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 ...

CHAP. III.

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

BEING to discourse of the Fourth General * 1.1 Council at Chalcedon, we must observe, that besides the partial Preface before it a 1.2, and the fal∣lacious Notes after it b 1.3, published by the Editors, the Acts of it are divided into three parts. The first containing the Epistles, and other Writings precedent to the Council. The second containing the several Acts of it. The third containing the Epistles, and other Transcripts relating to that Council afterwards. Of the first part I shall treat very briefly, having spoken of divers things, there collected, in the former Chapter; only noting now some of the Frauds and Errors in these preliminary Epistles. And first, I need not en∣large upon those false Stories in the Preface to this Council, (which I confuted before, Anno 448, and Anno 449.) That Eutyches appealed from Flavian's Coun∣cil at Constantinople, to the Pope; That the Pope imme∣diately became an Enemy to that Heretick; That it was the highest Crime in Eutyches to appeal from the Pope to the Emperor c 1.4. Nor will it be necessary to insist upon the Prefacers owning that Theodosius called the Pseudo-Synod of Ephesus, at Dioscorus his request; and though Pope Leo did labour to hinder it, yet he durst not but send his Legates to it, who indeed did generously refuse to joyn in the condemnation of Flavianus: But whereas the Prefacer pretends Flavianus appealed to the Apostolick See d 1.5 (as if the Pope were alone fit to receive Ap∣peals), I must note, First, That de Marca confesses All the rest of the Patriarchs were his open Enemies, and

therefore he was compelled to apply to the Western Church for help e 1.6, and yet he did not Appeal to the Pope alone; and Leo told Placidia, that Flavia∣nus Appealed not only to the Apostolick Throne, but to all the Bishops of those parts f 1.7; and Leo saith the same thing in his own Epistles, that the Appeal was to all the Churches of those parts g 1.8; and therefore all the Western Bishops joyned with Leo in desiring a Council might be held in Italy: Which was when they were met in Council at Rome, and had (no doubt) declared their dislike of Dioscorus's proceedings; but it suffici∣ently confutes the Prefacers boast of Leo and his Coun∣cils rescinding the Acts of this Ephesine Pseudo-Synod, as if that had been sufficient to null all that was done there; because if the Pope, in that Council of Rome, had sufficient Authority to have abrogated the Acts of Ephesus, there was no need for them to desire a greater Council to re-examine this matter, or for Leo (as the Preface owns) to engage the Western Emperor, his Mother and his Empress to write to Theodosius, to suffer the Transactions at Ephesus to be heard over again h 1.9. But Theodosius having called that Synod by his own Au∣thority, and being persuaded by Eutyches his Party, that the proceedings in it were regular, would not be prevailed on by any importunities to grant this request; but he dying soon after, and Marcian (by marrying Pulcheria, Sister and Heir to Theodosius) coming to be Emperor, consented to call a General Council, but not (as the Pope desired) in Italy, but in the East, where the Controversie began, and where by the Ancient Canons it was to be decided. Which suffices to dis∣cover all those falshoods that are in that part of the Preface, which concerns the things before this General Council.

In the Preleminary Epistles and Edicts which con∣stitute the first part of the Council of Chalcedon, we may observe many of the Titles of the Epistles are corrupted by Roman Parasites. So in the first Epistle of Flavianus i 1.10 the true reading is, to Leo Arch-Bishop

of the elder Rome; but they have made it Pope, &c. In Flavians second Epistle to Leo, the Latin Copies leave out of the Title, and Fellow minister k 1.11: So again [Pope] is put into the Latin Copy instead of Arch-Bishop in a Letter of Leo's to the Monks at Constanti∣nople l 1.12. And in Leo's Epistle to Theodosius, in the La∣tin (for Leo, Bishop) there is put in these absurd words, Leo, Pope of the Catholick Church of the City of Rome m 1.13. And in his Epistle to the second Synod at Ephesus, the Latin leaves out these Material Expressions, to his beloved Brethren in the Lord greeting n 1.14. To conclude, the Greek Title owns that Leo and his Roman Synod petitioned for a Council in Italy; the Latin leaves this out, though the body of the Letter do expresly declare that request o 1.15 Now these are plain Instances how little Credit is to be given to the Latin Copies of this Council, and especially to these Titles, which the Popes Flatterers have frequently corrupted, and altered them from the modest Style used in those days. And hence we may gather how frivolously Baronius argues from the Titles of Pope Leo's Epistles, wherein he stiles himself Bishop of the Roman and of the Universal Church p 1.16; that the Popes then did use the style of Universal Bishop; though St. Gregory expresly denies that ever any of his Prede∣cessors used that profane, new and proud Title; but the Annalist makes bold to give Gregory the Lie, meer∣ly on the credit of these corrupted and fictitious Titles, prefixed by forging Parasites; for Leo's usual Inscripti∣on was, Leo, the Bishop of Rome, to, &c. so that where we see Bishop or Pope of the Catholick Church of Rome, &c. q 1.17, there 'tis certain the Flatterers have been at work. But as to more material observations; when Flavianus had condemned Eutyches, he doth not desire the Pope to confirm the Sentence, which being regu∣larly passed on him by his own Bishop in Council, no man could relax (as Leo himself grants r 1.18): But his Letter to Leo requires him to publish it to all the Bi∣shops under his jurisdiction s 1.19. In Leo's Epistle to Ju∣lian, one of his Legates, the Latin Copy puts in [nobis,]

and makes Leo say there is one Doctrine and Teaching of the Holy Ghost, in us and in you; but the Greek reads—in the whole Catholick Church t 1.20. Again, it is com∣monly pretended that Pope Leo was utterly against the Emperors calling the second Council at Ephesus; and that one reason which made all its proceedings null, was because it was called without his consent: But it appears by divers of this Popes Letters here publish∣ed, that he owned it a pious Resolution of the Emperor to call this Council u 1.21, and in observance of his Com∣mands, he sent his Legates to it: So that he never pleaded his Authority in bar to the Emperors Right, even when in his Judgment he thought there was no need of it w 1.22. And he declares that he sent these Legates, not to preside there, but to agree with them by common consent on such things as might be pleasing to God, as his Letter to this Synod shews, Num. 13.

It appears by Petrus Chrysologus, Bishop of Ravenna's Letter to Eutyches, that he appealed to him as well as to the Pope; for he excuses himself as unfit to judge a Cause that had been tried in a far Country, especi∣ally upon hearing only one Party x 1.23: A Rule, which if the Popes had duly observed, they would not have received so many unjust Appeals. 'Tis true, he refers him to Pope Leo's Epistle to Flavianus, lately writ on this subject; but Binius in his Notes falsly puts in, that he warns him to rely on it as an Oracle of the Holy Ghost y 1.24; for he only saith, there was now an Orthodox Pope in St. Peter's Chair, who had taught the Faith aright in this Epistle, which had been sent by Leo, a little before, to this and other Bishops of the West, for their approba∣tion. But that of Leo himself in his Epistle to Theodosi∣us, shews he was no honester than he should be, and deserved not so good a Character as the Bishop of Ra∣venna gives him; for he impudently cites one of the Sardican Canons, under the forged Title of the Nicene Canon made by all the Bishops in the World z 1.25; the Mar∣gin would excuse this, by pretending that other Fathers cite these Sardican Canons under the Title of Nicene

Canons; but we know no ancient Fathers did so, ex∣cept Zosimus and Boniface his Predecessors, who, to their lasting infamy, were convicted of this notorious Fraud in the Council of Carthage; and therefore it was an odd piece of assurance in Leo, so soon after, to make use of the same detected Cheat. In another Epistle of his against Eutyches, he saith, In the mystical distribu∣tion of the spiritual Food, that is given and received, by which those who partake of the virtue of the Heavenly Food, are changed into his Flesh, who was made our Flesh a 1.26, which is point blank against their modern Opinion of Transubstantiation, making the Bread to be Spiritual and Heavenly Food, and the change to be not in the Elements, but in the Receivers. After this we have di∣vers Epistles of the Western Emperor Valentinian; of his Mother and Empress, to Theodosius and Pulcheria, writ at the request of Pope Leo, to desire that Emperor to re∣voke the Judgment passed in the Pseudo-Synod of Ephesus, which further proves the Pope had no Authority in himself to null those Acts; for he would not have begged with Tears that which was in his own Power. But the great use the Romanists make of these Letters, is on account of some high Expressions in them about the Popes having a Power over all Bi∣shops b 1.27, and a Principality among them c 1.28. But there is some doubt whether these Epistles are genuine, the Story of their being at Rome the night after St. Peter's day, not agreeing to the time when these pretended Epistles must be writ: But if they be not forged, Rome will gain nothing by these phrases, which Leo put into their Mouths; for he certainly endited these Letters for them, as we may know by this Evidence, that the Emperors Mother, Galla Placidia (who understood no more of the Canons than the Pope told her) cites the Canon of Sardica, for a Canon of Nice d 1.29, as Leo had done before; and therefore ex ungue Leonem; we may easily know the Penman of these Epistles: Now when he bears witness only to himself, his testimony is suspi∣cious, and of no weight at all; and Theodosius valued

these brags so little, that he calls Leo only by the name of Patriarch in his answer, and affirms the Nicene Ca∣nons were not broken, and therefore he utterly reject∣ed the request e 1.30. Yet Leo was forced to be content, and to receive Anatolius chosen Bishop of Constantinople, in this Synod of Ephesus into his Communion, only desi∣ring him to give an Account of his being Orthodox in the Faith, that he might publish it to other Bishops f 1.31; Soon after which Theodosius died.

Marcianus succeeding, and having no other Title to the Empire than his being married to Pulcheria, he remit∣ted much of the Majesty of Style in his Letters to Leo and other Bishops, used by Theodosius and other Emperors g 1.32. But even when he complements the Pope in the highest strain, he will not yield the Council should be called in Italy as the Pope desired, but re∣solves to have it in the East, in some City which he himself should choose h 1.33: Where we may see a noto∣rious Forgery in Baronius and Binius, for whereas the Emperor saith, where it shall seem good to us, Baronius turns nobis, into vobis, and Binius in his Notes follows him i 1.34; as if the Emperor had left it to the Pope, to choose what City he pleased for the Council to meet; Nay further, Binius who reads it nobis in the Epistle, yet in a Note before that Letter, he saith it was where the Peope pleased; and hath the Confidence to say in his Notes at the end of the Council, that the Emperor writ to the Pope to appoint the place, time and manner of calling this General Synod: Than which nothing can be more false; for the Pope would have had it in the West if he might have chosen, but the Emperor Sum∣moned the Bishops first to come to Nice, as his Letters yet extant shew k 1.35; and thither the Popes first Letter to the Synod ought to be directed; and I wish that ig∣norant hand which altered the Title, and put in Chal∣cedon instead of Nice, hath not put in those words in it, of saving the honour of St. Peter, and of his Legates being sent to preside in the Council l 1.36, which passages might look favourably on the supremacy if they be genuine;

only they are no more but Leo's own Evidence in his own Cause: After this the Council being assembled at Nice, they with the Popes Legates desired the Em∣perors presence among them, upon which he removed the Council to the City of Chalcedon, and thither he afterward came to them m 1.37. On which I shall only note, that Baronious and Binius have turned this Peti∣tion of the Council and Legates, into a Declaration of the Legates alone; for they pretend that the Em∣peror writ to the Council, That it seemed good to the Popes Legates that he should be present n 1.38; Which is a false representation of the matter, as the Emperors Letter shews.

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

First, As to the Authority by which it was conve∣ned; Though the Preface had owned that Marcian called this Council o 1.39, yet the Notes affirm, it was ap∣pointed by the Authority of Leo, and by the advice, assistance and help of Marcian congregated: And again, it is clear this General Council was convened by the Exhortation and Counsel of the Emperor, but by the Command and Autho∣rity of the Pope p 1.40: And this they pretend to prove by the Epistle of the Bishops of Maesia, writ some years after the Council, which they cite thus, Many holy Bi∣shops meeting in the City of Chalcedon, by the Command of Leo (who is truly an head of Bishops;) but the Epi∣stle adds—and of the venerable Bishop and Patriarch Anatolius a Council was held, which was confirmed under two Emperors q 1.41. But these fraudulent Editors leave out these last words, which shew that these Bishops were as much called by the Authority of Anatolius as of Leo, and also that the Emperors confirmed the Acts of this general Council, which two things Binius would

conceal from his Reader: Now this accidental ex∣pression of six Bishops long after, implying no more but only that Leo and Anatolius sent out the Emperors Summons to all Bishops, (the other three Patriarchs being not then of unsuspected fame,) is all they have to prove this egregious falshood of this Councils being called by the Popes sole Authority, except an Epistle of Gelasius, another Pope pleading his own Cause: Whereas there are clear and express proofs almost innumerable, that it was appointed and convened or called by the Em∣perors Authority: For Leo was summoned himself by the Emperor, and in obedience to that Summons ex∣cuses his own absence, and sends his Legates to the Council r 1.42. And the Emperors general Letter, strictly requiring all Bishops to be there is extant s 1.43, a Copy of which probably was delivered to the Pope: And in the beginning of every Act it is expresly said, The Synod met (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉—〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c.) by the command, or divine Authority of the Emperors t 1.44; and it is so often repeated, that this Council was called by the precept or command of the Emperor, as makes it needless and impossible to cite all the places: Libera∣tus the Deacon who writ some years after (when the Popes had encroached something further) saith, at the Popes request the Emperor commanded this Council to be assembled u 1.45; which makes it a strange boldness in Baronius to affirm, that the Emperor requested the Pope that a Council might be called w 1.46, which not only this Historian but the Emperors Letter in the next page contradicts: Yea Leo himself in his 61st Epistle, which the Notes cite with great applause owns, the Council was gathered by the precept of the most Christian Prin∣ces, &c. x 1.47 and the Pope in divers of his Epistles, owns the Authority of calling general Councils to be in the Emperor; yea the Legates own in the very Council it self, that the Council was summoned by the Emperors Authority: So that for any of the Popes flatterers to pretend the contrary, is to wink against the clearest light.

Secondly, As to the Presidents of this Council, the Historical Preface is very positive, that the Apostolical Legates presided y 1.48; and the Notes prove it was a gene∣ral Council, because the Pope presided by his Legates z 1.49. But if that were essential to a General Council, there was none before this of Chalcedon: Here indeed three of the five Legates named by the Pope, Paschafinus, Lucentius and Boniface, were allowed to sit uppermost on one side of the Bishops, but Basilius and Julianus, the other two, who also were named Legates by the Pope, were not owned by the Council under that Cha∣racter, and therefore had no precedency given them a 1.50. And if this be all they mean by the Legates presiding, that they in right of the Pope had the first place among the Bishops, we will not contend with them; but if they suppose any Power or Authority these Le∣gates had over the Council by this precedency, we must deny that. Baronius brags that all things were deter∣mined by the Popes Authority b 1.51 And the Notes be∣fore cited, speak as if they had done all things in this Council c 1.52; yea, the Latin version of the Council for∣gets the Title of Presidents, thrice, and claps it to the names of these Legates d 1.53, which Title is not in the Greek: But if we examine into the matter, these three Legates who were allowed by the Council, had nothing more than the honour of sitting uppermost upon the left hand, and sometimes speaking and subscribing first: But in the twelfth Act concerning the Church of Ephesus, over which the Patriarch of Constantinople claimed some Jurisdiction, Anatolius speaks before the Popes Legate, and by his direction the matter was de∣termined e 1.54. And though both Baronius and the Notes boast, That the Legates pronounced the sentence on Dios∣corus in the Popes name, as Presidents of the Council f 1.55; Yet if we consult the place we shall find, that they twice asked the Synods Opinion of Dioscorus his Case, and the whole Synod declared he was to be condemn∣ed; yet the Legates durst not pronounce the Sentence, till they asked if the Synod commanded them to give the

Ecclesiastical Sentence, and upon the Order of the Synod they first pronounced it, and every Bishop single, de∣clared Dioscorus was deposed and excommunicated g 1.56: So that there was nothing of Authority in the Legates, but only their speaking first, and declaring that which the whole Council had agreed upon. And because Anatolius commonly spoke in the second place, there∣fore he is joyned with Leo, and both of them toge∣ther are called the Princes of this Council h 1.57. So in one of the Epistles, after the Council, Leo and Anatolius are said to have regularly presided herein i 1.58: By which Titles are meant only that they had the principal Places in this General Council: But the true President of this great Synod, was the Emperor, who, when he was present, sate above all the Bishops in the midst, and his Legates, the Lay-Judges, in his absence, sate there; and these Representatives of the Emperor in∣deed had not only the most honourable place of all, but some Authority over the Synod it self: For they propounded or allowed all matters to be debated; of them all Bishops, even the Popes Legates k 1.59, desired leave to speak; they summed up the Debates, and ge∣nerally gave the decisive Sentence, and upon that fol∣lowed the Acclamations; so that these Judges perform∣ed all that the Modern Popes Legates in late Councils have taken upon them, since their Supremacy hath been in its greatest Exaltation. If they object, that neither they nor the Emperor were allowed to be pre∣sent when Dioscorus was condemned according to the Canons l 1.60. I Answer, the Judges in a former Session, after a full hearing of the Cause, had determined (if the Emperor consented) that Dioscorus should have the same punishment which he had inflicted on Flavianus, and that he and his Accomplices should by the Council be deposed from Episcopal Dignity, according to the Canons; to which De∣cree the whole Synod consented m 1.61: So that there was no more to be done in the third Session, but only for the Bishops canonically to execute this Sentence up∣on Dioscorus; and there was no occasion for the Empe∣ror,

or the Lay-Judges to be present, only his confir∣mation of this Sentence was so necessary, that they writ both to Marcian and Pulcheria to desire their con∣fimation thereof n 1.62: So that the chief Authority was in the Emperor and his Representatives, the Bishops advising, and they finally determining and confirming what was agreed upon, so that they were properly the Presidents here.

Thirdly, As to the Confirmation of all these Acts, the Notes affirm, That all which was decreed here concern∣ing the Faith against Eutyches, was confirmed and appro∣ved by Leo's Authority, as the Fathers had desired of him in their Synodical Epistle; but they pretend he annulled and made void the 28th Canon o 1.63: And this they pre∣tend to prove, not by the Synodical Epistle it self, for that speaks only of the Emperors confirmation, and never desires the Pope to ratifie the matters of Faith, but saith, he and they by his Legates had agreed on these points, only they wish for his consent to the 28th Canon about the Primacy of Constantinople, which his Legates had opposed p 1.64. And indeed they suppo∣sed they had his consent in all things which the Le∣gates agreed to; and so those passages cited by the Notes out of Leo's Epistle, do not prove that he con∣firmed the Decrees of Faith, otherwise than by giving his common suffrage to them by his Legates, and agreeing with them afterwards q 1.65: And thus all other Bishops, who were absent, and had Legates there, con∣firmed them as well as the Pope; as for his dissent from that Canon, and their brags that he had made it void, we shall shew afterwards, that it remained in force for all the Popes opposition. But it may be ob∣served how notoriously the Latin Version corrupts the Text to insinuate this Papal confirmation; for in the Speech they made to the Emperor, in the end of the Council, the Latin hath these words, Concilii hujus a vobis Congregati Praedicationem, Petri sedis Authoritate robo∣rantes, implying that the Popes Authority was to confirm the determinations of the Council: But the Greek hath a

quite different sense, viz. that the determinations of the Pope (that is, Leo's Epistle to Flavianus) were confirmed by that Holy Council which the Emperor had gathered r 1.66: And not only that Speech, but many other evidences do shew clearly, that the Emperor confirmed the De∣cree of this Council. For First, In the end of divers Acts, the Judges, as the Emperors Legates, do confirm what was agreed upon s 1.67, and sometimes promise to acquaint the Emperor for his confirmation t 1.68: Yea, the Emperor in his Speech made to the Synod, saith he came to the Synod to confirm the Faith, and not to shew his Power, as Baronius and the Latin Version reads it u 1.69; but the Greek more truly reads, I came to the Synod to confirm what was agreed on, &c. which shews sufficient∣ly, that the Emperor was to confirm all the Acts: Yea, in that very Session wherein the Faith was subscribed by the Bishops, the Emperor expresly confirms it, and makes a penal Sanction against all that shall contradict or oppose it w 1.70, upon which the Fathers cried out thou hast confirmed the Orthodox Faith x 1.71: And a little while after the Council was ended, the same Emperor put out two Edicts, wherein he doth fully confirm the De∣crees of this Holy Council, adding in the later, penal∣ties to all that would not receive it y 1.72. Wherefore we can make no doubt that the main confirmation of the Acts of this Council was from the Emperor.

§. 3. In the next place we will consider the several Sessions and Acts which were in number sixteen. In the first Action, Baronius, by mistake, affirms, that the Emperor was present z 1.73; but the Acts shew that he was only present by his Legates, the Lay-Judges, who representing the Emperor the true President of this Au∣gust Assembly, sate in a more honourable place than the Popes Legates, and here and always are named before them a 1.74. But the Champions of the Supre∣macy boast extreamly of the great words of the Popes Legates concerning the See of Rome; who say in this first Action, on the mention of Rome, which is the

Head of all Churches b 1.75; and the Greek seems to refer it to Pope Leo. To which may be added, that the same Legates in the third Action, though they do not call the Pope Head of the Universal Church, as Bellarmine falsly cites their words c 1.76; yet they magnifie St. Pe∣ter as the Rock and groundwork of the Catholick Church, and the Foundation of true Faith d 1.77: And in some other places they call the Pope Universal Bishop, &c. To which I answer, The Council no where gives the Bi∣shop of Rome any of these extravagant Titles, and did so little regard these empty brags of the Legates, that in the first Act, the Judges do reject the very first re∣quest which Leo's Legates made to the Council; and when they petitioned in Leo's name, that Dioscorus might stand at the Bar, the Judges bid him sit down e 1.78: And if we consider how zealous this ambitious Pope was for the Dignity of his See, and that his Legates had been taught their Lesson at Rome, we may justly argue from the Councils silence, and the lower Style of Arch-Bishop which they give him, that these big Thrasonical Titles were not believed nor appro∣ved by them; for many things are reported in the Councils, as said by particular persons, which were not the Act of the whole Council; for which reason Bel∣larmine egregiously prevaricates, when he makes this whole General Council to call Peter the Rock and Ground∣work of the Catholick Church f 1.79; For it was only the Popes Domesticks called him so; and had the Council foreseen the consequence, they would expresly have opposed, that which they only silently passed by as frivo∣lous. In the next place we may observe, that it is said in this Council, that the Emperor confirmed the Acts of the second Council at Ephesus g 1.80, therefore it was usual then for the Emperor so to do, since this is alledged to prove that a lawful Council. Again, when the Acts of this second Council at Ephesus were read at Chalce∣don, the Greek plainly saith, the Emperor by his Letters exhorted the Pope to be present there, but the Latin Ver∣sion corrupts the Text, and puts in supplicarunt b 1.81, as

if the Emperor had humbly supplicated the Pope to be there; whereas one of his Legates, a few lines be∣fore, owned, that the Pope had the same Form of Sum∣mons sent him, that was sent to the other great Bishops. Moreover, in Eutyches Petition read in that Council, Cyril is called the President of the third General Council at Ephesus i 1.82, without any mention of the Pope: And we may further observe, that the Heretick Euty∣ches, in the Acts of the Council of Constantinople which condemned him, is called Pope Eutyches, that being a name formerly given to all Eminent Clergy-men, espe∣cially in the East k 1.83. I shall make no more remarks upon this first Session, which was spent in reading over and reviewing the Council of Constantinople, wherein Eutyches was condemned, and the Pseudo-Synod of Ephesus wherein Dioscorus absolved him, because I have treated of both before: It is sufficient to observe upon this full hearing, the Council of Chalcedon condemned both Eutyches and Dioscorus, and the Lay-Judges summ'd up the Act; but there seems to be a Roman addition in the end of this first Act, where it is thrust in without choerence and sense, that Leo writ an Epistle to Flavi∣anus; which, though it be true l 1.84, comes in very im∣pertinently here; but the Forger thought when the Writings of the Orthodox Fathers were mentioned, that of Leo ought by all means to be mentioned right or wrong.

In the second Action there is nothing considerable, but the reading of this very Epistle of Leo to Flavia∣nus (after the Nicene and Constantinopolitan Creed) being written expresly about the Eutychian Heresie, the main Cause to be then decided m 1.85; which was there∣fore received there as other Orthodox Writings were, with general Acclamations; but the Notes, citing these Acclamations, quote them imperfectly no further than these words, Peter speaks by Leo n 1.86: But the Council goes on, and says, The Apostles and Cyril taught thus, by which we may see it was the consonancy of Leo's Doctrine, to the writings of the Apostles, and of St. Cyril, not the

infallibility of his See which procured his Epistle this general applause. Wherefore the Prefacer need not have mentioned these Acclamations, as if they were only given to Leo's Epistle, or had been made upon some single excellency peculiar to the Bishop of that See o 1.87; for both the Creeds, and two of Cyril's Epistles had been honoured with such like Acclamations a little before.

The third Action contains the canonical deposition of Dioscorus, after the Bishops had heard all the com∣plaints against him, cited him thrice, and could not prevail with him to appear. Now there being nothing to be done at this Session, but to proceed according to the Canons, of which the Bishops were the proper Ex∣ecutors; they only met, without Lay Judges, which (saith Binius) is the most evident note of a General Coun∣cil p 1.88, but in truth it is no note of any such matter; for if that were not a General Council, wherein some of the Lasty were present, then there never was any General Council till this time, and this single Act would then be the sole Regular Act of this General Council; to such absurd consequences doth these mens blind zeal lead them. The next thing to be noted is, a corruption in the Titles of the Petitions, which some of the Aegy∣ptian Clergy offered to the Council against Dioscorus; for the Greek hath no more but this, The Petition of Theodorus, the Deacon, exhibited against Dioscorus; but the Latin Version thrusts in Pope Leo's name thus, ex∣hibited to Pope Leo and the Council of Chalcedon q 1.89, and the same corruption is in the Titles of the following Petitions of Ischyrion, Athanasius and Sophronius. If it be objected, that the Superscriptions of all these Petiti∣ons, both in Greek and Latin are, To the most Holy, &c.—Universal Patriarch of Great Rome, Leo, and to the Holy General Council, &c. r 1.90: I reply, these Superscripti∣ons seem to be forged also: For first, Eusebius his Pe∣tition before, mentions not Leo, and these Petitions are addressed only to the Council, there being not the least sentence in them peculiar to Leo, or supposing him to

see or read them; so that these Superscriptions to an absent Bishop are non-sense, and in all probability ad∣ded by some Roman Transcribers, as may be guessed by the great swelling Titles, with which the Pope is loaded. Again, in the Summons sent to Dioscorus the third time, it is declared, that the Emperor had command∣ed the Bishops to hear this Cause; the Greek word is [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], but the Latin softens it into [permisit] s 1.91. However, whether the Emperor commanded or per∣mitted the Bishops to hear this Cause, it is plain, that even in this Session, consisting only of Clergy, the Bi∣shops had the Emperors leave, and proceeded by his permission. As to the Sentence it self; the Preface t 1.92, the Notes u 1.93 and Baronius w 1.94 pretend it was pronoun∣ced in Leo's name, and boast much of the Legates pro∣nouncing it. But if we consult the place, we shall find that since no Lay-Judges were there, the Popes Legates were (as these Judges did in other Sessions) to collect the Votes, and then to sum them up, and publish them; and therefore, after the enquiry was ended, they ask what the Synod thought fit to be done; which they do over and over again, and till the Council ex∣presly commanded them, they did not pronounce the Sentence x 1.95. 'Tis true, these Legates had learned their Lessons so well at Rome, that they contrive it. in words very pompous, The most Holy and Blessed Arch-Bishop of the Elder and Greater Rome, Leo, by us, and by this pre∣sent Synod, with the most Blessed and Honourable Apostle, Pe∣ter, who is the Rock and Groundwork of the Catholick Church, and he that is the Foundation y 1.96 of the Orthodox Faith, (that is, Jesus Christ) hath deprived him of his Episcopal Dignity, and degraded him from all Ministration; there∣fore let this most Holy General Council decree concerning the said Dioscorus what is agreeable to the Canons z 1.97. But these Rhetorical Flourishes, coming only from the Popes Domesticks, give him no right to them; it is more material what Cardinal Cusanus observes, that the Legates, as sitting first in this Council, first pronounce Sen∣tence by the Synods command, and then all she rest in order;

and the force of the Sentence depends upon the agreeing Votes of all: And we see, that though the Pope had before canonically deposed Dioscorus, yet his Sentence was re-exami∣ned in a General Council a 1.98. This is certain, that Ana∣tolius, of Constantinople, and all the rest, though in mo∣dester words, did singly condemn Dioscorus, and he was deposed and degraded by the Authority of the Gene∣ral Council, and the free Votes of the several Bishops, who, as Pope Leo himself speaks, had confirmed his Sen∣tence with an assent, which made the Cause uncapable of being tried any more b 1.99. And the Sentence which was published about his deposition c 1.100, as well as the Letter writ to Alexandria d 1.101 expresly declare, that he was de∣posed and degraded by the Holy General Council (c): And the very same is affirmed in the Synodical Epistles, writ to Martian and Pulcheria, to desire them to con∣firm the Councils Sentence e 1.102. So that in vain do the Modern Romanists brag of the deposition of Dioscorus by the Popes Supream Authority; for it was the opi∣nion indeed of the Pope, before the Council met, that he ought to be deposed; but it was the Authority of the Council, ratified by the Emperor, which actually deposed him.

In the fourth Act, the Epistle of Pope Leo to Flavia∣nus (wherein the Heresie of Eutyches was confuted and condemned) was subscribed by all the Bishops, who severally declared they received it, because it was a∣greeable to the Faith declared in the three former Ge∣neral Councils of Nice, Constantinople and Ephesus; and some of them add, because it was agreeable to the Scri∣pture, and to the Expositions of the Orthodox Fathers f 1.103. Now had these Fathers believed the Pope to be Infal∣lible in matters of Faith, they must have received this Epistle only upon the Credit of the Pope; where∣as they now examin and judge of it by the Rules prescri∣bed in former Councils, and receive it, not because the Enditer of it was Infallible, but because he had kept close to former determinations in General Councils. And since the business of this Council was to discover

and condemn the Heresie of Eutyches, against which new Sect no eminent Bishop but Leo had written, there∣fore this Epistle was made a Test, and all were obliged to subscribe it, not (as the Romanists brag) because the See of Rome was to fix the Rule of Faith; but be∣cause this was the only Writing then extant of this kind; and we may as well prove that St. Cyril was the Supream Bishop of the World, and the sole Arbiter of Faith, because his Epistles were subscribed in the Ge∣neral Council of Ephesus, as a Test to find out and condemn the Nestorians, as infer the Roman Supre∣macy or Infallibility from the Bishops subscribing Leo's Epistle at Chalcedon. We may further note in this Acti∣on, that how confidently-soever modern Editors place the Councils of Constantinople and Ephesus, under Da∣masus and Celestine; the Popes Legates here plainly say the Council of Constantinople was held under the Em∣peror Theodosius g 1.104; and other Bishops affirm, that Cyril was the President and Head of the Council at Ephe∣sus h 1.105: Again, it is to be noted, that though Juvena∣lis of Jerusalem, and four other Bishops who had joyned with Dioscorus in the Synod at Ephesus, to condemn Fla∣vianus, repented and had subscribed Leo's Epistle, and so declared themselves to be Orthodox; yet the Council could not restore them to their Places, till the Emperor, by his Judges, gave them leave to determine their Case i 1.106. It is also memorable, that the Egyptian Bishops, after their own Patriarch Dioscorus was deposed, refused to sign the Epistle of Leo, till they had a new Bishop of Alexandria, under whose jurisdiction the Nicene Ca∣nons had put them; and though the Popes Legates and many others urged they should subscribe immediately, yet these Bishops were excused by the Council, and their Plea allowed k 1.107; which shews, that those who were under the Patriarch of Alexandria, owed no sub∣jection at all to Rome; nor did they or the Council of Chalcedon think the Pope was really (what his Legates flat∣teringly call him) the Universal Arch-Bishop of Patriarch, for then they could not have allowed this Plea. More∣over,

'tis observable in this Act, that Photius, Bishop of Tyre, affirms, both Anatolius and Leo were the Presidents of this Council l 1.108: Also this Bishop in his Petition to the Emperors, stiles them Lords of the Earth and Sea, and of all Men, Nations and Kindreds m 1.109; which shews that Titles are not to be strictly understood, or to be made any ground for Argument, since Complements were used then as well as now; and therefore the Romanists should not attempt to prove a right from every flou∣rishing Title bestowed on the Pope by those who speak of him. In the Cause between this Photius of Tyre, and Eustathius of Berytus, there is a passage, how one of these Bishops claimed a right to some Churches by the Imperial Edicts, and the other by the Canons; and he who claimed a right by the Canons, got the better: Yea, the Council declared, that Edicts ought not to prevail against the Canons * 1.110. From whence Baro∣nius infers, that Princes ought to learn from hence to make their Laws submit to the Ecclesiastical Canons n 1.111. But it must be noted, this was not intended to be a Rule in all Cases, only as to the old Rights of Bishops Jurisdictions; and it was a Rule made now, only up∣on this occasion; and which is most remarkable, the Judges tell the Council, it was the Emperor's pleasure, this Cause should be tried, nor by the Edicts, but by the Ca∣nons; for which the Bishops gave that pious Emperor thanks: And therefore it is a great fallacy to argue from hence, that Ecclesiastical Canons are above the Laws of Princes in their own nature; only in this Case the Good Emperor, to oblige the Bishops, suffer∣ed the Canons to prevail. To conclude, this Session ended with a confirmation of all things done by the Lay-Judges, who declare they should remain firm o 1.112, and so the Session ended.

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

the Emperor advised the Dissenters to go with Anato∣lius and the Popes Legates, and to confer among them∣selves so as they might agree, otherwise they threatned that the Emperor resolved to call a Council in the West, to which they must go to determin the dif∣ference p 1.113: From whence we may note, that they knew of no single Person who could finally decide questions of Faith; and though it was to be determined at Rome, a general Council must do it there: However, this Method proved effectual, and so they published their Faith unanimously, annexing it to the Creeds of Nice and Constantinople q 1.114. We shall only note further, that in the Acclamations made in this Session it is said, That the Councils definition had confirmed Leo's Epistle, and the Faith of Leo is commended because he believed as Cyril believed: And after all, the Bishops agreement was not sufficient to ratifie this definition of Faith, till it was shewed to the Emperor r 1.115 as the last words import.

The Sixth Action was adorned with the presence of the Emperor Marcianus, who made a Speech to the Fathers, (which Baronius by mistake saith was in the first Session s 1.116;) telling them he was come to confirm the Faith they had agreed on, (as Constantine did) not to shew his power t 1.117. Which is a clear and undenia∣ble proof, that the confirmation of their Decrees de∣pended on the Emperor, in whose presence the defi∣nition of Faith was read and subscribed by every one of the Bishops; and he declared his Approbation there∣of, and in the open Synod appoints penalties for them who should, after this, call these Points into que∣stion u 1.118. And then he gives them some Rules, to be formed into Canons, because they related to Ecclesia∣stical Affairs; after which having been highly Applaud∣ed by the Bishops, he was petitioned to dimiss them, but told them they must not depart for some few days, and so took his leave of them. Which shews that the Emperor who convened them, had also the sole power to dissolve this general Council: I shall add what Ri∣cherius

observes upon that definition of Faith made in this Session, that it contains many of the very words and expressions of the Athanasian Creed; and though he doubt whether Athanasius did compose that Form which bears his name; yet he saith, It is now become the Creed of the Catholick Church, and there is not a Tittle in it which is not agreeable to the Credit, Holiness and Learning of Athanasius w 1.119. He notes also the policy of the Popes Legates, who contrary to all ancient usage, and to the Primitive simplicity of the former Councils, do most impertinently put this Epithete to the Popes name, Bishop of the Universal Church of the City of Rome x 1.120. But when I consider the absurdity of the expression, and the frequent corruptions in these Acts, why might not that bold hand who added to the Legates name, President of the Council; in this very place (and in this Session where the Emperor being present certainly presided) add this huffing Title to the Pope's name? And if so, it is a corruption and can be no ground for an Argument: However, 'tis a great pre∣judice to all these Titles, that when any others of the Council speak of the Pope, they call him only Bishop or Archbishop, and none but his own Legates load him with those vain Titles.

The Seventh Action contains only the Ratification of a private Agreement, made between Maximus Bishop of Antioch, and Juvenalis Bishop of Jerusalem, concerning the extent of their Jurisdictions y 1.121.

The Eighth Action was the case of Theodoret, who having formerly favoured Nestorius, yet being after∣wards convinced of his Error, was received into Com∣munion by Pope Leo, who had judged his cause and acquitted him before the Council met: But for all that, the case was heard over again, and he called an Here∣tick, and had been expelled the Council, if he had not cleared himself over again by subscribing Leo's Epistle, and Anathematizing Nestorius and Eutyches, upon which he was restored to Communion and to his Bishoprick z 1.122: By which it is as clear as the Sun, that

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

The Ninth and Tenth Actions, concern Ibas Bishop of Edessa, who had been a Nestorian, and was deposed by Dioscorus in the Pseudo Synod of Ephesus, in which are these observables: First, The Emperor commanded a Lay-man and some Neighbouring Bishops to hear this Cause, first at Tyre, and then at Berytus a 1.123; so that even Provincial Councils did not meet without the Emperors Authority, and the Popes universal su∣premacy was not known then. For in the Council of Berytus, Antioch is called an Apostolical Throne b 1.124, and the Council after they had restored him to his Bishoprick, referred the cause between him and Nonnus, (who had been thrust into his place) to Maximus Bishop of An∣tioch, as the proper Judge of that matter. No more is here to be noted, but only that the Popes Legates and the whole Council desire, that the Emperor would revoke and utterly annul the Ephesine false Synod d 1.125. For though the Pope had done this, yet they knew that was insufficient, since none but the Emperor had right effectually to confirm, or null a Council which pre∣tended to be Oecumenical. To this Action Baronius and Binius tack another, concerning an allowance to be made to maintain Domnus late Bishop of Antioch, who had been deposed e 1.126: But they own this is not

in the Greek, nor was there any such thing in the Acts of the Council in Justinian's time, who expresly af∣firms Domnus was dead before, which is certainly true f 1.127; Wherefore the Cardinal owns they found this in an old Latin Copy, in the Vatican, the very Mint of Forgeries; and this Action ought to be rejected as a mear Fiction.

The Eleventh and Twelfth Actions were spent in examing the cause of Bassianus and Stephanus, both pre∣tending to be Bishops of Ephesus, wherein we may ob∣serve: That Bassianus pleads, he was duly elected by the suffrage of the Nobility, People and Clergy of that City and the Emperor confirmed the Election g 1.128; for the Pope had not then usurped the nomination or confirmation of remote Bishops. Again, whereas Baro∣nius brags, that the Pope deposed Bassianus from the Bi∣shoprick of Ephesus, and cites the words of Stephen his Antagonist thus, it is now four years since the Roman Bishop deposed Bassianus—arguing from thence, That it was the ancient usage for the Pope to depose Metropolitans h 1.129; He doth notoriously prevaricate, for Stephen's words are, since the Roman Bishop deposed him, and the Bishop of Alexandria condemned him: And a little before the same Stephen saith more fully, That Bassianus was expelled by the holy Fathers, Leo and Flavianus and the Bishops of Alexandria and Antioch i 1.130. By which the Reader may see there is no credit to be given to Baronius Quotations, who always resolves by false Citations of Authors, to ascribe that to the Pope alone, which was done by him in conjunction with other Bishops: And it appears, that the principal right over Ephesus was in the Patriarch of Constantinople, whence it was pleaded by the Friends of Bassianus, that Proclus of Constontinople who had the right, received him to Com∣munion: And Stephen urges, that Flavianus of Constan∣stinople expelled him afterwards k 1.131. And therefore it is remarkable, that in the twefth Action where the Sen∣tence was to be pronounced, Anatolius Bishop of Con∣stantinople declares his Judgment before the Popes Le∣gates,

and is always named before them in all that Session, where a Cause was to be decided concerning a Church, which was specially under his jurisdiction l 1.132; by which it appears, the principal Person in the de∣posing of Bassianus, was the Patriarch of Constantinople, who probably desired the other great Patriarchs con∣currence for the better credit of his Sentence: More∣over it is to be noted, that though Pope Leo favoured the cause of Stephen, and writ an Epistle in his behalf mentioned in the Council; The Popes favour did him no service, for his Cause was tried over again, and he deposed by this general Council as well as Bassianus; and this by the consent of the Popes Legates, who not∣withstanding their big words, did not believe it un∣lawful for a general Council to contradict a determina∣tion of the Popes.

The Thirteenth and Fourteenth Actions concern on∣ly the Causes of private Bishops, who had complained to the Emperor (not to the Pope) of injury done them; and the Emperor appointed them to be finally determined by the Council, and so the Bishop of Ni∣chomedias's Jurisdiction was cleared, and the Bishop of Nice ordered to be content only with the honour of a Metropolitan m 1.133. And in the fourteenth Action Atha∣nasius was setled in the Bishoprick of Perrhaea; and Sa∣binianus, who claimed it, ordered to keep the honour of a Bishop, and to be maintained out of the Profits of that Church, as the Patriarch of Antiooh should di∣rect n 1.134. Nothing is remarkable in them, but only that the Lay Judges pronounce the Decree, and not the Popes Legates, and then the Synod consent.

The Fifteenth Action contains the Canons of this General Council for Ecclesiastical Discipline, three of which were recommended to the Fathers by the Em∣peror to be formed into Canons o 1.135: So that in obedi∣ence to the Emperor, they were obliged to make some Ecclesiastical Rules: And one of these is the fourth Canon, which decrees, that all Monks every where shall be subject to the Bishop of that Diocess

wherein their Monastery is built p 1.136; which being a genuine Canon of a General Council, not objected against by the Popes Legates, it is somewhat strange that the Modern Popes have no regard to it, but daily and openly break it, in defiance of the Primitive Dis∣cipline, by exempting all Monasteries from due sub∣jection to their own Bishop q 1.137; and this meerly out of policy to make the Monks intirely depend upon the Pope, and serve his interests. The ninth Canon or∣dains, that the Causes betwen Clergy-men shall be tried before their own Bishop, and not in Secular Courts; and if a Bishop have a complaint against his Metropo∣litan, he shall go to the Primate of the Diocess, or appeal to the See of Constantinople: Which Canon Pope Nicholus resolved to force into his interest, and so ridiculously expounds, the Primate of the Diocess, is meant the Bishop of Rome, who is Primate of all Dioceses r 1.138: Turrian as boldly expounds it, the Primate of the universal Dio∣cess: And Binius in his Notes will have the word to signifie the Prince of the Christian Diocess s 1.139. But all these feigned additions and forced glosses will not help them, because the Canon gives leave to the Party in∣jured to complain, either to the Bishop of Constantino∣ple, or to the Pope, at his own choice, which sets that Patriarch upon equal ground with him of Rome. But the Original Word signifies an Order of Bishops below a Patriarch, but above a Metropolitan; and the Ca∣non expresly limits Appeals either to be made by these, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Primates, who had Jurisdiction over the Pro∣vince, or to the Patriarch of Constantinople; which shews that this Council never thought of any Right that Rome then had to receive Appeals from all parts of the World. And if any question why the Pope is not here named, at least, for the Western Churches Appeals, as well as the Patriarch of Constantinople for the Eastern; I take the true reason to be, the absence of the Popes Legates from this Session, consisting only of Oriental Bishops; for which reason they modestly refused to decree any thing concerning Discipline in

the West, leaving affairs there to proceed according to parity of Reason. We may add, that the Latin Ver∣sion of the sixteenth Canon hath put in the word [con∣fitentes] into the Body of the Canon, which is not in the Original * 1.140, but Labbè leaves out this corruption.

But that which hath occasioned the greatest Con∣troversie, is the twenty eighth Canon, wherein this Council confirms the Decrees of the Fathers, and the second Council of Constantinoples Canon about the Privi∣ledges of that See. For as the Fathers had given the See of Rome its priviledges, because it was the Imperial City, for the same reason the second General Council gave like honour to the See of Constantinople; and would have it also even in Ecclesiastical Affairs, to be advanced to the second place: And they order that the Bishop of Constan∣tinople should ordain and have a Jurisdiction over all the Metropolitans of the Dioceses of Pontus, Asia and Thrace t 1.141. The Modern Romanists do all they can to suppress or baffle this Canon. The Editors put a Note before it, that it is not in their Greek Manuscripts; but that is no wonder, since it hath been long the design of their Church to conceal this Canon; but that such a Canon was really made at Chalcedon, is apparent, not only from the sixteenth Action, where it was read at large, and allowed by the whole Council, and confirmed by the Lay-Judges, notwithstanding the opposition of the Popes Legates; But it is also found in all the Greek Collectors, cited in Photius his Nomo-Canon (writ above 900 year ago) and is also extant in that old Latin Interpreter, who put out the Canons before Di∣onisius exiguus (that is, soon after the year 500) u 1.142: So that there is no doubt but this Canon was really made at Chalcedon. Yet Gratian would not cite it under the name of a Canon of Chalcedon, but quotes it out of the sixth General Council, wherein there are almost the same words; but his old Editions (which were in use while the Roman Primacy was setting up) had grosly corrupted the main words of it, and instead of the affirmative etiam in rebus Ecclesiasticis non secus, ac

illam extolli,—&c. it was in him non tamen in rebus Ecclesiasticis magnificetur, ut illa w 1.143, which quite alters the sense, and makes it seem as if the Council had not spoken of any Ecclesiastical Priviledges; whereas they speak of no other but such. Now this was so apparent a falsification, that the later Copies of Gratian have mended it, and made it nec non x 1.144: But this was not till that Church had seen Constantinople under the Tur∣kish Yoke, and in no capacity to vye with her.

In the Sixteenth Action the Popes Legates complain to the Judges, before all the Council, That this Canon was made after their departure, and irregularly; and desire it may be read: They were answered by the Arch-Deacon of Constantinople, that it was customary in General Coun∣cils to treat of Discipline after matters of Faith; that they told the Popes Legates this, and desired their concurrence as to what should be done for the Church of Constanti∣nople; but they refused, saying they had other Orders; upon this they acquainted the Judges, and they commanded the Council to proceed; and so they did, nothing being done fraudulently, but all publickly and canonically; upon this the Canon aforesaid was read y 1.145. Then the Legates Objecti∣ons were heard and answered; First to his insinuation, that it was fraudulently obtained: The Bishops all de∣clared, and especially those of Pontus and Asia, newly subjected to Constantinople, that they consented and subscribed to this Canon, without any circumvention or force, voluntarily and freely. Secondly, whereas the Legates pretended it was contrary to the Nicene Canons; and cite the sixth Canon of Nice falsly, put∣ting this forged Title (That the Church of Rome always had the Primacy) into the body of the Canon: The Council first discovers the fallacy by reading a true and authentick Record of that Canon, without that cor∣rupt Addition, (though still Baronius z 1.146 and Binius a 1.147 blush not to argue from this feigned Addition); and then was read the Canon of the second Council at Constantinople, (for in that Age the Popes Cause was to be judged by the Canons) to both which this Canon

of Chalcedon was thought so agreeable, that the Bishops principally concerned, declared again, they had freely subscribed it as agreeable both to the Canons and Cu∣stom. And Eusebius, Bishop of Dorylaeum, declares he read that Canon of Constantinople, here confirmed, to the Pope at Rome, and he owned it: Where by the way, Baronius egregiously prevaricates in expounding hanc regulam (that is, this Canon of the second Ge∣neral Council) of Eusebius his rule or confession of Faith b 1.148, quite contrary to the plain sense of the Bi∣shop here. To proceed, whereas the Legates objected Thirdly, That the Bishops of Constantinople had not formerly used the Rights now conserred on them; the contrary is manifest, both as to precedence, since all the Acts of this Council shew; that Anatolius sate and spoke in the second place next to the Popes Legates; and they had said in the first Act, that his due was the second place c 1.149. And as to Jurisdiction, the very Bishops of these Provinces do in these Acts, declare the Patriarchs of Constantinople had used it in their Coun∣tries and Dioceses for many years: Upon which the Judges pronounce the Sentence, and give the second place to Constantinople, with the Patriarchal Jurisdicti∣on over those Provinces named in the Canon, to which the whole Council consents, except the Popes Legate, who entred his Protestation against it; but still the Bishops stood firm to the Canon, and the Judges declare it valid, with which this General Council is concluded. Baronius thinks the final Acclamations are wanting d 1.150; if they be so, we may easily guess who rased them out; even that Church which then, and since hath opposed this Canon, and would conceal that General Consent by which it passed. But the last words are plain enough, where the Judges say, The whole Synod hath confirmed it e 1.151, even though the Le∣gates did dissent. I shall conclude this History of Fact, when I have noted two Corruptions in favour of the Roman Church, which are evident in this last Act. First, The Latin Version affirms the Judges said, Rome

truly, by the Canons had all the Primacy, omnem Primatum; but the Greek is, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Primacy before all others f 1.152, which is not a Supremacy over all other Bishops, but the first place among them. Again, the Legates in the Latin Copy say, The Apostolical See ought not to be humbled in our presence; but the Greek is quite different, that is, the Apostolical Throne command∣ed that all things should be done in our presence g 1.153: But he who made the alteration was one who dream'd that this Canon was to humble Rome, whereas it takes not away the first place from the Pope, only gives the second equal Priviledges within its own bounds to Constantinople.

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

The first thing, after the Councils speech to the Em∣peror, in the old Collectors of Councils, was the Im∣perial Edicts, by which the Decrees were confirmed; but these late Editors have removed these into the third place h 1.154: And first set down a pretended Let∣ter from the Council to the Pope, which is done only to impose upon unwary Readers, and make them think it was not the Emperor, but the Pope who had the power of confirming the Acts. But as to the Epistle it self, it was dated in the end of March, four Months after the Council was separated; and (if it be not a For∣gery, as some vehemently suspect, on the account of a foolish and improbable story in it of Euphemia's dead body confirming the true Faith by a Miracle) it was writ not by the General Council, but by Anatolius, af∣ter he had heard of the Popes dislike of the twenty eighth Canon; and therefore he doth not desire his consent to any other thing, but only labours to gain his assent to this Cannon i 1.155. So that Baronius falsly argues from hence, it was the custom to send the Decrees

of General Councils to Rome, to be confirmed by the Popes Authority k 1.156: For this Letter was not writ by a Gene∣ral Council, nor doth it desire a confirmation of any thing but one Canon, which stood firm notwithstand∣ing the Pope always disallowed it: I only note that where the original is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is, taking his wonted care, the Latin reads consuete gubernando: As if the Pope had by custom governed all Churches as far as Con∣stantinople l 1.157. I observe also, that Binius leaves out the date of this Epistle to the Pope, which is later in time than either of the Imperial Edicts; hoping by that means the cheat of placing it before those Edicts would be undiscovered, and that easie People might judge it a formal Letter writ while the Council was sitting, to Petition the Pope to confirm all they had done. I shall not insist upon any more particulars, but smile at Baronius, who for a few Complements, that the writer of this Letter gives the Pope, draws a serious Argument for the Supremacy, and would have all Bishops, even in a General Council, to be Sons to their Holy Father the Pope m 1.158. To proceed, the Edicts of the Emperor are dated, one in February, and the other in March, and they do effectually confirm the Acts of the Council, and ordain penalties on such as oppose the definitions of the Synod n 1.159. After this follow three Letters of Pope Leo, dated all of one day, dire∣cted to Anatolius Bishop of Constantinople, and to the Emperor and Empress Marcianus and Pulcheria o 1.160, in all which he shews his consent to the other things done at Chalcedon; but argues and exclaims against the 28th Canon, saying in his Letter to Pulcheria, that by the Authority of Peter he utterly makes it void. But all this spoils the Cause; for notwithstanding all his huffing, this Canon did remain in Force; for Liberatus, who writ in the next Century, saith, The Judges and all the Bishops did not value the Legates protestation; and though the Apostolical See still oppose it, this which was confirmed by the Synod, by the Emperors, Patronage remains even till now p 1.161; and Almain of later times affirms, the Consti∣tution

of the Council prevailed over the protestations of Leo against it: For the Canons of general Councils do prevail over the opposite Decrees of Popes q 1.162. And the History of following times doth clearly shew, that the Bishop of Constantinople was ever after this reckoned the second Patriarch, and took his place accordingly in succeeding Councils, and retained the jurisdiction over those Pro∣vinces which this Canon gives him: Wherefore it is very weak in Baronius, from some bold passages in Leo's Letters to draw this consequence, that it is clearly in the sole power of the Pope to make void, what 630 Bishops in Council, the Emperor and Senate had agreed on and con∣firmed r 1.163. For the contrary is clear as the Sun, that the Legates contradiction there, and the Popes ranting after∣wards, for all his pretended Authority of St. Peter, did not signify any thing towards a real annulling this Canon; and the more he strove to do it, the more he shewed his Pride to be above his Power: And indeed General Coun∣cils were needless, precarious and insignificant, if any one Bishop were not to be concluded by the major vote, or had a negative voice there. But because the Pope argues as well as condemns, let us hear his reasons against this Canon: First, He every where urges, it is contrary to the Nicene Canon: But this is false; he and his Legates indeed pretend this, but the Nicene Canon was read over in open Council, and all of them unanimously agreed, it did no way contradict it: The Council of Nice declared those Patriarchates, which Custom had then setled, and (since after that time Con∣stantinople came to be the Imperial City,) the second General Council, and this at Chalcedon had as good right to declare Constantinople a Patriarchate, as the first at Nice had to declare others; and since Precedency was purely of Ecclesiastical Institution, and given (as this Canon saith,) on consideration of the honours of the Cities, when the Emperors had made this City equal to old Rome, as to the Civil State, the Council might allot it a suitable precedence in the Church, which was a perfecting of the Nicene Canon, and a

proceeding upon the same reason; but no contradi∣ction to it. Secondly, Leo argues, that this was a pre∣judice to the two Sees of Alexandria and Antioch, which were elder Patriarchates, and so ought to preceed Con∣stantinople: I reply, Maximus Bishop of Antioch did not think this Canon any injury to him, for he is the second who subscribed it, and all-along in the several Sessions Anatolius sat and spoke before him: And though Leo stood nicely upon his points in these matters, we do not find other Bishops were of that temper; they freely sub∣mitted to the Bishop of the imperial City, especially since he only had a place before them, but no Au∣thority over any other Patriarch: So that Leo need not make any objections for them, who are not found to complain, or to have thought themselves injured. I shall not insist upon Leo's insinuation, that this Canon was procured fraudulently, and that Anatolius his Pride made him seek it, and strive to impose upon the Council: For every body sees the whole Council clears him of this; and 'tis plain, Leo was far prouder than Anatolius; he scorned a Second, and feared in time he might prove an Equal: But Anatolius only got that place confirmed to him in this Council, which he and his predecessors had hold long before: I might add here the elaborate Arguments of Baranius and Binius; but fearing I have been already too tedious, I shall refer the Reader to Richerius (who discovers all their Fal∣lacies s 1.164;) and make some observations on the rest of these Letters after the Council. In an Epistle of the Emperors to the Monks of Alexandria, who disliked the Council of Chalcedon, he recommends its defini∣tions, as agreeing to the Faith of Athanasius, Theo∣philus and Cyril, former Bishops of Alexandria t 1.165, which it seems was more considerable to them, than the Faith of Leo, in whom that Age knew of no Infallibility. Again, it is a good Rule in an Epistle of Leo's, That none should seek his own advancement by the diminution of another u 1.166, which had he and his Successors observed they would not have degraded all the other Patriarchs

to set themselves up as supreme over them all. There may be some suspicion, whether that Epistle of Leo to Maximus Bishop of Antioch be genuin; however there is a very improbable story in it, viz. That Ju∣venalis of Jerusalem had sought to get the jurisdiction of all Palestina in the famous General Council of E∣phesus, and that Cyril had writ to Leo to joyn with him in opposing that design; whereas that Council of E∣phesus was held nine years before Leo was Pope w 1.167; and therefore Leo could not be applied to, as to any thing agitated in that Council: After this follows a multitude of Epistles, in answer to the complaints of the Aegyptian Bishops, who adhered to this Council of Chalcedon, and the Emperor Leo's Order to all Bishops, to give the Sense of every Provincial Church, concern∣ing this General Council which some heretical Monks had questioned: For this Emperor prudently avoided the charge and trouble of another General Council, appointing the Metropolitans to call their own Bishops together at home, and to send him their Opinion of this Council of Chalcedon; which was universally own∣ed by all in their several Letters, to have been an Or∣thodox Council, sufficiently approved and confirmed: Now had the Pope then been infallible, or thought to be so, it had been sufficient to write to him alone, and he could have told the Emperor the Sense of the Ca∣tholick Church; but he was only writ to as other Bishops were, to declare his own Opinion: So that in this proceeding there are no marks of his Supremacy; for the other Bishops confirm the Faith decreed in this Council as well as the Pope, nor did his ratifying it make it needless for the Emperor to require the sen∣timents of others.

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

Hand (so long after her Death and Burial) and cast∣ing away that which was Heretical, is only hinted at in that suspicious Epistle from the Council x 1.168: But the Notes and Baronius cite, for the formal story, no Au∣thor elder than Metaphrastes, who lived above 450 years after; and if we consider how he and the later Writers, who mention it, vary and contradict one another in the time and manner of this pretended Miracle y 1.169, we shall easily discern the whole Story to be a Fiction. A little after the Notes say, that they highly injure this Holy Council, who say the Epistle of Ibas, which is Here∣tical, and contains the praises of Hereticks, and the con∣demnation of the Orthodox, was received and approved by the Fathers at Chalcedon; for those who say so joyn with the Nestorians z 1.170. But alass it proves very un∣luckily, that it was Pope Vigilius who said this, and who was condemned for an Heretick for this and other things of like nature, by the fifth General Council a 1.171; and Binius knew this well enough, but because it was a Friend, he conceals his Name. Again, he tells us of one Julianus, Bishop of Coos, that he was the Popes Legate b 1.172, and so he is called indeed in the Subscri∣ptions sometimes; but let it be noted, that the Pope doth not name this Julianus in his Letter to the Council among his Legates c 1.173; but Paschasinus, Lucenti∣us and Boniface with one Basilius are there said to be his Legates: And yet this Basilius never appeared in the Council, which makes a very Learned Man conjecture, that the Fathers at Chalcedon rejected two of those whom the Pope had nominated for Legates, viz. this Basilius and Julianus, the former not being admitted into the Council, and the later having no other place than what his own See gave him; so that Baronius his observation concerning this Julianus his speaking La∣tin, as the dignity of the Roman See required, will not prove him properly a Legate, or if it do d 1.174, then the Council placed the Popes Legates as they pleased. More∣over, the Notes call the excommunicating of the Pope by Dioscorus, scelus inauditum, an unheard-of-wickedness; and

a little after they say, That Dioscorus was the first that ever was known to excommunicate the Pope, or had committed this unheard-of-wickedness e 1.175. But why all this? Doth the Council say such a Fact was never attempted nor heard of before? No, that is their addition, for we have heard of Asian and African Bishops, who took themselves to have as much Power to excommunicate Victor and Stephen, Bishops of Rome, as they had to Ex∣communicate them. And we have heard of Liberius and Foelix, whose Communion was renounced by the Or∣thodox; and therefore Dioscorus's fault was his excom∣municating an Orthodox Patriarch in a pack'd, private, heretical Synod, not because this Patriarch was Bishop of Rome; for had Leo deserved this Sentence by holding Heresie, no doubt a greater Council would afterward have ratified it, and joyned with Dioscorus. In the ac∣count which the Notes give of the third Session, we are told that Dioscorus was accused for wasting the Goods left to the Poor, and Pious Uses, by a Noble Lady deceased, so that no Incense could be offered for her Soul. And Binius and Baronius hence infer that they used then to pray for the Dead f 1.176. But if we look into the Council, this will appear an invention of their own; for there is no men∣tion of praying for that Ladies Soul, or offering in co••••e for it to God; but only that Dioscorus by spending 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Gifts riotously, had (as much as in him lay) hindred the offering a sweet Savour to God out of her oblation g 1.177. Now whether this sweet Savour be meant literally of In∣cense, then used in Christian Churches, or allego∣rically of Alms, (so called Philip. iv. 18.) yet still there is not the least intimation that either of these were of∣fered for the Lady or her Soul, or any Prayers made for her after her Decease. Yet this false Inference is nauseously repeated again afterwards h 1.178: In which last place Binius saith, Dioscorus his with holding the Wheat which the Emperor gave to the Churches of Lybia, so that the terrible and unbloody Sacrifice could not be offered there, is a clear Testimony for the Mass i 1.179. Whereas it is only an evidence, that the Eucharist was made of

Wheat, and that they received a large Morsel (as we Protestants do) of the Holy Bread; and when it is called an unbloody Sacrifice, I think that to be a Testi∣mony, they did not believe the natural and true Blood of Christ was there by Transubstantiation. It is also very false to say, That after the Cause of Sabinianus, Act. 14. the Council was ended, the Assembly dissolved, when the Legates and Judges went out, and that the Eastern Bishops staid behind clandestinly k 1.180; In which Words there are more falshoods than Lines. For if the Council was ended, how came the whole Council to meet again without a new Summons, the very next day? Again, the Legates went out indeed, but it was after the Judges, not before them, as the Notes insinuate; and the Judges went out because the Causes were all heard, and only the Canons to be treated of; but before they went they ordered the Bishops to make some Canons: So that to say the Council was ended, and the Synod dissolved because none but the Bishops staid, is ridicu∣lous, and contradicts his Note upon the third Session, where he makes it a most clear evidence of a General Council, when the Bishops meet without Lay Judges: If he say the Popes Legates did not stay; I reply, they were desired to stay, and their peevish absence could not hinder the Councils proceedings, no more than Diosco∣rus his absenting; and the Acts were next day appro∣ved as good, though done without them; and there it was also proved, that the Council did not act clan∣destinly; yea, it is very absurd to say the going out of three Men from 627 who staid behind, could make the Synod which remained, to be a Clandestine Assem∣bly: So that we may wonder at the boldness of these Editors, who in spite to the 28th Canon upon false grounds condemn those Actions which were examined, justified and approved by this whole General Council. We have in the next place an old Inscription, pretend∣ed to have been made in a Chappel built by Hilary, the Legate of Pope Leo, after his wondrous escape from the Pseudo-Synod of Ephesus, in these words, To his

Deliverer St. John the Evangelist, Hilary, the Bishop and Servant of Christ l 1.181: Which Inscription gives Baroni∣us and the Notes occasion to affirm, that he had prayed and made Vows to St. John for his Deliverance. But I see no reason to believe this Inscription to be so an∣cient as the time of this Hilary (Leo's Successor An. 461.). For in his Letter extant in the Council, he re∣lates the Story of his flight, but-mentions no Saint at all, only saith, he trusted in the grace of Christ m 1.182. And this Style which is so like the Pagan Vows to their little Deities, was above the Infant Superstition of that Age; so that besides the improbability of an Inscripti∣on continuing legible for near twelve hundred years; none who knows the time of Hilary can believe the in∣vocation of Saints was so far advanced, for a Man to forget God and Jesus Christ the only Deliverers of their Servants, and publickly, yea blasphemously to ascribe his deliverance to a Creature, Rom. i. 25. Wherefore we conclude this Inscription was writ by some later Hand in times of gross Idolatry and Ignorance; and that this which they call an Egregious Monument of Anti∣quity, and an Argument for Invocation of Saints, is no∣thing else but an Egregious Imposture, and an Argu∣ment to prove the Fraud of those who set up false Doctrines by feigned Antiquity. 'Tis true in the 11th Action, when Stephen, whom Flavian had condemned in his life-time, was deposed by the Council after his death, some of the Bishops cried out, Flavian lives after his death, the Martyr hath prayed for us n 1.183; but this is far short of the aforesaid Inscription, for they neither vow nor pray to the Martyr; only since his Sentence was agreed to be just after his death, they Rhetorically say this seemed as if Flavianus had prayed for them * 1.184: Yet this (if it be genuine) is the greatest step toward In∣vocation of Saints that I have seen in any Writing of this Age; though it be no more than a Flourish, pro∣ceeding from an excess of Admiration of Flavianus, so lately martyred by Dioscorus, the Mortal Enemy of this Council, Concerning which Dioscorus (for likeness

of the Subject) I observe the Notes say, the Aegyptians gave him (oh horrible) Divine Honours, and Religious Worship after his Death o 1.185; which means no more, as Baronius (the Author of the Story) saith, but that they worshipped him as a Saint, and gave him such Religious Worship as they give to Saints p 1.186. Now the wary Ro∣manists will not say these are Divine Honours, much less were they such Honours, as were paid to any Saints in this Age, or some that followed: But when Modern Writers speak of Ancient Times, they often speak in Modern Phrases; and so Binius took it to be the same thing to honour Dioscorus as a Saint, and to give him Religious Worship, because they at Rome now give Re∣ligious Worship to those they Canonize.

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

An Appendix concerning Baronius's Annals.

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

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

The Miracle of Julia, a Manichean Heretick Wo∣man, struck dead by Porphyrius, Bishop of Gaza, when he could not convert her by Arguments, is taken out of a Latin Copy ascribed to one Mark, a Deacon of Gaza, very improbably; but the stress of the Evidence lies upon the Credit of Metaphrastes, Lipoman and Suri∣us the Collectors of Legends, who trade in few others but spurious Authors q 1.187. It were to be wished we had some better evidence of St. Ambrose's appearing after his death, and promising Victory over the Goths, than a Womans Testimony: For both Orosius and St. Au∣gustin, who write of that Victory, ascribe it wholly to the Power of God, and mention no Saint concerned therein. And Baronius cites both these, as well as the credulous Paulinus, who for advancing the credit of

St. Ambrose, records an Old-Wives Tale, not support∣ed by any credible evidence r 1.188. The ridiculous story of St. Paul's appearing to St. Chrysostom, who is pretend∣ed to have had the Picture of St. Paul in his Study, and to have discoursed with the sensless Image, is not pro∣ved by any Author near that Age, but by Leo the Phi∣losopher and Emperor, who lived 500 year after, and writ a very Fabulous History of St. Chrysostom's Life; and by a spurious Tract of Damascens, who lived 450 year after Chrysostom's Death s 1.189. Yet upon these false Legends the Annalist triumphs over those who oppose Image-worship. Like to this, is that fabulous Story of Theophilus, Bishop of Alexandria, not being able to die in peace till the Image of St. Chysostom was brought to him, and he had adored it t 1.190; which he hath no other Au∣thority for, than the aforesaid spurious Book ascribed to a late Author Damascen; for the Writers of this Age mention no such thing: And there can be no doubt but the Relation is false, because St. Cyril, Theophilus his Nephew and Successor continued for some time to have as ill an opinion of St. Chrysostom, as his Uncle had to his last breath, as his Letter to Atticus (in Baronius) u 1.191 shews: And therefore there is a Story invented of a Vision appearing to St. Cyril, by which he was terrified into a good opinion of St. Chrysostom: But though the Quarrel he had at first to his memory be real, this Ap∣parition is feigned, and proved by no elder nor bet∣ter Authors w 1.192 than Nicetus and Nicephorus. Another Forgery of St. Cyril's removing the Relicts of St. Mark, and other Saints into a Church, newly built in place of an Idol-temple, and thereby clearing it from Evil Spirits, hath no better Authority than certain Legends read in that woful Council of Nice, which set up Image-worship 300 year after this Age x 1.193. The Re∣velation of the Relicks of St. Stephen, pretended to be writ by Lucian, is transcribed by the Annalist, but it contains many improbable lies, and frivolous imperti∣nencies, such as Gamaliel (the Master of St. Paul) be∣ing a Priest, and that St. Stephen's body was exposed

to Wild Beasts by the command of Wicked Princes, and that the way to engage St. Stephen, Gamaliel and the rest to interceed for them, was to build a Chap∣pel over their Relicks, with many more absurd passages: So that indeed it is fitter to be derided, or left to the Moths and Batts, than to stand in a Church Histo∣ry (y). He cites for this one of St. Augustin's Sermons * 1.194 de diversis; but it is supposititious, and therefore can be no evidence for this Fable z 1.195: And it is a mighty prejudice to the whole Relation, that St. Hierom, who lived at Bethlehem at this very time, doth not confirm it, no not in his fierce discourse against the mistaken Opinion of Vigilantius, who (as he thought) denied even common respect to be shewed to the Bones of Martyrs: And it is like Sozomen did not like the story, because he ends his History with a promise to give an Account of the invention of these Relicks of St. Stephen, but he omits it a 1.196; Though he writes out another Legend there of the finding the Body of Zechary the Prophet, of which he brings no other proof, but that he had been told this Story b 1.197. But it is very unlikely, that the Jews should have no regard to the Bodies of their own Prophets, nor know of any vertue in them, and yet after so many hun∣dred years, the Christians should find such power in their supposed Dust; And it is one of the greatest Blots upon the latter end of this Century, that their Super∣stition made them too credulous and apt to be impo∣sed on with Fables of this kind, in which there is scarce any verisimilitude, or shadow of probability: Which led the following Ages into greater Errors, and had worse effects than were foreseen by those easie and well-mean∣ing writers, who hastily took up these false reports: Which Note I am obliged to insert here, to caution the Reader against divers relations of Miracles in Baronius about this time, for some of which he cites Authors, who are in other things credible enough c 1.198. To pro∣ceed, it is no great credit for the Pope, that he and the Western Bishops mistook the time of Easter a whole

Month, and were reproved by a miraculous appearance of Water in the Font on the right day of Easter, if the story be true d 1.199: However to confirm this relation, Baronius hath put together a great many such like Mi∣racles, but writ by later Authors, (Cassiodorus An. 514. Gregory Turonensis An. 590. Sophronius An. 630.) when all Men doted on these reports: But it is a little hard, that he should charge the Reformed Christians with be∣ing mad, for not believing these suspicious relations, and accuse them with deriding the consecration of baptismal Water e 1.200; which is a known practice in all regular Protestant Churches. A litle after he would prove the antiquity of the Mass by a spurious Sermon, faslly as∣cribed to St. Augustin, viz. de temp. Ser. 251. f 1.201: And he transcribes a suspicious Epistle full of improbable Stories for nine pages together, about the Miracles wrought by St. Stevens Relicks, which Epistle he would prove by another Tract equally fabulous, which some say, was writ by Evodius an African Bishop; others think it was only dedicated to him, in which are Domnus and Domna (after the Gallican Fashion in later Ages) for Dominus and Domina: But the judicious Reader who compares these Legends with other writings of this learned Age, will easily discern both these Tracts to be Forgeries of the modern superstitious Times g 1.202: So that perhaps one Miracle-monger made them both. And Baronius had justified neither of them, if he had remembred what himself says of a spurious Tract of the Acts of St. Hierom, viz. That the candor of Ecclesia∣stical truth, and the modesty of Christian sincerity, abhors always that which is feigned, rejects and accurses all that is spurious; The true Faith always bitterly hating and severely punishing every lye with the Author of it h 1.203: But his practice is every where contrary to this profession. And soon after he cites the Lives of the Fathers, under Theodoret's name, to prove the efficacy of St. John Baptist's prayers, as to the Conversion of the Marcionites, whereas the Epistle of Theodoret there cited, ascribes it to the divine ayd i 1.204. And this fabulous Book of the

Lives of the Fathers is despicable for its gross absurdi∣ties, and can be none of Theodorets, because it contains many Miracles, that Simeon Stylites wrought after his death; and Baronius himself owns, That Theodoret dyed seven year before this Simeon k 1.205: Yet this is the Man who is so severe an Enemy to all feigned Tracts, who again, cites the Rules for conjugal Chastity as prescribed by St. Augustin, but finds them only in a forged Sermon, (de Temp. pag. 244. falsly ascribed to that modest Fa∣ther l 1.206; Wherein there is so much Obscenity, as can∣not be supposed to proceed out of St. Augustin's mouth in publick, and such as is hardly fit for Christian Ears: besides many things that would be hissed at in any sober Auditory m 1.207. Again, he cites Sophronius his Pratum spirituale, as a Book of good credit, and relating an Apparition of the Blessed Virgin as it truly happen∣ed n 1.208: Whereas both Possevine and Baronius himself confess this Book to be full of Fables, and of no credit o 1.209; and the Author of it lived above 200 year after, in a credulous and ignorant, as well as a superstitious Age, whose name was not Sophronius, but Joannes Moschus: Upon whose credit he would not have relied so much, had he observed a rule of his own, That he who writes the History of his own time is of greater Authority, than he who writes after many Ages p 1.210; Which Rule he breaks in the very next Page, by justifying a Legend writ by Gregory, the Author of the Dialogues, long after the year 600, and cited by Eulogius of Corduba, An. 847. con∣cerning Paulinus of Nola, who died An. 431. as a Writer of Paulinus own Age testifies there q 1.211: Whereas if this Fable were true, (as those late Writers relate it) Pau∣linus must be alive 45 years after; so that he credits later Writers in contradiction to those of the same Age. We have often seen modern Authors describing the holy Men of this and former Ages, with Images, Cru∣cifixes, &c. but Constantius, who about this time writ the life of St. Germanus, mentions no Images or Cru∣cifix among that which he left at his death, but only a Box of Relicks, the sole point wherein Superstion

was advanced as yet r 1.212. And whereas late Writers of the Saints Lives speak of Addresses to the Blessed Vir∣gin, to deceased Saints, &c. this old Author mentions only Prayers to God; for those other kind of Prayers were not used in this Age. A little after he tells more Fables about the translation of the Relicks of St. Ste∣phen to Constantinople out of late and unfaithful Authors, such as Cedrenus, Nicephorus, Nicetus, &c. but he him∣self observes, that they do not agree as to the time, nor the quantity of the Relicks translated s 1.213: And this disagreement should have made him suspect the whole for an Imposture. And if the Reader con∣sider what incredible Stories are told of the Miracles wrought by the Relicks of this one Martyr, in Sardinia, Africk, Spain, Palestine and Constantinople, &c. he must believe they cut his Body into as many pieces as there were Stones thrown at him, and will wonder how the Body could become whole again, and be intirely translated out of Palestine in the year 439. What Theo∣doret relates of one African Virgin Captive, may be believed to be true, and that Relation hath no Miracle in it: But when Ado, of Vienna, writ the Acts of ano∣ther Virgin, called Julia, captivated at the same time, he hath stuffed the Story with Miracles t 1.214; and the only reason of this difference is, that this later Author writ his Martyrology, Anno 850, that is, above 400 year after, when Legends grew to be more in Fashion. The Annalist takes great pains to prove certain Ho∣milies (which some ascribe to Eusebius Emissenus, others to Faustus Rhegiensis, others to Caesarius of Arles) to be the work of Eucherius, Bishop of Lyons; but as the Author is uncertain, the matter of them is justly to be condemned, being full of Superstitions, and some that came not in till the corrupter and later Ages u 1.215. However, Baronius was obliged to get these Homilies ascribed to some Writer of good repute, since many of the evil Practices and Errors of their Church w 1.216, which cannot be justified by known and genuine Au∣thors, are defended by such obscure Tracts as this.

Again, we have a very absurd Story of St. Cyril's con∣vincing a Monk that Melchisedech was not the Son of God, by a Revelation made to the Monk himself, who had fallen into that Error x 1.217: But that Fable of Cyril's being a Monk upon Mount Carmel, is so gross, that he rejects it with this Note, That a vehement de∣sire to seem of Antient Extraction, makes Men sometimes to dote y 1.218; which Remark is most true of almost all the Monastick Orders of the Roman Church; for Aventinus, an excellent Historian, of their own Com∣munion, affirms, he had discovered the Monks were wont to delight the Minds of the vile Populace with feigned Tales, invented for gain, to make the Original of their Temples more Noble and August z 1.219. He brings in a ridiculous Story of an Image of the Blessed Virgin, found in a Cypress Tree, and of a Church built in the place by one Cyrus, Bishop of Smirna; but the credit of this relies only up∣on Nicephorus, a modern and fabulous Author. And at the same place he brings in a Fiction of an Image of our Saviour, wounded by a Jew, but he knows not when this matter hapned; he thinks not till after the second Nicene Council; but why then doth he menti∣on it in this Age? No doubt to abuse his Reader into a belief that Images were then in use. But the Story it self is all over Legend, and not more Authentick for being recorded in their publick Monuments, and read in some Churches in the corrupt Ages a 1.220, in which there are the grossest Romances imaginable. A little after he taxeth Nicephorus for unfaithfulness and great mistakes in his Relations; yet immediately he cites him as good evidence for Relicks belonging to the Blessed Virgin b 1.221. In the next year we have two ridiculous Stories, the one of St. Stephens praying to St. Peter and St. Paul to spare his Chappel, when Mets was sack'd and burn'd by the Hunns c 1.222; the other of a Drunken Man, shut up all Night in St. Peter's Church at Rome, and heard St. Peter and St. Paul talking together: But telling their Discourse next morning, he was struck blind d 1.223. Upon which last Miracle, Baronius gathers, that blind

Men may see great benefits are received by the intercession of Saints. But I should rather think, he was blind in∣deed that could not discern these to be meer Fables; and truly the only Author he cites for them is Gregory Turonensis, who lived 150 year after, and is full of these Fictions, contradicting even Salvian, who lived in that Country at this very time. But it is observable, that the Writers of the Lives of St. Lupus and Anianus (cited in this very place) do mention these Holy Men as praying only to God in these Calamities e 1.224: For the direct invocation of Saints was not used, no not when those Lives were written. Again, after the Council of Chal∣cedon had been confirmed by the most Legal and Au∣thentick ways, it is very ridiculous in this great Anna∣list to cite so many frivolous Stories out of Legends, how some Ignorant and Enthusiastical Monks confirm∣ed it, or were convinced by Miracles, that it was a Genuine and Orthodox Council f 1.225: For he cites no better Author than Surius for these Fables, yet relates them with great confidence; but this Cause needs no such evidence.

§. 2. Secondly, We will note some passages in genuine Authors, which he hath corrupted to serve a turn: He that reads Baronius his Note in the year 402. that it was an Ancient Custom to paint the Saints in the Churches, and that they use to worship them, with kindling Lamps before them g 1.226, would imagine this Superstition was ancient in the beginning of the Fifth Century; whereas the Au∣thor he cites for this is Venantius Fortunatus, who lived till the year 600. that is, 200 year after, and though he speak of a Picture drawn on a Wall, and a Lamp beside it, doth not mention that as any worship to the Picture, that is Baronius's own addition. Again, when he cites a Law of Theodosius prohibiting the Jews to burn any Cross in contempt of Christianity, he adds, that they burnt the Cross together with our Saviour crucified on it h 1.227; but that is his own invention; the custom of making a Cross alone being indeed very ancient,

but the adding the Figure of our Saviour to it, which they call properly a Crucifix, is but a late device, and seems not at all to be referred to in that Law. To proceed, he makes Synesius a notorious dissembler, when he declares he had most solemnly protested to Theophi∣lus, who was to consecrate him Bishop of Prolemais, that he would not accept that Order, unless he might live with his Wife as before time i 1.228. Now whoever reads that Letter may see that Synesius professes he tells truth in this relation; yea, he solemnly calls God and Men to witness, that it is true; he observes Truth is one of God's Attributes, and most pleasing to him: Yet Baronius will have him to use the Art of Lying, in all these protesta∣tions, because forsooth he cannot think Theophilus would ordain a Bishop, who should live with, and have Chil∣dren by his Wife; that is, he measures the Primitive Church (in which there were divers Bishops married) by their Modern Corrupt Roman Standard. And this sincere Father must be made to mock God, and de∣ceive Men, and exposed as a Notorious Liar and Dis∣sembler, rather than there should seem to be any dif∣ference between the Primitive Church and theirs in the point of the Clergies Marriage. Again, he ob∣serves out of St. Augustin k 1.229, that he accounted the Coun∣cil of Sardica heretical, because Julius, Bishop of Rome, was condemned there; and he infers, that whatever was said or done against the Pope was of evil Fame among the Antients l 1.230: But if St. Augustin had not been misrepre∣sented, there had been no room for this fallacious Note. St. Augustin blames this Council (in the second place cited) as heretical for condemning Athanasius, and doth not mention Pope Julius there at all; and in the former place he names Athanasius first, and Ju∣lius only in the second place; and he blames them not for condemning him as Bishop of Rome, but because he was Orthodox, as Athanasius was. Wherefore Ba∣ronius leaves out the main part of St. Augustin's Argu∣ment, only to bring in a false and flattering Inference for the Popes Supremacy. And I have observed before,

he falsly gathers, that the Roman Church was the sole Standard of Catholick Communion in Cecilian's time, from a place where St. Augustin saith, Cecilian of Car∣thage, was a Catholick, because he was in Communion with the Roman Church, and other Lands from whence the Gospel came into Africa m 1.231; that is, he was in Commu∣nion with the Eastern as well as the Western Church. But Baronius is so dazled with Rome, that where that is found in any Sentence, he can see nothing else: And therefore when he cites this very place again a little af∣ter, he would prove that Carthage owned a right in the Roman Church to receive Appeals, and this, contrary to the express Protestation of that African Council, where∣in St. Augustin was present; and the place it self doth not mention any Appeals, and speaks of Communion with other Churches as well as Rome n 1.232; and so would equally prove a right in other Bishops as well as the Pope, to receive Appeals from Africa, if that had been spoken of there. Further, from Socrates his relation of a Bishop of Gyzicum, named by Sisinnius, Patriarch of Constantinople, but not received, by reason of their mista∣king a late Law made to confirm the Priviledges of that See of Constantinople, and this in the time of a mild and quiet Bishop; he infers, that this Patriarch challenged no right, no not in Hollospont, by the Canon of any General Council o 1.233. Now his naming a Bishop for this City, shews he challenged a right, which was well known to be his due, both by the Canon of the second General Council, and by this late Law; but a peacea∣ble Mans receding from his right, after he hath made his claim, rather than provoke a Factious City, is no proof there was no right, as Baronius doth pretend. I observe also, that the Latin Version of an Epistle to the Council of Ephesus, hath these words, cujus Reliquias praesentes veneramini: Which is to abuse the Reader into an apprehension, that the Relicks of St. John were wor∣shipped in that Age p 1.234: But the Greek word is, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 q 1.235, which imports no more than that they were honoured, which is far less than that which Rome now

gives even to feigned Relicks of uncertain Saints. A like Falshood about the People of Ephesus worshipping the Blessed Virgin, I noted before r 1.236. Again, he manifest∣ly perverts a Phrase of Theodosius, the Eastern Emperor, in his Epistle to Acacius, where he advises the Nestori∣ans to shew themselves approved-Bishops of the Roman Re∣ligion s 1.237; which Baronius pretends, respects the Western Church of Old Rome in Italy; but the Emperor plainly refers to his own Empire in the East, which was then generally Orthodox, and against Nestorius: Constanti∣nople is often called Rome, without any other addition; and Romania, or the Roman Empire, is in many Au∣thors of these Ages, put only for the Eastern part of it. It is also very odd, that he should cite Basil's Epi∣stles to prove that the Roman Church was wont to send Legates to regulate Affairs in the Eastern Churches t 1.238: Whereas St. Basil in many Epistles grievously com∣plains of the Pride of the West, and of their despi∣sing the Calamities of the East, not so much as giving them that Brotherly Aid, which they might expect, when they were in great distress; but there is not one syllable of any jurisdiction which the Pope then did so much as pretend to over those Eastern Churches. Leo was the first who ventured to make any steps towards this Usurpation, an hundred years after St. Basil's time. To this device we may add his silent passing by all that makes against the Roman Church; but being large in his Notes upon any thing which seems to make for it, How many words doth he every where use when one is described to be Orthodox, for communicating with an Orthodox Pope? but when those are declared to be Orthodox who communicated with the Patriarchs of Constantinople, Alexandria and Antioch (at that time dif∣fering from the Pope) u 1.239, we have not one observa∣tion of the honour of those Sees. Thus though he cite innumerable heretical and illiterate Writings, meerly to confirm some incredible Miracle or super∣stitious Practice, without any Censure passed on them; yet when he comes to mention the Imperfect work on

St. Mathew, ascribed to St. Chrysostom (which many Roman Writers highly commend, as writ by a Catho∣lick, Antient and Learned Author) w 1.240, he falls into a fit of railing against it, as Heretical, and what not, because in that Book we are told, The Scripture is the only rule by which true Christians may judge of the right Faith x 1.241: Which Sentence, though it condemn the new Romish way, yet it is agreeable to the Primitive and most Orthodox Fathers, who very often say the same thing. * 1.242 And Baronius relates a little before, that a certain Bishop who wrought Miracles, and convert∣ed many Pagans, charged his new Converts to apply themselves diligently to read the Holy Scriptures. More∣over he brings in a Quotation out of St. Augustin, with a long Preface, because he designs to misapply it to justifie the Roman Supremacy: But the place it self plainly supposes the Western to be but one part of the Catholick Church; only he thinks the Authority of La∣tin Fathers alone, and of Innocent, a Successor of the Apostles, Chief of this Western Church, might suffice his Adversary (who was one of the Latin Church). And as to Innocent's Opinion he might be sure it would agree with what the African Councils had declared, and the Roman Church constantly held with other Churches y 1.243: Where we see Innocent is only set out as the first in Order of Dignity in the Western Church, and his Opinion supposed to be right, not because of the Infallibility of his See, or any Supream Power in him to judge in matters of Faith, but because he agreed with the African and other Churches; and now de Facto took the Orthodox Side: Wherefore when Zosimus, and other succeeding Popes favoured these Pelagians, the Dignity of his See did not secure them from the Censures of the African Fathers, as we shewed be∣fore.

§. 3. We pass thirdly to his rare faculty of supposing things without any proof, and sometimes making in∣ferences from his own inventions, for the advantage of Rome: So when a few persecuted Eastern Bishops of Chrysostom's party fled to the Roman Church to avoid the Storm, their own Patriarchs being all combined against them, Baronius saith, they fled to it as to their Mo∣ther, being admonished by the examples of their Predecessors: And he goes on to insinuate a very false thing, viz. That all the Bishops who were persecuted by the Arrians in Constantin's time, in the East, fled to Rome z 1.244. Where∣as only some few came both then and now, and dire necessity had left them no choice, nor other refuge. Thus he resolves Ruffinus shall be a Pelagian Heretick; and out of a Council whose Acts are not extant, and the relation of it only saith, Celestius was condemned there; he will have Ruffinus condemned in that Coun∣cil upon meer conjecture, and can no other ways prove him a Heretick, but by one Witness, even this Heretick Celestius, who being in a strait, cited Ruffinus's words, but probably very falsly a 1.245; so that one Heretick shall be sufficient evidence against a man that Baronius hates; but many Orthodox Witnesses will not persuade him that Innocent favoured the Pelagians almost to the end of his Life. It is an odd conjecture that St. Hierom would not translate any of Theophilus his Paschal Epi∣stles, after once he differed with Pope Innocent about restoring St. Chrysostom's name into the Dypticks b 1.246: For except another guess of his own, without any manner of evidence c 1.247, there is no appearance that ever St. Hierom was concerned for St. Chrysostom's sufferings; and it is certain he was kind with his Mortal Enemy Theo∣philus in the year of Christ 404, when he got him to be banished; and it would be very strange that St. Hie∣rom should refuse to translate any more of Theophilus's Epistles, on the account of a quarrel between him and Pope Innocent about restoring Chrysostom's name into the Dypticks, since the last Paschal Epistle translated by

Hierom, was writ Anno 404; and Baronius saith, Theo∣philus writ every year one till Anno 412, but Chrysostom died not till Anno 407; and Innocent himself did not quarrel with Theophilus till long after the year 404: So that the Cardinal contradicts himself, meerly to support an idle conjecture, viz. That all Eminent Fa∣thers loved and hated only those who were loved and hated by the Pope: And into what Absurdities and Contradictions this Fancy hath led him, may be seen by comparing those two places aforecited together; and we may note, that though it be certain Theophilus died unreconciled to Chrysostom's memory, or to Inno∣cent, yet Baronius shews he was commended as a most approved Bishop d 1.248, for so it seems a man might be, though he had a difference with the Bishop of Rome. Again, it is a bare supposition, that the Priviledges of the Patriarch of Constantinople asserted in the Province of Illiricum, by a Law of Theodosius, was founded upon the false suggestions of Atticus e 1.249: For the very Law it self forbids innovations, and requires the ancient Ca∣nons and Customs, thus far observed, should be in force, on which Theodosius plainly grounds the Jurisdicti∣on of the Bishop of Constantinople in this Province: So that he refers to the Canon of the Second General Council of Constantinople, and the usage ever since; and how could this proceed from any false suggestions of Atticus?

To proceed, Prosper relating Germanus his going into Britain, as some think, mistakes the time at least seven∣teen years f 1.250, and says nothing of St. Lupus his Com∣panion in that Journey; howbeit, because Prosper saith the Pope sent St. Germanus, Baronius will have him to be authentick, contrary to all other Authors g 1.251, who affirm St. Germanus and Lupus were sent by a Gallican Council, to whom a Petition from the British Bishops was sent: However he affirms it for a certainty soon after h 1.252, that St. Germanus was the Popes Legate into Britain, which he had but half proved before. And one Author, who speaks favourably of the Popes Au∣thority,

shall be believed against many of equal Cre∣dit who speak otherwise: I grant Prosper is a credible Writer; only he is apt, for the credit of the Cause, al∣ways to bring in the Popes as Enemies to the Pelagians, sometimes without reason; and Constantine, Bede with others who write of this journey into Britain, and as∣cribe this mission to a French Council, deserve more credit in that particular than he. A little after, upon Cyril's mentioning Nestorius's writing to the Roman Bi∣shop, in hopes to draw him to his Opinion: Baronius sup∣poses of his own Head, that it was an ancient use in Controversies of Faith to write to the Bishop of Rome, and that the part he chose was generally favoured; so that if Nestorius could persuade him, the whole Catholick Church would follow his Judgment i 1.253; which is all Chimaera, for Pope Victor, Stephen and Liberius of old, Vigilius and Honorius afterward, found opposition enough (for all the dignity of their place) when they seemed to other Bishops to take the wrong side. From a fabulous Wri∣ter called Probus k 1.254 who hath given us a Legend of St. Patrick's Life; he not only confidently affirms that Pope Celestine sent this Patrick to convert the Irish, but infers from thence, That it was clear to all men, the Gospel was to be received from the Apostolical See for the conversion of the Pagans l 1.255. Whereas it is not clear that St. Patrick was sent from Rome; but it is clear, that other Heathen Countries have received the Gospel by the care of other Patriarchs and Eminent Bishops; so that his Ground is but conjecture, and the Superstru∣cture wholly vain. 'Tis true indeed, that Pope Leo, to shew his Authority, desired three Bishops of Sicily to appear in his annual Roman Council once a year, and was the first Pope who put this Yoke upon them; but how this new encroachment shews the ancient observance of holding Councils of Bishops twice a year, is very hard to conjecture m 1.256: only when a Pope alters the Fathers Customs, the Annalist will suppose he observes and con∣firms them: And he could see no usurpation in this Popes calling the Sicilian Bishops yearly to Rome, against

the ancient Usage. But when Dioscorus of Alexandria would have encroached upon the Bishops of Syria, he blames him severely n 1.257. We shall not mention the Authority of the Writings of Athanasius, Cyril and other Eminent Bishops of other Sees, in Controversies of Faith: But it is very imposing for Baronius to suppose, The Pope presided as the Master over the whole Christian World, and out of his high Throne taught all men the Catholick Faith o 1.258; and all this only, because Leo had the good Fortune (by his Secretary Prosper's help) to write one Orthodox Epistle against Eutyches in a lucky time, when a Council was to be called to condemn that Heresie: As to the Author of it Eutyches, it was always a Rule in the Church to receive even the Inventors of Heresies, if they would renounce their Errors: So that for Leo to say (in his Letter to the Council of Chalcedon) he thought they might deal so with Eutyches, is no manner of ground for Baronius to suppose, that this was a special Favour indulged to that General Council by the Pope, contrary to Ec∣clesiastical Laws and Customs p 1.259. For it is well known, that a General Council in that Age gave Laws to the Pope, but did not receive any from him; and what∣ever Leo's Opinion might be, the Council were sole Judges of the terms on which Eutyches was to be re∣stored; and had he Recanted they would have received him into Communion by their own Authority, since Arius, Nestorius and Pelagius had that Favour offered them by former Councils, and Eutyches would have found the like Kindness here, if the Pope had said nothing at all of the matter: Wherefore the Annalist hath crouded many Falshoods into a few Lines only, to persuade his weak Readers, That the Pope was above a General Council. And to make him seem above all the other Patriarchs, he supposes from a Letter of Theo∣dosius the Emperor, which he never saw, and which is not extant, That the Emperor writ to Rome about the Succession of Anatolius at Constantinople, knowing it to be the Head of all Churches q 1.260. This is a groundless Con∣jecture, because he doth not so much as know in what

style Theodosius writ; and it was an Ancient Custom, for to give Notice to all the absent Patriarchs, when any New one was elected, and the Patriarch Elect (even he of Rome) was obliged to satisfie the rest by Letters, that he held the Orthodox Faith. Certain it is that Theodosius valued not Leo much; because he con∣firmed the Condemnation of Flavionus, though he knew that Pope and his Legates were of his side; and it is plain by the best Historians that he died in this Opinion: Nor can Baronius prove, that Theodosius re∣pented of that mistaken Judgment otherwise, than by Nioephorus (an Author of no credit when single,) or that he Obeyed the Pope before his death r 1.261; for this last he can cite no Author at all, and it is not only a Con∣jecture of his own, but a very false one. For the last Letter that ever Theodosius writ to Valentinian, not ma∣ny Months before his death s 1.262, shews how little he esteemed Leo's Request for a new General Council, and how close he stuck to Dioscorus, Leo's Enemy; and there∣fore he could not write after this to Leo, as Head of the Church. His Successor indeed, Marcianus, had some reason to Caress the Pope, and therefore he writes more respectfully to him than other Emperors had used to do t 1.263: Yet even in that first Letter of his he must be very sagacious, who can discorn what Baronius again supposes, That Marcian turned his Eyes to the Chief visible Head of the Church, resolving to do all things by his command, or (as he phrases it) to be at his beck: For even in this highest strain of Complement Marcian saith no more, but that since Leo had a principal Bishoprick among the true Believers, he desires him to pray for him, that he might resolve to call a Council with Leo's consent, to take away all Error and settle a general Peace u 1.264. Which implies the power of calling Councils was in the Em∣peror, and the Popes part was only to consent as one of the Chief Bishops, who was there to meet and consult: And if Marcian had known or be∣lieved Leo to be the sole Supream Judge of all Controversies, he would not have been at the trou∣ble

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

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

When S. Hierom, after three years labouring with Pope Anastasius, had at last got him and the Roman Church to condemn Ruffinus, he then at that time prudently appeals to the Roman Churches Faith for Trial, Whe∣ther he or Ruffinus were the better Catholick: But Baronius, when he hath cited some words of S. Hierom against Ruffinus to this purpose, grosly prevaricates when he infers; You see it was an undoubted Maxim, customary in the Mouths of all the Ancients, and a necessary consequence, That if one were said to follow the Roman Faith, he must needs be a Catholick w 1.265. For if we hear one Father when he had the Pope on his side in a par∣ticular Controversie say this, This is not all the An∣cients: And many of them describe themselves, as being of the Faith of Athanasius, Cyril, Flavianus, &c. or holding the Faith of the Churches of Alexandria, An∣tioch, Constantinople, &c. to prove themselves Catholick; and if S. Hierom did instance now in Rome, the conse∣quence depended on the Orthodoxness of the present Pope, not on the Infallibility of his See. And Pope Gelasius afterward confesseth, That the Roman Church in this Point was guided intirely by S. Hierom, She thought as he thought x 1.266. So that to make a General conclusion from such a special Case, is very unrea∣sonable; and S. Hierom himself a little after is cited, declaring the Consent of many Churches is of greater Authority, than that of the Roman alone y 1.267. It had been well if their Roman Church had considered the peril of Idolatry, when they went about to establish the use or Images, as Baronius tells us Theodosius did, when he made a Law to prohibit any Adoration to be given to his own Statues, because such worship as exceeds the dignity of Hu∣man

Nature, is to be reserved to the Divine Majesty. In the same place he relates how S. Chrysostom reproved the People for their folly at the dedication of the Empresses Statue; because it is easie in those matters to run into the sin of Idolatry z 1.268. Which Observations of his own stand on Record in these Annals, to condemn that Church which orders Veneration, and all other ex∣pressions of Reverence to be made to all sorts of Ima∣ges of the Saints. Again, he exposes his dear Church in observing, That the Ancients preserved both the conse∣crated Elements of the Sacrament in the Church. But no sooner had he condemned us for not following this ancient Usage, but he mentions as great an Innovation in their own Church, for he owns they have forbid the preserving any thing but the species of Bread a 1.269. Now I would ask, Who differ most from Antiquity, they who totally take away one part of the Sacrament from the People, and keep only the Bread to be wor∣shipped: Or we who give both Bread and Wine to the People as they did, and provide both, newly Conse∣crated, for the Sick, when there is occasion, but reserve neither for Worship? Which was the usage of the first and purest times. And why may not we forbid the needless reserving of the Sacrament in either kind, as well as they may prohibit it in one kind? But so insatia∣ble is his desire to extol the Roman Church, that though he cite all he can find of this sort good and bad, he wishes (in one place) he could find some things, which are not to be found, that he might let his style run out on so luscious a Subject b 1.270. We note also, that how much soever the Romanists here in the Reign of King James the Second were for Toleration, because it was their Interest, Baronius highly commends the severe Penal Laws made by Arcadius and Honorius against such as differed from the established way of Worship and pro∣fession of Faith c 1.271; for Baronius is always a bitter Enemy to Toleration, and stiffly opposes the taking away any Penal Laws. Moreover it is observable, that though his Office be to write an History and relate

Matter of Fact: When he comes to S. Hierom's Book against Vigilantius, he puts on the Character of a Dis∣putant, and makes large digressions to the Hereticks, (as he calls the Reformed) to justifie such a Veneration of Relicks, and such a kind of worship of Saints, as Rome uses at this day; which kind of Veneration and Wor∣ship S. Hierom would have condemned as well as Vigi∣lantius d 1.272, had it been practised in that Age. He notes that upon the difference between Theophilus and the Pope about S. Chrysostom, a Council of Carthage writ to Innocent, That the Churches of Rome and Alexandria should keep that Peace mutually which the Lord enjoyn∣ed e 1.273. Which shews, those African Fathers did not think one of these Churches superior in Authority to the other; for if so, they had no need to write to Innocent, but only to Theophilus, to submit to the Supream Bishop: For that was the only way to settle a Peace, if Innocent's Supremacy had been then allowed. And it is a vain and false Conjecture, that if Theophilus had writ any Paschal Epistles after his difference with Innocent, no Catholick would have re∣ceived them f 1.274. For divers Eminent and Orthodox Bishops writ to Theophilus, and received Letters from him after this; yea, Synesius himself writes to him, to determine a Question by the Authority of his Apostolical Succession g 1.275, and he lived and died with the repute of a Catholick, though (as I have shewed) he never did yield to Pope Innocent in the case of S. Chrysostom. A∣like groundless is his Conjecture, That Arcadius laboured to wipe out the stains he had contracted in persecuting S. Chrysostom, by translating the Relicks of the Prophet Samuel, and by going into a Martyrs Temple and there praying (not to the Martyr, observe that, but) to God h 1.276. For if we set aside the two forged Epistles recorded by Baronius, pag. 259. there is no good Evidence that Arcadius, at the time when the aforesaid Acts were done, was con∣vinced he had done any fault in the affair of S. Chry∣sostom; wherefore he could have no design to purge himself from a Fault he did not own at that time.

In the next year he spoils one Argument to prove theirs the true Church, viz. by Miracles, since he owns Atticus, Bishop of Constantinople, did work a Miracle even before he held Communion with the Roman Church i 1.277. So that if Miracles prove a true Church, then a Church that separates from the Roman Com∣munion may be a true Church. Of which also we have another Instance soon after, where the Church of Antioch was in a difference with Rome for many years, (Theodoret saith, 85 years,) yet all that while she was owned by the best Catholicks for a true Church k 1.278. Nor do I see how that can be true which Baronius affirms, That the cause of restoring the Eastern Bishops to Communion in Chrysostom's case, was only decided by Pope Innocent, since Alexander of Antioch did transact this affair in the East, and 24 Western Bishops subscribed with Innocent in the West, to testifie their consent to this Agreement of Alexanders l 1.279; yea, Thodoret ascribes this, not to the Pope alone, but to all the Bishops of the West m 1.280. But the Annalist will have all things done by the Pope alone, right or wrong. Poor So∣crates is branded for a Novatian Heretick, because he saith, It was not the usage of the Catholick Church to per∣secute n 1.281. Yet the Emperor Marcian o 1.282, and Pope Gregory p 1.283, who were both I hope very good Catho∣licks, say the same thing; and therefore we may dis∣cern Baronius his Spirit, in being so bitter against all who censure Persecuting. In the same Year we may see, that the Bishops under Theophilus Jurisdiction (for all his quarrel at that time with the Pope) did reserve the greater Cases to his decision q 1.284; and yet were very good Catholicks all the while. When a Bishop pleads for Mercy to such as have principally offended the Church, those Intercessions with Pious Magistrates ought to have the force of Commands; But to make a general Inference from hence, That Bishops ought to command things agreeable to the Christian Law to Magistrates r 1.285, is to stretch the Instance too far. But there is another obvious Note from S. Augu∣stine's

petitioning and urging Marcellinus to spare the Hereticks, and not execute the severity of the Tem∣poral Laws upon them, which Baronius would not observe, viz. That the Primitive Bishops used their power and interest to get Hereticks spared by Secular Magistrates, whereas the Inquisitors use their power now to oblige the Lay-Magistrates to kill and destroy them. Further it is observable, that he takes upon him to interpret Gods Judgments in favour of his own Party; and thus he expounds the Goths invading France, to be a punishment for the Heresies there broke out s 1.286, which Salvian more piously makes to be a Scourge for their Immoralities. But I note, that it was but two year before that Alaricus wasted Italy, and took Rome it self; yet Baronius could not discern any Here∣sies there, but his general Maxim is, That God is wont to bring destruction on those Countries where Heresies arise. Now one might observe Leo's attempts to usurp a Supremacy over all other Bishops, and the many pious Frauds used and beginning now to be countenanced at Rome, about false Relicks and feigned Miracles, were as probable occasions of the Divine Judgments in Italy, as those he assigns in France. To proceed, I cannot apprehend how Atticus could have so little Wit in his Anger against Rome, as to call Paulinus and Evagrius (successively Bishops of Antioch) Schismaticks, meerly for Communicating with the Roman Church, and this in a Letter to so great a Patriarch as S. Cyril t 1.287, if he had known it to be then generally acknowledged (as Baronius often pretends,) that to be in Communion with Rome was a certain sign of a Catholick; and to differ with it, a sure note of a Schismatick. But S. Cyril's Re∣proving Atticus for restoring Chrysostom's Name into the Dyptics (which was the known desire of Pope Innocent) shews u 1.288, how little the rest of the Patriarchs valued the Judgment or the Authority of the Popes, when they supposed them to be mistaken in the Case: For none could or durst have so severely Censured the Opinion of a Person taken to be a Supream and Infal∣lible

Judge. Again, I wonder how Baronius could Re∣cord without some reflection S. Augustin's speaking of Orosius his Journey from Spain into Africa, only out of Zeal to understand the Scriptures, and his sending him to Palestine to S. Hierom on that Errand w 1.289. For accord∣ing to the Cardinals Notion, he should have been more zealous for Catholick Tradition, than for Scripture, and Rome was the only place both to learn that in perfection, and by that to interpret the Scriptures un∣erringly; and this was nearer to Spain than either Hippo or Bethlehem. But while he owns, that the Salva∣tion of some, after they had been purged by the In∣ternal Fire, was one of the Errors of Origen, and counted an Error both by Orosius and Augustine x 1.290, it seems to look ill upon Purgatory, which their modern Church hath made a Catholick Truth; but the Primi∣tive censured it as a false Doctrine. The Reader also may note, that when he is commending Theodosius for his Piery, he magnifies him for fasting upon Wednes∣days and Fridays y 1.291, (the days now appointed for Ab∣stinence by the Protestant Church of England): So that a man may be a pious Catholick and not keep the Fasting-days appointed by the Roman Church, viz. Fridays and Saturdays. Moreover he contradicts him∣self when he saith, According to the ancient usage of speaking, by the Apostolical Seat, is always to be understood the Roman Church z 1.292: Whereas he hath often owned the other Patriarchs Sees had the Title of Apostolical Thrones and Seats; and a little after cites Sidonius calling Lupus Bishop of Troys, a Bishop of Bishops, who had sat a long time in an Apostolical Seat a 1.293, he cites Possi∣dius in the Life of S. Augustine, to prove the Pelagians were first condemned at Rome, and then at Carthage b 1.294. But if the Reader consult that Author, he will find that S. Augustine writ against them, and that they went near to draw in first Innocent and then Zosimus to their party, till the Councils of Holy African Bishops had with much labour persuaded first the one of these Popes, and then the other, that this was an abominable Heresie and contrary

to the Catholick Faith c 1.295: All which the Cardinal leaves out, and from half the story makes a false Marginal Note, viz. That these Hereticks were first condemned at Rome, and then at Carthage: Which is every way false; for if it be meant of Innocent's time, it is certain that the African Councils under the Primate of Carthage; yea, that of Milevis had solemnly condemned Pelagia∣nism before this Pope would openly condemn them, he being under suspicion of favouring that Heresie to the last year of his Life d 1.296; and this Council of Carthage did condemn these Hereticks while Zosimus did defend them; so that Africk, not Rome, first discovered and censured this Heresie. He also falsly cites the Preface of S. Augustine's Books to Pope Boniface, against the Pelagians, telling us he affirms, That the Pope being most eminent in the highest top of the Pastoral Watch-Tower, did watch over all; and from hence infers, That though S. Augustine and others sometimes call the Pope Brother, and Colleague, yet still they own his supream Pastoral Power e 1.297. But all that S. Augustine there saith is this, Communisque sit omnibus nobis qui fungimur Episcopatûs officio (quamvis ipse in eo praeemineas celsiore fastigio) spe∣cula pastoralis: The Pastoral watching is common to all of us who are Bishops, though you have the advantage of a higher station f 1.298. Which words only intimate the Dignity of the Roman See, as to Order; but plainly declare Bishops to have equal Obligations to guard the Church. And whereas a little after, from S. Augu∣stine's modest Complement of sending these Books to Boniface, to examine and correct, he would infinuate something of Supremacy in Judging: This is no more than the same Father used to do to all other Bishops to whom he dedicated his Books; so he desires Claudius, a private Bishop to read and judge of his Books against Juli∣an, dedicated to him g 1.299. This therefore ascribes no Infal∣libility to Rome; and if S. Augustine himself had not judg∣ed better of Pelagianism than any Pope of these times, it would not have been condemned there to this day. After all these Instances of sincerity, we cannot wonder

that he falls upon the Reformed as Innovators, for re∣fusing to stand to a General Council, and so worse than the Pelagians who desired one h 1.300. But this calumny will soon be dispelled, if we call to mind the breach of Faith used to such as had trusted Rome, in the Council of Constance; the Tricks used by the Popes before the Council of Trent for many years together, to avoid a General Council, when the Reformed earnestly de∣sired one; and the great partiality of that packt Assembly at Trent, who met not to examine or amend Abuses, but to establish them, and had resolved to con∣demn the Protestants before they heard them. It is something odd, that Baronius should quote Gelasius his Censure of the Legends and Acts of Martyrs, That some of them were writ by Ideots, and some by Hereticks; wherefore the Roman Church then used not to read them in publick i 1.301. For this condemns him for filling so many Pages of his Annals with this Fabulous stuff, and dis∣covers an alteration in the Roman Church, which of old was wiser and honester than to read those feigned Legends, that in after Ages took up a great part of their publick Service. We may further observe, That Leporius, an Arch-heretick recants in Africa, and applies himself to the Gallican Bishops only, without any no∣tice taken of Rome or Pope Boniface k 1.302; which con∣futes what the Annalist often affirms, That all great Hereticks were obliged to recant at Rome. He pub∣lisheth a Rescript of Theodosius, and bids us observe, that it contains the principal Feasts received by the Chri∣stians: Now these are Sundays, Christmas and Epi∣phany, Easter and Pentecost, with the Memory of the Apostles Passions, which is a Protestant Catalogue; and there is not one Feast of our Blessed Lady, Holy Cross, Corpus Christi, &c. which are now so famous at Rome in all this number assigned by Theodosius l 1.303; which shews they are Innovations, and the effects of modern Superstition. He relates it as the Custom of S. Augustine and other Bishops, as well as of Pope Ce∣lestine, to salute Presbyters by the name of Sons, and

Bishops by the name of Brothers m 1.304, which looks not favourably on the Pope's Universal Superiority above all Bishops whatsoever. When Pope Gregory grosly mistakes Sozomen's History for Theodoret's, Baronius had better have owned it; for none ever thought Popes infallible in their Quotations; but the Cardinal resolves right or wrong to vindicate Gregory n 1.305, who rejects Sozomen's History for that passage which is in Theodoret, but is not in Sozomen; so rashly do Popes judge some∣times: The Passage is about commending Theodorus of Mopsvestia as an Orthodox Father to the time of his death, which Theodoret doth affirm; but Sozomen only mentions this Theodorus o 1.306 his Conversion by S. Chry∣sostom, but saith no more of him; and Baronius is forced to feign this Passage was in that Part of Sozomen which was long since lost, and which probably S. Gre∣gory himself never saw; however Baronius knows no∣thing what was there written, and therefore it is very boldly done to suppose a thing for a certain Truth, which he could never know any thing of, only to save the Credit of a Pope who had little or no skill in Greek Authors. Again, 'tis apparently partial in him, where he produces some ancient Testimonies of the French, being wont to break their words, to restrain this in modern Times only to that part of them which is Reformed, while he boasts of his Catholicks as the justest Men in the World p 1.307. To confute which, the Perjury and Treachery of the Leaguers in our Fathers time, and the many Promises and Engagements broken to the late Hugonots in our days, are abundantly suffici∣ent. He takes it for a proof, that the Eastern Bishops use to refer Causes of the greatest moment to the Pope, because one Daniel a French Bishop fled out of his own Country for his Crimes, (probably into the East) was complained of to the Pope, being Uncanonically Or∣dained; which Complaint the Pope transmits to the Bishops of the Province of Narbon, as the proper Judges in that matter q 1.308; so that this Cause was not referred to him at all, only he was desired to acquaint those

with it who ought to determine that Point. Moreover, he makes it a certain Evidence that Socrates was an Heretick, because he complains of Nestorius, for urg∣ing the Emperor to persecute Hereticks (as soon as ever he was Ordained Bishop of Constantinople) r 1.309. But this Kingdom hath found Romanists (when it was their Interest) to censure Men as Hereticks for the contrary, viz. for only insisting upon the execution of some gentle Penal Laws upon such as differed from the established Religion. He commends S. Cyril for his Modesty, in not mentioning the Fault of Theodosius his abetting Nestorius; yet he upon bare Surmizes speaks very opprobriously of Theodosius upon this account, and reflects upon all Kings and Sovereigns as inclined to follow his Example s 1.310. Now if the silence of these things proves Cyril's Modesty, who must needs know whether Theodosius were guilty of this or no; Doth it not prove somebodies Immodesty to rail by meer Conjectures at Theodosius and all Princes? To pro∣ceed, It is a very false consequence from Cyril's calling in Celestine to his assistance against Nestorius, and that Popes condemning the Heretick in his private Council at Rome, That it was the Ancient custom from the begin∣ning, for S. Peter's Chair alone to determine controversies of Faith, and condemn Heresies with their Authors as they arise t 1.311. For Cyril had first condemned this Heretick and his Opinions, and the Pope only came in as his Second; yet after all it was necessary that a General Council should condemn him, which had been needless if the Pope alone, or in conjunction with another Pa∣triarch had been sufficient. Again, he cites two Authors only for Celestine's sending a Pall and a Mitre to S. Cyril, and these Writers lived 8 or 900 year after this time, and he rejects some part of their account as fabulous; yet from this Evidence he would prove, That Cyril was Celestine's Legate in the Council of Ephesus u 1.312: But he must have better proof than this to make us believe so incredible a thing. We may further note, that where Possidius is so particular in the circumstances of

S. Augustine's death, he mentions nothing of any Image of the Blessed Virgin or the Saints; no Crucifix placed before him, but only the Penitential Psalms were writ out and fastned on the Wall, which he read over as he lay on his Death-bed. Nor doth he mention any Office said for his Soul after he was dead, but only an Office for commending his Body to the Grave w 1.313, which shews these were devised in later and more Superstitious Times. Baronius indeed supposes the word Sacrificium, to signifie the Mass here; but it seems to signifie no more than the usual Office at put∣ting the Body into the Grave, in hopes of a joyful Resurrection. But though nothing be more evident, even in these Annals, to a Judicious Reader, than the many Innovations in Doctrin and Worship, made by the modern Roman Church, contrary to the Decrees of Councils, the Judgment and Practice of the Ancient Fathers; the Annalist a little after (upon Capreolus Bishop of Carthage his affirming that to be the true Faith which is delivered by the Fathers) flies out into foul Language against the Reformed Churches for In∣novations and reviving Heresies condemned by the Fathers x 1.314. Whereas we freely refer it to those An∣cients to judge between us, Whether they or we come nearer to the Doctrin and Usages of pure Antiquity, and can from substantial Evidence prove them to be the Innovators. I will only note, That in this Epistle of Capreolus, this Bishop calls the Emperor, His Lord, and his Son y 1.315: Upon which Baronius makes no Re∣mark, because he would have it thought that no Bi∣shop, but only the Pope did ever call the Emperor, Son. For he alone is to be the Father of all Princes and all Bishops also. A little after he interprets that woful destruction of the Emperor's Army in Africa, to be a Divine Judgment upon him for countenancing the Heretical party at Ephesus z 1.316. Though not many Pages from hence he lays all the blame of this Conni∣vance upon the Treachery of the Emperor's Dome∣sticks a 1.317, and he may find as great Defeats hapning

often when the Emperors did take the Catholick part. So true is that of Solomon, No man knoweth either love or hatred by all that is before him. All things come alike to all, &c. Ecclesix. 1, 2. 'Tis remarkable what Baronius saith of a very dubious Rescript of Valentinian, cited for the Authority of the Se•• of Ravenna by the Friends of that Bishoprick, The love of our Country is an imperious thing; yea, a Tyrant, which compels an Historian to defend those things, which if they were said of another place, he would utterly explode b 1.318; which with the rest there said, is so applicable to the Cardinal (as to Rome), that the only wonder is, he did not see how severe a Censure he (as David once did upon Nathan's Parable) here passeth upon himself. Again, he forgets that the Miracle out of Prosper concerning a Maid, who could not swallow a piece of the Sacramental Bread dipped in Wine (being possessed), but was cured by drinking of the Cup c 1.319, manifestly shews the Innovation of the Roman Church, in that it declares they used then to dip the Bread in Wine, and thought it lawful to give the Cup to the Laity; whereas now they only give the people a dry Wafer. It was certainly a great over∣sight in the Armenian Bishops (according to him who makes the Pope the sole Judge of Heresie) to send to Proclus of Constantinople, to know whether the Writings of Theodorus of Mopsvestia were Orthodox or no? Yet Liberatus (an ancient Author) affirms they did this secundum morem, according to Custom d 1.320. So that neither Liberatus nor the Armenians knew of any Custom to go only to Rome, out of the East, to enquire concern∣ing the true Faith; had they known this, no doubt they would have sent a little further. Moreover, he highly extols the Piety of Florentius the Praetorian Praefect, who finding the Tax paid by the Curtezans of Constantinople to the Exchequer, hindred their expulsion from that City, gave Lands of his own to compensate the Pub∣lick damage, that he might get those Infamous Wo∣men banished e 1.321; forgetting all the while the Impiety of the Pope and Cardinals, who now tolerate them

for a little scandalous Pension paid to their Treasury at Rome. He also saith, It is a Pelagian Principle and Heresie, to hold, That no Rich man can be saved, unless he give all his Estate to the Poor f 1.322. Yet he knew ma∣ny hundred Monasteries which have been and are endowed with great Estates, upon a Principle nothing different from this, which is preached frequently to rich Men and Women dying in their Churches Com∣munion, by cunning and covetous Priests and Jesuits. It is manifest partiality also in him, to affirm it was a Judgment of God to deliver Carthage to the Vandals, because there was Pagan Idolatry practised in that City g 1.323. But the same kind of Idolatry was conti∣nued in Rome notwithstanding all endeavours to root it out, till the Goths took it; but the Annalist doth not expound that Calamity after the same manner h 1.324. Thus he exclaims against the Cruelty of Gensericus the Vandal for persecuting the Orthodox Bishops upon the bare naming of Pharaoh, Nehuchadnezzar or Holofernes in their Sermons, pretending it was meant of him i 1.325. Whereas had he lived to this Age, he might have seen a King intituled, The most Christian, instigated by the Jesuits to persecute the Reformed Pastors for the same pretended Fault. It is remarkable that Theodoret, when he writes to a Bishop of Alexandria proves himself Orthodox, because his Faith was the same with the for∣mer Bishops of that See, viz. Alexander, Athanasius, Achillas, Theophilus and Cyril; as also with S. Basil and Gregory, the Lights of the World k 1.326. The Pope is not named, so that doubtless he was not the sole Standard of Catholick Communion then; if he had, the name of one Pope had been more to Theodoret's purpose than all these. Again, That Pope Leo writes as imperiously to Dioscorus of Alexandria, as he use to do to others, is very true, but it no where appears that Dioscorus ob∣served his Orders: Much less will it follow from hence, That Leo was the Master set over all Churches l 1.327; such assuming of Empire over our Equals, may indeed shew our Ambition, but it will not prove our Right. It is

obvious to all that read Baronius, how he strains all things that are said of S. Peter, to apply them to the Roman Church; but the Reader may note; how silently he passes it by, when our Gildas calls the British Bishops Sees here in this Island, the Seats of Peter m 1.328. But this may satisfie all impartial Men, that the Ancients accounted other Bishops the Successors of S. Peter, as well as the Pope, though now he alone usurps that and many other Priviledges, of Old enjoyed in common by others, as well as by the Bishop of Rome. Again, he spoils the Old famous Story of the Conversion of Spain by S. James, wherein the Spaniards so much pride them∣selves, out of a zealous partiality for Rome, which inclines him to affirm, That Spain first received the Gos∣pel from the Roman Church n 1.329: Which Notion may in time lessen the Pilgrimaes to S. James of Compostella, and calls in question the Devotion of those many Thou∣sands, who have believed his Body to be there, and worship his Relicks in that place with great assurance. Soon after, upon occasion of Turibius, complaining of the Apocryphal Books used by the Priscillian Hereticks in Spain, the Cardinal shews the necessity of suppres∣sing all Books that are against the Catholick Doctrin, and urges the Bishop of Spain to suppress a Book writ by one John de Roa, about the Rights of Princes, con∣taining Doctrins (as he saith) which he could not learn from the Jesuits, Fryers or Clergy of Spain o 1.330. Now how many Books (as Apocryphal as those of the old Hereticks, and as extravagant for the Rights of the Pope, as any that ever were writ on any Subject in the World) doth Baronius cite, approve and admire? But one Book that speaks for the Prince, and the Civil Rights of Men, must by no means be endured. 'Tis observable also, That when Theodoret was suspected of Heresie, he appeals to a Council in which the Bishops and Magistrates may meet, and the Judges may deter∣min what is consonant to the Apostolical Doctrin p 1.331. Now if it had been known and believed then, that the Popes Communion was enough to make a man a

Catholick, and he had been the sole Judge, why did not Theodoret in one word appeal to the Pope, and say he was in Communion with Leo Bishop of Rome? He approves Theodoret's Censure of Dioscorus, for in∣vading the Rights of other Dioceses, contrary to the Canons of Nice and Constantinople, and he blames Dioscorus for his Pride and Ambition; but though the Pope labour to invade all Dioceses, and make all the Bishops in the World his Vassals, contrary to Law, Equity, and Primitive Usage, this is no Crime in a Friend q 1.332. Baronius is miserably put to it about the Epistle of Ibas, judged (by two Councils) to be Here∣tical; yet approved by the Infallible Chair. This makes him contradict himself strangly; for here he saith, This was really Ibas his Epistle, as the Tenth Action at Chalcedon teaches, and himself confessed; and the Opinion of the Apostolick Legates of Maximus of Antioch and others confirm it, and Ibas was proved a Catholick by it r 1.333. But Baronius had before cited the Tenth Action at Chalcedon to prove, That this Epistle in that Council was found not to be Ibas Epistle, and so the Epistle was condemned, and he absolved s 1.334. And in the former place, as well as elsewhere t 1.335, he affirms the Epistle contained Blasphemy and Heresie; yet Pope Vigilius approved it; and the Cardinal saith, Ibas was by this Epistle found to be a Catholick. He that can make these Contradictions friends, or reconcile them to the Infallibility,—erit mihi magnus Apollo. He commends Pope Leo for reproving Theodosius the Em∣peror gently and mildly, when he was going to esta∣blish Heresie by a Pseudo-Synod * 1.336. Whereas Old Eli's Example may shew (if the Emperor was his In∣ferior in this matter, and the Pope his Ghostly Father) that his Reproof ought to have been sharper; yea, he should have expresly prohibited the convening of this Council (if his Authority was necessary to their Meeting) and have not so meanly truckled as to send his Legates to a Synod, which he judged needless, yea, dangerous u 1.337. And if we consider Leo's high Spirit,

this Submission shews, he had no right to call a Ge∣neral Council, nor power to hinder the Emperor from appointing one. Again, When the Pope (by Prosper's help) had writ a very seasonable and Orthodox E∣pistle against Eutyches, the French Bishops were care∣ful to have it exactly Transcribed; but it follows not from hence, That they would not vary one syllable from his Decrees w 1.338. For this respect was shewed, not to the Authority of the See, but to the excellency of the Epistle, as appears in that the Gallican Bishops (as hath been shewed) rejected other Decrees both of this Pope and his Predecessors, when they disliked them. And Baronius owns a little after, that these Bishops rejoyced that this Epistle contained their own sense as to the Faith, and were glad that the Pope held the same Opinion, that they had always held from the Tradition of their Ancestors x 1.339. So that this is no Proof, as he would have it, That the Pope was a Master presiding over all the Christian World. For they judged of his Teaching, and approved it, because it agreed with their Churches ancient Tradition. On no better grounds he gathers, there was One only lawful Judge, One Governor of Holy things always in the Church, viz. the Pope; From Theo∣doret's Epistle to Leo y 1.340: For first, these Epistles are justly suspected, as being not heard of till they came to light first out of the Vatican: And, secondly, they are demonstrated to be spurious by divers Learned Men, and especially this to Leo, is shewed to contain manifest Contradictions z 1.341. Thirdly, If this Epistle were genuine, it must be considered that all the Pa∣triarchs, except the Roman, were at that time either corrupted or oppressed, and in that juncture Theodoret could appeal to none of them but Leo, and so might well give him good words, who alone was likely and able to assist him. As for that Testimony wherein they much glory, That Rome had the Supremacy over all Churches, (as their Translation speaks) because it was always free from Heresie, and no Heretick had sat there a 1.342, it supposes a long experience of the Church of Romes

Integrity before this Priviledge was bestowed; and if the Supremacy was given her for this Reason, she ought to lose it again whenever any Heretical Pope shall get the Chair; nor doth Theodoret at all suppose this impossible for the future. Moreover he brags, that Leo restored Theodoret and others, deposed by this Pseudo-Ephesine-Synod, and infers, That it was the Popes priviledge alone to restore Bishops deposed by a Coun∣cil b 1.343. But the Misfortune is, Theodoret was called an Heretick after the Pope had privately acquitted him, and his Cause was to be tried over again at Chalcedon; and till that Council restored him he remained sus∣pended for all this pretended Priviledge of the Pope. And before we leave him we may note, that he used all his Interest to persuade the Emperor to call a law∣ful and impartial General Council, as appears by all his Epistles to his several Friends c 1.344; which shews he knew it was in the Emperor's power alone to call one; not in the Pope's, to whom he would have written, (being in favour with him) if he had had Authority in this Affair. He reckons Attila's leaving to harrass the Ea∣stern Empire, to be a Divine Reward for Marcian's set∣ling the true Religion there; but presently tells us, That this Scourge of God, and other sad Judgments fell upon Italy and the Western Empire; from whence he sup∣poses the Reformation of all Eastern Heresies came, and where he believes no Heresie could ever take place d 1.345. So miserably do Men expose themselves, when they pretend to give Reasons for all God's Dis∣pensations. In the next year hapned the Famous Council of Chalcedon, wherein divers of Baronius's Frauds have been already detected; so that I am only to add, That Leo was politick in pretending to give Ana∣tolius a power to receive Recanting Bishops, who had fallen into Eutyches Heresie, and cunningly reserves the greater Cases to his own See e 1.346. But 'tis plain, Anatolius of Constantinople had as much power in the Provinces subject to him, as the Pope had in Italy, and the greater Cases were, according to ancient Usage,

reserved to the next General Council, where both the Bishop of Rome and Constantinoples Acts were to be re-examined, and none of these Erring Bishops were re∣stored but by that Council. And finally, he makes it a great Crime in Dioscorus to pretend to Lord it over Egypt, and to say, He had as much Authority there as the Emperor f 1.347. Yet the following Popes did and said as much in relation to Italy; but Baronius cannot see any harm in that, though Socrates did, who saith, That both the Bishops of Rome and Alexandria had ex∣ceeded the bounds of Priestly-power, and fallen to a secular way of Ruling g 1.348. And this may suffice for this Part of the Period we have undertaken.

Notes

• * 1.1

  An. Dom. 451. §. 1.
• a 1.2

  Bin. Tom. 2. par. 1. p. 2. Lab. Tom. 4. p. 1.
• b 1.3

  Bin. ib. pag. 409. Lab. col. 979.
• c 1.4

  Bin. Pref. pag. 3. Lab. col. 3, & 4.
• d 1.5

  Bin. Pref. pag. 3. Lab. ib. col. 5.
• e 1.6

  De Marca de concord. l. 7. c. 7. p 324.
• f 1.7

  Concil. Chalced. par. 1. Bin. p. 24. Lab. col. 54.
• g 1.8

  Ibid. Bin. pag. 19. Lab. col. 42.
• h 1.9

  Bin. pag. 4. Lab. col. 6.
• i 1.10

  Vid. Lab. num. 4. col. 15. marg. ita num. 6. Bin. p. 8. Lab. col. 18.
• k 1.11

  Bin. & Lab. num. 6.
• l 1.12

  Bin pag. 12. Lab. col. 23. num. 9.
• m 1.13

  Bin. pag. 12. Lab. col. 26. num. 10.
• n 1.14

  Bin. pag. 15. Lab. col. 31. num. 13.
• o 1.15

  Bin. pag. 18. Lab. col. 37, 38. num. 19.
• p 1.16

  Baron. An. 451. pag. 159. Leon. ep. 54. in Concil. Chal∣ced. par. 3. Bin. p. 355. num. 6.
• q 1.17

  Leon. ep. 12, & 13. Concil. Chal. par. 1. Bin. p. 12, & 14.
• r 1.18

  Leo ep. ad Pulcher. Bin. p. 13. Lab. col. 27. num. 11.
• s 1.19

  Flav. ep. ad Leon. num. 6. Bin. p. 9. Lab. col. 19.
• t 1.20

  Ep. Leon. ad Jul. num. 8. Bin. p. 10. Lab. col. 19.
• u 1.21

  Ep. Le. ad Theod. n. 10. Bin p. 10. Lab. col. 2••. ita in ep. ad Pulcher. num. 11. ep. ad Synod. Ephes. num. 13.
• w 1.22

  Ep. Leon. ibid. num. 16. & 17. Bin. p. 17. Lab. col. 37.
• x 1.23

  Ep. Petr. Raven. ad Eu∣tyeh. num. 15. Bin. p. 17. Lab. col. 35.
• y 1.24

  Not. in Con∣cil. Bin. p. 415. Lab. col. 992.
• z 1.25

  Ep. Leon. ad Theod. num. 19, 20. Bin. pag. 19, 20. Lab. col. 42, & 46.
• a 1.26

  Ep. Leon. ad Const. num. 23. Bin. p. 22. Lab. col. 48.
• b 1.27

  Ep. Valent. num. 25. Bin. p. 23. Lab. col. 51.
• c 1.28

  Num. 28. Bin. p. 25. Lab. col. 58.
• d 1.29

  Ep. Gal. Placid. num. 26. Bin. p. 24. Lab. col. 54.
• e 1.30

  Ep. Theod. num. 29, 30, 31. Bin. p. 25. Lab. col. 58, &c.
• f 1.31

  Ep. Leon. ad Theod. Num. 32. Bin. pag. 32. Lab. col. 61.
• g 1.32

  Richer. Hist Concil. gen. l. 1 c. 8. §. 11. pag. 363.
• h 1.33

  Epist. Mar∣cian. ad Leon. Num. 34. Bin. pag. 28. Lab. col. 63.
• i 1.34

  Baron. An. 450. pag. 119. Bin. not. pag. 409. Lab. col. 980.
• k 1.35

  Epist. Mar∣cian. Num 36, & 37. Bin. pag. 29, &c. Lab. col. 66, &c.
• l 1.36

  Epist Leon. ad Synod num. 40. Bin. pag. 31.
• m 1.37

  Epist. Mar∣cian. Num. 41. Bin. pag. 32. Lab. col. 74.
• n 1.38

  Baron. An. 451. pag. 132. Bin. not. pag. 409. Lab. col. 980.
• o 1.39

  Praef. Bin. pag. 4 Lab. p. 6.
• p 1.40

  Not. Bin. pag. 409. Lab. col. 980.
• q 1.41

  Concil. Chalced. par. 3. Num. 32. Bin. pag. 381. Lab. col. 912.
• r 1.42

  Epist. Leon. Num. 40. Bin. p. 31. Lab. col. 70.
• s 1.43

  Epist. Mar∣cian. Num. 36. Bin. pag. 29. Lab. col. 66.
• t 1.44

  Concil. Chalced. Act. 1. Bin. pag. 34. Lab. col. 78, &c.
• u 1.45

  Liberat. Brev. cap. 13. Bin. Tom 2. par. 2. pag. 185.
• w 1.46

  Baron. An. 451. pag. 126.
• x 1.47

  Not. Bin. p. 410. Lab. col. 982.
• y 1.48

  Praef. Bin. pag. 4. Lab. col. 6.
• z 1.49

  Not in Con∣cil. Bin. pag. 410. Lab. col. 981.
• a 1.50

  Not. Bin. pag. 411. Lab. col. 984.
• b 1.51

  Baron. An. 450. pag. 120.
• c 1.52

  Not. in Con∣cil. Bin. pag. 410. Lab. col. 981.
• d 1.53

  Act. 3. Bin. pag. 174. Lab. col. 380. ibid. in subscrip. Act. 3. Bin. pag. 208. Lab. col. 448. Et subscrip. Act. 4. Bin. pag. 259. Lab. col. 580.
• e 1.54

  Act. 12. Bin. pag. 305. Lab. col. 771.
• f 1.55

  Baron. An. 451. pag. 145. Not. in Concil. Bin. pag. 410. Lab. col. 981.
• g 1.56

  Act. 3. Bin. pag. 192, &c. Lab. col. 421, &c.
• h 1.57

  Act. 4. Bin. pag. 243. Lab. col. 540.
• i 1.58

  Concil. Chalced. par. 3. num. 42. Bin. pag. 389. Lab. col. 933.
• k 1.59

  Act. 4. Bin. pag. 236. Lab. col. 518. item Act. 16. Bin. pag. 334. Lab. col. 793.
• l 1.60

  Baron. An. 451. pag. 143. Not. Bin. pag. 412. Lab. col. 986.
• m 1.61

  Act. 1. Bin. pag. 152. Lab. col 310.
• n 1.62

  Act. 3. in fine, Bin. pag. 215. Lab. col. 463.
• o 1.63

  Not in Con∣cil. Bin. pag. 410. col. 2. Lab. col. 982. ita Baron. An. 451. pag. 159.
• p 1.64

  Ep. Synod. ad Leon. Con∣cil. Chal. par. 3. num. 2. Bin. pag. 351. Lab. col. 836.
• q 1.65

  Vid. Leon. ep. 61. cit. in not. verb. [ap∣probatum.]
• r 1.66

  Concil. Chal. par. 3. num. 1. Bin. pag. 347. Lab. col. 828.
• s 1.67

  Act. 4. Bin. pag. 248. Lab. col. 552.
• t 1.68

  Act. 5. Bin. pag. 254. Lab. col. 568.
• u 1.69

  Baron. An. 451. pag. 141. vid. Act. 6. Bin. pag. 258. Lab. col. 577.
• w 1.70

  Act. 6. Bin. pag. 269. Lab. col. 608. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. &c. ib.
• x 1.71

  Ibid. vid.
• y 1.72

  Par. 3. Con∣cil. num. 3, & 4. Bin. pag. 352, &c. Lab. col. 840, &c.
• z 1.73

  Baron. An. 451. pag. 141.
• a 1.74

  Act. 1. Bin. pag. 34. Lab. col. 88.
• b 1.75

  Ibid. Bin. p. 41. Lab. col. 94.
• c 1.76

  Bellarm. de Concil. lib. 2. cap. 11. pag. 85.
• d 1.77

  Act. 3. Bin. pag. 192. Lab. col. 425.
• e 1.78

  Act. 1. Bin. pag. 41. Lab. col. 94.
• f 1.79

  Bellarm. de Rom. Pontif. lib. 1. cap. 10. pag. 540.
• g 1.80

  Act. 1. Bin. pag. 48. Lab. col. 111.
• b 1.81

  Ibid. Bin. pag. 52. Lab. col. 122. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• i 1.82

  Ibid. Bin. pag. 57. Lab. col. 135.
• k 1.83

  Ibid. Bin. p. 90. Lab. col. 222.
• l 1.84

  In fin. Act. 1. Bin. pag. 153. Lab. col. 310.
• m 1.85

  Act. 2. Bin pag. 151. Lab. col. 344.
• n 1.86

  Not. in Concil. Bin. p. 412. Lab. col. 986. Collat. cum Act. 2. Bin. p. 169. Lab. col. 368.
• o 1.87

  Pref. Bin. p. 4. Lab. col. 7.
• p 1.88

  Not. in Con∣cil. Bin. pag. 412. Lab. col. 986.
• q 1.89

  Act. 3. Bin. p. 181. Lab. col. 396.
• r 1.90

  Baron. An. 451. pag. 144.
• s 1.91

  Act. 3. ib. Bin. p. 189. Lab. col. 417.
• t 1.92

  Pres. Bin. p. 4. Lab. col. 7.
• u 1.93

  Not. in Con∣cil. Bin. p. 413. Lab. col. 987.
• w 1.94

  Baron. An. 451. p. 145.
• x 1.95

  Act. 3. Bin. p. 191, 192. Lab. col. 421, &c.
• y 1.96

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, omissam in edit. Bin. & Lab. ever. edit. resti∣tuit Richer. Hist. Concil. Gen. Tom. 1. p. 395.
• z 1.97

  Act. 3. Bin. p. 192. Lab. col. 425.
• a 1.98

  Cusan. lib. de Concord. Cath. lib. 2. c. 8.
• b 1.99

  Leo ep. 63. ad Theod.
• c 1.100

  Act. 3. Bin. p. 214. Lab. col. 460.
• d 1.101

  Bin. ib. Lab. col. 461.
• e 1.102

  Ib. Bin. p. 215. Lab. col. 463.
• f 1.103

  Act. 4. Bin. p. 218. Lab. col. 471, &c.
• g 1.104

  Act. 4. Bin. pag. 217. Lab. col. 471.
• h 1.105

  Ib. Bin. p. 218, & 221. Lab. col. 474, & 482.
• i 1.106

  Ibid Bin. pag 232. Lab. col. 507.
• k 1.107

  Ibid. Bin. p. 233. Lab. col. 510, &c.
• l 1.108

  Ib. Bin. p. 243. Lab. col. 540.
• m 1.109

  Ib. p. 244. Lab. col. 541.
• * 1.110

  Act. 4. Bin p. 245. Lab. col. 544.
• n 1.111

  Baron. An. 451. p. 149.
• o 1.112

  Act. 4. Bin. p. 248. Lab. col 552.
• p 1.113

  Act. v. Bin. pag. 250. Lab. col. 560.
• q 1.114

  Ib. Bin. pag. 251. Lab. col. 561.
• r 1.115

  Ib. Bin. pag. 254. Lab. col. 568.
• s 1.116

  Baron. An. 450, pag. 141.
• t 1.117

  Act. vi. Bin. pag. 258. Lab. col. 577.
• u 1.118

  Ib. Bin. pag. 269, &c. Lab. col. 608.
• w 1.119

  Richer. Hist. Concil. gen. Tom. 1. pag. 407.
• x 1.120

  Act. 6. Bin. pag. 259. Lab. col. 580.
• y 1.121

  Act. 7. Bin. pag. 271. Lab. col. 612.
• z 1.122

  Act. 8. Bin. pag. 273. Lab. col. 617.
• a 1.123

  Act. 9 & 10. Bin. pag. 277. & pag. 280. Lab. col. 628. & 637.
• b 1.124

  Act. 10. Bin. pag. 283. Lab. col. 644.
• d 1.125

  Ib. Bin. pag. 294. Lab. col. 673.
• e 1.126

  Bin. pag. 298. Lab. col. 681. Baron. An. 451. pag. 155.
• f 1.127

  Vid. Cra∣tenthorp. vigil. dormit. chap. 35. §. 9.
• g 1.128

  Act. 11. Bin pag. 300. Lab. col. 688.
• h 1.129

  Baron. An. 447. pag. 49.
• i 1.130

  Act. 11. Bin. pag. 301. Lab. col. 689.
• k 1.131

  Ibid. Bin. pag. 302. Lab. col. 692.
• l 1.132

  Act. 12. Bin. pag. 305, 306. Lab. col. 771. &c.
• m 1.133

  Act. 13. Bin. pag. 307. Lab. col. 708.
• n 1.134

  Act. 14. Bin. p. 311. Lab. col. 717.
• o 1.135

  Supr. Act. 6.
• p 1.136

  Act. 15. Bin. pag. 326. Lab. col. 757.
• q 1.137

  Vid. Bever. not. in Can. Chalced. 4. Tom. 2. p. 111.
• r 1.138

  Nicol. 1. ep. 8. ad Mich. Imp.
• s 1.139

  Bin. not. p. 418. Lab. col. 996.
• * 1.140

  Bin. pag. 328.
• t 1.141

  Act. 15. Bin. pag. 330. Lab. col. 769.
• u 1.142

  Bever. Pand. Tom. 2. annot. pag. 124.
• w 1.143

  Vid. Grati∣an. Decret. par. 1. dist. 22. c. 6. in not.
• x 1.144

  Edit. in Octav. Francof. 1585.
• y 1.145

  Act. 16. Bin. pag. 333. Lab. col. 792.
• z 1.146

  Baron. An. 451. p. 157. c.
• a 1.147

  Bin. Annot. pag. 418. col. 2. B. Lab. col. 997.
• b 1.148

  Baron. An. 451. pag. 126. Bin. pag. 342. Lab. col. 816.
• c 1.149

  Act. 1. Bin. pag. 50. Lab. col. 115.
• d 1.150

  Baron. An. 451. pag. 158.
• e 1.151

  Act. 16. Bin. pag. 344. Lab. col. 820.
• f 1.152

  Ib. Bin. pag. 343. Lab. col. 817.
• g 1.153

  Id. ibid.
• h 1.154

  Bin. par. 3. num. 3, & 4. pag. 352, &c. Lab. pag. 840.
• i 1.155

  Par. 3. num. 2. Bin. pag. 350. Lab. col. 833.
• k 1.156

  Baron. An. 451. pag. 159.
• l 1.157

  Ibid. Bin. pag. 351. Lab. col. 837.
• m 1.158

  Baron. An. 451. pag. 159.
• n 1.159

  Par. 3. num. 3 & 4. Bin. pag. 352. Lab. col. 840.
• o 1.160

  Ibid. num. 5, 6, 7. Bin. pag. 354, &c. Lab. col. 844.
• p 1.161

  Liberat. Brev. cap. 13. Bin. Tom. 2. par. 2. pag. 186.
• q 1.162

  Almain. de Eccles. Author. cap. 7.
• r 1.163

  Baron. An. 452. pag. 166.
• s 1.164

  Richer. Hist. Concil. gen. Tom. 1. cap. 8. §. 44.
• t 1.165

  Par. 3. num. 8. Bin. pag. 356 Lab. col. 849.
• u 1.166

  Ibid. num. 76. Bin. pag. 369. Lab. col. 882.
• w 1.167

  Ibid. num. 17. Bin. pag. 370. Lab. col. 884.
• x 1.168

  Par. 3. num. 2. Bin. pag. 351 Lab. col. 836.
• y 1.169

  Vid. Bin. not. P. 410. Lab. col. 983.
• z 1.170

  Bin. not. p. 411. col. 1. Lab. col. 984.
• a 1.171

  Craken∣throp. Vigil. Dormit. chap. 10. p. 107.
• b 1.172

  Not. Bin. p. 411. col. 2. Lab. ut supr.
• c 1.173

  Par. 1. num. 40. Bin. p. 31. Lab. col. 70.
• d 1.174

  Baron. An. 451. p. 143.
• e 1.175

  Bin. not. p. 412. col. 1. C. & col. 2. D.
• f 1.176

  Bin. not. p. 412. col. 2. E. Lab. col. 986. Baron. An. 451. p. 144.
• g 1.177

  Act. 3. Bin. p. 183. Lab. col. 401.
• h 1.178

  Bin. not. p. 417. col. 1. D. Lab. col. 994.
• i 1.179

  Bin. & Lab. ibid.
• k 1.180

  Bin. not. p. 415. col. 1. Lab. col. 991.
• l 1.181

  Bin. not. p. 415. col. 2. Lab. col. 992. Baron. An. 449. p. 96.
• m 1.182

  Par. 1. num. 24. Bin. p. 23. Lab. col. 52.
• n 1.183

  Act. 11. Bin. p. 304. Lab. col. 697.
• * 1.184

  Vide ap. D. Crakenth. in Spalat. c. 59. p. 383.
• o 1.185

  Bin. not. p. 419. col. 1. Lab. col. 998.
• p 1.186

  Baron. An. 452. p. 168.
• q 1.187

  Baron. An. 403. pag. 179.
• r 1.188

  Baron. An. 406. p. 238. I wish he had remembred here his own words, Non enim indi∣gent Sancti no∣stris illustrari mendaciis, Ibid. p. 262.
• s 1.189

  Baron. An. 407. p. 256.
• t 1.190

  Baron. An. 412. p. 345.
• u 1.191

  Id. ibid. p. 348.
• w 1.192

  Id. ibid. p. 351.
• x 1.193

  Baron. An. 414. p. 365.
• * 1.194

  (z) Baron. An. 415. pag. 367.
• z 1.195

  Serm. 51. vid. Rivet. cen∣sur. lib. 4. cap. 16.
• a 1.196

  Sozom. Hist. lib. 9. cap. 17.
• b 1.197

  Baron. An. 415. pag. 382.
• c 1.198

  Vid. Baron. An. 416. pag. 390 & alib. passim.
• d 1.199

  An. 417. pag. 406.
• e 1.200

  Baron. An. 417 pag. 407.
• f 1.201

  Baron. An. 418. pag. 418. vid. Rivet. cen∣sur. lib. 4. c. 16.
• g 1.202

  Baron. An. 418. pag. 419. ad 428. col∣lat. com Baron. An. 416. pag. 390. & Coci censur. pag. 205.
• h 1.203

  Baron. An. 420. pag. 473.
• i 1.204

  Baron. An. 424. pag. 487.
• k 1.205

  Baron. An. 453. & An. 460. vid. Ceci censuram. pag. 207.
• l 1.206

  Baron. An. 428. pag 508.
• m 1.207

  Vid. Coci censur. pag. 198.
• n 1.208

  Baron. An. 429. pag. 524.
• o 1.209

  Vid Coci censur. pag. 228.
• p 1.210

  Baron. An. 431. pag. 604.
• q 1.211

  Baron. ibid. pag. 605.
• r 1.212

  Baron. An. 435. p. 652, 654.
• s 1.213

  Baron. An. 439. p. 667.
• t 1.214

  Baron. An. 440. Tom. 6. p. 6.
• u 1.215

  Baron. An. 441. p. 8.
• w 1.216

  Vid. Coci censur p. 117, 118. Rivet. Crit. Sacr. lib. 4. c. 20.
• x 1.217

  Baron. An. 444. p. 19.
• y 1.218

  Id. ibid. p. 21.
• z 1.219

  Aventin. Annal. lib. 3. p. 225.
• a 1.220

  Baron. An. 446. p. 39.
• b 1.221

  Baron. An. 450. p. 117.
• c 1.222

  Id. An 451. p. 134.
• d 1.223

  Id. ibid. p. 137.
• e 1.224

  Id. ibid. p. 135, 136, 137.
• f 1.225

  Baron. ibid. p. 160, 161, &c.
• g 1.226

  Baron. An. 402. p. 163.
• h 1.227

  Baron. An. 408. p. 272.
• i 1.228

  Synes. epist. 105. Baron. An. 410. p. 309, 310, 311.
• k 1.229

  Aug. ep. 163. Tom. 2. fol. 153. & Tom. 7. contr. Cresc. l. 3. f. 57.
• l 1.230

  Baron. An. 412. p. 336.
• m 1.231

  Aug. ep. 162. fol. 150. Baron. An. 412. p. 336.
• n 1.232

  Baron. An. 419. p. 450.
• o 1.233

  Baron. An. 426. p. 494.
• p 1.234

  Baron. An. 531. p. 560.
• q 1.235

  Bin. Tom. 1. par. 2. p. 234.
• r 1.236

  Vid. supr. p. 37.
• s 1.237

  Baron. An. 43••. p. 620.
• t 1.238

  Baron. Tom. 6. An. 450. p. 116.
• u 1.239

  Baron. Tom. 5. An. 404. p. p. 202.
• w 1.240

  Vid. Rivet. Critic. Sacr. l. 4. c. 1. p. 351.
• x 1.241

  Baron. An. 407. p. 255.
• * 1.242

  An. 401. p. 137.
• y 1.243

  Baron. An. 419. p. 444. ex Aug. contra Julian. l. 1. c. 4.
• z 1.244

  Baron. An. 404. p. 207.
• a 1.245

  Baron. An. 412. p. 339, 340.
• b 1.246

  Baron. ibid. p. 346.
• c 1.247

  Idem An. 404. p. 223.
• d 1.248

  Baron. An. 412. p. 346.
• e 1.249

  Baron. An. 421. p. 475.
• f 1.250

  Vid. Spelm. Concil. Tom. 1. p. 48.
• g 1.251

  Baron. An. 429. p. 520.
• h 1.252

  Ibid. p. 523.
• i 1.253

  Baron. An. 430. p. 532.
• k 1.254

  Vid. Ush. Antiq. Brit. c. 17. p. 426.
• l 1.255

  Baron. An. 431. p. 605.
• m 1.256

  Baron. An. Tom. 6. An. 447. p. 49.
• n 1.257

  Baron. An. 448. pag. 54.
• o 1.258

  Baron. An. 449. pag 86.
• p 1.259

  Baron. ibid. pag. 88.
• q 1.260

  Baron. An. 450. pag. 115.
• r 1.261

  Baron. An. 450. pag. 117.
• s 1.262

  Baron. An. 449 pag. 111.
• t 1.263

  Richer. hist. Concil. gen. Tom. 1. cap. 8. pag. 363.
• u 1.264

  Baron. An. 450. pag. 118.
• w 1.265

  Baron. An. 402. pag. 156.
• x 1.266

  Baron An. 402 pag. 159.
• y 1.267

  Id. ibid. pag. 160.
• z 1.268

  Baron. An. 404. pag 187.
• a 1.269

  Baron. An. 404. pag 194.
• b 1.270

  Id. ibid. pag. 206.
• c 1.271

  Baron. An. 405. pag. 231. Vid. item An. 423. pag. 480.
• d 1.272

  Baron. An. 406. pag. 247, 248, &c. ad pag. 251.
• e 1.273

  Baron. An. 407. pag. 253.
• f 1.274

  Baron. ibid.
• g 1.275

  Id. pag. 262.
• h 1.276

  Baron. ibid. pag. 261.
• i 1.277

  Baron. An. 408. pag. 272.
• k 1.278

  Baron ibid. pag. 273.
• l 1.279

  Baron ibid. pag 274.
• m 1.280

  Ibid p. 275.
• n 1.281

  Baron. An. 410. pag. 307.
• o 1.282

  Concil Chal∣ced. Bin. Tom 2. par. 1. pag. 361.
• p 1.283

  Greg. Mag. cp. ad Epise. Constantinop.
• q 1.284

  Baron. An. 410. pag. 312.
• r 1.285

  Baron. An. 412. pag. 334 & 335.
• s 1.286

  Baron. ibid. pag. 345.
• t 1.287

  Baron. ibid. pag. 348.
• u 1.288

  Baron. ibid. pag. 350.
• w 1.289

  Baron. An. 414. pag. 363.
• x 1.290

  Baron. ibid. pag. 364.
• y 1.291

  Baron. An. 415. pag. 381.
• z 1.292

  Baron. An. 416 pag 388.
• a 1.293

  Baron. An. 426. pag. 499.
• b 1.294

  Baron. An. 418. pag. 414, 415.
• c 1.295

  Possid. vit. D. Aug. cap. 17.
• d 1.296

  Vid. Innoc. Epist. 26. Bin. not. pag. 625.
• e 1.297

  Baron. An. 419. pag. 442.
• f 1.298

  Aug. Tom. 7. contr. 2 Epist. Pelag. fol. 186.
• g 1.299

  Aug. ibid. contr. Jul. praef. fol. 202.
• h 1.300

  Baron. An. 419. pag. 442. E.
• i 1.301

  Baron. An. 419. pag. 456.
• k 1.302

  Baron. An. 420. pag. 465.
• l 1.303

  Baron. An. 425. pag. 489.
• m 1.304

  Baron. An. 426. pag. 498.
• n 1.305

  Baron. An. 427. pag. 507.
• o 1.306

  Sozom. hist. lib. 8. cap. 2.
• p 1.307

  Baron. An. 428. pag. 512.
• q 1.308

  Id. ibid.
• r 1.309

  Id. An. 428. pag. 513.
• s 1.310

  Baron. An. 429 pag. 527. Vide iterum An. 430. pag. 550.
• t 1.311

  Baron. An. 430. pag. 533.
• u 1.312

  Id. ibid. pag. 538.
• w 1.313

  Possid. vit. Aug. vers. fin. & Baron. An. 430. pag. 554.
• x 1.314

  Baron. An. 431. pag. 564.
• y 1.315

  Baron. An. 431. pag. 563.
• z 1.316

  Baron. ibid. pag. 591.
• a 1.317

  Id. ibid. pag. 597.
• b 1.318

  Baron. An. 432. p. 631, &c.
• c 1.319

  Baron. An. 434. pag. 646, 647.
• d 1.320

  Baron. An. 435. pag. 649.
• e 1.321

  Baron. An. 439. pag. 677.
• f 1.322

  Id. An. 440. pag. 682.
• g 1.323

  Baron. Tom VI. An. 440. pag. 5.
• h 1.324

  Vid. Baron. An. 410.
• i 1.325

  Baron. An. 442. pag. 12.
• k 1.326

  Baron. An. 444. pag. 23.
• l 1.327

  Baron. An. 444. pag. 25.
• m 1.328

  Baron. An. 446. pag. 36.
• n 1.329

  Baron. An. 447. pag. 42.
• o 1.330

  Id. ibid. pag. 44.
• p 1.331

  Baron. An. 448. pag. 53.
• q 1.332

  Id. ibid. pag 54.
• r 1.333

  Baron. An. 448. pag. 67.
• s 1.334

  Id. An. 432. pag. 626.
• t 1.335

  Id. Tom. 7. An. 553. Vid. Craken∣thorp. Vigil. dormitans, cap. 10. p. 110.
• * 1.336

  In cujus manu est ut prohibeat, jubet agi, si non pro∣bibet admitti. Salvian.
• u 1.337

  Baron. An. 449 pag. 80.
• w 1.338

  Id. ibid. pag. 82.
• x 1.339

  Id. ibid. pag. 86.
• y 1.340

  Baron. An. 449. pag. 99, 101.
• z 1.341

  Rivet. Crit. saer. lib. 4. c. 21. Vid Crakenth. Vigil. dorm. pag. 444.
• a 1.342

  Id. Baron. ib. p. 102.
• b 1.343

  Id. ibid. pag. 103.
• c 1.344

  Baron. An. 450. pag. 122, 123, 124.
• d 1.345

  Baron. An. 450. pag. 125.
• e 1.346

  Baron. An. 451. p. 128, & 130.
• f 1.347

  Id. ibid. pag. 144.
• g 1.348

  Socrat. lib. 7. cap. 11.