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 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 Rome as to the place agreed on by both sides for Arbitrating this matter and the other party so little valued the Pope's decision in his favour that they would neither restore Athanasius nor receive him into Communion upon it which made Julius complain to the Emperour Constans who writ to his Brother Constantius about it but that Letter did not produce this Council as the Preface fully sets out but only procured a fruitless Embassy of three Eastern Bishops to Rome It was the personal Addresses of Athanasius and Paulus Bishop of Constantinople to Constans when they found the Pope had no power to restore them which caused both the Emperours to give order for this Council to meet as Sozomen Socrates and Theodoret affirm And the Bishops in their Epistle do expresly say They were called together by the most Religious Emperours But Baronius fraudulently leaves out this beginning of the Bishops Letter 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 'T is true Socrates saith Some absent Bishops complained of the shortness of time and blamed Julius for it 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 That is Osius as an ancient Confessor and Protogenes as Bishop of Sardic where the Council was held but as for Archidamus and Philoxenus they are not in the Latin Copies of the Subscribers And Athanasius only saith Julius subscribed by these two Presbyters which shews that Hosius was not the Popes Legate for he subscribed in his own name and that these Presbyters who were his Legates were not Presidents of the Council Thirdly They magnifie the number of Bishops also in this Synod to make it look like a General Council where accounts differ they take the largest and falsly cite Athanasius as if he said it consisted of 376 Bishops and so exceeded the first Council of Nice Whereas Athanasius expresly reckons only 170 who met at the City of Sardica and when many of the Eastern Bishops withdrew there were not one hundred left to pass the Decrees of this Council 'T is true Athanasius affirms that 344 Bishops signed the Decree to restore him but many of these hands were got from Orthodox Bishops who were not at the Council So that this was never counted or called a General Council by any but these partial Romanists for though the Emperour seem to have designed it General at first yet so few came to it and they who came agreed so ill the Eastern Bishops generally forsaking it that it is called frequently A Council of the Western Church and so Epiphanius in Baronius describes it Fourthly The little regard paid to its Canons afterwards shews it was no General Council Richerius a moderate and learned Romanist proves That this Council was not extant in Greek in the time of Dionysius Exiguus so that he and Pope Leo the 4th reckon it after all the Councils of Note The Greeks received not its Canons into their Code and Pope Nicholas Epistle shows that the Eastern Church did not value its Authority only the Popes esteemed it because it seems to advance their power 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 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 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 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
owns is much mistaken in his relating this matter names only Damasus in his report of this Law and Baronius cites the Law out of him meerly to make it seem as if Damasus were made the sole Standard of Catholic Communion though the Original Law still extant and all other Historians name Peter of Alexandria as equal with Damasus perhaps the Reader may wonder there is no other Patriarch named in this Law but it must be observed that Anticch at this time had two Orthodox Bishops who separated from each other Meletius and Paulinus to make up which unhappy Schism there was a Synod this year held at Antioch under Damasus 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 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 whom Gratian had taken for his Paitner in the Empire and assigned him for his share the Eastern Provinces where this pious Prince finding great differences in Religion he Convened this Council to confirm the Nicene Faith to fettle Ecclesiastical Matters and to determine the Affairs of the See of Constantinople This Council the Editors introduce with a Preface or general History and conclude it with partial and false Notes hoâ—ing to perswade the World that it was both called and confirmed by the Pope For which end we read in the Preface That Theodosius made a Law for all to follow the Faith which the Apostle Peter delivered to the Romans and which Pope Damasus preached which shews as if the Pope were the sole preserver of the Faith whereas the Law it self truly cited runs thus which Pope Damasus and Peter Bishop of Alexandria a man of Apostolical Sanctity are known to follow And in another Law of the same Emperours next year those are declared to be Catholics and capable of Benefices who were in Communion with the Bishops of Constantinople Alexandria Laodicea Tarsus and Iconium and in that Law neither Damasus nor Rome are mentioned which shews it was not the peculiar priviledge of any See for its Bishop to be made the standard of Catholic Communion but the known Orthodox Opinion of that Bishop who sat in this or that eminent Church The rest of the Forgeries in this Council will best appear by considering First By whom this Council was called Secondly By whom it was confirmed Thirdly What Authority hath been aseribed to it And Fourthly Whether the Canons and Creed ascribed to it be Authentic First As to the Calling this Council Baronius had twice guessed but never proved that Damasus moved Theodâ—sius to call it this the Preface improves and saith It was called by the Emperour not without Damasus his Authority and the Title before the Notes advance it still gathered say they by the Authority of Pope Damasus and the favour of Theodosius But when this is to be proved their Evidence is pretended Monuments in the Vatican that Shop of Forgeries the testimony of later Popes in their own cause and some very remote Conjectures and fraudulent Inferences Yet at last they aâ—firm That none but a pertinacicus Heretic will aâ—â—irm that this Pious Emperour who was most observant of the Sacred Canons would call this Synod By which bold Censure they condemn not only all the ancient Historians but all the Fathers here assembled for pertinacious Heretics For the Councils Letter to Theodosius saith We were called together by your Epistle and when they were to have met at Rome they aâ—â—irm That Damasus summoned them to meet there by the Emperours Letters Sâ—crates also and Sozomen expresly say The Emperour called this Synod at Constantinople Theodoret also doth aâ—â—irm the same though the Notes strive to pervert his words But Richerius a Learned Romanist hath fully cleared this Point and shewed that Theodosius called this General Council by his sole Authority And the Acts of the sixth General Council with Photius cited falsly in these Notes do only import that the Pope gave a subsequent consent to it which is no proof that he was concerned in calling it Secondly As to the confirming it the Preface and the Notes considently aver That they sent their Acts to Damasus to be approved and he did confirm them yet they tell us that Pope Gregory above 200 year after declared That the Church of Rome as yet neither had nor received the Acts of this Council I know they would shuffle oâ—f this Contradiction by pretending that Damasus confirmed only the Matters of Faith not the Canons But first Gregory denies their having the Acts of this Council and the Acts contain Matters of Faith as well as Canons Secondly they can not shew any proof that Damasus made any distinction If he confirmed any thing it was all for if subsequent consent be confirmation then he consented to all and confirmed all that was done here But in our Sense of giving an Authentic Character to this Councils Decrees Theodosius alone confirmed them for the Bishops desire him by his Picus Edict to confirm the Decrees of this Synod And they writ not to Damasus till the year after the Synod and their Letter was directed not to him alone but to Ambrose and other Western Bishops with him nor do they in it desire any confirmation from him or any of them but say That they and all others ought to approve of their Faith and rejoyce with them for 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 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 As for Damasus Baronius cannot prove he was concerned in it but by we think and we may
Pope Eusebius but makes Melchiades immediate Successor to Marcellinus It is very observable that these two unknown Popes in the Notes on their Lives are said to have sat Seven years between them And the Pontifical saith There was a Vacancy of Seven years after Marcellinus which Vacancy is also asserted by Anastasius Biblioth by Luitprandus Abbo Floriacens Cusanus and Genebrard 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 Oâ—tatus and S. Augustine two Latin Fathers while the Greek Authors which these Forgers Understood not do continue Uncorrupted And truly nothing but the Names of these two Popes remain for no good Historian mentions any one Eminent Act done by either of them however the Annotator had rather fill up his Scene with empty Names of Feigned Popes who did nothing for Seven years together than let the Reader suppose the Catholic Church could so long want 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 Which Fiction the Roman Breviary orders to be read to the Credulous People of that Communion for Lessions and tells them That Marcellus writ an Epistle to the Bishops of the Antiochian Province about the Roman Primacy and to prove Rome to be the Head of All Churches and that no Synod should be held without the Pope's Authority But this Epistle is owned by Labbé to be a Forgery patched up out of divers Modern Authors citing the Vulgar Latin Version and dated after Marcellus his death And it is very strage That times of Persecution should be a proper Season for a Pope to wrangle for his Supremacy Yet this Notorious Forgery saith Christ ordered S. Peter to Translate his Seat from Antioch to Rome and that the Apostles by Inspiration decreed That all Appeals should be made thither and no Council held but by the Authority of the Roman Church For which cause Binius vindicates it with Notes as full of Falsehood as the Epistle it self His first Note of this Epistle being writ to one Solomon a Bishop is an oversight and belongs to the first Epistle of Pope Marcellâ—nus His next Notes about the Primacy and Power of Calling Synods cite an Apostolical and Nicene Canon for it but no such Canons are to be found He quotes also two Epistles one writ to Pope Foelix from Alexandria another writ by Pope Julius to the Eastern Churches for proof of this Supremacy and the same Annotator afterwards owns them both to be Forgeries He falsly saith Dioscorus was Condemned at Chalcedon only for holding a Synod without the Pope's Consent whereas he is known to have been accused of many other Crimes His Text of Fasce oves is nothing to this purpose nor will Pope Pelagius his Word be taken in his own Cause His Story of Valentinian makes nothing for the Pope more than any other Bishop Yea the Bishops desiring him to call a Council shews They thought it was His Prerogative and Nicephorus relates his Answer to have been That he was so taken up with State Affairs that he had no leisure to enquire into those matters 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 part of it is taken out of his Successor Gregory's Epistles writ almost Three hundred years after this and it is highly improbable That a persecuted Pope should falsly as well as ridiculously to a Pagan Emperor quote the Laws of the Apostles and their Successors forbidding to persecute the Church and Clergy and also instruct him about the Roman Churches power in Calling Synods and Receiving Appeals and cite Clement's Forged Epistle as an Authority to Maxentius That Lay-men must not accuse Bishops The Notes indeed are unwilling to lose such precious Evidence and so pretend That Maxentius at this time dissembled himself to be a Christian but this Sham can signifie nothing to such as read the Epistle where Marcellus complains That he then persecuted him most unjustly and therefore he did not pretend to be a Christian at that time and consequently the whole Epistle is an absurd Forgery And so is that Decree subjoyned to it which supposes young Children offered to Monasteries and Shaved or Veiled there Customs which came up divers Centuries after this § 2. The Canons of Peter Bishops of Alexandria 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 is by Binius placed under Pope Marcellus which Words Labbé leaves out of the Title 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 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 The 26th Canon calls it an Error to
this Council was called by Sylvester and Constantine But they quote falsly for that Sixth Synod puts the Emperor's Name first and though they are no Evidence against Authors living in the time of the Niâ—ene Council yet even this shews they thought the Emperor's Authority was chiefest in this Matter The Notes also cite the Pontifical which they have so often rejected as Fabulous and Sozomen as if they said the same thing But for Sozomen he never names Sylvester but saith Pope Julius was absent by reason of his great Age and the Pontifical only saith It was called by the Consent of Sylvester not by his Authority and indeed it was called by the consent of all Orthodox Bishops Wherefore there is no good Evidence that the Pope did call it But on the other side All the Ecclesiastical Historians do agree That Constantine Convened it by his own Authority and sent his Letters to Command the Bishops to meet at Nice and not one of them mentions Sylvester as having any hand in this Matter Yea to put us out of all doubt the very Council of Nice it self in their Synodal Epistle writ to Alexandria and extant in these very Editors expresly declares That they were Convened by Constantine's Command Which clear and convincing Proofs shew the Impudence as well as the Falshood of the Annalist and Annotator to talk so confidently of the Pope's Authority in this Matter who if he had as they pretend Convened this Council should have summoned more Western Bishops of which there were so few in this Council that it is plain Either Sylvester did not Summon them or they did not obey his Summons Secondly As to the President of this Council and the Order of Sitting in it and Subscribing to it The Preface and Notes falsly affirm That Hosius Vitus and Vincentius were all three the Pope's Legates and Presidents of this Council and vainly think if it had not been so it could not have been a General Council But if this be necessary to the Being of a General Council surely there is some good Evidence of it Quite contrary The Preface to the Sardican Council is of the Editors or their Friends making and so is no Proof Athanasius saith Hosius was a Prince in the Synods but not that he was President of this Synod or the Pope's Legate Cedrenus and Photius are too late Authors to out-weigh more Ancient and Authentic Writers yet they do not say as the Notes pretend That Sylvester by his Legates gave Authority to this Council Yea Photius places the Bishop of Constantinople before Sylvester and Julius even when he is speaking of the Chief Bishops who met at Nice and he is grosly mistaken also because neither of the Popes did meet there Socrates only saith The Bishop of Rome ' s Presbyters were his Proxies and present at this Counoil 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 himself in the fourth place Though these Notes in citing Sozomen according to their usual sincerity place the Bishop of Rome first and all the other Patriarchs after him Finally They cite the Subscriptions to prove these Three were Legates and Presidents at Nice but Richerius a Learned Romanist saith These Subscriptions are of as little Credit as the Epistle to Sylvester and adds That the placing these Presbyters before the Bishops is a plain Proof That all these Subscriptions were invented in later Ages because the Pope's Legates never did precede any of the Patriarchs till the Council of Chalcedon As for Hosius he had been the Emperor's Legate long before and divers of the Ancients say He was very Eminent in this Council but not one of them affirms that Hosius was the Pope's Legate This is purely an Invention of Baronius but he only proves it by Conjectures 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 and the Notes at last own He sat in the Chief Place yea the Annalist confesseth He acted the part of a Moderator in it 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 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 Hence some and among the rest Pope Foelix in his Epistle to Zeno affirm He was President of this Council Others say The Bishop of Alexandria presided and indeed all the Patriarchs present Sat above all others of the Clergy 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 And Eusebius who was there saith that The Emperor ratified the Decrees with his Seal 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 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 and Labbe's Margin tells us they are Fictions nor dare Baronius own them to be genuine and though Binius cite them for evidence in his Notes yet at some distance he tells us it is evident they are both Corrupted and again he says if they were not both extreme faulty and Commentitious they might be Evidence in this case But Richerius is more Ingenuous and declares That these Epistles are prodigiously salse The Forger of them being so Ignorant as to call Macarius who was then Bishop
speak of him as having been once his Friend and report his Apostacy yet he never mentions his turning Catholic again Wherefore we conclude that all these Fictions and falsifying of Evidence and slight Conjectures in Baronius and the Notes are intended only to blind the Reader and hinder his finding out an Heretical Pope whose Fall is clear his continuance in his Heresie very probable and his Repentance if it be true came too late to save his Churches Infallibility though it might be soon enough to save his own Soul The Editors style the Council at Ariminum A General 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 so that it seems there may be A General approved Council as they style this 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 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 Wherefore this General Council was both called and confirmed by the Emperour Again Constantiâ—s in his Epistle declares It was unreasonable to determine any thing in a Western Council against the Fastern Bishops Whence it appears he knew nothing of the Western Patriarchs claiming an Universal Supremacy over all the Churches both of the East and West and for this Reason Baronius leaves this genuine Epistie recorded in S. Hilary's Fragments out of his Annals We have also noted before that though the Orthodox Bishops in this Council who must know the matter say That Constantine was Baptized after the Council at Nice and soon after his Baptism translated to his deserved Rest as the Ancient Historians read that Passage and the Sense of the place shews they could mean it of none but Constantine 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 but hath he not often asserted Foelix was a Catholic and if Cyril had thought fit might he not have appealed to him But it is plain by Socrates that Cyril meant to appeal to the Emperour and his Delegates as all injured Bishops in that Age had used to do § 25. Upon the restitution of Athanasius from his third Exile after the death of George the Arian Bishop he called a Council of Bishops at Alexandria for deciding some differences among the Catholics about the manner of explaining the Trinity and to agree on what terms Recanting Arians were to be received into the Church And though neither Athanasius nor any ancient Historian take any notice of the Pope in this eminent Action yet the Editors out of Baronius say It was called by the Advice and Authority of Liberius and to make out the notorious Fiction of this Popes calling this Orthodox Council even while he was an Arian the Notes affirm Eusebius Bishop of Vercelles and Lucifer Calaritanus as the Popes Legates were present at it which they take out of Baronius who had before told us That Lucifer Calaritanus was at that time at Antioch and sent two Deacons to Alexandria to subscribe for him yea this Synod writes their Synodical Letter to Eusebius 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 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 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 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 when the very Notes say it was called together by Meletius and observe that many Arian Bishops did there recant their Heresie a thing which a little before they pretended could be done no where but at Rome in the Popes Presence Upon Valentinian's advancement to the Empire the 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 The same Bishops also sent their Legates with Letters to the Western Bishops and
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 § 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 Council under Damasus who probably did preside in this Synod as all Bishops use to do in their own Cities but he did not call this Council for S. Hierom expresly saith The Emperours Letters called these Bishops to Rome And the Synodical Letter of the Constantinopolitan Fathers tell us That Damasus desired Theodosius to write to them also of the East to come to Rome Which shews that Damasus could not summon them by his own Authority but the Editors and Baronius out of a false Latin Version of Theodoret have put in the word Mandato which word is not in the Greek nor any thing answering to it and it was foisted in on purpose to perswade such as did not read the Original that the Pope had commanded the Eastern Bishops to come to Rome Again though the Notes confess the Acts of this Roman Council are lost so that it doth not appear what was done there Yet soon after they produce a long Canon for the Popes Supremacy and the Precedence of the Patriarchs feigning it was made in this Synod But if the Canon be not a Vatican Forgery which is very much to be suspected however it is Antedated one hundred and twelve years as Labbé confesses in his Margen for he saith it was decreed under Pope Gelasius An. 494. 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 regarded Which also appears in the Case of Flavianus who as the Notes conjecture was in this Roman Synod deposed and Paulinus made Bishop of Antioch Yet still the greatest part of the World owned Flavianus for the true Bishop of that See and the Synod of Sides where Amphilocius Bishop of Iconium was President directed their Synodical Epistle to Plavianus as Patriarch of Antioch so that the Editors should not have styled that Council Under Damasus because they acted against his Mind And so did the Eastern Bishops who met again this year at Constantinople when the Pope had desired them to come to Rome and from this Meeting they writ that Synodical Epistle which the Editors here print over again and wherein they call Jerusalem The Mother of all Churches a Title now by Usurpation appropriated only to Rome § 29. Siricius succeeded Damasus but not without 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 nor could Siricius get the Chair but by a Rescript from the Emperour Valentinian which condemned Ursicinus and established Siricius 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 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 yea Baronius owns That Ruffinus when he was fallen into Origen's Heresie imposed on the Simplicity of this Pope and got Communicatory Letters of him 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 and this they prove out of Augustine's Confessions but the Fathers words are She only desired to be commemorated in the Offices when the Priest stood at the Altar Now there is a mighty difference between that ancient Custom of commemorating the Faithful departed which is allowed by the Church of England and the Popish way of offering Mass for the Souls of the Deceased a corruption of much later date than S. Augustine's time For this Pope are published divers Decretal Epistles which are the first that can pretend to be genuine and if they be really so it is plain that their Style is mean the Arguments trifling and the Scripture Proofs impertinent so that the Author was no Conjurer The first directed to Himerius is very severe against Marriage especially in the Clergy The Notes would perswade us It is not lawful Marriage which he calls Pollution as they say Calvin falsly affirms but if we read the Epistle he calls New Marriages that is the Marriage of such as had been Widows Pollution as well as those Marriages which were prohibited Again he foolishly attempts to prove Clergy-men ought not to Marry because S. Paul saith Those that are in the flesh cannot please God and though he confess it was usual for many Clergy-men to live with their Wives he calls that cohabitation the being polluted with carnal Concupiscence in his 4th Epistle So that he is justly taxed with speaking profanely of God's holy Ordinance and of contradicting S. Paul who excepted not the Clergy when he said Marriage is honourable in all men and the Bed undefiled Hebr. XIII 4. And probably it was the hot and bold discourses of Siricius and some other Writers of this time which provoked 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
And in the 6th 7th 8th and 9th Epistles he still advances this ill Man condemning Proculus Bishop of Marseilles and all others who opposed Patroclus in his most unjust usurpations and encroachments Yet Binius in his Notes confesseth that both his next Successors Boniface and Celestine did judge otherwise that is they took away this Primacy from Patroclus and censured him for his evil doings giving the Priviledges to Hilary Bishop of Narbon to whom of right they belonged So that here is Pope against Pope and Decretal against Decretal so odly do Causes go at Rome But by Zosimus his 11th and 12th Epistles it doth appear that the French Bishops despised the Popes Decrees and that Proculus went on in exercising his Primacy for all his being prohibited which looks not favourably on the Roman Supremacy As ill fortune had Pope Zosimus who was always on the wrong side in admitting the Appeal of Apiarius an African Priest who was excommunicated by Urban his own Bishop for most horrid Crimes which he afterwards confessed in an open Council as we shall shortly shew yet Zosimus thinking it for the honour of his See to have Appeals made to it from Foreign Parts admits this wicked Wretch to Communion commands the African Synod to receive him and threatens Vrban with an excommunication if he did not retract his Sentence But the African Fathers for all this went on to judge Apiarius as will be seen afterwards for Zosimus died before this Cause was ended I have deferred the consideration of Zosimus his 10th Epistle to the last place because it was the last he writ that is now extant in the Cause of Celestius and because it was writ to the Council of Carthage now assembled For the Pope after he had admitted Hereticks and evil Men to appeal to Rome was resolved to justifie the Fact and sent two Bishops Faustinus and Potentinus and two Priests Philip and Asellus his Legates into Africa with false Copies of the Nicene Canons to prove he ought to be appealed to in all Causes from all Provinces and probably by them or some little time before he sent this Tenth Epistle wherein he brags that Tradition and the Canons had given such great Authority to the Apostolical Seat that none might presume to question its Decrees with a great deal of such stuff about Christ's giving Peter the power to bind and loose and the Canons giving this to his Successor who was to have the care of all Churches and that since he held this place none might examine a Cause which he had determined c. Yet out of respect to the Africans he saith he had done nothing in the Cause of Celestius till they had deliberated about it and that this Cause was just in the same state as it lately was I relate this more at large because this unjust and ambitious Claim was the occasion of a famous Controversie that lasted many years after the death of Zosimus But as to the Letter the impertinency of it is very obvious for though he assume this Authority it is plain that St. Cyprian of old and the African Fathers afterward did not think it any presumption to confute the Decrees of Popes and to examine Causes which had been ill judged at Rome And in the Cause of Celestius whom Zosimus would not yet be induced to condemn the Council of Carthage as Prosper relates tell the Pope That they had resolved to confirm Pope Innocent ' s Sentence against him till he did openly confess the necessity of Grace And they went on with the judgment against Apiarius for all his Appeal to Rome and his being absolved there so that it is impudently done of the Roman Writers to go about to prove the Supremacy from a Popes evidence in his own Cause yea from a Claim which was denied and despised at the same time that it was made Another note I make on this Epistle is that it is dated but the 12th of the Ka. of April and Zosimus died in January following so that it is plain that he had not condemned Pelagius and Celestius nine Months before he died And though by those passages which Labbè hath published out of St. Augustine and Prosper it be certain he did censure this Heresie at last yet it could not be long before his death and therefore Zosimus was a manifest favourer of Hereticks almost all the time he was Pope and he may thank the African Fathers for his Repentance who though they were abused and injured by him hide as much as may be all his ill deeds in favour of Celestius and for the credit of Zosimus and the Catholick Cause only publish his latest Acts after he was by them convinced that Pelagianism was an Heresie But Celestius and his party openly exclaimed against Zosimus for a Turncoat The same year was that Council in Africa which the Editors intitle under Zosimus but really was against him For without regarding his suspending the Cause of Celestius they particularly condemned all the points of the Pelagian Heresie by Anathema's and order all Causes between Bishops to be tried in the Province where they arise and renew the Canon of Milevis that the Priests and inferior Clergy should be tried by their own Bishops and whoever should appeal to the parts beyond the Seas should not be received into Communion by any in Africa So that we see the African Church persisted in maintaining their Rights and condemning Appeals as they had very good reason considering the bold attempt of Zosimus to usurp a jurisdiction over them and his erroneous judging such Causes both of Faith and Manners as he had presumed to meddle in which hapning in other Provinces he broke the Canons of the ancient Councils by pretending to examine and decide them elsewhere forgetting that which Gratian had collected out of his own seventh Epistle and gives us here for Zosimus his Decree viz. That the Authority of the Roman See it self cannot make any new Order nor alter old ones against the Statutes of the Fathers So Gratian reads it and so Aeneas Sylvius cites it so also the Editors publish it here but some forging hand in the seventh Epistle hath put concedere instead of condere for fear this Sentence should take away from the Pope the power of making New Canons contrary to the Fathers Decrees a Priviledge of which Rome hath made more use than any Church in the World This Pope's time is concluded with a forged African Council at Telepte wherein it is pretended they only read the fourth Epistle of Siricius and thence the Notes and Baronius gather that the African Church shewed great respect to the See of Rome But first Labbè confessed before that this Epistle of Siricius was forged And Secondly the Story is ill timed for the African Church had never less reason to respect the Popes than now when they so manifestly robbed them both
be determined in that Province where it arose knowing that the Spirit of God would not be wanting to any Country where a Council of Bishops should meet so that none need fear to be injured since they might appeal to a greater Council of their own Province or to a Universal Synod Whereas if Judgment were to be given beyond the Seas many Witnesses must be wanting and many other things must hinder the finding out of truth They add That they could not find any Council which allowed his Holiness to send any Legates to hear Causes and for those Canons which Faustinus had produced as made at Nice they could find no such Canons in the Authentick Copies of that Council Finally They bid him not send any of his Clerks to execute his Sentence to which if they should submit they should seem to bring the vanity of Secular Arrogance into God's Church This is the Sum of this excellent Letter which disowns and condemns all Appeals and renounces the Popes jurisdiction over Africa with a modest intimation that his claim was grounded upon a notorious Forgery and therefore he is required to pretend to it no longer for that they will not submit to such an Usurpation Yet such is the Impudence of the Roman Editors that in a Marginal Note upon this Epistle they say these African Bishops desire the Pope to appoint another way of prosecuting Appeals Which is a gross contradicting the Text it self wherein all manner of Appeals and all ways of prosecuting them are utterly condemned but this was too harsh and therefore the Truth was to be daubed over with this plausible Fiction After this Binius presents us with another Edition of these African Canons and Epistles in Latin and Greek And Labbè newly publishes the Epistle of one Leporius who had been converted from Heresie and reconciled to the Church by the African Bishops by which we may learn that a Heretick need not go to Rome to recant as the Notes formerly affirmed There is nothing further observable before the Council of Ephesus except two Councils one at Rome wherein the Pope is said to make Cyril his Legate in the Cause of Nestorius the other at Alexandria in which Cyril is pretended to Act by this delegated power But this will be more properly considered in the History of that General Council where these Epistles are printed at large CHAP. II. Of the time from the Council of Ephesus till the Council of Chalcedon § 1. IN this Year was held the Third General Council at Ephesus upon the account of Nestorius who about three years before had been made Bishop of Constantinople and was at first believed to be both Pious and Orthodox but he had not sat long in that See before he began to publish certain Doctrines about our Saviour which gave great offence for he taught that Jesus Christ was two Persons one as the Son of God another as the Son of Man and therefore he denied the Blessed Virgin to be the Mother of God holding that the Person which was born of her was no more than a Meer Man Which Opinions not only made a Faction at Constantinople but caused Divisions among the Egyptian Monks whereupon St. Cyril first writ a Confutation of them to those Monks and then with great modesty admonished Nestorius of these Errors by divers Letters but he despised his Admonition justified the Doctrines and persecuted those who would not own them being supported by his Interest in the Imperial Court. Upon this Cyril called in Pope Celestine to his assistance sending him an account of what he had writ to Nestorius On the other side Nestorius also writ to Celestrine and sent his Sermons in which these Doctrines were contained for him to peruse The Pope by the advice of such Western Bishops as he could then get together takes the part of Cyril and offered him to join with him in condemning Nestorius if he did not recant But the Authority of these two Patriarchs of Rome and Alexandria not sufficing to condemn a Patriarch of Constantinople it was thought fit to desire the Emperor to call a General Council at Ephesus where Nestorius might appear and his Opinions be examined and the Emperor at length did agree to this Request Now that which we are to observe concerning this General Council shall be under these Heads First To enquire by whom it was called and convened Secondly Who presided in it Thirdly What is memorable in the Acts of it Fourthly Who confirmed the Decrees there made As to the first the Historical Preface before this Council labours to persuade us That Celestine commanded the Council to be called and the Notes after it say it was appointed by the Authority of Gelestine and gathered together by the counsel aid and assistance of Theodosius the Emperor The Cardinal goes further and saith Theodosius called it by the Authority of Celestine but when this is to be proved both the Notes and Baronius are content to make out that this Council was not called without the Popes consent which may be proved concerning every Orthodox Bishop that was there and so gives no peculiar advantage to the Bishop of Rome But as to the Convening it by his Authority nothing can be more false For by the Emperors first Letter to Cyril it appears that some then thought to order Matters of Religion by Power rather than by consulting in common in which words he reflects upon Pope Celestine and Cyril who thought by the Authority of their Private Synods at Rome and Alexandria to have condemned Nestorius who was a Patriarch as well as they and therefore the Emperor rightly considered that he could not be tried but by a General Council So that it seems Celestine at first had no mind such a Council should be called nor Cyril neither but when they saw their Authority was insufficient then Cyril put the Monks of Constantinople upon petitioning the Emperor to command a General Council to meet very speedily as their words are and the same Cyril put Juvenalis Bishop of Jerusalem upon writing to the Emperor for the same purpose Now why should not these Applications have been made to the Pope if the Council were to be called by his Authority Besides if Celestine had called it his Letter of Summons would appear but though none ever saw that the Emperors Edict is yet extant wherein he fixes the day and place for the Council to meet enjoyns Cyril with the Bishops of his Province to be there at that time and tells him he had writ to all other Metropolitans probably to Celestine among the rest to attend the Synod and not to meddle with this Matter till the meeting of this General Assembly from which whoever absented himself should not be excused Which is as full a proof that the Emperor called it by his Authority as is possible to be made and we need add nothing to it but this that
the Synod it self every where declares it was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the Emperors Decree 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by his Will and Summoned by his Letter yea the Pope himself saith I have obeyed your Pleasure as far as I was able and I do appear in the Council which you have commanded by those I have sent in my stead And when these Legates came to Ephesus they say we are come to the Synod which hath been appointed by the most Christian and Gracious Emperors So that it is a strange impudence of Baronius and Binius in despite of so clear evidence to pretend this Council was convened only by the Advice and Ministry of Theodosius but by the Authority of Pope Celestine Secondly The like prevarication they use about the President of this General Council for Bellarmine had made it a Maxim That in General Councils it was the Popes priviledge to preside by himself or his Legates and to moderate all as Supream Judge Wherefore the Preface to the Council saith Cyril was to preside by the command of Celestine and the Authority of the Apostolick See and the Notes say The Pope presided there by Cyril who had the Office of his Legate And a little after they produce all the Historians who writ after Evagrius An. Dom. 595. and because he saith Celestine had given Cyril his place they conclude thence that he was President of the Council by virtue of that Grant But indeed the first place belonged to Cyril as Patriarch of Alexandria in his own Right because the Bishop of Rome was absent and he of Constantinople was the Criminal to be tried yet Celestine had cunningly given him that which was his due without any gift for in his Letter to him long before the Council was called when the Synod at Rome had condemned Nestorius Celestine saith he might take to him both the Authority of his Throne and the Order of his Place which signifies no more than that Cyril might vote in Celestine's Name and add the Credit of the First Patriarch to his own Authority to make the Sentence against Nestorius the more Venerable And the beginning of the Acts distinguish Cyril's precedency from his holding Celestine's place if they be rightly pointed Cyril Bishop of Alexandria presiding and having the place of Celestine c. And so Zonaras understood it who saith Cyril of Alexandria presided and also had the place of Celestine thus also Balsamon So that it seems Cyril was President of the Council either by choice of the Fathers or in his own Right as the Chief Patriach present and he also voted in the place of Celestine who was absent and probably by virtue of that Representation also sate above all the other Patriarchs However this is certain that the Bishop of Ephesus Memnon who had no delegation from the Pope is also reckoned President of the Synod and he together with St. Cyril are often called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 even thrice in one Epistle And again 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yea these two are called the Head of the Council And all this without any mention of their having these Titles or this Power from the Pope Moreover we may observe that Cyril alone is sometimes called the President of this Council and the Party of John Bishop of Antioch charges him with usurping this place which was not given him by the Canons or the Emperor's Edict they valued not it seems the Popes Grant so that this Title is variously applied and no Argument can be formed from it for the Popes Supremacy who also sent three other Legates to this Synod to represent his Person and supply his Place as Celestine's own Letter declares Yea the Council it self declares that these three Legates Arcadius Projectus and Philip did supply Celestin's place Now it is not easie to understand how Cyril should be the Popes Legate and supply his Place and yet at the same time three other Legates need to be sent also to supply the same place unless we expound this Grant of the Popes to Cyril to signifie no more than a declaration that he would agree to all that Cyril voted for which is far from making him a formal Legate or for giving him that Authority which he had in this Council We conclude therefore that Cyril as the first Patriarch present and the most learned of all that opposed Nestorius and Memnon as Bishop of Ephesus where the Council was held were chosen Moderators by the Synod Nor is it likely that the Popes making these his Legates if that were true which Baronius only supposes but doth not prove would have given them any Power over the Council since Arcadius Projectus and Philip who really were the Popes Legates did not preside nor are they reckoned up in the first place no not in the Subscriptions which yet are not certainly genuine And when the Council sent two of these Legates among others on an Embassie to Constantinople they lay their Commands on them and threaten if they do not observe their Orders they would neither confirm their Acts nor yet receive them into Communion Which shews the Council was superior even to the Popes Legates and that their representing the Popes person did not intitle them to any Power over the Council which is that the Roman Parasites would make out Richerius exposes Baronius for saying Philip had a place before the Bishops because he was a Cardinal The first Seat and Vote therefore belonged to Cyril but Christ as these Fathers say properly was the Head of this General Council and was represented by the Holy Gospels placed above all on a Throne out of which all decisions were made not by any Humane Authority either of Cyril or Celestine himself Thirdly We shall next examine into the proceedings of this Council and see where the Editors have prevaricated therein for the interest of Rome as also what else therein is pertinent to our purpose Now these are First those things which hapned before and Secondly in the Council First Before the Council in Cyril's Letter to Nestorius he tells him that Celestine and the Bishops assembled at Rome had advised him to enquire whether those Papers were writ by Nestorius or no This they all falsly translate Celestino jubenté c. as if the Pope had a Power to command Cyril whereas the Original Word imports no more than an intimation given him to make this enquiry and that not by the Pope alone but by the whole Roman Synod Again since this Controversie began between two Patriarchs Cyril was so modest that he would not by his own single Authority Anathematize Nestorius till he had acquainted the Bishops both of the East and West with it yet he declares he had power to have done this if he pleased Now his forbearing to do this out of Prudence and Humility is by
those words in it of saving the honour of St. Peter and of his Legates being sent to preside in the Council which passages might look favourably on the supremacy if they be genuine only they are no more but Leo's own Evidence in his own Cause After this the Council being assembled at Nice they with the Popes Legates desired the Emperors presence among them upon which he removed the Council to the City of Chalcedon and thither he afterward came to them On which I shall only note that Baronious and Binius have turned this Petition of the Council and Legates into a Declaration of the Legates alone for they pretend that the Emperor writ to the Council That it seemed good to the Popes Legates that he should be present Which is a false representation of the matter as the Emperors Letter shews § 2. We proceed now to the Council it self assembled at Chalcedon and will first consider these generals viz. 1st Who called it 2ly Who presided in it and in what Order they sate 3ly Who confirmed the Acts of it And secondly make some brief remarks on the particular Acts of this Council First As to the Authority by which it was convened Though the Preface had owned that Marcian called this Council yet the Notes affirm it was appointed by the Authority of Leo and by the advice assistance and help of Marcian congregated And again it is clear this General Council was convened by the Exhortation and Counsel of the Emperor but by the Command and Authority of the Pope And this they pretend to prove by the Epistle of the Bishops of Maesia writ some years after the Council which they cite thus Many holy Bishops meeting in the City of Chalcedon by the Command of Leo who is truly an head of Bishops but the Epistle adds and of the venerable Bishop and Patriarch Anatolius a Council was held which was confirmed under two Emperors But these fraudulent Editors leave out these last words which shew that these Bishops were as much called by the Authority of Anatolius as of Leo and also that the Emperors confirmed the Acts of this general Council which two things Binius would conceal from his Reader Now this accidental expression of six Bishops long after implying no more but only that Leo and Anatolius sent out the Emperors Summons to all Bishops the other three Patriarchs being not then of unsuspected fame is all they have to prove this egregious falshood of this Councils being called by the Popes sole Authority except an Epistle of Gelasius another Pope pleading his own Cause Whereas there are clear and express proofs almost innumerable that it was appointed and convened or called by the Emperors Authority For Leo was summoned himself by the Emperor and in obedience to that Summons excuses his own absence and sends his Legates to the Council And the Emperors general Letter strictly requiring all Bishops to be there is extant a Copy of which probably was delivered to the Pope And in the beginning of every Act it is expresly said The Synod met 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. by the command or divine Authority of the Emperors and it is so often repeated that this Council was called by the precept or command of the Emperor as makes it needless and impossible to cite all the places Liberatus the Deacon who writ some years after when the Popes had encroached something further saith at the Popes request the Emperor commanded this Council to be assembled which makes it a strange boldness in Baronius to affirm that the Emperor requested the Pope that a Council might be called which not only this Historian but the Emperors Letter in the next page contradicts Yea Leo himself in his 61st Epistle which the Notes cite with great applause owns the Council was gathered by the precept of the most Christian Princes c. and the Pope in divers of his Epistles owns the Authority of calling general Councils to be in the Emperor yea the Legates own in the very Council it self that the Council was summoned by the Emperors Authority So that for any of the Popes flatterers to pretend the contrary is to wink against the clearest light Secondly As to the Presidents of this Council the Historical Preface is very positive that the Apostolical Legates presided and the Notes prove it was a general Council because the Pope presided by his Legates But if that were essential to a General Council there was none before this of Chalcedon Here indeed three of the five Legates named by the Pope Paschafinus Lucentius and Boniface were allowed to sit uppermost on one side of the Bishops but Basilius and Julianus the other two who also were named Legates by the Pope were not owned by the Council under that Character and therefore had no precedency given them And if this be all they mean by the Legates presiding that they in right of the Pope had the first place among the Bishops we will not contend with them but if they suppose any Power or Authority these Legates had over the Council by this precedency we must deny that Baronius brags that all things were determined by the Popes Authority And the Notes before cited speak as if they had done all things in this Council yea the Latin version of the Council forgets the Title of Presidents thrice and claps it to the names of these Legates which Title is not in the Greek But if we examine into the matter these three Legates who were allowed by the Council had nothing more than the honour of sitting uppermost upon the left hand and sometimes speaking and subscribing first But in the twelfth Act concerning the Church of Ephesus over which the Patriarch of Constantinople claimed some Jurisdiction Anatolius speaks before the Popes Legate and by his direction the matter was determined And though both Baronius and the Notes boast That the Legates pronounced the sentence on Dioscorus in the Popes name as Presidents of the Council Yet if we consult the place we shall find that they twice asked the Synods Opinion of Dioscorus his Case and the whole Synod declared he was to be condemned yet the Legates durst not pronounce the Sentence till they asked if the Synod commanded them to give the Ecclesiastical Sentence and upon the Order of the Synod they first pronounced it and every Bishop single declared Dioscorus was deposed and excommunicated So that there was nothing of Authority in the Legates but only their speaking first and declaring that which the whole Council had agreed upon And because Anatolius commonly spoke in the second place therefore he is joyned with Leo and both of them together are called the Princes of this Council So in one of the Epistles after the Council Leo and Anatolius are said to have regularly presided herein By which Titles are
himself begs of the Emperor not commands him as our Historian words it to use this remedy to the Church not only to degrade Heretical Clerks but to banish them from the City yet now they will not have Princes to judge or punish Clerks Nor will Baronius allow the Emperor a Right to call a General Council without the Pope's consent But the Letter of Pope Leo from whence he infers this shews He was commanded by the Emperor to come to a Council which Order the Pope reverently received and wished he could have obeyed it but modestly hopes to be excused by the Emperors approving the Reasons he offers why there was no need of such a Council So that the Authority was then in the Emperor and the Pope was to obey or excuse himself by just Reasons And as to the confirmation Pope Leo saith The Council of Chalcedon was confirmed by the Authority of Marcian the Emperor and by his consent yea he owns the definitions of that Council were above him for what was defined there he durst not call to a new scanning Thus things stood then but Rome is now above this If it were so excellent and pious a Law that none should force Women to be Nuns nor any to be vailed till she were forty years old till which Age she was to remain free to marry if she pleased How comes it to pass that nothing is more common now than to carry young Women against their Wills into Nunneries and to make them take the Vows at fourteen or fifteen These practices may be gainful but they are very wicked and contrary to the Laws both of Church and State in elder and purer times We may observe a visible difference between the Prayers and Usages of holy Men in this ancient Age and those of the modern times St. Marcian takes the holy Gospel in his hand and directs his Prayers only to Christ to avert a dreadful Fire But later Legends represent their modern Saints taking up Crucifixes Relicks or the Host and praying to the blessed Virgin or to deceased Saints in all cases of danger So that any considering Reader may see that the Primitive Worship was not like to that now used in the Roman Church Again if the Matter of Fact be true that Pope Hilary forbid the Emperor Anthemius to allow any Conventicles of the Macedonian Hereticks in Rome for which we have no proof but the boasting Letter of a Bigotted Pope viz. Gelasius yet supposing this were so the Note of the Annalist is very Erroneous viz. That Heresies could not be planted at Rome so easily as at Constantinople For Pelagius and Caelestius who were as great Hereticks as Eutyches and Aelurus were sheltered at Rome a long time And the Bishops of Constantinople did more against Eutyches and his Heresie than the Popes against Pelagius And since a little after three parts of seven in Rome were Arrians tolerated by the Pope methinks we should not have the Purity of Rome extolled at this rate as if no Weed of Heresie could grow there It is but five years after this that Baronius himself owns that Ricimer seized on St. Agathus Church in Rome where he and the Arrians held their publick Assemblies in spight of the Popes who were not wont to oppose Princes who had great power and only trampled on such as were weak In the Relation of Cyril the Monk which Baronius so highly commends it is not much for the credit of Rome that a Catholick Bishop of Jerusalem Martyrius sends a Legate to the Emperor to assist him in suppressing the Eutychian Hereticks and not the Pope And that a Saint from Heaven should call Jerusalem the Mother of Churches For this Title is now wholly appropriated to Rome But as to the Embassy sent to the Emperor against the Hereticks Martyrius took the right course for Pope Simplicius in his Letter to the same Emperor saith The Imperial Authority only can keep the Sheepfold of our Lords slock pure from the contagion of Heresie which shews the Pope's power was not considerable at that time It is something remarkable also That Pope Foelix in his Letter to Zeno the Emperor should affirm That Eustathius Bishop of Antioch was the President of those Three hundred and eighteen Fathers assembled at Nice For now they will allow no General Council to be Authentick wherein the Bishop of Rome or his Legates do not preside The Romanists proceedings against the Reformed at their Councils of Constance and Trent where some were Burnt for a Terror and the oppressed party who held the right Faith were cited before their Adversaries who took upon them to judge in their own Cause these proceedings I say were an exact Transcript of the Arrian Methods in Asrick when they resolved under the cover of a Conference to suppress the Orthodox Catholicks In the Story of finding St. Barnabas Relicks we may observe all the Prayers and Hymns were directed only to God and Christ not any to this or any other Saint from which we may learn That piece of Superstition which now makes up so great a part of the Roman Offices was unknown to those Ages and St. Barnabas declares the chief Bishop of Cyprus is not subject to any Patriarch he doth not except the Pope so that this Apostle seems not to have believed St. Peter's Universal Supremacy Baronius presents us also with a Confession of Faith made by one Lucidus and approved by a Synod of Bishops wherein he declares that he believes Eternal Fire and the Flames of Hell prepared for deadly Sins But there is not one word of Purgatory which shews there was no such place invented or at least believed by the Catholicks then And the 7th Epistle of Pope Gelasius as we noted signifies that he knew of no other places in the next World but Heaven and Hell To conclude the Annalist shuts up this Century with a Melancholy Note That at this time there was not one Christian Catholick Prince in the World He might also have added that all the Eastern Patriarchs were separated from the Communion of the Roman Church although three of them that were Orthodox communicated with one another And he might have noted also that at this juncture there was no certain Pope and an Heretical Prince was then Judge of the pretences of Symmachus and Laurentius the Rivals for that See But the true Faith can subsist as well without a Pope as without Orthodox Princes the Church being founded on Christ that invincible Rock against which the Gates of Hell can never prevail The End of the Fifth Centry PART IV. CENT VI. CHAP. I. Errors and Forgeries in the Councils from the Year 500 to the End of the Fifth General Council An. Dom. 553. § 1. WE referred the Councils said to be held under Pope Symmachus to the begining of this Century And the first Six are pretended to be held at Rome
the next Pope nothing is memorable but that he is said by the Pontifical to be a Martyr Eusebius saith he died in Adrian's Twelfth year and mentions not his Martyrdom but Binius contradicts him and will have him to suffer in the 3d year of Antoninus 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 that is An. 130. But Binius following the Pontifical makes him the Eighth Pope and saith he entred the Third year of Antoninus that is Twelve years after and in the Notes on his Life 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 of the Clergy which Pope Clement according to him had done long before § 2. From the Notes on Pope Pius Life we may observe there was no great care of old taken about the Pope's Succession For Optatus S. Augustine and S. Hierom with the Old Pontifical before it was altered place Anicetus before Pius but the Greeks place Pius before Anicetus and in this Binius thinks we are to believe them rather than the Latins The rest of the Notes are spent in vindicating an improbable Story of an Angel bringing a Decree about Easter to Hermes the Popes Brother who writ a Book about keeping it on the Lord's Day yet after all there is a Book of Hermes now extant that hath nothing in it about Easter and there was a Book of old writ by Hermes well known to the Greeks and almost unknown to the Latins though writ by a Pope's Brother read in the Eastern Churches and counted Apocryphal in the Western But we want another Angel to come and tell us whether that now extant be the same or no for Binius cannot resolve us and only shews his Folly in defending the absurd and incongruous Tales of the Pontifical Anicetus either lived before or after Pius and the Pontifical makes him very busie in Shaving his Priests Crowns never mentioning what he did to suppress those many Heretics who came to Rome in his time but it tells us he was Buried in the Coemetery of Calistus though Calistus who gave that Burial-place a name did not dye till Fifty years after Anicetus But Binius who is loath to own this gross Falshood saith You are to understand it in that ground which Calistus made a Burying-place afterward yet it unluckily falls out that Amcetus's Successor Pope Soter was also Buried according to the Pontifical in Calistus his Coemetery and afterwards Pope Zepherines's Burial-place is described to be not far from that of Calistus so well was Calistus's Coemetery known 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 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 but of that there is nothing in the Pontifical only we are told he had a Council at Rome to which he called Theophilus Bishop of Alexandria and decreed Easter should be observed upon a Sunday c. Upon this hint and the Authority of a better Author we grant there were at these times divers Councils held about keeping Easter But the Editors of the Councils though Eusebius be the only credible Author which gives an Account of them presume to contradict him For Eusebius makes the Council at Caesarea in Palestina to be first and makes Theophilus of that City and Narcissus of Jerusalem Presidents of it but the Editors for the honour of the Pope place the Roman Council first 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 Council of Caesarea affirming out of a suspicious Fragment of Bede who lived many Centuries after That it was Called by Victor ' s Authority whereas Eusebius as we see assigns other Presidents to that Council yea they intitle all the other Councils about this Matter Under Victor though in Eusebius they are set down as independent upon one another The Bishops of each Country Calling them by their own Authority And though Binius's Notes 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
will easily discern that the Notes cannot reconcile them without flying to a Miracle 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 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 though the Notes assure us That those two at Carthage were called by S. Cyprian's Authority and that the Italian Bishops made a Decree of their own besides that of Cornelius at Rome The Roman Councils indeed were holden under Cornelius as being Bishop of that City but we may observe He did not Authoritatively confirm the Sentence of the Council of Carthage but only consented to it We may also Note This African Council calls not Pope Cornelius Father but Brother and writes to him as one of their Collegues yea they do not except Cornelius when they Decree That if any of their Collegues agreed not to their Sentence he should answer it at the Day of Judgment 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 which being now denied to the Laity the Editors pass it by without a Note yet soon after where the Council plainly speaks of Confessing the Name of Christ before Persecutors they have this impertinent Marginal Note From this and other places the necessity of Confession is confirmed As if this belonged to their new invented Auricular Confession § 4. The Notes find divers Faults in the Life of Pope Lucius yet they would palliare the grossest of all for the Pontifical says He was Beheaded by Valerian the Notes affirm it was by Gallus and Volusiunus and yet the same Notes tell us The Pontifical in saying it was by Vulerian may be very well and truly expounded The Reader must understand It may be so expounded by such kind of Notes as are designed to make gress 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 Opinion as may be seen in the Councils of Carthage Iconium and Africa where so easily may Tradition be mistaken the Re-baptizing of Heretics is asserted to be an Apostolick Tradition though it were contrary to Pope Stephen's Opinion and the Tradition of the Roman Church And when Stephen on this account presumed to Excommunicate the Asian Bishops Firmilianus Bishop of Coesarea in a Letter to S. Cyprian 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 condemned this Pope as a Favourer of Heretics an Enemy to the Church and one who writ Contradictions and was void of Prudence describing him as an Innovator and bringer in of Traditions contrary to God's Word as one who obstinately presumed to prefer human Doctrines before Scripture I grant Pope Stephen was in the right in this Controversie yet doubtless if these Bishops had believed the Supremacy and Infallibility of the Pope and his Roman Council they could not have used him at this rate And the Editors are so concerned to cover this rough usage that they reprint an Epistle of S. Cyprian's Verbatim 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 think that Cyprian submitted to the Pope at last though it is apparent he never did so Again the Reader may note that Labbè here prints a Tract of some Ancient Author to justify the Pope's Opinion but though there be many good Arguments for it from other Topics the Argument from Tradition and the determination of the Roman Church is not urged in the whole Discourse 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 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 now Decius was slain two year before Valerian was Emperor Yet the Notes labour to colour over all these Contradictions to Salve the Credit of their Missals and Fabulous Maityrology Dionysius the next Pope is said to have been a Monk upon the credit of the Pontifical 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
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 Saviour sitting five foot high so it calls a dead Image But if this were true why did not Adrian cite this in his Nicene Council Or why did this Emperor ' s Sister write to Eusebius Bishop of Coesarea for an Image of Christ when Sylvester could more easily have furnished her and by the way the Notes fraudulently mention this Message but do not relate how severely Eusebius reproved that Lady for seeking after a visible Image of Christ The Annotator also cites Paulinus to prove this Book of Munificence but he writ near 100 years after and though he speak of a fine Church of S. Peter in Rome yet he saith not that Constantine either founded or adorned it Baronius attempts to prove this Book by mear Conjectures by the Forged Acts and by Nicephorus a late Author whom he often taxes for Fictions but he can produce no ancient or eminent Author for it And yet it is certain if Constantine had given so many and so great gifts to the Head City of the World some of the most Famous Writers would have Recorded it Besides the Cardinal himself rejects both the idle Story of S. Agnes Temple attested by a Fiction ascribed to S. Ambrose told in this very Book and the apparent Falshood of Constantine's now burying his Mother in one of these Churches who was alive long after So that by his own Confession there are divers Falshoods in this Book and he had been more Ingenuous if he had owned the whole to be as it really is a Forgery § 11. The Editors now go back to the Council of Arles held as they say Anno 314 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 'T is true in the Title which these Editors give us this Council directs their Canons To their Lord and most Holy Brother Sylvester the Bishop and say they had sent them to him that all might know the Pope not excepted what they were to observe So that though in Respect they call him Lord yet they Stile him also a Brother and expect his obedience to their Decrees nor do they as the Notes pretend desire him to confirm these Canons But only require the Pope who held the larger Diocess that he would openly acquaint all with them as their Letter speaks That is as he was a Metropolitan to give notice of these Canons to all his Province which was then called a Diocess and Baronius is forced to point the Sentence salsly to make it sound toward his beloved Supremacy So in the First Canon Pope Sylvester is ordered by this Council to give notice to all of the Day on which Easter was to be observed That is he was to write to all his Neighbouring Bishops under his Jurisdiction about it not as the Notes say That he was to determine the day and by vertue of his Office to write to all the Bishops of the Christian World to observe it The Council had ordered the Day and command the Pope to give notice to all about him to keep it And in the Famous Nicene Council The Bishop of Alexandria living where Astronomy was well understood was appointed first to settle and then to certify the day of Easter yet none will infer from hence that he was the Head of the Catholic Church because he had this Duty imposed on him which as yet is more than the Council of Arles did put upon the Bishop of Rome Again the Notes are very angry at the Emperor for receiving the Donatists appeal from the Pope and his Council which they say Constantine owned to be an unjust and impious thing 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 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 And indeed Constantine by all his practice sufficiently declared he thought it lawful enough for him to judge in Ecclesiastical matters Finally the Notes say the Bishops met in this Council at the Emperor ' s request 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 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 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 Balsamon and Zonaras say Vitalis of Antioch Agricolaus of Caesarea and Basil of Amasea were the
did not write till An. 1180 yet the Notes out of Baronius do confess that a Pope quoted it An. 1054 that is near an Hundred years before Balsamon was born to justifie his Superiority over the Greek Church and therefore Balsamon was not the Inventer of it Secondly It doth the Greeks no good for it gives the Pope power over all their Patriarchs and reckons Constantinople as the last and lowest Patriarchate so that the Forger could not come out of that Church Thirdly It is grounded on the fabulous Acts of Sylvester writ in Latin and feigned in the Western World and its whole design is to advance the Pope above all Bishops Kings and Emperors and therefore no doubt it was advanced by a Friend of the Popes Fourthly The Notes confess That a Pope first set up this Edict to prove his Universal Supremacy not considering with Baronius it seems that it weakened his Title and the grave and learned Men of the Roman Church received it as Authentic for many Ages after We add That till the Reformation they cited it and writ in defence of it and though now their Point is gained they begin to renounce it yet the Advantage that Church got by it shews that they were the Forgers of it yea it seems Anno 1339 one Johannes Diaconus a Member of the Roman Church was thought to be the Author of it Fifthly Whoever considers how unwilling the Cardinal and our Annotator are to have it clearly rejected will be convinced that their Church gained by it and consequently invented it They labour to prove the Popes temporal Power granted hereby is both probable and true 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 to Constantine's Bounty These Authors also mention Pope Adrian's confirming this Edict and quote the Book of Constantine's Munificence shewed to be a Fable just now to justifie it They also would make out what it saith of the Images of Peter and Paul then kept at Rome by Eusebius but cite him falsly leaving out the main part of his Testimony viz. That it was only some who had such Images and that these imitated the Pagans herein from whence it will not follow That eminent Christians then placed them in their Churches 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 it being their Interest it should be thought so This feigned Donation is followed by a Roman Council under Sylvester in the Preface whereof Sylvester is falsly pretended to have called the Nicene Council and in the body of which there is a Canon That none must judge the Chief Seat not the Emperor nor Kings nor Clergy nor People For the sake of which two advantagious Fictions Baronius and the Annotator defend and justifie this Synod 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 and rejects it as a Forgery very justly For Photinus as the Notes confess was not Condemned till long after 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 subscribed it yea Baronius himself observes That this Council mistakes the Custom of the Roman Church where in that Age Presbyters use to sit in the presence of the Bishops but in this Fiction they are represented as standing with the Deacons Moreover it destroys the Donation Lies seldom hanging together for if Constantine had given the Pope such Supreme Power a few days before what need was there for these Bishops to grant the same thing or however why do they not remember Constantine's late Gift Lastly Arius who then gave so great Trouble to the Church is not mentioned here not as Baronius guesses because he was to be more solemnly Condemned at Nice the next year 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 Others think it was in Sylvester's time Photius affirms it was in the times of both Sylvester and Julius though unhappily Pope Mark was between them two Yet this Council is introduced by a Preface a la Mode a Rome styled The History of the Council of Nice 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 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 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 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
genuine 20 Canons From which we may observe First that Binius will cite those things for the supremacy c. which he knows to be forged Secondly That the great design of all these Forged Records of Antiquity was either to cover the faults or consult the honour of the Roman Church which seems to have both employed and encouraged the Authors of these Pious Frauds because her Pretences could not be made out by any thing that was Authentic Julius succeeded Marcus in the same year in whose Life the Pontifical mistakes the Consuls Names and feigns he was banished Ten Months which Baronius proves to have been impossible He fills up this Popes story according to his manner with trisling matters and omits the only remarkable thing in his Life which was his concern in the Cause of Athanasius In this Popes name several Epistles are published The First from Julius to the Eastern Bishops may be proved fictitious not only by the Confession of Baronius and other Learned Romanists but by divers other Arguments For is it probable that Julius would Only be solicitous about his Supremacy when he writ to the Arians and not once reprove them for their Heresie nor their persecuting Athanasius is it likely he should cite the Council of Nice falsly and feign so many ancient Decrees about the Primacy of the Pope and the Nullity of Councils not celebrated by his Authority This Forger saith Julius consented to the Nicene Council at the time of its celebration but the Romanists agree that it was held in Sylvesters time He imperiously forbids the Eastern Bishops to judge any Bishops without him and falsly tells them They all had received their Consecration from Rome yea with the fabulous Pontisical he mistakes the Consuls Name and puts Maximianus for Titianus Yet by this Forgery the Editors would prove that more than twenty Canons were made at Nice and after Baronius had discarded it Binius by frivolous Notes strives to justifie it as speaking big for the Supremacy 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 For indeed they do not own it at all and yet the substance of this Epistle is genuine being found in Secrates and Sozomen The third Epistle from Julius to the Arians is owned by Baronius and others to be a Forgery and Binius in his Notes upon it saith It is false corrupted and stollen out of divers Authors yet the same Binius infamously quotes it over and over for the Supremacy the Nullity of Councils not called by the Pope and the number of the Nicene Canons The fourth Epistle of Julius comes not out of the Vatican but was preserved in Athanasius his Apology and is by all accounted genuine being writ in an humble style without any pretences to the Supremacy 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 The power of all Bishops is supposed to be equal and not any greater power to belong to him that is fixed in a greater City Here Julius writes not his own Sense but the Sense of the Bishops of Italy who were assembled in a Synod at Rome of which great City Julius being Bishop ought by ancient custom to publish the Decrees of such Councils as were held in or or near that City 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 both agreeable to the Canons and Custom that no Bishop should be judged till the Popes definitive Sentence were heard The last Epistle also is genuine and writ in a modest style owning that Athanasius was not judged by the Pope alone but by a Synod of Bishops whose Judgment he supposes above his own and by these two Epistles we may discern the Impostures of those other Epistles which are Forged about this time in the Names of this and other Popes The Decrees attributed to this Pope are not suitable to the Age yet we may note the third Decree forbids a man to Marry his deceased Brothers Wife though his Brother had not known her Which was shamefully broken by that Pope who gave Licence to King Henry the 8th to marry his Brothers Wife and this Decree justifies his Divorce 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 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 and the Notes gravely dispute about the time of this Forged Council and the Bishops which were said to be in it meerly to perswade the Reader that the Nicene Council needed the Pope's Confirmation but since this Council is feigned it can be no evidence And therefore Binius gains nothing by alledging it in his Notes on the third Epistle but only to shew us that one falshood is the fittest prop for another § 20. Athanasius being restored to Alexandria calls a 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 say It was writ particularly to Julius whereas the Body of the Epistle saith The Arians have written to the Roman Bishop and perhaps speaking to other Bishops they have writ to you also So that this is a falshood devised for to make out the Supremacy which is not countenanced by this Epistle wherein we are told that Religion depends not on the greatness of any City Though the Notes say That Bishops had Honours and Jurisdiction given them suiting to the dignity of the Secular Praefects of their several Cities and thence Alexandria was reckoned the second Patriarchate and Antioch the third 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 from whence we gather that the Roman Church who denies the Cup to the People doth a very unlawful thing
very diverting if we observe the Shifts and Artifices used by the Roman Parasites to excuse him from Heresie The Pontifical saith He was banished three years by Constantius for not consenting to the Asians in whose place Foelix was Ordained and he in a Council condemned Ursacius and Valens two Arian Bishops who in Revenge petitioned Constantius to revoke Liberius and he being thus restored consented to the Arians and the Emperour so far as to persecute and Martyr the Catholics and his Rival Foelix being a Catholic was deposed But this Fable is not fine enough for the Palates of Baronius and Binius who are to dress a Story to make the Reader believe that neither Liberius nor Foelix erred in Faith while they were Popes To confute which let it be considered that Binius confesseth Liberius consented to the depriving of Athanasius admitted Arians to his Communicn and subscribed an Arian Confession of Faith as Athanasius Hilary and Hierom witness and there are Arguments unanswerable to prove he was an Arian while he was Pope yea Binius in his own Notes twice confesseth That he unhappily fell and that he basely fell 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 Faith and the Law of Justice he cast a most base Blot on his Life and Manners 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 But I ask Whether Athanasius S. Hilary and S. Hieroin who affirm this were Heretics Or was Platina an Heretic who saith Liberius did in all things agree with the Heretics To which the same Forgers have added As some would have it but those are not Phetinus words who saith soon after He was of the same Opinion with the Arians 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 And it is certain He was chosen by the Arians and communicated with them Ordaining Arians to be Priests and therefore the Catholic People at Rome avoided his communion and S. Hierom saith He was an Arian As for the Story of his condemning Ursacius and Valens two of that Sect there is no better Authority for it than the fabulous Pontifical So that after all the devices of Bellarmin Bargnius and Binius 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 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 which is an odd Complement from an Infallible Head Secondly He condemned Athanasius after his Banishment of which more shall be said hereafter But as to the particular Epistles we shall note That in the first which they say is genuine Liberius with other Bishops petition Constantius to order a Council to be held at Aquileia 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 So in the XIth Epistle which is certainly genuine and recorded by Socrates the Notes confess he was so easie as to receive the Semi-Arians to Communion and to commend their Faith as the same which was decreed at Nice But it is gross Flattery to call this only Being too easie it was in plain terms Being deceived and erring in Matters of Faith which spoils their Infallibility as it also doth their Universal Supremacy for Liberius in the same Epistle to call himself Bishop of Italy referring only to the Suburbicarian Regions and saying He was the meanest of Bishops and rejoyced that those in the East did not submit to him but agree with him in Matters of Faith Wherefore the XIIth or as Labbé calls it the XIVth Epistle which is writ to all Bishops is manifestly forged And so are the two next from Liberius to Athanasius and from Athanasius to Liberius as both Labbé and Binius confess 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 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 yet being sensible that their Authority would signifie very little they all agreed to petition the Emperour for a Council to Meet at Aquileia to confirm what they had done at Rome Anno 355. there was a Council at Milan the Editors call it A General Council because it was with Constantius
believe yet he elsewhere boldly says Damasus gave it Supreme Authority 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 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. Chrysostom by virtue of this Canon placed and displaced divers Bishops in Asia and the 4th General Council at Chalcedon without regarding the dissent of the Popes Legates allowed the Bishop of Constantinople the second place and made his Priviledges equal to those of Old Rome which Precedence and Power that Bishop long retained notwithstanding the endeavours of the envious Popes And Gregory never objected against these Canons till he began to fear the growing Greatness of the Patriarch of Constantinople but when that Church and Empire was sinking and there appeared no danger on that side to the Popes then Innocent the Third is said by the Notes to revive and allow this Canon again by which we see that nothing but Interest governs that Church and guides her Bishops in allowing or discarding any Council For now again when the Reformed begin to urge this Canon Baronius and the Notes say They can prove by firm Reasons that this Canon was forged by the Greeks But their Reasons are very frivolous They say Anatolius did not quote this Canon against Pope Leo I reply 'T is 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 Council Secondly They urge that this Canon is not mentioned in the Letter writ to Damasus I Answer They have told us before they sent their Acts to him and so need not repent them in this Letter Thirdly They talk of the Injury done to Timotheus Bishop of Alexandria but his Subscription is put to the Canons as well as the Creed and it doth not appear that ever he or any of his Successors contended for Precedence after this with the Patriarch of Constantinople And that the Modern Greeks did not forge this Canon is plain because Socrates and Sozomen both mention it 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 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 which argues they knew of no Universal Monarchy vested in the Pope and giving him power over all the Bishops both of the East and West For it was not Damasus but the Prefect of Italy who writ about this Synod to the Bishops of the East 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 and therefore Sulpicius Severus calls him not Orbis but Urbis Episcopus the Bishop of the City not of the World and speaking of Italy he saith in the next Page That the Supreme Authority at that time was in Damasus and S. Ambrose To these two therefore the Priscillian Heretics applied themselves when they were condemned by the Council of Caesar-Augusta or Saragosa in Spain in which Country the Sect first began but when they could not get these great Bishops to favour their Cause they corrupted the Emperours Ministers to procure a Rescript for their restitution 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
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 venture to say This was under Siricius for the Matters treated on it wholly related to the Eastern Church and in that Age they rarely allowed the Pope to concern himself in their Affairs No nor in Afric neither where Anno 395 there were Councils held both by the Orthodox and the Donatists which are dated by the Consuls and no notice is taken of the Pope We shall only observe that upon one of these Councils the Notes say It is a mark of the Donatists being of the Synagogue of Antichrist that they named the several Parties among them from the Leaders and Founders of their several Sects and were not content with the Name of Christians from Christ Which Note reflects upon the Monks of their own Church who are called Benedictines Dominicans and Franciscans from the Founders of their several Orders In the Council of Turin composed of the Gallican 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 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 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 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 the falshood of which appears by the 25th Canon in the Greek and Latin Edition where this is said of the Clergy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Except the Readers which they translate Quamvis Lectoram 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 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 Vniversal 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 Vniversal 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 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 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 And it is plain the whole Canon is falsly placed in this Council under Siricius because Pope Boniface who came not into the Papacy till above twenty years after is named in it as Bishop of Rome yet after all these devices it doth not declare what Books are strictly Canonical and so will not justifie the Decree at Trent Fourthly In the 48th Canon of the Latin Version the Council agrees to advise about the Donatists with Stricius Bishop of Rome and Simplicianus Bishop of Milan not giving any more deference to one of these Bishops than to the other but looking on them as equally fit to advise them Yet the Notes boldly say They advise with the Pope because they knew he presided as a Bishop and Doctor over the Catholic Church but with the Bishop of Milan only as a Man every where famous for his Learning Which is a meer Fiction of their own for the words of the Canon shew that these
him long after that unjust Fact so that there is no reason to brag of this Pope as being the Judge and Patron of that glorious Confessor who alas died in his exile and excepting good wishes had no benefit by the Popes kindness Yea he was so far from being Judge that he referred this Cause of St. Chrysostom's to the Judgment of a Synod as Baronius himself afterwards declares So Theophilus of Alexandria also never did submit the Cause to Innocent as Baronius pretends nor did he take him for the supreme Judge in it but after all retained his obstinacy to his death So that if we do allow Pope Innocent to be right in his Judgment yet he either had little power or small courage to serve this great and good Man and what he did for him was in conjunction with other Bishops not by his single Authority Innocent's 31st Epistle is directed to Theophilus St. Chrysostom's mortal Enemy the Patriach of Alexandria wherein the Pope calls him Brother and saith he held Communion both with him and with Chrysostom also and wishes him to refer the Cause to a Synod and there let it be tried according to the Nicene Canons Now Baronius from hence notes that the Communion of the Roman Church was highly valued and that all were to hold Communion with those who were in Communion with Rome and therefore they were to stick to the Communion of Chrysostom But the very words of the Epistle confute this Gloss for such as followed the Popes example at that time were to communicate both with Chrysostom and Theophilus And I must observe that Innocent's advising Theophilus to come to a Synod and let this Cause be tried there according to the Nicene Canons this I say shews That the Pope did not then pretend to find any thing in the Nicene Canons for referring Causes by appeal to Rome but his two next Successors as shall be shewed presently forged such Canons soon after and pretended they were made at Nice After this follows a rescript of Honorius pretended to be writ to his Brother Arcadius wherein that Emperor saith Chrysostom's was a cause concerning the Bishops which ought to have been determined in a General Council and when either Party had sent Legates to the Bishop of Rome and those of Italy a final Sentence was to be expected from the Authority of them all But the Editors have forged a Title to this Letter wherein they say Episcopal Causes are to be tried by a Council of Bishops and to be examined and determined by the Popes Authority Where we see the forged Title expresly contradicts the Letter it self for that refers these Causes to a Council in the East with the consent of all the Bishops of Italy as well as the Pope but this Title is designed to persuade us that the Popes Authority was finally to determine all matters of this kind The 32th 33th and 34th Epistles of Innocent have nothing in them worth noting and if they be genuine their mean Style and many Incongruities are no credit to the Author After these Epistles Labbè publishes certain Canons sent from Rome to the Gallican Church by some Pope or other and because by Sirmondus his guess it was Innocent they are placed here there is nothing remarkable in them but the zeal of the Collector of these Canons to persuade the French to follow the peculiar Customs of Rome § 3. The Councils which the Editors place next and with the Title of Councils under Innocent were called indeed in his time but neither by his Authority nor so much as by his Advice The first Council of Milevis said to be under Innocent was as the Notes confess held under the Primacy of Xantippus and was held so soon after Anastasius his death that probably these African Fathers had not yet heard of Innocent's Election nor do the Acts of it mention any Pope The Council at the Oak wherein Chrysostom was deposed was called by and held under Theophilus Bishop of Alexandria wherein they proceeded to deprive an Eminent Patriarch without the knowledge or consent of the Pope and had not the Articles been false and the Sentence unjust it had never been revoked barely for wanting Innocent's approbation Labbè prints the Acts of this Synod which Binius had omitted About this time were frequent Synods held in Africa the Years and Order of which being uncertain the Editors have placed the Acts of them altogether and here we have only some Notes with the bare Titles On which we will make some few remarks First they are all here said to be held under Innocent but the Acts themselves intitle them to be held in such a year of the Emperor Secondly The Notes on the First African Council tell us of Legates sent to the Pope for obtaining some indulgence to the Donatists which Legates being returned they related in this Council what they had obtained from Anastasius Now this would make any one who doth not consult the Acts themselves printed on purpose in Pages far off to think the Pope was solely concerned in this matter which is an invention of Baronius But if we look back into the former Council we shall find these African Legates were sent in general to the parts beyond the Seas and to Venerius Bishop of Milan as well as to Anastasius Bishop of Rome And Baronius himself in the year when these Legates were first sent saith they were to go first to Rome and also to other transmarine Bishops and again Letters being sent to Anastasius and other Bishops of Italy Now the African Fathers applying to all these Bishops as well as to the Pope declares they did not look on him as sufficient alone to determine their Matters Besides they did not send to these Western Bishops to obtain indulgence as the Notes out of Baronius falsly pretend For they had decreed before to indulge them only desired the Western Bishops for the more credit to give their Suffrages to this Fact for so it would appear not to be only their single Opinion The Second African Council was not under Innocent as the Title pretends but under Aurelius as may be seen by the Acts and after the message from the Italian Bishops added to their own Authority would not work on the obstinacy of the Donatists they decree to send Legates to the Emperor Honorius to desire him to suppress them ordering these Legates to carry Letters of Communion to the Bishop of Rome and other Bishops of those parts and to receive other Letters of Communion from them in Italy to testifie they were Catholicks But a little after the Notes turn this into receiving Letters of Communion only from the Pope and infer from thence that none were Catholicks but such as were in Communion with the Bishop of Rome Whereas they should have added and with other Bishops of those parts and
and made him understand the danger of this Heresie And we have noted before that Innocent's carriage in this matter rendred him suspected to be a favourer of Pelagius upon which the Africans not trusting to his Infallibility writ very plainly to him And after they had condemned Pelagius and Celestius in a Council of thirty seven Bishops at Carthage they writ another brisk Synodical Epistle to the Pope telling him that they intimated to him what they had done that the Authority of the Apostolical Seat might be added to their Decree because his Eminent Place gave more weight to his Doctrine and if he thought Pelagius was justly absolved yet his Errors and Impieties ought to be Anathematized by the Authority of the Apostolical See Now the reason of this Letter was not so much for the confirmation of their Acts as the Notes pretend upon any single Priviledge believed to be in the Pope as their Supream Head because they call him by the Title of their Brother both in the Title and the Letter but because the Pelagians had reported he was their Friend and a favourer of their Opinions which Report did very much mischief because of the Eminence of his See and therefore it concerned both the Pope for his own vindication and them also that he should wipe off this accusation And it appears both by St. Augustine and Prosper that at last Innocent did condemn this Heresie but this Synodical Epistle from Carthage dated An. 416. shews that he had not condemned it before the last year of his life for he died according to Baronius in July An. 417. So hard a thing was it for the African Fathers to get a pretended Infallible Judge to understand and censure a notorious Heresie I might now leave this Head but that I must first observe the confidence of Baronius who from one word in a verse of Prosper's will needs have Celestius a Disciple of Pelagius to have been first condemned at Rome after the antient manner that a new Heresie should be first Examined and Condemned by the first Seat But when he should make this out he owns that Pelagius and Celestius indeed were first condemned in Africa but he tells us their Heresies were condemned long before at Rome in the person of Jovinian But if it were true that Jovinian had held all the Heresies of Pelagius which is most false then we must attribute no great sagacity to Innocent as to condemning Heresies because 't is plain he did not know these were the same Heresies that Jovinian had held nor could he be brought to censure them till above four year after The Second Council of Milevis consisted of sixty Bishops the Title is under Pope Innocent But Baronius had told us before that the same Aurelius Bishop of Carthage presided in the former Council of Milevis and in this also so that neither of them were under any Pope The 22d Canon of this Council saith that he who thinks to appeal to a Tribunal beyond the Sea shall not be received into Communion by any in Africa Which is a clear prohibition of appeals to Rome and therefore Gratian either found or made this notorious addition to it unless they appeal to the See of Rome which is so gross a Forgery that Binius rejects it and out of Bellarmin expounds this passage only of prohibiting the inferiour Clergy Priests and Deacons c. to appeal beyond the Seas i. e. to Rome but he supposes that Bishops in Africk still had liberty of appealing thither according to the 17th Canon of Sardica But to confute this false Gloss let it be noted That these African Fathers profess in a following Council that they had never heard of any such Canon or of this Sardican Synod and so it is not likely they should be guided by it Again about ten years before upon a complaint to Innocent of some Bishops who being censured in Africa ran to Rome with Complaints this very Pope had written that Bishops should not lightly go to the Parts beyond the Seas And the Council in Africk confirmed that passage of the Popes Letter And since this would not restrain some Bishops here in this second Milevitan Council they make a Decree That Bishops Causes should be determined by Bishops either such as the Primate of Africk should appoint or such as the Parties chose by his consent And then they add this 22d Canon to confine all appeals of the inferior Clergy also to an African Synod or to their own Primate and then add this Clause recited before that those who appeal beyond the Seas shall not be received to Communion by any in Africa which certainly is the penalty relating to both Canons because in their Letter a few years after written to Pope Celestine they declare it is contrary to the Nicene Canons for the Pope to receive any into Communion by Appeal who have been censured in their own Province especially Bishops adding That his Holiness should as became him also forbid the wicked refuges of Priests and the lower Clergy c. That is not only the Appeals of Bishops but of Priests also which makes it as clear as the Sun that these Fathers at Milevis absolutely forbad all Appeals to Rome And they had great reason so to do not only because it was their right to judge finally all Causes in their own Province But because some Popes about this time had encouraged Hereticks and notorious wicked Men both Priests and Bishops who had fled from the just Censures of their own Church and found a Sanctuary and Shelter at Rome But of this more hereafter This second Council of Milevis writ also to Pope Innocent about the Pelagian Heresie to quicken him in providing some Remedies to prevent the spreading of that Infection supposing the eminency of his place would add much weight to his Censures if he would heartily appear against these Doctrines At the same time Aurelius and St. Augustin with three other eminent Bishops there writ a private Letter to their Lord and Brother as they call him Pope Innocent on the same subject in which they deal very plainly with him and give the reason why they writ so many Letters to him against this Heresie because they had heard that in Rome where the Heretick lived long there were many who favoured him on divers grounds some because they say that you have been persuaded such things were true but more because they do not think he holds those Opinions And doubtless it was this Report which rouzed up the Pope at last to condemn the Pelagians as may appear by our Notes upon his 26th Epistle which is in Answer to this Epistle of the five Bishops But that Answer as also the Answers to the two Councils Letters were not till January An. 417. as Baronius and Binius themselves compute which was but six Months before Innocent's death so long did this Pope
needed but two Arguments viz. those of the Popes Infallibility and Supremacy to have confounded all the pretences of this Schismatical Council and they are not so much as once mentioned Which is a certain Evidence that neither side knew of or believed these Papal Priviledges usurped in later times by that encroaching See Fourthly I come to consider the confirmation of the Acts of this general Council And this the Preface ascribes intirely to the Pope and so do the Notes after the Council upon the word Approved and so doth Baronius in several places But all this is without any just ground For the Preface saith he sent his Legates to confirm the Acts of the Council in his name and cites for this these words out of Celestine's Letter sent to the Synod by these Legates And what you derce◠shall be accounted defined and determined for the tranquility of all Churches But no such words are in that Epistle the Pope saying no more but only that he had sent these Persons to be present at their Acts and to confirm what he had long since decreed To which he hoped their Holiness would assent because they knew that which was determined was for the peace of all Churches The sense of which is that Celestine having long before Condemned Nestorius at Rome he sent his Legates to the general Council to get that Sentence confirmed and doubted not of their assent to it since this casting out of Nestorius the disturber of the Churches quiet would tend to the Peace of the whole Church So that this passage proves that the Council was to confirm the Popes Decree not that he was to confirm their Acts And the Synod in their Letter to Pope Celestine do expresly say That they had judged his Sentence against the Pelagians should remain firm and be valid c. adding that they had sent him the Acts of the Synod and the Subscriptions that he might know what was done But there is not one word desiring him to confirm their Decrees But as to the Emperors the case is clear For the Synod and the three Legates of the Pope address to them to Command that what this General Council had done against Nestorius might be in force being confirmed by their consent and approbation And they Petition the Emperors to make null and void the false Synods uncanonical proceedings against Cyril and Memnon And in another Relation to the Emperors they put both these requests together And Sozomen saith in express terms that the Emperor by his suffrage confirmed their Acts Yea these Testimonies are so express that Binius himself in his Notes at last grants That the Emperor dimissed the Bishops adding this Decree that the Sentence of this Holy General Council against Nestorius should stand in full force So that nothing but the prodigious partiality of Baronius and Binius for the Popes supremacy could put them upon inventing so groundless a Story as that of the Popes confirming the Decrees of this Council which he did no otherwise than all other eminent Orthodox Bishops that is by consenting to their Acts and applauding them afterwards § 2. Some other scattered passages there are which we will briefly put together here before we conclude this discourse The Preface boasts much of the words of Firmus Bishop of Caesarea and cites them thus that the Synod had followed that which Celestine had prescribed and being compelled by his Authority had passed Sentence on Nestorius and his Opinion and a little after Firmus his words are otherwise cited in the same Preface viz. That Celestine had prescribed a certain Rule for this business which the Council following observing diligently the form of the Canons they had inflicted the Canonical and Apostolical Judgment upon him and hence they infer that the Pope had commanded the Eastern Bishops to Decree over again and execute his Sentence against Nestorius Yea Baronius is so bold as to affirm That Celestine sent his Legates not to subject the Cause of Nestorius to a new Examination but only to see his Sentence Executed and that neither did he allow the Council any more than only to Execute his Decree nor did this general Council Arrogate any thing to it self but to Act according to his Sentence According to which account this Council of Ephesus was a mear mock Assembly and all these Bishops no more than Officers under the Pope to put his Decrees in Execution But that this is most notoriously false appears first from their false citing of the words of Firmus who truly quoted saith thus The Apostolical seat of Celestine formerly gave his suffrage and set a Pattern in this business And a little after which we also following have put in force that Form decreeing both a Canonical and Apostolical judgment against him The sense of which is this That whereas the Pope in his Roman Synod had condemned Nestorius unless he repented in ten days this general Council approving of that Sentence had upon Nestorius his refusal to appear after divers admonitions condemned him also So that he was now not only censured by one Apostolical See but canonically also by all the Bishops of a general Council And that this is the Sense is evident from the words of the Synod it self in the Preface to the Sentence by them pronounced being convinced by divers proof that Nestorius holds impious Opinions we are forced by the Canons and the Epistle of Celestine our Fellow-Minister even with Tears to come to this severe Sentence against him c. We see they name the Canons first and before Celestine's Epistle as laying an obligation upon them so to proceed and they call the Pope their Fellow-Minister nor was it his Authority but his having proceeded according to the Canons that laid the necessity upon this great Council to follow his Example and imitate the Pattern he had set them For nothing is plainer than that the Council did always intend to examin this Cause over again and for that reason they cited Nestorius and read first the Letters of Cyril and then of Celestine and after a full hearing both of the Fathers Opinions and of the Blasphemies collected out of Nestorius his Writings finding him finally obstinate they pronounce Sentence on him not in the Popes name but thus Our Lord Jesus Christ whom he hath Blasphemed by this Holy Council Decrees that Nestorius shall be deprived of his Episcopal dignity and shall be excluded out of the Communion of Bishops This certainly was an Original Decree in the name of the General Council and by the Authority they derived from Christ by which they gave force and validity to the Sentence formerly pronounced by the Pope and his Roman Council which had signified nothing against his Equal a Patriarch of the Eastern Church over whom he had no jurisdiction if it had not been thus confirmed So that it is a strange extravagance to
true Oecumenical Council of Chalcedon Yea Theodosius while the matter lay before the Pope not staying for his Sentence calleth a second Council at Constantinople wherein a pacted party of Hereticks Friends revoked the Judgment passed on him by Flavianus And yet fearing this was not sufficient Eutiches moved by Dioscorus Patriarch of Alexandria to have a general Council called at Ephesus which might have sufficient Authority not only to restore Eutyches but to Condemn Flavianus though Leo should take his part § 7. This was the true occasion of calling this Second Council of Ephesus which as to the manner of calling the Persons present c. was a General Council But from the violent and unjust proceedings thereof is commonly stiled The Pseudo-Synod or the Thievish Council of Ephesus The Acts of this Council are recited at large in the Council of Chalcedon wherefore the Editors refer us thither only entertaining us here with Binius his Notes on which we will make some remarks First The Notes say the Emperor called this General Council usurping the Popes Authority against right and the custom of the Church Now here he first owns that the Emperor called it As to the pretended usurpation and breach of Custom it is certain the Pope never yet had called one General Council as we have particularly shewn in three General Councils before and they own it here so that undoubtedly the Emperor only followed the Custom of the Church and used that Right which his Ancestors had Besides let Binius or Baronius produce one syllable in all Leo's Epistles where that Pope so jealous of his Rights did once complain of any injury done him by the Emperor in calling this Synod His Legate owns in this very Council that the Pope had received such a Letter of Summons as the rest of the Patriarchs did receive and he obeyed this Summons and sent his Legates thither excusing his own absence without any reflection upon the Emperors having no Right to Summon him Yea had he known it was his Right to call a General Council why did he write so many Letters to Theodosuis and to Pulcherius humbly beseeching the Emperor to call a General Council in Italy Nothing can be clearer than that this pretence of Usurpation is a most notorious Falshood Secondly The Notes blame the Emperor for making Dioscorus President of this Council and Baronius calls this arrogating and usurping a Right never attempted before and he thinks God justly deprived Theodosius of his Life the year after for his wronging the Pope herein But we have shewed Osius was the Emperors Legate and by him made President of the Council at Nice and Cyril was by the Emperor made President in that of Ephesus As for this Council the Pope was not like to be there in Person Flavianus who should have had the second place was a Party whose Sentence was to be enquired into Domnus of Antioch was not altogether unsuspected but Eutyches friends had commended Dioscorus of Alexandria and Juvenalis of Hierusalem to the Emperor as impartial and fit to Judge and their Characters made them as the Case was supposed to stand to have right to that 'T is true the Popes Legates did murmur at this as Liberatus saith and the Legates at Chalcedon called this a usurpation in Dioscorus but neither this Council nor that did insist upon that matter Thirdly The Notes pretend Theodosius therefore summoned Leo to this Council because he knew the Council would be null without the Popes Authority But the Letter of Summons declares he called it by his own Authority and he writ no other Summons to Leo than he did to the Bishops of Alexandria and Jerusalem so that it may as well be said Theodosius knew their Authority was as necessary as the Popes but the truth is the consent of the great Patriarchs was so far necessary that they were to be duly summoned and if possible to be present but they had no Authority single as to the calling or disannulling of any Council Wherefore Fourthly Though it be rejected yet not because the Pope did not call it or preside in it as his Notes pretend but because of the unjust and violent proceedings used in it against which not only the Popes Legates but divers other Bishops did protest and oppose them even to the suffering of Banishment and Deprivation And here I must note a manifest contradiction in Baronius who in one page saith All the Bishops consented to the restitution of Eutyches and the deposing of Flavianus the Legates of the Apostolick See only opposing Dioscorus to his face Yet in the next page he reckons up some Bishops by name who suffered for opposing Dioscorus and adds out of Leo's Epistle to Pulcheria that many were deprived and banished for this opposition and others put in their places Lastly I only add that the Emperor being deceived by Eutyches confirmed the Decrees of this Pseudo-Synod as his Ancestors were wont to do and for this reason the Acts of it were valid till they were disannulled by the General Council of Chalcedon and though the Pope disliked and complained of this Council he had no Authority to null all its Acts till another General Council was called Wherefore that Third Roman Council wherein Leo and the Bishops of Italy reprobated the Acts of this Pseudo-Synod of Ephesus was not sufficient to repeal the Council it self but only to shew that those western Bishops would not receive it For if the Popes Council alone had made it null what need had their been of a General Council to do that over again Yea the Pope and this Roman Synod writ to the Emperor earnestly entreating him that all things might remain in the same state they were before any proceedings till a General Council could meet which shews that they did not believe their single Authority was sufficient to annul all that was done After this Roman Council it seems Dioscorus in his Private Council at Alexandria excommunicated Pope Leo and Baronius makes this a greater Crime than his confirming the Heresie of Eutyches and he with the Notes observe it as a wonder that whereas Ninety Bishops signed the Heresie of Eutyches only Ten could be found to subscribe the Excommunication of the Pope but the wonder ceases if we consider that Eutyches was restored in a General Council or that which was called so wherein there met an hundred twenty eight Bishops or their Deputies but the Pope was excommunicated in a Private Synod at Alexandria I shall not enlarge upon the cruel usage of Flavianus in this Pseudo-Synod of Ephesus who died soon after of the blows and wounds given him there nor remark how Baronius would make him a Martyr for the Popes Supremacy whereas he was a Martyr for the Orthodox Faith corrupted by Eutyches Nor shall I detain the Reader with any of his odd observations upon the flight of Hilary one of the Popes
Legates from this Council Anatolius being by Dioscorus advanced to the See of Constantinople in the room of Flavianus Leo had great reason to fear he was infected with the Heresie of Eutyches and therefore he very carefully sent three Legates to Constantinople to inform him whether Anatolius were Orthodox and to desire a General Council might be called by the Emperor and in Italy if he pleased as his Letter imports in the mean time if we may trust the Acts of one of these Legates coming out of the Vatican Anatolius calls a Council at Constantinople and in the presence of the Popes Legates owns himself Orthodox receives Pope Leo's Letter to Flavianus and condemns Eutyches and Nestorius and this the Editors publish with the Title of a Council at Constantinople Now though their own Author of the Vatican expresly says that Anatolius called this Council yet both Baronius and the Notes in the same page daringly affirm that the Popes Legates commanded all the neighbouring Bishops to meet in this Council Which is as false as that these Legates were sent to restore the lapsed Oriental Church and that both Theodosius and Anatolius and all the Eastern Bishops in all these Transactions owned the Pope to be the Supream Head of the Church These things are only to be found in Baronius his Inferences but no Author or Record of these proceedings hint any such thing The Legates chief business was to petition the Emperor for a General Council and it was usual when any new Patriarch was advanced that he should write an account of his Faith to all the other Patriarchs and Anatolius having been justly suspected was obliged to do it something more solemnly for Leo's satisfaction CHAP. III. Of the Council of Chalcedon being the Fourth General Council BEING to discourse of the Fourth General Council at Chalcedon we must observe that besides the partial Preface before it and the fallacious Notes after it published by the Editors the Acts of it are divided into three parts The first containing the Epistles and other Writings precedent to the Council The second containing the several Acts of it The third containing the Epistles and other Transcripts relating to that Council afterwards Of the first part I shall treat very briefly having spoken of divers things there collected in the former Chapter only noting now some of the Frauds and Errors in these preliminary Epistles And first I need not enlarge upon those false Stories in the Preface to this Council which I confuted before Anno 448 and Anno 449. That Eutyches appealed from Flavian ' s Council at Constantinople to the Pope That the Pope immediately became an Enemy to that Heretick That it was the highest Crime in Eutyches to appeal from the Pope to the Emperor Nor will it be necessary to insist upon the Prefacers owning that Theodosius called the Pseudo-Synod of Ephesus at Dioscorus his request and though Pope Leo did labour to hinder it yet he durst not but send his Legates to it who indeed did generously refuse to joyn in the condemnation of Flavianus But whereas the Prefacer pretends Flavianus appealed to the Apostolick See as if the Pope were alone fit to receive Appeals I must note First That de Marca confesses All the rest of the Patriarchs were his open Enemies and therefore he was compelled to apply to the Western Church for help and yet he did not Appeal to the Pope alone and Leo told Placidia that Flavianus Appealed not only to the Apostolick Throne but to all the Bishops of those parts and Leo saith the same thing in his own Epistles that the Appeal was to all the Churches of those parts and therefore all the Western Bishops joyned with Leo in desiring a Council might be held in Italy Which was when they were met in Council at Rome and had no doubt declared their dislike of Dioscorus's proceedings but it sufficiently confutes the Prefacers boast of Leo and his Councils rescinding the Acts of this Ephesine Pseudo-Synod as if that had been sufficient to null all that was done there because if the Pope in that Council of Rome had sufficient Authority to have abrogated the Acts of Ephesus there was no need for them to desire a greater Council to re-examine this matter or for Leo as the Preface owns to engage the Western Emperor his Mother and his Empress to write to Theodosius to suffer the Transactions at Ephesus to be heard over again But Theodosius having called that Synod by his own Authority and being persuaded by Eutyches his Party that the proceedings in it were regular would not be prevailed on by any importunities to grant this request but he dying soon after and Marcian by marrying Pulcheria Sister and Heir to Theodosius coming to be Emperor consented to call a General Council but not as the Pope desired in Italy but in the East where the Controversie began and where by the Ancient Canons it was to be decided Which suffices to discover all those falshoods that are in that part of the Preface which concerns the things before this General Council In the Preleminary Epistles and Edicts which constitute the first part of the Council of Chalcedon we may observe many of the Titles of the Epistles are corrupted by Roman Parasites So in the first Epistle of Flavianus the true reading is to Leo Arch-Bishop of the elder Rome but they have made it Pope c. In Flavians second Epistle to Leo the Latin Copies leave out of the Title and Fellow minister So again Pope is put into the Latin Copy instead of Arch-Bishop in a Letter of Leo's to the Monks at Constantinople And in Leo's Epistle to Theodosius in the Latin for Leo Bishop there is put in these absurd words Leo Pope of the Catholick Church of the City of Rome And in his Epistle to the second Synod at Ephesus the Latin leaves out these Material Expressions to his beloved Brethren in the Lord greeting To conclude the Greek Title owns that Leo and his Roman Synod petitioned for a Council in Italy the Latin leaves this out though the body of the Letter do expresly declare that request Now these are plain Instances how little Credit is to be given to the Latin Copies of this Council and especially to these Titles which the Popes Flatterers have frequently corrupted and altered them from the modest Style used in those days And hence we may gather how frivolously Baronius argues from the Titles of Pope Leo's Epistles wherein he stiles himself Bishop of the Roman and of the Universal Church that the Popes then did use the style of Universal Bishop though St. Gregory expresly denies that ever any of his Predecessors used that profane new and proud Title but the Annalist makes bold to give Gregory the Lie meerly on the credit of these corrupted and fictitious Titles prefixed by forging Parasites for Leo's usual Inscription was
Leo the Bishop of Rome to c. so that where we see Bishop or Pope of the Catholick Church of Rome c. there 't is certain the Flatterers have been at work But as to more material observations when Flavianus had condemned Eutyches he doth not desire the Pope to confirm the Sentence which being regularly passed on him by his own Bishop in Council no man could relax as Leo himself grants But his Letter to Leo requires him to publish it to all the Bishops under his jurisdiction In Leo's Epistle to Julian one of his Legates the Latin Copy puts in nobis and makes Leo say there is one Doctrine and Teaching of the Holy Ghost in us and in you but the Greek reads in the whole Catholick Church Again it is commonly pretended that Pope Leo was utterly against the Emperors calling the second Council at Ephesus and that one reason which made all its proceedings null was because it was called without his consent But it appears by divers of this Popes Letters here published that he owned it a pious Resolution of the Emperor to call this Council and in observance of his Commands he sent his Legates to it So that he never pleaded his Authority in bar to the Emperors Right even when in his Judgment he thought there was no need of it And he declares that he sent these Legates not to preside there but to agree with them by common consent on such things as might be pleasing to God as his Letter to this Synod shews Num. 13. It appears by Petrus Chrysologus Bishop of Ravenna's Letter to Eutyches that he appealed to him as well as to the Pope for he excuses himself as unfit to judge a Cause that had been tried in a far Country especially upon hearing only one Party A Rule which if the Popes had duly observed they would not have received so many unjust Appeals 'T is true he refers him to Pope Leo's Epistle to Flavianus lately writ on this subject but Binius in his Notes falsly puts in that he warns him to rely on it as an Oracle of the Holy Ghost for he only saith there was now an Orthodox Pope in St. Peter's Chair who had taught the Faith aright in this Epistle which had been sent by Leo a little before to this and other Bishops of the West for their approbation But that of Leo himself in his Epistle to Theodosius shews he was no honester than he should be and deserved not so good a Character as the Bishop of Ravenna gives him for he impudently cites one of the Sardican Canons under the forged Title of the Nicene Canon made by all the Bishops in the World the Margin would excuse this by pretending that other Fathers cite these Sardican Canons under the Title of Nicene Canons but we know no ancient Fathers did so except Zosimus and Boniface his Predecessors who to their lasting infamy were convicted of this notorious Fraud in the Council of Carthage and therefore it was an odd piece of assurance in Leo so soon after to make use of the same detected Cheat. In another Epistle of his against Eutyches he saith In the mystical distribution of the spiritual Food that is given and received by which those who partake of the virtue of the Heavenly Food are changed into his Flesh who was made our Flesh which is point blank against their modern Opinion of Transubstantiation making the Bread to be Spiritual and Heavenly Food and the change to be not in the Elements but in the Receivers After this we have divers Epistles of the Western Emperor Valentinian of his Mother and Empress to Theodosius and Pulcheria writ at the request of Pope Leo to desire that Emperor to revoke the Judgment passed in the Pseudo-Synod of Ephesus which further proves the Pope had no Authority in himself to null those Acts for he would not have begged with Tears that which was in his own Power But the great use the Romanists make of these Letters is on account of some high Expressions in them about the Popes having a Power over all Bishops and a Principality among them But there is some doubt whether these Epistles are genuine the Story of their being at Rome the night after St. Peter's day not agreeing to the time when these pretended Epistles must be writ But if they be not forged Rome will gain nothing by these phrases which Leo put into their Mouths for he certainly endited these Letters for them as we may know by this Evidence that the Emperors Mother Galla Placidia who understood no more of the Canons than the Pope told her cites the Canon of Sardica for a Canon of Nice as Leo had done before and therefore ex ungue Leonem we may easily know the Penman of these Epistles Now when he bears witness only to himself his testimony is suspicious and of no weight at all and Theodosius valued these brags so little that he calls Leo only by the name of Patriarch in his answer and affirms the Nicene Canons were not broken and therefore he utterly rejected the request Yet Leo was forced to be content and to receive Anatolius chosen Bishop of Constantinople in this Synod of Ephesus into his Communion only desiring him to give an Account of his being Orthodox in the Faith that he might publish it to other Bishops Soon after which Theodosius died Marcianus succeeding and having no other Title to the Empire than his being married to Pulcheria he remitted much of the Majesty of Style in his Letters to Leo and other Bishops used by Theodosius and other Emperors But even when he complements the Pope in the highest strain he will not yield the Council should be called in Italy as the Pope desired but resolves to have it in the East in some City which he himself should choose Where we may see a notorious Forgery in Baronius and Binius for whereas the Emperor saith where it shall seem good to us Baronius turns nobis into vobis and Binius in his Notes follows him as if the Emperor had left it to the Pope to choose what City he pleased for the Council to meet Nay further Binius who reads it nobis in the Epistle yet in a Note before that Letter he saith it was where the Peope pleased and hath the Confidence to say in his Notes at the end of the Council that the Emperor writ to the Pope to appoint the place time and manner of calling this General Synod Than which nothing can be more false for the Pope would have had it in the West if he might have chosen but the Emperor Summoned the Bishops first to come to Nice as his Letters yet extant shew and thither the Popes first Letter to the Synod ought to be directed and I wish that ignorant hand which altered the Title and put in Chalcedon instead of Nice hath not put in
this Session it is said That the Councils definition had confirmed Leo ' s Epistle and the Faith of Leo is commended because he believed as Cyril believed And after all the Bishops agreement was not sufficient to ratifie this definition of Faith till it was shewed to the Emperor as the last words import The Sixth Action was adorned with the presence of the Emperor Marcianus who made a Speech to the Fathers which Baronius by mistake saith was in the first Session telling them he was come to confirm the Faith they had agreed on as Constantine did not to shew his power Which is a clear and undeniable proof that the confirmation of their Decrees depended on the Emperor in whose presence the definition of Faith was read and subscribed by every one of the Bishops and he declared his Approbation thereof and in the open Synod appoints penalties for them who should after this call these Points into question And then he gives them some Rules to be formed into Canons because they related to Ecclesiastical Affairs after which having been highly Applauded by the Bishops he was petitioned to dimiss them but told them they must not depart for some few days and so took his leave of them Which shews that the Emperor who convened them had also the sole power to dissolve this general Council I shall add what Richerius observes upon that definition of Faith made in this Session that it contains many of the very words and expressions of the Athanasian Creed and though he doubt whether Athanasius did compose that Form which bears his name yet he saith It is now become the Creed of the Catholick Church and there is not a Tittle in it which is not agreeable to the Credit Holiness and Learning of Athanasius He notes also the policy of the Popes Legates who contrary to all ancient usage and to the Primitive simplicity of the former Councils do most impertinently put this Epithete to the Popes name Bishop of the Universal Church of the City of Rome But when I consider the absurdity of the expression and the frequent corruptions in these Acts why might not that bold hand who added to the Legates name President of the Council in this very place and in this Session where the Emperor being present certainly presided add this huffing Title to the Pope's name And if so it is a corruption and can be no ground for an Argument However 't is a great prejudice to all these Titles that when any others of the Council speak of the Pope they call him only Bishop or Archbishop and none but his own Legates load him with those vain Titles The Seventh Action contains only the Ratification of a private Agreement made between Maximus Bishop of Antioch and Juvenalis Bishop of Jerusalem concerning the extent of their Jurisdictions The Eighth Action was the case of Theodoret who having formerly favoured Nestorius yet being afterwards convinced of his Error was received into Communion by Pope Leo who had judged his cause and acquitted him before the Council met But for all that the case was heard over again and he called an Heretick and had been expelled the Council if he had not cleared himself over again by subscribing Leo's Epistle and Anathematizing Nestorius and Eutyches upon which he was restored to Communion and to his Bishoprick By which it is as clear as the Sun that the Council was above the Pope and had Authority to Judge over again the Causes he had determined and also that barely being in Communion with the Pope could not clear any Man from Heresie nor give him a right to the Communion of the Catholick Church And if the Epistles of Theodoret to Leo be genuin whereof there is good cause to doubt and this cause were referred to the Pope by Appeal as the Romanists brag This makes the matter worse and shews that the last Appeal is not to the Pope and that he cannot finally decide any cause which shall not be liable to be tried again in a general Council yea though it be as this was a Cause of Faith which utterly ruins the Infallibility The Ninth and Tenth Actions concern Ibas Bishop of Edessa who had been a Nestorian and was deposed by Dioscorus in the Pseudo Synod of Ephesus in which are these observables First The Emperor commanded a Lay-man and some Neighbouring Bishops to hear this Cause first at Tyre and then at Berytus so that even Provincial Councils did not meet without the Emperors Authority and the Popes universal supremacy was not known then For in the Council of Berytus Antioch is called an Apostolical Throne and the Council after they had restored him to his Bishoprick referred the cause between him and Nonnus who had been thrust into his place to Maximus Bishop of Antioch as the proper Judge of that matter No more is here to be noted but only that the Popes Legates and the whole Council desire that the Emperor would revoke and utterly annul the Ephesine false Synod For though the Pope had done this yet they knew that was insufficient since none but the Emperor had right effectually to confirm or null a Council which pretended to be Oecumenical To this Action Baronius and Binius tack another concerning an allowance to be made to maintain Domnus late Bishop of Antioch who had been deposed But they own this is not in the Greek nor was there any such thing in the Acts of the Council in Justinian's time who expresly affirms Domnus was dead before which is certainly true Wherefore the Cardinal owns they found this in an old Latin Copy in the Vatican the very Mint of Forgeries and this Action ought to be rejected as a mear Fiction The Eleventh and Twelfth Actions were spent in examing the cause of Bassianus and Stephanus both pretending to be Bishops of Ephesus wherein we may observe That Bassianus pleads he was duly elected by the suffrage of the Nobility People and Clergy of that City and the Emperor confirmed the Election for the Pope had not then usurped the nomination or confirmation of remote Bishops Again whereas Baronius brags that the Pope deposed Bassianus from the Bishoprick of Ephesus and cites the words of Stephen his Antagonist thus it is now four years since the Roman Bishop deposed Bassianus arguing from thence That it was the ancient usage for the Pope to depose Metropolitans He doth notoriously prevaricate for Stephen's words are since the Roman Bishop deposed him and the Bishop of Alexandria condemned him And a little before the same Stephen saith more fully That Bassianus was expelled by the holy Fathers Leo and Flavianus and the Bishops of Alexandria and Antioch By which the Reader may see there is no credit to be given to Baronius Quotations who always resolves by false Citations of Authors to ascribe that to the Pope alone which was done by him in conjunction with other Bishops
Faith but because he agreed with the African and other Churches and now de Facto took the Orthodox Side Wherefore when Zosimus and other succeeding Popes favoured these Pelagians the Dignity of his See did not secure them from the Censures of the African Fathers as we shewed before § 3. We pass thirdly to his rare faculty of supposing things without any proof and sometimes making inferences from his own inventions for the advantage of Rome So when a few persecuted Eastern Bishops of Chrysostom's party fled to the Roman Church to avoid the Storm their own Patriarchs being all combined against them Baronius saith they fled to it as to their Mother being admonished by the examples of their Predecessors And he goes on to insinuate a very false thing viz. That all the Bishops who were persecuted by the Arrians in Constantin ' s time in the East fled to Rome Whereas only some few came both then and now and dire necessity had left them no choice nor other refuge Thus he resolves Ruffinus shall be a Pelagian Heretick and out of a Council whose Acts are not extant and the relation of it only saith Celestius was condemned there he will have Ruffinus condemned in that Council upon meer conjecture and can no other ways prove him a Heretick but by one Witness even this Heretick Celestius who being in a strait cited Ruffinus's words but probably very falsly so that one Heretick shall be sufficient evidence against a man that Baronius hates but many Orthodox Witnesses will not persuade him that Innocent favoured the Pelagians almost to the end of his Life It is an odd conjecture that St. Hierom would not translate any of Theophilus his Paschal Epistles after once he differed with Pope Innocent about restoring St. Chrysostom's name into the Dypticks For except another guess of his own without any manner of evidence there is no appearance that ever St. Hierom was concerned for St. Chrysostom's sufferings and it is certain he was kind with his Mortal Enemy Theophilus in the year of Christ 404 when he got him to be banished and it would be very strange that St. Hierom should refuse to translate any more of Theophilus's Epistles on the account of a quarrel between him and Pope Innocent about restoring Chrysostom's name into the Dypticks since the last Paschal Epistle translated by Hierom was writ Anno 404 and Baronius saith Theophilus writ every year one till Anno 412 but Chrysostom died not till Anno 407 and Innocent himself did not quarrel with Theophilus till long after the year 404 So that the Cardinal contradicts himself meerly to support an idle conjecture viz. That all Eminent Fathers loved and hated only those who were loved and hated by the Pope And into what Absurdities and Contradictions this Fancy hath led him may be seen by comparing those two places aforecited together and we may note that though it be certain Theophilus died unreconciled to Chrysostom's memory or to Innocent yet Baronius shews he was commended as a most approved Bishop for so it seems a man might be though he had a difference with the Bishop of Rome Again it is a bare supposition that the Priviledges of the Patriarch of Constantinople asserted in the Province of Illiricum by a Law of Theodosius was founded upon the false suggestions of Atticus For the very Law it self forbids innovations and requires the ancient Canons and Customs thus far observed should be in force on which Theodosius plainly grounds the Jurisdiction of the Bishop of Constantinople in this Province So that he refers to the Canon of the Second General Council of Constantinople and the usage ever since and how could this proceed from any false suggestions of Atticus To proceed Prosper relating Germanus his going into Britain as some think mistakes the time at least seventeen years and says nothing of St. Lupus his Companion in that Journey howbeit because Prosper saith the Pope sent St. Germanus Baronius will have him to be authentick contrary to all other Authors who affirm St. Germanus and Lupus were sent by a Gallican Council to whom a Petition from the British Bishops was sent However he affirms it for a certainty soon after that St. Germanus was the Popes Legate into Britain which he had but half proved before And one Author who speaks favourably of the Popes Authority shall be believed against many of equal Credit who speak otherwise I grant Prosper is a credible Writer only he is apt for the credit of the Cause always to bring in the Popes as Enemies to the Pelagians sometimes without reason and Constantine Bede with others who write of this journey into Britain and ascribe this mission to a French Council deserve more credit in that particular than he A little after upon Cyril's mentioning Nestorius's writing to the Roman Bishop in hopes to draw him to his Opinion Baronius supposes of his own Head that it was an ancient use in Controversies of Faith to write to the Bishop of Rome and that the part he chose was generally favoured so that if Nestorius could persuade him the whole Catholick Church would follow his Judgment which is all Chimaera for Pope Victor Stephen and Liberius of old Vigilius and Honorius afterward found opposition enough for all the dignity of their place when they seemed to other Bishops to take the wrong side From a fabulous Writer called Probus who hath given us a Legend of St. Patrick's Life he not only confidently affirms that Pope Celestine sent this Patrick to convert the Irish but infers from thence That it was clear to all men the Gospel was to be received from the Apostolical See for the conversion of the Pagans Whereas it is not clear that St. Patrick was sent from Rome but it is clear that other Heathen Countries have received the Gospel by the care of other Patriarchs and Eminent Bishops so that his Ground is but conjecture and the Superstructure wholly vain 'T is true indeed that Pope Leo to shew his Authority desired three Bishops of Sicily to appear in his annual Roman Council once a year and was the first Pope who put this Yoke upon them but how this new encroachment shews the ancient observance of holding Councils of Bishops twice a year is very hard to conjecture only when a Pope alters the Fathers Customs the Annalist will suppose he observes and confirms them And he could see no usurpation in this Popes calling the Sicilian Bishops yearly to Rome against the ancient Usage But when Dioscorus of Alexandria would have encroached upon the Bishops of Syria he blames him severely We shall not mention the Authority of the Writings of Athanasius Cyril and other Eminent Bishops of other Sees in Controversies of Faith But it is very imposing for Baronius to suppose The Pope presided as the Master over the whole Christian World and out of his high Throne taught all men
Theodoret's Baronius had better have owned it for none ever thought Popes infallible in their Quotations but the Cardinal resolves right or wrong to vindicate Gregory who rejects Sozomen's History for that passage which is in Theodoret but is not in Sozomen so rashly do Popes judge sometimes The Passage is about commending Theodorus of Mopsvestia as an Orthodox Father to the time of his death which Theodoret doth affirm but Sozomen only mentions this Theodorus his Conversion by S. Chrysostom but saith no more of him and Baronius is forced to feign this Passage was in that Part of Sozomen which was long since lost and which probably S. Gregory himself never saw however Baronius knows nothing what was there written and therefore it is very boldly done to suppose a thing for a certain Truth which he could never know any thing of only to save the Credit of a Pope who had little or no skill in Greek Authors Again 't is apparently partial in him where he produces some ancient Testimonies of the French being wont to break their words to restrain this in modern Times only to that part of them which is Reformed while he boasts of his Catholicks as the justest Men in the World To confute which the Perjury and Treachery of the Leaguers in our Fathers time and the many Promises and Engagements broken to the late Hugonots in our days are abundantly sufficient He takes it for a proof that the Eastern Bishops use to refer Causes of the greatest moment to the Pope because one Daniel a French Bishop fled out of his own Country for his Crimes probably into the East was complained of to the Pope being Uncanonically Ordained which Complaint the Pope transmits to the Bishops of the Province of Narbon as the proper Judges in that matter so that this Cause was not referred to him at all only he was desired to acquaint those with it who ought to determine that Point Moreover he makes it a certain Evidence that Socrates was an Heretick because he complains of Nestorius for urging the Emperor to persecute Hereticks as soon as ever he was Ordained Bishop of Constantinople But this Kingdom hath found Romanists when it was their Interest to censure Men as Hereticks for the contrary viz. for only insisting upon the execution of some gentle Penal Laws upon such as differed from the established Religion He commends S. Cyril for his Modesty in not mentioning the Fault of Theodosius his abetting Nestorius yet he upon bare Surmizes speaks very opprobriously of Theodosius upon this account and reflects upon all Kings and Sovereigns as inclined to follow his Example Now if the silence of these things proves Cyril's Modesty who must needs know whether Theodosius were guilty of this or no Doth it not prove somebodie 's Immodesty to rail by meer Conjectures at Theodosius and all Princes To proceed It is a very false consequence from Cyril's calling in Celestine to his assistance against Nestorius and that Popes condemning the Heretick in his private Council at Rome That it was the Ancient custom from the beginning for S. Peter's Chair alone to determine controversies of Faith and condemn Heresies with their Authors as they arise For Cyril had first condemned this Heretick and his Opinions and the Pope only came in as his Second yet after all it was necessary that a General Council should condemn him which had been needless if the Pope alone or in conjunction with another Patriarch had been sufficient Again he cites two Authors only for Celestine's sending a Pall and a Mitre to S. Cyril and these Writers lived 8 or 900 year after this time and he rejects some part of their account as fabulous yet from this Evidence he would prove That Cyril was Celestine ' s Legate in the Council of Ephesus But he must have better proof than this to make us believe so incredible a thing We may further note that where Possidius is so particular in the circumstances of S. Augustine's death he mentions nothing of any Image of the Blessed Virgin or the Saints no Crucifix placed before him but only the Penitential Psalms were writ out and fastned on the Wall which he read over as he lay on his Death-bed Nor doth he mention any Office said for his Soul after he was dead but only an Office for commending his Body to the Grave which shews these were devised in later and more Superstitious Times Baronius indeed supposes the word Sacrificium to signifie the Mass here but it seems to signifie no more than the usual Office at putting the Body into the Grave in hopes of a joyful Resurrection But though nothing be more evident even in these Annals to a Judicious Reader than the many Innovations in Doctrin and Worship made by the modern Roman Church contrary to the Decrees of Councils the Judgment and Practice of the Ancient Fathers the Annalist a little after upon Capreolus Bishop of Carthage his affirming that to be the true Faith which is delivered by the Fathers flies out into foul Language against the Reformed Churches for Innovations and reviving Heresies condemned by the Fathers Whereas we freely refer it to those Ancients to judge between us Whether they or we come nearer to the Doctrin and Usages of pure Antiquity and can from substantial Evidence prove them to be the Innovators I will only note That in this Epistle of Capreolus this Bishop calls the Emperor His Lord and his Son Upon which Baronius makes no Remark because he would have it thought that no Bishop but only the Pope did ever call the Emperor Son For he alone is to be the Father of all Princes and all Bishops also A little after he interprets that woful destruction of the Emperor's Army in Africa to be a Divine Judgment upon him for countenancing the Heretical party at Ephesus Though not many Pages from hence he lays all the blame of this Connivance upon the Treachery of the Emperor's Domesticks and he may find as great Defeats hapning often when the Emperors did take the Catholick part So true is that of Solomon No man knoweth either love or hatred by all that is before him All things come alike to all c. Ecclesix 1 2. 'T is remarkable what Baronius saith of a very dubious Rescript of Valentinian cited for the Authority of the Seâ— of Ravenna by the Friends of that Bishoprick The love of our Country is an imperious thing yea a Tyrant which compels an Historian to defend those things which if they were said of another place he would utterly explode which with the rest there said is so applicable to the Cardinal as to Rome that the only wonder is he did not see how severe a Censure he as David once did upon Nathan's Parable here passeth upon himself Again he forgets that the Miracle out of Prosper concerning a Maid who could not swallow a piece of the Sacramental Bread
Pope Leo for reproving Theodosius the Emperor gently and mildly when he was going to establish Heresie by a Pseudo-Synod Whereas Old Eli's Example may shew if the Emperor was his Inferior in this matter and the Pope his Ghostly Father that his Reproof ought to have been sharper yea he should have expresly prohibited the convening of this Council if his Authority was necessary to their Meeting and have not so meanly truckled as to send his Legates to a Synod which he judged needless yea dangerous And if we consider Leo's high Spirit this Submission shews he had no right to call a General Council nor power to hinder the Emperor from appointing one Again When the Pope by Prosper's help had writ a very seasonable and Orthodox Epistle against Eutyches the French Bishops were careful to have it exactly Transcribed but it follows not from hence That they would not vary one syllable from his Decrees For this respect was shewed not to the Authority of the See but to the excellency of the Epistle as appears in that the Gallican Bishops as hath been shewed rejected other Decrees both of this Pope and his Predecessors when they disliked them And Baronius owns a little after that these Bishops rejoyced that this Epistle contained their own sense as to the Faith and were glad that the Pope held the same Opinion that they had always held from the Tradition of their Ancestors So that this is no Proof as he would have it That the Pope was a Master presiding over all the Christian World For they judged of his Teaching and approved it because it agreed with their Churches ancient Tradition On no better grounds he gathers there was One only lawful Judge One Governor of Holy things always in the Church viz. the Pope From Theodoret's Epistle to Leo For first these Epistles are justly suspected as being not heard of till they came to light first out of the Vatican And secondly they are demonstrated to be spurious by divers Learned Men and especially this to Leo is shewed to contain manifest Contradictions Thirdly If this Epistle were genuine it must be considered that all the Patriarchs except the Roman were at that time either corrupted or oppressed and in that juncture Theodoret could appeal to none of them but Leo and so might well give him good words who alone was likely and able to assist him As for that Testimony wherein they much glory That Rome had the Supremacy over all Churches as their Translation speaks because it was always free from Heresie and no Heretick had sat there it supposes a long experience of the Church of Romes Integrity before this Priviledge was bestowed and if the Supremacy was given her for this Reason she ought to lose it again whenever any Heretical Pope shall get the Chair nor doth Theodoret at all suppose this impossible for the future Moreover he brags that Leo restored Theodoret and others deposed by this Pseudo Ephesine-Synod and infers That it was the Popes priviledge alone to restore Bishops deposed by a Council But the Misfortune is Theodoret was called an Heretick after the Pope had privately acquitted him and his Cause was to be tried over again at Chalcedon and till that Council restored him he remained suspended for all this pretended Priviledge of the Pope And before we leave him we may note that he used all his Interest to persuade the Emperor to call a lawful and impartial General Council as appears by all his Epistles to his several Friends which shews he knew it was in the Emperor's power alone to call one not in the Pope's to whom he would have written being in favour with him if he had had Authority in this Affair He reckons Attila's leaving to harrass the Eastern Empire to be a Divine Reward for Marcian's setling the true Religion there but presently tells us That this Scourge of God and other sad Judgments fell upon Italy and the Western Empire from whence he supposes the Reformation of all Eastern Heresies came and where he believes no Heresie could ever take place So miserably do Men expose themselves when they pretend to give Reasons for all God's Dispensations In the next year hapned the Famous Council of Chalcedon wherein divers of Baronius's Frauds have been already detected so that I am only to add That Leo was politick in pretending to give Anatolius a power to receive Recanting Bishops who had fallen into Eutyches Heresie and cunningly reserves the greater Cases to his own See But 't is plain Anatolius of Constantinople had as much power in the Provinces subject to him as the Pope had in Italy and the greater Cases were according to ancient Usage reserved to the next General Council where both the Bishop of Rome and Constantinoples Acts were to be re-examined and none of these Erring Bishops were restored but by that Council And finally he makes it a great Crime in Dioscorus to pretend to Lord it over Egypt and to say He had as much Authority there as the Emperor Yet the following Popes did and said as much in relation to Italy but Baronius cannot see any harm in that though Socrates did who saith That both the Bishops of Rome and Alexandria had exceeded the bounds of Priestly-power and fallen to a secular way of Ruling And this may suffice for this Part of the Period we have undertaken CHAP. IV. Roman Errors and Forgeries in the Councils from the end of the Fourth Council till An. Dom. 500. § 1. THE Synod of Alexandria is falsly styled in the Title under Leo For their own Text confesseth it was assembled by the Authority of Proterius Bishop of Alexandria The Second Council of Arles which Binius had antedated 70 year and put out with this false Title under Siricius is by Labbè placed here according to Sirmondus his direction The Council of Anjou in Binius is said to be held under Leo who is not once named in it Wherefore Labbè leaves out that false Inscription and only saith it was held in the 13th year of Pope Leo The 4th Canon of this Council is corrupted by Binius and Baronius For where the Text reads If any be coelibes unmarried they put into the Margen as a better reading if any be debiles weak Which is to make the Reader believe that all the Clergy then were unmarried whereas this Canon supposes many of them had Wives And the 11th Canon allows a married Man to be chosen Priest or Deacon the Popes Decrees not yet prevailing in France So that Labbè honestly strikes out debiles and keeps only the true reading d We note also that in the end of this 4th Canon such Clerks as meddle in surrendring Cities are excommunicated A Sentence which if it were now executed would put many Priests and Jesuits out of the Communion of the Church for their treachery to the Emperor and the King of
did not receive the Cup as well as the Bread For he saith in general This dividing the Mystery can never happen without a grand Sacriledge Now it is certain that when either an Heretical or Catholick Man or Woman receives but in one kind it doth happen that the Mystery is divided and therefore in Pope Gelasius Opinion the present Church of Rome is guilty of a grand Sacriledge in taking the Cup from the People And it seems the Editors thought Baronius had not sufficiently satisfied this Objection and therefore they cunningly leave it out of this Popes Decrees in both Editions With like craft they omit the Tract of Gelasius against Eutyches and only give a touch at it in the Notes and there also care is taken out of Baronius if any shall elsewhere meet with this piece to keep them from discerning that Pope Gelasius condemns Transubstantiation and expresly saith That the substance of Bread and Wine remains after the Consecration The words they cannot deny but first Baronius and Binius argue it was not writ by this Pope but by Gelasius Cyzicenus an Author as Orthodox and more ancient than Pope Gelasius but their Arguments are not so cogent as to outweigh the proofs that this Pope writ the Tract Labbè in his Margen saith that many learned men think it his Gennadius Contemporary with the Roman Gelasius and the Pontifical say he writ a Tract against Eutyches Fulgentius cites it as this Gelasius his Work Pope John the Second also ascribes it to his Predecessor Yea the Bibliotheca Patrum allowed by the Expurgators put it out under Pope Gelasius his name And at last Baronius himself is not against supposing it was his But then Secondly He manifestly perverts the Sense of the words before-cited being after long shuffling forced to this absurdity that by the substance he means the accidents of Bread and Wine remain Which makes this learned Pope so ignorant as to mistake the first rudiments of Logick and might almost shew he was an Heretick if his Comparison in that sense be applied to the two Natures of Christ for illustrating of which he brings it in For thus it would follow that Gelasius held nothing but the accidents of Christs Body or Human Nature remained after the Hypostatical Union Doubtless Contarenus his Brother Cardinal was wiser and honester in making no reply at the Colloquy of Ratasbon 1541 to this clear Testimony And it is great weakness in Baronius to brag what wonders he hath done by heaping up a parcel of falshoods and impertinence Before we dismiss this let it be noted that the Annalist and Binius not only allow but dispute for 500 forged Tracts and Epistles which support modern Popery but they devise innumerable things to baffle and disgrace the most genuine Writings that condemn their Innovations Which is Baronius his meaning when he gives this reason of his large digression about this Tract because out of it the Innovators take their Weapons But they who reject the old Writings of their own Doctors do more justly deserve that Title As to this Popes extraction Volatteran and Panvinius say his Father Valerius was a Bishop Which is now left out of the Pontifical and not mentioned in Baronius or the Notes But the omission signifies little there being so many instances of married Bishops that had Children Yea of Popes that were Sons or Grand-Children of Bishops or former Popes As to the time of this Pope's ingress Baronius places it An. 492 and upon the credit of the dates of a few Papal Epistles which are always suspicious and often forged he rejects the Authority of Marcellinus who lived at this time and died An. 534 in whose Chronicle Gelasius is said to be made Pope An. 494 that is two year later than Baronius places it § 8. If Marcellinus be in the right we may justly doubt of those three Epistles the 1st 2d and 9th which Baronius cites as writ before the year 494 The 1st hath no date and though the time of writing it be made an Evidence against Marcellinus his Account yet he brings no proof it was writ An. 492 but this Nothing hinders us from allowing these things between Euphemius and Gelasius to be done this year I reply the Testimony of a good Author of that Age who affirms Gelasius was not Pope till two years after hinders us from believing it was writ then But I will not however condemn the Epistle which is modest enough calling Euphemius Bishop of Constantinople his Brother and Fellow advanced to a Precedence by the favour of Christ And when he was pressed to declare by what Council Acacius was condemned he cites no Roman Council nor pretended Sentence of his Predecessor Foelix But saith he was condemned by the Council of Chalcedon but this he doth not make out The Second Epistle also wants a date and is by guess placed in this year by Baronius with this false remark That the Popes by Custom used to prescribe a Form of Belief to all the Faithful Whereas the Letter it self declares the Custom was For every new Pope to declare his Faith to the Neighbouring Bishops that they might know he was Orthodox Now there is a vast difference between prescribing a Form of Belief to others and labouring to get from them a Testimony of our believing aright The 4th Epistles true Title is The Monitory of Gelasius But in Binius these words Of the most blessed Pope are added which Labbè rightly omits In the Monitory it self observe First That Gelasius denies his Predecessor or he had condemned the Emperor Anastasius Secondly He saith the Church hath no power to absolve any after their death Thirdly He claims no power to make any new Canons but only to execute the old Which other Bishops may do Fourthly He cannot prove Appeals to Rome by any Canons but those of Sardica which were rejected by many and slights the Canons of Chalcedon received every where but at Rome Fifthly He very falsly pretends Acacius was only the Executer of the Roman Churches Sentence by whose sole Authority some Eastern Bishops were condemned But we know Acacius had condemned them long before any Sentence was given at Rome and scorned to act under the Pope Sixthly Where Gelasius in his own Cause vainly brags That the Canons have given the Judgment over all to the Apostolical Seat Binius and Labbè mend it in their Marginal Note and say The Canons and Christ gave it this power neither of which is true In the 5th Epistle Gelasius owns a Private Bishop for his Brother and declares that he himself cannot alter the Canons The Margen again here saith The Canons cannot be altered they should have said no not by the Pope But here they say too little as before they said too much which puts me in mind of Juvenal's Note Quisquam hominum est quem tu contentum videris uno Flagitio
most religiously kept to the Honour of God himself as the principal time of his most solemn Worship Baronius also wrongs Zeno the Emperor in saying that his Edict for Union did Anathematize the Council of Chalcedon For the words of the Edict shew the contrary since Zeno only Anathematizes them who believed not according to the Nicene Creed whether in the Council of Chalcedon or in any other Council and the Cardinal himself in the next page only charges Zeno with tacitly abrogating the Council of Chalcedon and Liberatus affirms the Emperor was angry with John Talaia for not relishing the Council of Chalcedon Yea the Zealots against this General Council at Alexandria renounced the Communion of Peter because by subscribing this Edict of Union he had refused openly to Anathematize the Council of Chalcedon all which shews that this Edict did not condemn that Council Liberatus saith no more but that the Papers were taken away lest they should be delivered to the Catholicks to whom they were written But Baronius out of this affirms That the Pope writ to the Clergy the Monks and Orthodox Laity as if he had seen the Titles of the several Letters and cites Liberatus for his Evidence In like manner he brings in the words of Liberatus after a Fictitious Letter of a Roman Synod And cites him thus These Letters being given to Acacius he would not receive them c. By which one would imagine that Liberatus had attested this feigned Synodical Letter but this Author speaks only of that Epistle of Foelix which Baronius had cited three pages before and knew nothing of any Synodical Epistle Thus he cites part of an Oration made at the dedication of a Church which had been an Idols Temple but now was consecrated to the memory of Christ and of St. Peter and St. Paul and though there be not one Syllable in the words cited of any worship of Saints yet Baronius concludes that this is enough to intimate that the worship of the Saints did always flourish not only among the Bishops of this new dedicated Church but among all Catholicks But he must be very willing to believe a false Doctrin that will receive it from a bold Conclusion that hath no Premisses Again To give credit to a Relation of St. Michael's appearing and being worshiped at Rome in this Age he cites a Poet who says nothing of the worship of St. Michael and he would also insinuate that this Drepanius lived about this time to make this Superstition seem more ancient Whereas it is well known that Drepanius Florus writ about the year 650 that is 150 year after this Age and 50 year after Pope Gregory at which time many Corruptions and gross Ignorance were visible in the Church We may also note That Baronius corrects Marcellinus's Chronicle about the ingress of Pope Anastasius out of the Pontifical whereas Marcellinus lived at that time and brought down his Chronicle to the year 534 and so is a very credible Author But in the same page our Annalist shews how grosly the Pontifical is mistaken in point of time speaking of things as done under one Pope that were done under another and affirming such and such Facts done to Persons that were dead long before Yet not only here but in many places this mistaken Author is the sole Standard of Baronius his Chronology And whereas Theodorus Lector who writ An. 518. expresly saith King Theodorick called a Synod at Rome The Cardinal rejects his Testimony and out of the Pontifical and some spurious Acts affirms that Pope Symmachus called this Synod For those are the best Authors that speak of their side § 3. With like artifice our Author conceals some part of the Truth which might prejudice his Cause As for instance he notes as a peculiar piece of impudence and madness in Timothy Aelurus the Invader of the See of Alexandria that he darted forth his Anathema's against the Roman Bishops and makes a dismal representation of that Crime But the Epistle which relates the Story saith he Anathematized Anatolius Arch-bishop of Constantinople and Basilius of Antioch as well as Leo Bishop of Rome So that there is no reason to conceal that in his Recapitulation but only to make the Pope look higher and greater than he was in those days Liberatus no doubt was better informed what passed at Alexandria than Leo could he at Rome so that his account that Timothy Aelurus was immediately sent into Banishment by the Emperor from Alexandria is far more credible than that which Baronius deduces from Pope Leo's Letters of his coming first to Constantinople But the Cardinal corrects Liberatus by Conjectures meerly to persuade the World that the Emperor obeyed the Pope in Banishing that Heretick whereas the Writers of that time say he did it by advice of a Synod at Constantinople It is also observable that when he speaks of Epistles writ or Messages sent to the Bishop of Rome by any new Patriarch he always adds de more according to Custom But though it was as much according to Custom for every new Patriarch to write to the Bishop of Constantinople or to him of Antioch c. to notifie his Election and declare his being in the Communion of the Catholick Church Yet there Baronius leaves out thole words according to Custom § 4. But there are more Instances of his obscuring the Truth by false reasoning and particularly by supposing things as certain which are not proved and then making Inferences from thence and offering such Conclusions for manifest Truths Thus upon Supposition that the Pope was then above the Emperor and that nothing relating to the Church could be done without the Roman Bishop He introduces an Edict of Marcian's with a Letter of Pope Leo's and with this Phrase The Emperor Marcian obeyed Pope Leo Whereas that Letter of Leo hath no relation to the Edict and is an humble Petition to the Emperor to get his Letter to Flavian well translated into Greek and sent to Alexandria to clear him from an imputation of Heresie falsly laid to his charge But the Edict takes no notice of Leo or his Epistle or of the Roman Church but charges the Alexandrians to follow the Nicene Faith as it was prosessed by their own Bishops Athanasius Theophilus and Cyril And though there be a mistake in the Month the Year is right and it is dated three years after Leo's Epistle to Marcian But the Cardinal alters the date and would add to the Sense only to support his mistaken Supposition Anatolius Bishop of Constantinople might perhaps regulate some of the Officers or Clergy of his Church at the request of Pope Leo but it doth not appear that either Leo did pretend to command Anatolius nor that Anatolius owned he had any Authority over him And it is certain that for all Leo's huffing the Patriarchs of Constantinople did keep the place
Whether it were Orthodox to say as the Scythian Monks did one of the Trinity was crucified for us Dioscorus the Popes Legate represented this Sentence to Hormisda as Heretical and that to allow it would open a gap to many Heresies The Pope first determined to refer the controversie to the Bishop of Constantinople as appears by another relation of Dioscorus though Baronius would conceal this by omitting the beginning of this Paper But probably Dioscorus durst not trust this Question with the Patriarch of Constantinople So that Hormisda not yet declaring himself Justinian writ to him that he and the Eastern Church thought this Sentence Orthodox and required his consent to their Faith which he further shews in another Epistle complaining of the Popes delays At last after a long time Hormisda writes a shuffling Letter to the Emperor wherein Baronius saith he utterly exploded this Sentence Yea Baronius owns afterward that this Pope would have all Catholicks abhor these words One of the Trinity suffered in the Flesh But this very Sentence afterward appeared to be True and Orthodox and they who condemned it were declared Hereticks Yea the Scythian Monks appealed from this Pope to that most learned and orthodox Father Fulgentius who declared they were in the right and that he believed as they did And finally one of the succeeding Popes joyned with Justinian and the Orthodox Christians to confirm this Sentence So that this Pope and his Legate were both on the Heretical side which spoils the Infallibility § 5. The Councils abroad in this Popes times take no notice of him yet bear the Title of being held under him The first Binius says was at Rhemes and he cites for this Flodoardus But Labbè calls this a Synod at an uncertain place and gives us Binius his Notes but cites the words of Flodoardus by which it appears that Rhemigius his being made the Popes Legate and calling this Synod there by a Legantine power are Fictions of Baronius and Binius taken out of the first forged Epistle of Hormisda and falsly charged upon Flodoardus who saith no such thing And Sirmondus with P. de Marca say Rhemigius was not the Popes Legate Which manifestly appears from two Epistles of his writ ten year after this feigned delegation concerning an Invasion made upon his jurisdiction wherein he never urges any sort of power as Legate but pleads his original right as a Metropolitan And from Baronius and his Plagiary citing Flodoardus at large for this compared with the words of that Author in Labbè the Reader may learn these Writers are never to be trusted in any Quotation relating to the Pope till the Authors be searched The Council of Tarragon was not under Hormisda though it were in his time The Bishops there acting independently on Rome whose Popes Decrees of dividing the Church Revenues into four parts they contradict and divide it only into three in the eighth Canon And in the eleventh they order concerning the Discipline of Monks the Gallican Canons shall above all others be observed Binius misplaces the Council of Pau Anno Dom. 509. But Labbè sets it in this year rightly it was called not by the Pope but by Sigismund King of Burgundy as all Provincial and National Synods in that age were the famous Alcimus Avitus was President of it and the Pope had no hand in it for which reason these lesser Councils are more sincere than any where Rome or the Pope is named for there the Forgers are always tempted to leave add or alter something The same year was a Council held at Gyrone in Spain not under the Pope but under John of Tarragon and though by Hormisda's forged Epistles he be pretended to have been the Pope's Legate and that he received Constitutions from Rome it is plain this Council proceeds upon its own Authority and makes its own Rules which shews these Fictions are of a later date The Council of Constantinople is falsly titled under Hormisda the Union was not yet made and Hormisda sent not his Legates till next year so that it is very trifling for the Editors to say it was partly reprobated at Rome because this Synod consisted only of Eastern Bishops called by Justin the Emperor and their own Patriarch John of Constantinople presided whom they call Most Holy and Blessed Father of Fathers Archbishop and Oecumenical Patriarch and of him and Justin only do they desire their Acts to be confirmed And not only they but two Eastern Synods also at Jerusalem and Tyre ratified these Decrees which gave them a sufficient Authority and it is but a Roman Fiction that these Acts were revoked upon the reconciling of the Eastern and Westrn Churches § 6. John the first succeeded Hormisda probably by the interest of Theodoric the Arrian Gothick King for he commanded him to go as his Embassador to the Eastern Emperor Justin to require him not to persecute the Arrians but restore to them their Churches which he had taken away Threatning he would use the Catholicks of Italy severely if this were not granted The Pontifical softens this with a gentle phrase Rogans misit as if Theodoric entreated the Pope to go on this ungrateful Errant but the Notes more truly affirm he forced him to take this Office However the Pope durst not disobey that King wherefore he went to Constantinople and did deliver this request to Justin so as to prevall for liberty to the Arrians in the East as all Authors before Baronius affirm But the Cardinal calls this a base blot of the Popes prevarication and therefore he with the Notes give Anastasius the lye and forsake him in this part of John's Story whom in all the rest they follow For Baronius will not allow that a Pope should do so vile a thing as to sollicit for Liberty of Conscience for Arrian Hereticks wherefore he pretends he encouraged Justin to go on in punishing them But they cannot prove this except by a forged Epistle writ in this Popes name and a mistaken passage out of Gregory of Tours who knew not the true Story but speaks of John's Embassy to Theodoric instead of Justin One Argument only Baronius urges which is Why Theodoric should imprison this Pope at his return and keep him prisoner till he dyed in that woful confinement if he had faithfully discharged his Embassy I answer from Paulus Diaconus That Theodoric was moved to anger because Justin the Catholick Emperor had received him so honourably and also as Baronius himself saith This Gothick King suspected the Romans were then laying Plots against him and confederating with Justin The Emperor So that doubtless he thought the Pope was in this design and so suffered him to dye in Prison Now all this proves that these Gothick Kings were absolute Lords over the Bishops of Rome and it looks like a Judgment on the Roman See
denied that usurped jurisdiction of Appeals from thence to Rome to which some Popes pretended which had made them stand at a distance from the See of Rome The Notes on this Epistle have a fallacious Argument however to prove the African Church could not so long remain divided from the Roman because if so they could have no true Martyrs all that time since the Fathers agree That Crown is only due to those who suffer in the Catholick Church I reply this may be very true and yet since no Father ever said that the particular Roman Church is the Catholick Church a Christian may dye a true Martyr if he die in the Communion of the Catholick Church though he hold no Communion with the Roman Church which was the case at this time or lately of many Eastern Churches Another Forgery out of the same Mint treads on the heels of this pretending to be a Copy of the Emperor Justin and Justinian's submission to this Pope wherein they are made to own the Supremacy of Rome to the highest pitch and to Curse all their Predecessors and Successors who did not maintain that Churches Priviledges But the cheat is so apparent the matter so improbable and ridiculous and the date so absurd that Baronius and both the Editors reject it So that I shall only note that a true Doctrine could not need so many Forgeries to support it and the interest they serve shews who employed these Forgers We have spoken before of Boniface's two Roman Councils one of them revoking what the other decreed The third is only in Labbè being a glorious Pageant drest up by the suspicious hand of a late Library-keeper to the Pope But it amounts to no more than the introducing a poor Greek Bishop or two to enquire what was said in the Roman Records and in the Popes Letters of the Authority of that Church So that the Pope and his Council were Judges and Witnesses in their own Cause and therefore their Evidence is of no great Credit And 't is very ominous that this Synod is dated in December that is two Months after Boniface's death who is said to have been present at all its Sessions To cover which evident mark of Forgery Holstenius gives Baronius and all other Writers the Lye about the time of Boniface's dying and keeps him alive some time longer only to give colour to this new-found Synod The Council of Toledo might be in Boniface's time but not under him For the King of Spain whom the Bishops here call their Lord called it and it was held sub Mantano saith Baronius under Montanus the Metropolitan to whom the Council saith Custom had given that Authority Wherefore he condemns Hereticks and exercises all sorts of jurisdiction belonging to a Primate without taking any notice of the Pope or of any delegated Power from him So that probably all those Epistles which make Legates in Spain about this time are forged § 9. John the second of that Name succeeded Boniface but Anastasius and Baronius cannot agree about the Date of his Election or his Death and Holstenius differs from both an Argument that this Pope made no great Figure However right or wrong we have divers of his Epistles The first to Valerius saith Labbè appears by many things to be spurious it is stollen out of the Epistles of Leo and Ithacius and dated with wrong Consuls And I must add Scripture is shamefully perverted by the Writer of this Epistle For he would prove that Christ was not created as to his Deity but only as to his Humanity by Ephes iv 24. and Coloss iii. 10. where St. Paul speaks of putting on the New Man which after God is created in Righteousness and true Holiness and is renewed in Knowledge after the Image of him that created him Had a Pope writ this I would have affirmed he was no Infallible Interpreter The next is an Epistle of Justinian to this Pope wherein the Emperor is pretended to declare his Faith was conformable in all things to the Roman Church and made to say he had subjected and united all the Churches of the East to the Pope who is the Head of all the Holy Churches with much more stuff of this kind This Letter is rejected by the learned Hottoman and many other very great Lawyers who Baronius calls a company of Hereticks and Petty Foggers But confutes their Arguments with false Reasoning and Forgeries as I shall shew when I come to note his Errors I shall now confine my self to prove the greatest part of this Epistle to be spurious For who can imagin Justinian who vindicated the Authority of his Patriarch at Constantinople as equal with Rome and by an Authentick Law declares that the Church of Constantinople is the Head of all other Churches Yea in the genuine part of this Epistle calls his Patriarch the Pope's Brother That he I say should here profess he had subjected all the Eastern Churches to Rome And how should he that differed from Pope Hormisda in his decision of the Question whether one Person of the Trinity suffered for us and made Pope John now yield to his Opinion and condemn his Predecessors notion declare he submitted his Faith in all things to the Pope But we need no conjectures for if the Reader look a little further among the Epistles of Agapetus he will see one of the boklest Impostures that ever was For there Justinian himself recites verbatim the Epistle which he had writ to Pope John and whatever is more in this Letter set out among John's Epistles than there is in that which is owned by the Emperor is an impudent Forgery added by some false Corrupter to serve the Roman Supremacy Now by comparing these two Epistles it appears the beginning and end of both are the same and may be genuine but in neither part is there one word of this subjection or the universal Supremacy And all that wretched Jargon comes in where it is corrupted viz. From Ideoque omnes Sacerdotes universi orientalis tractus subjicere till you come to these words Petimus ergo vestrum paternum Which when the Reader hath well noted he will admire that those who had the cunning to corrupt a Princes Letter by adding twice as much to it as he writ should be so silly to print the true Letter within a few Pages But doubtless God infatuates such Corrupters and the Devil owes a shame to Lyers The next Epistle from the Gothic King Athalaric was probably writ soon after John's Election since it mentions the Romans coming to that Prince to beg leave to chuse a Pope and both Athalario and the Senate made Laws to prevent Simony in the Election of the Pope as well as other Bishops And which Baronius saith was more Ignominious This Edict was Ingraven on a Marble Table and hung up before the Court of St. Peters for all to see it But
Mennas the most Holy and Blessed universal Arch. Bishop and Patriarch said And he adds to the end of this Sentence that it was according to what Hormisda and Agapetus had prescribed whereas this being the Sense of the Synod gave Authority to what the later of these Popes had done and the former Hormisda was dead before this matter came into Question And now I am upon the Account of this Council in Baronius I will also note that in citing an Author which saith Mennas obtained an Universal Bishopric he adds that is of the Churches subject to him Yet a little after he will not allow that Paraphrase when the same words are applyed to the Popes which shews his unfaithfulness in adding and his partiality in expounding two very ill properties in an Historian But to proceed with Binius and Labbè In the 5th Act there is a Syod at Constantinople held under John the Bishop there Anno 518 wherein he is called Most Holy and most Blessed Arch-Bishop Occumenical Patriarch and Father of Fathers Yet the Editors put first in the Margen and then into the Latin Text under Hormisda which words are not in the Greek and are absurd because the two Churches were not yet reconciled Which is plain because in the Acclamations they cry let the Names of Euphemius and Macedonius be restored to the Church Which were two of their Orthodox Patriarchs and followers of Acacius whose Names had been struck out of the Dypticks by Heretical Princes and stood then condemned by Hormisda And they cry again Are our Synodical powers gon away to Rome That is must we reject our Orthodox Patriarchs because Rome censures them But the Latin corrupt version reads Synodica Romana modo valeant which would alter the Sense and persuade such as cannot look into the Greek that Rome's Decrees were valid at Constantinople whereas they Decree contrary to the Pope In the Epistle from John of Jerusalem to the Patriarch of Constantinople the late Forgers have put in a Sentence to give some colour to the Worship of the Blessed Virgin which spoils the Sense The true reading is Do ye most holy pray for the same things that we do for it is the common duty of Bishops to intercede for the peace of the Churches and the Emperors Victory and long Life But into this they thrust in a line or two thus it is the common Duty of Bishops And pray ye to the Holy Glorious Virgin Mary the Mother of God with us to intercede for the peace of the Churches which is a new Piece put into an old Garment so foolishly that the Rent is very visible Finally the subscriptions to the fifth and last Act are corrupted For whereas the Roman Deacons Theophanes and Pelagius in all other Acts are placed after the Eastern Bishops here they are set before them in the Latin Version And whereas the Editors tell us that Justinian's Edict to confirm the Decrees of this Council is depraved in the Title to Mennas I confess it is so but the Roman Parasites have depraved it by cutting off all those Titles which the Novel here cited by them gives him viz. To Mennas the most Holy and most Blessed and Oecumenical Patriarch All which the Editors of the Council leave out To these Notes of the depraving these Acts we may add a few remarks on some passages that are genuine but oppose the late Notions of the Roman Church The Epistle of Agapetus was not writ to Peter alone as the Epistle pretends but to him and other Bishops whom the Pope calls in the first Line His beloved Brethren and to Mennas there he gives the Titles of Brother and fellow Bishop The Syrian Bishops Epistle to Justinian declares that Christ is the Head of the Church which Title the Pope had not yet claimed In the Epistle from John of Jerusalem to the Patriarch of Constantinople where Leo is called Archbishop and Patriarch of Rome we have this memorable Truth That Christ who gave the power of binding and loosing to Peter the chief of the Apostles gave it in general to the Episcopal Order Which confutes that Doctrine of all Bishops receiving this power from the Pope The Bishop of Tyre's Epistle to the Synod at Constantinople calls the See of Antioch which Severus the Heretick had invaded The Throne of the Apostolical Church of Antioch and makes one of his great crimes to be his admitting strange Clerks Canonically deprived by their own Bishop to officiate without the consent of such as had sentenced them A crime so often committed by the Popes that these uncanonical precedents are produced to prove he hath a priviledge so to do The Sentence of Mennas against this Severus and his Complices recites That they had contemned the Apostolical succession in the Church of Rome which had condemned them and set at nought both the Patriarchal Throne of Constantinople and the Synod under it Yea and the Apostolical Succession which the Lord and Saviour of all had setled in those holy places And above all had despised the Sentence of the Oriental Diocess decreed against them I So that their greatest fault was not the contemning the Popes Authority and Apostolical Succession was setled in other Churches by Christ as well as in that of Rome Lastly The Constitution of Justinian is made on purpose to give validity to the Sentence of the Pope and the Synod against Anthimius and the Hereticks declaring it was the custom for all preceding Orthodox Emperors to confirm the Decrees of Councils and it says in the conclusion this Law was published that none might be ignorant of those things which the Bishops had agreed on and the Emperor had confirmed So that it is a fallacious Note of the Editors Margen to say That it was the duty of Emperors to take care that the Decrees of the Fathers and the Pope were executed Which makes their Master to be no more than their Servant and under Officer In the Notes on this Council are many Falshoods which may be discovered by what is already observed Only we may consider some few of them more particularly As first He takes it upon Baronius his credit that Agapetus left the Western Bishops his Legates and that their Power continued after his decease and thence boldly but falsly affirms That these Legates procured the Synod to meet and that they condemned these Hereticks by the Authority of their deceased Master whose Legate also he feigns Mennas was and in express contradiction to the Council he will have these Italian Bishops to be Presidents with Mennas yet immediately calls him alone the President of this Synod Now all this is to impose upon the Reader as if nothing could be done without Papal Authority But we have proved that Justinian called and confirmed this Council and Mennas presided solely in it The Acts also take no notice of these Western Bishops
with Paulus Diaconus follow his Account But the two former Authors are in this case more worthy of Credit however this is certain Bellisarius did depose and banish Sylverius and got Vigilius Elected who fearing his Rival should be restored got him at last into his Hands and barbarously caused him to be starved to death This is a sad Story of two Popes Sylverius uncanonically elected a Simoniack and a perjured Person and Vigilius a favourer of Hereticks one that is said to have hired false Witness and to have given Mony to make the See void and at last a Murtherer Which shews how little reason there is for Baronius and the Notes to make such a stir which was the true Pope of these two They will have Sylverius to remain the rightful Pope while he lived and so Rail freely at Vigilius as an Heretick and Bloody Usurper But they cannot prove this by any Evidence but only by a manifestly forged Epistle of Sylverius And the contrary is very certain because the Emperor the Gallican Churches and all did own Vigilius for the true Pope long before Sylverius his death and he openly acted as such all that time Wherefore we must reject that Dream of Baronius who saith without any ground that Vigilius did Abdicate the Papacy for six days upon the death of his Competitor and got himself new chosen and this purged him of all Crimes and in a moment made him a Saint and a rare Pope He would force this Fiction out of Anastasius who in like Cases he generally despises who only saith the See was void six days but plainly means after Sylverius was deposed for he reckons Vigilius his time from thence allotting him above 17 years and 6 Months that is near two years more than Baronius allows There are but two Epistles ascribed to Sylverius and they are the only Evidence to prove him the true Pope after he was Deposed yet it is certain both are Forged The first charges Vigilius with Simony yea excommunicates and deprives him for usurping the Papacy it is dated with the name of Basilius whereas Baronius and the Annotator say there was no such Consul in his time And Labbè saith it is to be rejected for the Barbarity of the Style and other reasons and concludes the mistake of the Consul shews the bold ignorance of Mercator the Author of this Imposture Now observe for the ingenuity and credit of Baronius that this Epistle not only serves him to clear Sylverius from Simony and to prove him the true Pope but he calls this odious Forgery The Sword of the Spirit the Word of God and the Exercise of that Power which he had to Absolve or Damn Eternally all People which is no less than Blasphemy The Second Epistle to Amator is so gross a Fiction that both Baronius and Binius reject it being contrary to the true History delivered by Liberatus whom the Notes call the most faithful Writer of this time Labbè agrees with them that it is spurious and shews that Mercator stole it out of Gregory's Epistles wishing that the like censure which is passed on this were passed upon many more of these Writings But the Letter of Amator to Sylverius which Labbè saith Learned men suspect to be as false as the Popes answer to it Baronius will have to be genuine and from this slight Forgery alone he proves That all the Catholick World groaned together at the ignominies put upon the Bishop of the Universal Church A rare Historian Whose Assertions and his Evidence are both false Binius places the Second Council of Orleance in this year but Labbe from Sirmondus puts it three years sooner An. 533. in the time of Pope John the Second it was called as the Preface saith by the Command of the King of France and made very good Canons without Papal Advice or Authority Binius his Notes here blunder this and the following Council and will keep King Clovis alive three year longer than Nature allowed him to support a Fable of this Kings giving the Pope a Golden Crown An. 514. whereas he died An. 511. The Third Council of Orleans Binius sets An. 540. But Labbè more truly places it here However it takes no notice of any Pope though Vigilius about this time is pretended to have writ to Caesarius Bishop of Arles This Synod made divers Canons for Discipline and by the second Canon it appears they were zealous for the Celibate of the Clergy But the fourth shews that hitherto the Canons in this case had not been obeyed and the ninth Canon Decrees That if any Clerks having Wives or Concubines were ignorantly ordained they should not be removed § 13. Vigilius was made Pope immediately after Sylverius was deposed and while the Goths belieged Bellisarius in Rome which was in this year But the Editors from Baronius write An. 540. upon this entrance to cover the Fable of his new Election after the death of Sylverius But he must come in in the year 537 For Marcellinus places Vigilius his death An. 554. which makes up the 17 years and odd time that Anastasius truly allots Vigilius whose Successor Pelagius entred as Baronius and the Editors own An. 555 which is but 15 whole year from that year 540 in which they say he entred and from which they falsly compute his time who writ Letters dated An. 538 and acted in all things as the sole true Pope from the time Sylverius was deposed which was according to Anastasius after he had sat one year and five Months and he followed Writers of undoubted credit that is Marcellinus who places his deposition and Vigilius his entrance An. 537 so doth Genebrard who with Platina allow Sylverius only some odd time above one year in which all Writers before Baronius agree His invention therefore it was to ascribe above 4 years to Sylverius that this false Chronology might cover his devisable of a new Election of Vigilius An. 540. which we justly reject as an idle Fable invented to save the Honour of the Roman Chair Yet it is well Baronius did not think Vigilius the true Pope all this time for by that means we have his true Character who he saith was driven on with the Whirlwind of Ambition and like Lucifer fell from Heaven that his Sacriledge cried out on every side he calls him a Schismatick a Simoniack an Usurper a wretched Man an Heretick a Wolf a Thief a false Bishop and an Antichrist aggravating his Crimes with all his Rhetorick wherein he rather exceeds the Bounds of Modesty than of Truth for he really was extreamly wicked and beyond the power of the sanctifying Chair it self to make him Holy We have so fully described the Acts of this Pope and all the false Stories about him in the following History of the Fifth General Council that we may here pass him by with a few brief Remarks First Liberatus assures us
consent Now if Theodora were so great a Friend to Hereticks as Baronius pretends 't is plain Vigilius then was a Favourite of hers which makes him still suspected to be inclined to Heresie But there is one mistake in this Epistle viz. That his Predecessor had granted a Pall to Caesarius which De Marca saith is false and affirms this Auxainus to have been the first Legate the Pope made in France A hopeful High-Priest to begin that Usurpation upon Metropolitans In this year was that Edict put out which condemned the three Chapters and here the Editors call it The Edict of the most pious Emperor Justinian containing a Confession of Faith and a Confutation of the Heresies that are contrary to the Catholick Church of God But for fear Vigilius and his Party might appear Heretical for opposing this Orthodox Edict the Editors will not print it here but thrust it on some hundred Pages further And put in here their false Comment before the Text hoping by the sham Stories in these Notes to take off the Readers aversation to this Heretical Pope But since all the Errors of these Notes are confuted at large in the History of the Fifth Council I will only name a few of them now viz. That Pelagius the Popes Secretary always opposed this Edict is false for he afterwards subscribed it He saith Vigilius Pontianus whose Letter is here printed and Facundus who writ against this Edict were Orthodox But the Fifth Council condemns all for Hereticks who wrote for the three Chapters ' here censured and none but Heretical Writers could take upon them to confute an Orthodox Confession of Faith The Decree of Vigilius for silence with his prudence and courage are all Fictions as shall be shewn in due place Vigilius had now been near three years at Constantinople and carried fair with Justinian so that doubtless he had signed his Edict which condemned the persons of Theodorus Theodoret and Ibas and their Heretical Writings yet here is an Epistle of his to a Scythian Bishop citing his Constitution which defends these three Chapters and wishes the persons of Theodorus c. might not be condemned as some favourers of Heresie desired Yet in the same Epistle he saith he had Suspended his two Deacons for defending the three Chapters and would shortly Excommunicate them Now what the Notes on this Epistle say That both the Opposers and Defenders of the three Chapters hated Vigilius is no wonder for he was false to all Parties and such trimming Sycophants who strive to please all get the favour of no body The Fifteenth Epistle to the Universal Church Baronius and the Editors do not censure but it is a meer Forgery being falsly dated as they own in the 26 of Justinian 552 they alter it to 551. Binius found but part of it in Baronius so prints no more But Labbé adds a great deal more not saying where he had it As to the matter of it the Story of this Popes sufferings at Constantinople is false and improbable not attested by any credible Writer of that time And whereas he saith he had Excommunicated and Deposed Theodorus Bishop of Caesarea and Suspended Mennas Patriarch of Constantinople that must be false because the Popes Legates in the sixth General Council affirm that Mennas died the 21st year of Justinian four year before the Date of this Letter An. 547 Wherefore this Epistle and the Instrument of Condemnation against Theodorus and Mennas are Forgeries And it is very unjust for Baronius and the Annotator on the credit of such stuff so rudely to rail at Justinian as if he were the vilest Heretick and greatest Monster upon Earth There are many other things in these Notes deserving censure viz. The affirming that Theodorus of Caesaria deposed Zoilus of Alexandria and put in Apollinaris whereas Liberatus expresly saith the Emperor did this The Stories of Justiman's revoking his Edict and of Theodorus and Mennas humble submission delivered in writing to Vigilius and of his absolving them are equally false and most improbable so that scarce any thing here can be trusted Were this Epistle genuine I would have observed that Pope Vigilius here saith he knew Justinian's Hand-writing And that utterly confutes Baronius and Suidas who say he was altogether illiterate I would also note That the Pope here affirms An. 551. he had been seven year out of his Country attending for the Peace of the Church Now if this be true he must leave Rome An. 544 that is three years before Baronius his Account and this will also prove some of his Epistles to Auxanius counterfeit being dated from Rome after that time But after all I reckon this false account of the Pope's Journey to be a sign that this Epistle is a Forgery only those who count it genuine ought to solve these difficulties There is nothing more in our Editors vere remarkable but only some few French Councils called by their own Kings and the Canons in them made by their own Bishops without any notice of Papal Authority and so without any Corruptions Wherefore we pass them and go on to the Fifth General Council where Vigilius will be brought on the Stage again An Epitome of Dr. Crakenthorp's Treatise of the Fifth General Council at Constantinople Anno 553. Chap. i. THE occasion of this Council was the Trio Capitulu or three Chapters about the Writings of Theodorus of Mopsvestia Theodoret against Cyril and the Epistle of Ibas to Maris which the Nestorians pretended was all approved by the Council of Chalcedon whereupon some doubted of the Authority of that Holy Council and the several Sects called from their having no one Head Acephali rejected it So that to appease this dangerous Schism Justinian set forth an Orthodox Edict to condemn those Writings And that not satisfying all Parties he assembled this Fifth General Council Chap. ii Pope Vigilius was then at Constantinople and often desired by the Bishops and commanded by the Emperor to be present Baronius falsly saith they had no regard to him yet he afterwards owns twenty Metropolitans and three Patriarchs invited him to come and offered him the Presidency urging him with a Promise under his Hand to to be there Vigilius first pretended to be Sick so they adjourned the first Session on his saying he would satisfie them next day Then he alledged there were but few Western Bishops but they shewed there were more with him at that time than had been in all the four former Great Councils He pretended also he would offer his Sense to the Emperor alone but the Emperor required him to do it to the Council So that the true reason why he would not be there was his Affection to the Nestorians and the three Chapters Chap. iii. Upon this the Council resolves to proceed without him which Cusanus saith ought to be done for the safety of
calls his Recanting not this Orthodox Explanation of the twelve Chapters as Vigilius pretends yea it was proved before Photius and Eustathius that Ibas said He would not have received Cyril if he had not Anathematized his Chapters Wherefore Ibas his Epistle was always Heretical and he an Heretick until he recanted and came over to Cyril's Faith but Vigilius falsly affirms him to have been Orthodox both before he rightly understood Cyril's meaning and afterwards and wrongfully supposes Cyril came over to Ibas who held two Persons but called them two Natures from all which it manifestly appears 1st That the dispute about this Epistle was a cause of Faith 2ly That Ibas his Epistle was Heretical 3ly That Vigilius and Baronius in this dispute take the Heretical side Chap. xiii Baronius further pretends that neither the asserting or denying these three Chapters could denominate Men Hereticks But this was fully disproved before see Chap. 5. And since this was a cause of Faith in which the whole 5th Council held contrary to Pope Vigilius it will follow that Men may contradict the Popes Decisions in Articles of Faith and be no Hereticks Yea since here the Pope was on the wrong side they who are to believe all such Decisions must sometimes be Hereticks Secondly Baronius falsly affirms that they who held contrary to the Pope herein were Schismaticks Convict 'T is true there was a Schism as he confesseth But Vigilius and his Party were the Schismaticks who separated from a General Council owned for such by all Catholicks Chap. xiv In the next place Baronius would excuse Vigilius from Heresie because he professed to hold the Faith of the Council of Chalcedon and writ his Constitution to defend it So did Victor so Facundus Hermianensis who writ for the three Chapters pretend Yea Vigilius himself in his Constitution pretends to maintain the Faith of that great Council But let it be considered that the 5th General Council after a strict examining all these pretences Anathematizes all that defend the three Chapters in the name of the Council of Chalcedon which Fact all Catholicks who approve this 5th Council must consent to And nothing is more usual with all sorts of Hereticks than to profess they believe as the Orthodox Councils and Fathers have believed yet they were condemned for all that pretence See particular instances of this as to the Eutychians Monothelites Nestorians and Modern Romanists in the learned Author Therefore Baronius his excuse is frivolous since Hereticks professions are as false and contradictory as their Doctrins And Vigilius would not forsake the three Chapters no not when they were proved contrary to the Council of Chalcedon and forbids any to write or speak against them so as he might never be convicted or convinced Chap. xv Baronius his third excuse for Vigilius is that he confirmed the 5th Council And Bellarmine saith he did confirm it Binius adds no Man doubts it But if Vigilius case be examined it will be found he changed four times in this Cause of Faith First While he was at Rome upon Justinian's first putting out the Edict he opposed it and stirred up Facundus a Nestorian to write against the Emperor in rude Language Yea Baronius in the same place Rails at Justinian for this Edict and Vigilius writ a threatning Letter to Constantinople against all that should joyn with the Emperor So that Vigilius Facundus and Baronius stand all Anathematized by the 5th Council for writing in defence of the three Chapters But Secondly As soon as Vigilius was come to Constantinople he changed his Mind and in a Council of 30 Bishops condemned the three Chapters which Facundus upbraids him with and Baronius confesses he writ a Book against them and sent it to Mennas Bishop of Constantinople and that he excommunicated Rusticus and Sebastianus two Roman Deacons with other defenders of the three Chapters and in those Epistles writ about these Men he calls this writing to Mennas his Constitution his Judgment by Peter's Authority For which the other Party called him a Deserter a Prevaricator c. and Victor saith that the African Bishops in a Synod excommunicated him yet Baronius owns these Bishops at that time were Catholicks Nor doth it excuse this Pope that he revoked this Constitution which condemned the three Chapters presently after it was published and made another Decree that all should keep silence till the General Council For this only shews him a Dissembler and a neutral in a Cause of Faith But Thirdly At the 5th Council Vigilius returns to his Vomit condemns the imperial Edict and defends the three Chapters as we shewed before and was so obstinate as to endure Banishment for this Opinion which though none suffered for but such as the 5th Council declared Hereticks Baronius calls an heavy persecution and indeed his suffering on this side shews he was always a Nestorian in his Heart But Fourthly Binius and Baronius say he changed again after the 5th Council and condemning the three Chapters was enlarged but died in his way home Yea they are confident that he did confirm the 5th Council and so condemn his late Constitution Which last change no ancient Author mentions And though this only could keep him from dying in Heresie yet this is a Fiction of Baronius who will say any thing to save a Popes credit an instance of which we have in his commending this Proteus for a Man of Wisdom and Constancy and in Binius his praising Vigilius for a prudent and pious Pope who imitated St. Paul in changing his Mind while Justinian who was always Orthodox and stood firm is by these Parasites decried as a wicked perfidious person So that Truth in others is Error and Error in a Pope is Truth yea if a Pope hold Contradiction he is always in the Right Chap. xvi But in this Account of Vigilius changes two of them are forged by Baronius First that Decree of silence is a Fable though it be so often mentioned in the Annals and though he say Vigilius decreed this Synodically and affirm that Theodorus and Mennas consented to it and that he and Justinian had promised to observe this silence Whereupon he pretends Vigilius excommunicated Theodorus and suspended Mennas And stoutly opposing Justinian who this year hung up his Edict in contradiction to this Decree of silence though he fled to St. Peter's Church and then to Chalcedon yet thence he thundred out his spiritual Darts against them all and rescinded the Emperors Decree Upon this Baronius says the Emperor revoked his Edict and Theodorus repented and submitted as did also Mennas and so all were content to be silent till the Council and great Joy followed thereupon Now this is all Fiction For first if there had been such a Decree for silence let
Anastasius speaks only of one banishment of Vigilius for refusing to restore Anthimius near two years after his coming to Constantinople in the life-time of Theodora who died Anno 548 according to Baronius and this is the banishment from which Vigilius was released at the intreaty of Narses according to Anastasius and so both Bellarmin and Sanders affirm from the Pontifical Wherefore they and all Writers place this banishment of Vigilius divers years before the fifth Council held Anno 553 So that the Exile after the fifth Council is a meer Forgery of Baronius who openly contradicts his Author as if he mistook the time only because the real time of Vigilius's Exile will not serve his design to excuse the Pope from dying in Heresie He rejects a Story about Vigilius told by Anastasius as a manifest Lye only because neither Facundus nor Procopius mention it By which Arguing it will appear not only that Vigilius was not banished after the fifth Council but that he was not banished at all because neither Victor Liberatus Evagrius nor Procopius who then lived and Victor is very particular in naming all that were exiled for this Cause do not once mention Vigilius his being banished no nor Photius Zonaras Cedrenus Glicas nor Nicephorus And Platina with other Western Writers take up this Fable upon the credit of Anastasius and Baronius improves it to serve a turn But Baronius asks If it be likely Justinian would spare Vigilius I reply Yes because he was a weak and inconstant man and he having so great a Post Justinian chose rather to connive at him than to harden others by punishing him whom he represents to the fifth Council as one who condemned the three Chapters for which Reason also he is not condemned by Name in the 5th Council Secondly Baronius tells us of great Liberties Gifts c. given to Vigilius upon his release and sending home which he brings as a proof of his consent to the fifth Council Whereas that Sanction granting some Priviledges to Italy is dated in August the 28th year of Justinian and Vigilius according to Victor an Eye-witness died not till the 31st of Justinian So that these Liberties were promised to Vigilius and other Romans long before the Council while Vigilius and the Emperour were very kind viz. in the 23th of Justinian but performed five year after yet three years before Vigilius death and so his dying before his return with these Priviledges is a Fiction But Baronius by meer guess places it falsly in Justinian's 29th years beginning only to colour the Fable His last Argument is from Liberatus saying he died afflicted by the Eutychians but was not crowned I reply he despises Leberatus Testimony as to an Epistle of Vigilius But Liberatus saith not he was banished or put to death for his Opinions yea he counts his condemning the three Chapters Heresie and doth not tell us how he suffered or died so that he is no Witness to this Fiction but an Evidence against it Chap. xviii Baronius's last exception is that this was no lawful General Council nor had any Authority till Vigilius confirmed it And Binius saith his Sentence gave it the Title of a General Council But we have shewed before this was a lawful General Council received by the whole Catholick Church Now they grant it was not confirmed till after it was parted and that it was never gathered by the Holy Ghost so that his Act afterwards cannot make a nullity valid The Cardinal and Binius both tell us it was no General Council at first being called though the Pope resisted and contradicted it yet Binius had said before Vigilius called the 5th Council by his Pontifical Authority Baronius also saith the Emperor called it according to the sentence of Vigilius And the Council charge Vigilius with promising in writing to meet with them and his own Letter printed there declares his consent to the assembling this Council Yet if he had opposed it so did Damasus the second Council at Constantinople which was held repugnante Damaso yet is accounted a lawful General Council and Cusanus saith if the Pope be negligent or refractory the Emperor may call a General Council And though he was not personally present in this Council yet he sent his Constitution which was his Decree ex Cathedra But saith Baronius their sentence was contrary to the Popes Decree and therefore it cannot be a lawful General Council Bellarmine also urges this for a Rule but the matter of Fact sufficiently confutes them since this Council which did Decree contrary to the Popes Sentence is and was always held lawful So was the second General Council good and valid being confirmed by an imperial Edict in July An. 381 though Damasus did not so much as hear of it till after the Council of Aquileia held in September that year and it seems by Pope Gregory that the Roman Church till his time had not received the Canons of it Yea the third Canon which Damasus and Leo both condemned and which Binius saith the Roman Church rejects to this day Yet all the while it was held Authentick and by it Anatolius held the second place at Chalcedon and Eutychius in the 5th Council by it St. Chrysostom deposed and ordained Bishops and held a Council in Asia So that both Canons and Custom had setled this Rule as is proved in the Council of Chalcedon And Justinian made those Canons of this second Council to be inserted into the Dypticks and to be read in Churches So that Canons are good and valid without the Popes Approbation as well as Councils whose Decrees have their force from the Subscriptions of the major part of Bishops there present though two of the Popes Legates or ten others did dissent especially when the Emperor confirms them by his Edict as Constantine did those of Nice Theodosius those of the second General Council c. In like manner Justinian confirmed this 5th Council And so it was valid without the Popes consent though absent Bishops others as well as those of Rome were desired to confirm a Council after it was past not to give any new Authority to it but to preserve Unity and to shew the Orthodoxy of these absent Bishops Chap. xx Omitting the 19th Chapter which treats of General Councils at large we proceed to Baronius lesser and remoter objections against this Council He begins with Justinian who called and confirmed it whom he taxes 1st for want of learning calling him an illiterate man who could not read a Letter for which he cites Suidas a late fabulous yea an Heretical Author But Platina commends Justinian for his great Learning and Wit So also Trithemius who with Possevine reckon him among Ecclesiastical Writers Pope Agatho and the 6th Council cite him as one of the