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 ...

PART IV. CENT. VI. (Book 4)

CHAP. I.

Errors and Forgeries in the Councils, from the Year 500, to the End of the Fifth * 1.1 General Council, An. Dom. 553.

§. 1. WE referred the Councils said to be held under Pope Symmachus, to the begin∣ing of this Century: And the first Six are pretended to be held at Rome. The first was to prevent Mens seeking Bishopricks, especially the Pa∣pacy, while the See was full a 1.2: On which we may note the Cunning of this Pope, who probably had got the Papey by this means; yet sees fit to condemn a Fault after he had made his advantage by it. The Fourth Canon plainly supposes that the Pope will name his Successor, unless he die suddenly; which is ex∣presly contrary to the ancient Canons; which the Notes can neither totally conceal, nor fairly excuse b 1.3. But I look upon the Acts to be intirely forged in the later Times, as the gross barbarity of the Style shews; and 'tis not probable that 72 Italian Bishops should come to Rome as so many Cyphers, only to applaud what this Pope did ignorantly and Uncanonically decree.

'Tis certain there was a Synod at Rome called by the Arrian King Theodoric, which is perhaps suppressed by the Editors, lest it should discover the Regal Power was then above the Papal: And this new Stuff seems to be put into the old Garment, to fill up the Rent c 1.4. Now Baronius and Binius place this Synod before the Kal. of May An. 499. d 1.5, and fall foul upon Theodorus Lector, for saying, That Theodoric called this Synod, whereas he knew nothing of this Fiction: He saith indeed, That after the Schism had lasted Three years, (which must be An. 501. since Pope Anastasius died An. 498.) Theodoric, who then Ruled all at Rome, called a Synod of Bishops, and setled Symmachus in the Papal Chair e 1.6. So that according to him, no body called this Synod of the Editors, nor was Symmachus yet Pope; but these are devices to make the Schism seem shorter than it was. But Theodorus is of better Credit than the Annalist, and Cassiodorus shews, that this Schism was not fully ended until Symmachus his death, 13 or 14 years after: For he saith, That in his Con∣sulship (An. 514) he had united the Roman Clergy and People, and restored the desired Concord to that Church f 1.7 So that 'tis certain there was a Schisin at this time, and long after.

The Second Roman Council under Symmachus hath no Voucher, but Anastasius, who pretends it was called to condemn Potrus Altinensis, King Theodoric's Visitor, as an Invader of the Roman See. But 'tis no way probable, this yet unsetled Pope durst do so bold a thing, considering Theodoric, (to whose Arbitration they had submitted this, and commended him for deter∣mining it by a Bishp) was then at Rome in great glory, loved and admired both by the Synod and People g 1.8. But the sport is, Binius and Baronius do not agree whe∣ther this were a distinct Synod, or only one Action of another Synod called Palmaria; however, the dispute being about so frivolous a Fiction, we shall not inter∣pose.

'Tis probable upon Theodoric's having declared Sym∣machus * 1.9 the true Pope, his Enemies accused him of heinous Crimes: To cover which, a Synod is patch'd up, so full of Barbarisms, False Latin and Non-sense, that it seems to have been writ by that Ignorant Hand who forged the ridiculous Council of Sinuessa for Pope Marcellinus; and the design of both is the same, viz. to make us think, that a Pope cannot be judged by a Council, neither for Idolatry nor for Adultery h 1.10. Besides, the Forger mistakes the Consul's Names; and Ruffus Magnus put in as Colleague to Faustus Avienus, instead of Pompeius, who is by two undoubted Writers of this Age i 1.11, joyned with Avienus, as the Notes and Annalist confess, who yet have the confidence to say these Acts are genuine k 1.12. But it seems they scarce think so, for these Acts say expresly, The Council was called by the Precept of Theodoric; and own, that they could decree nothing without that Princes knowledge. Yet these Parasites contradict their so commended Acts, and affirm this Synod was called by the Pope, who was the Criminal; yea, though they immediately after print some suspicious Precepts of Theodoric about his calling and directing this whole process l 1.13. If the whole were not fictitious, I might note, That there is a manifest Corruption in the Acts; for where the Roman Churches Grandeur is said to flow, First from S. Peter's Merit, then following our Lord's Command, and the Authority of General Councils m 1.14, The Period is not sense, and jussione Domini seems put in to make the Flattery still grosser: But the Editor's Margin hath a glorious Note on this blunder, and Baronius cites it with great Tri∣umph. Another Trick the Notes put upon these Acts, which in the next Sentence declare, that Symmachus and his Bishops, desired Letters from the King's Clemency for calling this Synod. Which the Annotator turns, as if the King desired the Popes Letters, and though he was an Arrian, durst not call it without such Letters n 1.15; which Note is as false, as it is impertinent. For we see by Theodorus Lector, That Theodoric did call the real

Council: And Zonaras saith, Theodoric—calling a Council, rejected Laurentius, and confirmed the Bishoprick of Rome to Symmachus o 1.16. And they must be able to out-face the Sun, who out of a falsly expounded Period would prove, that the Kings of that Age called no Councils without the Popes consent.

Symmachus his 4th Roman Synod (of which Baronius * 1.17 makes the two former to be only divers Acts) is said to be held when Avienus Junior was Consul; but the name of his Colleague is omitted, which was Probus, This makes it somewhat suspicious; but the business of it confirms that Suspicion, which was to revoke two Laws made in a Roman Synod after Simplicius his Death, wherein (according to ancient Custom) Basilius, Praefect for Odoacer King of Italy, was present, with some Bishops and the Roman Clergy p 1.18. The first Law was, That no Pope should be elected, without the con∣sent of the King of Italy (then Lord of Rome.) The other, That no Pope, Bishop or other Clergy-man should alie∣nate things given to the Church. Which Laws they pre∣tend to annul, because they were both made by Lay-men, and not subscribed by any Pope. But first, It is certain that Lay Princes made many Laws in Ecclesi∣astical Affairs, by Advice of their Clergy; and these were frequently confirmed in Synods. Secondly, These Laws were made in a Council of the Clergy, as appears by that Title Sanctitati vestrae, used by Basilius; and Eulalius in this Council confesses these Laws were made, some Bishops consenting to them q 1.19. Moreover, the de∣ceased Pope had directed the making these Laws. And the Annotator (who here objects, They were made in the Vacancy of the See), in another place saith, The Roman Clergy well knew, that when the Pope, the visible Head of the Church, was taken away, it was their part, by ancient Custom (as the nearest Members to the Head, and Administrators of Peter's Church) to take care of the Ʋniversal Church r 1.20. Wherefore he cannot fairly de∣ny, but the Roman Clergy had power in the Vacancy, to confirm a Law relating to the good ordering of their

own Church: And the bloody Contest (not yet appea∣sed) occasioned by a double election which was lately submitted to be judged by Theodoric, makes it very im∣probable this Law should be repealed now, when so fresh an instance convinced them, that their Schisms would be endless and intolerable if Princes did not interpose. And Symmachus must be an ill man when he got the Chair purely by Theodoric's approbation, to kick down the step upon which he was raised, and to take away his right to confirm, by whom his doubtful: Title was confirmed. And finally, neither this Theodoric nor his Successors, did ever take any notice of this Repeal, but in every vacancy did interpose. So that I take this Synod to be a Fiction to cover over the Power that a Lay Prince here exercised in making a Pope, or if there ever were such a Synod it was despised, and the Law was in force after this assembly had revoked it. And thus all Baronius his Oratory about Symmachus his cou∣rage, and exalting himself above Kings and Princes s 1.21 vanishes into air, and is as false as this Popes excommu∣nicating Anastasius the Emperor in this Synod; which is only proved by a corrupt reading of (ego) for (nego) as I shewed before.

For the other Law to forbid alienations, they pretend to repeal it meerly because it was made by Lay-men (which is false); But the Clergy here reestablish it. If the Acts were genuine, I should guess this was to put it in the Clergies power to dispense with themselves and their Canon, whenever they had a mind to be sacrile∣gious: Since while a Royal Law forbad it, a Royal Li∣cence must be first obtained, which would be hard to procure. But the power of Theodoric and Symmachus his circumstances then, make it clear he durst not repeal a Law of the Prince. So that it seems to be forged. Wherefore I will make but two remarks more, First up∣on that Sentence in the Acts Quia non licuit Laico sta∣tuendi in Ecclesiâ (praeter Papam Romanum) habere aliquam Potestatem t 1.22. That no Layman, but the Pope, shall have any power to decree in the Church. Which passage supposes

the Pope a Lay-man, and is too ridiculous to be spoken by Laurentius Bishop of Milan. Secondly, on the Notes I remark, that it is very strange this Synod should ex∣communicate Anastasius for communicating with Here∣ticks supposed, since the former Synod complements Theodoric à professed Arrian (the worst of Hereticks) with the Titles of most pious and most holy u 1.23: If the for∣mer were as true as this latter of giving these titles is, it would more need to be excused than this: But the truth is, the Popes were then so low, that they were, forced to give flatering Titles both to the Emperor and the Gothick Kings, whatever Religion they were of.

After this Council is added an Apology writ (to an∣swer a Paper (now suppressed) against Symmachus) by Ennodius, wherein as far as appears by the Objections he cites, and the Answers he gives, the Accusers of this Pope were too hard for his Apologist. The Annalist and Binius highly magnifie this Tract; yet the former con∣fesseth by the harshness of the style, and the horrid uneven∣ness of a false Copy, the quickest wit can scarce apprehend it w 1.24. As to the matter of it, the Author huffs at a rate which shews more zeal than judgment; and we note, First, that he clearly owns Theodoric called the Synod that absolved Symmachus x 1.25, and therein confutes both his admirers, Baronius and Binius. Secondly, whereas his objectors rightly urge that the Apostle commands us not to keep company with a Brother that is a Forni∣cator y 1.26 as (Symmachus was said to be) Ennodius saith it is the Prophet David, and not the Apostle which gives this advice z 1.27. Thirdly, he ridiculously affirms that S. Peter (who was not innocent) transmitted Innocence as an in∣heritance to the Popes, and wonders any should fancy or imagine that a Pope should not be holy, who hath so high a dignity, and is praeordained (as he blasphemously speaks) to be the Foundation on which the weight of the Church leans a 1.28, as if the very Chair gave grace to a prostigate Wretch. Fourthly, He falsifies the Scripture, in saying Samuel appealed to the Lord, that men might not exmaine him b 1.29; Whereas the Text expresly saith

he appealed to the People (before the Lord and the King) and challenged the People to prove any ill thing upon him, 1 Sam. xii. 3. Fifthly, his Maxim, That Peter's Successors were only to be judged by God; was not believed by the Councils of Constance and Basil c 1.30, nor by Theodoric, nor any who had a hand in censuring or deposing any Bishops of Rome. Lastly, if this Book, which is so Bar∣barous in its style, so abounding in railing and mistakes, and so void of true reason, were approved and applaud∣ed in the Fifth Council; We may guess at the Quali∣fications of those Bishops who sat in it. As for the Edi∣tors and Baronius, it is enough that it pleads for a Pope, for they must extol it.

The Fifth Roman Synod hath all the marks of For∣gery imaginable; for the Consuls are not named; and * 1.31 the Indiction is also false (as Baronius confesseth) d 1.32. And he with Binius own that the Subscriptions are so mon∣strously falsified, that many Bishops are named here, who were at the Council of Chalcedon 52 years before, and belonged to the Eastern Church, who also had been long ago dead and buried e 1.33. And it is highly improbable, that 216 Bishops should meet only to ap∣prove such stuff, and to order this Book to be inserted a∣mong the Apostolical Decrees to be obeyed by all, as they were f 1.34. This phrase also smels of a late Forgery; for in the time of this pretended Synod, the name of Apostolical Decrees was not appropriated to Papal decisions, nor were their Decretals universally Obeyed. For we see that in Rome it self a great party both despised and writ against Pope Symmachus his Synodical absolution Again, here is that foolish Sentence, That the sheep must not judge their Pastor, unless he err in Faith, nor yet accuse him but for injustice g 1.35, which is undoubtedly stolen out of a Decretal Epistle forged by Mercator long after this time; and it is wrong applied too, if Symmachus were so unjust as to rob his neighbors of their Chastity. Wherefore the very Book of Ennodius is suspicious, and this Synod is most certainly Forged to save the credit of an ill Pope.

The Sixth Roman Council hath no date; but the Subscriptions are certainly forged, having (like the for∣mer) the names of many Eastern Bishops who could not be in this Synod. The Acts are a Rhapsody out of some later Councils against Sacriledge h 1.36, as appears by di∣vers barbarous phrases, and some expressions, that are the dialect of more modern Ages, such as that of mens giving to the Church, for the remission of their Sins, (& aeter∣nae vitae mercatione), and for purchasing eternalllife. The declaring also that the Sacrilegious are manifest Hereticks, is too absurd for this Age. They further say, That the Canons of Gangra were confirmed by Apostolical Autherity: The Forger meant, by Papal Authority. But those Bishops at Gangra scarce knew who was then Pope: And it is plain the Compiler of this Council had respect to a Forgery of later Ages, where Osius of Corduba's name (the pre∣tended Legate of the Pope) is added to the Synodical Letter from this Synod; and therefore these Acts were devised long after this Council is pretended to have sitten. And he must be a meer stranger to the History of this Time; who reads here that Symmachus and his Council should say, It is not lawful for the Emperor, nor any other professing Piety, &c. For this supposes Anastasius no He∣retick, and that Popes then prescribed Laws to the Emperor of the East i 1.37. I conclude with a single re∣mark upon the Notes on this forged Council, which pre∣tend, Theodoric obeyed this Councils Decree k 1.38 in order∣ing the patrimony of the Church of Milan to be resto∣red to Eustorgius, who was not in this Council, nor Bi∣shop of Milan till eight years after: And no doubt that Order was made by Theodoric in pure regard to Equity; for it is no way likely that he had ever heard of this Council. I conclude these Roman Councils with one remark relating to Mons. du-Pin, who hath taken things too much upon trust, to be always trusted himself, and therefore he publishes five of these six Councils for ge∣nuine l 1.39, and gives almost the Baronian Character of Symmachus. But these Notes I hope will demonstrate he is mistaken, both in his Man and these Synods; and I

only desire the Reader to compare his Account with these short Remarks.

§. 2. There were few Councils abroad in this Popes time, and he was not concerned in them. The Council * 1.40 of Agatha (now Agde) in the Province of Narbon, was called by the consent of Alaricus an Arrian King; Caesa∣rius Bishop of Arles was President of it, and divers good Canons were made in it m 1.41; but Symmachus is not named, so that our Editors only say it was held in the time of Symmachus. I shall make no particular re∣mark but on the Ninth Canon, where Caesarius (who was much devoted to promote that Celibacy of the Clergy which now was practised at Rome) and the Council declare that the orders of Innocent and Siricius should be observed n 1.42. From whence we may Note, that these Orders had not yet been generally obeyed in France, and that a Popes Decretal was of no force there by vertue of the Authority of his See, but became obliga∣tory by the Gallican Churches acceptance, and by turn∣ing it into a Canon in some Council of their own. But that the usages of Rome did not prescribe to France is plain from the Notes on the xii Canon, where it ap∣pears their Lent Fast was a total abstinence till evening, none but the infirm being permitted to dine o 1.43. But the Roman Lent (unless they have altered their old rule) allows men to dine in Lent with variety of some sorts of meat and drink, which is not so strict by much as this Gallican custom.

The first Council of Orleance, is only said to be in * 1.44 Symmachus time p 1.45; but the Acts shew he was not con∣sulted nor concerned in it. The Bishops were summo∣ned by the Precept of King Clovis, who also gave them the heads of those things they were to treat of. And when their Canons were drawn up, they sent them (not to Rome, but) to their King for Confirmation, with this memorable address, if those things which we have a∣greed on seem right to your judgment, we desire your assent, that so the Sentence of so many Bishops by the approbation of

so great a Prince, may be obeyed, as being of greater Autho∣rity. And Clovis was not wanting in respect to them; for he stiles them Holy Lords, and Popes most worthy of their Apostolical Seat. By which it is manifest, that Rome had then no Monopoly of these Titles.

I conclude that which relates to Pope Symmachus his time with one Remark, that in the year 500 the De∣vout and learned African Fulgentius came on purpose to visit Rome: But the writer of his life, who acurately de∣scribes what the holy Man saw there, and largely sets forth his View of Theodoric, his visiting the Tombs of the Martyrs, and saluting the Monks he met with q 1.46, speaks not one Syllable of the Pope, whose Benediction one would think Fulgentius should have desired: But whe∣ther the Schism yet continued, or Symmachus his man∣ner did not please the good Man, 'its plain he took no notice of him.

§. 3. Hormisda succeeded Symmachus, and it seems by * 1.47 the Letter of Dorotheus, that in his Election (and not be∣fore) the Schism at Rome ceased, which began when Sym∣machus was chosen r 1.48; which shews that Symmachus having a strong party against him all his time, could do nothing considerable. This Pope Hormisda was either married before he was Pope, or was very criminal; for he had a Son, i. e. Sylverius, who (as Liberatus testifies) was Pope about twenty years after him s 1.49. This was a bold and active Pope, and did labour much to reconcile the Eastern to the Western Church, and at last (in some measure) effected it, after the Greeks had been separated (as Binius notes) from the unity of the Church (not Catholick, but) of Rome (he means) about 80 years t 1.50. From whence we may observe, that a Church, may be many years out of the Communion of the Roman Church, and yet be a true Church; for none (till Baronius) ever said the Eastern was not a true Church all the time of this Se∣paration. The Notes further tell us, that King Clovis of France sent Hormisda a Golden Crown set with pre∣cious stones, for a Present, and thereby procured this re∣ward

from God, that the Kingdom of the Franks still continues u 1.51. Which stuff is out of Baronius w 1.52. But the Story is as false as the inference; for Sirmondus proves that King Clovis died Anno 511, that is, three years before Hormisda was Pope x 1.53: Labbè, who owns this to be an Error, would correct the mistake, and put in Childebert's name; but he who told the Story, could certainly have told the Kings right name y 1.54; where∣fore we reject the whole Relation as fabulous: And for the inference, the Kingdom of Franks indeed like all other Kingdoms (who sent no Crowns) hath continu∣ed, but not in Clovis his Posterity, which is long since extinct. We shall make more remarks on this Popes History in his Letters.

And many Epistles are lately found of this Popes in the Vatican, or Forged there, which we will now consider.

The First Epistle is certainly Forged, it is directed to Remigius, but names King Lovis or Clovis, who was dead three year before, as Labbè owns z 1.55; for which cause Sirmondus omitted it as Spurious, and so P. de Marca counts it a 1.56. And it is almost the same with another feigned Epistle, wherein the Pope is pretended to make a Spanish Bishop his Legate there b 1.57: But the Reader must beware of all such Epistles, being gene∣rally writ by later Parasites of Rome, who would have it thought, that all the Eminent Bishops in the World, acted by a Power delegated from the Pope.

The Second and Fourth Epistles are this Popes ex∣cuse, why he did not go, but send his Legates to a Council in the East, unto which the Emperor Anasta∣sius had summoned him, more majorum c 1.58: Which shews that as yet the Emperors had the power of cal∣ling Councils, and sent their Precepts to the Pope himself.

The Fifth Epistle is also to excuse Hormisda's not go∣ing, The Title of which is false, viz. That it was a new thing for a Pope to be called to a Council by the Em∣peror d 1.59. For the Letter it self only saith, there is no

Example of a Pope going in person to a Council (in Foreign Parts). But as to the Summons, that was no new thing; for Pope Celestine was called to Ephesus by The∣odosius, and Leo to Chalcedon by the Emperor Marcian. And in this Letter Hormisda highly commends Anasta∣sius, for Writing to him to be there in person; and says, God moved the Emperor to write this.

The Third Epistle is a reply to Dorotheus Bishop of Thessalonica, who calls the Pope his Fellow Minister, in the Inscription. But Binius (contrary both to Baronius and Labbè) corrupts the Title and Text of the Epistle of Dorotheus e 1.60, reading Patri—instead of—Papae; and twice in six lines putting venerando capiti nostro,—for—vestro: Now the true reading, I have writ this to your venerable Head, means no more, but to your self: Whereas the corruption tends to impose upon the Reader a false conceipt, viz. That the Pope was the Father and Head of all Bishops.

The Sixth Epistle shews, that Hormisda for two years after his advancement into the infallible Chair, took Anastasius for an Orthodox Emperor f 1.61. But Baro∣nius had exposed him as a known Heretick, and Perse∣cutor of the Orthodox many years before; and Binius Notes charge him with the Eutychian Heresie g 1.62 at this very time: Which shews Hormisda was very meanly qualified for an universal Judge, in matters of Faith. I add, that in this Epistle the Pope de∣clares, He will throw himself down at the Emperors Feet for the Service of the Church. But after-times have seen an Emperor falling down at the Popes Feet, and kissing his Slipper.

The Title of the Epistle of John Bishop of Nicopolis, calls the Pope (if it be genuine) Father of Fathers, and Prince of all Bishops h 1.63. However it can only mean, That the Pope was a chief Bishop, because in the same Title he styles him his fellow Minister, and in the Epistle saith his Predecessor Alciso, was a Prince of Bishops, who was only an Archbishop over a few Suffra∣gans, and there were but eight Bishops in this Synod

of Epirus i 1.64, of whose complying with the Pope, Ba∣ronius brags, as if all the Eastern Church had submitted.

In the Eighth Epistle, the Pope distinguishes the A∣postolical (that is, the Roman) from the general Catholick Church; where he affirms that these Hereticks were Condemned, both by the one and the other.

After the Ninth Epistle we have a Paper called a Form of Faith, pretended to be sent with these Let∣ters, to be subscribed by these Bishops of Epirus; but yet is dated the year after these Letters, and hath other marks of Forgery; the matter of it being not designed to secure the Articles of the Old Creeds, but to enslave all Churches to believe implicitely as the Church of Rome did, which is so grosly flattered in it, that Hormisda might well blush at it, and must take those who would subscribe it, for his Vassals. But doubtless, this was devised after the Supremacy and Infallibility were got much higher: And we may ob∣serve, the Forger of it not only claps it in here, but makes Justin the Emperor sign it, and send it to Pope Boniface, after that Emperor and Pope were both dead, where Binius and Labbè condemn it for an Impo∣sture k 1.65: And the deviser of it is so fond of it, that he hath thrust it in most falsly and impertinently, in four or five several places of the Councils.

After all the Noise of the Subjection of the Eastern Churches to the Roman, all the Letters of this time, men∣tion no more than the Agreement and Concord of the Eastern and Western Churches: So Avitus enquires, if they were reconciled and a Concord was made l 1.66. Justin the Empe∣ror saith, he laboured pro Concordia, &c. m 1.67. And Hormisda himself speaks of it as an Union, and a recei∣ving the Bishop of Constantinople into an Unity of Com∣munion n 1.68; Which shews the Eastern Church owed no subjection then to Rome.

The instructions to the Legates last cited, are some∣thing suspicious, and look like the Work of a later Hand: But Binius is so taken with them, that he Prints them a∣gain verbatini o 1.69, whereas Labbè omits them the second time.

The Seventeenth Epistle shews, that this Pope, under pretence of admitting inferior Bishops to his Commu∣nion, broke in upon the Ancient Rights and Customs of Metropolitans, freeing their Suffragans from the obedience they owed to their Superiors by the Canons p 1.70. And a little after, because Dorotheus opposed this usur∣pation, the Pope represents him as having forsaken Christ q 1.71; a piece of Cant that is common with every petty Sect, in respect of all that are not of their party. And indeed the Epistle of Anastasius, which follows this 22d Epistle declares, that Hormisda was a stub∣born and unmerciful man, and not only slighted the Emperor and injured him; but pretended to command him; which he saith, He will not bear r 1.72; or as Baro∣nius out of the Pontifical hath it, he told the Pope He would Command, and not be Commanded s 1.73, which was not spoken in fury, but like a Prince; and had all his Successors kept the Reins so stiff, they had curbed all the Papal usurpations; yea, wholly prevented them.

The Relation of the Syrian Monks, which we have here in Latin, is corrupted in the Title, and abused by a silly Translator t 1.74. The Title is with great swelling words directed to Hormisda; but the Text speaks to a whole Synod of Bishops, and says, Rise ye up holy Fa∣thers—and, The Flock cometh to you true Pastors and Doctors, to whom the Salvation of all is committed u 1.75; yet the Title appropriates all to the Pope single, where the Translator, for Oecumenical Patriarch (a name which is often given also to the Bishop of Constantinople,) ig∣norantly, or by design hath universae orbis Terrae Patri∣archae; And he calls the Western Legate Angelum vestrum, your Angel: 'Tis probable also, some such Hand hath put in, vos estis caput omnium: Ye (not the Pope alone), are the Head of all; where our Editors marginal Note is, The Pope is the Head of all. But the boldest Forgery of all is, That Binius and Labbè make these Monks in the end of their Epistle accurse Acacius Bishop of Con∣stantinople, who did communicate with the Hereticks,

which is added by the Editors. For in Baronius w 1.76 Acacius his name is not once mentioned, neither in his Edition at Antwerp, 1596. nor in that at Venice, 1601. So that we can scarce trust any thing which comes through such Mens hands.

The Twenty fourth Epistle, which pretends to make John Bishop of Tarragon the Popes Legate, and speaks of his coming to Italy, and having Papal Constitutions sent him x 1.77, not only confirms our Note, that all such kind of Epistles are forged, but is certainly spuri∣ous it self. For in this year (517,) this John presided in the Council of Gyrone in Spain, where he and his fellow Bishops made Canons, and take no notice of the Pope, or any Legantine Power: And the Editors differ about the date of this Epistle. And probably the next Epistle containing the Constitutions is forged also y 1.78, being directed to all the Bishops of Spain, who were not then under any one King nor Primate—And whereas this Letter speaks of peaceable times; it is certain these Gothick Arrian Kings, were almost con∣tinually at War with France, and with each other: How∣ever the Inventer of these Epistles is not very Modern: For he makes Christ the Head of the Church, and Bishops to be his Vicars: And Penitents are here forbid to be chosen Bishops, because they could not decently absolve others, who had openly confessed their own Sins before the People. Which shews, the Pope was not Christs sole Vicar then: And that there was no Auricular Confession when this was writ.

§. 3. Justin being upon Anastasius his death unex∣pectedly * 1.79 made Emperor, gives the Pope notice of it, and requires his Prayers; This Hormisda (if his Letter be genuine) craftily calls, offering up the first fruits of his Empire to St. Peter z 1.80: And the Notes add, That it was the ancient use to certifie the Pope of the new elected Em∣peror, and to request him to confirm and consecrate him. But I have shewed it was a much more ancient Cu∣stom, for the Pope to certifie the Emperor of his Ele∣ction:

Only when an Emperor came to the Throne without a good Title, (which was Justin's case,) it was such an Emperor's interest to gain the Pope's favour. But as for either Consecration or Confirmation, there is not one word of it; that is a device out of Baronius Brain, and the Annotator takes it from him of trust a 1.81; and he was owned Emperor by all, long before this notice.

The Epistle of John Bishop of Constantinople, in the Title calls Hormisda, His most Holy Brother and Fellow-Minister b 1.82; and in the Letter he calls him, Most dear Bro∣ther in Christ; which Phrases Epiphanius also his Successor uses in his Epistle to the same Pope c 1.83: And from John's Epistle we learn, that when Old Rome left out the names of the Patriarches of Constantinople, in their Dypticks: These put out the Popes name from their Dypticks, which shews no subjection was owned or ex∣pected, and that the Eastern Church was on even ground with the Pope in those days, despising his Com∣munion as much as he did theirs.

An Epistle writ to Caesarius Bishop of Arles, this year, is suspicious, because Baronius had mentioned his Will and Testament ten year before d 1.84: But if he were now alive, we must correct the Title in Binius, where he is called, The Vicar of the Apostolick See in France: Which words are so manifest a Forgery that Labbè left them out. But we may suspect the whole, since the Pope never names his last Embassy before this time received from the Emperor and Patriarch of Constantinople, when he pretends to give an Account of the Affairs in the East to this Caesarius.

The Legates Instructions here begin as the former did, viz. When by Gods Mercy, ye come into the Eastern parts e 1.85, &c. and the Legates in their third Suggestion, ascribe their safe Journy only to Gods Mercy f 1.86. So that probably those words (in the first instructions)—and the Prayers of the Apostles, are added by a later hand, when they used so often to pray to Saints, as to give them a share of the Glory due to God for his Mercy.

The same hand, to countenance the same practice, seems to have corrupted the Thirty seventh Epistle, where Hormisdu tells Justinian—He did daily and hum∣bly beseech the Apostle Peter, that God might give a speedy issue to his endeavours g 1.87: Which borders both on Blasphemy and Nonsense, but probably the true read∣ing was—apud B. Petrum—obsecramus. That the Pope pray'd daily at St. Peter's Church to God, for Justinian's speedy success.

That the Eastern and Western Church were united about this time is true; but I am apt to believe, that those many particular circumstances, which Baronius and these Editors have out of a sort of reports of the Popes Legates, Letters and other Papers, lately found (it seems) in the Vatican, are of later invention. The Epi∣stle of John Bishop of Constantinople, wherein he is pretended to subscribe that flattering confession of Faith, formerly said to be subscribed by the Bishops of Epirus h 1.88, is certainly a Forgery, that some Parasite hath transcribed as often as any Eminent person was reconciled to the Pope; and therefore, a little after (as I noted but now) he ascribes the same Form to the Emperor Justin, three years after he was dead: There is no proof of this John's subscribing any such Paper, but only the relation of Dioscorus, one of the Pope's Legates, which is certainly false, because he saith, That at this time (An. 519.) John consented to rase the names of Phravites, Euphemius, Macedonius and Timo∣theus out of the Dypticks, as well as the name of Acacius, upon which Baronius Triumphs most extreamly i 1.89: But without any cause; for if he had not craftily omit∣ted an Epistle of Justinian's, writ the next year k 1.90, (which is in Binius l 1.91,) it would have appeared that the Eastern Church would not yield to rase out any more names, but only that of Acacius. But Baronius hath later Epistles of Justinian which expresly say, (a year after this pretended rasing out the names of Euphemi∣us, &c.) that only Acacius his Name was left out of the Dypticks, and that the scruple about the other

names was not to be medled with; for the Eastern Bi∣shops would never yield that point m 1.92. And Justin the Emperor saith the same to Hormisda n 1.93; yea, in the year 521, we find the Emperor still requiring the Pope should communicate with those who only left out Acacius his name, but kept in the other Bishops names o 1.94. All which is sufficient to prove this Story of Dioscorus to be a meer Fiction: Yet it may be con∣firmed also by the Chronicle of Victor; who mentions no Bishops name of Constantinople but Acacius, that was rejected when the Emperor Justin reconciled the Ea∣stern and Western Bishops p 1.95: And no Writers of this or the next Age do mention this pretended submission of John of Constantinople; Marcellinus, Cassiodorus, Eua∣grius and Paulus Diaconus are wholly silent in this matter: And if we consider how the Scene is dressed up with variety of Letters, (lately found out) we shall be tempted to think this part of the Epistles are forged; yet we may allow what Baronius saith, that this abundance of Letters may make us that read them now, know more of this case, than they who lived in that Age knew, if they never saw these Letters q 1.96. For 'tis pro∣bable neither Hormisda, nor his Legates, nor Justin, Ju∣stinian, &c. did ever see these Epistles that now appear under their names, so that we may very well know more than they did; but the reason is only, because we know more than is true.

We may discover some marks of Forgery in divers of these Papers; As that most of them want the Con∣suls Names, and are not dated; That Germanus says, he was received in Procession with Wax Candles and Crosses r 1.97; a Custom of a later date; for we have no Crosses in ano∣ther Procession described by a Writer of that time s 1.98. The calling Hormisda in one of the Letters, Arch-Bishop of the Universal Church t 1.99; and the Emperors giving the Popes Legate the Title of His Angel u 1.100; These, with many other things that might be observed, make it probable these Papers were Invented for a Pat∣tern to the poor Greeks, when the design of subjecting

them to the Latin Church, was on foot in later Ages.

§. 4. To proceed: Whereas Justinian in one parti∣cular point desires the Opinion of Hormisda, and com∣plements him so far as to tell him, He will believe that to be Orthodox, which he shall answer w 1.101; Baronius prints this in great Letters, and Binius from this particular Assertion draws a general Inference in his Margen, viz. That which is defined by the Pope, is to be received by all for the Catholick Faith. A Consequence so absurd, that Labbè is ashamed of it and leaves it out, as well he might, since Justinian did not agree with the Pope in this Question, after he had received his Answer. And the dissenting Eastern Bishops, at this time reckoned Hormisda to be a Nestorian x 1.102, if we can credit any of these Papers. So that doubtless Justinian never thought a Pope Infallible.

In another Epistle ascribed to John of Constantinople, not so very truckling as the former, that Bishop is made to say, by the help of the Intercession of the Holy and Con∣substantial Trinity, and of the glorious and true Mother of God y 1.103. A Phrase too absurd for any Bishop to use: For with whom should the Trinity intercede, or what can be more ridiculous than equalling the Virgins Inter∣cession to the Trinity, unless it be the making the Tri∣nity pray to it self? Labbè boldly attempts to mend this Sentence, but without Authority; and after all, its evi∣dently writ by a later Hand.

If the next relation of Germanus be true, it appears, No cause of a Bishop of the East could be tried at Rome, without the consent of the Emperor, who expresly for∣bids the trying the Cause of Dorotheus at Rome, though the Pope earnestly desired it might be judged there z 1.104, as Baronius also confesseth a 1.105.

By the relation from the Synod at Constantinople it ap∣pears, that they call their new elected Patriarch Epipha∣nius, The Popes own Brother, and fellow Minister; and count their joynt endeavours, to be one Brothers helping ano∣ther

b 1.106. Binius strives to blunder this by printing it, Germanum vestrum, as if it were the proper name of the Popes Legate. But Labbè honestly restores the true reading germanum vestrum.

The Epistle next to this bears the name of Justinianus Augustus; yet is dated Anno 520 c 1.107, which is a gross mistake; for he was not styled Augustus till near seven year after, as Baronius owns Anno 527. Yea, after this Justinian is styled Vir illustris d 1.108; and for certain was not Emperor when this Letter is said to be writ.

The Notes after Hormisda's 70th Epistle, do bitterly inveigh against Johannes Maxentius, and the Scythian Monks, as notorious Lyers, and Eutychian Hereticks; and Labbè is more severe in his Censure than Binius or Baronius e 1.109. But they are all mistaken; For this Max∣entius was entirely Orthodox, and defended the Council of Chalcedon against the Eutychians, as is fully proved by two learned and judicious Writers, Bishop Usher and Forbesius f 1.110. And we may be sure Baronius first in∣vented this false accusation, (thinking it impossible any Man but a Heretick could write against the Pope), to be revenged on Maxentius for so bold a Fact. But in the Age before, Cochlaeus a Papist or Catholick (as Baro∣nius calls him) did honestly put out Maxentius his Works, as an Orthodox Writer, though Maxentius do write a∣gainst the Epistle under Hormisda's Name, to Possessor an African Bishop; and proves whoever was the Au∣thor of that Epistle, was a Lyer and an Heretick, as were also Possessor and Dioscorus, one of the Popes Legates; and he further justifies himself, and the Scythi∣an Monks, blaming the Pope for banishing them from Rome: Saying amongst other thing, If the Bishop of Rome should prohibit us to confess Christ, the Son, to be one of the Holy and undivided Trinity, the Church would never yield to him, nor respect him as an Orthodox Bishop, but utterly Accurse him as an Heretick g 1.111. So that no body then believed the Pope to be Infallible; and for Hormisda, Maxentius suspects him to be a favourer of Pelagianism. The Emperor Justin speaking of the

Church of Hierusalem, saith, that all men shew [tantum favorem, the Editors read tamen, only to blunder the Period] so much favour to it, as to the Mother of the Christian Name, that none dare separate from it h 1.112. Had this been said of Rome, how would the Parasites have Triumphed? Yet wanting real Encomiums, in the next Paper they steal one; and where the Eastern Clergy speak of their own Churches which had not swerved from the Faith delivered to them; The Editors apply this to Rome, and say in the Margen i 1.113, The Roman Church ne∣ver deviated from right Doctrin: But the Reader will find there is no mention of the Roman Church in that place; only S. Peter, who founded that of Antioch, is pointed at a little before.

Before Hormisáa's 77th Epistle there is one of Justini∣an, to Hormisda; wherein he declares, that after the Con∣troversie was setled ultra non patiemur (they blunder it by reading nos patiemur) He will not suffer any one under that Government to stir any more in it k 1.114: Which is a brisk Order to the Pope, in a cause of Religion. For which reason, and because it shews, that he and the Greeks would not yield to leave out any Name, but that of Acacius, Baronius omits it, and only prints the an∣swer to it l 1.115: For this was writ the year after the pre∣tended consent of the Patriarch of Constantinople, to rase out Euthymius, and Macedonius, with other Names out of the Dypticks.

We cannot leave this Pope without some remarks on his carriage in answer to the Question propounded to him by Justinian, viz. Whether it were Orthodox to say (as the Scythian Monks did) one of the Trinity was crucified for us? Dioscorus the Popes Legate represented this Sentence to Hormisda, as Heretical, and that to allow it would open a gap to many Heresies m 1.116. The Pope first determined to refer the controversie to the Bishop, of Constantinople, as appears by another relation of Di∣oscorus n 1.117; though Baronius would conceal this, by omit∣ting the beginning of this Paper o 1.118: But probably Dios∣corus durst not trust this Question with the Patriarch of

Constantinople. So that Hormisda not yet declaring himself, Justinian writ to him, that he and the Eastern Church thought this Sentence Orthodox, and required his con∣sent to their Faith p 1.119, which he further shews in another Epistle complaining of the Popes delays q 1.120. At last, after a long time Hormisda writes a shuffling Letter to the Emperor, wherein Baronius saith he utterly exploded this Sentence r 1.121: Yea, Baronius owns afterward, that this Pope would have all Catholicks abhor these words; One of the Trinity suffered in the Flesh s 1.122. But this very Sentence afterward appeared to be True and Orthodox, and they who condemned it were declared Hereticks. Yea, the Scythian Monks appealed from this Pope to that most learned and orthodox Father Fulgentius, who declared they were in the right, and that he believed as they did t 1.123. And finally, one of the succeeding Popes joyned with Justinian and the Orthodox Chri∣stians to confirm this Sentence: So that this Pope and his Legate were both on the Heretical side, which spoils the Infallibility.

§. 5. The Councils abroad in this Popes times take * 1.124 no notice of him, yet bear the Title of being held under him: The first, (Binius says) was at Rhemes, and he cites for this Flodoardus u 1.125. But Labbè calls this, a Synod at an uncertain place, and gives us Binius his Notes; but cites the words of Flodoardus; by which it appears that Rhemigius his being made the Popes Le∣gate, and calling this Synod there by a Legantine power, are Fictions of Baronius and Binius, taken out of the first forged Epistle of Hormisda, and falsly charged upon Flodoardus, who saith no such thing: And Sirmondus with P. de Marca say, Rhemigius was not the Popes Legate: Which manifestly appears from two Epistles of his, writ ten year after this feigned delega∣tion w 1.126, concerning an Invasion made upon his juris∣diction, wherein he never urges any sort of power as Legate, but pleads his original right as a Metropoli∣tan: And from Baronius and his Plagiary citing Flo∣doardus

at large for this, compared with the words of that Author in Labbè; the Reader may learn, these Writers are never to be trusted in any Quotation rela∣ting to the Pope, till the Authors be searched.

The Council of Tarragon was not under Hormisda, * 1.127 though it were in his time x 1.128; The Bishops there acting independently on Rome, whose Popes Decrees of dividing the Church Revenues into four parts, they contradict, and divide it only into three y 1.129 in the eighth Canon: And in the eleventh, they order con∣cerning the Discipline of Monks, the Gallican Canons shall above all others be observed.

Binius misplaces the Council of Pau, Anno Dom. 509. * 1.130 But Labbè sets it in this year rightly; it was called (not by the Pope, but) by Sigismund King of Burgundy, as all Provincial and National Synods in that age were; the famous Alcimus Avitus was President of it, and the Pope had no hand in it; for which reason these lesser Councils are more sincere than any, where Rome or the Pope is named, for there the Forgers are always tempt∣ed to leave, add, or alter something.

The same year was a Council held at Gyrone in Spain, not under the Pope, but under John of Tarragon; and though by Hormisda's forged Epistles, he be pretended to have been the Pope's Legate a 1.131, and that he recei∣ved Constitutions from Rome, it is plain this Council proceeds upon its own Authority b 1.132, and makes its own Rules; which shews these Fictions are of a later date.

The Council of Constantinople is falsly titled under Hormisda; the Union was not yet made, and Hormis∣da sent not his Legates till next year, so that it is very trifling for the Editors to say, it was partly reprobated at Rome c 1.133, because this Synod consisted only of Eastern Bishops, called by Justin the Emperor; and their own Patriarch John of Constantinople presided, whom they call, Most Holy and Blessed Father of Fathers, Archbishop and Oecumenical Patriarch d 1.134, and of him and Justin, only do they desire their Acts to be confirmed. And

not only they, but two Eastern Synods also at Jerusa∣lem and Tyre ratified these Decrees, which gave them a sufficient Authority; and it is but a Roman Fiction, that these Acts were revoked upon the reconciling of the Eastern and Westrn Churches.

§. 6. John the first succeeded Hormisda, probably by * 1.135 the interest of Theodoric the Arrian Gothick King, for he commanded him to go as his Embassador to the Eastern Emperor Justin, to require him not to persecute the Arrians, but restore to them their Churches which he had taken away, Threatning he would use the Catho∣licks of Italy severely, if this were not granted e 1.136. The Pontifical softens this with a gentle phrase, Rogans misit—as if Theodoric entreated the Pope to go on this ungrateful Errant; but the Notes more truly affirm, he forced him to take this Office f 1.137. However, the Pope durst not disobey that King, wherefore he went to Constantinople, and did deliver this request to Justin, so as to prevall for liberty to the Arrians in the East, as all Authors (before Baronius) affirm g 1.138: But the Cardinal calls this a base blot of the Popes prevarication; and therefore he with the Notes give Anastasius the lye, and forsake him in this part of John's Story whom in all the rest they follow. For Baronius will not allow, that a Pope should do so vile a thing, as to sollicit for Li∣berty of Conscience for Arrian Hereticks; wherefore he pretends he encouraged Justin to go on in puni∣shing them: But they cannot prove this, except by a forged Epistle writ in this Popes name, and a mistaken passage out of Gregory of Tours, who knew not the true Story, but speaks of John's Embassy to Theodoric, instead of Justin. One Argument only Baronius urges, which is, Why Theodoric should imprison this Pope at his return, and keep him prisoner till he dyed in that woful confinement, if he had faithfully discharged his Embassy h 1.139. I answer from Paulus Diaconus, That Theodoric was moved to anger, because Justin the Catholick Emperor had received him so honourably i 1.140; and also as Baronius himself saith,

This Gothick King suspected the Romans were then laying Plots against him, and confederating with Justin The Em∣peror. So that doubtless he thought the Pope was in this design, and so suffered him to dye in Prison: Now all this proves, that these Gothick Kings were ab∣solute Lords over the Bishops of Rome; and it looks like a Judgment on the Roman See, that whereas they had been so bitter against Acacius and other Orthodox Bishops of Constantinople, for only conversing with sup∣posed Hereticks, one of their own Popes was forced to plead that the worst of all Hereticks, the Arrians, might have the publick exercise of their Religion al∣lowed by Law. I take no notice of the Miracles as∣cribed to this Pope, because the fabulous Gregorian Dialogues are the only Evidence for them.

The Roman Mint hath Coined two Epistles for this Pope, of which Labbè saith, many things prove that they are both forged k 1.141. The first is patched up out of the frag∣ments of many other Popes Letters; and that passage of the Sheeps reproving their Pastor, if he Err in the Faith, is originally stollen out of a feigned Epistle under Pope Fabian's name. Baronius and Binius both confess a false date, viz. Olybrius and Maximus being Consuls, who were never in office together; and if we read Id. Junij Maximo Consule, John was not made Pope till two Months after, nor will Olybrio Consule, mend the matter with Id. Junij, because this Pope dyed the 27th of May in that year: However, though they cannot reconcile these Errors, the Notes and Baronius would have this Forgery pass for genuine, to clear the Pope from serving the Arrian interest l 1.142. The second Epistle is also Fictitious, being a Rhapsody out of Leo's Epistles and some places of Scripture m 1.143, and dated after this Pope was dead: So that we must reject them both together, with the Legend of his Consecrating Arrian Churches for the Orthodox, in defiance to King Theodoric, which Baronius and Binius would have us believe.

The Council of Lerida in Spain, was not as Binius * 1.144 saith, under John, but under Sergius Bishop of Tarragon who presided in it, and in the 16 Canon, is called the Bishop of the first See; a Title common to all Primates of old, but lately engrossed by the Pope n 1.145. In the Fragments of this Council, there is a method of cano∣nically purging Clerks accused of Crimes; but it can∣not belong to this Council (as Labbè owns,) because it mentions Leo the Third and Charlemaign, who lived near 300 year after this Synod was held o 1.146. In the same year was another Spanish Council at Valencia, in Pope John's time, but he is not once named in it, and the Canons were made by the Bishops of the Province p 1.147: Wherefore, Binius falsly Titles it under Pope John.

The same year was held the Council of Arles, which Binius miscalls the third, but was truly the fourth Council there. This Synod was placed wrong for∣merly An. 453, when one Opilio was Consul with Vincomalus; but another Opilio was Consul with Ru∣sticus this year An. 524, and Caesarius his Subscription to it shews, this is the true date of it q 1.148. Binius is here twice mistaken. First, In his old Title of sub Jo∣hanne. Secondly, In printing the Epistle of Faustus in this place, as if this Council of Arles were that which Faustus pretended confirmed his Pelagian Errors: But Labbè saith, Binius is mistaken, and 'tis certain he was quite out.

In Labbè, we have here a singular Example of the modesty of Fulgentius, who was very justly chosen President of an African Synod: But perceiving a cer∣tain Bishop took this ill, in the next Council he re∣nounced the Seat and Dignity, procuring that Bishop to sit before him, resolving not to defend the Primacy he deserved (saith the Author,) where it would make a breach of Charity r 1.149. And oh how happy had Christen∣dom been, if the Popes had followed this Pattern! Who at this time had renounced the Communion of more than half the Christian World; chiefly for not

submitting to their Primacy, and in every Age since, have Qarrelled with all that would not allow them that claim.

The Council of Carthage under Boniface Bishop there, Stiles him Bishop of the first See s 1.150: It never names the Pope, and makes it very clear, that this Primate did order all things in that Province, without any depen∣dance on Rome.

§. 7. Foelix the Fourth was named by King Theodoric, * 1.151 who being now Lord of Rome, did of right propose him to the Clergy as a Candidate for the Papacy, void by Johns death t 1.152. The Notes pretend this was an usurpation, and Baronius for this Rails bitterly at The∣odoric; calling it an arrogant Fact, and giving him the Title of a cruel Barbarian, a dreadful Tyrant and impious Arrian, adding that this was the cause of Gods destroy∣ing him u 1.153. But for all this rage, this is no more than what all Princes then did in their own Dominions: And these Editors a little before printed an Epistle wherein it is said, That Epiphanius was made Bishop of Constantinople by the Election of Justin and the Em∣press, with the consent of the Nobles, Priests and Peo∣ple w 1.154: And Hormisda in the 76th Epistle saith he was rightly elected: Which shews, that the Eastern Empe∣rors did not learn this of the Gothick Kings; but these learned of the Emperors to name the Bishops of their chief Cities x 1.155. And Theodoric ever exercised this Right, as the case of Symmachus shewed us before: Wherefore that Law of Ordoacer, that the Pope should be elected by the Princes consent, remained still in force; and Symmachus his pretended Repeal of it is ei∣ther forged, or else these Kings despised all Papal Coun∣cils which abridged them of their right.

In the Notes on this Popes Life, we have a fabulous Vision of some doting Hermit, who fancied he saw Theodoric's Soul thrown into the Vulcanian Kettles y 1.156. This out of Gregory's Dialogues is Foundation enough for them to Triumph in his Damnation, who resolve

to find out some Vision or Dream to perswade easie Readers, that all Princes who injured any Pope were sent to Eternal Flames: Again, the Notes pretend, that Justinian's Ecclesiastical Laws were made by the Bishops of Constantinople, and put out in that Emperors name: But why might not Justinian make his own Laws about Church matters, as Constantine and all his Successors to this time had done? No doubt he and they used in such cases to advise with their own Bishops: But these Parasites of Rome are angry, that the Pope is not the sole Law-maker in Causes Ecclesiasti∣cal; now he was not so much as consulted in these Laws, being then the Subject of another Prince: And what they object of Justinian's speaking honourably of Zeno and Anastasius his Predecessors (Enemies to Rome) confirms me in the Opinion, that Justinian in composing these Laws took no advice from St. Peter's Chair.

We may justly suspect most of these Papal Epistles, (out of which the Canonists for some Ages fetcht those Rules, by which they oppressed the Christian World,) because if a Pope neither did nor writ any thing re∣markable, the Forgers invented Business and Letters for him as they have done for Pope John and this Foelix; whose two first Epistles Labbè declares to be spurious z 1.157, and shews the former is made up out of the Forgeries in Pope Eleutherius name, as also out of the Epistles of Leo, and Gregory who was yet unborn; the latter steals the beginning from an Epistle of Pope Innocent's, and the rest is verbatim taken out of a spu∣rious Epistle ascribed to Pope Dionysius a 1.158: And the date of this also is after Foelix his death. But Binius boldly saith they are genuine; and Baronius would persuade us, the name of Foelix was put for Boniface, (which is an unlikely change) b 1.159. Now if you ask why they vindicate such Trash; I must Note, it is for the sake of one dear Sentence, viz. That the Roman Church in one of them is twice called the Head; A phrase which is enough to make any Coin currant at Rome.

The Third Epistle was dated 15 year before Foelix was Pope c 1.160, till Sirmondus lately mended the Consuls name; 'tis said to be written to Caesarius Bishop of Arles, who is here stiled not the Son, but the Brother of the Pope: But the matter of it is such mean stuff, that the true Author will have no credit by it, nor is it material whether it be genuine or no: And by the way 'tis somewhat odd, that these forged or trifling Epistles, should give Du-Pin ground for putting these two Popes into his Catalogue of Ecclesiastical Wri∣ters d 1.161.

Labbè adds here a Form of Anathematizing the Manichaean Heresie, wherein St. Augustin's Opinion guides the Affair e 1.162. The Pope is not concerned in reconciling Hereticks; for the Authority of Rome was not so considerable in those days, as these Men pre∣tend.

'Tis true, the Council of Orange owns they had * 1.163 some Capitulars sent from Rome against the Pelagi∣ans f 1.164. But Labbè's Notes say, they were Sentences collected out of the Fathers, especially St. Augustin, and agreeable to holy Scripture g 1.165. Wherefore Binius falsly brags, that this Controversie was determined by the Popes Authority; it was determined by St. Augustin's Authority, whose Doctrin Pope John the second saith, the Roman Church then kept and followed h 1.166. Rome only furnished the Records toward it; and a Clerk of the Rolls may as well be called the Determiner and Judge of a Suit where he produces any old writing, as the Pope made Arbiter in this Case: And it was the Gallican Synods Decree, which made these Definitions to be of Force in France. Sirmondus indeed pretends, Pope Boniface confirmed this Council i 1.167; but acknowledges the confirmation came some time after, though the modern Parasites had falsly placed this Papal confirma∣tion before the Council: But if we enquire more strictly, it will appear this second Epistle of Boniface the Second, (which is the confirmation) is Forged; for it not only bears date the year after the Council, but

(as Sirmondus owns k 1.168,) it is dated seven Months be∣fore Boniface was Pope: So that unless you will allow him to alter Dates at his pleasure, this Pope did not confirm this Synod at all: Only any thing must be genuine with these Men, which gives countenance to the Papal usurpations.

The Notes upon this Council cite a Testimony out of Gennadius, that Pope Foelix approved a Book writ by Caesarius against the Pelagians l 1.169: Which Testimony is not in my Edition of Gennadius; and if that Author have writ any such thing, he must mean Foelix the Third, because he writ An. 492, which is above 30 year before this Foelix was Pope. But when such learned Men as Prosper and Caesarius writ against an Heresie, the Popes Celestine and Foelix gladly subscribed them, not to give the Books any greater Authority, but to prove themselves Orthodox, and in Communion with men so famous for defending the Catholick Faith.

The Second or Third Council of Vaison, was falsly * 1.170 placed by Binius under Pope John the second, who was not Pope till two years after m 1.171; But Sirmondus rightly places it in this year in Foelix his time. In the first Canon it would have appeared plainly, that the Rea∣ders then had Wives allowed, if the true reading had stood, which must be Lectores—suas uxores habentes—recipiant. But the Forgers have altered it in Binius thus,—sive uxores habuerint; in Labbè thus, sine uxore, &c. But the corrupters in both Editions have left this pas∣sage so abused, that it is neither Grammar nor Sense. The fourth Canon is double in Binius; Labbè hath made it but one; it orders That the Popes name shall be recited in the Gallican Offices. Now to make this Canon seem more ancient, the Parasites had hoisted up this Council 200 year, even as high as Pope Julius, where Binius shamelesly prints it: But Sirmondus proves there could be no such French Council at that time: And considering the Forgers have been so busie with this Canon, I judge it very probable, that it was made by a Council much later than this Age, only it is clapt in

here very abruptly, to support an earlier Grandeur than the Popes at the time enjoyed; I am sure it seems unlikely, the Gallican Church should then pay this great respect to Rome.

§. 8. Pope Boniface the Second succeeded Foelix, but * 1.172 not by a clear Election, for another party chose Dio∣scorus who had been Legate to Horsmida n 1.173; but he was either poysoned or died naturally, within a Month, and so Boniface kept the Chair: His Malice however died not with his Rival: For he called a Synod, and got him anathematized after his Death for Simony: Which crime Pope Agapetus a little after proved to be false, and the Sentence extorted from the Clergy by Boni∣face's malicious craft; So that the Sentence was revoked, and Dioscorus with his party absolved o 1.174. Another Evidence of this Popes rashness was a Decree made also in this Synod, That the Pope should name his Succes∣sor, which was not only against the Canons, (which this Pope and his Council here had violated,) but a∣gainst an express Law of the Gothick Princes; and therefore when this fallible Pope saw his Error, a little after he called another Synod and revoked this De∣cree, confessing himself, as Anastasius saith, Guilty of Treason, in making the former Order; by which we may see, in that Age it was Treason for the Pope in Council to Repeal a Royal Law. Wherefore I won∣der that Baronius should call that the wresting a presum∣tuous and usurped power out of the Goths hands p 1.175, which his poor Master owned to be Treason. In short this Pope is only famous for his Errors and evil Deeds.

But to make him look great, the Forgers have invent∣ed an Epistle for him, containing many vaunts of the Roman Churches greatness, and a pretended sub∣mission of the Church of Carthage, after a very long separation from Rome, even from the time of Aure∣lius q 1.176. Now though this came out of their own Shop, it is so gross an untruth in the main, That Bini∣us and all their later Writers reject it: But though I

think the Epistle certainly Spurious, and this submis∣sion forged; yet it is true, the African Churches (even while they did own the Roman for an Orthodox Church,) had for a long time denied that usurped jurisdiction of Appeals from thence to Rome, to which some Popes pretended, which had made them stand at a distance from the See of Rome: The Notes on this Epistle have a fallacious Argument however, to prove the African Church could not so long remain divided from the Roman; because if so, they could have no true Martyrs all that time, since the Fathers agree, That Crown is only due to those who suffer in the Catholick Church r 1.177. I reply, this may be very true; and yet since no Father ever said that the particular Roman Church is the Catholick Church, a Christian may dye a true Martyr if he die in the Communion of the Catholick Church, though he hold no Com∣munion with the Roman Church, which was the case at this time, or lately, of many Eastern Churches.

Another Forgery out of the same Mint treads on the heels of this, pretending to be a Copy of the Emperor Justin, and Justinian's submission to this Pope; where∣in they are made to own the Supremacy of Rome to the highest pitch, and to Curse all their Predecessors and Successors, who did not maintain that Churches Priviledges s 1.178. But the cheat is so apparent, the mat∣ter so improbable and ridiculous, and the date so ab∣surd, that Baronius and both the Editors reject it; So that I shall only note, that a true Doctrine could not need so many Forgeries to support it, and the interest they serve shews who employed these Forgers.

We have spoken before of Boniface's two Roman Councils, one of them revoking what the other de∣creed: The third is only in Labbè, being a glorious Pageant, drest up by the suspicious hand of a late Li∣brary-keeper to the Pope. But it amounts to no more than the introducing a poor Greek Bishop or two, to enquire what was said in the Roman Records, and in the Popes Letters of the Authority of that Church t 1.179.

So that the Pope and his Council were Judges and Witnesses in their own Cause, and therefore their E∣vidence is of no great Credit: And 'tis very ominous, that this Synod is dated in December, that is, two Months after Boniface's death, who is said to have been present at all its Sessions u 1.180. To cover which evident mark of Forgery, Holstenius gives Baronius and all other Writers the Lye, about the time of Boniface's dying, and keeps him alive some time longer only to give colour to this new-found Synod.

The Council of Toledo might be in Boniface's time, but not under him: For the King of Spain, (whom the * 1.181 Bishops here call their Lord) called it, and it was held sub Mantano (saith Baronius) w 1.182, under Montanus the Metropolitan, to whom the Council saith, Custom had given that Authority x 1.183: Wherefore he condemns Here∣ticks, and exercises all sorts of jurisdiction belonging to a Primate, without taking any notice of the Pope, or of any delegated Power from him. So that proba∣bly all those Epistles which make Legates in Spain about this time, are forged.

§. 9. John the second of that Name succeeded Boni∣face, * 1.184 but Anastasius and Baronius cannot agree about the Date of his Election or his Death; and Holstenius differs from both; an Argument that this Pope made no great Figure y 1.185: However, right or wrong we have divers of his Epistles.

The first to Valerius (saith Labbè) appears by many things to be spurious; it is stollen out of the Epistles of Leo and Ithacius, and dated with wrong Consuls z 1.186. And I must add, Scripture is shamefully perverted by the Writer of this Epistle; For he would prove that Christ was not cre∣ated as to his Deity, but only as to his Humanity, by Ephes. iv. 24. and Coloss. iii. 10. where St. Paul speaks of putting on the New Man, which after God is created in Righ∣teousness and true Holiness,—and is renewed in Knowledge after the Image of him that created him: Had a Pope writ this, I would have affirmed he was no Infallible Inter∣preter.

The next is an Epistle of Justinian to this Pope, wherein the Emperor is pretended to declare his Faith was conformable in all things to the Roman Church; and made to say, he had subjected and united all the Churches of the East to the Pope, who is the Head of all the Holy Churches—with much more stuff of this kind a 1.187. This Letter is rejected by the learned Hotto∣man, and many other very great Lawyers, who Ba∣ronius calls a company of Hereticks and Petty Foggers b 1.188; But confutes their Arguments with false Reasoning and Forgeries, as I shall shew when I come to note his Errors: I shall now confine my self to prove the greatest part of this Epistle to be spurious: For who can imagin Justinian (who vindicated the Authority of his Patriarch at Constantinople as equal with Rome, and by an Authentick Law declares, that the Church of Con∣stantinople is the Head of all other Churches c 1.189: Yea, in the genuine part of this Epistle, calls his Patriarch the Pope's Brother) That he, I say, should here profess he had subjected all the Eastern Churches to Rome? And how should he (that differed from Pope Hormisda in his decision of the Question, whether one Person of the Trinity suffered for us; and made Pope John now yield to his Opinion, and condemn his Predecessors notion) declare he submitted his Faith in all things to the Pope? But we need no conjectures, for if the Reader look a little further among the Epistles of Agapetus d 1.190, he will see one of the boklest Impostures that ever was; For there Justinian himself recites verbatim, the E∣pistle which he had writ to Pope-John, and whatever is more in this Letter set out among John's Epistles, than there is in that which is owned by the Emperor, is an impudent Forgery, added by some false Corrup∣ter to serve the Roman Supremacy. Now by compa∣ring these two Epistles, it appears, the beginning and end of both are the same, and may be genuine; but in nei∣ther part is there one word of this subjection, or the universal Supremacy: And all that wretched Jargon comes in where it is corrupted, viz. From Ideo{que} om∣nes

Sacerdotes universi orientalis tractus, & subjicere—till you come to these words—Petimus ergo vestrum paternum—: Which when the Reader hath well noted, he will admire, that those who had the cunning to corrupt a Princes Letter, by adding twice as much to it as he writ, should be so silly to print the true Let∣ter, within a few Pages: But doubtless God infatu∣ates such Corrupters, and the Devil owes a shame to Lyers.

The next Epistle from the Gothic King Athalaric, was probably writ soon after John's Election, since it mentions the Romans coming to that Prince, to beg leave to chuse a Pope; and both Athalario and the Senate made Laws to prevent Simony in the Election of the Pope, as well as other Bishops: And which (Ba∣ronius saith,) was more Ignominious, This Edict was Ingraven on a Marble Table, and hung up before the Court of St. Peters for all to see it e 1.191. But to me it seems more Ignominious, that the Letter shews some of the late Candidates for the Papacy had sacrilegiously sold the holy Vessels to buy Voices f 1.192: These no doubt were like to make hopeful Heads of the Universal Church. Baronius is angry at this Letter and Edict, and I suppose places it falsly after the forged Epistle of Justinian had aggrandized this Pope; but do what he can, the Kings reckoning him among other Patriarchs, and making Laws for Papal Elections, and his giving him no huf∣fing Titles, do clearly demonstrate that Popes then were not so great as our Annalist would make them seem; and I wonder with what face he can say, This Law was not against the Clergy but the Lay-men, When the Law it self, and the occasion of it confutes him.

The Third Epistle may be genuine, wherein he doth well to say, that according to the Decrees of his Pre∣decessors, the Roman Church ever kept and followed the Doctrin of St. Augustin g 1.193; and if they had never fol∣lowed any other Guide, there would not have been so many false Doctrins brought in to that Church:

However, the great impertinence of divers Scriptures here cited shews this Pope to be no great Divine, and one of his proofs I doubt is forged; for I cannot, in Exod. xxiv. or any other place find these words, You shall see your life hanging on a Tree: Now to feign such a Prophesie must be a horrid Sin, being literally ad∣ding to Gods word h 1.194, to which a grievous Curse is due.

The Epistle from Reparatus and his African Council to this Pope, is more likely to be true, because there is nothing of his Universal Supremacy in it: They call him Holy Brother and Fellow-Priest, nor do they expect Laws, but desire advice from him: Yea, they require him to exclude from his Communion such of the Afri∣can Clergy, as came from them to Rome without leave i 1.195; which shews the African Church still opposed Appeals to the Pope.

The First Council under this Pope was called at Rome, wherein He decreed according to Justinian's desire, That it might Orthodoxly be said, One of the Tri∣nity was crucified for us in the Flesh k 1.196. Now this De∣cree puts Baronius and Binius to stretch their Wits to save the Infallibility: For Pope Hormisda had before judicially determined the quite contrary in a cause of Faith, viz. That it could not be Orthodoxly said so: So that these Parasites are to prove both parts of a con∣tradiction true; and that two Popes who defined di∣rectly contrary to one another, were both in the right: Now here they shufflle and palliate this matter, calling Pope John's disannulling Hormisda's Decree, to be only a declaring his Opinion, how far this Sentence may, and how far it may not be held l 1.197. But before, Baronius compares this Sentence with the Heretical Addi∣tion to the Trisagion, and tells us, the Popes Legates (in Hormisda's time) thought it was utterly to be rejected: And that the Eutychians were the Authors of it; yea, he magnifies Hormisda for condemning it m 1.198. Yet Pope John says, it is an Orthodox Sentence, though still divers Monks at Rome did not believe him nor re∣ceive

it: But took Hormisda to have been in the right, and so far questioned John's Infallibility, that as (Liberatus notos,) They forsook his Communion n 1.199; and for my part I cannot see, but one of these Popes must necessarily be an Heretick.

In this year they place a genuine Record of a con∣science * 1.200 at Constantinople, between the Catholick and Severian Hereticks (o). But Binius Notes own, this Con∣ference * 1.201 was held before Justinian writ to Pope John for his Opinion; and therefore it should have been placed before that Popes Roman Council, and is frau∣dulently set after, to make it seem as if the East had fol∣lowed Rome in this Decision. To this Conference the Eastern Bishops were summoned by the Emperor and their own chief Patriarch: And we may here observe, First, That Hypatius Bishop of Ephesus was Prolocutor, and is compared to St. Peter the Apostle p 1.202. Secondly, When they speak of the Opinions of the Fathers, cited by Cyril in the Council at Ephesus against Nesterius, they reckon two Popes, Foelix and Julius, promiscu∣ously with the rest, giving them no precedence, no mark of special priviledge q 1.203. Thirdly, They re∣ject divers Epistles, that bore the names of Orthodox Fathers, pretended to be kept among the Records at Alexandria, as forged and corrupted by their Hereti∣cal Bishops; and say, they must be excused from recei∣ving their Enemies for Evidence r 1.204. Which just Rule, if the Romanists allow us in our Disputes with them, the Controversie would soon be ended. Fourthly, Hy∣patius truly affirms, that the Eastern and Western Churches were long time divided, about the manner of expressing themselves as to the Trinity; the Orien∣tals suspecting the Occidentals to be Sabellians, and these imagining those of the East were Arrians, till Athanasius at last reconciled them by understanding of both Tongues s 1.205; which shews that neither side pre∣tended to Infallibility: And that Learning is the fittest qualification for a Judge of Controversies. Lastly, They say, their Holy Mother the Catholick and Apostolick

Church of God, held it was Orthodox to say, that one of the Trinity did suffer for us in the Flesh t 1.206. Now this could not be meant of the Roman Church, where Hormisda's contrary Definition was still in force, nor do they name the Pope in all their Conference: So that Binius is mistaken in his Notion, that Justinian contrived this Conference to unite the Bishops of the East with Rome; for he took no notice of the late Popes Sentence, but designed this Conference to settle the Truth; and for all the pretence of Union and Subjection in Hormisda's time, the Churches of the East and West were not united till after this; when Pope John consented to their Desinition, and owned that not his Predecessor, but they were in the right.

§. 10. The time of Pope Agapetus entrance and * 1.207 death is not certainly known: Anastasius, and from him Du Pin, allow him not one whole year: Baronius and Binius would have him sit longer u 1.208, but can on∣ly prove it by the dates of some Epistles which are not genuine. 'Tis certain he was dead before May 536. when Mennas Council at Constantinople met; where∣fore he must enter in the year 535. The truest ac∣count of him is to be had in Liberatus, a Writer that knew him, Who saith, He was well skilled in the Ca∣nons, and being sent by the Gothick King, Theodatus, on an Embassy to Justinian, to divert his Army from Italy, he arrived at Constantinople, where he honourably received the Emperors Messenger, but would not admit Anthimius to his Presence: After this he saw the Emperor, delivered his Embassy, which was rejected; However, (as Christs Embassador) neither the Princes nor the Empress could pre∣vail with him to communicate with the lately ordained Bishop of Constantinople Anthimius, unless he would prove him∣self Orthodox, and return to the Church which he had de∣serted: Upon this Anthimius resigned and went off, yet still was under the Emperors Protection: Yet Agapetus by the favour of the Prince consecrated Mennas Patriarch of Constantinople, and having designed Pelagius his Deacon

to remain there as his Resident, he prepared to return to Italy, but dyed at Constantinople w 1.209. Most of that which is added to this, is feigned by Anastastus and the later Writers; except what another contemporary Cassiodorus writes of Agapetus, that he was so poor, that the Sacred Plate of St. Peters Church was forced to be Pawned for Mony to defray the Charges of this Embassy x 1.210. But Anastasius his Fictions about the Popes quarreling with Justinian about his Faith, and the Emperors hum∣bling himself, and adoring the Pope afterwards, have no truth at all in them. No, nor those Miracles which Binius notes, and Baronius pretended this Pope did in his Journey y 1.211; for they have no other Evi∣dence for them than those fabulous Legends, Gregory's Dialogues and the Pratum Spirituale z 1.212. And no Wri∣ter of Credit, or that lived in that Age, knew of any such thing. The fore-named Authors for the credit of the Roman Martyrology, where Agapetus death is set down on the 12 of the Kal. of October, will have that be the right day of his dying: But I can hardly think he dyed so long before Mennas Council, which was in May 536. and there he is spoken of as lately deceased: I shall only note, that Baronius blunders his own Ac∣count wofully, by citing a Constitution of Justinian, directed to Anthimius as still Bishop of Constantinople, dated on the Ides of August 536, (long after Agapetus death:) And upon this he Rails at Theodora and Ju∣stinian a 1.213; and 'tis true, the Law is so dated and titled in the Novels b 1.214: But there must be a fault either in the name of Anthimius, put instead of Menna's, or in the Consuls, because the same Emperor directs ano∣ther Constitution to Menna, in the same Month and the same. Year, and some Copies read its date, 17 Kal. of August 536. which is the 16 of July c 1.215: Where∣fore the Annalist should be cautious, how he makes Characters of Princes, on the uncertain Credit of these Dates.

The Copy of Justinian's Letter to John the Second, before stuffed with Forgeries and undated, is here printed without the Additions, and dated in January saith Binius, in June saith Labbè, An. 533. d 1.216. And it assures us, John's confirmation before related is spuri∣ous, because here it is offered again to be confirmed by Agapetus, the day before the Ides of March, An. 535. And this Popes Confirmation is dated at Constantinople, four days after the Emperors Epistle: But Anastasius faith, The Pope came not to Constantinople till the 10 of the Kal. of May; and Justinian's Letter supposes him then at Rome, and if so, how could the Pope re∣ceive and answer this Letter in four days time? But if Agapetus were at Constantinople, what need the Em∣peror write to him, or date his Letter from that City? So that I suspect the Confirmation to be a Forgery, and Labbè himself notes, These things are not coherent e 1.217; For which we have a good reason in Lactantius, who saith, Ea enim est mendaciorum natura ut cohaerere non possunt f 1.218. Yet Binius is so immodest as to stretch this seigned Confirmation, to be a solemn confirming of all Justinian's Edicts and Constitutions in matters of Faith g 1.219. Whereas that Emperor sent the Constitutions to the Pope and other Patriarchs to be executed, not to be confirmed; he only advised with his Bishops about them, but his own Authority was enough to ratifie them.

To this is subjoyned that nauseous Forgery called Exemplar precum, which hath been printed by the E∣ditors four or five times over with variety of Titles, and here is ridiculously applied to Justinian h 1.220.

The matter of Agapetus Second and Third Epistle to the African Bishops and Reparatus is not exceptiona∣ble; for the Pope calls them his most loving Brothers, and owns it was not agreeable to the Canons to receive Clerks from Africk without their Letter; wherefore he would forbear it, as they had enjoyned: He confesses also the Rights of a Metropolitan to be in the Bishop of Carthage i 1.221. But there are some suspicions that

they are not genuine, for they say they were sent by Liberatus: Now he had been at Rome a little before, and can scarce be supposed to be got back to Afric, and to return to Rome by the 5th of the Ides of Sep∣tember: And which is worse, (as Labbè truly observes,) Liberatus himself who writes the Story of Agapetus, speaks but of one Journey to Rome, and says nothing of this second: And besides 'tis dated Post. Cons. Pau∣lini, which is wrong, unless they call Bellisarius his year by that name, which is An. 535. And then Agapetus was at Constantinople: So that we may fear the For∣gers, who would have it thought all the World ap∣plied to Rome, have been at work here. However, if the third Letter be genuine, we learn from it that Aga∣petus came into the Papacy in Winter; for it seems Reparatus had writ to Pope John; but while his Messen∣gers were staied by the Winter from Sailing, he heard in Afric of Agapetus his Election. Baronius here af∣firms, that the Pope now sent Decretal Letters to be published in Africa, which are not extant k 1.222: But I believe there never were any such Letters; for his ad∣vice might be accepted there perhaps, but his Decre∣tals then had no Authority in that Church.

The Fourth Epistle to Justinian is very suspicious, being dated with no Consuls as the rest use to be; it mentions also the Popes sending Legates on the Ides of October, which if it were An. 534. he was not then Pope; if the next year, Agapetus must then be at Constantinople, (or dead there the 12 of the Kal. of that Month, if the Roman Martyrology be true:) Wherefore we need not be startled at that incredible passage, That Justinian had elevated the Roman See by such Titles of Charity and Bounty, as exceeded their desires and hopes l 1.223. For the Letter is not genuine; And I dare say, the Parasites will not urge this, because they think 'tis Justice, not Charity; and Right, not human Bounty, which gives Rome the highest Titles; and we are of O∣pinion, no Titles can exceed that Churches desires, though they may its deserts.

Since Binius suspects the 5th Epistle, as dated before Agapetus was Pope, and Labbè saith, many things prove it false, and more than suspected of imposture, as being stolen out of Hormisda's, and Leo's Letters, and naming Theodatus Consul, who never bore that Office m 1.224; We may without more ado reject it, only noting the For∣ger resolved right or wrong, to make the Pope the Mawl of all Hereticks.

The two Epistles to Caesarius (supposing them genuine) are very frivolous, the 6th being only to tell him that Ecclesiastical Goods must not be alienated: Which he knew better than the Pope; and Symmachus had writ this to him above 30 Year before: And the 7th Epistle intimates that Contumeliosus a French Criminal Bishop, whose Cause was decided by Pope John, had appealed again to Agapetus, which shews a Papal Decree was not decisive: But either the Pope or this Letter hath had ill Luck, because it contains in the decretal part, a flat contradiction, both forbidding, and allowing this Bi∣shop to say Mass n 1.225; wherefore, if we do not reject them, we may throw them by, as very inconsiderable.

Once more the Editors abuse us with their old For∣gery of Exemplar Precum, their Corrupt rule of Faith, which cannot without the highest impudence be put upon Justinian o 1.226; and they confess here the Consuls are mistaken a whole year, yet they presume to mend it, and obtrude it for genuine: And Baronius would have us believe Justinian did now repeat this profession of his Faith upon the falsest and slightest conjectures p 1.227 that can be imagined.

§. II. The Council of Constantinople about the deposi∣tion * 1.228 of Anthimius, and the Condemnation of Severus and his followers, was held, as Binius confesses, in the general Title, after Agapetus his death; and as oft as this Council mentions him, he is called of happy Memory: Yet in the Title on the Top, Binius saith, It was held under Agapetus and Mennas; which absurdity of a Council being held under a dead Pope, moved Lab∣bè

to say it was under Mennas q 1.229. The History of this Council may be had from Du-Pin r 1.230. But the Re∣marks on those things in it, which either condemn the Errors, or savour of the Forgeries of Rome, are my business. Wherefore, I will first make some general ob∣servations on the whole: Secondly, consider the depra∣vations in the Acts. Thirdly, examine the falshoods in the Notes.

First, This Council was called to re-examine and confirm the Sentence of Pope Agapetus, and it consisted (all but five) of Eastern Bishops s 1.231, to whom Justini∣an sent this Sentence for their Approbation. And Aga∣petus himself in a Letter writ a little before his death, desires the Eastern Bishops to signifie to him, That they did approve of the judgment of the Apostolical Seat t 1.232; Which shews that neither the Emperor, the Pope, nor this Council did then take the Bishop of Rome to be the sole nor highest Judge. Secondly, Mennas the Patriarch was the President of this Council, and sat above and be∣fore those five Bishops, which the Annalist, and Anno∣tator say were the Legates of Agapetus, and the Repre∣sentatives of the Roman Church u 1.233. Thirdly, it is certain the Emperor Justinian convened this Council by his own sole Authority; for every Action owns They met by his Pious Command, and that his care had gathered this Holy Synod together w 1.234. And it is as certain that he only could and did confirm it; for Mennas the Pre∣sident having heard the Synods Opinion, desires the Em∣peror may be acquainted with it, Because nothing ought to be done in the Church without his Royal Consent, and Com∣mand x 1.235. And he finally did confirm their Decree by a spe∣cial Edict, which made it valid y 1.236. So that this Coun∣cil utterly confutes the Popes pretended right to con∣vene all Councils, for which in this Age nothing but Forged evidence is produced. Fourthly, Though Ba∣ronius z 1.237, and also Binius do affirm that Agapetus did both depose Anthimius, and chuse Mennas, neither of them is true if they mean the Pope did it by his own Authority; for before the Council, Justinian (as this

Synod often declares) did assist Agapetus, and made the Holy Canons Authentic in deposing Anthimius a 1.238. And because he thought it was scarce yet Canonically done, he gets the Sentence against him confirmed by this Council: As for Mennas, he was only consecrated by the Pope, who in his own Letter saith Mennas was elected by the favour of the Emperor, and the consent of the chief Men, the Monks and all Orthodox Christians b 1.239; yea, the Council declares the Emperor chose him by the general suffrage c 1.240. So that these are false pretences designed to set up a single Authority in the Pope, un∣known to that Age.

Secondly, In the Acts of this Council there are di∣vers instances of the hand of a Roman depraver: The Title of the Monks Petition, as Binius Margen saith, is not in the Greek d 1.241; yet he hath it both in Greek and Latain (d); and so hath Labbè: But it must be the addi∣tion of a Later Hand, the Greek being the Original; it is full of great swelling Words applied to Agapetus alone; But the Text speaks to more than one, Do not ye suffer, O ye most blessed e 1.242—Which ye (O most blessed) de∣fending, receive ye our Petition f 1.243, and generally it runs in the plural number; So that it was addressed to the Pope with other Bishops. The like corruption we meet with also in the Letter of the Eastern Bishops, where the Title now is only to Agapetus; but the Text speaks to more than one; yea, where the Greek is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, The Latin Version of Rome. changes it into Beatissime, and Sanctissime, adding Pa∣ter g 1.244. Which shews the Forgers Fingers have been here. The aforesaid Petition of the Monks, mentions an Image of Justinian abused by the Hereticks: The Greek calls it [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] The Image of that Servant of God h 1.245, The Roman Version is imaginem Dei veri: The Image of the true God: As if these Heriticks had been Iconoclasts before that controversie was heard of. In the Bishops Letter the Greek reads—〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which signifies by open force and secret fraud: For 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is a Warlike Engine to batter

with i 1.246. The Translator dreams of Manichaean Errors, which are nothing to the purpose here. In the Epistle of the Syrian Bishops to Justinian, the Greek saith, The Pope deserved to follow the Emperors pious Footsteps, and so Labbè reads it in the Latin: But in Binius (for fear this should look mean) we have it Vestra pia vestigia digna facienti k 1.247. The Title of Hormisda's Epistle to Epiphanius is corrupted in Latin by the addition of these words which are not in the Greek, wherein he de∣legates to him the power of a Vicar of the Apostolical Seat, in receiving Penitents l 1.248: Which is confuted by the Epistle it self, which speaks of the Church of Constan∣tinople, not as subjected, but united to the Roman; and doth not command, but desire Epiphanius to joyn his care and diligence to the Popes, as they now had one friendship, both in Faith and Communion; yea, Hor∣misda promises to act by the same measures which he recommends to Epiphanius m 1.249. Baronius hath another corruption of his own, in a Letter from the Monks of Hierusalem and Syria; for where they desire Justinian to cut off all that do not communicate with the universal Church of God, and the Apostolical Seat n 1.250; He leaves out the universal Church, and puts in nothing but the A∣postolical Seat o 1.251. In the same page he cuts off Mennas Title before the Sentence be pronounced, viz. Men∣nas, the most Holy and Blessed universal Arch. Bishop and Patriarch said p 1.252: And he adds to the end of this Sen∣tence, that it was according to what Hormisda and Aga∣petus had prescribed q 1.253; whereas this being the Sense of the Synod, gave Authority to what the later of these Popes had done; and the former, Hormisda, was dead be∣fore this matter came into Question. And now I am upon the Account of this Council in Baronius, I will also note, that in citing an Author which saith Mennas obtained an Universal Bishopric—he adds, that is, of the Churches subject to him r 1.254. Yet a little after he will not allow that Paraphrase when the same words are applyed to the Popes s 1.255, which shews his unfaithfulness in adding, and his partiality in expounding, two very

ill properties in an Historian—But to proceed with Binius and Labbè: In the 5th Act there is a Syod at Constantinople held under John the Bishop there Anno 518, wherein he is called Most Holy and most Blessed Arch-Bishop, Occumenical Patriarch, and Father of Fathers t 1.256. Yet the Editors put first in the Margen, and then into the Latin Text, under Hormisda; which words are not in the Greek, and are absurd, because the two Churches were not yet reconciled u 1.257: Which is plain, because in the Acclamations they cry, let the Names of Euphemi∣us and Macedonius be restored to the Church: Which were two of their Orthodox Patriarchs and followers of Acacius, whose Names had been struck out of the Dypticks by Heretical Princes, and stood then condem∣ned by Hormisda: And they cry again, Are our Syno∣dical powers gon away to Rome? That is, must we reject our Orthodox Patriarchs because Rome censures them? But the Latin corrupt version reads, Synodica Romana modo valeant w 1.258; which would alter the Sense, and persuade such as cannot look into the Greek, that Rome's Decrees were valid at Constantinople; whereas, they Decree contrary to the Pope. In the Epistle from John of Jerusalem, to the Patri∣arch of Constantinople, the late Forgers have put in a Sentence to give some colour to the Worship of the Blessed Virgin, which spoils the Sense. The true reading is—; Do ye most holy pray for the same things that we do, for it is the common duty of Bishops [] to intercede for the peace of the Churches, and the Emperors Victory, and long Life x 1.259. But into this they thrust in a line or two—thus—it is the common Duty of Bishops; (And pray ye to the Holy, Glorious Virgin Mary, the Mother of God with us) to intercede for the peace of the Churches—which is a new Piece put into an old Garment so foolishly, that the Rent is very visible. Fi∣nally, the subscriptions to the fifth and last Act are cor∣rupted: For whereas the Roman Deacons, Theophanes and Pelagius in all other Acts are placed after the Ea∣stern Bishops, here they are set before them in the La∣tin

Version y 1.260. And whereas the Editors tell us, that Justinian's Edict to confirm the Decrees of this Council is depraved in the Title to Mennas z 1.261; I con∣fess it is so; but the Roman Parasites have depraved it by cutting off all those Titles which the Novel here ci∣ted by them gives him a 1.262, viz. To Mennas the most Holy, and most Blessed, and Oecumenical Patriarch—All which the Editors of the Council leave out.

To these Notes of the depraving these Acts we may add a few remarks on some passages that are genuine, but oppose the late Notions of the Roman Church. The Epistle of Agapetus was not writ to Peter alone (as the Epistle pretends) but to him, and other Bishops; whom the Pope calls in the first Line, His beloved Bre∣thren; and to Mennas there he gives the Titles of Bro∣ther, and fellow Bishop b 1.263. The Syrian Bishops Epistle to Justinian, declares that Christ is the Head of the Church c 1.264, which Title the Pope had not yet claimed. In the E∣pistle from John of Jerusalem, to the Patriarch of Constantinople (where Leo is called Archbishop and Patri∣arch of Rome) we have this memorable Truth, That Christ who gave the power of binding and loosing to Peter the chief of the Apostles, gave it in general to the Episcopal Order d 1.265: Which confutes that Doctrine of all Bi∣shops receiving this power from the Pope. The Bishop of Tyre's Epistle to the Synod at Constantinople, calls the See of Antioch, which Severus the Heretick had inva∣ded, The Throne of the Apostolical Church of Antioch e 1.266, and makes one of his great crimes to be his admitting strange Clerks Canonically deprived by their own Bi∣shop, to officiate without the consent of such as had sen∣tenced them: A crime so often committed by the Popes, that these uncanonical precedents are produced to prove he hath a priviledge so to do. The Sentence of Mennas against this Severus, and his Complices, recites That they had contemned the Apostolical succession in the Church of Rome, which had condemned them, and set at nought both the Patriarchal Throne of Constantinople, and the Synod under it; Yea, and the Apostolical Succession, which

the Lord and Saviour of all had setled in those holy places: And above all, had despised the Sentence of the Oriental Dio∣cess decreed against them (I). So that their greatest fault * 1.267 was not the contemning the Popes Authority, and A∣postolical Succession was setled in other Churches by Christ, as well as in that of Rome. Lastly, The Consti∣tution of Justinian is made on purpose to give validity to the Sentence of the Pope and the Synod against An∣thimius and the Hereticks, declaring it was the custom for all preceding Orthodox Emperors, to confirm the Decrees of Councils; and it says in the conclusion, this Law was published, that none might be ignorant of those things which the Bishops had agreed on, and the Emperor had confirmed g 1.268. So that it is a fallacious Note of the Editors Margen to say; That it was the duty of Emperors to take care that the Decrees of the Fathers and the Pope were executed. Which makes their Master to be no more than their Servant and under Officer.

In the Notes on this Council are many Falshoods, which may be discovered by what is already obser∣ved. Only we may consider some few of them more particularly: As first, He takes it upon Baronius his credit h 1.269, that Agapetus left the Western Bishops his Legates, and that their Power continued after his decease; and thence boldly, but falsly affirms, That these Legates procured the Synod to meet, and that they condemned these Hereticks by the Authority of their deceased Master, whose Legate also he feigns Mennas was i 1.270; and in express contradiction to the Council, he will have these Italian Bishops to be Presidents with Men∣nas k 1.271; yet immediately calls him alone the President of this Synod l 1.272. Now all this is to impose upon the Reader, as if nothing could be done without Pa∣pal Authority: But we have proved that Justinian called and confirmed this Council, and Mennas presi∣ded solely in it: The Acts also take no notice of these Western Bishops having any Legantine power from Agapetus; and I shall shew presently, that before this Council rose there was a new Pope chosen, who should

have renewed their Commission to make it valid, but did not: So that they must suppose the dead and the living Pope to have supream Authority both at once: Who can swallow these gross Fictions? Again, Mennas and the Council declare, That Pope followed the Canons in allowing Anthimius time to come in and Repent, and therefore they followed him m 1.273; but Binius Notes turn this and say, That Agapetus commanded the Synod to use this mercy n 1.274: But it is very pleasant to hear Clodius accuse, and Binius complain of the Modern Greeks, for forging the Title of Oecumenical Patriarch, ap∣plied to John in his own Council of Constantinople o 1.275. But the Latins are even with them and far out-do them, (if it were so) for they (as we have seen) have put in that Title for Agapetus into the Latin when it was not in the Greek, and have left it out before Menuas name, though in the Code it be given him: So that they cannot fairly complain; Yet after all, I can prove by authentic Records of this Age, That this Title of Oecumenical Patriarch, was given to the Patriarch of both old and new Rome; nor is this Council of John corrupted by the modern Greeks, and Gregory is cer∣tainly mistaken in saying it was not used before his time: But the weakest complaint of Forgery, and the worst proof of it imaginable, is that of Baronius and Binius, who pretend the Greeks have fraudulently put the names of Euphemius and Macedonius Bishops of Con∣stantinople, before Pope Leo's p 1.276; and the Annalist and Annotator shew shameful ignorance, in thinking to prove by the Liturgy of St. Mark, that the Pope of Rome was prayed for first in all Churches: For though in that Office, God is desired to preserve Their most Holy and most Blessed Pope, whom he did fore-ordain, that his Holy Catholick and Apostolick Church should choose by their common Suffrages, and also for their most holy Bi∣shop q 1.277. Yet this (being the Office used in the whole Alexandrian Patriarchate,) must be meant of the Alexandrian Patriarch, (who was called Pope ever since Athanasius his time,) and was the Bishop of that

Church where these Prayers were made: To prove which and shame this illiterate Exposition, I shall pro∣duce Jac. Goar, a rigid Papist, the Editor of the Greek Euchologion; who thus speaks, The Greeks never name the supream Bishop of all (he means him of Rome) in publick; wherefore Urban the Fourth desired of the Emperor Mich. Palaeologus (An. Dom. 1263. that is, 700 year after this,) that in their sacred Offices, the Popes name should be recited out of the Dypticks, with the other four Patriarchs, as the first and chiefest sign of their union with Rome: For which he Cites Nicetas, lib. 5. r 1.278. Here therefore is a proof, which proves only the mistake of them that produce it: And for the Objection, it is a known Cu∣stom for all Churches, to name their own Patriarchs before those of other Churches; so that it is no won∣der, that at Constantinople Euphemius's name should be placed before Leo's.

As soon as the Council under Mennas was ended, the Decrees were sent to Peter Patriarch of Jerusalem, who by the Command of the Emperor, called a Coun∣cil there to confirm them s 1.279.

In this year Labbè places the Synod of Auvergne, which met, as the Preface owns, by the precept of King Theodebert t 1.280; there is no Pope mentioned in it: Binius places it in the year 541. under Vigilius, but Sirmondus proves he was mistaken.

§. 12. As soon as the news of Agapetus his death came to Rome, Liberatus saith, Sylverius was made Pope by Theodatus the Gothick King u 1.281. Anastasius saith, it was after one Month and 28 days vacancy w 1.282; Which is very probable, being a sufficient time for the intelligence to come from Constantinople; and if we allow that Agapetus died about a Month before Men∣nas Council, this entrance of Sylverius will prove to be while that Council sat. Baronius saw this, and fear∣ing it would ruin his invention of the Western Bi∣shops, there being Agapetus his Legates, he blunders the time of Sylverius's Election; and though he reject Ana∣stasius

account, on whom (in many less probable Re∣ports) he often relies; Yet he will not fix any other time, and so leaves it uncertain; only in general he and Binius say, he was elected in the end of this year; which cannot be; because Agapetus certainly died in the Spring, and it required no long time for the News to come from Constantinople. As to this Sylveri∣us, it is certain from Liberatus, he was the Son of Pope Hormisda; and Baronius with Binius only conjecture that he was lawfully begotten; they would prove it indeed by this Argument, That otherwise he would have been irregular, and the Roman Clergy would not have cho∣sen him: But they forget that his Election was not re∣gular; For Theodatus was in haste, and would not stay for that, but forced the Roman Clergy to subscribe, having got money of Sylverius, as their own Pontifi∣cal relates. Baronius calls this fear and vile submis∣sion of the Roman Clergy, their Clemency and a worthy Example x 1.283; yet confesses this Pope deserved to be kept out: However, being got into the sanctifying Chair, he magnifies him, but very unjustly; for Procopius a creditable Author, who was soon after at Rome with Bellisarius, tells us, Sylverius first swore to keep the City of Rome for Vitiges the Gothick King y 1.284. And so soon as Bellisarius came before it, he was the principal in∣strument to persuade the Romans, who had sworn with him, to deliver up that City z 1.285: Baronius would conceal this Perjury, and therefore though he cite Procopius here, yet he saith no more than that Vitiges admonished the Pope and Senate, to keep faithful to the Goths a 1.286, who indeed had been extreamly civil to the Roman Church; and though they were Ar∣rians, yet (as their Enemy Procopius tells us,) they had such a reverence for the holy places, that they did not hurt the Churches of St. Peter or St. Paul; yea, they gave liberty to the Catholick Priests to serve God in their own way b 1.287. Which confutes the false Reports of their Cruelty, in destroying the Churches and Bodies of the Martyrs at Rome, mentioned in the Pontifical, and in Paulus

Diaconus c 1.288. However Sylverius turned once more, as Procopius saith, and was suspected by Bellisarius to have designed to betray the City of Rome once more to the Goths, for which he deposed and banished him d 1.289; and Marcellinus an Author of great credit, and of that time, saith, Sylverius favoured Vitiges, and for that cause Bellisarius deposed him from his Bishoprick e 1.290. I know Liberatus (a mortal Enemy to Vigilius) would have this to be a Calumny, invented by Theodora, and carried on by Vigilius the succeeding Pope, who had promised Bellisarius two Hundred Crowns to get Sylverius ejected, and himself admitted f 1.291; and Anastasius with Paulus Diaconus follow his Account: But the two former Authors are in this case more worthy of Credit; however this is certain, Bellisarius did depose and banish Sylverius, and got Vigilius Elected, who fearing his Rival should be restored, got him at last into his Hands, and barbarously caused him to be starved to death. This is a sad Story of two Popes, Sylverius uncanonically elected, a Simoniack and a perjured Person; and Vigilius a favourer of Hereticks, one that is said to have hired false Witness, and to have given Mony to make the See void, and at last a Mur∣therer.

Which shews, how little reason there is for Baronius and the Notes, to make such a stir which was the true Pope of these two. They will have Sylverius to re∣main the rightful Pope while he lived, and so Rail freely at Vigilius as an Heretick, and Bloody Usur∣per g 1.292. But they cannot prove this by any Evidence, but only by a manifestly forged Epistle of Sylverius. And the contrary is very certain, because the Empe∣ror, the Gallican Churches and all did own Vigilius for the true Pope long before Sylverius his death, and he openly acted as such all that time. Where∣fore we must reject that Dream of Baronius, who saith (without any ground,) that Vigilius did Abdi∣cate the Papacy for six days upon the death of his Competitor, and got himself new chosen; and this

purged him of all Crimes, and in a moment made him a Saint and a rare Pope: He would force this Fiction out of Anastasius, (who in like Cases he gene∣rally despises,) who only saith, the See was void six days, but plainly means after Sylverius was deposed; for he reckons Vigilius his time from thence, allotting him above 17 years and 6 Months; that is, near two years more than Baronius allows.

There are but two Epistles ascribed to Sylverius, and they are the only Evidence to prove him the true Pope after he was Deposed; yet it is certain both are Forg∣ed. The first charges Vigilius with Simony, yea, ex∣communicates and deprives him for usurping the Pa∣pacy; it is dated with the name of Basilius, whereas Baronius and the Annotator say, there was no such Consul in his time h 1.293. And Labbè saith, it is to be rejected for the Barbarity of the Style, and other rea∣sons, and concludes the mistake of the Consul, shews the bold ignorance of Mercator, the Author of this Im∣posture. Now observe for the ingenuity and credit of Baronius, that this Epistle not only serves him to clear Sylverius from Simony, and to prove him the true Pope, but he calls this odious Forgery, The Sword of the Spirit, the Word of God, and the Exercise of that Power, which he had to Absolve or Damn Eternally all People i 1.294, which is no less than Blasphemy.

The Second Epistle to Amator is so gross a Fiction, that both Baronius and Binius reject it, being contrary to the true History delivered by Liberatus, whom the Notes call the most faithful Writer of this time k 1.295: Labbè agrees with them that it is spurious, and shews that Mercator stole it out of Gregory's Epistles, wishing that the like censure which is passed on this, were passed upon many more of these Writings. But the Letter of Amator to Sylverius, (which Labbè saith, Learned men suspect to be as false as the Popes answer to it,) Baronius will have to be genuine; and from this slight Forgery alone, he proves, That all the Catholick World groaned together, at the ignominies put upon the Bishop of the Universal

Church l 1.296: A rare Historian! Whose Assertions and his Evidence are both false.

Binius places the Second Council of Orleance in this year, but Labbe from Sirmondus puts it three years sooner, An. 533. in the time of Pope John the Se∣cond m 1.297; it was called, as the Preface saith, by the Command of the King of France, and made very good Canons, without Papal Advice or Authority. Binius his Notes here blunder this and the following Council, and will keep King Clovis alive three year longer than Nature allowed him, to support a Fable of this Kings giving the Pope a Golden Crown, An. 514. n 1.298 whereas he died An. 511. o 1.299.

The Third Council of Orleans, Binius sets An. 540. But Labbè more truly places it here p 1.300. However, it takes no notice of any Pope, though Vigilius about this time is pretended to have writ to Caesarius Bishop of Arles. This Synod made divers Canons for Discipline; and by the second Canon it appears, they were zealous for the Celibate of the Clergy: But the fourth shews, that hitherto the Canons in this case had not been obeyed; and the ninth Canon Decrees, That if any Clerks having Wives or Concubines were ignorantly ordain∣ed, they should not be removed.

§. 13. Vigilius was made Pope immediately after Syl∣verius * 1.301 was deposed, and while the Goths belieged Belli∣sarius in Rome, which was in this year: But the Editors from Baronius write An. 540. upon this entrance * 1.302, to cover the Fable of his new Election, after the death of Sylverius: But he must come in in the year 537: For Marcellinus places Vigilius his death An. 554. q 1.303, which makes up the 17 years and odd time that Anastasius truly allots Vigilius; whose Successor Pelagius entred, as Baro∣nius and the Editors own, An. 555, which is but 15 whole year from that year 540, in which (they say) he entred; and from which they falsly compute his time, who writ Letters dated An. 538, and acted in all things as the sole true Pope, from the time Sylve∣rius

was deposed; which was according to Anastasius, after he had sat one year and five Months r 1.304; and he followed Writers of undoubted credit, that is, Mar∣cellinus, who places his deposition and Vigilius his en∣trance An. 537 s 1.305; so doth Genebrard t 1.306, who with Platina allow Sylverius only some odd time above one year, in which all Writers before Baronius agree. His invention therefore it was to ascribe above 4 years to Sylverius u 1.307, that this false Chronology might cover his devisable, of a new Election of Vigilius, An. 540. which we justly reject as an idle Fable, invented to save the Honour of the Roman Chair: Yet it is well Baronius did not think Vigilius the true Pope all this time, for by that means we have his true Character, who, he saith, was driven on with the Whirlwind of Am∣bition, and like Lucifer fell from Heaven,—that his Sa∣criledge cried out on every side—he calls him a Schisma∣tick, a Simoniack, an Usurper, a wretched Man, an Here∣tick, a Wolf, a Thief, a false Bishop, and an Antichrist w 1.308; aggravating his Crimes with all his Rhetorick, where∣in he rather exceeds the Bounds of Modesty than of Truth; for he really was extreamly wicked, and be∣yond the power of the sanctifying Chair it self, to make him Holy. We have so fully described the Acts of this Pope, and all the false Stories about him in the following History of the Fifth General Council, that we may here pass him by, with a few brief Re∣marks.

First, Liberatus assures us, Vigilius did make good his promise to Theodora the Empress, and communicated with Hereticks x 1.309. Anastasius, a later Author of no credit denies this, and Binius is so fond of this Pope∣excusing Fiction, that he puts into the Text these words, See how Vigilius (though he came by evil means into the Papacy,) as soon as he got into that holy Chair esta∣blished by Gods Promise, was changed into another Man, condemning the Heresie he had promised to approve y 1.310. Which false and foolish Parenthesis Labbè was ashamed of, and leaves it out.

Secondly, There are very many idle Stories in A∣nastasius his life of this Pope, some of which I will briefly recite, the bare relation of them being enough to disprove them, viz. That when the People of Rome had accused Vigilius for a Murderer, and got the Em∣press to send for him Prisoner to Constantinople; the Romans as he was going off, first desired his Prayers, and then threw Stones at him—That though he was brought Prisoner to Justinian, yet the Emperor met and kissed him, and the People sang that Hymn—Behold the Lord the King cometh, &c.—Which being applied to the Pope is Blasphemy, and so the Editors and Baronius counted it, as did also Pope Simplicius, when the Heretical Bishop of Alexandria entring into Constantinople, permitted his Party to sing the words of an Hymn only due to Christ z 1.311. The rest shall be observed in the History of the 5th Council, where we may find also the Blunders, Fictions and Contra∣dictions of the Notes exposed, and so will mention but few of them here a 1.312, viz. That Vigilius cunningly Abdicated the Papacy after the death of Sylverius, and got himself new-elected by the Roman Clergy, who were divinely inspired in that act.—That Vigi∣lius was a Catholick, and only polluted by communi∣cating with Hereticks, (which was a horrid Crime formerly in Acacius.)—That Bellisarius was denied a Triumph at Constantinople, for his ill usage of the Pope.—That Vigilius Anathematized the Empress Theodora, and that God thereupon destroyed her.—That the Roman Church is so secured by Providence, that it is no blot to it, if we can prove this Pope Si∣moniacal and Heretical—(I ask by the way, why then do they tell so many Lies to cover this?)—That the Eastern Bishops depended upon Vigilius his Judgment, and stayed till he came to Constantinople, before they would subscribe the Edict against the three Chatpers.—That Justinian after his coming revoked this Edict.—That the Pope finally confirmed the 5th Council,—And lastly, That it was Sacriledge

in the Emperour, to presume to depose or confirm a Pope.—All which we shall shew to be notorius Falshoods.

The first Epistle of Vigilius is writ to three notori∣ous Hereticks, wherein he assures them he holds the same Faith with them b 1.313; and is so heretical, that the Editors are ashamed of it, and print only the beginning of it, pretending from Baronius that some Eutychian writ it in his name c 1.314. But the Rea∣der will remember, that the Annalist always con∣demns genuine Writings, if they reflect on the Pope, and justifies Forgeries, if they magnifie him; of which this is another clear instance; for Liberatus who was a little before called the most faithful Writer of his time, hath this Epistle at large, and affirms Vigilius writ it d 1.315. Yea, Victor Tuennensis hath recorded it as this Popes al∣most in the same syllables in his Chronicle! e 1.316, who is another Credible Writer of that Age. And both these Africans did ever after look on Vigilius as an Heretick for this, and so he was, but secretly for fear of Justi∣nian.

To whom about this time Vigilius openly writ an Or∣thodox Letter, though Baronius and the Editors place it Anno 540. and call it his 4th Epistle, pretending it was writ after Baronius his invented new election, and when the Holy Chair had set him right in Faith f 1.317. But my reason why I judge it writ Anno 538 soon after his entrance, is because it was customary for a new Pope to write to the Emperor, and give an Account of his Faith; and since Vigilius had been advanced by Justinian, it is not at all likely he should stay almost three years before he sent an Embassy to enquire if he were Ortho∣dox; and this Epistle having no Date they have clapt to it, another to Mennas, with a Date that smells of For∣gery, because the Emperors Embassador is made to sub∣scribe to the Popes Letter Anno 540, which is a thing so unusual, that either Justinian highly suspected Vigilius, or this Postscript is added by Mercator g 1.318. However it being certain that Vigilius had writ privately to An∣thimius,

Severus and Theodosius, that he was of the same Faith with them, and it being also probable that he writ these open Letters to Justinian and Mennas at the same time wherein he anathematizes those three Hereticks by name, and professes himself Orthodox, this proves him a most egregious Hypocrite and Dis∣sembler in points of Faith. I shall only briefly note on this fourth Epistle, that Vigilius reckning up the names of his immediate Predecessors, names not Sylve∣rius among them, which seems to intimate he was then alive: And Secondly, if Mercator did not thrust in that Sentence, That to disturb, or diminish the Priviledges of the Apostolical Seat, appeared as bad as violating the Faith: If this (say,) be not a latter Addition, we may infer, That Vigilius was more concerned for the power of his See, than for the Faith.

That which the Editors call the Second Epistle, was writ to one Eutherius Anno 538: And though they and Baronius say he was then no true Pope h 1.319; yet the Collectors of the Decretal Epistles did not think so, for they have put this among the Decretals of true Popes. Du Pin hath well observed, that the latter part of this Epistle is forged by Mercator, where Vi∣gilius is supposed so ignorant of Greek, (after he had lived long in Greece,) as to derive Cephas, (the name of St. Peter) from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, an Head. And in this cor∣rupt part is that absurd Sentence,—That no true Be∣liever was ignorant, that all Churches had their begin∣ning from Rome: Which though a Forgery, serves the Editors to note upon in the Margen, The Church of Rome is the Mother and Mistress of all Churches: Of which they have no better evidence than such Trash, and so must be content with such as they have.

The Third Epistle to Caesarius Bishop of Arles, was writ in the same year; and proves that Vigilius was taken for the true Pope, as well by this eminent Fa∣ther i 1.320, as by Eutherius, Anno 538.

The Sixth, Seventh and Eighth Epistles are writ to * 1.321 Auxanius Successor to Caesarius, and shew Vigilius was then so much at the Emperors devotion, that he durst not grant a Pall to a French Bishop without the leave of Justinian k 1.322; and when he had (above a year after) got this leave, he tells Auxanius he was obliged to pray for the Emperor and the Empress, who had given their consent l 1.323. Now if Theodora were so great a Friend to Hereticks as Baronius pretends, 'tis plain, Vigilius then was a Favourite of hers, which makes him still suspected to be inclined to Heresie: But there is one mistake in this Epistle, viz. That his Predecessor had granted a Pall to Caesarius, which De Marca saith is false, and affirms this Auxainus to have been the first Legate the Pope made in France: A hopeful High-Priest to begin that Usurpation upon Metropoli∣tans.

In this year was that Edict put out, which condem∣ned * 1.324 the three Chapters; and here the Editors call it, The Edict of the most pious Emperor Justinian, containing a Confession of Faith, and a Confutation of the Heresies, that are contrary to the Catholick Church of God m 1.325. But for fear Vigilius and his Party might appear Heretical for opposing this Orthodox Edict, the Editors will not print it here, but thrust it on some hundred Pages fur∣ther n 1.326. And put in here their false Comment before the Text, hoping by the sham Stories in these Notes, to take off the Readers aversation to this Heretical Pope: But since all the Errors of these Notes are confuted at large in the History of the Fifth Coun∣cil, I will only name a few of them now, viz. That Pelagius the Popes Secretary always opposed this Edict, is false, for he afterwards subscribed it.—He saith Vigilius, Pontianus (whose Letter is here printed) and Facundus, who writ against this Edict, were Orthodox.—But the Fifth Council condemns all for Hereticks, who wrote for the three Chapters' here censured; and none but Heretical Writers could take upon them to confute an Orthodox Confession of Faith: The De∣cree

of Vigilius for silence, with his prudence and courage, are all Fictions, as shall be shewn in due place.

Vigilius had now been near three years at Constan∣tinople, and carried fair with Justinian, so that doubt∣less * 1.327 he had signed his Edict, which condemned the persons of Theodorus, Theodoret and Ibas, and their He∣retical Writings; yet here is an Epistle of his to a Scy∣thian Bishop, citing his Constitution (which defends these three Chapters,) and wishes the persons of Theo∣dorus, &c. might not be condemned, as some favourers of Heresie desired: Yet in the same Epistle o 1.328 he saith, he had Suspended his two Deacons for defending the three Chapters, and would shortly Excommunicate them: Now what the Notes on this Epistle say, That both the Opposers and Defenders of the three Chapters hated Vigili∣us p 1.329▪ is no wonder, for he was false to all Parties, and such trimming Sycophants, who strive to please all, get the favour of no body.

The Fifteenth Epistle to the Universal Church, Ba∣ronius * 1.330 and the Editors do not censure; but it is a meer Forgery, being falsly dated (as they own) in the 26 of Justinian 552; they alter it to 551. Binius found but part of it in Baronius, so prints no more: But Labbé adds a great deal more, not saying where he had it q 1.331: As to the matter of it, the Story of this Popes sufferings at Constantinople is false and improbable, not attested by any credible Writer of that time: And whereas he saith, he had Excommunicated and Depo∣sed Theodorus Bishop of Caesarea, and Suspended Mennas Patriarch of Constantinople, that must be false, because the Popes Legates in the sixth General Council affirm, that Mennas died the 21st year of Justinian, (four year before the Date of this Letter,) An. 547 r 1.332. Wherefore this Epistle and the Instrument of Condemnation a∣gainst Theodorus and Mennas are Forgeries s 1.333: And it is very unjust, for Baronius and the Annotator on the credit of such stuff so rudely to rail at Justinian, as if he were the vilest Heretick and greatest Mon∣ster

upon Earth. There are many other things in these Notes deserving censure t 1.334, viz. The affirming that Theodorus of Caesaria deposed Zoilus of Alexandria, and put in Apollinaris; whereas Liberatus expresly saith, the Emperor did this u 1.335: The Stories of Justiman's re∣voking his Edict, and of Theodorus and Mennas humble submission delivered in writing to Vigilius, and of his absolving them, are equally false and most improbable, so that scarce any thing here can be trusted. Were this Epistle genuine I would have observed, that Pope Vigi∣lius here saith, he knew Justinian's Hand-writing w 1.336: And that utterly confutes Baronius and Suidas, who say, he was altogether illiterate. I would also note, That the Pope here affirms, (An. 551.) he had been seven year out of his Country, attending for the Peace of the Church x 1.337: Now if this be true, he must leave Rome An. 544, that is, three years before Baronius his Account; and this will also prove some of his Epistles to Auxanius counter∣feit, being dated from Rome after that time. But after all, I reckon this false account of the Pope's Journey, to be a sign that this Epistle is a Forgery; only those who count it genuine ought to solve these difficulties.

There is nothing more in our Editors vere remarka∣ble, but only some few French Councils, called by their own Kings, and the Canons in them made by their own Bishops, without any notice of Papal Authority, and so without any Corruptions. Wherefore we pass them, and go on to the Fifth General Council, where Vigilius will be brought on the Stage again.

An Epitome of Dr. Crakenthorp's * 1.338 Treatise of the Fifth General Council at Constantinople, Anno 553.

Chap. i. THE occasion of this Council, was the Trio Capitulu, or three Chapters about the Writings of Theodorus of Mopsvestia, Theo∣doret against Cyril, and the Epi∣stle of Ibas to Maris, which the Nestorians pretended was all approved by the Council of Chalcedon; whereupon some doubted of the Authori∣ty of that Holy Council, and the several Sects (called from their having no one Head, Acephali) rejected it: So that to appease this dangerous Schism, Justinian set forth an Orthodox Edict a 1.339 to condemn those Wri∣tings: And that not satisfying all Parties, he assembled this Fifth General Council.

Chap. ii. Pope Vigilius was then at Constantinople, and often desired by the Bishops, and commanded by the Emperor to be present b 1.340: Baronius falsly saith, they had no regard to him c 1.341; yet he afterwards owns twenty Metropolitans, and three Patriarchs invited him to come, and offered him the Presidency d 1.342, urging him with a Promise under his Hand to to be there e 1.343: Vigilius first pretended to be Sick, so they adjourned

the first Session, on his saying he would satisfie them next day f 1.344. Then he alledged there were but few Western Bishops; but they shewed there were more with him at that time, than had been in all the four former Great Councils g 1.345. He pretended also, he would offer his Sense to the Emperor alone h 1.346; but the Emperor re∣quired him to do it to the Council i 1.347: So that the true reason why he would not be there, was, his Affection to the Nestorians and the three Chapters.

Chap. iii. Upon this the Council resolves to proceed without him k 1.348; which Cusanus saith, ought to be done for the safety of the Church, when the Pope is resolved not to come l 1.349; and herein they follow the Example of the Council of Chalcedon, who proceeded without the Popes Legates, when they would not stay and join with them m 1.350. Wherefore in the third Colla∣tion this 5th Council declared the true Faith, and in the 4th and 5th examine the Cause of Theodorus and Theo∣doret: On the fifth day (saith Baronius,) Pope Vigilius sent his Constitution to the Council n 1.351, being made by the advice of 16 Bishops and 3 Deacons, and de∣signed to oblige the whole Church, the Western agree∣ing with him in it o 1.352, and delivered by Apostolical Authority p 1.353 Wherein he confirms the three Chapters, declaring 1st, That Theodorus of Mopsvestia cannot be condemned after his death q 1.354. 2ly, That Theodoret's name should not be taxed r 1.355. 3ly, That Ibas Epistle to Maris was Catholick, and both he and that Epistle re∣ceived by the Council of Chalcedon as Catholick and Or∣thodox s 1.356. But Binius cuts off the five last Columns (which are added by Baronius and Labbè,) and which shew how fully Vigilius confirmed all the three Chapters

Chap. iv. In the 6th Collation the Council having received this Constitution, do notwithstanding go on to examine Ibas Epistle t 1.357: And wonder any dare presume to say, it was received by the Council of Chalcedon u 1.358; Which Baronius owns was levelled at Vigilius, though out of respect he be not named w 1.359. And after a strict Examination, They pronounce, that the approvers of this Epistle are Followers of Theodo∣rus and Nestorius the Hereticks; They shew the Coun∣cil at Chalcedon, owns God was made Man, which this Epistle calls Apollinarism; That Council confesses Mary to be the Mother of God, the Epistle denies it; They commend the Council of Ephesus, and Cyril's twelve Chapters condemning Nestorius; Ibas condemns the Council of Ephesus, defends Nestorius, and calls Cyril an Heretick, and his 12 Chapters impious: They stuck to Cyril's Faith and the Nicene Creed, he condemns Cyril's Faith, and commends Theodorus his Creed: They held two Natures, but one Person in Christ; He is for two Persons also x 1.360: Whereupon this 5th Council Decree the whole Epistle to be Heretical, and Anathe∣matize all as Hereticks who receive it y 1.361. And for this reason Binius leaves out of his Edition the most of that part of Vigilius's Constitution, which concerns Ibas his Epistle: And Baronius (who puts it in) with the Nestorians, would excuse it by saying the latter part of this Epistle is Orthodox: But the Council condemns the whole Epistle z 1.362, and all that say any part of it is right a 1.363; and all that write for it or defend it b 1.364. So that Pope Vigilius, Baronius, Bellarmine and all the Writers for this Heretical Epistle, were and are accur∣sed by the Sentence of this General Council: And if (as Baronius pretends) the Popes Legates at Chalcedon, say, that Ibas appeared a Catholick by this Epistle c 1.365; the 5th Council shews the Fathers at Chalcedon condemned it, not heeding what two or three said d 1.366. Baronius urges, (as the Nestorians did,) that Eunomius said at Chalce∣don, the latter end of Ibas Epistle was Orthodox e 1.367; but the 5th Council saith, this is a Calumny f 1.368, and

cite the very words of Eunomius out of the Council at Chalcedon; which import that Ibas was innocent, after he had agreed with Cyril and renounced his Epistle, which he had done in the Acts before Photius and Eu∣stathius g 1.369. The 7th Collation of this 5th Council, was only repeating and approving former Acts h 1.370. In the 8th Collation, Baronius owns this Council condem∣ned the three Chapters contrary to Vigilius Decree i 1.371, and Anathematize all that did defend them k 1.372, that is, Vigilius, whom Baronius often commends as a defen∣der of them l 1.373: Yea, they declare them Hereticks, by the Doctrin of the Scriptures and holy Fathers, and of the four former Councils m 1.374: All which therefore Vigilius contradicted in his Constitution. And whate∣ver Baronius first says to disparage this Council, it was ratified by the 6th Council n 1.375, by the seventh, or se∣cond Nicene Council, Act. 6. yea, (and as Baronius con∣fesseth o 1.376), by all succeeding General Councils; by the Popes, Pelagius, Gregory the Great; Agatho, Leo the second, and by all succeeding Popes, who were sworn to observe all the General Councils, and this among others p 1.377. To which we may add the Councils of Basil and Constance, and all the Catholick Church till Leo the 10th's Lateran Council, An. 1516, which contra∣ry to the Catholick Faith q 1.378 decreed no Council could con∣demn a Pope: Wherefore we may conclude, Vigilius was a condemned Heretick.

Chap. v. Now let us examine Baronius his shifts, and those Binius learns from him. First, they pretend this was not a point of Faith, but concerned only persons r 1.379: Which is most false; For the Emperor Justinian calls it a mat∣ter of Faith s 1.380: so doth the 5th Council it self de∣clare t 1.381: Yea, Vigilius in his Constitution calls the condemning these three Chapters Erring from the Faith; and Facundus the Apologist for them saith, the oppo∣sing them was rooting out the Catholick and Aposto∣lick Faith u 1.382. On the other side Pope Pelagius saith, they are contrary to the Faith, and to receive them is to

overthrow the Faith of Ephesus w 1.383; which Epistle Gre∣gory the Great confirms x 1.384. Bellarmine saith, that is de fide, which a Council defines to be so, and calls the opposers of it Hereticks and accurseth them y 1.385. And Baronius calls the Emperors Edict for the three Chap∣ters, Sanctio de fide Catholica z 1.386, and Fidei decretum a 1.387, So that it must be a matter of Faith: And Gregory the Great was mistaken if he meant, that this 5th Council handled no matters of Faith, but treated of Persons b 1.388: For the contrary is manifest. But indeed Gregory means they altered no point of Faith established at Chalcedon, as some in his time fancied; only condemning the persons there examined; but still it was by shewing they held notorious Heresies.

Chap. vi. But to consider the three Chapters several∣ly: The first was about Theodorus of Mopsvestia, who (as Vigilius saith c 1.389,) should not be condemned after he was dead, citing Leo and Gelasius for it, as having decreed it for a point of Faith: But on the other side St. Austin declares, if Caecilian were guilty of the Crimes objected (100 years after his death,) he would Anathe∣matize him d 1.390: Pelagius urges and approves of this Doctrin of St. Austin, and saith Leo agreed with him e 1.391. The same is proved in the 5th Council, to have been the Opinion of St. Cyril, of the African Council, &c. f 1.392 Thus also Domnus was condemned at Chalcedon after his death, and many of the old Hereticks g 1.393: Honorius was condemned by name sixty years after his death h 1.394. Yea, Baronius who urges this in excuse of Vigilius in one place i 1.395, in another declares that it is a mistake, and that the Church of Rome doth condemn Men after their death k 1.396; So as he is forced to commend and condemn the same Fact; and to excuse this reason of Vigilius, he disputes for both sides of a Contradiction: As to our Saviours words, of binding and loosing on Earth, Math 18. which Gelasius and Vigilius cite, they respect the living Ministers on Earth, and not the Persons bound or loosed: And Leo and Gelasius both speak of

loosing Persons, who dyed Excommunicate and Im∣penitent, which they held unlawful; but neither of them say with Vigilius, That an Heretick, who is not discovered till after his death, and dyed in Heresie, may not be condemned then.

Chap. vii. Vigilius pretends in the second place, that this Theodorus dyed in the peace of the Church l 1.397; which objection is taken notice of, both by Justini∣an m 1.398 and the 5th Council n 1.399, and largely disproved by shewing he was condemned as an Heretick by all Churches, for that he dyed in his impiety; and the Council say it is a Lye to affirm the contrary: Where∣fore Baronius falsly saith, Vigilius knew he dyed in the Communion of the Church o 1.400. For even Binius saith, this cannot be believed, because Justinian's Edict wit∣nesseth the contrary p 1.401, even that he dyed in Heresie. So that unless an Heretick be in the Communion of the Church, Theodorus dyed not in that Communion.

Chap. viii. The Popes third reason is, that neither the Fathers, nor Councils had condemned Theodorus, par∣ticularly not Cyril, nor Proclus, nor the Synods of E∣phesus or Chalcedon q 1.402: But the 5th Council cites the very words of Cyril and Proclus, which declare him an Heretick and condemn him r 1.403. They cite the words of Cyril to John of Antioch, in the Council of Ephesus, which say there were two Sons s 1.404: Also Cyril's Epistle approved at Chalcedon saith, the Council of Ephesus Anathematized not only Nestorius, but all that taught as he did t 1.405: And Nestorius being Theodorus his Scho∣lar, as the Emperor shews u 1.406, the 5th Council doubts not to affirm he was condemned in the former great Council w 1.407; So Pelagius the second saith, the Ephesine Council condemned Theodorus and his Creed x 1.408: Vigilius indeed denies it was his Creed; but Cyril saith it was his, and produced it under his name in the Council of Ephesus, and condemned it y 1.409: So the not mention∣ing his name in the Anathema, is but a fallacious proof

of his being not condemned there: But when the Nestorians began to shroud themselves under his name, then a Synod in Armenia condemned him by name z 1.410, and Proclus exhorted them so to do as Cyril affirms a 1.411, and Cyril there condemns him by name b 1.412: So did Theodosius and Valentiniam, by their Edicts which the 5th Council cites c 1.413. The Church of Mopsvestia put his name out of the Dypticks d 1.414: And Sergius Bishop of Cyrus was deposed for reckoning his name among the Orthodox Bishops: Wherefore the 5th Council rightly declares, That the Catholick Church had cast out Theo∣dorus after his death, for his impious Writings e 1.415. But Pope Vigilius cites two forged Epistles of Cyril and Proclus, to shew that neither of them condemned Theo∣dorus f 1.416. And with the Nestorians he denies, that these Impious Writings were composed by Theodo∣rus g 1.417. But the Armenian Synod, St. Cyril, Justi∣nian and the 5th Council, all say they were writ by Theodorus; the same is also affirmed by Pope Pelagi∣us h 1.418: As for what Vigilius objects, that the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon were against condemning Theodorus after his death i 1.419, Liberatus fortunes to say the same k 1.420; And Baronius, who takes no notice of Vigilius, severely taxes Liberatus for this, as a Nestori∣an falshood charged on the Council of Chalcedon l 1.421. And Binius saith, it is contrary to Cyril's Writings (re∣ceived at Ephesus,) and to the Acts at Chalcedon m 1.422. Finally, Vigilius most falsly saith, the Emperor Justini∣an himself, as if he quoted the Acts of Chalcedon in his Edict for the Trinity, is for clearing Theodorus n 1.423; which is so gross a slander as can scarce be paralleld. For Justinian in that very Edict condemns Nestorius and all that Teach with him o 1.424; yea, he censures Theodorus by name in a particular Epistle, writ to this 5th Council p 1.425: On these frivolous and false grounds Vigilius Decrees, none shall condemn Theodorus q 1.426: But the 5th Council, without scruple justly condemns both him, and all that held with him or defended him, that is, Pope Vigilius for one.

Chap. ix. Secondly, Vigilius held the Heretical side as to the Writings of Theodoret, whose person after re∣nouncing his former Heresie all agree to be Catholick; So that this is a point of Doctrin, not concerning a person. Yet first Vigilius pretends, Theodoret did not write these Papers against Cyril, alledged under his name, as (he saith) appeared to the Council at Chal∣cedon r 1.427, which is most false; For Binius owns he writ against Cyril, and defended both Nestorius and Theodo∣rus s 1.428; and Baronius over and over confesseth the same thing t 1.429: So doth Liberatus, cap. 4. and Pope Pelagius ep. 7. and the Councils both of Ephesus and Chalcedon u 1.430: Yea, Theodoret himself in his Epistles (cited in the 5th Council, and by Pope Pelagius) owns it w 1.431; So that it is a wonder Vigilius durst urge so weak and false a thing: But he objects, The Council of Chalcedon only required him to renounce Nestorius, not to condemn his own Writings x 1.432: Which is a meer fallacy, for he writ for Nestorius, and against Cyrils twelve Chapters: Now since he condemned all the Doctrins of Nestorius at Chalcedon, and also subscribed the twelve Chapters, he did really and virtually, though not by name, Ana∣thematize his own Writings y 1.433: Yea, Pelagius saith expresly, he did condemn his own Writings z 1.434. And though at the Council of Chalcedon this General Con∣demnation sufficed, yet when the Nestorians in the time of Justinian, defended themselves by Theodoret's Writings, it was necessary to condemn them expresly, and by name. Thirdly, Vigilius saith, Cyril on the Union with the Eastern Bishops, required none of them to renounce their own Writings a 1.435: Which sig∣nifies nothing, since Cyril made them all Anathematize Nestorius, whose Cause they had defended before he would communicate with them b 1.436. Wherefore Vigilius falsly concludes those Writings innocent, which so vi∣gorously defend Nestorius his Doctrin; and if he and Theodoret vindicated these Writings, after they had condemned Nestorius, they contradict themselves, con∣demn

only a name, but held the Heretical Doctrins still: Which is plain also from Vigilius his affirming, That the Council of Chalcedon would have no Nesto∣rian Doctrins condemned under Theodoret's name c 1.437. That Council did condemn all that defended Nestorius, of which these very Writings of Theodoret were the chief: But he there recanting his Errors, they condem∣ned those Errors, when they declared him Orthodox. And it was Vigilius favour for Nestorianism, which makes him so Zealous for Theodoret's Nestorian Wri∣tings.

Chap. x. Thirdly, Vigilius held the Heretical side as to Ibas his Epistle, affirming that the Council of Chal∣cedon pronounced it to be Orthodox d 1.438: But the 5th Council expresly say, the Council of Chalcedon did condemn and cast it out e 1.439. Again, Vigilius saith, the whole Council of Chalcedon agreed with Pas∣casinus and Maximus, who say that Ibas by this Epistle was declared a Catholick f 1.440. Whereas the 5th Council positively declare, that the discourse of these two single persons, was not regarded at Chalcedon g 1.441: And Baronius, after so many succeeding Popes and Coun∣cils had confirmed this 5th Council, most impudently relates both these untruths, viz. That the Fathers of Chalcedon received this Epistle as Catholick, and that by it they did judge Ibas Orthodox h 1.442; yet in contradicti∣on to himself, he in other places i 1.443 not only doubteth, whether Ibas did write this Epistle, but affirms expresly, it was found at Chalcedon not to be Ibas his Epistle, citing for it the wretched Nicene Council for Images, where this and many false Stories are found: And after all, the Cardinal forgetting himself, saith else∣where k 1.444; The Council of Chalcedon said it was his Epistle, and Ibas owned it to be his own, and that it was well known to be the Epistle of Ibas, and he cites the 10th Act of the Council of Chalcedon to prove this, which he out of the very Acts of Chalcedon had de∣nied before: Into so many confusions and snares,

doth he fall by labouring to defend this Heretical Pope.

Chap. xi. Whose frauds, with Baronius's, will fur∣ther appear if we observe, that the true General Council at Ephesus excommunicated Ibas l 1.445, and the spurious Synod excommunicated Cyril m 1.446: The Em∣peror Theodosius to heal this breach, writes to John of Antioch, Patron of the Nestorians, to condemn Nestorius and agree with Cyril n 1.447: And he at last with his Ac∣complices consented so to do, Anathematizing Ne∣storius, approving the Ephesine Council, and subscribed Cyril's Confession of Faith o 1.448, and so were received into the Peace of the Church, and an Union was made between them and Cyril: Now Vigilius and Baro∣nius pretend, that Ibas in the end of his Epistle men∣tioneth this Union of John and Cyril with joy, there∣fore he was a Catholick when he writ it p 1.449; and was so proved at Chalcedon by this Epistle; especially by the latter end of it q 1.450: But the 5^th Council condemns the whole Epistle, and say the latter part of it is most impious r 1.451. And they had good reason, for though Baronius pretend this Epistle was writ upon the Eastern Bishops Union with Cyril s 1.452; That is most false; for that Union was, An. 432, or 433, and Rambulus was then Bishop of Edessa. But Ibas succeeded him, and mentions in this Epistle an Edict condemning Theodorns of Mopsvestia, dated An. 435 t 1.453; yea Rambulus was still Bishop of Edessa, and upon this Edict condemned Theodorus, so that Ibas could not write this Epistle till 2 or 3 years after the Union, being Bishop of Edessa when he writ it u 1.454: Yet then in this very Epistle he affirmed, God was not incarnate, nor Mary the Mo∣ther of God: So that the Union Ibas praises God for, must be that false Report spread by the Nestorians of Cyril's recanting, and yielding to John of Antioch w 1.455: So Theodoret 12 years after the Union brags, that the East and Egypt were now agreed, that God was not crucified x 1.456. And Ibas explains himself in this very

Epistle by saying, God had subdued the Heart of the E∣gyptian to subscribe; John of Antioch saith, Yea, to the very Heresie of Nestorius, which this Author calls the Faith y 1.457 in the latter end of this Epistle; by which Baronius saith he proved himself a Catholick z 1.458: Yet Baronius owns this Story of Cyril's recantation, was a vile calumny of the Nestorians, who (as he pretends) forged this Epistle for Ibas, but it was found to be none of his a 1.459; which is a ridiculous contradiction: And yet these shifts he is put to in justifying an Epistle, wholly condemned in the 5^th General Council. But to proceed, Ibas must relate to this feigned Union, be∣cause the Nestorians did at first require that Cyril should recant his twelve Chapters b 1.460, and by the proposals of Eusebius Bishop Emisa made to him c 1.461, which were in vain; and John of Antioch was forced at last by that Bishop, to send his Submission to Cyril's Faith: To which second message Cyril indeed consented, and thence the Nestorians falsly said he consented to the first, and (as they requested) condemned his twelve Chapters; which remaining Orthodox, Ibas his Epistle must be Heretical, as it expresses a joy for Cyril's sup∣posed consent to Nestorianism.

Chap. xii. The next Method which Vigilius and Ba∣ronius take to prove Ibas Orthodox, is by the Words of this Epistle, wherein he rejects Cyril's twelve Chapters for teaching one Nature, and affirms, Two Natures and One Person d 1.462. Now the Nestorians could say this craftily like Catholicks, but their meaning was, that each Nature made a distinct subsistence, united only by Cohabitation, so that the Son of God dwelt in the Son of Mary; as may be collected from Nestorius own words e 1.463: And from Justinian's Edict, where he saith, for Person, they perfidiously used the word Na∣tures f 1.464. But Vigilius, to clear Ibas, saith, Dioscorus and the Pseudo Ephesine Synod did condemn Flavianus for this Confession of Two Natures g 1.465. 'Tis replyed, they were all Eutychians who denied two Natures in

all Senses, and so might condemn these words, whe∣ther Flavianus the Catholick in a right Sense, or Iba•• the Nestorian in a wrong, used them: And whereas Vigilius urges, that the Council of Chalcedon condem∣ned Dioscorus and received Ibas h 1.466; 'Tis plain, they condemned his whole Epistle, as the 5^th Council prove at large i 1.467, and received him only after he had re∣nounced the Doctrin of this Epistle: Again, Vigilius would justifie the Epistle by pleading, that Ibas owned the true Ephesine Council, before Photius and Eustathi∣us i 1.468: But it was proved before that Ibas writ this Epistle, An. 434, and was then an Heretick; but the Acts before Photius were not till 14 years after k 1.469; But his being a Catholick then, is no proof that his Epistle is Orthodox: Further, Vigilius saith, that Ibas mistook Cyril till he explained his Chapters, after which he and the Eastern Bishops ran into Cyril's Commui∣on l 1.470. And Baronius saith, that he did communicate with Cyril, after he had purged himself of the suspi∣cion of being an Apollinarist by declaring his Chap∣ters m 1.471: Yet Baronius himself owns, that Cyril explain∣ed his Chapters at Ephesus, while he was in Prison there, An. 431 n 1.472, while the Pseudo-Synod sat; and so their Title declares o 1.473. But Ibas writ this Epistle above 2 years after this Explanation, and was then a Nestorian: Nor did the Eastern Bishops communicate with him till long after; and Theodoret writ bitterly against him, after that they were reconciled to Cyril p 1.474. And Binius owns the difference between Cyril and the Eastern Bishops, endured full three years after the Council q 1.475; yet Ibas writ this Epistle after the Union was made, as the 5^th Council expresly declares r 1.476: From all which it is plain that Vigilius mistakes the point; for the Explanation Ibas meant of was Cyril's absolute revoking his twelve Chapters, (a Forgery of the Nestorians) which in the Epistle he calls his Recan∣ting; not this Orthodox Explanation of the twelve Chapters, as Vigilius pretends; yea, it was proved before Photius and Eustathius that, Ibas said, He would not have

received Cyril, if he had not Anathematized his Chap∣ters s 1.477. Wherefore Ibas his Epistle was always Here∣tical, and he an Heretick until he recanted and came over to Cyril's Faith; but Vigilius falsly affirms him to have been Orthodox, both before he rightly under∣stood Cyril's meaning and afterwards t 1.478, and wrong∣fully supposes Cyril came over to Ibas, who held two Persons, but called them two Natures; from all which it manifestly appears, 1st, That the dispute about this Epistle was a cause of Faith. 2ly, That Ibas his Epi∣stle was Heretical. 3ly, That Vigilius and Baronius in this dispute take the Heretical side.

Chap. xiii. Baronius further pretends, that neither the asserting or denying these three Chapters, could denominate Men Hereticks u 1.479: But this was fully dis∣proved before (see Chap. 5.) And since this was a cause of Faith, in which the whole 5^th Council held contrary to Pope Vigilius, it will follow, that Men may contradict the Popes Decisions in Articles of Faith, and be no Hereticks: Yea, since here the Pope was on the wrong side, they who are to believe all such Decisi∣ons must sometimes be Hereticks. Secondly, Baronius falsly affirms, that they who held contrary to the Pope here∣in, were Schismaticks Convict w 1.480. 'Tis true, there was a Schism, as he confesseth x 1.481: But Vigilius and his Party were the Schismaticks, who separated from a General Council, owned for such by all Catholicks.

Chap. xiv. In the next place, Baronius would excuse Vigilius from Heresie, because he professed to hold the Faith of the Council of Chalcedon, and writ his Con∣stitution to defend it y 1.482: So did Victor z 1.483, so Facundus Hermianensis a 1.484, who writ for the three Chapters, pre∣tend: Yea, Vigilius himself in his Constitution pre∣tends to maintain the Faith of that great Coun∣cil b 1.485. But let it be considered, that the 5^th General Council after a strict examining all these pretences, A∣nathematizes all that defend the three Chapters in the

name of the Council of Chalcedon c 1.486, which Fact all Ca∣tholicks who approve this 5th Council must consent to. And nothing is more usual with all sorts of Hereticks, than to profess they believe as the Orthodox Councils and Fathers have believed; yet they were condemned for all that pretence, (See particular instances of this, as to the Eutychians, Monothelites, Nestorians and Modern Romanists, in the learned Author d 1.487: Therefore Baro∣nius his excuse is frivolous, since Hereticks professions are as false and contradictory as their Doctrins: And Vigilius would not forsake the three Chapters, no not when they were proved contrary to the Council of Chalcedon, and forbids any to write or speak against them, so as he might never be convicted or convinced.

Chap. xv. Baronius his third excuse for Vigilius is, that he confirmed the 5th Council e 1.488: And Bellarmine saith, he did confirm it f 1.489: Binius adds, no Man doubts it: But if Vigilius case be examined, it will be found he changed four times in this Cause of Faith. First, While he was at Rome, upon Justinian's first putting out the Edict, he opposed it h 1.490, and stirred up Facun∣dus a Nestorian to write against the Emperor in rude Language i 1.491. Yea, Baronius in the same place Rails * 1.492 at Justinian for this Edict; and Vigilius writ a threat∣ning Letter to Constantinople, against all that should joyn with the Emperor k 1.493: So that Vigilius, Facundus and Baronius stand all Anathematized by the 5th Coun∣cil, for writing in defence of the three Chapters l 1.494. But Secondly, As soon as Vigilius was come to Constan∣tinople he changed his Mind, and in a Council of 30 Bishops condemned the three Chapters, which Facun∣dus upbraids him with m 1.495; and Baronius confesses he writ a Book against them, and sent it to Mennas Bi∣shop of Constantinople; and that he excommunicated Rusticus and Sebastianus (two Roman Deacons,) with other defenders of the three Chapters n 1.496; and in those Epistles writ about these Men, he calls this wri∣ting to Mennas, his Constitution, his Judgment by Peter's

Authority o 1.497. For which the other Party called him a Deserter, a Prevaricator, &c. p 1.498; and Victor saith, that the African Bishops in a Synod excommunicated him q 1.499; yet Baronius owns these Bishops at that time were Catholicks: Nor doth it excuse this Pope, that he revoked this Constitution which condemned the three Chapters, presently after it was published; and made another Decree, that all should keep silence till the General Council r 1.500. For this only shews him a Dissembler, and a neutral in a Cause of Faith: But Thirdly, At the 5th Council Vigilius returns to his Vo∣mit, condemns the imperial Edict, and defends the three Chapters (as we shewed before s 1.501), and was so obstinate as to endure Banishment for this Opinion t 1.502, which (though none suffered for but such as the 5th Council declared Hereticks,) Baronius calls an heavy persecution u 1.503; and indeed his suffering on this side shews he was always a Nestorian in his Heart: But Fourthly, Binius and Baronius say, he changed again after the 5th Council, and condemning the three Chap∣ters was enlarged, but died in his way home w 1.504. Yea, they are confident that he did confirm the 5th Council, (and so condemn his late Constitution x 1.505): Which last change no ancient Author mentions: And though this only could keep him from dying in Heresie, yet this is a Fiction of Baronius, who will say any thing to save a Popes credit; an instance of which we have in his commending this Proteus, for a Man of Wisdom and Constancy y 1.506, and in Binius his praising Vigilius for a prudent and pious Pope, who imitated St. Paul in changing his Mind z 1.507; while Justinian, who was al∣ways Orthodox and stood firm, is by these Parasites decried as a wicked perfidious person a 1.508: So that Truth in others is Error, and Error in a Pope is Truth, yea, if a Pope hold Contradiction, he is always in the Right.

Chap. xvi. But in this Account of Vigilius changes, two of them are forged by Baronius: First, that Decree of silence is a Fable, though it be so often mentioned in the Annals b 1.509, and though he say Vigilius decreed this Synodically c 1.510, and affirm that Theodorus and Mennas consented to it d 1.511, and that he and Justinian had pro∣mised to observe this silence e 1.512: Whereupon he pre∣tends Vigilius excommunicated Theodorus and suspended Mennas f 1.513; And stoutly opposing Justinian, who this year hung up his Edict in contradiction to this De∣cree of silence g 1.514; though he fled to St. Peter's Church, and then to Chalcedon, yet thence he thundred out his spiritual Darts against them all, and rescinded the Em∣perors Decree h 1.515. Upon this Baronius says, the Em∣peror revoked his Edict, and Theodorus repented and submitted, as did also Mennas, and so all were content * 1.516 to be silent till the Council, and great Joy followed thereupon: Now this is all Fiction: For first, if there had been such a Decree for silence, let it be noted, Domnus was condemned at Chalcedon for an Heretick, in that he decreed silence should be kept about Cyril's twelve Chapters k 1.517. And by that Rule, Vigilius would have been Heretical for his Decree: Whereas the truth is, he never made any such Decree; for Justi∣nian affirms, that from his first coming to Constanti∣nople, until the Council, he always was for condemning the three Chapters k 1.518; and as the Emperors messen∣ger affirms, to the 5th Council then assembled, he of∣ten promised to joyn with them in it l 1.519. Nor did Vigilius observe his own Decree, which is pretended to be made An. 547. the 21st. of Justinian m 1.520, and to have silenced all Disputes: For in the 22d year of that Emperor, the two Roman Deacons above named, ac∣cused Vigilius for condeming the three Chapters by their Leuers to divers Bishops n 1.521. In Justinian's 23d year, Vigilius purges himself to Valentinianus from these Slanders, by appealing to his Judgment, sent unto Mennas, to which he declares he then adhered o 1.522. In the Emperors 24th year, he writ the like Apology to

Aurelianus p 1.523; and as Baronius proves, the same year he published his Sentence against Rusticus, Sabinianus, and others for defending the three Chapters q 1.524. Now how could he by word and writing, thus sentence and punish all that disliked his Condemnation of the three Chapters, and appeal to his Judgment in that case, if there had been a revocation of it, and a Synodal De∣cree of Taciturnity three year before? Nor did Justi∣nian know of, or consent to any such Decree; for Victor saith, in his 22d year he writ for the Condemnation of the three Chapters, compelling divers Bishops to con∣demn them r 1.525. The next year the Illyrian Bishops persuaded the Emperor not to proceed so s 1.526; so did Fa∣eundus in the 24th year; but he that year called the Council at Mopsvestia to condemn Theodorus t 1.527. In his 25th year, Victor and Liberatus declared, he dealt with the African Primates and Bishops to condemn these Chapters; and got Zoilus Patriarch of Alexandria de∣prived for refusing it u 1.528, and in his 26th year (just before the Council,) he Banished several obstinate Afri∣rican Bishops w 1.529: So it is very ridiculous in Baronius, to speak of the Emperor's publishing his Edict An. 25th x 1.530, since it was published long before; and to pretend he revoked it the next year, since Justinian every year writ and acted in the defence of it: We add, that neither did Theodorus and the Catholicks ob∣serve this Decree of silence; for Vigilius sentences them for writing against the defenders of these Chapters y 1.531. No nor yet did the Hereticks value it: for they writ warmly for the three Chapters all that time z 1.532: Yea, Victor notes, that the Illyrian Synod in the 23d year of Justinian, and the African in the 24th writ for the three Chapters a 1.533. Well, but Baronius cites publick Acts for this Decree, and the subsequent agreement between Vigilius and Mennas b 1.534: But these Acts are forged, be∣ing dated An. 25. Justin. An. 10. post consul. Basil. c 1.535 where Baronius places the suspension of Mennas, and his submission next year after d 1.536: But Mennas died the 21st year of Justinian, that is, five year before, as

the Popes Legates prove in the sixth General Coun∣cil e 1.537, and by that shew these Publick Acts were forged; yea, Baronius, who here cites these Acts to colour over this Fable, there owns the Acts to be forged, and expresly says, Mennas certainly died in the 21st year of Justinian f 1.538. So that we may conclude this Decree of Silence and Mennas suspension with the rest, are a notorious Fable, invented only to save the Credit of Pope Vigilius.

Chap. xvii. And so is his confirming the fifth Council, either before or after his supposed Exile, which Baro∣nius and others so boldly affirm g 1.539: For that he did not confirm it neither during its Session, nor soon after, Baronius proves, because his Letters would then have been annexed to the Council h 1.540. And he confesses the Reason moving Pelagius, the next Pope, to confirm it, was, That he found the Eastern Church in a Schism by Vigilius his Constitution i 1.541, which could not have been if Vigilius in his Life had revoked that Constitu∣tion. Again, the Western Church rejected the fifth Council all the time of Vigilius; for there could be found but two Western Bishops who would consecrate Pelagius after he was chosen Pope, because be condemned the three Chapters (saith Victor k 1.542,) and as Baronius adds, because they abhorred the fifth General Council l 1.543; yea, a Council at Aquileia condemned the fifth Council An. 554 m 1.544, urging that Pope Vigilius did not agree with it; and in this Opinion they remained till Pela∣gius the second (20 years after Vigilius death and more, An. 577.) instructed them that the Apostolick Seat un∣derstanding the Controversie better after Vigilius his time, had changed its Judgment n 1.545, which Letter of this Pelagius is annexed to the fifth Council, and by Binius compared to the Epistle of Leo to Flavianus o 1.546. Which Argument shews, that Pelagius never heard that Vigilius changed his Judgment, or confirmed the fifth Council. As to Evagrius, who (saith Baronius) with all the Greek Writers do affirm, that Vigilius by his Letters consented to the Council, since he did not this during

the Council, nor shortly after (being banished), we must assert he consented when he was freed from Exile p 1.547: So the Cardinal: I Reply, This is very fallacious, for neither Evagrius, nor any Greek Writer, say any more, than That Vigilius did by Letter consent to the fifth Synod—But Evagrius adds,—yet would not be present in it q 1.548. By which it is clear, the Historian means nothing but that consent, which by word and writing he had often given, as to the Synods Opi∣nion before they met, of which the fifth Council often complains, because he denied it, and flew off after∣wards r 1.549; and it was these precedent Writings, that both Nicephorus (s) and Photius mean t 1.550. Wherefore it is falsly done of Baronius to apply this to a subsequent Decree, for confirming the fifth Council after it was * 1.551 ended. Baronius his last Argument is, That since Vigi∣lius was banished for not consenting to the fifth Synod, 'tis not likely he should be released till he had con∣firmed it u 1.552. But first the consequence is not good, for Justinian might restore him to gratifie so great a Subject as Narses, and Narses might intreat the Empe∣rour to oblige the Roman Clergy, who then were Ene∣mies to the fifth Synod. Secondly, (which is worse) The whole story of this Banishment and Release is fa∣bulous: For no Author but Anastasius mentions this last Exile, who is very fabulous, and here much mistaken; for he saith, Pelagius was present at this Release, and then set free w 1.553. Whereas Victor, who then was at Constantinople saith, Vigilius died in Sicily the 16th year after Basilius his Consulship x 1.554, and that Pelagius was not re-called from banishment till the year after Vigi∣lius his death, and so could not (as Anastasius saith) be released with him y 1.555. Besides, Anastasius speaks only of one banishment of Vigilius, for refusing to restore Anthimius, near two years after his coming to Constan∣tinople, in the life-time of Theodora z 1.556, (who died Anno 548, according to Baronius a 1.557; and this is the banish∣ment from which Vigilius was released at the intreaty of Narses, according to Anastasius; and so both Bel∣larmin

and Sanders affirm from the Pontifical b 1.558: Wherefore they and all Writers place this banishment of Vigilius divers years before the fifth Council, held Anno 553: So that the Exile after the fifth Council is a meer Forgery of Baronius, who openly contradicts his Author, as if he mistook the time c 1.559, only because the real time of Vigilius's Exile will not serve his design to excuse the Pope from dying in Heresie. He rejects a Story about Vigilius, told by Anastasius as a manifest Lye, only because neither Facundus nor Procopius men∣tion it d 1.560. By which Arguing it will appear, not only that Vigilius was not banished after the fifth Council, but that he was not banished at all, because neither Vi∣ctor, Liberatus, Evagrius nor Procopius, who then lived (and Victor is very particular in naming all that were exiled for this Cause) do not once mention Vigilius his being banished, no, nor Photius, Zonaras, Cedrenus, Glicas nor Nicephorus. And Platina, with other Western Writers take up this Fable upon the credit of Anastasius, and Baronius improves it to serve a turn. But Baronius asks, If it be likely Justinian would spare Vigilius e 1.561? I reply, Yes; because he was a weak and inconstant man; and he having so great a Post, Justinian chose rather to connive at him, than to harden others by punishing him, whom he represents to the fifth Council, as one who condemned the three Chapters; for which Reason also he is not condemned by Name in the 5th Council. Secondly, Baronius tells us of great Liberties, Gifts, &c. given to Vigilius upon his release and sending home, which he brings as a proof of his consent to the fifth Council f 1.562: Whereas that Sanction granting some Priviledges to Italy is dated in August, the 28th year of Justinian; and Vigilius (according to Victor, an Eye-witness) died not till the 31st of Justinian. So that these Liberties were promised to Vigilius and other Romans long before the Council, while Vigilius and the Emperour were very kind g 1.563, viz. in the 23th of Justinian, but performed five year after; yet three years before Vigilius death, and so his dying before his return

with these Priviledges is a Fiction: But Baronius by meer guess, places it falsly in Justinian's 29th years beginning h 1.564, only to colour the Fable. His last Ar∣gument is from Liberatus saying, he died afflicted by the Eutychians, but was not crowned i 1.565. I reply, he despises Leberatus Testimony as to an Epistle of Vigilius k 1.566: But Liberatus saith not, he was banished or put to death for his Opinions; yea, he counts his condemning the three Chapters, Heresie, and doth not tell us how he suffered or died, so that he is no Witness to this Fiction, but an Evidence against it.

Chap. xviii. Baronius's last exception is, that this was no lawful General Council, nor had any Authority till Vigilius confirmed it l 1.567: And Binius saith, his Sentence gave it the Title of a General Council m 1.568. But we have shewed before, this was a lawful General Coun∣cil received by the whole Catholick Church n 1.569: Now they grant it was not confirmed till after it was parted, and that it was never gathered by the Holy Ghost; so that his Act afterwards cannot make a nullity valid: The Cardinal and Binius o 1.570 both tell us, it was no General Council at first, being called though the Pope resisted and contradicted it; yet Binius had said before, Vigilius called the 5th Council by his Pontifical Authority p 1.571. Baronius also saith, the Emperor called it according to the sentence of Vigilius q 1.572: And the Coun∣cil charge Vigilius with promising in writing to meet with them r 1.573; and his own Letter printed there, declares his consent to the assembling this Council s 1.574. Yet if he had opposed it, so did Damasus the second Council at Constantinople, which was held (repugnante Damaso t 1.575), yet is accounted a lawful General Council; and Cusanus saith, if the Pope be negligent or refractory, the Emperor may call a General Council u 1.576. And though he was not personally present in this Council, yet he sent his Constitution, which was his Decree, ex Cathedra w 1.577. But saith Baronius, their sentence was contrary to the Popes Decree, and therefore it cannot be a lawful Ge∣neral

Council x 1.578. Bellarmine also urges this for a Rule y 1.579, but the matter of Fact sufficiently confutes them, since this Council which did Decree contrary to the Popes Sentence, is and was always held lawful. So was the second General Council good and valid, being confirmed by an imperial Edict in July, An. 381 z 1.580, though Damasus did not so much as hear of it, till after the Council of Aquileia held in September that year a 1.581; and it seems by Pope Gregory, that the Roman Church till his time had not received the Canons of it b 1.582. Yea, the third Canon which Damasus and Leo c 1.583 both condemned, and which Bi∣nius saith, the Roman Church rejects to this day d 1.584; Yet all the while it was held Authentick, and by it Ana∣tolius held the second place at Chalcedon, and Eutychius in the 5th Council; by it St. Chrysostom deposed and ordained Bishops, and held a Council in Asia: So that both Canons and Custom had setled this Rule, as is proved in the Council of Chalcedon e 1.585. And Justini∣an made those Canons of this second Council to be inserted into the Dypticks, and to be read in Churches f 1.586: So that Canons are good and valid, with∣out the Popes Approbation, as well as Councils, whose Decrees have their force from the Subscriptions of the major part of Bishops there present g 1.587, though two of the Popes Legates h 1.588, or ten others did dissent i 1.589, especially when the Emperor confirms them by his Edict, as Constantine did those of Nice, Theodosius those of the second General Council, &c. In like manner Justinian confirmed this 5th Council: And so it was valid without the Popes consent; though absent Bi∣shops, (others as well as those of Rome,) were desired to confirm a Council after it was past, not to give any new Authority to it, but to preserve Unity, and to shew the Orthodoxy of these absent Bishops.

Chap. xx. Omitting the 19th Chapter, which treats of General Councils at large, we proceed to Baronius lesser and remoter objections against this Council: He begins with Justinian who called and confirmed it, whom he taxes 1st for want of learning, calling him an illiterate man who could not read a Letter k 1.590, for which he cites Suidas, a late fabulous, yea an Hereti∣cal Author l 1.591; But Platina commends Justinian for his great Learning and Wit m 1.592. So also Trithemius who with Possevine reckon him among Ecclesiastical Writers n 1.593. Pope Agatho and the 6th Council cite him as one of the venerable Fathers and Witnesses of the Truth o 1.594: Liberatus, an Enemy of his menti∣ons his writing a Book against the Acephali p 1.595. Proco∣pius speaks of his great diligence in reading the Chri∣stian Writings q 1.596: So that Gotofred in his Preface to the Institutes shews, this is a meer a Calumny of Suidas; but Baronius greedily repeats it over and over, of pure malice to this learned Emperor. His second Quarrel at him is, for presuming to meddle in Causes of Faith, and making Laws for Priests r 1.597. But did not all the Religious Kings of Judah do so? Did not Constantine, the two Theodosij and Martin the same? And the 5th Council highly commend him for it s 1.598: The Code of Theodosius, his Code and the Authenticks sufficiently prove this was done by the best of Princes. Thirdly, He reproaches him for his sacrilegious Fury, in persecuting Vigilius t 1.599. Now I have proved before this beating and banishing of the Pope is a meer Fa∣ble u 1.600; and if he was persecuted, or rather punished it was for Heresie; and Constantine, Theodosius the elder and younger, and Martian are commended for the same Acts against the Arrians, Macedonians, Nesto∣rians and Eutychians, and St. Augustin justifies this proceeding w 1.601. Fourthly, He charges him with fal∣ling into the Heresie of the Incorrupticolae in his last days, writing an Edict for it, and madly persecuting all the Orthodox, especially Eutychius Bishop of Con∣stantinople

for opposing it, for which he Rails intollera∣bly at him, saying all Authors, Greek and Latin at∣test this x 1.602: Finally he dooms him to Hell for this y 1.603. But first, Justinian did not publish such an Edict as Eva∣grius and Nicephorus, his two main Witnesses attest z 1.604; and Baronius owns as much: And Victor Bishop of Tunen, who suffered (under Justinian) Imprisonment, and speaks hardly of him, is silent as to this Edict; but shews he continued constant to his Edict against the three Chapters to his very death a 1.605, wherein he owns all the former General Councils: And it is so far from truth, that all Writers, Greek and Latin charge him with that Heresie, that neither Procopius, Agathus, Vi∣ctor nor Liberatus do it, nor Damascen, though he treat of this Heresie b 1.606, nor Marcellinus, Bede, nor Anasta∣sius: Suidas saith, he was most Orthodox; Aimonius and Paulus Diaconus affirm, he was for his Faith a Catho∣lick c 1.607: And twenty other eminent Writers (cited by this Author), do all give him a great Character; and Pope Gregory d 1.608 with many others after his death, bestow on him the Title of Pious and of sacred Memory. Baronius names but three Authors for this Slander: First, Nicephorus, whom Possevine calls Hereti∣cal and Erroneous in History e 1.609; and the Cardinal in this Relation judges him to be a Fool f 1.610, and gene∣rally he is but Evagrius his Ape. His second Witness is Eustathias g 1.611: But Surius is generally stuffed with fabulous Writers, and such is this Eustathius falsly pre∣tended to have writ Eutychius his Life; for neither Photius, Trithemius, Possevine nor Sixtus Senensis mention any such Writer: And the Story is full of Lyes; for he makes Eutychius to come to Constantinople to the 5th Council, and then to be chosen Bishop after Mennas death, who died five years before this Council h 1.612; And this Eutychius was chosen full four years before it: And he reckons that Eutychius was Banished twelve years i 1.613, whereas two years after his Banishment he crowned Justinius k 1.614, and was actually Patriarch when Justinius was sick, and nominated Tiberius his

associate l 1.615, and so could not (as this Fabler pretends,) be desired from Banishment after Tiberius Reign began with Justin m 1.616; yet to make out this Lye, Anasta∣sius his latine Version of Nicephorus adds ten years to John Successor of Eutychius, and makes him sit twelve year and seven Months n 1.617, who in Nicephorus sat but two years and seven Months. 'Tis true, Eutychius was Banished by Justinian, but it was for Prophesying of his Successors o 1.618, and for holding the Heresie of Origen as Pope Gregory witnesseth p 1.619, against which Justi∣nian had put out an Edict, and which was sentenced in the 5th Council q 1.620. And it was for opposing this Edict, not an Heretical Edict that Eutychius was Bani∣shed: So that thirdly, Baronius hath no Author for this Slander of Justinian's being an Heretick, but Eva¦grius, who is owned by all to be a most fabulous Au∣thor, (as is proved in the History here very fully by many instances;) Now what is his credit against so many truer and better Historians? Finally, Whereas Baronius reviles Justinian as a destroyer of the Empire and the Church, This Author largely proves out of the best Historians, that Justinian was a Wise, Pious and Victorious Prince, the best Emperor as to his Laws, his Buildings, his Wars, and his Love to Religion that ever sat on the Throne Imperial, to which the Rea∣der is referred r 1.621.

Chap. xxi. In like manner the Cardinal reviles Theo∣dora the Empress, as a Wicked, Heretical, Sacrilegious, Mad Woman, strook with death by Heavens vengeance upon Vigilius Excommunicating her s 1.622. But other Authors say, she was like her Husband in her Studies and Man∣ners t 1.623: Yea, the Emperor gives her an excellent Character in his very Laws u 1.624: He also w 1.625, and the 6th Council after her death, call her a Woman of Pious Memory x 1.626. Nor ought Baronius to revile her, for thrusting Anthimius an Heretical Monster into the See of Constantinople, as he doth (An. 535. pag. 226. ut supr.) since there he owns, that at his Election

he seemed a Chatholick, and that she favour∣ed him as Orthodox y 1.627; yea, he carried it so as to seem such to all z 1.628. As to her contending with Vigi∣lius two years about the Restitution of Anthimius, which Baronius relates, (An 547. pag. 357.) it is a meer Fable, for that Cause of Anthimius was determined long before; and Victor saith, that Vigilius and Theo∣dora agreed after he came to Constantinople, and that she persuaded him to condemn the three Chapters a 1.629, And he (who best knew) saith, it was Pope Agapetus who excommunicated Theodora, (then favouring the Acephali) b 1.630: So that Vigilius is by the Scribes mi∣stake, put for Agapetus in Gregory c 1.631, as appears by his speaking of the taking of Rome by the Goths immedi∣ately after, which was the Sacking it by Vitiges after Agapetus his time, or by Totilas, which was (not after, but) before this pretended Sentence of Vigilius against Theodora, viz. that year Vigilius came to Constantinople d 1.632. From all which it is manifest, that this Pope did never Excommunicate Theodora at all, who in her latter Days was Orthodox, but hated by the Nestorians, for joyning with Justinian in condemning the three Chapters, which also raises Baronius his spleen against her.

Chap. xxii. His next attempt is against the three Chapters, which he wishes had been condemned to Eternal silence, buried and extinguished e 1.633, adding it had been better for the Church they had never been spoken of f 1.634, viz. because of the Troubles ensuing: I reply, so there was about the words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: But this settled the true Faith, as it did also that Controversie, and (by Providence) shews us, that a Pope may Err in matters of Faith.

Chap. xxiii. After this he Rails at the Edict, calling it a Seed plot of dissention g 1.635, and saying it was con∣trary to the three Chapters of the Council of Chalce∣don; and (as Facundus affirms,) contrary to Justinian's own Faith, and writ by Hereticks h 1.636; and the Cardi∣nal saith it was writ by Theodorus Bishop of Caesarea i 1.637; against whom he every where Rails as a Factious and Schismatical Man, yea, an Heretick, and obstinate O∣rigenist k 1.638, a most wicked Wretch, and a plague to the whole Church l 1.639: But as to the Edict, it is in defence of the Council of Chalcedon, and to say otherwise, is to condemn the 5th General Council, who often de∣clare as much: Yea, Baronius elswhere in contradicti∣on to himself saith, this Edict is a Confession of Justini∣an's right Faith, a Catechism and exact declaration of the Catholick Faith m 1.640. And he might as well call the Decrees of Nice, or other General Councils Seed-plots of dissention; yea, the Gospel it self may be so calum∣niated n 1.641: Nor do Liberatus, Facundus and Vigilius (as he saith,) declare that Theodorus writ this Edict o 1.642; Liberatus only saith, he suggested it to the Emperor, to condemn the three Chapters by a Book, to be dictated by the Emperor, which he promised to do p 1.643: Facun∣dus names not Theodorus, but saith, They were willing to believe it was writ by the Adversaries of the Truth q 1.644; which was but a conjecture, and is as false as what he next speaks of it, being contrary to the Emperors own Faith. And Vigilius words cited by Baronius (rightly construed) shew only, that when the Edict was read in the Pallace, Theodorus required the Bishops to favour it by his words r 1.645; however this passage is taken out of a forged Epistle of Vigilius s 1.646, wherein Mennas is said to be excommunicated the 25th year of Justinian, who died the 21st year of that Emperor: So that none of his Evidence do prove, that Theodorus writ this E∣dict: And for his opposing Vigilius his Decree of si∣lence, we shewed before there was no such Decree t 1.647, nor could he lead Justinian into the Heresie of the

Incorrupticolae, because the Emperor never held it u 1.648, and his only Witnesses, that Theodorus was an Origenist Heretick, are Facundus and Liberatus: Now Facundus is an Heretick, condemned by the 5th General Coun∣cil, for writing in defence of the three Chapters, and a malicious Enemy of Theodorus w 1.649: And so was Libe∣ratus, for which cause Bellarmine x 1.650, Baronius y 1.651 and Possevine z 1.652 advise us to read him cautiously, especi∣ally in such things as he borrowed from the Nestori∣ans, and what he saith of the 5th Council, Professae inimicitiae suspicionem habent mendacij a 1.653. And this is certainly so, for how could he hold Origen's Heresies, who subcribed the 5th Council wherein Origen is by name condemned b 1.654? And among other Bishops, no doubt he had subscribed Justinian's Edict against Ori∣gen's Errors c 1.655, otherwise he could not have been so familiar with the Emperor, nor so beloved by him as Liberatus (the Author of this Calumny) reports him to have been: So that Theodorus was always Orthodox, and his advising this Edict is no proof it was against the Faith.

Chap. xxiv. Baronius and Binius do attempt after this to question the Acts of the 5th Council, not indeed in any main thing concerning their not condemning, or Vigilius not defending the three Chapters (which is our Point,) but in lesser matters, such as may be objected against all the General Councils in the World d 1.656; which there∣fore if the objections were true, would not take away the Authority of this General Council, whose Acts are as well preserved as any, and better than any of the other Councils, except Chalcedon, that went before it.

Chap. xxv. The first Corruption they charge these Acts with is, that they add to the Acts of Chalcedon (in reciting them) these words—which Jesus Christ our Lord is one of the Trinity, which words some (suspected of Eu∣tychianism,) would have added to the Council of Chalce∣don, but could not obtain it e 1.657. But first, it was no Eu∣tychian

Heretick who first said Christ was one of the Trinity. Theodorus of Mopsvestia denied it f 1.658, but Pro∣clus who was Orthodox, affirmed it, and taught it in an Epistle, approved in the Council of Chalcedon g 1.659; and Justinian set out an Edict for it against the Nestorians, who denied it, wherein he also Anathematizes the Eutychians h 1.660; which Edict Pope John the second confirms, and declares to be agreeable to the Aposto∣lick Doctrin, and to the Faith of the Roman Church i 1.661. Wherefore those Monks, who affirmed one of the Tri∣nity was Crucified could not be Eutychian Hereticks, as Baronius falsly says k 1.662 But Baronius is a Nestorian, who denies this Truth. And those Monks did not seek to add it to the Council of Chalcedon, only they declared (against the Nestorians,) this was the Sense of that Coun∣cil, in the time of Hormisda, (who was Heretical in denying it,) nor doth the 5th Synod recite it as the words of the Council of Chalcedon, but as their own words l 1.663, who were as Orthodox as any in the Council of Chalcedon, and he is a Nestorian who de∣nies it.

Chap. xxvi. Baronius objects, Secondly, That in these Acts, Ibas is said to have denied the Epistle to Maris to be his, which he saith is false m 1.664, and Binius calls it a Lye n 1.665; and they both give this as an instance of the Corruption of these Acts: They may as well prove Justinian's Edict corrupted, and Pope Gregory's Epi∣stles, where it is said, he durst not confess it; yea, that he denied it to be his o 1.666: And the 5th Council prove he did deny it, by the interlocution of six Metropoli∣tans at Chalcedon p 1.667. And though Baronius do say po∣sitively in one place, that the true Acts of Chalcedon have it, that lbas confessed it to be his Epistle q 1.668; yet he cites those very Acts, and the second of Nice elsewhere, saying, it was found not to be the Epistle of Ibas, and so it was condemned and he absolved r 1.669. And the truth of the matter is, that Ibas denied at Chalcedon that ever he called Cyril an Heretick after the Union: But we

have proved before, that he writ this Epistle divers years before that Union, and therein called Cyril He∣retick s 1.670; which is a denying the words of his own Epistle, for which he is censured in the 5th Council.

Chap. xxvii. He alledges that these Acts say, the Council of Chalcedon condemned the Epistle of Ibas: Which he saith is untrue, and that he hath demon∣strated the contrary out of the Acts of Chalcedon t 1.671; and Binius calls this another Lye u 1.672, both of them giving this as an instance that the Acts are corrupted: But if so, the whole Council is corrupted; for they say over and over, that this Epistle of Ibas was condem∣ned by the definitions at Chalcedon, and that they had demonstrated this w 1.673; and it was indeed their main business, to shew it was contrary to that Council, who forced him to condemn his own Epistle before they would receive him x 1.674: And if Binius and Baronius say this be false, they give a General Council the Lye; and Pope Gregory also who saith, without doubt this E∣pistle is contrary to the definition at Chalcedon, which was exactly followed by the 5th Council y 1.675. And since the Council of Chalcedon forbids all Writings for Nestorius, (such as this Epistle is,) and approve the Judgment of Photius and Eustathius, (who condemned this Epistle as Heretical,) and would not receive Ibas, till he Ana∣thematized Nestorius and his Doctrines z 1.676; 'Tis cer∣tain that Council as well as the fifth, did condemn Ibas his Epistle.

Chap. xxviii. Again, Baronius and Binius accuse the Council of divers defects, first, in omitting the Con∣demnation of Origen, and giving only a brief touch upon it a 1.677. But this is a notorious Calumny; for the 5th Council not only mention it transiently, in saying, they and Vigilius had condemned Origen now b 1.678, but ex∣presly Anathematize Origen and his impious Wri∣tings c 1.679: And the Cardinal mistakes in saying, they first handled the cause of Origen, and then that of the

three Chapters d 1.680: For Nicephorus saith, they read the Libels against the impious Opinions of Origen, the second Session e 1.681: But indeed this Council did not afresh condemn Origen, but only mention his being condem∣ned in that Age, by most of the Bishops present in this Council, about 15 year before (in Menna's Synod) upon an Edict of Justinian, to which the Western Bi∣shops had subscribed f 1.682, which both Evagrius, Nice∣phorus and others mistake for this 5th Council: So that the Cardinal and Binius are both out, in charging the omission of Justinian's Edict, as a defect in these Acts g 1.683. For that Edict was not sent to this 5th Coun∣cil, but to Menna's Synod; and that Epistle which Bi∣nius hath added to these Acts as Justinian's, is a late extract out of Justinian's large Decree: Yea, Didymus and Evagrius, who they say were condemned in this 5th Council, were not condemned there except in general words h 1.684, as holding with Origen in the point of praeexistence i 1.685. So that it is false and malicious in Baronius and Binius to charge Theodorus of Caesa∣rea k 1.686, with stealing these things out of the Acts of this Council, which were never in them; upon an unjust surmise and slander of his being infected with Origens Heresie.

Chap. xxix. Like to this, is their pretence that these Acts want the Emperors Epistle l 1.687, which he and Binius add out of Cedrenus, and thence insinuate the Acts are defective: But Justinian's only true Epistle sent to the Council is extant in the Acts m 1.688, of which this is an Epitome by an ignorant hand, which saith Eutyches approved the Opinions of Nestorius; and that Nestorius was the Master of Theodorus, whereas Justi∣nian's true Letter and the Council teach that he was his Scholar: And are not the Cardinal and Binius rare menders of Councils, who would supply their pre∣tended defects with such Stuff as this?

Chap. xxx. Baronius also objects, that the Constitution of Vigilius which evidently belongs to this Synod, is known to be taken away out of the Acts m 1.689. It is granted, it bears date the 14 of May, upon which the fifth Colla∣tion of this Council was had, but was sent to the Em∣peror first, and by him considered, and then offered to the Counsil the sixth Collation, May 19th as Binius owns n 1.690. But indeed the Council never read this publickly, nor named it or Vigilius; to prevent offences, they confuted it indeed, and published his Letters to Rusticus and Sebasti∣anus, which contradict the Constitution o 1.691; but for his Credit (as Baronius owns,) thought fit to say no∣thing of his Constitution p 1.692: And therefore, if this Constitution were stollen out of the Acts, it was by the Roman Church, to cover their Fathers nakedness, and conceal his Heresie.

Chap. xxxi. Lastly, He and Binius say, the Acts want the assignation of a Patriarchal Seat to Jerusalem, and taking two Provinces out of Antioch, and two out of Alexandria to put under it, which being by Leo oppo∣sed at Chalcedon, was now passed contrary to the old Order established at Nice q 1.693: Which is not true, for it had the Title of a Patriarchate long before this Council r 1.694, and the jurisdiction over the three Pale∣stinas was assigned it at Chalcedon t 1.695; which Binius in his Notes on that Council, and Baronius also ex∣presly affirm u 1.696: Yet here in their Account of the 5th Council, the Cardinal most falsly says, Juvenalis got this Decree to pass in the absence of the Pope's Legates, (Baron. an 553. pag. 441.) But if we consult the Council, The Popes Legates first spoke in this Cause, and expresly gave their consent to it w 1.697: And though perhaps Pope Leo afterwards might oppose this, (as Baronius saith) that only shews how little a Popes Au∣thority was valued; since in the Council of Mennas, John Bishop of Jerusalem held a Synod, and presided over all the Bishops of the three Palestinas x 1.698. And

Baronius recites the Title of another Council at Jeru∣salem, where Peter the Patriarch presided over all the Bishops of the three Palestinas, 17 years before this fifth Council y 1.699; which shews, that Jerusalem had the Title and Jurisdiction of a Patriarch by virtue of the Canon at Chalcedon, and that Baronius and Binius are ridiculous and impudent to urge the want of a Fiction of Gul. Tyrius (refuted by Berterius z 1.700) as a defect in the Acts of this General Council.

Chap. xxxii. The Cardinal objects also spurious and false Additions made to these Acts a 1.701: And he in∣stances in the Monothelites, who in the sixth Synod are proved to have added 24 Leaves to these Acts b 1.702, as also two Epistles of Vigilius to Justinian and Theodora c 1.703. But though this be true d 1.704, yet those corrupt Additions were detected and razed out in the sixth Council, and our Acts of the fifth Council have not one of those Heretical Additions, but follow those true Copies which were extant in Gregory's time, and those by which (70 years after his death) the false Copies were detected in the sixth Council, so that this is meer Sophistry e 1.705. As is also his Pretence, That the Laws of Theodosius, re∣cited in the fifth Collation against Nestorius, are diffe∣rent from those in the Code and in the Ephesine Coun∣cil f 1.706. For there is but one Law against Nestorius in the Code g 1.707, different from these, which mention his former Condemning the Nestorians; but these Laws were against Diodorus and Theodorus, as well as the Ne∣storians, at the Armenian Monks Petition h 1.708. And note, That all Theodosius his Laws against Hereticks, are not in his Code; for that Law in the Ephesine Council against the Nestorians, was a true Law of this Emperours i 1.709: And another in the Council of Chalce∣don k 1.710, which Baronius owns for true Laws of Theodo∣sius; yet neither of them are in the Code; so that he may as well say those Acts are corrupted as these, be∣cause those Laws are not there.

Chap. xxxiii. Again, Baronius saith, That Epistle of Theodoret's to Nestorius intimating his agreeing with that Heretick and rejecting Cyril after the Union, is a spu∣rious addition to these Acts l 1.711; which he proves by Leontius m 1.712, who affirms some such Letters to be ficti∣tious. But will the Cardinal allow him to be good Evi∣dence, where he makes but 22 Canonical Books of the Old Testament n 1.713? And doth he not commend Theo∣dorus of Mopsvestia and Diodorus, and deny that ever The∣odoret agreed with Nestorius o 1.714? But even Baronius owns him to have been a Nestorian p 1.715; so that in this case Leontius is of no Credit. But that which is yet more strange, That the Cardinal (in contradiction to him∣self) repeats and owns this very Epistle read in the fifth Council, to have been writ by Theodoret after the Union to Nestorius, and that he favoured him still q 1.716; yet he brags, there is no mention of Theodoret's being addicted to Nestorius after the Peace made, and that his Epistles to Dioscorus and Leo sufficiently wipe off that Aspersion r 1.717. But those Epistles are suspicious, as first appearing out of a Vatican Copy. And whereas the Union with Cyril was made An. 432. s 1.718, these Epistles were writ long after that to Dioscorus, An. 444, and that to Leo, An. 449. So that if these Epistles were genuine, they do not prove he was Orthodox till ten or twelve year after the Union. But two things prove them spurious: First, Theodoret boasts in them both, that he had been 26 years a Bishop, and a Preacher at Antioch, yet none ever reproved his Do∣ctrin; yea, that his Sense and the Churches always agreed, having never been accused by any, nor accused any t 1.719. Which is an horrid falshood; for had he not been reproved by Cyril, deposed by a General Council, and subscribed the Condemnation of Cyril? Secondly, In both these Epistles he saith, he had been 26 years a Bishop, yet one was writ 5 years after the other, and by Baronius his Computation he was but 21 years a Bishop when he writ to Dioscorus, being made Bishop

Anno 423. u 1.720. And his History (which mentions the Translation of the Body of S. Chrysostom w 1.721, and so must be writ seven years after the Union) commends Theodorus of Mopsvestia for Orthodox x 1.722, shews he was a Nestorian then. Baronius would wipe off this by pretending he writ his History before the Quarrel about Nestorius y 1.723; but in the same place saith, He follows Sozomen (whose Book came out An. 439.) in commend∣ing Theodorus. So that after all his shifts, Theodoret was a Favourer of Nestorius, An. 436. when he writ that Epistle read in this fifth Council, and long after.

Chap. xxxiv. Baronius and Binius say, The Acts are corrupted, because they affirm an Epistle to John of Antioch, (wherein the Author rejoyces for Cyril's death) was writ by Theodoret, which they affirm was writ by an Impostor z 1.724; because John was dead seven years before Cyril. I Reply, That is a Mistake, for John was made Bishop An. 427. and according to Nicephorus sat 18 years, which reaches to the year 444. in which Baronius saith Cyril died. But suppose John were dead when Theodoret writ this, Baronius of all men should not make this a mark of Forgery, who allows Clement's Epistle writ to James Bishop of Hieru∣salem, who had been dead 30 year, for genuine; and so doth Binius a 1.725: And the Cardinal cites and com∣mends an Epistle of Theodosius as authentick, writ to S. Chrysostom 30 years after he was dead b 1.726. And, Se∣condly, the Epistle is Theodoret's; but the Inscription only (which should be to Domnus) is mistaken; for it is as plain by his Sermon before Domnus after Cyril's death, which we have also in the fifth Council c 1.727, as by this Epistle, that Theodoret was an Enemy to Cyril after his death; and Baronins may well pardon the Error in the inscription of John's Name for Domnus; for he allows innumerable Epistles, Edicts, &c. to be genuine not∣withstanding Errors in the Title d 1.728, and therefore for so small a mistake in the Title of an Epistle should not ask, What credit is to be given to such Acts e 1.729? His own Annals have many greater Mistakes, as the Author

proves f 1.730; yet he would have us credit them. Yea, in this reckoning of John of Antioch's dying seven years before Cyril, he mistakes the whole time almost, ac∣cording to Nicephorus, and four years by his own rec∣koning of John's entring, An. 427 dying 436, yet sit∣ting 13 years; for so John did not dye till 440, that is, four year before S. Cyril: And the Epistles of Theodoret to Dioscoras and Leo, on which he depends for his Arithmetick, are one or both of them forged. We conclude therefore, that the Epistle mentioned in the fifth Council was Theodoret's, who was a Nestorian after S. Cyril's death, and he writ it to Domnus (not to John) Bishop of Antioch.

Chap. xxxv. But he who accuseth the fifth Council for Forgeries, doth follow many forged Writings him∣self in his discourse about it. First, The Confession of Faith made by Mennas, Theodorus of Caesarea and others, by way of submission, recorded in the very Constitu∣tion of Vigilius, is Forged g 1.731. For as to the Matter of it: How is it likely the Eastern Bishops should say, They allowed all the Acts of the former four Councils, made by consent of the Pope's Legates? Or ask him pardon for Injuries which they say they had never done to him? Or how agrees this with Baronius his saying. Theodorus asked pardon for his Scoffs and Contu∣melies against Vigilius h 1.732? or with Vigilius his form of Excommunication of Theodorus, for despising his Autho∣rity i 1.733? As to the time, this Confession and Submission is said to be made after the Decree for Taciturnity, (which was never made) viz. An. 552. k 1.734. And we have proved Mennas was dead five year before, and that Theodorus did always stand firm against the three Chapters l 1.735. Secondly, He cites one Eustathius out of Surius, who is proved Fabulons before m 1.736. Thirdly, The Epistles of Theodoret, which were shewed before to be forged n 1.737 And we add, That for all his brags to Dioscorus, An. 444. he writes a kind Letter to Irenaeus a Nestorian, deposed Bishop of Tyre o 1.738: And another to Nomus, wherein he rails at the pious Emperour

Theodosius, by whom he and other Nestorians were de∣posed, and his Writings forbidden p 1.739, while as he falsly asserts Arians and all other Hereticks were tolerated. Theodoret therefore was a Nestorian 16 year after the Union with Cyril, and these Epistles are Forged, which say the contrary. Fourthly, He cites the Action at Chalcedon concerning Domnus, which is a Vatican For∣gery q 1.740: For it is not in the Greek, nor in Liberatus, Evagrius nor Nicephorus; and that Domnus (for whom subsistence is provided in this Forged Action) was dead before the Council of Chalcedon, as both Justinian and the fifth Council witness r 1.741, who (for all Baronius fri∣volous Objections to support this Forgery) must needs have truer Copies of the Council of Chalcedon, than his Vatican now affords. And indeed Domnus was de∣posed in the Ephesine Pseudo-Synod, all whose Acts were declared void at Chalcedon, except that which deposed Domnus (then deceased) and put in Maximus at Antioch s 1.742, Fifthly, Baronius cites Auastasius's Lives of the Popes, who is always full of Fables, especially in Vigilius his Life, in which are more Lies than Lines t 1.743: For he makes his Entrance to be when Bellisarius war∣red against Vitiges, who, he saith, was taken by John the Bloody, and brought to Rome by Bellisarius and Vigilius, who gave Bellisarius the Sacrament to bring Vitiges safe to Justinian u 1.744. But John and Narses were both absent at the taking of Ravenna, where Vitiges freely submitted to Bellisarius, who kept him there till he carried him by Sea to Constantinople w 1.745. So that Vitiges came not to Rome at all. Secondly, Anastasius says, The Emperour then enquired of Bellisarius, how he had placed Vigilius in Silverius room, and thanked him for it x 1.746. But Silverius was deposed, and Vigilius put in three years before y 1.747; yea, Justinian had writ to Vigi∣lius, and knew that Silverius was dead a year before; and Vigilius had writ to the Emperour z 1.748, the year before Bellisarius came with Vitiges to Constantinople a 1.749; and Binius saith, Justinian did not thank Bellisarius b 1.750. Thirdly, Anastasius talks of Bellisarius being sent into Africk, and of his killing Gontharis, and offering great

Spoils in his return at Rome, to Vigilius, &c. c 1.751: But after this Bellisarius was not sent into Africk, but into Persia d 1.752, where he stayed three years, and it was Ariobindus and Artabanus who were sent into Africk, the latter of which treacherously killed Gontharis e 1.753. So that Bellisarius offered no Vandal Spoils at all; or if (as Binius would have it f 1.754) he did, when he wan Rome from Vitiges, that was in Silverius his time; so that is false also, Fourthly, Anastasius makes Theodora write at this time to Vigilius, To come to Constantinople and restore Anthimus, which he refused g 1.755. Binius after Ba∣ronius makes this a Miraculous change h 1.756, and says it was just upon Silverius his death, at his first step into the See: But if it was after Gontharis was slain, it was not till the 19th of Justinian i 1.757, five years or six years after Vigilius was made Pope: And the Change is as false as The time; for Liberatus saith, Vigilius did perform his Promise to the Empress, and writ as she desired k 1.758; but afterwards it seems, he finding the Emperour resolute, did confirm the Deposition of Anthimus l 1.759. So that Anastasius his Story of Theodora's. writing to Vigilius after Gontharis was slain, is a Fable: And Victor (who then lived) saith, Vigilius was called to Constantinople by the Emperour, (not about Anthi∣mus, but) to condemn the three Chapters in his Nineteenth year m 1.760. Fifthly, Anastasius fables, That the Romans accused Vigilius of Murder, &c. and that Anthimus Sorbo was sent by the Empress to seize him by force; which he did (the People abusing and cursing him as he went out of Rome), and thus he was violently carried by Sicily to Constantinople; to which place com∣ing on Christmas Even, the Emperour met and kissed him with Tears, and the People sang, The Lord com∣eth n 1.761. But Baronius gives him the Lye o 1.762, as doth also Binius p 1.763, For Vigilius voluntarily went from Rome in the 11th year of the Gothic War, An. 546. toward Constantinople q 1.764, and staying long in Sicily, arrived at the Court about April of the year following. Sixthly, Anastasius tells a long Story after Vigilius came to Con∣stantinople, of the Contests between him and the Empe∣rour,

with his Empress, about restoring Anthimus; which the Pope refusing, they tore him from the Altar of S. Euphemia, cruelly used him, imprisoned and ba∣nished him a 1.765. Which are all Fables; for Anthimus was deposed Ten years before b 1.766, and his Cause forgot, the three Chapters being now the only dispute; yea, Baronius and Binius c 1.767, who would have something of this true, make the buffeting of Vigilius and his flight to Euphemia's Church, to happen four years after Theo∣dorus's death; and indeed in Pope Agapetus's time there was some such Contest about Anthimus, which Anasta∣sius fabulously applies to Vigilius, and Baronius with Binius do cherish the Fiction. Seventhly, Anastasius tells us, how the Goths after this made Totilas King, who besieged and took Rome; but spared the People, and lived like a Father among them d 1.768. But Totilas was made King four or five year before Vigilius came to Constantinople e 1.769, and took Rome while he was in Sicily f 1.770, and was so cruel as to kill all the Citizens they met, and intended to ruin both City and People, had not Pelagius and Bellisarius stayed his Rage from places and persons; however, he made a woful desola∣tion there g 1.771. Eighthly, Anastasius saith, Narses was sent at the same time into Italy, and Totilas with many Goths were slain, by the help (saith Baronius) of the Blessed Virgin h 1.772. But first, he mistakes the time; for Narses overcame not Totilas till six year after his first sacking Rome, in the 18th year of the Gothick War i 1.773; and Binius, with Baronius, foolishly ascribe it to the Year wherein Justinian revoked his Edict, (which he never revoked at all) and this Binius saith was the 10th year of Totilas (as Benedict had predict∣ed k 1.774). But Baronius proves Benedict a false Prophet; for he (truly) places Totilas his death in the 11th year l 1.775. As to the help of the Blessed Virgin, men∣tioned both by Baronius and Binius m 1.776, Procopius saith, Narses did ascribe the Victory wholly to God n 1.777; and Evagrius doth not mention his praying to, or relying on the Virgin; but speaks of a Report by some, of the

Blessed Virgins appearing to him from God with no∣tice when to fight o 1.778, but doth not affirm it for truth; yet the Cardinal proves invocation of Sains by this Fable. Lastly, after this victory (Anastasius tells us) the Roman Clergy in a body desired Narses, if Vigilius and the Clergy banished with him were yet alive, they might be recalled p 1.779; whereas Vigilius was then at Constantinople and never banished at all; yea, the 5th Council was assembled that year in which Totilas was slain; yet hence Baronius (on the credit of this Fabu∣lous Author) invents a story of Vigilius Banishment after the 5th Council.

Chap. xxxvi. Finally, Baronius overlooking the Am∣bition, Treachery and Heresie of Vigilius, can find but one ill thing in his life, which is his going to Constantinople when the Emperor required him; this he saith, was always fatal to the Catholick Church for the Pope to leave Rome q 1.780. Was it so when the Popes removed for 70 years to Avignion r 1.781? Was it so when Agaperus 10 years before came to Constantinople? No, saith Baronius, that was lucky, God sent him, and the power of the Apostolick seat was thereby demonstrated s 1.782: So that the difference was in the Men, Agapetus was a steddy Catholic, Vigilius an Heretical Hypocrite: Whose life shall conclude this Treatise.

His Ambition early appeared in procuring Boniface the 2d. contrary to the Canons to choose him for his Successor in a Synod t 1.783: But the Senate and the Laws of the Empire forced Boniface by a second Synod, to vacate this Election of Vigilius u 1.784. Again, upon Aga∣petus death, he made a compact with Theodora the Em∣press, that for 350 l. in Gold, and the Papcy (which she was to give,) he would restore Anthimus, and dis∣annul the Council of Chalcedon w 1.785; but coming to Rome he found Silverius in the Chair, upon which he tampers with Bollisarius, and shewing him the Empress's Mandate, promises him 100 l. in Gold to make him Pope x 1.786. Whereupon Silverius was falsly accused of

a Plot to betray Rome to the Goths, deposed and ba∣nished, and Vigilius thrust into the Seat y 1.787, Usurping it two years during Silverius life, and acting all that time as lawful Pope, viz. from An. 538. to An. 540. z 1.788, writing to, and receiving Epistles from Justinian, Cae∣sarius, Etherius, &c. a 1.789 But persidiously broke his pro∣mise both to Theodora and Bellisarius, and would nei∣ther restore Anthimus, for fear of the Romans, nor pay Bellisarius the Money b 1.790: And cruelly uses poor Sil∣verius banished to Patara, who in a Synod there ex∣communicated Vigilius c 1.791. But the Emperor hearing of it, sent him back to have the Cause heard more fully d 1.792, and being come into Italy, Vigilius by new pro∣mises, gets Bellisarius to put him into his Hands, and sent him to the Island Palmaria, and starved him to death there e 1.793. Upon this Baronius and Binius pretend a fit of Conscience took him, and he abdicated the Papacy, desiring to come in by a new Election, (of which he was sure by Bellisarius power f 1.794). And so the Hypocrit gets in a second time, the Electors being inspired, saith Baronius g 1.795; yet he hath till this mo∣ment described him as an Ambitious Deacon, mad with Pride, a Patron of Hereticks, a Schismatick, a Simoniack, an Usurper, a Successor of Simon Magus, and an Antichrist h 1.796.

Such was his entrance, and his Acts were suitable, for Liberatus saith, he did write an Epistle pursuant to his promise to Theodora, and Victor affirms, that he writ unto Theodosius of Alexandria, to Anthimus of Con∣stantinople, and to Severus of Antioch, (Eutychians de∣posed) as to Catholicks i 1.797, assuring them he believed as they did, but bids them not tell any so: But Baronius says, this Epistle is not his: Bellarmin says it may be his, but that it was only in shew, and before he was Pope k 1.798. Baronius Quarrels at the Inscription, as if he called Justinian and Theodora his Lords and Christs, but Victor expresly saith it was writ (not to them, but) to three Heretical Patriarchs, and that the Inscription was, To my Lords and Bretheren joyned to us in the Love of Christ

our Saviour l 1.799; and for all Binius and his pretences, it is not unusual for the Pope to call Eminent Bishops, Lords; Pope Urban calls Anselm Father and Master m 1.800, and Damasus calls Prosper and other Numidian Bishops his Lords n 1.801. Secondly, He alledges that Liberatus falsly affirms, that Vigilius in the Subscription of this Epistle condemned Dioscorus who was an Eutychian, which is absurd in a Letter whereby he would prove himself of that Party: To which it is replied, it is an Error of the Scribe, putting Dioscorus name for Nesto∣rius, of which Party all the rest were there named; And the Annalist allows many such literal mistakes in Li∣beratus o 1.802. Thirdly, Baronius asks, if this were his E∣pistle, why he was not upbraided with it by Theodora and others, when he refused to restore Anthimus? 'Tis answered, for ought he knows this was objected to Vigilius, since none can argue, ab Autoritate huma∣n•• negativè: However, it would have been objected had there been occasion; but the Story of the resto∣ring Anthimus is a Fiction of Anastasius, as he ap∣plies it to be the ground of a Quarrel, after Vigilius came to Constantinople: As to Bellarmine's Note, that owns the Epistle, but says, it was writ in Silverius his time before he was true Pope p 1.803; which excuse also Baronius, Binius and Gretzer make q 1.804: We must Note that Liberatus, an Author of that time, relates it to be writ after Silverius death; And when Silverius was re∣turned back to Italy, Bellisarius again pressed Vigilius to perform his promise to the Empress, which doth evidently suppose he had not as yet performed it, An. 540. And since Silverius died in June that year, (soon after he fell into Vigilius hands,) we may justly think he was too busie in dispatching him and con∣triving his new Election, to write this till after he was real and sole Pope; so that r 1.805 Nauclerus puts after Sil∣verius death, Theodora's demanding of him to fulfil his promise: But they object, that at this time he con∣demned Anthimus and confirmed the Council of Chal∣cedon, in his Epistles to Justinian and Mennas s 1.806, and

so it is not likely he should write the contrary to these Bishops just then. 'Tis answered, he was a Notorious Hypocrite (as they own,) and so might write on Opi∣nion openly to delude the Emperor, and another se∣cretly to the Hereticks; and (for all Bellarmine's pre∣tences) this last was his heart and mind; for why should he dissemble in secret with his Friends, with whom, as he tells them, he had but one Soul? He might very likely dissemble with the Emperor, for fear of being expelled out of the Seat he so much coveted; But what hurt or good could deposed Bishops do him? Fear therefore, not an Orthodox mind, restrained him from openly condemning the true Faith, and his Ambition to keep his high Station made him do it privately only: Which shews the weakness of Bellarmine's excuse, as if he did not write this ex animo: And equally frivolous, is that pretence of his not writing it as Pope, for when he writes of a matter of Faith and defines and de∣clares it, he either writes as Pope then or never, for that is his proper office: And the Nestorians might make all these objections against his Orthodox Epistle to the Emperor.

The second Act of Vigilius was his Constitution for Nestorianism, by which he run into the contrary He∣resie to that wherein he was dipt before, which hath been sufficiently manifested in this Treatise. There remains now only his Exit to be considered, of which Liberatus only saith, How Vigilius being afflicted by He∣resie died is known to all t 1.807; Bellarmine expounds him, that it was that same Heresie which he first secretly favoured, that afflicted him u 1.808: Baronius observes, he was by Gods just Judgment miserably tossed all his Life, hated by the Emperor and Eastern Bishops for defen∣ding the three Chapters, and execrable to the Western for his inconstancy; and when he was just coming into the Haven, died before he could reach home in Sicily, of the Torment of the Stone: As he had Murder∣ed his Predecessor a little before in an Island, so he died in one: And here we leave him to stand or fall to

his own Master, not imitating Baronius his spite to Justinian w 1.809, in determining his final Estate.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Binii Con∣cil. Tom. II. Par. I. Lab. & Cossart. Tom. IV.
• a 1.2

  Bin. p. 519. col. 1. Lab. col. 1314.
• b 1.3

  Bin. p. 521. col. 1. Lab. col. 1317.
• c 1.4

  Luke V. 36.
• d 1.5

  Bin. in not. pag. 520. col. 2. Lab. col. 1317. Baron An. 499. n. 1. pag. 529. & n. 10. pag. 530.
• e 1.6

  Theod. Lect. collect. lib. 2. pag. 186.
• f 1.7

  Cossiod. Chron. An. 514. inter opera. pag. 14. An. Dom. 500.
• g 1.8

  Bin. p. 521. col. 1. Lab. col. 1322. Baron. An. 500. n. 2. pag. 536.
• * 1.9

  An. Dom. 501.
• h 1.10

  Bin. p. 521. col. 1. Lab. col. 1323.
• i 1.11

  Marcellinus & Cassiodorus in Chronic.
• k 1.12

  Bin. not. p. 523. col. 1. Lab. col. 1327. Baron. An. 501. n. 1. pag 539.
• l 1.13

  Praecept. re∣gis Theod. Bin. pag. 524. col. 2. Lab. col. 1328.
• m 1.14

  Bin. p. 525. col. 1. La. 1323. Baron. An. 502. n. 6. p. 502.
• n 1.15

  Bin. not. pag. 525. col. 1. Lab. 1332.
• o 1.16

  Zonar. in vit. Anastas. Tom. 3. p. 121.
• * 1.17

  An. Dom 502.
• p 1.18

  Bin. p. 525. col. 2. Lab. 1332.
• q 1.19

  Bin. p. 526. col. 2. Lab. 1336.
• r 1.20

  Bin. Tom. l. pag. 102. notis ad vit. Fabian.
• s 1.21

  Baron. An. 502. n. 29. pag. 546.
• t 1.22

  Bin. pag. 526. col. 1. Lab. 1336.
• u 1.23

  Not. in Synod. 3. Bin. pag. 525. col. 1. Lab. 1333 Baron. An. 502. n. 21. pag. 545.
• w 1.24

  Baron. An. 503. n. 13. p. 552.
• x 1.25

  Bin. p. 528. col. 2. Lab. col. 1342.
• y 1.26

  1 Cor. 5. 11.
• z 1.27

  Bin. p. 541. col. 1. Lab. 1342.
• a 1.28

  Bin. ibid. Lab. col. 1343.
• b 1.29

  Bin. pag. 542. col. 2. Lab. 1346.
• c 1.30

  Bin. pag. 544 col. 2. Lab. 1352.
• * 1.31

  An. Dom. 503.
• d 1.32

  Baron. An. 503. n. 1. pag. 549.
• e 1.33

  Bin. not. p. 550. col. 1. Lab. 1370. Barou. ut supra. n. 9.
• f 1.34

  Bin. pag. 547. col. 2. Lab. col. 1364.
• g 1.35

  Bin. pag. 548. col. 1. Lab. 1365.
• h 1.36

  Bin. p 550. col. 1. Lab. 1371.
• i 1.37

  Bin. pag. 551. col. 2. Lab. 1375.
• k 1.38

  Bin. p. 553. col. 1. Lab. 1372.
• l 1.39

  Du Pin, Vol. 5. pag. ••08.
• * 1.40

  An. Dom 506.
• m 1.41

  Bin. pag. 554 col. 2. Lab. 1381.
• n 1.42

  Bin. pag. 555. col. 1. Lab. 1384.
• o 1.43

  Not. in Con. xii. Bin. pag. 560. col. 1. Lab. 1398.
• * 1.44

  An. Dom. 507.
• p 1.45

  Bin. pag. 561. col. 1. Lab. 1404.
• q 1.46

  Vita B. Fulgen. cap. 13. pag. 16.
• * 1.47

  An. Dom. 514.
• r 1.48

  Ep. Dorothei ap. Baron. An. 515. 7, 8. pag. 642.
• s 1.49

  Liberati Brev. cap. 22. Bin. par. 2 pag. 191.
• t 1.50

  Bin. not. in vit. pag. 557. col. 1. Lab. 1439.
• u 1.51

  Bin. not. pag. 556. Col. 2. Lab. 1418.
• w 1.52

  Baron. An. 514. n. 14. pag. 632.
• x 1.53

  Labbè in marg. 1420. & Tom. V. col. 305.
• y 1.54

  Labbè 1417. & 1418. marg
• z 1.55

  Ep. 1. Hor∣••••sd. Bin. pag. 557. col. 2. Lab. 1420.
• a 1.56

  De Marca De Concord. l. 5. cap 42. §. 6.
• b 1.57

  Ep. 26. Horm. Bin. 578. col. 2. Lab. 1468.
• c 1.58

  Ep 2. & 4. Hor. Bin. pag. 558, &c. Lab. 1422, &c.
• d 1.59

  Ep. 5. Hor. Bin. 561. col. 2. Lab. 1430.
• e 1.60

  Ep. Doroth. Bin. pag. 558. Col. 2. Lab. 1422. Baron. An. 515. n. 8. pag. 642. Vid. n. 11. ••bi legit (vestro)
• f 1.61

  Ep. 6. Hormisd. Bin. pag. 563. col. 2. Lab. 1436.
• g 1.62

  Not. in Ep. Anas. Bin pag. 563. Col. 1. Lab. 1435.
• h 1.63

  Ep. Johan. Nicop. Bin. pag. 564. Col. 2. Lab. 1438.
• i 1.64

  Baron. An. 516. N. 47. pag. 663.
• k 1.65

  Prosess. Fi∣dei. Bin. pag. 645. col. 1. Lab. 1686.
• l 1.66

  Ep. Avit. Bin. p. 568. col. 1. Lab. 1445.
• m 1.67

  Ep Justin. Bin. pag. 579. col. 2. Lab. 1470.
• n 1.68

  Indic. Hor∣misd. Bin. pag. 582. col. 2. Lab. 1476.
• o 1.69

  Bin. pag. 560. & pag. 568.
• p 1.70

  Ep. 17. Hor∣misd. Bin pag. 573. Col. 2. Lab. 1456.
• q 1.71

  Ep. 22. Hor∣misd. Bin. pag. 575. col. 1. Lab. 1459.
• r 1.72

  Ep. Anastas. Bin. ibid. Lab. 1460.
• s 1.73

  Baron An. 517. n. 48. pag. 677.
• t 1.74

  Bin. pag. 575. col. 2. Lab. 1461.
• u 1.75

  Ib. Bin. 576. &. Lab. 1462.
• w 1.76

  Baron. An. 517. n. 59. pag. 679. & pag 518.
• x 1.77

  Ep. 24. Hor∣misd. Bin. pag. 57••. col. 2. Lab. 1466.
• y 1.78

  Ep. 25. Hor∣misd. Bin. pag. 579. Lab. 1467.
• * 1.79

  An. Dom. 518.
• z 1.80

  Horm. Ep. 27. Bin. pag. 579. col. 1. Lab. 1470.
• a 1.81

  Baron. An. 518. n. 2, 3. pag. 2. Tom. 7.
• b 1.82

  Ep. to Censt. Bin. pag. 580. col. 1. Lab.
• c 1.83

  Ep. Epiph. Bin. pag. 605. col. 2. Lab. 1534.
• d 1.84

  Baron. An. 508. n. 30. pag. 589.
• e 1.85

  Indic. 2. Bin. pag. 582. col. 1. Lab.
• f 1.86

  Sug. 3. Bin. pag. 585. col. 2. Lab. 1485.
• g 1.87

  B. Petrum Ap.—obsecra∣mus, Leg.—apud B. Petrum Apostolum.—obsecramus. Ep. 37. Hormisd. Bin. pag. 584. Col. 2. Lab. 1483.
• h 1.88

  Libel. Jo∣han. Bin. pag. 586. Col. 1. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Lab. 1486.
• i 1.89

  Baron. An. 519. n. 54. pag. 32. Tom. 7.
• k 1.90

  id. An. 520. n. 4. pag. 55.
• l 1.91

  Ep. Justini∣an. Bin. pag. 610. Col. 2. Lab. 1547.
• m 1.92

  Baron. An. 520. n. 35, 36. pag. 62.
• n 1.93

  Idem 520. n. 56. pag. 66.
• o 1.94

  Id. An. 521. n. 6. pag. 72.
• p 1.95

  Victor. Tuen. Chron. pag. 7. Valer. & Just. Coss. An. 521.
• q 1.96

  Baron. An. 519. n. 27. & pag. 27.
• r 1.97

  Baron. An. 519. n. 35. pag. 29.
• s 1.98

  Id. An. 522. n. 14. pag. 83.
• t 1.99

  Ep. Anastas. Bin. pag. 589. col. 1. Lab. 1494.
• u 1.100

  Ib. Lab. 1516 Bin. pag. 598. col. 1.
• w 1.101

  Ep. Justin. ap. Baron. An. 519. n. 100. pag. 43. Bin. p. 598 col. 2. Lab. 1517.
• x 1.102

  Sug. Germ. Bin. pag. 597. col. 2. Lab. 1514.
• y 1.103

  Relat. Joh. Constant. Bin. pag. 600. col. 2. Lab. 1521.
• z 1.104

  Sug. G••rm. Bin. pag 600. col. 2. Lab. 1522.
• a 1.105

  Baron. An. 519. n. 142. pag. 52.
• b 1.106

  Relat Synod. Const. Bin. pag. 601. col. 2. Lab. 1524.
• c 1.107

  Epist. Justin. Bin. pag 602. c. 1. Lab. 1526.
• d 1.108

  Bin. pag. 606. Lab. 1536.
• e 1.109

  Ep. 70. Horm. Bin. pag. 605. col. 1. Lab. 1532. Baron. An. 519. n. 101. pag. 43.
• f 1.110

  Usher. Antiq. Britan. cap. 14. pag. 256. Forbes. Instruct. Theolog. lib. 3. cap 21.
• g 1.111

  Oper. Max. edit. Cochlaei, fol. 31.
• h 1.112

  Epist. Justin. Bin pag. 608. col. 2. Lab. 1542.
• i 1.113

  Bin. p. 609. col. 1. Lab. 1543.
• k 1.114

  Ep. Justin. Bin. pag. 611. col. 1. Lab. 1547.
• l 1.115

  Baron. An. 520. n. 4. p. 55. Tom. vii.
• m 1.116

  Baron. An. 519. n. 82, 83. pag. 39.
• n 1.117

  Bin. p. 599. col. 2.
• o 1.118

  Baron. An. 519. n. 124. pag 48.
• p 1.119

  Id. An. 520 n. 37. pag. 62.
• q 1.120

  Ep. Justin. Bin. pag. 610. Col. 2.
• r 1.121

  Baron. An. 521. n. 26, 27. pag 77.
• s 1.122

  Baron. An. 533. n. 4. pag. 179.
• t 1.123

  Vid. opera Fulg ep. ad Mo∣nach. col. 272.
• * 1.124

  An. Dom. 514.
• u 1.125

  Cone. Rhem. Bin pag. 614. col 2. Lab. 1572.
• w 1.126

  Ep. Rhem. Lab. col. 1608. An. 524.
• * 1.127

  An. Dom. 516.
• x 1.128

  Concil. Tar∣rac. Bin. pag. 615. Lab 1562.
• y 1.129

  Not. Bin. pag 617. Lab. 1566.
• * 1.130

  An Dom. 51••.
• a 1.131

  See these Notes on Ep. 24. Horm.
• b 1.132

  Concil. Ge∣rund. Bin. pag. 618, &c. Lab. 1567. An. Dom. 518.
• c 1.133

  Concil. Const. Bin. pag. 620. col. 1. Lab. 1586.
• d 1.134

  Bin. p. 725. Col. 2. Lab. Tom. 5. p. 162.
• * 1.135

  An Dom. 523.
• e 1.136

  Vit. Johan. Bin. pag. 621. Col. 2. Lab. 1600.
• f 1.137

  Not. Bin. 622. Lab. 1602.
• g 1.138

  Anastasius ut sup. Platina pag 71. Naucler. Chron. pag. 702 Paul. Diaconus l. 17. pag. 166, & 167.
• h 1.139

  Baron. An. 525. n. 8. pag. 106, & 107.
• i 1.140

  Pet. Diacon. l. 17. pag. 167.
• k 1.141

  Ep〈…〉〈…〉 Johan. Bin. pag. 623. col. 1. Lab. 1603.
• l 1.142

  Baron. An. 526. n. 3. pag. 111.
• m 1.143

  Ep 2. Johan Bin. pag. 526. col. 2. Lab. 1605.
• * 1.144

  An. Dom. 524.
• n 1.145

  Concil. Ilerd. Bin pag. 625. col. 1. Lab. 1610.
• o 1.146

  Lab. in Marg col. 1615.
• p 1.147

  Cincil. Va∣lent. Bin. pag. 629. Lab. 1617.
• q 1.148

  Concil. Arel. 4. Bin. pag. 631. col. 2. Lab. 1622, &c.
• r 1.149

  Lab. 1628. Baron. An. 523. n. 32. pag 103.
• s 1.150

  Lab. Col. 1629.
• * 1.151

  An. Dom. 526.
• t 1.152

  Vit. Foel. 4. Bin. p. 634 col. 2. Lab. 1649.
• u 1.153

  Baron. An. 526. n. 22 & 25. pag. 116, 117.
• w 1.154

  Relat. Ep. Bin. pag 605. col. 2. Lab. 1537.
• x 1.155

  Baron. ut sup. pag. 116.
• y 1.156

  Not. in vi∣tam Foelic. Bin. pag. 634, 635. Lab. 1650.
• z 1.157

  Ep. 1. Foel. Bin. pag 635. col. 1. Lab. 1650. Et Ep. 2. Bin. pag. 673. col. 1. Lab. 1656.
• a 1.158

  Vid. Bin. Tom. 1. pag. 158.
• b 1.159

  Baron. An. 530. n. 1. pag. 153.
• c 1.160

  Ep. 3. Foelix. Bin. pag. 637. col. 2. Lab. 1657.
• d 1.161

  Du-Pin Hist. Cent. 6. pag. 29.
• e 1.162

  Lab. col. 1658.
• * 1.163

  An. Dom. 529.
• f 1.164

  Concil Araus. 2. Bin. pag. 638. col. 1. Lab. 1666.
• g 1.165

  Lab. not. col. 1676.
• h 1.166

  Ep. 3. Joan. 2. Bin. pag. 655. col. 1. Lab. 1751.
• i 1.167

  Lab. col. 1673.
• k 1.168

  Not. Sir∣mond. Lab. col. 1689.
• l 1.169

  Not. ap. Bin. pag. 641. col. 1. Lab. 1676.
• * 1.170

  An. Dom. 529.
• m 1.171

  Concil. Vas. 3. Bin. pag. 641. Lab. 1679.
• * 1.172

  An. Dom. 530.
• n 1.173

  Vit. Bonif. 2. Bin. pag. 643. col. 2. Lab. 1682.
• o 1.174

  Vita Aga∣pet. Bin. pag. 664. col. 1. Lab. 1785.
• p 1.175

  Baron. An. 531. pag. 165. n. 1, 2.
• q 1.176

  Ep. 1. Bonif. 2. Bin. pag. 644. col. 1. Lab. 1683.
• r 1.177

  Not. in Ep. 1. Bin. pag. 645. Col. 1. Lab. 1686.
• s 1.178

  Exemplar prec. Bin. ibid. Lab. ibid. Baron. An. 530. n. 6. pag. 154.
• t 1.179

  Concil. Rom. 3. Bonif. Lab. 1691.
• u 1.180

  Not. Luc. Holstein. Lab. 1723.
• * 1.181

  An. Dom. 531.
• w 1.182

  Baron. An. 531. n. 12. pag. 167.
• x 1.183

  Concil. Tol. 2. Bin. pag. 646 Lab. 1734.
• * 1.184

  An. Dom. 532.
• y 1.185

  Vit. Joan. 2. Bin. pag. 650. Col. Lab. 1741.
• z 1.186

  Ep. Joh. 2. Bin. 651. Col. 1 Lab. 1741.
• a 1.187

  Ep. Justin. ad Joan. 2. Bin. pag. 651. Col. 2. Lab. 1742.
• b 1.188

  Baron. An. 534. n. 15. pag. 197.
• c 1.189

  Justin. Cod. lib. 1. tit. 2. de Sacros. Ec∣cles. Lab. 24.] pag. 10.
• d 1.190

  Inter. Ep. Agap. Bin. pag. 666. Col. 2. Lab. 1789.
• e 1.191

  Baron. An. 533. n. 39. pag. 188.
• f 1.192

  Ep. Atha. Bin. pag. 653. Col. 2. Lab. 1478.
• g 1.193

  Epist. 3. Johan. 2. Bin. pag. 655. Col. 2. Lab. 1752.
• h 1.194

  Revel. xx〈…〉〈…〉 18.
• i 1.195

  Ep. Repar. Bin. pag. 656. Col. 2. Lab. 1755.
• k 1.196

  Concil. Rom. sub Joh. 2. Bin. pag. 657. Col. 1. Lab. 1761.
• l 1.197

  Baron. An. 533. n. 26. pag. 185. & notis Binij.
• m 1.198

  Baron. An. 519. n. 108. pag. 45. & n. 110. ibid. & n. 104. pag. 44.
• n 1.199

  Ap. Baron. An. 533. n. 3. pag. 179.
• * 1.200

  An. Dom. 533.
• * 1.201

  (〈…〉〈…〉) Collat. Const. Bin. pag. 657. Col. 2. Lab. 1673.
• p 1.202

  Bin. pag. 658. Lab. 1764.
• q 1.203

  Bin. pag. 659. Lab. 1766.
• r 1.204

  Bin. ibid. Lab. 1767.
• s 1.205

  Bin. ibid. Lab. 1768.
• t 1.206

  Bin. pag. 663. Lab. 1778.
• * 1.207

  An. Dom. 535.
• u 1.208

  Vit. Agapet. Bin. pag. 665. Col. 1. Lab. 1785.
• w 1.209

  Liberati brev. cap. 21. 22. Bin. par. 2. pag. 191. Lab. 774.
• x 1.210

  Cassiodor. Ep. lib. 12. Ep. 20.
• y 1.211

  Vit. Not. in Agap. Bin. pag. 665. Col. 2. Lab. 1787.
• z 1.212

  Baron. An. 536. n. 68. pag. 254.
• a 1.213

  Baron. An. 535. n. 64. pag. 227.
• b 1.214

  Authent. Col. Novel. 16. pag. 34.
• c 1.215

  Ibid. Novel. 42. pag. 77, & 78.
• d 1.216

  Ep. Justin. ad Agap. Bin. pag. 666. col. 2. Lab. 1788.
• e 1.217

  Labbè in Marg. 1789.
• f 1.218

  Lact. In∣stit. lib. 5. §. 3.
• g 1.219

  Bin. not. in 1 Ep. Agapet. Bin. pag. 666. Col. 1. Lab. 1790.
• h 1.220

  Exempl. prec. Bin. pag. 666. col. 2. Lab. 1790.
• i 1.221

  Ep. 2. & 3. Agap. Bin. pag. 667. Lab. 1791, &c.
• k 1.222

  Baron. An. 535. n. 42. pag. 222.
• l 1.223

  Epist. 4. Agap. Bin. pag. 667. Col. 1. Lab. 1793.
• m 1.224

  Ep. 5. Agap Bin. pag. 668. col. 2. Lab. 1795.
• n 1.225

  Ep. 6, & 7. Agap. Bin. pag. 669. Lab. 1798. & 1801.
• o 1.226

  Bin. pag. 670. col. 1. Lab. 1801. &c.
• p 1.227

  Baron. An. 536. n. 18. pag. 243.
• * 1.228

  An. Dom. 536.
• q 1.229

  Bin. pag. 671. Lab. Tom. v. pag. 3.
• r 1.230

  Du-Pin. Eccles. Hist. Cent. 6. pag. 131.
• s 1.231

  Concil. Const. Bin. p. 678. col. 1. Lab. col. 19.
• t 1.232

  Act. 1. Bin. pag. 687. Lab. 47.
• u 1.233

  lb. Bin. pag. 672. Lab. 3. & 4.
• w 1.234

  Vid. Act. i. & alibi. Bin. pag. 689, 691, 696, & 710. Item Lab. pag. 54, 59, 71 & 118.
• x 1.235

  Bin. Act. v. pag. 703. Lab. 61.
• y 1.236

  Ibid. Bin. pag. 761. Lab. 263.
• z 1.237

  Baron. An. 536. n. 32. pag. 246.
• a 1.238

  Act. i. Bin. pag. 677. Lab. 19. & alibi.
• b 1.239

  Bin. Act. i. pag. 687. Lab. 47.
• c 1.240

  Ibid. Bin. pag. 677. Lab. 19.
• d 1.241

  Libel Mo∣nach. Bin. pag. 678. Lab. 22.
• e 1.242

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Bin. pag. 679. Lab. 23.
• f 1.243

  Bin. pag. 681. Lab. 30.
• g 1.244

  Bin. pag. 683, & 684. Lab. 38. &c.
• h 1.245

  Bin. 679. Lab. 23.
• i 1.246

  Bin. 684. Lab. 41.
• k 1.247

  Bin. pag. 707. Lab. 106.
• l 1.248

  Act. v Bin. pag. 721. Lab. 151.
• m 1.249

  Vid. ibid.
• n 1.250

  Bin. pag. 708. Lab. 107.
• o 1.251

  Baron. An. 536. n. 89. pag. 259.
• p 1.252

  Id. ibid. n. 92.
• q 1.253

  Baron. An. 536. n. 95. pag. 260.
• r 1.254

  Id. An. 536. n. 65. pag. 254.
• s 1.255

  Ib. n. 106. pag. 263.
• t 1.256

  Act. 5. Bin. pag. 723, 725. Lab. 158, 162.
• u 1.257

  Bin. pag. 743. Lab. 211.
• w 1.258

  Bin. pag. 732. Lab. 182.
• x 1.259

  Ep. Johan. Hieros. Act. 5. Bin. pag 734. Lab. 190.
• y 1.260

  Act. v. Bin. pag. 759. Lab. 2••5.
• z 1.261

  Const. Ju∣stin. Bin. pag. 761. Lab. 263.
• a 1.262

  Authent. col novel. Const. 42. cod. pag. 77.
• b 1.263

  Ep. Agap. Act. 1. Bin. pag. 687. Lab. 47.
• c 1.264

  Ib. Bin. pag. 706. Lab. 100.
• d 1.265

  Ep. Joan. Hieros. Act. v. Bin. pag. 734. Lab. 190.
• e 1.266

  Ep. Epi∣phan. Tyr. Act. v. Bin. pag. 736. Lab. 195.
• * 1.267

  (f) Sent. Men. Bin. pag. 758. Lab. 255.
• g 1.268

  Constit. Just. post. Act. v. Bin. pag. 761. Lab. 263.
• h 1.269

  Baron. An. 536. n 73. pag. 255.
• i 1.270

  Not. Bin. pag. 763. Lab. 269.
• k 1.271

  Ib. Bin. pag. 764. Lab. 270.
• l 1.272

  Ibid. 764. col 2. Lab. 272
• m 1.273

  Act. 1. Bin. pag. 687. Lab. 47.
• n 1.274

  Not. Bin. pag. 764. Col. 2. Lab. 272.
• o 1.275

  Ib. Bin. p. 765 Lab. 274.
• p 1.276

  Bin. p. 766. Lab. 274. Baron. Tom. 7. An. 518. n. 20. pag. 7.
• q 1.277

  Lit. D. Marc. in Bib Patr. edit. Paris. Tom. 2 pag. 35.
• r 1.278

  Eucholog. in not. Jac. Goar. pag. 144.
• s 1.279

  Concil. Hieros. Bin. pag. 766. Lab. 275.
• t 1.280

  Concil. Auver. Bin. Tom. 2. par. 2. pag. 31. Lab. col. 1803, An. Dom. 536.
• u 1.281

  Liberat. Brev. Bin. pag. 191. cap. 22.
• w 1.282

  Vit. Sylver. Bin. pag. 770. Col. 1. Lab. 287.
• x 1.283

  Baron. An. 536. n. 123. pag. 267.
• y 1.284

  Procop. de bel. Goth lib. 1. pag. 173.
• z 1.285

  Id. ibid. pag. 181.
• a 1.286

  Baron. An. 537. n. 5. pag. 269.
• b 1.287

  Procop. de bel. Goth. l. 2. pag. 232.
• c 1.288

  Paul. Diac. lib. 17. p. 170.
• d 1.289

  Procop. lib. 1. pag. 209.
• e 1.290

  Marcelin. Com. Chronic. indic. 15. p. 15.
• f 1.291

  Liberat. Brev. cap. 22. Bin. pag. 191, &c.
• g 1.292

  Notis in vit. Sylver., Bin. pag. 771. Lab. 289. Baron. An. 537. n. 18. pag. 277, 278.
• h 1.293

  Ep. 1. Sylver. Bin. pag. 772. col. 1. Lab. 291.
• i 1.294

  Baron. An. 539. n. 4. pag. 295.
• k 1.295

  Ep. 2. Sylv. Bin. ib. Lab. 293
• l 1.296

  Baron. An. 539. n. 5. pag. 296. An. Dom. 536.
• m 1.297

  Concil. Aurel. 2. Bin. pag. 773. col. 1. Lab. 1779.
• n 1.298

  Notis Bin. pag. 774. col. 2.
• o 1.299

  Vid. Sirm. notas in Con∣cil. 3. Aur. Lab. 305. An. Dom. 358.
• p 1.300

  Concil. Aurel. 3. Bin. Tom. 2. pag. 2. Lab. 295.
• * 1.301

  An. Dom. 537.
• * 1.302

  Vita Vigil. Bin. Tom 2. par. 2 pag. 1. Lab. Tom. 5. pag. 506.
• q 1.303

  Marcellin. Chron. P. C. Basil. An. 13. pag. 57.
• r 1.304

  Vita Sylver. ut supra.
• s 1.305

  Marcel. Chron. pag. 56.
• t 1.306

  Genebrard. l. 3. pag. 464.
• u 1.307

  Baron. An. 540. n. 3. pag. 301.
• w 1.308

  Baron. An. 538. n. 18, 19, 20. p. 277, 278.
• x 1.309

  Liberat. Brev cap. 22. Bin. pag. 192.
• y 1.310

  Vita Vigil. ap. Bin. & Lab. ut supra.
• z 1.311

  Bin. Tom. 2. par. 1. pag. 436. Lab. 1071. & Baron. An. 476. pag. 318.
• a 1.312

  Notis in Vit. Vigil. Bin. pag. 2. Lab. 308.
• b 1.313

  Vigil. Ep. 1. Bin. pag. 3. Lab. 311.
• c 1.314

  Baron. An. 538. n. 15. pag. 277.
• d 1.315

  Liberat. Brev. cap. 22. Bin. pag. 192.
• e 1.316

  Victor. Tuen. Chron. pag. 9.
• f 1.317

  Ep. 4. Vigil. ad Justin. Bin. pag. 5. Lab. 315.
• g 1.318

  Ep. 5. Vigil. Bin. pag. 6. Lab. 318.
• h 1.319

  Ep. 2. Vigil. Bin. pag. 3. Lab. 311.
• i 1.320

  Ep. 3. Vigil. Bin. pag. 4. Col. 2. Lab. 314.
• * 1.321

  An. Dom. 544.
• k 1.322

  Ep. 6. Vigil. Bin. pag. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. col. 1. Lab. 319.
• l 1.323

  Ep. 7. Vigil. Bin. ib. Lab. 320.
• * 1.324

  An Dom. 546.
• m 1.325

  Titul. E∣dict. ap. Bin. pag. 8 col. 2. Lab. 323.
• n 1.326

  Edictum vide Bin. pag. 151. Lab. 638.
• * 1.327

  An. Dom. 550.
• o 1.328

  Ep. 12. Vigil. Bin. pag. 10. Col. 2. Lab. 557.
• p 1.329

  Not. in Ep. 12. Bin. pag. 11. Col. 2.
• * 1.330

  An. Dom. 551.
• q 1.331

  Epist. 15. Vigil. Bin. pag. 11. c. 2. Lab. 327.
• r 1.332

  Concil. 6. gen. Bin. Tom. 2 par. 1. pag 21.
• s 1.333

  Damnatio Theo. &c. Bin. pag. 12. Col. 1. Lab. 334.
• t 1.334

  Not. in Ep. 15. Bin. pag. 13. Lab. 337.
• u 1.335

  Liberat. Brev. cap. 24.
• w 1.336

  Baron. An. 552. n 15. pag. 388.
• x 1.337

  Ap. Lab. 333.
• * 1.338

  Lab. Tom. v. 422, 429. col. 2. 430.
• a 1.339

  Bin. Tom. ii. par. 2. pag. 151. Lab. Tom. v. pag. 683.
• b 1.340

  Bin. Col. 1. 47, & 49. a. &c Col. 2. 51. 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• c 1.341

  Baron. An. 553. pag. 399. n. 31.
• d 1.342

  Id. n. 35.
• e 1.343

  Bin. Col. 2. 51. a. Lab. 430.
• f 1.344

  Bin. col. 1. 49. a.
• g 1.345

  Bin. col. 2. 51. a. Lab. 430.
• h 1.346

  Bin. & Lab. ibid.
• i 1.347

  Bin. col. 1. 47 b. Lab. 422.
• k 1.348

  Bin. col. 2. 52. b. Lab. 434.
• l 1.349

  Cusan de concord. Cath. l. 2. c. 1.
• m 1.350

  Conc. Chal. Act. 16. Bin. Tom. ii. pag. 1. 334. Lab. Tom. iv. 79. h.
• n 1.351

  Baron. An. 553. n. 41, & 48.
• o 1.352

  Ibid. n. 47, & An. 547. n. 39.
• p 1.353

  Vigil. Const. Bin. pag. 26. Lab. 376.
• q 1.354

  Bin. 25. Lab. 366.
• r 1.355

  Bin. ib. Lab. 367.
• s 1.356

  Bin. 26. Lab. 369.
• t 1.357

  Bin. 88. Lab. 509.
• u 1.358

  Ibid.
• w 1.359

  Baron. An. 553. n. 212.
• x 1.360

  In fine Col. 6. Bin. pag. 102. Lab. 544.
• y 1.361

  Ibid.
• z 1.362

  Col. 6. in fine.
• a 1.363

  Col. 8. Bin. pag. 116. Lab. 579.
• b 1.364

  Col. 8. Bin. pag. 115. Lab. 568.
• c 1.365

  Baron. An. 553. n. 213.
• d 1.366

  Bin. pag. 104. Lab. 548.
• e 1.367

  Baron. ut supr.
• f 1.368

  Col. 6. Bin. 91. a. Lab.
• g 1.369

  Ibid.
• h 1.370

  Col. 7. Bin. 104. Lab. 549.
• i 1.371

  Baron. An. 553. n. 219.
• k 1.372

  Col. 8. Bin. 115. Lab.
• l 1.373

  Baron. An. 553. n. 233. An. 546. n. 40, &c.
• m 1.374

  Coll. 8. ut supr. & Bin. 116. Lab. 179.
• n 1.375

  Concil. 6. Act. 15.
• o 1.376

  Baron. An. 553. num. 229.
• p 1.377

  Baron. An. 869. n. 68, 69.
• q 1.378

  Academia Paris. in Appel∣lat.
• r 1.379

  Baron. An. 547. n. 30. n. 46. n. 225. n. 231. Vid. item. Bin. not. in 5. Concil. pag. 174. Lab. 374.
• s 1.380

  Bin. Col. 1. pag. 47. Lab. 422.
• t 1.381

  Col. 8. saepis∣simè.
• u 1.382

  Baron. An. 546. n. 47.
• w 1.383

  Pelag. 2. ep. 7.
• x 1.384

  Greg. l. 2. ep. 36.
• y 1.385

  Bellarm. de Concil. cap. 12. §. 4.
• z 1.386

  Baron. An. 546. n. 41.
• a 1.387

  Id. An. 547. n. 50.
• b 1.388

  Greg. l. 3. ep. 37.
• c 1.389

  Const. Vigil. Bin. 25. Lab. 365.
• d 1.390

  Aug. Ep. ad Bonifac. citat. in Concil. col. 5.
• e 1.391

  Pelag. 2. ep. 7.
• f 1.392

  Col. 5. Bin. pag. 75. Lab. 479.
• g 1.393

  Edict. Just. Bin. 164 Lab. 715.
• h 1.394

  Concil. vi. Act. 12, 13 & 18.
• i 1.395

  Baron. An. 553. num. 233.
• k 1.396

  Id. ibid. num. 185.
• l 1.397

  Const. Bin. pag. 25. Lab. 366.
• m 1.398

  Edict. Bin. 164. Lab. 715.
• n 1.399

  Collat. 5. Bin. 79. Lab. 490.
• o 1.400

  Baron. An. 553. n. 49.
• p 1.401

  Bin. not. in 5 Concil. pag. 174. Lab. 735.
• q 1.402

  Vigil. Const. Bin. pag. 25. Lab. 364.
• r 1.403

  Collat. 5. Bin. 76, &c. Lab. 483, &c.
• s 1.404

  Ibid.
• t 1.405

  Concil. Ephes. Act. 1. c. 6. & Chalcea. Act. 5. pag. 96.
• u 1.406

  Justin. Ep. ad Synod. 5. Bin. 47. Lab. 421.
• w 1.407

  Collat. 8. Bin. 115. Lab. 568.
• x 1.408

  Pelag. 2. Epist. 7.
• y 1.409

  Collat. 5. Bin. pag. 77. Lab. 486.
• z 1.410

  Collat. 6. Epist. Ibas & Baron. An. 435. n. 4.
• a 1.411

  Collat. 5. Bin. 77. Lab. 486, &c.
• b 1.412

  Ibid.
• c 1.413

  Collat. 5. Bin. 71. Lab. 471, 472
• d 1.414

  Ibid. Bin. 81. Lab. 495.
• e 1.415

  Collat. 5. Bin. 84. Lab. 503.
• f 1.416

  Ibid. Bin. 76. Lab. 483. & 78. & 487.
• g 1.417

  Vigil. Const. Bin. 24, 25. Lab. 364, 365.
• h 1.418

  Pelag. 2. Ep. 7. §. etsi.
• i 1.419

  Vigil. Const. ut supra.
• k 1.420

  Liber. Brev. cap. 10. Bin. pag. 182. Lab. 752, &c.
• l 1.421

  Baron. An. 435. n. 11 & 12.
• m 1.422

  Notis in Liberat. Bin. pag. 193. Lab. 779.
• n 1.423

  Vigil. Const. Bin. pag. 25. Lab. 365.
• o 1.424

  Edict. Just. trin. Cod. l. 1. Tit. 1. Lab. 5. pag. 2.
• p 1.425

  Bin. pag. 160. Lab. 706.
• q 1.426

  Vigil. Const. ut supr.
• r 1.427

  Vigil. Const. Bin. pag. 25. Lab. 367.
• s 1.428

  Bin. Praes. Tom. i. pag. 2. pag. 3. & notis in Epist. 61. Leonis.
• t 1.429

  Baron. An. 427. n. 30. & An. 431. n. 182.
• u 1.430

  Act. Concil. Eph. cap. 2. & cap. 8. The Chalced. Act. 1. cap. 6.
• w 1.431

  Col. 5. Bin. pag. 72 & 85. Lab. 473 & 504.
• x 1.432

  Const. Vigil. ut supra.
• y 1.433

  Vid. Concil. Chalced. Act. 8.
• z 1.434

  Pelag. Ep. 7. ut supra.
• a 1.435

  Vigil. Const. Bin. pag. 26. Lab. pag. 367.
• b 1.436

  Cyril. Ep. ad Dynat. in Concil. Ephes. c. 16.
• c 1.437

  Vigil. Const. Bin. pag. Lab. 367.
• d 1.438

  Vigil. Const. Bin. pag. Lab. pag. 370.
• e 1.439

  Lab. Concil. 5. col. 6. pag. 515. Bin. p.
• f 1.440

  Vigil. Constit. ut su∣pra.
• g 1.441

  Concil. 5. ut supra.
• h 1.442

  Baron. An. 553. p. & An. 448. p.
• i 1.443

  Baron. An. 432. p.
• k 1.444

  Baron. An. 448. pag. 69. Et An. 553. pag.
• l 1.445

  Concil. Ephes. cap. 7.
• m 1.446

  Acta Con∣ciliab. Ephes. ibid
• n 1.447

  Vid. in fine Con. Ephesin.
• o 1.448

  Vid. Epist. Cyril. ibid.
• p 1.449

  Vigil. Const. Lab. pag. 373. Bin. pag.
• q 1.450

  Baron. An. 448. & An. 553. ut supr.
• r 1.451

  Concil. 5. Col. 6. pag. 517. Lab.
• s 1.452

  Baron. An. 448. n. 59. pag. 69.
• t 1.453

  Epist. Jo. ad Xystum inter Act. Concil. Ephes. Bin. T. 1. par. 2. pag. 421.
• u 1.454

  Liberat. Brev. cap. 10. Bin. pag. 182. Lab. 752, &c.
• w 1.455

  Cyril. Ep. ad Donatum. Concil. Ephes. par. 3. Num. 38.
• x 1.456

  Concil. v. Collar. 5. Bin. pag. 86. Lab. col. 508.
• y 1.457

  lb. col. 6. Bin. 88. Lab. 511.
• z 1.458

  Baron. An. 448. ut sup••.
• a 1.459

  Idem An. 432. pag. 625, 626.
• b 1.460

  Concil. Eph. par. 3. Epist. Cyril. ad Aca∣cium. Bin. pag. 431.
• c 1.461

  Ibid. pag. 422.
• d 1.462

  Vid. Epist. Iboe apud Bin. Tom. 2. par. 2. pag. 88. Lab. Concil. 5. Col∣lat. 6. pag. 509.
• e 1.463

  Concil. 5. Collat. 6. Bin. pag. 103. Lab. 546.
• f 1.464

  Edict. Just. post Concil. 5. Bin. pag. 161. Lab. col. 709.
• g 1.465

  Vigil. Const. in Lab. col. 371.
• h 1.466

  Const. Vig. ibid.
• i 1.467

  Concil. 5. Collat. 6. Bin. 104. Lab. col. 548.
• i 1.468

  Const. Vigil. ut supra.
• k 1.469

  Baron. An. 448. pag. 63. Tom. 6.
• l 1.470

  Vigil. Const. ut supr.
• m 1.471

  Baron. An. 448. pag. 66.
• n 1.472

  Idem An. 431. pag. 595.
• o 1.473

  Concil. Eph. par. 3. Bin. pag. 311.
• p 1.474

  Epist. Theo∣doret. ad Nestor. Concil. 5. Col. 5. propè finem. Bin. pag. 86.
• q 1.475

  Bin. Praefa∣tio ad Concil. Ephes. Tom. i. par. 2. pag. 4.
• r 1.476

  Concil. 5. Collar. 6. Bin. pag. 90. Lab. 514.
• s 1.477

  Concil. Chalced Act. x. Bin. pag. 289.
• t 1.478

  Vigil. Const. Lab. Col. 371.
• u 1.479

  Baron. An. 547. pag. 358. Item An. 553. pag. 437.
• w 1.480

  Baron. An. 547. pag. 358.
• x 1.481

  Id. An. 553. Saepissime.
• y 1.482

  Baron. An. 553 pag. 437, 438.
• z 1.483

  Victoris Chron. An. 2. post Consul. Basil.
• a 1.484

  Facundus ap. Baron. An. 546. pag. 344.
• b 1.485

  Vigil. Const. Lab. col. 375.
• c 1.486

  Concil. 5. col. 8. Bin. pag. 115. Lab. col. 568.
• d 1.487

  Craken∣thorps Vigil. dormit. chap. 14. pag. 201, &c.
• e 1.488

  Baron. An. 553. pag. 438 & 439. Idem. An. 554. pag. 445.
• f 1.489

  Bell. de Concil. l. 1. cap. 5.
• h 1.490

  Baron. An. 546. pag. 343.
• i 1.491

  Ibid. pag. 344.
• * 1.492

  (g) Bin. notis in Concil. 5. pag. 173.
• k 1.493

  Ibid. pag. 347.
• l 1.494

  Concil. 5. Collat. 8. Bin. pag. 115.
• m 1.495

  Baron. An. 547. pag. 359.
• n 1.496

  Baron. An. 547. pag. 360.
• o 1.497

  Concil. 5. Collat. 7. Ep. ad Rustic. & Sabin. & Epist. ad Valentin. ibid.
• p 1.498

  Baron. ib. pag. 362.
• q 1.499

  Victoris Chronicon. An. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 post. Consul. Bas.
• r 1.500

  Baron. An. 547. pag. 361.
• s 1.501

  See Chap. iii. of this History.
• t 1.502

  Bin. not. in Concil. 5. pag. 174.
• u 1.503

  Baron. An. 553. pag. 435.
• w 1.504

  Bin. notis ad Concil. 5. ut supr. pag. 174.
• x 1.505

  Baron. An. 554. pag. 444, 445.
• y 1.506

  Idem An. 547. pag. 362. & 361.
• z 1.507

  Bin. notis ad Concil. 5. pag. 174. §. cum. Baron. An. 553. pag. 438, 439.
• a 1.508

  Baron. An. 554. pag. 444.
• b 1.509

  Baron. An. 547. pag. 361.
• c 1.510

  An. 551. pag. 382.
• d 1.511

  An. 547. ut supr.
• e 1.512

  An. 551. pag. 381.
• f 1.513

  An. 551. pag. 384.
• g 1.514

  Ibid. pag. 381.
• h 1.515

  An. 552. pag. 387.
• * 1.516

  (i) Ibid. pag. 388, 389.
• k 1.517

  Concil. 5. Collat. 6. Bin. pag. 103. Lab. col. 546. Edict. Justin. Lab. col. col. 718. Bin. pag. 165.
• k 1.518

  Epist. Ju∣stin. ad Concil. 5. Collat. 1. Bin. 47. Lab. 422.
• l 1.519

  Concil. 5. Collat. 7. Bin. 106. Lab. 549.
• m 1.520

  Baron. An. 547. pag. 361.
• n 1.521

  Idem. An. 548. pag. 363.
• o 1.522

  Concil. 5. Collat. 7. Bin. 109. Lab. 551.
• p 1.523

  Ibid. Bin. 109. Lab. 558.
• q 1.524

  Baron. An. 550. pag. 375 & 380.
• r 1.525

  Victoris Chronic. An. 7. post. Cons. Ba∣silij.
• s 1.526

  Ibid. An. 8.
• t 1.527

  Concil. 5. Collat. 5. Bin. pag. 80. Lab. 492.
• u 1.528

  Victoris Chron. ut supr. An. 10. Libe∣rat. Breviar. cap. 23.
• w 1.529

  Idem An. II. id est, 26 An. Justin.
• x 1.530

  Baron. An. 551. ut supr.
• y 1.531

  Idem. An. 551 pag. 382.
• z 1.532

  Baron. An. 548. pag. 364 & An. 550. initio.
• a 1.533

  Victor. Chron. An. 8 & 9. post Con∣sul. Basilij.
• b 1.534

  Baron. An. 547. pag. 361.
• c 1.535

  Idem An. 551. pag. 384.
• d 1.536

  Idem. An. 552. ut supr. An. 26. Just.
• e 1.537

  Concil. 6 Gen Act. 3. & Bin. not. ibid.
• f 1.538

  Baron. An. 680.
• g 1.539

  Baron. & Bin. ut supr. cap. 15.
• h 1.540

  Id. An. 553. pag 435, 436.
• i 1.541

  Id. ib. p. 439.
• k 1.542

  Victor. Chron. An. 17. post consul. Basil.
• l 1.543

  Baron. An. 556. pag. 452. n. 1.
• m 1.544

  Beda de 6 aetat. mund. An. 4637. Sigon. de reg. Ital. An. 554.
• n 1.545

  Epist 7. Pelag. 2. inter fragm. Conc. 5. Bin. pag. 123. Lab. Col. 615.
• o 1.546

  Bin. Not. in 7 Epist. Pel. 2. pag. 257.
• p 1.547

  Baron. An. 553. pag. 435 & An. 554. pag. 444.
• q 1.548

  Evag. hist. lib. 4. cap. 37.
• r 1.549

  Concil 5. collat. 1. Bin. 47 & 49. Lab. 422, & 425.
• t 1.550

  Phot. de 7 Synod. in Concil. 7.
• * 1.551

  (f) Niceph. lib. 17. cap 27.
• u 1.552

  Baron. An. 554. pag 445. n. 6.
• w 1.553

  Anastas. apud Baron. An. 554. p. 444. n. 1.
• x 1.554

  Victor. Chron. An. 16. (malè leg. 17.) post consul. Basil.
• y 1.555

  Vict. Chr. Anno 17. post cons. Basil.
• z 1.556

  Vid. Anastas. vitâ Vigilii.
• a 1.557

  Baron. An. 548. p. 369. n. 24.
• b 1.558

  Bellarm. l. 4. de Pont. Rom. c. 10. Sand. de visibil. Monar. lib. 7.
• c 1.559

  Baron. An. 547. p. 357. n. 27. & An. 552. pag. 387. n. 8.
• d 1.560

  Id. An. 546. p. 347. n. 54.
• e 1.561

  Baron. An. 553. pag. 435. n. 222.
• f 1.562

  Id. An. 554. pag. 445. n. 6. Bin. not. ad Concil. 5. p. 174.
• g 1.563

  Procop. de bell. Gothic••, 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• h 1.564

  Baron. An. 554. initio.
• i 1.565

  Liberat. Brev. cap. 22. ap. Baron. An. 554. pag. 444. n. 5.
• k 1.566

  Idem. An. 538. pag. 277.
• l 1.567

  Baron. An. 553. pag. 434. n. 224. An, 553. pag. 399. n. 29.
• m 1.568

  Bin. notis in Con. 5. pag. 173. Col. 1.
• n 1.569

  Supr. chap. 4.
• o 1.570

  Baron. & Bin. ut supr. (l)
• p 1.571

  Bin. notis in Con. 5. ini∣tio pag. 171.
• q 1.572

  Baron. An. 553. pag. 398. n. 23, 24.
• r 1.573

  Concil. 5. Collat. 2. Bin. pag. 51. Lab. 430.
• s 1.574

  Ibid. Collat. 1. Epist. Vigil.
• t 1.575

  Baron. An. 381.
• u 1.576

  Cusan. de Concord. lib. 3. ch. 15.
• w 1.577

  Baron. An. 553. pag. 403. n. 47.
• x 1.578

  Id. ibid. pag. 434.
• y 1.579

  Bellar. de Concil. lib. 2. cap. 11.
• z 1.580

  Baron. An. 381. num. 80. pag.
• a 1.581

  Id. ibid n. 97. pag.
• b 1.582

  Greg. M. lib. 6. Epist. 31.
• c 1.583

  Turrian. de 6, 7 & 8 Synodis pag. 65.
• d 1.584

  Bin. notis in Concil. Con∣stantinop. 2.
• e 1.585

  Concil. Chal. ced. Act. 16. Bin. Tom. 2. par. 1. pag. 333.
• f 1.586

  Novel. 131 cap. 1, 2.
• g 1.587

  Euseb. de vitâ Constant. l. 3. c. 13. Digest. lib. 5. Lab. 19.
• h 1.588

  Concil. 5. Col. 6.
• i 1.589

  Concil. Chal. Act. 4.
• k 1.590

  Baron. An. 528. pag. 139. n. 2. An 538. pag. 281. n. 32•• An. 546. pag. 344. n. 41. An. 551. pag. 382. n. 2. & 4.
• l 1.591

  Possevin. Apparat. verbo Suidas.
• m 1.592

  Platin. vit. Bonif. secundi.
• n 1.593

  Trithem. lib. de Script. Eccles.
• o 1.594

  Concil. 6. Act. 4. in E∣pist. Agath.
• p 1.595

  Lib. brev. cap. 24. 〈◊〉〈◊〉
• q 1.596

  Precop. l. 3. de bell. Goth.
• r 1.597

  Baron. An. 528. pag. 139. An. 551. pag. 382. An. 553. pag. 439. n. 237
• s 1.598

  Concil. 5. Collat. 7. in fine Bin. 111. Lab. 561.
• t 1.599

  Baron. An. 551. pag. 382. n. 2. An. 552. pag. 387. n. 8. An. 553. pag. 435.
• u 1.600

  See Chap. 16 & 17.
• w 1.601

  Aug. lib. contr. Fulgent. Donat. c. 20.
• x 1.602

  Baron. An. 563. pag. 483. 484, 485. n. 1, 2, 6, 7, 8. Et An. 564. pag. 487. & passim.
• y 1.603

  Baron. An. 565. pag. 497, &c. 11. 6.
• z 1.604

  Evagr. Hist. l. 4. c. 40. Niceph. lib. 17. c. 30. Baron. An. 565. pag. 496.
• a 1.605

  Victor in Chron. An. 38. Justin.
• b 1.606

  Damsacen. lib. de Haeres.
• c 1.607

  Ai••on. de gest. Franc. lib. 3. c. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. Paul. Diac. de gest. Lang. l. 1. c. 25.
• d 1.608

  Greg. Mag. lib. 2. indic. 11. Ep. 10. & lib. 3. Ep. 4.
• e 1.609

  Possevin. in verb. Nicepho∣rut.
• f 1.610

  Baron. An. 563. pag. 484. n. 8.
• g 1.611

  Eustath. ap. Sur. 6. Apri∣lls.
• h 1.612

  See before Chap. 16.
• i 1.613

  Baron. An. 564. pag. 493. n. 29.
• k 1.614

  Histor. Miscel. lib. 16.
• l 1.615

  Zonar. Tom. 3. vit. Justin.
• m 1.616

  Baron. An. 578. pag. 567. n. 5.
• n 1.617

  Idem. An. 564, 493. n. 29.
• o 1.618

  Baron. An. 578. pag. 566. n. 2.
• p 1.619

  Greg. Mag. lib. 14. Moral. chap. 29.
• q 1.620

  Liberat. Brev. cap. 24. Baron. An. 538. pag. 281. n. 33. & in Concil. 5.
• r 1.621

  See Cra∣kenthpor's Vi∣gilius dormit. cap. 20. pag. 349, &c.
• s 1.622

  Baron. An. 535. pag. 226. n. 59, 60. An. 536. pag. 268. n. 123. An. 538. pag. 275. n. 9. An. 548. pag. 369. n. 24.
• t 1.623

  Constantin. Manas. Annal. pag. 87.
• u 1.624

  Justin. no∣vel. 8. cap. 1.
• w 1.625

  Prag. sanct. c. 1.
• x 1.626

  Concil. 6. Act. 3. & Act. 4.
• y 1.627

  Baron. An. 535. pag. 227.
• z 1.628

  Ibid. pag. 233. n. 86.
• a 1.629

  Victoris. Chronic. An. 2. post. Cons. Bas.
• b 1.630

  Idem in Chron. in Cons. Justininani. An. 14. ejus Regni.
• c 1.631

  Greg. Mag. lib. 2. Ep. 36.
• d 1.632

  Baron. An. 547. pag. 353 & 356.
• e 1.633

  Baron. An. 547. pag. 362. n. 48.
• f 1.634

  An. 553. pag. 439. n. 237.
• g 1.635

  Baron. An. 534. pag. 199. n. 21.
• h 1.636

  Id. An. 546. pag. 336. n. 8, 9.
• i 1.637

  Id. ibid.
• k 1.638

  Baron. An. 551. pag. 381. 382 & alibi.
• l 1.639

  Id. An. 564. pag. 488.
• m 1.640

  Baron. An. 534. pag. 199. n. 21.
• n 1.641

  Luke xij. 49, 51.
• o 1.642

  Baron. An. 546. pag. 336. n. 8, 9.
• p 1.643

  Liberat. breviar. cap. 24.
• q 1.644

  Facundus apud Baron. An. 546. ut supr. (o)
• r 1.645

  Vigil. ap. Baron. ibidem.
• s 1.646

  Vid. Ep. ap. Binium. Tom. 2. par. 2. pag. 12. Lab. col. 334.
• t 1.647

  See Chap. 16.
• u 1.648

  See Chap. 20.
• w 1.649

  Vid. Pos∣sevin. Appar. verbo (Facun∣dus.)
• x 1.650

  Bellarm. de Concil. l. 1. c. 5.
• y 1.651

  Baron. ap. Bin. notis in Liberat. brev. pag. 193.
• z 1.652

  Possevin. apparat. verbo (Liberatus.)
• a 1.653

  Hieron. contr. Russin. Apol. 1.
• b 1.654

  Concil. 5. Collat. 8. Art. xi. Bin. 116. Lab. 575.
• c 1.655

  Ap. Baron. An. 538. pag. 293.
• d 1.656

  See instan∣ces in the Au∣thor. Vigil. dorm. pag. 378. c. 24.
• e 1.657

  Baron. An. 553. pag. 433. n. 214.
• f 1.658

  Dionys. Exig. in Praef. ad Epist. Procl. Bib patrum. Tom. iii.
• g 1.659

  Justin. Leg. 7. de sum. Trin. c. 4.
• h 1.660

  Baron. An. 533. pag. 180, 181. n. 7, &c.
• i 1.661

  Idem An. 534. pag. 198. num. 15.
• k 1.662

  Idem. An. 519. pag. 43 & 44, &c.
• l 1.663

  Concil. 5. Collat. 6. Bin. pag. 102. Lab. col. 545.
• m 1.664

  Baron. An. 553. pag. 432. n. 211.
• n 1.665

  Bin. notis in 5. Concil. pag. 172. Lab. 732.
• o 1.666

  Edictum Justin. Bin. pag. 161. Lab. 707. Greg. M. Epist. 53. lib. 7.
• p 1.667

  Concil. 5. Collat. 6. Bin. pag. 91. Lab. 516.
• q 1.668

  Baron. An. 448. pag. 69. n. 77.
• r 1.669

  Id. An. 432. (pag. 626. n. 71.
• s 1.670

  See Chap. 10.
• t 1.671

  Baron. ut supra. (lit. (m)
• u 1.672

  Bin. in notis ut supr. (lit. n.)
• w 1.673

  Concil. 5. Col. 8. Bin. 114. Lab. 567.
• x 1.674

  Ibid. Col. 6. Bin. 91. Lab. 517.
• y 1.675

  Greg. M. lib. 7. in d. 2. Ep. 54.
• z 1.676

  Concil. Chalced. Act. 5. & Act. 10.
• a 1.677

  Baron. An. 553. pag. 440. n. 243. & pag. 439. n. 238. Bin. notis in Conc. 5. pag. 172. Lab. 732.
• b 1.678

  Concil. 5. Collat. 5. Bin. 79. Lab. 490.
• c 1.679

  lb. Collat. 8 Bin. pag. 116. Lab. 575.
• d 1.680

  Baron. An. 553. pag. 440.
• e 1.681

  Niceph. l. 17. c. 27. Et Evagr. lib. 4. c. 37.
• f 1.682

  Baron. An. 538. pag. 280. n. 29, &c.
• g 1.683

  Baron. An. 553. pag. 440. & Bin. ut supr (a)
• h 1.684

  Concil. 5. Collat. 8. Bin. 116. Lab. 175. Anath. 11.
• i 1.685

  Concil. Nicen. 2. Act. 1.
• k 1.686

  Baron. An. 553. pag. 440. n. 244. Bin. notis in Concil. 5. pag. 172. Lab. 732.
• l 1.687

  Baron. ibid. Bin. & Lab. ib.
• m 1.688

  Concil. 5. Coll. 1.
• m 1.689

  Baron. An. 553. pag. 403. n. 47, &c.
• n 1.690

  Bin. notis in Concil. 5. pag. 176. Lab. 738.
• o 1.691

  Concil. 5. Collat. 7.
• p 1.692

  Baron. An. 553. pag. 434. n. 218.
• q 1.693

  Baron. An. 553. pag. 440, 441. n. 245. è Gul. Tyr. de Bel sacr. l. 24. c. 12.
• r 1.694

  Bellarm. de Pont. l. 1. c. 24.
• t 1.695

  Concil. Chal. Act. 7. vel 8.
• u 1.696

  Concil. Chalced. ap. Baron. An. 451. Sess. 8. pag. 154. n. 124.
• w 1.697

  Concil. Chal. Act. 7. Bin. pag. 271.
• x 1.698

  Concil. sub. Men. Act. 5. Bin. pag. 734. Lab. pag. 187.
• y 1.699

  Baron. An. 536. pag. 265. & ap. Bin. p 766 Lab. p. 275.
• z 1.700

  Berterii di∣atr. 2. cap. 2.
• a 1.701

  Baron. An. 553. p. 399. n. 29. & p. 439. n. 238.
• b 1.702

  Ibid. p. 441. n. 247.
• c 1.703

  Baron. ib.
• d 1.704

  Vid. Concil. 6. Act. 3. & 14.
• e 1.705

  Baron. An. 554. p. 445. n. 8.
• f 1.706

  Baron. An. 553. p. 403. n. 46.
• g 1.707

  Cod. Theo∣dos. Tit. de hae∣ret. l. 66.
• h 1.708

  Concil. 5. coll. 5.
• i 1.709

  Baron. An. 448, pag. 50. n. 2.
• k 1.710

  Id. An. 449. p. 103. n. 130.
• l 1.711

  Baron. An. 436. Tom. 5. pag. 658. n. 10.
• m 1.712

  Qui vixit An. 580. Lib. de sectis.
• n 1.713

  Leont. cap. 2.
• o 1.714

  Ibid. cap. 4.
• p 1.715

  Baron. An. 431. pag. 602, & 598.
• q 1.716

  Baron. An. 432. pag. 628. n. 80.
• r 1.717

  ld. An. 436. pag. 658. n. 11, 12. Et An. 449. pag. 106. n. 140.
• s 1.718

  Baron. An. 432. p. 626. n. 72.
• t 1.719

  Epistol. ad Diosc. Baron. An. 444. & ad Leon. An. 449. & ad Nomum. An. 448.
• u 1.720

  Baron. An. 423 pag. 481. n. 10.
• w 1.721

  Id An. 438. pag. 66 3. n. 6. Theodoret. hist. lib. 5. cap. 36.
• x 1.722

  Theodoret. ibid. cap. 40.
• y 1.723

  Baron. An. 427. pag. 506, & 507. n. 28.
• z 1.724

  Bin. not. in Concil. 5 p. 172. Lab. 732. Baron. An. 444. p. 20, &c. & An. 553. p. 402.
• a 1.725

  Confer. Ba∣ron. An. 63 & 93. & Bin. not. in Ep. Clem. & Turrian. ma∣xime.
• b 1.726

  Baron. An. 438. pag. 663. n. 8.
• c 1.727

  Concil. V. Collat. 5. Bin. pag. 86. Lab. col. 508.
• d 1.728

  See many Instances in the Author at large. p. 429, &c
• e 1.729

  Baron. An. 553. p. 403. n. 46.
• f 1.730

  Vigil. dorm. c. 34. p. 435.
• g 1.731

  Baron. An. 553. p 404. n. 50. Bin. Tom. II. par. 2. pag. 13. Lab. col. 338.
• h 1.732

  Baron. An. 592. pag. 389. n. 20.
• i 1.733

  Vigil. Epist. post. Ep. 16. Bin. pag. 12. Lab. pag. 334.
• k 1.734

  See above (h)
• l 1.735

  See Ch. 23.
• m 1.736

  See Ch. 20.
• n 1.737

  See Ch. 33.
• o 1.738

  Baron. An. 448. pag. 51. ••. 7, 8.
• p 1.739

  Id. ibid. pag. 52. n. 11. Edict. vide Leg. 66. Cod. Theod.
• q 1.740

  Baron. An. 451. pag. 155. n. 129.
• r 1.741

  Vid. Justin. Edict. Bin. pag. 165. & Lab. col. 718. Vid. item Con∣cil. 5. collat. 6. Bin. 103. Lab. 546.
• s 1.742

  Concil. Chalced. Act. 10. Bin. p 295.
• t 1.743

  Bin. Tom. II par. 2. pag. 1. Lab. Tom. V. p. 306.
• u 1.744

  Vita Vigil. ibid.
• w 1.745

  Procop. de bell. Goth. l. 2 & 3.
• x 1.746

  Vita Vigil. ut supr.
• y 1.747

  Procop. de bell. Goth. l. 1.
• z 1.748

  Baron. An. 540. p. 303. n. 11. & 305. n. 20.
• a 1.749

  Baron. An. 541. p. 312. n. 3.
• b 1.750

  Bin. not. in vit. Vigilii.
• c 1.751

  Vita Vigil. ut supra.
• d 1.752

  Procop. de bell. Persic. l. 2.
• e 1.753

  Idem bell. Vandal. lib. 2, & 4.
• f 1.754

  Bin. not. in Vit. Vigilii.
• g 1.755

  Vita Vigil. ut supra.
• h 1.756

  Bin. not. ibid. Baron. An. 540. p. 303.
• i 1.757

  Baron. An. 545. pag. 334.
• k 1.758

  Liberati Breviar. c. 22. Bin. pag. 192. Lab. 775.
• l 1.759

  Vigil. Epist. 4 & 5.
• m 1.760

  Victor. Chron. an. 4. post. Consul. Basil. Baron. An. 545.
• n 1.761

  Anastas. in vit. Vigil. ut supr.
• o 1.762

  Baron. An. 546. p. 347. n. 54, 55.
• p 1.763

  Bin. not. in vit. Vigil. p. 3. Lab. 310.
• q 1.764

  Procop. de bell. Goth. l. 3.
• a 1.765

  Anastas. vit. Vigil. ut supra.
• b 1.766

  Baron. An. 536. pag. 244.
• c 1.767

  Baron. An. 552. pag. 387. n 8. Bin not. in vit Vigil. ut supr.
• d 1.768

  Anastas. in vit. Vigil. ut supr.
• e 1.769

  Baron. An. 542. p. 322. n. 1.
• f 1.770

  Baron. An. 547. pag. 353. n. 12.
• g 1.771

  Procop. de bell. Goth. l. 3. pag. 372, &c.
• h 1.772

  Anastas. vi••. Vigil. ut supr. Baron. An. 553. p. 396, & 397. n. 13 & 18.
• i 1.773

  Procop. de bell. Goth. l. 3.
• k 1.774

  Bin. not. in vit. Vigil. p. 3. Lab. 310.
• l 1.775

  Baron. ut supr. lit. (h).
• m 1.776

  Locis supr. cit.
• n 1.777

  Procop. de bell Goth. lib. 3.
• o 1.778

  Evagr. l. 4. cap. 23.
• p 1.779

  Anastas. in vita Vigilij, ut supr.
• q 1.780

  Baron. An. 346. pag. 347. n. 55.
• r 1.781

  Genebr. Chron. An. 1305.
• s 1.782

  Baron. An. 536. pag. 241. n. 12, &c.
• t 1.783

  Anastas. in vit. Bonif. 2. Bin. pag. 643. An. 532.
• u 1.784

  Silverij Ep. 1. & Annst. ut supr.
• w 1.785

  Liberat. in Brev. cap. 22. Bin. pag. 192. Lab. 775.
• x 1.786

  Idem. ibid.
• y 1.787

  Idem. Ibid. & vid. Anastas. in vitâ Silverij
• z 1.788

  Baron. An. 538. pag. 274. & An. 540. pag. 300.
• a 1.789

  Vide Epist. Vigil.
• b 1.790

  Liberat. apud Baron. An. 538. pag. 276.
• c 1.791

  Epist. 1. Silver. ad Vigil.
• d 1.792

  Liberat. ut supr.
• e 1.793

  Id. ibid. Baron. An. 540. pag. 300. n. 1. & Anastas. in vit. Silverij.
• f 1.794

  Baron. An. 540. pag. 301. n. 4.
• g 1.795

  Ib. pag. 302. n. 7.
• h 1.796

  Vid. loca citat. ap. Au∣thorem.
• i 1.797

  Liberat. cap. 22. Victor in Chronico ubi ipsa Epistola extat. & ap. Ba∣ron. An. 538. pag. 276. n. 14.
• k 1.798

  Bel. l. 4. de Pontif cap 10.
• l 1.799

  Vict. Chron. An. 2. post Consul. Vigil.
• m 1.800

  Malmsb. l. 1. gest. Pontif. pag. 127.
• n 1.801

  Damas. Ep. 5. ap. Bin. Tom. 1. pag. 508.
• o 1.802

  Baron. An. 538. pag. 275. n. 7.
• p 1.803

  Bellarm. de Rom. Pont. l. 4. c. 10.
• q 1.804

  Baron. An. 538. pag. 277. n. 15. Bin. not. in Liberat. pag. 194. Gretzer. defens. Bel. l. 4.
• r 1.805

  Naucler. Chron. gen. 18.
• s 1.806

  Ep. Baron. An. 540. pag. 303.
• t 1.807

  Liberat. Brev. c. 22. ut supr.
• u 1.808

  Bellarm. de Pont. Rom. l. 4. cap. 10.
• w 1.809

  Baron. An. 565. pag. 497. n. 6.