THE CHURCH HISTORY Clear'd from the Roman Forgeries And Corruptions found in the COUNCILS and BARONIUS In Four Parts FROM The Beginning of Christianity to the End of the Fifth General Council 553. By THOMAS COMBER D. D. Dean of DURHAM For we have not followed cunningly devised Fables 2 Pet. I. 16. LONDON Printed by Samuel Roycroft for Robert Clavell at the Peacock at the West-End of S. Pauls 1695. Imprimatur Martii 2. 1688 9. T. Alston R. P. D. HEN. Episc Lond. à Sacris Domesticis TO THE Most Reverend Father in GOD THOMAS By Divine Providence Lord Arch-Bishop of YORK PRIMATE OF ENGLAND AND METROPOLITAN May it please your Grace THere is nothing more Pleasant in it self nor more Vseful to those of the Sacred Function than the Study of Ecclesiastical Antiquity But yet many of that Order have not the Advantage or the Opportunity to acquire this Knowledge from the Original Authors and therefore are forced to seek it in the Roman Editions of the Councils and the Modern Historians of that Church Where every thing is misrepresented and placed in so False a Light that its hard to find out what is Truth Some of the genuine Remains of Antiquity they have concealed but they have falsified and altered more and added so much to the Primitive Records especially in the first Four Centuries that near Three Parts of Four both in Baronius and the Councils are modern Forgeries manifest Legends and impertinent Excursions into Sophistical Vindications of the later Doctrins and Practices of Rome It would therefore be a Work worthy of this excellent Church in so Learned an Age to make an acurate Collection of that and only that which is true and certain in the Primitive History and Councils 'T is true divers Eminent Men have made some steps toward it but it is too great an Vndertaking for any One Man to accomplish as appears by that generous Project of Dr. Thomas James Proposed to the Most Learned Primate of Ireland to employ a Select Company of both Universities with due Assistances and Encouragement for the perfecting this Design Wherefore in the mean time it may be serviceable to gather together some Materials for so Noble a purpose and that first encouraged me to make these Observations as I was Reading the Annals of Baronius with the Councils Which I have by the Advice of some of my Friends Methodically digested in this little Tract and I hope it may be useful not only to direct such as apply themselves to this kind of Study but also to confirm others of Our own Communion in their firm Adherence to their Excellent Religion when they see so many plain Evidences That all the Roman Churches Pretences to Antiquity both in Doctrin and Worship are founded on and maintained by little else but those Forgeries and Corruptions by which they Imposed upon the Ignorant and Easie World for Six or Seven Centuries together These Pious Frauds as They counted them did indeed then advance their Interest and establish their Errors but now when they are detected by this Discerning Generation they prove their utter Shame and did not Secular Advantages and Implicit Faith or Fear and Inquisitions hinder those under their Yoke from being acquainted or however from owning these unfaithful Actings of their Spiritual Guides These Discoveries would not only secure Our People but make many Converts from Them But My Lord whatever the Work or the Success be I am obliged to lay it at Your Graces Feet as the first thing I have made Public since Your Graces happy Advancement to the Government of this Church whereof I am a Member and wherein by Your Graces Influence I shall study to serve the Primitive-Protestant-Church of England Which I beseech Almighty GOD to defend from all its Enemies and long to preserve Your Grace to be a Support and an Honour to it So Prays MY LORD Your Graces most Dutiful Son and Servant THO COMBER York Aug. 20. 1689. THE Introduction WHen Campian long ago undertook to defend the Roman Cause he boasted that He was strengthned with the firm and powerful Guard of all the Councils and that all the General Councils were on his side Which vain Brag the Writers from the Roman Church do frequently repeat to this very day But he that with Judgment and Diligence shall peruse their own allowed Editions of the Councils will easily discover the falshood of this Assertion For there is such adding and expunging such altering and disguising things in the Body of the Councils and such excusing falsifying and shuffling in the Notes that a Judicious Reader will soon perceive these Venerable Records truly set down and explained do not favour them But these Corruptions are carried on with such Confidence and Cunning that an unexeperienced and unwary Student may be imposed on by this specious shew of Venerable Antiquity For their sakes therefore it 's necessary to take a short view of that Fraud and Policy which is so commonly made use of in those Editions of the Councils which pass through the Roman Mint especially in those which are in most use among us viz. The Edition of Severinus Binius and that of Labbé and Cossartius wherein Binius his Notes are printed verbatim Which useful design was begun by a Learned and Ingenious Gentleman in a Tract entituled Roman Forgeries printed at London An. 1673 But that Author doth not follow the exact order of Time nor doth he go much beyond the Nicene Council and even in that Period he left out many plain Instances And whereas he died before he had proceeded any further I resolved to begin where he left off But for Methods sake and to make thid Discourse more entire I have begun with the first Century and so proceeded according to the order of the several Councils only writing more briefly upon the Three first Centuries which were largely treated of in that Author before deducing the account of these Impostures down to the end of the Fourth Century and shewing as I go along what Artifices have been used by the Editors and Annotator to dress up these Ancient Evidences so as to make them look favourably upon their great Diana the Supremacy and other Corruptions of the Roman Church To this end they have published many spurious Councils many counterfeit Canons and forged Decretals and for such as are genuine they have frequently altered the Text both by Additions and Diminutions and have so disguised the Sense by partial and fallacious Notes that it will be evident by the Remarks here made upon them their business in the publishing these Volumes was not to promote the Truth but to serve a Party Nor can any thing else be expected from Binius his Notes which as he owns in his Preface He took out of Baronius Bellarmin and Possevin The design of which three Men saith Richerius an ingenuous Sorbon Doctor is evident to all Men to have been no other but to prove the Pope was
to the Pontifical in this Popes History Baronius declares when he notes that Author is not to be trusted in his Report That Misenus and Vitalis were sent to Constantinople three years after this Synod at Rome And it seems neither Euphemius Bishop of Constantinople nor Pope Gelasius knew of this Roman Synod For when Euphemius asked In what Synod his Predecessor Acacius was condemned Gelasius mentions no Roman Synod but saith there was no need of any particular Council since he was condemned by the general Sentence of the Council of Chalcedon and upon that ground the Roman Church rejected Acacius his Communion There are in Labbè divers other Epistles ascribed to Foelix one to Zeno said to be writ some time after the death of Acacius wherein the Pope extols that Emperour for his care of Religion and the reverence of Divine Worship which shews that Foelix did not so stifly renounce Zeno's Communion nor damn his Edict for Union so severely as Binius pretends The rest of these Epistles I pass though most of them be suspicious § 6. The first Roman Council under Foelix may be true as far as concerns the Condemnation of Peter Mongus the Heretical Bishop of Alexandria though there is nothing to prove it but the two first suspected Epistles of Foelix However if there were such a Synod it shews how little regard was had to the Pope and his Council in those days since John whose side Rome took did never get admittance to the See of Alexandria and Peter Mongus kept that Chair for all the Popes Sentence And if the other Peter Cnapheus the Heretical Bishop of Antioch was condemned here it is certain he was condemned before by Acacius at Constantinople But that Evidence of Acacius his being Orthodox hath not discouraged the Parasites from forging a pretended Citation in the name of this Roman Synod to call Acacius to Rome there to answer the Matters charged against him But 't is so improbable Foelix should attempt this against one who thought himself his equal if not superior that now-a-days the Romanists allow not these Processes but count them spurious There is a second Roman Council placed in this year wherein Acacius and the two Peters of Alexandria and Antioch are all said to be condemned But let it be noted that whereas the 6th Epistle of Foelix saith he had deposed Acacius in a Synod in August 484 and at that time Baronius places his deposition Yet here we have a Synodical Letter condemning him over again dated above a year after viz. Octob. 485 which Date Baronius and Binius fraudulently leave out But Labbè sets it down in the Margen and so discovers the cheat Upon the whole matter this Condemnation of Acacius was done they know not when and 't is probable all these Letters and Synods were invented after the Controversie for precedence between Rome and Constantinople grew high meerly to put weight into the Roman Scale But one corruption of this suspicious Synodical Epistle I cannot pass being a passage evidently put in by a later Forger For whereas this Letter makes the Italian Bishops call the Pope their Prince and Head by way of limitation who ought to preside in the Synods of Italy And tell those to whom they writ that therefore they had by Tutus sent the Sentence underneath which pleased the Synod at St. Peters and which holy Foelix their Head Pope and Archbishop had decreed Some later Hand hath broken the Sense and absurdly thrust into the midst of this Sentence these incoherent words Who is the Head of all the Lord saying to St. Peter the Apostle Thou art Peter c. Math. xvi Which words the 318 Fathers at Nice following gave the Authority and Confirmation of matters to the holy Church of Rome both which even to our Age all Successions by the grace of Christ have kept and then comes in Therefore as we have said we have by Tutus sent c. 'T is plain they are forced to put in these words as we have said to tye these latter words to the former And whoever considers the incoherence the impertinence the sham story of the Fathers at Nice and the many Ages supposed from that Council of Nice to this time which was but barely 160 years will conclude this Passage is a Corruption upon a Corruption to support the Supremacy while such stuff passed for Authentick proof to an ignorant Age. The Third Roman Council under Foelix as we noted on his 7th Epistle lies under the same suspicion being dated with the Consuls of the year 488 yet is said to be read in Council the year before An. 487 and from an Epistle to one Neighbouring Country is now made a Letter to all Bishops § 7. Gelasius succeeded Foelix in the Roman See a man of more wit and learning than most of his Predecessors for which cause it is thought he was called Scholasticus before St. Gregory's time and that it was he that corrected and set out the Roman Offices The Pontifical relates that the Manichees being discovered at Rome in his time he made a Decree That those who would not receive the Sacrament in both kinds should receive it in neither and declares it to be a grand Sacriledge for any to divide the holy Mysteries Now these Hereticks refusing the Cup were to be discovered by the Priests taking care that all the People received the Cup as well as the Bread But this happens to condemn the modern use at Rome of denying the Cup to the People as a grand Sacriledge wherefore all Hands and Wits are at work to ward off this fatal Blow Binius in his Margen feigns That Gelasius ordered the Sacrament to be received in both kinds for a time But if it had not been the Custom at Rome to receive in both kinds before the Manichees had never been discovered It is very plain Gelasius confirms the old Custom and thinks it in all times a Sacriledge to receive but one half Wherefore Labbè hath left out this pitiful Note The Editors of Gratian cover this blot by Forging this false Title to the Decree The Priest ought not to receive the Body of Christ without the Blood But Gelasius speaks principally if not only of the People and this Sense supposes most of the Roman Clergy to be Manichean Hereticks Therefore Baronius rejects this Excuse as frivolous but takes as bad a method to salve up this business for he manifestly perverts the sense of the Decree pretending the Manichees superstition made it Sacriledge only in them to reject the Cup but it is none in the Catholick People not to receive it nor in the Church to forbid it But this is meer Shophistry for it was certainly the Custom even at Rome in Gelasius his time and many Ages after for all the Orthodox People to receive in both kinds and he calls it Sacriledge in any of the People who
appointed by Christ to be the absolute Monarch and Infallible Judge of his Church And since the Notes chiefly follow Baronius we have as we go along in every Period noted several of the designed Falshoods and of the Contradictions Errors and Mistakes in his Annals Which History is so full of Forgeries false Quotations and feigned Tales to set up the Credit of the Roman Church and its corrupt Opinions and Practices that to discover them all would require almost as many Volumes as his Annals make So that we must content our selves with some of the plainest Instances which fall into this Matter of the Councils and will set them in a clear Light and shew they are as contrary to Reason as they are to true History Which Vndertaking we hope will be many ways useful First It will tend to the ease of those who intend to read over the Tomes of the Councils or the Annals of Baronius and save them much time and pains by presenting the principal Errors of those great Volumes at one View which they would spend a long time in searching after if they were to gather them up as they lye dispersed Secondly It may be very useful to those who desire to be rightly informed in the Controversies between us and the Roman Church because it will give them a clear prospect of what Councils and other Antiquities are Authentic and may be allowed for Evidence in this Dispute wherein our Adversaries have so little regard to their own Honour that generally one half of their Evidence is such as they have either forged or corrupted Thirdly It will be necessary by way of Antidote to prepare those who by reading Books so full of Infection may by these plausible Falsifications be in danger to be seduced into a great esteem of the Opinions and Practices of the Roman Church when they find so many seemingly ancient Tracts and Councils brought in to justifie her in all things and see by this false Light all Ecclesiastical History and Records so modelled as to perswade their Readers That in the purest Christian Times all things were believed and done in the Catholic Church just as they are now at Rome But when it shall appear that all this is a continued Series and train of Impostures it will render their Notions and Practices not only suspected but odious as needing such vile and base Artifices to make them seem agreeable to true Antiquity To this it may be Objected That divers of the Modern Writers of this Church and especially the most Learned do now own divers of these Forgeries which we here detect to have been spurious and therefore it seems needless to prove that which they have already granted us I reply That none of them own all these Corruptions and divers of their Authors cite them very confidently to this very day and still the things themselves stand in their most approved Editions of Councils and the Remarks are only in Marginal Notes But since they were believed in those Ages while their Supremacy and other Novel Doctrins were setting up and were urged for good Proofs till these Opinions had taken root it is not satisfaction enough to renounce that Evidence of which they now have no more need unless they disclaim the Doctrins also to which they first gave Credit And till they do this it is fit the World should know by what False Evidence they first gained these Points For if a Man should get an Estate by Bribing his Iury and his Witnesses it is not enough for him to confess these Persons were Suborned unless he restore the Ill gotten Lands and till he restore them he ought to be upbraided with his Bribery even after he hath acknowledged it Secondly It may be alledged That Junius River and Daillé abroad Perkins Cook and James at home have taken great pains on this Subject and that the Learned Author of the Historieal Examination of the Authority of General Councils printed at London 1688. hath already handled this Argument I Answer That the Six former are chiefly concerned in the Tracts of particular Fathers and make few Remarks on the Councils The last indeed keeps close to the Great Councils but passes over the Small ones and any who compares this Discourse with that will find the Design the Method and Instances so different that this Discourse will still be useful in its kind as that will be also For here in an acurate Order all the Frauds of that Church are put together throughout every Century not only what have been observed by others but many now first taken notice of and not observed before And indeed the Instances of these Frauds are so many that we have been forced to give but brief Touches upon divers of the Particulars and could neither enlarge upon single Instances nor adorn the Style our business being chiefly to direct the younger Students in Ecclesiastical Antiquity and if our Remakrs be but so clear as to be understood by and useful to them we have our Aim And it is hoped this may suffice to prove That the genuine Records of Councils do condemn the Modern Doctrin Worship and Discipline of the Roman Church and that whatever in these Editions of them seems to countenance those things are Forgeries and Corruptions devised on purpose to set a false gloss upon their Modern Inventions The Methodical Discovery whereof may convince any unprejudiced Man That Ours is the truly Ancient and Catholic Religion and Theirs a Device of later times which cannot be rendred any way agreeable to the Primitive Writings without innumerable Impostures and Falsifications A BRIEF ACCOUNT OF THE Roman Forgeries IN THE VOLUMES OF THE COUNCILS For the First Three Centuries PART I. CHAPTER I. Of the Forgeries in the First Century § 1. THE Volumes of the COUNCILS in the Edition of Labbe and Cossartius begin with divers Tracts and in Binius's Edition with several Epistles designed to prepossess the Reader with false Notions of the Popes supreme Power over Councils and his Parties high Reverence for them as also of the Protestants having corrupted or else rejected the greatest part of them But this whole Discourse will sufficiently shew the notorious untruth both of their boasting concerning Their own side and of their Censures concerning Ours In the Account of Scripture Councils where they pretend to recite the words of Scripture they add for to give colour to their new Supremacy That Peter stood up as the Principal and Head And again as the Supreme and Head S. Luke in the Acts Chap. VI. 2. saith The Twelve Apostles gave the multitude leave to elect Seven Deacons Binius's Notes say They had this leave by the favour and grant of Peter S. Luke Chap. XV. declares That the Question about Circumcision was finally determined by S. James who also cited Scripture for his determination ver 16 17. But Binius's Notes say This matter was determined not by Scripture but by the Suffrage of the Apostles and
this Author who though he had placed S. Peters Death so many years before Clement's Entrance as to leave room for two intermediate Popes yet here again repeats his old Fable of S. Peters delivering the Bishopric of Rome to Clement a sufficient proof there is neither Truth nor Certainty in the pretended Personal Succession of the first Popes § 9. From this Pope Clement down to the time of Syricius who lived 300 years after him there are printed in these Editors after every Popes Life divers Decretal Epistles pretended to be writ by the several Popes and Vindicated by Binius's Notes annexed to them Which were received in the Western Church for many Hundred years together as the genuine Decrees of these ancient and pious Popes transcribed into the Canon Law and cited for many Ages to justifie the Usurpations and defend the Corruptions of the Roman Church to determine Causes and decide Controversies in Religion And yet they are all notorious Forgeries so that since Learning was revived divers of the most Eminent Roman Writers have rejected them Card. Cusanus affirms That being compared with the times in which they are pretended to have been Writ they betray themselves Baronius calls them Late invented Evidences of no Credit and Apocryphal yea Labbé and Cossartius have in their Edition a Learned Preface to them proving them to be forged And in their Margin write almost against every Epistle This is suspected This is Isidores Wares c. and also note the very places of Authors who lived long after these Times out of which large Passages in them are stollen Verbatim Which clear Confession of our Adversaries may make some think it needless to confute them and unnecessary to charge this Forgery upon the Roman Church But I cannot think it sit wholly to pass them by because Turrian the Jesuit had the Confidence to defend them all as genuine and Binius in his Edition not only Vindicates them by a general Preface but by particular Notes labours to prove most of them Authentic and Labbé himself prints those Notes at large in his Edition so that such as do not look into his Margen may be deceived Besides this Confession of some Romanists comes too late to compensate for the injury done to the Truth by their Churches approving them so long And they still keep up the Supremacy and all their corrupt Practices and Opinions which were set up and cherished by these Forgeries they now take away the Scaffolds when the Building can stand alone they execute the Traytor but enjoy freely the benefit of his Treason Moreover while some Romanists condemn them others go on to cite them for good Authority Harding brags he had proved many Points of Faith by the Epistles of Clement Damasus Julius Melchiades Pontianus Sixtus Soter and Symmachus Dr. Tho. James shews the particular corrupt Doctrines and Practices which the late Roman Writers defend by the spurious Epistles of Clement Marcellus Marcus and Hormisda And the Learned Cook with infinite diligence hath cited the very Places of the Modern Champions for the Roman Opinions and shewed what Doctrines and Practices they do maintain by these Forged Epistles It is also well known that the Late Scriblers for that Religion do follow Bellarmin and Others in citing these Decretals for good Authority and that the Canon Law is in a great measure composed out of these Epistles by which Causes are determined at this day in all Popish Countries Therefore till the Romanists raze them and the Notes in their defence out of the Volumes of the Councils and expunge all the false Notions taken hence out of their Canon Law yea and leave citing them in their Disputes with us we cannot think it needless to shew the apparent Forgery of them but we will not enlarge so as to disprove the Particulars but put together here our Evidence against them all § 10. These Epistles though pretended to be writ in the first four Centuries were never heard of in the World till near 800 years after Christ About which time came out a Collection of Councils under the name of Isidore Hispalensis but whereas he died An. 636 and this Collector mentions the XIth Council of Toledo and the Sixth General Council which were held near Fifty years after this appears not to be the Work of that Isidore but of one Isidore Mercator and it was first brought into France by Riculphus B. of Mentz in which Collection these Decretal Epistles first appeared but the Learned Hincmarus of Rheims immediately discerned them to be an imposture and Writ against them as Baronius confesseth But though he own the Cheat he is not willing to grant the Roman Church had any hand in it yet that is as clear as the Forgery because Hincmarus was hated and prosecuted by the Pope and forced at last to Recant his Censure of these Epistles and not long after Benedictus Levita having Transcrib'd divers Passages out of them into his Capitulars got them confirmed at Rome which could not but cherish so advantagious a Fiction that supported the Supremacy which they then did so hotly stickle for and therefore though they came first to the Birth in Spain some conjecture they were all Hatched at Rome whose evil Designs and Interest they are contrived to serve But the Age was so Ignorant when they were Invented that there is such infamous and convincing Marks of Forgery upon them as makes it very easie to prove the Cheat beyond any possibility of doubting and we will here put the principal of them together under their proper Heads § 11. First The Style of these Decretals shews they were not writ within the four first Centuries wherein at Rome especially they writ Latin in a much more Elegant Style than is to be found here where the Phrases are modern harsh and sometimes barbarous so that the Reader is often puzled to reconcile them either to Grammar or Sense As for Example Pope Victor's Second Epistle which of old began with Enim and was mended by Binius with Semper enim but still there is false Latin in it viz. aliquos nocere fratres velle The like barbarous Style may be observed in the two Epistles of Pontianus and in many others But the genuine Epistles of Cornelius preserved in Eusebius and S. Cyprian are writ in a more polite Style and as Labbé notes These Epistles shew how much good Mony differs from counterfeit and how much Gold excels Counters The like difference there is between the Style of that genuine Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians and those silly Forgeries put out in his Name in the very Front of these Decretals from whence it undeniably follows That the Decretals were not writ in the Ages wherein the Latin Tongue flourished nor by those Popes whose Names they bear And this is further manifest by divers Words which were not used in the time of these Popes but
Epistles are Forged and consequently of no Authority yet the Roman Church hath made great use of them in the Ignorant Ages For Binius notes all along in his Margen what Sections of them are transcribed into their Canon Law and even in later times their Writers against the Protestants do commonly cite their Infamous Impostures to prove the Supremacy of the Pope his Infallibility and right to Appeals as also for the exemption of the Clergy their Celibacy and Habits and to prove their Mass with its Ceremonies Auricular Confession Apocryphal Books Tradition Chrism Veneration of Relicks and Martyrs c. and Cook in his Censura Patrum hath noted the several Epistles and the Authors which cite them saving us the labour of instancing And therefore we will only make a few general Observations upon this matter and so dismiss these Forgeries Observ I. That since the Romanists have no other genuine Ancient Authors to prove these New Doctrines and Practices by but are forced generally to place these apparent Forgeries in the Fore-front of all their Authorities we may conclude these Points of their Religion are all Innovations unheard of in the Primitive Ages so that Isidore was forced to invent these Epistles almost 800 years after Christ to give some shew of Antiquity to them and these Points were in those Ignorant Times mistaken by this means for Primitive Usages and Opinions and so got footing in the World under that disguise but now that the Fallacy is discovered the Doctrines and Practices ought to be disowned as well as the Epistles on which they are built Observ II. There are many other Points of the Roman Religion which are not so much as mentioned in any of these Forged Epistles such as Worship of Images Formal Praying to the Saints and to the Virgin Mary Transubstantiation Half-Communion and Adoration of the Host Purgatory Indulgences and Justification by Merits with some others Now these are so New that in Isidore's time when he invented these Epistles they were not heard of nor received no not in the Roman Church for if they had no doubt this Impostor who was so zealous to get Credit for all the Opinions and Usages of that Church which he knew of would have made some Popes write Epistles to justifie these also and his silence concerning them makes it more than probable that these were all invented since the year of Christ 800. Observ III. Though the later Romanists frequently cite these Forged Decretals yet no genuine Author or Historian for Seven hundred years after Christ did ever Quote or Mention them no not so much as any of the Popes themselves in all that Period Now it is morally impossible so many important Points should be so clearly decided by so many Ancient Bishops of so Famous a Church and yet no Author ever take notice of it And doubtless when the Popes attempted to be Supreme and claimed Appeals about the year 400 Zosimus and Boniface who quarrelled with the Eastern and African Bishops about these Points and were so hard put to it for Evidence as to seign some private Canons were made at the first general Council of Nice would certainly have cited these Epistles which are so clear Evidence for their pretences if they had either seen or heard of them but they do not once name them in all that Controversie which shews they were not then in being yea those who know Church History do clearly discern that the main Points setled by these Epistles were things disputed of about the Seventh and Eighth Centuries a little before Isidore's time and therefore these Forgeries must never be cited for to prove any Point to be Ancient or Primitive § 17. Obs IV. Though the Inventer of these Epistles was so zealous a Bigot for the Roman Cause yet many things are to be found in them which contradict the present Tenents of that Church For whereas the Pope now claims an Universal Supremacy even over Jerusalem it self Clement's first Epistle is directed to James the Bishop of Bishop's Ruling the Hebrew Church at Jerusalem and all the Churches every where founded by Divine providence Anacletus first Epistle orders all the Clergy present to receive under pain of Excommunication which is not observed now in the Roman Church Pope Telesphorus orders a Mass on the Night before Christmas and forbids any to begin Mass before nine a Cleek But Binius confesses their Church doth not now observe either of these Orders Pope Hyginus forbids all foreign Jurisdiction because it is unfit they should be Judged abroad who have Judges at home So the third Epistle of Pope Fabian appoints that every Cause shall be tried where the Crime is committed which passage is also in a genuine Epistle of S. Cyprian to Cornelius And all foreign Jurisdiction is again forbid in Pope Felix his second Epistle which passages do utterly destroy Appeals to Rome unless they can prove all the Crimes in the World are committed there The second Epistle of Fabian allows the People to reprove their Bishop if he Err in matters of Faith the same Liberty also is given to the People in Cornelius second Epistle which seems to make the People Judges in Matter of Faith a thing which the Modern Romanists charge upon the Protestants as a great Error From these and many other passages we may see that these Impostures do not in all Points agree with the present Roman Church § 18. I have now done with the Epistles themselves and proved them to be apparent Forgeries I will only give the Reader some cautions about those partial Notes printed on them both in Binius and Labbè which though they frequently correct confute and alter divers passages in these Epistles Yet if any thing look kindly upon the Roman Church they magnifie and vindicate it but if it seem to condemn any of their Usages they reject and slight it For Example Pope Pius cites Coloss XI 18. against worshiping Angels and the Notes reject both S. Hierom's and Theodoret's Exposition of the place as Reflecting on their Churches practice adding that S. Paul condemned Cerinthus in that place for giving too much Honour to Angels Yet Binius soon after tells us that Cerinthus was so far from Teaching they were to be Adored that he thought they were to be Hated as Authors of Evil Pope Zepherine cites the Apostolical Canons for the Priviledges of his See and saith there were but Seventy of them But Binius in his Notes saith he refers to the Seventy third Canon Yet if the Reader consult that Seventy third Canon the Pope's See is not named there yea that Canon forbids a Bishop to Appeal from his Neighbor Bishop unless it be to a Council Out of Calixtus fust Epistle which Labbè owns to be a manifest Forgery Binius Notes cite a Testimoy for the Supremacy calling it an evident Testimony and worthy to be Noted Pontianus in his Exile brags ridiculously about the
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 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 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 and Alexander ab Alexandro mentions a famous High-way leading from Rome to this City 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 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 is no prejudice to the Truth of Marcellinus his fall though the Africans did not know of it nor S. Augustine no nor any of the African Church Yet in the next Page it is observed That there are very many Names of the Witnesses which prove his fall which are peculiar to the African Christians Now if these Names were peculiar to the Africans then these Witnesses were of the African Church Originally and then it is Morally impossible that they should never tell none of their Countrymen of so Famous a Transaction The Notes confess that these Acts often mention Libra occidua which is a Word invented after the Empire was divided into East and West And thence the same Notes infer these Acts were not writ in those Ancient times yet they make it a wonder that they were not seen in Africa in S. Augustine ' s time or before Which is to wonder that they had not seen them in Africa before they were written It puzzles the Annotator to make out an excuse for that ridiculous Falshood in these Acts that Marcellinus was led into the Temple of Vesta and Isis and there Sacrificed to Hercules Jupiter and Saturn because these Gods were never placed nor Worshiped in the Temples of those female Deities Nor can he allow what the Acts say about this Council being held when Dioclesian was in his Persian War for he affirms it was held Two years after that War when Dioclesian had devested himself of the Empire and lived a private Life But then the Acts make Dioclesian to be present and in Rome when Marcellinus did Sacrifice and at this rate the Pope would have laied two years at least in his Apostacy which the Annotator must not endure To conclude we now see That a Council held no body knows where nor when concealed from all Ancient Authors writ in later times full of Barbarisms and Non-sense Falshoods and contradictions if it do but pretend to make out the Supremacy and Infallibity of the Pope and set him while he was an Apostate and falsly denied the Fact above a Council of Three hundred Innocent Bishops if it do but say the Pope though never so wicked cannot be judged by any but himself This Council shall be published by the Roman Editors and vindicated by partial Notes as if it were a most genuine and Authentic Truth From whence it is plain That these Editors and especially this Annotator hath no other measure of Truth and Falshood but the Interest of the Roman Church which they resolve to promote though it be by the most unjust means And this may suffice to observe for the Third Century A BRIEF ACCOUNT OF THE Roman Forgeries IN THE VOLUMES OF THE COUNCILS For the Fourth Century PART II. CHAPTER IV. Of the Forgeries in the Fourth Century § 1. THis Century begins with the Life of Marcellus a Pope so obscure that Eusebius's Chronicle wholly omits him and Theodoret knew nothing of him nor of
nothing to himself alone as Baronius falsly pretends And to make this single Priviledge of Rome the more credible he doth frequently apply what the Ancients say of all the Bishops of the West to the Pope Thus what S. Basil saith of all the Western Churches he applies only to Rome And when he recites two Epistles of S. Basil whose Title is to the Western Bishops and the whole discourse in it directed to many Bishops he feigns the Name of the Pope is left out or lost and concludes these Letters were peculiarly directed to him and this only to support the Roman Supremacy and therefore he repeats over and over this matter and affirms it was an Embassy sent to the Pope Thus also when S. Ambrose saith The Western Bishops ' by their Judgment approved of his Ordination He infers that S. Ambrose implies It was confirmed by a public Decree of the Apostolical See And whereas Basil speaking of those Western Bishops in his time who he saith kept the Faith entirely Baronius infers from hence That their Successors and especially the Bishops of Rome have never erred since Like to which is his inferring the usage of Praying to Saints from a pure Rhetorical flourish of Nazianzen's in one of his Orations And thus when S. Hierom uses all his Oratory to set off Virginity because that seems to make for the Roman Celibacy he takes him to be in good earnest and will have all his Reflexions upon Marriage to be solid Arguments though S. Hierom himself calls them Trifles But when he tells a sober Truth about the Ignorance of the Roman Clergy then the Cardinal tells us He speaks by way of Hyperbole From which Instances it doth appear that our Annalist did not like an Historian endeavour to declare Truth but only to serve an Interest and a Party § 7. Lastly His Partiality notoriously appears where-ever the Church of Rome is any way concerned for when any thing of this kind comes in his way he puts off the Character of an Historian and turns Disputant labouring to confute the most ancient and authentic Authors if they seem to say any thing against that Church Thus we may observe what tedious digressions he makes about the Primacy of Rome in his discourse on the Nicene Council for which he twice makes Apologies Again he runs out into a long and very impertinent dispute about the Worship of Images in an Age when no good Author mentions them as used in the Church In like manner He makes a long excursion to disprove an Authentic Story of Epiphanius tearing a Veil with a Picture wrought in it because such things were not fit to be in Churches and he scarce ever meets with any of the Roman Corruptions mentioned in the most fabulous Authors but he leaves the History and enlarges into Remarks upon those Passages But if the Writer be never so eminent that touches any of these Sores his business always is to bafâ—le the Evidence of which there is scarce one year in his Annals wherein there are not some Examples On the other side He takes every slight occasion to make the most spiteful Reflexions on all that he counts Enemies to the Roman Church Thus he applies the Bishop of Alexandria's description of the Arians to the Reformed Churches though it agree much better with these of his own Religion Again He reviles us because we do not honour the Modern idle lewd Monks of their Communion as much as the Ancients did those holy and devout Monks which were in the Primitive Times though it be plain to all the World these are like them in nothing but the Name The like Outcry he makes upon Protestants for undeceiving some of those silly Nuns who have been decoyed into unlawful Vows meerly for Interest and Secular Ends and affirms the perswading these to Marry is worse than the Arian's ravishing and murthering them at Alexandria Thus also he compares the Reformed Divines to the Eunomians who taught Their Faith alone would save them though their Lives were never so wicked forgetting that their Priest's convert as they call it Murderers at the Gallows by teaching them this very Principle And to name no more Examples when S. Basil inveighs against those who despised the Ancient Customs of the Primitive Church He spitefully applies this to the Reformed Whereas in very Truth they of Rome have left off more Ancient Rites and brought in more new ones than any sort of Christians in the World By these and many more Instances which might be given even out of this one Century it is evident that the whole design of his History is to make all the Doctrins and Practices of Rome seem to be Primitive and right and that he cares not how unlawful the Means be which he uses to gain this belief in his Reader § Yet to conclude we will observe That after all his evil-Methods there are many things which he could neither avoid relating nor yet excuse which condemn the Modern Roman Church I wonder how he could Commend Constantine for abolishing the Stews and the prostituting of Christian Women there and not observe That the Pope now tolerates these Abominations in Rome it self Again how doth it agree with the INFALLIBILITY of the Pope to say That one Holy Spirit governs the Catholic Church so as to make the Bishops of all Ages and Places agree in the same Opinion If this be so what need one Bishop alone be made Infallible And if it be as he saith a Doctrin taught by the Apostles and consequently true That the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father then the Pope who condemns this as an Heresie of the Greeks is not Infallible If Constantine had known of this Infallibility lodged at Rome he would have sent thither for exact Copies of the Holy Scriptures and not to Eusebius in Palestina If Damasus had this Infallible Spirit how came he after he was Pope to need to be instructed in the meaning of Scripture by S. Hierom Or if his Successor Siricius had been Infallible how could the Origenists who held such palpable Heresies that a Woman discovered them to be in an Error impose upon his Simplicity and get Letters Testimonial from this sole Judge of Heresie How came the Council of Alexandria to send their Decrees to Epiphanius S. Hierom and S. Chrysostom and not first send them to Anastasius who was Infallible And indeed Baronius cannot prove they were sent to him at all but by saying It is fit to believe they were sent Moreover many things in this Century related by these Annals look not favourably upon the SUPREMACY Constantine calls Eusebius's Election to the See of Antioch An advancement to the Bishopric of the Universal Church which looks as if he knew nothing of the Pope's Pretences That Marcellus of Ancyra even when he was accused before Pope Julius should call
Laurentius And as for the mos majorum that would have obliged Symmachus first to write to the Emperor as his Predecessors use to do I need not make a new Head to observe what excursions he often hath to dispute for the Roman side which in an Historian is not allowable since he is to relate pure matter of Fact and neither to commend a Friend nor reproach an Enemy unjustly There are many of these digressions about Acacius the Bishop of Constantinople against whom he most bitterly inveighs for a long time together and treats him with language so rude and scurrilous that one would think he was some Monster or Devil incarnate Yet at last his greatest Crime is in comparison of which all his other faults were light ones he opposed the Pope who attempted to usurp a Jurisdiction over him and to rob him and his See of the Priviledges which General Councils had granted to Constantinople Otherwise as hath been shewed he was a most Pious and Orthodox Man And Zeno the Emperor who stood by his own Bishop in this just Cause cannot escape many severe lashes from this partial Historian who frequently goes out of his way and takes every little occasion to aggravate his Miscarriages yea to rail at him without any cause It is agreed by all impartial Historians that the Emperor Valentinian the Third did advance Ravenna to be a Patriarchal Seat An. Dom. 432 and that it held this Dignity without any dependance on the See of Rome till after the middle of the 7th Century And how they strugled to keep those Liberties many years after may be seen in a late Eminent Author But Baronius who allows a thousand Forgeries for Rome every where disputes against this Priviledge and condemns all that the Bishops of Ravenna did And here takes a boasting threatning Letter of the Pope's to be very good evidence that all the Priviledges of the Church of Ravenna flowed from Rome But besides that his Witness is a party we may note the Priviledges were so large that we may be sure the Roman Church never granted them their ambition to be absolutely Supream not allowing them to endure any Equal especially in Italy Again we have a digression about the hard usage of the Popes Legates at Constantinople and he not only aggravates their Sufferings beyond what either his Authors say or the truth will bear But also takes occasion to tell you that this is the way of Hereticks to act by Violence and Terror and to treat the Pious with Clubs Swords and Prisons instead of Charity and Peace Now if this be the character of Hereticks the Roman Church that always did and still doth proceed thus where it hath power may fairly pass for an Heretical Church And as for the ground of this unlucky observation Zeno and Acacius did nothing but what all wise Governors would have done for since these Legates of the Popes came to justifie an usurped Authority and to disturb the quiet of the Church at Constantinople their Letters which were judged Seditious were taken from them and they without any hurt to their persons secured till Time and Discourse had made them sensible how ill an errand they came upon So that being convinced of the Justice of Acacius proceedings they communicated with him and let fall the Popes business I have touched that frivolous excursion about the worship of Images before I only note now that if Petrus Cnapheus did oppose that idle Superstition in its first rise he was more Orthodox than any who promoted it as to that point And it may be the later Historians who doted upon the worship of Images may have given this Peter a worse name than he deserved Lying Characters of all Iconoclasts being as common with them as other fabulous Stories which abound in the Writers of this Controversie above all others From two passages out of the Additions to Gennadius writ by some unknown hand mentioning two Books one of Honoratus Bishop of Marseils approved by Gelasius and another of Gennadius his own presented to that Pope and one Example of John Talaias Apology sent to his sole Patron the fame Gelasius Our Historian largely digresses to prove that the Pope was the sole Judge of all Writers and Writings and talks as if he was the only Censor librorum in that Age Whereas I can name him divers other Bishops of less eminent Sees that had twice as many Books sent to them for their approbation yet none of their Successors were so vain as to challenge any Right from thence to judge of Orthodox Books And for the Decree of Gelasius about Apocryphal Writings it is a meer Imposture He complains of the Arrogance of the Constantinopolitan See which insulted over that of Rome as a Captive and under a barbarous Yoke But he will scarce allow us to pity the Roman Church since he runs out into vain boasting that the Popes had the same Vigor Authority Power and Majesty now that they had in the best times But his Account of the little regard given to this Pope Gelasius and his Predecessors Letters and Sentences in this Controversie confutes his Brags and proves this Authority and Majesty was only in imagination § 6. After all these Artifices used by the Annalist for the interest of the Roman Church one would not think any thing should be left that reflected either upon the present Doctrin or Practice of Rome Yet Truth like the Light cannot be concealed with all his Artifices It appears that Pope Leo was but a mean Astronomer since he could not Calculate the true time of Easter himself but was forced to write to others to inform him and when the Infallible Guide is forced to enquire of many Fallible persons to direct him in his Decrees it seems he is left to the same dull way that other Mortals use for their information And at this rate Learning must be of more use to the Head of the Church than Infallibility He commends the barbarous Suevians and Vandals for sparing a Monastery in one of their Cruel Invasions and reproaches the Reformed in France who had burnt very many Monasteries and Churches at which he thinks they may blush But doubtless Lewis the 14th hath more cause for blushing since he professes that Religion that gives an extraordinary reverence to Monasteries and yet without scruple Burns Demolishes and Destroys often where he Conquers By a Letter writ to the Emperor Leo by Anatolius it appears that the Eastern Emperors consulted the Bishops of Constantinople in causes of Faith And ordered them to consult the Canons and enquire into the violations of them yea to give notice to the Pope of such offences And after all the Emperor was to give these Canons their due Force by appointing the Punishment due to such as had broken them Which proceeding was thought very regular then but the present Roman Court will not allow it though Pope Leo
venerable Fathers and Witnesses of the Truth Liberatus an Enemy of his mentions his writing a Book against the Acephali Procopius speaks of his great diligence in reading the Christian Writings So that Gotofred in his Preface to the Institutes shews this is a meer a Calumny of Suidas but Baronius greedily repeats it over and over of pure malice to this learned Emperor His second Quarrel at him is for presuming to meddle in Causes of Faith and making Laws for Priests But did not all the Religious Kings of Judah do so Did not Constantine the two Theodosij and Martin the same And the 5th Council highly commend him for it The Code of Theodosius his Code and the Authenticks sufficiently prove this was done by the best of Princes Thirdly He reproaches him for his sacrilegious Fury in persecuting Vigilius Now I have proved before this beating and banishing of the Pope is a meer Fable and if he was persecuted or rather punished it was for Heresie and Constantine Theodosius the elder and younger and Martian are commended for the same Acts against the Arrians Macedonians Nestorians and Eutychians and St. Augustin justifies this proceeding Fourthly He charges him with falling into the Heresie of the Incorrupticolae in his last days writing an Edict for it and madly persecuting all the Orthodox especially Eutychius Bishop of Constantinople for opposing it for which he Rails intollerably at him saying all Authors Greek and Latin attest this Finally he dooms him to Hell for this But first Justinian did not publish such an Edict as Evagrius and Nicephorus his two main Witnesses attest and Baronius owns as much And Victor Bishop of Tunen who suffered under Justinian Imprisonment and speaks hardly of him is silent as to this Edict but shews he continued constant to his Edict against the three Chapters to his very death wherein he owns all the former General Councils And it is so far from truth that all Writers Greek and Latin charge him with that Heresie that neither Procopius Agathus Victor nor Liberatus do it nor Damascen though he treat of this Heresie nor Marcellinus Bede nor Anastasius Suidas saith he was most Orthodox Aimonius and Paulus Diaconus affirm he was for his Faith a Catholick And twenty other eminent Writers cited by this Author do all give him a great Character and Pope Gregory with many others after his death bestow on him the Title of Pious and of sacred Memory Baronius names but three Authors for this Slander First Nicephorus whom Possevine calls Heretical and Erroneous in History and the Cardinal in this Relation judges him to be a Fool and generally he is but Evagrius his Ape His second Witness is Eustathias But Surius is generally stuffed with fabulous Writers and such is this Eustathius falsly pretended to have writ Eutychius his Life for neither Photius Trithemius Possevine nor Sixtus Senensis mention any such Writer And the Story is full of Lyes for he makes Eutychius to come to Constantinople to the 5th Council and then to be chosen Bishop after Mennas death who died five years before this Council And this Eutychius was chosen full four years before it And he reckons that Eutychius was Banished twelve years whereas two years after his Banishment he crowned Justinius and was actually Patriarch when Justinius was sick and nominated Tiberius his associate and so could not as this Fabler pretends be desired from Banishment after Tiberius Reign began with Justin yet to make out this Lye Anastasius his latine Version of Nicephorus adds ten years to John Successor of Eutychius and makes him sit twelve year and seven Months who in Nicephorus sat but two years and seven Months 'T is true Eutychius was Banished by Justinian but it was for Prophesying of his Successors and for holding the Heresie of Origen as Pope Gregory witnesseth against which Justinian had put out an Edict and which was sentenced in the 5th Council And it was for opposing this Edict not an Heretical Edict that Eutychius was Banished So that thirdly Baronius hath no Author for this Slander of Justinian's being an Heretick but Evagrius who is owned by all to be a most fabulous Author as is proved in the History here very fully by many instances Now what is his credit against so many truer and better Historians Finally Whereas Baronius reviles Justinian as a destroyer of the Empire and the Church This Author largely proves out of the best Historians that Justinian was a Wise Pious and Victorious Prince the best Emperor as to his Laws his Buildings his Wars and his Love to Religion that ever sat on the Throne Imperial to which the Reader is referred Chap. xxi In like manner the Cardinal reviles Theodora the Empress as a Wicked Heretical Sacrilegious Mad Woman strook with death by Heavens vengeance upon Vigilius Excommunicating her But other Authors say she was like her Husband in her Studies and Manners Yea the Emperor gives her an excellent Character in his very Laws He also and the 6th Council after her death call her a Woman of Pious Memory Nor ought Baronius to revile her for thrusting Anthimius an Heretical Monster into the See of Constantinople as he doth An. 535. pag. 226. ut supr since there he owns that at his Election he seemed a Chatholick and that she favoured him as Orthodox yea he carried it so as to seem such to all As to her contending with Vigilius two years about the Restitution of Anthimius which Baronius relates An 547. pag. 357. it is a meer Fable for that Cause of Anthimius was determined long before and Victor saith that Vigilius and Theodora agreed after he came to Constantinople and that she persuaded him to condemn the three Chapters And he who best knew saith it was Pope Agapetus who excommunicated Theodora then favouring the Acephali So that Vigilius is by the Scribes mistake put for Agapetus in Gregory as appears by his speaking of the taking of Rome by the Goths immediately after which was the Sacking it by Vitiges after Agapetus his time or by Totilas which was not after but before this pretended Sentence of Vigilius against Theodora viz. that year Vigilius came to Constantinople From all which it is manifest that this Pope did never Excommunicate Theodora at all who in her latter Days was Orthodox but hated by the Nestorians for joyning with Justinian in condemning the three Chapters which also raises Baronius his spleen against her Chap. xxii His next attempt is against the three Chapters which he wishes had been condemned to Eternal silence buried and extinguished adding it had been better for the Church they had never been spoken of viz. because of the Troubles ensuing I reply so there was about the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But this settled the true
and condemn them as such yea Anathematize them and is this only a point of Ecclesiastical Discipline May Hereticks and their Opinions be either condemned or not and is it an indifferent thing whether a Pope absolve and defend or accurse and condemn in such cases Surely the great name of de Marca is forged and put to this weak tract he would not have argued at this rate That the Acts of this Council were early translated into Latin for the use of the Western Church is probable enough but Vigilius needed not this Translation he had lived at Constantinople long before he was Pope and now six years together after he was Pope and so must understand Greek perfectly But the true reason why Vigilius Epistle was not added to these Latin Acts was because there was no such Epistle then invented For had he then writ such an Epistle or in six Months after it would certainly have been joyned to both the Greek and Latin Copies for all Mens satisfaction who were scandalized by his dissent especially if that which de Marca supposes had been thought true in those Ages viz. That the Decrees of a General Council were invalid without the Popes Confirmation But this is an Opinion of later Birth Whatever he saith in defence of the sincerity of the Latin Acts I agree to but since he borrows from Crakenthorp not only his Arguments but his conjectures also such as altering the name of Domnus into John c. I must believe the Author of this discourse had seen Crakenthorp's learned History of the fifth Council yet durst not own it because he could not confute it From the same Author he borrows much of what he says about condemning Origen's Opinions in this Council But since the Council was risen before Vigilius began to deliberate whether he should receive their Acts or no yea and their Acts as he thinks translated into Latin also how could Justinian after this send to the dissolved Council to know their Judgment of Origen and his Followers Therefore de Marca mistakes the point and the learned Crakenthorp solves this difficulty much better to which I refer the Reader And only will enquire how this Author and those Popes he cites could truly say that no matters of Faith were handled in this fifth Council if Origen and his Heretical Opinions were here condemned as he goes about to prove This is a manifest contradiction The Sense of those Popes and others must be no Points of Faith decided at Chalcedon were called in Question over again here For the Question only was whether the Opinions in the three Chapters were not condemned in the Council of Chalcedon And the fifth Council affirming this concerning the Opinions of three Persons did not as some feared decree any new or different point of Faith from the Council of Chalcedon It is a needless thing to offer conjectures about the reason why Vigilius in this Epistle doth not mention the condemning of Origen's Errors for the true reason is obvious which is Because the Forger of this Epistle had nothing in his Eye but to clear this Pope from the main thing he was charged with viz. defending three Heretical Chapters and that point he makes out I grant he had yet only joyntly with other Patriarchs and by following not leading Justinian condemned Origen before as Liberatus declares But I must note that Liberatus his telling us that so particularly and saying nothing of Vigilius his Epistle to condemn the three Chapters is a shrewd suspicion there was no such Epistle since Liberatus writ after Vigilius death and was a favourer of the three Chapters and writ all that he thought might disparage such as condemned them To conclude either the Authority of the Pope was not so considerable in those days as this learned Apologist fancies or Vigilius his carriage was such that no body enquired what side he was of after his so often turnings since he lived above two years after this Council and yet no mention in any genuine Writer is made where he was or how he carried himself to the time of his death which is said to have hapned in Sicily An. 555. So little a figure did the Roman Pontiff then make and when the Controversie was revived in the time of Pelagius the Second and Gregory the Great they chose to bury Vigilius name in silence his inconstancy to his Principles and evil Practices having made it the interest of the Roman Church to clap him under Hatches so long as his Character was remembred and this Apologist had better have followed their Policy than to raise him as he hath done only to his greater shame Books printed for and Sold by R. Clavel at the Peacock in St. Paul's Church-yard THE Reasons of Praying for the Peace of our Jerusalem In a Sermon Preached before the Queen at White-Hall on the Fast-Day being Wednesday August 29. 1694. by Thomas Comber D. D. Dean of Durham and Chaplain in Ordinary to their Majesties Printed by Their Majesties Special Command A Daily Office for the Sick Compil'd out of the Holy Scriptures and the Liturgy of our Church with occasional Prayers Meditations and Directions The Catechism of the Church with proofs from the New Testament and some additional Questions and Answers divided into 12 Sections by Zach. â—shem D. D. Author of the Book lately published Entituled a Daily Office for the Sick with directions c. A Church Carechism with a brief and easie Explanation thereof for the help of the Meanest Capacities and Weakest Memories in order to the establishing them in the Religion of the Church of England by T. C. Dean of D. The Pantheon Representing the Fabulous Histories of the Heathen Gods and most Illustrious Heroes in a short plain and familiar Method by way of Dialogue for the Use of Schools Written by Fra. Pomey of the Society of Jesus Author of the French and Latin Dictionary for the Use of the Dauphin Bedae Venerabills opera Quaedam Theologica nunc primùm edita necnon Historica antea semel edita Accesserunt Egberti Archiepiscopi Eboracerifis Dialogus de Ecclesiasticâ Institutione Aldbelmi Episcopi Scireburnensis Liber de Virginitate ex Codice antiquissimo emendarus Disquisitio in Hypothesin Baxterianam de Foedere Gratin Ab initio deinceps semper ubique omnibus indulto adhuc apud Ethnicos extra-evangelicos vigente ac valente ad salutem Authore Carolo Robothamo Ecclesiae Anglicanae Presbytero Norfolciensi S. Th. B. Q. Horatii Flacci Opera Interpretatione Notis Illustravit Ludovicus Desprez Cardinalitius Socius ac Rhetor Emeritus Jussu Christianissimi Regis in usum Serenissimi Delphini ac Serenissimorum Principum Burgundiae Andium Biturigum Huic Editioni accessere Vita Horatii cum Dacerii Notis ejusdem Chronologia Horatiana Praefatio de Satira Romona L. Annaei Flori rerum Romanarum Epitome Interpretatione Notis Illustravit Anna Tanaquilla Fabri Tilia Jussu Christianissimi Regis