Of the COUNCIL of Cologne against Euphratas.
THere is commonly placed in the Year 346, a Synod which is thought to have been held at Co∣logne, * 1.1 and wherein 'tis said that Euphratas Bishop of this City was deposed for denying the Di∣vinity of Jesus Christ. The Acts of this Council are extant in the Second Tome of the Councils p. 615. But I find there is great probability that these Acts were forg'd, and that this History is false: For this Euphratas who is said to have been depos'd in this Synod in the Year 346, i. e. in the next Year after the Consulship of Amantius and Albinus, was present the Year after at the Council of Sardica as a Catholick Bishop, and was also one of the Deputies whom the Council sent into the East, as appears by the Testimonies of St. Athanasius and Theodoret. Is it possible that a Bishop, who was a little before convicted of denying the Divinity of the Son, and then depos'd, should be pre∣sent at the Council of Sardica among the Catholick Bishops, and should be chosen for a Deputy by the whole Council? Some say, that this Council was held alter that of Sardica; but this Hypothesis which is contrary to the Date of the Acts, may also be easily destroy'd: For Maximinus of Triers who is thought to have presided at this Council, as the Acts testify, died soon after the Council of Sardica, since it is certain by the Testimony of St. Athanasius, in his Epistle to those that lead a Mo∣nastick Life, That Paulinus, the Successor of Maximinus, was Bishop of Triers when Ursacius and Valens retracted, i. e. in the Year 349. But from the Year 347 to 349, Euphratas was always out of France, and consequently it is impossible that 〈◊〉〈◊〉 should be Deposed by Maximinus of Triers.
There is also another Argument which prvoes the Acts of the Council of Cologne to be forg'd. Ser∣vatus Bishop of Tongres, says, that he reprov'd Euphratas in the presence of St. Athanasius. Now