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 ...

A BRIEF ACCOUNT OF THE Roman Forgeries, IN THE VOLUMES OF THE COUNCILS, For the First Three Centuries.

PART I.

CHAPTER I.

Of the Forgeries in the First Century.

§. 1. THE Volumes of the COUNCILS in the Edition of Labbe and Cossartius, begin with divers Tracts; and in Binius's Edi∣tion with several Epistles, designed to prepossess the Reader with false Notions of the Popes supreme Power over Councils, and his Parties high Reverence for

them, as also of the Protestants having corrupted or else rejected the greatest part of them: But this whole Discourse will sufficiently shew the notorious untruth, both of their boasting concerning Their own side, and of their Censures concerning Ours. In the Account of Scripture Councils, where they pretend to recite the words of Scripture, they add, for to give colour to their new Supremacy, That Peter stood up, as the Principal and Head a 1.1; And again, as the Supreme and Head b 1.2. S. Luke in the Acts, Chap. VI. 2. saith, The Twelve Apostles gave the multitude leave to elect Seven Deacons. Binius's Notes say, They had this leave by the favour and grant of Peter c 1.3. S. Luke, Chap. XV. de∣clares, That the Question about Circumcision was finally determined by S. James, who also cited Scripture for his determination, ver. 16, 17. But Binius's Notes say, This matter was determined, not by Scripture, but by the Suffrage of the Apostles, and by the Judgment of Pe∣ter d 1.4. The same Notes a little after tell us, That this Council committed the care of the Circumcised Converts to Peter e 1.5; which was a poor Preferment for that Apo∣stle, if Christ had made him Supreme Head, and committed to him long before the Care of the whole Catholic Church. To these Passages of Holy Scripture the Editors have tacked a sabulous Story of the Assum∣ption of the Virgin Mary f 1.6; but they do not Cite one genuine Ancient Author, to prove it: That Book which bears the Title of Dionysius Areopagitus being invented many Ages after, as Learned men on all sides now agree.

§. 2. That Ancient Collection of Canons, which were decreed by the Apostolical Men in divers Synods held during the Times of Persecution, is published by these Editors under the Title of The Canons of the Holy Apostles; and their Notes affirm, They were made by the Authority of the Apostles g 1.7; yet they are not agreed either about their Number or Authority. They print LXXXIV Canons; but the Notes say, only the

first Fifty of them are Authentic, but the rest may and ought also to be received, since they contain nothing (Two of them excepted, viz. the 65th and 84th Canons, which contradict the Roman Church) but what is approved by some Popes, Councils and Fathers h 1.8. Now, if (as they say) the Apostles made them, their Church hath been very negligent to lose the certain Account of their number, and it is not very modest to pretend to try the Apostles Decrees by Popes Councils and Fathers; yet it is plain they make no distinction be∣tween the first Fifty and the following Thirty four, rejecting all that oppose their present Doctrine and Practice, as may be seen in these Instances.

The Sixth Canon forbids a Bishop, Priest or Deacon (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) to put away, or be divorced from his Wife on pretence of Religion: The Notes pervert the Sense of this Canon, as if it only forbid Clergy Men to cast off the care of providing for their Wives; and prove this Sense i 1.9 by a false Title, which Dionysius Exiguus put to this Canon in his Version many Cen∣turies after, and by an Epistle of Pope Clement the First, which all Men own now to be spurious, and by an Epistle of Pope Gregory, who lived in the Year 600; as if the Sense of Dionysius and Pope Gregory, when Single life was superstitiously pressed upon the Clergy, were good proof, that Clergy Men did not live with their Wives many Ages before that superstitious Opinion was heard of. 'Tis certain the Greek Clergy are Married and cohabit with their Wives, according to this Apostolical Canon, and the Fifteenth Canon of the Sixth General Council: And it is not unpleasant to observe, That these Notes cite the Second Council of Nice, to prove there were no Canons made in the Sixth General Council; yet that very Nicene Council often Quotes, and highly approves the 82d Canon of the Sixth General Council, as giving some Countenance to their Image-Worship. So that their wresting this Canon Apostolical from its genuine meaning k 1.10 upon such slight and false Evidence, is in effect rejecting it.

The Ninth Canon orders All the Clergy and Laity who are in the Church, to Receive the Sacrament, unless they have a just Excuse l 1.11: But the Roman Church allows the People generally to stand by and look on; and therefore though this be one of the Authentic Canons before said by them to be made by the Apostles, after some shuffling to restrain it (contrary to the very words of the Canon) only to the Clergy: The Notes say, This whole Decree was made only by Human, not by Divine Authority, and is now abrogated by a contrary Custom. So that if a Canon of the Apostles themselves contradict a Corrupt practice of their Church, it must be abrogated and rejected.

The 17th Canon saith, He that keeps a Concubine shall not be in any Order of the Clergy. The Notes cite some of their Doctors, who affirm, That this Crime doth not make a Clerk irregular m 1.12; and, that this Canon is now revoked. The Annotator himself is of Opinion, It is only public keeping a Concubine, by reason of the Infamy which makes a Clergy-mans Orders void: Wherefore such Sinners have now more favourable Casuists at Rome, than the Apostles or Apostolical Men were.

The 65th Canon, though it have as good Evidence for it as any of the rest, is rejected by the Notes n 1.13; because it forbids Men to fast on Saturday, which is now a Fasting-day at Rome. The Notes say, No Father men∣tions this Canon; but presently own, That Ignatius, Cle∣mens Romanus, the Canons of the Sixth General Council, Gregory Nyssen, and Anastasius Nicaenus, (to which we add Tertullian o 1.14,) do all speak of Saturday, as a Day on which Fasting was forbid. The Notes confess also, That the Eastern-Church, and the Church of Milan in S. Ambrose time, allowed not Fasting upon Saturday p 1.15; yet after all, they will not grant this Canon to be genuine, only because it is very unlikely that the Church of Rome should contradict a Canon of the Apostles, whereas we have already seen, it makes no scruple to contradict them, if they agree not with their practice. The Notes indeed say, but without any proof, That Rome received

the Saturday Fast from Peter and Paul; yet they grant soon after, That after the Heresie of Marcion was extinct, the Roman Church did not only lawfully, but piously Fast on Saturday. So that this was a private Custom of the Roman Church, in which it differed from all other Churches, and they know not when it began, nor who it came from; yet for such a Customs sake they reject an Apostolical Canon.

The 69th Canon expresly enjoyns the Wednesday Fast; and the Notes say, That many Fathers mention it as of ancient Institution; yea, these Notes affirm, It was certainly a Fast of the Apostles instituting, being observed by the whole Church, and not appointed by any Council, but spoken of by Authors of greatest Antiquity q 1.16. Well then, I hope the Roman Church (whose Customs are all said to be Apostolical) do keep this Wednesday Fast; They tell you, No: This Wednesday Fast in their Church is changed into the Saturday Fast: And so farewel to this Canon also.

Lastly the 84th Canon gives us a Canon of Scripture, which doth not agree with the Trent Canon, for it rejects Ecclesiasticus from being Canonical, and men∣tions not Wisdom, Tobit, Judith, nor (in Old Copies r 1.17) the Book of Machabees, which the Roman Church now say are Canonical Scripture: And this is the true reason why the Notes reject this Canon s 1.18: They alledge indeed some other frivilous reasons, such as, the leaving out the Revelations, and putting in Clements Constitutions: But it seems very probable to me, that it was not the Greeks (as the Notes suggest) but that Impostor (who gave these Canons a false Title and called them the Apostles Canons) which for carrying on his Pious Fraud, left out the Revelations, being not writ∣ten at that time, when he would have us believe these Canons were made; and He also put in the Consti∣tutions, which are forged in the name of the Apostles, who were to be set up as Authors also of these Canons: And if that were so, this 84th Canon being cleared from those two Corruptions, is an Ancient and very

Authentic Record of the true and genuine Books of Holy Scripture, but the Romanists reject it, as being a good evidence against their New Trent Canon.

§ 3. To these Canons are joyned a pretended Council of the Apostles at Antioch, first put into the Tomes of the Councils, by Binius, and continued by Labbè t 1.19; one Canon of which allows Christians to make an image of Christ: But this notorius, and impro∣bable Forgery was never heard of in any Author, till that infamous second Nicene Council, which wanting proofs for Image-worship from genuine An∣tiquity, impudently feigned such Authorities as this pretended Council.

§. 4. The Pontifical or Lives of the Popes (which be∣gins here) bears the Title of Pope Damasus; but the Notes say Damasus was not Author of it, being evident∣ly patched up out of two different Authors, containing contradictions almost in every Popes Life. So that no ac∣count is to be made of a Writing so different from it self u 1.20: Now if this be (as it certainly is) a True Cha∣racter of the Pontifical, Why do these Editors print it? Why do the Notes so often cite it as good His∣story? Why do their Divines quote it as good Authority to prove their Modern Corruptions to have been primitive Rites w 1.21? Since it is a manifest Legend, and contained at first nothing but the bare Names and continuance of the several Popes; and was filled up by Isidore Mercator, who forged the Decretal Epistles, with many improbable Fictions unsuitable both to the Men and Times, for which they were invented, and designed to be a ground for those Decretal Epistles; and to make the World believe, that all the Popes were considerable for their Actions in all Ages, as Dr. Peirson hath excellently proved in his Learned Post hu∣mous Dissertation x 1.22: Yet not only these Editors of the Councils print this corrupt Legend, but their very Breviaries and Missals generally appoint the Lessons out

of it, on the Festivals of these Ancient Popes; pub∣lishing in the very Church in time of Divine Ser∣vice, these Fictions for the true ground of the Peoples Devotions on those Days: I confess Binius out of Ba∣ronius hath Notes upon every Pope's Life, and rejects commonly some part of it; but then it is such passages as no way concern the opinion or practice of the pre∣sent Roman Church: For the passages which do agree thereto (though equally false) he generally defends, yea cites them to prove their Modern Faith and Usages: But as we come to the several Popes Lives, which these Editors make the grand direction in Ec∣clesiastical Chronology, we shall observe the many and gross Errors contained in it; We begin with the Life of S. Peter, whom if we do allow to have been at Rome, as this Author reports, yet we cannot believe he ordained three Bishops for his Successors there in his Life-time, viz. Linus, Cletus and Clement: Nor that he was Buried in three several places, in Apollo's Temple, and besides Nero's Pallace in the Vatican, and besides the Triumphal Territory, which this fabulous Writer affirms: Nor will the Annotator admit that S. Peter could be Crucified by Nero in the 38th year after Christ's Pas∣sion, which was three years almost after Nero's own Death.

§. 5. The next place, (ever since P. Crabs Edition) is by the Roman Editors allotted to a Treatise of the Popes Supremacy y 1.23, writ of late Times by some manifest Sycophant of the Roman Church, yet placed here among the Venerable Antiquities of the Apostolic Age, to clap a false Biass on the unwary Reader; and make him apt to believe (that which Richerius said is the main design of Bellarmin, Baronius and Possevine in all their Works, viz.) that the Pope was made by Christ the in∣fallible and absolute Monarch of the Church z 1.24; but the Tract it self makes out this high Claim, chiefly by the Decretal Epistles, which are now confessed to be Forgeries; And by the Sayings of Popes, who were not

to be believed in their own case a 1.25: To which are added some few Fragments of the Fathers falsly ap∣plied, and certain false Arguments, which have been confuted a thousand times. So that the placing this Treatise here, serves only to shew the Editors parti∣ality to promote a bad Cause.

§. 6. The Pontifical places Linus as S. Peters Successor; but the Notes confess, that the Fathers are not agreed about it b 1.26: They own that Tertullian, Epiphanius and Ruffinus make Clement to succeed Peter; and the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Learned Bishop of Chester proves, Linus was dead before Peter c 1.27. Irenaeus doth not say (as the Notes falsly cite him,) that Linus succeeded Peter in the Government of the uni∣versal Church d 1.28; but only that Peter and Paul deliver∣ed the Administration of that Church to him, which they had founded at Rome; Which they might do in their Life time, while they went to preach in other places: The Epistle of Ignatius to Mary Cassibolite, and the Ver∣ses attributed to Tertullian, which they bring for proof of this Succession, are confessed to be spurious Tracts: St. Hierom is dubious, and upon the whole matter, there is no certainty who was Bishop of Rome next to the Apostles, and therefore the Romanists build on an ill Bottom, when they lay so great weight on their per∣sonal Succession.

§. 7. The like Blunder there is about the next Pope: The fabulous Pontifical makes Cletus succeed Linus, and gives us several Lives of Cletus and Anacletus, making them of several Nations, and to have been Popes at different times, putting Clement between them. Yet the aforesaid Learned Bishop of Chester, proves these were only two names of the same Person e 1.29; But the Notes attempt to justifie the forged Pontifical, by impudently affirming f 1.30 that Ignatius, (Anacletus con∣temporary) Irenaeus, Eusebius, St. Augustine and Optatus, were all mistaken, or all wronged by their Transcri∣bers, who leave out Cletus: But every Candid Reader

will rather believe the Mistake to be in the Ponti∣fical (which is a meer heap of Errors) and in the Roman Martyrology and Missal, which blindly follow it, rather than in those Eminent and Ancient Fathers: And every one may see the Folly of the Romish Church, which Venerates two several Saints, on two several Days, one of which never had a real Being; for Cletus is but the abbreviation of Anacletus his Name.

§. 8. After this we have the Life of Clement, wherein the Pontifical makes him succeed Cletus, under those Consuls which were in Office the next year after S. Pe∣ter's Martyrdom, though he had assigned 23 years to Linus and Cletus, his pretended Predecessors g 1.31; which years must all be expired in one years compass, if this Account be true; and one would admire the stupidity of this Author, who though he had placed S. Peters Death so many years before Clement's Entrance, as to leave room for two intermediate Popes; yet here again repeats his old Fable of S. Peters delivering the Bishopric of Rome to Clement; a sufficient proof there is neither Truth nor Certainty in the pretended Personal Succes∣sion of the first Popes.

§. 9. From this Pope Clement down to the time of Syricius, who lived 300 years after him, there are printed in these Editors, after every Popes Life, divers Decretal Epistles, pretended to be writ by the several Popes, and Vindicated by Binius's Notes annexed to them: Which were received in the Western Church for many Hundred years together as the genuine De∣crees of these ancient and pious Popes, transcribed into the Canon Law; and cited for many Ages to justifie the Usurpations, and defend the Corruptions of the Roman Church, to determine Causes and decide Con∣troversies in Religion: And yet they are all notorious Forgeries; so that since Learning was revived, divers of the most Eminent Roman Writers have rejected them.

Card. Cusanus affirms, That being compared with the times in which they are pretended to have been Writ, they betray themselves h 1.32. Baronius calls them, Late invented Evi∣dences of no Credit, and Apocryphal i 1.33; yea, Labbé and Cos∣sartius have in their Edition a Learned Preface to them, proving them to be forged k 1.34: And in their Margin write almost against every Epistle, This is suspected; This is Isidores Wares, &c. and also note the very places of Authors who lived long after these Times, out of which large Passages in them are stollen Verbatim. Which clear Confession of our Adversaries may make some think it needless to confute them, and unnecessary to charge this Forgery upon the Roman Church: But I cannot think it sit wholly to pass them by; because Turrian the Jesuit had the Confidence to defend them all as genuine; and Binius in his Edition, not only Vindicates them by a general Preface l 1.35, but by par∣ticular Notes labours to prove most of them Authentic; and Labbé himself prints those Notes at large in his Edition, so that such as do not look into his Margen, may be deceived. Besides, this Confession of some Romanists comes too late to compensate for the injury done to the Truth, by their Churches approving them so long: And they still keep up the Supremacy, and all their corrupt Practices and Opinions, which were set up and cherished by these Forgeries; they now take away the Scaffolds, when the Building can stand alone; they execute the Traytor, but enjoy freely the benefit of his Treason. Moreover, while some Roma∣nists condemn them, others go on to cite them for good Authority: Harding brags, he had proved many Points of Faith by the Epistles of Clement Damasus, Julius Melchiades, Pontianus, Sixtus, Soter, and Symmachus m 1.36: Dr. Tho. James shews the particular corrupt Doctrines and Practices, which the late Roman Writers defend by the spurious Epistles of Clement, Marcellus, Marcus, and Hormisda n 1.37: And the Learned Cook with infinite dili∣gence, hath cited the very Places of the Modern Champions for the Roman Opinions, and shewed

what Doctrines and Practices they do maintain by these Forged Epistles o 1.38. It is also well known, that the Late Scriblers for that Religion do follow Bellarmin and Others, in citing these Decretals for good Autho∣rity, and that the Canon Law is in a great measure composed out of these Epistles; by which, Causes are determined at this day in all Popish Countries: There∣fore till the Romanists raze them and the Notes in their defence, out of the Volumes of the Councils, and expunge all the false Notions taken hence, out of their Canon Law; yea, and leave citing them in their Dis∣putes with us, we cannot think it needless to shew the apparent Forgery of them; but we will not enlarge so as to disprove the Particulars, but put together here our Evidence against them all.

§. 10. These Epistles, though pretended to be writ in the first four Centuries, were never heard of in the World till near 800 years after Christ: About which time came out a Collection of Councils under the name of Isidore Hispalensis; but whereas he died An. 636, and this Collector mentions the XIth Council of Toledo and the Sixth General Council, which were held near Fifty years after, this appears not to be the Work of that Isidore, but of one Isidore Mercator, and it was first brought into France by Riculphus B. of Mentz, in which Collection these Decretal Epistles first appeared; but the Learned Hincmarus of Rheims immediately discerned them to be an imposture, and Writ against them, as Baronius confesseth p 1.39: But though he own the Cheat, he is not willing to grant the Roman Church had any hand in it, yet that is as clear as the Forgery; because Hincmarus was hated and prosecuted by the Pope, and forced at last to Recant his Censure of these Epistles; and not long after Benedictus Levita having Transcrib'd divers Passages out of them into his Capitulars, got them confirmed at Rome, which could not but cherish so advantagious a Fiction that supported the Supremacy, which they then did so hotly stickle for; and therefore

though they came first to the Birth in Spain; some con∣jecture they were all Hatched at Rome, whose evil De∣signs and Interest they are contrived to serve: But the Age was so Ignorant when they were Invented, that there is such infamous and convincing Marks of For∣gery upon them, as makes it very easie to prove the Cheat beyond any possibility of doubting; and we will here put the principal of them together under their proper Heads.

§. 11. First, The Style of these Decretals shews they were not writ within the four first Centuries, wherein (at Rome especially) they writ Latin in a much more Elegant Style than is to be found here, where the Phrases are modern, harsh, and sometimes barbarous, so that the Reader is often puzled to reconcile them either to Grammar or Sense: As for Example, Pope Victor's Second Epistle q 1.40, which of old began with Enim, and was mended by Binius with Semper enim; but still there is false Latin in it, viz. aliquos nocere fra∣tres velle r 1.41. The like barbarous Style may be observed in the two Epistles of Pontianus s 1.42, and in many others: But the genuine Epistles of Cornelius, preserved in Eu∣sebius and S. Cyprian t 1.43, are writ in a more polite Style; and as Labbé notes, These Epistles shew how much good Mony differs from counterfeit, and how much Gold excels Counters: The like difference there is between the Style of that genuine Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians u 1.44, and those silly Forgeries put out in his Name in the very Front of these Decretals w 1.45; from whence it un∣deniably follows, That the Decretals were not writ in the Ages wherein the Latin Tongue flourished, nor by those Popes whose Names they bear. And this is further manifest by divers Words, which were not used in the time of these Popes, but are often put into these Epistles: Such is Religiositas for Piety, and Universitas for the World, in the Decretals of Dionysius x 1.46; such is Miles for a Servant, and Senior for a Lord, in the Decrees of Pope Pius y 1.47, which are Words not heard of till

the time of the French Empire, in that sense: Such is the Phrase of making Oblation to redeem mens Sins, and the Name of the Mass in Fabian's Decrees z 1.48. Pope Gaius his Decretal Epistle mentions Pagans, but that Name was not used for the Gentils till Optatus Milevi∣tanus his time, who first used it in that Sense, saith Ba∣ronius a 1.49. Moreover, innumerable places in these Epistles mention Primates and Patriarchs, Arch-Bishops and Metropolitans, &c. which Words were not used in the Christian Church in the time of those Popes, who are pretended to have writ about them; As for Ex∣ample, The first Epistle of Clement b 1.50, the second Epistle of Anacletus c 1.51, and many others; but no Christian Writer ever used the Word Patriarch for a Christian Bishop till Socrates Scholasticus, who writ An. 442 d 1.52. In like manner we find the Word Apo∣crisary in Anacletus's first Epistle e 1.53, and also in the second Epistle of Zepherine f 1.54; yet Meursius in his Glossary cannot find any elder Authority for it than Constantine's Donation (forged after that Emperor's time), and owns the Name was not heard of before, Gloss. p. 43. The Name of Archdeacon also is in Cle∣ments second Epistle g 1.55, and in Pope Lucius's De∣crees h 1.56; but the Office and Title did not come into the Church till many years after: And finally, the Name of a Diocesan for a Christian Bishop, is put into Calixtus second Epistle i 1.57, but was not used in that Sense till long after his time. All which prove these Epistles were writ in the later barbarous Ages, and not in the time of those Popes, whose Names they bear.

§. 12. The same may be proved Secondly, by the Matter of these Epistles, which is no way suitable to those grave and Pious Popes, who lived in times when the Church was pestered with Heresies, and oppressed with Persecutions; yet these Epistles do not either confute those Heresies, nor comfort the Christians under Per∣secutions; But speak great Words of the Roman Supre∣macy, and of Appeals, of the exemption and privi∣ledges

of Bishops and Clergy Men, of splendid Altars and rich Vessels for Divine Administrations, and the like, which make it incredible they could be writ in an Age of suffering: Instances of this we have in Clements first Epistle k 1.58; where he Orders Primates and Patriarchs, to be placed in such Cities as the Hea∣thens, of Old had Arch-Flamins in: Whereas the Heathensthen had Flamines and Priests in all Cities: His third Epistle l 1.59 is directed to all Princes greater and less, and Commands them to obey their Bishops: Whereas all Princes in the World at that time were Gentils: The like absurdity appears in Calixtus first Epistle, where he gives Laws to the Emperors and all others professing piety m 1.60, as if Heliogabulus and Caracalla had been under his Command: And in the second Epistle of Sixtus, Ano. 260, who threatens to Excommunicate the Princes of Spain, who spoiled their Bishops n 1.61, though all Princes then were Heathens: Marcellinus also in a time of Per∣secution, under a Heathen Emperor gives direction what is to be done by an Emperor professing the true Faith o 1.62; Who can imagin, Anacletus Anno Dom. 104, should speak of Priests in little Villages, and of Cities which anciently had Primates and Patriarchs, or tell us in Trajans time, That Rome had cast away her Hea∣then Rites p 1.63? Or that he should affirm the Christian people were generally Enemies to their Priests; and Com∣mand the Bishops to visit the Thresholds of S. Peter's Church (before it was Built q 1.64?) Is it likely Euaristus the next Pope, should declare, That Children could not In∣herit their Parents Estates, if they were not Baptized by a Christian Priest r 1.65; or suppose Churches and Altars consecrated long before the Memory of any Man in the Parish s 1.66? Could Pope Xystus in Adrian's Persecuti∣on brag, that Rome was the Head over all Bishops, and also a Refuge to such as were spoiled by Christian People t 1.67? Were there in Pope Hyginus time, (as his Decrees pre∣tend) More Churches and larger than the Revenue belong∣ing to them could repair u 1.68? Is it propable Pope Pius should complain Anno 158, That Christians should Sacri∣legiously

take away whole Farms dedicated to Pious Uses? Yet this complaint is found in his second Epistle w 1.69; And Binius Notes justify this by a forged Decretal of Ur∣ban the First, and by proving that in the time of Constan∣tine (140 Years after) the Heathens had taken Houses from the Christians: The Decree for Vailing Nuns at 25 years of Age must be of later time, because it is certain no Nuns were vailed then, nor were any under Sixty years Old allowed to profess Virginity x 1.70: When all Christians were so constantly present at Divine Offices, and received the Sacrament Weekly; what need was there for Pope Soter to decree, No Priest should say Mass unless two were present, and that all should Communi∣cate on Maunday-Thursday y 1.71? How could there be Secular Laws forbidding the People to conspire against their Bishop, as Calixtus Decretal pretends z 1.72? or how could he mention the Laws of the Roman and Greek Emperors, so long before the Empire was divided a 1.73? Had Bishops in Pope Urbans time power to Banish and Imprison the Sa∣crilegious? or had they high Seats in the form of a Throne, Erected for them in Churches, as his Epistle pretends b 1.74? Could the next Pope by his Decree hinder Heathens and Enemies to the Christian Clergy from accusing them? as the first Epistle of Pontianus gives out c 1.75. Antherus Epistle charges Bishops in those times with changing their Churches out of ambition and covetousness d 1.76, even while nothing but Martyrdom was to be got by being a Bishop: And Fabian is made to charge the Faithful, with spoiling their Bishops, and citing them before the Lay Tribu∣nals e 1.77; which is not credible of the Christians of that Age: Cornelius his genuine Epistle saith; The Christians durst not meet at Prayers in any known Rooms, no not in Cellars under ground f 1.78. But the Pontifical and one of his Forged Decretals, pretend that this same Pope had liberty to Bury the Apostle S. Peter's Body in Apollo's Temple, the Vatican and the golden Mount, that is, in three places (I suppose) at once g 1.79: Lucius a Martyred Pope makes it a wonder, that in his days Churches should be spoiled of their Oblations and Ministers

vexed h 1.80; Pope Stephen threatens to make Slaves of Clerks, who accuse their Bishop, and forbids Lay-men to complain of the Clergy i 1.81; Doth it consist with the poverty of those Ages, for Eutychianus to decree That Martyrs should be Buried in Purple k 1.82? or with its charitv, for the same Pope to forbid Christians to pray for Hereticks l 1.83; when our Lord bids them pray for their Enemies? I should tire the Reader and my self, if I proceeded to Rake together any more Instances; and these may suffice to shew, That these Epistles were not writ in those early Ages.

§. 13. Thirdly, The same may be proved from the many Absurdities found in these Decretals, arguing the Author to be Illiterate and Ignorant; Whereas the Popes, whose Names they falsly bear, were prudent and Learned Men; however well skilled in Holy Scripture: Yet Anacletus is made to say, that the Apostles chose the LXX Disciples m 1.84, which the Gospel affirms were chosen by Christ himself: He also weakly derives Ce∣phas (the Syriac Name of Peter, signifying a Stone) from the Greek word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and saith it signifies a Head, and proves Peter's Supremacy by this silly mistake n 1.85: It looks very ridiculously in Pope Antherus in his Epistle to say, it is not fit for one in my Mean con∣dition to judge others, nor to say any thing of the Mini∣sters of the Churches o 1.86; but indeed the Forger stole these Words out of S. Hieroms first Epistle to Heliodo∣rus, and foolishly applied them to the Pope: The De∣cretal of Stephen tells the Gallican Church, what the Holy Apostolic and Universal Church had undertaken to observe, as if they had been no part of the Universal Church p 1.87: But nothing is more Ridiculous than the foolish Exposi∣tions of Scripture, which Popes ought to interpret Infal∣libly; but these Epistles make Pope Alexander prove, that Holy-water doth sanctify, by Heb. ix. 13, 14. where the Ashes of an Heifer are said to Purify the unclean, and the Blood of Christ to purge the Conscience: And he interprets Hos. iv. 8. where the Priests are said to

eat up the Sins of the People, of blotting out their Sins by their Prayers q 1.88; Pope Pius proves Bishops are only to be judged by God, because (John II.) Christ drove the Buyers and Sellers out of the Temple with his own hands r 1.89. Pope Anicetus proves, Priests ought to shave their Crowns, because S. Paul saith, It is a shame for Men to have long hair, 1 Cor. XI. s 1.90; which the Apostle speaks of Lay-men as well as Clergy-men, and so the same Logic would prove, that Lay-men also should shave their Crowns. Pope Soter proves, that Nuns must not touch the Holy Vessels, by S. Pauls saying, 2 Cor. XI. He had espoused the Corinthians (both Men and Women) to one Husband, even Christ t 1.91. Pope Stephen proves, That Bishops cught not to be disturbed, by that place in the Psalms, The Heavens declare the glory of God, and the Fir∣mament sheweth his handy work u 1.92; And to name no More, Pope Foelix is very happy in that he can make out, That we ought not to persecute and disturb Our Brethren, from Rom. V. 1, 2. When we were Enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son: And from Math. X. Fear not them which can kill the body, &c. he proves, We must not persecute nor disturb Preachers and Doctors, because their Souls do not dye with their Bodies w 1.93. All these impertinent Inferences from Holy Scripture, shew the Forger of these Epistles was some ignorant and impudent Impostor; but none can suppose those holy Primitive Bishops would abuse Scripture and themselves at this rate.

§. 14. Fourthly, this further appears, From many Quotations in these Epistles, which are taken verbatim out of Authors, that lived and writ long after all these Popes were dead, in whose Names these Epistles are forged; wherefore they could not write them. Now this infallible Mark of their Forgery appears first, in that these Epistles do all generally cite Scripture, according to S. Hieroms Translation * 1.94, which was not made in their days; yet Clement in his 4th and 5th Epistles, Euaristus in both his Epistles, Telesphorus in

his Decretal, and indeed all the rest of them who have occasion to quote Scripture, do use the very Words of S. Hierom, and that sometimes for a whole Page together, as the Reader will find by comparing these Quotations with the Vulgar Latin Bible. But Learned Men know that the Latin Fathers, who lived before S. Hierom's Translation was extant, used another Version very different from that, and even Pope Cornelius in that genuine Epistle of his, which is preserved in S. Cyprian, doth not follow S. Hierom's Tran∣slation x 1.95; but his Forged ones do: Which is a Proof undeniable, That he who Forged these Epistles, lived after S. Hierom's Translation was grown common. Besides; Anacletus is made to cite a long Passage verbatim out of S. Hierom's Epistle to Nepotian, which was writ almost 300 years after his time y 1.96. Pope Eleutherius cites a Law out of the Theodosian Code, Judicantem cuncta rimari oportet, &c. z 1.97, which was made 300 years after this Popes death, and this con∣vinced Contius and Baronius, that this Epistle was Forged after Theodosius his Reign; yet Binius hath the Impu∣dence to say, Perhaps the Code borrowed this Passage from the Epistle; but Labbé is so ashamed of this bold False∣hood, that in his Margen he writes, Binius in this is mistaken; and he had reason for that Note, since this is not the only place in the seigned Decretals where the Code is cited. Labbé owns that the second forged Epistle for Pope Eutychianus quotes a Law verbatim out of Cod. Theod. lib. 9. Tit. 〈◊〉〈◊〉, & 2. a 1.98. Pope Zepherine also cites Imperial Laws and Edicts, Forbidding Men to cite a Bishop despoiled of his goods, into any Secular Judi∣cature, till all were restored b 1.99 the same Passage also is cited out of the Secular Laws in Pope Stephen's second Epistle c 1.100. But it is most certain there could be no such Laws in these Popes times who lived under Pagan Emperors; nor a Law to forbid the People to con∣spire against their Bishops, which yet Calixtus cites in his second Epistle d 1.101. Moreover, Antherus cites a long Passage, word for word, out of S. Hierom's Epistle

to Heliodorus e 1.102; Pope Lucius is made to use (as Labbé confesseth) the Words of his Successor Agatho, in the Sixth Council of Constantinople, 300 years after f 1.103: And yet Bellarmin cites this place of the Forged Epistle twice, to prove the Pope's Infallibility, Bell. de Rom. Pontif. l 4. c. 3. & de Verb. Dei, lib. 3. cap. 5. Pope Sixtus the Second, His first Epistle is stollen most of it out of Ithacius and Varimadus, who lived many Ages after him g 1.104. In Eutychianus's first Epistle, there are two whole Pages transcribed out of his Successor, Pope Leo's 97th Epi∣stle h 1.105: And Gains his Decretal Epistle, steals two large Passages from the same Pope Leo's twelfth Sermon on the Passion, and his 97th Epistle i 1.106. Finally, who∣soever will take pains to observe Labbe's Margen shall find, that he with great diligence hath marked in the Margen of all these Forged Epistles, the very places of later Authors out of which they are stollen, and transcribed by their cheating Composer, who patcht them up together out of the Writings of S. Hilary, S. Hierom, Pope Leo, Innocent, Gelasius, and Gregory, &c. who lived many years after all these Popes were dead, which is an Unanswerable Proof, that they could not be writ by those whose Names they bear.

§ 15. Fifthly, Those Popes could not but know their own Times; and if they had writ them, they could not have been mistaken in Chronology, or in the Date of their Epistles; but the Forger of them had so little skill in the Times for which he invented them, that he is almost every where erroneous in his Compu∣tation. The two first Epistles of Clement are written to S. James after S. Peter's death; yet it is confessed by Binius, S. James dyed six or seven years before S. Peter. Binius would solve this by saying, The Name of James crept into the Title instead of Simeon; but alass! the Name of James is repeated often in the very Body of the Epistles, and that proves them Forged k 1.107. The Names of the Consuls also by which most of these Epistles are Dated, must have been right if they had

been writ by these old Bishops of Rome, who could not be ignorant of the true Consuls in their own time; but alas! they are so generally false, that Binius in his Notes, in vain labours to excuse some few of them, and is forced to own the rest to be false; so that Surius was more cunning to leave all the Consuls Names out of his Edition, Because (he saith) Calvin takes occasion from thence to despise all the Epistles l 1.108; and doubtless the Dates are as true as the Epistles, both having suffi∣cient Marks upon them of a Modern Impostor, un∣skilled in those Times. And it is evident, that the Pontifical names the same false Consuls, so that either one Author forged the Popes Lives and their Epistles, or the Inventer of these Epistles took the Consuls Names so constantly from the Pontifical, that he imi∣tates him in false-spelling the Consuls names, and in joyning Men who were never Consuls together; yea, because that Fabulous Pontifical usually Names no Consuls, but those in Office at Every Popes Entrance and Death, This Forger of the Epistles dates them all either by the first or last Consuls of every Pope, as if all the Popes had only written Epistles in their first and last years: A Few Examples of these Errors shall suffice.

The Pontifical makes Pope Euaristus to enter when Valens and Vetus were Consuls, and to be martyred when Gallus and Bradua were Consuls, and so the Forger dates his first Epistle by the names of his first Consuls, and the second Epistle by the Consuls of his last year: But alas! both the Pontifical and Epistles are wofully mistaken, since Euaristus (as Baronius proves) entred the 13th year of Trajan, that is, four∣teen years after the Consulship of Valens and Vetus, and two years after the Consulship of Gallus and Bradua; so that by this Account he writ Decretal Epistles long before he was Pope m 1.109: So also, whereas Pope Alex∣ander really sat in Adrian the Emperors time, and Trajan was dead before his entrance, yet one of his Epistles is dated with Trajan as one Consul, and Helia∣nus

as the other; but these two were never Consuls together n 1.110: And his second Epistle is dated by the Consuls of Adrian's first yea••, whereas Pope Alexander came but into his See in Adrian's third year. I will not trouble my self with any more Instances, because there are none of these Dates true, and many of them with the Pontifical (which guides the Forgery) so grosly false, as to make Popes write Epistles before they were chosen, and after they were dead o 1.111; which is an undeniable Evidence, that the Inventer of these Epistles was a Modern Cheat, ignorant of the true Times both of the Consuls and the Popes. There are other Errors also besides the Dates, which shew, the Bungling Author of these Epistles neither under∣stood Chronology nor History. The Pontifical, before it was corrected, had made Anicetus Pope, Pius his Pre∣decessor; and therefore Pius his third Epistle doth not reckon him among the Priests at Rome, but puts in Eleutherius as one of Pius his Presbyters p 1.112, who was but a Deacon in the time of his Successor Anicetus q 1.113. The same Epistle makes Cerinthus the Heretic to be alive, and busie at Rome in seducing Men, An. 166; yet Binius before tells us he was present in the Synod at Hierusa∣lem An. Christi 51, at which Synod, if he were but Nineteen years of Age, he must in Pius his time have been 130, which is incredible; but Binius saith, this may be believed, because the first Epistle of Pius mentions Hermes (named by S. Paul, Rom. XVI.) who set forth a Book about this time An. 158; which Hermes, if he were but only 34 year old An. Christi 62, when S. Paul writ his Epistle to the Romans, must be 130 years of Age, when he set forth this Book; but in conclusion, the Story of Hermes and his Apocryphal Book is a meer Fable, stol∣len out of the Pontifical r 1.114, and Binius hath no way to defend one of these Fictions, but with another equally absurd. Again, Pope Victor is made to summon one Theophilus (Bishop of Alexandria) to a Council at Rome; but there was no Theophilus Bishop there in Victor's time, Severus was then Bishop of that See, and this Theophilus

was Bishop of Caesarea in Palestine s 1.115; but if Victor had really writ this Epistle, he could not have made so gross a Mistake: In like manner Antherus Epistle mentions one Eusebius, as then Bishop of Alexandria t 1.116, who was not Bishop there till two or three Ages after u 1.117. The first Epistle of Pope Fabian, dated in his first year, mentions Novatus the Heretic coming out of Africa to Rome, and seducing Novatian, with others w 1.118; but Baronius out of Eusebius and S. Cyprian assures us, that Novatus came not to Rome till Fifteen years after x 1.119. Wherefore these Epistles were devised by a later Au∣thor, who knew neither the History nor Chronology of those Ages for which he invented these Epistles; but had only the Fabulous Pontifical in his eye, and follows it in all its Errors and Absurdities: So that since the Pontifical makes Pope Hyginus an Athenian, Pope Pius an Italian, and Pope Soter born in Campania; Isidore forges three Epistles for H••ginus, To the Athenians; for Pius, To his Italian Brethren; for Soter, To all the Campanians: And when the Pontifical falsly devises several Superstitious Rites, begun in the corrupt Ages, and other Usages, to have been first appointed by some of the Ancient Popes, the said Isidore upon that always forges an Epistle in those Popes Names to enjoyn those Rites; and hence Pope Alexander writes an Epistle about Holy-Water y 1.120; Sixtus, about none but the Clergies touching Consecrated Vessels z 1.121; Telesphorus, about keeping Lent Seven Weeks a 1.122; Pius, about keeping Easter upon Sunday b 1.123; Anicetus, about Shaving Priests Crowns c 1.124; Calixtus, about four Ember Weeks d 1.125; and so did other Popes, whereas most of these Rites were setled long after, and only prove these Epistles were forged by Isidore.

§. 16. Now though it be so apparent and undensable, that these Epistles are Forged, and consequently of no Authority; yet the Roman Church hath made great use of them in the Ignorant Ages: For Binius notes all along in his Margen, what Sections of them are transcribed into their Canon Law; and even in later times their Writers against the Protestants do commonly cite their Infamous Impostures, to prove the Supremacy of the Pope, his Infallibility, and right to Appeals; as also for the exemption of the Clergy, their Celibacy and Habits, and to prove their Mass with its Ceremonies, Auricular Confession, Apocryphal Books, Tra∣dition, Chrism, Veneration of Relicks and Martyrs, &c. and Cook in his Censura Patrum, hath noted the several Epistles, and the Authors which cite them, saving us the labour of instancing: And therefore we will only make a few general Observations upon this matter, and so dismiss these Forgeries.

Observ. I. That since the Romanists have no other genuine Ancient Authors, to prove these New Doctrines and Practices by; but are forced generally to place these apparent Forgeries in the Fore-front of all their Authorities, we may conclude these Points of their Religion are all Innovations, unheard of in the Pri∣mitive Ages; so that Isidore was forced to invent these Epistles almost 800 years after Christ, to give some shew of Antiquity to them; and these Points were in those Ignorant Times mistaken by this means, for Primitive Usages and Opinions, and so got footing in the World under that disguise; but now that the Fallacy is discovered, the Doctrines and Practices ought to be disowned as well, as the Epistles on which they are built.

Observ II. There are many other Points of the Roman Religion, which are not so much as mentioned in any of these Forged Epistles, such as Worship of Images, Formal Praying to the Saints, and to the Virgin Mary; Transubstantiation, Half-Communion, and Adora∣tion

of the Host, Purgatory, Indulgences, and Justification by Merits, with some others. Now these are so New, that in Isidore's time, when he invented these Epistles they were not heard of nor received, no not in the Roman Church; for if they had, no doubt this Impostor, who was so zealous to get Credit for all the Opinions and Usages of that Church which he knew of, would have made some Popes write Epistles to justifie these also, and his silence concerning them makes it more than probable, that these were all invented since the year of Christ 800.

Observ. III. Though the later Romanists frequently cite these Forged Decretals, yet no genuine Author or Historian for Seven hundred years after Christ did ever Quote or Mention them, no not so much as any of the Popes themselves in all that Period. Now it is morally impossible so many important Points should be so clearly decided by so many Ancient Bishops of so Famous a Church, and yet no Author ever take notice of it. And doubtless when the Popes attempted to be Supreme, and claimed Appeals about the year 400, Zosimus and Boniface, who quarrelled with the Eastern and African Bishops about these Points, and were so hard put to it for Evidence, as to seign some private Canons were made at the first general Council of Nice, would certainly have cited these Epistles, which are so clear Evidence for their pretences, if they had either seen or heard of them; but they do not once name them in all that Controversie, which shews they were not then in being; yea, those who know Church History, do clearly discern, that the main Points setled by these Epistles, were things disputed of about the Seventh and Eighth Centuries, a little before Isidore's time; and therefore these Forgeries must never be cited for to prove any Point to be Ancient or Primi∣tive.

§. 17. Obs. IV. Though the Inventer of these Epistles was so zealous a Bigot for the Roman Cause, yet many things are to be found in them, which contradict the present Tenents of that Church. For whereas the Pope now claims an Universal Supremacy even over Jerusa∣lem it self; Clement's first Epistle is directed to James the Bishop of Bishop's, Ruling the Hebrew Church at Jerusalem, and all the Churches every where founded by Divine provi∣dence e 1.126. Anacletus first Epistle orders all the Clergy present to receive, under pain of Excommunication f 1.127; which is not observed now in the Roman Church: Pope Teles∣phorus orders a Mass on the Night before Christmas, and forbids any to begin Mass, before nine a Cleek g 1.128; But Binius confesses their Church doth not now observe ei∣ther of these Orders: Pope Hyginus forbids all foreign Jurisdiction, because it is unfit, they should be Judged abroad, who have Judges at home h 1.129; So the third E∣pistle of Pope Fabian, appoints that every Cause shall be tried where the Crime is committed; which passage is also in a genuine Epistle of S. Cyprian to Cornelius i 1.130. And all foreign Jurisdiction is again forbid in Pope Felix his second Epistle k 1.131, which passages do utterly destroy Appeals to Rome, unless they can prove all the Crimes in the World are committed there: The second Epistle of Fabian allows the People to reprove their Bishop if he Err in matters of Faith l 1.132; the same Liberty also is given to the People, in Cornelius second Epistle m 1.133; which seems to make the People Judges in Matter of Faith, a thing which the Modern Romanists charge upon the Protestants as a great Error: From these and many other passages we may see, that these Impostures do not in all Points agree with the present Roman Church.

§. 18. I have now done with the Epistles themselves, and proved them to be apparent Forgeries; I will only give the Reader some cautions about those partial Notes, printed on them both in Binius and Labbè, which though they frequently correct, confute and alter divers pas∣sages

in these Epistles; Yet if any thing look kindly upon the Roman Church, they magnifie and vindicate it; but if it seem to condemn any of their Usages, they reject and slight it: For Example, Pope Pius cites Coloss. XI. 18. against worshiping Angels, and the Notes, reject both S. Hierom's and Theodoret's Exposition of the place, as Reflecting on their Churches practice, adding that S. Paul condemned Cerinthus in that place, for giving too much Honour to Angels; Yet Binius soon after tells us that Cerinthus was so far from Teaching they were to be Adored, that he thought they were to be Hated as Authors of Evil n 1.134. Pope Zepherine cites the Apo∣stolical Canons for the Priviledges of his See, and saith there were but Seventy of them o 1.135: But Binius in his Notes saith he refers to the Seventy third Canon: Yet if the Reader consult that Seventy third Canon, the Pope's See is not named there; yea, that Canon forbids a Bishop to Appeal from his Neighbor Bishop, unless it be to a Council: Out of Calixtus fust Epistle which Labbè owns to be a manifest Forgery; Binius Notes cite a Testimoy for the Supremacy, calling it an evident Testimony and worthy to be Noted p 1.136; Pontianus in his Exile brags, ridiculously about the Dignity of Priests, in his second Epistle q 1.137. And Binius his Notes vindicate this improba∣ble Forgery by a spurious Epistle attributed to Ignatius, which saith—the Laity must be subject to the Deacons: but Binius cites it thus—The Laity, of which number are all Kings, even the most Christian Kings, must be subject to the Deacons; by which falsifying the Quotation, he makes the meanest Deacon in the Roman Church superior to the French King: Again, in the Vacancy after Fabian, the Clergy of Rome and S. Cyprian writ to each other r 1.138: Where though the Roman Clergy write with all respect to the Clergy of Carthage, and give them humble Ad∣vice, not Commands; yea, and thank S. Cyprian for his humility, in acquainting them with his Affairs, not as Judges of his concerns, but Partners in his Counsels. Binius notes that these Letters do sufficiently shew the Prerogative of the Roman Church—and that S. Cyprian not only desired the

Counsel, but submitted to the Judgment of Rome. The first Epistle of Cornelius tells a false story out of the Ponti∣fical about his removing the Bodies of S. Peter and Paul; and though Binius own this part of the Epistle to be Forged; Yet in his Notes on the Pontifical s 1.139, he strives to reconcile the differing ways of relating this Fabulous Translation, and slies to Miracles to make those Lies hang together. Cornelius third Epistle is genuine, being preserved in Greek by Eusebius, and yet Binius prints a corrupt Latin Version with it, which where the Greek speaks of one Bishop in a Catholic Church—Reads it—in this Catholic Church; and the Notes t 1.140 impudently prove by this Corruption, that the Pope is the sole Bishop of the whole Catholic Church: Of which Labbè was so much ashamed, that he prints Valesius's Latin Version of this Epistle, wherein the ground of Binius his Observation is quite taken away. S Cyprian hath several Epistles print∣ed among the Decretals, wherein are many things which overthrow the Roman Supremacy and Infallibility, upon which no remark is placed, but an obscure pas∣sage wherein S. Cyprian saith, that whether he or Cornelius should be the Survivor, must continue his Payers for the afflicted Christians u 1.141. There it is impertiently noted, That the deceased pray for the living: Pope Stephen's se∣cond Epistle asserts, Primates were in use before Christi∣anity w 1.142. Binius in his Notes out of Baronius, saith Herodotus confesses the same thing; but Labbè declares that some body had imposed upon Baronius, for there is no such thing to be found in Herodotus; and Adrian in Vo∣piscus (his other Authority) evidently speaks of the Chris∣tian Bishop of Alexandria x 1.143: Wherefore Pope Ste∣phen, or he that made the Epistle for him, was mistaken: It is an impudent thing also in Binius to note upon one of S. Cyprian's Letters about Basilides and Martialis, You see the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome: For these two Bishops were justly condemned in Spain, and unjustly absolved by the Pope, after which S. Cyprian condemns them again, only certifying the Bishop of Rome that he had justly nulled his Absolution; so that we may

rather note, You see the Primacy of the Bishop of Carth∣age y 1.144. Pope Eutychianus first Epistle following the Erroneous Pontifical z 1.145, Orders that only Beans and Grapes shall be offered on the Altar: Binius saith this is the Fourth Canon of the Apostles, whereas that fourth Canon doth not name Beans, and the Third Canon forbids all kind of Pulse to be offered on the Altar; so that the Impostor was deceived, and Binius becomes Ridiculous by attempting to defend him: I shall not need produce any more instances, these will suffice to warn those who study the Councils, not to rely upon any thing in these Notes, which are so full of parti∣ality and Errors, of weak reasonings and false Quo∣tations, of ignorant and wilful Mistakes, that there is little heed to be given to them.

§. 19. I doubt I have been too tedious in discovering the Forgeries of these Decretal Epistles; but the Reader must consider they take up the greatest part of this first Period in the Volumes of the Councils, and we have here considered them all together: And now we have nothing to observe in this Century, except the Aposto∣lical Constitutions, which are left out in Binius, but print∣ed in Labbè, in Greek and Latin, next after Clement's genuine Epistle to the Corinthians: Now the Constituti∣ons are a very ancient Forgery, compiled about the end of the Fourth, and beginning of the Fifth Century, of the Rites of which Ages they give a very good ac∣count, and have little or nothing in them, to justify the more Modern Corruptions of Rome; for which cause it is likely Binius omitted them: But if we know before hand that the Apostles did not make them, nor Clement Bishop of Rome collect them, and can pardon the boldness of making the Apostles the speakers, they are useful to be read, as a writing composed in the Fourth or Fifth Age.

CHAP. II.

Of the Forgeries in the Second Century.

§. 1. THis Period begins with the Life of Anacletus, who was made Pope, as they say, An. 104. but the Fabulous Pontifical brings him in, the 10th Con∣sulship of Domitian, that is, just upon the fictitious Cletus his death, and before Clement entred, who yet is there said to be his Predecessor; so blundered and uncertain is that ignorant Writer; yet, except what he saith, no other Author mentions any deeds of Anacletus; and though Binius in his Notes affirm, Anacletus was most famous for many eminent deeds (s), yet he cannot name * 1.146 one of them.

Euaristus his Life follows, whom the Pontifical and the Breviary of Sixtus the Fifth b 1.147, make to have been Pope in the time of Domitian, Nerva and Trajan; but Binius out of Baronius takes upon him to correct both the Pontifical and the Roman Office also, assuring us he began in the 13th year of Trajan; but alas! these first Bishops of Rome were so obscure, that nothing but their Name is upon Record in Authentic Authors. And what is said in the Pontifical, and the Notes, concerning their several Parents, Countries, times of sitting in that See, and all their Actions almost, are meer Im∣postures of later Ages, as the Learned Dr. Pierson proves in his afore-cited Posthumous Dissertation.

Alexander's Life is next, wherein Binius again cor∣rects the Pontifical and the Breviary; which say, He Ruled the Church in the days of Trajan c 1.148; affirming, he entred not On the Papacy till Adrian's time: But there was more need to Correct the Breviary of his Infallible Church, for those fabulous Lessons it orders to be read in the Church on this Popes day, about Alexander's converting Hermes a Praefect of Rome, Qui∣rinus

a Tribune and Balbina his Daughter, who also is Sainted; yet after all, there were no such persons in those Offices in Rome at that time d 1.149; and the whole Story is a Fiction taken out of a fabulous Tract called the Acts of Alexander, yet this Legend Binius's Notes defend.

Of Xystus, the next Pope, nothing is memorable, but that he is said by the Pontifical to be a Martyr. Eusebius saith, he died in Adrian's Twelfth year, and mentions not his Martyrdom e 1.150; but Binius contradicts him, and will have him to suffer in the 3d year of Antoninus f 1.151; and this without any Authority for it, but his own.

Telesphorus, according to Eusebius, was the Seventh Pope from St. Peter, and came in the Twelfth year of Adrian † 1.152, that is, An. 130. But Binius following the Pontifical, makes him the Eighth Pope, and saith he entred the Third year of Antoninus, that is, Twelve years after; and in the Notes on his Life g 1.153, upon the Pontificals saying, he Ordained Thirteen Bishops in his Eleven years, he observes, that these Bishops were to be sent into divers parts of the World; from whence (he saith) it is clear that the Pope was to take care not of Rome only, but the whole World. But first, no inference from so fabulous an Author, as the Pontifical, can be clear: And secondly, if there were so many Bishops really Ordained by Popes, as the Pontifical doth pre∣tend, there are but Sixty three Bishops reckoned by him from S. Peter's death to this time, which is near 100 years. From whence (if we grant the Matter of Fact) it is rather clear, That the Pope Ordained only some Italian Bishops near Rome; for otherwise when so many Bishops were Martyred, there must have been far more Ordained for the World in that space of time.

Hyginus, the next Pope, began (saith Eusebius) in the first year of Antoninus; but Binius saith, he was made Pope the Fifteenth of that Emperor; the Reader will guess whether is to be trusted: The Pontifical could find this Pope nothing to do, but to distribute the Orders

of the Clergy, which Pope Clement (according to him) had done long before h 1.154.

§. 2. From the Notes on Pope Pius Life i 1.155, we may observe there was no great care of old taken about the Pope's Succession: For Optatus, S. Augustine, and S. Hie∣rom, with the Old Pontifical (before it was altered k 1.156, place Anicetus before Pius, but the Greeks place Pius before Anicetus; and in this Binius thinks we are to believe them rather than the Latins. The rest of the Notes are spent in vindicating an improbable Story, of an Angel bringing a Decree about Easter to Hermes the Popes Brother, who writ a Book about keeping it on the Lord's Day; yet after all there is a Book of Hermes now extant that hath nothing in it about Easter; and there was a Book of old writ by Hermes, well known to the Greeks, and almost unknown to the Latins (though writ by a Pope's Brother) read in the Eastern Churches, and counted Apocryphal in the Western: But we want another Angel to come and tell us, whether that now extant be the same or no, for Binius cannot resolve us, and only shews his Folly in defending the absurd and incongruous Tales of the Pontifical.

Anicetus either lived before or after Pius, and the Pontifical makes him very busie in Shaving his Priests Crowns, never mentioning what he did to suppress those many Heretics who came to Rome in his time; but it tells us he was Buried in the Coemetery of Calistus l 1.157, though Calistus (who gave that Burial-place a name) did not dye till Fifty years after Anicetus. But Binius (who is loath to own this gross Falshood) saith, You are to understand it in that ground which Calistus made a Burying-place afterward; yet it unluckily falls out, that Amcetus's Successor.

Pope Soter was also Buried (according to the Ponti∣fical) in Calistus his Coemetery; and afterwards Pope Zepherines's Burial-place is described to be not far from that of Calistus, so well was Calistus's Coemetery known,

even before it was made a Coemetery, and before he was Pope.

Eleutherius succeeded Soter, and as the Pontifical saith, he received a Letter from Lucius King of Britain, that he might be made a Christian by his Command; which hint probably first produced those two Epistles between this Pope and King Lucius m 1.158, which Binius leaves out, though he justifies the Story, of which it were well we had better Evidence than the Pontifical. This is cer∣tain, the Epistles were forged in an Age when Men could write neither good Latin, nor good Sense; and I am apt to fancy, if Isidore had put them into a De∣cretal, they would have been somewhat more polite; so that it is likely these Epistles were made by some Monks, who thought it much for our Honour, to have our Christianity from Rome.

§. 3. This Century concludes with the bold Pope Victor, of whose excommunicating the Eastern Bishops (for not agreeing with him about Easter) we have a large account in Eusebius n 1.159; but of that there is no∣thing in the Pontifical; only we are told he had a Council at Rome, to which he called Theophilus (Bishop of Alexandria) and decreed Easter should be observed upon a Sunday, &c. Upon this hint, and the Authority of a better Author, we grant there were at these times divers Councils held about keeping Easter: But the Editors of the Councils (though Eusebius be the only credible Author which gives an Account of them) presume to contradict him. For Eusebius makes the Council at Caesarea in Palestina to be first, and makes Theophilus of that City, and Narcissus of Jerusalem, Pre∣sidents of it; but the Editors (for the honour of the Pope) place the Roman Council first o 1.160, and upon the bare Credit of the Pontifical (who mistook Alexan∣dria for Caesarea) say, That Theophilus was present at it; whereas Eusebius saith, This Roman Council was the Second called about this Question, consisting of the Bishops about Rome. Secondly, The Editors place the

Council of Caesarea, affirming out of a suspicious Frag∣ment of Bede (who lived many Centuries after,) That it was Called by Victor's Authority; whereas Eusebius (as we see) assigns other Presidents to that Council; yea, they intitle all the other Councils about this Matter, Under Victor; though in Eusebius they are set down as independent upon one another, The Bishops of each Country Calling them by their own Autho∣rity. And though Binius's Notes p 1.161 brag of Apostolical and Universal Tradition; The Bishops of Asia produced a contrary Tradition, and called it Apostolical, for keeping Easter at a different time; which shews how uncertain a ground Tradition is for Articles of Faith, when it varied so much in delivering down a practical Rite through little more than one Century: And the Asian Bishops persisting in their Custom, and despising Victor's Excommunication, proves, They knew nothing of his Supremacy or Infallibility in those days. We grant Victor was in the right as to the time of Easter, and that which he and other Councils now agreed on, was agreed upon also at the Council of Nice; but Binius stretches it too far when he pretends, That general Council confirmed Victor's Sentence of Excommuni∣tion: For Victor's Authority is never urged in the Nicene Council, nor his Excommunication mentioned; and we know from Eusebius, That the Bishops of his own Opinion severely reproved him for offering to pass so rash a Sentence, and to impose his Sense upon remote Churches: So that thus far there is no genuine Proof of any Supremacy exercised or claimed by the Roman Church; for the Decretals, which only pretend to make it out, are notorious Forgeries.

CHAP. III.

Of the Forgeries in the Third Century.

§. 1. THis Century begins with the Life of Pope * 1.162 Zepherine, who Sat Eight years, saith the Pon∣tifical; but the Notes tell you, He Sat Eighteen, which is a small Error in that fabulous Author: Yet the Editors believe upon his Credit, that this Pope ordered Vessels of Glass to be used in the Mass q 1.163; and the Notes prove it by Pope Gregory the Great, who lived Four hundred years after this time. However, if we allow the Matter of Fact upon the Testimonies of S. Hierom and Epiphanius; it will follow, That in those Ages (when they used Glass Cups) they did not believe Transubstantiation; for if they had, they would not have ventured Christ's Blood in so brittle a Vessel, but have forbid the use of Glasses, as they have done in the Roman Church since this Opinion came in among them r 1.164.

Under this Pope the Editors place an African Coun∣cil, and say it was Reprobated; yet they cannot make it appear, that this Pope so much as knew of it. Nor was his Advice or Consent at all desired in that case, which was never disputed at Rome till Pope Stephen's time (as themselves confess) viz. Fifty years after this. Council was held; from whence we learn, That every Province in this Age believed they had sufficient Autho∣rity to determine Controversies in Religion among themselves, without the Consent of the Bishop of Rome.

§. 2. Though the Pontifical be guilty of many Errors in the Life of Calixtus, and mistake the very Emperors under which he lived and died, the Notes gloss them all fairly over s 1.165, and correct them by the Roman Martyrology, which often follows the Pontifical, and is as fabulous as that. However we are told, That Calixtus was buried Three Miles out of the City; because the Law of the Twelve Tables forbid the Burying of a dead Body within the Walls. Now I would know, if this Law were in force, how that can be true which the Ponti∣fical and the Notes affirm and justifie, That S. Peter, Linus, Cletus, Euaristus, Sixtus, Telesphorus, Hyginus, Pius, and Victor, were All Buried in the Vatican? And what shall we think of the Miracles done by their Relicks and at their Tombs, if no Body know where they were first Buried?

Pope Urban, the Successor of Calixtus, is said in the Pontifical t 1.166, to be Buried in the Coemetery of Prae∣textatus, which could not then be any Coemetery at all, because Praetextatus was not Martyted till the Per∣secution under Maximinus, which hapned many years after: And if the Story of S. Cecily in the same Author, be no Truer than his Chronology, the Romanists wor∣ship a fictitious Saint.

The Pontifical is forced to feign, That the Emperor Alexander Severus was a Persecutor, contrary to his Character in all Histories of Credit; and this only to make us think, that Calixtus, Urban, and Pope Pontianus his Successor, were Martyrs. However though Euse∣bius knew not of their Martyrdom u 1.167, the Roman Church adores them all as Martyrs, and have peculiar Days dedicated to their Memories.

Antherus (as the Pontifical says) Sat Twelve years and One Month; and the Notes say, that he Sat only one Month w 1.168; so that there is but only Twelve years mistaken in this Popes Life: And if he was Pope but one Month, doubtless his Secretaries had need be very swift Writers, or else they could not gather many in

his time. However Binius will make it out, for he brings in a Poetical Hyperbole, Of those Scribes, who could write a Sentence before a man had spoken it; and so were as quick at guessing as writing; and applies this in very serious earnest to this Pope's Notaries, to make us imagine, there were many Acts of Martyrs writ out in this short-lived Pope's time.

§. 3. Pope Fabian, as Eusebius relates, was chosen by occasion of a Dove's lighting on his Head, when the People were met to elect a Pope; of which remarkable Story the fabulous Pontifical takes no notice, but tells us, That in this Popes time Novatus the Heretic came to Rome x 1.169; that is, say the Notes, Above a year after Pope Fabian was dead, after the Vacancy, and in Pope Cornelius's time; with such absurd Comments do these Gentlemen delight to cover the Ignorance and False∣hood of their Historian; but such Excuses do only more expose him. In this Pope's time were two Coun∣cils held, one in Africa, the other in Arabia, and they Intitle them both under Fabian; yet the only Authors, who mention these Councils, do not say Pope Fabian was concerned in either of them y 1.170, and therefore they were not under Fabian.

After this Pope's death there was a Vacancy of more than one whole year, which the Editors, to slatter the Papacy, call (in the style of Princes) An Interregnum; but alas! their admired Monarchy, was now turned into an Aristocracy, and the Clergy governed the Roman Church; to excuse which flaw in their visible Monarchical Succession, the Notes say, The Members next the Head knew it was their parts, to do the office of the Head: Which notable kind of substitution, if it could be made out in the Body Natural, Beheading would not be a Mortal punishment; however, they must say something to make us believe there was always a Visible Head of the Catholic Church, or at least a Neck and Shoulders, which stood for an Head, till Cornelius was chosen Pope: And they called a Council (as they

pretend) in this Vacancy, and writ a Letter of their De∣termination to all the Churches in the World, that they might all observe what the Empty Chair of Peter had ordered z 1.171. But if any one read the Letter it self, it will appear that this Council was only a voluntary Assembly of the Clergy in Rome, and they met only to confirm S. Cyprian's Opinion, and only writ their Letter to him; but never pretended either to be Judges over Cyprian, or any other part of the Catholic Church.

Pope Cornelius his Life follows, for whose Character we are more obliged to S. Cyprian's Epistles, than to the Pontifical, which invents an idle Story of a Dia∣logue between Cornelius and Decius the Emperor; and though the Notes own a 1.172, That Decius (who is here pretended to Martyr him) dyed the same Month in which Cornelius entred; yet they will not own the Story to be false, but boldly put in the Name of Volusianus into their Margen instead of Decius. However, the Breviary b 1.173 retains the Fiction of Cornelius suffering under Decius, as it doth also the Fable of his Tran∣slating the Bodies of S. Peter and S. Paul: But let any considering Man compare the different ways of telling this Sham Story, and he will easily discern, that the Notes cannot reconcile them without flying to a Mi∣racle c 1.174. It is evident they have told us, the Body of S. Peter was in the Vatican, when Pope Victor was there Buried, An. 203: And there is no Author of Credit mentions their removal into the Catacumbae, and so consequently no reason to believe they were fetcht back from thence in a time of Persecution. Pope Gregory lived 350 years after this, and was very apt to credit feigned Miracles, and he differs much from the Pontifical; so that probably the whole Story is forged, by those who long after began superstitiously to adore the Relicks of Saints. However, it is read in the Roman Church Septemb. 16. and many devout People on the Credit of this Legend make Pilgrimages, and offer Prayers and large Gifts, to the Shrines of these

two Apostles, of whose true Relicks they can have none, because their real Graves are not known.

In this Pope's time there were two Councils holden at Carthage, two at Rome, and one in Italy; all which in the general Titles are said to be held under Cornelius d 1.175; though the Notes assure us, That those two at Car∣thage were called by S. Cyprian's Authority, and that the Italian Bishops made a Decree of their own, be∣sides that of Cornelius at Rome. The Roman Councils indeed were holden under Cornelius, as being Bishop of that City; but we may observe, He did not Authori∣tatively confirm the Sentence of the Council of Car∣thage, but only consented to it. We may also Note, This African Council calls not Pope Cornelius Father, but Brother, and writes to him as one of their Col∣legues; yea, they do not except Cornelius, when they Decree, That if any of their Collegues agreed not to their Sentence, he should answer it at the Day of Judgment e 1.176. Moreover, in the same Letter there is an evident Testi∣mony, that the People in those days were prepared for Mar∣tyrdom, by receiving the Eucharistical Cup f 1.177; which being now denied to the Laity, the Editors pass it by without a Note; yet soon after, where the Council plainly speaks of Confessing the Name of Christ before Persecutors; they have this impertinent Marginal Note, From this and other places, the necessity of Confession is confirmed: As if this belonged to their new invented Auricular Confession.

§. 4. The Notes find divers Faults in the Life of Pope Lucius, yet they would palliare the grossest of all; for the Pontifical says, He was Beheaded by Vale∣rian; the Notes affirm it was by Gallus and Volusiunus; and yet the same Notes tell us, The Pontifical (in say∣ing it was by Vulerian) may be very well and truly expounded g 1.178. The Reader must understand, It may be so expounded by such kind of Notes, as are designed to make gress Errors seem great Truths.

Pope Stephen, who succeeded Lucius, fell out with Cyprian and the African Bishops, about the re-baptizing of Heretics, which (though it were the only memo∣rable thing in this Popes Life) the Pontifical never mentions: And the Editors are are so used to put into the Title of all Councils, Under such or such a Pope, that in this Popes time they style those very Councils, Sub Stephano, which were called without his knowledge, and which condemned his Opinion h 1.179, as may be seen in the Councils of Carthage, Iconium, and Africa, where (so easily may Tradition be mistaken) the Re-baptizing of Heretics is asserted to be an Apostolick Tra∣dition, though it were contrary to Pope Stephen's Opi∣nion, and the Tradition of the Roman Church. And when Stephen on this account presumed to Excommu∣nicate the Asian Bishops, Firmilianus (Bishop of Coe∣sarea) in a Letter to S. Cyprian i 1.180, Despises his Sentence, compares the Pope to Judas, complains of his Arro∣gance, and esteems those to be very silly who took the Roman Bishop's word for an Apostolical Tradition; from which that Church in many Instances had de∣parted. Moreover, He calls him a Schismatic, and affirms, he had by this rash Sentence only cut himself off from the Unity of the Catholic Church. S. Cyprian also, and his Africans k 1.181, condemned this Pope as a Fa∣vourer of Heretics, an Enemy to the Church, and one who writ Contradictions, and was void of Prudence; descri∣bing him as an Innovator and bringer in of Traditions, contrary to God's Word, as one who obstinately presumed to prefer human Doctrines before Scripture. I grant Pope Stephen was in the right in this Controversie; yet doubtless, if these Bishops had believed the Supremacy, and Infallibility of the Pope and his Roman Council, they could not have used him at this rate: And the Editors are so concerned to cover this rough usage, that they reprint an Epistle of S. Cyprian's Verbatim l 1.182, after this Quarrel was grown hot, which was writ while they two were Friends, and contains very kind Words to Stephen; which Blind is only to make us

think that Cyprian submitted to the Pope at last, though it is apparent he never did so: Again, the Reader may note that Labbè here prints a Tract of some Ancient Author, to justify the Pope's Opinion; but though there be many good Arguments for it from other Topics, the Argument from Tradition, and the determination of the Roman Church, is not urged in the whole Dis∣course m 1.183, which shews that these were no Arguments allowed in this Writers time: Lastly whereas the third Council of Carthage, severely censures Pope Stephen for taking upon him as Bishop of Bishops, and for compelling his Equals by Tyrannical Terrors to obey him n 1.184: Binius impudently notes upon this, that the Pope was called Bishop of Bishops, to him was the last Refuge in Matters of Faith, and his Determinations were received all the World over as the Oracles of the Holy Ghost: Which is from his Usurping a Title and Authority, to infer he had Right to them; and to prove that all the World re∣ceived his Determinations, from a Story which shews, that half the Christian World rejected them.

§. 5. The Life of Sixtus the Second, in the Pontifical is one heap of Errors, for the Author seems to mistake him for Xystus the Philosopher; and as the Notes con∣fess, make Decius raise a great Persecution against the Church, Eight year after he was Dead. He also places Valerian before Decius, supposing them to Reign together, and saying Sixtus was Beheaded by Valerian in Decius's time o 1.185; now Decius was slain two year before Valerian was Emperor: Yet the Notes labour to colour over all these Contradictions, to Salve the Credit of their Missals and Fabulous Maityrology.

Dionysius the next Pope, is said to have been a Monk, upon the credit of the Pontifical p 1.186; the Notes add that he Lived a Solitary Life, before his Election; yet the Modern Monks have given over that Primitive Custom, and now croud into great Cities: But the Pontifical is so miserably mistaken in the Consuls in this Popes Life, placing those for his last Consuls who were so, two years

before those he Names for his first Consuls, that no∣thing can be believed on this Authors credit. Under this Pope the Editors have feigned a Council at Rome, to which Dionysius Bishop of Alexandria was Cited, and so far obeyed the Order, as to write an Epistle to clear himself, for which they cite Athanasius q 1.187: But we must never trust their Quotations where the Supremacy is concerned, without looking into the Authors they cite: And Athanasius only saith Dionysius of Alexandria was accused at Rome, and writ to the Pope to know the Articles complained of, who sent him an Account, up∣on which he vindicated himself by an Apology: But what is all this to a Roman Council, or a citing Diony∣sius thither? There were also two Councils at Antioch, about this time as Eusebius tells us r 1.188; But the Editors of their own Head put in that the first of them, was ap∣pointed by Dionysius Bishop of Rome, to whom the chief care of the Church was committed—Whereas Eusebius never mentions this Pope as being either concerned in the Council, or consulted about it: but if they will have it under Dionysius, then we may infer, that this Pope ap∣proved a saying of this Council, viz. That they knew of no other Mediator between God and Man but only Christ Jesus. The Second Council of Antioch is inti∣tuled also, Under Pope Dionysius: Yet it appears by Eusebius s 1.189, that this Pope knew not of the Council, till they by their Synodical Epistle informed him of it after they were risen: And in that Epistle they joyn him, and Maximus Bishop of Alexandria toge∣ther as Collegues and equals, not desiring either of them to confirm their Decrees; but acquainting them with their proceedings, they required them to shew their consent by writing Communicatory Letters to Domnus, who was put in by them, Bishop of Antioch, in the Room of Paulus Samosatenus, ejected for He∣rsie; and though this Domnus his Father, Demetrianus had been Bishop of Antioch before, yet we hear of no Papal Dispensation to allow him to succeed there: We may also observe, that Firmilianus (who in Pope Stephens

time so much despised the Popes Authority and Infal∣libility) is by this Council called a Man of blessed Me∣mory: By which we see how little any Ancient and genuine Councils do countenance the Supremacy of the Roman Church, and what need they had to forge Evi∣dence, who would have it taken for a Primitive Doctrine.

§. 6. That Foelix the First was a Martyr, is proved only by the Pontifical, and the Roman Martyrology which often blindly follows it: but why may not the Pontifi∣cal be mistaken in the Martyrdom, as well as the Notes confess it to be in the Consuls t 1.190? And the base Partia∣lity of the Notes appears soon after in citing a place of S. Cyprian, as if he desired to know the Days on which the Mar∣tyrs suffered, that he might offer a Sacrifice for them by Names on their Anniversaries u 1.191; whereas Cyprian speaks of the Confessors who died privately in Prisons, of whose Names he desires to be informed, that he might celebrate their Memory among the Martyrs: Now there is a great difference between S. Cyprian's and the Protestants practice, to Com∣memorate the Saints departed; and the Roman way, of offering the Sacrifice of the Mass for the deceased: Yet the Notes would suborn S. Cyprian to give in evi∣dence for this corrupt practice.

Pope Eutychianus lived not long before Eusebiu's time, and he saith he only sat ten Months w 1.192; The Pontifi∣cal allows him thirteen Months, but the Notes boldly say he was Pope Eight years x 1.193, and this only upon the Names of two Consuls set down in the Pontifical, and the credit of the Roman Martyrology; but since these two are scarce ever right in their Chronology, we ought to believe Eusebius rather than the Annotator and his despicable Witnesses.

His Successor Gaius lived in Eusebius's own time, and he affirms he sat Fifteen years y 1.194; but the Pontifical allots to him Eleven years only, and so doth the Breviary z 1.195; both of them making him Dioclesian's Kinsman, (which Eusebius knew nothing of;) The Notes out of Baronius contradict them all, and ascribe to him Twelve years,

making him Dioclesian's Nephew; and yet the Pontifical saith both that he fled from Dioclesian's Persecution, and died a Confessor. Yet was Crowned with Martyrdom with his Brother Gabinius; which Non-sense Baronius and the Notes also defend.

§. 7. This Century is concluded by the Uunfortunate Marcellinus, who as the Pontifical tells us, did Sacrifice to Idols a 1.196; and S. Augustine in the Notes plainly supposes it to be true: Yet the Annotator (who dares not deny it) labours to Amuse the Reader by saying, this Story may be plainly refuted and proved false by divers probable Reasons out of Baronius; but because their Mis••als and Martyrology do own the thing, he will not go that way to Work: What then? Doth he clearly charge the Infallible Judge with Apostacy? No, he saith, He seemed to deny the Faith by External acts, (that is, Sacrificing to Idols;) Yet by his Internal acts, (it seems Binius knew his thoughts) he did not believe any thing contrary to the Faith: And truly this is an early Instance of Jesuitical Equivocation: But we may make the same Excuse for all the Apostates in the World; and it is plain the Notes care not what they say, to protect their dear Infallibility against the most convincing Truths.

About the very time of this Pope's Apostacy was held a Council at Cirta in Africk; and though S. Au∣gustine, the Author from whom they have all they know about it, say not one Word of Marcellinus, Yet the Editors and Annotator both, put in these Words, that it was under Marcellinus b 1.197; Where I cannot but wonder, that (since they have invented a Council in the same year to set poor Marcellinus Right again, after his Apostacy;) they did not place that Council first, and then their re conciled Penitent might with a better Grace, have sat at Cirta and Condemned such as fell in the Persecution.

But the most Infamous Forgery, is the Ridiculous Council of Sinuessa c 1.198, devised by some dull Monk, who could write neither good Sense nor true Latin, inspir∣ed only by a blind Zeal for the Roman Church, whose

Infallible Head must be cleared from Apostacy, though it be by the absurdest Fictions imaginable: For he feigns this Apostate Pope met Three-hundred Bishops near Sinuessa, in Dioclesian's time in a Cave, which would hold but Fifty of them at once, and their busi∣ness was only to hear Marcellinus condemn himself, and to tell him he could be Judged by none. The two first Copies of this Council were so stuffed with Barbarisms, false Latin and Nonsense, and so contrary to each other, that some Body took Pains out of both to devise a third Copy, and by changing and adding at pleasure, brought it at last to some tolerable Sense: Surius and Binius print all three Copies, but Labbè and the Collectio regia leave out the two Originals, and only publish the Third, drest up by a late Hand, which in time may pass for the true account of this Council. But the two first Copies in Binius, yet extant, will give the Reader a good proof into what depths of Ignorance the Monks were fallen, when such Unintelligible and Incoherent stuff as this, and the Letters Forged between the Council of Nice and Pope Sylvester, (which are in the same Style,) were designed to support the Roman Su∣premacy and Infallibility. I shall not reflect upon the Absurdity, of making the Pope his own Judge, when he denies the Fact, nor the Contradiction of the Coun∣cils, saying often They must not judge him; and yet de∣claring soon after That they have Condemned him d 1.199: Whoever will but read this Council over, shall find di∣version enough, if Blunders and Dulness be diverting to them. I shall therefore principally note the gross Par∣tiality and Fallacies of the Notes, in colouring over this bare-faced Forgery: First, the Annotator accuses the Century Writers, and English Innovators for rejecting this Rare Council as a Forgery of the Donatists, he should have said of the Romish Monks; yet he makes more Objections against it, than he himself can answer: Protestants wonder that Three-hundred Bishops should dare to meet in times of Persecution: He replies, a far less number did meet on a slighter occasion Fifty

years before, which is but a very indifferent Proof: Well, but to magnify the occasion, he saith, By this Pope's fall, not only the Roman Church, but the whole Christian Religion was in extreme danger; and in the President of the Catholic Faith, the very Foundation of the Church was shaken and almost ruined: Yet a little before he had told us out of S. Augustine, that Marcellinus's fall did no pre∣judice to the Church, and had affirmed that the ill Deeds of Bishops may hurt themselves, but cannot prejudice the Churches Orthodox Doctrine e 1.200: Again, he proves it could not be an Invention of the Donatists, because they never knew of it; yet presently he owns they ob∣jected it to the Catholics, and therefore must know of it, all that S. Augustine saith, being only that they could not prove it: After this Baronius and he say, that no Writer doth mention this City of Sinuessa, nor is there any Memory of such a place or Cave: Which is a great mistake in them both. For Livy, Cicero, Ovid, Martial and Pliny, do all speak of Sinuessa f 1.201, and Alexander ab Alex∣andro, mentions a famous High-way, leading from Rome to this City g 1.202. And if an Earthquake have since Overthrown it, that will not prove there was no such City then: all the Wonder is that these Gentle∣men should defend a Council for genuine, which they thought had been held in Utopia: The Notes proceed to tell us that Very many most Learned Men, (not Here∣ticks, I suppose) by very strong Arguments have laboured to prove these Acts spurious: But he (who values no Ar∣guments against the Supremacy,) not only thinks them not to be false, but judges them worthy of great Esteem for their Venerable Antiquity, and for their Majesty which extorts Reverence even from the unwilling: Now their Antiqui∣ty cannot be proved by one Old Author, and their Majesty is so little, that they extort Laughter and Con∣tempt from the gravest Reader: Let us therefore hear his Reason for this Approbation, it is because they are be∣lieved by general consent of all; (He forgets that he said but now, very many and very Learned Men did not believe them;) And because they are received and retained

without any Controversy to this Day, in the Martyrologies and Breviaries of the Roman and other Churches h 1.203: So that at last, all the Authority for this Council is the Roman Martyrology and Breviary; which are Modern Colle∣ctions, out of the Fabulous Pontifical and other Forged Acts of Martyrs; And though their own Learned Men by good Arguments prove the things to be false, yet if they be Read in a Breviary, &c. these Falshoods become true, and Catholics receive them without Controversy: Yea, they cite the Transcript of a Forgery to prove the Original to be a Truth. Again, the Notes say it is no pre∣judice to the Truth of Marcellinus his fall, though the Afri∣cans did not know of it, nor S. Augustine, no nor any of the African Church: Yet in the next Page it is observed, That there are very many Names of the Witnesses which prove his fall, which are peculiar to the African Christi∣ans: Now if these Names were peculiar to the Africans, then these Witnesses were of the African Church Ori∣ginally, and then it is Morally impossible, that they should never tell none of their Countrymen, of so Fa∣mous a Transaction: The Notes confess that these Acts often mention Libra occidua; which is a Word invented after the Empire was divided into East and West: And thence the same Notes infer, these Acts were not writ in those Ancient times; yet they make it a wonder, that they were not seen in Africa in S. Augustine's time or before: Which is to wonder that they had not seen them in Africa, before they were written: It puzzles the Annotator to make out an excuse for that ridiculous Falshood in these Acts, that Marcellinus was led into the Temple of Vesta, and Isis, and there Sacrificed to Hercules, Jupiter and Saturn; because these Gods were never placed, nor Worshiped in the Temples of those female Deities: Nor can he allow what the Acts say about this Council, be∣ing held when Dioclesian was in his Persian War; for he affirms it was held Two years after that War, when Dioclesian had devested himself of the Empire, and lived a private Life; But then the Acts make Dioclesian to be present, and in Rome when Marcellinus did Sacri∣fice;

and at this rate the Pope would have laied two years at least in his Apostacy, which the Annotator must not endure. To conclude, we now see, That a Council held no body knows where nor when, concealed from all Ancient Authors, writ in later times, full of Barbarisms, and Non-sense, Falshoods and contradictions, if it do but pretend to make out the Supremacy and Infallibity of the Pope, and set him (while he was an Apostate and falsly denied the Fact,) above a Council of Three hundred Innocent Bishops; if it do but say the Pope, though never so wicked, cannot be judged by any but himself: This Council shall be published by the Ro∣man Editors, and vindicated by partial Notes, as if it were a most genuine and Authentic Truth: From whence it is plain, That these Editors, and especially this Annotator hath no other measure of Truth and Fals∣hood, but the Interest of the Roman Church, which they resolve to promote, though it be by the most un∣just means. And this may suffice to observe for the Third Century.

Notes

• a 1.1

  Lab. Tom. III. pag. 18. & Bin. Tom. I. par. 1. pag. 1.
• b 1.2

  Ibid. pag. 20. Bin. pag. 2.
• c 1.3

  Bin. pag. 1. col. 2. F.
• d 1.4

  Lab. pag. 20. Bin. pag. 2. col. 1.
• e 1.5

  Lab. pag. 21. Bin. pag 2. col. 2.
• f 1.6

  Lab. pag. 24. Bin. pag. 3. col. 2.
• g 1.7

  Lab. pag. 53. Bin. pug. 14. col. 1.
• h 1.8

  ibid. Lab. & Bin.
• i 1.9

  Lab. pag. 53. Bin. pag. 14. col 2.
• k 1.10

  Vid. Beve∣ridg. Not. Con∣cil. Tom. II. pag. 18.
• l 1.11

  Lab. pag. 55. Bin. pag. 15. col. 1.
• m 1.12

  Lab. pag. 56. Bin. pag. 15. col. 2.
• n 1.13

  Lab. pag. 60. Bin. pag 17. col. 2.
• o 1.14

  Tertul. de jejun. adv. Psycl. cap. 14 & 15.
• p 1.15

  Aug. ad Ja∣nuar. ep. 118. cap. 2. & ad Casulan. Ep. 86.
• q 1.16

  Lab. pag. 6. Bin. pag. 18. col. 1.
• r 1.17

  Dr. Cosens Histor. Canon. Chap. 4.
• s 1.18

  Lab. pag. 61 Bin. pag. 18. col. 2.
• t 1.19

  Lab. pag 62. Bin. pag. 18. col. 2.
• u 1.20

  Lab. pag. 63. Bin. pag. 19. col. 2.
• w 1.21

  Harding a¦gainst Jewel, pag. 53. Dr. James cor∣rup. of Faith, par. 1. p. 22.
• x 1.22

  Cestriens. dissert. posthum. lib. 2. cap. 1, 2. &c.
• y 1.23

  Lab. col. 65. Bin. pag. 20. col. 2.
• z 1.24

  Richer. praesul. ad histor. Concil.
• a 1.25

  John. V. 31. nemo sibi & pro∣fessor, & tellis. Tert. in Mar∣••••n. lib. 5.
• b 1.26

  Lab pag. 72. Bin. pag. 24. col. 1.
• c 1.27

  Cestriens. diss. 2. cap. 2.
• d 1.28

  Iren. adv. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 l. 3. c. 3.
• e 1.29

  Cestriens. diss. 2. cap. 1.
• f 1.30

  Lab. pag. 74. Bin. pag. 25. col. 1.
• g 1.31

  Lab. pag. 75. Bin. pag. 25. col. 1.
• h 1.32

  Cusan. de Concord. Cath. l. 3.
• i 1.33

  Baron. An. 865. §. 7. & An. 102. § 6, 7
• k 1.34

  Labbé pag. 78.
• l 1.35

  Bin. pag. 26. col. 1.
• m 1.36

  Hard. a∣gainst Jewel, pag. 22.
• n 1.37

  Dr. James Cor. of Fath. Part I. pag. 4, 20, & 69.
• o 1.38

  Rob. Coci Censura Patr. per totum.
• p 1.39

  Baron. A∣nnal. An. 865. §. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8.
• q 1.40

  Lab. p. 595. Bin. pag. 79. col. 1.
• r 1.41

  Rob. Coci Censurae pag. 33.
• s 1.42

  Lab. p. 622. Bin. pag. 90, & 91.
• t 1.43

  Ep. 3 & 5. Cornel. Lab. pag. 683, &c. Bin pag. 111, 112, 113.
• u 1.44

  Edit. Lab. pag. 116.
• w 1.45

  Lab. p. 82, &c. Bin. pag. 27, &c.
• x 1.46

  Lab. p. 827. Bin. pag. 158.
• y 1.47

  Lab. p. 576. Bin. p. 71. col. 2.
• z 1.48

  Lab. p. 650. Bin. pag. 101.
• a 1.49

  Lab. p. 925. Bin. pag. 172. col. 2.
• b 1.50

  Lab. pag 91. Bin. pag. 30. col. 2.
• c 1.51

  Lab. p. 526. Bin. pag. 47. col. 2.
• d 1.52

  Beveridg. Annot. in Con∣cil. Nicen. Tom. II. p. 52.
• e 1.53

  Lab. p. 511. Bin. pag. 42. col. 2.
• f 1.54

  Lab. p. 606. Bin. pag. 82. col. 2.
• g 1.55

  Lab. pag. 98. Bin. pag. 34. col. 2.
• h 1.56

  Lab. p. 727. Bin. pag. 131. col. 2.
• i 1.57

  Lab. p 612. Bin. pag. 85. col. 1.
• k 1.58

  Lab. p. 91. Bin. pag. 30.
• l 1.59

  Lab. p. 103. Bin. pag. 36. col. 1.
• m 1.60

  Lab. p. 609. Bin. pag. 83. col. 2.
• n 1.61

  Lab. p. 822. Bin. pag. 157. col. 1.
• o 1.62

  Lab. p. 934. Bin. pag. 176. col. 2.
• p 1.63

  Lab. p. 528. Bin. pag. 49.
• q 1.64

  Decreta ejus Lab. pag. 532. Bin. pag. 51. col. 2.
• r 1.65

  Lab. p. 533. Bin. pag. 52. col. 1.
• s 1.66

  Lab. p. 541. Bin. pag. 54. col. 1.
• t 1.67

  Lab. p. 558. Bin. pag. 62. col. 2.
• u 1.68

  Lab. p. 568. Bin. pag. 67. col. 2.
• w 1.69

  Lab. p. 574. Bin. pag. 70. col. 2.
• x 1.70

  Cestriens. diss. 2. cap. 6. §. 16. &c.
• y 1.71

  Lab. p. 587. Bin. pag. 75. col. 1.
• z 1.72

  Lab. p. 612. Bin. pag. 85. col. 1.
• a 1.73

  Ibid.
• b 1.74

  Lab. p. 618 Bin. pag. 87. col. 2.
• c 1.75

  Lab. p. 623. Bin. pag, 90. col. 1.
• d 1.76

  Lab. p. 634. Bin. pag. 94. col. 2.
• e 1.77

  Lab. p. 636▪ Bin. pag. 95. col. 2.
• f 1.78

  Lab. p. 682. Bin. pag. 113. col. 1.
• g 1.79

  Lab. p. 668. Bin. pag. 109. col. 2.
• h 1.80

  Lab. p. 721. Bin. pag. 129. col. 1.
• i 1.81

  Lab. p. 732. Bin. pag. 134. col. 1.
• k 1.82

  Lab. p. 913. Bin. pag. 167. col. 2.
• l 1.83

  Lab. p. 921. Bin. pag. 171. col. 1.
• m 1.84

  Lab. p. 527. Bin. pag. 48. col. 2.
• n 1.85

  Lab. p. 529. Bin. pag. 49. col. 2. Vid. Causab. in Baron. pag. 98.
• o 1.86

  Lab. p. 630. Bin. pag. 92. col. 2.
• p 1.87

  Lab. p. 729. Bin. pag. 132. col. 2.
• q 1.88

  Epist. Alex. 1. Bin. pag. 57, & Ep. 2. Bin. p. 59.
• r 1.89

  Lab. p. 571. Bin. pag. 68. col. 2.
• s 1.90

  Lab. p. 581. Bin. pag. 72. col. 2.
• t 1.91

  Lab. p. 584. Bin. pag. 75. col. 1.
• u 1.92

  Lab. p 732. Bin pag. 134. col. 1.
• w 1.93

  Lab. p. 906. Bin. pag. 164. col. 2.
• * 1.94

  De Marca makes this an insallible Note, that these Epi∣stles are forged. De Concord. lib. 3. cap. 5.
• x 1.95

  Lab. p. 68••. Bin. pag. 113. col. 2.
• y 1.96

  Ep. 3. Ana∣cl••ti, Lab. 529. ••in. 49.
• z 1.97

  Lab. p. 588. Bin. pag. 76. col. 1.
• a 1.98

  Lab. p. 917. Bin. pag. 169. col. 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• b 1.99

  Lab. p. 606. Bin. pag. 82. col. 2.
• c 1.100

  Lab. p. 732. Pin. pag. 134. col. 1.
• d 1.101

  Lab. p. 612. Bin. pag. 85. col. 1.
• e 1.102

  Lab. p. 630. Bin. pag. 92. col. 2.
• f 1.103

  Lab. p. 721. Bin. pag. 129. col. 1.
• g 1.104

  Lab. p. 820. Bin. pag. 156.
• h 1.105

  Lab. p. 914. Bin. pag. 168. col. 1.
• i 1.106

  Lab. p. 925. Bin. pag. 172. col. 2.
• k 1.107

  Lab. p. 82. & pag. 98. Bin. pag. 27, & pag. 34.
• l 1.108

  Praesat. Laur. Surii ap. Lab. Tom. 1. pag. 13.
• m 1.109

  Lab. p. 532. Bin. pag. 51. col. 2.
• n 1.110

  Lab. p. 542. Bin. pag. 55. col. 2.
• o 1.111

  Exempli gratia, Telesphori Ep. 1. A〈…〉〈…〉ceti Ep. 1. Zepherin. 1 & 2. Pontiani Ep. 2. Fabiani Ep. 3. Cornelis Ep. 1, 2. & in mult•••• aliis.
• p 1.112

  Lab. p. 576. Bin. pag. 70. col. 2.
• q 1.113

  Euseb. hist. lib. 4. cap. 22. & Brev. Rom. Ma〈…〉〈…〉 26.
• r 1.114

  Lab. p. 572. Bin. pag. 68. col. 2.
• s 1.115

  Lab. p. 593. Bin. pag. 78. col. 1. Euseb. lib. 5. cap. 22.
• t 1.116

  Lab. p. 630. Bin. pag. 92. col. 2.
• u 1.117

  Dodwel. ap. Cestr. diss. 2. cap. 6.
• w 1.118

  Lab. p. 636. Bin. pag. 92. col. 2.
• x 1.119

  Baron. An. 238. §. 9.
• y 1.120

  Epist. 1. A∣lexander.
• z 1.121

  Sixti Ep. 2.
• a 1.122

  Telesphor. Ep 1.
• b 1.123

  Pii Ep. 1.
• c 1.124

  Aniceti Epist 1.
• d 1.125

  Calixti Epist. 1.
• e 1.126

  Lab. pag. 82. Bin. pag. 27.
• f 1.127

  Lab. p. 511. Bin. pag. 42. col. 1.
• g 1.128

  Lab. p. 562. Bin. pag. 64. col. 2.
• h 1.129

  Lab. p. 567. Bin. pag. 66. col. 2.
• i 1.130

  Lab. p. 698. Bin. pag. 119. col. 2.
• k 1.131

  Lab p. 906. Bin. pag. 164. col. 2.
• l 1.132

  Lab. p. 640. Bin. pag. 97. col. 1.
• m 1.133

  Lab. p. 671. Bin. pag. 110. col. 2.
• n 1.134

  Not Bin. in 1. Ep. Pii. Lab. pag. 571. Bin. pag. 68.
• o 1.135

  Lab. p. 605. Bin. pag. 81. col. 2.
• p 1.136

  Lab. p. 609. Bin. pag. 83. col. 2.
• q 1.137

  Lab. p. 624. Bin. pag. 90. col. 1.
• r 1.138

  Lab. p. 654. Bin. pag. 103. col. 1.
• s 1.139

  Lab. p. 667. Bin. pag. 108. col. 1.
• t 1.140

  Bin. p. 112. col. 2.
• u 1.141

  Lab. p. 703. Bin. pag. 120.
• w 1.142

  Lab. p. 732. Bin. pag. 134. col. 1.
• x 1.143

  Scriptor. Histor. August. pag. 960.
• y 1.144

  Bin. p. 136. col. 1.
• z 1.145

  Lab. p. 914. Bin. pag. 168. col. 1.
• * 1.146

  (a) Lab. p. 511. Bin. pag. 42. col. 1.
• b 1.147

  Lab. p. 532. Bin. pag. 51. col 2.
• c 1.148

  Lab. p. 541. Bin. pag. 55. col. 1. Brev. Sixt. 5. in Ma•••• 3.
• d 1.149

  Cestriens. dissert. pos••hum. diss. 2. cap. 7. pag. 227.
• e 1.150

  Euseb. lib. 4. c. 5.
• f 1.151

  Lab. p. 554. Bin. pag. 60. col. 2.
• † 1.152

  Euseb. ut supr.
• g 1.153

  Lab. p. 559. Bin. pag. 63. col. 2.
• h 1.154

  Lab. p. 565. Bin. pag. 65. col. 2.
• i 1.155

  Lab. p. 568. Bin. pag 67. col. 2.
• k 1.156

  Cestrieus. diss. 2. cap. 11. pag. 65.
• l 1.157

  Lab. p. 579. Bin. pag. 72. col. 1.
• m 1.158

  Usserii An∣tiq. Brit cap. 4, 5, &c. & ap. Spelm. Tom. I. Concil.
• n 1.159

  Euseb. hist. lib. 5. cap. 23, 24, &c.
• o 1.160

  Lab. p. 596. Bin. pag. 79. col. 1, 2. Vid. Euseb. lib. 5. cap. 22.
• p 1.161

  Lab. p. 598. Bin. pag. 80. col. 1.
• * 1.162

  An. Dom. 203.
• q 1.163

  Lab. p. 603. Bin. pag. 81. col. 1.
• r 1.164

  Dailé de cult. relig. ap. Latin. lib. 2. cap. 22.
• s 1.165

  Lab. p. 608. Bin. pag. 83. col. 1.
• t 1.166

  Lab. p. 617. Bin. pag. 87. col. 1.
• u 1.167

  Euseb. hist. lib. 6. cap. 15, 17, & 22.
• w 1.168

  Lab. p. 629. Bin. pag. 92. col. 1.
• x 1.169

  Lab. p. 638. Bin. pag. 95. col. 2.
• y 1.170

  Lab. p. 650. Bin. pag. 101. col. 2.
• z 1.171

  Bin. p. 107. col. 1.
• a 1.172

  Lab. p. 565 Bin. pag. 108. col. 1.
• b 1.173

  Breviar. Sixt. 5. 16 dic Septemb.
• c 1.174

  Lab. p. 567. Bin. pag. 108. col. 1.
• d 1.175

  Lab. p. 714. Bin. pag. 126. col. 1.
• e 1.176

  Lab. p. 718. Bin. pag. 128. col. 1.
• f 1.177

  Lab. p. 717. Bin. pag. 127. col. 2.
• g 1.178

  Lab. p. 720. Bin. pag. 128. col. 2.
• h 1.179

  Lab. p 751. pag. 760, &c. Bin. pag. 137, 141, 145, &c.
• i 1.180

  Lab. p. 751. Bin. pag. 141. col. 2.
• k 1.181

  Lab. p. 765. Bin. pag. 147. col. 2.
• l 1.182

  Lab. p. 740. & pag. 764. Bin. pag. 136. col. 2. & p. 146. col. 2.
• m 1.183

  Lab. p. 770.
• n 1.184

  Lab. p. 786. Bin. pag. 149. col. 2. & p. 154. col. 2.
• o 1.185

  Lab. p. 819. Bin. pag. 155. col. 1.
• p 1.186

  Lab. p. 827. Bin. pag. 158. col. 1.
• q 1.187

  Lab. p. 830. Bin. pag. 160. col. 1.
• r 1.188

  Euseb. hist. lib. 7. cap. 22.
• s 1.189

  Euseb. hist. lib. 7. cap. 24.
• t 1.190

  Lab. p. 903. Bin. pag. 163. col. 1.
• u 1.191

  Cypr. lib. 3. ep. 6. vel epist. 37. pag. 81. vid. Da••lè de cult. relig. Lat. lib. 3. cap. 3. pag. 352.
• w 1.192

  Euseb. hist. lib. 7. cap. 26.
• x 1.193

  Lab. p. 913. Bin. pag. 167. col. 2.
• y 1.194

  Euseb. hist. lib. 7. cap. 26.
• z 1.195

  Brev. Ro∣man. April. 22.
• a 1.196

  Lab. p. 930. Bin. pag. 174. col. 2.
• b 1.197

  Lab. p. 936. Bin. pag. 177. col. 1, 2.
• c 1.198

  Lab. p. 938. Bin. pag. 178.
• d 1.199

  Bin. p. 179. 180, & 183.
• e 1.200

  Bin. p. 175. col. 1. 2.
• f 1.201

  Ferarij Lexic. Geo∣graph. p. 199.
• g 1.202

  Al. ab. Al∣exand. gen. dier. lib. 3. cap. 13.
• h 1.203

  Brev. Ro∣man. April. 26.