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 ...

Roman Forgeries IN THE COUNCILS.

PART III. CENT. V.

CHAP. I.

Of the time before the Council of Ephesus.

§. 1. THE Editors of the Councils being * 1.1 generally the Popes Creatures, seem not so much concerned to give us a true Account of what was done, as to make their Readers believe, that all the Affairs of the whole Christian World were managed solely by the Bishop of Rome, and every thing determined by his single Autho∣rity: Thus the first Council. of Toledo was a 1.2 held in Spain, under Patronus, Bishop of that City: The Title says it was held in the time of Pope Anastasius, and

notes the Name of the Consul for that year, 400. But Baronius finding an Epistle of Pope Innocent writ to a Council of Toledo five years after this b 1.3 (relating to the Priscillian Hereticks then abounding in Spain.) purely to make us think the Bishops of Spain could do nothing without the Pope, removes this Council down to the Year 405. Yet afterwards in his Appendix, per∣ceiving the trick was too gro••••, he recants that Chro••o∣logy, and restores it to its true Year Anno 400. c 1.4 But after all, this Epistle of Pope Innocent is by some suspected to be forged; and Sirmondus confesseth, that all the Old Books cite this Epistle as written to a Council at Tho∣louse d 1.5; so that he and Baronius, probably altered the reading, and put in Toledo instead of Tholouse, because this was the more Famous Council; and they had a mind it should be thought that all eminent Councils expected the Popes Letters before they durst act: Whereas this Council of Toledo, makes it plain, that they censured the Priscillianists, and absolued such as re∣canted purely by their own Authority. And when they thought fit to acquaint other Churches abroad with what they had done, they send an Embassie, not only to the Pope, but to Simplicianus, Bishop of Milan, whose Judgment and Authority they value as equal with the Popes e 1.6. And here we must observe, that Baranius and the Annotator (seeing it was a reflection upon the Popes to have a Bishop of Milan ranked equal with the Pope) affirm (without any Proof) that St. Ambrose and his Successor Simplicianus were only the Pope, Le∣gates, and that these Spanish Bishops would communi∣cate with none but such as the Apostolical S•••• did com∣municate with f 1.7. Whereas they have the principal regard to the See of Milan, and in the definitive Sen∣tence name only St. Ambrose g 1.8, though some Forger hath there manifestly put in these words, add also what Siricius advised: And in the Council of Turin, which Baronius cites, St. Ambrose is named before the Pope; yea it is manifest by divers African Councils * 1.9, that they gave equal respect at least to the Judgment and

Authority of the Bishop of Milan, as to those of Rome f 1.10. So that it is ridiculous and absurd to fancy that St. Am∣brose and his Successors (who were greater Men than the Popes for Learning and Reputation) were the Le∣gates of Rome; and this hath been invented meerly to aggrandize that See. And for that same reason they have stusted into the Body of this Council a Rule of Faith against the Priscillianists, transmitted from some Bishop of Spain with the Precept of Pope Leo, who was not Pope till forty years after this Council g 1.11. Yea, Binius in the very Title of this Council, would have it confirmed by another Pope that lived divers Centuries after, of which Labbè was so ashamed, that he hath struck that whole Sentence out of his Edition h 1.12. As to the Canons of this Council I shall only remark: That the first of them lays a very gentle punishment upon Deacons and Priests who lived with their Wives, before a late Interdict, which is no more but the prohi∣biting them to ascend to any higher Order i 1.13. And no wonder they touched this point so gently, for this prohibiting Wives to the Clergy was never heard of in Spain till Siricius (who died about three years before) advised it in his Epistle to Himerius, and therefore Inno∣cent in his third Epistle said, Siricius was the Author of this form of Ecclesiastical Discipline, that is, of the Cler∣gies Celibacy: and adds, that those who had not received his Decree were worthy of pardon k 1.14: And by the many and repeated Canons made in Spain afterward in this Matter, it appears, the inferior Clergy would not fol∣low the Popes advice. The fourteenth Canon l 1.15 shews that the Primitive way of receiving the Communion, was by the peoples taking it into their hands, as they do now in our Church: And the Notes confess, that the Roman Custom of taking it into their mouths out of the Priests hand is an innovation m 1.16, brought in after the corrupt Doctrine of Transubstantiation had begot many superstitious Conceits about this Holy Sacrament, the altering of the Doctrine occasioning this change in the way of receiving: Whereas the Protestant Churches

which retain the Primitive Doctrine, keep also the Pri∣mitive Rite of Communicating. To this Council are tack'd divers Decrees which belong to some Council of Toledo or other; but the Collectors, Burchard, Ivo, &c. not knowing to which, have cited them under this Ge∣neral Title, out of the Council of Toledo, and so the Editors place them all here n 1.17. But most of them do belong to later times, and the name of Theodorus, Arch-Bishop of Canterbury, in one of these Fragments shews it was made 300 years after this time o 1.18.

We have in the next place two African Councils said to be under Anastasius, though indeed they were un∣der the Bishop of Carthage: The former of these, de∣crees an Embassie shall be sent both to Anastasius, Bi∣shop of Rome, and Venerius, Bishop of Milan, for a sup∣ply of Clergy-men, of whom at that time they had great scarcity in Africa p 1.19. The other African Coun∣cil determines they will receive such Donatists as recanted their Errors, into the same Orders of Clergy which they had, before they were reconciled to the Church, provided the Bishop of Rome, Milan and other Bishops of Italy (to whom they sent a second Embassie) consented to it: Now here, though all the Italian Bi∣shops were applied to, and he of Milan by name, as well as the Bishops of Rome; and though it was not their Authority, but their Advice and Brotherly Con∣sent, which the African Bishops expected; yet Baroni∣us and Binius tell us, it is certain that Anastasius did give them licence to receive these Donatists in this manner, be∣cause St. Augustin said they did receive them q 1.20. Where∣as St. Augustine never mentions any licence from the Pope, and his leave or consent was no more desired than the leave of other eminent Bishops, only the An∣nalist and his followers were to make this look as an indulgence granted from Rome alone.

§. 2. Pope Innocent succeeded Anastasius, who had the * 1.21 good fortune to be convinced (by St. Augustine, and other Bishops more learned than himself) that Pelagius and Celestius were Hereticks, and so to joyn with the Orthodox in condemning them, for which he is highly commended by St. Augustine, St. Hierom, and by Prosper, who were glad they had the Bishop of so powerful and great a City of their side; and so was poor St. Chry∣sostom also, whose Cause he espoused when Theophilus of Alexandria and the Empress oppressed him; and by that means Innocent also got a good Character from St. Chry∣sostom and his Friends in the East: But some think it was rather his good fortune than his judgment, which made him take the right side: The Pontifical fills up his Life, as usually, with frivolous matters r 1.22. But two things very remarkable are omitted there, the one is a passage in Zosimus, viz. That when Alaricus first be∣sieged Rome, and the Pagans there, said the City would never be happy till the Gentile Rites were re∣stored, The Praefect communicates this to Pope Innocent, who valuing the safety of the City before his own Opinion, privately gave them leave to do what they desired s 1.23. The other is, That when Rome was taken afterwards by Alarious, Pope Innocent was gone out of the City to Ra∣venna, and did not return till all was quiet; and there∣fore I cannot with Baronius think that St. Hierom com∣pares Pope Innocent to Jeremiah the Prophet t 1.24; for Jeremiah staid among God's People and preached to them, but Innocent was gone out of Rome long before it was seized by the Goths. Further we may observe, that whereas St. Hierom advised a Noble Roman Virgin to beware of the Pelagian Hereticks, and to hold the Faith of Holy Innocent u 1.25: Baronius is so transported with this, that he quotes it twice in one year, and thus enlarges on it, That St. Hierom knew the Faith was kept more pure and certainly in the Seat of Peter, than by Au∣gustine or any other Bishop, so that the Waters of Salvation were to be taken more pure out of the Fountain than out of

any Rivers w 1.26; which absurd Gloss is easily confuted by considering, that this Lady was a Member of the Ro∣man Church, and so ought to hold the Faith of her own Bishop, especially since he was at that time Or∣thodox; and this was all St. Hierom referred to: For he doth not at all suppose the Roman See was infallible, nor did he make any Comparison between Augustine and Innocent, since he well knew that in point of Learn∣ing and Orthodox Judgment Augustine was far above this Pope, who indeed derived all the skill he had as to the condemning Pelagius from the African Foun∣tains, and especially from St. Augustine: Besides, nothing is more common than for some Eminent Bishops to be named as the Standard of Catholick Communion, not from any Priviledge of their See, but because at that time they were Orthodox: So the Bishops of Constanti∣nople, Alexandria and Antioch are named in a Rescript of Arcadius the Emperor, with this Character, that such as did not hold Communion with them should be cast out of the Church x 1.27. And thus Athanasius, Am∣brose, Cyril and others, eminent for being Orthodox, have been made the Touchstones of Mens Faith, such passing for true Believers only, who held the same Faith with them.

For this Pope there are divers Epistles published, upon which and the partial Notes upon them we will make some brief remarks.

The first Epistle to Decentius, Bishop of Eugubium, was writ the last year of Innocent Anno 416. y 1.28 but is placed first, because it talks big of St. Peter, and of the duty of other Churches to conform to the Roman usa∣ges: But there are some passages in it which make it questionable whether this Pope writ it; or, if he did, shew his ignorance and gross mistakes; for the Author affirms, That no Apostle but Peter did Institute Churches, Ordain Priests and Preach in Italy, France, Spain, Africa, Sicily and the adjacent Islands z 1.29. Whereas the Scri∣pture testifies that St. Paul did institute the Church at Rome and preached in Italy; and most of the Ecclesi∣astical

Writers affirm that St. James preached in Spain. 2ly. He enjoyns the Saturday Fast a 1.30 which was a peculiar Custom of the Roman Church not observed in the East, nor at Milan, nor almost in any other Churches of divers Ages after; and we may observe that among all Innocent's Reasons for it, there is not one word of the Blessed Virgin, who was not worshiped in those days, as she is now by the Romanists, who now pretend to observe this Saturday Fast peculiarly to the honour of the Virgin Mary. 3ly. He allows not only Priests, but also Lay Christians to give extream Uncti∣on to the Sick, if the Oyl be but consecrated by a Bi∣shop b 1.31. In which point the Roman Church hath since altered her Opinion, and I doubt not but they will call this now, a manifest error.

The second Epistle to Victricius (as Labbè confesseth) is patched up out of the fourth Epistle of Siricius and the seventh of Pope Zachary c 1.32. And the Centuriators note concerning all these Epistles which go under Inno∣cent's Name, That sometimes whole Paragraphs are taken out of the Epistles of both former and later Popes d 1.33, which is a ground to suspect that most of them are not ge∣nuine: However there hath been a later hand employ∣ed to foist in a passage or two into this Epistle; for whereas the First Writer declares that, all Causes shall be determined in the Province where they happen, some have put in a Sentence [excepting the reverence due to the Roman Church] into the Body of the Section; and an excepti∣on of reserving the greater Causes for the Apostolick See, in the end of that Section e 1.34, which make the whole Decree null, and contradict the Nicene Canon cited there: And whereas the former sentence was meer non-sense in Binius, Labbè hath put two words (siue praeju∣dicie) into his Edition, to make this gross Addition seem coherent, and conceal the Forgery: Again, the Author of this Epistle in his zeal against the Clergies Marriage, falsly cites it for Scripture, That God's Priests must marry but once f 1.35; and it is but a poor excuse which Labbè makes, that Tertullian had cited this as out

of Leviticus, since the infallible Interpreter of Scripture should have corrected his Error, and not have counte∣nanced an addition to the Holy Text to serve an ill Cause. 3ly. The Writer shews himself grosly ignorant of the Courses of the Jewish Priests, when he saith, they did not depart from the Temple nor go to their House in the year of their Ministration g 1.36. Whereas every one knows that there was but 24 Courses of the Priests, and that every Family ministred but one Week at a time from Sabbath to Sabbath h 1.37. Yet this Author makes the same mistake again in the third Epistle, and con∣sidently talks again of the year of their Course. 4ly. Where∣as St. Paul had declared Marriage honourable in all Men (without excepting Ministers) and the Bed undefi∣led i 1.38. This Impudent Epistolizer calls the use of Mar∣riage in the Clergy a being stained with Carnal Concu∣pisence, and expounds that place, Those who are in the Flesh cannot please God k 1.39; of such Marriages l 1.40, ma∣king the Apostle contradict himself by this sensless and false Gloss: But notwithstanding all these pernicious and absurd Errors, Baronius and Binius do extreamly magnifie the Pope upon this occasion, as being that Original Fountain from whence the most Famous Bishops of the World used to draw Water, knowing of what great Strength and Authority these things were which came from the Apostolical See m 1.41. But first, If these Epistles be forged (which is very probable) then all these brags and bold inferences are vain; if they be true and were writ by Innocent, they may justly blush, that such poor stuff should come from the Bishop of so great a See; and however it will not follow that the Roman Bishop was the Head of the Catholick Church, because Victricius and Exuperius writ to him for advice. For how many more and greater Bishops writ to St. Basil, St. Augustine; yea to Isidore of Peleusium and St. Hieroin who were only Priests? and how far do their Answers exceed those of the Pope? Yet none will be so ridi∣culous to magnifie the See of Coesarea or Hippo, or the Monasteries of Peleusium and Bethlehem, as if they were

the very Fountains of Religion, or these Persons the Heads of the Catholick Church: I will only add, that Orosius is noted by Baronius himself to have consulted with St. Augustine and St. Hierom, (about matters of Faith, and greater concernment by far than these) and not with Innocent his pretended Original Fountain n 1.42; so that every one doubtless did not take the Pope for the sole infallible Oracle in those days.

The third Epistle to Exuperius is liable to all the Ob∣jections against the former: Labbè saith it is patch'd up out of Siricius Epistle to Himerius, the second Epistle of Ce∣lestine, and one of Leo to Theodorus o 1.43; and there∣fore probably it is forged: Or if we grant it genuine, it looks not very favourably upon their Modern Pre∣tence to Infallibility; for the Pope here says, he will an∣swer according to the measure of his understanding; and confesses, that by Conference he added to his Knowledge; and while he was answering others, always learned some∣thing himself p 1.44. The Notes also are much mistaken in arguing from two Bishops enquiring of Pope Innocent's sense in some matters of Discipline, That all the Catho∣lick Church ought to keep the Decrees of the Apostolick See q 1.45. For there were many hundred Bishops in those and other Provinces, who never enquired after the Bi∣shop of Rome's customs, nor desired his advice; and it is very certain that divers of these pretended Decrees were not observed, no not in France (where these two Bishops lived) for divers Ages after they are pretended to be sent thither. Before I leave this Epistle I must observe, that the last Section about the Canon of Scri∣pture, wherein all the Apocryphal Books are reckoned up as part of the Canon r 1.46, is a gross Forgery added to it 300 years after Innocent's death; for Cresconius never saw this part of the Epistle, nor doth he mention it under this Head, though he cite the other parts of it; so that if the whole Epistle be not forged, yet this part of it is certainly spurious, and added to it by a later hand, as is at large demonstrated by Bishop Cosens in his Histo∣ry of the Canon of Scripture, to which I refer the Rea∣der

s 1.47, noting only that the Council of Trent grounded their Decree about the Canon of Scripture, not upon ge∣nuine Antiquity, but palpable Forgeries and Corruptions.

In the following Epistles unto the twelfth, there is nothing remarkable, but some brags of the dignity of Rome, and many pretences to a strict observance of the Ancient Canons, which were no where oftner broken than in that Church: Some think they are all forged, because they want the Consuls names t 1.48. And the twelfth Epistle may pass in the same rank, since it is dated with false Consuls, viz. Julius the fourths time, and Palla∣dius u 1.49; but because it seems to shew that the Pope took care even of Foreign Churches, Baronius resolves to amend it of his own head, and puts in Theodosius and Palladius, though still the number is false w 1.50; for The∣odosius was the seventh time Consul with Palladius, not the fourth; and had not this Epistle made for the Popes Supremacy, the Annalist would not have taken pains to mend it.

The thirteenth Epistle, which passes in Binius for a famous testimony of Innocent's zeal in discovering the Pelagians x 1.51, and meriting Notes, is the same with the beginning of the second Epistle of Foelix the fourth y 1.52; and Labbè saith it is a forgery of the counterfeit Isidore z 1.53. The fourteenth Epistle calls Antioch a Sister Church, and from Peters being first there seems to confess it was the elder Sister; and both that and the sixteenth Epistle speak of one Memoratus, which Baronius will not allow to be the proper name of a Bishop, because indeed there was no such Bishop in that time; so that he expounds it of the Bishop remembred, that is, of Pau∣linus; but the ill luck is, that Paulinus is neither named before, nor remembred in either of these two Epi∣stles a 1.54. The Notes on the sixteenth Epistle mention it as a special usage of the Bishop of Rome, not to re∣store any to his Communion, unless they were correct∣ed and amended; but this was ever the rule of all good Bishops, and of late is less observed at Rome than in any other Church. The eighteenth Epistle maintains

a very odd Opinion, viz. That the Ordinations celebrated by Heretical Bishops are not so valid as the Baptism con∣ferred by them; and the Notes b 1.55 own that the Persons so Ordained may truly receive (as they call it) the Sa∣crament of Orders, and yet neither receive the Spirit, nor Grace, no nor a power to exercise those Orders, which seems to me a Riddle. For I cannot apprehend how a Man can be said truly to receive an Office, and yet neither receive Qualifications for it, not any Right to exercise it. The twenty second Epistle cites that place of Leviticus, That a Priest shall marry a Virgin, and affirms it as a Precept founded on Divine Authority; and he censures the Macedonian Bishops as guilty of a breach of God's Law, because they did not observe this Precept, which every one knows to be a piece of the abrogated Cere∣monial Law; and the Annotator cannot with all his shufling bring the Pope off from the Heresie of pres∣sing the Levitical Law as obligatory to Christians c 1.56: But there is one honest passage in this Epistle which contradicts what this Pope had often said before of the sinfulness of Priests Marriages; for here he saith, The Bond of Matrimony, which is by Gods Commandment, cannot be called sin: However out of this Epistle (which is a very weak one, and dated only with one of the Consuls names) the Editors feign a Council in Macedonia * 1.57 and a Message sent to the Pope for confirmation of their Acts (which doth not appear at all in the Body of the Epistle). And Baronius desires the Reader to note, How great Majesty and Authority shined in the Apo∣stolick See, so that it was deemed an injury to require the Popes to repeat their former Orders d 1.58. Whereas if this Epistle be not forged, it is no more but a nauseous re∣petition of the same Orders which he and his Prede∣cessors had given over and over; and the frequent harp∣ing upon the same string, in all the Decretal Epistles, especially as to the Marriage of the Clergy, shews how little Majesty or Authority shined in the Popes, since all the Countries to which they sent their Orders, so ge∣nerally despised them, that every Pope for divers Ages

was still urging this matter without that effect which they desired. The twenty third Epistle was writ to some Synod or other, they know not whether at Toledo or Tholouse, as we noted before e 1.59. And the Jesuit Sir∣mondus in Labbe, by elaborate conjectures, and large additions (probably of his own inventing) had put it out more full, and adorned it with Notes f 1.60, which pains the impartial Reader will think it doth not de∣serve. The twenty fourth Epistle is dear to the Editors and Baronius, because the Pope therein is his own wit∣ness, that all Matters ought to be referred to his Apostoli∣cal See, and that the Africans application to him was a due Veneration, since all Episcopal Authority was derived from him g 1.61. 'Tis true, St. Augustine doth mention a Mes∣sage sent to Innocent out of Africa; but he adds that, he writ back according to what was just and becoming a Bi∣shop of an Apostolical See h 1.62. But as to this Epistle, be∣sides the hectoring language in the Preface, there is neither Style nor Arguments but what are despicable; and Erasmus did long since justly say, In this Epistle, there is neither Language nor Sense becoming so great a Prelate i 1.63; so that probably the whole may be a Ficti∣on of some Roman Sycophant, which is the more like∣ly, because Labbè owns that one of the Consuls names is wrong, that is, Junius is put for Palladius k 1.64: Erasmus adds, that the twenty fifth Epistle is of the same grain with the former l 1.65, the Style is no better, and the Mat∣ter of the same kind; for he brags that whenever Mat∣ters of Faith are examined, application must be made to the Apostollcal Fountain. And yet this Pope, as the Notes confess, held the Eucharist ought to be given to Infants, yea that it was necessary for them m 1.66, that is (I suppose) for their Salvation: Now the Council of Trent hath determined otherwise, so that the Roma∣nists must grant, this Pope erred even in defining things necessary to Salvation; unless they will allow the whole Epistle forged by some later hand, who (what∣ever Binius say to the contrary) hath dated it with the Consuls of the year after Innocent's death, according to

the best Chronologers. The twenty sixth Epistle (as the Notes confess) was writ to Aurelius, Augustine and three more eminent Bishops of Africa, by Pope Innocent, to clear himself from the suspicion of being a Favou∣rer and Protector of the Pelagian Heresie * 1.67; and by com∣putation also this proves the very year in which he died (according to most accounts). Now if in those days it had been believed (as it is now at Rome) that the Pope had been Infallible, and could not err in Matters of Faith, no Man durst have raised this suspicion, nor would any have regarded it; and Innocent's best way of vindication had been only to have told them he was Pope and sate in the Holy Infallible Chair; but now his labouring to clear himself by an Epistle, shews it was possible he might err. As to the Epistle it self, Erasmus saith, Innocent answers after his fashion, being fierce ra∣ther than learned, and more ready to condemn than instruct n 1.68; and whosoever reads it will find that to be a true Cha∣racter of this Epistle: To these is subjoined a Letter of St. Chrysostom's to Innocent, in Latin only in Binius o 1.69, but in both Greek and Latin in Labbè p 1.70. The Phrase of which is so polite, the Matter so pious and solid, that Gold doth not excel Lead, more than this genuine piece of the Golden-mouth'd Father doth all the for∣mer Epistles of the Pope, who (if he writ those De∣cretals) was far more below St. Chrysostom in Learning than he pretended to be above him in Dignity: I con∣fess the Editors would persuade us to think this Epistle was writ only to Innocent, and to him it is superscribed in Savil's Greek Edition, thus, To innocent Bishop of Rome * 1.71; but the Roman Parasites have added to this Title, To my most reverend and pious Lord; but this hath been lately invented, for [Domino meo] is not in the Title in Baronius q 1.72. And the Epistle it self seems plainly to have been written to many; for towards the end, he saith, Therefore my most venerable Lords, since you see these things are thus, use your utmost study and di∣ligence to repress this injustice that is broke into the Church r 1.73; and the Phrase doth every where suppose it was writ

to divers Western Bishops; and Baronius in the end of the Epistle hath these words, We have writ this also to Venerius Bishop of Milan, and to Chromatius Bishop of Aquileia s 1.74; Quibus verbis Rom. Episcopi primatum erigit, iisdem Venerij & Chromatij primatum erexisset * 1.75: so that since St. Chrysostom writ to all the eminent Bishops of Italy as well as to the Pope, it is unjustly done of Baronius, to say, That Chrysostom fled to his only refuge, viz. to the Roman Church, which he knew to be above all other Churches, and to have power to correct the ill-deeds of others t 1.76. There is one thing more remarkable in this Epistle, St. Chrysostom tells the Western Bishops, that being oppressed by Theophilus and his party, he appealed (not to the Pope, but) to a Synod; yea, Innocent himself saith, There was great need to have a Synod called for this cause of St. Chry∣sostoms u 1.77. So that neither did St. Chrysostom appeal to the Roman Church alone, nor durst Innocent take upon him to judge in this matter. As for those two Epistles of Innocent's, one to Chrysostom, and another to the Cler∣gy of Constantinople (which are certainly genuine, as being preserved in Sozomen w 1.78 and not derived from the Roman Mint); These two Epistles (I say) are in an humble Style, and so well written x 1.79 that they make all the former Decretals which come from Rome, justly to be suspected as forged and spurious. The se∣cond Epistle of Chrysostom's which follows these two, seems also to have been written to other Bishops as well as Innocent, for it runs generally in the plural number; but they who would have us believe the Pope alone did all the business of the Church, have falsified one place in it, where St. Chrysostom saith, ye have shewed your selves loving Fathers towards us: There the Latin is in Binius in the singular, Paternam ergo nos benevo∣lentiam declarasti y 1.80. But Labbè thought fit to mend this corruption, and reads it in the plural, declarastis, ye have declared z 1.81. But the grossest Forgery of all in this cause of St. Chrysostom are the Letters that are pre∣tended to pars between Innocent and the Emperor Ar∣cadius,

wherein first Innocent excommunicates Arcadius, and Eudoxia the Empress, for their injustice to St. Chry∣sostom a 1.82. And then the Emperor writes first one sub∣missive Letter b 1.83 to desire him to absolve them, to which the Pope consents c 1.84; yet after all this, Arca∣dius doth again write another Letter to excuse himself and tells the Pope, Eudoxia was very sick upon the grief for her fault d 1.85: And all these Letters are said to be writ after St. Chrysostom was dead. But that which discovers the cheat is, that all the ancient Histo∣rians do with one consent agree that Eudoxia the Em∣press was dead three years before St. Chrysostom, which is attosted by Socrates, Sozomen and Marcellinus e 1.86; and the same is affirmed by learned Modern Authors f 1.87. The first who affirmed the contrary was Georgius Alex∣andrinus, a fabulus Writer, who lived above 300 years after this time, and he was followed by Nicephorus, Glycer and Gonnadius g 1.88, which are all the Authorities Baronius can produce for these Forged Epistles; only he countenances them, true or false, because this is an in∣stance of a Pope who excommunicated an Emperor, and serves them for a good proof that the Roman Bi∣shop is above the greatest Princes: But Labbè spoils the Argument by noting the Margen, that Eudoxia died before St. Chrysostom h 1.89, and so these Letters are noto∣rious Forgeries. Before I leave this matter I must ob∣serve that Baronius his great design was to represent Pope Innocent as the chief, yea and almost sole Instrument in vindicating the injuries done to St. Chrysostom, and therefore he tells us, That Innocent would not communi∣cate with the Bishops of the East, unless they would put his name into the Tables; and he cites Theodores to prove this; but Theodoret's very words are, That the western Bishops would not communicate with them, but on that condition * 1.90. So when the Adversaries of St. Chrysostom (hearing that complaints of their proceedings were made among others to the Pope) sent some to give an account of what they had done, Baronius (without any proof) dreams of a sentence passed by Innocent to null what

they had done i 1.91; whereas it appears the same year, that Pope Innocent writ very frientlly to Theophilus the chief Agent in Chrysostom's condemnation, and held communion with him long after that unjust Fact k 1.92; so that there is no reason to brag of this Pope, as be∣ing the Judge and Patron of that glorious Confessor l 1.93. who alas, died in his exile, and (excepting good wishes) had no benefit by the Popes kindness: Yea, he was so far from being Judge, that he referred this Cause of St. Chrysostom's to the Judgment of a Synod m 1.94, as Baronius himself afterwards declares: So Theophilus of Alexandria also never did submit the Cause to Inno∣cent as Baronius pretends n 1.95, nor did he take him for the supreme Judge in it; but after all, retained his ob∣stinacy to his death: So that if we do allow Pope Inno∣cent to be right in his Judgment, yet he either had lit∣tle power or small courage to serve this great and good Man; and what he did for him was in conjunction with other Bishops, not by his single Authority. Inno∣cent's 31st. Epistle is directed to Theophilus (St. Chryso∣stom's mortal Enemy) the Patriach of Alexandria, wherein the Pope calls him Brother, and saith he held Communion both with him and with Chrysostom also, and wishes him to refer the Cause to a Synod, and there let it be tried according to the Nicene Canons o 1.96. Now Baronius from hence notes, that the Communion of the Roman Church was highly valued, and that all were to hold Communion with those who were in Com∣munion with Rome, and therefore they were to stick to the Communion of Chrysostom p 1.97: But the very words of the Epistle confute this Gloss; for such as followed the Popes example at that time, were to communicate both with Chrysostom and Theophilus And I must ob∣serve that Innocent's advising Theophilus to come to a Sy∣nod and let this Cause be tried there according to the Nicene Canons; this (I say) shews, That the Pope did not then pretend to find any thing in the Nicene Ca∣nons, for referring Causes by appeal to Rome; but his two next Successors (as shall be shewed presently) forged

such Canons soon after, and pretended they were made at Nice. After this follows a rescript of Honorius, pre∣tended to be writ to his Brother Arcadius q 1.98; wherein that Emperor saith, Chrysostom's was a cause concern∣ing the Bishops, which ought to have been determined in a General Council, and when either Party had sent Legates to the Bishop of Rome and those of Italy, a final Sentence was to be expected from the Authority of them all: But the Editors have forged a Title to this Letter, wherein they say, Episcopal Causes are to be tried by a Council of Bishops, and to be examined and determined by the Popes Authority: Where we see the forged Title expresly con∣tradicts the Letter it self; for that refers these Causes to a Council in the East with the consent of all the Bishops of Italy as well as the Pope; but this Title is designed to persuade us, that the Popes Authority was finally to determine all matters of this kind. The 32th 33th and 34th Epistles of Innocent have nothing in them worth noting, and if they be genuine, their mean Style and many Incongruities are no credit to the Author r 1.99.

After these Epistles Labbè publishes certain Canons sent from Rome to the Gallican Church, by some Pope or other; and because by Sirmondus his guess, it was In∣nocent, they are placed here s 1.100; there is nothing re∣markable in them, but the zeal of the Collector of these Canons to persuade the French to follow the pe∣culiar Customs of Rome.

§. 3. The Councils which the Editors place next, and with the Title of Councils under Innocent, were called indeed in his time, but neither by his Authority, nor so much as by his Advice: The first Council of Mile∣vis, * 1.101 said to be under Innocent, was (as the Notes confess) held under the Primacy of Xantippus t 1.102, and was held so soon after Anastasius his death, that probably these African Fathers had not yet heard of Innocent's Election, nor do the Acts of it mention any Pope: The Coun∣cil * 1.103 at the Oak, wherein Chrysostom was deposed, was called by, and held under Theophilus Bishop of Alexan∣dria,

wherein they proceeded to deprive an Eminent Patriarch without the knowledge or consent of the Pope; and had not the Articles been false and the Sentence unjust, it had never been revoked barely for wanting Innocent's approbation u 1.104. Labbè prints the Acts of this Synod which Binius had omitted w 1.105. About this time were frequent Synods held in Africa; the Years and Order of which being uncertain, the Editors have placed the Acts of them altogether x 1.106; and here we have only some Notes with the bare Titles: On which we will make some few remarks: First, they are all here said to be held under Innocent, but the Acts themselves intitle them to be held in such a year of the Emperor. Secondly, The Notes on the First African Council tell us of Legates sent to the Pope for obtaining some indul∣gence to the Donatists; which Legates being returned, they related in this Council, what they had obtained from Ana∣stasius y 1.107. Now this would make any one, who doth not consult the Acts themselves (printed on purpose in Pages far off) to think, the Pope was solely concerned in this matter, which is an invention of Baronius z 1.108. But if we look back into the former Council, we shall find these African Legates were sent in general to the parts beyond the Seas, and to Venerius Bishop of Milan as well as to Anastasius Bishop of Rome a 1.109. And Baronius him∣self in the year when these Legates were first sent, saith, they were to go first to Rome, and also to other transmarine Bishops b 1.110; and again, Letters being sent to Anastasius and other Bishops of Italy c 1.111. Now the African Fathers applying to all these Bishops as well as to the Pope, de∣clares they did not look on him as sufficient alone to de∣termine their Matters: Besides, they did not send to these Western Bishops to obtain indulgence (as the Notes out of Baronius falsly pretend); For they had decreed before to indulge them, only desired the Western Bi∣shops for the more credit, to give their Suffrages to this Fact; for so it would appear not to be only their sin∣gle Opinion. The Second African Council was not un∣der * 1.112 Innocent, as the Title pretends d 1.113, but under Aure∣lius,

as may be seen by the Acts; and after the message from the Italian Bishops, added to their own Authority, would not work on the obstinacy of the Donatists, they decree to send Legates to the Emperor Honorius to de∣sire him to suppress them, ordering these Legates to carry Letters of Communion to the Bishop of Rome, and other Bishops of those parts, and to receive other Let∣ters of Communion from them in Italy to testifie they * 1.114 were Catholicks: But a little after the Notes, turn this into receiving Letters of Communion only from the Pope e 1.115, and infer from thence, that none were Ca∣tholicks but such as were in Communion with the Bishop of Rome: Whereas they should have added, and with other Bishops of those parts; and then it had appeared, that this was no peculiar priviledge of any one See, but related to all Sees which then were filled with Ca∣tholick Bishops. I shall note only, that in these Notes the Emperor is stiled The Lord of the General Council f 1.116, which Title the Roman Parasites of late have robbed him of, and given it to the Popes.

The eighth Council of Africa petitions the Emperor * 1.117 Honorius to revoke that Edict, whereby he had granted liberty of Conscience to the Donatists; and the Notes out of Baronius make it so meritorious a thing to revoke this scandalous and mischievous Indulgence, that this made Honorius so blessed as to have Rome quitted by Alaricus three days after he had taken it g 1.118; but our English Romanists, when an Indulgence served their ends, counted it meritorious in that Prince who grant∣ed the Sects such an Indulgence here, for we must note that Things are good or evil just as they serve their in∣terest, or disserve it.

The Synod of Ptolemais in Egypt h 1.119, whereby Andro∣nicus, * 1.120 a Tyrannical Officer, was excommunicated; is strangely magnified by Baronius, saying, that Synesius Bishop of Ptolemais, knew that when he was made a Bishop, he was elected by God to give Laws to Princes: And a little after he tells us, He deposed Andronicus from his Tribunal; adding, that this shews how great the Power of Bishops was,

even to the deposing of evil Governors i 1.121. But after all, there is no more of this true, but only that Synesius gives notice to his neighbour Churches by circular Let∣ters that he had excommunicated Andronicus, who seems to have been a Military Officer in a little Egyptian Town, and was guilty of most horrid Cruelties and notorious Crimes k 1.122: But what is this to Kings and Princes? And the words which he cites out of Synesius 89th Epistle, which falsly translates, we have put him down from his Tribunal, are these, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. We have here taken him off from the Seat of Mourners; that is, Synesius tells Theo∣philus his Patriarch and Superior, that though he had justly put Andronicus among the Penitents, yet now up∣on his sorrow and repentance, they had there absolved him and taken him out of that sad station where the Penitents were wont to stand; and if Theophilus ap∣proved of this mercy shewed Andronicus, he should hope God might yet forgive him l 1.123. Now was not the Car∣dinal hard put to it for an instance of a Bishops depo∣sing a King, when he is forced to falsifie his Author, and use the words which express a restauration to the Communion of the Church, to prove a deposing from a Throne? It seems he could not or would not distinguish a Captain or petty Magistrate from a King; nor a Stool of Repentance from a Princes Throne: This it is to serve a Cause.

About this time was held that famous Conference at Carthage between the Catholicks and the Donatists. Seven Bishops of each side being chosen to dispute before Mar∣cellinus a Count sent by the Emperor to hear this Cause m 1.124. Now Baronius tells us that this Marcellinus was not called simply a Judge, but had the Title of Cog∣nitor, because it was not allowed to a Lay-man to act as a Judge in Ecclesiastical Matters n 1.125. But Cognitor is often used by the best Authors for a Judge, and cognos∣cere Causam, is, to hear a Cause; Dies Cognitionis, is, the day of Tryal: And which is more, the Emperors Edict calls him by the title of Judex; Our will is, you shall sit

in that Disputation in the principal place, as Judge o 1.126; and Baronius in the very page before cites St. Augustine speaking of Marcellinus by this Character, ipse Judex p 1.127. And as he moderated in the Disputation, so in the Conclu∣sion he pronounces the Sentence, and the Emperor con∣firms it q 1.128; which if the Pope had done in Person, or by his Legate, to be sure that had been ground enough to prove him the Universal and Infallible Judge in all Causes. This is certain, Honorius did judge in this Cause by his Legate Marcellinus, and Baronius (who use to quarrel at other Emperors for medling in these Cases) tells us God rewarded him for the pains he took about setling the True Religion r 1.129. But as to the Pope he was not concerned in this Famous Dispute; and which is very remarkable, though the Main Dispute be about the Catholick Church, and the Orthodox alledge the Churches beyond the Seas as being in Communion with them, and so prove them Catholicks; yet they do not once name the Roman Church apart, as if communi∣cating with that Church or its Bishop were any special evidence of their being Catholicks: Indeed they name Innocent once, but give him no other title but Bishop of Rome: Whereas if these African Fathers had believed the Pope to be the Supream Head of the Catholick Church, and that all of his Communion, and only such were Catholicks, this Dispute had been soon end∣ed, and they had nothing to prove to the Donatists, but their Communion with Pope Innocent. And I re∣member Baronius argues that Caecilianus, Bishop of Car∣thage, was a Catholick, because he had Communica∣tory Letters from the Church of Rome; but the place he cites to prove it out of St. Augustine is this, When he (that is, Caecilianus) saw himself in Communion with the Roman Church, (in which the eminence of an Apostolical See always flourished) and with other Countries from whence the Gospel came to Africa, &c. s 1.130. By which it is plain, that it was Communion with other Churches as well as Rome which proved Caecilianus a Catholick: And I know not where Baronius found another passage, which

he affirms was proved in this Conference, viz. That the first Head of the Church was demonstrated by the suc∣cession of the Roman Bishops to be in Peter's Chair t 1.131: For there is not one word to this purpose in that Confe∣rence which is printed by the Editors here: So that till better Authority be produced, this must stand for a devisable of the Annalists.

Nothing after this occurs which is remarkable, till * 1.132 the Council at Lidda or Diospolis in Palestina, wherein Pelagius imposed upon fourteen Bishops a pretended recantation of his Heretical Opinions, and was by them absolved u 1.133. Binius his Title of this Synod is, that it was under Innocent: But Labbè (fearing this might im∣ply the Popes consent to a Hereticks absolution) hath struck that out. However we have Baronius his word for it, that no Letters were written to the Pope from this Synod w 1.134, only some Lay-men brought him the Acts of it. And he, Good Man (not so cunning at finding out Hereticks as the African Bishops) confesses he could neither approve nor blame the Judgment of these Bishops of Palestina x 1.135. And Pelagius himself, though he could not finally deceive the Roman Church, yet he hoped he might gain the Pope to his party, and did attempt it; yea 'tis very probable he had succeed∣ed, if St. Augustin and other African Fathers had not instructed the Pope, and made him understand the danger of this Heresie: And (we have noted before) that Innocent's carriage in this matter rendred him sus∣pected to be a favourer of Pelagius y 1.136; upon which the Africans (not trusting to his Infallibility) writ very plainly to him: And after they had condemned Pelagius and Celestius in a Council of thirty seven Bi∣shops at Carthage, they writ another brisk Synodical Epistle to the Pope, telling him, that they intimated to him what they had done, that the Authority of the Apo∣stolical Seat might be added to their Decree, because his Eminent Place gave more weight to his Doctrine; and if he thought Pelagius was justly absolved, yet his Errors and Impieties ought to be Anathematized by the Authority of

the Apostolical See z 1.137. Now the reason of this Letter, was not so much for the confirmation of their Acts (as the Notes pretend) upon any single Priviledge belie∣ved to be in the Pope, as their Supream Head; be∣cause they call him by the Title of their Brother, both in the Title and the Letter; but because the Pelagians had reported he was their Friend, and a favourer of their Opinions; which Report did very much mischief because of the Eminence of his See, and therefore it concerned both the Pope for his own vindication, and them also, that he should wipe off this accusation: And it appears both by St. Augustine and Prosper, that at last Innocent did condemn this Heresie; but this Syno∣dical Epistle from Carthage, dated An. 416. shews that he had not condemned it before the last year of his life; for he died (according to Baronius) in July An. 417. So hard a thing was it for the African Fathers to get a pretended Infallible Judge to understand and cen∣sure a notorious Heresie. I might now leave this Head, but that I must first observe the confidence of Baronius, who from one word in a verse of Prosper's, will needs have Celestius a Disciple of Pelagius, to have been first condemned at Rome, after the antient manner, that a new Heresie should be first Examined and Condemned by the first Seat a 1.138. But when he should make this out, he owns that Pelagius and Celestius indeed were first condemned in Africa, but he tells us their Heresies were condemned long before at Rome in the person of Jovi∣nian: But if it were true that Jovinian had held all the Heresies of Pelagius (which is most false) then we must attribute no great sagacity to Innocent as to condemning Heresies, because 'tis plain he did not know these were the same Heresies that Jovinian had held, nor could he be brought to censure them, till above four year after.

The Second Council of Milevis consisted of sixty Bi∣shops, * 1.139 the Title is, under Pope Innocent b 1.140. But Ba∣ronius had told us before, that the same Aurelius, Bishop of Carthage, presided in the former Council of Milevis, and

in this also c 1.141; so that neither of them were under any Pope: The 22d Canon of this Council saith, that he who thinks to appeal to a Tribunal beyond the Sea, shall not be received into Communion by any in Africa d 1.142: Which is a clear prohibition of appeals to Rome; and therefore Gratian either found or made this notorious addition to it, unless they appeal to the See of Rome e 1.143, which is so gross a Forgery that Binius rejects it, and out of Bellar∣min expounds this passage only, of prohibiting the in∣feriour Clergy, Priests and Deacons, &c. to appeal beyond the Seas, i. e. to Rome; but he supposes that Bi∣shops in Africk still had liberty of appealing thither ac∣cording to the 17th Canon of Sardica: But to confute this false Gloss, let it be noted, That these African Fa∣thers profess in a following Council, that they had ne∣ver heard of any such Canon, or of this Sardican Sy∣nod, and so it is not likely they should be guided by it: Again, about ten years before upon a complaint to Innocent of some Bishops, who being censured in Africa, ran to Rome with Complaints, this very Pope had writ∣ten, that Bishops should not lightly go to the Parts beyond the Seas: And the Council in Africk confirmed that passage of the Popes Letter f 1.144. And since this would not restrain some Bishops here in this second Milevitan Council, they make a Decree, That Bishops Causes should be determined by Bishops, either such as the Primate (of Africk) should appoint, or such as the Parties chose by his consent g 1.145: And then they add this 22d Canon to con∣fine all appeals of the inferior Clergy also to an African Synod, or to their own Primate; and then add this Clause recited before, that those who appeal beyond the Seas, shall not be received to Communion by any in Africa: which certainly is the penalty relating to both Canons; because in their Letter a few years after written to Pope Celestine, they declare it is contrary to the Nicene Canons for the Pope to receive any into Communion by Appeal, who have been censured in their own Province, especially Bishops, adding, That his Holiness should (as became him) also forbid the wicked refuges of Priests and the

lower Clergy, &c. That is, not only the Appeals of Bi∣shops, but of Priests also h 1.146, which makes it as clear as the Sun, that these Fathers at Milevis absolutely forbad all Appeals to Rome. And they had great reason so to do, not only because it was their right to judge finally all Causes in their own Province: But because some Popes about this time had encouraged Hereticks and notori∣ous wicked Men, both Priests and Bishops who had fled from the just Censures of their own Church, and found a Sanctuary and Shelter at Rome: But of this more hereafter. This second Council of Milevis writ also to Pope Innocent about the Pelagian Heresie, to quicken him in providing some Remedies to prevent the spreading of that Infection, supposing the eminency of his place would add much weight to his Censures, if he would heartily appear against these Doctrines i 1.147. At the same time Aurelius and St. Augustin with three other eminent Bishops there, writ a private Letter to their Lord and Brother (as they call him) Pope Inno∣cent, on the same subject k 1.148; in which they deal very plainly with him, and give the reason why they writ so many Letters to him against this Heresie, because they had heard that in Rome (where the Heretick lived long) there were many who favoured him on divers grounds; some, because they say that you have been per∣suaded such things were true; but more because they do not think he holds those Opinions. And doubtless it was this Report which rouzed up the Pope at last to con∣demn the Pelagians, as may appear by our Notes upon his 26th Epistle, which is in Answer to this Epistle of the five Bishops: But that Answer, as also the Answers to the two Councils Letters were not till January An. 417. as Baronius and Binius themselves compute l 1.149, which was but six Months before Innocent's death; so long did this Pope remain under the suspicion of being a favourer of Pelagianism.

§. 4. Zosimus succeeded Innocent in his Chair, and in * 1.150 his partial affection for the Pelagians; his life as it is writ in the Pontifical, hath nothing in it that is re∣markable m 1.151, for his time was very short, but one Year, two Months and eleven Days according to the Pontifical, or One Year, four Months and seven Days as Binius in his Notes; though Labbè correct both him and Baronius, and says it was nine Months and nine Days above a year that he sat; and he follows Prosper (who then lived) in this Account, and therefore it is the most certain. As to his Acts, Baronius prepares his Reader for his entrance, by telling us out of the Pon∣tifical and Gennadius, That Innocent made a Decree for the Universal Church against the Pelagians; and Zosimus afterward promulged it n 1.152. But we shall see presently that he was very slow in publishing any Censures against these Hereticks: For though both Baronius and Binius would colour over the matter, yet Labbè very honestly confesseth, that Pope Zosimus was deceived by the Craft of Celestius, and he proves it out of St. Augustin o 1.153; and Marius Mercator a Writer of that very time (whose ad∣monition is printed in Labbè) owns that Zosimus was imposed on by this Heretick, till the African Fathers had better informed him in these matters p 1.154; so that the Church was rarely well provided of an Infallible Head in the mean time, who was only zealous to affect his Primacy, but had not sense enough to judge of Heresie till he was informed of it from better Di∣vines.

This Pope is said to have writ thirteen Epistles; The first by the want of a good Style and the barrenness of the Matter, may probably enough be genuine q 1.155, ha∣ving nothing worthy of note in it, except some imper∣tinent brags of the Authority of his See. The second Epistle is a declaration of some of the Roman Clergy excommunicated, who had fled to Ravenna to com∣plain of the Pope (a). Baronius and the Notes meerly * 1.156 guess these to be favourers of Pelagius; but it seems more

probable that they were Catholicks who disliked the Popes proceedings while he favoured Celestius, which it is certain he did, till the year 418. was well advanced (in which this Epistle is dated,) for he writ his fourth Epistle for those Hereticks, the 11th of the Kalends of October s 1.157, doubtless in the year after his third Epistle, which is dated An. 417. As to that third Epistle, Zo∣simus declares, that upon a solemn and judicial exami∣nation of Celestius (the Scholar of Pelagius) he found him clear of the Heresies with which he was charged in Africa, and cites his Accusers to come to Rome with∣in two Months, or he should be intirely restored to Communion t 1.158. At the same rate he talks in the fourth Epistle, pleading the Cause of both Pelagius and Celesti∣us, declaring them innocent, and representing Heros and Lazarus (two holy Bishops of France) as ill Men and false Accusers; railing at Timasius and Jacobus, who had been converted from this Heresie by St. Au∣gustin, as meer Calumniators, boasting all along that the Cause was by appeal referred to him, and magnifying the Authority of his Apostolical Seat u 1.159. With this Epistle also he sent into Africa Pelagius his Confession of Faith, which Zosimus took to be very Orthodox, and doubted not but the African Fathers would think his Faith to be unblameable; whereas in that whole Confession, there is not one clear acknowledgment of the absolute necessity of God's Grace, or of the neces∣sity of Infant Baptism to wash away Original Sin, which were the Main Errors that Pelagius was charged with w 1.160: So that we see a Pope, an Infallible Judge, either out of Ignorance or evil Principles, deceived both in Matters of Faith and of Fact, mistaking Here∣sie for Truth, condemning the Innocent and Orthodox, and absolving the most notorious Hereticks. Now let us enquire how Baronius and Binius bring him off: They say first, that Zosimus could not, if he would reject this Confession of Faith, because they said, if they had erred, they desired Zosimus to correct whatever he thought to be wrong x 1.161: And that they were ready in all things of

Faith to believe as the Pope believed y 1.162. Now this is no manner of Excuse, but rather an Aggravation, that after so fair an offer the Pope did not rectifie their Er∣rors; this shews either that he did not understand the Question, or that he was as much a Heretick as they, especially since he not only passed over their Errors, but commends them and pleads their Cause: Yea, Baronius himself saith, this Confession contained a manifest Error, and bad things in it far from the Catholick Faith z 1.163; yet still the Pope could not or would not see these Er∣rors in matters of Faith; so that here was a manifest failure in their pretended Infallibility, at a time when there was great need of it, to condemn a dangerous Heresie, which the Pope was so unacquainted with, that in his Third Epistle he calls these Disputes Ensuaring Questions, and Foolish Contentions, which rather destroyed than edified: I further add, that in Pelagius his Confession of Faith, which he pretended to be the Faith of the Roman Church; the Holy Ghost is said only to proceed from the Father, the Filioque is not added; and though the Popes of later times have condemned that omission as Here∣sie in the Greeks, Zosimus here passes by that also, and takes all for sound Doctrine.

Secondly, As to matter of Fact, Orosius and the Afri∣can Fathers, believed Heros and Lazarus to be holy Bi∣shops, and Orthodox Men; and Prosper (who might know them personally) testifies as much of Heros a 1.164: But Baronius and Binius say Celestius had belied them to Zosimus, and so excuse the Pope from blame: But if Celestius did raise these Scandals, Zosimus made them his own by believing and publishing them; and he who took upon him so much Authority as to judge a Cause, should not have espoused one of the Parties so far, as to take all they said of their Adversaries to be true: Yet thus this Pope dealt with Timasius and Jaco∣bus also. Like to this was his Judgment about Patro∣clus Bishop of Arles, and the Priviledges of that See; For (as Prosper informs us) Heros, an holy Man, Scho∣lar of St. Martin, though free from all Crimes, was ex∣pelled

out of his Bishoprick by the People, and Patroclus put in his place b 1.165, whom Baronius calls an Ʋsurper c 1.166: And when afterward he was slain, he saith, it was God's just judgment upon him to avenge his wickedness, who had invaded a worthy Mans See, and also disturbed the rights of his Neighbour Bishops d 1.167. But Zosimus in his fifth Epistle, makes him the Primate of all those parts of France, on pretence that Trophimus was sent from Rome, and was the first Bishop there, and that it was his anci∣ent right; and allows none to come from thence to Rome without Letters dimissory from this Patroclus e 1.168. And in the 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th Epistles, he still advances this ill Man, condemning Proculus Bishop of Marseilles, and all others who opposed Patroclus in his most unjust usurpations and encroachments: Yet Binius in his Notes confesseth, that both his next Successors, Boniface and Ce∣lestine did judge otherwise f 1.169; that is, they took away this Primacy from Patroclus, and censured him for his evil doings, giving the Priviledges to Hilary Bishop of Narbon, to whom of right they belonged g 1.170: So that here is Pope against Pope, and Decretal against De∣cretal; so odly do Causes go at Rome: But by Zosimus his 11th and 12th Epistles it doth appear, that the French Bishops despised the Popes Decrees, and that Proculus went on in exercising his Primacy for all his being prohibited h 1.171, which looks not favourably on the Roman Supremacy. As ill fortune had Pope Zosimus (who was always on the wrong side) in admitting the Appeal of Apiarius, an African Priest, who was excom∣municated by Urban his own Bishop for most horrid Crimes, which he afterwards confessed in an open Council (as we shall shortly shew;) yet Zosimus think∣ing it for the honour of his See to have Appeals made to it from Foreign Parts, admits this wicked Wretch to Communion, commands the African Synod to receive him, and threatens Ʋrban with an excommunication if he did not retract his Sentence: But the African Fathers for all this went on to judge Apiarius, as will be seen af∣terwards; for Zosimus died before this Cause was ended.

I have deferred the consideration of Zosimus his 10th * 1.172 Epistle to the last place, because it was the last he writ (that is now extant) in the Cause of Celestius, and because it was writ to the Council of Carthage now assembled: For the Pope after he had admitted Hereticks and evil Men to appeal to Rome, was resolved to justifie the Fact, and sent two Bishops, Faustinus and Potentinus, and two Priests, Philip and Asellus, his Legates into Africa, with false Copies of the Nicene Canons to prove he ought to be appealed to in all Causes from all Provinces; and probably by them (or some little time before) he sent this Tenth Epistle i 1.173, wherein he brags, that Tra∣dition and the Canons had given such great Authority to the Apostolical Seat, that none might presume to question its Decrees; with a great deal of such stuff about Christ's giving Peter the power to bind and loose, and the Canons giving this to his Successor, who was to have the care of all Churches; and that since he held this place, none might ex∣amine a Cause which he had determined, &c. Yet out of respect to the Africans (he saith) he had done nothing in the Cause of Celestius, till they had deliberated about it, and that this Cause was just in the same state as it lately was. I relate this more at large, because this unjust and ambitious Claim was the occasion of a famous Controversie that lasted many years after the death of Zosimus: But as to the Letter, the impertinency of it is very obvious; for though he assume this Authority, it is plain, that St. Cyprian of old, and the African Fa∣thers afterward, did not think it any presumption to confute the Decrees of Popes, and to examine Causes which had been ill judged at Rome. And in the Cause of Celestius, whom Zosimus would not yet be induced to condemn; the Council of Carthage (as Prosper relates) tell the Pope, That they had resolved to confirm Pope In∣nocent's Sentence against him, till he did openly confess the necessity of Grace k 1.174: And they went on with the judg∣ment against Apiarius, for all his Appeal to Rome, and his being absolved there; so that it is impudently done of the Roman Writers to go about to prove the Supre∣macy

from a Popes evidence in his own Cause; yea, from a Claim which was denied and despised at the same time that it was made. Another note I make on this Epistle is, that it is dated but the 12th of the Ka. of April, and Zosimus died in January following; so that it is plain, that he had not condemned Pelagius and Celestius nine Months before he died. And though by those passages which Labbè hath published out of St. Augustine and Prosper l 1.175, it be certain he did cen∣sure this Heresie at last; yet it could not be long be∣fore his death, and therefore Zosimus was a manifest fa∣vourer of Hereticks, almost all the time he was Pope; and he may thank the African Fathers for his Repen∣tance; who (though they were abused and injured by him) hide as much as may be all his ill deeds in favour of Celestius, and for the credit of Zosimus and the Ca∣tholick Cause, only publish his latest Acts, after he was by them convinced that Pelagianism was an Heresie: But Celestius and his party openly exclaimed against Zosimus for a Turncoat m 1.176.

The same year was that Council in Africa, which the Editors intitle under Zosimus n 1.177, but really was against him: For without regarding his suspending the Cause of Celestius, they particularly condemned all the points of the Pelagian Heresie by Anathema's, and or∣der all Causes between Bishops to be tried in the Pro∣vince where they arise, and renew the Canon of Mi∣levis; that the Priests and inferior Clergy should be tried by their own Bishops; and whoever should ap∣peal to the parts beyond the Seas, should not be recei∣ved into Communion by any in Africa o 1.178: So that we see the African Church persisted in maintaining their Rights, and condemning Appeals, as they had very good reason, considering the bold attempt of Zosimus, to usurp a jurisdiction over them; and his erroneous judging such Causes both of Faith and Manners as he had presumed to meddle in; which hapning in other Provinces, he broke the Canons of the ancient Coun∣cils, by pretending to examine and decide them else∣where;

forgetting that which Gratian had collected out of his own seventh Epistle, and gives us here for Zosimus his Decree p 1.179, viz. That the Authority of the Roman See it self cannot make any new Order, nor alter old ones against the Statutes of the Fathers: So Gratian reads it, and so Aeneas Sylvius cites it q 1.180; so also the Editors publish it here; but some forging hand in the seventh Epistle hath put concedere instead of condere, for fear this Sentence should take away from the Pope the power of making New Canons contrary to the Fathers Decrees; a Priviledge, of which Rome hath made more use than any Church in the World. This Pope's time is concluded with a forged African Council at Telepte, wherein it is pretended they only read the fourth Epi∣stle of Siricius, and thence the Notes and Baronius ga∣ther that the African Church shewed great respect to the See of Rome r 1.181. But first Labbè confessed before, that this Epistle of Siricius was forged s 1.182: And Secondly the Story is ill timed; for the African Church had never less reason to respect the Popes than now, when they so manifestly robbed them both of their Rights and their Peace also: Wherefore it is not probable that a Council should meet there at this time, only to read an Epistle which was invented long after.

§. 5. Upon the Death of Zosimus, there were two * 1.183 Popes chosen, Boniface and Eulalius, and the Pontifi∣cal fairly tells us, the Clergy were divided for seven Months and fifteen days, and that both of them acted as Popes. This Schism being notified to the Emperor by Symmachus, the Prefect of the City, he cites both the Pretenders to Ravenna, and appoints divers Bishops to examine into the Cause; but they not being able to agree whether had the better Title, the Emperor defers the business till the Kalends of May, and for∣bids both Parties to enter into Rome, till a Council had met at Rome to determine this Controversie. But Eu∣lalius (who before stood fairer of the two) impatient of this delay, contrary to the Emperors Command,

on the fifteenth of the Kalends of April goes into the City, and causes great Factions there: Upon which 250 Bi∣shops met by the Emperors Order, execute his Com∣mands, and declare Enlalius to be no Pope, setting up Boniface s 1.184. Upon which passage I shall observe, First, That the Notes make but a vacancy of two days be∣tween Zosimus and Boniface; and Baronius saith it was not vacant above one day t 1.185. Whereas it is plain from the Emperors Letters, dated three or four Months after, that neither of them was reckoned to be Pope; and he writes to the African Bishops, that he would have the Council meet by the Ides of June, that the Pa∣pacy might be no longer void u 1.186; so that in truth the See was vacant till the Emperor had judged it on Bo∣niface his side. Baronius doth not like it should be said that the Emperor had any right to interpose in the Election of a Pope; but Symmachus, the Praefect of Rome, saith expresly to Honorius, it is your part to give judgment in this Matter w 1.187; and the Emperor did at first by his single Authority declare Eulalius to be right∣ly chosen x 1.188: But upon better information he revokes that Rescript, and Commands that neither Party should have any advantage by what was past, but all should be reserved intirely to his judgment y 1.189: And though he employed a Synod of Bishops to examine the Matter, yet it appears in Baronius, that the Emperors Edict was that which gave the Papacy to Boniface z 1.190: Which will appear more plainly by the first Epistle of Boni∣face, and Honorius his Answer to it.

For after this Pope was in peaceable possession, fear∣ing the like mischief after his death, which had hap∣ned at his entrance, he writes an humble Supplication to the Emperor to take care of this matter for the fu∣ture: And the Emperor writes back to Boniface, de∣claring, That if ever two should contend about the Papacy, and be Ordained, neither of them should be Pope, but he who by a new Election should be taken out of the Clergy by the Emperors judgment, and the Peoples consent a 1.191. This writing of the Popes among the Councils, hath

this Title, The Supplication of Pope Boniface: But Baro∣nius thinking that too mean, fraudulently leaves out the Title b 1.192; though the Humility of the Style sufficiently shews that the Pope believed that the Emperor was above him; and whereas Boniface there calls the Church Our Mother, as the Margin in Binius rightly reads it c 1.193. Baronius will have it to be your Mother; and Labbè leaves out the Marginal and true Reading d 1.194; for it seems they think it below the Pope (though not the Empe∣ror) to be a Son of the Church. If the second Epistle of Boniface be genuine, it shews that when Complaints were made to Rome out of the near adjoining Provin∣ces, the Popes (even after they had given too much encouragement to Appeals) were wont to refer the matters complained of, to be examined and decided by the Bishops of those Provinces where the Fact was done e 1.195. But the Notes conclude from hence, that the accusation of Bishops use to be referred to the Pope * 1.196; which is an universal Conclusion from Premises that will not bear it. The third Epistle of Boniface contradicts all those which were writ before by Zosimus, in favour of Patroclus, Bishop of Arles; for Boniface forbids Patro∣clus to exercise the Power granted him by the last Pope, and decrees that Hilary, Bishop of Narbon shall be Me∣tropolitan † 1.197; and if he judged right, then Zosimus judg∣ed wrong in this Cause. For this Pope the Editors pub∣lish six Decrees, one of which orders the differences among Bishops to be decided by the Metropolitan; or however by the Primate of that Country; from whose determination there was to be no Appeal f 1.198. The fourth Decree is certainly spurious, because it not only forbids a Bishop to be brought before any Judge Civil or Military for any Crime, but declares the Magistrate who presumes to do this, shall lose his Girdle, that is, be put out of his Office. Now doubtless it was not in the Popes power to give or take away Civil or Mili∣tary Offices: So that this hath been invented meerly by those who affected the Popes being supreme over Kings and Emperors, and would have the Clergy ex∣empt

from all Secular Jurisdiction. As to the Pelagian Controversie, he writ nothing about it himself; but we are told by Prosper, that Boniface desired St. Augustine to answer the Books of the Pelagians g 1.199, and he shewed his Wisdom in putting the Cause into a better hand than his own.

We must now return to the business of the Legates sent into Africa by Pope Zosimus, a little before his death, who appeared in the sixth Council at Carthage, not till the time of this Pope Boniface, in order to justi∣fie the Roman Churches Right to receive Appeals from all Churches. The Title indeed falsly saith this Coun∣cil was held about the manner of prosecuting Appeals h 1.200; but it is plain that the African Fathers questioned the right of appealing, and had condemned before, all Appeals to any Church beyond the Seas. In this Council the Popes Legates produce a Canon, which they say was made at Nice, importing, That if a Bishop were condemned in his own Country, and appealed to Rome, the Pope might write to the neighbouring Bishops to enquire again into the matter, and decide it; but if all this did not satisfie the Complainant, the Pope might either send his Legates, with his Authority to judge it there with the Bishops, or leave it finally to those of that Country as he pleased i 1.201. Now this Canon was no sooner read, but Alypius, one of the Afri∣can Bishops, declared he could not find any such Ca∣non in the Greek Copies of the Nicene Council, and desired Aurelius, who presided in the Council (though the Popes Legates were there) to send to the three other most famous Patriarchal Churches of Constantinople, Alexandria and Antioch, to search their Copies of the Nicene Council; and that the Pope might be desired to send some thither also at the same time; which mo∣tion was so fair, and so certain a way to find out the truth, that the Legates yielded to it, as they did also to have another Canon examined, whether it were in the Nicene Council or no, about the Appeals of the lower Clergy: After which they resolve to annex a genuine Transcript of the Nicene Creed and Canons, to

the Acts of their Synod, which concluded with a Let∣ter to Boniface; which the Editors had no mind to pub∣lish in this place, but give it us elsewhere i 1.202. The Sum of it is, they tell their honourable Brother, that hearing he was in Zosimus place, they had writ to him about Apiarius, who had now confessed his Faults be∣fore them, and begged pardon, and was removed from officiating in his old Church, but allowed to keep his Degree. Then for the two Canons pretended to be made at Nice, they say, they had inserted them in their Acts till the true Copies of the Nicene Council came; but if they were not found there, they would not be compelled to endure such things as they had no mind to mention, nor to suffer such intollerable burdens; but they hoped while he was Pope, they should not be used with such Insolence or Pride, but that they should be dealt with by brotherly Charity; adding, that they had sent a Copy of their Acts by two of his Legates, who might make them known to his Holiness. This is the true, though brief account of this Famous Coun∣cil, wherein the Roman Church was discovered to aim at Superiority, and a usurped Jurisdiction, and to pra∣ctise it to the prejudice of the Faith, and the Rights of other Churches. Moreover, it was here discovered, that Rome, to cover this injustice and irregularity, had corrupted the Canons of the most famous of all Gene∣neral Councils, and cited such Canons out of it, as ne∣ver were made there. And now to wipe off this scan∣dal, Binius and Baronius stickle vehemently, and try all their Art to get St. Peter's Ship off from these Rocks. The former publishes long Notes k 1.203; the latter falls from writing History to dispute l 1.204: But all in vain; for Bi∣nius after he hath falsly told us, that it was the Anti∣ent Custom for Bishops and Priests to appeal to Rome, and for the Africans to desire their Sentences to be confirmed by the Pope; Confesses, that the Popes Legates cited the Canons of Sardica under the name of those of Nice, and that they were not to be found in the Originals of the Council of Nice, kept in the other Patriarchal

Sees: But then he pretends the African Bishops did not (as we do) charge Zosimus with fraud and forgery. I answer, that how modestly soever they might speak of this Fact, it really was a notorius Imposture, and it was sufficient that they proved it to be so, and writ plainly to both Boniface and Celestine (as the Letters yet extant shew) that they would never endure that usur∣ped Power any more, which the Popes by virtue of these feigned Canons had exercised: And if rejecting Appeals to Rome be making a Schism, 'tis certain the Africans did not suffer them so long as the face of a Church remained there; so that probably that Epistle of Boniface the second, writ to Eulalius near an hun∣dred years after, may be true, and had not been cen∣sured by Baronius and Binius, but only because it suppo∣ses a Church might have Martyrs in it and be a true Church, though it utterly disowned all subordination to Rome: And I am sure they justifie many Epistles that are less probable, if they make for the interest of the Pope. Against this, Baronius and the Notes Ob∣ject, that there was an Appeal made by an African Bi∣shop of Fussala, who for notorious Crimes was put out of his See by St. Augustine and others; and it seems Boniface and Celestine both allowed this Appeal, and heard his Cause; and this, these Flatterers of Rome think hapned at this time by the Providence of God m 1.205. But let it be considered, that for so notorious a Crimi∣nal as this Bishop to appeal at this time, is neither any credit to the Pope, nor any proof that there were no African Canons at this time to prohibit it; for it is likely enough, that an ill Man, who had no means to shelter himself from the Justice of his own Country, but by appealing to those Popes, who at that time pre∣tended a Right to receive such Complaints, would use that means of Appeal, even though it were condem∣ned in Africa. So that his appealing doth not prove it was lawful, nor that it was not forbid there: Be∣sides, though St. Augustine writ modestly, yet he inti∣mates no more, but that some such Sentences as he

had passed on this Bishop of Fussala, had been passed or approved by the Popes; which only prove in Fact, that some African Bishops had before this time appeal∣ed, but he doth not say it was right; yea, we see the Councils, in which he was present, condemning it as an usurpation and great injustice, ex malis moribus bonae Leges. The thing had been practised till the Popes fostering Hereticks, and lewd convicted Criminals opened the Eyes of the African Church, and made them prohibit them, and claim their antient Rights. Again, upon St. Augustine's Letter it appears, the Pope did not proceed to restore this Bishop; and it seems when former Popes had taken upon them to restore ejected Bishops, they were forced to do it by strong hand, even by sending Clerks with Soldiers to execute the Sentence, which shews their Authority was not submitted to in Africa: And the Bishops in their Let∣ter to Celestin••, boldly charge him never to send any such again; for if they should submit to such proceed∣ings, they should be guilty of bringing Secular Vio∣lence into the Church of God. The Notes go on to charge us Protestants for ignorantly and treacherously insulting over Zosimus, as one that attempted to steal a Power to receive Appeals from Africa. Whereas the African Bishops themselves prove the Fact: And in the second Part I have produced a very antient Scholi∣on n 1.206, which expresly censures these Popes for Impo∣sture as well as Usurpation; and I now add, that Zona∣ras above 400 year before the Reformation saith in his Notes upon the Sardican Council, That the Bishops of Old Rome, from this Canon, boasted a right to Appeals from Bishops in all Causes, and falsly said it was made in the first Council of Nice; which being propounded in the Council of Carthage, was found not to be true, as the Preface to that Council shows. So that neither was this Ca∣non made at Nice, nor doth it decree that Appeals shall be made to him from all Bishops, but only from those who were subject to him, which at that time were almost all those of the West, that is, Macedon, Thessaly, Illiricum, Greece,

Peloponesus and Epirus, which afterwards were subjected to the Church of Constantinople; so that Appeals from thence were to be made to that Patriarch for the future o 1.207. Where∣fore we are not the first, who charged the Popes with Usurpation and Imposture both in this Case: But the flattering Notes go on and tell us, that if the Contro∣versy had been about the Right of Appeals, and not a∣bout the manner of appealing, the Popes Legates would have cited the 4th and 5th Canons of Sardica, which treat of the Right of Appeals, and not the 7th which treats only of the manner of prosecuting them: Now this is an open Falshood; for the first Canon the Lega∣tes cite is in the best Edition of the Sardican Canons, the fifth, and is about the Right of Bishops to ap∣peal p 1.208. And the second they cite is the 14th Canon, and it is about the Appeals of Priests and Deacons q 1.209; so that neither of the Canons cited is about the manner of prosecuting Appeals; and the latter which the Notes call the 7th Canon of Sardica doth not mention Rome.

They proceed to tell us there were 217 Bishops first and last subscribed to this Council, being a great Provin∣cial Council, which shews how unanimous the Afri∣cans were in condemning the Popes Usurpation: As to the Popes Legates, the Notes grant they did not pre∣side there; and truly it was not fit they should, when their own Cause was to be examined, and Rome was the criminal Church here to be tried. Again, The Note (k) impudently calls the fifth Canon of Sardica by the name of the seventh Canon, and pretends the Africans did not like the latter way of prosecuting Ap∣peals; That is, by the Popes sending Legates into Af∣rick to hear these Causes, but allowed him to delegate them upon an Appeal to rehear the Appellant: Where∣as the Council doth expresly reject the whole Canon as a Forgery, and forbid all Appeals to the parts beyond the Seas, so that this is only defending one Lie by ano∣ther, and cleansing a Blot with blotted fingers.

The next Note (l) gravely tells us, that the words Sardican Council, were falsly put into the Text of this Council, because the Legates professed these Canons were made at Nice, and because the African Fathers say they knew of no Sardican Council, which had al∣lowed of the Popes sending Legates, &c. r 1.210 Now all this pains might have been spared; for these words (Sardican Council) are only in a corrupt Latin Edition, but the Greek and Latin Copy which is the best, hath no such words at all. But we may note here very just∣ly, That these Popes were strangely insolent to cite two Canons of a poor obscure Council, never heard of in Africa, no not by the learned S. Austin (as the Notes confess,) and daringly fix these Canons upon the most famous general Council that ever was, especially since the Nicene Council doth expresly charge s 1.211, That e∣very Bishops sentence shall stand good in his own Pro∣vince; so that he who is Excommunicated by some shall not be received by others. Now the pretended Canon allows the Pope to receive any person Excom∣municated by the Bishops of his own Province: So that it expresly contradicts the Canons of the Nicene Coun∣cil; and yet the Popes confidently said it was made there: Had the African Fathers believed them and sub∣mitted, no doubt these two Canons, and perhaps all the rest of that petty Synod had been imposed upon the World for genuin Canons of the Nicene Council, by the Roman Church, whose Emissaries have forged no less than 60 new Canons, and published them under the name of that famous Council. Before I leave this sub∣ject, I must note, that Baronius and Binius who here confess these two Canons were made at Sardica, do in the Notes on the Nicene Council, impudently cite them, to prove there were more than twenty Canons made at Nice, of which number they say were the Canons about Appeals, produced in the sixth Council of Carthage t 1.212. Baronius hath one trick more, For he saith the Council of Sardica was a General Council, as well as that at Nice, and of as great Authority, and so it was

all one, which Council the Popes cited u 1.213. I have dispro∣ved this before, and only note here, that if the Afri∣can Fathers had believed this, doubtless they would not have put themselves to so great cost and trouble, to send to three foreign and remote Churches to search out the Truth: I must add, that the Bishops assembled at Carthage, thought the Nicene Canons so considerable, that they annex a Copy of them to their Acts, where∣in this is remarkable, That the sixth Canon is cited without that forged Preface, which the Roman Wri∣ters of late would make a part of the Canon it self, viz. The Roman Church hath always had the Primacy. No such words appear in this African Copy w 1.214; wherefore we may conclude, they have been invented since by some of the Popes Creatures.

§. 6. Celestine succeeded Boniface, yet so as the Notes * 1.215 confess the Faction of Eulalius would not communicate with him: However, he seems to have been very Or∣thodox as to the Pelagian Controversy, though Lau∣rentius Valla truly censures him for one of no great Learn∣ing; the Style of his Epistles shewing he was no ac∣curate Latinist; and in his own Epistle to Nestorius, yet extant in the Ephesine Council, he confesses he un∣derstood no Greek x 1.216: So that whatever he did a∣gainst Pelagius or Nestorius, was done at the request and by the direction of Men more learned than him∣self: However it was well, that this Pope was so wil∣ling to assist S. Cyril against Nestorius, and Prosper, with others, against the Pelagians; for his See being eminent, his appearing on the Orthodox side gave great countenance to their Cause, and promoted the Condemnation of those Hereticks, which the Notes and Baronius so extremely magnify y 1.217 as if he was the first who condemned them; and that it was solely his Authority which suppressed them, the falshood of which we shall shew presently. The Pontifical saith, He ordered the Psalms to be sung by way of Antiphon by all, before the Sacrifice: But if he first brought in this

kind of singing them at Rome, we are sure they had been sung so long before, both in the East and at Milan; and it seems it is no disparagement for the holy Roman See to follow other Churches.

The first Epistle of Celestine, hath a great many Se∣ctions added to it in Binius, which are a Collection made by Prosper, or some Eminent Writer against the Pelagians z 1.218. But Labbè prints the Epistle by it self, and then prints the Collections apart: However it is thought Celestine approved them, and so they are cited by divers Ancients under his name a 1.219: But if we compare the Matter or the Style of those Additi∣ons with the former part, which is Celestine's genuin work, it will easily be discovered, that the Popes Au∣thority was far more considerable than his Learning: And if any Man wonder why this Collector is so care∣ful, to set down the Decrees of the Roman Church a∣gainst this Heresy b 1.220, the reason is plainly expres∣sed, viz. That some secret Favourers of Pelagius, (con∣sidering the kindness he and his followers had found at Rome) professed they would stand by the Decrees of that Church.

His second Epistle hath nothing memorable in it, but that the Pope thinks the affairs of the Province of Narbon, to be things far remote c 1.221; which shews they had not then usually intermedled with the concerns of all the Churches in the World. A little after he saith, we of the Clergy ought to be distinguished from the Laity, by our Doctrin, not by our Garments; by our Conver∣sation, not by our Habit; by our purity of Mind, not our Dress: Which looks as if he would abrogate wholly the distinct Habits of the Clergy, and persuade them and the Laity to go alike: Which gross notion the Notes labour to cover as well as they can, by preten∣ding he for bids only new Fashions of Habit to the Clergy: But if it were so, this would reflect upon the various Habits of every several Order of Monks. And yet if we look well upon the Text, he positively dis∣likes all Habits which may distinguish the Clergy from

the Laity, which now adays Protestants account a Fanatical Opinion.

Most of the following Epistles are printed in the Council of Ephesus, and shall there be considered: It suffices to observe here, That the 9th Epistle to the Emperor Theodosius d 1.222 owns that Arcadius and Proje∣ctus were to represent his Person in the Council of Ephesus, which the Emperor had Commanded to be held: Therefore Cyril did not represent Pope Celestine; and not the Pope, but the Emperor called that Coun∣cil.

The 10th Epistle affirms, that the care which Kings take in the matters of Religion is not ineffectual e 1.223; which shews, that Baronius had no reason to be so se∣vere upon all those Princes who medled with Religi∣ous Affairs. Out of the 12th Epistle to Theodosius we may note, that Atticus late Bishop of Constantinople is said to be of most reverend Memory, and a most couragious defender of the Catholick Faith f 1.224: And in Celestine's E∣pistle to Nestorius, Atticus of blessed memory, a Teacher of the Catholick Faith g 1.225. But this very Bishop had a long contest with the Bishops of Rome, and was Excommuni∣cated by Pope Innocent h 1.226; and he on the otherside va∣lued this so little, that he Excommunicated those who were in Communion with Rome; and calls Paulinus and Evagrius and their adherents (among which was the Pope) by no gentler a name than that of Schismaticks i 1.227. So that how Orthodox so-ever he might be in any o∣ther things, 'tis plain, he did not believe the Roman Church Infallible, nor think it was necessary to be in Communion with it: And though he erred (as they now believe at Rome) in so main a Point; yet while he was at open Enmity with the Pope, Baronius tells us he wrought a Miracle k 1.228; so that a Man would think, Miracles are no proof of the true Church: Another passage in this Epistle is Memorable, viz. That Cele∣stine saith, Nestorius was Excommunicated by the general sentence of the Bishops: Which the Reader must remem∣ber, when the flattering Notes any where say, the

Sentence against this Heretick was solely the Act of Ce∣lestine. And indeed Baronius having recited his 11th, 12th, 13th and 14th Epistles, boasts of him, as if God had raised him up to stand in the gap against those Hereticks which then infested the Church, and gives him all the Glory of the Victory over them l 1.229. Where∣as, if Prosper and Cyril had writ no better against Pela∣gius and Nestorius than Celestine, it is to be feared that these Heresies had not been censured in that Age. Yet in the main he was a good Pope, and had the fortune to take the right side in these Controversies, and there∣fore is highly commended by divers of the Orthodox; and he is very free in returning the Complements: For in his last Epistle he calls Cyril an Apostolical Man m 1.230; and Maximtanus of Constantinople he styles his Colleague. And this may suffice for this Popes Epi∣stles.

We are entertained next with another Collection of African Councils, held, as they say, under Pope Boni∣face and Celestine n 1.231; but the Titles mention no Pope at all; nor were they called by any Pope, but by the Bishop of Carthage, who presided in them, even when the Popes Legates were present: We have taken no∣tice of most of these before, and therefore shall pass them over very briefly. In one of them they resolve to send a Legate to their holy Brethren and fellow Bishops, Anastasius of Rome, and Vencrius of Milan, putting them so equally into the Scale, that the Pope is only first named o 1.232. A little after Aurelius, Bishop of Carthage saith, That he by God's appointment sustained the care of all the Churches: The Margin tells us he means in Afri∣ca p 1.233; but I must note, that if a Pope had said so in this Age, though he could mean no more than the Churches of the Suburbicarian Regions, these Gen∣tlemen would have stretched that to all the World. Another Council in the twelfth Consulship of Honorius, and the eighth of Theodosius, had a Canon in some anci∣ent Copy, wherein these Fathers. Anathematize them that hold any middle place between Heaven and Hell, to

which unbaptized Infants go; and they expresly declare, that whoever is deprived of the Right Hand, must fall in∣to the Left; and that no Catholick doubts but he is with the Devil who is not a Coheir with Christ q 1.234. Now this looks so foul upon Limbus Infantum and Purgatory, the later Inventions of Rome, that their Parasites have left this Canon out in other Copies of this Council r 1.235: And here it is printed in a different Character, as if it were no genuine piece of the Council, only because it con∣demns the modern Opinion of the Roman Church; but the impartial Reader will conclude, that the Ancient Copy of this Canon was elder than either Purgatory or Limbus Infantum.

Here also the Editors print at large the two famous Epistles of the African Bishops, to two Popes succes∣sively, Boniface and Celestine, wherein they do utterly condemn Appeals to Rome, and discover the forgery of those pretended Nicene Canons, by which their Le∣gates attempted to justifie them. I have given an ac∣count of the former of these Letters in the Life of Bo∣niface. And I shall add here, that the latter Epistle to their honourable Brother Celestine (writ some years af∣ter) shews the Africans continued still in the same mind s 1.236; for therein they acquaint him that they had called a Council; and though Apiarius alledged the Privi∣ledge of the Roman Church which had received him un∣lawfully to Communion, they examined his Cause, and at last he confessed his notorious Crimes: Wherefore they ear∣nestly desire the Pope not so easily to receive Complaints from thence, nor admit those to his Communion whom they had excommunicated; for they shew that the Nicene Council forbids this, both as to Bishops, Presbyters and Lay-men, without any derogation to the priviledge of the African Church, committing all the Clergy to their own Metropoli∣tan, and wisely ordering every business to be determined in that Province where it arose, knowing that the Spirit of God would not be wanting to any Country, where a Council of Bishops should meet; so that none need fear to be injured,

since they might appeal to a greater Council of their own Province, or to a Universal Synod: Whereas if Judgment were to be given beyond the Seas, many Witnesses must be wanting, and many other things must hinder the finding out of truth. They add,—That they could not find any Coun∣cil which allowed his Holiness to send any Legates to hear Causes; and for those Canons which Faustinus had produ∣ced, as made at Nice, they could find no such Canons in the Authentick Copies of that Council. Finally, They bid him not send any of his Clerks to execute his Sentence, to which if they should submit, they should seem to bring the vanity of Secular Arrogance into God's Church. This is the Sum of this excellent Letter, which disowns and condemns all Appeals, and renounces the Popes juris∣diction over Africa, with a modest intimation, that his claim was grounded upon a notorious Forgery, and therefore he is required to pretend to it no longer, for that they will not submit to such an Usurpation. Yet such is the Impudence of the Roman Editors, that in a Marginal Note upon this Epistle t 1.237, they say these African Bishops desire the Pope, to appoint another way of prosecuting Appeals: Which is a gross contradicting the Text it self, wherein all manner of Appeals, and all ways of prosecuting them are utterly condemned; but this was too harsh, and therefore the Truth was to be daubed over with this plausible Fiction.

After this Binius presents us with another Edition of these African Canons and Epistles, in Latin and Greek u 1.238. And Labbè newly publishes the Epistle of one Leporius, who had been converted from Heresie, and reconciled to the Church by the African Bishops w 1.239, by which we may learn, that a Heretick need not go to Rome to recant, as the Notes formerly affirmed. There is nothing further observable before the Coun∣cil of Ephesus, except two Councils, one at Rome, where∣in the Pope is said to make Cyril his Legate in the Cause of Nestorius; the other at Alexandria, in which Cyril is pretended to Act by this delegated power x 1.240.

But this will be more properly considered in the Hi∣story of that General Council, where these Epistles are printed at large.

CHAP. II.

Of the time from the Council of Ephesus till the Council of Chalcedon.

§. 1. IN this Year was held the Third General Council at Ephesus, upon the account of Ne∣storius, * 1.241 who about three years before had been made Bishop of Constantinople, and was at first believed to be both Pious and Orthodox; but he had not sat long in that See, before he began to publish certain Do∣ctrines about our Saviour, which gave great offence; for he taught that Jesus Christ was two Persons, one as the Son of God, another as the Son of Man; and therefore he denied the Blessed. Virgin to be the Mo∣ther of God, holding that the Person which was born of her, was no more than a Meer Man: Which Opini∣ons, not only made a Faction at Constantinople, but caused Divisions among the Egyptian Monks; where∣upon St. Cyril first writ a Confutation of them to those Monks, and then with great modesty admonished Ne∣storius of these Errors, by divers Letters; but he despi∣sed his Admonition, justified the Doctrines, and perse∣cuted those who would not own them, being support∣ed by his Interest in the Imperial Court. Upon this, Cyril called in Pope Celestine to his assistance, sending him an account of what he had writ to Nestorius: On the other side, Nestorius also writ to Celestrine, and

sent his Sermons in which these Doctrines were contain∣ed, for him to peruse. The Pope by the advice of such Western Bishops as he could then get together, takes the part of Cyril, and offered him to join with him in condemning Nestorius, if he did not recant: But the Authority of these two Patriarchs of Rome and Alexan∣dria, not sufficing to condemn a Patriarch of Constanti∣nople, it was thought fit to desire the Emperor to call a General Council at Ephesus, where Nestorius might appear, and his Opinions be examined; and the Em∣peror at length did agree to this Request. Now that which we are to observe concerning this General Coun∣cil, shall be under these Heads. First, To enquire by whom it was called and convened. Secondly, Who pre∣sided in it. Thirdly, What is memorable in the Acts of it. Fourthly, Who confirmed the Decrees there made.

As to the first, the Historical Preface, before this Council, labours to persuade us, That Celestine com∣manded the Council to be called a 1.242; and the Notes after it say, it was appointed by the Authority of Gele∣stine, and gathered together by the counsel, aid and assi∣stance of Theodosius the Emperor b 1.243. The Cardinal goes further, and saith Theodosius called it by the Autho∣rity of Celestine c 1.244; but when this is to be proved, both the Notes and Baronius are content to make out, that this Council was not called without the Popes consent; which may be proved concerning every Orthodox Bi∣shop that was there; and so gives no peculiar advan∣tage to the Bishop of Rome. But as to the Convening it by his Authority, nothing can be more false: For by the Emperors first Letter to Cyril, it appears that some then thought to order Matters of Religion by Power, rather than by consulting in common d 1.245; in which words he reflects upon Pope Celestine and Cyril, who thought, by the Au∣thority of their Private Synods at Rome and Alexandria, to have condemned Nestorius, who was a Patriarch as well as they; and therefore the Emperor rightly con∣sidered, that he could not be tried but by a General

Council: So that it seems Celestine, at first, had no mind such a Council should be called, nor Cyril neither; but when they saw their Authority was insufficient, then Cyril put the Monks of Constantinople upon petitioning the Emperor to command a General Council to meet very speedily (as their words are) e 1.246; and the same Cyril put Juvenalis, Bishop of Jerusalem, upon writing to the Emperor for the same purpose f 1.247. Now why should not these Applications have been made to the Pope, if the Council were to be called by his Authority? Be∣sides, if Celestine had called it, his Letter of Summons would appear; but though none ever saw that, the Em∣perors Edict is yet extant, wherein he fixes the day and place for the Council to meet, enjoyns Cyril, with the Bishops of his Province, to be there at that time, and tells him he had writ to all other Metropolitans (pro∣bably to Celestine among the rest) to attend the Synod, and not to meddle with this Matter, till the meeting of this General Assembly, from which whoever absent∣ed himself, should not be excused g 1.248. Which is as full a proof that the Emperor called it by his Authority, as is possible to be made; and we need add nothing to it but this, that the Synod it self every where declares it was called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, by the Emperors Decree h 1.249, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, by his Will i 1.250, and Summoned by his Letter k 1.251; yea, the Pope himself saith, I have obeyed your Pleasure as far as I was able, and I do appear in the Council which you have commanded, by those I have sent in my stead l 1.252. And when these Legates came to Ephesus, they say, we are come to the Synod which hath been appointed by the most Christian and Gracious Emperors m 1.253. So that it is a strange impudence of Baronius and Binius, in despite of so clear evidence, to pretend this Council was conve∣ned only by the Advice and Ministry of Theodosius, but by the Authority of Pope Celestine.

Secondly, The like prevarication they use about the President of this General Council, for Bellarmine had made it a Maxim, That in General Councils it was the Popes priviledge to preside by himself or his Legates, and

to moderate all as Supream Judge n 1.254: Wherefore the Preface to the Council saith, Cyril was to preside by the command of Celestine, and the Authority of the Apostolick See o 1.255; and the Notes say, The Pope presided there by Cyril, who had the Office of his Legate p 1.256: And a little after they produce all the Historians who writ after Evagrius (An. Dom. 595.); and because he saith Ce∣lestine had given Cyril his place, they conclude thence, that he was President of the Council by virtue of that Grant: But indeed the first place belonged to Cyril as Patriarch of Alexandria, in his own Right, because the Bishop of Rome was absent, and he of Constantinople was the Criminal to be tried; yet Celestine had cun∣ningly given him that which was his due without any gift; for in his Letter to him long before the Council was called (when the Synod at Rome had condemned Nestorius) Celestine saith, he might take to him both the Authority of his Throne, and the Order of his Place q 1.257; which signifies no more, than that Cyril might vote in Celestine's Name, and add the Credit of the First Patri∣arch to his own Authority, to make the Sentence a∣gainst Nestorius the more Venerable. And the begin∣ning of the Acts distinguish Cyril's precedency from his holding Celestine's place (if they be rightly pointed,) * 1.258 Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria, presiding, and [having] the place of Celestine, &c. And so Zonaras understood it, who saith, Cyril of Alexandria presided, and also had the place of Celestine; thus also Balsamon s 1.259. So that it seems Cyril was President of the Council, either by choice of the Fathers, or in his own Right, as the Chief Patriach present; and he also voted in the place of Celestine who was absent; and probably by virtue of that Representation also, sate above all the other Patriarchs. However this is certain, that the Bishop of Ephesus, Memnon, who had no delegation from the Pope, is also reckoned President of the Synod; and he, together with St. Cyril, are often called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, even thrice in one Epistle t 1.260. And again, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 u 1.261; yea, these two are called, the Head of the Council w 1.262: And

all this without any mention of their having these Titles, or this Power from the Pope. Moreover, we may observe, that Cyril alone is sometimes called the President of this Council x 1.263; and the Party of John, Bishop of Antioch, charges him with usurping this place, which was not given him by the Canons or the Emperor's Edict; (they valued not, it seems, the Popes Grant y 1.264; so that this Title is variously applied, and no Argument can be formed from it for the Popes Supremacy; who also sent three other Legates to this Synod, to represent his Person, and supply his Place, as Celestine's own Letter declares z 1.265: Yea, the Coun∣cil it self declares, that these three Legates, Arcadius, Projectus and Philip did supply Celestin's place a 1.266. Now it is not easie to understand how Cyril should be the Popes Legate and supply his Place, and yet at the same time three other Legates need to be sent also to supply the same place, unless we expound this Grant of the Popes to Cyril, to signifie no more than a declaration, that he would agree to all that Cyril voted for, which is far from making him a formal Legate, or for giving him that Authority which he had in this Council. We conclude therefore, that Cyril, as the first Patri∣arch present, and the most learned of all that opposed Nestorius * 1.267, and Memnon as Bishop of Ephesus, where the Council was held, were chosen Moderators by the Synod: Nor is it likely that the Popes making these his Legates (if that were true, which Baronius only sup∣poses, but doth not prove) b 1.268, would have given them any Power over the Council, since Arcadius, Pro∣jectus and Philip, who really were the Popes Legates, did not preside, nor are they reckoned up in the first place, no not in the Subscriptions, which yet are not certainly genuine c 1.269. And when the Council sent two of these Legates among others on an Embassie to Constantinople, they lay their Commands on them, and threaten, if they do not observe their Orders, they would neither confirm their Acts, nor yet receive them into Communion d 1.270: Which shews the Council was

superior even to the Popes Legates; and that their re∣presenting the Popes person, did not intitle them to any Power over the Council, which is that the Roman Pa∣rasites would make out. Richerius exposes Baronius for saying Philip had a place before the Bishops, because he was a Cardinal * 1.271. The first Seat and Vote there∣fore belonged to Cyril, but Christ (as these Fathers say properly) was the Head of this General Coun∣cil e 1.272, and was represented by the Holy Gospels, placed above all, on a Throne, out of which all decisions were made, not by any Humane Authority, either of Cyril or Celestine himself.

Thirdly, We shall next examine into the proceedings of this Council, and see where the Editors have pre∣varicated therein for the interest of Rome, as also what else therein is pertinent to our purpose. Now these are, First those things which hapned before; and, Se∣condly in the Council. First, Before the Council in Cyril's Letter to Nestorius, he tells him, that Celestine and the Bishops assembled at Rome, had advised him to enquire whether those Papers were writ by Nestorius or no f 1.273. This they all falsly translate, Celestino ju∣benté, &c. as if the Pope had a Power to command Cy∣ril; whereas the Original Word imports no more than an intimation given him to make this enquiry; and that not by the Pope alone, but by the whole Roman Synod. Again, since this Controversie began between two Patriarchs, Cyril was so modest, that he would not by his own single Authority Anathematize Nesto∣rius, till he had acquainted the Bishops both of the East and West with it; yet he declares he had power to have done this if he pleased g 1.274. Now his forbearing to do this out of Prudence and Humility, is by the Roman Editors, in their Preface and Notes, ascribed most falsly to his want of Power and Authority. Thirdly, In the Protestation of the Clergy of Constantinople, they prove themselves Orthodox, because they held the same Faith with the Church of Antioch; and that which was held by Eustathius, Bishop there, in the time of the

Nicene Council, making no mention of Rome at all h 1.275. And though now the Faith of the Roman Church is pretended to be the sole Infallible Rule of what is Or∣thodox, it was not thought so then: For Pope Cele∣stine himself saith Nestorius is to be condemned, unless he profess the Faith of the Roman and the Alexandrian Churches, and that which the Catholick Church held i 1.276: And the Pope repeats this in his Epistle to Nestorius k 1.277; and in that to John, Bishop of Antioch l 1.278: So that the Roman Church was then only a part of the Catholick Church as that of Alexandria was; had it then been (as now it is said to be) the same with the Catholick Church, the Pope was guilty in three several Epistles of a no∣torious Tautology; for according to the modern Style) it had been enough to have said Nestorius must profess he held the Faith of the Roman Catholick Church. So when Cyril had informed John of Antioch, that the Roman Synod had condemned Nestorius, and writ to him, to the Bishop of Thessalonica, to those of Mace∣don, and to him of Jerusalem to joyn in this Sentence, Cyril adds, that he of Antioch must comply with this De∣cree, unless he would be deprived of the Communion of the whole Western Church, and of these other Great Men m 1.279. This passage the Preface cites to prove that Cyril made use of the Popes Authority as his Chief Weapon in this Cause n 1.280; but it is plain he doth not so much as men∣tion the Pope, or the Roman Church alone, nor doth he urge the danger of losing the Communion of that Church, singly considered, but of all the Western Churches, and divers eminent ones in the East; and it was the Popes agreeing with all these that made his Communion so valuable. Fourthly, as to the Titles of these Epistles, which were writ before the Council, we may observe, that Nestorius writes to Celestine as to his Brother, and saith he would converse with him, as one Brother use to do with another o 1.281; which shews, that as Patriarchs, they were upon equal ground. 'Tis true Cy∣ril (who was as eminent for his Modesty as his Learn∣ing) calls Celestine by the Title of his Lord p 1.282, from

which the Romanists would draw conclusions for their Supremacy; but we note, that in the same Epistle he calls John of Antioch also his Lord, beloved Brother and Fellow-minister q 1.283, which very words Cyril uses when he speaks of Celestine in his Epistle to Juvenal, Bishop of Jerusalem, calling the Pope there, his Lord, most Religious Brother and Fellow-minister r 1.284; yea, such was the Humility of those Primitive Bishops, that they frequently stiled their Equals and Inferiors their Lords; so Cyril calls Acacius Bishop of Beraea s 1.285: So John, Bi∣shop of Antioch, calls Nestorius, his Lord t 1.286, and the same Title in the same Epistle he bestows upon Arche∣laus, Bishop of Mindus, a small City u 1.287. And of this we might give many more instances, but these may suffice to expose those vain Arguers, who from some such Titles bestowed on the Roman Bishop, think to establish his Universal Supremacy. Fifthly, Among all these pre∣liminary Epistles, there are none meaner, both for Style and Sense, than those of Pope Celestine; yet Ba∣ronius brags of that to Nestorius, as the Principal Thing which confuted him, calling it a Divine Epi∣stle w 1.288. But alas it is infinitely short of Cyril's Letters; the Phrase is very ordinary, the Periods intricate, the Arguments such as might have been used against any Heretick, and his Application of the Holy Texts very odd; as when the Church of Constantinople discovered Nestorius to be a Heretick, he saith, he may use St. Paul's words, we know not what to pray for as we ought x 1.289. However there is one remarkable Passage in it (a little after) where he saith, Those things which the Apostles have fully and plainly declared to us, ought neither to be augmented nor diminished. Had his Successors observed this Rule, a great part of their Trent Articles had never been established: And it had been well if the Editors had not in that very Page left out by design, one of Celestine's own words. For he threatens Nestorius, that if after this third Admonition he did not amend, he should be utterly excommunicated (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) by his Synod, and by a

Council of all Christians. Here they leave out (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉), and translate it ab Universitate Collegii & conventu Chri∣stianorum y 1.290; as if the Pope alone had power to se∣parate a Patriarch from the Communion of the Uni∣versal Church; whereas even when the Western Bi∣shops joyned with him, St. Cyril notes, that those who submitted not to their Decree, would only lose the Communion of the Western Church z 1.291: And if this Sentence were confirmed in the East too, then indeed Nestorius and his party, as Celestine intimates, would be cast out of the Universal Church. Sixthly, In Cyril's Letter to Nestorius, there is this remarkable Saying, That Peter and John were (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) of equal Dignity, as they were both Apostles and Holy Disciples a 1.292; which shews (for all the brags of the Popes Legate in the Coun∣cil, that Peter was the Head of the Faith, and of the Apostles) b 1.293; they did not believe there was any dif∣ference as to Power and Dignity among the Apostles, and that saying must pass for a piece of Flattery, and is not to be regarded, because it comes from a Creature of the Popes, and one of his own House, who by the Canons was no lawful evidence c 1.294. Seventhly, In the Emperor's Commission to Candidianus, one of his great Officers, who was to preside in the Council, we may see, the Emperor gives him power to appoint what Causes and Questions shall be first treated of, and to forbid any pecuniary or criminal Causes to be tried there d 1.295; which shews that the Emperor reserved the Power of managing and ordering the Synod, to himself, and made a Lay-man his representative for that pur∣pose.

Secondly, As to the Passages in the Council, if the Preface and the Names before the Acts, be genuine (of which there is some doubt), we may note, that it is there declared, the Council met by the Emperors Command, and that Cyril is mentioned first, both in his own Right, as the chief Patriarch present, and as he had the pre∣cedence due to Celestine, here called Arch-Bishop of the Roman Church (a Title given to Cyril afterwards) whose

Legate he is no where said to be, but only to have his place e 1.296; that is, to sit first as the Pope would have done had he been there. Moreover, it is remarkable, that the Council begins without the Popes Legates, who did not come till the three Sessions of the first Act was over. But there is one notorious falshood both in the Notes and in Baronius, which they devise purely in favour of the Pope, and to make him seem to have had some Supremacy in this Council: For they say, that in the very first Action, Peter, a Priest of Alexandria, did read that which Pope Celestine and Cyril writ against Nesto∣rius f 1.297. Whereas the Acts of the Council shew the contrary, namely, that though Peter did say he had those Epistles of Celestine and Cyril in his hands, yet the Council ordered, that the Emperors Edict, by which they were convened, should be read in the first place g 1.298, and it was read accordingly: Binius, by false translating the Acts saith, Peter offered to read these Epistles first; but Labbè honestly alters that cor∣rupt Version, and saith only, he had them in his hands to do with them as the Synod pleased: But we see the Sy∣nod did not allow them to be read in the first place; and afterwards when these Epistles were called for, Cyril's Epistle to Nestorius was first read and approved by the whole Synod to be Orthodox, not because it was agreeable to the opinion of Celestine (whom they do not once name), but because it was conformable to the Council of Nice h 1.299: Yea the whole Council had confirmed the Faith of Cyril, and unanimously con∣demned Nestorius before they called upon the Notary to read the Epistle of Celestine Arch-Bishop of Rome i 1.300: So that the matters contained in that Popes Epistle, could neither be the sole nor principal Motive to the Council to condemn Nestorius. For after the reading this Epistle, they also read other Writings of Cyril up∣on this Subject, and then heard the Opinions of the Ancient Doctors, Martyrs and Orthodox Fathers reci∣ted; as also a Collection of the Blasphemies contained in Nestorius his Works, and the Epistle of Capreolus,

Bishop of Carthage, declaring his consent to their pro∣ceedings: After all which they both pronounce and subscribe the solemn Sentence of deposing and excom∣municating Nestorius, according to the Canons, and agreeable to the Decree mentioned in the Letter of Ce∣lestine, but the Sentence was passed in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, the true and supream President of this Assembly k 1.301: And all this was done before Arcadi∣us, Projectus and Philip, the Popes Legates, came to Ephesus, and yet their absence was never objected by Nestorius, as if that had invalidated these Acts. Fur∣ther, we may observe that an Oath was given in this Council only upon the Holy Gospels (according to the Protestant usage) l 1.302, not upon any relicts of the Saints, as the practice is now at Rome. In the second Action, both Baronlus and Binius add a word to the Text, and make the Popes Legate call the Pope when he speaks to the Synod [vestrum Caput] your Head m 1.303; and Baronius bids the Reader observe, that Philip the Popes Legate in open Synod professed the Bishop of Rome was the Head of the Càtholick Church, and other Bishops, members under this Head: But first, this word [vestrum] is forged by Baronius and Binius, the Greek having no more than [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] and Labbè hath been so much ashamed of this addition, that he leaves out [vestro] n 1.304; and the sense of the place is, that upon the Councils Acclamations by way of approving Ce∣lestines Letter as Orthodox, Philip gives them thanks, that by their Holy Voices, they as Holy Members had agreed to an Holy Head; he doth not say to their Holy Head, yet if he had, the whole Synod, and the three Legates particularly in a solemn Relation to the Emperor, call Cyril the Head of the Bishops here assembled o 1.305; but he would be ridiculous who should thence infer That Cyril was the perpetual Head of the whole Catholick Church; yet we may more justly prove that from an Act of the whole Council, than Baronius doth the Popes Supremacy, from a Rhodomontado of his own Legate, who barely said this, the Council neither approving nor disap∣proving

* 1.306 of what he said in favour of his own Bishop. And no doubt the Orthodox Patriarchs might any of them properly be called by this Title of an Head: For Cyril, yea Memnon, Bishop of Ephesus, are so stiled in the Councils Petition to the Emperor, to set them at liberty, lest the Synod want an Head, and all the Bishops of the World lie under an heavy burden of grief for want of their Presidents p 1.307. So that it is plain by these Titles, in those days, no more was meant, than that the Bi∣shops to whom they are applied had some eminent place in the Church, and in this General Council; not that all, or any one who is called an Head, had, or ought to have any supream standing Jurisdiction in all times over the whole Catholick Church. So when the Council calls Alexandria the greater Seat q 1.308, and Jeru∣salem is called an Apostolical Church r 1.309, and Pope Cele∣stine stiles Cyril an Apostolical Man s 1.310; none of those Churches did ever draw any consequences from these passages, that their Bishops were Supream Judges over the whole Catholick Church; that absurdity is peculiar to the Parasites of Rome, who make this Inference from every Honourable Title, that is, any where, or upon any occasion, by way of Complement, or seri∣ously bestowed upon the Pope; but since others had the same Titles given them upon Occasion, it is plain there is no good ground for such Conclusions. It is further memorable, that when John, Patriarch of An∣tioch, would have usurped a Jurisdiction over the Bi∣shops of Cyprus, the Council of Ephesus decreed, that no Bishop should have, or assume any Power over those Provin∣ces which had not been under him or his Predecessors before that time t 1.311; which Decree plainly condemns the Bi∣shop of Rome usurping a Jurisdiction over this Island of Britain since the Ephesine Council, because it was not under any of the Popes, either then, or of many years after. Finally, we may note, that John, Patriarch of Antioch, being secretly a favourer of Nestorius, would not joyn with Cyril or Celestine in condemning him, but held a separate Council with such Bishops as were of

his party, and there they Excommunicated and De∣posed Cyril and Memnon with all that joyned with them. On the other side, the lawful general Council Excom∣municated John of Antioch and his accomplices; and afterwards upon his Repentance Cyril declares, he re∣stored him to Communion upon the terms prescribed by the true Council of Ephesus u 1.312. Now if the Pope of Rome had then been known and believed to be the supreme head of the Catholick Church, and the only infallible Judge in matters of Faith; how could the Bishop of Antioch so much as pretend to Condemn that side on which Celestine was, or to reject that Council wherein his Le∣gates sat and voted against him? Or how came the Pious Emperor Theodosius, and his Officers so openly and so long to abet the party of John of Antioch, against that of Celestine and Cyril? There needed but two Arguments, viz. those of the Popes Infallibility and Supremacy, to have confounded all the pretences of this Schismatical Council, and they are not so much as once mentioned; Which is a certain Evidence, that neither side knew of, or believed these Papal Privi∣ledges, usurped in later times by that encroaching See.

Fourthly, I come to consider the confirmation of the Acts of this general Council: And this the Preface as∣cribes intirely to the Pope w 1.313, and so do the Notes after the Council upon the word [Approved] x 1.314, and so doth Baronius in several places: But all this is without any just ground; For the Preface saith, he sent his Legates to confirm the Acts of the Council in his name, and cites for this these words out of Celestine's Letter sent to the Synod by these Legates: And what you derce••, shall be accounted, defined and determined for the tranquility of all Churches y 1.315. But no such words are in that Epistle, the Pope saying no more, but only that he had sent these Persons to be present at their Acts, and to confirm what he had long since decreed * 1.316; To which he hoped their Holiness would assent, because they knew that which

was determined, was for the peace of all Churches z 1.317. The sense of which is, that Celestine having long before Condemned Nestorius at Rome, he sent his Legates to the general Council to get that Sentence confirmed, and doubted not of their assent to it, since this casting out of Nestorius (the disturber of the Churches quiet) would tend to the Peace of the whole Church: So that this passage proves, that the Council was to con∣firm the Popes Decree, not that he was to confirm their Acts: And the Synod in their Letter to Pope Ce∣lestine do expresly say, That they had judged his Sentence against the Pelagians should remain firm and be valid, &c. adding that they had sent him the Acts of the Synod and the Subscriptions, that he might know what was done a 1.318. But there is not one word desiring him to confirm their Decrees: But as to the Emperors, the case is clear; For the Synod and the three Legates of the Pope address to them, to Command that what this General Council had done against Nestorius might be in force, being confirmed by their consent and approbation b 1.319. And they Petition the Emperors to make null and void the false Synods un∣canonical proceedings against Cyril and Memnon c 1.320. And in another Relation to the Emperors, they put both these requests together d 1.321: And Sozomen saith in ex∣press terms, that the Emperor by his suffrage confir∣med their Acts e 1.322: Yea these Testimonies are so ex∣press, that Binius himself in his Notes at last grants, That the Emperor dimissed the Bishops, adding this Decree, that the Sentence of this Holy General Council against Ne∣storius should stand in full force f 1.323. So that nothing but the prodigious partiality of Baronius and Binius for the Popes supremacy could put them upon invent∣ing so groundless a Story, as that of the Popes con∣firming the Decrees of this Council; which he did no otherwise than all other eminent Orthodox Bishops, that is, by consenting to their Acts, and applauding them afterwards.

§. 2. Some other scattered passages there are which we will briefly put together here before we conclude this discourse. The Preface boasts much of the words of Firmus Bishop of Caesarea, and cites them thus, that the Synod had followed that which Celestine had prescri∣bed, and being compelled by his Authority had passed Sen∣tence on Nestorius and his Opinion g 1.324; and a little after, Firmus his words are otherwise cited in the same Pre∣face, viz. That Celestine had prescribed a certain Rule for this business, which the Council following, observing dili∣gently the form of the Canons, they had inflicted the Cano∣nical and Apostolical Judgment † 1.325 upon him h 1.326; and hence they infer, that the Pope had commanded the Eastern Bishops, to Decree over again and execute his Sentence a∣gainst Nestorius i 1.327; Yea Baronius is so bold as to affirm. That Celestine sent his Legates, not to subject the Cause of Nestorius to a new Examination, but only to see his Sentence Executed; and that neither did he allow the Council any more than only to Execute his Decree; nor did this general Council Arrogate any thing to it self, but to Act according to his Sentence k 1.328. According to which account, this Council of Ephesus was a mear mock Assembly, and all these Bishops no more than Officers under the Pope, to put his Decrees in Execution. But that this is most notoriously false appears; first, from their false citing of the words of Firmus, who truly quoted saith thus. The Apostolical seat of Celestine formerly gave his suffrage, and set a Pattern in this business l 1.329. And a little after, which we also following—have put in force that Form, decreeing both a Canonical and Apostolical judgment against him: The sense of which is this; That whereas the Pope in his Roman Synod had condemned Nestorius unless he repented in ten days, this general Council approving of that Sentence, had upon Nestorius his refusal to appear after divers admonitions, condemned him also: So that he was now not only censured by one Apostolical See, but canonically also by all the Bishops of a general Council: And that this is the

Sense, is evident from the words of the Synod it self in the Preface to the Sentence by them pronounced, being convinced by divers proof, that Nestorius holds im∣pious Opinions, we are forced by the Canons and the Epistle of Celestine our Fellow-Minister, even with Tears to come to this severe Sentence against him, &c. m 1.330 We see they name the Canons first, and before Celestine's Epi∣stle, as laying an obligation upon them so to proceed; and they call the Pope their Fellow-Minister; nor was it his Authority, but his having proceeded according to the Canons, that laid the necessity upon this great Council to follow his Example, and imitate the Pat∣tern he had set them. For nothing is plainer, than that the Council did always intend to examin this Cause over again; and for that reason they cited Nestorius, and read first the Letters of Cyril and then of Celestine; and after a full hearing both of the Fathers Opinions, and of the Blasphemies collected out of Nestorius his Writings, finding him finally obstinate, they pronounce Sentence on him, not in the Popes name, but thus, Our Lord Jesus Christ, whom he hath Blasphemed, by this Holy Council Decrees, that Nestorius shall be deprived of his Episcopal dignity, and shall be excluded out of the Com∣munion of Bishops n 1.331. This certainly was an Original Decree, in the name of the General Council, and by the Authority they derived from Christ, by which they gave force and validity to the Sentence formerly pronounced by the Pope and his Roman Council; which had signified nothing (against his Equal, a Pa∣triarch of the Eastern Church, over whom he had no jurisdiction) if it had not been thus confirmed: So that it is a strange extravagance to talk, as if a whole general Council in that Age were convened to no o∣ther end, but only to execute the Popes Decree blindly, without any enquiry into the merits of the Cause. And Celestine's own Letter (cited by Baronius to make out this Fiction) declares he believes, the Spirit of God was present with the Council o 1.332, of which there had been no need, if all their business had been only to

execute a Sentence passed before: There is also great prevarication used by the Cardinal and Binius, about the case of John B. of Antioch, one of the Patriarchs summoned to this Council: This John was Nestorius his old Friend, for they had both been bred in the Church of Antioch; and he having (as Baronius relates) re∣ceived Letters both from Celestine and Cyril, (before the general Council was called,) importing that Nestorius was Condemned both at Rome and Alexandira, if he did not recant within ten days; writes to Nestorius to perswade him for peace sake to yield, telling him what trouble was like to befal him, after these Letters were published p 1.333: Here Baronius puts into the Text these Letters, that is, of the Pope of Rome: As if the Pope were the sole Judge in this matter, and his Au∣thority alone to be feared; whereas the Epistle it self tells Nestorius, he had received many Letters, one from Celestine, and all the rest from Cyril q 1.334. So that this Parenthesis contradicts the Text, and was designed to deceive the Reader. But to go on with the History, though Nestorius would not submit to John upon this Admonition, yet he had no mind to condemn him; and therefore he came late to Ephesus, after the Coun∣cil was assembled, and when he was come would not appear nor joyn with the Bishops there, but with a party of his own held an opposite Synod, and con∣demned Cyril and Memnon with the rest, as unjustly proceeding against Nestorius, and by false Suggestions to the Emperor, he procured both Cyril and Memnon to be Imprisoned. Now among others in the Ortho∣dox Council, who resented these illegal Acts * 1.335, Juve∣nalis Bishop of Jerusalem saith, That John of Antioch ought to have appeared and purged himself, considering the Holy, Great and General Council, and the Apostolical seat of old Rome therein represented, and that he ought to obey and reverence the Apostolical and Holy Church of Jerusalem; by which especially, according to Apostolical Order and Tradi∣tion, the Church of Antioch was to be directed and judg∣ed r 1.336; alluding no doubt to that passage Acts xv.

where the Errors arising at Antioch, were rectified and condemned in the Council at Jerusalem. But Baronius falsly cites these words of Juvenalis, as if he had said, John ought to have appeared at least, because of the Lega∣tes sent from Rome; especially since by Apostolical Order and ancient Tradition, it was become a custom, that the See of Antioch should always be directed and judged by that of Rome s 1.337. And Binus (in his Notes) transcribes this Sentence as Baronius had perverted, mangled and falsified it t 1.338. Which Forgery being so easily confu∣ted by looking back into the Acts of the Council, and so apparently devised to support the Papal Supremacy, is enough to shew how little these Writers are to be trusted, when fictions or lying will serve the ends of their darling Church. After this the Preface-tells us, that though John still continued obstinate, the Synod referred the deposing of him to the Popes pleasure u 1.339; as if they had done nothing in this matter themselves. But the Councils Letter to Celestine says, That though they might justly proceed against him, with all the severity he had used against Cyril; yet resolving to overcome his rashness with moderation, they referred that to Celestine's judgment; but in the mean time, they had Excommunicated him and his party, and deprived them of all Episcopal power, so that they could hurt none by their Censures w 1.340. Therefore the Council both Excommunicated and deprived him by their own Authority, and only left it to the Pope, whe∣ther any greater severity should be used against him or no: 'Tis true not only the Pope x 1.341, but the Em∣peror y 1.342 afterwards moved, that means should be used to reconcile this Bishop and his Party to the Ca∣tholick Church, by suspending this Sentence a while, and procuring a meeting between Cyril and John: But still it must not be denied, both that the Council cen∣sured him their own Authority; and that Cyril with∣out any leave from the Pope, did upon John's condem∣ning Nestorius, receive him into the Communion of the Catholick Church z 1.343. Yet because Sixtus the Succes∣sor of Pope Celestine, among other Bishops was certi∣fied

of this, thence the Notes and Baronius infer, that this reconciliation also was by the Authority of the See of Rome: Whereas Cyril's own Letter shews, that the Terms of admitting John, to Communion, were pre∣scribed by the Council and the Emperor, and that Cyril alone effected this great work.

We may further observe, Binius in his Notes tells us, that after the condemnation of Nestorius, the Fathers shouted forth the praise of Celestine, who had censured him be∣fore a 1.344. And Baronius saith, the Acclamations followed the condemning of Nestorius, in which they wonderfully praised Celestine, as the Synodal Letter to the Emperor testifies b 1.345. By which a Man would think, that Ce∣lestine had the only Glory of this Action. But if we look into the first Act of the Council, there are no Acclamations expressed there at all after the condem∣nation of Nestorius; and the Synodical Letter to the Emperor, cited by Baronius, hath no more, but [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] viz. that they praised Celestine, which imports only their commending his Sentence; whereas in that first Act every one of the Bishops present, makes a particular Encomium in the praise of Cyril's Faith, as being in all things agreeing to the Nicene Creed, which fills up at least forty pages together in Labbe's Edition c 1.346. As for the Acclamations, they are in the second Act, and in them Cyril is equally praised with Celestine; for the Fathers say, To Celestine, another Paul; to Cyril, another Paul; to Celestine, keeper of the Faith; to Celestine, agreeing with the Synod; to Cele∣stine, the whole Synod gives thanks; one Celestine, one Cyril, one Faith of the Synod, one Faith of the whole World d 1.347. This was just after the reading of Cele∣stine's Letter, brought by his Legates to the Council; yet we see even when the occasion led them only to speak of the Pope, the Fathers joyn Cyril with him, knowing that Celestine's Sentence, as well as his In∣formation, was owing intirely to Cyril's Learning and Zeal.

Moreover we have another touch of their sincerity about the Virgin Mary; For Baronius calls the people of Ephesus The Virgins Clients, Subjects and Worshippers, ad∣ding,—That as they had once cried out, great is Diana, so now being converted, they set out Mary the Mother of God with high and incessant Praises, and persevered to venerate her with a more willing Service, and to address to her by a more solemn Worship e 1.348. By which one would imagin, that in the time of this Council, and ever since, the Blessed Virgin had been worshipped as she is now at Rome; but there is not one word of this true, except only that she was there declared to be the Mother of God: That Epistle of Cyril's, from whence Baronius proves this, saith nothing of either Praises or Worship given to the Blessed Virgin; he saith indeed, that when the people heard Nestorius was deposed, they began with one voice to commend the Synod, and to glorifie God, because the Enemy of the Faith was cast down. And when he had related what Honours the People did them by car∣rying Lamps and burning Incense before them, he add••, Thus our Saviour manifested his Glory and his Power of do∣ing all things, to those who blasphemed him f 1.349: So that all this story of their praising and venerating the Bles∣sed Virgin, is his own Fiction; as is also that other conjecture of his, that the Synodal Epistle declares, that John the Evangelist, and Mary the Mother of God once lived together at Ephesus g 1.350: For that Synodal Epistle speaks only of two Churches there called by their Names h 1.351. So when he and Binius say, it is be∣lieved that this Addition to the Angelical Salutation was then made, Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us i 1.352; and Baronius adds, that all the Faithfull use to say, and often repeat this, and teach it their Children, even while they suck'd the Breasts. But I ask, Why doth any Man believe this? Is it barely because Baronius says so? Doth not he say an hundred false things to justifie the Corruptions of Rome? Or can he produce one ancient Author, about this time, or of divers Ages after, where∣in this Phrase, Mother of God pray for us, is used? It is

certain he cannot * 1.353; and therefore this blasphemous addition is much later than the Council of Ephesus; and the Custom of saying it and teaching it to their Children, is a Scandalous Innovation, brought in by the Roman Church in the Superstitious Ages, and justly rejected by us who keep close to Antiquity, in owning the Blessed Virgin to be the Mother of God, but do not Worship her or Pray to her. And thus much for the Council of Ephesus, whose Acts being extant at large, do abundantly confute the Popes Supremacy, and set forth many other Usages and Practices of Rome, to be Innovations and Corruptions.

§. 3. After Celestine's death, Pope Sixtus or Xystus the * 1.354 Third succeeded, who sate about eight years, but did few Memorable things: In his younger days he was not only a Favourer, but a Patron of the Pelagians k 1.355, though afterwards he writ against them, and stre∣nuously opposed them l 1.356. Wherefore Baronius doth not sufficiently prove those three Tracts (Of Riches, Of Evil Teachers, and of Chastity) which go under the name of this Pope, were not his, by saying there are divers Pelagian Doctrines in them; since if they were writ in his youth, Xystus was then a Pelagian himself. This Pope writ (as is said) three Epistles, two of which are put into the Council of Ephesus, because they shew Xystus his Consent to what the Council had done, and to Cyril's actings afterwards as to John, Bishop of An∣tioch: In the later of these Epistles, there is a memo∣rable Saying, cited by Vincentius Lirinensis, Let there be no liberty for Novelty hereafter, since it is not convenient to add any thing unto that which is Old m 1.357. Had his Suces∣sors minded this good Rule, the Roman Church had not added so many New Doctrines and Practices to those Old Ones, which were received and used before Xystus his time. The Pontifical relates a Sory of one Bassus, who accused this Pope of Adultery, and that

a Synod of 56 Bishops, convened by the Emperor's Order, cleared him, and condemned his Accuser. Now for the greater credit of this Pope, some have forged a third Epistle, wherein he is made to signifie to them his purging himself upon Oath: But Labbe con∣demns the whole Epistle as spurious, and Binius rejects it, because it is stolen in part out of Pope Fabian his third Epistle, and because the Date is wrong n 1.358; for these Arguments will serve to condemn an Epistle, that supposes a Pope accused and tried by his Peers, where∣as, had it been for the Supremacy, Binius would have justified it, though it had these and greater faults. Be∣sides this Epistle, some illiterate Monk hath forged the Acts of this Council, wherein the Pope was tried; and though there be neither Latin nor Sense in it (being as dull as that of Sinuessa) but the Inventor designing to do Honour to the Pope, is very gently censured both by Baronius and Binius o 1.359. And to this they have tacked another such a Council of the Trial of Polychro∣nius, Bishop of Jerusalem, before Pope Sixtus, for at∣tempting to challenge the Precedency before Rome, &c. And Binius confesseth not only, that Pope Nicholas al∣ledged this Council for good Authority, but that the Modern Writers of their Church do so also: Whereas he owns there was no such man Bishop of Jerusalem, and that the whole Story and Acts are a Fiction of no cre∣dit in the World p 1.360; by which we may learn to be cautious how we trust the Roman Writers (Ancient or Modern) when they cite Records to support the Grandeur of the Church.

About this time Theodoret mentions a great Council at Constantinople, under Theodosius, about setling the * 1.361 Precedence of the Eastern Patriarchats, on occasion of a Contest between the Churches of Alexandria, Constan∣tinople and Antioch. Baronius (and out of him Binius) in relating this, have added to Theodoret's words, that Alexandria claimed the Priority before all the Eastern Bishops, because he was the first Bishop of the Catholick Church after the Pope: But the Quotation he produces

out of Theodort, Ep. 86. doth not so much as mention Rome nor the Pope: So that they have invented that part of the Story to keep up their Churches Credit. However this Council evidently shews q 1.362, that the Roman Church had nothing to do with the East; they called great Councils without him, and setled the Precedencies of their own Patriarchats without taking notice of the Pope. As for Sixtus, he made no figure in the World; and all we hear of him further is, that being warned by Leo his Deacon (and Successor afterwards) he dis∣covered and prevented the Attempts of Julianus of Hecla, a Pelagian Heretick, who endeavoured to get into the Churches Communion, as Prosper informs us, An. 440. in Chron. In this year was held the Synod of Riez, in the Province of Narbon, dated by the Emperors and Consuls, without any mention of the Pope r 1.363. For it was held under Hilary, Bishop of Arles, who first subscribes, and is meant in the Canons by the name of the Metropolitan, as Marca confesses s 1.364. And though Binius have no Notes to this purpose, I must observe, that this Hilary of Arles, as Primate of those parts of France, calls a Provincial Council, deposes a Bishop of Ambrun, uncanonically chosen, and makes divers Decrees with his fellow Bishops, who doubtless were not then so much enslaved to the Pope, as in after times.

§. 4. Leo the First succeeded Xystus, being an active, * 1.365 bold and aspiring Man, so that he concerned himself in all the affairs of Christendom, and every where laboured to advance the Roman Supremacy * 1.366, for which he had a favourable conjuncture by the misfortunes which then hapned to all other great Churches. The Africans were under a cruel persecution; the Eastern Church distracted with Heresie, and a woful Schism; the Orthodox Bishops in the East betrayed, and op∣pressed by three of the four Patriarchs, and the fourth of the Eastern Patriarchs condemned and murdered; the Emperor of the West very young, and he in the

East a weak man: and both governed by devout and zealous Women: All which circumstances contributed to make Leo (who was always Orthodox and power∣ful) very great. The Pontifical relates but few of his Actions, and those with many mistakes t 1.367; but because all the following Councils give us so much of his Life, I shall only make some remarks upon the Pontifical, and take the rest in the order of time. First, 'Tis said there he found out two Heresies, the Eutychian and the Nestorian: But the Nestorian Heresie was found out and condemned long before his time; and as for Eu∣tyches, he was found out and censured by Flavianus, Bishop of Constantinople, before Leo took him for a Heretick; yea, he writ a kind Letter to this Here∣tick u 1.368, and two angry Letters in his behalf to the Emperor and Flavianus w 1.369, because he was excom∣municated. And till he was informed by the Bishop of Constantinople what dangerous Doctrines he held, Leo inclined to be Eutyches friend, for which (indeed) afterwards he made ample amends, in assisting toward Eutyches condemnation. Secondly, The Pontifical vari∣ously and falsly reports the number of Bishops in the Council of Chalcedon, and is mistaken in saying, Pul∣cheria was present with Martianus there, and that they confessed their Faith before the Council, desiring them to send to Pope Leo to expound the Faith: And that Leo after this did write a Tract, condemning all He∣resies; all which are gross mistakes: But it is true, that he writ many Epistles, and frequently shewed his ap∣probation of the Council of Chalcedon, and that he did prevail with Attila, King of the Hunns, to deal gently with Rome, when it was in his power to have destroyed it. 'Tis very probable also, that he added some passages to the Roman Office, and that he order∣ed some to watch the Church of St. Peter and Paul, to which, in this Age, many began to make Visits and Oblations. But Binius his Notes add divers incredible Stories, as that about the Hearse-Cloth, which Bled when Leo clip'd it with Scissors, which Gregory menti∣ons

near 200 year after only as a report, which he could not cite any Author for: And another Story or two out of Sophronius his Pratum Spirituale, a Book stuf∣fed with Fables, as Baronius himself confesseth x 1.370, for having cited a false Story out of this Author, he hath these words, since he put so many lies together in this one Narration, what credit can be given to the rest? Yet Baronius himself cites this Author for Miracles and Vi∣sions, very oft, and in one place relates two Miracles out of Sophronius, for the glory of that Epistle which Pope Leo writ to Flavianus against Eujyches and Nestori∣us. An Epistle indeed very Orthodox, and at that time very seasonable, but far from meriting those pro∣digious Encomiums Baronius or the Legends give it, who magnifie it as if it equalled the Creed, and proved the Pope alone was to define all controversies of Faith, to teach General Councils what they were to believe, and to give Laws to all Bishops in the World y 1.371. But whatever excellency there is in this Epistle (which is in number the Xth, and printed in the Council of Chal∣cedon z 1.372, it is not to be ascribed to Pope Leo, but to the learned Prosper, who was his Amanuensis, and wrote not only this, but many other Letters for him; so that the Sense and Phrase is Prosper's, only they are writ in Leo's name, as Gennadius testifies, who lived but fifty year after Leo became Pope a 1.373; and the same is affirm∣ed by Trithemius b 1.374: And we may observe, that an Epistle of this very Prosper's against the Pelagians (as we noted before) went under Pope Celestine's name, but far exceeded the Style of Celestine's own Letters: I only add, that Labbè here prints all these Epistles which bear Leo's name c 1.375, some of which I shall have occasion to consider afterwards.

The first Council of Orange, Binius intitles under Leo; * 1.376 but Labbè, ashamed of that gross pretence, leaves these words out d 1.377. For it was called by, and held under Hilary, Bishop of Arles, who exercised the Jurisdiction of a Metropolitan and Primate in those parts; and all the Bishops of those parts owned his Primacy, and

met at his Summons e 1.378, of which Binius takes no no∣tice. There were made in this Synod many good Canons for Discipline, which were observed in the Gal∣lican Church, without any confirmation from the Pope. At the end of this Council is published a Form of Ex∣communication, and a very excellent Office for re∣conciling Penitents, supposed to be made in this Coun∣cil, which proves Forms had then been long in use.

The second Council at Vasatis, or Razai in France f 1.379, seems to me to be wrong dated; for I observe the * 1.380 fourth Canon cites a passage out of St. Hierom, with this Title, One of the Fathers asserts, &c. Now St. Hie∣rom died but 20 year before the date of this Council, and could hardly so soon have been cited by the Title of One of the Fathers; besides, the sixth Canon cites one of the spurious Epistles of Clement, forged after this Age. But the fifth Canon orders, him who is ag∣grieved with the Sentence of his Bishop, to appeal to a Sy∣nod; which shews, that reserving Causes to Rome was not allowed or used then.

The Editors have a Roman Council of Pope Leo's, which was no more than a Solemn meeting of the * 1.381 Clergy and Laity, to examine the Manichean Here∣ticks g 1.382. But there were two remarkable things in Leo's proceeding against them, of which the Notes say nothing; but Baronius informs us h 1.383, First, That he discovered the Manicheans by their refusing to drink of the Cop in the Blessed Sacrament, which this Pope counts a great impiety in this sort of People, not fore∣seeing that his Successors would take the Cup away from all the People of that Church. And this passage makes it clear, that all the People at Rome, who were Orthodox, did receive the Cup then, or else the He∣reticks not receiving it could not have discovered them. Secondly, Baronius notes, that because these Manicheans idolatrously adored the rising Sun; Leo forbid the Or∣thodox People to use that innocent and ancient Custom of bowing toward the East, for the peril of Idolatry:

Now had there been any Images adored in his time; for the same reason he must rather have forbidden bow∣ing down before them.

The second Council at Rome under Leo, was in the * 1.384 Cause of Hilary Bishop of Acles, who had justly de∣posed a scandalous Bishop in a Provincial Synod i 1.385. But he (as such ill Men had often done) flies to Rome to complain; and Leo not considering the equity of the censure, but Hilary's having acted as a Primate in those parts of France, contrary to the Decrees of for∣mer Popes, espouses this evil Bishops Quarrel, being more concerned for his designed usurpation of a su∣premacy, than the honour of the Church. Upon this Hilary, who was one of the most pious and learned Men of that Age, goes on foot to Rome, and requires the Pope to act more solito, in the accustomed manner, and not to admit such to Communion, who had been justly condemned in their own Country k 1.386; and when he saw the Pope was resolved to break the Canons, and set up his Supremacy by right or wrong, he suddenly departs from Rome without taking any leave of Leo, for which the Angry Pope writes to the Bishops of France, declar∣ing Hilary's Acts null, and depriving him of his Power, to Congregate Synods and Depose Bishops, &c. l 1.387 And though he brags much of his universal Authori∣ty, &c. in that Epistle, yet knowing how little this would signifie to Hilary and the rest of the French Bishops, he gets an Edict from the Emperor Valenti∣nian to back his Orders, which because there are some great words for the Popes Supremacy in it, Baronius magnifies as worthy of perpetual Memory m 1.388. And since their Champions alledge this Edict as a proof of the Roman universal Supremacy, I will observe upon it, First, That it was easie for the Pope to cite false Canons to a young and easy Emperor, and persuade him, that the Councils had given him this Supremacy, as his Predecessors had lately done in Africa. Second∣ly, That the Pope probably drew up this Edict him∣self, and so put in these Flourishes about his own Au∣thority:

Which will be more plain if we consider, that the Emperor Leo in one of his Edicts saith, Con∣stantinople is the Mother of the Orthodox Religion of all Christians, with much more to this purpose n 1.389; but Ba∣ronius relating this saith, Thus indeed Leo speaks thus, but without doubt it was conceived in the words, and writ in the Style of Acacius who swelled with Pride: But Leo Bishop of Rome was as proud as Acacius, and had more influence over Valentinian, than Acacius ever had over the Emperor Leo; wherefore in Baronius own words, without doubt Valentinian's Edict was drawn up in Pope Leo's Style, and so he is only a Witness in his own Cause. Thirdly, The Sentence of both the Emperor and the Pope was unjust; and although Leo wheedled the Bishops of France to reject Hilary, that Bishop still acted as Primate, and called Synods afterwards; so that this big-speaking Edict was neither believed nor obey∣ed as de Marca shews o 1.390. For indeed Hilary was Pri∣mate by Original right, and the French Bishops stuck to him not only for his great Sanctity, but because they feared the then growing Encroachments and Usur∣pations of Rome: And finally Pope Hilary, Leo's Suc∣cessor determined this Controversie, contrary to Leo's Decree p 1.391; by which we see how odly Causes go at Rome, since some Popes were for the Primacy of Arles and some against it: But when there was a stout Bishop there, he kept his Post without regard to the Roman Sentence: And now I hope the Reader will smile at Baronius his inference from this Edict of Valentinian's, Thou seest clearly from hence (saith he) the Pope of Romes Authority over all Churches q 1.392, for he must be quick∣sighted indeed, who can see any more in this instance than an unjust and ineffective Claim.

§. 5. Soon after Pope Leo had an opportunity to en∣croach * 1.393 upon the Churches of Spain; for one Turibius a Bishop there, who is called Leo's Notary, (and probably had been bread a Notary at Rome,) certifies the Pope that there were many Priscillian Hereticks there, who

confirmed their Errors by certain Apocryphal Wri∣tings full of Blasphemies; Leo writes back to Turibius r 1.394, advising him to get a Council of all the Bishops in Spain, and there to Condemn the Hereticks and their Apocryphal Books: This advice Baronius calls his enjoyn∣ing a general Council (more Majorum) this being the right of the Pope of Rome. And though he confesses the Bishops did not meet where the Pope advised, nor could they meet in one place, because they were under divers Kings, and those Arians; yet he desires us to observe from hence, how weighty the Popes Authority was, even with Barbarous and Arian Kings s 1.395. But alas any one may see, he cannot make out that ever these Kings gave leave for any Council, and it is more probable these Bishops met privately on this oc∣casion; yet they have made out of this, A General Council of Spain t 1.396: And here they would have that rule of Faith first received from Leo and approved, which is printed before, in the first Council of Tole∣do u 1.397: And Baronius saith the word [Filioque] proceeding from the Father and the Son, was first added in this Council to the Creed, by the Authority of Pope Leo, and brags much of the Popes supremacy, even in mat∣ters of Faith on this occasion w 1.398. But first these words were put in by these Councils, to check and discover Priscillian Hereticks, not by any express or∣der of the Pope; and indeed Leo had been an ill Man, if he had imposed an Article of Faith upon the Churches of Spain, which (as Baronius confesses,) was not received expresly at Rome till many Ages after. Secondly, These Spanish Bishops did not add these words to the ancient Creed, but put them in by way of Explication, into an Occasional Confession of their own Composing. Thirdly, Baronius himself notes, that the Spaniards and French afterwards added it to their usual Creeds, and at last Rome took this Addition from them: And in the same place he commends the Northern Nations for adding these words, and those of Rome for rejecting them a long time; so that contradictory Actions may be (it

seems) equally commended, by those who can blow Hot and Cold with the same Breath.

About this time was held a great Council at Verulam in Britain, by St. Garmanus a French Bishop, called over by the Orthodox Britains to assist them, in con∣futing and condemning the Pelagian Heresy, as Math. of Westminster computes x 1.399. Baronius indeed pre∣tends this hapned divers years before, only because Prosper (or some who have since corrupted his Chroni∣cle) affirms, that Pope Celestine sent St. Germanus hither y 1.400. But most Historians agree, the French Bishops from a Council of their own, sent over this assistance to the British Church the first time, without any order from Celestine; and this Council of Verulam z 1.401 was held long after Celestine's death, at St. Germans second coming hither: So that in this Island, the Roman Church was not considered in those days; and one Sister Church desired help of another to repress Heresies, without any recourse to Rome.

§. 6. In a Synod held at Constantinople under Flavi∣anus, * 1.402. Eutyches a Monk was formally accused of Heresy, for affirming that Christ had but one Nature after his Incarnation, and that it was as much Nestorianism to hold two Natures as two Persons; Upon which he was three several times cited before the Council, and had sufficient time given, but refusing to come till the time was expired, and (though he did come at last) obstinately defending his Heresy, he was unanimously condemned, and by Flavianus and the whole Synod Excommunicated and Degraded, which was a judicial proceeding agreeable to the ancient Canons. Binius and Baronius in relating this a 1.403, make some remarks which must be considered: For first, when Eutyches saith, He would subscribe the Nicene and Ephesine Councils, so far as they were agreeable to Scripture; They note this was (more Haereticorum) according to the manner of He∣reticks: But I would ask First, Whether it be not true, that the Decrees of Councils in matters of Faith, are

no further obligatory than they are proved by Scrip∣ture? Secondly, Whether the most Orthodox Fathers Athanasius, Cyril, &c. did not always appeal to Scrip∣ture in the first place? And the greatest Councils ever confirm their determinations first by Scripture? Third∣ly, Whether any of the Adversaries of Eutyches in that Age did censure him, for appealing first to Scripture? Baronius himself cites Flavianus his Letter, wherein he first alledges Scripture, and then the Expositions of the Fathers b 1.404. And Pope Leo saith Eutyches erred, by not having recourse to the Prophets, Apostles and Evangelists, but to himself c 1.405; so that it was no fault in Eutyches to prefer Scripture before the Fathers expositions; nor to appeal to it; but to expound it wrongfully was his Crime, and that is (more Haereticorum.) Secondly, When Eutyches petitioned Theodosius in this case, for a safe con∣duct to the Synod, Binius adds to his Authors words, that this was also after the manner of Hereticks: Where∣as it appears, that divers of the Orthodox have applied themselves to the Emperors to assist and support them, and none oftner than Pope Leo himself; so that a thing done as frequently by the Orthodox as Hereticks, can be no sign or mark of Heresy. Thirdly, Binius pre∣tends, that Eutyches appealed from this Synod to Pope Leo: Now this is confuted by the very Acts of the Synod, related in the Council of Chalcedon, and re∣cited by Baronius, where it is said, Eutyches appealed to the Council of the Roman Bishop, and of the Bishops of A∣lexandria, Hierusalem and Thessalonica d 1.406; yet they make as if this had been an Appeal only to the Pope. Fourthly, Binius notes, the Appeal was not admitted: I reply, Pope Leo did so far receive Eutyches Letter, that he writ three Epistles on his behalf, before he was informed of the true State of the Case, and quarrelled with Flavianus for condemning a convicted Heretick, before he had consulted him e 1.407. But in truth there was no Appeal at all: Flavianus did write indeed to Leo, (and probably to all other Patriarchs) after the Canonical Judgment was over, to acquaint them with

his proceedings; that so they might not break the Canons, by admitting an Heretick in one Church, who was Excommunicated in another: But the Style of Flavianus his Letter shews, that he need not ask Leo's leave to censure an Heretical Priest of his own Dio∣cess, nor doth he desire the Pope to confirm his Sen∣tence, but only to make it known f 1.408: So that Baro∣nius falsly infers the Popes power to judge of Heresy, and confirm all Sentences against them, from this Letter of Flavianus: And he as falsly makes the like inference from Eutyches writing to Leo, as if he knew of what weight the Popes judgment was, for which Coun∣cils in doubtful Cases use to stay, and to which all the Catho∣lick Church would certainly incline g 1.409. For Eutyches writ to other Bishops of Italy as well as the Pope, (as Baronius in that Page confesseth) and considered Leo no otherwise than as one Eminent Bishop: And this Synod of Constantinople stayed not for the Popes Judgment, nor did those Bishops who despised the Decree of this Synod, value Pope Leo's Judgment after he had decla∣red for Flavianus: So little truth is there in the Anna∣lists pompous observations, which only shew, that all his aim is from every passage, to extort some kind of co∣lour for his dear Supremacy.

In the same year were two Synods, one at Tyre, the other at Berithus, in the cause of one Ibas a Syrian Bi∣shop, wherein the Patriarch of Antioch and Constantinople were concerned; but the Pope is not once mentioned in the whole proceedings h 1.410; But of the Cause it self, we shall hear more afterward.

Theodosius the Emperor being deceived by Eutyches and Chrysapius, one of his great Courtiers, an Eunuch, espouses the Quarrel of that Heretick, and labours to have the Sentence which Flavianus passed against him in the late Synod, revoked; and Pope Leo was drawn into the same snare by the Letters of Eutyches and Theodosius, till Flavianus had better informed him: For Leo writ both to the Emperor and Flavianus on Eutyches behalf at first: And whereas Baronius ought

to blush for the Popes mistake, he recites these two Letters, and talks big of his being owned for the lawful and chief Judge in Ecclesiastil Controversies; yea the su∣preme Judge of the Universal Church, &c. i 1.411 But though (as an ingenuous Romanist observes,) Leo in all his E∣pistles boasts of the power of his Apostolical Seat, as much as he can, and more than by the Canons he ought to do k 1.412; yet neither of these Epistles say any such thing, as Ba∣ronius infers from them. And that Letter of Flavianus, which delivered this infallible Judge from his mistake, declares that Eutyches had received a just and Canonical Condemnation, to which the Pope ought to consent, and to joyn in it: By which we see a Sentence against an He∣retick was just, before the Pope knew of it, and that he and all Orthodox Bishops, ought by their subsequent consents to ratifie what any one Bishop had Canoni∣cally done: And since Eutyches was already rightly cen∣sured, Flavianus requires Leo (and no doubt other E∣minent Bishops) to publish their consent to it, thereby to prevent the design of Eutyches, which was to get a ge∣neral Council called, to judge his Cause over again: Now this serves Baronius to brag, that Flavianus knew there was no need of a general Council, for that which the Popes Letters had defined * 1.413 A strange affection! For when Pope Leo, not first (as Baronius saith falsly) but last of all the Orthodox Bishops did stand up for Flavianus, and write to confirm his Censure upon Eutyches, that very Cause was tried over again in the Pseudo-general Coun∣cil of Ephesus, and the true Oecumenical Council of Chalcedon: Yea, Theodosius while the matter lay before the Pope, not staying for his Sentence, calleth a second Council at Constantinople, wherein a pacted party of Hereticks Friends revoked the Judgment passed on him by Flavianus l 1.414. And yet fearing this was not sufficient, Eutiches moved by Dioscorus, Patriarch of Alexandria, to have a general Council called at Ephesus, which might have sufficient Authority, not only to restore Eutyches, but to Condemn Flavianus, though Leo should take his part.

§. 7. This was the true occasion of calling this Se∣cond * 1.415 Council of Ephesus, which as to the manner of calling, the Persons present, &c. was a General Coun∣cil. But from the violent and unjust proceedings there∣of, is commonly stiled The Pseudo-Synod, or the Thie∣vish Council of Ephesus The Acts of this Council are recited at large in the Council of Chalcedon; wherefore the Editors refer us thither, only entertaining us here with Binius his Notes, on which we will make some re∣marks m 1.416. First, The Notes say, the Emperor called this General Council, usurping the Popes Authority against right and the custom of the Church. Now here he first owns that the Emperor called it: As to the pretended usur∣pation and breach of Custom, it is certain the Pope never yet had called one General Council, as we have particularly shewn in three General Councils before, and they own it here; so that undoubtedly the Em∣peror only followed the Custom of the Church, and used that Right which his Ancestors had. Besides, let Binius or Baronius produce one syllable in all Leo's Epi∣stles, where that Pope (so jealous of his Rights) did once complain of any injury done him by the Em∣peror in calling this Synod: His Legate owns in this very Council, that the Pope had received such a Let∣ter of Summons as the rest of the Patriarchs did re∣ceive n 1.417; and he obeyed this Summons, and sent his Legates thither, excusing his own absence, without any reflection upon the Emperors having no Right to Sum∣mon him: Yea, had he known it was his Right to call a General Council, why did he write so many Letters to Theodosuis and to Pulcherius, humbly beseeching the Em∣peror to call a General Council in Italy o 1.418? Nothing can be clearer, than that this pretence of Usurpation is a most notorious Falshood. Secondly, The Notes blame the Emperor for making Dioscorus President of this Coun∣cil; and Baronius calls this arrogating and usurping a Right never attempted before, and he thinks God justly deprived Theodosius of his Life the year after, for his

wronging the Pope herein p 1.419. But we have shewed, Osius was the Emperors Legate, and by him made President of the Council at Nice, and Cyril was by the Emperor made President in that of Ephesus: As for this Coun∣cil, the Pope was not like to be there in Person. Fla∣vianus, who should have had the second place, was a Party, whose Sentence was to be enquired into; Domnus, of Antioch, was not altogether unsuspected; but Eutyches friends had commended Dioscorus, of Alex∣andria, and Juvenalis, of Hierusalem, to the Emperor as impartial and fit to Judge; and their Characters made them (as the Case was supposed to stand) to have right to that q 1.420. 'Tis true the Popes Legates did murmur at this, as Liberatus saith r 1.421, and the Le∣gates at Chalcedon called this a usurpation in Dioscorus; but neither this Council nor that did insist upon that matter. Thirdly, The Notes pretend Theodosius there∣fore summoned Leo to this Council, because he knew the Council would be null without the Popes Authority. But the Letter of Summons declares he called it by his own Authority, and he writ no other Summons to Leo than he did to the Bishops of Alexandria and Jerusalem; so that it may as well be said, Theodosius knew their Au∣thority was as necessary as the Popes; but the truth is, the consent of the great Patriarchs was so far ne∣cessary, that they were to be duly summoned, and if possible, to be present; but they had no Authority sin∣gle, as to the calling or disannulling of any Council. Wherefore, Fourthly, Though it be rejected, yet not because the Pope did not call it, or preside in it (as his Notes pretend) but because of the unjust and vi∣olent proceedings used in it; against which, not only the Popes Legates, but divers other Bishops did pro∣test, and oppose them, even to the suffering of Banish∣ment and Deprivation. And here I must note a ma∣nifest contradiction in Baronius, who in one page saith, All the Bishops consented to the restitution of Eutyches, and the deposing of Flavianus, the Legates of the Apostolick See only opposing Dioscorus to his face: Yet in the next

page he reckons up some Bishops by name, who suf∣fered for opposing Dioscorus; and adds out of Leo's Epistle to Pulcheria, that many were deprived and ba∣nished for this opposition, and others put in their places s 1.422. Lastly, I only add, that the Emperor, being deceived by Eutyches, confirmed the Decrees of this Pseudo-Synod, as his Ancestors were wont to do t 1.423; and for this reason the Acts of it were valid till they were disannulled by the General Council of Chalcedon; and though the Pope disliked and complained of this Council, he had no Authority to null all its Acts till another General Council was called: Wherefore that Third Roman Council, wherein Leo and the Bishops of Italy reprobated the Acts of this Pseudo-Synod of Ephesus u 1.424, was not sufficient to repeal the Council it self, but only to shew that those western Bishops would not receive it. For if the Popes Council alone had made it null, what need had their been of a General Coun∣cil to do that over again? Yea, the Pope and this Ro∣man Synod writ to the Emperor, earnestly entreating him, that all things might remain in the same state they were before any proceedings, till a General Council could meet w 1.425; which shews that they did not believe their single Authority was sufficient to annul all that was done t 1.426. After this Roman Council, it seems Dioscorus, in his Private Council at Alexandria, excommunicated Pope Leo, and Baronius makes this a greater Crime than his confirming the Heresie of Eutyches, and he (with the Notes) observe it as a wonder, that where∣as Ninety Bishops signed the Heresie of Eutyches, only Ten could be found to subscribe the Excommunicati∣on of the Pope x 1.427; but the wonder ceases, if we con∣sider that Eutyches was restored in a General Council, or that which was called so, wherein there met an hundred twenty eight Bishops, or their Deputies; but the Pope was excommunicated in a Private Synod at Alexandria. I shall not enlarge upon the cruel usage of Flavianus in this Pseudo-Synod of Ephesus, who died soon after of the blows and wounds given him there,

nor remark how Baronius would make him a Martyr for the Popes Supremacy y 1.428, whereas he was a Martyr for the Orthodox Faith, corrupted by Eutyches: Nor shall I detain the Reader with any of his odd observations upon the flight of Hilary, one of the Popes Legates, from this Council.

Anatolius, being by Dioscorus advanced to the See of * 1.429 Constantinople, in the room of Flavianus, Leo had great reason to fear he was infected with the Heresie of Eu∣tyches, and therefore he very carefully sent three Le∣gates to Constantinople, to inform him whether Anato∣lius were Orthodox, and to desire a General Council might be called by the Emperor, and in Italy, if he pleased, as his Letter imports z 1.430; in the mean time (if we may trust the Acts of one of these Legates com∣ing out of the Vatican) Anatolius calls a Council at Constantinople, and in the presence of the Popes Legates owns himself Orthodox, receives Pope Leo's Letter to Flavianus, and condemns Eutyches and Nestorius; and this the Editors publish with the Title of a Council at Constantinople a 1.431. Now though their own Author of the Vatican expresly says, that Anatolius called this Coun∣cil; yet both Baronius, and the Notes in the same page daringly affirm, that the Popes Legates commanded all the neighbouring Bishops to meet in this Council b 1.432: Which is as false, as that these Legates were sent to restore the lapsed Oriental Church; and that both Theodosius and Anatolius, and all the Eastern Bishops, in all these Transactions, owned the Pope to be the Supream Head of the Church. These things are only to be found in Baronius his Inferences, but no Author or Record of these proceedings hint any such thing. The Legates chief business was to petition the Emperor for a Gene∣ral Council; and it was usual when any new Patriarch was advanced, that he should write an account of his Faith to all the other Patriarchs; and Anatolius having been justly suspected, was obliged to do it something more solemnly, for Leo's satisfaction.

CHAP. III.

Of the Council of Chalcedon, being the Fourth General Council.

BEING to discourse of the Fourth General * 1.433 Council at Chalcedon, we must observe, that besides the partial Preface before it a 1.434, and the fal∣lacious Notes after it b 1.435, published by the Editors, the Acts of it are divided into three parts. The first containing the Epistles, and other Writings precedent to the Council. The second containing the several Acts of it. The third containing the Epistles, and other Transcripts relating to that Council afterwards. Of the first part I shall treat very briefly, having spoken of divers things, there collected, in the former Chapter; only noting now some of the Frauds and Errors in these preliminary Epistles. And first, I need not en∣large upon those false Stories in the Preface to this Council, (which I confuted before, Anno 448, and Anno 449.) That Eutyches appealed from Flavian's Coun∣cil at Constantinople, to the Pope; That the Pope imme∣diately became an Enemy to that Heretick; That it was the highest Crime in Eutyches to appeal from the Pope to the Emperor c 1.436. Nor will it be necessary to insist upon the Prefacers owning that Theodosius called the Pseudo-Synod of Ephesus, at Dioscorus his request; and though Pope Leo did labour to hinder it, yet he durst not but send his Legates to it, who indeed did generously refuse to joyn in the condemnation of Flavianus: But whereas the Prefacer pretends Flavianus appealed to the Apostolick See d 1.437 (as if the Pope were alone fit to receive Ap∣peals), I must note, First, That de Marca confesses All the rest of the Patriarchs were his open Enemies, and

therefore he was compelled to apply to the Western Church for help e 1.438, and yet he did not Appeal to the Pope alone; and Leo told Placidia, that Flavia∣nus Appealed not only to the Apostolick Throne, but to all the Bishops of those parts f 1.439; and Leo saith the same thing in his own Epistles, that the Appeal was to all the Churches of those parts g 1.440; and therefore all the Western Bishops joyned with Leo in desiring a Council might be held in Italy: Which was when they were met in Council at Rome, and had (no doubt) declared their dislike of Dioscorus's proceedings; but it suffici∣ently confutes the Prefacers boast of Leo and his Coun∣cils rescinding the Acts of this Ephesine Pseudo-Synod, as if that had been sufficient to null all that was done there; because if the Pope, in that Council of Rome, had sufficient Authority to have abrogated the Acts of Ephesus, there was no need for them to desire a greater Council to re-examine this matter, or for Leo (as the Preface owns) to engage the Western Emperor, his Mother and his Empress to write to Theodosius, to suffer the Transactions at Ephesus to be heard over again h 1.441. But Theodosius having called that Synod by his own Au∣thority, and being persuaded by Eutyches his Party, that the proceedings in it were regular, would not be prevailed on by any importunities to grant this request; but he dying soon after, and Marcian (by marrying Pulcheria, Sister and Heir to Theodosius) coming to be Emperor, consented to call a General Council, but not (as the Pope desired) in Italy, but in the East, where the Controversie began, and where by the Ancient Canons it was to be decided. Which suffices to dis∣cover all those falshoods that are in that part of the Preface, which concerns the things before this General Council.

In the Preleminary Epistles and Edicts which con∣stitute the first part of the Council of Chalcedon, we may observe many of the Titles of the Epistles are corrupted by Roman Parasites. So in the first Epistle of Flavianus i 1.442 the true reading is, to Leo Arch-Bishop

of the elder Rome; but they have made it Pope, &c. In Flavians second Epistle to Leo, the Latin Copies leave out of the Title, and Fellow minister k 1.443: So again [Pope] is put into the Latin Copy instead of Arch-Bishop in a Letter of Leo's to the Monks at Constanti∣nople l 1.444. And in Leo's Epistle to Theodosius, in the La∣tin (for Leo, Bishop) there is put in these absurd words, Leo, Pope of the Catholick Church of the City of Rome m 1.445. And in his Epistle to the second Synod at Ephesus, the Latin leaves out these Material Expressions, to his beloved Brethren in the Lord greeting n 1.446. To conclude, the Greek Title owns that Leo and his Roman Synod petitioned for a Council in Italy; the Latin leaves this out, though the body of the Letter do expresly declare that request o 1.447 Now these are plain Instances how little Credit is to be given to the Latin Copies of this Council, and especially to these Titles, which the Popes Flatterers have frequently corrupted, and altered them from the modest Style used in those days. And hence we may gather how frivolously Baronius argues from the Titles of Pope Leo's Epistles, wherein he stiles himself Bishop of the Roman and of the Universal Church p 1.448; that the Popes then did use the style of Universal Bishop; though St. Gregory expresly denies that ever any of his Prede∣cessors used that profane, new and proud Title; but the Annalist makes bold to give Gregory the Lie, meer∣ly on the credit of these corrupted and fictitious Titles, prefixed by forging Parasites; for Leo's usual Inscripti∣on was, Leo, the Bishop of Rome, to, &c. so that where we see Bishop or Pope of the Catholick Church of Rome, &c. q 1.449, there 'tis certain the Flatterers have been at work. But as to more material observations; when Flavianus had condemned Eutyches, he doth not desire the Pope to confirm the Sentence, which being regu∣larly passed on him by his own Bishop in Council, no man could relax (as Leo himself grants r 1.450): But his Letter to Leo requires him to publish it to all the Bi∣shops under his jurisdiction s 1.451. In Leo's Epistle to Ju∣lian, one of his Legates, the Latin Copy puts in [nobis,]

and makes Leo say there is one Doctrine and Teaching of the Holy Ghost, in us and in you; but the Greek reads—in the whole Catholick Church t 1.452. Again, it is com∣monly pretended that Pope Leo was utterly against the Emperors calling the second Council at Ephesus; and that one reason which made all its proceedings null, was because it was called without his consent: But it appears by divers of this Popes Letters here publish∣ed, that he owned it a pious Resolution of the Emperor to call this Council u 1.453, and in observance of his Com∣mands, he sent his Legates to it: So that he never pleaded his Authority in bar to the Emperors Right, even when in his Judgment he thought there was no need of it w 1.454. And he declares that he sent these Legates, not to preside there, but to agree with them by common consent on such things as might be pleasing to God, as his Letter to this Synod shews, Num. 13.

It appears by Petrus Chrysologus, Bishop of Ravenna's Letter to Eutyches, that he appealed to him as well as to the Pope; for he excuses himself as unfit to judge a Cause that had been tried in a far Country, especi∣ally upon hearing only one Party x 1.455: A Rule, which if the Popes had duly observed, they would not have received so many unjust Appeals. 'Tis true, he refers him to Pope Leo's Epistle to Flavianus, lately writ on this subject; but Binius in his Notes falsly puts in, that he warns him to rely on it as an Oracle of the Holy Ghost y 1.456; for he only saith, there was now an Orthodox Pope in St. Peter's Chair, who had taught the Faith aright in this Epistle, which had been sent by Leo, a little before, to this and other Bishops of the West, for their approba∣tion. But that of Leo himself in his Epistle to Theodosi∣us, shews he was no honester than he should be, and deserved not so good a Character as the Bishop of Ra∣venna gives him; for he impudently cites one of the Sardican Canons, under the forged Title of the Nicene Canon made by all the Bishops in the World z 1.457; the Mar∣gin would excuse this, by pretending that other Fathers cite these Sardican Canons under the Title of Nicene

Canons; but we know no ancient Fathers did so, ex∣cept Zosimus and Boniface his Predecessors, who, to their lasting infamy, were convicted of this notorious Fraud in the Council of Carthage; and therefore it was an odd piece of assurance in Leo, so soon after, to make use of the same detected Cheat. In another Epistle of his against Eutyches, he saith, In the mystical distribu∣tion of the spiritual Food, that is given and received, by which those who partake of the virtue of the Heavenly Food, are changed into his Flesh, who was made our Flesh a 1.458, which is point blank against their modern Opinion of Transubstantiation, making the Bread to be Spiritual and Heavenly Food, and the change to be not in the Elements, but in the Receivers. After this we have di∣vers Epistles of the Western Emperor Valentinian; of his Mother and Empress, to Theodosius and Pulcheria, writ at the request of Pope Leo, to desire that Emperor to re∣voke the Judgment passed in the Pseudo-Synod of Ephesus, which further proves the Pope had no Authority in himself to null those Acts; for he would not have begged with Tears that which was in his own Power. But the great use the Romanists make of these Letters, is on account of some high Expressions in them about the Popes having a Power over all Bi∣shops b 1.459, and a Principality among them c 1.460. But there is some doubt whether these Epistles are genuine, the Story of their being at Rome the night after St. Peter's day, not agreeing to the time when these pretended Epistles must be writ: But if they be not forged, Rome will gain nothing by these phrases, which Leo put into their Mouths; for he certainly endited these Letters for them, as we may know by this Evidence, that the Emperors Mother, Galla Placidia (who understood no more of the Canons than the Pope told her) cites the Canon of Sardica, for a Canon of Nice d 1.461, as Leo had done before; and therefore ex ungue Leonem; we may easily know the Penman of these Epistles: Now when he bears witness only to himself, his testimony is suspi∣cious, and of no weight at all; and Theodosius valued

these brags so little, that he calls Leo only by the name of Patriarch in his answer, and affirms the Nicene Ca∣nons were not broken, and therefore he utterly reject∣ed the request e 1.462. Yet Leo was forced to be content, and to receive Anatolius chosen Bishop of Constantinople, in this Synod of Ephesus into his Communion, only desi∣ring him to give an Account of his being Orthodox in the Faith, that he might publish it to other Bishops f 1.463; Soon after which Theodosius died.

Marcianus succeeding, and having no other Title to the Empire than his being married to Pulcheria, he remit∣ted much of the Majesty of Style in his Letters to Leo and other Bishops, used by Theodosius and other Emperors g 1.464. But even when he complements the Pope in the highest strain, he will not yield the Council should be called in Italy as the Pope desired, but re∣solves to have it in the East, in some City which he himself should choose h 1.465: Where we may see a noto∣rious Forgery in Baronius and Binius, for whereas the Emperor saith, where it shall seem good to us, Baronius turns nobis, into vobis, and Binius in his Notes follows him i 1.466; as if the Emperor had left it to the Pope, to choose what City he pleased for the Council to meet; Nay further, Binius who reads it nobis in the Epistle, yet in a Note before that Letter, he saith it was where the Peope pleased; and hath the Confidence to say in his Notes at the end of the Council, that the Emperor writ to the Pope to appoint the place, time and manner of calling this General Synod: Than which nothing can be more false; for the Pope would have had it in the West if he might have chosen, but the Emperor Sum∣moned the Bishops first to come to Nice, as his Letters yet extant shew k 1.467; and thither the Popes first Letter to the Synod ought to be directed; and I wish that ig∣norant hand which altered the Title, and put in Chal∣cedon instead of Nice, hath not put in those words in it, of saving the honour of St. Peter, and of his Legates being sent to preside in the Council l 1.468, which passages might look favourably on the supremacy if they be genuine;

only they are no more but Leo's own Evidence in his own Cause: After this the Council being assembled at Nice, they with the Popes Legates desired the Em∣perors presence among them, upon which he removed the Council to the City of Chalcedon, and thither he afterward came to them m 1.469. On which I shall only note, that Baronious and Binius have turned this Peti∣tion of the Council and Legates, into a Declaration of the Legates alone; for they pretend that the Em∣peror writ to the Council, That it seemed good to the Popes Legates that he should be present n 1.470; Which is a false representation of the matter, as the Emperors Letter shews.

§. 2. We proceed now to the Council it self assem∣bled at Chalcedon, and will first consider these gener∣als, viz. 1st. Who called it. 2ly. Who presided in it, and in what Order they sate. 3ly. Who confirmed the Acts of it: And secondly make some brief remarks on the particular Acts of this Council.

First, As to the Authority by which it was conve∣ned; Though the Preface had owned that Marcian called this Council o 1.471, yet the Notes affirm, it was ap∣pointed by the Authority of Leo, and by the advice, assistance and help of Marcian congregated: And again, it is clear this General Council was convened by the Exhortation and Counsel of the Emperor, but by the Command and Autho∣rity of the Pope p 1.472: And this they pretend to prove by the Epistle of the Bishops of Maesia, writ some years after the Council, which they cite thus, Many holy Bi∣shops meeting in the City of Chalcedon, by the Command of Leo (who is truly an head of Bishops;) but the Epi∣stle adds—and of the venerable Bishop and Patriarch Anatolius a Council was held, which was confirmed under two Emperors q 1.473. But these fraudulent Editors leave out these last words, which shew that these Bishops were as much called by the Authority of Anatolius as of Leo, and also that the Emperors confirmed the Acts of this general Council, which two things Binius would

conceal from his Reader: Now this accidental ex∣pression of six Bishops long after, implying no more but only that Leo and Anatolius sent out the Emperors Summons to all Bishops, (the other three Patriarchs being not then of unsuspected fame,) is all they have to prove this egregious falshood of this Councils being called by the Popes sole Authority, except an Epistle of Gelasius, another Pope pleading his own Cause: Whereas there are clear and express proofs almost innumerable, that it was appointed and convened or called by the Em∣perors Authority: For Leo was summoned himself by the Emperor, and in obedience to that Summons ex∣cuses his own absence, and sends his Legates to the Council r 1.474. And the Emperors general Letter, strictly requiring all Bishops to be there is extant s 1.475, a Copy of which probably was delivered to the Pope: And in the beginning of every Act it is expresly said, The Synod met (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉—〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c.) by the command, or divine Authority of the Emperors t 1.476; and it is so often repeated, that this Council was called by the precept or command of the Emperor, as makes it needless and impossible to cite all the places: Libera∣tus the Deacon who writ some years after (when the Popes had encroached something further) saith, at the Popes request the Emperor commanded this Council to be assembled u 1.477; which makes it a strange boldness in Baronius to affirm, that the Emperor requested the Pope that a Council might be called w 1.478, which not only this Historian but the Emperors Letter in the next page contradicts: Yea Leo himself in his 61st Epistle, which the Notes cite with great applause owns, the Council was gathered by the precept of the most Christian Prin∣ces, &c. x 1.479 and the Pope in divers of his Epistles, owns the Authority of calling general Councils to be in the Emperor; yea the Legates own in the very Council it self, that the Council was summoned by the Emperors Authority: So that for any of the Popes flatterers to pretend the contrary, is to wink against the clearest light.

Secondly, As to the Presidents of this Council, the Historical Preface is very positive, that the Apostolical Legates presided y 1.480; and the Notes prove it was a gene∣ral Council, because the Pope presided by his Legates z 1.481. But if that were essential to a General Council, there was none before this of Chalcedon: Here indeed three of the five Legates named by the Pope, Paschafinus, Lucentius and Boniface, were allowed to sit uppermost on one side of the Bishops, but Basilius and Julianus, the other two, who also were named Legates by the Pope, were not owned by the Council under that Cha∣racter, and therefore had no precedency given them a 1.482. And if this be all they mean by the Legates presiding, that they in right of the Pope had the first place among the Bishops, we will not contend with them; but if they suppose any Power or Authority these Le∣gates had over the Council by this precedency, we must deny that. Baronius brags that all things were deter∣mined by the Popes Authority b 1.483 And the Notes be∣fore cited, speak as if they had done all things in this Council c 1.484; yea, the Latin version of the Council for∣gets the Title of Presidents, thrice, and claps it to the names of these Legates d 1.485, which Title is not in the Greek: But if we examine into the matter, these three Legates who were allowed by the Council, had nothing more than the honour of sitting uppermost upon the left hand, and sometimes speaking and subscribing first: But in the twelfth Act concerning the Church of Ephesus, over which the Patriarch of Constantinople claimed some Jurisdiction, Anatolius speaks before the Popes Legate, and by his direction the matter was de∣termined e 1.486. And though both Baronius and the Notes boast, That the Legates pronounced the sentence on Dios∣corus in the Popes name, as Presidents of the Council f 1.487; Yet if we consult the place we shall find, that they twice asked the Synods Opinion of Dioscorus his Case, and the whole Synod declared he was to be condemn∣ed; yet the Legates durst not pronounce the Sentence, till they asked if the Synod commanded them to give the

Ecclesiastical Sentence, and upon the Order of the Synod they first pronounced it, and every Bishop single, de∣clared Dioscorus was deposed and excommunicated g 1.488: So that there was nothing of Authority in the Legates, but only their speaking first, and declaring that which the whole Council had agreed upon. And because Anatolius commonly spoke in the second place, there∣fore he is joyned with Leo, and both of them toge∣ther are called the Princes of this Council h 1.489. So in one of the Epistles, after the Council, Leo and Anatolius are said to have regularly presided herein i 1.490: By which Titles are meant only that they had the principal Places in this General Council: But the true President of this great Synod, was the Emperor, who, when he was present, sate above all the Bishops in the midst, and his Legates, the Lay-Judges, in his absence, sate there; and these Representatives of the Emperor in∣deed had not only the most honourable place of all, but some Authority over the Synod it self: For they propounded or allowed all matters to be debated; of them all Bishops, even the Popes Legates k 1.491, desired leave to speak; they summed up the Debates, and ge∣nerally gave the decisive Sentence, and upon that fol∣lowed the Acclamations; so that these Judges perform∣ed all that the Modern Popes Legates in late Councils have taken upon them, since their Supremacy hath been in its greatest Exaltation. If they object, that neither they nor the Emperor were allowed to be pre∣sent when Dioscorus was condemned according to the Canons l 1.492. I Answer, the Judges in a former Session, after a full hearing of the Cause, had determined (if the Emperor consented) that Dioscorus should have the same punishment which he had inflicted on Flavianus, and that he and his Accomplices should by the Council be deposed from Episcopal Dignity, according to the Canons; to which De∣cree the whole Synod consented m 1.493: So that there was no more to be done in the third Session, but only for the Bishops canonically to execute this Sentence up∣on Dioscorus; and there was no occasion for the Empe∣ror,

or the Lay-Judges to be present, only his confir∣mation of this Sentence was so necessary, that they writ both to Marcian and Pulcheria to desire their con∣fimation thereof n 1.494: So that the chief Authority was in the Emperor and his Representatives, the Bishops advising, and they finally determining and confirming what was agreed upon, so that they were properly the Presidents here.

Thirdly, As to the Confirmation of all these Acts, the Notes affirm, That all which was decreed here concern∣ing the Faith against Eutyches, was confirmed and appro∣ved by Leo's Authority, as the Fathers had desired of him in their Synodical Epistle; but they pretend he annulled and made void the 28th Canon o 1.495: And this they pre∣tend to prove, not by the Synodical Epistle it self, for that speaks only of the Emperors confirmation, and never desires the Pope to ratifie the matters of Faith, but saith, he and they by his Legates had agreed on these points, only they wish for his consent to the 28th Canon about the Primacy of Constantinople, which his Legates had opposed p 1.496. And indeed they suppo∣sed they had his consent in all things which the Le∣gates agreed to; and so those passages cited by the Notes out of Leo's Epistle, do not prove that he con∣firmed the Decrees of Faith, otherwise than by giving his common suffrage to them by his Legates, and agreeing with them afterwards q 1.497: And thus all other Bishops, who were absent, and had Legates there, con∣firmed them as well as the Pope; as for his dissent from that Canon, and their brags that he had made it void, we shall shew afterwards, that it remained in force for all the Popes opposition. But it may be ob∣served how notoriously the Latin Version corrupts the Text to insinuate this Papal confirmation; for in the Speech they made to the Emperor, in the end of the Council, the Latin hath these words, Concilii hujus a vobis Congregati Praedicationem, Petri sedis Authoritate robo∣rantes, implying that the Popes Authority was to confirm the determinations of the Council: But the Greek hath a

quite different sense, viz. that the determinations of the Pope (that is, Leo's Epistle to Flavianus) were confirmed by that Holy Council which the Emperor had gathered r 1.498: And not only that Speech, but many other evidences do shew clearly, that the Emperor confirmed the De∣cree of this Council. For First, In the end of divers Acts, the Judges, as the Emperors Legates, do confirm what was agreed upon s 1.499, and sometimes promise to acquaint the Emperor for his confirmation t 1.500: Yea, the Emperor in his Speech made to the Synod, saith he came to the Synod to confirm the Faith, and not to shew his Power, as Baronius and the Latin Version reads it u 1.501; but the Greek more truly reads, I came to the Synod to confirm what was agreed on, &c. which shews sufficient∣ly, that the Emperor was to confirm all the Acts: Yea, in that very Session wherein the Faith was subscribed by the Bishops, the Emperor expresly confirms it, and makes a penal Sanction against all that shall contradict or oppose it w 1.502, upon which the Fathers cried out thou hast confirmed the Orthodox Faith x 1.503: And a little while after the Council was ended, the same Emperor put out two Edicts, wherein he doth fully confirm the De∣crees of this Holy Council, adding in the later, penal∣ties to all that would not receive it y 1.504. Wherefore we can make no doubt that the main confirmation of the Acts of this Council was from the Emperor.

§. 3. In the next place we will consider the several Sessions and Acts which were in number sixteen. In the first Action, Baronius, by mistake, affirms, that the Emperor was present z 1.505; but the Acts shew that he was only present by his Legates, the Lay-Judges, who representing the Emperor the true President of this Au∣gust Assembly, sate in a more honourable place than the Popes Legates, and here and always are named before them a 1.506. But the Champions of the Supre∣macy boast extreamly of the great words of the Popes Legates concerning the See of Rome; who say in this first Action, on the mention of Rome, which is the

Head of all Churches b 1.507; and the Greek seems to refer it to Pope Leo. To which may be added, that the same Legates in the third Action, though they do not call the Pope Head of the Universal Church, as Bellarmine falsly cites their words c 1.508; yet they magnifie St. Pe∣ter as the Rock and groundwork of the Catholick Church, and the Foundation of true Faith d 1.509: And in some other places they call the Pope Universal Bishop, &c. To which I answer, The Council no where gives the Bi∣shop of Rome any of these extravagant Titles, and did so little regard these empty brags of the Legates, that in the first Act, the Judges do reject the very first re∣quest which Leo's Legates made to the Council; and when they petitioned in Leo's name, that Dioscorus might stand at the Bar, the Judges bid him sit down e 1.510: And if we consider how zealous this ambitious Pope was for the Dignity of his See, and that his Legates had been taught their Lesson at Rome, we may justly argue from the Councils silence, and the lower Style of Arch-Bishop which they give him, that these big Thrasonical Titles were not believed nor appro∣ved by them; for many things are reported in the Councils, as said by particular persons, which were not the Act of the whole Council; for which reason Bel∣larmine egregiously prevaricates, when he makes this whole General Council to call Peter the Rock and Ground∣work of the Catholick Church f 1.511; For it was only the Popes Domesticks called him so; and had the Council foreseen the consequence, they would expresly have opposed, that which they only silently passed by as frivo∣lous. In the next place we may observe, that it is said in this Council, that the Emperor confirmed the Acts of the second Council at Ephesus g 1.512, therefore it was usual then for the Emperor so to do, since this is alledged to prove that a lawful Council. Again, when the Acts of this second Council at Ephesus were read at Chalce∣don, the Greek plainly saith, the Emperor by his Letters exhorted the Pope to be present there, but the Latin Ver∣sion corrupts the Text, and puts in supplicarunt b 1.513, as

if the Emperor had humbly supplicated the Pope to be there; whereas one of his Legates, a few lines be∣fore, owned, that the Pope had the same Form of Sum∣mons sent him, that was sent to the other great Bishops. Moreover, in Eutyches Petition read in that Council, Cyril is called the President of the third General Council at Ephesus i 1.514, without any mention of the Pope: And we may further observe, that the Heretick Euty∣ches, in the Acts of the Council of Constantinople which condemned him, is called Pope Eutyches, that being a name formerly given to all Eminent Clergy-men, espe∣cially in the East k 1.515. I shall make no more remarks upon this first Session, which was spent in reading over and reviewing the Council of Constantinople, wherein Eutyches was condemned, and the Pseudo-Synod of Ephesus wherein Dioscorus absolved him, because I have treated of both before: It is sufficient to observe upon this full hearing, the Council of Chalcedon condemned both Eutyches and Dioscorus, and the Lay-Judges summ'd up the Act; but there seems to be a Roman addition in the end of this first Act, where it is thrust in without choerence and sense, that Leo writ an Epistle to Flavi∣anus; which, though it be true l 1.516, comes in very im∣pertinently here; but the Forger thought when the Writings of the Orthodox Fathers were mentioned, that of Leo ought by all means to be mentioned right or wrong.

In the second Action there is nothing considerable, but the reading of this very Epistle of Leo to Flavia∣nus (after the Nicene and Constantinopolitan Creed) being written expresly about the Eutychian Heresie, the main Cause to be then decided m 1.517; which was there∣fore received there as other Orthodox Writings were, with general Acclamations; but the Notes, citing these Acclamations, quote them imperfectly no further than these words, Peter speaks by Leo n 1.518: But the Council goes on, and says, The Apostles and Cyril taught thus, by which we may see it was the consonancy of Leo's Doctrine, to the writings of the Apostles, and of St. Cyril, not the

infallibility of his See which procured his Epistle this general applause. Wherefore the Prefacer need not have mentioned these Acclamations, as if they were only given to Leo's Epistle, or had been made upon some single excellency peculiar to the Bishop of that See o 1.519; for both the Creeds, and two of Cyril's Epistles had been honoured with such like Acclamations a little before.

The third Action contains the canonical deposition of Dioscorus, after the Bishops had heard all the com∣plaints against him, cited him thrice, and could not prevail with him to appear. Now there being nothing to be done at this Session, but to proceed according to the Canons, of which the Bishops were the proper Ex∣ecutors; they only met, without Lay Judges, which (saith Binius) is the most evident note of a General Coun∣cil p 1.520, but in truth it is no note of any such matter; for if that were not a General Council, wherein some of the Lasty were present, then there never was any General Council till this time, and this single Act would then be the sole Regular Act of this General Council; to such absurd consequences doth these mens blind zeal lead them. The next thing to be noted is, a corruption in the Titles of the Petitions, which some of the Aegy∣ptian Clergy offered to the Council against Dioscorus; for the Greek hath no more but this, The Petition of Theodorus, the Deacon, exhibited against Dioscorus; but the Latin Version thrusts in Pope Leo's name thus, ex∣hibited to Pope Leo and the Council of Chalcedon q 1.521, and the same corruption is in the Titles of the following Petitions of Ischyrion, Athanasius and Sophronius. If it be objected, that the Superscriptions of all these Petiti∣ons, both in Greek and Latin are, To the most Holy, &c.—Universal Patriarch of Great Rome, Leo, and to the Holy General Council, &c. r 1.522: I reply, these Superscripti∣ons seem to be forged also: For first, Eusebius his Pe∣tition before, mentions not Leo, and these Petitions are addressed only to the Council, there being not the least sentence in them peculiar to Leo, or supposing him to

see or read them; so that these Superscriptions to an absent Bishop are non-sense, and in all probability ad∣ded by some Roman Transcribers, as may be guessed by the great swelling Titles, with which the Pope is loaded. Again, in the Summons sent to Dioscorus the third time, it is declared, that the Emperor had command∣ed the Bishops to hear this Cause; the Greek word is [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], but the Latin softens it into [permisit] s 1.523. However, whether the Emperor commanded or per∣mitted the Bishops to hear this Cause, it is plain, that even in this Session, consisting only of Clergy, the Bi∣shops had the Emperors leave, and proceeded by his permission. As to the Sentence it self; the Preface t 1.524, the Notes u 1.525 and Baronius w 1.526 pretend it was pronoun∣ced in Leo's name, and boast much of the Legates pro∣nouncing it. But if we consult the place, we shall find that since no Lay-Judges were there, the Popes Legates were (as these Judges did in other Sessions) to collect the Votes, and then to sum them up, and publish them; and therefore, after the enquiry was ended, they ask what the Synod thought fit to be done; which they do over and over again, and till the Council ex∣presly commanded them, they did not pronounce the Sentence x 1.527. 'Tis true, these Legates had learned their Lessons so well at Rome, that they contrive it. in words very pompous, The most Holy and Blessed Arch-Bishop of the Elder and Greater Rome, Leo, by us, and by this pre∣sent Synod, with the most Blessed and Honourable Apostle, Pe∣ter, who is the Rock and Groundwork of the Catholick Church, and he that is the Foundation y 1.528 of the Orthodox Faith, (that is, Jesus Christ) hath deprived him of his Episcopal Dignity, and degraded him from all Ministration; there∣fore let this most Holy General Council decree concerning the said Dioscorus what is agreeable to the Canons z 1.529. But these Rhetorical Flourishes, coming only from the Popes Domesticks, give him no right to them; it is more material what Cardinal Cusanus observes, that the Legates, as sitting first in this Council, first pronounce Sen∣tence by the Synods command, and then all she rest in order;

and the force of the Sentence depends upon the agreeing Votes of all: And we see, that though the Pope had before canonically deposed Dioscorus, yet his Sentence was re-exami∣ned in a General Council a 1.530. This is certain, that Ana∣tolius, of Constantinople, and all the rest, though in mo∣dester words, did singly condemn Dioscorus, and he was deposed and degraded by the Authority of the Gene∣ral Council, and the free Votes of the several Bishops, who, as Pope Leo himself speaks, had confirmed his Sen∣tence with an assent, which made the Cause uncapable of being tried any more b 1.531. And the Sentence which was published about his deposition c 1.532, as well as the Letter writ to Alexandria d 1.533 expresly declare, that he was de∣posed and degraded by the Holy General Council (c): And the very same is affirmed in the Synodical Epistles, writ to Martian and Pulcheria, to desire them to con∣firm the Councils Sentence e 1.534. So that in vain do the Modern Romanists brag of the deposition of Dioscorus by the Popes Supream Authority; for it was the opi∣nion indeed of the Pope, before the Council met, that he ought to be deposed; but it was the Authority of the Council, ratified by the Emperor, which actually deposed him.

In the fourth Act, the Epistle of Pope Leo to Flavia∣nus (wherein the Heresie of Eutyches was confuted and condemned) was subscribed by all the Bishops, who severally declared they received it, because it was a∣greeable to the Faith declared in the three former Ge∣neral Councils of Nice, Constantinople and Ephesus; and some of them add, because it was agreeable to the Scri∣pture, and to the Expositions of the Orthodox Fathers f 1.535. Now had these Fathers believed the Pope to be Infal∣lible in matters of Faith, they must have received this Epistle only upon the Credit of the Pope; where∣as they now examin and judge of it by the Rules prescri∣bed in former Councils, and receive it, not because the Enditer of it was Infallible, but because he had kept close to former determinations in General Councils. And since the business of this Council was to discover

and condemn the Heresie of Eutyches, against which new Sect no eminent Bishop but Leo had written, there∣fore this Epistle was made a Test, and all were obliged to subscribe it, not (as the Romanists brag) because the See of Rome was to fix the Rule of Faith; but be∣cause this was the only Writing then extant of this kind; and we may as well prove that St. Cyril was the Supream Bishop of the World, and the sole Arbiter of Faith, because his Epistles were subscribed in the Ge∣neral Council of Ephesus, as a Test to find out and condemn the Nestorians, as infer the Roman Supre∣macy or Infallibility from the Bishops subscribing Leo's Epistle at Chalcedon. We may further note in this Acti∣on, that how confidently-soever modern Editors place the Councils of Constantinople and Ephesus, under Da∣masus and Celestine; the Popes Legates here plainly say the Council of Constantinople was held under the Em∣peror Theodosius g 1.536; and other Bishops affirm, that Cyril was the President and Head of the Council at Ephe∣sus h 1.537: Again, it is to be noted, that though Juvena∣lis of Jerusalem, and four other Bishops who had joyned with Dioscorus in the Synod at Ephesus, to condemn Fla∣vianus, repented and had subscribed Leo's Epistle, and so declared themselves to be Orthodox; yet the Council could not restore them to their Places, till the Emperor, by his Judges, gave them leave to determine their Case i 1.538. It is also memorable, that the Egyptian Bishops, after their own Patriarch Dioscorus was deposed, refused to sign the Epistle of Leo, till they had a new Bishop of Alexandria, under whose jurisdiction the Nicene Ca∣nons had put them; and though the Popes Legates and many others urged they should subscribe immediately, yet these Bishops were excused by the Council, and their Plea allowed k 1.539; which shews, that those who were under the Patriarch of Alexandria, owed no sub∣jection at all to Rome; nor did they or the Council of Chalcedon think the Pope was really (what his Legates flat∣teringly call him) the Universal Arch-Bishop of Patriarch, for then they could not have allowed this Plea. More∣over,

'tis observable in this Act, that Photius, Bishop of Tyre, affirms, both Anatolius and Leo were the Presidents of this Council l 1.540: Also this Bishop in his Petition to the Emperors, stiles them Lords of the Earth and Sea, and of all Men, Nations and Kindreds m 1.541; which shews that Titles are not to be strictly understood, or to be made any ground for Argument, since Complements were used then as well as now; and therefore the Romanists should not attempt to prove a right from every flou∣rishing Title bestowed on the Pope by those who speak of him. In the Cause between this Photius of Tyre, and Eustathius of Berytus, there is a passage, how one of these Bishops claimed a right to some Churches by the Imperial Edicts, and the other by the Canons; and he who claimed a right by the Canons, got the better: Yea, the Council declared, that Edicts ought not to prevail against the Canons * 1.542. From whence Baro∣nius infers, that Princes ought to learn from hence to make their Laws submit to the Ecclesiastical Canons n 1.543. But it must be noted, this was not intended to be a Rule in all Cases, only as to the old Rights of Bishops Jurisdictions; and it was a Rule made now, only up∣on this occasion; and which is most remarkable, the Judges tell the Council, it was the Emperor's pleasure, this Cause should be tried, nor by the Edicts, but by the Ca∣nons; for which the Bishops gave that pious Emperor thanks: And therefore it is a great fallacy to argue from hence, that Ecclesiastical Canons are above the Laws of Princes in their own nature; only in this Case the Good Emperor, to oblige the Bishops, suffer∣ed the Canons to prevail. To conclude, this Session ended with a confirmation of all things done by the Lay-Judges, who declare they should remain firm o 1.544, and so the Session ended.

In the Fifth Action, wherein the Matters of Faith were to be declared, the Emperors Legates were pre∣sent, and prevented a Schism which was like to happen among the Bishops, some of which would not consent to the Councils definition; but the Lay-Judges from

the Emperor advised the Dissenters to go with Anato∣lius and the Popes Legates, and to confer among them∣selves so as they might agree, otherwise they threatned that the Emperor resolved to call a Council in the West, to which they must go to determin the dif∣ference p 1.545: From whence we may note, that they knew of no single Person who could finally decide questions of Faith; and though it was to be determined at Rome, a general Council must do it there: However, this Method proved effectual, and so they published their Faith unanimously, annexing it to the Creeds of Nice and Constantinople q 1.546. We shall only note further, that in the Acclamations made in this Session it is said, That the Councils definition had confirmed Leo's Epistle, and the Faith of Leo is commended because he believed as Cyril believed: And after all, the Bishops agreement was not sufficient to ratifie this definition of Faith, till it was shewed to the Emperor r 1.547 as the last words import.

The Sixth Action was adorned with the presence of the Emperor Marcianus, who made a Speech to the Fathers, (which Baronius by mistake saith was in the first Session s 1.548;) telling them he was come to confirm the Faith they had agreed on, (as Constantine did) not to shew his power t 1.549. Which is a clear and undenia∣ble proof, that the confirmation of their Decrees de∣pended on the Emperor, in whose presence the defi∣nition of Faith was read and subscribed by every one of the Bishops; and he declared his Approbation there∣of, and in the open Synod appoints penalties for them who should, after this, call these Points into que∣stion u 1.550. And then he gives them some Rules, to be formed into Canons, because they related to Ecclesia∣stical Affairs; after which having been highly Applaud∣ed by the Bishops, he was petitioned to dimiss them, but told them they must not depart for some few days, and so took his leave of them. Which shews that the Emperor who convened them, had also the sole power to dissolve this general Council: I shall add what Ri∣cherius

observes upon that definition of Faith made in this Session, that it contains many of the very words and expressions of the Athanasian Creed; and though he doubt whether Athanasius did compose that Form which bears his name; yet he saith, It is now become the Creed of the Catholick Church, and there is not a Tittle in it which is not agreeable to the Credit, Holiness and Learning of Athanasius w 1.551. He notes also the policy of the Popes Legates, who contrary to all ancient usage, and to the Primitive simplicity of the former Councils, do most impertinently put this Epithete to the Popes name, Bishop of the Universal Church of the City of Rome x 1.552. But when I consider the absurdity of the expression, and the frequent corruptions in these Acts, why might not that bold hand who added to the Legates name, President of the Council; in this very place (and in this Session where the Emperor being present certainly presided) add this huffing Title to the Pope's name? And if so, it is a corruption and can be no ground for an Argument: However, 'tis a great pre∣judice to all these Titles, that when any others of the Council speak of the Pope, they call him only Bishop or Archbishop, and none but his own Legates load him with those vain Titles.

The Seventh Action contains only the Ratification of a private Agreement, made between Maximus Bishop of Antioch, and Juvenalis Bishop of Jerusalem, concerning the extent of their Jurisdictions y 1.553.

The Eighth Action was the case of Theodoret, who having formerly favoured Nestorius, yet being after∣wards convinced of his Error, was received into Com∣munion by Pope Leo, who had judged his cause and acquitted him before the Council met: But for all that, the case was heard over again, and he called an Here∣tick, and had been expelled the Council, if he had not cleared himself over again by subscribing Leo's Epistle, and Anathematizing Nestorius and Eutyches, upon which he was restored to Communion and to his Bishoprick z 1.554: By which it is as clear as the Sun, that

the Council was above the Pope, and had Authority to Judge over again the Causes he had determined; and also that barely being in Communion with the Pope, could not clear any Man from Heresie, nor give him a right to the Communion of the Catholick Church. And if the Epistles of Theodoret to Leo be genuin, (whereof there is good cause to doubt) and this cause were referred to the Pope by Appeal; (as the Romanists brag) This makes the matter worse, and shews that the last Appeal is not to the Pope, and that he cannot finally decide any cause, which shall not be liable to be tried again in a general Council, yea though it be, as this was, a Cause of Faith; which utterly ruins the Infallibility.

The Ninth and Tenth Actions, concern Ibas Bishop of Edessa, who had been a Nestorian, and was deposed by Dioscorus in the Pseudo Synod of Ephesus, in which are these observables: First, The Emperor commanded a Lay-man and some Neighbouring Bishops to hear this Cause, first at Tyre, and then at Berytus a 1.555; so that even Provincial Councils did not meet without the Emperors Authority, and the Popes universal su∣premacy was not known then. For in the Council of Berytus, Antioch is called an Apostolical Throne b 1.556, and the Council after they had restored him to his Bishoprick, referred the cause between him and Nonnus, (who had been thrust into his place) to Maximus Bishop of An∣tioch, as the proper Judge of that matter. No more is here to be noted, but only that the Popes Legates and the whole Council desire, that the Emperor would revoke and utterly annul the Ephesine false Synod d 1.557. For though the Pope had done this, yet they knew that was insufficient, since none but the Emperor had right effectually to confirm, or null a Council which pre∣tended to be Oecumenical. To this Action Baronius and Binius tack another, concerning an allowance to be made to maintain Domnus late Bishop of Antioch, who had been deposed e 1.558: But they own this is not

in the Greek, nor was there any such thing in the Acts of the Council in Justinian's time, who expresly af∣firms Domnus was dead before, which is certainly true f 1.559; Wherefore the Cardinal owns they found this in an old Latin Copy, in the Vatican, the very Mint of Forgeries; and this Action ought to be rejected as a mear Fiction.

The Eleventh and Twelfth Actions were spent in examing the cause of Bassianus and Stephanus, both pre∣tending to be Bishops of Ephesus, wherein we may ob∣serve: That Bassianus pleads, he was duly elected by the suffrage of the Nobility, People and Clergy of that City and the Emperor confirmed the Election g 1.560; for the Pope had not then usurped the nomination or confirmation of remote Bishops. Again, whereas Baro∣nius brags, that the Pope deposed Bassianus from the Bi∣shoprick of Ephesus, and cites the words of Stephen his Antagonist thus, it is now four years since the Roman Bishop deposed Bassianus—arguing from thence, That it was the ancient usage for the Pope to depose Metropolitans h 1.561; He doth notoriously prevaricate, for Stephen's words are, since the Roman Bishop deposed him, and the Bishop of Alexandria condemned him: And a little before the same Stephen saith more fully, That Bassianus was expelled by the holy Fathers, Leo and Flavianus and the Bishops of Alexandria and Antioch i 1.562. By which the Reader may see there is no credit to be given to Baronius Quotations, who always resolves by false Citations of Authors, to ascribe that to the Pope alone, which was done by him in conjunction with other Bishops: And it appears, that the principal right over Ephesus was in the Patriarch of Constantinople, whence it was pleaded by the Friends of Bassianus, that Proclus of Constontinople who had the right, received him to Com∣munion: And Stephen urges, that Flavianus of Constan∣stinople expelled him afterwards k 1.563. And therefore it is remarkable, that in the twefth Action where the Sen∣tence was to be pronounced, Anatolius Bishop of Con∣stantinople declares his Judgment before the Popes Le∣gates,

and is always named before them in all that Session, where a Cause was to be decided concerning a Church, which was specially under his jurisdiction l 1.564; by which it appears, the principal Person in the de∣posing of Bassianus, was the Patriarch of Constantinople, who probably desired the other great Patriarchs con∣currence for the better credit of his Sentence: More∣over it is to be noted, that though Pope Leo favoured the cause of Stephen, and writ an Epistle in his behalf mentioned in the Council; The Popes favour did him no service, for his Cause was tried over again, and he deposed by this general Council as well as Bassianus; and this by the consent of the Popes Legates, who not∣withstanding their big words, did not believe it un∣lawful for a general Council to contradict a determina∣tion of the Popes.

The Thirteenth and Fourteenth Actions concern on∣ly the Causes of private Bishops, who had complained to the Emperor (not to the Pope) of injury done them; and the Emperor appointed them to be finally determined by the Council, and so the Bishop of Ni∣chomedias's Jurisdiction was cleared, and the Bishop of Nice ordered to be content only with the honour of a Metropolitan m 1.565. And in the fourteenth Action Atha∣nasius was setled in the Bishoprick of Perrhaea; and Sa∣binianus, who claimed it, ordered to keep the honour of a Bishop, and to be maintained out of the Profits of that Church, as the Patriarch of Antiooh should di∣rect n 1.566. Nothing is remarkable in them, but only that the Lay Judges pronounce the Decree, and not the Popes Legates, and then the Synod consent.

The Fifteenth Action contains the Canons of this General Council for Ecclesiastical Discipline, three of which were recommended to the Fathers by the Em∣peror to be formed into Canons o 1.567: So that in obedi∣ence to the Emperor, they were obliged to make some Ecclesiastical Rules: And one of these is the fourth Canon, which decrees, that all Monks every where shall be subject to the Bishop of that Diocess

wherein their Monastery is built p 1.568; which being a genuine Canon of a General Council, not objected against by the Popes Legates, it is somewhat strange that the Modern Popes have no regard to it, but daily and openly break it, in defiance of the Primitive Dis∣cipline, by exempting all Monasteries from due sub∣jection to their own Bishop q 1.569; and this meerly out of policy to make the Monks intirely depend upon the Pope, and serve his interests. The ninth Canon or∣dains, that the Causes betwen Clergy-men shall be tried before their own Bishop, and not in Secular Courts; and if a Bishop have a complaint against his Metropo∣litan, he shall go to the Primate of the Diocess, or appeal to the See of Constantinople: Which Canon Pope Nicholus resolved to force into his interest, and so ridiculously expounds, the Primate of the Diocess, is meant the Bishop of Rome, who is Primate of all Dioceses r 1.570: Turrian as boldly expounds it, the Primate of the universal Dio∣cess: And Binius in his Notes will have the word to signifie the Prince of the Christian Diocess s 1.571. But all these feigned additions and forced glosses will not help them, because the Canon gives leave to the Party in∣jured to complain, either to the Bishop of Constantino∣ple, or to the Pope, at his own choice, which sets that Patriarch upon equal ground with him of Rome. But the Original Word signifies an Order of Bishops below a Patriarch, but above a Metropolitan; and the Ca∣non expresly limits Appeals either to be made by these, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Primates, who had Jurisdiction over the Pro∣vince, or to the Patriarch of Constantinople; which shews that this Council never thought of any Right that Rome then had to receive Appeals from all parts of the World. And if any question why the Pope is not here named, at least, for the Western Churches Appeals, as well as the Patriarch of Constantinople for the Eastern; I take the true reason to be, the absence of the Popes Legates from this Session, consisting only of Oriental Bishops; for which reason they modestly refused to decree any thing concerning Discipline in

the West, leaving affairs there to proceed according to parity of Reason. We may add, that the Latin Ver∣sion of the sixteenth Canon hath put in the word [con∣fitentes] into the Body of the Canon, which is not in the Original * 1.572, but Labbè leaves out this corruption.

But that which hath occasioned the greatest Con∣troversie, is the twenty eighth Canon, wherein this Council confirms the Decrees of the Fathers, and the second Council of Constantinoples Canon about the Privi∣ledges of that See. For as the Fathers had given the See of Rome its priviledges, because it was the Imperial City, for the same reason the second General Council gave like honour to the See of Constantinople; and would have it also even in Ecclesiastical Affairs, to be advanced to the second place: And they order that the Bishop of Constan∣tinople should ordain and have a Jurisdiction over all the Metropolitans of the Dioceses of Pontus, Asia and Thrace t 1.573. The Modern Romanists do all they can to suppress or baffle this Canon. The Editors put a Note before it, that it is not in their Greek Manuscripts; but that is no wonder, since it hath been long the design of their Church to conceal this Canon; but that such a Canon was really made at Chalcedon, is apparent, not only from the sixteenth Action, where it was read at large, and allowed by the whole Council, and confirmed by the Lay-Judges, notwithstanding the opposition of the Popes Legates; But it is also found in all the Greek Collectors, cited in Photius his Nomo-Canon (writ above 900 year ago) and is also extant in that old Latin Interpreter, who put out the Canons before Di∣onisius exiguus (that is, soon after the year 500) u 1.574: So that there is no doubt but this Canon was really made at Chalcedon. Yet Gratian would not cite it under the name of a Canon of Chalcedon, but quotes it out of the sixth General Council, wherein there are almost the same words; but his old Editions (which were in use while the Roman Primacy was setting up) had grosly corrupted the main words of it, and instead of the affirmative etiam in rebus Ecclesiasticis non secus, ac

illam extolli,—&c. it was in him non tamen in rebus Ecclesiasticis magnificetur, ut illa w 1.575, which quite alters the sense, and makes it seem as if the Council had not spoken of any Ecclesiastical Priviledges; whereas they speak of no other but such. Now this was so apparent a falsification, that the later Copies of Gratian have mended it, and made it nec non x 1.576: But this was not till that Church had seen Constantinople under the Tur∣kish Yoke, and in no capacity to vye with her.

In the Sixteenth Action the Popes Legates complain to the Judges, before all the Council, That this Canon was made after their departure, and irregularly; and desire it may be read: They were answered by the Arch-Deacon of Constantinople, that it was customary in General Coun∣cils to treat of Discipline after matters of Faith; that they told the Popes Legates this, and desired their concurrence as to what should be done for the Church of Constanti∣nople; but they refused, saying they had other Orders; upon this they acquainted the Judges, and they commanded the Council to proceed; and so they did, nothing being done fraudulently, but all publickly and canonically; upon this the Canon aforesaid was read y 1.577. Then the Legates Objecti∣ons were heard and answered; First to his insinuation, that it was fraudulently obtained: The Bishops all de∣clared, and especially those of Pontus and Asia, newly subjected to Constantinople, that they consented and subscribed to this Canon, without any circumvention or force, voluntarily and freely. Secondly, whereas the Legates pretended it was contrary to the Nicene Canons; and cite the sixth Canon of Nice falsly, put∣ting this forged Title (That the Church of Rome always had the Primacy) into the body of the Canon: The Council first discovers the fallacy by reading a true and authentick Record of that Canon, without that cor∣rupt Addition, (though still Baronius z 1.578 and Binius a 1.579 blush not to argue from this feigned Addition); and then was read the Canon of the second Council at Constantinople, (for in that Age the Popes Cause was to be judged by the Canons) to both which this Canon

of Chalcedon was thought so agreeable, that the Bishops principally concerned, declared again, they had freely subscribed it as agreeable both to the Canons and Cu∣stom. And Eusebius, Bishop of Dorylaeum, declares he read that Canon of Constantinople, here confirmed, to the Pope at Rome, and he owned it: Where by the way, Baronius egregiously prevaricates in expounding hanc regulam (that is, this Canon of the second Ge∣neral Council) of Eusebius his rule or confession of Faith b 1.580, quite contrary to the plain sense of the Bi∣shop here. To proceed, whereas the Legates objected Thirdly, That the Bishops of Constantinople had not formerly used the Rights now conserred on them; the contrary is manifest, both as to precedence, since all the Acts of this Council shew; that Anatolius sate and spoke in the second place next to the Popes Legates; and they had said in the first Act, that his due was the second place c 1.581. And as to Jurisdiction, the very Bishops of these Provinces do in these Acts, declare the Patriarchs of Constantinople had used it in their Coun∣tries and Dioceses for many years: Upon which the Judges pronounce the Sentence, and give the second place to Constantinople, with the Patriarchal Jurisdicti∣on over those Provinces named in the Canon, to which the whole Council consents, except the Popes Legate, who entred his Protestation against it; but still the Bishops stood firm to the Canon, and the Judges declare it valid, with which this General Council is concluded. Baronius thinks the final Acclamations are wanting d 1.582; if they be so, we may easily guess who rased them out; even that Church which then, and since hath opposed this Canon, and would conceal that General Consent by which it passed. But the last words are plain enough, where the Judges say, The whole Synod hath confirmed it e 1.583, even though the Le∣gates did dissent. I shall conclude this History of Fact, when I have noted two Corruptions in favour of the Roman Church, which are evident in this last Act. First, The Latin Version affirms the Judges said, Rome

truly, by the Canons had all the Primacy, omnem Primatum; but the Greek is, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Primacy before all others f 1.584, which is not a Supremacy over all other Bishops, but the first place among them. Again, the Legates in the Latin Copy say, The Apostolical See ought not to be humbled in our presence; but the Greek is quite different, that is, the Apostolical Throne command∣ed that all things should be done in our presence g 1.585: But he who made the alteration was one who dream'd that this Canon was to humble Rome, whereas it takes not away the first place from the Pope, only gives the second equal Priviledges within its own bounds to Constantinople.

§. 4. We shall now proceed to the third part con∣cerning what was done after the Council, and there will shew that this Canon was valid, notwithstanding the dissent of the Popes Legates, and Leo's furious en∣deavours to annull it.

The first thing, after the Councils speech to the Em∣peror, in the old Collectors of Councils, was the Im∣perial Edicts, by which the Decrees were confirmed; but these late Editors have removed these into the third place h 1.586: And first set down a pretended Let∣ter from the Council to the Pope, which is done only to impose upon unwary Readers, and make them think it was not the Emperor, but the Pope who had the power of confirming the Acts. But as to the Epistle it self, it was dated in the end of March, four Months after the Council was separated; and (if it be not a For∣gery, as some vehemently suspect, on the account of a foolish and improbable story in it of Euphemia's dead body confirming the true Faith by a Miracle) it was writ not by the General Council, but by Anatolius, af∣ter he had heard of the Popes dislike of the twenty eighth Canon; and therefore he doth not desire his consent to any other thing, but only labours to gain his assent to this Cannon i 1.587. So that Baronius falsly argues from hence, it was the custom to send the Decrees

of General Councils to Rome, to be confirmed by the Popes Authority k 1.588: For this Letter was not writ by a Gene∣ral Council, nor doth it desire a confirmation of any thing but one Canon, which stood firm notwithstand∣ing the Pope always disallowed it: I only note that where the original is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is, taking his wonted care, the Latin reads consuete gubernando: As if the Pope had by custom governed all Churches as far as Con∣stantinople l 1.589. I observe also, that Binius leaves out the date of this Epistle to the Pope, which is later in time than either of the Imperial Edicts; hoping by that means the cheat of placing it before those Edicts would be undiscovered, and that easie People might judge it a formal Letter writ while the Council was sitting, to Petition the Pope to confirm all they had done. I shall not insist upon any more particulars, but smile at Baronius, who for a few Complements, that the writer of this Letter gives the Pope, draws a serious Argument for the Supremacy, and would have all Bishops, even in a General Council, to be Sons to their Holy Father the Pope m 1.590. To proceed, the Edicts of the Emperor are dated, one in February, and the other in March, and they do effectually confirm the Acts of the Council, and ordain penalties on such as oppose the definitions of the Synod n 1.591. After this follow three Letters of Pope Leo, dated all of one day, dire∣cted to Anatolius Bishop of Constantinople, and to the Emperor and Empress Marcianus and Pulcheria o 1.592, in all which he shews his consent to the other things done at Chalcedon; but argues and exclaims against the 28th Canon, saying in his Letter to Pulcheria, that by the Authority of Peter he utterly makes it void. But all this spoils the Cause; for notwithstanding all his huffing, this Canon did remain in Force; for Liberatus, who writ in the next Century, saith, The Judges and all the Bishops did not value the Legates protestation; and though the Apostolical See still oppose it, this which was confirmed by the Synod, by the Emperors, Patronage remains even till now p 1.593; and Almain of later times affirms, the Consti∣tution

of the Council prevailed over the protestations of Leo against it: For the Canons of general Councils do prevail over the opposite Decrees of Popes q 1.594. And the History of following times doth clearly shew, that the Bishop of Constantinople was ever after this reckoned the second Patriarch, and took his place accordingly in succeeding Councils, and retained the jurisdiction over those Pro∣vinces which this Canon gives him: Wherefore it is very weak in Baronius, from some bold passages in Leo's Letters to draw this consequence, that it is clearly in the sole power of the Pope to make void, what 630 Bishops in Council, the Emperor and Senate had agreed on and con∣firmed r 1.595. For the contrary is clear as the Sun, that the Legates contradiction there, and the Popes ranting after∣wards, for all his pretended Authority of St. Peter, did not signify any thing towards a real annulling this Canon; and the more he strove to do it, the more he shewed his Pride to be above his Power: And indeed General Coun∣cils were needless, precarious and insignificant, if any one Bishop were not to be concluded by the major vote, or had a negative voice there. But because the Pope argues as well as condemns, let us hear his reasons against this Canon: First, He every where urges, it is contrary to the Nicene Canon: But this is false; he and his Legates indeed pretend this, but the Nicene Canon was read over in open Council, and all of them unanimously agreed, it did no way contradict it: The Council of Nice declared those Patriarchates, which Custom had then setled, and (since after that time Con∣stantinople came to be the Imperial City,) the second General Council, and this at Chalcedon had as good right to declare Constantinople a Patriarchate, as the first at Nice had to declare others; and since Precedency was purely of Ecclesiastical Institution, and given (as this Canon saith,) on consideration of the honours of the Cities, when the Emperors had made this City equal to old Rome, as to the Civil State, the Council might allot it a suitable precedence in the Church, which was a perfecting of the Nicene Canon, and a

proceeding upon the same reason; but no contradi∣ction to it. Secondly, Leo argues, that this was a pre∣judice to the two Sees of Alexandria and Antioch, which were elder Patriarchates, and so ought to preceed Con∣stantinople: I reply, Maximus Bishop of Antioch did not think this Canon any injury to him, for he is the second who subscribed it, and all-along in the several Sessions Anatolius sat and spoke before him: And though Leo stood nicely upon his points in these matters, we do not find other Bishops were of that temper; they freely sub∣mitted to the Bishop of the imperial City, especially since he only had a place before them, but no Au∣thority over any other Patriarch: So that Leo need not make any objections for them, who are not found to complain, or to have thought themselves injured. I shall not insist upon Leo's insinuation, that this Canon was procured fraudulently, and that Anatolius his Pride made him seek it, and strive to impose upon the Council: For every body sees the whole Council clears him of this; and 'tis plain, Leo was far prouder than Anatolius; he scorned a Second, and feared in time he might prove an Equal: But Anatolius only got that place confirmed to him in this Council, which he and his predecessors had hold long before: I might add here the elaborate Arguments of Baranius and Binius; but fearing I have been already too tedious, I shall refer the Reader to Richerius (who discovers all their Fal∣lacies s 1.596;) and make some observations on the rest of these Letters after the Council. In an Epistle of the Emperors to the Monks of Alexandria, who disliked the Council of Chalcedon, he recommends its defini∣tions, as agreeing to the Faith of Athanasius, Theo∣philus and Cyril, former Bishops of Alexandria t 1.597, which it seems was more considerable to them, than the Faith of Leo, in whom that Age knew of no Infallibility. Again, it is a good Rule in an Epistle of Leo's, That none should seek his own advancement by the diminution of another u 1.598, which had he and his Successors observed they would not have degraded all the other Patriarchs

to set themselves up as supreme over them all. There may be some suspicion, whether that Epistle of Leo to Maximus Bishop of Antioch be genuin; however there is a very improbable story in it, viz. That Ju∣venalis of Jerusalem had sought to get the jurisdiction of all Palestina in the famous General Council of E∣phesus, and that Cyril had writ to Leo to joyn with him in opposing that design; whereas that Council of E∣phesus was held nine years before Leo was Pope w 1.599; and therefore Leo could not be applied to, as to any thing agitated in that Council: After this follows a multitude of Epistles, in answer to the complaints of the Aegyptian Bishops, who adhered to this Council of Chalcedon, and the Emperor Leo's Order to all Bishops, to give the Sense of every Provincial Church, concern∣ing this General Council which some heretical Monks had questioned: For this Emperor prudently avoided the charge and trouble of another General Council, appointing the Metropolitans to call their own Bishops together at home, and to send him their Opinion of this Council of Chalcedon; which was universally own∣ed by all in their several Letters, to have been an Or∣thodox Council, sufficiently approved and confirmed: Now had the Pope then been infallible, or thought to be so, it had been sufficient to write to him alone, and he could have told the Emperor the Sense of the Ca∣tholick Church; but he was only writ to as other Bishops were, to declare his own Opinion: So that in this proceeding there are no marks of his Supremacy; for the other Bishops confirm the Faith decreed in this Council as well as the Pope, nor did his ratifying it make it needless for the Emperor to require the sen∣timents of others.

§. 5. We have no more to add to this, but only to make a few brief Remarks upon such passages in Binius's Notes upon this Council, as have not yet come under our consideration. The Miracle of Euphemia the Mar∣tyrs taking the Orthodox Confession of Faith into her

Hand (so long after her Death and Burial) and cast∣ing away that which was Heretical, is only hinted at in that suspicious Epistle from the Council x 1.600: But the Notes and Baronius cite, for the formal story, no Au∣thor elder than Metaphrastes, who lived above 450 years after; and if we consider how he and the later Writers, who mention it, vary and contradict one another in the time and manner of this pretended Miracle y 1.601, we shall easily discern the whole Story to be a Fiction. A little after the Notes say, that they highly injure this Holy Council, who say the Epistle of Ibas, which is Here∣tical, and contains the praises of Hereticks, and the con∣demnation of the Orthodox, was received and approved by the Fathers at Chalcedon; for those who say so joyn with the Nestorians z 1.602. But alass it proves very un∣luckily, that it was Pope Vigilius who said this, and who was condemned for an Heretick for this and other things of like nature, by the fifth General Council a 1.603; and Binius knew this well enough, but because it was a Friend, he conceals his Name. Again, he tells us of one Julianus, Bishop of Coos, that he was the Popes Legate b 1.604, and so he is called indeed in the Subscri∣ptions sometimes; but let it be noted, that the Pope doth not name this Julianus in his Letter to the Council among his Legates c 1.605; but Paschasinus, Lucenti∣us and Boniface with one Basilius are there said to be his Legates: And yet this Basilius never appeared in the Council, which makes a very Learned Man conjecture, that the Fathers at Chalcedon rejected two of those whom the Pope had nominated for Legates, viz. this Basilius and Julianus, the former not being admitted into the Council, and the later having no other place than what his own See gave him; so that Baronius his observation concerning this Julianus his speaking La∣tin, as the dignity of the Roman See required, will not prove him properly a Legate, or if it do d 1.606, then the Council placed the Popes Legates as they pleased. More∣over, the Notes call the excommunicating of the Pope by Dioscorus, scelus inauditum, an unheard-of-wickedness; and

a little after they say, That Dioscorus was the first that ever was known to excommunicate the Pope, or had committed this unheard-of-wickedness e 1.607. But why all this? Doth the Council say such a Fact was never attempted nor heard of before? No, that is their addition, for we have heard of Asian and African Bishops, who took themselves to have as much Power to excommunicate Victor and Stephen, Bishops of Rome, as they had to Ex∣communicate them. And we have heard of Liberius and Foelix, whose Communion was renounced by the Or∣thodox; and therefore Dioscorus's fault was his excom∣municating an Orthodox Patriarch in a pack'd, private, heretical Synod, not because this Patriarch was Bishop of Rome; for had Leo deserved this Sentence by holding Heresie, no doubt a greater Council would afterward have ratified it, and joyned with Dioscorus. In the ac∣count which the Notes give of the third Session, we are told that Dioscorus was accused for wasting the Goods left to the Poor, and Pious Uses, by a Noble Lady deceased, so that no Incense could be offered for her Soul. And Binius and Baronius hence infer that they used then to pray for the Dead f 1.608. But if we look into the Council, this will appear an invention of their own; for there is no men∣tion of praying for that Ladies Soul, or offering in co••••e for it to God; but only that Dioscorus by spending 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Gifts riotously, had (as much as in him lay) hindred the offering a sweet Savour to God out of her oblation g 1.609. Now whether this sweet Savour be meant literally of In∣cense, then used in Christian Churches, or allego∣rically of Alms, (so called Philip. iv. 18.) yet still there is not the least intimation that either of these were of∣fered for the Lady or her Soul, or any Prayers made for her after her Decease. Yet this false Inference is nauseously repeated again afterwards h 1.610: In which last place Binius saith, Dioscorus his with holding the Wheat which the Emperor gave to the Churches of Lybia, so that the terrible and unbloody Sacrifice could not be offered there, is a clear Testimony for the Mass i 1.611. Whereas it is only an evidence, that the Eucharist was made of

Wheat, and that they received a large Morsel (as we Protestants do) of the Holy Bread; and when it is called an unbloody Sacrifice, I think that to be a Testi∣mony, they did not believe the natural and true Blood of Christ was there by Transubstantiation. It is also very false to say, That after the Cause of Sabinianus, Act. 14. the Council was ended, the Assembly dissolved, when the Legates and Judges went out, and that the Eastern Bishops staid behind clandestinly k 1.612; In which Words there are more falshoods than Lines. For if the Council was ended, how came the whole Council to meet again without a new Summons, the very next day? Again, the Legates went out indeed, but it was after the Judges, not before them, as the Notes insinuate; and the Judges went out because the Causes were all heard, and only the Canons to be treated of; but before they went they ordered the Bishops to make some Canons: So that to say the Council was ended, and the Synod dissolved because none but the Bishops staid, is ridicu∣lous, and contradicts his Note upon the third Session, where he makes it a most clear evidence of a General Council, when the Bishops meet without Lay Judges: If he say the Popes Legates did not stay; I reply, they were desired to stay, and their peevish absence could not hinder the Councils proceedings, no more than Diosco∣rus his absenting; and the Acts were next day appro∣ved as good, though done without them; and there it was also proved, that the Council did not act clan∣destinly; yea, it is very absurd to say the going out of three Men from 627 who staid behind, could make the Synod which remained, to be a Clandestine Assem∣bly: So that we may wonder at the boldness of these Editors, who in spite to the 28th Canon upon false grounds condemn those Actions which were examined, justified and approved by this whole General Council. We have in the next place an old Inscription, pretend∣ed to have been made in a Chappel built by Hilary, the Legate of Pope Leo, after his wondrous escape from the Pseudo-Synod of Ephesus, in these words, To his

Deliverer St. John the Evangelist, Hilary, the Bishop and Servant of Christ l 1.613: Which Inscription gives Baroni∣us and the Notes occasion to affirm, that he had prayed and made Vows to St. John for his Deliverance. But I see no reason to believe this Inscription to be so an∣cient as the time of this Hilary (Leo's Successor An. 461.). For in his Letter extant in the Council, he re∣lates the Story of his flight, but-mentions no Saint at all, only saith, he trusted in the grace of Christ m 1.614. And this Style which is so like the Pagan Vows to their little Deities, was above the Infant Superstition of that Age; so that besides the improbability of an Inscripti∣on continuing legible for near twelve hundred years; none who knows the time of Hilary can believe the in∣vocation of Saints was so far advanced, for a Man to forget God and Jesus Christ the only Deliverers of their Servants, and publickly, yea blasphemously to ascribe his deliverance to a Creature, Rom. i. 25. Wherefore we conclude this Inscription was writ by some later Hand in times of gross Idolatry and Ignorance; and that this which they call an Egregious Monument of Anti∣quity, and an Argument for Invocation of Saints, is no∣thing else but an Egregious Imposture, and an Argu∣ment to prove the Fraud of those who set up false Doctrines by feigned Antiquity. 'Tis true in the 11th Action, when Stephen, whom Flavian had condemned in his life-time, was deposed by the Council after his death, some of the Bishops cried out, Flavian lives after his death, the Martyr hath prayed for us n 1.615; but this is far short of the aforesaid Inscription, for they neither vow nor pray to the Martyr; only since his Sentence was agreed to be just after his death, they Rhetorically say this seemed as if Flavianus had prayed for them * 1.616: Yet this (if it be genuine) is the greatest step toward In∣vocation of Saints that I have seen in any Writing of this Age; though it be no more than a Flourish, pro∣ceeding from an excess of Admiration of Flavianus, so lately martyred by Dioscorus, the Mortal Enemy of this Council, Concerning which Dioscorus (for likeness

of the Subject) I observe the Notes say, the Aegyptians gave him (oh horrible) Divine Honours, and Religious Worship after his Death o 1.617; which means no more, as Baronius (the Author of the Story) saith, but that they worshipped him as a Saint, and gave him such Religious Worship as they give to Saints p 1.618. Now the wary Ro∣manists will not say these are Divine Honours, much less were they such Honours, as were paid to any Saints in this Age, or some that followed: But when Modern Writers speak of Ancient Times, they often speak in Modern Phrases; and so Binius took it to be the same thing to honour Dioscorus as a Saint, and to give him Religious Worship, because they at Rome now give Re∣ligious Worship to those they Canonize.

And this may suffice for this famous Council, where∣in Leo (being all along Orthodox, while the Patriarchs of most other great Sees had been either faulty or sus∣pected) had the greatest advantage imaginable to carry on his great Design of setting up for the Supremacy; and though by this accident, which he and his Legates improved, higher Titles are given him, than to any of his Predecessors or Successors for some Ages in any Council; yet if the Forgeries and Corruptions be aba∣ted, and the Fallacious Notes well understood, there is no ground from any thing here said or done, to think the Fathers at Chalcedon took this Pope for the sole, supreme and visible Head of the Catholick Church.

An Appendix concerning Baronius's Annals.

§. 1. THIS Century proving so full of various ob∣servations as to swell beyond our expecta∣tions, we must here divert a-while, to view the Errors in Barvnius, lest the deferring these Observations to the last, should make the Reader forget the Series of affairs already past, by laying these matters too far from the History of that time to which these Notes belong; and for brevity sake, as well as for the clearer seeing into this Authors Fallacies, we will follow our former Me∣thod.

And first we will observe, that when he would set up any Doctrines, or justifie any Practices of the Mo∣dern Corrupt Roman Church, he generally cites spu∣rious Authors, or such as writ so long after this time, that their Testimony is justly suspected, since no Au∣thors of this Age do mention any such thing.

The Miracle of Julia, a Manichean Heretick Wo∣man, struck dead by Porphyrius, Bishop of Gaza, when he could not convert her by Arguments, is taken out of a Latin Copy ascribed to one Mark, a Deacon of Gaza, very improbably; but the stress of the Evidence lies upon the Credit of Metaphrastes, Lipoman and Suri∣us the Collectors of Legends, who trade in few others but spurious Authors q 1.619. It were to be wished we had some better evidence of St. Ambrose's appearing after his death, and promising Victory over the Goths, than a Womans Testimony: For both Orosius and St. Au∣gustin, who write of that Victory, ascribe it wholly to the Power of God, and mention no Saint concerned therein. And Baronius cites both these, as well as the credulous Paulinus, who for advancing the credit of

St. Ambrose, records an Old-Wives Tale, not support∣ed by any credible evidence r 1.620. The ridiculous story of St. Paul's appearing to St. Chrysostom, who is pretend∣ed to have had the Picture of St. Paul in his Study, and to have discoursed with the sensless Image, is not pro∣ved by any Author near that Age, but by Leo the Phi∣losopher and Emperor, who lived 500 year after, and writ a very Fabulous History of St. Chrysostom's Life; and by a spurious Tract of Damascens, who lived 450 year after Chrysostom's Death s 1.621. Yet upon these false Legends the Annalist triumphs over those who oppose Image-worship. Like to this, is that fabulous Story of Theophilus, Bishop of Alexandria, not being able to die in peace till the Image of St. Chysostom was brought to him, and he had adored it t 1.622; which he hath no other Au∣thority for, than the aforesaid spurious Book ascribed to a late Author Damascen; for the Writers of this Age mention no such thing: And there can be no doubt but the Relation is false, because St. Cyril, Theophilus his Nephew and Successor continued for some time to have as ill an opinion of St. Chrysostom, as his Uncle had to his last breath, as his Letter to Atticus (in Baronius) u 1.623 shews: And therefore there is a Story invented of a Vision appearing to St. Cyril, by which he was terrified into a good opinion of St. Chrysostom: But though the Quarrel he had at first to his memory be real, this Ap∣parition is feigned, and proved by no elder nor bet∣ter Authors w 1.624 than Nicetus and Nicephorus. Another Forgery of St. Cyril's removing the Relicts of St. Mark, and other Saints into a Church, newly built in place of an Idol-temple, and thereby clearing it from Evil Spirits, hath no better Authority than certain Legends read in that woful Council of Nice, which set up Image-worship 300 year after this Age x 1.625. The Re∣velation of the Relicks of St. Stephen, pretended to be writ by Lucian, is transcribed by the Annalist, but it contains many improbable lies, and frivolous imperti∣nencies, such as Gamaliel (the Master of St. Paul) be∣ing a Priest, and that St. Stephen's body was exposed

to Wild Beasts by the command of Wicked Princes, and that the way to engage St. Stephen, Gamaliel and the rest to interceed for them, was to build a Chap∣pel over their Relicks, with many more absurd passages: So that indeed it is fitter to be derided, or left to the Moths and Batts, than to stand in a Church Histo∣ry (y). He cites for this one of St. Augustin's Sermons * 1.626 de diversis; but it is supposititious, and therefore can be no evidence for this Fable z 1.627: And it is a mighty prejudice to the whole Relation, that St. Hierom, who lived at Bethlehem at this very time, doth not confirm it, no not in his fierce discourse against the mistaken Opinion of Vigilantius, who (as he thought) denied even common respect to be shewed to the Bones of Martyrs: And it is like Sozomen did not like the story, because he ends his History with a promise to give an Account of the invention of these Relicks of St. Stephen, but he omits it a 1.628; Though he writes out another Legend there of the finding the Body of Zechary the Prophet, of which he brings no other proof, but that he had been told this Story b 1.629. But it is very unlikely, that the Jews should have no regard to the Bodies of their own Prophets, nor know of any vertue in them, and yet after so many hun∣dred years, the Christians should find such power in their supposed Dust; And it is one of the greatest Blots upon the latter end of this Century, that their Super∣stition made them too credulous and apt to be impo∣sed on with Fables of this kind, in which there is scarce any verisimilitude, or shadow of probability: Which led the following Ages into greater Errors, and had worse effects than were foreseen by those easie and well-mean∣ing writers, who hastily took up these false reports: Which Note I am obliged to insert here, to caution the Reader against divers relations of Miracles in Baronius about this time, for some of which he cites Authors, who are in other things credible enough c 1.630. To pro∣ceed, it is no great credit for the Pope, that he and the Western Bishops mistook the time of Easter a whole

Month, and were reproved by a miraculous appearance of Water in the Font on the right day of Easter, if the story be true d 1.631: However to confirm this relation, Baronius hath put together a great many such like Mi∣racles, but writ by later Authors, (Cassiodorus An. 514. Gregory Turonensis An. 590. Sophronius An. 630.) when all Men doted on these reports: But it is a little hard, that he should charge the Reformed Christians with be∣ing mad, for not believing these suspicious relations, and accuse them with deriding the consecration of baptismal Water e 1.632; which is a known practice in all regular Protestant Churches. A litle after he would prove the antiquity of the Mass by a spurious Sermon, faslly as∣cribed to St. Augustin, viz. de temp. Ser. 251. f 1.633: And he transcribes a suspicious Epistle full of improbable Stories for nine pages together, about the Miracles wrought by St. Stevens Relicks, which Epistle he would prove by another Tract equally fabulous, which some say, was writ by Evodius an African Bishop; others think it was only dedicated to him, in which are Domnus and Domna (after the Gallican Fashion in later Ages) for Dominus and Domina: But the judicious Reader who compares these Legends with other writings of this learned Age, will easily discern both these Tracts to be Forgeries of the modern superstitious Times g 1.634: So that perhaps one Miracle-monger made them both. And Baronius had justified neither of them, if he had remembred what himself says of a spurious Tract of the Acts of St. Hierom, viz. That the candor of Ecclesia∣stical truth, and the modesty of Christian sincerity, abhors always that which is feigned, rejects and accurses all that is spurious; The true Faith always bitterly hating and severely punishing every lye with the Author of it h 1.635: But his practice is every where contrary to this profession. And soon after he cites the Lives of the Fathers, under Theodoret's name, to prove the efficacy of St. John Baptist's prayers, as to the Conversion of the Marcionites, whereas the Epistle of Theodoret there cited, ascribes it to the divine ayd i 1.636. And this fabulous Book of the

Lives of the Fathers is despicable for its gross absurdi∣ties, and can be none of Theodorets, because it contains many Miracles, that Simeon Stylites wrought after his death; and Baronius himself owns, That Theodoret dyed seven year before this Simeon k 1.637: Yet this is the Man who is so severe an Enemy to all feigned Tracts, who again, cites the Rules for conjugal Chastity as prescribed by St. Augustin, but finds them only in a forged Sermon, (de Temp. pag. 244. falsly ascribed to that modest Fa∣ther l 1.638; Wherein there is so much Obscenity, as can∣not be supposed to proceed out of St. Augustin's mouth in publick, and such as is hardly fit for Christian Ears: besides many things that would be hissed at in any sober Auditory m 1.639. Again, he cites Sophronius his Pratum spirituale, as a Book of good credit, and relating an Apparition of the Blessed Virgin as it truly happen∣ed n 1.640: Whereas both Possevine and Baronius himself confess this Book to be full of Fables, and of no credit o 1.641; and the Author of it lived above 200 year after, in a credulous and ignorant, as well as a superstitious Age, whose name was not Sophronius, but Joannes Moschus: Upon whose credit he would not have relied so much, had he observed a rule of his own, That he who writes the History of his own time is of greater Authority, than he who writes after many Ages p 1.642; Which Rule he breaks in the very next Page, by justifying a Legend writ by Gregory, the Author of the Dialogues, long after the year 600, and cited by Eulogius of Corduba, An. 847. con∣cerning Paulinus of Nola, who died An. 431. as a Writer of Paulinus own Age testifies there q 1.643: Whereas if this Fable were true, (as those late Writers relate it) Pau∣linus must be alive 45 years after; so that he credits later Writers in contradiction to those of the same Age. We have often seen modern Authors describing the holy Men of this and former Ages, with Images, Cru∣cifixes, &c. but Constantius, who about this time writ the life of St. Germanus, mentions no Images or Cru∣cifix among that which he left at his death, but only a Box of Relicks, the sole point wherein Superstion

was advanced as yet r 1.644. And whereas late Writers of the Saints Lives speak of Addresses to the Blessed Vir∣gin, to deceased Saints, &c. this old Author mentions only Prayers to God; for those other kind of Prayers were not used in this Age. A little after he tells more Fables about the translation of the Relicks of St. Ste∣phen to Constantinople out of late and unfaithful Authors, such as Cedrenus, Nicephorus, Nicetus, &c. but he him∣self observes, that they do not agree as to the time, nor the quantity of the Relicks translated s 1.645: And this disagreement should have made him suspect the whole for an Imposture. And if the Reader con∣sider what incredible Stories are told of the Miracles wrought by the Relicks of this one Martyr, in Sardinia, Africk, Spain, Palestine and Constantinople, &c. he must believe they cut his Body into as many pieces as there were Stones thrown at him, and will wonder how the Body could become whole again, and be intirely translated out of Palestine in the year 439. What Theo∣doret relates of one African Virgin Captive, may be believed to be true, and that Relation hath no Miracle in it: But when Ado, of Vienna, writ the Acts of ano∣ther Virgin, called Julia, captivated at the same time, he hath stuffed the Story with Miracles t 1.646; and the only reason of this difference is, that this later Author writ his Martyrology, Anno 850, that is, above 400 year after, when Legends grew to be more in Fashion. The Annalist takes great pains to prove certain Ho∣milies (which some ascribe to Eusebius Emissenus, others to Faustus Rhegiensis, others to Caesarius of Arles) to be the work of Eucherius, Bishop of Lyons; but as the Author is uncertain, the matter of them is justly to be condemned, being full of Superstitions, and some that came not in till the corrupter and later Ages u 1.647. However, Baronius was obliged to get these Homilies ascribed to some Writer of good repute, since many of the evil Practices and Errors of their Church w 1.648, which cannot be justified by known and genuine Au∣thors, are defended by such obscure Tracts as this.

Again, we have a very absurd Story of St. Cyril's con∣vincing a Monk that Melchisedech was not the Son of God, by a Revelation made to the Monk himself, who had fallen into that Error x 1.649: But that Fable of Cyril's being a Monk upon Mount Carmel, is so gross, that he rejects it with this Note, That a vehement de∣sire to seem of Antient Extraction, makes Men sometimes to dote y 1.650; which Remark is most true of almost all the Monastick Orders of the Roman Church; for Aventinus, an excellent Historian, of their own Com∣munion, affirms, he had discovered the Monks were wont to delight the Minds of the vile Populace with feigned Tales, invented for gain, to make the Original of their Temples more Noble and August z 1.651. He brings in a ridiculous Story of an Image of the Blessed Virgin, found in a Cypress Tree, and of a Church built in the place by one Cyrus, Bishop of Smirna; but the credit of this relies only up∣on Nicephorus, a modern and fabulous Author. And at the same place he brings in a Fiction of an Image of our Saviour, wounded by a Jew, but he knows not when this matter hapned; he thinks not till after the second Nicene Council; but why then doth he menti∣on it in this Age? No doubt to abuse his Reader into a belief that Images were then in use. But the Story it self is all over Legend, and not more Authentick for being recorded in their publick Monuments, and read in some Churches in the corrupt Ages a 1.652, in which there are the grossest Romances imaginable. A little after he taxeth Nicephorus for unfaithfulness and great mistakes in his Relations; yet immediately he cites him as good evidence for Relicks belonging to the Blessed Virgin b 1.653. In the next year we have two ridiculous Stories, the one of St. Stephens praying to St. Peter and St. Paul to spare his Chappel, when Mets was sack'd and burn'd by the Hunns c 1.654; the other of a Drunken Man, shut up all Night in St. Peter's Church at Rome, and heard St. Peter and St. Paul talking together: But telling their Discourse next morning, he was struck blind d 1.655. Upon which last Miracle, Baronius gathers, that blind

Men may see great benefits are received by the intercession of Saints. But I should rather think, he was blind in∣deed that could not discern these to be meer Fables; and truly the only Author he cites for them is Gregory Turonensis, who lived 150 year after, and is full of these Fictions, contradicting even Salvian, who lived in that Country at this very time. But it is observable, that the Writers of the Lives of St. Lupus and Anianus (cited in this very place) do mention these Holy Men as praying only to God in these Calamities e 1.656: For the direct invocation of Saints was not used, no not when those Lives were written. Again, after the Council of Chal∣cedon had been confirmed by the most Legal and Au∣thentick ways, it is very ridiculous in this great Anna∣list to cite so many frivolous Stories out of Legends, how some Ignorant and Enthusiastical Monks confirm∣ed it, or were convinced by Miracles, that it was a Genuine and Orthodox Council f 1.657: For he cites no better Author than Surius for these Fables, yet relates them with great confidence; but this Cause needs no such evidence.

§. 2. Secondly, We will note some passages in genuine Authors, which he hath corrupted to serve a turn: He that reads Baronius his Note in the year 402. that it was an Ancient Custom to paint the Saints in the Churches, and that they use to worship them, with kindling Lamps before them g 1.658, would imagine this Superstition was ancient in the beginning of the Fifth Century; whereas the Au∣thor he cites for this is Venantius Fortunatus, who lived till the year 600. that is, 200 year after, and though he speak of a Picture drawn on a Wall, and a Lamp beside it, doth not mention that as any worship to the Picture, that is Baronius's own addition. Again, when he cites a Law of Theodosius prohibiting the Jews to burn any Cross in contempt of Christianity, he adds, that they burnt the Cross together with our Saviour crucified on it h 1.659; but that is his own invention; the custom of making a Cross alone being indeed very ancient,

but the adding the Figure of our Saviour to it, which they call properly a Crucifix, is but a late device, and seems not at all to be referred to in that Law. To proceed, he makes Synesius a notorious dissembler, when he declares he had most solemnly protested to Theophi∣lus, who was to consecrate him Bishop of Prolemais, that he would not accept that Order, unless he might live with his Wife as before time i 1.660. Now whoever reads that Letter may see that Synesius professes he tells truth in this relation; yea, he solemnly calls God and Men to witness, that it is true; he observes Truth is one of God's Attributes, and most pleasing to him: Yet Baronius will have him to use the Art of Lying, in all these protesta∣tions, because forsooth he cannot think Theophilus would ordain a Bishop, who should live with, and have Chil∣dren by his Wife; that is, he measures the Primitive Church (in which there were divers Bishops married) by their Modern Corrupt Roman Standard. And this sincere Father must be made to mock God, and de∣ceive Men, and exposed as a Notorious Liar and Dis∣sembler, rather than there should seem to be any dif∣ference between the Primitive Church and theirs in the point of the Clergies Marriage. Again, he ob∣serves out of St. Augustin k 1.661, that he accounted the Coun∣cil of Sardica heretical, because Julius, Bishop of Rome, was condemned there; and he infers, that whatever was said or done against the Pope was of evil Fame among the Antients l 1.662: But if St. Augustin had not been misrepre∣sented, there had been no room for this fallacious Note. St. Augustin blames this Council (in the second place cited) as heretical for condemning Athanasius, and doth not mention Pope Julius there at all; and in the former place he names Athanasius first, and Ju∣lius only in the second place; and he blames them not for condemning him as Bishop of Rome, but because he was Orthodox, as Athanasius was. Wherefore Ba∣ronius leaves out the main part of St. Augustin's Argu∣ment, only to bring in a false and flattering Inference for the Popes Supremacy. And I have observed before,

he falsly gathers, that the Roman Church was the sole Standard of Catholick Communion in Cecilian's time, from a place where St. Augustin saith, Cecilian of Car∣thage, was a Catholick, because he was in Communion with the Roman Church, and other Lands from whence the Gospel came into Africa m 1.663; that is, he was in Commu∣nion with the Eastern as well as the Western Church. But Baronius is so dazled with Rome, that where that is found in any Sentence, he can see nothing else: And therefore when he cites this very place again a little af∣ter, he would prove that Carthage owned a right in the Roman Church to receive Appeals, and this, contrary to the express Protestation of that African Council, where∣in St. Augustin was present; and the place it self doth not mention any Appeals, and speaks of Communion with other Churches as well as Rome n 1.664; and so would equally prove a right in other Bishops as well as the Pope, to receive Appeals from Africa, if that had been spoken of there. Further, from Socrates his relation of a Bishop of Gyzicum, named by Sisinnius, Patriarch of Constantinople, but not received, by reason of their mista∣king a late Law made to confirm the Priviledges of that See of Constantinople, and this in the time of a mild and quiet Bishop; he infers, that this Patriarch challenged no right, no not in Hollospont, by the Canon of any General Council o 1.665. Now his naming a Bishop for this City, shews he challenged a right, which was well known to be his due, both by the Canon of the second General Council, and by this late Law; but a peacea∣ble Mans receding from his right, after he hath made his claim, rather than provoke a Factious City, is no proof there was no right, as Baronius doth pretend. I observe also, that the Latin Version of an Epistle to the Council of Ephesus, hath these words, cujus Reliquias praesentes veneramini: Which is to abuse the Reader into an apprehension, that the Relicks of St. John were wor∣shipped in that Age p 1.666: But the Greek word is, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 q 1.667, which imports no more than that they were honoured, which is far less than that which Rome now

gives even to feigned Relicks of uncertain Saints. A like Falshood about the People of Ephesus worshipping the Blessed Virgin, I noted before r 1.668. Again, he manifest∣ly perverts a Phrase of Theodosius, the Eastern Emperor, in his Epistle to Acacius, where he advises the Nestori∣ans to shew themselves approved-Bishops of the Roman Re∣ligion s 1.669; which Baronius pretends, respects the Western Church of Old Rome in Italy; but the Emperor plainly refers to his own Empire in the East, which was then generally Orthodox, and against Nestorius: Constanti∣nople is often called Rome, without any other addition; and Romania, or the Roman Empire, is in many Au∣thors of these Ages, put only for the Eastern part of it. It is also very odd, that he should cite Basil's Epi∣stles to prove that the Roman Church was wont to send Legates to regulate Affairs in the Eastern Churches t 1.670: Whereas St. Basil in many Epistles grievously com∣plains of the Pride of the West, and of their despi∣sing the Calamities of the East, not so much as giving them that Brotherly Aid, which they might expect, when they were in great distress; but there is not one syllable of any jurisdiction which the Pope then did so much as pretend to over those Eastern Churches. Leo was the first who ventured to make any steps towards this Usurpation, an hundred years after St. Basil's time. To this device we may add his silent passing by all that makes against the Roman Church; but being large in his Notes upon any thing which seems to make for it, How many words doth he every where use when one is described to be Orthodox, for communicating with an Orthodox Pope? but when those are declared to be Orthodox who communicated with the Patriarchs of Constantinople, Alexandria and Antioch (at that time dif∣fering from the Pope) u 1.671, we have not one observa∣tion of the honour of those Sees. Thus though he cite innumerable heretical and illiterate Writings, meerly to confirm some incredible Miracle or super∣stitious Practice, without any Censure passed on them; yet when he comes to mention the Imperfect work on

St. Mathew, ascribed to St. Chrysostom (which many Roman Writers highly commend, as writ by a Catho∣lick, Antient and Learned Author) w 1.672, he falls into a fit of railing against it, as Heretical, and what not, because in that Book we are told, The Scripture is the only rule by which true Christians may judge of the right Faith x 1.673: Which Sentence, though it condemn the new Romish way, yet it is agreeable to the Primitive and most Orthodox Fathers, who very often say the same thing. * 1.674 And Baronius relates a little before, that a certain Bishop who wrought Miracles, and convert∣ed many Pagans, charged his new Converts to apply themselves diligently to read the Holy Scriptures. More∣over he brings in a Quotation out of St. Augustin, with a long Preface, because he designs to misapply it to justifie the Roman Supremacy: But the place it self plainly supposes the Western to be but one part of the Catholick Church; only he thinks the Authority of La∣tin Fathers alone, and of Innocent, a Successor of the Apostles, Chief of this Western Church, might suffice his Adversary (who was one of the Latin Church). And as to Innocent's Opinion he might be sure it would agree with what the African Councils had declared, and the Roman Church constantly held with other Churches y 1.675: Where we see Innocent is only set out as the first in Order of Dignity in the Western Church, and his Opinion supposed to be right, not because of the Infallibility of his See, or any Supream Power in him to judge in matters of Faith, but because he agreed with the African and other Churches; and now de Facto took the Orthodox Side: Wherefore when Zosimus, and other succeeding Popes favoured these Pelagians, the Dignity of his See did not secure them from the Censures of the African Fathers, as we shewed be∣fore.

§. 3. We pass thirdly to his rare faculty of supposing things without any proof, and sometimes making in∣ferences from his own inventions, for the advantage of Rome: So when a few persecuted Eastern Bishops of Chrysostom's party fled to the Roman Church to avoid the Storm, their own Patriarchs being all combined against them, Baronius saith, they fled to it as to their Mo∣ther, being admonished by the examples of their Predecessors: And he goes on to insinuate a very false thing, viz. That all the Bishops who were persecuted by the Arrians in Constantin's time, in the East, fled to Rome z 1.676. Where∣as only some few came both then and now, and dire necessity had left them no choice, nor other refuge. Thus he resolves Ruffinus shall be a Pelagian Heretick; and out of a Council whose Acts are not extant, and the relation of it only saith, Celestius was condemned there; he will have Ruffinus condemned in that Coun∣cil upon meer conjecture, and can no other ways prove him a Heretick, but by one Witness, even this Heretick Celestius, who being in a strait, cited Ruffinus's words, but probably very falsly a 1.677; so that one Heretick shall be sufficient evidence against a man that Baronius hates; but many Orthodox Witnesses will not persuade him that Innocent favoured the Pelagians almost to the end of his Life. It is an odd conjecture that St. Hierom would not translate any of Theophilus his Paschal Epi∣stles, after once he differed with Pope Innocent about restoring St. Chrysostom's name into the Dypticks b 1.678: For except another guess of his own, without any manner of evidence c 1.679, there is no appearance that ever St. Hierom was concerned for St. Chrysostom's sufferings; and it is certain he was kind with his Mortal Enemy Theo∣philus in the year of Christ 404, when he got him to be banished; and it would be very strange that St. Hie∣rom should refuse to translate any more of Theophilus's Epistles, on the account of a quarrel between him and Pope Innocent about restoring Chrysostom's name into the Dypticks, since the last Paschal Epistle translated by

Hierom, was writ Anno 404; and Baronius saith, Theo∣philus writ every year one till Anno 412, but Chrysostom died not till Anno 407; and Innocent himself did not quarrel with Theophilus till long after the year 404: So that the Cardinal contradicts himself, meerly to support an idle conjecture, viz. That all Eminent Fa∣thers loved and hated only those who were loved and hated by the Pope: And into what Absurdities and Contradictions this Fancy hath led him, may be seen by comparing those two places aforecited together; and we may note, that though it be certain Theophilus died unreconciled to Chrysostom's memory, or to Inno∣cent, yet Baronius shews he was commended as a most approved Bishop d 1.680, for so it seems a man might be, though he had a difference with the Bishop of Rome. Again, it is a bare supposition, that the Priviledges of the Patriarch of Constantinople asserted in the Province of Illiricum, by a Law of Theodosius, was founded upon the false suggestions of Atticus e 1.681: For the very Law it self forbids innovations, and requires the ancient Ca∣nons and Customs, thus far observed, should be in force, on which Theodosius plainly grounds the Jurisdicti∣on of the Bishop of Constantinople in this Province: So that he refers to the Canon of the Second General Council of Constantinople, and the usage ever since; and how could this proceed from any false suggestions of Atticus?

To proceed, Prosper relating Germanus his going into Britain, as some think, mistakes the time at least seven∣teen years f 1.682, and says nothing of St. Lupus his Com∣panion in that Journey; howbeit, because Prosper saith the Pope sent St. Germanus, Baronius will have him to be authentick, contrary to all other Authors g 1.683, who affirm St. Germanus and Lupus were sent by a Gallican Council, to whom a Petition from the British Bishops was sent: However he affirms it for a certainty soon after h 1.684, that St. Germanus was the Popes Legate into Britain, which he had but half proved before. And one Author, who speaks favourably of the Popes Au∣thority,

shall be believed against many of equal Cre∣dit who speak otherwise: I grant Prosper is a credible Writer; only he is apt, for the credit of the Cause, al∣ways to bring in the Popes as Enemies to the Pelagians, sometimes without reason; and Constantine, Bede with others who write of this journey into Britain, and as∣cribe this mission to a French Council, deserve more credit in that particular than he. A little after, upon Cyril's mentioning Nestorius's writing to the Roman Bi∣shop, in hopes to draw him to his Opinion: Baronius sup∣poses of his own Head, that it was an ancient use in Controversies of Faith to write to the Bishop of Rome, and that the part he chose was generally favoured; so that if Nestorius could persuade him, the whole Catholick Church would follow his Judgment i 1.685; which is all Chimaera, for Pope Victor, Stephen and Liberius of old, Vigilius and Honorius afterward, found opposition enough (for all the dignity of their place) when they seemed to other Bishops to take the wrong side. From a fabulous Wri∣ter called Probus k 1.686 who hath given us a Legend of St. Patrick's Life; he not only confidently affirms that Pope Celestine sent this Patrick to convert the Irish, but infers from thence, That it was clear to all men, the Gospel was to be received from the Apostolical See for the conversion of the Pagans l 1.687. Whereas it is not clear that St. Patrick was sent from Rome; but it is clear, that other Heathen Countries have received the Gospel by the care of other Patriarchs and Eminent Bishops; so that his Ground is but conjecture, and the Superstru∣cture wholly vain. 'Tis true indeed, that Pope Leo, to shew his Authority, desired three Bishops of Sicily to appear in his annual Roman Council once a year, and was the first Pope who put this Yoke upon them; but how this new encroachment shews the ancient observance of holding Councils of Bishops twice a year, is very hard to conjecture m 1.688: only when a Pope alters the Fathers Customs, the Annalist will suppose he observes and con∣firms them: And he could see no usurpation in this Popes calling the Sicilian Bishops yearly to Rome, against

the ancient Usage. But when Dioscorus of Alexandria would have encroached upon the Bishops of Syria, he blames him severely n 1.689. We shall not mention the Authority of the Writings of Athanasius, Cyril and other Eminent Bishops of other Sees, in Controversies of Faith: But it is very imposing for Baronius to suppose, The Pope presided as the Master over the whole Christian World, and out of his high Throne taught all men the Catholick Faith o 1.690; and all this only, because Leo had the good Fortune (by his Secretary Prosper's help) to write one Orthodox Epistle against Eutyches in a lucky time, when a Council was to be called to condemn that Heresie: As to the Author of it Eutyches, it was always a Rule in the Church to receive even the Inventors of Heresies, if they would renounce their Errors: So that for Leo to say (in his Letter to the Council of Chalcedon) he thought they might deal so with Eutyches, is no manner of ground for Baronius to suppose, that this was a special Favour indulged to that General Council by the Pope, contrary to Ec∣clesiastical Laws and Customs p 1.691. For it is well known, that a General Council in that Age gave Laws to the Pope, but did not receive any from him; and what∣ever Leo's Opinion might be, the Council were sole Judges of the terms on which Eutyches was to be re∣stored; and had he Recanted they would have received him into Communion by their own Authority, since Arius, Nestorius and Pelagius had that Favour offered them by former Councils, and Eutyches would have found the like Kindness here, if the Pope had said nothing at all of the matter: Wherefore the Annalist hath crouded many Falshoods into a few Lines only, to persuade his weak Readers, That the Pope was above a General Council. And to make him seem above all the other Patriarchs, he supposes from a Letter of Theo∣dosius the Emperor, which he never saw, and which is not extant, That the Emperor writ to Rome about the Succession of Anatolius at Constantinople, knowing it to be the Head of all Churches q 1.692. This is a groundless Con∣jecture, because he doth not so much as know in what

style Theodosius writ; and it was an Ancient Custom, for to give Notice to all the absent Patriarchs, when any New one was elected, and the Patriarch Elect (even he of Rome) was obliged to satisfie the rest by Letters, that he held the Orthodox Faith. Certain it is that Theodosius valued not Leo much; because he con∣firmed the Condemnation of Flavionus, though he knew that Pope and his Legates were of his side; and it is plain by the best Historians that he died in this Opinion: Nor can Baronius prove, that Theodosius re∣pented of that mistaken Judgment otherwise, than by Nioephorus (an Author of no credit when single,) or that he Obeyed the Pope before his death r 1.693; for this last he can cite no Author at all, and it is not only a Con∣jecture of his own, but a very false one. For the last Letter that ever Theodosius writ to Valentinian, not ma∣ny Months before his death s 1.694, shews how little he esteemed Leo's Request for a new General Council, and how close he stuck to Dioscorus, Leo's Enemy; and there∣fore he could not write after this to Leo, as Head of the Church. His Successor indeed, Marcianus, had some reason to Caress the Pope, and therefore he writes more respectfully to him than other Emperors had used to do t 1.695: Yet even in that first Letter of his he must be very sagacious, who can discorn what Baronius again supposes, That Marcian turned his Eyes to the Chief visible Head of the Church, resolving to do all things by his command, or (as he phrases it) to be at his beck: For even in this highest strain of Complement Marcian saith no more, but that since Leo had a principal Bishoprick among the true Believers, he desires him to pray for him, that he might resolve to call a Council with Leo's consent, to take away all Error and settle a general Peace u 1.696. Which implies the power of calling Councils was in the Em∣peror, and the Popes part was only to consent as one of the Chief Bishops, who was there to meet and consult: And if Marcian had known or be∣lieved Leo to be the sole Supream Judge of all Controversies, he would not have been at the trou∣ble

of Calling a General Council, but referred all to him.

§. 4. The rest of my Observations on Baronius shall be put in Order of Time for the better assistance of the Reader, and not under those several Heads which doth too much separate and confound things.

When S. Hierom, after three years labouring with Pope Anastasius, had at last got him and the Roman Church to condemn Ruffinus, he then at that time prudently appeals to the Roman Churches Faith for Trial, Whe∣ther he or Ruffinus were the better Catholick: But Baronius, when he hath cited some words of S. Hierom against Ruffinus to this purpose, grosly prevaricates when he infers; You see it was an undoubted Maxim, customary in the Mouths of all the Ancients, and a necessary consequence, That if one were said to follow the Roman Faith, he must needs be a Catholick w 1.697. For if we hear one Father when he had the Pope on his side in a par∣ticular Controversie say this, This is not all the An∣cients: And many of them describe themselves, as being of the Faith of Athanasius, Cyril, Flavianus, &c. or holding the Faith of the Churches of Alexandria, An∣tioch, Constantinople, &c. to prove themselves Catholick; and if S. Hierom did instance now in Rome, the conse∣quence depended on the Orthodoxness of the present Pope, not on the Infallibility of his See. And Pope Gelasius afterward confesseth, That the Roman Church in this Point was guided intirely by S. Hierom, She thought as he thought x 1.698. So that to make a General conclusion from such a special Case, is very unrea∣sonable; and S. Hierom himself a little after is cited, declaring the Consent of many Churches is of greater Authority, than that of the Roman alone y 1.699. It had been well if their Roman Church had considered the peril of Idolatry, when they went about to establish the use or Images, as Baronius tells us Theodosius did, when he made a Law to prohibit any Adoration to be given to his own Statues, because such worship as exceeds the dignity of Hu∣man

Nature, is to be reserved to the Divine Majesty. In the same place he relates how S. Chrysostom reproved the People for their folly at the dedication of the Empresses Statue; because it is easie in those matters to run into the sin of Idolatry z 1.700. Which Observations of his own stand on Record in these Annals, to condemn that Church which orders Veneration, and all other ex∣pressions of Reverence to be made to all sorts of Ima∣ges of the Saints. Again, he exposes his dear Church in observing, That the Ancients preserved both the conse∣crated Elements of the Sacrament in the Church. But no sooner had he condemned us for not following this ancient Usage, but he mentions as great an Innovation in their own Church, for he owns they have forbid the preserving any thing but the species of Bread a 1.701. Now I would ask, Who differ most from Antiquity, they who totally take away one part of the Sacrament from the People, and keep only the Bread to be wor∣shipped: Or we who give both Bread and Wine to the People as they did, and provide both, newly Conse∣crated, for the Sick, when there is occasion, but reserve neither for Worship? Which was the usage of the first and purest times. And why may not we forbid the needless reserving of the Sacrament in either kind, as well as they may prohibit it in one kind? But so insatia∣ble is his desire to extol the Roman Church, that though he cite all he can find of this sort good and bad, he wishes (in one place) he could find some things, which are not to be found, that he might let his style run out on so luscious a Subject b 1.702. We note also, that how much soever the Romanists here in the Reign of King James the Second were for Toleration, because it was their Interest, Baronius highly commends the severe Penal Laws made by Arcadius and Honorius against such as differed from the established way of Worship and pro∣fession of Faith c 1.703; for Baronius is always a bitter Enemy to Toleration, and stiffly opposes the taking away any Penal Laws. Moreover it is observable, that though his Office be to write an History and relate

Matter of Fact: When he comes to S. Hierom's Book against Vigilantius, he puts on the Character of a Dis∣putant, and makes large digressions to the Hereticks, (as he calls the Reformed) to justifie such a Veneration of Relicks, and such a kind of worship of Saints, as Rome uses at this day; which kind of Veneration and Wor∣ship S. Hierom would have condemned as well as Vigi∣lantius d 1.704, had it been practised in that Age. He notes that upon the difference between Theophilus and the Pope about S. Chrysostom, a Council of Carthage writ to Innocent, That the Churches of Rome and Alexandria should keep that Peace mutually which the Lord enjoyn∣ed e 1.705. Which shews, those African Fathers did not think one of these Churches superior in Authority to the other; for if so, they had no need to write to Innocent, but only to Theophilus, to submit to the Supream Bishop: For that was the only way to settle a Peace, if Innocent's Supremacy had been then allowed. And it is a vain and false Conjecture, that if Theophilus had writ any Paschal Epistles after his difference with Innocent, no Catholick would have re∣ceived them f 1.706. For divers Eminent and Orthodox Bishops writ to Theophilus, and received Letters from him after this; yea, Synesius himself writes to him, to determine a Question by the Authority of his Apostolical Succession g 1.707, and he lived and died with the repute of a Catholick, though (as I have shewed) he never did yield to Pope Innocent in the case of S. Chrysostom. A∣like groundless is his Conjecture, That Arcadius laboured to wipe out the stains he had contracted in persecuting S. Chrysostom, by translating the Relicks of the Prophet Samuel, and by going into a Martyrs Temple and there praying (not to the Martyr, observe that, but) to God h 1.708. For if we set aside the two forged Epistles recorded by Baronius, pag. 259. there is no good Evidence that Arcadius, at the time when the aforesaid Acts were done, was con∣vinced he had done any fault in the affair of S. Chry∣sostom; wherefore he could have no design to purge himself from a Fault he did not own at that time.

In the next year he spoils one Argument to prove theirs the true Church, viz. by Miracles, since he owns Atticus, Bishop of Constantinople, did work a Miracle even before he held Communion with the Roman Church i 1.709. So that if Miracles prove a true Church, then a Church that separates from the Roman Com∣munion may be a true Church. Of which also we have another Instance soon after, where the Church of Antioch was in a difference with Rome for many years, (Theodoret saith, 85 years,) yet all that while she was owned by the best Catholicks for a true Church k 1.710. Nor do I see how that can be true which Baronius affirms, That the cause of restoring the Eastern Bishops to Communion in Chrysostom's case, was only decided by Pope Innocent, since Alexander of Antioch did transact this affair in the East, and 24 Western Bishops subscribed with Innocent in the West, to testifie their consent to this Agreement of Alexanders l 1.711; yea, Thodoret ascribes this, not to the Pope alone, but to all the Bishops of the West m 1.712. But the Annalist will have all things done by the Pope alone, right or wrong. Poor So∣crates is branded for a Novatian Heretick, because he saith, It was not the usage of the Catholick Church to per∣secute n 1.713. Yet the Emperor Marcian o 1.714, and Pope Gregory p 1.715, who were both I hope very good Catho∣licks, say the same thing; and therefore we may dis∣cern Baronius his Spirit, in being so bitter against all who censure Persecuting. In the same Year we may see, that the Bishops under Theophilus Jurisdiction (for all his quarrel at that time with the Pope) did reserve the greater Cases to his decision q 1.716; and yet were very good Catholicks all the while. When a Bishop pleads for Mercy to such as have principally offended the Church, those Intercessions with Pious Magistrates ought to have the force of Commands; But to make a general Inference from hence, That Bishops ought to command things agreeable to the Christian Law to Magistrates r 1.717, is to stretch the Instance too far. But there is another obvious Note from S. Augu∣stine's

petitioning and urging Marcellinus to spare the Hereticks, and not execute the severity of the Tem∣poral Laws upon them, which Baronius would not observe, viz. That the Primitive Bishops used their power and interest to get Hereticks spared by Secular Magistrates, whereas the Inquisitors use their power now to oblige the Lay-Magistrates to kill and destroy them. Further it is observable, that he takes upon him to interpret Gods Judgments in favour of his own Party; and thus he expounds the Goths invading France, to be a punishment for the Heresies there broke out s 1.718, which Salvian more piously makes to be a Scourge for their Immoralities. But I note, that it was but two year before that Alaricus wasted Italy, and took Rome it self; yet Baronius could not discern any Here∣sies there, but his general Maxim is, That God is wont to bring destruction on those Countries where Heresies arise. Now one might observe Leo's attempts to usurp a Supremacy over all other Bishops, and the many pious Frauds used and beginning now to be countenanced at Rome, about false Relicks and feigned Miracles, were as probable occasions of the Divine Judgments in Italy, as those he assigns in France. To proceed, I cannot apprehend how Atticus could have so little Wit in his Anger against Rome, as to call Paulinus and Evagrius (successively Bishops of Antioch) Schismaticks, meerly for Communicating with the Roman Church, and this in a Letter to so great a Patriarch as S. Cyril t 1.719, if he had known it to be then generally acknowledged (as Baronius often pretends,) that to be in Communion with Rome was a certain sign of a Catholick; and to differ with it, a sure note of a Schismatick. But S. Cyril's Re∣proving Atticus for restoring Chrysostom's Name into the Dyptics (which was the known desire of Pope Innocent) shews u 1.720, how little the rest of the Patriarchs valued the Judgment or the Authority of the Popes, when they supposed them to be mistaken in the Case: For none could or durst have so severely Censured the Opinion of a Person taken to be a Supream and Infal∣lible

Judge. Again, I wonder how Baronius could Re∣cord without some reflection S. Augustin's speaking of Orosius his Journey from Spain into Africa, only out of Zeal to understand the Scriptures, and his sending him to Palestine to S. Hierom on that Errand w 1.721. For accord∣ing to the Cardinals Notion, he should have been more zealous for Catholick Tradition, than for Scripture, and Rome was the only place both to learn that in perfection, and by that to interpret the Scriptures un∣erringly; and this was nearer to Spain than either Hippo or Bethlehem. But while he owns, that the Salva∣tion of some, after they had been purged by the In∣ternal Fire, was one of the Errors of Origen, and counted an Error both by Orosius and Augustine x 1.722, it seems to look ill upon Purgatory, which their modern Church hath made a Catholick Truth; but the Primi∣tive censured it as a false Doctrine. The Reader also may note, that when he is commending Theodosius for his Piery, he magnifies him for fasting upon Wednes∣days and Fridays y 1.723, (the days now appointed for Ab∣stinence by the Protestant Church of England): So that a man may be a pious Catholick and not keep the Fasting-days appointed by the Roman Church, viz. Fridays and Saturdays. Moreover he contradicts him∣self when he saith, According to the ancient usage of speaking, by the Apostolical Seat, is always to be understood the Roman Church z 1.724: Whereas he hath often owned the other Patriarchs Sees had the Title of Apostolical Thrones and Seats; and a little after cites Sidonius calling Lupus Bishop of Troys, a Bishop of Bishops, who had sat a long time in an Apostolical Seat a 1.725, he cites Possi∣dius in the Life of S. Augustine, to prove the Pelagians were first condemned at Rome, and then at Carthage b 1.726. But if the Reader consult that Author, he will find that S. Augustine writ against them, and that they went near to draw in first Innocent and then Zosimus to their party, till the Councils of Holy African Bishops had with much labour persuaded first the one of these Popes, and then the other, that this was an abominable Heresie and contrary

to the Catholick Faith c 1.727: All which the Cardinal leaves out, and from half the story makes a false Marginal Note, viz. That these Hereticks were first condemned at Rome, and then at Carthage: Which is every way false; for if it be meant of Innocent's time, it is certain that the African Councils under the Primate of Carthage; yea, that of Milevis had solemnly condemned Pelagia∣nism before this Pope would openly condemn them, he being under suspicion of favouring that Heresie to the last year of his Life d 1.728; and this Council of Carthage did condemn these Hereticks while Zosimus did defend them; so that Africk, not Rome, first discovered and censured this Heresie. He also falsly cites the Preface of S. Augustine's Books to Pope Boniface, against the Pelagians, telling us he affirms, That the Pope being most eminent in the highest top of the Pastoral Watch-Tower, did watch over all; and from hence infers, That though S. Augustine and others sometimes call the Pope Brother, and Colleague, yet still they own his supream Pastoral Power e 1.729. But all that S. Augustine there saith is this, Communisque sit omnibus nobis qui fungimur Episcopatûs officio (quamvis ipse in eo praeemineas celsiore fastigio) spe∣cula pastoralis: The Pastoral watching is common to all of us who are Bishops, though you have the advantage of a higher station f 1.730. Which words only intimate the Dignity of the Roman See, as to Order; but plainly declare Bishops to have equal Obligations to guard the Church. And whereas a little after, from S. Augu∣stine's modest Complement of sending these Books to Boniface, to examine and correct, he would infinuate something of Supremacy in Judging: This is no more than the same Father used to do to all other Bishops to whom he dedicated his Books; so he desires Claudius, a private Bishop to read and judge of his Books against Juli∣an, dedicated to him g 1.731. This therefore ascribes no Infal∣libility to Rome; and if S. Augustine himself had not judg∣ed better of Pelagianism than any Pope of these times, it would not have been condemned there to this day. After all these Instances of sincerity, we cannot wonder

that he falls upon the Reformed as Innovators, for re∣fusing to stand to a General Council, and so worse than the Pelagians who desired one h 1.732. But this calumny will soon be dispelled, if we call to mind the breach of Faith used to such as had trusted Rome, in the Council of Constance; the Tricks used by the Popes before the Council of Trent for many years together, to avoid a General Council, when the Reformed earnestly de∣sired one; and the great partiality of that packt Assembly at Trent, who met not to examine or amend Abuses, but to establish them, and had resolved to con∣demn the Protestants before they heard them. It is something odd, that Baronius should quote Gelasius his Censure of the Legends and Acts of Martyrs, That some of them were writ by Ideots, and some by Hereticks; wherefore the Roman Church then used not to read them in publick i 1.733. For this condemns him for filling so many Pages of his Annals with this Fabulous stuff, and dis∣covers an alteration in the Roman Church, which of old was wiser and honester than to read those feigned Legends, that in after Ages took up a great part of their publick Service. We may further observe, That Leporius, an Arch-heretick recants in Africa, and applies himself to the Gallican Bishops only, without any no∣tice taken of Rome or Pope Boniface k 1.734; which con∣futes what the Annalist often affirms, That all great Hereticks were obliged to recant at Rome. He pub∣lisheth a Rescript of Theodosius, and bids us observe, that it contains the principal Feasts received by the Chri∣stians: Now these are Sundays, Christmas and Epi∣phany, Easter and Pentecost, with the Memory of the Apostles Passions, which is a Protestant Catalogue; and there is not one Feast of our Blessed Lady, Holy Cross, Corpus Christi, &c. which are now so famous at Rome in all this number assigned by Theodosius l 1.735; which shews they are Innovations, and the effects of modern Superstition. He relates it as the Custom of S. Augustine and other Bishops, as well as of Pope Ce∣lestine, to salute Presbyters by the name of Sons, and

Bishops by the name of Brothers m 1.736, which looks not favourably on the Pope's Universal Superiority above all Bishops whatsoever. When Pope Gregory grosly mistakes Sozomen's History for Theodoret's, Baronius had better have owned it; for none ever thought Popes infallible in their Quotations; but the Cardinal resolves right or wrong to vindicate Gregory n 1.737, who rejects Sozomen's History for that passage which is in Theodoret, but is not in Sozomen; so rashly do Popes judge some∣times: The Passage is about commending Theodorus of Mopsvestia as an Orthodox Father to the time of his death, which Theodoret doth affirm; but Sozomen only mentions this Theodorus o 1.738 his Conversion by S. Chry∣sostom, but saith no more of him; and Baronius is forced to feign this Passage was in that Part of Sozomen which was long since lost, and which probably S. Gre∣gory himself never saw; however Baronius knows no∣thing what was there written, and therefore it is very boldly done to suppose a thing for a certain Truth, which he could never know any thing of, only to save the Credit of a Pope who had little or no skill in Greek Authors. Again, 'tis apparently partial in him, where he produces some ancient Testimonies of the French, being wont to break their words, to restrain this in modern Times only to that part of them which is Reformed, while he boasts of his Catholicks as the justest Men in the World p 1.739. To confute which, the Perjury and Treachery of the Leaguers in our Fathers time, and the many Promises and Engagements broken to the late Hugonots in our days, are abundantly suffici∣ent. He takes it for a proof, that the Eastern Bishops use to refer Causes of the greatest moment to the Pope, because one Daniel a French Bishop fled out of his own Country for his Crimes, (probably into the East) was complained of to the Pope, being Uncanonically Or∣dained; which Complaint the Pope transmits to the Bishops of the Province of Narbon, as the proper Judges in that matter q 1.740; so that this Cause was not referred to him at all, only he was desired to acquaint those

with it who ought to determine that Point. Moreover, he makes it a certain Evidence that Socrates was an Heretick, because he complains of Nestorius, for urg∣ing the Emperor to persecute Hereticks (as soon as ever he was Ordained Bishop of Constantinople) r 1.741. But this Kingdom hath found Romanists (when it was their Interest) to censure Men as Hereticks for the contrary, viz. for only insisting upon the execution of some gentle Penal Laws upon such as differed from the established Religion. He commends S. Cyril for his Modesty, in not mentioning the Fault of Theodosius his abetting Nestorius; yet he upon bare Surmizes speaks very opprobriously of Theodosius upon this account, and reflects upon all Kings and Sovereigns as inclined to follow his Example s 1.742. Now if the silence of these things proves Cyril's Modesty, who must needs know whether Theodosius were guilty of this or no; Doth it not prove somebodies Immodesty to rail by meer Conjectures at Theodosius and all Princes? To pro∣ceed, It is a very false consequence from Cyril's calling in Celestine to his assistance against Nestorius, and that Popes condemning the Heretick in his private Council at Rome, That it was the Ancient custom from the begin∣ning, for S. Peter's Chair alone to determine controversies of Faith, and condemn Heresies with their Authors as they arise t 1.743. For Cyril had first condemned this Heretick and his Opinions, and the Pope only came in as his Second; yet after all it was necessary that a General Council should condemn him, which had been needless if the Pope alone, or in conjunction with another Pa∣triarch had been sufficient. Again, he cites two Authors only for Celestine's sending a Pall and a Mitre to S. Cyril, and these Writers lived 8 or 900 year after this time, and he rejects some part of their account as fabulous; yet from this Evidence he would prove, That Cyril was Celestine's Legate in the Council of Ephesus u 1.744: But he must have better proof than this to make us believe so incredible a thing. We may further note, that where Possidius is so particular in the circumstances of

S. Augustine's death, he mentions nothing of any Image of the Blessed Virgin or the Saints; no Crucifix placed before him, but only the Penitential Psalms were writ out and fastned on the Wall, which he read over as he lay on his Death-bed. Nor doth he mention any Office said for his Soul after he was dead, but only an Office for commending his Body to the Grave w 1.745, which shews these were devised in later and more Superstitious Times. Baronius indeed supposes the word Sacrificium, to signifie the Mass here; but it seems to signifie no more than the usual Office at put∣ting the Body into the Grave, in hopes of a joyful Resurrection. But though nothing be more evident, even in these Annals, to a Judicious Reader, than the many Innovations in Doctrin and Worship, made by the modern Roman Church, contrary to the Decrees of Councils, the Judgment and Practice of the Ancient Fathers; the Annalist a little after (upon Capreolus Bishop of Carthage his affirming that to be the true Faith which is delivered by the Fathers) flies out into foul Language against the Reformed Churches for In∣novations and reviving Heresies condemned by the Fathers x 1.746. Whereas we freely refer it to those An∣cients to judge between us, Whether they or we come nearer to the Doctrin and Usages of pure Antiquity, and can from substantial Evidence prove them to be the Innovators. I will only note, That in this Epistle of Capreolus, this Bishop calls the Emperor, His Lord, and his Son y 1.747: Upon which Baronius makes no Re∣mark, because he would have it thought that no Bi∣shop, but only the Pope did ever call the Emperor, Son. For he alone is to be the Father of all Princes and all Bishops also. A little after he interprets that woful destruction of the Emperor's Army in Africa, to be a Divine Judgment upon him for countenancing the Heretical party at Ephesus z 1.748. Though not many Pages from hence he lays all the blame of this Conni∣vance upon the Treachery of the Emperor's Dome∣sticks a 1.749, and he may find as great Defeats hapning

often when the Emperors did take the Catholick part. So true is that of Solomon, No man knoweth either love or hatred by all that is before him. All things come alike to all, &c. Ecclesix. 1, 2. 'Tis remarkable what Baronius saith of a very dubious Rescript of Valentinian, cited for the Authority of the Se•• of Ravenna by the Friends of that Bishoprick, The love of our Country is an imperious thing; yea, a Tyrant, which compels an Historian to defend those things, which if they were said of another place, he would utterly explode b 1.750; which with the rest there said, is so applicable to the Cardinal (as to Rome), that the only wonder is, he did not see how severe a Censure he (as David once did upon Nathan's Parable) here passeth upon himself. Again, he forgets that the Miracle out of Prosper concerning a Maid, who could not swallow a piece of the Sacramental Bread dipped in Wine (being possessed), but was cured by drinking of the Cup c 1.751, manifestly shews the Innovation of the Roman Church, in that it declares they used then to dip the Bread in Wine, and thought it lawful to give the Cup to the Laity; whereas now they only give the people a dry Wafer. It was certainly a great over∣sight in the Armenian Bishops (according to him who makes the Pope the sole Judge of Heresie) to send to Proclus of Constantinople, to know whether the Writings of Theodorus of Mopsvestia were Orthodox or no? Yet Liberatus (an ancient Author) affirms they did this secundum morem, according to Custom d 1.752. So that neither Liberatus nor the Armenians knew of any Custom to go only to Rome, out of the East, to enquire concern∣ing the true Faith; had they known this, no doubt they would have sent a little further. Moreover, he highly extols the Piety of Florentius the Praetorian Praefect, who finding the Tax paid by the Curtezans of Constantinople to the Exchequer, hindred their expulsion from that City, gave Lands of his own to compensate the Pub∣lick damage, that he might get those Infamous Wo∣men banished e 1.753; forgetting all the while the Impiety of the Pope and Cardinals, who now tolerate them

for a little scandalous Pension paid to their Treasury at Rome. He also saith, It is a Pelagian Principle and Heresie, to hold, That no Rich man can be saved, unless he give all his Estate to the Poor f 1.754. Yet he knew ma∣ny hundred Monasteries which have been and are endowed with great Estates, upon a Principle nothing different from this, which is preached frequently to rich Men and Women dying in their Churches Com∣munion, by cunning and covetous Priests and Jesuits. It is manifest partiality also in him, to affirm it was a Judgment of God to deliver Carthage to the Vandals, because there was Pagan Idolatry practised in that City g 1.755. But the same kind of Idolatry was conti∣nued in Rome notwithstanding all endeavours to root it out, till the Goths took it; but the Annalist doth not expound that Calamity after the same manner h 1.756. Thus he exclaims against the Cruelty of Gensericus the Vandal for persecuting the Orthodox Bishops upon the bare naming of Pharaoh, Nehuchadnezzar or Holofernes in their Sermons, pretending it was meant of him i 1.757. Whereas had he lived to this Age, he might have seen a King intituled, The most Christian, instigated by the Jesuits to persecute the Reformed Pastors for the same pretended Fault. It is remarkable that Theodoret, when he writes to a Bishop of Alexandria proves himself Orthodox, because his Faith was the same with the for∣mer Bishops of that See, viz. Alexander, Athanasius, Achillas, Theophilus and Cyril; as also with S. Basil and Gregory, the Lights of the World k 1.758. The Pope is not named, so that doubtless he was not the sole Standard of Catholick Communion then; if he had, the name of one Pope had been more to Theodoret's purpose than all these. Again, That Pope Leo writes as imperiously to Dioscorus of Alexandria, as he use to do to others, is very true, but it no where appears that Dioscorus ob∣served his Orders: Much less will it follow from hence, That Leo was the Master set over all Churches l 1.759; such assuming of Empire over our Equals, may indeed shew our Ambition, but it will not prove our Right. It is

obvious to all that read Baronius, how he strains all things that are said of S. Peter, to apply them to the Roman Church; but the Reader may note; how silently he passes it by, when our Gildas calls the British Bishops Sees here in this Island, the Seats of Peter m 1.760. But this may satisfie all impartial Men, that the Ancients accounted other Bishops the Successors of S. Peter, as well as the Pope, though now he alone usurps that and many other Priviledges, of Old enjoyed in common by others, as well as by the Bishop of Rome. Again, he spoils the Old famous Story of the Conversion of Spain by S. James, wherein the Spaniards so much pride them∣selves, out of a zealous partiality for Rome, which inclines him to affirm, That Spain first received the Gos∣pel from the Roman Church n 1.761: Which Notion may in time lessen the Pilgrimaes to S. James of Compostella, and calls in question the Devotion of those many Thou∣sands, who have believed his Body to be there, and worship his Relicks in that place with great assurance. Soon after, upon occasion of Turibius, complaining of the Apocryphal Books used by the Priscillian Hereticks in Spain, the Cardinal shews the necessity of suppres∣sing all Books that are against the Catholick Doctrin, and urges the Bishop of Spain to suppress a Book writ by one John de Roa, about the Rights of Princes, con∣taining Doctrins (as he saith) which he could not learn from the Jesuits, Fryers or Clergy of Spain o 1.762. Now how many Books (as Apocryphal as those of the old Hereticks, and as extravagant for the Rights of the Pope, as any that ever were writ on any Subject in the World) doth Baronius cite, approve and admire? But one Book that speaks for the Prince, and the Civil Rights of Men, must by no means be endured. 'Tis observable also, That when Theodoret was suspected of Heresie, he appeals to a Council in which the Bishops and Magistrates may meet, and the Judges may deter∣min what is consonant to the Apostolical Doctrin p 1.763. Now if it had been known and believed then, that the Popes Communion was enough to make a man a

Catholick, and he had been the sole Judge, why did not Theodoret in one word appeal to the Pope, and say he was in Communion with Leo Bishop of Rome? He approves Theodoret's Censure of Dioscorus, for in∣vading the Rights of other Dioceses, contrary to the Canons of Nice and Constantinople, and he blames Dioscorus for his Pride and Ambition; but though the Pope labour to invade all Dioceses, and make all the Bishops in the World his Vassals, contrary to Law, Equity, and Primitive Usage, this is no Crime in a Friend q 1.764. Baronius is miserably put to it about the Epistle of Ibas, judged (by two Councils) to be Here∣tical; yet approved by the Infallible Chair. This makes him contradict himself strangly; for here he saith, This was really Ibas his Epistle, as the Tenth Action at Chalcedon teaches, and himself confessed; and the Opinion of the Apostolick Legates of Maximus of Antioch and others confirm it, and Ibas was proved a Catholick by it r 1.765. But Baronius had before cited the Tenth Action at Chalcedon to prove, That this Epistle in that Council was found not to be Ibas Epistle, and so the Epistle was condemned, and he absolved s 1.766. And in the former place, as well as elsewhere t 1.767, he affirms the Epistle contained Blasphemy and Heresie; yet Pope Vigilius approved it; and the Cardinal saith, Ibas was by this Epistle found to be a Catholick. He that can make these Contradictions friends, or reconcile them to the Infallibility,—erit mihi magnus Apollo. He commends Pope Leo for reproving Theodosius the Em∣peror gently and mildly, when he was going to esta∣blish Heresie by a Pseudo-Synod * 1.768. Whereas Old Eli's Example may shew (if the Emperor was his In∣ferior in this matter, and the Pope his Ghostly Father) that his Reproof ought to have been sharper; yea, he should have expresly prohibited the convening of this Council (if his Authority was necessary to their Meeting) and have not so meanly truckled as to send his Legates to a Synod, which he judged needless, yea, dangerous u 1.769. And if we consider Leo's high Spirit,

this Submission shews, he had no right to call a Ge∣neral Council, nor power to hinder the Emperor from appointing one. Again, When the Pope (by Prosper's help) had writ a very seasonable and Orthodox E∣pistle against Eutyches, the French Bishops were care∣ful to have it exactly Transcribed; but it follows not from hence, That they would not vary one syllable from his Decrees w 1.770. For this respect was shewed, not to the Authority of the See, but to the excellency of the Epistle, as appears in that the Gallican Bishops (as hath been shewed) rejected other Decrees both of this Pope and his Predecessors, when they disliked them. And Baronius owns a little after, that these Bishops rejoyced that this Epistle contained their own sense as to the Faith, and were glad that the Pope held the same Opinion, that they had always held from the Tradition of their Ancestors x 1.771. So that this is no Proof, as he would have it, That the Pope was a Master presiding over all the Christian World. For they judged of his Teaching, and approved it, because it agreed with their Churches ancient Tradition. On no better grounds he gathers, there was One only lawful Judge, One Governor of Holy things always in the Church, viz. the Pope; From Theo∣doret's Epistle to Leo y 1.772: For first, these Epistles are justly suspected, as being not heard of till they came to light first out of the Vatican: And, secondly, they are demonstrated to be spurious by divers Learned Men, and especially this to Leo, is shewed to contain manifest Contradictions z 1.773. Thirdly, If this Epistle were genuine, it must be considered that all the Pa∣triarchs, except the Roman, were at that time either corrupted or oppressed, and in that juncture Theodoret could appeal to none of them but Leo, and so might well give him good words, who alone was likely and able to assist him. As for that Testimony wherein they much glory, That Rome had the Supremacy over all Churches, (as their Translation speaks) because it was always free from Heresie, and no Heretick had sat there a 1.774, it supposes a long experience of the Church of Romes

Integrity before this Priviledge was bestowed; and if the Supremacy was given her for this Reason, she ought to lose it again whenever any Heretical Pope shall get the Chair; nor doth Theodoret at all suppose this impossible for the future. Moreover he brags, that Leo restored Theodoret and others, deposed by this Pseudo-Ephesine-Synod, and infers, That it was the Popes priviledge alone to restore Bishops deposed by a Coun∣cil b 1.775. But the Misfortune is, Theodoret was called an Heretick after the Pope had privately acquitted him, and his Cause was to be tried over again at Chalcedon; and till that Council restored him he remained sus∣pended for all this pretended Priviledge of the Pope. And before we leave him we may note, that he used all his Interest to persuade the Emperor to call a law∣ful and impartial General Council, as appears by all his Epistles to his several Friends c 1.776; which shews he knew it was in the Emperor's power alone to call one; not in the Pope's, to whom he would have written, (being in favour with him) if he had had Authority in this Affair. He reckons Attila's leaving to harrass the Ea∣stern Empire, to be a Divine Reward for Marcian's set∣ling the true Religion there; but presently tells us, That this Scourge of God, and other sad Judgments fell upon Italy and the Western Empire; from whence he sup∣poses the Reformation of all Eastern Heresies came, and where he believes no Heresie could ever take place d 1.777. So miserably do Men expose themselves, when they pretend to give Reasons for all God's Dis∣pensations. In the next year hapned the Famous Council of Chalcedon, wherein divers of Baronius's Frauds have been already detected; so that I am only to add, That Leo was politick in pretending to give Ana∣tolius a power to receive Recanting Bishops, who had fallen into Eutyches Heresie, and cunningly reserves the greater Cases to his own See e 1.778. But 'tis plain, Anatolius of Constantinople had as much power in the Provinces subject to him, as the Pope had in Italy, and the greater Cases were, according to ancient Usage,

reserved to the next General Council, where both the Bishop of Rome and Constantinoples Acts were to be re-examined, and none of these Erring Bishops were re∣stored but by that Council. And finally, he makes it a great Crime in Dioscorus to pretend to Lord it over Egypt, and to say, He had as much Authority there as the Emperor f 1.779. Yet the following Popes did and said as much in relation to Italy; but Baronius cannot see any harm in that, though Socrates did, who saith, That both the Bishops of Rome and Alexandria had ex∣ceeded the bounds of Priestly-power, and fallen to a secular way of Ruling g 1.780. And this may suffice for this Part of the Period we have undertaken.

CHAP. IV.

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

§. 1. THE Synod of Alexandria is falsly styled in * 1.781 the Title, under Leo: For their own Text con∣fesseth, it was assembled by the Authority of Proterius Bi∣shop of Alexandria a 1.782.

The Second Council of Arles, which Binius had ante∣dated 70 year, and put out with this false Title, under Siricius, is by Labbè b 1.783 placed here according to Sir∣mondus his direction.

The Council of Anjou, in Binius, is said to be held under Leo; who is not once named in it: Wherefore Labbè leaves out that false Inscription, and only saith, it was held in the 13th year of Pope Leo c 1.784.

The 4th Canon of this Council is corrupted by Bi∣nius and Baronius. For where the Text reads, If any be [coelibes] unmarried, they put into the Margen as a bet∣ter reading, if any be [debiles] weak: Which is to make the Reader believe, that all the Clergy then were un∣married; whereas this Canon supposes many of them had Wives. And the 11th Canon allows a married Man to be chosen Priest or Deacon, (the Popes Decrees not yet prevailing in France:) So that Labbè honestly strikes out [debiles] and keeps only the true reading (d). We * 1.785 note also, that in the end of this 4th Canon, such Clerks as meddle in surrendring Cities are excommunicated. A Sentence which if it were now executed, would put many Priests and Jesuits out of the Communion of the Church, for their treachery to the Emperor and the King of Spain, many of whose Cities they have betrayed to the French.

The Notes falsly cite the first Canon, and so doth Ba∣ronius e 1.786 saying, it orders, That the Clergy shall not against their Bishops Sentence seek to secular Tribunals; and pre∣tending this was in opposition to an Edict of Valenti∣nian, published the year before, which restrained the Bishops Jurisdiction to matters of Religion, unless the parties chose them. Now the true words of the Canon are, The Clergy shall not appeal from the Bishops Sentence, nor seek to Secular Tribunals, without consulting the Bishop. And Valentinian's Law was of no force in France, nor probably had these Bishops ever heard there was such a Law; so that it is not likely they ever thought of op∣posing it. Finally, We observe that Baronius without any Authority falsly affirms, that this Council was sent to Rome f 1.787 only to insinuate, that it was to be confirmed there. Whereas till Fronto-Ducaeus found the Manuscript in France, they at Rome seem to have known nothing of it.

The Council of Vannes placed by Binius here, by Sirmondus Authority is removed to An. 465. in Labbè g 1.788. Nothing in it is remarkable, but that the Assembly de∣sires (not the Pope, but) the absent Bishops of their own Province to confirm the Canons thereof.

The Council of 73 Bishops at Constantinople, was * 1.789 called by, and held under Gennadius Patriarch of that City, and so is falsly titled under Leo; whose Legates do not subscribe it, and so probably were not present at it h 1.790. Baronius indeed saith they were, but proves it only by conjecture, because Leo in an Epistle speaks of his Legates, being come back to Rome the year af∣ter i 1.791. But the wonder is, how Baronius and Binius (who confess all the Acts are lost, except one Canon about Simony) came to know, that Eutyches was con∣demned, and the Council of Chalcedon confirmed in this Council. However, if it was confirmed, no doubt the Greek Bishops would confirm the Canons of it, with the rest, to which the Popes Legates could not con∣sent: But since we hear of no difference, it is like these Legates were not present.

§. 2. Pope Hilary (who succeeded Leo) might justly * 1.792 be suspected of Heresie, because he confirms no more than three General Councils, omitting that of Constan∣tinople which condemned Macedonius. But since there is no evidence of this Universal Epistle confirming the other three Councils, but only the fabulous Pontifical, we may acquit him, and perhaps even in the very Pon∣tifical, this Council may have been erased after the con∣troversie of the Primacy was started l 1.793. However, this being owned all along by the Catholick Church for a General Council, it can suffer nothing by the Popes not confirming it; he alone would deserve censure for not subscribing to it.

The Spanish Bishops who write to this Pope, by their Countries being wasted by Euaricus the Goth m 1.794 were destitute of Power, and desire Hilary to declare the Canons in some particular Cases, hoping the persons concerned (who despised them in their low estate,) might have more respect for a great Patriarch n 1.795. So that it is very Sophistical in the Annalist and Binius, to draw consequences from hence, for the Popes being the Supream Judge, and having power to dispense with all Canons. The Pope himself in his Answer pre∣tends no such thing o 1.796. He only declares the Canons, but dispenses with none: Yet if he had such a power, doubtless he ought to have used it in Irenaeus his Case.

But the third Epistle of Hilary, writ about the same affair, seems to discover, that all these Epistles (which talk so big of the Popes Supremacy) are counterfeit: For the Forger, weary of inventing new Phrases, steals the beginning verbatim out of those Epistles, that are falsly ascribed to Zepherine and Fabian, and were not extant until long after Pope Hilary's death p 1.797. And Labbè's Marginal Note on Binius Annotations shews, he smelt out the Cheat, if he durst have spoken freely.

The Notes on the 4th Epistle own, that the Popes may be cajoled by false Stories, and deceived in Matter of Fact; and this so far as to condemn holier Bishops than themselves, as Leo and this Hilary did, in the cases of Hilary of Arles, and Mammertus of Vienne q 1.798. And it is not easie to understand, how he who mistakes Mat∣ter of Fact, can infallibly apply the Law to a Fact wherein he is mistaken.

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

The 9th Epistle shews, that Mammertus his Piety was no protection to him, against the injuries of the Roman Court r 1.799. But Binius doth penance for this in his Notes on the 11th Epistle s 1.800; though all his devices will neither excuse his Popes Morals in persecuting so great a Saint, nor vindicate his Judgment who was so grosly mistaken.

There is but one Roman Council under this Pope, called (as is pretended) to confirm his false Judgment about the Spanish Bishops; for they absolve the guilty Sylvanus, and condemn Irenaeus who was innocent: And though this Popes being commonly in the wrong makes it probable, he might get such a Council toge∣ther, yet the very Acts smell strong of Forgery, as well as the former Epistles in these cases t 1.801: For be∣sides their Stile, Maximus Bishop of Turin is mentioned not only as present at it, but speaking in it, who died (as Gennadius u 1.802 a Writer of that Age and Country affirms,) in the Reign of Honorius and the younger Theodosius, that is, above 40 year before this Council: So that Baronius is very bold out of a suspected Coun∣cil, to correct a Writer who lived so near this time, against the Authority of divers printed Copies w 1.803. And Binius is more audacious to cover this with an evident falsification of Gennadius, as if he said, Maxi∣mus

lived under those Emperors, but continued Bishop till this time x 1.804. And now let Baronius boast of the Acclamations of this Synod, (common in other Coun∣cils) as a singular honour done to Hilary; for after all it is plain, he liked not the Canons of it so well as to give them a place in his Annals y 1.805, which here he fills up with other manifest impertinencies.

§. 3. The next Pope was Simplicius, whose appoint∣ing * 1.806 Weekly Confessors at Rome, is far from proving (what the Notes infer) that their Sacramental Con∣fession was instituted by Christ z 1.807. Nor is it for the credit of this Pope that three parts of seven in Rome it self were Arrians in his time a 1.808. But the Pontifical gives the reason of it, and expresly charges him with dissimulation b 1.809, Which seems a just censure; for though the Arrians and Photinians sadly infested the Western Church c 1.810: And though the Princes of that time were generally heretical d 1.811; yet poor Simplicius did nothing, and till he had been eight years Pope, Baronius cannot pick up one Memoir concerning him, except a few Brags of an interested Successor of his, concerning his resisting the Eastern Emperors, which are both false and incredible: Yea, the Annals shew that all the great Affairs of this time were managed by S. Epiphanius Bishop of Pavy, who far outshined Sim∣plicius e 1.812. Wherefore I wonder that Du Pin should say, He was very full of business all the time of his Pope∣dom f 1.813; since for more than half that time there is no true account of his doing any thing: And when he did begin to write, Baronius owns, He did no good by any of his Letters g 1.814; yet a little before, having a bad Memo∣ry, he had ridiculously boasted, That Simplicius in the midst of the Arrian fury governed the See, with the same Authority and freedom that his Predecessors had done, bearing the Causes of all the World, depriving and restoring Bishops, correcting Emperors, opposing barbarous Kings, and sitting as Arbiter and Judge in all things over the East and West, as (he saith) he hath proved in the several years of his Pon∣tifical

h 1.815. Let the Reader search, and try if he can find this proved. On the contrary this Pope flattered all Parties, and truckled to the Heretical Usurper Basilius (as I shall shew presently) nor durst he attempt to do Justice to a persecuted Orthodox Bishop of Alexandria, because (as an old faithful Historian tells us i 1.816,) Zeno the Emperor had forbidden him.

It is so common for the Roman Forgers to invent sham Epistles, in which the Pope is feigned to make Eminent Bishops his Legates in all parts of the World, that, no doubt, this Popes first Epistle to Zeno Bishop of Sevil (which hath no date) is spurious k 1.817. And therefore it is of no force, that the Notes infer from such a Forgery, That the care of the whole Church was committed to the Pope by God.

The 4th Epistle tells the Emperor, to whom it was writ, That none doubted of his Orthodox mind, and that be did as certainly imitate Marcian and Leo in their Faith, as he did succeed them in their Empire. Now this Letter (as Baronius and the Editors say) was writ to Zeno l 1.818; and they own it to be at least prudent dissimulation, for the Notes on the Life of Simplicius affirm, Zeno was an Eutychian Heretick. But indeed it was inexcusable Flat∣tery, or as the Pontifical calls it, downright Dissembling: And the Crime is worse, because upon a strict enquiry this Epistle appears to be writ to that Heretical Usur∣per Basiliscus. Labbè's Margen from an old Manuscript reads it to Basiliscus; and Zeno really was deposed a whole year before this Epistle was writ; for Timotheus Aelurus his coming to Constantinople (mentioned here by Simpli∣cius) was in the time of Basiliscus after Zeno's deposition, as an Authentick Author relates m 1.819; and the true date of Simplicius his Epistle shews it was writ in Basiliscus his time, and so doth also the Chronicle of Marcellinus, a Book writ near that time: But for all this, Baronius quar∣rels with Marcellinus, contradicts Theodorus Lector, alters the date of the Epistle, and keeps Zeno on the Throne a year longer before his deposing, than ancient Wri∣ters do allow; and all this to conceal his holy Fathers

wicked flattering of an Heretick, and Usurper n 1.820. But I hope the Reader will believe old and disinteressed Historians, before the partial Annalist.

The 5th Epistle writ at the same time to Acacius Pa∣triarch of Constantinople, shews that it was solely in the Emperors power to call a General Council o 1.821. Since Timothy of Alexandria applied to the Emperor for such a Council, and Simplicius with Acacius joyned in addresses to the Emperor against it.

In the Notes on the 8th Epistle, where Euagrius on∣ly mentioned a bare report of the Martyr Theclas appear∣ing to Zeno; They out of Baronius add, that she prayed and interceded for Zeno p 1.822: Which invention is to countenance the Martyrs praying for us; The date of this Epistle being in October 477, and (as the Notes say) writ to Zeno after he was restored, and had sent to Simplicius an Orthodox confession of Faith; This date I say shews that the 4th Epistle (before spoken of) must have been written to Basiliscus; for that is dated in Ja∣nuary 476, at which time Zeno was deposed, and Basilis∣cus after he had reigned two years, as Euagrius writes q 1.823, was ejected by Zeno about July 477, long before which time, Simplicius had writ that flattering Letter to the Usurper.

The Forgers have corrupted the Title and Conclu∣sion of Acacius his Epistle to Simplicius r 1.824. For Simpli∣cius in a genuine Epistle calls Acacius, his beloved Brother, Epistle 18: But here by turning Patriarchae into Patri, they make Acacius style Simplicius, Most blessed Lord and Holy Father, Archbishop, &c. Which corruption (owned by Labbè) shews how little credit is to be given to the Pompous Titles of these Epistles which are frequently feigned by the modern Roman Parasites.

Upon the 14th Epistle they note in the Margen, The Pope dispenses with the Nicene Canon for peace sake, and in favour of the Emperor s 1.825. This relates to the hasty election and ordination of Stephen Patriarch of Antioch, which the Emperor and Acacius were forced to dispatch somewhat uncanonically for fear of a Sedition in that

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

The 16th Epistle declares, that Simplicius had taken Calendion the new Bishop of Antioch into his Commu∣nion, and call him his Brother and Fellow-Bishop t 1.826. The Notes calls this, the Popes confirming Calendion in the See of Antioch: Whereas it was no more than his owning him for an Orthodox Brother; yea, Calen∣dion was thus far confirmed by Acacius, for (at his request) Acacius had declared himself of his Commu∣nion, before he writ to the Pope. These Notes also falsly say, Acacius was made the Popes Legate, which is a groundless Fiction of Baronius u 1.827. For if Acacius had acted in ordaining and deposing the Eastern Patri∣archs, only as the Popes Legate, there had been no Quarrel between him and Rome. And how improba∣ble is it, that he who contended for the Supremacy of the whole Eastern Church with the Pope, and who is taxed by Baronius, to be one that thirsted after nothing so much as the Primacy w 1.828, that he, (I say) should ac∣cept of a Legantine power from Rome? Yea, Simpli∣cius his 17th Epistle doth not say any such thing, but speaks of their Obligation to mutual Love, and of the Patriarchal Office committed to him, as a Talent God had entrusted him with: But not a syllable of his Subjection to the Pope, or of any Office derived from him.

§. 4. The Council of Tours, Binius places here under * 1.829 Simplicius, Labbè 21 years sooner under Pope Hilary; but the truth is, that it was held An. 461. but under no Pope at all: For they desire no other but their absent Brethren, (Bishops of that Province) to confirm their Canons x 1.830 by their consent. The Notes on this Coun∣cil mention the Fasts and Vigils, which Perpetuus the 6th Bishop of Tours instituted for his Church, Recorded by an old Historian of that place y 1.831. And 'tis very plain they differ extreamly from those used at Rome; which shews how unreasonable it is in the Mo∣dern Roman Church, to impose their Fasts, Feasts and other Rites upon all Churches in the World.

The Council of Arles, in the cause of Faustus assem∣bled to examin Points of Faith, doth not so much as mention the Pope, so that surely they did not take him for an infallible Judge z 1.832. Labbè's Notes boast, that one De Champs hath confuted Bishop Usher's censure of the Epistles of Faustus and Lucidus, and of this Council which approved them: But before the Reader credit this, let him hear that most learned Primate, who mo∣destly excuses the Council, but strongly proves, that Faustus was a Semi-pelagian Heretick a 1.833: And if he did not feign the consent of this and another Council to his Doctrins, this will be one instance, that Councils may Err in matters of Faith.

§. 5. Foelix the Third, who followed Simplicius, was * 1.834 much bolder, and openly reproved the Emperor and Acacius, for that which he called a Fault: But the Notes falsifie when they say, That in the beginning of his Pontificat, he rejected, proscribed and cursed the most wick∣ed Zeno's (Henoticon) Edict for Union, anathematizing all that subscribed it b 1.835. For Euagrius recites this E∣dict, and neither saith Foelix condemned it, nor con∣demns it himself; and Foelix former Letters treat both Zeno and Acacius with all respect, nor do they curse either of them on the account of this Edict: Theo∣dorus

Lector indeed saith, That when all the Patriarchs besides agreed to Zeno's Edict for Union, Foelix of Rome [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] joyned not with him c 1.836. Which only im∣plies, his not communicating with the Emperor in that point: But Binius hath improved this into proscribing, cursing and anathematizing the Edict.

The First Epistle of Foelix to Acacius often calls him Brother, which shews as if then he did not reject his Communion d 1.837; and neither this nor the second to Zeno, do at all mention the Emperors Edict for Union, but quarrels only about matters of Jurisdiction, being not so much concerned for any Heretical Opinions, as for keeping up his claim to a pretended Supremacy: However some suspect both these Epistles as being without date, and because that to Acacius seems to con∣tradict Liberatus e 1.838: But I think they may be allowed for genuine.

The Second Epistle to Zeno is writ with modesty, yet wants not good advice. The Pope owning it his Duty to write to the Emperor, upon his coming into the See of Rome; and he rather intreats, than either com∣mands or threatens f 1.839: But it is certain, if this Epistle be genuine, it is not perfect, wanting that account of the African Persecution, which Euagrius saith was men∣tioned in this Epistle.

It is said, Foelix writ three Letters to Petrus Cnapheus the Heretical Bishop of Antioch, of which only two are extant, and it is well if both be not Forgeries [incepi sententiare contrate,] is a Phrase that smells of the later Ages, when the Flatterers of Rome coyned great variety of this kind of Epistles to make the World think, that an Heretical Patriarch could be deposed by none but the Pope g 1.840. But this very Letter owns, that Acacius and his Council had also deposed this Peter of Antioch, as well as the Pope and his: And Baronius saith, Acacius did it first h 1.841: But the Cardinal thought it worth his while to corrupt this suspicious Epistle, wherein Foelix saith, He was condemned by me, and those who together with me do govern the Apostolical Throne:

Which Phrase plainly shews, that the Pope did not Rule alone as a Monarch at Rome, but the Italian Bishops had a share in that Power: To avoid which Truth Ba∣ronius and they that follow him falsifie it, and read—condemned by me, and by them, who being constituted un∣der me, govern Episcopal Seats i 1.842. The true reading implies the Bishops are co-ordinate with the Pope, but the Corruption is to make us believe, they are only his creatures, substitutes and delegates.

The Fifth Epistle to Zeno speaks honourably of Aca∣cius, as an Orthodox Archbishop, commending him for opposing Petrus Cnapheus k 1.843: It is noted by a learned Man, that (excepting fabulous Inscriptions,) the name [Archbishop] is here first found among the Latins: But I rather observe, that Foelix here reads that famous Text for the Supremacy, Math. xvi. in this manner—and upon this Confession will I build my Church: So it is read often in Gelasiui Epistles l 1.844,—on the Confession of Peter will I build my Church: Which shews it is not a casual expression, but a Testimony that at Rome it self, in that Age, it was not believed this Promise belonged so much to St. Peter's Person as to his Faith, nor to his Successors any longer than they held that Confession. Of the 6th Epistle we shall speak when we come to Foelix his second Roman Council.

The Corrupters Fingers have been busie with the Title of the 7th Epistle, which (as Labbè notes out of Justellus) was writ only to the Bishops of Sicily; but they who are to support an Universal Supremacy have changed it thus, To all Bishops m 1.845: And the date is falsified also, be∣ing pretended to be writ by a Roman Council held in March, An. Dom. 487. yet it is dated in the year after, March 488. But if they will have it genuine, let them observe, that the Pope here saith, (speaking of a Point of Faith,) He knows not but in this case, the Spirit of God may have informed them of something that had escaped his Knowledge, promising to hear them, if they can find anything omitted by him n 1.846. Let them read this, and reconcile it with Infallibility if they can.

The Decree of Foelix about the subjection of Kings to Bishops, is neither agreeable to the Age, nor to the Style of this Popes other Writings to the Emperor o 1.847; so that we cannot credit it, though Labbè hath put it into an Epistle to Zeno, because this Epistle speaks of the deposition of Acacius as a thing past, August 1st 484: But the Margen of the next Epistle saith, Aca∣cius was deposed July 28, 488 p 1.848. And it is probable, that both the Sentence and the Synod are spurious, coyned out of a hint in the Pontifical, viz. That Foelix did condemn Acacius in a Synod: Which was ground enough for the Parasites to frame a Council. But how little credit is to be given to the Pontifical in this Popes History, Baronius declares, when he notes that Author is not to be trusted in his Report, That Misenus and Vitalis were sent to Constantinople, three years after this Synod at Rome q 1.849. And it seems neither Euphemius Bishop of Constantinople, nor Pope Gelasius knew of this Roman Synod: For when Euphemius asked, In what Synod his Predecessor Acacius was condemned? Gelasius mentions no Roman Synod r 1.850; but saith, there was no need of any particular Council, since he was condem∣ned by the general Sentence of the Council of Chalce∣don, and upon that ground the Roman Church rejected Acacius his Communion.

There are (in Labbè) divers other Epistles ascribed to Foelix; one to Zeno s 1.851, said to be writ some time after the death of Acacius, wherein the Pope extols that Emperour for his care of Religion, and the reverence of Divine Worship; which shews that Foelix did not so stifly renounce Zeno's Communion, nor damn his Edict for Union so severely as Binius pretends. The rest of these Epistles I pass, though most of them be suspicious.

§. 6. The first Roman Council under Foelix, may * 1.852 be true as far as concerns the Condemnation of Peter Mongus, the Heretical Bishop of Alexandria t 1.853, though there is nothing to prove it, but the two first suspected Epistles of Foelix. However, if there were such a Sy∣nod, it shews how little regard was had to the Pope and his Council in those days, since John, whose side Rome took, did never get admittance to the See of Alexandria; and Peter Mongus kept that Chair for all the Popes Sentence: And if the other, Peter Cnapheus, the Heretical Bishop of Antioch was condemned here, it is certain, he was condemned before by Acacius at Constantinople: But that Evidence of Acacius his being Orthodox, hath not discouraged the Parasites from forg∣ing a pretended Citation, in the name of this Roman Synod, to call Acacius to Rome, there to answer the Matters charged against him: But 'tis so improbable, Foelix should attempt this against one, who thought himself his equal, if not superior, that now-a-days the Romanists allow not these Processes, but count them spu∣rious.

There is a second Roman Council placed in this * 1.854 year, wherein Acacius and the two Peters of Alexan∣dria and Antioch are all said to be condemned u 1.855. But let it be noted, that whereas the 6th Epistle of Foelix saith, he had deposed Acacius in a Synod in August, 484 w 1.856, and at that time Baronius places his depositi∣on x 1.857; Yet here we have a Synodical Letter, con∣demning him over again, dated above a year after, viz. Octob. 485, which Date Baronius and Binius fraudu∣lently leave out y 1.858: But Labbè sets it down in the Margen, and so discovers the cheat z 1.859. Upon the whole matter, this Condemnation of Acacius was done they know not when; and 'tis probable all these Let∣ters and Synods were invented after the Controversie for precedence between Rome and Constantinople grew high, meerly to put weight into the Roman Scale. But one corruption of this suspicious Synodical E∣pistle

I cannot pass, being a passage evidently put in by a later Forger: For whereas this Letter makes the Italian Bishops call the Pope their Prince and Head (by way of limitation,) who ought to preside in the Synods of Italy:—And tell those to whom they writ—that therefore they had by Tutus sent the Sentence underneath, which pleased the Synod at St. Peters, and which holy Foelix their Head, Pope and Archbishop had decreed: Some later Hand hath broken the Sense, and absurdly thrust into the midst of this Sentence these incoherent words—Who is the Head of all; the Lord saying to St. Peter the Apostle, Thou art Peter, &c. Math. xvi. Which words the 318 Fathers at Nice following, gave the Authority and Confirmation of matters to the holy Church of Rome, both which, even to our Age, all Successions by the grace of Christ have kept,—and then comes in—Therefore (as we have said,) we have by Tutus sent, &c. a 1.860. 'Tis plain they are forced to put in these words (as we have said) to tye these latter words to the former: And whoever considers the incoherence, the impertinence, the sham story of the Fathers at Nice, and the many Ages sup∣posed, from that Council of Nice to this time, (which was but barely 160 years) will conclude this Passage is a Corruption upon a Corruption, to support the Supre∣macy, while such stuff passed for Authentick proof to an ignorant Age.

The Third Roman Council under Foelix, (as we noted * 1.861 on his 7th Epistle) lies under the same suspicion, being dated with the Consuls of the year 488, yet is said to be read in Council the year before, An. 487; and from an Epistle to one Neighbouring Country, is now made a Letter to all Bishops.

§. 7. Gelasius succeeded Foelix in the Roman See, a * 1.862 man of more wit and learning than most of his Pre∣decessors, for which cause it is thought he was called Scholasticus before St. Gregory's time, and that it was he that corrected and set out the Roman Offices. The Pontifical relates, that the Manichees being discovered at

Rome in his time, he made a Decree, That those who would not receive the Sacrament in both kinds, should re∣ceive it in neither, and declares it to be a grand Sacriledge for any to divide the holy Mysteries b 1.863. Now these Here∣ticks refusing the Cup, were to be discovered by the Priests taking care that all the People received the Cup as well as the Bread: But this happens to con∣demn the modern use at Rome, (of denying the Cup to the People) as a grand Sacriledge; wherefore all Hands and Wits are at work to ward off this fatal Blow. Binius in his Margen feigns, That Gelasius ordered the Sacrament to be received in both kinds for a time: But if it had not been the Custom at Rome to receive in both kinds before, the Manichees had never been discovered: It is very plain Gelasius confirms the old Custom, and thinks it in all times a Sacriledge to receive but one half: Wherefore Labbè hath left out this pitiful Note. The Editors of Gratian cover this blot, by Forging this false Title to the Decree, The Priest ought not to receive the Body of Christ without the Blood c 1.864. But Gelasius speaks principally, if not only of the People, and this Sense supposes most of the Roman Clergy to be Manichean Hereticks. There∣fore Baronius rejects this Excuse as frivolous d 1.865, but takes as bad a method to salve up this business; for he manifestly perverts the sense of the Decree,—pre∣tending the Manichees superstition made it Sacriledge only in them to reject the Cup; but it is none in the Catholick People not to receive it, nor in the Church to forbid it: But this is meer Shophistry, for it was certainly the Custom even at Rome in Gelasius his time, and many Ages after, for all the Orthodox People to receive in both kinds; and he calls it Sacriledge in any of the People, who did not receive the Cup as well as the Bread: For he saith in general, This dividing the My∣stery, can never happen without a grand Sacriledge. Now it is certain, that when either an Heretical or Ca∣tholick Man or Woman receives but in one kind, it doth happen that the Mystery is divided; and there∣fore

in Pope Gelasius Opinion, the present Church of Rome is guilty of a grand Sacriledge, in taking the Cup from the People: And it seems, the Editors thought Baronius had not sufficiently satisfied this Objection, and therefore they cunningly leave it out of this Popes Decrees e 1.866, in both Editions.

With like craft, they omit the Tract of Gelasius against Eutyches, and only give a touch at it in the Notes f 1.867; and there also care is taken (out of Baronius,) if any shall elsewhere meet with this piece, to keep them from discerning, that Pope Gelasius condemns Transubstantiation; and expresly saith, That the sub∣stance of Bread and Wine remains, after the Consecration: The words they cannot deny; but first, Baronius and Binius argue it was not writ by this Pope, but by Gelasius Cyzicenus, (an Author as Orthodox and more ancient than Pope Gelasius; but their Arguments are not so cogent, as to outweigh the proofs that this Pope writ the Tract. Labbè in his Margen saith, that many learned men think it his. Gennadius Contemporary with the Roman Gelasius, and the Pontifical say, he writ a Tract against Eutyches: Fulgentius cites it as this Gelasius his Work g 1.868: Pope John the Second, also ascribes it to his Predecessor: Yea, the Biblio∣theca Patrum allowed by the Expurgators, put it out under Pope Gelasius his name h 1.869. And at last, Ba∣ronius himself is not against supposing it was his. But then Secondly, He manifestly perverts the Sense of the words before-cited, being (after long shuffling) forced to this absurdity, that—by the substance, he means, the accidents of Bread and Wine remain i 1.870; Which makes this learned Pope so ignorant, as to mistake the first rudiments of Logick, and might al∣most shew he was an Heretick, if his Comparison in that sense be applied to the two Natures of Christ, for illustrating of which he brings it in: For thus it would follow, that Gelasius held, nothing but the acci∣dents of Christs. Body or Human Nature, remained after the Hypostatical Union: Doubtless, Contarenus his Brother

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

As to this Popes extraction, Volatteran and Panvinius say,—his Father Valerius was a Bishop: Which is now left out of the Pontifical, and not mentioned in Baronius or the Notes k 1.871: But the omission signifies little, there being so many instances of married Bi∣shops that had Children; Yea, of Popes that were Sons, or Grand-Children of Bishops or former Popes: As to the time of this Pope's ingress, Baronius places it An. 492, and upon the credit of the dates of a few Papal Epistles, (which are always suspicious and often forged,) he rejects the Authority of Marcellinus, who lived at this time, and died An. 534 l 1.872; in whose Chro∣nicle Gelasius is said to be made Pope An. 494; that is, two year later than Baronius places it.

§. 8. If Marcellinus be in the right, we may justly doubt of those three Epistles, [the 1st, 2d and 9th,] which Baronius cites as writ before the year 494: The 1st hath no date, and though the time of wri∣ting it be made an Evidence against Marcellinus his Account; yet he brings no proof it was writ An. 492, but this, Nothing hinders us from allowing these things between Euphemius and Gelasius, to be done this year m 1.873. I reply, the Testimony of a good Author of that

Age, who affirms Gelasius was not Pope till two years after, hinders us from believing it was writ then: But I will not however condemn the Epistle, which is mo∣dest enough, calling Euphemius Bishop of Constantinople,—his Brother and Fellow, advanced to a Precedence by the favour of Christ n 1.874: And when he was pressed to declare, by what Council Acacius was condemned, he cites no Roman Council, nor pretended Sentence of his Predecessor Foelix: But saith, he was condemned by the Council of Chalcedon; but this he doth not make out.

The Second Epistle also wants a date, and is by guess placed in this year by Baronius, with this false re∣mark, That the Popes by Custom used to prescribe a Form of Belief to all the Faithful o 1.875: Whereas the Letter it self declares the Custom was,—For every new Pope to declare his Faith to the Neighbouring Bishops, that they might know he was Orthodox p 1.876. Now there is a vast difference, between prescribing a Form of Belief to others, and labouring to get from them a Testimony of our be∣lieving aright.

The 4th Epistles true Title is, The Monitory of Gela∣sius: But in Binius these words, [Of the most blessed Pope] are added q 1.877, which Labbè rightly omits: In the Mo∣nitory it self observe, First, That Gelasius denies his Pre∣decessor or he had condemned the Emperor Anastasius. Secondly, He saith, the Church hath no power to absolve any after their death. Thirdly, He claims no power to make any new Canons, but only to execute the old. Which other Bishops may do. Fourthly, He cannot prove Appeals to Rome by any Canons, but those of Sardica, which were rejected by many, and slights the Canons of Chalcedon, received every where but at Rome. Fifthly, He very falsly pretends, Acacius was only the Ex∣ecuter of the Roman Churches Sentence, by whose sole Authority some Eastern Bishops were condemned. But we know, Acacius had condemned them long before any Sentence was given at Rome r 1.878, and scorned to act under the Pope. Sixthly, Where Gelasius in his own Cause vainly brags, That the Canons have given the Judgment

over all to the Apostolical Seat: Binius and Labbè mend it in their Marginal Note, and say, The Canons and Christ gave it this power s 1.879; neither of which is true.

In the 5th Epistle, Gelasius owns a Private Bishop for his Brother, and declares, that he himself cannot alter the Canons. The Margen again here saith, The Canons can∣not be altered t 1.880,—they should have said—no not by the Pope: But here they say too little, as before they said too much; which puts me in mind of Juve∣nal's Note,

Quisquam hominum est quem tu contentum videris uno Flagitio—* 1.881

The Date of this Epistle must be false, being An. 490, that is, two years before (as they reckon) Gelasius was Pope. Labbè would mend it, by antedating the entrance of Gelasius, forgetting that he had printed an Epistle of Foelix to Thalassius, dated that year u 1.882; his Invention therefore was better than his Memory.

The 6th Epistle shews, that notwithstanding the Popes fair pretences to an Universal Jurisdiction, his neighbour Bishops in Dalmatia did not own it; but looked on him as a busie-body, for medling in their affairs w 1.883, and suspected the Snake of Usurpation lay under the florid Leaves of his seeming care of all the Churches.

The 7th Epistle is briefly and imperfectly set down by Baronius x 1.884, because he would conceal from his Reader, that Gelasius makes Purgatory and Limbus Infantum a Pe∣lagian Opinion; Let them (saith he y 1.885) take away that third place, which they have made [recipiendis parvulis] for receiving little Children. And since we read of no more, but the right hand and left, let them not make them stay on the left hand for want of Baptism, but permit them by the Baptism of Regeneration to pass to the right.—Which illustrious Testimony the Editors would obscure by reading, [decipiendis parvulis] for deceiving Children:

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

It is a trifling Note on this Epistle, That Gelasius admonished some Bishops of Italy against Pelagianism, not fearing two Princes, one of which was an Eutychian, the other an Arrian Heretick z 1.886. For what cared these Princes for the Popes Letters, against the Heresies of others, so long as he let them alone, and never admo∣nished them of their own Heresies?

The 8th Epistle was writ to one of these Heretical Princes, viz. to Anastasius; and the Pope is scanda∣lously silent about his Heresie, nor doth he once re∣prove his Errors in the Faith; but only labours, even by false pretences to justifie his Supremacy, which gave too just a ground for that Emperor and his Ea∣stern Bishops, to tax this Pope of secular Pride, a fault very visible in all his Writings on this Subject. Further we may note, that this Epistle was of old in∣scribed thus, Bishop Gelasius to the most glorious Emperor Anastasius a 1.887; but the Editors have left out the Em∣peror's Epithet, for fear he should look bigger than the Pope: Also, where the Pope prays that no Contagion may stain his See, and hopes it never will b 1.888; which plainly supposes, it was possible Rome might Err; other∣wise he had mocked God, in praying against that which could not happen; and assurance had left no place for hope, if the Popes were absolutely Infallible: Yet here the Marginal Note is, The Apostolical See cannot Err: Which may caution the Reader, not to trust their Margent nor Index, for there is often more in the Inscrip∣tion, than can be found in the Box.

The 9th Epistle being dated An. 494. was odly ci∣ted by Baronius, to prove that Gelasius was made Pope in An. 492. c 1.889: It seems to be a Collection of divers Canons put together, no Body knows by what Pope. And one thing is very strange, that whereas the Pre∣face owns, the Clergy were almost starved in many of

the Churches of Italy d 1.890; Yet the Epistle impertinently takes great care, that the Rents be divided into four parts, as if all things had then been as plentiful as ever: And whereas these Rules are sent to the Bishops of Lucania, near Naples, the Pope's forbidding them to dedicate Churches without his Licence, is by the Mar∣ginal Note made a General Rule for all Countries; but falsly, since the Bishops of the East, of Afric, Gaul, &c. did never ask the Popes Licence in that Age, to conse∣crate Churches.

The 13th Epistle is a bold attempt toward an Uni∣versal Supremacy e 1.891: For Gelasius finding the Bishop of Constantinople at his Heels, and come up almost to a level with him, uses his utmost effort to make a few Rascian Bishops believe he was set over the whole Church: But he shews more Art and Learning, than Truth or Honesty in this Argument, asserting these downright Falshoods. First, That the Canons order all the World to Appeal to Rome, and suffer none to Appeal from thence: But Bellarmin (knowing these Canons where those despicable ones of Sardica, and that even those did not intend to oblige the whole World,) in citing this passage, changes Canones appellari voluerint, into appellandum est f 1.892: So that he chuses to leave it indefinite, that all must appeal to Rome, rather than undertake to tell us (with Gelasius,) how that See came by this Right. Secondly, That the Roman Church by its single Authority absolved A∣thanasius, Chrysostom and Flavian, and condemned Di∣oscorus, (as this little Pope brags); which is as true as it is, that the Roman Church alone decreed the Council of Chalcedon should be received, she alone pardoned the Bishops that lapsed in the Ephesine latrociny, and by her Authority cast out the obstinate: Which this Epistle audaciously asserts, though there are more untruths than lines in the whole passage: And if liberty be not deny'd us, we appeal to all the Authentic Historians of those Ages, who utterly confute these vain brags. Yet Bel∣larmin adds to this extravagant pretence of Romes

alone decreeing the Council of Chalcedon, (these words) by her single Authority g 1.893: But Launoy blushes for him, and says, what Gelasius here saith is not strictly true, and that he needs a very benign Interpreter h 1.894; that is, one who will not call a Spade a Spade: But let this Pope's assertions be never so false, they serve to advance the ends of the Roman Supremacy; and therefore you shall find no more of this long Epistle in the Annals, but only this hectoring passage i 1.895 Though he unluckily confesseth immediately after, that Gelasius did no manner of good with all this k 1.896. And no wonder, since that Age, as well as this, knew his pretences were unjust, his reasoning fal∣lacious, and his instances false. Thirdly, He asserts, that Pope Leo vacated the Canons of Chalcedon: 'Tis true, he did it as far as lay in him, who measured Right only by Interest: But we have shewed they remained in full force, in all other parts of the Church, notwithstanding his dissent openly declared. Fourthly, He affirms, that the care of all the Churches about Constantinople was given to Acacius by the Apostolick See: Which is, (as hath been proved) a notorious Falshood; of which this Epistle is so full, that one would suspect it was the Off∣spring of a much later Age. 'Tis certain, the Title is very unusual, Gelasius Bishop of the City of Rome, &c. And the date is false, the Consul named is Victor, whose year was 70 year before: Baronius and the Editors of their own head mend it, and read [Viator;] and Labbè tells us in the Margin, that some things are wanting (in this Epistle,) and some are read otherways in Justellus Manuscript l 1.897: And again he observes, that instead of these words, Apostolicae sedi frequentèr datum est,—it is now read, Apostolica sedes frequentèr ut dictum est, &c. which makes a great alteration in the Sense: The former implying only a delegated power, the later an original power of absolving all persons: So that if the whole be not a Forgery, yet it is now corrupted in many places, by the bold Champions of the Supremacy, to whom no∣thing was Sacred; Yea, we are told it comes out of the Vatican Mint, restored and mended, (we know what

that means,) as far as was fit by Baronius m 1.898. So that the Impartial Reader may judge what credit is to be given to this Epistle (out of which they often prove their Supremacy) written by a bigotted Pope (who scrupled not at any thing to advance his See) if it be genuine, and transcribed by such as are convicted of repeated Corruptions.

Labbè gives us two other imperfect Epistles of Gela∣sius, about his renouncing Communion with those who kept Acacius his Name in their Dypticks, as most of the Eastern Bishops then did n 1.899. But in these the Pope humbly saith, It is not for my Humility to pass Sentence concerning a difference reaching through the World, my part being to take care of my own Salvation o 1.900. Which is so different from the style of his former Epistles, that if these be genuine those are suspicious.

But since all these Epistles of Simplicius, Foelix and Ge∣lasius, make so soul a matter of Acacius his Case, let me once for all here give his Character, and state that busi∣ness. That he was Orthodox in all points is manifest by his Epistle against Peter of Antioch p 1.901: And by his forc∣ing Basiliscus to revoke his Edict against the Council of Chalcedon q 1.902. And while the Pope flattered that Here∣tical Usurper, Acacius made all the Bishops who had subscribed it, recant r 1.903. He also ejected Peter of Antioch for Heresie, before the Pope knew of it, and excommu∣nicated Peter of Alexandria, yea, deposed him when he maintained his Heresie s 1.904: And would not admit him to Communion again till he had professed the Catholic Faith, and by name expresly received the Council of Chalcedon t 1.905. 'Tis true, this Bishop proved himself a Dissembler by Apostatizing afterward; but that was not the Popes Quarrel at Acacius, the Roman Bishops were jealous of the Bishop of Constantinoples growing power, who flourished under the Eastern Emperors, while their Church was obscured under a Barbarous King: And Acacius by the Emperors consent (without consulting the Pope u 1.906, put in and put out the Eastern Bishops as he thought fit, pretending this power was given him

by the Councils of Constantinople and Chalcedon: This galled the Popes, and therefore in the pretended Sen∣tence of Foelix, he is charged as one that usurped others Provinces contrary to the Nicene Canons. This check'd the universal Supremacy that Rome had then been for some time aiming at, so that they could have forgiven any Heresie rather than this attempt: Which appears by this, That though Pelagianism had spread it self all over the Western Church, and Eutyches Heresie prevail∣ed in the East, yea, a great part of Rome it self was Arrian, we find few or no Popes Letters against these Violators of the Faith, as if they (with Tiberius) left Christ to revenge his own injuries w 1.907. But all their outcry is against Acacius, whom they would never forgive living nor dead, for touching their Jurisdiction, that was dearer to them than all the Articles of their Creed. But while they hated him, the whole Eastern Church took his part, and he continued to exercise his Office (in spight of all the Popes Sentences) until his death, leaving behind him so good a Character, that Suidas saith, If ever any man were truly venerable it was Acacius x 1.908. Yea, it was a long time before the Greeks could be persuaded either by the promises or threatnings of Rome to put his Name out of the Dypticks, though the union of the East and West depended at last upon that single Point: They objected, that he subscribed the Edict for Union made by Zeno. I reply, so did three Patriarchs more, and that Edict contained no Heresie, nor did it condemn the Council of Chalcedon. They urge also, that he rejected John Talaia an Orthodox Bishop of Alexandria: But that was because he believed him perjured, and consequently unduly elected. To conclude, Acacius was a good Man, and those who will consider the matter impartially, will think the Popes deserve no commendation for their stiffness and violence in this Contest.

After the Epistles follow some Tracts of Gelasius; The first of which is about Excommunication: Wherein there is one passage that afflicts Baronius; For the Pope saith, Christ hath separated the Kings Office and the Bishops; So that Bishops must not challenge Royal Dignity nor meddle in secular Affairs, nor may Kings administer Holy things y 1.909. But the Cardinal will have the Roman Bishop to have at least Regal Power, and Kings to be subject to Ecclesia∣sticks, who he thinks may meddle in Temporal Affairs, tho' Kings must not in Sacred matters; citing for this an Epistle of Gelasius z 1.910. But I should rather think the Epistle forged if it did contradict this Tract, tho' Baronius wrests the words he cites, and omits a passage that immediately follows them, viz. The Ecclesiastical Rulers obey your Laws a 1.911; which shews Bishops were then subject to Princes.

And the next Tract [against the profane Pagan Festi∣vals] shews that the Pope had no shadow of Regal power at Rome in those days; For Gelasius only declares them unlawful, and saith he will deliver his own Soul in persuading the Christians to forbear them: But it was the Senates part to forbid them and take them away, and his Predecessors were to Petition the Emperor (as he owns) to abolish such impieties b 1.912. So that Baronius his huffing Preface to this argument against these Paga∣nish Feasts is very ridiculous. You may see (saith he) how he exalts himself against the Emperor; and though the City was under a Gothic King, he prescribes Laws to Rome without asking leave of an Impious Prince c 1.913. He hath good Eyes (I am sure) who in this Sermon or Discourse can see either any exercise of Authority or Law prescri∣bed, only indeed it is a pious and rational exhortation.

§. 9. A Roman Council under Gelasius is placed next, * 1.914 said to consist of 70 Bishops, convened to settle the Canon of Scripture, and to distinguish genuine from spurious Authors d 1.915. But the whole seems a meer Forgery: For, first, the Publishers are not agreed upon what Pope to Father it: Divers Manuscripts in Labbè, ascribe it to Hormisda (who sat 20. Years after this e 1.916.

Another very old Book calls it, A Declaration of Holy Scripture, &c. with Gelasius his Annotations f 1.917. The De∣cree in Gratian and in Justellus his Manuscript wants all the Books of the Old and New Testament g 1.918. Wherein also, all the stuff about the Primacy, and the order of Patri∣archs is omitted: Yea, the Notes in Gratian own, that formerly it went no further than to—item gesta Sancto∣rum Martyrum—So that the beginning and end (that is, four parts in six) are Forged by their own Confession; Yea, the whole, as Binius grants, is so confused, that in many places it is impossible to read it; yet (they say) they have ventured to mend it as well as they can. But after all their correcting, or (rather) corrupting it, the Copies do not agree: Some want the Book of Judith and the 2d of Macchabees: Some have only one Book of Kings, and one of Chronicles: Some reckon but two Books of Solomon, some three, and others five: Some ascribe Wis∣dom and Ecclesiasticus to the Son of Syrach h 1.919. And after all, as to the Canon it agrees neither with the Council of Laodicea, nor with that of Carthage, nor in∣deed with it self, whatever Binius vainly brags i 1.920. And is not this a rare Foundation for the Trent Fathers to build their mistaken Decree upon? As to the rest of it, That passage [—that the Roman is preferred before all other Churches, not by any Synodal Decrees, but by the Voice of Christ, &c.—] is not only a modern addition (as appears by Gratian and Justellus Manuscript, which o∣mit it) but it contradicts the 4th Epistle of Gelasius, which saith, The supream power over all is not given to any by the Canons, but to the Apostolical Church k 1.921. The order also of the Patriarchal Sees (added since the time of Gratian) is drawn up contrary to the Canons of Constan∣tinople and Chalcedon: The account of Councils make the Emperors Constantine and Theodosius Presidents of the two first General Councils, Marcian and Anatolius of the 4th, without naming Leo, and only mentions Ce∣lestine's consent to the third Council: So that this piece was coyned before the Pope pretended all Councils void wherein he or his Legates did not preside. And

that passage, That the Acts of the Martyrs are not read in the Roman Church, because many of them are writ by ano∣nymous, mistaken, weak and Heretical Authors l 1.922, was writ before that Church had stuffed all her Offices so full of lying Legends, and ridiculous Romances about the Saints, the reading of which (before the Reformati∣on) took up a third part of the Priests time upon Festi∣val days: But upon the whole I dare aver, it is not Gela∣sius his work, but most of it forged by Isidore Mercator 300 Year after the time of this pretended Council: Where∣fore it ought not to be cited as evidence on their side.

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

§. 10. Anastasius the 2d succeeded Gelasius, accord∣ing * 1.923 to Marcellinus Chronicle (an Author of that time) or in the year 498. But Nauclerus places his Election (out of some other Author) An. 492 m 1.924. Baronius and the Editors without Authority correct both these, and place his entrance An. 496 n 1.925. The matter is not great, and serves only to shew us the obscurity of the Popes in that Age, whose Times are so differently related in History, that we may be sure they were not made (as now at Rome) an Aera to reckon Councils and all other Church matters by: The Author of the Pontifical (who writ after the quarrel about Acacius was over) saith hard things of this Pope; viz. 1st, That his Clergy rejected him, because without any Council he communicated with Photinus a Deacon of Thessalonica, a Man of Aca∣cius party: And 2ly, because he would privately have restored Acacius: For which also (he saith) by the Di∣vine Judgment he was struck with death o 1.926. Now all this was allowed for truth by their own Writers be∣fore Baronius p 1.927. And both Ivo and Gratian received it for Authentic History, and placed it in their collecti∣ons

q 1.928. But since the partial Cardinal writ, (not to dis∣cover truth, but to disprove all that seemed to reflect on) the Roman See, Gratian is corrected in later Editions with a Note which contradicts the Text; and the Edi∣tors Notes out of Baronius (which extol the Pontifical to the Skies when it reports the greatest falshoods for the honour of Rome) here say that Book is erroneous and faulty; yea, they charge them all to be Hereticks that spread these reports, largely disputing that all this is false: But in vain; For 1st, as to his allowing the name of Acacius to be restored in the Dypticks (which is the meaning of voluit revocare Acacium in the Pontifical); This is certainly true: For the Emperor Justin expresly affirms this Pope did communicate with Acacius his party, as the Notes own, and they cannot disprove it but by falsifying an Epistle of Pope Symmachus, and reading ego for nego (as shall be shewed presently). Nor is it any wonder that one Pope should approve what his Predecessors had condemned; and if this be true, Ana∣stasius judged better than former Popes, whose Eyes were dazeled so by Ambition, that they could not see the Truth. 2ly, As to his communicating with Photinus without a Council, the Notes finally do not deny it; and it seems Foelix the Senator doubted not (if Anastasi∣us had lived) to have engaged him to subscribe Zeno's Edict for Union; so that he was likely enough to be moderate toward Acacius his party: Only I do not think he would (as the Notes pretend) venture upon his single Authority to absolve Photinus, if he had been condem∣ned by a Council, because in that Age the Popes did not exercise any such power. 3dly, As to his being strook with death by voiding his Bowels, it might be true; nor can I think (as the Notes suggest) that all the Authors above cited are mistaken, and put the Pope for the Emperor, who died by Thunder, because the Deaths were very different: And though Binius say it was about the same time r 1.929; that is very false; for the Pope died An. 598, in the Emperor's Seventh Year: But the Emperor lived near twenty year longer, and died not

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

There is but one Epistle of this Pope, writ to the Em∣peror (his Name-sake) Anastasius, wherein 'tis plain, he thinks the Quarrel about Acacius now deceased, no just ground for the two Churches to separate from each other s 1.930: Yet for the scandal he had given, his Opinion was, that his Name alone ought to be left out of the Dypticks; but withal he approves of the Bap∣tism and Orders he had given, and justifies this by good proofs of Scripture t 1.931. Gratian holds this last De∣cree to be illegal and uncanonical, because it contra∣dicts the determinations of some of his Predeces∣sors u 1.932. But impartial Readers will see, that his Opi∣nion is better confirmed by Reason and Scripture, than the contrary ever was by any Pope that held it: Nor ought the Notes to say, Anastasius decreed this by a dispensation grounded on his Apostolical Authority For it is an Orthodox Truth, That the Crimes of the dis∣pensers of Sacraments and Holy Orders, especially if it be only Schism, do not invalidate them, to such as in their inte∣grity receive them: So that unless a Pope need a dispen∣sation to tell Truth, here is no occasion for any dispen∣sing Power.

This Epistle is followed by a Memorial given by the Legates of Alexandria to the Popes Legates then at Con∣stantinople, for an Union between the two Churches w 1.933, which they speak of as equal Sister Churches, and give

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

Upon the death of Anastasius, the Roman Clergy were * 1.934 divided and chose two Popes, Laurentius and Symmachus: But after a warm and long contest, both parties agreed to refer it to an Heretical Gothish King, viz. Theodoric, to declare an Infallibly Orthodox Head of the Church x 1.935. Who modestly referred it to a Synod of Bishops, and they at last confirmed the Election of Symmachus. The Notes call this a Schism of the universal Church y 1.936. But it was no more than a Schism of that particular Church of Rome, and had no influence, that we hear of, upon the whole Catholick Church: Only a Legend cited out of the fabulous Dialogues (which disparage the Name of Gregory the Great) tells us, that Paschasius, a learned and holy Roman Deacon, was seen after his death in an odd Purgatory of hot Water, condemned thither (as Symmachus Friends told the story) for taking part with Laurentius z 1.937: But it seems when this Fable was made, praying to Saints was not in fashion; for Paschasius de∣sires the Bishop that saw him to pray to the Lord to release him. The Notes also here cite a very idle story of an Image which bled when it was shot; but Damascen is his Author, who lived 250 year after this, and whose stories about Images are generally ridiculous and incre∣dible. But 'tis more material to observe, that this Pope Symmachus was charged with notorious Crimes, and the Papal power was then so low, that the Roman Clergy petitioned an Arrian King to send Visiters to try the Pope, who submitted to this Judicature authorized (say the Notes) by this excellent Prince: And the Bishops (as they observe) not only acquitted the Pope, but were so

wise as to conceal the fault of which he was accu∣sed a 1.938. But if that were so great a piece of Wis∣dom, Ennodius, who then writ an Apology for him, and Baronius and Binius, who now would vindicate him, shew no great discretion in confessing he was accused of Adultery b 1.939: For which, (if it were true,) he deserved a worse Purgatory than his Antagonist Pas∣chasius.

The Epistles published in Symmachus's name are Ele∣ven. The two first of which were formerly directed to Caesarius, but now they alter the Title, and inscribe them to Eonius: It seems the Forger was no good Chro∣nologer; and the Stile is so barbarous, the Sense so ob∣scure, and the Matter so jejune, that it would be a Scandal to any Pope to have writ them c 1.940. And if Symmachus writ these, the 5th and 8th may be discern∣ed by their Style, to have been endited for him by a more able hand d 1.941, that is, by Ennodius, who Binius supposes did write the 8th Epistle e 1.942. However, this Pope is very free in blaming his Predecessor for de∣creeing contrary to the ancient Custom f 1.943: But he scruples not to break many Canons at once, by order∣ing that the Popes for the future shall name their Succes∣sors g 1.944. In the 7th Epistle of Symmachus, the Editors and Baronius have manifestly corrupted the Text, read∣ing ist a quidem ego, for ista quidem nego h 1.945: But the Sense shews the Forgery; for the Emperor had charg∣ed the Pope for excommunicating him, in the case of Acacius; Symmachus replies, I deny these things; we have not Excommunicated you, O Emperor, but Acacius: leave him, and you are quit of his Excommunication; if you do not thrust your self into his Excommunication you are not Excommunicated by us; if you do, you are Excommuni∣cated by your self, not by us: So that whether you stick to him or leave him, however you are not Excommunicated by us. We see the Pope over and over declares, they had not by any particular Sentence Excommunicated the Emperor at Rome; it was only Acacius in particular, and his Followers in general, who were sentenced there;

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

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

An Appendix concerning Baronius his Annals.

THE Cardinal hath given a just, but severe cen∣sure of his own History, where he saith, It is dangerous to enquire after Truth among later Writers, who are often found to write that which false rumors, vain ima∣gination, private affection and sometimes Flattery suggested to their Minds, to the great prejudice of Historical Truth a 1.946. Yet he borrows very many of his Relations concerning the Saints, and ancient Practices, from Modern Authors, or from spurious Tracts, of which this Period affords us these Instances.

§. 1. They will have Porcarius the Abbot to have been a Martyr, and celebrate his Martyrdom Aug. 12th, and yet the History is taken out of a spurious Tract, and he owns the Matter of Fact to be false b 1.947. His re∣port of a Golden Saviour (so they name an Image) decked with precious Jewels, made by the Emperor Valentinian, at the request of Pope Sixtus, hath no bet∣ter Authority than the Epistle of Pope Adrian to Charle∣main, which is stuffed with Fables: No Writer of this Age takes notice of it, nor were such Images then used: So that it need be no wonder, that the Vandals did not plunder this rich Statue, because in the time of their Sacking Rome it was not there c 1.948. But if some wor∣shiper of Images about Adrian's time, to gain repute to this Golden Statue, ascribed a greater Antiquity to it, than he ought (as was usual in such cases,) Baronius doth ill to represent it as a Wonder, that an Image was not stolen before it was made.

The respect that Childeric, a Pagan King of France, payed to St. Genovefa, and the Miracles that occasi∣oned it, depends on the Credit of Surius, and the Acts of that Virgin; so that the Matter of fact is very sus∣picious d 1.949; and the large reflexion upon it is as frivo∣lous, in representing a Heathen King as more pious than those (whom he calls) Hereticks, for venerating and worshiping the Saints; for his Story proves nothing of his worshiping a Saint departed; and if any li∣ving Saints could now be found in their Church, I dare say, the very Hereticks would give them great respect.

That Apparition of the Blessed Virgin to Leo before he was Emperor, which the Annalist describes so pro∣lixly, hath no other nor better Author than Nicephorus, who lived long after this Age, and is by this very Historian often censured for a fabulous Writer e 1.950. Again, to justifie an improbable Story of Caesarius while he was but a young Bishop, imperiously commanding a greater and much elder Bishop than himself, (Euche∣rius Bishop of Lyons) to work a Miracle, taken out of a corrupted piece of Caesarius his Life; He rejects the Chronology of Gennadius, and talks of supposing two Bishops of Lyons, named both of them Eucherius d 1.951, though no ancient Author mention any such thing.

The Relation of an Angels visibly waiting on St. Marcellus, when he and his Monks went to Petition the Emperor against the making an Arrian, Caesar; is cun∣ningly contrived: For the Author notes, that of all the company, only some few witnesses fore ordained of God, who had clearer Eyes than the rest, saw this Angel e 1.952. And Zonaras (a more credible Writer than the Deviser of these Acts,) who mentions the Story, never heard of this Apparition at all f 1.953. However, if these few sharp∣sighted Gentlemen designed to impose upon the rest of the Monks, the Plot was well laid, that none but they should discern the Angel.

The Miracle of the Beam of Light, appearing at the Election of St. Remigius, the Apostle of the French, is very suspicious, because Sidonius who knew and ad∣mired him, and lived at the same time, is silent; and the report is fetched from a Successor of his, who writ (or is pretended to have writ) this above 300 year after g 1.954.

Though Surius be one of his most common Authors for all his Legends, yet he confesses great defects, and many things which need correction, are found in his Colle∣ction h 1.955; and he in the same Page taxes Nicephorus to be Erroneous i 1.956, yet hath no better Authors than he and Metaphrastes, for the invention of the most Holy Gar∣ment of the Blessed Virgin, which yet no doubt the ig∣norant People of the Roman Communion do mighti∣ly adore k 1.957: Such another Evidence, is the Pratum Spirituale of Jo. Moschus (falsly ascribed to Sophronius;) yet out of this, he Records a very Scandalous Story; that the Blessed Virgin declared to a devout Votaress of hers, whom Zeno had abused by violence; That she could not take vengeance on him for his Lust, be∣cause this Emperor gave much Alms l 1.958; which teaches Rich Men how to continue as filthy as they please, and be secured against the Divine Vengeance, if any be so weak as to credit it.

It shews great partiality for any Story about the Re∣licks of the Saints, in that Baronius rejects all the cir∣cumstances mentioned by Theodorus Lector about the Relicks of St. Eustatius, and yet will have us believe the solemn removal of them to Antioch; whereas we have reason to respect the Story it self to be false, when the sole Author was grosly mistaken, both in the time and effects of translating the Relicks m 1.959. But the business of the Annalist was, to defend and allow every thing that seemed to make the veneration of Re∣licks ancient.

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

either confirmed or annulled them: But whereas there is a Decree about Elections at Rome, made in the va∣cancy of the See, by the Roman Clergy and Basilius the Praefect, which seems to be very genuine n 1.960; Baronius rejects it, by the bare Authority of a Synod that hath been forged, (as shall be shewed) on purpose to persuade the World, that Princes had nothing to do in the Ele∣ction of Popes.

The Story of the Apparition of St. Michael at Mount Garganus, is cited only out of a late Author, viz. Sige∣bert, who lived above 600 year after this time: And therefore the Cardinal ought not to have been so nice, in mending a gross mistake in the Relation, (which shews the ignorance of the Inventor of this Fable, (but rather to have rejected the whole Fiction so absurdly related, and so ill attested (o). * 1.961

With like industry Baronius defends two most ridicu∣lous Fables about Images, which Jo. Damascen cites out of Theodoret's Ecclesiastical History, and yet the Facts happened (as is pretended in the Reign of Anastasius,) who was not Emperor till 30 year after Theodoret's death p 1.962. Now rather than lose such Evidence for the Veneration of Images, the Annalist falls to gues∣sing, who was the true Author of these Fables; and first he thinks it was Theodorus Lector; but he writ in Anastasius his time, who ordered this Picture to be made, so that he could not speak of this, as an old Piece spoiled with moisture: Wherefore at last he finds another Theodoret, besides the famous Bishop of Cyrus, but knows neither where nor when he lived: So that such an obscure Writer is not a sufficient Witness to make great improbabilities credible; yet he takes this for a mighty and clear Miracle, wrought by God at Con∣stantinople in the East, on purpose to confute the Arrian Princes then Reigning in Africa, Italy and Gaul q 1.963; Who in all probability never heard of this Story, and would much sooner have believed it, if it had been done in their own Country.

It is very improbable, that later Authors should know so exactly all the little Acts, Sayings and Miracles of St. Benedict, and yet differ almost 30 year about the year of his Birth; nor are they agreed about his Age and Death. This minds me of a Comical Authors remark upon such as pretend to Pray and Preach Ex∣tempore by an Hour-glass—As if the Spirit could teach them what to say; but not how much—It is (doubtless) a strong suspicion that most of the Relations were in∣vented after the time of this Saint, (little noted in his own days) was forgotten. Yet I see not how the time of writing the Dialogues (called) Gregory's, should prove Marianus, Scotus, Sigebert and Trithemius mistaken, in saying Benedict was born in the year 507: Because if Gregory the second (which is very probable,) were the Author of those fabulous Dialogues, he was made Pope An. 714. (in an Age of Legends,) and so Bene∣dict dying, An. 603, might have four Abbots his Suc∣cessors, before this heap of Fables was put together, which are very unworthy of Gregory the 1st Pope r 1.964. It is worth noting, that this Benedict despised Learn∣ing and Study, and ran away from School s 1.965; an ill Omen, that his followers the Monks should help to ruin all polite literature, and bring in that ignorance which co∣vered all Christendom for many Ages: For what other could be expected from such a Founder, that was know∣ingly ignorant, and wisely unlearned (as this Gregory speaks?) But it was not only his Case; for St. Francis, another Founder of Monkery, bids his Followers—if they cannot Read, never to learn any Letters, but above all to take heed they may be inspired with the Spirit t 1.966: Yea, he makes reading much, and getting Books, to be one of his bad signs u 1.967. These illiterate Patrons were fit to lead on an Army of Ignoramus Fryers, to extinguish the Light of Learning, that their false Doctrins and cheat∣ing Practices might pass undiscovered in the darkness they had made.

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

falsly feigning that many Eminent Men, who preceded Benedict in time, were Monks of his Order, out of a blind Zeal to set up its glory w 1.968. But he considers not, that the same blind Zeal hath put these Authors, (out of whom he brings innumerable Stories,) upon say∣ing very false things for the glory of their Order, which probably never were done upon the face of the Earth. So that he should have better Authority than these partial Monks, for the Miracles of their own Saints.

Theodorus Lector heaped up many scattered Reports without care, and is not of the best credit, especially in case of Relicks; but his single Testimony is enough, to make Baronius believe, That God takes care of a dead Saints Bones, in an Earthquake, which probably might swallow up many living Saints x 1.969, who often suffer in such Common Calamities.

Those Miracles of St. Remigius, which are impiously equalled to them that the Apostles wrought y 1.970, have no better evidence than two Authors, (Aimonius and Hincmarus,) who writ about 400 year after: For that Epistle of Hormisda, wherein that Pope makes Remi∣gius his Legate, is (like the rest of that kind,) a mani∣fest Forgery: For he mentions Clovis, the modern name of Ludovicus, as if he were the King of France, and newly Baptized; whereas Clovis died at least four year before Hormisda was Pope, and was Baptized near twenty year before this Letter is pretended to be writ. From which Examples, (though but few) it appears Baronius his evidence for Miracles, and other things that tend to support the Superstitions of Rome, are generally forged, or suspicious Authors.

§. 2. But when he cites genuine Writers in such Points, he often corrupts their Sense, and sometimes their Words: For instance, Baronius pretends, that an intire Edict of Marcian's is imperfect, meerly because he cannot find in it any particular expressions, to take away the Primacy of the See of Constantinople z 1.971.

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

Again, He insinuates that St. Severine allowed the Worship of Saints departed, now used in the Roman Church a 1.972: But the Authors he cites, Euagrius and Eugippius, though they writ many years after St. Se∣verine's death,) have not one word of any deliverance by the praying to Saints: But one of them saith, they were freed from the Famin by the Providence of God: And the other affirms, they praised God for hearing St. Severine's Prayers in this Calamity: So that Severine prayed only to God, and the People of that Age praised him alone: And how can this excite the Posterity of that Nation at this day to pray to St. Severine so long after his decease?

What Victor saith of those, who suffered death by the Arrian Persecution in Africa, That the Romans would count them Martyrs b 1.973, must be meant either of the Roman Captives in Africk, or of the Roman Church in Italy, who looked on these Sufferers as their Brethren, and of the same Faith, and so reckoned them Martyrs: But to stretch this Phrase, to signifie, that then the words [Roman] and [Catholick] were of the same import, is very unreasonable, and what Victor never dreamed of.

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

Saint of his Church c 1.974. But Baronius in the next year taxes him with writing things that could not be credi∣ted d 1.975. Wherefore, he should rather have drawn his conclusion from the living and certain Historian, if Truth had been the business of these Annals.

The Emperor Leo's Edict, is solely designed for the keeping holy the Lords-days, which are the Festivals, properly dedicated to the Majesty of the Most High. But the Annalist expounds this of all Feast-days e 1.976, to give more colour to the scandalous usage of their Church, where more reverence is given to a little Saints-day, than to the Sunday, which from the Crea∣tion, or however, from the Apostles times, was most religiously kept to the Honour of God himself, as the principal time of his most solemn Worship.

Baronius also wrongs Zeno the Emperor, in saying, that his Edict for Union did Anathematize the Council of Chalcedon f 1.977: For the words of the Edict shew the contrary, since Zeno only Anathematizes them, who believed not according to the Nicene Creed, whether in the Council of Chalcedon, or in any other Council; and the Cardinal himself in the next page, only char∣ges Zeno, with tacitly abrogating the Council of Chalce∣don g 1.978; and Liberatus affirms, the Emperor was angry with John Talaia, for not relishing the Council of Chal∣cedon h 1.979: Yea, the Zealots against this General Coun∣cil, at Alexandria, renounced the Communion of Peter; because by subscribing this Edict of Union, he had refused openly to Anathematize the Council of Chalce∣don i 1.980; all which shews, that this Edict did not con∣demn that Council.

Liberatus saith no more, but that the Papers were taken away, lest they should be delivered to the Catholicks, to whom they were written: But Baronius out of this affirms, That the Pope writ to the Clergy, the Monks and Orthodox Laity k 1.981, (as if he had seen the Titles of the several Letters,) and cites Liberatus for his Evidence.

In like manner he brings in the words of Liberatus, after a Fictitious Letter of a Roman Synod: And cites him thus, These Letters being given to Acacius, he would not receive them, &c. l 1.982. By which one would imagine, that Liberatus had attested this feigned Syno∣dical Letter; but this Author speaks only of that E∣pistle of Foelix, which Baronius had cited three pages before m 1.983, and knew nothing of any Synodical E∣pistle.

Thus he cites part of an Oration made at the dedi∣cation of a Church, which had been an Idols Temple, but now was consecrated to the memory of Christ, and of St. Peter and St. Paul; and though there be not one Syllable in the words cited of any worship of Saints, yet Baronius concludes, that this is enough to intimate, that the worship of the Saints did always flourish, not only among the Bishops of this new dedicated Church, but among all Catholicks n 1.984: But he must be very willing to believe a false Doctrin, that will receive it from a bold Conclu∣sion, that hath no Premisses.

Again, To give credit to a Relation of St. Michael's appearing and being worshiped at Rome in this Age, he cites a Poet, who says nothing of the worship of St. Michael; and he would also insinuate, that this Dre∣panius lived about this time o 1.985, to make this Supersti∣tion seem more ancient: Whereas it is well known, that Drepanius Florus writ about the year 650, that is, 150 year after this Age, and 50 year after Pope Gregory p 1.986, at which time many Corruptions and gross Ignorance were visible in the Church.

We may also note, That Baronius corrects Marcellinus's Chronicle, about the ingress of Pope Anastasius, out of the Pontifical; whereas Marcellinus lived at that time, and brought down his Chronicle to the year 534, and so is a very credible Author q 1.987. But in the same page our Annalist shews, how grosly the Pontifical is mista∣ken in point of time, speaking of things as done un∣der one Pope, that were done under another; and af∣firming such and such Facts done to Persons, that were

dead long before r 1.988: Yet not only here, but in many places this mistaken Author is the sole Standard of Ba∣ronius his Chronology. And whereas Theodorus Lector, (who writ An. 518.) expresly saith, King Theodorick called a Synod at Rome s 1.989: The Cardinal rejects his Testimony, and out of the Pontifical and some spurious Acts, affirms, that Pope Symmachus called this Synod t 1.990: For those are the best Authors that speak of their side.

§. 3. With like artifice our Author conceals some part of the Truth, which might prejudice his Cause: As for instance, he notes as a peculiar piece of impudence and madness in Timothy Aelurus, the Invader of the See of Alexandria, that he darted forth his Anathema's against the Roman Bishops, and makes a dismal represen∣tation of that Crime u 1.991: But the Epistle which relates the Story, saith, he Anathematized Anatolius Arch-bishop of Constantinople, and Basilius of Antioch, as well as Leo Bishop of Rome w 1.992: So that there is no reason to conceal that in his Recapitulation, but only to make the Pope look higher, and greater than he was in those days.

Liberatus (no doubt) was better informed what pas∣sed at Alexandria, than Leo could he at Rome; so that his account that Timothy Aelurus was immediately sent into Banishment by the Emperor from Alexandria, is far more credible, than that which Baronius deduces from Pope Leo's Letters, of his coming first to Constan∣tinople: But the Cardinal corrects Liberatus by Conje∣ctures, meerly to persuade the World, that the Empe∣ror obeyed the Pope x 1.993 in Banishing that Heretick; whereas the Writers of that time say, he did it by ad∣vice of a Synod at Constantinople.

It is also observable, that when he speaks of Epi∣stles writ, or Messages sent to the Bishop of Rome by any new Patriarch, he always adds, de more, according to Custom y 1.994; But though it was as much according to Custom, for every new Patriarch to write to the Bi∣shop

of Constantinople, or to him of Antioch, &c. to no∣tifie his Election, and declare his being in the Com∣munion of the Catholick Church z 1.995; Yet there Baronius leaves out thole words, according to Cu∣stom.

§. 4. But there are more Instances of his obscuring the Truth by false reasoning, and particularly by sup∣posing things as certain, which are not proved, and then making Inferences from thence, and offering such Conclusions for manifest Truths. Thus upon Supposition that the Pope was then above the Em∣peror, and that nothing relating to the Church could be done without the Roman Bishop; He introduces an Edict of Marcian's, with a Letter of Pope Leo's, and with this Phrase, The Emperor Marcian obeyed Pope Leo a 1.996. Whereas that Letter of Leo hath no relati∣on to the Edict, and is an humble Petition to the Emperor to get his Letter to Flavian well translated into Greek, and sent to Alexandria, to clear him from an imputation of Heresie falsly laid to his charge: But the Edict takes no notice of Leo, or his Epistle, or of the Roman Church, but charges the Alexan∣drians to follow the Nicene Faith, as it was proses∣sed by their own Bishops, Athanasius, Theophilus and Cyril b 1.997: And though there be a mistake in the Month, the Year is right, and it is dated three years after Leo's Epistle to Marcian c 1.998: But the Cardinal alters the date, and would add to the Sense, only to support his mistaken Supposition.

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

Leo exercised jurisdiction over, and took away the Priviledges from Anatolius d 1.999, are not only weak, but very absurd.

He supposes Acacius was the Enditer of an Edict of Leo the Emperor, touching the Priviledges of the See of Constantinople, and then harangues upon his Am∣bition, and severely taxeth his Pride e 1.1000. But he brings no proof but his own conjecture, that Acaoius did pro∣cure this Edict: Yet if he did, it only confirms the ancient Priviledges of that See, and those it was then in possession of; and if this make him appear proud as Lucifer (as the Cardinal intimates:) How many Edicts with ten times loftier Stiles have the Popes procured or forged, to set up and support their Supremacy? Yet we find no censures of them, nor no inferences, but in their commendation.

It is a false supposition, that Acacius was stirred up by the Letters of Pope Simplicius to oppose the Here∣tical attempts of the Usurper Basiliscus: For (as we have proved before,) Simplicius flattered this Tyrant, at the same time when Acacius moved by his own Zeal for the Catholick Faith, opposed him f 1.1001. But it is the Cardinals design, to make all good Deeds owe their original only to the Popes, and to blacken all that Acacius did, because he would not truckle to the Papal Chair: Otherwise, when Basiliscus doth no more but restore the Rights that Constantinople had before his time, (as the words of the Edict shew g 1.1002; and Theodorus Lector affirms nothing, but that the Rights of that See were restored; why should it be a Crime in Acacius to procure this Confirmation from Basiliscus? I dare say, Baronius thinks it no fault in Boniface, to get the Primacy of Rome established by Phocas, a Bloodier Tyrant and greater Usurper than Basilis∣cus.

A little after, upon the bare Affirmation of an in∣terested and partial Pope, he saith, Acacius governed the Eastern Provinces by a power delegated from the Pope h 1.1003; and upon this supposition he explains the

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

Another false supposition is, that Timothy the Or∣thodox Bishop of Alexandria, sent the Petition of such as had fallen in the time of his heretical Predeces∣sors, to Rome to beg Pardon, and to desire they might be readmitted into the Church; and thence he infers, That the absolution from the crime of Heresie, was wont to be reserved to the Pope i 1.1004. A Note so false and absurd, that we must suppose those Millions of Hereticks, which on their repentance were absolved all the World over, in all Ages, without consulting the Pope; were not rightly absolved, if this were True: But he builds it on a Rotten Foundation; The Letter of Simplicius, (whence he deduces it) saying no more, but that this Timothy of Alexandria had sent him a Copy of this Petition, to shew upon what terms he had readmit∣ted them to the Communion of the Church; and the Pope thought his proceedings were unexceptionable: But there is not a word of their desiring a Pardon from Rome, or of the Popes granting it; much less of that Patriarchal Church of Alexandria's wanting power to reconcile its own Members; which was set∣led on it by the Council of Nice, as amply as the Ro∣man Churches was.

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

endeavoured to get the Pope to own his Communion) Simplicius would not confirm him, upon so eminent a Persons objection k 1.1005. Which confirming, signifies no more than the Popes giving him Communicatory Let∣ters as to an Orthodox Bishop; which was requisite for every Patriarch to grant to any New-Elected Patriarch as well as the Pope: And that it signifies no more is plain from hence, because though afterwards this John's election was approved at Rome; yet that confir∣mation did not make him Bishop of Alexandria: So that a Papal confirmation in those days gave no Bishop a Title, and was no more but a Testimonial of their Com∣municating with him at Rome, and judging him Ortho∣dox: And John Talaia desired such a Confirmation as this from Acacius as well as from the Pope, as Li∣beratus affirms l 1.1006; and the miscarriage of those Letters, it seems was one reason why Acacius opposed his Electi∣on.

He reckons up a great many things (in his opinion) grievous Crimes done by Zeno the Emperor, but that (saith he) which is more odious than all the monstrous wicked∣nesses is, that an Emperor should establish a Decree about mat∣ters of Faith m 1.1007. Now this is all on supposition, that Princes are not to meddle in the setling the True Reli∣gion: But if he look into Sacred or Ecclesiastical Story, he shall find nothing hath been more usual, than for the most Religious Princes to confirm the true, and condemn false Religions; and therefore if this Uniting Edict of Zeno were Orthodox (of which we do not now dispute) the making it was no Crime as all.

The next Year, he repeats the Story of John Talaia his appealing to the Pope; and because in this Age they have made him the Supreme Judge over the whole Church, Baronius saith he appealed to him as to the law∣ful Judge n 1.1008. But Liberatus, out of whom he hath the Story, shews he applyed to the Pope only as an Inter∣cessor, and persuaded him to write to Acacius in his behalf: And indeed the Popes definitive Sentence in those days, would have done him no good: Wherefore,

he only desired he would use his interest in Acacius, to reconcile him to the Emperor; but all in vain: Which shews that the Eastern Church did not then believe the Pope was a lawful Judge in this Case. It is a bold stroke, under such a Pope as Simplicius (who submitted to the Eastern Emperors, who (in Baronius Opinion) were Schismaticks, and to the Arrian Gothic Kings in I∣taly, and who could purge his own City from Here∣sie, but connived at the Arrians who possessed neer half Rome); for the Historian to brag, that the Popes Ma∣jesty and Authority shined as bright as under Constantine, or Theodosius o 1.1009; and as vain a boast, that their Uni∣versal Power was as great under Pagan persecuting Em∣perors as at any other time: For he never hath nor ne∣ver can make this out; and the History of all Ages shews that the Popes power was very inconsiderable at first, and grew up by degrees; being larger or narrower in old times, as it happened to be savoured or opposed by Kings and Emperors: But it was never very great, till the Popes had ruined both Empires of the East and West.

From this immoderate conceit of the Papal Authori∣ty in that Age, proceeds that mistaken observation, That Pope Foelix and Gelasius rejecting the Books of Faustus Rhegiensis, was more than all the pious and learned Writings of S. Caesarius, S. Avitus and the famous Fulgen∣tius, who in peculiar Tracts confuted Faustus p 1.1010: They must be very good blind Catholicks doubtless, who re∣ject an Opinion rather upon the bare Authority of the Pope, than upon the solid Aurguments from Scripture, Reason and Antiquity, urged by the most famous Or∣thodox Writers.

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

Catholicks were in the dark, and could not distinguish Friends from Foes q 1.1011. Whereas, it is the Annalists pre∣judices that put him into this Mist: The Catholicks of the East cleerly saw their great Patriarch was truly Or∣thodox, and knew no such Principle as the Cardinal dreams of: Wherefore they did not think an Orthodox Bishop less Orthodox, because Rome rejected him for not submitting to their Usurpations. So that this instance utterly confutes his Supposition, and shews how unjust∣ly he calls us and others Hereticks, meerly for not sub∣mitting to the Popes Supremacy, though we hold the Articles of the Catholic Faith in all other Points.

Of this we have a further proof in the next Year, when Elias Bishop of Jerusalem (owned by Baronius for a good Catholick r 1.1012, while the Quarrel continued between the Bishops of Rome and Constantinople (which that Author Taxes as a Schism upon both sides). This Elias communicated only with Euphemius, and is highly commended for so doing; since Euphemius was a sound Catholic, and defended the Council of Chalcedon s 1.1013. Baronius indeed pretends Euphemius was not yet condem∣ned by Gelasius t 1.1014; but his Predecessor had condem∣ned Acacius and all that were his partakers, and Gelasius was hotter in this Quarrel than Foelix; which Elias of Hierusalem knew, and yet took the contrary side to the Popes, as the safer for a good Catholic: Therefore it could not be the opinion of that Age, that holding Com∣munion with Rome, was necessary to denominate a man a good Catholick, or to free him from the guilt of Schism.

To conclude these examples, Who can value all those Pompous Consequences which he draws about the Popes Supremacy, Appeals, &c. from the vain brags of an Ambitious Bishop of Rome u 1.1015, which were despised by those to whom he sent them, and ought not to be regarded by us, who know his partiality, and consider he speaks in his own cause w 1.1016? But we may note, this is the best evidence they have; and therefore they must make as much of it as they can. Our Lord Jesus did not desire to bear witness to himself x 1.1017; But his pre∣tended

Vicar, (knowing the weakness of his claim) most unjustly Decrees; That when the Priviledges of the Apo∣stolick See are in question, he will not have any Judge of them but himself y 1.1018. And if he be Party, Witness and Judge, we may guess which way the Cause will go.

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

The Cardinal brings in Leo opposing the advance∣ment of Jerusalem to a Patriarchate, and taxes Juvenalis the Bishop there, for arrogating this Primacy to him∣self z 1.1019; Forgetting that he himself had declared, that the Council of Chalcedon had setled this Primacy upon him a 1.1020. As for what he produces out of Leo, that Cyril writ to him against this, and with earnest Prayers desired him to oppose it; either Leo feigns this Story, or the Epistle is suspicious; since it is very unlikely that so great a Bishop as St. Cyril, should write so hum∣bly, as to beg a favour of Leo then but Arch-deacon of Rome b 1.1021. But Leo did not like Juvenalis his ad∣vancement, and therefore Baronius must condemn it, though granted in a general Council: And though he say here, Juvenalis had nothing of a good Bishop in him, and sought the Primacy by evil arts and forged wri∣tings, contrary to the Nicene Council: Yet soon after he tells, that Simeon Stylites and the devout Euthymius, (the gratest Saints of that Age) gave Juvenalis a good Character, and charged the Empress Eudocia, to com∣municate with him c 1.1022. I confess, I cannot easily un∣derstand how any Man can more evidently blow hot and cold, as occasion serves, than Baronius doth in these different Characters of the same Bishop.

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

on his Memory: Otherwise we should have had some Author or other to attest it, at least as good as Sophroni∣us d 1.1023: But this poor Fable wants a Father, and issaid to be unworthy of Christian Ears, and to want all ancient Authority.

It is observable, that those which he calls the most faithful Acts of Daniel Stylites (and would have this Saint pass for a Prophet) relate, that after a great Fire was begun in the City of Constantinople, and other en∣deavours to quench it proved vain; they went to Daniel to pray for them, who foretold them, that the Fire should cease after seven days, and so it came to pass e 1.1024: Yet Euogrius a more credible Author saith, The Fire endured but four days, and some say six f 1.1025: But his Faithful Acts will have it burn seven days after the Citizens came to Daniel. We may note also, That these Legends as∣cribe the saving the whole City, one to Daniel's, ano∣ther to St. Mercellus his Prayers, a third brings in St. Marcian's Prayers, as the means of preserving one Church g 1.1026: And Baronius calls all these, consentientia dicta, agreeing Reports: But an impartial Historian would have discerned the difference, and rejected them all as Fictions h 1.1027: For Truth is one, but Fables have infinite varieties.

He makes a severe reflexion upon the Emperor Leo, for making an Eutychian Heretick his Admiral, and imputes the loss of the Fleet to that sinful choice, and his tolerating of Hereticks i 1.1028. But unless he could prove all Tolerating Princes were conquered, and all Heretical Generals beaten, there is no strength in the reflexion: Besides, he forgets that his Majestick Pope Simplicius tolerated the Arrians, who about this time possessed almost half the City of Rome k 1.1029, and yet he makes no remark of any Judgment on him.

There are many Evidences, that Baronius did not understand Greek, and one instance of it is, that when he had named the Heretical Bishop of Antioch, Petrus Cnapheus, (that is in Greek) Peter the Fuller, he adds of his own, idem{que} Fullo nuncupatus est l 1.1030, the same Man is called also Peter the Fuller.

That Baronius is mistaken as to Ambrosius Aurelia∣nus m 1.1031, who was saluted Emperor in Britain, both as to the person and time, is made evident by our lear∣ned Country man Archbishop Usher n 1.1032: To whom the Reader is referred, for a more exact account of that famous Man.

It is very impertinent in Baronius, to upbraid the Re∣formed Christians of these days, with the miraculous Confession of the Orthodox in Africa, whose Tongues being cut out by the cruel Arrians, they still spoke plainly, and owned the true Faith o 1.1033: For we con∣fess the same Faith that they did, and have the same and no more Sacraments: But though these Bishops did then say, they held the Faith that then was held in the Roman Church, that belongs not to the pre∣sent Romanists, who have added new Articles to their Creed, new Sacraments, and set up many new Ob∣jects for Worship: So that if those African Martyrs and Confessors were now alive, they would no more own these than they did the Vandals.

The censure of Nicephorus, who lived in a supersti∣tious Age, and the Fictions devised in the second Nicene Council to support Image-worship, are no way credi∣ble. Xenaias (if ever there were such a Man,) was not the first, who said the Images of Christ and the Saints were not to be adored; and it seems by his affir∣ming, that Worship in Spirit and Truth was only accepta∣ble to Christ p 1.1034, that he had Read the holy Scripture more considerately than those at Rome now, who over∣look the second Commandment, and many other pla∣ces which expresly condemn their Idolatry: So that for ought appears from any Author of his time now extant, this Xenaias was an Orthodox Christian, how∣ever in this point.

Baronius hath missed Binius and others, touching the Age of Faustus the Semi-pelagian, as also the time of the two Councils in France, relating to his Opini∣ons q 1.1035. But these and some other Errors are learned∣ly and acurately corrected by the famous Vossius in

his Pelagian History, to which I refer the Reader r 1.1036, for his own satisfaction.

How often doth our Annalist censure the Eastern Emperors and Patriarchs, for tolerating Hereticks? How many dreadful Judgments (in his way of inter∣preting Providence) doth he note, came upon them for this single Crime? Yet here we have an Heretical Em∣peror tolerated all his Reign for 17 year together, and his name allowed in the Dypticks, by many Succes∣sive Popes, for near 30 year after his death s 1.1037. Surely he will not own so many Infallible Guides, before Hormisda, were ignorant of Zeno's Heresie; and if they did know it, their fault in tolerating him, and owning his Memory is much greater: How much so ever, therefore he would magnifie his Roman Bishops care of the Catholick Faith, when Truth comes out, the Bi∣shops of Constantinople in this Age did more Service to the Faith, than the Popes; and Euphemius threatned A∣nastasius the Emperor into professing the right Faith while Foelix flattered him t 1.1038; which is a good reason, why the pious Eastern Bishops chose to communicate with the Patriarchs of Constantinople rather than with the Popes, while the Churches were divided.

It seems the Emperor Anastasius in a controversie a∣bout the Sense of the Council of Chalcedon, falsly thought to procure Peace by imposing silence, both on the Ca∣tholicks and Hereticks: And he is censured for this vain hope u 1.1039. But in a like case that happened afterward, Pope Vigilius also decreed (as he saith) both sides should keep silence; and this he calls a Prudent care to pre∣serve the Church from danger w 1.1040: So that Baronius makes that to be praise-worthy in a Pope, which is a grievous Crime in any Body else: Such partiality is very unbecoming in any Writer, but chiefly in an Historian.

He gives it us, as an ingenious Argument of Pope Gelasius, That the cause between him and Acacius could not be judged at Constantinople, where the same persons were Enemies, Witnesses and Judges x 1.1041: But this Pope aim∣ing

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

When a most pious Bishop, the main support of the Catholick Cause was deposed and banished, viz. Eu∣phemius, the Annalist saith, he deserved to be abdicated by Gods just Judgment, for not obeying the Popes in abdi∣cating Acacius his Name—and he pretends the Fathers say, there can be no Confessors or Martyrs out of the Ro∣man Churuh y 1.1042. Whereas Cyril the Monk, cited by our Historian saith, Euphemius was impiously deposed from his See, and exclaims against the wicked injustice of this Fact z 1.1043; which this Mans prejudice makes him call Gods just Judgment. But God doth not punish Men for that which is no fault; and it was none in Euphemius, not to submit to the Pope's most unjust claim of a Superiority over his Church, which had been exempted by two General Councils from all subjection, and advanced to the second place among the Patriarchs. As for his other assertion, no Father of credit can be produced, that did appropriate Mar∣tyrdom, or Confessorship to those in Communion with Rome: Yea, this very Age produced a great many Bishops and holy Monks, such as Elias, Daniel Stylites, St. Sabas, &c. who did not communicate with the Pope, but took part (in this contest) with Euphemius, who then were and still are (even by Baronius) called Martyrs and Consessors. Yea, the Cardinal himself asserts, that those who were slain, or suffered any thing in a petty contest at Rome, meerly about the choice of a Pope, were Martyrs and Confessors a 1.1044, though no Article of Faith came into the dispute: And doubtless, he cannot rob these Eastern Martyrs and Confessors, (who suffered by Hereticks only for the true Faith) of their deserved Titles.

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

scandalously strove for the Papal Chair, he chanced to take the less fortunate side: And this he counts dying in Schism, and (without any Authority) takes it for grant∣ed, that he repented of it before his death, because otherwise he thinks it was impossible he should be sa∣ved b 1.1045. The ground of these remarks is an idle Le∣gend, out of the fabulous Dialogues ascribed to St. Gregory: But the Principles (of making it Schism and a mortal Sin to mistake in a Popes Election) are his own.

To conclude this sort of observations, it is very hard that Symmachus should long expect Letters from Anastasius the Emperour, more majorum c 1.1046; when the controversie was yet scarce decided, who was Pope, he or Lauren∣tius. And as for the mos majorum, that would have obliged Symmachus first to write to the Emperor, as his Predecessors use to do.

I need not make a new Head, to observe what ex∣cursions he often hath to dispute for the Roman side, which in an Historian is not allowable, since he is to relate pure matter of Fact, and neither to commend a Friend nor reproach an Enemy unjustly.

There are many of these digressions about Acacius, the Bishop of Constantinople, against whom he most bitterly inveighs for a long time together; and treats him with language so rude and scurrilous, that one would think he was some Monster or Devil incar∣nate d 1.1047. Yet at last his greatest Crime is, (in com∣parison of which all his other faults were light ones,) he opposed the Pope! who attempted to usurp a Juris∣diction over him, and to rob him and his See of the Priviledges, which General Councils had granted to Constantinople: Otherwise (as hath been shewed,) he was a most Pious and Orthodox Man: And Zeno the Em∣peror who stood by his own Bishop in this just Cause, cannot escape many severe lashes from this partial Hi∣storian, who frequently goes out of his way and takes every little occasion e 1.1048 to aggravate his Miscarriages, yea, to rail at him without any cause.

It is agreed by all impartial Historians, that the Em∣peror Valentinian the Third, did advance Ravenna to be a Patriarchal Seat, An. Dom. 432, and that it held this Dignity without any dependance on the See of Rome, till after the middle of the 7th Century f 1.1049. And how they strugled to keep those Liberties many years after, may be seen in a late Eminent Author g 1.1050. But Baronius, who allows a thousand Forgeries for Rome, every where disputes against this Priviledge, and con∣demns all that the Bishops of Ravenna did h 1.1051: And here takes a boasting threatning Letter of the Pope's, to be very good evidence, that all the Priviledges of the Church of Ravenna flowed from Rome i 1.1052. But besides that his Witness is a party, we may note, the Pri∣viledges were so large, that we may be sure the Ro∣man Church never granted them; their ambition to be absolutely Supream, not allowing them to endure any Equal, especially in Italy.

Again, we have a digression about the hard usage of the Popes Legates at Constantinople; and he not only aggravates their Sufferings beyond what either his Authors say, or the truth will bear: But also takes occasion to tell you, that this is the way of Hereticks, to act by Violence and Terror, and to treat the Pious with Clubs, Swords and Prisons, instead of Charity and Peace k 1.1053. Now if this be the character of Hereticks, the Roman Church that always did and still doth proceed thus where it hath power, may fairly pass for an Heretical Church. And as for the ground of this unlucky observa∣tion, Zeno and Acacius did nothing, but what all wise Governors would have done; for since these Legates of the Popes came to justifie an usurped Authority, and to disturb the quiet of the Church at Constantinople, their Letters (which were judged Seditious) were taken from them, and they (without any hurt to their persons) se∣cured, till Time and Discourse had made them sensible how ill an errand they came upon: So that being con∣vinced of the Justice of Acacius proceedings, they com∣municated with him, and let fall the Popes business.

I have touched that frivolous excursion about the worship of Images before l 1.1054; I only note now, that if Petrus Cnapheus did oppose that idle Superstition in its first rise, he was more Orthodox than any who pro∣moted it, as to that point; And it may be the later Hi∣storians, who doted upon the worship of Images, may have given this Peter a worse name than he deserved; Lying Characters of all Iconoclasts, being as common with them as other fabulous Stories, which abound in the Writers of this Controversie above all others.

From two passages out of the Additions to Genna∣dius, writ by some unknown hand, mentioning two Books, one of Honoratus Bishop of Marseils, approved by Gelasius, and another of Gennadius his own, pre∣sented to that Pope, and one Example of John Talaias Apology sent to his sole Patron the fame Gelasius; Our Historian largely digresses, to prove that the Pope was the sole Judge of all Writers and Writings, and talks as if he was the only Censor librorum, in that Age m 1.1055: Whereas I can name him divers other Bishops of less eminent Sees, that had twice as many Books sent to them for their approbation; yet none of their Successors were so vain, as to challenge any Right from thence to judge of Orthodox Books: And for the De∣cree of Gelasius about Apocryphal Writings, it is a meer Imposture.

He complains of the Arrogance of the Constantino∣politan See, which insulted over that of Rome, as a Captive, and under a barbarous Yoke: But he will scarce allow us to pity the Roman Church, since he runs out into vain boasting, that the Popes had the same Vigor, Authority, Power and Majesty, now, that they had in the best times n 1.1056. But his Account of the little regard given to this Pope Gelasius, and his Predecessors Letters and Sentences in this Controversie, confutes his Brags, and proves this Authority and Majesty was only in imagi∣nation.

§. 6. After all these Artifices used by the Annalist for the interest of the Roman Church, one would not think any thing should be left, that reflected either upon the present Doctrin or Practice of Rome: Yet Truth (like the Light) cannot be concealed with all his Artifices.

It appears that Pope Leo was but a mean Astronomer, since he could not Calculate the true time of Easter himself, but was forced to write to others to inform him; and when the Infallible Guide is forced to en∣quire of many Fallible persons to direct him in his Decrees, it seems he is left to the same dull way, that other Mortals use for their information o 1.1057: And at this rate, Learning must be of more use to the Head of the Church, than Infallibility.

He commends the barbarous Suevians and Vandals, for sparing a Monastery in one of their Cruel Invasi∣ons, and reproaches the Reformed in France, who had burnt very many Monasteries and Churches, at which he thinks they may blush p 1.1058. But doubtless, Lewis the 14th hath more cause for blushing, since he pro∣fesses that Religion that gives an extraordinary reve∣rence to Monasteries, and yet without scruple, Burns, Demolishes and Destroys often where he Con∣quers.

By a Letter writ to the Emperor Leo by Anatolius, it appears that the Eastern Emperors consulted the Bi∣shops of Constantinople in causes of Faith q 1.1059: And or∣dered them to consult the Canons, and enquire into the violations of them; yea, to give notice to the Pope of such offences. And after all, the Emperor was to give these Canons their due Force, by appoint∣ing the Punishment due to such as had broken them: Which proceeding was thought very regular then; but the present Roman Court will not allow it, though Pope Leo himself begs of the Emperor, (not commands him, as our Historian words it,) to use this remedy to the Church, not only to degrade Heretical

Clerks, but to banish them from the City r 1.1060; yet now they will not have Princes to judge or punish Clerks: Nor will Baronius allow the Emperor a Right to call a General Council without the Pope's consent: But the Letter of Pope Leo, from whence he infers this, shews, He was commanded by the Emperor to come to a Council, which Order the Pope reverently received, and wished he could have obeyed it; but modestly hopes to be ex∣cused by the Emperors approving the Reasons he offers, why there was no need of such a Council s 1.1061. So that the Authority was then in the Emperor, and the Pope was to obey or excuse himself by just Reasons. And as to the confirmation, Pope Leo saith, The Council of Chalcedon was confirmed by the Authority of Marcian the Emperor, and by his consent t 1.1062; yea, he owns, the definitions of that Council were above him; for what was defined there, he durst not call to a new scanning u 1.1063: Thus things stood then, but Rome is now above this.

If it were so excellent and pious a Law, that none should force Women to be Nuns, nor any to be vailed till she were forty years old, till which Age she was to remain free to marry if she pleased w 1.1064; How comes it to pass that nothing is more common now, than to carry young Women against their Wills into Nunne∣ries, and to make them take the Vows at fourteen or fifteen? These practices may be gainful, but they are very wicked, and contrary to the Laws both of Church and State, in elder and purer times.

We may observe a visible difference between the Prayers and Usages of holy Men in this ancient Age, and those of the modern times. St. Marcian takes the holy Gospel in his hand, and directs his Prayers only to Christ to avert a dreadful Fire x 1.1065: But later Legends represent their modern Saints, taking up Crucifixes, Relicks or the Host, and praying to the blessed Virgin, or to deceased Saints in all cases of danger: So that any considering Reader may see, that the Primitive Wor∣ship was not like to that now used in the Roman Church.

Again, if the Matter of Fact be true, that Pope Hi∣lary forbid the Emperor Anthemius, to allow any Con∣venticles of the Macedonian Hereticks in Rome, for which we have no proof, but the boasting Letter of a Bigotted Pope, viz. Gelasius; yet (supposing this were so) the Note of the Annalist is very Erroneous, viz. That Heresies could not be planted at Rome so easily as at Con∣stantinople y 1.1066. For Pelagius and Caelestius, who were as great Hereticks as Eutyches and Aelurus, were shel∣tered at Rome a long time z 1.1067: And the Bishops of Constantinople did more against Eutyches and his Heresie, than the Popes against Pelagius: And since a little af∣ter, three parts of seven in Rome were Arrians, tole∣rated by the Pope, methinks we should not have the Purity of Rome extolled at this rate, as if no Weed of Heresie could grow there. It is but five years af∣ter this that Baronius himself owns, that Ricimer seized on St. Agathus Church in Rome, where he and the Arrians held their publick Assemblies in spight of the Popes a 1.1068; who were not wont to oppose Princes who had great power, and only trampled on such as were weak.

In the Relation of Cyril the Monk, which Baronius so highly commends, it is not much for the credit of Rome, that a Catholick Bishop of Jerusalem, Martyrius, sends a Legate to the Emperor, to assist him in sup∣pressing the Eutychian Hereticks, and not the Pope: And that a Saint from Heaven should call Jerusalem the Mother of Churches b 1.1069: For this Title is now whol∣ly appropriated to Rome. But as to the Embassy sent to the Emperor against the Hereticks, Martyrius took the right course; for Pope Simplicius in his Letter to the same Emperor saith, The Imperial Authority only can keep the Sheepfold of our Lords slock pure—from the contagion of Heresie c 1.1070; which shews, the Pope's power was not considerable at that time.

It is something remarkable also, That Pope Foelix in his Letter to Zeno the Emperor, should affirm, That Eustathius Bishop of Antioch, was the President of those Three hundred and eighteen Fathers assembled at Nice d 1.1071. For now they will allow no General Council to be Authentick, wherein the Bishop of Rome or his Legates do not preside.

The Romanists proceedings against the Reformed, at their Councils of Constance and Trent, where some were Burnt for a Terror, and the oppressed party who held the right Faith, were cited before their Adversa∣ries, who took upon them to judge in their own Cause; these proceedings (I say), were an exact Transcript of the Arrian Methods in Asrick, when they resolved under the cover of a Conference to suppress the Or∣thodox Catholicks e 1.1072.

In the Story of finding St. Barnabas Relicks, we may observe all the Prayers and Hymns were directed only to God and Christ, not any to this or any other Saint; from which we may learn, That piece of Superstition, (which now makes up so great a part of the Roman Offices) was unknown to those Ages f 1.1073; and St. Bar∣nabas declares, the chief Bishop of Cyprus is not subject to any Patriarch; he doth not except the Pope; so that this Apostle seems not to have believed St. Peter's Universal Supremacy.

Baronius presents us also, with a Confession of Faith made by one Lucidus, and approved by a Synod of Bishops, wherein he declares, that he believes Eternal Fire, and the Flames of Hell prepared for deadly Sins: But there is not one word of Purgatory g 1.1074; which shews there was no such place invented, or at least be∣lieved by the Catholicks then: And the 7th Epistle of Pope Gelasius (as we noted) signifies, that he knew of no other places in the next World, but Heaven and Hell.

To conclude, the Annalist shuts up this Century with a Melancholy Note, That at this time there was not one Christian Catholick Prince in the World h 1.1075. He might also have added, that all the Eastern Patriarchs were separated from the Communion of the Roman Church, (although three of them that were Orthodox communicated with one another i 1.1076: And he might have noted also, that at this juncture there was no cer∣tain Pope; and an Heretical Prince was then Judge of the pretences of Symmachus and Laurentius, the Rivals for that See. But the true Faith can subsist as well with∣out a Pope, as without Orthodox Princes; the Church being founded on Christ that invincible Rock, against which the Gates of Hell can never prevail.

The End of the Fifth Centry.

Notes

• * 1.1

  An. Do. 400
• a 1.2

  Bin. Tom. 1. Par. 2. pag. 596. Lab. Tom. 2. Col. 122••.
• b 1.3

  Epist. 23. P. Innoc. ap. Baron. An. 405. pag. 235.
• c 1.4

  Baron. Ap. pend. ad Tom. 5. pag. 691.
• d 1.5

  Lab. pag. 1279.
• e 1.6

  Bin. pag. 602. & not. pag. 606. Lab. col. 1231. not. col. 1240.
• f 1.7

  Bin. notes.
• g 1.8

  ut supra: ita Lab. Baron.
• * 1.9

  About this time.
• f 1.10

  Baron. An. 405. & appen. ad Tom. 3. pag. 693.
• g 1.11

  Bin. pag. 599. Lab. col. 1227.
• h 1.12

  Vid. Titul. Concil. ap. Bin. & Lab.
• i 1.13

  Concil. Tol. 1. can. 1. Bin. p. 597. Lab. col. 1223.
• k 1.14

  Innoc. cp. 3. Bin. pag. 612. Lab. col. 1254.
• l 1.15

  Concil. Tol. can. 14. Bin. p. 598. Lab. col. 1225.
• m 1.16

  Not. Bin. pag. 598. Lab. col. 1239.
• n 1.17

  Bin. pag. 602. Lab. col. 1231.
• o 1.18

  Bin. pag. 604. Lab. col. 1236. An. Dom. 401.
• p 1.19

  Bin. pag. 606. Lab. col. 1241.
• q 1.20

  Bin. pag. 607. Lab. col. 1242. Baron. An. 401. pag. 130.
• * 1.21

  An. Dom. 402.
• r 1.22

  Bin. pag. 607. Lab. col. 1242.
• s 1.23

  Zosim. hist. lib. 5. pag. 816.
• t 1.24

  Baron. An. 410. pag. 301.
• u 1.25

  Hieron. ad Dem. ep. 8. pag. 75.
• w 1.26

  Baron. An. 413. pag. 354, & 358.
• x 1.27

  Baron. An. 404. pag. 202.
• y 1.28

  Bin. marg. pag. 609. Lab. marg. col. 1248.
• z 1.29

  Innoc. ep. 1. Bin. pag. 608. Lab. col. 1248.
• a 1.30

  Bin. pag. 609. Lab. col. 1246.
• b 1.31

  Innoc. ep. 1. §. 8. Bin. ibid. Lab. col. 1238.
• c 1.32

  Bin. marg. pag. 610, & 611. Lab. col. 1252, 1253.
• d 1.33

  Magdeb. Cent. 5. pag. 1233.
• e 1.34

  Bin. pag. 611. Lab. col. 1250.
• f 1.35

  Bin. ib. §. 6. Lab. col. 1251.
• g 1.36

  Ibid. ap. Bin. Lab. § 9.
• h 1.37

  See Selden of Christ's Na∣tivity, pag. 58, &c.
• i 1.38

  Heb. XIII. 4.
• k 1.39

  Rom. VIII. 8.
• l 1.40

  Ibid. §. 9.
• m 1.41

  Not. in cp. 2. Bin. pag. 612. Lab. col. 1253. Baron. An. 406. pag. 249.
• n 1.42

  Baron. An. 414. pag. 363.
• o 1.43

  Lab. col. 1254, &c. in marg.
• p 1.44

  Bin. pag. 612. Lab. col. 1254.
• q 1.45

  Notis Bin. pag. 613. Lab. col. 1257.
• r 1.46

  Ep. 3. In∣noc. §. 7. Bin. p. 613. Lab. col. 1256.
• s 1.47

  Cous. Schol. Hist. An. 405. pag. 118.
• t 1.48

  Bin. pag. 614, &c. Lab. col. 1260, &c.
• u 1.49

  Bin. pag. 615. Lab. col. 1264.
• w 1.50

  Baron. An. 416. num. 30. pag. 393.
• x 1.51

  Bin. pag. 616.
• y 1.52

  Bin. Tom. 2. Par. 1. p. 637.
• z 1.53

  Lab. marg. col. 1265.
• a 1.54

  Bin. ut supr. Lab. col. 1256. Baron. An. 408. pag. 275.
• b 1.55

  Bin. pag. 618. Lab. col. 1270.
• c 1.56

  Bin. pag. 619. Lab. col. 1272. not. 1276.
• * 1.57

  Bin. pag. 701. Lab. 1524.
• d 1.58

  Baron. ••n. 414. pag. 365.
• e 1.59

  Bin. pag. 621. Lab. col. 1277.
• f 1.60

  Lab. col. 1279.
• g 1.61

  Bin. pag. 621. Lab. col. 1283.
• h 1.62

  Aug. Bonif. ep. 106.
• i 1.63

  Not. Marg. in Ep. 91. inter Ep. Aug. edit. Erasm. p. 86.
• k 1.64

  Lab. col. 1287.
• l 1.65

  Not. marg. in 93 ep. inter ep. Aug. edit. Erasm. p. 88.
• m 1.66

  Bin. pag. 624. Lab. col. 1289.
• * 1.67

  Bin. not. pag. 625. Lab. col. 1292.
• n 1.68

  Not. Erasm. in ep. 96. inter ep. August. pag. 90.
• o 1.69

  Bin. p. 625.
• p 1.70

  Lab. col. 1291.
• * 1.71

  Chrysost. Tom. 7. pag. 154. edit. Sar.
• q 1.72

  Baron. An. 402. pag. 192.
• r 1.73

  Bin. pag. 626. col. 2. Lab. col. 1300.
• s 1.74

  Baron. An. 404. pag. 195.
• * 1.75

  Lannoy ep. 3. p. 15.
• t 1.76

  Id. ibid. pag. 192.
• u 1.77

  Innoc. ep. 29. Bin. pag. 627. Lab. col. 1304.
• w 1.78

  Sozom. lib. 8. cap. 26. pag. 471, &c.
• x 1.79

  Bin. pag. 627. Lab. col. 1301.
• y 1.80

  Bin. pag. 627. col. 20. F.
• z 1.81

  Lab. col. 1305.
• a 1.82

  Innoc. ep. 30. Bin. pag. 628. Lab. col. 1308.
• b 1.83

  Bim. ib. Lab. col. 1309.
• c 1.84

  Lab. solus ibid.
• d 1.85

  Lab. col. 1313. Baron. An. 407. pag. 259.
• e 1.86

  Socrat. lib. 6. cap. 19, 20, 21. Sozom. lib. 8. cap. 27, 28. Marcell. Chron. pag. 13.
• f 1.87

  Vid. Ap. Coci censuram. pag. 113.
• g 1.88

  Baron. An. 404. pag. 220.
• h 1.89

  Lab. marg. col. 1308.
• * 1.90

  Baron. An. 407. pag. 258.
• i 1.91

  Idem. An. 404. pag. 207.
• k 1.92

  Ibid. pag. 196.
• l 1.93

  Baron. An. 406. pag. 144.
• m 1.94

  Baron. An. 404. pag. 196.
• n 1.95

  Id. ibid. pag. 192.
• o 1.96

  Bin. pag. 628. Lab. col. 1311.
• p 1.97

  Baron. An. 404. p. 196. ut supr.
• q 1.98

  Bin. pag. 628. Lab. col. 1311.
• r 1.99

  Bin. pag. 629. Lab. col. 1315.
• s 1.100

  Lab. col. 1316, ad 1322.
• * 1.101

  An. Dom. 402.
• t 1.102

  Bin. pag. 630. Lab. col. 1323.
• * 1.103

  An. Dom. 403.
• u 1.104

  Bin. pag. 631.
• w 1.105

  Lab. col. 1334.
• x 1.106

  Bin. pag. 744. Lab. col. 1104.
• y 1.107

  Bin. pag. 631. col. 2. Lab. col. 1332.
• z 1.108

  Baron. An. 403. pag. 181. & An. 405. pag. 234.
• a 1.109

  Bin. pag. 745. col. 1. Lab. col. 1081, &c.
• b 1.110

  Baron. An. 401. pag. 129.
• c 1.111

  Ibid. pag. 130.
• * 1.112

  An. Dom. 404.
• d 1.113

  Bin. pag. 631. Lab. col. 1332.
• * 1.114

  An. Dom. 407.
• e 1.115

  Concil. Afric. 4. Bin. pag 632. col. 2. Lab. col. 1233.
• f 1.116

  Bin. & Lab. ibid.
• * 1.117

  An. Dom. 410.
• g 1.118

  Bin. pag. 633. Lab. col. 1335.
• h 1.119

  Bin: & Lab. ibid.
• * 1.120

  An. Dom. 411.
• i 1.121

  Baron. An. 311. pag. 328, 329.
• k 1.122

  Synes. ep. 57, 58.
• l 1.123

  Vid. Causab. pref. ad exerc. in Baron. & lege ep. 89. Synes. ap. Ba∣ron. ibid. pag. 329.
• m 1.124

  Bin. à pag. 634, ad 698. Lab. à col. 1336, ad 1506.
• n 1.125

  Baron. An. 411. pag. 318.
• o 1.126

  Inter Gesta Bin. pag. 647. Lab. col. 1346.
• p 1.127

  Baron. ut supr. pag. 317, & pag. 322.
• q 1.128

  Bin. pag. 698. & Lab. col. 1506.
• r 1.129

  Baron. An. 411. pag. 322.
• s 1.130

  Aug. ep. 162. ap. Baron. An. 412. pag. 336.
• t 1.131

  Baron. An. 411. pag. 320.
• * 1.132

  An. Dom. 415.
• u 1.133

  Bin. pag. 701. Lab. col. 15••9.
• w 1.134

  Baron. An. 416. pag. 388.
• x 1.135

  Vid. Innoc. ep. 26. & Bin. not. p. 702. Lab. col. 1532.
• y 1.136

  Baron. An. 416. pag. 388.
• z 1.137

  Concil. Carthag. Bin. pag. 702, &c. Lab. col. 1533.
• a 1.138

  Baron. An. 412. pag. 340.
• * 1.139

  An. Dom. 416.
• b 1.140

  Bin. pag. 704. Lab. col. 1537.
• c 1.141

  Baron: An. 402. pag. 164.
• d 1.142

  Bin. pag. 705. Lab. col. 1543.
• e 1.143

  Not. Bin. pag. 710. Lab. col. 1554.
• f 1.144

  Bin. pag. 752. Lab. col. 1112.
• g 1.145

  Bin. pag. 705. Lab. col. 1542.
• h 1.146

  Epist. ad Celest. ap Bin. pag. 757. Lab. col. 1675.
• i 1.147

  Bin. pag. 706. Lab. col. 1546.
• k 1.148

  Bin. pag. 707. Lab. col. 1546.
• l 1.149

  Bin. pag. 703. in not. ad Concil. Car∣thag. Lab. col. 1536.
• * 1.150

  An. Dom. 417.
• m 1.151

  Bin. pag. 710. Lab. col. 1554.
• n 1.152

  Baron. An. 417. pag. 396.
• o 1.153

  Lab. not. col. 1560.
• p 1.154

  Lab. col. 1513. scil. in Marij Merc. commonitorio. Vide item not. Sirmond. in Ap. Lab. col. 1815.
• q 1.155

  Bin. pag. 711. Lab. col. 1556.
• * 1.156

  (r) Bin. ibid. Lab. col. 1557.
• s 1.157

  Bin. pag. 714. Lab. col. 1560.
• t 1.158

  Bin. pag. 712. Lab. col. 1558.
• u 1.159

  Bin. pag. 713. Lab. col. 1561.
• w 1.160

  Bin. pag. 714. Lab. col. 1563.
• x 1.161

  Notis ad ep. 3.
• y 1.162

  Not. ad cp. 4. Baron. An. 417. pag. 405, 406, &c.
• z 1.163

  Baron. An. 418. pag. 410.
• a 1.164

  Not. Bin. ad cp. 3.
• b 1.165

  ibid. An. 422. pag. 475.
• c 1.166

  Baron. An. 412. pag. 345.
• d 1.167

  Id. An. 426. pag. 500.
• e 1.168

  Bin. pag. 715. Lab. col. 1567.
• f 1.169

  Notis ad ep. 5.
• g 1.170

  Bonif. ep. 3. pag. 721.
• h 1.171

  Bin. pag. 717. Lab. col. 1573.
• * 1.172

  An. Dom. 418.
• i 1.173

  Bin. pag. 717. Lab. col. 1572.
• k 1.174

  Baron. An. 418. pag. 409.
• l 1.175

  Lab. col. 1575.
• m 1.176

  Vid. Opt. in Voss. Hist. Pe∣lag. lib. 1. c. 28.
• n 1.177

  Bin. p. 718. Lab. col. 1576.
• o 1.178

  Bin. pag. 754. Lab. col. 1131.
• p 1.179

  Bin. pag. 718. Lab. col. 1574.
• q 1.180

  De gest. Concil. Bas. Fascic. rer. expet. Tom. 1. pag. 12.
• r 1.181

  Bin. pag. 719. Lab. col. 1577.
• s 1.182

  Lab. col. 1029.
• * 1.183

  An. Dom. 419.
• s 1.184

  Vita Bonif. & not vid. Bin. pag. 719, 720. Lab. col. 1580, & 1581.
• t 1.185

  Baron. An. 418. pag. 429.
• u 1.186

  Baron. An. 419. pag. 435.
• w 1.187

  Idem An. 418. pag. 430.
• x 1.188

  Ibid. An. 419. initio.
• y 1.189

  Ibid. pag. 433.
• z 1.190

  Vid. ibid. pag. 438, 439.
• a 1.191

  Epist. & Rescript. vid. ap. Bin. pag. 720, 721. Lab. col. 1582, 1583.
• b 1.192

  Baron. An. 419. pag. 440.
• c 1.193

  Marg. Bin. p. 720. col. 2.
• d 1.194

  Lab. col. 1582.
• e 1.195

  Bin. pag. 721. Lab. col. 1584.
• * 1.196

  Vid. Baron. An. 419. pag. 460.
• † 1.197

  Bin. ut supr. Lab. col. 1584.
• f 1.198

  Decret. Bonif. 2. Bin. pag. 722. Lab. col. 1587.
• g 1.199

  Prosp. adv. Collat. c. 41.
• h 1.200

  Bin. pag. 722. col. 2. Lab. col. 1589.
• i 1.201

  Extat Grae∣co Lat. ap. Bin. p. 727. Lat. ex∣tat ap. Lab. col. 1590.
• i 1.202

  Bin. pag. 755. Lab. col. 1670.
• k 1.203

  Bin. pag. 729. Lab. col. 1599.
• l 1.204

  Baren. An. 419, pag. 447, ad 456.
• m 1.205

  Bin. & Lab. not. ut supr. Baron. An. 419. p. 451.
• n 1.206

  Rom. Forg. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 2. An. 34••. pag. 111.
• o 1.207

  Zon. Schol. 5 Can. Con∣cil. Sardic. Be∣ver. Tom. 1. pag 489.
• p 1.208

  Bin. Tom. 1. pag. 426. Bever. Tom. 1. pag. 488.
• q 1.209

  Bin. pag. 429. Bever pag. 501.
• r 1.210

  Not. in Con∣cil. 6. Carthag. Bin. pag. 730. Col. 2 F. Lab. col. 1602.
• s 1.211

  Concil. Nicen. can. 5. vid. Bin. pag. 725.
• t 1.212

  Bin. notis ad Concil. Nicen. supr. pag. 296.
• u 1.213

  Baron. An. 419. pag. 448. & 454.
• w 1.214

  Bin. pag. 725. Lab. col. 1595.
• * 1.215

  An. Dom. 423.
• x 1.216

  Concil. Ephes. Epist. Celest. ad Nest. Bin. pag. 135. Lab. col. 353.
• y 1.217

  Vita Celest. Bin. pag. 732. Lab. col. 1610.
• z 1.218

  Bin. pag. 733. Lab. col. 1611.
• a 1.219

  Vossij Hist. Pel. cap. 30. pag. 82.
• b 1.220

  Bin. ibid. §. 3. Lab. col. 1614.
• c 1.221

  Bin. pag. 735. Lab. col. 1619.
• d 1.222

  Bin. pag. 737 Lab. col. 1623.
• e 1.223

  Bin. ibid. Lab. col. 1624.
• f 1.224

  Bin. pag. 739. Lab. col. 1629.
• g 1.225

  Bin. Con∣cil. Ephes. pag. 134.
• h 1.226

  Baron. An. 406. pag. 244.
• i 1.227

  Baron. An. 412. pag. 348.
• k 1.228

  Baron. An. 408. pag. 272.
• l 1.229

  Baron. An. 432. pag. 616.
• m 1.230

  Bin. pag. 741. Lab. col. 1633.
• n 1.231

  Bin. pag. 744. Lab. col. 1641.
• o 1.232

  Bin. pag. 745. Lab. col. 1643.
• p 1.233

  Bin. pag. 747. Lab. col. 1647.
• q 1.234

  Bin. pag. 753. Lab. col. 1664.
• r 1.235

  Vid. Bin. pag. 786.
• s 1.236

  Bin. pag. 757. Lab. col. 1674.
• t 1.237

  Bin. pag. 757. col. 2. Lab. col. 1675.
• u 1.238

  Bin. pag. 758.
• w 1.239

  Lab. col. 1678.
• x 1.240

  Bin. pag. 794. &c. Lab. col. 1688.
• * 1.241

  An. Dom. 431.
• a 1.242

  Bin. Tom. 1. par. 2. pag. 2. Lab. Tom. 3. col. 4.
• b 1.243

  Bin. pag. 477. Lab. col. 1241.
• c 1.244

  Baron. An. 530. pag. 547, &c.
• d 1.245

  Bin. pag. 162, 163. Lab. col. 433.
• e 1.246

  Bin. pag. 162. Lab. col. 429.
• f 1.247

  Bin. pag. 147, &c. Lab. col. 388.
• g 1.248

  Bin. pag. 164. Lab. col. 436.
• h 1.249

  Bin. pag. 168, 210. Lab. col. 445-560.
• i 1.250

  Bin. pag. 171. Lab. col. 452.
• k 1.251

  Bin. pag. 211, 212, 214. Lab. col. 562, 564, 567.
• l 1.252

  Bin. pag. 236. Lab. col. 620.
• m 1.253

  Bin. pag. 238. Lab. col. 626.
• n 1.254

  Bellar. de•• Concil. lib. 1. cap. 19.
• o 1.255

  Pref. Bin. pag. 2. Lab. col. 5.
• p 1.256

  Not. Bin. pag. 477. col. 2. Lab. col. 1243.
• q 1.257

  Concil. Eph. par. 1. cap. 15. Bin. pag. 133. Lab. col. 349.
• * 1.258

  (r) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. Bin. pag. 168. Lab. col. 446.
• s 1.259

  Balsam. & Zonar. in 1. Can. Eph. ap. Bever. Tom. 1. pag. 99.
• t 1.260

  Bin. pag. 295, 296. Lab. col. 763, &c.
• u 1.261

  Bin. pag. 303. Lab. col. 783.
• w 1.262

  Bin. pag. 304. Lab. col. 786.
• x 1.263

  Leo Pap. ep. 47. & Concil. Chalced. Act. 4. & in Act. Eph. cap. 60.
• y 1.264

  Act. Con∣cil. Bin. p. 274. Lab. col. 714.
• z 1.265

  Bin. pag. 236. Lab. col. 620.
• a 1.266

  Bin. p. 154, & 303. Lab. col. 666, & 783.
• * 1.267

  Cyril.—Cui tune da∣batur primatus de talibus agen∣di Liberat. Brer. cap. 4.
• b 1.268

  Baron. An. 430. & An. 431.
• c 1.269

  Baron. An. 431. pag. 566, 568.
• d 1.270

  Bin. pag. 302. Lab. col. 782.
• * 1.271

  Tom. 1. cap. 7. §. 6. p. 287.
• e 1.272

  Concil. Eph. par. 3. cap. 13. pag. 403. Bin.
• f 1.273

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. Con∣cil. Eph. par. 1. p. 119. Lab. col. 313. & Ba∣ron. An. 430. p. 533.
• g 1.274

  Bin. pag. 125, & 131. Lab. col. 329. & col. 344.
• h 1.275

  Concil. Eph par. 1. cap. 13. Bin. p. 129. Lab. col. 340.
• i 1.276

  ••b. cap. 15. Bin. p. 133. Lab. col. 349. & Baron. An. 430. p. 536.
• k 1.277

  Cap. 18. Bin. p. 138. Lab. col. 361.
• l 1.278

  Cap. 20. Bin. p. 143. Lab. col. 376.
• m 1.279

  Cap. 21. Bin. p. 144. Lab. col. 380.
• n 1.280

  Pref. Bin. p. 2. Lab. Pref. p. 3. Baron. An. 430. p. 539.
• o 1.281

  Cap. 16. Bin. p. 133, 134. Lab. col. 349. & 351. Baron. An. 430. p. 530.
• p 1.282

  Cap. 21. Bin. p. 144. Lab. col. 377.
• q 1.283

  Bin. & Lab. ibid.
• r 1.284

  Cap. 24 Bin. pag. 147. Lab. col. 388.
• s 1.285

  Cap. 22. Bin. pag. 145. Lab. col. 381.
• t 1.286

  Ibid. cap. 25.
• u 1.287

  Ibid. Bin. pag. 150. Lab. col. 393.
• w 1.288

  Baron. An. 430. pag. 534.
• x 1.289

  Cap. 18. Bin. pag. 135. Lab. col. 356.
• y 1.290

  Bin. pag. 136. Lab. col. 357.
• z 1.291

  Ep. ad Joh. Antioch. cap. 21. Bin. pag. 144. Lab. col. 380.
• a 1.292

  Cap. 26. Bin. pag. 153. Lab. col. 400.
• b 1.293

  Par. 2. Act. 2. Bin. pag. 235.
• c 1.294

  Ad testimo∣nium non ad∣mittendos quos ipse accusator de domo sua produxerit. Concil. Car∣thag. 7. can. 4.
• d 1.295

  Cap. 35. Bin. pag. 167. & 225. Lab. col. 443. & col. 594.
• e 1.296

  Concil. Eph. par. 2. Act 1. Bin. pag. 168. Lab. col. 445.
• f 1.297

  Bin. not. pag. 481. Lab. col. 1246. Baron. An. 431. pag. 568.
• g 1.298

  Bin. pag. 171. Lab. col. ••52.
• h 1.299

  Bin. pag. 174, 175. Lab. col. 461. &c.
• i 1.300

  Bin. pag. 190, 191. Lab. col. 501.
• k 1.301

  Bin. pag. 204. Lab. col. 533.
• l 1.302

  Bin. pag. 192. Lab. col. 504.
• m 1.303

  Bin. pag. 235. Baron. An. 431. pag. 576.
• n 1.304

  Lab. col. 619.
• o 1.305

  Par. 2. Act. 5. Bin. pag. 250. Lab. col. 655.
• * 1.306

  Vide dictum Imp. Justiniani ap. Richer. Tom. 1. cap. 7. §. 9. p. 299. Bin. Tom. 2. par. 2. pag. 162, 163.
• p 1.307

  Bin. pag. 304. Lab. col. 786.
• q 1.308

  Act. 4. Bin. pag. 243. Lab. col. 638.
• r 1.309

  Ib. Bin. pag. 244. Lab. col. 641.
• s 1.310

  Par. 3. cap. 23. Bin. pag. 416. Lab. col. 1077.
• t 1.311

  Bin. pag. 306. Lab. col. ••01.
• u 1.312

  Par. 3. cap. 38. Bin. pag. 447. Lab. col. 1153.
• w 1.313

  Bin. Prof. pag. 5. Lab. col. 10.
• x 1.314

  Bin. Notis. pag. 478. Lab. col. 1244.
• y 1.315

  Praefat. Bin. pag. 5. Lab. col. 10.
• * 1.316

  Editio Pelta∣ni & Contij ita legit—Actis vestris intererunt, quaeque à vobis sunt constituta suo calculo denuò confirmabunt. Richer. Hist. Concil. Tom. 1. cap. 7. pag. 294.
• z 1.317

  Concil. par. 2. Act. 2. Bin. pag. 234. Lab. col. 618.
• a 1.318

  Par. 2. Act. 5. Bin. pag. 254. Lab. col. 666, & 667.
• b 1.319

  Ibid. Bin. pag. 251. Lab. col 659. Ba∣ron. An. 431. pag. 579.
• c 1.320

  Bin. pag. 304. Lab. col. 786.
• d 1.321

  Bin. pag. 295. Lab. col. 766, 767.
• e 1.322

  Sozom. Hist. lib. 7. cap. 9. pag. 419.
• f 1.323

  Bin. not. pag. 483. Lab. col. 1251. Richer. cap. 7. §. 12. p. 307. The Emperors Letter in the Pseudo-Sy∣nod saith, The confirmation of the Acts should have been obtained from him: And there Bin. his Note is, How this confirmation is to be understood, other imperial Letters shew. Bin. pag. 270. Lib. col. 706.
• g 1.324

  Praesat. Bin. pag. 2. Lab. col. 4.
• † 1.325

  Richerius shews that the Apostolical Judgment is meant of the Synods Sentence. Tom. 1. §. 9. pag. 297.
• h 1.326

  Bin. ibid. pag. 4. Lab. col. 8.
• i 1.327

  Bin. ut supr. pag. 2. Lab. col. 4.
• k 1.328

  Baron. An. 431. pag. 559.
• l 1.329

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. Par. 2. Act. 2. Bin. pag. 235. Lab. col. 618.
• m 1.330

  Par. 2. Act. 1 Bin. pag. 204. Lab. col.
• n 1.331

  Bin. Lab. ut supr.
• o 1.332

  Baron. An. 431 pag. 559.
• p 1.333

  Baron. An. 430. pag. 540. cum pag. 542.
• q 1.334

  Vid. init. Epist. ap. Baron. & Bin. Par. 1. Cap. 25. pag. 148. Lab. col. 389.
• * 1.335

  Juvenalis speaks, because Cyril and Mem∣non being now accused, left their places and stood at the Bar. Richer. Tom. 1. §. 11. pag. 304. cap. 7.
• r 1.336

  Par. 2. Act. 4. Bin. pag. 244. Lab. col. 641.
• s 1.337

  Baron. An. 4••1. pag. 578.
• t 1.338

  Notis ad Concil. Ephes. Bin. pag. 482. Lab. col. 1249.
• u 1.339

  Pref. ap. Bin. pag. 3. Lab. col. 7.
• w 1.340

  Par. 2. Act. 5. pag. 254. Bin. Lab. col. 666.
• x 1.341

  Par. 3. cap. 20. Bin. pag. 414. Lab. col. 1072.
• y 1.342

  Ibid. cap. 24. Bin. pag. 418. Lab. col. 1081.
• z 1.343

  Par. 3. cap. 38. Bin. pag. 447. Lab. col. 1153.
• a 1.344

  Bin. Not. pag. 481. Lab. col. 1247.
• b 1.345

  Baron. An. 431. pag. 570.
• c 1.346

  Bin. pag. 175. Lab. col. 461, ad col. 501.
• d 1.347

  Par. 2. Act. 2. Bin. pag. 235. Lab. col. 618.
• e 1.348

  Baron. An. 431. pag. 570, 571.
• f 1.349

  Baron. ib. vid. Epist. ap. Bin. pag. 216. Lab. col. 574.
• g 1.350

  Baron. ib. pag. 571.
• h 1.351

  Bin. ut supr. & ita Lab.
• i 1.352

  Baron. An. 431. pag. 601. Bin. not. pag. 483. Lab. col. 1252.
• * 1.353

  Cy••illi verba sunt 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉—〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉—. &c. Homil. Cy∣ril. in fine Bin. pag. 222. Lab. pag. 590. Ubi cultum attribu•• it Sanctae Trinitati, Gloriam Christo, at solum Laudes Beatae Virgini.
• * 1.354

  An. Dom. 432.
• k 1.355

  Aug. ad Sixt. Presb. ep. 104, & 105.
• l 1.356

  Prosp. adv. Collat. & Chro. An. 440.
• m 1.357

  Bin. pag. 486. Lab. col. 1262. Baron. An. 432. p. 618.
• n 1.358

  Bin. pag. 486, 487. Lab. col. 1263. 1265
• o 1.359

  Bin. pag. 489. Lab. col. 1265. Baron. An. 433. pag. 641.
• p 1.360

  Not. Bin. pag. 494. Lab. col. 1283.
• * 1.361

  An. Dom. 439.
• q 1.362

  Baron. An. 439. pag. 678. Bin. pag. 495. Lab. col. 1284.
• r 1.363

  Bin. pag. 495. Lab. col. 1284.
• s 1.364

  De Marca de sac. & im∣per. lib. 5. cap. 31. pag. 93.
• * 1.365

  An. Dom. 440.
• * 1.366

  Permaximum fuisse Authorita∣tis Papalis am∣plificationem. Richer. de Leon. hist. concil. univ. Tom. 1. pag. 336.
• t 1.367

  Bin. pag. 497. Lab. col. 1290.
• u 1.368

  Leon. ep. 6. pag. 95.
• w 1.369

  Leon. ep. 7. & 8.
• x 1.370

  Baron. An. 407. n 35. pag. 261.
• y 1.371

  Baron. An. 449. pag. 80, & 81.
• z 1.372

  Lab. Tom. 4. pag. 344.
• a 1.373

  Gennad. ca∣tal. ap. Hieron. Tom. 1. pag. 402.
• b 1.374

  Trithem. de script. in Prosp. col. 37. & Mar∣cellin. in Chron.
• c 1.375

  Lab. col. 1293.
• * 1.376

  An. Dom. 441.
• d 1.377

  Bin. pag. 498. Lab. col. 1446.
• e 1.378

  P. de Mar. lib. 5. pag. 94.
• f 1.379

  Bin. pag. 501. Lab. col.
• * 1.380

  An. Dom. 442.
• * 1.381

  An. Dom. 444.
• g 1.382

  Bin. p. 502. Lab.
• h 1.383

  Baron. An. 443. pag. 14. Tom. 6.
• * 1.384

  An. Dom. 445.
• i 1.385

  Lab. col. 1461.
• k 1.386

  Lab. col. 1462.
• l 1.387

  Leon. ep. 89. ap. Lab. col. 1396.
• m 1.388

  Lab. col. 1397. Baron. An. 445. pag. 31.
• n 1.389

  Baron. An. 472. pag. 294. Vid. item An. 458. pag 233.
• o 1.390

  P. de Marca de concord. lib. 5. cap. 33, & 34 pag. 98, &c.
• p 1.391

  Vid. Hilar. ep. 11. Bin. Tom. 2. par. 1. pag. 430.
• q 1.392

  Baron. An. 445. pag. 32.
• * 1.393

  An. Dom. 447.
• r 1.394

  Leon. ep. 93. ap. Lab. col. 1410.
• s 1.395

  Baron. An. 447. pag. 46, 47.
• t 1.396

  Bin. pag. 503 Lab. col. 1465.
• u 1.397

  Bin. Par. 1. pag. 599. ut supr.
• w 1.398

  Baron. An. 447. pag. 47, & 48.
• x 1.399

  Lab. col. 1464. Spelm. Concil Tom. 1. pag. 47.
• y 1.400

  Baron. An. 429.
• z 1.401

  Usherij Brit. Eccles. Antiqu. pag. 174.
• * 1.402

  An. Dom. 448.
• a 1.403

  Bin. pag. 504. Lab. col. 1467. Baron. An. 448. pag. 55.
• b 1.404

  Baron. An. 449. pag. 76.
• c 1.405

  Ep. x. Leon. M. ad Flav. inter ep. Leon. pag. 304.
• d 1.406

  Baron. An. 449. pag. 75.
• e 1.407

  Leon. Ep. 6, 7, & 8.
• f 1.408

  Epist. Fla∣vian. ad Leon. inter Epist. Leon. pag. 298.
• g 1.409

  Baron. An. 448. pag. 63.
• h 1.410

  Bin. pag. 505. Lab. col. 1468, &c. Baron. An. 448. pag. 64. An. Dom. 449.
• i 1.411

  Baron. An. 449. pag. 72, 73.
• k 1.412

  Richer. Histor. Concil. Cien. cap. 8. §. 2. pag. 335.
• * 1.413

  Vid. Richer. ibid. pag. 336.
• l 1.414

  Bin. pag. 505. Lab. col. 1470. Baron. An. 449. pag. 74.
• * 1.415

  The 2d Pseudo-Synod of Ephe∣sus.
• m 1.416

  Bin. pag. 506. Lab. col. 1471.
• n 1.417

  Richer. Hist. Concil. Gen. Tom. 1. c. 8. §. 4. p. 340.
• o 1.418

  Richer. ib. p. 350.
• p 1.419

  Baron. An. 449. pag. 78.
• q 1.420

  Vid. Richer. Tom. 1. c. 8. §. 5. p. 246, &c.
• r 1.421

  Liberat. brev. c. 12.
• s 1.422

  Baron. An. 449. pag. 95. cum pag. 96.
• t 1.423

  Baron. ib. pag. 104.
• u 1.424

  Bin. pag. 507. Lab. col. 1475.
• w 1.425

  Vid. Baron. An. 449. pag. 109.
• t 1.426

  The Emperor was desired to disanul this Sy∣nod, by the Pope, &c. Con∣cil. Chalced. Act. 10. Bin. p. 294, &c.
• x 1.427

  Bin. in pre∣dict. Concil. 3. Rom. p. 508. Lab. ut supr. Baron. An. 448. pag. 113.
• y 1.428

  Baron. An. 449. pag. 97.
• * 1.429

  An. Dom. 450.
• z 1.430

  Baron. An. 450. pag. 115.
• a 1.431

  Bin. pag. 508. Lab. col. 1475.
• b 1.432

  Bin. & Lab. ut supr. Baron. An. 450. pag. 120.
• * 1.433

  An. Dom. 451. §. 1.
• a 1.434

  Bin. Tom. 2. par. 1. p. 2. Lab. Tom. 4. p. 1.
• b 1.435

  Bin. ib. pag. 409. Lab. col. 979.
• c 1.436

  Bin. Pref. pag. 3. Lab. col. 3, & 4.
• d 1.437

  Bin. Pref. pag. 3. Lab. ib. col. 5.
• e 1.438

  De Marca de concord. l. 7. c. 7. p 324.
• f 1.439

  Concil. Chalced. par. 1. Bin. p. 24. Lab. col. 54.
• g 1.440

  Ibid. Bin. pag. 19. Lab. col. 42.
• h 1.441

  Bin. pag. 4. Lab. col. 6.
• i 1.442

  Vid. Lab. num. 4. col. 15. marg. ita num. 6. Bin. p. 8. Lab. col. 18.
• k 1.443

  Bin. & Lab. num. 6.
• l 1.444

  Bin pag. 12. Lab. col. 23. num. 9.
• m 1.445

  Bin. pag. 12. Lab. col. 26. num. 10.
• n 1.446

  Bin. pag. 15. Lab. col. 31. num. 13.
• o 1.447

  Bin. pag. 18. Lab. col. 37, 38. num. 19.
• p 1.448

  Baron. An. 451. pag. 159. Leon. ep. 54. in Concil. Chal∣ced. par. 3. Bin. p. 355. num. 6.
• q 1.449

  Leon. ep. 12, & 13. Concil. Chal. par. 1. Bin. p. 12, & 14.
• r 1.450

  Leo ep. ad Pulcher. Bin. p. 13. Lab. col. 27. num. 11.
• s 1.451

  Flav. ep. ad Leon. num. 6. Bin. p. 9. Lab. col. 19.
• t 1.452

  Ep. Leon. ad Jul. num. 8. Bin. p. 10. Lab. col. 19.
• u 1.453

  Ep. Le. ad Theod. n. 10. Bin p. 10. Lab. col. 2••. ita in ep. ad Pulcher. num. 11. ep. ad Synod. Ephes. num. 13.
• w 1.454

  Ep. Leon. ibid. num. 16. & 17. Bin. p. 17. Lab. col. 37.
• x 1.455

  Ep. Petr. Raven. ad Eu∣tyeh. num. 15. Bin. p. 17. Lab. col. 35.
• y 1.456

  Not. in Con∣cil. Bin. p. 415. Lab. col. 992.
• z 1.457

  Ep. Leon. ad Theod. num. 19, 20. Bin. pag. 19, 20. Lab. col. 42, & 46.
• a 1.458

  Ep. Leon. ad Const. num. 23. Bin. p. 22. Lab. col. 48.
• b 1.459

  Ep. Valent. num. 25. Bin. p. 23. Lab. col. 51.
• c 1.460

  Num. 28. Bin. p. 25. Lab. col. 58.
• d 1.461

  Ep. Gal. Placid. num. 26. Bin. p. 24. Lab. col. 54.
• e 1.462

  Ep. Theod. num. 29, 30, 31. Bin. p. 25. Lab. col. 58, &c.
• f 1.463

  Ep. Leon. ad Theod. Num. 32. Bin. pag. 32. Lab. col. 61.
• g 1.464

  Richer. Hist Concil. gen. l. 1 c. 8. §. 11. pag. 363.
• h 1.465

  Epist. Mar∣cian. ad Leon. Num. 34. Bin. pag. 28. Lab. col. 63.
• i 1.466

  Baron. An. 450. pag. 119. Bin. not. pag. 409. Lab. col. 980.
• k 1.467

  Epist. Mar∣cian. Num 36, & 37. Bin. pag. 29, &c. Lab. col. 66, &c.
• l 1.468

  Epist Leon. ad Synod num. 40. Bin. pag. 31.
• m 1.469

  Epist. Mar∣cian. Num. 41. Bin. pag. 32. Lab. col. 74.
• n 1.470

  Baron. An. 451. pag. 132. Bin. not. pag. 409. Lab. col. 980.
• o 1.471

  Praef. Bin. pag. 4 Lab. p. 6.
• p 1.472

  Not. Bin. pag. 409. Lab. col. 980.
• q 1.473

  Concil. Chalced. par. 3. Num. 32. Bin. pag. 381. Lab. col. 912.
• r 1.474

  Epist. Leon. Num. 40. Bin. p. 31. Lab. col. 70.
• s 1.475

  Epist. Mar∣cian. Num. 36. Bin. pag. 29. Lab. col. 66.
• t 1.476

  Concil. Chalced. Act. 1. Bin. pag. 34. Lab. col. 78, &c.
• u 1.477

  Liberat. Brev. cap. 13. Bin. Tom 2. par. 2. pag. 185.
• w 1.478

  Baron. An. 451. pag. 126.
• x 1.479

  Not. Bin. p. 410. Lab. col. 982.
• y 1.480

  Praef. Bin. pag. 4. Lab. col. 6.
• z 1.481

  Not in Con∣cil. Bin. pag. 410. Lab. col. 981.
• a 1.482

  Not. Bin. pag. 411. Lab. col. 984.
• b 1.483

  Baron. An. 450. pag. 120.
• c 1.484

  Not. in Con∣cil. Bin. pag. 410. Lab. col. 981.
• d 1.485

  Act. 3. Bin. pag. 174. Lab. col. 380. ibid. in subscrip. Act. 3. Bin. pag. 208. Lab. col. 448. Et subscrip. Act. 4. Bin. pag. 259. Lab. col. 580.
• e 1.486

  Act. 12. Bin. pag. 305. Lab. col. 771.
• f 1.487

  Baron. An. 451. pag. 145. Not. in Concil. Bin. pag. 410. Lab. col. 981.
• g 1.488

  Act. 3. Bin. pag. 192, &c. Lab. col. 421, &c.
• h 1.489

  Act. 4. Bin. pag. 243. Lab. col. 540.
• i 1.490

  Concil. Chalced. par. 3. num. 42. Bin. pag. 389. Lab. col. 933.
• k 1.491

  Act. 4. Bin. pag. 236. Lab. col. 518. item Act. 16. Bin. pag. 334. Lab. col. 793.
• l 1.492

  Baron. An. 451. pag. 143. Not. Bin. pag. 412. Lab. col. 986.
• m 1.493

  Act. 1. Bin. pag. 152. Lab. col 310.
• n 1.494

  Act. 3. in fine, Bin. pag. 215. Lab. col. 463.
• o 1.495

  Not in Con∣cil. Bin. pag. 410. col. 2. Lab. col. 982. ita Baron. An. 451. pag. 159.
• p 1.496

  Ep. Synod. ad Leon. Con∣cil. Chal. par. 3. num. 2. Bin. pag. 351. Lab. col. 836.
• q 1.497

  Vid. Leon. ep. 61. cit. in not. verb. [ap∣probatum.]
• r 1.498

  Concil. Chal. par. 3. num. 1. Bin. pag. 347. Lab. col. 828.
• s 1.499

  Act. 4. Bin. pag. 248. Lab. col. 552.
• t 1.500

  Act. 5. Bin. pag. 254. Lab. col. 568.
• u 1.501

  Baron. An. 451. pag. 141. vid. Act. 6. Bin. pag. 258. Lab. col. 577.
• w 1.502

  Act. 6. Bin. pag. 269. Lab. col. 608. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. &c. ib.
• x 1.503

  Ibid. vid.
• y 1.504

  Par. 3. Con∣cil. num. 3, & 4. Bin. pag. 352, &c. Lab. col. 840, &c.
• z 1.505

  Baron. An. 451. pag. 141.
• a 1.506

  Act. 1. Bin. pag. 34. Lab. col. 88.
• b 1.507

  Ibid. Bin. p. 41. Lab. col. 94.
• c 1.508

  Bellarm. de Concil. lib. 2. cap. 11. pag. 85.
• d 1.509

  Act. 3. Bin. pag. 192. Lab. col. 425.
• e 1.510

  Act. 1. Bin. pag. 41. Lab. col. 94.
• f 1.511

  Bellarm. de Rom. Pontif. lib. 1. cap. 10. pag. 540.
• g 1.512

  Act. 1. Bin. pag. 48. Lab. col. 111.
• b 1.513

  Ibid. Bin. pag. 52. Lab. col. 122. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• i 1.514

  Ibid. Bin. pag. 57. Lab. col. 135.
• k 1.515

  Ibid. Bin. p. 90. Lab. col. 222.
• l 1.516

  In fin. Act. 1. Bin. pag. 153. Lab. col. 310.
• m 1.517

  Act. 2. Bin pag. 151. Lab. col. 344.
• n 1.518

  Not. in Concil. Bin. p. 412. Lab. col. 986. Collat. cum Act. 2. Bin. p. 169. Lab. col. 368.
• o 1.519

  Pref. Bin. p. 4. Lab. col. 7.
• p 1.520

  Not. in Con∣cil. Bin. pag. 412. Lab. col. 986.
• q 1.521

  Act. 3. Bin. p. 181. Lab. col. 396.
• r 1.522

  Baron. An. 451. pag. 144.
• s 1.523

  Act. 3. ib. Bin. p. 189. Lab. col. 417.
• t 1.524

  Pres. Bin. p. 4. Lab. col. 7.
• u 1.525

  Not. in Con∣cil. Bin. p. 413. Lab. col. 987.
• w 1.526

  Baron. An. 451. p. 145.
• x 1.527

  Act. 3. Bin. p. 191, 192. Lab. col. 421, &c.
• y 1.528

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, omissam in edit. Bin. & Lab. ever. edit. resti∣tuit Richer. Hist. Concil. Gen. Tom. 1. p. 395.
• z 1.529

  Act. 3. Bin. p. 192. Lab. col. 425.
• a 1.530

  Cusan. lib. de Concord. Cath. lib. 2. c. 8.
• b 1.531

  Leo ep. 63. ad Theod.
• c 1.532

  Act. 3. Bin. p. 214. Lab. col. 460.
• d 1.533

  Bin. ib. Lab. col. 461.
• e 1.534

  Ib. Bin. p. 215. Lab. col. 463.
• f 1.535

  Act. 4. Bin. p. 218. Lab. col. 471, &c.
• g 1.536

  Act. 4. Bin. pag. 217. Lab. col. 471.
• h 1.537

  Ib. Bin. p. 218, & 221. Lab. col. 474, & 482.
• i 1.538

  Ibid Bin. pag 232. Lab. col. 507.
• k 1.539

  Ibid. Bin. p. 233. Lab. col. 510, &c.
• l 1.540

  Ib. Bin. p. 243. Lab. col. 540.
• m 1.541

  Ib. p. 244. Lab. col. 541.
• * 1.542

  Act. 4. Bin p. 245. Lab. col. 544.
• n 1.543

  Baron. An. 451. p. 149.
• o 1.544

  Act. 4. Bin. p. 248. Lab. col 552.
• p 1.545

  Act. v. Bin. pag. 250. Lab. col. 560.
• q 1.546

  Ib. Bin. pag. 251. Lab. col. 561.
• r 1.547

  Ib. Bin. pag. 254. Lab. col. 568.
• s 1.548

  Baron. An. 450, pag. 141.
• t 1.549

  Act. vi. Bin. pag. 258. Lab. col. 577.
• u 1.550

  Ib. Bin. pag. 269, &c. Lab. col. 608.
• w 1.551

  Richer. Hist. Concil. gen. Tom. 1. pag. 407.
• x 1.552

  Act. 6. Bin. pag. 259. Lab. col. 580.
• y 1.553

  Act. 7. Bin. pag. 271. Lab. col. 612.
• z 1.554

  Act. 8. Bin. pag. 273. Lab. col. 617.
• a 1.555

  Act. 9 & 10. Bin. pag. 277. & pag. 280. Lab. col. 628. & 637.
• b 1.556

  Act. 10. Bin. pag. 283. Lab. col. 644.
• d 1.557

  Ib. Bin. pag. 294. Lab. col. 673.
• e 1.558

  Bin. pag. 298. Lab. col. 681. Baron. An. 451. pag. 155.
• f 1.559

  Vid. Cra∣tenthorp. vigil. dormit. chap. 35. §. 9.
• g 1.560

  Act. 11. Bin pag. 300. Lab. col. 688.
• h 1.561

  Baron. An. 447. pag. 49.
• i 1.562

  Act. 11. Bin. pag. 301. Lab. col. 689.
• k 1.563

  Ibid. Bin. pag. 302. Lab. col. 692.
• l 1.564

  Act. 12. Bin. pag. 305, 306. Lab. col. 771. &c.
• m 1.565

  Act. 13. Bin. pag. 307. Lab. col. 708.
• n 1.566

  Act. 14. Bin. p. 311. Lab. col. 717.
• o 1.567

  Supr. Act. 6.
• p 1.568

  Act. 15. Bin. pag. 326. Lab. col. 757.
• q 1.569

  Vid. Bever. not. in Can. Chalced. 4. Tom. 2. p. 111.
• r 1.570

  Nicol. 1. ep. 8. ad Mich. Imp.
• s 1.571

  Bin. not. p. 418. Lab. col. 996.
• * 1.572

  Bin. pag. 328.
• t 1.573

  Act. 15. Bin. pag. 330. Lab. col. 769.
• u 1.574

  Bever. Pand. Tom. 2. annot. pag. 124.
• w 1.575

  Vid. Grati∣an. Decret. par. 1. dist. 22. c. 6. in not.
• x 1.576

  Edit. in Octav. Francof. 1585.
• y 1.577

  Act. 16. Bin. pag. 333. Lab. col. 792.
• z 1.578

  Baron. An. 451. p. 157. c.
• a 1.579

  Bin. Annot. pag. 418. col. 2. B. Lab. col. 997.
• b 1.580

  Baron. An. 451. pag. 126. Bin. pag. 342. Lab. col. 816.
• c 1.581

  Act. 1. Bin. pag. 50. Lab. col. 115.
• d 1.582

  Baron. An. 451. pag. 158.
• e 1.583

  Act. 16. Bin. pag. 344. Lab. col. 820.
• f 1.584

  Ib. Bin. pag. 343. Lab. col. 817.
• g 1.585

  Id. ibid.
• h 1.586

  Bin. par. 3. num. 3, & 4. pag. 352, &c. Lab. pag. 840.
• i 1.587

  Par. 3. num. 2. Bin. pag. 350. Lab. col. 833.
• k 1.588

  Baron. An. 451. pag. 159.
• l 1.589

  Ibid. Bin. pag. 351. Lab. col. 837.
• m 1.590

  Baron. An. 451. pag. 159.
• n 1.591

  Par. 3. num. 3 & 4. Bin. pag. 352. Lab. col. 840.
• o 1.592

  Ibid. num. 5, 6, 7. Bin. pag. 354, &c. Lab. col. 844.
• p 1.593

  Liberat. Brev. cap. 13. Bin. Tom. 2. par. 2. pag. 186.
• q 1.594

  Almain. de Eccles. Author. cap. 7.
• r 1.595

  Baron. An. 452. pag. 166.
• s 1.596

  Richer. Hist. Concil. gen. Tom. 1. cap. 8. §. 44.
• t 1.597

  Par. 3. num. 8. Bin. pag. 356 Lab. col. 849.
• u 1.598

  Ibid. num. 76. Bin. pag. 369. Lab. col. 882.
• w 1.599

  Ibid. num. 17. Bin. pag. 370. Lab. col. 884.
• x 1.600

  Par. 3. num. 2. Bin. pag. 351 Lab. col. 836.
• y 1.601

  Vid. Bin. not. P. 410. Lab. col. 983.
• z 1.602

  Bin. not. p. 411. col. 1. Lab. col. 984.
• a 1.603

  Craken∣throp. Vigil. Dormit. chap. 10. p. 107.
• b 1.604

  Not. Bin. p. 411. col. 2. Lab. ut supr.
• c 1.605

  Par. 1. num. 40. Bin. p. 31. Lab. col. 70.
• d 1.606

  Baron. An. 451. p. 143.
• e 1.607

  Bin. not. p. 412. col. 1. C. & col. 2. D.
• f 1.608

  Bin. not. p. 412. col. 2. E. Lab. col. 986. Baron. An. 451. p. 144.
• g 1.609

  Act. 3. Bin. p. 183. Lab. col. 401.
• h 1.610

  Bin. not. p. 417. col. 1. D. Lab. col. 994.
• i 1.611

  Bin. & Lab. ibid.
• k 1.612

  Bin. not. p. 415. col. 1. Lab. col. 991.
• l 1.613

  Bin. not. p. 415. col. 2. Lab. col. 992. Baron. An. 449. p. 96.
• m 1.614

  Par. 1. num. 24. Bin. p. 23. Lab. col. 52.
• n 1.615

  Act. 11. Bin. p. 304. Lab. col. 697.
• * 1.616

  Vide ap. D. Crakenth. in Spalat. c. 59. p. 383.
• o 1.617

  Bin. not. p. 419. col. 1. Lab. col. 998.
• p 1.618

  Baron. An. 452. p. 168.
• q 1.619

  Baron. An. 403. pag. 179.
• r 1.620

  Baron. An. 406. p. 238. I wish he had remembred here his own words, Non enim indi∣gent Sancti no∣stris illustrari mendaciis, Ibid. p. 262.
• s 1.621

  Baron. An. 407. p. 256.
• t 1.622

  Baron. An. 412. p. 345.
• u 1.623

  Id. ibid. p. 348.
• w 1.624

  Id. ibid. p. 351.
• x 1.625

  Baron. An. 414. p. 365.
• * 1.626

  (z) Baron. An. 415. pag. 367.
• z 1.627

  Serm. 51. vid. Rivet. cen∣sur. lib. 4. cap. 16.
• a 1.628

  Sozom. Hist. lib. 9. cap. 17.
• b 1.629

  Baron. An. 415. pag. 382.
• c 1.630

  Vid. Baron. An. 416. pag. 390 & alib. passim.
• d 1.631

  An. 417. pag. 406.
• e 1.632

  Baron. An. 417 pag. 407.
• f 1.633

  Baron. An. 418. pag. 418. vid. Rivet. cen∣sur. lib. 4. c. 16.
• g 1.634

  Baron. An. 418. pag. 419. ad 428. col∣lat. com Baron. An. 416. pag. 390. & Coci censur. pag. 205.
• h 1.635

  Baron. An. 420. pag. 473.
• i 1.636

  Baron. An. 424. pag. 487.
• k 1.637

  Baron. An. 453. & An. 460. vid. Ceci censuram. pag. 207.
• l 1.638

  Baron. An. 428. pag 508.
• m 1.639

  Vid. Coci censur. pag. 198.
• n 1.640

  Baron. An. 429. pag. 524.
• o 1.641

  Vid Coci censur. pag. 228.
• p 1.642

  Baron. An. 431. pag. 604.
• q 1.643

  Baron. ibid. pag. 605.
• r 1.644

  Baron. An. 435. p. 652, 654.
• s 1.645

  Baron. An. 439. p. 667.
• t 1.646

  Baron. An. 440. Tom. 6. p. 6.
• u 1.647

  Baron. An. 441. p. 8.
• w 1.648

  Vid. Coci censur p. 117, 118. Rivet. Crit. Sacr. lib. 4. c. 20.
• x 1.649

  Baron. An. 444. p. 19.
• y 1.650

  Id. ibid. p. 21.
• z 1.651

  Aventin. Annal. lib. 3. p. 225.
• a 1.652

  Baron. An. 446. p. 39.
• b 1.653

  Baron. An. 450. p. 117.
• c 1.654

  Id. An 451. p. 134.
• d 1.655

  Id. ibid. p. 137.
• e 1.656

  Id. ibid. p. 135, 136, 137.
• f 1.657

  Baron. ibid. p. 160, 161, &c.
• g 1.658

  Baron. An. 402. p. 163.
• h 1.659

  Baron. An. 408. p. 272.
• i 1.660

  Synes. epist. 105. Baron. An. 410. p. 309, 310, 311.
• k 1.661

  Aug. ep. 163. Tom. 2. fol. 153. & Tom. 7. contr. Cresc. l. 3. f. 57.
• l 1.662

  Baron. An. 412. p. 336.
• m 1.663

  Aug. ep. 162. fol. 150. Baron. An. 412. p. 336.
• n 1.664

  Baron. An. 419. p. 450.
• o 1.665

  Baron. An. 426. p. 494.
• p 1.666

  Baron. An. 531. p. 560.
• q 1.667

  Bin. Tom. 1. par. 2. p. 234.
• r 1.668

  Vid. supr. p. 37.
• s 1.669

  Baron. An. 43••. p. 620.
• t 1.670

  Baron. Tom. 6. An. 450. p. 116.
• u 1.671

  Baron. Tom. 5. An. 404. p. p. 202.
• w 1.672

  Vid. Rivet. Critic. Sacr. l. 4. c. 1. p. 351.
• x 1.673

  Baron. An. 407. p. 255.
• * 1.674

  An. 401. p. 137.
• y 1.675

  Baron. An. 419. p. 444. ex Aug. contra Julian. l. 1. c. 4.
• z 1.676

  Baron. An. 404. p. 207.
• a 1.677

  Baron. An. 412. p. 339, 340.
• b 1.678

  Baron. ibid. p. 346.
• c 1.679

  Idem An. 404. p. 223.
• d 1.680

  Baron. An. 412. p. 346.
• e 1.681

  Baron. An. 421. p. 475.
• f 1.682

  Vid. Spelm. Concil. Tom. 1. p. 48.
• g 1.683

  Baron. An. 429. p. 520.
• h 1.684

  Ibid. p. 523.
• i 1.685

  Baron. An. 430. p. 532.
• k 1.686

  Vid. Ush. Antiq. Brit. c. 17. p. 426.
• l 1.687

  Baron. An. 431. p. 605.
• m 1.688

  Baron. An. Tom. 6. An. 447. p. 49.
• n 1.689

  Baron. An. 448. pag. 54.
• o 1.690

  Baron. An. 449. pag 86.
• p 1.691

  Baron. ibid. pag. 88.
• q 1.692

  Baron. An. 450. pag. 115.
• r 1.693

  Baron. An. 450. pag. 117.
• s 1.694

  Baron. An. 449 pag. 111.
• t 1.695

  Richer. hist. Concil. gen. Tom. 1. cap. 8. pag. 363.
• u 1.696

  Baron. An. 450. pag. 118.
• w 1.697

  Baron. An. 402. pag. 156.
• x 1.698

  Baron An. 402 pag. 159.
• y 1.699

  Id. ibid. pag. 160.
• z 1.700

  Baron. An. 404. pag 187.
• a 1.701

  Baron. An. 404. pag 194.
• b 1.702

  Id. ibid. pag. 206.
• c 1.703

  Baron. An. 405. pag. 231. Vid. item An. 423. pag. 480.
• d 1.704

  Baron. An. 406. pag. 247, 248, &c. ad pag. 251.
• e 1.705

  Baron. An. 407. pag. 253.
• f 1.706

  Baron. ibid.
• g 1.707

  Id. pag. 262.
• h 1.708

  Baron. ibid. pag. 261.
• i 1.709

  Baron. An. 408. pag. 272.
• k 1.710

  Baron ibid. pag. 273.
• l 1.711

  Baron ibid. pag 274.
• m 1.712

  Ibid p. 275.
• n 1.713

  Baron. An. 410. pag. 307.
• o 1.714

  Concil Chal∣ced. Bin. Tom 2. par. 1. pag. 361.
• p 1.715

  Greg. Mag. cp. ad Epise. Constantinop.
• q 1.716

  Baron. An. 410. pag. 312.
• r 1.717

  Baron. An. 412. pag. 334 & 335.
• s 1.718

  Baron. ibid. pag. 345.
• t 1.719

  Baron. ibid. pag. 348.
• u 1.720

  Baron. ibid. pag. 350.
• w 1.721

  Baron. An. 414. pag. 363.
• x 1.722

  Baron. ibid. pag. 364.
• y 1.723

  Baron. An. 415. pag. 381.
• z 1.724

  Baron. An. 416 pag 388.
• a 1.725

  Baron. An. 426. pag. 499.
• b 1.726

  Baron. An. 418. pag. 414, 415.
• c 1.727

  Possid. vit. D. Aug. cap. 17.
• d 1.728

  Vid. Innoc. Epist. 26. Bin. not. pag. 625.
• e 1.729

  Baron. An. 419. pag. 442.
• f 1.730

  Aug. Tom. 7. contr. 2 Epist. Pelag. fol. 186.
• g 1.731

  Aug. ibid. contr. Jul. praef. fol. 202.
• h 1.732

  Baron. An. 419. pag. 442. E.
• i 1.733

  Baron. An. 419. pag. 456.
• k 1.734

  Baron. An. 420. pag. 465.
• l 1.735

  Baron. An. 425. pag. 489.
• m 1.736

  Baron. An. 426. pag. 498.
• n 1.737

  Baron. An. 427. pag. 507.
• o 1.738

  Sozom. hist. lib. 8. cap. 2.
• p 1.739

  Baron. An. 428. pag. 512.
• q 1.740

  Id. ibid.
• r 1.741

  Id. An. 428. pag. 513.
• s 1.742

  Baron. An. 429 pag. 527. Vide iterum An. 430. pag. 550.
• t 1.743

  Baron. An. 430. pag. 533.
• u 1.744

  Id. ibid. pag. 538.
• w 1.745

  Possid. vit. Aug. vers. fin. & Baron. An. 430. pag. 554.
• x 1.746

  Baron. An. 431. pag. 564.
• y 1.747

  Baron. An. 431. pag. 563.
• z 1.748

  Baron. ibid. pag. 591.
• a 1.749

  Id. ibid. pag. 597.
• b 1.750

  Baron. An. 432. p. 631, &c.
• c 1.751

  Baron. An. 434. pag. 646, 647.
• d 1.752

  Baron. An. 435. pag. 649.
• e 1.753

  Baron. An. 439. pag. 677.
• f 1.754

  Id. An. 440. pag. 682.
• g 1.755

  Baron. Tom VI. An. 440. pag. 5.
• h 1.756

  Vid. Baron. An. 410.
• i 1.757

  Baron. An. 442. pag. 12.
• k 1.758

  Baron. An. 444. pag. 23.
• l 1.759

  Baron. An. 444. pag. 25.
• m 1.760

  Baron. An. 446. pag. 36.
• n 1.761

  Baron. An. 447. pag. 42.
• o 1.762

  Id. ibid. pag. 44.
• p 1.763

  Baron. An. 448. pag. 53.
• q 1.764

  Id. ibid. pag 54.
• r 1.765

  Baron. An. 448. pag. 67.
• s 1.766

  Id. An. 432. pag. 626.
• t 1.767

  Id. Tom. 7. An. 553. Vid. Craken∣thorp. Vigil. dormitans, cap. 10. p. 110.
• * 1.768

  In cujus manu est ut prohibeat, jubet agi, si non pro∣bibet admitti. Salvian.
• u 1.769

  Baron. An. 449 pag. 80.
• w 1.770

  Id. ibid. pag. 82.
• x 1.771

  Id. ibid. pag. 86.
• y 1.772

  Baron. An. 449. pag. 99, 101.
• z 1.773

  Rivet. Crit. saer. lib. 4. c. 21. Vid Crakenth. Vigil. dorm. pag. 444.
• a 1.774

  Id. Baron. ib. p. 102.
• b 1.775

  Id. ibid. pag. 103.
• c 1.776

  Baron. An. 450. pag. 122, 123, 124.
• d 1.777

  Baron. An. 450. pag. 125.
• e 1.778

  Baron. An. 451. p. 128, & 130.
• f 1.779

  Id. ibid. pag. 144.
• g 1.780

  Socrat. lib. 7. cap. 11.
• * 1.781

  An. Dom. 453.
• a 1.782

  Bin. Tom. 2. part. 1. p. 419. Lab. Tom. 4. Col. 1007.
• b 1.783

  Lab. col. 1010.
• c 1.784

  Bin. p. 420. Lab. col. 1020.
• * 1.785

  (u) Bin. ut supr. Lab. col. 1021, &c.
• e 1.786

  Bin. pag. 420. Lab. Col. 1022. Bar. An. 453. n.
• f 1.787

  Baron. An. 453. n.
• g 1.788

  Bin. pag. 421. Lab. Col. 1054.
• * 1.789

  An. Dom. 459.
• h 1.790

  Bin. pag. 425. Lab. Col. 1025.
• i 1.791

  Baron. An. 459. n.
• * 1.792

  An. Dom. 461.
• l 1.793

  Vita Hilar. Bin. pag. 424. Lab. Col. 1029.
• m 1.794

  Baron. An. 464. n.
• n 1.795

  Bin. pag. 425, & 426. Lab. Col. 1034, & 1035.
• o 1.796

  Hilar. ep 2. Bin. pag. 426. Lab. Col. 1035.
• p 1.797

  Hilar ep. 3. Bin. pag. 427. Lab. Col. 1038.
• q 1.798

  Hilar. Ep. 4. Bin. pag. 427. Lab. col. 1039.
• r 1.799

  Hilar. Ep. 9. Bin. pag. 429. Lab. col. 1043.
• s 1.800

  Not. in Ep. 11. Bin. p. 431. Lab. col. 1047.
• t 1.801

  Concil. Rom. Bin. pag. 431. Lab. col. 1061.
• u 1.802

  Gennad. Catal. ap. Hie∣ron. Tom. 1. pag. 466. & opera Maxim. Turin. pag. 1.
• w 1.803

  Baron. An. 465. n.
• x 1.804

  Not. Bin. ut supra.
• y 1.805

  Baron. An. 465. n.
• * 1.806

  An. Dom. 467.
• z 1.807

  Not. in vit. Simp. Bin. pag. 434. Lab. col. 1067.
• a 1.808

  Ibid. Bin. pag. 435. Lab. col. 1068.
• b 1.809

  Vit. Simplic. Bin. pag. 434. Lab. col. 1066.
• c 1.810

  Baron. An. 475. n.
• d 1.811

  Id. An. 476. n. 6. p. 318.
• e 1.812

  Baron. An. 471. n. &c,
• f 1.813

  Du Pin. Eccles. Hist. Vol. 4. p. 159.
• g 1.814

  Baron. An. 483. n. 19. pag. 374.
• h 1.815

  Idem An. 483. n. 8. p. 371.
• i 1.816

  Brev. Histor. Eutych. Lab. col. 1081.
• k 1.817

  Simplie. Ep. 1. Bin. pag 435. Lab. Col. 1068.
• l 1.818

  Idem Ep. 4. Bin. pag. 436. Lab. Col. 1071.
• m 1.819

  Theodor. Lect. collect. l 1. pag. 183.
• n 1.820

  Baron. An. 476. n. 16. & n. 23. pag. 320, 321.
• o 1.821

  Simplic. Ep. 5. Bin. pag. 437. Lab. col. 1073.
• p 1.822

  Not. in 8 E∣pist. Simplic. Bin. pag. 439. Lab. Col. 1079.
• q 1.823

  Cum jam biennio regna∣verat. Euag. ap. Baron. An. 477. N. Not Ten Months, as du Pin mistakes. pag. 160.
• r 1.824

  Bin. p. 439. Lab. col. 1080.
• s 1.825

  Simpl. Ep. 14. Bin. pag 441. Lab col. 1086. (malè 1034.)
• t 1.826

  Simplic. Ep. 16. Bin. p 442. Lab. col. 1036.
• u 1.827

  Baron. An. 482. n. 13. p. 357.
• w 1.828

  Baron. cod. An. n. 3. p. 355.
• * 1.829

  An. Dom. 482.
• x 1.830

  Concil. Turon. Bin. pag. 443. Lab. col. 1049.
• y 1.831

  Gregor. Turon. lib. 10. cap. 31. p. 513.
• z 1.832

  Ap. Bin. habetur Anno 524. Lab. col. 1041.
• a 1.833

  Usher. Antiq. Britan. c. 13. pag. 229.
• * 1.834

  An. Dom. 483.
• b 1.835

  Not. in vit. Fal. Bin. p. 445. Lab. col. 1047.
• c 1.836

  Theodor. Lect. collect. l. 2 pag 190.
• d 1.837

  Foelix Ep. 1. Bin. pag 446. Lab. col 1049.
• e 1.838

  Liberat. Brev. cap. 15. ap. Baron. An. 483. n. 1. p. 370.
• f 1.839

  Foelic. Ep. 2. Bin. pag. 448. Lab. col. 1053.
• g 1.840

  Ep. 4. Foelix, Bin. pag. 452. Lab. col. 1067.
• h 1.841

  Baron. An. 483. n. 54. p. 382.
• i 1.842

  Baron. An. 483. n. 68. pag. 385.
• k 1.843

  Foelic. Ep. 5. Bin. pag. 452. Lab. col. 1070.
• l 1.844

  Gelas. Ep. 1. Bin. 466. Lab. 1158. & Ep. 4. Bin. 471. Lab. 1171.
• m 1.845

  Foelic. Ep. 7. Bin. pag. 454. Lab. col. 1075.
• n 1.846

  Ibid. Ep. 7. Bin. pag. 455. Lab. col. 1077.
• o 1.847

  Bin. pag. 455. Lab. Ep. 9. col. 1083.
• p 1.848

  Foelic. Ep. 10. ap. Lab. col. 1085.
• q 1.849

  Vit. Foelic. 3. Bin. pag. 445. Lab. col. 1046.
• r 1.850

  Gelas. ep. 10. & Baron. An. 484. n. 21. pag. 395.
• s 1.851

  Foelic. ep. 12. Lab. col. 1086.
• * 1.852

  An. Dom. 483.
• t 1.853

  Concil. Rom. 1. Bin. pag 455. Lab. col. 1095.
• * 1.854

  At. Dom. 484.
• u 1.855

  Concil. 2. Rom. Bin. pag. 462. Lab. col. 1123.
• w 1.856

  Foelic. Ep. 6. Bin. pag 454. Lab. col. 1075.
• x 1.857

  Baron. An. 484 n. 30. pag. 397.
• y 1.858

  Bin. pag. 463.
• z 1.859

  Lab. col. 1127.
• a 1.860

  Ep. Synod. Bin. pag. 463. Lab. col. 1126.
• * 1.861

  An Dom. 488.
• * 1.862

  An. Dom. 492.
• b 1.863

  Vit. Gelas. Bin. pag. 464. Lab. col. 1154.
• c 1.864

  Gratian. decr. 3 par. de consec. dist. 2. cap. 12. p. 710.
• d 1.865

  Baron. An. 496 n. 21. pag. 510.
• e 1.866

  Bin. pag. 493 Lab. col. 1258.
• f 1.867

  Not. in vit. Gelas. Bin. pag. 465. Lab. col. 1156.
• g 1.868

  Fulgent. da Ferrand. Diac. cap. 18.
• h 1.869

  Bibl. Patr. Edit. Paris. Tom. 4. p. 522.
• i 1.870

  Baron. An. 496. n. 1. pag. 506, & n. 14. pag. 508.
• k 1.871

  Not. in vit. Gelas. Bin. pag. 465. Lab. col. 1156. Baron. An. 492. n. 6. p. 460.
• l 1.872

  Baron. An. 452 n. 6. p. 461.
• m 1.873

  Baron. An. 492. n. 27. pag. 465.
• n 1.874

  Gelas. ep. 1. Bin pag. 466. Lab. col 1157.
• o 1.875

  Baron. An. 492. n. 30. pag. 466.
• p 1.876

  Gelas. ep. 2. Bin. pag. 468. Lab. col. 1163.
• q 1.877

  Gelas. ep. 4. Bin pag. 470. Lab. col. 1168.
• r 1.878

  Baron. An. 483. n. 54. pag. 382.
• s 1.879

  Ep 4. in marg. versus sinem.
• t 1.880

  Gelas. ep. 5. Bin pag. 472. Lab. col. 1172.
• * 1.881

  You never knew a single Sin Content Men, when their Hands are in.
• u 1.882

  Lab. col. 1092.
• w 1.883

  Gelas. ep. 6. Bin. pag. 472. Lab. col. 1173.
• x 1.884

  Baron. An. 493. n. 36. pag. 478.
• y 1.885

  Gelas. ep. 7. Bin. pag. 474. Lab. col. 1178.
• z 1.886

  Not. in Ep. 7, Bin. pag. 476. Lab. col. 1181.
• a 1.887

  Gelas. Ep. 8. Bin. & Lab. ut supra.
• b 1.888

  Ibid. Bin. pag. 476. Lab col. 1183.
• c 1.889

  Baron. An. 492. 11. 6. p 461.
• d 1.890

  Gelas. cp 9. Bin. pag 478. Lab. col. 1188.
• e 1.891

  Gelas. ep. 13. Bin. pag. 483. Lab. col.
• f 1.892

  Bellarm. de Concil. lib. 2. cap. 17. pag. 98.
• g 1.893

  Bel. de Concil. lib. 1. c. 13. pag. 24.
• h 1.894

  Lannoy lib. 5 ep. 4. pag. 518.
• i 1.895

  Baren. An. 495. n. 2, 3. pag. 500.
• k 1.896

  Ibid. n. 5.
• l 1.897

  Lab. marg. Col. 1200.
• m 1.898

  Baron. An. 495. n. 1. p. 500.
• n 1.899

  Gelas. ep. 14 & 15. Lab. col. 1212.
• o 1.900

  Ib. Lab. col. 1214.
• p 1.901

  Lab. col. 1107.
• q 1.902

  Euagr. Hist. lib. 3. cap. 7.
• r 1.903

  Id. ib. cap. 9.
• s 1.904

  Liberati B••ev. cap. 16, 17.
• t 1.905

  Epist. Petr. Al. apud Euagr. lib. 3. cap. 17.
• u 1.906

  Liberati. Brev. ut supr.
• w 1.907

  Deorum in∣juriae Diis curae. Dict. Tiber. Aug.
• x 1.908

  Suidas in (Acacio.)
• y 1.909

  Tract. 1. G••l. Bin. pag 489. Lab. col. 1232.
• z 1.910

  Baron. An. 496. n. 25. pag. 511.
• a 1.911

  Gelas. ep. 8. Bin. pag. 476. Lab. col. 1182.
• b 1.912

  Tract. 2. Gel. Bin. pag. 492. Lab. col. 1239.
• c 1.913

  Baron. An. 496. n. 27. pag 512.
• * 1.914

  An. Dom. 494.
• d 1.915

  Concil. 1. Rom. Bin. pag. 500. Lab. col. 1260.
• e 1.916

  Lab. ibid. &c in Hormisd. col. 1557.
• f 1.917

  Lab. marg. col. 1260.
• g 1.918

  Gratian. Decret. par. 1. dist. 15. c. 3. pag. 20, &c. Et Lab. col. 1261.
• h 1.919

  See Lab. col. 1260. in marg. Cosen's Hist. of the Canon, pag. 123.
• i 1.920

  Bin. in not. pag 502. Lab. col. 1266.
• k 1.921

  Gelas. ep. 4. Bin. pag. 471. Lab. col. 1170.
• l 1.922

  Bin. p. 501. Lab. col. 1263.
• * 1.923

  An. Dom 496.
• m 1.924

  Naucler. Chron. Gen. 17. pag. 694.
• n 1.925

  Not. in Vit. Anas. Bin. pag. 505. Lab. col. 1276.
• o 1.926

  Vit. Anas. ut supra.
• p 1.927

  Rolewine. sascic. Temp. fo. 53. Naucler. Chron. Gen. 17. p. 694. Platin. vit. An. Volatteranu:, &c.
• q 1.928

  Ivo Carnot. par. 14. cap. 40. Gratian decret. par. 1. dist. 19. c. 9.
• r 1.929

  Not. in vit. Anas. Bin pag. 506. Lab. col. 1278.
• s 1.930

  Epist. Anast. Bin. pag. 506. Lab. col. 1279.
• t 1.931

  Ibid. Bin. 507. Lab. col. 1280.
• u 1.932

  Gratian. decret. par. 1. dist. 19. cap. 7, & 8.
• w 1.933

  Memor. Bin. pag. 508. Lab. col. 1283.
• * 1.934

  An. Dom. 498.
• x 1.935

  Vit. Symmac. Bin. pag. 509. Lab. col. 1286.
• y 1.936

  Not. Bin. pag. 510. Lab. col. 1288.
• z 1.937

  Not. ib. Bin. Lab. col. 1289.
• a 1.938

  Not. Bin. pag. 511. Lab. col. 1290.
• b 1.939

  Ennod. ap. Bin. pag. 528. & Lab. col. 1342. Baron. An. 502. n. 32.
• c 1.940

  Symmach. Epist. 1, & 2. Bin. pag. 511. Lab col. 1291.
• d 1.941

  Ep. 5. Bin. pag. 512. Lab. col. 1295.
• e 1.942

  Ep. 8. Bin. pag. 515. Lab. col. 1300.
• f 1.943

  Sym. Ep. 1. ut supra.
• g 1.944

  Concii. 1. Rom. Bin. pag. 519.
• h 1.945

  Sym. Ep. 7. Bin. pag. 514. Lab. col. 1298. Baron. An. 503. n. 17.
• a 1.946

  Baron. An. 1077.
• b 1.947

  Baron. An. 453. n. 47. pag. 191, 192.
• c 1.948

  Baron. An. 455 n. 3. pag. 203.
• d 1.949

  Baron. An. 456. n. 7. pag. 212.
• e 1.950

  Baron. An. 457. n. 4. pag 218.
• d 1.951

  Baron. An. 463. n. 6. 258.
• e 1.952

  Baron. An. 469. n. 4. 5. pag. 283.
• f 1.953

  Zonar. An∣nal. Tom. 3.
• g 1.954

  Baron. An. 471. n. 36. pag. 293.
• h 1.955

  Baron. An. 473. n. 4. p. 299.
• i 1.956

  Ibid. n. 10. p. 301.
• k 1.957

  Id. An. 474. n. 4. pag. 301.
• l 1.958

  Baron. ••••d. An. n. 10. p. 303.
• m 1.959

  Baron. An 482. n. 4 & 5. pag. 355.
• n 1.960

  Baron. An. 483. n. 10, &c. pag. 371.
• * 1.961

  Baron. An. 493. n. 43. pag 480.
• p 1.962

  Baron. An. 494 n. 59. pag. 494.
• q 1.963

  Id. ibid. n. 66, &c. pag. 396.
• r 1.964

  Baron. An. 494. n. 70. pag. 497.
• s 1.965

  Id. ib n. 73.
• t 1.966

  Regula S. Fran cap. 8. pag. 28.
• u 1.967

  Idem ibid. pag. 91.
• w 1.968

  Baron. ibid. n. 78. pag. 498.
• x 1.969

  Baron. An. 499. n. 13. pag. 531.
• y 1.970

  Baron. An. 499. n. 27, 28, 29. pag. 534, 535.
• z 1.971

  Baron. Ar. 454. n. 12, &c 13. pag. 197.
• a 1.972

  Baron. An. 454. n. 29. pag. 202.
• b 1.973

  Baron. An. 456. n. 23. pag. 215.
• c 1.974

  Baron. An. 466. n. 10, 11, 12. pag. 271, 272.
• d 1.975

  I'd. An. 467. p. 11. pag. 275.
• e 1.976

  Baron. An. 469 n. 6, 7. pag. 284.
• f 1.977

  Baron. An. 482. n 30. pag. 361.
• g 1.978

  Id ib. n. 35.
• h 1.979

  Ibid. n. 36.
• i 1.980

  Id. ib. n. 43. pag. 364.
• k 1.981

  Baron. An. 483. n. 49. pag 381.
• l 1.982

  Baron. An. 484. n. 34. pag. 397.
• m 1.983

  Id. ib. pag. 394. n. 17.
• n 1.984

  Baron. An. 489. n. 15. pag. 440.
• o 1.985

  Baron. An. 493. n. 45. pag. 480.
• p 1.986

  Vid. Cave Tabul. Eccles. pag. 132. & Du Pin. Sect. 7. pag. 39,
• q 1.987

  Baron. An. 496. n. 55. pag. 518.
• r 1.988

  Id. ibid. n. 23.
• s 1.989

  Theod. Lector. collect. l. 2. pag 186.
• t 1.990

  Baron. An. 499. n. 1. p. 592.
• u 1.991

  Baron. An. 457. n. 28. pag. 224.
• w 1.992

  Ibid. n 25. pag. 223.
• x 1.993

  Baron. An. 460. n. 3, & 8. pag. 246, 247.
• y 1.994

  Baron. An. 482. n. 1. pag. 355.
• z 1.995

  Id. ib. n. 23, 24. pag. 359, 360.
• a 1.996

  Baron. An. 454 n. 4, 5, 6.
• b 1.997

  Baron. An. 454. n. 7. pag. 196.
• c 1.998

  Cod. Just. lib. 1. tit. 5. l. 8. pag 33.
• d 1.999

  Baron. An. 454 n. 14, 15. pag. 198.
• e 1.1000

  Baron. An. 47 2. n. 3, & 4. pag. 294.
• f 1.1001

  Baron. An. 476. n 46. pag. 326.
• g 1.1002

  Id. ibid. n. 64.
• h 1.1003

  Baron. An. 477 n. 13. pag. 334.
• i 1.1004

  Baron. An. 478. n. 15, 16. pag 342.
• k 1.1005

  Baran An. 482. n. 15. pag. 356.
• l 1.1006

  Id. ibid n 23. pag 359.
• m 1.1007

  Baron. An. 482. n. 25. pag. 360.
• n 1.1008

  Baron An. 483. n 3 pag. 369.
• o 1.1009

  Baron An. 483. n. 7. pag. 370, 371.
• p 1.1010

  Baron. An. 490. n. 33. pag. 449.
• q 1.1011

  Baron. An. 492. n. 46. pag. 470.
• r 1.1012

  Baron. An. 512. pag. 610.
• s 1.1013

  Baron. An. 493. n. 41. pag. 479.
• t 1.1014

  Id. Ibid. n. 42. pag. 480.
• u 1.1015

  Baron An. 495. n. 2. &c. pag. 500.
• w 1.1016

  Nemo sibi & professor & testis est. Tertul. adver. Marc. l. 5. cap. 1.
• x 1.1017

  John v. 31.
• y 1.1018

  Decret. In∣nocent. 3. ap. Decretal. lib. 2. Tit. 1. cap. 12.
• z 1.1019

  Baron. An. 454. n. 19. pag. 199.
• a 1.1020

  Idem. An. 451. n. 124. pag. 154. Et Bin. Notis in Concil: Chal∣ced. Sess. 8. pag 414.
• b 1.1021

  Id. ibid. n. 20, & 21 pag. 199, & 200.
• c 1.1022

  Baron. An. 455. n. 19. pag. 207, 208.
• d 1.1023

  Baron. An. 461. n. 7. pag. 252.
• e 1.1024

  Baron. An. 465. n. 3. pag. 261.
• f 1.1025

  Id. ib. n. 5. pag. 262.
• g 1.1026

  Id. ibid. n. 8. pag. 263.
• h 1.1027

  Haec est enim mendaci∣orum natura, ut cohaerere non possint. Lact. lib. 5. §. 3.
• i 1.1028

  Baron. An. 468. n. 24. pag. 281.
• k 1.1029

  Idem. An. 483. n. 6. pag. 370.
• l 1.1030

  Baron. An. 471. n. 6. pag. 287.
• m 1.1031

  Baron. An. 476. n. 2. & 477. n. 30, 31. pag. 338.
• n 1.1032

  Usher. An∣tiqu. Brit. cap. 13. pag. 240.
• o 1.1033

  Baron. An. 484. n. 94. pag. 411.
• p 1.1034

  Baron. An. 485. n. 16, &c. pag. 426, 427.
• q 1.1035

  Baron. An. 490. n. 17. pag. 445, &c.
• r 1.1036

  Histor. Pe∣lag. lib. 1. c. 50. pag. 106.
• s 1.1037

  Baron. An. 491. n. 4. pag. 455.
• t 1.1038

  Id. Ibid. n. 7, & 8 pag. 456.
• u 1.1039

  Baron. An. 492. n. 43. pag. 469.
• w 1.1040

  Id. An. 547. n. 41. pag. 361.
• x 1.1041

  Baron. An. 493. n. 20. pag. 475.
• y 1.1042

  Baron. An. 495 n. 23. pag. 505.
• z 1.1043

  Id. ib. n. 24.
• a 1.1044

  Idem An. 502. n. pag. 543.
• b 1.1045

  Baron. An. 498. n. 8. pag. 528.
• c 1.1046

  Baron. An. 499. n. 11. pag. 530.
• d 1.1047

  Baron. An. 478. n. 6. pag. 339.
• e 1.1048

  Id. ib. n. 7. pag 340. & ••12. pag. 341.
• f 1.1049

  See Dr. Hammond. of Schism, chap. 6. §. 12. pag. 355.
• g 1.1050

  Dr. Cave disc. of ant. Gov. chap. 5. §. 4.
• h 1.1051

  Baron. An. 432. pag. 631. & An. 708. n. 2, 3, 4.
• i 1.1052

  Idem An. 482. n. 44. pag. 364.
• k 1.1053

  Baron. An. 484. n. 2, 3, &c. pag. 391.
• l 1.1054

  Baron. An. 485. n 16, &c. pag. 426.
• m 1.1055

  Baron. An. 490. n. 43. ad 47. pag 451, 452.
• n 1.1056

  Baron. An. 493. n. 22. pag. 47••
• o 1.1057

  Baron. An. 453. n. 34 & 40. pag. 189, 190.
• p 1.1058

  Baron. cod. An. n. 46. p. 191.
• q 1.1059

  Baron. An. 457. n. 34, &c. pag. 226.
• r 1.1060

  Baron. An. 457. n. 43. pag. 228.
• s 1.1061

  Ibid. 45, 47. pag. 228, 229.
• t 1.1062

  Baron. An. 458 n. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. pag 234.
• u 1.1063

  Ibid. n. 11.
• w 1.1064

  Baron. An. 458. n. 4 & 5. pag. 233.
• x 1.1065

  Baron. An. 465. n. 8, pag. 262.
• y 1.1066

  Baron. An. 467. n. 2. pag. 273.
• z 1.1067

  Usherii, Ant. Britan. lib. 1. cap. 8. pag. 115, &c.
• a 1.1068

  Baron. An. 472. n. 10. pag. 295.
• b 1.1069

  Baron. An. 477. n. 23, & 25. pag. 336.
• c 1.1070

  Id. An. 478. n. 11 pag. 341.
• d 1.1071

  Baron. Au. 483. n. 72. pag. 386.
• e 1.1072

  Baron. An. 484. n. 48, 49, &c. pag. 401.
• f 1.1073

  Baron. An. 485 n. 8, 9, 10. pag. 424. vide aliud exemp. Anno 495. n. 26. p. 505.
• g 1.1074

  Baron. An. 490. n. 29. pag 448.
• h 1.1075

  Baron. An. 499. n. 13. pag. 531.
• i 1.1076

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