appeals made to it from Foreign Parts, admits this wicked Wretch to Communion, commands the African Synod to receive him, and threatens Ʋrban with an excommunication if he did not retract his Sentence: But the African Fathers for all this went on to judge Apiarius, as will be seen afterwards; for Zosimus died before this Cause was ended.

[Page] I have deferred the consideration of Zosimus his 10th An. Dom. 418. Epistle to the last place, because it was the last he writ (that is now extant) in the Cause of Celestius, and because it was writ to the Council of Carthage now assembled: For the Pope after he had admitted Hereticks and evil Men to appeal to Rome, was resolved to justifie the Fact, and sent two Bishops, Faustinus and Potentinus, and two Priests, Philip and Asellus, his Legates into Africa, with false Copies of the Nicene Canons to prove he ought to be appealed to in all Causes from all Provinces; and probably by them (or some little time before) he sent this Tenth Epistle Bin. pag. 717. Lab. col. 1572., wherein he brags, that Tradition and the Canons had given such great Authority to the Apostolical Seat, that none might presume to question its Decrees; with a great deal of such stuff about Christ's giving Peter the power to bind and loose, and the Canons giving this to his Successor, who was to have the care of all Churches; and that since he held this place, none might examine a Cause which he had determined, &c. Yet out of respect to the Africans (he saith) he had done nothing in the Cause of Celestius, till they had deliberated about it, and that this Cause was just in the same state as it lately was. I relate this more at large, because this unjust and ambitious Claim was the occasion of a famous Controversie that lasted many years after the death of Zosimus: But as to the Letter, the impertinency of it is very obvious; for though he assume this Authority, it is plain, that St. Cyprian of old, and the African Fathers afterward, did not think it any presumption to confute the Decrees of Popes, and to examine Causes which had been ill judged at Rome. And in the Cause of Celestius, whom Zosimus would not yet be induced to condemn; the Council of Carthage (as Prosper relates) tell the Pope, That they had resolved to confirm Pope Innocent's Sentence against him, till he did openly confess the necessity of Grace Baron. An. 418. pag. 409.: And they went on with the judgment against Apiarius, for all his Appeal to Rome, and his being absolved there; so that it is impudently done of the Roman Writers to go about to prove the Supremacy [Page] from a Popes evidence in his own Cause; yea, from a Claim which was denied and despised at the same time that it was made. Another note I make on this Epistle is, that it is dated but the 12th of the Ka. of April, and Zosimus died in January following; so that it is plain, that he had not condemned Pelagius and Celestius nine Months before he died. And though by those passages which Labbè hath published out of St. Augustine and Prosper Lab. col. 1575., it be certain he did censure this Heresie at last; yet it could not be long before his death, and therefore Zosimus was a manifest favourer of Hereticks, almost all the time he was Pope; and he may thank the African Fathers for his Repentance; who (though they were abused and injured by him) hide as much as may be all his ill deeds in favour of Celestius, and for the credit of Zosimus and the Catholick Cause, only publish his latest Acts, after he was by them convinced that Pelagianism was an Heresie: But Celestius and his party openly exclaimed against Zosimus for a Turncoat Vid. Opt. in Voss. Hist. Pelag. lib. 1. c. 28..

The same year was that Council in Africa, which the Editors intitle under Zosimus Bin. p. 718. Lab. col. 1576., but really was against him: For without regarding his suspending the Cause of Celestius, they particularly condemned all the points of the Pelagian Heresie by Anathema's, and order all Causes between Bishops to be tried in the Province where they arise, and renew the Canon of Milevis; that the Priests and inferior Clergy should be tried by their own Bishops; and whoever should appeal to the parts beyond the Seas, should not be received into Communion by any in Africa Bin. pag. 754. Lab. col. 1131.: So that we see the African Church persisted in maintaining their Rights, and condemning Appeals, as they had very good reason, considering the bold attempt of Zosimus, to usurp a jurisdiction over them; and his erroneous judging such Causes both of Faith and Manners as he had presumed to meddle in; which hapning in other Provinces, he broke the Canons of the ancient Councils, by pretending to examine and decide them elsewhere; [Page] forgetting that which Gratian had collected out of his own seventh Epistle, and gives us here for Zosimus his Decree Bin. pag. 718. Lab. col. 1574., viz. That the Authority of the Roman See it self cannot make any new Order, nor alter old ones against the Statutes of the Fathers: So Gratian reads it, and so Aeneas Sylvius cites it De gest. Concil. Bas. Fascic. rer. expet. Tom. 1. pag. 12.; so also the Editors publish it here; but some forging hand in the seventh Epistle hath put concedere instead of condere, for fear this Sentence should take away from the Pope the power of making New Canons contrary to the Fathers Decrees; a Priviledge, of which Rome hath made more use than any Church in the World. This Pope's time is concluded with a forged African Council at Telepte, wherein it is pretended they only read the fourth Epistle of Siricius, and thence the Notes and Baronius gather that the African Church shewed great respect to the See of Rome Bin. pag. 719. Lab. col. 1577.. But first Labbè confessed before, that this Epistle of Siricius was forged Lab. col. 1029.: And Secondly the Story is ill timed; for the African Church had never less reason to respect the Popes than now, when they so manifestly robbed them both of their Rights and their Peace also: Wherefore it is not probable that a Council should meet there at this time, only to read an Epistle which was invented long after.

§. 5. Upon the Death of Zosimus, there were two An. Dom. 419. Popes chosen, Boniface and Eulalius, and the Pontifical fairly tells us, the Clergy were divided for seven Months and fifteen days, and that both of them acted as Popes. This Schism being notified to the Emperor by Symmachus, the Prefect of the City, he cites both the Pretenders to Ravenna, and appoints divers Bishops to examine into the Cause; but they not being able to agree whether had the better Title, the Emperor defers the business till the Kalends of May, and forbids both Parties to enter into Rome, till a Council had met at Rome to determine this Controversie. But Eulalius (who before stood fairer of the two) impatient of this delay, contrary to the Emperors Command, [Page] on the fifteenth of the Kalends of April goes into the City, and causes great Factions there: Upon which 250 Bishops met by the Emperors Order, execute his Commands, and declare Enlalius to be no Pope, setting up Boniface Vita Bonif. & not vid. Bin. pag. 719, 720. Lab. col. 1580, & 1581.. Upon which passage I shall observe, First, That the Notes make but a vacancy of two days between Zosimus and Boniface; and Baronius saith it was not vacant above one day Baron. An. 418. pag. 429.. Whereas it is plain from the Emperors Letters, dated three or four Months after, that neither of them was reckoned to be Pope; and he writes to the African Bishops, that he would have the Council meet by the Ides of June, that the Papacy might be no longer void Baron. An. 419. pag. 435.; so that in truth the See was vacant till the Emperor had judged it on Boniface his side. Baronius doth not like it should be said that the Emperor had any right to interpose in the Election of a Pope; but Symmachus, the Praefect of Rome, saith expresly to Honorius, it is your part to give judgment in this Matter Idem An. 418. pag. 430.; and the Emperor did at first by his single Authority declare Eulalius to be rightly chosen Ibid. An. 419. initio.: But upon better information he revokes that Rescript, and Commands that neither Party should have any advantage by what was past, but all should be reserved intirely to his judgment Ibid. pag. 433.: And though he employed a Synod of Bishops to examine the Matter, yet it appears in Baronius, that the Emperors Edict was that which gave the Papacy to Boniface Vid. ibid. pag. 438, 439.: Which will appear more plainly by the first Epistle of Boniface, and Honorius his Answer to it.

For after this Pope was in peaceable possession, fearing the like mischief after his death, which had hapned at his entrance, he writes an humble Supplication to the Emperor to take care of this matter for the future: And the Emperor writes back to Boniface, declaring, That if ever two should contend about the Papacy, and be Ordained, neither of them should be Pope, but he who by a new Election should be taken out of the Clergy by the Emperors judgment, and the Peoples consent Epist. & Rescript. vid. ap. Bin. pag. 720, 721. Lab. col. 1582, 1583.. This writing of the Popes among the Councils, hath [Page] this Title, The Supplication of Pope Boniface: But Baronius thinking that too mean, fraudulently leaves out the Title Baron. An. 419. pag. 440.; though the Humility of the Style sufficiently shews that the Pope believed that the Emperor was above him; and whereas Boniface there calls the Church Our Mother, as the Margin in Binius rightly reads it Marg. Bin. p. 720. col. 2.. Baronius will have it to be your Mother; and Labbè leaves out the Marginal and true Reading Lab. col. 1582.; for it seems they think it below the Pope (though not the Emperor) to be a Son of the Church. If the second Epistle of Boniface be genuine, it shews that when Complaints were made to Rome out of the near adjoining Provinces, the Popes (even after they had given too much encouragement to Appeals) were wont to refer the matters complained of, to be examined and decided by the Bishops of those Provinces where the Fact was done Bin. pag. 721. Lab. col. 1584.. But the Notes conclude from hence, that the accusation of Bishops use to be referred to the Pope Vid. Baron. An. 419. pag. 460.; which is an universal Conclusion from Premises that will not bear it. The third Epistle of Boniface contradicts all those which were writ before by Zosimus, in favour of Patroclus, Bishop of Arles; for Boniface forbids Patroclus to exercise the Power granted him by the last Pope, and decrees that Hilary, Bishop of Narbon shall be Metropolitan Bin. ut supr. Lab. col. 1584.; and if he judged right, then Zosimus judged wrong in this Cause. For this Pope the Editors publish six Decrees, one of which orders the differences among Bishops to be decided by the Metropolitan; or however by the Primate of that Country; from whose determination there was to be no Appeal Decret. Bonif. 2. Bin. pag. 722. Lab. col. 1587.. The fourth Decree is certainly spurious, because it not only forbids a Bishop to be brought before any Judge Civil or Military for any Crime, but declares the Magistrate who presumes to do this, shall lose his Girdle, that is, be put out of his Office. Now doubtless it was not in the Popes power to give or take away Civil or Military Offices: So that this hath been invented meerly by those who affected the Popes being supreme over Kings and Emperors, and would have the Clergy exempt [Page] from all Secular Jurisdiction. As to the Pelagian Controversie, he writ nothing about it himself; but we are told by Prosper, that Boniface desired St. Augustine to answer the Books of the Pelagians Prosp. adv. Collat. c. 41., and he shewed his Wisdom in putting the Cause into a better hand than his own.

We must now return to the business of the Legates sent into Africa by Pope Zosimus, a little before his death, who appeared in the sixth Council at Carthage, not till the time of this Pope Boniface, in order to justifie the Roman Churches Right to receive Appeals from all Churches. The Title indeed falsly saith this Council was held about the manner of prosecuting Appeals Bin. pag. 722. col. 2. Lab. col. 1589.; but it is plain that the African Fathers questioned the right of appealing, and had condemned before, all Appeals to any Church beyond the Seas. In this Council the Popes Legates produce a Canon, which they say was made at Nice, importing, That if a Bishop were condemned in his own Country, and appealed to Rome, the Pope might write to the neighbouring Bishops to enquire again into the matter, and decide it; but if all this did not satisfie the Complainant, the Pope might either send his Legates, with his Authority to judge it there with the Bishops, or leave it finally to those of that Country as he pleased Extat Graeco Lat. ap. Bin. p. 727. Lat. extat ap. Lab. col. 1590.. Now this Canon was no sooner read, but Alypius, one of the African Bishops, declared he could not find any such Canon in the Greek Copies of the Nicene Council, and desired Aurelius, who presided in the Council (though the Popes Legates were there) to send to the three other most famous Patriarchal Churches of Constantinople, Alexandria and Antioch, to search their Copies of the Nicene Council; and that the Pope might be desired to send some thither also at the same time; which motion was so fair, and so certain a way to find out the truth, that the Legates yielded to it, as they did also to have another Canon examined, whether it were in the Nicene Council or no, about the Appeals of the lower Clergy: After which they resolve to annex a genuine Transcript of the Nicene Creed and Canons, to [Page] the Acts of their Synod, which concluded with a Letter to Boniface; which the Editors had no mind to publish in this place, but give it us elsewhere Bin. pag. 755. Lab. col. 1670.. The Sum of it is, they tell their honourable Brother, that hearing he was in Zosimus place, they had writ to him about Apiarius, who had now confessed his Faults before them, and begged pardon, and was removed from officiating in his old Church, but allowed to keep his Degree. Then for the two Canons pretended to be made at Nice, they say, they had inserted them in their Acts till the true Copies of the Nicene Council came; but if they were not found there, they would not be compelled to endure such things as they had no mind to mention, nor to suffer such intollerable burdens; but they hoped while he was Pope, they should not be used with such Insolence or Pride, but that they should be dealt with by brotherly Charity; adding, that they had sent a Copy of their Acts by two of his Legates, who might make them known to his Holiness. This is the true, though brief account of this Famous Council, wherein the Roman Church was discovered to aim at Superiority, and a usurped Jurisdiction, and to practise it to the prejudice of the Faith, and the Rights of other Churches. Moreover, it was here discovered, that Rome, to cover this injustice and irregularity, had corrupted the Canons of the most famous of all Geneneral Councils, and cited such Canons out of it, as never were made there. And now to wipe off this scandal, Binius and Baronius stickle vehemently, and try all their Art to get St. Peter's Ship off from these Rocks. The former publishes long Notes Bin. pag. 729. Lab. col. 1599.; the latter falls from writing History to dispute Baren. An. 419, pag. 447, ad 456.: But all in vain; for Binius after he hath falsly told us, that it was the Antient Custom for Bishops and Priests to appeal to Rome, and for the Africans to desire their Sentences to be confirmed by the Pope; Confesses, that the Popes Legates cited the Canons of Sardica under the name of those of Nice, and that they were not to be found in the Originals of the Council of Nice, kept in the other Patriarchal [Page] Sees: But then he pretends the African Bishops did not (as we do) charge Zosimus with fraud and forgery. I answer, that how modestly soever they might speak of this Fact, it really was a notorius Imposture, and it was sufficient that they proved it to be so, and writ plainly to both Boniface and Celestine (as the Letters yet extant shew) that they would never endure that usurped Power any more, which the Popes by virtue of these feigned Canons had exercised: And if rejecting Appeals to Rome be making a Schism, 'tis certain the Africans did not suffer them so long as the face of a Church remained there; so that probably that Epistle of Boniface the second, writ to Eulalius near an hundred years after, may be true, and had not been censured by Baronius and Binius, but only because it supposes a Church might have Martyrs in it and be a true Church, though it utterly disowned all subordination to Rome: And I am sure they justifie many Epistles that are less probable, if they make for the interest of the Pope. Against this, Baronius and the Notes Object, that there was an Appeal made by an African Bishop of Fussala, who for notorious Crimes was put out of his See by St. Augustine and others; and it seems Boniface and Celestine both allowed this Appeal, and heard his Cause; and this, these Flatterers of Rome think hapned at this time by the Providence of God Bin. & Lab. not. ut supr. Baron. An. 419. p. 451.. But let it be considered, that for so notorious a Criminal as this Bishop to appeal at this time, is neither any credit to the Pope, nor any proof that there were no African Canons at this time to prohibit it; for it is likely enough, that an ill Man, who had no means to shelter himself from the Justice of his own Country, but by appealing to those Popes, who at that time pretended a Right to receive such Complaints, would use that means of Appeal, even though it were condemned in Africa. So that his appealing doth not prove it was lawful, nor that it was not forbid there: Besides, though St. Augustine writ modestly, yet he intimates no more, but that some such Sentences as he [Page] had passed on this Bishop of Fussala, had been passed or approved by the Popes; which only prove in Fact, that some African Bishops had before this time appealed, but he doth not say it was right; yea, we see the Councils, in which he was present, condemning it as an usurpation and great injustice, ex malis moribus bonae Leges. The thing had been practised till the Popes fostering Hereticks, and lewd convicted Criminals opened the Eyes of the African Church, and made them prohibit them, and claim their antient Rights. Again, upon St. Augustine's Letter it appears, the Pope did not proceed to restore this Bishop; and it seems when former Popes had taken upon them to restore ejected Bishops, they were forced to do it by strong hand, even by sending Clerks with Soldiers to execute the Sentence, which shews their Authority was not submitted to in Africa: And the Bishops in their Letter to Celestin [...], boldly charge him never to send any such again; for if they should submit to such proceedings, they should be guilty of bringing Secular Violence into the Church of God. The Notes go on to charge us Protestants for ignorantly and treacherously insulting over Zosimus, as one that attempted to steal a Power to receive Appeals from Africa. Whereas the African Bishops themselves prove the Fact: And in the second Part I have produced a very antient Scholion Rom. Forg. [...]. 2. An. 34 [...]. pag. 111., which expresly censures these Popes for Imposture as well as Usurpation; and I now add, that Zonaras above 400 year before the Reformation saith in his Notes upon the Sardican Council, That the Bishops of Old Rome, from this Canon, boasted a right to Appeals from Bishops in all Causes, and falsly said it was made in the first Council of Nice; which being propounded in the Council of Carthage, was found not to be true, as the Preface to that Council shows. So that neither was this Canon made at Nice, nor doth it decree that Appeals shall be made to him from all Bishops, but only from those who were subject to him, which at that time were almost all those of the West, that is, Macedon, Thessaly, Illiricum, Greece, [Page] Peloponesus and Epirus, which afterwards were subjected to the Church of Constantinople; so that Appeals from thence were to be made to that Patriarch for the future Zon. Schol. 5 Can. Concil. Sardic. Bever. Tom. 1. pag 489.. Wherefore we are not the first, who charged the Popes with Usurpation and Imposture both in this Case: But the flattering Notes go on and tell us, that if the Controversy had been about the Right of Appeals, and not about the manner of appealing, the Popes Legates would have cited the 4th and 5th Canons of Sardica, which treat of the Right of Appeals, and not the 7th which treats only of the manner of prosecuting them: Now this is an open Falshood; for the first Canon the Legates cite is in the best Edition of the Sardican Canons, the fifth, and is about the Right of Bishops to appeal Bin. Tom. 1. pag. 426. Bever. Tom. 1. pag. 488.. And the second they cite is the 14th Canon, and it is about the Appeals of Priests and Deacons Bin. pag. 429. Bever pag. 501.; so that neither of the Canons cited is about the manner of prosecuting Appeals; and the latter which the Notes call the 7th Canon of Sardica doth not mention Rome.

They proceed to tell us there were 217 Bishops first and last subscribed to this Council, being a great Provincial Council, which shews how unanimous the Africans were in condemning the Popes Usurpation: As to the Popes Legates, the Notes grant they did not preside there; and truly it was not fit they should, when their own Cause was to be examined, and Rome was the criminal Church here to be tried. Again, The Note (k) impudently calls the fifth Canon of Sardica by the name of the seventh Canon, and pretends the Africans did not like the latter way of prosecuting Appeals; That is, by the Popes sending Legates into Africk to hear these Causes, but allowed him to delegate them upon an Appeal to rehear the Appellant: Whereas the Council doth expresly reject the whole Canon as a Forgery, and forbid all Appeals to the parts beyond the Seas, so that this is only defending one Lie by another, and cleansing a Blot with blotted fingers.

[Page] The next Note (l) gravely tells us, that the words Sardican Council, were falsly put into the Text of this Council, because the Legates professed these Canons were made at Nice, and because the African Fathers say they knew of no Sardican Council, which had allowed of the Popes sending Legates, &c. Not. in Concil. 6. Carthag. Bin. pag. 730. Col. 2 F. Lab. col. 1602. Now all this pains might have been spared; for these words (Sardican Council) are only in a corrupt Latin Edition, but the Greek and Latin Copy which is the best, hath no such words at all. But we may note here very justly, That these Popes were strangely insolent to cite two Canons of a poor obscure Council, never heard of in Africa, no not by the learned S. Austin (as the Notes confess,) and daringly fix these Canons upon the most famous general Council that ever was, especially since the Nicene Council doth expresly charge Concil. Nicen. can. 5. vid. Bin. pag. 725., That every Bishops sentence shall stand good in his own Province; so that he who is Excommunicated by some shall not be received by others. Now the pretended Canon allows the Pope to receive any person Excommunicated by the Bishops of his own Province: So that it expresly contradicts the Canons of the Nicene Council; and yet the Popes confidently said it was made there: Had the African Fathers believed them and submitted, no doubt these two Canons, and perhaps all the rest of that petty Synod had been imposed upon the World for genuin Canons of the Nicene Council, by the Roman Church, whose Emissaries have forged no less than 60 new Canons, and published them under the name of that famous Council. Before I leave this subject, I must note, that Baronius and Binius who here confess these two Canons were made at Sardica, do in the Notes on the Nicene Council, impudently cite them, to prove there were more than twenty Canons made at Nice, of which number they say were the Canons about Appeals, produced in the sixth Council of Carthage Bin. notis ad Concil. Nicen. supr. pag. 296.. Baronius hath one trick more, For he saith the Council of Sardica was a General Council, as well as that at Nice, and of as great Authority, and so it was [Page]all one, which Council the Popes cited Baron. An. 419. pag. 448. & 454.. I have disproved this before, and only note here, that if the African Fathers had believed this, doubtless they would not have put themselves to so great cost and trouble, to send to three foreign and remote Churches to search out the Truth: I must add, that the Bishops assembled at Carthage, thought the Nicene Canons so considerable, that they annex a Copy of them to their Acts, wherein this is remarkable, That the sixth Canon is cited without that forged Preface, which the Roman Writers of late would make a part of the Canon it self, viz. The Roman Church hath always had the Primacy. No such words appear in this African Copy Bin. pag. 725. Lab. col. 1595.; wherefore we may conclude, they have been invented since by some of the Popes Creatures.

§. 6. Celestine succeeded Boniface, yet so as the Notes An. Dom. 423. confess the Faction of Eulalius would not communicate with him: However, he seems to have been very Orthodox as to the Pelagian Controversy, though Laurentius Valla truly censures him for one of no great Learning; the Style of his Epistles shewing he was no accurate Latinist; and in his own Epistle to Nestorius, yet extant in the Ephesine Council, he confesses he understood no Greek Concil. Ephes. Epist. Celest. ad Nest. Bin. pag. 135. Lab. col. 353.: So that whatever he did against Pelagius or Nestorius, was done at the request and by the direction of Men more learned than himself: However it was well, that this Pope was so willing to assist S. Cyril against Nestorius, and Prosper, with others, against the Pelagians; for his See being eminent, his appearing on the Orthodox side gave great countenance to their Cause, and promoted the Condemnation of those Hereticks, which the Notes and Baronius so extremely magnify Vita Celest. Bin. pag. 732. Lab. col. 1610. as if he was the first who condemned them; and that it was solely his Authority which suppressed them, the falshood of which we shall shew presently. The Pontifical saith, He ordered the Psalms to be sung by way of Antiphon by all, before the Sacrifice: But if he first brought in this [Page] kind of singing them at Rome, we are sure they had been sung so long before, both in the East and at Milan; and it seems it is no disparagement for the holy Roman See to follow other Churches.

The first Epistle of Celestine, hath a great many Sections added to it in Binius, which are a Collection made by Prosper, or some Eminent Writer against the Pelagians Bin. pag. 733. Lab. col. 1611.. But Labbè prints the Epistle by it self, and then prints the Collections apart: However it is thought Celestine approved them, and so they are cited by divers Ancients under his name Vossij Hist. Pel. cap. 30. pag. 82.: But if we compare the Matter or the Style of those Additions with the former part, which is Celestine's genuin work, it will easily be discovered, that the Popes Authority was far more considerable than his Learning: And if any Man wonder why this Collector is so careful, to set down the Decrees of the Roman Church against this Heresy Bin. ibid. §. 3. Lab. col. 1614., the reason is plainly expressed, viz. That some secret Favourers of Pelagius, (considering the kindness he and his followers had found at Rome) professed they would stand by the Decrees of that Church.

His second Epistle hath nothing memorable in it, but that the Pope thinks the affairs of the Province of Narbon, to be things far remote Bin. pag. 735. Lab. col. 1619.; which shews they had not then usually intermedled with the concerns of all the Churches in the World. A little after he saith, we of the Clergy ought to be distinguished from the Laity, by our Doctrin, not by our Garments; by our Conversation, not by our Habit; by our purity of Mind, not our Dress: Which looks as if he would abrogate wholly the distinct Habits of the Clergy, and persuade them and the Laity to go alike: Which gross notion the Notes labour to cover as well as they can, by pretending he for bids only new Fashions of Habit to the Clergy: But if it were so, this would reflect upon the various Habits of every several Order of Monks. And yet if we look well upon the Text, he positively dislikes all Habits which may distinguish the Clergy from [Page] the Laity, which now adays Protestants account a Fanatical Opinion.

Most of the following Epistles are printed in the Council of Ephesus, and shall there be considered: It suffices to observe here, That the 9th Epistle to the Emperor Theodosius Bin. pag. 737 Lab. col. 1623. owns that Arcadius and Projectus were to represent his Person in the Council of Ephesus, which the Emperor had Commanded to be held: Therefore Cyril did not represent Pope Celestine; and not the Pope, but the Emperor called that Council.

The 10th Epistle affirms, that the care which Kings take in the matters of Religion is not ineffectual Bin. ibid. Lab. col. 1624.; which shews, that Baronius had no reason to be so severe upon all those Princes who medled with Religious Affairs. Out of the 12th Epistle to Theodosius we may note, that Atticus late Bishop of Constantinople is said to be of most reverend Memory, and a most couragious defender of the Catholick Faith Bin. pag. 739. Lab. col. 1629.: And in Celestine's Epistle to Nestorius, Atticus of blessed memory, a Teacher of the Catholick Faith Bin. Concil. Ephes. pag. 134.. But this very Bishop had a long contest with the Bishops of Rome, and was Excommunicated by Pope Innocent Baron. An. 406. pag. 244.; and he on the otherside valued this so little, that he Excommunicated those who were in Communion with Rome; and calls Paulinus and Evagrius and their adherents (among which was the Pope) by no gentler a name than that of Schismaticks Baron. An. 412. pag. 348.. So that how Orthodox so-ever he might be in any other things, 'tis plain, he did not believe the Roman Church Infallible, nor think it was necessary to be in Communion with it: And though he erred (as they now believe at Rome) in so main a Point; yet while he was at open Enmity with the Pope, Baronius tells us he wrought a Miracle Baron. An. 408. pag. 272.; so that a Man would think, Miracles are no proof of the true Church: Another passage in this Epistle is Memorable, viz. That Celestine saith, Nestorius was Excommunicated by the general sentence of the Bishops: Which the Reader must remember, when the flattering Notes any where say, the [Page]Sentence against this Heretick was solely the Act of Celestine. And indeed Baronius having recited his 11th, 12th, 13th and 14th Epistles, boasts of him, as if God had raised him up to stand in the gap against those Hereticks which then infested the Church, and gives him all the Glory of the Victory over them Baron. An. 432. pag. 616.. Whereas, if Prosper and Cyril had writ no better against Pelagius and Nestorius than Celestine, it is to be feared that these Heresies had not been censured in that Age. Yet in the main he was a good Pope, and had the fortune to take the right side in these Controversies, and therefore is highly commended by divers of the Orthodox; and he is very free in returning the Complements: For in his last Epistle he calls Cyril an Apostolical Man Bin. pag. 741. Lab. col. 1633.; and Maximtanus of Constantinople he styles his Colleague. And this may suffice for this Popes Epistles.

We are entertained next with another Collection of African Councils, held, as they say, under Pope Boniface and Celestine Bin. pag. 744. Lab. col. 1641.; but the Titles mention no Pope at all; nor were they called by any Pope, but by the Bishop of Carthage, who presided in them, even when the Popes Legates were present: We have taken notice of most of these before, and therefore shall pass them over very briefly. In one of them they resolve to send a Legate to their holy Brethren and fellow Bishops, Anastasius of Rome, and Vencrius of Milan, putting them so equally into the Scale, that the Pope is only first named Bin. pag. 745. Lab. col. 1643.. A little after Aurelius, Bishop of Carthage saith, That he by God's appointment sustained the care of all the Churches: The Margin tells us he means in Africa Bin. pag. 747. Lab. col. 1647.; but I must note, that if a Pope had said so in this Age, though he could mean no more than the Churches of the Suburbicarian Regions, these Gentlemen would have stretched that to all the World. Another Council in the twelfth Consulship of Honorius, and the eighth of Theodosius, had a Canon in some ancient Copy, wherein these Fathers. Anathematize them that hold any middle place between Heaven and Hell, to [Page]which unbaptized Infants go; and they expresly declare, that whoever is deprived of the Right Hand, must fall into the Left; and that no Catholick doubts but he is with the Devil who is not a Coheir with Christ Bin. pag. 753. Lab. col. 1664.. Now this looks so foul upon Limbus Infantum and Purgatory, the later Inventions of Rome, that their Parasites have left this Canon out in other Copies of this Council Vid. Bin. pag. 786.: And here it is printed in a different Character, as if it were no genuine piece of the Council, only because it condemns the modern Opinion of the Roman Church; but the impartial Reader will conclude, that the Ancient Copy of this Canon was elder than either Purgatory or Limbus Infantum.

Here also the Editors print at large the two famous Epistles of the African Bishops, to two Popes successively, Boniface and Celestine, wherein they do utterly condemn Appeals to Rome, and discover the forgery of those pretended Nicene Canons, by which their Legates attempted to justifie them. I have given an account of the former of these Letters in the Life of Boniface. And I shall add here, that the latter Epistle to their honourable Brother Celestine (writ some years after) shews the Africans continued still in the same mind Bin. pag. 757. Lab. col. 1674.; for therein they acquaint him that they had called a Council; and though Apiarius alledged the Priviledge of the Roman Church which had received him unlawfully to Communion, they examined his Cause, and at last he confessed his notorious Crimes: Wherefore they earnestly desire the Pope not so easily to receive Complaints from thence, nor admit those to his Communion whom they had excommunicated; for they shew that the Nicene Council forbids this, both as to Bishops, Presbyters and Lay-men, without any derogation to the priviledge of the African Church, committing all the Clergy to their own Metropolitan, and wisely ordering every business to be determined in that Province where it arose, knowing that the Spirit of God would not be wanting to any Country, where a Council of Bishops should meet; so that none need fear to be injured,[Page]since they might appeal to a greater Council of their own Province, or to a Universal Synod: Whereas if Judgment were to be given beyond the Seas, many Witnesses must be wanting, and many other things must hinder the finding out of truth. They add,—That they could not find any Council which allowed his Holiness to send any Legates to hear Causes; and for those Canons which Faustinus had produced, as made at Nice, they could find no such Canons in the Authentick Copies of that Council. Finally, They bid him not send any of his Clerks to execute his Sentence, to which if they should submit, they should seem to bring the vanity of Secular Arrogance into God's Church. This is the Sum of this excellent Letter, which disowns and condemns all Appeals, and renounces the Popes jurisdiction over Africa, with a modest intimation, that his claim was grounded upon a notorious Forgery, and therefore he is required to pretend to it no longer, for that they will not submit to such an Usurpation. Yet such is the Impudence of the Roman Editors, that in a Marginal Note upon this Epistle Bin. pag. 757. col. 2. Lab. col. 1675., they say these African Bishops desire the Pope, to appoint another way of prosecuting Appeals: Which is a gross contradicting the Text it self, wherein all manner of Appeals, and all ways of prosecuting them are utterly condemned; but this was too harsh, and therefore the Truth was to be daubed over with this plausible Fiction.

After this Binius presents us with another Edition of these African Canons and Epistles, in Latin and Greek Bin. pag. 758.. And Labbè newly publishes the Epistle of one Leporius, who had been converted from Heresie, and reconciled to the Church by the African Bishops Lab. col. 1678., by which we may learn, that a Heretick need not go to Rome to recant, as the Notes formerly affirmed. There is nothing further observable before the Council of Ephesus, except two Councils, one at Rome, wherein the Pope is said to make Cyril his Legate in the Cause of Nestorius; the other at Alexandria, in which Cyril is pretended to Act by this delegated power Bin. pag. 794. &c. Lab. col. 1688.. [Page] But this will be more properly considered in the History of that General Council, where these Epistles are printed at large.

CHAP. II.

Of the time from the Council of Ephesus till the Council of Chalcedon.

§. 1. IN this Year was held the Third General Council at Ephesus, upon the account of Nestorius, An. Dom. 431. who about three years before had been made Bishop of Constantinople, and was at first believed to be both Pious and Orthodox; but he had not sat long in that See, before he began to publish certain Doctrines about our Saviour, which gave great offence; for he taught that Jesus Christ was two Persons, one as the Son of God, another as the Son of Man; and therefore he denied the Blessed. Virgin to be the Mother of God, holding that the Person which was born of her, was no more than a Meer Man: Which Opinions, not only made a Faction at Constantinople, but caused Divisions among the Egyptian Monks; whereupon St. Cyril first writ a Confutation of them to those Monks, and then with great modesty admonished Nestorius of these Errors, by divers Letters; but he despised his Admonition, justified the Doctrines, and persecuted those who would not own them, being supported by his Interest in the Imperial Court. Upon this, Cyril called in Pope Celestine to his assistance, sending him an account of what he had writ to Nestorius: On the other side, Nestorius also writ to Celestrine, and [Page] sent his Sermons in which these Doctrines were contained, for him to peruse. The Pope by the advice of such Western Bishops as he could then get together, takes the part of Cyril, and offered him to join with him in condemning Nestorius, if he did not recant: But the Authority of these two Patriarchs of Rome and Alexandria, not sufficing to condemn a Patriarch of Constantinople, it was thought fit to desire the Emperor to call a General Council at Ephesus, where Nestorius might appear, and his Opinions be examined; and the Emperor at length did agree to this Request. Now that which we are to observe concerning this General Council, shall be under these Heads. First, To enquire by whom it was called and convened. Secondly, Who presided in it. Thirdly, What is memorable in the Acts of it. Fourthly, Who confirmed the Decrees there made.

As to the first, the Historical Preface, before this Council, labours to persuade us, That Celestine commanded the Council to be called Bin. Tom. 1. par. 2. pag. 2. Lab. Tom. 3. col. 4.; and the Notes after it say, it was appointed by the Authority of Gelestine, and gathered together by the counsel, aid and assistance of Theodosius the Emperor Bin. pag. 477. Lab. col. 1241.. The Cardinal goes further, and saith Theodosius called it by the Authority of Celestine Baron. An. 530. pag. 547, &c.; but when this is to be proved, both the Notes and Baronius are content to make out, that this Council was not called without the Popes consent; which may be proved concerning every Orthodox Bishop that was there; and so gives no peculiar advantage to the Bishop of Rome. But as to the Convening it by his Authority, nothing can be more false: For by the Emperors first Letter to Cyril, it appears that some then thought to order Matters of Religion by Power, rather than by consulting in common Bin. pag. 162, 163. Lab. col. 433.; in which words he reflects upon Pope Celestine and Cyril, who thought, by the Authority of their Private Synods at Rome and Alexandria, to have condemned Nestorius, who was a Patriarch as well as they; and therefore the Emperor rightly considered, that he could not be tried but by a General [Page] Council: So that it seems Celestine, at first, had no mind such a Council should be called, nor Cyril neither; but when they saw their Authority was insufficient, then Cyril put the Monks of Constantinople upon petitioning the Emperor to command a General Council to meet very speedily (as their words are) Bin. pag. 162. Lab. col. 429.; and the same Cyril put Juvenalis, Bishop of Jerusalem, upon writing to the Emperor for the same purpose Bin. pag. 147, &c. Lab. col. 388.. Now why should not these Applications have been made to the Pope, if the Council were to be called by his Authority? Besides, if Celestine had called it, his Letter of Summons would appear; but though none ever saw that, the Emperors Edict is yet extant, wherein he fixes the day and place for the Council to meet, enjoyns Cyril, with the Bishops of his Province, to be there at that time, and tells him he had writ to all other Metropolitans (probably to Celestine among the rest) to attend the Synod, and not to meddle with this Matter, till the meeting of this General Assembly, from which whoever absented himself, should not be excused Bin. pag. 164. Lab. col. 436.. Which is as full a proof that the Emperor called it by his Authority, as is possible to be made; and we need add nothing to it but this, that the Synod it self every where declares it was called [...], by the Emperors Decree Bin. pag. 168, 210. Lab. col. 445-560., [...], by his Will Bin. pag. 171. Lab. col. 452., and Summoned by his Letter Bin. pag. 211, 212, 214. Lab. col. 562, 564, 567.; yea, the Pope himself saith, I have obeyed your Pleasure as far as I was able, and I do appear in the Council which you have commanded, by those I have sent in my stead Bin. pag. 236. Lab. col. 620.. And when these Legates came to Ephesus, they say, we are come to the Synod which hath been appointed by the most Christian and Gracious Emperors Bin. pag. 238. Lab. col. 626.. So that it is a strange impudence of Baronius and Binius, in despite of so clear evidence, to pretend this Council was convened only by the Advice and Ministry of Theodosius, but by the Authority of Pope Celestine.

Secondly, The like prevarication they use about the President of this General Council, for Bellarmine had made it a Maxim, That in General Councils it was the Popes priviledge to preside by himself or his Legates, and [Page]to moderate all as Supream Judge Bellar. de [...] Concil. lib. 1. cap. 19.: Wherefore the Preface to the Council saith, Cyril was to preside by the command of Celestine, and the Authority of the Apostolick See Pref. Bin. pag. 2. Lab. col. 5.; and the Notes say, The Pope presided there by Cyril, who had the Office of his Legate Not. Bin. pag. 477. col. 2. Lab. col. 1243.: And a little after they produce all the Historians who writ after Evagrius (An. Dom. 595.); and because he saith Celestine had given Cyril his place, they conclude thence, that he was President of the Council by virtue of that Grant: But indeed the first place belonged to Cyril as Patriarch of Alexandria, in his own Right, because the Bishop of Rome was absent, and he of Constantinople was the Criminal to be tried; yet Celestine had cunningly given him that which was his due without any gift; for in his Letter to him long before the Council was called (when the Synod at Rome had condemned Nestorius) Celestine saith, he might take to him both the Authority of his Throne, and the Order of his Place Concil. Eph. par. 1. cap. 15. Bin. pag. 133. Lab. col. 349.; which signifies no more, than that Cyril might vote in Celestine's Name, and add the Credit of the First Patriarch to his own Authority, to make the Sentence against Nestorius the more Venerable. And the beginning of the Acts distinguish Cyril's precedency from his holding Celestine's place (if they be rightly pointed,) (r) [...], &c. Bin. pag. 168. Lab. col. 446. Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria, presiding, and [having] the place of Celestine, &c. And so Zonaras understood it, who saith, Cyril of Alexandria presided, and also had the place of Celestine; thus also Balsamon Balsam. & Zonar. in 1. Can. Eph. ap. Bever. Tom. 1. pag. 99.. So that it seems Cyril was President of the Council, either by choice of the Fathers, or in his own Right, as the Chief Patriach present; and he also voted in the place of Celestine who was absent; and probably by virtue of that Representation also, sate above all the other Patriarchs. However this is certain, that the Bishop of Ephesus, Memnon, who had no delegation from the Pope, is also reckoned President of the Synod; and he, together with St. Cyril, are often called [...], even thrice in one Epistle Bin. pag. 295, 296. Lab. col. 763, &c.. And again, [...] Bin. pag. 303. Lab. col. 783.; yea, these two are called, the Head of the Council Bin. pag. 304. Lab. col. 786.: And [Page] all this without any mention of their having these Titles, or this Power from the Pope. Moreover, we may observe, that Cyril alone is sometimes called the President of this Council Leo Pap. ep. 47. & Concil. Chalced. Act. 4. & in Act. Eph. cap. 60.; and the Party of John, Bishop of Antioch, charges him with usurping this place, which was not given him by the Canons or the Emperor's Edict; (they valued not, it seems, the Popes Grant Act. Concil. Bin. p. 274. Lab. col. 714.; so that this Title is variously applied, and no Argument can be formed from it for the Popes Supremacy; who also sent three other Legates to this Synod, to represent his Person, and supply his Place, as Celestine's own Letter declares Bin. pag. 236. Lab. col. 620.: Yea, the Council it self declares, that these three Legates, Arcadius, Projectus and Philip did supply Celestin's place Bin. p. 154, & 303. Lab. col. 666, & 783.. Now it is not easie to understand how Cyril should be the Popes Legate and supply his Place, and yet at the same time three other Legates need to be sent also to supply the same place, unless we expound this Grant of the Popes to Cyril, to signifie no more than a declaration, that he would agree to all that Cyril voted for, which is far from making him a formal Legate, or for giving him that Authority which he had in this Council. We conclude therefore, that Cyril, as the first Patriarch present, and the most learned of all that opposed Nestorius Cyril.—Cui tune dabatur primatus de talibus agendi Liberat. Brer. cap. 4., and Memnon as Bishop of Ephesus, where the Council was held, were chosen Moderators by the Synod: Nor is it likely that the Popes making these his Legates (if that were true, which Baronius only supposes, but doth not prove) Baron. An. 430. & An. 431., would have given them any Power over the Council, since Arcadius, Projectus and Philip, who really were the Popes Legates, did not preside, nor are they reckoned up in the first place, no not in the Subscriptions, which yet are not certainly genuine Baron. An. 431. pag. 566, 568.. And when the Council sent two of these Legates among others on an Embassie to Constantinople, they lay their Commands on them, and threaten, if they do not observe their Orders, they would neither confirm their Acts, nor yet receive them into Communion Bin. pag. 302. Lab. col. 782.: Which shews the Council was [Page] superior even to the Popes Legates; and that their representing the Popes person, did not intitle them to any Power over the Council, which is that the Roman Parasites would make out. Richerius exposes Baronius for saying Philip had a place before the Bishops, because he was a Cardinal Tom. 1. cap. 7. §. 6. p. 287.. The first Seat and Vote therefore belonged to Cyril, but Christ (as these Fathers say properly) was the Head of this General Council Concil. Eph. par. 3. cap. 13. pag. 403. Bin., and was represented by the Holy Gospels, placed above all, on a Throne, out of which all decisions were made, not by any Humane Authority, either of Cyril or Celestine himself.

Thirdly, We shall next examine into the proceedings of this Council, and see where the Editors have prevaricated therein for the interest of Rome, as also what else therein is pertinent to our purpose. Now these are, First those things which hapned before; and, Secondly in the Council. First, Before the Council in Cyril's Letter to Nestorius, he tells him, that Celestine and the Bishops assembled at Rome, had advised him to enquire whether those Papers were writ by Nestorius or no [...], &c. Concil. Eph. par. 1. p. 119. Lab. col. 313. & Baron. An. 430. p. 533.. This they all falsly translate, Celestino jubenté, &c. as if the Pope had a Power to command Cyril; whereas the Original Word imports no more than an intimation given him to make this enquiry; and that not by the Pope alone, but by the whole Roman Synod. Again, since this Controversie began between two Patriarchs, Cyril was so modest, that he would not by his own single Authority Anathematize Nestorius, till he had acquainted the Bishops both of the East and West with it; yet he declares he had power to have done this if he pleased Bin. pag. 125, & 131. Lab. col. 329. & col. 344.. Now his forbearing to do this out of Prudence and Humility, is by the Roman Editors, in their Preface and Notes, ascribed most falsly to his want of Power and Authority. Thirdly, In the Protestation of the Clergy of Constantinople, they prove themselves Orthodox, because they held the same Faith with the Church of Antioch; and that which was held by Eustathius, Bishop there, in the time of the [Page] Nicene Council, making no mention of Rome at all Concil. Eph par. 1. cap. 13. Bin. p. 129. Lab. col. 340.. And though now the Faith of the Roman Church is pretended to be the sole Infallible Rule of what is Orthodox, it was not thought so then: For Pope Celestine himself saith Nestorius is to be condemned, unless he profess the Faith of the Roman and the Alexandrian Churches, and that which the Catholick Church held [...]b. cap. 15. Bin. p. 133. Lab. col. 349. & Baron. An. 430. p. 536.: And the Pope repeats this in his Epistle to Nestorius Cap. 18. Bin. p. 138. Lab. col. 361.; and in that to John, Bishop of Antioch Cap. 20. Bin. p. 143. Lab. col. 376.: So that the Roman Church was then only a part of the Catholick Church as that of Alexandria was; had it then been (as now it is said to be) the same with the Catholick Church, the Pope was guilty in three several Epistles of a notorious Tautology; for according to the modern Style) it had been enough to have said Nestorius must profess he held the Faith of the Roman Catholick Church. So when Cyril had informed John of Antioch, that the Roman Synod had condemned Nestorius, and writ to him, to the Bishop of Thessalonica, to those of Macedon, and to him of Jerusalem to joyn in this Sentence, Cyril adds, that he of Antioch must comply with this Decree, unless he would be deprived of the Communion of the whole Western Church, and of these other Great Men Cap. 21. Bin. p. 144. Lab. col. 380.. This passage the Preface cites to prove that Cyril made use of the Popes Authority as his Chief Weapon in this Cause Pref. Bin. p. 2. Lab. Pref. p. 3. Baron. An. 430. p. 539.; but it is plain he doth not so much as mention the Pope, or the Roman Church alone, nor doth he urge the danger of losing the Communion of that Church, singly considered, but of all the Western Churches, and divers eminent ones in the East; and it was the Popes agreeing with all these that made his Communion so valuable. Fourthly, as to the Titles of these Epistles, which were writ before the Council, we may observe, that Nestorius writes to Celestine as to his Brother, and saith he would converse with him, as one Brother use to do with another Cap. 16. Bin. p. 133, 134. Lab. col. 349. & 351. Baron. An. 430. p. 530.; which shews, that as Patriarchs, they were upon equal ground. 'Tis true Cyril (who was as eminent for his Modesty as his Learning) calls Celestine by the Title of his Lord Cap. 21. Bin. p. 144. Lab. col. 377., from [Page] which the Romanists would draw conclusions for their Supremacy; but we note, that in the same Epistle he calls John of Antioch also his Lord, beloved Brother and Fellow-minister Bin. & Lab. ibid., which very words Cyril uses when he speaks of Celestine in his Epistle to Juvenal, Bishop of Jerusalem, calling the Pope there, his Lord, most Religious Brother and Fellow-minister Cap. 24 Bin. pag. 147. Lab. col. 388.; yea, such was the Humility of those Primitive Bishops, that they frequently stiled their Equals and Inferiors their Lords; so Cyril calls Acacius Bishop of Beraea Cap. 22. Bin. pag. 145. Lab. col. 381.: So John, Bishop of Antioch, calls Nestorius, his Lord Ibid. cap. 25., and the same Title in the same Epistle he bestows upon Archelaus, Bishop of Mindus, a small City Ibid. Bin. pag. 150. Lab. col. 393.. And of this we might give many more instances, but these may suffice to expose those vain Arguers, who from some such Titles bestowed on the Roman Bishop, think to establish his Universal Supremacy. Fifthly, Among all these preliminary Epistles, there are none meaner, both for Style and Sense, than those of Pope Celestine; yet Baronius brags of that to Nestorius, as the Principal Thing which confuted him, calling it a Divine Epistle Baron. An. 430. pag. 534.. But alas it is infinitely short of Cyril's Letters; the Phrase is very ordinary, the Periods intricate, the Arguments such as might have been used against any Heretick, and his Application of the Holy Texts very odd; as when the Church of Constantinople discovered Nestorius to be a Heretick, he saith, he may use St. Paul's words, we know not what to pray for as we ought Cap. 18. Bin. pag. 135. Lab. col. 356.. However there is one remarkable Passage in it (a little after) where he saith, Those things which the Apostles have fully and plainly declared to us, ought neither to be augmented nor diminished. Had his Successors observed this Rule, a great part of their Trent Articles had never been established: And it had been well if the Editors had not in that very Page left out by design, one of Celestine's own words. For he threatens Nestorius, that if after this third Admonition he did not amend, he should be utterly excommunicated ( [...]) by his Synod, and by a [Page]Council of all Christians. Here they leave out ( [...]), and translate it ab Universitate Collegii & conventu Christianorum Bin. pag. 136. Lab. col. 357.; as if the Pope alone had power to separate a Patriarch from the Communion of the Universal Church; whereas even when the Western Bishops joyned with him, St. Cyril notes, that those who submitted not to their Decree, would only lose the Communion of the Western Church Ep. ad Joh. Antioch. cap. 21. Bin. pag. 144. Lab. col. 380.: And if this Sentence were confirmed in the East too, then indeed Nestorius and his party, as Celestine intimates, would be cast out of the Universal Church. Sixthly, In Cyril's Letter to Nestorius, there is this remarkable Saying, That Peter and John were ( [...]) of equal Dignity, as they were both Apostles and Holy Disciples Cap. 26. Bin. pag. 153. Lab. col. 400.; which shews (for all the brags of the Popes Legate in the Council, that Peter was the Head of the Faith, and of the Apostles) Par. 2. Act. 2. Bin. pag. 235.; they did not believe there was any difference as to Power and Dignity among the Apostles, and that saying must pass for a piece of Flattery, and is not to be regarded, because it comes from a Creature of the Popes, and one of his own House, who by the Canons was no lawful evidence Ad testimonium non admittendos quos ipse accusator de domo sua produxerit. Concil. Carthag. 7. can. 4.. Seventhly, In the Emperor's Commission to Candidianus, one of his great Officers, who was to preside in the Council, we may see, the Emperor gives him power to appoint what Causes and Questions shall be first treated of, and to forbid any pecuniary or criminal Causes to be tried there Cap. 35. Bin. pag. 167. & 225. Lab. col. 443. & col. 594.; which shews that the Emperor reserved the Power of managing and ordering the Synod, to himself, and made a Lay-man his representative for that purpose.

Secondly, As to the Passages in the Council, if the Preface and the Names before the Acts, be genuine (of which there is some doubt), we may note, that it is there declared, the Council met by the Emperors Command, and that Cyril is mentioned first, both in his own Right, as the chief Patriarch present, and as he had the precedence due to Celestine, here called Arch-Bishop of the Roman Church (a Title given to Cyril afterwards) whose [Page] Legate he is no where said to be, but only to have his place Concil. Eph. par. 2. Act 1. Bin. pag. 168. Lab. col. 445.; that is, to sit first as the Pope would have done had he been there. Moreover, it is remarkable, that the Council begins without the Popes Legates, who did not come till 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 Bin. not. pag. 481. Lab. col. 1246. Baron. An. 431. pag. 568.. 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 Bin. pag. 171. Lab. col. [...]52., 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 Bin. pag. 174, 175. Lab. col. 461. &c.: 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 Bin. pag. 190, 191. Lab. col. 501.: 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, [Page] 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 Bin. pag. 204. Lab. col. 533.: 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) Bin. pag. 192. Lab. col. 504., 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 Bin. pag. 235. Baron. An. 431. pag. 576.; and Baronius bids the Reader observe, that Philip the Popes Legate in open Synod professed the Bishop of Rome was the Head of the Càtholick 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] Lab. col. 619.; 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 Par. 2. Act. 5. Bin. pag. 250. Lab. col. 655.; 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 [Page] Vide dictum Imp. Justiniani ap. Richer. Tom. 1. cap. 7. §. 9. p. 299. Bin. Tom. 2. par. 2. pag. 162, 163. 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 Bin. pag. 304. Lab. col. 786.. 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 Act. 4. Bin. pag. 243. Lab. col. 638., and Jerusalem is called an Apostolical Church Ib. Bin. pag. 244. Lab. col. 641., and Pope Celestine stiles Cyril an Apostolical Man Par. 3. cap. 23. Bin. pag. 416. Lab. col. 1077.; 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 Bin. pag. 306. Lab. col. [...]01.; 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 [Page] 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 Par. 3. cap. 38. Bin. pag. 447. Lab. col. 1153.. 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 needed but two Arguments, viz. those of the Popes Infallibility and Supremacy, to have confounded all the pretences of this Schismatical Council, and they are not so much as once mentioned; Which is a certain Evidence, that neither side knew of, or believed these Papal Priviledges, usurped in later times by that encroaching See.

Fourthly, I come to consider the confirmation of the Acts of this general Council: And this the Preface ascribes intirely to the Pope Bin. Prof. pag. 5. Lab. col. 10., and so do the Notes after the Council upon the word [Approved] Bin. Notis. pag. 478. Lab. col. 1244., and so doth Baronius in several places: But all this is without any just ground; For the Preface saith, he sent his Legates to confirm the Acts of the Council in his name, and cites for this these words out of Celestine's Letter sent to the Synod by these Legates: And what you derce [...], shall be accounted, defined and determined for the tranquility of all Churches Praefat. Bin. pag. 5. Lab. col. 10.. But no such words are in that Epistle, the Pope saying no more, but only that he had sent these Persons to be present at their Acts, and to confirm what he had long since decreed Editio Peltani & Contij ita legit—Actis vestris intererunt, quaeque à vobis sunt constituta suo calculo denuò confirmabunt. Richer. Hist. Concil. Tom. 1. cap. 7. pag. 294.; To which he hoped their Holiness would assent, because they knew that which [Page]was determined, was for the peace of all Churches Concil. par. 2. Act. 2. Bin. pag. 234. Lab. col. 618.. The sense of which is, that Celestine having long before Condemned Nestorius at Rome, he sent his Legates to the general Council to get that Sentence confirmed, and doubted not of their assent to it, since this casting out of Nestorius (the disturber of the Churches quiet) would tend to the Peace of the whole Church: So that this passage proves, that the Council was to confirm the Popes Decree, not that he was to confirm their Acts: And the Synod in their Letter to Pope Celestine do expresly say, That they had judged his Sentence against the Pelagians should remain firm and be valid, &c. adding that they had sent him the Acts of the Synod and the Subscriptions, that he might know what was done Par. 2. Act. 5. Bin. pag. 254. Lab. col. 666, & 667.. But there is not one word desiring him to confirm their Decrees: But as to the Emperors, the case is clear; For the Synod and the three Legates of the Pope address to them, to Command that what this General Council had done against Nestorius might be in force, being confirmed by their consent and approbation Ibid. Bin. pag. 251. Lab. col 659. Baron. An. 431. pag. 579.. And they Petition the Emperors to make null and void the false Synods uncanonical proceedings against Cyril and Memnon Bin. pag. 304. Lab. col. 786.. And in another Relation to the Emperors, they put both these requests together Bin. pag. 295. Lab. col. 766, 767.: And Sozomen saith in express terms, that the Emperor by his suffrage confirmed their Acts Sozom. Hist. lib. 7. cap. 9. pag. 419.: Yea these Testimonies are so express, that Binius himself in his Notes at last grants, That the Emperor dimissed the Bishops, adding this Decree, that the Sentence of this Holy General Council against Nestorius should stand in full force Bin. not. pag. 483. Lab. col. 1251. Richer. cap. 7. §. 12. p. 307. The Emperors Letter in the Pseudo-Synod saith, The confirmation of the Acts should have been obtained from him: And there Bin. his Note is, How this confirmation is to be understood, other imperial Letters shew. Bin. pag. 270. Lib. col. 706.. So that nothing but the prodigious partiality of Baronius and Binius for the Popes supremacy could put them upon inventing so groundless a Story, as that of the Popes confirming the Decrees of this Council; which he did no otherwise than all other eminent Orthodox Bishops, that is, by consenting to their Acts, and applauding them afterwards.

[Page] §. 2. Some other scattered passages there are which we will briefly put together here before we conclude this discourse. The Preface boasts much of the words of Firmus Bishop of Caesarea, and cites them thus, that the Synod had followed that which Celestine had prescribed, and being compelled by his Authority had passed Sentence on Nestorius and his Opinion Praesat. Bin. pag. 2. Lab. col. 4.; and a little after, Firmus his words are otherwise cited in the same Preface, viz. That Celestine had prescribed a certain Rule for this business, which the Council following, observing diligently the form of the Canons, they had inflicted the Canonical and Apostolical Judgment Richerius shews that the Apostolical Judgment is meant of the Synods Sentence. Tom. 1. §. 9. pag. 297. upon him Bin. ibid. pag. 4. Lab. col. 8.; and hence they infer, that the Pope had commanded the Eastern Bishops, to Decree over again and execute his Sentence against Nestorius Bin. ut supr. pag. 2. Lab. col. 4.; Yea Baronius is so bold as to affirm. That Celestine sent his Legates, not to subject the Cause of Nestorius to a new Examination, but only to see his Sentence Executed; and that neither did he allow the Council any more than only to Execute his Decree; nor did this general Council Arrogate any thing to it self, but to Act according to his Sentence Baron. An. 431. pag. 559.. According to which account, this Council of Ephesus was a mear mock Assembly, and all these Bishops no more than Officers under the Pope, to put his Decrees in Execution. But that this is most notoriously false appears; first, from their false citing of the words of Firmus, who truly quoted saith thus. The Apostolical seat of Celestine formerly gave his suffrage, and set a Pattern in this business [...], &c. Par. 2. Act. 2. Bin. pag. 235. Lab. col. 618.. And a little after, which we also following—have put in force that Form, decreeing both a Canonical and Apostolical judgment against him: The sense of which is this; That whereas the Pope in his Roman Synod had condemned Nestorius unless he repented in ten days, this general Council approving of that Sentence, had upon Nestorius his refusal to appear after divers admonitions, condemned him also: So that he was now not only censured by one Apostolical See, but canonically also by all the Bishops of a general Council: And that this is the [Page] Sense, is evident from the words of the Synod it self in the Preface to the Sentence by them pronounced, being convinced by divers proof, that Nestorius holds impious Opinions, we are forced by the Canons and the Epistle of Celestine our Fellow-Minister, even with Tears to come to this severe Sentence against him, &c. Par. 2. Act. 1 Bin. pag. 204. Lab. col. We see they name the Canons first, and before Celestine's Epistle, as laying an obligation upon them so to proceed; and they call the Pope their Fellow-Minister; nor was it his Authority, but his having proceeded according to the Canons, that laid the necessity upon this great Council to follow his Example, and imitate the Pattern he had set them. For nothing is plainer, than that the Council did always intend to examin this Cause over again; and for that reason they cited Nestorius, and read first the Letters of Cyril and then of Celestine; and after a full hearing both of the Fathers Opinions, and of the Blasphemies collected out of Nestorius his Writings, finding him finally obstinate, they pronounce Sentence on him, not in the Popes name, but thus, Our Lord Jesus Christ, whom he hath Blasphemed, by this Holy Council Decrees, that Nestorius shall be deprived of his Episcopal dignity, and shall be excluded out of the Communion of Bishops Bin. Lab. ut supr.. This certainly was an Original Decree, in the name of the General Council, and by the Authority they derived from Christ, by which they gave force and validity to the Sentence formerly pronounced by the Pope and his Roman Council; which had signified nothing (against his Equal, a Patriarch of the Eastern Church, over whom he had no jurisdiction) if it had not been thus confirmed: So that it is a strange extravagance to talk, as if a whole general Council in that Age were convened to no other end, but only to execute the Popes Decree blindly, without any enquiry into the merits of the Cause. And Celestine's own Letter (cited by Baronius to make out this Fiction) declares he believes, the Spirit of God was present with the Council Baron. An. 431 pag. 559., of which there had been no need, if all their business had been only to [Page] execute a Sentence passed before: There is also great prevarication used by the Cardinal and Binius, about the case of John B. of Antioch, one of the Patriarchs summoned to this Council: This John was Nestorius his old Friend, for they had both been bred in the Church of Antioch; and he having (as Baronius relates) received Letters both from Celestine and Cyril, (before the general Council was called,) importing that Nestorius was Condemned both at Rome and Alexandira, if he did not recant within ten days; writes to Nestorius to perswade him for peace sake to yield, telling him what trouble was like to befal him, after these Letters were published Baron. An. 430. pag. 540. cum pag. 542.: Here Baronius puts into the Text these Letters, that is, of the Pope of Rome: As if the Pope were the sole Judge in this matter, and his Authority alone to be feared; whereas the Epistle it self tells Nestorius, he had received many Letters, one from Celestine, and all the rest from Cyril Vid. init. Epist. ap. Baron. & Bin. Par. 1. Cap. 25. pag. 148. Lab. col. 389.. So that this Parenthesis contradicts the Text, and was designed to deceive the Reader. But to go on with the History, though Nestorius would not submit to John upon this Admonition, yet he had no mind to condemn him; and therefore he came late to Ephesus, after the Council was assembled, and when he was come would not appear nor joyn with the Bishops there, but with a party of his own held an opposite Synod, and condemned Cyril and Memnon with the rest, as unjustly proceeding against Nestorius, and by false Suggestions to the Emperor, he procured both Cyril and Memnon to be Imprisoned. Now among others in the Orthodox Council, who resented these illegal Acts Juvenalis speaks, because Cyril and Memnon being now accused, left their places and stood at the Bar. Richer. Tom. 1. §. 11. pag. 304. cap. 7., Juvenalis Bishop of Jerusalem saith, That John of Antioch ought to have appeared and purged himself, considering the Holy, Great and General Council, and the Apostolical seat of old Rome therein represented, and that he ought to obey and reverence the Apostolical and Holy Church of Jerusalem; by which especially, according to Apostolical Order and Tradition, the Church of Antioch was to be directed and judged Par. 2. Act. 4. Bin. pag. 244. Lab. col. 641.; alluding no doubt to that passage Acts xv. [Page] where the Errors arising at Antioch, were rectified and condemned in the Council at Jerusalem. But Baronius falsly cites these words of Juvenalis, as if he had said, John ought to have appeared at least, because of the Legates sent from Rome; especially since by Apostolical Order and ancient Tradition, it was become a custom, that the See of Antioch should always be directed and judged by that of Rome Baron. An. 4 [...]1. pag. 578.. And Binus (in his Notes) transcribes this Sentence as Baronius had perverted, mangled and falsified it Notis ad Concil. Ephes. Bin. pag. 482. Lab. col. 1249.. Which Forgery being so easily confuted by looking back into the Acts of the Council, and so apparently devised to support the Papal Supremacy, is enough to shew how little these Writers are to be trusted, when fictions or lying will serve the ends of their darling Church. After this the Preface-tells us, that though John still continued obstinate, the Synod referred the deposing of him to the Popes pleasure Pref. ap. Bin. pag. 3. Lab. col. 7.; as if they had done nothing in this matter themselves. But the Councils Letter to Celestine says, That though they might justly proceed against him, with all the severity he had used against Cyril; yet resolving to overcome his rashness with moderation, they referred that to Celestine's judgment; but in the mean time, they had Excommunicated him and his party, and deprived them of all Episcopal power, so that they could hurt none by their Censures Par. 2. Act. 5. pag. 254. Bin. Lab. col. 666.. Therefore the Council both Excommunicated and deprived him by their own Authority, and only left it to the Pope, whether any greater severity should be used against him or no: 'Tis true not only the Pope Par. 3. cap. 20. Bin. pag. 414. Lab. col. 1072., but the Emperor Ibid. cap. 24. Bin. pag. 418. Lab. col. 1081. afterwards moved, that means should be used to reconcile this Bishop and his Party to the Catholick Church, by suspending this Sentence a while, and procuring a meeting between Cyril and John: But still it must not be denied, both that the Council censured him their own Authority; and that Cyril without any leave from the Pope, did upon John's condemning Nestorius, receive him into the Communion of the Catholick Church Par. 3. cap. 38. Bin. pag. 447. Lab. col. 1153.. Yet because Sixtus the Successor of Pope Celestine, among other Bishops was certified [Page] of this, thence the Notes and Baronius infer, that this reconciliation also was by the Authority of the See of Rome: Whereas Cyril's own Letter shews, that the Terms of admitting John, to Communion, were prescribed by the Council and the Emperor, and that Cyril alone effected this great work.

We may further observe, Binius in his Notes tells us, that after the condemnation of Nestorius, the Fathers shouted forth the praise of Celestine, who had censured him before Bin. Not. pag. 481. Lab. col. 1247.. And Baronius saith, the Acclamations followed the condemning of Nestorius, in which they wonderfully praised Celestine, as the Synodal Letter to the Emperor testifies Baron. An. 431. pag. 570.. By which a Man would think, that Celestine had the only Glory of this Action. But if we look into the first Act of the Council, there are no Acclamations expressed there at all after the condemnation of Nestorius; and the Synodical Letter to the Emperor, cited by Baronius, hath no more, but [ [...]] viz. that they praised Celestine, which imports only their commending his Sentence; whereas in that first Act every one of the Bishops present, makes a particular Encomium in the praise of Cyril's Faith, as being in all things agreeing to the Nicene Creed, which fills up at least forty pages together in Labbe's Edition Bin. pag. 175. Lab. col. 461, ad col. 501.. As for the Acclamations, they are in the second Act, and in them Cyril is equally praised with Celestine; for the Fathers say, To Celestine, another Paul; to Cyril, another Paul; to Celestine, keeper of the Faith; to Celestine, agreeing with the Synod; to Celestine, the whole Synod gives thanks; one Celestine, one Cyril, one Faith of the Synod, one Faith of the whole World Par. 2. Act. 2. Bin. pag. 235. Lab. col. 618.. This was just after the reading of Celestine's Letter, brought by his Legates to the Council; yet we see even when the occasion led them only to speak of the Pope, the Fathers joyn Cyril with him, knowing that Celestine's Sentence, as well as his Information, was owing intirely to Cyril's Learning and Zeal.

[Page] Moreover we have another touch of their sincerity about the Virgin Mary; For Baronius calls the people of Ephesus The Virgins Clients, Subjects and Worshippers, adding,—That as they had once cried out, great is Diana, so now being converted, they set out Mary the Mother of God with high and incessant Praises, and persevered to venerate her with a more willing Service, and to address to her by a more solemn Worship Baron. An. 431. pag. 570, 571.. By which one would imagin, that in the time of this Council, and ever since, the Blessed Virgin had been worshipped as she is now at Rome; but there is not one word of this true, except only that she was there declared to be the Mother of God: That Epistle of Cyril's, from whence Baronius proves this, saith nothing of either Praises or Worship given to the Blessed Virgin; he saith indeed, that when the people heard Nestorius was deposed, they began with one voice to commend the Synod, and to glorifie God, because the Enemy of the Faith was cast down. And when he had related what Honours the People did them by carrying Lamps and burning Incense before them, he add [...], Thus our Saviour manifested his Glory and his Power of doing all things, to those who blasphemed him Baron. ib. vid. Epist. ap. Bin. pag. 216. Lab. col. 574.: So that all this story of their praising and venerating the Blessed Virgin, is his own Fiction; as is also that other conjecture of his, that the Synodal Epistle declares, that John the Evangelist, and Mary the Mother of God once lived together at Ephesus Baron. ib. pag. 571.: For that Synodal Epistle speaks only of two Churches there called by their Names Bin. ut supr. & ita Lab.. So when he and Binius say, it is believed that this Addition to the Angelical Salutation was then made, Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us Baron. An. 431. pag. 601. Bin. not. pag. 483. Lab. col. 1252.; and Baronius adds, that all the Faithfull use to say, and often repeat this, and teach it their Children, even while they suck'd the Breasts. But I ask, Why doth any Man believe this? Is it barely because Baronius says so? Doth not he say an hundred false things to justifie the Corruptions of Rome? Or can he produce one ancient Author, about this time, or of divers Ages after, wherein this Phrase, Mother of God pray for us, is used? It is [Page] certain he cannot Cy [...]illi verba sunt [...]— [...]—. &c. Homil. Cyril. in fine Bin. pag. 222. Lab. pag. 590. Ubi cultum attribu [...] it Sanctae Trinitati, Gloriam Christo, at solum Laudes Beatae Virgini.; and therefore this blasphemous addition is much later than the Council of Ephesus; and the Custom of saying it and teaching it to their Children, is a Scandalous Innovation, brought in by the Roman Church in the Superstitious Ages, and justly rejected by us who keep close to Antiquity, in owning the Blessed Virgin to be the Mother of God, but do not Worship her or Pray to her. And thus much for the Council of Ephesus, whose Acts being extant at large, do abundantly confute the Popes Supremacy, and set forth many other Usages and Practices of Rome, to be Innovations and Corruptions.

§. 3. After Celestine's death, Pope Sixtus or Xystus the An. Dom. 432. Third succeeded, who sate about eight years, but did few Memorable things: In his younger days he was not only a Favourer, but a Patron of the Pelagians Aug. ad Sixt. Presb. ep. 104, & 105., though afterwards he writ against them, and strenuously opposed them Prosp. adv. Collat. & Chro. An. 440.. Wherefore Baronius doth not sufficiently prove those three Tracts (Of Riches, Of Evil Teachers, and of Chastity) which go under the name of this Pope, were not his, by saying there are divers Pelagian Doctrines in them; since if they were writ in his youth, Xystus was then a Pelagian himself. This Pope writ (as is said) three Epistles, two of which are put into the Council of Ephesus, because they shew Xystus his Consent to what the Council had done, and to Cyril's actings afterwards as to John, Bishop of Antioch: In the later of these Epistles, there is a memorable Saying, cited by Vincentius Lirinensis, Let there be no liberty for Novelty hereafter, since it is not convenient to add any thing unto that which is Old Bin. pag. 486. Lab. col. 1262. Baron. An. 432. p. 618.. Had his Sucessors minded this good Rule, the Roman Church had not added so many New Doctrines and Practices to those Old Ones, which were received and used before Xystus his time. The Pontifical relates a Sory of one Bassus, who accused this Pope of Adultery, and that [Page] a Synod of 56 Bishops, convened by the Emperor's Order, cleared him, and condemned his Accuser. Now for the greater credit of this Pope, some have forged a third Epistle, wherein he is made to signifie to them his purging himself upon Oath: But Labbe condemns the whole Epistle as spurious, and Binius rejects it, because it is stolen in part out of Pope Fabian his third Epistle, and because the Date is wrong Bin. pag. 486, 487. Lab. col. 1263. 1265; for these Arguments will serve to condemn an Epistle, that supposes a Pope accused and tried by his Peers, whereas, had it been for the Supremacy, Binius would have justified it, though it had these and greater faults. Besides this Epistle, some illiterate Monk hath forged the Acts of this Council, wherein the Pope was tried; and though there be neither Latin nor Sense in it (being as dull as that of Sinuessa) but the Inventor designing to do Honour to the Pope, is very gently censured both by Baronius and Binius Bin. pag. 489. Lab. col. 1265. Baron. An. 433. pag. 641.. And to this they have tacked another such a Council of the Trial of Polychronius, Bishop of Jerusalem, before Pope Sixtus, for attempting to challenge the Precedency before Rome, &c. And Binius confesseth not only, that Pope Nicholas alledged this Council for good Authority, but that the Modern Writers of their Church do so also: Whereas he owns there was no such man Bishop of Jerusalem, and that the whole Story and Acts are a Fiction of no credit in the World Not. Bin. pag. 494. Lab. col. 1283.; by which we may learn to be cautious how we trust the Roman Writers (Ancient or Modern) when they cite Records to support the Grandeur of the Church.

About this time Theodoret mentions a great Council at Constantinople, under Theodosius, about setling the An. Dom. 439. Precedence of the Eastern Patriarchats, on occasion of a Contest between the Churches of Alexandria, Constantinople and Antioch. Baronius (and out of him Binius) in relating this, have added to Theodoret's words, that Alexandria claimed the Priority before all the Eastern Bishops, because he was the first Bishop of the Catholick Church after the Pope: But the Quotation he produces [Page] out of Theodort, Ep. 86. doth not so much as mention Rome nor the Pope: So that they have invented that part of the Story to keep up their Churches Credit. However this Council evidently shews Baron. An. 439. pag. 678. Bin. pag. 495. Lab. col. 1284., that the Roman Church had nothing to do with the East; they called great Councils without him, and setled the Precedencies of their own Patriarchats without taking notice of the Pope. As for Sixtus, he made no figure in the World; and all we hear of him further is, that being warned by Leo his Deacon (and Successor afterwards) he discovered and prevented the Attempts of Julianus of Hecla, a Pelagian Heretick, who endeavoured to get into the Churches Communion, as Prosper informs us, An. 440. in Chron. In this year was held the Synod of Riez, in the Province of Narbon, dated by the Emperors and Consuls, without any mention of the Pope Bin. pag. 495. Lab. col. 1284.. For it was held under Hilary, Bishop of Arles, who first subscribes, and is meant in the Canons by the name of the Metropolitan, as Marca confesses De Marca de sac. & imper. lib. 5. cap. 31. pag. 93.. And though Binius have no Notes to this purpose, I must observe, that this Hilary of Arles, as Primate of those parts of France, calls a Provincial Council, deposes a Bishop of Ambrun, uncanonically chosen, and makes divers Decrees with his fellow Bishops, who doubtless were not then so much enslaved to the Pope, as in after times.

§. 4. Leo the First succeeded Xystus, being an active, An. Dom. 440. bold and aspiring Man, so that he concerned himself in all the affairs of Christendom, and every where laboured to advance the Roman Supremacy Permaximum fuisse Authoritatis Papalis amplificationem. Richer. de Leon. hist. concil. univ. Tom. 1. pag. 336., for which he had a favourable conjuncture by the misfortunes which then hapned to all other great Churches. The Africans were under a cruel persecution; the Eastern Church distracted with Heresie, and a woful Schism; the Orthodox Bishops in the East betrayed, and oppressed by three of the four Patriarchs, and the fourth of the Eastern Patriarchs condemned and murdered; the Emperor of the West very young, and he in the [Page] East a weak man: and both governed by devout and zealous Women: All which circumstances contributed to make Leo (who was always Orthodox and powerful) very great. The Pontifical relates but few of his Actions, and those with many mistakes Bin. pag. 497. Lab. col. 1290.; but because all the following Councils give us so much of his Life, I shall only make some remarks upon the Pontifical, and take the rest in the order of time. First, 'Tis said there he found out two Heresies, the Eutychian and the Nestorian: But the Nestorian Heresie was found out and condemned long before his time; and as for Eutyches, he was found out and censured by Flavianus, Bishop of Constantinople, before Leo took him for a Heretick; yea, he writ a kind Letter to this Heretick Leon. ep. 6. pag. 95., and two angry Letters in his behalf to the Emperor and Flavianus Leon. ep. 7. & 8., because he was excommunicated. And till he was informed by the Bishop of Constantinople what dangerous Doctrines he held, Leo inclined to be Eutyches friend, for which (indeed) afterwards he made ample amends, in assisting toward Eutyches condemnation. Secondly, The Pontifical variously and falsly reports the number of Bishops in the Council of Chalcedon, and is mistaken in saying, Pulcheria was present with Martianus there, and that they confessed their Faith before the Council, desiring them to send to Pope Leo to expound the Faith: And that Leo after this did write a Tract, condemning all Heresies; all which are gross mistakes: But it is true, that he writ many Epistles, and frequently shewed his approbation of the Council of Chalcedon, and that he did prevail with Attila, King of the Hunns, to deal gently with Rome, when it was in his power to have destroyed it. 'Tis very probable also, that he added some passages to the Roman Office, and that he ordered some to watch the Church of St. Peter and Paul, to which, in this Age, many began to make Visits and Oblations. But Binius his Notes add divers incredible Stories, as that about the Hearse-Cloth, which Bled when Leo clip'd it with Scissors, which Gregory mentions [Page] near 200 year after only as a report, which he could not cite any Author for: And another Story or two out of Sophronius his Pratum Spirituale, a Book stuffed with Fables, as Baronius himself confesseth Baron. An. 407. n 35. pag. 261., for having cited a false Story out of this Author, he hath these words, since he put so many lies together in this one Narration, what credit can be given to the rest? Yet Baronius himself cites this Author for Miracles and Visions, very oft, and in one place relates two Miracles out of Sophronius, for the glory of that Epistle which Pope Leo writ to Flavianus against Eujyches and Nestorius. An Epistle indeed very Orthodox, and at that time very seasonable, but far from meriting those prodigious Encomiums Baronius or the Legends give it, who magnifie it as if it equalled the Creed, and proved the Pope alone was to define all controversies of Faith, to teach General Councils what they were to believe, and to give Laws to all Bishops in the World Baron. An. 449. pag. 80, & 81.. But whatever excellency there is in this Epistle (which is in number the Xth, and printed in the Council of Chalcedon Lab. Tom. 4. pag. 344., it is not to be ascribed to Pope Leo, but to the learned Prosper, who was his Amanuensis, and wrote not only this, but many other Letters for him; so that the Sense and Phrase is Prosper's, only they are writ in Leo's name, as Gennadius testifies, who lived but fifty year after Leo became Pope Gennad. catal. ap. Hieron. Tom. 1. pag. 402.; and the same is affirmed by Trithemius Trithem. de script. in Prosp. col. 37. & Marcellin. in Chron.: And we may observe, that an Epistle of this very Prosper's against the Pelagians (as we noted before) went under Pope Celestine's name, but far exceeded the Style of Celestine's own Letters: I only add, that Labbè here prints all these Epistles which bear Leo's name Lab. col. 1293., some of which I shall have occasion to consider afterwards.

The first Council of Orange, Binius intitles under Leo; An. Dom. 441. but Labbè, ashamed of that gross pretence, leaves these words out Bin. pag. 498. Lab. col. 1446.. For it was called by, and held under Hilary, Bishop of Arles, who exercised the Jurisdiction of a Metropolitan and Primate in those parts; and all the Bishops of those parts owned his Primacy, and [Page] met at his Summons P. de Mar. lib. 5. pag. 94., of which Binius takes no notice. There were made in this Synod many good Canons for Discipline, which were observed in the Gallican Church, without any confirmation from the Pope. At the end of this Council is published a Form of Excommunication, and a very excellent Office for reconciling Penitents, supposed to be made in this Council, which proves Forms had then been long in use.

The second Council at Vasatis, or Razai in France Bin. pag. 501. Lab. col., seems to me to be wrong dated; for I observe the An. Dom. 442. fourth Canon cites a passage out of St. Hierom, with this Title, One of the Fathers asserts, &c. Now St. Hierom died but 20 year before the date of this Council, and could hardly so soon have been cited by the Title of One of the Fathers; besides, the sixth Canon cites one of the spurious Epistles of Clement, forged after this Age. But the fifth Canon orders, him who is aggrieved with the Sentence of his Bishop, to appeal to a Synod; which shews, that reserving Causes to Rome was not allowed or used then.

The Editors have a Roman Council of Pope Leo's, which was no more than a Solemn meeting of the An. Dom. 444. Clergy and Laity, to examine the Manichean Hereticks Bin. p. 502. Lab.. But there were two remarkable things in Leo's proceeding against them, of which the Notes say nothing; but Baronius informs us Baron. An. 443. pag. 14. Tom. 6., First, That he discovered the Manicheans by their refusing to drink of the Cop in the Blessed Sacrament, which this Pope counts a great impiety in this sort of People, not foreseeing that his Successors would take the Cup away from all the People of that Church. And this passage makes it clear, that all the People at Rome, who were Orthodox, did receive the Cup then, or else the Hereticks not receiving it could not have discovered them. Secondly, Baronius notes, that because these Manicheans idolatrously adored the rising Sun; Leo forbid the Orthodox People to use that innocent and ancient Custom of bowing toward the East, for the peril of Idolatry: [Page] Now had there been any Images adored in his time; for the same reason he must rather have forbidden bowing down before them.

The second Council at Rome under Leo, was in the An. Dom. 445. Cause of Hilary Bishop of Acles, who had justly deposed a scandalous Bishop in a Provincial Synod Lab. col. 1461.. But he (as such ill Men had often done) flies to Rome to complain; and Leo not considering the equity of the censure, but Hilary's having acted as a Primate in those parts of France, contrary to the Decrees of former Popes, espouses this evil Bishops Quarrel, being more concerned for his designed usurpation of a supremacy, than the honour of the Church. Upon this Hilary, who was one of the most pious and learned Men of that Age, goes on foot to Rome, and requires the Pope to act more solito, in the accustomed manner, and not to admit such to Communion, who had been justly condemned in their own Country Lab. col. 1462.; and when he saw the Pope was resolved to break the Canons, and set up his Supremacy by right or wrong, he suddenly departs from Rome without taking any leave of Leo, for which the Angry Pope writes to the Bishops of France, declaring Hilary's Acts null, and depriving him of his Power, to Congregate Synods and Depose Bishops, &c. Leon. ep. 89. ap. Lab. col. 1396. And though he brags much of his universal Authority, &c. in that Epistle, yet knowing how little this would signifie to Hilary and the rest of the French Bishops, he gets an Edict from the Emperor Valentinian to back his Orders, which because there are some great words for the Popes Supremacy in it, Baronius magnifies as worthy of perpetual Memory Lab. col. 1397. Baron. An. 445. pag. 31.. And since their Champions alledge this Edict as a proof of the Roman universal Supremacy, I will observe upon it, First, That it was easie for the Pope to cite false Canons to a young and easy Emperor, and persuade him, that the Councils had given him this Supremacy, as his Predecessors had lately done in Africa. Secondly, That the Pope probably drew up this Edict himself, and so put in these Flourishes about his own Authority: [Page] Which will be more plain if we consider, that the Emperor Leo in one of his Edicts saith, Constantinople is the Mother of the Orthodox Religion of all Christians, with much more to this purpose Baron. An. 472. pag. 294. Vid. item An. 458. pag 233.; but Baronius relating this saith, Thus indeed Leo speaks thus, but without doubt it was conceived in the words, and writ in the Style of Acacius who swelled with Pride: But Leo Bishop of Rome was as proud as Acacius, and had more influence over Valentinian, than Acacius ever had over the Emperor Leo; wherefore in Baronius own words, without doubt Valentinian's Edict was drawn up in Pope Leo's Style, and so he is only a Witness in his own Cause. Thirdly, The Sentence of both the Emperor and the Pope was unjust; and although Leo wheedled the Bishops of France to reject Hilary, that Bishop still acted as Primate, and called Synods afterwards; so that this big-speaking Edict was neither believed nor obeyed as de Marca shews P. de Marca de concord. lib. 5. cap. 33, & 34 pag. 98, &c.. For indeed Hilary was Primate by Original right, and the French Bishops stuck to him not only for his great Sanctity, but because they feared the then growing Encroachments and Usurpations of Rome: And finally Pope Hilary, Leo's Successor determined this Controversie, contrary to Leo's Decree Vid. Hilar. ep. 11. Bin. Tom. 2. par. 1. pag. 430.; by which we see how odly Causes go at Rome, since some Popes were for the Primacy of Arles and some against it: But when there was a stout Bishop there, he kept his Post without regard to the Roman Sentence: And now I hope the Reader will smile at Baronius his inference from this Edict of Valentinian's, Thou seest clearly from hence (saith he) the Pope of Romes Authority over all Churches Baron. An. 445. pag. 32., for he must be quicksighted indeed, who can see any more in this instance than an unjust and ineffective Claim.

§. 5. Soon after Pope Leo had an opportunity to encroach An. Dom. 447. upon the Churches of Spain; for one Turibius a Bishop there, who is called Leo's Notary, (and probably had been bread a Notary at Rome,) certifies the Pope that there were many Priscillian Hereticks there, who [Page] confirmed their Errors by certain Apocryphal Writings full of Blasphemies; Leo writes back to Turibius Leon. ep. 93. ap. Lab. col. 1410., advising him to get a Council of all the Bishops in Spain, and there to Condemn the Hereticks and their Apocryphal Books: This advice Baronius calls his enjoyning a general Council (more Majorum) this being the right of the Pope of Rome. And though he confesses the Bishops did not meet where the Pope advised, nor could they meet in one place, because they were under divers Kings, and those Arians; yet he desires us to observe from hence, how weighty the Popes Authority was, even with Barbarous and Arian Kings Baron. An. 447. pag. 46, 47.. But alas any one may see, he cannot make out that ever these Kings gave leave for any Council, and it is more probable these Bishops met privately on this occasion; yet they have made out of this, A General Council of Spain Bin. pag. 503 Lab. col. 1465.: And here they would have that rule of Faith first received from Leo and approved, which is printed before, in the first Council of Toledo Bin. Par. 1. pag. 599. ut supr.: And Baronius saith the word [Filioque] proceeding from the Father and the Son, was first added in this Council to the Creed, by the Authority of Pope Leo, and brags much of the Popes supremacy, even in matters of Faith on this occasion Baron. An. 447. pag. 47, & 48.. But first these words were put in by these Councils, to check and discover Priscillian Hereticks, not by any express order of the Pope; and indeed Leo had been an ill Man, if he had imposed an Article of Faith upon the Churches of Spain, which (as Baronius confesses,) was not received expresly at Rome till many Ages after. Secondly, These Spanish Bishops did not add these words to the ancient Creed, but put them in by way of Explication, into an Occasional Confession of their own Composing. Thirdly, Baronius himself notes, that the Spaniards and French afterwards added it to their usual Creeds, and at last Rome took this Addition from them: And in the same place he commends the Northern Nations for adding these words, and those of Rome for rejecting them a long time; so that contradictory Actions may be (it [Page] seems) equally commended, by those who can blow Hot and Cold with the same Breath.

About this time was held a great Council at Verulam in Britain, by St. Garmanus a French Bishop, called over by the Orthodox Britains to assist them, in confuting and condemning the Pelagian Heresy, as Math. of Westminster computes Lab. col. 1464. Spelm. Concil Tom. 1. pag. 47.. Baronius indeed pretends this hapned divers years before, only because Prosper (or some who have since corrupted his Chronicle) affirms, that Pope Celestine sent St. Germanus hither Baron. An. 429.. But most Historians agree, the French Bishops from a Council of their own, sent over this assistance to the British Church the first time, without any order from Celestine; and this Council of Verulam Usherij Brit. Eccles. Antiqu. pag. 174. was held long after Celestine's death, at St. Germans second coming hither: So that in this Island, the Roman Church was not considered in those days; and one Sister Church desired help of another to repress Heresies, without any recourse to Rome.

§. 6. In a Synod held at Constantinople under Flavianus, An. Dom. 448.. Eutyches a Monk was formally accused of Heresy, for affirming that Christ had but one Nature after his Incarnation, and that it was as much Nestorianism to hold two Natures as two Persons; Upon which he was three several times cited before the Council, and had sufficient time given, but refusing to come till the time was expired, and (though he did come at last) obstinately defending his Heresy, he was unanimously condemned, and by Flavianus and the whole Synod Excommunicated and Degraded, which was a judicial proceeding agreeable to the ancient Canons. Binius and Baronius in relating this Bin. pag. 504. Lab. col. 1467. Baron. An. 448. pag. 55., make some remarks which must be considered: For first, when Eutyches saith, He would subscribe the Nicene and Ephesine Councils, so far as they were agreeable to Scripture; They note this was (more Haereticorum) according to the manner of Hereticks: But I would ask First, Whether it be not true, that the Decrees of Councils in matters of Faith, are [Page] no further obligatory than they are proved by Scripture? Secondly, Whether the most Orthodox Fathers Athanasius, Cyril, &c. did not always appeal to Scripture in the first place? And the greatest Councils ever confirm their determinations first by Scripture? Thirdly, Whether any of the Adversaries of Eutyches in that Age did censure him, for appealing first to Scripture? Baronius himself cites Flavianus his Letter, wherein he first alledges Scripture, and then the Expositions of the Fathers Baron. An. 449. pag. 76.. And Pope Leo saith Eutyches erred, by not having recourse to the Prophets, Apostles and Evangelists, but to himself Ep. x. Leon. M. ad Flav. inter ep. Leon. pag. 304.; so that it was no fault in Eutyches to prefer Scripture before the Fathers expositions; nor to appeal to it; but to expound it wrongfully was his Crime, and that is (more Haereticorum.) Secondly, When Eutyches petitioned Theodosius in this case, for a safe conduct to the Synod, Binius adds to his Authors words, that this was also after the manner of Hereticks: Whereas it appears, that divers of the Orthodox have applied themselves to the Emperors to assist and support them, and none oftner than Pope Leo himself; so that a thing done as frequently by the Orthodox as Hereticks, can be no sign or mark of Heresy. Thirdly, Binius pretends, that Eutyches appealed from this Synod to Pope Leo: Now this is confuted by the very Acts of the Synod, related in the Council of Chalcedon, and recited by Baronius, where it is said, Eutyches appealed to the Council of the Roman Bishop, and of the Bishops of Alexandria, Hierusalem and Thessalonica Baron. An. 449. pag. 75.; yet they make as if this had been an Appeal only to the Pope. Fourthly, Binius notes, the Appeal was not admitted: I reply, Pope Leo did so far receive Eutyches Letter, that he writ three Epistles on his behalf, before he was informed of the true State of the Case, and quarrelled with Flavianus for condemning a convicted Heretick, before he had consulted him Leon. Ep. 6, 7, & 8.. But in truth there was no Appeal at all: Flavianus did write indeed to Leo, (and probably to all other Patriarchs) after the Canonical Judgment was over, to acquaint them with [Page] his proceedings; that so they might not break the Canons, by admitting an Heretick in one Church, who was Excommunicated in another: But the Style of Flavianus his Letter shews, that he need not ask Leo's leave to censure an Heretical Priest of his own Diocess, nor doth he desire the Pope to confirm his Sentence, but only to make it known Epist. Flavian. ad Leon. inter Epist. Leon. pag. 298.: So that Baronius falsly infers the Popes power to judge of Heresy, and confirm all Sentences against them, from this Letter of Flavianus: And he as falsly makes the like inference from Eutyches writing to Leo, as if he knew of what weight the Popes judgment was, for which Councils in doubtful Cases use to stay, and to which all the Catholick Church would certainly incline Baron. An. 448. pag. 63.. For Eutyches writ to other Bishops of Italy as well as the Pope, (as Baronius in that Page confesseth) and considered Leo no otherwise than as one Eminent Bishop: And this Synod of Constantinople stayed not for the Popes Judgment, nor did those Bishops who despised the Decree of this Synod, value Pope Leo's Judgment after he had declared for Flavianus: So little truth is there in the Annalists pompous observations, which only shew, that all his aim is from every passage, to extort some kind of colour for his dear Supremacy.

In the same year were two Synods, one at Tyre, the other at Berithus, in the cause of one Ibas a Syrian Bishop, wherein the Patriarch of Antioch and Constantinople were concerned; but the Pope is not once mentioned in the whole proceedings Bin. pag. 505. Lab. col. 1468, &c. Baron. An. 448. pag. 64. An. Dom. 449.; But of the Cause it self, we shall hear more afterward.

Theodosius the Emperor being deceived by Eutyches and Chrysapius, one of his great Courtiers, an Eunuch, espouses the Quarrel of that Heretick, and labours to have the Sentence which Flavianus passed against him in the late Synod, revoked; and Pope Leo was drawn into the same snare by the Letters of Eutyches and Theodosius, till Flavianus had better informed him: For Leo writ both to the Emperor and Flavianus on Eutyches behalf at first: And whereas Baronius ought [Page] to blush for the Popes mistake, he recites these two Letters, and talks big of his being owned for the lawful and chief Judge in Ecclesiastil Controversies; yea the supreme Judge of the Universal Church, &c. Baron. An. 449. pag. 72, 73. But though (as an ingenuous Romanist observes,) Leo in all his Epistles boasts of the power of his Apostolical Seat, as much as he can, and more than by the Canons he ought to do Richer. Histor. Concil. Cien. cap. 8. §. 2. pag. 335.; yet neither of these Epistles say any such thing, as Baronius infers from them. And that Letter of Flavianus, which delivered this infallible Judge from his mistake, declares that Eutyches had received a just and Canonical Condemnation, to which the Pope ought to consent, and to joyn in it: By which we see a Sentence against an Heretick was just, before the Pope knew of it, and that he and all Orthodox Bishops, ought by their subsequent consents to ratifie what any one Bishop had Canonically done: And since Eutyches was already rightly censured, Flavianus requires Leo (and no doubt other Eminent Bishops) to publish their consent to it, thereby to prevent the design of Eutyches, which was to get a general Council called, to judge his Cause over again: Now this serves Baronius to brag, that Flavianus knew there was no need of a general Council, for that which the Popes Letters had defined Vid. Richer. ibid. pag. 336. A strange affection! For when Pope Leo, not first (as Baronius saith falsly) but last of all the Orthodox Bishops did stand up for Flavianus, and write to confirm his Censure upon Eutyches, that very Cause was tried over again in the Pseudo-general Council of Ephesus, and the true Oecumenical Council of Chalcedon: Yea, Theodosius while the matter lay before the Pope, not staying for his Sentence, calleth a second Council at Constantinople, wherein a pacted party of Hereticks Friends revoked the Judgment passed on him by Flavianus Bin. pag. 505. Lab. col. 1470. Baron. An. 449. pag. 74.. And yet fearing this was not sufficient, Eutiches moved by Dioscorus, Patriarch of Alexandria, to have a general Council called at Ephesus, which might have sufficient Authority, not only to restore Eutyches, but to Condemn Flavianus, though Leo should take his part.

[Page] §. 7. This was the true occasion of calling this Second The 2d Pseudo-Synod of Ephesus. Council of Ephesus, which as to the manner of calling, the Persons present, &c. was a General Council. But from the violent and unjust proceedings thereof, is commonly stiled The Pseudo-Synod, or the Thievish Council of Ephesus The Acts of this Council are recited at large in the Council of Chalcedon; wherefore the Editors refer us thither, only entertaining us here with Binius his Notes, on which we will make some remarks Bin. pag. 506. Lab. col. 1471.. First, The Notes say, the Emperor called this General Council, usurping the Popes Authority against right and the custom of the Church. Now here he first owns that the Emperor called it: As to the pretended usurpation and breach of Custom, it is certain the Pope never yet had called one General Council, as we have particularly shewn in three General Councils before, and they own it here; so that undoubtedly the Emperor only followed the Custom of the Church, and used that Right which his Ancestors had. Besides, let Binius or Baronius produce one syllable in all Leo's Epistles, where that Pope (so jealous of his Rights) did once complain of any injury done him by the Emperor in calling this Synod: His Legate owns in this very Council, that the Pope had received such a Letter of Summons as the rest of the Patriarchs did receive Richer. Hist. Concil. Gen. Tom. 1. c. 8. §. 4. p. 340.; and he obeyed this Summons, and sent his Legates thither, excusing his own absence, without any reflection upon the Emperors having no Right to Summon him: Yea, had he known it was his Right to call a General Council, why did he write so many Letters to Theodosuis and to Pulcherius, humbly beseeching the Emperor to call a General Council in Italy Richer. ib. p. 350.? Nothing can be clearer, than that this pretence of Usurpation is a most notorious Falshood. Secondly, The Notes blame the Emperor for making Dioscorus President of this Council; and Baronius calls this arrogating and usurping a Right never attempted before, and he thinks God justly deprived Theodosius of his Life the year after, for his [Page]wronging the Pope herein Baron. An. 449. pag. 78.. But we have shewed, Osius was the Emperors Legate, and by him made President of the Council at Nice, and Cyril was by the Emperor made President in that of Ephesus: As for this Council, the Pope was not like to be there in Person. Flavianus, who should have had the second place, was a Party, whose Sentence was to be enquired into; Domnus, of Antioch, was not altogether unsuspected; but Eutyches friends had commended Dioscorus, of Alexandria, and Juvenalis, of Hierusalem, to the Emperor as impartial and fit to Judge; and their Characters made them (as the Case was supposed to stand) to have right to that Vid. Richer. Tom. 1. c. 8. §. 5. p. 246, &c.. 'Tis true the Popes Legates did murmur at this, as Liberatus saith Liberat. brev. c. 12., and the Legates at Chalcedon called this a usurpation in Dioscorus; but neither this Council nor that did insist upon that matter. Thirdly, The Notes pretend Theodosius therefore summoned Leo to this Council, because he knew the Council would be null without the Popes Authority. But the Letter of Summons declares he called it by his own Authority, and he writ no other Summons to Leo than he did to the Bishops of Alexandria and Jerusalem; so that it may as well be said, Theodosius knew their Authority was as necessary as the Popes; but the truth is, the consent of the great Patriarchs was so far necessary, that they were to be duly summoned, and if possible, to be present; but they had no Authority single, as to the calling or disannulling of any Council. Wherefore, Fourthly, Though it be rejected, yet not because the Pope did not call it, or preside in it (as his Notes pretend) but because of the unjust and violent proceedings used in it; against which, not only the Popes Legates, but divers other Bishops did protest, and oppose them, even to the suffering of Banishment and Deprivation. And here I must note a manifest contradiction in Baronius, who in one page saith, All the Bishops consented to the restitution of Eutyches, and the deposing of Flavianus, the Legates of the Apostolick See only opposing Dioscorus to his face: Yet in the next [Page] page he reckons up some Bishops by name, who suffered for opposing Dioscorus; and adds out of Leo's Epistle to Pulcheria, that many were deprived and banished for this opposition, and others put in their places Baron. An. 449. pag. 95. cum pag. 96.. Lastly, I only add, that the Emperor, being deceived by Eutyches, confirmed the Decrees of this Pseudo-Synod, as his Ancestors were wont to do Baron. ib. pag. 104.; and for this reason the Acts of it were valid till they were disannulled by the General Council of Chalcedon; and though the Pope disliked and complained of this Council, he had no Authority to null all its Acts till another General Council was called: Wherefore that Third Roman Council, wherein Leo and the Bishops of Italy reprobated the Acts of this Pseudo-Synod of Ephesus Bin. pag. 507. Lab. col. 1475., was not sufficient to repeal the Council it self, but only to shew that those western Bishops would not receive it. For if the Popes Council alone had made it null, what need had their been of a General Council to do that over again? Yea, the Pope and this Roman Synod writ to the Emperor, earnestly entreating him, that all things might remain in the same state they were before any proceedings, till a General Council could meet Vid. Baron. An. 449. pag. 109.; which shews that they did not believe their single Authority was sufficient to annul all that was done The Emperor was desired to disanul this Synod, by the Pope, &c. Concil. Chalced. Act. 10. Bin. p. 294, &c.. After this Roman Council, it seems Dioscorus, in his Private Council at Alexandria, excommunicated Pope Leo, and Baronius makes this a greater Crime than his confirming the Heresie of Eutyches, and he (with the Notes) observe it as a wonder, that whereas Ninety Bishops signed the Heresie of Eutyches, only Ten could be found to subscribe the Excommunication of the Pope Bin. in predict. Concil. 3. Rom. p. 508. Lab. ut supr. Baron. An. 448. pag. 113.; but the wonder ceases, if we consider that Eutyches was restored in a General Council, or that which was called so, wherein there met an hundred twenty eight Bishops, or their Deputies; but the Pope was excommunicated in a Private Synod at Alexandria. I shall not enlarge upon the cruel usage of Flavianus in this Pseudo-Synod of Ephesus, who died soon after of the blows and wounds given him there, [Page] nor remark how Baronius would make him a Martyr for the Popes Supremacy Baron. An. 449. pag. 97., whereas he was a Martyr for the Orthodox Faith, corrupted by Eutyches: Nor shall I detain the Reader with any of his odd observations upon the flight of Hilary, one of the Popes Legates, from this Council.

Anatolius, being by Dioscorus advanced to the See of An. Dom. 450. Constantinople, in the room of Flavianus, Leo had great reason to fear he was infected with the Heresie of Eutyches, and therefore he very carefully sent three Legates to Constantinople, to inform him whether Anatolius were Orthodox, and to desire a General Council might be called by the Emperor, and in Italy, if he pleased, as his Letter imports Baron. An. 450. pag. 115.; in the mean time (if we may trust the Acts of one of these Legates coming out of the Vatican) Anatolius calls a Council at Constantinople, and in the presence of the Popes Legates owns himself Orthodox, receives Pope Leo's Letter to Flavianus, and condemns Eutyches and Nestorius; and this the Editors publish with the Title of a Council at Constantinople Bin. pag. 508. Lab. col. 1475.. Now though their own Author of the Vatican expresly says, that Anatolius called this Council; yet both Baronius, and the Notes in the same page daringly affirm, that the Popes Legates commanded all the neighbouring Bishops to meet in this Council Bin. & Lab. ut supr. Baron. An. 450. pag. 120.: Which is as false, as that these Legates were sent to restore the lapsed Oriental Church; and that both Theodosius and Anatolius, and all the Eastern Bishops, in all these Transactions, owned the Pope to be the Supream Head of the Church. These things are only to be found in Baronius his Inferences, but no Author or Record of these proceedings hint any such thing. The Legates chief business was to petition the Emperor for a General Council; and it was usual when any new Patriarch was advanced, that he should write an account of his Faith to all the other Patriarchs; and Anatolius having been justly suspected, was obliged to do it something more solemnly, for Leo's satisfaction.

[Page]

CHAP. III.

Of the Council of Chalcedon, being the Fourth General Council.

BEING to discourse of the Fourth General An. Dom. 451. §. 1. Council at Chalcedon, we must observe, that besides the partial Preface before it Bin. Tom. 2. par. 1. p. 2. Lab. Tom. 4. p. 1., and the fallacious Notes after it Bin. ib. pag. 409. Lab. col. 979., published by the Editors, the Acts of it are divided into three parts. The first containing the Epistles, and other Writings precedent to the Council. The second containing the several Acts of it. The third containing the Epistles, and other Transcripts relating to that Council afterwards. Of the first part I shall treat very briefly, having spoken of divers things, there collected, in the former Chapter; only noting now some of the Frauds and Errors in these preliminary Epistles. And first, I need not enlarge upon those false Stories in the Preface to this Council, (which I confuted before, Anno 448, and Anno 449.) That Eutyches appealed from Flavian's Council at Constantinople, to the Pope; That the Pope immediately became an Enemy to that Heretick; That it was the highest Crime in Eutyches to appeal from the Pope to the Emperor Bin. Pref. pag. 3. Lab. col. 3, & 4.. Nor will it be necessary to insist upon the Prefacers owning that Theodosius called the Pseudo-Synod of Ephesus, at Dioscorus his request; and though Pope Leo did labour to hinder it, yet he durst not but send his Legates to it, who indeed did generously refuse to joyn in the condemnation of Flavianus: But whereas the Prefacer pretends Flavianus appealed to the Apostolick See Bin. Pref. pag. 3. Lab. ib. col. 5. (as if the Pope were alone fit to receive Appeals), I must note, First, That de Marca confesses All the rest of the Patriarchs were his open Enemies, and [Page] therefore he was compelled to apply to the Western Church for help De Marca de concord. l. 7. c. 7. p 324., and yet he did not Appeal to the Pope alone; and Leo told Placidia, that Flavianus Appealed not only to the Apostolick Throne, but to all the Bishops of those parts Concil. Chalced. par. 1. Bin. p. 24. Lab. col. 54.; and Leo saith the same thing in his own Epistles, that the Appeal was to all the Churches of those parts Ibid. Bin. pag. 19. Lab. col. 42.; and therefore all the Western Bishops joyned with Leo in desiring a Council might be held in Italy: Which was when they were met in Council at Rome, and had (no doubt) declared their dislike of Dioscorus's proceedings; but it sufficiently confutes the Prefacers boast of Leo and his Councils rescinding the Acts of this Ephesine Pseudo-Synod, as if that had been sufficient to null all that was done there; because if the Pope, in that Council of Rome, had sufficient Authority to have abrogated the Acts of Ephesus, there was no need for them to desire a greater Council to re-examine this matter, or for Leo (as the Preface owns) to engage the Western Emperor, his Mother and his Empress to write to Theodosius, to suffer the Transactions at Ephesus to be heard over again Bin. pag. 4. Lab. col. 6.. But Theodosius having called that Synod by his own Authority, and being persuaded by Eutyches his Party, that the proceedings in it were regular, would not be prevailed on by any importunities to grant this request; but he dying soon after, and Marcian (by marrying Pulcheria, Sister and Heir to Theodosius) coming to be Emperor, consented to call a General Council, but not (as the Pope desired) in Italy, but in the East, where the Controversie began, and where by the Ancient Canons it was to be decided. Which suffices to discover all those falshoods that are in that part of the Preface, which concerns the things before this General Council.

In the Preleminary Epistles and Edicts which constitute the first part of the Council of Chalcedon, we may observe many of the Titles of the Epistles are corrupted by Roman Parasites. So in the first Epistle of Flavianus Vid. Lab. num. 4. col. 15. marg. ita num. 6. Bin. p. 8. Lab. col. 18. the true reading is, to Leo Arch-Bishop [Page]of the elder Rome; but they have made it Pope, &c. In Flavians second Epistle to Leo, the Latin Copies leave out of the Title, and Fellow minister Bin. & Lab. num. 6.: So again [Pope] is put into the Latin Copy instead of Arch-Bishop in a Letter of Leo's to the Monks at Constantinople Bin pag. 12. Lab. col. 23. num. 9.. And in Leo's Epistle to Theodosius, in the Latin (for Leo, Bishop) there is put in these absurd words, Leo, Pope of the Catholick Church of the City of Rome Bin. pag. 12. Lab. col. 26. num. 10.. And in his Epistle to the second Synod at Ephesus, the Latin leaves out these Material Expressions, to his beloved Brethren in the Lord greeting Bin. pag. 15. Lab. col. 31. num. 13.. To conclude, the Greek Title owns that Leo and his Roman Synod petitioned for a Council in Italy; the Latin leaves this out, though the body of the Letter do expresly declare that request Bin. pag. 18. Lab. col. 37, 38. num. 19. Now these are plain Instances how little Credit is to be given to the Latin Copies of this Council, and especially to these Titles, which the Popes Flatterers have frequently corrupted, and altered them from the modest Style used in those days. And hence we may gather how frivolously Baronius argues from the Titles of Pope Leo's Epistles, wherein he stiles himself Bishop of the Roman and of the Universal Church Baron. An. 451. pag. 159. Leon. ep. 54. in Concil. Chalced. par. 3. Bin. p. 355. num. 6.; that the Popes then did use the style of Universal Bishop; though St. Gregory expresly denies that ever any of his Predecessors used that profane, new and proud Title; but the Annalist makes bold to give Gregory the Lie, meerly on the credit of these corrupted and fictitious Titles, prefixed by forging Parasites; for Leo's usual Inscription was, Leo, the Bishop of Rome, to, &c. so that where we see Bishop or Pope of the Catholick Church of Rome, &c. Leon. ep. 12, & 13. Concil. Chal. par. 1. Bin. p. 12, & 14., there 'tis certain the Flatterers have been at work. But as to more material observations; when Flavianus had condemned Eutyches, he doth not desire the Pope to confirm the Sentence, which being regularly passed on him by his own Bishop in Council, no man could relax (as Leo himself grants Leo ep. ad Pulcher. Bin. p. 13. Lab. col. 27. num. 11.): But his Letter to Leo requires him to publish it to all the Bishops under his jurisdiction Flav. ep. ad Leon. num. 6. Bin. p. 9. Lab. col. 19.. In Leo's Epistle to Julian, one of his Legates, the Latin Copy puts in [nobis,] [Page] and makes Leo say there is one Doctrine and Teaching of the Holy Ghost, in us and in you; but the Greek reads—in the whole Catholick Church Ep. Leon. ad Jul. num. 8. Bin. p. 10. Lab. col. 19.. Again, it is commonly pretended that Pope Leo was utterly against the Emperors calling the second Council at Ephesus; and that one reason which made all its proceedings null, was because it was called without his consent: But it appears by divers of this Popes Letters here published, that he owned it a pious Resolution of the Emperor to call this Council Ep. Le. ad Theod. n. 10. Bin p. 10. Lab. col. 2 [...]. ita in ep. ad Pulcher. num. 11. ep. ad Synod. Ephes. num. 13., and in observance of his Commands, he sent his Legates to it: So that he never pleaded his Authority in bar to the Emperors Right, even when in his Judgment he thought there was no need of it Ep. Leon. ibid. num. 16. & 17. Bin. p. 17. Lab. col. 37.. And he declares that he sent these Legates, not to preside there, but to agree with them by common consent on such things as might be pleasing to God, as his Letter to this Synod shews, Num. 13.

It appears by Petrus Chrysologus, Bishop of Ravenna's Letter to Eutyches, that he appealed to him as well as to the Pope; for he excuses himself as unfit to judge a Cause that had been tried in a far Country, especially upon hearing only one Party Ep. Petr. Raven. ad Eutyeh. num. 15. Bin. p. 17. Lab. col. 35.: A Rule, which if the Popes had duly observed, they would not have received so many unjust Appeals. 'Tis true, he refers him to Pope Leo's Epistle to Flavianus, lately writ on this subject; but Binius in his Notes falsly puts in, that he warns him to rely on it as an Oracle of the Holy Ghost Not. in Concil. Bin. p. 415. Lab. col. 992.; for he only saith, there was now an Orthodox Pope in St. Peter's Chair, who had taught the Faith aright in this Epistle, which had been sent by Leo, a little before, to this and other Bishops of the West, for their approbation. But that of Leo himself in his Epistle to Theodosius, shews he was no honester than he should be, and deserved not so good a Character as the Bishop of Ravenna gives him; for he impudently cites one of the Sardican Canons, under the forged Title of the Nicene Canon made by all the Bishops in the World Ep. Leon. ad Theod. num. 19, 20. Bin. pag. 19, 20. Lab. col. 42, & 46.; the Margin would excuse this, by pretending that other Fathers cite these Sardican Canons under the Title of Nicene [Page]Canons; but we know no ancient Fathers did so, except Zosimus and Boniface his Predecessors, who, to their lasting infamy, were convicted of this notorious Fraud in the Council of Carthage; and therefore it was an odd piece of assurance in Leo, so soon after, to make use of the same detected Cheat. In another Epistle of his against Eutyches, he saith, In the mystical distribution of the spiritual Food, that is given and received, by which those who partake of the virtue of the Heavenly Food, are changed into his Flesh, who was made our Flesh Ep. Leon. ad Const. num. 23. Bin. p. 22. Lab. col. 48., which is point blank against their modern Opinion of Transubstantiation, making the Bread to be Spiritual and Heavenly Food, and the change to be not in the Elements, but in the Receivers. After this we have divers Epistles of the Western Emperor Valentinian; of his Mother and Empress, to Theodosius and Pulcheria, writ at the request of Pope Leo, to desire that Emperor to revoke the Judgment passed in the Pseudo-Synod of Ephesus, which further proves the Pope had no Authority in himself to null those Acts; for he would not have begged with Tears that which was in his own Power. But the great use the Romanists make of these Letters, is on account of some high Expressions in them about the Popes having a Power over all Bishops Ep. Valent. num. 25. Bin. p. 23. Lab. col. 51., and a Principality among them Num. 28. Bin. p. 25. Lab. col. 58.. But there is some doubt whether these Epistles are genuine, the Story of their being at Rome the night after St. Peter's day, not agreeing to the time when these pretended Epistles must be writ: But if they be not forged, Rome will gain nothing by these phrases, which Leo put into their Mouths; for he certainly endited these Letters for them, as we may know by this Evidence, that the Emperors Mother, Galla Placidia (who understood no more of the Canons than the Pope told her) cites the Canon of Sardica, for a Canon of Nice Ep. Gal. Placid. num. 26. Bin. p. 24. Lab. col. 54., as Leo had done before; and therefore ex ungue Leonem; we may easily know the Penman of these Epistles: Now when he bears witness only to himself, his testimony is suspicious, and of no weight at all; and Theodosius valued [Page] these brags so little, that he calls Leo only by the name of Patriarch in his answer, and affirms the Nicene Canons were not broken, and therefore he utterly rejected the request Ep. Theod. num. 29, 30, 31. Bin. p. 25. Lab. col. 58, &c.. Yet Leo was forced to be content, and to receive Anatolius chosen Bishop of Constantinople, in this Synod of Ephesus into his Communion, only desiring him to give an Account of his being Orthodox in the Faith, that he might publish it to other Bishops Ep. Leon. ad Theod. Num. 32. Bin. pag. 32. Lab. col. 61.; Soon after which Theodosius died.

Marcianus succeeding, and having no other Title to the Empire than his being married to Pulcheria, he remitted much of the Majesty of Style in his Letters to Leo and other Bishops, used by Theodosius and other Emperors Richer. Hist Concil. gen. l. 1 c. 8. §. 11. pag. 363.. But even when he complements the Pope in the highest strain, he will not yield the Council should be called in Italy as the Pope desired, but resolves to have it in the East, in some City which he himself should choose Epist. Marcian. ad Leon. Num. 34. Bin. pag. 28. Lab. col. 63.: Where we may see a notorious Forgery in Baronius and Binius, for whereas the Emperor saith, where it shall seem good to us, Baronius turns nobis, into vobis, and Binius in his Notes follows him Baron. An. 450. pag. 119. Bin. not. pag. 409. Lab. col. 980.; as if the Emperor had left it to the Pope, to choose what City he pleased for the Council to meet; Nay further, Binius who reads it nobis in the Epistle, yet in a Note before that Letter, he saith it was where the Peope pleased; and hath the Confidence to say in his Notes at the end of the Council, that the Emperor writ to the Pope to appoint the place, time and manner of calling this General Synod: Than which nothing can be more false; for the Pope would have had it in the West if he might have chosen, but the Emperor Summoned the Bishops first to come to Nice, as his Letters yet extant shew Epist. Marcian. Num 36, & 37. Bin. pag. 29, &c. Lab. col. 66, &c.; and thither the Popes first Letter to the Synod ought to be directed; and I wish that ignorant hand which altered the Title, and put in Chalcedon instead of Nice, hath not put in those words in it, of saving the honour of St. Peter, and of his Legates being sent to preside in the Council Epist Leon. ad Synod num. 40. Bin. pag. 31., which passages might look favourably on the supremacy if they be genuine; [Page] only they are no more but Leo's own Evidence in his own Cause: After this the Council being assembled at Nice, they with the Popes Legates desired the Emperors presence among them, upon which he removed the Council to the City of Chalcedon, and thither he afterward came to them Epist. Marcian. Num. 41. Bin. pag. 32. Lab. col. 74.. On which I shall only note, that Baronious and Binius have turned this Petition of the Council and Legates, into a Declaration of the Legates alone; for they pretend that the Emperor writ to the Council, That it seemed good to the Popes Legates that he should be present Baron. An. 451. pag. 132. Bin. not. pag. 409. Lab. col. 980.; Which is a false representation of the matter, as the Emperors Letter shews.

§. 2. We proceed now to the Council it self assembled at Chalcedon, and will first consider these generals, viz. 1st. Who called it. 2ly. Who presided in it, and in what Order they sate. 3ly. Who confirmed the Acts of it: And secondly make some brief remarks on the particular Acts of this Council.

First, As to the Authority by which it was convened; Though the Preface had owned that Marcian called this Council Praef. Bin. pag. 4 Lab. p. 6., yet the Notes affirm, it was appointed by the Authority of Leo, and by the advice, assistance and help of Marcian congregated: And again, it is clear this General Council was convened by the Exhortation and Counsel of the Emperor, but by the Command and Authority of the Pope Not. Bin. pag. 409. Lab. col. 980.: And this they pretend to prove by the Epistle of the Bishops of Maesia, writ some years after the Council, which they cite thus, Many holy Bishops meeting in the City of Chalcedon, by the Command of Leo (who is truly an head of Bishops;) but the Epistle adds—and of the venerable Bishop and Patriarch Anatolius a Council was held, which was confirmed under two Emperors Concil. Chalced. par. 3. Num. 32. Bin. pag. 381. Lab. col. 912.. But these fraudulent Editors leave out these last words, which shew that these Bishops were as much called by the Authority of Anatolius as of Leo, and also that the Emperors confirmed the Acts of this general Council, which two things Binius would [Page] conceal from his Reader: Now this accidental expression of six Bishops long after, implying no more but only that Leo and Anatolius sent out the Emperors Summons to all Bishops, (the other three Patriarchs being not then of unsuspected fame,) is all they have to prove this egregious falshood of this Councils being called by the Popes sole Authority, except an Epistle of Gelasius, another Pope pleading his own Cause: Whereas there are clear and express proofs almost innumerable, that it was appointed and convened or called by the Emperors Authority: For Leo was summoned himself by the Emperor, and in obedience to that Summons excuses his own absence, and sends his Legates to the Council Epist. Leon. Num. 40. Bin. p. 31. Lab. col. 70.. And the Emperors general Letter, strictly requiring all Bishops to be there is extant Epist. Marcian. Num. 36. Bin. pag. 29. Lab. col. 66., a Copy of which probably was delivered to the Pope: And in the beginning of every Act it is expresly said, The Synod met ( [...]— [...], &c.) by the command, or divine Authority of the Emperors Concil. Chalced. Act. 1. Bin. pag. 34. Lab. col. 78, &c.; and it is so often repeated, that this Council was called by the precept or command of the Emperor, as makes it needless and impossible to cite all the places: Liberatus the Deacon who writ some years after (when the Popes had encroached something further) saith, at the Popes request the Emperor commanded this Council to be assembled Liberat. Brev. cap. 13. Bin. Tom 2. par. 2. pag. 185.; which makes it a strange boldness in Baronius to affirm, that the Emperor requested the Pope that a Council might be called Baron. An. 451. pag. 126., which not only this Historian but the Emperors Letter in the next page contradicts: Yea Leo himself in his 61st Epistle, which the Notes cite with great applause owns, the Council was gathered by the precept of the most Christian Princes, &c. Not. Bin. p. 410. Lab. col. 982. and the Pope in divers of his Epistles, owns the Authority of calling general Councils to be in the Emperor; yea the Legates own in the very Council it self, that the Council was summoned by the Emperors Authority: So that for any of the Popes flatterers to pretend the contrary, is to wink against the clearest light.

[Page] Secondly, As to the Presidents of this Council, the Historical Preface is very positive, that the Apostolical Legates presided Praef. Bin. pag. 4. Lab. col. 6.; and the Notes prove it was a general Council, because the Pope presided by his Legates Not in Concil. Bin. pag. 410. Lab. col. 981.. But if that were essential to a General Council, there was none before this of Chalcedon: Here indeed three of the five Legates named by the Pope, Paschafinus, Lucentius and Boniface, were allowed to sit uppermost on one side of the Bishops, but Basilius and Julianus, the other two, who also were named Legates by the Pope, were not owned by the Council under that Character, and therefore had no precedency given them Not. Bin. pag. 411. Lab. col. 984.. And if this be all they mean by the Legates presiding, that they in right of the Pope had the first place among the Bishops, we will not contend with them; but if they suppose any Power or Authority these Legates had over the Council by this precedency, we must deny that. Baronius brags that all things were determined by the Popes Authority Baron. An. 450. pag. 120. And the Notes before cited, speak as if they had done all things in this Council Not. in Concil. Bin. pag. 410. Lab. col. 981.; yea, the Latin version of the Council forgets the Title of Presidents, thrice, and claps it to the names of these Legates Act. 3. Bin. pag. 174. Lab. col. 380. ibid. in subscrip. Act. 3. Bin. pag. 208. Lab. col. 448. Et subscrip. Act. 4. Bin. pag. 259. Lab. col. 580., which Title is not in the Greek: But if we examine into the matter, these three Legates who were allowed by the Council, had nothing more than the honour of sitting uppermost upon the left hand, and sometimes speaking and subscribing first: But in the twelfth Act concerning the Church of Ephesus, over which the Patriarch of Constantinople claimed some Jurisdiction, Anatolius speaks before the Popes Legate, and by his direction the matter was determined Act. 12. Bin. pag. 305. Lab. col. 771.. And though both Baronius and the Notes boast, That the Legates pronounced the sentence on Dioscorus in the Popes name, as Presidents of the Council Baron. An. 451. pag. 145. Not. in Concil. Bin. pag. 410. Lab. col. 981.; Yet if we consult the place we shall find, that they twice asked the Synods Opinion of Dioscorus his Case, and the whole Synod declared he was to be condemned; yet the Legates durst not pronounce the Sentence, till they asked if the Synod commanded them to give the [Page]Ecclesiastical Sentence, and upon the Order of the Synod they first pronounced it, and every Bishop single, declared Dioscorus was deposed and excommunicated Act. 3. Bin. pag. 192, &c. Lab. col. 421, &c.: So that there was nothing of Authority in the Legates, but only their speaking first, and declaring that which the whole Council had agreed upon. And because Anatolius commonly spoke in the second place, therefore he is joyned with Leo, and both of them together are called the Princes of this Council Act. 4. Bin. pag. 243. Lab. col. 540.. So in one of the Epistles, after the Council, Leo and Anatolius are said to have regularly presided herein Concil. Chalced. par. 3. num. 42. Bin. pag. 389. Lab. col. 933.: By which Titles are meant only that they had the principal Places in this General Council: But the true President of this great Synod, was the Emperor, who, when he was present, sate above all the Bishops in the midst, and his Legates, the Lay-Judges, in his absence, sate there; and these Representatives of the Emperor indeed had not only the most honourable place of all, but some Authority over the Synod it self: For they propounded or allowed all matters to be debated; of them all Bishops, even the Popes Legates Act. 4. Bin. pag. 236. Lab. col. 518. item Act. 16. Bin. pag. 334. Lab. col. 793., desired leave to speak; they summed up the Debates, and generally gave the decisive Sentence, and upon that followed the Acclamations; so that these Judges performed all that the Modern Popes Legates in late Councils have taken upon them, since their Supremacy hath been in its greatest Exaltation. If they object, that neither they nor the Emperor were allowed to be present when Dioscorus was condemned according to the Canons Baron. An. 451. pag. 143. Not. Bin. pag. 412. Lab. col. 986.. I Answer, the Judges in a former Session, after a full hearing of the Cause, had determined (if the Emperor consented) that Dioscorus should have the same punishment which he had inflicted on Flavianus, and that he and his Accomplices should by the Council be deposed from Episcopal Dignity, according to the Canons; to which Decree the whole Synod consented Act. 1. Bin. pag. 152. Lab. col 310.: So that there was no more to be done in the third Session, but only for the Bishops canonically to execute this Sentence upon Dioscorus; and there was no occasion for the Emperor, [Page] or the Lay-Judges to be present, only his confirmation of this Sentence was so necessary, that they writ both to Marcian and Pulcheria to desire their confimation thereof Act. 3. in fine, Bin. pag. 215. Lab. col. 463.: So that the chief Authority was in the Emperor and his Representatives, the Bishops advising, and they finally determining and confirming what was agreed upon, so that they were properly the Presidents here.

Thirdly, As to the Confirmation of all these Acts, the Notes affirm, That all which was decreed here concerning the Faith against Eutyches, was confirmed and approved by Leo's Authority, as the Fathers had desired of him in their Synodical Epistle; but they pretend he annulled and made void the 28th Canon Not in Concil. Bin. pag. 410. col. 2. Lab. col. 982. ita Baron. An. 451. pag. 159.: And this they pretend to prove, not by the Synodical Epistle it self, for that speaks only of the Emperors confirmation, and never desires the Pope to ratifie the matters of Faith, but saith, he and they by his Legates had agreed on these points, only they wish for his consent to the 28th Canon about the Primacy of Constantinople, which his Legates had opposed Ep. Synod. ad Leon. Concil. Chal. par. 3. num. 2. Bin. pag. 351. Lab. col. 836.. And indeed they supposed they had his consent in all things which the Legates agreed to; and so those passages cited by the Notes out of Leo's Epistle, do not prove that he confirmed the Decrees of Faith, otherwise than by giving his common suffrage to them by his Legates, and agreeing with them afterwards Vid. Leon. ep. 61. cit. in not. verb. [approbatum.]: And thus all other Bishops, who were absent, and had Legates there, confirmed them as well as the Pope; as for his dissent from that Canon, and their brags that he had made it void, we shall shew afterwards, that it remained in force for all the Popes opposition. But it may be observed how notoriously the Latin Version corrupts the Text to insinuate this Papal confirmation; for in the Speech they made to the Emperor, in the end of the Council, the Latin hath these words, Concilii hujus a vobis Congregati Praedicationem, Petri sedis Authoritate roborantes, implying that the Popes Authority was to confirm the determinations of the Council: But the Greek hath a [Page] quite different sense, viz. that the determinations of the Pope (that is, Leo's Epistle to Flavianus) were confirmed by that Holy Council which the Emperor had gathered Concil. Chal. par. 3. num. 1. Bin. pag. 347. Lab. col. 828.: And not only that Speech, but many other evidences do shew clearly, that the Emperor confirmed the Decree of this Council. For First, In the end of divers Acts, the Judges, as the Emperors Legates, do confirm what was agreed upon Act. 4. Bin. pag. 248. Lab. col. 552., and sometimes promise to acquaint the Emperor for his confirmation Act. 5. Bin. pag. 254. Lab. col. 568.: Yea, the Emperor in his Speech made to the Synod, saith he came to the Synod to confirm the Faith, and not to shew his Power, as Baronius and the Latin Version reads it Baron. An. 451. pag. 141. vid. Act. 6. Bin. pag. 258. Lab. col. 577.; but the Greek more truly reads, I came to the Synod to confirm what was agreed on, &c. which shews sufficiently, that the Emperor was to confirm all the Acts: Yea, in that very Session wherein the Faith was subscribed by the Bishops, the Emperor expresly confirms it, and makes a penal Sanction against all that shall contradict or oppose it Act. 6. Bin. pag. 269. Lab. col. 608. [...]. &c. ib., upon which the Fathers cried out thou hast confirmed the Orthodox Faith Ibid. vid.: And a little while after the Council was ended, the same Emperor put out two Edicts, wherein he doth fully confirm the Decrees of this Holy Council, adding in the later, penalties to all that would not receive it Par. 3. Concil. num. 3, & 4. Bin. pag. 352, &c. Lab. col. 840, &c.. Wherefore we can make no doubt that the main confirmation of the Acts of this Council was from the Emperor.

§. 3. In the next place we will consider the several Sessions and Acts which were in number sixteen. In the first Action, Baronius, by mistake, affirms, that the Emperor was present Baron. An. 451. pag. 141.; but the Acts shew that he was only present by his Legates, the Lay-Judges, who representing the Emperor the true President of this August Assembly, sate in a more honourable place than the Popes Legates, and here and always are named before them Act. 1. Bin. pag. 34. Lab. col. 88.. But the Champions of the Supremacy boast extreamly of the great words of the Popes Legates concerning the See of Rome; who say in this first Action, on the mention of Rome, which is the [Page]Head of all Churches Ibid. Bin. p. 41. Lab. col. 94.; and the Greek seems to refer it to Pope Leo. To which may be added, that the same Legates in the third Action, though they do not call the Pope Head of the Universal Church, as Bellarmine falsly cites their words Bellarm. de Concil. lib. 2. cap. 11. pag. 85.; yet they magnifie St. Peter as the Rock and groundwork of the Catholick Church, and the Foundation of true Faith Act. 3. Bin. pag. 192. Lab. col. 425.: And in some other places they call the Pope Universal Bishop, &c. To which I answer, The Council no where gives the Bishop of Rome any of these extravagant Titles, and did so little regard these empty brags of the Legates, that in the first Act, the Judges do reject the very first request which Leo's Legates made to the Council; and when they petitioned in Leo's name, that Dioscorus might stand at the Bar, the Judges bid him sit down Act. 1. Bin. pag. 41. Lab. col. 94.: And if we consider how zealous this ambitious Pope was for the Dignity of his See, and that his Legates had been taught their Lesson at Rome, we may justly argue from the Councils silence, and the lower Style of Arch-Bishop which they give him, that these big Thrasonical Titles were not believed nor approved by them; for many things are reported in the Councils, as said by particular persons, which were not the Act of the whole Council; for which reason Bellarmine egregiously prevaricates, when he makes this whole General Council to call Peter the Rock and Groundwork of the Catholick Church Bellarm. de Rom. Pontif. lib. 1. cap. 10. pag. 540.; For it was only the Popes Domesticks called him so; and had the Council foreseen the consequence, they would expresly have opposed, that which they only silently passed by as frivolous. In the next place we may observe, that it is said in this Council, that the Emperor confirmed the Acts of the second Council at Ephesus Act. 1. Bin. pag. 48. Lab. col. 111., therefore it was usual then for the Emperor so to do, since this is alledged to prove that a lawful Council. Again, when the Acts of this second Council at Ephesus were read at Chalcedon, the Greek plainly saith, the Emperor by his Letters exhorted the Pope to be present there, but the Latin Version corrupts the Text, and puts in supplicarunt Ibid. Bin. pag. 52. Lab. col. 122. [...]., as [Page] if the Emperor had humbly supplicated the Pope to be there; whereas one of his Legates, a few lines before, owned, that the Pope had the same Form of Summons sent him, that was sent to the other great Bishops. Moreover, in Eutyches Petition read in that Council, Cyril is called the President of the third General Council at Ephesus Ibid. Bin. pag. 57. Lab. col. 135., without any mention of the Pope: And we may further observe, that the Heretick Eutyches, in the Acts of the Council of Constantinople which condemned him, is called Pope Eutyches, that being a name formerly given to all Eminent Clergy-men, especially in the East Ibid. Bin. p. 90. Lab. col. 222.. I shall make no more remarks upon this first Session, which was spent in reading over and reviewing the Council of Constantinople, wherein Eutyches was condemned, and the Pseudo-Synod of Ephesus wherein Dioscorus absolved him, because I have treated of both before: It is sufficient to observe upon this full hearing, the Council of Chalcedon condemned both Eutyches and Dioscorus, and the Lay-Judges summ'd up the Act; but there seems to be a Roman addition in the end of this first Act, where it is thrust in without choerence and sense, that Leo writ an Epistle to Flavianus; which, though it be true In fin. Act. 1. Bin. pag. 153. Lab. col. 310., comes in very impertinently here; but the Forger thought when the Writings of the Orthodox Fathers were mentioned, that of Leo ought by all means to be mentioned right or wrong.

In the second Action there is nothing considerable, but the reading of this very Epistle of Leo to Flavianus (after the Nicene and Constantinopolitan Creed) being written expresly about the Eutychian Heresie, the main Cause to be then decided Act. 2. Bin pag. 151. Lab. col. 344.; which was therefore received there as other Orthodox Writings were, with general Acclamations; but the Notes, citing these Acclamations, quote them imperfectly no further than these words, Peter speaks by Leo Not. in Concil. Bin. p. 412. Lab. col. 986. Collat. cum Act. 2. Bin. p. 169. Lab. col. 368.: But the Council goes on, and says, The Apostles and Cyril taught thus, by which we may see it was the consonancy of Leo's Doctrine, to the writings of the Apostles, and of St. Cyril, not the [Page] infallibility of his See which procured his Epistle this general applause. Wherefore the Prefacer need not have mentioned these Acclamations, as if they were only given to Leo's Epistle, or had been made upon some single excellency peculiar to the Bishop of that See Pref. Bin. p. 4. Lab. col. 7.; for both the Creeds, and two of Cyril's Epistles had been honoured with such like Acclamations a little before.

The third Action contains the canonical deposition of Dioscorus, after the Bishops had heard all the complaints against him, cited him thrice, and could not prevail with him to appear. Now there being nothing to be done at this Session, but to proceed according to the Canons, of which the Bishops were the proper Executors; they only met, without Lay Judges, which (saith Binius) is the most evident note of a General Council Not. in Concil. Bin. pag. 412. Lab. col. 986., but in truth it is no note of any such matter; for if that were not a General Council, wherein some of the Lasty were present, then there never was any General Council till this time, and this single Act would then be the sole Regular Act of this General Council; to such absurd consequences doth these mens blind zeal lead them. The next thing to be noted is, a corruption in the Titles of the Petitions, which some of the Aegyptian Clergy offered to the Council against Dioscorus; for the Greek hath no more but this, The Petition of Theodorus, the Deacon, exhibited against Dioscorus; but the Latin Version thrusts in Pope Leo's name thus, exhibited to Pope Leo and the Council of Chalcedon Act. 3. Bin. p. 181. Lab. col. 396., and the same corruption is in the Titles of the following Petitions of Ischyrion, Athanasius and Sophronius. If it be objected, that the Superscriptions of all these Petitions, both in Greek and Latin are, To the most Holy, &c.—Universal Patriarch of Great Rome, Leo, and to the Holy General Council, &c. Baron. An. 451. pag. 144.: I reply, these Superscriptions seem to be forged also: For first, Eusebius his Petition before, mentions not Leo, and these Petitions are addressed only to the Council, there being not the least sentence in them peculiar to Leo, or supposing him to [Page] see or read them; so that these Superscriptions to an absent Bishop are non-sense, and in all probability added by some Roman Transcribers, as may be guessed by the great swelling Titles, with which the Pope is loaded. Again, in the Summons sent to Dioscorus the third time, it is declared, that the Emperor had commanded the Bishops to hear this Cause; the Greek word is [ [...]], but the Latin softens it into [permisit] Act. 3. ib. Bin. p. 189. Lab. col. 417.. However, whether the Emperor commanded or permitted the Bishops to hear this Cause, it is plain, that even in this Session, consisting only of Clergy, the Bishops had the Emperors leave, and proceeded by his permission. As to the Sentence it self; the Preface Pres. Bin. p. 4. Lab. col. 7., the Notes Not. in Concil. Bin. p. 413. Lab. col. 987. and Baronius Baron. An. 451. p. 145. pretend it was pronounced in Leo's name, and boast much of the Legates pronouncing it. But if we consult the place, we shall find that since no Lay-Judges were there, the Popes Legates were (as these Judges did in other Sessions) to collect the Votes, and then to sum them up, and publish them; and therefore, after the enquiry was ended, they ask what the Synod thought fit to be done; which they do over and over again, and till the Council expresly commanded them, they did not pronounce the Sentence Act. 3. Bin. p. 191, 192. Lab. col. 421, &c.. 'Tis true, these Legates had learned their Lessons so well at Rome, that they contrive it. in words very pompous, The most Holy and Blessed Arch-Bishop of the Elder and Greater Rome, Leo, by us, and by this present Synod, with the most Blessed and Honourable Apostle, Peter, who is the Rock and Groundwork of the Catholick Church, and he that is the Foundation [...], omissam in edit. Bin. & Lab. ever. edit. restituit Richer. Hist. Concil. Gen. Tom. 1. p. 395. of the Orthodox Faith, (that is, Jesus Christ) hath deprived him of his Episcopal Dignity, and degraded him from all Ministration; therefore let this most Holy General Council decree concerning the said Dioscorus what is agreeable to the Canons Act. 3. Bin. p. 192. Lab. col. 425.. But these Rhetorical Flourishes, coming only from the Popes Domesticks, give him no right to them; it is more material what Cardinal Cusanus observes, that the Legates, as sitting first in this Council, first pronounce Sentence by the Synods command, and then all she rest in order;[Page]and the force of the Sentence depends upon the agreeing Votes of all: And we see, that though the Pope had before canonically deposed Dioscorus, yet his Sentence was re-examined in a General Council Cusan. lib. de Concord. Cath. lib. 2. c. 8.. This is certain, that Anatolius, of Constantinople, and all the rest, though in modester words, did singly condemn Dioscorus, and he was deposed and degraded by the Authority of the General Council, and the free Votes of the several Bishops, who, as Pope Leo himself speaks, had confirmed his Sentence with an assent, which made the Cause uncapable of being tried any more Leo ep. 63. ad Theod.. And the Sentence which was published about his deposition Act. 3. Bin. p. 214. Lab. col. 460., as well as the Letter writ to Alexandria Bin. ib. Lab. col. 461. expresly declare, that he was deposed and degraded by the Holy General Council (c): And the very same is affirmed in the Synodical Epistles, writ to Martian and Pulcheria, to desire them to confirm the Councils Sentence Ib. Bin. p. 215. Lab. col. 463.. So that in vain do the Modern Romanists brag of the deposition of Dioscorus by the Popes Supream Authority; for it was the opinion indeed of the Pope, before the Council met, that he ought to be deposed; but it was the Authority of the Council, ratified by the Emperor, which actually deposed him.

In the fourth Act, the Epistle of Pope Leo to Flavianus (wherein the Heresie of Eutyches was confuted and condemned) was subscribed by all the Bishops, who severally declared they received it, because it was agreeable to the Faith declared in the three former General Councils of Nice, Constantinople and Ephesus; and some of them add, because it was agreeable to the Scripture, and to the Expositions of the Orthodox Fathers Act. 4. Bin. p. 218. Lab. col. 471, &c.. Now had these Fathers believed the Pope to be Infallible in matters of Faith, they must have received this Epistle only upon the Credit of the Pope; whereas they now examin and judge of it by the Rules prescribed in former Councils, and receive it, not because the Enditer of it was Infallible, but because he had kept close to former determinations in General Councils. And since the business of this Council was to discover [Page] and condemn the Heresie of Eutyches, against which new Sect no eminent Bishop but Leo had written, therefore this Epistle was made a Test, and all were obliged to subscribe it, not (as the Romanists brag) because the See of Rome was to fix the Rule of Faith; but because this was the only Writing then extant of this kind; and we may as well prove that St. Cyril was the Supream Bishop of the World, and the sole Arbiter of Faith, because his Epistles were subscribed in the General Council of Ephesus, as a Test to find out and condemn the Nestorians, as infer the Roman Supremacy or Infallibility from the Bishops subscribing Leo's Epistle at Chalcedon. We may further note in this Action, that how confidently-soever modern Editors place the Councils of Constantinople and Ephesus, under Damasus and Celestine; the Popes Legates here plainly say the Council of Constantinople was held under the Emperor Theodosius Act. 4. Bin. pag. 217. Lab. col. 471.; and other Bishops affirm, that Cyril was the President and Head of the Council at Ephesus Ib. Bin. p. 218, & 221. Lab. col. 474, & 482.: Again, it is to be noted, that though Juvenalis of Jerusalem, and four other Bishops who had joyned with Dioscorus in the Synod at Ephesus, to condemn Flavianus, repented and had subscribed Leo's Epistle, and so declared themselves to be Orthodox; yet the Council could not restore them to their Places, till the Emperor, by his Judges, gave them leave to determine their Case Ibid Bin. pag 232. Lab. col. 507.. It is also memorable, that the Egyptian Bishops, after their own Patriarch Dioscorus was deposed, refused to sign the Epistle of Leo, till they had a new Bishop of Alexandria, under whose jurisdiction the Nicene Canons had put them; and though the Popes Legates and many others urged they should subscribe immediately, yet these Bishops were excused by the Council, and their Plea allowed Ibid. Bin. p. 233. Lab. col. 510, &c.; which shews, that those who were under the Patriarch of Alexandria, owed no subjection at all to Rome; nor did they or the Council of Chalcedon think the Pope was really (what his Legates flatteringly call him) the Universal Arch-Bishop of Patriarch, for then they could not have allowed this Plea. Moreover, [Page] 'tis observable in this Act, that Photius, Bishop of Tyre, affirms, both Anatolius and Leo were the Presidents of this Council Ib. Bin. p. 243. Lab. col. 540.: Also this Bishop in his Petition to the Emperors, stiles them Lords of the Earth and Sea, and of all Men, Nations and Kindreds Ib. p. 244. Lab. col. 541.; which shews that Titles are not to be strictly understood, or to be made any ground for Argument, since Complements were used then as well as now; and therefore the Romanists should not attempt to prove a right from every flourishing Title bestowed on the Pope by those who speak of him. In the Cause between this Photius of Tyre, and Eustathius of Berytus, there is a passage, how one of these Bishops claimed a right to some Churches by the Imperial Edicts, and the other by the Canons; and he who claimed a right by the Canons, got the better: Yea, the Council declared, that Edicts ought not to prevail against the Canons Act. 4. Bin p. 245. Lab. col. 544.. From whence Baronius infers, that Princes ought to learn from hence to make their Laws submit to the Ecclesiastical Canons Baron. An. 451. p. 149.. But it must be noted, this was not intended to be a Rule in all Cases, only as to the old Rights of Bishops Jurisdictions; and it was a Rule made now, only upon this occasion; and which is most remarkable, the Judges tell the Council, it was the Emperor's pleasure, this Cause should be tried, nor by the Edicts, but by the Canons; for which the Bishops gave that pious Emperor thanks: And therefore it is a great fallacy to argue from hence, that Ecclesiastical Canons are above the Laws of Princes in their own nature; only in this Case the Good Emperor, to oblige the Bishops, suffered the Canons to prevail. To conclude, this Session ended with a confirmation of all things done by the Lay-Judges, who declare they should remain firm Act. 4. Bin. p. 248. Lab. col 552., and so the Session ended.

In the Fifth Action, wherein the Matters of Faith were to be declared, the Emperors Legates were present, and prevented a Schism which was like to happen among the Bishops, some of which would not consent to the Councils definition; but the Lay-Judges from [Page] the Emperor advised the Dissenters to go with Anatolius and the Popes Legates, and to confer among themselves so as they might agree, otherwise they threatned that the Emperor resolved to call a Council in the West, to which they must go to determin the difference Act. v. Bin. pag. 250. Lab. col. 560.: From whence we may note, that they knew of no single Person who could finally decide questions of Faith; and though it was to be determined at Rome, a general Council must do it there: However, this Method proved effectual, and so they published their Faith unanimously, annexing it to the Creeds of Nice and Constantinople Ib. Bin. pag. 251. Lab. col. 561.. We shall only note further, that in the Acclamations made in this Session it is said, That the Councils definition had confirmed Leo's Epistle, and the Faith of Leo is commended because he believed as Cyril believed: And after all, the Bishops agreement was not sufficient to ratifie this definition of Faith, till it was shewed to the Emperor Ib. Bin. pag. 254. Lab. col. 568. as the last words import.

The Sixth Action was adorned with the presence of the Emperor Marcianus, who made a Speech to the Fathers, (which Baronius by mistake saith was in the first Session Baron. An. 450, pag. 141.;) telling them he was come to confirm the Faith they had agreed on, (as Constantine did) not to shew his power Act. vi. Bin. pag. 258. Lab. col. 577.. Which is a clear and undeniable proof, that the confirmation of their Decrees depended on the Emperor, in whose presence the definition of Faith was read and subscribed by every one of the Bishops; and he declared his Approbation thereof, and in the open Synod appoints penalties for them who should, after this, call these Points into question Ib. Bin. pag. 269, &c. Lab. col. 608.. And then he gives them some Rules, to be formed into Canons, because they related to Ecclesiastical Affairs; after which having been highly Applauded by the Bishops, he was petitioned to dimiss them, but told them they must not depart for some few days, and so took his leave of them. Which shews that the Emperor who convened them, had also the sole power to dissolve this general Council: I shall add what Richerius [Page] observes upon that definition of Faith made in this Session, that it contains many of the very words and expressions of the Athanasian Creed; and though he doubt whether Athanasius did compose that Form which bears his name; yet he saith, It is now become the Creed of the Catholick Church, and there is not a Tittle in it which is not agreeable to the Credit, Holiness and Learning of Athanasius Richer. Hist. Concil. gen. Tom. 1. pag. 407.. He notes also the policy of the Popes Legates, who contrary to all ancient usage, and to the Primitive simplicity of the former Councils, do most impertinently put this Epithete to the Popes name, Bishop of the Universal Church of the City of Rome Act. 6. Bin. pag. 259. Lab. col. 580.. But when I consider the absurdity of the expression, and the frequent corruptions in these Acts, why might not that bold hand who added to the Legates name, President of the Council; in this very place (and in this Session where the Emperor being present certainly presided) add this huffing Title to the Pope's name? And if so, it is a corruption and can be no ground for an Argument: However, 'tis a great prejudice to all these Titles, that when any others of the Council speak of the Pope, they call him only Bishop or Archbishop, and none but his own Legates load him with those vain Titles.

The Seventh Action contains only the Ratification of a private Agreement, made between Maximus Bishop of Antioch, and Juvenalis Bishop of Jerusalem, concerning the extent of their Jurisdictions Act. 7. Bin. pag. 271. Lab. col. 612..

The Eighth Action was the case of Theodoret, who having formerly favoured Nestorius, yet being afterwards convinced of his Error, was received into Communion by Pope Leo, who had judged his cause and acquitted him before the Council met: But for all that, the case was heard over again, and he called an Heretick, and had been expelled the Council, if he had not cleared himself over again by subscribing Leo's Epistle, and Anathematizing Nestorius and Eutyches, upon which he was restored to Communion and to his Bishoprick Act. 8. Bin. pag. 273. Lab. col. 617.: By which it is as clear as the Sun, that [Page] the Council was above the Pope, and had Authority to Judge over again the Causes he had determined; and also that barely being in Communion with the Pope, could not clear any Man from Heresie, nor give him a right to the Communion of the Catholick Church. And if the Epistles of Theodoret to Leo be genuin, (whereof there is good cause to doubt) and this cause were referred to the Pope by Appeal; (as the Romanists brag) This makes the matter worse, and shews that the last Appeal is not to the Pope, and that he cannot finally decide any cause, which shall not be liable to be tried again in a general Council, yea though it be, as this was, a Cause of Faith; which utterly ruins the Infallibility.

The Ninth and Tenth Actions, concern Ibas Bishop of Edessa, who had been a Nestorian, and was deposed by Dioscorus in the Pseudo Synod of Ephesus, in which are these observables: First, The Emperor commanded a Lay-man and some Neighbouring Bishops to hear this Cause, first at Tyre, and then at Berytus Act. 9 & 10. Bin. pag. 277. & pag. 280. Lab. col. 628. & 637.; so that even Provincial Councils did not meet without the Emperors Authority, and the Popes universal supremacy was not known then. For in the Council of Berytus, Antioch is called an Apostolical Throne Act. 10. Bin. pag. 283. Lab. col. 644., and the Council after they had restored him to his Bishoprick, referred the cause between him and Nonnus, (who had been thrust into his place) to Maximus Bishop of Antioch, as the proper Judge of that matter. No more is here to be noted, but only that the Popes Legates and the whole Council desire, that the Emperor would revoke and utterly annul the Ephesine false Synod Ib. Bin. pag. 294. Lab. col. 673.. For though the Pope had done this, yet they knew that was insufficient, since none but the Emperor had right effectually to confirm, or null a Council which pretended to be Oecumenical. To this Action Baronius and Binius tack another, concerning an allowance to be made to maintain Domnus late Bishop of Antioch, who had been deposed Bin. pag. 298. Lab. col. 681. Baron. An. 451. pag. 155.: But they own this is not [Page] in the Greek, nor was there any such thing in the Acts of the Council in Justinian's time, who expresly affirms Domnus was dead before, which is certainly true Vid. Cratenthorp. vigil. dormit. chap. 35. §. 9.; Wherefore the Cardinal owns they found this in an old Latin Copy, in the Vatican, the very Mint of Forgeries; and this Action ought to be rejected as a mear Fiction.

The Eleventh and Twelfth Actions were spent in examing the cause of Bassianus and Stephanus, both pretending to be Bishops of Ephesus, wherein we may observe: That Bassianus pleads, he was duly elected by the suffrage of the Nobility, People and Clergy of that City and the Emperor confirmed the Election Act. 11. Bin pag. 300. Lab. col. 688.; for the Pope had not then usurped the nomination or confirmation of remote Bishops. Again, whereas Baronius brags, that the Pope deposed Bassianus from the Bishoprick of Ephesus, and cites the words of Stephen his Antagonist thus, it is now four years since the Roman Bishop deposed Bassianus—arguing from thence, That it was the ancient usage for the Pope to depose Metropolitans Baron. An. 447. pag. 49.; He doth notoriously prevaricate, for Stephen's words are, since the Roman Bishop deposed him, and the Bishop of Alexandria condemned him: And a little before the same Stephen saith more fully, That Bassianus was expelled by the holy Fathers, Leo and Flavianus and the Bishops of Alexandria and Antioch Act. 11. Bin. pag. 301. Lab. col. 689.. By which the Reader may see there is no credit to be given to Baronius Quotations, who always resolves by false Citations of Authors, to ascribe that to the Pope alone, which was done by him in conjunction with other Bishops: And it appears, that the principal right over Ephesus was in the Patriarch of Constantinople, whence it was pleaded by the Friends of Bassianus, that Proclus of Constontinople who had the right, received him to Communion: And Stephen urges, that Flavianus of Constanstinople expelled him afterwards Ibid. Bin. pag. 302. Lab. col. 692.. And therefore it is remarkable, that in the twefth Action where the Sentence was to be pronounced, Anatolius Bishop of Constantinople declares his Judgment before the Popes Legates, [Page] and is always named before them in all that Session, where a Cause was to be decided concerning a Church, which was specially under his jurisdiction Act. 12. Bin. pag. 305, 306. Lab. col. 771. &c.; by which it appears, the principal Person in the deposing of Bassianus, was the Patriarch of Constantinople, who probably desired the other great Patriarchs concurrence for the better credit of his Sentence: Moreover it is to be noted, that though Pope Leo favoured the cause of Stephen, and writ an Epistle in his behalf mentioned in the Council; The Popes favour did him no service, for his Cause was tried over again, and he deposed by this general Council as well as Bassianus; and this by the consent of the Popes Legates, who notwithstanding their big words, did not believe it unlawful for a general Council to contradict a determination of the Popes.

The Thirteenth and Fourteenth Actions concern only the Causes of private Bishops, who had complained to the Emperor (not to the Pope) of injury done them; and the Emperor appointed them to be finally determined by the Council, and so the Bishop of Nichomedias's Jurisdiction was cleared, and the Bishop of Nice ordered to be content only with the honour of a Metropolitan Act. 13. Bin. pag. 307. Lab. col. 708.. And in the fourteenth Action Athanasius was setled in the Bishoprick of Perrhaea; and Sabinianus, who claimed it, ordered to keep the honour of a Bishop, and to be maintained out of the Profits of that Church, as the Patriarch of Antiooh should direct Act. 14. Bin. p. 311. Lab. col. 717.. Nothing is remarkable in them, but only that the Lay Judges pronounce the Decree, and not the Popes Legates, and then the Synod consent.

The Fifteenth Action contains the Canons of this General Council for Ecclesiastical Discipline, three of which were recommended to the Fathers by the Emperor to be formed into Canons Supr. Act. 6.: So that in obedience to the Emperor, they were obliged to make some Ecclesiastical Rules: And one of these is the fourth Canon, which decrees, that all Monks every where shall be subject to the Bishop of that Diocess [Page] wherein their Monastery is built Act. 15. Bin. pag. 326. Lab. col. 757.; which being a genuine Canon of a General Council, not objected against by the Popes Legates, it is somewhat strange that the Modern Popes have no regard to it, but daily and openly break it, in defiance of the Primitive Discipline, by exempting all Monasteries from due subjection to their own Bishop Vid. Bever. not. in Can. Chalced. 4. Tom. 2. p. 111.; and this meerly out of policy to make the Monks intirely depend upon the Pope, and serve his interests. The ninth Canon ordains, that the Causes betwen Clergy-men shall be tried before their own Bishop, and not in Secular Courts; and if a Bishop have a complaint against his Metropolitan, he shall go to the Primate of the Diocess, or appeal to the See of Constantinople: Which Canon Pope Nicholus resolved to force into his interest, and so ridiculously expounds, the Primate of the Diocess, is meant the Bishop of Rome, who is Primate of all Dioceses Nicol. 1. ep. 8. ad Mich. Imp.: Turrian as boldly expounds it, the Primate of the universal Diocess: And Binius in his Notes will have the word to signifie the Prince of the Christian Diocess Bin. not. p. 418. Lab. col. 996.. But all these feigned additions and forced glosses will not help them, because the Canon gives leave to the Party injured to complain, either to the Bishop of Constantinople, or to the Pope, at his own choice, which sets that Patriarch upon equal ground with him of Rome. But the Original Word signifies an Order of Bishops below a Patriarch, but above a Metropolitan; and the Canon expresly limits Appeals either to be made by these, [...], Primates, who had Jurisdiction over the Province, or to the Patriarch of Constantinople; which shews that this Council never thought of any Right that Rome then had to receive Appeals from all parts of the World. And if any question why the Pope is not here named, at least, for the Western Churches Appeals, as well as the Patriarch of Constantinople for the Eastern; I take the true reason to be, the absence of the Popes Legates from this Session, consisting only of Oriental Bishops; for which reason they modestly refused to decree any thing concerning Discipline in [Page] the West, leaving affairs there to proceed according to parity of Reason. We may add, that the Latin Version of the sixteenth Canon hath put in the word [confitentes] into the Body of the Canon, which is not in the Original Bin. pag. 328., but Labbè leaves out this corruption.

But that which hath occasioned the greatest Controversie, is the twenty eighth Canon, wherein this Council confirms the Decrees of the Fathers, and the second Council of Constantinoples Canon about the Priviledges of that See. For as the Fathers had given the See of Rome its priviledges, because it was the Imperial City, for the same reason the second General Council gave like honour to the See of Constantinople; and would have it also even in Ecclesiastical Affairs, to be advanced to the second place: And they order that the Bishop of Constantinople should ordain and have a Jurisdiction over all the Metropolitans of the Dioceses of Pontus, Asia and Thrace Act. 15. Bin. pag. 330. Lab. col. 769.. The Modern Romanists do all they can to suppress or baffle this Canon. The Editors put a Note before it, that it is not in their Greek Manuscripts; but that is no wonder, since it hath been long the design of their Church to conceal this Canon; but that such a Canon was really made at Chalcedon, is apparent, not only from the sixteenth Action, where it was read at large, and allowed by the whole Council, and confirmed by the Lay-Judges, notwithstanding the opposition of the Popes Legates; But it is also found in all the Greek Collectors, cited in Photius his Nomo-Canon (writ above 900 year ago) and is also extant in that old Latin Interpreter, who put out the Canons before Dionisius exiguus (that is, soon after the year 500) Bever. Pand. Tom. 2. annot. pag. 124.: So that there is no doubt but this Canon was really made at Chalcedon. Yet Gratian would not cite it under the name of a Canon of Chalcedon, but quotes it out of the sixth General Council, wherein there are almost the same words; but his old Editions (which were in use while the Roman Primacy was setting up) had grosly corrupted the main words of it, and instead of the affirmative etiam in rebus Ecclesiasticis non secus, ac [Page]illam extolli,—&c. it was in him non tamen in rebus Ecclesiasticis magnificetur, ut illa Vid. Gratian. Decret. par. 1. dist. 22. c. 6. in not., which quite alters the sense, and makes it seem as if the Council had not spoken of any Ecclesiastical Priviledges; whereas they speak of no other but such. Now this was so apparent a falsification, that the later Copies of Gratian have mended it, and made it nec non Edit. in Octav. Francof. 1585.: But this was not till that Church had seen Constantinople under the Turkish Yoke, and in no capacity to vye with her.

In the Sixteenth Action the Popes Legates complain to the Judges, before all the Council, That this Canon was made after their departure, and irregularly; and desire it may be read: They were answered by the Arch-Deacon of Constantinople, that it was customary in General Councils to treat of Discipline after matters of Faith; that they told the Popes Legates this, and desired their concurrence as to what should be done for the Church of Constantinople; but they refused, saying they had other Orders; upon this they acquainted the Judges, and they commanded the Council to proceed; and so they did, nothing being done fraudulently, but all publickly and canonically; upon this the Canon aforesaid was read Act. 16. Bin. pag. 333. Lab. col. 792.. Then the Legates Objections were heard and answered; First to his insinuation, that it was fraudulently obtained: The Bishops all declared, and especially those of Pontus and Asia, newly subjected to Constantinople, that they consented and subscribed to this Canon, without any circumvention or force, voluntarily and freely. Secondly, whereas the Legates pretended it was contrary to the Nicene Canons; and cite the sixth Canon of Nice falsly, putting this forged Title (That the Church of Rome always had the Primacy) into the body of the Canon: The Council first discovers the fallacy by reading a true and authentick Record of that Canon, without that corrupt Addition, (though still Baronius Baron. An. 451. p. 157. c. and Binius Bin. Annot. pag. 418. col. 2. B. Lab. col. 997. blush not to argue from this feigned Addition); and then was read the Canon of the second Council at Constantinople, (for in that Age the Popes Cause was to be judged by the Canons) to both which this Canon [Page] of Chalcedon was thought so agreeable, that the Bishops principally concerned, declared again, they had freely subscribed it as agreeable both to the Canons and Custom. And Eusebius, Bishop of Dorylaeum, declares he read that Canon of Constantinople, here confirmed, to the Pope at Rome, and he owned it: Where by the way, Baronius egregiously prevaricates in expounding hanc regulam (that is, this Canon of the second General Council) of Eusebius his rule or confession of Faith Baron. An. 451. pag. 126. Bin. pag. 342. Lab. col. 816., quite contrary to the plain sense of the Bishop here. To proceed, whereas the Legates objected Thirdly, That the Bishops of Constantinople had not formerly used the Rights now conserred on them; the contrary is manifest, both as to precedence, since all the Acts of this Council shew; that Anatolius sate and spoke in the second place next to the Popes Legates; and they had said in the first Act, that his due was the second place Act. 1. Bin. pag. 50. Lab. col. 115.. And as to Jurisdiction, the very Bishops of these Provinces do in these Acts, declare the Patriarchs of Constantinople had used it in their Countries and Dioceses for many years: Upon which the Judges pronounce the Sentence, and give the second place to Constantinople, with the Patriarchal Jurisdiction over those Provinces named in the Canon, to which the whole Council consents, except the Popes Legate, who entred his Protestation against it; but still the Bishops stood firm to the Canon, and the Judges declare it valid, with which this General Council is concluded. Baronius thinks the final Acclamations are wanting Baron. An. 451. pag. 158.; if they be so, we may easily guess who rased them out; even that Church which then, and since hath opposed this Canon, and would conceal that General Consent by which it passed. But the last words are plain enough, where the Judges say, The whole Synod hath confirmed it Act. 16. Bin. pag. 344. Lab. col. 820., even though the Legates did dissent. I shall conclude this History of Fact, when I have noted two Corruptions in favour of the Roman Church, which are evident in this last Act. First, The Latin Version affirms the Judges said, Rome [Page] truly, by the Canons had all the Primacy, omnem Primatum; but the Greek is, [...], the Primacy before all others Ib. Bin. pag. 343. Lab. col. 817., which is not a Supremacy over all other Bishops, but the first place among them. Again, the Legates in the Latin Copy say, The Apostolical See ought not to be humbled in our presence; but the Greek is quite different, that is, the Apostolical Throne commanded that all things should be done in our presence Id. ibid.: But he who made the alteration was one who dream'd that this Canon was to humble Rome, whereas it takes not away the first place from the Pope, only gives the second equal Priviledges within its own bounds to Constantinople.

§. 4. We shall now proceed to the third part concerning what was done after the Council, and there will shew that this Canon was valid, notwithstanding the dissent of the Popes Legates, and Leo's furious endeavours to annull it.

The first thing, after the Councils speech to the Emperor, in the old Collectors of Councils, was the Imperial Edicts, by which the Decrees were confirmed; but these late Editors have removed these into the third place Bin. par. 3. num. 3, & 4. pag. 352, &c. Lab. pag. 840.: And first set down a pretended Letter from the Council to the Pope, which is done only to impose upon unwary Readers, and make them think it was not the Emperor, but the Pope who had the power of confirming the Acts. But as to the Epistle it self, it was dated in the end of March, four Months after the Council was separated; and (if it be not a Forgery, as some vehemently suspect, on the account of a foolish and improbable story in it of Euphemia's dead body confirming the true Faith by a Miracle) it was writ not by the General Council, but by Anatolius, after he had heard of the Popes dislike of the twenty eighth Canon; and therefore he doth not desire his consent to any other thing, but only labours to gain his assent to this Cannon Par. 3. num. 2. Bin. pag. 350. Lab. col. 833.. So that Baronius falsly argues from hence, it was the custom to send the Decrees [Page]of General Councils to Rome, to be confirmed by the Popes Authority Baron. An. 451. pag. 159.: For this Letter was not writ by a General Council, nor doth it desire a confirmation of any thing but one Canon, which stood firm notwithstanding the Pope always disallowed it: I only note that where the original is [...], that is, taking his wonted care, the Latin reads consuete gubernando: As if the Pope had by custom governed all Churches as far as Constantinople Ibid. Bin. pag. 351. Lab. col. 837.. I observe also, that Binius leaves out the date of this Epistle to the Pope, which is later in time than either of the Imperial Edicts; hoping by that means the cheat of placing it before those Edicts would be undiscovered, and that easie People might judge it a formal Letter writ while the Council was sitting, to Petition the Pope to confirm all they had done. I shall not insist upon any more particulars, but smile at Baronius, who for a few Complements, that the writer of this Letter gives the Pope, draws a serious Argument for the Supremacy, and would have all Bishops, even in a General Council, to be Sons to their Holy Father the Pope Baron. An. 451. pag. 159.. To proceed, the Edicts of the Emperor are dated, one in February, and the other in March, and they do effectually confirm the Acts of the Council, and ordain penalties on such as oppose the definitions of the Synod Par. 3. num. 3 & 4. Bin. pag. 352. Lab. col. 840.. After this follow three Letters of Pope Leo, dated all of one day, directed to Anatolius Bishop of Constantinople, and to the Emperor and Empress Marcianus and Pulcheria Ibid. num. 5, 6, 7. Bin. pag. 354, &c. Lab. col. 844., in all which he shews his consent to the other things done at Chalcedon; but argues and exclaims against the 28th Canon, saying in his Letter to Pulcheria, that by the Authority of Peter he utterly makes it void. But all this spoils the Cause; for notwithstanding all his huffing, this Canon did remain in Force; for Liberatus, who writ in the next Century, saith, The Judges and all the Bishops did not value the Legates protestation; and though the Apostolical See still oppose it, this which was confirmed by the Synod, by the Emperors, Patronage remains even till now Liberat. Brev. cap. 13. Bin. Tom. 2. par. 2. pag. 186.; and Almain of later times affirms, the Constitution[Page]of the Council prevailed over the protestations of Leo against it: For the Canons of general Councils do prevail over the opposite Decrees of Popes Almain. de Eccles. Author. cap. 7.. And the History of following times doth clearly shew, that the Bishop of Constantinople was ever after this reckoned the second Patriarch, and took his place accordingly in succeeding Councils, and retained the jurisdiction over those Provinces which this Canon gives him: Wherefore it is very weak in Baronius, from some bold passages in Leo's Letters to draw this consequence, that it is clearly in the sole power of the Pope to make void, what 630 Bishops in Council, the Emperor and Senate had agreed on and confirmed Baron. An. 452. pag. 166.. For the contrary is clear as the Sun, that the Legates contradiction there, and the Popes ranting afterwards, for all his pretended Authority of St. Peter, did not signify any thing towards a real annulling this Canon; and the more he strove to do it, the more he shewed his Pride to be above his Power: And indeed General Councils were needless, precarious and insignificant, if any one Bishop were not to be concluded by the major vote, or had a negative voice there. But because the Pope argues as well as condemns, let us hear his reasons against this Canon: First, He every where urges, it is contrary to the Nicene Canon: But this is false; he and his Legates indeed pretend this, but the Nicene Canon was read over in open Council, and all of them unanimously agreed, it did no way contradict it: The Council of Nice declared those Patriarchates, which Custom had then setled, and (since after that time Constantinople came to be the Imperial City,) the second General Council, and this at Chalcedon had as good right to declare Constantinople a Patriarchate, as the first at Nice had to declare others; and since Precedency was purely of Ecclesiastical Institution, and given (as this Canon saith,) on consideration of the honours of the Cities, when the Emperors had made this City equal to old Rome, as to the Civil State, the Council might allot it a suitable precedence in the Church, which was a perfecting of the Nicene Canon, and a [Page] proceeding upon the same reason; but no contradiction to it. Secondly, Leo argues, that this was a prejudice to the two Sees of Alexandria and Antioch, which were elder Patriarchates, and so ought to preceed Constantinople: I reply, Maximus Bishop of Antioch did not think this Canon any injury to him, for he is the second who subscribed it, and all-along in the several Sessions Anatolius sat and spoke before him: And though Leo stood nicely upon his points in these matters, we do not find other Bishops were of that temper; they freely submitted to the Bishop of the imperial City, especially since he only had a place before them, but no Authority over any other Patriarch: So that Leo need not make any objections for them, who are not found to complain, or to have thought themselves injured. I shall not insist upon Leo's insinuation, that this Canon was procured fraudulently, and that Anatolius his Pride made him seek it, and strive to impose upon the Council: For every body sees the whole Council clears him of this; and 'tis plain, Leo was far prouder than Anatolius; he scorned a Second, and feared in time he might prove an Equal: But Anatolius only got that place confirmed to him in this Council, which he and his predecessors had hold long before: I might add here the elaborate Arguments of Baranius and Binius; but fearing I have been already too tedious, I shall refer the Reader to Richerius (who discovers all their Fallacies Richer. Hist. Concil. gen. Tom. 1. cap. 8. §. 44.;) and make some observations on the rest of these Letters after the Council. In an Epistle of the Emperors to the Monks of Alexandria, who disliked the Council of Chalcedon, he recommends its definitions, as agreeing to the Faith of Athanasius, Theophilus and Cyril, former Bishops of Alexandria Par. 3. num. 8. Bin. pag. 356 Lab. col. 849., which it seems was more considerable to them, than the Faith of Leo, in whom that Age knew of no Infallibility. Again, it is a good Rule in an Epistle of Leo's, That none should seek his own advancement by the diminution of another Ibid. num. 76. Bin. pag. 369. Lab. col. 882., which had he and his Successors observed they would not have degraded all the other Patriarchs [Page] to set themselves up as supreme over them all. There may be some suspicion, whether that Epistle of Leo to Maximus Bishop of Antioch be genuin; however there is a very improbable story in it, viz. That Juvenalis of Jerusalem had sought to get the jurisdiction of all Palestina in the famous General Council of Ephesus, and that Cyril had writ to Leo to joyn with him in opposing that design; whereas that Council of Ephesus was held nine years before Leo was Pope Ibid. num. 17. Bin. pag. 370. Lab. col. 884.; and therefore Leo could not be applied to, as to any thing agitated in that Council: After this follows a multitude of Epistles, in answer to the complaints of the Aegyptian Bishops, who adhered to this Council of Chalcedon, and the Emperor Leo's Order to all Bishops, to give the Sense of every Provincial Church, concerning this General Council which some heretical Monks had questioned: For this Emperor prudently avoided the charge and trouble of another General Council, appointing the Metropolitans to call their own Bishops together at home, and to send him their Opinion of this Council of Chalcedon; which was universally owned by all in their several Letters, to have been an Orthodox Council, sufficiently approved and confirmed: Now had the Pope then been infallible, or thought to be so, it had been sufficient to write to him alone, and he could have told the Emperor the Sense of the Catholick Church; but he was only writ to as other Bishops were, to declare his own Opinion: So that in this proceeding there are no marks of his Supremacy; for the other Bishops confirm the Faith decreed in this Council as well as the Pope, nor did his ratifying it make it needless for the Emperor to require the sentiments of others.

§. 5. We have no more to add to this, but only to make a few brief Remarks upon such passages in Binius's Notes upon this Council, as have not yet come under our consideration. The Miracle of Euphemia the Martyrs taking the Orthodox Confession of Faith into her [Page] Hand (so long after her Death and Burial) and casting away that which was Heretical, is only hinted at in that suspicious Epistle from the Council Par. 3. num. 2. Bin. pag. 351 Lab. col. 836.: But the Notes and Baronius cite, for the formal story, no Author elder than Metaphrastes, who lived above 450 years after; and if we consider how he and the later Writers, who mention it, vary and contradict one another in the time and manner of this pretended Miracle Vid. Bin. not. P. 410. Lab. col. 983., we shall easily discern the whole Story to be a Fiction. A little after the Notes say, that they highly injure this Holy Council, who say the Epistle of Ibas, which is Heretical, and contains the praises of Hereticks, and the condemnation of the Orthodox, was received and approved by the Fathers at Chalcedon; for those who say so joyn with the Nestorians Bin. not. p. 411. col. 1. Lab. col. 984.. But alass it proves very unluckily, that it was Pope Vigilius who said this, and who was condemned for an Heretick for this and other things of like nature, by the fifth General Council Crakenthrop. Vigil. Dormit. chap. 10. p. 107.; and Binius knew this well enough, but because it was a Friend, he conceals his Name. Again, he tells us of one Julianus, Bishop of Coos, that he was the Popes Legate Not. Bin. p. 411. col. 2. Lab. ut supr., and so he is called indeed in the Subscriptions sometimes; but let it be noted, that the Pope doth not name this Julianus in his Letter to the Council among his Legates Par. 1. num. 40. Bin. p. 31. Lab. col. 70.; but Paschasinus, Lucentius and Boniface with one Basilius are there said to be his Legates: And yet this Basilius never appeared in the Council, which makes a very Learned Man conjecture, that the Fathers at Chalcedon rejected two of those whom the Pope had nominated for Legates, viz. this Basilius and Julianus, the former not being admitted into the Council, and the later having no other place than what his own See gave him; so that Baronius his observation concerning this Julianus his speaking Latin, as the dignity of the Roman See required, will not prove him properly a Legate, or if it do Baron. An. 451. p. 143., then the Council placed the Popes Legates as they pleased. Moreover, the Notes call the excommunicating of the Pope by Dioscorus, scelus inauditum, an unheard-of-wickedness; and [Page] a little after they say, That Dioscorus was the first that ever was known to excommunicate the Pope, or had committed this unheard-of-wickedness Bin. not. p. 412. col. 1. C. & col. 2. D.. But why all this? Doth the Council say such a Fact was never attempted nor heard of before? No, that is their addition, for we have heard of Asian and African Bishops, who took themselves to have as much Power to excommunicate Victor and Stephen, Bishops of Rome, as they had to Excommunicate them. And we have heard of Liberius and Foelix, whose Communion was renounced by the Orthodox; and therefore Dioscorus's fault was his excommunicating an Orthodox Patriarch in a pack'd, private, heretical Synod, not because this Patriarch was Bishop of Rome; for had Leo deserved this Sentence by holding Heresie, no doubt a greater Council would afterward have ratified it, and joyned with Dioscorus. In the account which the Notes give of the third Session, we are told that Dioscorus was accused for wasting the Goods left to the Poor, and Pious Uses, by a Noble Lady deceased, so that no Incense could be offered for her Soul. And Binius and Baronius hence infer that they used then to pray for the Dead Bin. not. p. 412. col. 2. E. Lab. col. 986. Baron. An. 451. p. 144.. But if we look into the Council, this will appear an invention of their own; for there is no mention of praying for that Ladies Soul, or offering in co [...]e for it to God; but only that Dioscorus by spending [...] Gifts riotously, had (as much as in him lay) hindred the offering a sweet Savour to God out of her oblation Act. 3. Bin. p. 183. Lab. col. 401.. Now whether this sweet Savour be meant literally of Incense, then used in Christian Churches, or allegorically of Alms, (so called Philip. iv. 18.) yet still there is not the least intimation that either of these were offered for the Lady or her Soul, or any Prayers made for her after her Decease. Yet this false Inference is nauseously repeated again afterwards Bin. not. p. 417. col. 1. D. Lab. col. 994.: In which last place Binius saith, Dioscorus his with holding the Wheat which the Emperor gave to the Churches of Lybia, so that the terrible and unbloody Sacrifice could not be offered there, is a clear Testimony for the Mass Bin. & Lab. ibid.. Whereas it is only an evidence, that the Eucharist was made of [Page] Wheat, and that they received a large Morsel (as we Protestants do) of the Holy Bread; and when it is called an unbloody Sacrifice, I think that to be a Testimony, they did not believe the natural and true Blood of Christ was there by Transubstantiation. It is also very false to say, That after the Cause of Sabinianus, Act. 14. the Council was ended, the Assembly dissolved, when the Legates and Judges went out, and that the Eastern Bishops staid behind clandestinly Bin. not. p. 415. col. 1. Lab. col. 991.; In which Words there are more falshoods than Lines. For if the Council was ended, how came the whole Council to meet again without a new Summons, the very next day? Again, the Legates went out indeed, but it was after the Judges, not before them, as the Notes insinuate; and the Judges went out because the Causes were all heard, and only the Canons to be treated of; but before they went they ordered the Bishops to make some Canons: So that to say the Council was ended, and the Synod dissolved because none but the Bishops staid, is ridiculous, and contradicts his Note upon the third Session, where he makes it a most clear evidence of a General Council, when the Bishops meet without Lay Judges: If he say the Popes Legates did not stay; I reply, they were desired to stay, and their peevish absence could not hinder the Councils proceedings, no more than Dioscorus his absenting; and the Acts were next day approved as good, though done without them; and there it was also proved, that the Council did not act clandestinly; yea, it is very absurd to say the going out of three Men from 627 who staid behind, could make the Synod which remained, to be a Clandestine Assembly: So that we may wonder at the boldness of these Editors, who in spite to the 28th Canon upon false grounds condemn those Actions which were examined, justified and approved by this whole General Council. We have in the next place an old Inscription, pretended to have been made in a Chappel built by Hilary, the Legate of Pope Leo, after his wondrous escape from the Pseudo-Synod of Ephesus, in these words, To his [Page]Deliverer St. John the Evangelist, Hilary, the Bishop and Servant of Christ Bin. not. p. 415. col. 2. Lab. col. 992. Baron. An. 449. p. 96.: Which Inscription gives Baronius and the Notes occasion to affirm, that he had prayed and 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 Par. 1. num. 24. Bin. p. 23. Lab. col. 52.. 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. 'Tis 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 Act. 11. Bin. p. 304. Lab. col. 697.; 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 Vide ap. D. Crakenth. in Spalat. c. 59. p. 383.: 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 [Page] of the Subject) I observe the Notes say, the Aegyptians gave him (oh horrible) Divine Honours, and Religious Worship after his Death Bin. not. p. 419. col. 1. Lab. col. 998.; 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 Baron. An. 452. p. 168.. 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.

[Page]

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 Baron. An. 403. pag. 179.. 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 [Page] St. Ambrose, records an Old-Wives Tale, not supported by any credible evidence Baron. An. 406. p. 238. I wish he had remembred here his own words, Non enim indigent Sancti nostris illustrari mendaciis, Ibid. p. 262.. 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 Baron. An. 407. p. 256.. 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 Baron. An. 412. p. 345.; 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) Id. ibid. p. 348. 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 Id. ibid. p. 351. 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 Baron. An. 414. p. 365.. 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 [Page] 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 (z) Baron. An. 415. pag. 367. de diversis; but it is supposititious, and therefore can be no evidence for this Fable Serm. 51. vid. Rivet. censur. lib. 4. cap. 16.: 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 Sozom. Hist. lib. 9. cap. 17.; 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 Baron. An. 415. pag. 382.. 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 Vid. Baron. An. 416. pag. 390 & alib. passim.. To proceed, it is no great credit for the Pope, that he and the Western Bishops mistook the time of Easter a whole [Page] Month, and were reproved by a miraculous appearance of Water in the Font on the right day of Easter, if the story be true An. 417. pag. 406.: 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 Baron. An. 417 pag. 407.; 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. Baron. An. 418. pag. 418. vid. Rivet. censur. lib. 4. c. 16.: 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 Baron. An. 418. pag. 419. ad 428. collat. com Baron. An. 416. pag. 390. & Coci censur. pag. 205.: 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 Baron. An. 420. pag. 473.: 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 Baron. An. 424. pag. 487.. And this fabulous Book of the [Page] 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 Baron. An. 453. & An. 460. vid. Ceci censuram. pag. 207.: 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 Baron. An. 428. pag 508.; 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 Vid. Coci censur. pag. 198.. 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 Baron. An. 429. pag. 524.: Whereas both Possevine and Baronius himself confess this Book to be full of Fables, and of no credit Vid Coci censur. pag. 228.; 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 Baron. An. 431. pag. 604.; 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 Baron. ibid. pag. 605.: 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 [Page] was advanced as yet Baron. An. 435. p. 652, 654.. 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 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 Baron. An. 439. p. 667.: 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 Baron. An. 440. Tom. 6. p. 6.; 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 Baron. An. 441. p. 8.. 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 Vid. Coci censur p. 117, 118. Rivet. Crit. Sacr. lib. 4. c. 20., which cannot be justified by known and genuine Authors, are defended by such obscure Tracts as this. [Page] 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 Baron. An. 444. p. 19.: 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 Id. ibid. p. 21.; 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 Aventin. Annal. lib. 3. p. 225.. 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 Baron. An. 446. p. 39., 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 Baron. An. 450. p. 117.. 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 Id. An 451. p. 134.; 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 Id. ibid. p. 137.. Upon which last Miracle, Baronius gathers, that blind [Page]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 Id. ibid. p. 135, 136, 137.: 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 Baron. ibid. p. 160, 161, &c.: 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 Baron. An. 402. p. 163., 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 Baron. An. 408. p. 272.; but that is his own invention; the custom of making a Cross alone being indeed very ancient, [Page] 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 Synes. epist. 105. Baron. An. 410. p. 309, 310, 311.. 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 (in which there were divers Bishops married) by their Modern Corrupt Roman Standard. And this sincere Father must be made to mock God, and deceive Men, and exposed as a Notorious Liar and Dissembler, rather than there should seem to be any difference between the Primitive Church and theirs in the point of the Clergies Marriage. Again, he observes out of St. Augustin Aug. ep. 163. Tom. 2. fol. 153. & Tom. 7. contr. Cresc. l. 3. f. 57., that he accounted the Council of Sardica heretical, because Julius, Bishop of Rome, was condemned there; and he infers, that whatever was said or done against the Pope was of evil Fame among the Antients Baron. An. 412. p. 336.: But if St. Augustin had not been misrepresented, there had been no room for this fallacious Note. St. Augustin blames this Council (in the second place cited) as heretical for condemning Athanasius, and doth not mention Pope Julius there at all; and in the former place he names Athanasius first, and Julius only in the second place; and he blames them not for condemning him as Bishop of Rome, but because he was Orthodox, as Athanasius was. Wherefore Baronius leaves out the main part of St. Augustin's Argument, only to bring in a false and flattering Inference for the Popes Supremacy. And I have observed before, [Page] he falsly gathers, that the Roman Church was the sole Standard of Catholick Communion in Cecilian's time, from a place where St. Augustin saith, Cecilian of Carthage, was a Catholick, because he was in Communion with the Roman Church, and other Lands from whence the Gospel came into Africa Aug. ep. 162. fol. 150. Baron. An. 412. p. 336.; that is, he was in Communion with the Eastern as well as the Western Church. But Baronius is so dazled with Rome, that where that is found in any Sentence, he can see nothing else: And therefore when he cites this very place again a little after, he would prove that Carthage owned a right in the Roman Church to receive Appeals, and this, contrary to the express Protestation of that African Council, wherein St. Augustin was present; and the place it self doth not mention any Appeals, and speaks of Communion with other Churches as well as Rome Baron. An. 419. p. 450.; and so would equally prove a right in other Bishops as well as the Pope, to receive Appeals from Africa, if that had been spoken of there. Further, from Socrates his relation of a Bishop of Gyzicum, named by Sisinnius, Patriarch of Constantinople, but not received, by reason of their mistaking a late Law made to confirm the Priviledges of that See of Constantinople, and this in the time of a mild and quiet Bishop; he infers, that this Patriarch challenged no right, no not in Hollospont, by the Canon of any General Council Baron. An. 426. p. 494.. Now his naming a Bishop for this City, shews he challenged a right, which was well known to be his due, both by the Canon of the second General Council, and by this late Law; but a peaceable Mans receding from his right, after he hath made his claim, rather than provoke a Factious City, is no proof there was no right, as Baronius doth pretend. I observe also, that the Latin Version of an Epistle to the Council of Ephesus, hath these words, cujus Reliquias praesentes veneramini: Which is to abuse the Reader into an apprehension, that the Relicks of St. John were worshipped in that Age Baron. An. 531. p. 560.: But the Greek word is, [...] Bin. Tom. 1. par. 2. p. 234., which imports no more than that they were honoured, which is far less than that which Rome now [Page] gives even to feigned Relicks of uncertain Saints. A like Falshood about the People of Ephesus worshipping the Blessed Virgin, I noted before Vid. supr. p. 37.. Again, he manifestly perverts a Phrase of Theodosius, the Eastern Emperor, in his Epistle to Acacius, where he advises the Nestorians to shew themselves approved-Bishops of the Roman Religion Baron. An. 43 [...]. p. 620.; which Baronius pretends, respects the Western Church of Old Rome in Italy; but the Emperor plainly refers to his own Empire in the East, which was then generally Orthodox, and against Nestorius: Constantinople is often called Rome, without any other addition; and Romania, or the Roman Empire, is in many Authors of these Ages, put only for the Eastern part of it. It is also very odd, that he should cite Basil's Epistles to prove that the Roman Church was wont to send Legates to regulate Affairs in the Eastern Churches Baron. Tom. 6. An. 450. p. 116.: Whereas St. Basil in many Epistles grievously complains of the Pride of the West, and of their despising the Calamities of the East, not so much as giving them that Brotherly Aid, which they might expect, when they were in great distress; but there is not one syllable of any jurisdiction which the Pope then did so much as pretend to over those Eastern Churches. Leo was the first who ventured to make any steps towards this Usurpation, an hundred years after St. Basil's time. To this device we may add his silent passing by all that makes against the Roman Church; but being large in his Notes upon any thing which seems to make for it, How many words doth he every where use when one is described to be Orthodox, for communicating with an Orthodox Pope? but when those are declared to be Orthodox who communicated with the Patriarchs of Constantinople, Alexandria and Antioch (at that time differing from the Pope) Baron. Tom. 5. An. 404. p. p. 202., we have not one observation of the honour of those Sees. Thus though he cite innumerable heretical and illiterate Writings, meerly to confirm some incredible Miracle or superstitious Practice, without any Censure passed on them; yet when he comes to mention the Imperfect work on [Page]St. Mathew, ascribed to St. Chrysostom (which many Roman Writers highly commend, as writ by a Catholick, Antient and Learned Author) Vid. Rivet. Critic. Sacr. l. 4. c. 1. p. 351., he falls into a fit of railing against it, as Heretical, and what not, because in that Book we are told, The Scripture is the only rule by which true Christians may judge of the right Faith Baron. An. 407. p. 255.: Which Sentence, though it condemn the new Romish way, yet it is agreeable to the Primitive and most Orthodox Fathers, who very often say the same thing. An. 401. p. 137. And Baronius relates a little before, that a certain Bishop who wrought Miracles, and converted many Pagans, charged his new Converts to apply themselves diligently to read the Holy Scriptures. Moreover he brings in a Quotation out of St. Augustin, with a long Preface, because he designs to misapply it to justifie the Roman Supremacy: But the place it self plainly supposes the Western to be but one part of the Catholick Church; only he thinks the Authority of Latin Fathers alone, and of Innocent, a Successor of the Apostles, Chief of this Western Church, might suffice his Adversary (who was one of the Latin Church). And as to Innocent's Opinion he might be sure it would agree with what the African Councils had declared, and the Roman Church constantly held with other Churches Baron. An. 419. p. 444. ex Aug. contra Julian. l. 1. c. 4.: Where we see Innocent is only set out as the first in Order of Dignity in the Western Church, and his Opinion supposed to be right, not because of the Infallibility of his See, or any Supream Power in him to judge in matters of Faith, but because he agreed with the African and other Churches; and now de Facto took the Orthodox Side: Wherefore when Zosimus, and other succeeding Popes favoured these Pelagians, the Dignity of his See did not secure them from the Censures of the African Fathers, as we shewed before.

[Page] §. 3. We pass thirdly to his rare faculty of supposing things without any proof, and sometimes making inferences from his own inventions, for the advantage of Rome: So when a few persecuted Eastern Bishops of Chrysostom's party fled to the Roman Church to avoid the Storm, their own Patriarchs being all combined against them, Baronius saith, they fled to it as to their Mother, being admonished by the examples of their Predecessors: And he goes on to insinuate a very false thing, viz. That all the Bishops who were persecuted by the Arrians in Constantin's time, in the East, fled to Rome Baron. An. 404. p. 207.. Whereas only some few came both then and now, and dire necessity had left them no choice, nor other refuge. Thus he resolves Ruffinus shall be a Pelagian Heretick; and out of a Council whose Acts are not extant, and the relation of it only saith, Celestius was condemned there; he will have Ruffinus condemned in that Council upon meer conjecture, and can no other ways prove him a Heretick, but by one Witness, even this Heretick Celestius, who being in a strait, cited Ruffinus's words, but probably very falsly Baron. An. 412. p. 339, 340.; so that one Heretick shall be sufficient evidence against a man that Baronius hates; but many Orthodox Witnesses will not persuade him that Innocent favoured the Pelagians almost to the end of his Life. It is an odd conjecture that St. Hierom would not translate any of Theophilus his Paschal Epistles, after once he differed with Pope Innocent about restoring St. Chrysostom's name into the Dypticks Baron. ibid. p. 346.: For except another guess of his own, without any manner of evidence Idem An. 404. p. 223., there is no appearance that ever St. Hierom was concerned for St. Chrysostom's sufferings; and it is certain he was kind with his Mortal Enemy Theophilus in the year of Christ 404, when he got him to be banished; and it would be very strange that St. Hierom should refuse to translate any more of Theophilus's Epistles, on the account of a quarrel between him and Pope Innocent about restoring Chrysostom's name into the Dypticks, since the last Paschal Epistle translated by [Page] Hierom, was writ Anno 404; and Baronius saith, Theophilus writ every year one till Anno 412, but Chrysostom died not till Anno 407; and Innocent himself did not quarrel with Theophilus till long after the year 404: So that the Cardinal contradicts himself, meerly to support an idle conjecture, viz. That all Eminent Fathers loved and hated only those who were loved and hated by the Pope: And into what Absurdities and Contradictions this Fancy hath led him, may be seen by comparing those two places aforecited together; and we may note, that though it be certain Theophilus died unreconciled to Chrysostom's memory, or to Innocent, yet Baronius shews he was commended as a most approved Bishop Baron. An. 412. p. 346., for so it seems a man might be, though he had a difference with the Bishop of Rome. Again, it is a bare supposition, that the Priviledges of the Patriarch of Constantinople asserted in the Province of Illiricum, by a Law of Theodosius, was founded upon the false suggestions of Atticus Baron. An. 421. p. 475.: For the very Law it self forbids innovations, and requires the ancient Canons and Customs, thus far observed, should be in force, on which Theodosius plainly grounds the Jurisdiction of the Bishop of Constantinople in this Province: So that he refers to the Canon of the Second General Council of Constantinople, and the usage ever since; and how could this proceed from any false suggestions of Atticus?

To proceed, Prosper relating Germanus his going into Britain, as some think, mistakes the time at least seventeen years Vid. Spelm. Concil. Tom. 1. p. 48., and says nothing of St. Lupus his Companion in that Journey; howbeit, because Prosper saith the Pope sent St. Germanus, Baronius will have him to be authentick, contrary to all other Authors Baron. An. 429. p. 520., who affirm St. Germanus and Lupus were sent by a Gallican Council, to whom a Petition from the British Bishops was sent: However he affirms it for a certainty soon after Ibid. p. 523., that St. Germanus was the Popes Legate into Britain, which he had but half proved before. And one Author, who speaks favourably of the Popes Authority, [Page] shall be believed against many of equal Credit who speak otherwise: I grant Prosper is a credible Writer; only he is apt, for the credit of the Cause, always to bring in the Popes as Enemies to the Pelagians, sometimes without reason; and Constantine, Bede with others who write of this journey into Britain, and ascribe this mission to a French Council, deserve more credit in that particular than he. A little after, upon Cyril's mentioning Nestorius's writing to the Roman Bishop, in hopes to draw him to his Opinion: Baronius supposes of his own Head, that it was an ancient use in Controversies of Faith to write to the Bishop of Rome, and that the part he chose was generally favoured; so that if Nestorius could persuade him, the whole Catholick Church would follow his Judgment Baron. An. 430. p. 532.; which is all Chimaera, for Pope Victor, Stephen and Liberius of old, Vigilius and Honorius afterward, found opposition enough (for all the dignity of their place) when they seemed to other Bishops to take the wrong side. From a fabulous Writer called Probus Vid. Ush. Antiq. Brit. c. 17. p. 426. who hath given us a Legend of St. Patrick's Life; he not only confidently affirms that Pope Celestine sent this Patrick to convert the Irish, but infers from thence, That it was clear to all men, the Gospel was to be received from the Apostolical See for the conversion of the Pagans Baron. An. 431. p. 605.. Whereas it is not clear that St. Patrick was sent from Rome; but it is clear, that other Heathen Countries have received the Gospel by the care of other Patriarchs and Eminent Bishops; so that his Ground is but conjecture, and the Superstructure wholly vain. 'Tis true indeed, that Pope Leo, to shew his Authority, desired three Bishops of Sicily to appear in his annual Roman Council once a year, and was the first Pope who put this Yoke upon them; but how this new encroachment shews the ancient observance of holding Councils of Bishops twice a year, is very hard to conjecture Baron. An. Tom. 6. An. 447. p. 49.: only when a Pope alters the Fathers Customs, the Annalist will suppose he observes and confirms them: And he could see no usurpation in this Popes calling the Sicilian Bishops yearly to Rome, against [Page] the ancient Usage. But when Dioscorus of Alexandria would have encroached upon the Bishops of Syria, he blames him severely Baron. An. 448. pag. 54.. We shall not mention the Authority of the Writings of Athanasius, Cyril and other Eminent Bishops of other Sees, in Controversies of Faith: But it is very imposing for Baronius to suppose, The Pope presided as the Master over the whole Christian World, and out of his high Throne taught all men the Catholick Faith Baron. An. 449. pag 86.; and all this only, because Leo had the good Fortune (by his Secretary Prosper's help) to write one Orthodox Epistle against Eutyches in a lucky time, when a Council was to be called to condemn that Heresie: As to the Author of it Eutyches, it was always a Rule in the Church to receive even the Inventors of Heresies, if they would renounce their Errors: So that for Leo to say (in his Letter to the Council of Chalcedon) he thought they might deal so with Eutyches, is no manner of ground for Baronius to suppose, that this was a special Favour indulged to that General Council by the Pope, contrary to Ecclesiastical Laws and Customs Baron. ibid. pag. 88.. For it is well known, that a General Council in that Age gave Laws to the Pope, but did not receive any from him; and whatever Leo's Opinion might be, the Council were sole Judges of the terms on which Eutyches was to be restored; and had he Recanted they would have received him into Communion by their own Authority, since Arius, Nestorius and Pelagius had that Favour offered them by former Councils, and Eutyches would have found the like Kindness here, if the Pope had said nothing at all of the matter: Wherefore the Annalist hath crouded many Falshoods into a few Lines only, to persuade his weak Readers, That the Pope was above a General Council. And to make him seem above all the other Patriarchs, he supposes from a Letter of Theodosius the Emperor, which he never saw, and which is not extant, That the Emperor writ to Rome about the Succession of Anatolius at Constantinople, knowing it to be the Head of all Churches Baron. An. 450. pag. 115.. This is a groundless Conjecture, because he doth not so much as know in what [Page] style Theodosius writ; and it was an Ancient Custom, for to give Notice to all the absent Patriarchs, when any New one was elected, and the Patriarch Elect (even he of Rome) was obliged to satisfie the rest by Letters, that he held the Orthodox Faith. Certain it is that Theodosius valued not Leo much; because he confirmed the Condemnation of Flavionus, though he knew that Pope and his Legates were of his side; and it is plain by the best Historians that he died in this Opinion: Nor can Baronius prove, that Theodosius repented of that mistaken Judgment otherwise, than by Nioephorus (an Author of no credit when single,) or that he Obeyed the Pope before his death Baron. An. 450. pag. 117.; for this last he can cite no Author at all, and it is not only a Conjecture of his own, but a very false one. For the last Letter that ever Theodosius writ to Valentinian, not many Months before his death Baron. An. 449 pag. 111., shews how little he esteemed Leo's Request for a new General Council, and how close he stuck to Dioscorus, Leo's Enemy; and therefore he could not write after this to Leo, as Head of the Church. His Successor indeed, Marcianus, had some reason to Caress the Pope, and therefore he writes more respectfully to him than other Emperors had used to do Richer. hist. Concil. gen. Tom. 1. cap. 8. pag. 363.: Yet even in that first Letter of his he must be very sagacious, who can discorn what Baronius again supposes, That Marcian turned his Eyes to the Chief visible Head of the Church, resolving to do all things by his command, or (as he phrases it) to be at his beck: For even in this highest strain of Complement Marcian saith no more, but that since Leo had a principal Bishoprick among the true Believers, he desires him to pray for him, that he might resolve to call a Council with Leo's consent, to take away all Error and settle a general Peace Baron. An. 450. pag. 118.. Which implies the power of calling Councils was in the Emperor, and the Popes part was only to consent as one of the Chief Bishops, who was there to meet and consult: And if Marcian had known or believed Leo to be the sole Supream Judge of all Controversies, he would not have been at the trouble [Page] of Calling a General Council, but referred all to him.

§. 4. The rest of my Observations on Baronius shall be put in Order of Time for the better assistance of the Reader, and not under those several Heads which doth too much separate and confound things.

When S. Hierom, after three years labouring with Pope Anastasius, had at last got him and the Roman Church to condemn Ruffinus, he then at that time prudently appeals to the Roman Churches Faith for Trial, Whether he or Ruffinus were the better Catholick: But Baronius, when he hath cited some words of S. Hierom against Ruffinus to this purpose, grosly prevaricates when he infers; You see it was an undoubted Maxim, customary in the Mouths of all the Ancients, and a necessary consequence, That if one were said to follow the Roman Faith, he must needs be a Catholick Baron. An. 402. pag. 156.. For if we hear one Father when he had the Pope on his side in a particular Controversie say this, This is not all the Ancients: And many of them describe themselves, as being of the Faith of Athanasius, Cyril, Flavianus, &c. or holding the Faith of the Churches of Alexandria, Antioch, Constantinople, &c. to prove themselves Catholick; and if S. Hierom did instance now in Rome, the consequence depended on the Orthodoxness of the present Pope, not on the Infallibility of his See. And Pope Gelasius afterward confesseth, That the Roman Church in this Point was guided intirely by S. Hierom, She thought as he thought Baron An. 402 pag. 159.. So that to make a General conclusion from such a special Case, is very unreasonable; and S. Hierom himself a little after is cited, declaring the Consent of many Churches is of greater Authority, than that of the Roman alone Id. ibid. pag. 160.. It had been well if their Roman Church had considered the peril of Idolatry, when they went about to establish the use or Images, as Baronius tells us Theodosius did, when he made a Law to prohibit any Adoration to be given to his own Statues, because such worship as exceeds the dignity of Human[Page]Nature, is to be reserved to the Divine Majesty. In the same place he relates how S. Chrysostom reproved the People for their folly at the dedication of the Empresses Statue; because it is easie in those matters to run into the sin of Idolatry Baron. An. 404. pag 187.. Which Observations of his own stand on Record in these Annals, to condemn that Church which orders Veneration, and all other expressions of Reverence to be made to all sorts of Images of the Saints. Again, he exposes his dear Church in observing, That the Ancients preserved both the consecrated Elements of the Sacrament in the Church. But no sooner had he condemned us for not following this ancient Usage, but he mentions as great an Innovation in their own Church, for he owns they have forbid the preserving any thing but the species of Bread Baron. An. 404. pag 194.. Now I would ask, Who differ most from Antiquity, they who totally take away one part of the Sacrament from the People, and keep only the Bread to be worshipped: Or we who give both Bread and Wine to the People as they did, and provide both, newly Consecrated, for the Sick, when there is occasion, but reserve neither for Worship? Which was the usage of the first and purest times. And why may not we forbid the needless reserving of the Sacrament in either kind, as well as they may prohibit it in one kind? But so insatiable is his desire to extol the Roman Church, that though he cite all he can find of this sort good and bad, he wishes (in one place) he could find some things, which are not to be found, that he might let his style run out on so luscious a Subject Id. ibid. pag. 206.. We note also, that how much soever the Romanists here in the Reign of King James the Second were for Toleration, because it was their Interest, Baronius highly commends the severe Penal Laws made by Arcadius and Honorius against such as differed from the established way of Worship and profession of Faith Baron. An. 405. pag. 231. Vid. item An. 423. pag. 480.; for Baronius is always a bitter Enemy to Toleration, and stiffly opposes the taking away any Penal Laws. Moreover it is observable, that though his Office be to write an History and relate [Page] Matter of Fact: When he comes to S. Hierom's Book against Vigilantius, he puts on the Character of a Disputant, and makes large digressions to the Hereticks, (as he calls the Reformed) to justifie such a Veneration of Relicks, and such a kind of worship of Saints, as Rome uses at this day; which kind of Veneration and Worship S. Hierom would have condemned as well as Vigilantius Baron. An. 406. pag. 247, 248, &c. ad pag. 251., had it been practised in that Age. He notes that upon the difference between Theophilus and the Pope about S. Chrysostom, a Council of Carthage writ to Innocent, That the Churches of Rome and Alexandria should keep that Peace mutually which the Lord enjoyned Baron. An. 407. pag. 253.. Which shews, those African Fathers did not think one of these Churches superior in Authority to the other; for if so, they had no need to write to Innocent, but only to Theophilus, to submit to the Supream Bishop: For that was the only way to settle a Peace, if Innocent's Supremacy had been then allowed. And it is a vain and false Conjecture, that if Theophilus had writ any Paschal Epistles after his difference with Innocent, no Catholick would have received them Baron. ibid.. For divers Eminent and Orthodox Bishops writ to Theophilus, and received Letters from him after this; yea, Synesius himself writes to him, to determine a Question by the Authority of his Apostolical Succession Id. pag. 262., and he lived and died with the repute of a Catholick, though (as I have shewed) he never did yield to Pope Innocent in the case of S. Chrysostom. Alike groundless is his Conjecture, That Arcadius laboured to wipe out the stains he had contracted in persecuting S. Chrysostom, by translating the Relicks of the Prophet Samuel, and by going into a Martyrs Temple and there praying (not to the Martyr, observe that, but) to God Baron. ibid. pag. 261.. For if we set aside the two forged Epistles recorded by Baronius, pag. 259. there is no good Evidence that Arcadius, at the time when the aforesaid Acts were done, was convinced he had done any fault in the affair of S. Chrysostom; wherefore he could have no design to purge himself from a Fault he did not own at that time. [Page] In the next year he spoils one Argument to prove theirs the true Church, viz. by Miracles, since he owns Atticus, Bishop of Constantinople, did work a Miracle even before he held Communion with the Roman Church Baron. An. 408. pag. 272.. So that if Miracles prove a true Church, then a Church that separates from the Roman Communion may be a true Church. Of which also we have another Instance soon after, where the Church of Antioch was in a difference with Rome for many years, (Theodoret saith, 85 years,) yet all that while she was owned by the best Catholicks for a true Church Baron ibid. pag. 273.. Nor do I see how that can be true which Baronius affirms, That the cause of restoring the Eastern Bishops to Communion in Chrysostom's case, was only decided by Pope Innocent, since Alexander of Antioch did transact this affair in the East, and 24 Western Bishops subscribed with Innocent in the West, to testifie their consent to this Agreement of Alexanders Baron ibid. pag 274.; yea, Thodoret ascribes this, not to the Pope alone, but to all the Bishops of the West Ibid p. 275.. But the Annalist will have all things done by the Pope alone, right or wrong. Poor Socrates is branded for a Novatian Heretick, because he saith, It was not the usage of the Catholick Church to persecute Baron. An. 410. pag. 307.. Yet the Emperor Marcian Concil Chalced. Bin. Tom 2. par. 1. pag. 361., and Pope Gregory Greg. Mag. cp. ad Epise. Constantinop., who were both I hope very good Catholicks, say the same thing; and therefore we may discern Baronius his Spirit, in being so bitter against all who censure Persecuting. In the same Year we may see, that the Bishops under Theophilus Jurisdiction (for all his quarrel at that time with the Pope) did reserve the greater Cases to his decision Baron. An. 410. pag. 312.; and yet were very good Catholicks all the while. When a Bishop pleads for Mercy to such as have principally offended the Church, those Intercessions with Pious Magistrates ought to have the force of Commands; But to make a general Inference from hence, That Bishops ought to command things agreeable to the Christian Law to Magistrates Baron. An. 412. pag. 334 & 335., is to stretch the Instance too far. But there is another obvious Note from S. Augustine's [Page] petitioning and urging Marcellinus to spare the Hereticks, and not execute the severity of the Temporal Laws upon them, which Baronius would not observe, viz. That the Primitive Bishops used their power and interest to get Hereticks spared by Secular Magistrates, whereas the Inquisitors use their power now to oblige the Lay-Magistrates to kill and destroy them. Further it is observable, that he takes upon him to interpret Gods Judgments in favour of his own Party; and thus he expounds the Goths invading France, to be a punishment for the Heresies there broke out Baron. ibid. pag. 345., which Salvian more piously makes to be a Scourge for their Immoralities. But I note, that it was but two year before that Alaricus wasted Italy, and took Rome it self; yet Baronius could not discern any Heresies there, but his general Maxim is, That God is wont to bring destruction on those Countries where Heresies arise. Now one might observe Leo's attempts to usurp a Supremacy over all other Bishops, and the many pious Frauds used and beginning now to be countenanced at Rome, about false Relicks and feigned Miracles, were as probable occasions of the Divine Judgments in Italy, as those he assigns in France. To proceed, I cannot apprehend how Atticus could have so little Wit in his Anger against Rome, as to call Paulinus and Evagrius (successively Bishops of Antioch) Schismaticks, meerly for Communicating with the Roman Church, and this in a Letter to so great a Patriarch as S. Cyril Baron. ibid. pag. 348., if he had known it to be then generally acknowledged (as Baronius often pretends,) that to be in Communion with Rome was a certain sign of a Catholick; 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 Baron. ibid. pag. 350., 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 [Page] 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 Baron. An. 414. pag. 363.. 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 Baron. ibid. pag. 364., 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 Baron. An. 415. pag. 381., (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 Baron. An. 416 pag 388.: 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 Baron. An. 426. pag. 499., he cites Possidius in the Life of S. Augustine, to prove the Pelagians were first condemned at Rome, and then at Carthage Baron. An. 418. pag. 414, 415.. 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 [Page]to the Catholick Faith Possid. vit. D. Aug. cap. 17.: 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 Vid. Innoc. Epist. 26. Bin. not. pag. 625.; 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 Baron. An. 419. pag. 442.. 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 Aug. Tom. 7. contr. 2 Epist. Pelag. fol. 186.. 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 Aug. ibid. contr. Jul. praef. fol. 202.. 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 [Page] 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 Baron. An. 419. pag. 442. E.. 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 Baron. An. 419. pag. 456.. 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 Baron. An. 420. pag. 465.; 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 Baron. An. 425. pag. 489.; 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 [Page] Bishops by the name of Brothers Baron. An. 426. pag. 498., which looks not favourably on the Pope's Universal Superiority above all Bishops whatsoever. When Pope Gregory grosly mistakes Sozomen's History for Theodoret's, Baronius had better have owned it; for none ever thought Popes infallible in their Quotations; but the Cardinal resolves right or wrong to vindicate Gregory Baron. An. 427. pag. 507., who rejects Sozomen's History for that passage which is in Theodoret, but is not in Sozomen; so rashly do Popes judge sometimes: The Passage is about commending Theodorus of Mopsvestia as an Orthodox Father to the time of his death, which Theodoret doth affirm; but Sozomen only mentions this Theodorus Sozom. hist. lib. 8. cap. 2. his Conversion by S. Chrysostom, but saith no more of him; and Baronius is forced to feign this Passage was in that Part of Sozomen which was long since lost, and which probably S. Gregory himself never saw; however Baronius knows nothing what was there written, and therefore it is very boldly done to suppose a thing for a certain Truth, which he could never know any thing of, only to save the Credit of a Pope who had little or no skill in Greek Authors. Again, 'tis apparently partial in him, where he produces some ancient Testimonies of the French, being wont to break their words, to restrain this in modern Times only to that part of them which is Reformed, while he boasts of his Catholicks as the justest Men in the World Baron. An. 428. pag. 512.. To confute which, the Perjury and Treachery of the Leaguers in our Fathers time, and the many Promises and Engagements broken to the late Hugonots in our days, are abundantly sufficient. He takes it for a proof, that the Eastern Bishops use to refer Causes of the greatest moment to the Pope, because one Daniel a French Bishop fled out of his own Country for his Crimes, (probably into the East) was complained of to the Pope, being Uncanonically Ordained; which Complaint the Pope transmits to the Bishops of the Province of Narbon, as the proper Judges in that matter Id. ibid.; so that this Cause was not referred to him at all, only he was desired to acquaint those [Page] with it who ought to determine that Point. Moreover, he makes it a certain Evidence that Socrates was an Heretick, because he complains of Nestorius, for urging the Emperor to persecute Hereticks (as soon as ever he was Ordained Bishop of Constantinople) Id. An. 428. pag. 513.. But this Kingdom hath found Romanists (when it was their Interest) to censure Men as Hereticks for the contrary, viz. for only insisting upon the execution of some gentle Penal Laws upon such as differed from the established Religion. He commends S. Cyril for his Modesty, in not mentioning the Fault of Theodosius his abetting Nestorius; yet he upon bare Surmizes speaks very opprobriously of Theodosius upon this account, and reflects upon all Kings and Sovereigns as inclined to follow his Example Baron. An. 429 pag. 527. Vide iterum An. 430. pag. 550.. Now if the silence of these things proves Cyril's Modesty, who must needs know whether Theodosius were guilty of this or no; Doth it not prove somebodies Immodesty to rail by meer Conjectures at Theodosius and all Princes? To proceed, It is a very false consequence from Cyril's calling in Celestine to his assistance against Nestorius, and that Popes condemning the Heretick in his private Council at Rome, That it was the Ancient custom from the beginning, for S. Peter's Chair alone to determine controversies of Faith, and condemn Heresies with their Authors as they arise Baron. An. 430. pag. 533.. For Cyril had first condemned this Heretick and his Opinions, and the Pope only came in as his Second; yet after all it was necessary that a General Council should condemn him, which had been needless if the Pope alone, or in conjunction with another Patriarch had been sufficient. Again, he cites two Authors only for Celestine's sending a Pall and a Mitre to S. Cyril, and these Writers lived 8 or 900 year after this time, and he rejects some part of their account as fabulous; yet from this Evidence he would prove, That Cyril was Celestine's Legate in the Council of Ephesus Id. ibid. pag. 538.: But he must have better proof than this to make us believe so incredible a thing. We may further note, that where Possidius is so particular in the circumstances of [Page] S. Augustine's death, he mentions nothing of any Image of the Blessed Virgin or the Saints; no Crucifix placed before him, but only the Penitential Psalms were writ out and fastned on the Wall, which he read over as he lay on his Death-bed. Nor doth he mention any Office said for his Soul after he was dead, but only an Office for commending his Body to the Grave Possid. vit. Aug. vers. fin. & Baron. An. 430. pag. 554., which shews these were devised in later and more Superstitious Times. Baronius indeed supposes the word Sacrificium, to signifie the Mass here; but it seems to signifie no more than the usual Office at putting the Body into the Grave, in hopes of a joyful Resurrection. But though nothing be more evident, even in these Annals, to a Judicious Reader, than the many Innovations in Doctrin and Worship, made by the modern Roman Church, contrary to the Decrees of Councils, the Judgment and Practice of the Ancient Fathers; the Annalist a little after (upon Capreolus Bishop of Carthage his affirming that to be the true Faith which is delivered by the Fathers) flies out into foul Language against the Reformed Churches for Innovations and reviving Heresies condemned by the Fathers Baron. An. 431. pag. 564.. Whereas we freely refer it to those Ancients to judge between us, Whether they or we come nearer to the Doctrin and Usages of pure Antiquity, and can from substantial Evidence prove them to be the Innovators. I will only note, That in this Epistle of Capreolus, this Bishop calls the Emperor, His Lord, and his Son Baron. An. 431. pag. 563.: Upon which Baronius makes no Remark, because he would have it thought that no Bishop, but only the Pope did ever call the Emperor, Son. For he alone is to be the Father of all Princes and all Bishops also. A little after he interprets that woful destruction of the Emperor's Army in Africa, to be a Divine Judgment upon him for countenancing the Heretical party at Ephesus Baron. ibid. pag. 591.. Though not many Pages from hence he lays all the blame of this Connivance upon the Treachery of the Emperor's Domesticks Id. ibid. pag. 597., and he may find as great Defeats hapning [Page] often when the Emperors did take the Catholick part. So true is that of Solomon, No man knoweth either love or hatred by all that is before him. All things come alike to all, &c. Ecclesix. 1, 2. 'Tis remarkable what Baronius saith of a very dubious Rescript of Valentinian, cited for the Authority of the Se [...] of Ravenna by the Friends of that Bishoprick, The love of our Country is an imperious thing; yea, a Tyrant, which compels an Historian to defend those things, which if they were said of another place, he would utterly explode Baron. An. 432. p. 631, &c.; which with the rest there said, is so applicable to the Cardinal (as to Rome), that the only wonder is, he did not see how severe a Censure he (as David once did upon Nathan's Parable) here passeth upon himself. Again, he forgets that the Miracle out of Prosper concerning a Maid, who could not swallow a piece of the Sacramental Bread dipped in Wine (being possessed), but was cured by drinking of the Cup Baron. An. 434. pag. 646, 647., manifestly shews the Innovation of the Roman Church, in that it declares they used then to dip the Bread in Wine, and thought it lawful to give the Cup to the Laity; whereas now they only give the people a dry Wafer. It was certainly a great oversight in the Armenian Bishops (according to him who makes the Pope the sole Judge of Heresie) to send to Proclus of Constantinople, to know whether the Writings of Theodorus of Mopsvestia were Orthodox or no? Yet Liberatus (an ancient Author) affirms they did this secundum morem, according to Custom Baron. An. 435. pag. 649.. So that neither Liberatus nor the Armenians knew of any Custom to go only to Rome, out of the East, to enquire concerning the true Faith; had they known this, no doubt they would have sent a little further. Moreover, he highly extols the Piety of Florentius the Praetorian Praefect, who finding the Tax paid by the Curtezans of Constantinople to the Exchequer, hindred their expulsion from that City, gave Lands of his own to compensate the Publick damage, that he might get those Infamous Women banished Baron. An. 439. pag. 677.; forgetting all the while the Impiety of the Pope and Cardinals, who now tolerate them [Page] for a little scandalous Pension paid to their Treasury at Rome. He also saith, It is a Pelagian Principle and Heresie, to hold, That no Rich man can be saved, unless he give all his Estate to the Poor Id. An. 440. pag. 682.. Yet he knew many hundred Monasteries which have been and are endowed with great Estates, upon a Principle nothing different from this, which is preached frequently to rich Men and Women dying in their Churches Communion, by cunning and covetous Priests and Jesuits. It is manifest partiality also in him, to affirm it was a Judgment of God to deliver Carthage to the Vandals, because there was Pagan Idolatry practised in that City Baron. Tom VI. An. 440. pag. 5.. But the same kind of Idolatry was continued in Rome notwithstanding all endeavours to root it out, till the Goths took it; but the Annalist doth not expound that Calamity after the same manner Vid. Baron. An. 410.. Thus he exclaims against the Cruelty of Gensericus the Vandal for persecuting the Orthodox Bishops upon the bare naming of Pharaoh, Nehuchadnezzar or Holofernes in their Sermons, pretending it was meant of him Baron. An. 442. pag. 12.. Whereas had he lived to this Age, he might have seen a King intituled, The most Christian, instigated by the Jesuits to persecute the Reformed Pastors for the same pretended Fault. It is remarkable that Theodoret, when he writes to a Bishop of Alexandria proves himself Orthodox, because his Faith was the same with the former Bishops of that See, viz. Alexander, Athanasius, Achillas, Theophilus and Cyril; as also with S. Basil and Gregory, the Lights of the World Baron. An. 444. pag. 23.. The Pope is not named, so that doubtless he was not the sole Standard of Catholick Communion then; if he had, the name of one Pope had been more to Theodoret's purpose than all these. Again, That Pope Leo writes as imperiously to Dioscorus of Alexandria, as he use to do to others, is very true, but it no where appears that Dioscorus observed his Orders: Much less will it follow from hence, That Leo was the Master set over all Churches Baron. An. 444. pag. 25.; such assuming of Empire over our Equals, may indeed shew our Ambition, but it will not prove our Right. It is [Page] obvious to all that read Baronius, how he strains all things that are said of S. Peter, to apply them to the Roman Church; but the Reader may note; how silently he passes it by, when our Gildas calls the British Bishops Sees here in this Island, the Seats of Peter Baron. An. 446. pag. 36.. But this may satisfie all impartial Men, that the Ancients accounted other Bishops the Successors of S. Peter, as well as the Pope, though now he alone usurps that and many other Priviledges, of Old enjoyed in common by others, as well as by the Bishop of Rome. Again, he spoils the Old famous Story of the Conversion of Spain by S. James, wherein the Spaniards so much pride themselves, out of a zealous partiality for Rome, which inclines him to affirm, That Spain first received the Gospel from the Roman Church Baron. An. 447. pag. 42.: Which Notion may in time lessen the Pilgrimaes to S. James of Compostella, and calls in question the Devotion of those many Thousands, who have believed his Body to be there, and worship his Relicks in that place with great assurance. Soon after, upon occasion of Turibius, complaining of the Apocryphal Books used by the Priscillian Hereticks in Spain, the Cardinal shews the necessity of suppressing all Books that are against the Catholick Doctrin, and urges the Bishop of Spain to suppress a Book writ by one John de Roa, about the Rights of Princes, containing Doctrins (as he saith) which he could not learn from the Jesuits, Fryers or Clergy of Spain Id. ibid. pag. 44.. Now how many Books (as Apocryphal as those of the old Hereticks, and as extravagant for the Rights of the Pope, as any that ever were writ on any Subject in the World) doth Baronius cite, approve and admire? But one Book that speaks for the Prince, and the Civil Rights of Men, must by no means be endured. 'Tis observable also, That when Theodoret was suspected of Heresie, he appeals to a Council in which the Bishops and Magistrates may meet, and the Judges may determin what is consonant to the Apostolical Doctrin Baron. An. 448. pag. 53.. Now if it had been known and believed then, that the Popes Communion was enough to make a man a [Page] Catholick, and he had been the sole Judge, why did not Theodoret in one word appeal to the Pope, and say he was in Communion with Leo Bishop of Rome? He approves Theodoret's Censure of Dioscorus, for invading the Rights of other Dioceses, contrary to the Canons of Nice and Constantinople, and he blames Dioscorus for his Pride and Ambition; but though the Pope labour to invade all Dioceses, and make all the Bishops in the World his Vassals, contrary to Law, Equity, and Primitive Usage, this is no Crime in a Friend Id. ibid. pag 54.. Baronius is miserably put to it about the Epistle of Ibas, judged (by two Councils) to be Heretical; yet approved by the Infallible Chair. This makes him contradict himself strangly; for here he saith, This was really Ibas his Epistle, as the Tenth Action at Chalcedon teaches, and himself confessed; and the Opinion of the Apostolick Legates of Maximus of Antioch and others confirm it, and Ibas was proved a Catholick by it Baron. An. 448. pag. 67.. But Baronius had before cited the Tenth Action at Chalcedon to prove, That this Epistle in that Council was found not to be Ibas Epistle, and so the Epistle was condemned, and he absolved Id. An. 432. pag. 626.. And in the former place, as well as elsewhere Id. Tom. 7. An. 553. Vid. Crakenthorp. Vigil. dormitans, cap. 10. p. 110., he affirms the Epistle contained Blasphemy and Heresie; yet Pope Vigilius approved it; and the Cardinal saith, Ibas was by this Epistle found to be a Catholick. He that can make these Contradictions friends, or reconcile them to the Infallibility,—erit mihi magnus Apollo. He commends Pope Leo for reproving Theodosius the Emperor gently and mildly, when he was going to establish Heresie by a Pseudo-Synod In cujus manu est ut prohibeat, jubet agi, si non probibet admitti. Salvian.. Whereas Old Eli's Example may shew (if the Emperor was his Inferior in this matter, and the Pope his Ghostly Father) that his Reproof ought to have been sharper; yea, he should have expresly prohibited the convening of this Council (if his Authority was necessary to their Meeting) and have not so meanly truckled as to send his Legates to a Synod, which he judged needless, yea, dangerous Baron. An. 449 pag. 80.. And if we consider Leo's high Spirit, [Page] this Submission shews, he had no right to call a General Council, nor power to hinder the Emperor from appointing one. Again, When the Pope (by Prosper's help) had writ a very seasonable and Orthodox Epistle against Eutyches, the French Bishops were careful to have it exactly Transcribed; but it follows not from hence, That they would not vary one syllable from his Decrees Id. ibid. pag. 82.. For this respect was shewed, not to the Authority of the See, but to the excellency of the Epistle, as appears in that the Gallican Bishops (as hath been shewed) rejected other Decrees both of this Pope and his Predecessors, when they disliked them. And Baronius owns a little after, that these Bishops rejoyced that this Epistle contained their own sense as to the Faith, and were glad that the Pope held the same Opinion, that they had always held from the Tradition of their Ancestors Id. ibid. pag. 86.. So that this is no Proof, as he would have it, That the Pope was a Master presiding over all the Christian World. For they judged of his Teaching, and approved it, because it agreed with their Churches ancient Tradition. On no better grounds he gathers, there was One only lawful Judge, One Governor of Holy things always in the Church, viz. the Pope; From Theodoret's Epistle to Leo Baron. An. 449. pag. 99, 101.: For first, these Epistles are justly suspected, as being not heard of till they came to light first out of the Vatican: And, secondly, they are demonstrated to be spurious by divers Learned Men, and especially this to Leo, is shewed to contain manifest Contradictions Rivet. Crit. saer. lib. 4. c. 21. Vid Crakenth. Vigil. dorm. pag. 444.. Thirdly, If this Epistle were genuine, it must be considered that all the Patriarchs, except the Roman, were at that time either corrupted or oppressed, and in that juncture Theodoret could appeal to none of them but Leo, and so might well give him good words, who alone was likely and able to assist him. As for that Testimony wherein they much glory, That Rome had the Supremacy over all Churches, (as their Translation speaks) because it was always free from Heresie, and no Heretick had sat there Id. Baron. ib. p. 102., it supposes a long experience of the Church of Romes [Page] Integrity before this Priviledge was bestowed; and if the Supremacy was given her for this Reason, she ought to lose it again whenever any Heretical Pope shall get the Chair; nor doth Theodoret at all suppose this impossible for the future. Moreover he brags, that Leo restored Theodoret and others, deposed by this Pseudo-Ephesine-Synod, and infers, That it was the Popes priviledge alone to restore Bishops deposed by a Council Id. ibid. pag. 103.. But the Misfortune is, Theodoret was called an Heretick after the Pope had privately acquitted him, and his Cause was to be tried over again at Chalcedon; and till that Council restored him he remained suspended for all this pretended Priviledge of the Pope. And before we leave him we may note, that he used all his Interest to persuade the Emperor to call a lawful and impartial General Council, as appears by all his Epistles to his several Friends Baron. An. 450. pag. 122, 123, 124.; which shews he knew it was in the Emperor's power alone to call one; not in the Pope's, to whom he would have written, (being in favour with him) if he had had Authority in this Affair. He reckons Attila's leaving to harrass the Eastern Empire, to be a Divine Reward for Marcian's setling the true Religion there; but presently tells us, That this Scourge of God, and other sad Judgments fell upon Italy and the Western Empire; from whence he supposes the Reformation of all Eastern Heresies came, and where he believes no Heresie could ever take place Baron. An. 450. pag. 125.. So miserably do Men expose themselves, when they pretend to give Reasons for all God's Dispensations. In the next year hapned the Famous Council of Chalcedon, wherein divers of Baronius's Frauds have been already detected; so that I am only to add, That Leo was politick in pretending to give Anatolius a power to receive Recanting Bishops, who had fallen into Eutyches Heresie, and cunningly reserves the greater Cases to his own See Baron. An. 451. p. 128, & 130.. But 'tis plain, Anatolius of Constantinople had as much power in the Provinces subject to him, as the Pope had in Italy, and the greater Cases were, according to ancient Usage, [Page] reserved to the next General Council, where both the Bishop of Rome and Constantinoples Acts were to be re-examined, and none of these Erring Bishops were restored but by that Council. And finally, he makes it a great Crime in Dioscorus to pretend to Lord it over Egypt, and to say, He had as much Authority there as the Emperor Id. ibid. pag. 144.. Yet the following Popes did and said as much in relation to Italy; but Baronius cannot see any harm in that, though Socrates did, who saith, That both the Bishops of Rome and Alexandria had exceeded the bounds of Priestly-power, and fallen to a secular way of Ruling Socrat. lib. 7. cap. 11.. And this may suffice for this Part of the Period we have undertaken.

[Page]

CHAP. IV.

Roman Errors and Forgeries in the Councils, from the end of the Fourth Council, till An. Dom. 500.

§. 1. THE Synod of Alexandria is falsly styled in An. Dom. 453. the Title, under Leo: For their own Text confesseth, it was assembled by the Authority of Proterius Bishop of Alexandria Bin. Tom. 2. part. 1. p. 419. Lab. Tom. 4. Col. 1007..

The Second Council of Arles, which Binius had antedated 70 year, and put out with this false Title, under Siricius, is by Labbè Lab. col. 1010. placed here according to Sirmondus his direction.

The Council of Anjou, in Binius, is said to be held under Leo; who is not once named in it: Wherefore Labbè leaves out that false Inscription, and only saith, it was held in the 13th year of Pope Leo Bin. p. 420. Lab. col. 1020..

The 4th Canon of this Council is corrupted by Binius and Baronius. For where the Text reads, If any be [coelibes] unmarried, they put into the Margen as a better reading, if any be [debiles] weak: Which is to make the Reader believe, that all the Clergy then were unmarried; whereas this Canon supposes many of them had Wives. And the 11th Canon allows a married Man to be chosen Priest or Deacon, (the Popes Decrees not yet prevailing in France:) So that Labbè honestly strikes out [debiles] and keeps only the true reading (d). We (u) Bin. ut supr. Lab. col. 1021, &c. note also, that in the end of this 4th Canon, such Clerks as meddle in surrendring Cities are excommunicated. A Sentence which if it were now executed, would put many Priests and Jesuits out of the Communion of the Church, for their treachery to the Emperor and the King of Spain, many of whose Cities they have betrayed to the French.

[Page] The Notes falsly cite the first Canon, and so doth Baronius Bin. pag. 420. Lab. Col. 1022. Bar. An. 453. n. saying, it orders, That the Clergy shall not against their Bishops Sentence seek to secular Tribunals; and pretending this was in opposition to an Edict of Valentinian, published the year before, which restrained the Bishops Jurisdiction to matters of Religion, unless the parties chose them. Now the true words of the Canon are, The Clergy shall not appeal from the Bishops Sentence, nor seek to Secular Tribunals, without consulting the Bishop. And Valentinian's Law was of no force in France, nor probably had these Bishops ever heard there was such a Law; so that it is not likely they ever thought of opposing it. Finally, We observe that Baronius without any Authority falsly affirms, that this Council was sent to Rome Baron. An. 453. n. only to insinuate, that it was to be confirmed there. Whereas till Fronto-Ducaeus found the Manuscript in France, they at Rome seem to have known nothing of it.

The Council of Vannes placed by Binius here, by Sirmondus Authority is removed to An. 465. in Labbè Bin. pag. 421. Lab. Col. 1054.. Nothing in it is remarkable, but that the Assembly desires (not the Pope, but) the absent Bishops of their own Province to confirm the Canons thereof.

The Council of 73 Bishops at Constantinople, was An. Dom. 459. called by, and held under Gennadius Patriarch of that City, and so is falsly titled under Leo; whose Legates do not subscribe it, and so probably were not present at it Bin. pag. 425. Lab. Col. 1025.. Baronius indeed saith they were, but proves it only by conjecture, because Leo in an Epistle speaks of his Legates, being come back to Rome the year after Baron. An. 459. n.. But the wonder is, how Baronius and Binius (who confess all the Acts are lost, except one Canon about Simony) came to know, that Eutyches was condemned, and the Council of Chalcedon confirmed in this Council. However, if it was confirmed, no doubt the Greek Bishops would confirm the Canons of it, with the rest, to which the Popes Legates could not consent: But since we hear of no difference, it is like these Legates were not present.

[Page] §. 2. Pope Hilary (who succeeded Leo) might justly An. Dom. 461. be suspected of Heresie, because he confirms no more than three General Councils, omitting that of Constantinople which condemned Macedonius. But since there is no evidence of this Universal Epistle confirming the other three Councils, but only the fabulous Pontifical, we may acquit him, and perhaps even in the very Pontifical, this Council may have been erased after the controversie of the Primacy was started Vita Hilar. Bin. pag. 424. Lab. Col. 1029.. However, this being owned all along by the Catholick Church for a General Council, it can suffer nothing by the Popes not confirming it; he alone would deserve censure for not subscribing to it.

The Spanish Bishops who write to this Pope, by their Countries being wasted by Euaricus the Goth Baron. An. 464. n. were destitute of Power, and desire Hilary to declare the Canons in some particular Cases, hoping the persons concerned (who despised them in their low estate,) might have more respect for a great Patriarch Bin. pag. 425, & 426. Lab. Col. 1034, & 1035.. So that it is very Sophistical in the Annalist and Binius, to draw consequences from hence, for the Popes being the Supream Judge, and having power to dispense with all Canons. The Pope himself in his Answer pretends no such thing Hilar. ep 2. Bin. pag. 426. Lab. Col. 1035.. He only declares the Canons, but dispenses with none: Yet if he had such a power, doubtless he ought to have used it in Irenaeus his Case.

But the third Epistle of Hilary, writ about the same affair, seems to discover, that all these Epistles (which talk so big of the Popes Supremacy) are counterfeit: For the Forger, weary of inventing new Phrases, steals the beginning verbatim out of those Epistles, that are falsly ascribed to Zepherine and Fabian, and were not extant until long after Pope Hilary's death Hilar ep. 3. Bin. pag. 427. Lab. Col. 1038.. And Labbè's Marginal Note on Binius Annotations shews, he smelt out the Cheat, if he durst have spoken freely.

[Page] The Notes on the 4th Epistle own, that the Popes may be cajoled by false Stories, and deceived in Matter of Fact; and this so far as to condemn holier Bishops than themselves, as Leo and this Hilary did, in the cases of Hilary of Arles, and Mammertus of Vienne Hilar. Ep. 4. Bin. pag. 427. Lab. col. 1039.. And it is not easie to understand, how he who mistakes Matter of Fact, can infallibly apply the Law to a Fact wherein he is mistaken.

The 5th Epistle was writ three year before those that precede it, and the Humility of the Style makes me think it the only genuine Letter (as yet set down) of this Pope; for he writes to the Bishop of Arles (not as a Son, but) as a Brother, and takes it well that he advised him to keep close to the Ancient Canons.

The 9th Epistle shews, that Mammertus his Piety was no protection to him, against the injuries of the Roman Court Hilar. Ep. 9. Bin. pag. 429. Lab. col. 1043.. But Binius doth penance for this in his Notes on the 11th Epistle Not. in Ep. 11. Bin. p. 431. Lab. col. 1047.; though all his devices will neither excuse his Popes Morals in persecuting so great a Saint, nor vindicate his Judgment who was so grosly mistaken.

There is but one Roman Council under this Pope, called (as is pretended) to confirm his false Judgment about the Spanish Bishops; for they absolve the guilty Sylvanus, and condemn Irenaeus who was innocent: And though this Popes being commonly in the wrong makes it probable, he might get such a Council together, yet the very Acts smell strong of Forgery, as well as the former Epistles in these cases Concil. Rom. Bin. pag. 431. Lab. col. 1061.: For besides their Stile, Maximus Bishop of Turin is mentioned not only as present at it, but speaking in it, who died (as Gennadius Gennad. Catal. ap. Hieron. Tom. 1. pag. 466. & opera Maxim. Turin. pag. 1. a Writer of that Age and Country affirms,) in the Reign of Honorius and the younger Theodosius, that is, above 40 year before this Council: So that Baronius is very bold out of a suspected Council, to correct a Writer who lived so near this time, against the Authority of divers printed Copies Baron. An. 465. n.. And Binius is more audacious to cover this with an evident falsification of Gennadius, as if he said, Maximus [Page] lived under those Emperors, but continued Bishop till this time Not. Bin. ut supra.. And now let Baronius boast of the Acclamations of this Synod, (common in other Councils) as a singular honour done to Hilary; for after all it is plain, he liked not the Canons of it so well as to give them a place in his Annals Baron. An. 465. n., which here he fills up with other manifest impertinencies.

§. 3. The next Pope was Simplicius, whose appointing An. Dom. 467. Weekly Confessors at Rome, is far from proving (what the Notes infer) that their Sacramental Confession was instituted by Christ Not. in vit. Simp. Bin. pag. 434. Lab. col. 1067.. Nor is it for the credit of this Pope that three parts of seven in Rome it self were Arrians in his time Ibid. Bin. pag. 435. Lab. col. 1068.. But the Pontifical gives the reason of it, and expresly charges him with dissimulation Vit. Simplic. Bin. pag. 434. Lab. col. 1066., Which seems a just censure; for though the Arrians and Photinians sadly infested the Western Church Baron. An. 475. n.: And though the Princes of that time were generally heretical Id. An. 476. n. 6. p. 318.; yet poor Simplicius did nothing, and till he had been eight years Pope, Baronius cannot pick up one Memoir concerning him, except a few Brags of an interested Successor of his, concerning his resisting the Eastern Emperors, which are both false and incredible: Yea, the Annals shew that all the great Affairs of this time were managed by S. Epiphanius Bishop of Pavy, who far outshined Simplicius Baron. An. 471. n. &c,. Wherefore I wonder that Du Pin should say, He was very full of business all the time of his Popedom Du Pin. Eccles. Hist. Vol. 4. p. 159.; since for more than half that time there is no true account of his doing any thing: And when he did begin to write, Baronius owns, He did no good by any of his Letters Baron. An. 483. n. 19. pag. 374.; yet a little before, having a bad Memory, he had ridiculously boasted, That Simplicius in the midst of the Arrian fury governed the See, with the same Authority and freedom that his Predecessors had done, bearing the Causes of all the World, depriving and restoring Bishops, correcting Emperors, opposing barbarous Kings, and sitting as Arbiter and Judge in all things over the East and West, as (he saith) he hath proved in the several years of his Pontifical [Page] Idem An. 483. n. 8. p. 371.. Let the Reader search, and try if he can find this proved. On the contrary this Pope flattered all Parties, and truckled to the Heretical Usurper Basilius (as I shall shew presently) nor durst he attempt to do Justice to a persecuted Orthodox Bishop of Alexandria, because (as an old faithful Historian tells us Brev. Histor. Eutych. Lab. col. 1081.,) Zeno the Emperor had forbidden him.

It is so common for the Roman Forgers to invent sham Epistles, in which the Pope is feigned to make Eminent Bishops his Legates in all parts of the World, that, no doubt, this Popes first Epistle to Zeno Bishop of Sevil (which hath no date) is spurious Simplie. Ep. 1. Bin. pag 435. Lab. Col. 1068.. And therefore it is of no force, that the Notes infer from such a Forgery, That the care of the whole Church was committed to the Pope by God.

The 4th Epistle tells the Emperor, to whom it was writ, That none doubted of his Orthodox mind, and that be did as certainly imitate Marcian and Leo in their Faith, as he did succeed them in their Empire. Now this Letter (as Baronius and the Editors say) was writ to Zeno Idem Ep. 4. Bin. pag. 436. Lab. Col. 1071.; and they own it to be at least prudent dissimulation, for the Notes on the Life of Simplicius affirm, Zeno was an Eutychian Heretick. But indeed it was inexcusable Flattery, or as the Pontifical calls it, downright Dissembling: And the Crime is worse, because upon a strict enquiry this Epistle appears to be writ to that Heretical Usurper Basiliscus. Labbè's Margen from an old Manuscript reads it to Basiliscus; and Zeno really was deposed a whole year before this Epistle was writ; for Timotheus Aelurus his coming to Constantinople (mentioned here by Simplicius) was in the time of Basiliscus after Zeno's deposition, as an Authentick Author relates Theodor. Lect. collect. l 1. pag. 183.; and the true date of Simplicius his Epistle shews it was writ in Basiliscus his time, and so doth also the Chronicle of Marcellinus, a Book writ near that time: But for all this, Baronius quarrels with Marcellinus, contradicts Theodorus Lector, alters the date of the Epistle, and keeps Zeno on the Throne a year longer before his deposing, than ancient Writers do allow; and all this to conceal his holy Fathers [Page] wicked flattering of an Heretick, and Usurper Baron. An. 476. n. 16. & n. 23. pag. 320, 321.. But I hope the Reader will believe old and disinteressed Historians, before the partial Annalist.

The 5th Epistle writ at the same time to Acacius Patriarch of Constantinople, shews that it was solely in the Emperors power to call a General Council Simplic. Ep. 5. Bin. pag. 437. Lab. col. 1073.. Since Timothy of Alexandria applied to the Emperor for such a Council, and Simplicius with Acacius joyned in addresses to the Emperor against it.

In the Notes on the 8th Epistle, where Euagrius only mentioned a bare report of the Martyr Theclas appearing to Zeno; They out of Baronius add, that she prayed and interceded for Zeno Not. in 8 Epist. Simplic. Bin. pag. 439. Lab. Col. 1079.: Which invention is to countenance the Martyrs praying for us; The date of this Epistle being in October 477, and (as the Notes say) writ to Zeno after he was restored, and had sent to Simplicius an Orthodox confession of Faith; This date I say shews that the 4th Epistle (before spoken of) must have been written to Basiliscus; for that is dated in January 476, at which time Zeno was deposed, and Basiliscus after he had reigned two years, as Euagrius writes Cum jam biennio regnaverat. Euag. ap. Baron. An. 477. N. Not Ten Months, as du Pin mistakes. pag. 160., was ejected by Zeno about July 477, long before which time, Simplicius had writ that flattering Letter to the Usurper.

The Forgers have corrupted the Title and Conclusion of Acacius his Epistle to Simplicius Bin. p. 439. Lab. col. 1080.. For Simplicius in a genuine Epistle calls Acacius, his beloved Brother, Epistle 18: But here by turning Patriarchae into Patri, they make Acacius style Simplicius, Most blessed Lord and Holy Father, Archbishop, &c. Which corruption (owned by Labbè) shews how little credit is to be given to the Pompous Titles of these Epistles which are frequently feigned by the modern Roman Parasites.

Upon the 14th Epistle they note in the Margen, The Pope dispenses with the Nicene Canon for peace sake, and in favour of the Emperor Simpl. Ep. 14. Bin. pag 441. Lab col. 1086. (malè 1034.). This relates to the hasty election and ordination of Stephen Patriarch of Antioch, which the Emperor and Acacius were forced to dispatch somewhat uncanonically for fear of a Sedition in that [Page] City, and on that account they desired the Pope however to own him as an Orthodox Patriarch, since they had resolved this single Example should be no precedent for the future. The Pope like a true Signior Placebo, assents to all tamely, and allows of their resolution, which was not (as the Notes on the 15th Epistle falsly say,) any Condition that Simplicius prescribed to the Emperor, but a Rule that Zeno had made for himself, before the Pope knew of the Ordination of Stephen.

The 16th Epistle declares, that Simplicius had taken Calendion the new Bishop of Antioch into his Communion, and call him his Brother and Fellow-Bishop Simplic. Ep. 16. Bin. p 442. Lab. col. 1036.. The Notes calls this, the Popes confirming Calendion in the See of Antioch: Whereas it was no more than his owning him for an Orthodox Brother; yea, Calendion was thus far confirmed by Acacius, for (at his request) Acacius had declared himself of his Communion, before he writ to the Pope. These Notes also falsly say, Acacius was made the Popes Legate, which is a groundless Fiction of Baronius Baron. An. 482. n. 13. p. 357.. For if Acacius had acted in ordaining and deposing the Eastern Patriarchs, only as the Popes Legate, there had been no Quarrel between him and Rome. And how improbable is it, that he who contended for the Supremacy of the whole Eastern Church with the Pope, and who is taxed by Baronius, to be one that thirsted after nothing so much as the Primacy Baron. cod. An. n. 3. p. 355., that he, (I say) should accept of a Legantine power from Rome? Yea, Simplicius his 17th Epistle doth not say any such thing, but speaks of their Obligation to mutual Love, and of the Patriarchal Office committed to him, as a Talent God had entrusted him with: But not a syllable of his Subjection to the Pope, or of any Office derived from him.

[Page] §. 4. The Council of Tours, Binius places here under An. Dom. 482. Simplicius, Labbè 21 years sooner under Pope Hilary; but the truth is, that it was held An. 461. but under no Pope at all: For they desire no other but their absent Brethren, (Bishops of that Province) to confirm their Canons Concil. Turon. Bin. pag. 443. Lab. col. 1049. by their consent. The Notes on this Council mention the Fasts and Vigils, which Perpetuus the 6th Bishop of Tours instituted for his Church, Recorded by an old Historian of that place Gregor. Turon. lib. 10. cap. 31. p. 513.. And 'tis very plain they differ extreamly from those used at Rome; which shews how unreasonable it is in the Modern Roman Church, to impose their Fasts, Feasts and other Rites upon all Churches in the World.

The Council of Arles, in the cause of Faustus assembled to examin Points of Faith, doth not so much as mention the Pope, so that surely they did not take him for an infallible Judge Ap. Bin. habetur Anno 524. Lab. col. 1041.. Labbè's Notes boast, that one De Champs hath confuted Bishop Usher's censure of the Epistles of Faustus and Lucidus, and of this Council which approved them: But before the Reader credit this, let him hear that most learned Primate, who modestly excuses the Council, but strongly proves, that Faustus was a Semi-pelagian Heretick Usher. Antiq. Britan. c. 13. pag. 229.: And if he did not feign the consent of this and another Council to his Doctrins, this will be one instance, that Councils may Err in matters of Faith.

§. 5. Foelix the Third, who followed Simplicius, was An. Dom. 483. much bolder, and openly reproved the Emperor and Acacius, for that which he called a Fault: But the Notes falsifie when they say, That in the beginning of his Pontificat, he rejected, proscribed and cursed the most wicked Zeno's (Henoticon) Edict for Union, anathematizing all that subscribed it Not. in vit. Fal. Bin. p. 445. Lab. col. 1047.. For Euagrius recites this Edict, and neither saith Foelix condemned it, nor condemns it himself; and Foelix former Letters treat both Zeno and Acacius with all respect, nor do they curse either of them on the account of this Edict: Theodorus [Page] Lector indeed saith, That when all the Patriarchs besides agreed to Zeno's Edict for Union, Foelix of Rome [ [...]] joyned not with him Theodor. Lect. collect. l. 2 pag 190.. Which only implies, his not communicating with the Emperor in that point: But Binius hath improved this into proscribing, cursing and anathematizing the Edict.

The First Epistle of Foelix to Acacius often calls him Brother, which shews as if then he did not reject his Communion Foelix Ep. 1. Bin. pag 446. Lab. col 1049.; and neither this nor the second to Zeno, do at all mention the Emperors Edict for Union, but quarrels only about matters of Jurisdiction, being not so much concerned for any Heretical Opinions, as for keeping up his claim to a pretended Supremacy: However some suspect both these Epistles as being without date, and because that to Acacius seems to contradict Liberatus Liberat. Brev. cap. 15. ap. Baron. An. 483. n. 1. p. 370.: But I think they may be allowed for genuine.

The Second Epistle to Zeno is writ with modesty, yet wants not good advice. The Pope owning it his Duty to write to the Emperor, upon his coming into the See of Rome; and he rather intreats, than either commands or threatens Foelic. Ep. 2. Bin. pag. 448. Lab. col. 1053.: But it is certain, if this Epistle be genuine, it is not perfect, wanting that account of the African Persecution, which Euagrius saith was mentioned in this Epistle.

It is said, Foelix writ three Letters to Petrus Cnapheus the Heretical Bishop of Antioch, of which only two are extant, and it is well if both be not Forgeries [incepi sententiare contrate,] is a Phrase that smells of the later Ages, when the Flatterers of Rome coyned great variety of this kind of Epistles to make the World think, that an Heretical Patriarch could be deposed by none but the Pope Ep. 4. Foelix, Bin. pag. 452. Lab. col. 1067.. But this very Letter owns, that Acacius and his Council had also deposed this Peter of Antioch, as well as the Pope and his: And Baronius saith, Acacius did it first Baron. An. 483. n. 54. p. 382.: But the Cardinal thought it worth his while to corrupt this suspicious Epistle, wherein Foelix saith, He was condemned by me, and those who together with me do govern the Apostolical Throne: [Page] Which Phrase plainly shews, that the Pope did not Rule alone as a Monarch at Rome, but the Italian Bishops had a share in that Power: To avoid which Truth Baronius and they that follow him falsifie it, and read—condemned by me, and by them, who being constituted under me, govern Episcopal Seats Baron. An. 483. n. 68. pag. 385.. The true reading implies the Bishops are co-ordinate with the Pope, but the Corruption is to make us believe, they are only his creatures, substitutes and delegates.

The Fifth Epistle to Zeno speaks honourably of Acacius, as an Orthodox Archbishop, commending him for opposing Petrus Cnapheus Foelic. Ep. 5. Bin. pag. 452. Lab. col. 1070.: It is noted by a learned Man, that (excepting fabulous Inscriptions,) the name [Archbishop] is here first found among the Latins: But I rather observe, that Foelix here reads that famous Text for the Supremacy, Math. xvi. in this manner—and upon this Confession will I build my Church: So it is read often in Gelasiui Epistles Gelas. Ep. 1. Bin. 466. Lab. 1158. & Ep. 4. Bin. 471. Lab. 1171.,—on the Confession of Peter will I build my Church: Which shews it is not a casual expression, but a Testimony that at Rome it self, in that Age, it was not believed this Promise belonged so much to St. Peter's Person as to his Faith, nor to his Successors any longer than they held that Confession. Of the 6th Epistle we shall speak when we come to Foelix his second Roman Council.

The Corrupters Fingers have been busie with the Title of the 7th Epistle, which (as Labbè notes out of Justellus) was writ only to the Bishops of Sicily; but they who are to support an Universal Supremacy have changed it thus, To all Bishops Foelic. Ep. 7. Bin. pag. 454. Lab. col. 1075.: And the date is falsified also, being pretended to be writ by a Roman Council held in March, An. Dom. 487. yet it is dated in the year after, March 488. But if they will have it genuine, let them observe, that the Pope here saith, (speaking of a Point of Faith,) He knows not but in this case, the Spirit of God may have informed them of something that had escaped his Knowledge, promising to hear them, if they can find anything omitted by him Ibid. Ep. 7. Bin. pag. 455. Lab. col. 1077.. Let them read this, and reconcile it with Infallibility if they can.

[Page] The Decree of Foelix about the subjection of Kings to Bishops, is neither agreeable to the Age, nor to the Style of this Popes other Writings to the Emperor Bin. pag. 455. Lab. Ep. 9. col. 1083.; so that we cannot credit it, though Labbè hath put it into an Epistle to Zeno, because this Epistle speaks of the deposition of Acacius as a thing past, August 1st 484: But the Margen of the next Epistle saith, Acacius was deposed July 28, 488 Foelic. Ep. 10. ap. Lab. col. 1085.. And it is probable, that both the Sentence and the Synod are spurious, coyned out of a hint in the Pontifical, viz. That Foelix did condemn Acacius in a Synod: Which was ground enough for the Parasites to frame a Council. But how little credit is to be given to the Pontifical in this Popes History, Baronius declares, when he notes that Author is not to be trusted in his Report, That Misenus and Vitalis were sent to Constantinople, three years after this Synod at Rome Vit. Foelic. 3. Bin. pag. 445. Lab. col. 1046.. And it seems neither Euphemius Bishop of Constantinople, nor Pope Gelasius knew of this Roman Synod: For when Euphemius asked, In what Synod his Predecessor Acacius was condemned? Gelasius mentions no Roman Synod Gelas. ep. 10. & Baron. An. 484. n. 21. pag. 395.; but saith, there was no need of any particular Council, since he was condemned by the general Sentence of the Council of Chalcedon, and upon that ground the Roman Church rejected Acacius his Communion.

There are (in Labbè) divers other Epistles ascribed to Foelix; one to Zeno Foelic. ep. 12. Lab. col. 1086., said to be writ some time after the death of Acacius, wherein the Pope extols that Emperour for his care of Religion, and the reverence of Divine Worship; which shews that Foelix did not so stifly renounce Zeno's Communion, nor damn his Edict for Union so severely as Binius pretends. The rest of these Epistles I pass, though most of them be suspicious.

[Page] §. 6. The first Roman Council under Foelix, may An. Dom. 483. be true as far as concerns the Condemnation of Peter Mongus, the Heretical Bishop of Alexandria Concil. Rom. 1. Bin. pag 455. Lab. col. 1095., though there is nothing to prove it, but the two first suspected Epistles of Foelix. However, if there were such a Synod, it shews how little regard was had to the Pope and his Council in those days, since John, whose side Rome took, did never get admittance to the See of Alexandria; and Peter Mongus kept that Chair for all the Popes Sentence: And if the other, Peter Cnapheus, the Heretical Bishop of Antioch was condemned here, it is certain, he was condemned before by Acacius at Constantinople: But that Evidence of Acacius his being Orthodox, hath not discouraged the Parasites from forging a pretended Citation, in the name of this Roman Synod, to call Acacius to Rome, there to answer the Matters charged against him: But 'tis so improbable, Foelix should attempt this against one, who thought himself his equal, if not superior, that now-a-days the Romanists allow not these Processes, but count them spurious.

There is a second Roman Council placed in this At. Dom. 484. year, wherein Acacius and the two Peters of Alexandria and Antioch are all said to be condemned Concil. 2. Rom. Bin. pag. 462. Lab. col. 1123.. But let it be noted, that whereas the 6th Epistle of Foelix saith, he had deposed Acacius in a Synod in August, 484 Foelic. Ep. 6. Bin. pag 454. Lab. col. 1075., and at that time Baronius places his deposition Baron. An. 484 n. 30. pag. 397.; Yet here we have a Synodical Letter, condemning him over again, dated above a year after, viz. Octob. 485, which Date Baronius and Binius fraudulently leave out Bin. pag. 463.: But Labbè sets it down in the Margen, and so discovers the cheat Lab. col. 1127.. Upon the whole matter, this Condemnation of Acacius was done they know not when; and 'tis probable all these Letters and Synods were invented after the Controversie for precedence between Rome and Constantinople grew high, meerly to put weight into the Roman Scale. But one corruption of this suspicious Synodical Epistle [Page] I cannot pass, being a passage evidently put in by a later Forger: For whereas this Letter makes the Italian Bishops call the Pope their Prince and Head (by way of limitation,) who ought to preside in the Synods of Italy:—And tell those to whom they writ—that therefore they had by Tutus sent the Sentence underneath, which pleased the Synod at St. Peters, and which holy Foelix their Head, Pope and Archbishop had decreed: Some later Hand hath broken the Sense, and absurdly thrust into the midst of this Sentence these incoherent words—Who is the Head of all; the Lord saying to St. Peter the Apostle, Thou art Peter, &c. Math. xvi. Which words the 318 Fathers at Nice following, gave the Authority and Confirmation of matters to the holy Church of Rome, both which, even to our Age, all Successions by the grace of Christ have kept,—and then comes in—Therefore (as we have said,) we have by Tutus sent, &c. Ep. Synod. Bin. pag. 463. Lab. col. 1126.. 'Tis plain they are forced to put in these words (as we have said) to tye these latter words to the former: And whoever considers the incoherence, the impertinence, the sham story of the Fathers at Nice, and the many Ages supposed, from that Council of Nice to this time, (which was but barely 160 years) will conclude this Passage is a Corruption upon a Corruption, to support the Supremacy, while such stuff passed for Authentick proof to an ignorant Age.

The Third Roman Council under Foelix, (as we noted An Dom. 488. on his 7th Epistle) lies under the same suspicion, being dated with the Consuls of the year 488, yet is said to be read in Council the year before, An. 487; and from an Epistle to one Neighbouring Country, is now made a Letter to all Bishops.

§. 7. Gelasius succeeded Foelix in the Roman See, a An. Dom. 492. man of more wit and learning than most of his Predecessors, for which cause it is thought he was called Scholasticus before St. Gregory's time, and that it was he that corrected and set out the Roman Offices. The Pontifical relates, that the Manichees being discovered at [Page] Rome in his time, he made a Decree, That those who would not receive the Sacrament in both kinds, should receive it in neither, and declares it to be a grand Sacriledge for any to divide the holy Mysteries Vit. Gelas. Bin. pag. 464. Lab. col. 1154.. Now these Hereticks refusing the Cup, were to be discovered by the Priests taking care that all the People received the Cup as well as the Bread: But this happens to condemn the modern use at Rome, (of denying the Cup to the People) as a grand Sacriledge; wherefore all Hands and Wits are at work to ward off this fatal Blow. Binius in his Margen feigns, That Gelasius ordered the Sacrament to be received in both kinds for a time: But if it had not been the Custom at Rome to receive in both kinds before, the Manichees had never been discovered: It is very plain Gelasius confirms the old Custom, and thinks it in all times a Sacriledge to receive but one half: Wherefore Labbè hath left out this pitiful Note. The Editors of Gratian cover this blot, by Forging this false Title to the Decree, The Priest ought not to receive the Body of Christ without the Blood Gratian. decr. 3 par. de consec. dist. 2. cap. 12. p. 710.. But Gelasius speaks principally, if not only of the People, and this Sense supposes most of the Roman Clergy to be Manichean Hereticks. Therefore Baronius rejects this Excuse as frivolous Baron. An. 496 n. 21. pag. 510., but takes as bad a method to salve up this business; for he manifestly perverts the sense of the Decree,—pretending the Manichees superstition made it Sacriledge only in them to reject the Cup; but it is none in the Catholick People not to receive it, nor in the Church to forbid it: But this is meer Shophistry, for it was certainly the Custom even at Rome in Gelasius his time, and many Ages after, for all the Orthodox People to receive in both kinds; and he calls it Sacriledge in any of the People, who did not receive the Cup as well as the Bread: For he saith in general, This dividing the Mystery, can never happen without a grand Sacriledge. Now it is certain, that when either an Heretical or Catholick Man or Woman receives but in one kind, it doth happen that the Mystery is divided; and therefore [Page] in Pope Gelasius Opinion, the present Church of Rome is guilty of a grand Sacriledge, in taking the Cup from the People: And it seems, the Editors thought Baronius had not sufficiently satisfied this Objection, and therefore they cunningly leave it out of this Popes Decrees Bin. pag. 493 Lab. col. 1258., in both Editions.

With like craft, they omit the Tract of Gelasius against Eutyches, and only give a touch at it in the Notes Not. in vit. Gelas. Bin. pag. 465. Lab. col. 1156.; and there also care is taken (out of Baronius,) if any shall elsewhere meet with this piece, to keep them from discerning, that Pope Gelasius condemns Transubstantiation; and expresly saith, That the substance of Bread and Wine remains, after the Consecration: The words they cannot deny; but first, Baronius and Binius argue it was not writ by this Pope, but by Gelasius Cyzicenus, (an Author as Orthodox and more ancient than Pope Gelasius; but their Arguments are not so cogent, as to outweigh the proofs that this Pope writ the Tract. Labbè in his Margen saith, that many learned men think it his. Gennadius Contemporary with the Roman Gelasius, and the Pontifical say, he writ a Tract against Eutyches: Fulgentius cites it as this Gelasius his Work Fulgent. da Ferrand. Diac. cap. 18.: Pope John the Second, also ascribes it to his Predecessor: Yea, the Bibliotheca Patrum allowed by the Expurgators, put it out under Pope Gelasius his name Bibl. Patr. Edit. Paris. Tom. 4. p. 522.. And at last, Baronius himself is not against supposing it was his. But then Secondly, He manifestly perverts the Sense of the words before-cited, being (after long shuffling) forced to this absurdity, that—by the substance, he means, the accidents of Bread and Wine remain Baron. An. 496. n. 1. pag. 506, & n. 14. pag. 508.; Which makes this learned Pope so ignorant, as to mistake the first rudiments of Logick, and might almost shew he was an Heretick, if his Comparison in that sense be applied to the two Natures of Christ, for illustrating of which he brings it in: For thus it would follow, that Gelasius held, nothing but the accidents of Christs. Body or Human Nature, remained after the Hypostatical Union: Doubtless, Contarenus his Brother [Page] Cardinal, was wiser and honester in making no reply at the Colloquy of Ratasbon 1541, to this clear Testimony: And it is great weakness in Baronius, to brag what wonders he hath done, by heaping up a parcel of falshoods and impertinence. Before we dismiss this, let it be noted, that the Annalist and Binius not only allow, but dispute for 500 forged Tracts and Epistles, which support modern Popery; but they devise innumerable things, to baffle and disgrace the most genuine Writings that condemn their Innovations: Which is Baronius his meaning, when he gives this reason of his large digression about this Tract,—because out of it the Innovators take their Weapons: But they who reject the old Writings of their own Doctors, do more justly deserve that Title.

As to this Popes extraction, Volatteran and Panvinius say,—his Father Valerius was a Bishop: Which is now left out of the Pontifical, and not mentioned in Baronius or the Notes Not. in vit. Gelas. Bin. pag. 465. Lab. col. 1156. Baron. An. 492. n. 6. p. 460.: But the omission signifies little, there being so many instances of married Bishops that had Children; Yea, of Popes that were Sons, or Grand-Children of Bishops or former Popes: As to the time of this Pope's ingress, Baronius places it An. 492, and upon the credit of the dates of a few Papal Epistles, (which are always suspicious and often forged,) he rejects the Authority of Marcellinus, who lived at this time, and died An. 534 Baron. An. 452 n. 6. p. 461.; in whose Chronicle Gelasius is said to be made Pope An. 494; that is, two year later than Baronius places it.

§. 8. If Marcellinus be in the right, we may justly doubt of those three Epistles, [the 1st, 2d and 9th,] which Baronius cites as writ before the year 494: The 1st hath no date, and though the time of writing it be made an Evidence against Marcellinus his Account; yet he brings no proof it was writ An. 492, but this, Nothing hinders us from allowing these things between Euphemius and Gelasius, to be done this year Baron. An. 492. n. 27. pag. 465.. I reply, the Testimony of a good Author of that [Page] Age, who affirms Gelasius was not Pope till two years after, hinders us from believing it was writ then: But I will not however condemn the Epistle, which is modest enough, calling Euphemius Bishop of Constantinople,—his Brother and Fellow, advanced to a Precedence by the favour of Christ Gelas. ep. 1. Bin pag. 466. Lab. col 1157.: And when he was pressed to declare, by what Council Acacius was condemned, he cites no Roman Council, nor pretended Sentence of his Predecessor Foelix: But saith, he was condemned by the Council of Chalcedon; but this he doth not make out.

The Second Epistle also wants a date, and is by guess placed in this year by Baronius, with this false remark, That the Popes by Custom used to prescribe a Form of Belief to all the Faithful Baron. An. 492. n. 30. pag. 466.: Whereas the Letter it self declares the Custom was,—For every new Pope to declare his Faith to the Neighbouring Bishops, that they might know he was Orthodox Gelas. ep. 2. Bin. pag. 468. Lab. col. 1163.. Now there is a vast difference, between prescribing a Form of Belief to others, and labouring to get from them a Testimony of our believing aright.

The 4th Epistles true Title is, The Monitory of Gelasius: But in Binius these words, [Of the most blessed Pope] are added Gelas. ep. 4. Bin pag. 470. Lab. col. 1168., which Labbè rightly omits: In the Monitory it self observe, First, That Gelasius denies his Predecessor or he had condemned the Emperor Anastasius. Secondly, He saith, the Church hath no power to absolve any after their death. Thirdly, He claims no power to make any new Canons, but only to execute the old. Which other Bishops may do. Fourthly, He cannot prove Appeals to Rome by any Canons, but those of Sardica, which were rejected by many, and slights the Canons of Chalcedon, received every where but at Rome. Fifthly, He very falsly pretends, Acacius was only the Executer of the Roman Churches Sentence, by whose sole Authority some Eastern Bishops were condemned. But we know, Acacius had condemned them long before any Sentence was given at Rome Baron. An. 483. n. 54. pag. 382., and scorned to act under the Pope. Sixthly, Where Gelasius in his own Cause vainly brags, That the Canons have given the Judgment [Page]over all to the Apostolical Seat: Binius and Labbè mend it in their Marginal Note, and say, The Canons and Christ gave it this power Ep 4. in marg. versus sinem.; neither of which is true.

In the 5th Epistle, Gelasius owns a Private Bishop for his Brother, and declares, that he himself cannot alter the Canons. The Margen again here saith, The Canons cannot be altered Gelas. ep. 5. Bin pag. 472. Lab. col. 1172.,—they should have said—no not by the Pope: But here they say too little, as before they said too much; which puts me in mind of Juvenal's Note,

Quisquam hominum est quem tu contentum videris uno

Flagitio—

Note:

You never knew a single Sin

Content Men, when their Hands are in.

The Date of this Epistle must be false, being An. 490, that is, two years before (as they reckon) Gelasius was Pope. Labbè would mend it, by antedating the entrance of Gelasius, forgetting that he had printed an Epistle of Foelix to Thalassius, dated that year Lab. col. 1092.; his Invention therefore was better than his Memory.

The 6th Epistle shews, that notwithstanding the Popes fair pretences to an Universal Jurisdiction, his neighbour Bishops in Dalmatia did not own it; but looked on him as a busie-body, for medling in their affairs Gelas. ep. 6. Bin. pag. 472. Lab. col. 1173., and suspected the Snake of Usurpation lay under the florid Leaves of his seeming care of all the Churches.

The 7th Epistle is briefly and imperfectly set down by Baronius Baron. An. 493. n. 36. pag. 478., because he would conceal from his Reader, that Gelasius makes Purgatory and Limbus Infantum a Pelagian Opinion; Let them (saith he Gelas. ep. 7. Bin. pag. 474. Lab. col. 1178.) take away that third place, which they have made [recipiendis parvulis] for receiving little Children. And since we read of no more, but the right hand and left, let them not make them stay on the left hand for want of Baptism, but permit them by the Baptism of Regeneration to pass to the right.—Which illustrious Testimony the Editors would obscure by reading, [decipiendis parvulis] for deceiving Children: [Page] But if that were the true Reading, it shews, this Pope thought none but Children and Fools would believe a Third place invented by the Pelagians; since Scripture speaks but of two, viz. Heaven and Hell.

It is a trifling Note on this Epistle, That Gelasius admonished some Bishops of Italy against Pelagianism, not fearing two Princes, one of which was an Eutychian, the other an Arrian Heretick Not. in Ep. 7, Bin. pag. 476. Lab. col. 1181.. For what cared these Princes for the Popes Letters, against the Heresies of others, so long as he let them alone, and never admonished them of their own Heresies?

The 8th Epistle was writ to one of these Heretical Princes, viz. to Anastasius; and the Pope is scandalously silent about his Heresie, nor doth he once reprove his Errors in the Faith; but only labours, even by false pretences to justifie his Supremacy, which gave too just a ground for that Emperor and his Eastern Bishops, to tax this Pope of secular Pride, a fault very visible in all his Writings on this Subject. Further we may note, that this Epistle was of old inscribed thus, Bishop Gelasius to the most glorious Emperor Anastasius Gelas. Ep. 8. Bin. & Lab. ut supra.; but the Editors have left out the Emperor's Epithet, for fear he should look bigger than the Pope: Also, where the Pope prays that no Contagion may stain his See, and hopes it never will Ibid. Bin. pag. 476. Lab col. 1183.; which plainly supposes, it was possible Rome might Err; otherwise he had mocked God, in praying against that which could not happen; and assurance had left no place for hope, if the Popes were absolutely Infallible: Yet here the Marginal Note is, The Apostolical See cannot Err: Which may caution the Reader, not to trust their Margent nor Index, for there is often more in the Inscription, than can be found in the Box.

The 9th Epistle being dated An. 494. was odly cited by Baronius, to prove that Gelasius was made Pope in An. 492. Baron. An. 492. 11. 6. p 461.: It seems to be a Collection of divers Canons put together, no Body knows by what Pope. And one thing is very strange, that whereas the Preface owns, the Clergy were almost starved in many of [Page]the Churches of Italy Gelas. cp 9. Bin. pag 478. Lab. col. 1188.; Yet the Epistle impertinently takes great care, that the Rents be divided into four parts, as if all things had then been as plentiful as ever: And whereas these Rules are sent to the Bishops of Lucania, near Naples, the Pope's forbidding them to dedicate Churches without his Licence, is by the Marginal Note made a General Rule for all Countries; but falsly, since the Bishops of the East, of Afric, Gaul, &c. did never ask the Popes Licence in that Age, to consecrate Churches.

The 13th Epistle is a bold attempt toward an Universal Supremacy Gelas. ep. 13. Bin. pag. 483. Lab. col.: For Gelasius finding the Bishop of Constantinople at his Heels, and come up almost to a level with him, uses his utmost effort to make a few Rascian Bishops believe he was set over the whole Church: But he shews more Art and Learning, than Truth or Honesty in this Argument, asserting these downright Falshoods. First, That the Canons order all the World to Appeal to Rome, and suffer none to Appeal from thence: But Bellarmin (knowing these Canons where those despicable ones of Sardica, and that even those did not intend to oblige the whole World,) in citing this passage, changes Canones appellari voluerint, into appellandum est Bellarm. de Concil. lib. 2. cap. 17. pag. 98.: So that he chuses to leave it indefinite, that all must appeal to Rome, rather than undertake to tell us (with Gelasius,) how that See came by this Right. Secondly, That the Roman Church by its single Authority absolved Athanasius, Chrysostom and Flavian, and condemned Dioscorus, (as this little Pope brags); which is as true as it is, that the Roman Church alone decreed the Council of Chalcedon should be received, she alone pardoned the Bishops that lapsed in the Ephesine latrociny, and by her Authority cast out the obstinate: Which this Epistle audaciously asserts, though there are more untruths than lines in the whole passage: And if liberty be not deny'd us, we appeal to all the Authentic Historians of those Ages, who utterly confute these vain brags. Yet Bellarmin adds to this extravagant pretence of Romes [Page]alone decreeing the Council of Chalcedon, (these words) by her single Authority Bel. de Concil. lib. 1. c. 13. pag. 24.: But Launoy blushes for him, and says, what Gelasius here saith is not strictly true, and that he needs a very benign Interpreter Lannoy lib. 5 ep. 4. pag. 518.; that is, one who will not call a Spade a Spade: But let this Pope's assertions be never so false, they serve to advance the ends of the Roman Supremacy; and therefore you shall find no more of this long Epistle in the Annals, but only this hectoring passage Baren. An. 495. n. 2, 3. pag. 500. Though he unluckily confesseth immediately after, that Gelasius did no manner of good with all this Ibid. n. 5.. And no wonder, since that Age, as well as this, knew his pretences were unjust, his reasoning fallacious, and his instances false. Thirdly, He asserts, that Pope Leo vacated the Canons of Chalcedon: 'Tis true, he did it as far as lay in him, who measured Right only by Interest: But we have shewed they remained in full force, in all other parts of the Church, notwithstanding his dissent openly declared. Fourthly, He affirms, that the care of all the Churches about Constantinople was given to Acacius by the Apostolick See: Which is, (as hath been proved) a notorious Falshood; of which this Epistle is so full, that one would suspect it was the Offspring of a much later Age. 'Tis certain, the Title is very unusual, Gelasius Bishop of the City of Rome, &c. And the date is false, the Consul named is Victor, whose year was 70 year before: Baronius and the Editors of their own head mend it, and read [Viator;] and Labbè tells us in the Margin, that some things are wanting (in this Epistle,) and some are read otherways in Justellus Manuscript Lab. marg. Col. 1200.: And again he observes, that instead of these words, Apostolicae sedi frequentèr datum est,—it is now read, Apostolica sedes frequentèr ut dictum est, &c. which makes a great alteration in the Sense: The former implying only a delegated power, the later an original power of absolving all persons: So that if the whole be not a Forgery, yet it is now corrupted in many places, by the bold Champions of the Supremacy, to whom nothing was Sacred; Yea, we are told it comes out of the Vatican Mint, restored and mended, (we know what [Page] that means,) as far as was fit by Baronius Baron. An. 495. n. 1. p. 500.. So that the Impartial Reader may judge what credit is to be given to this Epistle (out of which they often prove their Supremacy) written by a bigotted Pope (who scrupled not at any thing to advance his See) if it be genuine, and transcribed by such as are convicted of repeated Corruptions.

Labbè gives us two other imperfect Epistles of Gelasius, about his renouncing Communion with those who kept Acacius his Name in their Dypticks, as most of the Eastern Bishops then did Gelas. ep. 14 & 15. Lab. col. 1212.. But in these the Pope humbly saith, It is not for my Humility to pass Sentence concerning a difference reaching through the World, my part being to take care of my own Salvation Ib. Lab. col. 1214.. Which is so different from the style of his former Epistles, that if these be genuine those are suspicious.

But since all these Epistles of Simplicius, Foelix and Gelasius, make so soul a matter of Acacius his Case, let me once for all here give his Character, and state that business. That he was Orthodox in all points is manifest by his Epistle against Peter of Antioch Lab. col. 1107.: And by his forcing Basiliscus to revoke his Edict against the Council of Chalcedon Euagr. Hist. lib. 3. cap. 7.. And while the Pope flattered that Heretical Usurper, Acacius made all the Bishops who had subscribed it, recant Id. ib. cap. 9.. He also ejected Peter of Antioch for Heresie, before the Pope knew of it, and excommunicated Peter of Alexandria, yea, deposed him when he maintained his Heresie Liberati B [...]ev. cap. 16, 17.: And would not admit him to Communion again till he had professed the Catholic Faith, and by name expresly received the Council of Chalcedon Epist. Petr. Al. apud Euagr. lib. 3. cap. 17.. 'Tis true, this Bishop proved himself a Dissembler by Apostatizing afterward; but that was not the Popes Quarrel at Acacius, the Roman Bishops were jealous of the Bishop of Constantinoples growing power, who flourished under the Eastern Emperors, while their Church was obscured under a Barbarous King: And Acacius by the Emperors consent (without consulting the Pope Liberati. Brev. ut supr., put in and put out the Eastern Bishops as he thought fit, pretending this power was given him [Page] by the Councils of Constantinople and Chalcedon: This galled the Popes, and therefore in the pretended Sentence of Foelix, he is charged as one that usurped others Provinces contrary to the Nicene Canons. This check'd the universal Supremacy that Rome had then been for some time aiming at, so that they could have forgiven any Heresie rather than this attempt: Which appears by this, That though Pelagianism had spread it self all over the Western Church, and Eutyches Heresie prevailed in the East, yea, a great part of Rome it self was Arrian, we find few or no Popes Letters against these Violators of the Faith, as if they (with Tiberius) left Christ to revenge his own injuries Deorum injuriae Diis curae. Dict. Tiber. Aug.. But all their outcry is against Acacius, whom they would never forgive living nor dead, for touching their Jurisdiction, that was dearer to them than all the Articles of their Creed. But while they hated him, the whole Eastern Church took his part, and he continued to exercise his Office (in spight of all the Popes Sentences) until his death, leaving behind him so good a Character, that Suidas saith, If ever any man were truly venerable it was Acacius Suidas in (Acacio.). Yea, it was a long time before the Greeks could be persuaded either by the promises or threatnings of Rome to put his Name out of the Dypticks, though the union of the East and West depended at last upon that single Point: They objected, that he subscribed the Edict for Union made by Zeno. I reply, so did three Patriarchs more, and that Edict contained no Heresie, nor did it condemn the Council of Chalcedon. They urge also, that he rejected John Talaia an Orthodox Bishop of Alexandria: But that was because he believed him perjured, and consequently unduly elected. To conclude, Acacius was a good Man, and those who will consider the matter impartially, will think the Popes deserve no commendation for their stiffness and violence in this Contest.

[Page] After the Epistles follow some Tracts of Gelasius; The first of which is about Excommunication: Wherein there is one passage that afflicts Baronius; For the Pope saith, Christ hath separated the Kings Office and the Bishops; So that Bishops must not challenge Royal Dignity nor meddle in secular Affairs, nor may Kings administer Holy things Tract. 1. G [...]l. Bin. pag 489. Lab. col. 1232.. But the Cardinal will have the Roman Bishop to have at least Regal Power, and Kings to be subject to Ecclesiasticks, who he thinks may meddle in Temporal Affairs, tho' Kings must not in Sacred matters; citing for this an Epistle of Gelasius Baron. An. 496. n. 25. pag. 511.. But I should rather think the Epistle forged if it did contradict this Tract, tho' Baronius wrests the words he cites, and omits a passage that immediately follows them, viz. The Ecclesiastical Rulers obey your Laws Gelas. ep. 8. Bin. pag. 476. Lab. col. 1182.; which shews Bishops were then subject to Princes.

And the next Tract [against the profane Pagan Festivals] shews that the Pope had no shadow of Regal power at Rome in those days; For Gelasius only declares them unlawful, and saith he will deliver his own Soul in persuading the Christians to forbear them: But it was the Senates part to forbid them and take them away, and his Predecessors were to Petition the Emperor (as he owns) to abolish such impieties Tract. 2. Gel. Bin. pag. 492. Lab. col. 1239.. So that Baronius his huffing Preface to this argument against these Paganish Feasts is very ridiculous. You may see (saith he) how he exalts himself against the Emperor; and though the City was under a Gothic King, he prescribes Laws to Rome without asking leave of an Impious Prince Baron. An. 496. n. 27. pag 512.. He hath good Eyes (I am sure) who in this Sermon or Discourse can see either any exercise of Authority or Law prescribed, only indeed it is a pious and rational exhortation.

§. 9. A Roman Council under Gelasius is placed next, An. Dom. 494. said to consist of 70 Bishops, convened to settle the Canon of Scripture, and to distinguish genuine from spurious Authors Concil. 1. Rom. Bin. pag. 500. Lab. col. 1260.. But the whole seems a meer Forgery: For, first, the Publishers are not agreed upon what Pope to Father it: Divers Manuscripts in Labbè, ascribe it to Hormisda (who sat 20. Years after this Lab. ibid. &c in Hormisd. col. 1557.. [Page] Another very old Book calls it, A Declaration of Holy Scripture, &c. with Gelasius his Annotations Lab. marg. col. 1260.. The Decree in Gratian and in Justellus his Manuscript wants all the Books of the Old and New Testament Gratian. Decret. par. 1. dist. 15. c. 3. pag. 20, &c. Et Lab. col. 1261.. Wherein also, all the stuff about the Primacy, and the order of Patriarchs is omitted: Yea, the Notes in Gratian own, that formerly it went no further than to—item gesta Sanctorum Martyrum—So that the beginning and end (that is, four parts in six) are Forged by their own Confession; Yea, the whole, as Binius grants, is so confused, that in many places it is impossible to read it; yet (they say) they have ventured to mend it as well as they can. But after all their correcting, or (rather) corrupting it, the Copies do not agree: Some want the Book of Judith and the 2d of Macchabees: Some have only one Book of Kings, and one of Chronicles: Some reckon but two Books of Solomon, some three, and others five: Some ascribe Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus to the Son of Syrach See Lab. col. 1260. in marg. Cosen's Hist. of the Canon, pag. 123.. And after all, as to the Canon it agrees neither with the Council of Laodicea, nor with that of Carthage, nor indeed with it self, whatever Binius vainly brags Bin. in not. pag 502. Lab. col. 1266.. And is not this a rare Foundation for the Trent Fathers to build their mistaken Decree upon? As to the rest of it, That passage [—that the Roman is preferred before all other Churches, not by any Synodal Decrees, but by the Voice of Christ, &c.—] is not only a modern addition (as appears by Gratian and Justellus Manuscript, which omit it) but it contradicts the 4th Epistle of Gelasius, which saith, The supream power over all is not given to any by the Canons, but to the Apostolical Church Gelas. ep. 4. Bin. pag. 471. Lab. col. 1170.. The order also of the Patriarchal Sees (added since the time of Gratian) is drawn up contrary to the Canons of Constantinople and Chalcedon: The account of Councils make the Emperors Constantine and Theodosius Presidents of the two first General Councils, Marcian and Anatolius of the 4th, without naming Leo, and only mentions Celestine's consent to the third Council: So that this piece was coyned before the Pope pretended all Councils void wherein he or his Legates did not preside. And [Page] that passage, That the Acts of the Martyrs are not read in the Roman Church, because many of them are writ by anonymous, mistaken, weak and Heretical Authors Bin. p. 501. Lab. col. 1263., was writ before that Church had stuffed all her Offices so full of lying Legends, and ridiculous Romances about the Saints, the reading of which (before the Reformation) took up a third part of the Priests time upon Festival days: But upon the whole I dare aver, it is not Gelasius his work, but most of it forged by Isidore Mercator 300 Year after the time of this pretended Council: Wherefore it ought not to be cited as evidence on their side.

There is a 2d Roman Council under Gelasius to absolve Misenus, one of the Popes Legates, who had betrayed his Master, and now repented: But admit the matter of Fact be true, yet the bad style, and barbarous phrase of these Acts are strong suspicions of their being Forged.

§. 10. Anastasius the 2d succeeded Gelasius, according An. Dom 496. to Marcellinus Chronicle (an Author of that time) or in the year 498. But Nauclerus places his Election (out of some other Author) An. 492 Naucler. Chron. Gen. 17. pag. 694.. Baronius and the Editors without Authority correct both these, and place his entrance An. 496 Not. in Vit. Anas. Bin. pag. 505. Lab. col. 1276.. The matter is not great, and serves only to shew us the obscurity of the Popes in that Age, whose Times are so differently related in History, that we may be sure they were not made (as now at Rome) an Aera to reckon Councils and all other Church matters by: The Author of the Pontifical (who writ after the quarrel about Acacius was over) saith hard things of this Pope; viz. 1st, That his Clergy rejected him, because without any Council he communicated with Photinus a Deacon of Thessalonica, a Man of Acacius party: And 2ly, because he would privately have restored Acacius: For which also (he saith) by the Divine Judgment he was struck with death Vit. Anas. ut supra.. Now all this was allowed for truth by their own Writers before Baronius Rolewine. sascic. Temp. fo. 53. Naucler. Chron. Gen. 17. p. 694. Platin. vit. An. Volatteranu:, &c.. And both Ivo and Gratian received it for Authentic History, and placed it in their collections [Page] Ivo Carnot. par. 14. cap. 40. Gratian decret. par. 1. dist. 19. c. 9.. But since the partial Cardinal writ, (not to discover truth, but to disprove all that seemed to reflect on) the Roman See, Gratian is corrected in later Editions with a Note which contradicts the Text; and the Editors Notes out of Baronius (which extol the Pontifical to the Skies when it reports the greatest falshoods for the honour of Rome) here say that Book is erroneous and faulty; yea, they charge them all to be Hereticks that spread these reports, largely disputing that all this is false: But in vain; For 1st, as to his allowing the name of Acacius to be restored in the Dypticks (which is the meaning of voluit revocare Acacium in the Pontifical); This is certainly true: For the Emperor Justin expresly affirms this Pope did communicate with Acacius his party, as the Notes own, and they cannot disprove it but by falsifying an Epistle of Pope Symmachus, and reading ego for nego (as shall be shewed presently). Nor is it any wonder that one Pope should approve what his Predecessors had condemned; and if this be true, Anastasius judged better than former Popes, whose Eyes were dazeled so by Ambition, that they could not see the Truth. 2ly, As to his communicating with Photinus without a Council, the Notes finally do not deny it; and it seems Foelix the Senator doubted not (if Anastasius had lived) to have engaged him to subscribe Zeno's Edict for Union; so that he was likely enough to be moderate toward Acacius his party: Only I do not think he would (as the Notes pretend) venture upon his single Authority to absolve Photinus, if he had been condemned by a Council, because in that Age the Popes did not exercise any such power. 3dly, As to his being strook with death by voiding his Bowels, it might be true; nor can I think (as the Notes suggest) that all the Authors above cited are mistaken, and put the Pope for the Emperor, who died by Thunder, because the Deaths were very different: And though Binius say it was about the same time Not. in vit. Anas. Bin pag. 506. Lab. col. 1278.; that is very false; for the Pope died An. 598, in the Emperor's Seventh Year: But the Emperor lived near twenty year longer, and died not [Page] till An. 517. So that those Historians must be very dull who could not distinguish two such different things happening to two Persons at so great a distance of time and place, but took it for the same story: Yet after all it may be this Pope died a natural death, and that this slander of his dying by Gods Judgment might be the invention of the next Age, after the Popes had got Acacius to be declared a Schismatick; for then the Writers were to blacken all his Friends by such Fables as these. And now that turn is served, Baronius would wipe off the stain again, meerly because Anastasius was a Bishop of Rome: How probable this guess is, I leave the Reader to judge.

There is but one Epistle of this Pope, writ to the Emperor (his Name-sake) Anastasius, wherein 'tis plain, he thinks the Quarrel about Acacius now deceased, no just ground for the two Churches to separate from each other Epist. Anast. Bin. pag. 506. Lab. col. 1279.: 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 Ibid. Bin. 507. Lab. col. 1280.. Gratian holds this last Decree to be illegal and uncanonical, because it contradicts the determinations of some of his Predecessors Gratian. decret. par. 1. dist. 19. cap. 7, & 8.. 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 Memor. Bin. pag. 508. Lab. col. 1283., which they speak of as equal Sister Churches, and give [Page] 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 An. Dom. 498. 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 Vit. Symmac. Bin. pag. 509. Lab. col. 1286.. 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 Not. Bin. pag. 510. Lab. col. 1288.. 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 Not. ib. Bin. Lab. col. 1289.: 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 'tis 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 [Page] wise as to conceal the fault of which he was accused Not. Bin. pag. 511. Lab. col. 1290.. 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 Ennod. ap. Bin. pag. 528. & Lab. col. 1342. Baron. An. 502. n. 32.: 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 Symmach. Epist. 1, & 2. Bin. pag. 511. Lab col. 1291.. 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 Ep. 5. Bin. pag. 512. Lab. col. 1295., that is, by Ennodius, who Binius supposes did write the 8th Epistle Ep. 8. Bin. pag. 515. Lab. col. 1300.. However, this Pope is very free in blaming his Predecessor for decreeing contrary to the ancient Custom Sym. Ep. 1. ut supra.: But he scruples not to break many Canons at once, by ordering that the Popes for the future shall name their Successors Concii. 1. Rom. Bin. pag. 519.. In the 7th Epistle of Symmachus, the Editors and Baronius have manifestly corrupted the Text, reading ist a quidem ego, for ista quidem nego Sym. Ep. 7. Bin. pag. 514. Lab. col. 1298. Baron. An. 503. n. 17.: 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; [Page] 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.

[Page]

An Appendix concerning Baronius his Annals.

THE Cardinal hath given a just, but severe censure of his own History, where he saith, It is dangerous to enquire after Truth among later Writers, who are often found to write that which false rumors, vain imagination, private affection and sometimes Flattery suggested to their Minds, to the great prejudice of Historical Truth Baron. An. 1077.. Yet he borrows very many of his Relations concerning the Saints, and ancient Practices, from Modern Authors, or from spurious Tracts, of which this Period affords us these Instances.

§. 1. They will have Porcarius the Abbot to have been a Martyr, and celebrate his Martyrdom Aug. 12th, and yet the History is taken out of a spurious Tract, and he owns the Matter of Fact to be false Baron. An. 453. n. 47. pag. 191, 192.. His report of a Golden Saviour (so they name an Image) decked with precious Jewels, made by the Emperor Valentinian, at the request of Pope Sixtus, hath no better Authority than the Epistle of Pope Adrian to Charlemain, which is stuffed with Fables: No Writer of this Age takes notice of it, nor were such Images then used: So that it need be no wonder, that the Vandals did not plunder this rich Statue, because in the time of their Sacking Rome it was not there Baron. An. 455 n. 3. pag. 203.. But if some worshiper of Images about Adrian's time, to gain repute to this Golden Statue, ascribed a greater Antiquity to it, than he ought (as was usual in such cases,) Baronius doth ill to represent it as a Wonder, that an Image was not stolen before it was made.

[Page] The respect that Childeric, a Pagan King of France, payed to St. Genovefa, and the Miracles that occasioned it, depends on the Credit of Surius, and the Acts of that Virgin; so that the Matter of fact is very suspicious Baron. An. 456. n. 7. pag. 212.; and the large reflexion upon it is as frivolous, in representing a Heathen King as more pious than those (whom he calls) Hereticks, for venerating and worshiping the Saints; for his Story proves nothing of his worshiping a Saint departed; and if any living Saints could now be found in their Church, I dare say, the very Hereticks would give them great respect.

That Apparition of the Blessed Virgin to Leo before he was Emperor, which the Annalist describes so prolixly, hath no other nor better Author than Nicephorus, who lived long after this Age, and is by this very Historian often censured for a fabulous Writer Baron. An. 457. n. 4. pag 218.. Again, to justifie an improbable Story of Caesarius while he was but a young Bishop, imperiously commanding a greater and much elder Bishop than himself, (Eucherius Bishop of Lyons) to work a Miracle, taken out of a corrupted piece of Caesarius his Life; He rejects the Chronology of Gennadius, and talks of supposing two Bishops of Lyons, named both of them Eucherius Baron. An. 463. n. 6. 258., though no ancient Author mention any such thing.

The Relation of an Angels visibly waiting on St. Marcellus, when he and his Monks went to Petition the Emperor against the making an Arrian, Caesar; is cunningly contrived: For the Author notes, that of all the company, only some few witnesses fore ordained of God, who had clearer Eyes than the rest, saw this Angel Baron. An. 469. n. 4. 5. pag. 283.. And Zonaras (a more credible Writer than the Deviser of these Acts,) who mentions the Story, never heard of this Apparition at all Zonar. Annal. Tom. 3.. However, if these few sharpsighted Gentlemen designed to impose upon the rest of the Monks, the Plot was well laid, that none but they should discern the Angel.

[Page] The Miracle of the Beam of Light, appearing at the Election of St. Remigius, the Apostle of the French, is very suspicious, because Sidonius who knew and admired him, and lived at the same time, is silent; and the report is fetched from a Successor of his, who writ (or is pretended to have writ) this above 300 year after Baron. An. 471. n. 36. pag. 293..

Though Surius be one of his most common Authors for all his Legends, yet he confesses great defects, and many things which need correction, are found in his Collection Baron. An. 473. n. 4. p. 299.; and he in the same Page taxes Nicephorus to be Erroneous Ibid. n. 10. p. 301., yet hath no better Authors than he and Metaphrastes, for the invention of the most Holy Garment of the Blessed Virgin, which yet no doubt the ignorant People of the Roman Communion do mightily adore Id. An. 474. n. 4. pag. 301.: Such another Evidence, is the Pratum Spirituale of Jo. Moschus (falsly ascribed to Sophronius;) yet out of this, he Records a very Scandalous Story; that the Blessed Virgin declared to a devout Votaress of hers, whom Zeno had abused by violence; That she could not take vengeance on him for his Lust, because this Emperor gave much Alms Baron. [...]d. An. n. 10. p. 303.; which teaches Rich Men how to continue as filthy as they please, and be secured against the Divine Vengeance, if any be so weak as to credit it.

It shews great partiality for any Story about the Relicks of the Saints, in that Baronius rejects all the circumstances mentioned by Theodorus Lector about the Relicks of St. Eustatius, and yet will have us believe the solemn removal of them to Antioch; whereas we have reason to respect the Story it self to be false, when the sole Author was grosly mistaken, both in the time and effects of translating the Relicks Baron. An 482. n. 4 & 5. pag. 355.. But the business of the Annalist was, to defend and allow every thing that seemed to make the veneration of Relicks ancient.

Nothing is more evident in this Age, than that the Emperors or the Gothish Kings; yea, the Praefacts of Rome made Rules for the Election of the Popes, and [Page] either confirmed or annulled them: But whereas there is a Decree about Elections at Rome, made in the vacancy of the See, by the Roman Clergy and Basilius the Praefect, which seems to be very genuine Baron. An. 483. n. 10, &c. pag. 371.; Baronius rejects it, by the bare Authority of a Synod that hath been forged, (as shall be shewed) on purpose to persuade the World, that Princes had nothing to do in the Election of Popes.

The Story of the Apparition of St. Michael at Mount Garganus, is cited only out of a late Author, viz. Sigebert, who lived above 600 year after this time: And therefore the Cardinal ought not to have been so nice, in mending a gross mistake in the Relation, (which shews the ignorance of the Inventor of this Fable, (but rather to have rejected the whole Fiction so absurdly related, and so ill attested (o). Baron. An. 493. n. 43. pag 480.

With like industry Baronius defends two most ridiculous Fables about Images, which Jo. Damascen cites out of Theodoret's Ecclesiastical History, and yet the Facts happened (as is pretended in the Reign of Anastasius,) who was not Emperor till 30 year after Theodoret's death Baron. An. 494 n. 59. pag. 494.. Now rather than lose such Evidence for the Veneration of Images, the Annalist falls to guessing, who was the true Author of these Fables; and first he thinks it was Theodorus Lector; but he writ in Anastasius his time, who ordered this Picture to be made, so that he could not speak of this, as an old Piece spoiled with moisture: Wherefore at last he finds another Theodoret, besides the famous Bishop of Cyrus, but knows neither where nor when he lived: So that such an obscure Writer is not a sufficient Witness to make great improbabilities credible; yet he takes this for a mighty and clear Miracle, wrought by God at Constantinople in the East, on purpose to confute the Arrian Princes then Reigning in Africa, Italy and Gaul Id. ibid. n. 66, &c. pag. 396.; Who in all probability never heard of this Story, and would much sooner have believed it, if it had been done in their own Country.

[Page] It is very improbable, that later Authors should know so exactly all the little Acts, Sayings and Miracles of St. Benedict, and yet differ almost 30 year about the year of his Birth; nor are they agreed about his Age and Death. This minds me of a Comical Authors remark upon such as pretend to Pray and Preach Extempore by an Hour-glass—As if the Spirit could teach them what to say; but not how much—It is (doubtless) a strong suspicion that most of the Relations were invented after the time of this Saint, (little noted in his own days) was forgotten. Yet I see not how the time of writing the Dialogues (called) Gregory's, should prove Marianus, Scotus, Sigebert and Trithemius mistaken, in saying Benedict was born in the year 507: Because if Gregory the second (which is very probable,) were the Author of those fabulous Dialogues, he was made Pope An. 714. (in an Age of Legends,) and so Benedict dying, An. 603, might have four Abbots his Successors, before this heap of Fables was put together, which are very unworthy of Gregory the 1st Pope Baron. An. 494. n. 70. pag. 497.. It is worth noting, that this Benedict despised Learning and Study, and ran away from School Id. ib n. 73.; an ill Omen, that his followers the Monks should help to ruin all polite literature, and bring in that ignorance which covered all Christendom for many Ages: For what other could be expected from such a Founder, that was knowingly ignorant, and wisely unlearned (as this Gregory speaks?) But it was not only his Case; for St. Francis, another Founder of Monkery, bids his Followers—if they cannot Read, never to learn any Letters, but above all to take heed they may be inspired with the Spirit Regula S. Fran cap. 8. pag. 28.: Yea, he makes reading much, and getting Books, to be one of his bad signs Idem ibid. pag. 91.. These illiterate Patrons were fit to lead on an Army of Ignoramus Fryers, to extinguish the Light of Learning, that their false Doctrins and cheating Practices might pass undiscovered in the darkness they had made.

Further, we may observe, that the Cardinal severely Taxes Trithemius, and other Monkish Writers, for [Page] falsly feigning that many Eminent Men, who preceded Benedict in time, were Monks of his Order, out of a blind Zeal to set up its glory Baron. ibid. n. 78. pag. 498.. But he considers not, that the same blind Zeal hath put these Authors, (out of whom he brings innumerable Stories,) upon saying very false things for the glory of their Order, which probably never were done upon the face of the Earth. So that he should have better Authority than these partial Monks, for the Miracles of their own Saints.

Theodorus Lector heaped up many scattered Reports without care, and is not of the best credit, especially in case of Relicks; but his single Testimony is enough, to make Baronius believe, That God takes care of a dead Saints Bones, in an Earthquake, which probably might swallow up many living Saints Baron. An. 499. n. 13. pag. 531., who often suffer in such Common Calamities.

Those Miracles of St. Remigius, which are impiously equalled to them that the Apostles wrought Baron. An. 499. n. 27, 28, 29. pag. 534, 535., have no better evidence than two Authors, (Aimonius and Hincmarus,) who writ about 400 year after: For that Epistle of Hormisda, wherein that Pope makes Remigius his Legate, is (like the rest of that kind,) a manifest Forgery: For he mentions Clovis, the modern name of Ludovicus, as if he were the King of France, and newly Baptized; whereas Clovis died at least four year before Hormisda was Pope, and was Baptized near twenty year before this Letter is pretended to be writ. From which Examples, (though but few) it appears Baronius his evidence for Miracles, and other things that tend to support the Superstitions of Rome, are generally forged, or suspicious Authors.

§. 2. But when he cites genuine Writers in such Points, he often corrupts their Sense, and sometimes their Words: For instance, Baronius pretends, that an intire Edict of Marcian's is imperfect, meerly because he cannot find in it any particular expressions, to take away the Primacy of the See of Constantinople Baron. Ar. 454. n. 12, &c 13. pag. 197.. [Page] Whereas this Edict clearly confirms the Canon of Chalcedon, which had given the second place to Constantinople, by this very Emperor Marcian's consent: And it is something odd, that our Annalist by meer fancy, should assert even with confidence, than an Emperor of the East should revoke by an Edict, and a Bishop of Constantinople renounce a Priviledge granted by that same Emperor, and in a General Council, to that Church, a few years before.

Again, He insinuates that St. Severine allowed the Worship of Saints departed, now used in the Roman Church Baron. An. 454. n. 29. pag. 202.: But the Authors he cites, Euagrius and Eugippius, though they writ many years after St. Severine's death,) have not one word of any deliverance by the praying to Saints: But one of them saith, they were freed from the Famin by the Providence of God: And the other affirms, they praised God for hearing St. Severine's Prayers in this Calamity: So that Severine prayed only to God, and the People of that Age praised him alone: And how can this excite the Posterity of that Nation at this day to pray to St. Severine so long after his decease?

What Victor saith of those, who suffered death by the Arrian Persecution in Africa, That the Romans would count them Martyrs Baron. An. 456. n. 23. pag. 215., must be meant either of the Roman Captives in Africk, or of the Roman Church in Italy, who looked on these Sufferers as their Brethren, and of the same Faith, and so reckoned them Martyrs: But to stretch this Phrase, to signifie, that then the words [Roman] and [Catholick] were of the same import, is very unreasonable, and what Victor never dreamed of.

'Tis very suspicious, that Ecdicius did not get his wonderful Victory over the Goths by praying to St. Martin, because that History is related by two Authors, one very Authentick, that is, Sidonius, who might have been, and probably was an Eye-witness, who doth not once name St. Martin: The other Gregory of Tours, that lived near 150 years after, and he mentions it indeed, as done by the invocation of the [Page]Saint of his Church Baron. An. 466. n. 10, 11, 12. pag. 271, 272.. But Baronius in the next year taxes him with writing things that could not be credited I'd. An. 467. p. 11. pag. 275.. Wherefore, he should rather have drawn his conclusion from the living and certain Historian, if Truth had been the business of these Annals.

The Emperor Leo's Edict, is solely designed for the keeping holy the Lords-days, which are the Festivals, properly dedicated to the Majesty of the Most High. But the Annalist expounds this of all Feast-days Baron. An. 469 n. 6, 7. pag. 284., to give more colour to the scandalous usage of their Church, where more reverence is given to a little Saints-day, than to the Sunday, which from the Creation, or however, from the Apostles times, was most religiously kept to the Honour of God himself, as the principal time of his most solemn Worship.

Baronius also wrongs Zeno the Emperor, in saying, that his Edict for Union did Anathematize the Council of Chalcedon Baron. An. 482. n 30. pag. 361.: For the words of the Edict shew the contrary, since Zeno only Anathematizes them, who believed not according to the Nicene Creed, whether in the Council of Chalcedon, or in any other Council; and the Cardinal himself in the next page, only charges Zeno, with tacitly abrogating the Council of Chalcedon Id ib. n. 35.; and Liberatus affirms, the Emperor was angry with John Talaia, for not relishing the Council of Chalcedon Ibid. n. 36.: Yea, the Zealots against this General Council, at Alexandria, renounced the Communion of Peter; because by subscribing this Edict of Union, he had refused openly to Anathematize the Council of Chalcedon Id. ib. n. 43. pag. 364.; all which shews, that this Edict did not condemn that Council.

Liberatus saith no more, but that the Papers were taken away, lest they should be delivered to the Catholicks, to whom they were written: But Baronius out of this affirms, That the Pope writ to the Clergy, the Monks and Orthodox Laity Baron. An. 483. n. 49. pag 381., (as if he had seen the Titles of the several Letters,) and cites Liberatus for his Evidence.

[Page] In like manner he brings in the words of Liberatus, after a Fictitious Letter of a Roman Synod: And cites him thus, These Letters being given to Acacius, he would not receive them, &c. Baron. An. 484. n. 34. pag. 397.. By which one would imagine, that Liberatus had attested this feigned Synodical Letter; but this Author speaks only of that Epistle of Foelix, which Baronius had cited three pages before Id. ib. pag. 394. n. 17., and knew nothing of any Synodical Epistle.

Thus he cites part of an Oration made at the dedication of a Church, which had been an Idols Temple, but now was consecrated to the memory of Christ, and of St. Peter and St. Paul; and though there be not one Syllable in the words cited of any worship of Saints, yet Baronius concludes, that this is enough to intimate, that the worship of the Saints did always flourish, not only among the Bishops of this new dedicated Church, but among all Catholicks Baron. An. 489. n. 15. pag. 440.: But he must be very willing to believe a false Doctrin, that will receive it from a bold Conclusion, that hath no Premisses.

Again, To give credit to a Relation of St. Michael's appearing and being worshiped at Rome in this Age, he cites a Poet, who says nothing of the worship of St. Michael; and he would also insinuate, that this Drepanius lived about this time Baron. An. 493. n. 45. pag. 480., to make this Superstition seem more ancient: Whereas it is well known, that Drepanius Florus writ about the year 650, that is, 150 year after this Age, and 50 year after Pope Gregory Vid. Cave Tabul. Eccles. pag. 132. & Du Pin. Sect. 7. pag. 39,, at which time many Corruptions and gross Ignorance were visible in the Church.

We may also note, That Baronius corrects Marcellinus's Chronicle, about the ingress of Pope Anastasius, out of the Pontifical; whereas Marcellinus lived at that time, and brought down his Chronicle to the year 534, and so is a very credible Author Baron. An. 496. n. 55. pag. 518.. But in the same page our Annalist shews, how grosly the Pontifical is mistaken in point of time, speaking of things as done under one Pope, that were done under another; and affirming such and such Facts done to Persons, that were [Page] dead long before Id. ibid. n. 23.: Yet not only here, but in many places this mistaken Author is the sole Standard of Baronius his Chronology. And whereas Theodorus Lector, (who writ An. 518.) expresly saith, King Theodorick called a Synod at Rome Theod. Lector. collect. l. 2. pag 186.: The Cardinal rejects his Testimony, and out of the Pontifical and some spurious Acts, affirms, that Pope Symmachus called this Synod Baron. An. 499. n. 1. p. 592.: For those are the best Authors that speak of their side.

§. 3. With like artifice our Author conceals some part of the Truth, which might prejudice his Cause: As for instance, he notes as a peculiar piece of impudence and madness in Timothy Aelurus, the Invader of the See of Alexandria, that he darted forth his Anathema's against the Roman Bishops, and makes a dismal representation of that Crime Baron. An. 457. n. 28. pag. 224.: But the Epistle which relates the Story, saith, he Anathematized Anatolius Arch-bishop of Constantinople, and Basilius of Antioch, as well as Leo Bishop of Rome Ibid. n 25. pag. 223.: So that there is no reason to conceal that in his Recapitulation, but only to make the Pope look higher, and greater than he was in those days.

Liberatus (no doubt) was better informed what passed at Alexandria, than Leo could he at Rome; so that his account that Timothy Aelurus was immediately sent into Banishment by the Emperor from Alexandria, is far more credible, than that which Baronius deduces from Pope Leo's Letters, of his coming first to Constantinople: But the Cardinal corrects Liberatus by Conjectures, meerly to persuade the World, that the Emperor obeyed the Pope Baron. An. 460. n. 3, & 8. pag. 246, 247. in Banishing that Heretick; whereas the Writers of that time say, he did it by advice of a Synod at Constantinople.

It is also observable, that when he speaks of Epistles writ, or Messages sent to the Bishop of Rome by any new Patriarch, he always adds, de more, according to Custom Baron. An. 482. n. 1. pag. 355.; But though it was as much according to Custom, for every new Patriarch to write to the Bishop [Page] of Constantinople, or to him of Antioch, &c. to notifie his Election, and declare his being in the Communion of the Catholick Church Id. ib. n. 23, 24. pag. 359, 360.; Yet there Baronius leaves out thole words, according to Custom.

§. 4. But there are more Instances of his obscuring the Truth by false reasoning, and particularly by supposing things as certain, which are not proved, and then making Inferences from thence, and offering such Conclusions for manifest Truths. Thus upon Supposition that the Pope was then above the Emperor, and that nothing relating to the Church could be done without the Roman Bishop; He introduces an Edict of Marcian's, with a Letter of Pope Leo's, and with this Phrase, The Emperor Marcian obeyed Pope Leo Baron. An. 454 n. 4, 5, 6.. Whereas that Letter of Leo hath no relation to the Edict, and is an humble Petition to the Emperor to get his Letter to Flavian well translated into Greek, and sent to Alexandria, to clear him from an imputation of Heresie falsly laid to his charge: But the Edict takes no notice of Leo, or his Epistle, or of the Roman Church, but charges the Alexandrians to follow the Nicene Faith, as it was prosessed by their own Bishops, Athanasius, Theophilus and Cyril Baron. An. 454. n. 7. pag. 196.: And though there be a mistake in the Month, the Year is right, and it is dated three years after Leo's Epistle to Marcian Cod. Just. lib. 1. tit. 5. l. 8. pag 33.: But the Cardinal alters the date, and would add to the Sense, only to support his mistaken Supposition.

Anatolius, Bishop of Constantinople, might perhaps regulate some of the Officers or Clergy of his Church, at the request of Pope Leo; but it doth not appear, that either Leo did pretend to command Anatolius, nor that Anatolius owned he had any Authority over him: And it is certain, that for all Leo's huffing, the Patriarchs of Constantinople did keep the place and priviledges granted by the Council of Chalcedon: So that the Cardinals Inferences grounded on supposing, that [Page] Leo exercised jurisdiction over, and took away the Priviledges from Anatolius Baron. An. 454 n. 14, 15. pag. 198., are not only weak, but very absurd.

He supposes Acacius was the Enditer of an Edict of Leo the Emperor, touching the Priviledges of the See of Constantinople, and then harangues upon his Ambition, and severely taxeth his Pride Baron. An. 47 2. n. 3, & 4. pag. 294.. But he brings no proof but his own conjecture, that Acaoius did procure this Edict: Yet if he did, it only confirms the ancient Priviledges of that See, and those it was then in possession of; and if this make him appear proud as Lucifer (as the Cardinal intimates:) How many Edicts with ten times loftier Stiles have the Popes procured or forged, to set up and support their Supremacy? Yet we find no censures of them, nor no inferences, but in their commendation.

It is a false supposition, that Acacius was stirred up by the Letters of Pope Simplicius to oppose the Heretical attempts of the Usurper Basiliscus: For (as we have proved before,) Simplicius flattered this Tyrant, at the same time when Acacius moved by his own Zeal for the Catholick Faith, opposed him Baron. An. 476. n 46. pag. 326.. But it is the Cardinals design, to make all good Deeds owe their original only to the Popes, and to blacken all that Acacius did, because he would not truckle to the Papal Chair: Otherwise, when Basiliscus doth no more but restore the Rights that Constantinople had before his time, (as the words of the Edict shew Id. ibid. n. 64.; and Theodorus Lector affirms nothing, but that the Rights of that See were restored; why should it be a Crime in Acacius to procure this Confirmation from Basiliscus? I dare say, Baronius thinks it no fault in Boniface, to get the Primacy of Rome established by Phocas, a Bloodier Tyrant and greater Usurper than Basiliscus.

A little after, upon the bare Affirmation of an interested and partial Pope, he saith, Acacius governed the Eastern Provinces by a power delegated from the Pope Baron. An. 477 n. 13. pag. 334.; and upon this supposition he explains the [Page] lapsed Asian Bishops Supplication to him, as if it was on the account of his being the Popes Legate: But nothing can be falser; for if Acacius would have submitted to such a Delagation, the Popes and he had never fallen out; so that nothing is more certain, than that he ever despised such a delegated power, and exercised jurisdiction over those Asian Bishops by an Authority granted him by Councils and Imperial rescripts, That is, by as good right as the Pope had in Italy.

Another false supposition is, that Timothy the Orthodox Bishop of Alexandria, sent the Petition of such as had fallen in the time of his heretical Predecessors, to Rome to beg Pardon, and to desire they might be readmitted into the Church; and thence he infers, That the absolution from the crime of Heresie, was wont to be reserved to the Pope Baron. An. 478. n. 15, 16. pag 342.. A Note so false and absurd, that we must suppose those Millions of Hereticks, which on their repentance were absolved all the World over, in all Ages, without consulting the Pope; were not rightly absolved, if this were True: But he builds it on a Rotten Foundation; The Letter of Simplicius, (whence he deduces it) saying no more, but that this Timothy of Alexandria had sent him a Copy of this Petition, to shew upon what terms he had readmitted them to the Communion of the Church; and the Pope thought his proceedings were unexceptionable: But there is not a word of their desiring a Pardon from Rome, or of the Popes granting it; much less of that Patriarchal Church of Alexandria's wanting power to reconcile its own Members; which was setled on it by the Council of Nice, as amply as the Roman Churches was.

Soon after he supposes, no Election of a Patriarch of Alexandria or Antioch was good and valid, unless it were confirmed by the Pope: Now he draws this consequence from a Letter of Simplicius, which only says, that upon Zeno the Emperors charging John Talaia the elect Bishop of Alexandria with Perjury, (who had [Page] endeavoured to get the Pope to own his Communion) Simplicius would not confirm him, upon so eminent a Persons objection Baran An. 482. n. 15. pag. 356.. Which confirming, signifies no more than the Popes giving him Communicatory Letters as to an Orthodox Bishop; which was requisite for every Patriarch to grant to any New-Elected Patriarch as well as the Pope: And that it signifies no more is plain from hence, because though afterwards this John's election was approved at Rome; yet that confirmation did not make him Bishop of Alexandria: So that a Papal confirmation in those days gave no Bishop a Title, and was no more but a Testimonial of their Communicating with him at Rome, and judging him Orthodox: And John Talaia desired such a Confirmation as this from Acacius as well as from the Pope, as Liberatus affirms Id. ibid n 23. pag 359.; and the miscarriage of those Letters, it seems was one reason why Acacius opposed his Election.

He reckons up a great many things (in his opinion) grievous Crimes done by Zeno the Emperor, but that (saith he) which is more odious than all the monstrous wickednesses is, that an Emperor should establish a Decree about matters of Faith Baron. An. 482. n. 25. pag. 360.. Now this is all on supposition, that Princes are not to meddle in the setling the True Religion: But if he look into Sacred or Ecclesiastical Story, he shall find nothing hath been more usual, than for the most Religious Princes to confirm the true, and condemn false Religions; and therefore if this Uniting Edict of Zeno were Orthodox (of which we do not now dispute) the making it was no Crime as all.

The next Year, he repeats the Story of John Talaia his appealing to the Pope; and because in this Age they have made him the Supreme Judge over the whole Church, Baronius saith he appealed to him as to the lawful Judge Baron An. 483. n 3 pag. 369.. But Liberatus, out of whom he hath the Story, shews he applyed to the Pope only as an Intercessor, and persuaded him to write to Acacius in his behalf: And indeed the Popes definitive Sentence in those days, would have done him no good: Wherefore, [Page] he only desired he would use his interest in Acacius, to reconcile him to the Emperor; but all in vain: Which shews that the Eastern Church did not then believe the Pope was a lawful Judge in this Case. It is a bold stroke, under such a Pope as Simplicius (who submitted to the Eastern Emperors, who (in Baronius Opinion) were Schismaticks, and to the Arrian Gothic Kings in Italy, and who could purge his own City from Heresie, but connived at the Arrians who possessed neer half Rome); for the Historian to brag, that the Popes Majesty and Authority shined as bright as under Constantine, or Theodosius Baron An. 483. n. 7. pag. 370, 371.; and as vain a boast, that their Universal Power was as great under Pagan persecuting Emperors as at any other time: For he never hath nor never can make this out; and the History of all Ages shews that the Popes power was very inconsiderable at first, and grew up by degrees; being larger or narrower in old times, as it happened to be savoured or opposed by Kings and Emperors: But it was never very great, till the Popes had ruined both Empires of the East and West.

From this immoderate conceit of the Papal Authority in that Age, proceeds that mistaken observation, That Pope Foelix and Gelasius rejecting the Books of Faustus Rhegiensis, was more than all the pious and learned Writings of S. Caesarius, S. Avitus and the famous Fulgentius, who in peculiar Tracts confuted Faustus Baron. An. 490. n. 33. pag. 449.: They must be very good blind Catholicks doubtless, who reject an Opinion rather upon the bare Authority of the Pope, than upon the solid Aurguments from Scripture, Reason and Antiquity, urged by the most famous Orthodox Writers.

Baronius taking it for granted, that to be a Catholic and to be in Communion with the Roman Church is one and the same thing; wonders that the Orthodox in the East should communicate with Euphemius the Orthodox Bishop of Constantinople, and main defender of the Council of Chalcedon, who did not communicate with the Bishop of Rome: And hence he supposes the Eastern [Page] Catholicks were in the dark, and could not distinguish Friends from Foes Baron. An. 492. n. 46. pag. 470.. Whereas, it is the Annalists prejudices that put him into this Mist: The Catholicks of the East cleerly saw their great Patriarch was truly Orthodox, and knew no such Principle as the Cardinal dreams of: Wherefore they did not think an Orthodox Bishop less Orthodox, because Rome rejected him for not submitting to their Usurpations. So that this instance utterly confutes his Supposition, and shews how unjustly he calls us and others Hereticks, meerly for not submitting to the Popes Supremacy, though we hold the Articles of the Catholic Faith in all other Points.

Of this we have a further proof in the next Year, when Elias Bishop of Jerusalem (owned by Baronius for a good Catholick Baron. An. 512. pag. 610., while the Quarrel continued between the Bishops of Rome and Constantinople (which that Author Taxes as a Schism upon both sides). This Elias communicated only with Euphemius, and is highly commended for so doing; since Euphemius was a sound Catholic, and defended the Council of Chalcedon Baron. An. 493. n. 41. pag. 479.. Baronius indeed pretends Euphemius was not yet condemned by Gelasius Id. Ibid. n. 42. pag. 480.; but his Predecessor had condemned Acacius and all that were his partakers, and Gelasius was hotter in this Quarrel than Foelix; which Elias of Hierusalem knew, and yet took the contrary side to the Popes, as the safer for a good Catholic: Therefore it could not be the opinion of that Age, that holding Communion with Rome, was necessary to denominate a man a good Catholick, or to free him from the guilt of Schism.

To conclude these examples, Who can value all those Pompous Consequences which he draws about the Popes Supremacy, Appeals, &c. from the vain brags of an Ambitious Bishop of Rome Baron An. 495. n. 2. &c. pag. 500., which were despised by those to whom he sent them, and ought not to be regarded by us, who know his partiality, and consider he speaks in his own cause Nemo sibi & professor & testis est. Tertul. adver. Marc. l. 5. cap. 1.? But we may note, this is the best evidence they have; and therefore they must make as much of it as they can. Our Lord Jesus did not desire to bear witness to himself John v. 31.; But his pretended [Page] Vicar, (knowing the weakness of his claim) most unjustly Decrees; That when the Priviledges of the Apostolick See are in question, he will not have any Judge of them but himself Decret. Innocent. 3. ap. Decretal. lib. 2. Tit. 1. cap. 12.. And if he be Party, Witness and Judge, we may guess which way the Cause will go.

§. 5. In the next place we will note some of those absurdities and contradictions, wherein his Zeal to serve a party hath intangled this learned Historian: For Example;

The Cardinal brings in Leo opposing the advancement of Jerusalem to a Patriarchate, and taxes Juvenalis the Bishop there, for arrogating this Primacy to himself Baron. An. 454. n. 19. pag. 199.; Forgetting that he himself had declared, that the Council of Chalcedon had setled this Primacy upon him Idem. An. 451. n. 124. pag. 154. Et Bin. Notis in Concil: Chalced. Sess. 8. pag 414.. As for what he produces out of Leo, that Cyril writ to him against this, and with earnest Prayers desired him to oppose it; either Leo feigns this Story, or the Epistle is suspicious; since it is very unlikely that so great a Bishop as St. Cyril, should write so humbly, as to beg a favour of Leo then but Arch-deacon of Rome Id. ibid. n. 20, & 21 pag. 199, & 200.. But Leo did not like Juvenalis his advancement, and therefore Baronius must condemn it, though granted in a general Council: And though he say here, Juvenalis had nothing of a good Bishop in him, and sought the Primacy by evil arts and forged writings, contrary to the Nicene Council: Yet soon after he tells, that Simeon Stylites and the devout Euthymius, (the gratest Saints of that Age) gave Juvenalis a good Character, and charged the Empress Eudocia, to communicate with him Baron. An. 455. n. 19. pag. 207, 208.. I confess, I cannot easily understand how any Man can more evidently blow hot and cold, as occasion serves, than Baronius doth in these different Characters of the same Bishop.

He relates three wonderful, if not incredible Stories of St. Leo, and the last, though justified by an ancient Picture, (which is proof enough sometimes for a serviceable Miracle), he utterly rejects as a Fable; The reason of which is, that the two former instances tended to the Popes credit, but this last reflected something [Page] on his Memory: Otherwise we should have had some Author or other to attest it, at least as good as Sophronius Baron. An. 461. n. 7. pag. 252.: But this poor Fable wants a Father, and issaid to be unworthy of Christian Ears, and to want all ancient Authority.

It is observable, that those which he calls the most faithful Acts of Daniel Stylites (and would have this Saint pass for a Prophet) relate, that after a great Fire was begun in the City of Constantinople, and other endeavours to quench it proved vain; they went to Daniel to pray for them, who foretold them, that the Fire should cease after seven days, and so it came to pass Baron. An. 465. n. 3. pag. 261.: Yet Euogrius a more credible Author saith, The Fire endured but four days, and some say six Id. ib. n. 5. pag. 262.: But his Faithful Acts will have it burn seven days after the Citizens came to Daniel. We may note also, That these Legends ascribe the saving the whole City, one to Daniel's, another to St. Mercellus his Prayers, a third brings in St. Marcian's Prayers, as the means of preserving one Church Id. ibid. n. 8. pag. 263.: And Baronius calls all these, consentientia dicta, agreeing Reports: But an impartial Historian would have discerned the difference, and rejected them all as Fictions Haec est enim mendaciorum natura, ut cohaerere non possint. Lact. lib. 5. §. 3.: For Truth is one, but Fables have infinite varieties.

He makes a severe reflexion upon the Emperor Leo, for making an Eutychian Heretick his Admiral, and imputes the loss of the Fleet to that sinful choice, and his tolerating of Hereticks Baron. An. 468. n. 24. pag. 281.. But unless he could prove all Tolerating Princes were conquered, and all Heretical Generals beaten, there is no strength in the reflexion: Besides, he forgets that his Majestick Pope Simplicius tolerated the Arrians, who about this time possessed almost half the City of Rome Idem. An. 483. n. 6. pag. 370., and yet he makes no remark of any Judgment on him.

There are many Evidences, that Baronius did not understand Greek, and one instance of it is, that when he had named the Heretical Bishop of Antioch, Petrus Cnapheus, (that is in Greek) Peter the Fuller, he adds of his own, idem (que) Fullo nuncupatus est Baron. An. 471. n. 6. pag. 287., the same Man is called also Peter the Fuller.

[Page] That Baronius is mistaken as to Ambrosius Aurelianus Baron. An. 476. n. 2. & 477. n. 30, 31. pag. 338., who was saluted Emperor in Britain, both as to the person and time, is made evident by our learned Country man Archbishop Usher Usher. Antiqu. Brit. cap. 13. pag. 240.: To whom the Reader is referred, for a more exact account of that famous Man.

It is very impertinent in Baronius, to upbraid the Reformed Christians of these days, with the miraculous Confession of the Orthodox in Africa, whose Tongues being cut out by the cruel Arrians, they still spoke plainly, and owned the true Faith Baron. An. 484. n. 94. pag. 411.: For we confess the same Faith that they did, and have the same and no more Sacraments: But though these Bishops did then say, they held the Faith that then was held in the Roman Church, that belongs not to the present Romanists, who have added new Articles to their Creed, new Sacraments, and set up many new Objects for Worship: So that if those African Martyrs and Confessors were now alive, they would no more own these than they did the Vandals.

The censure of Nicephorus, who lived in a superstitious Age, and the Fictions devised in the second Nicene Council to support Image-worship, are no way credible. Xenaias (if ever there were such a Man,) was not the first, who said the Images of Christ and the Saints were not to be adored; and it seems by his affirming, that Worship in Spirit and Truth was only acceptable to Christ Baron. An. 485. n. 16, &c. pag. 426, 427., that he had Read the holy Scripture more considerately than those at Rome now, who overlook the second Commandment, and many other places which expresly condemn their Idolatry: So that for ought appears from any Author of his time now extant, this Xenaias was an Orthodox Christian, however in this point.

Baronius hath missed Binius and others, touching the Age of Faustus the Semi-pelagian, as also the time of the two Councils in France, relating to his Opinions Baron. An. 490. n. 17. pag. 445, &c.. But these and some other Errors are learnedly and acurately corrected by the famous Vossius in [Page] his Pelagian History, to which I refer the Reader Histor. Pelag. lib. 1. c. 50. pag. 106., for his own satisfaction.

How often doth our Annalist censure the Eastern Emperors and Patriarchs, for tolerating Hereticks? How many dreadful Judgments (in his way of interpreting Providence) doth he note, came upon them for this single Crime? Yet here we have an Heretical Emperor tolerated all his Reign for 17 year together, and his name allowed in the Dypticks, by many Successive Popes, for near 30 year after his death Baron. An. 491. n. 4. pag. 455.. Surely he will not own so many Infallible Guides, before Hormisda, were ignorant of Zeno's Heresie; and if they did know it, their fault in tolerating him, and owning his Memory is much greater: How much so ever, therefore he would magnifie his Roman Bishops care of the Catholick Faith, when Truth comes out, the Bishops of Constantinople in this Age did more Service to the Faith, than the Popes; and Euphemius threatned Anastasius the Emperor into professing the right Faith while Foelix flattered him Id. Ibid. n. 7, & 8 pag. 456.; which is a good reason, why the pious Eastern Bishops chose to communicate with the Patriarchs of Constantinople rather than with the Popes, while the Churches were divided.

It seems the Emperor Anastasius in a controversie about the Sense of the Council of Chalcedon, falsly thought to procure Peace by imposing silence, both on the Catholicks and Hereticks: And he is censured for this vain hope Baron. An. 492. n. 43. pag. 469.. But in a like case that happened afterward, Pope Vigilius also decreed (as he saith) both sides should keep silence; and this he calls a Prudent care to preserve the Church from danger Id. An. 547. n. 41. pag. 361.: So that Baronius makes that to be praise-worthy in a Pope, which is a grievous Crime in any Body else: Such partiality is very unbecoming in any Writer, but chiefly in an Historian.

He gives it us, as an ingenious Argument of Pope Gelasius, That the cause between him and Acacius could not be judged at Constantinople, where the same persons were Enemies, Witnesses and Judges Baron. An. 493. n. 20. pag. 475.: But this Pope aiming [Page] at his Adversary, like an unskilful Fencer hits himself: For this is a very strong Reason, why Acacius his Cause should not be judged by the Pope, an Enemy, a Witness and a Judge.

When a most pious Bishop, the main support of the Catholick Cause was deposed and banished, viz. Euphemius, the Annalist saith, he deserved to be abdicated by Gods just Judgment, for not obeying the Popes in abdicating Acacius his Name—and he pretends the Fathers say, there can be no Confessors or Martyrs out of the Roman Churuh Baron. An. 495 n. 23. pag. 505.. Whereas Cyril the Monk, cited by our Historian saith, Euphemius was impiously deposed from his See, and exclaims against the wicked injustice of this Fact Id. ib. n. 24.; which this Mans prejudice makes him call Gods just Judgment. But God doth not punish Men for that which is no fault; and it was none in Euphemius, not to submit to the Pope's most unjust claim of a Superiority over his Church, which had been exempted by two General Councils from all subjection, and advanced to the second place among the Patriarchs. As for his other assertion, no Father of credit can be produced, that did appropriate Martyrdom, or Confessorship to those in Communion with Rome: Yea, this very Age produced a great many Bishops and holy Monks, such as Elias, Daniel Stylites, St. Sabas, &c. who did not communicate with the Pope, but took part (in this contest) with Euphemius, who then were and still are (even by Baronius) called Martyrs and Consessors. Yea, the Cardinal himself asserts, that those who were slain, or suffered any thing in a petty contest at Rome, meerly about the choice of a Pope, were Martyrs and Confessors Idem An. 502. n. pag. 543., though no Article of Faith came into the dispute: And doubtless, he cannot rob these Eastern Martyrs and Confessors, (who suffered by Hereticks only for the true Faith) of their deserved Titles.

In like manner he uses Paschasius, a learned and pious Roman Deacon, who never separated from the Catholick Church; but when two ambitious Candidates, [Page] scandalously strove for the Papal Chair, he chanced to take the less fortunate side: And this he counts dying in Schism, and (without any Authority) takes it for granted, that he repented of it before his death, because otherwise he thinks it was impossible he should be saved Baron. An. 498. n. 8. pag. 528.. The ground of these remarks is an idle Legend, out of the fabulous Dialogues ascribed to St. Gregory: But the Principles (of making it Schism and a mortal Sin to mistake in a Popes Election) are his own.

To conclude this sort of observations, it is very hard that Symmachus should long expect Letters from Anastasius the Emperour, more majorum Baron. An. 499. n. 11. pag. 530.; when the controversie was yet scarce decided, who was Pope, he or Laurentius. And as for the mos majorum, that would have obliged Symmachus first to write to the Emperor, as his Predecessors use to do.

I need not make a new Head, to observe what excursions he often hath to dispute for the Roman side, which in an Historian is not allowable, since he is to relate pure matter of Fact, and neither to commend a Friend nor reproach an Enemy unjustly.

There are many of these digressions about Acacius, the Bishop of Constantinople, against whom he most bitterly inveighs for a long time together; and treats him with language so rude and scurrilous, that one would think he was some Monster or Devil incarnate Baron. An. 478. n. 6. pag. 339.. Yet at last his greatest Crime is, (in comparison of which all his other faults were light ones,) he opposed the Pope! who attempted to usurp a Jurisdiction over him, and to rob him and his See of the Priviledges, which General Councils had granted to Constantinople: Otherwise (as hath been shewed,) he was a most Pious and Orthodox Man: And Zeno the Emperor who stood by his own Bishop in this just Cause, cannot escape many severe lashes from this partial Historian, who frequently goes out of his way and takes every little occasion Id. ib. n. 7. pag 340. & [...]12. pag. 341. to aggravate his Miscarriages, yea, to rail at him without any cause.

[Page] It is agreed by all impartial Historians, that the Emperor Valentinian the Third, did advance Ravenna to be a Patriarchal Seat, An. Dom. 432, and that it held this Dignity without any dependance on the See of Rome, till after the middle of the 7th Century See Dr. Hammond. of Schism, chap. 6. §. 12. pag. 355.. And how they strugled to keep those Liberties many years after, may be seen in a late Eminent Author Dr. Cave disc. of ant. Gov. chap. 5. §. 4.. But Baronius, who allows a thousand Forgeries for Rome, every where disputes against this Priviledge, and condemns all that the Bishops of Ravenna did Baron. An. 432. pag. 631. & An. 708. n. 2, 3, 4.: And here takes a boasting threatning Letter of the Pope's, to be very good evidence, that all the Priviledges of the Church of Ravenna flowed from Rome Idem An. 482. n. 44. pag. 364.. But besides that his Witness is a party, we may note, the Priviledges were so large, that we may be sure the Roman Church never granted them; their ambition to be absolutely Supream, not allowing them to endure any Equal, especially in Italy.

Again, we have a digression about the hard usage of the Popes Legates at Constantinople; and he not only aggravates their Sufferings beyond what either his Authors say, or the truth will bear: But also takes occasion to tell you, that this is the way of Hereticks, to act by Violence and Terror, and to treat the Pious with Clubs, Swords and Prisons, instead of Charity and Peace Baron. An. 484. n. 2, 3, &c. pag. 391.. Now if this be the character of Hereticks, the Roman Church that always did and still doth proceed thus where it hath power, may fairly pass for an Heretical Church. And as for the ground of this unlucky observation, Zeno and Acacius did nothing, but what all wise Governors would have done; for since these Legates of the Popes came to justifie an usurped Authority, and to disturb the quiet of the Church at Constantinople, their Letters (which were judged Seditious) were taken from them, and they (without any hurt to their persons) secured, till Time and Discourse had made them sensible how ill an errand they came upon: So that being convinced of the Justice of Acacius proceedings, they communicated with him, and let fall the Popes business.

[Page] I have touched that frivolous excursion about the worship of Images before Baron. An. 485. n 16, &c. pag. 426.; I only note now, that if Petrus Cnapheus did oppose that idle Superstition in its first rise, he was more Orthodox than any who promoted it, as to that point; And it may be the later Historians, who doted upon the worship of Images, may have given this Peter a worse name than he deserved; Lying Characters of all Iconoclasts, being as common with them as other fabulous Stories, which abound in the Writers of this Controversie above all others.

From two passages out of the Additions to Gennadius, writ by some unknown hand, mentioning two Books, one of Honoratus Bishop of Marseils, approved by Gelasius, and another of Gennadius his own, presented to that Pope, and one Example of John Talaias Apology sent to his sole Patron the fame Gelasius; Our Historian largely digresses, to prove that the Pope was the sole Judge of all Writers and Writings, and talks as if he was the only Censor librorum, in that Age Baron. An. 490. n. 43. ad 47. pag 451, 452.: Whereas I can name him divers other Bishops of less eminent Sees, that had twice as many Books sent to them for their approbation; yet none of their Successors were so vain, as to challenge any Right from thence to judge of Orthodox Books: And for the Decree of Gelasius about Apocryphal Writings, it is a meer Imposture.

He complains of the Arrogance of the Constantinopolitan See, which insulted over that of Rome, as a Captive, and under a barbarous Yoke: But he will scarce allow us to pity the Roman Church, since he runs out into vain boasting, that the Popes had the same Vigor, Authority, Power and Majesty, now, that they had in the best times Baron. An. 493. n. 22. pag. 47 [...]. But his Account of the little regard given to this Pope Gelasius, and his Predecessors Letters and Sentences in this Controversie, confutes his Brags, and proves this Authority and Majesty was only in imagination.

[Page] §. 6. After all these Artifices used by the Annalist for the interest of the Roman Church, one would not think any thing should be left, that reflected either upon the present Doctrin or Practice of Rome: Yet Truth (like the Light) cannot be concealed with all his Artifices.

It appears that Pope Leo was but a mean Astronomer, since he could not Calculate the true time of Easter himself, but was forced to write to others to inform him; and when the Infallible Guide is forced to enquire of many Fallible persons to direct him in his Decrees, it seems he is left to the same dull way, that other Mortals use for their information Baron. An. 453. n. 34 & 40. pag. 189, 190.: And at this rate, Learning must be of more use to the Head of the Church, than Infallibility.

He commends the barbarous Suevians and Vandals, for sparing a Monastery in one of their Cruel Invasions, and reproaches the Reformed in France, who had burnt very many Monasteries and Churches, at which he thinks they may blush Baron. cod. An. n. 46. p. 191.. But doubtless, Lewis the 14th hath more cause for blushing, since he professes that Religion that gives an extraordinary reverence to Monasteries, and yet without scruple, Burns, Demolishes and Destroys often where he Conquers.

By a Letter writ to the Emperor Leo by Anatolius, it appears that the Eastern Emperors consulted the Bishops of Constantinople in causes of Faith Baron. An. 457. n. 34, &c. pag. 226.: And ordered them to consult the Canons, and enquire into the violations of them; yea, to give notice to the Pope of such offences. And after all, the Emperor was to give these Canons their due Force, by appointing the Punishment due to such as had broken them: Which proceeding was thought very regular then; but the present Roman Court will not allow it, though Pope Leo 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 [Page]Clerks, but to banish them from the City Baron. An. 457. n. 43. pag. 228.; 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 Ibid. 45, 47. pag. 228, 229.. 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 Baron. An. 458 n. [...]. pag 234.; yea, he owns, the definitions of that Council were above him; for what was defined there, he durst not call to a new scanning Ibid. n. 11.: 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 Baron. An. 458. n. 4 & 5. pag. 233.; 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 Baron. An. 465. n. 8, pag. 262.: 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.

[Page] 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 Baron. An. 467. n. 2. pag. 273.. For Pelagius and Caelestius, who were as great Hereticks as Eutyches and Aelurus, were sheltered at Rome a long time Usherii, Ant. Britan. lib. 1. cap. 8. pag. 115, &c.: 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 Baron. An. 472. n. 10. pag. 295.; 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 Baron. An. 477. n. 23, & 25. pag. 336.: 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 Id. An. 478. n. 11 pag. 341.; which shews, the Pope's power was not considerable at that time.

[Page] 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 Baron. Au. 483. n. 72. pag. 386.. 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 Baron. An. 484. n. 48, 49, &c. pag. 401..

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 Baron. An. 485 n. 8, 9, 10. pag. 424. vide aliud exemp. Anno 495. n. 26. p. 505.; 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 Baron. An. 490. n. 29. pag 448.; 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.

[Page] 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 Baron. An. 499. n. 13. pag. 531.. 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 An. 496. n. 56. pag. 518.: 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.

§

§

[Page]

PART IV. CENT. VI.

CHAP. I.

Errors and Forgeries in the Councils, from the Year 500, to the End of the Fifth Binii Concil. Tom. II. Par. I. Lab. & Cossart. Tom. IV. 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. The first was to prevent Mens seeking Bishopricks, especially the Papacy, while the See was full Bin. p. 519. col. 1. Lab. col. 1314.: On which we may note the Cunning of this Pope, who probably had got the Papey by this means; yet sees fit to condemn a Fault after he had made his advantage by it. The Fourth Canon plainly supposes that the Pope will name his Successor, unless he die suddenly; which is expresly contrary to the ancient Canons; which the Notes can neither totally conceal, nor fairly excuse Bin. p. 521. col. 1. Lab. col. 1317.. But I look upon the Acts to be intirely forged in the later Times, as the gross barbarity of the Style shews; and 'tis not probable that 72 Italian Bishops should come to Rome as so many Cyphers, only to applaud what this Pope did ignorantly and Uncanonically decree. [Page] 'Tis certain there was a Synod at Rome called by the Arrian King Theodoric, which is perhaps suppressed by the Editors, lest it should discover the Regal Power was then above the Papal: And this new Stuff seems to be put into the old Garment, to fill up the Rent Luke V. 36.. Now Baronius and Binius place this Synod before the Kal. of May An. 499. Bin. in not. pag. 520. col. 2. Lab. col. 1317. Baron An. 499. n. 1. pag. 529. & n. 10. pag. 530., and fall foul upon Theodorus Lector, for saying, That Theodoric called this Synod, whereas he knew nothing of this Fiction: He saith indeed, That after the Schism had lasted Three years, (which must be An. 501. since Pope Anastasius died An. 498.) Theodoric, who then Ruled all at Rome, called a Synod of Bishops, and setled Symmachus in the Papal Chair Theod. Lect. collect. lib. 2. pag. 186.. So that according to him, no body called this Synod of the Editors, nor was Symmachus yet Pope; but these are devices to make the Schism seem shorter than it was. But Theodorus is of better Credit than the Annalist, and Cassiodorus shews, that this Schism was not fully ended until Symmachus his death, 13 or 14 years after: For he saith, That in his Consulship (An. 514) he had united the Roman Clergy and People, and restored the desired Concord to that Church Cossiod. Chron. An. 514. inter opera. pag. 14. An. Dom. 500. So that 'tis certain there was a Schisin at this time, and long after.

The Second Roman Council under Symmachus hath no Voucher, but Anastasius, who pretends it was called to condemn Potrus Altinensis, King Theodoric's Visitor, as an Invader of the Roman See. But 'tis no way probable, this yet unsetled Pope durst do so bold a thing, considering Theodoric, (to whose Arbitration they had submitted this, and commended him for determining it by a Bishp) was then at Rome in great glory, loved and admired both by the Synod and People Bin. p. 521. col. 1. Lab. col. 1322. Baron. An. 500. n. 2. pag. 536.. But the sport is, Binius and Baronius do not agree whether this were a distinct Synod, or only one Action of another Synod called Palmaria; however, the dispute being about so frivolous a Fiction, we shall not interpose.

[Page] 'Tis probable upon Theodoric's having declared Symmachus An. Dom. 501. the true Pope, his Enemies accused him of heinous Crimes: To cover which, a Synod is patch'd up, so full of Barbarisms, False Latin and Non-sense, that it seems to have been writ by that Ignorant Hand who forged the ridiculous Council of Sinuessa for Pope Marcellinus; and the design of both is the same, viz. to make us think, that a Pope cannot be judged by a Council, neither for Idolatry nor for Adultery Bin. p. 521. col. 1. Lab. col. 1323.. Besides, the Forger mistakes the Consul's Names; and Ruffus Magnus put in as Colleague to Faustus Avienus, instead of Pompeius, who is by two undoubted Writers of this Age Marcellinus & Cassiodorus in Chronic., joyned with Avienus, as the Notes and Annalist confess, who yet have the confidence to say these Acts are genuine Bin. not. p. 523. col. 1. Lab. col. 1327. Baron. An. 501. n. 1. pag 539.. But it seems they scarce think so, for these Acts say expresly, The Council was called by the Precept of Theodoric; and own, that they could decree nothing without that Princes knowledge. Yet these Parasites contradict their so commended Acts, and affirm this Synod was called by the Pope, who was the Criminal; yea, though they immediately after print some suspicious Precepts of Theodoric about his calling and directing this whole process Praecept. regis Theod. Bin. pag. 524. col. 2. Lab. col. 1328.. If the whole were not fictitious, I might note, That there is a manifest Corruption in the Acts; for where the Roman Churches Grandeur is said to flow, First from S. Peter's Merit, then following our Lord's Command, and the Authority of General Councils Bin. p. 525. col. 1. La. 1323. Baron. An. 502. n. 6. p. 502., The Period is not sense, and jussione Domini seems put in to make the Flattery still grosser: But the Editor's Margin hath a glorious Note on this blunder, and Baronius cites it with great Triumph. Another Trick the Notes put upon these Acts, which in the next Sentence declare, that Symmachus and his Bishops, desired Letters from the King's Clemency for calling this Synod. Which the Annotator turns, as if the King desired the Popes Letters, and though he was an Arrian, durst not call it without such Letters Bin. not. pag. 525. col. 1. Lab. 1332.; which Note is as false, as it is impertinent. For we see by Theodorus Lector, That Theodoric did call the real [Page] Council: And Zonaras saith, Theodoric—calling a Council, rejected Laurentius, and confirmed the Bishoprick of Rome to Symmachus Zonar. in vit. Anastas. Tom. 3. p. 121.. And they must be able to out-face the Sun, who out of a falsly expounded Period would prove, that the Kings of that Age called no Councils without the Popes consent.

Symmachus his 4th Roman Synod (of which Baronius An. Dom 502. makes the two former to be only divers Acts) is said to be held when Avienus Junior was Consul; but the name of his Colleague is omitted, which was Probus, This makes it somewhat suspicious; but the business of it confirms that Suspicion, which was to revoke two Laws made in a Roman Synod after Simplicius his Death, wherein (according to ancient Custom) Basilius, Praefect for Odoacer King of Italy, was present, with some Bishops and the Roman Clergy Bin. p. 525. col. 2. Lab. 1332.. The first Law was, That no Pope should be elected, without the consent of the King of Italy (then Lord of Rome.) The other, That no Pope, Bishop or other Clergy-man should alienate things given to the Church. Which Laws they pretend to annul, because they were both made by Lay-men, and not subscribed by any Pope. But first, It is certain that Lay Princes made many Laws in Ecclesiastical Affairs, by Advice of their Clergy; and these were frequently confirmed in Synods. Secondly, These Laws were made in a Council of the Clergy, as appears by that Title Sanctitati vestrae, used by Basilius; and Eulalius in this Council confesses these Laws were made, some Bishops consenting to them Bin. p. 526. col. 2. Lab. 1336.. Moreover, the deceased Pope had directed the making these Laws. And the Annotator (who here objects, They were made in the Vacancy of the See), in another place saith, The Roman Clergy well knew, that when the Pope, the visible Head of the Church, was taken away, it was their part, by ancient Custom (as the nearest Members to the Head, and Administrators of Peter's Church) to take care of the Ʋniversal Church Bin. Tom. l. pag. 102. notis ad vit. Fabian.. Wherefore he cannot fairly deny, but the Roman Clergy had power in the Vacancy, to confirm a Law relating to the good ordering of their [Page] own Church: And the bloody Contest (not yet appeased) occasioned by a double election which was lately submitted to be judged by Theodoric, makes it very improbable this Law should be repealed now, when so fresh an instance convinced them, that their Schisms would be endless and intolerable if Princes did not interpose. And Symmachus must be an ill man when he got the Chair purely by Theodoric's approbation, to kick down the step upon which he was raised, and to take away his right to confirm, by whom his doubtful: Title was confirmed. And finally, neither this Theodoric nor his Successors, did ever take any notice of this Repeal, but in every vacancy did interpose. So that I take this Synod to be a Fiction to cover over the Power that a Lay Prince here exercised in making a Pope, or if there ever were such a Synod it was despised, and the Law was in force after this assembly had revoked it. And thus all Baronius his Oratory about Symmachus his courage, and exalting himself above Kings and Princes Baron. An. 502. n. 29. pag. 546. vanishes into air, and is as false as this Popes excommunicating Anastasius the Emperor in this Synod; which is only proved by a corrupt reading of (ego) for (nego) as I shewed before.

For the other Law to forbid alienations, they pretend to repeal it meerly because it was made by Lay-men (which is false); But the Clergy here reestablish it. If the Acts were genuine, I should guess this was to put it in the Clergies power to dispense with themselves and their Canon, whenever they had a mind to be sacrilegious: Since while a Royal Law forbad it, a Royal Licence must be first obtained, which would be hard to procure. But the power of Theodoric and Symmachus his circumstances then, make it clear he durst not repeal a Law of the Prince. So that it seems to be forged. Wherefore I will make but two remarks more, First upon that Sentence in the Acts Quia non licuit Laico statuendi in Ecclesiâ (praeter Papam Romanum) habere aliquam Potestatem Bin. pag. 526. col. 1. Lab. 1336.. That no Layman, but the Pope, shall have any power to decree in the Church. Which passage supposes [Page] the Pope a Lay-man, and is too ridiculous to be spoken by Laurentius Bishop of Milan. Secondly, on the Notes I remark, that it is very strange this Synod should excommunicate Anastasius for communicating with Hereticks supposed, since the former Synod complements Theodoric à professed Arrian (the worst of Hereticks) with the Titles of most pious and most holy Not. in Synod. 3. Bin. pag. 525. col. 1. Lab. 1333 Baron. An. 502. n. 21. pag. 545.: If the former were as true as this latter of giving these titles is, it would more need to be excused than this: But the truth is, the Popes were then so low, that they were, forced to give flatering Titles both to the Emperor and the Gothick Kings, whatever Religion they were of.

After this Council is added an Apology writ (to answer a Paper (now suppressed) against Symmachus) by Ennodius, wherein as far as appears by the Objections he cites, and the Answers he gives, the Accusers of this Pope were too hard for his Apologist. The Annalist and Binius highly magnifie this Tract; yet the former confesseth by the harshness of the style, and the horrid unevenness of a false Copy, the quickest wit can scarce apprehend it Baron. An. 503. n. 13. p. 552.. As to the matter of it, the Author huffs at a rate which shews more zeal than judgment; and we note, First, that he clearly owns Theodoric called the Synod that absolved Symmachus Bin. p. 528. col. 2. Lab. col. 1342., and therein confutes both his admirers, Baronius and Binius. Secondly, whereas his objectors rightly urge that the Apostle commands us not to keep company with a Brother that is a Fornicator 1 Cor. 5. 11. as (Symmachus was said to be) Ennodius saith it is the Prophet David, and not the Apostle which gives this advice Bin. p. 541. col. 1. Lab. 1342.. Thirdly, he ridiculously affirms that S. Peter (who was not innocent) transmitted Innocence as an inheritance to the Popes, and wonders any should fancy or imagine that a Pope should not be holy, who hath so high a dignity, and is praeordained (as he blasphemously speaks) to be the Foundation on which the weight of the Church leans Bin. ibid. Lab. col. 1343., as if the very Chair gave grace to a prostigate Wretch. Fourthly, He falsifies the Scripture, in saying Samuel appealed to the Lord, that men might not exmaine him Bin. pag. 542. col. 2. Lab. 1346.; Whereas the Text expresly saith [Page] he appealed to the People (before the Lord and the King) and challenged the People to prove any ill thing upon him, 1 Sam. xii. 3. Fifthly, his Maxim, That Peter's Successors were only to be judged by God; was not believed by the Councils of Constance and Basil Bin. pag. 544 col. 2. Lab. 1352., nor by Theodoric, nor any who had a hand in censuring or deposing any Bishops of Rome. Lastly, if this Book, which is so Barbarous in its style, so abounding in railing and mistakes, and so void of true reason, were approved and applauded in the Fifth Council; We may guess at the Qualifications of those Bishops who sat in it. As for the Editors and Baronius, it is enough that it pleads for a Pope, for they must extol it.

The Fifth Roman Synod hath all the marks of Forgery imaginable; for the Consuls are not named; and An. Dom. 503. the Indiction is also false (as Baronius confesseth) Baron. An. 503. n. 1. pag. 549.. And he with Binius own that the Subscriptions are so monstrously falsified, that many Bishops are named here, who were at the Council of Chalcedon 52 years before, and belonged to the Eastern Church, who also had been long ago dead and buried Bin. not. p. 550. col. 1. Lab. 1370. Barou. ut supra. n. 9.. And it is highly improbable, that 216 Bishops should meet only to approve such stuff, and to order this Book to be inserted among the Apostolical Decrees to be obeyed by all, as they were Bin. pag. 547. col. 2. Lab. col. 1364.. This phrase also smels of a late Forgery; for in the time of this pretended Synod, the name of Apostolical Decrees was not appropriated to Papal decisions, nor were their Decretals universally Obeyed. For we see that in Rome it self a great party both despised and writ against Pope Symmachus his Synodical absolution Again, here is that foolish Sentence, That the sheep must not judge their Pastor, unless he err in Faith, nor yet accuse him but for injustice Bin. pag. 548. col. 1. Lab. 1365., which is undoubtedly stolen out of a Decretal Epistle forged by Mercator long after this time; and it is wrong applied too, if Symmachus were so unjust as to rob his neighbors of their Chastity. Wherefore the very Book of Ennodius is suspicious, and this Synod is most certainly Forged to save the credit of an ill Pope.

[Page] The Sixth Roman Council hath no date; but the Subscriptions are certainly forged, having (like the former) the names of many Eastern Bishops who could not be in this Synod. The Acts are a Rhapsody out of some later Councils against Sacriledge Bin. p 550. col. 1. Lab. 1371., as appears by divers barbarous phrases, and some expressions, that are the dialect of more modern Ages, such as that of mens giving to the Church, for the remission of their Sins, (& aeternae vitae mercatione), and for purchasing eternalllife. The declaring also that the Sacrilegious are manifest Hereticks, is too absurd for this Age. They further say, That the Canons of Gangra were confirmed by Apostolical Autherity: The Forger meant, by Papal Authority. But those Bishops at Gangra scarce knew who was then Pope: And it is plain the Compiler of this Council had respect to a Forgery of later Ages, where Osius of Corduba's name (the pretended Legate of the Pope) is added to the Synodical Letter from this Synod; and therefore these Acts were devised long after this Council is pretended to have sitten. And he must be a meer stranger to the History of this Time; who reads here that Symmachus and his Council should say, It is not lawful for the Emperor, nor any other professing Piety, &c. For this supposes Anastasius no Heretick, and that Popes then prescribed Laws to the Emperor of the East Bin. pag. 551. col. 2. Lab. 1375.. I conclude with a single remark upon the Notes on this forged Council, which pretend, Theodoric obeyed this Councils Decree Bin. p. 553. col. 1. Lab. 1372. in ordering the patrimony of the Church of Milan to be restored to Eustorgius, who was not in this Council, nor Bishop of Milan till eight years after: And no doubt that Order was made by Theodoric in pure regard to Equity; for it is no way likely that he had ever heard of this Council. I conclude these Roman Councils with one remark relating to Mons. du-Pin, who hath taken things too much upon trust, to be always trusted himself, and therefore he publishes five of these six Councils for genuine Du Pin, Vol. 5. pag. [...]08., and gives almost the Baronian Character of Symmachus. But these Notes I hope will demonstrate he is mistaken, both in his Man and these Synods; and I [Page] only desire the Reader to compare his Account with these short Remarks.

§. 2. There were few Councils abroad in this Popes time, and he was not concerned in them. The Council An. Dom 506. of Agatha (now Agde) in the Province of Narbon, was called by the consent of Alaricus an Arrian King; Caesarius Bishop of Arles was President of it, and divers good Canons were made in it Bin. pag. 554 col. 2. Lab. 1381.; but Symmachus is not named, so that our Editors only say it was held in the time of Symmachus. I shall make no particular remark but on the Ninth Canon, where Caesarius (who was much devoted to promote that Celibacy of the Clergy which now was practised at Rome) and the Council declare that the orders of Innocent and Siricius should be observed Bin. pag. 555. col. 1. Lab. 1384.. From whence we may Note, that these Orders had not yet been generally obeyed in France, and that a Popes Decretal was of no force there by vertue of the Authority of his See, but became obligatory by the Gallican Churches acceptance, and by turning it into a Canon in some Council of their own. But that the usages of Rome did not prescribe to France is plain from the Notes on the xii Canon, where it appears their Lent Fast was a total abstinence till evening, none but the infirm being permitted to dine Not. in Con. xii. Bin. pag. 560. col. 1. Lab. 1398.. But the Roman Lent (unless they have altered their old rule) allows men to dine in Lent with variety of some sorts of meat and drink, which is not so strict by much as this Gallican custom.

The first Council of Orleance, is only said to be in An. Dom. 507. Symmachus time Bin. pag. 561. col. 1. Lab. 1404.; but the Acts shew he was not consulted nor concerned in it. The Bishops were summoned by the Precept of King Clovis, who also gave them the heads of those things they were to treat of. And when their Canons were drawn up, they sent them (not to Rome, but) to their King for Confirmation, with this memorable address, if those things which we have agreed on seem right to your judgment, we desire your assent, that so the Sentence of so many Bishops by the approbation of[Page]so great a Prince, may be obeyed, as being of greater Authority. And Clovis was not wanting in respect to them; for he stiles them Holy Lords, and Popes most worthy of their Apostolical Seat. By which it is manifest, that Rome had then no Monopoly of these Titles.

I conclude that which relates to Pope Symmachus his time with one Remark, that in the year 500 the Devout and learned African Fulgentius came on purpose to visit Rome: But the writer of his life, who acurately describes what the holy Man saw there, and largely sets forth his View of Theodoric, his visiting the Tombs of the Martyrs, and saluting the Monks he met with Vita B. Fulgen. cap. 13. pag. 16., speaks not one Syllable of the Pope, whose Benediction one would think Fulgentius should have desired: But whether the Schism yet continued, or Symmachus his manner did not please the good Man, 'its plain he took no notice of him.

§. 3. Hormisda succeeded Symmachus, and it seems by An. Dom. 514. the Letter of Dorotheus, that in his Election (and not before) the Schism at Rome ceased, which began when Symmachus was chosen Ep. Dorothei ap. Baron. An. 515. 7, 8. pag. 642.; which shews that Symmachus having a strong party against him all his time, could do nothing considerable. This Pope Hormisda was either married before he was Pope, or was very criminal; for he had a Son, i. e. Sylverius, who (as Liberatus testifies) was Pope about twenty years after him Liberati Brev. cap. 22. Bin. par. 2 pag. 191.. This was a bold and active Pope, and did labour much to reconcile the Eastern to the Western Church, and at last (in some measure) effected it, after the Greeks had been separated (as Binius notes) from the unity of the Church (not Catholick, but) of Rome (he means) about 80 years Bin. not. in vit. pag. 557. col. 1. Lab. 1439.. From whence we may observe, that a Church, may be many years out of the Communion of the Roman Church, and yet be a true Church; for none (till Baronius) ever said the Eastern was not a true Church all the time of this Separation. The Notes further tell us, that King Clovis of France sent Hormisda a Golden Crown set with precious stones, for a Present, and thereby procured this reward [Page] from God, that the Kingdom of the Franks still continues Bin. not. pag. 556. Col. 2. Lab. 1418.. Which stuff is out of Baronius Baron. An. 514. n. 14. pag. 632.. But the Story is as false as the inference; for Sirmondus proves that King Clovis died Anno 511, that is, three years before Hormisda was Pope Labbè in marg. 1420. & Tom. V. col. 305.: Labbè, who owns this to be an Error, would correct the mistake, and put in Childebert's name; but he who told the Story, could certainly have told the Kings right name Labbè 1417. & 1418. marg; wherefore we reject the whole Relation as fabulous: And for the inference, the Kingdom of Franks indeed like all other Kingdoms (who sent no Crowns) hath continued, but not in Clovis his Posterity, which is long since extinct. We shall make more remarks on this Popes History in his Letters.

And many Epistles are lately found of this Popes in the Vatican, or Forged there, which we will now consider.

The First Epistle is certainly Forged, it is directed to Remigius, but names King Lovis or Clovis, who was dead three year before, as Labbè owns Ep. 1. Hor [...]sd. Bin. pag. 557. col. 2. Lab. 1420.; for which cause Sirmondus omitted it as Spurious, and so P. de Marca counts it De Marca De Concord. l. 5. cap 42. §. 6.. And it is almost the same with another feigned Epistle, wherein the Pope is pretended to make a Spanish Bishop his Legate there Ep. 26. Horm. Bin. 578. col. 2. Lab. 1468.: But the Reader must beware of all such Epistles, being generally writ by later Parasites of Rome, who would have it thought, that all the Eminent Bishops in the World, acted by a Power delegated from the Pope.

The Second and Fourth Epistles are this Popes excuse, why he did not go, but send his Legates to a Council in the East, unto which the Emperor Anastasius had summoned him, more majorum Ep 2. & 4. Hor. Bin. pag. 558, &c. Lab. 1422, &c.: Which shews that as yet the Emperors had the power of calling Councils, and sent their Precepts to the Pope himself.

The Fifth Epistle is also to excuse Hormisda's not going, The Title of which is false, viz. That it was a new thing for a Pope to be called to a Council by the Emperor Ep. 5. Hor. Bin. 561. col. 2. Lab. 1430.. For the Letter it self only saith, there is no [Page]Example of a Pope going in person to a Council (in Foreign Parts). But as to the Summons, that was no new thing; for Pope Celestine was called to Ephesus by Theodosius, and Leo to Chalcedon by the Emperor Marcian. And in this Letter Hormisda highly commends Anastasius, for Writing to him to be there in person; and says, God moved the Emperor to write this.

The Third Epistle is a reply to Dorotheus Bishop of Thessalonica, who calls the Pope his Fellow Minister, in the Inscription. But Binius (contrary both to Baronius and Labbè) corrupts the Title and Text of the Epistle of Dorotheus Ep. Doroth. Bin. pag. 558. Col. 2. Lab. 1422. Baron. An. 515. n. 8. pag. 642. Vid. n. 11. [...]bi legit (vestro), reading Patri—instead of—Papae; and twice in six lines putting venerando capiti nostro,—for—vestro: Now the true reading, I have writ this to your venerable Head, means no more, but to your self: Whereas the corruption tends to impose upon the Reader a false conceipt, viz. That the Pope was the Father and Head of all Bishops.

The Sixth Epistle shews, that Hormisda for two years after his advancement into the infallible Chair, took Anastasius for an Orthodox Emperor Ep. 6. Hormisd. Bin. pag. 563. col. 2. Lab. 1436.. But Baronius had exposed him as a known Heretick, and Persecutor of the Orthodox many years before; and Binius Notes charge him with the Eutychian Heresie Not. in Ep. Anas. Bin pag. 563. Col. 1. Lab. 1435. at this very time: Which shews Hormisda was very meanly qualified for an universal Judge, in matters of Faith. I add, that in this Epistle the Pope declares, He will throw himself down at the Emperors Feet for the Service of the Church. But after-times have seen an Emperor falling down at the Popes Feet, and kissing his Slipper.

The Title of the Epistle of John Bishop of Nicopolis, calls the Pope (if it be genuine) Father of Fathers, and Prince of all Bishops Ep. Johan. Nicop. Bin. pag. 564. Col. 2. Lab. 1438.. However it can only mean, That the Pope was a chief Bishop, because in the same Title he styles him his fellow Minister, and in the Epistle saith his Predecessor Alciso, was a Prince of Bishops, who was only an Archbishop over a few Suffragans, and there were but eight Bishops in this Synod [Page] of Epirus Baron. An. 516. N. 47. pag. 663., of whose complying with the Pope, Baronius brags, as if all the Eastern Church had submitted.

In the Eighth Epistle, the Pope distinguishes the Apostolical (that is, the Roman) from the general Catholick Church; where he affirms that these Hereticks were Condemned, both by the one and the other.

After the Ninth Epistle we have a Paper called a Form of Faith, pretended to be sent with these Letters, to be subscribed by these Bishops of Epirus; but yet is dated the year after these Letters, and hath other marks of Forgery; the matter of it being not designed to secure the Articles of the Old Creeds, but to enslave all Churches to believe implicitely as the Church of Rome did, which is so grosly flattered in it, that Hormisda might well blush at it, and must take those who would subscribe it, for his Vassals. But doubtless, this was devised after the Supremacy and Infallibility were got much higher: And we may observe, the Forger of it not only claps it in here, but makes Justin the Emperor sign it, and send it to Pope Boniface, after that Emperor and Pope were both dead, where Binius and Labbè condemn it for an Imposture Prosess. Fidei. Bin. pag. 645. col. 1. Lab. 1686.: And the deviser of it is so fond of it, that he hath thrust it in most falsly and impertinently, in four or five several places of the Councils.

After all the Noise of the Subjection of the Eastern Churches to the Roman, all the Letters of this time, mention no more than the Agreement and Concord of the Eastern and Western Churches: So Avitus enquires, if they were reconciled and a Concord was made Ep. Avit. Bin. p. 568. col. 1. Lab. 1445.. Justin the Emperor saith, he laboured pro Concordia, &c. Ep Justin. Bin. pag. 579. col. 2. Lab. 1470.. And Hormisda himself speaks of it as an Union, and a receiving the Bishop of Constantinople into an Unity of Communion Indic. Hormisd. Bin. pag. 582. col. 2. Lab. 1476.; Which shews the Eastern Church owed no subjection then to Rome.

The instructions to the Legates last cited, are something suspicious, and look like the Work of a later Hand: But Binius is so taken with them, that he Prints them again verbatini Bin. pag. 560. & pag. 568., whereas Labbè omits them the second time.

[Page] The Seventeenth Epistle shews, that this Pope, under pretence of admitting inferior Bishops to his Communion, broke in upon the Ancient Rights and Customs of Metropolitans, freeing their Suffragans from the obedience they owed to their Superiors by the Canons Ep. 17. Hormisd. Bin pag. 573. Col. 2. Lab. 1456.. And a little after, because Dorotheus opposed this usurpation, the Pope represents him as having forsaken Christ Ep. 22. Hormisd. Bin. pag. 575. col. 1. Lab. 1459.; a piece of Cant that is common with every petty Sect, in respect of all that are not of their party. And indeed the Epistle of Anastasius, which follows this 22d Epistle declares, that Hormisda was a stubborn and unmerciful man, and not only slighted the Emperor and injured him; but pretended to command him; which he saith, He will not bear Ep. Anastas. Bin. ibid. Lab. 1460.; or as Baronius out of the Pontifical hath it, he told the Pope He would Command, and not be Commanded Baron An. 517. n. 48. pag. 677., which was not spoken in fury, but like a Prince; and had all his Successors kept the Reins so stiff, they had curbed all the Papal usurpations; yea, wholly prevented them.

The Relation of the Syrian Monks, which we have here in Latin, is corrupted in the Title, and abused by a silly Translator Bin. pag. 575. col. 2. Lab. 1461.. The Title is with great swelling words directed to Hormisda; but the Text speaks to a whole Synod of Bishops, and says, Rise ye up holy Fathers—and, The Flock cometh to you true Pastors and Doctors, to whom the Salvation of all is committed Ib. Bin. 576. &. Lab. 1462.; yet the Title appropriates all to the Pope single, where the Translator, for Oecumenical Patriarch (a name which is often given also to the Bishop of Constantinople,) ignorantly, or by design hath universae orbis Terrae Patriarchae; And he calls the Western Legate Angelum vestrum, your Angel: 'Tis probable also, some such Hand hath put in, vos estis caput omnium: Ye (not the Pope alone), are the Head of all; where our Editors marginal Note is, The Pope is the Head of all. But the boldest Forgery of all is, That Binius and Labbè make these Monks in the end of their Epistle accurse Acacius Bishop of Constantinople, who did communicate with the Hereticks, [Page] which is added by the Editors. For in Baronius Baron. An. 517. n. 59. pag. 679. & pag 518. Acacius his name is not once mentioned, neither in his Edition at Antwerp, 1596. nor in that at Venice, 1601. So that we can scarce trust any thing which comes through such Mens hands.

The Twenty fourth Epistle, which pretends to make John Bishop of Tarragon the Popes Legate, and speaks of his coming to Italy, and having Papal Constitutions sent him Ep. 24. Hormisd. Bin. pag. 57 [...]. col. 2. Lab. 1466., not only confirms our Note, that all such kind of Epistles are forged, but is certainly spurious it self. For in this year (517,) this John presided in the Council of Gyrone in Spain, where he and his fellow Bishops made Canons, and take no notice of the Pope, or any Legantine Power: And the Editors differ about the date of this Epistle. And probably the next Epistle containing the Constitutions is forged also Ep. 25. Hormisd. Bin. pag. 579. Lab. 1467., being directed to all the Bishops of Spain, who were not then under any one King nor Primate—And whereas this Letter speaks of peaceable times; it is certain these Gothick Arrian Kings, were almost continually at War with France, and with each other: However the Inventer of these Epistles is not very Modern: For he makes Christ the Head of the Church, and Bishops to be his Vicars: And Penitents are here forbid to be chosen Bishops, because they could not decently absolve others, who had openly confessed their own Sins before the People. Which shews, the Pope was not Christs sole Vicar then: And that there was no Auricular Confession when this was writ.

§. 3. Justin being upon Anastasius his death unexpectedly An. Dom. 518. made Emperor, gives the Pope notice of it, and requires his Prayers; This Hormisda (if his Letter be genuine) craftily calls, offering up the first fruits of his Empire to St. Peter Horm. Ep. 27. Bin. pag. 579. col. 1. Lab. 1470.: And the Notes add, That it was the ancient use to certifie the Pope of the new elected Emperor, and to request him to confirm and consecrate him. But I have shewed it was a much more ancient Custom, for the Pope to certifie the Emperor of his Election: [Page] Only when an Emperor came to the Throne without a good Title, (which was Justin's case,) it was such an Emperor's interest to gain the Pope's favour. But as for either Consecration or Confirmation, there is not one word of it; that is a device out of Baronius Brain, and the Annotator takes it from him of trust Baron. An. 518. n. 2, 3. pag. 2. Tom. 7.; and he was owned Emperor by all, long before this notice.

The Epistle of John Bishop of Constantinople, in the Title calls Hormisda, His most Holy Brother and Fellow-Minister Ep. to Censt. Bin. pag. 580. col. 1. Lab.; and in the Letter he calls him, Most dear Brother in Christ; which Phrases Epiphanius also his Successor uses in his Epistle to the same Pope Ep. Epiph. Bin. pag. 605. col. 2. Lab. 1534.: And from John's Epistle we learn, that when Old Rome left out the names of the Patriarches of Constantinople, in their Dypticks: These put out the Popes name from their Dypticks, which shews no subjection was owned or expected, and that the Eastern Church was on even ground with the Pope in those days, despising his Communion as much as he did theirs.

An Epistle writ to Caesarius Bishop of Arles, this year, is suspicious, because Baronius had mentioned his Will and Testament ten year before Baron. An. 508. n. 30. pag. 589.: But if he were now alive, we must correct the Title in Binius, where he is called, The Vicar of the Apostolick See in France: Which words are so manifest a Forgery that Labbè left them out. But we may suspect the whole, since the Pope never names his last Embassy before this time received from the Emperor and Patriarch of Constantinople, when he pretends to give an Account of the Affairs in the East to this Caesarius.

The Legates Instructions here begin as the former did, viz. When by Gods Mercy, ye come into the Eastern parts Indic. 2. Bin. pag. 582. col. 1. Lab., &c. and the Legates in their third Suggestion, ascribe their safe Journy only to Gods Mercy Sug. 3. Bin. pag. 585. col. 2. Lab. 1485.. So that probably those words (in the first instructions)—and the Prayers of the Apostles, are added by a later hand, when they used so often to pray to Saints, as to give them a share of the Glory due to God for his Mercy.

[Page] The same hand, to countenance the same practice, seems to have corrupted the Thirty seventh Epistle, where Hormisdu tells Justinian—He did daily and humbly beseech the Apostle Peter, that God might give a speedy issue to his endeavours B. Petrum Ap.—obsecramus, Leg.—apud B. Petrum Apostolum.—obsecramus. Ep. 37. Hormisd. Bin. pag. 584. Col. 2. Lab. 1483.: Which borders both on Blasphemy and Nonsense, but probably the true reading was—apud B. Petrum—obsecramus. That the Pope pray'd daily at St. Peter's Church to God, for Justinian's speedy success.

That the Eastern and Western Church were united about this time is true; but I am apt to believe, that those many particular circumstances, which Baronius and these Editors have out of a sort of reports of the Popes Legates, Letters and other Papers, lately found (it seems) in the Vatican, are of later invention. The Epistle of John Bishop of Constantinople, wherein he is pretended to subscribe that flattering confession of Faith, formerly said to be subscribed by the Bishops of Epirus Libel. Johan. Bin. pag. 586. Col. 1. [...] Lab. 1486., is certainly a Forgery, that some Parasite hath transcribed as often as any Eminent person was reconciled to the Pope; and therefore, a little after (as I noted but now) he ascribes the same Form to the Emperor Justin, three years after he was dead: There is no proof of this John's subscribing any such Paper, but only the relation of Dioscorus, one of the Pope's Legates, which is certainly false, because he saith, That at this time (An. 519.) John consented to rase the names of Phravites, Euphemius, Macedonius and Timotheus out of the Dypticks, as well as the name of Acacius, upon which Baronius Triumphs most extreamly Baron. An. 519. n. 54. pag. 32. Tom. 7.: But without any cause; for if he had not craftily omitted an Epistle of Justinian's, writ the next year id. An. 520. n. 4. pag. 55., (which is in Binius Ep. Justinian. Bin. pag. 610. Col. 2. Lab. 1547.,) it would have appeared that the Eastern Church would not yield to rase out any more names, but only that of Acacius. But Baronius hath later Epistles of Justinian which expresly say, (a year after this pretended rasing out the names of Euphemius, &c.) that only Acacius his Name was left out of the Dypticks, and that the scruple about the other [Page] names was not to be medled with; for the Eastern Bishops would never yield that point Baron. An. 520. n. 35, 36. pag. 62.. And Justin the Emperor saith the same to Hormisda Idem 520. n. 56. pag. 66.; yea, in the year 521, we find the Emperor still requiring the Pope should communicate with those who only left out Acacius his name, but kept in the other Bishops names Id. An. 521. n. 6. pag. 72.. All which is sufficient to prove this Story of Dioscorus to be a meer Fiction: Yet it may be confirmed also by the Chronicle of Victor; who mentions no Bishops name of Constantinople but Acacius, that was rejected when the Emperor Justin reconciled the Eastern and Western Bishops Victor. Tuen. Chron. pag. 7. Valer. & Just. Coss. An. 521.: And no Writers of this or the next Age do mention this pretended submission of John of Constantinople; Marcellinus, Cassiodorus, Euagrius and Paulus Diaconus are wholly silent in this matter: And if we consider how the Scene is dressed up with variety of Letters, (lately found out) we shall be tempted to think this part of the Epistles are forged; yet we may allow what Baronius saith, that this abundance of Letters may make us that read them now, know more of this case, than they who lived in that Age knew, if they never saw these Letters Baron. An. 519. n. 27. & pag. 27.. For 'tis probable neither Hormisda, nor his Legates, nor Justin, Justinian, &c. did ever see these Epistles that now appear under their names, so that we may very well know more than they did; but the reason is only, because we know more than is true.

We may discover some marks of Forgery in divers of these Papers; As that most of them want the Consuls Names, and are not dated; That Germanus says, he was received in Procession with Wax Candles and Crosses Baron. An. 519. n. 35. pag. 29.; a Custom of a later date; for we have no Crosses in another Procession described by a Writer of that time Id. An. 522. n. 14. pag. 83.. The calling Hormisda in one of the Letters, Arch-Bishop of the Universal Church Ep. Anastas. Bin. pag. 589. col. 1. Lab. 1494.; and the Emperors giving the Popes Legate the Title of His Angel Ib. Lab. 1516 Bin. pag. 598. col. 1.; These, with many other things that might be observed, make it probable these Papers were Invented for a Pattern to the poor Greeks, when the design of subjecting [Page] them to the Latin Church, was on foot in later Ages.

§. 4. To proceed: Whereas Justinian in one particular point desires the Opinion of Hormisda, and complements him so far as to tell him, He will believe that to be Orthodox, which he shall answer Ep. Justin. ap. Baron. An. 519. n. 100. pag. 43. Bin. p. 598 col. 2. Lab. 1517.; Baronius prints this in great Letters, and Binius from this particular Assertion draws a general Inference in his Margen, viz. That which is defined by the Pope, is to be received by all for the Catholick Faith. A Consequence so absurd, that Labbè is ashamed of it and leaves it out, as well he might, since Justinian did not agree with the Pope in this Question, after he had received his Answer. And the dissenting Eastern Bishops, at this time reckoned Hormisda to be a Nestorian Sug. Germ. Bin. pag. 597. col. 2. Lab. 1514., if we can credit any of these Papers. So that doubtless Justinian never thought a Pope Infallible.

In another Epistle ascribed to John of Constantinople, not so very truckling as the former, that Bishop is made to say, by the help of the Intercession of the Holy and Consubstantial Trinity, and of the glorious and true Mother of God Relat. Joh. Constant. Bin. pag. 600. col. 2. Lab. 1521.. A Phrase too absurd for any Bishop to use: For with whom should the Trinity intercede, or what can be more ridiculous than equalling the Virgins Intercession to the Trinity, unless it be the making the Trinity pray to it self? Labbè boldly attempts to mend this Sentence, but without Authority; and after all, its evidently writ by a later Hand.

If the next relation of Germanus be true, it appears, No cause of a Bishop of the East could be tried at Rome, without the consent of the Emperor, who expresly forbids the trying the Cause of Dorotheus at Rome, though the Pope earnestly desired it might be judged there Sug. G [...]rm. Bin. pag 600. col. 2. Lab. 1522., as Baronius also confesseth Baron. An. 519. n. 142. pag. 52..

By the relation from the Synod at Constantinople it appears, that they call their new elected Patriarch Epiphanius, The Popes own Brother, and fellow Minister; and count their joynt endeavours, to be one Brothers helping another [Page] Relat Synod. Const. Bin. pag. 601. col. 2. Lab. 1524.. Binius strives to blunder this by printing it, Germanum vestrum, as if it were the proper name of the Popes Legate. But Labbè honestly restores the true reading germanum vestrum.

The Epistle next to this bears the name of Justinianus Augustus; yet is dated Anno 520 Epist. Justin. Bin. pag 602. c. 1. Lab. 1526., which is a gross mistake; for he was not styled Augustus till near seven year after, as Baronius owns Anno 527. Yea, after this Justinian is styled Vir illustris Bin. pag. 606. Lab. 1536.; and for certain was not Emperor when this Letter is said to be writ.

The Notes after Hormisda's 70th Epistle, do bitterly inveigh against Johannes Maxentius, and the Scythian Monks, as notorious Lyers, and Eutychian Hereticks; and Labbè is more severe in his Censure than Binius or Baronius Ep. 70. Horm. Bin. pag. 605. col. 1. Lab. 1532. Baron. An. 519. n. 101. pag. 43.. But they are all mistaken; For this Maxentius was entirely Orthodox, and defended the Council of Chalcedon against the Eutychians, as is fully proved by two learned and judicious Writers, Bishop Usher and Forbesius Usher. Antiq. Britan. cap. 14. pag. 256. Forbes. Instruct. Theolog. lib. 3. cap 21.. And we may be sure Baronius first invented this false accusation, (thinking it impossible any Man but a Heretick could write against the Pope), to be revenged on Maxentius for so bold a Fact. But in the Age before, Cochlaeus a Papist or Catholick (as Baronius calls him) did honestly put out Maxentius his Works, as an Orthodox Writer, though Maxentius do write against the Epistle under Hormisda's Name, to Possessor an African Bishop; and proves whoever was the Author of that Epistle, was a Lyer and an Heretick, as were also Possessor and Dioscorus, one of the Popes Legates; and he further justifies himself, and the Scythian Monks, blaming the Pope for banishing them from Rome: Saying amongst other thing, If the Bishop of Rome should prohibit us to confess Christ, the Son, to be one of the Holy and undivided Trinity, the Church would never yield to him, nor respect him as an Orthodox Bishop, but utterly Accurse him as an Heretick Oper. Max. edit. Cochlaei, fol. 31.. So that no body then believed the Pope to be Infallible; and for Hormisda, Maxentius suspects him to be a favourer of Pelagianism. The Emperor Justin speaking of the [Page] Church of Hierusalem, saith, that all men shew [tantum favorem, the Editors read tamen, only to blunder the Period] so much favour to it, as to the Mother of the Christian Name, that none dare separate from it Epist. Justin. Bin pag. 608. col. 2. Lab. 1542.. Had this been said of Rome, how would the Parasites have Triumphed? Yet wanting real Encomiums, in the next Paper they steal one; and where the Eastern Clergy speak of their own Churches which had not swerved from the Faith delivered to them; The Editors apply this to Rome, and say in the Margen Bin. p. 609. col. 1. Lab. 1543., The Roman Church never deviated from right Doctrin: But the Reader will find there is no mention of the Roman Church in that place; only S. Peter, who founded that of Antioch, is pointed at a little before.

Before Hormisáa's 77th Epistle there is one of Justinian, to Hormisda; wherein he declares, that after the Controversie was setled ultra non patiemur (they blunder it by reading nos patiemur) He will not suffer any one under that Government to stir any more in it Ep. Justin. Bin. pag. 611. col. 1. Lab. 1547.: Which is a brisk Order to the Pope, in a cause of Religion. For which reason, and because it shews, that he and the Greeks would not yield to leave out any Name, but that of Acacius, Baronius omits it, and only prints the answer to it Baron. An. 520. n. 4. p. 55. Tom. vii.: For this was writ the year after the pretended consent of the Patriarch of Constantinople, to rase out Euthymius, and Macedonius, with other Names out of the Dypticks.

We cannot leave this Pope without some remarks on his carriage in answer to the Question propounded to him by Justinian, viz. Whether it were Orthodox to say (as the Scythian Monks did) one of the Trinity was crucified for us? Dioscorus the Popes Legate represented this Sentence to Hormisda, as Heretical, and that to allow it would open a gap to many Heresies Baron. An. 519. n. 82, 83. pag. 39.. The Pope first determined to refer the controversie to the Bishop, of Constantinople, as appears by another relation of Dioscorus Bin. p. 599. col. 2.; though Baronius would conceal this, by omitting the beginning of this Paper Baron. An. 519. n. 124. pag 48.: But probably Dioscorus durst not trust this Question with the Patriarch of [Page] Constantinople. So that Hormisda not yet declaring himself, Justinian writ to him, that he and the Eastern Church thought this Sentence Orthodox, and required his consent to their Faith Id. An. 520 n. 37. pag. 62., which he further shews in another Epistle complaining of the Popes delays Ep. Justin. Bin. pag. 610. Col. 2.. At last, after a long time Hormisda writes a shuffling Letter to the Emperor, wherein Baronius saith he utterly exploded this Sentence Baron. An. 521. n. 26, 27. pag 77.: Yea, Baronius owns afterward, that this Pope would have all Catholicks abhor these words; One of the Trinity suffered in the Flesh Baron. An. 533. n. 4. pag. 179.. But this very Sentence afterward appeared to be True and Orthodox, and they who condemned it were declared Hereticks. Yea, the Scythian Monks appealed from this Pope to that most learned and orthodox Father Fulgentius, who declared they were in the right, and that he believed as they did Vid. opera Fulg ep. ad Monach. col. 272.. And finally, one of the succeeding Popes joyned with Justinian and the Orthodox Christians to confirm this Sentence: So that this Pope and his Legate were both on the Heretical side, which spoils the Infallibility.

§. 5. The Councils abroad in this Popes times take An. Dom. 514. no notice of him, yet bear the Title of being held under him: The first, (Binius says) was at Rhemes, and he cites for this Flodoardus Cone. Rhem. Bin pag. 614. col 2. Lab. 1572.. But Labbè calls this, a Synod at an uncertain place, and gives us Binius his Notes; but cites the words of Flodoardus; by which it appears that Rhemigius his being made the Popes Legate, and calling this Synod there by a Legantine power, are Fictions of Baronius and Binius, taken out of the first forged Epistle of Hormisda, and falsly charged upon Flodoardus, who saith no such thing: And Sirmondus with P. de Marca say, Rhemigius was not the Popes Legate: Which manifestly appears from two Epistles of his, writ ten year after this feigned delegation Ep. Rhem. Lab. col. 1608. An. 524., concerning an Invasion made upon his jurisdiction, wherein he never urges any sort of power as Legate, but pleads his original right as a Metropolitan: And from Baronius and his Plagiary citing Flodoardus [Page] at large for this, compared with the words of that Author in Labbè; the Reader may learn, these Writers are never to be trusted in any Quotation relating to the Pope, till the Authors be searched.

The Council of Tarragon was not under Hormisda, An. Dom. 516. though it were in his time Concil. Tarrac. Bin. pag. 615. Lab 1562.; The Bishops there acting independently on Rome, whose Popes Decrees of dividing the Church Revenues into four parts, they contradict, and divide it only into three Not. Bin. pag 617. Lab. 1566. in the eighth Canon: And in the eleventh, they order concerning the Discipline of Monks, the Gallican Canons shall above all others be observed.

Binius misplaces the Council of Pau, Anno Dom. 509. An Dom. 51 [...]. But Labbè sets it in this year rightly; it was called (not by the Pope, but) by Sigismund King of Burgundy, as all Provincial and National Synods in that age were; the famous Alcimus Avitus was President of it, and the Pope had no hand in it; for which reason these lesser Councils are more sincere than any, where Rome or the Pope is named, for there the Forgers are always tempted to leave, add, or alter something.

The same year was a Council held at Gyrone in Spain, not under the Pope, but under John of Tarragon; and though by Hormisda's forged Epistles, he be pretended to have been the Pope's Legate See these Notes on Ep. 24. Horm., and that he received Constitutions from Rome, it is plain this Council proceeds upon its own Authority Concil. Gerund. Bin. pag. 618, &c. Lab. 1567. An. Dom. 518., and makes its own Rules; which shews these Fictions are of a later date.

The Council of Constantinople is falsly titled under Hormisda; the Union was not yet made, and Hormisda sent not his Legates till next year, so that it is very trifling for the Editors to say, it was partly reprobated at Rome Concil. Const. Bin. pag. 620. col. 1. Lab. 1586., because this Synod consisted only of Eastern Bishops, called by Justin the Emperor; and their own Patriarch John of Constantinople presided, whom they call, Most Holy and Blessed Father of Fathers, Archbishop and Oecumenical Patriarch Bin. p. 725. Col. 2. Lab. Tom. 5. p. 162., and of him and Justin, only do they desire their Acts to be confirmed. And [Page] not only they, but two Eastern Synods also at Jerusalem and Tyre ratified these Decrees, which gave them a sufficient Authority; and it is but a Roman Fiction, that these Acts were revoked upon the reconciling of the Eastern and Westrn Churches.

§. 6. John the first succeeded Hormisda, probably by An Dom. 523. the interest of Theodoric the Arrian Gothick King, for he commanded him to go as his Embassador to the Eastern Emperor Justin, to require him not to persecute the Arrians, but restore to them their Churches which he had taken away, Threatning he would use the Catholicks of Italy severely, if this were not granted Vit. Johan. Bin. pag. 621. Col. 2. Lab. 1600.. The Pontifical softens this with a gentle phrase, Rogans misit—as if Theodoric entreated the Pope to go on this ungrateful Errant; but the Notes more truly affirm, he forced him to take this Office Not. Bin. 622. Lab. 1602.. However, the Pope durst not disobey that King, wherefore he went to Constantinople, and did deliver this request to Justin, so as to prevall for liberty to the Arrians in the East, as all Authors (before Baronius) affirm Anastasius ut sup. Platina pag 71. Naucler. Chron. pag. 702 Paul. Diaconus l. 17. pag. 166, & 167.: But the Cardinal calls this a base blot of the Popes prevarication; and therefore he with the Notes give Anastasius the lye, and forsake him in this part of John's Story whom in all the rest they follow. For Baronius will not allow, that a Pope should do so vile a thing, as to sollicit for Liberty of Conscience for Arrian Hereticks; wherefore he pretends he encouraged Justin to go on in punishing them: But they cannot prove this, except by a forged Epistle writ in this Popes name, and a mistaken passage out of Gregory of Tours, who knew not the true Story, but speaks of John's Embassy to Theodoric, instead of Justin. One Argument only Baronius urges, which is, Why Theodoric should imprison this Pope at his return, and keep him prisoner till he dyed in that woful confinement, if he had faithfully discharged his Embassy Baron. An. 525. n. 8. pag. 106, & 107.. I answer from Paulus Diaconus, That Theodoric was moved to anger, because Justin the Catholick Emperor had received him so honourably Pet. Diacon. l. 17. pag. 167.; and also as Baronius himself saith, [Page] This Gothick King suspected the Romans were then laying Plots against him, and confederating with Justin The Emperor. So that doubtless he thought the Pope was in this design, and so suffered him to dye in Prison: Now all this proves, that these Gothick Kings were absolute Lords over the Bishops of Rome; and it looks like a Judgment on the Roman See, that whereas they had been so bitter against Acacius and other Orthodox Bishops of Constantinople, for only conversing with supposed Hereticks, one of their own Popes was forced to plead that the worst of all Hereticks, the Arrians, might have the publick exercise of their Religion allowed by Law. I take no notice of the Miracles ascribed to this Pope, because the fabulous Gregorian Dialogues are the only Evidence for them.

The Roman Mint hath Coined two Epistles for this Pope, of which Labbè saith, many things prove that they are both forged Ep [...] Johan. Bin. pag. 623. col. 1. Lab. 1603.. The first is patched up out of the fragments of many other Popes Letters; and that passage of the Sheeps reproving their Pastor, if he Err in the Faith, is originally stollen out of a feigned Epistle under Pope Fabian's name. Baronius and Binius both confess a false date, viz. Olybrius and Maximus being Consuls, who were never in office together; and if we read Id. Junij Maximo Consule, John was not made Pope till two Months after, nor will Olybrio Consule, mend the matter with Id. Junij, because this Pope dyed the 27th of May in that year: However, though they cannot reconcile these Errors, the Notes and Baronius would have this Forgery pass for genuine, to clear the Pope from serving the Arrian interest Baron. An. 526. n. 3. pag. 111.. The second Epistle is also Fictitious, being a Rhapsody out of Leo's Epistles and some places of Scripture Ep 2. Johan Bin. pag. 526. col. 2. Lab. 1605., and dated after this Pope was dead: So that we must reject them both together, with the Legend of his Consecrating Arrian Churches for the Orthodox, in defiance to King Theodoric, which Baronius and Binius would have us believe.

[Page] The Council of Lerida in Spain, was not as Binius An. Dom. 524. saith, under John, but under Sergius Bishop of Tarragon who presided in it, and in the 16 Canon, is called the Bishop of the first See; a Title common to all Primates of old, but lately engrossed by the Pope Concil. Ilerd. Bin pag. 625. col. 1. Lab. 1610.. In the Fragments of this Council, there is a method of canonically purging Clerks accused of Crimes; but it cannot belong to this Council (as Labbè owns,) because it mentions Leo the Third and Charlemaign, who lived near 300 year after this Synod was held Lab. in Marg col. 1615.. In the same year was another Spanish Council at Valencia, in Pope John's time, but he is not once named in it, and the Canons were made by the Bishops of the Province Cincil. Valent. Bin. pag. 629. Lab. 1617.: Wherefore, Binius falsly Titles it under Pope John.

The same year was held the Council of Arles, which Binius miscalls the third, but was truly the fourth Council there. This Synod was placed wrong formerly An. 453, when one Opilio was Consul with Vincomalus; but another Opilio was Consul with Rusticus this year An. 524, and Caesarius his Subscription to it shews, this is the true date of it Concil. Arel. 4. Bin. pag. 631. col. 2. Lab. 1622, &c.. Binius is here twice mistaken. First, In his old Title of sub Johanne. Secondly, In printing the Epistle of Faustus in this place, as if this Council of Arles were that which Faustus pretended confirmed his Pelagian Errors: But Labbè saith, Binius is mistaken, and 'tis certain he was quite out.

In Labbè, we have here a singular Example of the modesty of Fulgentius, who was very justly chosen President of an African Synod: But perceiving a certain Bishop took this ill, in the next Council he renounced the Seat and Dignity, procuring that Bishop to sit before him, resolving not to defend the Primacy he deserved (saith the Author,) where it would make a breach of Charity Lab. 1628. Baron. An. 523. n. 32. pag 103.. And oh how happy had Christendom been, if the Popes had followed this Pattern! Who at this time had renounced the Communion of more than half the Christian World; chiefly for not [Page] submitting to their Primacy, and in every Age since, have Qarrelled with all that would not allow them that claim.

The Council of Carthage under Boniface Bishop there, Stiles him Bishop of the first See Lab. Col. 1629.: It never names the Pope, and makes it very clear, that this Primate did order all things in that Province, without any dependance on Rome.

§. 7. Foelix the Fourth was named by King Theodoric, An. Dom. 526. who being now Lord of Rome, did of right propose him to the Clergy as a Candidate for the Papacy, void by Johns death Vit. Foel. 4. Bin. p. 634 col. 2. Lab. 1649.. The Notes pretend this was an usurpation, and Baronius for this Rails bitterly at Theodoric; calling it an arrogant Fact, and giving him the Title of a cruel Barbarian, a dreadful Tyrant and impious Arrian, adding that this was the cause of Gods destroying him Baron. An. 526. n. 22 & 25. pag. 116, 117.. But for all this rage, this is no more than what all Princes then did in their own Dominions: And these Editors a little before printed an Epistle wherein it is said, That Epiphanius was made Bishop of Constantinople by the Election of Justin and the Empress, with the consent of the Nobles, Priests and People Relat. Ep. Bin. pag 605. col. 2. Lab. 1537.: And Hormisda in the 76th Epistle saith he was rightly elected: Which shews, that the Eastern Emperors did not learn this of the Gothick Kings; but these learned of the Emperors to name the Bishops of their chief Cities Baron. ut sup. pag. 116.. And Theodoric ever exercised this Right, as the case of Symmachus shewed us before: Wherefore that Law of Ordoacer, that the Pope should be elected by the Princes consent, remained still in force; and Symmachus his pretended Repeal of it is either forged, or else these Kings despised all Papal Councils which abridged them of their right.

In the Notes on this Popes Life, we have a fabulous Vision of some doting Hermit, who fancied he saw Theodoric's Soul thrown into the Vulcanian Kettles Not. in vitam Foelic. Bin. pag. 634, 635. Lab. 1650.. This out of Gregory's Dialogues is Foundation enough for them to Triumph in his Damnation, who resolve [Page] to find out some Vision or Dream to perswade easie Readers, that all Princes who injured any Pope were sent to Eternal Flames: Again, the Notes pretend, that Justinian's Ecclesiastical Laws were made by the Bishops of Constantinople, and put out in that Emperors name: But why might not Justinian make his own Laws about Church matters, as Constantine and all his Successors to this time had done? No doubt he and they used in such cases to advise with their own Bishops: But these Parasites of Rome are angry, that the Pope is not the sole Law-maker in Causes Ecclesiastical; now he was not so much as consulted in these Laws, being then the Subject of another Prince: And what they object of Justinian's speaking honourably of Zeno and Anastasius his Predecessors (Enemies to Rome) confirms me in the Opinion, that Justinian in composing these Laws took no advice from St. Peter's Chair.

We may justly suspect most of these Papal Epistles, (out of which the Canonists for some Ages fetcht those Rules, by which they oppressed the Christian World,) because if a Pope neither did nor writ any thing remarkable, the Forgers invented Business and Letters for him as they have done for Pope John and this Foelix; whose two first Epistles Labbè declares to be spurious Ep. 1. Foel. Bin. pag 635. col. 1. Lab. 1650. Et Ep. 2. Bin. pag. 673. col. 1. Lab. 1656., and shews the former is made up out of the Forgeries in Pope Eleutherius name, as also out of the Epistles of Leo, and Gregory who was yet unborn; the latter steals the beginning from an Epistle of Pope Innocent's, and the rest is verbatim taken out of a spurious Epistle ascribed to Pope Dionysius Vid. Bin. Tom. 1. pag. 158.: And the date of this also is after Foelix his death. But Binius boldly saith they are genuine; and Baronius would persuade us, the name of Foelix was put for Boniface, (which is an unlikely change) Baron. An. 530. n. 1. pag. 153.. Now if you ask why they vindicate such Trash; I must Note, it is for the sake of one dear Sentence, viz. That the Roman Church in one of them is twice called the Head; A phrase which is enough to make any Coin currant at Rome.

[Page] The Third Epistle was dated 15 year before Foelix was Pope Ep. 3. Foelix. Bin. pag. 637. col. 2. Lab. 1657., till Sirmondus lately mended the Consuls name; 'tis said to be written to Caesarius Bishop of Arles, who is here stiled not the Son, but the Brother of the Pope: But the matter of it is such mean stuff, that the true Author will have no credit by it, nor is it material whether it be genuine or no: And by the way 'tis somewhat odd, that these forged or trifling Epistles, should give Du-Pin ground for putting these two Popes into his Catalogue of Ecclesiastical Writers Du-Pin Hist. Cent. 6. pag. 29..

Labbè adds here a Form of Anathematizing the Manichaean Heresie, wherein St. Augustin's Opinion guides the Affair Lab. col. 1658.. The Pope is not concerned in reconciling Hereticks; for the Authority of Rome was not so considerable in those days, as these Men pretend.

'Tis true, the Council of Orange owns they had An. Dom. 529. some Capitulars sent from Rome against the Pelagians Concil Araus. 2. Bin. pag. 638. col. 1. Lab. 1666.. But Labbè's Notes say, they were Sentences collected out of the Fathers, especially St. Augustin, and agreeable to holy Scripture Lab. not. col. 1676.. Wherefore Binius falsly brags, that this Controversie was determined by the Popes Authority; it was determined by St. Augustin's Authority, whose Doctrin Pope John the second saith, the Roman Church then kept and followed Ep. 3. Joan. 2. Bin. pag. 655. col. 1. Lab. 1751.. Rome only furnished the Records toward it; and a Clerk of the Rolls may as well be called the Determiner and Judge of a Suit where he produces any old writing, as the Pope made Arbiter in this Case: And it was the Gallican Synods Decree, which made these Definitions to be of Force in France. Sirmondus indeed pretends, Pope Boniface confirmed this Council Lab. col. 1673.; but acknowledges the confirmation came some time after, though the modern Parasites had falsly placed this Papal confirmation before the Council: But if we enquire more strictly, it will appear this second Epistle of Boniface the Second, (which is the confirmation) is Forged; for it not only bears date the year after the Council, but [Page] (as Sirmondus owns Not. Sirmond. Lab. col. 1689.,) it is dated seven Months before Boniface was Pope: So that unless you will allow him to alter Dates at his pleasure, this Pope did not confirm this Synod at all: Only any thing must be genuine with these Men, which gives countenance to the Papal usurpations.

The Notes upon this Council cite a Testimony out of Gennadius, that Pope Foelix approved a Book writ by Caesarius against the Pelagians Not. ap. Bin. pag. 641. col. 1. Lab. 1676.: Which Testimony is not in my Edition of Gennadius; and if that Author have writ any such thing, he must mean Foelix the Third, because he writ An. 492, which is above 30 year before this Foelix was Pope. But when such learned Men as Prosper and Caesarius writ against an Heresie, the Popes Celestine and Foelix gladly subscribed them, not to give the Books any greater Authority, but to prove themselves Orthodox, and in Communion with men so famous for defending the Catholick Faith.

The Second or Third Council of Vaison, was falsly An. Dom. 529. placed by Binius under Pope John the second, who was not Pope till two years after Concil. Vas. 3. Bin. pag. 641. Lab. 1679.; But Sirmondus rightly places it in this year in Foelix his time. In the first Canon it would have appeared plainly, that the Readers then had Wives allowed, if the true reading had stood, which must be Lectores—suas uxores habentes—recipiant. But the Forgers have altered it in Binius thus,—sive uxores habuerint; in Labbè thus, sine uxore, &c. But the corrupters in both Editions have left this passage so abused, that it is neither Grammar nor Sense. The fourth Canon is double in Binius; Labbè hath made it but one; it orders That the Popes name shall be recited in the Gallican Offices. Now to make this Canon seem more ancient, the Parasites had hoisted up this Council 200 year, even as high as Pope Julius, where Binius shamelesly prints it: But Sirmondus proves there could be no such French Council at that time: And considering the Forgers have been so busie with this Canon, I judge it very probable, that it was made by a Council much later than this Age, only it is clapt in [Page] here very abruptly, to support an earlier Grandeur than the Popes at the time enjoyed; I am sure it seems unlikely, the Gallican Church should then pay this great respect to Rome.

§. 8. Pope Boniface the Second succeeded Foelix, but An. Dom. 530. not by a clear Election, for another party chose Dioscorus who had been Legate to Horsmida Vit. Bonif. 2. Bin. pag. 643. col. 2. Lab. 1682.; but he was either poysoned or died naturally, within a Month, and so Boniface kept the Chair: His Malice however died not with his Rival: For he called a Synod, and got him anathematized after his Death for Simony: Which crime Pope Agapetus a little after proved to be false, and the Sentence extorted from the Clergy by Boniface's malicious craft; So that the Sentence was revoked, and Dioscorus with his party absolved Vita Agapet. Bin. pag. 664. col. 1. Lab. 1785.. Another Evidence of this Popes rashness was a Decree made also in this Synod, That the Pope should name his Successor, which was not only against the Canons, (which this Pope and his Council here had violated,) but against an express Law of the Gothick Princes; and therefore when this fallible Pope saw his Error, a little after he called another Synod and revoked this Decree, confessing himself, as Anastasius saith, Guilty of Treason, in making the former Order; by which we may see, in that Age it was Treason for the Pope in Council to Repeal a Royal Law. Wherefore I wonder that Baronius should call that the wresting a presumtuous and usurped power out of the Goths hands Baron. An. 531. pag. 165. n. 1, 2., which his poor Master owned to be Treason. In short this Pope is only famous for his Errors and evil Deeds.

But to make him look great, the Forgers have invented an Epistle for him, containing many vaunts of the Roman Churches greatness, and a pretended submission of the Church of Carthage, after a very long separation from Rome, even from the time of Aurelius Ep. 1. Bonif. 2. Bin. pag. 644. col. 1. Lab. 1683.. Now though this came out of their own Shop, it is so gross an untruth in the main, That Binius and all their later Writers reject it: But though I [Page] think the Epistle certainly Spurious, and this submission forged; yet it is true, the African Churches (even while they did own the Roman for an Orthodox Church,) had for a long time denied that usurped jurisdiction of Appeals from thence to Rome, to which some Popes pretended, which had made them stand at a distance from the See of Rome: The Notes on this Epistle have a fallacious Argument however, to prove the African Church could not so long remain divided from the Roman; because if so, they could have no true Martyrs all that time, since the Fathers agree, That Crown is only due to those who suffer in the Catholick Church Not. in Ep. 1. Bin. pag. 645. Col. 1. Lab. 1686.. I reply, this may be very true; and yet since no Father ever said that the particular Roman Church is the Catholick Church, a Christian may dye a true Martyr if he die in the Communion of the Catholick Church, though he hold no Communion with the Roman Church, which was the case at this time, or lately, of many Eastern Churches.

Another Forgery out of the same Mint treads on the heels of this, pretending to be a Copy of the Emperor Justin, and Justinian's submission to this Pope; wherein they are made to own the Supremacy of Rome to the highest pitch, and to Curse all their Predecessors and Successors, who did not maintain that Churches Priviledges Exemplar prec. Bin. ibid. Lab. ibid. Baron. An. 530. n. 6. pag. 154.. But the cheat is so apparent, the matter so improbable and ridiculous, and the date so absurd, that Baronius and both the Editors reject it; So that I shall only note, that a true Doctrine could not need so many Forgeries to support it, and the interest they serve shews who employed these Forgers.

We have spoken before of Boniface's two Roman Councils, one of them revoking what the other decreed: The third is only in Labbè, being a glorious Pageant, drest up by the suspicious hand of a late Library-keeper to the Pope. But it amounts to no more than the introducing a poor Greek Bishop or two, to enquire what was said in the Roman Records, and in the Popes Letters of the Authority of that Church Concil. Rom. 3. Bonif. Lab. 1691.. [Page] So that the Pope and his Council were Judges and Witnesses in their own Cause, and therefore their Evidence is of no great Credit: And 'tis very ominous, that this Synod is dated in December, that is, two Months after Boniface's death, who is said to have been present at all its Sessions Not. Luc. Holstein. Lab. 1723.. To cover which evident mark of Forgery, Holstenius gives Baronius and all other Writers the Lye, about the time of Boniface's dying, and keeps him alive some time longer only to give colour to this new-found Synod.

The Council of Toledo might be in Boniface's time, but not under him: For the King of Spain, (whom the An. Dom. 531. Bishops here call their Lord) called it, and it was held sub Mantano (saith Baronius) Baron. An. 531. n. 12. pag. 167., under Montanus the Metropolitan, to whom the Council saith, Custom had given that Authority Concil. Tol. 2. Bin. pag. 646 Lab. 1734.: Wherefore he condemns Hereticks, and exercises all sorts of jurisdiction belonging to a Primate, without taking any notice of the Pope, or of any delegated Power from him. So that probably all those Epistles which make Legates in Spain about this time, are forged.

§. 9. John the second of that Name succeeded Boniface, An. Dom. 532. but Anastasius and Baronius cannot agree about the Date of his Election or his Death; and Holstenius differs from both; an Argument that this Pope made no great Figure Vit. Joan. 2. Bin. pag. 650. Col. Lab. 1741.: However, right or wrong we have divers of his Epistles.

The first to Valerius (saith Labbè) appears by many things to be spurious; it is stollen out of the Epistles of Leo and Ithacius, and dated with wrong Consuls Ep. Joh. 2. Bin. 651. Col. 1 Lab. 1741.. And I must add, Scripture is shamefully perverted by the Writer of this Epistle; For he would prove that Christ was not created as to his Deity, but only as to his Humanity, by Ephes. iv. 24. and Coloss. iii. 10. where St. Paul speaks of putting on the New Man, which after God is created in Righteousness and true Holiness,—and is renewed in Knowledge after the Image of him that created him: Had a Pope writ this, I would have affirmed he was no Infallible Interpreter.

[Page] The next is an Epistle of Justinian to this Pope, wherein the Emperor is pretended to declare his Faith was conformable in all things to the Roman Church; and made to say, he had subjected and united all the Churches of the East to the Pope, who is the Head of all the Holy Churches—with much more stuff of this kind Ep. Justin. ad Joan. 2. Bin. pag. 651. Col. 2. Lab. 1742.. This Letter is rejected by the learned Hottoman, and many other very great Lawyers, who Baronius calls a company of Hereticks and Petty Foggers Baron. An. 534. n. 15. pag. 197.; But confutes their Arguments with false Reasoning and Forgeries, as I shall shew when I come to note his Errors: I shall now confine my self to prove the greatest part of this Epistle to be spurious: For who can imagin Justinian (who vindicated the Authority of his Patriarch at Constantinople as equal with Rome, and by an Authentick Law declares, that the Church of Constantinople is the Head of all other Churches Justin. Cod. lib. 1. tit. 2. de Sacros. Eccles. Lab. 24.] pag. 10.: Yea, in the genuine part of this Epistle, calls his Patriarch the Pope's Brother) That he, I say, should here profess he had subjected all the Eastern Churches to Rome? And how should he (that differed from Pope Hormisda in his decision of the Question, whether one Person of the Trinity suffered for us; and made Pope John now yield to his Opinion, and condemn his Predecessors notion) declare he submitted his Faith in all things to the Pope? But we need no conjectures, for if the Reader look a little further among the Epistles of Agapetus Inter. Ep. Agap. Bin. pag. 666. Col. 2. Lab. 1789., he will see one of the boklest Impostures that ever was; For there Justinian himself recites verbatim, the Epistle which he had writ to Pope-John, and whatever is more in this Letter set out among John's Epistles, than there is in that which is owned by the Emperor, is an impudent Forgery, added by some false Corrupter to serve the Roman Supremacy. Now by comparing these two Epistles, it appears, the beginning and end of both are the same, and may be genuine; but in neither part is there one word of this subjection, or the universal Supremacy: And all that wretched Jargon comes in where it is corrupted, viz. From Ideo (que) omnes[Page]Sacerdotes universi orientalis tractus, & subjicere—till you come to these words—Petimus ergo vestrum paternum—: Which when the Reader hath well noted, he will admire, that those who had the cunning to corrupt a Princes Letter, by adding twice as much to it as he writ, should be so silly to print the true Letter, within a few Pages: But doubtless God infatuates such Corrupters, and the Devil owes a shame to Lyers.

The next Epistle from the Gothic King Athalaric, was probably writ soon after John's Election, since it mentions the Romans coming to that Prince, to beg leave to chuse a Pope; and both Athalario and the Senate made Laws to prevent Simony in the Election of the Pope, as well as other Bishops: And which (Baronius saith,) was more Ignominious, This Edict was Ingraven on a Marble Table, and hung up before the Court of St. Peters for all to see it Baron. An. 533. n. 39. pag. 188.. But to me it seems more Ignominious, that the Letter shews some of the late Candidates for the Papacy had sacrilegiously sold the holy Vessels to buy Voices Ep. Atha. Bin. pag. 653. Col. 2. Lab. 1478.: These no doubt were like to make hopeful Heads of the Universal Church. Baronius is angry at this Letter and Edict, and I suppose places it falsly after the forged Epistle of Justinian had aggrandized this Pope; but do what he can, the Kings reckoning him among other Patriarchs, and making Laws for Papal Elections, and his giving him no huffing Titles, do clearly demonstrate that Popes then were not so great as our Annalist would make them seem; and I wonder with what face he can say, This Law was not against the Clergy but the Lay-men, When the Law it self, and the occasion of it confutes him.

The Third Epistle may be genuine, wherein he doth well to say, that according to the Decrees of his Predecessors, the Roman Church ever kept and followed the Doctrin of St. Augustin Epist. 3. Johan. 2. Bin. pag. 655. Col. 2. Lab. 1752.; and if they had never followed any other Guide, there would not have been so many false Doctrins brought in to that Church: [Page] However, the great impertinence of divers Scriptures here cited shews this Pope to be no great Divine, and one of his proofs I doubt is forged; for I cannot, in Exod. xxiv. or any other place find these words, You shall see your life hanging on a Tree: Now to feign such a Prophesie must be a horrid Sin, being literally adding to Gods word Revel. xx [...] 18., to which a grievous Curse is due.

The Epistle from Reparatus and his African Council to this Pope, is more likely to be true, because there is nothing of his Universal Supremacy in it: They call him Holy Brother and Fellow-Priest, nor do they expect Laws, but desire advice from him: Yea, they require him to exclude from his Communion such of the African Clergy, as came from them to Rome without leave Ep. Repar. Bin. pag. 656. Col. 2. Lab. 1755.; which shews the African Church still opposed Appeals to the Pope.

The First Council under this Pope was called at Rome, wherein He decreed according to Justinian's desire, That it might Orthodoxly be said, One of the Trinity was crucified for us in the Flesh Concil. Rom. sub Joh. 2. Bin. pag. 657. Col. 1. Lab. 1761.. Now this Decree puts Baronius and Binius to stretch their Wits to save the Infallibility: For Pope Hormisda had before judicially determined the quite contrary in a cause of Faith, viz. That it could not be Orthodoxly said so: So that these Parasites are to prove both parts of a contradiction true; and that two Popes who defined directly contrary to one another, were both in the right: Now here they shufflle and palliate this matter, calling Pope John's disannulling Hormisda's Decree, to be only a declaring his Opinion, how far this Sentence may, and how far it may not be held Baron. An. 533. n. 26. pag. 185. & notis Binij.. But before, Baronius compares this Sentence with the Heretical Addition to the Trisagion, and tells us, the Popes Legates (in Hormisda's time) thought it was utterly to be rejected: And that the Eutychians were the Authors of it; yea, he magnifies Hormisda for condemning it Baron. An. 519. n. 108. pag. 45. & n. 110. ibid. & n. 104. pag. 44.. Yet Pope John says, it is an Orthodox Sentence, though still divers Monks at Rome did not believe him nor receive [Page] it: But took Hormisda to have been in the right, and so far questioned John's Infallibility, that as (Liberatus notos,) They forsook his Communion Ap. Baron. An. 533. n. 3. pag. 179.; and for my part I cannot see, but one of these Popes must necessarily be an Heretick.

In this year they place a genuine Record of a conscience An. Dom. 533. at Constantinople, between the Catholick and Severian Hereticks (o). But Binius Notes own, this Conference ( [...]) Collat. Const. Bin. pag. 657. Col. 2. Lab. 1673. was held before Justinian writ to Pope John for his Opinion; and therefore it should have been placed before that Popes Roman Council, and is fraudulently set after, to make it seem as if the East had followed Rome in this Decision. To this Conference the Eastern Bishops were summoned by the Emperor and their own chief Patriarch: And we may here observe, First, That Hypatius Bishop of Ephesus was Prolocutor, and is compared to St. Peter the Apostle Bin. pag. 658. Lab. 1764.. Secondly, When they speak of the Opinions of the Fathers, cited by Cyril in the Council at Ephesus against Nesterius, they reckon two Popes, Foelix and Julius, promiscuously with the rest, giving them no precedence, no mark of special priviledge Bin. pag. 659. Lab. 1766.. Thirdly, They reject divers Epistles, that bore the names of Orthodox Fathers, pretended to be kept among the Records at Alexandria, as forged and corrupted by their Heretical Bishops; and say, they must be excused from receiving their Enemies for Evidence Bin. ibid. Lab. 1767.. Which just Rule, if the Romanists allow us in our Disputes with them, the Controversie would soon be ended. Fourthly, Hypatius truly affirms, that the Eastern and Western Churches were long time divided, about the manner of expressing themselves as to the Trinity; the Orientals suspecting the Occidentals to be Sabellians, and these imagining those of the East were Arrians, till Athanasius at last reconciled them by understanding of both Tongues Bin. ibid. Lab. 1768.; which shews that neither side pretended to Infallibility: And that Learning is the fittest qualification for a Judge of Controversies. Lastly, They say, their Holy Mother the Catholick and Apostolick [Page]Church of God, held it was Orthodox to say, that one of the Trinity did suffer for us in the Flesh Bin. pag. 663. Lab. 1778.. Now this could not be meant of the Roman Church, where Hormisda's contrary Definition was still in force, nor do they name the Pope in all their Conference: So that Binius is mistaken in his Notion, that Justinian contrived this Conference to unite the Bishops of the East with Rome; for he took no notice of the late Popes Sentence, but designed this Conference to settle the Truth; and for all the pretence of Union and Subjection in Hormisda's time, the Churches of the East and West were not united till after this; when Pope John consented to their Desinition, and owned that not his Predecessor, but they were in the right.

§. 10. The time of Pope Agapetus entrance and An. Dom. 535. death is not certainly known: Anastasius, and from him Du Pin, allow him not one whole year: Baronius and Binius would have him sit longer Vit. Agapet. Bin. pag. 665. Col. 1. Lab. 1785., but can only prove it by the dates of some Epistles which are not genuine. 'Tis certain he was dead before May 536. when Mennas Council at Constantinople met; wherefore he must enter in the year 535. The truest account of him is to be had in Liberatus, a Writer that knew him, Who saith, He was well skilled in the Canons, and being sent by the Gothick King, Theodatus, on an Embassy to Justinian, to divert his Army from Italy, he arrived at Constantinople, where he honourably received the Emperors Messenger, but would not admit Anthimius to his Presence: After this he saw the Emperor, delivered his Embassy, which was rejected; However, (as Christs Embassador) neither the Princes nor the Empress could prevail with him to communicate with the lately ordained Bishop of Constantinople Anthimius, unless he would prove himself Orthodox, and return to the Church which he had deserted: Upon this Anthimius resigned and went off, yet still was under the Emperors Protection: Yet Agapetus by the favour of the Prince consecrated Mennas Patriarch of Constantinople, and having designed Pelagius his Deacon [Page]to remain there as his Resident, he prepared to return to Italy, but dyed at Constantinople Liberati brev. cap. 21. 22. Bin. par. 2. pag. 191. Lab. 774.. Most of that which is added to this, is feigned by Anastastus and the later Writers; except what another contemporary Cassiodorus writes of Agapetus, that he was so poor, that the Sacred Plate of St. Peters Church was forced to be Pawned for Mony to defray the Charges of this Embassy Cassiodor. Ep. lib. 12. Ep. 20.. But Anastasius his Fictions about the Popes quarreling with Justinian about his Faith, and the Emperors humbling himself, and adoring the Pope afterwards, have no truth at all in them. No, nor those Miracles which Binius notes, and Baronius pretended this Pope did in his Journey Vit. Not. in Agap. Bin. pag. 665. Col. 2. Lab. 1787.; for they have no other Evidence for them than those fabulous Legends, Gregory's Dialogues and the Pratum Spirituale Baron. An. 536. n. 68. pag. 254.. And no Writer of Credit, or that lived in that Age, knew of any such thing. The fore-named Authors for the credit of the Roman Martyrology, where Agapetus death is set down on the 12 of the Kal. of October, will have that be the right day of his dying: But I can hardly think he dyed so long before Mennas Council, which was in May 536. and there he is spoken of as lately deceased: I shall only note, that Baronius blunders his own Account wofully, by citing a Constitution of Justinian, directed to Anthimius as still Bishop of Constantinople, dated on the Ides of August 536, (long after Agapetus death:) And upon this he Rails at Theodora and Justinian Baron. An. 535. n. 64. pag. 227.; and 'tis true, the Law is so dated and titled in the Novels Authent. Col. Novel. 16. pag. 34.: But there must be a fault either in the name of Anthimius, put instead of Menna's, or in the Consuls, because the same Emperor directs another Constitution to Menna, in the same Month and the same. Year, and some Copies read its date, 17 Kal. of August 536. which is the 16 of July Ibid. Novel. 42. pag. 77, & 78.: Wherefore the Annalist should be cautious, how he makes Characters of Princes, on the uncertain Credit of these Dates.

[Page] The Copy of Justinian's Letter to John the Second, before stuffed with Forgeries and undated, is here printed without the Additions, and dated in January saith Binius, in June saith Labbè, An. 533. Ep. Justin. ad Agap. Bin. pag. 666. col. 2. Lab. 1788.. And it assures us, John's confirmation before related is spurious, because here it is offered again to be confirmed by Agapetus, the day before the Ides of March, An. 535. And this Popes Confirmation is dated at Constantinople, four days after the Emperors Epistle: But Anastasius faith, The Pope came not to Constantinople till the 10 of the Kal. of May; and Justinian's Letter supposes him then at Rome, and if so, how could the Pope receive and answer this Letter in four days time? But if Agapetus were at Constantinople, what need the Emperor write to him, or date his Letter from that City? So that I suspect the Confirmation to be a Forgery, and Labbè himself notes, These things are not coherent Labbè in Marg. 1789.; For which we have a good reason in Lactantius, who saith, Ea enim est mendaciorum natura ut cohaerere non possunt Lact. Instit. lib. 5. §. 3.. Yet Binius is so immodest as to stretch this seigned Confirmation, to be a solemn confirming of all Justinian's Edicts and Constitutions in matters of Faith Bin. not. in 1 Ep. Agapet. Bin. pag. 666. Col. 1. Lab. 1790.. Whereas that Emperor sent the Constitutions to the Pope and other Patriarchs to be executed, not to be confirmed; he only advised with his Bishops about them, but his own Authority was enough to ratifie them.

To this is subjoyned that nauseous Forgery called Exemplar precum, which hath been printed by the Editors four or five times over with variety of Titles, and here is ridiculously applied to Justinian Exempl. prec. Bin. pag. 666. col. 2. Lab. 1790..

The matter of Agapetus Second and Third Epistle to the African Bishops and Reparatus is not exceptionable; for the Pope calls them his most loving Brothers, and owns it was not agreeable to the Canons to receive Clerks from Africk without their Letter; wherefore he would forbear it, as they had enjoyned: He confesses also the Rights of a Metropolitan to be in the Bishop of Carthage Ep. 2. & 3. Agap. Bin. pag. 667. Lab. 1791, &c.. But there are some suspicions that [Page] they are not genuine, for they say they were sent by Liberatus: Now he had been at Rome a little before, and can scarce be supposed to be got back to Afric, and to return to Rome by the 5th of the Ides of September: And which is worse, (as Labbè truly observes,) Liberatus himself who writes the Story of Agapetus, speaks but of one Journey to Rome, and says nothing of this second: And besides 'tis dated Post. Cons. Paulini, which is wrong, unless they call Bellisarius his year by that name, which is An. 535. And then Agapetus was at Constantinople: So that we may fear the Forgers, who would have it thought all the World applied to Rome, have been at work here. However, if the third Letter be genuine, we learn from it that Agapetus came into the Papacy in Winter; for it seems Reparatus had writ to Pope John; but while his Messengers were staied by the Winter from Sailing, he heard in Afric of Agapetus his Election. Baronius here affirms, that the Pope now sent Decretal Letters to be published in Africa, which are not extant Baron. An. 535. n. 42. pag. 222.: But I believe there never were any such Letters; for his advice might be accepted there perhaps, but his Decretals then had no Authority in that Church.

The Fourth Epistle to Justinian is very suspicious, being dated with no Consuls as the rest use to be; it mentions also the Popes sending Legates on the Ides of October, which if it were An. 534. he was not then Pope; if the next year, Agapetus must then be at Constantinople, (or dead there the 12 of the Kal. of that Month, if the Roman Martyrology be true:) Wherefore we need not be startled at that incredible passage, That Justinian had elevated the Roman See by such Titles of Charity and Bounty, as exceeded their desires and hopes Epist. 4. Agap. Bin. pag. 667. Col. 1. Lab. 1793.. For the Letter is not genuine; And I dare say, the Parasites will not urge this, because they think 'tis Justice, not Charity; and Right, not human Bounty, which gives Rome the highest Titles; and we are of Opinion, no Titles can exceed that Churches desires, though they may its deserts.

[Page] Since Binius suspects the 5th Epistle, as dated before Agapetus was Pope, and Labbè saith, many things prove it false, and more than suspected of imposture, as being stolen out of Hormisda's, and Leo's Letters, and naming Theodatus Consul, who never bore that Office Ep. 5. Agap Bin. pag. 668. col. 2. Lab. 1795.; We may without more ado reject it, only noting the Forger resolved right or wrong, to make the Pope the Mawl of all Hereticks.

The two Epistles to Caesarius (supposing them genuine) are very frivolous, the 6th being only to tell him that Ecclesiastical Goods must not be alienated: Which he knew better than the Pope; and Symmachus had writ this to him above 30 Year before: And the 7th Epistle intimates that Contumeliosus a French Criminal Bishop, whose Cause was decided by Pope John, had appealed again to Agapetus, which shews a Papal Decree was not decisive: But either the Pope or this Letter hath had ill Luck, because it contains in the decretal part, a flat contradiction, both forbidding, and allowing this Bishop to say Mass Ep. 6, & 7. Agap. Bin. pag. 669. Lab. 1798. & 1801.; wherefore, if we do not reject them, we may throw them by, as very inconsiderable.

Once more the Editors abuse us with their old Forgery of Exemplar Precum, their Corrupt rule of Faith, which cannot without the highest impudence be put upon Justinian Bin. pag. 670. col. 1. Lab. 1801. &c.; and they confess here the Consuls are mistaken a whole year, yet they presume to mend it, and obtrude it for genuine: And Baronius would have us believe Justinian did now repeat this profession of his Faith upon the falsest and slightest conjectures Baron. An. 536. n. 18. pag. 243. that can be imagined.

§. II. The Council of Constantinople about the deposition An. Dom. 536. of Anthimius, and the Condemnation of Severus and his followers, was held, as Binius confesses, in the general Title, after Agapetus his death; and as oft as this Council mentions him, he is called of happy Memory: Yet in the Title on the Top, Binius saith, It was held under Agapetus and Mennas; which absurdity of a Council being held under a dead Pope, moved Labbè [Page] to say it was under Mennas Bin. pag. 671. Lab. Tom. v. pag. 3.. The History of this Council may be had from Du-Pin Du-Pin. Eccles. Hist. Cent. 6. pag. 131.. But the Remarks on those things in it, which either condemn the Errors, or savour of the Forgeries of Rome, are my business. Wherefore, I will first make some general observations on the whole: Secondly, consider the depravations in the Acts. Thirdly, examine the falshoods in the Notes.

First, This Council was called to re-examine and confirm the Sentence of Pope Agapetus, and it consisted (all but five) of Eastern Bishops Concil. Const. Bin. p. 678. col. 1. Lab. col. 19., to whom Justinian sent this Sentence for their Approbation. And Agapetus himself in a Letter writ a little before his death, desires the Eastern Bishops to signifie to him, That they did approve of the judgment of the Apostolical Seat Act. 1. Bin. pag. 687. Lab. 47.; Which shews that neither the Emperor, the Pope, nor this Council did then take the Bishop of Rome to be the sole nor highest Judge. Secondly, Mennas the Patriarch was the President of this Council, and sat above and before those five Bishops, which the Annalist, and Annotator say were the Legates of Agapetus, and the Representatives of the Roman Church lb. Bin. pag. 672. Lab. 3. & 4.. Thirdly, it is certain the Emperor Justinian convened this Council by his own sole Authority; for every Action owns They met by his Pious Command, and that his care had gathered this Holy Synod together Vid. Act. i. & alibi. Bin. pag. 689, 691, 696, & 710. Item Lab. pag. 54, 59, 71 & 118.. And it is as certain that he only could and did confirm it; for Mennas the President having heard the Synods Opinion, desires the Emperor may be acquainted with it, Because nothing ought to be done in the Church without his Royal Consent, and Command Bin. Act. v. pag. 703. Lab. 61.. And he finally did confirm their Decree by a special Edict, which made it valid Ibid. Bin. pag. 761. Lab. 263.. So that this Council utterly confutes the Popes pretended right to convene all Councils, for which in this Age nothing but Forged evidence is produced. Fourthly, Though Baronius Baron. An. 536. n. 32. pag. 246., and also Binius do affirm that Agapetus did both depose Anthimius, and chuse Mennas, neither of them is true if they mean the Pope did it by his own Authority; for before the Council, Justinian (as this [Page] Synod often declares) did assist Agapetus, and made the Holy Canons Authentic in deposing Anthimius Act. i. Bin. pag. 677. Lab. 19. & alibi.. And because he thought it was scarce yet Canonically done, he gets the Sentence against him confirmed by this Council: As for Mennas, he was only consecrated by the Pope, who in his own Letter saith Mennas was elected by the favour of the Emperor, and the consent of the chief Men, the Monks and all Orthodox Christians Bin. Act. i. pag. 687. Lab. 47.; yea, the Council declares the Emperor chose him by the general suffrage Ibid. Bin. pag. 677. Lab. 19.. So that these are false pretences designed to set up a single Authority in the Pope, unknown to that Age.

Secondly, In the Acts of this Council there are divers instances of the hand of a Roman depraver: The Title of the Monks Petition, as Binius Margen saith, is not in the Greek Libel Monach. Bin. pag. 678. Lab. 22.; yet he hath it both in Greek and Latain (d); and so hath Labbè: But it must be the addition of a Later Hand, the Greek being the Original; it is full of great swelling Words applied to Agapetus alone; But the Text speaks to more than one, Do not ye suffer, O ye most blessed [...], Bin. pag. 679. Lab. 23.—Which ye (O most blessed) defending, receive ye our Petition Bin. pag. 681. Lab. 30., and generally it runs in the plural number; So that it was addressed to the Pope with other Bishops. The like corruption we meet with also in the Letter of the Eastern Bishops, where the Title now is only to Agapetus; but the Text speaks to more than one; yea, where the Greek is [...] and [...], The Latin Version of Rome. changes it into Beatissime, and Sanctissime, adding Pater Bin. pag. 683, & 684. Lab. 38. &c.. Which shews the Forgers Fingers have been here. The aforesaid Petition of the Monks, mentions an Image of Justinian abused by the Hereticks: The Greek calls it [ [...]] The Image of that Servant of God Bin. 679. Lab. 23., The Roman Version is imaginem Dei veri: The Image of the true God: As if these Heriticks had been Iconoclasts before that controversie was heard of. In the Bishops Letter the Greek reads— [...], which signifies by open force and secret fraud: For [...] is a Warlike Engine to batter [Page] with Bin. 684. Lab. 41.. The Translator dreams of Manichaean Errors, which are nothing to the purpose here. In the Epistle of the Syrian Bishops to Justinian, the Greek saith, The Pope deserved to follow the Emperors pious Footsteps, and so Labbè reads it in the Latin: But in Binius (for fear this should look mean) we have it Vestra pia vestigia digna facienti Bin. pag. 707. Lab. 106.. The Title of Hormisda's Epistle to Epiphanius is corrupted in Latin by the addition of these words which are not in the Greek, wherein he delegates to him the power of a Vicar of the Apostolical Seat, in receiving Penitents Act. v Bin. pag. 721. Lab. 151.: Which is confuted by the Epistle it self, which speaks of the Church of Constantinople, not as subjected, but united to the Roman; and doth not command, but desire Epiphanius to joyn his care and diligence to the Popes, as they now had one friendship, both in Faith and Communion; yea, Hormisda promises to act by the same measures which he recommends to Epiphanius Vid. ibid.. Baronius hath another corruption of his own, in a Letter from the Monks of Hierusalem and Syria; for where they desire Justinian to cut off all that do not communicate with the universal Church of God, and the Apostolical Seat Bin. pag. 708. Lab. 107.; He leaves out the universal Church, and puts in nothing but the Apostolical Seat Baron. An. 536. n. 89. pag. 259.. In the same page he cuts off Mennas Title before the Sentence be pronounced, viz. Mennas, the most Holy and Blessed universal Arch. Bishop and Patriarch said Id. ibid. n. 92.: And he adds to the end of this Sentence, that it was according to what Hormisda and Agapetus had prescribed Baron. An. 536. n. 95. pag. 260.; whereas this being the Sense of the Synod, gave Authority to what the later of these Popes had done; and the former, Hormisda, was dead before this matter came into Question. And now I am upon the Account of this Council in Baronius, I will also note, that in citing an Author which saith Mennas obtained an Universal Bishopric—he adds, that is, of the Churches subject to him Id. An. 536. n. 65. pag. 254.. Yet a little after he will not allow that Paraphrase when the same words are applyed to the Popes Ib. n. 106. pag. 263., which shews his unfaithfulness in adding, and his partiality in expounding, two very [Page] ill properties in an Historian—But to proceed with Binius and Labbè: In the 5th Act there is a Syod at Constantinople held under John the Bishop there Anno 518, wherein he is called Most Holy and most Blessed Arch-Bishop, Occumenical Patriarch, and Father of Fathers Act. 5. Bin. pag. 723, 725. Lab. 158, 162.. Yet the Editors put first in the Margen, and then into the Latin Text, under Hormisda; which words are not in the Greek, and are absurd, because the two Churches were not yet reconciled Bin. pag. 743. Lab. 211.: Which is plain, because in the Acclamations they cry, let the Names of Euphemius and Macedonius be restored to the Church: Which were two of their Orthodox Patriarchs and followers of Acacius, whose Names had been struck out of the Dypticks by Heretical Princes, and stood then condemned by Hormisda: And they cry again, Are our Synodical powers gon away to Rome? That is, must we reject our Orthodox Patriarchs because Rome censures them? But the Latin corrupt version reads, Synodica Romana modo valeant Bin. pag. 732. Lab. 182.; which would alter the Sense, and persuade such as cannot look into the Greek, that Rome's Decrees were valid at Constantinople; whereas, they Decree contrary to the Pope. In the Epistle from John of Jerusalem, to the Patriarch of Constantinople, the late Forgers have put in a Sentence to give some colour to the Worship of the Blessed Virgin, which spoils the Sense. The true reading is—; Do ye most holy pray for the same things that we do, for it is the common duty of Bishops [] to intercede for the peace of the Churches, and the Emperors Victory, and long Life Ep. Johan. Hieros. Act. 5. Bin. pag 734. Lab. 190.. But into this they thrust in a line or two—thus—it is the common Duty of Bishops; (And pray ye to the Holy, Glorious Virgin Mary, the Mother of God with us) to intercede for the peace of the Churches—which is a new Piece put into an old Garment so foolishly, that the Rent is very visible. Finally, the subscriptions to the fifth and last Act are corrupted: For whereas the Roman Deacons, Theophanes and Pelagius in all other Acts are placed after the Eastern Bishops, here they are set before them in the Latin [Page] Version Act. v. Bin. pag. 759. Lab. 2 [...]5.. And whereas the Editors tell us, that Justinian's Edict to confirm the Decrees of this Council is depraved in the Title to Mennas Const. Justin. Bin. pag. 761. Lab. 263.; I confess it is so; but the Roman Parasites have depraved it by cutting off all those Titles which the Novel here cited by them gives him Authent. col novel. Const. 42. cod. pag. 77., viz. To Mennas the most Holy, and most Blessed, and Oecumenical Patriarch—All which the Editors of the Council leave out.

To these Notes of the depraving these Acts we may add a few remarks on some passages that are genuine, but oppose the late Notions of the Roman Church. The Epistle of Agapetus was not writ to Peter alone (as the Epistle pretends) but to him, and other Bishops; whom the Pope calls in the first Line, His beloved Brethren; and to Mennas there he gives the Titles of Brother, and fellow Bishop Ep. Agap. Act. 1. Bin. pag. 687. Lab. 47.. The Syrian Bishops Epistle to Justinian, declares that Christ is the Head of the Church Ib. Bin. pag. 706. Lab. 100., which Title the Pope had not yet claimed. In the Epistle from John of Jerusalem, to the Patriarch of Constantinople (where Leo is called Archbishop and Patriarch of Rome) we have this memorable Truth, That Christ who gave the power of binding and loosing to Peter the chief of the Apostles, gave it in general to the Episcopal Order Ep. Joan. Hieros. Act. v. Bin. pag. 734. Lab. 190.: Which confutes that Doctrine of all Bishops receiving this power from the Pope. The Bishop of Tyre's Epistle to the Synod at Constantinople, calls the See of Antioch, which Severus the Heretick had invaded, The Throne of the Apostolical Church of Antioch Ep. Epiphan. Tyr. Act. v. Bin. pag. 736. Lab. 195., and makes one of his great crimes to be his admitting strange Clerks Canonically deprived by their own Bishop, to officiate without the consent of such as had sentenced them: A crime so often committed by the Popes, that these uncanonical precedents are produced to prove he hath a priviledge so to do. The Sentence of Mennas against this Severus, and his Complices, recites That they had contemned the Apostolical succession in the Church of Rome, which had condemned them, and set at nought both the Patriarchal Throne of Constantinople, and the Synod under it; Yea, and the Apostolical Succession, which [Page]the Lord and Saviour of all had setled in those holy places: And above all, had despised the Sentence of the Oriental Diocess decreed against them (I). So that their greatest fault (f) Sent. Men. Bin. pag. 758. Lab. 255. was not the contemning the Popes Authority, and Apostolical Succession was setled in other Churches by Christ, as well as in that of Rome. Lastly, The Constitution of Justinian is made on purpose to give validity to the Sentence of the Pope and the Synod against Anthimius and the Hereticks, declaring it was the custom for all preceding Orthodox Emperors, to confirm the Decrees of Councils; and it says in the conclusion, this Law was published, that none might be ignorant of those things which the Bishops had agreed on, and the Emperor had confirmed Constit. Just. post. Act. v. Bin. pag. 761. Lab. 263.. So that it is a fallacious Note of the Editors Margen to say; That it was the duty of Emperors to take care that the Decrees of the Fathers and the Pope were executed. Which makes their Master to be no more than their Servant and under Officer.

In the Notes on this Council are many Falshoods, which may be discovered by what is already observed. Only we may consider some few of them more particularly: As first, He takes it upon Baronius his credit Baron. An. 536. n 73. pag. 255., that Agapetus left the Western Bishops his Legates, and that their Power continued after his decease; and thence boldly, but falsly affirms, That these Legates procured the Synod to meet, and that they condemned these Hereticks by the Authority of their deceased Master, whose Legate also he feigns Mennas was Not. Bin. pag. 763. Lab. 269.; and in express contradiction to the Council, he will have these Italian Bishops to be Presidents with Mennas Ib. Bin. pag. 764. Lab. 270.; yet immediately calls him alone the President of this Synod Ibid. 764. col 2. Lab. 272. Now all this is to impose upon the Reader, as if nothing could be done without Papal Authority: But we have proved that Justinian called and confirmed this Council, and Mennas presided solely in it: The Acts also take no notice of these Western Bishops having any Legantine power from Agapetus; and I shall shew presently, that before this Council rose there was a new Pope chosen, who should [Page] have renewed their Commission to make it valid, but did not: So that they must suppose the dead and the living Pope to have supream Authority both at once: Who can swallow these gross Fictions? Again, Mennas and the Council declare, That Pope followed the Canons in allowing Anthimius time to come in and Repent, and therefore they followed him Act. 1. Bin. pag. 687. Lab. 47.; but Binius Notes turn this and say, That Agapetus commanded the Synod to use this mercy Not. Bin. pag. 764. Col. 2. Lab. 272.: But it is very pleasant to hear Clodius accuse, and Binius complain of the Modern Greeks, for forging the Title of Oecumenical Patriarch, applied to John in his own Council of Constantinople Ib. Bin. p. 765 Lab. 274.. But the Latins are even with them and far out-do them, (if it were so) for they (as we have seen) have put in that Title for Agapetus into the Latin when it was not in the Greek, and have left it out before Menuas name, though in the Code it be given him: So that they cannot fairly complain; Yet after all, I can prove by authentic Records of this Age, That this Title of Oecumenical Patriarch, was given to the Patriarch of both old and new Rome; nor is this Council of John corrupted by the modern Greeks, and Gregory is certainly mistaken in saying it was not used before his time: But the weakest complaint of Forgery, and the worst proof of it imaginable, is that of Baronius and Binius, who pretend the Greeks have fraudulently put the names of Euphemius and Macedonius Bishops of Constantinople, before Pope Leo's Bin. p. 766. Lab. 274. Baron. Tom. 7. An. 518. n. 20. pag. 7.; and the Annalist and Annotator shew shameful ignorance, in thinking to prove by the Liturgy of St. Mark, that the Pope of Rome was prayed for first in all Churches: For though in that Office, God is desired to preserve Their most Holy and most Blessed Pope, whom he did fore-ordain, that his Holy Catholick and Apostolick Church should choose by their common Suffrages, and also for their most holy Bishop Lit. D. Marc. in Bib Patr. edit. Paris. Tom. 2 pag. 35.. Yet this (being the Office used in the whole Alexandrian Patriarchate,) must be meant of the Alexandrian Patriarch, (who was called Pope ever since Athanasius his time,) and was the Bishop of that [Page] Church where these Prayers were made: To prove which and shame this illiterate Exposition, I shall produce Jac. Goar, a rigid Papist, the Editor of the Greek Euchologion; who thus speaks, The Greeks never name the supream Bishop of all (he means him of Rome) in publick; wherefore Urban the Fourth desired of the Emperor Mich. Palaeologus (An. Dom. 1263. that is, 700 year after this,) that in their sacred Offices, the Popes name should be recited out of the Dypticks, with the other four Patriarchs, as the first and chiefest sign of their union with Rome: For which he Cites Nicetas, lib. 5. Eucholog. in not. Jac. Goar. pag. 144.. Here therefore is a proof, which proves only the mistake of them that produce it: And for the Objection, it is a known Custom for all Churches, to name their own Patriarchs before those of other Churches; so that it is no wonder, that at Constantinople Euphemius's name should be placed before Leo's.

As soon as the Council under Mennas was ended, the Decrees were sent to Peter Patriarch of Jerusalem, who by the Command of the Emperor, called a Council there to confirm them Concil. Hieros. Bin. pag. 766. Lab. 275..

In this year Labbè places the Synod of Auvergne, which met, as the Preface owns, by the precept of King Theodebert Concil. Auver. Bin. Tom. 2. par. 2. pag. 31. Lab. col. 1803, An. Dom. 536.; there is no Pope mentioned in it: Binius places it in the year 541. under Vigilius, but Sirmondus proves he was mistaken.

§. 12. As soon as the news of Agapetus his death came to Rome, Liberatus saith, Sylverius was made Pope by Theodatus the Gothick King Liberat. Brev. Bin. pag. 191. cap. 22.. Anastasius saith, it was after one Month and 28 days vacancy Vit. Sylver. Bin. pag. 770. Col. 1. Lab. 287.; Which is very probable, being a sufficient time for the intelligence to come from Constantinople; and if we allow that Agapetus died about a Month before Mennas Council, this entrance of Sylverius will prove to be while that Council sat. Baronius saw this, and fearing it would ruin his invention of the Western Bishops, there being Agapetus his Legates, he blunders the time of Sylverius's Election; and though he reject Anastasius [Page] account, on whom (in many less probable Reports) he often relies; Yet he will not fix any other time, and so leaves it uncertain; only in general he and Binius say, he was elected in the end of this year; which cannot be; because Agapetus certainly died in the Spring, and it required no long time for the News to come from Constantinople. As to this Sylverius, it is certain from Liberatus, he was the Son of Pope Hormisda; and Baronius with Binius only conjecture that he was lawfully begotten; they would prove it indeed by this Argument, That otherwise he would have been irregular, and the Roman Clergy would not have chosen him: But they forget that his Election was not regular; For Theodatus was in haste, and would not stay for that, but forced the Roman Clergy to subscribe, having got money of Sylverius, as their own Pontifical relates. Baronius calls this fear and vile submission of the Roman Clergy, their Clemency and a worthy Example Baron. An. 536. n. 123. pag. 267.; yet confesses this Pope deserved to be kept out: However, being got into the sanctifying Chair, he magnifies him, but very unjustly; for Procopius a creditable Author, who was soon after at Rome with Bellisarius, tells us, Sylverius first swore to keep the City of Rome for Vitiges the Gothick King Procop. de bel. Goth lib. 1. pag. 173.. And so soon as Bellisarius came before it, he was the principal instrument to persuade the Romans, who had sworn with him, to deliver up that City Id. ibid. pag. 181.: Baronius would conceal this Perjury, and therefore though he cite Procopius here, yet he saith no more than that Vitiges admonished the Pope and Senate, to keep faithful to the Goths Baron. An. 537. n. 5. pag. 269., who indeed had been extreamly civil to the Roman Church; and though they were Arrians, yet (as their Enemy Procopius tells us,) they had such a reverence for the holy places, that they did not hurt the Churches of St. Peter or St. Paul; yea, they gave liberty to the Catholick Priests to serve God in their own way Procop. de bel. Goth. l. 2. pag. 232.. Which confutes the false Reports of their Cruelty, in destroying the Churches and Bodies of the Martyrs at Rome, mentioned in the Pontifical, and in Paulus [Page]Diaconus Paul. Diac. lib. 17. p. 170.. However Sylverius turned once more, as Procopius saith, and was suspected by Bellisarius to have designed to betray the City of Rome once more to the Goths, for which he deposed and banished him Procop. lib. 1. pag. 209.; and Marcellinus an Author of great credit, and of that time, saith, Sylverius favoured Vitiges, and for that cause Bellisarius deposed him from his Bishoprick Marcelin. Com. Chronic. indic. 15. p. 15.. I know Liberatus (a mortal Enemy to Vigilius) would have this to be a Calumny, invented by Theodora, and carried on by Vigilius the succeeding Pope, who had promised Bellisarius two Hundred Crowns to get Sylverius ejected, and himself admitted Liberat. Brev. cap. 22. Bin. pag. 191, &c.; and Anastasius with Paulus Diaconus follow his Account: But the two former Authors are in this case more worthy of Credit; however this is certain, Bellisarius did depose and banish Sylverius, and got Vigilius Elected, who fearing his Rival should be restored, got him at last into his Hands, and barbarously caused him to be starved to death. This is a sad Story of two Popes, Sylverius uncanonically elected, a Simoniack and a perjured Person; and Vigilius a favourer of Hereticks, one that is said to have hired false Witness, and to have given Mony to make the See void, and at last a Murtherer.

Which shews, how little reason there is for Baronius and the Notes, to make such a stir which was the true Pope of these two. They will have Sylverius to remain the rightful Pope while he lived, and so Rail freely at Vigilius as an Heretick, and Bloody Usurper Notis in vit. Sylver., Bin. pag. 771. Lab. 289. Baron. An. 537. n. 18. pag. 277, 278.. But they cannot prove this by any Evidence, but only by a manifestly forged Epistle of Sylverius. And the contrary is very certain, because the Emperor, the Gallican Churches and all did own Vigilius for the true Pope long before Sylverius his death, and he openly acted as such all that time. Wherefore we must reject that Dream of Baronius, who saith (without any ground,) that Vigilius did Abdicate the Papacy for six days upon the death of his Competitor, and got himself new chosen; and this [Page] purged him of all Crimes, and in a moment made him a Saint and a rare Pope: He would force this Fiction out of Anastasius, (who in like Cases he generally despises,) who only saith, the See was void six days, but plainly means after Sylverius was deposed; for he reckons Vigilius his time from thence, allotting him above 17 years and 6 Months; that is, near two years more than Baronius allows.

There are but two Epistles ascribed to Sylverius, and they are the only Evidence to prove him the true Pope after he was Deposed; yet it is certain both are Forged. The first charges Vigilius with Simony, yea, excommunicates and deprives him for usurping the Papacy; it is dated with the name of Basilius, whereas Baronius and the Annotator say, there was no such Consul in his time Ep. 1. Sylver. Bin. pag. 772. col. 1. Lab. 291.. And Labbè saith, it is to be rejected for the Barbarity of the Style, and other reasons, and concludes the mistake of the Consul, shews the bold ignorance of Mercator, the Author of this Imposture. Now observe for the ingenuity and credit of Baronius, that this Epistle not only serves him to clear Sylverius from Simony, and to prove him the true Pope, but he calls this odious Forgery, The Sword of the Spirit, the Word of God, and the Exercise of that Power, which he had to Absolve or Damn Eternally all People Baron. An. 539. n. 4. pag. 295., which is no less than Blasphemy.

The Second Epistle to Amator is so gross a Fiction, that both Baronius and Binius reject it, being contrary to the true History delivered by Liberatus, whom the Notes call the most faithful Writer of this time Ep. 2. Sylv. Bin. ib. Lab. 293: Labbè agrees with them that it is spurious, and shews that Mercator stole it out of Gregory's Epistles, wishing that the like censure which is passed on this, were passed upon many more of these Writings. But the Letter of Amator to Sylverius, (which Labbè saith, Learned men suspect to be as false as the Popes answer to it,) Baronius will have to be genuine; and from this slight Forgery alone, he proves, That all the Catholick World groaned together, at the ignominies put upon the Bishop of the Universal [Page]Church Baron. An. 539. n. 5. pag. 296. An. Dom. 536.: A rare Historian! Whose Assertions and his Evidence are both false.

Binius places the Second Council of Orleance in this year, but Labbe from Sirmondus puts it three years sooner, An. 533. in the time of Pope John the Second Concil. Aurel. 2. Bin. pag. 773. col. 1. Lab. 1779.; it was called, as the Preface saith, by the Command of the King of France, and made very good Canons, without Papal Advice or Authority. Binius his Notes here blunder this and the following Council, and will keep King Clovis alive three year longer than Nature allowed him, to support a Fable of this Kings giving the Pope a Golden Crown, An. 514. Notis Bin. pag. 774. col. 2. whereas he died An. 511. Vid. Sirm. notas in Concil. 3. Aur. Lab. 305. An. Dom. 358..

The Third Council of Orleans, Binius sets An. 540. But Labbè more truly places it here Concil. Aurel. 3. Bin. Tom. 2. pag. 2. Lab. 295.. However, it takes no notice of any Pope, though Vigilius about this time is pretended to have writ to Caesarius Bishop of Arles. This Synod made divers Canons for Discipline; and by the second Canon it appears, they were zealous for the Celibate of the Clergy: But the fourth shews, that hitherto the Canons in this case had not been obeyed; and the ninth Canon Decrees, That if any Clerks having Wives or Concubines were ignorantly ordained, they should not be removed.

§. 13. Vigilius was made Pope immediately after Sylverius An. Dom. 537. was deposed, and while the Goths belieged Bellisarius in Rome, which was in this year: But the Editors from Baronius write An. 540. upon this entrance Vita Vigil. Bin. Tom 2. par. 2 pag. 1. Lab. Tom. 5. pag. 506., to cover the Fable of his new Election, after the death of Sylverius: But he must come in in the year 537: For Marcellinus places Vigilius his death An. 554. Marcellin. Chron. P. C. Basil. An. 13. pag. 57., which makes up the 17 years and odd time that Anastasius truly allots Vigilius; whose Successor Pelagius entred, as Baronius and the Editors own, An. 555, which is but 15 whole year from that year 540, in which (they say) he entred; and from which they falsly compute his time, who writ Letters dated An. 538, and acted in all things as the sole true Pope, from the time Sylverius [Page] was deposed; which was according to Anastasius, after he had sat one year and five Months Vita Sylver. ut supra.; and he followed Writers of undoubted credit, that is, Marcellinus, who places his deposition and Vigilius his entrance An. 537 Marcel. Chron. pag. 56.; so doth Genebrard Genebrard. l. 3. pag. 464., who with Platina allow Sylverius only some odd time above one year, in which all Writers before Baronius agree. His invention therefore it was to ascribe above 4 years to Sylverius Baron. An. 540. n. 3. pag. 301., that this false Chronology might cover his devisable, of a new Election of Vigilius, An. 540. which we justly reject as an idle Fable, invented to save the Honour of the Roman Chair: Yet it is well Baronius did not think Vigilius the true Pope all this time, for by that means we have his true Character, who, he saith, was driven on with the Whirlwind of Ambition, and like Lucifer fell from Heaven,—that his Sacriledge cried out on every side—he calls him a Schismatick, a Simoniack, an Usurper, a wretched Man, an Heretick, a Wolf, a Thief, a false Bishop, and an Antichrist Baron. An. 538. n. 18, 19, 20. p. 277, 278.; aggravating his Crimes with all his Rhetorick, wherein he rather exceeds the Bounds of Modesty than of Truth; for he really was extreamly wicked, and beyond the power of the sanctifying Chair it self, to make him Holy. We have so fully described the Acts of this Pope, and all the false Stories about him in the following History of the Fifth General Council, that we may here pass him by, with a few brief Remarks.

First, Liberatus assures us, Vigilius did make good his promise to Theodora the Empress, and communicated with Hereticks Liberat. Brev cap. 22. Bin. pag. 192.. Anastasius, a later Author of no credit denies this, and Binius is so fond of this Popeexcusing Fiction, that he puts into the Text these words, See how Vigilius (though he came by evil means into the Papacy,) as soon as he got into that holy Chair established by Gods Promise, was changed into another Man, condemning the Heresie he had promised to approve Vita Vigil. ap. Bin. & Lab. ut supra.. Which false and foolish Parenthesis Labbè was ashamed of, and leaves it out.

[Page] Secondly, There are very many idle Stories in Anastasius his life of this Pope, some of which I will briefly recite, the bare relation of them being enough to disprove them, viz. That when the People of Rome had accused Vigilius for a Murderer, and got the Empress to send for him Prisoner to Constantinople; the Romans as he was going off, first desired his Prayers, and then threw Stones at him—That though he was brought Prisoner to Justinian, yet the Emperor met and kissed him, and the People sang that Hymn—Behold the Lord the King cometh, &c.—Which being applied to the Pope is Blasphemy, and so the Editors and Baronius counted it, as did also Pope Simplicius, when the Heretical Bishop of Alexandria entring into Constantinople, permitted his Party to sing the words of an Hymn only due to Christ Bin. Tom. 2. par. 1. pag. 436. Lab. 1071. & Baron. An. 476. pag. 318.. The rest shall be observed in the History of the 5th Council, where we may find also the Blunders, Fictions and Contradictions of the Notes exposed, and so will mention but few of them here Notis in Vit. Vigil. Bin. pag. 2. Lab. 308., viz. That Vigilius cunningly Abdicated the Papacy after the death of Sylverius, and got himself new-elected by the Roman Clergy, who were divinely inspired in that act.—That Vigilius was a Catholick, and only polluted by communicating with Hereticks, (which was a horrid Crime formerly in Acacius.)—That Bellisarius was denied a Triumph at Constantinople, for his ill usage of the Pope.—That Vigilius Anathematized the Empress Theodora, and that God thereupon destroyed her.—That the Roman Church is so secured by Providence, that it is no blot to it, if we can prove this Pope Simoniacal and Heretical—(I ask by the way, why then do they tell so many Lies to cover this?)—That the Eastern Bishops depended upon Vigilius his Judgment, and stayed till he came to Constantinople, before they would subscribe the Edict against the three Chatpers.—That Justinian after his coming revoked this Edict.—That the Pope finally confirmed the 5th Council,—And lastly, That it was Sacriledge [Page] in the Emperour, to presume to depose or confirm a Pope.—All which we shall shew to be notorius Falshoods.

The first Epistle of Vigilius is writ to three notorious Hereticks, wherein he assures them he holds the same Faith with them Vigil. Ep. 1. Bin. pag. 3. Lab. 311.; and is so heretical, that the Editors are ashamed of it, and print only the beginning of it, pretending from Baronius that some Eutychian writ it in his name Baron. An. 538. n. 15. pag. 277.. But the Reader will remember, that the Annalist always condemns genuine Writings, if they reflect on the Pope, and justifies Forgeries, if they magnifie him; of which this is another clear instance; for Liberatus who was a little before called the most faithful Writer of his time, hath this Epistle at large, and affirms Vigilius writ it Liberat. Brev. cap. 22. Bin. pag. 192.. Yea, Victor Tuennensis hath recorded it as this Popes almost in the same syllables in his Chronicle! Victor. Tuen. Chron. pag. 9., who is another Credible Writer of that Age. And both these Africans did ever after look on Vigilius as an Heretick for this, and so he was, but secretly for fear of Justinian.

To whom about this time Vigilius openly writ an Orthodox Letter, though Baronius and the Editors place it Anno 540. and call it his 4th Epistle, pretending it was writ after Baronius his invented new election, and when the Holy Chair had set him right in Faith Ep. 4. Vigil. ad Justin. Bin. pag. 5. Lab. 315.. But my reason why I judge it writ Anno 538 soon after his entrance, is because it was customary for a new Pope to write to the Emperor, and give an Account of his Faith; and since Vigilius had been advanced by Justinian, it is not at all likely he should stay almost three years before he sent an Embassy to enquire if he were Orthodox; and this Epistle having no Date they have clapt to it, another to Mennas, with a Date that smells of Forgery, because the Emperors Embassador is made to subscribe to the Popes Letter Anno 540, which is a thing so unusual, that either Justinian highly suspected Vigilius, or this Postscript is added by Mercator Ep. 5. Vigil. Bin. pag. 6. Lab. 318.. However it being certain that Vigilius had writ privately to Anthimius,[Page]Severus and Theodosius, that he was of the same Faith with them, and it being also probable that he writ these open Letters to Justinian and Mennas at the same time wherein he anathematizes those three Hereticks by name, and professes himself Orthodox, this proves him a most egregious Hypocrite and Dissembler in points of Faith. I shall only briefly note on this fourth Epistle, that Vigilius reckning up the names of his immediate Predecessors, names not Sylverius among them, which seems to intimate he was then alive: And Secondly, if Mercator did not thrust in that Sentence, That to disturb, or diminish the Priviledges of the Apostolical Seat, appeared as bad as violating the Faith: If this (say,) be not a latter Addition, we may infer, That Vigilius was more concerned for the power of his See, than for the Faith.

That which the Editors call the Second Epistle, was writ to one Eutherius Anno 538: And though they and Baronius say he was then no true Pope Ep. 2. Vigil. Bin. pag. 3. Lab. 311.; yet the Collectors of the Decretal Epistles did not think so, for they have put this among the Decretals of true Popes. Du Pin hath well observed, that the latter part of this Epistle is forged by Mercator, where Vigilius is supposed so ignorant of Greek, (after he had lived long in Greece,) as to derive Cephas, (the name of St. Peter) from [...], an Head. And in this corrupt part is that absurd Sentence,—That no true Believer was ignorant, that all Churches had their beginning from Rome: Which though a Forgery, serves the Editors to note upon in the Margen, The Church of Rome is the Mother and Mistress of all Churches: Of which they have no better evidence than such Trash, and so must be content with such as they have.

The Third Epistle to Caesarius Bishop of Arles, was writ in the same year; and proves that Vigilius was taken for the true Pope, as well by this eminent Father Ep. 3. Vigil. Bin. pag. 4. Col. 2. Lab. 314., as by Eutherius, Anno 538.

[Page] The Sixth, Seventh and Eighth Epistles are writ to An. Dom. 544. Auxanius Successor to Caesarius, and shew Vigilius was then so much at the Emperors devotion, that he durst not grant a Pall to a French Bishop without the leave of Justinian Ep. 6. Vigil. Bin. pag. [...]. col. 1. Lab. 319.; and when he had (above a year after) got this leave, he tells Auxanius he was obliged to pray for the Emperor and the Empress, who had given their consent Ep. 7. Vigil. Bin. ib. Lab. 320.. Now if Theodora were so great a Friend to Hereticks as Baronius pretends, 'tis plain, Vigilius then was a Favourite of hers, which makes him still suspected to be inclined to Heresie: But there is one mistake in this Epistle, viz. That his Predecessor had granted a Pall to Caesarius, which De Marca saith is false, and affirms this Auxainus to have been the first Legate the Pope made in France: A hopeful High-Priest to begin that Usurpation upon Metropolitans.

In this year was that Edict put out, which condemned An Dom. 546. the three Chapters; and here the Editors call it, The Edict of the most pious Emperor Justinian, containing a Confession of Faith, and a Confutation of the Heresies, that are contrary to the Catholick Church of God Titul. Edict. ap. Bin. pag. 8 col. 2. Lab. 323.. But for fear Vigilius and his Party might appear Heretical for opposing this Orthodox Edict, the Editors will not print it here, but thrust it on some hundred Pages further Edictum vide Bin. pag. 151. Lab. 638.. And put in here their false Comment before the Text, hoping by the sham Stories in these Notes, to take off the Readers aversation to this Heretical Pope: But since all the Errors of these Notes are confuted at large in the History of the Fifth Council, I will only name a few of them now, viz. That Pelagius the Popes Secretary always opposed this Edict, is false, for he afterwards subscribed it.—He saith Vigilius, Pontianus (whose Letter is here printed) and Facundus, who writ against this Edict, were Orthodox.—But the Fifth Council condemns all for Hereticks, who wrote for the three Chapters' here censured; and none but Heretical Writers could take upon them to confute an Orthodox Confession of Faith: The Decree [Page] of Vigilius for silence, with his prudence and courage, are all Fictions, as shall be shewn in due place.

Vigilius had now been near three years at Constantinople, and carried fair with Justinian, so that doubtless An. Dom. 550. he had signed his Edict, which condemned the persons of Theodorus, Theodoret and Ibas, and their Heretical Writings; yet here is an Epistle of his to a Scythian Bishop, citing his Constitution (which defends these three Chapters,) and wishes the persons of Theodorus, &c. might not be condemned, as some favourers of Heresie desired: Yet in the same Epistle Ep. 12. Vigil. Bin. pag. 10. Col. 2. Lab. 557. he saith, he had Suspended his two Deacons for defending the three Chapters, and would shortly Excommunicate them: Now what the Notes on this Epistle say, That both the Opposers and Defenders of the three Chapters hated Vigilius Not. in Ep. 12. Bin. pag. 11. Col. 2. ▪ is no wonder, for he was false to all Parties, and such trimming Sycophants, who strive to please all, get the favour of no body.

The Fifteenth Epistle to the Universal Church, Baronius An. Dom. 551. and the Editors do not censure; but it is a meer Forgery, being falsly dated (as they own) in the 26 of Justinian 552; they alter it to 551. Binius found but part of it in Baronius, so prints no more: But Labbé adds a great deal more, not saying where he had it Epist. 15. Vigil. Bin. pag. 11. c. 2. Lab. 327.: As to the matter of it, the Story of this Popes sufferings at Constantinople is false and improbable, not attested by any credible Writer of that time: And whereas he saith, he had Excommunicated and Deposed Theodorus Bishop of Caesarea, and Suspended Mennas Patriarch of Constantinople, that must be false, because the Popes Legates in the sixth General Council affirm, that Mennas died the 21st year of Justinian, (four year before the Date of this Letter,) An. 547 Concil. 6. gen. Bin. Tom. 2 par. 1. pag 21.. Wherefore this Epistle and the Instrument of Condemnation against Theodorus and Mennas are Forgeries Damnatio Theo. &c. Bin. pag. 12. Col. 1. Lab. 334.: And it is very unjust, for Baronius and the Annotator on the credit of such stuff so rudely to rail at Justinian, as if he were the vilest Heretick and greatest Monster [Page] upon Earth. There are many other things in these Notes deserving censure Not. in Ep. 15. Bin. pag. 13. Lab. 337., viz. The affirming that Theodorus of Caesaria deposed Zoilus of Alexandria, and put in Apollinaris; whereas Liberatus expresly saith, the Emperor did this Liberat. Brev. cap. 24.: The Stories of Justiman's revoking his Edict, and of Theodorus and Mennas humble submission delivered in writing to Vigilius, and of his absolving them, are equally false and most improbable, so that scarce any thing here can be trusted. Were this Epistle genuine I would have observed, that Pope Vigilius here saith, he knew Justinian's Hand-writing Baron. An. 552. n 15. pag. 388.: And that utterly confutes Baronius and Suidas, who say, he was altogether illiterate. I would also note, That the Pope here affirms, (An. 551.) he had been seven year out of his Country, attending for the Peace of the Church Ap. Lab. 333.: Now if this be true, he must leave Rome An. 544, that is, three years before Baronius his Account; and this will also prove some of his Epistles to Auxanius counterfeit, being dated from Rome after that time. But after all, I reckon this false account of the Pope's Journey, to be a sign that this Epistle is a Forgery; only those who count it genuine ought to solve these difficulties.

There is nothing more in our Editors vere remarkable, but only some few French Councils, called by their own Kings, and the Canons in them made by their own Bishops, without any notice of Papal Authority, and so without any Corruptions. Wherefore we pass them, and go on to the Fifth General Council, where Vigilius will be brought on the Stage again.

[Page]

An Epitome of Dr. Crakenthorp's Lab. Tom. v. 422, 429. col. 2. 430. Treatise of the Fifth General Council at Constantinople, Anno 553.

Chap. i. THE occasion of this Council, was the Trio Capitulu, or three Chapters about the Writings of Theodorus of Mopsvestia, Theodoret against Cyril, and the Epistle of Ibas to Maris, which the Nestorians pretended was all approved by the Council of Chalcedon; whereupon some doubted of the Authority of that Holy Council, and the several Sects (called from their having no one Head, Acephali) rejected it: So that to appease this dangerous Schism, Justinian set forth an Orthodox Edict Bin. Tom. ii. par. 2. pag. 151. Lab. Tom. v. pag. 683. to condemn those Writings: And that not satisfying all Parties, he assembled this Fifth General Council.

Chap. ii. Pope Vigilius was then at Constantinople, and often desired by the Bishops, and commanded by the Emperor to be present Bin. Col. 1. 47, & 49. a. &c Col. 2. 51. [...].: Baronius falsly saith, they had no regard to him Baron. An. 553. pag. 399. n. 31.; yet he afterwards owns twenty Metropolitans, and three Patriarchs invited him to come, and offered him the Presidency Id. n. 35., urging him with a Promise under his Hand to to be there Bin. Col. 2. 51. a. Lab. 430.: Vigilius first pretended to be Sick, so they adjourned [Page] the first Session, on his saying he would satisfie them next day Bin. col. 1. 49. a.. Then he alledged there were but few Western Bishops; but they shewed there were more with him at that time, than had been in all the four former Great Councils Bin. col. 2. 51. a. Lab. 430.. He pretended also, he would offer his Sense to the Emperor alone Bin. & Lab. ibid.; but the Emperor required him to do it to the Council Bin. col. 1. 47 b. Lab. 422.: So that the true reason why he would not be there, was, his Affection to the Nestorians and the three Chapters.

Chap. iii. Upon this the Council resolves to proceed without him Bin. col. 2. 52. b. Lab. 434.; which Cusanus saith, ought to be done for the safety of the Church, when the Pope is resolved not to come Cusan de concord. Cath. l. 2. c. 1.; and herein they follow the Example of the Council of Chalcedon, who proceeded without the Popes Legates, when they would not stay and join with them Conc. Chal. Act. 16. Bin. Tom. ii. pag. 1. 334. Lab. Tom. iv. 79. h.. Wherefore in the third Collation this 5th Council declared the true Faith, and in the 4th and 5th examine the Cause of Theodorus and Theodoret: On the fifth day (saith Baronius,) Pope Vigilius sent his Constitution to the Council Baron. An. 553. n. 41, & 48., being made by the advice of 16 Bishops and 3 Deacons, and designed to oblige the whole Church, the Western agreeing with him in it Ibid. n. 47, & An. 547. n. 39., and delivered by Apostolical Authority Vigil. Const. Bin. pag. 26. Lab. 376. Wherein he confirms the three Chapters, declaring 1st, That Theodorus of Mopsvestia cannot be condemned after his death Bin. 25. Lab. 366.. 2ly, That Theodoret's name should not be taxed Bin. ib. Lab. 367.. 3ly, That Ibas Epistle to Maris was Catholick, and both he and that Epistle received by the Council of Chalcedon as Catholick and Orthodox Bin. 26. Lab. 369.. But Binius cuts off the five last Columns (which are added by Baronius and Labbè,) and which shew how fully Vigilius confirmed all the three Chapters

[Page] Chap. iv. In the 6th Collation the Council having received this Constitution, do notwithstanding go on to examine Ibas Epistle Bin. 88. Lab. 509.: And wonder any dare presume to say, it was received by the Council of Chalcedon Ibid.; Which Baronius owns was levelled at Vigilius, though out of respect he be not named Baron. An. 553. n. 212.. And after a strict Examination, They pronounce, that the approvers of this Epistle are Followers of Theodorus and Nestorius the Hereticks; They shew the Council at Chalcedon, owns God was made Man, which this Epistle calls Apollinarism; That Council confesses Mary to be the Mother of God, the Epistle denies it; They commend the Council of Ephesus, and Cyril's twelve Chapters condemning Nestorius; Ibas condemns the Council of Ephesus, defends Nestorius, and calls Cyril an Heretick, and his 12 Chapters impious: They stuck to Cyril's Faith and the Nicene Creed, he condemns Cyril's Faith, and commends Theodorus his Creed: They held two Natures, but one Person in Christ; He is for two Persons also In fine Col. 6. Bin. pag. 102. Lab. 544.: Whereupon this 5th Council Decree the whole Epistle to be Heretical, and Anathematize all as Hereticks who receive it Ibid.. And for this reason Binius leaves out of his Edition the most of that part of Vigilius's Constitution, which concerns Ibas his Epistle: And Baronius (who puts it in) with the Nestorians, would excuse it by saying the latter part of this Epistle is Orthodox: But the Council condemns the whole Epistle Col. 6. in fine., and all that say any part of it is right Col. 8. Bin. pag. 116. Lab. 579.; and all that write for it or defend it Col. 8. Bin. pag. 115. Lab. 568.. So that Pope Vigilius, Baronius, Bellarmine and all the Writers for this Heretical Epistle, were and are accursed by the Sentence of this General Council: And if (as Baronius pretends) the Popes Legates at Chalcedon, say, that Ibas appeared a Catholick by this Epistle Baron. An. 553. n. 213.; the 5th Council shews the Fathers at Chalcedon condemned it, not heeding what two or three said Bin. pag. 104. Lab. 548.. Baronius urges, (as the Nestorians did,) that Eunomius said at Chalcedon, the latter end of Ibas Epistle was Orthodox Baron. ut supr.; but the 5th Council saith, this is a Calumny Col. 6. Bin. 91. a. Lab., and [Page] cite the very words of Eunomius out of the Council at Chalcedon; which import that Ibas was innocent, after he had agreed with Cyril and renounced his Epistle, which he had done in the Acts before Photius and Eustathius Ibid.. The 7th Collation of this 5th Council, was only repeating and approving former Acts Col. 7. Bin. 104. Lab. 549.. In the 8th Collation, Baronius owns this Council condemned the three Chapters contrary to Vigilius Decree Baron. An. 553. n. 219., and Anathematize all that did defend them Col. 8. Bin. 115. Lab., that is, Vigilius, whom Baronius often commends as a defender of them Baron. An. 553. n. 233. An. 546. n. 40, &c.: Yea, they declare them Hereticks, by the Doctrin of the Scriptures and holy Fathers, and of the four former Councils Coll. 8. ut supr. & Bin. 116. Lab. 179.: All which therefore Vigilius contradicted in his Constitution. And whatever Baronius first says to disparage this Council, it was ratified by the 6th Council Concil. 6. Act. 15., by the seventh, or second Nicene Council, Act. 6. yea, (and as Baronius confesseth Baron. An. 553. num. 229.), by all succeeding General Councils; by the Popes, Pelagius, Gregory the Great; Agatho, Leo the second, and by all succeeding Popes, who were sworn to observe all the General Councils, and this among others Baron. An. 869. n. 68, 69.. To which we may add the Councils of Basil and Constance, and all the Catholick Church till Leo the 10th's Lateran Council, An. 1516, which contrary to the Catholick Faith Academia Paris. in Appellat. decreed no Council could condemn a Pope: Wherefore we may conclude, Vigilius was a condemned Heretick.

Chap. v. Now let us examine Baronius his shifts, and those Binius learns from him. First, they pretend this was not a point of Faith, but concerned only persons Baron. An. 547. n. 30. n. 46. n. 225. n. 231. Vid. item. Bin. not. in 5. Concil. pag. 174. Lab. 374.: Which is most false; For the Emperor Justinian calls it a matter of Faith Bin. Col. 1. pag. 47. Lab. 422.: so doth the 5th Council it self declare Col. 8. saepissimè.: Yea, Vigilius in his Constitution calls the condemning these three Chapters Erring from the Faith; and Facundus the Apologist for them saith, the opposing them was rooting out the Catholick and Apostolick Faith Baron. An. 546. n. 47.. On the other side Pope Pelagius saith, they are contrary to the Faith, and to receive them is to [Page]overthrow the Faith of Ephesus Pelag. 2. ep. 7.; which Epistle Gregory the Great confirms Greg. l. 2. ep. 36.. Bellarmine saith, that is de fide, which a Council defines to be so, and calls the opposers of it Hereticks and accurseth them Bellarm. de Concil. cap. 12. §. 4.. And Baronius calls the Emperors Edict for the three Chapters, Sanctio de fide Catholica Baron. An. 546. n. 41., and Fidei decretum Id. An. 547. n. 50., So that it must be a matter of Faith: And Gregory the Great was mistaken if he meant, that this 5th Council handled no matters of Faith, but treated of Persons Greg. l. 3. ep. 37.: For the contrary is manifest. But indeed Gregory means they altered no point of Faith established at Chalcedon, as some in his time fancied; only condemning the persons there examined; but still it was by shewing they held notorious Heresies.

Chap. vi. But to consider the three Chapters severally: The first was about Theodorus of Mopsvestia, who (as Vigilius saith Const. Vigil. Bin. 25. Lab. 365.,) should not be condemned after he was dead, citing Leo and Gelasius for it, as having decreed it for a point of Faith: But on the other side St. Austin declares, if Caecilian were guilty of the Crimes objected (100 years after his death,) he would Anathematize him Aug. Ep. ad Bonifac. citat. in Concil. col. 5.: Pelagius urges and approves of this Doctrin of St. Austin, and saith Leo agreed with him Pelag. 2. ep. 7.. The same is proved in the 5th Council, to have been the Opinion of St. Cyril, of the African Council, &c. Col. 5. Bin. pag. 75. Lab. 479. Thus also Domnus was condemned at Chalcedon after his death, and many of the old Hereticks Edict. Just. Bin. 164 Lab. 715.: Honorius was condemned by name sixty years after his death Concil. vi. Act. 12, 13 & 18.. Yea, Baronius who urges this in excuse of Vigilius in one place Baron. An. 553. num. 233., in another declares that it is a mistake, and that the Church of Rome doth condemn Men after their death Id. ibid. num. 185.; So as he is forced to commend and condemn the same Fact; and to excuse this reason of Vigilius, he disputes for both sides of a Contradiction: As to our Saviours words, of binding and loosing on Earth, Math 18. which Gelasius and Vigilius cite, they respect the living Ministers on Earth, and not the Persons bound or loosed: And Leo and Gelasius both speak of [Page] loosing Persons, who dyed Excommunicate and Impenitent, which they held unlawful; but neither of them say with Vigilius, That an Heretick, who is not discovered till after his death, and dyed in Heresie, may not be condemned then.

Chap. vii. Vigilius pretends in the second place, that this Theodorus dyed in the peace of the Church Const. Bin. pag. 25. Lab. 366.; which objection is taken notice of, both by Justinian Edict. Bin. 164. Lab. 715. and the 5th Council Collat. 5. Bin. 79. Lab. 490., and largely disproved by shewing he was condemned as an Heretick by all Churches, for that he dyed in his impiety; and the Council say it is a Lye to affirm the contrary: Wherefore Baronius falsly saith, Vigilius knew he dyed in the Communion of the Church Baron. An. 553. n. 49.. For even Binius saith, this cannot be believed, because Justinian's Edict witnesseth the contrary Bin. not. in 5 Concil. pag. 174. Lab. 735., even that he dyed in Heresie. So that unless an Heretick be in the Communion of the Church, Theodorus dyed not in that Communion.

Chap. viii. The Popes third reason is, that neither the Fathers, nor Councils had condemned Theodorus, particularly not Cyril, nor Proclus, nor the Synods of Ephesus or Chalcedon Vigil. Const. Bin. pag. 25. Lab. 364.: But the 5th Council cites the very words of Cyril and Proclus, which declare him an Heretick and condemn him Collat. 5. Bin. 76, &c. Lab. 483, &c.. They cite the words of Cyril to John of Antioch, in the Council of Ephesus, which say there were two Sons Ibid.: Also Cyril's Epistle approved at Chalcedon saith, the Council of Ephesus Anathematized not only Nestorius, but all that taught as he did Concil. Ephes. Act. 1. c. 6. & Chalcea. Act. 5. pag. 96.: And Nestorius being Theodorus his Scholar, as the Emperor shews Justin. Ep. ad Synod. 5. Bin. 47. Lab. 421., the 5th Council doubts not to affirm he was condemned in the former great Council Collat. 8. Bin. 115. Lab. 568.; So Pelagius the second saith, the Ephesine Council condemned Theodorus and his Creed Pelag. 2. Epist. 7.: Vigilius indeed denies it was his Creed; but Cyril saith it was his, and produced it under his name in the Council of Ephesus, and condemned it Collat. 5. Bin. pag. 77. Lab. 486.: So the not mentioning his name in the Anathema, is but a fallacious proof [Page] of his being not condemned there: But when the Nestorians began to shroud themselves under his name, then a Synod in Armenia condemned him by name Collat. 6. Epist. Ibas & Baron. An. 435. n. 4., and Proclus exhorted them so to do as Cyril affirms Collat. 5. Bin. 77. Lab. 486, &c., and Cyril there condemns him by name Ibid.: So did Theodosius and Valentiniam, by their Edicts which the 5th Council cites Collat. 5. Bin. 71. Lab. 471, 472. The Church of Mopsvestia put his name out of the Dypticks Ibid. Bin. 81. Lab. 495.: And Sergius Bishop of Cyrus was deposed for reckoning his name among the Orthodox Bishops: Wherefore the 5th Council rightly declares, That the Catholick Church had cast out Theodorus after his death, for his impious Writings Collat. 5. Bin. 84. Lab. 503.. But Pope Vigilius cites two forged Epistles of Cyril and Proclus, to shew that neither of them condemned Theodorus Ibid. Bin. 76. Lab. 483. & 78. & 487.. And with the Nestorians he denies, that these Impious Writings were composed by Theodorus Vigil. Const. Bin. 24, 25. Lab. 364, 365.. But the Armenian Synod, St. Cyril, Justinian and the 5th Council, all say they were writ by Theodorus; the same is also affirmed by Pope Pelagius Pelag. 2. Ep. 7. §. etsi.: As for what Vigilius objects, that the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon were against condemning Theodorus after his death Vigil. Const. ut supra., Liberatus fortunes to say the same Liber. Brev. cap. 10. Bin. pag. 182. Lab. 752, &c.; And Baronius, who takes no notice of Vigilius, severely taxes Liberatus for this, as a Nestorian falshood charged on the Council of Chalcedon Baron. An. 435. n. 11 & 12.. And Binius saith, it is contrary to Cyril's Writings (received at Ephesus,) and to the Acts at Chalcedon Notis in Liberat. Bin. pag. 193. Lab. 779.. Finally, Vigilius most falsly saith, the Emperor Justinian himself, as if he quoted the Acts of Chalcedon in his Edict for the Trinity, is for clearing Theodorus Vigil. Const. Bin. pag. 25. Lab. 365.; which is so gross a slander as can scarce be paralleld. For Justinian in that very Edict condemns Nestorius and all that Teach with him Edict. Just. trin. Cod. l. 1. Tit. 1. Lab. 5. pag. 2.; yea, he censures Theodorus by name in a particular Epistle, writ to this 5th Council Bin. pag. 160. Lab. 706.: On these frivolous and false grounds Vigilius Decrees, none shall condemn Theodorus Vigil. Const. ut supr.: But the 5th Council, without scruple justly condemns both him, and all that held with him or defended him, that is, Pope Vigilius for one.

[Page] Chap. ix. Secondly, Vigilius held the Heretical side as to the Writings of Theodoret, whose person after renouncing his former Heresie all agree to be Catholick; So that this is a point of Doctrin, not concerning a person. Yet first Vigilius pretends, Theodoret did not write these Papers against Cyril, alledged under his name, as (he saith) appeared to the Council at Chalcedon Vigil. Const. Bin. pag. 25. Lab. 367., which is most false; For Binius owns he writ against Cyril, and defended both Nestorius and Theodorus Bin. Praes. Tom. i. pag. 2. pag. 3. & notis in Epist. 61. Leonis.; and Baronius over and over confesseth the same thing Baron. An. 427. n. 30. & An. 431. n. 182.: So doth Liberatus, cap. 4. and Pope Pelagius ep. 7. and the Councils both of Ephesus and Chalcedon Act. Concil. Eph. cap. 2. & cap. 8. The Chalced. Act. 1. cap. 6.: Yea, Theodoret himself in his Epistles (cited in the 5th Council, and by Pope Pelagius) owns it Col. 5. Bin. pag. 72 & 85. Lab. 473 & 504.; So that it is a wonder Vigilius durst urge so weak and false a thing: But he objects, The Council of Chalcedon only required him to renounce Nestorius, not to condemn his own Writings Const. Vigil. ut supra.: Which is a meer fallacy, for he writ for Nestorius, and against Cyrils twelve Chapters: Now since he condemned all the Doctrins of Nestorius at Chalcedon, and also subscribed the twelve Chapters, he did really and virtually, though not by name, Anathematize his own Writings Vid. Concil. Chalced. Act. 8.: Yea, Pelagius saith expresly, he did condemn his own Writings Pelag. Ep. 7. ut supra.. And though at the Council of Chalcedon this General Condemnation sufficed, yet when the Nestorians in the time of Justinian, defended themselves by Theodoret's Writings, it was necessary to condemn them expresly, and by name. Thirdly, Vigilius saith, Cyril on the Union with the Eastern Bishops, required none of them to renounce their own Writings Vigil. Const. Bin. pag. 26. Lab. pag. 367.: Which signifies nothing, since Cyril made them all Anathematize Nestorius, whose Cause they had defended before he would communicate with them Cyril. Ep. ad Dynat. in Concil. Ephes. c. 16.. Wherefore Vigilius falsly concludes those Writings innocent, which so vigorously defend Nestorius his Doctrin; and if he and Theodoret vindicated these Writings, after they had condemned Nestorius, they contradict themselves, condemn [Page] only a name, but held the Heretical Doctrins still: Which is plain also from Vigilius his affirming, That the Council of Chalcedon would have no Nestorian Doctrins condemned under Theodoret's name Vigil. Const. Bin. pag. Lab. 367.. That Council did condemn all that defended Nestorius, of which these very Writings of Theodoret were the chief: But he there recanting his Errors, they condemned those Errors, when they declared him Orthodox. And it was Vigilius favour for Nestorianism, which makes him so Zealous for Theodoret's Nestorian Writings.

Chap. x. Thirdly, Vigilius held the Heretical side as to Ibas his Epistle, affirming that the Council of Chalcedon pronounced it to be Orthodox Vigil. Const. Bin. pag. Lab. pag. 370.: But the 5th Council expresly say, the Council of Chalcedon did condemn and cast it out Lab. Concil. 5. col. 6. pag. 515. Bin. p.. Again, Vigilius saith, the whole Council of Chalcedon agreed with Pascasinus and Maximus, who say that Ibas by this Epistle was declared a Catholick Vigil. Constit. ut supra.. Whereas the 5th Council positively declare, that the discourse of these two single persons, was not regarded at Chalcedon Concil. 5. ut supra.: And Baronius, after so many succeeding Popes and Councils had confirmed this 5th Council, most impudently relates both these untruths, viz. That the Fathers of Chalcedon received this Epistle as Catholick, and that by it they did judge Ibas Orthodox Baron. An. 553. p. & An. 448. p.; yet in contradiction to himself, he in other places Baron. An. 432. p. not only doubteth, whether Ibas did write this Epistle, but affirms expresly, it was found at Chalcedon not to be Ibas his Epistle, citing for it the wretched Nicene Council for Images, where this and many false Stories are found: And after all, the Cardinal forgetting himself, saith elsewhere Baron. An. 448. pag. 69. Et An. 553. pag.; The Council of Chalcedon said it was his Epistle, and Ibas owned it to be his own, and that it was well known to be the Epistle of Ibas, and he cites the 10th Act of the Council of Chalcedon to prove this, which he out of the very Acts of Chalcedon had denied before: Into so many confusions and snares, [Page] doth he fall by labouring to defend this Heretical Pope.

Chap. xi. Whose frauds, with Baronius's, will further appear if we observe, that the true General Council at Ephesus excommunicated Ibas Concil. Ephes. cap. 7., and the spurious Synod excommunicated Cyril Acta Conciliab. Ephes. ibid: The Emperor Theodosius to heal this breach, writes to John of Antioch, Patron of the Nestorians, to condemn Nestorius and agree with Cyril Vid. in fine Con. Ephesin.: And he at last with his Accomplices consented so to do, Anathematizing Nestorius, approving the Ephesine Council, and subscribed Cyril's Confession of Faith Vid. Epist. Cyril. ibid., and so were received into the Peace of the Church, and an Union was made between them and Cyril: Now Vigilius and Baronius pretend, that Ibas in the end of his Epistle mentioneth this Union of John and Cyril with joy, therefore he was a Catholick when he writ it Vigil. Const. Lab. pag. 373. Bin. pag.; and was so proved at Chalcedon by this Epistle; especially by the latter end of it Baron. An. 448. & An. 553. ut supr.: But the 5th Council condemns the whole Epistle, and say the latter part of it is most impious Concil. 5. Col. 6. pag. 517. Lab.. And they had good reason, for though Baronius pretend this Epistle was writ upon the Eastern Bishops Union with Cyril Baron. An. 448. n. 59. pag. 69.; That is most false; for that Union was, An. 432, or 433, and Rambulus was then Bishop of Edessa. But Ibas succeeded him, and mentions in this Epistle an Edict condemning Theodorns of Mopsvestia, dated An. 435 Epist. Jo. ad Xystum inter Act. Concil. Ephes. Bin. T. 1. par. 2. pag. 421.; yea Rambulus was still Bishop of Edessa, and upon this Edict condemned Theodorus, so that Ibas could not write this Epistle till 2 or 3 years after the Union, being Bishop of Edessa when he writ it Liberat. Brev. cap. 10. Bin. pag. 182. Lab. 752, &c.: Yet then in this very Epistle he affirmed, God was not incarnate, nor Mary the Mother of God: So that the Union Ibas praises God for, must be that false Report spread by the Nestorians of Cyril's recanting, and yielding to John of Antioch Cyril. Ep. ad Donatum. Concil. Ephes. par. 3. Num. 38.: So Theodoret 12 years after the Union brags, that the East and Egypt were now agreed, that God was not crucified Concil. v. Collar. 5. Bin. pag. 86. Lab. col. 508.. And Ibas explains himself in this very [Page] Epistle by saying, God had subdued the Heart of the Egyptian to subscribe; John of Antioch saith, Yea, to the very Heresie of Nestorius, which this Author calls the Faith lb. col. 6. Bin. 88. Lab. 511. in the latter end of this Epistle; by which Baronius saith he proved himself a Catholick Baron. An. 448. ut sup [...].: Yet Baronius owns this Story of Cyril's recantation, was a vile calumny of the Nestorians, who (as he pretends) forged this Epistle for Ibas, but it was found to be none of his Idem An. 432. pag. 625, 626.; which is a ridiculous contradiction: And yet these shifts he is put to in justifying an Epistle, wholly condemned in the 5th General Council. But to proceed, Ibas must relate to this feigned Union, because the Nestorians did at first require that Cyril should recant his twelve Chapters Concil. Eph. par. 3. Epist. Cyril. ad Acacium. Bin. pag. 431., and by the proposals of Eusebius Bishop Emisa made to him Ibid. pag. 422., which were in vain; and John of Antioch was forced at last by that Bishop, to send his Submission to Cyril's Faith: To which second message Cyril indeed consented, and thence the Nestorians falsly said he consented to the first, and (as they requested) condemned his twelve Chapters; which remaining Orthodox, Ibas his Epistle must be Heretical, as it expresses a joy for Cyril's supposed consent to Nestorianism.

Chap. xii. The next Method which Vigilius and Baronius take to prove Ibas Orthodox, is by the Words of this Epistle, wherein he rejects Cyril's twelve Chapters for teaching one Nature, and affirms, Two Natures and One Person Vid. Epist. Iboe apud Bin. Tom. 2. par. 2. pag. 88. Lab. Concil. 5. Collat. 6. pag. 509.. Now the Nestorians could say this craftily like Catholicks, but their meaning was, that each Nature made a distinct subsistence, united only by Cohabitation, so that the Son of God dwelt in the Son of Mary; as may be collected from Nestorius own words Concil. 5. Collat. 6. Bin. pag. 103. Lab. 546.: And from Justinian's Edict, where he saith, for Person, they perfidiously used the word Natures Edict. Just. post Concil. 5. Bin. pag. 161. Lab. col. 709.. But Vigilius, to clear Ibas, saith, Dioscorus and the Pseudo Ephesine Synod did condemn Flavianus for this Confession of Two Natures Vigil. Const. in Lab. col. 371.. 'Tis replyed, they were all Eutychians who denied two Natures in [Page]all Senses, and so might condemn these words, whether Flavianus the Catholick in a right Sense, or Iba [...] the Nestorian in a wrong, used them: And whereas Vigilius urges, that the Council of Chalcedon condemned Dioscorus and received Ibas Const. Vig. ibid.; 'Tis plain, they condemned his whole Epistle, as the 5th Council prove at large Concil. 5. Collat. 6. Bin. 104. Lab. col. 548., and received him only after he had renounced the Doctrin of this Epistle: Again, Vigilius would justifie the Epistle by pleading, that Ibas owned the true Ephesine Council, before Photius and Eustathius Const. Vigil. ut supra.: But it was proved before that Ibas writ this Epistle, An. 434, and was then an Heretick; but the Acts before Photius were not till 14 years after Baron. An. 448. pag. 63. Tom. 6.; But his being a Catholick then, is no proof that his Epistle is Orthodox: Further, Vigilius saith, that Ibas mistook Cyril till he explained his Chapters, after which he and the Eastern Bishops ran into Cyril's Commuion Vigil. Const. ut supr.. And Baronius saith, that he did communicate with Cyril, after he had purged himself of the suspicion of being an Apollinarist by declaring his Chapters Baron. An. 448. pag. 66.: Yet Baronius himself owns, that Cyril explained his Chapters at Ephesus, while he was in Prison there, An. 431 Idem An. 431. pag. 595., while the Pseudo-Synod sat; and so their Title declares Concil. Eph. par. 3. Bin. pag. 311.. But Ibas writ this Epistle above 2 years after this Explanation, and was then a Nestorian: Nor did the Eastern Bishops communicate with him till long after; and Theodoret writ bitterly against him, after that they were reconciled to Cyril Epist. Theodoret. ad Nestor. Concil. 5. Col. 5. propè finem. Bin. pag. 86.. And Binius owns the difference between Cyril and the Eastern Bishops, endured full three years after the Council Bin. Praefatio ad Concil. Ephes. Tom. i. par. 2. pag. 4.; yet Ibas writ this Epistle after the Union was made, as the 5th Council expresly declares Concil. 5. Collar. 6. Bin. pag. 90. Lab. 514.: From all which it is plain that Vigilius mistakes the point; for the Explanation Ibas meant of was Cyril's absolute revoking his twelve Chapters, (a Forgery of the Nestorians) which in the Epistle he calls his Recanting; not this Orthodox Explanation of the twelve Chapters, as Vigilius pretends; yea, it was proved before Photius and Eustathius that, Ibas said, He would not have [Page]received Cyril, if he had not Anathematized his Chapters Concil. Chalced Act. x. Bin. pag. 289.. Wherefore Ibas his Epistle was always Heretical, and he an Heretick until he recanted and came over to Cyril's Faith; but Vigilius falsly affirms him to have been Orthodox, both before he rightly understood Cyril's meaning and afterwards Vigil. Const. Lab. Col. 371., and wrongfully supposes Cyril came over to Ibas, who held two Persons, but called them two Natures; from all which it manifestly appears, 1st, That the dispute about this Epistle was a cause of Faith. 2ly, That Ibas his Epistle was Heretical. 3ly, That Vigilius and Baronius in this dispute take the Heretical side.

Chap. xiii. Baronius further pretends, that neither the asserting or denying these three Chapters, could denominate Men Hereticks Baron. An. 547. pag. 358. Item An. 553. pag. 437.: But this was fully disproved before (see Chap. 5.) And since this was a cause of Faith, in which the whole 5th Council held contrary to Pope Vigilius, it will follow, that Men may contradict the Popes Decisions in Articles of Faith, and be no Hereticks: Yea, since here the Pope was on the wrong side, they who are to believe all such Decisions must sometimes be Hereticks. Secondly, Baronius falsly affirms, that they who held contrary to the Pope herein, were Schismaticks Convict Baron. An. 547. pag. 358.. 'Tis true, there was a Schism, as he confesseth Id. An. 553. Saepissime.: But Vigilius and his Party were the Schismaticks, who separated from a General Council, owned for such by all Catholicks.

Chap. xiv. In the next place, Baronius would excuse Vigilius from Heresie, because he professed to hold the Faith of the Council of Chalcedon, and writ his Constitution to defend it Baron. An. 553 pag. 437, 438.: So did Victor Victoris Chron. An. 2. post Consul. Basil., so Facundus Hermianensis Facundus ap. Baron. An. 546. pag. 344., who writ for the three Chapters, pretend: Yea, Vigilius himself in his Constitution pretends to maintain the Faith of that great Council Vigil. Const. Lab. col. 375.. But let it be considered, that the 5th General Council after a strict examining all these pretences, Anathematizes all that defend the three Chapters in the [Page] name of the Council of Chalcedon Concil. 5. col. 8. Bin. pag. 115. Lab. col. 568., which Fact all Catholicks who approve this 5th Council must consent to. And nothing is more usual with all sorts of Hereticks, than to profess they believe as the Orthodox Councils and Fathers have believed; yet they were condemned for all that pretence, (See particular instances of this, as to the Eutychians, Monothelites, Nestorians and Modern Romanists, in the learned Author Crakenthorps Vigil. dormit. chap. 14. pag. 201, &c.: Therefore Baronius his excuse is frivolous, since Hereticks professions are as false and contradictory as their Doctrins: And Vigilius would not forsake the three Chapters, no not when they were proved contrary to the Council of Chalcedon, and forbids any to write or speak against them, so as he might never be convicted or convinced.

Chap. xv. Baronius his third excuse for Vigilius is, that he confirmed the 5th Council Baron. An. 553. pag. 438 & 439. Idem. An. 554. pag. 445.: And Bellarmine saith, he did confirm it Bell. de Concil. l. 1. cap. 5.: Binius adds, no Man doubts it: But if Vigilius case be examined, it will be found he changed four times in this Cause of Faith. First, While he was at Rome, upon Justinian's first putting out the Edict, he opposed it Baron. An. 546. pag. 343., and stirred up Facundus a Nestorian to write against the Emperor in rude Language Ibid. pag. 344.. Yea, Baronius in the same place Rails (g) Bin. notis in Concil. 5. pag. 173. at Justinian for this Edict; and Vigilius writ a threatning Letter to Constantinople, against all that should joyn with the Emperor Ibid. pag. 347.: So that Vigilius, Facundus and Baronius stand all Anathematized by the 5th Council, for writing in defence of the three Chapters Concil. 5. Collat. 8. Bin. pag. 115.. But Secondly, As soon as Vigilius was come to Constantinople he changed his Mind, and in a Council of 30 Bishops condemned the three Chapters, which Facundus upbraids him with Baron. An. 547. pag. 359.; and Baronius confesses he writ a Book against them, and sent it to Mennas Bishop of Constantinople; and that he excommunicated Rusticus and Sebastianus (two Roman Deacons,) with other defenders of the three Chapters Baron. An. 547. pag. 360.; and in those Epistles writ about these Men, he calls this writing to Mennas, his Constitution, his Judgment by Peter's [Page] Authority Concil. 5. Collat. 7. Ep. ad Rustic. & Sabin. & Epist. ad Valentin. ibid.. For which the other Party called him a Deserter, a Prevaricator, &c. Baron. ib. pag. 362.; and Victor saith, that the African Bishops in a Synod excommunicated him Victoris Chronicon. An. [...] post. Consul. Bas.; yet Baronius owns these Bishops at that time were Catholicks: Nor doth it excuse this Pope, that he revoked this Constitution which condemned the three Chapters, presently after it was published; and made another Decree, that all should keep silence till the General Council Baron. An. 547. pag. 361.. For this only shews him a Dissembler, and a neutral in a Cause of Faith: But Thirdly, At the 5th Council Vigilius returns to his Vomit, condemns the imperial Edict, and defends the three Chapters (as we shewed before See Chap. iii. of this History.), and was so obstinate as to endure Banishment for this Opinion Bin. not. in Concil. 5. pag. 174., which (though none suffered for but such as the 5th Council declared Hereticks,) Baronius calls an heavy persecution Baron. An. 553. pag. 435.; and indeed his suffering on this side shews he was always a Nestorian in his Heart: But Fourthly, Binius and Baronius say, he changed again after the 5th Council, and condemning the three Chapters was enlarged, but died in his way home Bin. notis ad Concil. 5. ut supr. pag. 174.. Yea, they are confident that he did confirm the 5th Council, (and so condemn his late Constitution Baron. An. 554. pag. 444, 445.): Which last change no ancient Author mentions: And though this only could keep him from dying in Heresie, yet this is a Fiction of Baronius, who will say any thing to save a Popes credit; an instance of which we have in his commending this Proteus, for a Man of Wisdom and Constancy Idem An. 547. pag. 362. & 361., and in Binius his praising Vigilius for a prudent and pious Pope, who imitated St. Paul in changing his Mind Bin. notis ad Concil. 5. pag. 174. §. cum. Baron. An. 553. pag. 438, 439.; while Justinian, who was always Orthodox and stood firm, is by these Parasites decried as a wicked perfidious person Baron. An. 554. pag. 444.: So that Truth in others is Error, and Error in a Pope is Truth, yea, if a Pope hold Contradiction, he is always in the Right.

[Page] Chap. xvi. But in this Account of Vigilius changes, two of them are forged by Baronius: First, that Decree of silence is a Fable, though it be so often mentioned in the Annals Baron. An. 547. pag. 361., and though he say Vigilius decreed this Synodically An. 551. pag. 382., and affirm that Theodorus and Mennas consented to it An. 547. ut supr., and that he and Justinian had promised to observe this silence An. 551. pag. 381.: Whereupon he pretends Vigilius excommunicated Theodorus and suspended Mennas An. 551. pag. 384.; And stoutly opposing Justinian, who this year hung up his Edict in contradiction to this Decree of silence Ibid. pag. 381.; though he fled to St. Peter's Church, and then to Chalcedon, yet thence he thundred out his spiritual Darts against them all, and rescinded the Emperors Decree An. 552. pag. 387.. Upon this Baronius says, the Emperor revoked his Edict, and Theodorus repented and submitted, as did also Mennas, and so all were content (i) Ibid. pag. 388, 389. to be silent till the Council, and great Joy followed thereupon: Now this is all Fiction: For first, if there had been such a Decree for silence, let it be noted, Domnus was condemned at Chalcedon for an Heretick, in that he decreed silence should be kept about Cyril's twelve Chapters Concil. 5. Collat. 6. Bin. pag. 103. Lab. col. 546. Edict. Justin. Lab. col. col. 718. Bin. pag. 165.. And by that Rule, Vigilius would have been Heretical for his Decree: Whereas the truth is, he never made any such Decree; for Justinian affirms, that from his first coming to Constantinople, until the Council, he always was for condemning the three Chapters Epist. Justin. ad Concil. 5. Collat. 1. Bin. 47. Lab. 422.; and as the Emperors messenger affirms, to the 5th Council then assembled, he often promised to joyn with them in it Concil. 5. Collat. 7. Bin. 106. Lab. 549.. Nor did Vigilius observe his own Decree, which is pretended to be made An. 547. the 21st. of Justinian Baron. An. 547. pag. 361., and to have silenced all Disputes: For in the 22d year of that Emperor, the two Roman Deacons above named, accused Vigilius for condeming the three Chapters by their Leuers to divers Bishops Idem. An. 548. pag. 363.. In Justinian's 23d year, Vigilius purges himself to Valentinianus from these Slanders, by appealing to his Judgment, sent unto Mennas, to which he declares he then adhered Concil. 5. Collat. 7. Bin. 109. Lab. 551.. In the Emperors 24th year, he writ the like Apology to [Page] Aurelianus Ibid. Bin. 109. Lab. 558.; and as Baronius proves, the same year he published his Sentence against Rusticus, Sabinianus, and others for defending the three Chapters Baron. An. 550. pag. 375 & 380.. Now how could he by word and writing, thus sentence and punish all that disliked his Condemnation of the three Chapters, and appeal to his Judgment in that case, if there had been a revocation of it, and a Synodal Decree of Taciturnity three year before? Nor did Justinian know of, or consent to any such Decree; for Victor saith, in his 22d year he writ for the Condemnation of the three Chapters, compelling divers Bishops to condemn them Victoris Chronic. An. 7. post. Cons. Basilij.. The next year the Illyrian Bishops persuaded the Emperor not to proceed so Ibid. An. 8.; so did Faeundus in the 24th year; but he that year called the Council at Mopsvestia to condemn Theodorus Concil. 5. Collat. 5. Bin. pag. 80. Lab. 492.. In his 25th year, Victor and Liberatus declared, he dealt with the African Primates and Bishops to condemn these Chapters; and got Zoilus Patriarch of Alexandria deprived for refusing it Victoris Chron. ut supr. An. 10. Liberat. Breviar. cap. 23., and in his 26th year (just before the Council,) he Banished several obstinate Afrirican Bishops Idem An. II. id est, 26 An. Justin.: So it is very ridiculous in Baronius, to speak of the Emperor's publishing his Edict An. 25th Baron. An. 551. ut supr., since it was published long before; and to pretend he revoked it the next year, since Justinian every year writ and acted in the defence of it: We add, that neither did Theodorus and the Catholicks observe this Decree of silence; for Vigilius sentences them for writing against the defenders of these Chapters Idem. An. 551 pag. 382.. No nor yet did the Hereticks value it: for they writ warmly for the three Chapters all that time Baron. An. 548. pag. 364 & An. 550. initio.: Yea, Victor notes, that the Illyrian Synod in the 23d year of Justinian, and the African in the 24th writ for the three Chapters Victor. Chron. An. 8 & 9. post Consul. Basilij.. Well, but Baronius cites publick Acts for this Decree, and the subsequent agreement between Vigilius and Mennas Baron. An. 547. pag. 361.: But these Acts are forged, being dated An. 25. Justin. An. 10. post consul. Basil. Idem An. 551. pag. 384. where Baronius places the suspension of Mennas, and his submission next year after Idem. An. 552. ut supr. An. 26. Just.: But Mennas died the 21st year of Justinian, that is, five year before, as [Page] the Popes Legates prove in the sixth General Council Concil. 6 Gen Act. 3. & Bin. not. ibid., and by that shew these Publick Acts were forged; yea, Baronius, who here cites these Acts to colour over this Fable, there owns the Acts to be forged, and expresly says, Mennas certainly died in the 21st year of Justinian Baron. An. 680.. So that we may conclude this Decree of Silence and Mennas suspension with the rest, are a notorious Fable, invented only to save the Credit of Pope Vigilius.

Chap. xvii. And so is his confirming the fifth Council, either before or after his supposed Exile, which Baronius and others so boldly affirm Baron. & Bin. ut supr. cap. 15.: For that he did not confirm it neither during its Session, nor soon after, Baronius proves, because his Letters would then have been annexed to the Council Id. An. 553. pag 435, 436.. And he confesses the Reason moving Pelagius, the next Pope, to confirm it, was, That he found the Eastern Church in a Schism by Vigilius his Constitution Id. ib. p. 439., which could not have been if Vigilius in his Life had revoked that Constitution. Again, the Western Church rejected the fifth Council all the time of Vigilius; for there could be found but two Western Bishops who would consecrate Pelagius after he was chosen Pope, because be condemned the three Chapters (saith Victor Victor. Chron. An. 17. post consul. Basil.,) and as Baronius adds, because they abhorred the fifth General Council Baron. An. 556. pag. 452. n. 1.; yea, a Council at Aquileia condemned the fifth Council An. 554 Beda de 6 aetat. mund. An. 4637. Sigon. de reg. Ital. An. 554., urging that Pope Vigilius did not agree with it; and in this Opinion they remained till Pelagius the second (20 years after Vigilius death and more, An. 577.) instructed them that the Apostolick Seat understanding the Controversie better after Vigilius his time, had changed its Judgment Epist 7. Pelag. 2. inter fragm. Conc. 5. Bin. pag. 123. Lab. Col. 615., which Letter of this Pelagius is annexed to the fifth Council, and by Binius compared to the Epistle of Leo to Flavianus Bin. Not. in 7 Epist. Pel. 2. pag. 257.. Which Argument shews, that Pelagius never heard that Vigilius changed his Judgment, or confirmed the fifth Council. As to Evagrius, who (saith Baronius) with all the Greek Writers do affirm, that Vigilius by his Letters consented to the Council, since he did not this during [Page] the Council, nor shortly after (being banished), we must assert he consented when he was freed from Exile Baron. An. 553. pag. 435 & An. 554. pag. 444.: So the Cardinal: I Reply, This is very fallacious, for neither Evagrius, nor any Greek Writer, say any more, than That Vigilius did by Letter consent to the fifth Synod—But Evagrius adds,—yet would not be present in it Evag. hist. lib. 4. cap. 37.. By which it is clear, the Historian means nothing but that consent, which by word and writing he had often given, as to the Synods Opinion before they met, of which the fifth Council often complains, because he denied it, and flew off afterwards Concil 5. collat. 1. Bin. 47 & 49. Lab. 422, & 425.; and it was these precedent Writings, that both Nicephorus (s) and Photius mean Phot. de 7 Synod. in Concil. 7.. Wherefore it is falsly done of Baronius to apply this to a subsequent Decree, for confirming the fifth Council after it was (f) Niceph. lib. 17. cap 27. ended. Baronius his last Argument is, That since Vigilius was banished for not consenting to the fifth Synod, 'tis not likely he should be released till he had confirmed it Baron. An. 554. pag 445. n. 6.. But first the consequence is not good, for Justinian might restore him to gratifie so great a Subject as Narses, and Narses might intreat the Emperour to oblige the Roman Clergy, who then were Enemies to the fifth Synod. Secondly, (which is worse) The whole story of this Banishment and Release is fabulous: For no Author but Anastasius mentions this last Exile, who is very fabulous, and here much mistaken; for he saith, Pelagius was present at this Release, and then set free Anastas. apud Baron. An. 554. p. 444. n. 1.. Whereas Victor, who then was at Constantinople saith, Vigilius died in Sicily the 16th year after Basilius his Consulship Victor. Chron. An. 16. (malè leg. 17.) post consul. Basil., and that Pelagius was not re-called from banishment till the year after Vigilius his death, and so could not (as Anastasius saith) be released with him Vict. Chr. Anno 17. post cons. Basil.. Besides, Anastasius speaks only of one banishment of Vigilius, for refusing to restore Anthimius, near two years after his coming to Constantinople, in the life-time of Theodora Vid. Anastas. vitâ Vigilii., (who died Anno 548, according to Baronius Baron. An. 548. p. 369. n. 24.; and this is the banishment from which Vigilius was released at the intreaty of Narses, according to Anastasius; and so both Bellarmin [Page] and Sanders affirm from the Pontifical Bellarm. l. 4. de Pont. Rom. c. 10. Sand. de visibil. Monar. lib. 7.: Wherefore they and all Writers place this banishment of Vigilius divers years before the fifth Council, held Anno 553: So that the Exile after the fifth Council is a meer Forgery of Baronius, who openly contradicts his Author, as if he mistook the time Baron. An. 547. p. 357. n. 27. & An. 552. pag. 387. n. 8., only because the real time of Vigilius's Exile will not serve his design to excuse the Pope from dying in Heresie. He rejects a Story about Vigilius, told by Anastasius as a manifest Lye, only because neither Facundus nor Procopius mention it Id. An. 546. p. 347. n. 54.. By which Arguing it will appear, not only that Vigilius was not banished after the fifth Council, but that he was not banished at all, because neither Victor, Liberatus, Evagrius nor Procopius, who then lived (and Victor is very particular in naming all that were exiled for this Cause) do not once mention Vigilius his being banished, no, nor Photius, Zonaras, Cedrenus, Glicas nor Nicephorus. And Platina, with other Western Writers take up this Fable upon the credit of Anastasius, and Baronius improves it to serve a turn. But Baronius asks, If it be likely Justinian would spare Vigilius Baron. An. 553. pag. 435. n. 222.? I reply, Yes; because he was a weak and inconstant man; and he having so great a Post, Justinian chose rather to connive at him, than to harden others by punishing him, whom he represents to the fifth Council, as one who condemned the three Chapters; for which Reason also he is not condemned by Name in the 5th Council. Secondly, Baronius tells us of great Liberties, Gifts, &c. given to Vigilius upon his release and sending home, which he brings as a proof of his consent to the fifth Council Id. An. 554. pag. 445. n. 6. Bin. not. ad Concil. 5. p. 174.: Whereas that Sanction granting some Priviledges to Italy is dated in August, the 28th year of Justinian; and Vigilius (according to Victor, an Eye-witness) died not till the 31st of Justinian. So that these Liberties were promised to Vigilius and other Romans long before the Council, while Vigilius and the Emperour were very kind Procop. de bell. Gothic [...], [...]., viz. in the 23th of Justinian, but performed five year after; yet three years before Vigilius death, and so his dying before his return [Page] with these Priviledges is a Fiction: But Baronius by meer guess, places it falsly in Justinian's 29th years beginning Baron. An. 554. initio., only to colour the Fable. His last Argument is from Liberatus saying, he died afflicted by the Eutychians, but was not crowned Liberat. Brev. cap. 22. ap. Baron. An. 554. pag. 444. n. 5.. I reply, he despises Leberatus Testimony as to an Epistle of Vigilius Idem. An. 538. pag. 277.: But Liberatus saith not, he was banished or put to death for his Opinions; yea, he counts his condemning the three Chapters, Heresie, and doth not tell us how he suffered or died, so that he is no Witness to this Fiction, but an Evidence against it.

Chap. xviii. Baronius's last exception is, that this was no lawful General Council, nor had any Authority till Vigilius confirmed it Baron. An. 553. pag. 434. n. 224. An, 553. pag. 399. n. 29.: And Binius saith, his Sentence gave it the Title of a General Council Bin. notis in Con. 5. pag. 173. Col. 1.. But we have shewed before, this was a lawful General Council received by the whole Catholick Church Supr. chap. 4.: Now they grant it was not confirmed till after it was parted, and that it was never gathered by the Holy Ghost; so that his Act afterwards cannot make a nullity valid: The Cardinal and Binius Baron. & Bin. ut supr. (l) both tell us, it was no General Council at first, being called though the Pope resisted and contradicted it; yet Binius had said before, Vigilius called the 5th Council by his Pontifical Authority Bin. notis in Con. 5. initio pag. 171.. Baronius also saith, the Emperor called it according to the sentence of Vigilius Baron. An. 553. pag. 398. n. 23, 24.: And the Council charge Vigilius with promising in writing to meet with them Concil. 5. Collat. 2. Bin. pag. 51. Lab. 430.; and his own Letter printed there, declares his consent to the assembling this Council Ibid. Collat. 1. Epist. Vigil.. Yet if he had opposed it, so did Damasus the second Council at Constantinople, which was held (repugnante Damaso Baron. An. 381.), yet is accounted a lawful General Council; and Cusanus saith, if the Pope be negligent or refractory, the Emperor may call a General Council Cusan. de Concord. lib. 3. ch. 15.. And though he was not personally present in this Council, yet he sent his Constitution, which was his Decree, ex Cathedra Baron. An. 553. pag. 403. n. 47.. But saith Baronius, their sentence was contrary to the Popes Decree, and therefore it cannot be a lawful General [Page] Council Id. ibid. pag. 434.. Bellarmine also urges this for a Rule Bellar. de Concil. lib. 2. cap. 11., but the matter of Fact sufficiently confutes them, since this Council which did Decree contrary to the Popes Sentence, is and was always held lawful. So was the second General Council good and valid, being confirmed by an imperial Edict in July, An. 381 Baron. An. 381. num. 80. pag., though Damasus did not so much as hear of it, till after the Council of Aquileia held in September that year Id. ibid n. 97. pag.; and it seems by Pope Gregory, that the Roman Church till his time had not received the Canons of it Greg. M. lib. 6. Epist. 31.. Yea, the third Canon which Damasus and Leo Turrian. de 6, 7 & 8 Synodis pag. 65. both condemned, and which Binius saith, the Roman Church rejects to this day Bin. notis in Concil. Constantinop. 2.; Yet all the while it was held Authentick, and by it Anatolius held the second place at Chalcedon, and Eutychius in the 5th Council; by it St. Chrysostom deposed and ordained Bishops, and held a Council in Asia: So that both Canons and Custom had setled this Rule, as is proved in the Council of Chalcedon Concil. Chal. ced. Act. 16. Bin. Tom. 2. par. 1. pag. 333.. And Justinian made those Canons of this second Council to be inserted into the Dypticks, and to be read in Churches Novel. 131 cap. 1, 2.: So that Canons are good and valid, without the Popes Approbation, as well as Councils, whose Decrees have their force from the Subscriptions of the major part of Bishops there present Euseb. de vitâ Constant. l. 3. c. 13. Digest. lib. 5. Lab. 19., though two of the Popes Legates Concil. 5. Col. 6., or ten others did dissent Concil. Chal. Act. 4., especially when the Emperor confirms them by his Edict, as Constantine did those of Nice, Theodosius those of the second General Council, &c. In like manner Justinian confirmed this 5th Council: And so it was valid without the Popes consent; though absent Bishops, (others as well as those of Rome,) were desired to confirm a Council after it was past, not to give any new Authority to it, but to preserve Unity, and to shew the Orthodoxy of these absent Bishops.

[Page] Chap. xx. Omitting the 19th Chapter, which treats of General Councils at large, we proceed to Baronius lesser and remoter objections against this Council: He begins with Justinian who called and confirmed it, whom he taxes 1st for want of learning, calling him an illiterate man who could not read a Letter Baron. An. 528. pag. 139. n. 2. An 538. pag. 281. n. 32 [...] An. 546. pag. 344. n. 41. An. 551. pag. 382. n. 2. & 4., for which he cites Suidas, a late fabulous, yea an Heretical Author Possevin. Apparat. verbo Suidas.; But Platina commends Justinian for his great Learning and Wit Platin. vit. Bonif. secundi.. So also Trithemius who with Possevine reckon him among Ecclesiastical Writers Trithem. lib. de Script. Eccles.. Pope Agatho and the 6th Council cite him as one of the venerable Fathers and Witnesses of the Truth Concil. 6. Act. 4. in Epist. Agath.: Liberatus, an Enemy of his mentions his writing a Book against the Acephali Lib. brev. cap. 24. [...]. Procopius speaks of his great diligence in reading the Christian Writings Precop. l. 3. de bell. Goth.: So that Gotofred in his Preface to the Institutes shews, this is a meer a Calumny of Suidas; but Baronius greedily repeats it over and over, of pure malice to this learned Emperor. His second Quarrel at him is, for presuming to meddle in Causes of Faith, and making Laws for Priests Baron. An. 528. pag. 139. An. 551. pag. 382. An. 553. pag. 439. n. 237. But did not all the Religious Kings of Judah do so? Did not Constantine, the two Theodosij and Martin the same? And the 5th Council highly commend him for it Concil. 5. Collat. 7. in fine Bin. 111. Lab. 561.: The Code of Theodosius, his Code and the Authenticks sufficiently prove this was done by the best of Princes. Thirdly, He reproaches him for his sacrilegious Fury, in persecuting Vigilius Baron. An. 551. pag. 382. n. 2. An. 552. pag. 387. n. 8. An. 553. pag. 435.. Now I have proved before this beating and banishing of the Pope is a meer Fable See Chap. 16 & 17.; and if he was persecuted, or rather punished it was for Heresie; and Constantine, Theodosius the elder and younger, and Martian are commended for the same Acts against the Arrians, Macedonians, Nestorians and Eutychians, and St. Augustin justifies this proceeding Aug. lib. contr. Fulgent. Donat. c. 20.. Fourthly, He charges him with falling into the Heresie of the Incorrupticolae in his last days, writing an Edict for it, and madly persecuting all the Orthodox, especially Eutychius Bishop of Constantinople [Page] for opposing it, for which he Rails intollerably at him, saying all Authors, Greek and Latin attest this Baron. An. 563. pag. 483. 484, 485. n. 1, 2, 6, 7, 8. Et An. 564. pag. 487. & passim.: Finally he dooms him to Hell for this Baron. An. 565. pag. 497, &c. 11. 6.. But first, Justinian did not publish such an Edict as Evagrius and Nicephorus, his two main Witnesses attest Evagr. Hist. l. 4. c. 40. Niceph. lib. 17. c. 30. Baron. An. 565. pag. 496.; and Baronius owns as much: And Victor Bishop of Tunen, who suffered (under Justinian) Imprisonment, and speaks hardly of him, is silent as to this Edict; but shews he continued constant to his Edict against the three Chapters to his very death Victor in Chron. An. 38. Justin., wherein he owns all the former General Councils: And it is so far from truth, that all Writers, Greek and Latin charge him with that Heresie, that neither Procopius, Agathus, Victor nor Liberatus do it, nor Damascen, though he treat of this Heresie Damsacen. lib. de Haeres., nor Marcellinus, Bede, nor Anastasius: Suidas saith, he was most Orthodox; Aimonius and Paulus Diaconus affirm, he was for his Faith a Catholick Ai [...]on. de gest. Franc. lib. 3. c. [...]. Paul. Diac. de gest. Lang. l. 1. c. 25.: And twenty other eminent Writers (cited by this Author), do all give him a great Character; and Pope Gregory Greg. Mag. lib. 2. indic. 11. Ep. 10. & lib. 3. Ep. 4. with many others after his death, bestow on him the Title of Pious and of sacred Memory. Baronius names but three Authors for this Slander: First, Nicephorus, whom Possevine calls Heretical and Erroneous in History Possevin. in verb. Nicephorut.; and the Cardinal in this Relation judges him to be a Fool Baron. An. 563. pag. 484. n. 8., and generally he is but Evagrius his Ape. His second Witness is Eustathias Eustath. ap. Sur. 6. Aprills.: But Surius is generally stuffed with fabulous Writers, and such is this Eustathius falsly pretended to have writ Eutychius his Life; for neither Photius, Trithemius, Possevine nor Sixtus Senensis mention any such Writer: And the Story is full of Lyes; for he makes Eutychius to come to Constantinople to the 5th Council, and then to be chosen Bishop after Mennas death, who died five years before this Council See before Chap. 16.; And this Eutychius was chosen full four years before it: And he reckons that Eutychius was Banished twelve years Baron. An. 564. pag. 493. n. 29., whereas two years after his Banishment he crowned Justinius Histor. Miscel. lib. 16., and was actually Patriarch when Justinius was sick, and nominated Tiberius his [Page] associate Zonar. Tom. 3. vit. Justin., and so could not (as this Fabler pretends,) be desired from Banishment after Tiberius Reign began with Justin Baron. An. 578. pag. 567. n. 5.; yet to make out this Lye, Anastasius his latine Version of Nicephorus adds ten years to John Successor of Eutychius, and makes him sit twelve year and seven Months Idem. An. 564, 493. n. 29., who in Nicephorus sat but two years and seven Months. 'Tis true, Eutychius was Banished by Justinian, but it was for Prophesying of his Successors Baron. An. 578. pag. 566. n. 2., and for holding the Heresie of Origen as Pope Gregory witnesseth Greg. Mag. lib. 14. Moral. chap. 29., against which Justinian had put out an Edict, and which was sentenced in the 5th Council Liberat. Brev. cap. 24. Baron. An. 538. pag. 281. n. 33. & in Concil. 5.. And it was for opposing this Edict, not an Heretical Edict that Eutychius was Banished: So that thirdly, Baronius hath no Author for this Slander of Justinian's being an Heretick, but Evagrius, who is owned by all to be a most fabulous Author, (as is proved in the History here very fully by many instances;) Now what is his credit against so many truer and better Historians? Finally, Whereas Baronius reviles Justinian as a destroyer of the Empire and the Church, This Author largely proves out of the best Historians, that Justinian was a Wise, Pious and Victorious Prince, the best Emperor as to his Laws, his Buildings, his Wars, and his Love to Religion that ever sat on the Throne Imperial, to which the Reader is referred See Crakenthpor's Vigilius dormit. cap. 20. pag. 349, &c..

Chap. xxi. In like manner the Cardinal reviles Theodora the Empress, as a Wicked, Heretical, Sacrilegious, Mad Woman, strook with death by Heavens vengeance upon Vigilius Excommunicating her Baron. An. 535. pag. 226. n. 59, 60. An. 536. pag. 268. n. 123. An. 538. pag. 275. n. 9. An. 548. pag. 369. n. 24.. But other Authors say, she was like her Husband in her Studies and Manners Constantin. Manas. Annal. pag. 87.: Yea, the Emperor gives her an excellent Character in his very Laws Justin. novel. 8. cap. 1.: He also Prag. sanct. c. 1., and the 6th Council after her death, call her a Woman of Pious Memory Concil. 6. Act. 3. & Act. 4.. Nor ought Baronius to revile her, for thrusting Anthimius an Heretical Monster into the See of Constantinople, as he doth (An. 535. pag. 226. ut supr.) since there he owns, that at his Election [Page] he seemed a Chatholick, and that she favoured him as Orthodox Baron. An. 535. pag. 227.; yea, he carried it so as to seem such to all Ibid. pag. 233. n. 86.. As to her contending with Vigilius two years about the Restitution of Anthimius, which Baronius relates, (An 547. pag. 357.) it is a meer Fable, for that Cause of Anthimius was determined long before; and Victor saith, that Vigilius and Theodora agreed after he came to Constantinople, and that she persuaded him to condemn the three Chapters Victoris. Chronic. An. 2. post. Cons. Bas., And he (who best knew) saith, it was Pope Agapetus who excommunicated Theodora, (then favouring the Acephali) Idem in Chron. in Cons. Justininani. An. 14. ejus Regni.: So that Vigilius is by the Scribes mistake, put for Agapetus in Gregory Greg. Mag. lib. 2. Ep. 36., as appears by his speaking of the taking of Rome by the Goths immediately after, which was the Sacking it by Vitiges after Agapetus his time, or by Totilas, which was (not after, but) before this pretended Sentence of Vigilius against Theodora, viz. that year Vigilius came to Constantinople Baron. An. 547. pag. 353 & 356.. From all which it is manifest, that this Pope did never Excommunicate Theodora at all, who in her latter Days was Orthodox, but hated by the Nestorians, for joyning with Justinian in condemning the three Chapters, which also raises Baronius his spleen against her.

Chap. xxii. His next attempt is against the three Chapters, which he wishes had been condemned to Eternal silence, buried and extinguished Baron. An. 547. pag. 362. n. 48., adding it had been better for the Church they had never been spoken of An. 553. pag. 439. n. 237., viz. because of the Troubles ensuing: I reply, so there was about the words [...]: But this settled the true Faith, as it did also that Controversie, and (by Providence) shews us, that a Pope may Err in matters of Faith.

[Page] Chap. xxiii. After this he Rails at the Edict, calling it a Seed plot of dissention Baron. An. 534. pag. 199. n. 21., and saying it was contrary to the three Chapters of the Council of Chalcedon; and (as Facundus affirms,) contrary to Justinian's own Faith, and writ by Hereticks Id. An. 546. pag. 336. n. 8, 9.; and the Cardinal saith it was writ by Theodorus Bishop of Caesarea Id. ibid.; against whom he every where Rails as a Factious and Schismatical Man, yea, an Heretick, and obstinate Origenist Baron. An. 551. pag. 381. 382 & alibi., a most wicked Wretch, and a plague to the whole Church Id. An. 564. pag. 488.: But as to the Edict, it is in defence of the Council of Chalcedon, and to say otherwise, is to condemn the 5th General Council, who often declare as much: Yea, Baronius elswhere in contradiction to himself saith, this Edict is a Confession of Justinian's right Faith, a Catechism and exact declaration of the Catholick Faith Baron. An. 534. pag. 199. n. 21.. And he might as well call the Decrees of Nice, or other General Councils Seed-plots of dissention; yea, the Gospel it self may be so calumniated Luke xij. 49, 51.: Nor do Liberatus, Facundus and Vigilius (as he saith,) declare that Theodorus writ this Edict Baron. An. 546. pag. 336. n. 8, 9.; Liberatus only saith, he suggested it to the Emperor, to condemn the three Chapters by a Book, to be dictated by the Emperor, which he promised to do Liberat. breviar. cap. 24.: Facundus names not Theodorus, but saith, They were willing to believe it was writ by the Adversaries of the Truth Facundus apud Baron. An. 546. ut supr. (o); which was but a conjecture, and is as false as what he next speaks of it, being contrary to the Emperors own Faith. And Vigilius words cited by Baronius (rightly construed) shew only, that when the Edict was read in the Pallace, Theodorus required the Bishops to favour it by his words Vigil. ap. Baron. ibidem.; however this passage is taken out of a forged Epistle of Vigilius Vid. Ep. ap. Binium. Tom. 2. par. 2. pag. 12. Lab. col. 334., wherein Mennas is said to be excommunicated the 25th year of Justinian, who died the 21st year of that Emperor: So that none of his Evidence do prove, that Theodorus writ this Edict: And for his opposing Vigilius his Decree of silence, we shewed before there was no such Decree See Chap. 16., nor could he lead Justinian into the Heresie of the [Page] Incorrupticolae, because the Emperor never held it See Chap. 20., and his only Witnesses, that Theodorus was an Origenist Heretick, are Facundus and Liberatus: Now Facundus is an Heretick, condemned by the 5th General Council, for writing in defence of the three Chapters, and a malicious Enemy of Theodorus Vid. Possevin. Appar. verbo (Facundus.): And so was Liberatus, for which cause Bellarmine Bellarm. de Concil. l. 1. c. 5., Baronius Baron. ap. Bin. notis in Liberat. brev. pag. 193. and Possevine Possevin. apparat. verbo (Liberatus.) advise us to read him cautiously, especially in such things as he borrowed from the Nestorians, and what he saith of the 5th Council, Professae inimicitiae suspicionem habent mendacij Hieron. contr. Russin. Apol. 1.. And this is certainly so, for how could he hold Origen's Heresies, who subcribed the 5th Council wherein Origen is by name condemned Concil. 5. Collat. 8. Art. xi. Bin. 116. Lab. 575.? And among other Bishops, no doubt he had subscribed Justinian's Edict against Origen's Errors Ap. Baron. An. 538. pag. 293., otherwise he could not have been so familiar with the Emperor, nor so beloved by him as Liberatus (the Author of this Calumny) reports him to have been: So that Theodorus was always Orthodox, and his advising this Edict is no proof it was against the Faith.

Chap. xxiv. Baronius and Binius do attempt after this to question the Acts of the 5th Council, not indeed in any main thing concerning their not condemning, or Vigilius not defending the three Chapters (which is our Point,) but in lesser matters, such as may be objected against all the General Councils in the World See instances in the Author. Vigil. dorm. pag. 378. c. 24.; which therefore if the objections were true, would not take away the Authority of this General Council, whose Acts are as well preserved as any, and better than any of the other Councils, except Chalcedon, that went before it.

Chap. xxv. The first Corruption they charge these Acts with is, that they add to the Acts of Chalcedon (in reciting them) these words—which Jesus Christ our Lord is one of the Trinity, which words some (suspected of Eutychianism,) would have added to the Council of Chalcedon, but could not obtain it Baron. An. 553. pag. 433. n. 214.. But first, it was no Eutychian [Page] Heretick who first said Christ was one of the Trinity. Theodorus of Mopsvestia denied it Dionys. Exig. in Praef. ad Epist. Procl. Bib patrum. Tom. iii., but Proclus who was Orthodox, affirmed it, and taught it in an Epistle, approved in the Council of Chalcedon Justin. Leg. 7. de sum. Trin. c. 4.; and Justinian set out an Edict for it against the Nestorians, who denied it, wherein he also Anathematizes the Eutychians Baron. An. 533. pag. 180, 181. n. 7, &c.; which Edict Pope John the second confirms, and declares to be agreeable to the Apostolick Doctrin, and to the Faith of the Roman Church Idem An. 534. pag. 198. num. 15.. Wherefore those Monks, who affirmed one of the Trinity was Crucified could not be Eutychian Hereticks, as Baronius falsly says Idem. An. 519. pag. 43 & 44, &c. But Baronius is a Nestorian, who denies this Truth. And those Monks did not seek to add it to the Council of Chalcedon, only they declared (against the Nestorians,) this was the Sense of that Council, in the time of Hormisda, (who was Heretical in denying it,) nor doth the 5th Synod recite it as the words of the Council of Chalcedon, but as their own words Concil. 5. Collat. 6. Bin. pag. 102. Lab. col. 545., who were as Orthodox as any in the Council of Chalcedon, and he is a Nestorian who denies it.

Chap. xxvi. Baronius objects, Secondly, That in these Acts, Ibas is said to have denied the Epistle to Maris to be his, which he saith is false Baron. An. 553. pag. 432. n. 211., and Binius calls it a Lye Bin. notis in 5. Concil. pag. 172. Lab. 732.; and they both give this as an instance of the Corruption of these Acts: They may as well prove Justinian's Edict corrupted, and Pope Gregory's Epistles, where it is said, he durst not confess it; yea, that he denied it to be his Edictum Justin. Bin. pag. 161. Lab. 707. Greg. M. Epist. 53. lib. 7.: And the 5th Council prove he did deny it, by the interlocution of six Metropolitans at Chalcedon Concil. 5. Collat. 6. Bin. pag. 91. Lab. 516.. And though Baronius do say positively in one place, that the true Acts of Chalcedon have it, that lbas confessed it to be his Epistle Baron. An. 448. pag. 69. n. 77.; yet he cites those very Acts, and the second of Nice elsewhere, saying, it was found not to be the Epistle of Ibas, and so it was condemned and he absolved Id. An. 432. (pag. 626. n. 71.. And the truth of the matter is, that Ibas denied at Chalcedon that ever he called Cyril an Heretick after the Union: But we [Page] have proved before, that he writ this Epistle divers years before that Union, and therein called Cyril Heretick See Chap. 10.; which is a denying the words of his own Epistle, for which he is censured in the 5th Council.

Chap. xxvii. He alledges that these Acts say, the Council of Chalcedon condemned the Epistle of Ibas: Which he saith is untrue, and that he hath demonstrated the contrary out of the Acts of Chalcedon Baron. ut supra. (lit. (m); and Binius calls this another Lye Bin. in notis ut supr. (lit. n.), both of them giving this as an instance that the Acts are corrupted: But if so, the whole Council is corrupted; for they say over and over, that this Epistle of Ibas was condemned by the definitions at Chalcedon, and that they had demonstrated this Concil. 5. Col. 8. Bin. 114. Lab. 567.; and it was indeed their main business, to shew it was contrary to that Council, who forced him to condemn his own Epistle before they would receive him Ibid. Col. 6. Bin. 91. Lab. 517.: And if Binius and Baronius say this be false, they give a General Council the Lye; and Pope Gregory also who saith, without doubt this Epistle is contrary to the definition at Chalcedon, which was exactly followed by the 5th Council Greg. M. lib. 7. in d. 2. Ep. 54.. And since the Council of Chalcedon forbids all Writings for Nestorius, (such as this Epistle is,) and approve the Judgment of Photius and Eustathius, (who condemned this Epistle as Heretical,) and would not receive Ibas, till he Anathematized Nestorius and his Doctrines Concil. Chalced. Act. 5. & Act. 10.; 'Tis certain that Council as well as the fifth, did condemn Ibas his Epistle.

Chap. xxviii. Again, Baronius and Binius accuse the Council of divers defects, first, in omitting the Condemnation of Origen, and giving only a brief touch upon it Baron. An. 553. pag. 440. n. 243. & pag. 439. n. 238. Bin. notis in Conc. 5. pag. 172. Lab. 732.. But this is a notorious Calumny; for the 5th Council not only mention it transiently, in saying, they and Vigilius had condemned Origen now Concil. 5. Collat. 5. Bin. 79. Lab. 490., but expresly Anathematize Origen and his impious Writings lb. Collat. 8 Bin. pag. 116. Lab. 575.: And the Cardinal mistakes in saying, they first handled the cause of Origen, and then that of the [Page] three Chapters Baron. An. 553. pag. 440.: For Nicephorus saith, they read the Libels against the impious Opinions of Origen, the second Session Niceph. l. 17. c. 27. Et Evagr. lib. 4. c. 37.: But indeed this Council did not afresh condemn Origen, but only mention his being condemned in that Age, by most of the Bishops present in this Council, about 15 year before (in Menna's Synod) upon an Edict of Justinian, to which the Western Bishops had subscribed Baron. An. 538. pag. 280. n. 29, &c., which both Evagrius, Nicephorus and others mistake for this 5th Council: So that the Cardinal and Binius are both out, in charging the omission of Justinian's Edict, as a defect in these Acts Baron. An. 553. pag. 440. & Bin. ut supr (a). For that Edict was not sent to this 5th Council, but to Menna's Synod; and that Epistle which Binius hath added to these Acts as Justinian's, is a late extract out of Justinian's large Decree: Yea, Didymus and Evagrius, who they say were condemned in this 5th Council, were not condemned there except in general words Concil. 5. Collat. 8. Bin. 116. Lab. 175. Anath. 11., as holding with Origen in the point of praeexistence Concil. Nicen. 2. Act. 1.. So that it is false and malicious in Baronius and Binius to charge Theodorus of Caesarea Baron. An. 553. pag. 440. n. 244. Bin. notis in Concil. 5. pag. 172. Lab. 732., with stealing these things out of the Acts of this Council, which were never in them; upon an unjust surmise and slander of his being infected with Origens Heresie.

Chap. xxix. Like to this, is their pretence that these Acts want the Emperors Epistle Baron. ibid. Bin. & Lab. ib., which he and Binius add out of Cedrenus, and thence insinuate the Acts are defective: But Justinian's only true Epistle sent to the Council is extant in the Acts Concil. 5. Coll. 1., of which this is an Epitome by an ignorant hand, which saith Eutyches approved the Opinions of Nestorius; and that Nestorius was the Master of Theodorus, whereas Justinian's true Letter and the Council teach that he was his Scholar: And are not the Cardinal and Binius rare menders of Councils, who would supply their pretended defects with such Stuff as this?

[Page] Chap. xxx. Baronius also objects, that the Constitution of Vigilius which evidently belongs to this Synod, is known to be taken away out of the Acts Baron. An. 553. pag. 403. n. 47, &c.. It is granted, it bears date the 14 of May, upon which the fifth Collation of this Council was had, but was sent to the Emperor first, and by him considered, and then offered to the Counsil the sixth Collation, May 19th as Binius owns Bin. notis in Concil. 5. pag. 176. Lab. 738.. But indeed the Council never read this publickly, nor named it or Vigilius; to prevent offences, they confuted it indeed, and published his Letters to Rusticus and Sebastianus, which contradict the Constitution Concil. 5. Collat. 7.; but for his Credit (as Baronius owns,) thought fit to say nothing of his Constitution Baron. An. 553. pag. 434. n. 218.: And therefore, if this Constitution were stollen out of the Acts, it was by the Roman Church, to cover their Fathers nakedness, and conceal his Heresie.

Chap. xxxi. Lastly, He and Binius say, the Acts want the assignation of a Patriarchal Seat to Jerusalem, and taking two Provinces out of Antioch, and two out of Alexandria to put under it, which being by Leo opposed at Chalcedon, was now passed contrary to the old Order established at Nice Baron. An. 553. pag. 440, 441. n. 245. è Gul. Tyr. de Bel sacr. l. 24. c. 12.: Which is not true, for it had the Title of a Patriarchate long before this Council Bellarm. de Pont. l. 1. c. 24., and the jurisdiction over the three Palestinas was assigned it at Chalcedon Concil. Chal. Act. 7. vel 8.; which Binius in his Notes on that Council, and Baronius also expresly affirm Concil. Chalced. ap. Baron. An. 451. Sess. 8. pag. 154. n. 124.: Yet here in their Account of the 5th Council, the Cardinal most falsly says, Juvenalis got this Decree to pass in the absence of the Pope's Legates, (Baron. an 553. pag. 441.) But if we consult the Council, The Popes Legates first spoke in this Cause, and expresly gave their consent to it Concil. Chal. Act. 7. Bin. pag. 271.: And though perhaps Pope Leo afterwards might oppose this, (as Baronius saith) that only shews how little a Popes Authority was valued; since in the Council of Mennas, John Bishop of Jerusalem held a Synod, and presided over all the Bishops of the three Palestinas Concil. sub. Men. Act. 5. Bin. pag. 734. Lab. pag. 187.. And [Page] Baronius recites the Title of another Council at Jerusalem, where Peter the Patriarch presided over all the Bishops of the three Palestinas, 17 years before this fifth Council Baron. An. 536. pag. 265. & ap. Bin. p 766 Lab. p. 275.; which shews, that Jerusalem had the Title and Jurisdiction of a Patriarch by virtue of the Canon at Chalcedon, and that Baronius and Binius are ridiculous and impudent to urge the want of a Fiction of Gul. Tyrius (refuted by Berterius Berterii diatr. 2. cap. 2.) as a defect in the Acts of this General Council.

Chap. xxxii. The Cardinal objects also spurious and false Additions made to these Acts Baron. An. 553. p. 399. n. 29. & p. 439. n. 238.: And he instances in the Monothelites, who in the sixth Synod are proved to have added 24 Leaves to these Acts Ibid. p. 441. n. 247., as also two Epistles of Vigilius to Justinian and Theodora Baron. ib.. But though this be true Vid. Concil. 6. Act. 3. & 14., yet those corrupt Additions were detected and razed out in the sixth Council, and our Acts of the fifth Council have not one of those Heretical Additions, but follow those true Copies which were extant in Gregory's time, and those by which (70 years after his death) the false Copies were detected in the sixth Council, so that this is meer Sophistry Baron. An. 554. p. 445. n. 8.. As is also his Pretence, That the Laws of Theodosius, recited in the fifth Collation against Nestorius, are different from those in the Code and in the Ephesine Council Baron. An. 553. p. 403. n. 46.. For there is but one Law against Nestorius in the Code Cod. Theodos. Tit. de haeret. l. 66., different from these, which mention his former Condemning the Nestorians; but these Laws were against Diodorus and Theodorus, as well as the Nestorians, at the Armenian Monks Petition Concil. 5. coll. 5.. And note, That all Theodosius his Laws against Hereticks, are not in his Code; for that Law in the Ephesine Council against the Nestorians, was a true Law of this Emperours Baron. An. 448, pag. 50. n. 2.: And another in the Council of Chalcedon Id. An. 449. p. 103. n. 130., which Baronius owns for true Laws of Theodosius; yet neither of them are in the Code; so that he may as well say those Acts are corrupted as these, because those Laws are not there.

[Page] Chap. xxxiii. Again, Baronius saith, That Epistle of Theodoret's to Nestorius intimating his agreeing with that Heretick and rejecting Cyril after the Union, is a spurious addition to these Acts Baron. An. 436. Tom. 5. pag. 658. n. 10.; which he proves by Leontius Qui vixit An. 580. Lib. de sectis., who affirms some such Letters to be fictitious. But will the Cardinal allow him to be good Evidence, where he makes but 22 Canonical Books of the Old Testament Leont. cap. 2.? And doth he not commend Theodorus of Mopsvestia and Diodorus, and deny that ever Theodoret agreed with Nestorius Ibid. cap. 4.? But even Baronius owns him to have been a Nestorian Baron. An. 431. pag. 602, & 598.; so that in this case Leontius is of no Credit. But that which is yet more strange, That the Cardinal (in contradiction to himself) repeats and owns this very Epistle read in the fifth Council, to have been writ by Theodoret after the Union to Nestorius, and that he favoured him still Baron. An. 432. pag. 628. n. 80.; yet he brags, there is no mention of Theodoret's being addicted to Nestorius after the Peace made, and that his Epistles to Dioscorus and Leo sufficiently wipe off that Aspersion ld. An. 436. pag. 658. n. 11, 12. Et An. 449. pag. 106. n. 140.. But those Epistles are suspicious, as first appearing out of a Vatican Copy. And whereas the Union with Cyril was made An. 432. Baron. An. 432. p. 626. n. 72., these Epistles were writ long after that to Dioscorus, An. 444, and that to Leo, An. 449. So that if these Epistles were genuine, they do not prove he was Orthodox till ten or twelve year after the Union. But two things prove them spurious: First, Theodoret boasts in them both, that he had been 26 years a Bishop, and a Preacher at Antioch, yet none ever reproved his Doctrin; yea, that his Sense and the Churches always agreed, having never been accused by any, nor accused any Epistol. ad Diosc. Baron. An. 444. & ad Leon. An. 449. & ad Nomum. An. 448.. Which is an horrid falshood; for had he not been reproved by Cyril, deposed by a General Council, and subscribed the Condemnation of Cyril? Secondly, In both these Epistles he saith, he had been 26 years a Bishop, yet one was writ 5 years after the other, and by Baronius his Computation he was but 21 years a Bishop when he writ to Dioscorus, being made Bishop [Page] Anno 423. Baron. An. 423 pag. 481. n. 10.. And his History (which mentions the Translation of the Body of S. Chrysostom Id An. 438. pag. 66 3. n. 6. Theodoret. hist. lib. 5. cap. 36., and so must be writ seven years after the Union) commends Theodorus of Mopsvestia for Orthodox Theodoret. ibid. cap. 40., shews he was a Nestorian then. Baronius would wipe off this by pretending he writ his History before the Quarrel about Nestorius Baron. An. 427. pag. 506, & 507. n. 28.; but in the same place saith, He follows Sozomen (whose Book came out An. 439.) in commending Theodorus. So that after all his shifts, Theodoret was a Favourer of Nestorius, An. 436. when he writ that Epistle read in this fifth Council, and long after.

Chap. xxxiv. Baronius and Binius say, The Acts are corrupted, because they affirm an Epistle to John of Antioch, (wherein the Author rejoyces for Cyril's death) was writ by Theodoret, which they affirm was writ by an Impostor Bin. not. in Concil. 5 p. 172. Lab. 732. Baron. An. 444. p. 20, &c. & An. 553. p. 402.; because John was dead seven years before Cyril. I Reply, That is a Mistake, for John was made Bishop An. 427. and according to Nicephorus sat 18 years, which reaches to the year 444. in which Baronius saith Cyril died. But suppose John were dead when Theodoret writ this, Baronius of all men should not make this a mark of Forgery, who allows Clement's Epistle writ to James Bishop of Hierusalem, who had been dead 30 year, for genuine; and so doth Binius Confer. Baron. An. 63 & 93. & Bin. not. in Ep. Clem. & Turrian. maxime.: And the Cardinal cites and commends an Epistle of Theodosius as authentick, writ to S. Chrysostom 30 years after he was dead Baron. An. 438. pag. 663. n. 8.. And, Secondly, the Epistle is Theodoret's; but the Inscription only (which should be to Domnus) is mistaken; for it is as plain by his Sermon before Domnus after Cyril's death, which we have also in the fifth Council Concil. V. Collat. 5. Bin. pag. 86. Lab. col. 508., as by this Epistle, that Theodoret was an Enemy to Cyril after his death; and Baronins may well pardon the Error in the inscription of John's Name for Domnus; for he allows innumerable Epistles, Edicts, &c. to be genuine notwithstanding Errors in the Title See many Instances in the Author at large. p. 429, &c, and therefore for so small a mistake in the Title of an Epistle should not ask, What credit is to be given to such Acts Baron. An. 553. p. 403. n. 46.? His own Annals have many greater Mistakes, as the Author [Page] proves Vigil. dorm. c. 34. p. 435.; yet he would have us credit them. Yea, in this reckoning of John of Antioch's dying seven years before Cyril, he mistakes the whole time almost, according to Nicephorus, and four years by his own reckoning of John's entring, An. 427 dying 436, yet sitting 13 years; for so John did not dye till 440, that is, four year before S. Cyril: And the Epistles of Theodoret to Dioscoras and Leo, on which he depends for his Arithmetick, are one or both of them forged. We conclude therefore, that the Epistle mentioned in the fifth Council was Theodoret's, who was a Nestorian after S. Cyril's death, and he writ it to Domnus (not to John) Bishop of Antioch.

Chap. xxxv. But he who accuseth the fifth Council for Forgeries, doth follow many forged Writings himself in his discourse about it. First, The Confession of Faith made by Mennas, Theodorus of Caesarea and others, by way of submission, recorded in the very Constitution of Vigilius, is Forged Baron. An. 553. p 404. n. 50. Bin. Tom. II. par. 2. pag. 13. Lab. col. 338.. For as to the Matter of it: How is it likely the Eastern Bishops should say, They allowed all the Acts of the former four Councils, made by consent of the Pope's Legates? Or ask him pardon for Injuries which they say they had never done to him? Or how agrees this with Baronius his saying. Theodorus asked pardon for his Scoffs and Contumelies against Vigilius Baron. An. 592. pag. 389. n. 20.? or with Vigilius his form of Excommunication of Theodorus, for despising his Authority Vigil. Epist. post. Ep. 16. Bin. pag. 12. Lab. pag. 334.? As to the time, this Confession and Submission is said to be made after the Decree for Taciturnity, (which was never made) viz. An. 552. See above (h). And we have proved Mennas was dead five year before, and that Theodorus did always stand firm against the three Chapters See Ch. 23.. Secondly, He cites one Eustathius out of Surius, who is proved Fabulons before See Ch. 20.. Thirdly, The Epistles of Theodoret, which were shewed before to be forged See Ch. 33. And we add, That for all his brags to Dioscorus, An. 444. he writes a kind Letter to Irenaeus a Nestorian, deposed Bishop of Tyre Baron. An. 448. pag. 51. [...]. 7, 8.: And another to Nomus, wherein he rails at the pious Emperour [Page] Theodosius, by whom he and other Nestorians were deposed, and his Writings forbidden Id. ibid. pag. 52. n. 11. Edict. vide Leg. 66. Cod. Theod., while as he falsly asserts Arians and all other Hereticks were tolerated. Theodoret therefore was a Nestorian 16 year after the Union with Cyril, and these Epistles are Forged, which say the contrary. Fourthly, He cites the Action at Chalcedon concerning Domnus, which is a Vatican Forgery Baron. An. 451. pag. 155. n. 129.: For it is not in the Greek, nor in Liberatus, Evagrius nor Nicephorus; and that Domnus (for whom subsistence is provided in this Forged Action) was dead before the Council of Chalcedon, as both Justinian and the fifth Council witness Vid. Justin. Edict. Bin. pag. 165. & Lab. col. 718. Vid. item Concil. 5. collat. 6. Bin. 103. Lab. 546., who (for all Baronius frivolous Objections to support this Forgery) must needs have truer Copies of the Council of Chalcedon, than his Vatican now affords. And indeed Domnus was deposed in the Ephesine Pseudo-Synod, all whose Acts were declared void at Chalcedon, except that which deposed Domnus (then deceased) and put in Maximus at Antioch Concil. Chalced. Act. 10. Bin. p 295., Fifthly, Baronius cites Auastasius's Lives of the Popes, who is always full of Fables, especially in Vigilius his Life, in which are more Lies than Lines Bin. Tom. II par. 2. pag. 1. Lab. Tom. V. p. 306.: For he makes his Entrance to be when Bellisarius warred against Vitiges, who, he saith, was taken by John the Bloody, and brought to Rome by Bellisarius and Vigilius, who gave Bellisarius the Sacrament to bring Vitiges safe to Justinian Vita Vigil. ibid.. But John and Narses were both absent at the taking of Ravenna, where Vitiges freely submitted to Bellisarius, who kept him there till he carried him by Sea to Constantinople Procop. de bell. Goth. l. 2 & 3.. So that Vitiges came not to Rome at all. Secondly, Anastasius says, The Emperour then enquired of Bellisarius, how he had placed Vigilius in Silverius room, and thanked him for it Vita Vigil. ut supr.. But Silverius was deposed, and Vigilius put in three years before Procop. de bell. Goth. l. 1.; yea, Justinian had writ to Vigilius, and knew that Silverius was dead a year before; and Vigilius had writ to the Emperour Baron. An. 540. p. 303. n. 11. & 305. n. 20., the year before Bellisarius came with Vitiges to Constantinople Baron. An. 541. p. 312. n. 3.; and Binius saith, Justinian did not thank Bellisarius Bin. not. in vit. Vigilii.. Thirdly, Anastasius talks of Bellisarius being sent into Africk, and of his killing Gontharis, and offering great [Page] Spoils in his return at Rome, to Vigilius, &c. Vita Vigil. ut supra.: But after this Bellisarius was not sent into Africk, but into Persia Procop. de bell. Persic. l. 2., where he stayed three years, and it was Ariobindus and Artabanus who were sent into Africk, the latter of which treacherously killed Gontharis Idem bell. Vandal. lib. 2, & 4.. So that Bellisarius offered no Vandal Spoils at all; or if (as Binius would have it Bin. not. in Vit. Vigilii.) he did, when he wan Rome from Vitiges, that was in Silverius his time; so that is false also, Fourthly, Anastasius makes Theodora write at this time to Vigilius, To come to Constantinople and restore Anthimus, which he refused Vita Vigil. ut supra.. Binius after Baronius makes this a Miraculous change Bin. not. ibid. Baron. An. 540. p. 303., and says it was just upon Silverius his death, at his first step into the See: But if it was after Gontharis was slain, it was not till the 19th of Justinian Baron. An. 545. pag. 334., five years or six years after Vigilius was made Pope: And the Change is as false as The time; for Liberatus saith, Vigilius did perform his Promise to the Empress, and writ as she desired Liberati Breviar. c. 22. Bin. pag. 192. Lab. 775.; but afterwards it seems, he finding the Emperour resolute, did confirm the Deposition of Anthimus Vigil. Epist. 4 & 5.. So that Anastasius his Story of Theodora's. writing to Vigilius after Gontharis was slain, is a Fable: And Victor (who then lived) saith, Vigilius was called to Constantinople by the Emperour, (not about Anthimus, but) to condemn the three Chapters in his Nineteenth year Victor. Chron. an. 4. post. Consul. Basil. Baron. An. 545.. Fifthly, Anastasius fables, That the Romans accused Vigilius of Murder, &c. and that Anthimus Sorbo was sent by the Empress to seize him by force; which he did (the People abusing and cursing him as he went out of Rome), and thus he was violently carried by Sicily to Constantinople; to which place coming on Christmas Even, the Emperour met and kissed him with Tears, and the People sang, The Lord cometh Anastas. in vit. Vigil. ut supr.. But Baronius gives him the Lye Baron. An. 546. p. 347. n. 54, 55., as doth also Binius Bin. not. in vit. Vigil. p. 3. Lab. 310., For Vigilius voluntarily went from Rome in the 11th year of the Gothic War, An. 546. toward Constantinople Procop. de bell. Goth. l. 3., and staying long in Sicily, arrived at the Court about April of the year following. Sixthly, Anastasius tells a long Story after Vigilius came to Constantinople, of the Contests between him and the Emperour, [Page] with his Empress, about restoring Anthimus; which the Pope refusing, they tore him from the Altar of S. Euphemia, cruelly used him, imprisoned and banished him Anastas. vit. Vigil. ut supra.. Which are all Fables; for Anthimus was deposed Ten years before Baron. An. 536. pag. 244., and his Cause forgot, the three Chapters being now the only dispute; yea, Baronius and Binius Baron. An. 552. pag. 387. n 8. Bin not. in vit Vigil. ut supr., who would have something of this true, make the buffeting of Vigilius and his flight to Euphemia's Church, to happen four years after Theodorus's death; and indeed in Pope Agapetus's time there was some such Contest about Anthimus, which Anastasius fabulously applies to Vigilius, and Baronius with Binius do cherish the Fiction. Seventhly, Anastasius tells us, how the Goths after this made Totilas King, who besieged and took Rome; but spared the People, and lived like a Father among them Anastas. in vit. Vigil. ut supr.. But Totilas was made King four or five year before Vigilius came to Constantinople Baron. An. 542. p. 322. n. 1., and took Rome while he was in Sicily Baron. An. 547. pag. 353. n. 12., and was so cruel as to kill all the Citizens they met, and intended to ruin both City and People, had not Pelagius and Bellisarius stayed his Rage from places and persons; however, he made a woful desolation there Procop. de bell. Goth. l. 3. pag. 372, &c.. Eighthly, Anastasius saith, Narses was sent at the same time into Italy, and Totilas with many Goths were slain, by the help (saith Baronius) of the Blessed Virgin Anastas. vi [...]. Vigil. ut supr. Baron. An. 553. p. 396, & 397. n. 13 & 18.. But first, he mistakes the time; for Narses overcame not Totilas till six year after his first sacking Rome, in the 18th year of the Gothick War Procop. de bell. Goth. l. 3.; and Binius, with Baronius, foolishly ascribe it to the Year wherein Justinian revoked his Edict, (which he never revoked at all) and this Binius saith was the 10th year of Totilas (as Benedict had predicted Bin. not. in vit. Vigil. p. 3. Lab. 310.). But Baronius proves Benedict a false Prophet; for he (truly) places Totilas his death in the 11th year Baron. ut supr. lit. (h).. As to the help of the Blessed Virgin, mentioned both by Baronius and Binius Locis supr. cit., Procopius saith, Narses did ascribe the Victory wholly to God Procop. de bell Goth. lib. 3.; and Evagrius doth not mention his praying to, or relying on the Virgin; but speaks of a Report by some, of the [Page] Blessed Virgins appearing to him from God with notice when to fight Evagr. l. 4. cap. 23., but doth not affirm it for truth; yet the Cardinal proves invocation of Sains by this Fable. Lastly, after this victory (Anastasius tells us) the Roman Clergy in a body desired Narses, if Vigilius and the Clergy banished with him were yet alive, they might be recalled Anastas. in vita Vigilij, ut supr.; whereas Vigilius was then at Constantinople and never banished at all; yea, the 5th Council was assembled that year in which Totilas was slain; yet hence Baronius (on the credit of this Fabulous Author) invents a story of Vigilius Banishment after the 5th Council.

Chap. xxxvi. Finally, Baronius overlooking the Ambition, Treachery and Heresie of Vigilius, can find but one ill thing in his life, which is his going to Constantinople when the Emperor required him; this he saith, was always fatal to the Catholick Church for the Pope to leave Rome Baron. An. 346. pag. 347. n. 55.. Was it so when the Popes removed for 70 years to Avignion Genebr. Chron. An. 1305.? Was it so when Agaperus 10 years before came to Constantinople? No, saith Baronius, that was lucky, God sent him, and the power of the Apostolick seat was thereby demonstrated Baron. An. 536. pag. 241. n. 12, &c.: So that the difference was in the Men, Agapetus was a steddy Catholic, Vigilius an Heretical Hypocrite: Whose life shall conclude this Treatise.

His Ambition early appeared in procuring Boniface the 2d. contrary to the Canons to choose him for his Successor in a Synod Anastas. in vit. Bonif. 2. Bin. pag. 643. An. 532.: But the Senate and the Laws of the Empire forced Boniface by a second Synod, to vacate this Election of Vigilius Silverij Ep. 1. & Annst. ut supr.. Again, upon Agapetus death, he made a compact with Theodora the Empress, that for 350 l. in Gold, and the Papcy (which she was to give,) he would restore Anthimus, and disannul the Council of Chalcedon Liberat. in Brev. cap. 22. Bin. pag. 192. Lab. 775.; but coming to Rome he found Silverius in the Chair, upon which he tampers with Bollisarius, and shewing him the Empress's Mandate, promises him 100 l. in Gold to make him Pope Idem. ibid.. Whereupon Silverius was falsly accused of [Page] a Plot to betray Rome to the Goths, deposed and banished, and Vigilius thrust into the Seat Idem. Ibid. & vid. Anastas. in vitâ Silverij, Usurping it two years during Silverius life, and acting all that time as lawful Pope, viz. from An. 538. to An. 540. Baron. An. 538. pag. 274. & An. 540. pag. 300., writing to, and receiving Epistles from Justinian, Caesarius, Etherius, &c. Vide Epist. Vigil. But persidiously broke his promise both to Theodora and Bellisarius, and would neither restore Anthimus, for fear of the Romans, nor pay Bellisarius the Money Liberat. apud Baron. An. 538. pag. 276.: And cruelly uses poor Silverius banished to Patara, who in a Synod there excommunicated Vigilius Epist. 1. Silver. ad Vigil.. But the Emperor hearing of it, sent him back to have the Cause heard more fully Liberat. ut supr., and being come into Italy, Vigilius by new promises, gets Bellisarius to put him into his Hands, and sent him to the Island Palmaria, and starved him to death there Id. ibid. Baron. An. 540. pag. 300. n. 1. & Anastas. in vit. Silverij.. Upon this Baronius and Binius pretend a fit of Conscience took him, and he abdicated the Papacy, desiring to come in by a new Election, (of which he was sure by Bellisarius power Baron. An. 540. pag. 301. n. 4.). And so the Hypocrit gets in a second time, the Electors being inspired, saith Baronius Ib. pag. 302. n. 7.; yet he hath till this moment described him as an Ambitious Deacon, mad with Pride, a Patron of Hereticks, a Schismatick, a Simoniack, an Usurper, a Successor of Simon Magus, and an Antichrist Vid. loca citat. ap. Authorem..

Such was his entrance, and his Acts were suitable, for Liberatus saith, he did write an Epistle pursuant to his promise to Theodora, and Victor affirms, that he writ unto Theodosius of Alexandria, to Anthimus of Constantinople, and to Severus of Antioch, (Eutychians deposed) as to Catholicks Liberat. cap. 22. Victor in Chronico ubi ipsa Epistola extat. & ap. Baron. An. 538. pag. 276. n. 14., assuring them he believed as they did, but bids them not tell any so: But Baronius says, this Epistle is not his: Bellarmin says it may be his, but that it was only in shew, and before he was Pope Bel. l. 4. de Pontif cap 10.. Baronius Quarrels at the Inscription, as if he called Justinian and Theodora his Lords and Christs, but Victor expresly saith it was writ (not to them, but) to three Heretical Patriarchs, and that the Inscription was, To my Lords and Bretheren joyned to us in the Love of Christ [Page]our Saviour Vict. Chron. An. 2. post Consul. Vigil.; and for all Binius and his pretences, it is not unusual for the Pope to call Eminent Bishops, Lords; Pope Urban calls Anselm Father and Master Malmsb. l. 1. gest. Pontif. pag. 127., and Damasus calls Prosper and other Numidian Bishops his Lords Damas. Ep. 5. ap. Bin. Tom. 1. pag. 508.. Secondly, He alledges that Liberatus falsly affirms, that Vigilius in the Subscription of this Epistle condemned Dioscorus who was an Eutychian, which is absurd in a Letter whereby he would prove himself of that Party: To which it is replied, it is an Error of the Scribe, putting Dioscorus name for Nestorius, of which Party all the rest were there named; And the Annalist allows many such literal mistakes in Liberatus Baron. An. 538. pag. 275. n. 7.. Thirdly, Baronius asks, if this were his Epistle, why he was not upbraided with it by Theodora and others, when he refused to restore Anthimus? 'Tis answered, for ought he knows this was objected to Vigilius, since none can argue, ab Autoritate human [...] negativè: However, it would have been objected had there been occasion; but the Story of the restoring Anthimus is a Fiction of Anastasius, as he applies it to be the ground of a Quarrel, after Vigilius came to Constantinople: As to Bellarmine's Note, that owns the Epistle, but says, it was writ in Silverius his time before he was true Pope Bellarm. de Rom. Pont. l. 4. c. 10.; which excuse also Baronius, Binius and Gretzer make Baron. An. 538. pag. 277. n. 15. Bin. not. in Liberat. pag. 194. Gretzer. defens. Bel. l. 4.: We must Note that Liberatus, an Author of that time, relates it to be writ after Silverius death; And when Silverius was returned back to Italy, Bellisarius again pressed Vigilius to perform his promise to the Empress, which doth evidently suppose he had not as yet performed it, An. 540. And since Silverius died in June that year, (soon after he fell into Vigilius hands,) we may justly think he was too busie in dispatching him and contriving his new Election, to write this till after he was real and sole Pope; so that Naucler. Chron. gen. 18. Nauclerus puts after Silverius death, Theodora's demanding of him to fulfil his promise: But they object, that at this time he condemned Anthimus and confirmed the Council of Chalcedon, in his Epistles to Justinian and Mennas Ep. Baron. An. 540. pag. 303., and [Page] so it is not likely he should write the contrary to these Bishops just then. 'Tis answered, he was a Notorious Hypocrite (as they own,) and so might write on Opinion openly to delude the Emperor, and another secretly to the Hereticks; and (for all Bellarmine's pretences) this last was his heart and mind; for why should he dissemble in secret with his Friends, with whom, as he tells them, he had but one Soul? He might very likely dissemble with the Emperor, for fear of being expelled out of the Seat he so much coveted; But what hurt or good could deposed Bishops do him? Fear therefore, not an Orthodox mind, restrained him from openly condemning the true Faith, and his Ambition to keep his high Station made him do it privately only: Which shews the weakness of Bellarmine's excuse, as if he did not write this ex animo: And equally frivolous, is that pretence of his not writing it as Pope, for when he writes of a matter of Faith and defines and declares it, he either writes as Pope then or never, for that is his proper office: And the Nestorians might make all these objections against his Orthodox Epistle to the Emperor.

The second Act of Vigilius was his Constitution for Nestorianism, by which he run into the contrary Heresie to that wherein he was dipt before, which hath been sufficiently manifested in this Treatise. There remains now only his Exit to be considered, of which Liberatus only saith, How Vigilius being afflicted by Heresie died is known to all Liberat. Brev. c. 22. ut supr.; Bellarmine expounds him, that it was that same Heresie which he first secretly favoured, that afflicted him Bellarm. de Pont. Rom. l. 4. cap. 10.: Baronius observes, he was by Gods just Judgment miserably tossed all his Life, hated by the Emperor and Eastern Bishops for defending the three Chapters, and execrable to the Western for his inconstancy; and when he was just coming into the Haven, died before he could reach home in Sicily, of the Torment of the Stone: As he had Murdered his Predecessor a little before in an Island, so he died in one: And here we leave him to stand or fall to [Page] his own Master, not imitating Baronius his spite to Justinian Baron. An. 565. pag. 497. n. 6., in determining his final Estate.

An Appendix to this History.

IN Labbè's Edition, there is subjoyned to this Council an Epistle of Vigilius to Eutychius, and a dicourse of P. de Marca's upon it, wherein it is extolled as a genuine writing and a sufficient confirmation of this 5th Council Lab. col. 596.: And though the foregoing History do abundantly confute this, yet we will not pass it without some observations concerning this pompous piece of Forgery.

First, In the Epistle Vigilius is made to say, that he is and was of the same Faith with Eutychius, and the rest of the Bishops at Constantinople: But if so, why did he exclaim that the Catholick Faith was in danger to be rooted up Baron. An. 546. pag. n. 47.? Or how came he to Anathematize Theodorus? And why did he suffer so much for a matter that was not of Faith?

Secondly, In this Epistle Vigilius Anathematizeth all that at any time believed the three Chapters ought to be received or defended, and all that have endeavoured to hinder their being condemned Epist. Vigil. ap. Lab. col. 600.: Now is it probable he should curse all his Friends in Africa and in the Western Church, yea and himself so dreadfully, who had received and defended them, and done all in his power to hinder their condemnation?

Thirdly, This illustrious Monument (as 'tis called) can be no confirmation of the 5th Council, because it never names or so much as hints at that Council. So that it can pass for no more than Vigilius his Recantation of his former Opinions, and being writ after the Council, seems to be designed for the Emperors private [Page] satisfaction: For the Eastern Church then did not believe a Popes confirmation necessary, to make a General Councils Decrees valid:

Fourthly, This Epistle is dated in December, and the Council arose but in June before, which argues the falshood of it; for it is not likely that he should so soon revoke his solemn constitution, and make so great a change, or if he did, it is strange that living above two years after, he did not receive some mark of Justinian's favour in all that time, no nor return to his See in Peace.

As to the Dissertation of de Marca, we may note Dissert. Num. i. Lab. pag. 601., that the years when, and the place where this writing was found, give just suspicions of its being an Imposture: It was (it seems) found by a Greek, An. 1276. in the Vatican, and he pretended to Transcribe it out of a Manuscript there writ An. 753. Now the Original of these is dated two hundred years after the 5th Council, and all that time no body ever heard of Vigilius his Confirmation; and if this date be genuine, it might very probably be invented at that time, being the very time when the Eastern Church began (contrary to the sentiments of Rome) to pull down their Images; and that was a fit season to produce Evidence, that the Greeks ought to submit to the Latins, whose Popes as they pretended had made all their General Councils Decrees Authentick. And the date of the later Transcript is more suspicious still, being the critical time when the poor Eastern Emperor Nich. Palaelogus for getting Money and Aid from the Pope, was forced to send some corrupted Bishops, to make a seeming Submission to, and Union with the Roman Church, and to carry on this design An. 1276. no doubt, care was taken to find out or make this Epistle and send it into Greece: And the Vatican whence it was taken, is known to be the Mint and Ware-house of Forgeries: So that every circumstance is suspicious. And so is the Reason, which the learned Patron of it gives why it is so valuable, viz. because it vindicates [Page]the credit of the Roman See, which was much lessened by the belief, that the 5th Council was owned for a lawful and general, though Vigilius opposed it. Now at Rome where the Popes Authority is the main if not the sole point of Religion, there have been innumerable Writings piously forged, to carry on this great end, and this seems to be of that sort, only it appeared not early enough for Baronius to cite it; however as our Author notes, he guessed there was (or foresaw there would be) such a thing; For he positively avers, (as was shewed) upon meer conjecture, that Vigilius did confirm the 5th Council: But he and his party lay it down for a Maxim, that nothing can be a General Council, but what is confirmed by the Pope: Therefore Evidence or not Evidence, Binius and Baronius affirm it was so; and they are as confident who never saw this Epistle, as de Marca is who published it; so that to through-paced Catholicks who take their words, this Epistle is a needless discovery.

But let us see, what Authority he hath to support Num. ii. Lab. col. 601. this famous Confirmation: He saith Evagrius witnesseth, that Vigilius consented in writing, but would not come to the Council Evagr. Hist. lib. 4. c. 34.: But this consent was before the Synod met, and is therefore plainly set down in Evagrius before the convening, with which consent in writing both Justinian and the Council do often upbraid this inconstant Pope: Nor can Evagrius be expounded of any subsequent consent, since he goes on after this passage to relate the acts of the Council: Nor do any of the later Greeks who follow him say any more, than to imply Vigilius his precedent consent: And the 6th Council relate the calling of the 5th Council, after the agreement between Justinian and Vigilius Concil. 6. Act. 18. Tom. iii. par. 1. pag. 194.; nor can their words without manifest violence be stretched to this Confirmation, which had it then been extant in the Greek Copy, and (as de Marca owns) wanting in the Latin Dissertat. insr. n. 21. pag. 612., that Council had found out and observed this among other Variations.

[Page] The Testimony of Pelagius which our Author thinks Num. iii. Lab. col. 603. so clear, is no Evidence unless it be against this Epistle; for he speaks not of Vigilius, but of the Latin Church, which came slowly to see their Error—laboured a great while—strove a long time even to suffering—and would not of a sudden lose their labour, till the Truth did appear—Ep. Pelag. 2. ap. Lab. col. 621.. This plainly refers to the Roman Clergy and Western Bishops, who after Vigilius death stood out in defence of the three Chapters so stisly, that Pelagius the 1st, Vigilius his Successor, could scarce find any to consecrate him Vide not. in vit. Pelag. 1. Lab. col. 788.. And at last he was forced to get Narses to use violent Methods to bring them in to his Communion Pelag. 1. Ep. 3. Lab. col. 792. Baron. An. 566. pag. 453.; now this was three year after the Council. But how could Vigilius his hasty turn in six Months time be called a slow change, or a long striving? And if Pelagius the second had known of Vigilius his confirming the 5th Council, he would not have used so many shifts to ward off the force of his and the Roman Churches dissent, which was objected; this Epistle had stopt their Mouths for ever; and if St. Gregory had known of it, he had referred those who doubted of the Apostolical consent, not to Pelagius his Epistle, but to this Authentick Confirmation of Vigilius himself.

It is well, when de Marca resolves to support the Num. iv. Lab col. cad. tottering credit of this Pope, that he hath no better Evidence of Theodorus of Caesarea's favouring Hereticks, than Facundus a condemned Nestorian, and Liberatus who writes so partially for that side; it is plain, their spite to Theodorus was for his zeal against Nestorius, and for giving the Emperor that wholsome and necessary advice, to condemn all those Men and their Writings under which the Nestorians sheltered themselves; and it is shewed before that he was no favourer either of Origen See the History chap. 23., or the Acephali.

[Page] Yet this defender of Vigilius reflects on Justinian's Num. v. Lab. ib. Edict, approved by a General Council, upon the single Testimony of a convicted Heretick, who writes so bitterly against the Truth, that he is not to be believed nor esteemed as any thing but a bigotted and provoked Adversary: Only our Author passes by one thing, which is, that Facundus and Liberatus both Rail at Vigilius, for desetting their Party, and look upon him after his coming to the Emperor as one that took the Heretical side, which shews they knew nothing of his latter change Dissertat. Insr. Num. viii. col. 604.. As to what he saith, That there was nothing of Faith controverted in this Council, but only concerning Persons, This is fully answered before See the Hist. chap. 5.: And I will only note the weakness of this distinction; For what difference is there between condemning a Mans Heretical Opinions, and condemning that Man for holding those Opinions? Suppose the Arians should pretend, that because Arius was condemned at Nice, the Controversie there was about a Person, not about the Faith, Will de Marca allow that distinction? And the like may be said of Macedonius, Eutyches and Nestorius in former Councils: Certain it is, that in this Council the Writings or Opinions of Theodorus and his Person also are condemned, and so are the Opinions of Theodoret and Ibas before their Recantation, but not their Persons; and the main Question in the fifth Council, Whether those Writings of these three there cited were Heretical? which I think is a matter of Faith and not of Persons.

Wherefore, since the Nestorian Hereticks gloried in these Writings, the Question whether they should Num. vi. Lab. col. 604. be condemned or no, was not (as he pretended) concerning discipline; and so there is no room for his impertinent distinction of [...], unless Vigilius had a Dispensation to defend Heretical Writings; and his wavering was not prudence, but perfidiousness in such a Case.

[Page] Facundus may be a good witness that Vigilius confirmed Num. vii. Lab. ib. & Num. viii. ib. the three Chapters, before his coming to Constantinople, and perhaps he might suspend Mennas after his coming to that City, (as de Marca out of Theophanes saith). But since Mennas died that very year, as is proved by the Acts of the sixth Council at Constantinople, where they must needs know the time of their own Patriarchs death, but in the preceding Century Concil. vi. Act. 3. Bin. Tom. 3. par. 1. pag. 21 & notis ibid. pag. 264., All the rest of his Story is manifest Forgery, viz. his delivering his Decree to Mennas, An. 548. (after he was dead) and he would prove this by a meer and gross imposture, which is Vigilius Epistle to Theodorus, where in September, 552 Vid. fragm. Epist. Vigil. Lab. col. 337., the Pope is made to Excommunicate Theodorus and suspend Mennas, (who had been dead five year:) Yet in another forged Epistle set down at large in Labbè Epist. 15. Vigil. Lab. col. 328, &c. vid. dat. Epist. col. 334., in February the year before, the same Pope tells the Catholick Church, he had excommunicated and deposed Theodorus and the other six Months ago: Yet these apparent Fictions de Marca gravely cites as good Evidence, and in truth he hath no other Testimonies but these two spurious Epistles, and the incoherent stuff of Anastasius Biblioth. to prove that Vigilius was persecuted by Justinian at all, or that he ever opposed him after he came to the City of Constantinople till the Council met. De Marca grants Facundus after this called him a Prevaricator; and we find (about that very time, wherein those sham Epistles lay the Scene of Justinian's persecuting him, for Excommunicating Theodorus, and the Condemners of the three Chapters,) by good Evidence under Vigilius own Hand, that this Pope Excommunicated two Roman Deacons, for defending the three Chapters Vid. 2. Epist. Vigilij. recit. in Concil. 5 Act. 7. Lab. col. 550, &c. Baron. An. 550., full three year after his coming to Justinian: So that this learned Author should not bring such stuff in for Evidence. Yet again he quotes an Epistle of the Roman Clergy to the Legatories, now newly published Ep. Legatariis An. 552. Lab. col. 407., which is as palpable an imposture as any of the former; [Page] For therein the Clergy of Italy tell a long Story to the French Legates upon hear-say, to inform them what Vigilius was then doing and suffering at Constantinople, where these Legates then were; and whereas they might so easily have informed France of this by Letters from Rome, they desire the Legates to write this from Constantinople to the Gallican Church. Again, these rare Clerks say, that Dacius Bishop of Milan had been absent from his Church 15 or 16 year, till' all the Bishops of his ordaining were dead, so that vast multitudes died for want of Baptism, (it seems neither Lay-men nor Presbyters might then Baptize:) But if Dacius did fly from Milan when it was taken by the Goths Baron. An. 539. pag. 239., and never visited them till now, he had been absent but 13 year at most; but that stay is not probable, considering how good a Bishop he was.

The long History therefore of Vigilius his returning Num. ix. Lab. col. 605. to his Vomit, and of his being persecuted by Justinian, depending on nothing but forged relations, is to be wholly rejected; and that Letter which Eutychius writ to Vigilius, to have the three Chapters condemned in a lawful Council, whereunto Vigilius by Letter consented in January 554 Vid. Epistol. Concil. 5. collat. 1. Lab. col. 424., was not writ upon Eutychius first promotion to the See of Constantinople, in which he had sat now almost six years, (being chosen immediately upon the death of Mennas,) but was writ purely on occasion of the designed Council; and the Patriarch professeth his Faith in it, not on the account of his entrance on his promotion, but to remove the scandal, which the Nestorians laid upon such as condemned the three Chapters, as if they did not assent to the former Councils, especially that of Chalcedon.

Vigilius only covered his Nestorian principles with these shifts, and his main Argument of the paucity Num. x. Lab. ibid. of Western Bishops, is abundantly confuted by the Councils, shewing there were more of them present then at Constantinople, than had been in any former General Council. And the event shewed, that [Page] neither his absence nor dissenting could hinder this, which our Author wrongfully calls an imperfect meeting, from being universally received as a General Council.

The Constitution of Vigilius is proved Heretical before Numb. xi & xii. Lab. col. 606. See the Histor chap. 6, &c., and de Marca gives a very weak reason to prove it was not read in the fifth Council. For how could Justinian be so silly, as to suppose he could keep the Bishops then assembled ignorant of Vigilius his aversion to condemning the three Chapters, when he would not come at them, (and if de Marca say true) suffered such injuries for defending them? 'tis plain they knew his Mind, and do particularly confute his Constitution, only sparing his name; yea, 'tis Evident, they lookt on him as a sickle Man, and published nothing but his first and soundest Judgment, and never ceased acting vigorously for all his dissent; for the Greeks at Chalcedon had shewed, they looked on a Councils Decrees as valid, though the Pope opposed them.

After all he hath no Witnesses of his Exile, but the Num. xiii. Lab. col. 607. fabulous Anastasius; all the Greeks (he confesses) are silent as to his sufferings, and so are all Authentick Latin Histories too. The Epistle of Peter of Antioch was writ 500 year after, and only speaks of some difference between Vigilius and Mennas, which must be at his first coming to Constantinople Anno 547, but that is nothing to this time after the Council.

It seems strange, that Vigilius should pass for so Numb. xiv. Lab. col. 609. great a Politician by the art used in this Epistle; for if it were his, I should think he never intended to confirm the fifth Council by it, because he never names it; which silence must proceed either from his fear to anger the Western Bishops, with whom he joyned still in heart, or from his hope that the bare recanting his Opinions, would cajole the Emperor and his Greeks; and if we consider his Hypocrisie and often changes, both of these might make him [Page] omit the naming the fifth Council: But being a Forgery, we need not any conjectures about the reason of a nonentity: Yet if I were convinced Vigilius writ this Epistle, I should believe the date was false, and that this was his first Recantation after he came to Constantinople before this Synod met, which is the most probable reason, why he did not name this fifth Synod, viz. because no such had yet been.

It was not the Greeks, but the Latins who put this Epistle to the end of the Acts of the fifth Synod, Numb. xv. ib. for in their Vatican it was first pretended to be found; but whoever added it, must be very weak to imagin an unlawful Synod could be confirmed by a Popes private Opinion delivered six months after, or that any body else should receive a Council upon his Authority, who did not own it himself. Photius lived 300 year after this Council had been owned for a General Council, and what he saith may well be explained of the Letters of his which were read in the Council, importing that once he was of their mind. The Arabick Manuscript is so full of mistakes, that its Authority must be inconsiderable; it says, that the living and dead were never excommunicated before this Synod, and that the Popes profession of Faith was writ not to Eutychius, but to the Emperor Justinian: And all these Testimonies amount to no more, than that which the Emperor and the Council both gave out, that Vigilius was (as indeed he had often declared) of the Councils Opinion.

'Tis certain Pelagius the first, Vigilius his immediate successor, and who was with him at Constantinople, Numb. xvi. Lab. col. 610. did own this for a General Council; and if Vigilius had changed his mind, (as Pelagius had done) so as to confirm the fifth Council, he must have known of it, and for his own vindication would have pleaded this Writing of Vigilius, to satisfie the Western Bishops who rejected his Communion; and his silence [Page] of Vigilius consent and confirmation, is next to demonstration, that he know of no such thing, and that no such thing ever was: As for all the rest they owned it for a lawful General Council, but not one of them knew of the subsequent consent of Vigilius.

The next thing in de Marca is, the consideration of Numb. xvii. Lab. ibid. the reasons moving Vigilius to make this Decree, the first of which is notoriously false; For this forged Epistle saith, that now the whole World and the Church was restored to Peace Epist. Vigil. Lab. col. 597., and our Author thinks the Illyrican and African Bishops, were now reconciled to the Condemners of the three Chapters: Whereas 'tis plain, Liberatus did not write his Breviary till Vigilius his death, that is, two year after the date of this feigned Epistle; and he shews how woful a Schism and Scandal there was then in the Church, especially in Africa Liberat. Brev. cap. 24. Bin. pag. 193. Lab. col. 778.. And Victor one of the African Bishops of that side, died in restraint, after he had suffered much in defence of the three Chapters thirteen years after Baron. An. 566. in fine & An. 553. pag. 435.. As to the Western Bishops, how could their being restored to Peace be a motive to Vigilius to recant An. 553. when three year after, his successor Pelagius was struggling with them to bring them to Peace, and could not do it then without some force Vid. Epist. 3. Pelag. 1. Lab. col. 792.? And our Author owns, that the French, Spanish and Italian Bishops, did not come in till Pelagius had been some time in the Chair; and Baronius saith the same Baron. An. 556. pag. 452. n. 1., so that his first reason is not so much as true: I shall only add that Justinian acted very sincerely in this matter, and Leontius slanders him in supposing otherwise; for his Judgment was, that the three Chapters were to be condemned, both Opinions and Persons, the Heretical Doctrins and Hereticks too, if they had not recanted.

[Page] But perhaps Vigilius might act dispensatively in Num. xviii. Lab. col. 611. this change, for it is likely he still kept a Nestorian Heart, only this spoils his second reason, why Vigilius writ this Epistle, viz. Christ having enlightned his Mind, God revealing, and he diligently enquiring was now come to the knowledge of the Truth Epist. Vigil. Lab. col. 597.. For if after all, Vigilius did only confirm them dispensatively, that supposes he did not believe the points to be either necessary or true, but only such as might be professed for peace sake; and if that were all, what an Hypocrite must this Pope be, to talk of a change of his Mind, and coming to know the truth by Illumination, Revela [...]on and Study? In vain doth he and his Patron alledge the Example of St. Augustin, St. Paul and St. Peter; for did St. Augustin retract things, and pretend to be convinced of his Mistakes only dispensatively, that is, secretly believing still they might be true? Did St. Paul only believe the Gospel [...], after his Conversion; Or was St. Peter a Jew in his Heart, after he consented to discharge the Gentiles from the Ceremonies of the Law? Pelagius the Second's Arguments are good as to the Roman Clergy, who sincerely opposed the truth for a time, but upon Conviction as sincerely embraced it: But to apply these instances to such a Proteus and Dissembler as Vigilius, is to prostitute them, rather than defend him, who often dispensed with himself in the duties of Morality.

If Vigilius had gon to the Council he might have Num. xix & xx, Lab. 611. learned those two Rules de Marca speaks of, in six days, without the help of Revelation: But the feigned Epistle says nothing of such Rules; it pretends that Vigilius now understood the Person and Writings of Theodorus, and the Writings of Theodoret and Ibas against Cyril were Heretical, and that it was his duty to pronounce them Heretical, and condemn them as such; yea, Anathematize them; and is this only a point of Ecclesiastical Discipline? May Hereticks and [Page] their Opinions be either condemned or not? and is it an indifferent thing, whether a Pope absolve and defend, or accurse and condemn in such cases? Surely the great name of de Marca is forged and put to this weak tract; he would not have argued at this rate.

That the Acts of this Council were early translated Num. xxi. Lab. col. 612. into Latin for the use of the Western Church, is probable enough; but Vigilius needed not this Translation; he had lived at Constantinople long before he was Pope, and now six years together after he was Pope, and so must understand Greek perfectly: But the true reason why Vigilius Epistle was not added to these Latin Acts, was because there was no such Epistle then invented: For had he then writ such an Epistle, or in six Months after, it would certainly have been joyned to both the Greek and Latin Copies for all Mens satisfaction who were scandalized by his dissent, especially if that (which de Marca supposes) had been thought true in those Ages, viz. That the Decrees of a General Council were invalid without the Popes Confirmation: But this is an Opinion of later Birth.

Whatever he saith in defence of the sincerity of Num. xxii. Lab. ib. the Latin Acts, I agree to; but since he borrows from Crakenthorp, not only his Arguments, but his conjectures also, (such as altering the name of Domnus into John, &c.) I must believe the Author of this discourse had seen Crakenthorp's learned History of the fifth Council, yet durst not own it, because he could not confute it.

From the same Author he borrows much of what Num. xxiii, &c. Lab. col. 613. he says, about condemning Origen's Opinions in this Council: But since the Council was risen, before Vigilius began to deliberate whether he should receive their Acts or no, (yea, and their Acts as he thinks translated into Latin also,) how could Justinian after this send to the dissolved Council, to know their Judgment of Origen and his Followers? Therefore de [Page]Marca mistakes the point; and the learned Crakenthorp solves this difficulty much better See the Hist. Chap. xxviii., to which I refer the Reader; And only will enquire how this Author and those Popes he cites could truly say, that no matters of Faith were handled in this fifth Council, if Origen and his Heretical Opinions were here condemned, as he goes about to prove? This is a manifest contradiction. The Sense of those Popes and others must be, no Points of Faith decided at Chalcedon, were called in Question over again here: For the Question only was, whether the Opinions in the three Chapters were not condemned in the Council of Chalcedon: And the fifth Council affirming this concerning the Opinions of three Persons, did not (as some feared) decree any new, or different point of Faith from the Council of Chalcedon.

It is a needless thing to offer conjectures about Num. xxv. Lab. col. 614. the reason, why Vigilius in this Epistle doth not mention the condemning of Origen's Errors; for the true reason is obvious, which is, Because the Forger of this Epistle had nothing in his Eye, but to clear this Pope from the main thing he was charged with, viz. defending three Heretical Chapters, and that point he makes out: I grant he had (yet only joyntly with other Patriarchs, and by following, not leading Justinian) condemned Origen before, as Liberatus declares Liberat. Breviar. cap. 23.: But I must note, that Liberatus his telling us that so particularly, and saying nothing of Vigilius his Epistle to condemn the three Chapters, is a shrewd suspicion there was no such Epistle, since Liberatus writ after Vigilius death, and was a favourer of the three Chapters, and writ all that he thought might disparage such as condemned them. To conclude, either the Authority of the Pope was not so considerable in those days, as this learned Apologist fancies, or Vigilius his carriage was such, that no body enquired what side he was of, after his so often turnings; since he lived above two [Page] years after this Council, and yet no mention in any genuine Writer is made where he was, or how he carried himself to the time of his death, which is said to have hapned in Sicily, An. 555. So little a figure did the Roman Pontiff then make; and when the Controversie was revived in the time of Pelagius the Second, and Gregory the Great, they chose to bury Vigilius name in silence, his inconstancy to his Principles and evil Practices having made it the interest of the Roman Church to clap him under Hatches so long as his Character was remembred; and this Apologist had better have followed their Policy, than to raise him (as he hath done) only to his greater shame.

[Page]

Books printed for, and Sold by R. Clavel, at the Peacock in St. Paul's Church-yard.

THE Reasons of Praying for the Peace of our Jerusalem: In a Sermon Preached before the Queen at White-Hall, on the Fast-Day, being Wednesday August 29. 1694. by Thomas Comber, D. D. Dean of Durham, and Chaplain in Ordinary to their Majesties. Printed by Their Majesties Special Command.

A Daily Office for the Sick; Compil'd out of the Holy Scriptures, and the Liturgy of our Church; with occasional Prayers, Meditations and Directions.

The Catechism of the Church with proofs from the New Testament, and some additional Questions and Answers, divided into 12 Sections by Zach. [...]shem, D. D. Author of the Book lately published, Entituled a Daily Office for the Sick, with directions, &c.

A Church Carechism with a brief and easie Explanation thereof, for the help of the Meanest Capacities and Weakest Memories, in order to the establishing them in the Religion of the Church of England, by T. C. Dean of D.

The Pantheon, Representing the Fabulous Histories of the Heathen Gods, and most Illustrious Heroes; in a short, plain and familiar Method, by way of Dialogue, for the Use of Schools. Written by Fra. Pomey, of the Society of Jesus; Author of the French and Latin Dictionary, for the Use of the Dauphin.

Bedae Venerabills opera Quaedam Theologica, nunc primùm edita, necnon Historica, antea semel edita. Accesserunt Egberti Archiepiscopi Eboracerifis Dialogus de Ecclesiasticâ Institutione & Aldbelmi Episcopi Scireburnensis Liber de Virginitate ex Codice antiquissimo emendarus.

Disquisitio in Hypothesin Baxterianam de Foedere Gratin, Ab initio & deinceps, semper & ubique omnibus indulto, & adhuc apud Ethnicos & extra-evangelicos vigente ac valente ad salutem. Authore Carolo Robothamo, Ecclesiae Anglicanae Presbytero Norfolciensi, S. Th. B.

Q. Horatii Flacci Opera: Interpretatione & Notis Illustravit Ludovicus Desprez Cardinalitius Socius ac Rhetor Emeritus, Jussu Christianissimi Regis, in usum Serenissimi Delphini, ac Serenissimorum Principum Burgundiae, Andium, Biturigum. Huic Editioni accessere Vita Horatii, cum Dacerii Notis ejusdem Chronologia Horatiana, & Praefatio de Satira Romona.

L. Annaei Flori rerum Romanarum Epitome; Interpretatione & Notis Illustravit Anna Tanaquilla Fabri Tilia, Jussu Christianissimi Regis, in usum Serenissims Delphini.

Compendium Graecum Novi Testamenti, Continens ex 7959. Verficulis totius N. Testamenti tantum Versiculos 1900. (non tamen integros) in quibus omnes universi Novi Test. Voces, una cum Versione Latina, Inveniuntur: Auctore, Johanne Lusden. Philos. Doctore, & Linguae Sanctae in Academia Ultrajectina Professore Ordinario. Editio Quinta.

FINIS.

[Page]

Information about this book

Title statement

The church history clear'd from the Roman forgeries and corruptions found in the councils and Baronius in four parts : from the beginning of Christianity, to the end of the fifth general council, 553 / by Thomas Comber ...

Comber, Thomas, 1645-1699.

Edition statement

1695

Publication

Publisher

Text Creation Partnership,

Place of publication

Ann Arbor, MI ; Oxford (UK) :

Date

2007-10 (EEBO-TCP Phase 1).

ID [DLPS]

A34084

ID [STC]

Wing C5491

ID [STC]

ESTC R40851

ID [EEBO-CITATION]

19507006

ID [OCLC]

ocm 19507006

ID [VID]

108925

Availability

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal. The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.

Series

Early English books online.

Notes

(EEBO-TCP ; phase 1, no. A34084)

Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 108925)

Images scanned from microfilm: (Early English books, 1641-1700 ; 1684:6)

Source

— The church history clear'd from the Roman forgeries and corruptions found in the councils and Baronius in four parts : from the beginning of Christianity, to the end of the fifth general council, 553 / by Thomas Comber ..., Comber, Thomas, 1645-1699..

Extent

[15], 175, [15], 335, [1] p.

Printed for Samuel Roycroft, for Robert Clavell ...,. London :: 1695.. (Third and fourth parts have special t.p. and separate pagination.) (Running title of Parts I and II: Roman forgeries in the councils.) (Numerous errors in paging.) (Advertisement: p. [1] at end.) (Imperfect: print show-through.) (Reproduction of original in the British Library.)

Creation

Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl, TEI @ Oxford.

Editorial practices

EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO.

EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org).

The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source.

Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data.

Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so.

Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor.

The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines.

Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements).

Keying and markup guidelines are available at the Text Creation Partnership web site.