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
meant only that they had the principal Places in this General Council But the true President of this great Synod was the Emperor who when he was present sate above all the Bishops in the midst and his Legates the Lay-Judges in his absence sate there and these Representatives of the Emperor indeed had not only the most honourable place of all but some Authority over the Synod it self For they propounded or allowed all matters to be debated of them all Bishops even the Popes Legates desired leave to speak they summed up the Debates and generally gave the decisive Sentence and upon that followed the Acclamations so that these Judges performed all that the Modern Popes Legates in late Councils have taken upon them since their Supremacy hath been in its greatest Exaltation If they object that neither they nor the Emperor were allowed to be present when Dioscorus was condemned according to the Canons I Answer the Judges in a former Session after a full hearing of the Cause had determined if the Emperor consented that Dioscorus should have the same punishment which he had inflicted on Flavianus and that he and his Accomplices should by the Council be deposed from Episcopal Dignity according to the Canons to which Decree the whole Synod consented So that there was no more to be done in the third Session but only for the Bishops canonically to execute this Sentence upon Dioscorus and there was no occasion for the Emperor or the Lay-Judges to be present only his confirmation of this Sentence was so necessary that they writ both to Marcian and Pulcheria to desire their confimation thereof So that the chief Authority was in the Emperor and his Representatives the Bishops advising and they finally determining and confirming what was agreed upon so that they were properly the Presidents here Thirdly As to the Confirmation of all these Acts the Notes affirm That all which was decreed here concerning the Faith against Eutyches was confirmed and approved by Leo's Authority as the Fathers had desired of him in their Synodical Epistle but they pretend he annulled and made void the 28th Canon And this they pretend to prove not by the Synodical Epistle it self for that speaks only of the Emperors confirmation and never desires the Pope to ratifie the matters of Faith but saith he and they by his Legates had agreed on these points only they wish for his consent to the 28th Canon about the Primacy of Constantinople which his Legates had opposed And indeed they supposed they had his consent in all things which the Legates agreed to and so those passages cited by the Notes out of Leo's Epistle do not prove that he confirmed the Decrees of Faith otherwise than by giving his common suffrage to them by his Legates and agreeing with them afterwards And thus all other Bishops who were absent and had Legates there confirmed them as well as the Pope as for his dissent from that Canon and their brags that he had made it void we shall shew afterwards that it remained in force for all the Popes opposition But it may be observed how notoriously the Latin Version corrupts the Text to insinuate this Papal confirmation for in the Speech they made to the Emperor in the end of the Council the Latin hath these words Concilii hujus a vobis Congregati Praedicationem Petri sedis Authoritate roborantes implying that the Popes Authority was to confirm the determinations of the Council But the Greek hath a quite different sense viz. that the determinations of the Pope that is Leo's Epistle to Flavianus were confirmed by that Holy Council which the Emperor had gathered And not only that Speech but many other evidences do shew clearly that the Emperor confirmed the Decree of this Council For First In the end of divers Acts the Judges as the Emperors Legates do confirm what was agreed upon and sometimes promise to acquaint the Emperor for his confirmation Yea the Emperor in his Speech made to the Synod saith he came to the Synod to confirm the Faith and not to shew his Power as Baronius and the Latin Version reads it but the Greek more truly reads I came to the Synod to confirm what was agreed on c. which shews sufficiently that the Emperor was to confirm all the Acts Yea in that very Session wherein the Faith was subscribed by the Bishops the Emperor expresly confirms it and makes a penal Sanction against all that shall contradict or oppose it upon which the Fathers cried out thou hast confirmed the Orthodox Faith And a little while after the Council was ended the same Emperor put out two Edicts wherein he doth fully confirm the Decrees of this Holy Council adding in the later penalties to all that would not receive it Wherefore we can make no doubt that the main confirmation of the Acts of this Council was from the Emperor § 3. In the next place we will consider the several Sessions and Acts which were in number sixteen In the first Action Baronius by mistake affirms that the Emperor was present but the Acts shew that he was only present by his Legates the Lay-Judges who representing the Emperor the true President of this August Assembly sate in a more honourable place than the Popes Legates and here and always are named before them But the Champions of the Supremacy boast extreamly of the great words of the Popes Legates concerning the See of Rome who say in this first Action on the mention of Rome which is the Head of all Churches and the Greek seems to refer it to Pope Leo. To which may be added that the same Legates in the third Action though they do not call the Pope Head of the Universal Church as Bellarmine falsly cites their words yet they magnifie St. Peter as the Rock and groundwork of the Catholick Church and the Foundation of true Faith And in some other places they call the Pope Universal Bishop c. To which I answer The Council no where gives the Bishop of Rome any of these extravagant Titles and did so little regard these empty brags of the Legates that in the first Act the Judges do reject the very first request which Leo's Legates made to the Council and when they petitioned in Leo's name that Dioscorus might stand at the Bar the Judges bid him sit down And if we consider how zealous this ambitious Pope was for the Dignity of his See and that his Legates had been taught their Lesson at Rome we may justly argue from the Councils silence and the lower Style of Arch-Bishop which they give him that these big Thrasonical Titles were not believed nor approved by them for many things are reported in the Councils as said by particular persons which were not the Act of the whole Council for which reason Bellarmine egregiously prevaricates when he makes this whole General Council
such Now this was so apparent a falsification that the later Copies of Gratian have mended it and made it nec non But this was not till that Church had seen Constantinople under the Turkish Yoke and in no capacity to vye with her In the Sixteenth Action the Popes Legates complain to the Judges before all the Council That this Canon was made after their departure and irregularly and desire it may be read They were answered by the Arch-Deacon of Constantinople that it was customary in General Councils to treat of Discipline after matters of Faith that they told the Popes Legates this and desired their concurrence as to what should be done for the Church of Constantinople but they refused saying they had other Orders upon this they acquainted the Judges and they commanded the Council to proceed and so they did nothing being done fraudulently but all publickly and canonically upon this the Canon aforesaid was read Then the Legates Objections were heard and answered First to his insinuation that it was fraudulently obtained The Bishops all declared and especially those of Pontus and Asia newly subjected to Constantinople that they consented and subscribed to this Canon without any circumvention or force voluntarily and freely Secondly whereas the Legates pretended it was contrary to the Nicene Canons and cite the sixth Canon of Nice falsly putting this forged Title That the Church of Rome always had the Primacy into the body of the Canon The Council first discovers the fallacy by reading a true and authentick Record of that Canon without that corrupt Addition though still Baronius and Binius blush not to argue from this feigned Addition and then was read the Canon of the second Council at Constantinople for in that Age the Popes Cause was to be judged by the Canons to both which this Canon of Chalcedon was thought so agreeable that the Bishops principally concerned declared again they had freely subscribed it as agreeable both to the Canons and Custom And Eusebius Bishop of Dorylaeum declares he read that Canon of Constantinople here confirmed to the Pope at Rome and he owned it Where by the way Baronius egregiously prevaricates in expounding hanc regulam that is this Canon of the second General Council of Eusebius his rule or confession of Faith quite contrary to the plain sense of the Bishop here To proceed whereas the Legates objected Thirdly That the Bishops of Constantinople had not formerly used the Rights now conserred on them the contrary is manifest both as to precedence since all the Acts of this Council shew that Anatolius sate and spoke in the second place next to the Popes Legates and they had said in the first Act that his due was the second place And as to Jurisdiction the very Bishops of these Provinces do in these Acts declare the Patriarchs of Constantinople had used it in their Countries and Dioceses for many years Upon which the Judges pronounce the Sentence and give the second place to Constantinople with the Patriarchal Jurisdiction over those Provinces named in the Canon to which the whole Council consents except the Popes Legate who entred his Protestation against it but still the Bishops stood firm to the Canon and the Judges declare it valid with which this General Council is concluded Baronius thinks the final Acclamations are wanting if they be so we may easily guess who rased them out even that Church which then and since hath opposed this Canon and would conceal that General Consent by which it passed But the last words are plain enough where the Judges say The whole Synod hath confirmed it even though the Legates did dissent I shall conclude this History of Fact when I have noted two Corruptions in favour of the Roman Church which are evident in this last Act. First The Latin Version affirms the Judges said Rome truly by the Canons had all the Primacy omnem Primatum but the Greek is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Primacy before all others which is not a Supremacy over all other Bishops but the first place among them Again the Legates in the Latin Copy say The Apostolical See ought not to be humbled in our presence but the Greek is quite different that is the Apostolical Throne commanded that all things should be done in our presence But he who made the alteration was one who dream'd that this Canon was to humble Rome whereas it takes not away the first place from the Pope only gives the second equal Priviledges within its own bounds to Constantinople § 4. We shall now proceed to the third part concerning what was done after the Council and there will shew that this Canon was valid notwithstanding the dissent of the Popes Legates and Leo's furious endeavours to annull it The first thing after the Councils speech to the Emperor in the old Collectors of Councils was the Imperial Edicts by which the Decrees were confirmed but these late Editors have removed these into the third place And first set down a pretended Letter from the Council to the Pope which is done only to impose upon unwary Readers and make them think it was not the Emperor but the Pope who had the power of confirming the Acts. But as to the Epistle it self it was dated in the end of March four Months after the Council was separated and if it be not a Forgery as some vehemently suspect on the account of a foolish and improbable story in it of Euphemia's dead body confirming the true Faith by a Miracle it was writ not by the General Council but by Anatolius after he had heard of the Popes dislike of the twenty eighth Canon and therefore he doth not desire his consent to any other thing but only labours to gain his assent to this Cannon So that Baronius falsly argues from hence it was the custom to send the Decrees of General Councils to Rome to be confirmed by the Popes Authority For this Letter was not writ by a General Council nor doth it desire a confirmation of any thing but one Canon which stood firm notwithstanding the Pope always disallowed it I only note that where the original is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is taking his wonted care the Latin reads consuete gubernando As if the Pope had by custom governed all Churches as far as Constantinople I observe also that Binius leaves out the date of this Epistle to the Pope which is later in time than either of the Imperial Edicts hoping by that means the cheat of placing it before those Edicts would be undiscovered and that easie People might judge it a formal Letter writ while the Council was sitting to Petition the Pope to confirm all they had done I shall not insist upon any more particulars but smile at Baronius who for a few Complements that the writer of this Letter gives the Pope draws a serious Argument for the Supremacy and would have all
Parasites of Rome as himself who would not endure that ingrateful Truth of a Pope's being an Heretic had left out this word He boldly asserts it for the true Reading whereas not only Socrates expresly saith He was an Arian in Opinion but Hierom himself in his Chronicle affirms that Foelix was put in by the Arians and it is not like they would have put him in if he had not been of their party The Greek of Sozomen is no more but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but Baronius improves this by a flattering Paraphrase in these words Lest the Seat of Peter should be bespattered with any spot of Infamy But it is a bolder falsification of S. Chrysostom where he saith in one of his Sermons on a day celebrated in memory of two Martyrs Juventius and Maximus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to pervert this by his Latin Version thus The Martyrs which we this day worship whereas Chrysostom only saith The Martyrs which occasion us to meet this day Epiphanius expresly condemns those as Heretics who worship the Blessed Virgin and saith No man may adore Mary Baronius will not cite this place at large but adds to it these Words she is not to be worshiped as a God Which Falsification of the Father is designed to excuse their Churches Idolatrous worship of the Virgin Mary The restitution of Peter Bishop of Alexandria is by S. Hierom whom he cites with applause ascribed to the late Repentance of the Emperour Valens who recalled now at last the Orthodox from Banishment and Secrates only mentions Damasus's Letters which Peter took with him approving both his Creation and the Nicene Faith Yet he from hence notes the Supreme Power of the Pope by whose order the Bishop of Alexandria was restored to his Church in contempt of Valens his Authority and when he returned with the Popes Authority the People placed him in his Seat Yea after this he pretends to cite Socrates as if he said Peter was received being restored by Damasus yet Damasus did no more in all this matter than barely to testifie that Peter was an Orthodox Bishop and that he believed him duly elected which is all that Socrates saith and which if any eminent Orthodox Bishops had testified it would equally have served the Bishop of Alexandria's Cause To conclude Baronius owns Paulinus to have been a credulous Man and very unskilful in Ecclesiastical History yet thinking he had not spoken enough when he relates That a Church was adorned with Pictures he stretches this into Adorned with Sacred Images From all which Instances we may infer That the Cardinal would not stick at misquoting and misrepresenting his Authors when it might serve the Roman Interest § 3. Of this kind also we may reckon his crasty suppressing such Authorities in whole or in part as seem to cross the Opinions and Practices of their Church His leaving out a passage in Optatus wherein that Father makes the being in Communion with the Seven Churches of Asia a Note of a true Catholic was noted before And we may give many such like Instances Sozemen relates an Imperial Law wherein those are declared Heretics who do not hold the Faith which Damasus Bishop of Rome and Peter of Alexandria then held but the fraudulent Annalist leaves out Peter of Alexandria and mentions only Damasus as the sole standard of Catholic Faith When S. Hierom saith His Adversaries condemned him with Damasus and Peter Baronius bids us observe with what reverence the Pope's Enemies treated him for though they accused S. Hierom of Heresie yet against Damasus they durst not open their Mouth whereas S. Hierom protected himself by the Authority of the Bishop of Alexandria as well as by that of the Pope Again after a crafty Device to hide the evident Testimony which Gregory Nyssen gives against going in Pilgrimage to Jerusalem He slightly mentions an Epistle of S. Hierom which excellently confutes that then growing Superstition telling us That the Court of Heaven is as open from Britain as from Jerusalem Which remarkable Sentence and all the other learned Arguments of that Epistle he omits by design though if it had countenanced this Superstition we should have had it cited at large In like manner afterwards when he had another fair occasion to cite this same Epistle which doth so effectually condemn Pilgrimages he will not quote one word out of it but barely mentions it and runs out into the Enquiry what time it was writ I have given many more Instances of these fraudulent Concealments in my Discourse of Councils and therefore shall add no more here but only this That whoever reads Baronius's Annals hears no more generally than the Evidence of one side and that too enlarged if it be never so slight and commended if it be never so spurious but whatever makes against the Roman Church is depreciated and perverted or else clapt under Hatches and kept out of sight Of which we have an Instance in Eusebius who because he will not justifie their Forgeries about Constantine's Baptism and Donation though he be the best of all the Ecclesiastical Historians is never cited but with Reproaches and Calumnies and whatever he saith against them is either concealed or the force of it taken off by reviling him as an Arian § 4. Another Artifice of our Annalist is first to suppose things which make for the honour of his Church without any manner of proof and then to take his own Suppositions for grounds of Argument Thus he supposes that Constantine gave S. Peter thanks for his Victory without any evidence from History yea against his own peculiar Notion That Constantine was then a Pagan and durst not do any act to make him seem a Christian Again To colour their Worship of Images He barely supposes that the Pagan Senate dedicated a Golden Image of Christ to Constantine He argues only from Conjectures to prove the Munisicence of that Emperour to Rome whereas if so eminent a Prince had given such great Gifts to the most famous City in the World doubtless some Author would have mentioned it and not have left the Cardinal to prove this by random Guesses Again He supposos without any proof that Constantine knew the Supreme Power over all Christians was in the Church of Rome He produces nothing but meer Conjectures that Osius was the Pope's Legate yet he boldly draws rare Inferences from this He doth but guess and take it for granted that the Nicene Council was called by the Advice of Pope Sylvester yet this is a Foundation for the Supremacy and i know not what Thus when he hath no Author to prove that Athanasius venerated the Martyrs he makes it out with Who can doubt it and it is fit to believe he did so So he tells us He had said before that Damasus favoured Gregory Nazianzen in his being elected to be Bishop of Constantinople He
him his Fellow-Minister would have been very Sawey if he had known Julius to be the Supreme Bishop of the World And if this Supremacy had been owned in former Ages how came the Eastern Bishops to be so angry at their being desired to come to Rome yea how came they to Excommunicate the Pope for communicating with one whom they had judged a Criminal It is not concerning the Pope but Athanasius that Nazianzen saith He did again prescribe Laws to the whole World It seems the Pope was not the Supreme Caller of Synods when S. Hierom speaking of a Council which he thought was not Authentic Asks What Emperour ordered it to be Convened We cannot find in any genuine Antiquity in this Age so great an Encomium of Rome as Nazianzen the Elder gives of Caesarea viz. That from the beginning it was and now is accounted the Mother of almost all Churches on which all the Christian World casts its Eye like a Circle drawn from a Center A man would guess the Pope's Authority reached no further than the Suburbicarian Regions because Ursicinus Damasus his Competitor was forbid by the Emperour from entring into Rome or the Suburbicarian Regions S. Basil was very unmannerly if not unjust had this Supremacy been then claimed to send his first Embassy unto Athanasius and tell him that He had the Care of all the Churche yea afterward when he did send into the West he directs his Epistle to the Italian and Gallican Bishops without mentioning the Pope in particular And truly Damasus if he were Supreme took little care of his Office since upon so pressing Occasions he would neither Answer S. Basil nor S. Hierom for a long time And S. Hierom was somewhat bold when he reproves the Ambition of Rome and said He would Follow no Chief but Christ S. Ambrose also seems not to give that deference to the Mother of all Churches that he ought since he often Dined and made Feasts on the Saturday which was a Fast at Rome and had the Pope then been Supreme why did Ambrose make a Bishop at Sirmium in Iliyria so far from his own City of Milan The same S. Ambrose also speaks of Supreme Bishops in Gallia It is strange that Siricius the Supreme Pastor should let the Pagans set up an Altar to the Goddess of Victory in the Roman Capitol and that S. Ambrose should be the only Complainant in this Case Finally if the Pope then had any Jurisdiction over the Eastern Churches why was not he consulted about Ordaining S. Chrysostom Bishop of Constantinople and how came the Patriarch of Alexandria to be sent to and to Ordain him These Instances shew the Supremacy of Rome was unknown in that Age And so was the INVOCATION of SAINTS and ADORING of RELICKS also as one might suspect by these Passages That the Holy Men of those Ages in their Dangers and Necessities are said only to have prayed to God not to the Blessed Virgin or to Saints and Angels for help So did Alexander Bishop of Constantinople against Arius so did Parthenius against the Pagans so did Constantius the Emperour for Recovery of his Health so also did those Persian Martyrs Thus Euphrates an Eminent Bishop implores only the help of Christ against an illusion of the Devil The Christians who translated the Bones of Babylas the Martyr did not Pray to him but Praised God and Macedonius an holy Monk is observed only to call upon God Night and Day Arcadius the Emperour in an Earthquade prayed to the Lord the only preserver of the Humble Porphyrius Bishop of Gaza and his People called only upon Christ not upon any Saints So that all these used the Protestant way of Worship And the Romanists must be very unsafe in their Worship of Saints since Baronius confesses one of their Catalogues of Saints puts in the Names of two Hereticks as good Catholic Saints So also as to the Adoration of Relicks the Faithful in Persia did not keep the Body of their Martyr to Worship but buried it in a Tomb So S. Anthony the Primitive Hermit fearing and disliking this Superstition ordered his Body to be put into a private and unknown Grave according to the Custom of the Catholic Church and therefore Metaphrastes his sole Evidence will not pass for the Legend of translating the Bodies of S. Andrew and S. Luke to Constantinople 'T is true this Superstition was then creeping in and some Cheaters did begin to sell the Bones of False Martyrs a Trade used at Rome for many Ages but Theodosius his Law severely punished this Crime Which ridiculous Imposture Julian the witty Apostate had justly exposed some years before as being contrary to Scripture and to the Christian Law To proceed Had the Altars been then used to be adorned with IMAGES as they are now at Rome the Faithful would not have been so surprized at bringing in an Image and placing it on the Altar as Optatus saith they were and Baronius can find no Precedent for carrying Images in Procession to procure Rain but the Pagan Superstition In S. Ambroses time the Virgins Apartment in the Church was not adorned with Pictures or Images but after the Protestant way with Sentences of Holy Scripture Theodosius should have excepted the Images of the Saints when he forbad the honouring any Images void of Sense with lighting Tapers offering Incense and Garlands to them So that doubtless this is an INNOVATION in their Church and so are many other of their Rites The Pope's Bull to choose a Stranger to be Bishop of a Church whereof he never had been a Member was unknown when Pope Julius condemned this Practice The Custom of putting the Wafer in the Communicant's Mouth as Baronius confesseth was unknown in this Century when Protestant like they took it into their hands In S. Augustine's time the People at Rome Fasted on Wednesdays which use they have now left off When the Rites of Burial used at Christian Funerals are described by Nazianzen on occasion of the Funeral of Caesarius there is no mention of any Prayers for his Soul for that Superstition was not then allowed The carrying a Cross before them in Procession cannot be made out in this Age but by the spurious Act of Martyrs cited by Metaphrastes But lest I tire the Reader I will conclude with one or two Instances more to shew the difference between Modern Rome and this Age Their Monks now are not like those of that time but resemble the Messalian Heretics who pretended to Pray continually and never used any labour and claimed all mens Alms as due only to them who said that Marriages might be dissolved seducing Children from their Parents and boasting they were pure from Sin yea wearing Sackcloth that all may see it Theodosius made a Law to banish Monks from Cities
Theodoret's Baronius had better have owned it for none ever thought Popes infallible in their Quotations but the Cardinal resolves right or wrong to vindicate Gregory who rejects Sozomen's History for that passage which is in Theodoret but is not in Sozomen so rashly do Popes judge sometimes The Passage is about commending Theodorus of Mopsvestia as an Orthodox Father to the time of his death which Theodoret doth affirm but Sozomen only mentions this Theodorus his Conversion by S. Chrysostom but saith no more of him and Baronius is forced to feign this Passage was in that Part of Sozomen which was long since lost and which probably S. Gregory himself never saw however Baronius knows nothing what was there written and therefore it is very boldly done to suppose a thing for a certain Truth which he could never know any thing of only to save the Credit of a Pope who had little or no skill in Greek Authors Again 't is apparently partial in him where he produces some ancient Testimonies of the French being wont to break their words to restrain this in modern Times only to that part of them which is Reformed while he boasts of his Catholicks as the justest Men in the World To confute which the Perjury and Treachery of the Leaguers in our Fathers time and the many Promises and Engagements broken to the late Hugonots in our days are abundantly sufficient He takes it for a proof that the Eastern Bishops use to refer Causes of the greatest moment to the Pope because one Daniel a French Bishop fled out of his own Country for his Crimes probably into the East was complained of to the Pope being Uncanonically Ordained which Complaint the Pope transmits to the Bishops of the Province of Narbon as the proper Judges in that matter so that this Cause was not referred to him at all only he was desired to acquaint those with it who ought to determine that Point Moreover he makes it a certain Evidence that Socrates was an Heretick because he complains of Nestorius for urging the Emperor to persecute Hereticks as soon as ever he was Ordained Bishop of Constantinople But this Kingdom hath found Romanists when it was their Interest to censure Men as Hereticks for the contrary viz. for only insisting upon the execution of some gentle Penal Laws upon such as differed from the established Religion He commends S. Cyril for his Modesty in not mentioning the Fault of Theodosius his abetting Nestorius yet he upon bare Surmizes speaks very opprobriously of Theodosius upon this account and reflects upon all Kings and Sovereigns as inclined to follow his Example Now if the silence of these things proves Cyril's Modesty who must needs know whether Theodosius were guilty of this or no Doth it not prove somebodie 's Immodesty to rail by meer Conjectures at Theodosius and all Princes To proceed It is a very false consequence from Cyril's calling in Celestine to his assistance against Nestorius and that Popes condemning the Heretick in his private Council at Rome That it was the Ancient custom from the beginning for S. Peter's Chair alone to determine controversies of Faith and condemn Heresies with their Authors as they arise For Cyril had first condemned this Heretick and his Opinions and the Pope only came in as his Second yet after all it was necessary that a General Council should condemn him which had been needless if the Pope alone or in conjunction with another Patriarch had been sufficient Again he cites two Authors only for Celestine's sending a Pall and a Mitre to S. Cyril and these Writers lived 8 or 900 year after this time and he rejects some part of their account as fabulous yet from this Evidence he would prove That Cyril was Celestine ' s Legate in the Council of Ephesus But he must have better proof than this to make us believe so incredible a thing We may further note that where Possidius is so particular in the circumstances of S. Augustine's death he mentions nothing of any Image of the Blessed Virgin or the Saints no Crucifix placed before him but only the Penitential Psalms were writ out and fastned on the Wall which he read over as he lay on his Death-bed Nor doth he mention any Office said for his Soul after he was dead but only an Office for commending his Body to the Grave which shews these were devised in later and more Superstitious Times Baronius indeed supposes the word Sacrificium to signifie the Mass here but it seems to signifie no more than the usual Office at putting the Body into the Grave in hopes of a joyful Resurrection But though nothing be more evident even in these Annals to a Judicious Reader than the many Innovations in Doctrin and Worship made by the modern Roman Church contrary to the Decrees of Councils the Judgment and Practice of the Ancient Fathers the Annalist a little after upon Capreolus Bishop of Carthage his affirming that to be the true Faith which is delivered by the Fathers flies out into foul Language against the Reformed Churches for Innovations and reviving Heresies condemned by the Fathers Whereas we freely refer it to those Ancients to judge between us Whether they or we come nearer to the Doctrin and Usages of pure Antiquity and can from substantial Evidence prove them to be the Innovators I will only note That in this Epistle of Capreolus this Bishop calls the Emperor His Lord and his Son Upon which Baronius makes no Remark because he would have it thought that no Bishop but only the Pope did ever call the Emperor Son For he alone is to be the Father of all Princes and all Bishops also A little after he interprets that woful destruction of the Emperor's Army in Africa to be a Divine Judgment upon him for countenancing the Heretical party at Ephesus Though not many Pages from hence he lays all the blame of this Connivance upon the Treachery of the Emperor's Domesticks and he may find as great Defeats hapning often when the Emperors did take the Catholick part So true is that of Solomon No man knoweth either love or hatred by all that is before him All things come alike to all c. Ecclesix 1 2. 'T is remarkable what Baronius saith of a very dubious Rescript of Valentinian cited for the Authority of the Seâ— of Ravenna by the Friends of that Bishoprick The love of our Country is an imperious thing yea a Tyrant which compels an Historian to defend those things which if they were said of another place he would utterly explode which with the rest there said is so applicable to the Cardinal as to Rome that the only wonder is he did not see how severe a Censure he as David once did upon Nathan's Parable here passeth upon himself Again he forgets that the Miracle out of Prosper concerning a Maid who could not swallow a piece of the Sacramental Bread
himself begs of the Emperor not commands him as our Historian words it to use this remedy to the Church not only to degrade Heretical Clerks but to banish them from the City yet now they will not have Princes to judge or punish Clerks Nor will Baronius allow the Emperor a Right to call a General Council without the Pope's consent But the Letter of Pope Leo from whence he infers this shews He was commanded by the Emperor to come to a Council which Order the Pope reverently received and wished he could have obeyed it but modestly hopes to be excused by the Emperors approving the Reasons he offers why there was no need of such a Council So that the Authority was then in the Emperor and the Pope was to obey or excuse himself by just Reasons And as to the confirmation Pope Leo saith The Council of Chalcedon was confirmed by the Authority of Marcian the Emperor and by his consent yea he owns the definitions of that Council were above him for what was defined there he durst not call to a new scanning Thus things stood then but Rome is now above this If it were so excellent and pious a Law that none should force Women to be Nuns nor any to be vailed till she were forty years old till which Age she was to remain free to marry if she pleased How comes it to pass that nothing is more common now than to carry young Women against their Wills into Nunneries and to make them take the Vows at fourteen or fifteen These practices may be gainful but they are very wicked and contrary to the Laws both of Church and State in elder and purer times We may observe a visible difference between the Prayers and Usages of holy Men in this ancient Age and those of the modern times St. Marcian takes the holy Gospel in his hand and directs his Prayers only to Christ to avert a dreadful Fire But later Legends represent their modern Saints taking up Crucifixes Relicks or the Host and praying to the blessed Virgin or to deceased Saints in all cases of danger So that any considering Reader may see that the Primitive Worship was not like to that now used in the Roman Church Again if the Matter of Fact be true that Pope Hilary forbid the Emperor Anthemius to allow any Conventicles of the Macedonian Hereticks in Rome for which we have no proof but the boasting Letter of a Bigotted Pope viz. Gelasius yet supposing this were so the Note of the Annalist is very Erroneous viz. That Heresies could not be planted at Rome so easily as at Constantinople For Pelagius and Caelestius who were as great Hereticks as Eutyches and Aelurus were sheltered at Rome a long time And the Bishops of Constantinople did more against Eutyches and his Heresie than the Popes against Pelagius And since a little after three parts of seven in Rome were Arrians tolerated by the Pope methinks we should not have the Purity of Rome extolled at this rate as if no Weed of Heresie could grow there It is but five years after this that Baronius himself owns that Ricimer seized on St. Agathus Church in Rome where he and the Arrians held their publick Assemblies in spight of the Popes who were not wont to oppose Princes who had great power and only trampled on such as were weak In the Relation of Cyril the Monk which Baronius so highly commends it is not much for the credit of Rome that a Catholick Bishop of Jerusalem Martyrius sends a Legate to the Emperor to assist him in suppressing the Eutychian Hereticks and not the Pope And that a Saint from Heaven should call Jerusalem the Mother of Churches For this Title is now wholly appropriated to Rome But as to the Embassy sent to the Emperor against the Hereticks Martyrius took the right course for Pope Simplicius in his Letter to the same Emperor saith The Imperial Authority only can keep the Sheepfold of our Lords slock pure from the contagion of Heresie which shews the Pope's power was not considerable at that time It is something remarkable also That Pope Foelix in his Letter to Zeno the Emperor should affirm That Eustathius Bishop of Antioch was the President of those Three hundred and eighteen Fathers assembled at Nice For now they will allow no General Council to be Authentick wherein the Bishop of Rome or his Legates do not preside The Romanists proceedings against the Reformed at their Councils of Constance and Trent where some were Burnt for a Terror and the oppressed party who held the right Faith were cited before their Adversaries who took upon them to judge in their own Cause these proceedings I say were an exact Transcript of the Arrian Methods in Asrick when they resolved under the cover of a Conference to suppress the Orthodox Catholicks In the Story of finding St. Barnabas Relicks we may observe all the Prayers and Hymns were directed only to God and Christ not any to this or any other Saint from which we may learn That piece of Superstition which now makes up so great a part of the Roman Offices was unknown to those Ages and St. Barnabas declares the chief Bishop of Cyprus is not subject to any Patriarch he doth not except the Pope so that this Apostle seems not to have believed St. Peter's Universal Supremacy Baronius presents us also with a Confession of Faith made by one Lucidus and approved by a Synod of Bishops wherein he declares that he believes Eternal Fire and the Flames of Hell prepared for deadly Sins But there is not one word of Purgatory which shews there was no such place invented or at least believed by the Catholicks then And the 7th Epistle of Pope Gelasius as we noted signifies that he knew of no other places in the next World but Heaven and Hell To conclude the Annalist shuts up this Century with a Melancholy Note That at this time there was not one Christian Catholick Prince in the World He might also have added that all the Eastern Patriarchs were separated from the Communion of the Roman Church although three of them that were Orthodox communicated with one another And he might have noted also that at this juncture there was no certain Pope and an Heretical Prince was then Judge of the pretences of Symmachus and Laurentius the Rivals for that See But the true Faith can subsist as well without a Pope as without Orthodox Princes the Church being founded on Christ that invincible Rock against which the Gates of Hell can never prevail The End of the Fifth Centry PART IV. CENT VI. CHAP. I. Errors and Forgeries in the Councils from the Year 500 to the End of the Fifth General Council An. Dom. 553. § 1. WE referred the Councils said to be held under Pope Symmachus to the begining of this Century And the first Six are pretended to be held at Rome
the Church when the Pope is resolved not to come and herein they follow the Example of the Council of Chalcedon who proceeded without the Popes Legates when they would not stay and join with them Wherefore in the third Collation this 5th Council declared the true Faith and in the 4th and 5th examine the Cause of Theodorus and Theodoret On the fifth day saith Baronius Pope Vigilius sent his Constitution to the Council being made by the advice of 16 Bishops and 3 Deacons and designed to oblige the whole Church the Western agreeing with him in it and delivered by Apostolical Authority Wherein he confirms the three Chapters declaring 1st That Theodorus of Mopsvestia cannot be condemned after his death 2ly That Theodoret's name should not be taxed 3ly That Ibas Epistle to Maris was Catholick and both he and that Epistle received by the Council of Chalcedon as Catholick and Orthodox But Binius cuts off the five last Columns which are added by Baronius and Labbè and which shew how fully Vigilius confirmed all the three Chapters Chap. iv In the 6th Collation the Council having received this Constitution do notwithstanding go on to examine Ibas Epistle And wonder any dare presume to say it was received by the Council of Chalcedon Which Baronius owns was levelled at Vigilius though out of respect he be not named And after a strict Examination They pronounce that the approvers of this Epistle are Followers of Theodorus and Nestorius the Hereticks They shew the Council at Chalcedon owns God was made Man which this Epistle calls Apollinarism That Council confesses Mary to be the Mother of God the Epistle denies it They commend the Council of Ephesus and Cyril's twelve Chapters condemning Nestorius Ibas condemns the Council of Ephesus defends Nestorius and calls Cyril an Heretick and his 12 Chapters impious They stuck to Cyril's Faith and the Nicene Creed he condemns Cyril's Faith and commends Theodorus his Creed They held two Natures but one Person in Christ He is for two Persons also Whereupon this 5th Council Decree the whole Epistle to be Heretical and Anathematize all as Hereticks who receive it And for this reason Binius leaves out of his Edition the most of that part of Vigilius's Constitution which concerns Ibas his Epistle And Baronius who puts it in with the Nestorians would excuse it by saying the latter part of this Epistle is Orthodox But the Council condemns the whole Epistle and all that say any part of it is right and all that write for it or defend it So that Pope Vigilius Baronius Bellarmine and all the Writers for this Heretical Epistle were and are accursed by the Sentence of this General Council And if as Baronius pretends the Popes Legates at Chalcedon say that Ibas appeared a Catholick by this Epistle the 5th Council shews the Fathers at Chalcedon condemned it not heeding what two or three said Baronius urges as the Nestorians did that Eunomius said at Chalcedon the latter end of Ibas Epistle was Orthodox but the 5th Council saith this is a Calumny and cite the very words of Eunomius out of the Council at Chalcedon which import that Ibas was innocent after he had agreed with Cyril and renounced his Epistle which he had done in the Acts before Photius and Eustathius The 7th Collation of this 5th Council was only repeating and approving former Acts In the 8th Collation Baronius owns this Council condemned the three Chapters contrary to Vigilius Decree and Anathematize all that did defend them that is Vigilius whom Baronius often commends as a defender of them Yea they declare them Hereticks by the Doctrin of the Scriptures and holy Fathers and of the four former Councils All which therefore Vigilius contradicted in his Constitution And whatever Baronius first says to disparage this Council it was ratified by the 6th Council by the seventh or second Nicene Council Act. 6. yea and as Baronius confesseth by all succeeding General Councils by the Popes Pelagius Gregory the Great Agatho Leo the second and by all succeeding Popes who were sworn to observe all the General Councils and this among others To which we may add the Councils of Basil and Constance and all the Catholick Church till Leo the 10th's Lateran Council An. 1516 which contrary to the Catholick Faith decreed no Council could condemn a Pope Wherefore we may conclude Vigilius was a condemned Heretick Chap. v. Now let us examine Baronius his shifts and those Binius learns from him First they pretend this was not a point of Faith but concerned only persons Which is most false For the Emperor Justinian calls it a matter of Faith so doth the 5th Council it self declare Yea Vigilius in his Constitution calls the condemning these three Chapters Erring from the Faith and Facundus the Apologist for them saith the opposing them was rooting out the Catholick and Apostolick Faith On the other side Pope Pelagius saith they are contrary to the Faith and to receive them is to overthrow the Faith of Ephesus which Epistle Gregory the Great confirms Bellarmine saith that is de fide which a Council defines to be so and calls the opposers of it Hereticks and accurseth them And Baronius calls the Emperors Edict for the three Chapters Sanctio de fide Catholica and Fidei decretum So that it must be a matter of Faith And Gregory the Great was mistaken if he meant that this 5th Council handled no matters of Faith but treated of Persons For the contrary is manifest But indeed Gregory means they altered no point of Faith established at Chalcedon as some in his time fancied only condemning the persons there examined but still it was by shewing they held notorious Heresies Chap. vi But to consider the three Chapters severally The first was about Theodorus of Mopsvestia who as Vigilius saith should not be condemned after he was dead citing Leo and Gelasius for it as having decreed it for a point of Faith But on the other side St. Austin declares if Caecilian were guilty of the Crimes objected 100 years after his death he would Anathematize him Pelagius urges and approves of this Doctrin of St. Austin and saith Leo agreed with him The same is proved in the 5th Council to have been the Opinion of St. Cyril of the African Council c. Thus also Domnus was condemned at Chalcedon after his death and many of the old Hereticks Honorius was condemned by name sixty years after his death Yea Baronius who urges this in excuse of Vigilius in one place in another declares that it is a mistake and that the Church of Rome doth condemn Men after their death So as he is forced to commend and condemn the same Fact and to excuse this reason of Vigilius he
THE CHURCH HISTORY Clear'd from the Roman Forgeries And Corruptions found in the COUNCILS and BARONIUS In Four Parts FROM The Beginning of Christianity to the End of the Fifth General Council 553. 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. Imprimatur Martii 2. 1688 9. T. Alston R. P. D. HEN. Episc Lond. à Sacris Domesticis TO THE Most Reverend Father in GOD THOMAS By Divine Providence Lord Arch-Bishop of YORK PRIMATE OF ENGLAND AND METROPOLITAN May it please your Grace THere is nothing more Pleasant in it self nor more Vseful to those of the Sacred Function than the Study of Ecclesiastical Antiquity But yet many of that Order have not the Advantage or the Opportunity to acquire this Knowledge from the Original Authors and therefore are forced to seek it in the Roman Editions of the Councils and the Modern Historians of that Church Where every thing is misrepresented and placed in so False a Light that its hard to find out what is Truth Some of the genuine Remains of Antiquity they have concealed but they have falsified and altered more and added so much to the Primitive Records especially in the first Four Centuries that near Three Parts of Four both in Baronius and the Councils are modern Forgeries manifest Legends and impertinent Excursions into Sophistical Vindications of the later Doctrins and Practices of Rome It would therefore be a Work worthy of this excellent Church in so Learned an Age to make an acurate Collection of that and only that which is true and certain in the Primitive History and Councils 'T is true divers Eminent Men have made some steps toward it but it is too great an Vndertaking for any One Man to accomplish as appears by that generous Project of Dr. Thomas James Proposed to the Most Learned Primate of Ireland to employ a Select Company of both Universities with due Assistances and Encouragement for the perfecting this Design Wherefore in the mean time it may be serviceable to gather together some Materials for so Noble a purpose and that first encouraged me to make these Observations as I was Reading the Annals of Baronius with the Councils Which I have by the Advice of some of my Friends Methodically digested in this little Tract and I hope it may be useful not only to direct such as apply themselves to this kind of Study but also to confirm others of Our own Communion in their firm Adherence to their Excellent Religion when they see so many plain Evidences That all the Roman Churches Pretences to Antiquity both in Doctrin and Worship are founded on and maintained by little else but those Forgeries and Corruptions by which they Imposed upon the Ignorant and Easie World for Six or Seven Centuries together These Pious Frauds as They counted them did indeed then advance their Interest and establish their Errors but now when they are detected by this Discerning Generation they prove their utter Shame and did not Secular Advantages and Implicit Faith or Fear and Inquisitions hinder those under their Yoke from being acquainted or however from owning these unfaithful Actings of their Spiritual Guides These Discoveries would not only secure Our People but make many Converts from Them But My Lord whatever the Work or the Success be I am obliged to lay it at Your Graces Feet as the first thing I have made Public since Your Graces happy Advancement to the Government of this Church whereof I am a Member and wherein by Your Graces Influence I shall study to serve the Primitive-Protestant-Church of England Which I beseech Almighty GOD to defend from all its Enemies and long to preserve Your Grace to be a Support and an Honour to it So Prays MY LORD Your Graces most Dutiful Son and Servant THO COMBER York Aug. 20. 1689. THE Introduction WHen Campian long ago undertook to defend the Roman Cause he boasted that He was strengthned with the firm and powerful Guard of all the Councils and that all the General Councils were on his side Which vain Brag the Writers from the Roman Church do frequently repeat to this very day But he that with Judgment and Diligence shall peruse their own allowed Editions of the Councils will easily discover the falshood of this Assertion For there is such adding and expunging such altering and disguising things in the Body of the Councils and such excusing falsifying and shuffling in the Notes that a Judicious Reader will soon perceive these Venerable Records truly set down and explained do not favour them But these Corruptions are carried on with such Confidence and Cunning that an unexeperienced and unwary Student may be imposed on by this specious shew of Venerable Antiquity For their sakes therefore it 's necessary to take a short view of that Fraud and Policy which is so commonly made use of in those Editions of the Councils which pass through the Roman Mint especially in those which are in most use among us viz. The Edition of Severinus Binius and that of Labbé and Cossartius wherein Binius his Notes are printed verbatim Which useful design was begun by a Learned and Ingenious Gentleman in a Tract entituled Roman Forgeries printed at London An. 1673 But that Author doth not follow the exact order of Time nor doth he go much beyond the Nicene Council and even in that Period he left out many plain Instances And whereas he died before he had proceeded any further I resolved to begin where he left off But for Methods sake and to make thid Discourse more entire I have begun with the first Century and so proceeded according to the order of the several Councils only writing more briefly upon the Three first Centuries which were largely treated of in that Author before deducing the account of these Impostures down to the end of the Fourth Century and shewing as I go along what Artifices have been used by the Editors and Annotator to dress up these Ancient Evidences so as to make them look favourably upon their great Diana the Supremacy and other Corruptions of the Roman Church To this end they have published many spurious Councils many counterfeit Canons and forged Decretals and for such as are genuine they have frequently altered the Text both by Additions and Diminutions and have so disguised the Sense by partial and fallacious Notes that it will be evident by the Remarks here made upon them their business in the publishing these Volumes was not to promote the Truth but to serve a Party Nor can any thing else be expected from Binius his Notes which as he owns in his Preface He took out of Baronius Bellarmin and Possevin The design of which three Men saith Richerius an ingenuous Sorbon Doctor is evident to all Men to have been no other but to prove the Pope was
appointed by Christ to be the absolute Monarch and Infallible Judge of his Church And since the Notes chiefly follow Baronius we have as we go along in every Period noted several of the designed Falshoods and of the Contradictions Errors and Mistakes in his Annals Which History is so full of Forgeries false Quotations and feigned Tales to set up the Credit of the Roman Church and its corrupt Opinions and Practices that to discover them all would require almost as many Volumes as his Annals make So that we must content our selves with some of the plainest Instances which fall into this Matter of the Councils and will set them in a clear Light and shew they are as contrary to Reason as they are to true History Which Vndertaking we hope will be many ways useful First It will tend to the ease of those who intend to read over the Tomes of the Councils or the Annals of Baronius and save them much time and pains by presenting the principal Errors of those great Volumes at one View which they would spend a long time in searching after if they were to gather them up as they lye dispersed Secondly It may be very useful to those who desire to be rightly informed in the Controversies between us and the Roman Church because it will give them a clear prospect of what Councils and other Antiquities are Authentic and may be allowed for Evidence in this Dispute wherein our Adversaries have so little regard to their own Honour that generally one half of their Evidence is such as they have either forged or corrupted Thirdly It will be necessary by way of Antidote to prepare those who by reading Books so full of Infection may by these plausible Falsifications be in danger to be seduced into a great esteem of the Opinions and Practices of the Roman Church when they find so many seemingly ancient Tracts and Councils brought in to justifie her in all things and see by this false Light all Ecclesiastical History and Records so modelled as to perswade their Readers That in the purest Christian Times all things were believed and done in the Catholic Church just as they are now at Rome But when it shall appear that all this is a continued Series and train of Impostures it will render their Notions and Practices not only suspected but odious as needing such vile and base Artifices to make them seem agreeable to true Antiquity To this it may be Objected That divers of the Modern Writers of this Church and especially the most Learned do now own divers of these Forgeries which we here detect to have been spurious and therefore it seems needless to prove that which they have already granted us I reply That none of them own all these Corruptions and divers of their Authors cite them very confidently to this very day and still the things themselves stand in their most approved Editions of Councils and the Remarks are only in Marginal Notes But since they were believed in those Ages while their Supremacy and other Novel Doctrins were setting up and were urged for good Proofs till these Opinions had taken root it is not satisfaction enough to renounce that Evidence of which they now have no more need unless they disclaim the Doctrins also to which they first gave Credit And till they do this it is fit the World should know by what False Evidence they first gained these Points For if a Man should get an Estate by Bribing his Iury and his Witnesses it is not enough for him to confess these Persons were Suborned unless he restore the Ill gotten Lands and till he restore them he ought to be upbraided with his Bribery even after he hath acknowledged it Secondly It may be alledged That Junius River and Daillé abroad Perkins Cook and James at home have taken great pains on this Subject and that the Learned Author of the Historieal Examination of the Authority of General Councils printed at London 1688. hath already handled this Argument I Answer That the Six former are chiefly concerned in the Tracts of particular Fathers and make few Remarks on the Councils The last indeed keeps close to the Great Councils but passes over the Small ones and any who compares this Discourse with that will find the Design the Method and Instances so different that this Discourse will still be useful in its kind as that will be also For here in an acurate Order all the Frauds of that Church are put together throughout every Century not only what have been observed by others but many now first taken notice of and not observed before And indeed the Instances of these Frauds are so many that we have been forced to give but brief Touches upon divers of the Particulars and could neither enlarge upon single Instances nor adorn the Style our business being chiefly to direct the younger Students in Ecclesiastical Antiquity and if our Remakrs be but so clear as to be understood by and useful to them we have our Aim And it is hoped this may suffice to prove That the genuine Records of Councils do condemn the Modern Doctrin Worship and Discipline of the Roman Church and that whatever in these Editions of them seems to countenance those things are Forgeries and Corruptions devised on purpose to set a false gloss upon their Modern Inventions The Methodical Discovery whereof may convince any unprejudiced Man That Ours is the truly Ancient and Catholic Religion and Theirs a Device of later times which cannot be rendred any way agreeable to the Primitive Writings without innumerable Impostures and Falsifications A BRIEF ACCOUNT OF THE Roman Forgeries IN THE VOLUMES OF THE COUNCILS For the First Three Centuries PART I. CHAPTER I. Of the Forgeries in the First Century § 1. THE Volumes of the COUNCILS in the Edition of Labbe and Cossartius begin with divers Tracts and in Binius's Edition with several Epistles designed to prepossess the Reader with false Notions of the Popes supreme Power over Councils and his Parties high Reverence for them as also of the Protestants having corrupted or else rejected the greatest part of them But this whole Discourse will sufficiently shew the notorious untruth both of their boasting concerning Their own side and of their Censures concerning Ours In the Account of Scripture Councils where they pretend to recite the words of Scripture they add for to give colour to their new Supremacy That Peter stood up as the Principal and Head And again as the Supreme and Head S. Luke in the Acts Chap. VI. 2. saith The Twelve Apostles gave the multitude leave to elect Seven Deacons Binius's Notes say They had this leave by the favour and grant of Peter S. Luke Chap. XV. declares That the Question about Circumcision was finally determined by S. James who also cited Scripture for his determination ver 16 17. But Binius's Notes say This matter was determined not by Scripture but by the Suffrage of the Apostles and
by the Judgment of Peter The same Notes a little after tell us That this Council committed the care of the Circumcised Converts to Peter which was a poor Preferment for that Apostle if Christ had made him Supreme Head and committed to him long before the Care of the whole Catholic Church To these Passages of Holy Scripture the Editors have tacked a sabulous Story of the Assumption of the Virgin Mary but they do not Cite one genuine Ancient Author to prove it That Book which bears the Title of Dionysius Areopagitus being invented many Ages after as Learned men on all sides now agree § 2. That Ancient Collection of Canons which were decreed by the Apostolical Men in divers Synods held during the Times of Persecution is published by these Editors under the Title of The Canons of the Holy Apostles and their Notes affirm They were made by the Authority of the Apostles yet they are not agreed either about their Number or Authority They print LXXXIV Canons but the Notes say only the first Fifty of them are Authentic but the rest may and ought also to be received since they contain nothing Two of them excepted viz. the 65th and 84th Canons which contradict the Roman Church but what is approved by some Popes Councils and Fathers Now if as they say the Apostles made them their Church hath been very negligent to lose the certain Account of their number and it is not very modest to pretend to try the Apostles Decrees by Popes Councils and Fathers yet it is plain they make no distinction between the first Fifty and the following Thirty four rejecting all that oppose their present Doctrine and Practice as may be seen in these Instances The Sixth Canon forbids a Bishop Priest or Deacon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to put away or be divorced from his Wife on pretence of Religion The Notes pervert the Sense of this Canon as if it only forbid Clergy Men to cast off the care of providing for their Wives and prove this Sense by a false Title which Dionysius Exiguus put to this Canon in his Version many Centuries after and by an Epistle of Pope Clement the First which all Men own now to be spurious and by an Epistle of Pope Gregory who lived in the Year 600 as if the Sense of Dionysius and Pope Gregory when Single life was superstitiously pressed upon the Clergy were good proof that Clergy Men did not live with their Wives many Ages before that superstitious Opinion was heard of 'T is certain the Greek Clergy are Married and cohabit with their Wives according to this Apostolical Canon and the Fifteenth Canon of the Sixth General Council And it is not unpleasant to observe That these Notes cite the Second Council of Nice to prove there were no Canons made in the Sixth General Council yet that very Nicene Council often Quotes and highly approves the 82d Canon of the Sixth General Council as giving some Countenance to their Image-Worship So that their wresting this Canon Apostolical from its genuine meaning upon such slight and false Evidence is in effect rejecting it The Ninth Canon orders All the Clergy and Laity who are in the Church to Receive the Sacrament unless they have a just Excuse But the Roman Church allows the People generally to stand by and look on and therefore though this be one of the Authentic Canons before said by them to be made by the Apostles after some shuffling to restrain it contrary to the very words of the Canon only to the Clergy The Notes say This whole Decree was made only by Human not by Divine Authority and is now abrogated by a contrary Custom So that if a Canon of the Apostles themselves contradict a Corrupt practice of their Church it must be abrogated and rejected The 17th Canon saith He that keeps a Concubine shall not be in any Order of the Clergy The Notes cite some of their Doctors who affirm That this Crime doth not make a Clerk irregular and that this Canon is now revoked The Annotator himself is of Opinion It is only public keeping a Concubine by reason of the Infamy which makes a Clergy-mans Orders void Wherefore such Sinners have now more favourable Casuists at Rome than the Apostles or Apostolical Men were The 65th Canon though it have as good Evidence for it as any of the rest is rejected by the Notes because it forbids Men to fast on Saturday which is now a Fasting-day at Rome The Notes say No Father mentions this Canon but presently own That Ignatius Clemens Romanus the Canons of the Sixth General Council Gregory Nyssen and Anastasius Nicaenus to which we add Tertullian do all speak of Saturday as a Day on which Fasting was forbid The Notes confess also That the Eastern-Church and the Church of Milan in S. Ambrose time allowed not Fasting upon Saturday yet after all they will not grant this Canon to be genuine only because it is very unlikely that the Church of Rome should contradict a Canon of the Apostles whereas we have already seen it makes no scruple to contradict them if they agree not with their practice The Notes indeed say but without any proof That Rome received the Saturday Fast from Peter and Paul yet they grant soon after That after the Heresie of Marcion was extinct the Roman Church did not only lawfully but piously Fast on Saturday So that this was a private Custom of the Roman Church in which it differed from all other Churches and they know not when it began nor who it came from yet for such a Customs sake they reject an Apostolical Canon The 69th Canon expresly enjoyns the Wednesday Fast and the Notes say That many Fathers mention it as of ancient Institution yea these Notes affirm It was certainly a Fast of the Apostles instituting being observed by the whole Church and not appointed by any Council but spoken of by Authors of greatest Antiquity Well then I hope the Roman Church whose Customs are all said to be Apostolical do keep this Wednesday Fast They tell you No This Wednesday Fast in their Church is changed into the Saturday Fast And so farewel to this Canon also Lastly the 84th Canon gives us a Canon of Scripture which doth not agree with the Trent Canon for it rejects Ecclesiasticus from being Canonical and mentions not Wisdom Tobit Judith nor in Old Copies the Book of Machabees which the Roman Church now say are Canonical Scripture And this is the true reason why the Notes reject this Canon They alledge indeed some other frivilous reasons such as the leaving out the Revelations and putting in Clements Constitutions But it seems very probable to me that it was not the Greeks as the Notes suggest but that Impostor who gave these Canons a false Title and called them the Apostles Canons which for carrying on his Pious Fraud left out the Revelations being not written
at that time when he would have us believe these Canons were made and He also put in the Constitutions which are forged in the name of the Apostles who were to be set up as Authors also of these Canons And if that were so this 84th Canon being cleared from those two Corruptions is an Ancient and very Authentic Record of the true and genuine Books of Holy Scripture but the Romanists reject it as being a good evidence against their New Trent Canon § 3. To these Canons are joyned a pretended Council of the Apostles at Antioch first put into the Tomes of the Councils by Binius and continued by Labbè one Canon of which allows Christians to make an image of Christ But this notorius and improbable Forgery was never heard of in any Author till that infamous second Nicene Council which wanting proofs for Image-worship from genuine Antiquity impudently feigned such Authorities as this pretended Council § 4. The Pontifical or Lives of the Popes which begins here bears the Title of Pope Damasus but the Notes say Damasus was not Author of it being evidently patched up out of two different Authors containing contradictions almost in every Popes Life So that no account is to be made of a Writing so different from it self Now if this be as it certainly is a True Character of the Pontifical Why do these Editors print it Why do the Notes so often cite it as good Hisstory Why do their Divines quote it as good Authority to prove their Modern Corruptions to have been primitive Rites Since it is a manifest Legend and contained at first nothing but the bare Names and continuance of the several Popes and was filled up by Isidore Mercator who forged the Decretal Epistles with many improbable Fictions unsuitable both to the Men and Times for which they were invented and designed to be a ground for those Decretal Epistles and to make the World believe that all the Popes were considerable for their Actions in all Ages as Dr. Peirson hath excellently proved in his Learned Post humous Dissertation Yet not only these Editors of the Councils print this corrupt Legend but their very Breviaries and Missals generally appoint the Lessons out of it on the Festivals of these Ancient Popes publishing in the very Church in time of Divine Service these Fictions for the true ground of the Peoples Devotions on those Days I confess Binius out of Baronius hath Notes upon every Pope ' s Life and rejects commonly some part of it but then it is such passages as no way concern the opinion or practice of the present Roman Church For the passages which do agree thereto though equally false he generally defends yea cites them to prove their Modern Faith and Usages But as we come to the several Popes Lives which these Editors make the grand direction in Ecclesiastical Chronology we shall observe the many and gross Errors contained in it We begin with the Life of S. Peter whom if we do allow to have been at Rome as this Author reports yet we cannot believe he ordained three Bishops for his Successors there in his Life-time viz. Linus Cletus and Clement Nor that he was Buried in three several places in Apollo ' s Temple and besides Nero ' s Pallace in the Vatican and besides the Triumphal Territory which this fabulous Writer affirms Nor will the Annotator admit that S. Peter could be Crucified by Nero in the 38th year after Christ ' s Passion which was three years almost after Nero's own Death § 5. The next place ever since P. Crabs Edition is by the Roman Editors allotted to a Treatise of the Popes Supremacy writ of late Times by some manifest Sycophant of the Roman Church yet placed here among the Venerable Antiquities of the Apostolic Age to clap a false Biass on the unwary Reader and make him apt to believe that which Richerius said is the main design of Bellarmin Baronius and Possevine in all their Works viz. that the Pope was made by Christ the infallible and absolute Monarch of the Church but the Tract it self makes out this high Claim chiefly by the Decretal Epistles which are now confessed to be Forgeries And by the Sayings of Popes who were not to be believed in their own case To which are added some few Fragments of the Fathers falsly applied and certain false Arguments which have been confuted a thousand times So that the placing this Treatise here serves only to shew the Editors partiality to promote a bad Cause § 6. The Pontifical places Linus as S. Peters Successor but the Notes confess that the Fathers are not agreed about it They own that Tertullian Epiphanius and Ruffinus make Clement to succeed Peter and the 〈◊〉 Learned Bishop of Chester proves Linus was dead before Peter Irenaeus doth not say as the Notes falsly cite him that Linus succeeded Peter in the Government of the universal Church but only that Peter and Paul delivered the Administration of that Church to him which they had founded at Rome Which they might do in their Life time while they went to preach in other places The Epistle of Ignatius to Mary Cassibolite and the Verses attributed to Tertullian which they bring for proof of this Succession are confessed to be spurious Tracts St. Hierom is dubious and upon the whole matter there is no certainty who was Bishop of Rome next to the Apostles and therefore the Romanists build on an ill Bottom when they lay so great weight on their personal Succession § 7. The like Blunder there is about the next Pope The fabulous Pontifical makes Cletus succeed Linus and gives us several Lives of Cletus and Anacletus making them of several Nations and to have been Popes at different times putting Clement between them Yet the aforesaid Learned Bishop of Chester proves these were only two names of the same Person But the Notes attempt to justifie the forged Pontifical by impudently affirming that Ignatius Anacletus contemporary Irenaeus Eusebius St. Augustine and Optatus were all mistaken or all wronged by their Transcribers who leave out Cletus But every Candid Reader will rather believe the Mistake to be in the Pontifical which is a meer heap of Errors and in the Roman Martyrology and Missal which blindly follow it rather than in those Eminent and Ancient Fathers And every one may see the Folly of the Romish Church which Venerates two several Saints on two several Days one of which never had a real Being for Cletus is but the abbreviation of Anacletus his Name § 8. After this we have the Life of Clement wherein the Pontifical makes him succeed Cletus under those Consuls which were in Office the next year after S. Peter's Martyrdom though he had assigned 23 years to Linus and Cletus his pretended Predecessors which years must all be expired in one years compass if this Account be true and one would admire the stupidity of
will easily discern that the Notes cannot reconcile them without flying to a Miracle It is evident they have told us the Body of S. Peter was in the Vatican when Pope Victor was there Buried An. 203 And there is no Author of Credit mentions their removal into the Catacumbae and so consequently no reason to believe they were fetcht back from thence in a time of Persecution Pope Gregory lived 350 years after this and was very apt to credit feigned Miracles and he differs much from the Pontifical so that probably the whole Story is forged by those who long after began superstitiously to adore the Relicks of Saints However it is read in the Roman Church Septemb. 16. and many devout People on the Credit of this Legend make Pilgrimages and offer Prayers and large Gifts to the Shrines of these two Apostles of whose true Relicks they can have none because their real Graves are not known In this Pope's time there were two Councils holden at Carthage two at Rome and one in Italy all which in the general Titles are said to be held under Cornelius though the Notes assure us That those two at Carthage were called by S. Cyprian's Authority and that the Italian Bishops made a Decree of their own besides that of Cornelius at Rome The Roman Councils indeed were holden under Cornelius as being Bishop of that City but we may observe He did not Authoritatively confirm the Sentence of the Council of Carthage but only consented to it We may also Note This African Council calls not Pope Cornelius Father but Brother and writes to him as one of their Collegues yea they do not except Cornelius when they Decree That if any of their Collegues agreed not to their Sentence he should answer it at the Day of Judgment Moreover in the same Letter there is an evident Testimony that the People in those days were prepared for Martyrdom by receiving the Eucharistical Cup which being now denied to the Laity the Editors pass it by without a Note yet soon after where the Council plainly speaks of Confessing the Name of Christ before Persecutors they have this impertinent Marginal Note From this and other places the necessity of Confession is confirmed As if this belonged to their new invented Auricular Confession § 4. The Notes find divers Faults in the Life of Pope Lucius yet they would palliare the grossest of all for the Pontifical says He was Beheaded by Valerian the Notes affirm it was by Gallus and Volusiunus and yet the same Notes tell us The Pontifical in saying it was by Vulerian may be very well and truly expounded The Reader must understand It may be so expounded by such kind of Notes as are designed to make gress Errors seem great Truths Pope Stephen who succeeded Lucius fell out with Cyprian and the African Bishops about the re-baptizing of Heretics which though it were the only memorable thing in this Popes Life the Pontifical never mentions And the Editors are are so used to put into the Title of all Councils Under such or such a Pope that in this Popes time they style those very Councils Sub Stephano which were called without his knowledge and which condemned his Opinion as may be seen in the Councils of Carthage Iconium and Africa where so easily may Tradition be mistaken the Re-baptizing of Heretics is asserted to be an Apostolick Tradition though it were contrary to Pope Stephen's Opinion and the Tradition of the Roman Church And when Stephen on this account presumed to Excommunicate the Asian Bishops Firmilianus Bishop of Coesarea in a Letter to S. Cyprian Despises his Sentence compares the Pope to Judas complains of his Arrogance and esteems those to be very silly who took the Roman Bishop's word for an Apostolical Tradition from which that Church in many Instances had departed Moreover He calls him a Schismatic and affirms he had by this rash Sentence only cut himself off from the Unity of the Catholic Church S. Cyprian also and his Africans condemned this Pope as a Favourer of Heretics an Enemy to the Church and one who writ Contradictions and was void of Prudence describing him as an Innovator and bringer in of Traditions contrary to God's Word as one who obstinately presumed to prefer human Doctrines before Scripture I grant Pope Stephen was in the right in this Controversie yet doubtless if these Bishops had believed the Supremacy and Infallibility of the Pope and his Roman Council they could not have used him at this rate And the Editors are so concerned to cover this rough usage that they reprint an Epistle of S. Cyprian's Verbatim after this Quarrel was grown hot which was writ while they two were Friends and contains very kind Words to Stephen which Blind is only to make us think that Cyprian submitted to the Pope at last though it is apparent he never did so Again the Reader may note that Labbè here prints a Tract of some Ancient Author to justify the Pope's Opinion but though there be many good Arguments for it from other Topics the Argument from Tradition and the determination of the Roman Church is not urged in the whole Discourse which shews that these were no Arguments allowed in this Writers time Lastly whereas the third Council of Carthage severely censures Pope Stephen for taking upon him as Bishop of Bishops and for compelling his Equals by Tyrannical Terrors to obey him Binius impudently notes upon this that the Pope was called Bishop of Bishops to him was the last Refuge in Matters of Faith and his Determinations were received all the World over as the Oracles of the Holy Ghost Which is from his Usurping a Title and Authority to infer he had Right to them and to prove that all the World received his Determinations from a Story which shews that half the Christian World rejected them § 5. The Life of Sixtus the Second in the Pontifical is one heap of Errors for the Author seems to mistake him for Xystus the Philosopher and as the Notes confess make Decius raise a great Persecution against the Church Eight year after he was Dead He also places Valerian before Decius supposing them to Reign together and saying Sixtus was Beheaded by Valerian in Decius's time now Decius was slain two year before Valerian was Emperor Yet the Notes labour to colour over all these Contradictions to Salve the Credit of their Missals and Fabulous Maityrology Dionysius the next Pope is said to have been a Monk upon the credit of the Pontifical the Notes add that he Lived a Solitary Life before his Election yet the Modern Monks have given over that Primitive Custom and now croud into great Cities But the Pontifical is so miserably mistaken in the Consuls in this Popes Life placing those for his last Consuls who were so two years before those he Names for his first Consuls that nothing can be believed on this Authors credit
Baronius owns that Hosius was Constantine's intimate Friend and his Legate into Egypt six years before and Socrates saith He was now again sent thither as the Emperor's Legate and no doubt if he did preside in this Council it was not as Sylvester's Legate whom no ancient Author records to have had any hand in this Council but as the Legate of Constantine After these two Councils is placed a Letter of this Emperors to Alexander and Arius taken out of Eusebius but is misplaced by the Editors since it is plain it was written in the beginning of the Controversie about Arius and not only before Constantine understood any thing of the matter but before these Councils at Alexandria But Baronius and the Editors place it here on purpose to Rail at Eusebius as if he put out an Arian Forgery whereas it is a great Truth and Constantine may well be supposed to write thus before he was rightly informed in the Case therefore those Gentlemen do not hurt Eusebius's Reputation but their own in accusing him so falsly upon the old Grudge of his not attesting their Forgeries devised and defended for the Honour of the Roman Church § 15. The Council of Laodicea though it do not appear any Pope knew of it till after it was Risen they resolve shall be held under some Pope the Title saith Under Sylvester Labbé's Margen saith Under Liberius An. 364 or 357 or Under Damasus 367 Whereas in truth it was under no Pope and being placed in the old Collections of Canons after those of Antioch and also mentioning the Photinians it must be held long after the Nicene Council But it was falsly placed before the Nicene Council by Baronius our Editor's main Guide to secure the Book of Judith by the Council of Nice's Authority And the Reasons given for this early placing it are very frivolous For first The softening of a Canon of Naeocaesarea is no certain Mark of time Secondly This Council rejects Judith out of the Canon of Scripture and so did the Council of Nice also for though S. Hierom when he had told us This Book is not of Authority sufficient to determine Controversies adds That the Nicene Synod is read to have computed it among Holy Writings S. Hierom only means They allowed it to be Read for Instruction but did not count it Canonical for doubtless he would not have rejected Judith if that Council had received it into the Canon And he saith elsewhere The Church indeed reads Judith Tobit and the Macchabees but receives them not among Canonical Scriptures and again A man may receive this Book as be pleaseth Herein therefore the Council of Laodicea doth not contradict the Council of Nice at all as these Notes falsly pretend Thirdly This Councels decreeing the same things which were decreed at Nice without naming it is no Argument it was held before that of Nice nothing being more ordinary than for later Councils to renew older Canons without citing the former Councils for them The Notes on the Second Canon at Laodicea which supposes Penitents to make their Confession by Prayer to God and mentions no Priest would willingly grast the use of their modern Sacramental Confession to a Priest upon this ancient Canon but it rather confutes than countenances that modern device Their labouring to expunge the Photinians out of the Seventh Canon since all the old Greek Copies have these words is meerly to justifie their false Date of this Council The Annotator on the Fifteenth Canon confesseth that S. Paul Commands all the People to joyn in the Hymns and that this Use continued to S. Hierom ' s time yet he owns their pretended Apostolical Church hath altered this Primitive Custom grounded on Holy Scripture and that for very frivolous Reasons But let it be observed That this Canon forbids not the People to bear a part in the Church Service but allows them not to begin or bring in any Hymns into the Public Service The Seventeenth Canon speaks of the Assemblies of the Faithful in two Latin Versions and the Greek is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet because the worst Latin Translation reads in Processionibus the Notes impertinently run out into a discourse of their Superstitious modern Processions for any thing serves them for an occasion to make their late Devices seem ancienter than they are The Thirty fourth Canon mentions and censures those who leaving the Martyrs of Christ go to false Martyrs And the Fifty first Canon mentions the Martyrs Feasts Upon which the Notes most falsly infer That the Martyrs were then adored with Religious Worship But this is only his Invention The Canon speaks not one word of Worshiping Martyrs but only whereas the Orthodox Christian Assemblies were generally in the Burial places of true Martyrs where they offered up Prayers to God Some it seems began to make separate Meetings in Places dedicated to False Martyrs and therefore the properest Note here would have been to have set out the Sin of Schism and the Pious Fraud as they call it of feigning false Martyrs of which their Church is highly guilty The Thirty fifth Canon expresly forbids leaving the Church of God and calling upon Angels which they say is an hidden kind of Idolatry and forsaking Christ the Son of God to go after Idolatry And Theodoret who lived soon after the true time of this Council saith Those who were for Moses ' s Law which was given by Angels brought in the Worship of them which Error reigned long in Phrygia and Pisidia and therefore the Councill of Laodicea in Phrygia did by a Law forbid the Praying to Angels Which Canon doth so evidently condemn the Roman Churches Prayers to the Angels as Idolatry that the former Editors of the Councils impudently corrupted the Text of this Canon and put in Angulos for Angelos as if the Council had only forbid Praying in private Corners whereas not only the Greek but the oldest Latin Copies and Theodoret have Angels But our Editors and Annotator having Baronius for their Guide venture to keep the true Reading Angels in the Text and put Angles into the Margen hoping by false Notes to ward off this severe Blow And first The Notes dare not produce the place of Theodoret at large then they strive to blunder the Reader with a distinction of Dulia and Latria which can signifie nothing here because the Canon and Theodoret both say It is Praying to Angels which is forbid and that the Romanists certainly do Again Baronius censures Theodoret for saying That such Heretics as were for Moses ' s Law brought in ANGEL-Worship But why doth he not censure S. Paul who saith That those who were Jewishly inclined and observed differences of Meats New-Moons and Sabbaths were the Inventers of Angel-Worship The Angelic-Heretics in Epiphanius and S. Augustine who came in afterwards did not as the Notes represent them say That Angels were to be worshiped with the
did not write till An. 1180 yet the Notes out of Baronius do confess that a Pope quoted it An. 1054 that is near an Hundred years before Balsamon was born to justifie his Superiority over the Greek Church and therefore Balsamon was not the Inventer of it Secondly It doth the Greeks no good for it gives the Pope power over all their Patriarchs and reckons Constantinople as the last and lowest Patriarchate so that the Forger could not come out of that Church Thirdly It is grounded on the fabulous Acts of Sylvester writ in Latin and feigned in the Western World and its whole design is to advance the Pope above all Bishops Kings and Emperors and therefore no doubt it was advanced by a Friend of the Popes Fourthly The Notes confess That a Pope first set up this Edict to prove his Universal Supremacy not considering with Baronius it seems that it weakened his Title and the grave and learned Men of the Roman Church received it as Authentic for many Ages after We add That till the Reformation they cited it and writ in defence of it and though now their Point is gained they begin to renounce it yet the Advantage that Church got by it shews that they were the Forgers of it yea it seems Anno 1339 one Johannes Diaconus a Member of the Roman Church was thought to be the Author of it Fifthly Whoever considers how unwilling the Cardinal and our Annotator are to have it clearly rejected will be convinced that their Church gained by it and consequently invented it They labour to prove the Popes temporal Power granted hereby is both probable and true And though they own the French Princes Pipin and Charles who gave many Cities and Countries to S. Peter never mention this Edict yet they argue from their calling those Gifts A restoring them to the Church that they had respect to Constantine's Bounty These Authors also mention Pope Adrian's confirming this Edict and quote the Book of Constantine's Munificence shewed to be a Fable just now to justifie it They also would make out what it saith of the Images of Peter and Paul then kept at Rome by Eusebius but cite him falsly leaving out the main part of his Testimony viz. That it was only some who had such Images and that these imitated the Pagans herein from whence it will not follow That eminent Christians then placed them in their Churches In short Though they dare not say it is true yet they would not have it rejected as false because it gives their admired Church so much Riches and Power and therefore doubtless no Greeks but some of their Church invented this most notorious Forgery And Aeneas Sylvius observes That it was warily done of the Popes to let it be hotly disputed how far this Edict was good in Law that so the Edict it self might still be supposed valid it being their Interest it should be thought so This feigned Donation is followed by a Roman Council under Sylvester in the Preface whereof Sylvester is falsly pretended to have called the Nicene Council and in the body of which there is a Canon That none must judge the Chief Seat not the Emperor nor Kings nor Clergy nor People For the sake of which two advantagious Fictions Baronius and the Annotator defend and justifie this Synod though the Title be ridiculous the Style barbarous and the Matter of it as void of Sense as it is of probability Labbé indeed notes That the Condemning Photinus here shews it was put together by an unskilful Hand and rejects it as a Forgery very justly For Photinus as the Notes confess was not Condemned till long after nor were there any Christian Kings but Constantine the Emperor at that time Besides the Forger first says None of the Laity were present and yet in the next Page affirms That Calpharnius Praefect of the City was there and that Constantine and his Mother Helena subscribed it yea Baronius himself observes That this Council mistakes the Custom of the Roman Church where in that Age Presbyters use to sit in the presence of the Bishops but in this Fiction they are represented as standing with the Deacons Moreover it destroys the Donation Lies seldom hanging together for if Constantine had given the Pope such Supreme Power a few days before what need was there for these Bishops to grant the same thing or however why do they not remember Constantine's late Gift Lastly Arius who then gave so great Trouble to the Church is not mentioned here not as Baronius guesses because he was to be more solemnly Condemned at Nice the next year but because the Forger had nothing in his Eye but meerly to set off the Grandeur of Rome § 17. We are now come to the First and most famous General Council of Nice wherein the worst and most dangerous of all Heresies was suppressed and yet the pretended Judge of all Controversies and Supreme Head of the Church had so little share in this glorious Transaction that it is very uncertain in what Popes time it was called Sozomen and Nicephorus say it was in the time of Julius Others think it was in Sylvester's time Photius affirms it was in the times of both Sylvester and Julius though unhappily Pope Mark was between them two Yet this Council is introduced by a Preface a la Mode a Rome styled The History of the Council of Nice wherein as well as in the Notes and various Editions of this famous Council all imaginable Artifice is used to abuse the Reader into a belief That Pope Sylvester not only called this Council and presided in it by his Legates but also confirmed it by his sole Authority afterwards For the clearer Confutation of which Falshoods we will consider First The Authority which convened this Council Secondly The President of it with the Order of Sitting in it and Subscribing to it Thirdly The Power which confirmed it Fourthly The number of the Canons Fifthly The true Sense of them Sixthly The Forgeries for Supremacy herein inserted Seventhly The corrupt Editions of the Council it self First As to the Authority convening it The Preface saith Constantine assembled it by Sylvester ' s Authority The Notes affirm it was appointed by the Advice Counsel and Authority of Pope Sylvester and again Pope Sylvester by his Pontifical Authority decreed the celebration of a General Council To prove these vain Brags they cite Ruffinus whose Version of this Council they reject yet he only saith That Constantine convened it by the Advice of the Bishops However this is Advice not Authority and Advice of the Bishops in general not of Sylvester in particular and if any Bishops did give the Emperor particular Advice it was those of Alexandria and Constantinople not He of Rome Secondly They quote the Sixth General Council held 350 years after this of Nice and in other things rejected by the Romanists which saith
this Council was called by Sylvester and Constantine But they quote falsly for that Sixth Synod puts the Emperor's Name first and though they are no Evidence against Authors living in the time of the Niâ—ene Council yet even this shews they thought the Emperor's Authority was chiefest in this Matter The Notes also cite the Pontifical which they have so often rejected as Fabulous and Sozomen as if they said the same thing But for Sozomen he never names Sylvester but saith Pope Julius was absent by reason of his great Age and the Pontifical only saith It was called by the Consent of Sylvester not by his Authority and indeed it was called by the consent of all Orthodox Bishops Wherefore there is no good Evidence that the Pope did call it But on the other side All the Ecclesiastical Historians do agree That Constantine Convened it by his own Authority and sent his Letters to Command the Bishops to meet at Nice and not one of them mentions Sylvester as having any hand in this Matter Yea to put us out of all doubt the very Council of Nice it self in their Synodal Epistle writ to Alexandria and extant in these very Editors expresly declares That they were Convened by Constantine's Command Which clear and convincing Proofs shew the Impudence as well as the Falshood of the Annalist and Annotator to talk so confidently of the Pope's Authority in this Matter who if he had as they pretend Convened this Council should have summoned more Western Bishops of which there were so few in this Council that it is plain Either Sylvester did not Summon them or they did not obey his Summons Secondly As to the President of this Council and the Order of Sitting in it and Subscribing to it The Preface and Notes falsly affirm That Hosius Vitus and Vincentius were all three the Pope's Legates and Presidents of this Council and vainly think if it had not been so it could not have been a General Council But if this be necessary to the Being of a General Council surely there is some good Evidence of it Quite contrary The Preface to the Sardican Council is of the Editors or their Friends making and so is no Proof Athanasius saith Hosius was a Prince in the Synods but not that he was President of this Synod or the Pope's Legate Cedrenus and Photius are too late Authors to out-weigh more Ancient and Authentic Writers yet they do not say as the Notes pretend That Sylvester by his Legates gave Authority to this Council Yea Photius places the Bishop of Constantinople before Sylvester and Julius even when he is speaking of the Chief Bishops who met at Nice and he is grosly mistaken also because neither of the Popes did meet there Socrates only saith The Bishop of Rome ' s Presbyters were his Proxies and present at this Counoil but hereby he excludes Hosius who was a Bishop from being a Legate and doth not at all prove Vitus and Vincentius were Presidents Sozomen names not Hosius but these two Presbyters as the Proxies of Pope Julius but reckons that Pope himself in the fourth place Though these Notes in citing Sozomen according to their usual sincerity place the Bishop of Rome first and all the other Patriarchs after him Finally They cite the Subscriptions to prove these Three were Legates and Presidents at Nice but Richerius a Learned Romanist saith These Subscriptions are of as little Credit as the Epistle to Sylvester and adds That the placing these Presbyters before the Bishops is a plain Proof That all these Subscriptions were invented in later Ages because the Pope's Legates never did precede any of the Patriarchs till the Council of Chalcedon As for Hosius he had been the Emperor's Legate long before and divers of the Ancients say He was very Eminent in this Council but not one of them affirms that Hosius was the Pope's Legate This is purely an Invention of Baronius but he only proves it by Conjectures The Truth is Constantine himself was the President of this Council and Sat on a Gilded Throne not as the Preface saith falsly Below all the Bishops but Above all the Bishops as Eusebius an Eye-witness relates and the Notes at last own He sat in the Chief Place yea the Annalist confesseth He acted the part of a Moderator in it Richerius goes further saying It is clear by undoubted Testimonies that the Appointing and Convening of this Council depended on the Authority of Constantine who was the President thereof and he blames Baronius and Binius for wilfully mistaking the Pope's Consent which was requisite as he was Bishop of an Eminent Church for his Authority to which no Pope in that Age pretended It is true there were some Bishops who were Chief among the Ecclesiastics in this Council Eustathius Bishop of Antioch sat uppermost on the Right-side and opened the Synod with a Speech to Constantine Hence some and among the rest Pope Foelix in his Epistle to Zeno affirm He was President of this Council Others say The Bishop of Alexandria presided and indeed all the Patriarchs present Sat above all others of the Clergy yet so as they all gave place to the Emperor when he came in And for the Pope's Legates Baronius and Bellarmin do contend in vain about the Places they had in this Council since no Ancient Author tells us they Sat above the Chief of the Bishops So that this also is a Forgery of the Papal Flatterers to give Countenance to their Churches feigned Supremacy Thirdly As to the Power which confirmed the Canons of this Council the ancient Historians do suppose that Constantine gave these Decrees their binding Power and Record his Letters to injoyn all to observe them And Eusebius who was there saith that The Emperor ratified the Decrees with his Seal But the Annalist and Annotator seek to efface this evidence by Railing at Eusebius and by devising many weak pretences to persuade the Credulous that Pope Sylvester confirmed this Council by his Authority and both the Preface and Notes tell us that this Synod writ a Letter to Sylvester for his confirmation and that he called a Council at Rome and writ back to Ratify what they had done But whoever will but read these two Epistles will find the Latin so Barbarous and the Sense so Intricate that nothing is plain in them but that they are Forged and Labbe's Margin tells us they are Fictions nor dare Baronius own them to be genuine and though Binius cite them for evidence in his Notes yet at some distance he tells us it is evident they are both Corrupted and again he says if they were not both extreme faulty and Commentitious they might be Evidence in this case But Richerius is more Ingenuous and declares That these Epistles are prodigiously salse The Forger of them being so Ignorant as to call Macarius who was then Bishop
of Jerusalem Bishop of Constantinople Yet our Annotator cites Dionysius Exiguus for a Witness of these Epistles whereas Richerius shews they were Forged by some Ignorant Monk long after Dionysius his time who mentions not the Pope ' s confirming of these Canons nor doth he remember these Epistles but only saith it was agreed these Canons should be sent to Sylvester Bishop of Rome The Notes further urge a Roman Council under Pope Sylvester to prove his Confirming these Canons but that Council is a confessed Forgery it self and so proves nothing Lastly The Annotator here and almost every where cites Socrates his speaking of an Ecclesiastical Canon that no Decrees of Councils should be valid without the consent of the Roman Bishop But First Consent is not Confirmation It is the priviledge of every Patriarch as well as of him of Rome That a General Council cannot be held without every one of their consents but this proves not their pretended sole and supreme Power of ratifying all Councils vested in the Pope Besides Socrates here only Historically relates what Pope Julius said in his own Case and therefore the Testimony relies on Julius his Credit and indeed that was a peculiar Case wherein when the Cause of Athanasius was referred by consent of all parties to Julius as Arbitrator the Arians took it out of his Hands against Athanasius his Mind and judged it in a Council to which Julius was not at all summoned which doubtless was very illegal and unjust But yet none can tell where this Ecclesiastical Canon was made which the angry and injured Pope here cites and therefore till it appear whence Julius had this Canon we must be excused if we give no great Deference to it and unless they cou'd prove it was Recorded before the Nicene Council it is very impertinent to expect the Nicene Fathers should Govern their Actions by it So that we conclude not Sylvester but Constantine confirmed this Council Fourthly As to the number of the Canons the Annotator also notoriously prevaricates He confesses that all the Greeks and particularly Theodoret and Ruffinus assert there were but Twenty Canons made there yea that the Sixth Council of Carthage within less than an Hundred years after a diligent search in the three Patriarchal Seats of Alexandria Antioch and Constantinople could find no more than Twenty Canons But the Notes conceal Gratian's naming no more but Twenty Canons and his saying there are but only Twenty Nicene Canons to be found in the Roman Church For all this the Annotator boldly tells us That the truer Opinion or rather that which is most for the Popes interest is that more than Twenty Canons were made there But we will examine his and Baronius's reasons First They say there is no Decree about Easter among the Twenty Canons I reply There is a genuine Epistle of Constantine's in which this matter is determined with the reasons for it which is better than a bare Law without Arguments in a case which had been so much disputed nor could they make any acurate Canon about it till the exact time was Calculated which they referred not to the Pope but to the Bishop of Alexandria Secondly The Notes say S. Ambrose mentions a Canon made at Nice against Bigamists but Baronius himself confesseth that S. Ambrose only saith They treated of this matter but doth not affirm they made a Canon about it Thirdly They plead there was a Decree about the Canon of Scripture made at Nice which is not among these Twenty because S. Hierom saith he had Read that the Nicene Fathers computed Judith among the Books of Holy Scripture I reply S. Hierom only saith they computed it among Holy Writings that is as we shewed before § 15. among Books to be Read for instruction not to be quoted in Dispute For if S. Hierom had believed this Council did receive Judith for Canonical he would not have counted it as he doth to be Apocryphal So that this proves not that there were more Canons Fourthly The Notes affirm there is no Canon now extant here against a Bishops choosing his Successor in his Life time which S. Augustine saith was forbid in this Council which is a gross Untruth since the Eighth Canon forbids two Bishops should be in one City and the Notes own this was the very Canon meant by S. Augustine in the next Leaf Liers should have better Memories Fifthly They say the third Council of Carthage cites a Canon of Nice forbidding to receive the Sacrament after Dinner but if the place be considered as Richerius notes that Council only refers to a former African Synod which had decreed this and not to the Council of Nice Sixthly The Annotator speaks of a Canon about Appeals to Rome cited out of this Synod in the Sixth Council of Carthage but he was wiser than to tell us who cited this for a Nicene Canon for it was Pope Zosimus's Legate cited it and he was convicted of a notorious Falsification therein as shall be shewed in due place Seventhly He saith there was a Canon made at Nice but not to be found among the Twenty that a Cause tried in a lesser Synod might be judged over again in a greater and for this he cites the Fourth Epistle of Julius but in his Notes on that Epistle he confesseth this was no Canon made at Nice but only it was matter of Fact in that this great Synod did judge Arius over again who had before been judged at Alexandria Eightly The Notes say Atticus Bishop of Constantinople at Chalcedon did affirm that the Nicene Council agreed upon a Form of writing Communicatory Epistles which is not among these Twenty Canons I reply Baronius and he both own this Form was to be a Secret among the Bishops and if it had been put into a Canon Heretics might easily have counterfeited these Forms and so the design had been spoiled Lastly the Annotator cites Sozomen to proves that the Nicene Council added to the Gloria Patri the later part As it was in the beginning c. Whereas Sozomen in that place only speaks of such as praised God in Hymns agreeing to the Faith delivered at Nice but mentions no Canon or Form of words agreed on at Nice about these Hymns So that after all this shuffling it is very impertinent for this Annotator to brag that it is manifest there were more than Twenty Canons made in this Council and Nonsense to tell us that the Greeks who stifly maintain there were but Twenty Canons cannot deny but there were more than Twenty And for all his Confidence neither he nor Baronius dare defend those Eighty Canons which Turrian hath fathered on this Council and therefore whatever is more than these twenty or differing from them must pass among the many Forgeries of the Roman Church Fifthly As to the Sense of those Canons which oppose the Pope's Interest the Notes use many Impostures in expounding
them The Third Canon forbids the Clergy to cohabit with Women taken into their Houses unless they were so near of Kin as to avoid Suspicion and Scandal Which plainly supposes that they might have Wives because cohabiting with them could give no Suspicion nor Scandal And since the Canon names not Wives who were the most likely to dwell with their Husbands doubtless this Council did not suppose the cohabitation of the Clergy with their Wives to be unlawful Yea not only Socrates and Sozomen 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
Brother even when they Complement him as a great Master and Doctor which smells strong of the Forge and if this Epistle were made up there then the Notes need not triumph so much when it says upon Jovinians being condemned at Rome That the Bishop of Rome had looked well to the Gate committed to him that is say they the Gate of the whole Church of which Christ made S. Peter's Successor the Door-keepers But if the Epistle be true it only commends the Pope for looking well to the Gate of his own Church at Rome as they had done to their Gate at Milan having turned him out of that Church before The third Epistle of Siricius is like the former for style and sense yet the Editors will not reject it because the Pope saith He hath the care of all the Churches but let it be noted that Aurelius Bishop of Carthage uses the same words of himself a little after and there Binius notes That Aurelius means of the Churches of Africa only not of the whole World So we may say justly of Siricius here that he means He had the Care of the Suburbicarian Churches not those of the whole World For the fourth Epistle said to be writ from a Roman Council calls the Pope no more but a Primate and that Title belonged to the Bishop of Carthage as well as to him of Rome but indeed Labbé honestly confesses this fourth Epistle to be stollen out of Innocent's Epistle to Victricius The fifth and sixth Epistles are writ by Maximus an Usurper of the Empire and seem to be genuine but we need not wonder at the Tyrants speaking so kind things of the Pope in them since it was his interest to Flatter the Bishop of that potent City § 30. This Maximus having seized on the Northwest parts of the Empire summoned a Council at Bourdeaux which the Editors without any ground style under Siricius wherein the Bishops of the Gaâ—ican Church again condemned the Priscillianists and they appealed not to the Pope but to the Emperour Maximus who was so far from favouring these Heretics that at the instance of Ithacius a Catholic Bishop he caused them to be put to death for their Heresie Which cruel Sentence so displeased Theognistus and other Orthodox Bishops that they Excommunicated Ithacius and all his Party who had procured these Heretics to be put to death and S. Martin S. Ambrose and the best Men of that Age would not communicate with any of these Bishops who had prosecuted Men to death for Heresie no not though Ithacius and his Adherents were absolved from Theognistus his Excommunication in a Council which Maximus had called at Triers Now the Notes fearing the Reader should observe That many Popes and Bishops of their Communion have done just as Ithacius did viz. persecuted such as they call Heretics to death and delivered them up to the Secular Magistrate to be executed tell us That it was not an ill thing in Ithacius to procure the death of these Heretics but his Fault was in the violence of his Proceedings and in his not interposing such a Protestation as their Church uses on these occasions Wherein when they have made it necessary for the Magistrate to put an Heretic to death they solemnly declare they wish he would amend and do not desire his Execution But as this Protestation is a piece of notorious Hypocrisie unknown to those Ages so we may be sure so apparent a Sham would not have excused Ithacius whose Communion as Sulpicius Severus shews was renounced by S. Ambrose S. Martin and Others purely because they thought it unlawful especially for Clergy-men to procure any persons to be put to death for their Opinion though it were Heresie Wherefore these Holy Bishops if they were now alive must renounce the Communion of the Roman Church for the same reason for which they renounced the Communion of Ithacius even for their frequent procuring Heretics to be put to death and this is so plain that all their shuflling Notes cannot wash their Bishops hands from Blood nor fit them in S. Ambrose and S. Martin's Opinion to celebrate the Eucharist with other Christians There had been as we noted a long Schism at Antioch between Paulinus of whose side was the Pope and many Western Bishops and Flavianus who was supported by the Eastern Bishops and now Paulinus dying one Evagrius was irregularly chosen to succeed him and keep up the Schism and though Flavianus was owned for the true Bishop by the second General Council and he it was who ordained S. Chrysostom and obtained a Pardon from Theodosius for those Citizens of Antioch who had broke down the Statues of that Emperour and his Empress yet at the Instance of some Western Bishops the Emperour was perswaded to cite him to a Council which he had called at Capua in which S. Ambrose was present but Flavianus not willing to have his Enemies to be his Judges did easily excuse his Non appearance to the Emperour and the Synod thereupon referred the Matter between him and Evagrius unto Theoplalus Patriarch of Alexandria to whose decision Flavianus refusing to stand he appealed to Theodosius on which occasion S. Ambrose writing to Theophilus wishes rather Flavianus had referred the Matter to his Brother the Bishop of Rome because saith he you would probably have judged it if it had come before you so as he would have liked Which implies no more than that Theophilus and Siricius were both of one mind in this case of Flavianus yet on this slight occasion the Notes say That the Synod made Theophilus Arbitrator on condition he should offer his Sentence to be approved and confirmed by the Roman Church Which is a meer Forgery for Theophilus was made absolute Arbitrator by the Synod and this is not the Councils wish but S. Ambroses and after all Flavianus did not think a Western Synod had any power over him and therefore he rejected the Arbitration of Theophilus the Council and Pope Siricius also with whom though he did not communicate yet he was always owned to be true Bishop of Antioch § 31. The Second Council at Arles is supposed to be held about this time because the Followers of Photinus and Bonosus were there condemned Wherefore they say It was in the time of Siricius but under him it could not be since the Bishops there assembled do not name him nor do they except the Bishop of Romes Supreme Power when they refer all Ecclesiastical Matters to the final decision of their own Metropolitan and his Synod and declare that every Bishop who receives a person Excommunicated by another shall be guilty of Schism Yet the Editors are so apt to dote upon the Popes managing all Councils that they here style a meeting of the Novatian Heretics at Angaris in Bithynia A Synod under Siricius and call poor Socrates a Novatian for barely relating a Matter of Fact concerning the Novatians At this
the diligent Reader will observe this to be customary with Baronius not only in this fourth Century but in every part of his Annals § 2. Another Artifice is to corrupt the Words or the Sense of genuine Authors of which we will select also a few Instances in the same Century S. Augustine barely names Peter as one whom the Pagans did Calumniate but Baronius brings this in with this Preface That they did this because they saw Peter extremely magnified especially at Rome where he had fixed his Seat and then he saith S. Augustine records this c. whereas this is his own Invention to set off the glory of Rome So when Athanasius is proving that the Fathers before the Nicene Council used the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and first names Dionysius Bishop of Alexandria and then Dionysius Bishop of Rome Baronius saith He proves it especially by Dionysius the holy Roman Pope and by Dionysius Bishop of Alexandria inverting the Order and putting a Note of Eminence on the Pope contrary to the Words and Sense of Athanasius Again he cites Pope Leo who is no Evidence in his own Cause and yet Baronius would make him say more than he doth even where he saith more than he should say For he cites his 53d Epistle to shew that Leo affirmed the sixth Canon of Nice allowed to the Church of Alexandria the second and to that of Antioch the third Seat which had before been conferred on them by Rome But the very words of Leo cited by Baronius shew this to be false for Leo saith not that these Sees had their Dignity or Order from Rome but the former from S. Mark the later from Peter's first Preaching there Moreover to make his Reader fancy the Roman and the Catholic Church was all one of old he mentions out of Epiphanius Constantine's writing an Epistle to all Romania Which Name saith he we sometimes find used for the Catholic Church whereas it is manifest that Epiphanius both there and elsewhere plainly uses Romania for the Roman Empire and Baronius did not find it used either in him or in any other ancient Author in any other sense That Period in Optatus which Baronius cites with great applause if it be not added by some ignorant Zealot of the Roman side is a scandal to the Learning of that Father for he derives the Syriac word Cephas from the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and by that ridiculous Etymology would draw as contemptible a consequence viz. That Peter was Head of the Apostles and again he seems wilfully to pervert the Precept of S. Paul Rom. XII 13. Distributing to the necessities of the Saints which in Optatus's Reading is Communicating with the Memories of the Saints that is as he applies it with Rome where there are the Memorials of two of the Apostles I could wish for Optatus's Credit that these weak Passages were spurious or buried in silence and the Learned Baldwin is ashamed of this gross Errour But Baronius thinks though they make for the dishonour of the Father they tend to the Credit of Rome and so he cites them in great pomp and puts them in a whole Line to make them look more plausible the Head of the Apostles whence he was called Cephas so Optatus But Binius adds deducing the Interpretation from the Greek Word for in Syriac it signifies an hard Stone and then glories extremely as if Optatus had made Communion with Rome the sole Note of a Catholic Whereas in the next Page but one Optatus goes on You cannot prove you have any Communion with the Seven Churches of Asia and yet if you be out of the Communion of those Churches you are to be accounted Aliens Which Passage Baronius very fraudulently leaves out because it shews a true Catholic must not only be in Communion with Rome but also with all other Orthodox Churches To proceed Even in spurious Authors he useth this Artifice for that Forged Book of Constantine's Munificence only saith He placed a piece of the Cross in a Church which he had built But Baronius relates it That he placed it there with most Religious Worship and a little after he perceiving that Fabulous Author had supposed Constantine buried his Mother long before she died puts in of his own head But this i. e. the putting his Mother in a Porphyry Coffin was done afterward Speaking of the Bishops returning home from the Council of Nice he saith They took with them the Rule of Faith confirmed by the Pope of Rome to be communicated to their People and to absent Bishops But no Historian Ancient or Authentic mentions any preceding Confirmation of the Nicene Creed by the Pope who was one of the absent Bishops to whom it was to be communicated wherefore those words Of its being confirmed by the Pope are invented and added to the story by Baronius He observes That Constantine confesses he was not fit to judge in the Case of Athanasius because Ecclesiastical Matters were to be judged among the Clergy Which he proves by Constantine's Letter there recited but Constantine's Letter is not directed to the Clergy but To the People of the Catholic Church at Alexandria And his Words are to the People who lived on the Place and knew the Matters of Fact and therefore he saith to them It is proper for you and not for me to judge of that Affair so that Baronius forceth his own Sense upon the Emperour And when Theodoret speaketh of time for Repentance according to the Canons of the Church he adds that is for Satisfaction Which Popish Satisfaction he would also prove out of a Canon at Antioch which only mentions confessing the Fault and bringing forth fruits meet for Repentance When Socrates only saith Eusebius of Nicomedia ' s Letters were received by Julius after his death Baronius thus enlarges it Eusebius who had fled from the Judgment of the Roman Church was forced against his Will being dead as Socrates saith to come to the strict Tribunal of God Where Athanasius saith I went up to Rome that I might visit the Church and the Bishop Baronius ridiculously infers that when we find the Ancients speaking of THE Church and THE Bishop they mean the Roman Church and that Bishop of whom and in whom and by whom are all other Bishops Which Note is forced upon this place for here Rome is named in the same Sentence with the Church and the Bishop and so it must be understood of the Pope but without any advantage to him more than it would have been to the Bishop of Eugubium to say I went to Eugubium and visited the Church and the Bishop Again S. Hierom saith expresly that Acacius substituted Foelix an Arian to be Bishop of Rome in Liberius his stead Here Baronius pretends some Copies leave out the word Arian and so he reads it Substituted Foelix to be Bishop of Rome and because some such
nothing to himself alone as Baronius falsly pretends And to make this single Priviledge of Rome the more credible he doth frequently apply what the Ancients say of all the Bishops of the West to the Pope Thus what S. Basil saith of all the Western Churches he applies only to Rome And when he recites two Epistles of S. Basil whose Title is to the Western Bishops and the whole discourse in it directed to many Bishops he feigns the Name of the Pope is left out or lost and concludes these Letters were peculiarly directed to him and this only to support the Roman Supremacy and therefore he repeats over and over this matter and affirms it was an Embassy sent to the Pope Thus also when S. Ambrose saith The Western Bishops ' by their Judgment approved of his Ordination He infers that S. Ambrose implies It was confirmed by a public Decree of the Apostolical See And whereas Basil speaking of those Western Bishops in his time who he saith kept the Faith entirely Baronius infers from hence That their Successors and especially the Bishops of Rome have never erred since Like to which is his inferring the usage of Praying to Saints from a pure Rhetorical flourish of Nazianzen's in one of his Orations And thus when S. Hierom uses all his Oratory to set off Virginity because that seems to make for the Roman Celibacy he takes him to be in good earnest and will have all his Reflexions upon Marriage to be solid Arguments though S. Hierom himself calls them Trifles But when he tells a sober Truth about the Ignorance of the Roman Clergy then the Cardinal tells us He speaks by way of Hyperbole From which Instances it doth appear that our Annalist did not like an Historian endeavour to declare Truth but only to serve an Interest and a Party § 7. Lastly His Partiality notoriously appears where-ever the Church of Rome is any way concerned for when any thing of this kind comes in his way he puts off the Character of an Historian and turns Disputant labouring to confute the most ancient and authentic Authors if they seem to say any thing against that Church Thus we may observe what tedious digressions he makes about the Primacy of Rome in his discourse on the Nicene Council for which he twice makes Apologies Again he runs out into a long and very impertinent dispute about the Worship of Images in an Age when no good Author mentions them as used in the Church In like manner He makes a long excursion to disprove an Authentic Story of Epiphanius tearing a Veil with a Picture wrought in it because such things were not fit to be in Churches and he scarce ever meets with any of the Roman Corruptions mentioned in the most fabulous Authors but he leaves the History and enlarges into Remarks upon those Passages But if the Writer be never so eminent that touches any of these Sores his business always is to bafâ—le the Evidence of which there is scarce one year in his Annals wherein there are not some Examples On the other side He takes every slight occasion to make the most spiteful Reflexions on all that he counts Enemies to the Roman Church Thus he applies the Bishop of Alexandria's description of the Arians to the Reformed Churches though it agree much better with these of his own Religion Again He reviles us because we do not honour the Modern idle lewd Monks of their Communion as much as the Ancients did those holy and devout Monks which were in the Primitive Times though it be plain to all the World these are like them in nothing but the Name The like Outcry he makes upon Protestants for undeceiving some of those silly Nuns who have been decoyed into unlawful Vows meerly for Interest and Secular Ends and affirms the perswading these to Marry is worse than the Arian's ravishing and murthering them at Alexandria Thus also he compares the Reformed Divines to the Eunomians who taught Their Faith alone would save them though their Lives were never so wicked forgetting that their Priest's convert as they call it Murderers at the Gallows by teaching them this very Principle And to name no more Examples when S. Basil inveighs against those who despised the Ancient Customs of the Primitive Church He spitefully applies this to the Reformed Whereas in very Truth they of Rome have left off more Ancient Rites and brought in more new ones than any sort of Christians in the World By these and many more Instances which might be given even out of this one Century it is evident that the whole design of his History is to make all the Doctrins and Practices of Rome seem to be Primitive and right and that he cares not how unlawful the Means be which he uses to gain this belief in his Reader § Yet to conclude we will observe That after all his evil-Methods there are many things which he could neither avoid relating nor yet excuse which condemn the Modern Roman Church I wonder how he could Commend Constantine for abolishing the Stews and the prostituting of Christian Women there and not observe That the Pope now tolerates these Abominations in Rome it self Again how doth it agree with the INFALLIBILITY of the Pope to say That one Holy Spirit governs the Catholic Church so as to make the Bishops of all Ages and Places agree in the same Opinion If this be so what need one Bishop alone be made Infallible And if it be as he saith a Doctrin taught by the Apostles and consequently true That the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father then the Pope who condemns this as an Heresie of the Greeks is not Infallible If Constantine had known of this Infallibility lodged at Rome he would have sent thither for exact Copies of the Holy Scriptures and not to Eusebius in Palestina If Damasus had this Infallible Spirit how came he after he was Pope to need to be instructed in the meaning of Scripture by S. Hierom Or if his Successor Siricius had been Infallible how could the Origenists who held such palpable Heresies that a Woman discovered them to be in an Error impose upon his Simplicity and get Letters Testimonial from this sole Judge of Heresie How came the Council of Alexandria to send their Decrees to Epiphanius S. Hierom and S. Chrysostom and not first send them to Anastasius who was Infallible And indeed Baronius cannot prove they were sent to him at all but by saying It is fit to believe they were sent Moreover many things in this Century related by these Annals look not favourably upon the SUPREMACY Constantine calls Eusebius's Election to the See of Antioch An advancement to the Bishopric of the Universal Church which looks as if he knew nothing of the Pope's Pretences That Marcellus of Ancyra even when he was accused before Pope Julius should call
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
of their Rights and their Peace also Wherefore it is not probable that a Council should meet there at this time only to read an Epistle which was invented long after § 5. Upon the Death of Zosimus there were two Popes chosen Boniface and Eulalius and the Pontifical fairly tells us the Clergy were divided for seven Months and fifteen days and that both of them acted as Popes This Schism being notified to the Emperor by Symmachus the Prefect of the City he cites both the Pretenders to Ravenna and appoints divers Bishops to examine into the Cause but they not being able to agree whether had the better Title the Emperor defers the business till the Kalends of May and forbids both Parties to enter into Rome till a Council had met at Rome to determine this Controversie But Eulalius who before stood fairer of the two impatient of this delay contrary to the Emperors Command on the fifteenth of the Kalends of April goes into the City and causes great Factions there Upon which 250 Bishops met by the Emperors Order execute his Commands and declare Enlalius to be no Pope setting up Boniface Upon which passage I shall observe First That the Notes make but a vacancy of two days between Zosimus and Boniface and Baronius saith it was not vacant above one day Whereas it is plain from the Emperors Letters dated three or four Months after that neither of them was reckoned to be Pope and he writes to the African Bishops that he would have the Council meet by the Ides of June that the Papacy might be no longer void so that in truth the See was vacant till the Emperor had judged it on Boniface his side Baronius doth not like it should be said that the Emperor had any right to interpose in the Election of a Pope but Symmachus the Praefect of Rome saith expresly to Honorius it is your part to give judgment in this Matter and the Emperor did at first by his single Authority declare Eulalius to be rightly chosen But upon better information he revokes that Rescript and Commands that neither Party should have any advantage by what was past but all should be reserved intirely to his judgment And though he employed a Synod of Bishops to examine the Matter yet it appears in Baronius that the Emperors Edict was that which gave the Papacy to Boniface Which will appear more plainly by the first Epistle of Boniface and Honorius his Answer to it For after this Pope was in peaceable possession fearing the like mischief after his death which had hapned at his entrance he writes an humble Supplication to the Emperor to take care of this matter for the future And the Emperor writes back to Boniface declaring That if ever two should contend about the Papacy and be Ordained neither of them should be Pope but he who by a new Election should be taken out of the Clergy by the Emperors judgment and the Peoples consent This writing of the Popes among the Councils hath this Title The Supplication of Pope Boniface But Baronius thinking that too mean fraudulently leaves out the Title though the Humility of the Style sufficiently shews that the Pope believed that the Emperor was above him and whereas Boniface there calls the Church Our Mother as the Margin in Binius rightly reads it Baronius will have it to be your Mother and Labbè leaves out the Marginal and true Reading for it seems they think it below the Pope though not the Emperor to be a Son of the Church If the second Epistle of Boniface be genuine it shews that when Complaints were made to Rome out of the near adjoining Provinces the Popes even after they had given too much encouragement to Appeals were wont to refer the matters complained of to be examined and decided by the Bishops of those Provinces where the Fact was done But the Notes conclude from hence that the accusation of Bishops use to be referred to the Pope which is an universal Conclusion from Premises that will not bear it The third Epistle of Boniface contradicts all those which were writ before by Zosimus in favour of Patroclus Bishop of Arles for Boniface forbids Patroclus to exercise the Power granted him by the last Pope and decrees that Hilary Bishop of Narbon shall be Metropolitan and if he judged right then Zosimus judged wrong in this Cause For this Pope the Editors publish six Decrees one of which orders the differences among Bishops to be decided by the Metropolitan or however by the Primate of that Country from whose determination there was to be no Appeal The fourth Decree is certainly spurious because it not only forbids a Bishop to be brought before any Judge Civil or Military for any Crime but declares the Magistrate who presumes to do this shall lose his Girdle that is be put out of his Office Now doubtless it was not in the Popes power to give or take away Civil or Military Offices So that this hath been invented meerly by those who affected the Popes being supreme over Kings and Emperors and would have the Clergy exempt from all Secular Jurisdiction As to the Pelagian Controversie he writ nothing about it himself but we are told by Prosper that Boniface desired St. Augustine to answer the Books of the Pelagians and he shewed his Wisdom in putting the Cause into a better hand than his own We must now return to the business of the Legates sent into Africa by Pope Zosimus a little before his death who appeared in the sixth Council at Carthage not till the time of this Pope Boniface in order to justifie the Roman Churches Right to receive Appeals from all Churches The Title indeed falsly saith this Council was held about the manner of prosecuting Appeals but it is plain that the African Fathers questioned the right of appealing and had condemned before all Appeals to any Church beyond the Seas In this Council the Popes Legates produce a Canon which they say was made at Nice importing That if a Bishop were condemned in his own Country and appealed to Rome the Pope might write to the neighbouring Bishops to enquire again into the matter and decide it but if all this did not satisfie the Complainant the Pope might either send his Legates with his Authority to judge it there with the Bishops or leave it finally to those of that Country as he pleased Now this Canon was no sooner read but Alypius one of the African Bishops declared he could not find any such Canon in the Greek Copies of the Nicene Council and desired Aurelius who presided in the Council though the Popes Legates were there to send to the three other most famous Patriarchal Churches of Constantinople Alexandria and Antioch to search their Copies of the Nicene Council and that the Pope might be desired to send some thither also at the same time which
motion was so fair and so certain a way to find out the truth that the Legates yielded to it as they did also to have another Canon examined whether it were in the Nicene Council or no about the Appeals of the lower Clergy After which they resolve to annex a genuine Transcript of the Nicene Creed and Canons to the Acts of their Synod which concluded with a Letter to Boniface which the Editors had no mind to publish in this place but give it us elsewhere The Sum of it is they tell their honourable Brother that hearing he was in Zosimus place they had writ to him about Apiarius who had now confessed his Faults before them and begged pardon and was removed from officiating in his old Church but allowed to keep his Degree Then for the two Canons pretended to be made at Nice they say they had inserted them in their Acts till the true Copies of the Nicene Council came but if they were not found there they would not be compelled to endure such things as they had no mind to mention nor to suffer such intollerable burdens but they hoped while he was Pope they should not be used with such Insolence or Pride but that they should be dealt with by brotherly Charity adding that they had sent a Copy of their Acts by two of his Legates who might make them known to his Holiness This is the true though brief account of this Famous Council wherein the Roman Church was discovered to aim at Superiority and a usurped Jurisdiction and to practise it to the prejudice of the Faith and the Rights of other Churches Moreover it was here discovered that Rome to cover this injustice and irregularity had corrupted the Canons of the most famous of all Geneneral Councils and cited such Canons out of it as never were made there And now to wipe off this scandal Binius and Baronius stickle vehemently and try all their Art to get St. Peter's Ship off from these Rocks The former publishes long Notes the latter falls from writing History to dispute But all in vain for Binius after he hath falsly told us that it was the Antient Custom for Bishops and Priests to appeal to Rome and for the Africans to desire their Sentences to be confirmed by the Pope Confesses that the Popes Legates cited the Canons of Sardica under the name of those of Nice and that they were not to be found in the Originals of the Council of Nice kept in the other Patriarchal Sees But then he pretends the African Bishops did not as we do charge Zosimus with fraud and forgery I answer that how modestly soever they might speak of this Fact it really was a notorius Imposture and it was sufficient that they proved it to be so and writ plainly to both Boniface and Celestine as the Letters yet extant shew that they would never endure that usurped Power any more which the Popes by virtue of these feigned Canons had exercised And if rejecting Appeals to Rome be making a Schism 't is certain the Africans did not suffer them so long as the face of a Church remained there so that probably that Epistle of Boniface the second writ to Eulalius near an hundred years after may be true and had not been censured by Baronius and Binius but only because it supposes a Church might have Martyrs in it and be a true Church though it utterly disowned all subordination to Rome And I am sure they justifie many Epistles that are less probable if they make for the interest of the Pope Against this Baronius and the Notes Object that there was an Appeal made by an African Bishop of Fussala who for notorious Crimes was put out of his See by St. Augustine and others and it seems Boniface and Celestine both allowed this Appeal and heard his Cause and this these Flatterers of Rome think hapned at this time by the Providence of God But let it be considered that for so notorious a Criminal as this Bishop to appeal at this time is neither any credit to the Pope nor any proof that there were no African Canons at this time to prohibit it for it is likely enough that an ill Man who had no means to shelter himself from the Justice of his own Country but by appealing to those Popes who at that time pretended a Right to receive such Complaints would use that means of Appeal even though it were condemned in Africa So that his appealing doth not prove it was lawful nor that it was not forbid there Besides though St. Augustine writ modestly yet he intimates no more but that some such Sentences as he had passed on this Bishop of Fussala had been passed or approved by the Popes which only prove in Fact that some African Bishops had before this time appealed but he doth not say it was right yea we see the Councils in which he was present condemning it as an usurpation and great injustice ex malis moribus bonae Leges The thing had been practised till the Popes fostering Hereticks and lewd convicted Criminals opened the Eyes of the African Church and made them prohibit them and claim their antient Rights Again upon St. Augustine's Letter it appears the Pope did not proceed to restore this Bishop and it seems when former Popes had taken upon them to restore ejected Bishops they were forced to do it by strong hand even by sending Clerks with Soldiers to execute the Sentence which shews their Authority was not submitted to in Africa And the Bishops in their Letter to Celestinâ— boldly charge him never to send any such again for if they should submit to such proceedings they should be guilty of bringing Secular Violence into the Church of God The Notes go on to charge us Protestants for ignorantly and treacherously insulting over Zosimus as one that attempted to steal a Power to receive Appeals from Africa Whereas the African Bishops themselves prove the Fact And in the second Part I have produced a very antient Scholion which expresly censures these Popes for Imposture as well as Usurpation and I now add that Zonaras above 400 year before the Reformation saith in his Notes upon the Sardican Council That the Bishops of Old Rome from this Canon boasted a right to Appeals from Bishops in all Causes and falsly said it was made in the first Council of Nice which being propounded in the Council of Carthage was found not to be true as the Preface to that Council shows So that neither was this Canon made at Nice nor doth it decree that Appeals shall be made to him from all Bishops but only from those who were subject to him which at that time were almost all those of the West that is Macedon Thessaly Illiricum Greece Peloponesus and Epirus which afterwards were subjected to the Church of Constantinople so that Appeals from thence were to be made to that Patriarch for the future Wherefore we are not
And it appears that the principal right over Ephesus was in the Patriarch of Constantinople whence it was pleaded by the Friends of Bassianus that Proclus of Constontinople who had the right received him to Communion And Stephen urges that Flavianus of Constanstinople expelled him afterwards And therefore it is remarkable that in the twefth Action where the Sentence was to be pronounced Anatolius Bishop of Constantinople declares his Judgment before the Popes Legates and is always named before them in all that Session where a Cause was to be decided concerning a Church which was specially under his jurisdiction by which it appears the principal Person in the deposing of Bassianus was the Patriarch of Constantinople who probably desired the other great Patriarchs concurrence for the better credit of his Sentence Moreover it is to be noted that though Pope Leo favoured the cause of Stephen and writ an Epistle in his behalf mentioned in the Council The Popes favour did him no service for his Cause was tried over again and he deposed by this general Council as well as Bassianus and this by the consent of the Popes Legates who notwithstanding their big words did not believe it unlawful for a general Council to contradict a determination of the Popes The Thirteenth and Fourteenth Actions concern only the Causes of private Bishops who had complained to the Emperor not to the Pope of injury done them and the Emperor appointed them to be finally determined by the Council and so the Bishop of Nichomedias's Jurisdiction was cleared and the Bishop of Nice ordered to be content only with the honour of a Metropolitan And in the fourteenth Action Athanasius was setled in the Bishoprick of Perrhaea and Sabinianus who claimed it ordered to keep the honour of a Bishop and to be maintained out of the Profits of that Church as the Patriarch of Antiooh should direct Nothing is remarkable in them but only that the Lay Judges pronounce the Decree and not the Popes Legates and then the Synod consent The Fifteenth Action contains the Canons of this General Council for Ecclesiastical Discipline three of which were recommended to the Fathers by the Emperor to be formed into Canons So that in obedience to the Emperor they were obliged to make some Ecclesiastical Rules And one of these is the fourth Canon which decrees that all Monks every where shall be subject to the Bishop of that Diocess wherein their Monastery is built which being a genuine Canon of a General Council not objected against by the Popes Legates it is somewhat strange that the Modern Popes have no regard to it but daily and openly break it in defiance of the Primitive Discipline by exempting all Monasteries from due subjection to their own Bishop and this meerly out of policy to make the Monks intirely depend upon the Pope and serve his interests The ninth Canon ordains that the Causes betwen Clergy-men shall be tried before their own Bishop and not in Secular Courts and if a Bishop have a complaint against his Metropolitan he shall go to the Primate of the Diocess or appeal to the See of Constantinople Which Canon Pope Nicholus resolved to force into his interest and so ridiculously expounds the Primate of the Diocess is meant the Bishop of Rome who is Primate of all Dioceses Turrian as boldly expounds it the Primate of the universal Diocess And Binius in his Notes will have the word to signifie the Prince of the Christian Diocess But all these feigned additions and forced glosses will not help them because the Canon gives leave to the Party injured to complain either to the Bishop of Constantinople or to the Pope at his own choice which sets that Patriarch upon equal ground with him of Rome But the Original Word signifies an Order of Bishops below a Patriarch but above a Metropolitan and the Canon expresly limits Appeals either to be made by these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Primates who had Jurisdiction over the Province or to the Patriarch of Constantinople which shews that this Council never thought of any Right that Rome then had to receive Appeals from all parts of the World And if any question why the Pope is not here named at least for the Western Churches Appeals as well as the Patriarch of Constantinople for the Eastern I take the true reason to be the absence of the Popes Legates from this Session consisting only of Oriental Bishops for which reason they modestly refused to decree any thing concerning Discipline in the West leaving affairs there to proceed according to parity of Reason We may add that the Latin Version of the sixteenth Canon hath put in the word confitentes into the Body of the Canon which is not in the Original but Labbè leaves out this corruption But that which hath occasioned the greatest Controversie is the twenty eighth Canon wherein this Council confirms the Decrees of the Fathers and the second Council of Constantinoples Canon about the Priviledges of that See For as the Fathers had given the See of Rome its priviledges because it was the Imperial City for the same reason the second General Council gave like honour to the See of Constantinople and would have it also even in Ecclesiastical Affairs to be advanced to the second place And they order that the Bishop of Constantinople should ordain and have a Jurisdiction over all the Metropolitans of the Dioceses of Pontus Asia and Thrace The Modern Romanists do all they can to suppress or baffle this Canon The Editors put a Note before it that it is not in their Greek Manuscripts but that is no wonder since it hath been long the design of their Church to conceal this Canon but that such a Canon was really made at Chalcedon is apparent not only from the sixteenth Action where it was read at large and allowed by the whole Council and confirmed by the Lay-Judges notwithstanding the opposition of the Popes Legates But it is also found in all the Greek Collectors cited in Photius his Nomo-Canon writ above 900 year ago and is also extant in that old Latin Interpreter who put out the Canons before Dionisius exiguus that is soon after the year 500 So that there is no doubt but this Canon was really made at Chalcedon Yet Gratian would not cite it under the name of a Canon of Chalcedon but quotes it out of the sixth General Council wherein there are almost the same words but his old Editions which were in use while the Roman Primacy was setting up had grosly corrupted the main words of it and instead of the affirmative etiam in rebus Ecclesiasticis non secus ac illam extolli c. it was in him non tamen in rebus Ecclesiasticis magnificetur ut illa which quite alters the sense and makes it seem as if the Council had not spoken of any Ecclesiastical Priviledges whereas they speak of no other but
the Catholick Faith and all this only because Leo had the good Fortune by his Secretary Prosper's help to write one Orthodox Epistle against Eutyches in a lucky time when a Council was to be called to condemn that Heresie As to the Author of it Eutyches it was always a Rule in the Church to receive even the Inventors of Heresies if they would renounce their Errors So that for Leo to say in his Letter to the Council of Chalcedon he thought they might deal so with Eutyches is no manner of ground for Baronius to suppose that this was a special Favour indulged to that General Council by the Pope contrary to Ecclesiastical Laws and Customs For it is well known that a General Council in that Age gave Laws to the Pope but did not receive any from him and whatever Leo's Opinion might be the Council were sole Judges of the terms on which Eutyches was to be restored and had he Recanted they would have received him into Communion by their own Authority since Arius Nestorius and Pelagius had that Favour offered them by former Councils and Eutyches would have found the like Kindness here if the Pope had said nothing at all of the matter Wherefore the Annalist hath crouded many Falshoods into a few Lines only to persuade his weak Readers That the Pope was above a General Council And to make him seem above all the other Patriarchs he supposes from a Letter of Theodosius the Emperor which he never saw and which is not extant That the Emperor writ to Rome about the Succession of Anatolius at Constantinople knowing it to be the Head of all Churches This is a groundless Conjecture because he doth not so much as know in what style Theodosius writ and it was an Ancient Custom for to give Notice to all the absent Patriarchs when any New one was elected and the Patriarch Elect even he of Rome was obliged to satisfie the rest by Letters that he held the Orthodox Faith Certain it is that Theodosius valued not Leo much because he confirmed the Condemnation of Flavionus though he knew that Pope and his Legates were of his side and it is plain by the best Historians that he died in this Opinion Nor can Baronius prove that Theodosius repented of that mistaken Judgment otherwise than by Nioephorus an Author of no credit when single or that he Obeyed the Pope before his death for this last he can cite no Author at all and it is not only a Conjecture of his own but a very false one For the last Letter that ever Theodosius writ to Valentinian not many Months before his death shews how little he esteemed Leo's Request for a new General Council and how close he stuck to Dioscorus Leo's Enemy and therefore he could not write after this to Leo as Head of the Church His Successor indeed Marcianus had some reason to Caress the Pope and therefore he writes more respectfully to him than other Emperors had used to do Yet even in that first Letter of his he must be very sagacious who can discorn what Baronius again supposes That Marcian turned his Eyes to the Chief visible Head of the Church resolving to do all things by his command or as he phrases it to be at his beck For even in this highest strain of Complement Marcian saith no more but that since Leo had a principal Bishoprick among the true Believers he desires him to pray for him that he might resolve to call a Council with Leo ' s consent to take away all Error and settle a general Peace Which implies the power of calling Councils was in the Emperor and the Popes part was only to consent as one of the Chief Bishops who was there to meet and consult And if Marcian had known or believed Leo to be the sole Supream Judge of all Controversies he would not have been at the trouble of Calling a General Council but referred all to him § 4. The rest of my Observations on Baronius shall be put in Order of Time for the better assistance of the Reader and not under those several Heads which doth too much separate and confound things When S. Hierom after three years labouring with Pope Anastasius had at last got him and the Roman Church to condemn Ruffinus he then at that time prudently appeals to the Roman Churches Faith for Trial Whether he or Ruffinus were the better Catholick But Baronius when he hath cited some words of S. Hierom against Ruffinus to this purpose grosly prevaricates when he infers You see it was an undoubted Maxim customary in the Mouths of all the Ancients and a necessary consequence That if one were said to follow the Roman Faith he must needs be a Catholick For if we hear one Father when he had the Pope on his side in a particular Controversie say this This is not all the Ancients And many of them describe themselves as being of the Faith of Athanasius Cyril Flavianus c. or holding the Faith of the Churches of Alexandria Antioch Constantinople c. to prove themselves Catholick and if S. Hierom did instance now in Rome the consequence depended on the Orthodoxness of the present Pope not on the Infallibility of his See And Pope Gelasius afterward confesseth That the Roman Church in this Point was guided intirely by S. Hierom She thought as he thought So that to make a General conclusion from such a special Case is very unreasonable and S. Hierom himself a little after is cited declaring the Consent of many Churches is of greater Authority than that of the Roman alone It had been well if their Roman Church had considered the peril of Idolatry when they went about to establish the use or Images as Baronius tells us Theodosius did when he made a Law to prohibit any Adoration to be given to his own Statues because such worship as exceeds the dignity of Human Nature is to be reserved to the Divine Majesty In the same place he relates how S. Chrysostom reproved the People for their folly at the dedication of the Empresses Statue because it is easie in those matters to run into the sin of Idolatry Which Observations of his own stand on Record in these Annals to condemn that Church which orders Veneration and all other expressions of Reverence to be made to all sorts of Images of the Saints Again he exposes his dear Church in observing That the Ancients preserved both the consecrated Elements of the Sacrament in the Church But no sooner had he condemned us for not following this ancient Usage but he mentions as great an Innovation in their own Church for he owns they have forbid the preserving any thing but the species of Bread Now I would ask Who differ most from Antiquity they who totally take away one part of the Sacrament from the People and keep only the Bread to be worshipped Or we who give both Bread and
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
The Date of this Epistle must be false being An. 490 that is two years before as they reckon Gelasius was Pope Labbè would mend it by antedating the entrance of Gelasius forgetting that he had printed an Epistle of Foelix to Thalassius dated that year his Invention therefore was better than his Memory The 6th Epistle shews that notwithstanding the Popes fair pretences to an Universal Jurisdiction his neighbour Bishops in Dalmatia did not own it but looked on him as a busie-body for medling in their affairs and suspected the Snake of Usurpation lay under the florid Leaves of his seeming care of all the Churches The 7th Epistle is briefly and imperfectly set down by Baronius because he would conceal from his Reader that Gelasius makes Purgatory and Limbus Infantum a Pelagian Opinion Let them saith he take away that third place which they have made recipiendis parvulis for receiving little Children And since we read of no more but the right hand and left let them not make them stay on the left hand for want of Baptism but permit them by the Baptism of Regeneration to pass to the right Which illustrious Testimony the Editors would obscure by reading decipiendis parvulis for deceiving Children But if that were the true Reading it shews this Pope thought none but Children and Fools would believe a Third place invented by the Pelagians since Scripture speaks but of two viz. Heaven and Hell It is a trifling Note on this Epistle That Gelasius admonished some Bishops of Italy against Pelagianism not fearing two Princes one of which was an Eutychian the other an Arrian Heretick For what cared these Princes for the Popes Letters against the Heresies of others so long as he let them alone and never admonished them of their own Heresies The 8th Epistle was writ to one of these Heretical Princes viz. to Anastasius and the Pope is scandalously silent about his Heresie nor doth he once reprove his Errors in the Faith but only labours even by false pretences to justifie his Supremacy which gave too just a ground for that Emperor and his Eastern Bishops to tax this Pope of secular Pride a fault very visible in all his Writings on this Subject Further we may note that this Epistle was of old inscribed thus Bishop Gelasius to the most glorious Emperor Anastasius but the Editors have left out the Emperor's Epithet for fear he should look bigger than the Pope Also where the Pope prays that no Contagion may stain his See and hopes it never will which plainly supposes it was possible Rome might Err otherwise he had mocked God in praying against that which could not happen and assurance had left no place for hope if the Popes were absolutely Infallible Yet here the Marginal Note is The Apostolical See cannot Err Which may caution the Reader not to trust their Margent nor Index for there is often more in the Inscription than can be found in the Box. The 9th Epistle being dated An. 494. was odly cited by Baronius to prove that Gelasius was made Pope in An. 492. It seems to be a Collection of divers Canons put together no Body knows by what Pope And one thing is very strange that whereas the Preface owns the Clergy were almost starved in many of the Churches of Italy Yet the Epistle impertinently takes great care that the Rents be divided into four parts as if all things had then been as plentiful as ever And whereas these Rules are sent to the Bishops of Lucania near Naples the Pope's forbidding them to dedicate Churches without his Licence is by the Marginal Note made a General Rule for all Countries but falsly since the Bishops of the East of Afric Gaul c. did never ask the Popes Licence in that Age to consecrate Churches The 13th Epistle is a bold attempt toward an Universal Supremacy For Gelasius finding the Bishop of Constantinople at his Heels and come up almost to a level with him uses his utmost effort to make a few Rascian Bishops believe he was set over the whole Church But he shews more Art and Learning than Truth or Honesty in this Argument asserting these downright Falshoods First That the Canons order all the World to Appeal to Rome and suffer none to Appeal from thence But Bellarmin knowing these Canons where those despicable ones of Sardica and that even those did not intend to oblige the whole World in citing this passage changes Canones appellari voluerint into appellandum est So that he chuses to leave it indefinite that all must appeal to Rome rather than undertake to tell us with Gelasius how that See came by this Right Secondly That the Roman Church by its single Authority absolved Athanasius Chrysostom and Flavian and condemned Dioscorus as this little Pope brags which is as true as it is that the Roman Church alone decreed the Council of Chalcedon should be received she alone pardoned the Bishops that lapsed in the Ephesine latrociny and by her Authority cast out the obstinate Which this Epistle audaciously asserts though there are more untruths than lines in the whole passage And if liberty be not deny'd us we appeal to all the Authentic Historians of those Ages who utterly confute these vain brags Yet Bellarmin adds to this extravagant pretence of Romes alone decreeing the Council of Chalcedon these words by her single Authority But Launoy blushes for him and says what Gelasius here saith is not strictly true and that he needs a very benign Interpreter that is one who will not call a Spade a Spade But let this Pope's assertions be never so false they serve to advance the ends of the Roman Supremacy and therefore you shall find no more of this long Epistle in the Annals but only this hectoring passage Though he unluckily confesseth immediately after that Gelasius did no manner of good with all this And no wonder since that Age as well as this knew his pretences were unjust his reasoning fallacious and his instances false Thirdly He asserts that Pope Leo vacated the Canons of Chalcedon 'T is true he did it as far as lay in him who measured Right only by Interest But we have shewed they remained in full force in all other parts of the Church notwithstanding his dissent openly declared Fourthly He affirms that the care of all the Churches about Constantinople was given to Acacius by the Apostolick See Which is as hath been proved a notorious Falshood of which this Epistle is so full that one would suspect it was the Off-spring of a much later Age. 'T is certain the Title is very unusual Gelasius Bishop of the City of Rome c. And the date is false the Consul named is Victor whose year was 70 year before Baronius and the Editors of their own head mend it and read Viator and Labbè tells us in the Margin that some things are wanting in this Epistle
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
They further say That the Canons of Gangra were confirmed by Apostolical Autherity The Forger meant by Papal Authority But those Bishops at Gangra scarce knew who was then Pope And it is plain the Compiler of this Council had respect to a Forgery of later Ages where Osius of Corduba's name the pretended Legate of the Pope is added to the Synodical Letter from this Synod and therefore these Acts were devised long after this Council is pretended to have sitten And he must be a meer stranger to the History of this Time who reads here that Symmachus and his Council should say It is not lawful for the Emperor nor any other professing Piety c. For this supposes Anastasius no Heretick and that Popes then prescribed Laws to the Emperor of the East I conclude with a single remark upon the Notes on this forged Council which pretend Theodoric obeyed this Councils Decree in ordering the patrimony of the Church of Milan to be restored to Eustorgius who was not in this Council nor Bishop of Milan till eight years after And no doubt that Order was made by Theodoric in pure regard to Equity for it is no way likely that he had ever heard of this Council I conclude these Roman Councils with one remark relating to Mons du-Pin who hath taken things too much upon trust to be always trusted himself and therefore he publishes five of these six Councils for genuine and gives almost the Baronian Character of Symmachus But these Notes I hope will demonstrate he is mistaken both in his Man and these Synods and I only desire the Reader to compare his Account with these short Remarks § 2. There were few Councils abroad in this Popes time and he was not concerned in them The Council of Agatha now Agde in the Province of Narbon was called by the consent of Alaricus an Arrian King Caesarius Bishop of Arles was President of it and divers good Canons were made in it but Symmachus is not named so that our Editors only say it was held in the time of Symmachus I shall make no particular remark but on the Ninth Canon where Caesarius who was much devoted to promote that Celibacy of the Clergy which now was practised at Rome and the Council declare that the orders of Innocent and Siricius should be observed From whence we may Note that these Orders had not yet been generally obeyed in France and that a Popes Decretal was of no force there by vertue of the Authority of his See but became obligatory by the Gallican Churches acceptance and by turning it into a Canon in some Council of their own But that the usages of Rome did not prescribe to France is plain from the Notes on the xii Canon where it appears their Lent Fast was a total abstinence till evening none but the infirm being permitted to dine But the Roman Lent unless they have altered their old rule allows men to dine in Lent with variety of some sorts of meat and drink which is not so strict by much as this Gallican custom The first Council of Orleance is only said to be in Symmachus time but the Acts shew he was not consulted nor concerned in it The Bishops were summoned by the Precept of King Clovis who also gave them the heads of those things they were to treat of And when their Canons were drawn up they sent them not to Rome but to their King for Confirmation with this memorable address if those things which we have agreed on seem right to your judgment we desire your assent that so the Sentence of so many Bishops by the approbation of so great a Prince may be obeyed as being of greater Authority And Clovis was not wanting in respect to them for he stiles them Holy Lords and Popes most worthy of their Apostolical Seat By which it is manifest that Rome had then no Monopoly of these Titles I conclude that which relates to Pope Symmachus his time with one Remark that in the year 500 the Devout and learned African Fulgentius came on purpose to visit Rome But the writer of his life who acurately describes what the holy Man saw there and largely sets forth his View of Theodoric his visiting the Tombs of the Martyrs and saluting the Monks he met with speaks not one Syllable of the Pope whose Benediction one would think Fulgentius should have desired But whether the Schism yet continued or Symmachus his manner did not please the good Man ' its plain he took no notice of him § 3. Hormisda succeeded Symmachus and it seems by the Letter of Dorotheus that in his Election and not before the Schism at Rome ceased which began when Symmachus was chosen which shews that Symmachus having a strong party against him all his time could do nothing considerable This Pope Hormisda was either married before he was Pope or was very criminal for he had a Son i. e. Sylverius who as Liberatus testifies was Pope about twenty years after him This was a bold and active Pope and did labour much to reconcile the Eastern to the Western Church and at last in some measure effected it after the Greeks had been separated as Binius notes from the unity of the Church not Catholick but of Rome he means about 80 years From whence we may observe that a Church may be many years out of the Communion of the Roman Church and yet be a true Church for none till Baronius ever said the Eastern was not a true Church all the time of this Separation The Notes further tell us that King Clovis of France sent Hormisda a Golden Crown set with precious stones for a Present and thereby procured this reward from God that the Kingdom of the Franks still continues Which stuff is out of Baronius But the Story is as false as the inference for Sirmondus proves that King Clovis died Anno 511 that is three years before Hormisda was Pope Labbè who owns this to be an Error would correct the mistake and put in Childebert's name but he who told the Story could certainly have told the Kings right name wherefore we reject the whole Relation as fabulous And for the inference the Kingdom of Franks indeed like all other Kingdoms who sent no Crowns hath continued but not in Clovis his Posterity which is long since extinct We shall make more remarks on this Popes History in his Letters And many Epistles are lately found of this Popes in the Vatican or Forged there which we will now consider The First Epistle is certainly Forged it is directed to Remigius but names King Lovis or Clovis who was dead three year before as Labbè owns for which cause Sirmondus omitted it as Spurious and so P. de Marca counts it And it is almost the same with another feigned Epistle wherein the Pope is pretended to make a Spanish Bishop his Legate there
did communicate with the Hereticks which is added by the Editors For in Baronius Acacius his name is not once mentioned neither in his Edition at Antwerp 1596. nor in that at Venice 1601. So that we can scarce trust any thing which comes through such Mens hands The Twenty fourth Epistle which pretends to make John Bishop of Tarragon the Popes Legate and speaks of his coming to Italy and having Papal Constitutions sent him not only confirms our Note that all such kind of Epistles are forged but is certainly spurious it self For in this year 517 this John presided in the Council of Gyrone in Spain where he and his fellow Bishops made Canons and take no notice of the Pope or any Legantine Power And the Editors differ about the date of this Epistle And probably the next Epistle containing the Constitutions is forged also being directed to all the Bishops of Spain who were not then under any one King nor Primate And whereas this Letter speaks of peaceable times it is certain these Gothick Arrian Kings were almost continually at War with France and with each other However the Inventer of these Epistles is not very Modern For he makes Christ the Head of the Church and Bishops to be his Vicars And Penitents are here forbid to be chosen Bishops because they could not decently absolve others who had openly confessed their own Sins before the People Which shews the Pope was not Christs sole Vicar then And that there was no Auricular Confession when this was writ § 3. Justin being upon Anastasius his death unexpectedly made Emperor gives the Pope notice of it and requires his Prayers This Hormisda if his Letter be genuine craftily calls offering up the first fruits of his Empire to St. Peter And the Notes add That it was the ancient use to certifie the Pope of the new elected Emperor and to request him to confirm and consecrate him But I have shewed it was a much more ancient Custom for the Pope to certifie the Emperor of his Election Only when an Emperor came to the Throne without a good Title which was Justin's case it was such an Emperor's interest to gain the Pope's favour But as for either Consecration or Confirmation there is not one word of it that is a device out of Baronius Brain and the Annotator takes it from him of trust and he was owned Emperor by all long before this notice The Epistle of John Bishop of Constantinople in the Title calls Hormisda His most Holy Brother and Fellow-Minister and in the Letter he calls him Most dear Brother in Christ which Phrases Epiphanius also his Successor uses in his Epistle to the same Pope And from John's Epistle we learn that when Old Rome left out the names of the Patriarches of Constantinople in their Dypticks These put out the Popes name from their Dypticks which shews no subjection was owned or expected and that the Eastern Church was on even ground with the Pope in those days despising his Communion as much as he did theirs An Epistle writ to Caesarius Bishop of Arles this year is suspicious because Baronius had mentioned his Will and Testament ten year before But if he were now alive we must correct the Title in Binius where he is called The Vicar of the Apostolick See in France Which words are so manifest a Forgery that Labbè left them out But we may suspect the whole since the Pope never names his last Embassy before this time received from the Emperor and Patriarch of Constantinople when he pretends to give an Account of the Affairs in the East to this Caesarius The Legates Instructions here begin as the former did viz. When by Gods Mercy ye come into the Eastern parts c. and the Legates in their third Suggestion ascribe their safe Journy only to Gods Mercy So that probably those words in the first instructions and the Prayers of the Apostles are added by a later hand when they used so often to pray to Saints as to give them a share of the Glory due to God for his Mercy The same hand to countenance the same practice seems to have corrupted the Thirty seventh Epistle where Hormisdu tells Justinian He did daily and humbly beseech the Apostle Peter that God might give a speedy issue to his endeavours Which borders both on Blasphemy and Nonsense but probably the true reading was apud B. Petrum obsecramus That the Pope pray'd daily at St. Peter's Church to God for Justinian's speedy success That the Eastern and Western Church were united about this time is true but I am apt to believe that those many particular circumstances which Baronius and these Editors have out of a sort of reports of the Popes Legates Letters and other Papers lately found it seems in the Vatican are of later invention The Epistle of John Bishop of Constantinople wherein he is pretended to subscribe that flattering confession of Faith formerly said to be subscribed by the Bishops of Epirus is certainly a Forgery that some Parasite hath transcribed as often as any Eminent person was reconciled to the Pope and therefore a little after as I noted but now he ascribes the same Form to the Emperor Justin three years after he was dead There is no proof of this John's subscribing any such Paper but only the relation of Dioscorus one of the Pope's Legates which is certainly false because he saith That at this time An. 519. John consented to rase the names of Phravites Euphemius Macedonius and Timotheus out of the Dypticks as well as the name of Acacius upon which Baronius Triumphs most extreamly But without any cause for if he had not craftily omitted an Epistle of Justinian's writ the next year which is in Binius it would have appeared that the Eastern Church would not yield to rase out any more names but only that of Acacius But Baronius hath later Epistles of Justinian which expresly say a year after this pretended rasing out the names of Euphemius c. that only Acacius his Name was left out of the Dypticks and that the scruple about the other names was not to be medled with for the Eastern Bishops would never yield that point And Justin the Emperor saith the same to Hormisda yea in the year 521 we find the Emperor still requiring the Pope should communicate with those who only left out Acacius his name but kept in the other Bishops names All which is sufficient to prove this Story of Dioscorus to be a meer Fiction Yet it may be confirmed also by the Chronicle of Victor who mentions no Bishops name of Constantinople but Acacius that was rejected when the Emperor Justin reconciled the Eastern and Western Bishops And no Writers of this or the next Age do mention this pretended submission of John of Constantinople Marcellinus Cassiodorus Euagrius and Paulus Diaconus are wholly silent in this
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
with Paulus Diaconus follow his Account But the two former Authors are in this case more worthy of Credit however this is certain Bellisarius did depose and banish Sylverius and got Vigilius Elected who fearing his Rival should be restored got him at last into his Hands and barbarously caused him to be starved to death This is a sad Story of two Popes Sylverius uncanonically elected a Simoniack and a perjured Person and Vigilius a favourer of Hereticks one that is said to have hired false Witness and to have given Mony to make the See void and at last a Murtherer Which shews how little reason there is for Baronius and the Notes to make such a stir which was the true Pope of these two They will have Sylverius to remain the rightful Pope while he lived and so Rail freely at Vigilius as an Heretick and Bloody Usurper But they cannot prove this by any Evidence but only by a manifestly forged Epistle of Sylverius And the contrary is very certain because the Emperor the Gallican Churches and all did own Vigilius for the true Pope long before Sylverius his death and he openly acted as such all that time Wherefore we must reject that Dream of Baronius who saith without any ground that Vigilius did Abdicate the Papacy for six days upon the death of his Competitor and got himself new chosen and this purged him of all Crimes and in a moment made him a Saint and a rare Pope He would force this Fiction out of Anastasius who in like Cases he generally despises who only saith the See was void six days but plainly means after Sylverius was deposed for he reckons Vigilius his time from thence allotting him above 17 years and 6 Months that is near two years more than Baronius allows There are but two Epistles ascribed to Sylverius and they are the only Evidence to prove him the true Pope after he was Deposed yet it is certain both are Forged The first charges Vigilius with Simony yea excommunicates and deprives him for usurping the Papacy it is dated with the name of Basilius whereas Baronius and the Annotator say there was no such Consul in his time And Labbè saith it is to be rejected for the Barbarity of the Style and other reasons and concludes the mistake of the Consul shews the bold ignorance of Mercator the Author of this Imposture Now observe for the ingenuity and credit of Baronius that this Epistle not only serves him to clear Sylverius from Simony and to prove him the true Pope but he calls this odious Forgery The Sword of the Spirit the Word of God and the Exercise of that Power which he had to Absolve or Damn Eternally all People which is no less than Blasphemy The Second Epistle to Amator is so gross a Fiction that both Baronius and Binius reject it being contrary to the true History delivered by Liberatus whom the Notes call the most faithful Writer of this time Labbè agrees with them that it is spurious and shews that Mercator stole it out of Gregory's Epistles wishing that the like censure which is passed on this were passed upon many more of these Writings But the Letter of Amator to Sylverius which Labbè saith Learned men suspect to be as false as the Popes answer to it Baronius will have to be genuine and from this slight Forgery alone he proves That all the Catholick World groaned together at the ignominies put upon the Bishop of the Universal Church A rare Historian Whose Assertions and his Evidence are both false Binius places the Second Council of Orleance in this year but Labbe from Sirmondus puts it three years sooner An. 533. in the time of Pope John the Second it was called as the Preface saith by the Command of the King of France and made very good Canons without Papal Advice or Authority Binius his Notes here blunder this and the following Council and will keep King Clovis alive three year longer than Nature allowed him to support a Fable of this Kings giving the Pope a Golden Crown An. 514. whereas he died An. 511. The Third Council of Orleans Binius sets An. 540. But Labbè more truly places it here However it takes no notice of any Pope though Vigilius about this time is pretended to have writ to Caesarius Bishop of Arles This Synod made divers Canons for Discipline and by the second Canon it appears they were zealous for the Celibate of the Clergy But the fourth shews that hitherto the Canons in this case had not been obeyed and the ninth Canon Decrees That if any Clerks having Wives or Concubines were ignorantly ordained they should not be removed § 13. Vigilius was made Pope immediately after Sylverius was deposed and while the Goths belieged Bellisarius in Rome which was in this year But the Editors from Baronius write An. 540. upon this entrance to cover the Fable of his new Election after the death of Sylverius But he must come in in the year 537 For Marcellinus places Vigilius his death An. 554. which makes up the 17 years and odd time that Anastasius truly allots Vigilius whose Successor Pelagius entred as Baronius and the Editors own An. 555 which is but 15 whole year from that year 540 in which they say he entred and from which they falsly compute his time who writ Letters dated An. 538 and acted in all things as the sole true Pope from the time Sylverius was deposed which was according to Anastasius after he had sat one year and five Months and he followed Writers of undoubted credit that is Marcellinus who places his deposition and Vigilius his entrance An. 537 so doth Genebrard who with Platina allow Sylverius only some odd time above one year in which all Writers before Baronius agree His invention therefore it was to ascribe above 4 years to Sylverius that this false Chronology might cover his devisable of a new Election of Vigilius An. 540. which we justly reject as an idle Fable invented to save the Honour of the Roman Chair Yet it is well Baronius did not think Vigilius the true Pope all this time for by that means we have his true Character who he saith was driven on with the Whirlwind of Ambition and like Lucifer fell from Heaven that his Sacriledge cried out on every side he calls him a Schismatick a Simoniack an Usurper a wretched Man an Heretick a Wolf a Thief a false Bishop and an Antichrist aggravating his Crimes with all his Rhetorick wherein he rather exceeds the Bounds of Modesty than of Truth for he really was extreamly wicked and beyond the power of the sanctifying Chair it self to make him Holy We have so fully described the Acts of this Pope and all the false Stories about him in the following History of the Fifth General Council that we may here pass him by with a few brief Remarks First Liberatus assures us
Vigilius did make good his promise to Theodora the Empress and communicated with Hereticks Anastasius a later Author of no credit denies this and Binius is so fond of this Popeexcusing Fiction that he puts into the Text these words See how Vigilius though he came by evil means into the Papacy as soon as he got into that holy Chair established by Gods Promise was changed into another Man condemning the Heresie he had promised to approve Which false and foolish Parenthesis Labbè was ashamed of and leaves it out Secondly There are very many idle Stories in Anastasius his life of this Pope some of which I will briefly recite the bare relation of them being enough to disprove them viz. That when the People of Rome had accused Vigilius for a Murderer and got the Empress to send for him Prisoner to Constantinople the Romans as he was going off first desired his Prayers and then threw Stones at him That though he was brought Prisoner to Justinian yet the Emperor met and kissed him and the People sang that Hymn Behold the Lord the King cometh c. Which being applied to the Pope is Blasphemy and so the Editors and Baronius counted it as did also Pope Simplicius when the Heretical Bishop of Alexandria entring into Constantinople permitted his Party to sing the words of an Hymn only due to Christ The rest shall be observed in the History of the 5th Council where we may find also the Blunders Fictions and Contradictions of the Notes exposed and so will mention but few of them here viz. That Vigilius cunningly Abdicated the Papacy after the death of Sylverius and got himself new-elected by the Roman Clergy who were divinely inspired in that act That Vigilius was a Catholick and only polluted by communicating with Hereticks which was a horrid Crime formerly in Acacius That Bellisarius was denied a Triumph at Constantinople for his ill usage of the Pope That Vigilius Anathematized the Empress Theodora and that God thereupon destroyed her That the Roman Church is so secured by Providence that it is no blot to it if we can prove this Pope Simoniacal and Heretical I ask by the way why then do they tell so many Lies to cover this That the Eastern Bishops depended upon Vigilius his Judgment and stayed till he came to Constantinople before they would subscribe the Edict against the three Chatpers That Justinian after his coming revoked this Edict That the Pope finally confirmed the 5th Council And lastly That it was Sacriledge in the Emperour to presume to depose or confirm a Pope All which we shall shew to be notorius Falshoods The first Epistle of Vigilius is writ to three notorious Hereticks wherein he assures them he holds the same Faith with them and is so heretical that the Editors are ashamed of it and print only the beginning of it pretending from Baronius that some Eutychian writ it in his name But the Reader will remember that the Annalist always condemns genuine Writings if they reflect on the Pope and justifies Forgeries if they magnifie him of which this is another clear instance for Liberatus who was a little before called the most faithful Writer of his time hath this Epistle at large and affirms Vigilius writ it Yea Victor Tuennensis hath recorded it as this Popes almost in the same syllables in his Chronicle who is another Credible Writer of that Age. And both these Africans did ever after look on Vigilius as an Heretick for this and so he was but secretly for fear of Justinian To whom about this time Vigilius openly writ an Orthodox Letter though Baronius and the Editors place it Anno 540. and call it his 4th Epistle pretending it was writ after Baronius his invented new election and when the Holy Chair had set him right in Faith But my reason why I judge it writ Anno 538 soon after his entrance is because it was customary for a new Pope to write to the Emperor and give an Account of his Faith and since Vigilius had been advanced by Justinian it is not at all likely he should stay almost three years before he sent an Embassy to enquire if he were Orthodox and this Epistle having no Date they have clapt to it another to Mennas with a Date that smells of Forgery because the Emperors Embassador is made to subscribe to the Popes Letter Anno 540 which is a thing so unusual that either Justinian highly suspected Vigilius or this Postscript is added by Mercator However it being certain that Vigilius had writ privately to Anthimius Severus and Theodosius that he was of the same Faith with them and it being also probable that he writ these open Letters to Justinian and Mennas at the same time wherein he anathematizes those three Hereticks by name and professes himself Orthodox this proves him a most egregious Hypocrite and Dissembler in points of Faith I shall only briefly note on this fourth Epistle that Vigilius reckning up the names of his immediate Predecessors names not Sylverius among them which seems to intimate he was then alive And Secondly if Mercator did not thrust in that Sentence That to disturb or diminish the Priviledges of the Apostolical Seat appeared as bad as violating the Faith If this say be not a latter Addition we may infer That Vigilius was more concerned for the power of his See than for the Faith That which the Editors call the Second Epistle was writ to one Eutherius Anno 538 And though they and Baronius say he was then no true Pope yet the Collectors of the Decretal Epistles did not think so for they have put this among the Decretals of true Popes Du Pin hath well observed that the latter part of this Epistle is forged by Mercator where Vigilius is supposed so ignorant of Greek after he had lived long in Greece as to derive Cephas the name of St. Peter from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an Head And in this corrupt part is that absurd Sentence That no true Believer was ignorant that all Churches had their beginning from Rome Which though a Forgery serves the Editors to note upon in the Margen The Church of Rome is the Mother and Mistress of all Churches Of which they have no better evidence than such Trash and so must be content with such as they have The Third Epistle to Caesarius Bishop of Arles was writ in the same year and proves that Vigilius was taken for the true Pope as well by this eminent Father as by Eutherius Anno 538. The Sixth Seventh and Eighth Epistles are writ to Auxanius Successor to Caesarius and shew Vigilius was then so much at the Emperors devotion that he durst not grant a Pall to a French Bishop without the leave of Justinian and when he had above a year after got this leave he tells Auxanius he was obliged to pray for the Emperor and the Empress who had given their
consent Now if Theodora were so great a Friend to Hereticks as Baronius pretends 't is plain Vigilius then was a Favourite of hers which makes him still suspected to be inclined to Heresie But there is one mistake in this Epistle viz. That his Predecessor had granted a Pall to Caesarius which De Marca saith is false and affirms this Auxainus to have been the first Legate the Pope made in France A hopeful High-Priest to begin that Usurpation upon Metropolitans In this year was that Edict put out which condemned the three Chapters and here the Editors call it The Edict of the most pious Emperor Justinian containing a Confession of Faith and a Confutation of the Heresies that are contrary to the Catholick Church of God But for fear Vigilius and his Party might appear Heretical for opposing this Orthodox Edict the Editors will not print it here but thrust it on some hundred Pages further And put in here their false Comment before the Text hoping by the sham Stories in these Notes to take off the Readers aversation to this Heretical Pope But since all the Errors of these Notes are confuted at large in the History of the Fifth Council I will only name a few of them now viz. That Pelagius the Popes Secretary always opposed this Edict is false for he afterwards subscribed it He saith Vigilius Pontianus whose Letter is here printed and Facundus who writ against this Edict were Orthodox But the Fifth Council condemns all for Hereticks who wrote for the three Chapters ' here censured and none but Heretical Writers could take upon them to confute an Orthodox Confession of Faith The Decree of Vigilius for silence with his prudence and courage are all Fictions as shall be shewn in due place Vigilius had now been near three years at Constantinople and carried fair with Justinian so that doubtless he had signed his Edict which condemned the persons of Theodorus Theodoret and Ibas and their Heretical Writings yet here is an Epistle of his to a Scythian Bishop citing his Constitution which defends these three Chapters and wishes the persons of Theodorus c. might not be condemned as some favourers of Heresie desired Yet in the same Epistle he saith he had Suspended his two Deacons for defending the three Chapters and would shortly Excommunicate them Now what the Notes on this Epistle say That both the Opposers and Defenders of the three Chapters hated Vigilius is no wonder for he was false to all Parties and such trimming Sycophants who strive to please all get the favour of no body The Fifteenth Epistle to the Universal Church Baronius and the Editors do not censure but it is a meer Forgery being falsly dated as they own in the 26 of Justinian 552 they alter it to 551. Binius found but part of it in Baronius so prints no more But Labbé adds a great deal more not saying where he had it As to the matter of it the Story of this Popes sufferings at Constantinople is false and improbable not attested by any credible Writer of that time And whereas he saith he had Excommunicated and Deposed Theodorus Bishop of Caesarea and Suspended Mennas Patriarch of Constantinople that must be false because the Popes Legates in the sixth General Council affirm that Mennas died the 21st year of Justinian four year before the Date of this Letter An. 547 Wherefore this Epistle and the Instrument of Condemnation against Theodorus and Mennas are Forgeries And it is very unjust for Baronius and the Annotator on the credit of such stuff so rudely to rail at Justinian as if he were the vilest Heretick and greatest Monster upon Earth There are many other things in these Notes deserving censure viz. The affirming that Theodorus of Caesaria deposed Zoilus of Alexandria and put in Apollinaris whereas Liberatus expresly saith the Emperor did this The Stories of Justiman's revoking his Edict and of Theodorus and Mennas humble submission delivered in writing to Vigilius and of his absolving them are equally false and most improbable so that scarce any thing here can be trusted Were this Epistle genuine I would have observed that Pope Vigilius here saith he knew Justinian's Hand-writing And that utterly confutes Baronius and Suidas who say he was altogether illiterate I would also note That the Pope here affirms An. 551. he had been seven year out of his Country attending for the Peace of the Church Now if this be true he must leave Rome An. 544 that is three years before Baronius his Account and this will also prove some of his Epistles to Auxanius counterfeit being dated from Rome after that time But after all I reckon this false account of the Pope's Journey to be a sign that this Epistle is a Forgery only those who count it genuine ought to solve these difficulties There is nothing more in our Editors vere remarkable but only some few French Councils called by their own Kings and the Canons in them made by their own Bishops without any notice of Papal Authority and so without any Corruptions Wherefore we pass them and go on to the Fifth General Council where Vigilius will be brought on the Stage again An Epitome of Dr. Crakenthorp's Treatise of the Fifth General Council at Constantinople Anno 553. Chap. i. THE occasion of this Council was the Trio Capitulu or three Chapters about the Writings of Theodorus of Mopsvestia Theodoret against Cyril and the Epistle of Ibas to Maris which the Nestorians pretended was all approved by the Council of Chalcedon whereupon some doubted of the Authority of that Holy Council and the several Sects called from their having no one Head Acephali rejected it So that to appease this dangerous Schism Justinian set forth an Orthodox Edict to condemn those Writings And that not satisfying all Parties he assembled this Fifth General Council Chap. ii Pope Vigilius was then at Constantinople and often desired by the Bishops and commanded by the Emperor to be present Baronius falsly saith they had no regard to him yet he afterwards owns twenty Metropolitans and three Patriarchs invited him to come and offered him the Presidency urging him with a Promise under his Hand to to be there Vigilius first pretended to be Sick so they adjourned the first Session on his saying he would satisfie them next day Then he alledged there were but few Western Bishops but they shewed there were more with him at that time than had been in all the four former Great Councils He pretended also he would offer his Sense to the Emperor alone but the Emperor required him to do it to the Council So that the true reason why he would not be there was his Affection to the Nestorians and the three Chapters Chap. iii. Upon this the Council resolves to proceed without him which Cusanus saith ought to be done for the safety of
venerable Fathers and Witnesses of the Truth Liberatus an Enemy of his mentions his writing a Book against the Acephali Procopius speaks of his great diligence in reading the Christian Writings So that Gotofred in his Preface to the Institutes shews this is a meer a Calumny of Suidas but Baronius greedily repeats it over and over of pure malice to this learned Emperor His second Quarrel at him is for presuming to meddle in Causes of Faith and making Laws for Priests But did not all the Religious Kings of Judah do so Did not Constantine the two Theodosij and Martin the same And the 5th Council highly commend him for it The Code of Theodosius his Code and the Authenticks sufficiently prove this was done by the best of Princes Thirdly He reproaches him for his sacrilegious Fury in persecuting Vigilius Now I have proved before this beating and banishing of the Pope is a meer Fable and if he was persecuted or rather punished it was for Heresie and Constantine Theodosius the elder and younger and Martian are commended for the same Acts against the Arrians Macedonians Nestorians and Eutychians and St. Augustin justifies this proceeding Fourthly He charges him with falling into the Heresie of the Incorrupticolae in his last days writing an Edict for it and madly persecuting all the Orthodox especially Eutychius Bishop of Constantinople for opposing it for which he Rails intollerably at him saying all Authors Greek and Latin attest this Finally he dooms him to Hell for this But first Justinian did not publish such an Edict as Evagrius and Nicephorus his two main Witnesses attest and Baronius owns as much And Victor Bishop of Tunen who suffered under Justinian Imprisonment and speaks hardly of him is silent as to this Edict but shews he continued constant to his Edict against the three Chapters to his very death wherein he owns all the former General Councils And it is so far from truth that all Writers Greek and Latin charge him with that Heresie that neither Procopius Agathus Victor nor Liberatus do it nor Damascen though he treat of this Heresie nor Marcellinus Bede nor Anastasius Suidas saith he was most Orthodox Aimonius and Paulus Diaconus affirm he was for his Faith a Catholick And twenty other eminent Writers cited by this Author do all give him a great Character and Pope Gregory with many others after his death bestow on him the Title of Pious and of sacred Memory Baronius names but three Authors for this Slander First Nicephorus whom Possevine calls Heretical and Erroneous in History and the Cardinal in this Relation judges him to be a Fool and generally he is but Evagrius his Ape His second Witness is Eustathias But Surius is generally stuffed with fabulous Writers and such is this Eustathius falsly pretended to have writ Eutychius his Life for neither Photius Trithemius Possevine nor Sixtus Senensis mention any such Writer And the Story is full of Lyes for he makes Eutychius to come to Constantinople to the 5th Council and then to be chosen Bishop after Mennas death who died five years before this Council And this Eutychius was chosen full four years before it And he reckons that Eutychius was Banished twelve years whereas two years after his Banishment he crowned Justinius and was actually Patriarch when Justinius was sick and nominated Tiberius his associate and so could not as this Fabler pretends be desired from Banishment after Tiberius Reign began with Justin yet to make out this Lye Anastasius his latine Version of Nicephorus adds ten years to John Successor of Eutychius and makes him sit twelve year and seven Months who in Nicephorus sat but two years and seven Months 'T is true Eutychius was Banished by Justinian but it was for Prophesying of his Successors and for holding the Heresie of Origen as Pope Gregory witnesseth against which Justinian had put out an Edict and which was sentenced in the 5th Council And it was for opposing this Edict not an Heretical Edict that Eutychius was Banished So that thirdly Baronius hath no Author for this Slander of Justinian's being an Heretick but Evagrius who is owned by all to be a most fabulous Author as is proved in the History here very fully by many instances Now what is his credit against so many truer and better Historians Finally Whereas Baronius reviles Justinian as a destroyer of the Empire and the Church This Author largely proves out of the best Historians that Justinian was a Wise Pious and Victorious Prince the best Emperor as to his Laws his Buildings his Wars and his Love to Religion that ever sat on the Throne Imperial to which the Reader is referred Chap. xxi In like manner the Cardinal reviles Theodora the Empress as a Wicked Heretical Sacrilegious Mad Woman strook with death by Heavens vengeance upon Vigilius Excommunicating her But other Authors say she was like her Husband in her Studies and Manners Yea the Emperor gives her an excellent Character in his very Laws He also and the 6th Council after her death call her a Woman of Pious Memory Nor ought Baronius to revile her for thrusting Anthimius an Heretical Monster into the See of Constantinople as he doth An. 535. pag. 226. ut supr since there he owns that at his Election he seemed a Chatholick and that she favoured him as Orthodox yea he carried it so as to seem such to all As to her contending with Vigilius two years about the Restitution of Anthimius which Baronius relates An 547. pag. 357. it is a meer Fable for that Cause of Anthimius was determined long before and Victor saith that Vigilius and Theodora agreed after he came to Constantinople and that she persuaded him to condemn the three Chapters And he who best knew saith it was Pope Agapetus who excommunicated Theodora then favouring the Acephali So that Vigilius is by the Scribes mistake put for Agapetus in Gregory as appears by his speaking of the taking of Rome by the Goths immediately after which was the Sacking it by Vitiges after Agapetus his time or by Totilas which was not after but before this pretended Sentence of Vigilius against Theodora viz. that year Vigilius came to Constantinople From all which it is manifest that this Pope did never Excommunicate Theodora at all who in her latter Days was Orthodox but hated by the Nestorians for joyning with Justinian in condemning the three Chapters which also raises Baronius his spleen against her Chap. xxii His next attempt is against the three Chapters which he wishes had been condemned to Eternal silence buried and extinguished adding it had been better for the Church they had never been spoken of viz. because of the Troubles ensuing I reply so there was about the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But this settled the true
and condemn them as such yea Anathematize them and is this only a point of Ecclesiastical Discipline May Hereticks and their Opinions be either condemned or not and is it an indifferent thing whether a Pope absolve and defend or accurse and condemn in such cases Surely the great name of de Marca is forged and put to this weak tract he would not have argued at this rate That the Acts of this Council were early translated into Latin for the use of the Western Church is probable enough but Vigilius needed not this Translation he had lived at Constantinople long before he was Pope and now six years together after he was Pope and so must understand Greek perfectly But the true reason why Vigilius Epistle was not added to these Latin Acts was because there was no such Epistle then invented For had he then writ such an Epistle or in six Months after it would certainly have been joyned to both the Greek and Latin Copies for all Mens satisfaction who were scandalized by his dissent especially if that which de Marca supposes had been thought true in those Ages viz. That the Decrees of a General Council were invalid without the Popes Confirmation But this is an Opinion of later Birth Whatever he saith in defence of the sincerity of the Latin Acts I agree to but since he borrows from Crakenthorp not only his Arguments but his conjectures also such as altering the name of Domnus into John c. I must believe the Author of this discourse had seen Crakenthorp's learned History of the fifth Council yet durst not own it because he could not confute it From the same Author he borrows much of what he says about condemning Origen's Opinions in this Council But since the Council was risen before Vigilius began to deliberate whether he should receive their Acts or no yea and their Acts as he thinks translated into Latin also how could Justinian after this send to the dissolved Council to know their Judgment of Origen and his Followers Therefore de Marca mistakes the point and the learned Crakenthorp solves this difficulty much better to which I refer the Reader And only will enquire how this Author and those Popes he cites could truly say that no matters of Faith were handled in this fifth Council if Origen and his Heretical Opinions were here condemned as he goes about to prove This is a manifest contradiction The Sense of those Popes and others must be no Points of Faith decided at Chalcedon were called in Question over again here For the Question only was whether the Opinions in the three Chapters were not condemned in the Council of Chalcedon And the fifth Council affirming this concerning the Opinions of three Persons did not as some feared decree any new or different point of Faith from the Council of Chalcedon It is a needless thing to offer conjectures about the reason why Vigilius in this Epistle doth not mention the condemning of Origen's Errors for the true reason is obvious which is Because the Forger of this Epistle had nothing in his Eye but to clear this Pope from the main thing he was charged with viz. defending three Heretical Chapters and that point he makes out I grant he had yet only joyntly with other Patriarchs and by following not leading Justinian condemned Origen before as Liberatus declares But I must note that Liberatus his telling us that so particularly and saying nothing of Vigilius his Epistle to condemn the three Chapters is a shrewd suspicion there was no such Epistle since Liberatus writ after Vigilius death and was a favourer of the three Chapters and writ all that he thought might disparage such as condemned them To conclude either the Authority of the Pope was not so considerable in those days as this learned Apologist fancies or Vigilius his carriage was such that no body enquired what side he was of after his so often turnings since he lived above two years after this Council and yet no mention in any genuine Writer is made where he was or how he carried himself to the time of his death which is said to have hapned in Sicily An. 555. So little a figure did the Roman Pontiff then make and when the Controversie was revived in the time of Pelagius the Second and Gregory the Great they chose to bury Vigilius name in silence his inconstancy to his Principles and evil Practices having made it the interest of the Roman Church to clap him under Hatches so long as his Character was remembred and this Apologist had better have followed their Policy than to raise him as he hath done only to his greater shame Books printed for and Sold by R. Clavel at the Peacock in St. Paul's Church-yard THE Reasons of Praying for the Peace of our Jerusalem In a Sermon Preached before the Queen at White-Hall on the Fast-Day being Wednesday August 29. 1694. by Thomas Comber D. D. Dean of Durham and Chaplain in Ordinary to their Majesties Printed by Their Majesties Special Command A Daily Office for the Sick Compil'd out of the Holy Scriptures and the Liturgy of our Church with occasional Prayers Meditations and Directions The Catechism of the Church with proofs from the New Testament and some additional Questions and Answers divided into 12 Sections by Zach. â—shem D. D. Author of the Book lately published Entituled a Daily Office for the Sick with directions c. A Church Carechism with a brief and easie Explanation thereof for the help of the Meanest Capacities and Weakest Memories in order to the establishing them in the Religion of the Church of England by T. C. Dean of D. The Pantheon Representing the Fabulous Histories of the Heathen Gods and most Illustrious Heroes in a short plain and familiar Method by way of Dialogue for the Use of Schools Written by Fra. Pomey of the Society of Jesus Author of the French and Latin Dictionary for the Use of the Dauphin Bedae Venerabills opera Quaedam Theologica nunc primùm edita necnon Historica antea semel edita Accesserunt Egberti Archiepiscopi Eboracerifis Dialogus de Ecclesiasticâ Institutione Aldbelmi Episcopi Scireburnensis Liber de Virginitate ex Codice antiquissimo emendarus Disquisitio in Hypothesin Baxterianam de Foedere Gratin Ab initio deinceps semper ubique omnibus indulto adhuc apud Ethnicos extra-evangelicos vigente ac valente ad salutem Authore Carolo Robothamo Ecclesiae Anglicanae Presbytero Norfolciensi S. Th. B. Q. Horatii Flacci Opera Interpretatione Notis Illustravit Ludovicus Desprez Cardinalitius Socius ac Rhetor Emeritus Jussu Christianissimi Regis in usum Serenissimi Delphini ac Serenissimorum Principum Burgundiae Andium Biturigum Huic Editioni accessere Vita Horatii cum Dacerii Notis ejusdem Chronologia Horatiana Praefatio de Satira Romona L. Annaei Flori rerum Romanarum Epitome Interpretatione Notis Illustravit Anna Tanaquilla Fabri Tilia Jussu Christianissimi Regis
Faith as it did also that Controversie and by Providence shews us that a Pope may Err in matters of Faith Chap. xxiii After this he Rails at the Edict calling it a Seed plot of dissention and saying it was contrary to the three Chapters of the Council of Chalcedon and as Facundus affirms contrary to Justinian's own Faith and writ by Hereticks and the Cardinal saith it was writ by Theodorus Bishop of Caesarea against whom he every where Rails as a Factious and Schismatical Man yea an Heretick and obstinate Origenist a most wicked Wretch and a plague to the whole Church But as to the Edict it is in defence of the Council of Chalcedon and to say otherwise is to condemn the 5th General Council who often declare as much Yea Baronius elswhere in contradiction to himself saith this Edict is a Confession of Justinian ' s right Faith a Catechism and exact declaration of the Catholick Faith And he might as well call the Decrees of Nice or other General Councils Seed-plots of dissention yea the Gospel it self may be so calumniated Nor do Liberatus Facundus and Vigilius as he saith declare that Theodorus writ this Edict Liberatus only saith he suggested it to the Emperor to condemn the three Chapters by a Book to be dictated by the Emperor which he promised to do Facundus names not Theodorus but saith They were willing to believe it was writ by the Adversaries of the Truth which was but a conjecture and is as false as what he next speaks of it being contrary to the Emperors own Faith And Vigilius words cited by Baronius rightly construed shew only that when the Edict was read in the Pallace Theodorus required the Bishops to favour it by his words however this passage is taken out of a forged Epistle of Vigilius wherein Mennas is said to be excommunicated the 25th year of Justinian who died the 21st year of that Emperor So that none of his Evidence do prove that Theodorus writ this Edict And for his opposing Vigilius his Decree of silence we shewed before there was no such Decree nor could he lead Justinian into the Heresie of the Incorrupticolae because the Emperor never held it and his only Witnesses that Theodorus was an Origenist Heretick are Facundus and Liberatus Now Facundus is an Heretick condemned by the 5th General Council for writing in defence of the three Chapters and a malicious Enemy of Theodorus And so was Liberatus for which cause Bellarmine Baronius and Possevine advise us to read him cautiously especially in such things as he borrowed from the Nestorians and what he saith of the 5th Council Professae inimicitiae suspicionem habent mendacij And this is certainly so for how could he hold Origen's Heresies who subcribed the 5th Council wherein Origen is by name condemned And among other Bishops no doubt he had subscribed Justinian's Edict against Origen's Errors otherwise he could not have been so familiar with the Emperor nor so beloved by him as Liberatus the Author of this Calumny reports him to have been So that Theodorus was always Orthodox and his advising this Edict is no proof it was against the Faith Chap. xxiv Baronius and Binius do attempt after this to question the Acts of the 5th Council not indeed in any main thing concerning their not condemning or Vigilius not defending the three Chapters which is our Point but in lesser matters such as may be objected against all the General Councils in the World which therefore if the objections were true would not take away the Authority of this General Council whose Acts are as well preserved as any and better than any of the other Councils except Chalcedon that went before it Chap. xxv The first Corruption they charge these Acts with is that they add to the Acts of Chalcedon in reciting them these words which Jesus Christ our Lord is one of the Trinity which words some suspected of Eutychianism would have added to the Council of Chalcedon but could not obtain it But first it was no Eutychian Heretick who first said Christ was one of the Trinity Theodorus of Mopsvestia denied it but Proclus who was Orthodox affirmed it and taught it in an Epistle approved in the Council of Chalcedon and Justinian set out an Edict for it against the Nestorians who denied it wherein he also Anathematizes the Eutychians which Edict Pope John the second confirms and declares to be agreeable to the Apostolick Doctrin and to the Faith of the Roman Church Wherefore those Monks who affirmed one of the Trinity was Crucified could not be Eutychian Hereticks as Baronius falsly says But Baronius is a Nestorian who denies this Truth And those Monks did not seek to add it to the Council of Chalcedon only they declared against the Nestorians this was the Sense of that Council in the time of Hormisda who was Heretical in denying it nor doth the 5th Synod recite it as the words of the Council of Chalcedon but as their own words who were as Orthodox as any in the Council of Chalcedon and he is a Nestorian who denies it Chap. xxvi Baronius objects Secondly That in these Acts Ibas is said to have denied the Epistle to Maris to be his which he saith is false and Binius calls it a Lye and they both give this as an instance of the Corruption of these Acts They may as well prove Justinian's Edict corrupted and Pope Gregory's Epistles where it is said he durst not confess it yea that he denied it to be his And the 5th Council prove he did deny it by the interlocution of six Metropolitans at Chalcedon And though Baronius do say positively in one place that the true Acts of Chalcedon have it that lbas confessed it to be his Epistle yet he cites those very Acts and the second of Nice elsewhere saying it was found not to be the Epistle of Ibas and so it was condemned and he absolved And the truth of the matter is that Ibas denied at Chalcedon that ever he called Cyril an Heretick after the Union But we have proved before that he writ this Epistle divers years before that Union and therein called Cyril Heretick which is a denying the words of his own Epistle for which he is censured in the 5th Council Chap. xxvii He alledges that these Acts say the Council of Chalcedon condemned the Epistle of Ibas Which he saith is untrue and that he hath demonstrated the contrary out of the Acts of Chalcedon and Binius calls this another Lye both of them giving this as an instance that the Acts are corrupted But if so the whole Council is corrupted for they say over and over that this Epistle of Ibas was condemned by the definitions at Chalcedon and that they had demonstrated this and it was indeed their