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
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
Cause of this kind but only when they were extraordinarily chosen Arbitrators and so Sozomen expounds this Law § 6. We are now arrived at the time of Pope Sylvester who living about the time when Constantine publickly professed Christianity and being Pope when the Nicene Council was called yet no Author of Credit records his being much concerned in these grand Revolutions Upon which the Annalist and our Editors rake into all kind of Forgeries and devise most improbable Stories to set off Pope Sylvester as very considerable but we shall look into the Original of the Emperor's becoming a Christian which will discover all their Fallacies Constantine was born of Christian Parents and brought up under them and was Thirty years old when he entred on the Empire And from the Year 306 He professed openly he was a Christian Making Laws to encourage Converts and to suppress Paganism throughout his Empire Building and Endowing Churches and granting great Immunities to the Clergy yet all this while He took no notice of Marcellus Eusebius or Melchiades S. Peter's Successors and pretended Monarchs of the Church After Seven years having Vanquished Maxentius at Rome they say He gave to the Pope his Palace of the Lateran The Notes cite Optatus for this but he only saith A Council of Nineteen Bishops met in the Lateran but it doth not follow from thence that Constantine had then given the Pope this fair Palace Again Baronius without any ancient Author for it saith That Constantive gave S. Peter thanks for his Victory over Maxentius yet at the same time he affirms He was yet a Pagan and durst not by his Acts declare himself a Christian Very strange Were not Building Churches setling Christianity by a Law giving his Palace to the Pope and as they say Fixing the Trophy of the Cross in the midst of Rome Acts sufficient to declare him a Christian No He must be a Pagan Eleven years after this and a Persecutor yea in the year 324 He was so meer a Heathen as to know nothing of the Christian Rites but what an Egyptian taught him After he had openly professed this Religion Eighteen years He had forgot it all and turned so great a Tyrant that Pope Sylvester who had no great mind to be a Martyr ran away into the Mount Soracte or was banished thither But Constantine after He had been Ten years Pope never had heard of him till being struck with a Leprosie mentioned in no Authentic Writer two glorious Persons whose Faces he knew not appeared to the Emperor and ordered him to send for Pope Sylvester to cure him who when He was come first shewed Constantine these two glorious Persons were S. Peter and S. Paul and then Cured him made him a Christian and Baptized him Which idle and self-contradicting Romance is magnified by Baronius's and Binius's Notes but we will now confute it as briefly as we can § 7. First This whole Story is devised to exalt the Glory of the Roman Church to make Men believe the Pope could work Miracles and that the first Christian Emperor was Baptized at Rome But then it casts such a blot upon Constantine's Memory and feigns such odious and incredible things of him as no wise Man can believe concerning a Prince who S. Augustine saith was a Christian Eight years before this And whoever reads in Baronius the History of the first Ten years of Sylvester from An. 314 till An. 324 and observes what glorious Things he saith of Constantine's Religious Laws his Piety to God his Zeal for Christianity his Respect to Confessors and his Bounty to Bishops his taking part with the Catholics against Heretics and Schismatics He can never believe this scandalous Story of so excellent a Prince But in all this Period of Time Baronius himself cannot find one Evidence That ever Constantine had any correspondence with Sylvester and therefore Christianity was setled in the Empire without the Pope's help To cover which great Truth some dull but zealous Monk long since invented this Sham Story to save the Credit of Rome and the Annalist and these Notes strive to defend it Secondly This Fable chiefly relies on the Credit of the Pontifical so often proved false and upon the repute of Sylvester's Acts But the Annotator at first ominously Charges them both with Falshood the former mistakes the Time of the Vacancy and the latter he saith is wrong in making Melchiades ordain Sylvester a Priest he being Ordained by Marcellinus long before Baronius also confesseth That these Acts of Sylvester are so false in many particulars that it shakes the Credit of the whole But it is very strange after he who is so concerned for their Reputation had found so many Flaws in them he should justifie them even where they contradict all the Historians of the Age which can spring from nothing but a Resolution to maintain every thing which made for the Credit of the Roman See Thirdly The Notes say not only the Acts of Sylvester but Zosimus and Sozomen do both attest this Story Now first Zosimus was a Pagan and Baronius and Binius confess He tells many Malicious Lies of Constantine for suppressing the Heathen Religion and though they confute the rest of his Calumnies they defend his Relation of Constantine's Baptism as sounding something like those forged Acts and though his Account of it reflect as much upon Constantine as is possible yet the Annalist and Annotator labour to prove this Spightful Heathen to be a truer Historian than Sozomen Socrates or Eusebius whom they represent as Lyars and Flatterers not to be believed against Zosimus Yet there is a mighty difference between this Pagan's History of the Baptism of Constantine and that in Sylvester's Acts Zosimus saith It was a Spaniard named Aegyptius lately by the Court Ladies brought acquainted with Constantine who advised him to be Baptized and this the Notes say was Hosius yet it is plain Hosius was Constantine's Intimate Friend and his Legate into Egypt Twelve years before z Besides Zosimus doth not name Sylvester and only designed by his Relation to blacken Constantine and represent Christianity as a Sanctuary for Villanies which could not be expiated among the Pagans But the Acts discourse of a Persecution and a Leprosie and make Peter and Paul the Advisers of Constantine's Baptism and their business is only to set up Sylvester's Name And the Stories like all Falshoods do not hang together As for Sozomen he is no Evidence for Sylvester's Acts nor doth he once name that Pope in the place cited He only confutes the scandalous Stories which Zosimus had falsly told of Constantine shewing how improbable it is that this Emperor after he had Reigned nigh Twenty years should need a New Conversion and how unlikely it must be that the Pagans would not have found out some Rites to expiate him that so they might secure him in their Religion So that he is a Witness That these Reports
be determined in that Province where it arose knowing that the Spirit of God would not be wanting to any Country where a Council of Bishops should meet so that none need fear to be injured since they might appeal to a greater Council of their own Province or to a Universal Synod Whereas if Judgment were to be given beyond the Seas many Witnesses must be wanting and many other things must hinder the finding out of truth They add That they could not find any Council which allowed his Holiness to send any Legates to hear Causes and for those Canons which Faustinus had produced as made at Nice they could find no such Canons in the Authentick Copies of that Council Finally They bid him not send any of his Clerks to execute his Sentence to which if they should submit they should seem to bring the vanity of Secular Arrogance into God's Church This is the Sum of this excellent Letter which disowns and condemns all Appeals and renounces the Popes jurisdiction over Africa with a modest intimation that his claim was grounded upon a notorious Forgery and therefore he is required to pretend to it no longer for that they will not submit to such an Usurpation Yet such is the Impudence of the Roman Editors that in a Marginal Note upon this Epistle they say these African Bishops desire the Pope to appoint another way of prosecuting Appeals Which is a gross contradicting the Text it self wherein all manner of Appeals and all ways of prosecuting them are utterly condemned but this was too harsh and therefore the Truth was to be daubed over with this plausible Fiction After this Binius presents us with another Edition of these African Canons and Epistles in Latin and Greek And Labbè newly publishes the Epistle of one Leporius who had been converted from Heresie and reconciled to the Church by the African Bishops by which we may learn that a Heretick need not go to Rome to recant as the Notes formerly affirmed There is nothing further observable before the Council of Ephesus except two Councils one at Rome wherein the Pope is said to make Cyril his Legate in the Cause of Nestorius the other at Alexandria in which Cyril is pretended to Act by this delegated power But this will be more properly considered in the History of that General Council where these Epistles are printed at large CHAP. II. Of the time from the Council of Ephesus till the Council of Chalcedon § 1. IN this Year was held the Third General Council at Ephesus upon the account of Nestorius who about three years before had been made Bishop of Constantinople and was at first believed to be both Pious and Orthodox but he had not sat long in that See before he began to publish certain Doctrines about our Saviour which gave great offence for he taught that Jesus Christ was two Persons one as the Son of God another as the Son of Man and therefore he denied the Blessed Virgin to be the Mother of God holding that the Person which was born of her was no more than a Meer Man Which Opinions not only made a Faction at Constantinople but caused Divisions among the Egyptian Monks whereupon St. Cyril first writ a Confutation of them to those Monks and then with great modesty admonished Nestorius of these Errors by divers Letters but he despised his Admonition justified the Doctrines and persecuted those who would not own them being supported by his Interest in the Imperial Court. Upon this Cyril called in Pope Celestine to his assistance sending him an account of what he had writ to Nestorius On the other side Nestorius also writ to Celestrine and sent his Sermons in which these Doctrines were contained for him to peruse The Pope by the advice of such Western Bishops as he could then get together takes the part of Cyril and offered him to join with him in condemning Nestorius if he did not recant But the Authority of these two Patriarchs of Rome and Alexandria not sufficing to condemn a Patriarch of Constantinople it was thought fit to desire the Emperor to call a General Council at Ephesus where Nestorius might appear and his Opinions be examined and the Emperor at length did agree to this Request Now that which we are to observe concerning this General Council shall be under these Heads First To enquire by whom it was called and convened Secondly Who presided in it Thirdly What is memorable in the Acts of it Fourthly Who confirmed the Decrees there made As to the first the Historical Preface before this Council labours to persuade us That Celestine commanded the Council to be called and the Notes after it say it was appointed by the Authority of Gelestine and gathered together by the counsel aid and assistance of Theodosius the Emperor The Cardinal goes further and saith Theodosius called it by the Authority of Celestine but when this is to be proved both the Notes and Baronius are content to make out that this Council was not called without the Popes consent which may be proved concerning every Orthodox Bishop that was there and so gives no peculiar advantage to the Bishop of Rome But as to the Convening it by his Authority nothing can be more false For by the Emperors first Letter to Cyril it appears that some then thought to order Matters of Religion by Power rather than by consulting in common in which words he reflects upon Pope Celestine and Cyril who thought by the Authority of their Private Synods at Rome and Alexandria to have condemned Nestorius who was a Patriarch as well as they and therefore the Emperor rightly considered that he could not be tried but by a General Council So that it seems Celestine at first had no mind such a Council should be called nor Cyril neither but when they saw their Authority was insufficient then Cyril put the Monks of Constantinople upon petitioning the Emperor to command a General Council to meet very speedily as their words are and the same Cyril put Juvenalis Bishop of Jerusalem upon writing to the Emperor for the same purpose Now why should not these Applications have been made to the Pope if the Council were to be called by his Authority Besides if Celestine had called it his Letter of Summons would appear but though none ever saw that the Emperors Edict is yet extant wherein he fixes the day and place for the Council to meet enjoyns Cyril with the Bishops of his Province to be there at that time and tells him he had writ to all other Metropolitans probably to Celestine among the rest to attend the Synod and not to meddle with this Matter till the meeting of this General Assembly from which whoever absented himself should not be excused Which is as full a proof that the Emperor called it by his Authority as is possible to be made and we need add nothing to it but this that
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
know from Eusebius That the Bishops of his own Opinion severely reproved him for offering to pass so rash a Sentence and to impose his Sense upon remote Churches So that thus far there is no genuine Proof of any Supremacy exercised or claimed by the Roman Church for the Decretals which only pretend to make it out are notorious Forgeries CHAP. III. Of the Forgeries in the Third Century § 1. THis Century begins with the Life of Pope Zepherine who Sat Eight years saith the Pontifical but the Notes tell you He Sat Eighteen which is a small Error in that fabulous Author Yet the Editors believe upon his Credit that this Pope ordered Vessels of Glass to be used in the Mass and the Notes prove it by Pope Gregory the Great who lived Four hundred years after this time However if we allow the Matter of Fact upon the Testimonies of S. Hierom and Epiphanius it will follow That in those Ages when they used Glass Cups they did not believe Transubstantiation for if they had they would not have ventured Christ's Blood in so brittle a Vessel but have forbid the use of Glasses as they have done in the Roman Church since this Opinion came in among them Under this Pope the Editors place an African Council and say it was Reprobated yet they cannot make it appear that this Pope so much as knew of it Nor was his Advice or Consent at all desired in that case which was never disputed at Rome till Pope Stephen's time as themselves confess viz. Fifty years after this Council was held from whence we learn That every Province in this Age believed they had sufficient Authority to determine Controversies in Religion among themselves without the Consent of the Bishop of Rome § 2. Though the Pontifical be guilty of many Errors in the Life of Calixtus and mistake the very Emperors under which he lived and died the Notes gloss them all fairly over and correct them by the Roman Martyrology which often follows the Pontifical and is as fabulous as that However we are told That Calixtus was buried Three Miles out of the City because the Law of the Twelve Tables forbid the Burying of a dead Body within the Walls Now I would know if this Law were in force how that can be true which the Pontifical and the Notes affirm and justifie That S. Peter Linus Cletus Euaristus Sixtus Telesphorus Hyginus Pius and Victor were All Buried in the Vatican And what shall we think of the Miracles done by their Relicks and at their Tombs if no Body know where they were first Buried Pope Urban the Successor of Calixtus is said in the Pontifical to be Buried in the Coemetery of Praetextatus which could not then be any Coemetery at all because Praetextatus was not Martyted till the Persecution under Maximinus which hapned many years after And if the Story of S. Cecily in the same Author be no Truer than his Chronology the Romanists worship a fictitious Saint The Pontifical is forced to feign That the Emperor Alexander Severus was a Persecutor contrary to his Character in all Histories of Credit and this only to make us think that Calixtus Urban and Pope Pontianus his Successor were Martyrs However though Eusebius knew not of their Martyrdom the Roman Church adores them all as Martyrs and have peculiar Days dedicated to their Memories Antherus as the Pontifical says Sat Twelve years and One Month and the Notes say that he Sat only one Month so that there is but only Twelve years mistaken in this Popes Life And if he was Pope but one Month doubtless his Secretaries had need be very swift Writers or else they could not gather many in his time However Binius will make it out for he brings in a Poetical Hyperbole Of those Scribes who could write a Sentence before a man had spoken it and so were as quick at guessing as writing and applies this in very serious earnest to this Pope's Notaries to make us imagine there were many Acts of Martyrs writ out in this short-lived Pope's time § 3. Pope Fabian as Eusebius relates was chosen by occasion of a Dove 's lighting on his Head when the People were met to elect a Pope of which remarkable Story the fabulous Pontifical takes no notice but tells us That in this Popes time Novatus the Heretic came to Rome that is say the Notes Above a year after Pope Fabian was dead after the Vacancy and in Pope Cornelius ' s time with such absurd Comments do these Gentlemen delight to cover the Ignorance and Falsehood of their Historian but such Excuses do only more expose him In this Pope's time were two Councils held one in Africa the other in Arabia and they Intitle them both under Fabian yet the only Authors who mention these Councils do not say Pope Fabian was concerned in either of them and therefore they were not under Fabian After this Pope's death there was a Vacancy of more than one whole year which the Editors to slatter the Papacy call in the style of Princes An Interregnum but alas their admired Monarchy was now turned into an Aristocracy and the Clergy governed the Roman Church to excuse which flaw in their visible Monarchical Succession the Notes say The Members next the Head knew it was their parts to do the office of the Head Which notable kind of substitution if it could be made out in the Body Natural Beheading would not be a Mortal punishment however they must say something to make us believe there was always a Visible Head of the Catholic Church or at least a Neck and Shoulders which stood for an Head till Cornelius was chosen Pope And they called a Council as they pretend in this Vacancy and writ a Letter of their Determination to all the Churches in the World that they might all observe what the Empty Chair of Peter had ordered But if any one read the Letter it self it will appear that this Council was only a voluntary Assembly of the Clergy in Rome and they met only to confirm S. Cyprian's Opinion and only writ their Letter to him but never pretended either to be Judges over Cyprian or any other part of the Catholic Church Pope Cornelius his Life follows for whose Character we are more obliged to S. Cyprian's Epistles than to the Pontifical which invents an idle Story of a Dialogue between Cornelius and Decius the Emperor and though the Notes own That Decius who is here pretended to Martyr him dyed the same Month in which Cornelius entred yet they will not own the Story to be false but boldly put in the Name of Volusianus into their Margen instead of Decius However the Breviary retains the Fiction of Cornelius suffering under Decius as it doth also the Fable of his Translating the Bodies of S. Peter and S. Paul But let any considering Man compare the different ways of telling this Sham Story and he
genuine 20 Canons From which we may observe First that Binius will cite those things for the supremacy c. which he knows to be forged Secondly That the great design of all these Forged Records of Antiquity was either to cover the faults or consult the honour of the Roman Church which seems to have both employed and encouraged the Authors of these Pious Frauds because her Pretences could not be made out by any thing that was Authentic Julius succeeded Marcus in the same year in whose Life the Pontifical mistakes the Consuls Names and feigns he was banished Ten Months which Baronius proves to have been impossible He fills up this Popes story according to his manner with trisling matters and omits the only remarkable thing in his Life which was his concern in the Cause of Athanasius In this Popes name several Epistles are published The First from Julius to the Eastern Bishops may be proved fictitious not only by the Confession of Baronius and other Learned Romanists but by divers other Arguments For is it probable that Julius would Only be solicitous about his Supremacy when he writ to the Arians and not once reprove them for their Heresie nor their persecuting Athanasius is it likely he should cite the Council of Nice falsly and feign so many ancient Decrees about the Primacy of the Pope and the Nullity of Councils not celebrated by his Authority This Forger saith Julius consented to the Nicene Council at the time of its celebration but the Romanists agree that it was held in Sylvesters time He imperiously forbids the Eastern Bishops to judge any Bishops without him and falsly tells them They all had received their Consecration from Rome yea with the fabulous Pontisical he mistakes the Consuls Name and puts Maximianus for Titianus Yet by this Forgery the Editors would prove that more than twenty Canons were made at Nice and after Baronius had discarded it Binius by frivolous Notes strives to justifie it as speaking big for the Supremacy Secondly Here is the Eastern Bishops Answer to Julius wherein though they call the Pope Father which was the usual Title of Bishops of great Sees yet they expresly deny his having any Authority over them and affirm he ought to be subject to the Canons as well as other Bishops So that there is no reason for Binius his Brag Lo how they own the Supremacy For indeed they do not own it at all and yet the substance of this Epistle is genuine being found in Secrates and Sozomen The third Epistle from Julius to the Arians is owned by Baronius and others to be a Forgery and Binius in his Notes upon it saith It is false corrupted and stollen out of divers Authors yet the same Binius infamously quotes it over and over for the Supremacy the Nullity of Councils not called by the Pope and the number of the Nicene Canons The fourth Epistle of Julius comes not out of the Vatican but was preserved in Athanasius his Apology and is by all accounted genuine being writ in an humble style without any pretences to the Supremacy And here the Nicene Canon about the re-hearing in a New Synod a Cause not well judged before is rightly cited without mention of any final Appeal to Rome The power of all Bishops is supposed to be equal and not any greater power to belong to him that is fixed in a greater City Here Julius writes not his own Sense but the Sense of the Bishops of Italy who were assembled in a Synod at Rome of which great City Julius being Bishop ought by ancient custom to publish the Decrees of such Councils as were held in or or near that City but Binius falsly infers from hence That it was an honour due to his place to publish the Decrees made in all Synods And whereas when any thing was under debate concerning Alexandria the second Patriarchate Julius saith it was a Custom to write to the Roman Bishop who was the first Patriarch Binius stretcheth this and saith It was both agreeable to the Canons and Custom that no Bishop should be judged till the Popes definitive Sentence were heard The last Epistle also is genuine and writ in a modest style owning that Athanasius was not judged by the Pope alone but by a Synod of Bishops whose Judgment he supposes above his own and by these two Epistles we may discern the Impostures of those other Epistles which are Forged about this time in the Names of this and other Popes The Decrees attributed to this Pope are not suitable to the Age yet we may note the third Decree forbids a man to Marry his deceased Brothers Wife though his Brother had not known her Which was shamefully broken by that Pope who gave Licence to King Henry the 8th to marry his Brothers Wife and this Decree justifies his Divorce After these Epistles follows a Roman Synod wherein Julius with 117 Bishops confirm the Nicene Council but Labbé saith it is a hotch-potch made up out of many Authors and put into the form of a Council by Isidore and it is dated with the same mistaken Consuls Felician and Maximian with which Julius his entrance into the Pontifical and all his Forged Epistles are dated for his genuine Epistles have no date yet Baronius and the Notes gravely dispute about the time of this Forged Council and the Bishops which were said to be in it meerly to perswade the Reader that the Nicene Council needed the Pope's Confirmation but since this Council is feigned it can be no evidence And therefore Binius gains nothing by alledging it in his Notes on the third Epistle but only to shew us that one falshood is the fittest prop for another § 20. Athanasius being restored to Alexandria calls a Synod there of all the Bishops of his Province of which only the Synodical Epistle is now extant written as the Title declares To all the Catholic Bishops every where yet the Notes from Baronius say It was writ particularly to Julius whereas the Body of the Epistle saith The Arians have written to the Roman Bishop and perhaps speaking to other Bishops they have writ to you also So that this is a falshood devised for to make out the Supremacy which is not countenanced by this Epistle wherein we are told that Religion depends not on the greatness of any City Though the Notes say That Bishops had Honours and Jurisdiction given them suiting to the dignity of the Secular Praefects of their several Cities and thence Alexandria was reckoned the second Patriarchate and Antioch the third it follows naturally therefore Rome was the first Patriarchate But this Inference they will not make I shall only note that this Synod saith The lawful use of the Cup of the Lord was to make the People Drink from whence we gather that the Roman Church who denies the Cup to the People doth a very unlawful thing
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
bowing toward the East for the peril of Idolatry Now had there been any Images adored in his time for the same reason he must rather have forbidden bowing down before them The second Council at Rome under Leo was in the Cause of Hilary Bishop of Acles who had justly deposed a scandalous Bishop in a Provincial Synod But he as such ill Men had often done flies to Rome to complain and Leo not considering the equity of the censure but Hilary's having acted as a Primate in those parts of France contrary to the Decrees of former Popes espouses this evil Bishops Quarrel being more concerned for his designed usurpation of a supremacy than the honour of the Church Upon this Hilary who was one of the most pious and learned Men of that Age goes on foot to Rome and requires the Pope to act more solito in the accustomed manner and not to admit such to Communion who had been justly condemned in their own Country and when he saw the Pope was resolved to break the Canons and set up his Supremacy by right or wrong he suddenly departs from Rome without taking any leave of Leo for which the Angry Pope writes to the Bishops of France declaring Hilary's Acts null and depriving him of his Power to Congregate Synods and Depose Bishops c. And though he brags much of his universal Authority c. in that Epistle yet knowing how little this would signifie to Hilary and the rest of the French Bishops he gets an Edict from the Emperor Valentinian to back his Orders which because there are some great words for the Popes Supremacy in it Baronius magnifies as worthy of perpetual Memory And since their Champions alledge this Edict as a proof of the Roman universal Supremacy I will observe upon it First That it was easie for the Pope to cite false Canons to a young and easy Emperor and persuade him that the Councils had given him this Supremacy as his Predecessors had lately done in Africa Secondly That the Pope probably drew up this Edict himself and so put in these Flourishes about his own Authority Which will be more plain if we consider that the Emperor Leo in one of his Edicts saith Constantinople is the Mother of the Orthodox Religion of all Christians with much more to this purpose but Baronius relating this saith Thus indeed Leo speaks thus but without doubt it was conceived in the words and writ in the Style of Acacius who swelled with Pride But Leo Bishop of Rome was as proud as Acacius and had more influence over Valentinian than Acacius ever had over the Emperor Leo wherefore in Baronius own words without doubt Valentinian ' s Edict was drawn up in Pope Leo ' s Style and so he is only a Witness in his own Cause Thirdly The Sentence of both the Emperor and the Pope was unjust and although Leo wheedled the Bishops of France to reject Hilary that Bishop still acted as Primate and called Synods afterwards so that this big-speaking Edict was neither believed nor obeyed as de Marca shews For indeed Hilary was Primate by Original right and the French Bishops stuck to him not only for his great Sanctity but because they feared the then growing Encroachments and Usurpations of Rome And finally Pope Hilary Leo's Successor determined this Controversie contrary to Leo's Decree by which we see how odly Causes go at Rome since some Popes were for the Primacy of Arles and some against it But when there was a stout Bishop there he kept his Post without regard to the Roman Sentence And now I hope the Reader will smile at Baronius his inference from this Edict of Valentinian's Thou seest clearly from hence saith he the Pope of Romes Authority over all Churches for he must be quick-sighted indeed who can see any more in this instance than an unjust and ineffective Claim § 5. Soon after Pope Leo had an opportunity to encroach upon the Churches of Spain for one Turibius a Bishop there who is called Leo's Notary and probably had been bread a Notary at Rome certifies the Pope that there were many Priscillian Hereticks there who confirmed their Errors by certain Apocryphal Writings full of Blasphemies Leo writes back to Turibius advising him to get a Council of all the Bishops in Spain and there to Condemn the Hereticks and their Apocryphal Books This advice Baronius calls his enjoyning a general Council more Majorum this being the right of the Pope of Rome And though he confesses the Bishops did not meet where the Pope advised nor could they meet in one place because they were under divers Kings and those Arians yet he desires us to observe from hence how weighty the Popes Authority was even with Barbarous and Arian Kings But alas any one may see he cannot make out that ever these Kings gave leave for any Council and it is more probable these Bishops met privately on this occasion yet they have made out of this A General Council of Spain And here they would have that rule of Faith first received from Leo and approved which is printed before in the first Council of Toledo And Baronius saith the word Filioque proceeding from the Father and the Son was first added in this Council to the Creed by the Authority of Pope Leo and brags much of the Popes supremacy even in matters of Faith on this occasion But first these words were put in by these Councils to check and discover Priscillian Hereticks not by any express order of the Pope and indeed Leo had been an ill Man if he had imposed an Article of Faith upon the Churches of Spain which as Baronius confesses was not received expresly at Rome till many Ages after Secondly These Spanish Bishops did not add these words to the ancient Creed but put them in by way of Explication into an Occasional Confession of their own Composing Thirdly Baronius himself notes that the Spaniards and French afterwards added it to their usual Creeds and at last Rome took this Addition from them And in the same place he commends the Northern Nations for adding these words and those of Rome for rejecting them a long time so that contradictory Actions may be it seems equally commended by those who can blow Hot and Cold with the same Breath About this time was held a great Council at Verulam in Britain by St. Garmanus a French Bishop called over by the Orthodox Britains to assist them in confuting and condemning the Pelagian Heresy as Math. of Westminster computes Baronius indeed pretends this hapned divers years before only because Prosper or some who have since corrupted his Chronicle affirms that Pope Celestine sent St. Germanus hither But most Historians agree the French Bishops from a Council of their own sent over this assistance to the British Church the first time without any order from Celestine and this Council of Verulam was
in which there were divers Bishops married by their Modern Corrupt Roman Standard And this sincere Father must be made to mock God and deceive Men and exposed as a Notorious Liar and Dissembler rather than there should seem to be any difference between the Primitive Church and theirs in the point of the Clergies Marriage Again he observes out of St. Augustin that he accounted the Council of Sardica heretical because Julius Bishop of Rome was condemned there and he infers that whatever was said or done against the Pope was of evil Fame among the Antients But if St. Augustin had not been misrepresented there had been no room for this fallacious Note St. Augustin blames this Council in the second place cited as heretical for condemning Athanasius and doth not mention Pope Julius there at all and in the former place he names Athanasius first and Julius only in the second place and he blames them not for condemning him as Bishop of Rome but because he was Orthodox as Athanasius was Wherefore Baronius leaves out the main part of St. Augustin's Argument only to bring in a false and flattering Inference for the Popes Supremacy And I have observed before he falsly gathers that the Roman Church was the sole Standard of Catholick Communion in Cecilian's time from a place where St. Augustin saith Cecilian of Carthage was a Catholick because he was in Communion with the Roman Church and other Lands from whence the Gospel came into Africa that is he was in Communion with the Eastern as well as the Western Church But Baronius is so dazled with Rome that where that is found in any Sentence he can see nothing else And therefore when he cites this very place again a little after he would prove that Carthage owned a right in the Roman Church to receive Appeals and this contrary to the express Protestation of that African Council wherein St. Augustin was present and the place it self doth not mention any Appeals and speaks of Communion with other Churches as well as Rome and so would equally prove a right in other Bishops as well as the Pope to receive Appeals from Africa if that had been spoken of there Further from Socrates his relation of a Bishop of Gyzicum named by Sisinnius Patriarch of Constantinople but not received by reason of their mistaking a late Law made to confirm the Priviledges of that See of Constantinople and this in the time of a mild and quiet Bishop he infers that this Patriarch challenged no right no not in Hollospont by the Canon of any General Council Now his naming a Bishop for this City shews he challenged a right which was well known to be his due both by the Canon of the second General Council and by this late Law but a peaceable Mans receding from his right after he hath made his claim rather than provoke a Factious City is no proof there was no right as Baronius doth pretend I observe also that the Latin Version of an Epistle to the Council of Ephesus hath these words cujus Reliquias praesentes veneramini Which is to abuse the Reader into an apprehension that the Relicks of St. John were worshipped in that Age But the Greek word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which imports no more than that they were honoured which is far less than that which Rome now gives even to feigned Relicks of uncertain Saints A like Falshood about the People of Ephesus worshipping the Blessed Virgin I noted before Again he manifestly perverts a Phrase of Theodosius the Eastern Emperor in his Epistle to Acacius where he advises the Nestorians to shew themselves approved-Bishops of the Roman Religion which Baronius pretends respects the Western Church of Old Rome in Italy but the Emperor plainly refers to his own Empire in the East which was then generally Orthodox and against Nestorius Constantinople is often called Rome without any other addition and Romania or the Roman Empire is in many Authors of these Ages put only for the Eastern part of it It is also very odd that he should cite Basil's Epistles to prove that the Roman Church was wont to send Legates to regulate Affairs in the Eastern Churches Whereas St. Basil in many Epistles grievously complains of the Pride of the West and of their despising the Calamities of the East not so much as giving them that Brotherly Aid which they might expect when they were in great distress but there is not one syllable of any jurisdiction which the Pope then did so much as pretend to over those Eastern Churches Leo was the first who ventured to make any steps towards this Usurpation an hundred years after St. Basil's time To this device we may add his silent passing by all that makes against the Roman Church but being large in his Notes upon any thing which seems to make for it How many words doth he every where use when one is described to be Orthodox for communicating with an Orthodox Pope but when those are declared to be Orthodox who communicated with the Patriarchs of Constantinople Alexandria and Antioch at that time differing from the Pope we have not one observation of the honour of those Sees Thus though he cite innumerable heretical and illiterate Writings meerly to confirm some incredible Miracle or superstitious Practice without any Censure passed on them yet when he comes to mention the Imperfect work on St. Mathew ascribed to St. Chrysostom which many Roman Writers highly commend as writ by a Catholick Antient and Learned Author he falls into a fit of railing against it as Heretical and what not because in that Book we are told The Scripture is the only rule by which true Christians may judge of the right Faith Which Sentence though it condemn the new Romish way yet it is agreeable to the Primitive and most Orthodox Fathers who very often say the same thing And Baronius relates a little before that a certain Bishop who wrought Miracles and converted many Pagans charged his new Converts to apply themselves diligently to read the Holy Scriptures Moreover he brings in a Quotation out of St. Augustin with a long Preface because he designs to misapply it to justifie the Roman Supremacy But the place it self plainly supposes the Western to be but one part of the Catholick Church only he thinks the Authority of Latin Fathers alone and of Innocent a Successor of the Apostles Chief of this Western Church might suffice his Adversary who was one of the Latin Church And as to Innocent's Opinion he might be sure it would agree with what the African Councils had declared and the Roman Church constantly held with other Churches Where we see Innocent is only set out as the first in Order of Dignity in the Western Church and his Opinion supposed to be right not because of the Infallibility of his See or any Supream Power in him to judge in matters of
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