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 2] 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 PeterBin. 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 Pe­terLab. 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 PeterLab. pag. 21. Bin. pag 2. col. 2.; which was a poor Preferment for that Apo­stle, if Christ had made him Supreme Head, and committed to him long before the Care of the whole Catholic Church. To these Passages of Holy Scripture the Editors have tacked a fabulous Story of the Assum­ption of the Virgin MaryLab. 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 col. 2.; but they do not Cite one genuine Ancient Author, to prove it: That Book which bears the Title of Dionysius Areopagitus being invented many Ages after, as Learned men on all sides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 3] 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 Lab. & Bin. ibid.. Now, if (as they say) the Apostles made them, their Church hath been very negligent to lose the certain Account of their number, and it is not very modest to pretend to try the Apostles Decrees by Popes Councils and Fathers; yet it is plain they make no distinction be­tween the first Fifty and the following Thirty four, rejecting all that oppose their present Doctrine and Practice, as may be seen in these Instances.

The Sixth Canon forbids a Bishop, Priest or Deacon ( [...]) to put away, or be divorced from his Wife on pretence of Religion: The Notes pervert the Sense of this Canon, as if it only forbid Clergy Men to cast off the care of providing for their Wives; and prove this SenseLab. 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 meaningVid. Beve­ridg. Not. Con­cil. Tom. II. pag. 18. upon such slight and false Evidence, is in effect rejecting it.

The Ninth Canon orders All the Clergy and Laity who are in the Church, to Receive the Sacrament, unless they have a just Excuse 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 NotesLab. 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 5] 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 di [...]fered from all other Churches, and they know not when it began, nor who it came from; yet for such a Customs sake they reject an Apostolical Canon.

The 69th Canon expresly enjoyns the Wednesday Fast; and the Notes say, That many Fathers mention it as of ancient Institution; yea, these Notes affirm, It was certainly a Fast of the Apostles instituting, being observed by the whole Church, and not appointed by any Council, but spoken of by Authors of greatest Antiquity 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 CopiesDr. C [...]sens Histor Canon. Chap. 4.) the Book of Machabees, which the Roman Church now say are Canonical Scripture: And this is the true reason why the Notes reject this CanonLab. 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 6] 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 selfLab. 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 RitesHarding a­gainst Jewel, pag. 53. Dr. James cor­rup. of Faith, par. 1. p. 22.? Since it is a manifest Legend, and contained at first nothing but the bare Names and continuance of the several Popes; and was filled up by Isidore Mercator, who forged the Decretal Epistles, with many improbable Fictions unsuitable both to the Men and Times, for which they were invented, and designed to be a ground for those Decretal Epistles; and to make the World believe, that all the Popes were considerable for their Actions in all Ages, as Dr. Peirson hath excellently proved in his Learned Posthu­mous DissertationCestriens. 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 7] 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 8] to be believed in their own caseJohn. V. 31. nemo sibi & pro­s [...]ssor, & testis. Tert. in Mar­cion. lib. 5.: To which are added some few Fragments of the Fathers falsly ap­plied, and certain false Arguments, which have been confuted a thousand times. So that the placing this Treatise here, serves only to shew the Editors parti­ality to promote a bad Cause.

§. 6. The Pontifical places Linus as S. Peters Successor; but the Notes confess, that the Fathers are not agreed about it Lab pag. 72. Bin. pag. 24. col. 1.: They own that Tertullian, Epiphanius and Ruffinus make Clement to succeed Peter; and the late Learned Bishop of Chester proves, Linus was dead before Peter Cesiriens. diss. 2. cap. 2.. Irenaeus doth not say (as the Notes falsly cite him,) that Linus succeeded Peter in the Government of the uni­versal Church Iren. adv. haer l. 3. c. 3.; but only that Peter and Paul deliver­ed the Administration of that Church to him, which they had founded at Rome; Which they might do in their Life time, while they went to preach in other places: The Epistle of Ignatius to Mary Cassibolite, and the Ver­ses attributed to Tertullian, which they bring for proof of this Succession, are confessed to be spurious Tracts: St. Hierom is dubious, and upon the whole matter, there is no certainty who was Bishop of Rome next to the Apostles, and therefore the Romanists build on an ill Bottom, when they lay so great weight on their per­sonal Succession.

§. 7. The like Blunder there is about the next Pope: The fabulous Pontifical makes Cletus succeed Linus, and gives us several Lives of Cletus and Anacletus, making them of several Nations, and to have been Popes at different times, putting Clement between them. Yet the aforesaid Learned Bishop of Chester, proves these were only two names of the same PersonCestriens. diss. 2. cap. 1.; But the Notes attempt to justifie the forged Pontifical, by impudently affirmingLab. 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 9] 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 PredecessorsLab. 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 10] 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 forgedLabbé 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 fit 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 PrefaceBin. 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 l. 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 11] what Doctrines and Practices they do maintain by these Forged EpistlesRob. 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 confessethBaron. 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 Levitae 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 12] 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 EpistleLab. 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 di [...]ference 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. B [...]n p. 71. col. 2., which are Words not heard of till [Page 13] 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 DecreesLab. 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. 442Beveridg. Annot. in Con­cil. Nicen. Tom. II. p. 52.. In like manner we find the Word Apo­crisary in Anacletus's first EpistleLab. 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 EpistleLab. pag. 98. Bin. pag. 34. col. 2., and in Pope Lucius's De­creesLab. 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 EpistleLab. 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 14] 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 EpistleLab. 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 Heathens then had Flamines and Priests in all Cities: His third EpistleLab. 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 BuiltDecreta 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 ParishLab. 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 15] take away whole Farms dedicated to Pious Uses? Yet this complaint is found in his second EpistleLab. 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 VirginityCestriens. 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 pretendsLab. 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 dividedIbid.? 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 pretendsLab. 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 outLab. p. 623. Bin. pag, 90. col. 1.. Antherus Epistle charges Bishops in those times with changing their Churches out of ambition and covetousnessLab. 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 onceLab. 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 16] 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 charity, for the same Pope to forbid Christians to pray for HereticksLab. 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 mistakeLab. 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 ChurchLab. 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 17] eat up the Sins of the People, of blotting out their Sins by their PrayersEpist. 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 handsLab. 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 ought 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 TranslationDe Marca makes this an infallible 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 18] 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 Tran­slationLab. p. 683. 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 Nep [...]tian, which was writ almost 300 years after his timeEp. 3. Ana­cleti, Lab. 529. Bin. 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 feigned 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. 1, & 2.Lab. p. 917. Bin. pag. 169. col. 2.. 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 EpistleLab. p. 732. Bin. 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 EpistleLab. p. [...]12. Bin. pag. 85. col. 1.. Moreover, Antherus cites a long Passage, word for word, out of S. Hierom's Epistle [Page 19] 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 afterLab. 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 Epi­stleLab. p. 914. Bin. pag. 168. col. 1.: And Gaius his Decretal Epistle, steals two large Passages from the same Pope Leo's twelfth Sermon on the Passion, and his 97th EpistleLab. p. 925. Bin. pag. 172. col. 2.. Finally, who­soever will take pains to observe Labbé'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 sto [...]len, 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 ForgedLab. 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 20] 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 Praefat. Laur. Surii ap. Lab. Tom. l. 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 PopeLab. 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 21] as the other; but these two were never Consuls togetherLab. p. 542. Bin. pag 55. col. 2.: And his second Epistle is dated by the Consuls of Adrian's first year, 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 deadExemp [...]i gratia, Telesphori Ep. 1. Aniceti Ep. 1. Zepherin. 1 & 2. Pontiani Ep. 2. Fabiani Ep. 3. Cornelii Ep. 1, 2. & in multis 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 PresbytersLab. 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. Maii 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 therein Victor's time, Severus was then Bishop of that See, and this Theophilus [Page 22] 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 afterDodwel. 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 othersLab. 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 afterBaron. 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 Hyginus, To the Athenians; for Pius, To his Italian Brethren; [...] S [...]ter, To all the Campanians: And when the Pontifica [...] 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 I idore upon that always forges an Epistle in those Popes Names to enjoyn those Rites; and hence Pope Alexander writes an Epistle about Holy-WaterEpist. 1. A­lexander.; Sixtus, about none but the Clergies touching Consecrated VesselsSixti Ep. 2.; Telesphorus, about keeping Lent Seven WeeksT [...]lesph [...]r. Ep 1.; Pius, about keeping Easter upon SundayPii Ep. 1.; Anicetus, about Shaving Priests CrownsAniceti Epist. 1.; Calixtus, about four Ember WeeksCalixti 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 23]§. 16. Now though it he so apparent and undeniable, 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 24] 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 feign 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 25]§. 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 Clock 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 homeLab. 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 EpistleLab. 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 EpistleLab. 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 26] 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 EvilNot 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 themLab. 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 first 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 EpistleLab. 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 otherLab. 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 27] 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 PontificalLab. p. 667. Bin. pag. 108. col. 1., he strives to reconcile the differing ways of relating this Fabulous Translation, and flies 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 Heredotus 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 28] rather note, You see the Primacy of the Bishop of Carth­ageBin. p. 136. col. 1.. Pope Eutychianus first Epistle following the Erroneous PontificalLab. 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.

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 Con­fulship 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),Lab. p. 511. Bin. pag. 42. col. 1. yet he cannot name one of them.

Euaristus his Life follows, whom the Pontifical and the Breviary of Sixtus the FifthLab. p. 532. Bin. pag. 5 1. 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 [...]ontifical, 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 TrajanLab. p. 541. Bin. pag. 55. col. 1. Brev. Sixt. 5. in Maii 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 30] 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 timeCestriens. dissert. posthum. 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 MartyrdomEuseb. lib. 4. c. 5.; but Binius contradicts him, and will have him to suffer in the 3d year of Antomnus Lab. p. 554. Bin pag. 60. col. [...].; 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 LifeLab. 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 31] of the Clergy, which Pope Clement (according to him) had done long beforeLab. p. 565. Bin. pag. 65. col. 2..

§. 2. From the Notes on Pope Pius LifeLab. 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 alteredCestriens. diss. 2. cap. 11. pag. 65., place Anicetus before Pius, but the Greeks place Puis 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 CalistusLab. 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 Anicetus'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 32] 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 firstLab. 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 33] 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 NotesLab. 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.

CHAP. III. Of the Forgeries in the Third Century.

An. Dom. 203.§. 1. THis Century begins with the Life of Pope 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 MassLab. 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 themDaile 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 35]§. 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 overLab. 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 MartyrdomEuseb. 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 36] 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 RomeLab. 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 themLab. 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 flatter 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 37] 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 ownLab p. 665 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 die 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 Mi­racleLab. p. 667. 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 38] 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 contented 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 palliate the grossest of all; for the Pontifical says, He was Beheaded by Vale­rian; the Notes affirm it was by Gallus and Volusianus; and yet the same Notes tell us, The Pontifical (in say­ing it was by Valerian) may be very well and truly expoundedLab. 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 gross Errors seem great Truths.

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 OpinionLab. 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 Re­baptizing 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 VerbatimLab. 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 40] 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 Dis­courseLab. 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 timeLab. 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 Martyrology.

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 41] 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 usEuseb. 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 Antiocb 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 42] 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 ConsulsLab. 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. Dailè 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 MonthsEuseb. hist. lib. 7. cap. 26.; The Pontifi­cal allows him thirteen Months, but the Notes boldly say he was Pope Eight yearsLab. 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 yearsEuseb. hist. lib. 7. cap. 26.; but the Pontifical allots to him Eleven years only, and so doth the BreviaryBrev. 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 43] 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 Missals 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 MarcellinusLab. 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 reconciled 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 44] 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 45] 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 CityAl. 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 46] 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 47] 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.

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 himLab. 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 50] 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 Luit prandus, 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 Optatus 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 51] 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 Lessons; 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 EpistleLab. p. 948. 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 strange, 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 selfLab. 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 Mar­cellinus 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 ForgeriesBin. 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 Pasce 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 52] 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 ForgeryLab. 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, Bishop 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.

The Council of Elliberis in Spain, An. Dom. 305. is by Binius placed under Pope Marcellus; which Words Labbé leaves out of the TitleLab. 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 shewLab. 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 thereforeBaron. An­nal. An. 305. §. 49. only saith, There is mention of the Saturday Fast in this [Page 54] 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); Lab. p. 985. E Bin. pag. 201. col. 1. which agrees with the Sentiments of the Primitive ChurchDailé de cultu Lat. lib. 2. chap. 15.. Lactantius condemns Lighting Candles in God's Worship by day, as a Paganish SuperstitionLactant. Instit. lib. 6. cap. 2.. S. Hierom saith, It was used in his time only by such as did it to humor the silly Vulgar, who had a Zeal without KnowledgeHieron. 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 distinctionBin. 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 55] 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 saithBaron. 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 printsLab. p. 998) would enervate this Canon, by saying, It forbids not the Saints [Page 56] 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 Carthage 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 AfricaAug. ep. 62. Tom. Il. p. 150. Vid. Baron. An. 306. §. 40.. [Page 57] 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 memorableLab. 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 to 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 spu­riousLab. 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 Lay­men) 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 58] judging their Bishop, unless he err in Matter; 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 TruthBaron. 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 DeathLab. 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 SacramentBellarmin. ubi supra (e)., whereas the beginning of it is stollen out of Celestine's Epistle to the FrenchLab. 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 59] (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. E. 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 60] might be tryed over again in France, if the Emperor pleased.

The two following Epistles of Constantine out of Pithaeus his ManuscriptLab. 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 a 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.

An. Dom. 314.§. 6. We are now arrived at the time of Pope Syl­vester, 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 306Baron. An. 306. §. 14. [Page 61] 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 RomeBin. 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 62] 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 thisBaron. 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 FalshoodLab. p. 1416. 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 63] 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 ActsBaron. 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,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 citedSozom. 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 64] 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 ActsLab. p. 1417. 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 324Lab. p. 1417. 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 65] Fact so false, that Labbé owns it is a Forgery, and Binius confesses it is suspiciousLab. p. 1544. 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 66] true Record used by Baronius in compiling 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 Eu­sebius from these SlandersValesij. 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 67] 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 itLab. 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 Tu­renensis, 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 68] Saviour sitting five foot high (so it calls a dead ImageLab. 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 Mes­sageNot. 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 Fi­ctionsBaron. 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 BookBaron. An. 324. §. 107.; and the apparent Falshood of Constantine's now bury­ing his Mother in one of these Churches, who was a­live long afterIdem, 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.

An. Dom. 314.§. 11. The Editors now go back to the Council of Arles, held (as they say) Anno 314Lab. 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 69] 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 CanonsLab. 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 falsly to make it sound, toward his beloved SupremacyBaron 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 sayLab. 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 thingNot 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 70] 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 requestLab. 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. Council 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 71] 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 pr testing 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 Dever. 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 NotesBin. 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 72]§. 13. The Council of Naeccaesarea (according to these Editors) was under SylvesterLab. 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 afterwardVid. 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 73] 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 NotesLab. 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 out at Alexandria, An. Dom. 315. 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 afterLab. 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 InnovatorsBaron. 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 74] saith, Hosius 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 CouncilBaron. 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 beforeBaron. 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 hereBin. 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.; Labbe's Margen saith, Under Liberius, An. 364, or 357; or, Under Damasus 367: [Page 75] 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 CouncilBeveridg. 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 AuthorityRicher. 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 he pleaseth Idem Ep. 10. Tom. I. pag. 96.. Herein therefore the Council of Lacdicea doth not contradict the Council of Nice at all, as these Notes falsly pretend. Thirdly, This Counc ls 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 graft 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 wordsBeveridg. Not. Tom. II. p. 193., is meerly to justifie their false Date of this Council. The Anno­tator [Page 76] 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 ReasonsLab. 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 areLab. & 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 NotesLab. 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 77] 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 BlowLab. 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 78] 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 Munifi­cenceLab. 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 79] 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-timedLab. 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 pro­bableLab. 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 ReaderBaron. 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 80] is grounded on the idle Story of Constantine's Baptism by Sylvester, which out of Sylvester's Fabulous Acts is re­lated at large in it; but those Acts being (as was shewed) a meer Forgery, this Edict must be so also. Thirdly, It represents Constantine, who was born and brought up under Christian Parents, and had setled Christianity before this, as a meer Heathen, till he met with Syl­vester at this time. Fourthly, It pretends the whole Senate and all the Nobles joyned with the Emperor, to give the Pope this Power. But besides the folly of Constantine's delegating more Power than ever he him­self had, it 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 324Baron. 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 thisId. 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 Annota [...]or, 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 81] 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 Balsamen 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 re [...]ected, will be convinced, that their Church gained by it, and consequently invented it. They labour to prove, the Pop [...]s 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 82] to Constantine's BountyLab. 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 itLab. 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 ChurchesLab. & 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 SynodBaron. 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 afterBin. 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 83] subscribed itLab. 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 DeaconsBaron. 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 yearBaron. 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; Phetius 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 NiceLab. 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 84] 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 firstBin. Tom. III. par. 1. pag. 194.; and though they are no Evidence against Authors living in the time of the Nicene 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 NiceEuseb. 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 85] Sylvester, as having any hand in this M [...]tter: 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 EditorsLab. p. [...]9. 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 Si ting 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 therePhotii Nomo­can. pag. 163.. Socrates only saith, The Bishop of Rome's Presbyters were his Proxies, and present at this Council 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 86] himself in the fourth placeSozom. 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 Syl­vesterRicher 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 ChalcedonId. 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 ConjecturesBaron. 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 relatesEuseb. vit. Constant. lib. 3. cap. 10.; and the Notes at last own, He sat in the Chief PlaceLab. 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 CouncilVid 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 ClergyPhot. lib. d. 7. Synod.; yet so, as they all gave place to the Em­peror, [Page 87] 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 themVid 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 doneLab. p. 6. & pag. 7 [...]. 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 ForgedLab p. 68. Bin. pag. 348. col. 1.; and Labbe's Margin tells us they are Fictions, nor dare Baronius own them to be genuineBaron. 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 [...]alse, 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 RomeRicher hist. Concil. lib. 1. cap. 2. §. 6.; [Page 88] 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 nothingLabbè 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 with [...]ut 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 Gener [...]l 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 R [...] ­corded 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 89] 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 reasonsBaron. 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 disputedBin. 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 CouncilAugustin. 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 LeafBin. Not. pag. 296. col. 1. & p. 297. col. 2.: Liers should have better Memories: Fifthly, They say the third Council of Carithage cites a Canon of Nice, forbidding to receive the Sacrament after Dinner; but if the place be considered (as Richerius notesRicher. histor. Concil. lib. 1. cap. 3. §. 13.) that Coun­cil [Page 90] 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 EpistleBin. Not. in ep. Julii. p [...]g. 395. col. 2., he confesseth this was no Canon made at Nice, but only it was matter of Fact; in that this great Synod did judge Arius over again, who had before been judged at Alexandria. Eightly, The Notes say, Atticus, Bishop of Constantinople at Chalcedon, did affirm, that the Nicene Council agreed upon a Form of writing Communicatory Epistles, which is not among these Twenty Canons: I reply, Baronius and he both own this Form was to be a Secret among the Bishops; and if it had been put into a Canon, Heretics might easily have counterfeited these Forms, and so the design had been spoiledBaron. 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

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 Au­thorsPisanus 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 TruthBaron. An. 325. §. 148, 149, 150.. And Binius in his NotesLab. 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 92] Dr. Beveridge gives us Eight several Versions, besides the Original Greek, which all want itBeveridg. 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 PreambleLab. 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 Ruffinus; 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 93] 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 forged 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 94] an Arian; a malicious, fraudulent, and partial WriterBaron. 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 AnswerLab. 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 CouncilBin. 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 ForgedBin. 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 itLab. 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 saith, 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 95] 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 himLab. 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 itLab. Marg. pag. 106.; but Binius prints it at large, with all its Fictions and ImposturesBin. 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 LegateBin. 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 96] Nicene CanonsBin. 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 themBaron. 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 WivesBin 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. Crit. sacr. l. 3. cap. 4., by their quoting a spurious Work under the name of Dionysius Areopagita, which was (as all agree) writ after the Nicene Council many yearsBin. 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 confuting. We will only note therefore, that the 7th and the 40th of these Canons require, that Synods shall be held twice a year, which (as Turrian confesseth) agrees not with the custom of the Roman ChurchLab. p. 294. & pag. 303. Bin. pag. 353. col. 2. & 358. col. 1.: And his Notes say, [Page 97] the 72d Canon differs from the 13th, and the 73d Canon is contrary to the 49thLab. 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 Baronius and Binius (who con­fess the Title to be false) labour to prove this Synod to be true, though Binius be forced to justifie it by the forged Letter of the Nicene Fathers to Sylvester, and his Answer to them, both which in the next Column he owns are false and feignedBin. 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 98] this Fiction of their ownLab. 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 DeathLab. p. 427, & 428. Bin. pag. 371. col. 1. Baron. An. 361. § 44.. 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 MonkSozom, 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 ProprietyBin. 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 MonkLab. p. 429. 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 99] and the Synodical Epistle, have [ [...],] which signifies 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 SacrificeLab. 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. & B [...]n. ut supra.. Yet thus the Ro­m sh 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) affirms, 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. l. 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 100] 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.

An. Dom. 335.The Arians, to revenge their Condemnation at Nice, falsly accuse Athanasius to the Emperour Constantine, who thereupon called a Council at Tyre, which these Editors intitle, The Council of Tyre under SylvesterLab. 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.

An. Dom. 336.§. 19. Pope Marcus succeeded Sylvester, and fat but eight Months; yet, that he might not seem to have 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 101] 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 impossibleBaron. An. 352. §. 2, & 3., He fills up this Popes story (according to his manner) with trifling 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 RomanistsLab. 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 Pontifical he mistakes the Consuls Name, and puts Maximianus for Titianus. Yet by this Forgery the Editors would prove, that more than twenty Canons [Page 102] 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 SupremacyLab. 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 Socrates and Sozomen The third Epistle from Julius to the Arians, is owned by Baronius and others to be a ForgeryLab. 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 SupremacyLab. 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. 2.; 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 CityLab. 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 103] 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 ownEp. 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 Di­vorceLab. 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, An. Dom. 339. calls a Synod there of all the Bishops of his Province, of which only the Synodical Epistle is now extant, written as the Title declares, To all the Catholic Bishops every where; yet the Notes from Baronius Baron. An. 339. §. 2. & §. 11. say, It was writ parti­cularly [Page 104] 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 thirdLab. 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.

An. Dom. 341.The Council of Antioch, is by the Editors said to be 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 itLab. 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 Richer. hist. Conc. lib. 1. cap. 4.) have left out these Canons as not favouring the practice of the Roman Court. However Baronius saith, Among 97 Bishops, only 36 were AriansBaron. 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 105] 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 requiresSocrat. 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 saithLab. 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 HereticsLab. 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 Kinsmen, 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. [...]; 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 106] 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 afterBaron. 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.

An. Dom. 34 [...].The year following Julius held a third Synod at 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 CityBaron 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 107] 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. 608. 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 himBaron. An. 344. §. 4.; and Binius saith, They desired to be recei­ved into the Communion of the Roman Church Lab. 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,An. Dom. 347. which saith some kind 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 108] 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 affirmSozem. 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 LetterBaron. An. [...]47. §. 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 Sardia, where the Council was held; but as for Archidamus and Philoxenus, they are not in the Latin Copies of the SubscribersLab. p. 658. Bin. pag. 436. col. 1.. And Athanasius only saith, Julius sub­scribed [Page 109] 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 largestBaron. 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 Coun­cilIdem 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 firstSocrat. 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 itBaron. 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 shews, 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 matterBaron. An. 347. §. 73.; but after all his Conjectures it is plain, it was of no repute [Page 110] 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 RightLab. 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 111] 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. Con. 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 DecreesLab. 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 112] An Dom. 348.§. 22. The first Council of Carthage was appointed to 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 LegatesLab. 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 Hosii 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 113] Letter, they might make their Confession, the whole Roman Church locking 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 NotesBin. 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 uncer­tainLab. 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 114] Eastern Churches; but Jo. Cassian, who came out of the East in the next Century, saith, He haa 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 accountLa [...]. p. 729. ad pag. [...]9. of three Councils against Photinus, on which we need make no Remarks.

An. Dom. 352.§. 23. Pope Liberius succeeded Julius, whose Life with 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 Arians, in whose place Foelix was Ordained, and he in a Council condemned Ursacius and Valens, two Arian Bishops, who in Revenge petitioned Constantins 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 Communion, and subscribed an Arian Con­fession of Faith; as Athanasius, Hilary and Hierom, witness Not. ad. 7 Ep. Liber. Lab pag. 751. Bin. pag. 470. col. 1.; and there are Arguments unanswerable to prove, he was an Arian while he was PopeVid. Spalat. de rep. Eccl. 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. p. 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 115] 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. Hierom (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 Photinus words, who saith soon after, He was of the same Opinion with the AriansPlatin. in vit. Liber. p 50. Eusebius Pres­byter urbis Rome copit de­clarare Libe­rium Haereti­cum. Partitor. 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, Baronius 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 AriansLab. p. 744. Bin. pag. 467. col. 1.; yet these two are found in the [Page 116] 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 L [...]b. p. 755, Bin. p [...]g 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 Constantins, to order a Council to be held at Aquilcia [...]. p 744. [...] p [...]g. 4 [...]7. 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. [...]in. 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 d [...]ceived, and erring in Matters of Faith; which spoils their Infallibilit 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 meaness 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 117] 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 confessLab. 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 AthanasiusLab. p. 769. [...]. 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 Aquil [...]a, 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 Constantins permission, called by Liberius, whose Legates also were present at it Lab p. [...]2. Bin. pag 476. col. 1.. But herein they grosly falsifie, for Sozo­men declares, That Constantius summ [...]ned all the Bishops to MilanS [...]m. lib. 4 cap. 8. Socrat. lib. 2. cap. 29.; and Barenius 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, Barenius assigns a wrong [Page 118] 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 Athanasius declaresAthanas. Epist. ad Solitar.; and Socrates, as we noted before, saith, 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 Athanasius'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 119]§ 24. The Council at Sirmium was called by Constan­tius, and consisted of Arian Bishops,An. Dom. 357. 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 pretendLab. 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 FallBaron. 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 HeresieId. 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 afterMarcelin. 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 120] 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 ConjecturesBaron. 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 saith, 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 RomeSozom. 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 Arimi­numId. cap. 18.. I Answer, Sozomen must be mistaken in this, unless we seign 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 ValensSocrat. 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 a Phrase which the Primitive Charity used of some Men not altogether OrthodoxVid. Baron. An­dal. An 362. pag. 58. & An. 371. p. 246.: But it is a great pre­judice [Page 121] 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, An. Dom. 359. A Gene­ral 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 agreeSulpic. Sever. histor. lib. 2.; so that it seems there may be A General approved Council (as they style thisLab. 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 themLab. 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. 352. §. 6. & §. 15.: Wherefore this General Council was both called and confirmed by the Empe­rour. Again, Constantins in his Epistle declares, It was unreasonable to determine any thing in a Western Council against the Eastern 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 Epistle (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 122] 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.

An. Dom. 362.§. 25. Upon the restitution of Athanasius from his third Exile after the death of George the Arian Bishop, 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 our of Baronius say, It was called by the Advice and Authority of LiberiusLab. 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 Luciser 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 123] 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 extantLab. 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 EmperourLab. 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 124] 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.

An. Dom. 365.Upon Valentinian's advancement to the Empire, the 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 Soz [...]m. 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 Catho­licsSocrat. 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 Occidentis Episcopi: But Baronius alters the Pointing, Liberius Epi­scopus, Italiae & alii, &c. by that Trick, hoping to con­ceal this mean TitleEp. 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 shewsSocrat. 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 125] by it, because the Legates were not sent to him alone, but to all the Western Bishops. Fifthly, The Notes on this CouncilLab. 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 ForgeriesBaron. 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 occasionConcil. 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.

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.

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 CouncilId. 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 creditLab. 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. hist. 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 was not without Blood,An. Dom. 367. 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 testifieAm. Marcel. 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 PapacyLab. 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 128] 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 itLab. 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 spuriousLab. 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 spuriousBin. 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 129] 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 Theodosius, who were never Consuls in Damasus's time, and finally Labbé owns, that much of it is stollen out of the Epistles of later PopesLab. 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 deadLab. 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 EpistleLab. 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 Valens on their side, began to grow bold;An. Dom. 369. 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 pre­tendBin. p. 512. & 513. Baron. An. 369. pag. 190, &c., but by the common Suffrage of Ninety Bi­shops assembled with him, as the words of Athanasius, and the very Councils Letter plainly shew. And though Baronius here talks of the Popes sole Priviledge in de­posing [Page 130] 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.

An. Dom. 373. Apollinaris having disseminated his Heresie at Antioch, complaint was made [...]o 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 Baron. 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 CouncilLab. p. 895. Bin. pag. 514. col. 1.; but Nazianzen saith, He did n [...]t this till he was better instructed in the Points: For at first (as the Notes con­fess) this Pope took Apollinaris for a pi [...]us and learned Man; and so held Communion with him till he understood by S. Basil's third Epistle, that he was an Heretic. I know they excuse this by saying, that S. Basil himself, and Nazianzen and S. Hierom were all at first under the same m [...]stake with Damasus: But then none of these ever were pretended to be Infallible Judges 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.

An. Dom. 378.Upon the death of Valens the Arian Emperour, while Valentinian was yet very young, Gratian managed both [Page 131] 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 AlexandriaSozom. lib. [...]. cap. 4. Socrat lib. 5. cap. 2.. Theodoret indeed (who as Baronius owns is much mistaken in his relating this matterTheod. lib. 5. cap. 2. & Baron. An. 378. pag. 339.) names only Damasus in his report of this Law; and B [...]ronius 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 extantGod. Justin. lib. 1. tit. 1. de sum. Trin. Ll. 1., 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 Anti [...]ch 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. 1., 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 DeathSocrat. lib. 5. cap. 5. Sozom. lib. 7. cap. 3. Theod. 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 was Called by the Emperour Theodosius, An. Dom. 381. whom Gratian had taken for his Partner 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 settle 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, hoping to perswade the World, that it was both called and [...] [Page 134] 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 Photius 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 EastLab. 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 135] 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. Chry­sostem, by virtue of this Canon, placed and displaced divers Bishops in Asia, and the 4th General Council at Chalc [...]den (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. Chaleed. Can. 28. & Subscrip. ibid.; which Precedence and Power that Bishop long returned, notwithstanding the endeavours of the envious Popes: And Gregory never objected against th [...]se 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 Councel: 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 136] 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 itSocrat. lib. 5. cap. 2. Sozom. 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 137] 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 EastBaron. An. 381. 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. Am­broseId. 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 restitutionLab. 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 138] An Dom. 382.§. 28. From a Passage in S. Hierom, and the Inscrip­tion of the Letter writ from the Council at Constan­tinople, 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 Councill under DamasusLab. 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 RomeHieron. 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 itTheodor. lib. 5. cap. 9. Baron. An. 382. pag. 397. & B [...]n. 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. 494Lab. 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 139] 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 Flavianus, 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, An. Dom. 385. but not without 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 Hierom. 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 140] on the Simplicity of this Pope, and got Communicatory Letters of him Baron. An. 397. pag. 32. ex Hieron. ep. 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 affirmsLab. 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 me, 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 141] 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. 102 [...]. 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 afterBin. 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 Epistle; 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 142] 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 Gallican Church again condemned the Priscillianists, and they appealed (not to the Pope, but) to the Emperour Maximus Lab. p. 1030. B [...]n. 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 143] 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 shuffling Notes cannot wash their Bishops hands from Blood, nor fit them in S. Ambrose and S. Martin's Opinion, to celebrate the Eu­charist with other Christians.

There had been (as we noted) a long Schism at Antioch, between Paulinus (of whose side was the Pope,An. Dom. 398. 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 Theophilus, 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. [...]d 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 144] Church Lab. p. 1039 Bin. pag. 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.

An. Dom. 393.At this time there was a great Council at Hippo, which the Notes sometimes call a General, and some­times a Plenary Council, because most of the African Bishops were there, and the Original dates it with the Consuls of this year; but the Editors clap a New Title to it, saying, it was under Siricius; who in all probabi­lity had no hand in it, nor knew any thing of it: Yet here were made many of those famous Canons for Discipline, by which the African Church was governed. But they are more wary in the next Council of Con­stantinople, at which many Bishops were present, and among them the two Patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch; being summoned (in the absence of the Em­perour) by his Prefect Ruffinus; and they will not [Page 145] 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 PopeLab. 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, An. Dom. 397. composed of the Gallican Bishops, they decided the Case of Primacy between the Bishop of Arles and Vienna, without advising with the Pope, and determined they would not communicate with Foelix, a Bishop of Ithacius his Party, according to the Letters of Ambrose, of Blessed Memory, Bishop of Milan, and of the Bishop of Rome. Now, here the Roman Advocates are much disturbed to find S. Ambrose his Name before Siricius; and when they repeat this Passage in the Notes, they falsly set the Pope's Name first, contrary to the express words of the fifth Canon, and impudently pretend, That the Bishop of Rome, by his place, was the ordinary Judge who should be communi­cated with, and Ambrose was only made so by the Popes Delegation 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 146] 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.

An. Dom. 397, &c.The Canons of divers African Councils, held at Carthage and elsewhere, have been put together long since, and collected into one Code, which makes the time and order of the Councils wherein they were made, somewhat difficult; but since the Canons were always held Authentic, we need not (with the Editors) be much concerned for their exact order, or for re­ducing them to the years of the Pope, because they were neither called nor ratified by his Authority. Yea, the Notes say, It was never heard that any, but the Bishop of Carthage called a Council there, his Letters gave Summons to it, he presided over it, and first gave his Suffrage in it, — and that even when Faustinus (an Italian Bishop) the Popes Legate was pre­sent 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 Lectorum 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 singleBin. 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 Universal 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 147] no Patriarch ought to be called Universal. 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 appealLab. 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 triumphLab. 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 CopiesCosen'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 Siricius 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 148] 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.

An. Dom. 398.§. 32. Anastasius was the last Pope in this Century, 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 149] 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 EpistleLab. 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 noLab. 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 knew 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 useLab. p. 1210. Bin. pag. 592. col. 1.; which condemns those 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 150] but the NotesLab. p. 1211. Bin. ut supr., (because this practice is per­mitted 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 Carthage, 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 MinisterLab. 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 High­ways, upon pretended Dreams and Revolutions; upon which Canon there is no note at allLab. 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 be 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 [...] Pope foremost, there is no proof that they were sent [Page 151] 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 than 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.