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 ...

AN APPENDIX CONCERNING BARONIUS HIS ANNALS.

§I. THE large and elaborate Volumes of Car∣dinal Baronius, are the main Guide to the Editors and Annotator: From him they take the Dates of all Councils, and out of him they have added divers new Synods not extant in the older Editions of the Councils, of which they can say no more, than to abbreviate Baronius: From him they borrow most of their plausible Notes, by which they either paint over that which seems for the Interest of Rome, or disparage what makes against it; and therefore we have had often occasion to discover his Fallacies in all that part of his Annals which concerns the Councils; but there are many other notorious

Frauds and manifest Falshoods in that Author, of which I shall here give some few Instances, which may serve as a Caution to all that read his History, and also as a Direction by which they may in other Centuries find out his manifold Errours; and I shall confine the Examples here produced to the Fourth Century, because that is the most largely treated of in this Discourse.

It is evident, that all the Writers of the Roman side, for many Ages have designed to impose upon the World; in that, their Disputants, their Publishers of Councils, and Historians do all agree; for their Prin∣ciples and Practices cannot be maintained by plain Truth. The Methods used by Baronius, in his Eccle∣siastical Annals (which he writ purely to serve the Interest of the Roman Church) may be reduced to these Heads:

First, His frequent quoting Forged and Spurious Tracts; such as the Pontifical, the Acts of the Martyrs, the Ecclesiastical Tables (that is, the Roman Missal and Martyrology) with other late and fabulous Writers, such as Nicephorus, Simeon, Metaphrastes, Laurentius Surius, &c. And the Reader shall find, he very seldom cites any other Authors to prove the Great Actions of Primitive Popes, or the dignity of the Roman Church, and its pretended Priviledges: As also to make out the Miracles done by many of their Saints, and to be evidence for the Invocation of Saints, Praying for the Dead, Worshiping the Cross, Relicks and Images; for the Merits of Celibacy and Holiness of Monks, or other Superstitions. Some Examples of which in the Fourth Century are these: He cites the Acts of Pro∣copius, which he confesseth need amending, to prove the Adoration of the Cross a 1.1; he proves the same by the Acts of Gregory an Armenian Bishop, which he owns do not satisfie many; and by Euthymius, a late Grecian Monk, An. 1180 b 1.2. Thus he asserts Crispus his being Baptized with his Father Constantine, only by Nice∣phorus, and makes out Constantine's use of putting an

Image of Christ on his Coyns, only by the Acts of Damasus, and by a Coyn which he himself confesseth had been adulterated c 1.3. Constantine's Baptism in Rome is also proved by Anastasius Bibliothecarius, who there hath the false Character of an Acurate Writer d 1.4, and by the Acts of Sylvester, which he himself dis∣approves of in many things e 1.5; and suspects, that notwithstanding all these fabulous Authors, his Reader will not credit the Story f 1.6. The Legend of S. Agnes and her Temple at Rome, he confesses, Was made by an Unknown-hand under the Name of S. Ambrose; yet he gives a long relation of it g 1.7. So when Eusebius, who writ acurately about the Temple built over the Sepulchre by Constantine, saith nothing of Pictures in it, he proves there was such there by the second Nicene Council h 1.8. Eusebius's Greek Chronicle saith nothing of the Invention of the Cross, but some Forger hath put it into the Latin Version of it; therefore Baronius cites the corrupted Latin Translation to prove this Legend i 1.9. The Miracles of S. Nicholas are all transcribed out of his Acts, which were put toge∣ther by Authors who lived above Five hundred years after his time, and the genuine ancient Historians mention not one of them k 1.10. Eusebius saith, Constan∣tine dedicated his new City of Constantinople to God; but Baronius chooses to follow a later Writer of little credit, viz. Nicephorus; who saith (in the Phrase of his own time) He dedicated it to the Virgin Mary l 1.11. He makes a discourse about the use of the Pall in the Life of Pope Mark; yet he can cite no Author, but the fabulous Pontifical, to prove it was used in his time m 1.12. To prove the Arian Pope Foelix was a Martyr, he cites an Inscription pretended to be found in a Grave at Rome (where such Frauds are common) about Twelve hundred years after his Death n 1.13; so he makes out the Martyrdom of divers under Julian by an Oration of Nectarius (which he confesses is corrupted) and by Nicephorus o 1.14: And a little after he tells long Stories of Martyrs at that time condemned by Julian at

Rome, which he proves by the Ecclesiastical Tables, and by the Acts of the Martyrs; yet he owns Julian was not at Rome at this time p 1.15. Prayers at the Graves of the Saints he would establish by a forged Book of the Lives of the Prophets, which he cites under Epi∣phanius's name q 1.16: So he would make out Prayers for the Dead, used in this Age, by feigned Writings, which are ascribed to Ephraem Syrus r 1.17. The Miracles ascribed to Damasus cannot be proved by one Author of Credit, but are set off with the forged Acts of Damasus, and the modern Legends s 1.18. So also the Miracles ascribed to S. Chrysostom, are not taken generally from any ap∣proved Authors, but from his spurious Acts t 1.19; and (to name no more) thus he proves the Adoration of the Cross by an Homily falsly ascribed to S. Chrysostom u 1.20: For his genuine Works do witness against this practice. And now that he did not cite these Authorities out of ignorance, is plain from his Confession; for he saith of the Acts of the Martyrs, That we might better have wanted many Truths concerning them, than have had such a mixture of Errours as makes the whole suspected w 1.21. And again, speaking of the Acts of Gallicanus, It is the manner of some to be ashamed, to give a short Narrative of a great Affair, and so according to their own Fancy they largely paraphrase on it x 1.22: And yet again in his Pre∣face to the Roman Martyrology he tells us, There was a sad loss of these Martyrs Acts in Diocletian's time, so that very few of them are to be found, which may not in part be convicted of Mistakes s 1.23. But Melch. Canus is more ingenuous, and saith, Diogenes Laertius writ the Lives of the Philosophers more honestly, than the Christians have writ those of the Saints t 1.24: Yet you rarely have any better Evidence than these, for most of the Roman Doctrines and Rites. And though Nicephorus and the Modern Greeks be frequently taxed by him, for giving easie faith to feigned Stories, and for gross Mistakes u 1.25; yet when they tell never such improbable Tales for the Roman Interest, then they are cited with great applause. Now it is a clear evidence of an ill Cause,

when they can find no other Proofs but such spurious Writings as these; of which practice I have here given but a few Instances; but the diligent Reader will observe this to be customary with Baronius, not only in this fourth Century, but in every part of his Annals.

§. 2. Another Artifice is to corrupt the Words or the Sense of genuine Authors, of which we will select also a few Instances, in the same Century. S. Augustine barely names Peter as one whom the Pagans did Ca∣lumniate w 1.26; but Baronius brings this in with this Preface, That they did this, because they saw Peter ex∣tremely magnified, especially at Rome where he had fixed his Seat; and then he saith, S. Augustine records this, &c. whereas this is his own Invention, to set off the glory of Rome x 1.27. So when Athanasius is proving, that the Fathers before the Nicene Council used the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and first names Dionysius Bishop of Alexandria, and then Dionysius Bishop of Rome y 1.28. Baronius saith, He proves it especially by Dionysius the holy Roman Pope, and by Dionysius Bishop of Alexandria z 1.29, in∣verting the Order, and putting a Note of Eminence on the Pope, contrary to the Words and Sense of Athanasius. Again, he cites Pope Leo (who is no Evi∣dence in his own Cause); and yet Baronius would make him say more than he doth, even where he saith more than he should say: For he cites his 53d Epistle to shew, that Leo affirmed the sixth Canon of Nice, allowed to the Church of Alexandria the second, and to that of Antioch the third Seat, which had before been conferred on them by Rome. But the very words of Leo, cited by Baronius, shew this to be false; for Leo saith not, that these Sees had their Dignity or Order from Rome, but the former from S. Mark, the later from Peter's first Preaching there a 1.30. Moreover, to make his Reader fancy the Roman and the Catholic Church was all one of old, he mentions out of Epi∣phanius, Constantine's writing an Epistle to all Romania,

Which Name (saith he) we sometimes find used for the Catholic Church b 1.31; whereas it is manifest, that Epi∣phanius both there and elsewhere plainly uses Romania for the Roman Empire c 1.32; and Baronius did not find it used either in him, or in any other ancient Author, in any other sense. That Period in Optatus, which Baronius cites with great applause (if it be not added by some ignorant Zealot of the Roman side) is a scandal to the Learning of that Father, for he derives the Syriac word, Cephas, from the Greek 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and by that ridiculous Etymology would draw as contemptible a consequence, viz. That Peter was Head of the Apostles; and again he seems wilfully to pervert the Precept of S. Paul, Rom. XII. 13. Distributing to the necessities of the Saints; which in Optatus's Reading is, Communicating with the Memories of the Saints; that is, (as he applies it) with Rome, where there are the Memorials of two of the Apostles. I could wish for Optatus's Credit that these weak Passages were spurious, or buried in silence; and the Learned Baldwin is ashamed of this gross Errour d 1.33: But Baronius thinks, though they make for the dishonour of the Father, they tend to the Credit of Rome, and so he cites them in great pomp, and puts them in a whole Line to make them look more plausible,—the Head of the Apostles, whence he was called Cephas (so Optatus: But Binius adds) deducing the Interpretation from the Greek Word, for in Syriac it signifies an hard Stone e 1.34; and then glories extremely, as if Optatus had made Commu∣nion with Rome the sole Note of a Catholic. Whereas in the next Page but one, Optatus goes on,—You cannot prove you have any Communion with the Seven Churches of Asia,—and yet if you be out of the Communion of those Churches, you are to be accounted Aliens. Which Passage Baronius very fraudulently leaves out f 1.35, because it shews a true Catholic must not only be in Communion with Rome, but also with all other Orthodox Churches,

To proceed, Even in spurious Authors he useth this Artifice; for that Forged Book of Constantine's Munificence only saith, He placed a piece of the Cross, in a Church which he had built: But Baronius relates it That he placed it there with most Religious Worship g 1.36; and a little after he perceiving that Fabulous Author had supposed Constantine buried his Mother long before she died, puts in of his own head, But this (i. e. the putting his Mother in a Porphyry Coffin) was done afterward h 1.37. Speaking of the Bishops returning home from the Council of Nice, he saith, They took with them the Rule of Faith, confirmed by the Pope of Rome, to be communicated to their People, and to absent Bishops: But no Historian, Ancient or Authentic, mentions any preceding Confirmation of the Nicene Creed by the Pope, who was one of the absent Bishops, to whom it was to be communicated; wherefore those words, Of its being confirmed by the Pope, are invented and added to the story by Baronius i 1.38. He observes, That Constantine confesses, he was not fit to judge in the Case of Athanasius, because Ecclesiastical Matters were to be judged among the Clergy: Which he proves by Constantine's Letter there recited; but Con∣stantine's Letter is not directed to the Clergy, but To the People of the Catholic Church at Alexandria: And his Words are to the People who lived on the Place, and knew the Matters of Fact; and therefore he saith to them, It is proper for you, and not for me to judge of that Affair k 1.39; so that Baronius forceth his own Sense upon the Emperour. And when Theodoret speaketh of—time for Repentance according to the Canons of the Church, he adds,—that is, for Satis∣faction. Which Popish Satisfaction he would also prove out of a Canon at Antioch, which only men∣tions confessing the Fault, and bringing forth fruits meet for Repentance l 1.40. When Socrates only saith, Eusebius of Nicomedia's Letters were received by Julius after his death; Baronius thus enlarges it, Eusebius, who had fled from the Judgment of the Roman Church was

forced against his Will, being dead (as Socrates saith) to come to the strict Tribunal of God m 1.41. Where Atha∣nasius saith, I went up to Rome, that I might visit the Church and the Bishop: Baronius ridiculously infers, that when we find the Ancients speaking of THE Church and THE Bishop, they mean the Roman Church and that Bishop, of whom, and in whom, and by whom are all other Bishops n 1.42. Which Note is forced upon this place, for here Rome is named in the same Sentence with the Church and the Bishop, and so it must be understood of the Pope; but without any advantage to him more than it would have been to the Bishop of Eugubium, to say, I went to Eugubium and visited the Church and the Bishop. Again, S. Hierom saith expresly, that Acacius substituted Foelix an Arian to be Bishop of Rome in Liberius his stead. Here Baronius pretends some Copies leave out the word Arian, and so he reads it, Substituted Foelix to be Bishop of Rome o 1.43; and because some such Parasites of Rome as himself, who would not endure that ingrate∣ful Truth of a Pope's being an Heretic, had left out this word, He boldly asserts it for the true Reading; whereas not only Socrates expresly saith, He was an Arian in Opinion; but Hierom himself in his Chronicle affirms, that Foelix was put in by the Arians; and it is not like they would have put him in, if he had not been of their party. The Greek of Sozomen is no more but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, but Baronius im∣proves this by a flattering Paraphrase in these words, Lest the Seat of Peter should be bespattered with any spot of Infamy p 1.44. But it is a bolder falsification of S. Chrysostom, where he saith (in one of his Sermons, on a day celebrated in memory of two Martyrs, Juventius and Maximus)—〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; to pervert this by his Latin Version thus, The Martyrs which we this day worship; whereas Chry∣sostom only saith, The Martyrs which occasion us to meet this day q 1.45. Epiphanius expresly condemns those as Heretics who worship the Blessed Virgin, and saith,

No man may adore Mary. Baronius will not cite this place at large, but adds to it these Words,—she is not to be worshiped as a God: Which Falsification of the Father is designed to excuse their Churches Idolatrous worship of the Virgin Mary r 1.46. The restitution of Peter Bishop of Alexandria is by S. Hierom (whom he cites with applause) ascribed to the late Repentance of the Emperour Valens: who recalled (now at last) the Orthodox from Banishment; and Secrates only men∣tions Damasus's Letters, which Peter took with him, approving both his Creation and the Nicene Faith: Yet he from hence notes the Supreme Power of the Pope, by whose order the Bishop of Alexandria was restored to his Church, in contempt of Valens his Authority; and when he returned with the Popes Authority, the People placed him in his Seat s 1.47. Yea, after this he pretends to cite Socrates, as if he said, Peter was received, being restored by Damasus t 1.48; yet Damasus did no more in all this matter, than barely to testifie that Peter was an Orthodox Bishop, and that he believed him duly elected; which is all that Socrates saith, and which if any eminent Orthodox Bishops had testified, it would equally have served the Bishop of Alexandria's Cause. To conclude, Baronius owns Paulinus, to have been a credulous Man, and very unskilful in Ecclesiastical Hi∣story u 1.49; yet thinking he had not spoken enough, when he relates, That a Church was adorned with Pi∣ctures; he stretches this into, Adorned with Sacred Images w 1.50. From all which Instances we may infer, That the Cardinal would not stick at misquoting and misrepresenting his Authors, when it might serve the Roman Interest.

§. 3. Of this kind also we may reckon his crasty suppressing such Authorities, in whole or in part, as seem to cross the Opinions and Practices of their Church. His leaving out a passage in Optatus, wherein that Father makes the being in Communion with the Seven Churches of Asia a Note of a true Catholic,

was noted before x 1.51. And we may give many such like Instances: Sozemen relates an Imperial Law, wherein those are declared Heretics, who do not hold the Faith, which Damasus Bishop of Rome and Peter of Alexandria then held y 1.52; but the fraudulent Annalist leaves out Peter of Alexandria, and mentions only Damasus as the sole standard of Catholic Faith z 1.53. When S. Hierom saith, His Adversaries condemned him with Damasus and Peter: Baronius bids us observe, with what reverence the Pope's Enemies treated him; for though they accused S. Hierom of Heresie, yet against Damasus they durst not open their Mouth a 1.54; whereas S. Hierom protected himself by the Authority of the Bishop of Alexandria, as well as by that of the Pope. Again, after a crafty Device to hide the evident Testi∣mony which Gregory Nyssen gives, against going in Pil∣grimage to Jerusalem, He slightly mentions an Epistle of S. Hierom, which excellently confutes that then grow∣ing Superstition; telling us, That the Court of Heaven is as open from Britain as from Jerusalem. Which remarkable Sentence, and all the other learned Argu∣ments of that Epistle he omits by design b 1.55; though if it had countenanced this Superstition, we should have had it cited at large. In like manner after∣wards, when he had another fair occasion to cite this same Epistle, which doth so effectually condemn Pilgrimages, he will not quote one word out of it, but barely mentions it, and runs out into the Enquiry, what time it was writ c 1.56. I have given many more Instances of these fraudulent Concealments in my Discourse of Councils, and therefore shall add no more here, but only this, That whoever reads Baronius's Annals, hears no more generally than the Evidence of one side, and that too, enlarged, if it be never so slight, and commended, if it be never so spurious; but whatever makes against the Roman Church is depreciated and perverted, or else clapt under Hatches, and kept out of sight: Of which we have an Instance in Eusebius, who because he will not justifie their

Forgeries about Constantine's Baptism and Donation, (though he be the best of all the Ecclesiastical Histo∣rians) is never cited, but with Reproaches and Ca∣lumnies d 1.57; and whatever he saith against them, is either concealed, or the force of it taken off, by reviling him as an Arian.

§. 4. Another Artifice of our Annalist is, first to suppose things which make for the honour of his Church, without any manner of proof, and then to take his own Suppositions for grounds of Argument. Thus he supposes, that Constantine gave S. Peter thanks for his Victory, without any evidence from History e 1.58; yea, against his own peculiar Notion, That Con∣stantine was then a Pagan, and durst not do any act to make him seem a Christian f 1.59. Again, To colour their Worship of Images, He barely supposes, that the Pagan Senate dedicated a Golden Image of Christ to Constantine g 1.60: He argues only from Conjectures, to prove the Munisicence of that Emperour to Rome h 1.61; whereas, if so eminent a Prince had given such great Gifts to the most famous City in the World, doubtless some Author would have mentioned it, and not have left the Cardinal to prove this by random Guesses. Again, He supposos without any proof, that Constantine knew the Supreme Power over all Christians, was in the Church of Rome i 1.62; He produces nothing but meer Conjectures, that Osius was the Pope's Legate; yet he boldly draws rare Inferences from this k 1.63. He doth but guess and take it for granted, that the Nicene Council was called by the Advice of Pope Sylvester l 1.64; yet this is a Foun∣dation for the Supremacy, and i know not what. Thus, when he hath no Author to prove, that Atha∣nasius venerated the Martyrs, he makes it out with Who can doubt it?—and it is fit to believe he did so m 1.65. So he tells us, He had said before, that Da∣masus favoured Gregory Nazianzen in his being elected to be Bishop of Constantinople n 1.66. He supposes this

indeed a little before o 1.67: But all Ancient Authors say, and he himself affirms, That Peter (Bishop of Alexan∣dria) did institute him into that Bishopric p 1.68. He only supposes Siricius desired Theodosius to banish the Ma∣nichees from Rome; but the Rescript is not directed to him, but to Albinus the Praefect; and (except the fabulous Pontifical) there is no Evidence that Siricius was concerned in this matter q 1.69. Theodoret saith, The Emperour chose Telemachus into the number of Martyrs; but Baronius supposes, This was done not only by the Emperour's Care, but by the Ecclesiastical Authority of the Pope r 1.70. To conclude, He affirms by guess, That S. Nicetus came out of Dacia into Italy, to Visit the Apostles Tombs, and to consult the Apostolical Seat s 1.71; but no Author makes this out. Now, how can any Reader trust an Historian, who in relating things done many Ages ago, takes the liberty to invent and suppose whatever will serve a present Turn?

§. 5. Add to this that he scruples not to contradict himself, and to tell manifest: Untruths to carry on the Interest of Rome, which we shall prove by these Examples: He affirms Coelicianus (Bishop of Carthage) relied upon one defence, The Communion of the Apostolic See; but immediately he tells us, That he was supported by Constantine's favour t 1.72. He cites S. Augustine, saying, Constantine (when Coelician's Cause was referred to him) was a Christian Emperour; yea, he cites a Letter of Constantine, writ in a most Christian style; and yet he feigns, that Coelicianus delayed his appearing before this Emperour, because he thought it unfit that a Bishop should be judged by a Lay-man, not yet Baptized u 1.73. And again, Eight years after this he represents Constantine as a meer Pagan, who had never heard of Peter or Paul, and took them for some Heathen Deities w 1.74; whereas he saith, He was a Catechumen, and out of the Gospel had imbibed the Christian Meekness eight years before x 1.75.

He also affirms, That in the Year 324 there was as yet none of the Senatours believed the Christian Faith y 1.76. And yet he saith, Two year before this, that one or both the Consuls were Christians z 1.77; yea, in the year 312. He reckons up many Senatours, who had given up their Names to Christ a 1.78. Thus he contra∣dicts himself by following those Lying Acts of Syl vester, in order to support the false Story of Constantine's being Baptized at Rome. Soon after, out of a Fabu∣lous Author he talks very big of the low Reverence which Constantine paid to the Bishops at the Nicene Council b 1.79; whereas all the Authentic Historians say, The Bishops rose up when he entred in, and paid him a great respect c 1.80. And when he hath told many incredible Legends about the Nails of the Cross, and-seems to grant that divers false Nails have been adored for the true, he excuses his abused Catholics for their mistaken Worship of false Relics, saying, That their Faith excuses their Fault d 1.81; so that Lies may be innocently told and believed (it seems) at Rome. Again he affirms, there were Monks at Rome in the year 328, and proves this by what S. Augustine saw there at least fifty years after e 1.82; yea, in the year 340 he saith, Athanasius first brought the Institution of Monks to Rome f 1.83, which is a manifest contra∣diction.

To proceed, I wonder with what Face he could commend Athanasius for speaking charitably of the Heretic Arius, after he was dead, when he reviles Eusebius after his death g 1.84; And never mentions any of the Protestant Doctors deceased, but with the bitterest Malice, and in the most spightful Lan∣guage he can invent: If Charity were a Vertue in Athanasius, then Malice must be a Vice in him. He largely relates many Appeals to the Emperour in the case of Athanasius, and yet when at last the Bishop of Rome was chosen Arbitrator in this Case, and this but once, He cries out, Behold, Reader, the ancient Custom! &c. Whereas since the Emperours were

Christians, it was the Custom to appeal first to him, as his History abundantly proves h 1.85. He very largely commends the Acts of Martyrs, but by following them falls into many Absurdities; as where he tells us, That the Pagan Temple of Daphne at Antioch was burnt two days after the Martyrdom of Artemius i 1.86: Yet a little after he brings in this Artemius arguing with Julian, about the burning of this Temple k 1.87. So he tells us, The Body of S. John Baptist was burnt to Ashes, except some Bones which were carried into Egypt to Athanasius: And yet a little after S. Hierom affirms, his Bones remained at Sebaste, and wrought Miracles there l 1.88. As little Truth is there in his accusing Maximus the Emperour for presuming to judge of Bishops Causes m 1.89; whereas Maximus his Letter to Siricius (which Baronius records n 1.90 declares, He would call the Bishops to a Council in what City they pleased, and refer it to them (who were best skilled) to determine these matters. Again, in order to justifie those feigned Relicks of Protasius and Gervasius shewed now at Rome, he affirms, That S. Ambrose gave part of them to several Bishops, and some of them were brought to Rome: Whereas S. Ambrose himself (who knew best what was done) assures us, He buried the Rodies whole, putting every Joynt in his own order o 1.91. And to name no more, He brags, that Idols were pulled down no where with more zeal, than at Rome p 1.92. Yet in the same Page he tells us, There was then newly dedicated an Alter there for sacrificing to the Heathen Gods: So that we see, designed Falshoods are not scrupled by him in things which seem to make for the honour of Rome, or her Opinions.

§. 6. We may also observe, that for the same ends He makes innumerable false Inferences on purpose to pervert the Truth; thus from S. Augustine's calling Melchiades, A Father of Christian People, (as every Bishop is) Baronius concludes, that S. Augustine was for the Popes Supremacy q 1.93: So from Bishops judging in Causes where the People referred their Differences to them, he frequently infers, A right in Bishops, to judge in Temporal Matters r 1.94: In like manner from Theodoret's, mentioning a Canon of the Church in general, and (as his discourse shews) referring to the Canon, which forbids any Bishop to judge a Cause till both parties were present, Baronius gathers, that the Pope was supreme over the Bishop of Alexandria, and that by the Canons of Nice s 1.95. Again, That the Pope was not beholding to the Council of Nice for his Supre∣macy, which he had from Christ, he proves by Pope Nicholas his Testimony, who had the impudence in his own Cause and for his own Ends, to tell this Story Five hundred years after t 1.96: So he condemns the Arians, for ejecting Bishops without staying for the Bishop of Rome's Sentence, which he proves was un∣just by an Epistle of Pope Julius, which says, The Arians should first have writ to all Bishops, that so what was right might be determined by all u 1.97; where Julius arrogates nothing to himself alone, as Baronius falsly pretends. And to make this single Priviledge of Rome the more credible, he doth frequently apply what the Ancients say of all the Bishops of the West, to the Pope: Thus what S. Basil saith of all the Western Churches, he applies only to Rome w 1.98: And when he recites two Epistles of S. Basil, whose Title is to the Western Bishops, and the whole discourse in it directed to many Bishops, he feigns the Name of the Pope is left out or lost, and concludes these Letters were peculiarly directed to him, and this only to support the Roman Supremacy x 1.99; and therefore he repeats over and over this matter, and affirms, it was

an Embassy sent to the Pope y 1.100. Thus also when S. Ambrose saith, The Western Bishops' by their Judgment approved of his Ordination: He infers that S. Ambrose implies, It was confirmed by a public Decree of the Apo∣stolical See z 1.101. And whereas Basil speaking of those Western Bishops in his time, who (he saith) kept the Faith entirely; Baronius infers from hence, That their Successors, and especially the Bishops of Rome, have never erred since a 1.102. Like to which is his in∣ferring the usage of Praying to Saints from a pure Rhetorical flourish of Nazianzen's, in one of his Orations b 1.103. And thus when S. Hierom uses all his Oratory to set off Virginity, because that seems to make for the Roman Celibacy, he takes him to be in good earnest, and will have all his Reflexions upon Marriage to be solid Arguments c 1.104, though S. Hierom himself calls them Trifles * 1.105. But when he tells a sober Truth about the Ignorance of the Roman Clergy, then the Cardinal tells us, He speaks by way of Hyper∣bole d 1.106. From which Instances it doth appear, that our Annalist did not, like an Historian, endeavour to declare Truth, but only to serve an Interest and a Party.

§. 7. Lastly, His Partiality notoriously appears where∣ever the Church of Rome is any way concerned; for when any thing of this kind comes in his way, he puts off the Character of an Historian and turns Dis∣putant, labouring to confute the most ancient and authentic Authors, if they seem to say any thing against that Church. Thus we may observe what tedious digressions he makes about the Primacy of Rome in his discourse on the Nicene Council, for which he twice makes Apologies e 1.107. Again, he runs out into a long and very impertinent dispute about the Worship of Images, in an Age when no good Author mentions them as used in the Church f 1.108. In like manner, He makes a long excursion to disprove an Authentic Story of Epiphanius, tearing a Veil with

a Picture wrought in it, because such things were not fit to be in Churches g 1.109; and he scarce ever meets with any of the Roman Corruptions, mentioned in the most fabulous Authors, but he leaves the History, and enlarges into Remarks upon those Passages. But if the Writer be never so eminent, that touches any of these Sores, his business always is, to baf••le the Evidence; of which there is scarce one year in his Annals, wherein there are not some Examples. On the other side, He takes every slight occasion to make the most spiteful Reflexions on all that he counts Enemies to the Roman Church: Thus he applies the Bishop of Alexandria's description of the Arians to the Reformed Churches, though it agree much better with these of his own Religion h 1.110. Again, He reviles us, because we do not honour the Modern idle lewd Monks of their Communion, as much as the An∣cients did those holy and devout Monks, which were in the Primitive Times, though it be plain to all the World, these are like them in nothing but the Name i 1.111. The like Outcry he makes upon Protestants, for undeceiving some of those silly Nuns, who have been decoyed into unlawful Vows, meerly for Interest and Secular Ends; and affirms the perswading these to Marry, is worse than the Arian's ravishing and murthering them at Alexandria k 1.112. Thus also he compares the Reformed Divines to the Eunomians, who taught, Their Faith alone would save them, though their Lives were never so wicked l 1.113; for∣getting that their Priest's convert (as they call it) Murderers at the Gallows, by teaching them this very Principle. And, to name no more Examples, when S. Basil inveighs against those who despised the An∣cient Customs of the Primitive Church, He spitefully applies this to the Reformed m 1.114. Whereas in very Truth, they of Rome have left off more Ancient Rites, and brought in more new ones, than any sort of Christians in the World. By these and many more Instances which might be given, even out of this

one Century, it is evident, that the whole design of his History is to make all the Doctrins and Pra∣ctices of Rome seem to be Primitive and right, and that he cares not how unlawful the Means be which he uses, to gain this belief in his Reader.

§. Yet to conclude, we will observe, That after all his evil-Methods there are many things which he could neither avoid relating, nor yet excuse, which condemn the Modern Roman Church. I wonder how he could Commend Constantine for abolishing the Stews, and the prostituting of Christian Women there; and not observe, That the Pope now tolerates these Abo∣minations in Rome it self n 1.115. Again, how doth it agree with the INFALLIBILITY of the Pope, to say, That one Holy Spirit governs the Catholic Church, so as to make the Bishops of all Ages and Places agree in the same Opinion o 1.116? If this be so, what need one Bishop alone be made Infallible? And if it be (as he saith) a Doctrin taught by the Apostles, and consequently true, That the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father; then the Pope, who condemns this as an He∣resie of the Greeks, is not Infallible p 1.117. If Con∣stantine had known of this Infallibility lodged at Rome, he would have sent thither for exact Copies of the Holy Scriptures, and not to Eusebius in Palestina q 1.118. If Damasus had this Infallible Spirit, how came he (after he was Pope) to need to be instructed in the meaning of Scripture by S. Hierom r 1.119? Or, if his Successor Siricius had been Infallible, how could the Origenists (who held such palpable Heresies, that a Woman discovered them to be in an Error) impose upon his Simplicity; and get Letters Testimonial from this sole Judge of Heresie s 1.120? How came the Council of Alexandria to send their Decrees to Epi∣phanius, S. Hierom and S. Chrysostom, and not first send them to Anastasius, who was Infallible? And indeed Baronius cannot prove they were sent to him at all, but by saying, It is fit to believe, they were sent t 1.121.

Moreover, many things in this Century related by these Annals, look not favourably upon the SUPRE∣MACY. Constantine calls Eusebius's Election to the See of Antioch, An advancement to the Bishopric of the Universal Church u 1.122, which looks as if he knew no∣thing of the Pope's Pretences: That Marcellus of Ancyra, even when he was accused before Pope Julius, should call him his Fellow-Minister, would have been very Sawey, if he had known Julius to be the Supreme Bishop of the World w 1.123. And if this Supremacy had been owned in former Ages, how came the Eastern Bishops to be so angry at their being desired to come to Rome x 1.124; yea, how came they to Excommunicate the Pope, for communicating with one whom they had judged a Criminal y 1.125? It is not concerning the Pope, but Athanasius, that Na∣zianzen saith, He did again prescribe Laws to the whole World z 1.126: It seems the Pope was not the Supreme Caller of Synods, when S. Hierom (speaking of a Council which he thought was not Authentic) Asks, What Emperour ordered it to be Convened a 1.127. We cannot find in any genuine Antiquity in this Age, so great an Encomium of Rome, as Nazianzen the Elder gives of Caesarea, viz. That from the beginning it was, and now is accounted the Mother of almost all Churches, on which all the Christian World casts its Eye, like a Circle drawn from a Center b 1.128. A man would guess the Pope's Authority reached no further than the Sub∣urbicarian Regions, because Ursicinus (Damasus his Competitor) was forbid by the Emperour from entring into Rome, or the Suburbicarian Regions c 1.129. S. Basil was very unmannerly, if not unjust (had this Supremacy been then claimed) to send his first Em∣bassy unto Athanasius, and tell him, that He had the Care of all the Churche; d 1.130; yea afterward, when he did send into the West, he directs his Epistle to the Italian and Gallican Bishops, without mentioning the Pope in particular: And truly Damasus (if he were Supreme)

took little care of his Office, since upon so pressing Occasions he would neither Answer S. Basil, nor S. Hierom for a long time. And S. Hierom was some∣what bold when he reproves the Ambition of Rome, and said, He would Follow no Chief but Christ e 1.131. S. Am∣brose also seems not to give that deference to the Mother of all Churches that he ought, since he often Dined and made Feasts on the Saturday, which was a Fast at Rome f 1.132; and had the Pope then been Su∣preme, why did Ambrose make a Bishop at Sirmium, in Iliyria, so far from his own City of Milan g 1.133? The same S. Ambrose also speaks of Supreme Bishops in Gallia h 1.134. It is strange that Siricius, the Supreme Pastor should let the Pagans set up an Altar to the Goddess of Victory in the Roman Capitol, and that S. Ambrose should be the only Complainant in this Case i 1.135. Finally, if the Pope then had any Juris∣diction over the Eastern Churches, why was not he consulted about Ordaining S. Chrysostom Bishop of Con∣stantinople? and how came the Patriarch of Alexan∣dria to be sent to, and to Ordain him k 1.136? These Instances shew, the Supremacy of Rome was unknown in that Age: And so was the INVOCATION of SAINTS and ADORING of RELICKS also, as one might suspect by these Passages, That the Holy Men of those Ages, in their Dangers and Ne∣cessities are said only to have prayed to God, not to the Blessed Virgin, or to Saints and Angels for help: So did Alexander Bishop of Constantinople against A∣rius l 1.137; so did Parthenius against the Pagans m 1.138; so did Constantius the Emperour, for Recovery of his Health n 1.139; so also did those Persian Martyrs o 1.140. Thus Euphrates, an Eminent Bishop, implores only the help of Christ against an illusion of the Devil p 1.141. The Christians who translated the Bones of Babylas the Martyr, did not Pray to him, but Praised God q 1.142; and Macedonius, an holy Monk, is observed only to call upon God Night and Day r 1.143. Arcadius the

Emperour in an Earthquade prayed to the Lord, the only preserver of the Humble s 1.144. Porphyrius, Bishop of Gaza, and his People, called only upon Christ, not upon any Saints t 1.145: So that all these used the Pro∣testant way of Worship. And the Romanists must be very unsafe in their Worship of Saints, since Baronius confesses, one of their Catalogues of Saints puts in the Names of two Hereticks, as good Catholic Saints u 1.146. So also as to the Adoration of Relicks, the Faithful in Persia did not keep the Body of their Martyr to Worship, but buried it in a Tomb w 1.147. So S. Anthony the Primitive Hermit, fearing and disliking this Super∣stition, ordered his Body to be put into a private and unknown Grave, according to the Custom of the Catholic Church x 1.148; and therefore Metaphrastes his sole Evidence will not pass, for the Legend of tran∣slating the Bodies of S. Andrew and S. Luke to Constan∣tinople y 1.149. 'Tis true, this Superstition was then creep∣ing in, and some Cheaters did begin to sell the Bones of False Martyrs (a Trade used at Rome for many Ages); but Theodosius his Law severely punished this Crime z 1.150: Which ridiculous Imposture, Julian the witty Apostate had justly exposed some years before, as being contrary to Scripture and to the Christian Law a 1.151.

To proceed, Had the Altars been then used to be adorned with IMAGES, as they are now at Rome, the Faithful would not have been so surprized at bringing in an Image, and placing it on the Altar, as Optatus saith they were b 1.152; and Baronius can find no Precedent for carrying Images in Procession to pro∣cure Rain, but the Pagan Superstition c 1.153. In S. Am∣broses time the Virgins Apartment in the Church was not adorned with Pictures or Images, but (after the Protestant way) with Sentences of Holy Scripture d 1.154. Theodosius should have excepted the Images of the Saints, when he forbad the honouring any Images void of Sense, with lighting Tapers, offering Incense

and Garlands to them e 1.155: So that doubtless this is an INNOVATION in their Church, and so are many other of their Rites. The Pope's Bull, to choose a Stranger to be Bishop of a Church, whereof he never had been a Member, was unknown when Pope Julius condemned this Practice f 1.156. The Custom of putting the Wafer in the Communicant's Mouth (as Baronius confesseth) was unknown in this Century, when (Pro∣testant like) they took it into their hands g 1.157. In S. Au∣gustine's time the People at Rome Fasted on Wednesdays which use they have now left off h 1.158. When the Rites of Burial used at Christian Funerals are described by Nazianzen (on occasion of the Funeral of Caesarius) there is no mention of any Prayers for his Soul; for that Superstition was not then allowed i 1.159. The car∣rying a Cross before them in Procession, cannot be made out in this Age, but by the spurious Act of Martyrs cited by Metaphrastes. k 1.160. But lest I tire the Reader, I will conclude with one or two Instances more, to shew the difference between Modern Rome and this Age: Their Monks now are not like those of that time, but resemble the Messalian Heretics, who pretended to Pray continually, and never used any labour, and claimed all mens Alms as due only to them; who said, that Marriages might be dissolved, seducing Children from their Parents, and boasting they were pure from Sin; yea, wearing Sackcloth, that all may see it l 1.161. Theodosius made a Law to banish Monks from Cities, and oblige them to retire into Desert places m 1.162: But the Modern Monks are all for Noble Seats in the best freqnented Cities; so that these and those are vastly different. Finally, He makes the Persecuting Spirit of Macedonius, and the Patience of Athanasius, a mark to distinguish Truth from Heresie: Now, if we apply this Mark; as none are greater Persecutors than the Romanists, so we must conclude none are further from the Truth n 1.163.

And now by these few Instances, within the compass of one Century, the Reader may judge what Truth there can be in that Religion, that needs so many Frauds to hide its Faults; and what trust can be given to that Historian, who to serve an ill Cause, makes no scruple to use all these kinds of Deceit. This may warn all that design to peruse these Annals, not to rely upon any of his Authorities or Arguments without examining, and also not to take every thing for Primitive and Ancient, which he pretends to be so. This may suffice for this Volume, and (if we proceed) we shall make the like Remarks on the following Tomes; to shew, that their Religion is made up of Falshoods, and cannot be de∣fended without Lying and Forgery, which is the great support of their Evil Cause.

FINIS.

Glory be to the GOD of Truth.

Notes

• a 1.1

  Baron. An. 308 p. 30. §. 19.
• b 1.2

  Id. An. 311. p. 57. §. 23.
• c 1.3

  Id. An. 324. pag. 233. §. 13, & 16.
• d 1.4

  Ibid. p. 237. §. 30.
• e 1.5

  Ibid. §. 31.
• f 1.6

  Ibid. p. 238. §. 32.
• g 1.7

  Ib. pag. 260. §. 107.
• h 1.8

  Baron An. 326. pag. 353. §. 42.
• i 1.9

  Id. ibid.
• k 1.10

  An. 326. p. 366. §. 86.
• l 1.11

  Ibid. An. 330. p. 396. §. 4.
• m 1.12

  An. 336. p. 458 §. 63.
• n 1.13

  An. 357. pag. 715. §. 50.
• o 1.14

  Annal. Tom. IV. An. 362. p. 21, & 22.
• p 1.15

  Eod. An. pag. 84.
• q 1.16

  An. 373. pag. 309.
• r 1.17

  An. 378. p. 332.
• s 1.18

  An. 384. p. 427.
• t 1.19

  An. 386. pag. 468.
• u 1.20

  An. 397. Tom. V. p. 44.
• w 1.21

  Baron. An. 307. §. 33. p. 24. Tom III.
• x 1.22

  Id. An. 330. §. 51. p. 410.
• s 1.23

  Bar. Praecap. ad Martyr. c. 3.
• t 1.24

  Melch. Can. Can loc. Theol. l. 11. p. 333.
• u 1.25

  An. 306. §. 12. pag. 3. & Tom. IV. An. 363. p. 105.
• w 1.26

  Aug. de Civ. Dei, iib. 18. c. 53.
• x 1.27

  Baron. An. 313. §. 17.
• y 1.28

  Athanas. de decret. in Arian.
• z 1.29

  Baron. An. 325. §. 69.
• a 1.30

  Leon. cp. 53. ap. Baron. An. 325. §. 28.
• b 1.31

  Baron. An. 319. §. 6.
• c 1.32

  Epiphan. contra Manich. haer. 66. & contr. Arian. haer. 69.
• d 1.33

  Opt. Milev. lib. 2. pag. 48. Baldvin. notis, pag. 184.
• e 1.34

  Baron. An. 321. §. 5.
• f 1.35

  Opt. Milev. lib. 2. pag. 50.
• g 1.36

  Baron. An. 324. §. 105.
• h 1.37

  Id. ib. §. 114.
• i 1.38

  Baron. An. 325. §. 197.
• k 1.39

  Baron. An. 329. §. 7, 8.
• l 1.40

  An. 341. §. 43, & 44.
• m 1.41

  Vid. Socrat. lib. 2. cap. 13. Baron. An. 342. §. 43.
• n 1.42

  An. 349. §. 6.
• o 1.43

  An. 355. §. 51.
• p 1.44

  An. 357. §. 43.
• q 1.45

  Chrysost. Tom. V. p. 534. Baron. An. 362. pag. 48.
• r 1.46

  Epiphan. haeres. 79. Baron. An. 375. p. 309.
• s 1.47

  Socrat. lib. 4. cap. 30. & Baron. An. 377. pag. 325.
• t 1.48

  Id. An. 378. pag. 335.
• u 1.49

  Baron. Tom. V. An. 395. p. 15.
• w 1.50

  Id. An. 394. pag. 612.
• x 1.51

  Vid. supra §. 2. & Baron. An. 321. §. 5.
• y 1.52

  Sozom. lib. 7. cap. 4. p. 415.
• z 1.53

  Faren. An. 378. pag. 339.
• a 1.54

  Baron. An. 378. pag. 347.
• b 1.55

  Hieron. Ep. 13. Tom 1. p. 120. Baron. An. 386. p. 454, 455.
• c 1.56

  Baron. An. 394. p. 613.
• d 1.57

  Anna'. 324. §. 143, 144, & 152. An. 325. §. 192, & 193. Et An. 336. §. 7, 8. Item An. 340. §. 40, &c.
• e 1.58

  Baron. An. 312. §. 58.
• f 1.59

  Id. ibid. §. 62.
• g 1.60

  Baron. An. 312. §. 68, 69.
• h 1.61

  Baron. An. 324. §. 72.
• i 1.62

  Eod. An. §. 117.
• k 1.63

  Eod. An. §. 127.
• l 1.64

  Eod. An. §. ult.
• m 1.65

  Baron. An. 342. §. 42.
• n 1.66

  Baron. An. 380. pag. 362.
• o 1.67

  Ibid. p. 359.
• p 1.68

  Idem p. 355.
• q 1.69

  Baron. An. 389. p. 513.
• r 1.70

  Baron. An. 395 §. 621.
• s 1.71

  Baron. An. 397. pag. 28, & 29.
• t 1.72

  Baron. An. 313. §. 18, 19.
• u 1.73

  Baron. An. 316. §. 59, & 62. Collat. cum §. 60.
• w 1.74

  Baron. An. 324. §. 39.
• x 1.75

  Id. An. 316. §. 65.
• y 1.76

  Baron. An. 324. §. 76.
• z 1.77

  Id. An. 322. §. 1.
• a 1.78

  Id. An. 312. §. 75. & 76.
• b 1.79

  Baron. An. 325. §. 16.
• c 1.80

  Idem ibid. §. 52.
• d 1.81

  Baron. An. 326. §. 51,—& 54.
• e 1.82

  Baron. An. 328 §. 20, & 21.
• f 1.83

  Id. An. 340. §. 8.
• g 1.84

  Baron. An. 336. §. 44. Collat. cum An. 340. §. 38.
• h 1.85

  Baron. An. 340. §. 2.
• i 1.86

  Baron. An. 362. pag. 37.
• k 1.87

  Ibid. p. 44.
• l 1.88

  Baron. An. 362. pag. 56.
• m 1.89

  Baron. An. 385. pag. 441.
• n 1.90

  Id. An. 387. pag. 474.
• o 1.91

  Baron. An. 387. pag. 468. Collat. cum Ambrose Ep. 85.
• p 1.92

  Baron. An. 389, & 390. pag. 526.
• q 1.93

  Baron. An. 313. §. 29.
• r 1.94

  Baron. An. 319. §. 30. item An. 326. §. 100 &c. item An. 398. pag. 61. & 62.
• s 1.95

  Baron. An. 325. §. 128.
• t 1.96

  Id. ib. §. 130.
• u 1.97

  Baron. An. 336. §. 34.
• w 1.98

  Baron. An. 371. pag. 239.
• x 1.99

  Baron. An. 371. pag. 238, & An. 372. pag. 269, 270, 271, &c.
• y 1.100

  Ibid. 273, 274.
• z 1.101

  Baron. An. 375. pag. 320.
• a 1.102

  Baron. An. 372. pag. 276. & An. 373. pag. 310.
• b 1.103

  Baron. An. 372. pag. 285.
• c 1.104

  Baron. An. 382. pag. 402.
• * 1.105

  Baron. An. 390 pag 540.
• d 1.106

  Idem An. 385. pag 435.
• e 1.107

  Baron. An. 325. §. 136, & 140.
• f 1.108

  Baron. An. 362. pag. 18.
• g 1.109

  Baron. An. 392. p. 568.
• h 1.110

  Baron. An. 318. §. 80.
• i 1.111

  Baron. An. 340. §. 10. item An. 363. p. 132.
• k 1.112

  Baron. An. 326. §. 29.
• l 1.113

  Baron. An. 360. §. 38.
• m 1.114

  Baron. An. 363. pag. 131.
• n 1.115

  Baren An. 314. §. 74.
• o 1.116

  Id. Ib. §. 76.
• p 1.117

  Baron. An. 325. §. 70.
• q 1.118

  Baron. An. 330. §. 23.
• r 1.119

  Baron. An. 379. pag. 353.
• s 1.120

  Baron. An. 397. pag. 32.
• t 1.121

  Baron. An. 399. p. 85. cum 88.
• u 1.122

  Baron. An. 324. §. 152.
• w 1.123

  Baron. An. 341. §. 51.
• x 1.124

  Baron. An. 341. §. 56, & 57.
• y 1.125

  Id. An. 347. §. 64.
• z 1.126

  Baron. An. 362. pag. 66.
• a 1.127

  Eod. An. pag. 80.
• b 1.128

  Baron. An. 369. pag. 194.
• c 1.129

  Baron. An. 371. pag. 235.
• d 1.130

  Baron. An. cod. p. 236, 237, &c.
• e 1.131

  Bar. An. 372. pag. 281, 282.
• f 1.132

  Baron. An. 375. pag 321.
• g 1.133

  Idem An. 380. pag. 362.
• h 1.134

  Baron. An. 392 p. 558.
• i 1.135

  Id. cod. An. pag. 560.
• k 1.136

  Baron. An. 397. pag. 14.
• l 1.137

  Baron. An. 336. §. 47.
• m 1.138

  An. 337. §. 41.
• n 1.139

  An 338. §. 11.
• o 1.140

  An. 343. §. 16.
• p 1.141

  An. 348. §. 9.
• q 1.142

  An. 362. pag. 40.
• r 1.143

  An. 388. pag. 477.
• s 1.144

  An. 396. pag. 21.
• t 1.145

  An. 398. pag. 71.
• u 1.146

  Baron. An. 340. §. 41. & An. 341. §. 11.
• w 1.147

  An. 343. §. 16.
• x 1.148

  Baron. An. 358. §. 23.
• y 1.149

  Ibid. §. 25.
• z 1.150

  Baron. An. 386. pag. 455.
• a 1.151

  Id. An. 362. pag. 92. & An. 361. p. 36.
• b 1.152

  Baron. An. 348. §. 33.
• c 1.153

  Baron. An. 362. pag. 60.
• d 1.154

  Baron. An. 377. pag. 327.
• e 1.155

  Baron. An. 392. pag. 562.
• f 1.156

  Baron. An. 341. §. 17.
• g 1.157

  Baron. An. 361. p. 2.
• h 1.158

  Baron. An. 388. pag. 495.
• i 1.159

  Baron. An. 368. pag. 179.
• k 1.160

  Baron. An. 398. p. 71.
• l 1.161

  Baron. An. 361. §. 35, ad §. 39.
• m 1.162

  Baron. An. 390. pag. 537.
• n 1.163

  Baron. An. 360. §. 27, & 28.