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 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 A BRIEF ACCOUNT OF THE Roman Forgeries IN THE VOLUMES OF THE COUNCILS For the Fourth Century PART II. CHAPTER IV. Of the Forgeries in the Fourth Century § 1. THis Century begins with the Life of Marcellus An. Dom. 304. a Pope so obscure that Eusebius's Chronicle wholly omits him (a) Lab. Tom. III. pag. 947. Bin. Tom. I. pag. 185. col 2. and Theodoret knew nothing of him nor of Pope Eusebius but makes Melchiades immediate Successor to Marcellinus (b) 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 (c) 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 it s 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 after ended his days the 17th of the Kalends of February (d) 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 Epistle (e) Lab. 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 self (f) Lab. p 950 Bin. pag. 187. col 1. His first Note of this Epistle being writ to one Solomon a Bishop is an oversight and belongs to the first Epistle of Pope Marcellinus (g) 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
Circumcised Converts to Peter (e) Lab. pag. 21. Bin. pag 2. col 2. which was a poor Preferment for that Apostle if Christ had made him Supreme Head and committed to him long before the Care of the whole Catholic Church To these Passages of Holy Scripture the Editors have tacked a fabulous Story of the Assumption of the Virgin Mary (f) Lab. pag. 24. Bin. pag. 3. col 2. but they do not Cite one genuine Ancient Author to prove it That Book which bears the Title of Dionysius Areopagitus being invented many Ages after as Learned men on all sides now agree § 2. That Ancient Collection of Canons which were decreed by the Apostolical Men in divers Synods held during the Times of Persecution is published by these Editors under the Title of The Canons of the Holy Apostles and their Notes affirm They were made by the Authority of the Apostles (g) Lab. pag. 53. Bin. pug 14. col 1. yet they are not agreed either about their Number or Authority They print LXXXIV Canons but the Notes say only the first Fifty of them are Authentic but the rest may and ought also to be received since they contain nothing Two of them excepted viz. the 65th and 84th Canons which contradict the Roman Church but what is approved by some Popes Councils and Fathers (h) Lab. Bin. ibid. Now if as they say the Apostles made them their Church hath been very negligent to lose the certain Account of their number and it is not very modest to pretend to try the Apostles Decrees by Popes Councils and Fathers yet it is plain they make no distinction between the first Fifty and the following Thirty four rejecting all that oppose their present Doctrine and Practice as may be seen in these Instances The Sixth Canon forbids a Bishop Priest or Deacon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to put away or be divorced from his Wife on pretence of Religion The Notes pervert the Sense of this Canon as if it only forbid Clergy Men to cast off the care of providing for their Wives and prove this Sense (i) Lab. pag. 53. Bin. pag. 14. col 2. by a false Title which Dionysius Exiguus put to this Canon in his Version many Centuries after and by an Epistle of Pope Clement the First which all Men own now to be spurious and by an Epistle of Pope Gregory who lived in the Year 600 as if the Sense of Dionysius and Pope Gregory when Single life was superstitiously pressed upon the Clergy were good proof that Clergy Men did not live with their Wives many Ages before that superstitious Opinion was heard of 'T is certain the Greek Clergy are Married and cohabit with their Wives according to this Apostolical Canon and the Fifteenth Canon of the Sixth General Council And it is not unpleasant to observe That these Notes cite the Second Council of Nice to prove there were no Canons made in the Sixth General Council yet that very Nicene Council often Quotes and highly approves the 82d Canon of the Sixth General Council as giving some Countenance to their Image-Worship So that their wresting this Canon Apostolical from its genuine meaning (k) Vid. Beveridg Not. Concil Tom. II. pag. 18. upon such slight and false Evidence is in effect rejecting it The Ninth Canon orders All the Clergy and Laity who are in the Church to Receive the Sacrament unless they have a just Excuse (l) Lab. pag. 55. Bin. pag. 15. col 1. But the Roman Church allows the People generally to stand by and look on and therefore though this be one of the Authentic Canons before said by them to be made by the Apostles after some shuffling to restrain it contrary to the very words of the Canon only to the Clergy The Notes say This whole Decree was made only by Human not by Divine Authority and is now abrogated by a contrary Custom So that if a Canon of the Apostles themselves contradict a Corrupt practice of their Church it must be abrogated and rejected The 17th Canon saith He that keeps a Concubine shall not be in any Order of the Clergy The Notes cite some of their Doctors who affirm That this Crime doth not make a Clerk irregular (m) Lab. pag. 56. Bin. pag. 15. col 2. and that this Canon is now revoked The Annotator himself is of Opinion It is only public keeping a Concubine by reason of the Infamy which makes a Clergy-mans Orders void Wherefore such Sinners have now more favourable Casuists at Rome than the Apostles or Apostolical Men were The 65th Canon though it have as good Evidence for it as any of the rest is rejected by the Notes (n) Lab. pag. 60. Bin. pag 17. col 2. because it forbids Men to fast on Saturday which is now a Fasting-day at Rome The Notes say No Father mentions this Canon but presently own That Ignatius Clemens Romanus the Canons of the Sixth General Council Gregory Nyssen and Anastasius Nicaenus to which we add Tertullian (o) Tertul. de jejun adv Psycl cap. 14 15. do all speak of Saturday as a Day on which Fasting was forbid The Notes confess also That the Eastern-Church and the Church of Milan in S. Ambrose time allowed not Fasting upon Saturday (p) Aug. ad Januar ep 118. cap. 2. ad Casulan Ep. 86. yet after all they will not grant this Canon to be genuine only because it is very unlikely that the Church of Rome should contradict a Canon of the Apostles whereas we have already seen it makes no scruple to contradict them if they agree not with their practice The Notes indeed say but without any proof That Rome received the Saturday Fast from Peter and Paul yet they grant soon after That after the Heresie of Marcion was extinct the Roman Church did not only lawfully but piously Fast on Saturday So that this was a private Custom of the Roman Church in which it diâ—fered from all other Churches and they know not when it began nor who it came from yet for such a Customs sake they reject an Apostolical Canon The 69th Canon expresly enjoyns the Wednesday Fast and the Notes say That many Fathers mention it as of ancient Institution yea these Notes affirm It was certainly a Fast of the Apostles instituting being observed by the whole Church and not appointed by any Council but spoken of by Authors of greatest Antiquity (q) Lab. pag. 6. Bin. pag. 18. col 1. Well then I hope the Roman Church whose Customs are all said to be Apostolical do keep this Wednesday Fast They tell you No This Wednesday Fast in their Church is changed into the Saturday Fast And so farewel to this Canon also Lastly the 84th Canon gives us a Canon of Scripture which doth not agree with the Trent Canon for it rejects Ecclesiasticus from being Canonical and mentions not Wisdom Tobit Judith nor in Old Copies (r) Dr. Câ—sens Histor Canon Chap.
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 Mass (q) Lab. p. 603. Bin. pag. 81. col 1. and the Notes prove it by Pope Gregory the Great who lived Four hundred years after this time However if we allow the Matter of Fact upon the Testimonies of S. Hierom and Epiphanius it will follow That in those Ages when they used Glass Cups they did not believe Transubstantiation for if they had they would not have ventured Christ's Blood in so brittle a Vessel but have forbid the use of Glasses as they have done in the Roman Church since this Opinion came in among them (r) Daile 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 § 2. Though the Pontifical be guilty of many Errors in the Life of Calixtus and mistake the very Emperors under which he lived and died the Notes gloss them all fairly over (s) Lab. p. 608. Bin. pag. 83. col 1. and correct them by the Roman Martyrology which often follows the Pontifical and is as fabulous as that However we are told That Calixtus was buried Three Miles out of the City because the Law of the Twelve Tables forbid the Burying of a dead Body within the Walls Now I would know if this Law were in force how that can be true which the Pontifical and the Notes affirm and justifie That S. Peter Linus Cletus Euaristus Sixtus Telesphorus Hyginus Pius and Victor were All Buried in the Vatican And what shall we think of the Miracles done by their Relicks and at their Tombs if no Body know where they were first Buried Pope Urban the Successor of Calixtus is said in the Pontifical (t) Lab. p. 617. Bin. pag. 87. col 1. to be Buried in the Coemetery of Praetextatus which could not then be any Coemetery at all because Praetextatus was not Martyted till the Persecution under Maximinus which hapned many years after And if the Story of S. Cecily in the same Author be no Truer than his Chronology the Romanists worship a fictitious Saint The Pontifical is forced to feign That the Emperor Alexander Severus was a Persecutor contrary to his Character in all Histories of Credit and this only to make us think that Calixtus Urban and Pope Pontianus his Successor were Martyrs However though Eusebius knew not of their Martyrdom (u) Euseb hist lib. 6. cap. 15 17 22. the Roman Church adores them all as Martyrs and have peculiar Days dedicated to their Memories Antherus as the Pontifical says Sat Twelve years and One Month and the Notes say that he Sat only one Month (w) 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 his time However Binius will make it out for he brings in a Poetical Hyperbole Of those Scribes who could write a Sentence before a man had spoken it and so were as quick at guessing as writing and applies this in very serious earnest to this Pope's Notaries to make us imagine there were many Acts of Martyrs writ out in this short-lived Pope's time § 3. Pope Fabian as Eusebius relates was chosen by occasion of a Dove 's lighting on his Head when the People were met to elect a Pope of which remarkable Story the fabulous Pontifical takes no notice but tells us That in this Popes time Novatus the Heretic came to Rome (x) Lab. p. 638. Bin. pag. 95. col 2. that is say the Notes Above a year after Pope Fabian was dead after the Vacancy and in Pope Cornelius 's time with such absurd Comments do these Gentlemen delight to cover the Ignorance and Falsehood of their Historian but such Excuses do only more expose him In this Pope's time were two Councils held one in Africa the other in Arabia and they Intitle them both under Fabian yet the only Authors who mention these Councils do not say Pope Fabian was concerned in either of them (y) Lab. p. 650. Bin. pag. 101. col 2. and therefore they were not under Fabian After this Pope's death there was a Vacancy of more than one whole year which the Editors to 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
of them affirms that Hosius was the Pope's Legate This is purely an Invention of Baronius but he only proves it by Conjectures (y) Baron An. 325. §. 20. The Truth is Constantine himself was the President of this Council and Sat on a Gilded Throne not as the Preface saith falsly Below all the Bishops but Above all the Bishops as Eusebius an Eye-witness relates (z) Euseb vit Constant lib. 3. cap. 10. and the Notes at last own He sat in the Chief Place (a) Lab. pag. 67. Bin. pag. 292. col 2. yea the Annalist confesseth He acted the part of a Moderator in it (b) 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 (c) 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 (d) Theodoret. apud Baron An. 325. §. 54. Hence some and among the rest Pope Foelix in his Epistle to Zeno affirm He was President of this Council (e) Vid Richer hist Concil lib. 1. cap. 2. §. 8. Others say The Bishop of Alexandria presided and indeed all the Patriarchs present Sat above all others of the Clergy (f) Phot. lib. d. 7. Synod yet so as they all gave place to the Emperor when he came in And for the Pope's Legates Baronius and Bellarmin do contend in vain about the Places they had in this Council since no Ancient Author tells us they Sat above the Chief of the Bishops So that this also is a Forgery of the Papal Flatterers to give Countenance to their Churches feigned Supremacy Thirdly As to the Power which confirmed the Canons of this Council the ancient Historians do suppose that Constantine gave these Decrees their binding Power and Record his Letters to injoyn all to observe them (g) Vid Socrat. Sozom. Theodoret Ruffin ut supra And Eusebius who was there saith that The Emperor ratified the Decrees with his Seal (h) Euseb vit Constan lib. 1. cap. 37. But the Annalist and Annotator seek to efface this evidence by Railing at Eusebius and by devising many weak pretences to persuade the Credulous that Pope Sylvester confirmed this Council by his Authority and both the Preface and Notes tell us that this Synod writ a Letter to Sylvester for his confirmation and that he called a Council at Rome and writ back to Ratify what they had done (i) Lab. p. 6. pag. 7â— Bin. pag. 64. pag. 299. col 1. But whoever will but read these two Epistles will find the Latin so Barbarous and the Sense so Intricate that nothing is plain in them but that they are Forged (k) Lab p. 68. Bin. pag. 348. col 1. and Labbe's Margin tells us they are Fictions nor dare Baronius own them to be genuine (l) Baron An. 325. §. 37. and though Binius cite them for evidence in his Notes yet at some distance he tells us it is evident they are both Corrupted (m) 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 (n) Idem p. 365. col 1. not ad Concil Rom. But Richerius is more Ingenuous and declares That these Epistles are prodigiously â—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 Rome (o) Richer hist Concil lib. 1. cap. 2. §. 6. The Notes further urge a Roman Council under Pope Sylvester to prove his Confirming these Canons but that Council is a confessed Forgery it self and so proves nothing (p) Labbè marg pag. 412. Lastly The Annotator here and almost every where cites Socrates his speaking of an Ecclesiastical Canon that no Decrees of Councils should be valid withâ—ut the consent of the Roman Bishop (q) 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 Generâ—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 Râ—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 (r) 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 found in the Roman Church (s) Gratian. dist 16. cap. 10. cap. 13. For all this the Annotator boldly tells us That the truer Opinion or rather that which is most for the Popes interest is that more than Twenty Canons were made there But we will examine his and Baronius's reasons (t) Baron An. 325. §. 157. c. First They say there is no Decree about Easter among the Twenty Canons I reply There is a genuine Epistle of
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 (m) Richer hist Concil lib. 1. cap. 3. The African Church of old valued this Council as little for a Synod of Bishops there among whom were S. Augustine and Alypius were ignorant of any Sardican Council but one held by the Arians Baronius tries all his art to palliate this matter (n) Baron An. 347. §. 73. but after all his Conjectures it is plain it was of no repute in Africa because when two Popes Zosimus and Boniface afterwards cited the Decrees of Sardica as Canons of Nice the Fraud was discovered and when they were found not to be Nicene Canons They would not receive them as Canons of Sardica but flatly rejected them which shews that these African Fathers did neither take this Sardican Synod for a General Council nor for an Authentic Provincial Council And therefore whatever is here said in favour of the Roman Church is of no great weight However the Champions of Rome magnifie the 4th Canon of this Council where in case a Bishop judge that he is condemned unjustly Hosius saith If it please you let us honour the memory of Peter the Apostle and let those who have judged such a Bishop write to Julius Bishop of Rome that so if need be the Judgment may be reviewed by the Bishops of the Province and he may appoint some to hear the Cause c. Now here the Notes talk big and claim a Supremacy and Appeals as due to the Pope by Divine Right (o) Lab. p. 690 691. Bin. pag. 448. col 1. But Richerius well observes It is Nonsence to ascribe that to a human Law and Privilege or to the Decree of a Council which was due before to the Pope by the Law of God (p) 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 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 (y) 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 (z) Sozom. lib. 3. cap. 11. Lab. p. 625. Bin. pag. 424. and their Epistle which calls Julius their Fellow-Minister (a) Lab. p. 670. Bin. pag. 440. col 1. desires him to publish their Decrees to those in Sicily Sardinia and Italy which of old were Suburbicarian Regions but never speak of his confirming their Decrees (b) Lab. p. 662. Bin. pag. 437. col 2. Yet in their Epistle to the Church of Alexandria they pray them to give their Suffrage to the Councils determinations (c) 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 (d) 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 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 Legates (e) Lab. p. 713. Bin. pag. 546. col 1. In this Council were made fourteen excellent Canons which possibly the Romanists may reject because they never asked the Popes consent to hold this Council nor desired his confirmation to their Canons and whereas the Editors tell us Pope Leo the 4th who lived five hundred years after approved of this Council we must observe that the Catholic Church had put them into their Code and received them for Authentic long before without staying for any Approbation from the Bishop of Rome Soon after this there was a Council at Milan of which there was no mention but only in the Synodical Letter of the Bishops met at Ariminum An. 359. (f) 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
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 (z) 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 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 (a) 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 (b) 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 (c) Bin p. 580. on purpose to make us think that the command of Celibacy upon which that Age too much doted reached the lowest order of the Clergy even Readers contrary to the express words of the Canons And to the second Council of Carthage where only Bishops Priests and Deacons are under an obligation to live single (d) Bin. p. 571. Secondly The 26th Canon of the third Council forbids the Bishop of the first See to be called by the Title of Prince or Chief of Bishops Gratian goes on neither may the Roman Bishop be called Universal (e) 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 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 appeal (f) Lab. p. 1171. Bin. pag. 581. col 2. it is not unlikely these Fathers might resolve to check as well the Title as the Jurisdiction then beginning to be set up which encouraged these Appeals Thirdly The 47th Canon in the Latin and the 24th in the Greek and Latin Edition speaking of such Books as are so far Canonical that they may be read in Churches reckon up some of those Books which we call Apocryphal upon which the Notes triumph (g) Lab. p. 1177. Bin. pag. 580. col 1. but let it be observed that we grant some of these Books to be so far Canonical that they may be read for instruction of Manners and also we may note that the best Editions of these African Canons leave out all the Books of Macchabees and Baruch which are foisted into their later Latin Copies (h) Cosen's History of the Canon p. 112. pag. 113. And it is plain the whole Canon is falsly placed in this Council under Siricius because Pope Boniface who came not into the Papacy till above twenty years after is named in it as Bishop of Rome yet after all these devices it doth not declare what Books are strictly Canonical and so will not justifie the Decree at Trent Fourthly In the 48th Canon of the Latin Version the Council agrees to advise about the Donatists with 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 (i) 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 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
imitates him in false-spelling the Consuls names and in joyning Men who were never Consuls together yea because that Fabulous Pontifical usually Names no Consuls but those in Office at Every Popes Entrance and Death This Forger of the Epistles dates them all either by the first or last Consuls of every Pope as if all the Popes had only written Epistles in their first and last years A Few Examples of these Errors shall suffice The Pontifical makes Pope Euaristus to enter when Valens and Vetus were Consuls and to be martyred when Gallus and Bradua were Consuls and so the Forger dates his first Epistle by the names of his first Consuls and the second Epistle by the Consuls of his last year But alas both the Pontifical and Epistles are wofully mistaken since Euaristus as Baronius proves entred the 13th year of Trajan that is fourteen years after the Consulship of Valens and Vetus and two years after the Consulship of Gallus and Bradua so that by this Account he writ Decretal Epistles long before he was Pope (m) Lab. p. 532. Bin. pag. 51. col 2. So also whereas Pope Alexander really sat in Adrian the Emperors time and Trajan was dead before his entrance yet one of his Epistles is dated with Trajan as one Consul and Helianus as the other but these two were never Consuls together (n) Lab. 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 dead (o) Exempâ—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 Presbyters (p) Lab. p. 576. Bin. pag. 70. col 2. who was but a Deacon in the time of his Successor Anicetus (q) 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 (r) 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 was Bishop of Caesarea in Palestine (s) 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 (t) Lab. p. 630. Bin. pag. 92. col 2. who was not Bishop there till two or three Ages after (u) Dodwel ap Cestr diss 2. cap. 6. The first Epistle of Pope Fabian dated in his first year mentions Novatus the Heretic coming out of Africa to Rome and seducing Novatian with others (w) Lab. p. 636. Bin. pag. 92. col 2. but Baronius out of Eusebius and S. Cyprian assures us that Novatus came not to Rome till Fifteen years after (x) Baron An. 238. §. 9. Wherefore these Epistles were devised by a later Author who knew neither the History nor Chronology of those Ages for which he invented these Epistles but had only the Fabulous Pontifical in his eye and follows it in all its Errors and Absurdities So that since the Pontifical makes Pope Hyginus an Athenian Pope Pius an Italian and Pope Soter born in Campania Isidore forges three Epistles for Hyginus To the Athenians for Pius To his Italian Brethren 〈◊〉 Sâ—ter To all the Campanians And when the Pontificaâ— 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-Water (y) Epist 1. Alexander Sixtus about none but the Clergies touching Consecrated Vessels (z) Sixti Ep. 2. Telesphorus about keeping Lent Seven Weeks (a) Tâ—lesphâ—r Ep 1. Pius about keeping Easter upon Sunday (b) Pii Ep. 1. Anicetus about Shaving Priests Crowns (c) Aniceti Epist 1. Calixtus about four Ember Weeks (d) Calixti Epist 1. and so did other Popes whereas most of these Rites were setled long after and only prove these Epistles were forged by Isidore § 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
the Pope's Opinion but though there be many good Arguments for it from other Topics the Argument from Tradition and the determination of the Roman Church is not urged in the whole Discourse (m) Lab. p. 770. which shews that these were no Arguments allowed in this Writers time Lastly whereas the third Council of Carthage severely censures Pope Stephen for taking upon him as Bishop of Bishops and for compelling his Equals by Tyrannical Terrors to obey him (n) Lab. p. 786. Bin. pag. 149. col 2. p. 154. col 2. Binius impudently notes upon this that the Pope was called Bishop of Bishops to him was the last Refuge in Matters of Faith and his Determinations were received all the World over as the Oracles of the Holy Ghost Which is from his Usurping a Title and Authority to infer he had Right to them and to prove that all the World received his Determinations from a Story which shews that half the Christian World rejected them § 5. The Life of Sixtus the Second in the Pontifical is one heap of Errors for the Author seems to mistake him for Xystus the Philosopher and as the Notes confess make Decius raise a great Persecution against the Church Eight year after he was Dead He also places Valerian before Decius supposing them to Reign together and saying Sixtus was Beheaded by Valerian in Decius's time (o) Lab. p. 819. Bin. pag. 155. col 1. now Decius was slain two year before Valerian was Emperor Yet the Notes labour to colour over all these Contradictions to Salve the Credit of their Missals and Fabulous Martyrology Dionysius the next Pope is said to have been a Monk upon the credit of the Pontifical (p) 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 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 (q) Lab. p. 830. Bin. pag. 160. col 1. But we must never trust their Quotations where the Supremacy is concerned without looking into the Authors they cite And Athanasius only saith Dionysius of Alexandria was accused at Rome and writ to the Pope to know the Articles complained of who sent him an Account upon which he vindicated himself by an Apology But what is all this to a Roman Council or a citing Dionysius thither There were also two Councils at Antioch about this time as Eusebius tells us (r) Euseb hist lib. 7. cap. 22. But the Editors of their own Head put in that the first of them was appointed by Dionysius Bishop of Rome to whom the chief care of the Church was committed Whereas Eusebius never mentions this Pope as being either concerned in the Council or consulted about it but if they will have it under Dionysius then we may infer that this Pope approved a saying of this Council viz. That they knew of no other Mediator between God and Man but only Christ Jesus The Second Council of Antioch is intituled also Under Pope Dionysius Yet it appears by Eusebius (s) 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 time so much despised the Popes Authority and Infallibility is by this Council called a Man of blessed Memory By which we see how little any Ancient and genuine Councils do countenance the Supremacy of the Roman Church and what need they had to forge Evidence who would have it taken for a Primitive Doctrine § 6. That Foelix the First was a Martyr is proved only by the Pontifical and the Roman Martyrology which often blindly follows it but why may not the Pontifical be mistaken in the Martyrdom as well as the Notes confess it to be in the Consuls (t) Lab. p. 903. Bin. pag. 163. col 1. And the base Partiality of the Notes appears soon after in citing a place of S. Cyprian as if he desired to know the Days on which the Martyrs suffered that he might offer a Sacrifice for them by Names on their Anniversaries (u) 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 Months (w) Euseb hist lib. 7. cap. 26. The Pontifical allows him thirteen Months but the Notes boldly say he was Pope Eight years (x) Lab. p. 913. Bin. pag. 167. col 2. and this only upon the Names of two Consuls set down in the Pontifical and the credit of the Roman Martyrology but since these two are scarce ever right in their Chronology we ought to believe Eusebius rather than the Annotator and his despicable Witnesses His Successor Gaius lived in Eusebius's own time and he affirms he sat Fifteen years (y) Euseb hist lib. 7. cap. 26. but the Pontifical allots to him Eleven years only and so doth the Breviary (z) Brev. Roman April 22. both of them making him Dioclesian's Kinsman which Eusebius knew nothing of The Notes out of Baronius contradict them all and ascribe to him Twelve years 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
to be Forgeries (h) Bin. Not. in Epist Foel p. 499 Not. in Ep. Julii pag. 385. He falsly saith Dioscorus was Condemned at Chalcedon only for holding a Synod without the Pope's Consent whereas he is known to have been accused of many other Crimes His Text of 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 been That he was so taken up with State Affairs that he had no leisure to enquire into those matters (i) Niceph. lib. 2. cap. 3. Whitak de Concil pag. 51. Wherefore after all this elaborate Sophistry to justifie a false Assertion of a Forged Epistle the Annotator hath only shewed his partiality for the Pope's Power but made no proof of it The second Epistle of this Marcellus to the Tyrant Maxentius is also a manifest Forgery (k) Lab. p. 951. Bin. pag. 387. col 1. part of it is taken out of his Successor Gregory's Epistles writ almost Three hundred years after this and it is highly improbable That a persecuted Pope should falsly as well as ridiculously to a Pagan Emperor quote the Laws of the Apostles and their Successors forbidding to persecute the Church and Clergy and also instruct him about the Roman Churches power in Calling Synods and Receiving Appeals and cite Clement's Forged Epistle as an Authority to Maxentius That Lay-men must not accuse Bishops The Notes indeed are unwilling to lose such precious Evidence and so pretend That Maxentius at this time dissembled himself to be a Christian but this Sham can signifie nothing to such as read the Epistle where Marcellus complains That he then persecuted him most unjustly and therefore he did not pretend to be a Christian at that time and consequently the whole Epistle is an absurd Forgery And so is that Decree subjoyned to it which supposes young Children offered to Monasteries and Shaved or Veiled there Customs which came up divers Centuries after this § 2. The Canons of Peter Bishop of Alexandria (l) 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 Title (m) Lab. p. 967. E Bin. pag. 191. col 1. and justly for if there were such a Pope the Council takes no notice of him nor is it likely that Rome did know of this Council till many years after Yet it is both Ancient and Authentic though Mendoza in Labbé (n) Lab. p. 1030. reckons up divers Catholic Authors Caranza Canus Baronius c. who either wholly reject it or deny the 34th 35th 36th and 40th Canons of it which condemn the Opinions now held at Rome And though Binius because Pope Innocent approves it dare not reject it yet he publishes Notes to make the Reader believe it doth not condemn any of their Opinions or Practices The 13th Canon speaks of Virgins who dedicated themselves to God but mentions not their being Veiled or Living in Monasteries which Customs came in long after as the Authors cited in the Notes shew (o) Lab. p. 983. D Bin. pag 200. col 1. The 26th Canon calls it an Error to Fast upon Saturday But the Notes are so bold as to say The Error which this Council corrected was the not Fasting on Saturday whereas even these very Notes confess That the Eastern Churches and most of the Western Rome and some few others excepted together with the African Church did not Fast on Saturday but Wednesday yea those they Call the Apostolical Canons and Clement's Constitutions do both establish Wednesday Fast and condemn their pretended Apostolical Churches Saturday Fast and if divers in Spain as the Notes say in S. Hierom's and Pope Innocent's times did not Fast on Saturday and others then needed Arguments to settle them in this Roman practice It may be gathered from thence that in the time of this Council the Saturday Fast was esteemed an Error as it was also in that Age almost in all Christian Churches and so the very Words of the Canon import which Baronius saw and therefore (p) Baron Annal An. 305. §. 49. only saith There is mention of the Saturday Fast in this Synod and so passes it knowing it plainly contradicted the Roman Churches Tradition The 34th Canon under pain of Excommunication forbids the lighting Wax Candles in the places where the Martyrs were Buried q (p) Lab. p. 985. E Bin. pag. 201. col 1. which agrees with the Sentiments of the Primitive Church (r) Dailé de cultu Lat. lib. 2. chap. 15. Lactantius condemns Lighting Candles in God's Worship by day as a Paganish Superstition (s) Lactant. 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 Knowledge (t) Hieron ad Ripar ep 53. Yet the Notes confess this is the Custom of the Roman Church for which only cause some of their Doctors reject this Canon since nothing must be Authentic which condemns their Novel Superstitions and these Notes make a miserable Blunder to excuse the matter but we are not concerned whether with the Annotator these Candles in the Day-light disturb the Spirits of the Living Saints by seeing an Heathenish Rite brought into the Church or with Baronius displease the Saints Deceased to behold so Superstitious a thing vainly devised for their honour Since it sufficiently appears the practice is novel and absurd and though now used at Rome condemned by the best Antiquity The Notes also give us one extraordinary distinction (u) Bin. Not. in 34 35 Can. p. 201. col 2. between the Souls of deceased Saints in Heaven and those in Purgatory which latter sort if they had been Saints one would think should need no such dreadful Scouring The 36th Canon determines That Pictures ought not to be in Churches and that none may Paint upon Walls that wich is worshiped (w) 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
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 (u) Lab. p. 742. Bin. pag. 466. col 1 2. to save their Churches Infallibility we have two Popes at once falling so notoriously into the Arian Heresie that the Lay-people disowned their Communion This is more than suspicion of Heresie in S. Peter's Chair and proves that their infallible Guides for some years were Arian Heretics For this Liberius divers Epistles are published with a Preface before them which saith Two of them were feigned by the Arians (w) Lab. p. 744. Bin. pag. 467. col 1. yet these two are found in the 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 (x) Lâ—b p. 755 Bin. pâ—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 (y) 〈◊〉 p 744. 〈◊〉 pâ—g 4â—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 (z) Lab. p. 751. â—in pag. 469. col 2. So in the XIth Epistle which is certainly genuine and recorded by Socrates (a) 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 dâ—ceived and erring in Matters of Faith which spoils their Infallibilit (b) 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 XIVth Epistle which is writ to all Bishops is manifestly forged (c) Ep. 14. Lab. pag. 760. Ep. 12. Bin. pag. 472. col 2. And so are the two next from Liberius to Athanasius and from Athanasius to Liberius as both Labbé and Binius confess (d) Lab. p. 763. Bin. in Notis pag. 474. col 2. yet in one of these the Pope brags of his Authority over the Universal Church But the Forger was so bad at Chronology that while he strives to make this Pope look like an Orthodox Friend of Athanasius he absurdly brings him in even under Julian or Valens in one of whose Reigns this Epistle was written threatning Offenders with the Emperours Indignation with Deprivation yea with Proscription Banishment and Stripes (e) Lab. p. 767. Bin. pag. 474. col 2. I need not mention those Decrees which are attributed to Liberius whose Style betrays them and shews they belong to the later Ages and are placed here by the Collectors only to make them seem more ancient than really they are In Liberius's first year it is said There was a Council called at Rome by this Pope to clear Athanasius (f) Lab. 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 Aquilâ—â—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 (g) Lab p. â—â—2 Bin. pag 476. col 1. But herein they grosly falsifie for Sozomen declares That Constantius summâ—ned all the Bishops to Milan (h) Sâ—â—â—m lib. 4 cap. 8. Socrat. lib. 2. cap. 29. and Barenius saith The Emperour called them together (i) 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 cause of his absence Again the Notes do very falsly suppose That Foelix though chosen by the Arians was a Catholic Pope (k) Lab. p. 773. For he was Ordained by three Arian Bishops at Milan as Athanasius declares (l) Athanas 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 'T is 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 (m) 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 (n) 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 § 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 pretend (o) Lab. p. 783. Bin. pag. 479. col 2. For out of his Banishment he writ to the Eastern Bishops assuring them he had condemned Athanasius and would communicate with them in their form of Faith and therefore he desired them to intercede for his release and restitution to his Bishopric The ambition of regaining which great place was the cause of his Fall (p) Baron An. 357. §. 33 34 35. as Baronius confesseth and though that Author had produced divers Ancient Writers expresly testifying That he subscribed Heresie (q) Baron ibid. §. 32. Yet a little after he again denies that Liberius was an Heretic pretending that he only sign'd the first Confession of Sirmium which was not downright Heresie (r) Id. ibid. § 37. Though elsewhere he saith Athanasius rejected all these Arian Forms which wanted Consubstantial as Heretical (s) Baron An. 359. §. 10. and declares that the Catholic People of Rome esteemed Liberius to be an Heretic and would not have Communion with him for which he cruelly persecuted them Nay he brags of it as a singular Providence that Foelix who was a Schismatical Pope in his Exile upon Liberius's Fall suddenly became a Catholic and a lawful Pope which still supposes Liberius was an Heretic as doth also Baronius his Fiction of Liberius's speedy Repentance and Foelix his dying soon after his Adversaries return to Rome For the Writers of that Age say Foelix lived eight years after (t) Marcelin ad Faust Hieron Chronic. and for Liberius his Repentance though many Authors expresly speak of his falling into Heresie none are very clear in his returning or however none suppose it to be so long before his Death as Baronius doth whose design in this History is not to serve Truth but to clear S. Peter's Chair from the imputation of Heresie and therefore he makes this out chiefly by Conjectures (u) Baron An. 357. §. 59. ad §. 63. The testimonies of Damasus and Siricius being parties and partial for the honour of their own See are no good Evidence if they did speak of his early Repentance but Damasus only 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 Rome (w) Sozom. lib. 4. cap. 17. that is there were then two Factions there one of which and probably that of Liberius did agree to these Decrees the other rejected them Baronius adds to the Bishops Letter these Decrees created Factions because the Pope of Rome opposed them But this will not clear Liberius since both Factions were headed by a Pope Baronius goes on to tell us that Sozomen affirms Liberius was turned out of his Church for not consenting to the Faith at Ariminum (x) Id. 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 Valens (y) Socrat. lib. 4. cap. 11. but this was Nine years after his return and not long before his Death yet then Liberius was imposed on in Matters of Faith by these Bishops whom he calls Orthodox for they were still Heretical and did not heartily agree to the Nicene Faith so that his Infallibility was deceived And though S. Ambrose call Liberius Of happy Memory where he cites a Sermon of his that is a Phrase which the Primitive Charity used of some Men not altogether Orthodox Vid. Baron Andal An 362. pag. 58. An. 371. p. 246. But it is a great prejudice 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 agree (z) Sulpic. Sever. histor lib. 2. so that it seems there may be A General approved Council as they style this (a) Lab. p. 792. Bin. pag. 482. col 1. which the Pope doth not call Moreover the Emperour in his first Epistle orders the Bishops to send him their Decrees that he might confirm them (b) Lab. p. 794. Bin. pag. 482. col 2. and though Baronius saith this was done like an Heretical Emperour yet the Orthodox Bishops observed his Order and call it Obeying the Command of God and his Pious Edict (c) 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 (d) Theod. lib. 2. cap. 19. Sozom. lib. 4 cap. 17. collat cum Baron An. 350. §. 7. yet 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 (e) 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 Liberius (f) Lab. p. 809. Bin. pag. 487. col 1. Baron An. 362. Pag. 73. and to make out the notorious Fiction of this Popes calling this Orthodox Council even while he was an Arian the Notes affirm Eusebius Bishop of Vercelles and Lucifer Calaritanus as the Popes Legates were present at it which they take out of Baronius who had before told us That 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 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 't is 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 (g) Baron An. 362. Tom. IV. p. 66. And Pope Liberius had no hand in it About this time there were divers Councils called in France by S. Hilary Bishop of Poictiers and the Catholic Faith was setled in them one of which was held at Paris and the Synodical Epistle is extant (h) Lab. p. 821. Bin pag. 490. col 1. yet the Pope is never named in it Nor yet in that Orthodox Synod at Alexandria wherein Athanasius and his Suffragan Bishops presented a Confession of their Faith to Jovian then newly made Emperour (i) Lab. p. 823. Bin. pag. 490. col 2. which shews that Liberius either was an Heretic at this time or else that he was very inconsiderable So that it is a strange Arrogance in the Editors to say that the Second Council at Antioch was under Liberius (k) 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 (l) Sozâ—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 Catholics (m) Socrat. hist lib. 4. cap. 11. Whence we may note First That the Eastern Bishop's Letter styles the Pope no more but Collegue and Brother Secondly That Liberius calls himself only Bishop of Italy Liberius Ep. Italiae alii Occidentis Episcopi But Baronius alters the Pointing Liberius Episcopus Italiae alii c. by that Trick hoping to conceal this mean Title (n) Ep. 11. Liberti ap Bin. p. 472.
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 (q) 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 the Eastern and Western Empire and he makes a Law to suppress all Heresies and to take away the use of Churches from all such as were not in Communion with Damasus Bishop of Rome and Peter of Alexandria (r) Sozom. lib. â— cap. 4. Socrat lib. 5. cap. 2. Theodoret indeed who as Baronius owns is much mistaken in his relating this matter s Theod. lib. 5. cap. 2. Baron An. 378. pag. 339. names only Damasus in his report of this Law and Bâ—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 extant (t) God. 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 Antiâ—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 (u) 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 Death (w) Socrat. 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 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 (m) 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 East (n) Lab. p. 967. Bin. pag. 541. col 2. As for Damasus Baronius cannot prove he was concerned in it but by we think and we may believe (o) Baron An. 380 p 359. An. 381. p. 368. yet he elsewhere boldly says Damasus gave it Supreme Authority (p) 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 (q) Lab. p. 972. Bin. pag. 543. col 2. But if these words 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 Chalcâ—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 (r) 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 thâ—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
of Nicomedia 's Letters were received by Julius after his death Baronius thus enlarges it Eusebius who had fled from the Judgment of the Roman Church was forced against his Will being dead as Socrates saith to come to the strict Tribunal of God Vid. Socrat. lib. 2. cap. 13. Baron An. 342. §. 43. Where Athanasius saith I went up to Rome that I might visit the Church and the Bishop Baronius ridiculously infers that when we find the Ancients speaking of THE Church and THE Bishop they mean the Roman Church and that Bishop of whom and in whom and by whom are all other Bishops An. 349. §. 6. Which Note is forced upon this place for here Rome is named in the same Sentence with the Church and the Bishop and so it must be understood of the Pope but without any advantage to him more than it would have been to the Bishop of Eugubium to say I went to Eugubium and visited the Church and the Bishop Again S. Hierom saith expresly that Acacius substituted Foelix an Arian to be Bishop of Rome in Liberius his stead Here Baronius pretends some Copies leave out the word Arian and so he reads it Substituted Foelix to be Bishop of Rome An. 355. §. 51. and because some such Parasites of Rome as himself who would not endure that ingrateful Truth of a Pope's being an Heretic had left out this word He boldly asserts it for the true Reading whereas not only Socrates expresly saith He was an Arian in Opinion but Hierom himself in his Chronicle affirms that Foelix was put in by the Arians and it is not like they would have put him in if he had not been of their party The Greek of Sozomen is no more but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but Baronius improves this by a flattering Paraphrase in these words Lest the Seat of Peter should be bespattered with any spot of Infamy An. 357. §. 43. But it is a bolder falsification of S. Chrysostom where he saith in one of his Sermons on a day celebrated in memory of two Martyrs Juventius and Maximus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to pervert this by his Latin Version thus The Martyrs which we this day worship whereas Chrysostom only saith The Martyrs which occasion us to meet this day Chrysost Tom. V. p. 534. Baron An. 362. pag. 48. Epiphanius expresly condemns those as Heretics who worship the Blessed Virgin and saith No man may adore Mary Baronius will not cite this place at large but adds to it these Words she is not to be worshiped as a God Which Falsification of the Father is designed to excuse their Churches Idolatrous worship of the Virgin Mary Epiphan haeres 79. Baron An. 373. p. 309. The restitution of Peter Bishop of Alexandria is by S. Hierom whom he cites with applause ascribed to the late Repentance of the Emperour Valens who recalled now at last the Orthodox from Banishment and Socrates only mentions Damasus's Letters which Peter took with him approving both his Creation and the Nicene Faith Yet he from hence notes the Supreme Power of the Pope by whose order the Bishop of Alexandria was restored to his Church in contempt of Valens his Authority and when he returned with the Popes Authority the People placed him in his Seat Socrat. lib. 4. cap. 30. Baron An. 377. pag. 325. Yea after this he pretends to cite Socrates as if he said Peter was received being restored by Damasus Id. An. 378. pag. 335. yet Damasus did no more in all this matter than barely to testifie that Peter was an Orthodox Bishop and that he believed him duly elected which is all that Socrates saith and which if any eminent Orthodox Bishops had testified it would equally have served the Bishop of Alexandria's Cause To conclude Baronius owns Paulinus to have been a credulous Man and very unskilful in Ecclesiastical History Baron Tom. V. An. 395. p. 15. yet thinking he had not spoken enough when he relates That a Church was adorned with Pictures he stretches this into Adorned with Sacred Images Id. An. 394. pag. 612. From all which Instances we may infer That the Cardinal would not stick at misquoting and misrepresenting his Authors when it might serve the Roman Interest § 3. Of this kind also we may reckon his crafty suppressing such Authorities in whole or in part as seem to cross the Opinions and Practices of their Church His leaving out a passage in Optatus wherein that Father makes the being in Communion with the Seven Churches of Asia a Note of a true Catholic was noted before Vid. supra §. 2. Baron An. 321. §. 5. And we may give many such like Instances Sozomen relates an Imperial Law wherein those are declared Heretics who do not hold the Faith which Damasus Bishop of Rome and Peter of Alexandria then held Sozom. lib. 7. cap. 4. p. 415. but the fraudulent Annalist leaves out Peter of Alexandria and mentions only Damasus as the sole standard of Catholic Faith Baron An. 378. pag. 339. When S. Hierom saith His Adversaries condemned him with Damasus and Peter Baronius bids us observe with what reverence the Pope's Enemies treated him for though they accused S. Hierom of Heresie yet against Damasus they durst not open their Mouth Baron An. 378. pag. 347. whereas S. Hierom protected himself by the Authority of the Bishop of Alexandria as well as by that of the Pope Again after a crafty Device to hide the evident Testimony which Gregory Nyssen gives against going in Pilgrimage to Jerusalem He slightly mentions an Epistle of S. Hierom which excellently confutes that then growing Superstition telling us That the Court of Heaven is as open from Britain as from Jerusalem Which remarkable Sentence and all the other learned Arguments of that Epistle he omits by design Hieron Ep. 13. Tom. l. p. 120. Baron An. 386. p. 454 455. though if it had countenanced this Superstition we should have had it cited at large In like manner afterwards when he had another fair occasion to cite this same Epistle which doth so effectually condemn Pilgrimages he will not quote one word out of it but barely mentions it and runs out into the Enquiry what time it was writ Baron An. 394. p. 613. I have given many more Instances of these fraudulent Concealments in my Discourse of Councils and therefore shall add no more here but only this That whoever reads Baronius's Annals hears no more generally than the Evidence of one side and that too enlarged if it be never so slight and commended if it be never so spurious but whatever makes against the Roman Church is depreciated and perverted or else clapt under Hatches and kept out of sight Of which we have an Instance in Eusebius who because he will not justifie their Forgeries about Constantine's Baptism and Donation though he be the best of all the Ecclesiastical Historians is never cited but with Reproaches and Calumnies Annal. 324. §. 143 144 152. An.