Presidents of it Yet not only Leo the Fourth but the famous Council of Nice approved of this Synod called and carried on without the Pope ' s knowledge or leave There is but one Canon in this Council which contradicts the Roman practice viz. The Ninth which allows Deacons to Marry and continue in their Office if they declared at their Ordination that they could not live Single This Canon therefore Baronius and Binius strive to corrupt with false Glosses The former saith We may by this Canon see how firmly Ministers single Life was asserted not only in the whole Catholick Church but in the East Now it is very strange that a private Canon of a Provincial Council which allows one Order of Ministers to Marry should shew it was the Opinion of the whole Church that none might Marry The latter in his Notes affirms That this among other Canons solidly proves that not only Priests but Deacons by the Apostolical Law were bound to Live without Wives But the Apostles certainly allowed Deacons to have Wives and this Canon was made on purpose that they might live with their Wives if they pleased The Notes proceed to say That Deacons ordained against their Will and protesting they could not contain were by these Fathers permitted to Marry after their Ordination provided they left off all Sacred Administrations and did not Communicate among the Priests in the Chancel but among the People Which is an impudent falsification There being no word of being Ordained unwillingly nor any reason why they should be Ordained who were to be reduced presently to Lay-communion Yea the Words of the Canon are express that if they did Marry they should continue in their Ministration So that these Editors make no Conscience to make these ancient Records to contradict themselves rather then let them seem to oppose their Churches present practice For which vile purpose there is another trick in the Notes on this Council For whereas the Eighteenth Canon speaks of Lay-persons which Vowed single Life as many had done in times of Persecution and afterwards broke their Vow that these were to be counted Bigamists The Notes on this Canon put these Words of the Thirteenth Canon Those who are of the Clergy c. Before their observation on the Eighteenth Canon on purpose to make the Reader think the Clergy in those days Vowed single Life as they do now at Rome § 13. The Council of Naeccaesarea according to these Editors was under Sylvester who is not once named in it nor doth it appear he knew of it They might also have left out Leo the Fourth's approving it Five hundred years after because the Notes say The Council of Nice allowed it which is much more for its Credit The same Notes say The first Canon orders the same thing which was decreed in the Thirty third Canon at Elliberis and the Ninth at Ancyra And if so that is not as they falsly gloss the Canon of Ancyra That the Clergy should live Single or be reduced to Lay Communion For in that Canon some of the Clergy are allowed to Marry and to continue to minister as Clergy-men still And the true Sense of this Naeocaesarean Canon is That whereas in times of Persecution when Marriage was inconvenient many Priests promised to live Single Now these only were not allowed to Marry afterward but when the Church had Peace the Nicene Council left all Clergy-men free to Marry or not as they pleased which shews That when the Reason of this Canon ceased they believed its Obligation did so also The Fifth Canon forbids a Catechumen who falls into Sin to enter into the Church By which the Notes say That Baronius had sharply censured Eusebius But it is plain that Baronius shews more Malice than Wit in that Censure Eusebius only relates Matter of Fact That Constantine was present in the Nicene Council and he with all ancient Authors agrees That Constantine was yet a Catechumen where then is the Crime Do not Baronius and Binius both agree that Constantine was present in the Council of Arles Ten years before his pretended Baptism at Rome And if it be said This Canon forbid it I ask Whether it be probable that an Emperor who as Baronius saith was Solutus Legibus Above the Civil Law should be proceeded against by a Canon of a small Provincial Council Wherefore Eusebius his only Crime is That he tells a Truth which happens to contradict the Lying Acts of Sylvester and consequently the Interest of Rome for which the Cardinal and Annotator can never forgive him The next place is assigned to a Roman Council under Sylvester wherein there was a famous Disputation between the Jews and Christians before Constantine and Helena but in the Notes we are told the Story is utterly false only attested by Sylvester's Acts which Swarm with Lies as they are now extant yet out of these Acts as now extant is the Forgery of Constantine's Baptism at Rome taken and therefore Baronius and Binius reject this Council as a meer Forgery But why do they not reject Constantine's Baptism as well as this Council since both rely on the same Author The Reason is plain That makes for the Interest of the Pope and This no way concerns and so it may pass for a Forgery as it is § 14. On occasion of Arius's Heresie now breaking out at Alexandria there was a Council of an Hundred Bishops called by Alexander Bishop of that City to Condemn him which first Council of Alexandria the Editors say was under Sylvester but it doth not appear that this Pope knew of it till Three years after An. 318 at which time Alexander gave notice of this Council not to Sylvester by name as the Notes falsly suggest but to all Catholic Bishops and in particular to the Bishop of Constantinople But for fear the Reader should observe That more respect was shewed to that Bishop than to the Pope the Editors have removed these Epistles of Alexander into the Body of the Nicene Council and only give us Notes upon them here in which the Annotator out of Baronius turns the Charge of Lying and Forgery of which themselves have been so often convicted upon us whom they falsly call Innovators Four years after followed a Second Council at Alexandria which the Notes hope to prove was under Sylvester because Athanasius saith This was a General Council and saith Hosins was there Upon this Baronius fancying nothing could be a General Council unless the Pope were present Personally or by his Legates conjectures Hosius was the Pope's Legate and in that capacity presided in this Council And the Notes positively affirm this Dream for a certain Truth But Athanasius calls many Synods General which were only Provincial and it is plain he had not the modern Roman Notion of a General Council because he never mentions Sylvester nor doth he say Hosius was his Legate But even
it is very certain that divers of these pretended Decrees were not observed no not in France where these two Bishops lived for divers Ages after they are pretended to be sent thither Before I leave this Epistle I must observe that the last Section about the Canon of Scripture wherein all the Apocryphal Books are reckoned up as part of the Canon is a gross Forgery added to it 300 years after Innocent's death for Cresconius never saw this part of the Epistle nor doth he mention it under this Head though he cite the other parts of it so that if the whole Epistle be not forged yet this part of it is certainly spurious and added to it by a later hand as is at large demonstrated by Bishop Cosens in his History of the Canon of Scripture to which I refer the Reader noting only that the Council of Trent grounded their Decree about the Canon of Scripture not upon genuine Antiquity but palpable Forgeries and Corruptions In the following Epistles unto the twelfth there is nothing remarkable but some brags of the dignity of Rome and many pretences to a strict observance of the Ancient Canons which were no where oftner broken than in that Church Some think they are all forged because they want the Consuls names And the twelfth Epistle may pass in the same rank since it is dated with false Consuls viz. Julius the fourths time and Palladius but because it seems to shew that the Pope took care even of Foreign Churches Baronius resolves to amend it of his own head and puts in Theodosius and Palladius though still the number is false for Theodosius was the seventh time Consul with Palladius not the fourth and had not this Epistle made for the Popes Supremacy the Annalist would not have taken pains to mend it The thirteenth Epistle which passes in Binius for a famous testimony of Innocent's zeal in discovering the Pelagians and meriting Notes is the same with the beginning of the second Epistle of Foelix the fourth and Labbè saith it is a forgery of the counterfeit Isidore The fourteenth Epistle calls Antioch a Sister Church and from Peters being first there seems to confess it was the elder Sister and both that and the sixteenth Epistle speak of one Memoratus which Baronius will not allow to be the proper name of a Bishop because indeed there was no such Bishop in that time so that he expounds it of the Bishop remembred that is of Paulinus but the ill luck is that Paulinus is neither named before nor remembred in either of these two Epistles The Notes on the sixteenth Epistle mention it as a special usage of the Bishop of Rome not to restore any to his Communion unless they were corrected and amended but this was ever the rule of all good Bishops and of late is less observed at Rome than in any other Church The eighteenth Epistle maintains a very odd Opinion viz. That the Ordinations celebrated by Heretical Bishops are not so valid as the Baptism conferred by them and the Notes own that the Persons so Ordained may truly receive as they call it the Sacrament of Orders and yet neither receive the Spirit nor Grace no nor a power to exercise those Orders which seems to me a Riddle For I cannot apprehend how a Man can be said truly to receive an Office and yet neither receive Qualifications for it not any Right to exercise it The twenty second Epistle cites that place of Leviticus That a Priest shall marry a Virgin and affirms it as a Precept founded on Divine Authority and he censures the Macedonian Bishops as guilty of a breach of God's Law because they did not observe this Precept which every one knows to be a piece of the abrogated Ceremonial Law and the Annotator cannot with all his shufling bring the Pope off from the Heresie of pressing the Levitical Law as obligatory to Christians But there is one honest passage in this Epistle which contradicts what this Pope had often said before of the sinfulness of Priests Marriages for here he saith The Bond of Matrimony which is by Gods Commandment cannot be called sin However out of this Epistle which is a very weak one and dated only with one of the Consuls names the Editors feign a Council in Macedonia and a Message sent to the Pope for confirmation of their Acts which doth not appear at all in the Body of the Epistle And Baronius desires the Reader to note How great Majesty and Authority shined in the Apostolick See so that it was deemed an injury to require the Popes to repeat their former Orders Whereas if this Epistle be not forged it is no more but a nauseous repetition of the same Orders which he and his Predecessors had given over and over and the frequent harping upon the same string in all the Decretal Epistles especially as to the Marriage of the Clergy shews how little Majesty or Authority shined in the Popes since all the Countries to which they sent their Orders so generally despised them that every Pope for divers Ages was still urging this matter without that effect which they desired The twenty third Epistle was writ to some Synod or other they know not whether at Toledo or Tholouse as we noted before And the Jesuit Sirmondus in Labbe by elaborate conjectures and large additions probably of his own inventing had put it out more full and adorned it with Notes which pains the impartial Reader will think it doth not deserve The twenty fourth Epistle is dear to the Editors and Baronius because the Pope therein is his own witness that all Matters ought to be referred to his Apostolical See and that the Africans application to him was a due Veneration since all Episcopal Authority was derived from him 'T is true St. Augustine doth mention a Message sent to Innocent out of Africa but he adds that he writ back according to what was just and becoming a Bishop of an Apostolical See But as to this Epistle besides the hectoring language in the Preface there is neither Style nor Arguments but what are despicable and Erasmus did long since justly say In this Epistle there is neither Language nor Sense becoming so great a Prelate so that probably the whole may be a Fiction of some Roman Sycophant which is the more likely because Labbè owns that one of the Consuls names is wrong that is Junius is put for Palladius Erasmus adds that the twenty fifth Epistle is of the same grain with the former the Style is no better and the Matter of the same kind for he brags that whenever Matters of Faith are examined application must be made to the Apostollcal Fountain And yet this Pope as the Notes confess held the Eucharist ought to be given to Infants yea that it was necessary for them that is I suppose for their Salvation Now the
talk as if a whole general Council in that Age were convened to no other end but only to execute the Popes Decree blindly without any enquiry into the merits of the Cause And Celestine's own Letter cited by Baronius to make out this Fiction declares he believes the Spirit of God was present with the Council of which there had been no need if all their business had been only to execute a Sentence passed before There is also great prevarication used by the Cardinal and Binius about the case of John B. of Antioch one of the Patriarchs summoned to this Council This John was Nestorius his old Friend for they had both been bred in the Church of Antioch and he having as Baronius relates received Letters both from Celestine and Cyril before the general Council was called importing that Nestorius was Condemned both at Rome and Alexandira if he did not recant within ten days writes to Nestorius to perswade him for peace sake to yield telling him what trouble was like to befal him after these Letters were published Here Baronius puts into the Text these Letters that is of the Pope of Rome As if the Pope were the sole Judge in this matter and his Authority alone to be feared whereas the Epistle it self tells Nestorius he had received many Letters one from Celestine and all the rest from Cyril So that this Parenthesis contradicts the Text and was designed to deceive the Reader But to go on with the History though Nestorius would not submit to John upon this Admonition yet he had no mind to condemn him and therefore he came late to Ephesus after the Council was assembled and when he was come would not appear nor joyn with the Bishops there but with a party of his own held an opposite Synod and condemned Cyril and Memnon with the rest as unjustly proceeding against Nestorius and by false Suggestions to the Emperor he procured both Cyril and Memnon to be Imprisoned Now among others in the Orthodox Council who resented these illegal Acts Juvenalis Bishop of Jerusalem saith That John of Antioch ought to have appeared and purged himself considering the Holy Great and General Council and the Apostolical seat of old Rome therein represented and that he ought to obey and reverence the Apostolical and Holy Church of Jerusalem by which especially according to Apostolical Order and Tradition the Church of Antioch was to be directed and judged alluding no doubt to that passage Acts xv where the Errors arising at Antioch were rectified and condemned in the Council at Jerusalem But Baronius falsly cites these words of Juvenalis as if he had said John ought to have appeared at least because of the Legates sent from Rome especially since by Apostolical Order and ancient Tradition it was become a custom that the See of Antioch should always be directed and judged by that of Rome And Binus in his Notes transcribes this Sentence as Baronius had perverted mangled and falsified it Which Forgery being so easily confuted by looking back into the Acts of the Council and so apparently devised to support the Papal Supremacy is enough to shew how little these Writers are to be trusted when fictions or lying will serve the ends of their darling Church After this the Preface-tells us that though John still continued obstinate the Synod referred the deposing of him to the Popes pleasure as if they had done nothing in this matter themselves But the Councils Letter to Celestine says That though they might justly proceed against him with all the severity he had used against Cyril yet resolving to overcome his rashness with moderation they referred that to Celestine ' s judgment but in the mean time they had Excommunicated him and his party and deprived them of all Episcopal power so that they could hurt none by their Censures Therefore the Council both Excommunicated and deprived him by their own Authority and only left it to the Pope whether any greater severity should be used against him or no 'T is true not only the Pope but the Emperor afterwards moved that means should be used to reconcile this Bishop and his Party to the Catholick Church by suspending this Sentence a while and procuring a meeting between Cyril and John But still it must not be denied both that the Council censured him their own Authority and that Cyril without any leave from the Pope did upon John's condemning Nestorius receive him into the Communion of the Catholick Church Yet because Sixtus the Successor of Pope Celestine among other Bishops was certified of this thence the Notes and Baronius infer that this reconciliation also was by the Authority of the See of Rome Whereas Cyril's own Letter shews that the Terms of admitting John to Communion were prescribed by the Council and the Emperor and that Cyril alone effected this great work We may further observe Binius in his Notes tells us that after the condemnation of Nestorius the Fathers shouted forth the praise of Celestine who had censured him before And Baronius saith the Acclamations followed the condemning of Nestorius in which they wonderfully praised Celestine as the Synodal Letter to the Emperor testifies By which a Man would think that Celestine had the only Glory of this Action But if we look into the first Act of the Council there are no Acclamations expressed there at all after the condemnation of Nestorius and the Synodical Letter to the Emperor cited by Baronius hath no more but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 viz. that they praised Celestine which imports only their commending his Sentence whereas in that first Act every one of the Bishops present makes a particular Encomium in the praise of Cyril's Faith as being in all things agreeing to the Nicene Creed which fills up at least forty pages together in Labbe's Edition As for the Acclamations they are in the second Act and in them Cyril is equally praised with Celestine for the Fathers say To Celestine another Paul to Cyril another Paul to Celestine keeper of the Faith to Celestine agreeing with the Synod to Celestine the whole Synod gives thanks one Celestine one Cyril one Faith of the Synod one Faith of the whole World This was just after the reading of Celestine's Letter brought by his Legates to the Council yet we see even when the occasion led them only to speak of the Pope the Fathers joyn Cyril with him knowing that Celestine's Sentence as well as his Information was owing intirely to Cyril's Learning and Zeal Moreover we have another touch of their sincerity about the Virgin Mary For Baronius calls the people of Ephesus The Virgins Clients Subjects and Worshippers adding That as they had once cried out great is Diana so now being converted they set out Mary the Mother of God with high and incessant Praises and persevered to venerate her with a more willing Service and to address to her by a
more solemn Worship By which one would imagin that in the time of this Council and ever since the Blessed Virgin had been worshipped as she is now at Rome but there is not one word of this true except only that she was there declared to be the Mother of God That Epistle of Cyril's from whence Baronius proves this saith nothing of either Praises or Worship given to the Blessed Virgin he saith indeed that when the people heard Nestorius was deposed they began with one voice to commend the Synod and to glorifie God because the Enemy of the Faith was cast down And when he had related what Honours the People did them by carrying Lamps and burning Incense before them he add◠Thus our Saviour manifested his Glory and his Power of doing all things to those who blasphemed him So that all this story of their praising and venerating the Blessed Virgin is his own Fiction as is also that other conjecture of his that the Synodal Epistle declares that John the Evangelist and Mary the Mother of God once lived together at Ephesus For that Synodal Epistle speaks only of two Churches there called by their Names So when he and Binius say it is believed that this Addition to the Angelical Salutation was then made Holy Mary Mother of God pray for us and Baronius adds that all the Faithfull use to say and often repeat this and teach it their Children even while they suck'd the Breasts But I ask Why doth any Man believe this Is it barely because Baronius says so Doth not he say an hundred false things to justifie the Corruptions of Rome Or can he produce one ancient Author about this time or of divers Ages after wherein this Phrase Mother of God pray for us is used It is certain he cannot and therefore this blasphemous addition is much later than the Council of Ephesus and the Custom of saying it and teaching it to their Children is a Scandalous Innovation brought in by the Roman Church in the Superstitious Ages and justly rejected by us who keep close to Antiquity in owning the Blessed Virgin to be the Mother of God but do not Worship her or Pray to her And thus much for the Council of Ephesus whose Acts being extant at large do abundantly confute the Popes Supremacy and set forth many other Usages and Practices of Rome to be Innovations and Corruptions § 3. After Celestine's death Pope Sixtus or Xystus the Third succeeded who sate about eight years but did few Memorable things In his younger days he was not only a Favourer but a Patron of the Pelagians though afterwards he writ against them and strenuously opposed them Wherefore Baronius doth not sufficiently prove those three Tracts Of Riches Of Evil Teachers and of Chastity which go under the name of this Pope were not his by saying there are divers Pelagian Doctrines in them since if they were writ in his youth Xystus was then a Pelagian himself This Pope writ as is said three Epistles two of which are put into the Council of Ephesus because they shew Xystus his Consent to what the Council had done and to Cyril's actings afterwards as to John Bishop of Antioch In the later of these Epistles there is a memorable Saying cited by Vincentius Lirinensis Let there be no liberty for Novelty hereafter since it is not convenient to add any thing unto that which is Old Had his Sucessors minded this good Rule the Roman Church had not added so many New Doctrines and Practices to those Old Ones which were received and used before Xystus his time The Pontifical relates a Sory of one Bassus who accused this Pope of Adultery and that a Synod of 56 Bishops convened by the Emperor's Order cleared him and condemned his Accuser Now for the greater credit of this Pope some have forged a third Epistle wherein he is made to signifie to them his purging himself upon Oath But Labbe condemns the whole Epistle as spurious and Binius rejects it because it is stolen in part out of Pope Fabian his third Epistle and because the Date is wrong for these Arguments will serve to condemn an Epistle that supposes a Pope accused and tried by his Peers whereas had it been for the Supremacy Binius would have justified it though it had these and greater faults Besides this Epistle some illiterate Monk hath forged the Acts of this Council wherein the Pope was tried and though there be neither Latin nor Sense in it being as dull as that of Sinuessa but the Inventor designing to do Honour to the Pope is very gently censured both by Baronius and Binius And to this they have tacked another such a Council of the Trial of Polychronius Bishop of Jerusalem before Pope Sixtus for attempting to challenge the Precedency before Rome c. And Binius confesseth not only that Pope Nicholas alledged this Council for good Authority but that the Modern Writers of their Church do so also Whereas he owns there was no such man Bishop of Jerusalem and that the whole Story and Acts are a Fiction of no credit in the World by which we may learn to be cautious how we trust the Roman Writers Ancient or Modern when they cite Records to support the Grandeur of the Church About this time Theodoret mentions a great Council at Constantinople under Theodosius about setling the Precedence of the Eastern Patriarchats on occasion of a Contest between the Churches of Alexandria Constantinople and Antioch Baronius and out of him Binius in relating this have added to Theodoret's words that Alexandria claimed the Priority before all the Eastern Bishops because he was the first Bishop of the Catholick Church after the Pope But the Quotation he produces out of Theodort Ep. 86. doth not so much as mention Rome nor the Pope So that they have invented that part of the Story to keep up their Churches Credit However this Council evidently shews that the Roman Church had nothing to do with the East they called great Councils without him and setled the Precedencies of their own Patriarchats without taking notice of the Pope As for Sixtus he made no figure in the World and all we hear of him further is that being warned by Leo his Deacon and Successor afterwards he discovered and prevented the Attempts of Julianus of Hecla a Pelagian Heretick who endeavoured to get into the Churches Communion as Prosper informs us An. 440. in Chron. In this year was held the Synod of Riez in the Province of Narbon dated by the Emperors and Consuls without any mention of the Pope For it was held under Hilary Bishop of Arles who first subscribes and is meant in the Canons by the name of the Metropolitan as Marca confesses And though Binius have no Notes to this purpose I must observe that this Hilary of Arles as Primate of those parts of France calls a Provincial
bowing toward the East for the peril of Idolatry Now had there been any Images adored in his time for the same reason he must rather have forbidden bowing down before them The second Council at Rome under Leo was in the Cause of Hilary Bishop of Acles who had justly deposed a scandalous Bishop in a Provincial Synod But he as such ill Men had often done flies to Rome to complain and Leo not considering the equity of the censure but Hilary's having acted as a Primate in those parts of France contrary to the Decrees of former Popes espouses this evil Bishops Quarrel being more concerned for his designed usurpation of a supremacy than the honour of the Church Upon this Hilary who was one of the most pious and learned Men of that Age goes on foot to Rome and requires the Pope to act more solito in the accustomed manner and not to admit such to Communion who had been justly condemned in their own Country and when he saw the Pope was resolved to break the Canons and set up his Supremacy by right or wrong he suddenly departs from Rome without taking any leave of Leo for which the Angry Pope writes to the Bishops of France declaring Hilary's Acts null and depriving him of his Power to Congregate Synods and Depose Bishops c. And though he brags much of his universal Authority c. in that Epistle yet knowing how little this would signifie to Hilary and the rest of the French Bishops he gets an Edict from the Emperor Valentinian to back his Orders which because there are some great words for the Popes Supremacy in it Baronius magnifies as worthy of perpetual Memory And since their Champions alledge this Edict as a proof of the Roman universal Supremacy I will observe upon it First That it was easie for the Pope to cite false Canons to a young and easy Emperor and persuade him that the Councils had given him this Supremacy as his Predecessors had lately done in Africa Secondly That the Pope probably drew up this Edict himself and so put in these Flourishes about his own Authority Which will be more plain if we consider that the Emperor Leo in one of his Edicts saith Constantinople is the Mother of the Orthodox Religion of all Christians with much more to this purpose but Baronius relating this saith Thus indeed Leo speaks thus but without doubt it was conceived in the words and writ in the Style of Acacius who swelled with Pride But Leo Bishop of Rome was as proud as Acacius and had more influence over Valentinian than Acacius ever had over the Emperor Leo wherefore in Baronius own words without doubt Valentinian ' s Edict was drawn up in Pope Leo ' s Style and so he is only a Witness in his own Cause Thirdly The Sentence of both the Emperor and the Pope was unjust and although Leo wheedled the Bishops of France to reject Hilary that Bishop still acted as Primate and called Synods afterwards so that this big-speaking Edict was neither believed nor obeyed as de Marca shews For indeed Hilary was Primate by Original right and the French Bishops stuck to him not only for his great Sanctity but because they feared the then growing Encroachments and Usurpations of Rome And finally Pope Hilary Leo's Successor determined this Controversie contrary to Leo's Decree by which we see how odly Causes go at Rome since some Popes were for the Primacy of Arles and some against it But when there was a stout Bishop there he kept his Post without regard to the Roman Sentence And now I hope the Reader will smile at Baronius his inference from this Edict of Valentinian's Thou seest clearly from hence saith he the Pope of Romes Authority over all Churches for he must be quick-sighted indeed who can see any more in this instance than an unjust and ineffective Claim § 5. Soon after Pope Leo had an opportunity to encroach upon the Churches of Spain for one Turibius a Bishop there who is called Leo's Notary and probably had been bread a Notary at Rome certifies the Pope that there were many Priscillian Hereticks there who confirmed their Errors by certain Apocryphal Writings full of Blasphemies Leo writes back to Turibius advising him to get a Council of all the Bishops in Spain and there to Condemn the Hereticks and their Apocryphal Books This advice Baronius calls his enjoyning a general Council more Majorum this being the right of the Pope of Rome And though he confesses the Bishops did not meet where the Pope advised nor could they meet in one place because they were under divers Kings and those Arians yet he desires us to observe from hence how weighty the Popes Authority was even with Barbarous and Arian Kings But alas any one may see he cannot make out that ever these Kings gave leave for any Council and it is more probable these Bishops met privately on this occasion yet they have made out of this A General Council of Spain And here they would have that rule of Faith first received from Leo and approved which is printed before in the first Council of Toledo And Baronius saith the word Filioque proceeding from the Father and the Son was first added in this Council to the Creed by the Authority of Pope Leo and brags much of the Popes supremacy even in matters of Faith on this occasion But first these words were put in by these Councils to check and discover Priscillian Hereticks not by any express order of the Pope and indeed Leo had been an ill Man if he had imposed an Article of Faith upon the Churches of Spain which as Baronius confesses was not received expresly at Rome till many Ages after Secondly These Spanish Bishops did not add these words to the ancient Creed but put them in by way of Explication into an Occasional Confession of their own Composing Thirdly Baronius himself notes that the Spaniards and French afterwards added it to their usual Creeds and at last Rome took this Addition from them And in the same place he commends the Northern Nations for adding these words and those of Rome for rejecting them a long time so that contradictory Actions may be it seems equally commended by those who can blow Hot and Cold with the same Breath About this time was held a great Council at Verulam in Britain by St. Garmanus a French Bishop called over by the Orthodox Britains to assist them in confuting and condemning the Pelagian Heresy as Math. of Westminster computes Baronius indeed pretends this hapned divers years before only because Prosper or some who have since corrupted his Chronicle affirms that Pope Celestine sent St. Germanus hither But most Historians agree the French Bishops from a Council of their own sent over this assistance to the British Church the first time without any order from Celestine and this Council of Verulam was
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
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
Dignity of Priests in his second Epistle And Binius his Notes vindicate this improbable Forgery by a spurious Epistle attributed to Ignatius which saith the Laity must be subject to the Deacons but Binius cites it thus The Laity of which number are all Kings even the most Christian Kings must be subject to the Deacons by which falsifying the Quotation he makes the meanest Deacon in the Roman Church superior to the French King Again in the Vacancy after Fabian the Clergy of Rome and S. Cyprian writ to each other Where though the Roman Clergy write with all respect to the Clergy of Carthage and give them humble Advice not Commands yea and thank S. Cyprian for his humility in acquainting them with his Affairs not as Judges of his concerns but Partners in his Counsels Binius notes that these Letters do sufficiently shew the Prerogative of the Roman Church and that S. Cyprian not only desired the Counsel but submitted to the Judgment of Rome The first Epistle of Cornelius tells a false story out of the Pontifical about his removing the Bodies of S. Peter and Paul and though Binius own this part of the Epistle to be Forged Yet in his Notes on the Pontifical he strives to reconcile the differing ways of relating this Fabulous Translation and slies to Miracles to make those Lies hang together Cornelius third Epistle is genuine being preserved in Greek by Eusebius and yet Binius prints a corrupt Latin Version with it which where the Greek speaks of one Bishop in a Catholic Church Reads it in this Catholic Church and the Notes impudently prove by this Corruption that the Pope is the sole Bishop of the whole Catholic Church Of which Labbè was so much ashamed that he prints Valesius's Latin Version of this Epistle wherein the ground of Binius his Observation is quite taken away S Cyprian hath several Epistles printed among the Decretals wherein are many things which overthrow the Roman Supremacy and Infallibility upon which no remark is placed but an obscure passage wherein S. Cyprian saith that whether he or Cornelius should be the Survivor must continue his Payers for the afflicted Christians There it is impertiently noted That the deceased pray for the living Pope Stephen's second Epistle asserts Primates were in use before Christianity Binius in his Notes out of Baronius saith Herodotus confesses the same thing but Labbè declares that some body had imposed upon Baronius for there is no such thing to be found in Herodotus and Adrian in Vopiscus his other Authority evidently speaks of the Christian Bishop of Alexandria Wherefore Pope Stephen or he that made the Epistle for him was mistaken It is an impudent thing also in Binius to note upon one of S. Cyprian's Letters about Basilides and Martialis You see the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome For these two Bishops were justly condemned in Spain and unjustly absolved by the Pope after which S. Cyprian condemns them again only certifying the Bishop of Rome that he had justly nulled his Absolution so that we may rather note You see the Primacy of the Bishop of Carthage Pope Eutychianus first Epistle following the Erroneous Pontifical Orders that only Beans and Grapes shall be offered on the Altar Binius saith this is the Fourth Canon of the Apostles whereas that fourth Canon doth not name Beans and the Third Canon forbids all kind of Pulse to be offered on the Altar so that the Impostor was deceived and Binius becomes Ridiculous by attempting to defend him I shall not need produce any more instances these will suffice to warn those who study the Councils not to rely upon any thing in these Notes which are so full of partiality and Errors of weak reasonings and false Quotations of ignorant and wilful Mistakes that there is little heed to be given to them § 19. I doubt I have been too tedious in discovering the Forgeries of these Decretal Epistles but the Reader must consider they take up the greatest part of this first Period in the Volumes of the Councils and we have here considered them all together And now we have nothing to observe in this Century except the Apostolical Constitutions which are left out in Binius but printed in Labbè in Greek and Latin next after Clement's genuine Epistle to the Corinthians Now the Constitutions are a very ancient Forgery compiled about the end of the Fourth and beginning of the Fifth Century of the Rites of which Ages they give a very good account and have little or nothing in them to justify the more Modern Corruptions of Rome for which cause it is likely Binius omitted them But if we know before hand that the Apostles did not make them nor Clement Bishop of Rome collect them and can pardon the boldness of making the Apostles the speakers they are useful to be read as a writing composed in the Fourth or Fifth Age. CHAP. II. Of the Forgeries in the Second Century § 1. THis Period begins with the Life of Anacletus who was made Pope as they say An. 104. but the Fabulous Pontifical brings him in the 10th Consulship of Domitian that is just upon the fictitious Cletus his death and before Clement entred who yet is there said to be his Predecessor so blundered and uncertain is that ignorant Writer yet except what he saith no other Author mentions any deeds of Anacletus and though Binius in his Notes affirm Anacletus was most famous for many eminent deeds s yet he cannot name one of them Euaristus his Life follows whom the Pontifical and the Breviary of Sixtus the Fifth make to have been Pope in the time of Domitian Nerva and Trajan but Binius out of Baronius takes upon him to correct both the Pontifical and the Roman Office also assuring us he began in the 13th year of Trajan but alas these first Bishops of Rome were so obscure that nothing but their Name is upon Record in Authentic Authors And what is said in the Pontifical and the Notes concerning their several Parents Countries times of sitting in that See and all their Actions almost are meer Impostures of later Ages as the Learned Dr. Pierson proves in his afore-cited Posthumous Dissertation Alexander's Life is next wherein Binius again corrects the Pontifical and the Breviary which say He Ruled the Church in the days of Trajan affirming he entred not On the Papacy till Adrian's time But there was more need to Correct the Breviary of his Infallible Church for those fabulous Lessons it orders to be read in the Church on this Popes day about Alexander's converting Hermes a Praefect of Rome Quirinus a Tribune and Balbina his Daughter who also is Sainted yet after all there were no such persons in those Offices in Rome at that time and the whole Story is a Fiction taken out of a fabulous Tract called the Acts of Alexander yet this Legend Binius's Notes defend Of Xystus
Under this Pope the Editors have feigned a Council at Rome to which Dionysius Bishop of Alexandria was Cited and so far obeyed the Order as to write an Epistle to clear himself for which they cite Athanasius But we must never trust their Quotations where the Supremacy is concerned without looking into the Authors they cite And Athanasius only saith Dionysius of Alexandria was accused at Rome and writ to the Pope to know the Articles complained of who sent him an Account upon which he vindicated himself by an Apology But what is all this to a Roman Council or a citing Dionysius thither There were also two Councils at Antioch about this time as Eusebius tells us But the Editors of their own Head put in that the first of them was appointed by Dionysius Bishop of Rome to whom the chief care of the Church was committed Whereas Eusebius never mentions this Pope as being either concerned in the Council or consulted about it but if they will have it under Dionysius then we may infer that this Pope approved a saying of this Council viz. That they knew of no other Mediator between God and Man but only Christ Jesus The Second Council of Antioch is intituled also Under Pope Dionysius Yet it appears by Eusebius that this Pope knew not of the Council till they by their Synodical Epistle informed him of it after they were risen And in that Epistle they joyn him and Maximus Bishop of Alexandria together as Collegues and equals not desiring either of them to confirm their Decrees but acquainting them with their proceedings they required them to shew their consent by writing Communicatory Letters to Domnus who was put in by them Bishop of Antioch in the Room of Paulus Samosatenus ejected for Hersie and though this Domnus his Father Demetrianus had been Bishop of Antioch before yet we hear of no Papal Dispensation to allow him to succeed there We may also observe that Firmilianus who in Pope Stephens time so much despised the Popes Authority and Infallibility is by this Council called a Man of blessed Memory By which we see how little any Ancient and genuine Councils do countenance the Supremacy of the Roman Church and what need they had to forge Evidence who would have it taken for a Primitive Doctrine § 6. That Foelix the First was a Martyr is proved only by the Pontifical and the Roman Martyrology which often blindly follows it but why may not the Pontifical be mistaken in the Martyrdom as well as the Notes confess it to be in the Consuls And the base Partiality of the Notes appears soon after in citing a place of S. Cyprian as if he desired to know the Days on which the Martyrs suffered that he might offer a Sacrifice for them by Names on their Anniversaries whereas Cyprian speaks of the Confessors who died privately in Prisons of whose Names he desires to be informed that he might celebrate their Memory among the Martyrs Now there is a great difference between S. Cyprian's and the Protestants practice to Commemorate the Saints departed and the Roman way of offering the Sacrifice of the Mass for the deceased Yet the Notes would suborn S. Cyprian to give in evidence for this corrupt practice Pope Eutychianus lived not long before Eusebiu's time and he saith he only sat ten Months The Pontifical allows him thirteen Months but the Notes boldly say he was Pope Eight years and this only upon the Names of two Consuls set down in the Pontifical and the credit of the Roman Martyrology but since these two are scarce ever right in their Chronology we ought to believe Eusebius rather than the Annotator and his despicable Witnesses His Successor Gaius lived in Eusebius's own time and he affirms he sat Fifteen years but the Pontifical allots to him Eleven years only and so doth the Breviary both of them making him Dioclesian's Kinsman which Eusebius knew nothing of The Notes out of Baronius contradict them all and ascribe to him Twelve years making him Dioclesian's Nephew and yet the Pontifical saith both that he fled from Dioclesian's Persecution and died a Confessor Yet was Crowned with Martyrdom with his Brother Gabinius which Non-sense Baronius and the Notes also defend § 7. This Century is concluded by the Uunfortunate Marcellinus who as the Pontifical tells us did Sacrifice to Idols and S. Augustine in the Notes plainly supposes it to be true Yet the Annotator who dares not deny it labours to Amuse the Reader by saying this Story may be plainly refuted and proved false by divers probable Reasons out of Baronius but because their Misâ—als and Martyrology do own the thing he will not go that way to Work What then Doth he clearly charge the Infallible Judge with Apostacy No he saith He seemed to deny the Faith by External acts that is Sacrificing to Idols Yet by his Internal acts it seems Binius knew his thoughts he did not believe any thing contrary to the Faith And truly this is an early Instance of Jesuitical Equivocation But we may make the same Excuse for all the Apostates in the World and it is plain the Notes care not what they say to protect their dear Infallibility against the most convincing Truths About the very time of this Pope ' s Apostacy was held a Council at Cirta in Africk and though S. Augustine the Author from whom they have all they know about it say not one Word of Marcellinus Yet the Editors and Annotator both put in these Words that it was under Marcellinus Where I cannot but wonder that since they have invented a Council in the same year to set poor Marcellinus Right again after his Apostacy they did not place that Council first and then their re conciled Penitent might with a better Grace have sat at Cirta and Condemned such as fell in the Persecution But the most Infamous Forgery is the Ridiculous Council of Sinuessa devised by some dull Monk who could write neither good Sense nor true Latin inspired only by a blind Zeal for the Roman Church whose Infallible Head must be cleared from Apostacy though it be by the absurdest Fictions imaginable For he feigns this Apostate Pope met Three-hundred Bishops near Sinuessa in Dioclesian's time in a Cave which would hold but Fifty of them at once and their business was only to hear Marcellinus condemn himself and to tell him he could be Judged by none The two first Copies of this Council were so stuffed with Barbarisms false Latin and Nonsense and so contrary to each other that some Body took Pains out of both to devise a third Copy and by changing and adding at pleasure brought it at last to some tolerable Sense Surius and Binius print all three Copies but Labbè and the Collectio regia leave out the two Originals and only publish the Third drest up by a late Hand which in time may pass for the true account of
a Catholic because he was in Communion with Rome then Orthodox and with other Churches and his being a Catholic meerly for being in Communion with the Roman Bishop which is the modern and false notion of the word Catholic among Papists in our days But Binius was so convinced that S. Augustine's words confuted Baronius's Paraphrase that he cunningly leaves them out to make this commodious Sense of them go better down with careless Readers § 4. The next Pope Eusebius was so obscure as the Notes on his Life declare that no Writer mentions any thing of him that is memorable and it is probable there never was such a Pope Yet the Pontifical saith The Cross was found in his time upon the 5th of the Nones of May which is the very Day on which the Roman Church now celebrates The Invention of the Cross And the Third Decretal Epistle of this Pope was devised on purpose support this Story yet both Baronius and Binius reject it for a Fable even while their Church still observes that Holy-day There are Three Epistles forged for this Name of a Pope all which Labbé owns to be spurious and I need not spend much time to prove it since they cite the Vulgar Latin Version and are mostly stollen out of Modern Authors as Labbe's Margen shews having only one Consul's Name for their Dates because no other was named in the Pontifical Besides the first Epistle uses the Phrase Pro salvatione servorum Dei which is not the Latin of that Age and talks of Rigorous Tortures used among Christians to make Witnesses confess Truth The second Epistle repeats the foolish Argument of Christ's whipping the Buyers and Sellers many of which were Lay-men out of the Temple to prove that God alone must judge Priests and out of a much later Roman Council suspected also of Forgery speaks of the Peoples not judging their Bishop unless he err in Matters of Faith and discourses of Edicts of Kings forbidding to try an ejected Bishop till he be restored to his place The third Epistle hath the Fable of the Invention of the Cross and all other Marks of Forgery on it yet Bellarmine cites it to prove the Pope's Succession to S. Peter in his Universal Monarchy and to make out Confirmation to be a Sacrament So little do those Writers value the credit of any Evidence if it do but make for their Churches Authority or support its Doctrines § 5. The Seven years Vacancy being now expired Melchiades was chosen Pope and Sat Three years and Seven Months according to the Pontifical and though the Ecclesiastical Tables as they call them generally follow this Author yet Baronius here by them corrects the Pontifical and allows Melchiades only Two Years and Two Months But all this is Conjecture for he grants the Consuls in the Pontifical are so false that they cannot be reconciled to Truth whence it follows That the Decretal Epistle ascribed to this Pope whose Matter is taken from the Pontifical and whose Date is by those who were not Consuls till after Melchiades's Death must be false also Yet the Notes defend this Forged Epistle and Bellarmine cites it for the Supremacy and for Confirmations being a Sacrament whereas the beginning of it is stollen out of Celestine's Epistle to the French it quotes the Vulgar Translation and cites an Apostolical Priviledge granted to Rome for the sole right of Trying Bishops to justifie which The Notes cite the 73d and 74th Apostolical Canons but those Canons order Bishops to judge an offending Bishop and make the last appeal to a Synod without taking any notice of Rome or of this pretended Priviledge Again this Feigned Epistle impudently makes Confirmation more venerable than Baptism and the Notes defend that bold Expression But we cannot but wonder since they assert That Bishops by Gods Law have the sole power of Confirming the same Men should grant That the Pope can give a Priest leave to Confirm Which yet they say changes not the Divine Right of Bishops That is in plain terms One mans sole Right may be delegated to another by a Third person without any injury to him who had the sole Right After this follows a Council at Rome under Melchiades wherein the Pope by delegation from the Emperor is joyned in Commission with Three French Bishops who are called his Collegues to hear the Donatists complaint against Cecilian Bishop of Carthage and Constantine not only received the Donatists first Appeal and delegated this Cause to Melchiades and his Fellow Commissioners but upon a second Complaint ordered this Matter to be heard over again in a French Council which the Pope in Council had determined Now this so clearly shews that the Pope was not Supreme Judge in those days that Baronius and Binius are hard put to it to Blunder this Instance The Notes say Constantine was yet raw in the Faith and yet they say also He knew by God's Law nothing was to be done without the chief Bishop But they are forced to prove this by a false Translation of Constantine's Epistle to Melchiades the words of which in Greek are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which in their Version is As the most holy Law of God requires but Valesius's Translation which Labbé gives us is As is agreeable to the most Venerable Law That is as all men know to the Imperial Laws So that Constantine only says He had ordered the Accusers and Accused all to appear at Rome before these delegated Judges as the Venerable Laws which order both Parties to be present when a Cause is tryed do require and by the help of a false Translation this occasion is made use of to make the Credulous believe That God's Law required all Causes should be tryed at Rome Whereas it is apparent by this Instance That a Cause once Tryed there before the Pope might be tryed over again in France if the Emperor pleased The two following Epistles of Constantine out of Pithaeus his Manuscript are very suspicious the first speaks more magnificently of Christ than one who as they say was so raw in the Faith was like to do And in it Constantine is made to decline Judging in Bishops Causes which is a protestation against his own Act and contradiction to the second Epistle wherein He declares that this Episcopal Cause shall be tryed before himself Nor is this first Epistle Recorded in Eusebius or agreeable to Constantine's Style so that we suppose that was devised by such as designed to persuade Princes That Bishops were above them For which purpose Baronius here cites a Law of this Emperor to Ablavius Giving men leave to choose Bishops for their Judges and not allowing them after that to appeal to Secular Courts because they had been heard by Judges of their own choosing But Baronius perverts this to signifie That Bishops were above Secular Judges by their ordinary Jurisdiction whereas they were not so in any
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
By whom it was called Secondly Who presided in it Thirdly Of what number of Bishops it consisted And Fourthly What Authority the Canons of it have First As to the Calling it the Preface falsly states the occasion thereof For it is plain Athanasius did not as that reports leave the whole judgment of his Cause to the Pope nor did he as is there said Fly to Rome as the Mother of all Churches and the Rock of Faith This is the Prefacers meer Invention For Athanasius went to Rome as to the place agreed on by both sides for Arbitrating this matter and the other party so little valued the Pope's decision in his favour that they would neither restore Athanasius nor receive him into Communion upon it which made Julius complain to the Emperour Constans who writ to his Brother Constantius about it but that Letter did not produce this Council as the Preface fully sets out but only procured a fruitless Embassy of three Eastern Bishops to Rome It was the personal Addresses of Athanasius and Paulus Bishop of Constantinople to Constans when they found the Pope had no power to restore them which caused both the Emperours to give order for this Council to meet as Sozomen Socrates and Theodoret affirm And the Bishops in their Epistle do expresly say They were called together by the most Religious Emperours But Baronius fraudulently leaves out this beginning of the Bishops Letter and the bold Writer of the Preface saith This Council was called by the Popes Authority And the Notes offer some Reasons to justifie this Falshood yea they cite the aforesaid Authors who plainly declare it was called by both the Emperours to prove it was called by the Pope but they offer nothing material to make this out 'T is true Socrates saith Some absent Bishops complained of the shortness of time and blamed Julius for it but that doth not prove the Council was called by his Authority only it supposes he might advise the Emperour to make them meet speedily but still that is no sign of full power Secondly As to the President of this Council The Preface saith boldly That Hosius Archidamus and Philoxenus presided in the Name of Julius But first it doth not appear that Hosius was the Popes Legate only as an eminent Confessor he had a chief place in it whence Sozomen saith Osius and Protogenes were chief of the Western Bishops here assembled That is Osius as an ancient Confessor and Protogenes as Bishop of Sardic where the Council was held but as for Archidamus and Philoxenus they are not in the Latin Copies of the Subscribers And Athanasius only saith Julius subscribed by these two Presbyters which shews that Hosius was not the Popes Legate for he subscribed in his own name and that these Presbyters who were his Legates were not Presidents of the Council Thirdly They magnifie the number of Bishops also in this Synod to make it look like a General Council where accounts differ they take the largest and falsly cite Athanasius as if he said it consisted of 376 Bishops and so exceeded the first Council of Nice Whereas Athanasius expresly reckons only 170 who met at the City of Sardica and when many of the Eastern Bishops withdrew there were not one hundred left to pass the Decrees of this Council 'T is true Athanasius affirms that 344 Bishops signed the Decree to restore him but many of these hands were got from Orthodox Bishops who were not at the Council So that this was never counted or called a General Council by any but these partial Romanists for though the Emperour seem to have designed it General at first yet so few came to it and they who came agreed so ill the Eastern Bishops generally forsaking it that it is called frequently A Council of the Western Church and so Epiphanius in Baronius describes it Fourthly The little regard paid to its Canons afterwards shews it was no General Council Richerius a moderate and learned Romanist proves That this Council was not extant in Greek in the time of Dionysius Exiguus so that he and Pope Leo the 4th reckon it after all the Councils of Note The Greeks received not its Canons into their Code and Pope Nicholas Epistle shows that the Eastern Church did not value its Authority only the Popes esteemed it because it seems to advance their power The African Church of old valued this Council as little for a Synod of Bishops there among whom were S. Augustine and Alypius were ignorant of any Sardican Council but one held by the Arians Baronius tries all his art to palliate this matter but after all his Conjectures it is plain it was of no repute in Africa because when two Popes Zosimus and Boniface afterwards cited the Decrees of Sardica as Canons of Nice the Fraud was discovered and when they were found not to be Nicene Canons They would not receive them as Canons of Sardica but flatly rejected them which shews that these African Fathers did neither take this Sardican Synod for a General Council nor for an Authentic Provincial Council And therefore whatever is here said in favour of the Roman Church is of no great weight However the Champions of Rome magnifie the 4th Canon of this Council where in case a Bishop judge that he is condemned unjustly Hosius saith If it please you let us honour the memory of Peter the Apostle and let those who have judged such a Bishop write to Julius Bishop of Rome that so if need be the Judgment may be reviewed by the Bishops of the Province and he may appoint some to hear the Cause c. Now here the Notes talk big and claim a Supremacy and Appeals as due to the Pope by Divine Right But Richerius well observes It is Nonsence to ascribe that to a human Law and Privilege or to the Decree of a Council which was due before to the Pope by the Law of God And we add that Hosius neither cites any Divine Law no nor any precedent Canon or Custom for this but supposes it at the pleasure of this Synod to grant or deny Julius this privilege And yet if it were an express Law this being only a Western Synod doth not bind the whole Catholic Church Besides it is not said The Criminal shall appeal to Rome and have his Cause tryed there but only that the Pope if need were might order the Cause to be heard over again in the Province where it was first tryed and therefore Julius is only made a Judge of the necessity of a Re hearing not of the Cause it self which according to the 5th Canon of Nice was to be decided in the Province where it was first moved And this rather condemns than countenances the modern Popish way of Trying foreign Causes at Rome by Appeal To this I will add an ancient Scholion on this Canon found in some old Copies From this Canon
the Roman Church is much exalted with Pride and former evil Popes producing this as a Canon of Nice were discovered by a Council at Carthage as the Preface to that Council shews But this Canon whatever they pretend gives no more power to Rome than other Canons since it saith not absolutely that any who is deposed any where shall have liberty to appeal to the Pope for at that rate the Sardican Synod would contradict the General Councils it speaks only of him who is deposed by the Neighbouring Bishops and those of his Province and therefore doth not comprehend the Synod of the Primate Metropolitan or Patriarch so that if they be present and the Sentence be not barely by the Neighbouring Bishops the Pope may not re-hear it as this Canon orders And it only concerns those in the West Hosius and the Makers of these Canons being of those parts but in the East this Custom never was observed to this day I shall make one remark or two more and so dismiss this Council The Preface cites Sozomen to prove That Hosius and others writ to Julius to confirm these Canons But Sozomen only saith They writ to him to satisfie him that they had not contradicted the Nicene Canons and their Epistle which calls Julius their Fellow-Minister desires him to publish their Decrees to those in Sicily Sardinia and Italy which of old were Suburbicarian Regions but never speak of his confirming their Decrees Yet in their Epistle to the Church of Alexandria they pray them to give their Suffrage to the Councils determinations Which had it been writ to the Pope would have made his Creatures sufficiently triumph I observe also that upon the mention of the Church of Thessalonica in the 20th Canon the Notes pretend that this Church had an especial regard then because the Bishop of it was the Pope's Legate yet the first proof they give is that Pope Leo made Anastasius of Thessalonica his Legate an hundred years after and hence they say Bellarmine aptly proves the Popes Supremacy But the Inferences are as ridiculous as they are false and they get no advantage either to their Supremacy or Appeals by this Council § 22. The first Council of Carthage was appointed to suppress that dangerous Sect of the Donatists and though it bear the Title of under Julius yet this pretended universal Monarch is not mentioned by the Council or by any ancient Author as having any hand in this great Work which was managed by Gratus Bishop of Carthage and by the Emperours Legates In this Council were made fourteen excellent Canons which possibly the Romanists may reject because they never asked the Popes consent to hold this Council nor desired his confirmation to their Canons and whereas the Editors tell us Pope Leo the 4th who lived five hundred years after approved of this Council we must observe that the Catholic Church had put them into their Code and received them for Authentic long before without staying for any Approbation from the Bishop of Rome Soon after this there was a Council at Milan of which there was no mention but only in the Synodical Letter of the Bishops met at Ariminum An. 359. who say that the Presbyters of Rome were present at it they say not Presidents of it And there it seems Ursacius and Valens two Arian Heretics abjured their Heresie and recanted their false Evidence against Athanasius And either before or after this Synod it is not certain whether they went to Rome and in writing delivered their Recantation to Pope Julius before whom they had falsly accused Athanasius and who was the Arbitrator chosen to hear that Cause and so not as Pope but as a chosen Judge in that case was fittest to receive these mens Confessions Yet hence the Notes make this Inference That since this matter was greater than that a Synod at Milan though the Roman Presbyters were present could dispatch it and lest the ancient Custom of the Catholic Church should be broken viz. for eminent Heretics to abjure their Heresies only at Rome and be received into Communion by the Pope they sent them to Julius that having before him offered their Penitential Letter they might make their Confession the whole Roman Church looking on All which is their own Invention for the Authors from whom alone they have the notice of this Council say nothing of this kind and it is very certain that there was at this time no custom at all for Heretics to abjure at Rome more than at any other place many Heretics being frequently reconciled at other Churches There was also a peculiar reason why these two Heretics went thither and it cannot be proved that this Council sent them so that these are Forgeries devised to support their dear Supremacy and so we leave them Only noting That the Editors are not so happy in their Memory as their Invention for the next Page shews us a Council at Jerusalem wherein many Bishops who had described the Condemnation of Athanasius and therefore no doubt were Arians repented and recanted and so were restored to the Churches Communion without the trouble of going to Rome on this Errant A Council at Colen follows next which they say was in Julius his time and under Julius yet the Notes say they know not the time when it was held only the Bishops there assembled deposed a Bishop for Heresie by their own Authority without staying for the Pope's Advice though they were then about to send a Messenger to Rome to pray for them so little was the Popes Consent thought needful in that Age and perhaps it is in order to conceal this seeming neglect that the Notes after they have approved far more improbable Stories which make for the honour of their Church reject the report of this Message to the Prince of the Apostles as fabulous and we are not concerned to vindicate it The last Council which they style under Julius was at Vasatis or Bazas in France yet the Notes affirm That Nectarius presided in it the time of it very uncertain and the Phrases used in the Canons of it shew it to be of much later date Besides this Council saith The Gloria-Patri was sung after the Psalms in all the Eastern Churches but Jo. Cassian who came out of the East in the next Century saith He had never heard this Hymn sung after the Psalms in the Eastern Churches Wherefore it is probable this Council was celebrated after Cassian's time when the Greek Churches had learned this Custom and yet these Editors place it a whole Century too soon because they would have us think that custom here mentioned of remembring the Pope in their daily Prayers was as ancient as the wrong date here assigned In Labbe's Edition here is added an account of three Councils against Photinus on which we need make no Remarks § 23. Pope Liberius succeeded Julius whose Life with the Notes upon it are
speak of him as having been once his Friend and report his Apostacy yet he never mentions his turning Catholic again Wherefore we conclude that all these Fictions and falsifying of Evidence and slight Conjectures in Baronius and the Notes are intended only to blind the Reader and hinder his finding out an Heretical Pope whose Fall is clear his continuance in his Heresie very probable and his Repentance if it be true came too late to save his Churches Infallibility though it might be soon enough to save his own Soul The Editors style the Council at Ariminum A General Council and yet dare not say as usually under Liberius who had no hand in it for it was called by the Emperour Constantius as all Writers agree so that it seems there may be A General approved Council as they style this which the Pope doth not call Moreover the Emperour in his first Epistle orders the Bishops to send him their Decrees that he might confirm them and though Baronius saith this was done like an Heretical Emperour yet the Orthodox Bishops observed his Order and call it Obeying the Command of God and his Pious Edict Wherefore this General Council was both called and confirmed by the Emperour Again Constantiâ—s in his Epistle declares It was unreasonable to determine any thing in a Western Council against the Fastern Bishops Whence it appears he knew nothing of the Western Patriarchs claiming an Universal Supremacy over all the Churches both of the East and West and for this Reason Baronius leaves this genuine Epistie recorded in S. Hilary's Fragments out of his Annals We have also noted before that though the Orthodox Bishops in this Council who must know the matter say That Constantine was Baptized after the Council at Nice and soon after his Baptism translated to his deserved Rest as the Ancient Historians read that Passage and the Sense of the place shews they could mean it of none but Constantine yet Baronius corrupts the Text and reads Constans instead of Constantine only to support the Fable of Constantine's being Baptized by Sylvester at Rome and the Editors follow him in that gross Corruption For they examine nothing which serves the Interest of Rome As for the Arian Synods this year at Seleucia and Constantinople I need make no Remarks on them because the Pope is not named in them and so there is no occasion for them to feign any thing Only one Forgery of Baronius must not be passed over That when Cyril of Hierusalem was deposed by an Arian Synod he is said to have appealed to greater Judges and yet he never named the Pope the reason of which Baronius saith was because the True Pope Liberius was then in Banishment but hath he not often asserted Foelix was a Catholic and if Cyril had thought fit might he not have appealed to him But it is plain by Socrates that Cyril meant to appeal to the Emperour and his Delegates as all injured Bishops in that Age had used to do § 25. Upon the restitution of Athanasius from his third Exile after the death of George the Arian Bishop he called a Council of Bishops at Alexandria for deciding some differences among the Catholics about the manner of explaining the Trinity and to agree on what terms Recanting Arians were to be received into the Church And though neither Athanasius nor any ancient Historian take any notice of the Pope in this eminent Action yet the Editors out of Baronius say It was called by the Advice and Authority of Liberius and to make out the notorious Fiction of this Popes calling this Orthodox Council even while he was an Arian the Notes affirm Eusebius Bishop of Vercelles and Lucifer Calaritanus as the Popes Legates were present at it which they take out of Baronius who had before told us That Lucifer Calaritanus was at that time at Antioch and sent two Deacons to Alexandria to subscribe for him yea this Synod writes their Synodical Letter to Eusebius Lucifer and other Bishops which plainly shews they were absent though it seems by Ruffinus that Eusebius came afterwards and subscribed to what had been agreed in the Council and was by the Authority of this Council not of the Pope sent into the East to procure peace among those Churches Nor have they any one Author to prove either he or Lucifer were the Pope's Legates nor any reason but because they were employed in great Actions though in that Age 't is plain the Popes were little concerned in any eminent business Moreover they bring in a Fragment of an Epistle writ according to the Ancient Custom by Liberius at his Entrance into the See of Rome to shew his Faith to Athanasius as if it were written now meerly to impose on the Reader a false Notion of his being at this time Orthodox and concerned in this Synod They also cite another Epistle of Athanasius to certifie Liberius what was done here but that Epistle is no where extant in Athanasius's Works but is cited out of the Acts of the second Nicene Council where there are more Forgeries than genuine Tracts quoted and besides the Epistle is directed not to the Pope but to one Ruffinianus and only mentions the Roman Churches approving what was done here but the Epistle being suspicious it is no good Evidence and we conclude with Nazianzen That Athanasius in this Synod gave Laws to the whole World And Pope Liberius had no hand in it About this time there were divers Councils called in France by S. Hilary Bishop of Poictiers and the Catholic Faith was setled in them one of which was held at Paris and the Synodical Epistle is extant yet the Pope is never named in it Nor yet in that Orthodox Synod at Alexandria wherein Athanasius and his Suffragan Bishops presented a Confession of their Faith to Jovian then newly made Emperour which shews that Liberius either was an Heretic at this time or else that he was very inconsiderable So that it is a strange Arrogance in the Editors to say that the Second Council at Antioch was under Liberius when the very Notes say it was called together by Meletius and observe that many Arian Bishops did there recant their Heresie a thing which a little before they pretended could be done no where but at Rome in the Popes Presence Upon Valentinian's advancement to the Empire the Eastern Bishops petition him to call a Council and he being then very busie told them they might call it where they pleased Which the Editors pretend was a declining to meddle in Church Affairs being a Lay-man But the Bishops Petition and his giving them liberty shews that the right of calling Councils was in him and so was also the confirming them as appears from the Bishops sending the Acts of this Council at Lampsacus to the Emperour Valens to be confirmed The same Bishops also sent their Legates with Letters to the Western Bishops and
believe yet he elsewhere boldly says Damasus gave it Supreme Authority and the Annotator makes it impossible for any Council to be general unless the Pope or his Legates be there Now he and all others call this A General Council And yet he saith That neither Pope Damasus nor his Legates were Presidents of it nor was he or any Western Bishop in it Whence we learn That there may be a General Council at which the Pope is not present by himself nor by his Legates and of which neither he nor they are Presidents Fourthly As to the Creed and Canons here made the modern Romanists without any proof suppose that Damasus allowed the former and not the later But if he allowed the famous Creed here made I ask Whether it then had these words And from the Son or no If it had why do the Notes say That these words were added to it by the Bishops of Spain and the Authority of Pope Leo long after But if these words were wanting as they seem to confess when they say The Roman Church long used this Creed without this addition then I must desire to know how a Man of their Church can be secure of his Faith if what was as they say confirmed by Damasus in a General Council may be al ered by a few Bishops and another Pope without any General Council As to the Canons Damasus made no objection against them in his time and it is very certain that the Bishop of Constantinople after this Council always had the second place For as the first General Council at Nice gave old Rome the first place as being the Imperial City so this second General Council doubted not but when Constantinople was become new Rome and an Imperial City also they had power to give it the second place and suitable Priviledges Yea the Notes confess that S. Chrysostom by virtue of this Canon placed and displaced divers Bishops in Asia and the 4th General Council at Chalcedon without regarding the dissent of the Popes Legates allowed the Bishop of Constantinople the second place and made his Priviledges equal to those of Old Rome which Precedence and Power that Bishop long retained notwithstanding the endeavours of the envious Popes And Gregory never objected against these Canons till he began to fear the growing Greatness of the Patriarch of Constantinople but when that Church and Empire was sinking and there appeared no danger on that side to the Popes then Innocent the Third is said by the Notes to revive and allow this Canon again by which we see that nothing but Interest governs that Church and guides her Bishops in allowing or discarding any Council For now again when the Reformed begin to urge this Canon Baronius and the Notes say They can prove by firm Reasons that this Canon was forged by the Greeks But their Reasons are very frivolous They say Anatolius did not quote this Canon against Pope Leo I reply 'T is very probable he did because Leo saith He pleaded the Consent of many Bishops that is if Leo would have spoken out In this General Council Secondly They urge that this Canon is not mentioned in the Letter writ to Damasus I Answer They have told us before they sent their Acts to him and so need not repent them in this Letter Thirdly They talk of the Injury done to Timotheus Bishop of Alexandria but his Subscription is put to the Canons as well as the Creed and it doth not appear that ever he or any of his Successors contended for Precedence after this with the Patriarch of Constantinople And that the Modern Greeks did not forge this Canon is plain because Socrates and Sozomen both mention it and the Catholic Church always owned it for Authentic Yea in the Council of Chalcedon it is declared That the Bishop of Constantinople ought to have had the second place in the Factious Synod at Ephesus and he is reckoned in that fourth General Council next after the Pope whose Legates were there and yet durst not deny him the second place in which he sat and subscribed in that order having first had this Canon confirmed at Chalcedon So that all Churches but that of Rome submit to this General Council and they who pretend most to venerate them do despise and reject the Authority of General Councils if they oppose the ends of their Pride and Avarice To conclude Here is a General Council called and confirmed only by the Emperour assembled without the Pope or his Legates decreeing Matters of Faith and of Discipline yet every where owned and received as genuine except at Rome when Interest made them partial and still no less valued for that by all other Churches Which gives a severe Blow to the modern Pretences of their Papal Supremacy and Infallibility The same Year there was a Council at Aquileia in Italy wherein divers Arians were fully heard and fairly condemned Now this Council was called by the Emperour the Presidents of it being Valerian Bishop of Aquileia and Ambrose Bishop of Milan but Damasus is not named in it nor was he present at it in Person or by his Legates though this Council was called in Italy it self and designed to settle a Point of Faith But these Bishops as the Acts shew did not judge Heretics by the Popes Authority but by Scripture and by solid Arguments And they tell us It was then a Custom for the Eastern Bishops to hold their Councils in the East and the Western theirs in the West which argues they knew of no Universal Monarchy vested in the Pope and giving him power over all the Bishops both of the East and West For it was not Damasus but the Prefect of Italy who writ about this Synod to the Bishops of the East Nor did this Council write to the Pope but to the Emperour to confirm their Sentence against Heretics wherefore Damasus had a limited Authority in those days not reaching so much as over all Italy and extended only to the Suburbicarian Regions out of which as being Damasus's peculiar Province Ursicinus his Antagonist for the Papacy was banished by the Emperour Valentinian and therefore Sulpicius Severus calls him not Orbis but Urbis Episcopus the Bishop of the City not of the World and speaking of Italy he saith in the next Page That the Supreme Authority at that time was in Damasus and S. Ambrose To these two therefore the Priscillian Heretics applied themselves when they were condemned by the Council of Caesar-Augusta or Saragosa in Spain in which Country the Sect first began but when they could not get these great Bishops to favour their Cause they corrupted the Emperours Ministers to procure a Rescript for their restitution Now it is strange that this Council of Saragosa should bear the Title of under Damasus and that the Notes should affirm Sulpicius Severus plainly writes thus For if we read Sulpicius as above-cited we shall find that Damasus
time there was a great Council at Hippo which the Notes sometimes call a General and sometimes a Plenary Council because most of the African Bishops were there and the Original dates it with the Consuls of this year but the Editors clap a New Title to it saying it was under Siricius who in all probability had no hand in it nor knew any thing of it Yet here were made many of those famous Canons for Discipline by which the African Church was governed But they are more wary in the next Council of Constantinople at which many Bishops were present and among them the two Patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch being summoned in the absence of the Emperour by his Prefect Ruffinus and they will not venture to say This was under Siricius for the Matters treated on it wholly related to the Eastern Church and in that Age they rarely allowed the Pope to concern himself in their Affairs No nor in Afric neither where Anno 395 there were Councils held both by the Orthodox and the Donatists which are dated by the Consuls and no notice is taken of the Pope We shall only observe that upon one of these Councils the Notes say It is a mark of the Donatists being of the Synagogue of Antichrist that they named the several Parties among them from the Leaders and Founders of their several Sects and were not content with the Name of Christians from Christ Which Note reflects upon the Monks of their own Church who are called Benedictines Dominicans and Franciscans from the Founders of their several Orders In the Council of Turin composed of the Gallican Bishops they decided the Case of Primacy between the Bishop of Arles and Vienna without advising with the Pope and determined they would not communicate with Foelix a Bishop of Ithacius his Party according to the Letters of Ambrose of Blessed Memory Bishop of Milan and of the Bishop of Rome Now here the Roman Advocates are much disturbed to find S. Ambrose his Name before Siricius and when they repeat this Passage in the Notes they falsly set the Pope's Name first contrary to the express words of the fifth Canon and impudently pretend That the Bishop of Rome by his place was the ordinary Judge who should be communicated with and Ambrose was only made so by the Popes Delegation But how absurd is it if this were so for the Council to place the Name of the Delegate before his who gave him power And every one may see that this Council was directed to mark this Decree principally by S. Ambrose his Advice and secondarily by the Popes for at that time Ambrose his Fame and Interest was greater than that of Siricius yet after all the Council decreed this not by the Authority of either of these Bishops as the Notes pretend but only by their Information and upon their Advice by these Letters which were not first read as they pretend but after four other businesses were dispatched The Canons of divers African Councils held at Carthage and elsewhere have been put together long since and collected into one Code which makes the time and order of the Councils wherein they were made somewhat difficult but since the Canons were always held Authentic we need not with the Editors be much concerned for their exact order or for reducing them to the years of the Pope because they were neither called nor ratified by his Authority Yea the Notes say It was never heard that any but the Bishop of Carthage called a Council there his Letters gave Summons to it he presided over it and first gave his Suffrage in it and that even when Faustinus an Italian Bishop the Popes Legate was present As for the particular Canons of the third Council the Nineteenth saith That the Readers shall either profess Continence or they shall be compelled to Marry but they feign old Copies which say They shall not be allowed to Read if they will not contain the falshood of which appears by the 25th Canon in the Greek and Latin Edition where this is said of the Clergy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Except the Readers which they translate Quamvis Lectoram on purpose to make us think that the command of Celibacy upon which that Age too much doted reached the lowest order of the Clergy even Readers contrary to the express words of the Canons And to the second Council of Carthage where only Bishops Priests and Deacons are under an obligation to live single Secondly The 26th Canon of the third Council forbids the Bishop of the first See to be called by the Title of Prince or Chief of Bishops Gratian goes on neither may the Roman Bishop be called Vniversal The Notes tax Gratian indeed for adding this Sentence but if he did it was out of Pope Gregory who saith That no Patriarch ought to be called Vniversal Besides considering how apt the Editors are to strike out words not Agreeable to the Interest of Rome it is more probable that some of the Popes Friends lately left these words out than that Gratian put them in And since this Council forbid Appeals to foreign Judicatures with peculiar respect to Rome to which some of the Criminal Clergy then began to appeal it is not unlikely these Fathers might resolve to check as well the Title as the Jurisdiction then beginning to be set up which encouraged these Appeals Thirdly The 47th Canon in the Latin and the 24th in the Greek and Latin Edition speaking of such Books as are so far Canonical that they may be read in Churches reckon up some of those Books which we call Apocryphal upon which the Notes triumph but let it be observed that we grant some of these Books to be so far Canonical that they may be read for instruction of Manners and also we may note that the best Editions of these African Canons leave out all the Books of Macchabees and Baruch which are foisted into their later Latin Copies And it is plain the whole Canon is falsly placed in this Council under Siricius because Pope Boniface who came not into the Papacy till above twenty years after is named in it as Bishop of Rome yet after all these devices it doth not declare what Books are strictly Canonical and so will not justifie the Decree at Trent Fourthly In the 48th Canon of the Latin Version the Council agrees to advise about the Donatists with Stricius Bishop of Rome and Simplicianus Bishop of Milan not giving any more deference to one of these Bishops than to the other but looking on them as equally fit to advise them Yet the Notes boldly say They advise with the Pope because they knew he presided as a Bishop and Doctor over the Catholic Church but with the Bishop of Milan only as a Man every where famous for his Learning Which is a meer Fiction of their own for the words of the Canon shew that these
Fathers did not believe either of them had any Authority over them only they desired their advice joyntly as being both Eminent and Neighbouring Bishops and their prohibiting Appeals shews they knew nothing of the Popes presiding over the Catholic Church § 32. Anastasius was the last Pope in this Century of whom there would have been as little notice taken as of Many of his Predecessors if it had not been his good fortune to be known both to S. Hierom and S. Augustine and to assist the latter in suppressing the Donatists and the former in condemning the Errours of Origen for which cause these two Fathers make an honourable mention of him Yet in the African Councils where he is named with respect they joyn Venerius Bishop of Milan with him and call them Their Brethren and Fellow Bishops As for the qualifications of Anastasius S. Hierom gives him great Encomiums but it must be observed that at this time Hierom had charged Ruffinus with broaching the Heresies of Origen at Rome and he being then at Bethlem could not beat down these Opinions without the Popes help And indeed when Ruffinus came first to Rome he was received kindly by the last Pope Siricius and Anastasius did not perceive any Errours in Ruffinus or Origen till S. Hierom upon Pammachius Information had opened his Eyes and at last it was three years before this Pope could be made so sensible of this Heresie as to condemn it So that notwithstanding his Infallibility if S. Hierom and his Friends had not discovered these Errours they might in a little time have been declared for Orthodox Truths at Rome but Anastasius condemning them at last did wonderfully oblige S. Hierom and this was the occasion of many of his Commendations For this Pope are published three Decretal Epistles though Baronius mentions but two and condemns the first for a Forgery and so doth Labbé It is directed to the Bishops of Germany and Burgundy and yet Burgundy did not receive the Christian Faith till the Year 413 it is also dated with the Consuls of the Year 385 that is Fourteen years before Anastasius was Pope The matter of it is grounded on the Pontifical which speaks of a Decree made by this Pope for the Priests at Rome to stand up at the Gospel which the Forger of this Epistle turns into a general Law and makes it be prescribed to the Germans The Words of it are stollen out of the Epistles of Pope Gregory and Leo yet out of this Forgery they cite that Passage for the Supremacy where the German Bishops are advised to send to him as the Head The second Epistle is also spurious being dated fifteen or sixteen years after Anastasius his death and stollen out of Leo's 59th Epistle As for the third Epistle it is certain he did write to John Bishop of Jerusalem but it may be doubted whether this be the Epistle or no if it be genuine it argues the Pope was no good Oratour because it is writ in mean Latin yet that was the only Language he understood for he declares in this Epistle That he know not who Origen was nor what Opinions he held till his Works were translated into Latin So that any Heretic who had writ in Greek in this Pope's time had been safe enough from the Censure of this Infallible Judge The Notes dispute about the fourth Council of Carthage whether it were under Pope Zosimus or Anastasius but it was under neither the true Title of it shewing it was dated by the Consuls Names and Called by Aurelius Bishop of Carthage who made many excellent Canons here without any assistance from the Pope The 51st 52d and 53d Canons of this Council order Monks to get their Living not by Begging but by honest Labour and the Notes shew This was the Primitive use which condemns these vast numbers of Idle Monks and Mendicant Fryers now allowed in the Church of Rome The hundredth Canon absolutely forbids a Woman to presume to Baptize but the Notes r because this practice is permitted in their Church add to this Canon these words unless in case of necessity and except when no Priest is present Which shews how little reverence they have for ancient Canons since they add to them or diminish them as they please to make them agree with their modern Corruptions In the fifth Council of Cartbage Can. 3. Bishops and Priests are forbid to accompany with their Wives 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is at the time of their being to Officiate but in their Latin Copies it is altered thus according to their own or to their former Statutes which makes it a general and total Prohibition But the Greek words of this Canon are cited and expounded at the great Council in Trullo where many African Bishops were present as importing only a Prohibition of accompanying their Wives when their turns came to Minister which is the true sense of this Canon though the Romanists for their Churches Credit would impose another The fourteenth Canon of this Council takes notice of the feigned Relicks of Martyrs and of Altars built in Fields and High-ways upon pretended Dreams and Revolutions upon which Canon there is no note at all because they know if all the feigned Relicks were to be thrown away and all the Altars built upon Dreams and false Revelations pulled down in the present Roman Church as was ordered at Carthage by this Canon there would bè very few left to carry on their gainful Trade which hath thrived wonderfully by these Impostures This Century concludes with a Council at Alexandria which they style under Anastasius but it was called by Theophilus who found out and condemned the Errours of Origen long before poor Anastasius knew any thing of the matter The Notes indeed say This Synod sent their Decrees to Pope Anastasius to Epiphanius Chrysostom and Hierom But though they place the Pope foremost there is no proof that they were sent to him at all Baronius only conjectures they did and saith It is fit we should believe this but it is certain Theophilus sent these Decrees to Epiphanius to Chrysostom and Hierom and from this last hand it is like Anastasius received them long after because it was more that two years after this Synod before S. Hierom could perswade Anastasius to condemn these Opinions of Origen which this Council first censured Wherefore it was happy for the Church that there were wiser Men in it than he who is pretended to be the supreme and sole Judge of Heresie And thus we have finished our Remarks upon the Councils in the first four Centuries in all which the Reader I hope hath seen such designs to advance the Supremacy and cover the Corruptions of Rome that he will scarce credit any thing they say for their own Advantage in any of the succeeding Volumes AN APPENDIX CONCERNING BARONIUS HIS ANNALS §I THE large and elaborate Volumes of Cardinal Baronius are
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
supposes this indeed a little before But all Ancient Authors say and he himself affirms That Peter Bishop of Alexandria did institute him into that Bishopric He only supposes Siricius desired Theodosius to banish the Manichees from Rome but the Rescript is not directed to him but to Albinus the Praefect and except the fabulous Pontifical there is no Evidence that Siricius was concerned in this matter Theodoret saith The Emperour chose Telemachus into the number of Martyrs but Baronius supposes This was done not only by the Emperour's Care but by the Ecclesiastical Authority of the Pope To conclude He affirms by guess That S. Nicetus came out of Dacia into Italy to Visit the Apostles Tombs and to consult the Apostolical Seat but no Author makes this out Now how can any Reader trust an Historian who in relating things done many Ages ago takes the liberty to invent and suppose whatever will serve a present Turn § 5. Add to this that he scruples not to contradict himself and to tell manifest Untruths to carry on the Interest of Rome which we shall prove by these Examples He affirms Coelicianus Bishop of Carthage relied upon one defence The Communion of the Apostolic See but immediately he tells us That he was supported by Constantine ' s favour He cites S. Augustine saying Constantine when Coelician's Cause was referred to him was a Christian Emperour yea he cites a Letter of Constantine writ in a most Christian style and yet he feigns that Coelicianus delayed his appearing before this Emperour because he thought it unfit that a Bishop should be judged by a Lay-man not yet Baptized And again Eight years after this he represents Constantine as a meer Pagan who had never heard of Peter or Paul and took them for some Heathen Deities whereas he saith He was a Catechumen and out of the Gospel had imbibed the Christian Meekness eight years before He also affirms That in the Year 324 there was as yet none of the Senatours believed the Christian Faith And yet he saith Two year before this that one or both the Consuls were Christians yea in the year 312. He reckons up many Senatours who had given up their Names to Christ Thus he contradicts himself by following those Lying Acts of Syl vester in order to support the false Story of Constantine's being Baptized at Rome Soon after out of a Fabulous Author he talks very big of the low Reverence which Constantine paid to the Bishops at the Nicene Council whereas all the Authentic Historians say The Bishops rose up when he entred in and paid him a great respect And when he hath told many incredible Legends about the Nails of the Cross and-seems to grant that divers false Nails have been adored for the true he excuses his abused Catholics for their mistaken Worship of false Relics saying That their Faith excuses their Fault so that Lies may be innocently told and believed it seems at Rome Again he affirms there were Monks at Rome in the year 328 and proves this by what S. Augustine saw there at least fifty years after yea in the year 340 he saith Athanasius first brought the Institution of Monks to Rome which is a manifest contradiction To proceed I wonder with what Face he could commend Athanasius for speaking charitably of the Heretic Arius after he was dead when he reviles Eusebius after his death And never mentions any of the Protestant Doctors deceased but with the bitterest Malice and in the most spightful Language he can invent If Charity were a Vertue in Athanasius then Malice must be a Vice in him He largely relates many Appeals to the Emperour in the case of Athanasius and yet when at last the Bishop of Rome was chosen Arbitrator in this Case and this but once He cries out Behold Reader the ancient Custom c. Whereas since the Emperours were Christians it was the Custom to appeal first to him as his History abundantly proves He very largely commends the Acts of Martyrs but by following them falls into many Absurdities as where he tells us That the Pagan Temple of Daphne at Antioch was burnt two days after the Martyrdom of Artemius Yet a little after he brings in this Artemius arguing with Julian about the burning of this Temple So he tells us The Body of S. John Baptist was burnt to Ashes except some Bones which were carried into Egypt to Athanasius And yet a little after S. Hierom affirms his Bones remained at Sebaste and wrought Miracles there As little Truth is there in his accusing Maximus the Emperour for presuming to judge of Bishops Causes whereas Maximus his Letter to Siricius which Baronius records declares He would call the Bishops to a Council in what City they pleased and refer it to them who were best skilled to determine these matters Again in order to justifie those feigned Relicks of Protasius and Gervasius shewed now at Rome he affirms That S. Ambrose gave part of them to several Bishops and some of them were brought to Rome Whereas S. Ambrose himself who knew best what was done assures us He buried the Rodies whole putting every Joynt in his own order And to name no more He brags that Idols were pulled down no where with more zeal than at Rome Yet in the same Page he tells us There was then newly dedicated an Alter there for sacrificing to the Heathen Gods So that we see designed Falshoods are not scrupled by him in things which seem to make for the honour of Rome or her Opinions § 6. We may also observe that for the same ends He makes innumerable false Inferences on purpose to pervert the Truth thus from S. Augustine's calling Melchiades A Father of Christian People as every Bishop is Baronius concludes that S. Augustine was for the Popes Supremacy So from Bishops judging in Causes where the People referred their Differences to them he frequently infers A right in Bishops to judge in Temporal Matters In like manner from Theodoret's mentioning a Canon of the Church in general and as his discourse shews referring to the Canon which forbids any Bishop to judge a Cause till both parties were present Baronius gathers that the Pope was supreme over the Bishop of Alexandria and that by the Canons of Nice Again That the Pope was not beholding to the Council of Nice for his Supremacy which he had from Christ he proves by Pope Nicholas his Testimony who had the impudence in his own Cause and for his own Ends to tell this Story Five hundred years after So he condemns the Arians for ejecting Bishops without staying for the Bishop of Rome's Sentence which he proves was unjust by an Epistle of Pope Julius which says The Arians should first have writ to all Bishops that so what was right might be determined by all where Julius arrogates
the Council of Turin which Baronius cites St. Ambrose is named before the Pope yea it is manifest by divers African Councils that they gave equal respect at least to the Judgment and Authority of the Bishop of Milan as to those of Rome So that it is ridiculous and absurd to fancy that St. Ambrose and his Successors who were greater Men than the Popes for Learning and Reputation were the Legates of Rome and this hath been invented meerly to aggrandize that See And for that same reason they have stusted into the Body of this Council a Rule of Faith against the Priscillianists transmitted from some Bishop of Spain with the Precept of Pope Leo who was not Pope till forty years after this Council Yea Binius in the very Title of this Council would have it confirmed by another Pope that lived divers Centuries after of which Labbè was so ashamed that he hath struck that whole Sentence out of his Edition As to the Canons of this Council I shall only remark That the first of them lays a very gentle punishment upon Deacons and Priests who lived with their Wives before a late Interdict which is no more but the prohibiting them to ascend to any higher Order And no wonder they touched this point so gently for this prohibiting Wives to the Clergy was never heard of in Spain till Siricius who died about three years before advised it in his Epistle to Himerius and therefore Innocent in his third Epistle said Siricius was the Author of this form of Ecclesiastical Discipline that is of the Clergies Celibacy and adds that those who had not received his Decree were worthy of pardon And by the many and repeated Canons made in Spain afterward in this Matter it appears the inferior Clergy would not follow the Popes advice The fourteenth Canon shews that the Primitive way of receiving the Communion was by the peoples taking it into their hands as they do now in our Church And the Notes confess that the Roman Custom of taking it into their mouths out of the Priests hand is an innovation brought in after the corrupt Doctrine of Transubstantiation had begot many superstitious Conceits about this Holy Sacrament the altering of the Doctrine occasioning this change in the way of receiving Whereas the Protestant Churches which retain the Primitive Doctrine keep also the Primitive Rite of Communicating To this Council are tack'd divers Decrees which belong to some Council of Toledo or other but the Collectors Burchard Ivo c. not knowing to which have cited them under this General Title out of the Council of Toledo and so the Editors place them all here But most of them do belong to later times and the name of Theodorus Arch-Bishop of Canterbury in one of these Fragments shews it was made 300 years after this time We have in the next place two African Councils said to be under Anastasius though indeed they were under the Bishop of Carthage The former of these decrees an Embassie shall be sent both to Anastasius Bishop of Rome and Venerius Bishop of Milan for a supply of Clergy-men of whom at that time they had great scarcity in Africa The other African Council determines they will receive such Donatists as recanted their Errors into the same Orders of Clergy which they had before they were reconciled to the Church provided the Bishop of Rome Milan and other Bishops of Italy to whom they sent a second Embassie consented to it Now here though all the Italian Bishops were applied to and he of Milan by name as well as the Bishops of Rome and though it was not their Authority but their Advice and Brotherly Consent which the African Bishops expected yet Baronius and Binius tell us it is certain that Anastasius did give them licence to receive these Donatists in this manner because St. Augustin said they did receive them Whereas St. Augustine never mentions any licence from the Pope and his leave or consent was no more desired than the leave of other eminent Bishops only the Annalist and his followers were to make this look as an indulgence granted from Rome alone § 2. Pope Innocent succeeded Anastasius who had the good fortune to be convinced by St. Augustine and other Bishops more learned than himself that Pelagius and Celestius were Hereticks and so to joyn with the Orthodox in condemning them for which he is highly commended by St. Augustine St. Hierom and by Prosper who were glad they had the Bishop of so powerful and great a City of their side and so was poor St. Chrysostom also whose Cause he espoused when Theophilus of Alexandria and the Empress oppressed him and by that means Innocent also got a good Character from St. Chrysostom and his Friends in the East But some think it was rather his good fortune than his judgment which made him take the right side The Pontifical fills up his Life as usually with frivolous matters But two things very remarkable are omitted there the one is a passage in Zosimus viz. That when Alaricus first besieged Rome and the Pagans there said the City would never be happy till the Gentile Rites were restored The Praefect communicates this to Pope Innocent who valuing the safety of the City before his own Opinion privately gave them leave to do what they desired The other is That when Rome was taken afterwards by Alarious Pope Innocent was gone out of the City to Ravenna and did not return till all was quiet and therefore I cannot with Baronius think that St. Hierom compares Pope Innocent to Jeremiah the Prophet for Jeremiah staid among God's People and preached to them but Innocent was gone out of Rome long before it was seized by the Goths Further we may observe that whereas St. Hierom advised a Noble Roman Virgin to beware of the Pelagian Hereticks and to hold the Faith of Holy Innocent Baronius is so transported with this that he quotes it twice in one year and thus enlarges on it That St. Hierom knew the Faith was kept more pure and certainly in the Seat of Peter than by Augustine or any other Bishop so that the Waters of Salvation were to be taken more pure out of the Fountain than out of any Rivers which absurd Gloss is easily confuted by considering that this Lady was a Member of the Roman Church and so ought to hold the Faith of her own Bishop especially since he was at that time Orthodox and this was all St. Hierom referred to For he doth not at all suppose the Roman See was infallible nor did he make any Comparison between Augustine and Innocent since he well knew that in point of Learning and Orthodox Judgment Augustine was far above this Pope who indeed derived all the skill he had as to the condemning Pelagius from the African Fountains and especially from St. Augustine Besides nothing is more common than
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
be determined in that Province where it arose knowing that the Spirit of God would not be wanting to any Country where a Council of Bishops should meet so that none need fear to be injured since they might appeal to a greater Council of their own Province or to a Universal Synod Whereas if Judgment were to be given beyond the Seas many Witnesses must be wanting and many other things must hinder the finding out of truth They add That they could not find any Council which allowed his Holiness to send any Legates to hear Causes and for those Canons which Faustinus had produced as made at Nice they could find no such Canons in the Authentick Copies of that Council Finally They bid him not send any of his Clerks to execute his Sentence to which if they should submit they should seem to bring the vanity of Secular Arrogance into God's Church This is the Sum of this excellent Letter which disowns and condemns all Appeals and renounces the Popes jurisdiction over Africa with a modest intimation that his claim was grounded upon a notorious Forgery and therefore he is required to pretend to it no longer for that they will not submit to such an Usurpation Yet such is the Impudence of the Roman Editors that in a Marginal Note upon this Epistle they say these African Bishops desire the Pope to appoint another way of prosecuting Appeals Which is a gross contradicting the Text it self wherein all manner of Appeals and all ways of prosecuting them are utterly condemned but this was too harsh and therefore the Truth was to be daubed over with this plausible Fiction After this Binius presents us with another Edition of these African Canons and Epistles in Latin and Greek And Labbè newly publishes the Epistle of one Leporius who had been converted from Heresie and reconciled to the Church by the African Bishops by which we may learn that a Heretick need not go to Rome to recant as the Notes formerly affirmed There is nothing further observable before the Council of Ephesus except two Councils one at Rome wherein the Pope is said to make Cyril his Legate in the Cause of Nestorius the other at Alexandria in which Cyril is pretended to Act by this delegated power But this will be more properly considered in the History of that General Council where these Epistles are printed at large CHAP. II. Of the time from the Council of Ephesus till the Council of Chalcedon § 1. IN this Year was held the Third General Council at Ephesus upon the account of Nestorius who about three years before had been made Bishop of Constantinople and was at first believed to be both Pious and Orthodox but he had not sat long in that See before he began to publish certain Doctrines about our Saviour which gave great offence for he taught that Jesus Christ was two Persons one as the Son of God another as the Son of Man and therefore he denied the Blessed Virgin to be the Mother of God holding that the Person which was born of her was no more than a Meer Man Which Opinions not only made a Faction at Constantinople but caused Divisions among the Egyptian Monks whereupon St. Cyril first writ a Confutation of them to those Monks and then with great modesty admonished Nestorius of these Errors by divers Letters but he despised his Admonition justified the Doctrines and persecuted those who would not own them being supported by his Interest in the Imperial Court. Upon this Cyril called in Pope Celestine to his assistance sending him an account of what he had writ to Nestorius On the other side Nestorius also writ to Celestrine and sent his Sermons in which these Doctrines were contained for him to peruse The Pope by the advice of such Western Bishops as he could then get together takes the part of Cyril and offered him to join with him in condemning Nestorius if he did not recant But the Authority of these two Patriarchs of Rome and Alexandria not sufficing to condemn a Patriarch of Constantinople it was thought fit to desire the Emperor to call a General Council at Ephesus where Nestorius might appear and his Opinions be examined and the Emperor at length did agree to this Request Now that which we are to observe concerning this General Council shall be under these Heads First To enquire by whom it was called and convened Secondly Who presided in it Thirdly What is memorable in the Acts of it Fourthly Who confirmed the Decrees there made As to the first the Historical Preface before this Council labours to persuade us That Celestine commanded the Council to be called and the Notes after it say it was appointed by the Authority of Gelestine and gathered together by the counsel aid and assistance of Theodosius the Emperor The Cardinal goes further and saith Theodosius called it by the Authority of Celestine but when this is to be proved both the Notes and Baronius are content to make out that this Council was not called without the Popes consent which may be proved concerning every Orthodox Bishop that was there and so gives no peculiar advantage to the Bishop of Rome But as to the Convening it by his Authority nothing can be more false For by the Emperors first Letter to Cyril it appears that some then thought to order Matters of Religion by Power rather than by consulting in common in which words he reflects upon Pope Celestine and Cyril who thought by the Authority of their Private Synods at Rome and Alexandria to have condemned Nestorius who was a Patriarch as well as they and therefore the Emperor rightly considered that he could not be tried but by a General Council So that it seems Celestine at first had no mind such a Council should be called nor Cyril neither but when they saw their Authority was insufficient then Cyril put the Monks of Constantinople upon petitioning the Emperor to command a General Council to meet very speedily as their words are and the same Cyril put Juvenalis Bishop of Jerusalem upon writing to the Emperor for the same purpose Now why should not these Applications have been made to the Pope if the Council were to be called by his Authority Besides if Celestine had called it his Letter of Summons would appear but though none ever saw that the Emperors Edict is yet extant wherein he fixes the day and place for the Council to meet enjoyns Cyril with the Bishops of his Province to be there at that time and tells him he had writ to all other Metropolitans probably to Celestine among the rest to attend the Synod and not to meddle with this Matter till the meeting of this General Assembly from which whoever absented himself should not be excused Which is as full a proof that the Emperor called it by his Authority as is possible to be made and we need add nothing to it but this that
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
Bishops even in a General Council to be Sons to their Holy Father the Pope To proceed the Edicts of the Emperor are dated one in February and the other in March and they do effectually confirm the Acts of the Council and ordain penalties on such as oppose the definitions of the Synod After this follow three Letters of Pope Leo dated all of one day directed to Anatolius Bishop of Constantinople and to the Emperor and Empress Marcianus and Pulcheria in all which he shews his consent to the other things done at Chalcedon but argues and exclaims against the 28th Canon saying in his Letter to Pulcheria that by the Authority of Peter he utterly makes it void But all this spoils the Cause for notwithstanding all his huffing this Canon did remain in Force for Liberatus who writ in the next Century saith The Judges and all the Bishops did not value the Legates protestation and though the Apostolical See still oppose it this which was confirmed by the Synod by the Emperors Patronage remains even till now and Almain of later times affirms the Constitution of the Council prevailed over the protestations of Leo against it For the Canons of general Councils do prevail over the opposite Decrees of Popes And the History of following times doth clearly shew that the Bishop of Constantinople was ever after this reckoned the second Patriarch and took his place accordingly in succeeding Councils and retained the jurisdiction over those Provinces which this Canon gives him Wherefore it is very weak in Baronius from some bold passages in Leo's Letters to draw this consequence that it is clearly in the sole power of the Pope to make void what 630 Bishops in Council the Emperor and Senate had agreed on and confirmed For the contrary is clear as the Sun that the Legates contradiction there and the Popes ranting afterwards for all his pretended Authority of St. Peter did not signify any thing towards a real annulling this Canon and the more he strove to do it the more he shewed his Pride to be above his Power And indeed General Councils were needless precarious and insignificant if any one Bishop were not to be concluded by the major vote or had a negative voice there But because the Pope argues as well as condemns let us hear his reasons against this Canon First He every where urges it is contrary to the Nicene Canon But this is false he and his Legates indeed pretend this but the Nicene Canon was read over in open Council and all of them unanimously agreed it did no way contradict it The Council of Nice declared those Patriarchates which Custom had then setled and since after that time Constantinople came to be the Imperial City the second General Council and this at Chalcedon had as good right to declare Constantinople a Patriarchate as the first at Nice had to declare others and since Precedency was purely of Ecclesiastical Institution and given as this Canon saith on consideration of the honours of the Cities when the Emperors had made this City equal to old Rome as to the Civil State the Council might allot it a suitable precedence in the Church which was a perfecting of the Nicene Canon and a proceeding upon the same reason but no contradiction to it Secondly Leo argues that this was a prejudice to the two Sees of Alexandria and Antioch which were elder Patriarchates and so ought to preceed Constantinople I reply Maximus Bishop of Antioch did not think this Canon any injury to him for he is the second who subscribed it and all-along in the several Sessions Anatolius sat and spoke before him And though Leo stood nicely upon his points in these matters we do not find other Bishops were of that temper they freely submitted to the Bishop of the imperial City especially since he only had a place before them but no Authority over any other Patriarch So that Leo need not make any objections for them who are not found to complain or to have thought themselves injured I shall not insist upon Leo's insinuation that this Canon was procured fraudulently and that Anatolius his Pride made him seek it and strive to impose upon the Council For every body sees the whole Council clears him of this and 't is plain Leo was far prouder than Anatolius he scorned a Second and feared in time he might prove an Equal But Anatolius only got that place confirmed to him in this Council which he and his predecessors had hold long before I might add here the elaborate Arguments of Baranius and Binius but fearing I have been already too tedious I shall refer the Reader to Richerius who discovers all their Fallacies and make some observations on the rest of these Letters after the Council In an Epistle of the Emperors to the Monks of Alexandria who disliked the Council of Chalcedon he recommends its definitions as agreeing to the Faith of Athanasius Theophilus and Cyril former Bishops of Alexandria which it seems was more considerable to them than the Faith of Leo in whom that Age knew of no Infallibility Again it is a good Rule in an Epistle of Leo's That none should seek his own advancement by the diminution of another which had he and his Successors observed they would not have degraded all the other Patriarchs to set themselves up as supreme over them all There may be some suspicion whether that Epistle of Leo to Maximus Bishop of Antioch be genuin however there is a very improbable story in it viz. That Juvenalis of Jerusalem had sought to get the jurisdiction of all Palestina in the famous General Council of Ephesus and that Cyril had writ to Leo to joyn with him in opposing that design whereas that Council of Ephesus was held nine years before Leo was Pope and therefore Leo could not be applied to as to any thing agitated in that Council After this follows a multitude of Epistles in answer to the complaints of the Aegyptian Bishops who adhered to this Council of Chalcedon and the Emperor Leo's Order to all Bishops to give the Sense of every Provincial Church concerning this General Council which some heretical Monks had questioned For this Emperor prudently avoided the charge and trouble of another General Council appointing the Metropolitans to call their own Bishops together at home and to send him their Opinion of this Council of Chalcedon which was universally owned by all in their several Letters to have been an Orthodox Council sufficiently approved and confirmed Now had the Pope then been infallible or thought to be so it had been sufficient to write to him alone and he could have told the Emperor the Sense of the Catholick Church but he was only writ to as other Bishops were to declare his own Opinion So that in this proceeding there are no marks of his Supremacy for the other Bishops confirm the Faith decreed in this Council as well as
Fables about the translation of the Relicks of St. Stephen to Constantinople out of late and unfaithful Authors such as Cedrenus Nicephorus Nicetus c. but he himself observes that they do not agree as to the time nor the quantity of the Relicks translated And this disagreement should have made him suspect the whole for an Imposture And if the Reader consider what incredible Stories are told of the Miracles wrought by the Relicks of this one Martyr in Sardinia Africk Spain Palestine and Constantinople c. he must believe they cut his Body into as many pieces as there were Stones thrown at him and will wonder how the Body could become whole again and be intirely translated out of Palestine in the year 439. What Theodoret relates of one African Virgin Captive may be believed to be true and that Relation hath no Miracle in it But when Ado of Vienna writ the Acts of another Virgin called Julia captivated at the same time he hath stuffed the Story with Miracles and the only reason of this difference is that this later Author writ his Martyrology Anno 850 that is above 400 year after when Legends grew to be more in Fashion The Annalist takes great pains to prove certain Homilies which some ascribe to Eusebius Emissenus others to Faustus Rhegiensis others to Caesarius of Arles to be the work of Eucherius Bishop of Lyons but as the Author is uncertain the matter of them is justly to be condemned being full of Superstitions and some that came not in till the corrupter and later Ages However Baronius was obliged to get these Homilies ascribed to some Writer of good repute since many of the evil Practices and Errors of their Church which cannot be justified by known and genuine Authors are defended by such obscure Tracts as this Again we have a very absurd Story of St. Cyril's convincing a Monk that Melchisedech was not the Son of God by a Revelation made to the Monk himself who had fallen into that Error But that Fable of Cyril's being a Monk upon Mount Carmel is so gross that he rejects it with this Note That a vehement desire to seem of Antient Extraction makes Men sometimes to dote which Remark is most true of almost all the Monastick Orders of the Roman Church for Aventinus an excellent Historian of their own Communion affirms he had discovered the Monks were wont to delight the Minds of the vile Populace with feigned Tales invented for gain to make the Original of their Temples more Noble and August He brings in a ridiculous Story of an Image of the Blessed Virgin found in a Cypress Tree and of a Church built in the place by one Cyrus Bishop of Smirna but the credit of this relies only upon Nicephorus a modern and fabulous Author And at the same place he brings in a Fiction of an Image of our Saviour wounded by a Jew but he knows not when this matter hapned he thinks not till after the second Nicene Council but why then doth he mention it in this Age No doubt to abuse his Reader into a belief that Images were then in use But the Story it self is all over Legend and not more Authentick for being recorded in their publick Monuments and read in some Churches in the corrupt Ages in which there are the grossest Romances imaginable A little after he taxeth Nicephorus for unfaithfulness and great mistakes in his Relations yet immediately he cites him as good evidence for Relicks belonging to the Blessed Virgin In the next year we have two ridiculous Stories the one of St. Stephens praying to St. Peter and St. Paul to spare his Chappel when Mets was sack'd and burn'd by the Hunns the other of a Drunken Man shut up all Night in St. Peter's Church at Rome and heard St. Peter and St. Paul talking together But telling their Discourse next morning he was struck blind Upon which last Miracle Baronius gathers that blind Men may see great benefits are received by the intercession of Saints But I should rather think he was blind indeed that could not discern these to be meer Fables and truly the only Author he cites for them is Gregory Turonensis who lived 150 year after and is full of these Fictions contradicting even Salvian who lived in that Country at this very time But it is observable that the Writers of the Lives of St. Lupus and Anianus cited in this very place do mention these Holy Men as praying only to God in these Calamities For the direct invocation of Saints was not used no not when those Lives were written Again after the Council of Chalcedon had been confirmed by the most Legal and Authentick ways it is very ridiculous in this great Annalist to cite so many frivolous Stories out of Legends how some Ignorant and Enthusiastical Monks confirmed it or were convinced by Miracles that it was a Genuine and Orthodox Council For he cites no better Author than Surius for these Fables yet relates them with great confidence but this Cause needs no such evidence § 2. Secondly We will note some passages in genuine Authors which he hath corrupted to serve a turn He that reads Baronius his Note in the year 402. that it was an Ancient Custom to paint the Saints in the Churches and that they use to worship them with kindling Lamps before them would imagine this Superstition was ancient in the beginning of the Fifth Century whereas the Author he cites for this is Venantius Fortunatus who lived till the year 600. that is 200 year after and though he speak of a Picture drawn on a Wall and a Lamp beside it doth not mention that as any worship to the Picture that is Baronius's own addition Again when he cites a Law of Theodosius prohibiting the Jews to burn any Cross in contempt of Christianity he adds that they burnt the Cross together with our Saviour crucified on it but that is his own invention the custom of making a Cross alone being indeed very ancient but the adding the Figure of our Saviour to it which they call properly a Crucifix is but a late device and seems not at all to be referred to in that Law To proceed he makes Synesius a notorious dissembler when he declares he had most solemnly protested to Theophilus who was to consecrate him Bishop of Prolemais that he would not accept that Order unless he might live with his Wife as before time Now whoever reads that Letter may see that Synesius professes he tells truth in this relation yea he solemnly calls God and Men to witness that it is true he observes Truth is one of God's Attributes and most pleasing to him Yet Baronius will have him to use the Art of Lying in all these protestations because forsooth he cannot think Theophilus would ordain a Bishop who should live with and have Children by his Wife that is he measures the Primitive Church
and to differ with it a sure note of a Schismatick But S. Cyril's Reproving Atticus for restoring Chrysostom's Name into the Dyptics which was the known desire of Pope Innocent shews how little the rest of the Patriarchs valued the Judgment or the Authority of the Popes when they supposed them to be mistaken in the Case For none could or durst have so severely Censured the Opinion of a Person taken to be a Supream and Infallible Judge Again I wonder how Baronius could Record without some reflection S. Augustin's speaking of Orosius his Journey from Spain into Africa only out of Zeal to understand the Scriptures and his sending him to Palestine to S. Hierom on that Errand For according to the Cardinals Notion he should have been more zealous for Catholick Tradition than for Scripture and Rome was the only place both to learn that in perfection and by that to interpret the Scriptures unerringly and this was nearer to Spain than either Hippo or Bethlehem But while he owns that the Salvation of some after they had been purged by the Internal Fire was one of the Errors of Origen and counted an Error both by Orosius and Augustine it seems to look ill upon Purgatory which their modern Church hath made a Catholick Truth but the Primitive censured it as a false Doctrine The Reader also may note that when he is commending Theodosius for his Piery he magnifies him for fasting upon Wednesdays and Fridays the days now appointed for Abstinence by the Protestant Church of England So that a man may be a pious Catholick and not keep the Fasting-days appointed by the Roman Church viz. Fridays and Saturdays Moreover he contradicts himself when he saith According to the ancient usage of speaking by the Apostolical Seat is always to be understood the Roman Church Whereas he hath often owned the other Patriarchs Sees had the Title of Apostolical Thrones and Seats and a little after cites Sidonius calling Lupus Bishop of Troys a Bishop of Bishops who had sat a long time in an Apostolical Seat he cites Possidius in the Life of S. Augustine to prove the Pelagians were first condemned at Rome and then at Carthage But if the Reader consult that Author he will find that S. Augustine writ against them and that they went near to draw in first Innocent and then Zosimus to their party till the Councils of Holy African Bishops had with much labour persuaded first the one of these Popes and then the other that this was an abominable Heresie and contrary to the Catholick Faith All which the Cardinal leaves out and from half the story makes a false Marginal Note viz. That these Hereticks were first condemned at Rome and then at Carthage Which is every way false for if it be meant of Innocent's time it is certain that the African Councils under the Primate of Carthage yea that of Milevis had solemnly condemned Pelagianism before this Pope would openly condemn them he being under suspicion of favouring that Heresie to the last year of his Life and this Council of Carthage did condemn these Hereticks while Zosimus did defend them so that Africk not Rome first discovered and censured this Heresie He also falsly cites the Preface of S. Augustine's Books to Pope Boniface against the Pelagians telling us he affirms That the Pope being most eminent in the highest top of the Pastoral Watch-Tower did watch over all and from hence infers That though S. Augustine and others sometimes call the Pope Brother and Colleague yet still they own his supream Pastoral Power But all that S. Augustine there saith is this Communisque sit omnibus nobis qui fungimur Episcopatûs officio quamvis ipse in eo praeemineas celsiore fastigio specula pastoralis The Pastoral watching is common to all of us who are Bishops though you have the advantage of a higher station Which words only intimate the Dignity of the Roman See as to Order but plainly declare Bishops to have equal Obligations to guard the Church And whereas a little after from S. Augustine's modest Complement of sending these Books to Boniface to examine and correct he would infinuate something of Supremacy in Judging This is no more than the same Father used to do to all other Bishops to whom he dedicated his Books so he desires Claudius a private Bishop to read and judge of his Books against Julian dedicated to him This therefore ascribes no Infallibility to Rome and if S. Augustine himself had not judged better of Pelagianism than any Pope of these times it would not have been condemned there to this day After all these Instances of sincerity we cannot wonder that he falls upon the Reformed as Innovators for refusing to stand to a General Council and so worse than the Pelagians who desired one But this calumny will soon be dispelled if we call to mind the breach of Faith used to such as had trusted Rome in the Council of Constance the Tricks used by the Popes before the Council of Trent for many years together to avoid a General Council when the Reformed earnestly desired one and the great partiality of that packt Assembly at Trent who met not to examine or amend Abuses but to establish them and had resolved to condemn the Protestants before they heard them It is something odd that Baronius should quote Gelasius his Censure of the Legends and Acts of Martyrs That some of them were writ by Ideots and some by Hereticks wherefore the Roman Church then used not to read them in publick For this condemns him for filling so many Pages of his Annals with this Fabulous stuff and discovers an alteration in the Roman Church which of old was wiser and honester than to read those feigned Legends that in after Ages took up a great part of their publick Service We may further observe That Leporius an Arch-heretick recants in Africa and applies himself to the Gallican Bishops only without any notice taken of Rome or Pope Boniface which confutes what the Annalist often affirms That all great Hereticks were obliged to recant at Rome He publisheth a Rescript of Theodosius and bids us observe that it contains the principal Feasts received by the Christians Now these are Sundays Christmas and Epiphany Easter and Pentecost with the Memory of the Apostles Passions which is a Protestant Catalogue and there is not one Feast of our Blessed Lady Holy Cross Corpus Christi c. which are now so famous at Rome in all this number assigned by Theodosius which shews they are Innovations and the effects of modern Superstition He relates it as the Custom of S. Augustine and other Bishops as well as of Pope Celestine to salute Presbyters by the name of Sons and Bishops by the name of Brothers which looks not favourably on the Pope's Universal Superiority above all Bishops whatsoever When Pope Gregory grosly mistakes Sozomen's History for
held long after Celestine's death at St. Germans second coming hither So that in this Island the Roman Church was not considered in those days and one Sister Church desired help of another to repress Heresies without any recourse to Rome § 6. In a Synod held at Constantinople under Flavianus Eutyches a Monk was formally accused of Heresy for affirming that Christ had but one Nature after his Incarnation and that it was as much Nestorianism to hold two Natures as two Persons Upon which he was three several times cited before the Council and had sufficient time given but refusing to come till the time was expired and though he did come at last obstinately defending his Heresy he was unanimously condemned and by Flavianus and the whole Synod Excommunicated and Degraded which was a judicial proceeding agreeable to the ancient Canons Binius and Baronius in relating this make some remarks which must be considered For first when Eutyches saith He would subscribe the Nicene and Ephesine Councils so far as they were agreeable to Scripture They note this was more Haereticorum according to the manner of Hereticks But I would ask First Whether it be not true that the Decrees of Councils in matters of Faith are no further obligatory than they are proved by Scripture Secondly Whether the most Orthodox Fathers Athanasius Cyril c. did not always appeal to Scripture in the first place And the greatest Councils ever confirm their determinations first by Scripture Thirdly Whether any of the Adversaries of Eutyches in that Age did censure him for appealing first to Scripture Baronius himself cites Flavianus his Letter wherein he first alledges Scripture and then the Expositions of the Fathers And Pope Leo saith Eutyches erred by not having recourse to the Prophets Apostles and Evangelists but to himself so that it was no fault in Eutyches to prefer Scripture before the Fathers expositions nor to appeal to it but to expound it wrongfully was his Crime and that is more Haereticorum Secondly When Eutyches petitioned Theodosius in this case for a safe conduct to the Synod Binius adds to his Authors words that this was also after the manner of Hereticks Whereas it appears that divers of the Orthodox have applied themselves to the Emperors to assist and support them and none oftner than Pope Leo himself so that a thing done as frequently by the Orthodox as Hereticks can be no sign or mark of Heresy Thirdly Binius pretends that Eutyches appealed from this Synod to Pope Leo Now this is confuted by the very Acts of the Synod related in the Council of Chalcedon and recited by Baronius where it is said Eutyches appealed to the Council of the Roman Bishop and of the Bishops of Alexandria Hierusalem and Thessalonica yet they make as if this had been an Appeal only to the Pope Fourthly Binius notes the Appeal was not admitted I reply Pope Leo did so far receive Eutyches Letter that he writ three Epistles on his behalf before he was informed of the true State of the Case and quarrelled with Flavianus for condemning a convicted Heretick before he had consulted him But in truth there was no Appeal at all Flavianus did write indeed to Leo and probably to all other Patriarchs after the Canonical Judgment was over to acquaint them with his proceedings that so they might not break the Canons by admitting an Heretick in one Church who was Excommunicated in another But the Style of Flavianus his Letter shews that he need not ask Leo's leave to censure an Heretical Priest of his own Diocess nor doth he desire the Pope to confirm his Sentence but only to make it known So that Baronius falsly infers the Popes power to judge of Heresy and confirm all Sentences against them from this Letter of Flavianus And he as falsly makes the like inference from Eutyches writing to Leo as if he knew of what weight the Popes judgment was for which Councils in doubtful Cases use to stay and to which all the Catholick Church would certainly incline For Eutyches writ to other Bishops of Italy as well as the Pope as Baronius in that Page confesseth and considered Leo no otherwise than as one Eminent Bishop And this Synod of Constantinople stayed not for the Popes Judgment nor did those Bishops who despised the Decree of this Synod value Pope Leo's Judgment after he had declared for Flavianus So little truth is there in the Annalists pompous observations which only shew that all his aim is from every passage to extort some kind of colour for his dear Supremacy In the same year were two Synods one at Tyre the other at Berithus in the cause of one Ibas a Syrian Bishop wherein the Patriarch of Antioch and Constantinople were concerned but the Pope is not once mentioned in the whole proceedings But of the Cause it self we shall hear more afterward Theodosius the Emperor being deceived by Eutyches and Chrysapius one of his great Courtiers an Eunuch espouses the Quarrel of that Heretick and labours to have the Sentence which Flavianus passed against him in the late Synod revoked and Pope Leo was drawn into the same snare by the Letters of Eutyches and Theodosius till Flavianus had better informed him For Leo writ both to the Emperor and Flavianus on Eutyches behalf at first And whereas Baronius ought to blush for the Popes mistake he recites these two Letters and talks big of his being owned for the lawful and chief Judge in Ecclesiastil Controversies yea the supreme Judge of the Universal Church c. But though as an ingenuous Romanist observes Leo in all his Epistles boasts of the power of his Apostolical Seat as much as he can and more than by the Canons he ought to do yet neither of these Epistles say any such thing as Baronius infers from them And that Letter of Flavianus which delivered this infallible Judge from his mistake declares that Eutyches had received a just and Canonical Condemnation to which the Pope ought to consent and to joyn in it By which we see a Sentence against an Heretick was just before the Pope knew of it and that he and all Orthodox Bishops ought by their subsequent consents to ratifie what any one Bishop had Canonically done And since Eutyches was already rightly censured Flavianus requires Leo and no doubt other Eminent Bishops to publish their consent to it thereby to prevent the design of Eutyches which was to get a general Council called to judge his Cause over again Now this serves Baronius to brag that Flavianus knew there was no need of a general Council for that which the Popes Letters had defined A strange affection For when Pope Leo not first as Baronius saith falsly but last of all the Orthodox Bishops did stand up for Flavianus and write to confirm his Censure upon Eutyches that very Cause was tried over again in the Pseudo-general Council of Ephesus and the