and Zofimus made ufe of; and from hence he accounts for the falfe quotations of the Nicene and Sardican Canons by those two Bishops of Rome. Quesnel's Hypothefis and Arguments have had to much weight in the learned World, that Fabricius does not fcruple to acquiefce Nicana Sardicenfifque Synodorum temporibus ad ufque Innocentii Zofimique ætatem, nullos alios Canones regulafque Ecelefiafticas complexum effe præter Nicæni Sardicenfifque Concilii Canones; neque Sardicenfes in illo locum habuiffe, nifi quia pro Nicanis habiti funt, eorumque nomine vestiti, ac eis fine ulla diftinctione fubjuncti. İd. Ibid. Ex pluribus prifcorum Romæ Epifcoporum Epiftolis, atque ex Canonibus in Africam à Zofimo Papa miffis fub Nicanorum. Canonum nomine, quamvis Sardicenfes eos fuiffe jam in confeffo fit, certum penè hactenus fuit apud eruditos, Romanam Ecclefiam utriufque concilii canones habuiffe fibi invicem vel immixtos vel fubjectos fine ullâ diftinctionis inter utrofque notâ ; cumque novatores Zofimo affectati mendacii ac meditatæ impofture crimen procacibus verbis impingere præfumpferunt, nihil melius noftri habuêre, quàm ut modefti faterentur pro Nicænis. Canonibus Sardicenfes ab illo habitos, & affererent id ex eo profectum, ut fcribit Marca, quòd ea tempeftate Canones Nicani Sardicenfes in eadem volumine defcripti effent nullo difcrimine adhibito, fub titulo Canonum Nicanorum. Probabilis quidem conjectura, fi vetufti codicis auctoritate niteretur, qui nondum emerfit è tenebris. Sed nunc tandem codex integer prodit in lucem, ejufque ope probabilis Catholicorum Scriptorum conjectura in certum jam evadit Argumentum. Id. Cap. 4. r Supereft, ut notitiam collectionum Latinarum, quam promifi, fubjungam, atque ita capiti huic de Canonibus Ecclefiafticis finem imponam. Pro antiquiffimâ omnium habendus Codex Canonum Ecclefie Romanx, quem ex Codice duplici, Oxonienfi per Edvardum Bernhardum tranfmiffo, ac Thuaneo primus vulgavit celeberrimus Vir Pafchafius Quefncllus cum Leonis Magni operibus Parif. 1675. 4. & Lugd. 1700. fol. Hic nempe ipfi videtur codex, cujus ut antiquioris Dionyfius Exiguus meminit, & cujus confufione teftatur fe impulfum, ut novam ipfe Canonum editionem adornaret. In hoc Canon Vicefimus Nic.enus præter miffus, in them, and Buddeus is very inclinable to do the fame. So that we must not charge at random either Innocent or Zofimus with fraud, but the antient Collector of Roman Canons whoever he was, with confufion and negligence. The fame Anfwer will ferve to take off all Daille's objections against Leo the Great. He too like Zofimus his Predeceffor, had quoted in an Epistle* to the Emperor Theodofius, a Sardican Canon for a Nicene, deceiv'd it is cer tain, in the fame manner by his Roman Collection of Canons. And it is more than probable, that if Daillè himself had liv'd to fee, what the learned Quesnel has produc'd and argued on this Subject, he would not have miffus, & Canones Sardicenfes cum Nicanis ita permixti extant, ut Canones Nicanos numeret 46, vel 47. ut in Codice Atrebatenfi, vel, ut in MS. Oxonienfi, 48. Hinc Sardicenfes pro Nicanis laudat Innocentius 1. (A. 416. defunctus) qui folos etiam Nicænos Canones à Romanâ Ecclefiâ receptos alibi teftatur; pro Sardicenfi vicifsìm Nicænum Canonem adduxit Ferrandus Diaconus; quâ de re, & quomodo Codex ille novis fubinde incrementis fub Inocentio, Zofimo, Caleftino, & Leone Magno fuerit auctus, & excreverit in illam Capp. 98. magnitudinem, confulere juvabit laudatum Quefnellum. Biblioth. Grac. Tom. 11. Lib. 6. cap. 1. P. 59, 60. Jam ante Dionyfii exigui verfionem canonum Ecclefiæ Orientalis, novainque collectionem, quæ fæculo fexto prodiit, & de quâ deinceps dicemus, codicem quendam canonum in Ecclefiâ Romanâ receptum fuiffe, pofitum hodiè apud Viros eruditiffiinos eft extra controverfiam. Imo Codicem huncce antiquum Ecclefiæ Romanæ ex tenebris tandem erutum in lucem protraxit, & cum Leonis Magni operibus edidit Pafchafius Quefnellus, cujus & peculiaris de Codice canonum Ecclefia Romana omnium, qui hucufque prodierunt antiquiffimo, nunc primum in lucem edito, extat Differtatio &c. Buddei Ifagoge P. 757, 758. * Epik. 40. Ed. Quefnel, & ap. Harduin, Conc Tom. 2. p. 23, wrote fome things which now appear in his Book, nor have fill'd his head with fo many fufpicions and jealoufies. As to the impofing thefe or any other forg'd Canons of Nice on the Chriftian World for many Ages, 'tis nothing but Dream and Chimæra. This I have prov'd before of one fort of Canons, and the fame is apparent with regard to the cafe before us. The Sardican Ca nons were not made till the Year 357, and in the Year 419, whatever cheat or imposture had pafs'd about them, was all difcover'd and fet afide. Where now fhall we reckon the many Ages of this reigning Impofture in the Christian World, between the Years 347 and 419? Befides it is plain, that the Sardican Canons were never impos'd at all for Nicene on the Greek or African Churches. The African Council tells Boniface Succeffor of Zofimus in 419, Quamvis plurimos codices legeremus, nufquam in Nicano Concilio in Latinis Codicibus legimus, quemadmodum in fupradicto Commonitorio inde directa funt. Tho' we have read, fay they, many Copies, yet do we no where find in the Latin (obtaining in Africa) Copies of the Nicene Council and its Canons, what is quoted and urg'd from thence in the Commonitorium mention'd above. From whence it is clear, that the African Bi t Epift. Conc. Afric. ad Bonifacium ap. Harduin. Conc. Tom. 1. p. 943. fhops fhops had always preferv'd the Sardican Canons diftinct from thofe of Nice, and had never been perfuaded by the Bifhops of Rome to confound the one with the other. So in the East we find, that Atticus * Bishop of Conftantinople sent to the African Council a genuine Copy of the Canons of Nice, without intermixture of those of Sardica, and his Letter fhews, that he had heard nothing of Papal Impofitions in this refpect. Neither was there any inftance or footstep of it in the Western Churches any farther than Rome. And Quesnel has spent a whole Chapter" in the Differtation mention'd above, to fhew, that the Church of Rome had a Code or Book of Canons peculiar to it felf, diftinct from that of any other, which I do not find that the antient Popes attempted ever to impose upon other Churches. So that I leave the Reader to judge who is guilty of the greateft Impofition, the antient Popes of Rome, or our modern Deift. III. A 3d Inftance of Fraud Ecclefiaftical, and Lay-Learning is this. The antient Liturgies, tho' things of daily use, underwent divers alterations". Profound and ingenious Sentence! The turn of which is fo rational and juft, that the very See above p. 36. u Differtat. 12. Cap. c. p. 142. F 2 thir thing which is defign'd to enforce and aggravate its charge, muft ferve to extenuate and fpoil it. Alteration in Liturgies is a Crime (it feems) with our Author, the more heinous and unpardonable, because they are things of daily use; whereas on the contrary, for this very reason there is not any Crime or Forgery at all in it. It appears indeed fufficiently from Goar*, Mabillony,Le Nourry, Renaudot, and others, that the antient Offices of Churches have not continued pure and free from additions and variations. But this does not prove any Fraud or Forgery in the cafe. Liturgies were fram'd at firft by the Spiritual Governors of the Church, for the ufe and fervice of particular Churches, and this was a power which every Bishop of the Church was invefted with, that is, no one Bishop or fet of Bishops as fuch had any more Right or Authority to use it than another. Therefore, if any Publick Office had been introduc'd by any Bifhop or Bifhops at one time, this was not a neceflary Form and Prefcription to the Bishops of all fucceeding Ages, but they by Epifcopal Authority were still left at liberty to vary and improve at difcretion, as occafions and exigencies fhould require. Thus we are told that x Eucholog Græc. p. 58. & feq. y Liturg. Gallican. Lib. 1. Cap. 2. z Apparat. ad Biblioth. Max. Differtat. z. Ed. 1694. b Gela |