to be Forgeries (h) Bin. Not. in Epist Foel p. 499 Not. in Ep. Julii pag. 385. He falsly saith Dioscorus was Condemned at Chalcedon only for holding a Synod without the Pope's Consent whereas he is known to have been accused of many other Crimes His Text of Pasce oves is nothing to this purpose nor will Pope Pelagius his Word be taken in his own Cause His Story of Valentinian makes nothing for the Pope more than any other Bishop Yea the Bishops desiring him to call a Council shews They thought it was His Prerogative and Nicephorus relates his Answer to have been That he was so taken up with State Affairs that he had no leisure to enquire into those matters (i) Niceph. lib. 2. cap. 3. Whitak de Concil pag. 51. Wherefore after all this elaborate Sophistry to justifie a false Assertion of a Forged Epistle the Annotator hath only shewed his partiality for the Pope's Power but made no proof of it The second Epistle of this Marcellus to the Tyrant Maxentius is also a manifest Forgery (k) Lab. p. 951. Bin. pag. 387. col 1. part of it is taken out of his Successor Gregory's Epistles writ almost Three hundred years after this and it is highly improbable That a persecuted Pope should falsly as well as ridiculously to a Pagan Emperor quote the Laws of the Apostles and their Successors forbidding to persecute the Church and Clergy and also instruct him about the Roman Churches power in Calling Synods and Receiving Appeals and cite Clement's Forged Epistle as an Authority to Maxentius That Lay-men must not accuse Bishops The Notes indeed are unwilling to lose such precious Evidence and so pretend That Maxentius at this time dissembled himself to be a Christian but this Sham can signifie nothing to such as read the Epistle where Marcellus complains That he then persecuted him most unjustly and therefore he did not pretend to be a Christian at that time and consequently the whole Epistle is an absurd Forgery And so is that Decree subjoyned to it which supposes young Children offered to Monasteries and Shaved or Veiled there Customs which came up divers Centuries after this § 2. The Canons of Peter Bishop of Alexandria (l) Lab. p. 967. Bin. pag. 189. col 1. are genuine and a better Record of Ecclesiastical Discipline than any Pope to this time ever made the Reader also may observe the Bishop of Rome is not once named in these Canons and they plead Tradition for the Wednesday Fast contrary to the Roman Churches pretence of having an Apostolical Tradition to Fast on Saturday The Council of Elliberis in Spain An. Dom. 305. is by Binius placed under Pope Marcellus which Words Labbé leaves out of the Title (m) Lab. p. 967. E Bin. pag. 191. col 1. and justly for if there were such a Pope the Council takes no notice of him nor is it likely that Rome did know of this Council till many years after Yet it is both Ancient and Authentic though Mendoza in Labbé (n) Lab. p. 1030. reckons up divers Catholic Authors Caranza Canus Baronius c. who either wholly reject it or deny the 34th 35th 36th and 40th Canons of it which condemn the Opinions now held at Rome And though Binius because Pope Innocent approves it dare not reject it yet he publishes Notes to make the Reader believe it doth not condemn any of their Opinions or Practices The 13th Canon speaks of Virgins who dedicated themselves to God but mentions not their being Veiled or Living in Monasteries which Customs came in long after as the Authors cited in the Notes shew (o) Lab. p. 983. D Bin. pag 200. col 1. The 26th Canon calls it an Error to Fast upon Saturday But the Notes are so bold as to say The Error which this Council corrected was the not Fasting on Saturday whereas even these very Notes confess That the Eastern Churches and most of the Western Rome and some few others excepted together with the African Church did not Fast on Saturday but Wednesday yea those they Call the Apostolical Canons and Clement's Constitutions do both establish Wednesday Fast and condemn their pretended Apostolical Churches Saturday Fast and if divers in Spain as the Notes say in S. Hierom's and Pope Innocent's times did not Fast on Saturday and others then needed Arguments to settle them in this Roman practice It may be gathered from thence that in the time of this Council the Saturday Fast was esteemed an Error as it was also in that Age almost in all Christian Churches and so the very Words of the Canon import which Baronius saw and therefore (p) Baron Annal An. 305. §. 49. only saith There is mention of the Saturday Fast in this Synod and so passes it knowing it plainly contradicted the Roman Churches Tradition The 34th Canon under pain of Excommunication forbids the lighting Wax Candles in the places where the Martyrs were Buried q (p) Lab. p. 985. E Bin. pag. 201. col 1. which agrees with the Sentiments of the Primitive Church (r) Dailé de cultu Lat. lib. 2. chap. 15. Lactantius condemns Lighting Candles in God's Worship by day as a Paganish Superstition (s) Lactant. Instit lib. 6. cap. 2. S. Hierom saith It was used in his time only by such as did it to humor the silly Vulgar who had a Zeal without Knowledge (t) Hieron ad Ripar ep 53. Yet the Notes confess this is the Custom of the Roman Church for which only cause some of their Doctors reject this Canon since nothing must be Authentic which condemns their Novel Superstitions and these Notes make a miserable Blunder to excuse the matter but we are not concerned whether with the Annotator these Candles in the Day-light disturb the Spirits of the Living Saints by seeing an Heathenish Rite brought into the Church or with Baronius displease the Saints Deceased to behold so Superstitious a thing vainly devised for their honour Since it sufficiently appears the practice is novel and absurd and though now used at Rome condemned by the best Antiquity The Notes also give us one extraordinary distinction (u) Bin. Not. in 34 35 Can. p. 201. col 2. between the Souls of deceased Saints in Heaven and those in Purgatory which latter sort if they had been Saints one would think should need no such dreadful Scouring The 36th Canon determines That Pictures ought not to be in Churches and that none may Paint upon Walls that wich is worshiped (w) Lab. p. 986. Bin pag. 201. col 2. Which so expresly condemns the Roman Worship of Pictures and Images that the boldest Writers of that Church reject this Canon but others as the Notes say would gladly expound it so as to assert the honour and worship due to Holy Images which is a notable kind of Exposition to make a Canon assert that which it confutes But such transparent Fallacies deserve
Lab. p. 1555. Bin. pag. 260. col 2. An. Dom. 325. but because the Forger had nothing in his Eye but meerly to set off the Grandeur of Rome § 17. We are now come to the First and most famous General Council of Nice wherein the worst and most dangerous of all Heresies was suppressed and yet the pretended Judge of all Controversies and Supreme Head of the Church had so little share in this glorious Transaction that it is very uncertain in what Popes time it was called Sozomen and Nicephorus say it was in the time of Julius (i) Sozom. hist lib. 1. cap. 16. Niceph. lib. 8. cap. 14. Others think it was in Sylvester's time Phetius affirms it was in the times of both Sylvester and Julius (k) Phot. de 7. Synod though unhappily Pope Mark was between them two Yet this Council is introduced by a Preface a la Mode a Rome styled The History of the Council of Nice (l) Lab. Tom. II. pag. 3. Bin. pag. 262. wherein as well as in the Notes and various Editions of this famous Council all imaginable Artifice is used to abuse the Reader into a belief That Pope Sylvester not only called this Council and presided in it by his Legates but also confirmed it by his sole Authority afterwards For the clearer Confutation of which Falshoods we will consider First The Authority which convened this Council Secondly The President of it with the Order of Sitting in it and Subscribing to it Thirdly 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 (m) Lab. p. 3. Bin. pag. 262. The Notes affirm it was appointed by the Advice Counsel and Authority of Pope Sylvester and again Pope Sylvester by his Pontifical Authority decreed the celebration of a General Council (n) Lab. p. 63. C. Bin. pag. 291. col 1. To prove these vain Brags they cite Ruffinus whose Version of this Council they reject yet he only saith That Constantine convened it by the Advice of the Bishops However this is Advice not Authority and Advice of the Bishops in general not of Sylvester in particular and if any Bishops did give the Emperor particular Advice it was those of Alexandria and Constantinople not He of Rome Secondly They quote the Sixth General Council held 350 years after this of Nice and in other things rejected by the Romanists which saith this Council was called by Sylvester and Constantine But they quote falsly for that Sixth Synod puts the Emperor's Name first (o) Bin. Tom. III. par 1. pag. 194. and though they are no Evidence against Authors living in the time of the Nicene Council yet even this shews they thought the Emperor's Authority was chiefest in this Matter The Notes also cite the Pontifical which they have so often rejected as Fabulous and Sozomen as if they said the same thing But for Sozomen he never names Sylvester but saith Pope Julius was absent by reason of his great Age and the Pontifical only saith It was called by the Consent of Sylvester not by his Authority and indeed it was called by the consent of all Orthodox Bishops Wherefore there is no good Evidence that the Pope did call it But on the other side All the Ecclesiastical Historians do agree That Constantine Convened it by his own Authority and sent his Letters to Command the Bishops to meet at Nice (p) Euseb vit Constant lib. 3. cap. 6. Socrat. lib. 1. cap. 8. Theod. lib. 1. cap. 7. Sozom. lib. 1. cap. 17. and not one of them mentions Sylvester as having any hand in this Mâ—tter Yea to put us out of all doubt the very Council of Nice it self in their Synodal Epistle writ to Alexandria and extant in these very Editors (q) Lab. p. â—9 Bin. pag. 285. Baron An. 325. §. 117. expresly declares That they were Convened by Constantine's Command Which clear and convincing Proofs shew the Impudence as well as the Falshood of the Annalist and Annotator to talk so confidently of the Pope's Authority in this Matter who if he had as they pretend Convened this Council should have summoned more Western Bishops of which there were so few in this Council that it is plain Either Sylvester did not Summon them or they did not obey his Summons Secondly As to the President of this Council and the Order of Si ting in it and Subscribing to it The Preface and Notes falsly affirm That Hosius Vitus and Vincentius were all three the Pope's Legates and Presidents of this Council (r) Labbé p. 3 65. Bin. pag. 263 291. and vainly think if it had not been so it could not have been a General Council But if this be necessary to the Being of a General Council surely there is some good Evidence of it Quite contrary The Preface to the Sardican Council is of the Editors or their Friends making and so is no Proof Athanasius saith Hosius was a Prince in the Synods but not that he was President of this Synod or the Pope's Legate Cedrenus and Photius are too late Authors to out-weigh more Ancient and Authentic Writers yet they do not say as the Notes pretend That Sylvester by his Legates gave Authority to this Council Yea Photius places the Bishop of Constantinople before Sylvester and Julius even when he is speaking of the Chief Bishops who met at Nice and he is grosly mistaken also because neither of the Popes did meet there (s) Photii Nomocan pag. 163. Socrates only saith The Bishop of Rome 's Presbyters were his Proxies and present at this Council (t) Socrat. lib. 1. cap. 5. but hereby he excludes Hosius who was a Bishop from being a Legate and doth not at all prove Vitus and Vincentius were Presidents Sozomen names not Hosius but these two Presbyters as the Proxies of Pope Julius but reckons that Pope himself in the fourth place (u) Sozom. hist lib. 1. cap. 16. Though these Notes in citing Sozomen according to their usual sincerity place the Bishop of Rome first and all the other Patriarchs after him Finally They cite the Subscriptions to prove these Three were Legates and Presidents at Nice but Richerius a Learned Romanist saith These Subscriptions are of as little Credit as the Epistle to Sylvester (w) Richer de Concil gen lib. 1. cap. 2. § 6. and adds That the placing these Presbyters before the Bishops is a plain Proof That all these Subscriptions were invented in later Ages because the Pope's Legates never did precede any of the Patriarchs till the Council of Chalcedon (x) Id. ib. §. 8. As for Hosius he had been the Emperor's Legate long before and divers of the Ancients say He was very Eminent in this Council but not one
all the Western Bishops and especially to him as Bishop of the first See that so all of them viz. in Council might have determined the matter according to right (s) Id. An. 342. §. 28 30. But Baronius and Binius turn this into their being obliged to write to the Pope and to receive what he had defined And Binius infers from the Popes writing this Synodical Letter from a Council held in his own City of Rome though the Synod expresly command him to write the Epistle That in respect to the Pope and according to ancient Custom it was his right to publish Whatever was agreed on in Councils (t) Lab. p. 608. Bin. pag. 420 col 2. But such false Consequences from Premisses that will not bear them only shew the Arguers partiality After this we have nothing remarkable but a second Council at Antioch held by the Arians yet bearing this Title under Julius (u) Lab. p. 608. Bin. 420. col 2. wherein the Arians made a New Creed and sent four Bishops to give Constans the Emperour and all the Western Bishops an account of their Faith and they met these Legates in a Council at Milain and though it doth not appear Julius was present yet Baronius makes as if this Embassy from the East was sent to Julius chiefly to desire Communion with him (w) Baron An. 344. §. 4. and Binius saith They desired to be received into the Communion of the Roman Church (x) Lab. p. 614. Bin. pag. 422. col 1. But the ancient Historians assure us they desired not the Communion of the Roman only but of the whole Western Church of which that was then esteemed no more than one eminent part § 21. The Sardican Synod An. Dom. 347. which saith some kind things of Rome is prodigiously magnified by the Editors who place an History before it and partial Notes after it which are full of Falsities and designed Misrepresentations Baronius also spends one whole year in setting it off to the best advantage but all their Frauds will be discovered by considering First By whom it was called Secondly Who presided in it Thirdly Of what number of Bishops it consisted And Fourthly What Authority the Canons of it have First As to the Calling it the Preface falsly states the occasion thereof For it is plain Athanasius did not as that reports leave the whole judgment of his Cause to the Pope (y) Lab. p. 624. Bin. pag. 423. nor did he as is there said Fly to Rome as the Mother of all Churches and the Rock of Faith This is the Prefacers meer Invention For Athanasius went to 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 (z) Sozem. lib. 3. cap. 19. Socrat. lib. 2. cap. 16. Theod. lib. 2. cap. 5. And the Bishops in their Epistle do expresly say They were called together by the most Religious Emperours (a) Lab. p. 670. Bin. pag. 440. But Baronius fraudulently leaves out this beginning of the Bishops Letter (b) Baron An. â—47 §. 31. and the bold Writer of the Preface saith This Council was called by the Popes Authority And the Notes offer some Reasons to justifie this Falshood yea they cite the aforesaid Authors who plainly declare it was called by both the Emperours to prove it was called by the Pope but they offer nothing material to make this out 'T is true Socrates saith Some absent Bishops complained of the shortness of time and blamed Julius for it (c) Not. ad Concil Sardic Lab. pag. 685. Bin. pag. 445. col 1. Vid. Richer histor Concil lib. 1. cap. 3. but that doth not prove the Council was called by his Authority only it supposes he might advise the Emperour to make them meet speedily but still that is no sign of full power Secondly As to the President of this Council The Preface saith boldly That Hosius Archidamus and Philoxenus presided in the Name of Julius But first it doth not appear that Hosius was the Popes Legate only as an eminent Confessor he had a chief place in it whence Sozomen saith Osius and Protogenes were chief of the Western Bishops here assembled (d) Sozom. lib. 3. cap. 11. That is Osius as an ancient Confessor and Protogenes as Bishop of Sardia where the Council was held but as for Archidamus and Philoxenus they are not in the Latin Copies of the Subscribers (e) Lab. p. 658. Bin. pag. 436. col 1. 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 (f) Baron An. 347. §. 3 4. and falsly cite Athanasius as if he said it consisted of 376 Bishops and so exceeded the first Council of Nice (g) Lab. p. 685. Bin. pag. 446. col 1. Baron ut supr §. 75. Whereas Athanasius expresly reckons only 170 who met at the City of Sardica (h) Athanas Epist ad Solitar p. 818. and when many of the Eastern Bishops withdrew there were not one hundred left to pass the Decrees of this Council '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 (i) Idem Apol. 2. p. 767 768. So that this was never counted or called a General Council by any but these partial Romanists for though the Emperour seem to have designed it General at first (k) Socrat. lib. 2. cap. 16. yet so few came to it and they who came agreed so ill the Eastern Bishops generally forsaking it that it is called frequently A Council of the Western Church and so Epiphanius in Baronius describes it (l) Baron An. 347. §. 42. Fourthly The little regard paid to its Canons afterwards shews it was no General Council Richerius a moderate and learned Romanist proves That this Council was not extant in Greek in the time of Dionysius Exiguus so that he and Pope Leo the 4th reckon it after all the Councils of Note
avoided his communion and S. Hierom saith He was an Arian As for the Story of his condemning Ursacius and Valens two of that Sect there is no better Authority for it than the fabulous Pontifical So that after all the devices of Bellarmin Baronius and Binius (u) Lab. p. 742. Bin. pag. 466. col 1 2. to save their Churches Infallibility we have two Popes at once falling so notoriously into the Arian Heresie that the Lay-people disowned their Communion This is more than suspicion of Heresie in S. Peter's Chair and proves that their infallible Guides for some years were Arian Heretics For this Liberius divers Epistles are published with a Preface before them which saith Two of them were feigned by the Arians (w) Lab. p. 744. Bin. pag. 467. col 1. yet these two are found in the Fragments of S. Hilary among which it is not probable there should be any Fiction of the Arians So that it is very likely these two Epistles are genuine but rejected by these Sycophants of Rome because they tell an ungrateful Truth viz. That Liberius did condemn Athanasius soon after he was made Pope And if we consider how inconstant he was it is very probable that he might condemn Athanasius twice first in the beginning of his Papacy as is said in these two Epistles of which he repented and then writ that Tenth Epistle to own he was in Communion with Athanasius and to tell him If he approved of his form of Faith it would tend much to the setling of his Judgment (x) Lâ—b p. 755 Bin. pâ—g 471. col 1. which is an odd Complement from an Infallible Head. Secondly He condemned Athanasius after his Banishment of which more shall be said hereafter But as to the particular Epistles we shall note That in the first which they say is genuine Liberius with other Bishops petition Constantins to order a Council to be held at Aquilcia (y) 〈◊〉 p 744. 〈◊〉 pâ—g 4â—7 col 1. Vid item Ep. 2. by which we see the Pope had not then assumed the power of calling Councils When he writ the 7th Epistle which they grant also to be genuine no doubt he was an Arian For he calls the Arian Bishops His most Beloved Brethren and declares his Consent to their just condemning of Athanasius together with his being in Communion with them and his receiving their Sirmian Creed as the Catholic Faith (z) Lab. p. 751. â—in pag. 469. col 2. So in the XIth Epistle which is certainly genuine and recorded by Socrates (a) Socrat. hist lib. 4. cap. 11. the Notes confess he was so easie as to receive the Semi-Arians to Communion and to commend their Faith as the same which was decreed at Nice But it is gross Flattery to call this only Being too easie it was in plain terms Being dâ—ceived and erring in Matters of Faith which spoils their Infallibilit (b) Lab. p. 757. Bin. pag. 472. col 1. as it also doth their Universal Supremacy for Liberius in the same Epistle to call himself Bishop of Italy referring only to the Suburbicarian Regions and saying He was the meaness of Bishops and rejoyced that those in the East did not submit to him but agree with him in Matters of Faith. Wherefore the XIIth or as Labbé calls it the XIVth Epistle which is writ to all Bishops is manifestly forged (c) Ep. 14. Lab. pag. 760. Ep. 12. Bin. pag. 472. col 2. And so are the two next from Liberius to Athanasius and from Athanasius to Liberius as both Labbé and Binius confess (d) Lab. p. 763. Bin. in Notis pag. 474. col 2. yet in one of these the Pope brags of his Authority over the Universal Church But the Forger was so bad at Chronology that while he strives to make this Pope look like an Orthodox Friend of Athanasius he absurdly brings him in even under Julian or Valens in one of whose Reigns this Epistle was written threatning Offenders with the Emperours Indignation with Deprivation yea with Proscription Banishment and Stripes (e) Lab. p. 767. Bin. pag. 474. col 2. I need not mention those Decrees which are attributed to Liberius whose Style betrays them and shews they belong to the later Ages and are placed here by the Collectors only to make them seem more ancient than really they are In Liberius's first year it is said There was a Council called at Rome by this Pope to clear Athanasius (f) Lab. p. 769. 〈◊〉 pag. 475. col 1. yet being sensible that their Authority would signifie very little they all agreed to petition the Emperour for a Council to Meet at Aquilâ—â—a to confirm what they had done at Rome Anno 355. there was a Council at Milan the Editors call it A General Council because it was with Constantins permission called by Liberius whose Legates also were present at it (g) Lab p. â—â—2 Bin. pag 476. col 1. But herein they grosly falsifie for Sozomen declares That Constantius summâ—ned all the Bishops to Milan (h) Sâ—â—â—m lib. 4 cap. 8. Socrat. lib. 2. cap. 29. and Barenius saith The Emperour called them together (i) Baron An. 355. § 2. Therefore if this was a General Council it was called by the Emperour and not by the Pope In the Notes on this Synod they say Constantius being yet a Catechumen ought not to be present at a lawful Council But this is Baronius his device to colour over the Forgery of Constantine's Baptism before the Council of Nice there being no Canon forbidding a Catechumen to be present in a Council or in a Church except only while the Sacrament was celebrating so that if Constantius had been bound by an Ecclesiastical Canon there being no Canon to hinder his presence in this Council Barenius assigns a wrong cause of his absence Again the Notes do very falsly suppose That Foelix though chosen by the Arians was a Catholic Pope (k) Lab. p. 773. For he was Ordained by three Arian Bishops at Milan as Athanasius declares (l) Athanas Epist ad Solitar and Socrates as we noted before saith He was in Opinion an Arian Nor is it probable when the Arians had got Liberius banished for not complying with them they should chuse a Catholic and an Enemy into so eminent a See or that the Catholic People of Rome should avoid the communion of Foelix if he were not an Arian 'T is true Sozomen speaks of some who said He kept to the Nicene Faith and was unblameable in Religion yet he adds he was accused for ordaining Arians and communicating with them (m) Sozom. lib. 4. cap. 10. But this bare Report raised perhaps by the Arians who still pretended to be Catholics and hold the Nicene Faith cannot outweigh such strong Reason and Matters of Fact as are here alledged to prove Foelix not only a Schismatical but also an Heretical Pope The Dialogue between Constantius and Pope Liberius at Milan here
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 (s) Socrat. lib. 5. cap. 2. Sozom. lib 7. cap. 8. and the Catholic Church always owned it for Authentic Yea in the Council of Chalcedon it is declared That the Bishop of Constantinople ought to have had the second place in the Factious Synod at Ephesus and he is reckoned in that fourth General Council next after the Pope whose Legates were there and yet durst not deny him the second place in which he sat and subscribed in that order having first had this Canon confirmed at Chalcedon So that all Churches but that of Rome submit to this General Council and they who pretend most to venerate them do despise and reject the Authority of General Councils if they oppose the ends of their Pride and Avarice To conclude Here is a General Council called and confirmed only by the Emperour assembled without the Pope or his Legates decreeing Matters of Faith and of Discipline yet every where owned and received as genuine except at Rome when Interest made them partial and still no less valued for that by all other Churches Which gives a severe Blow to the modern Pretences of their Papal Supremacy and Infallibility The same Year there was a Council at Aquileia in Italy wherein divers Arians were fully heard and fairly condemned Now this Council was called by the Emperour the Presidents of it being Valerian Bishop of Aquileia and Ambrose Bishop of Milan but Damasus is not named in it nor was he present at it in Person or by his Legates though this Council was called in Italy 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 (t) Lab. p. 980. Bin. pag. 545 col 2. which argues they knew of no Universal Monarchy vested in the Pope and giving him power over all the Bishops both of the East and West For it was not Damasus but the Prefect of Italy who writ about this Synod to the Bishops of the East (u) Baron An. 381. pag. 386. Nor did this Council write to the Pope but to the Emperour to confirm their Sentence against Heretics wherefore Damasus had a limited Authority in those days not reaching so much as over all Italy and extended only to the Suburbicarian Regions out of which as being Damasus's peculiar Province Ursicinus his Antagonist for the Papacy was banished by the Emperour Valentinian (w) Baron An. 371. pag. 235. and therefore Sulpicius Severus calls him not Orbis but Urbis Episcopus (x) Sulpic. Sever. pag. 423. the Bishop of the City not of the World and speaking of Italy he saith in the next Page That the Supreme Authority at that time was in Damasus and S. Ambrose (y) Id. pag. 424. To these two therefore the Priscillian Heretics applied themselves when they were condemned by the Council of Caesar-Augusta or Saragosa in Spain in which Country the Sect first began but when they could not get these great Bishops to favour their Cause they corrupted the Emperours Ministers to procure a Rescript for their restitution (z) Lab. p. 1011. Bin. pag. 554 col 1. Now it is strange that this Council of Saragosa should bear the Title of under Damasus and that the Notes should affirm Sulpicius Severus plainly writes thus For if we read Sulpicius as above-cited we shall find that Damasus knew nothing of this Synod till long after it was risen so we may conclude this Invention of theirs is only to support their pretended Supremacy An Dom. 382. § 28. From a Passage in S. Hierom and the Inscription of the Letter writ from the Council at Constantinople the Editors gather That Paulinus Bishop of Antioch Epiphanius Bishop of Constantia in Cyprus and Ambrose with other of the Western Bishops met at Rome in Council this year which they call the Fourth Roman Councill under Damasus (a) Lab. p. 1014. Bin. pag. 554. col 2. who probably did preside in this Synod as all Bishops use to do in their own Cities but he did not call this Council for S. Hierom expresly saith The Emperours Letters called these Bishops to Rome (b) Hieron Ep. 27. And the Synodical Letter of the Constantinopolitan Fathers tell us That Damasus desired Theodosius to write to them also of the East to come to Rome Which shews that Damasus could not summon them by his own Authority but the Editors and Baronius out of a false Latin Version of Theodoret have put in the word Mandato which word is not in the Greek nor any thing answering to it (c) Theodor. lib. 5. cap. 9. Baron An. 382. pag. 397. Bâ—n pag. 539. col 2. and it was foisted in on purpose to perswade such as did not read the Original that the Pope had commanded the Eastern Bishops to come to Rome Again though the Notes confess the Acts of this Roman Council are lost so that it doth not appear what was done there Yet soon after they produce a long Canon for the Popes Supremacy and the Precedence of the Patriarchs feigning it was made in this Synod But if the Canon be not a Vatican Forgery which is very much to be suspected however it is Antedated one hundred and twelve years as Labbé confesses in his Margen for he saith it was decreed under Pope Gelasius An. 494 (d) Lab. p. 1014. Bin. pag. 554. col 2. But the Policy of laying this Canon here is to make a shew as if Damasus had then publickly declared against the Council of Constantinoples giving that Bishop the second place but their forging this Proof only shews they have no genuine Authority for it yet if they could prove that the Pope disliked this Precedence since it is certain that Constantinople did take the second place according to this Canon that would only shew that the
those Offices in Rome at that time (d) Cestriens dissert posthum diss 2. cap. 7. pag. 227. and the whole Story is a Fiction taken out of a fabulous Tract called the Acts of Alexander yet this Legend Binius's Notes defend Of Xystus the next Pope nothing is memorable but that he is said by the Pontifical to be a Martyr Eusebius saith he died in Adrian's Twelfth year and mentions not his Martyrdom (e) Euseb lib. 4. c. 5. but Binius contradicts him and will have him to suffer in the 3d year of Antomnus (f) Lab. p. 554. Bin pag. 60. col ◠and this without any Authority for it but his own Telesphorus according to Eusebius was the Seventh Pope from St. Peter and came in the Twelfth year of Adrian †Euseb ut supr that is An. 130. But Binius following the Pontifical makes him the Eighth Pope and saith he entred the Third year of Antoninus that is Twelve years after and in the Notes on his Life (g) Lab. p. 559. Bin. pag. 63. col 2. upon the Pontificals saying he Ordained Thirteen Bishops in his Eleven years he observes that these Bishops were to be sent into divers parts of the World from whence he saith it is clear that the Pope was to take care not of Rome only but the whole World. But first no inference from so fabulous an Author as the Pontifical can be clear And secondly if there were so many Bishops really Ordained by Popes as the Pontifical doth pretend there are but Sixty three Bishops reckoned by him from S. Peter's death to this time which is near 100 years From whence if we grant the Matter of Fact it is rather clear That the Pope Ordained only some Italian Bishops near Rome for otherwise when so many Bishops were Martyred there must have been far more Ordained for the World in that space of time Hyginus the next Pope began saith Eusebius in the first year of Antoninus but Binius saith he was made Pope the Fifteenth of that Emperor the Reader will guess whether is to be trusted The Pontifical could find this Pope nothing to do but to distribute the Orders of the Clergy which Pope Clement according to him had done long before (h) Lab. p. 565. Bin. pag. 65. col 2. § 2. From the Notes on Pope Pius Life (i) Lab. p. 568. Bin. pag. 67. col 2. we may observe there was no great care of old taken about the Pope's Succession For Optatus S. Augustine and S. Hierom with the Old Pontifical before it was altered (k) Cestriens diss 2. cap. 11. pag. 65. place Anicetus before Pius but the Greeks place Puis before Anicetus and in this Binius thinks we are to believe them rather than the Latins The rest of the Notes are spent in vindicating an improbable Story of an Angel bringing a Decree about Easter to Hermes the Popes Brother who writ a Book about keeping it on the Lord's Day yet after all there is a Book of Hermes now extant that hath nothing in it about Easter and there was a Book of old writ by Hermes well known to the Greeks and almost unknown to the Latins though writ by a Pope's Brother read in the Eastern Churches and counted Apocryphal in the Western But we want another Angel to come and tell us whether that now extant be the same or no for Binius cannot resolve us and only shews his Folly in defending the absurd and incongruous Tales of the Pontifical Anicetus either lived before or after Pius and the Pontifical makes him very busie in Shaving his Priests Crowns never mentioning what he did to suppress those many Heretics who came to Rome in his time but it tells us he was Buried in the Coemetery of Calistus (l) Lab. p. 579. Bin. pag. 72. col 1. though Calistus who gave that Burial-place a name did not dye till Fifty years after Anicetus But Binius who is loath to own this gross Falshood saith You are to understand it in that ground which Calistus made a Burying-place afterward yet it unluckily falls out that Anicetus's Successor Pope Soter was also Buried according to the Pontifical in Calistus his Coemetery and afterwards Pope Zepherines's Burial-place is described to be not far from that of Calistus so well was Calistus's Coemetery known 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 (m) Usserii Antiq Brit. cap. 4 5 c. ap Spelm. Tom. I. Concil which Binius leaves out though he justifies the Story of which it were well we had better Evidence than the Pontifical This is certain the Epistles were forged in an Age when Men could write neither good Latin nor good Sense and I am apt to fancy if Isidore had put them into a Decretal they would have been somewhat more polite so that it is likely these Epistles were made by some Monks who thought it much for our Honour to have our Christianity from Rome § 3. This Century concludes with the bold Pope Victor of whose excommunicating the Eastern Bishops for not agreeing with him about Easter we have a large account in Eusebius (n) Euseb hist lib. 5. cap. 23 24 c. but of that there is nothing in the Pontifical only we are told he had a Council at Rome to which he called Theophilus Bishop of Alexandria and decreed Easter should be observed upon a Sunday c. Upon this hint and the Authority of a better Author we grant there were at these times divers Councils held about keeping Easter But the Editors of the Councils though Eusebius be the only credible Author which gives an Account of them presume to contradict him For Eusebius makes the Council at Caesarea in Palestina to be first and makes Theophilus of that City and Narcissus of Jerusalem Presidents of it but the Editors for the honour of the Pope place the Roman Council first (o) Lab. p. 596. Bin. pag. 79. col 1 2. Vid. Euseb lib. 5. cap. 22. and upon the bare Credit of the Pontifical who mistook Alexandria for Caesarea say That Theophilus was present at it whereas Eusebius saith This Roman Council was the Second called about this Question consisting of the Bishops about Rome Secondly The Editors place the 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 (p) Lab.
confirmed by the Emperour Again Constantins in his Epistle declares It was unreasonable to determine any thing in a Western Council against the Eastern Bishops Whence it appears he knew nothing of the Western Patriarchs claiming an Universal Supremacy over all the Churches both of the East and West and for this Reason Baronius leaves this genuine Epistle recorded in S. Hilary's Fragments out of his Annals We have also noted before that though the Orthodox Bishops in this Council who must know the matter say That Constantine was Baptized after the Council at Nice and soon after his Baptism translated to his deserved Rest as the Ancient Historians read that Passage and the Sense of the place shews they could mean it of none but Constantine (d) Theod. lib. 2. cap. 19. Sozom. lib. 4 cap. 17. collat cum Baron An. 350. §. 7. yet Baronius corrupts the Text and reads Constans instead of Constantine only to support the Fable of Constantine's being Baptized by Sylvester at Rome and the Editors follow him in that gross Corruption For they examine nothing which serves the Interest of Rome As for the Arian Synods this year at Seleucia and Constantinople I need make no Remarks on them because the Pope is not named in them and so there is no occasion for them to feign any thing Only one Forgery of Baronius must not be passed over That when Cyril of Hierusalem was deposed by an Arian Synod he is said to have appealed to greater Judges and yet he never named the Pope the reason of which Baronius saith was because the True Pope Liberius was then in Banishment (e) Baron An. 359. § 65. but hath he not often asserted Foelix was a Catholic and if Cyril had thought fit might he not have appealed to him But it is plain by Socrates that Cyril meant to appeal to the Emperour and his Delegates as all injured Bishops in that Age had used to do An. Dom. 362. § 25. Upon the restitution of Athanasius from his third Exile after the death of George the Arian Bishop he called a Council of Bishops at Alexandria for deciding some differences among the Catholics about the manner of explaining the Trinity and to agree on what terms Recanting Arians were to be received into the Church And though neither Athanasius nor any ancient Historian take any notice of the Pope in this eminent Action yet the Editors our of Baronius say It was called by the Advice and Authority of Liberius (f) Lab. p. 809. Bin. pag. 487. col 1. Baron An. 362. Pag. 73. and to make out the notorious Fiction of this Popes calling this Orthodox Council even while he was an Arian the Notes affirm Eusebius Bishop of Vercelles and Lucifer Calaritanus as the Popes Legates were present at it which they take out of Baronius who had before told us That Luciser Calaritanus was at that time at Antioch and sent two Deacons to Alexandria to subscribe for him yea this Synod writes their Synodical Letter to Eusebius Lucifer and other Bishops which plainly shews they were absent though it seems by Ruffinus that Eusebius came afterwards and subscribed to what had been agreed in the Council and was by the Authority of this Council not of the Pope sent into the East to procure peace among those Churches Nor have they any one Author to prove either he or Lucifer were the Pope's Legates nor any reason but because they were employed in great Actions though in that Age 't is plain the Popes were little concerned in any eminent business Moreover they bring in a Fragment of an Epistle writ according to the Ancient Custom by Liberius at his Entrance into the See of Rome to shew his Faith to Athanasius as if it were written now meerly to impose on the Reader a false Notion of his being at this time Orthodox and concerned in this Synod They also cite another Epistle of Athanasius to certifie Liberius what was done here but that Epistle is no where extant in Athanasius's Works but is cited out of the Acts of the second Nicene Council where there are more Forgeries than genuine Tracts quoted and besides the Epistle is directed not to the Pope but to one Ruffinianus and only mentions the Roman Churches approving what was done here but the Epistle being suspicious it is no good Evidence and we conclude with Nazianzen That Athanasius in this Synod gave Laws to the whole World (g) Baron An. 362. Tom. IV. p. 66. And Pope Liberius had no hand in it About this time there were divers Councils called in France by S. Hilary Bishop of Poictiers and the Catholic Faith was setled in them one of which was held at Paris and the Synodical Epistle is extant (h) Lab. p. 821. Bin pag. 490. col 1. yet the Pope is never named in it Nor yet in that Orthodox Synod at Alexandria wherein Athanasius and his Suffragan Bishops presented a Confession of their Faith to Jovian then newly made Emperour (i) Lab. p. 823. Bin. pag. 490. col 2. which shews that Liberius either was an Heretic at this time or else that he was very inconsiderable So that it is a strange Arrogance in the Editors to say that the Second Council at Antioch was under Liberius (k) Lab. p. 826. Bin. p. 491. col 1. when the very Notes say it was called together by Meletius and observe that many Arian Bishops did there recant their Heresie a thing which a little before they pretended could be done no where but at Rome in the Popes Presence An. Dom. 365. Upon Valentinian's advancement to the Empire the Eastern Bishops petition him to call a Council and he being then very busie told them they might call it where they pleased Which the Editors pretend was a declining to meddle in Church Affairs being a Lay-man But the Bishops Petition and his giving them liberty shews that the right of calling Councils was in him and so was also the confirming them as appears from the Bishops sending the Acts of this Council at Lampsacus to the Emperour Valens to be confirmed (l) Sozâ—m lib. 6. cap. 7. The same Bishops also sent their Legates with Letters to the Western Bishops and particularly to Liberius Bishop of Rome hoping Valentinian the other Emperour had been in that City but he being absent these Legates perswaded Liberius they were Orthodox upon which he writ back Letters in his own Name and in the Name of the other Western Bishops to own them for good Catholics (m) Socrat. hist lib. 4. cap. 11. Whence we may note First That the Eastern Bishop's Letter styles the Pope no more but Collegue and Brother Secondly That Liberius calls himself only Bishop of Italy Liberius Ep. Italiae alii Occidentis Episcopi But Baronius alters the Pointing Liberius Episcopus Italiae alii c. by that Trick hoping to conceal this mean Title (n) Ep. 11. Liberti ap Bin. p. 472.
mark of the Donatists being of the Synagogue of Antichrist that they named the several Parties among them from the Leaders and Founders of their several Sects and were not content with the Name of Christians from Christ Which Note reflects upon the Monks of their own Church who are called Benedictines Dominicans and Franciscans from the Founders of their several Orders In the Council of Turin An. Dom. 397. composed of the Gallican Bishops they decided the Case of Primacy between the Bishop of Arles and Vienna without advising with the Pope and determined they would not communicate with Foelix a Bishop of Ithacius his Party according to the Letters of Ambrose of Blessed Memory Bishop of Milan and of the Bishop of Rome Now here the Roman Advocates are much disturbed to find S. Ambrose his Name before Siricius and when they repeat this Passage in the Notes they falsly set the Pope's Name first contrary to the express words of the fifth Canon and impudently pretend That the Bishop of Rome by his place was the ordinary Judge who should be communicated with and Ambrose was only made so by the Popes Delegation (z) Lab. p. 1157 1158. Bin. pag. 568. 569. But how absurd is it if this were so for the Council to place the Name of the Delegate before his who gave him power And every one may see that this Council was directed to mark this Decree principally by S. Ambrose his Advice and secondarily by the Popes for at that time Ambrose his Fame and Interest was greater than that of Siricius yet after all the Council decreed this not by the Authority of either of these Bishops as the Notes pretend but only by their Information and upon their Advice by these Letters which were not first read as they pretend but after four other businesses were dispatched An. Dom. 397 c. The Canons of divers African Councils held at Carthage and elsewhere have been put together long since and collected into one Code which makes the time and order of the Councils wherein they were made somewhat difficult but since the Canons were always held Authentic we need not with the Editors be much concerned for their exact order or for reducing them to the years of the Pope because they were neither called nor ratified by his Authority Yea the Notes say It was never heard that any but the Bishop of Carthage called a Council there his Letters gave Summons to it he presided over it and first gave his Suffrage in it and that even when Faustinus an Italian Bishop the Popes Legate was present (a) Lab. p. 1163. Bin. pag 573. col 1 2. As for the particular Canons of the third Council the Nineteenth saith That the Readers shall either profess Continence or they shall be compelled to Marry but they feign old Copies which say They shall not be allowed to Read if they will not contain (b) Lab. p. 1170. Bin. pag. 575. col 1. the falshood of which appears by the 25th Canon in the Greek and Latin Edition where this is said of the Clergy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Except the Readers which they translate Quamvis Lectorum (c) Bin p. 580. on purpose to make us think that the command of Celibacy upon which that Age too much doted reached the lowest order of the Clergy even Readers contrary to the express words of the Canons And to the second Council of Carthage where only Bishops Priests and Deacons are under an obligation to live single (d) Bin. p. 571. Secondly The 26th Canon of the third Council forbids the Bishop of the first See to be called by the Title of Prince or Chief of Bishops Gratian goes on neither may the Roman Bishop be called Universal (e) Lab. p. 1170. Bin. pag. 575. col 2. Gratian. Decret part 1. dist 99. The Notes tax Gratian indeed for adding this Sentence but if he did it was out of Pope Gregory who saith That no Patriarch ought to be called Universal Besides considering how apt the Editors are to strike out words not Agreeable to the Interest of Rome it is more probable that some of the Popes Friends lately left these words out than that Gratian put them in And since this Council forbid Appeals to foreign Judicatures with peculiar respect to Rome to which some of the Criminal Clergy then began to appeal (f) Lab. p. 1171. Bin. pag. 581. col 2. it is not unlikely these Fathers might resolve to check as well the Title as the Jurisdiction then beginning to be set up which encouraged these Appeals Thirdly The 47th Canon in the Latin and the 24th in the Greek and Latin Edition speaking of such Books as are so far Canonical that they may be read in Churches reckon up some of those Books which we call Apocryphal upon which the Notes triumph (g) Lab. p. 1177. Bin. pag. 580. col 1. but let it be observed that we grant some of these Books to be so far Canonical that they may be read for instruction of Manners and also we may note that the best Editions of these African Canons leave out all the Books of Macchabees and Baruch which are foisted into their later Latin Copies (h) Cosen's History of the Canon p. 112. pag. 113. And it is plain the whole Canon is falsly placed in this Council under Siricius because Pope Boniface who came not into the Papacy till above twenty years after is named in it as Bishop of Rome yet after all these devices it doth not declare what Books are strictly Canonical and so will not justifie the Decree at Trent Fourthly In the 48th Canon of the Latin Version the Council agrees to advise about the Donatists with Siricius Bishop of Rome and Simplicianus Bishop of Milan not giving any more deference to one of these Bishops than to the other but looking on them as equally fit to advise them Yet the Notes boldly say They advise with the Pope because they knew he presided as a Bishop and Doctor over the Catholic Church but with the Bishop of Milan only as a Man every where famous for his Learning (i) Lab. p. 1183. Bin. pag. 584. col 2. Which is a meer Fiction of their own for the words of the Canon shew that these Fathers did not believe either of them had any Authority over them only they desired their advice joyntly as being both Eminent and Neighbouring Bishops and their prohibiting Appeals shews they knew nothing of the Popes presiding over the Catholic Church An. Dom. 398. § 32. Anastasius was the last Pope in this Century of whom there would have been as little notice taken as of Many of his Predecessors if it had not been his good fortune to be known both to S. Hierom and S. Augustine and to assist the latter in suppressing the Donatists and the former in condemning the Errours of Origen for which cause these two Fathers make
4. the Book of Machabees which the Roman Church now say are Canonical Scripture And this is the true reason why the Notes reject this Canon (s) Lab. pag. 61 Bin. pag. 18. col 2. They alledge indeed some other frivilous reasons such as the leaving out the Revelations and putting in Clements Constitutions But it seems very probable to me that it was not the Greeks as the Notes suggest but that Impostor who gave these Canons a false Title and called them the Apostles Canons which for carrying on his Pious Fraud left out the Revelations being not written at that time when he would have us believe these Canons were made and He also put in the Constitutions which are forged in the name of the Apostles who were to be set up as Authors also of these Canons And if that were so this 84th Canon being cleared from those two Corruptions is an Ancient and very Authentic Record of the true and genuine Books of Holy Scripture but the Romanists reject it as being a good evidence against their New Trent Canon § 3. To these Canons are joyned a pretended Council of the Apostles at Antioch first put into the Tomes of the Councils by Binius and continued by Labbè (t) Lab. pag 62. Bin. pag. 18. col 2. one Canon of which allows Christians to make an image of Christ But this notorius and improbable Forgery was never heard of in any Author till that infamous second Nicene Council which wanting proofs for Image-worship from genuine Antiquity impudently feigned such Authorities as this pretended Council § 4. The Pontifical or Lives of the Popes which begins here bears the Title of Pope Damasus but the Notes say Damasus was not Author of it being evidently patched up out of two different Authors containing contradictions almost in every Popes Life So that no account is to be made of a Writing so different from it self (u) Lab. pag. 63. Bin. pag. 19. col 2. Now if this be as it certainly is a True Character of the Pontifical Why do these Editors print it Why do the Notes so often cite it as good Hisstory Why do their Divines quote it as good Authority to prove their Modern Corruptions to have been primitive Rites (w) Harding against Jewel pag. 53. Dr. James corrup of Faith par 1. p. 22. Since it is a manifest Legend and contained at first nothing but the bare Names and continuance of the several Popes and was filled up by Isidore Mercator who forged the Decretal Epistles with many improbable Fictions unsuitable both to the Men and Times for which they were invented and designed to be a ground for those Decretal Epistles and to make the World believe that all the Popes were considerable for their Actions in all Ages as Dr. Peirson hath excellently proved in his Learned Posthumous Dissertation (x) Cestriens dissert posthum lib. 2. cap. 1 2. c. Yet not only these Editors of the Councils print this corrupt Legend but their very Breviaries and Missals generally appoint the Lessons out of it on the Festivals of these Ancient Popes publishing in the very Church in time of Divine Service these Fictions for the true ground of the Peoples Devotions on those Days I confess Binius out of Baronius hath Notes upon every Pope 's Life and rejects commonly some part of it but then it is such passages as no way concern the opinion or practice of the present Roman Church For the passages which do agree thereto though equally false he generally defends yea cites them to prove their Modern Faith and Usages But as we come to the several Popes Lives which these Editors make the grand direction in Ecclesiastical Chronology we shall observe the many and gross Errors contained in it We begin with the Life of S. Peter whom if we do allow to have been at Rome as this Author reports yet we cannot believe he ordained three Bishops for his Successors there in his Life-time viz. Linus Cletus and Clement Nor that he was Buried in three several places in Apollo 's Temple and besides Nero 's Pallace in the Vatican and besides the Triumphal Territory which this fabulous Writer affirms Nor will the Annotator admit that S. Peter could be Crucified by Nero in the 38th year after Christ 's Passion which was three years almost after Nero's own Death § 5. The next place ever since P. Crabs Edition is by the Roman Editors allotted to a Treatise of the Popes Supremacy (y) Lab. col 65. Bin. pag. 20. col 2. writ of late Times by some manifest Sycophant of the Roman Church yet placed here among the Venerable Antiquities of the Apostolic Age to clap a false Biass on the unwary Reader and make him apt to believe that which Richerius said is the main design of Bellarmin Baronius and Possevine in all their Works viz. that the Pope was made by Christ the infallible and absolute Monarch of the Church (z) Richer praesul ad histor Concil but the Tract it self makes out this high Claim chiefly by the Decretal Epistles which are now confessed to be Forgeries And by the Sayings of Popes who were not to be believed in their own case (a) John. V. 31. nemo sibi prosâ—ssor testis Tert. in Marcion lib. 5. To which are added some few Fragments of the Fathers falsly applied and certain false Arguments which have been confuted a thousand times So that the placing this Treatise here serves only to shew the Editors partiality to promote a bad Cause § 6. The Pontifical places Linus as S. Peters Successor but the Notes confess that the Fathers are not agreed about it (b) Lab pag. 72. Bin. pag. 24. col 1. They own that Tertullian Epiphanius and Ruffinus make Clement to succeed Peter and the late Learned Bishop of Chester proves Linus was dead before Peter (c) Cesiriens diss 2. cap. 2. Irenaeus doth not say as the Notes falsly cite him that Linus succeeded Peter in the Government of the universal Church (d) Iren. adv haer l. 3. c. 3. but only that Peter and Paul delivered the Administration of that Church to him which they had founded at Rome Which they might do in their Life time while they went to preach in other places The Epistle of Ignatius to Mary Cassibolite and the Verses attributed to Tertullian which they bring for proof of this Succession are confessed to be spurious Tracts St. Hierom is dubious and upon the whole matter there is no certainty who was Bishop of Rome next to the Apostles and therefore the Romanists build on an ill Bottom when they lay so great weight on their personal Succession § 7. The like Blunder there is about the next Pope The fabulous Pontifical makes Cletus succeed Linus and gives us several Lives of Cletus and Anacletus making them of several Nations and to have been Popes at different times putting Clement between them Yet the aforesaid Learned
which falsifying the Quotation he makes the meanest Deacon in the Roman Church superior to the French King Again in the Vacancy after Fabian the Clergy of Rome and S. Cyprian writ to each other (r) Lab. p. 654. Bin. pag. 103. col 1. Where though the Roman Clergy write with all respect to the Clergy of Carthage and give them humble Advice not Commands yea and thank S. Cyprian for his humility in acquainting them with his Affairs not as Judges of his concerns but Partners in his Counsels Binius notes that these Letters do sufficiently shew the Prerogative of the Roman Church and that S. Cyprian not only desired the Counsel but submitted to the Judgment of Rome The first Epistle of Cornelius tells a false story out of the Pontifical about his removing the Bodies of S. Peter and Paul and though Binius own this part of the Epistle to be Forged Yet in his Notes on the Pontifical (s) Lab. p. 667. Bin. pag. 108. col 1. he strives to reconcile the differing ways of relating this Fabulous Translation and flies to Miracles to make those Lies hang together Cornelius third Epistle is genuine being preserved in Greek by Eusebius and yet Binius prints a corrupt Latin Version with it which where the Greek speaks of one Bishop in a Catholic Church Reads it in this Catholic Church and the Notes (t) Bin. p. 112. col 2. impudently prove by this Corruption that the Pope is the sole Bishop of the whole Catholic Church Of which Labbè was so much ashamed that he prints Valesius's Latin Version of this Epistle wherein the ground of Binius his Observation is quite taken away S. Cyprian hath several Epistles printed among the Decretals wherein are many things which overthrow the Roman Supremacy and Infallibility upon which no remark is placed but an obscure passage wherein S. Cyprian saith that whether he or Cornelius should be the Survivor must continue his Payers for the afflicted Christians (u) Lab. p. 703. Bin. pag. 120. There it is impertiently noted That the deceased pray for the living Pope Stephen's second Epistle asserts Primates were in use before Christianity (w) Lab. p. 732. Bin. pag. 134. col 1. Binius in his Notes out of Baronius saith Heredotus confesses the same thing but Labbè declares that some body had imposed upon Baronius for there is no such thing to be found in Herodotus and Adrian in Vopiscus his other Authority evidently speaks of the Christian Bishop of Alexandria (x) Scriptor Histor August pag. 960. Wherefore Pope Stephen or he that made the Epistle for him was mistaken It is an impudent thing also in Binius to note upon one of S. Cyprian's Letters about Basilides and Martialis You see the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome For these two Bishops were justly condemned in Spain and unjustly absolved by the Pope after which S. Cyprian condemns them again only certifying the Bishop of Rome that he had justly nulled his Absolution so that we may rather note You see the Primacy of the Bishop of Carthage (y) Bin. p. 136. col 1. Pope Eutychianus first Epistle following the Erroneous Pontifical (z) Lab. p. 914. Bin. pag. 168. col 1. Orders that only Beans and Grapes shall be offered on the Altar Binius saith this is the Fourth Canon of the Apostles whereas that fourth Canon doth not name Beans and the Third Canon forbids all kind of Pulse to be offered on the Altar so that the Impostor was deceived and Binius becomes Ridiculous by attempting to defend him I shall not need produce any more instances these will suffice to warn those who study the Councils not to rely upon any thing in these Notes which are so full of partiality and Errors of weak reasonings and false Quotations of ignorant and wilful Mistakes that there is little heed to be given to them § 19. I doubt I have been too tedious in discovering the Forgeries of these Decretal Epistles but the Reader must consider they take up the greatest part of this first Period in the Volumes of the Councils and we have here considered them all together And now we have nothing to observe in this Century except the Apostolical Constitutions which are left out in Binius but printed in Labbè in Greek and Latin next after Clement's genuine Epistle to the Corinthians Now the Constitutions are a very ancient Forgery compiled about the end of the Fourth and beginning of the Fifth Century of the Rites of which Ages they give a very good account and have little or nothing in them to justify the more Modern Corruptions of Rome for which cause it is likely Binius omitted them But if we know before-hand that the Apostles did not make them nor Clement Bishop of Rome collect them and can pardon the boldness of making the Apostles the speakers they are useful to be read as a writing composed in the Fourth or Fifth Age. CHAP. II. Of the Forgeries in the Second Century § 1. THis Period begins with the Life of Anacletus who was made Pope as they say An. 104. but the Fabulous Pontifical brings him in the 10th Confulship of Domitian that is just upon the fictitious Cletus his death and before Clement entred who yet is there said to be his Predecessor so blundered and uncertain is that ignorant Writer yet except what he saith no other Author mentions any deeds of Anacletus and though Binius in his Notes affirm Anacletus was most famous for many eminent deeds s (a) Lab. p. 511. Bin. pag. 42. col 1. yet he cannot name one of them Euaristus his Life follows whom the Pontifical and the Breviary of Sixtus the Fifth (b) Lab. p. 532. Bin. pag. 5 1. col 2. make to have been Pope in the time of Domitian Nerva and Trajan but Binius out of Baronius takes upon him to correct both the Pontifical and the Roman Office also assuring us he began in the 13th year of Trajan but alas these first Bishops of Rome were so obscure that nothing but their Name is upon Record in Authentic Authors And what is said in the â—ontifical and the Notes concerning their several Parents Countries times of sitting in that See and all their Actions almost are meer Impostures of later Ages as the Learned Dr. Pierson proves in his afore-cited Posthumous Dissertation Alexander's Life is next wherein Binius again corrects the Pontifical and the Breviary which say He Ruled the Church in the days of Trajan (c) Lab. p. 541. Bin. pag. 55. col 1. Brev. Sixt. 5. in Maii 3. affirming he entred not On the Papacy till Adrian's time But there was more need to Correct the Breviary of his Infallible Church for those fabulous Lessons it orders to be read in the Church on this Popes day about Alexander's converting Hermes a Praefect of Rome Quirinus a Tribune and Balbina his Daughter who also is Sainted yet after all there were no such persons in
stood for an Head till Cornelius was chosen Pope And they called a Council as they pretend in this Vacancy and writ a Letter of their Determination to all the Churches in the World that they might all observe what the Empty Chair of Peter had ordered (z) Bin. p. 107. col 1. But if any one read the Letter it self it will appear that this Council was only a voluntary Assembly of the Clergy in Rome and they met only to confirm S. Cyprian's Opinion and only writ their Letter to him but never pretended either to be Judges over Cyprian or any other part of the Catholic Church Pope Cornelius his Life follows for whose Character we are more obliged to S. Cyprian's Epistles than to the Pontifical which invents an idle Story of a Dialogue between Cornelius and Decius the Emperor and though the Notes own (a) Lab p. 665 Bin. pag. 108. col 1. That Decius who is here pretended to Martyr him dyed the same Month in which Cornelius entred yet they will not own the Story to be false but boldly put in the Name of Volusianus into their Margen instead of Decius However the Breviary (b) Breviar Sixt. 5.16 die Septemb. retains the Fiction of Cornelius suffering under Decius as it doth also the Fable of his Translating the Bodies of S. Peter and S. Paul But let any considering Man compare the different ways of telling this Sham Story and he will easily discern that the Notes cannot reconcile them without flying to a Miracle (c) Lab. p. 667. Bin. pag. 108. col 1. It is evident they have told us the Body of S. Peter was in the Vatican when Pope Victor was there Buried An. 203 And there is no Author of Credit mentions their removal into the Catacumbae and so consequently no reason to believe they were fetcht back from thence in a time of Persecution Pope Gregory lived 350 years after this and was very apt to credit feigned Miracles and he differs much from the Pontifical so that probably the whole Story is forged by those who long after began superstitiously to adore the Relicks of Saints However it is read in the Roman Church Septemb. 16. and many devout People on the Credit of this Legend make Pilgrimages and offer Prayers and large Gifts to the Shrines of these 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 (d) Lab. p. 714. Bin. pag. 126. col 1. though the Notes assure us That those two at Carthage were called by S. Cyprian's Authority and that the Italian Bishops made a Decree of their own besides that of Cornelius at Rome The Roman Councils indeed were holden under Cornelius as being Bishop of that City but we may observe He did not Authoritatively confirm the Sentence of the Council of Carthage but only contented to it We may also Note This African Council calls not Pope Cornelius Father but Brother and writes to him as one of their Collegues yea they do not except Cornelius when they Decree That if any of their Collegues agreed not to their Sentence he should answer it at the Day of Judgment (e) Lab. p. 718. Bin. pag. 128. col 1. Moreover in the same Letter there is an evident Testimony that the People in those days were prepared for Martyrdom by receiving the Eucharistical Cup (f) Lab. p. 717. Bin. pag. 127. col 2. which being now denied to the Laity the Editors pass it by without a Note yet soon after where the Council plainly speaks of Confessing the Name of Christ before Persecutors they have this impertinent Marginal Note From this and other places the necessity of Confession is confirmed As if this belonged to their new invented Auricular Confession § 4. The Notes find divers Faults in the Life of Pope Lucius yet they would palliate the grossest of all for the Pontifical says He was Beheaded by Valerian the Notes affirm it was by Gallus and Volusianus and yet the same Notes tell us The Pontifical in saying it was by Valerian may be very well and truly expounded (g) Lab. p. 720. Bin. pag. 128. col 2. The Reader must understand It may be so expounded by such kind of Notes as are designed to make gross Errors seem great Truths Pope Stephen who succeeded Lucius fell out with Cyprian and the African Bishops about the re-baptizing of Heretics which though it were the only memorable thing in this Popes Life the Pontifical never mentions And the Editors are are so used to put into the Title of all Councils Under such or such a Pope that in this Popes time they style those very Councils Sub Stephano which were called without his knowledge and which condemned his Opinion (h) Lab. p 751. pag. 760 c. Bin. pag. 137 141 145 c. as may be seen in the Councils of Carthage Iconium and Africa where so easily may Tradition be mistaken the Rebaptizing of Heretics is asserted to be an Apostolick Tradition though it were contrary to Pope Stephen's Opinion and the Tradition of the Roman Church And when Stephen on this account presumed to Excommunicate the Asian Bishops Firmilianus Bishop of Coesarea in a Letter to S. Cyprian (i) Lab. p. 751. Bin. pag. 141. col 2. Despises his Sentence compares the Pope to Judas complains of his Arrogance and esteems those to be very silly who took the Roman Bishop's word for an Apostolical Tradition from which that Church in many Instances had departed Moreover He calls him a Schismatic and affirms he had by this rash Sentence only cut himself off from the Unity of the Catholic Church S. Cyprian also and his Africans (k) Lab. p. 765. Bin. pag. 147. col 2. condemned this Pope as a Favourer of Heretics an Enemy to the Church and one who writ Contradictions and was void of Prudence describing him as an Innovator and bringer in of Traditions contrary to God's Word as one who obstinately presumed to prefer human Doctrines before Scripture I grant Pope Stephen was in the right in this Controversie yet doubtless if these Bishops had believed the Supremacy and Infallibility of the Pope and his Roman Council they could not have used him at this rate And the Editors are so concerned to cover this rough usage that they reprint an Epistle of S. Cyprian's Verbatim (l) Lab. p. 740. pag. 764. Bin. pag. 136. col 2. p. 146 col 2. after this Quarrel was grown hot which was writ while they two were Friends and contains very kind Words to Stephen which Blind is only to make us 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 (m) Lab. p. 770. which shews that these were no Arguments allowed in this Writers time Lastly whereas the third Council of Carthage severely censures Pope Stephen for taking upon him as Bishop of Bishops and for compelling his Equals by Tyrannical Terrors to obey him (n) Lab. p. 786. Bin. pag. 149. col 2. p. 154. col 2. Binius impudently notes upon this that the Pope was called Bishop of Bishops to him was the last Refuge in Matters of Faith and his Determinations were received all the World over as the Oracles of the Holy Ghost Which is from his Usurping a Title and Authority to infer he had Right to them and to prove that all the World received his Determinations from a Story which shews that half the Christian World rejected them § 5. The Life of Sixtus the Second in the Pontifical is one heap of Errors for the Author seems to mistake him for Xystus the Philosopher and as the Notes confess make Decius raise a great Persecution against the Church Eight year after he was Dead He also places Valerian before Decius supposing them to Reign together and saying Sixtus was Beheaded by Valerian in Decius's time (o) Lab. p. 819. Bin. pag. 155. col 1. now Decius was slain two year before Valerian was Emperor Yet the Notes labour to colour over all these Contradictions to Salve the Credit of their Missals and Fabulous Martyrology Dionysius the next Pope is said to have been a Monk upon the credit of the Pontifical (p) Lab. p. 827. Bin. pag. 158. col 1. the Notes add that he Lived a Solitary Life before his Election yet the Modern Monks have given over that Primitive Custom and now croud into great Cities But the Pontifical is so miserably mistaken in the Consuls in this Popes Life placing those for his last Consuls who were so two years before those he Names for his first Consuls that nothing can be believed on this Authors credit Under this Pope the Editors have feigned a Council at Rome to which Dionysius Bishop of Alexandria was Cited and so far obeyed the Order as to write an Epistle to clear himself for which they cite Athanasius (q) Lab. p. 830. Bin. pag. 160. col 1. But we must never trust their Quotations where the Supremacy is concerned without looking into the Authors they cite And Athanasius only saith Dionysius of Alexandria was accused at Rome and writ to the Pope to know the Articles complained of who sent him an Account upon which he vindicated himself by an Apology But what is all this to a Roman Council or a citing Dionysius thither There were also two Councils at Antioch about this time as Eusebius tells us (r) Euseb hist lib. 7. cap. 22. But the Editors of their own Head put in that the first of them was appointed by Dionysius Bishop of Rome to whom the chief care of the Church was committed Whereas Eusebius never mentions this Pope as being either concerned in the Council or consulted about it but if they will have it under Dionysius then we may infer that this Pope approved a saying of this Council viz. That they knew of no other Mediator between God and Man but only Christ Jesus The Second Council of Antioch is intituled also Under Pope Dionysius Yet it appears by Eusebius (s) Euseb hist lib. 7. cap. 24. that this Pope knew not of the Council till they by their Synodical Epistle informed him of it after they were risen And in that Epistle they joyn him and Maximus Bishop of Alexandria together as Collegues and equals not desiring either of them to confirm their Decrees but acquainting them with their proceedings they required them to shew their consent by writing Communicatory Letters to Domnus who was put in by them Bishop of Antioch in the Room of Paulus Samosatenus ejected for Hersie and though this Domnus his Father Demetrianus had been Bishop of Antiocb before yet we hear of no Papal Dispensation to allow him to succeed there We may also observe that Firmilianus who in Pope Stephens time so much despised the Popes Authority and Infallibility is by this Council called a Man of blessed Memory By which we see how little any Ancient and genuine Councils do countenance the Supremacy of the Roman Church and what need they had to forge Evidence who would have it taken for a Primitive Doctrine § 6. That Foelix the First was a Martyr is proved only by the Pontifical and the Roman Martyrology which often blindly follows it but why may not the Pontifical be mistaken in the Martyrdom as well as the Notes confess it to be in the Consuls (t) Lab. p. 903. Bin. pag. 163. col 1. And the base Partiality of the Notes appears soon after in citing a place of S. Cyprian as if he desired to know the Days on which the Martyrs suffered that he might offer a Sacrifice for them by Names on their Anniversaries (u) Cypr lib. 3. ep 6. vel epist 37. pag. 81. vid. Dailè de cult relig Lat. lib. 3. cap. 3. pag. 352. whereas Cyprian speaks of the Confessors who died privately in Prisons of whose Names he desires to be informed that he might celebrate their Memory among the Martyrs Now there is a great difference between S. Cyprian's and the Protestants practice to Commemorate the Saints departed and the Roman way of offering the Sacrifice of the Mass for the deceased Yet the Notes would suborn S. Cyprian to give in evidence for this corrupt practice Pope Eutychianus lived not long before Eusebiu's time and he saith he only sat ten Months (w) Euseb hist lib. 7. cap. 26. The Pontifical allows him thirteen Months but the Notes boldly say he was Pope Eight years (x) Lab. p. 913. Bin. pag. 167. col 2. and this only upon the Names of two Consuls set down in the Pontifical and the credit of the Roman Martyrology but since these two are scarce ever right in their Chronology we ought to believe Eusebius rather than the Annotator and his despicable Witnesses His Successor Gaius lived in Eusebius's own time and he affirms he sat Fifteen years (y) Euseb hist lib. 7. cap. 26. but the Pontifical allots to him Eleven years only and so doth the Breviary (z) Brev. Roman April 22. both of them making him Dioclesian's Kinsman which Eusebius knew nothing of The Notes out of Baronius contradict them all and ascribe to him Twelve years making him Dioclesian's Nephew and yet the Pontifical saith both that he fled from Dioclesian's Persecution and died a Confessor Yet was Crowned with Martyrdom with his Brother Gabinius which Non-sense Baronius and the Notes also defend § 7. This Century is concluded by the Uunfortunate Marcellinus who as the
is no prejudice to the Truth of Marcellinus his fall though the Africans did not know of it nor S. Augustine no nor any of the African Church Yet in the next Page it is observed That there are very many Names of the Witnesses which prove his fall which are peculiar to the African Christians Now if these Names were peculiar to the Africans then these Witnesses were of the African Church Originally and then it is Morally impossible that they should never tell none of their Countrymen of so Famous a Transaction The Notes confess that these Acts often mention Libra occidua which is a Word invented after the Empire was divided into East and West And thence the same Notes infer these Acts were not writ in those Ancient times yet they make it a wonder that they were not seen in Africa in S. Augustine 's time or before Which is to wonder that they had not seen them in Africa before they were written It puzzles the Annotator to make out an excuse for that ridiculous Falshood in these Acts that Marcellinus was led into the Temple of Vesta and Isis and there Sacrificed to Hercules Jupiter and Saturn because these Gods were never placed nor Worshiped in the Temples of those female Deities Nor can he allow what the Acts say about this Council being held when Dioclesian was in his Persian War for he affirms it was held Two years after that War when Dioclesian had devested himself of the Empire and lived a private Life But then the Acts make Dioclesian to be present and in Rome when Marcellinus did Sacrifice and at this rate the Pope would have laied two years at least in his Apostacy which the Annotator must not endure To conclude we now see That a Council held no body knows where nor when concealed from all Ancient Authors writ in later times full of Barbarisms and Non-sense Falshoods and contradictions if it do but pretend to make out the Supremacy and Infallibity of the Pope and set him while he was an Apostate and falsly denied the Fact above a Council of Three hundred Innocent Bishops if it do but say the Pope though never so wicked cannot be judged by any but himself This Council shall be published by the Roman Editors and vindicated by partial Notes as if it were a most genuine and Authentic Truth From whence it is plain That these Editors and especially this Annotator hath no other measure of Truth and Falshood but the Interest of the Roman Church which they resolve to promote though it be by the most unjust means And this may suffice to observe for the Third Century A BRIEF ACCOUNT OF THE Roman Forgeries IN THE VOLUMES OF THE COUNCILS For the Fourth Century PART II. CHAPTER IV. Of the Forgeries in the Fourth Century § 1. THis Century begins with the Life of Marcellus An. Dom. 304. a Pope so obscure that Eusebius's Chronicle wholly omits him (a) Lab. Tom. III. pag. 947. Bin. Tom. I. pag. 185. col 2. and Theodoret knew nothing of him nor of Pope Eusebius but makes Melchiades immediate Successor to Marcellinus (b) Theod. hist lib. 1 cap. 3. It is very observable that these two unknown Popes in the Notes on their Lives are said to have sat Seven years between them And the Pontifical saith There was a Vacancy of Seven years after Marcellinus which Vacancy is also asserted by Anastasius Biblioth by Luit prandus Abbo Floriacens Cusanus and Genebrard (c) Richer de Eccles potestate cap 3. pag. 46. And though Baronius's and Binius's Notes deny this Seven years Vacancy it is upon meer Conjectures The Scandal of so long a Vacancy no doubt setting some of the old Parasites of Rome on work to invent two Popes Names and put them into the List from whence probably they have been foisted into Optatus and S. Augustine two Latin Fathers while the Greek Authors which these Forgers Understood not do continue Uncorrupted And truly nothing but the Names of these two Popes remain for no good Historian mentions any one Eminent Act done by either of them however the Annotator had rather fill up his Scene with empty Names of Feigned Popes who did nothing for Seven years together than let the Reader suppose the Catholic Church could so long want it s pretended Head. But though the Notes allow not the Authority of the Pontifical for the Vacancy they trust it for the fictitious Story of this Marcellus his Life and would have us believe That in a time of Persecution this Pope appointed Twenty five Churches in Rome to Baptize Converts and Bury Martyrs in and though the Laws and Customs of that City then forbad to Bury dead Bodies within the Walls we are to believe that the Tyrant Maxentius who made all these Martyrs and persecuted this very Pope consented to his breaking this Ancient Law. On the Credit of the same Pontifical we are told That a certain Lady called Lucina dedicated her House to this Pope while He was alive by the Title of S. Marcellus and that the Emperor turned it into a Stable and made the Pope his Beast-keeper there where Naked and cloathed with Sackcloth they are the Words of the Pontifical He soon after ended his days the 17th of the Kalends of February (d) Breviar Rom. Jan. 16. pag. 674. Which Fiction the Roman Breviary orders to be read to the Credulous People of that Communion for Lessons and tells them That Marcellus writ an Epistle to the Bishops of the Antiochian Province about the Roman Primacy and to prove Rome to be the Head of All Churches and that no Synod should be held without the Pope's Authority But this Epistle (e) Lab. p. 948. Bin. pag. 186. col 1. is owned by Labbé to be a Forgery patched up out of divers Modern Authors citing the Vulgar Latin Version and dated after Marcellus his death And it is very strange That times of Persecution should be a proper Season for a Pope to wrangle for his Supremacy Yet this Notorious Forgery saith Christ ordered S. Peter to Translate his Seat from Antioch to Rome and that the Apostles by Inspiration decreed That all Appeals should be made thither and no Council held but by the Authority of the Roman Church For which cause Binius vindicates it with Notes as full of Falsehood as the Epistle it self (f) Lab. p 950 Bin. pag. 187. col 1. His first Note of this Epistle being writ to one Solomon a Bishop is an oversight and belongs to the first Epistle of Pope Marcellinus (g) Bin. p. 175. col 2. Baron An. 296. §. 5. His next Notes about the Primacy and Power of Calling Synods cite an Apostolical and Nicene Canon for it but no such Canons are to be found He quotes also two Epistles one writ to Pope Foelix from Alexandria another writ by Pope Julius to the Eastern Churches for proof of this Supremacy and the same Annotator afterwards owns them both
a Saviour sitting five foot high so it calls a dead Image (n) Lab. p. 1420. Bin. Not pag. 219. col 1. But if this were true why did not Adrian cite this in his Nicene Council Or why did this Emperor 's Sister write to Eusebius Bishop of Coesarea for an Image of Christ when Sylvester could more easily have furnished her and by the way the Notes fraudulently mention this Message (o) Not. Y. Bin. pag. 219. col 2. Lab. p. 1421. but do not relate how severely Eusebius reproved that Lady for seeking after a visible Image of Christ The Annotator also cites Paulinus to prove this Book of Munificence but he writ near 100 years after and though he speak of a fine Church of S. Peter in Rome yet he saith not that Constantine either founded or adorned it Baronius attempts to prove this Book by mear Conjectures by the Forged Acts and by Nicephorus a late Author whom he often taxes for Fictions (p) Baron An. 324. §. 72. 75. but he can produce no ancient or eminent Author for it And yet it is certain if Constantine had given so many and so great gifts to the Head City of the World some of the most Famous Writers would have Recorded it Besides the Cardinal himself rejects both the idle Story of S. Agnes Temple attested by a Fiction ascribed to S. Ambrose told in this very Book (q) Baron An. 324. §. 107. and the apparent Falshood of Constantine's now burying his Mother in one of these Churches who was alive long after (r) Idem An. 324. §. 114. So that by his own Confession there are divers Falshoods in this Book and he had been more Ingenuous if he had owned the whole to be as it really is a Forgery An. Dom. 314. § 11. The Editors now go back to the Council of Arles held as they say Anno 314 (s) Lab. p. 1425. Bin. pag. 220. col 1. And it troubles them much to ward off the Blows which it gives to their beloved Supremacy For it was appointed by the Emperor upon an Appeal made to him by the Donatists to judge a cause over again which had been judged before by Melchiades and his Roman Council the Pope in Council it seems being not then taken to be Infallible '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 (t) Lab. p. 1434. Bin. pag. 223. col 2. But only require the Pope who held the larger Diocess that he would openly acquaint all with them as their Letter speaks That is as he was a Metropolitan to give notice of these Canons to all his Province which was then called a Diocess and Baronius is forced to point the Sentence falsly to make it sound toward his beloved Supremacy (u) Baron An. 314. §. 68. So in the First Canon Pope Sylvester is ordered by this Council to give notice to all of the Day on which Easter was to be observed That is he was to write to all his Neighbouring Bishops under his Jurisdiction about it not as the Notes say (w) Lab. p. 1434. Bin. pag. 224. col 1. Baron An. 314. §. 58. That he was to determine the day and by vertue of his Office to write to all the Bishops of the Christian World to observe it The Council had ordered the Day and command the Pope to give notice to all about him to keep it And in the Famous Nicene Council The Bishop of Alexandria living where Astronomy was well understood was appointed first to settle and then to certify the day of Easter yet none will infer from hence that he was the Head of the Catholic Church because he had this Duty imposed on him which as yet is more than the Council of Arles did put upon the Bishop of Rome Again the Notes are very angry at the Emperor for receiving the Donatists appeal from the Pope and his Council which they say Constantine owned to be an unjust and impious thing (x) Not in Concil Aret. Bin. pag. 221. col 2. but they prove this only by a forged Epistle mentioned but now § 5. But it is certain Constantine though a Catechumen which they pretended was impossible at Nice was present in this Council and so he must act against his Conscience if he had thought it unjust and impious to judge in Ecclesiastical Causes And in this Emperor 's Letter to Ablavius he saith God had committed all Earthly things to his 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 (y) Baron Ann. 316. §. 62. And indeed Constantine by all his practice sufficiently declared he thought it lawful enough for him to judge in Ecclesiastical matters Finally the Notes say the Bishops met in this Council at the Emperor 's request (z) Lab. p. 1423 Bin. pag. 222. col 2. Now that shews it was not at the Pope 's request but indeed Constantine's Letter to Chrestus expresly Commands the Bishops to meet The Notes also out of Balduinus or Optatus or rather from an obscure Fragment cited by him say Sylvester was President of this Council Baronius addeth of his own head namely by his Legates (a) Baron Ann. 314. §. 51. which guess Binius puts down for a certain truth But it is ridiculous to fancy that a pair of Priests and as many Deacons in that Age should sit above the Emperor when himself was present in that Council So that though we allow the Pope 's Messengers to have been at this Council there is no proof that they presided in it We shall only add that instead of Arians in the Eighth Canon we must Read Africans or else we must not fix this Council so early as An. 314 at which time the Arians were not known by that name § 12. In the same year is placed the Council of Ancyra which the Editors do not as usually say was under Sylvester but only in his time (b) Lab. p. 1455. Bin. pag. 225. and it is well they are so modest for doubtless he had no Hand in it the Notes confess that it was called by the Authority of Vitalis Bishop of Antioch (c) Lab. p. 1478. Bin. pag. 232. col 2. Balsamon and Zonaras say Vitalis of Antioch Agricolaus of Caesarea and Basil of Amasea were the Presidents of it (d) Beveridg Council Tom. I. pag. 375. Yet not only Leo the Fourth but the famous Council of Nice approved of this Synod called and carried on without
of them affirms that Hosius was the Pope's Legate This is purely an Invention of Baronius but he only proves it by Conjectures (y) Baron An. 325. §. 20. The Truth is Constantine himself was the President of this Council and Sat on a Gilded Throne not as the Preface saith falsly Below all the Bishops but Above all the Bishops as Eusebius an Eye-witness relates (z) Euseb vit Constant lib. 3. cap. 10. and the Notes at last own He sat in the Chief Place (a) Lab. pag. 67. Bin. pag. 292. col 2. yea the Annalist confesseth He acted the part of a Moderator in it (b) Baron An. 325. §. 73. Richerius goes further saying It is clear by undoubted Testimonies that the Appointing and Convening of this Council depended on the Authority of Constantine who was the President thereof (c) Richer hist Con. cap. 2 §. 2 3 4. and he blames Baronius and Binius for wilfully mistaking the Pope's Consent which was requisite as he was Bishop of an Eminent Church for his Authority to which no Pope in that Age pretended It is true there were some Bishops who were Chief among the Ecclesiastics in this Council Eustathius Bishop of Antioch sat uppermost on the Right-side and opened the Synod with a Speech to Constantine (d) Theodoret. apud Baron An. 325. §. 54. Hence some and among the rest Pope Foelix in his Epistle to Zeno affirm He was President of this Council (e) Vid Richer hist Concil lib. 1. cap. 2. §. 8. Others say The Bishop of Alexandria presided and indeed all the Patriarchs present Sat above all others of the Clergy (f) Phot. lib. d. 7. Synod yet so as they all gave place to the Emperor when he came in And for the Pope's Legates Baronius and Bellarmin do contend in vain about the Places they had in this Council since no Ancient Author tells us they Sat above the Chief of the Bishops So that this also is a Forgery of the Papal Flatterers to give Countenance to their Churches feigned Supremacy Thirdly As to the Power which confirmed the Canons of this Council the ancient Historians do suppose that Constantine gave these Decrees their binding Power and Record his Letters to injoyn all to observe them (g) Vid Socrat. Sozom. Theodoret Ruffin ut supra And Eusebius who was there saith that The Emperor ratified the Decrees with his Seal (h) Euseb vit Constan lib. 1. cap. 37. But the Annalist and Annotator seek to efface this evidence by Railing at Eusebius and by devising many weak pretences to persuade the Credulous that Pope Sylvester confirmed this Council by his Authority and both the Preface and Notes tell us that this Synod writ a Letter to Sylvester for his confirmation and that he called a Council at Rome and writ back to Ratify what they had done (i) Lab. p. 6. pag. 7â— Bin. pag. 64. pag. 299. col 1. But whoever will but read these two Epistles will find the Latin so Barbarous and the Sense so Intricate that nothing is plain in them but that they are Forged (k) Lab p. 68. Bin. pag. 348. col 1. and Labbe's Margin tells us they are Fictions nor dare Baronius own them to be genuine (l) Baron An. 325. §. 37. and though Binius cite them for evidence in his Notes yet at some distance he tells us it is evident they are both Corrupted (m) Bin. p. 348. col 1. marg and again he says if they were not both extreme faulty and Commentitious they might be Evidence in this case (n) Idem p. 365. col 1. not ad Concil Rom. But Richerius is more Ingenuous and declares That these Epistles are prodigiously â—alse The Forger of them being so Ignorant as to call Macarius who was then Bishop of Jerusalem Bishop of Constantinople Yet our Annotator cites Dionysius Exiguus for a Witness of these Epistles whereas Richerius shews they were Forged by some Ignorant Monk long after Dionysius his time who mentions not the Pope 's confirming of these Canons nor doth he remember these Epistles but only saith it was agreed these Canons should be sent to Sylvester Bishop of Rome (o) Richer hist Concil lib. 1. cap. 2. §. 6. The Notes further urge a Roman Council under Pope Sylvester to prove his Confirming these Canons but that Council is a confessed Forgery it self and so proves nothing (p) Labbè marg pag. 412. Lastly The Annotator here and almost every where cites Socrates his speaking of an Ecclesiastical Canon that no Decrees of Councils should be valid withâ—ut the consent of the Roman Bishop (q) Socrat. histor lib. 2. cap. 13. But First Consent is not Confirmation It is the priviledge of every Patriarch as well as of him of Rome That a Generâ—l Council cannot be held without every one of their consents but this proves not their pretended sole and supreme Power of ratifying all Councils vested in the Pope Besides Socrates here only Historically relates what Pope Julius said in his own Case and therefore the Testimony relies on Julius his Credit and indeed that was a peculiar Case wherein when the Cause of Athanasius was referred by consent of all parties to Julius as Arbitrator the Arians took it out of his Hands against Athanasius his Mind and judged it in a Council to which Julius was not at all summoned which doubtless was very illegal and unjust But yet none can tell where this Ecclesiastical Canon was made which the angry and injured Pope here cites and therefore till it appear whence Julius had this Canon we must be excused if we give no great Deference to it and unless they cou'd prove it was Râ—corded before the Nicene Council it is very impertinent to expect the Nicene Fathers should Govern their Actions by it So that we conclude not Sylvester but Constantine confirmed this Council Fourthly As to the number of the Canons the Annotator also notoriously prevaricates He confesses that all the Greeks and particularly Theodoret and Ruffinus assert there were but Twenty Canons made there yea that the Sixth Council of Carthage within less than an Hundred years after a diligent search in the three Patriarchal Seats of Alexandria Antioch and Constantinople could find no more than Twenty Canons (r) Lab. p. 71. Bin. pag. 395. col 2. But the Notes conceal Gratian's naming no more but Twenty Canons and his saying there are but only Twenty Nicene Canons to be found in the Roman Church (s) Gratian. dist 16. cap. 10. cap. 13. For all this the Annotator boldly tells us That the truer Opinion or rather that which is most for the Popes interest is that more than Twenty Canons were made there But we will examine his and Baronius's reasons (t) Baron An. 325. §. 157. c. First They say there is no Decree about Easter among the Twenty Canons I reply There is a genuine Epistle of
found in the Original Greek printed over against it yet from this Fiction of their own (x) Lab. p. 414. Bin. pag. 366. col 1. the Notes impudently say That this Synod was Convened by Sylvester 's Authority and from Osius his presence in it Binius certainly gathers it was celebrated under this Pope but a little after he knows not in what year it was held and Baronius treats of this Council Anno 361 that is near 30 years after Sylvester's Death (y) Lab. p. 427 428. Bin. pag. 371. col 1. Baron An. 361. § 44. They tell us that Pope Symmachus in his 6th Roman Council approves this Synod but he mentions not Osius however Baronius guesses that the reason why Symmachus approved it was because Osius the Legate of the Apostolic See was there which groundless Conjecture and false Assertion Binius in his Notes turns into a positive Affirmation viz. That Osius was there as the Pope's Legate As to the occasion of calling this Council of Gangra it was to condemn one Eustathius whom Binius owns to have been a great Favourer of Monkish life and Sozomen saith he was a Monk (z) Sozom lib. 3. cap. 13. yea the Synodical Epistle describes him as one who despised Marriage allowed not the administrations of Married Priests who had a separate way of Worship and a different garb from others making his Followers to abstain from Flesh profess Continency and renounce Propriety (a) Bin. p. 367 c. all which are the very Characters of a Monk of the Roman stamp and therefore it is wonder that Binius should give Sozomen and himself the Lye and say he was no propagator of Monkery and that it cannot be proved that he was a Monk yet at last he fancies Eustathius his Name was mistaken for Eutachus an Armenian Monk (b) Lab. p. 429. Bin. pag. 371. col 2. All which Blunders are only designed to keep the Reader from observing that a Monk was condemned for an Heretic yea and censured for holding those very Opinions which now pass currant among the Romish Fryers For which end also in his Notes on the 4th Canon he saith The Heretics that is Protestants foolishly apply this Canon to condemn the Celibacy of the Clergy whereas he saith it doth not concern Priests who have Wives but such as had Wives (c) Lab. p 430. Bin. p. 372. col 2. But I doubt it will prove the Romanists are the Heretics here For both this Canon and the Synodical Epistle have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies a Priest who now hath a Wife even as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Cor. vii 10. is those that have Wives and are actually married and so the best Version of this Canon is Presbyterum Conjugatum For by it all those are Anathematiz'd who affirm That men should not Communicate if a Married Priest say the Office That is this Primitive Council Anathematizes the Modern Church of Rome to hide the shame of which just Censure the Notes quarrel with Our preferring the Translation of their Friend Dionysius who turns the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ministrante before those Versions which turn it by Sacrificante as if Protestants did this out of a design to blot out the Memorial of the unbloody Sacrifice (d) Lab. p. 431. Bin. pag. 372. col 2. whereas that Greek word doth properly signifie Ministring and saying the Offices of the Church but no where is used properly for Sacrificing and it is apparent that Protestants do most religiously believe the Sacrament to be an unbloody Sacrifice and as such do make it a Memorial of Christs one bloody Sacrifice upon the Cross The Notes also blame these Eustathian Heretics for perswading the People to give them the dispensing of their Alms intended for the Poor contrary saith Binius to the Apostles Doctrine and Constitution (e) Lab. Bâ—n ut supra Yet thus the Rom sh Fryers do at this day drawing the Peoples Alms to their Convents under pretence of being dispensers of them The same Notes are mistaken in saying That the Manicheans were forbid by their Doctrine to give any Alms to the Poor For S Augustine who knew those Heretics best affirms That they only forbad their People to give Meat or Fruits to any Beggar who was not of their own Sect (f) Aug. de mor. Manich. lib. 2. Tom. l. pag. 177. Lastly whereas this Council condemns the Eustathians for abhorring the Assemblies and Divine Offices used in the places where the Martyrs were commemorated Can. ult These Notes falsly pretend they were condemned for disapproving the Worship and Invocation of the holy Martyrs (g) Lab. p. 434. Bin. pag. 374. col 1. whereas it is plain by the Canon that the Martyrs were only Commemorated not Invocated nor Worshiped in those days and the expression in this place is only a Phrase to signifie the usual Assemblies of Orthodox Christians which were then frequently held in the Burying places of the Martyrs and these Heretics separated from those public Assemblies An. Dom. 335. The Arians to revenge their Condemnation at Nice falsly accuse Athanasius to the Emperour Constantine who thereupon called a Council at Tyre which these Editors intitle The Council of Tyre under Sylvester (h) Lab. p. 435. Bin. pag. 374. col 1. Yet all the Ancients agree the Emperour Called it and their own Notes confess as much Only they pretend He Called this Council contrary to custom and his duty but this is notoriously false since Constantine had already called divers Councils and particularly that of Nice And as for Pope Sylvester he is not once named in this Council at Tyre which looks a little odly upon the pretended Supremacy that when the Catholic Cause lay at the stake we never hear one word of the Roman Bishop neither in this Council nor in all the succeeding Letters and Councils relating to Athanasius till that Cause was afterward brought before the Pope as an Arbitrator chosen by both parties An. Dom. 336. § 19. Pope Marcus succeeded Sylvester and fat but eight Months yet that he might not seem to have done nothing The Forgers have invented an Epistle from Athanasius to this Pope desiring a true Copy of the Nicene Canons from Rome on pretence that the Arians had burnt theirs at Alexandria To which is annexed Marcus his Answer who saith he had sent him 70 Canons Now Binius hath often cited these Epistles to prove the Popes Supremacy and Infallibility and to shew there were more than twenty Canons made at Nice yet here His Notes bring five substantial Reasons to prove these Epistles forged and Labbé notes These Wares of Isidore are justly suspected by Baronius Bellarmine and other skilful Catholics nor doth Binius himself doubt of their being spurious (i) Lab. p. 469. 472. Bin. pag. 382. col 2 c. Yea it is remarkable that this very Binius out of Baronius (k) Baron An. 336. §.
59 60 here confesseth That he who Forged the Epistle of Boniface to Eulalius devised also these two Epistles to consult the Credit of Pope Zosimus and Pope Boniface who had cited a Canon out of the Nicene Council not found among the genuine 20 Canons From which we may observe First that Binius will cite those things for the Supremacy c. which he knows to be forged Secondly That the great design of all these Forged Records of Antiquity was either to cover the faults or consult the honour of the Roman Church which seems to have both employed and encouraged the Authors of these Pious Frauds because her Pretences could not be made out by any thing that was Authentic Julius succeeded Marcus in the same year in whose Life the Pontifical mistakes the Consuls Names and feigns he was banished Ten Months which Baronius proves to have been impossible (l) Baron An. 352. §. 2 3. He fills up this Popes story according to his manner with trifling matters and omits the only remarkable thing in his Life which was his concern in the Cause of Athanasius In this Popes name several Epistles are published The First from Julius to the Eastern Bishops may be proved fictitious not only by the Confession of Baronius and other Learned Romanists (m) Lab. p. 475 in Marg. Bin. pag. 384. col 1. but by divers other Arguments For is it probable that Julius would Only be solicitous about his Supremacy when he writ to the Arians and not once reprove them for their Heresie nor their persecuting Athanasius is it likely he should cite the Council of Nice falsly and feign so many ancient Decrees about the Primacy of the Pope and the Nullity of Councils not celebrated by his Authority This Forger saith Julius consented to the Nicene Council at the time of its celebration but the Romanists agree that it was held in Sylvesters time He imperiously forbids the Eastern Bishops to judge any Bishops without him and falsly tells them They all had received their Consecration from Rome yea with the fabulous Pontifical 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 (n) Lab. Marg. pag. 477. Bin. pag. 385. col 1. and after Baronius had discarded it Binius by frivolous Notes strives to justifie it as speaking big for the Supremacy (o) Lab. p 480. Bin. pag. 386. col 1. Secondly Here is the Eastern Bishops Answer to Julius wherein though they call the Pope Father which was the usual Title of Bishops of great Sees yet they expresly deny his having any Authority over them and affirm he ought to be subject to the Canons as well as other Bishops So that there is no reason for Binius his Brag Lo how they own the Supremacy (p) Lab. Marg. pag. 482. Bin. pag. 386. col 2. For indeed they do not own it at all and yet the substance of this Epistle is genuine being found in Socrates and Sozomen The third Epistle from Julius to the Arians is owned by Baronius and others to be a Forgery (q) Lab. p. 483. Bin. pag. 387. col 2. and Binius in his Notes upon it saith It is false corrupted and stollen out of divers Authors (r) Bin. p. 391. col 1. yet the same Binius infamously quotes it over and over for the Supremacy the Nullity of Councils not called by the Pope and the number of the Nicene Canons The fourth Epistle of Julius comes not out of the Vatican but was preserved in Athanasius his Apology and is by all accounted genuine being writ in an humble style without any pretences to the Supremacy (s) Lab. p. 494. Bin. pag. 391. col 1. And here the Nicene Canon about the re-hearing in a New Synod a Cause not well judged before is rightly cited without mention of any final Appeal to Rome (t) Lab. p. 495. Bin. ut supr col 2. The power of all Bishops is supposed to be equal and not any greater power to belong to him that is fixed in a greater City Here Julius writes not his own Sense but the Sense of the Bishops of Italy who were assembled in a Synod at Rome of which great City Julius being Bishop ought by ancient custom to publish the Decrees of such Councils as were held in or or near that City (u) Lab. p. 513. Bin. pag. 395. col 1. but Binius falsly infers from hence That it was an honour due to his place to publish the Decrees made in all Synods And whereas when any thing was under debate concerning Alexandria the second Patriarchate Julius saith it was a Custom to write to the Roman Bishop who was the first Patriarch Binius stretcheth this and saith It was both agreeable to the Canons and Custom that no Bishop should be judged till the Popes definitive Sentence were heard (w) Lab. p. 516. Bin. pag. 396. col 1. The last Epistle also is genuine and writ in a modest style owning that Athanasius was not judged by the Pope alone but by a Synod of Bishops whose Judgment he supposes above his own (x) Ep. 4. ap Lab. Bin. pag. 396. col 2. and by these two Epistles we may discern the Impostures of those other Epistles which are Forged about this time in the Names of this and other Popes The Decrees attributed to this Pope are not suitable to the Age yet we may note the third Decree forbids a man to Marry his deceased Brothers Wife though his Brother had not known her Which was shamefully broken by that Pope who gave Licence to King Henry the 8th to marry his Brothers Wife and this Decree justifies his Divorce (y) Lab. p. 525. Bin. pag. 398. col 1. After these Epistles follows a Roman Synod wherein Julius with 117 Bishops confirm the Nicene Council but Labbé saith it is a hotch-potch made up out of many Authors and put into the form of a Council by Isidore (z) Lab. Marg. pag. 527. Bin. pag. 400. col 1. and it is dated with the same mistaken Consuls Felician and Maximian with which Julius his entrance into the Pontifical and all his Forged Epistles are dated for his genuine Epistles have no date yet Baronius (a) Baron An. 337. §. 67. and the Notes gravely dispute about the time of this Forged Council and the Bishops which were said to be in it meerly to perswade the Reader that the Nicene Council needed the Pope's Confirmation but since this Council is feigned it can be no evidence And therefore Binius gains nothing by alledging it in his Notes on the third Epistle but only to shew us that one falshood is the fittest prop for another § 20. Athanasius being restored to Alexandria An. Dom. 339. calls a Synod there of all the Bishops of his Province of which only the Synodical Epistle is now extant written as the Title
The Greeks received not its Canons into their Code and Pope Nicholas Epistle shews that the Eastern Church did not value its Authority only the Popes esteemed it because it seems to advance their power (m) Richer hist Concil lib. 1. cap. 3. The African Church of old valued this Council as little for a Synod of Bishops there among whom were S. Augustine and Alypius were ignorant of any Sardican Council but one held by the Arians Baronius tries all his art to palliate this matter (n) Baron An. 347. §. 73. but after all his Conjectures it is plain it was of no repute in Africa because when two Popes Zosimus and Boniface afterwards cited the Decrees of Sardica as Canons of Nice the Fraud was discovered and when they were found not to be Nicene Canons They would not receive them as Canons of Sardica but flatly rejected them which shews that these African Fathers did neither take this Sardican Synod for a General Council nor for an Authentic Provincial Council And therefore whatever is here said in favour of the Roman Church is of no great weight However the Champions of Rome magnifie the 4th Canon of this Council where in case a Bishop judge that he is condemned unjustly Hosius saith If it please you let us honour the memory of Peter the Apostle and let those who have judged such a Bishop write to Julius Bishop of Rome that so if need be the Judgment may be reviewed by the Bishops of the Province and he may appoint some to hear the Cause c. Now here the Notes talk big and claim a Supremacy and Appeals as due to the Pope by Divine Right (o) Lab. p. 690 691. Bin. pag. 448. col 1. But Richerius well observes It is Nonsence to ascribe that to a human Law and Privilege or to the Decree of a Council which was due before to the Pope by the Law of God (p) Richer hist Con. lib. 1. cap. 3. And we add that Hosius neither cites any Divine Law no nor any precedent Canon or Custom for this but supposes it at the pleasure of this Synod to grant or deny Julius this privilege And yet if it were an express Law this being only a Western Synod doth not bind the whole Catholic Church Besides it is not said The Criminal shall appeal to Rome and have his Cause tryed there but only that the Pope if need were might order the Cause to be heard over again in the Province where it was first tryed and therefore Julius is only made a Judge of the necessity of a Re-hearing not of the Cause it self which according to the 5th Canon of Nice was to be decided in the Province where it was first moved And this rather condemns than countenances the modern Popish way of Trying foreign Causes at Rome by Appeal To this I will add an ancient Scholion on this Canon found in some old Copies From this Canon the Roman Church is much exalted with Pride and former evil Popes producing this as a Canon of Nice were discovered by a Council at Carthage as the Preface to that Council shews But this Canon whatever they pretend gives no more power to Rome than other Canons since it saith not absolutely that any who is deposed any where shall have liberty to appeal to the Pope for at that rate the Sardican Synod would contradict the General Councils it speaks only of him who is deposed by the Neighbouring Bishops and those of his Province and therefore doth not comprehend the Synod of the Primate Metropolitan or Patriarch so that if they be present and the Sentence be not barely by the Neighbouring Bishops the Pope may not re-hear it as this Canon orders And it only concerns those in the West Hosius and the Makers of these Canons being of those parts but in the East this Custom never was observed to this day (y) Schol. ap D. Bever Con. Tom. II. p. 199. I shall make one remark or two more and so dismiss this Council The Preface cites Sozomen to prove That Hosius and others writ to Julius to confirm these Canons But Sozomen only saith They writ to him to satisfie him that they had not contradicted the Nicene Canons (z) Sozom. lib. 3. cap. 11. Lab. p. 625. Bin. pag. 424. and their Epistle which calls Julius their Fellow-Minister (a) Lab. p. 670. Bin. pag. 440. col 1. desires him to publish their Decrees to those in Sicily Sardinia and Italy which of old were Suburbicarian Regions but never speak of his confirming their Decrees (b) Lab. p. 662. Bin. pag. 437. col 2. Yet in their Epistle to the Church of Alexandria they pray them to give their Suffrage to the Councils determinations (c) Lab. p. 670. Bin. pag. 439. col 2. Which had it been writ to the Pope would have made his Creatures sufficiently triumph I observe also that upon the mention of the Church of Thessalonica in the 20th Canon the Notes pretend that this Church had an especial regard then because the Bishop of it was the Pope's Legate yet the first proof they give is that Pope Leo made Anastasius of Thessalonica his Legate an hundred years after and hence they say Bellarmine aptly proves the Popes Supremacy (d) Lab. p. 692. Bin. pag. 448 col 2. But the Inferences are as ridiculous as they are false and they get no advantage either to their Supremacy or Appeals by this Council An Dom. 348. § 22. The first Council of Carthage was appointed to suppress that dangerous Sect of the Donatists and though it bear the Title of under Julius yet this pretended universal Monarch is not mentioned by the Council or by any ancient Author as having any hand in this great Work which was managed by Gratus Bishop of Carthage and by the Emperours Legates (e) Lab. p. 713. Bin. pag. 546. col 1. In this Council were made fourteen excellent Canons which possibly the Romanists may reject because they never asked the Popes consent to hold this Council nor desired his confirmation to their Canons and whereas the Editors tell us Pope Leo the 4th who lived five hundred years after approved of this Council we must observe that the Catholic Church had put them into their Code and received them for Authentic long before without staying for any Approbation from the Bishop of Rome Soon after this there was a Council at Milan of which there was no mention but only in the Synodical Letter of the Bishops met at Ariminum An. 359. (f) Baron An. 359. §. 16. Lab. p. 721. Bin. pag. 459. col 1. who say that the Presbyters of Rome were present at it they say not Presidents of it And there it seems Ursacius and Valens two Arian Heretics abjured their Heresie and recanted their false Evidence against Athanasius And either before or after this Synod it is not certain whether they went to Rome and in writing delivered their
Recantation to Pope Julius (g) Hosii Epist ap Baron An. 355. §. 661. before whom they had falsly accused Athanasius and who was the Arbitrator chosen to hear that Cause and so not as Pope but as a chosen Judge in that case was fittest to receive these mens Confessions Yet hence the Notes make this Inference That since this matter was greater than that a Synod at Milan though the Roman Presbyters were present could dispatch it and lest the ancient Custom of the Catholic Church should be broken viz. for eminent Heretics to abjure their Heresies only at Rome and be received into Communion by the Pope they sent them to Julius that having before him offered their Penitential Letter they might make their Confession the whole Roman Church locking on All which is their own Invention for the Authors from whom alone they have the notice of this Council say nothing of this kind and it is very certain that there was at this time no custom at all for Heretics to abjure at Rome more than at any other place many Heretics being frequently reconciled at other Churches There was also a peculiar reason why these two Heretics went thither and it cannot be proved that this Council sent them so that these are Forgeries devised to support their dear Supremacy and so we leave them Only noting That the Editors are not so happy in their Memory as their Invention for the next Page shews us a Council at Jerusalem wherein many Bishops who had described the Condemnation of Athanasius and therefore no doubt were Arians repented and recanted and so were restored to the Churches Communion without the trouble of going to Rome on this Errant A Council at Colen follows next which they say was in Julius his time and under Julius yet the Notes say they know not the time when it was held only the Bishops there assembled deposed a Bishop for Heresie by their own Authority without staying for the Pope's Advice though they were then about to send a Messenger to Rome to pray for them so little was the Popes Consent thought needful in that Age and perhaps it is in order to conceal this seeming neglect that the Notes (h) Bin. Not. p. 463. col 2. after they have approved far more improbable Stories which make for the honour of their Church reject the report of this Message to the Prince of the Apostles as fabulous and we are not concerned to vindicate it The last Council which they style under Julius was at Vasatis or Bazas in France yet the Notes affirm That Nectarius presided in it the time of it very uncertain (i) Lab. p. 728. Bin. pag. 464. col 1 2. and the Phrases used in the Canons of it shew it to be of much later date Besides this Council saith The Gloria-Patri was sung after the Psalms in all the Eastern Churches but Jo. Cassian who came out of the East in the next Century saith He haa never heard this Hymn sung after the Psalms in the Eastern Churches (k) Bin. Not. in Epist Damas Hieron pag. 506. col 1. Wherefore it is probable this Council was celebrated after Cassian's time when the Greek Churches had learned this Custom and yet these Editors place it a whole Century too soon because they would have us think that custom here mentioned of remembring the Pope in their daily Prayers was as ancient as the wrong date here assigned In Labbe's Edition here is added an account (l) Laâ—â— p. 729. ad pag. â—â—9 of three Councils against Photinus on which we need make no Remarks An. Dom. 352. § 23. Pope Liberius succeeded Julius whose Life with the Notes upon it are very diverting if we observe the Shifts and Artifices used by the Roman Parasites to excuse him from Heresie The Pontifical saith He was banished three years by Constantius for not consenting to the Arians in whose place Foelix was Ordained and he in a Council condemned Ursacius and Valens two Arian Bishops who in Revenge petitioned Constantins to revoke Liberius and he being thus restored consented to the Arians and the Emperour so far as to persecute and Martyr the Catholics and his Rival Foelix being a Catholic was deposed But this Fable is not fine enough for the Palates of Baronius and Binius who are to dress a Story to make the Reader believe that neither Liberius nor Foelix erred in Faith while they were Popes To confute which let it be considered that Binius confesseth Liberius consented to the depriving of Athanasius admitted Arians to his Communion and subscribed an Arian Confession of Faith as Athanasius Hilary and Hierom witness (m) Not. ad 7 Ep. Liber Lab pag. 751. Bin. pag. 470. col 1. and there are Arguments unanswerable to prove he was an Arian while he was Pope (n) Vid. Spalat de rep Eccl. l. 7. cap. 5. yea Binius in his own Notes twice confesseth That he unhappily fell (o) Lab. p. 741. Bin. p. 465. E. and that he basely fell (p) Lab. p. 743. Bin. p. 466. col 2. Yet to mince the matter he adds That by his Fall he cast a vile Blot on his Life and Manners and the Notes on the Sirmian Council say By offending against the Confession of Faith and the Law of Justice he cast a most base Blot on his Life and Manners (q) Lab. p. 783. Bin. pag. 479. col 2. What can be more ridiculous He erred in Faith and subscribed the Arian Confession therefore the blot was upon his Faith this did not concern his Life and Manners That Absurd Phrase is a meer blind to keep the Reader from discovering a Pope turning Heretic To which end they impudently say It is a false Calumny of the Heretics to say Liberius was infected with the Arian Heresie (r) Lab. p. 741. Bin. pag. 465. col 2. But I ask Whether Athanasius S. Hilary and S. Hierom who affirm this were Heretics Or was Platina an Heretic who saith Liberius did in all things agree with the Heretics To which the same Forgers have added As some would have it but those are not Photinus words who saith soon after He was of the same Opinion with the Arians (s) Platin. in vit Liber p 50. Eusebius Presbyter urbis Rome copit declarare Liberium Haereticum Partitor Sarish Aug. 14. And surely the Catholic People of Rome in his time took him for an Arian and as such would have no communion with him and therefore we conclude he was an Arian As for Foelix who was put into his place Baronius and Binius would excuse him by a false Latin Version of Socrates saying He was addicted to the Arian Sect but the Original Greek expresly declares He was in Opinion an Arian (t) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Socrat. lib. 2. cap. 29. And it is certain He was chosen by the Arians and communicated with them Ordaining Arians to be Priests and therefore the Catholic People at Rome
Baron An. 365. pag. 153. Thirdly The Pope here saith He was the least of all Bishops and was glad their Opinion agreed with his and the rest of the Western Bishops Fourthly Yet after all these very Eastern Bishops were of the Macedonian party as the Title of their Letter in Socrates shews (o) Socrat. ut supr Baronius indeed leaves these words out of the Title but he confesses they were Semi-Arians So that the Popes Infallibility as being imposed on by Heretics in Mattets of Faith loses more by this Embassy than his Supremacy gains by it because the Legates were not sent to him alone but to all the Western Bishops Fifthly The Notes on this Council (p) Lab. p. 830. Bin. pag. 492. col 1. feign that besides these Communicatory Letters Liberius writ other Letters Commanding that ejected Bishops should be restored by the Apostolic Authority But this is one of Baronius his Forgeries (q) Baron An. 365. pag. 154. For S. Basil and also Sozomen cited by the Notes on the Council of Tyana (r) Lab. p. 836. Bin. pag 494. col 1. mention not the Legates shewing any other Letters at their return into the East but only the Communicatory Letters and since it appeared by them that the Western Bishops judged them Orthodox their Eastern Brethren did restore them And so also these Legates got the approbation of a Council in Sicily as they were returning home for the Sicilian Bishops by mistake took them for Orthodox when they saw the rest of the Western Bishops owned their Communion with them and so approved their Confession of Faith and therefore it is very impertinent in the Notes to say on this occasion (s) Concil Siciliae Lab. Bin. ut supr That the Authority of the Pope was so great that if he admitted even suspected Heretics to his Communion none presumed to reject them Whereas we know that afterwards the People of Rome rejected even the Pope himself for communicating with Semi-Arians The next thing which occurs is a Synod in Illyricum Convened at the request of Eusebius Bishop of Sebastia one of the Eastern Legates who while his Fellows stayed at Rome went into that Country and prevailed with the Bishops assembled there to send Elpidius a Brother and Collegue of their own with a Synodical Letter to the Eastern Bishops declaring they would communicate with them if their Faith was the same with that of Nice Now though this Synod do not mention the Pope yet Baronius and the Notes feign That Elpidius was the Pope's Legate (t) Lab. p. 832. Bin. pag. 493. Baron An. 365. pag. 155. whereas the Synod the Emperours Letter and Theodoret from whom this Story is taken mention Elpidius only as a Messenger sent from this Council When these Eastern Legates returned home there was a Council called at Tyana in Cappadocia (u) Lab. p. 836. Bin. pag. 494. col 1. wherein they shewed the Communicatory Letters which they had fraudulently obtained in the West upon which Letters those who had been ejected as Heretics and particularly Eustathius of Sebastia were restored to their Sees but neither Sozomen nor S. Basil say this was done by any special Letters of Liberius or by any Command of his yet if it had been so this would spoil this Popes Infallibility it being certain these restored Bishops were Heretics who Liberius poor Man thought to be good Catholics and he hath the more to answer for if this were done not by his Consent alone but by his Command also After this we have the Life of Pope Foelix about whom they differ so much that nothing is plain in his Story but this that little of him is certainly known The Pontifical in Liberius Life saith He died in peace but here it saith He was Martyred by Constantius for declaring him an Heretic and one who was rebaptized by Eusebius of Nicomedia Yet Constantius was not Baptized at all till after Foelix his pretended Martyrdom and he was Baptized then not by Eusebius but by one Euzoius Again The Pontifical allows him but to sit One year and three months and the Notes say This is right computing from Liberius Fall to his Return which as Sozomen affirms was but little before Foelix his Death (w) Lab. p. 843. Bin. pag. 490. col 2. Whereas these very Notes tell us a little before that Liberius was above two years in Exile (x) Lab. p. 742. Bin. pag. 466. col 1. therefore if he lived but a small time after Liberius's return he must sit above two years But Marcellinus who writ in that Age tells us Foelix lived eight years after Liberius was restored Which Baronius and the Notes would conceal to hide the Scandal that their Church must get by a long Schism and by an Heretical Pope of whom they will needs make a Martyr only upon the Credit of the Pontifical and a modern fallacious Inscription pretended to be found at Rome many Ages after belonging to some Foelix but which of them they know not The Epistles ascribed to this Pope contain so many and so gross Untruths that Labbé notes They are discarded by Baronius and other Learned Men as Isidores Wares (y) Lab. Marg. p. 844 849. adding That the third Epistle was stollen from Pope Martin the First in his Lateran Council (z) Id. Marg. pag. 856. And though Binius very often cite the two first Epistles yet in his Notes on them he owns they are of no credit (a) Lab. p. 849. Bin. pag. 499. col 1. For they Forge many Canons as made at Nice and tell that idle story of the true Copies of the Nicene Canons being burnt by the Arians (b) Richer hist Con lib. 1. cap. 1. §. 9. But it is certain the Forger of these Epistles was a Creature of the Popes because the Inscriptions of them are stuffed with false and flattering Titles and the Body of them nauseously and ridiculously press the Supremacy and the Universal Empire of the Roman Church § 26. The entrance of Damasus into the Papacy was not without Blood An. Dom. 367. for the People were divided and some standing for Damasus others for Ursicinus Damasus his Party being stronger slew many of their Adversaries in a Church as all the Writers of that Age testifie (c) Am. Marcel lib. 17. Ruffin lib. 2. cap. 10. Hieron in Chron. and though Ammianus be a Pagan Historian yet it is very probable which he writes that it was not Zeal but the ambition of living high and great that made Men contend so fiercely for the Papacy for S. Basil himself about this time taxes the Roman Church with Pride and S. Hierom the great Friend of that Church often reflects upon the pomp and luxury of the Clergy there So that the Notes on Damasus his Life do but glory in their Churches shame when from these Authors they boast of the Magnificence and Majesty of the Papacy (d) Lab. p.
860. Bin. pag. 503. col 2. The Fabulous Pontifical was for many Ages pretended to be writ by this Damasus and he who forged the Decretal Epistles invented one to Aurelius Bishop of Carthage (e) Lab. p. 862. Bin. pag. 503. col 2. wherein Damasus is feigned to send him at his Request all the Epistles writ by the Popes from S. Peter to his time and this of old was the Preface to the Decretal Epistles but the Forgery is so gross that Binius rejects it and if his affection for the Papacy had not biassed him he would also have rejected all the Epistles which are as errant Forgeries as this Preface The first and second Epistles written in Damasus his Name to Paulinus and the Eastern Bishops are suspicious The third Epistle of Damasus to Hierom is evidently Forged by some illiterate Monk but S. Hierom's Answer seems to be genuine yet the Notes reject it (f) Lab. p. 868. Bin. pag. 506. col 1. for no other reason but because it truly supposes the Pope and his Clergy were so ignorant as to need S. Hierom's help to make them understand the Psalms and affirms that Rome obeyed his directions in singing the Psalms and adding the Gloria Patri to them whereas whoever considers the Learning and Authority of S. Hierom in that Age will not think it at all improbable that he should teach the Roman Bishop And Binius is forced to cite this Epistle wrong in his Notes to get a seeming Argument against it for the Epistle doth not advise them to sing the Gloria Patri after the manner of the East as he quotes it but to sing it to shew their Consent to the Nicene Faith. The fourth Epistle of Damasus to Stephen Archbishop of the Council of Mauritania with Stephen's Epistle to him are owned by Labbé to be both spurious (g) Lab. Marg. pag. 869. Bin. pag. 506 c. But since they magnifie the Popes Supremacy Binius justifies them both for whose confutation let it be noted 1. That it is absurd to style a Man Archbishop of a Council Secondly That in this Epistle is quoted a forged Epistle of Foelix owned by Binius himself to be spurious (h) Bin. p. 499. Thirdly That place of Math. XVI is falsly quoted here and thus read Thou art Peter and upon thy foundation will I set the Pillars that is the Bishops of the Church Fourthly The later of them is dated with Flavius and Stillico who were not Consuls till Damasus had been in his Grave full twenty year as Labbé confesses wherefore we justly discard these gross Forgeries devised of old and defended now only to support the Popes usurped Power The fifth Epistle says The Institution of the Chorepiscopi was very wicked and extreme evil yet presently after it owns they were appointed in imitation of the LXX Disciples and were at first necessary for the Primitive Church it is also dated with Libius and Theodosius who were never Consuls in Damasus's time and finally Labbé owns that much of it is stollen out of the Epistles of later Popes (i) Lab. p. 876. Bin. pag. 509. col 1. yet Binius will not reject it because it hath some kind touches for the Supremacy The sixth Epistle to the Bishops of Illyricum passes Muster also with him though it be dated with Siricius and Ardaburus who were Consuls till 30 years after Damasus was dead (k) Lab. p. 882. Bin. pag. 511. col 1. The 7th Epistle is dated with the same Consuls yet Binius allows of it because in it the Pope pretends to give Laws not only to Italy but to all the World though Labbé confess the Cheat and owns it was stollen by Isidore out of Leo's 47th Epistle (l) Lab. p. 883. Bin. pag. 511. col 2. So unfortunate is their Supremacy that whatever seems to give any countenance to it always proves to be Forged The Decrees attributed to this Pope seem to have been the invention of later Ages for it is not probable Damasus would have Fathered a Lye upon the Nicene Council in saying It was decreed there that Lay-men should not meddle with Oblations (m) Lab. p. 885. Bin. pag. 512. col 1. or that he would say Such as broke the Canons were guilty of the Sin against the Holy-Ghost Nor doth his Decree about the Pall agree to this Age. So that Damasus's Name hath for better credit been clapt to these Decrees by the modern Compilers who are the Guides to our Editors About this time the Arians having the Emperour Valens on their side began to grow bold An. Dom. 369. but Athanasius condemned them in Egypt by divers Synods and upon his Admonition Damasus held two Synods at Rome in the first of which Ursacius and Valens two Arian Bishops were condemned and in the later Auxentius the Arian Bishop of Milan was deposed not by the Popes single Authority as the Notes and Baronius vainly pretend (n) Bin. p. 512. 513. Baron An. 369. pag. 190 c. but by the common Suffrage of Ninety Bishops assembled with him as the words of Athanasius and the very Councils Letter plainly shew And though Baronius here talks of the Popes sole Priviledge in deposing Bishops there are innumerable Instances of Bishops deposed without the Popes leave or knowledge and Auxentius valued and believed Damasus his Authority so little that notwithstanding this Sentence of the Pope in Council he kept his Bishopric till his Death An. Dom. 373. Apollinaris having disseminated his Heresie at Antioch complaint was made â—o Damasus of one Vitalis who held those Errors but the Pope who had not the gift of discerning the Spirits was imposed on by his subscribing a plausible Confession of Faith so that he writ on his behalf to Paulinus Bishop of Antiâ—ch (o) Baron An. 373. pag. 301. 'T is true at the request of S. Basil Damasus did this year joyn with Peter Bishop of Alexandria who was then at Rome in condemning Apollinaris in a Roman Council (p) Lab. p. 895. Bin. pag. 514. col 1. but Nazianzen saith He did nâ—t this till he was better instructed in the Points For at first as the Notes confess this Pope took Apollinaris for a piâ—us and learned Man and so held Communion with him till he understood by S. Basil 's third Epistle that he was an Heretic I know they excuse this by saying that S. Basil himself and Nazianzen and S. Hierom were all at first under the same mâ—stake with Damasus But then none of these ever were pretended to be Infallible Judges in matters of Faith as Baronius holds Damasus was so that the mistake in them is pardonable but upon Baronius Principles I see not how Damasus his Infallibility can be secured when he was so long deceived by a Heretic and was forced to be instructed by a private Bishop at last even in cases of Heresie The next year a Council was held at Valentia in Dauphiné the
true Title of which saith it was under Gratian and Valentinian the Emperours but the Editors put a new Title over it and say it was under Damasus (q) Lab. p. 904. Bin. pag. 516. col 1. who is not once named in it the French Bishops there assembled making Canons for their own Churches without asking the Popes leave or desiring his Confirmation An. Dom. 378. Upon the death of Valens the Arian Emperour while Valentinian was yet very young Gratian managed both the Eastern and Western Empire and he makes a Law to suppress all Heresies and to take away the use of Churches from all such as were not in Communion with Damasus Bishop of Rome and Peter of Alexandria (r) Sozom. lib. â— cap. 4. Socrat lib. 5. cap. 2. Theodoret indeed who as Baronius owns is much mistaken in his relating this matter s Theod. lib. 5. cap. 2. Baron An. 378. pag. 339. names only Damasus in his report of this Law and Bâ—ronius cites the Law out of him meerly to make it seem as if Damasus were made the sole Standard of Catholic Communion though the Original Law still extant (t) God. Justin lib. 1. tit 1. de sum Trin. Ll. 1. and all other Historians name Peter of Alexandria as equal with Damasus perhaps the Reader may wonder there is no other Patriarch named in this Law but it must be observed that Antiâ—ch at this time had two Orthodox Bishops who separated from each other Meletius and Paulinus to make up which unhappy Schism there was a Synod this year held at Antioch under Damasus (u) Lab. p. 908. Bin. pag. 517. col 1. say the Editors but in truth under the Emperours Legate who was sent to see a Peace concluded between these two Bishops by the advice of the Council there assembled And Damasus had so little interest in this Council that Meletius was generally approved for the true Bishop and Paulinus whose party the Pope favoured ordered only to come in after Meletius his Death (w) Socrat. lib. 5. cap. 5. Sozom. lib. 7. cap. 3. Theod. lib. 5. c. 3. So that since this Council acted contrary to the mind of Damasus it is very improper to say it was held under him § 27. The second General Council at Constantinople was Called by the Emperour Theodosius An. Dom. 381. whom Gratian had taken for his Partner in the Empire and assigned him for his share the Eastern Provinces where this pious Prince finding great differences in Religion he Convened this Council to confirm the Nicene Faith to settle Ecclesiastical Matters and to determine the Affairs of the See of Constantinople This Council the Editors introduce with a Preface or general History and conclude it with partial and false Notes hoping to perswade the World that it was both called and all the good things which they had done with which Letter probably they sent as was usual a Transcript of all their Acts And Photius saith That Damasus Bishop of Rome afterwards agreed with these Bishops and confirmed what they had done (m) Photius de 7 Synod cap. 2. that is by consenting to it which is no more than every absent Bishop may do who in a large Sense may be said to confirm a Council when he agrees to the Acts of it after they are brought to him Thirdly The Authority of this Council is undoubted having been ever called and accounted the Second General Council and so it is reckoned in all places where the General Councils are mentioned which Title it had not as Bellarmin vainly suggests Because at the time when this was assembled in the East the Western Bishops met at Rome For that obscure Synod is not taken notice of while this is every where celebrated as held at Constantinople and consisting of one hundred and fifty Bishops which were they who met in the East (n) Lab. p. 967. Bin. pag. 541. col 2. As for Damasus Baronius cannot prove he was concerned in it but by we think and we may believe (o) Baron An. 380 p 359. An. 381. p. 368. yet he elsewhere boldly says Damasus gave it Supreme Authority (p) Idem p. 382. and the Annotator makes it impossible for any Council to be general unless the Pope or his Legates be there Now he and all others call this A General Council And yet he saith That neither Pope Damasus nor his Legates were Presidents of it nor was he or any Western Bishop in it Whence we learn That there may be a General Council at which the Pope is not present by himself nor by his Legates and of which neither he nor they are Presidents Fourthly As to the Creed and Canons here made the modern Romanists without any proof suppose that Damasus allowed the former and not the later But if he allowed the famous Creed here made I ask Whether it then had these words And from the Son or no If it had why do the Notes say That these words were added to it by the Bishops of Spain and the Authority of Pope Leo long after (q) Lab. p. 972. Bin. pag. 543. col 2. But if these words were wanting as they seem to confess when they say The Roman Church long used this Creed without this addition then I must desire to know how a Man of their Church can be secure of his Faith if what was as they say confirmed by Damasus in a General Council may be al ered by a few Bishops and another Pope without any General Council As to the Canons Damasus made no objection against them in his time and it is very certain that the Bishop of Constantinople after this Council always had the second place For as the first General Council at Nice gave old Rome the first place as being the Imperial City so this second General Council doubted not but when Constantinople was become new Rome and an Imperial City also they had power to give it the second place and suitable Priviledges Yea the Notes confess that S. Chrysostem by virtue of this Canon placed and displaced divers Bishops in Asia and the 4th General Council at Chalcâ—den without regarding the dissent of the Popes Legates allowed the Bishop of Constantinople the second place and made his Priviledges equal to those of Old Rome (r) Vid. Concil Chaleed Can. 28. Subscrip ibid. which Precedence and Power that Bishop long returned notwithstanding the endeavours of the envious Popes And Gregory never objected against thâ—se Canons till he began to fear the growing Greatness of the Patriarch of Constantinople but when that Church and Empire was sinking and there appeared no danger on that side to the Popes then Innocent the Third is said by the Notes to revive and allow this Canon again by which we see that nothing but Interest governs that Church and guides her Bishops in allowing or discarding any Councel For now again when the Reformed begin to urge this Canon Baronius and
of Nicomedia 's Letters were received by Julius after his death Baronius thus enlarges it Eusebius who had fled from the Judgment of the Roman Church was forced against his Will being dead as Socrates saith to come to the strict Tribunal of God Vid. Socrat. lib. 2. cap. 13. Baron An. 342. §. 43. Where Athanasius saith I went up to Rome that I might visit the Church and the Bishop Baronius ridiculously infers that when we find the Ancients speaking of THE Church and THE Bishop they mean the Roman Church and that Bishop of whom and in whom and by whom are all other Bishops An. 349. §. 6. Which Note is forced upon this place for here Rome is named in the same Sentence with the Church and the Bishop and so it must be understood of the Pope but without any advantage to him more than it would have been to the Bishop of Eugubium to say I went to Eugubium and visited the Church and the Bishop Again S. Hierom saith expresly that Acacius substituted Foelix an Arian to be Bishop of Rome in Liberius his stead Here Baronius pretends some Copies leave out the word Arian and so he reads it Substituted Foelix to be Bishop of Rome An. 355. §. 51. and because some such Parasites of Rome as himself who would not endure that ingrateful Truth of a Pope's being an Heretic had left out this word He boldly asserts it for the true Reading whereas not only Socrates expresly saith He was an Arian in Opinion but Hierom himself in his Chronicle affirms that Foelix was put in by the Arians and it is not like they would have put him in if he had not been of their party The Greek of Sozomen is no more but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but Baronius improves this by a flattering Paraphrase in these words Lest the Seat of Peter should be bespattered with any spot of Infamy An. 357. §. 43. But it is a bolder falsification of S. Chrysostom where he saith in one of his Sermons on a day celebrated in memory of two Martyrs Juventius and Maximus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to pervert this by his Latin Version thus The Martyrs which we this day worship whereas Chrysostom only saith The Martyrs which occasion us to meet this day Chrysost Tom. V. p. 534. Baron An. 362. pag. 48. Epiphanius expresly condemns those as Heretics who worship the Blessed Virgin and saith No man may adore Mary Baronius will not cite this place at large but adds to it these Words she is not to be worshiped as a God Which Falsification of the Father is designed to excuse their Churches Idolatrous worship of the Virgin Mary Epiphan haeres 79. Baron An. 373. p. 309. The restitution of Peter Bishop of Alexandria is by S. Hierom whom he cites with applause ascribed to the late Repentance of the Emperour Valens who recalled now at last the Orthodox from Banishment and Socrates only mentions Damasus's Letters which Peter took with him approving both his Creation and the Nicene Faith Yet he from hence notes the Supreme Power of the Pope by whose order the Bishop of Alexandria was restored to his Church in contempt of Valens his Authority and when he returned with the Popes Authority the People placed him in his Seat Socrat. lib. 4. cap. 30. Baron An. 377. pag. 325. Yea after this he pretends to cite Socrates as if he said Peter was received being restored by Damasus Id. An. 378. pag. 335. yet Damasus did no more in all this matter than barely to testifie that Peter was an Orthodox Bishop and that he believed him duly elected which is all that Socrates saith and which if any eminent Orthodox Bishops had testified it would equally have served the Bishop of Alexandria's Cause To conclude Baronius owns Paulinus to have been a credulous Man and very unskilful in Ecclesiastical History Baron Tom. V. An. 395. p. 15. yet thinking he had not spoken enough when he relates That a Church was adorned with Pictures he stretches this into Adorned with Sacred Images Id. An. 394. pag. 612. From all which Instances we may infer That the Cardinal would not stick at misquoting and misrepresenting his Authors when it might serve the Roman Interest § 3. Of this kind also we may reckon his crafty suppressing such Authorities in whole or in part as seem to cross the Opinions and Practices of their Church His leaving out a passage in Optatus wherein that Father makes the being in Communion with the Seven Churches of Asia a Note of a true Catholic was noted before Vid. supra §. 2. Baron An. 321. §. 5. And we may give many such like Instances Sozomen relates an Imperial Law wherein those are declared Heretics who do not hold the Faith which Damasus Bishop of Rome and Peter of Alexandria then held Sozom. lib. 7. cap. 4. p. 415. but the fraudulent Annalist leaves out Peter of Alexandria and mentions only Damasus as the sole standard of Catholic Faith Baron An. 378. pag. 339. When S. Hierom saith His Adversaries condemned him with Damasus and Peter Baronius bids us observe with what reverence the Pope's Enemies treated him for though they accused S. Hierom of Heresie yet against Damasus they durst not open their Mouth Baron An. 378. pag. 347. whereas S. Hierom protected himself by the Authority of the Bishop of Alexandria as well as by that of the Pope Again after a crafty Device to hide the evident Testimony which Gregory Nyssen gives against going in Pilgrimage to Jerusalem He slightly mentions an Epistle of S. Hierom which excellently confutes that then growing Superstition telling us That the Court of Heaven is as open from Britain as from Jerusalem Which remarkable Sentence and all the other learned Arguments of that Epistle he omits by design Hieron Ep. 13. Tom. l. p. 120. Baron An. 386. p. 454 455. though if it had countenanced this Superstition we should have had it cited at large In like manner afterwards when he had another fair occasion to cite this same Epistle which doth so effectually condemn Pilgrimages he will not quote one word out of it but barely mentions it and runs out into the Enquiry what time it was writ Baron An. 394. p. 613. I have given many more Instances of these fraudulent Concealments in my Discourse of Councils and therefore shall add no more here but only this That whoever reads Baronius's Annals hears no more generally than the Evidence of one side and that too enlarged if it be never so slight and commended if it be never so spurious but whatever makes against the Roman Church is depreciated and perverted or else clapt under Hatches and kept out of sight Of which we have an Instance in Eusebius who because he will not justifie their Forgeries about Constantine's Baptism and Donation though he be the best of all the Ecclesiastical Historians is never cited but with Reproaches and Calumnies Annal. 324. §. 143 144 152. An.
325. §. 192 193. Et An. 336. §. 7 8. Item An. 340. §. 40 c. and whatever he saith against them is either concealed or the force of it taken off by reviling him as an Arian § 4. Another Artifice of our Annalist is first to suppose things which make for the honour of his Church without any manner of proof and then to take his own Suppositions for grounds of Argument Thus he supposes that Constantine gave S. Peter thanks for his Victory without any evidence from History Baron An. 312. §. 58. yea against his own peculiar Notion That Constantine was then a Pagan and durst not do any act to make him seem a Christian Id. ibid. §. 62. Again To colour their Worship of Images He barely supposes that the Pagan Senate dedicated a Golden Image of Christ to Constantine Baron An. 312. §. 68 69. He argues only from Conjectures to prove the Munificence of that Emperour to Rome Baron An. 324. §. 72. whereas if so eminent a Prince had given such great Gifts to the most famous City in the World doubtless some Author would have mentioned it and not have left the Cardinal to prove this by random Guesses Again He supposes without any proof that Constantine knew the Supreme Power over all Christians was in the Church of Rome Eod. An. §. 117. He produces nothing but meer Conjectures that Osius was the Pope's Legate yet he boldly draws rare Inferences from this Eod. An. §. 127. He doth but guess and take it for granted that the Nicene Council was called by the Advice of Pope Sylvester Eod. An. §. ult yet this is a Foundation for the Supremacy and I know not what Thus when he hath no Author to prove that Athanasius venerated the Martyrs he makes it out with Who can doubt it and it is fit to believe he did so Baron An. 342. §. 42. So he tells us He had said before that Damasus favoured Gregory Nazianzen in his being elected to be Bishop of Constantinople Baron An. 380 pag. 362. He supposes this indeed a little before Ibid. p. 359. But all Ancient Authors say and he himself affirms That Peter Bishop of Alexandria did institute him into that Bishopric Idem p. 355. He only supposes Siricius desired Theodosius to banish the Manichees from Rome but the Rescript is not directed to him but to Albinus the Praefect and except the fabulous Pontifical there is no Evidence that Siricius was concerned in this matter Baron An. 389. p. 513. Theodoret saith The Emperour chose Telemachus into the number of Martyrs but Baronius supposes This was done not only by the Emperour's Care but by the Ecclesiastical Authority of the Pope Baron An. 395. §. 621. To conclude He affirms by guess That S. Nicetus came out of Dacia into Italy to Visit the Apostles Tombs and to consult the Apostolical Seat Baron An. 397. pag. 28 29. but no Author makes this out Now how can any Reader trust an Historian who in relating things done many Ages ago takes the liberty to invent and suppose whatever will serve a present Turn § 5. Add to this that he scruples not to contradict himself and to tell manifest Untruths to carry on the Interest of Rome which we shall prove by these Examples He affirms Coelicianus Bishop of Carthage relied upon one defence The Communion of the Apostolic See but immediately he tells us That he was supported by Constantine 's favour Baron An. 313. §. 18 19. He cites S. Augustine saying Constantine when Coecilian's Cause was referred to him was a Christian Emperour yea he cites a Letter of Constantine writ in a most Christian style and yet he feigns that Coelicianus delayed his appearing before this Emperour because he thought it unfit that a Bishop should be judged by a Lay-man not yet Baptized Baron An. 316. §. 59 62. Collat. cum §. 60. And again Eight years after this he represents Constantine as a meer Pagan who had never heard of Peter or Paul and took them for some Heathen Deities Baron An. 324. §. 39. whereas he saith He was a Catechumen and out of the Gospel had imbibed the Christian Meekness eight years before Id. An. 316. §. 65. He also affirms That in the Year 324 there was as yet none of the Senatours believed the Christian Faith Baron An. 324. §. 76. And yet he saith Two year before this that one or both the Consuls were Christians Id. An. 322. §. 1. yea in the year 312. He reckons up many Senatours who had given up their Names to Christ Id. An. 312. §. 75 76. Thus he contradicts himself by following those Lying Acts of Sylvester in order to support the false Story of Constantine's being Baptized at Rome Soon after out of a Fabulous Author he talks very big of the low Reverence which Constantine paid to the Bishops at the Nicene Council Baron An. 325. §. 16. whereas all the Authentic Historians say The Bishops rose up when he entred in and paid him a great respect Idem ibid. §. 52. And when he hath told many incredible Legends about the Nails of the Cross and seems to grant that divers false Nails have been adored for the true he excuses his abused Catholics for their mistaken Worship of false Relics saying That their Faith excuses their Fault Baron An. 326. §. 51 54. so that Lies may be innocently told and believed it seems at Rome Again he affirms there were Monks at Rome in the year 328 and proves this by what S. Augustine saw there at least fifty years after Baron An. 328 §. 20. 21. yea in the year 340 he saith Athanasius first brought the Institution of Monks to Rome Id. An. 340. §. 8. which is a manifest contradiction To proceed I wonder with what Face he could commend Athanasius for speaking charitably of the Heretic Arius after he was dead when he reviles Eusebius after his death Baron An. 336. §. 44. Collat. cum An. 340. §. 38. And never mentions any of the Protestant Doctors deceased but with the bitterest Malice and in the most spightful Language he can invent If Charity were a Vertue in Athanasius then Malice must be a Vice in him He largely relates many Appeals to the Emperour in the case of Athanasius and yet when at last the Bishop of Rome was chosen Arbitrator in this Case and this but once He cries out Behold Reader the ancient Custom c. Whereas since the Emperours were Christians it was the Custom to appeal first to him as his History abundantly proves Baron An. 340. §. 2. He very largely commends the Acts of Martyrs but by following them falls into many Absurdities as where he tells us That the Pagan Temple of Daphne at Antioch was burnt two days after the Martyrdom of Artemius Baron An. 362. pag. 37. Yet a little after he brings in this Artemius arguing with Julian about the burning of this Temple Ibid. p.
rather derision than serious Arguments Sanders and Turrian observe That these Fathers forbid not Images which Christians might take away and hide but Pictures which they must leave exposed to Pagan abuses But might not this have been prevented by hanging up their Pictures in Frames and are not large Images as difficult to be removed and concealed as Pictures Yea doth not the present Roman Church adore Pictures as well as Images so that still this Canon condemns them Martinez fancies This Council forbid Painting on the Walls lest the Pictures should be deformed by the decay of those Walls But he forgets that the Council first forbids them to be any where in the Church and were not Walls as subject to decay in the time of the Second Nicene Council as they are now And had not those Fathers as great an honour for Pictures as these at Elliberis yet the Nicene Picture-Worshipers order them to be painted on Church-Walls Martinez adds That as times vary human Statutes vary and so the Second Council of Nice made a quite contrary Decree What! are Decrees of Councils about Matters of Divine Worship only human Statutes what will become of the Divine Authority and Apostolical Tradition pretended for this Worship of old at Nice and now at Rome if the Orders against it and for it be both human and mutable Statutes It is well however that the Patrons of Image-Worship do own they have altered and abrogated a Primitive Canon for one made Four hundred years after in times of Ignorance and Superstition and we know whether of the two we ought to prefer Baronius is more ingenuous who saith (x) Baron An. 305. §. 45. These Bishops at Elliberis chiefly endeavoured by strict Penalties to affright the Faithful from Idolatry wherefore they made the 34th 36th and 37th Canons and by comparing the First Canon with the Forty sixth it appears they dealt more severely with an Idolater than an Apostate From whence we infer That Pictures in Churches tend to Idolatry in this Councils Opinion Albaspinaeus whose Notes Labbé here prints (y) Lab. p. 998 would enervate this Canon by saying It forbids not the Saints Pictures but those which represented God and the Holy Trinity But it is not probale these Primitive Christians were so ignorant as to need any prohibition about such blasphemous Representations of God's Majesty And he brings no proof but his own bare Conjecture for this limitation of the Canon which Fancy if it were true would prove That the Saints were not worshiped or adored in that Age because nothing that was worshiped and adored was to be painted on the Walls and if that be meant only of God and the Trinity then nothing else but God and the Trinity was adored in those days Finally the former part of the Canon destroys this limitation by excluding Pictures in general out of Churches These are the various Fallacies by which these partial Editors would hide the manifest Novelty of their Churches Worship of Pictures which cannot be defended by all these Tricks I will only add That this genuine Ancient Council in the Fifty third Canon Orders The same Bishop who Excommunicated a Man to Absolve him and that if any other intermedled He should be called to an account for it (z) Lab. p. 976. Bin. pag. 196. C without excepting the Pope or taking notice of Marcellus's pretended claim of Appeals § 3. In the Year 306 was a Council at Carthage against the Donatists which never takes any notice of the Pope yet they put into the Title of it Under Marcellus (a) Lab. p. 1379. Bin. pag. 202. C But there is a worse Forgery in the Notes where S. Augustine is cited as saying That Cecilian Bishop of Carthage despised the Censures of the Donatists because he was joyned in Communion with the Bishop of the Roman Church from which all Catholic Communion was ever wont to be denominated But this is Baronius his false gloss not S. Augustine's words who only saith because he was united by Communicatory Letters both to the Roman Church wherein the Principality of the Catholic Church had always flourished and to other Lands from whence the Gospel came to Africa (b) Aug. ep 62. Tom. Il. p. 150. Vid. Baron An. 306. §. 40. Now there is great difference between a Mans being a Catholic because he was in Communion with Rome then Orthodox and with other Churches and his being a Catholic meerly for being in Communion with the Roman Bishop which is the modern and false notion of the word Catholic among Papists in our days But Binius was so convinced that S. Augustine's words confuted Baronius's Paraphrase that he cunningly leaves them out to make this commodious Sense of them go better down with careless Readers § 4. The next Pope Eusebius was so obscure as the Notes on his Life declare that no Writer mentions any thing of him that is memorable (c) Lab. p. 1380. Bin. pag. 203. col 1. and it is probable there never was such a Pope Yet the Pontifical saith The Cross was found in his time upon the 5th of the Nones of May which is the very Day on which the Roman Church now celebrates The Invention of the Cross And the Third Decretal Epistle of this Pope was devised on purpose to support this Story yet both Baronius and Binius reject it for a Fable even while their Church still observes that Holy-day There are Three Epistles forged for this Name of a Pope all which Labbé owns to be spurious (d) Lab. p. 1381. Bin. pag. 203. col 1. and I need not spend much time to prove it since they cite the Vulgar Latin Version and are mostly stollen out of Modern Authors as Labbe's Margen shews having only one Consul's Name for their Dates because no other was named in the Pontifical Besides the first Epistle uses the Phrase Pro salvatione servorum Dei which is not the Latin of that Age and talks of Rigorous Tortures used among Christians to make Witnesses confess Truth The second Epistle repeats the foolish Argument of Christ's whipping the Buyers and Sellers many of which were Lay-men out of the Temple to prove that God alone must judge Priests and out of a much later Roman Council suspected also of Forgery speaks of the Peoples not judging their Bishop unless he err in Matter of Faith and discourses of Edicts of Kings forbidding to try an ejected Bishop till he be restored to his place The third Epistle hath the Fable of the Invention of the Cross and all other Marks of Forgery on it yet Bellarmine cites it to prove the Pope's Succession to S. Peter in his Universal Monarchy and to make out Confirmation to be a Sacrament (e) Bellarm. de Pontif. Rom. lib. 2. cap. 14. de Confirm lib. 2. cap. 3. So little do those Writers value the credit of any Evidence if it do but make for their Churches Authority or support its Doctrines § 5.
The Seven years Vacancy being now expired Melchiades was chosen Pope and Sat Three years and Seven Months according to the Pontifical (f) Lab. p. 1394. Bin. pag 209. col 1. and though the Ecclesiastical Tables as they call them generally follow this Author yet Baronius here by them corrects the Pontifical and allows Melchiades only Two Years and Two Months But all this is Conjecture for he grants the Consuls in the Pontifical are so false that they cannot be reconciled to Truth (g) Baron An. 311. §. 43. whence it follows That the Decretal Epistle ascribed to this Pope whose Matter is taken from the Pontifical and whose Date is by those who were not Consuls till after Melchiades's Death (h) Lab. p. 1400. A. in Marg. must be false also Yet the Notes defend this Forged Epistle and Bellarmine cites it for the Supremacy and for Confirmations being a Sacrament (i) Bellarmin ubi supra e whereas the beginning of it is stollen out of Celestine's Epistle to the French (k) Lab. p. 1395. D E. it quotes the Vulgar Translation and cites an Apostolical Priviledge granted to Rome for the sole right of Trying Bishops to justifie which The Notes cite the 73d and 74th Apostolical Canons but those Canons order Bishops to judge an offending Bishop and make the last appeal to a Synod without taking any notice of Rome or of this pretended Priviledge Again this Feigned Epistle impudently makes Confirmation more venerable than Baptism and the Notes defend that bold Expression But we cannot but wonder since they assert That Bishops by Gods Law have the sole power of Confirming the same Men should grant That the Pope can give a Priest leave to Confirm Which yet they say changes not the Divine Right of Bishops (l) Lab. p. 1400. E. Bin. p. 211. col 2. That is in plain terms One mans sole Right may be delegated to another by a Third person without any injury to him who had the sole Right After this follows a Council at Rome under Melchiades wherein the Pope by delegation from the Emperor is joyned in Commission with Three French Bishops who are called his Collegues to hear the Donatists complaint against Cecilian Bishop of Carthage m) Lab. p. 1401. Bin. pag. 212. col 1. and Constantine not only received the Donatists first Appeal and delegated this Cause to Melchiades and his Fellow Commissioners but upon a second Complaint ordered this Matter to be heard over again in a French Council which the Pope in Council had determined Now this so clearly shews that the Pope was not Supreme Judge in those days that Baronius and Binius are hard put to it to Blunder this Instance The Notes say Constantine was yet raw in the Faith and yet they say also He knew by God's Law nothing was to be done without the chief Bishop But they are forced to prove this by a false Translation of Constantine's Epistle to Melchiades (n) Lab. p. 1407. Bin. pag. 212. col 2. the words of which in Greek are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which in their Version is As the most holy Law of God requires but Valesius's Translation which Labbé gives us is As is agreeable to the most Venerable Law That is as all men know to the Imperial Laws So that Constantine only says He had ordered the Accusers and Accused all to appear at Rome before these delegated Judges as the Venerable Laws which order both Parties to be present when a Cause is tryed do require and by the help of a false Translation this occasion is made use of to make the Credulous believe That God's Law required all Causes should be tryed at Rome Whereas it is apparent by this Instance That a Cause once Tryed there before the Pope might be tryed over again in France if the Emperor pleased The two following Epistles of Constantine out of Pithaeus his Manuscript (o) Lab. p. 1430. Bin. pag. 213. are very suspicious the first speaks more magnificently of Christ than one who as they say was so raw in the Faith was like to do And in it Constantine is made to decline Judging in Bishops Causes which is a protestation against his own Act and a contradiction to the second Epistle wherein He declares that this Episcopal Cause shall be tryed before himself Nor is this first Epistle Recorded in Eusebius or agreeable to Constantine's Style so that we suppose that was devised by such as designed to persuade Princes That Bishops were above them For which purpose Baronius here cites a Law of this Emperor to Ablavius (p) Baron An. 314. §. 38 39. Giving men leave to choose Bishops for their Judges and not allowing them after that to appeal to Secular Courts because they had been heard by Judges of their own choosing But Baronius perverts this to signifie That Bishops were above Secular Judges by their ordinary Jurisdiction whereas they were not so in any Cause of this kind but only when they were extraordinarily chosen Arbitrators and so Sozomen expounds this Law. An. Dom. 314. § 6. We are now arrived at the time of Pope Sylvester who living about the time when Constantine publickly professed Christianity and being Pope when the Nicene Council was called yet no Author of Credit records his being much concerned in these grand Revolutions Upon which the Annalist and our Editors rake into all kind of Forgeries and devise most improbable Stories to set off Pope Sylvester as very considerable but we shall look into the Original of the Emperor's becoming a Christian which will discover all their Fallacies Constantine was born of Christian Parents and brought up under them and was Thirty years old when he entred on the Empire And from the Year 306 (q) Baron An. 306. §. 14. He professed openly he was a Christian Making Laws to encourage Converts and to suppress Paganism throughout his Empire Building and Endowing Churches and granting great Immunities to the Clergy yet all this while He took no notice of Marcellus Eusebius or Melchiades S. Peter's Successors and pretended Monarchs of the Church After Seven years having Vanquished Maxentius at Rome they say He gave to the Pope his Palace of the Lateran (r) Lab. p. 1394. Bin. pag. 209. col 1. Baron An. 312. §. 82 §. 85. The Notes cite Optatus for this but he only saith A Council of Nineteen Bishops met in the Lateran but it doth not follow from thence that Constantine had then given the Pope this fair Palace Again Baronius without any ancient Author for it saith That Constantive gave S. Peter thanks for his Victory over Maxentius yet at the same time he affirms He was yet a Pagan and durst not by his Acts declare himself a Christian (s) Baron An. 312. §. 58 §. 62. Very strange Were not Building Churches setling Christianity by a Law giving his Palace to the Pope and as they say Fixing the Trophy of the