Pontifical tells us did Sacrifice to Idols (a) Lab. p. 930. Bin. pag. 174. col 2. 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 Missals 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 (b) Lab. p. 936. Bin. pag. 177. col 1 2. 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 reconciled 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 (c) Lab. p. 938. Bin. pag. 178. 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 this Council But the two first Copies in Binius yet extant will give the Reader a good proof into what depths of Ignorance the Monks were fallen when such Unintelligible and Incoherent stuff as this and the Letters Forged between the Council of Nice and Pope Sylvester which are in the same Style were designed to support the Roman Supremacy and Infallibility I shall not reflect upon the Absurdity of making the Pope his own Judge when he denies the Fact nor the Contradiction of the Councils saying often They must not judge him and yet declaring soon after That they have Condemned him (d) Bin. p. 179. 180 183. Whoever will but read this Council over shall find diversion enough if Blunders and Dulness be diverting to them I shall therefore principally note the gross Partiality and Fallacies of the Notes in colouring over this bare-faced Forgery First the Annotator accuses the Century Writers and English Innovators for rejecting this Rare Council as a Forgery of the Donatists he should have said of the Romish Monks yet he makes more Objections against it than he himself can answer Protestants wonder that Three-hundred Bishops should dare to meet in times of Persecution He replies a far less number did meet on a slighter occasion Fifty years before which is but a very indifferent Proof Well but to magnify the occasion he saith By this Pope's fall not only the Roman Church but the whole Christian Religion was in extreme danger and in the President of the Catholic Faith the very Foundation of the Church was shaken and almost ruined Yet a little before he had told us out of S. Augustine that Marcellinus's fall did no prejudice to the Church and had affirmed that the ill Deeds of Bishops may hurt themselves but cannot prejudice the Churches Orthodox Doctrine (e) Bin. p. 175. col 1. 2. Again he proves it could not be an Invention of the Donatists because they never knew of it yet presently he owns they objected it to the Catholics and therefore must know of it all that S. Augustine saith being only that they could not prove it After this Baronius and he say that no Writer doth mention this City of Sinuessa nor is there any Memory of such a place or Cave Which is a great mistake in them both For Livy Cicero Ovid Martial and Pliny do all speak of Sinuessa (f) Ferarij Lexic Geograph p. 199. and Alexander ab Alexandro mentions a famous High-way leading from Rome to this City (g) Al. ab Alexand gen dier lib. 3. cap. 13. And if an Earthquake have since Overthrown it that will not prove there was no such City then all the Wonder is that these Gentlemen should defend a Council for genuine which they thought had been held in Utopia The Notes proceed to tell us that Very many most Learned Men not Hereticks I suppose by very strong Arguments have laboured to prove these Acts spurious But he who values no Arguments against the Supremacy not only thinks them not to be false but judges them worthy of great Esteem for their Venerable Antiquity and for their Majesty which extorts Reverence even from the unwilling Now their Antiquity cannot be proved by one Old Author and their Majesty is so little that they extort Laughter and Contempt from the gravest Reader Let us therefore hear his Reason for this Approbation it is because they are believed by general consent of all He forgets that he said but now very many and very Learned Men did not believe them And because they are received and retained without any Controversy to this Day in the Martyrologies and Breviaries of the Roman and other Churches (h) Brev. Roman April 26. So that at last all the Authority for this Council is the Roman Martyrology and Breviary which are Modern Collections out of the Fabulous Pontifical and other Forged Acts of Martyrs And though their own Learned Men by good Arguments prove the things to be false yet if they be Read in a Breviary c. these Falshoods become true and Catholics receive them without Controversy Yea they cite the Transcript of a Forgery to prove the Original to be a Truth Again the Notes say it
Quotations and feigned Tales to set up the Credit of the Roman Church and its corrupt Opinions and Practices that to discover them all would require almost as many Volumes as his Annals make So that we must content our selves with some of the plainest Instances which fall into this Matter of the Councils and will set them in a clear Light and shew they are as contrary to Reason as they are to true History Which Vndertaking we hope will be many ways useful First It will tend to the ease of those who intend to read over the Tomes of the Councils or the Annals of Baronius and save them much time and pains by presenting the principal Errors of those great Volumes at one View which they would spend a long time in searching after if they were to gather them up as they lye dispersed Secondly It may be very useful to those who desire to be rightly informed in the Controversies between us and the Roman Church because it will give them a clear prospect of what Councils and other Antiquities are Authentic and may be allowed for Evidence in this Dispute wherein our Adversaries have so little regard to their own Honour that generally one half of their Evidence is such as they have either forged or corrupted Thirdly It will be necessary by way of Antidote to prepare those who by reading Books so full of Infection may by these plausible Falsifications be in danger to be seduced into a great esteem of the Opinions and Practices of the Roman Church when they find so many seemingly ancient Tracts and Councils brought in to justifie her in all things and see by this false Light all Ecclesiastical History and Records so modelled as to perswade their Readers That in the purest Christian Times all things were believed and done in the Catholic Church just as they are now at Rome But when it shall appear that all this is a continued Series and train of Impostures it will render their Notions and Practices not only suspected but odious as needing such vile and base Artifices to make them seem agreeable to true Antiquity To this it may be Objected That divers of the Modern Writers of this Church and especially the most Learned do now own divers of these Forgeries which we here detect to have been spurious and therefore it seems needless to prove that which they have already granted us I reply That none of them own all these Corruptions and divers of their Authors cite them very confidently to this very day and still the things themselves stand in their most approved Editions of Councils and the Remarks are only in Marginal Notes But since they were believed in those Ages while their Supremacy and other Novel Doctrins were setting up and were urged for good Proofs till these Opinions had taken root it is not satisfaction enough to renounce that Evidence of which they now have no more need unless they disclaim the Doctrins also to which they first gave Credit And till they do this it is fit the World should know by what False-Evidence they first gained these Points For if a Man should get an Estate by Bribing his Jury and his Witnesses it is not enough for him to confess these Persons were Suborned unless he restore the Ill-gotten Lands and till he restore them he ought to be upbraided with his Bribery even after he hath acknowledged it Secondly It may be alledged That Junius River and Daillé abroad Perkins Cook and James at home have taken great pains on this Subject and that the Learned Author of the Historical Examination of the Authority of General Councils printed at London 1688. hath already handled this Argument I Answer That the Six former are chiefly concerned in the Tracts of particular Fathers and make few Remarks on the Councils The last indeed keeps close to the Great Councils but passes over the Small ones and any who compares this Discourse with that will find the Design the Method and Instances so different that this Discourse will still be useful in its kind as that will be also For here in an acurate Order all the Frauds of that Church are put together throughout every Century not only what have been observed by others but many now first taken notice of and not observed before And indeed the Instances of these Frauds are so many that we have been forced to give but brief Touches upon divers of the Particulars and could neither enlarge upon single Instances nor adorn the Style our business being chiefly to direct the younger Students in Ecclesiastical Antiquity and if our Remarks be but so clear as to be understood by and useful to them we have our Aim And it is hoped this may suffice to prove That the genuine Records of Councils do condemn the Modern Doctrin Worship and Discipline of the Roman Church and that whatever in these Editions of them seems to countenance those things are Forgeries and Corruptions devised on purpose to set a false gloss upon their Modern Inventions The Methodical Discovery whereof may convince any unprejudiced Man That Ours is the truly Ancient and Catholic Religion and Theirs a Device of later times which cannot be rendred any way agreeable to the Primitive Writings without innumerable Impostures and Falsifications A BRIEF ACCOUNT OF THE Roman Forgeries IN THE VOLUMES OF THE COUNCILS For the First Three Centuries PART I. CHAPTER I. Of the Forgeries in the First Century § 1. THE Volumes of the COUNCILS in the Edition of Labbe and Cossartius begin with divers Tracts and in Binius's Edition with several Epistles designed to prepossess the Reader with false Notions of the Popes supreme Power over Councils and his Parties high Reverence for them as also of the Protestants having corrupted or else rejected the greatest part of them But this whole Discourse will sufficiently shew the notorious untruth both of their boasting concerning Their own side and of their Censures concerning Ours In the Account of Scripture Councils where they pretend to recite the words of Scripture they add for to give colour to their new Supremacy That Peter stood up as the Principal and Head (a) Lab. Tom. III. pag. 18. Bin. Tom. I. par 1. pag. 1. And again as the Supreme and Head (b) Ibid. pag. 20. Bin. pag. 2. S. Luke in the Acts Chap. VI. 2. saith The Twelve Apostles gave the multitude leave to elect Seven Deacons Binius's Notes say They had this leave by the favour and grant of Peter (c) Bin. pag. 1. col 2. F. S. Luke Chap. XV. declares That the Question about Circumcision was finally determined by S. James who also cited Scripture for his determination ver 16 17. But Binius's Notes say This matter was determined not by Scripture but by the Suffrage of the Apostles and by the Judgment of Peter (d) Lab. pag. 20. Bin. pag 2. col 1. The same Notes a little after tell us That this Council committed the care of the
avoided his communion and S. Hierom saith He was an Arian As for the Story of his condemning Ursacius and Valens two of that Sect there is no better Authority for it than the fabulous Pontifical So that after all the devices of Bellarmin Baronius and Binius (u) Lab. p. 742. Bin. pag. 466. col 1 2. to save their Churches Infallibility we have two Popes at once falling so notoriously into the Arian Heresie that the Lay-people disowned their Communion This is more than suspicion of Heresie in S. Peter's Chair and proves that their infallible Guides for some years were Arian Heretics For this Liberius divers Epistles are published with a Preface before them which saith Two of them were feigned by the Arians (w) Lab. p. 744. Bin. pag. 467. col 1. yet these two are found in the Fragments of S. Hilary among which it is not probable there should be any Fiction of the Arians So that it is very likely these two Epistles are genuine but rejected by these Sycophants of Rome because they tell an ungrateful Truth viz. That Liberius did condemn Athanasius soon after he was made Pope And if we consider how inconstant he was it is very probable that he might condemn Athanasius twice first in the beginning of his Papacy as is said in these two Epistles of which he repented and then writ that Tenth Epistle to own he was in Communion with Athanasius and to tell him If he approved of his form of Faith it would tend much to the setling of his Judgment (x) Lâ—b p. 755 Bin. pâ—g 471. col 1. which is an odd Complement from an Infallible Head. Secondly He condemned Athanasius after his Banishment of which more shall be said hereafter But as to the particular Epistles we shall note That in the first which they say is genuine Liberius with other Bishops petition Constantins to order a Council to be held at Aquilcia (y) 〈◊〉 p 744. 〈◊〉 pâ—g 4â—7 col 1. Vid item Ep. 2. by which we see the Pope had not then assumed the power of calling Councils When he writ the 7th Epistle which they grant also to be genuine no doubt he was an Arian For he calls the Arian Bishops His most Beloved Brethren and declares his Consent to their just condemning of Athanasius together with his being in Communion with them and his receiving their Sirmian Creed as the Catholic Faith (z) Lab. p. 751. â—in pag. 469. col 2. So in the XIth Epistle which is certainly genuine and recorded by Socrates (a) Socrat. hist lib. 4. cap. 11. the Notes confess he was so easie as to receive the Semi-Arians to Communion and to commend their Faith as the same which was decreed at Nice But it is gross Flattery to call this only Being too easie it was in plain terms Being dâ—ceived and erring in Matters of Faith which spoils their Infallibilit (b) Lab. p. 757. Bin. pag. 472. col 1. as it also doth their Universal Supremacy for Liberius in the same Epistle to call himself Bishop of Italy referring only to the Suburbicarian Regions and saying He was the meaness of Bishops and rejoyced that those in the East did not submit to him but agree with him in Matters of Faith. Wherefore the XIIth or as Labbé calls it the XIVth Epistle which is writ to all Bishops is manifestly forged (c) Ep. 14. Lab. pag. 760. Ep. 12. Bin. pag. 472. col 2. And so are the two next from Liberius to Athanasius and from Athanasius to Liberius as both Labbé and Binius confess (d) Lab. p. 763. Bin. in Notis pag. 474. col 2. yet in one of these the Pope brags of his Authority over the Universal Church But the Forger was so bad at Chronology that while he strives to make this Pope look like an Orthodox Friend of Athanasius he absurdly brings him in even under Julian or Valens in one of whose Reigns this Epistle was written threatning Offenders with the Emperours Indignation with Deprivation yea with Proscription Banishment and Stripes (e) Lab. p. 767. Bin. pag. 474. col 2. I need not mention those Decrees which are attributed to Liberius whose Style betrays them and shews they belong to the later Ages and are placed here by the Collectors only to make them seem more ancient than really they are In Liberius's first year it is said There was a Council called at Rome by this Pope to clear Athanasius (f) Lab. p. 769. 〈◊〉 pag. 475. col 1. yet being sensible that their Authority would signifie very little they all agreed to petition the Emperour for a Council to Meet at Aquilâ—â—a to confirm what they had done at Rome Anno 355. there was a Council at Milan the Editors call it A General Council because it was with Constantins permission called by Liberius whose Legates also were present at it (g) Lab p. â—â—2 Bin. pag 476. col 1. But herein they grosly falsifie for Sozomen declares That Constantius summâ—ned all the Bishops to Milan (h) Sâ—â—â—m lib. 4 cap. 8. Socrat. lib. 2. cap. 29. and Barenius saith The Emperour called them together (i) Baron An. 355. § 2. Therefore if this was a General Council it was called by the Emperour and not by the Pope In the Notes on this Synod they say Constantius being yet a Catechumen ought not to be present at a lawful Council But this is Baronius his device to colour over the Forgery of Constantine's Baptism before the Council of Nice there being no Canon forbidding a Catechumen to be present in a Council or in a Church except only while the Sacrament was celebrating so that if Constantius had been bound by an Ecclesiastical Canon there being no Canon to hinder his presence in this Council Barenius assigns a wrong cause of his absence Again the Notes do very falsly suppose That Foelix though chosen by the Arians was a Catholic Pope (k) Lab. p. 773. For he was Ordained by three Arian Bishops at Milan as Athanasius declares (l) Athanas Epist ad Solitar and Socrates as we noted before saith He was in Opinion an Arian Nor is it probable when the Arians had got Liberius banished for not complying with them they should chuse a Catholic and an Enemy into so eminent a See or that the Catholic People of Rome should avoid the communion of Foelix if he were not an Arian 'T is true Sozomen speaks of some who said He kept to the Nicene Faith and was unblameable in Religion yet he adds he was accused for ordaining Arians and communicating with them (m) Sozom. lib. 4. cap. 10. But this bare Report raised perhaps by the Arians who still pretended to be Catholics and hold the Nicene Faith cannot outweigh such strong Reason and Matters of Fact as are here alledged to prove Foelix not only a Schismatical but also an Heretical Pope The Dialogue between Constantius and Pope Liberius at Milan here
true Title of which saith it was under Gratian and Valentinian the Emperours but the Editors put a new Title over it and say it was under Damasus (q) Lab. p. 904. Bin. pag. 516. col 1. who is not once named in it the French Bishops there assembled making Canons for their own Churches without asking the Popes leave or desiring his Confirmation An. Dom. 378. Upon the death of Valens the Arian Emperour while Valentinian was yet very young Gratian managed both the Eastern and Western Empire and he makes a Law to suppress all Heresies and to take away the use of Churches from all such as were not in Communion with Damasus Bishop of Rome and Peter of Alexandria (r) Sozom. lib. â— cap. 4. Socrat lib. 5. cap. 2. Theodoret indeed who as Baronius owns is much mistaken in his relating this matter s Theod. lib. 5. cap. 2. Baron An. 378. pag. 339. names only Damasus in his report of this Law and Bâ—ronius cites the Law out of him meerly to make it seem as if Damasus were made the sole Standard of Catholic Communion though the Original Law still extant (t) God. Justin lib. 1. tit 1. de sum Trin. Ll. 1. and all other Historians name Peter of Alexandria as equal with Damasus perhaps the Reader may wonder there is no other Patriarch named in this Law but it must be observed that Antiâ—ch at this time had two Orthodox Bishops who separated from each other Meletius and Paulinus to make up which unhappy Schism there was a Synod this year held at Antioch under Damasus (u) Lab. p. 908. Bin. pag. 517. col 1. say the Editors but in truth under the Emperours Legate who was sent to see a Peace concluded between these two Bishops by the advice of the Council there assembled And Damasus had so little interest in this Council that Meletius was generally approved for the true Bishop and Paulinus whose party the Pope favoured ordered only to come in after Meletius his Death (w) Socrat. lib. 5. cap. 5. Sozom. lib. 7. cap. 3. Theod. lib. 5. c. 3. So that since this Council acted contrary to the mind of Damasus it is very improper to say it was held under him § 27. The second General Council at Constantinople was Called by the Emperour Theodosius An. Dom. 381. whom Gratian had taken for his Partner in the Empire and assigned him for his share the Eastern Provinces where this pious Prince finding great differences in Religion he Convened this Council to confirm the Nicene Faith to settle Ecclesiastical Matters and to determine the Affairs of the See of Constantinople This Council the Editors introduce with a Preface or general History and conclude it with partial and false Notes hoping to perswade the World that it was both called and all the good things which they had done with which Letter probably they sent as was usual a Transcript of all their Acts And Photius saith That Damasus Bishop of Rome afterwards agreed with these Bishops and confirmed what they had done (m) Photius de 7 Synod cap. 2. that is by consenting to it which is no more than every absent Bishop may do who in a large Sense may be said to confirm a Council when he agrees to the Acts of it after they are brought to him Thirdly The Authority of this Council is undoubted having been ever called and accounted the Second General Council and so it is reckoned in all places where the General Councils are mentioned which Title it had not as Bellarmin vainly suggests Because at the time when this was assembled in the East the Western Bishops met at Rome For that obscure Synod is not taken notice of while this is every where celebrated as held at Constantinople and consisting of one hundred and fifty Bishops which were they who met in the East (n) Lab. p. 967. Bin. pag. 541. col 2. As for Damasus Baronius cannot prove he was concerned in it but by we think and we may believe (o) Baron An. 380 p 359. An. 381. p. 368. yet he elsewhere boldly says Damasus gave it Supreme Authority (p) Idem p. 382. and the Annotator makes it impossible for any Council to be general unless the Pope or his Legates be there Now he and all others call this A General Council And yet he saith That neither Pope Damasus nor his Legates were Presidents of it nor was he or any Western Bishop in it Whence we learn That there may be a General Council at which the Pope is not present by himself nor by his Legates and of which neither he nor they are Presidents Fourthly As to the Creed and Canons here made the modern Romanists without any proof suppose that Damasus allowed the former and not the later But if he allowed the famous Creed here made I ask Whether it then had these words And from the Son or no If it had why do the Notes say That these words were added to it by the Bishops of Spain and the Authority of Pope Leo long after (q) Lab. p. 972. Bin. pag. 543. col 2. But if these words were wanting as they seem to confess when they say The Roman Church long used this Creed without this addition then I must desire to know how a Man of their Church can be secure of his Faith if what was as they say confirmed by Damasus in a General Council may be al ered by a few Bishops and another Pope without any General Council As to the Canons Damasus made no objection against them in his time and it is very certain that the Bishop of Constantinople after this Council always had the second place For as the first General Council at Nice gave old Rome the first place as being the Imperial City so this second General Council doubted not but when Constantinople was become new Rome and an Imperial City also they had power to give it the second place and suitable Priviledges Yea the Notes confess that S. Chrysostem by virtue of this Canon placed and displaced divers Bishops in Asia and the 4th General Council at Chalcâ—den without regarding the dissent of the Popes Legates allowed the Bishop of Constantinople the second place and made his Priviledges equal to those of Old Rome (r) Vid. Concil Chaleed Can. 28. Subscrip ibid. which Precedence and Power that Bishop long returned notwithstanding the endeavours of the envious Popes And Gregory never objected against thâ—se Canons till he began to fear the growing Greatness of the Patriarch of Constantinople but when that Church and Empire was sinking and there appeared no danger on that side to the Popes then Innocent the Third is said by the Notes to revive and allow this Canon again by which we see that nothing but Interest governs that Church and guides her Bishops in allowing or discarding any Councel For now again when the Reformed begin to urge this Canon Baronius and