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 Fourth Century.

PART II.

CHAPTER IV.

Of the Forgeries in the Fourth Century.

§. 1. THis Century begins with the Life of Mar∣cellus, * 1.1 a Pope so obscure, that Eusebius's Chronicle wholly omits him a 1.2; and Theodoret knew nothing of him, nor of Pope Eusebius, but makes Melchiades immediate Successor to Mar∣cellinus

b 1.3. It is very observable, that these two un∣known Popes, in the Notes on their Lives, are said to have sat Seven years between them: And the Ponti∣fical saith, There was a Vacancy of Seven years after Marcellinus, which Vacancy is also asserted by Anasta∣sius Biblioth. by Luitprandus, Abbo Floriacens. Cusanus, and Genebrard c 1.4. And though Baronius's and Binius's Notes, deny this Seven years Vacancy, it is upon meer Conjectures: The Scandal of so long a Vacancy no doubt, setting some of the old Parasites of Rome on work, to invent two Popes Names and put them into the List, from whence probably they have been foisted into O••tatus and S. Augustine, two Latin Fathers, while the Greek Authors (which these Forgers Understood not) do continue Uncorrupted: And truly nothing but the Names of these two Popes remain; for no good Historian mentions any one Eminent Act done by either of them; however, the Annotator had rather fill up his Scene with empty Names of Feigned Popes, who did nothing for Seven years together, than let the Reader suppose the Catholic Church could so long want its pretended Head. But though the Notes allow not the Authority of the Pontifical for the Vacancy, they trust it for the fictitious Story of this Marcellus his Life, and would have us believe, That in a time of Persecution this Pope appointed Twenty five Churches in Rome, to Baptize Converts and Bury Martyrs in; and though the Laws and Customs of that City then, forbad to Bury dead Bodies within the Walls, we are to believe that the Tyrant Maxen∣tius (who made all these Martyrs, and persecuted this very Pope) consented to his breaking this Ancient Law. On the Credit of the same Pontifical we are told, That a certain Lady, called Lucina, dedicated her House to this Pope (while He was alive) by the Title of S. Marcellus; and that the Emperor turned it into a Stable, and made the Pope his Beast-keeper there, where Naked, and cloathed with Sackcloth, (they are the Words of the Pontifical) He soon

after ended his days, the 17th of the Kalends of Fe∣bruary d 1.5. Which Fiction the Roman Breviary orders to be read to the Credulous People of that Commu∣nion for Lessions; and tells them, That Marcellus writ an Epistle to the Bishops of the Antiochian Province about the Roman Primacy, and to prove Rome to be the Head of All Churches, and that no Synod should be held without the Pope's Authority. But this Epistle e 1.6 is owned by Labbé to be a Forgery, patched up out of divers Modern Authors, citing the Vulgar Latin Version, and dated after Marcellus his death: And it is very strage, That times of Persecution should be a proper Season for a Pope to wrangle for his Supre∣macy: Yet this Notorious Forgery saith, Christ ordered S. Peter, to Translate his Seat from Antioch to Rome; and that the Apostles by Inspiration decreed, That all Appeals should be made thither, and no Council held, but by the Authority of the Roman Church. For which cause Binius vindicates it with Notes as full of False∣hood as the Epistle it self f 1.7: His first Note of this Epistle being writ to one Solomon a Bishop, is an over∣sight, and belongs to the first Epistle of Pope Mar∣cell••nus g 1.8. His next Notes about the Primacy and Power of Calling Synods, cite an Apostolical and Nicene Canon for it; but no such Canons are to be found. He quotes also two Epistles, one writ to Pope Foelix from Alexandria; another writ by Pope Julius, to the Eastern Churches, for proof of this Supremacy; and the same Annotator afterwards owns them both to be Forgeries h 1.9. He falsly saith, Dioscorus was Con∣demned at Chalcedon, only for holding a Synod with∣out the Pope's Consent; whereas he is known to have been accused of many other Crimes. His Text of Fasce oves, is nothing to this purpose; nor will Pope Pelagius his Word be taken in his own Cause. His Story of Valentinian makes nothing for the Pope, more than any other Bishop; Yea, the Bishops desiring him to call a Council, shews, They thought it was His Prerogative; and Nicephorus relates his Answer to have

been, That he was so taken up with State Affairs, that he had no leisure to enquire into those matters i 1.10: Wherefore after all this elaborate Sophistry, to justifie a false Assertion of a Forged Epistle, the Annotator hath only shewed his partiality for the Pope's Power, but made no proof of it.

The second Epistle of this Marcellus (to the Tyrant Maxentius) is also a manifest Forgery k 1.11; part of it is taken out of his Successor Gregory's Epistles, writ almost Three hundred years after this; and it is highly improbable, That a persecuted Pope should falsly, as well as ridiculously, to a Pagan Emperor, quote the Laws of the Apostles, and their Successors, forbidding to persecute the Church and Clergy; and also instruct him about the Roman Churches power in Calling Synods, and Receiving Appeals; and cite Clement's Forged Epistle as an Authority to Maxentius, That Lay-men must not accuse Bishops. The Notes indeed are un∣willing to lose such precious Evidence, and so pretend, That Maxentius at this time dissembled himself, to be a Christian; but this Sham can signifie nothing to such as read the Epistle, where Marcellus complains, That he then persecuted him most unjustly, and there∣fore he did not pretend to be a Christian at that time; and consequently the whole Epistle is an absurd Forgery: And so is that Decree subjoyned to it, which supposes young Children offered to Monasteries, and Shaved or Veiled there; Customs which came up divers Centuries after this.

§. 2. The Canons of Peter, Bishops of Alexandria l 1.12, are genuine, and a better Record of Ecclesiastical Discipline, than any Pope to this time ever made; the Reader also may observe, the Bishop of Rome is not once named in these Canons; and they plead Tradition for the Wednesday Fast, contrary to the Roman Churches pretence, of having an Apostolical Tradition, to Fast on Saturday.

The Council of Elliberis in Spain, is by Binius * 1.13 placed under Pope Marcellus; which Words Labbé leaves out of the Title m 1.14, and justly; for if there were such a Pope, the Council takes no notice of him, nor is it likely, that Rome did know of this Council till many years after. Yet it is both Ancient and Authen∣tic, though Mendoza in Labbé n 1.15, reckons up divers Catholic Authors, Caranza, Canus, Baronius, &c. who either wholly reject it, or deny the 34^th, 35^th, 36^th, and 40th Canons of it, which condemn the Opinions now held at Rome: And though Binius (because Pope Innocent approves it) dare not reject it; yet he publishes Notes to make the Reader believe, it doth not con∣demn any of their Opinions or Practices.

The 13th Canon speaks of Virgins, who dedicated themselves to God; but mentions not their being Veiled, or Living in Monasteries; which Customs came in long after, as the Authors cited in the Notes shew o 1.16.

The 26th Canon calls it an Error, to Fast upon Saturday: But the Notes are so bold as to say, The Error which this Council corrected, was the not Fasting on Saturday; whereas even these very Notes confess, That the Eastern Churches, and most of the Western, (Rome, and some few others excepted) together with the African Church, did not Fast on Saturday, but Wednesday; yea, those they Call the Apostolical Ca∣nons, and Clement's Constitutions, do both establish Wednesday Fast, and condemn their pretended Aposto∣lical Churches Saturday Fast; and if divers in Spain (as the Notes say) in S. Hierom's and Pope Innocent's times, did not Fast on Saturday, and others then needed Arguments to settle them in this Roman pra∣ctice: It may be gathered from thence, that in the time of this Council, the Saturday Fast was esteemed an Error, as it was also in that Age almost in all Christian Churches, and so the very Words of the Canon import, which Baronius saw, and therefore p 1.17 only saith, There is mention of the Saturday Fast in this

Synod; and so passes it, knowing it plainly contradicted the Roman Churches Tradition.

The 34th Canon (under pain of Excommunication) forbids the lighting Wax Candles in the places where the Martyrs were Buried (q); which agrees with the * 1.18 Sentiments of the Primitive Church r 1.19. Lactantius condemns Lighting Candles in God's Worship by day, as a Paganish Superstition s 1.20. S. Hierom faith, It was used in his time only by such as did it to humor the silly Vulgar, who had a Zeal without Knowledge t 1.21. Yet the Notes confess this is the Custom of the Ro∣man Church; for which only cause some of their Doctors reject this Canon (since nothing must be Au∣thentic, which condemns their Novel Superstitions) and these Notes make a miserable Blunder to excuse the matter; but we are not concerned, whether (with the Annotator) these Candles in the Day-light disturb the Spirits of the Living Saints, by seeing an Hea∣thenish Rite brought into the Church, or (with Baro∣nius) displease the Saints Deceased, to behold so Super∣stitious a thing vainly devised for their honour. Since it sufficiently appears, the practice is novel and absurd, and (though now used at Rome) condemned by the best Antiquity. The Notes also give us one extra∣ordinary distinction u 1.22, between the Souls of deceased Saints in Heaven, and those in Purgatory; which latter sort, if they had been Saints, one would think should need no such dreadful Scouring.

The 36th Canon determines, That Pictures ought not to be in Churches; and that none may Paint upon Walls that wich is worshiped w 1.23: Which so expresly condemns the Roman-Worship of Pictures and Images, that the boldest Writers of that Church reject this Canon; but others (as the Notes say) would gladly expound it so, as to assert the honour and worship due to Holy Images; (which is a notable kind of Exposition, to make a Canon assert that, which it confutes:) But such transparent Fallacies deserve rather derision, than serious Arguments. Sanders and Turrian observe, That

these Fathers forbid not Images, which Christians might take away and hide; but Pictures, which they must leave exposed to Pagan abuses. But might not this have been prevented, by hanging up their Pictures in Frames? and are not large Images as difficult to be removed and concealed as Pictures? Yea, doth not the present Roman Church adore Pictures as well as Images? so that still this Canon condemns them. Martinez fan∣cies, This Council forbid Painting on the Walls, lest the Pictures should be deformed by the decay of those Walls: But he forgets, that the Council first forbids them to be any where in the Church; and were not Walls as subject to decay in the time of the Second Nicene Council, as they are now? And had not those Fa∣thers as great an honour for Pictures, as these at Elli∣beris? yet the Nicene Picture-Worshipers, order them to be painted on Church-Walls. Martinez adds, That as times vary, human Statutes vary; and so the Second Council of Nice made a quite contrary Decree. What! are Decrees of Councils about Matters of Divine Worship, only human Statutes? what will become of the Divine Authority and Apostolical Tradition, pre∣tended for this Worship of old at Nice, and now at Rome, if the Orders against it and for it be both human and mutable Statutes? It is well however, that the Patrons of Image-Worship do own, they have altered and abrogated a Primitive Canon, for one made Four hundred years after, in times of Ignorance and Superstition; and we know, whether of the two we ought to prefer. Baronius is more ingenuous, who saith x 1.24, These Bishops at Elliberis chiefly endeavoured, by strict Penalties, to affright the Faithful from Idolatry; wherefore they made the 34th, 36th and 37th Canons; and by comparing the First Canon with the Forty sixth, it appears, they dealt more severely with an Idolater, than an Apostate. From whence we infer, That Pictures in Churches tend to Idolatry, in this Councils Opinion. Albaspinaeus (whose Notes Labbé here prints y 1.25) would enervate this Canon, by saying, It forbids not the Saints

Pictures; but those which represented God and the Holy Trinity. But it is not probale, these Primitive Chri∣stians were so ignorant, as to need any prohibition about such blasphemous Representations of God's Majesty. And he brings no proof, but his own bare Conjecture for this limitation of the Canon; which Fancy (if it were true) would prove, That the Saints were not worshiped or adored in that Age, because nothing that was worshiped and adored, was to be painted on the Walls; and if that be meant only of God and the Trinity, then nothing else but God and the Trinity was adored in those days: Finally, the former part of the Canon destroys this limitation, by excluding Pictures in general out of Churches. These are the various Fallacies by which these partial Edi∣tors, would hide the manifest Novelty of their Churches, Worship of Pictures, which cannot be de∣fended by all these Tricks.

I will only add, That this genuine Ancient Council in the Fifty third Canon, Orders, The same Bishop who Excommunicated a Man, to Absolve him; and that if any other intermedled, He should be called to an account for it z 1.26; without excepting the Pope, or taking notice of Marcellus's pretended claim of Appeals.

§. 3. In the Year 306, was a Council at Cartbage against the Donatists, which never takes any notice of the Pope; yet they put into the Title of it, Under Marcellus a 1.27. But there is a worse Forgery in the Notes, where S. Augustine is cited, as saying, That Cecilian (Bishop of Carthage) despised the Censures of the Donatists, because he was joyned in Communion with the Bishop of the Roman Church, from which all Catholic Communion, was ever wont to be denominated: But this is Baronius his false gloss, not S. Augustine's words, who only saith,—because he was united by Communicatory Letters, both to the Roman Church, wherein the Principa∣lity of the Catholic Church had always flourished, and to other Lands from whence the Gospel came to Africa b 1.28.

Now there is great difference between a Mans being a Catholic, because he was in Communion with Rome (then Orthodox) and with other Churches; and his being a Catholic meerly for being in Communion with the Roman Bishop, which is the modern and false notion of the word Catholic, among Papists, in our days: But Binius was so convinced, that S. Augustine's words confuted Baronius's Paraphrase, that he cun∣ningly leaves them out, to make this commodious Sense of them go better down with careless Read∣ers.

§. 4. The next Pope Eusebius, was so obscure, (as the Notes on his Life declare) that no Writer men∣tions any thing of him that is memorable c 1.29; and it is probable, there never was such a Pope: Yet the Pontifical saith, The Cross was found in his time, upon the 5th of the Nones of May, which is the very Day on which the Roman Church now celebrates The Invention of the Cross: And the Third Decretal Epistle of this Pope, was devised on purpose support this Story; yet both Baronius and Binius reject it for a Fable, even while their Church still observes that Holy-day. There are Three Epistles forged for this Name of a Pope, all which Labbé owns to be spu∣rious d 1.30; and I need not spend much time to prove it, since they cite the Vulgar Latin Version, and are mostly stollen out of Modern Authors, (as Labbe's Margen shews) having only one Consul's Name for their Dates, because no other was named in the Pon∣tifical. Besides, the first Epistle uses the Phrase, Pro salvatione servorum Dei, which is not the Latin of that Age; and talks of Rigorous Tortures used among Chri∣stians, to make Witnesses confess Truth. The second Epistle repeats the foolish Argument, of Christ's whip∣ping the Buyers and Sellers (many of which were Lay-men) out of the Temple, to prove, that God alone must judge Priests; and out of a much later Roman Council, (suspected also of Forgery) speaks of the Peoples not

judging their Bishop, unless he err in Matters of Faith—; and discourses of Edicts of Kings, forbidding to try an ejected Bishop, till he be restored to his place. The third Epistle hath the Fable of the Invention of the Cross, and all other Marks of Forgery on it; yet Bellarmine cites it to prove, the Pope's Succession to S. Pe∣ter, in his Universal Monarchy; and to make out Con∣firmation to be a Sacrament e 1.31 So little do those Writers value the credit of any Evidence, if it do but make for their Churches Authority, or support its Doctrines.

§ 5. The Seven years Vacancy being now expired, Melchiades was chosen Pope, and Sat Three years and Seven Months, according to the Pontifical f 1.32; and though the Ecclesiastical Tables (as they call them) generally follow this Author; yet Baronius here by them corrects the Pontifical, and allows Melchiades only Two Years and Two Months: But all this is Conje∣cture, for he grants the Consuls in the Pontifical are so false, that they cannot be reconciled to Truth g 1.33; whence it follows, That the Decretal Epistle ascribed to this Pope, whose Matter is taken from the Pontifical, and whose Date is by those who were not Consuls till after Melchiades's Death h 1.34, must be false also: Yet the Notes defend this Forged Epistle, and Bellarmine cites it for the Supremacy, and for Confirmations being a Sacrament i 1.35, whereas the beginning of it is stollen out of Celestine's Epistle to the French k 1.36; it quotes the Vulgar Translation, and cites an Aposto∣lical Priviledge granted to Rome, for the sole right of Trying Bishops; to justifie which, The Notes cite the 73d and 74th Apostolical Canons; but those Canons, order Bishops to judge an offending Bishop, and make the last appeal to a Synod, without taking any notice of Rome, or of this pretended Priviledge. Again, this Feigned Epistle impudently makes Confirmation more venerable than Baptism; and the Notes defend that bold Expression: But we cannot but wonder,

(since they assert, That Bishops by Gods Law have the sole power of Confirming;) the same Men should grant, That the Pope can give a Priest leave to Confirm, Which yet (they say) changes not the Divine Right of Bishops l 1.37; That is in plain terms, One mans sole Right may be delegated to another, by a Third person, without any injury to him who had the sole Right.

After this follows a Council at Rome under Mel∣chiades, wherein the Pope, by delegation from the Emperor, is joyned in Commission with Three French Bishops, (who are called his Collegues) to hear the Donatists complaint against Cecilian Bishop of Car∣thage m 1.38, and Constantine not only received the Do∣natists first Appeal, and delegated this Cause to Mel∣chiades and his Fellow Commissioners; but upon a second Complaint, ordered this Matter to be heard over again in a French Council, which the Pope in Council had determined. Now this so clearly shews, that the Pope was not Supreme Judge in those days, that Baronius and Binius are hard put to it, to Blunder this Instance: The Notes say, Constantine was yet raw in the Faith; and yet they say also, He knew by God's Law, nothing was to be done without the chief Bishop. But they are forced to prove this by a false Translation of Constantine's Epistle to Melchiades n 1.39, the words of which in Greek are, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which in their Version is, As the most holy Law of God requires; but Valesius's Translation (which Labbé gives us) is, As is agreeable to the most Venerable Law; That is, (as all men know) to the Imperial Laws: So that Constantine only says, He had ordered the Accusers and Accused, all to appear at Rome before these delegated Judges, as the Venerable Laws (which order both Parties to be present when a Cause is tryed) do re∣quire; and by the help of a false Translation this occasion is made use of, to make the Credulous believe, That God's Law required all Causes should be tryed at Rome: Whereas it is apparent by this Instance, That a Cause once Tryed there before the Pope,

might be tryed over again in France, if the Emperor pleased.

The two following Epistles of Constantine out of Pithaeus his Manuscript o 1.40, are very suspicious; the first speaks more magnificently of Christ than one who (as they say) was so raw in the Faith was like to do: And in it Constantine is made to decline Judging in Bishops Causes; which is a protestation against his own Act, and contradiction to the second Epistle, wherein He declares, that this Episcopal Cause shall be tryed before himself: Nor is this first Epistle Recorded in Eusebius, or agreeable to Constantine's Style; so that we suppose, that was devised by such as designed to persuade Princes, That Bishops were above them: For which purpose Baronius here cites a Law of this Emperor to Ablavius p 1.41, Giving men leave to choose Bishops for their Judges, and not allowing them after that to appeal to Se∣cular Courts; because they had been heard by Judges of their own choosing: But Baronius perverts this, to signifie, That Bishops were above Secular Judges by their ordinary Jurisdiction, whereas they were not so in any Cause of this kind, but only when they were extra∣ordinarily chosen Arbitrators; and so Sozomen expounds this Law.

§. 6. We are now arrived at the time of Pope Syl∣vester, * 1.42 who living about the time when Constantine publickly professed Christianity, and being Pope when the Nicene Council was called; yet no Author of Credit, records his being much concerned in these grand Revolutions: Upon which the Annalist, and our Editors rake into all kind of Forgeries, and de∣vise most improbable Stories, to set off Pope Sylvester as very considerable; but we shall look into the Ori∣ginal of the Emperor's becoming a Christian, which will discover all their Fallacies.

Constantine was born of Christian Parents, and brought up under them, and was Thirty years old when he entred on the Empire. And from the Year 306 q 1.43

He professed openly he was a Christian, Making Laws to encourage Converts, and to suppress Paganism throughout his Empire, Building and Endowing Churches, and granting great Immunities to the Clergy; yet all this while He took no notice of Mar∣cellus, Eusebius, or Melchiades, S. Peter's Successors, and pretended Monarchs of the Church. After Seven years having Vanquished Maxentius at Rome, they say, He gave to the Pope his Palace of the Lateran r 1.44: The Notes cite Optatus for this; but he only saith, A Council of Nineteen Bishops met in the Lateran; but it doth not follow from thence, that Constantine had then given the Pope this fair Palace. Again, Baronius (without any ancient Author for it) saith, That Con∣stantive gave S. Peter thanks for his Victory over Maxen∣tius; yet at the same time he affirms, He was yet a Pagan, and durst not by his Acts declare himself a Chri∣stian s 1.45. Very strange! Were not Building Churches, setling Christianity by a Law, giving his Palace to the Pope, and (as they say) Fixing the Trophy of the Cross in the midst of Rome t 1.46, Acts sufficient to declare him a Christian? No, He must be a Pagan Eleven years after this, and a Persecutor; yea, in the year 324 He was so meer a Heathen as to know nothing of the Christian Rites, but what an Egyptian taught him. After he had openly professed this Religion Eighteen years, He had forgot it all, and turned so great a Ty∣rant, that Pope Sylvester (who had no great mind to be a Martyr) ran away into the Mount Soracte, or was banished thither: But Constantine, after He had been Ten years Pope, never had heard of him, till being struck with a Leprosie (mentioned in no Authentic Writer) two glorious Persons, whose Faces he knew not, appeared to the Emperor, and ordered him to send for Pope Sylvester to cure him; who (when He was come) first shewed Constantine these two glorious Persons were S. Peter and S. Paul, and then Cured him; made him a Christian, and Baptized him. Which idle and self-contradicting Romance is magnified by

Baronius's and Binius's Notes; but we will now confute it as briefly as we can.

§. 7. First, This whole Story is devised, to exalt the Glory of the Roman Church; to make Men believe the Pope could work Miracles, and that the first Chri∣stian Emperor was Baptized at Rome: But then it casts such a blot upon Constantine's Memory, and feigns such odious and incredible things of him, as no wise Man can believe concerning a Prince, who S. Augustine saith, was a Christian Eight years before this u 1.47. And whoever reads in Baronius, the History of the first Ten years of Sylvester, from An. 314 till An. 324, and ob∣serves what glorious Things he saith of Constantine's Religious Laws, his Piety to God, his Zeal for Chri∣stianity, his Respect to Confessors, and his Bounty to Bishops; his taking part with the Catholics against Heretics and Schismatics: He can never believe this scandalous Story of so excellent a Prince. But in all this Period of Time, Baronius himself cannot find one Evidence, That ever Constantine had any correspon∣dence with Sylvester, and therefore Christianity was setled in the Empire without the Pope's help: To cover which great Truth, some dull (but zealous Monk) long since invented this Sham Story, to save the Credit of Rome; and the Annalist and these Notes strive to defend it.

Secondly, This Fable chiefly relies on the Credit of the Pontifical, (so often proved false) and upon the repute of Sylvester's Acts: But the Annotator at first ominously Charges them both with Falshood w 1.48; the former mistakes the Time of the Vacancy, and the latter (he saith) is wrong in making Melchiades ordain Sylvester a Priest, he being Ordained by Marcellinus long before. Baronius also confesseth, That these Acts of Sylvester are so false in many particulars, that it shakes the Credit of the whole x 1.49. But it is very strange, after he (who is so concerned for their Reputation) had found so many Flaws in them, he should justifie them even where

they contradict all the Historians of the Age; which can spring from nothing but a Resolution to maintain every thing which made for the Credit of the Roman See.

Thirdly, The Notes say not only the Acts of Syl∣vester, but Zosimus and Sozomen do both attest this Story: Now first, Zosimus was a Pagan, and Baronius and Binius confess, He tells many Malicious Lies of Constantine, for suppressing the Heathen Religion; and though they confute the rest of his Calumnies, they defend his Relation of Constantine's Baptism, as sounding something like those forged Acts y 1.50; and though his Account of it reflect as much upon Constantine, as is possible; yet the Annalist and Annotator labour to prove this Spightful Heathen to be a truer Historian, than Sozomen, Socrates, or Eusebius, whom they repre∣sent as Lyars and Flatterers, not to be believed against Zosimus. Yet there is a mighty difference between this Pagan's History of the Baptism of Constantine, and that in Sylvester's Acts: Zosimus saith, It was a Spaniard, named Aegyptius, lately by the Court Ladies brought acquainted with Constantine, who advised him to be Baptized; and this the Notes say was Hosius; yet it is plain, Hosius was Constantine's Intimate Friend, and his Legate into Egypt Twelve years before (z). Besides, * 1.51 Zosimus doth not name Sylvester, and only designed by his Relation to blacken Constantine, and represent Christianity as a Sanctuary for Villanies, which could not be expiated among the Pagans: But the Acts dis∣course of a Persecution, and a Leprosie, and make Peter and Paul the Advisers of Constantine's Baptism; and their business is only to set up Sylvester's Name. And the Stories (like all Falshoods) do not hang toge∣ther: As for Sozomen, he is no Evidence for Sylvester's Acts, nor doth he once name that Pope in the place cited a 1.52. He only confutes the scandalous Stories, which Zosimus had falsly told of Constantine, shewing how improbable it is, that this Emperor (after he had Reigned nigh Twenty years) should need a New

Conversion; and how unlikely it must be, that the Pagans would not have found out some Rites to ex∣piate him, that so they might secure him in their Religion: So that he is a Witness, That these Reports of Constantine were false, and invented by Malicious Heathens, and so far as Zosimus and Sylvester's Acts agree, he confutes them both; and since he lived within an Hundred years after this time, while some alive might possibly remember these Passages; His early denial of these Fictions is better Evidence against them, than Baronius and Binius's Testimony for them, after Thir∣teen hundred years; to serve a Turn, and do Honour to that Church they resolve to Magnifie.

Fourthly, The Notes speak of Sylvester's Returning to Rome in great glory; which is not mentioned in Zosimus nor Sozomen, and only relies on the Credit of these Acts b 1.53: Which have no Evidence to Attest them, but Pope Adrian, who perhaps forged them; or however, first produced these Acts in the Second Ni∣cene Council, Four hundred and Fifty years after Syl∣vester's time, to prove the use of Images in Constan∣tine's Days. But the very Acts declare, That Constan∣tine (who had Built and Adorned so many Churches, and if Images or Pictures had then been used, must have seen the Faces of S. Peter and S. Paul) did not know the Faces of these two great Apostles, till Syl∣vester shewed them their Images. Whence we infer, That the Acts are no good Proof for Images, if they were Authentic; and their being first cited in an Ignorant Council, made up of Forgeries and False Stories, gives us good Reason to believe them Spu∣rious.

§. 8. The Annotator in the next place asserts con∣fidently, That Constantine was Baptized at Rome by Sylvester, Anno 324 c 1.54: But his Proofs are very weak, viz. First, He cites a Roman Council for this, held the same year: But the Style of that Council is so bar∣barous, the Sentences so incoherent, and the Matter of

Fact so false, that Labbé owns it is a Forgery, and Binius confesses it is suspicious d 1.55; so that this can be no evi∣dence: Nor Secondly, Anastasius Bibliothecarius, who lived Five hundred and Fifty years after this time, and was a meer Sycophant of the Popes, to set up whose Supremacy (then newly hatched) he stuck at nothing, and that spoils his Credit. Thirdly, Zosimus is a ma∣licious Lying Writer, as to Constantine; and though he do say, Constantine was Baptized at Rome, he doth not affirm, that Sylvester Baptized him: Fourthly, Sozomen only relates Zosimus his Story to confute it; so that not one of his Witnesses do prove the matter: Yet these Authors with a weak Conjecture, That Constantine could not have been present in the Nicene Council, if he had not been Baptized before (which we will pre∣sently confute) is all the Evidence that Baronius and these Notes can give for this incredible Story: But on the other side, there are many clear Proofs, that he was baptized at Nicomedia, a little before his death.

First, Eusebius (who lived at that time, and knew Constantine very well, and writ his History soon after) doth affirm this: And if it had been False, many then alive who could remember it, would doubtless have exposed him for so manifest a Fiction. The Notes say he Forged this Story in favour of Constantius; but he must be very Ridiculous, if he would be obliged by a Story of his Father, which many hundreds as well as himself, must have then known to be a Falshood; And Eusebius must be as silly as he was knavish, to invent a Fable so easy to be disproved by living Wit∣nesses: But the Notes wrong Eusebius, when they say, he reports that Constantine died Impious and alienated from the Catholic Church; For Eusebius saith he made a most Christi∣an and Pious end: However Eusebius by this Testimony brings upon himself, all the Rage and Spite of Baronius and our Annotator, who upon all occasions Blast this Holy and Learned Writer, to whose pains they and all the Christian World are infinitely beholding; and though while Eusebius's History continues, it be almost the only

true Record used by Baronius in complling his Annals; yet he and Binius in every Page almost do revile him as an Arian and a Writer of Lies: But there is so much Malice, and so little probability in the Accusation, that their own Writers and ours also do vindicate En∣sebius from these Slanders e 1.56, and we could easily con∣fute these Calumnies, but only that in this Relation he is so certainly in the Right, that we need not consider his Opinion in other things, but will shew as to this particular he is supported by the best Evidence imagin∣able. For

Secondly, Theodoret also saith, that Constantine was Baptized a little before his Death at Nicomedia f 1.57; and though that Eusebius, who was Bishop of that City, was an Arian, yet he dissembled his Heresie while Constantine lived, and the Emperor had restored Athanasius, con∣trary to this Bishop's mind; wherefore though he was forced to make use of an Arian Bishop to Baptize him, being taken ill in that City, yet it will not follow that Constantine died an Arian: Moreover that Constantine was Baptized at Nicomedia, is attested also by Socra∣tes g 1.58 and Sozomen h 1.59; and also by the Chronicles of Isidore and S. Hierom i 1.60, and by S. Ambrose in his Fu∣neral Oration for Theodosius; Yea, Athanasius and a whole Synod at Ariminum, do expresly declare, that Constantine was Baptized a little before his Death; that is, Thirteen years after this pretended Baptism at Rome k 1.61, which last Testimony Baronius and the Notes presume to corrupt, and contrary to all the best Copies, and the necessary Sense of the place, put Constans his Name into the Text instead of Constantine: So that in fine the only Question is now, Whether we will believe these two Modern partial Writers, with those most Fabulous (but as they call them most approved) Acts of Sylvester, first cited by Pope Adrian 450 years after: Or we will believe the concurrent Witness of all the Ancient and Eminent Writers of that and the next Ages; to whom if we give Credit, then Constanstine's Baptism at Rome by Sylvester, is a meer Forgery devised for

the glory of the Roman Church, and for that only reason so eagerly defended by this Annotator and the Annalist.

§. 9. Together with this Fable we must also reject the Fiction of Constantine's Leprosy, which was invent∣ed only that Sylvester might cure it l 1.62; and therefore the Notes prove it very slenderly, viz. First, By those Acts of Sylvester, in which they confess there are many Errors m 1.63: Secondly, By a Roman Council, which is as manifest a Forgery as the Acts themselves: Third∣ly, By a Metaphorical expression of Gregorius Tu∣ronensis, a credulous Writer, who lived 300 years after this, and yet even he doth not expresly affirm it. Fourth∣ly, But the Annotator tells us the Gentile Historians do confirm this, though he names but one, viz. Michael Glycas, who unlucklily proves a Christian Monk, living in Sicily, Anno 1120, about 800 years after this time, and long after Adrian and his Nicene Council had dis∣persed Sylvester's Acts, out of which Glycas took this Fable upon Trust: So that at last he only proves the Acts, by the Acts themselves and by Pope Adrian; and that is all the Authority he hath for this feigned Leprosy, which Disease no Writer (of Credit and Antiquity) saith Constantine, ever had; no not that Malicious Zosimus, who raked up all the Odious things against this Emperor he could devise; and if ever he had been struck by Heaven with Leprosy, no doubt he would have Blazed it abroad with great Pleasure.

§. 10. The Book of Constantine's Munificence, is ground∣ed on the Fable of his Baptism, and seems to be Forg∣ed by the same Hand with Sylvester's Acts: So that we ought also to reject it as a Fiction: Anastasius, who put it out, was the Pope's Library-keeper; and whether he made it, or found it in the Vatican, that Shop of Lies (as Richerius calls it) the Credit of it is invalidated, by rea∣son, no Author of Repute or Antiquity, mentions any of these Gifts: It says blasphemously, Constantine gave a

Saviour sitting five foot high (so it calls a dead Image n 1.64;) But if this were true, why did not Adrian cite this in his Nicene Council? Or why did this Emperor's Sister write to Eusebius Bishop of Coesarea for an Image of Christ, when Sylvester could more easily have furnished her? and by the way, the Notes fraudulently mention this Mes∣sage o 1.65, but do not relate how severely Eusebius re∣proved that Lady for seeking after a visible Image of Christ: The Annotator also cites Paulinus to prove this Book of Munificence; but he writ near 100 years after; and though he speak of a fine Church of S. Peter in Rome; yet he saith not that Constantine either founded or adorned it: Baronius attempts to prove this Book by mear Conjectures, by the Forged Acts, and by Nice∣phorus, a late Author, whom he often taxes for Fi∣ctions p 1.66; but he can produce no ancient or emi∣nent Author for it: And yet it is certain, if Constantine, had given so many and so great gifts to the Head City of the World, some of the most Famous Writers would have Recorded it: Besides, the Cardinal himself rejects both the idle Story of S. Agnes Temple, (attested by a Fi∣ction ascribed to S. Ambrose) told in this very Book q 1.67; and the apparent Falshood of Constantine's now bury∣ing his Mother in one of these Churches, who was a∣live long after r 1.68: So that by his own Confession there are divers Falshoods in this Book; and he had been more Ingenuous if he had owned the whole to be (as it really is) a Forgery.

§. 11. The Editors now go back to the Council of * 1.69 Arles, held (as they say) Anno 314 s 1.70: And it troubles them much, to ward off the Blows which it gives to their beloved Supremacy: For it was appointed by the Emperor, upon an Appeal made to him by the Dona∣tists, to judge a cause over again, which had been judged before by Melchiades and his Roman Council; (the Pope in Council it seems, being not then taken to be Infallible:) 'Tis true, in the Title, which these Editors give us, this Council directs their Canons, To their Lord,

and most Holy Brother Sylvester the Bishop, and say, they had sent them to him, that all might know (the Pope not excepted) what they were to observe: So that though in Respect they call him Lord, yet they Stile him also a Brother, and expect his obedience to their Decrees; nor do they (as the Notes pretend,) desire him to confirm these Canons t 1.71; But only require the Pope who held the larger Diocess, that he would openly acquaint all with them, as their Letter speaks: That is, as he was a Me∣tropolitan, to give notice of these Canons to all his Pro∣vince, which was then called a Diocess; and Baronius is forced to point the Sentence salsly to make it sound, toward his beloved Supremacy u 1.72. So in the First Canon, Pope Sylvester is ordered by this Council to give notice to all, of the Day on which Easter was to be ob∣served: That is, he was to write to all his Neighbouring Bishops under his Jurisdiction about it, not as the Notes say w 1.73; That he was to determine the day, and by vertue of his Office to write to all the Bishops of the Christian World to observe it: The Council had ordered the Day, and command the Pope to give notice to all about him to keep it. And in the Famous Nicene Council, The Bishop of Alexandria (living where Astronomy was well understood) was appointed first to settle, and then to certify the day of Easter; yet none will infer from hence, that he was the Head of the Catholic Church, because he had this Duty imposed on him, which as yet, is more than the Council of Arles did put upon the Bishop of Rome: Again, the Notes are very angry at the Em∣peror, for receiving the Donatists appeal from the Pope and his Council, which they say Constantine owned to be an unjust and impious thing x 1.74; but they prove this only by a forged Epistle mentioned but now, § 5. But it is certain Constantine, (though a Catechumen, which they pretended was impossible at Nice) was present in this Council, and so he must act against his Conscience, if he had thought it unjust, and impious to judge in Ec∣clesiastical Causes: And in this Emperor's Letter to Ab∣lavius, he saith; God had committed all Earthly things to his

ordering: and in that to Celsus he promises to come into Africa, to enquire and judge of things done both by the Peo∣ple and the Clergy y 1.75. And indeed Constantine, by all his practice sufficiently declared, he thought it lawful enough for him to judge in Ecclesiastical matters. Fi∣nally, the Notes say the Bishops met in this Council, at the Emperor's request z 1.76; Now that shews it was not at the Pope's request; but indeed Constantine's Let∣ter to Chrestus, expresly Commands the Bishops to meet; The Notes also out of Balduinus or Optatus, (or rather from an obscure Fragment cited by him) say, Sylves∣ter was President of this Council; Baronius addeth of his own head—namely by his Legates a 1.77, which guess Binius puts down for a certain truth: But it is ridicu∣lous to fancy that a pair of Priests, and as many Deacons in that Age, should sit above the Emperor, when himself was present in that Council; So that though we allow the Pope's Messengers to have been at this Council, there is no proof that they presided in it: We shall only add, that instead of Arians in the Eighth Canon, we must Read Africans: or else we must not fix this Council so early as An. 314, at which time the Arians were not known by that name.

§. 12. In the same year is placed the Council of An∣cyra, which the Editors do not (as usually) say was under Sylvester, but only in his time b 1.78; and it is well they are so modest; for doubtless he had no Hand in it; the Notes confess that it was called by the Authority of Vitalis Bishop of Antioch c 1.79: Balsamon and Zonaras say Vitalis of Antioch, Agricolaus of Caesarea, and Basil of Amasea, were the Presidents of it d 1.80. Yet not only Leo the Fourth, but the famous Council of Nice, approv∣ed of this Synod called and carried on without the Pope's knowledge or leave: There is but one Canon in this Council which contradicts the Roman practice, viz. The Ninth, which allows Deacons to Marry and continue in their Office, if they declared at their Ordination that they could not live Single: This Canon therefore

Baronius and Binius strive to corrupt with false Glosses: The former saith, We may by this Canon see how firmly Ministers single Life was asserted, not only in the whole Ca∣tholick Church but in the East e 1.81. Now it is very strange, that a private Canon of a Provincial Council, which allows one Order of Ministers to Marry, should shew it was the Opinion of the whole Church, that none might Marry: The latter in his Notes affirms That, this among other Canons solidly proves, that not only Priests, but Deacons (by the Apostolical Law) were bound to Live without Wives f 1.82: But the Apostles certainly allowed Deacons to have Wives; and this Canon was made on purpose, that they might live with their Wives, if they pleased: The Notes proceed to say, That Deacons ordained against their Will, and protesting they could not contain, were by these Fathers permitted to Marry after their Ordination, provi∣ded they left off all Sacred Administrations, and did not Com∣municate among the Priests in the Chancel, but among the People: Which is an impudent falsification; There be∣ing no word of being Ordained unwillingly; nor any reason why they should be Ordained, who were to be reduced presently to Lay-communion: Yea, the Words of the Canon are express, that if they did Marry, they should continue in their Ministration g 1.83; So that these Editors make no Conscience, to make these ancient Re∣cords to contradict themselves, rather then let them seem to oppose their Churches present practice: For which vile purpose there is another trick in the Notes on this Council; For whereas the Eighteenth Canon speaks of Lay-persons which Vowed single Life, (as many had done in times of Persecution) and afterwards broke their Vow, that these were to be counted Biga∣mists; The Notes h 1.84 on this Canon, put these Words of the Thirteenth Canon, Those who are of the Clergy, &c. Before their observation on the Eighteenth Canon, on purpose to make the Reader think the Clergy in those days, Vowed single Life as they do now at Rome.

§. 13. The Council of Naeccaesarea (according to these Editors) was under Sylvester i 1.85, who is not once named in it, nor doth it appear he knew of it: They might also have left out Leo the Fourth's approving it Five hundred years after, because the Notes say, The Council of Nice allowed it, which is much more for its Credit k 1.86. The same Notes say, The first Canon orders the same thing, which was decreed in the Thirty third Canon at Elliberis, and the Ninth at Ancyra: And if so, that is not, (as they falsly gloss the Canon of Ancyra) That the Clergy should live Single, or be reduced to Lay Commu∣nion? For in that Canon some of the Clergy are allowed to Marry, and to continue to minister as Clergy-men still. And the true Sense of this Naeo∣caesarean Canon is, That whereas in times of Perse∣cution, when Marriage was inconvenient, many Priests promised to live Single: Now these only were not allowed to Marry afterward l 1.87; but when the Church had Peace, the Nicene Council left all Clergy-men free, to Marry or not, as they pleased; which shews, That when the Reason of this Canon ceased, they believed its Obligation did so also. The Fifth Canon forbids a Catechumen, who falls into Sin, to enter into the Church: By which the Notes say, That Baronius had sharply censured Eusebius m 1.88: But it is plain, that Baronius shews more Malice than Wit in that Censure: Eusebius only relates Matter of Fact, That Constantine was pre∣sent in the Nicene Council, and he (with all ancient Authors) agrees, That Constantine was yet a Catechu∣men; where then is the Crime? Do not Baronius and Binius both agree, that Constantine was present in the Council of Arles, Ten years before his pretended Bap∣tism at Rome? And if it be said, This Canon forbid it: I ask, Whether it be probable, that an Emperor (who, as Baronius saith, was Solutus Legibus, Above the Civil Law) should be proceeded against by a Canon of a small Provincial Council? Wherefore Eusebius his only Crime is, That he tells a Truth, which happens to contradict the Lying

Acts of Sylvester, and consequently the Interest of Rome, for which the Cardinal and Annotator can never forgive him.

The next place is assigned to a Roman Council, under Sylvester, wherein there was a famous Disputation be∣tween the Jews and Christians, before Constantine and Helena; but in the Notes n 1.89 we are told the Story is utterly false, only attested by Sylvester's Acts, which Swarm with Lies, as they are now extant; (yet out of these Acts, as now extant, is the Forgery of Constan∣tine's Baptism at Rome taken;) and therefore Baronius and Binius reject this Council as a meer Forgery. But why do they not reject Constantine's Baptism, as well as this Council, since both rely on the same Author? The Reason is plain, That makes for the Interest of the Pope, and This no way concerns; and so it may pass for a Forgery, as it is.

§. 14. On occasion of Arius's Heresie now breaking * 1.90 out at Alexandria, there was a Council of an Hundred Bishops called by Alexander, Bishop of that City, to Condemn him; which first Council of Alexandria (the Editors say) was under Sylvester; but it doth not appear that this Pope knew of it till Three years after o 1.91, An. 318; at which time Alexander gave notice of this Council (not to Sylvester by name, as the Notes falsly suggest, but) to all Catholic Bishops, and in particular to the Bishop of Constantinople. But for fear the Reader should observe, That more respect was shewed to that Bishop, than to the Pope, the Editors have removed these Epistles of Alexander into the Body of the Nicene Council, and only give us Notes upon them here, in which the Annotator out of Baronius turns the Charge of Lying and Forgery, of which themselves have been so often convicted, upon us, whom they falsly call Innovators p 1.92. Four years after followed a Second Council at Alexandria, which the Notes hope to prove was under Sylvester q 1.93, because Athanasius saith, This was a General Council, and

saith, Hosins was there: Upon this Baronius, fancying nothing could be a General Council unless the Pope were present Personally or by his Legates, conjectures Hosius was the Pope's Legate, and in that capacity presided in this Council r 1.94: And the Notes positively affirm this Dream for a certain Truth. But Athanasius calls many Synods General, which were only Provin∣cial; and it is plain, he had not the modern Roman Notion of a General Council, because he never men∣tions Sylvester, nor doth he say, Hosius was his Legate. But even Baronius owns, that Hosius was Constantine's intimate Friend, and his Legate into Egypt six years before s 1.95; and Socrates saith, He was now again sent thither as the Emperor's Legate; and no doubt, if he did preside in this Council, it was not as Sylvester's Legate (whom no ancient Author records, to have had any hand in this Council,) but as the Legate of Constan∣tine. After these two Councils is placed a Letter of this Emperors to Alexander and Arius, taken out of Eusebius, but is misplaced by the Editors; since it is plain, it was written in the beginning of the Contro∣versie about Arius, and not only before Constantine un∣derstood any thing of the matter, but before these Councils at Alexandria: But Baronius and the Editors place it here t 1.96 on purpose to Rail at Eusebius, as if he put out an Arian Forgery; whereas it is a great Truth, and Constantine may well be supposed to write thus, before he was rightly informed in the Case; therefore those Gentlemen do not hurt Eusebius's Reputation, but their own, in accusing him so falsly, upon the old Grudge of his not attesting their Forgeries, devi∣sed and defended for the Honour of the Roman Church.

§ 15. The Council of Laodicea (though it do not appear any Pope knew of it till after it was Risen) they resolve shall be held under some Pope; the Title saith, Under Sylvester u 1.97; Labbé's Margen saith, Under Liberius, An. 364, or 357; or, Under Damasus 367:

Whereas in truth it was under no Pope, and being placed in the old Collections of Canons after those of Antioch, and also mentioning the Photinians, it must be held long after the Nicene Council w 1.98: But it was falsly placed before the Nicene Council by Baronius (our Editor's main Guide) to secure the Book of Ju∣dith by the Council of Nice's Authority x 1.99. And the Reasons given for this early placing it are very fri∣volous: For first, The softening of a Canon of Naeo∣caesarea is no certain Mark of time. Secondly, This Council rejects Judith out of the Canon of Scripture, and so did the Council of Nice also; for though S. Hierom, when he had told us, This Book is not of Authority sufficient to determine Controversies; adds, That the Nicene Synod is read, to have computed it among Holy Writings y 1.100. S. Hierom only means, They allowed it to be Read for Instruction, but did not count it Canonical; for doubtless he would not have rejected Judith, if that Council had received it into the Canon. And he saith elsewhere, The Church indeed reads Judith, Tobit, and the Macchabees, but receives them not among Canonical Scriptures z 1.101; and again, A man may receive this Book as be pleaseth a 1.102. Herein therefore the Council of Laodicea doth not contradict the Council of Nice at all, as these Notes falsly pretend. Thirdly, This Councels decreeing the same things which were decreed at Nice, without naming it, is no Argument it was held before that of Nice; nothing being more ordinary, than for later Councils to renew older Canons without citing the former Councils for them.

The Notes on the Second Canon at Laodicea (which supposes Penitents, to make their Confession by Prayer to God, and mentions no Priest) would willingly grast the use of their modern Sacramental Confession, to a Priest, upon this ancient Canon b 1.103; but it rather confutes, than countenances that modern device. Their labouring to expunge the Photinians out of the Seventh Canon, since all the old Greek Copies have these words c 1.104, is meerly to justifie their false Date of this Council. The Anno∣tator

on the Fifteenth Canon confesseth, that S. Paul Commands all the People to joyn in the Hymns, and that this Use continued to S. Hierom's time; yet he owns their pretended Apostolical Church hath altered this Primitive Custom grounded on Holy Scripture; and that for very frivo∣lous Reasons d 1.105. But let it be observed, That this Canon forbids not the People to bear a part in the Church Service; but allows them not to begin, or bring in any Hymns into the Public Service. The Seventeenth Canon speaks of the Assemblies of the Faithful in two Latin Versions, and the Greek is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; yet because the worst Latin Translation reads, in Processionibus; the Notes impertinently run out into a discourse of their Superstitious modern Processions; for any thing serves them for an occasion, to make their late Devices seem ancienter than they are e 1.106. The Thirty fourth Canon mentions and censures those, who leaving the Martyrs of Christ, go to false Martyrs; And the Fifty first Canon mentions the Martyrs Feasts: Upon which the Notes f 1.107 most falsly infer, That the Martyrs were then adored with Religious Worship: But this is only his Inven∣tion. The Canon speaks not one word of Worshiping Martyrs; but only, whereas the Orthodox Christian Assemblies were generally in the Burial places of true Martyrs, where they offered up Prayers to God: Some it seems began to make separate Meetings in Places dedicated to False Martyrs, and therefore the properest Note here would have been, to have set out the Sin of Schism, and the Pious Fraud (as they call it) of feigning false Martyrs, of which their Church is highly guilty. The Thirty fifth Canon expresly for∣bids leaving the Church of God, and calling upon Angels; which they say is an hidden kind of Idolatry, and for∣saking Christ the Son of God, to go after Idolatry. And Theodoret, who lived soon after the true time of this Council, saith, Those who were for Moses's Law, which was given by Angels, brought in the Worship of them; which Error reigned long in Phrygia and Pisidia; and therefore the Councill of Laodicea, in Phrygia, did by a

Law forbid the Praying to Angels g 1.108. Which Canon doth so evidently condemn the Roman Churches Pray∣ers to the Angels as Idolatry, that the former Editors of the Councils impudently corrupted the Text of this Canon, and put in Angulos, for Angelos h 1.109, as if the Council had only forbid Praying in private Cor∣ners; whereas not only the Greek, but the oldest Latin Copies, and Theodoret, have Angels: But our Editors and Annotator having Baronius for their Guide, venture to keep the true Reading [Angels] in the Text, and put [Angles] into the Margen, hoping by false Notes to ward off this severe Blow i 1.110. And first, The Notes dare not produce the place of Theodoret at large; then they strive to blunder the Reader with a distinction of Dulia and Latria, which can signifie nothing here, because the Canon and Theodoret both say, It is Praying to Angels which is forbid; and that the Romanists certainly do. Again, Baronius censures Theodoret for saying, That such Heretics as were for Moses's Law, brought in ANGEL-Worship: But why doth he not censure S. Paul, who saith, That those who were Jewishly inclined, and observed differences of Meats, New-Moons and Sabbaths, were the Inventers of Angel-Worship k 1.111? The Angelic-Heretics in Epiphanius and S. Augustine, who came in afterwards, did not (as the Notes represent them) say, That Angels were to be wor∣shiped with the Worship due to God alone: Only as the Romanists now are, so they were inclined to Worship Angels l 1.112; that is, by Praying to them. However, we Protestants say with Theodoret, We neither give them Divine Worship, nor divide the Service due to the Divine Majesty, between them and the true God m 1.113: And when the Romanists can say this honestly, and leave off Praying to them, we will not tax them with this Canon. Baronius hath one Device more, viz. That the Angels, which this Council says, must not be Worshiped, were not good Angels, but Devils and the Genii, adored by the Pagans; For (saith he) the former Canon receives the Worship of the true Martyrs, and rejects that of false

Martyrs. To which I Answer, first, It is false (as was shewed) that the former Canon receives the Worship of any Martyrs, true or false. Secondly, Why doth not this Canon call these Pseudo-Angels, as the former called those it rejected, Pseudo-Martyrs, if the Prohi∣bitions were of the same kind? Did ever any Chri∣stian call Devils, Angels, without some addition, as Evil Angels, Apostate Angels, &c? Besides, in that Age when this Council was held (according to Baronius) the worship of Daemons and the Tutelar Spirits, was public, not secret Idolatry; so that it is manifest, this Canon speaks not to Pagans, but Heretical Christians. And Theodoret shews, That it was those Angels, who gave the Law of Moses, which were hereby forbid to be Prayed to; and I hope neither Binius, nor his Master, will say, these were Devils: Wherefore this Canon plainly saith, Praying to good Angels, (as They of Rome now do) is Idolatry.

To conclude, The Sixtieth Canon of this Council, is the most ancient Account of the Canon of Scripture, that ever was made by any Christian Synod, being the same which the Church of England holds at this day; for it leaves out all those Books of Judith, Tobit, Wis∣dom, &c. which we account not to be Canonical; but our Annotator finding so Primitive a Council con∣tradicting their new Trent Canon, and not being able to reconcile the difference, passeth this remarkable Canon by, without any Note.

§. 16. The reproachful Obscurity of Sylvester in this time of Action, in all other Christian Churches, puts the Editors upon giving us an heap of Forgeries toge∣ther, to colour over the Pope's doing nothing Remark∣able for Nine or Ten years: First, We have an Epistle of the Primitive Church, and Constantine's Munifi∣cence o 1.114: But Gratian, and the former Editors of Councils, cited this as a Decretal Epistle of Melchiades, to prove the Pope's Supremacy, &c. whereas the For∣gery is so gross, that our Annotator affirms it to be a

Fiction of Isidore Mercator's, patched up of Fragments stollen out of the History of the Nicene Council, the Council of Chalcedon, and S. Gregory's 24th Epistle, and wofully. Mis-timed p 1.115: Yet being used to cite such Forgeries, (after this Confession) he will not let it go without making some use of it; for he Notes, that what is said here of Constantine's Donations to Melchiades and Sylvester, is very true, and may be firmly proved by Opta∣tus Milevitanus. Very strange! Optatus mentions no Donation of Constantine to either of these Popes, Vid. supr. §. 6. and therefore the Reader may note, That false and weak Inferences or Quotations from manifest Forgeries, are Firm Proofs with Baronius and Binius, when they make for the Roman Interest; but the best Canons of the most genuine Councils are of no value, when they make against it.

After this follows that odious Forgery, called Con∣stantine's Donation, wherein he is pretended to make over to the Pope, the whole City of Rome and all the Western Empire, with all kind of Ensigns of Imperial Majesty, and all manner of Jurisdiction; which Ridi∣culous Fiction (Nauclerus saith) Antoninus rejected in his Chronicle, because it is not extant in any ancient Author, but only in the Decretals q 1.116. But our Editors print it without any Note of its being false; yea, with Notes upon it, to prove it either true or very pro∣bable r 1.117. And Baronius introduces it with many Sto∣ries, to make all that concerns the Popes temporal Greatness credible to an easie Reader s 1.118; yet at last, to secure their Retreat from so indefensible a Post, He and the Annotator make it a Fiction of the poor Greeks: I shall therefore, First, prove it a Forgery; and, Secondly, make it out, That not the Greeks, but the Pope's Creatures devised it. First, That it is a Fiction appears from divers Arguments: For, First, who can believe Constantine, so unjust, first, to give Rome and the Western Empire to the Pope, and then to one of his Sons? Or who can think the Pope so tame never to put in his Claim? Secondly, This Edict

is grounded on the idle Story of Constantine's Baptisin by Sylvester, which out of Sylvester's Fabulous Acts is re∣lated at large in it; but those Acts being (as was shewed) a meer Forgery, this Edict must be so also. Thirdly, It represents Constantine, who was born and brought up under Christian Parents, and had setled Christianity before this, as a meer Heathen, till he met with Syl∣vester at this time. Fourthly, It pretends the whole Senate and all the Nobles joyned with the Emperor, to give the Pope this Power. But besides the folly of Constantine's delegating more Power than ever he him∣self had, it is most false to suppose, That the whole Senate at this time were Christians; for many of them continued Pagans long after Constantine's Death. Baronius indeed (out of Sylvester's Acts) affirms, That none of the Senate was converted before the Year 324 t 1.119. Forgetting that he had told us, Divers Senators had given up their Names to Christ Twelve years before u 1.120; and that one or both of the Consuls were Christians two years before this w 1.121. So ill a Memory had the great Cardinal, when his Cause obliged him to defend a Lye. Fifthly, It speaks of the Emperor's intending to build a City, and call it by his own Name, in the Province of Bizantium, and his Resolution to transfer his Em∣pire thither; and yet before this, the Edict had reckoned up Constantinople by name, and Hierusalem, as two of the Five Patriarchates, and given Rome Jurisdiction over all the other Four. Lastly, It is Dated in the Fourth Consulship of Constantine with Gallicanus, whereas Licinius was his Collegue in his Fourth Consulship, which was in the Year of Christ 315, that is, Nine years before the time fixed by Baro∣nius for this pretended Baptism; and that clearly shews the Story to be all Sham, as all modest and learned Men of the Roman Church do now acknowledge: But Baronius, and our Annotator, considering not barely the falshood of this Edict, (for that alone would not discourage them;) but observing also, that it destroys the pretended Divine Right of the Pope's

Supremacy, grant it at last to be a Forgery, but say, It was devised by the Greeks. Secondly, Therefore I shall shew the Falshood of that Accusation: For, First, they charge Balsamon with publishing it; Now he did not write till An. 1180, yet the Notes out of Baronius do confess, that a Pope quoted it An. 1054, (that is, near an Hundred years before Balsamon was born) to justifie his Superiority over the Greek Church; and therefore Balsamon was not the Inventer of it: Se∣condly, It doth the Greeks no good, for it gives the Pope power over all their Patriarchs, and reckons Constantinople as the last and lowest Patriarchate, so that the Forger could not come out of that Church. Thirdly, It is grounded on the fabulous Acts of Syl∣vester, writ in Latin, and feigned in the Western World; and its whole design is to advance the Pope above all Bishops, Kings, and Emperors; and therefore no doubt it was advanced by a Friend of the Popes. Fourthly, The Notes confess, That a Pope first set up this Edict, to prove his Universal Supremacy, (not con∣sidering with Baronius, it seems, that it weakened his Title) and the grave and learned Men of the Roman Church received it as Authentic for many Ages after. We add, That till the Reformation they cited it, and writ in defence of it; and though now their Point is gained they begin to renounce it, yet the Advantage that Church got by it, shews, that they were the Forgers of it; yea, it seems Anno 1339 one Johannes Diaconus, a Member of the Roman Church, was thought to be the Author of it. Fifthly, Whoever considers how unwilling the Cardinal and our Annotator are to have it clearly rejected, will be convinced, that their Church gained by it, and consequently invented it. They labour to prove, the Popes temporal Power granted hereby, is both probable and true x 1.122: And though they own the French Princes, Pipin and Charles, who gave many Cities and Countries to S. Peter, never mention this Edict; yet they argue from their calling those Gifts, A restoring them to the Church, that they had respect

to Constantine's Bounty y 1.123. These Authors also men∣tion Pope Adrian's confirming this Edict, and quote the Book of Constantine's Munificence (shewed to be a Fable just now) to justifie it z 1.124. They also would make out what it saith of the Images of Peter and Paul, then kept at Rome, by Eusebius, but cite him falsly, leaving out the main part of his Testimony; viz. That it was only some who had such Images, and that these imitated the Pagans herein; from whence it will not follow, That eminent Christians then placed them in their Churches a 1.125. In short, Though they dare not say it is true, yet they would not have it rejected as false, because it gives their admired Church so much Riches and Power; and therefore doubtless no Greeks, but some of their Church invented this most notorious Forgery: And Aeneas Sylvius observes, That it was warily done of the Popes, to let it be hotly disputed how far this Edict was good in Law, that so the Edict it self might still be supposed valid b 1.126, it being their Interest it should be thought so.

This feigned Donation is followed by a Roman Council under Sylvester, in the Preface whereof Syl∣vester is falsly pretended to have called the Nicene Council; and in the body of which there is a Canon, That none must judge the Chief Seat; not the Emperor, nor Kings, nor Clergy, nor People. For the sake of which two advantagious Fictions, Baronius and the Annotator, defend and justifie this Synod c 1.127; though the Title be ridiculous, the Style barbarous, and the Matter of it as void of Sense as it is of probability. Labbé indeed notes, That the Condemning Photinus here shews, it was put together by an unskilful Hand d 1.128, and rejects it as a Forgery very justly: For Photinus (as the Notes confess) was not Condemned till long after e 1.129; nor were there any Christian Kings, but Constantine the Emperor at that time. Besides, the Forger first says, None of the Laity were present; and yet in the next Page affirms, That Calpharnius (Praefect of the City) was there, and that Constantine and his Mother Helena

subscribed it f 1.130; yea, Baronius himself observes, That this Council mistakes the Custom of the Roman Church, where in that Age Presbyters use to sit in the presence of the Bishops; but in this Fiction, they are repre∣sented as standing with the Deacons g 1.131. Moreover, it destroys the Donation (Lies seldom hanging together;) for if Constantine had given the Pope such Supreme Power a few days before, what need was there for these Bishops to grant the same thing; or however, why do they not remember Constantine's late Gift? Lastly, Arius (who then gave so great Trouble to the Church) is not mentioned here; not (as Baronius guesses) because he was to be more solemnly Condemned at Nice the next year h 1.132; but because the Forger had nothing in his Eye, but meerly to set off the Grandeur of Rome.

§. 17. We are now come to the First and most famous General Council of Nice, wherein the worst and most dangerous of all Heresies was suppressed; and yet the pretended Judge of all Controversies, and Supreme Head of the Church, had so little share in this glorious Transaction, that it is very uncertain in what Popes time it was called: Sozomen and Nicephorus say, it was in the time of Julius i 1.133; Others think it was in Sylvester's time; Photius affirms, it was in the times of both Sylvester and Julius k 1.134, though un∣happily Pope Mark was between them two: Yet this Council is introduced by a Preface a la Mode a Rome, styled, The History of the Council of Nice l 1.135, wherein (as well as in the Notes and various Editions of this famous Council) all imaginable Artifice is used to abuse the Reader into a belief, That Pope Sylvester not only called this Council, and presided in it by his Legates; but also confirmed it by his sole Authority afterwards. For the clearer Confutation of which Falshoods, we will consider, First, The Authority which convened this Council. Secondly, The President of it, with the Order of Sitting in it, and Subscribing to it. Thirdly,

The Power which confirmed it. Fourthly, The num∣ber of the Canons. Fifthly, The true Sense of them, Sixthly, The Forgeries for Supremacy herein inserted. Seventhly, The corrupt Editions of the Council it self.

First, As to the Authority convening it. The Pre∣face saith, Constantine assembled it by Sylvester's Autho∣rity m 1.136: The Notes affirm,—it was appointed by the Advice, Counsel, and Authority of Pope Sylvester; and again,—Pope Sylvester, by his Pontifical Authority, decreed the celebration of a General Council n 1.137. To prove these vain Brags, they cite Ruffinus (whose Version of this Council they reject;) yet he only saith, That Constantine convened it by the Advice of the Bishops: However, this is Advice, not Authority; and Advice of the Bishops in general, not of Sylvester in particular; and if any Bishops did give the Emperor particular Ad∣vice, it was those of Alexandria and Constantinople, not He of Rome. Secondly, They quote the Sixth General Council (held 350 years after this of Nice, and in other things rejected by the Romanists) which saith,—this Council was called by Sylvester and Constan∣tine: But they quote falsly, for that Sixth Synod puts the Emperor's Name first o 1.138; and though they are no Evidence against Authors living in the time of the Ni••ene Council; yet even this shews, they thought the Emperor's Authority was chiefest in this Matter. The Notes also cite the Pontifical (which they have so often rejected as Fabulous) and Sozomen, as if they said the same thing: But for Sozomen, he never names Sylvester; but saith, Pope Julius was absent by reason of his great Age; and the Pontifical only saith; It was called by the Consent of Sylvester; not by his Authority; and indeed it was called by the consent of all Orthodox Bishops: Wherefore there is no good Evidence, that the Pope did call it. But on the other side, All the Ecclesiastical Historians do agree, That Constantine Convened it by his own, Authority, and sent his Letters to Command the Bishops to meet at Nice p 1.139; and not one of them men∣tions.

Sylvester, as having any hand in this Matter: Yea, (to put us out of all doubt) the very Council of Nice it self (in their Synodal Epistle writ to Alexandria, and extant in these very Editors q 1.140) expresly declares, That they were Convened by Constantine's Command. Which clear and convincing Proofs, shew the Impu∣dence, as well as the Falshood of the Annalist and Annotator, to talk so confidently of the Pope's Autho∣rity in this Matter; who, if he had (as they pretend) Convened this Council, should have summoned more Western Bishops, of which there were so few in this Council, that it is plain, Either Sylvester did not Sum∣mon them, or they did not obey his Summons.

Secondly, As to the President of this Council, and the Order of Sitting in it, and Subscribing to it: The Preface and Notes falsly affirm, That Hosius, Vitus, and Vincentius were all three the Pope's Legates, and Presidents of this Council r 1.141; and vainly think, if it had not been so, it could not have been a General Council: But if this be necessary to the Being of a General Council, surely there is some good Evidence of it. Quite contrary! The Preface to the Sardican Council is of the Editors, or their Friends making, and so is no Proof: Athana∣sius saith, Hosius was a Prince in the Synods; but not that he was President of this Synod, or the Pope's Legate. Cedrenus and Photius are too late Authors to out-weigh more Ancient and Authentic Writers; yet they do not say, (as the Notes pretend) That Sylvester, by his Legates, gave Authority to this Council: Yea, Photius. places the Bishop of Constantinople before Sylvester and Julius, even when he is speaking of the Chief Bishops, who met at Nice; and he is grosly mistaken also, because neither of the Popes did meet there s 1.142. Socrates only saith, The Bishop of Rome's Presbyters were his Proxies, and present at this Counoil t 1.143; but hereby he excludes Hosius (who was a Bishop) from being a Legate, and doth not at all prove Vitus and Vincentius were Presidents. Sozomen names not Hosius, but these two Presbyters as the Proxies of Pope Julius; but reckons that Pope

himself in the fourth place u 1.144. Though these Notes in citing Sozomen (according to their usual sincerity) place the Bishop of Rome first, and all the other Patriarchs after him. Finally, They cite the Subscriptions to prove, these Three were Legates and Presidents at Nice; but Richerius (a Learned Romanist) saith, These Subscriptions are of as little Credit, as the Epistle to Syl∣vester w 1.145; and adds, That the placing these Presbyters before the Bishops, is a plain Proof, That all these Subscriptions were invented in later Ages; because the Pope's Legates never did precede any of the Patriarchs, till the Council of Chalcedon x 1.146. As for Hosius, he had been the Empe∣ror's Legate long before, and divers of the Ancients say, He was very Eminent in this Council; but not one of them affirms, that Hosius was the Pope's Legate: This is purely an Invention of Baronius; but he only proves it by Conjectures y 1.147. The Truth is, Constantine himself was the President of this Council, and Sat on a Gilded Throne (not as the Preface saith falsly, Below all the Bishops; but) Above all the Bishops, as Eusebius an Eye-witness relates z 1.148; and the Notes at last own, He sat in the Chief Place a 1.149; yea, the Annalist confesseth, He acted the part of a Moderator in it b 1.150. Richerius goes further, saying, It is clear by undoubted Testimonies, that the Appointing and Convening of this Council depended on the Authority of Constantine, who was the President there∣of c 1.151; and he blames Baronius and Binius, for wilfully mistaking the Pope's Consent (which was requisite, as he was Bishop of an Eminent Church) for his Autho∣rity, to which no Pope in that Age pretended. It is true, there were some Bishops, who were Chief among the Ecclesiastics in this Council: Eustathius, Bishop of Antioch sat uppermost on the Right-side, and opened the Synod with a Speech to Constantine d 1.152: Hence some (and among the rest Pope Foelix, in his Epistle to Zeno) affirm, He was President of this Council e 1.153: Others say, The Bishop of Alexandria presided; and in∣deed all the Patriarchs present, Sat above all others of the Clergy f 1.154; yet so, as they all gave place to the Em∣peror,

when he came in. And for the Pope's Legates, Baronius and Bellarmin do contend in vain about the Places they had in this Council since no Ancient Author tells us, they Sat above the Chief of the Bi∣shops: So that this also is a Forgery of the Papal Flat∣terers, to give Countenance to their Churches feigned Supremacy.

Thirdly, As to the Power which confirmed the Canons of this Council; the ancient Historians do suppose that Con∣stantine gave these Decrees their binding Power, and Re∣cord his Letters, to injoyn all to observe them g 1.155. And Eusebius who was there, saith, that The Emperor ratified the Decrees with his Seal h 1.156; But the Annalist and Annota∣tor seek to efface this evidence, by Railing at Eusebius, and by devising many weak pretences, to persuade the Credulous, that Pope Sylvester confirmed this Council by his Authority; and both the Preface and Notes tell us, that this Synod writ a Letter to Sylvester for his con∣firmation, and that he called a Council at Rome; and writ back to Ratify what they had done i 1.157: But whoever will but read these two Epistles, will find the Latin so Barbarous and the Sense so Intricate, that nothing is plain in them, but that they are Forged k 1.158; and Labbe's Margin tells us they are Fictions, nor dare Baronius own them to be genuine l 1.159; and though Binius cite them for evidence in his Notes, yet at some distance he tells us, it is evident they are both Corrupted m 1.160; and again he says, if they were not both extreme faulty and Commenti∣tious, they might be Evidence in this case n 1.161: But Richerius is more Ingenuous, and declares, That these Epistles are prodigiously salse, The Forger of them being so Ignorant as to call Macarius, (who was then Bishop of Jerusalem) Bishop of Constantinople: Yet our Annotator cites Diony∣sius Exiguus for a Witness of these Epistles; whereas Richerius shews, they were Forged by some Ignorant Monk long after Dionysius his time, who mentions not the Pope's confirming of these Canons; nor doth he remember these Epistles; but only saith it was agreed, these Canons should be sent to Sylvester Bishop of Rome o 1.162;

The Notes further urge, a Roman Council under Pope Sylvester, to prove his Confirming these Canons; but that Council is a confessed Forgery it self, and so proves nothing p 1.163. Lastly, The Annotator here (and almost every where) cites Socrates his speaking of an Ecclesia∣stical Canon, that no Decrees of Councils should be valid without the consent of the Roman Bishop q 1.164. But First, Consent is not Confirmation; It is the priviledge of e∣very Patriarch as well as of him of Rome, That a General Council cannot be held without every one of their con∣sents; but this proves not their pretended sole and supreme Power of ratifying all Councils vested in the Pope: Besides, Socrates here only Historically relates what Pope Julius said in his own Case; and therefore the Testimony relies on Julius his Credit; and indeed that was a pe∣culiar Case, wherein, when the Cause of Athanasius was referred by consent of all parties to Julius as Arbitrator, the Arians took it out of his Hands against Athanasius his Mind; and judged it in a Council, to which Julius was not at all summoned, which doubtless was very illegal and unjust: But yet none can tell, where this Ecclesiastical Canon was made, which the angry and injured Pope here cites; and therefore till it appear whence Julius had this Canon, we must be excused, if we give no great Deference to it; and unless they cou'd prove it was Re∣corded before the Nicene Council, it is very impertinent to expect the Nicene Fathers should Govern their Acti∣ons by it. So that we conclude not Sylvester, but Con∣stantine confirmed this Council.

Fourthly, As to the number of the Canons the An∣notator also notoriously prevaricates; He confesses that all the Greeks, and particularly Theodoret and Ruffinus, assert there were but Twenty Canons made there; yea, that the Sixth Council of Carthage, (within less than an Hundred years,) after a diligent search in the three Patri∣archal Seats of Alexandria, Antioch and Constantinople, could find no more than Twenty Canons r 1.165: But the Notes conceal Gratian's naming no more but Twenty Canons, and his saying, there are but only Twenty Nicene Canons to be

found in the Roman Church s 1.166. For all this the Annota∣tor boldly tells us, That the truer Opinion, (or rather that which is most for the Popes interest) is, that more than Twen∣ty Canons were made there: But we will examine his and Baronius's reasons t 1.167. First, They say there is no Decree about Easter among the Twenty Canons: I reply, There is a genuine Epistle of Constantine's, in which this mat∣ter is determined with the reasons for it, which is bet∣ter than a bare Law without Arguments, in a case which had been so much disputed u 1.168; nor could they make any acurate Canon, about it till the exact time was Calculated, which they referred (not to the Pope, but) to the Bishop of Alexandria. Secondly, The Notes say S. Ambrose mentions a Canon made at Nice, against Bigamists w 1.169; but Baronius himself confesseth, that S. Ambrose only saith, They treated of this matter, but doth not affirm they made a Canon about it. Thirdly, They plead, there was a Decree about the Canon of Scripture made at Nice, (which is not among these Twenty) because S. Hierom saith, he had Read that the Nicene Fathers computed Judith, among the Books of Holy Scripture. I reply—S. Hierom only saith they computed it among Holy Writings, that is, (as we shewed before § 15.) among Books to be Read for instruction, not to be quoted in Dispute: For if S. Hierom had believed this Council did receive Judith for Canonical, he would not have counted it (as he doth to be Apocryphal; So that this proves not that there were more Canons. Fourthly, The Notes affirm there is no Canon now extant here, against a Bishops choosing his Successor in his Life time; which S. Augustine saith was forbid in this Council x 1.170; which is a gross Untruth, since the Eighth Canon forbids two Bishops should be in one City; and the Notes own this was the very Canon meant by S. Augustine, in the next Leaf y 1.171: Liers should have better Memories: Fifthly, They say the third Council of Carthage cites a Canon of Nice, forbidding to receive the Sacrament after Dinner; but if the place be considered (as Richerius notes z 1.172) that Coun∣cil

only refers to a former African Synod, which had de∣creed this, and not to the Council of Nice. Sixthly, The Annotator speaks of a Canon about Appeals to Rome, cited out of this Synod in the Sixth Council of Carthage, but he was wiser than to tell us who cited this for a Nicene Canon; for it was Pope Zosimus's Legate cited it, and he was convicted of a notorious Falsification therein, as shall be shewed in due place. Seventhly, He saith there was a Canon made at Nice; but not to be found among the Twenty, that a Cause tried in a lesser Synod, might be judged over again in a greater; and for this he cites the Fourth Epistle of Julius; but in his Notes on that Epistle a 1.173, he confesseth this was no Canon made at Nice, but only it was matter of Fact; in that this great Synod did judge Arius over again, who had before been judged at Alexandria. Eightly, The Notes say, Atticus, Bishop of Constantinople at Chalcedon, did affirm, that the Nicene Council agreed upon a Form of writing Communicatory Epistles, which is not among these Twenty Canons: I reply, Baronius and he both own this Form was to be a Secret among the Bishops; and if it had been put into a Canon, Heretics might easily have counterfeited these Forms, and so the design had been spoiled b 1.174. Lastly, the Annotator cites Sozomen, to proves that the Nicene Council added to the Gloria Patri the later part, As it was in the beginning, &c. Whereas Sozomen c 1.175 in that place only speaks of such as praised God in Hymns, agreeing to the Faith delivered at Nice, but mentions no Canon or Form of words agreed on at Nice, about these Hymns. So that after all this shuffling, it is very impertinent for this Annotator to brag, that it is manifest there were more than Twenty Ca∣nons made in this Council; and Nonsense to tell us, that the Greeks who stifly maintain there were but Twenty Canons, cannot deny but there were more than Twenty: And for all his Confidence, neither he nor Baronius dare defend those Eighty Canons, which Turrian hath fathered on this Council; and therefore whatever is more than these twenty, or differing from them, must pass among the many Forgeries of the Roman Church

Fifthly, As to the Sense of those Canons, which oppose the Pope's Interest, the Notes use many Im∣postures in expounding them. The Third Canon for∣bids the Clergy to cohabit with Women taken into their Houses; unless they were so near of Kin, as to avoid Sus∣picion and Scandal: Which plainly supposes, that they might have Wives, because cohabiting with them, could give no Suspicion nor Scandal: And since the Canon names not Wives, who were the most likely to dwell with their Husbands, doubtless this Council did not suppose the cohabitation of the Clergy with their Wives to be unlawful. Yea, not only Socrates and Sozo∣men d 1.176; but Pisanus and Nauclerus, later Romish Au∣thors e 1.177, relate the History of Paphnutius his Advice to the Council in this Point; upon which the latter saith, The Nicene Fathers allowed Priests to have Wives, if they pleased: Which full Evidence against their Churches practice doth so enrage Baronius, that he not only denies this well-attested History, but lays by the Cha∣racter of an Historian, and falls (in his guessing-way) to dispute against this manifest Truth f 1.178. And Binius in his Notes g 1.179 out of him, saith, This Canon expresly forbids Clergy men the Use of their Wives, after they were entred into Holy Orders; rejects the History of Paphnutius, and gives Socrates and Sozomen the Lye: But we shall leave the Reader to judge, whether he will give more Credit to the Words of the Canon, and these Ancient impartial Historians; or to the Corrupt Paraphrase, and Impudent Assertions of these two notorious Syco∣phants, who have so often been proved to govern themselves, not by Truth, but by Interest and Design. The Sixth Canon reckons the Pope but Equal to other great Bishops, and limits his Jurisdiction; at which the Annalist and Annotator are much discomposed, and (by various Fictions and shuffling Pretences) labour to pervert the true Sense of this famous Canon. And first, They say, The beginning of it (viz. The Roman Church hath always had the Primacy) is wanting h 1.180: Whereas no Authentic Edition ever had any such be∣ginning.

Dr. Beveridge gives us Eight several Versions, besides the Original Greek, which all want it i 1.181; and it is impudently done of Binius, to cite Alanus Copus, saying, That Dionysius Exiguus's Version had this begin∣ning; since that very Version is printed by Binius himself, without any such Preamble k 1.182; but 'tis all one to him, true or false, in his Notes, he makes a foolish Para∣phrase on this Forged Preface, about the Divine Right of the Pope to his Supremacy; whereas the plain Words of the genuine Canon shew, That this Council grounded the Jurisdiction of these great Bishops only upon Ancient Custom l 1.183: Nor can it be gathered from this Canon, That the Bishop of Rome then had any Superiority over him of Alexandria; the one being allowed as much Power within his own Limits, as the other had in his. It is plain, The Great Bishops are all here declared to be Equal, without any Exception or Salvo, upon the Bishop of Rome's account; which would have been mentioned, as well as the Rights of the Metropolitan of Caesarea are, when the Bishop of Jerusalem's Place is assigned in the Seventh Canon, if the Council of Nice had believed, Rome had any right to a Supremacy over all the rest. The Annotator is also angry at Russinus; and though upon the Fourteenth Canon he says, Ruffinus set down the true authentic Ca∣nons m 1.184; yet because his Version of this Sixth Canon limits the Pope's Jurisdiction to the Suburbicarian Regions; He first falsly represents the Words of Ruffinus, adding to them,—which above all others are subject peculi∣arly to the Diocess of the Roman Church; and then Rails at the Version it self, as evil, erroneous, and proceeding from his Ignorance: But doubtless Ruffinus, who lived so near the time of this Council, and knew Rome and Italy so well, understood the Pope's Jurisdiction at that time, and the meaning of this Canon far better than Binius; and therefore Baronius (after he had condemned the Version) yet strives to accommodate it to their new Roman Sense. But there is full Evidence, that these Suburbicarian Regions were only those Provinces which

were under the Praefect of Rome; that is, some part of Italy, and some of the adjacent Islands; and these were all the Churches which were then under the Pope's Jurisdiction: As may appear by the great difficulty which the succeeding Bishops of Rome found in the following Ages, to bring Milan, Aquileia, and Ravenna (Churches in Italy it self) to be in subjection to them: So that the Pope was so far from having an Universal Supremacy then, that Balsamon is mistaken in thinking he was made Patriarch of all the Western Church; for the very Fifth Canon, which orders all Causes to be heard and finally ended in the same Province where they hapned, not only destroys Appeals to Rome, but shews that no Bishop did then pretend to so large a Jurisdi∣ction. Again, these Notes frequently brag of that Version of this Canon, which the Pope's Legate cited at Chalcedon n 1.185; wherein the aforesaid sorged Title of this Canon [The Church of Rome hath always had the Primacy] are quoted as part of the Canon it self: But the Acts of that Council of Chalcedon shew, That this Edition was discovered to be false by the Constantino∣politan Code, then produced: And if the Fathers there had believed this to be the true Reading, they would not immediately have contradicted the first famous General Council, by giving the Bishop of Constantinople equal Priviledges with him of Old Rome: So that their Quoting a false, baffled, and rejected Version of this Canon; rather pulls down, than supports their dear Supremacy; to maintain which they have nothing but Sophistry and Fraud, as the next Section will shew.

Sixthly, Therefore we will consider the Impostures and Fictions annexed to this Council, to give colour to their feigned Supremacy: And first, because Eusebius speaks little of the Popes, for he could not truly say much of them; Baronius and the Annotator invent all the Calumnies against him imaginable; and the former (though he have little true History in his Annals for Three hundred years together, which is not taken out of Eusebius) Rails at him most unjustly, as being

an Arian; a malicious, fraudulent, and partial Writer o 1.186. And Binius treats this great Historian at the same rate: But Athanasius expresly saith, That Eusebius of Caesarea subscribed the Orthodox Faith p 1.187. Socrates affirms also, That he agreed to the Faith of the Nicene Council q 1.188. Pisanus, his Greek Author of the History of this Coun∣cil, brings in Eusebius disputing against the Arians r 1.189: And Valesius, in his Life, clears him from this spightful Accusation, which these Men invent meerly to be Re∣venged on him, for not countenancing the Pope's Su∣premacy; which is not his Fault, but his Vertue, because there was no such thing pretended to in his days. Secondly, These Editors publish a Letter of Atha∣nasius to Pope Marcus, with that Pope's Answer s 1.190, among the Records of this Council; and the Anno∣tator often cites them, to prove the Supremacy and Infallibility; because the Roman Church is here called, The Mother and Head of all Churches, and, A Church which had never erred; and the Pope is called, Bishop of the Universal Church; yet their being Forged is so no∣torious, that Bellarmin, Possevin, and Baronius t 1.191 reject them. Thirdly, They likewise publish in these Nicene Acts an Epistle of Pope Julius, wherein divers Canons for the Primacy are Fathered on this great Council u 1.192: And Pisanus is so bold, and so vain as to defend this to be genuine, by an Epistle of the Egyptians to Pope Foelix (owned to be Forged w 1.193), and by other Decretal Epistles, as false as this, which he defends; but it is so manifest a Forgery, this of Pope Julius, that the Editors themselves afterward reject it x 1.194. Fourthly, Whereas the Ninth Canon of Chalcedon allows the Clergy to complain to the Primate, or to the Bishop of the Royal City of Constantinople; Notes are put upon this to falsifie that Canon, which say, That Constanti∣nople is here put for Rome y 1.195. Fifthly, Here is a Canon called the Thirty ninth of Nice, which faith, He that holds the See of Rome is the Head and Prince of all Pa∣triarchs; because he is first, as Peter, to whom power is given over all Christian Princes and People z 1.196, which must be

a Forgery of some Roman Parasite, because it not only contradicts the Sixth Canon of the genuine Council of Nice, but the Eighth of these pretended Canons, which limits the Bishop of Rome's Jurisdiction to the Places near to him a 1.197. However, the Editors say, Steuchus, Turrian, and Cope cite it; and they print Tur∣rian's Notes upon it, which affirm it to agree with the Sixth Canon of the true Edition; and would prove it genuine by no better Evidence, than a Forged Decretal of Anacletus b 1.198. By which we see, the most apparent Falshoods shall be published and defended, if they do but promote the Supremacy.

Lastly, We will make some Remarks on the Corrupt Editions of this Council: First, That of Alfonsus Pisa∣nus is so Fabulous, that Labbé for meer shame omits it c 1.199; but Binius prints it at large, with all its Fictions and Impostures d 1.200; of which Richerius gives this Character, By this History of Pisanus we may learn, not what the Council of Nice was, but what it should be to fit it for a Jesuits Palate; for he hath scraped together all the Falshoods and Forgeries he could find, for enlarging the number of the Ca∣nons e 1.201. But I must add, that there are divers Passages in this Edition, which will not serve the ends of the modern Roman Flatterers: For first, Pisanus his Greek Author highly extols Eusebius f 1.202; for which the Jesuit corrects him with a Note in the Margen. Secondly, The Orthodox Bishop bids the Philosopher believe that which was written, but not to regard things unwritten; because the Faith is grounded on Holy Scripture g 1.203: Whereas the Margen cautions the Reader, not to think that this is spoken against Ecclesiastical Traditions, though it be levelled at them. Thirdly, Hosius doth not sub∣scribe (as the Pope's Legates here do) for Pope Sylvester; wherefore this Compiler did not think him to be the Popes Legate h 1.204. Fourthly, It is here said to have been declared at Nice, That every Bishop under God was the Head of his own Church i 1.205. Fifthly, Here is printed that part of the African Bishop's Letter to Celestine, wherein they blame his Legate for falsly citing the

Nicene Canons k 1.206. So also the LXXX Canons were not invented by a Through-paced Friend to the Ro∣man Modern Interest, and therefore probably Baronius will not defend them l 1.207. The 8th Canon (as was noted) limits the Pope's Jurisdiction to such places as were near him: The 24th and 66th of these Canons clearly de∣clare, that some Bishops had Wives m 1.208, forbidding Bigamy, and compelling them to take their first Wife again. And there are other like Examples which are not worth setting down, because they are all forged in later times, as appears by their citing a fabulous Dis∣course out of the Life of S. Anthony, falsly ascribed to the great Athanasius n 1.209, by their quoting a spurious Work under the name of Dionysius Areopagita, which was (as all agree) writ after the Nicene Council many years o 1.210: By their giving the Patriarch of Antioch Jurisdiction over the Archbishop of Cyprus, who was always free from that subjection, as was declared long after in the Council of Ephesus p 1.211. Finally, Though this Pisanus do impudently reject the true story of Paph∣nutius his advising to leave the Clergy at liberty to Marry; which History is in his Author, and in Gelasius Cyzicenus also: Yet he magnifies a ridiculous Fiction afterward of two Bishops, which signed the Nicene Faith after they were dead and buried q 1.212. A Fable so gross, that Baronius rejects it, with a Note which I wish he had often remembred, viz. That it was not usual Among Christians to confirm the Faith by Miracles, which was attested by more firm Evidences of Holy Scripture r 1.213. Secondly, Turrians Edition of this Council repeats all these LXXX Canons, and in his Preface and his Notes he vindicates them all; and yet the Tracts which he cites to prove these Canons genuine, are owned to be spurious by all modest Romanists, and his Arguments are so trifling they are not worth consuting. We will only note therefore, that the 7th and the 40th of these Canons require, that Synods shall be held twice a year, which (as Turrian confesseth) agrees not with the custom of the Roman Church s 1.214: And his Notes say,

the 72d Canon differs from the 13th, and the 73d Canon is contrary to the 49th t 1.215; but he will rather suppose the Holy Nicene Fathers contradicted themselves, than own any of these Canons to be forged, because some of them seem to favour the Pope's Supremacy. As to the Edition of Gelasius Cyzicenus, it is generally a very modest account of this Council, and hath not many Errors in it, but like all other ancient Authors it speaks very little of the Pope; for which Reason Binius claps it under Hatches, and will not produce it till the latter end of his Second Tome after the Council of Ephesus, to convince us, That all Authors are valued or slighted meerly as they promote or discourage the Usurpations of Rome.

§. 18. To all these Impostures, contrived to mis∣represent this famous general Council, there is tacked a Third Council at Rome under Sylvester in the presence of Constantine, wherein that Pope with 275 Bishops are said to confirm the Nicene Council, and make two or three new Canons u 1.216. But though it be certain and confessed by Binius and Baronius, that Constantine was not then at Rome, though the Style be barbarous, and the Matter frivolous, and the thing be a manifest Forgery contrived to carry on the grand Cheat of Sylvester's confirming the Council of Nice; yet Barcnius and Binius (who con∣fess the Title to be false) labour to prove this Synod to be true, though Binius be forced to justifie it by the forged Letter of the Nicene Fathers to Sylvester, and his Answer to them, both which in the next Column he owns are false and feigned w 1.217. And thus where the Supremacy is concern'd, one Forgery serves for the Evidence of another.

The Council at Gangra is genuine, and was an un∣corrupted Remain of Primitive Antiquity, till it fell into the hands of these Editors, who have put the name of Osius, Bishop of Corduba, into the Title in their Latin Version; and though that Name be not found in the Original Greek printed over against it; yet from

this Fiction of their own x 1.218 the Notes impudently say, That this Synod was Convened by Sylvester's Autho∣rity, and from Osius his presence in it, Binius certainly gathers it was celebrated under this Pope; but a little after he knows not in what year it was held; and Baronius treats of this Council Anno 361, that is, near 30 years after Sylvester's Death y 1.219. They tell us that Pope Sym∣machus in his 6th Roman Council approves this Synod, but he mentions not Osius; however Baronius guesses, that the reason why Symmachus approved it was, because Osius the Legate of the Apostolic See was there; which groundless Conjecture and false Assertion, Binius in his Notes turns into a positive Affirmation, viz. That Osius was there as the Pope's Legate. As to the occasion of calling this Council of Gangra, it was to condemn one Eustathius, whom Binius owns to have been a great Favourer of Monkish life, and Sozomen saith, he was a Monk z 1.220; yea, the Synodical Epistle describes him as one who despised Marriage, allowed not the admi∣nistrations of Married Priests, who had a separate way of Worship, and a different garb from others, making his Followers to abstain from Flesh, profess Continency, and renounce Propriety a 1.221; all which are the very Characters of a Monk of the Roman stamp; and there∣fore it is wonder that Binius should give Sozomen and himself the Lye, and say he was no propagator of Monkery, and that it cannot be proved that he was a Monk; yet at last he fancies Eustathius his Name was mistaken for Eutachus an Armenian Monk b 1.222. All which Blunders are only designed to keep the Reader from observing, that a Monk was condemned for an Heretic, yea, and censured for holding those very Opini∣ons, which now pass currant among the Romish Fryers For which end also in his Notes on the 4th Canon, he saith, The Heretics (that is, Protestants) foolishly apply this Canon to condemn the Celibacy of the Clergy, whereas (he saith) it doth not concern Priests who have Wives, but such as had Wives c 1.223. But I doubt it will prove the Ro∣manists are the Heretics here: For both this Canon,

and the Synodical Epistle, have [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,] which signisies a Priest who now hath a Wife; even as [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] 1 Cor. vii. 10. is those that have Wives, and are actually married; and so the best Version of this Canon is Presbyterum Conjugatum: For by it all those are Ana∣thematiz'd, who affirm, That men should not Communicate, if a Married Priest say the Office: That is, this Primitive Council Anathematizes the Modern Church of Rome, to hide the shame of which just Censure the Notes quarrel with Our preferring the Translation of their Friend Dionysius, who turns the word [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] Ministrante; before those Versions which turn it by Sacrificante; as if Protestants did this out of a design to blot out the Memorial of the unbloody Sacrifice d 1.224; whereas that Greek word doth properly signifie Mini∣string and saying the Offices of the Church, but no where is used properly for Sacrificing; and it is apparent, that Protestants do most religiously believe the Sacrament to be an unbloody Sacrifice, and as such, do make it a Memorial of Christs one bloody Sacrifice upon the Cross.

The Notes also blame these Eustathian Heretics for perswading the People to give them the dispensing of their Alms intended for the Poor, contrary (saith Binius) to the Apostles Doctrine and Constitution e 1.225. Yet thus the Ro∣mish Fryers do at this day, drawing the Peoples Alms to their Convents under pretence of being dispensers of them. The same Notes are mistaken in saying, That the Manicheans were forbid by their Doctrine to give any Alms to the Poor: For S. Augustine (who knew those He∣retics best) assirms, That they only forbad their People, to give Meat or Fruits—to any Beggar who was not of their own Sect f 1.226. Lastly, whereas this Council condemns the Eustathians, for abhorring the Assemblies and Divine Offices used in the places where the Martyrs were comme∣morated, Can. ult. These Notes falsly pretend they were condemned, for disapproving the Worship and Invocation of the holy Martyrs g 1.227; whereas it is plain by the Canon, that the Martyrs were only Commemorated, not Invo∣cated nor Worshiped in those days; and the expression

in this place, is only a Phrase to signifie the usual Assem∣blies of Orthodox Christians, which were then fre∣quently held in the Burying places of the Martyrs, and these Heretics separated from those public Assemblies.

The Arians, to revenge their Condemnation at Nice, falsly accuse Athanasius to the Emperour Constantine, * 1.228 who thereupon called a Council at Tyre, which these Editors intitle, The Council of Tyre under Sylvester h 1.229. Yet all the Ancients agree the Emperour Called it, and their own Notes confess as much: Only they pretend, He Called this Council contrary to custom and his duty; but this is notoriously false, since Constantine had already called divers Councils, and particularly that of Nice. And as for Pope Sylvester, he is not once named in this Council at Tyre, which looks a little odly upon the pretended Supremacy, that when the Catholic Cause lay at the stake, we never hear one word of the Roman Bishop, neither in this Council, nor in all the succeeding Letters and Councils relating to Athanasius, till that Cause was afterward brought before the Pope, as an Arbitrator chosen by both parties.

§. 19. Pope Marcus succeeded Sylvester, and sat but eight Months; yet, that he might not seem to have * 1.230 done nothing, The Forgers have invented an Epistle from Athanasius to this Pope, desiring a true Copy of the Nicene Canons from Rome on pretence, that the Arians had burnt theirs at Alexandria: To which is annexed Marcus his Answer, who saith he had sent him 70 Ca∣nons. Now Binius hath often cited these Epistles, to prove the Popes Supremacy and Infallibility, and to shew there were more than twenty Canons made at Nice, yet here His Notes bring five substantial Reasons, to prove these Epistles forged; and Labbé notes, These Wares of Isidore are justly suspected by Baronius, Bellarmine, and other skilful Catholics, nor doth Binius himself doubt of their being spurious i 1.231. Yea, it is remarkable, that this very Binius out of Baronius k 1.232 here confesseth, That he who Forged the Epistle of Boniface to Eulalius, devised also

these two Epistles, to consult the Credit of Pope Zosimus and Pope Boniface, who had cited a Canon out of the Nicene Council, not found among the genuine 20 Canons. From which we may observe, First, that Binius will cite those things for the supremacy, &c. which he knows to be forged. Secondly, That the great design of all these Forged Records of Antiquity was either to cover the faults, or consult the honour of the Roman Church, which seems to have both employed and encouraged the Authors of these Pious Frauds, because her Pre∣tences could not be made out by any thing that was Authentic.

Julius succeeded Marcus in the same year, in whose Life the Pontifical mistakes the Consuls Names, and feigns he was banished Ten Months, which Baronius proves to have been impossible l 1.233, He fills up this Popes story (according to his manner) with trisling matters, and omits the only remarkable thing in his Life, which was his concern in the Cause of Athanasius. In this Popes name several Epistles are published: The First from Julius to the Eastern Bishops may be proved fictitious, not only by the Confession of Baronius and other Learned Romanists m 1.234, but by divers other Arguments. For is it probable, that Julius would Only be solicitous about his Supremacy when he writ to the Arians, and not once reprove them for their Heresie, nor their persecuting Athanasius? is it likely he should cite the Council of Nice falsly, and feign so many ancient Decrees about the Primacy of the Pope, and the Nullity of Councils not celebrated by his Authority? This Forger saith, Julius consented to the Nicene Council at the time of its celebration; but the Roma∣nists agree that it was held in Sylvesters time. He imperiously forbids the Eastern Bishops to judge any Bishops without him, and falsly tells them, They all had received their Consecration from Rome, yea, with the fabulous Pontisical he mistakes the Consuls Name, and puts Maximianus for Titianus. Yet by this Forgery the Editors would prove, that more than twenty Canons

were made at Nice n 1.235, and (after Baronius had discarded it) Binius by frivolous Notes strives to justifie it as speak∣ing big for the Supremacy o 1.236. Secondly, Here is the Eastern Bishops Answer to Julius, wherein though they call the Pope Father, which was the usual Title of Bishops of great Sees; yet they expresly deny his ha∣ving any Authority over them, and affirm he ought to be subject to the Canons, as well as other Bishops: So that there is no reason for Binius his Brag, Lo, how they own the Supremacy p 1.237! For indeed they do not own it at all, and yet the substance of this Epistle is genuine, being found in Secrates and Sozomen. The third Epistle from Julius to the Arians, is owned by Baronius and others to be a Forgery q 1.238; and Binius in his Notes upon it saith, It is false, corrupted, and stollen out of divers Authors r 1.239, yet the same Binius infamously quotes it over and over for the Supremacy, the Nullity of Coun∣cils not called by the Pope, and the number of the Nicene Canons. The fourth Epistle of Julius comes not out of the Vatican, but was preserved in Athanasius his Apology, and is by all accounted genuine, being writ in an humble style, without any pretences to the Supremacy s 1.240. And here the Nicene Canon (about the re-hearing in a New Synod, a Cause not well judged before) is rightly cited, without mention of any final Appeal to Rome t 1.241; The power of all Bishops is sup∣posed to be equal, and not any greater power to be∣long to him that is fixed in a greater City. Here Julius writes not his own Sense, but the Sense of the Bishops of Italy, who were assembled in a Synod at Rome, of which great City Julius being Bishop ought, by ancient custom, to publish the Decrees of such Councils as were held in or or near that City u 1.242; but Binius falsly infers from hence, That it was an honour due to his place, to publish the Decrees made in all Synods. And whereas, when any thing was under debate concerning Alexandria (the second Patriarchate) Julius saith, it was a Custom, to write to the Roman Bishop (who was the first Patriarch,) Binius stretcheth this and saith, It was

both agreeable to the Canons and Custom, that no Bishop should be judged till the Popes definitive Sentence were heard w 1.243. The last Epistle also is genuine, and writ in a modest style, owning that Athanasius was not judged by the Pope alone, but by a Synod of Bishops, whose Judgment he supposes above his own x 1.244, and by these two Epistles we may discern the Impostures of those other Epistles, which are Forged about this time in the Names of this and other Popes. The Decrees attributed to this Pope are not suitable to the Age, yet we may note, the third Decree forbids a man to Marry his deceased Brothers Wife, though his Brother had not known her: Which was shamefully broken by that Pope, who gave Licence to King Henry the 8th to marry his Brothers Wife, and this Decree justifies his Di∣vorce y 1.245.

After these Epistles follows a Roman Synod, wherein Julius with 117 Bishops confirm the Nicene Council; but Labbé saith, it is a hotch-potch made up out of many Authors, and put into the form of a Council by Isidore z 1.246, and it is dated with the same mistaken Consuls, Felician and Maximian, with which Julius his entrance into the Pontifical, and all his Forged Epistles are dated (for his genuine Epistles have no date;) yet Baronius a 1.247 and the Notes gravely dispute about the time of this Forged Council, and the Bishops which were said to be in it; meerly to perswade the Reader, that the Nicene Council needed the Pope's Confirmation; but since this Council is feigned, it can be no evidence: And therefore Binius gains nothing by alledging it in his Notes on the third Epistle, but only to shew us, that one falshood is the fittest prop for another.

§. 20. Athanasius being restored to Alexandria, calls a * 1.248 Synod there of all the Bishops of his Province, of which only the Synodical Epistle is now extant, written as the Title declares, To all the Catholic Bishops every where; yet the Notes from Baronius b 1.249 say, It was writ parti∣cularly

to Julius; whereas the Body of the Epistle saith, The Arians have written to the Roman Bishop, and perhaps (speaking to other Bishops) they have writ to you also: So that this is a falshood devised for to make out the Supremacy, which is not countenanced by this Epistle, wherein we are told, that Religion depends not on the greatness of any City: Though the Notes say, That Bishops had Honours and Jurisdiction given them, suiting to the dignity of the Secular Praefects of their several Cities; and thence Alexandria was reckoned the second Patriarchate, and Antioch the third c 1.250, it follows naturally, therefore Rome was the first Patriarchate: But this Inference they will not make: I shall only note that this Synod saith, The lawful use of the Cup of the Lord was to make the People Drink d 1.251; from whence we gather, that the Roman Church (who denies the Cup to the People) doth a very unlawful thing, and leaves off the lawful use of the holy Chalice.

The Council of Antioch, is by the Editors said to be * 1.252 held under Julius e 1.253, yet it was called by Constantius on occasion of dedicating a new Church there; and the Notes say, the Emperour not only called it, but being present there, caused such Decrees as he pleased to pass in it f 1.254; yea, it is evident they valued Pope Julius so little, that they judged quite otherwise than he had done in the case of Athanasius, and therefore the Romanists rail at this Synod as a Conventicle of Arians, and in the last Roman Edition (saith Riche∣rius (g)) have left out these Canons as not favouring the * 1.255 practice of the Roman Court. However Baronius saith, Among 97 Bishops, only 36 were Arians h 1.256; and the Canons made here are excellent Rules for Discipline, having been received into the Code of the Universal Church before S. Chrysostom's time, confirm'd by the Council of Chalcedon, allowed by S. Hillary, and (as Gratian saith) received by the Catholics; and the Learned Richerius hath fully answered all the Cavils of Binius and Baronius, by which they would invalidate them: So that we need only make some few Remarks

on this Council, and so dismiss it. The 12th Canon Orders a Bishop who was deposed, to appeal to a Synod of Bishops, and allowed none to be restored, unless it were by a greater number of Bishops than had deposed him i 1.257. But they exclaim against this as a device of the Arians, to take away that Apostolical and ancient Law and Custom of appealing to Rome, which (they say) was always observed till now: But hitherto they could never produce any such Law, nor prove any such Custom; nor did S. Chry∣sostom ever appeal to Rome, but desired to be restored by a greater Synod, as this Canon requires k 1.258, and when his Enemies made that impossible, then indeed he objected that this Canon was made by Arians; yet the Canon remained in force, and was generally received in that Age. Nor did the Sardican Council revoke it (as Binius falsly saith l 1.259: For though they put a new Complement on the Pope, yet they did not take away the ancient method of appealing from a lesser Synod to a greater. The second Canon decrees, That such as come to Church to hear part of the Service, and do not receive the Sacrament, shall be Excommunicated. This the Notes say was to condemn the old Audian Heretics m 1.260; but it evidently condemns the new Roman Heretics, who since they exalted their Wafer into a God, expect the People should only gaze at, and adore it most part of the year, and excuse them, though they often go away without receiving it. The 25th Canon forbids Bishops to commit the Treasures and Fruits of the Church to their Kinsinen, Brethren and Sons: Upon which Binius hath no Note, knowing it reflected on the Roman Churches Custom, where the Popes generally give all they can to their scandalous Nipotismo.

Next to this Council of Antioch, is placed a second Synod at Rome, under Pope Julius, in the Cause of Athanasius n 1.261; but Baronius places it before that of Antioch, An. 340. §. 1. And though the Cardinal confess, That Athanasius and his Enemies by consent had referred this matter to Julius his Arbitration, and that Athanasius came to Rome after this Reference was made; yet he

vainly remarks on this matter, in these words, Behold, Reader, the ancient usage for injured Bishops, to come even out of the East to the Roman Bishop for redress o 1.262. But this is one of the first Instances, and was a meer Arbi∣tration by consent; and the ancient Usage since the Emperours became Christians was to appeal to them, as these Parties had done, before it was referred to the Pope. In this Roman Council it is pretended Athanasius delivered his Creed; but the Acts of the Council being lost, and the Roman Archives being a repository neither safe nor creditable, we can have no Evidence from thence of the Truth and Antiquity of this excellent Composure. One thing however is remarkable, that Baronius and Binius charge the Greeks with taking away those words [and the Son] out of this Creed, and add, that they falsly pretended, this was a late addition of the Latins p 1.263. Yet Baronius himself owns, that the Western Church added these words [and the Son] to the Nicene Creed, above an hundred years after q 1.264; so that they accuse the poor Greeks for keeping the Creed, as Athanasius made it, and as their own Church used to recite the Nicene Creed for many years after.

The year following Julius held a third Synod at * 1.265 Rome, and in it read the Letter of the Eastern Bishops, wherein they wonder he should cite them to Rome, and so value himself upon the greatness of his City, as on that account to take upon him to judge them con∣cerning things which they had determined in their own Synods. Nor durst Julius challenge any Authority over them, by reason of the Eminence of his City r 1.266: Only he pleads for Athanasius, who being Bishop of an Apostolical See, viz. Alexandria, ought not to have been condemned by them, till they had writ to all the Western Bishops, and especially to him as Bishop of the first See, that so all of them, (viz. in Council) might have determined the matter according to right s 1.267. But Baronius and Binius turn this into their being obliged to write to the Pope, and to receive what he had defined: And Binius infers, from

the Popes writing this Synodical Letter from a Council held in his own City of Rome (though the Synod expresly command him to write the Epistle) That in respect to the Pope, and according to ancient Custom, it was his right to publish Whatever was agreed on in Councils t 1.268. But such false Consequences from Premisses that will not bear them, only shew the Arguers partiality.

After this we have nothing remarkable, but a second Council at Antioch, held by the Arians, yet bearing this Title under Julius u 1.269, wherein the Arians made a New Creed, and sent four Bishops to give Constans the Emperour and all the Western Bishops an account of their Faith, and they met these Legates in a Council at Milain; and though it doth not appear Julius was present, yet Baronius makes as if this Embassy from the East was sent to Julius, chiefly to desire Communion with him w 1.270; and Binius saith, They desired to be recei∣ved into the Communion of the Roman Church x 1.271. But the ancient Historians assure us, they desired not the Communion of the Roman only; but of the whole Western Church, of which that was then esteemed no more than one eminent part.

§. 21. The Sardican Synod, which saith some kind * 1.272 things of Rome, is prodigiously magnified by the Edi∣tors, who place an History before it, and partial Notes after it, which are full of Falsities and designed Mis∣representations: Baronius also spends one whole year in setting it off to the best advantage; but all their Frauds will be discovered, by considering, First, By whom it was called: Secondly, Who presided in it: Thirdly, Of what number of Bishops it consisted: And, Fourthly, What Authority the Canons of it have.

First, As to the Calling it, the Preface falsly states the occasion thereof: For it is plain Athanasius did not (as that reports) leave the whole judgment of his Cause to the Pope y 1.273; nor did he (as is there said) Fly to Rome, as the Mother of all Churches, and the Rock of Faith: This is the Prefacers meer Invention. For Athanasius went to

Rome as to the place agreed on by both sides for Arbi∣trating this matter; and the other party so little valued the Pope's decision in his favour, that they would neither restore Athanasius, nor receive him into Com∣munion upon it; which made Julius complain to the Emperour Constans, who writ to his Brother Constantius about it; but that Letter did not produce this Council (as the Preface fully sets out) but only procured a fruitless Embassy of three Eastern Bishops to Rome. It was the personal Addresses of Athanasius and Paulus, Bishop of Constantinople, to Constans (when they found the Pope had no power to restore them) which caused both the Emperours to give order for this Council to meet, as Sozomen, Socrates and Theodoret affirm z 1.274. And the Bishops in their Epistle do expresly say, They were called together by the most Religious Emperours a 1.275: But Baronius fraudulently leaves out this beginning of the Bishops Letter b 1.276; and the bold Writer of the Preface saith, This Council was called by the Popes Authority: And the Notes offer some Rea∣sons to justifie this Falshood, yea, they cite the afore∣said Authors, who plainly declare it was called by both the Emperours, to prove, it was called by the Pope; but they offer nothing material to make this out. 'Tis true, Socrates saith, Some absent Bishops complained of the shortness of time, and blamed Julius for it c 1.277; but that doth not prove the Council was called by his Authority, only it supposes, he might advise the Emperour to make them meet speedily; but still that is no sign of full power.

Secondly, As to the President of this Council, The Preface saith boldly, That Hosius, Archidamus, and Phi∣loxenus presided in the Name of Julius. But first, it doth not appear that Hosius was the Popes Legate, only as an eminent Confessor he had a chief place in it; whence Sozomen saith, Osius and Protogenes were chief of the Western Bishops here assembled d 1.278: That is, Osius as an ancient Confessor, and Protogenes as Bishop of Sardic, where the Council was held; but as for Archidamus and Philoxenus, they are not in the Latin Copies of the Subscribers e 1.279. And Athanasius only saith, Julius sub∣scribed

by these two Presbyters; which shews, that Hosius was not the Popes Legate (for he subscribed in his own name) and that these Presbyters who were his Legates, were not Presidents of the Council.

Thirdly, They magnifie the number of Bishops also in this Synod, to make it look like a General Council; where accounts differ they take the largest f 1.280, and falsly cite Athanasius, as if he said it consisted of 376 Bishops, and so exceeded the first Council of Nice g 1.281. Whereas Athanasius expresly reckons only 170, who met at the City of Sardica h 1.282; and when many of the Eastern Bishops withdrew, there were not one hundred left to pass the Decrees of this Council. 'Tis true, Athanasius affirms, that 344 Bishops signed the Decree to restore him; but many of these hands were got from Orthodox Bishops, who were not at the Coun∣cil i 1.283: So that this was never counted or called a General Council by any, but these partial Romanists; for though the Emperour seem to have designed it General at first k 1.284, yet so few came to it, and they who came agreed so ill (the Eastern Bishops generally forsaking it) that it is called frequently, A Council of the Western Church, and so Epiphanius in Baronius de∣scribes it l 1.285.

Fourthly, The little regard paid to its Canons after∣wards shews it was no General Council. Richerius, a moderate and learned Romanist proves, That this Council was not extant in Greek in the time of Dionysius Exiguus, so that he and Pope Leo the 4th reckon it after all the Councils of Note: The Greeks received not its Ca∣nons into their Code, and Pope Nicholas Epistle shows, that the Eastern Church did not value its Authority, only the Popes esteemed it, because it seems to advance their power m 1.286. The African Church of old valued this Council as little; for a Synod of Bishops there (among whom were S. Augustine and Alypius) were ignorant of any Sardican Council, but one held by the Arians. Baronius tries all his art to palliate this matter n 1.287; but after all his Conjectures it is plain, it was of no repute

in Africa, because when two Popes Zosimus and Boniface afterwards cited the Decrees of Sardica as Canons of Nice, the Fraud was discovered, and when they were found not to be Nicene Canons, They would not receive them as Canons of Sardica, but flatly rejected them; which shews, that these African Fathers did neither take this Sardican Synod for a General Council, nor for an Authentic Provincial Council: And therefore what∣ever is here said in favour of the Roman Church, is of no great weight. However the Champions of Rome magnifie the 4th Canon of this Council, where in case a Bishop judge that he is condemned unjustly, Hosius saith, If it please you, let us honour the memory of Peter the Apostle, and let those who have judged such a Bishop write to Julius Bishop of Rome, that so (if need be) the Judgment may be reviewed by the Bishops of the Province, and he may appoint some to hear the Cause, &c. Now here the Notes talk big, and claim a Supremacy and Appeals as due to the Pope by Divine Right o 1.288: But Richerius well observes, It is Nonsence, to ascribe that to a human Law and Privilege, or to the Decree of a Council, which was due before to the Pope by the Law of God p 1.289. And we add, that Hosius neither cites any Divine Law, no nor any precedent Canon or Custom for this, but supposes it at the pleasure of this Synod to grant or deny Julius this privilege: And yet if it were an express Law, this being only a Western Synod, doth not bind the whole Catholic Church. Besides, it is not said, The Criminal shall appeal to Rome, and have his Cause tryed there; but only, that the Pope (if need were) might order the Cause to be heard over again in the Province where it was first tryed; and therefore Julius is only made a Judge of the necessity of a Re hearing, not of the Cause it self, which according to the 5th Canon of Nice was to be decided in the Province where it was first moved. And this rather condemns than counte∣nances the modern Popish way of Trying foreign Causes at Rome by Appeal. To this I will add an ancient Scholion on this Canon found in some old

Copies: From this Canon the Roman Church is much exalted with Pride; and former evil Popes producing this as a Canon of Nice, were discovered by a Council at Carthage, as the Preface to that Council shews: But this Canon (whatever they pretend) gives no more power to Rome than other Canons, since it saith not absolutely, that any who is deposed any where shall have liberty to appeal to the Pope; for at that rate the Sardican Synod would contradict the General Councils; it speaks only of him who is deposed by the Neigh∣bouring Bishops and those of his Province, and therefore doth not comprehend the Synod of the Primate Metropolitan, or Patriarch; so that if they be present, and the Sentence be not barely by the Neighbouring Bishops, the Pope may not re-hear it, as this Canon orders: And it only concerns those in the West, Hosius and the Makers of these Canons being of those parts; but in the East this Custom never was observed to this day y 1.290. I shall make one remark or two more, and so dismiss this Council. The Preface cites Sozomen, to prove, That Hosius and others writ to Julius to confirm these Canons: But Sozomen only saith, They writ to him, to satisfie him that they had not contra∣dicted the Nicene Canons z 1.291; and their Epistle (which calls Julius their Fellow-Minister) a 1.292, desires him, to publish their Decrees, to those in Sicily, Sardinia and Italy, (which of old were Suburbicarian Regions,) but never speak of his confirming their Decrees b 1.293. Yet in their Epistle to the Church of Alexandria, they pray them to give their Suffrage to the Councils determinations c 1.294: Which, had it been writ to the Pope, would have made his Creatures sufficiently triumph. I observe also, that upon the mention of the Church of Thessalonica in the 20th Canon, the Notes pretend, that this Church had an especial regard then, because the Bishop of it was the Pope's Legate; yet the first proof they give, is, that Pope Leo made Anastasius of Thessalonica his Legate an hundred years after; and hence (they say) Bellarmine aptly proves the Popes Supremacy d 1.295: But the Inferences are as ridiculous as they are false, and they get no advan∣tage either to their Supremacy or Appeals by this Council.

§. 22. The first Council of Carthage was appointed to * 1.296 suppress that dangerous Sect of the Donatists; and though it bear the Title of under Julius, yet this pre∣tended universal Monarch is not mentioned by the Council, or by any ancient Author, as having any hand in this great Work, which was managed by Gratus Bishop of Carthage, and by the Emperours Legates e 1.297. In this Council were made fourteen excellent Canons, which possibly the Romanists may reject, because they never asked the Popes consent to hold this Council, nor desired his confirmation to their Canons; and whereas the Editors tell us, Pope Leo the 4th (who lived five hundred years after) approved of this Council, we must observe that the Catholic Church had put them into their Code, and received them for Authentic long before, without staying for any Approbation from the Bishop of Rome.

Soon after this, there was a Council at Milan, of which there was no mention, but only in the Synodical Letter of the Bishops met at Ariminum, An. 359. f 1.298; who say, that the Presbyters of Rome were present at it; they say not, Presidents of it: And there it seems Ursacius and Valens, two Arian Heretics, abjured their Heresie, and recanted their false Evidence against Athanasius. And either before or after this Synod (it is not certain whether) they went to Rome, and in writing delivered their Recantation to Pope Julius g 1.299, before whom they had falsly accused Athanasius, and who was the Arbitrator chosen to hear that Cause, and so not as Pope, but as a chosen Judge in that case, was fittest to receive these mens Confessions: Yet hence the Notes make this Inference, That since this matter was greater, than that a Synod at Milan (though the Roman Presbyters were present) could dispatch it, and lest the ancient Custom of the Catholic Church should be broken, viz. for eminent Heretics to abjure their Heresies only at Rome, and be received into Communion by the Pope; they sent them to Julius, that having before him offered their Penitential

Letter, they might make their Confession, the whole Roman Church looking on. All which is their own Invention; for the Authors from whom alone they have the notice of this Council say nothing of this kind, and it is very certain that there was at this time, no custom at all for Heretics to abjure at Rome, more than at any other place, many Heretics being frequently reconciled at other Churches. There was also a peculiar reason why these two Heretics went thither, and it cannot be proved that this Council sent them; so that these are Forgeries, devised to support their dear Supremacy, and so we leave them: Only noting, That the Editors are not so happy in their Memory as their Invention; for the next Page shews us a Council at Jerusalem, wherein many Bishops (who had described the Condemnation of Athanasius, and therefore no doubt were Arians) repented and recanted, and so were restored to the Churches Communion, without the trouble of going to Rome on this Errant.

A Council at Colen follows next, which they say was in Julius his time, and under Julius; yet the Notes say, they know not the time when it was held, only the Bishops there assembled deposed a Bishop for Heresie by their own Authority, without staying for the Pope's Advice, though they were then about to send a Mes∣senger to Rome to pray for them; so little was the Popes Consent thought needful in that Age; and perhaps it is in order to conceal this seeming neglect, that the Notes h 1.300 (after they have approved far more impro∣bable Stories, which make for the honour of their Church) reject the report of this Message to the Prince of the Apostles as fabulous, and we are not concerned to vindicate it.

The last Council which they style under Julius, was at Vasatis, or Bazas in France; yet the Notes affirm, That Nectarius presided in it; the time of it very uncer∣tain i 1.301, and the Phrases used in the Canons of it, shew it to be of much later date. Besides this Council saith, The Gloria-Patri was sung after the Psalms in all the

Eastern Churches; but Jo. Cassian, who came out of the East in the next Century, saith, He had never heard this Hymn sung after the Psalms in the Eastern Churches k 1.302: Wherefore it is probable this Council was celebrated after Cassian's time, when the Greek Churches had learned this Custom; and yet these Editors place it a whole Century too soon, because they would have us think that custom here mentioned, of remembring the Pope in their daily Prayers, was as ancient as the wrong date here assigned. In Labbe's Edition here is added an account l 1.303 of three Councils against Photinus, on which we need make no Remarks.

§. 23. Pope Liberius succeeded Julius, whose Life with * 1.304 the Notes upon it are very diverting, if we observe the Shifts and Artifices used by the Roman Parasites to excuse him from Heresie. The Pontifical saith, He was banished three years by Constantius, for not consenting to the Asians, in whose place Foelix was Ordained, and he in a Council condemned Ursacius and Valens, two Arian Bishops, who in Revenge petitioned Constantius to revoke Liberius; and he being thus restored, consented to the Ari∣ans and the Emperour, so far as to persecute and Martyr the Catholics, and his Rival Foelix being a Catholic, was deposed. But this Fable is not fine enough for the Palates of Baronius and Binius, who are to dress a Story to make the Reader believe, that neither Liberius nor Foelix erred in Faith while they were Popes. To con∣fute which let it be considered, that Binius confesseth, Liberius consented to the depriving of Athanasius, admitted Arians to his Communicn, and subscribed an Arian Con∣fession of Faith; as Athanasius, Hilary and Hierom, witness m 1.305; and there are Arguments unanswerable to prove, he was an Arian while he was Pope n 1.306; yea, Binius in his own Notes twice confesseth, That he un∣happily fell o 1.307; and that, he basely fell p 1.308. Yet to mince the matter, he adds, That by his Fall he cast a vile Blot on his Life and Manners; and the Notes on the Sirmian Council say, By offending against the Confession of

Faith, and the Law of Justice, he cast a most base Blot on his Life and Manners q 1.309. What can be more ridi∣culous! He erred in Faith, and subscribed the Arian Confession, therefore the blot was upon his Faith; this did not concern his Life and Manners. That Absurd Phrase is a meer blind to keep the Reader from disco∣vering a Pope turning Heretic: To which end they impudently say, It is a false Calumny of the Heretics to say, Liberius was infected with the Arian Heresie r 1.310. But I ask, Whether Athanasius, S. Hilary and S. Hieroin (who affirm this) were Heretics? Or was Platina an Here∣tic, who saith, Liberius did in all things agree with the Heretics: To which the same Forgers have added, [As some would have it;] but those are not Phetinus words, who saith soon after, He was of the same Opinion with the Arians s 1.311. And surely the Catholic People of Rome in his time took him for an Arian, and as such would have no communion with him, and therefore we con∣clude he was an Arian. As for Foelix, who was put into his place, Baronius and Binius would excuse him by a false Latin Version of Socrates, saying, He was addicted to the Arian Sect; but the Original Greek expresly de∣clares, He was in Opinion an Arian t 1.312. And it is certain, He was chosen by the Arians, and communicated with them, Ordaining Arians to be Priests; and therefore the Ca∣tholic People at Rome avoided his communion, and S. Hierom saith, He was an Arian. As for the Story of his condemning Ursacius and Valens, two of that Sect, there is no better Authority for it, than the fabulous Pontifical. So that after all the devices of Bellarmin, Bargnius and Binius u 1.313, to save their Churches Infalli∣bility, we have two Popes at once falling so notoriously into the Arian Heresie, that the Lay-people disowned their Communion: This is more than suspicion of Heresie in S. Peter's Chair, and proves, that their infallible Guides for some years were Arian Heretics.

For this Liberius divers Epistles are published, with a Preface before them, which saith, Two of them were feigned by the Arians w 1.314; yet these two are found in the

Fragments of S. Hilary, among which it is not probable there should be any Fiction of the Arians. So that it is very likely these two Epistles are genuine, but rejected by these Sycophants of Rome, because they tell an un∣grateful Truth, viz. That Liberius did condemn Athana∣sius soon after he was made Pope. And if we consider how inconstant he was, it is very probable that he might condemn Athanasius twice, first in the beginning of his Papacy, as is said in these two Epistles, of which he repented, and then writ that Tenth Epistle, to own he was in Communion with Athanasius, and to tell him, If he approved of his form of Faith, it would tend much to the setling of his Judgment x 1.315, which is an odd Comple∣ment from an Infallible Head. Secondly He condemned Athanasius after his Banishment, of which more shall be said hereafter: But as to the particular Epistles, we shall note, That in the first (which they say is genuine) Li∣berius with other Bishops petition Constantius, to order a Council to be held at Aquileia y 1.316; by which we see the Pope had not then assumed the power of calling Coun∣cils. When he writ the 7th Epistle (which they grant also to be genuine) no doubt he was an Arian: For he calls the Arian Bishops, His most Beloved Brethren, and declares his Consent to their just condemning of Athanasius, together with his being in Communion with them, and his receiving their Sirmian Creed, as the Catholic Faith z 1.317. So in the XIth Epistle (which is certainly genuine and recorded by Socrates a 1.318,) the Notes confess, he was so easie, as to receive the Semi-Arians to Communion, and to commend their Faith, as the same which was decreed at Nice: But it is gross Flattery, to call this only, Being too easie; it was in plain terms, Being deceived, and erring in Matters of Faith; which spoils their Infallibility b 1.319, as it also doth their Universal Supremacy; for Liberius in the same Epistle to call himself, Bishop of Italy (referring only to the Suburbicarian Regions) and saying, He was the meanest of Bishops, and rejoyced that those in the East did (not submit to him, but) agree with him in Matters of Faith. Wherefore the XIIth or (as Labbé calls it) the

XIVth Epistle, which is writ to all Bishops, is manifestly forged c 1.320: And so are the two next, from Liberius to Athanasius, and from Athanasius to Liberius, as both Labbé and Binius confess d 1.321; yet in one of these the Pope brags of his Authority over the Universal Church: But the Forger was so bad at Chronology, that while he strives to make this Pope look like an Orthodox Friend of Athanasius, he absurdly brings him in, even under Julian or Valens (in one of whose Reigns this Epistle was written,) threatning Offenders with the Emperours In∣dignation, with Deprivation, yea, with Proscription, Ba∣nishment and Stripes e 1.322. I need not mention those De∣crees which are attributed to Liberius, whose Style be∣trays them, and shews they belong to the later Ages, and are placed here by the Collectors, only to make them seem more ancient than really they are.

In Liberius's first year it is said, There was a Council called at Rome by this Pope, to clear Athanasius f 1.323; yet being sen∣sible that their Authority would signifie very little, they all agreed to petition the Emperour for a Council to Meet at Aquileia, to confirm what they had done at Rome. Anno 355. there was a Council at Milan, the Editors call it, A General Council, because it was with Constantius permission, called by Liberius, whose Legates also were present at it g 1.324. But herein they grosly falsifie, for Sozo∣men declares, That Constantius summoned all the Bishops to Milan h 1.325; and Baronius saith, The Emperour called them together i 1.326. Therefore if this was a General Council, it was called by the Emperour, and not by the Pope: In the Notes on this Synod they say, Con∣stantius being yet a Catechumen, ought not to be present at a lawful Council. But this is Baronius his device, to colour over the Forgery of Constantine's Baptism before the Council of Nice, there being no Canon forbidding a Catechumen to be present in a Council, or in a Church, except only while the Sacrament was cele∣brating; so that if Constantius had been bound by an Ecclesiastical Canon, there being no Canon to hinder his presence in this Council, Baronius assigns a wrong

cause of his absence. Again, the Notes do very falsly suppose, That Foelix, though chosen by the Arians, was a Catholic Pope k 1.327: For he was Ordained by three Arian Bishops at Milan, as Atbanasius declares l 1.328; and Socrates, as we noted before, faith, He was in Opinion an Arian. Nor is it probable, when the Arians had got Liberius banished, for not complying with them, they should chuse a Catholic and an Enemy into so eminent a See; or that the Catholic People of Rome should avoid the communion of Foelix, if he were not an Arian. 'Tis true, Sozomen speaks of some who said, He kept to the Nicene Faith, and was unblameable in Religion; yet he adds,—he was accused for ordaining Arians, and communicating with them m 1.329. But this bare Report, raised perhaps by the Arians (who still pretended to be Catholics, and hold the Nicene Faith) cannot outweigh such strong Reason and Matters of Fact, as are here alledged to prove Foelix, not only a Schismatical, but also an Heretical Pope.

The Dialogue between Constantius and Pope Liberius at Milan, (here published) shews, That at this time he refused either to condemn Athanasius, or communicate with the Arians, and was banished into Thrace for this refusal: But the Reader may justly wonder he should never mention his Supremacy and Universal Authority, when Constantius asked him, If he were so considerable a part of the World, that he would alone stand for Athana∣sius; and when he advised him, to embrace the Commu∣nion of the Churches n 1.330, how properly might he have here told him, he was Head of all Churches, and those who did not communicate with him were no Churches? Again, Why doth this Pope offer to go to Alexandria, and hear Achanasius's cause there, which had been twice judged at Rome? Surely he knew nothing of these last and highest Appeals in all Causes: The Popes of after-Ages claimed this as a right of their See; yet it must be granted, that Liberius was ignorant of that priviledge.

§. 24. The Council at Sirmium was called by Constan∣tius, * 1.331 and consisted of Arian Bishops, who though they condemned Photinus his gross Heresie, yet would not put the word Consubstantial into any of the three Creeds, which they here composed, however the Edi∣tors call it, A General Council partly rejected: Perhaps, because Pope Liberius approved it, who here openly Fell into the Arian Heresie; and that, not by con∣straint (as the Notes pretend o 1.332): For out of his Ba∣nishment he writ to the Eastern Bishops, assuring them he had condemned Athanasius, and would communi∣cate with them in their form of Faith, and therefore he desired them to intercede for his release and resti∣tution to his Bishopric. The ambition of regaining which great place was the cause of his Fall p 1.333, as Baronius confesseth; and though that Author had produced divers Ancient Writers expresly testifying, That he subscribed Heresie q 1.334. Yet a little after he again denies, that Liberius was an Heretic; pretending, that he only sign'd the first Confession of Sirmium, which was not downright Heresie r 1.335. Though elsewhere he saith, Athanasius rejected all these Arian Forms (which wanted, Consubstantial) as Heretical s 1.336, and declares that the Catholic People of Rome esteemed Liberius to be an Heretic, and would not have Communion with him, for which he cruelly persecuted them. Nay, he brags of it as a singular Providence, that Foelix (who was a Schismatical Pope in his Exile) upon Liberius's Fall, suddenly became a Catholic and a lawful Pope, which still supposes Liberius was an Heretic, as doth also Baronius his Fiction of Liberius's speedy Repen∣tance, and Foelix his dying soon after his Adversaries return to Rome: For the Writers of that Age say, Foelix lived eight years after t 1.337; and for Liberius his Repen∣tance, though many Authors expresly speak of his falling into Heresie, none are very clear in his return∣ing, or however, none suppose it to be so long before his Death, as Baronius doth; whose design in this

History is not to serve Truth, but to clear S. Peter's Chair from the imputation of Heresie, and therefore he makes this out chiefly by Conjectures u 1.338. The testi∣monies of Damasus and Siricius being parties and partial for the honour of their own See, are no good Evidence if they did speak of his early Repentance; but Damasus only faith, The Bishop of Rome did not consent to the Faith of Ariminum: Baronius adds, This was Liberius. I reply, That Damasus was of Foelix his party, before his own advancement to be Pope, and so it is more probable that he meant Foelix. Again, the Catholic Bishop's Letter from Ariminum only says, The Arian Decrees created discord at Rome w 1.339; that is, there were then two Factions there, one of which (and probably that of Liberius) did agree to these Decrees, the other re∣jected them. Baronius adds to the Bishops Letter,—these Decrees created Factions, because the Pope of Rome opposed them: But this will not clear Liberius, since both Factions were headed by a Pope. Baronius goes on to tell us, that Sozomen affirms, Liberius was turned out of his Church, for not consenting to the Faith at Arimi∣num x 1.340. I Answer, Sozomen must be mistaken in this, unless we feign a double Exile of Liberius, which no good Author mentions, and which Baronius will not allow. As for the Epistle of Liberius to Athanasius, it was writ no doubt before he had condemned him, or else he ought to have confessed his Fault, as well as his Faith to that great Man. I grant Socrates doth say, That Liberius required the Semi-Arians and Macedonians, to consent to the Nicene Faith in the time of Valens y 1.341; but this was Nine years after his return, and not long before his Death, yet then Liberius was imposed on in Matters of Faith by these Bishops, whom he calls Ortho∣dox; for they were still Heretical, and did not heartily agree to the Nicene Faith, so that his Infallibility was deceived: And though S. Ambrose call Liberius [Of happy Memory] where he cites a Sermon of his; that is * 1.342 a Phrase which the Primitive Charity used of some Men not altogether Orthodox ^•: But it is a great pre∣judice

to Liberius his Repentance, that though Athana∣sius speak of him as having been once his Friend, and report his Apostacy, yet he never mentions his turning Catholic again. Wherefore we conclude, that all these Fictions, and falsifying of Evidence and slight Conje∣ctures in Baronius and the Notes, are intended only to blind the Reader, and hinder his finding out an Here∣tical Pope, whose Fall is clear, his continuance in his Heresie very probable, and his Repentance (if it be true) came too late to save his Churches Infallibility, though it might be soon enough to save his own Soul.

The Editors style the Council at Ariminum, A Gene∣ral * 1.343 Council, and yet dare not say, as usually, under Libe∣rius, who had no hand in it, for it was called by the Emperour Constantius, as all Writers agree z 1.344; so that it seems there may be A General approved Council (as they style this a 1.345, which the Pope doth not call. Moreover, the Emperour in his first Epistle orders the Bishops to send him their Decrees, that he might con∣firm them b 1.346; and though Baronius saith this was done like an Heretical Emperour, yet the Orthodox Bishops observed his Order, and call it, Obeying the Command of God, and his Pious Edict c 1.347: Wherefore this General Council was both called and confirmed by the Empe¦rour. Again, Constanti••s in his Epistle declares, It was unreasonable to determine any thing in a Western Council against the Fastern Bishops. Whence it appears, he knew nothing of the Western Patriarchs claiming an Universal Supremacy over all the Churches, both of the East and West; and for this Reason Baronius leaves this genuine Epistie (recorded in S. Hilary's Fragments) out of his Annals: We have also noted before, that though the Orthodox Bishops in this Council (who must know the matter) say, That Constantine was Bap∣tized after the Council at Nice, and soon after his Baptism translated to his deserved Rest; as the Ancient Historians read that Passage, and the Sense of the place shews they could mean it of none but Constantine d 1.348; yet

Baronius corrupts the Text, and reads Constans instead of Constantine, only to support the Fable of Constantine's being Baptized by Sylvester at Rome, and the Editors follow him in that gross Corruption: For they examine nothing which serves the Interest of Rome. As for the Arian Synods this year at Seleucia and Constantinople, I need make no Remarks on them, because the Pope is not named in them, and so there is no occasion for them to feign any thing. Only one Forgery of Baro∣nius must not be passed over: That when Cyril of Hierusalem was deposed by an Arian Synod, he is said to have appealed to greater Judges, and yet he never named the Pope; the reason of which (Baronius saith) was, because the True Pope Liberius was then in Banish∣ment e 1.349; but hath he not often asserted Foelix was a Catholic, and if Cyril had thought fit, might he not have appealed to him? But it is plain by Socrates, that Cyril meant to appeal to the Emperour and his Dele∣gates, as all injured Bishops in that Age had used to do.

§. 25. Upon the restitution of Athanasius from his third Exile after the death of George the Arian Bishop, * 1.350 he called a Council of Bishops at Alexandria, for deciding some differences among the Catholics about the manner of explaining the Trinity, and to agree on what terms Recanting Arians were to be received into the Church. And though neither Athanasius, nor any ancient Histo∣rian take any notice of the Pope in this eminent Action; yet the Editors out of Baronius say, It was called by the Advice and Authority of Liberius f 1.351; and to make out the notorious Fiction of this Popes calling this Ortho∣dox Council (even while he was an Arian) the Notes affirm, Eusebius Bishop of Vercelles and Lucifer Calarita∣nus, as the Popes Legates were present at it; which they take out of Baronius, who had before told us, That Lucifer Calaritanus was at that time at Antioch, and sent two Deacons to Alexandria to subscribe for him; yea, this Synod writes their Synodical Letter to Eusebius,

Lucifer and other Bishops, which plainly shews they were absent; though it seems by Ruffinus, that Eusebius came afterwards, and subscribed to what had been agreed in the Council, and was by the Authority of this Council (not of the Pope) sent into the East to procure peace among those Churches: Nor have they any one Author to prove either he or Lucifer were the Pope's Legates, nor any reason, but because they were employed in great Actions, though in that Age ('tis plain) the Popes were little concerned in any eminent business. Moreover, they bring in a Fragment of an Epistle, writ (according to the Ancient Custom) by Liberius at his Entrance into the See of Rome, to shew his Faith to Athanasius, as if it were written now, meerly to impose on the Reader a false Notion of his being at this time Orthodox, and concerned in this Synod. They also cite another Epistle of Athanasius, to certifie Liberius what was done here; but that Epistle is no where extant in Athanasius's Works, but is cited out of the Acts of the second Nicene Council, where there are more Forgeries than genuine Tracts quoted; and besides, the Epistle is directed not to the Pope, but to one Ruffinianus, and only mentions the Roman Churches approving what was done here; but the Epistle being suspicious, it is no good Evidence, and we conclude with Nazianzen, That Athanasius in this Synod gave Laws to the whole World g 1.352: And Pope Liberius had no hand in it.

About this time there were divers Councils called in France by S. Hilary Bishop of Poictiers, and the Catholic Faith was setled in them, one of which was held at Paris, and the Synodical Epistle is extant h 1.353; yet the Pope is never named in it. Nor yet in that Orthodox Synod at Alexandria, wherein Athanasius and his Suf∣fragan Bishops presented a Confession of their Faith to Jovian, then newly made Emperour i 1.354, which shews, that Liberius either was an Heretic at this time, or else that he was very inconsiderable: So that it is a strange Arrogance in the Editors to say, that the Second Council

at Antioch was under Liberius k 1.355, when the very Notes say, it was called together by Meletius, and ob∣serve, that many Arian Bishops did there recant their Heresie; a thing, which a little before they pretended could be done no where but at Rome, in the Popes Presence.

Upon Valentinian's advancement to the Empire, the * 1.356 Eastern Bishops petition him to call a Council, and he (being then very busie) told them, they might call it where they pleased: Which the Editors pretend was a declining to meddle in Church Affairs, being a Lay-man: But the Bishops Petition, and his giving them liberty, shews, that the right of calling Councils was in him, and so was also the confirming them, as appears from the Bishops sending the Acts of this Council (at Lampsacus) to the Emperour Valens to be confirmed l 1.357. The same Bishops also sent their Legates with Letters to the Western Bishops, and particularly to Liberius Bishop of Rome, hoping Valentinian the other Emperour had been in that City; but he being absent, these Legates, perswaded Liberius they were Orthodox; upon which he writ back Letters in his own Name, and in the Name of the other Western Bishops, to own them for good Catho∣lics m 1.358. Whence we may note, First, That the Eastern Bishop's Letter styles the Pope no more but Collegue and Brother. Secondly, That Liberius calls himself only Bishop of Italy, Liberius Ep. Italiae, & alii Occident is Episcopi: But Baronius alters the Pointing, Liberius Epi∣scopus, Italiae & alii, &c. by that Trick, hoping to con∣ceal this mean Title n 1.359. Thirdly, The Pope here saith, He was the least of all Bishops, and was glad their Opinion agreed with his and the rest of the Western Bishops. Fourthly, Yet after all these very Eastern Bishops were of the Macedonian party, as the Title of their Letter in Socrates shews o 1.360. Baronius indeed leaves these words out of the Title, but he confesses they were Semi-Arians: So that the Popes Infallibility, (as being imposed on by Heretics in Mattets of Faith) loses more by this Embassy, than his Supremacy gains

by it, because the Legates were not sent to him alone, but to all the Western Bishops. Fifthly, The Notes on this Council p 1.361 feign, that besides these Communica∣tory Letters, Liberius writ other Letters, Commanding that ejected Bishops should be restored by the Apostolic Au∣thority: But this is one of Baronius his Forgeries q 1.362. For S. Basil, and also Sozomen, cited by the Notes on the Council of Tyana r 1.363, mention not the Legates shewing any other Letters at their return into the East, but only the Communicatory Letters; and since it appeared by them, that the Western Bishops judged them Orthodox, their Eastern Brethren did restore them: And so also these Legates got the approbation of a Council in Sicily, as they were returning home; for the Sicilian Bishops by mistake took them for Orthodox, when they saw the rest of the Western Bishops owned their Communion with them, and so approved their Con∣fession of Faith; and therefore it is very impertinent in the Notes to say on this occasion s 1.364, That the Autho∣rity of the Pope was so great, that if he admitted even suspected Heretics to his Communion, none presumed to reject them. Whereas we know that afterwards, the People of Rome rejected even the Pope himself, for communicating with Semi-Arians.

The next thing which occurs is a Synod in Illyricum, Convened at the request of Eusebius Bishop of Sebastia, one of the Eastern Legates, who (while his Fellows stayed at Rome) went into that Country, and pre∣vailed with the Bishops assembled there, to send Elpi∣dius a Brother and Collegue of their own, with a Syno∣dical Letter to the Eastern Bishops; declaring, they would communicate with them, if their Faith was the same with that of Nice. Now though this Synod do not mention the Pope, yet Baronius and the Notes feign, That Elpidius was the Pope's Legate t 1.365; whereas the Synod, the Emperours Letter, and Theodoret (from whom this Story is taken) mention Elpidius only as a Messenger sent from this Council.

When these Eastern Legates returned home, there was a Council called at Tyana in Cappadocia u 1.366, wherein they shewed the Communicatory Letters which they had fraudulently obtained in the West; upon which Letters, those who had been ejected as Heretics, and particularly Eustathius of Sebastia, were restored to their Sees; but neither Sozomen nor S. Basil say, this was done by any special Letters of Liberius, or by any Command of his; yet if it had been so, this would spoil this Popes Infallibility, it being certain these restored Bishops were Heretics, who Liberius, poor Man! thought to be good Catholics, and he hath the more to answer for, if this were done not by his Consent alone, but by his Com∣mand also.

After this we have the Life of Pope Foelix, about whom they differ so much, that nothing is plain in his Story, but this, that little of him is certainly known. The Pontifical in Liberius Life saith, He died in peace; but here it saith, He was Martyred by Constantius, for declaring him an Heretic, and one who was rebaptized by Eusebius of Nicomedia: Yet Constantius was not Bap∣tized at all till after Foelix his pretended Martyrdom, and he was Baptized then (not by Eusebius, but) by one Euzoius. Again, The Pontifical allows him but to sit One year and three months, and the Notes say, This is right, computing from Liberius Fall to his Return; which (as Sozomen affirms) was but little before Foelix his Death w 1.367: Whereas these very Notes tell us, a little before, that Liberius was above two years in Exile x 1.368; therefore if he lived but a small time after Liberius's return, he must sit above two years: But Marcellinus (who writ in that Age) tells us, Foelix lived eight years after Liberius was restored; Which Baronius and the Notes would conceal, to hide the Scandal that their Church must get by a long Schism, and by an Here∣tical Pope, of whom they will needs make a Martyr, only upon the Credit of the Pontifical, and a modern fallacious Inscription, pretended to be found at Rome many Ages after, belonging to some Foelix, but which of them they know not.

The Epistles ascribed to this Pope contain so many and so gross Untruths, that Labbé notes, They are dis∣carded by Baronius and other Learned Men, as Isidores Wares y 1.369; adding, That the third Epistle was stollen from Pope Martin the First, in his Lateran Council z 1.370. And though Binius very often cite the two first Epistles, yet in his Notes on them he owns, they are of no credit a 1.371: For they Forge many Canons as made at Nice, and tell that idle story of the true Copies of the Nicene Canons being burnt by the Arians b 1.372. But it is certain the Forger of these Epistles was a Creature of the Popes, because the Inscriptions of them are stuffed with false and flattering Titles, and the Body of them nau∣seously and ridiculously press the Supremacy, and the Universal Empire of the Roman Church.

§. 26. The entrance of Damasus into the Papacy * 1.373 was not without Blood, for the People were divided, and some standing for Damasus, others for Ursicinus, Damasus his Party being stronger, slew many of their Adversaries in a Church, as all the Writers of that Age testifie c 1.374; and though Ammianus be a Pagan Historian, yet it is very probable which he writes, that it was not Zeal, but the ambition of living high and great, that made Men contend so fiercely for the Papacy; for S. Basil himself about this time taxes the Roman Church with Pride; and S. Hierom, the great Friend of that Church, often reflects upon the pomp and luxury of the Clergy there: So that the Notes on Damasus his Life do but glory in their Churches shame, when from these Authors they boast of the Magnificence and Majesty of the Papacy d 1.375. The Fabulous Pontifical was for many Ages pretended to be writ by this Damasus, and he who forged the Decretal Epistles, invented one to Aurelius Bishop of Carthage e 1.376; wherein Damasus is feigned to send him (at his Request) all the Epistles writ by the Popes from S. Peter, to his time, and this of old was the Preface to the Decretal Epistles; but the Forgery is so gross that Binius rejects

it, and if his affection for the Papacy had not biassed him, he would also have rejected all the Epistles, which are as errant Forgeries as this Preface. The first and second Epistles written in Damasus his Name to Paulinus, and the Eastern Bishops, are suspicious The third Epistle of Damasus to Hierom is evidently Forged by some illiterate Monk; but S. Hierom's Answer seems to be genuine; yet the Notes reject it f 1.377 for no other reason, but because it truly supposes the Pope and his Clergy were so ignorant, as to need S. Hierom's help to make them understand the Psalms, and affirms, that Rome obeyed his directions in singing the Psalms, and adding the Gloria Patri to them; whereas whoever considers the Learning and Authority of S. Hierom in that Age, will not think it at all improbable, that he should teach the Roman Bishop. And Binius is forced to cite this Epistle wrong in his Notes, to get a seeming Argument against it; for the Epistle doth not advise them to sing the Gloria Patri after the manner of the East (as he quotes it;) but to sing it, to shew their Consent to the Nicene Faith. The fourth Epistle of Damasus, to Stephen Archbishop of the Council of Mauritania, with Stephen's Epistle to him, are owned by Labbé to be both spurious g 1.378. But since they magnifie the Popes Supremacy, Binius justifies them both; for whose con∣futation let it be noted, 1. That it is absurd to style a Man Archbishop of a Council: Secondly, That in this Epistle is quoted a forged Epistle of Foelix, owned by Binius himself to be spurious h 1.379: Thirdly, That place of Math. XVI. is falsly quoted here, and thus read, Thou art Peter, and upon thy foundation will I set the Pillars (that is, the Bishops) of the Church: Fourthly, The later of them is dated with Flavius and Stillico, who were not Consuls till Damasus had been in his Grave full twenty year, as Labbé confesses; wherefore we justly discard these gross Forgeries devised of old, and de∣fended now only to support the Popes usurped Power. The fifth Epistle says, The Institution of the Chorepi∣scopi was very wicked and extreme evil; yet presently

after it owns, they were appointed in imitation of the LXX Disciples, and were at first necessary for the Primitive Church; it is also dated with Libius and The disius, who were never Consuls in Damasus's time, and finally Labbé owns, that much of it is stollen out of the Epistles of later Popes i 1.380; yet Binius will not reject it, because it hath some kind touches for the Supremacy. The sixth Epistle to the Bishops of Illyricum passes Muster also with him, though it be dated with Siricius and Arda∣burus, who were Consuls till 30 years after Damasus was dead k 1.381. The 7th Epistle is dated with the same Consuls; yet Binius allows of it, because in it the Pope pretends to give Laws not only to Italy, but to all the World, though Labbé confess the Cheat, and owns it was stollen by Isidore out of Leo's 47th Epistle l 1.382. So unfortunate is their Supremacy, that whatever seems to give any countenance to it, always proves to be Forged. The Decrees attributed to this Pope seem to have been the invention of later Ages; for it is not probable Damasus would have Fathered a Lye upon the Nicene Council, in saying, It was decreed there, that Lay-men should not meddle with Oblations m 1.383; or that he would say, Such as broke the Canons, were guilty of the Sin against the Holy Ghost: Nor doth his Decree about the Pall agree to this Age. So that Damasus's Name hath for better credit been clapt to these Decrees by the modern Compilers, who are the Guides to our Editors.

About this time the Arians having the Emperour * 1.384 Valens on their side, began to grow bold; but Athanasius condemned them in Egypt by divers Synods, and upon his Admonition Damasus held two Synods at Rome, in the first of which, Ursacius and Valens, two Arian Bishops were condemned, and in the later, Auxentius the Arian Bishop of Milan was deposed; not by the Popes single Authority, as the Notes and Baronius vainly pre∣tend n 1.385, but by the common Suffrage of Ninety Bi∣shops assembled with him, as the words of Atbanasius, and the very Councils Letter plainly shew. And though Baronius here talks of the Popes sole Priviledge in de∣posing

Bishops, there are innumerable Instances of Bishops deposed without the Popes leave or knowledge; and Auxentius valued and believed Damasus his Autho∣rity so little, that notwithstanding this Sentence of the Pope in Council, he kept his Bishopric till his Death.

Apollinar is having disseminated his Heresie at Antioch, * 1.386 complaint was made to Damasus of one Vitalis who held those Errors; but the Pope (who had not the gift of discerning the Spirits) was imposed on by his subscri∣bing a plausible Confession of Faith, so that he writ on his behalf to Paulinus Bishop of Anti••ch o 1.387. 'Tis true, at the request of S. Basil, Damasus did this year joyn with Peter, Bishop of Alexandria (who was then at Rome) in condemning Apollinaris in a Roman Council p 1.388; but Nazianzen saith, He did n••t this till be was better instructed in the Points: For at first (as the Notes con∣fess) this Pope took Apollinaris for a picus and learned Man; and so beld Communion with him till he understood by S. Basil's third Epistle, that he was an Herctic. I know they excuse this by saying, that S. Basil himself, and Nazianzen and S. Hierom were all at first under the same mistake with Damasus: But then none of these ever were pretended to be Infallible Jadges in matters of Faith, as Baronius holds Damasus was; so that the mistake in them is pardonable, but upon Baronius Prin∣ciples I see not how Damasus his Infallibility can be secured, when he was so long deceived by a Heretic, and was forced to be instructed by a private Bishop at last, even in cases of Heresie.

The next year a Council was held at Valentia in Dauphiné, the true Title of which saith, it was under Gratian and Valentinian (the Emperours;) but the Editors put a new Title over it, and say it was under Damasus q 1.389 who is not once named in it; the French Bishops there assembled making Canons for their own Churches, without asking the Popes leave, or desiring his Confirmation.

Upon the death of Valens the Arian Emperour, while * 1.390 Valentinian was yet very young, Gratian managed both

the Eastern and Western Empire, and he makes a Law to suppress all Heresies, and to take away the use of Churches from all such as were not in Communion with Damasus Bishop of Rome, and Peter of Alexandria r 1.391 Theodoret indeed (who as Baronius owns is much mistaken in his relating this matter s 1.392) names only Damasus in his report of this Law; and Baronius cites the Law out of him, meerly to make it seem as if Damasus were made the sole Standard of Catholic Communion, though the Original Law still extant t 1.393, and all other Historians, name Peter of Alexandria as equal with Damasus: per∣haps the Reader may wonder there is no other Patri∣arch named in this Law; but it must be observed, that Anticch at this time had two Orthodox Bishops, who separated from each other, Meletius and Paulinus, to make up which unhappy Schism there was a Synod this year held at Antioch, under Damasus u 1.394, say the Editors; but in truth, under the Emperours Legate,, who was sent to see a Peace concluded between these two Bishops by the advice of the Council there assembled: And Damasus had so little interest in this Council, that Meletius was generally approved for the true Bishop, and Paulinus (whose party the Pope favoured) ordered only to come in after Meletius his Death w 1.395: So that since this Council acted contrary to the mind of Da∣masus, it is very improper to say, it was held under him.

§. 27. The second General Council at Constantinople * 1.396 was Called by the Emperour Theodosius, whom Gratian had taken for his Paitner in the Empire, and assigned him for his share the Eastern Provinces; where this pious Prince finding great differences in Religion, he Convened this Council to confirm the Nicene Faith, to fettle Ecclesiastical Matters, and to determine the Affairs of the See of Constantinople. This Council the Editors introduce with a Preface or general History, and conclude it with partial and false Notes, ho••ing to perswade the World, that it was both called and

confirmed by the Pope: For which end we read in the Preface, That Theodosius made a Law for all to follow the Faith, which the Apostle Peter delivered to the Romans, and which Pope Damasus preached x 1.397; which shews, as if the Pope were the sole preserver of the Faith; whereas the Law it self truly cited runs thus,—which Pope Damasus, and Peter Bishop of Alexandria, a man of Apostolical Sanctity, are known to follow y 1.398. And in ano∣ther Law of the same Emperours next year, those are declared to be Catholics, and capable of Benefices, who were in Communion with the Bishops of Constan∣tinople, Alexandria, Laodicea, Tarsus and Iconium z 1.399; and in that Law neither Damasus nor Rome are menti∣oned; which shews, it was not the peculiar priviledge of any See, for its Bishop to be made the standard of Catholic Communion, but the known Orthodox Opi∣nion of that Bishop who sat in this or that eminent Church. The rest of the Forgeries in this Council, will best appear by considering, First, By whom this Council was called: Secondly, By whom it was con∣firmed: Thirdly, What Authority hath been aseribed to it: And, Fourthly, Whether the Canons and Creed ascribed to it be Authentic.

First, As to the Calling this Council, Baronius had twice guessed, but never proved that Damasus moved Theod••sius to call it a 1.400; this the Preface improves and saith, It was called by the Emperour, not without Damasus his Authority; and the Title before the Notes, advance it still,—gathered (say they) by the Authority of Pope Damasus, and the favour of Theodosius b 1.401. But when this is to be proved, their Evidence is, pretended Mo∣numents in the Vatican, that Shop of Forgeries; the testimony of later Popes in their own cause, and some very remote Conjectures and fraudulent Inferences: Yet at last they a••firm, That none but a pertinacicus Heretic will a••••irm, that this Pious Emperour, who was most obser∣vant of the Sacred Canons would call this Synod c 1.402. By which bold Censure, they condemn not only all the ancient Historians, but all the Fathers here assembled

for pertinacious Heretics: For the Councils Letter to Theodosius saith, We were called together by your Epistle d 1.403; and when they were to have met at Rome, they a••••irm, That Damasus summoned them to meet there, by the Empe∣rours Letters e 1.404. S••crates also and Sozomen expresly say, The Emperour called this Synod at Constantinople f 1.405 Theodoret also doth a••••irm the same g 1.406, though the Notes strive to pervert his words: But Richerius, a Learned Romanist h 1.407 hath fully cleared this Point, and shewed that Theodosius called this General Council by his sole Authority. And the Acts of the sixth General Council, with Photius (cited falsly in these Notes) do only import, that the Pope gave a subsequent consent to it, which is no proof that he was concerned in calling it.

Secondly, As to the confirming it, the Preface and the Notes considently aver, That they sent their Acts to Damasus to be approved, and he did confirm them i 1.408; yet they tell us, that Pope Gregory above 200 year after declared, That the Church of Rome as yet neither had, nor received the Acts of this Council. I know they would shuffle o••f this Contradiction, by pretending that Da∣masus confirmed only the Matters of Faith, not the Canons: But first, Gregory denies their having the Acts of this Council, and the Acts contain Matters of Faith as well as Canons; Secondly, they can not shew any proof, that Damasus made any distinction: If he con∣firmed any thing, it was all; for if subsequent consent be confirmation, then he consented to all, and confirmed all that was done here. But in our Sense of giving an Authentic Character to this Councils Decrees, Theo∣dosius alone confirmed them; for the Bishops desire him, by his Picus Edict to confirm the Decrees of this Synod k 1.409: And they writ not to Damasus till the year after the Synod, and their Letter was directed not to him alone, but to Ambrose and other Western Bishops with him l 1.410 nor do they in it desire any confirmation from him or any of them, but say, That they and all others ought to approve of their Faith, and rejoyce with them for

all the good things which they had done; with which Letter probably they sent (as was usual) a Transcript of all their Acts: And Photius saith, That Damasus, Bishop of Rome afterwards agreed with these Bishops, and confirmed what they had done m 1.411; that is, by consenting to it, which is no more than every absent Bishop may do, who in a large Sense may be said to confirm a Council, when he agrees to the Acts of it after they are brought to him.

Thirdly, The Authority of this Council is undoubted, having been ever called and accounted the Second General Council, and so it is reckoned in all places where the General Councils are mentioned, which Title it had not, as Bellarmin vainly suggests, Because at the time when this was assembled in the East, the Western Bishops met at Rome: For that obscure Synod is not taken notice of, while this is every where celebrated, as held at Constantinople, and consisting of one hundred and fifty Bishops, which were they who met in the East n 1.412. As for Damasus, Baronius cannot prove he was concerned in it, but by we think, and we may believe o 1.413; yet he elsewhere boldly says, Damasus gave it Supreme Authority p 1.414; and the Annotator makes it impossible for any Council to be general, unless the Pope or his Legates be there. Now he and all others call this A General Council: And yet he saith, That neither Pope Damasus, nor his Legates were Presidents of it, nor was he or any Western Bishop in it. Whence we learn, That there may be a General Council, at which the Pope is not present, by himself, nor by his Legates, and of which neither he nor they are Presidents.

Fourthly, As to the Creed and Canons here made, the modern Romanists without any proof suppose, that Damasus allowed the former, and not the later: But if he allowed the famous Creed here made, I ask, Whether it then had these words [And from the Son] or no? If it had, why do the Notes say, That these words were added to it by the Bishops of Spain and the Au∣thority of Pope Leo long after q 1.415? But if these words

were wanting, as they seem to confess, (when they say, The Roman Church long used this Creed without this addi∣tion) then I must desire to know, how a Man of their Church can be secure of his Faith, if what was (as they say) confirmed by Damasus in a General Council, may be al ered by a few Bishops and another Pope, without any General Council? As to the Canons, Da∣masus made no objection against them in his time, and it is very certain that the Bishop of Constantinople after this Council, always had the second place. For as the first General Council at Nice gave old Rome the first place, as being the Imperial City; so this second General Council doubted not, but when Constan∣tinople was become new Rome, and an Imperial City also; they had power to give it the second place, and suitable Priviledges. Yea, the Notes confess, that S. Chry∣sostom, by virtue of this Canon, placed and displaced divers Bishops in Asia, and the 4th General Council at Chalcedon (without regarding the dissent of the Popes Legates) allowed the Bishop of Constantinople the second place, and made his Priviledges equal to those of Old Rome r 1.416; which Precedence and Power that Bishop long retained, notwithstanding the endeavours of the envious Popes: And Gregory never objected against these Canons, till he began to fear the growing Great∣ness of the Patriarch of Constantinople; but when that Church and Empire was sinking, and there appeared no danger on that side to the Popes, then Innocent the Third is said by the Notes, to revive and allow this Canon again; by which we see, that nothing but Interest governs that Church, and guides her Bishops in allowing or discarding any Council: For now again, when the Re∣formed begin to urge this Canon, Baronius and the Notes say, They can prove by firm Reasons, that this Canon was forged by the Greeks: But their Reasons are very frivolous, They say Anatolius did not quote this Canon against Pope Leo: I reply, 'Tis very probable he did, because Leo saith, He pleaded the Consent of many Bishops; that is, (if Leo would have spoken out) In this General

Council. Secondly, They urge that this Canon is not mentioned in the Letter writ to Damasus. I Answer, They have told us before, they sent their Acts to him, and so need not repent them in this Letter. Thirdly, They talk of the Injury done to Timotheus Bishop of Alexandria; but his Subscription is put to the Canons as well as the Creed, and it doth not appear that ever he or any of his Successors contended for Precedence after this, with the Patriarch of Constantinople: And that the Modern Greeks did not forge this Canon is plain, because Socrates and Sozomen both mention it s 1.417; and the Catholic Church always owned it for Au∣thentic. Yea, in the Council of Chalcedon it is declared, That the Bishop of Constantinople ought to have had the second place in the Factious Synod at Ephesus, and he is reckoned in that fourth General Council next after the Pope, whose Legates were there, and yet durst not deny him the second place, in which he sat and subscribed in that order, having first had this Canon confirmed at Chalcedon: So that all Churches, but that of Rome, submit to this General Council; and they who pretend most to venerate them, do despise and reject the Authority of General Councils, if they oppose the ends of their Pride and Avarice. To conclude, Here is a General Council called and confirmed only by the Emperour, assembled without the Pope or his Legates, decreeing Matters of Faith and of Discipline, yet every where owned and received as genuine, except at Rome, when Interest made them partial, and still no less valued for that by all other Churches: Which gives a severe Blow to the modern Pretences of their Papal Supre∣macy and Infallibility.

The same Year there was a Council at Aquileia in Italy, wherein divers Arians were fully heard and fairly condemned. Now this Council was called by the Em∣perour, the Presidents of it being Valerian Bishop of Aquileia, and Ambrose Bishop of Milan; but Damasus is not named in it, nor was he present at it in Person, or by his Legates, though this Council was called in Italy

it self, and designed to settle a Point of Faith: But these Bishops (as the Acts shew) did not judge Heretics by the Popes Authority, but by Scripture and by solid Arguments: And they tell us, It was then a Custom for the Eastern Bishops to hold their Councils in the East, and the Western theirs in the West t 1.418; which argues, they knew of no Universal Monarchy, vested in the Pope, and giving him power over all the Bishops, both of the East and West. For it was not Damasus, but the Pre∣fect of Italy, who writ about this Synod to the Bishops of the East u 1.419: Nor did this Council write to the Pope, but to the Emperour, to confirm their Sentence against Heretics; wherefore Damasus had a limited Au∣thority in those days, not reaching so much as over all Italy, and extended only to the Suburbicarian Regions, out of which, as being Damasus's peculiar Province, Ursicinus his Antagonist for the Papacy, was banished by the Emperour Valentinian w 1.420; and therefore Sul∣picius Severus calls him not Orbis, but Urbis Episcopus x 1.421, the Bishop of the City, not of the World; and speaking of Italy, he saith in the next Page, That the Supreme Authority at that time was in Damasus, and S. Am∣brose y 1.422. To these two therefore the Priscillian Here∣tics applied themselves, when they were condemned by the Council of Caesar-Augusta, or Saragosa in Spain, in which Country the Sect first began; but when they could not get these great Bishops to favour their Cause, they corrupted the Emperours Ministers, to procure a Rescript for their restitution z 1.423. Now it is strange that this Council of Saragosa should bear the Title of [under Damasus,] and that the Notes should affirm, Sulpicius Severus plainly writes thus: For if we read Sulpicius as above-cited, we shall find that Damasus knew nothing of this Synod till long after it was risen; so we may conclude this Invention of theirs is only to support their pretended Supremacy.

§. 28. From a Passage in S. Hierom, and the Inscrip∣tion of the Letter writ from the Council at Constan∣tinople, * 1.424 the Editors gather, That Paulinus Bishop of An∣tioch, Epiphanius Bishop of Constantia in Cyprus, and Ambrose, with other of the Western Bishops, met at Rome in Council this year, which they call the Fourth Roman Council under Damasus a 1.425; who probably did preside in this Synod, as all Bishops use to do in their own Cities; but he did not call this Council, for S. Hierom expresly saith, The Emperours Letters called these Bishops to Rome b 1.426. And the Synodical Letter of the Constantinopolitan Fa∣thers tell us, That Damasus desired Theodosius to write to them also of the East to come to Rome: Which shews that Damasus could not summon them by his own Authority; but the Editors and Baronius, out of a false Latin Version of Theodoret, have put in the word [Man∣dato,] which word is not in the Greek, nor any thing answering to it c 1.427; and it was foisted in on purpose, to perswade such as did not read the Original, that the Pope had commanded the Eastern Bishops to come to Rome. Again, though the Notes confess, the Acts of this Roman Council are lost, so that it doth not appear what was done there. Yet soon after they produce a long Canon for the Popes Supremacy, and the Precedence of the Pa∣triarchs; feigning it was made in this Synod. But if the Canon be not a Vatican Forgery (which is very much to be suspected) however it is Antedated one hundred and twelve years, as Labbé confesses in his Margen; for he saith, it was decreed under Pope Ge∣lasius, An. 494. d 1.428. But the Policy of laying this Canon here, is to make a shew as if Damasus had then pub∣lickly declared against the Council of Constantinoples giving that Bishop the second place; but their forging this Proof only shews, they have no genuine Authority for it; yet if they could prove that the Pope disliked this Precedence, since it is certain that Constantinople did take the second place according to this Canon, that would only shew that the Popes Authority was not

regarded. Which also appears in the Case of Flavianus, who (as the Notes conjecture) was in this Roman Synod deposed, and Paulinus made Bishop of Antioch: Yet still the greatest part of the World owned Flavianus for the true Bishop of that See, and the Synod of Sides, where Amphilocius Bishop of Iconium was Presi∣dent, directed their Synodical Epistle to Plavianus, as Patriarch of Antioch e 1.429; so that the Editors should not have styled that Council, Under Damasus; because they acted against his Mind: And so did the Eastern Bi∣shops, who met again this year at Constantinople, when the Pope had desired them to come to Rome, and from this Meeting they writ that Synodical Epistle which the Editors here print over again, and wherein they call Jerusalem, The Mother of all Churches; a Title now by Usurpation appropriated only to Rome.

§. 29. Siricius succeeded Damasus, but not without * 1.430 trouble; for Ursicinus, the Competitor of Damasus, being yet alive and at Rome, was declared Pope by a great party, and Prosper's Chronicle makes him the next Pope after Damasus f 1.431; nor could Siricius get the Chair, but by a Rescript from the Emperour Valentinian, which condemned Ursicinus, and established Siricius g 1.432. There is little or no notice of him before his Election, and though he sat fifteen years (as the Pontifical and Platina,) or thirteen (as the Notes say) there is very little worthy remarking done by him: And it is very probable he was one of those ignorant Clergy-men with which the Roman Church was so well stored at that time, that S. Hierom saith, Not one of them did so much as pretend to Scholarship; but this illiterate Faction, who had proclaimed War against all Learning, conspired also against him h 1.433. For we have reason to judge this Pope to be of their Party, because S. Hierom left Rome in disgust, as soon as Siricius came to be Pope; and Paulinus who came in his time to Rome saith, The City Pope proudly despised him i 1.434; yea, Baronius owns, That Ruffinus, when he was fallen into Origen's Heresie, im∣posed

on the Simplicity of this Pope, and got Communicatory Letters of him k 1.435; which also seems to spoil his Infal∣libility, for which Ignorance is no proper qualifi∣cation. Yet wanting real Matter in this Pope's Life, the Notes run out into the story of the death of Monica, S. Augustine's Mother, saying, That when she died, she was only solicitous to have the Mass offered up for her l 1.436, and this they prove out of Augustine's Confessions; but the Fathers words are, She only desired to be commemorated in the Offices, when the Priest stood at the Altar. Now there is a mighty difference between that ancient Custom of commemorating the Faithful departed, which is allowed by the Church of England, and the Popish way of offering Mass for the Souls of the Deceased, a corruption of much later date than S. Augustine's time.

For this Pope are published divers Decretal Epistles, which are the first that can pretend to be genuine; and if they be really so, it is plain, that their Style is mean, the Arguments trifling, and the Scripture Proofs impertinent; so that the Author was no Conjurer. The first directed to Himerius is very severe against Marri∣age, especially in the Clergy: The Notes would per∣swade us, It is not lawful Marriage, which he calls Pollu∣tion (as they say Calvin falsly affirms m 1.437;) but if we read the Epistle, he calls New Marriages (that is, the Marriage of such as had been Widows) Pollution, as well as those Marriages which were prohibited. Again, he foolishly attempts to prove, Clergy-men ought not to Marry, because S. Paul saith, Those that are in the flesh cannot please God; and though he confess it was usual for many Clergy-men to live with their Wives, he calls that cohabitation, the being polluted with carnal Concupiscence, in his 4th Epistle: So that he is justly taxed with speaking profanely of God's holy Ordinance, and of contradicting S. Paul, who excepted not the Clergy, when he said, Marriage is honourable in all men, and the Bed undefiled, Hebr. XIII. 4. And pro∣bably it was the hot and bold discourses of Siricius and some other Writers of this time, which provoked

Jovinian, not only to stand up for Marriage, but to decry Single Life, the merit of which had so possessed the minds of some great Men, that they resolved to condemn Jovinian for an Heretic. As for the second Epistle of Siricius to the Council at Milan, relating to this Resolve, it may be questioned whether it be ge∣nuine; but that the style is harsh and barbarous is unquestionable. The Answer to this Letter from Milan is evidently patched up out of divers Authors who writ upon this Subject. However S. Ambrose and his Suffra∣gans there, call the Pope Brother, even when they Com∣plement him, as a great Master and Doctor n 1.438, which smells strong of the Forge; and if this Epistle were made up there, then the Notes need not triumph so much, when it says, (upon Jovinians being condemned at Rome) That the Bishop of Rome had looked well to the Gate committed to him; that is (say they) the Gate of the whole Church of which Christ made S. Peter's Successor the Door-keepers o 1.439. But if the Epistle be true, it only commends the Pope for looking well to the Gate of his own Church at Rome, as they had done to their Gate at Milan, having turned him out of that Church before. The third Epistle of Siricius is like the former for style and sense, yet the Editors will not reject it, because the Pope saith, He hath the care of all the Churches p 1.440; but let it be noted, that Aurelius Bishop of Carthage uses the same words of himself a little after q 1.441, and there Binius notes, That Aurelius means, of the Churches of Africa only, not of the whole World: So we may say justly of Siricius here, that he means, He had the Care of the Suburbicarian Churches, not those of the whole World. For the fourth Epi∣stle (said to be writ from a Roman Council) calls the Pope no more but a Primate r 1.442, and that Title belonged to the Bishop of Carthage, as well as to him of Rome; but indeed Labbé honestly confesses this fourth Epistle to be stollen out of Innocent's Epistle to Victricius. The fifth and sixth Epistles are writ by Maximus, an Usurper of the Empire, and seem to be genuine; but we need not wonder at the Tyrants speaking so kind things of

the Pope in them, since it was his interest to Flatter the Bishop of that potent City.

§. 30. This Maximus having seized on the North∣west parts of the Empire, summoned a Council at Bour∣deaux which the Editors without any ground style, under Siricius) wherein the Bishops of the Ga••ican Church again condemned the Priscillianists, and they appealed (not to the Pope, but) to the Emperour Maximus s 1.443) who was so far from favouring these Heretics, that at the instance of Ithacius, a Catholic Bishop, he caused them to be put to death for their Heresie: Which cruel Sentence so displeased Theognistus and other Orthodox Bishops, that they Excommunicated Ithacius and all his Party, who had procured these Heretics to be put to death; and S. Martin, S. Ambrose, and the best Men of that Age, would not communicate with any of these Bishops, who had prosecuted Men to death for Heresie; no not though Ithacius and his Adherents were absolved from Theognistus his Excommunication in a Council which Maximus had called at Triers. Now the Notes, fearing the Reader should observe, That many Popes and Bishops of their Communion have done just as Ithacius did, viz. persecuted, such as they call Heretics, to death, and delivered them up to the Secular Magistrate to be executed, tell us, That it was not an ill thing in Ithacius to procure the death of these Heretics, but his Fault was in the violence of his Proceedings, and in his not interposing such a Protestation as their Church uses on these occasions. Wherein, when they have made it necessary for the Magistrate to put an Heretic to death, they solemnly declare, they wish he would amend, and do not desire his Execution t 1.444. But as this Protesta∣tion is a piece of notorious Hypocrisie unknown to those Ages; so we may be sure so apparent a Sham would not have excused Ithacius, whose Communion (as Sulpicius Severus shews) was renounced by S. Ambrose, S. Martin and Others, purely because they thought it unlawful, especially for Clergy-men, to procure any

persons to be put to death for their Opinion, though it were Heresie. Wherefore these Holy Bishops, if they were now alive, must renounce the Communion of the Roman Church for the same reason, for which they renounced the Communion of Ithacius, even for their frequent procuring Heretics to be put to death; and this is so plain, that all their shuflling Notes cannot wash their Bishops hands from Blood, nor fit them in S. Ambrose and S. Martin's Opinion, to celebrate the Eu∣charist with other Christians.

There had been (as we noted) a long Schism at * 1.445 Antioch, between Paulinus (of whose side was the Pope, and many Western Bishops) and Flavianus, who was supported by the Eastern Bishops; and now Paulinus dying, one Evagrius was irregularly chosen to succeed him, and keep up the Schism; and though Flavianus was owned for the true Bishop by the second General Council, and he it was who ordained S. Chrysostom, and obtained a Pardon from Theodosius for those Citizens of Antioch, who had broke down the Statues of that Emperour and his Empress; yet at the Instance of some Western Bishops the Emperour was perswaded to cite him to a Council, which he had called at Capua, in which S. Ambrose was present; but Flavianus not wil∣ling to have his Enemies to be his Judges, did easily excuse his Non appearance to the Emperour, and the Synod thereupon referred the Matter between him and Evagrius unto Theoplalus, Patriarch of Alexandria, to whose decision Flavianus refusing to stand, he appealed to Theodosius; on which occasion S. Ambrose writing to Theophilus, wishes rather Flavianus had referred the Matter to his Brother the Bishop of Rome, because (saith he) you would probably have judged it (if it had come before you) so as he would have liked u 1.446. Which implies no more, than that Theophilus and Siricius were both of one mind in this case of Flavianus; yet on this slight occasion the Notes say, That the Synod made Theophilus Arbitrator on condition, he should offer his Sentence to be approved and confirmed by the Roman

Church w 1.447: Which is a meer Forgery; for Theophilus was made absolute Arbitrator by the Synod, and this is not the Councils wish, but S. Ambroses; and after all Flavianus did not think a Western Synod had any power over him; and therefore he rejected the Arbi∣tration of Theophilus, the Council, and Pope Siricius also, with whom though he did not communicate, yet he was always owned to be true Bishop of Antioch.

§. 31. The Second Council at Arles is supposed to be held about this time, because the Followers of Photinus and Bonosus were there condemned: Wherefore they say, It was in the time of Siricius; but under him it could not be, since the Bishops there assembled do not name him, nor do they except the Bishop of Romes Supreme Power, when they refer all Ecclesiastical Mat∣ters to the final decision of their own Metropolitan and his Synod, and declare, that every Bishop who receives a person Excommunicated by another, shall be guilty of Schism. Yet the Editors are so apt to dote upon the Popes managing all Councils, that they here style a meeting of the Novatian Heretics at An∣garis in Bithynia x 1.448, A Synod under Siricius; and call poor Socrates a Novatian, for barely relating a Matter of Fact concerning the Novatians.

At this time there was a great Council at Hippo, * 1.449 which the Notes sometimes call a General, and some∣times a Plenary Council, because most of the African Bishops were there, and the Original dates it with the Consuls of this year; but the Editors clap a New Title to it, saying, it was under Siricius; who in all probabi∣lity had no hand in it, nor knew any thing of it: Yet here were made many of those famous Canons for Discipline, by which the African Church was governed. But they are more wary in the next Council of Con∣stantinople, at which many Bishops were present, and among them the two Patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch; being summoned (in the absence of the Em∣perour) by his Prefect Ruffinus; and they will not

venture to say, This was under Siricius, for the Matters treated on it wholly related to the Eastern Church, and in that Age they rarely allowed the Pope to concern himself in their Affairs: No nor in Afric neither, where (Anno 395) there were Councils held both by the Orthodox and the Donatists, which are dated by the Consuls, and no notice is taken of the Pope y 1.450. We shall only observe, that upon one of these Councils the Notes say, It is a mark of the Donatists, being of the Synagogue of Antichrist, that they named the several Parties among them from the Leaders and Founders of their several Sects, and were not content with the Name of Christians from Christ. Which Note reflects upon the Monks of their own Church, who are called Bene∣dictines, Dominicans, and Franciscans, from the Founders of their several Orders.

In the Council of Turin, composed of the Gallican * 1.451 Bishops, they decided the Case of Primacy between the Bishop of Arles and Vienna, without advising with the Pope, and determined they would not communicate with Foelix, a Bishop of Ithacius his Party, according to the Letters of Ambrose, of Blessed Memory, Bishop of Milan, and of the Bishop of Rome. Now, here the Roman Advocates are much disturbed to find S. Ambrose his Name before Siricius; and when they repeat this Passage in the Notes, they falsly set the Pope's Name first, contrary to the express words of the fifth Canon, and impudently pretend, That the Bishop of Rome, by his place, was the ordinary Judge who should be communi∣cated with, and Ambrose was only made so by the Popes Delegation z 1.452. But, how absurd is it (if this were so) for the Council to place the Name of the Delegate, before his who gave him power? And every one may see, that this Council was directed to mark this Decree principally by S. Ambrose his Advice, and secondarily by the Popes; for at that time Ambrose his Fame and Interest was greater than that of Siricius; yet after all, the Council decreed this, not by the Authority of either of these Bishops (as the Notes

pretend,) but only by their Information, and upon their Advice by these Letters, which were not first read (as they pretend) but after four other businesses were dispatched.

The Canons of divers African Councils, held at Carthage and elsewhere, have been put together long * 1.453 since, and collected into one Code, which makes the time and order of the Councils wherein they were made, somewhat difficult; but since the Canons were always held Authentic, we need not (with the Editors) be much concerned for their exact order, or for re∣ducing them to the years of the Pope, because they were neither called nor ratified by his Authority. Yea, the Notes say, It was never heard that any, but the Bishop of Carthage called a Council there, his Letters gave Summons to it, he presided over it, and first gave his Suffrage in it,—and that even when Faustinus (an Italian Bishop) the Popes Legate was pre∣sent a 1.454. As for the particular Canons of the third Council, the Nineteenth saith, That the Readers shall either profess Continence; or they shall be compelled to Marry; but they feign old Copies which say, They shall not be allowed to Read, if they will not contain b 1.455; the falshood of which appears by the 25th Canon in the Greek and Latin Edition, where this is said of the Clergy, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; that is, Except the Readers, which they translate, Quamvis Lectoram c 1.456, on purpose to make us think, that the command of Celibacy (upon which that Age too much doted) reached the lowest order of the Clergy, even Readers; contrary to the express words of the Canons. And to the second Council of Carthage, where only Bishops, Priests and Deacons are under an obligation to live single d 1.457. Secondly, The 26th Canon of the third Council for∣bids the Bishop of the first See, to be called by the Title of Prince, or Chief of Bishops, (Gratian goes on) neither may the Roman Bishop be called Ʋniversal e 1.458. The Notes tax Gratian indeed for adding this Sentence; but if he did, it was out of Pope Gregory, who saith, That

no Patriarch ought to be called Ʋniversal. Besides, consi∣dering how apt the Editors are to strike out words not Agreeable to the Interest of Rome, it is more probable that some of the Popes Friends lately left these words out, than that Gratian put them in: And since this Council forbid Appeals to foreign Judicatures with pecu∣liar respect to Rome, to which some of the Criminal Clergy then began to appeal f 1.459, it is not unlikely these Fathers might resolve to check as well the Title, as the Jurisdiction (then beginning to be set up) which encouraged these Appeals. Thirdly, The 47th Canon in the Latin, and the 24th in the Greek and Latin Edition, speaking of such Books, as are so far Canoni∣cal that they may be read in Churches, reckon up some of those Books which we call Apocryphal, upon which the Notes triumph g 1.460; but let it be observed, that we grant some of these Books to be so far Cano∣nical, that they may be read for instruction of Man∣ners; and also we may note, that the best Editions of these African Canons leave out all the Books of Mac∣chabees and Baruch (which are foisted into their later Latin Copies h 1.461). And it is plain, the whole Canon is falsly placed in this Council under Siricius, because Pope Boniface (who came not into the Papacy till above twenty years after) is named in it as Bishop of Rome; yet after all these devices, it doth not declare what Books are strictly Canonical, and so will not justifie the Decree at Trent. Fourthly, In the 48th Canon of the Latin Version, the Council agrees to advise about the Donatists, with Stricius Bishop of Rome, and Simplicianus Bishop of Milan, not giving any more deference to one of these Bishops than to the other, but looking on them as equally fit to advise them: Yet the Notes boldly say, They advise with the Pope, because they knew he presided, as a Bishop and Doctor, over the Catholic Church; but with the Bishop of Milan only, as a Man every where famous for his Learning i 1.462. Which is a meer Fiction of their own, for the words of the Canon shew, that these Fathers did not believe either of them

had any Authority over them, only they desired their advice joyntly, as being both Eminent and Neigh∣bouring Bishops, and their prohibiting Appeals shews, they knew nothing of the Popes presiding over the Catholic Church.

§. 32. Anastasius was the last Pope in this Century, * 1.463 of whom there would have been as little notice taken, as of Many of his Predecessors, if it had not been his good fortune to be known, both to S. Hierom and S. Augustine, and to assist the latter in suppressing the Donatists, and the former in condemning the Errours of Origen, for which cause these two Fathers make an honourable mention of him. Yet in the African Councils, where he is named with respect, they joyn Venerius Bishop of Milan with him, and call them Their Brethren and Fellow Bishops k 1.464. As for the qualifica∣tions of Anastasius, S. Hierom gives him great Enco∣miums; but it must be observed, that at this time Hierom had charged Ruffinus with broaching the Heresies of Origen at Rome, and he being then at Bethlem, could not beat down these Opinions without the Popes help. And indeed, when Ruffinus came first to Rome he was received kindly by the last Pope Siricius, and Anastasius did not perceive any Errours in Ruffinus or Origen, till S. Hierom (upon Pammachius Information) had opened his Eyes; and at last, it was three years before this Pope could be made so sensible of this Heresie, as to condemn it: So that notwithstanding his Infallibility, if S. Hierom and his Friends had not discovered these Errours, they might in a little time have been declared for Orthodox Truths at Rome; but Anastasius condemning them at last, did wonderfully oblige S. Hierom, and this was the occasion of many of his Commendations. For this Pope are published three Decretal Epistles, though Baronius mentions but two, and condemns the first for a Forgery, and so doth Labbé l 1.465; It is directed to the Bishops of Germany and Burgundy, and yet Bur∣gundy

did not receive the Christian Faith till the Year 413; it is also dated with the Consuls of the Year 385, that is, Fourteen years before Anastasius was Pope. The matter of it is grounded on the Pontifical, which speaks of a Decree made by this Pope for the Priests at Rome to stand up at the Gospel; which the Forger of this Epistle turns into a general Law, and makes it be prescribed to the Germans. The Words of it are stollen out of the Epistles of Pope Gregory and Leo m 1.466; yet out of this Forgery they cite that Passage for the Supremacy, where the German Bishops are advised to send to him as the Head. The second Epistle n 1.467 is also spurious, being dated fifteen or sixteen years after Anastasius his death, and stollen out of Leo's 59^th Epistle. As for the third Epistle, it is certain he did write to John, Bishop of Jerusalem, but it may be doubted whether this be the Epistle or no o 1.468; if it be genuine, it argues the Pope was no good Oratour, because it is writ in mean Latin; yet that was the only Language he understood, for he declares in this Epistle, That he know not who Origen was, nor what Opinions he held, till his Works were translated into Latin. So that any Heretic who had writ in Greek in this Pope's time, had been safe enough from the Censure of this Infal∣lible Judge.

The Notes dispute about the fourth Council of Carthage, whether it were under Pope Zosimus or Anastasius p 1.469; but it was under neither, the true Title of it shewing it was dated by the Consuls Names, and Called by Aurelius Bishop of Carthage, who made many excellent Canons here without any assistance from the Pope. The 51st, 52d and 53d Canons of this Council order Monks to get their Living, not by Begging, but by honest Labour; and the Notes shew, This was the Primitive use q 1.470; which condemns these vast numbers of Idle Monks and Mendicant Fryers, now allowed in the Church of Rome. The hundredth Canon absolutely forbids a Woman to presume to Baptize;

but the Notes (r), (because this practice is per∣mitted * 1.471 in their Church) add to this Canon these words, unless in case of necessity, and except when no Priest is present. Which shews how little reverence they have for ancient Canons, since they add to them, or diminish them, as they please to make them agree with their modern Corruptions.

In the fifth Council of Cartbage, Can. 3. Bishops and Priests are forbid to accompany with their Wives 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is, at the time of their being to Officiate; but in their Latin Copies it is altered thus,—according to their own, (or, to their former) Sta∣tutes; which makes it a general and total Prohibition: But the Greek words of this Canon are cited, and expounded at the great Council in Trullo, where many African Bishops were present, as importing only a Pro∣hibition of accompanying their Wives, when their turns came to Minister s 1.472; which is the true sense of this Canon, though the Romanists, for their Churches Credit would impose another. The fourteenth Canon of this Council takes notice of the feigned Relicks of Martyrs, and of Altars built in Fields and High-ways, upon pretended Dreams and Revolutions; upon which Canon there is no note at all t 1.473, because they know, if all the feigned Relicks were to be thrown away, and all the Altars built upon Dreams and false Revelations pulled down in the present Roman Church, (as was ordered at Carthage by this Canon) there would bè very few left to carry on their gainful Trade, which hath thrived wonderfully by these Impo∣stures.

This Century concludes with a Council at Alexan∣dria, which they style under Anastasius u 1.474; but it was called by Theophilus, who found out and condemned the Errours of Origen long before poor Anastasius knew any thing of the matter. The Notes indeed say, This Synod sent their Decrees to Pope Anastasius, to Epiphanius, Chrysostom and Hierom: But though they place the Pope foremost, there is no proof that they were sent

to him at all. Baronius only conjectures they did, and saith, It is fit we should believe this w 1.475; but it is certain Theophilus sent these Decrees to Epiphanius to Chrysostom and Hierom; and from this last hand it is like Anasta∣sius received them long after, because it was more that two years after this Synod, before S. Hierom could perswade Anastasius to condemn these Opinions of Origen, which this Council first censured: Wherefore it was happy for the Church, that there were wiser Men in it than he who is pretended to be the supreme and sole Judge of Heresie. And thus we have finished our Remarks upon the Councils in the first four Centuries, in all which the Reader (I hope) hath seen such de∣signs to advance the Supremacy, and cover the Cor∣ruptions of Rome, that he will scarce credit any thing they say for their own Advantage in any of the succeeding Volumes.

Notes

• * 1.1

  An. Dom. 304.
• a 1.2

  Lab. Tom. III. pag. 947. Bin. Tom. I. pag. 185. col. 2.
• b 1.3

  Theod. hist. lib. 1 cap. 3.
• c 1.4

  Richer. de Eccles. potestate cap 3. pag. 46.
• d 1.5

  Breviar. Rom. Jan. 16. pag. 674.
• e 1.6

  Lab. p. 94••. Bin. pag. 186. col. 1.
• f 1.7

  Lab. p. 950. Bin. pag. 187. col. 1.
• g 1.8

  Bin. p. 175. col. 2. Baron. An. 296. §. 5.
• h 1.9

  Bin. Not. in Epist. Foel. p. 499 & Not. in Ep. Julii, pag. 385.
• i 1.10

  Niceph. lib. 2. cap. 3. & Whitak. de Concil. pag. 51.
• k 1.11

  Lab. p. 951. Bin. pag. 387. col. 1.
• l 1.12

  Lab. p. 967. Bin. pag. 189. col. 1.
• * 1.13

  An. Dom. 305.
• m 1.14

  Lab. p. 967. E. Bin. pag. 191. col. 1.
• n 1.15

  Lab. p. 1030.
• o 1.16

  Lab. p. 983. D Bin. pag. 200. col. 1.
• p 1.17

  Baron. An∣nal. An. 305. §. 49.
• * 1.18

  (p) Lab. p. 985. E Bin. pag. 201. col. 1.
• r 1.19

  Dailé de cultu Lat. lib. 2. chap. 15.
• s 1.20

  Lactant. Instit. lib. 6. cap. 2.
• t 1.21

  Hieron. ad Ripar. ep. 53.
• u 1.22

  Bin. Not. in 34 & 35 Can p. 201. col. 2.
• w 1.23

  Lab. p. 986. Bin pag. 201. col. 2.
• x 1.24

  Baron. An. 305. §. 45.
• y 1.25

  Lab. p. 998
• z 1.26

  Lab. p. 976. Bin. pag. 196. C
• a 1.27

  Lab. p 1379. Bin. pag. 202. C
• b 1.28

  Aug. cp. 62. Tom. Il. p. 150. Vid. Baron. An. 306. §. 40.
• c 1.29

  Lab. p. 1380, Bin. pag. 203. col. 1.
• d 1.30

  Lab. p. 1381. Bin. pag. 203. col. 1.
• e 1.31

  Bellarm. de Pontif. Rom. lib. 2. cap. 14. & de Confirm. lib. 2. cap. 3.
• f 1.32

  Lab. p. 1394. Bin. pag 209. col. 1.
• g 1.33

  Baren. An. 311. §. 43.
• h 1.34

  Lab. p. 1400. A. in Marg.
• i 1.35

  Bellarmin. ubi supra (c).
• k 1.36

  Lab. p. 1395. D, E.
• l 1.37

  Lab. p. 1400. Bin. p. 211. col. 2.
• m 1.38

  Lab. p. 1401. Bin. pag. 212. col. 1.
• n 1.39

  Lab. p. 1407. Bin. pag. 212. col. 2.
• o 1.40

  Lab. p. 1430. Bin. pag. 213.
• p 1.41

  Baron. An. 314. §. 38, 39.
• * 1.42

  An Dom. 314.
• q 1.43

  Baron. An. 306. §. 14.
• r 1.44

  Lab. p. 1394. Bin. pag. 209. col. 1. Baron. An. 312. §. 82, & §. 85.
• s 1.45

  Baron. An. 312. §. 58, & §. 62.
• t 1.46

  Bin. p. 208 col. 2.
• u 1.47

  Baron. An. 316. §. 59, & 62, 63.
• w 1.48

  Lab. p. 14 16. Bin. pag. 217. col. 1.
• x 1.49

  Baron. An∣nal. 311. §. 59. & An. 315. §. 10, 11, & 12. & An. 324. §. 41.
• y 1.50

  Baron. An. 324. §. 17.
• * 1.51

  (x) Baron An. 312. §. 91.
• a 1.52

  Sozom. hist. lib. 1. cap. 5.
• b 1.53

  Lab. p. 14 17. Bin. pag. 217.
• c 1.54

  Lab. p. 14 17. Bin. pag. 217. col. 2.
• d 1.55

  Lab. p. 15 44. Bin. pag. 256.
• e 1.56

  Valesij. praes. ad edit. Euseb. Dr. Cave life of Euseb. pag. 31.
• f 1.57

  Theodoret. hist. lib. 1. cap. 32
• g 1.58

  Socrat. hist. lib. 1. cap. 26.
• h 1.59

  Sozom. lib. 2. cap. 32.
• i 1.60

  Baron. An. 324. §. 47.
• k 1.61

  Athanas. de Synod. pag. 243. Epistol. Synod. Arim. ap. Socrat. lib. 2. cap. 29. & So∣zom. lib. 4. cap. 17.
• l 1.62

  Lab. p. 1419. Bin. pag. 218. col. 2.
• m 1.63

  Vid. ibid. & Baron. An∣nal. 324. §. 97.
• n 1.64

  Lab. p. 1420. Bin. Not pag. 219. col. 1.
• o 1.65

  Not. Y. Bin. pag. 219. col. 2. & Lab. p. 1421.
• p 1.66

  Baron. An. 324. §. 72. & 75.
• q 1.67

  Baron. An. 324. §. 107.
• r 1.68

  Idem, An. 324. §. 114.
• * 1.69

  An. Dom. 314.
• s 1.70

  Lab. p. 1425. Bin. pag. 220. col. 1.
• t 1.71

  Lab. p. 1434. Bin. pag. 223. col. 2.
• u 1.72

  Baron An. 314. §. 68.
• w 1.73

  Lab. p. 1434. Bin. pag. 224. col. 1. Baron An. 314. §. 58.
• x 1.74

  Not in Concil Aret. Bin. pag. 221. col. 2.
• y 1.75

  Baron. Ann. 316. 62.
• z 1.76

  Lab. p. 1423 Bin. pag. 222. col. 2.
• a 1.77

  Baron. Ann. 314. §. 51.
• b 1.78

  Lab. p. 1455. Bin. pag. 225.
• c 1.79

  Lab. p. 1478. Bin. pag. 232. col. 2.
• d 1.80

  Beveridg. Concil Tom. I. pag. 375.
• e 1.81

  Baron. Ann. 314. §. 88.
• f 1.82

  Lab. p. 1478. Bin. pag. 223. col. 2.
• g 1.83

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Vid. Bever. not. Tom. II. p. 175.
• h 1.84

  Bin. p. 233. col. 2.
• i 1.85

  Lab. p. 1479. Bin. pag. 233.
• k 1.86

  Lab. p. 1489. Bin. pag. 236. col. 2.
• l 1.87

  Vid. Beve∣ridg. Not. in Concil. Nicen. Tom. II. p. 180.
• m 1.88

  Vid. Baron. An 324. §. 49.
• n 1.89

  Lab. p. 1491. Bin. pag. 237. col. 1. Vid. Baron. An. 315. §. 12.
• * 1.90

  An. Dom. 315.
• o 1.91

  Lab. p. 1492. Bin. pag. 237. col. 2.
• p 1.92

  Baron. An∣nal. 318. §. 18. Bin. pag. 239. col. 1.
• q 1.93

  Lab. p. 1493. Bin. pag. 239. col. 1.
• r 1.94

  Baron. An. 318. §. 22, &c.
• s 1.95

  Baron. An. 312. §. 91, & 92.
• t 1.96

  Bin. Not. p. 240. col. 2. & Baron. An. 318. §. 91.
• u 1.97

  Lab. p. 1495. Bin. pag. 241.
• w 1.98

  Beveridg. not. Tom. II. pag. 193.
• x 1.99

  Richer. hist. Conc. lib. 1. cap. 3. pag. 128.
• y 1.100

  Hieron. Ep. CXI. Tom. III. p. 34.
• z 1.101

  Id. Ep. 115. ibid. p. 39.
• a 1.102

  Idem Ep. 10. Tom. I. pag. 96.
• b 1.103

  Lab. p. 1523. Bin pag. 248. col. 2.
• c 1.104

  Beveridg. Not. Tom. II. p. 193.
• d 1.105

  Lab. p. 1524. Bin. pag. 249. col. 1.
• e 1.106

  Lab. & Bin. ibid.
• f 1.107

  Lab. p. 1526. Bin. pag 250. col. 1.
• g 1.108

  Theodoret. in Coloss. cap. 2.
• h 1.109

  Edit. Mer∣lini, Pet. Crab. & Barth. Ca∣ranz.
• i 1.110

  Lab. p. 1526. Bin. pag. 250. col. 1.
• k 1.111

  Coloss. II. ver. 16, 17, 18.
• l 1.112

  Aug. de hae∣res. Tom. VI. pag. 4. m.
• m 1.113

  Theod. de Curand. Graec. Off. Serm. 3.
• o 1.114

  Lab. p. 1528. Bin. pag. 250. col. 2.
• p 1.115

  Lab. p. 1530. Bin. pag. 251. col. 2.
• q 1.116

  Naucler. Chron. gen. XI. pag. 604.
• r 1.117

  Lab. p. 1534. Bin. pag. 251. col. 2. & p. 254. col. 1.
• s 1.118

  Baron. An. 324. §. 117.
• t 1.119

  Baron. An. 324. §. 76.
• u 1.120

  Id. An. 312. §. 75, & 76.
• w 1.121

  Id. An. 322. §. 1.
• x 1.122

  Lab. p. 1539. Bin. pag. 254. col. 1.
• y 1.123

  Lab. p. 1540. Bin. pag. 254. col. 2.
• z 1.124

  Lab. p. 1541. Bin. pag. 255. col. 1.
• a 1.125

  Lab. & Bin. ut supr. Baron. An. 324. §. 40.
• b 1.126

  Aene. Sylv. dial. de Donat. Constantini.
• c 1.127

  Baron. An. 324. §. 29, 30, & 130. Bin. not. p. 260.
• d 1.128

  Lab. Marg. pag. 1542.
• e 1.129

  Bin. p. 260. col. 1.
• f 1.130

  Lab. p. 1547. Bin. pag. 256. col. 2. & pag. 257. col. 2.
• g 1.131

  Baron. An. 324. §. 124.
• h 1.132

  Baron. An. 324. §. 27. Lab. p. 1555. Bin. pag. 260. col. 2. An. Dom. 325.
• i 1.133

  Sozom. hist. lib. 1. cap. 16. Niceph. lib. 8. cap. 14.
• k 1.134

  Phot. de 7. Synod.
• l 1.135

  Lab. Tom. II. pag. 3. Bin. pag. 262.
• m 1.136

  Lab. p. 3. & Bin. pag. 262.
• n 1.137

  Lab. p. 63. C. Bin. pag. 291. col. 1.
• o 1.138

  Bin. Tom. III. par. 1. pag. 194.
• p 1.139

  Euseb. vit. Constant. lib. 3. cap. 6. Socrat. lib. 1. cap. 8. Theod. lib. 1. cap. 7. Sozom. lib. 1. cap. 17.
• q 1.140

  Lab. p. 59. Bin. pag. 285. & Baron. An. 325. §. 117.
• r 1.141

  Labbé p. 3, & 65. Bin. pag. 263, & 291.
• s 1.142

  Photii Nomo∣can. pag. 163.
• t 1.143

  Socrat. lib. 1. cap. 5.
• u 1.144

  Sozom. hist. lib. 1. cap. 16.
• w 1.145

  Richer. de Concil. gen. lib. 1. cap. 2. § 6.
• x 1.146

  Id. ib. §. 8.
• y 1.147

  Baron. An. 325. §. 20.
• z 1.148

  Euseb. vit. Constant. lib. 3. cap. 10.
• a 1.149

  Lab. pag. 67. Bin. pag. 292. col. 2.
• b 1.150

  Baron. An. 325. §. 73.
• c 1.151

  Richer. hist. Con. cap. 2 §. 2, 3, 4.
• d 1.152

  Theodoret. apud Baron. An. 325. §. 54.
• e 1.153

  Vid. Richer. hist. Concil. lib. 1. cap. 2. §. 8.
• f 1.154

  Phot. lib. de 7. Synod.
• g 1.155

  Vid Socrat. Sozom. Theodo∣ret. & Ruffin. ut supra.
• h 1.156

  Euseb. vit. Constan. lib. 1. cap. 37.
• i 1.157

  Lab. p. 6. & pag. 77. Bin. pag. 64. & pag. 299. col. 1.
• k 1.158

  Lab. p. 68. Bin. pag. 348. col. 1.
• l 1.159

  Baron. An. 325. §. 37.
• m 1.160

  Bin. p. 348. col. 1. marg.
• n 1.161

  Idem p. 365. col. 1. not. ad. Concil. Rom.
• o 1.162

  Richer hist. Concil. lib. 1. cap. 2. §. 6.
• p 1.163

  Labbè marg. pag. 412.
• q 1.164

  Socrat. histor. lib. 2. cap. 13.
• r 1.165

  Lab. p. 71. Bin. pag. 395. col. 2.
• s 1.166

  Gratian. dist. 16. cap. 10. & cap. 13.
• t 1.167

  Baron. An. 325. §. 157. &c.
• u 1.168

  Bin. p. 285. & Theod. lib. 1. cap. 9.
• w 1.169

  Ambros. ep. 82. ad Episc. Vercel.
• x 1.170

  Augustin. Epist. 110.
• y 1.171

  Bin. Not. pag. 296. col. 1. & p. 297. col. 2.
• z 1.172

  Richer. histor. Concil. lib. 1. cap. 3. §. 13.
• a 1.173

  Bin. Not. in. ep. Julij. pag. 395. col. 2.
• b 1.174

  Baron. An. 325. §. 166. & Richer. lib. 1. cap. 3 §. 14.
• c 1.175

  Sozom. histor. lib. 3. cap. 19.
• d 1.176

  Socrat. lib. 1. cap. 8. Sozom. lib. 1. cap. 22.
• e 1.177

  Pisanus ap. Bin. pag. 343. col. 1. Naucler. Chron. pag. 606.
• f 1.178

  Baron. An. 325. §. 148, 149, 150.
• g 1.179

  Lib. pag. 72. Bin. pag. 296. col. 2.
• h 1.180

  Lab. & Bin. ut supr. not. in Can. 6.
• i 1.181

  Beveridg. Concil. Tom. II. pag. 50.
• k 1.182

  Lab. p. 45, 46. Bin. pag. 276.
• l 1.183

  Richer. hist. Concil lib. 1. cap. 2. §. 11.
• m 1.184

  Lab. p. 75. B. Bin. pag. 298. col. 1.
• n 1.185

  Concil. Chalced. Act. 16.
• o 1.186

  Baron. An. 318. §. 46. An. 324. §. 136. §. 143, & §. 152. item An. 325. §. 192 &c.
• p 1.187

  Athan. Apol. cont. Arian p. 180.
• q 1.188

  Socrat. hist. lib. 1 cap. 3.
• r 1.189

  Bin. p. 313. col. 2.
• s 1.190

  Lab. p. 287. Bin. pag 326. col. 1, & 2.
• t 1.191

  Baron. An. Dom. 336.
• u 1.192

  Bin. p. 328. col. 2.
• w 1.193

  Bin. p. 499. col. 1.
• x 1.194

  Lab. p. 483. Bin. pag. 391. col. 1.
• y 1.195

  Bin. p. 331. col. 1.
• z 1.196

  Lab. p. 303. Bin. pag. 337. col. 2.
• a 1.197

  Lab. p. 294. Bin. pag. 333. col. 1.
• b 1.198

  Bin. p. 358. col. 1.
• c 1.199

  Lab. Marg. pag. 106.
• d 1.200

  Bin. p. 300. col. 1.
• e 1.201

  Richer. hist. Concil. lib. 1. cap. 2. §. ult.
• f 1.202

  Bin. p. 301. col. 2. & 302. col. 2.
• g 1.203

  Bin. p. 316. col. 1.
• h 1.204

  Bin. p. 322. col. 1.
• i 1.205

  Bin. p. 325. col. 2.
• k 1.206

  Bin. pag. 328. col. 1.
• l 1.207

  Baron. An. 325. §. 53.
• m 1.208

  Bin. p. 335. col. 2. & p. 341. col. 1.
• n 1.209

  Bin. p. 302. col. 2. Vid. Rivet. Cait. sacr. l. 3. cap. 4.
• o 1.210

  Bin. pag. 336. col. 2.
• p 1.211

  Bin. p. 337. col. 1. Vid. Concil. Ephesin. Act. 7.
• q 1.212

  Bin. p. 347. col. 2.
• r 1.213

  Baron. An. 325. §. 182.
• s 1.214

  Lab. p. 294. & pag. 303. Bin. pag. 353. col. 2. & 358. col. 1.
• t 1.215

  Lab. p. 315. Bin. pag. 363. col. 1, & 2.
• u 1.216

  Lab. p. 412. Bin. pag. 365. col. 1. Baron. An. 325. §. 199.
• w 1.217

  Bin. p. 365. col. 2 C
• x 1.218

  Lab. p. 414. Bin. pag. 366. col. 1.
• y 1.219

  Lab. p. 427, & 428. Bin. pag. 371. col. 1. Baron. An. 361. § 14.
• z 1.220

  Sozom. lib. 3. cap. 13.
• a 1.221

  Bin. p. 367, &c.
• b 1.222

  Lab. p. 129. Bin. pag. 371. col. 2.
• c 1.223

  Lab. p. 430. Bin. p. 372. col. 2.
• d 1.224

  Lab. p. 431. Bin. pag. 372. col. 2.
• e 1.225

  Lab. & Bin. ut supra.
• f 1.226

  Aug. de mor. Manich. lib. 2. Tom. I. pag. 177.
• g 1.227

  Lab. p. 434. Bin. pag. 374. col. 1.
• * 1.228

  An. Dom. 335.
• h 1.229

  Lab. p. 435. Bin. pag. 374. col. 1.
• * 1.230

  An. Dom. 336.
• i 1.231

  Lab. p. 469, & 472. Bin. pag. 382. col. 2, &c.
• k 1.232

  Baron. An. 336. §. 59, & 60.
• l 1.233

  Baron. An. 352. §. 2, & 3.
• m 1.234

  Lab. p. 475. in Marg. Bin. pag. 384. col. 1.
• n 1.235

  Lab. Marg. pag. 477. Bin. pag. 385. col. 1.
• o 1.236

  Lab. p. 480. Bin. pag. 386. col. 1.
• p 1.237

  Lab. Marg. pag. 482. Bin. pag. 386. col. 2.
• q 1.238

  Lab. p. 483. Bin. pag. 387. col. 2.
• r 1.239

  Bin. p. 391. col. 1.
• s 1.240

  Lab. p. 494. Bin. pag. 391. col. 1.
• t 1.241

  Lab. p. 495. Bin. ut supr. col. 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• u 1.242

  Lab. p. 513. Bin. pag. 395. col. 1.
• w 1.243

  Lab. p. 516. Bin. pag. 396. col. 1.
• x 1.244

  Ep. 4. ap. Lab. Bin. pag. 396. col. 2.
• y 1.245

  Lab. p. 525. Bin. pag. 398. col. 1.
• z 1.246

  Lab. Marg. pag. 527. Bin. pag. 400. col. 1.
• a 1.247

  Baron. An. 337. §. 67.
• * 1.248

  An. Dom. 339.
• b 1.249

  Baron. An. 339. §. 2. & §. 11.
• c 1.250

  Lab. p. 534. Bin pag. 401. col. 2.
• d 1.251

  Lab. p. 547. Bin. pag. 404. col. 2.
• * 1.252

  An. Dom. 341.
• e 1.253

  Lab. p. 559. Bin. pag. 407.
• f 1.254

  Lab. p. 588. Bin. p. 416. col. 1.
• * 1.255

  (x) Richer. hist. Conc. lib. 1. cap. 4.
• h 1.256

  Baron. An. 341. §. 4, & 5.
• i 1.257

  Lab. p. 595. Bin. pag. 417. col. 2.
• k 1.258

  Socrat. lib. 6. cap. 16. Vid. Bever. Con∣cil. Tom. II. pag. 191.
• l 1.259

  Lab. p. 597. Bin. pag. 418. col. 2. Vid. Richer. ut supr.
• m 1.260

  Lab. p. 596. Bin. pag 418. col. 1.
• n 1.261

  Lab. p. 604. Bin. pag. 419. col. 1.
• o 1.262

  Baron. An. 340. §. 2.
• p 1.263

  Lab. p. 605. Bin. pag. 420. col. 1. Baron. An. 340. §. 12.
• q 1.264

  Baron.. An. 447.
• * 1.265

  An. Dom. 342.
• r 1.266

  Baron An. 341. §. 56, 57.
• s 1.267

  Id. An. 342. §. 28, 30.
• t 1.268

  Lab. p. 607. Bin. pag. 420. col. 2.
• u 1.269

  Lab. p. 608. Bin. 420. col. 2.
• w 1.270

  Baron. An. 344. §. 4.
• x 1.271

  Lib. p. 614. Bin. pag. 422. col. 1.
• * 1.272

  An. Dom. 347.
• y 1.273

  Lab. p. 624. Bin. pag. 423.
• z 1.274

  Sozom. lib. 3. cap. 19. Socrat. lib. 2. cap. 16. Theod. lib. 2. cap. 5.
• a 1.275

  Lab. p. 670. Bin. pag. 440.
• b 1.276

  Baron. An. 347. §. 31.
• c 1.277

  Not. ad Con∣cil. Sardic. Lab. pag. 685. Bin. pag. 445. col. 1. Vid. Richer. histor. Concil. lib. 1. cap. 3.
• d 1.278

  Sozom. lib. 3. cap. 11.
• e 1.279

  Lab. p. 658. Bin. pag. 436. col. 1.
• f 1.280

  Baron. An. 347. §. 3, 4.
• g 1.281

  Lab. p. 685. Bin. pag. 446. col. 1. Baron. ut supr. §. 75.
• h 1.282

  Athanas. Epist. ad Soli∣tar. p. 818.
• i 1.283

  Idem Apol. 2. p. 767, & 768.
• k 1.284

  Socrat. lib. 2 cap. 16.
• l 1.285

  Baron. An. 347. §. 42.
• m 1.286

  Richer. hist. Concil. lib. 1. cap. 3.
• n 1.287

  Baron. An. 347. §. 73.
• o 1.288

  Lab. p. 690, & 691. Bin. pag. 448. col. 1.
• p 1.289

  Richer. hist. Con. lib. 1. cap. 3.
• y 1.290

  Schol. ap: D. Bever. Conc. Tom. II. p. 199.
• z 1.291

  Sozom. lib. 3. cap. 11. Lab. p. 625. Bin. pag. 424.
• a 1.292

  Lab. p. 670. Bin. pag. 440. col. 1.
• b 1.293

  Lab. p. 662. Bin. pag. 437. col. 2.
• c 1.294

  Lab. p. 670. Bin. pag. 439. col. 2.
• d 1.295

  Lab. p. 692. Bin. pag. 448. col. 2.
• * 1.296

  An Dom. 348.
• e 1.297

  Lab. p. 713. Bin. pag. 546. col. 1.
• f 1.298

  Baron. An. 359. §. 16. Lab. p. 721. Bin. pag. 459. col. 1.
• g 1.299

  Hosti Epist. ap. Baron. An. 355. §. 661.
• h 1.300

  Bin. Not p. 463. col. 2.
• i 1.301

  Lab. p. 728. Bin. pag. 464. col. 1. & 2.
• k 1.302

  Bin. Not. in Epist. Damas. & Hieron. pag. 506. col. 1.
• l 1.303

  Lab. à p. 729. ad pag. 739.
• * 1.304

  An. Dom. 352.
• m 1.305

  Not. ad 7 Ep. laber. Lab. pag. 751. Bin. pag. 470. col. 1.
• n 1.306

  Vid. Spalat. de rep. Ecel. l. 7. cap. 5.
• o 1.307

  Lab. p. 741. Bin. p. 465. E.
• p 1.308

  Lab. p. 743. Bin. pag. 466. col. 2.
• q 1.309

  Lab. p. 783. Bin. pag. 479. col. 2.
• r 1.310

  Lab. p. 741. Bin. pag. 465. col. 2.
• s 1.311

  Platin. in vit. Liber. p. 50. Eusebius Pres∣byter urbis Romoe copit de∣clarare Libe∣rium Haereti∣cum. Portitor. Sarish Aug. 14.
• t 1.312

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Socrat. lib. 2. cap. 29.
• u 1.313

  Lab. p. 742. Bin. pag. 466. col. 1, & 2.
• w 1.314

  Lab. p. 744. Bin. pag. 467. col. 1.
• x 1.315

  Lab. p. 755. Ban. pag. 471. col. 1.
• y 1.316

  Lab. p. 744. Bin. pag. 467. col. 1. Vid item Ep. 2.
• z 1.317

  Lab. p. 751. Bin. pag. 469. col. 2.
• a 1.318

  Socrat. hist. lib. 4. cap. 11.
• b 1.319

  Lab. p. 757. Bin. pag. 472. col. 1.
• c 1.320

  Ep. 14. Lab. pag. 760. Ep. 12. Bin. pag. 472. col. 2.
• d 1.321

  Lab. p. 763. Bin. in Notis pag. 474. col. 2.
• e 1.322

  Lab. p. 767. Bin. pag. 474. col. 2.
• f 1.323

  Lab. p. 769. Bin. pag. 475. col. 1.
• g 1.324

  Lab. p. 772. Bin. pag. 476. col. 1.
• h 1.325

  Sozom. lib. 4 cap. 8. Socrat. lib. 2. cap. 29.
• i 1.326

  Baron. An. 355. §. 2.
• k 1.327

  Lab. p. 773.
• l 1.328

  Athanas. Epist. ad Solitar.
• m 1.329

  Sozom. lib. 4. cap. 10.
• n 1.330

  Lab. p. 775. Bin. pag. 478. col. 1.
• * 1.331

  An. Dom. 357.
• o 1.332

  Lab. p. 783. Bin. pag. 479. col. 2.
• p 1.333

  Baron. An. 357. §. 33, 34, & 35.
• q 1.334

  Baron. ibid. §. 32.
• r 1.335

  Id. ibid. §. 37.
• s 1.336

  Baron. An. 359. §. 10.
• t 1.337

  Marcelin. ad Faust. & Hieron. Chronic.
• u 1.338

  Baron. An. 357. §. 59.—ad—§. 63.
• w 1.339

  Sozom. lib. 4. cap. 17.
• x 1.340

  Id. cap. 18.
• y 1.341

  Socrat. lib. 4. cap. 11.
• * 1.342

  Vid. Baron. An∣dal. An 362. pag. 58. & An. 371. p. 246.
• * 1.343

  An. Dom. 359.
• z 1.344

  Sulp••••. Sever. histor. lib. 2.
• a 1.345

  Lab. p. 792. Bin. pag. 482. col. 1.
• b 1.346

  Lab. p. 794. Bin. pag. 482. col. 2.〈…〉〈…〉
• c 1.347

  Baron. An. 359. §. 6. & §. 15.
• d 1.348

  Theod. lib. 2. cap. 19. Sozom. lib. 4. cap. 17. collat. cum Baron. An. 350. §. 7.
• e 1.349

  Baron. An. 359: §. 65.
• * 1.350

  An. Dom. 362.
• f 1.351

  Lab. p. 809. Bin. pag. 487. col. 1. Baron. An. 362. pag. 73.
• g 1.352

  Baron. An. 362. Tom. IV. p. 66.
• h 1.353

  Lab. p. 821. Bin. pag. 490. col. 1.
• i 1.354

  Lab. p. 823, Bin. pag. 490. col. 2.
• k 1.355

  Lab. p. 826. Bin. p. 491. col. 1.
• * 1.356

  An. Dom. 365.
• l 1.357

  Sezen. lib. 6. cap. 7.
• m 1.358

  Socrat. hist. lib. 4 cap. 11.
• n 1.359

  Ep. 11. Liberti ap. Bin. p. 472. Baron. An. 365. pag. 153.
• o 1.360

  Socrat. ut supr.
• p 1.361

  Lab. p. 830. Bin. pag. 492. col. 1.
• q 1.362

  Baron. An. 365. pag. 154.
• r 1.363

  Lab. p. 836. Bin pag 494. col. 1.
• s 1.364

  Concil. Siciliae, Lab. & Bin. ut supr.
• t 1.365

  Lab. p. 832. Bin. pag. 493. Baron. An. 365. pag. 155.
• u 1.366

  Lab. p. 836. Bin. pag. 494. col. 1.
• w 1.367

  Lab. p. 843. Bin. pag. 490. col. 2.
• x 1.368

  Lab. p. 742. Bin. pag. 466. col. 1.
• y 1.369

  Lab. Marg. p. 844, & 849.
• z 1.370

  Id. Marg. pag. 856.
• a 1.371

  Lab. p. 849. Bin. pag. 499. col. 1.
• b 1.372

  Richer. hift. Con. lib. 1. cap. 1. §. 9.
• * 1.373

  An. Dom. 367.
• c 1.374

  Am. Marceli. lib. 17. Ruffin. lib. 2. cap. 10. Hieron. in Chron.
• d 1.375

  Lab. p. 860. Bin. pag. 503. col. 2.
• e 1.376

  Lab. p. 862. Bin. pag. 503. col. 2.
• f 1.377

  Lab. p. 868. Bin. pag. 506. col. 1.
• g 1.378

  Lab. Marg. pag. 869. Bin. pag. 506, &c.
• h 1.379

  Bin. p. 499.
• i 1.380

  Lab. p. 876. Bin. pag. 509. col. 1.
• k 1.381

  Lab. p. 882. Bin. pag. 511. col. 1.
• l 1.382

  Lab. p. 883. Bin. pag. 511. col. 2.
• m 1.383

  Lab. p. 885. Bin. pag. 512. col. 1.
• * 1.384

  An. Dom. 369.
• n 1.385

  Bin. p. 512, & 513. Baron. An. 369. pag. 190, &c.
• * 1.386

  Au. Dom. 373.
• o 1.387

  Baren. An. 373. pag 301.
• p 1.388

  Lab. p. 895. Bin. pag. 514. col. 1.
• q 1.389

  Lab. p. 904. Bin. pag. 516. col. 1.
• * 1.390

  An. Dom. 378.
• r 1.391

  Sozom. lib. 7▪ cap. 4. Secrat. lib. 5. cap. 2.
• s 1.392

  Theod. lib. 5. cap. 2. & Baron. An 37••. pag. 339.
• t 1.393

  Cod. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. lib. I. tit. I. de sum. Trin. Ll. I.
• u 1.394

  Lab. p. 908. Bin. pag. 517. col. I.
• w 1.395

  Socrat. lib. 5. cap. 5. Sozom. lib. 7. cap. 3. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. lib. 5. c. 3.
• * 1.396

  An. Dom. 381.
• x 1.397

  Lab. p. 915. Bin. pag. 521.
• y 1.398

  Cod. Justion. ut supr. & Baron. An 380. pag. 358.
• z 1.399

  Baron. An. 381. pag. 384.
• a 1.400

  Baron An. 380. pag. 359. & pag. 362.
• b 1.401

  Bin. p. 540.
• c 1.402

  Lab. p. 968. Bin. pag. 542. col. 1.
• d 1.403

  Lab. p. 946. Bin. pag. 533.
• e 1.404

  Ep. ad Da∣masum ap. Bin. pag. 539.
• f 1.405

  Socrat. lib. 5. cap. 8. Sozom. lib. 7. c. 7.
• g 1.406

  Theod. lib. 5. cap. 7.
• h 1.407

  Richer. hist. Concil. lib. 1. cap. 5. §. 1, & 2.
• i 1.408

  Lab. p. 917. & pag. 967. Bin. pag. 521, & 541.
• k 1.409

  Lab. p. 946. Bin. pag. 533.
• l 1.410

  Theoder. lib. 5. cap. 9.
• m 1.411

  Phrius de 7 Synod. cap. 2.
• n 1.412

  Lab. p. 967. Bin. pag. 541. col. 2
• o 1.413

  Baron. An. 380 p 359. & An. 381. p. 368.
• p 1.414

  Idem p. 382.
• q 1.415

  Lab. p. 972. Bin. pag. 543. col. 2.
• r 1.416

  Vid. Concil. Chalced. Can. 28. & Subscrip. ibid.
• s 1.417

  Socrat. lib. 5. cap. 2. Sozem. lib 7. cap. 8.
• t 1.418

  Lab. p. 980. Bin. pag. 545 col. 2.
• u 1.419

  Baron. An 281. pag. 386.
• w 1.420

  Baron. An. 371. pag. 235.
• x 1.421

  Sulpic. Sever. pag. 423.
• y 1.422

  Id. pag. 424.
• z 1.423

  Lab. p. 1011. Bin. pag. 554. col. 1.
• * 1.424

  An Dom. 382.
• a 1.425

  Lab. p. 1014. Bin pag. 554. col. 2.
• b 1.426

  Hieron. Ep. 27.
• c 1.427

  Theodor. lib. 5. cap. 9. Baron. An. 382. pag. 397. & Ben. pag. 539. col. 2.
• d 1.428

  Lab. p. 1014. Bin. pag. 554. col. 2.
• e 1.429

  Lab. p. 1015. Bin. pag. 556. col. 2. Baron. An. 383.
• * 1.430

  An. Dom. 385.
• f 1.431

  Baron. An. 384. pag 327.
• g 1.432

  Baron.. An. 385. pag. 335.
• h 1.433

  Hieron in Praef ad Didym. de Spir. Sancto.
• i 1.434

  Paulin. ad Sever. Epist. 1.
• k 1.435

  Baron. An. 397. pag. 32. ex Hieron. cp. 16.
• l 1.436

  Lab. p. 1016. Bin. pag. 557. col. 1.
• m 1.437

  Lab. p. 1022. Bin. pag. 559. col. 2.
• n 1.438

  Lab. p. 1024. Bin pag. 560, & 561.
• o 1.439

  Lab. p. 1027. Bin. pag. 561. col. 1. Baron. An. 390. pag. 536.
• p 1.440

  Lab. p. 1027. Bin. p. 561. col. 2.
• q 1.441

  Bin. p. 577. col. 1.
• r 1.442

  Lab. p. 1029, Bin. pag. 562. col. 1.
• s 1.443

  Lab. p. 1030. Bin. pag. 563. col. 2.
• t 1.444

  Lab. p. 1038. Bin. pag. 564. col. 1. Baron. An. 386. pag. 451.
• * 1.445

  An. Dom. 398.
• u 1.446

  Ambros. ad Theophil. ep. 78.
• w 1.447

  〈◊〉〈◊〉 ••039 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 564. col. 1.
• x 1.448

  Lab. p. 1041. Bin. pag. 566. col. 2.
• * 1.449

  An. Dom. 393.
• y 1.450

  Lab. p. 1153. Bin. pag. 567. col. 2.
• * 1.451

  An. Dom. 397.
• z 1.452

  Lab. p. 1157, & 1158. Bin. pag. 568, & 569.
• * 1.453

  An. Dom. 397, &c.
• a 1.454

  Lab. p. 1163. Bin. pag 573. col. 1, & 2.
• b 1.455

  Lab. p. 1170. Bin. pag. 575. col. 1.
• c 1.456

  Bin p. 580.
• d 1.457

  Bin. p. 571.
• e 1.458

  Lab. p. 1170. Bin. pag. 575. col. 2. & Gratian. Decret. part 1. dist. 99.
• f 1.459

  Lab. p. 1171. Bin. pag. 581. col. 2.
• g 1.460

  Lab. p. 1177. Bin. pag. 580. col. 1.
• h 1.461

  Cosen's History of the Canon p. 112. & pag. 113.
• i 1.462

  Lab. p. 1183. Bin. pag. 584. col. 2.
• * 1.463

  An. Dom. 398.
• k 1.464

  Baron. An. 401. p. 128, & 129.
• l 1.465

  Lab. p. 1191. Bin. pag. 585. col. 2. Baron. An. 402. pag. 161.
• m 1.466

  Gregor. lib. 12 Ep. 32. Leon. Ep 2. ad Episc. Ital.
• n 1.467

  Lab. p. 1193. Bin. pag. 586. col. 2.
• o 1.468

  Lab. p. 1194. Bin. pag. 586. col. 2.
• p 1.469

  Lab. p. 1208. Bin. pag. 591. col. 1.
• q 1.470

  Lab. p. 1210. Bin. pag. 592. col. 1.
• * 1.471

  II. apr.
• s 1.472

  Lab. p. 1219. Bin. pag. 594. col. 2. Beveridg. Con∣cil. Tom. II. pag. 130.
• t 1.473

  Lab. p. 1217. Bin. pag. 594. col. 1.
• u 1.474

  Bin. p. 595.
• w 1.475

  Baron. An. 399. p. 85, & 88.