The church history clear'd from the Roman forgeries and corruptions found in the councils and Baronius in four parts : from the beginning of Christianity, to the end of the fifth general council, 553 / by Thomas Comber ...

CHAP. IV.

Roman Errors and Forgeries in the Councils, from the end of the Fourth Council, till An. Dom. 500.

§. 1. THE Synod of Alexandria is falsly styled in the Title, under Leo: For their own Text con∣fesseth, it was assembled by the Authority of Proterius Bi∣shop of Alexandria a.

The Second Council of Arles, which Binius had ante∣dated 70 year, and put out with this false Title, under Siricius, is by Labbè b placed here according to Sir∣mondus his direction.

The Council of Anjou, in Binius, is said to be held under Leo; who is not once named in it: Wherefore Labbè leaves out that false Inscription, and only saith, it was held in the 13th year of Pope Leo c.

The 4th Canon of this Council is corrupted by Bi∣nius and Baronius. For where the Text reads, If any be [coelibes] unmarried, they put into the Margen as a bet∣ter reading, if any be [debiles] weak: Which is to make the Reader believe, that all the Clergy then were un∣married; whereas this Canon supposes many of them had Wives. And the 11th Canon allows a married Man to be chosen Priest or Deacon, (the Popes Decrees not yet prevailing in France:) So that Labbè honestly strikes out [debiles] and keeps only the true reading (d). We note also, that in the end of this 4th Canon, such Clerks as meddle in surrendring Cities are excommunicated. A Sentence which if it were now executed, would put many Priests and Jesuits out of the Communion of the Church, for their treachery to the Emperor and the King of Spain, many of whose Cities they have betrayed to the French.

The Notes falsly cite the first Canon, and so doth Ba∣ronius e saying, it orders, That the Clergy shall not against their Bishops Sentence seek to secular Tribunals; and pre∣tending this was in opposition to an Edict of Valenti∣nian, published the year before, which restrained the Bishops Jurisdiction to matters of Religion, unless the parties chose them. Now the true words of the Canon are, The Clergy shall not appeal from the Bishops Sentence, nor seek to Secular Tribunals, without consulting the Bishop. And Valentinian's Law was of no force in France, nor probably had these Bishops ever heard there was such a Law; so that it is not likely they ever thought of op∣posing it. Finally, We observe that Baronius without any Authority falsly affirms, that this Council was sent to Rome f only to insinuate, that it was to be confirmed there. Whereas till Fronto-Ducaeus found the Manuscript in France, they at Rome seem to have known nothing of it.

The Council of Vannes placed by Binius here, by Sirmondus Authority is removed to An. 465. in Labbè g. Nothing in it is remarkable, but that the Assembly de∣sires (not the Pope, but) the absent Bishops of their own Province to confirm the Canons thereof.

The Council of 73 Bishops at Constantinople, was called by, and held under Gennadius Patriarch of that City, and so is falsly titled under Leo; whose Legates do not subscribe it, and so probably were not present at it h. Baronius indeed saith they were, but proves it only by conjecture, because Leo in an Epistle speaks of his Legates, being come back to Rome the year af∣ter i. But the wonder is, how Baronius and Binius (who confess all the Acts are lost, except one Canon about Simony) came to know, that Eutyches was con∣demned, and the Council of Chalcedon confirmed in this Council. However, if it was confirmed, no doubt the Greek Bishops would confirm the Canons of it, with the rest, to which the Popes Legates could not con∣sent: But since we hear of no difference, it is like these Legates were not present.

§. 2. Pope Hilary (who succeeded Leo) might justly be suspected of Heresie, because he confirms no more than three General Councils, omitting that of Constan∣tinople which condemned Macedonius. But since there is no evidence of this Universal Epistle confirming the other three Councils, but only the fabulous Pontifical, we may acquit him, and perhaps even in the very Pon∣tifical, this Council may have been erased after the con∣troversie of the Primacy was started l. However, this being owned all along by the Catholick Church for a General Council, it can suffer nothing by the Popes not confirming it; he alone would deserve censure for not subscribing to it.

The Spanish Bishops who write to this Pope, by their Countries being wasted by Euaricus the Goth m were destitute of Power, and desire Hilary to declare the Canons in some particular Cases, hoping the persons concerned (who despised them in their low estate,) might have more respect for a great Patriarch n. So that it is very Sophistical in the Annalist and Binius, to draw consequences from hence, for the Popes being the Supream Judge, and having power to dispense with all Canons. The Pope himself in his Answer pre∣tends no such thing o. He only declares the Canons, but dispenses with none: Yet if he had such a power, doubtless he ought to have used it in Irenaeus his Case.

But the third Epistle of Hilary, writ about the same affair, seems to discover, that all these Epistles (which talk so big of the Popes Supremacy) are counterfeit: For the Forger, weary of inventing new Phrases, steals the beginning verbatim out of those Epistles, that are falsly ascribed to Zepherine and Fabian, and were not extant until long after Pope Hilary's death p. And Labbè's Marginal Note on Binius Annotations shews, he smelt out the Cheat, if he durst have spoken freely.

The Notes on the 4th Epistle own, that the Popes may be cajoled by false Stories, and deceived in Matter of Fact; and this so far as to condemn holier Bishops than themselves, as Leo and this Hilary did, in the cases of Hilary of Arles, and Mammertus of Vienne q. And it is not easie to understand, how he who mistakes Mat∣ter of Fact, can infallibly apply the Law to a Fact wherein he is mistaken.

The 5th Epistle was writ three year before those that precede it, and the Humility of the Style makes me think it the only genuine Letter (as yet set down) of this Pope; for he writes to the Bishop of Arles (not as a Son, but) as a Brother, and takes it well that he advised him to keep close to the Ancient Canons.

The 9th Epistle shews, that Mammertus his Piety was no protection to him, against the injuries of the Roman Court r. But Binius doth penance for this in his Notes on the 11th Epistle s; though all his devices will neither excuse his Popes Morals in persecuting so great a Saint, nor vindicate his Judgment who was so grosly mistaken.

There is but one Roman Council under this Pope, called (as is pretended) to confirm his false Judgment about the Spanish Bishops; for they absolve the guilty Sylvanus, and condemn Irenaeus who was innocent: And though this Popes being commonly in the wrong makes it probable, he might get such a Council toge∣ther, yet the very Acts smell strong of Forgery, as well as the former Epistles in these cases t: For be∣sides their Stile, Maximus Bishop of Turin is mentioned not only as present at it, but speaking in it, who died (as Gennadius u a Writer of that Age and Country affirms,) in the Reign of Honorius and the younger Theodosius, that is, above 40 year before this Council: So that Baronius is very bold out of a suspected Coun∣cil, to correct a Writer who lived so near this time, against the Authority of divers printed Copies w. And Binius is more audacious to cover this with an evident falsification of Gennadius, as if he said, Maxi∣mus

lived under those Emperors, but continued Bishop till this time x. And now let Baronius boast of the Acclamations of this Synod, (common in other Coun∣cils) as a singular honour done to Hilary; for after all it is plain, he liked not the Canons of it so well as to give them a place in his Annals y, which here he fills up with other manifest impertinencies.

§. 3. The next Pope was Simplicius, whose appoint∣ing Weekly Confessors at Rome, is far from proving (what the Notes infer) that their Sacramental Con∣fession was instituted by Christ z. Nor is it for the credit of this Pope that three parts of seven in Rome it self were Arrians in his time a. But the Pontifical gives the reason of it, and expresly charges him with dissimulation b, Which seems a just censure; for though the Arrians and Photinians sadly infested the Western Church c: And though the Princes of that time were generally heretical d; yet poor Simplicius did nothing, and till he had been eight years Pope, Baronius cannot pick up one Memoir concerning him, except a few Brags of an interested Successor of his, concerning his resisting the Eastern Emperors, which are both false and incredible: Yea, the Annals shew that all the great Affairs of this time were managed by S. Epiphanius Bishop of Pavy, who far outshined Sim∣plicius e. Wherefore I wonder that Du Pin should say, He was very full of business all the time of his Pope∣dom f; since for more than half that time there is no true account of his doing any thing: And when he did begin to write, Baronius owns, He did no good by any of his Letters g; yet a little before, having a bad Memo∣ry, he had ridiculously boasted, That Simplicius in the midst of the Arrian fury governed the See, with the same Authority and freedom that his Predecessors had done, bearing the Causes of all the World, depriving and restoring Bishops, correcting Emperors, opposing barbarous Kings, and sitting as Arbiter and Judge in all things over the East and West, as (he saith) he hath proved in the several years of his Pon∣tifical

h. Let the Reader search, and try if he can find this proved. On the contrary this Pope flattered all Parties, and truckled to the Heretical Usurper Basilius (as I shall shew presently) nor durst he attempt to do Justice to a persecuted Orthodox Bishop of Alexandria, because (as an old faithful Historian tells us i,) Zeno the Emperor had forbidden him.

It is so common for the Roman Forgers to invent sham Epistles, in which the Pope is feigned to make Eminent Bishops his Legates in all parts of the World, that, no doubt, this Popes first Epistle to Zeno Bishop of Sevil (which hath no date) is spurious k. And therefore it is of no force, that the Notes infer from such a Forgery, That the care of the whole Church was committed to the Pope by God.

The 4th Epistle tells the Emperor, to whom it was writ, That none doubted of his Orthodox mind, and that be did as certainly imitate Marcian and Leo in their Faith, as he did succeed them in their Empire. Now this Letter (as Baronius and the Editors say) was writ to Zeno l; and they own it to be at least prudent dissimulation, for the Notes on the Life of Simplicius affirm, Zeno was an Eutychian Heretick. But indeed it was inexcusable Flat∣tery, or as the Pontifical calls it, downright Dissembling: And the Crime is worse, because upon a strict enquiry this Epistle appears to be writ to that Heretical Usur∣per Basiliscus. Labbè's Margen from an old Manuscript reads it to Basiliscus; and Zeno really was deposed a whole year before this Epistle was writ; for Timotheus Aelurus his coming to Constantinople (mentioned here by Simpli∣cius) was in the time of Basiliscus after Zeno's deposition, as an Authentick Author relates m; and the true date of Simplicius his Epistle shews it was writ in Basiliscus his time, and so doth also the Chronicle of Marcellinus, a Book writ near that time: But for all this, Baronius quar∣rels with Marcellinus, contradicts Theodorus Lector, alters the date of the Epistle, and keeps Zeno on the Throne a year longer before his deposing, than ancient Wri∣ters do allow; and all this to conceal his holy Fathers

wicked flattering of an Heretick, and Usurper n. But I hope the Reader will believe old and disinteressed Historians, before the partial Annalist.

The 5th Epistle writ at the same time to Acacius Pa∣triarch of Constantinople, shews that it was solely in the Emperors power to call a General Council o. Since Timothy of Alexandria applied to the Emperor for such a Council, and Simplicius with Acacius joyned in addresses to the Emperor against it.

In the Notes on the 8th Epistle, where Euagrius on∣ly mentioned a bare report of the Martyr Theclas appear∣ing to Zeno; They out of Baronius add, that she prayed and interceded for Zeno p: Which invention is to countenance the Martyrs praying for us; The date of this Epistle being in October 477, and (as the Notes say) writ to Zeno after he was restored, and had sent to Simplicius an Orthodox confession of Faith; This date I say shews that the 4th Epistle (before spoken of) must have been written to Basiliscus; for that is dated in Ja∣nuary 476, at which time Zeno was deposed, and Basilis∣cus after he had reigned two years, as Euagrius writes q, was ejected by Zeno about July 477, long before which time, Simplicius had writ that flattering Letter to the Usurper.

The Forgers have corrupted the Title and Conclu∣sion of Acacius his Epistle to Simplicius r. For Simpli∣cius in a genuine Epistle calls Acacius, his beloved Brother, Epistle 18: But here by turning Patriarchae into Patri, they make Acacius style Simplicius, Most blessed Lord and Holy Father, Archbishop, &c. Which corruption (owned by Labbè) shews how little credit is to be given to the Pompous Titles of these Epistles which are frequently feigned by the modern Roman Parasites.

Upon the 14th Epistle they note in the Margen, The Pope dispenses with the Nicene Canon for peace sake, and in favour of the Emperor s. This relates to the hasty election and ordination of Stephen Patriarch of Antioch, which the Emperor and Acacius were forced to dispatch somewhat uncanonically for fear of a Sedition in that

City, and on that account they desired the Pope how∣ever to own him as an Orthodox Patriarch, since they had resolved this single Example should be no prece∣dent for the future. The Pope like a true Signior Pla∣cebo, assents to all tamely, and allows of their resolu∣tion, which was not (as the Notes on the 15th Epistle falsly say,) any Condition that Simplicius prescribed to the Emperor, but a Rule that Zeno had made for himself, before the Pope knew of the Ordination of Stephen.

The 16th Epistle declares, that Simplicius had taken Calendion the new Bishop of Antioch into his Commu∣nion, and call him his Brother and Fellow-Bishop t. The Notes calls this, the Popes confirming Calendion in the See of Antioch: Whereas it was no more than his owning him for an Orthodox Brother; yea, Calen∣dion was thus far confirmed by Acacius, for (at his request) Acacius had declared himself of his Commu∣nion, before he writ to the Pope. These Notes also falsly say, Acacius was made the Popes Legate, which is a groundless Fiction of Baronius u. For if Acacius had acted in ordaining and deposing the Eastern Patri∣archs, only as the Popes Legate, there had been no Quarrel between him and Rome. And how improba∣ble is it, that he who contended for the Supremacy of the whole Eastern Church with the Pope, and who is taxed by Baronius, to be one that thirsted after nothing so much as the Primacy w, that he, (I say) should ac∣cept of a Legantine power from Rome? Yea, Simpli∣cius his 17th Epistle doth not say any such thing, but speaks of their Obligation to mutual Love, and of the Patriarchal Office committed to him, as a Talent God had entrusted him with: But not a syllable of his Subjection to the Pope, or of any Office derived from him.

§. 4. The Council of Tours, Binius places here under Simplicius, Labbè 21 years sooner under Pope Hilary; but the truth is, that it was held An. 461. but under no Pope at all: For they desire no other but their absent Brethren, (Bishops of that Province) to confirm their Canons x by their consent. The Notes on this Coun∣cil mention the Fasts and Vigils, which Perpetuus the 6th Bishop of Tours instituted for his Church, Recorded by an old Historian of that place y. And 'tis very plain they differ extreamly from those used at Rome; which shews how unreasonable it is in the Mo∣dern Roman Church, to impose their Fasts, Feasts and other Rites upon all Churches in the World.

The Council of Arles, in the cause of Faustus assem∣bled to examin Points of Faith, doth not so much as mention the Pope, so that surely they did not take him for an infallible Judge z. Labbè's Notes boast, that one De Champs hath confuted Bishop Usher's censure of the Epistles of Faustus and Lucidus, and of this Council which approved them: But before the Reader credit this, let him hear that most learned Primate, who mo∣destly excuses the Council, but strongly proves, that Faustus was a Semi-pelagian Heretick a: And if he did not feign the consent of this and another Council to his Doctrins, this will be one instance, that Councils may Err in matters of Faith.

§. 5. Foelix the Third, who followed Simplicius, was much bolder, and openly reproved the Emperor and Acacius, for that which he called a Fault: But the Notes falsifie when they say, That in the beginning of his Pontificat, he rejected, proscribed and cursed the most wick∣ed Zeno's (Henoticon) Edict for Union, anathematizing all that subscribed it b. For Euagrius recites this E∣dict, and neither saith Foelix condemned it, nor con∣demns it himself; and Foelix former Letters treat both Zeno and Acacius with all respect, nor do they curse either of them on the account of this Edict: Theo∣dorus

Lector indeed saith, That when all the Patriarchs besides agreed to Zeno's Edict for Union, Foelix of Rome [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] joyned not with him c. Which only im∣plies, his not communicating with the Emperor in that point: But Binius hath improved this into proscribing, cursing and anathematizing the Edict.

The First Epistle of Foelix to Acacius often calls him Brother, which shews as if then he did not reject his Communion d; and neither this nor the second to Zeno, do at all mention the Emperors Edict for Union, but quarrels only about matters of Jurisdiction, being not so much concerned for any Heretical Opinions, as for keeping up his claim to a pretended Supremacy: However some suspect both these Epistles as being without date, and because that to Acacius seems to con∣tradict Liberatus e: But I think they may be allowed for genuine.

The Second Epistle to Zeno is writ with modesty, yet wants not good advice. The Pope owning it his Duty to write to the Emperor, upon his coming into the See of Rome; and he rather intreats, than either com∣mands or threatens f: But it is certain, if this Epistle be genuine, it is not perfect, wanting that account of the African Persecution, which Euagrius saith was men∣tioned in this Epistle.

It is said, Foelix writ three Letters to Petrus Cnapheus the Heretical Bishop of Antioch, of which only two are extant, and it is well if both be not Forgeries [incepi sententiare contrate,] is a Phrase that smells of the later Ages, when the Flatterers of Rome coyned great variety of this kind of Epistles to make the World think, that an Heretical Patriarch could be deposed by none but the Pope g. But this very Letter owns, that Acacius and his Council had also deposed this Peter of Antioch, as well as the Pope and his: And Baronius saith, Acacius did it first h: But the Cardinal thought it worth his while to corrupt this suspicious Epistle, wherein Foelix saith, He was condemned by me, and those who together with me do govern the Apostolical Throne:

Which Phrase plainly shews, that the Pope did not Rule alone as a Monarch at Rome, but the Italian Bishops had a share in that Power: To avoid which Truth Ba∣ronius and they that follow him falsifie it, and read—condemned by me, and by them, who being constituted un∣der me, govern Episcopal Seats i. The true reading implies the Bishops are co-ordinate with the Pope, but the Corruption is to make us believe, they are only his creatures, substitutes and delegates.

The Fifth Epistle to Zeno speaks honourably of Aca∣cius, as an Orthodox Archbishop, commending him for opposing Petrus Cnapheus k: It is noted by a learned Man, that (excepting fabulous Inscriptions,) the name [Archbishop] is here first found among the Latins: But I rather observe, that Foelix here reads that famous Text for the Supremacy, Math. xvi. in this manner—and upon this Confession will I build my Church: So it is read often in Gelasiui Epistles l,—on the Confession of Peter will I build my Church: Which shews it is not a casual expression, but a Testimony that at Rome it self, in that Age, it was not believed this Promise belonged so much to St. Peter's Person as to his Faith, nor to his Successors any longer than they held that Confession. Of the 6th Epistle we shall speak when we come to Foelix his second Roman Council.

The Corrupters Fingers have been busie with the Title of the 7th Epistle, which (as Labbè notes out of Justellus) was writ only to the Bishops of Sicily; but they who are to support an Universal Supremacy have changed it thus, To all Bishops m: And the date is falsified also, be∣ing pretended to be writ by a Roman Council held in March, An. Dom. 487. yet it is dated in the year after, March 488. But if they will have it genuine, let them observe, that the Pope here saith, (speaking of a Point of Faith,) He knows not but in this case, the Spirit of God may have informed them of something that had escaped his Knowledge, promising to hear them, if they can find anything omitted by him n. Let them read this, and reconcile it with Infallibility if they can.

The Decree of Foelix about the subjection of Kings to Bishops, is neither agreeable to the Age, nor to the Style of this Popes other Writings to the Emperor o; so that we cannot credit it, though Labbè hath put it into an Epistle to Zeno, because this Epistle speaks of the deposition of Acacius as a thing past, August 1st 484: But the Margen of the next Epistle saith, Aca∣cius was deposed July 28, 488 p. And it is probable, that both the Sentence and the Synod are spurious, coyned out of a hint in the Pontifical, viz. That Foelix did condemn Acacius in a Synod: Which was ground enough for the Parasites to frame a Council. But how little credit is to be given 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 q. 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 r; but saith, there was no need of any particular Council, since he was condem∣ned by the general Sentence of the Council of Chalce∣don, and upon that ground the Roman Church rejected Acacius his Communion.

There are (in Labbè) divers other Epistles ascribed to Foelix; one to Zeno s, 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 t, though there is nothing to prove it, but the two first suspected Epistles of Foelix. However, if there were such a Sy∣nod, 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 forg∣ing a pretended Citation, in the name of this Roman Synod, to call Acacius to Rome, there to answer the Matters charged against him: But 'tis 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 spu∣rious.

There is a second Roman Council placed in this year, wherein Acacius and the two Peters of Alexan∣dria and Antioch are all said to be condemned u. But let it be noted, that whereas the 6th Epistle of Foelix saith, he had deposed Acacius in a Synod in August, 484 w, and at that time Baronius places his depositi∣on x; Yet here we have a Synodical Letter, con∣demning him over again, dated above a year after, viz. Octob. 485, which Date Baronius and Binius fraudu∣lently leave out y: But Labbè sets it down in the Margen, and so discovers the cheat z. Upon the whole matter, this Condemnation of Acacius was done they know not when; and 'tis probable all these Let∣ters 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 E∣pistle

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. a. 'Tis 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 sup∣posed, 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 Supre∣macy, 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 Pre∣decessors, 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 re∣ceive it in neither, and declares it to be a grand Sacriledge for any to divide the holy Mysteries b. Now these Here∣ticks 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 con∣demn 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 c. But Gelasius speaks principally, if not only of the People, and this Sense supposes most of the Roman Clergy to be Manichean Hereticks. There∣fore Baronius rejects this Excuse as frivolous d, but takes as bad a method to salve up this business; for he manifestly perverts the sense of the Decree,—pre∣tending 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 did not receive the Cup as well as the Bread: For he saith in general, This dividing the My∣stery, can never happen without a grand Sacriledge. Now it is certain, that when either an Heretical or Ca∣tholick Man or Woman receives but in one kind, it doth happen that the Mystery is divided; and there∣fore

in Pope Gelasius Opinion, the present Church of Rome is guilty of a grand Sacriledge, in taking the Cup from the People: And it seems, the Editors thought Baronius had not sufficiently satisfied this Objection, and therefore they cunningly leave it out of this Popes Decrees e, in both Editions.

With like craft, they omit the Tract of Gelasius against Eutyches, and only give a touch at it in the Notes f; and there also care is taken (out of Baronius,) if any shall elsewhere meet with this piece, to keep them from discerning, that Pope Gelasius condemns Transubstantiation; and expresly saith, That the sub∣stance of Bread and Wine remains, after the Consecration: The words they cannot deny; but first, Baronius and Binius argue it was not writ by this Pope, but by Gelasius Cyzicenus, (an Author as Orthodox and more ancient than Pope Gelasius; but their Arguments are not so cogent, as to outweigh the proofs that this Pope writ the Tract. Labbè in his Margen saith, that many learned men think it his. Gennadius Contemporary with the Roman Gelasius, and the Pontifical say, he writ a Tract against Eutyches: Fulgentius cites it as this Gelasius his Work g: Pope John the Second, also ascribes it to his Predecessor: Yea, the Biblio∣theca Patrum allowed by the Expurgators, put it out under Pope Gelasius his name h. And at last, Ba∣ronius himself is not against supposing it was his. But then Secondly, He manifestly perverts the Sense of the words before-cited, being (after long shuffling) forced to this absurdity, that—by the substance, he means, the accidents of Bread and Wine remain i; Which makes this learned Pope so ignorant, as to mistake the first rudiments of Logick, and might al∣most shew he was an Heretick, if his Comparison in that sense be applied to the two Natures of Christ, for illustrating of which he brings it in: For thus it would follow, that Gelasius held, nothing but the acci∣dents of Christs. Body or Human Nature, remained after the Hypostatical Union: Doubtless, Contarenus his Brother

Cardinal, was wiser and honester in making no reply at the Colloquy of Ratasbon 1541, to this clear Testi∣mony: And it is great weakness in Baronius, to brag what wonders he hath done, by heaping up a parcel of falshoods and impertinence. Before we dismiss this, let it be noted, that the Annalist and Binius not only allow, but dispute for 500 forged Tracts and Epistles, which support modern Popery; but they devise innu∣merable things, to baffle and disgrace the most genuine Writings that condemn their Innovations: Which is Baronius his meaning, when he gives this reason of his large digression about this Tract,—because out of it the Innovators take their Weapons: But they who reject the old Writings of their own Doctors, do more justly de∣serve that Title.

As to this Popes extraction, Volatteran and Panvinius say,—his Father Valerius was a Bishop: Which is now left out of the Pontifical, and not mentioned in Baronius or the Notes k: But the omission signifies little, there being so many instances of married Bi∣shops that had Children; Yea, of Popes that were Sons, or Grand-Children of Bishops or former Popes: As to the time of this Pope's ingress, Baronius places it An. 492, and upon the credit of the dates of a few Papal Epistles, (which are always suspicious and often forged,) he rejects the Authority of Marcellinus, who lived at this time, and died An. 534 l; in whose Chro∣nicle Gelasius is said to be made Pope An. 494; that is, two year later than Baronius places it.

§. 8. If Marcellinus be in the right, we may justly doubt of those three Epistles, [the 1st, 2d and 9th,] which Baronius cites as writ before the year 494: The 1st hath no date, and though the time of wri∣ting it be made an Evidence against Marcellinus his Account; yet he brings no proof it was writ An. 492, but this, Nothing hinders us from allowing these things between Euphemius and Gelasius, to be done this year m. I reply, the Testimony of a good Author of that

Age, who affirms Gelasius was not Pope till two years after, hinders us from believing it was writ then: But I will not however condemn the Epistle, which is mo∣dest enough, calling Euphemius Bishop of Constantinople,—his Brother and Fellow, advanced to a Precedence by the favour of Christ n: And when he was pressed to declare, by what Council Acacius was condemned, he cites no Roman Council, nor pretended Sentence of his Predecessor Foelix: But saith, he was condemned by the Council of Chalcedon; but this he doth not make out.

The Second Epistle also wants a date, and is by guess placed in this year by Baronius, with this false re∣mark, That the Popes by Custom used to prescribe a Form of Belief to all the Faithful o: Whereas the Letter it self declares the Custom was,—For every new Pope to declare his Faith to the Neighbouring Bishops, that they might know he was Orthodox p. Now there is a vast difference, between prescribing a Form of Belief to others, and labouring to get from them a Testimony of our be∣lieving aright.

The 4th Epistles true Title is, The Monitory of Gela∣sius: But in Binius these words, [Of the most blessed Pope] are added q, which Labbè rightly omits: In the Mo∣nitory it self observe, First, That Gelasius denies his Pre∣decessor or he had condemned the Emperor Anastasius. Secondly, He saith, the Church hath no power to absolve any after their death. Thirdly, He claims no power to make any new Canons, but only to execute the old. Which other Bishops may do. Fourthly, He cannot prove Appeals to Rome by any Canons, but those of Sardica, which were rejected by many, and slights the Canons of Chalcedon, received every where but at Rome. Fifthly, He very falsly pretends, Acacius was only the Ex∣ecuter of the Roman Churches Sentence, by whose sole Authority some Eastern Bishops were condemned. But we know, Acacius had condemned them long before any Sentence was given at Rome r, and scorned to act under the Pope. Sixthly, Where Gelasius in his own Cause vainly brags, That the Canons have given the Judgment

over all to the Apostolical Seat: Binius and Labbè mend it in their Marginal Note, and say, The Canons and Christ gave it this power s; neither of which is true.

In the 5th Epistle, Gelasius owns a Private Bishop for his Brother, and declares, that he himself cannot alter the Canons. The Margen again here saith, The Canons can∣not be altered t,—they should have said—no not by the Pope: But here they say too little, as before they said too much; which puts me in mind of Juve∣nal's Note,

Quisquam hominum est quem tu contentum videris uno Flagitio—

The Date of this Epistle must be false, being An. 490, that is, two years before (as they reckon) Gelasius was Pope. Labbè would mend it, by antedating the entrance of Gelasius, forgetting that he had printed an Epistle of Foelix to Thalassius, dated that year u; his Invention therefore was better than his Memory.

The 6th Epistle shews, that notwithstanding the Popes fair pretences to an Universal Jurisdiction, his neighbour Bishops in Dalmatia did not own it; but looked on him as a busie-body, for medling in their affairs w, and suspected the Snake of Usurpation lay under the florid Leaves of his seeming care of all the Churches.

The 7th Epistle is briefly and imperfectly set down by Baronius x, because he would conceal from his Reader, that Gelasius makes Purgatory and Limbus Infantum a Pe∣lagian Opinion; Let them (saith he y) take away that third place, which they have made [recipiendis parvulis] for receiving little Children. And since we read of no more, but the right hand and left, let them not make them stay on the left hand for want of Baptism, but permit them by the Baptism of Regeneration to pass to the right.—Which illustrious Testimony the Editors would obscure by reading, [decipiendis parvulis] for deceiving Children:

But if that were the true Reading, it shews, this Pope thought none but Children and Fools would believe a Third place invented by the Pelagians; since Scripture speaks but of two, viz. Heaven and Hell.

It is a trifling Note on this Epistle, That Gelasius admonished some Bishops of Italy against Pelagianism, not fearing two Princes, one of which was an Eutychian, the other an Arrian Heretick z. For what cared these Princes for the Popes Letters, against the Heresies of others, so long as he let them alone, and never admo∣nished them of their own Heresies?

The 8th Epistle was writ to one of these Heretical Princes, viz. to Anastasius; and the Pope is scanda∣lously silent about his Heresie, nor doth he once re∣prove his Errors in the Faith; but only labours, even by false pretences to justifie his Supremacy, which gave too just a ground for that Emperor and his Ea∣stern Bishops, to tax this Pope of secular Pride, a fault very visible in all his Writings on this Subject. Further we may note, that this Epistle was of old in∣scribed thus, Bishop Gelasius to the most glorious Emperor Anastasius a; but the Editors have left out the Em∣peror's Epithet, for fear he should look bigger than the Pope: Also, where the Pope prays that no Contagion may stain his See, and hopes it never will b; which plainly supposes, it was possible Rome might Err; other∣wise he had mocked God, in praying against that which could not happen; and assurance had left no place for hope, if the Popes were absolutely Infallible: Yet here the Marginal Note is, The Apostolical See cannot Err: Which may caution the Reader, not to trust their Margent nor Index, for there is often more in the Inscrip∣tion, than can be found in the Box.

The 9th Epistle being dated An. 494. was odly ci∣ted by Baronius, to prove that Gelasius was made Pope in An. 492. c: It seems to be a Collection of divers Canons put together, no Body knows by what Pope. And one thing is very strange, that whereas the Pre∣face owns, the Clergy were almost starved in many of

the Churches of Italy d; Yet the Epistle impertinently takes great care, that the Rents be divided into four parts, as if all things had then been as plentiful as ever: And whereas these Rules are sent to the Bishops of Lucania, near Naples, the Pope's forbidding them to dedicate Churches without his Licence, is by the Mar∣ginal Note made a General Rule for all Countries; but falsly, since the Bishops of the East, of Afric, Gaul, &c. did never ask the Popes Licence in that Age, to conse∣crate Churches.

The 13th Epistle is a bold attempt toward an Uni∣versal Supremacy e: For Gelasius finding the Bishop of Constantinople at his Heels, and come up almost to a level with him, uses his utmost effort to make a few Rascian Bishops believe he was set over the whole Church: But he shews more Art and Learning, than Truth or Honesty in this Argument, asserting these downright Falshoods. First, That the Canons order all the World to Appeal to Rome, and suffer none to Appeal from thence: But Bellarmin (knowing these Canons where those despicable ones of Sardica, and that even those did not intend to oblige the whole World,) in citing this passage, changes Canones appellari voluerint, into appellandum est f: So that he chuses to leave it indefinite, that all must appeal to Rome, rather than undertake to tell us (with Gelasius,) how that See came by this Right. Secondly, That the Roman Church by its single Authority absolved A∣thanasius, Chrysostom and Flavian, and condemned Di∣oscorus, (as this little Pope brags); which is as true as it is, that the Roman Church alone decreed the Council of Chalcedon should be received, she alone pardoned the Bishops that lapsed in the Ephesine latrociny, and by her Authority cast out the obstinate: Which this Epistle audaciously asserts, though there are more untruths than lines in the whole passage: And if liberty be not deny'd us, we appeal to all the Authentic Historians of those Ages, who utterly confute these vain brags. Yet Bel∣larmin adds to this extravagant pretence of Romes

alone decreeing the Council of Chalcedon, (these words) by her single Authority g: But Launoy blushes for him, and says, what Gelasius here saith is not strictly true, and that he needs a very benign Interpreter h; that is, one who will not call a Spade a Spade: But let this Pope's assertions be never so false, they serve to advance the ends of the Roman Supremacy; and therefore you shall find no more of this long Epistle in the Annals, but only this hectoring passage i Though he unluckily confesseth immediately after, that Gelasius did no manner of good with all this k. And no wonder, since that Age, as well as this, knew his pretences were unjust, his reasoning fal∣lacious, and his instances false. Thirdly, He asserts, that Pope Leo vacated the Canons of Chalcedon: 'Tis true, he did it as far as lay in him, who measured Right only by Interest: But we have shewed they remained in full force, in all other parts of the Church, notwithstanding his dissent openly declared. Fourthly, He affirms, that the care of all the Churches about Constantinople was given to Acacius by the Apostolick See: Which is, (as hath been proved) a notorious Falshood; of which this Epistle is so full, that one would suspect it was the Off∣spring of a much later Age. 'Tis certain, the Title is very unusual, Gelasius Bishop of the City of Rome, &c. And the date is false, the Consul named is Victor, whose year was 70 year before: Baronius and the Editors of their own head mend it, and read [Viator;] and Labbè tells us in the Margin, that some things are wanting (in this Epistle,) and some are read otherways in Justellus Manuscript l: And again he observes, that instead of these words, Apostolicae sedi frequentèr datum est,—it is now read, Apostolica sedes frequentèr ut dictum est, &c. which makes a great alteration in the Sense: The former implying only a delegated power, the later an original power of absolving all persons: So that if the whole be not a Forgery, yet it is now corrupted in many places, by the bold Champions of the Supremacy, to whom no∣thing was Sacred; Yea, we are told it comes out of the Vatican Mint, restored and mended, (we know what

that means,) as far as was fit by Baronius m. So that the Impartial Reader may judge what credit is to be given to this Epistle (out of which they often prove their Supremacy) written by a bigotted Pope (who scrupled not at any thing to advance his See) if it be genuine, and transcribed by such as are convicted of repeated Corruptions.

Labbè gives us two other imperfect Epistles of Gela∣sius, about his renouncing Communion with those who kept Acacius his Name in their Dypticks, as most of the Eastern Bishops then did n. But in these the Pope humbly saith, It is not for my Humility to pass Sentence concerning a difference reaching through the World, my part being to take care of my own Salvation o. Which is so different from the style of his former Epistles, that if these be genuine those are suspicious.

But since all these Epistles of Simplicius, Foelix and Ge∣lasius, make so soul a matter of Acacius his Case, let me once for all here give his Character, and state that busi∣ness. That he was Orthodox in all points is manifest by his Epistle against Peter of Antioch p: And by his forc∣ing Basiliscus to revoke his Edict against the Council of Chalcedon q. And while the Pope flattered that Here∣tical Usurper, Acacius made all the Bishops who had subscribed it, recant r. He also ejected Peter of Antioch for Heresie, before the Pope knew of it, and excommu∣nicated Peter of Alexandria, yea, deposed him when he maintained his Heresie s: And would not admit him to Communion again till he had professed the Catholic Faith, and by name expresly received the Council of Chalcedon t. 'Tis true, this Bishop proved himself a Dissembler by Apostatizing afterward; but that was not the Popes Quarrel at Acacius, the Roman Bishops were jealous of the Bishop of Constantinoples growing power, who flourished under the Eastern Emperors, while their Church was obscured under a Barbarous King: And Acacius by the Emperors consent (without consulting the Pope u, put in and put out the Eastern Bishops as he thought fit, pretending this power was given him

by the Councils of Constantinople and Chalcedon: This galled the Popes, and therefore in the pretended Sen∣tence of Foelix, he is charged as one that usurped others Provinces contrary to the Nicene Canons. This check'd the universal Supremacy that Rome had then been for some time aiming at, so that they could have forgiven any Heresie rather than this attempt: Which appears by this, That though Pelagianism had spread it self all over the Western Church, and Eutyches Heresie prevail∣ed in the East, yea, a great part of Rome it self was Arrian, we find few or no Popes Letters against these Violators of the Faith, as if they (with Tiberius) left Christ to revenge his own injuries w. But all their outcry is against Acacius, whom they would never forgive living nor dead, for touching their Jurisdiction, that was dearer to them than all the Articles of their Creed. But while they hated him, the whole Eastern Church took his part, and he continued to exercise his Office (in spight of all the Popes Sentences) until his death, leaving behind him so good a Character, that Suidas saith, If ever any man were truly venerable it was Acacius x. Yea, it was a long time before the Greeks could be persuaded either by the promises or threatnings of Rome to put his Name out of the Dypticks, though the union of the East and West depended at last upon that single Point: They objected, that he subscribed the Edict for Union made by Zeno. I reply, so did three Patriarchs more, and that Edict contained no Heresie, nor did it condemn the Council of Chalcedon. They urge also, that he rejected John Talaia an Orthodox Bishop of Alexandria: But that was because he believed him perjured, and consequently unduly elected. To conclude, Acacius was a good Man, and those who will consider the matter impartially, will think the Popes deserve no commendation for their stiffness and violence in this Contest.

After the Epistles follow some Tracts of Gelasius; The first of which is about Excommunication: Wherein there is one passage that afflicts Baronius; For the Pope saith, Christ hath separated the Kings Office and the Bishops; So that Bishops must not challenge Royal Dignity nor meddle in secular Affairs, nor may Kings administer Holy things y. But the Cardinal will have the Roman Bishop to have at least Regal Power, and Kings to be subject to Ecclesia∣sticks, who he thinks may meddle in Temporal Affairs, tho' Kings must not in Sacred matters; citing for this an Epistle of Gelasius z. But I should rather think the Epistle forged if it did contradict this Tract, tho' Baronius wrests the words he cites, and omits a passage that immediately follows them, viz. The Ecclesiastical Rulers obey your Laws a; which shews Bishops were then subject to Princes.

And the next Tract [against the profane Pagan Festi∣vals] shews that the Pope had no shadow of Regal power at Rome in those days; For Gelasius only declares them unlawful, and saith he will deliver his own Soul in persuading the Christians to forbear them: But it was the Senates part to forbid them and take them away, and his Predecessors were to Petition the Emperor (as he owns) to abolish such impieties b. So that Baronius his huffing Preface to this argument against these Paga∣nish Feasts is very ridiculous. You may see (saith he) how he exalts himself against the Emperor; and though the City was under a Gothic King, he prescribes Laws to Rome without asking leave of an Impious Prince c. He hath good Eyes (I am sure) who in this Sermon or Discourse can see either any exercise of Authority or Law prescri∣bed, only indeed it is a pious and rational exhortation.

§. 9. A Roman Council under Gelasius is placed next, said to consist of 70 Bishops, convened to settle the Canon of Scripture, and to distinguish genuine from spurious Authors d. But the whole seems a meer Forgery: For, first, the Publishers are not agreed upon what Pope to Father it: Divers Manuscripts in Labbè, ascribe it to Hormisda (who sat 20. Years after this e.

Another very old Book calls it, A Declaration of Holy Scripture, &c. with Gelasius his Annotations f. The De∣cree in Gratian and in Justellus his Manuscript wants all the Books of the Old and New Testament g. Wherein also, all the stuff about the Primacy, and the order of Patri∣archs is omitted: Yea, the Notes in Gratian own, that formerly it went no further than to—item gesta Sancto∣rum Martyrum—So that the beginning and end (that is, four parts in six) are Forged by their own Confession; Yea, the whole, as Binius grants, is so confused, that in many places it is impossible to read it; yet (they say) they have ventured to mend it as well as they can. But after all their correcting, or (rather) corrupting it, the Copies do not agree: Some want the Book of Judith and the 2d of Macchabees: Some have only one Book of Kings, and one of Chronicles: Some reckon but two Books of Solomon, some three, and others five: Some ascribe Wis∣dom and Ecclesiasticus to the Son of Syrach h. And after all, as to the Canon it agrees neither with the Council of Laodicea, nor with that of Carthage, nor in∣deed with it self, whatever Binius vainly brags i. And is not this a rare Foundation for the Trent Fathers to build their mistaken Decree upon? As to the rest of it, That passage [—that the Roman is preferred before all other Churches, not by any Synodal Decrees, but by the Voice of Christ, &c.—] is not only a modern addition (as appears by Gratian and Justellus Manuscript, which o∣mit it) but it contradicts the 4th Epistle of Gelasius, which saith, The supream power over all is not given to any by the Canons, but to the Apostolical Church k. The order also of the Patriarchal Sees (added since the time of Gratian) is drawn up contrary to the Canons of Constan∣tinople and Chalcedon: The account of Councils make the Emperors Constantine and Theodosius Presidents of the two first General Councils, Marcian and Anatolius of the 4th, without naming Leo, and only mentions Ce∣lestine's consent to the third Council: So that this piece was coyned before the Pope pretended all Councils void wherein he or his Legates did not preside. And

that passage, That the Acts of the Martyrs are not read in the Roman Church, because many of them are writ by ano∣nymous, mistaken, weak and Heretical Authors l, was writ before that Church had stuffed all her Offices so full of lying Legends, and ridiculous Romances about the Saints, the reading of which (before the Reformati∣on) took up a third part of the Priests time upon Festi∣val days: But upon the whole I dare aver, it is not Gela∣sius his work, but most of it forged by Isidore Mercator 300 Year after the time of this pretended Council: Where∣fore it ought not to be cited as evidence on their side.

There is a 2d Roman Council under Gelasius to ab∣solve Misenus, one of the Popes Legates, who had be∣trayed his Master, and now repented: But admit the matter of Fact be true, yet the bad style, and barbarous phrase of these Acts are strong suspicions of their being Forged.

§. 10. Anastasius the 2d succeeded Gelasius, accord∣ing to Marcellinus Chronicle (an Author of that time) or in the year 498. But Nauclerus places his Election (out of some other Author) An. 492 m. Baronius and the Editors without Authority correct both these, and place his entrance An. 496 n. The matter is not great, and serves only to shew us the obscurity of the Popes in that Age, whose Times are so differently related in History, that we may be sure they were not made (as now at Rome) an Aera to reckon Councils and all other Church matters by: The Author of the Pontifical (who writ after the quarrel about Acacius was over) saith hard things of this Pope; viz. 1st, That his Clergy rejected him, because without any Council he communicated with Photinus a Deacon of Thessalonica, a Man of Aca∣cius party: And 2ly, because he would privately have restored Acacius: For which also (he saith) by the Di∣vine Judgment he was struck with death o. Now all this was allowed for truth by their own Writers be∣fore Baronius p. And both Ivo and Gratian received it for Authentic History, and placed it in their collecti∣ons

q. But since the partial Cardinal writ, (not to dis∣cover truth, but to disprove all that seemed to reflect on) the Roman See, Gratian is corrected in later Editions with a Note which contradicts the Text; and the Edi∣tors Notes out of Baronius (which extol the Pontifical to the Skies when it reports the greatest falshoods for the honour of Rome) here say that Book is erroneous and faulty; yea, they charge them all to be Hereticks that spread these reports, largely disputing that all this is false: But in vain; For 1st, as to his allowing the name of Acacius to be restored in the Dypticks (which is the meaning of voluit revocare Acacium in the Pontifical); This is certainly true: For the Emperor Justin expresly affirms this Pope did communicate with Acacius his party, as the Notes own, and they cannot disprove it but by falsifying an Epistle of Pope Symmachus, and reading ego for nego (as shall be shewed presently). Nor is it any wonder that one Pope should approve what his Predecessors had condemned; and if this be true, Ana∣stasius judged better than former Popes, whose Eyes were dazeled so by Ambition, that they could not see the Truth. 2ly, As to his communicating with Photinus without a Council, the Notes finally do not deny it; and it seems Foelix the Senator doubted not (if Anastasi∣us had lived) to have engaged him to subscribe Zeno's Edict for Union; so that he was likely enough to be moderate toward Acacius his party: Only I do not think he would (as the Notes pretend) venture upon his single Authority to absolve Photinus, if he had been condem∣ned by a Council, because in that Age the Popes did not exercise any such power. 3dly, As to his being strook with death by voiding his Bowels, it might be true; nor can I think (as the Notes suggest) that all the Authors above cited are mistaken, and put the Pope for the Emperor, who died by Thunder, because the Deaths were very different: And though Binius say it was about the same time r; that is very false; for the Pope died An. 598, in the Emperor's Seventh Year: But the Emperor lived near twenty year longer, and died not

till An. 517. So that those Historians must be very dull who could not distinguish two such different things hap∣pening to two Persons at so great a distance of time and place, but took it for the same story: Yet after all it may be this Pope died a natural death, and that this slander of his dying by Gods Judgment might be the invention of the next Age, after the Popes had got Aca∣cius to be declared a Schismatick; for then the Writers were to blacken all his Friends by such Fables as these. And now that turn is served, Baronius would wipe off the stain again, meerly because Anastasius was a Bishop of Rome: How probable this guess is, I leave the Rea∣der to judge.

There is but one Epistle of this Pope, writ to the Em∣peror (his Name-sake) Anastasius, wherein 'tis plain, he thinks the Quarrel about Acacius now deceased, no just ground for the two Churches to separate from each other s: Yet for the scandal he had given, his Opinion was, that his Name alone ought to be left out of the Dypticks; but withal he approves of the Bap∣tism and Orders he had given, and justifies this by good proofs of Scripture t. Gratian holds this last De∣cree to be illegal and uncanonical, because it contra∣dicts the determinations of some of his Predeces∣sors u. But impartial Readers will see, that his Opi∣nion is better confirmed by Reason and Scripture, than the contrary ever was by any Pope that held it: Nor ought the Notes to say, Anastasius decreed this by a dispensation grounded on his Apostolical Authority For it is an Orthodox Truth, That the Crimes of the dis∣pensers of Sacraments and Holy Orders, especially if it be only Schism, do not invalidate them, to such as in their inte∣grity receive them: So that unless a Pope need a dispen∣sation to tell Truth, here is no occasion for any dispen∣sing Power.

This Epistle is followed by a Memorial given by the Legates of Alexandria to the Popes Legates then at Con∣stantinople, for an Union between the two Churches w, which they speak of as equal Sister Churches, and give

no hint of any subjection due from them to Rome, (which they think) had unfortunately mistaken them, as guilty of Heresie: Nor doth Anastasius in the former Letter to the Emperor pretend to any power that he had over Alexandria, but desires the Emperor by his Wisdom and Authority to reduce them to the Catholic Faith, calling him the Vicar appointed by God to preside in the Earth: Which the modern Roman Writers think too great a complement to a Lay Prince.

Upon the death of Anastasius, the Roman Clergy were divided and chose two Popes, Laurentius and Symmachus: But after a warm and long contest, both parties agreed to refer it to an Heretical Gothish King, viz. Theodoric, to declare an Infallibly Orthodox Head of the Church x. Who modestly referred it to a Synod of Bishops, and they at last confirmed the Election of Symmachus. The Notes call this a Schism of the universal Church y. But it was no more than a Schism of that particular Church of Rome, and had no influence, that we hear of, upon the whole Catholick Church: Only a Legend cited out of the fabulous Dialogues (which disparage the Name of Gregory the Great) tells us, that Paschasius, a learned and holy Roman Deacon, was seen after his death in an odd Purgatory of hot Water, condemned thither (as Symmachus Friends told the story) for taking part with Laurentius z: But it seems when this Fable was made, praying to Saints was not in fashion; for Paschasius de∣sires the Bishop that saw him to pray to the Lord to release him. The Notes also here cite a very idle story of an Image which bled when it was shot; but Damascen is his Author, who lived 250 year after this, and whose stories about Images are generally ridiculous and incre∣dible. But 'tis more material to observe, that this Pope Symmachus was charged with notorious Crimes, and the Papal power was then so low, that the Roman Clergy petitioned an Arrian King to send Visiters to try the Pope, who submitted to this Judicature authorized (say the Notes) by this excellent Prince: And the Bishops (as they observe) not only acquitted the Pope, but were so

wise as to conceal the fault of which he was accu∣sed a. But if that were so great a piece of Wis∣dom, Ennodius, who then writ an Apology for him, and Baronius and Binius, who now would vindicate him, shew no great discretion in confessing he was accused of Adultery b: For which, (if it were true,) he deserved a worse Purgatory than his Antagonist Pas∣chasius.

The Epistles published in Symmachus's name are Ele∣ven. The two first of which were formerly directed to Caesarius, but now they alter the Title, and inscribe them to Eonius: It seems the Forger was no good Chro∣nologer; and the Stile is so barbarous, the Sense so ob∣scure, and the Matter so jejune, that it would be a Scandal to any Pope to have writ them c. And if Symmachus writ these, the 5th and 8th may be discern∣ed by their Style, to have been endited for him by a more able hand d, that is, by Ennodius, who Binius supposes did write the 8th Epistle e. However, this Pope is very free in blaming his Predecessor for de∣creeing contrary to the ancient Custom f: But he scruples not to break many Canons at once, by order∣ing that the Popes for the future shall name their Succes∣sors g. In the 7th Epistle of Symmachus, the Editors and Baronius have manifestly corrupted the Text, read∣ing ist a quidem ego, for ista quidem nego h: But the Sense shews the Forgery; for the Emperor had charg∣ed the Pope for excommunicating him, in the case of Acacius; Symmachus replies, I deny these things; we have not Excommunicated you, O Emperor, but Acacius: leave him, and you are quit of his Excommunication; if you do not thrust your self into his Excommunication you are not Excommunicated by us; if you do, you are Excommuni∣cated by your self, not by us: So that whether you stick to him or leave him, however you are not Excommunicated by us. We see the Pope over and over declares, they had not by any particular Sentence Excommunicated the Emperor at Rome; it was only Acacius in particular, and his Followers in general, who were sentenced there;

in which Sentence if the Emperor wilfully involved himself, they (who had done nothing against him) could not justly be blamed, as if they had Excommunicated him: Now to bring in this Sentence with ista quidem Ego—is to make the Pope contradict himself, and confess he had Excommunicated the Emperor, which he utterly denies, and therefore ista quidem Nego—must be the true Reading, and that bold Forgery of turning it into [Ego,] was made on purpose to set up an early Precedent for the Pope's having Excommunicated Emperors. Finally, The Margen of the same Epistle (to carry on the same holy Cheat) observes, That the Pope's Dignity is greater than the Emperors: But this is not in the Text, where Symmachus thus expresseth him∣self, I will not say, it is a greater, but an equal power: So that when the Pope had stretcht a little, they go much further, and dare tell greater Untruths than he.

And here we shall conclude this Century, because the first Synod said to be held under this Pope, ought to be dated after the year 500, and belongs to the next Age: To which we shall proceed (with Gods assi∣stance) hereafter, when we have first (in our usual me∣thod) noted some remarkable Errors in Baronius, that are within this Period, but have not fallen in our way, as we treated of the Councils of this time.

An Appendix concerning Baronius his Annals.

THE Cardinal hath given a just, but severe cen∣sure of his own History, where he saith, It is dangerous to enquire after Truth among later Writers, who are often found to write that which false rumors, vain ima∣gination, private affection and sometimes Flattery suggested to their Minds, to the great prejudice of Historical Truth a. Yet he borrows very many of his Relations concerning the Saints, and ancient Practices, from Modern Authors, or from spurious Tracts, of which this Period affords us these Instances.

§. 1. They will have Porcarius the Abbot to have been a Martyr, and celebrate his Martyrdom Aug. 12th, and yet the History is taken out of a spurious Tract, and he owns the Matter of Fact to be false b. His re∣port of a Golden Saviour (so they name an Image) decked with precious Jewels, made by the Emperor Valentinian, at the request of Pope Sixtus, hath no bet∣ter Authority than the Epistle of Pope Adrian to Charle∣main, which is stuffed with Fables: No Writer of this Age takes notice of it, nor were such Images then used: So that it need be no wonder, that the Vandals did not plunder this rich Statue, because in the time of their Sacking Rome it was not there c. But if some wor∣shiper of Images about Adrian's time, to gain repute to this Golden Statue, ascribed a greater Antiquity to it, than he ought (as was usual in such cases,) Baronius doth ill to represent it as a Wonder, that an Image was not stolen before it was made.

The respect that Childeric, a Pagan King of France, payed to St. Genovefa, and the Miracles that occasi∣oned it, depends on the Credit of Surius, and the Acts of that Virgin; so that the Matter of fact is very sus∣picious d; and the large reflexion upon it is as frivo∣lous, in representing a Heathen King as more pious than those (whom he calls) Hereticks, for venerating and worshiping the Saints; for his Story proves nothing of his worshiping a Saint departed; and if any li∣ving Saints could now be found in their Church, I dare say, the very Hereticks would give them great respect.

That Apparition of the Blessed Virgin to Leo before he was Emperor, which the Annalist describes so pro∣lixly, hath no other nor better Author than Nicephorus, who lived long after this Age, and is by this very Historian often censured for a fabulous Writer e. Again, to justifie an improbable Story of Caesarius while he was but a young Bishop, imperiously commanding a greater and much elder Bishop than himself, (Euche∣rius Bishop of Lyons) to work a Miracle, taken out of a corrupted piece of Caesarius his Life; He rejects the Chronology of Gennadius, and talks of supposing two Bishops of Lyons, named both of them Eucherius d, though no ancient Author mention any such thing.

The Relation of an Angels visibly waiting on St. Marcellus, when he and his Monks went to Petition the Emperor against the making an Arrian, Caesar; is cun∣ningly contrived: For the Author notes, that of all the company, only some few witnesses fore ordained of God, who had clearer Eyes than the rest, saw this Angel e. And Zonaras (a more credible Writer than the Deviser of these Acts,) who mentions the Story, never heard of this Apparition at all f. However, if these few sharp∣sighted Gentlemen designed to impose upon the rest of the Monks, the Plot was well laid, that none but they should discern the Angel.

The Miracle of the Beam of Light, appearing at the Election of St. Remigius, the Apostle of the French, is very suspicious, because Sidonius who knew and ad∣mired him, and lived at the same time, is silent; and the report is fetched from a Successor of his, who writ (or is pretended to have writ) this above 300 year after g.

Though Surius be one of his most common Authors for all his Legends, yet he confesses great defects, and many things which need correction, are found in his Colle∣ction h; and he in the same Page taxes Nicephorus to be Erroneous i, yet hath no better Authors than he and Metaphrastes, for the invention of the most Holy Gar∣ment of the Blessed Virgin, which yet no doubt the ig∣norant People of the Roman Communion do mighti∣ly adore k: Such another Evidence, is the Pratum Spirituale of Jo. Moschus (falsly ascribed to Sophronius;) yet out of this, he Records a very Scandalous Story; that the Blessed Virgin declared to a devout Votaress of hers, whom Zeno had abused by violence; That she could not take vengeance on him for his Lust, be∣cause this Emperor gave much Alms l; which teaches Rich Men how to continue as filthy as they please, and be secured against the Divine Vengeance, if any be so weak as to credit it.

It shews great partiality for any Story about the Re∣licks of the Saints, in that Baronius rejects all the cir∣cumstances mentioned by Theodorus Lector about the Relicks of St. Eustatius, and yet will have us believe the solemn removal of them to Antioch; whereas we have reason to respect the Story it self to be false, when the sole Author was grosly mistaken, both in the time and effects of translating the Relicks m. But the business of the Annalist was, to defend and allow every thing that seemed to make the veneration of Re∣licks ancient.

Nothing is more evident in this Age, than that the Emperors or the Gothish Kings; yea, the Praefacts of Rome made Rules for the Election of the Popes, and

either confirmed or annulled them: But whereas there is a Decree about Elections at Rome, made in the va∣cancy of the See, by the Roman Clergy and Basilius the Praefect, which seems to be very genuine n; Baronius rejects it, by the bare Authority of a Synod that hath been forged, (as shall be shewed) on purpose to persuade the World, that Princes had nothing to do in the Ele∣ction of Popes.

The Story of the Apparition of St. Michael at Mount Garganus, is cited only out of a late Author, viz. Sige∣bert, who lived above 600 year after this time: And therefore the Cardinal ought not to have been so nice, in mending a gross mistake in the Relation, (which shews the ignorance of the Inventor of this Fable, (but rather to have rejected the whole Fiction so absurdly related, and so ill attested (o).

With like industry Baronius defends two most ridicu∣lous Fables about Images, which Jo. Damascen cites out of Theodoret's Ecclesiastical History, and yet the Facts happened (as is pretended in the Reign of Anastasius,) who was not Emperor till 30 year after Theodoret's death p. Now rather than lose such Evidence for the Veneration of Images, the Annalist falls to gues∣sing, who was the true Author of these Fables; and first he thinks it was Theodorus Lector; but he writ in Anastasius his time, who ordered this Picture to be made, so that he could not speak of this, as an old Piece spoiled with moisture: Wherefore at last he finds another Theodoret, besides the famous Bishop of Cyrus, but knows neither where nor when he lived: So that such an obscure Writer is not a sufficient Witness to make great improbabilities credible; yet he takes this for a mighty and clear Miracle, wrought by God at Con∣stantinople in the East, on purpose to confute the Arrian Princes then Reigning in Africa, Italy and Gaul q; Who in all probability never heard of this Story, and would much sooner have believed it, if it had been done in their own Country.

It is very improbable, that later Authors should know so exactly all the little Acts, Sayings and Miracles of St. Benedict, and yet differ almost 30 year about the year of his Birth; nor are they agreed about his Age and Death. This minds me of a Comical Authors remark upon such as pretend to Pray and Preach Ex∣tempore by an Hour-glass—As if the Spirit could teach them what to say; but not how much—It is (doubtless) a strong suspicion that most of the Relations were in∣vented after the time of this Saint, (little noted in his own days) was forgotten. Yet I see not how the time of writing the Dialogues (called) Gregory's, should prove Marianus, Scotus, Sigebert and Trithemius mistaken, in saying Benedict was born in the year 507: Because if Gregory the second (which is very probable,) were the Author of those fabulous Dialogues, he was made Pope An. 714. (in an Age of Legends,) and so Bene∣dict dying, An. 603, might have four Abbots his Suc∣cessors, before this heap of Fables was put together, which are very unworthy of Gregory the 1st Pope r. It is worth noting, that this Benedict despised Learn∣ing and Study, and ran away from School s; an ill Omen, that his followers the Monks should help to ruin all polite literature, and bring in that ignorance which co∣vered all Christendom for many Ages: For what other could be expected from such a Founder, that was know∣ingly ignorant, and wisely unlearned (as this Gregory speaks?) But it was not only his Case; for St. Francis, another Founder of Monkery, bids his Followers—if they cannot Read, never to learn any Letters, but above all to take heed they may be inspired with the Spirit t: Yea, he makes reading much, and getting Books, to be one of his bad signs u. These illiterate Patrons were fit to lead on an Army of Ignoramus Fryers, to extinguish the Light of Learning, that their false Doctrins and cheat∣ing Practices might pass undiscovered in the darkness they had made.

Further, we may observe, that the Cardinal severe∣ly Taxes Trithemius, and other Monkish Writers, for

falsly feigning that many Eminent Men, who preceded Benedict in time, were Monks of his Order, out of a blind Zeal to set up its glory w. But he considers not, that the same blind Zeal hath put these Authors, (out of whom he brings innumerable Stories,) upon say∣ing very false things for the glory of their Order, which probably never were done upon the face of the Earth. So that he should have better Authority than these partial Monks, for the Miracles of their own Saints.

Theodorus Lector heaped up many scattered Reports without care, and is not of the best credit, especially in case of Relicks; but his single Testimony is enough, to make Baronius believe, That God takes care of a dead Saints Bones, in an Earthquake, which probably might swallow up many living Saints x, who often suffer in such Common Calamities.

Those Miracles of St. Remigius, which are impiously equalled to them that the Apostles wrought y, have no better evidence than two Authors, (Aimonius and Hincmarus,) who writ about 400 year after: For that Epistle of Hormisda, wherein that Pope makes Remi∣gius his Legate, is (like the rest of that kind,) a mani∣fest Forgery: For he mentions Clovis, the modern name of Ludovicus, as if he were the King of France, and newly Baptized; whereas Clovis died at least four year before Hormisda was Pope, and was Baptized near twenty year before this Letter is pretended to be writ. From which Examples, (though but few) it appears Baronius his evidence for Miracles, and other things that tend to support the Superstitions of Rome, are generally forged, or suspicious Authors.

§. 2. But when he cites genuine Writers in such Points, he often corrupts their Sense, and sometimes their Words: For instance, Baronius pretends, that an intire Edict of Marcian's is imperfect, meerly because he cannot find in it any particular expressions, to take away the Primacy of the See of Constantinople z.

Whereas this Edict clearly confirms the Canon of Chalcedon, which had given the second place to Con∣stantinople, by this very Emperor Marcian's consent: And it is something odd, that our Annalist by meer fancy, should assert even with confidence, than an Em∣peror of the East should revoke by an Edict, and a Bishop of Constantinople renounce a Priviledge granted by that same Emperor, and in a General Council, to that Church, a few years before.

Again, He insinuates that St. Severine allowed the Worship of Saints departed, now used in the Roman Church a: But the Authors he cites, Euagrius and Eugippius, though they writ many years after St. Se∣verine's death,) have not one word of any deliverance by the praying to Saints: But one of them saith, they were freed from the Famin by the Providence of God: And the other affirms, they praised God for hearing St. Severine's Prayers in this Calamity: So that Severine prayed only to God, and the People of that Age praised him alone: And how can this excite the Posterity of that Nation at this day to pray to St. Severine so long after his decease?

What Victor saith of those, who suffered death by the Arrian Persecution in Africa, That the Romans would count them Martyrs b, must be meant either of the Roman Captives in Africk, or of the Roman Church in Italy, who looked on these Sufferers as their Brethren, and of the same Faith, and so reckoned them Martyrs: But to stretch this Phrase, to signifie, that then the words [Roman] and [Catholick] were of the same import, is very unreasonable, and what Victor never dreamed of.

'Tis very suspicious, that Ecdicius did not get his wonderful Victory over the Goths by praying to St. Martin, because that History is related by two Au∣thors, one very Authentick, that is, Sidonius, who might have been, and probably was an Eye-witness, who doth not once name St. Martin: The other Gre∣gory of Tours, that lived near 150 years after, and he mentions it indeed, as done by the invocation of the

Saint of his Church c. But Baronius in the next year taxes him with writing things that could not be credi∣ted d. Wherefore, he should rather have drawn his conclusion from the living and certain Historian, if Truth had been the business of these Annals.

The Emperor Leo's Edict, is solely designed for the keeping holy the Lords-days, which are the Festivals, properly dedicated to the Majesty of the Most High. But the Annalist expounds this of all Feast-days e, to give more colour to the scandalous usage of their Church, where more reverence is given to a little Saints-day, than to the Sunday, which from the Crea∣tion, or however, from the Apostles times, was most religiously kept to the Honour of God himself, as the principal time of his most solemn Worship.

Baronius also wrongs Zeno the Emperor, in saying, that his Edict for Union did Anathematize the Council of Chalcedon f: For the words of the Edict shew the contrary, since Zeno only Anathematizes them, who believed not according to the Nicene Creed, whether in the Council of Chalcedon, or in any other Council; and the Cardinal himself in the next page, only char∣ges Zeno, with tacitly abrogating the Council of Chalce∣don g; and Liberatus affirms, the Emperor was angry with John Talaia, for not relishing the Council of Chal∣cedon h: Yea, the Zealots against this General Coun∣cil, at Alexandria, renounced the Communion of Peter; because by subscribing this Edict of Union, he had refused openly to Anathematize the Council of Chalce∣don i; all which shews, that this Edict did not con∣demn that Council.

Liberatus saith no more, but that the Papers were taken away, lest they should be delivered to the Catholicks, to whom they were written: But Baronius out of this affirms, That the Pope writ to the Clergy, the Monks and Orthodox Laity k, (as if he had seen the Titles of the several Letters,) and cites Liberatus for his Evidence.

In like manner he brings in the words of Liberatus, after a Fictitious Letter of a Roman Synod: And cites him thus, These Letters being given to Acacius, he would not receive them, &c. l. By which one would imagine, that Liberatus had attested this feigned Syno∣dical Letter; but this Author speaks only of that E∣pistle of Foelix, which Baronius had cited three pages before m, and knew nothing of any Synodical E∣pistle.

Thus he cites part of an Oration made at the dedi∣cation of a Church, which had been an Idols Temple, but now was consecrated to the memory of Christ, and of St. Peter and St. Paul; and though there be not one Syllable in the words cited of any worship of Saints, yet Baronius concludes, that this is enough to intimate, that the worship of the Saints did always flourish, not only among the Bishops of this new dedicated Church, but among all Catholicks n: But he must be very willing to believe a false Doctrin, that will receive it from a bold Conclu∣sion, that hath no Premisses.

Again, To give credit to a Relation of St. Michael's appearing and being worshiped at Rome in this Age, he cites a Poet, who says nothing of the worship of St. Michael; and he would also insinuate, that this Dre∣panius lived about this time o, to make this Supersti∣tion seem more ancient: Whereas it is well known, that Drepanius Florus writ about the year 650, that is, 150 year after this Age, and 50 year after Pope Gregory p, at which time many Corruptions and gross Ignorance were visible in the Church.

We may also note, That Baronius corrects Marcellinus's Chronicle, about the ingress of Pope Anastasius, out of the Pontifical; whereas Marcellinus lived at that time, and brought down his Chronicle to the year 534, and so is a very credible Author q. But in the same page our Annalist shews, how grosly the Pontifical is mista∣ken in point of time, speaking of things as done un∣der one Pope, that were done under another; and af∣firming such and such Facts done to Persons, that were

dead long before r: Yet not only here, but in many places this mistaken Author is the sole Standard of Ba∣ronius his Chronology. And whereas Theodorus Lector, (who writ An. 518.) expresly saith, King Theodorick called a Synod at Rome s: The Cardinal rejects his Testimony, and out of the Pontifical and some spurious Acts, affirms, that Pope Symmachus called this Synod t: For those are the best Authors that speak of their side.

§. 3. With like artifice our Author conceals some part of the Truth, which might prejudice his Cause: As for instance, he notes as a peculiar piece of impudence and madness in Timothy Aelurus, the Invader of the See of Alexandria, that he darted forth his Anathema's against the Roman Bishops, and makes a dismal represen∣tation of that Crime u: But the Epistle which relates the Story, saith, he Anathematized Anatolius Arch-bishop of Constantinople, and Basilius of Antioch, as well as Leo Bishop of Rome w: So that there is no reason to conceal that in his Recapitulation, but only to make the Pope look higher, and greater than he was in those days.

Liberatus (no doubt) was better informed what pas∣sed at Alexandria, than Leo could he at Rome; so that his account that Timothy Aelurus was immediately sent into Banishment by the Emperor from Alexandria, is far more credible, than that which Baronius deduces from Pope Leo's Letters, of his coming first to Constan∣tinople: But the Cardinal corrects Liberatus by Conje∣ctures, meerly to persuade the World, that the Empe∣ror obeyed the Pope x in Banishing that Heretick; whereas the Writers of that time say, he did it by ad∣vice of a Synod at Constantinople.

It is also observable, that when he speaks of Epi∣stles writ, or Messages sent to the Bishop of Rome by any new Patriarch, he always adds, de more, according to Custom y; But though it was as much according to Custom, for every new Patriarch to write to the Bi∣shop

of Constantinople, or to him of Antioch, &c. to no∣tifie his Election, and declare his being in the Com∣munion of the Catholick Church z; Yet there Baronius leaves out thole words, according to Cu∣stom.

§. 4. But there are more Instances of his obscuring the Truth by false reasoning, and particularly by sup∣posing things as certain, which are not proved, and then making Inferences from thence, and offering such Conclusions for manifest Truths. Thus upon Supposition that the Pope was then above the Em∣peror, and that nothing relating to the Church could be done without the Roman Bishop; He introduces an Edict of Marcian's, with a Letter of Pope Leo's, and with this Phrase, The Emperor Marcian obeyed Pope Leo a. Whereas that Letter of Leo hath no relati∣on to the Edict, and is an humble Petition to the Emperor to get his Letter to Flavian well translated into Greek, and sent to Alexandria, to clear him from an imputation of Heresie falsly laid to his charge: But the Edict takes no notice of Leo, or his Epistle, or of the Roman Church, but charges the Alexan∣drians to follow the Nicene Faith, as it was proses∣sed by their own Bishops, Athanasius, Theophilus and Cyril b: And though there be a mistake in the Month, the Year is right, and it is dated three years after Leo's Epistle to Marcian c: But the Cardinal alters the date, and would add to the Sense, only to support his mistaken Supposition.

Anatolius, Bishop of Constantinople, might perhaps re∣gulate some of the Officers or Clergy of his Church, at the request of Pope Leo; but it doth not appear, that either Leo did pretend to command Anatolius, nor that Anatolius owned he had any Authority over him: And it is certain, that for all Leo's huffing, the Patri∣archs of Constantinople did keep the place and privi∣ledges granted by the Council of Chalcedon: So that the Cardinals Inferences grounded on supposing, that

Leo exercised jurisdiction over, and took away the Priviledges from Anatolius d, are not only weak, but very absurd.

He supposes Acacius was the Enditer of an Edict of Leo the Emperor, touching the Priviledges of the See of Constantinople, and then harangues upon his Am∣bition, and severely taxeth his Pride e. But he brings no proof but his own conjecture, that Acaoius did pro∣cure this Edict: Yet if he did, it only confirms the ancient Priviledges of that See, and those it was then in possession of; and if this make him appear proud as Lucifer (as the Cardinal intimates:) How many Edicts with ten times loftier Stiles have the Popes procured or forged, to set up and support their Supremacy? Yet we find no censures of them, nor no inferences, but in their commendation.

It is a false supposition, that Acacius was stirred up by the Letters of Pope Simplicius to oppose the Here∣tical attempts of the Usurper Basiliscus: For (as we have proved before,) Simplicius flattered this Tyrant, at the same time when Acacius moved by his own Zeal for the Catholick Faith, opposed him f. But it is the Cardinals design, to make all good Deeds owe their original only to the Popes, and to blacken all that Acacius did, because he would not truckle to the Papal Chair: Otherwise, when Basiliscus doth no more but restore the Rights that Constantinople had before his time, (as the words of the Edict shew g; and Theodorus Lector affirms nothing, but that the Rights of that See were restored; why should it be a Crime in Acacius to procure this Confirmation from Basiliscus? I dare say, Baronius thinks it no fault in Boniface, to get the Primacy of Rome established by Phocas, a Bloodier Tyrant and greater Usurper than Basilis∣cus.

A little after, upon the bare Affirmation of an in∣terested and partial Pope, he saith, Acacius governed the Eastern Provinces by a power delegated from the Pope h; and upon this supposition he explains the

lapsed Asian Bishops Supplication to him, as if it was on the account of his being the Popes Legate: But no∣thing can be falser; for if Acacius would have submit∣ted to such a Delagation, the Popes and he had ne∣ver fallen out; so that nothing is more certain, than that he ever despised such a delegated power, and ex∣ercised jurisdiction over those Asian Bishops by an Authority granted him by Councils and Imperial rescripts, That is, by as good right as the Pope had in Italy.

Another false supposition is, that Timothy the Or∣thodox Bishop of Alexandria, sent the Petition of such as had fallen in the time of his heretical Predeces∣sors, to Rome to beg Pardon, and to desire they might be readmitted into the Church; and thence he infers, That the absolution from the crime of Heresie, was wont to be reserved to the Pope i. A Note so false and absurd, that we must suppose those Millions of Hereticks, which on their repentance were absolved all the World over, in all Ages, without consulting the Pope; were not rightly absolved, if this were True: But he builds it on a Rotten Foundation; The Letter of Simplicius, (whence he deduces it) saying no more, but that this Timothy of Alexandria had sent him a Copy of this Petition, to shew upon what terms he had readmit∣ted them to the Communion of the Church; and the Pope thought his proceedings were unexceptionable: But there is not a word of their desiring a Pardon from Rome, or of the Popes granting it; much less of that Patriarchal Church of Alexandria's wanting power to reconcile its own Members; which was set∣led on it by the Council of Nice, as amply as the Ro∣man Churches was.

Soon after he supposes, no Election of a Patriarch of Alexandria or Antioch was good and valid, unless it were confirmed by the Pope: Now he draws this consequence from a Letter of Simplicius, which only says, that upon Zeno the Emperors charging John Talaia the elect Bishop of Alexandria with Perjury, (who had

endeavoured to get the Pope to own his Communion) Simplicius would not confirm him, upon so eminent a Persons objection k. Which confirming, signifies no more than the Popes giving him Communicatory Let∣ters as to an Orthodox Bishop; which was requisite for every Patriarch to grant to any New-Elected Patriarch as well as the Pope: And that it signifies no more is plain from hence, because though afterwards this John's election was approved at Rome; yet that confir∣mation did not make him Bishop of Alexandria: So that a Papal confirmation in those days gave no Bishop a Title, and was no more but a Testimonial of their Com∣municating with him at Rome, and judging him Ortho∣dox: And John Talaia desired such a Confirmation as this from Acacius as well as from the Pope, as Li∣beratus affirms l; and the miscarriage of those Letters, it seems was one reason why Acacius opposed his Electi∣on.

He reckons up a great many things (in his opinion) grievous Crimes done by Zeno the Emperor, but that (saith he) which is more odious than all the monstrous wicked∣nesses is, that an Emperor should establish a Decree about mat∣ters of Faith m. Now this is all on supposition, that Princes are not to meddle in the setling the True Reli∣gion: But if he look into Sacred or Ecclesiastical Story, he shall find nothing hath been more usual, than for the most Religious Princes to confirm the true, and condemn false Religions; and therefore if this Uniting Edict of Zeno were Orthodox (of which we do not now dispute) the making it was no Crime as all.

The next Year, he repeats the Story of John Talaia his appealing to the Pope; and because in this Age they have made him the Supreme Judge over the whole Church, Baronius saith he appealed to him as to the law∣ful Judge n. But Liberatus, out of whom he hath the Story, shews he applyed to the Pope only as an Inter∣cessor, and persuaded him to write to Acacius in his behalf: And indeed the Popes definitive Sentence in those days, would have done him no good: Wherefore,

he only desired he would use his interest in Acacius, to reconcile him to the Emperor; but all in vain: Which shews that the Eastern Church did not then believe the Pope was a lawful Judge in this Case. It is a bold stroke, under such a Pope as Simplicius (who submitted to the Eastern Emperors, who (in Baronius Opinion) were Schismaticks, and to the Arrian Gothic Kings in I∣taly, and who could purge his own City from Here∣sie, but connived at the Arrians who possessed neer half Rome); for the Historian to brag, that the Popes Ma∣jesty and Authority shined as bright as under Constantine, or Theodosius o; and as vain a boast, that their Uni∣versal Power was as great under Pagan persecuting Em∣perors as at any other time: For he never hath nor ne∣ver can make this out; and the History of all Ages shews that the Popes power was very inconsiderable at first, and grew up by degrees; being larger or narrower in old times, as it happened to be savoured or opposed by Kings and Emperors: But it was never very great, till the Popes had ruined both Empires of the East and West.

From this immoderate conceit of the Papal Authori∣ty in that Age, proceeds that mistaken observation, That Pope Foelix and Gelasius rejecting the Books of Faustus Rhegiensis, was more than all the pious and learned Writings of S. Caesarius, S. Avitus and the famous Fulgen∣tius, who in peculiar Tracts confuted Faustus p: They must be very good blind Catholicks doubtless, who re∣ject an Opinion rather upon the bare Authority of the Pope, than upon the solid Aurguments from Scripture, Reason and Antiquity, urged by the most famous Or∣thodox Writers.

Baronius taking it for granted, that to be a Catholic and to be in Communion with the Roman Church is one and the same thing; wonders that the Orthodox in the East should communicate with Euphemius the Orthodox Bi∣shop of Constantinople, and main defender of the Coun∣cil of Chalcedon, who did not communicate with the Bishop of Rome: And hence he supposes the Eastern

Catholicks were in the dark, and could not distinguish Friends from Foes q. Whereas, it is the Annalists pre∣judices that put him into this Mist: The Catholicks of the East cleerly saw their great Patriarch was truly Or∣thodox, and knew no such Principle as the Cardinal dreams of: Wherefore they did not think an Orthodox Bishop less Orthodox, because Rome rejected him for not submitting to their Usurpations. So that this instance utterly confutes his Supposition, and shews how unjust∣ly he calls us and others Hereticks, meerly for not sub∣mitting to the Popes Supremacy, though we hold the Articles of the Catholic Faith in all other Points.

Of this we have a further proof in the next Year, when Elias Bishop of Jerusalem (owned by Baronius for a good Catholick r, while the Quarrel continued between the Bishops of Rome and Constantinople (which that Author Taxes as a Schism upon both sides). This Elias communicated only with Euphemius, and is highly commended for so doing; since Euphemius was a sound Catholic, and defended the Council of Chalcedon s. Baronius indeed pretends Euphemius was not yet condem∣ned by Gelasius t; but his Predecessor had condem∣ned Acacius and all that were his partakers, and Gelasius was hotter in this Quarrel than Foelix; which Elias of Hierusalem knew, and yet took the contrary side to the Popes, as the safer for a good Catholic: Therefore it could not be the opinion of that Age, that holding Com∣munion with Rome, was necessary to denominate a man a good Catholick, or to free him from the guilt of Schism.

To conclude these examples, Who can value all those Pompous Consequences which he draws about the Popes Supremacy, Appeals, &c. from the vain brags of an Ambitious Bishop of Rome u, which were despised by those to whom he sent them, and ought not to be regarded by us, who know his partiality, and consider he speaks in his own cause w? But we may note, this is the best evidence they have; and therefore they must make as much of it as they can. Our Lord Jesus did not desire to bear witness to himself x; But his pre∣tended

Vicar, (knowing the weakness of his claim) most unjustly Decrees; That when the Priviledges of the Apo∣stolick See are in question, he will not have any Judge of them but himself y. And if he be Party, Witness and Judge, we may guess which way the Cause will go.

§. 5. In the next place we will note some of those absur∣dities and contradictions, wherein his Zeal to serve a par∣ty hath intangled this learned Historian: For Example;

The Cardinal brings in Leo opposing the advance∣ment of Jerusalem to a Patriarchate, and taxes Juvenalis the Bishop there, for arrogating this Primacy to him∣self z; Forgetting that he himself had declared, that the Council of Chalcedon had setled this Primacy upon him a. As for what he produces out of Leo, that Cyril writ to him against this, and with earnest Prayers desired him to oppose it; either Leo feigns this Story, or the Epistle is suspicious; since it is very unlikely that so great a Bishop as St. Cyril, should write so hum∣bly, as to beg a favour of Leo then but Arch-deacon of Rome b. But Leo did not like Juvenalis his ad∣vancement, and therefore Baronius must condemn it, though granted in a general Council: And though he say here, Juvenalis had nothing of a good Bishop in him, and sought the Primacy by evil arts and forged wri∣tings, contrary to the Nicene Council: Yet soon after he tells, that Simeon Stylites and the devout Euthymius, (the gratest Saints of that Age) gave Juvenalis a good Character, and charged the Empress Eudocia, to com∣municate with him c. I confess, I cannot easily un∣derstand how any Man can more evidently blow hot and cold, as occasion serves, than Baronius doth in these different Characters of the same Bishop.

He relates three wonderful, if not incredible Stories of St. Leo, and the last, though justified by an ancient Picture, (which is proof enough sometimes for a ser∣viceable Miracle), he utterly rejects as a Fable; The reason of which is, that the two former instances tended to the Popes credit, but this last reflected something

on his Memory: Otherwise we should have had some Author or other to attest it, at least as good as Sophroni∣us d: But this poor Fable wants a Father, and issaid to be unworthy of Christian Ears, and to want all ancient Authority.

It is observable, that those which he calls the most faithful Acts of Daniel Stylites (and would have this Saint pass for a Prophet) relate, that after a great Fire was begun in the City of Constantinople, and other en∣deavours to quench it proved vain; they went to Daniel to pray for them, who foretold them, that the Fire should cease after seven days, and so it came to pass e: Yet Euogrius a more credible Author saith, The Fire endured but four days, and some say six f: But his Faithful Acts will have it burn seven days after the Citizens came to Daniel. We may note also, That these Legends as∣cribe the saving the whole City, one to Daniel's, ano∣ther to St. Mercellus his Prayers, a third brings in St. Marcian's Prayers, as the means of preserving one Church g: And Baronius calls all these, consentientia dicta, agreeing Reports: But an impartial Historian would have discerned the difference, and rejected them all as Fictions h: For Truth is one, but Fables have infinite varieties.

He makes a severe reflexion upon the Emperor Leo, for making an Eutychian Heretick his Admiral, and imputes the loss of the Fleet to that sinful choice, and his tolerating of Hereticks i. But unless he could prove all Tolerating Princes were conquered, and all Heretical Generals beaten, there is no strength in the reflexion: Besides, he forgets that his Majestick Pope Simplicius tolerated the Arrians, who about this time possessed almost half the City of Rome k, and yet he makes no remark of any Judgment on him.

There are many Evidences, that Baronius did not understand Greek, and one instance of it is, that when he had named the Heretical Bishop of Antioch, Petrus Cnapheus, (that is in Greek) Peter the Fuller, he adds of his own, idem{que} Fullo nuncupatus est l, the same Man is called also Peter the Fuller.

That Baronius is mistaken as to Ambrosius Aurelia∣nus m, who was saluted Emperor in Britain, both as to the person and time, is made evident by our lear∣ned Country man Archbishop Usher n: To whom the Reader is referred, for a more exact account of that famous Man.

It is very impertinent in Baronius, to upbraid the Re∣formed Christians of these days, with the miraculous Confession of the Orthodox in Africa, whose Tongues being cut out by the cruel Arrians, they still spoke plainly, and owned the true Faith o: For we con∣fess the same Faith that they did, and have the same and no more Sacraments: But though these Bishops did then say, they held the Faith that then was held in the Roman Church, that belongs not to the pre∣sent Romanists, who have added new Articles to their Creed, new Sacraments, and set up many new Ob∣jects for Worship: So that if those African Martyrs and Confessors were now alive, they would no more own these than they did the Vandals.

The censure of Nicephorus, who lived in a supersti∣tious Age, and the Fictions devised in the second Nicene Council to support Image-worship, are no way credi∣ble. Xenaias (if ever there were such a Man,) was not the first, who said the Images of Christ and the Saints were not to be adored; and it seems by his affir∣ming, that Worship in Spirit and Truth was only accepta∣ble to Christ p, that he had Read the holy Scripture more considerately than those at Rome now, who over∣look the second Commandment, and many other pla∣ces which expresly condemn their Idolatry: So that for ought appears from any Author of his time now extant, this Xenaias was an Orthodox Christian, how∣ever in this point.

Baronius hath missed Binius and others, touching the Age of Faustus the Semi-pelagian, as also the time of the two Councils in France, relating to his Opini∣ons q. But these and some other Errors are learned∣ly and acurately corrected by the famous Vossius in

his Pelagian History, to which I refer the Reader r, for his own satisfaction.

How often doth our Annalist censure the Eastern Emperors and Patriarchs, for tolerating Hereticks? How many dreadful Judgments (in his way of inter∣preting Providence) doth he note, came upon them for this single Crime? Yet here we have an Heretical Em∣peror tolerated all his Reign for 17 year together, and his name allowed in the Dypticks, by many Succes∣sive Popes, for near 30 year after his death s. Surely he will not own so many Infallible Guides, before Hormisda, were ignorant of Zeno's Heresie; and if they did know it, their fault in tolerating him, and owning his Memory is much greater: How much so ever, therefore he would magnifie his Roman Bishops care of the Catholick Faith, when Truth comes out, the Bi∣shops of Constantinople in this Age did more Service to the Faith, than the Popes; and Euphemius threatned A∣nastasius the Emperor into professing the right Faith while Foelix flattered him t; which is a good reason, why the pious Eastern Bishops chose to communicate with the Patriarchs of Constantinople rather than with the Popes, while the Churches were divided.

It seems the Emperor Anastasius in a controversie a∣bout the Sense of the Council of Chalcedon, falsly thought to procure Peace by imposing silence, both on the Ca∣tholicks and Hereticks: And he is censured for this vain hope u. But in a like case that happened afterward, Pope Vigilius also decreed (as he saith) both sides should keep silence; and this he calls a Prudent care to pre∣serve the Church from danger w: So that Baronius makes that to be praise-worthy in a Pope, which is a grievous Crime in any Body else: Such partiality is very unbecoming in any Writer, but chiefly in an Historian.

He gives it us, as an ingenious Argument of Pope Gelasius, That the cause between him and Acacius could not be judged at Constantinople, where the same persons were Enemies, Witnesses and Judges x: But this Pope aim∣ing

at his Adversary, like an unskilful Fencer hits him∣self: For this is a very strong Reason, why Acacius his Cause should not be judged by the Pope, an Enemy, a Witness and a Judge.

When a most pious Bishop, the main support of the Catholick Cause was deposed and banished, viz. Eu∣phemius, the Annalist saith, he deserved to be abdicated by Gods just Judgment, for not obeying the Popes in abdi∣cating Acacius his Name—and he pretends the Fathers say, there can be no Confessors or Martyrs out of the Ro∣man Churuh y. Whereas Cyril the Monk, cited by our Historian saith, Euphemius was impiously deposed from his See, and exclaims against the wicked injustice of this Fact z; which this Mans prejudice makes him call Gods just Judgment. But God doth not punish Men for that which is no fault; and it was none in Euphemius, not to submit to the Pope's most unjust claim of a Superiority over his Church, which had been exempted by two General Councils from all subjection, and advanced to the second place among the Patriarchs. As for his other assertion, no Father of credit can be produced, that did appropriate Mar∣tyrdom, or Confessorship to those in Communion with Rome: Yea, this very Age produced a great many Bishops and holy Monks, such as Elias, Daniel Stylites, St. Sabas, &c. who did not communicate with the Pope, but took part (in this contest) with Euphemius, who then were and still are (even by Baronius) called Martyrs and Consessors. Yea, the Cardinal himself asserts, that those who were slain, or suffered any thing in a petty contest at Rome, meerly about the choice of a Pope, were Martyrs and Confessors a, though no Article of Faith came into the dispute: And doubtless, he cannot rob these Eastern Martyrs and Confessors, (who suffered by Hereticks only for the true Faith) of their deserved Titles.

In like manner he uses Paschasius, a learned and pious Roman Deacon, who never separated from the Ca∣tholick Church; but when two ambitious Candidates,

scandalously strove for the Papal Chair, he chanced to take the less fortunate side: And this he counts dying in Schism, and (without any Authority) takes it for grant∣ed, that he repented of it before his death, because otherwise he thinks it was impossible he should be sa∣ved b. The ground of these remarks is an idle Le∣gend, out of the fabulous Dialogues ascribed to St. Gregory: But the Principles (of making it Schism and a mortal Sin to mistake in a Popes Election) are his own.

To conclude this sort of observations, it is very hard that Symmachus should long expect Letters from Anastasius the Emperour, more majorum c; when the controversie was yet scarce decided, who was Pope, he or Lauren∣tius. 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 ex∣cursions 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 incar∣nate d. Yet at last his greatest Crime is, (in com∣parison of which all his other faults were light ones,) he opposed the Pope! who attempted to usurp a Juris∣diction 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 Em∣peror who stood by his own Bishop in this just Cause, cannot escape many severe lashes from this partial Hi∣storian, who frequently goes out of his way and takes every little occasion e to aggravate his Miscarriages, yea, to rail at him without any cause.

It is agreed by all impartial Historians, that the Em∣peror 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 f. And how they strugled to keep those Liberties many years after, may be seen in a late Eminent Author g. But Baronius, who allows a thousand Forgeries for Rome, every where disputes against this Priviledge, and con∣demns all that the Bishops of Ravenna did h: 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 i. But besides that his Witness is a party, we may note, the Pri∣viledges were so large, that we may be sure the Ro∣man 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 k. 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 observa∣tion, 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) se∣cured, till Time and Discourse had made them sensible how ill an errand they came upon: So that being con∣vinced of the Justice of Acacius proceedings, they com∣municated with him, and let fall the Popes business.

I have touched that frivolous excursion about the worship of Images before l; I only note now, that if Petrus Cnapheus did oppose that idle Superstition in its first rise, he was more Orthodox than any who pro∣moted it, as to that point; And it may be the later Hi∣storians, 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 Genna∣dius, writ by some unknown hand, mentioning two Books, one of Honoratus Bishop of Marseils, approved by Gelasius, and another of Gennadius his own, pre∣sented 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 m: 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 De∣cree of Gelasius about Apocryphal Writings, it is a meer Imposture.

He complains of the Arrogance of the Constantino∣politan 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 n. 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 imagi∣nation.

§. 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 en∣quire 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 o: 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 Invasi∣ons, and reproaches the Reformed in France, who had burnt very many Monasteries and Churches, at which he thinks they may blush p. But doubtless, Lewis the 14th hath more cause for blushing, since he pro∣fesses that Religion that gives an extraordinary reve∣rence to Monasteries, and yet without scruple, Burns, Demolishes and Destroys often where he Con∣quers.

By a Letter writ to the Emperor Leo by Anatolius, it appears that the Eastern Emperors consulted the Bi∣shops of Constantinople in causes of Faith q: And or∣dered 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 appoint∣ing 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 himself begs of the Emperor, (not commands him, as our Historian words it,) to use this remedy to the Church, not only to degrade Heretical

Clerks, but to banish them from the City r; yet now they will not have Princes to judge or punish Clerks: Nor will Baronius allow the Emperor a Right to call a General Council without the Pope's consent: But the Letter of Pope Leo, from whence he infers this, shews, He was commanded by the Emperor to come to a Council, which Order the Pope reverently received, and wished he could have obeyed it; but modestly hopes to be ex∣cused by the Emperors approving the Reasons he offers, why there was no need of such a Council s. So that the Authority was then in the Emperor, and the Pope was to obey or excuse himself by just Reasons. And as to the confirmation, Pope Leo saith, The Council of Chalcedon was confirmed by the Authority of Marcian the Emperor, and by his consent t; yea, he owns, the definitions of that Council were above him; for what was defined there, he durst not call to a new scanning u: Thus things stood then, but Rome is now above this.

If it were so excellent and pious a Law, that none should force Women to be Nuns, nor any to be vailed till she were forty years old, till which Age she was to remain free to marry if she pleased w; How comes it to pass that nothing is more common now, than to carry young Women against their Wills into Nunne∣ries, and to make them take the Vows at fourteen or fifteen? These practices may be gainful, but they are very wicked, and contrary to the Laws both of Church and State, in elder and purer times.

We may observe a visible difference between the Prayers and Usages of holy Men in this ancient Age, and those of the modern times. St. Marcian takes the holy Gospel in his hand, and directs his Prayers only to Christ to avert a dreadful Fire x: But later Legends represent their modern Saints, taking up Crucifixes, Relicks or the Host, and praying to the blessed Virgin, or to deceased Saints in all cases of danger: So that any considering Reader may see, that the Primitive Wor∣ship was not like to that now used in the Roman Church.

Again, if the Matter of Fact be true, that Pope Hi∣lary forbid the Emperor Anthemius, to allow any Con∣venticles of the Macedonian Hereticks in Rome, for which we have no proof, but the boasting Letter of a Bigotted Pope, viz. Gelasius; yet (supposing this were so) the Note of the Annalist is very Erroneous, viz. That Heresies could not be planted at Rome so easily as at Con∣stantinople y. For Pelagius and Caelestius, who were as great Hereticks as Eutyches and Aelurus, were shel∣tered at Rome a long time z: And the Bishops of Constantinople did more against Eutyches and his Heresie, than the Popes against Pelagius: And since a little af∣ter, three parts of seven in Rome were Arrians, tole∣rated by the Pope, methinks we should not have the Purity of Rome extolled at this rate, as if no Weed of Heresie could grow there. It is but five years af∣ter this that Baronius himself owns, that Ricimer seized on St. Agathus Church in Rome, where he and the Arrians held their publick Assemblies in spight of the Popes a; who were not wont to oppose Princes who had great power, and only trampled on such as were weak.

In the Relation of Cyril the Monk, which Baronius so highly commends, it is not much for the credit of Rome, that a Catholick Bishop of Jerusalem, Martyrius, sends a Legate to the Emperor, to assist him in sup∣pressing the Eutychian Hereticks, and not the Pope: And that a Saint from Heaven should call Jerusalem the Mother of Churches b: For this Title is now whol∣ly appropriated to Rome. But as to the Embassy sent to the Emperor against the Hereticks, Martyrius took the right course; for Pope Simplicius in his Letter to the same Emperor saith, The Imperial Authority only can keep the Sheepfold of our Lords slock pure—from the contagion of Heresie c; which shews, the Pope's power was not considerable at that time.

It is something remarkable also, That Pope Foelix in his Letter to Zeno the Emperor, should affirm, That Eustathius Bishop of Antioch, was the President of those Three hundred and eighteen Fathers assembled at Nice d. For now they will allow no General Council to be Authentick, wherein the Bishop of Rome or his Legates do not preside.

The Romanists proceedings against the Reformed, at their Councils of Constance and Trent, where some were Burnt for a Terror, and the oppressed party who held the right Faith, were cited before their Adversa∣ries, who took upon them to judge in their own Cause; these proceedings (I say), were an exact Transcript of the Arrian Methods in Asrick, when they resolved under the cover of a Conference to suppress the Or∣thodox Catholicks e.

In the Story of finding St. Barnabas Relicks, we may observe all the Prayers and Hymns were directed only to God and Christ, not any to this or any other Saint; from which we may learn, That piece of Superstition, (which now makes up so great a part of the Roman Offices) was unknown to those Ages f; and St. Bar∣nabas declares, the chief Bishop of Cyprus is not subject to any Patriarch; he doth not except the Pope; so that this Apostle seems not to have believed St. Peter's Universal Supremacy.

Baronius presents us also, with a Confession of Faith made by one Lucidus, and approved by a Synod of Bishops, wherein he declares, that he believes Eternal Fire, and the Flames of Hell prepared for deadly Sins: But there is not one word of Purgatory g; which shews there was no such place invented, or at least be∣lieved by the Catholicks then: And the 7th Epistle of Pope Gelasius (as we noted) signifies, that he knew of no other places in the next World, but Heaven and Hell.

To conclude, the Annalist shuts up this Century with a Melancholy Note, That at this time there was not one Christian Catholick Prince in the World h. He might also have added, that all the Eastern Patriarchs were separated from the Communion of the Roman Church, (although three of them that were Orthodox communicated with one another i: And he might have noted also, that at this juncture there was no cer∣tain Pope; and an Heretical Prince was then Judge of the pretences of Symmachus and Laurentius, the Rivals for that See. But the true Faith can subsist as well with∣out a Pope, as without Orthodox Princes; the Church being founded on Christ that invincible Rock, against which the Gates of Hell can never prevail.

Notes

• An. Dom. 453.
• a

  Bin. Tom. 2. part. 1. p. 419. Lab. Tom. 4. Col. 1007.
• b

  Lab. col. 1010.
• c

  Bin. p. 420. Lab. col. 1020.
• (u) Bin. ut supr. Lab. col. 1021, &c.
• e

  Bin. pag. 420. Lab. Col. 1022. Bar. An. 453. n.
• f

  Baron. An. 453. n.
• g

  Bin. pag. 421. Lab. Col. 1054.
• An. Dom. 459.
• h

  Bin. pag. 425. Lab. Col. 1025.
• i

  Baron. An. 459. n.
• An. Dom. 461.
• l

  Vita Hilar. Bin. pag. 424. Lab. Col. 1029.
• m

  Baron. An. 464. n.
• n

  Bin. pag. 425, & 426. Lab. Col. 1034, & 1035.
• o

  Hilar. ep 2. Bin. pag. 426. Lab. Col. 1035.
• p

  Hilar ep. 3. Bin. pag. 427. Lab. Col. 1038.
• q

  Hilar. Ep. 4. Bin. pag. 427. Lab. col. 1039.
• r

  Hilar. Ep. 9. Bin. pag. 429. Lab. col. 1043.
• s

  Not. in Ep. 11. Bin. p. 431. Lab. col. 1047.
• t

  Concil. Rom. Bin. pag. 431. Lab. col. 1061.
• u

  Gennad. Catal. ap. Hie∣ron. Tom. 1. pag. 466. & opera Maxim. Turin. pag. 1.
• w

  Baron. An. 465. n.
• x

  Not. Bin. ut supra.
• y

  Baron. An. 465. n.
• An. Dom. 467.
• z

  Not. in vit. Simp. Bin. pag. 434. Lab. col. 1067.
• a

  Ibid. Bin. pag. 435. Lab. col. 1068.
• b

  Vit. Simplic. Bin. pag. 434. Lab. col. 1066.
• c

  Baron. An. 475. n.
• d

  Id. An. 476. n. 6. p. 318.
• e

  Baron. An. 471. n. &c,
• f

  Du Pin. Eccles. Hist. Vol. 4. p. 159.
• g

  Baron. An. 483. n. 19. pag. 374.
• h

  Idem An. 483. n. 8. p. 371.
• i

  Brev. Histor. Eutych. Lab. col. 1081.
• k

  Simplie. Ep. 1. Bin. pag 435. Lab. Col. 1068.
• l

  Idem Ep. 4. Bin. pag. 436. Lab. Col. 1071.
• m

  Theodor. Lect. collect. l 1. pag. 183.
• n

  Baron. An. 476. n. 16. & n. 23. pag. 320, 321.
• o

  Simplic. Ep. 5. Bin. pag. 437. Lab. col. 1073.
• p

  Not. in 8 E∣pist. Simplic. Bin. pag. 439. Lab. Col. 1079.
• q

  Cum jam biennio regna∣verat. Euag. ap. Baron. An. 477. N. Not Ten Months, as du Pin mistakes. pag. 160.
• r

  Bin. p. 439. Lab. col. 1080.
• s

  Simpl. Ep. 14. Bin. pag 441. Lab col. 1086. (malè 1034.)
• t

  Simplic. Ep. 16. Bin. p 442. Lab. col. 1036.
• u

  Baron. An. 482. n. 13. p. 357.
• w

  Baron. cod. An. n. 3. p. 355.
• An. Dom. 482.
• x

  Concil. Turon. Bin. pag. 443. Lab. col. 1049.
• y

  Gregor. Turon. lib. 10. cap. 31. p. 513.
• z

  Ap. Bin. habetur Anno 524. Lab. col. 1041.
• a

  Usher. Antiq. Britan. c. 13. pag. 229.
• An. Dom. 483.
• b

  Not. in vit. Fal. Bin. p. 445. Lab. col. 1047.
• c

  Theodor. Lect. collect. l. 2 pag 190.
• d

  Foelix Ep. 1. Bin. pag 446. Lab. col 1049.
• e

  Liberat. Brev. cap. 15. ap. Baron. An. 483. n. 1. p. 370.
• f

  Foelic. Ep. 2. Bin. pag. 448. Lab. col. 1053.
• g

  Ep. 4. Foelix, Bin. pag. 452. Lab. col. 1067.
• h

  Baron. An. 483. n. 54. p. 382.
• i

  Baron. An. 483. n. 68. pag. 385.
• k

  Foelic. Ep. 5. Bin. pag. 452. Lab. col. 1070.
• l

  Gelas. Ep. 1. Bin. 466. Lab. 1158. & Ep. 4. Bin. 471. Lab. 1171.
• m

  Foelic. Ep. 7. Bin. pag. 454. Lab. col. 1075.
• n

  Ibid. Ep. 7. Bin. pag. 455. Lab. col. 1077.
• o

  Bin. pag. 455. Lab. Ep. 9. col. 1083.
• p

  Foelic. Ep. 10. ap. Lab. col. 1085.
• q

  Vit. Foelic. 3. Bin. pag. 445. Lab. col. 1046.
• r

  Gelas. ep. 10. & Baron. An. 484. n. 21. pag. 395.
• s

  Foelic. ep. 12. Lab. col. 1086.
• An. Dom. 483.
• t

  Concil. Rom. 1. Bin. pag 455. Lab. col. 1095.
• At. Dom. 484.
• u

  Concil. 2. Rom. Bin. pag. 462. Lab. col. 1123.
• w

  Foelic. Ep. 6. Bin. pag 454. Lab. col. 1075.
• x

  Baron. An. 484 n. 30. pag. 397.
• y

  Bin. pag. 463.
• z

  Lab. col. 1127.
• a

  Ep. Synod. Bin. pag. 463. Lab. col. 1126.
• An Dom. 488.
• An. Dom. 492.
• b

  Vit. Gelas. Bin. pag. 464. Lab. col. 1154.
• c

  Gratian. decr. 3 par. de consec. dist. 2. cap. 12. p. 710.
• d

  Baron. An. 496 n. 21. pag. 510.
• e

  Bin. pag. 493 Lab. col. 1258.
• f

  Not. in vit. Gelas. Bin. pag. 465. Lab. col. 1156.
• g

  Fulgent. da Ferrand. Diac. cap. 18.
• h

  Bibl. Patr. Edit. Paris. Tom. 4. p. 522.
• i

  Baron. An. 496. n. 1. pag. 506, & n. 14. pag. 508.
• k

  Not. in vit. Gelas. Bin. pag. 465. Lab. col. 1156. Baron. An. 492. n. 6. p. 460.
• l

  Baron. An. 452 n. 6. p. 461.
• m

  Baron. An. 492. n. 27. pag. 465.
• n

  Gelas. ep. 1. Bin pag. 466. Lab. col 1157.
• o

  Baron. An. 492. n. 30. pag. 466.
• p

  Gelas. ep. 2. Bin. pag. 468. Lab. col. 1163.
• q

  Gelas. ep. 4. Bin pag. 470. Lab. col. 1168.
• r

  Baron. An. 483. n. 54. pag. 382.
• s

  Ep 4. in marg. versus sinem.
• t

  Gelas. ep. 5. Bin pag. 472. Lab. col. 1172.
• You never knew a single Sin Content Men, when their Hands are in.
• u

  Lab. col. 1092.
• w

  Gelas. ep. 6. Bin. pag. 472. Lab. col. 1173.
• x

  Baron. An. 493. n. 36. pag. 478.
• y

  Gelas. ep. 7. Bin. pag. 474. Lab. col. 1178.
• z

  Not. in Ep. 7, Bin. pag. 476. Lab. col. 1181.
• a

  Gelas. Ep. 8. Bin. & Lab. ut supra.
• b

  Ibid. Bin. pag. 476. Lab col. 1183.
• c

  Baron. An. 492. 11. 6. p 461.
• d

  Gelas. cp 9. Bin. pag 478. Lab. col. 1188.
• e

  Gelas. ep. 13. Bin. pag. 483. Lab. col.
• f

  Bellarm. de Concil. lib. 2. cap. 17. pag. 98.
• g

  Bel. de Concil. lib. 1. c. 13. pag. 24.
• h

  Lannoy lib. 5 ep. 4. pag. 518.
• i

  Baren. An. 495. n. 2, 3. pag. 500.
• k

  Ibid. n. 5.
• l

  Lab. marg. Col. 1200.
• m

  Baron. An. 495. n. 1. p. 500.
• n

  Gelas. ep. 14 & 15. Lab. col. 1212.
• o

  Ib. Lab. col. 1214.
• p

  Lab. col. 1107.
• q

  Euagr. Hist. lib. 3. cap. 7.
• r

  Id. ib. cap. 9.
• s

  Liberati B••ev. cap. 16, 17.
• t

  Epist. Petr. Al. apud Euagr. lib. 3. cap. 17.
• u

  Liberati. Brev. ut supr.
• w

  Deorum in∣juriae Diis curae. Dict. Tiber. Aug.
• x

  Suidas in (Acacio.)
• y

  Tract. 1. G••l. Bin. pag 489. Lab. col. 1232.
• z

  Baron. An. 496. n. 25. pag. 511.
• a

  Gelas. ep. 8. Bin. pag. 476. Lab. col. 1182.
• b

  Tract. 2. Gel. Bin. pag. 492. Lab. col. 1239.
• c

  Baron. An. 496. n. 27. pag 512.
• An. Dom. 494.
• d

  Concil. 1. Rom. Bin. pag. 500. Lab. col. 1260.
• e

  Lab. ibid. &c in Hormisd. col. 1557.
• f

  Lab. marg. col. 1260.
• g

  Gratian. Decret. par. 1. dist. 15. c. 3. pag. 20, &c. Et Lab. col. 1261.
• h

  See Lab. col. 1260. in marg. Cosen's Hist. of the Canon, pag. 123.
• i

  Bin. in not. pag 502. Lab. col. 1266.
• k

  Gelas. ep. 4. Bin. pag. 471. Lab. col. 1170.
• l

  Bin. p. 501. Lab. col. 1263.
• An. Dom 496.
• m

  Naucler. Chron. Gen. 17. pag. 694.
• n

  Not. in Vit. Anas. Bin. pag. 505. Lab. col. 1276.
• o

  Vit. Anas. ut supra.
• p

  Rolewine. sascic. Temp. fo. 53. Naucler. Chron. Gen. 17. p. 694. Platin. vit. An. Volatteranu:, &c.
• q

  Ivo Carnot. par. 14. cap. 40. Gratian decret. par. 1. dist. 19. c. 9.
• r

  Not. in vit. Anas. Bin pag. 506. Lab. col. 1278.
• s

  Epist. Anast. Bin. pag. 506. Lab. col. 1279.
• t

  Ibid. Bin. 507. Lab. col. 1280.
• u

  Gratian. decret. par. 1. dist. 19. cap. 7, & 8.
• w

  Memor. Bin. pag. 508. Lab. col. 1283.
• An. Dom. 498.
• x

  Vit. Symmac. Bin. pag. 509. Lab. col. 1286.
• y

  Not. Bin. pag. 510. Lab. col. 1288.
• z

  Not. ib. Bin. Lab. col. 1289.
• a

  Not. Bin. pag. 511. Lab. col. 1290.
• b

  Ennod. ap. Bin. pag. 528. & Lab. col. 1342. Baron. An. 502. n. 32.
• c

  Symmach. Epist. 1, & 2. Bin. pag. 511. Lab col. 1291.
• d

  Ep. 5. Bin. pag. 512. Lab. col. 1295.
• e

  Ep. 8. Bin. pag. 515. Lab. col. 1300.
• f

  Sym. Ep. 1. ut supra.
• g

  Concii. 1. Rom. Bin. pag. 519.
• h

  Sym. Ep. 7. Bin. pag. 514. Lab. col. 1298. Baron. An. 503. n. 17.
• a

  Baron. An. 1077.
• b

  Baron. An. 453. n. 47. pag. 191, 192.
• c

  Baron. An. 455 n. 3. pag. 203.
• d

  Baron. An. 456. n. 7. pag. 212.
• e

  Baron. An. 457. n. 4. pag 218.
• d

  Baron. An. 463. n. 6. 258.
• e

  Baron. An. 469. n. 4. 5. pag. 283.
• f

  Zonar. An∣nal. Tom. 3.
• g

  Baron. An. 471. n. 36. pag. 293.
• h

  Baron. An. 473. n. 4. p. 299.
• i

  Ibid. n. 10. p. 301.
• k

  Id. An. 474. n. 4. pag. 301.
• l

  Baron. ••••d. An. n. 10. p. 303.
• m

  Baron. An 482. n. 4 & 5. pag. 355.
• n

  Baron. An. 483. n. 10, &c. pag. 371.
• Baron. An. 493. n. 43. pag 480.
• p

  Baron. An. 494 n. 59. pag. 494.
• q

  Id. ibid. n. 66, &c. pag. 396.
• r

  Baron. An. 494. n. 70. pag. 497.
• s

  Id. ib n. 73.
• t

  Regula S. Fran cap. 8. pag. 28.
• u

  Idem ibid. pag. 91.
• w

  Baron. ibid. n. 78. pag. 498.
• x

  Baron. An. 499. n. 13. pag. 531.
• y

  Baron. An. 499. n. 27, 28, 29. pag. 534, 535.
• z

  Baron. Ar. 454. n. 12, &c 13. pag. 197.
• a

  Baron. An. 454. n. 29. pag. 202.
• b

  Baron. An. 456. n. 23. pag. 215.
• c

  Baron. An. 466. n. 10, 11, 12. pag. 271, 272.
• d

  I'd. An. 467. p. 11. pag. 275.
• e

  Baron. An. 469 n. 6, 7. pag. 284.
• f

  Baron. An. 482. n 30. pag. 361.
• g

  Id ib. n. 35.
• h

  Ibid. n. 36.
• i

  Id. ib. n. 43. pag. 364.
• k

  Baron. An. 483. n. 49. pag 381.
• l

  Baron. An. 484. n. 34. pag. 397.
• m

  Id. ib. pag. 394. n. 17.
• n

  Baron. An. 489. n. 15. pag. 440.
• o

  Baron. An. 493. n. 45. pag. 480.
• p

  Vid. Cave Tabul. Eccles. pag. 132. & Du Pin. Sect. 7. pag. 39,
• q

  Baron. An. 496. n. 55. pag. 518.
• r

  Id. ibid. n. 23.
• s

  Theod. Lector. collect. l. 2. pag 186.
• t

  Baron. An. 499. n. 1. p. 592.
• u

  Baron. An. 457. n. 28. pag. 224.
• w

  Ibid. n 25. pag. 223.
• x

  Baron. An. 460. n. 3, & 8. pag. 246, 247.
• y

  Baron. An. 482. n. 1. pag. 355.
• z

  Id. ib. n. 23, 24. pag. 359, 360.
• a

  Baron. An. 454 n. 4, 5, 6.
• b

  Baron. An. 454. n. 7. pag. 196.
• c

  Cod. Just. lib. 1. tit. 5. l. 8. pag 33.
• d

  Baron. An. 454 n. 14, 15. pag. 198.
• e

  Baron. An. 47 2. n. 3, & 4. pag. 294.
• f

  Baron. An. 476. n 46. pag. 326.
• g

  Id. ibid. n. 64.
• h

  Baron. An. 477 n. 13. pag. 334.
• i

  Baron. An. 478. n. 15, 16. pag 342.
• k

  Baran An. 482. n. 15. pag. 356.
• l

  Id. ibid n 23. pag 359.
• m

  Baron. An. 482. n. 25. pag. 360.
• n

  Baron An. 483. n 3 pag. 369.
• o

  Baron An. 483. n. 7. pag. 370, 371.
• p

  Baron. An. 490. n. 33. pag. 449.
• q

  Baron. An. 492. n. 46. pag. 470.
• r

  Baron. An. 512. pag. 610.
• s

  Baron. An. 493. n. 41. pag. 479.
• t

  Id. Ibid. n. 42. pag. 480.
• u

  Baron An. 495. n. 2. &c. pag. 500.
• w

  Nemo sibi & professor & testis est. Tertul. adver. Marc. l. 5. cap. 1.
• x

  John v. 31.
• y

  Decret. In∣nocent. 3. ap. Decretal. lib. 2. Tit. 1. cap. 12.
• z

  Baron. An. 454. n. 19. pag. 199.
• a

  Idem. An. 451. n. 124. pag. 154. Et Bin. Notis in Concil: Chal∣ced. Sess. 8. pag 414.
• b

  Id. ibid. n. 20, & 21 pag. 199, & 200.
• c

  Baron. An. 455. n. 19. pag. 207, 208.
• d

  Baron. An. 461. n. 7. pag. 252.
• e

  Baron. An. 465. n. 3. pag. 261.
• f

  Id. ib. n. 5. pag. 262.
• g

  Id. ibid. n. 8. pag. 263.
• h

  Haec est enim mendaci∣orum natura, ut cohaerere non possint. Lact. lib. 5. §. 3.
• i

  Baron. An. 468. n. 24. pag. 281.
• k

  Idem. An. 483. n. 6. pag. 370.
• l

  Baron. An. 471. n. 6. pag. 287.
• m

  Baron. An. 476. n. 2. & 477. n. 30, 31. pag. 338.
• n

  Usher. An∣tiqu. Brit. cap. 13. pag. 240.
• o

  Baron. An. 484. n. 94. pag. 411.
• p

  Baron. An. 485. n. 16, &c. pag. 426, 427.
• q

  Baron. An. 490. n. 17. pag. 445, &c.
• r

  Histor. Pe∣lag. lib. 1. c. 50. pag. 106.
• s

  Baron. An. 491. n. 4. pag. 455.
• t

  Id. Ibid. n. 7, & 8 pag. 456.
• u

  Baron. An. 492. n. 43. pag. 469.
• w

  Id. An. 547. n. 41. pag. 361.
• x

  Baron. An. 493. n. 20. pag. 475.
• y

  Baron. An. 495 n. 23. pag. 505.
• z

  Id. ib. n. 24.
• a

  Idem An. 502. n. pag. 543.
• b

  Baron. An. 498. n. 8. pag. 528.
• c

  Baron. An. 499. n. 11. pag. 530.
• d

  Baron. An. 478. n. 6. pag. 339.
• e

  Id. ib. n. 7. pag 340. & ••12. pag. 341.
• f

  See Dr. Hammond. of Schism, chap. 6. §. 12. pag. 355.
• g

  Dr. Cave disc. of ant. Gov. chap. 5. §. 4.
• h

  Baron. An. 432. pag. 631. & An. 708. n. 2, 3, 4.
• i

  Idem An. 482. n. 44. pag. 364.
• k

  Baron. An. 484. n. 2, 3, &c. pag. 391.
• l

  Baron. An. 485. n 16, &c. pag. 426.
• m

  Baron. An. 490. n. 43. ad 47. pag 451, 452.
• n

  Baron. An. 493. n. 22. pag. 47••
• o

  Baron. An. 453. n. 34 & 40. pag. 189, 190.
• p

  Baron. cod. An. n. 46. p. 191.
• q

  Baron. An. 457. n. 34, &c. pag. 226.
• r

  Baron. An. 457. n. 43. pag. 228.
• s

  Ibid. 45, 47. pag. 228, 229.
• t

  Baron. An. 458 n. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. pag 234.
• u

  Ibid. n. 11.
• w

  Baron. An. 458. n. 4 & 5. pag. 233.
• x

  Baron. An. 465. n. 8, pag. 262.
• y

  Baron. An. 467. n. 2. pag. 273.
• z

  Usherii, Ant. Britan. lib. 1. cap. 8. pag. 115, &c.
• a

  Baron. An. 472. n. 10. pag. 295.
• b

  Baron. An. 477. n. 23, & 25. pag. 336.
• c

  Id. An. 478. n. 11 pag. 341.
• d

  Baron. Au. 483. n. 72. pag. 386.
• e

  Baron. An. 484. n. 48, 49, &c. pag. 401.
• f

  Baron. An. 485 n. 8, 9, 10. pag. 424. vide aliud exemp. Anno 495. n. 26. p. 505.
• g

  Baron. An. 490. n. 29. pag 448.
• h

  Baron. An. 499. n. 13. pag. 531.
• i

  An. 496. n. 56. pag. 518.