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 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 which agrees with the Sentiments of the Primitive Church Lactantius condemns Lighting Candles in God's Worship by day as a Paganish Superstition S. Hierom faith It was used in his time only by such as did it to humor the silly Vulgar who had a Zeal without Knowledge 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 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 Which so expresly condemns the Roman-Worship of Pictures and Images that the boldest Writers of that Church reject this Canon but others as the Notes say would gladly expound it so as to assert the honour and worship due to Holy Images which is a notable kind of Exposition to make a Canon assert that which it confutes But such transparent Fallacies deserve rather derision than serious Arguments Sanders and Turrian observe That 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 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 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 without excepting the Pope or taking notice of Marcellus's pretended claim of Appeals § 3. In the Year 306 was a Council at Cartbage against the Donatists which never takes any notice of the Pope yet they put into the Title of it Under Marcellus 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 Now there is great difference between a Mans being
that whereas they had been so bitter against Acacius and other Orthodox Bishops of Constantinople for only conversing with supposed Hereticks one of their own Popes was forced to plead that the worst of all Hereticks the Arrians might have the publick exercise of their Religion allowed by Law I take no notice of the Miracles ascribed to this Pope because the fabulous Gregorian Dialogues are the only Evidence for them The Roman Mint hath Coined two Epistles for this Pope of which Labbè saith many things prove that they are both forged The first is patched up out of the fragments of many other Popes Letters and that passage of the Sheeps reproving their Pastor if he Err in the Faith is originally stollen out of a feigned Epistle under Pope Fabian's name Baronius and Binius both confess a false date viz. Olybrius and Maximus being Consuls who were never in office together and if we read Id. Junij Maximo Consule John was not made Pope till two Months after nor will Olybrio Consule mend the matter with Id. Junij because this Pope dyed the 27th of May in that year However though they cannot reconcile these Errors the Notes and Baronius would have this Forgery pass for genuine to clear the Pope from serving the Arrian interest The second Epistle is also Fictitious being a Rhapsody out of Leo's Epistles and some places of Scripture and dated after this Pope was dead So that we must reject them both together with the Legend of his Consecrating Arrian Churches for the Orthodox in defiance to King Theodoric which Baronius and Binius would have us believe The Council of Lerida in Spain was not as Binius saith under John but under Sergius Bishop of Tarragon who presided in it and in the 16 Canon is called the Bishop of the first See a Title common to all Primates of old but lately engrossed by the Pope In the Fragments of this Council there is a method of canonically purging Clerks accused of Crimes but it cannot belong to this Council as Labbè owns because it mentions Leo the Third and Charlemaign who lived near 300 year after this Synod was held In the same year was another Spanish Council at Valencia in Pope John's time but he is not once named in it and the Canons were made by the Bishops of the Province Wherefore Binius falsly Titles it under Pope John The same year was held the Council of Arles which Binius miscalls the third but was truly the fourth Council there This Synod was placed wrong formerly An. 453 when one Opilio was Consul with Vincomalus but another Opilio was Consul with Rusticus this year An. 524 and Caesarius his Subscription to it shews this is the true date of it Binius is here twice mistaken First In his old Title of sub Johanne Secondly In printing the Epistle of Faustus in this place as if this Council of Arles were that which Faustus pretended confirmed his Pelagian Errors But Labbè saith Binius is mistaken and 't is certain he was quite out In Labbè we have here a singular Example of the modesty of Fulgentius who was very justly chosen President of an African Synod But perceiving a certain Bishop took this ill in the next Council he renounced the Seat and Dignity procuring that Bishop to sit before him resolving not to defend the Primacy he deserved saith the Author where it would make a breach of Charity And oh how happy had Christendom been if the Popes had followed this Pattern Who at this time had renounced the Communion of more than half the Christian World chiefly for not submitting to their Primacy and in every Age since have Qarrelled with all that would not allow them that claim The Council of Carthage under Boniface Bishop there Stiles him Bishop of the first See It never names the Pope and makes it very clear that this Primate did order all things in that Province without any dependance on Rome § 7. Foelix the Fourth was named by King Theodoric who being now Lord of Rome did of right propose him to the Clergy as a Candidate for the Papacy void by Johns death The Notes pretend this was an usurpation and Baronius for this Rails bitterly at Theodoric calling it an arrogant Fact and giving him the Title of a cruel Barbarian a dreadful Tyrant and impious Arrian adding that this was the cause of Gods destroying him But for all this rage this is no more than what all Princes then did in their own Dominions And these Editors a little before printed an Epistle wherein it is said That Epiphanius was made Bishop of Constantinople by the Election of Justin and the Empress with the consent of the Nobles Priests and People And Hormisda in the 76th Epistle saith he was rightly elected Which shews that the Eastern Emperors did not learn this of the Gothick Kings but these learned of the Emperors to name the Bishops of their chief Cities And Theodoric ever exercised this Right as the case of Symmachus shewed us before Wherefore that Law of Ordoacer that the Pope should be elected by the Princes consent remained still in force and Symmachus his pretended Repeal of it is either forged or else these Kings despised all Papal Councils which abridged them of their right In the Notes on this Popes Life we have a fabulous Vision of some doting Hermit who fancied he saw Theodoric's Soul thrown into the Vulcanian Kettles This out of Gregory's Dialogues is Foundation enough for them to Triumph in his Damnation who resolve to find out some Vision or Dream to perswade easie Readers that all Princes who injured any Pope were sent to Eternal Flames Again the Notes pretend that Justinian's Ecclesiastical Laws were made by the Bishops of Constantinople and put out in that Emperors name But why might not Justinian make his own Laws about Church matters as Constantine and all his Successors to this time had done No doubt he and they used in such cases to advise with their own Bishops But these Parasites of Rome are angry that the Pope is not the sole Law-maker in Causes Ecclesiastical now he was not so much as consulted in these Laws being then the Subject of another Prince And what they object of Justinian's speaking honourably of Zeno and Anastasius his Predecessors Enemies to Rome confirms me in the Opinion that Justinian in composing these Laws took no advice from St. Peter's Chair We may justly suspect most of these Papal Epistles out of which the Canonists for some Ages fetcht those Rules by which they oppressed the Christian World because if a Pope neither did nor writ any thing remarkable the Forgers invented Business and Letters for him as they have done for Pope John and this Foelix whose two first Epistles Labbè declares to be spurious and shews the former is made up out of the Forgeries in Pope Eleutherius name as also out of
then it had appeared that this was no peculiar priviledge of any one See but related to all Sees which then were filled with Catholick Bishops I shall note only that in these Notes the Emperor is stiled The Lord of the General Council which Title the Roman Parasites of late have robbed him of and given it to the Popes The eighth Council of Africa petitions the Emperor Honorius to revoke that Edict whereby he had granted liberty of Conscience to the Donatists and the Notes out of Baronius make it so meritorious a thing to revoke this scandalous and mischievous Indulgence that this made Honorius so blessed as to have Rome quitted by Alaricus three days after he had taken it but our English Romanists when an Indulgence served their ends counted it meritorious in that Prince who granted the Sects such an Indulgence here for we must note that Things are good or evil just as they serve their interest or disserve it The Synod of Ptolemais in Egypt whereby Andronicus a Tyrannical Officer was excommunicated is strangely magnified by Baronius saying that Synesius Bishop of Ptolemais knew that when he was made a Bishop he was elected by God to give Laws to Princes And a little after he tells us He deposed Andronicus from his Tribunal adding that this shews how great the Power of Bishops was even to the deposing of evil Governors But after all there is no more of this true but only that Synesius gives notice to his neighbour Churches by circular Letters that he had excommunicated Andronicus who seems to have been a Military Officer in a little Egyptian Town and was guilty of most horrid Cruelties and notorious Crimes But what is this to Kings and Princes And the words which he cites out of Synesius 89th Epistle which falsly translates we have put him down from his Tribunal are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. We have here taken him off from the Seat of Mourners that is Synesius tells Theophilus his Patriarch and Superior that though he had justly put Andronicus among the Penitents yet now upon his sorrow and repentance they had there absolved him and taken him out of that sad station where the Penitents were wont to stand and if Theophilus approved of this mercy shewed Andronicus he should hope God might yet forgive him Now was not the Cardinal hard put to it for an instance of a Bishops deposing a King when he is forced to falsifie his Author and use the words which express a restauration to the Communion of the Church to prove a deposing from a Throne It seems he could not or would not distinguish a Captain or petty Magistrate from a King nor a Stool of Repentance from a Princes Throne This it is to serve a Cause About this time was held that famous Conference at Carthage between the Catholicks and the Donatists Seven Bishops of each side being chosen to dispute before Marcellinus a Count sent by the Emperor to hear this Cause Now Baronius tells us that this Marcellinus was not called simply a Judge but had the Title of Cognitor because it was not allowed to a Lay-man to act as a Judge in Ecclesiastical Matters But Cognitor is often used by the best Authors for a Judge and cognoscere Causam is to hear a Cause Dies Cognitionis is the day of Tryal And which is more the Emperors Edict calls him by the title of Judex Our will is you shall sit in that Disputation in the principal place as Judge and Baronius in the very page before cites St. Augustine speaking of Marcellinus by this Character ipse Judex And as he moderated in the Disputation so in the Conclusion he pronounces the Sentence and the Emperor confirms it which if the Pope had done in Person or by his Legate to be sure that had been ground enough to prove him the Universal and Infallible Judge in all Causes This is certain Honorius did judge in this Cause by his Legate Marcellinus and Baronius who use to quarrel at other Emperors for medling in these Cases tells us God rewarded him for the pains he took about setling the True Religion But as to the Pope he was not concerned in this Famous Dispute and which is very remarkable though the Main Dispute be about the Catholick Church and the Orthodox alledge the Churches beyond the Seas as being in Communion with them and so prove them Catholicks yet they do not once name the Roman Church apart as if communicating with that Church or its Bishop were any special evidence of their being Catholicks Indeed they name Innocent once but give him no other title but Bishop of Rome Whereas if these African Fathers had believed the Pope to be the Supream Head of the Catholick Church and that all of his Communion and only such were Catholicks this Dispute had been soon ended and they had nothing to prove to the Donatists but their Communion with Pope Innocent And I remember Baronius argues that Caecilianus Bishop of Carthage was a Catholick because he had Communicatory Letters from the Church of Rome but the place he cites to prove it out of St. Augustine is this When he that is Caecilianus saw himself in Communion with the Roman Church in which the eminence of an Apostolical See always flourished and with other Countries from whence the Gospel came to Africa c. By which it is plain that it was Communion with other Churches as well as Rome which proved Caecilianus a Catholick And I know not where Baronius found another passage which he affirms was proved in this Conference viz. That the first Head of the Church was demonstrated by the succession of the Roman Bishops to be in Peter's Chair For there is not one word to this purpose in that Conference which is printed by the Editors here So that till better Authority be produced this must stand for a devisable of the Annalists Nothing after this occurs which is remarkable till the Council at Lidda or Diospolis in Palestina wherein Pelagius imposed upon fourteen Bishops a pretended recantation of his Heretical Opinions and was by them absolved Binius his Title of this Synod is that it was under Innocent But Labbè fearing this might imply the Popes consent to a Hereticks absolution hath struck that out However we have Baronius his word for it that no Letters were written to the Pope from this Synod only some Lay-men brought him the Acts of it And he Good Man not so cunning at finding out Hereticks as the African Bishops confesses he could neither approve nor blame the Judgment of these Bishops of Palestina And Pelagius himself though he could not finally deceive the Roman Church yet he hoped he might gain the Pope to his party and did attempt it yea 't is very probable he had succeeded if St. Augustin and other African Fathers had not instructed the Pope
this Author who though he had placed S. Peters Death so many years before Clement's Entrance as to leave room for two intermediate Popes yet here again repeats his old Fable of S. Peters delivering the Bishopric of Rome to Clement a sufficient proof there is neither Truth nor Certainty in the pretended Personal Succession of the first Popes § 9. From this Pope Clement down to the time of Syricius who lived 300 years after him there are printed in these Editors after every Popes Life divers Decretal Epistles pretended to be writ by the several Popes and Vindicated by Binius's Notes annexed to them Which were received in the Western Church for many Hundred years together as the genuine Decrees of these ancient and pious Popes transcribed into the Canon Law and cited for many Ages to justifie the Usurpations and defend the Corruptions of the Roman Church to determine Causes and decide Controversies in Religion And yet they are all notorious Forgeries so that since Learning was revived divers of the most Eminent Roman Writers have rejected them Card. Cusanus affirms That being compared with the times in which they are pretended to have been Writ they betray themselves Baronius calls them Late invented Evidences of no Credit and Apocryphal yea Labbé and Cossartius have in their Edition a Learned Preface to them proving them to be forged And in their Margin write almost against every Epistle This is suspected This is Isidores Wares c. and also note the very places of Authors who lived long after these Times out of which large Passages in them are stollen Verbatim Which clear Confession of our Adversaries may make some think it needless to confute them and unnecessary to charge this Forgery upon the Roman Church But I cannot think it sit wholly to pass them by because Turrian the Jesuit had the Confidence to defend them all as genuine and Binius in his Edition not only Vindicates them by a general Preface but by particular Notes labours to prove most of them Authentic and Labbé himself prints those Notes at large in his Edition so that such as do not look into his Margen may be deceived Besides this Confession of some Romanists comes too late to compensate for the injury done to the Truth by their Churches approving them so long And they still keep up the Supremacy and all their corrupt Practices and Opinions which were set up and cherished by these Forgeries they now take away the Scaffolds when the Building can stand alone they execute the Traytor but enjoy freely the benefit of his Treason Moreover while some Romanists condemn them others go on to cite them for good Authority Harding brags he had proved many Points of Faith by the Epistles of Clement Damasus Julius Melchiades Pontianus Sixtus Soter and Symmachus Dr. Tho. James shews the particular corrupt Doctrines and Practices which the late Roman Writers defend by the spurious Epistles of Clement Marcellus Marcus and Hormisda And the Learned Cook with infinite diligence hath cited the very Places of the Modern Champions for the Roman Opinions and shewed what Doctrines and Practices they do maintain by these Forged Epistles It is also well known that the Late Scriblers for that Religion do follow Bellarmin and Others in citing these Decretals for good Authority and that the Canon Law is in a great measure composed out of these Epistles by which Causes are determined at this day in all Popish Countries Therefore till the Romanists raze them and the Notes in their defence out of the Volumes of the Councils and expunge all the false Notions taken hence out of their Canon Law yea and leave citing them in their Disputes with us we cannot think it needless to shew the apparent Forgery of them but we will not enlarge so as to disprove the Particulars but put together here our Evidence against them all § 10. These Epistles though pretended to be writ in the first four Centuries were never heard of in the World till near 800 years after Christ About which time came out a Collection of Councils under the name of Isidore Hispalensis but whereas he died An. 636 and this Collector mentions the XIth Council of Toledo and the Sixth General Council which were held near Fifty years after this appears not to be the Work of that Isidore but of one Isidore Mercator and it was first brought into France by Riculphus B. of Mentz in which Collection these Decretal Epistles first appeared but the Learned Hincmarus of Rheims immediately discerned them to be an imposture and Writ against them as Baronius confesseth But though he own the Cheat he is not willing to grant the Roman Church had any hand in it yet that is as clear as the Forgery because Hincmarus was hated and prosecuted by the Pope and forced at last to Recant his Censure of these Epistles and not long after Benedictus Levita having Transcrib'd divers Passages out of them into his Capitulars got them confirmed at Rome which could not but cherish so advantagious a Fiction that supported the Supremacy which they then did so hotly stickle for and therefore though they came first to the Birth in Spain some conjecture they were all Hatched at Rome whose evil Designs and Interest they are contrived to serve But the Age was so Ignorant when they were Invented that there is such infamous and convincing Marks of Forgery upon them as makes it very easie to prove the Cheat beyond any possibility of doubting and we will here put the principal of them together under their proper Heads § 11. First The Style of these Decretals shews they were not writ within the four first Centuries wherein at Rome especially they writ Latin in a much more Elegant Style than is to be found here where the Phrases are modern harsh and sometimes barbarous so that the Reader is often puzled to reconcile them either to Grammar or Sense As for Example Pope Victor's Second Epistle which of old began with Enim and was mended by Binius with Semper enim but still there is false Latin in it viz. aliquos nocere fratres velle The like barbarous Style may be observed in the two Epistles of Pontianus and in many others But the genuine Epistles of Cornelius preserved in Eusebius and S. Cyprian are writ in a more polite Style and as Labbé notes These Epistles shew how much good Mony differs from counterfeit and how much Gold excels Counters The like difference there is between the Style of that genuine Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians and those silly Forgeries put out in his Name in the very Front of these Decretals from whence it undeniably follows That the Decretals were not writ in the Ages wherein the Latin Tongue flourished nor by those Popes whose Names they bear And this is further manifest by divers Words which were not used in the time of these Popes but
Epistles are Forged and consequently of no Authority yet the Roman Church hath made great use of them in the Ignorant Ages For Binius notes all along in his Margen what Sections of them are transcribed into their Canon Law and even in later times their Writers against the Protestants do commonly cite their Infamous Impostures to prove the Supremacy of the Pope his Infallibility and right to Appeals as also for the exemption of the Clergy their Celibacy and Habits and to prove their Mass with its Ceremonies Auricular Confession Apocryphal Books Tradition Chrism Veneration of Relicks and Martyrs c. and Cook in his Censura Patrum hath noted the several Epistles and the Authors which cite them saving us the labour of instancing And therefore we will only make a few general Observations upon this matter and so dismiss these Forgeries Observ I. That since the Romanists have no other genuine Ancient Authors to prove these New Doctrines and Practices by but are forced generally to place these apparent Forgeries in the Fore-front of all their Authorities we may conclude these Points of their Religion are all Innovations unheard of in the Primitive Ages so that Isidore was forced to invent these Epistles almost 800 years after Christ to give some shew of Antiquity to them and these Points were in those Ignorant Times mistaken by this means for Primitive Usages and Opinions and so got footing in the World under that disguise but now that the Fallacy is discovered the Doctrines and Practices ought to be disowned as well as the Epistles on which they are built Observ II. There are many other Points of the Roman Religion which are not so much as mentioned in any of these Forged Epistles such as Worship of Images Formal Praying to the Saints and to the Virgin Mary Transubstantiation Half-Communion and Adoration of the Host Purgatory Indulgences and Justification by Merits with some others Now these are so New that in Isidore's time when he invented these Epistles they were not heard of nor received no not in the Roman Church for if they had no doubt this Impostor who was so zealous to get Credit for all the Opinions and Usages of that Church which he knew of would have made some Popes write Epistles to justifie these also and his silence concerning them makes it more than probable that these were all invented since the year of Christ 800. Observ III. Though the later Romanists frequently cite these Forged Decretals yet no genuine Author or Historian for Seven hundred years after Christ did ever Quote or Mention them no not so much as any of the Popes themselves in all that Period Now it is morally impossible so many important Points should be so clearly decided by so many Ancient Bishops of so Famous a Church and yet no Author ever take notice of it And doubtless when the Popes attempted to be Supreme and claimed Appeals about the year 400 Zosimus and Boniface who quarrelled with the Eastern and African Bishops about these Points and were so hard put to it for Evidence as to seign some private Canons were made at the first general Council of Nice would certainly have cited these Epistles which are so clear Evidence for their pretences if they had either seen or heard of them but they do not once name them in all that Controversie which shews they were not then in being yea those who know Church History do clearly discern that the main Points setled by these Epistles were things disputed of about the Seventh and Eighth Centuries a little before Isidore's time and therefore these Forgeries must never be cited for to prove any Point to be Ancient or Primitive § 17. Obs IV. Though the Inventer of these Epistles was so zealous a Bigot for the Roman Cause yet many things are to be found in them which contradict the present Tenents of that Church For whereas the Pope now claims an Universal Supremacy even over Jerusalem it self Clement's first Epistle is directed to James the Bishop of Bishop's Ruling the Hebrew Church at Jerusalem and all the Churches every where founded by Divine providence Anacletus first Epistle orders all the Clergy present to receive under pain of Excommunication which is not observed now in the Roman Church Pope Telesphorus orders a Mass on the Night before Christmas and forbids any to begin Mass before nine a Cleek But Binius confesses their Church doth not now observe either of these Orders Pope Hyginus forbids all foreign Jurisdiction because it is unfit they should be Judged abroad who have Judges at home So the third Epistle of Pope Fabian appoints that every Cause shall be tried where the Crime is committed which passage is also in a genuine Epistle of S. Cyprian to Cornelius And all foreign Jurisdiction is again forbid in Pope Felix his second Epistle which passages do utterly destroy Appeals to Rome unless they can prove all the Crimes in the World are committed there The second Epistle of Fabian allows the People to reprove their Bishop if he Err in matters of Faith the same Liberty also is given to the People in Cornelius second Epistle which seems to make the People Judges in Matter of Faith a thing which the Modern Romanists charge upon the Protestants as a great Error From these and many other passages we may see that these Impostures do not in all Points agree with the present Roman Church § 18. I have now done with the Epistles themselves and proved them to be apparent Forgeries I will only give the Reader some cautions about those partial Notes printed on them both in Binius and Labbè which though they frequently correct confute and alter divers passages in these Epistles Yet if any thing look kindly upon the Roman Church they magnifie and vindicate it but if it seem to condemn any of their Usages they reject and slight it For Example Pope Pius cites Coloss XI 18. against worshiping Angels and the Notes reject both S. Hierom's and Theodoret's Exposition of the place as Reflecting on their Churches practice adding that S. Paul condemned Cerinthus in that place for giving too much Honour to Angels Yet Binius soon after tells us that Cerinthus was so far from Teaching they were to be Adored that he thought they were to be Hated as Authors of Evil Pope Zepherine cites the Apostolical Canons for the Priviledges of his See and saith there were but Seventy of them But Binius in his Notes saith he refers to the Seventy third Canon Yet if the Reader consult that Seventy third Canon the Pope's See is not named there yea that Canon forbids a Bishop to Appeal from his Neighbor Bishop unless it be to a Council Out of Calixtus fust Epistle which Labbè owns to be a manifest Forgery Binius Notes cite a Testimoy for the Supremacy calling it an evident Testimony and worthy to be Noted Pontianus in his Exile brags ridiculously about the
Pope Eusebius but makes Melchiades immediate Successor to Marcellinus It is very observable that these two unknown Popes in the Notes on their Lives are said to have sat Seven years between them And the Pontifical saith There was a Vacancy of Seven years after Marcellinus which Vacancy is also asserted by Anastasius Biblioth by Luitprandus Abbo Floriacens Cusanus and Genebrard And though Baronius's and Binius's Notes deny this Seven years Vacancy it is upon meer Conjectures The Scandal of so long a Vacancy no doubt setting some of the old Parasites of Rome on work to invent two Popes Names and put them into the List from whence probably they have been foisted into Oâ—tatus and S. Augustine two Latin Fathers while the Greek Authors which these Forgers Understood not do continue Uncorrupted And truly nothing but the Names of these two Popes remain for no good Historian mentions any one Eminent Act done by either of them however the Annotator had rather fill up his Scene with empty Names of Feigned Popes who did nothing for Seven years together than let the Reader suppose the Catholic Church could so long want it s pretended Head But though the Notes allow not the Authority of the Pontifical for the Vacancy they trust it for the fictitious Story of this Marcellus his Life and would have us believe That in a time of Persecution this Pope appointed Twenty five Churches in Rome to Baptize Converts and Bury Martyrs in and though the Laws and Customs of that City then forbad to Bury dead Bodies within the Walls we are to believe that the Tyrant Maxentius who made all these Martyrs and persecuted this very Pope consented to his breaking this Ancient Law On the Credit of the same Pontifical we are told That a certain Lady called Lucina dedicated her House to this Pope while He was alive by the Title of S. Marcellus and that the Emperor turned it into a Stable and made the Pope his Beast-keeper there where Naked and cloathed with Sackcloth they are the Words of the Pontifical He soon after ended his days the 17th of the Kalends of February Which Fiction the Roman Breviary orders to be read to the Credulous People of that Communion for Lessions and tells them That Marcellus writ an Epistle to the Bishops of the Antiochian Province about the Roman Primacy and to prove Rome to be the Head of All Churches and that no Synod should be held without the Pope's Authority But this Epistle is owned by Labbé to be a Forgery patched up out of divers Modern Authors citing the Vulgar Latin Version and dated after Marcellus his death And it is very strage That times of Persecution should be a proper Season for a Pope to wrangle for his Supremacy Yet this Notorious Forgery saith Christ ordered S. Peter to Translate his Seat from Antioch to Rome and that the Apostles by Inspiration decreed That all Appeals should be made thither and no Council held but by the Authority of the Roman Church For which cause Binius vindicates it with Notes as full of Falsehood as the Epistle it self His first Note of this Epistle being writ to one Solomon a Bishop is an oversight and belongs to the first Epistle of Pope Marcellâ—nus His next Notes about the Primacy and Power of Calling Synods cite an Apostolical and Nicene Canon for it but no such Canons are to be found He quotes also two Epistles one writ to Pope Foelix from Alexandria another writ by Pope Julius to the Eastern Churches for proof of this Supremacy and the same Annotator afterwards owns them both to be Forgeries He falsly saith Dioscorus was Condemned at Chalcedon only for holding a Synod without the Pope's Consent whereas he is known to have been accused of many other Crimes His Text of Fasce oves is nothing to this purpose nor will Pope Pelagius his Word be taken in his own Cause His Story of Valentinian makes nothing for the Pope more than any other Bishop Yea the Bishops desiring him to call a Council shews They thought it was His Prerogative and Nicephorus relates his Answer to have been That he was so taken up with State Affairs that he had no leisure to enquire into those matters Wherefore after all this elaborate Sophistry to justifie a false Assertion of a Forged Epistle the Annotator hath only shewed his partiality for the Pope's Power but made no proof of it The second Epistle of this Marcellus to the Tyrant Maxentius is also a manifest Forgery part of it is taken out of his Successor Gregory's Epistles writ almost Three hundred years after this and it is highly improbable That a persecuted Pope should falsly as well as ridiculously to a Pagan Emperor quote the Laws of the Apostles and their Successors forbidding to persecute the Church and Clergy and also instruct him about the Roman Churches power in Calling Synods and Receiving Appeals and cite Clement's Forged Epistle as an Authority to Maxentius That Lay-men must not accuse Bishops The Notes indeed are unwilling to lose such precious Evidence and so pretend That Maxentius at this time dissembled himself to be a Christian but this Sham can signifie nothing to such as read the Epistle where Marcellus complains That he then persecuted him most unjustly and therefore he did not pretend to be a Christian at that time and consequently the whole Epistle is an absurd Forgery And so is that Decree subjoyned to it which supposes young Children offered to Monasteries and Shaved or Veiled there Customs which came up divers Centuries after this § 2. The Canons of Peter Bishops of Alexandria are genuine and a better Record of Ecclesiastical Discipline than any Pope to this time ever made the Reader also may observe the Bishop of Rome is not once named in these Canons and they plead Tradition for the Wednesday Fast contrary to the Roman Churches pretence of having an Apostolical Tradition to Fast on Saturday The Council of Elliberis in Spain is by Binius placed under Pope Marcellus which Words Labbé leaves out of the Title and justly for if there were such a Pope the Council takes no notice of him nor is it likely that Rome did know of this Council till many years after Yet it is both Ancient and Authentic though Mendoza in Labbé reckons up divers Catholic Authors Caranza Canus Baronius c. who either wholly reject it or deny the 34th 35th 36th and 40th Canons of it which condemn the Opinions now held at Rome And though Binius because Pope Innocent approves it dare not reject it yet he publishes Notes to make the Reader believe it doth not condemn any of their Opinions or Practices The 13th Canon speaks of Virgins who dedicated themselves to God but mentions not their being Veiled or Living in Monasteries which Customs came in long after as the Authors cited in the Notes shew The 26th Canon calls it an Error to
them The Third Canon forbids the Clergy to cohabit with Women taken into their Houses unless they were so near of Kin as to avoid Suspicion and Scandal Which plainly supposes that they might have Wives because cohabiting with them could give no Suspicion nor Scandal And since the Canon names not Wives who were the most likely to dwell with their Husbands doubtless this Council did not suppose the cohabitation of the Clergy with their Wives to be unlawful Yea not only Socrates and Sozomen but Pisanus and Nauclerus later Romish Authors relate the History of Paphnutius his Advice to the Council in this Point upon which the latter saith The Nicene Fathers allowed Priests to have Wives if they pleased Which full Evidence against their Churches practice doth so enrage Baronius that he not only denies this well-attested History but lays by the Character of an Historian and falls in his guessing-way to dispute against this manifest Truth And Binius in his Notes out of him saith This Canon expresly forbids Clergy men the Use of their Wives after they were entred into Holy Orders rejects the History of Paphnutius and gives Socrates and Sozomen the Lye But we shall leave the Reader to judge whether he will give more Credit to the Words of the Canon and these Ancient impartial Historians or to the Corrupt Paraphrase and Impudent Assertions of these two notorious Sycophants who have so often been proved to govern themselves not by Truth but by Interest and Design The Sixth Canon reckons the Pope but Equal to other great Bishops and limits his Jurisdiction at which the Annalist and Annotator are much discomposed and by various Fictions and shuffling Pretences labour to pervert the true Sense of this famous Canon And first They say The beginning of it viz. The Roman Church hath always had the Primacy is wanting Whereas no Authentic Edition ever had any such beginning Dr. Beveridge gives us Eight several Versions besides the Original Greek which all want it and it is impudently done of Binius to cite Alanus Copus saying That Dionysius Exiguus ' s Version had this beginning since that very Version is printed by Binius himself without any such Preamble but 't is all one to him true or false in his Notes he makes a foolish Paraphrase on this Forged Preface about the Divine Right of the Pope to his Supremacy whereas the plain Words of the genuine Canon shew That this Council grounded the Jurisdiction of these great Bishops only upon Ancient Custom Nor can it be gathered from this Canon That the Bishop of Rome then had any Superiority over him of Alexandria the one being allowed as much Power within his own Limits as the other had in his It is plain The Great Bishops are all here declared to be Equal without any Exception or Salvo upon the Bishop of Rome's account which would have been mentioned as well as the Rights of the Metropolitan of Caesarea are when the Bishop of Jerusalem's Place is assigned in the Seventh Canon if the Council of Nice had believed Rome had any right to a Supremacy over all the rest The Annotator is also angry at Russinus and though upon the Fourteenth Canon he says Ruffinus set down the true authentic Canons yet because his Version of this Sixth Canon limits the Pope's Jurisdiction to the Suburbicarian Regions He first falsly represents the Words of Ruffinus adding to them which above all others are subject peculiarly to the Diocess of the Roman Church and then Rails at the Version it self as evil erroneous and proceeding from his Ignorance But doubtless Ruffinus who lived so near the time of this Council and knew Rome and Italy so well understood the Pope's Jurisdiction at that time and the meaning of this Canon far better than Binius and therefore Baronius after he had condemned the Version yet strives to accommodate it to their new Roman Sense But there is full Evidence that these Suburbicarian Regions were only those Provinces which were under the Praefect of Rome that is some part of Italy and some of the adjacent Islands and these were all the Churches which were then under the Pope's Jurisdiction As may appear by the great difficulty which the succeeding Bishops of Rome found in the following Ages to bring Milan Aquileia and Ravenna Churches in Italy it self to be in subjection to them So that the Pope was so far from having an Universal Supremacy then that Balsamon is mistaken in thinking he was made Patriarch of all the Western Church for the very Fifth Canon which orders all Causes to be heard and finally ended in the same Province where they hapned not only destroys Appeals to Rome but shews that no Bishop did then pretend to so large a Jurisdiction Again these Notes frequently brag of that Version of this Canon which the Pope's Legate cited at Chalcedon wherein the aforesaid sorged Title of this Canon The Church of Rome hath always had the Primacy are quoted as part of the Canon it self But the Acts of that Council of Chalcedon shew That this Edition was discovered to be false by the Constantinopolitan Code then produced And if the Fathers there had believed this to be the true Reading they would not immediately have contradicted the first famous General Council by giving the Bishop of Constantinople equal Priviledges with him of Old Rome So that their Quoting a false baffled and rejected Version of this Canon rather pulls down than supports their dear Supremacy to maintain which they have nothing but Sophistry and Fraud as the next Section will shew Sixthly Therefore we will consider the Impostures and Fictions annexed to this Council to give colour to their feigned Supremacy And first because Eusebius speaks little of the Popes for he could not truly say much of them Baronius and the Annotator invent all the Calumnies against him imaginable and the former though he have little true History in his Annals for Three hundred years together which is not taken out of Eusebius Rails at him most unjustly as being an Arian a malicious fraudulent and partial Writer And Binius treats this great Historian at the same rate But Athanasius expresly saith That Eusebius of Caesarea subscribed the Orthodox Faith Socrates affirms also That he agreed to the Faith of the Nicene Council Pisanus his Greek Author of the History of this Council brings in Eusebius disputing against the Arians And Valesius in his Life clears him from this spightful Accusation which these Men invent meerly to be Revenged on him for not countenancing the Pope's Supremacy which is not his Fault but his Vertue because there was no such thing pretended to in his days Secondly These Editors publish a Letter of Athanasius to Pope Marcus with that Pope's Answer among the Records of this Council and the Annotator often cites them to prove the Supremacy and Infallibility because the Roman Church is here
and leaves off the lawful use of the holy Chalice The Council of Antioch is by the Editors said to be held under Julius yet it was called by Constantius on occasion of dedicating a new Church there and the Notes say the Emperour not only called it but being present there caused such Decrees as he pleased to pass in it yea it is evident they valued Pope Julius so little that they judged quite otherwise than he had done in the case of Athanasius and therefore the Romanists rail at this Synod as a Conventicle of Arians and in the last Roman Edition saith Richerius g have left out these Canons as not favouring the practice of the Roman Court. However Baronius saith Among 97 Bishops only 36 were Arians and the Canons made here are excellent Rules for Discipline having been received into the Code of the Universal Church before S. Chrysostom's time confirm'd by the Council of Chalcedon allowed by S. Hillary and as Gratian saith received by the Catholics and the Learned Richerius hath fully answered all the Cavils of Binius and Baronius by which they would invalidate them So that we need only make some few Remarks on this Council and so dismiss it The 12th Canon Orders a Bishop who was deposed to appeal to a Synod of Bishops and allowed none to be restored unless it were by a greater number of Bishops than had deposed him But they exclaim against this as a device of the Arians to take away that Apostolical and ancient Law and Custom of appealing to Rome which they say was always observed till now But hitherto they could never produce any such Law nor prove any such Custom nor did S. Chrysostom ever appeal to Rome but desired to be restored by a greater Synod as this Canon requires and when his Enemies made that impossible then indeed he objected that this Canon was made by Arians yet the Canon remained in force and was generally received in that Age. Nor did the Sardican Council revoke it as Binius falsly saith For though they put a new Complement on the Pope yet they did not take away the ancient method of appealing from a lesser Synod to a greater The second Canon decrees That such as come to Church to hear part of the Service and do not receive the Sacrament shall be Excommunicated This the Notes say was to condemn the old Audian Heretics but it evidently condemns the new Roman Heretics who since they exalted their Wafer into a God expect the People should only gaze at and adore it most part of the year and excuse them though they often go away without receiving it The 25th Canon forbids Bishops to commit the Treasures and Fruits of the Church to their Kinsinen Brethren and Sons Upon which Binius hath no Note knowing it reflected on the Roman Churches Custom where the Popes generally give all they can to their scandalous Nipotismo Next to this Council of Antioch is placed a second Synod at Rome under Pope Julius in the Cause of Athanasius but Baronius places it before that of Antioch An. 340. § 1. And though the Cardinal confess That Athanasius and his Enemies by consent had referred this matter to Julius his Arbitration and that Athanasius came to Rome after this Reference was made yet he vainly remarks on this matter in these words Behold Reader the ancient usage for injured Bishops to come even out of the East to the Roman Bishop for redress But this is one of the first Instances and was a meer Arbitration by consent and the ancient Usage since the Emperours became Christians was to appeal to them as these Parties had done before it was referred to the Pope In this Roman Council it is pretended Athanasius delivered his Creed but the Acts of the Council being lost and the Roman Archives being a repository neither safe nor creditable we can have no Evidence from thence of the Truth and Antiquity of this excellent Composure One thing however is remarkable that Baronius and Binius charge the Greeks with taking away those words and the Son out of this Creed and add that they falsly pretended this was a late addition of the Latins Yet Baronius himself owns that the Western Church added these words and the Son to the Nicene Creed above an hundred years after so that they accuse the poor Greeks for keeping the Creed as Athanasius made it and as their own Church used to recite the Nicene Creed for many years after The year following Julius held a third Synod at Rome and in it read the Letter of the Eastern Bishops wherein they wonder he should cite them to Rome and so value himself upon the greatness of his City as on that account to take upon him to judge them concerning things which they had determined in their own Synods Nor durst Julius challenge any Authority over them by reason of the Eminence of his City Only he pleads for Athanasius who being Bishop of an Apostolical See viz. Alexandria ought not to have been condemned by them till they had writ to all the Western Bishops and especially to him as Bishop of the first See that so all of them viz. in Council might have determined the matter according to right 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 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 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 and Binius saith They desired to be received into the Communion of the Roman Church But the ancient Historians assure us they desired not the Communion of the Roman only but of the whole Western Church of which that was then esteemed no more than one eminent part § 21. The Sardican Synod which saith some kind 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 nor did he as is there said Fly to Rome as the Mother of all Churches and the Rock of Faith This is the Prefacers meer Invention For Athanasius went to Rome as to the place agreed on by both sides for Arbitrating this matter and the other party so little valued the Pope's decision in his favour that they would neither restore Athanasius nor receive him into Communion upon it which made Julius complain to the Emperour Constans who writ to his Brother Constantius about it but that Letter did not produce this Council as the Preface fully sets out but only procured a fruitless Embassy of three Eastern Bishops to Rome It was the personal Addresses of Athanasius and Paulus Bishop of Constantinople to Constans when they found the Pope had no power to restore them which caused both the Emperours to give order for this Council to meet as Sozomen Socrates and Theodoret affirm And the Bishops in their Epistle do expresly say They were called together by the most Religious Emperours But Baronius fraudulently leaves out this beginning of the Bishops Letter and the bold Writer of the Preface saith This Council was called by the Popes Authority And the Notes offer some Reasons to justifie this Falshood yea they cite the aforesaid Authors who plainly declare it was called by both the Emperours to prove it was called by the Pope but they offer nothing material to make this out 'T is true Socrates saith Some absent Bishops complained of the shortness of time and blamed Julius for it but that doth not prove the Council was called by his Authority only it supposes he might advise the Emperour to make them meet speedily but still that is no sign of full power Secondly As to the President of this Council The Preface saith boldly That Hosius Archidamus and Philoxenus presided in the Name of Julius But first it doth not appear that Hosius was the Popes Legate only as an eminent Confessor he had a chief place in it whence Sozomen saith Osius and Protogenes were chief of the Western Bishops here assembled That is Osius as an ancient Confessor and Protogenes as Bishop of Sardic where the Council was held but as for Archidamus and Philoxenus they are not in the Latin Copies of the Subscribers And Athanasius only saith Julius subscribed by these two Presbyters which shews that Hosius was not the Popes Legate for he subscribed in his own name and that these Presbyters who were his Legates were not Presidents of the Council Thirdly They magnifie the number of Bishops also in this Synod to make it look like a General Council where accounts differ they take the largest and falsly cite Athanasius as if he said it consisted of 376 Bishops and so exceeded the first Council of Nice Whereas Athanasius expresly reckons only 170 who met at the City of Sardica and when many of the Eastern Bishops withdrew there were not one hundred left to pass the Decrees of this Council 'T is true Athanasius affirms that 344 Bishops signed the Decree to restore him but many of these hands were got from Orthodox Bishops who were not at the Council So that this was never counted or called a General Council by any but these partial Romanists for though the Emperour seem to have designed it General at first yet so few came to it and they who came agreed so ill the Eastern Bishops generally forsaking it that it is called frequently A Council of the Western Church and so Epiphanius in Baronius describes it Fourthly The little regard paid to its Canons afterwards shews it was no General Council Richerius a moderate and learned Romanist proves That this Council was not extant in Greek in the time of Dionysius Exiguus so that he and Pope Leo the 4th reckon it after all the Councils of Note The Greeks received not its Canons into their Code and Pope Nicholas Epistle shows that the Eastern Church did not value its Authority only the Popes esteemed it because it seems to advance their power The African Church of old valued this Council as little for a Synod of Bishops there among whom were S. Augustine and Alypius were ignorant of any Sardican Council but one held by the Arians Baronius tries all his art to palliate this matter but after all his Conjectures it is plain it was of no repute in Africa because when two Popes Zosimus and Boniface afterwards cited the Decrees of Sardica as Canons of Nice the Fraud was discovered and when they were found not to be Nicene Canons They would not receive them as Canons of Sardica but flatly rejected them which shews that these African Fathers did neither take this Sardican Synod for a General Council nor for an Authentic Provincial Council And therefore whatever is here said in favour of the Roman Church is of no great weight However the Champions of Rome magnifie the 4th Canon of this Council where in case a Bishop judge that he is condemned unjustly Hosius saith If it please you let us honour the memory of Peter the Apostle and let those who have judged such a Bishop write to Julius Bishop of Rome that so if need be the Judgment may be reviewed by the Bishops of the Province and he may appoint some to hear the Cause c. Now here the Notes talk big and claim a Supremacy and Appeals as due to the Pope by Divine Right But Richerius well observes It is Nonsence to ascribe that to a human Law and Privilege or to the Decree of a Council which was due before to the Pope by the Law of God And we add that Hosius neither cites any Divine Law no nor any precedent Canon or Custom for this but supposes it at the pleasure of this Synod to grant or deny Julius this privilege And yet if it were an express Law this being only a Western Synod doth not bind the whole Catholic Church Besides it is not said The Criminal shall appeal to Rome and have his Cause tryed there but only that the Pope if need were might order the Cause to be heard over again in the Province where it was first tryed and therefore Julius is only made a Judge of the necessity of a Re hearing not of the Cause it self which according to the 5th Canon of Nice was to be decided in the Province where it was first moved And this rather condemns than countenances the modern Popish way of Trying foreign Causes at Rome by Appeal To this I will add an ancient Scholion on this Canon found in some old Copies From this Canon
permission called by Liberius whose Legates also were present at it But herein they grosly falsifie for Sozomen declares That Constantius summoned all the Bishops to Milan and Baronius saith The Emperour called them together Therefore if this was a General Council it was called by the Emperour and not by the Pope In the Notes on this Synod they say Constantius being yet a Catechumen ought not to be present at a lawful Council But this is Baronius his device to colour over the Forgery of Constantine's Baptism before the Council of Nice there being no Canon forbidding a Catechumen to be present in a Council or in a Church except only while the Sacrament was celebrating so that if Constantius had been bound by an Ecclesiastical Canon there being no Canon to hinder his presence in this Council Baronius assigns a wrong cause of his absence Again the Notes do very falsly suppose That Foelix though chosen by the Arians was a Catholic Pope For he was Ordained by three Arian Bishops at Milan as Atbanasius declares and Socrates as we noted before faith He was in Opinion an Arian Nor is it probable when the Arians had got Liberius banished for not complying with them they should chuse a Catholic and an Enemy into so eminent a See or that the Catholic People of Rome should avoid the communion of Foelix if he were not an Arian '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 But this bare Report raised perhaps by the Arians who still pretended to be Catholics and hold the Nicene Faith cannot outweigh such strong Reason and Matters of Fact as are here alledged to prove Foelix not only a Schismatical but also an Heretical Pope The Dialogue between Constantius and Pope Liberius at Milan here published shews That at this time he refused either to condemn Athanasius or communicate with the Arians and was banished into Thrace for this refusal But the Reader may justly wonder he should never mention his Supremacy and Universal Authority when Constantius asked him If he were so considerable a part of the World that he would alone stand for Athanasius and when he advised him to embrace the Communion of the Churches how properly might he have here told him he was Head of all Churches and those who did not communicate with him were no Churches Again Why doth this Pope offer to go to Alexandria and hear Achanasius's cause there which had been twice judged at Rome Surely he knew nothing of these last and highest Appeals in all Causes The Popes of after-Ages claimed this as a right of their See yet it must be granted that Liberius was ignorant of that priviledge § 24. The Council at Sirmium was called by Constantius and consisted of Arian Bishops who though they condemned Photinus his gross Heresie yet would not put the word Consubstantial into any of the three Creeds which they here composed however the Editors call it A General Council partly rejected Perhaps because Pope Liberius approved it who here openly Fell into the Arian Heresie and that not by constraint as the Notes pretend For out of his Banishment he writ to the Eastern Bishops assuring them he had condemned Athanasius and would communicate with them in their form of Faith and therefore he desired them to intercede for his release and restitution to his Bishopric The ambition of regaining which great place was the cause of his Fall as Baronius confesseth and though that Author had produced divers Ancient Writers expresly testifying That he subscribed Heresie Yet a little after he again denies that Liberius was an Heretic pretending that he only sign'd the first Confession of Sirmium which was not downright Heresie Though elsewhere he saith Athanasius rejected all these Arian Forms which wanted Consubstantial as Heretical and declares that the Catholic People of Rome esteemed Liberius to be an Heretic and would not have Communion with him for which he cruelly persecuted them Nay he brags of it as a singular Providence that Foelix who was a Schismatical Pope in his Exile upon Liberius's Fall suddenly became a Catholic and a lawful Pope which still supposes Liberius was an Heretic as doth also Baronius his Fiction of Liberius's speedy Repentance and Foelix his dying soon after his Adversaries return to Rome For the Writers of that Age say Foelix lived eight years after and for Liberius his Repentance though many Authors expresly speak of his falling into Heresie none are very clear in his returning or however none suppose it to be so long before his Death as Baronius doth whose design in this History is not to serve Truth but to clear S. Peter's Chair from the imputation of Heresie and therefore he makes this out chiefly by Conjectures The testimonies of Damasus and Siricius being parties and partial for the honour of their own See are no good Evidence if they did speak of his early Repentance but Damasus only faith The Bishop of Rome did not consent to the Faith of Ariminum Baronius adds This was Liberius I reply That Damasus was of Foelix his party before his own advancement to be Pope and so it is more probable that he meant Foelix Again the Catholic Bishop's Letter from Ariminum only says The Arian Decrees created discord at Rome that is there were then two Factions there one of which and probably that of Liberius did agree to these Decrees the other rejected them Baronius adds to the Bishops Letter these Decrees created Factions because the Pope of Rome opposed them But this will not clear Liberius since both Factions were headed by a Pope Baronius goes on to tell us that Sozomen affirms Liberius was turned out of his Church for not consenting to the Faith at Ariminum I Answer Sozomen must be mistaken in this unless we feign a double Exile of Liberius which no good Author mentions and which Baronius will not allow As for the Epistle of Liberius to Athanasius it was writ no doubt before he had condemned him or else he ought to have confessed his Fault as well as his Faith to that great Man I grant Socrates doth say That Liberius required the Semi-Arians and Macedonians to consent to the Nicene Faith in the time of Valens but this was Nine years after his return and not long before his Death yet then Liberius was imposed on in Matters of Faith by these Bishops whom he calls Orthodox for they were still Heretical and did not heartily agree to the Nicene Faith so that his Infallibility was deceived And though S. Ambrose call Liberius Of happy Memory where he cites a Sermon of his that is a Phrase which the Primitive Charity used of some Men not altogether Orthodox ◠But it is a great prejudice to Liberius his Repentance that though Athanasius
supposes this indeed a little before But all Ancient Authors say and he himself affirms That Peter Bishop of Alexandria did institute him into that Bishopric 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 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 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 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 He cites S. Augustine saying Constantine when Coelician's Cause was referred to him was a Christian Emperour yea he cites a Letter of Constantine writ in a most Christian style and yet he feigns that Coelicianus delayed his appearing before this Emperour because he thought it unfit that a Bishop should be judged by a Lay-man not yet Baptized 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 whereas he saith He was a Catechumen and out of the Gospel had imbibed the Christian Meekness eight years before He also affirms That in the Year 324 there was as yet none of the Senatours believed the Christian Faith And yet he saith Two year before this that one or both the Consuls were Christians yea in the year 312. He reckons up many Senatours who had given up their Names to Christ Thus he contradicts himself by following those Lying Acts of Syl vester in order to support the false Story of Constantine's being Baptized at Rome Soon after out of a Fabulous Author he talks very big of the low Reverence which Constantine paid to the Bishops at the Nicene Council whereas all the Authentic Historians say The Bishops rose up when he entred in and paid him a great respect 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 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 yea in the year 340 he saith Athanasius first brought the Institution of Monks to Rome 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 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 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 Yet a little after he brings in this Artemius arguing with Julian about the burning of this Temple So he tells us The Body of S. John Baptist was burnt to Ashes except some Bones which were carried into Egypt to Athanasius And yet a little after S. Hierom affirms his Bones remained at Sebaste and wrought Miracles there As little Truth is there in his accusing Maximus the Emperour for presuming to judge of Bishops Causes whereas Maximus his Letter to Siricius which Baronius records declares He would call the Bishops to a Council in what City they pleased and refer it to them who were best skilled to determine these matters Again in order to justifie those feigned Relicks of Protasius and Gervasius shewed now at Rome he affirms That S. Ambrose gave part of them to several Bishops and some of them were brought to Rome Whereas S. Ambrose himself who knew best what was done assures us He buried the Rodies whole putting every Joynt in his own order And to name no more He brags that Idols were pulled down no where with more zeal than at Rome Yet in the same Page he tells us There was then newly dedicated an Alter there for sacrificing to the Heathen Gods So that we see designed Falshoods are not scrupled by him in things which seem to make for the honour of Rome or her Opinions § 6. We may also observe that for the same ends He makes innumerable false Inferences on purpose to pervert the Truth thus from S. Augustine's calling Melchiades A Father of Christian People as every Bishop is Baronius concludes that S. Augustine was for the Popes Supremacy So from Bishops judging in Causes where the People referred their Differences to them he frequently infers A right in Bishops to judge in Temporal Matters In like manner from Theodoret's mentioning a Canon of the Church in general and as his discourse shews referring to the Canon which forbids any Bishop to judge a Cause till both parties were present Baronius gathers that the Pope was supreme over the Bishop of Alexandria and that by the Canons of Nice Again That the Pope was not beholding to the Council of Nice for his Supremacy which he had from Christ he proves by Pope Nicholas his Testimony who had the impudence in his own Cause and for his own Ends to tell this Story Five hundred years after So he condemns the Arians for ejecting Bishops without staying for the Bishop of Rome's Sentence which he proves was unjust by an Epistle of Pope Julius which says The Arians should first have writ to all Bishops that so what was right might be determined by all where Julius arrogates
and oblige them to retire into Desert places But the Modern Monks are all for Noble Seats in the best freqnented Cities so that these and those are vastly different Finally He makes the Persecuting Spirit of Macedonius and the Patience of Athanasius a mark to distinguish Truth from Heresie Now if we apply this Mark as none are greater Persecutors than the Romanists so we must conclude none are further from the Truth And now by these few Instances within the compass of one Century the Reader may judge what Truth there can be in that Religion that needs so many Frauds to hide its Faults and what trust can be given to that Historian who to serve an ill Cause makes no scruple to use all these kinds of Deceit This may warn all that design to peruse these Annals not to rely upon any of his Authorities or Arguments without examining and also not to take every thing for Primitive and Ancient which he pretends to be so This may suffice for this Volume and if we proceed we shall make the like Remarks on the following Tomes to shew that their Religion is made up of Falshoods and cannot be defended without Lying and Forgery which is the great support of their Evil Cause FINIS Glory be to the GOD of Truth Imprimatur 26 March 1695. C. Alston R. P. D. HEN. Episc Lond. Ã Sacris THE CHURCH HISTORY Clear'd from the Roman forgeries And Corruptions found in the COUNCILS and BAR ONIUS FROM The Year 400 till the end of the Fifth General Council An. Dom. 553. Being the Third and Fourth Parts of the Roman Forgeries By THOMAS COMBER D. D. Dean of DURHAM For we have not followed cunningly devised Fables 2 Pet. I. 16. LONDON Printed by Samuel Roycroft for Robert Clavell at the Peacock at the West-End of S. Pauls 1695. TO THE Most Reverend Father in GOD JOHN By Divine Providence Lord Archbishop of YORK Primate of ENGLAND AND METROPOLITAN May it please your Grace WHen I formerly had the Honour of Your Acquaintance tho' at a distance I reckon'd it none of my least Felicities But since that happy Providence that delivered these Nations brought Your Grace nearer to Illustrate these Northern Regions with Your excellent Doctrine and warm them with Your pious Example I could not better express my extraordinary Satisfaction and my Duty both than by presenting these Papers to Your Grace who have suffered so much from the Romish Party and done so much to prevent their once growing and dangerous Errors These Collections were all made when this Church was threatned to have their Corruptions imposed on us and the First Part was ready for the Press while that Cloud hung over our Heads This Second Part hath been hindred by divers necessary Avocations but now comes to appear under Your Grace's auspicious Patronage and if it be so happy also to gain Your Approbation that will recommend it to all that know Your Grace's solid Judgment and Undisguised Integrity Frauds and Forgeries are naturally Your Aversation and therefore the discovery of so great a heap of them may I hope be acceptable to Your Grace not on your own Account to whom probably here is nothing New but because this Essay may assist young Divines and such as begin to read Church-History at a cheap and easy rate to distinguish Truth from Falshood in matters of great importance I shall add no more since to give your Grace your just Character is as needless as it would be difficult for me and would not be pleasing to your Grace only I shall most heartily pray That the Church may be long happy in Your Conduct and that he may be reckoned among Your Grace's Friends who is My Lord Your Grace's most faithful Servant and Your True Honourer THO COMBER THE PREFACE ANTIQUITY seems so Naturally to challenge Veneration from all succeeding Times that it gives a Value to many things which have nothing else to recommend them But the Records of former Ages especially those relating to the Faith and Practice of the Church while it was in its purity and splendor are by all sober Men accounted truly Sacred Yet no Writings have suffered more by fraudulent Hands than these For most of them being for many Ages in the custody of those who had a new Authority to set up and were to contrive new Doctrines to furnish and support it with Wealth and Power their Interest obliged them to corrupt all genuine Ecclesiastical History and to invent innumerable spurious Pieces under great and ancient Names thereby to impose upon the ignorant Ages and make them imagine their later Devices were of Apostolical or at least Primitive Original And this is done with so much Artifice and Cunning that a careless Reader of the Ecclestastical Story as they represent it is in danger of being persuaded That the Modern Roman Church is in all things conformable to the Primitive from which it differs as much as Darkness doth from Light To prevent which fatal Mistake I think no Time can be better spent no Pains more usefully employed than in correcting the History of the Ancient Church and discovering the various Falsifications thereof Wherefore I have now pursued and enlarged my Design of remarking the Roman Frauds and Forgeries in their Editions of the Councils and in Baronius by rectifying the History of the Church and all Passages relating to it as I go along having proceeded as far as the Middle of the Sixth Century A Period which contains Three of the first Five General Councils and is memorable for variety of most important Transactions It was in this time that the most refined Hereticks disturbed the Church and the barbarous Nations broke into the Roman Empire and setled in divers parts of it And while the former employed the Pens of the Learned and the later diverted the Thoughts of the declining Emperors Rome had an unlucky Opportunity to serve the ends of her aspiring Ambition and to lay the Foundation of her future Grandeur Which Projects were furthered by a great decay not only of Learning but of Piety and good Manners toward the End of this time which made way for divers Superstitions to creep into the Worship and many Irregularities to grow up in the Discipline of the Christian Church Yet still there were many Learned and pious Writers who laboured to defend the Faith to check all sorts of Vsurpations and to keep up the Primitive Purity and good Order So that the Editors of these Councils and Baronius have been put to all their shifts to feign an Agreement between the Records of this Period and the Modern Doctrines and Practices of their Church foisting in many Legends and spurious Tracts and corrupting the Words as well as forcing the Sense of the genuine Writings of these Ages Of which Proceedings I was in hopes to have found both an exact Account and a just Censure in the lately published Work of the Learned Monsieur Du Pin And it must be
confessed he hath owned more of these ill Practices than any Writer of that Church and suffered for telling more Truth than the Roman Cause can bear Yet after all either by the prejudices of his Education or the influence of his Superiors and the disadvantage of his Circumstances many things of this kind are omitted which are necessary for us to know And though I would advise Young Students of Ecclesiastical Antiquity whose service I aim at to Read those Elaborate Collections Yet I cannot assure them they may every where depend on them The best method to know the wole Truth is to Read over the Councils themselves and compare them as they go on with Baronius's Annals and both with these brief Remarks which will so unfold that Mystery of Rome's corrupting and falsifying the Church-History and Writings of these times that a diligent observer will hereby be enabled without a Guide to discover more of these Errors than our designed brevity would allow us to set down And such a Reader may not only safely peruse the Historians and Disputants of that side but will soon arrive at the Skill to confute all their Arguments which are supported by disguising of Ancient Records And as his discovery of the Roman Frauds will give him a just aversation for that Church so his seeing that our Church rejects these Arts of deceiving and needs no false or feigned Evidence must give him as true a value for it since we appeal to all uncorrupted Antiquity Our Pastors can say with S. Peter We have not followed cunningly devised Fables Deceit in Human Affairs is equally Odious and Mischievous But in Religious Matters it is highly Impious and Intollerable because it not only misleads Men in matters relating to their Eternal Salvation But as a Learned Prince used to say it makes God himself an Instrument of the Crime and a Party to the holy Cheat To this Horrid Degree of Guilt may the design of imposing false and gainful Doctrines drive partial Men. But the Mischief is prevented as soon as it is discovered wherefore I hope these Papers which so plainly expose this sort of Falsifications may set the History of these Times in a clearer Light and not only help to undeceive some well meaning and misled Romanists but to Establish the Inquisitive and Ingenious Members of this rightly Reformed Church for whose Safety and Prosperity the Author daily Prays and to whose Service he Dedicates all his Labours THE CONTENTS PART III. CENT V. Chap. I OF the Time before the Council of Ephesus Page 1 Chap. II. Of the Time from the Council of Ephesus till the Council of Chalcedon p. 47 Chap. III. Of the Council of Chalcedon being the Fourth General Council p. 84 An Appendix concerning Baronius's Annals p. 122 Chap IV. Roman Errors and Forgeries in the Councils from the end of the Fourth Council till An. Dom. 500. p. 157 An Appendix concerning Baronius his Annals p. 189 PART IV. CENT VI. Chap. I. Errors and Forgeries in the Councils from the Year 500 to the End of the Fifth General Council An Dom. 553. p. 218 An Epitome of Dr. Crakenthorp's Treatise of the Fifth General Council at Constantinople Anno 553. p. 279 ERRATA PAg. 10. lin 11. read fourth time p. 14. l. 4. those words Quibus verbis c. were to be in the Margen at * p. 15. l. 24. r. noting in the p. 21. l. 18. r. prove themselves p. 26. l. 26. 1. to assert p 51. l. 21. r. from giving p. 62. l. 3. r. divers proofs p. 64. l. 35. r. him by their p. 66. l. 29. dele when p. 68. l. 16. r. yet the inventor p. 69. Marg. at l. 33 r. amplificatorem p. 74. l. 5. r. That inded Leo p. 76. l. 4. r. S. Germanus p. 79. l. 24 r. a strange assertion ib. l. 32. r. a packed party p. 80. l. 31. r. Pulcheria p. 92. l. 21. r. forgeÌ„s the title p. 108. l. 28. r. made to these p. 113. l. penul r. Emperors patronage p. 134. l. 11. r. Constantius his time p. 152. l. 16. r. the pilgrimages p. 153. l. 17. r. Legates of p. 161. lin ult p. 162. l. 1 r. Pontificate p. 279 l. 19. r. Theodoret p. 289. l. 14. r. and again by p. 301. l. 23. r. and Marcian ib. l. 24. r. commend Justinian p. 402. 403. wrong numbred for 302 303. p. 302. l. 13. r. Agathias ibid. penult ult r. Justin Roman Forgeries IN THE COUNCILS PART III. CENT V. CHAP. I. Of the time before the Council of Ephesus § 1. THE Editors of the Councils being generally the Popes Creatures seem not so much concerned to give us a true Account of what was done as to make their Readers believe that all the Affairs of the whole Christian World were managed solely by the Bishop of Rome and every thing determined by his single Authority Thus the first Council of Toledo was held in Spain under Patronus Bishop of that City The Title says it was held in the time of Pope Anastasius and notes the Name of the Consul for that year 400. But Baronius finding an Epistle of Pope Innocent writ to a Council of Toledo five years after this relating to the Priscillian Hereticks then abounding in Spain purely to make us think the Bishops of Spain could do nothing without the Pope removes this Council down to the Year 405. Yet afterwards in his Appendix perceiving the trick was too groâ—â— he recants that Chroâ—ology and restores it to its true Year Anno 400. But after all this Epistle of Pope Innocent is by some suspected to be forged and Sirmondus confesseth that all the Old Books cite this Epistle as written to a Council at Tholouse so that he and Baronius probably altered the reading and put in Toledo instead of Tholouse because this was the more Famous Council and they had a mind it should be thought that all eminent Councils expected the Popes Letters before they durst act Whereas this Council of Toledo makes it plain that they censured the Priscillianists and absolued such as recanted purely by their own Authority And when they thought fit to acquaint other Churches abroad with what they had done they send an Embassie not only to the Pope but to Simplicianus Bishop of Milan whose Judgment and Authority they value as equal with the Popes And here we must observe that Baranius and the Annotator seeing it was a reflection upon the Popes to have a Bishop of Milan ranked equal with the Pope affirm without any Proof that St. Ambrose and his Successor Simplicianus were only the Pope Legates and that these Spanish Bishops would communicate with none but such as the Apostolical Sâ—â— did communicate with Whereas they have the principal regard to the See of Milan and in the definitive Sentence name only St. Ambrose though some Forger hath there manifestly put in these words add also what Siricius advised And in
for some Eminent Bishops to be named as the Standard of Catholick Communion not from any Priviledge of their See but because at that time they were Orthodox So the Bishops of Constantinople Alexandria and Antioch are named in a Rescript of Arcadius the Emperor with this Character that such as did not hold Communion with them should be cast out of the Church And thus Athanasius Ambrose Cyril and others eminent for being Orthodox have been made the Touchstones of Mens Faith such passing for true Believers only who held the same Faith with them For this Pope there are divers Epistles published upon which and the partial Notes upon them we will make some brief remarks The first Epistle to Decentius Bishop of Eugubium was writ the last year of Innocent Anno 416. but is placed first because it talks big of St. Peter and of the duty of other Churches to conform to the Roman usages But there are some passages in it which make it questionable whether this Pope writ it or if he did shew his ignorance and gross mistakes for the Author affirms That no Apostle but Peter did Institute Churches Ordain Priests and Preach in Italy France Spain Africa Sicily and the adjacent Islands Whereas the Scripture testifies that St. Paul did institute the Church at Rome and preached in Italy and most of the Ecclesiastical Writers affirm that St. James preached in Spain 2ly He enjoyns the Saturday Fast which was a peculiar Custom of the Roman Church not observed in the East nor at Milan nor almost in any other Churches of divers Ages after and we may observe that among all Innocent's Reasons for it there is not one word of the Blessed Virgin who was not worshiped in those days as she is now by the Romanists who now pretend to observe this Saturday Fast peculiarly to the honour of the Virgin Mary 3ly He allows not only Priests but also Lay Christians to give extream Unction to the Sick if the Oyl be but consecrated by a Bishop In which point the Roman Church hath since altered her Opinion and I doubt not but they will call this now a manifest error The second Epistle to Victricius as Labbè confesseth is patched up out of the fourth Epistle of Siricius and the seventh of Pope Zachary And the Centuriators note concerning all these Epistles which go under Innocent's Name That sometimes whole Paragraphs are taken out of the Epistles of both former and later Popes which is a ground to suspect that most of them are not genuine However there hath been a later hand employed to foist in a passage or two into this Epistle for whereas the First Writer declares that all Causes shall be determined in the Province where they happen some have put in a Sentence excepting the reverence due to the Roman Church into the Body of the Section and an exception of reserving the greater Causes for the Apostolick See in the end of that Section which make the whole Decree null and contradict the Nicene Canon cited there And whereas the former sentence was meer non-sense in Binius Labbè hath put two words siue praejudicie into his Edition to make this gross Addition seem coherent and conceal the Forgery Again the Author of this Epistle in his zeal against the Clergies Marriage falsly cites it for Scripture That God's Priests must marry but once and it is but a poor excuse which Labbè makes that Tertullian had cited this as out of Leviticus since the infallible Interpreter of Scripture should have corrected his Error and not have countenanced an addition to the Holy Text to serve an ill Cause 3ly The Writer shews himself grosly ignorant of the Courses of the Jewish Priests when he saith they did not depart from the Temple nor go to their House in the year of their Ministration Whereas every one knows that there was but 24 Courses of the Priests and that every Family ministred but one Week at a time from Sabbath to Sabbath Yet this Author makes the same mistake again in the third Epistle and considently talks again of the year of their Course 4ly Whereas St. Paul had declared Marriage honourable in all Men without excepting Ministers and the Bed undefiled This Impudent Epistolizer calls the use of Marriage in the Clergy a being stained with Carnal Concupisence and expounds that place Those who are in the Flesh cannot please God of such Marriages making the Apostle contradict himself by this sensless and false Gloss But notwithstanding all these pernicious and absurd Errors Baronius and Binius do extreamly magnifie the Pope upon this occasion as being that Original Fountain from whence the most Famous Bishops of the World used to draw Water knowing of what great Strength and Authority these things were which came from the Apostolical See But first If these Epistles be forged which is very probable then all these brags and bold inferences are vain if they be true and were writ by Innocent they may justly blush that such poor stuff should come from the Bishop of so great a See and however it will not follow that the Roman Bishop was the Head of the Catholick Church because Victricius and Exuperius writ to him for advice For how many more and greater Bishops writ to St. Basil St. Augustine yea to Isidore of Peleusium and St. Hieroin who were only Priests and how far do their Answers exceed those of the Pope Yet none will be so ridiculous to magnifie the See of Coesarea or Hippo or the Monasteries of Peleusium and Bethlehem as if they were the very Fountains of Religion or these Persons the Heads of the Catholick Church I will only add that Orosius is noted by Baronius himself to have consulted with St. Augustine and St. Hierom about matters of Faith and greater concernment by far than these and not with Innocent his pretended Original Fountain so that every one doubtless did not take the Pope for the sole infallible Oracle in those days The third Epistle to Exuperius is liable to all the Objections against the former Labbè saith it is patch'd up out of Siricius Epistle to Himerius the second Epistle of Celestine and one of Leo to Theodorus and therefore probably it is forged Or if we grant it genuine it looks not very favourably upon their Modern Pretence to Infallibility for the Pope here says he will answer according to the measure of his understanding and confesses that by Conference he added to his Knowledge and while he was answering others always learned something himself The Notes also are much mistaken in arguing from two Bishops enquiring of Pope Innocent's sense in some matters of Discipline That all the Catholick Church ought to keep the Decrees of the Apostolick See For there were many hundred Bishops in those and other Provinces who never enquired after the Bishop of Rome's customs nor desired his advice and
And in the 6th 7th 8th and 9th Epistles he still advances this ill Man condemning Proculus Bishop of Marseilles and all others who opposed Patroclus in his most unjust usurpations and encroachments Yet Binius in his Notes confesseth that both his next Successors Boniface and Celestine did judge otherwise that is they took away this Primacy from Patroclus and censured him for his evil doings giving the Priviledges to Hilary Bishop of Narbon to whom of right they belonged So that here is Pope against Pope and Decretal against Decretal so odly do Causes go at Rome But by Zosimus his 11th and 12th Epistles it doth appear that the French Bishops despised the Popes Decrees and that Proculus went on in exercising his Primacy for all his being prohibited which looks not favourably on the Roman Supremacy As ill fortune had Pope Zosimus who was always on the wrong side in admitting the Appeal of Apiarius an African Priest who was excommunicated by Urban his own Bishop for most horrid Crimes which he afterwards confessed in an open Council as we shall shortly shew yet Zosimus thinking it for the honour of his See to have Appeals made to it from Foreign Parts admits this wicked Wretch to Communion commands the African Synod to receive him and threatens Vrban with an excommunication if he did not retract his Sentence But the African Fathers for all this went on to judge Apiarius as will be seen afterwards for Zosimus died before this Cause was ended I have deferred the consideration of Zosimus his 10th Epistle to the last place because it was the last he writ that is now extant in the Cause of Celestius and because it was writ to the Council of Carthage now assembled For the Pope after he had admitted Hereticks and evil Men to appeal to Rome was resolved to justifie the Fact and sent two Bishops Faustinus and Potentinus and two Priests Philip and Asellus his Legates into Africa with false Copies of the Nicene Canons to prove he ought to be appealed to in all Causes from all Provinces and probably by them or some little time before he sent this Tenth Epistle wherein he brags that Tradition and the Canons had given such great Authority to the Apostolical Seat that none might presume to question its Decrees with a great deal of such stuff about Christ's giving Peter the power to bind and loose and the Canons giving this to his Successor who was to have the care of all Churches and that since he held this place none might examine a Cause which he had determined c. Yet out of respect to the Africans he saith he had done nothing in the Cause of Celestius till they had deliberated about it and that this Cause was just in the same state as it lately was I relate this more at large because this unjust and ambitious Claim was the occasion of a famous Controversie that lasted many years after the death of Zosimus But as to the Letter the impertinency of it is very obvious for though he assume this Authority it is plain that St. Cyprian of old and the African Fathers afterward did not think it any presumption to confute the Decrees of Popes and to examine Causes which had been ill judged at Rome And in the Cause of Celestius whom Zosimus would not yet be induced to condemn the Council of Carthage as Prosper relates tell the Pope That they had resolved to confirm Pope Innocent ' s Sentence against him till he did openly confess the necessity of Grace And they went on with the judgment against Apiarius for all his Appeal to Rome and his being absolved there so that it is impudently done of the Roman Writers to go about to prove the Supremacy from a Popes evidence in his own Cause yea from a Claim which was denied and despised at the same time that it was made Another note I make on this Epistle is that it is dated but the 12th of the Ka. of April and Zosimus died in January following so that it is plain that he had not condemned Pelagius and Celestius nine Months before he died And though by those passages which Labbè hath published out of St. Augustine and Prosper it be certain he did censure this Heresie at last yet it could not be long before his death and therefore Zosimus was a manifest favourer of Hereticks almost all the time he was Pope and he may thank the African Fathers for his Repentance who though they were abused and injured by him hide as much as may be all his ill deeds in favour of Celestius and for the credit of Zosimus and the Catholick Cause only publish his latest Acts after he was by them convinced that Pelagianism was an Heresie But Celestius and his party openly exclaimed against Zosimus for a Turncoat The same year was that Council in Africa which the Editors intitle under Zosimus but really was against him For without regarding his suspending the Cause of Celestius they particularly condemned all the points of the Pelagian Heresie by Anathema's and order all Causes between Bishops to be tried in the Province where they arise and renew the Canon of Milevis that the Priests and inferior Clergy should be tried by their own Bishops and whoever should appeal to the parts beyond the Seas should not be received into Communion by any in Africa So that we see the African Church persisted in maintaining their Rights and condemning Appeals as they had very good reason considering the bold attempt of Zosimus to usurp a jurisdiction over them and his erroneous judging such Causes both of Faith and Manners as he had presumed to meddle in which hapning in other Provinces he broke the Canons of the ancient Councils by pretending to examine and decide them elsewhere forgetting that which Gratian had collected out of his own seventh Epistle and gives us here for Zosimus his Decree viz. That the Authority of the Roman See it self cannot make any new Order nor alter old ones against the Statutes of the Fathers So Gratian reads it and so Aeneas Sylvius cites it so also the Editors publish it here but some forging hand in the seventh Epistle hath put concedere instead of condere for fear this Sentence should take away from the Pope the power of making New Canons contrary to the Fathers Decrees a Priviledge of which Rome hath made more use than any Church in the World This Pope's time is concluded with a forged African Council at Telepte wherein it is pretended they only read the fourth Epistle of Siricius and thence the Notes and Baronius gather that the African Church shewed great respect to the See of Rome But first Labbè confessed before that this Epistle of Siricius was forged And Secondly the Story is ill timed for the African Church had never less reason to respect the Popes than now when they so manifestly robbed them both
the first who charged the Popes with Usurpation and Imposture both in this Case But the flattering Notes go on and tell us that if the Controversy had been about the Right of Appeals and not about the manner of appealing the Popes Legates would have cited the 4th and 5th Canons of Sardica which treat of the Right of Appeals and not the 7th which treats only of the manner of prosecuting them Now this is an open Falshood for the first Canon the Legates cite is in the best Edition of the Sardican Canons the fifth and is about the Right of Bishops to appeal And the second they cite is the 14th Canon and it is about the Appeals of Priests and Deacons so that neither of the Canons cited is about the manner of prosecuting Appeals and the latter which the Notes call the 7th Canon of Sardica doth not mention Rome They proceed to tell us there were 217 Bishops first and last subscribed to this Council being a great Provincial Council which shews how unanimous the Africans were in condemning the Popes Usurpation As to the Popes Legates the Notes grant they did not preside there and truly it was not fit they should when their own Cause was to be examined and Rome was the criminal Church here to be tried Again The Note k impudently calls the fifth Canon of Sardica by the name of the seventh Canon and pretends the Africans did not like the latter way of prosecuting Appeals That is by the Popes sending Legates into Africk to hear these Causes but allowed him to delegate them upon an Appeal to rehear the Appellant Whereas the Council doth expresly reject the whole Canon as a Forgery and forbid all Appeals to the parts beyond the Seas so that this is only defending one Lie by another and cleansing a Blot with blotted fingers The next Note l gravely tells us that the words Sardican Council were falsly put into the Text of this Council because the Legates professed these Canons were made at Nice and because the African Fathers say they knew of no Sardican Council which had allowed of the Popes sending Legates c. Now all this pains might have been spared for these words Sardican Council are only in a corrupt Latin Edition but the Greek and Latin Copy which is the best hath no such words at all But we may note here very justly That these Popes were strangely insolent to cite two Canons of a poor obscure Council never heard of in Africa no not by the learned S. Austin as the Notes confess and daringly fix these Canons upon the most famous general Council that ever was especially since the Nicene Council doth expresly charge That every Bishops sentence shall stand good in his own Province so that he who is Excommunicated by some shall not be received by others Now the pretended Canon allows the Pope to receive any person Excommunicated by the Bishops of his own Province So that it expresly contradicts the Canons of the Nicene Council and yet the Popes confidently said it was made there Had the African Fathers believed them and submitted no doubt these two Canons and perhaps all the rest of that petty Synod had been imposed upon the World for genuin Canons of the Nicene Council by the Roman Church whose Emissaries have forged no less than 60 new Canons and published them under the name of that famous Council Before I leave this subject I must note that Baronius and Binius who here confess these two Canons were made at Sardica do in the Notes on the Nicene Council impudently cite them to prove there were more than twenty Canons made at Nice of which number they say were the Canons about Appeals produced in the sixth Council of Carthage Baronius hath one trick more For he saith the Council of Sardica was a General Council as well as that at Nice and of as great Authority and so it was all one which Council the Popes cited I have disproved this before and only note here that if the African Fathers had believed this doubtless they would not have put themselves to so great cost and trouble to send to three foreign and remote Churches to search out the Truth I must add that the Bishops assembled at Carthage thought the Nicene Canons so considerable that they annex a Copy of them to their Acts wherein this is remarkable That the sixth Canon is cited without that forged Preface which the Roman Writers of late would make a part of the Canon it self viz. The Roman Church hath always had the Primacy No such words appear in this African Copy wherefore we may conclude they have been invented since by some of the Popes Creatures § 6. Celestine succeeded Boniface yet so as the Notes confess the Faction of Eulalius would not communicate with him However he seems to have been very Orthodox as to the Pelagian Controversy though Laurentius Valla truly censures him for one of no great Learning the Style of his Epistles shewing he was no accurate Latinist and in his own Epistle to Nestorius yet extant in the Ephesine Council he confesses he understood no Greek So that whatever he did against Pelagius or Nestorius was done at the request and by the direction of Men more learned than himself However it was well that this Pope was so willing to assist S. Cyril against Nestorius and Prosper with others against the Pelagians for his See being eminent his appearing on the Orthodox side gave great countenance to their Cause and promoted the Condemnation of those Hereticks which the Notes and Baronius so extremely magnify as if he was the first who condemned them and that it was solely his Authority which suppressed them the falshood of which we shall shew presently The Pontifical saith He ordered the Psalms to be sung by way of Antiphon by all before the Sacrifice But if he first brought in this kind of singing them at Rome we are sure they had been sung so long before both in the East and at Milan and it seems it is no disparagement for the holy Roman See to follow other Churches The first Epistle of Celestine hath a great many Sections added to it in Binius which are a Collection made by Prosper or some Eminent Writer against the Pelagians But Labbè prints the Epistle by it self and then prints the Collections apart However it is thought Celestine approved them and so they are cited by divers Ancients under his name But if we compare the Matter or the Style of those Additions with the former part which is Celestine's genuin work it will easily be discovered that the Popes Authority was far more considerable than his Learning And if any Man wonder why this Collector is so careful to set down the Decrees of the Roman Church against this Heresy the reason is plainly expressed viz. That some secret Favourers of Pelagius considering the kindness he and his followers
had found at Rome professed they would stand by the Decrees of that Church His second Epistle hath nothing memorable in it but that the Pope thinks the affairs of the Province of Narbon to be things far remote which shews they had not then usually intermedled with the concerns of all the Churches in the World A little after he saith we of the Clergy ought to be distinguished from the Laity by our Doctrin not by our Garments by our Conversation not by our Habit by our purity of Mind not our Dress Which looks as if he would abrogate wholly the distinct Habits of the Clergy and persuade them and the Laity to go alike Which gross notion the Notes labour to cover as well as they can by pretending he for bids only new Fashions of Habit to the Clergy But if it were so this would reflect upon the various Habits of every several Order of Monks And yet if we look well upon the Text he positively dislikes all Habits which may distinguish the Clergy from the Laity which now adays Protestants account a Fanatical Opinion Most of the following Epistles are printed in the Council of Ephesus and shall there be considered It suffices to observe here That the 9th Epistle to the Emperor Theodosius owns that Arcadius and Projectus were to represent his Person in the Council of Ephesus which the Emperor had Commanded to be held Therefore Cyril did not represent Pope Celestine and not the Pope but the Emperor called that Council The 10th Epistle affirms that the care which Kings take in the matters of Religion is not ineffectual which shews that Baronius had no reason to be so severe upon all those Princes who medled with Religious Affairs Out of the 12th Epistle to Theodosius we may note that Atticus late Bishop of Constantinople is said to be of most reverend Memory and a most couragious defender of the Catholick Faith And in Celestine's Epistle to Nestorius Atticus of blessed memory a Teacher of the Catholick Faith But this very Bishop had a long contest with the Bishops of Rome and was Excommunicated by Pope Innocent and he on the otherside valued this so little that he Excommunicated those who were in Communion with Rome and calls Paulinus and Evagrius and their adherents among which was the Pope by no gentler a name than that of Schismaticks So that how Orthodox so-ever he might be in any other things 't is plain he did not believe the Roman Church Infallible nor think it was necessary to be in Communion with it And though he erred as they now believe at Rome in so main a Point yet while he was at open Enmity with the Pope Baronius tells us he wrought a Miracle so that a Man would think Miracles are no proof of the true Church Another passage in this Epistle is Memorable viz. That Celestine saith Nestorius was Excommunicated by the general sentence of the Bishops Which the Reader must remember when the flattering Notes any where say the Sentence against this Heretick was solely the Act of Celestine And indeed Baronius having recited his 11th 12th 13th and 14th Epistles boasts of him as if God had raised him up to stand in the gap against those Hereticks which then infested the Church and gives him all the Glory of the Victory over them Whereas if Prosper and Cyril had writ no better against Pelagius and Nestorius than Celestine it is to be feared that these Heresies had not been censured in that Age. Yet in the main he was a good Pope and had the fortune to take the right side in these Controversies and therefore is highly commended by divers of the Orthodox and he is very free in returning the Complements For in his last Epistle he calls Cyril an Apostolical Man and Maximtanus of Constantinople he styles his Colleague And this may suffice for this Popes Epistles We are entertained next with another Collection of African Councils held as they say under Pope Boniface and Celestine but the Titles mention no Pope at all nor were they called by any Pope but by the Bishop of Carthage who presided in them even when the Popes Legates were present We have taken notice of most of these before and therefore shall pass them over very briefly In one of them they resolve to send a Legate to their holy Brethren and fellow Bishops Anastasius of Rome and Vencrius of Milan putting them so equally into the Scale that the Pope is only first named A little after Aurelius Bishop of Carthage saith That he by God's appointment sustained the care of all the Churches The Margin tells us he means in Africa but I must note that if a Pope had said so in this Age though he could mean no more than the Churches of the Suburbicarian Regions these Gentlemen would have stretched that to all the World Another Council in the twelfth Consulship of Honorius and the eighth of Theodosius had a Canon in some ancient Copy wherein these Fathers Anathematize them that hold any middle place between Heaven and Hell to which unbaptized Infants go and they expresly declare that whoever is deprived of the Right Hand must fall into the Left and that no Catholick doubts but he is with the Devil who is not a Coheir with Christ Now this looks so foul upon Limbus Infantum and Purgatory the later Inventions of Rome that their Parasites have left this Canon out in other Copies of this Council And here it is printed in a different Character as if it were no genuine piece of the Council only because it condemns the modern Opinion of the Roman Church but the impartial Reader will conclude that the Ancient Copy of this Canon was elder than either Purgatory or Limbus Infantum Here also the Editors print at large the two famous Epistles of the African Bishops to two Popes successively Boniface and Celestine wherein they do utterly condemn Appeals to Rome and discover the forgery of those pretended Nicene Canons by which their Legates attempted to justifie them I have given an account of the former of these Letters in the Life of Boniface And I shall add here that the latter Epistle to their honourable Brother Celestine writ some years after shews the Africans continued still in the same mind for therein they acquaint him that they had called a Council and though Apiarius alledged the Priviledge of the Roman Church which had received him unlawfully to Communion they examined his Cause and at last he confessed his notorious Crimes Wherefore they earnestly desire the Pope not so easily to receive Complaints from thence nor admit those to his Communion whom they had excommunicated for they shew that the Nicene Council forbids this both as to Bishops Presbyters and Lay-men without any derogation to the priviledge of the African Church committing all the Clergy to their own Metropolitan and wisely ordering every business to
the Roman Editors in their Preface and Notes ascribed most falsly to his want of Power and Authority Thirdly In the Protestation of the Clergy of Constantinople they prove themselves Orthodox because they held the same Faith with the Church of Antioch and that which was held by Eustathius Bishop there in the time of the Nicene Council making no mention of Rome at all And though now the Faith of the Roman Church is pretended to be the sole Infallible Rule of what is Orthodox it was not thought so then For Pope Celestine himself saith Nestorius is to be condemned unless he profess the Faith of the Roman and the Alexandrian Churches and that which the Catholick Church held And the Pope repeats this in his Epistle to Nestorius and in that to John Bishop of Antioch So that the Roman Church was then only a part of the Catholick Church as that of Alexandria was had it then been as now it is said to be the same with the Catholick Church the Pope was guilty in three several Epistles of a notorious Tautology for according to the modern Style it had been enough to have said Nestorius must profess he held the Faith of the Roman Catholick Church So when Cyril had informed John of Antioch that the Roman Synod had condemned Nestorius and writ to him to the Bishop of Thessalonica to those of Macedon and to him of Jerusalem to joyn in this Sentence Cyril adds that he of Antioch must comply with this Decree unless he would be deprived of the Communion of the whole Western Church and of these other Great Men This passage the Preface cites to prove that Cyril made use of the Popes Authority as his Chief Weapon in this Cause but it is plain he doth not so much as mention the Pope or the Roman Church alone nor doth he urge the danger of losing the Communion of that Church singly considered but of all the Western Churches and divers eminent ones in the East and it was the Popes agreeing with all these that made his Communion so valuable Fourthly as to the Titles of these Epistles which were writ before the Council we may observe that Nestorius writes to Celestine as to his Brother and saith he would converse with him as one Brother use to do with another which shews that as Patriarchs they were upon equal ground 'T is true Cyril who was as eminent for his Modesty as his Learning calls Celestine by the Title of his Lord from which the Romanists would draw conclusions for their Supremacy but we note that in the same Epistle he calls John of Antioch also his Lord beloved Brother and Fellow-minister which very words Cyril uses when he speaks of Celestine in his Epistle to Juvenal Bishop of Jerusalem calling the Pope there his Lord most Religious Brother and Fellow-minister yea such was the Humility of those Primitive Bishops that they frequently stiled their Equals and Inferiors their Lords so Cyril calls Acacius Bishop of Beraea So John Bishop of Antioch calls Nestorius his Lord and the same Title in the same Epistle he bestows upon Archelaus Bishop of Mindus a small City And of this we might give many more instances but these may suffice to expose those vain Arguers who from some such Titles bestowed on the Roman Bishop think to establish his Universal Supremacy Fifthly Among all these preliminary Epistles there are none meaner both for Style and Sense than those of Pope Celestine yet Baronius brags of that to Nestorius as the Principal Thing which confuted him calling it a Divine Epistle But alas it is infinitely short of Cyril's Letters the Phrase is very ordinary the Periods intricate the Arguments such as might have been used against any Heretick and his Application of the Holy Texts very odd as when the Church of Constantinople discovered Nestorius to be a Heretick he saith he may use St. Paul's words we know not what to pray for as we ought However there is one remarkable Passage in it a little after where he saith Those things which the Apostles have fully and plainly declared to us ought neither to be augmented nor diminished Had his Successors observed this Rule a great part of their Trent Articles had never been established And it had been well if the Editors had not in that very Page left out by design one of Celestine's own words For he threatens Nestorius that if after this third Admonition he did not amend he should be utterly excommunicated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by his Synod and by a Council of all Christians Here they leave out 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and translate it ab Universitate Collegii conventu Christianorum as if the Pope alone had power to separate a Patriarch from the Communion of the Universal Church whereas even when the Western Bishops joyned with him St. Cyril notes that those who submitted not to their Decree would only lose the Communion of the Western Church And if this Sentence were confirmed in the East too then indeed Nestorius and his party as Celestine intimates would be cast out of the Universal Church Sixthly In Cyril's Letter to Nestorius there is this remarkable Saying That Peter and John were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of equal Dignity as they were both Apostles and Holy Disciples which shews for all the brags of the Popes Legate in the Council that Peter was the Head of the Faith and of the Apostles they did not believe there was any difference as to Power and Dignity among the Apostles and that saying must pass for a piece of Flattery and is not to be regarded because it comes from a Creature of the Popes and one of his own House who by the Canons was no lawful evidence Seventhly In the Emperor's Commission to Candidianus one of his great Officers who was to preside in the Council we may see the Emperor gives him power to appoint what Causes and Questions shall be first treated of and to forbid any pecuniary or criminal Causes to be tried there which shews that the Emperor reserved the Power of managing and ordering the Synod to himself and made a Lay-man his representative for that purpose Secondly As to the Passages in the Council if the Preface and the Names before the Acts be genuine of which there is some doubt we may note that it is there declared the Council met by the Emperors Command and that Cyril is mentioned first both in his own Right as the chief Patriarch present and as he had the precedence due to Celestine here called Arch-Bishop of the Roman Church a Title given to Cyril afterwards whose Legate he is no where said to be but only to have his place that is to sit first as the Pope would have done had he been there Moreover it is remarkable that the Council begins without the Popes Legates who did not come till
talk as if a whole general Council in that Age were convened to no other end but only to execute the Popes Decree blindly without any enquiry into the merits of the Cause And Celestine's own Letter cited by Baronius to make out this Fiction declares he believes the Spirit of God was present with the Council of which there had been no need if all their business had been only to execute a Sentence passed before There is also great prevarication used by the Cardinal and Binius about the case of John B. of Antioch one of the Patriarchs summoned to this Council This John was Nestorius his old Friend for they had both been bred in the Church of Antioch and he having as Baronius relates received Letters both from Celestine and Cyril before the general Council was called importing that Nestorius was Condemned both at Rome and Alexandira if he did not recant within ten days writes to Nestorius to perswade him for peace sake to yield telling him what trouble was like to befal him after these Letters were published Here Baronius puts into the Text these Letters that is of the Pope of Rome As if the Pope were the sole Judge in this matter and his Authority alone to be feared whereas the Epistle it self tells Nestorius he had received many Letters one from Celestine and all the rest from Cyril So that this Parenthesis contradicts the Text and was designed to deceive the Reader But to go on with the History though Nestorius would not submit to John upon this Admonition yet he had no mind to condemn him and therefore he came late to Ephesus after the Council was assembled and when he was come would not appear nor joyn with the Bishops there but with a party of his own held an opposite Synod and condemned Cyril and Memnon with the rest as unjustly proceeding against Nestorius and by false Suggestions to the Emperor he procured both Cyril and Memnon to be Imprisoned Now among others in the Orthodox Council who resented these illegal Acts Juvenalis Bishop of Jerusalem saith That John of Antioch ought to have appeared and purged himself considering the Holy Great and General Council and the Apostolical seat of old Rome therein represented and that he ought to obey and reverence the Apostolical and Holy Church of Jerusalem by which especially according to Apostolical Order and Tradition the Church of Antioch was to be directed and judged alluding no doubt to that passage Acts xv where the Errors arising at Antioch were rectified and condemned in the Council at Jerusalem But Baronius falsly cites these words of Juvenalis as if he had said John ought to have appeared at least because of the Legates sent from Rome especially since by Apostolical Order and ancient Tradition it was become a custom that the See of Antioch should always be directed and judged by that of Rome And Binus in his Notes transcribes this Sentence as Baronius had perverted mangled and falsified it Which Forgery being so easily confuted by looking back into the Acts of the Council and so apparently devised to support the Papal Supremacy is enough to shew how little these Writers are to be trusted when fictions or lying will serve the ends of their darling Church After this the Preface-tells us that though John still continued obstinate the Synod referred the deposing of him to the Popes pleasure as if they had done nothing in this matter themselves But the Councils Letter to Celestine says That though they might justly proceed against him with all the severity he had used against Cyril yet resolving to overcome his rashness with moderation they referred that to Celestine ' s judgment but in the mean time they had Excommunicated him and his party and deprived them of all Episcopal power so that they could hurt none by their Censures Therefore the Council both Excommunicated and deprived him by their own Authority and only left it to the Pope whether any greater severity should be used against him or no 'T is true not only the Pope but the Emperor afterwards moved that means should be used to reconcile this Bishop and his Party to the Catholick Church by suspending this Sentence a while and procuring a meeting between Cyril and John But still it must not be denied both that the Council censured him their own Authority and that Cyril without any leave from the Pope did upon John's condemning Nestorius receive him into the Communion of the Catholick Church Yet because Sixtus the Successor of Pope Celestine among other Bishops was certified of this thence the Notes and Baronius infer that this reconciliation also was by the Authority of the See of Rome Whereas Cyril's own Letter shews that the Terms of admitting John to Communion were prescribed by the Council and the Emperor and that Cyril alone effected this great work We may further observe Binius in his Notes tells us that after the condemnation of Nestorius the Fathers shouted forth the praise of Celestine who had censured him before And Baronius saith the Acclamations followed the condemning of Nestorius in which they wonderfully praised Celestine as the Synodal Letter to the Emperor testifies By which a Man would think that Celestine had the only Glory of this Action But if we look into the first Act of the Council there are no Acclamations expressed there at all after the condemnation of Nestorius and the Synodical Letter to the Emperor cited by Baronius hath no more but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 viz. that they praised Celestine which imports only their commending his Sentence whereas in that first Act every one of the Bishops present makes a particular Encomium in the praise of Cyril's Faith as being in all things agreeing to the Nicene Creed which fills up at least forty pages together in Labbe's Edition As for the Acclamations they are in the second Act and in them Cyril is equally praised with Celestine for the Fathers say To Celestine another Paul to Cyril another Paul to Celestine keeper of the Faith to Celestine agreeing with the Synod to Celestine the whole Synod gives thanks one Celestine one Cyril one Faith of the Synod one Faith of the whole World This was just after the reading of Celestine's Letter brought by his Legates to the Council yet we see even when the occasion led them only to speak of the Pope the Fathers joyn Cyril with him knowing that Celestine's Sentence as well as his Information was owing intirely to Cyril's Learning and Zeal Moreover we have another touch of their sincerity about the Virgin Mary For Baronius calls the people of Ephesus The Virgins Clients Subjects and Worshippers adding That as they had once cried out great is Diana so now being converted they set out Mary the Mother of God with high and incessant Praises and persevered to venerate her with a more willing Service and to address to her by a
Council deposes a Bishop of Ambrun uncanonically chosen and makes divers Decrees with his fellow Bishops who doubtless were not then so much enslaved to the Pope as in after times § 4. Leo the First succeeded Xystus being an active bold and aspiring Man so that he concerned himself in all the affairs of Christendom and every where laboured to advance the Roman Supremacy for which he had a favourable conjuncture by the misfortunes which then hapned to all other great Churches The Africans were under a cruel persecution the Eastern Church distracted with Heresie and a woful Schism the Orthodox Bishops in the East betrayed and oppressed by three of the four Patriarchs and the fourth of the Eastern Patriarchs condemned and murdered the Emperor of the West very young and he in the East a weak man and both governed by devout and zealous Women All which circumstances contributed to make Leo who was always Orthodox and powerful very great The Pontifical relates but few of his Actions and those with many mistakes but because all the following Councils give us so much of his Life I shall only make some remarks upon the Pontifical and take the rest in the order of time First 'T is said there he found out two Heresies the Eutychian and the Nestorian But the Nestorian Heresie was found out and condemned long before his time and as for Eutyches he was found out and censured by Flavianus Bishop of Constantinople before Leo took him for a Heretick yea he writ a kind Letter to this Heretick and two angry Letters in his behalf to the Emperor and Flavianus because he was excommunicated And till he was informed by the Bishop of Constantinople what dangerous Doctrines he held Leo inclined to be Eutyches friend for which indeed afterwards he made ample amends in assisting toward Eutyches condemnation Secondly The Pontifical variously and falsly reports the number of Bishops in the Council of Chalcedon and is mistaken in saying Pulcheria was present with Martianus there and that they confessed their Faith before the Council desiring them to send to Pope Leo to expound the Faith And that Leo after this did write a Tract condemning all Heresies all which are gross mistakes But it is true that he writ many Epistles and frequently shewed his approbation of the Council of Chalcedon and that he did prevail with Attila King of the Hunns to deal gently with Rome when it was in his power to have destroyed it 'T is very probable also that he added some passages to the Roman Office and that he ordered some to watch the Church of St. Peter and Paul to which in this Age many began to make Visits and Oblations But Binius his Notes add divers incredible Stories as that about the Hearse-Cloth which Bled when Leo clip'd it with Scissors which Gregory mentions near 200 year after only as a report which he could not cite any Author for And another Story or two out of Sophronius his Pratum Spirituale a Book stuffed with Fables as Baronius himself confesseth for having cited a false Story out of this Author he hath these words since he put so many lies together in this one Narration what credit can be given to the rest Yet Baronius himself cites this Author for Miracles and Visions very oft and in one place relates two Miracles out of Sophronius for the glory of that Epistle which Pope Leo writ to Flavianus against Eujyches and Nestorius An Epistle indeed very Orthodox and at that time very seasonable but far from meriting those prodigious Encomiums Baronius or the Legends give it who magnifie it as if it equalled the Creed and proved the Pope alone was to define all controversies of Faith to teach General Councils what they were to believe and to give Laws to all Bishops in the World But whatever excellency there is in this Epistle which is in number the Xth and printed in the Council of Chalcedon it is not to be ascribed to Pope Leo but to the learned Prosper who was his Amanuensis and wrote not only this but many other Letters for him so that the Sense and Phrase is Prosper's only they are writ in Leo's name as Gennadius testifies who lived but fifty year after Leo became Pope and the same is affirmed by Trithemius And we may observe that an Epistle of this very Prosper's against the Pelagians as we noted before went under Pope Celestine's name but far exceeded the Style of Celestine's own Letters I only add that Labbè here prints all these Epistles which bear Leo's name some of which I shall have occasion to consider afterwards The first Council of Orange Binius intitles under Leo but Labbè ashamed of that gross pretence leaves these words out For it was called by and held under Hilary Bishop of Arles who exercised the Jurisdiction of a Metropolitan and Primate in those parts and all the Bishops of those parts owned his Primacy and met at his Summons of which Binius takes no notice There were made in this Synod many good Canons for Discipline which were observed in the Gallican Church without any confirmation from the Pope At the end of this Council is published a Form of Excommunication and a very excellent Office for reconciling Penitents supposed to be made in this Council which proves Forms had then been long in use The second Council at Vasatis or Razai in France seems to me to be wrong dated for I observe the fourth Canon cites a passage out of St. Hierom with this Title One of the Fathers asserts c. Now St. Hierom died but 20 year before the date of this Council and could hardly so soon have been cited by the Title of One of the Fathers besides the sixth Canon cites one of the spurious Epistles of Clement forged after this Age. But the fifth Canon orders him who is aggrieved with the Sentence of his Bishop to appeal to a Synod which shews that reserving Causes to Rome was not allowed or used then The Editors have a Roman Council of Pope Leo's which was no more than a Solemn meeting of the Clergy and Laity to examine the Manichean Hereticks But there were two remarkable things in Leo's proceeding against them of which the Notes say nothing but Baronius informs us First That he discovered the Manicheans by their refusing to drink of the Cop in the Blessed Sacrament which this Pope counts a great impiety in this sort of People not foreseeing that his Successors would take the Cup away from all the People of that Church And this passage makes it clear that all the People at Rome who were Orthodox did receive the Cup then or else the Hereticks not receiving it could not have discovered them Secondly Baronius notes that because these Manicheans idolatrously adored the rising Sun Leo forbid the Orthodox People to use that innocent and ancient Custom of
this Session it is said That the Councils definition had confirmed Leo ' s Epistle and the Faith of Leo is commended because he believed as Cyril believed And after all the Bishops agreement was not sufficient to ratifie this definition of Faith till it was shewed to the Emperor as the last words import The Sixth Action was adorned with the presence of the Emperor Marcianus who made a Speech to the Fathers which Baronius by mistake saith was in the first Session telling them he was come to confirm the Faith they had agreed on as Constantine did not to shew his power Which is a clear and undeniable proof that the confirmation of their Decrees depended on the Emperor in whose presence the definition of Faith was read and subscribed by every one of the Bishops and he declared his Approbation thereof and in the open Synod appoints penalties for them who should after this call these Points into question And then he gives them some Rules to be formed into Canons because they related to Ecclesiastical Affairs after which having been highly Applauded by the Bishops he was petitioned to dimiss them but told them they must not depart for some few days and so took his leave of them Which shews that the Emperor who convened them had also the sole power to dissolve this general Council I shall add what Richerius observes upon that definition of Faith made in this Session that it contains many of the very words and expressions of the Athanasian Creed and though he doubt whether Athanasius did compose that Form which bears his name yet he saith It is now become the Creed of the Catholick Church and there is not a Tittle in it which is not agreeable to the Credit Holiness and Learning of Athanasius He notes also the policy of the Popes Legates who contrary to all ancient usage and to the Primitive simplicity of the former Councils do most impertinently put this Epithete to the Popes name Bishop of the Universal Church of the City of Rome But when I consider the absurdity of the expression and the frequent corruptions in these Acts why might not that bold hand who added to the Legates name President of the Council in this very place and in this Session where the Emperor being present certainly presided add this huffing Title to the Pope's name And if so it is a corruption and can be no ground for an Argument However 't is a great prejudice to all these Titles that when any others of the Council speak of the Pope they call him only Bishop or Archbishop and none but his own Legates load him with those vain Titles The Seventh Action contains only the Ratification of a private Agreement made between Maximus Bishop of Antioch and Juvenalis Bishop of Jerusalem concerning the extent of their Jurisdictions The Eighth Action was the case of Theodoret who having formerly favoured Nestorius yet being afterwards convinced of his Error was received into Communion by Pope Leo who had judged his cause and acquitted him before the Council met But for all that the case was heard over again and he called an Heretick and had been expelled the Council if he had not cleared himself over again by subscribing Leo's Epistle and Anathematizing Nestorius and Eutyches upon which he was restored to Communion and to his Bishoprick By which it is as clear as the Sun that the Council was above the Pope and had Authority to Judge over again the Causes he had determined and also that barely being in Communion with the Pope could not clear any Man from Heresie nor give him a right to the Communion of the Catholick Church And if the Epistles of Theodoret to Leo be genuin whereof there is good cause to doubt and this cause were referred to the Pope by Appeal as the Romanists brag This makes the matter worse and shews that the last Appeal is not to the Pope and that he cannot finally decide any cause which shall not be liable to be tried again in a general Council yea though it be as this was a Cause of Faith which utterly ruins the Infallibility The Ninth and Tenth Actions concern Ibas Bishop of Edessa who had been a Nestorian and was deposed by Dioscorus in the Pseudo Synod of Ephesus in which are these observables First The Emperor commanded a Lay-man and some Neighbouring Bishops to hear this Cause first at Tyre and then at Berytus so that even Provincial Councils did not meet without the Emperors Authority and the Popes universal supremacy was not known then For in the Council of Berytus Antioch is called an Apostolical Throne and the Council after they had restored him to his Bishoprick referred the cause between him and Nonnus who had been thrust into his place to Maximus Bishop of Antioch as the proper Judge of that matter No more is here to be noted but only that the Popes Legates and the whole Council desire that the Emperor would revoke and utterly annul the Ephesine false Synod For though the Pope had done this yet they knew that was insufficient since none but the Emperor had right effectually to confirm or null a Council which pretended to be Oecumenical To this Action Baronius and Binius tack another concerning an allowance to be made to maintain Domnus late Bishop of Antioch who had been deposed But they own this is not in the Greek nor was there any such thing in the Acts of the Council in Justinian's time who expresly affirms Domnus was dead before which is certainly true Wherefore the Cardinal owns they found this in an old Latin Copy in the Vatican the very Mint of Forgeries and this Action ought to be rejected as a mear Fiction The Eleventh and Twelfth Actions were spent in examing the cause of Bassianus and Stephanus both pretending to be Bishops of Ephesus wherein we may observe That Bassianus pleads he was duly elected by the suffrage of the Nobility People and Clergy of that City and the Emperor confirmed the Election for the Pope had not then usurped the nomination or confirmation of remote Bishops Again whereas Baronius brags that the Pope deposed Bassianus from the Bishoprick of Ephesus and cites the words of Stephen his Antagonist thus it is now four years since the Roman Bishop deposed Bassianus arguing from thence That it was the ancient usage for the Pope to depose Metropolitans He doth notoriously prevaricate for Stephen's words are since the Roman Bishop deposed him and the Bishop of Alexandria condemned him And a little before the same Stephen saith more fully That Bassianus was expelled by the holy Fathers Leo and Flavianus and the Bishops of Alexandria and Antioch By which the Reader may see there is no credit to be given to Baronius Quotations who always resolves by false Citations of Authors to ascribe that to the Pope alone which was done by him in conjunction with other Bishops
Fables about the translation of the Relicks of St. Stephen to Constantinople out of late and unfaithful Authors such as Cedrenus Nicephorus Nicetus c. but he himself observes that they do not agree as to the time nor the quantity of the Relicks translated And this disagreement should have made him suspect the whole for an Imposture And if the Reader consider what incredible Stories are told of the Miracles wrought by the Relicks of this one Martyr in Sardinia Africk Spain Palestine and Constantinople c. he must believe they cut his Body into as many pieces as there were Stones thrown at him and will wonder how the Body could become whole again and be intirely translated out of Palestine in the year 439. What Theodoret relates of one African Virgin Captive may be believed to be true and that Relation hath no Miracle in it But when Ado of Vienna writ the Acts of another Virgin called Julia captivated at the same time he hath stuffed the Story with Miracles and the only reason of this difference is that this later Author writ his Martyrology Anno 850 that is above 400 year after when Legends grew to be more in Fashion The Annalist takes great pains to prove certain Homilies which some ascribe to Eusebius Emissenus others to Faustus Rhegiensis others to Caesarius of Arles to be the work of Eucherius Bishop of Lyons but as the Author is uncertain the matter of them is justly to be condemned being full of Superstitions and some that came not in till the corrupter and later Ages However Baronius was obliged to get these Homilies ascribed to some Writer of good repute since many of the evil Practices and Errors of their Church which cannot be justified by known and genuine Authors are defended by such obscure Tracts as this Again we have a very absurd Story of St. Cyril's convincing a Monk that Melchisedech was not the Son of God by a Revelation made to the Monk himself who had fallen into that Error But that Fable of Cyril's being a Monk upon Mount Carmel is so gross that he rejects it with this Note That a vehement desire to seem of Antient Extraction makes Men sometimes to dote which Remark is most true of almost all the Monastick Orders of the Roman Church for Aventinus an excellent Historian of their own Communion affirms he had discovered the Monks were wont to delight the Minds of the vile Populace with feigned Tales invented for gain to make the Original of their Temples more Noble and August He brings in a ridiculous Story of an Image of the Blessed Virgin found in a Cypress Tree and of a Church built in the place by one Cyrus Bishop of Smirna but the credit of this relies only upon Nicephorus a modern and fabulous Author And at the same place he brings in a Fiction of an Image of our Saviour wounded by a Jew but he knows not when this matter hapned he thinks not till after the second Nicene Council but why then doth he mention it in this Age No doubt to abuse his Reader into a belief that Images were then in use But the Story it self is all over Legend and not more Authentick for being recorded in their publick Monuments and read in some Churches in the corrupt Ages in which there are the grossest Romances imaginable A little after he taxeth Nicephorus for unfaithfulness and great mistakes in his Relations yet immediately he cites him as good evidence for Relicks belonging to the Blessed Virgin In the next year we have two ridiculous Stories the one of St. Stephens praying to St. Peter and St. Paul to spare his Chappel when Mets was sack'd and burn'd by the Hunns the other of a Drunken Man shut up all Night in St. Peter's Church at Rome and heard St. Peter and St. Paul talking together But telling their Discourse next morning he was struck blind Upon which last Miracle Baronius gathers that blind Men may see great benefits are received by the intercession of Saints But I should rather think he was blind indeed that could not discern these to be meer Fables and truly the only Author he cites for them is Gregory Turonensis who lived 150 year after and is full of these Fictions contradicting even Salvian who lived in that Country at this very time But it is observable that the Writers of the Lives of St. Lupus and Anianus cited in this very place do mention these Holy Men as praying only to God in these Calamities For the direct invocation of Saints was not used no not when those Lives were written Again after the Council of Chalcedon had been confirmed by the most Legal and Authentick ways it is very ridiculous in this great Annalist to cite so many frivolous Stories out of Legends how some Ignorant and Enthusiastical Monks confirmed it or were convinced by Miracles that it was a Genuine and Orthodox Council For he cites no better Author than Surius for these Fables yet relates them with great confidence but this Cause needs no such evidence § 2. Secondly We will note some passages in genuine Authors which he hath corrupted to serve a turn He that reads Baronius his Note in the year 402. that it was an Ancient Custom to paint the Saints in the Churches and that they use to worship them with kindling Lamps before them would imagine this Superstition was ancient in the beginning of the Fifth Century whereas the Author he cites for this is Venantius Fortunatus who lived till the year 600. that is 200 year after and though he speak of a Picture drawn on a Wall and a Lamp beside it doth not mention that as any worship to the Picture that is Baronius's own addition Again when he cites a Law of Theodosius prohibiting the Jews to burn any Cross in contempt of Christianity he adds that they burnt the Cross together with our Saviour crucified on it but that is his own invention the custom of making a Cross alone being indeed very ancient but the adding the Figure of our Saviour to it which they call properly a Crucifix is but a late device and seems not at all to be referred to in that Law To proceed he makes Synesius a notorious dissembler when he declares he had most solemnly protested to Theophilus who was to consecrate him Bishop of Prolemais that he would not accept that Order unless he might live with his Wife as before time Now whoever reads that Letter may see that Synesius professes he tells truth in this relation yea he solemnly calls God and Men to witness that it is true he observes Truth is one of God's Attributes and most pleasing to him Yet Baronius will have him to use the Art of Lying in all these protestations because forsooth he cannot think Theophilus would ordain a Bishop who should live with and have Children by his Wife that is he measures the Primitive Church
Wine to the People as they did and provide both newly Consecrated for the Sick when there is occasion but reserve neither for Worship Which was the usage of the first and purest times And why may not we forbid the needless reserving of the Sacrament in either kind as well as they may prohibit it in one kind But so insatiable is his desire to extol the Roman Church that though he cite all he can find of this sort good and bad he wishes in one place he could find some things which are not to be found that he might let his style run out on so luscious a Subject We note also that how much soever the Romanists here in the Reign of King James the Second were for Toleration because it was their Interest Baronius highly commends the severe Penal Laws made by Arcadius and Honorius against such as differed from the established way of Worship and profession of Faith for Baronius is always a bitter Enemy to Toleration and stiffly opposes the taking away any Penal Laws Moreover it is observable that though his Office be to write an History and relate Matter of Fact When he comes to S. Hierom's Book against Vigilantius he puts on the Character of a Disputant and makes large digressions to the Hereticks as he calls the Reformed to justifie such a Veneration of Relicks and such a kind of worship of Saints as Rome uses at this day which kind of Veneration and Worship S. Hierom would have condemned as well as Vigilantius had it been practised in that Age. He notes that upon the difference between Theophilus and the Pope about S. Chrysostom a Council of Carthage writ to Innocent That the Churches of Rome and Alexandria should keep that Peace mutually which the Lord enjoyned Which shews those African Fathers did not think one of these Churches superior in Authority to the other for if so they had no need to write to Innocent but only to Theophilus to submit to the Supream Bishop For that was the only way to settle a Peace if Innocent's Supremacy had been then allowed And it is a vain and false Conjecture that if Theophilus had writ any Paschal Epistles after his difference with Innocent no Catholick would have received them For divers Eminent and Orthodox Bishops writ to Theophilus and received Letters from him after this yea Synesius himself writes to him to determine a Question by the Authority of his Apostolical Succession and he lived and died with the repute of a Catholick though as I have shewed he never did yield to Pope Innocent in the case of S. Chrysostom Alike groundless is his Conjecture That Arcadius laboured to wipe out the stains he had contracted in persecuting S. Chrysostom by translating the Relicks of the Prophet Samuel and by going into a Martyrs Temple and there praying not to the Martyr observe that but to God For if we set aside the two forged Epistles recorded by Baronius pag. 259. there is no good Evidence that Arcadius at the time when the aforesaid Acts were done was convinced he had done any fault in the affair of S. Chrysostom wherefore he could have no design to purge himself from a Fault he did not own at that time In the next year he spoils one Argument to prove theirs the true Church viz. by Miracles since he owns Atticus Bishop of Constantinople did work a Miracle even before he held Communion with the Roman Church So that if Miracles prove a true Church then a Church that separates from the Roman Communion may be a true Church Of which also we have another Instance soon after where the Church of Antioch was in a difference with Rome for many years Theodoret saith 85 years yet all that while she was owned by the best Catholicks for a true Church Nor do I see how that can be true which Baronius affirms That the cause of restoring the Eastern Bishops to Communion in Chrysostom ' s case was only decided by Pope Innocent since Alexander of Antioch did transact this affair in the East and 24 Western Bishops subscribed with Innocent in the West to testifie their consent to this Agreement of Alexanders yea Thodoret ascribes this not to the Pope alone but to all the Bishops of the West But the Annalist will have all things done by the Pope alone right or wrong Poor Socrates is branded for a Novatian Heretick because he saith It was not the usage of the Catholick Church to persecute Yet the Emperor Marcian and Pope Gregory who were both I hope very good Catholicks say the same thing and therefore we may discern Baronius his Spirit in being so bitter against all who censure Persecuting In the same Year we may see that the Bishops under Theophilus Jurisdiction for all his quarrel at that time with the Pope did reserve the greater Cases to his decision and yet were very good Catholicks all the while When a Bishop pleads for Mercy to such as have principally offended the Church those Intercessions with Pious Magistrates ought to have the force of Commands But to make a general Inference from hence That Bishops ought to command things agreeable to the Christian Law to Magistrates is to stretch the Instance too far But there is another obvious Note from S. Augustine's petitioning and urging Marcellinus to spare the Hereticks and not execute the severity of the Temporal Laws upon them which Baronius would not observe viz. That the Primitive Bishops used their power and interest to get Hereticks spared by Secular Magistrates whereas the Inquisitors use their power now to oblige the Lay-Magistrates to kill and destroy them Further it is observable that he takes upon him to interpret Gods Judgments in favour of his own Party and thus he expounds the Goths invading France to be a punishment for the Heresies there broke out which Salvian more piously makes to be a Scourge for their Immoralities But I note that it was but two year before that Alaricus wasted Italy and took Rome it self yet Baronius could not discern any Heresies there but his general Maxim is That God is wont to bring destruction on those Countries where Heresies arise Now one might observe Leo's attempts to usurp a Supremacy over all other Bishops and the many pious Frauds used and beginning now to be countenanced at Rome about false Relicks and feigned Miracles were as probable occasions of the Divine Judgments in Italy as those he assigns in France To proceed I cannot apprehend how Atticus could have so little Wit in his Anger against Rome as to call Paulinus and Evagrius successively Bishops of Antioch Schismaticks meerly for Communicating with the Roman Church and this in a Letter to so great a Patriarch as S. Cyril if he had known it to be then generally acknowledged as Baronius often pretends that to be in Communion with Rome was a certain sign of a Catholick
Pope Leo for reproving Theodosius the Emperor gently and mildly when he was going to establish Heresie by a Pseudo-Synod Whereas Old Eli's Example may shew if the Emperor was his Inferior in this matter and the Pope his Ghostly Father that his Reproof ought to have been sharper yea he should have expresly prohibited the convening of this Council if his Authority was necessary to their Meeting and have not so meanly truckled as to send his Legates to a Synod which he judged needless yea dangerous And if we consider Leo's high Spirit this Submission shews he had no right to call a General Council nor power to hinder the Emperor from appointing one Again When the Pope by Prosper's help had writ a very seasonable and Orthodox Epistle against Eutyches the French Bishops were careful to have it exactly Transcribed but it follows not from hence That they would not vary one syllable from his Decrees For this respect was shewed not to the Authority of the See but to the excellency of the Epistle as appears in that the Gallican Bishops as hath been shewed rejected other Decrees both of this Pope and his Predecessors when they disliked them And Baronius owns a little after that these Bishops rejoyced that this Epistle contained their own sense as to the Faith and were glad that the Pope held the same Opinion that they had always held from the Tradition of their Ancestors So that this is no Proof as he would have it That the Pope was a Master presiding over all the Christian World For they judged of his Teaching and approved it because it agreed with their Churches ancient Tradition On no better grounds he gathers there was One only lawful Judge One Governor of Holy things always in the Church viz. the Pope From Theodoret's Epistle to Leo For first these Epistles are justly suspected as being not heard of till they came to light first out of the Vatican And secondly they are demonstrated to be spurious by divers Learned Men and especially this to Leo is shewed to contain manifest Contradictions Thirdly If this Epistle were genuine it must be considered that all the Patriarchs except the Roman were at that time either corrupted or oppressed and in that juncture Theodoret could appeal to none of them but Leo and so might well give him good words who alone was likely and able to assist him As for that Testimony wherein they much glory That Rome had the Supremacy over all Churches as their Translation speaks because it was always free from Heresie and no Heretick had sat there it supposes a long experience of the Church of Romes Integrity before this Priviledge was bestowed and if the Supremacy was given her for this Reason she ought to lose it again whenever any Heretical Pope shall get the Chair nor doth Theodoret at all suppose this impossible for the future Moreover he brags that Leo restored Theodoret and others deposed by this Pseudo Ephesine-Synod and infers That it was the Popes priviledge alone to restore Bishops deposed by a Council But the Misfortune is Theodoret was called an Heretick after the Pope had privately acquitted him and his Cause was to be tried over again at Chalcedon and till that Council restored him he remained suspended for all this pretended Priviledge of the Pope And before we leave him we may note that he used all his Interest to persuade the Emperor to call a lawful and impartial General Council as appears by all his Epistles to his several Friends which shews he knew it was in the Emperor's power alone to call one not in the Pope's to whom he would have written being in favour with him if he had had Authority in this Affair He reckons Attila's leaving to harrass the Eastern Empire to be a Divine Reward for Marcian's setling the true Religion there but presently tells us That this Scourge of God and other sad Judgments fell upon Italy and the Western Empire from whence he supposes the Reformation of all Eastern Heresies came and where he believes no Heresie could ever take place So miserably do Men expose themselves when they pretend to give Reasons for all God's Dispensations In the next year hapned the Famous Council of Chalcedon wherein divers of Baronius's Frauds have been already detected so that I am only to add That Leo was politick in pretending to give Anatolius a power to receive Recanting Bishops who had fallen into Eutyches Heresie and cunningly reserves the greater Cases to his own See But 't is plain Anatolius of Constantinople had as much power in the Provinces subject to him as the Pope had in Italy and the greater Cases were according to ancient Usage reserved to the next General Council where both the Bishop of Rome and Constantinoples Acts were to be re-examined and none of these Erring Bishops were restored but by that Council And finally he makes it a great Crime in Dioscorus to pretend to Lord it over Egypt and to say He had as much Authority there as the Emperor Yet the following Popes did and said as much in relation to Italy but Baronius cannot see any harm in that though Socrates did who saith That both the Bishops of Rome and Alexandria had exceeded the bounds of Priestly-power and fallen to a secular way of Ruling And this may suffice for this Part of the Period we have undertaken CHAP. IV. Roman Errors and Forgeries in the Councils from the end of the Fourth Council till An. Dom. 500. § 1. THE Synod of Alexandria is falsly styled in the Title under Leo For their own Text confesseth it was assembled by the Authority of Proterius Bishop of Alexandria The Second Council of Arles which Binius had antedated 70 year and put out with this false Title under Siricius is by Labbè placed here according to Sirmondus his direction The Council of Anjou in Binius is said to be held under Leo who is not once named in it Wherefore Labbè leaves out that false Inscription and only saith it was held in the 13th year of Pope Leo The 4th Canon of this Council is corrupted by Binius and Baronius For where the Text reads If any be coelibes unmarried they put into the Margen as a better reading if any be debiles weak Which is to make the Reader believe that all the Clergy then were unmarried whereas this Canon supposes many of them had Wives And the 11th Canon allows a married Man to be chosen Priest or Deacon the Popes Decrees not yet prevailing in France So that Labbè honestly strikes out debiles and keeps only the true reading d We note also that in the end of this 4th Canon such Clerks as meddle in surrendring Cities are excommunicated A Sentence which if it were now executed would put many Priests and Jesuits out of the Communion of the Church for their treachery to the Emperor and the King of
entrusted him with But not a syllable of his Subjection to the Pope or of any Office derived from him § 4. The Council of Tours Binius places here under Simplicius Labbè 21 years sooner under Pope Hilary but the truth is that it was held An. 461. but under no Pope at all For they desire no other but their absent Brethren Bishops of that Province to confirm their Canons by their consent The Notes on this Council mention the Fasts and Vigils which Perpetuus the 6th Bishop of Tours instituted for his Church Recorded by an old Historian of that place And 't is very plain they differ extreamly from those used at Rome which shews how unreasonable it is in the Modern Roman Church to impose their Fasts Feasts and other Rites upon all Churches in the World The Council of Arles in the cause of Faustus assembled to examin Points of Faith doth not so much as mention the Pope so that surely they did not take him for an infallible Judge Labbè's Notes boast that one De Champs hath confuted Bishop Usher's censure of the Epistles of Faustus and Lucidus and of this Council which approved them But before the Reader credit this let him hear that most learned Primate who modestly excuses the Council but strongly proves that Faustus was a Semi-pelagian Heretick And if he did not feign the consent of this and another Council to his Doctrins this will be one instance that Councils may Err in matters of Faith § 5. Foelix the Third who followed Simplicius was much bolder and openly reproved the Emperor and Acacius for that which he called a Fault But the Notes falsifie when they say That in the beginning of his Pontificat he rejected proscribed and cursed the most wicked Zeno's Henoticon Edict for Union anathematizing all that subscribed it For Euagrius recites this Edict and neither saith Foelix condemned it nor condemns it himself and Foelix former Letters treat both Zeno and Acacius with all respect nor do they curse either of them on the account of this Edict Theodorus Lector indeed saith That when all the Patriarchs besides agreed to Zeno's Edict for Union Foelix of Rome 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 joyned not with him Which only implies his not communicating with the Emperor in that point But Binius hath improved this into proscribing cursing and anathematizing the Edict The First Epistle of Foelix to Acacius often calls him Brother which shews as if then he did not reject his Communion and neither this nor the second to Zeno do at all mention the Emperors Edict for Union but quarrels only about matters of Jurisdiction being not so much concerned for any Heretical Opinions as for keeping up his claim to a pretended Supremacy However some suspect both these Epistles as being without date and because that to Acacius seems to contradict Liberatus But I think they may be allowed for genuine The Second Epistle to Zeno is writ with modesty yet wants not good advice The Pope owning it his Duty to write to the Emperor upon his coming into the See of Rome and he rather intreats than either commands or threatens But it is certain if this Epistle be genuine it is not perfect wanting that account of the African Persecution which Euagrius saith was mentioned in this Epistle It is said Foelix writ three Letters to Petrus Cnapheus the Heretical Bishop of Antioch of which only two are extant and it is well if both be not Forgeries incepi sententiare contrate is a Phrase that smells of the later Ages when the Flatterers of Rome coyned great variety of this kind of Epistles to make the World think that an Heretical Patriarch could be deposed by none but the Pope But this very Letter owns that Acacius and his Council had also deposed this Peter of Antioch as well as the Pope and his And Baronius saith Acacius did it first But the Cardinal thought it worth his while to corrupt this suspicious Epistle wherein Foelix saith He was condemned by me and those who together with me do govern the Apostolical Throne Which Phrase plainly shews that the Pope did not Rule alone as a Monarch at Rome but the Italian Bishops had a share in that Power To avoid which Truth Baronius and they that follow him falsifie it and read condemned by me and by them who being constituted under me govern Episcopal Seats The true reading implies the Bishops are co-ordinate with the Pope but the Corruption is to make us believe they are only his creatures substitutes and delegates The Fifth Epistle to Zeno speaks honourably of Acacius as an Orthodox Archbishop commending him for opposing Petrus Cnapheus It is noted by a learned Man that excepting fabulous Inscriptions the name Archbishop is here first found among the Latins But I rather observe that Foelix here reads that famous Text for the Supremacy Math. xvi in this manner and upon this Confession will I build my Church So it is read often in Gelasiui Epistles on the Confession of Peter will I build my Church Which shews it is not a casual expression but a Testimony that at Rome it self in that Age it was not believed this Promise belonged so much to St. Peter's Person as to his Faith nor to his Successors any longer than they held that Confession Of the 6th Epistle we shall speak when we come to Foelix his second Roman Council The Corrupters Fingers have been busie with the Title of the 7th Epistle which as Labbè notes out of Justellus was writ only to the Bishops of Sicily but they who are to support an Universal Supremacy have changed it thus To all Bishops And the date is falsified also being pretended to be writ by a Roman Council held in March An. Dom. 487. yet it is dated in the year after March 488. But if they will have it genuine let them observe that the Pope here saith speaking of a Point of Faith He knows not but in this case the Spirit of God may have informed them of something that had escaped his Knowledge promising to hear them if they can find anything omitted by him Let them read this and reconcile it with Infallibility if they can The Decree of Foelix about the subjection of Kings to Bishops is neither agreeable to the Age nor to the Style of this Popes other Writings to the Emperor so that we cannot credit it though Labbè hath put it into an Epistle to Zeno because this Epistle speaks of the deposition of Acacius as a thing past August 1st 484 But the Margen of the next Epistle saith Acacius was deposed July 28 488 And it is probable that both the Sentence and the Synod are spurious coyned out of a hint in the Pontifical viz. That Foelix did condemn Acacius in a Synod Which was ground enough for the Parasites to frame a Council But how little credit is to be given
did not receive the Cup as well as the Bread For he saith in general This dividing the Mystery can never happen without a grand Sacriledge Now it is certain that when either an Heretical or Catholick Man or Woman receives but in one kind it doth happen that the Mystery is divided and therefore in Pope Gelasius Opinion the present Church of Rome is guilty of a grand Sacriledge in taking the Cup from the People And it seems the Editors thought Baronius had not sufficiently satisfied this Objection and therefore they cunningly leave it out of this Popes Decrees in both Editions With like craft they omit the Tract of Gelasius against Eutyches and only give a touch at it in the Notes and there also care is taken out of Baronius if any shall elsewhere meet with this piece to keep them from discerning that Pope Gelasius condemns Transubstantiation and expresly saith That the substance of Bread and Wine remains after the Consecration The words they cannot deny but first Baronius and Binius argue it was not writ by this Pope but by Gelasius Cyzicenus an Author as Orthodox and more ancient than Pope Gelasius but their Arguments are not so cogent as to outweigh the proofs that this Pope writ the Tract Labbè in his Margen saith that many learned men think it his Gennadius Contemporary with the Roman Gelasius and the Pontifical say he writ a Tract against Eutyches Fulgentius cites it as this Gelasius his Work Pope John the Second also ascribes it to his Predecessor Yea the Bibliotheca Patrum allowed by the Expurgators put it out under Pope Gelasius his name And at last Baronius himself is not against supposing it was his But then Secondly He manifestly perverts the Sense of the words before-cited being after long shuffling forced to this absurdity that by the substance he means the accidents of Bread and Wine remain Which makes this learned Pope so ignorant as to mistake the first rudiments of Logick and might almost shew he was an Heretick if his Comparison in that sense be applied to the two Natures of Christ for illustrating of which he brings it in For thus it would follow that Gelasius held nothing but the accidents of Christs Body or Human Nature remained after the Hypostatical Union Doubtless Contarenus his Brother Cardinal was wiser and honester in making no reply at the Colloquy of Ratasbon 1541 to this clear Testimony And it is great weakness in Baronius to brag what wonders he hath done by heaping up a parcel of falshoods and impertinence Before we dismiss this let it be noted that the Annalist and Binius not only allow but dispute for 500 forged Tracts and Epistles which support modern Popery but they devise innumerable things to baffle and disgrace the most genuine Writings that condemn their Innovations Which is Baronius his meaning when he gives this reason of his large digression about this Tract because out of it the Innovators take their Weapons But they who reject the old Writings of their own Doctors do more justly deserve that Title As to this Popes extraction Volatteran and Panvinius say his Father Valerius was a Bishop Which is now left out of the Pontifical and not mentioned in Baronius or the Notes But the omission signifies little there being so many instances of married Bishops that had Children Yea of Popes that were Sons or Grand-Children of Bishops or former Popes As to the time of this Pope's ingress Baronius places it An. 492 and upon the credit of the dates of a few Papal Epistles which are always suspicious and often forged he rejects the Authority of Marcellinus who lived at this time and died An. 534 in whose Chronicle Gelasius is said to be made Pope An. 494 that is two year later than Baronius places it § 8. If Marcellinus be in the right we may justly doubt of those three Epistles the 1st 2d and 9th which Baronius cites as writ before the year 494 The 1st hath no date and though the time of writing it be made an Evidence against Marcellinus his Account yet he brings no proof it was writ An. 492 but this Nothing hinders us from allowing these things between Euphemius and Gelasius to be done this year I reply the Testimony of a good Author of that Age who affirms Gelasius was not Pope till two years after hinders us from believing it was writ then But I will not however condemn the Epistle which is modest enough calling Euphemius Bishop of Constantinople his Brother and Fellow advanced to a Precedence by the favour of Christ And when he was pressed to declare by what Council Acacius was condemned he cites no Roman Council nor pretended Sentence of his Predecessor Foelix But saith he was condemned by the Council of Chalcedon but this he doth not make out The Second Epistle also wants a date and is by guess placed in this year by Baronius with this false remark That the Popes by Custom used to prescribe a Form of Belief to all the Faithful Whereas the Letter it self declares the Custom was For every new Pope to declare his Faith to the Neighbouring Bishops that they might know he was Orthodox Now there is a vast difference between prescribing a Form of Belief to others and labouring to get from them a Testimony of our believing aright The 4th Epistles true Title is The Monitory of Gelasius But in Binius these words Of the most blessed Pope are added which Labbè rightly omits In the Monitory it self observe First That Gelasius denies his Predecessor or he had condemned the Emperor Anastasius Secondly He saith the Church hath no power to absolve any after their death Thirdly He claims no power to make any new Canons but only to execute the old Which other Bishops may do Fourthly He cannot prove Appeals to Rome by any Canons but those of Sardica which were rejected by many and slights the Canons of Chalcedon received every where but at Rome Fifthly He very falsly pretends Acacius was only the Executer of the Roman Churches Sentence by whose sole Authority some Eastern Bishops were condemned But we know Acacius had condemned them long before any Sentence was given at Rome and scorned to act under the Pope Sixthly Where Gelasius in his own Cause vainly brags That the Canons have given the Judgment over all to the Apostolical Seat Binius and Labbè mend it in their Marginal Note and say The Canons and Christ gave it this power neither of which is true In the 5th Epistle Gelasius owns a Private Bishop for his Brother and declares that he himself cannot alter the Canons The Margen again here saith The Canons cannot be altered they should have said no not by the Pope But here they say too little as before they said too much which puts me in mind of Juvenal's Note Quisquam hominum est quem tu contentum videris uno Flagitio
and yet he makes no remark of any Judgment on him There are many Evidences that Baronius did not understand Greek and one instance of it is that when he had named the Heretical Bishop of Antioch Petrus Cnapheus that is in Greek Peter the Fuller he adds of his own idemque Fullo nuncupatus est the same Man is called also Peter the Fuller That Baronius is mistaken as to Ambrosius Aurelianus who was saluted Emperor in Britain both as to the person and time is made evident by our learned Country man Archbishop Usher To whom the Reader is referred for a more exact account of that famous Man It is very impertinent in Baronius to upbraid the Reformed Christians of these days with the miraculous Confession of the Orthodox in Africa whose Tongues being cut out by the cruel Arrians they still spoke plainly and owned the true Faith For we confess the same Faith that they did and have the same and no more Sacraments But though these Bishops did then say they held the Faith that then was held in the Roman Church that belongs not to the present Romanists who have added new Articles to their Creed new Sacraments and set up many new Objects for Worship So that if those African Martyrs and Confessors were now alive they would no more own these than they did the Vandals The censure of Nicephorus who lived in a superstitious Age and the Fictions devised in the second Nicene Council to support Image-worship are no way credible Xenaias if ever there were such a Man was not the first who said the Images of Christ and the Saints were not to be adored and it seems by his affirming that Worship in Spirit and Truth was only acceptable to Christ that he had Read the holy Scripture more considerately than those at Rome now who overlook the second Commandment and many other places which expresly condemn their Idolatry So that for ought appears from any Author of his time now extant this Xenaias was an Orthodox Christian however in this point Baronius hath missed Binius and others touching the Age of Faustus the Semi-pelagian as also the time of the two Councils in France relating to his Opinions But these and some other Errors are learnedly and acurately corrected by the famous Vossius in his Pelagian History to which I refer the Reader for his own satisfaction How often doth our Annalist censure the Eastern Emperors and Patriarchs for tolerating Hereticks How many dreadful Judgments in his way of interpreting Providence doth he note came upon them for this single Crime Yet here we have an Heretical Emperor tolerated all his Reign for 17 year together and his name allowed in the Dypticks by many Successive Popes for near 30 year after his death Surely he will not own so many Infallible Guides before Hormisda were ignorant of Zeno's Heresie and if they did know it their fault in tolerating him and owning his Memory is much greater How much so ever therefore he would magnifie his Roman Bishops care of the Catholick Faith when Truth comes out the Bishops of Constantinople in this Age did more Service to the Faith than the Popes and Euphemius threatned Anastasius the Emperor into professing the right Faith while Foelix flattered him which is a good reason why the pious Eastern Bishops chose to communicate with the Patriarchs of Constantinople rather than with the Popes while the Churches were divided It seems the Emperor Anastasius in a controversie about the Sense of the Council of Chalcedon falsly thought to procure Peace by imposing silence both on the Catholicks and Hereticks And he is censured for this vain hope But in a like case that happened afterward Pope Vigilius also decreed as he saith both sides should keep silence and this he calls a Prudent care to preserve the Church from danger So that Baronius makes that to be praise-worthy in a Pope which is a grievous Crime in any Body else Such partiality is very unbecoming in any Writer but chiefly in an Historian He gives it us as an ingenious Argument of Pope Gelasius That the cause between him and Acacius could not be judged at Constantinople where the same persons were Enemies Witnesses and Judges But this Pope aiming at his Adversary like an unskilful Fencer hits himself For this is a very strong Reason why Acacius his Cause should not be judged by the Pope an Enemy a Witness and a Judge When a most pious Bishop the main support of the Catholick Cause was deposed and banished viz. Euphemius the Annalist saith he deserved to be abdicated by Gods just Judgment for not obeying the Popes in abdicating Acacius his Name and he pretends the Fathers say there can be no Confessors or Martyrs out of the Roman Churuh Whereas Cyril the Monk cited by our Historian saith Euphemius was impiously deposed from his See and exclaims against the wicked injustice of this Fact which this Mans prejudice makes him call Gods just Judgment But God doth not punish Men for that which is no fault and it was none in Euphemius not to submit to the Pope's most unjust claim of a Superiority over his Church which had been exempted by two General Councils from all subjection and advanced to the second place among the Patriarchs As for his other assertion no Father of credit can be produced that did appropriate Martyrdom or Confessorship to those in Communion with Rome Yea this very Age produced a great many Bishops and holy Monks such as Elias Daniel Stylites St. Sabas c. who did not communicate with the Pope but took part in this contest with Euphemius who then were and still are even by Baronius called Martyrs and Consessors Yea the Cardinal himself asserts that those who were slain or suffered any thing in a petty contest at Rome meerly about the choice of a Pope were Martyrs and Confessors though no Article of Faith came into the dispute And doubtless he cannot rob these Eastern Martyrs and Confessors who suffered by Hereticks only for the true Faith of their deserved Titles In like manner he uses Paschasius a learned and pious Roman Deacon who never separated from the Catholick Church but when two ambitious Candidates scandalously strove for the Papal Chair he chanced to take the less fortunate side And this he counts dying in Schism and without any Authority takes it for granted that he repented of it before his death because otherwise he thinks it was impossible he should be saved The ground of these remarks is an idle Legend out of the fabulous Dialogues ascribed to St. Gregory But the Principles of making it Schism and a mortal Sin to mistake in a Popes Election are his own To conclude this sort of observations it is very hard that Symmachus should long expect Letters from Anastasius the Emperour more majorum when the controversie was yet scarce decided who was Pope he or
Laurentius And as for the mos majorum that would have obliged Symmachus first to write to the Emperor as his Predecessors use to do I need not make a new Head to observe what excursions he often hath to dispute for the Roman side which in an Historian is not allowable since he is to relate pure matter of Fact and neither to commend a Friend nor reproach an Enemy unjustly There are many of these digressions about Acacius the Bishop of Constantinople against whom he most bitterly inveighs for a long time together and treats him with language so rude and scurrilous that one would think he was some Monster or Devil incarnate Yet at last his greatest Crime is in comparison of which all his other faults were light ones he opposed the Pope who attempted to usurp a Jurisdiction over him and to rob him and his See of the Priviledges which General Councils had granted to Constantinople Otherwise as hath been shewed he was a most Pious and Orthodox Man And Zeno the Emperor who stood by his own Bishop in this just Cause cannot escape many severe lashes from this partial Historian who frequently goes out of his way and takes every little occasion to aggravate his Miscarriages yea to rail at him without any cause It is agreed by all impartial Historians that the Emperor Valentinian the Third did advance Ravenna to be a Patriarchal Seat An. Dom. 432 and that it held this Dignity without any dependance on the See of Rome till after the middle of the 7th Century And how they strugled to keep those Liberties many years after may be seen in a late Eminent Author But Baronius who allows a thousand Forgeries for Rome every where disputes against this Priviledge and condemns all that the Bishops of Ravenna did And here takes a boasting threatning Letter of the Pope's to be very good evidence that all the Priviledges of the Church of Ravenna flowed from Rome But besides that his Witness is a party we may note the Priviledges were so large that we may be sure the Roman Church never granted them their ambition to be absolutely Supream not allowing them to endure any Equal especially in Italy Again we have a digression about the hard usage of the Popes Legates at Constantinople and he not only aggravates their Sufferings beyond what either his Authors say or the truth will bear But also takes occasion to tell you that this is the way of Hereticks to act by Violence and Terror and to treat the Pious with Clubs Swords and Prisons instead of Charity and Peace Now if this be the character of Hereticks the Roman Church that always did and still doth proceed thus where it hath power may fairly pass for an Heretical Church And as for the ground of this unlucky observation Zeno and Acacius did nothing but what all wise Governors would have done for since these Legates of the Popes came to justifie an usurped Authority and to disturb the quiet of the Church at Constantinople their Letters which were judged Seditious were taken from them and they without any hurt to their persons secured till Time and Discourse had made them sensible how ill an errand they came upon So that being convinced of the Justice of Acacius proceedings they communicated with him and let fall the Popes business I have touched that frivolous excursion about the worship of Images before I only note now that if Petrus Cnapheus did oppose that idle Superstition in its first rise he was more Orthodox than any who promoted it as to that point And it may be the later Historians who doted upon the worship of Images may have given this Peter a worse name than he deserved Lying Characters of all Iconoclasts being as common with them as other fabulous Stories which abound in the Writers of this Controversie above all others From two passages out of the Additions to Gennadius writ by some unknown hand mentioning two Books one of Honoratus Bishop of Marseils approved by Gelasius and another of Gennadius his own presented to that Pope and one Example of John Talaias Apology sent to his sole Patron the fame Gelasius Our Historian largely digresses to prove that the Pope was the sole Judge of all Writers and Writings and talks as if he was the only Censor librorum in that Age Whereas I can name him divers other Bishops of less eminent Sees that had twice as many Books sent to them for their approbation yet none of their Successors were so vain as to challenge any Right from thence to judge of Orthodox Books And for the Decree of Gelasius about Apocryphal Writings it is a meer Imposture He complains of the Arrogance of the Constantinopolitan See which insulted over that of Rome as a Captive and under a barbarous Yoke But he will scarce allow us to pity the Roman Church since he runs out into vain boasting that the Popes had the same Vigor Authority Power and Majesty now that they had in the best times But his Account of the little regard given to this Pope Gelasius and his Predecessors Letters and Sentences in this Controversie confutes his Brags and proves this Authority and Majesty was only in imagination § 6. After all these Artifices used by the Annalist for the interest of the Roman Church one would not think any thing should be left that reflected either upon the present Doctrin or Practice of Rome Yet Truth like the Light cannot be concealed with all his Artifices It appears that Pope Leo was but a mean Astronomer since he could not Calculate the true time of Easter himself but was forced to write to others to inform him and when the Infallible Guide is forced to enquire of many Fallible persons to direct him in his Decrees it seems he is left to the same dull way that other Mortals use for their information And at this rate Learning must be of more use to the Head of the Church than Infallibility He commends the barbarous Suevians and Vandals for sparing a Monastery in one of their Cruel Invasions and reproaches the Reformed in France who had burnt very many Monasteries and Churches at which he thinks they may blush But doubtless Lewis the 14th hath more cause for blushing since he professes that Religion that gives an extraordinary reverence to Monasteries and yet without scruple Burns Demolishes and Destroys often where he Conquers By a Letter writ to the Emperor Leo by Anatolius it appears that the Eastern Emperors consulted the Bishops of Constantinople in causes of Faith And ordered them to consult the Canons and enquire into the violations of them yea to give notice to the Pope of such offences And after all the Emperor was to give these Canons their due Force by appointing the Punishment due to such as had broken them Which proceeding was thought very regular then but the present Roman Court will not allow it though Pope Leo
denied that usurped jurisdiction of Appeals from thence to Rome to which some Popes pretended which had made them stand at a distance from the See of Rome The Notes on this Epistle have a fallacious Argument however to prove the African Church could not so long remain divided from the Roman because if so they could have no true Martyrs all that time since the Fathers agree That Crown is only due to those who suffer in the Catholick Church I reply this may be very true and yet since no Father ever said that the particular Roman Church is the Catholick Church a Christian may dye a true Martyr if he die in the Communion of the Catholick Church though he hold no Communion with the Roman Church which was the case at this time or lately of many Eastern Churches Another Forgery out of the same Mint treads on the heels of this pretending to be a Copy of the Emperor Justin and Justinian's submission to this Pope wherein they are made to own the Supremacy of Rome to the highest pitch and to Curse all their Predecessors and Successors who did not maintain that Churches Priviledges But the cheat is so apparent the matter so improbable and ridiculous and the date so absurd that Baronius and both the Editors reject it So that I shall only note that a true Doctrine could not need so many Forgeries to support it and the interest they serve shews who employed these Forgers We have spoken before of Boniface's two Roman Councils one of them revoking what the other decreed The third is only in Labbè being a glorious Pageant drest up by the suspicious hand of a late Library-keeper to the Pope But it amounts to no more than the introducing a poor Greek Bishop or two to enquire what was said in the Roman Records and in the Popes Letters of the Authority of that Church So that the Pope and his Council were Judges and Witnesses in their own Cause and therefore their Evidence is of no great Credit And 't is very ominous that this Synod is dated in December that is two Months after Boniface's death who is said to have been present at all its Sessions To cover which evident mark of Forgery Holstenius gives Baronius and all other Writers the Lye about the time of Boniface's dying and keeps him alive some time longer only to give colour to this new-found Synod The Council of Toledo might be in Boniface's time but not under him For the King of Spain whom the Bishops here call their Lord called it and it was held sub Mantano saith Baronius under Montanus the Metropolitan to whom the Council saith Custom had given that Authority Wherefore he condemns Hereticks and exercises all sorts of jurisdiction belonging to a Primate without taking any notice of the Pope or of any delegated Power from him So that probably all those Epistles which make Legates in Spain about this time are forged § 9. John the second of that Name succeeded Boniface but Anastasius and Baronius cannot agree about the Date of his Election or his Death and Holstenius differs from both an Argument that this Pope made no great Figure However right or wrong we have divers of his Epistles The first to Valerius saith Labbè appears by many things to be spurious it is stollen out of the Epistles of Leo and Ithacius and dated with wrong Consuls And I must add Scripture is shamefully perverted by the Writer of this Epistle For he would prove that Christ was not created as to his Deity but only as to his Humanity by Ephes iv 24. and Coloss iii. 10. where St. Paul speaks of putting on the New Man which after God is created in Righteousness and true Holiness and is renewed in Knowledge after the Image of him that created him Had a Pope writ this I would have affirmed he was no Infallible Interpreter The next is an Epistle of Justinian to this Pope wherein the Emperor is pretended to declare his Faith was conformable in all things to the Roman Church and made to say he had subjected and united all the Churches of the East to the Pope who is the Head of all the Holy Churches with much more stuff of this kind This Letter is rejected by the learned Hottoman and many other very great Lawyers who Baronius calls a company of Hereticks and Petty Foggers But confutes their Arguments with false Reasoning and Forgeries as I shall shew when I come to note his Errors I shall now confine my self to prove the greatest part of this Epistle to be spurious For who can imagin Justinian who vindicated the Authority of his Patriarch at Constantinople as equal with Rome and by an Authentick Law declares that the Church of Constantinople is the Head of all other Churches Yea in the genuine part of this Epistle calls his Patriarch the Pope's Brother That he I say should here profess he had subjected all the Eastern Churches to Rome And how should he that differed from Pope Hormisda in his decision of the Question whether one Person of the Trinity suffered for us and made Pope John now yield to his Opinion and condemn his Predecessors notion declare he submitted his Faith in all things to the Pope But we need no conjectures for if the Reader look a little further among the Epistles of Agapetus he will see one of the boklest Impostures that ever was For there Justinian himself recites verbatim the Epistle which he had writ to Pope John and whatever is more in this Letter set out among John's Epistles than there is in that which is owned by the Emperor is an impudent Forgery added by some false Corrupter to serve the Roman Supremacy Now by comparing these two Epistles it appears the beginning and end of both are the same and may be genuine but in neither part is there one word of this subjection or the universal Supremacy And all that wretched Jargon comes in where it is corrupted viz. From Ideoque omnes Sacerdotes universi orientalis tractus subjicere till you come to these words Petimus ergo vestrum paternum Which when the Reader hath well noted he will admire that those who had the cunning to corrupt a Princes Letter by adding twice as much to it as he writ should be so silly to print the true Letter within a few Pages But doubtless God infatuates such Corrupters and the Devil owes a shame to Lyers The next Epistle from the Gothic King Athalaric was probably writ soon after John's Election since it mentions the Romans coming to that Prince to beg leave to chuse a Pope and both Athalario and the Senate made Laws to prevent Simony in the Election of the Pope as well as other Bishops And which Baronius saith was more Ignominious This Edict was Ingraven on a Marble Table and hung up before the Court of St. Peters for all to see it But