The Novelty of Popery Opposed to the Antiquity of True Christianity

CHAP. III. That in the third Age the Bishops of Rome were not acknowledged Heads of the Universal Church.

WEE have now seen two hundred years next after the coming of Christ, before any Papal Monarchy was born. Then the Bishops of Rome governed the Church of the City, and meddled not with the government of other Churches. They were respected because of the greatness of Rome, and for the holiness of their lives, and by reason of the received opinion, that St. Peter had been the founder of the Roman Church; yet all that got them no power over the other Bishops. For the Decretal Epistles of the Popes of the first Ages are supposititious, forged on purpose by one Riculfus Bishop of Mainz, in the ninth Age, to strengthen the Papal Empire, as I will show hereafter. It seems that M. du Perron makes no great account of them; for I see not that in all his books he makes any use of their authority.

In the year of our Lord 204. according to Baronius, Zepherinus succeeded Victor in the Bishopric of Rome. Then lived Tertullian an African Priest, a learned and zealous man, but choleric, and harsh alike in his manners and style. This man was offended that Zepherinus admitted the adulterers repenting unto the communion: And spake thus to Zepherinus in the twenty first chapter of the book of chastity; If because the Lord said unto Peter, Upon this stone I shall build my Church, and I have given thee the keys of the heavenly Kingdom, or all that thou shalt bind or loose in earth shall be bound or loosed in heaven, thou thinkest that thereby the power of binding and loosing is derived unto thee, that is, unto all the Church allied unto Peter: who art thou that overthrowest and changest the evident intention of the Lord, who conferreth that upon Peter personally? This man did not believe that the Bishop of Rome was heir of the power given unto Peter, but took those words of Christ, whereby he conferreth the keys upon Peter, as said personally to Peter. Yet none of the Ancients reckoneth that among the errors of Tertullian.

In the first chapter of the same book, he calls Zepherinus in derision Summum Pontificem, as if he had been a successor of the Pagan Pontifices; for in that time Christian Bishops did not assume that title. It was then proper to the Emperors. And if any had assumed it, he had been guilty of treason. The Emperor Gratianus who lived about 170. years after, was the first that renounced that title, as we shall see in the proper place. He calls him also in scorn, Bishop of Bishops, which is the title that was given to all the Metropolitan Bishops. Thus Sidonius Apollinaris calls Lupus Bishop of Troyes, Father of Fathers, and Bishop of Bishops. And we have seen in the first Age that Clement Bishop of Rome gives that title unto James Bishop of Jerusalem. Yet Cyprian laugheth at that title as too arrogant, saying at the opening of the Council which he convocated against Stephen Bishop of Rome, None of us calls himself Bishop of Bishops, or constraineth his companions to obey by a tyrannical terror.

The same Tertullian in the twentieth chapter of the book of Prescriptions rejecteth all primacy among the Churches, saying that they are omnes primae, omnes Apostolicae, all first, all Apostolical.

It will not serve to answer that it is no wonder if Tertullian speaks of the Bishop of Rome contemptuously, seeing that he was of the heresy of Montanus; and that in the reception of the adulterers penitent, Zepherinus was in the right. For it was ever reckoned among the errors of the Montanists, that they would not acknowledge the Bishop of Rome for Head of the Universal Church. And none believed then that he could not err in the faith.

In the year of our Lord 217. Agrippinus Bishop of Carthage called a Council of the Bishops of Africa and Numidia, where it was resolved and determined that all that had been baptized by Heretics must be rebaptized when they are converted, and that the Baptism conferred by Heretics is null.

That doctrine was contrary to the Roman Church which received and receiveth still the Baptism of Heretics. Yet Zepherinus who then was Bishop of Rome, knowing that the Bishops of Africa were not subject to him, did not oppose himself to it, and took no knowledge of that cause.

St. Cyprian who after Agrippin was Bishop of Carthage, approved Agrippins proceeding, and defended him against the Roman Church, by the example of his predecessor, speaking thus in the seventy first Epistle; That which Agrippin of blessed memory with his fellow-Bishops who then governed the Church of God in Africa and Numidia, hath ordained, and by common sent confirmed, having well weighed and examined the matter, whose judgment we have followed as religious and lawful, and wholesome for the faith, and agreeing with the Catholic faith. That Agrippin did not fear to dissent from the Roman Church, and is praised for it by St. Cyprian, who declareth by these words that one can follow the Catholic faith, and yet dissent from the Roman Church. It is not material who was in the right, in the question of Baptism: For we bring this only to show that the African Bishops did not hold themselves subject to the Bishop of Rome. We shall see hereafter that they were both in the wrong, and fell into contrary extremes, Steven receiving indifferently the Baptism of all Heretics, wherein the Council of Nice dissenteth from him: and Cyprian rejecting indifferently the baptism of all heretics without any exception.

Then to follow the thread of the history; In the year of our Lord 250. Donatus Bishop of Carthage being dead, Cyprian was elected in his place by the suffrages of the people and Clergy. For that, he had no need of the Popes approbation or letters of investiture, as it is practiced in our time. To that election a Priest called Felicissimus opposed himself, who with some seditious persons withdrew himself into a mountain near Carthage. A little after an African Bishop, called Novatus, came from Carthage to Rome, when the See of Rome was vacant. This Novatus joining himself with Novatian a Roman Bishop, did strive by faction, to get Novatianus created Bishop of Rome. Being come short of his ends, and Cornelius being elected by the people, Novatianus caused himself to be created Bishop by a clandestine election by some Bishops of his faction, and made a schim at Rome against Cornelius, because Cornelius received those that were fallen, unto repentance and to the Communion.

Cyprian hearing these news, sent two Legates from Carthage to Rome, to endeavor to appease that tumult by their intervention, as Cyprian saith in the forty second Epistle, which is very notable. For if some trouble happened now in the Church of the City of Rome, it would be thought a rash and presumptuous part, or rather a mad man's deed, if the Bishop of Roven or Lions sent Legates to Rome to make himself arbitrator of the difference, and to make a peace between the Bishop of Rome and his Clergy or people.

Upon that Novatianus sent Deputies from Rome to Carthage, whereby he desired Cyprian to be judge of the difference between him and Cornelius, and to take knowledge of the crimes which he objected to Cornelius. Which showeth evidently that the Bishop of Rome was not held in those days the Head of the Universal Church, since another Bishop might be called to judge of the cause of the Bishop of Rome.

To that motion what doth Cyprian answer? He saith not, Far be it from me to make myself his Judge, whom I acknowledge to be my superior, or to be so rash as to judge him, by whom I must be judged. No such thing. But knowing that Cornelius had been lawfully elected, and that Novatianus was a factious man, He answereth, that it was not convenient to his gravity to suffer the fame of his colleague lawfully elected and created, to be longer torn by reviling tongues. And upon that he excommunicateth Novatianus and all the men of his faction, not expecting the will of Cornelius.

In Cyprians Epistles, whensoever he speaks to Cornelius, or Lucius, or Steven, Bishops of Rome, he never calls them but brethren and colleagues, and gives them no higher title. How would that familiarity be taken in our days by the Bishop of Rome, if a Bishop of France or Spain writing to him, gave him no title of honor or preeminence, but called him only brother and colleague? Mr. Du. Perron in the 45 ch. of his first book, saith, that Cyprian spake so to show that the Popes Monarchy, is gentle and brotherly, and to represent the unnity of communion; and upon that, brings examples to no purpose. For either they are not examples of inferiors speaking to their superior, but examples of superiors, who out of humility call their inferiors brethren, which is seemly; or of inferiors speaking to their superiors of a third person: Or if any inferior calls his superior brother, other passages will be found where he gives him other and honorable titles; which Cyprian never doth. After M. Du. Perron hath excused that style, he cannot but acknowledge that it would not be suffered in these days. And the more examples he brings to that purpose, the more he condemneth the pride of the Popes of the last ages, which suffer that style no more.

In the year of our Lord, 258 two Bishops of Spain, Basilides Bishop of Leon, and Martial Bishop of Astur or Asturga, for divers crimes were deposed from their charges by the Bishops of Spain. Basilides made great means to be restored; and seeing he could obtain nothing of the Bishops of Spain, he went up to Rome, where having possessed Steven Bishop of Rome with many untrue suggestions, he desired him to employ his credit for his restitution: Which Steven labored to do, but could not effect it. For that which the Cardinal saith that Steven restored him, is false; for he was never restored. Steven writ to the Bishops of Spain in the behalf of Basilides and Martial, advising and exhorting them to restore them to their charges. Upon that the Bishops of Spain write to Cyprian, asking him counsel whether they should restore them accordding to the counsel of the Bishop of Rome. Cyprian answereth that they should not hearken to Stevens advice; and that Basilides having given a false information to Steven, had rather increased then diminished his fault. They followed his counsel, and rejected that of Steven; for they held not themselves subject to the Bishop of Rome; who also did not complain that the Spaniards had rejected his counsel, and would not condescend to his will. One would think that the Spaniards could do no less then to send deputies to Rome to make remonstrances to Steven, and represent their excuses and the reasons of their disobedience: But they forgot it, as not owing so much duty to the Bishop of Rome.

But here is more. For the strife grew hot between Steven Bishop of Rome, and Cyprian Bishop of Carthage about the question of rebaptizing Heretics. Steven saying that all that were converted from any heresy whatsoever, were to be received without rebaptizing; and Cyprian saying that all heretics whatsoever ought to be rebaptized. These two opinions have been condemned since by the Council of Nice, Can 19. which makes a difference between heretics, giving order that some of them be rebaptized, designing especially the Samosatenians, or Paulianists. And the Council of Laodicea in the eighth Canon giveth the same order about the Montanists. And the first Council of Constantinople, in the seventh Canon doth the like about the Eunomians, the Montanists, and the Sabellians. To whom Basil in the Epistle to Amphilochius, Can. 47. adds the Eucratites, the Pepusians, the Saccophores, and the Apotacticks: An evident proof that the Antient Church held not herself obliged to follow the decisions of the Bishop of Rome.

Cyprian then rebaptizing all the converted heretics, according to the custom of his predecessors, resisted Steven vigorously, so far as to come to ill words. In his Epistle to Pompeius which is the seventy fourth, he speaks thus of Steven. I have sent thee a copy of Stevens writing, which when thou hast read, thou wilt more and more acknowledge that man's error, who endeavoreth to defend the cause of the heretics against the Christians, and against the Church of God. For among other either proud or impertinent things, and such as contradict themselves, which he ignorantly and imprudently writeth, he hath added this, to say if any person comes from any heresy whatsoever, that nothing be innovated, but that which is given by tradition, that is, that hands be laid upon him in sign of repentance. And a little after; What obstinacy and presumption is that, to prefer human tradition before divine disposition? He addeth, that by Stevens doctrine Christians do that which Antichrists do: and after many the like discourses he adds, Doth that man give glory to God, who being a friend to Heretics, and enemy to Christians, thinks that God's Priests that defend the truth of Christ, and the unity of the Church, must be excommunicated, &c. Then speaking Ironically Let us give (saith he) to the Devil the ordination of the Gospel, the disposition of Christ, the Majesty of God. Let truth yield unto untruth, and Christ to Antichrist. In my opinion this dealing is no flattery; but a very great and plain contempt of the authority of the Bishop of Rome. Now by these Priests which Steven judged worthy of excommunication, Cyprian meaneth himself. For Steven would gladly have excommunicated him, if he might, as that which followed shown it.

Neither was Cyprian contented with that; but having convocated a Council of eighty seven Bishops, he caused the doctrine of Steven, and of the Roman Church to be condemned. Some person ignorant in Antiquity, may presuppose that for such an action the Pope excommunicated Cyprian immediately, struck him down with thundering anathema's, and degraded him of his Office. The Pope in our days would incense the people to fall upon such a man, and would persecute him with fire and sword. But no such thing followed, and Steven pronounced not any condemnation against Cyprian; knowing that Cyprian would have served him in the same kind, and that his judgments were of no account in Africa. All the revenge he took of Cyprian, was, that he would not speak with Cyprians Legates, and forbad the Christians of Rome to give them lodging, calling Cyprian a false Christ, and a false Apostle, and a deceitful Work-man, as Firmilianus testifies it in an Epistle of his to Cyprian, which is the seventy fifth among Cyprians Epistles.

The same Cyprian Epist. 72. representing his doctrine to Steven about the rebaptizing of heretics, showeth a fear that Steven should think that he would prescribe him Laws; wherefore he shuts up his Epistle in these words. Wherein we constrain no man, and give no laws, seeing that every Pastor hath the freedom of his will in the Government of the Church, of which he must give account to God. In our days that modesty would be both injurious and ridiculous, if one said to the Pope: Sir Pope, I prescribe no laws to you, for you are free in the Government of your own Church.

The same Cyprian in the Council which he convocated, exhorting everyone to speak his mind, taxeth thus Steven obliquely, as Baronius acknowledgeth It remains that we speak everyone his opinion concerning this point; judging nobody, and cutting off no man from the communion for being of a contrary mind. For none of us calls himself Bishop of Bishops, or constraineth his colleagues to the necessity of obedience by a tyrannical terror, seeing that every Bishop hath the liberty and disposition of his own will, and can no more be judged by any, then himself can judge any. But we all expect the judgment of the Lord Jesus, &c.

We have represented before what Cyprians opinion was concerning St. Peter, namely that Jesus Christ before his resurrection established Peter the only Head of the Universal Church, but that after his resurrection he made all his Apostles alike in honor and power; so that he makes Peters primacy to continue but two years at the most. Also that Christ would that in the beginning the conduct of the Church should belong to one only, to show the unity of the Church: and that the office of Pastor in the Church should issue and have its origen from the unity. Cyprian also believed that St. Peter had founded the Roman Church, which he calls principal; because of the dignity of the City. For Cyprians actions which I have here represented, show sufficiently, that he held not himself subject to the Bishop of Rome.

The above named Priest Felicissimus being excommunicated by Cyprian, crossed the seas, and came to Rome, hoping to find a support in Cornelius Bishop of Rome: Cornelius having received Cyprians letter somewhat late, lent his ear a little too much to the clamours of Felicissimus and his adherents against Cyprian; who in the fifty fifth Epistle to Cornelius, complains of it, and represents to him, that it belongeth not to his care to judge of the causes already judged in Africa, nor to admit those whom he had excommunicated. For in that age they knew not yet the way of appealing to Rome.

But that he might gently insinuate himself into the mind of Cornelius, and guild the pill which he would have him to swallow, he useth a Preface of praises of the Roman Church. After these things (saith he) having set up to themselves a Bishop made by heretics, yet they are so bold as to make voyages to St. Peters chair, and to the principal Church whence the sacerdotal unity is sprung, and to bring letters from schismatics and heretics: Not considering that you are Romans, whose faith was commended by the Apostle, and to which perfidiousness can have no access. Meaning that traitors and perfidious men, as this Felicissimus, could not get support from them. Which words exalt the dignity of the Church of Rome, but ascribe no power or jurisdiction to it over other Churches. As in effect he denieth to the Roman Church in the next words the knowledge of the causes already judged in other Churches, speaking thus. Whereas it is a general order, which is just and equitable that the cause be heard where the crime was committed; and that to every Pastor a portion of the flock is assigned to conduct and govern, of the care whereof he must give an account unto the Lord; it is not fit that those over which we preside go up and down, making Bishops living in a well united concord to dash one against another, divided by a fraudulent and deceitful rashness; But that they should plead their cause where they may have accusers and witnesses of their crimes. Unless it seem to a few desperate and lost men, that the authority of Bishops established in Africa is less, who have already judged of them, and by the gravity of their judgment have condemned their own conscience, already bound with many snares of sins; Already their cause is tried, Already their sentence is pronounced. The effect of this discourse is, that it belongs not to Cornelius nor to the Roman Church to take knowledge of a cause already judged in Africa; and that the authority of the African Church is no less then that of the Roman. For the whole drift of the discourse showeth that this word less is comparative of the African with the Roman, and that it is not a comparative put instead of a positive, as M. du Perron will persuade us: For to break the strength of that place he clips it, and allegeth but the first lines, and leaveth out the last. He acknowledgeth also that the least causes indeed were judged in Africa without appeal, but he saith that they appealed to Rome for the more important causes: Which is clearly confuted by that we have seen before. For the controversy of rebaptizing heretics, and the convocation of a Council against the doctrine received in the Roman Church, are important points. About which nevertheless Agrippinus Bishop of Carthage having condemned the doctrine received in the Roman Church, none of the Africans did appeal, and the Bishops of Rome did not stir about it. Cyprian likewise and the Bishops of Africa made no difficulty to condemn the Bishop of Rome; so far were they from believing, that any could appeal from them to the Roman See. The Canon of the Council of Carthage, which the Cardinal alledgeth to this purpose, is not of the age of which we now speak; being made 150. years after. We will show, God willing, in its proper place, that the Cardinal did not understand it, or would not.

Our Adversaries abuse a testimony of Cyprian in the same Epistle. Heresies and Schisms come from no other cause, but that the Priest of God is not obeyed, and that one Priest is not acknowledged in the Church to judge for a time in Christ's stead. For Cyprian in that place speaks not of the Universal Church, but of every particular Church; of that of Carthage especially. In which he being Bishop, he complains of the faction that would establish another Bishop, one Fortunatus. Thus in the 6 book of the history of Eusebius ch. 42. there is Epistle of Cornelius Bishop of Rome, where he saith, that in a Catholic Church there must be but one Bishop. But by the Catholic Church, he means the Orthodox Church of the City of Rome; not the Universal Church, as the following words show it, where he saith that in that Catholic Church, there was forty six Priests, &c. for the Universal Church had a thousand times more.

In the same time lived in the East St. Firmilianus Arch-bishop of Cesarea in Cappadocia, whose name is in the Menology or Calender of the Greeks, being remembered as a holy man, and greatly honored by posterity. Of this man Theoderet exalteth the praises, saying that he was a famous man, learned both in divine and human sciences. Likewise Basil, chap. 29. in the book of the Holy Ghost, reckoneth him among the defenders of the truth. This Firmilianus was President of the Council of Antioch, in which Paulus Samosatenus was condemned, An. 264. Baronius also on the year 258. yields him that testimony that he was not inferior to any in holiness of life. This holy man being of Cyprians opinion, contradicted Steven Bishop of Rome. His Epistle to Cyprian is the seventy fifth among the Epistles of Cyprian, where he speaks thus of Steven; We may thank Steven for this, that by his inhumanity it is come to pass that we had an experience of your faith and wisdom. And a little after, comparing Steven unto Judas, he addeth, Let us pass by the things that Steven hath done, least that by remembering his audaciousness and insolence we grieve too long for the things which he hath wickedly done: Then he addeth that they that are at Rome, practice not all the things that have been given from the beginning; and in vain pretend to defend themselves with the authority of the Apostles. And that they practice not all things that are practiced at Jerusalem That holy man held not himself subject to the Roman Church, and wisht that the Roman Church would conform herself to that of Jerusalem. Then condemning Steven for troubling the peace of the Church, I am (saith he) justly incensed against such an evident and manifest folly of Steven. Finally he saith that the reproaches which Stephen had applied unto Cyprian, calling him false Christ and false Apostle, and deceitful workman, did justly belong to Steven.

Another famous man for holiness and learning in those times, was Dionysius Bishop of Alexandria in Egypt; who in the contention of Cyprian with Steven, took Cyprians pa • t, as Jerome testifieth in the Catalogue of Ecclesiastical Writers. This man (saith he) consenting with Cyprian, and with the Synod of Africa, hath written many Epistles to divers persons, about the rebaptizing of heretics. Yea he writ about it unto Eusebius also, as Eusebius testifieth. Whence it appears that this Dionysius held not himself subject to the Bishop of Rome.

About the year of our Lord 264. this same Dionysius being suspected to incline to the opinion of those that denied Jesus Christ to be God, and being informed that he had been blamed for it before Dionysius Bishop of Rome, writ an Apology to purge himself of that imputation. That Apology had four books, and impugned the opinion of Sabellius. The book he dedicated to Sabellius Bishop of Rome, as to his friend, not his Judge or Superior; for he was not cited nor brought in question about it: and Dionysius the Roman pronounced no Judgment upon that business. The Egyptians that carried this blame to the ears of Dionysius or Denis of Rome, against Denis of Alexandria, did it because they could not complain to the Synod of Egypt, which could not assemble without the authority and consent of Denis Bishop of Alexandria, who governed the Churches of Egypt.

Briefly, in all that third Age no trace appeareth of the Primacy or Sovereign power of the Roman Bishop over the Universal Church: No appeal to Rome from the remote Churches: No Law from Rome to the Universal Church: No heretic taxed for dissenting from the Roman High Priest. For then (as we heard before Pius II. saying Ep. 88. l. 1.) the Roman Church was little regarded. Which Doctor Boulenger in his book against Causabon, pag. 21. doth freely acknowledge. If sometimes (saith he) in Eusebius or some other Authors thou seest that it is not spoken of the power of the Apostolic See, but somewhat obscurely; know that before the happy age of Constantine, the Church of Christ the Lord was hidden in darkness, and that in the confusion of the times, and among those perpetual combats of crosses and sufferings, the Popes were not raised to that greatness, which afterwards was deferred unto them.

That reason moved M. du Perron to confine himself to the time of the four first Universal Councils; the first whereof begins but in the year 325. For in all the time before, he finds nothing that with any color can be alleged for the Popes Primacy.

CHAP. 4. That the Cardinal would not make use of the authority of the Decretals to prove the Popes primacy in the three first Ages. And of the authority of the said Decretals.

HEre I owe a just defense to my Lord Cardinal against some Jesuits and others of the like disposition, who being used to produce the Decretals of the Antient Bishops of Rome for the Popes primacy, may find it strange that M. du Perron makes so little account of them; having never alleged them, but in some places where he speaks of them with contempt: Whence it is that in his book the proofs of the Popes Primacy in the three first Ages are so thin sown.

Yet those Decretal Epistles attributed to the Bishops of Rome of the first Age, are of great authority in the Roman Church. For they are inserted in the first Tome of the Councils; and it is above seven hundred years since they have been received in the Roman Church as divine Oracles, so far as to be equalled with the holy Scriptures, and to be put among the Canonical books. In the Roman Decree the inscription of the Canon In Canonicis Dist. 19. is such, The Decretal Epistles are reckoned among the Canonical Scriptures. And Pope Nicolas the first, Canone Si Romanorum, maintains that these Decretals must be received, because Pope Leo did so command it, although they be not inserted in the Code of the Canons of the Fathers, in the same manner as the holy Scripture is received, because Pope Innocent commanded it so, although it be not inserted in the Code of the Canons of the Fathers. Wherefore also he added according to the constitution of Pope Leo, If any sin against these Decretals, it shall not be forgiven him.

Wherefore they that have compiled the Canons and Decrees of the Roman Church, namely Burchardus, Yvo Carnutensis, and Gratianus, have filled their books with Canons excerped out of these Decretals. In the Roman Decree of Gratian there is above four hundred Canons taken from them. Bellarmine makes use of them to prove the Popes Primacy. And the Jesuit Costerus in his Enchiridion in the chapter de summo Pontifice: Which is more, Turrianus a Jesuit writ a great book purposely to defend these Decretals: And his work is exalted by Stapleton, Baronius, Gretserus, and many others.

There is more yet, The Roman Decree collected by Gratian, a great part whereof is drawn from these Decretals, is the field and the study of the Canonists. And for the exposition of that Decree, Schools of Canon Law have been erected in Universities. An honor which the Roman Church never did to the holy Scriptures; for whose Exposition no Schools are erected, and no Doctorate is instituted purposely for that Science.

These Epistles bearing the names of the Antient Bishops of Rome, and received with so much respect so many ages, and approved by the Popes that came since, who have used them to ground their authoriry, could have furnished the Cardinal with a pile of proofs for the Popes primacy. For in them the Roman High Priests speak like Monarchs, and call themselves Heads of the Universal Church, by virtue of Christ's words, Thou art Peter, and upon this stone, &c. give laws to the Churches of all the world; Pretend that the judgment of all the great and important causes must be reserved to them; Void and disannul all the judgments of other Prelates: Say that Peter having established the seat of the primacy at Antioch, hath since transported it to Rome: Abrogate the Laws of Emperors, though they were Pagans in those days: Forbid that Laymen be heard in testimony against a Bishop, though he be never so wicked. Forbid Pagans to accuse a Christian, or to sue him for any cause whatsoever, and the secular judges to judge the causes of Church-men. And certainly if these Epistles be true, they are the strongest weapons of our Adversaries, who have whereof to triumph.

For although nobody ought to be judge and witness in his own cause, and though these words which exalt the Papal power, would have been more becoming in the mouth of another then the Bishops of Rome; yet the show of a great antiquity makes these Epistles considerable, seeing that most of those Bishops have been Martyrs; and ancient histories bear witness to their zeal and piety.

All these considerations did not move the Cardinal to make use of these Epistles to maintain the Papal authority, but upon occasions he speaks of them with contempt, and chooseth rather to make use of the testimony of Aurelianus a Pagan Emperor, then of the oracles and judgments of the old Bishop of Rome. Whoso knows how much this Prelat is versed in Antiquity, and how ingenious in wresting the testimonies of the Antient to his intention, shall easily judge that it was not without a great cause that he hath despised these Decretals attributed to the ancient Bishops of Rome.

CHAP. 5. The first cause why M. du Perron would not make use of the Decretal Epistles of the Bishops of Rome of the three first Ages. Even, because in many places they are contrary to the Roman Church of this time.

THE Cardinal being a learned man, hath so employed himself to maintain the Papal primacy, that he hath together avoided to defend it by ways that might impugn the other doctrines of the Roman Church, and expose the Papal See to derision. Wherefore he was afraid to give credit unto these Epistles which in many things agree not with the belief of the Church of Rome, and are indecent to the Papal dignity.

For example; the first Epistle of Clement is written to James brother of the Lord, Bishop of Jerusalem, whom he calls Bishop of Bishops, governing all the Churches which God by his providence hath founded everywhere. If that be, James governed also the Roman Church, and was Head of the Universal Church.

In the second Epistle, the same Clement makes bold to instruct St. James, who was an Apostle, about the use of the sacred vessels and clothes, where he warneth him to beware least among the pieces or fragments of the Lord's body, there should be mice-dung seen: thereby impugning or forgetting transubstantion for the natural body of Christ hath no pieces, and cannot be broken. That cannot be said but of the Sacramental and figurative body, which is the consecrated bread.

In the second and third Epistle, the Stoical immobility without any passion is taught; and this doctrine is delivered, homines per pietatem possunt esse impassibiles, Men by piety may become impassible.

The fourth Epistle doth exceedingly exalt the virtue of water to purify and regenerate the Souls: Which Binius hath observed in his Notes upon these Epistles Clements words contain a subtle kind of Divinity: Images are made with iron, • ron is made in the fire, fire is quenched with water, water is moved by the Spirit, who is carried upon the waters. Ergo &c. which is a concatenation of recreative conceits.

Bellarmine in the book of Ecclesiastical writers, speaks thus of the fifth Epistle of Clement. In the fifth Epistle the community of all things, and the very community of wives is commended. Whence he gathers that these words have been foisted into that Epistle by somebody. See in Gratians Decree that goodly doctrine of Clement set down at large, where Plato is praised, and called the wisest of the Grecians, for teaching that women must be common.

In the first Epistle of Anacletus, Masses without communicants are condemned, in these words, The consecration being ended, all they must communicate that will not be cut off from the Church. And in the second Epistle of Clement. Let as many offerings be offered upon the Altar as are sufficient for the people.

In the first Decretal of Pius the first, Hermes is called Doctor of the faith, and of the Scriptures: and it is related how an Angel appeared upon him in a Sepherds habit, saying to him that the Passover must be celebrated upon the Lord's day. Yet the Roman Church holds that book of Hermes to be fabulous. Pope Gelasius puts it among the Apocrypha, and Jerome in his Prelogus Galeatus, and Eusebius in the third book of his history, ch. 3.

To the same Pius a Decree is attributed, which forbids upon heavy penalties to swear by the creatures. A law which the Roman Church of this time observeth not, permitting to swear by the relics of the Saints, as it is expressly said in the Catechism of the Council of Trent upon these words of the law, Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain. And Pope Nicolas the first in his answer to the questions of the Bulgares saith the same.

The Decretal of Pope Urban the first speaks of some persons qui sine fide mortui sunt, & tamen bona opera egerunt: who are dead without faith, and yet have done good works. How can one do good works without faith, seeing that all that is done without faith is sin? Rom. 14.23.

The first Decretal of Pope Eutychianus commands that beans and grapes be offered upon the Altar. Which the Roman Church practiseth no more.

The second Epistle of Pope Sixtus the second makes humble thanksgivings to the grain of mustard seed.

The Decretal of Pope Dionysius begins by a false and absurd sentence. Summum bonum est amare amantes se. He saith, that the sovereign good is for one to love those that love him. Truly many wicked men love one another fervently.

In those Decretals Clerks are called Spiritual above twenty times, and Lay-men carnal, although there be Lay-men that live with a spiritual life, and many Clerks that live with a carnal life. The Apostle St Paul, 1 Cor. 2. by the spiritual man understands every man regenerated by God's spirit.

In most of these Epistles it is forbidden to Lay-men to prefer any accusation against a Bishop or Priest for any cause whatsoever, save only in case of heresy. So that if a Bishop hath killed a Lay-man's Father, or lain with his Wife, it is not lawful for the wronged party to frame any complaint for it.

The Decretal of Telesphorus appoints Lent only for Clerks.

The second Epistle of Clement forbids to keep any part of the consecrated bread till the next day: But prescribes that the remnant be diligently eaten by the Clerks with fear and trembling. In those days they reserved no consecrated hosts.

CHAP. 6. Other causes why the Cardinal would make no use of the Decretals of the three first Ages. Of the barbarousness of those Decretals, and how Scripture is profaned in them.

IT is very like that M. du Perron disgusted the style of the Decretals, which is ridiculous, full of incongruities, and of an absurd barbarousness: A thing altogether intolerable in the first and second age after the Apostles, in which the Latin tongue was yet in its purity. Besides, the same incongruities and barbarisms are found in the Epistles of several Popes, and the style is so like, that it is evident that all these Epistles come out of the same shop, and belong to the same Author.

These are some of the flowers of elegancy which are found in these Decretals. Altario. Odientes. Consolari & venerari, for being comforted and respected. Calumniari, for being calumniated. Titulandus ad urbem honorabilem. In a hundred places the words of taliter & qualiter are repeated. And these phrases, Episcopy sunt obediendi & non detrahendi, nec injuriandi, sed portandi & supportandi. Et confessio debet profiteri, that is, must be freely pronounced. In the second Epistle of Sixtus the first, Ab hac sancta seed à sanctis Apostolis Episcopy tueri & defendi jussi sunt. Et sicut egerit ita recipiet, si been been, si grave grave, si pessime pessime. Also se cavere, for take heed, & Patres sunt venerandi non insidiandi. And it is ordinary with those Epistles to say persequi for being persecuted. The first Decretal of Victor saith tantum Christianae confession creduliatis clarificata baptizentur. And in the second, Nocere fratres instead of fratribus. And in the second Epistle of Calixtus, ullum nocere, for, be hurtful to any. And Zepherinus Epist. 2. praesentem fraternam syllabam exposuimus. These words Detrahere aliquem, for detracting of one; and modernus for new: and exiet for exibit; and suspiciosus, for suspect; and rigorosus, and charitative, and perserverabilis, and injuriare, and praelibatus, and pretexatus, and a thousand of the like are frequent there. Steven in the second Decretal comes out with his Latin elegancy, Nullus anathema suscipiatur, Never poor Priscian was so kicked and boxed. It seems that the forger of these Epistles believed that barbarousness and incongruities are decent in Oracles.

Also the novelty of these Decretals appears, in that they are full of the terms of the Capitularies of Charlemayn, and Lewis the Meek, and of the Councils held in France and Germany in their time.

In those Decretals some impious sentences are found, as that which is said in the third Epistle of Clement; That they that obey their Bishops, seem to confer some grace unto God, as if God were much obliged to them for it. And that which Calixtus the first saith in his first Decretal, As the Son of God is come to do the will of his Father, so you must fulfil the will of the Roman Church your mother; where, by the Roman Church, the Pope must be understood, for all is ruled by his will. Who is able to suffer the ugly words of the second Decretal of the same Calixtus, who having called the Bishop husband of the Church, calls also the ordination or installing of the Bishop concubitum cum sua uxore? This is no better. Alexander the first, in his first Decretal speaks thus; We bless water unto the people with the conspersion of salt, that all they that are besprinkled with it may be sanctified and purified. For if (as the Apostle saith, Heb. 9.) the ashes of the heifer sprinkled over with blood did sanctify and cleanse the people, how much more doth the water aspersed with salt, sanctify the people? &c. And if we doubt not but that the sick were healed by touching the hemm of our Savior's garment; how much more by the virtue of his sacred words are the elements consecrated, whereby human frailty receiveth the health of body and soul? By these elements he understands water and salt, which he will have to be effectual to the healing of the soul.

It is ordinary with these Decretals to play with Scripture, and to wrest it to an absurd sense, contrary to the right meaning. Clement in the first Decretal, and Anacletus, and Alexander after him, prove that Clerks must not be offended, because it is written, He that toucheth you, toucheth the apple of mine eye, Zech. 2.8. But there Zechariah speaks of the care that God hath of his people in general, not of the Priests alone. And Steven proveth the same, because Christ said, Matth. 18.6. If any offend one of these little ones, it were better for him to have a mil-stone hanged about his neck, &c. as if by these little ones the Clergy only were meant.

The first Decretal of Anacletus saith, We prohibit strangers judgments; intending thereby to prohibit Laymen to be Judges of Clergy men. For (saith he) the Lord speaking of Lot by the mouth of Moses, saith, Thou art come in as a stranger; didst thou come to be our Judge? He makes God say that which was said by the Sodomites.

With the like depravation the second Decretal saith, that God hath reserved unto himself the judgment of the sins of Priests and Bishops, and would not have men to judge them. For, saith he, the Lord himself hath given an example of it, when himself, not by another, but in person, cast the sellers and buyers out of the Temple, and with his own whip overthrew the tables of the money-changers. That Coyner of false Decretals believed that those buyers and sellers were Priests. A jolly argument! The Lord hath himself cast out the money changers, Ergo, there is none but God that can judge Priests and Bishops. For he presumeth that the Papal chair is God's chair. In the same place the excellency of Priests and Bishops is proved, because it is written, God sitteth in the assembly of the God's, and I have said you are God's, Psal. 82. where there is no mention of Priests or Bishops, but of Judges and temporal Princes.

The same Decretal of Anacletus, proves that Christ dwelleth not in the calumniators of Priests, because it is written Luke 9. The Foxes have holes, and the Birds of Heaven have nests, but the Son of God hath not where to lay his head.

In the same place he labors to show that the Son is not inferior to the Father, although it be written, Verbum faciet Dominus abbreviatum universo orbi, The Lord shall abbreviate his word in all the world.

The third Epistle proveth the Popes primacy, because St. Peter is call Cephas, that is a head; not knowing that Cephas signifieth a stone.

The first Decretal of Alexander proveth that no harm must be done to Bishops, because the Lord hath said by Joel, Shall ye return vengeance unto me? and by Hosea 14. Who is he that is wise? let him understand these things. And if by force some Paper or signed writing be taken from someone [of them] he declareth that it will be no prejudice to him, because Hosea saith, Let the Trumpet be at thy throat, &c. And because Christ said, When thou prayest, enter into thy Closet. And there is no greater crime then to bear envy unto Priests, because the Apostle saith, God knows them that are his.

Steven in the second Decretal teacheth that Lay-men must not be heard in accusation against a Bishop, because Bishops are the throne of God; And that the Prophet speaks of them when he saith, The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament showeth his handy work. And Eutychian in the second Epistle proveth that Clerks must not be offended, because it is written, that the Angel of the Lord encampeth about them that fear him. I bring few examples of many. For the whole stuff of these Epistles is a perpetual depravation of Scripture, compelled in a ridiculous way to the advantage of Priests and Bishops; and of the Bishop of Rome especially.

CHAP. 7. Evident untruths in the Decretals of the three first Ages. The gross ignorance in history of him that coined them.

THAT these Epistles are false in their title, it appears by the falsehood of their Contents, for they are all over stuffed with lies. Many false and absurd things, which could not have been said in those days, and neither consonant with the time, nor with the truth, are there ascribed to the ancient Bishops of Rome.

Those Decretal Epistles attributed to the Bishops of Rome of the three first ages are fifty seven, or fifty eight in number, almost all dated from the Consulat of certain Consuls, all which dates, save only five or six are false: Those Consuls are either imaginary, or not agreeing with the time of those Bishops. That is seen by the Fasti of Onuphrius, and the Chronicles of Marcellinus, Cassiodorus and Eusebius; but especially by Baronius, who in his Annals carefully observeth the untruth of those dates; which he imputes to this, that the Collector or Author of these Epistles hath followed the Pontifical of Damasus, which is all full of error in history.

These Epistles make a frequent mention of Patriarchs, Primates, and Archbishops, which were unknown names in the three first Ages. The title of Arch-bishop began towards the end of the fourth Age. That word is found in the twenty fourth Oration of Gregory Nazianzen, and in Epiphanius in the sixty eighth and sixty ninth heresy, where Peter and Alexander are called Arch-bishops of Alexandria. It is found also in the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon.

As for the word Patriarch, the Montanists had their Patriarchs, as we learn of Jerome. Of the Patriarchs of the Jews, mention is made in the sixteenth book of the Theodosian Code. For the Jews scattered in the Roman Empire, had their Patriarchs in divers Provinces.

In the same Epistles frequent mention is made of Temples and of the Sanctuary; but then the Christians had no Temples. It was a great favor if sometimes the Emperors after fierce persecutions gave them leave to meet in burying places. Sometimes in certain intervals of peace, they have built Temples; but that continued but little.

The first Decretal of Anacletus takes from them that are not Christians the liberty of being witnesses or accusers in Law. In that time the Bishops of Rome were hidden, and were eminent only in martyrdom. How could they have given Laws to the Pagan Emperors, or hinder those that were of the Emperors and the Senates religion, to be received to be witnesses?

In the same Epistle Anacletus speak thus. Peregrina judicia submovemus. Could that Bishop that lived under the Cross hinder the exercise of the judicial Courts of the Roman Pretor? or hinder the Christians from appearing before the ordinary Magistrates? In the same place that supposititious Anacletus speaks like an Emperor. Let every Province both according to the Laws of the Church, and the civil Laws, have her own just Judges, and none from without (meaning the Pagans) unless the authority of this Apostolic See have otherwise decreed about it.

In the same Epistle the word Comes is found (that is a Count or an Earl ) A word which was not in use, but since the Emperor Adrian, who travelling through the whole Empire, carried with him an itinerant Senate. Hence it came that the Officers of his Court were called Comites, and his Court Comitatus, because they had accompanied him in his journey.

These Epistles also speak often of Archiflamines who were Pagans, to whom the Arch-bishops and Primates have succeeded, which is a gross error: For in Greece, Asia, Egypt, &c. yea in all the Provinces of the Roman Empire there were no Flamines no Archiflamines, but in Italy only; Rome had her Flamines Diales & Quirinales, but they had nothing to do out of Italy; Neither do I believe that the word Archiflamines is found in any ancient Author.

The same second Decretal of Anacletus saith that Moses and the Apostles were anointed with oil. That's false. The Apostles never received any anointing with oil. They anointed the sick to heal them, not the Pastors of the Church in their Ordination.

The same Epistle speaks of those that could not have their recourse to the Court of Emperors and Kings. Who knows not that then there was no King under the Roman Empire?

The second Epistle of Pius the first, and that of Urban, speak de praediis, of the Lands and Possessions of the Church, and of great riches. Yet in that time the Church suffered grievous persecutions, and the Christians were stripped of all their goods. Laurentius a Roman Deacon being commanded by the Prefect of the City, to deliver unto him the treasures of the Christian Church, brought to his door a company of lame and maimed people, as Prudentius relates in the hymn of Laurentius.

With great absurdity in the second Decretal attributed to Pius the first, that Bishop is made to say, That if any Priest be disobedient to his Bishop, mox Curiae tradatur; let him be presently delivered to the temporal Court. Now the Emperors were then Pagans and cruel persecutors. And those men were said tradi Curiae, who by a kind of punishment or disgrace were delivered to the Officers which the Emperor had in the several Cities, to be punished and employed in some sordid service. A thing which belonged neither to the knowledge, nor to the power of Bishops, who had then enough to do to hide themselves, and were far from delivering their Priests to the Magistrate: which if they had done, they had delivered them to death, not for their disobedience to the Bishop, but for Christian Religion.

The first Epistle of Victor is written to Theophilus Bishop of Alexandria, who was Bishop of that City under the Emperor Arcadius, and came to Constantinople to condemn Chrysostom in the year of Christ four hundred and three; two hundred years after the death of this Victor; for there was no other Theophilus Bishop of Alexandria.

The second Epistle of Calixtus saith, that by the Civil Laws it is forbidden to Laymen to conspire against Bishops. Who will believe that Pagan Emperors persecuting the Church with all their might, were careful that the Christian people should bear respect to their Pastors?

In the same Epistle the forger of these Decretals discovereth himself, and showeth in whose time he lived, namely of Charlemagne or his children; In which time there was two Empires, the one of the Greek Emperors, the other of the Emperors of the West, styling themselves Roman Emperors. For that Epistle saith, We call those kin whom the divine Laws, and those of the Roman Emperors, and of the Greeks, call kin.

The Decretal of Urban saith falsely, that to his time goods had been common among Christians, and were still, and that they had nothing proper. Now Urban was Bishop in the year of Christ 222. And that which is most false and absurd, is, that the same Epistle condemneth to imprisonment and perpetual Exile, and brandeth with a note of infamy those that usurp the goods and the possessions of the Church. The Bishops of Rome being then persecuted and exposed to martyrdom, had no civil jurisdiction. Yea in time of peace the power of exiling and branding with infamy belonged not unto Bishops, but to the secular power. Before that the Popes by the liberality of Pepin and Charlemagne became temporal Princes, it was not in their power to punish any man with exile.

There is a plain untruth observed by Baronius, Binius, and Possevinus in the Epistle of Fabian; Fabian is made to say that in his time Novatus came from Africa to Rome, and drew Novatian and some others to his ill doctrine. Yet that did not happen but in the time of Cornelius successor to Fabian, as it may be seen in Cyprians Epistles 49, 52, & 76. and in the Chronicle of Eusebius.

Fabian in the third Decretal decreeth that those that are led to be executed be not barred from appealing, as if the Roman Pretor in that Age had been subject to the Laws of the Bishop of Rome, or as if leave had been given to appeal from Judges sitting upon life and death in the Emperors name, unto the Bishop. That Fabian was so far from pretending to that power, that himself after a long and hard prison was finally executed to death, by the sentence of the Judges.

With the like impudence the same Decretal makes that Fabian to say, By a general ordinance we prohibit strangers jugdements, that is, that Pagans be Judges of Christians, saving in all things the Apostolical authority. That Law deposeth the Emperor, and reverseth the judgments of the Roman Pretor. Those good Bishops did little think of a temporal power over the Emperor, being busy to avoid executions, or to prepare themselves for them. They thought of losing their lives to save their souls, not of getting an Empire in the world.

In the first Epistle of Cornelius, that Bishop saith, that he had taken away the bodies of St. Peter and St. Paul from the Catacombs, and laid St. Peters body in Apollo's Temple. A fable confuted by Baronius in his Annals, and by Binius in his Notes upon these Epistles. Had that Cornelius (who suffered Martyrdom) the Temple of Apollo in his power? And if he had been the owner of it, would he have put St. Peters body in a Temple of Idols? Neither did the Pagans suffer sepulchers in Temples, much less then the sepulchers of Christians, and much less yet an executed man's body.

Can anything be more grossly forged then the second Decretal of Sixtus the second, in which he restores some Spanish Bishops unjustly condemned and stripped of their goods by the Princes of Spain? Spain in that Age had no Princes, but Presidents or Lieutenants of the Roman Emperor, who was an enemy to the Christian name, for which that very Sixtus suffered Martyrdom. Yet see how he speaks to those Princes, Know ye that we have justly restored the brethren by you unjustly condemned. To whom, that all be fully restored that was taken from them, we command you by the Apostolical authority of St. Peter, unless you and your Princes will be separated from our College, and from the members of the Church. All that no less ridiculous, then if the Bishop of Lions did excommunicate the Bashaes of Natolia, and the King of Maroco, commanding them to make restitution of all that they have taken, if they would be absolved.

With the like imposture in the second Decretal of Eutychianus, it is said that not only the Ecclesiastical Laws, but also the Laws of this world, that is, the Imperial Laws, prohibit to receive a man that despiseth Christian Religion, to be a witness against a Christian. Never was such a Law made by Pagan Emperors in favor of the Christians: Less yet in the time of Eutychianus who suffered Martyrdom.

Thus the Decretal of Gaius disableth a Pagan and an heretic from inditing a Christian, or offering him any disgrace; And all kinds of men from inditing Bishops and Clerks before secular Judges. How could that Bishop (that lived in underground Caves, which they called cryptae, to avoid Diocletians persecution, and who in the end was taken and executed to death) have the authority of giving Laws to Emperors, and exempting Christians from the subjection of the civil Magistrate? seeing that even under the Christian Emperors that since reigned at Rome, the Roman Bishops never undertook any such thing.

In a word, these untruths are so enormous, and these pieces forged with such a gross imposture, that we shall see hereafter a Decretal of Marcel, to the Emperor Maxentius, a Pagan and a Persecutor, whereby that Marcel being brought by that persecution to be a groom in a Stable, writes to that Empetour in a masterfull style, We command thee; and bids him to take notice that Priests are God's, commanding him to keep, the constitutions of Pope Clement, who was dead two hundred years before.

CHAP. 8. That many of our Adversaries have acknowledged the untruth of these Decretals.

ALL that was said before, is more then sufficient to bring to open view the untruth of these Decretals; unto which, and the stupidity of the Kings that succeeded Charlemagne, the Papal Empire oweth its settlement. Whence it appeareth that it was not without cause that the Cardinal was ashamed to employ them for the Popes primacy, which in them is so highly exalted. And truly if we wanted proofs of their falsehood, our very adversaries would give us enough.

Gratian who hath stuffed the body of the Roman Decree with pieces taken out of these Decretals, hath inserted into his Decree, a Canon of Leo the fourth, which makes it evident that in the year of our Lord 847. these Decretals were not yet forged, or at least had no course as yet. That Leo who was created Pope in the year 847. in an Epistle to the Bishops of the Isle of Britain giveth a list of the Books, and Councils, and Decretals out of which the rules are taken, by which the Church is ruled, and which the Bishops must carefully observe when they judge. And he makes a Catalogue of those Bishops that made the Decretals that are received in the Roman Church: Which are Sylvester, Syricius, Innocent, Zozimus, Celestin, Leo, Hilary, Gelasius, Hormisdas, and Gregory the younger, Bishops of Rome, the Elder of which is of the fourth Age. Whence it appears that all th • Decretals from Clement to Sylvester are false and suppositious, since this Leo the fourth did not know them. This Canon is found in the twentieth Distinction of the Decree, Can. de libellis.

Ballarmine useth the testimony of these Epistles for the Popes primacy in the 2. ch. de Pontifice, ch. 14. Yet he saith in the same place; I deny not but that some errors are crept in these Epistles, and I cannot affirm that they are undoubted.

Baronius in his Annals upon the year 865. §. 5. speaking of the collection of these Decretals made by Isidorus Mercator, saith, That Merchandize (alluding to Mercators name) was first brought out of Spain into Gauls by Riculfus Arch-Bishop of Mainz, in the time of Charlemagne; that none may calumniate, saying that the Roman Church hath forged these things. And a little after §. 8. The things that we have said in the second Tome of the Annals, show sufficiently that these Epistles are of a dubious faith in many things: and together we have shown that the Roman Church hath no need of them, so that she should be destitute of her rights and privileges, if these Epistles were convinced of untruth: seeing that without these Epistles she is established enough by the true, and not supposititious Epistles of the other Bishops.

Himself in his Notes upon the Martyrologe Octob. 16. See to what danger that Isidorus collector of these Epistles brings our businesses; so that on that side the Church seems to be in danger, if we hold those things for true and certain which he hath collected, or rather forged. I bear him testimony (to speak with the Apostle) that he had a zeal, but not according to knowledge. But what zeal can there be in forging false writings? Must the truth of God be helped with lies?

Binius in his Notes upon the Decretal of Boniface the second, calls that Isidorus, Impostorem & mendaciorum frigidum concinnatorem, callidumque veteratorem: an impostor and an absurd inventer of lies, and a cunning old fox.

George Cassander a Divine of Collen As for the other works that go under the name of Clemens, Anacletus, Evaristus, Telesphorus, &c. who will ever believe that a lover of truth and sincerity can so much approve them, seeing that most of them have been long since rejected by the Popes themselves, and put among the Apocrypha; and that in these last Ages, and in our time, their truth was questioned by most learned men, upon most grave and strong reasons?

And upon that he alledgeth the testimony of Cusanns and Erasmus. To which we may add Marsilius of Padua, the Cardinal Torquemada, the Jesuit Possevinus in his Apparat, and many more. Upon which, as also upon this whole matter, who so will have an ample and exact instruction, let him read the Pseudo-Isidorus of our learned David Blondel, a work full of doctrine, and made with a diligence beyond all example.

CHAP. 9. Of the Popes motives for causing these false Decretals to be forged, and when and by whom they were forged.

THE time when the Popes power did most increase, and in with the Papal See received the greatest alteration, was the age of the reign of Pepin, Charlemagne, Lewis the Meek, and Charles the Bald: For in that time the Pope from a Bishop became a temporal Monarch by the immense liberalities of those Kings, who made use of the Popes service in their wars of Italy.

In the year of Christ 755. or 756. Pepin having overcome Arstulfus King of the Lombards, took many Towns and Lordships from him, which he bestowed upon Pope Steven the second, whose predecessors Gregory the second, and Gregory the third had shaken off the yoke of the Emperor of Constantinople their Sovereign Lord. This change happened 666. years after the Apostle St. John had seen the Revelations, which expressly point that term of years Rev. 13. even the time upon which the Second Beast was to sit in the place of the first, which is the Roman Empire, and usurp an earthly domination in the Capital City of the Empire of Rome.

Charlemagne having put down the Kingdom of the Lombards in Italy, added many far greater gifts unto the liberalities of his Father Pepin; And being entered into Rome was elected Roman Emperor by the Senate and the people. Pope Leo the third made the ceremony of the Coronation. But in the following ages the Popes would infer out of that Ceremony, that the Pope had given the Empire unto Charles; as if the Arch-Bishop of Reims, whose place is to anoint his King, did boast that he hath given him the Kingdom of France. In that Coronation Leo worshipped Charles, as Ado testifieth it, who lived in the same age. And Aventinus in the fourth book of the Annals of Baniers: For that Emperor reserved unto himself the Sovereignty of Rome and Italy. The same Emperor against the will of the French Bishops brought in the Roman service into France, abolishing the old service which was called the Ambrosian.

Lewis the Meek son to Charlemagne added much to his fathers liberalities, of which we have some example in the Canon, Ego Ludovicus Dist. 63. for all is not set down there. Which donation made by the French Kings, Gratian hath inserted in his decree, with little consideration; for having put in the 96. Distinction, the donation of Constantine, yet he put in that of Lewis also, although the first was purposely forged to abolish the memory of the second. The recompense which that Emperor had from the Pope, was, that the Pope Gregory the fourth entered into a League with the sons of Lewis to dispossess him from the Empire, and to imprison him, as also they did; as it is related by Sigebertus and Amoinas, and the Chronicle of St. Denis. But shortly after they were forced to release him.

Charles the Bald succeeds his Father in the Kingdom of France. A soft Prince and of little virtue, who hoping by the Popes help to attain to the Imperial Crown, favored the Pope with all his power, and brought the Clergy of France to the subjection of the Roman See as much as he could. Then began the Popes Legates to come to the Councils of France, and there to preside. Then also the French Kings began to tremble under the thunderbolts of the Vatican, and to fear the excommunications of the Pope.

The first Pope that made a trial of his excommunications against them, was Pope Nicolas the first, who threatened Lothary to excommunicate him, unless he recalled Tietberga his Wife whom he had put away, to take Waldrada whom he loved; which also this Pope did excommunicate. Whereupon there was great murmuring of the Prelates, and people of France against the Pope, being displeased both at the Popes usurpations, and the pusillanimity of their Kings. These things happened from the year 863. to 866.

After that Nicolas, came Adrian the second, who favoring Lewis, grand-child to Lewis the Meek, against Charles the Bald his Uncle, sent peremptory Letters into France, whereby he declared, that if any presumed to make an enterprize upon the Kingdom of Lewis, not only he would make void by his authority all that he should do, but also that such a man being bound with the bonds of Anathema, and deprived of the name of Christian, should be lodged altogether with the Devil.

This is seen in the Epistle which Hinckmarus Arch-bishop of Reims writes to the said Adrian upon that subject, where he saith, that both Ecclesiastical and secular men being assembled at Reims, would say in a reproachful way, that never any such mandat was sent from that See to any of the Kings predecessors. Adding that the Bishops of Rome had never withdrawn themselves from the obedience of heretic Emperors. Wherefore (said they) we will not believe that we cannot otherwise attain to the Kingdom of heaven, but by receiving him for a temporal King, whom this Apostolical Lord recommends to us.

Thus was the Popes power growing in France, in Germany, and in Italy, misusing Kings, and daily usurping new things. But the Churches of Greece, Asia and Egypt, and all the East, laughed at that pride, and detested it. For at that same time Photios Patriarch of Constantinople fulminated an excommunication against Pope Nicolas. Then the Greek Church and the Roman made a schism, and ever since that time they have been separated in communion, even to this day.

But as it is ordinary with those that from a low state, are suddenly raised to the first charges of the Kingdom, to forge titles; and they never want proofs for the Antiquity of their house. Likewise the Popes of that time seeing themselves suddenly promoted to a greatness, which they durst never have hoped for; and seeing together that their succession in St. Peters primacy had no ground in the Word of God, and that the holy Scripture speaks not of the Bishop of Rome, and gives no successor to St. Peter in his Apostleship, employed some of their most confiding Prelates to forge false Deeds, and Epistles, and Decrees of the Bishops of Rome next to the time of the Apostles, in which they speak like Monarchs, and attribute to themselves a sovereign power over the Churches of the whole world; yea and upon the temporal of the Roman Empire.

It was in that time, that is, in the ninth Age, under the reign of Charlemagne, and of his Son Lewis the meek, that these Decretals were forged, being unknown before, and never mentioned in all Antiquity, bearing on the front the name of Isidorus Peccator, and in some Copies Isidorus Mercator, a man unknown, and a name forged at will.

That collection of Decretals began to go about in France in the beginning of the reign of Charles the Bald. The first that used them, was Hinckmar Bishop of Laon upon this occasion.

Hinckmar Arch-bishop of Reims had promoted to the Bishopric of Laon, another Hinckmar his nephew; who having excommunicated his Clergy, and hindered the divine service, and the baptism of children in his own Bishopric, and committed divers crimes and excesses, was cited to appear before his Uncle, who was his Metropolitan. But he would not obey, nor appear. Upon that, Hinckmar of Reims disannulled all the Acts of Hinckmar of Laon, and would Synodically proceed against him. But Hinckmar of Laon to defend himself, brought forth the collection of the Decretals of the ancient Popes made by Isidorus, where by the Popes Decrees such causes are reserved to the Apostolic See.

Hinckmar of Reims, being not learned enough to know the forgery of the Author of these Decretals, and not daring to reject them openly, brought divers things to invalid their authority. He said that Hinckmar of Laon was mistaken, if he thought that he was the only man that had those Epistles: That the Country was full of them: And that Riculfus Bishop of Mainz had published the Book of Epistles collected by Isidorus, which was brought to him out of Spain. Now that Riculfus the first publisher of these Epistles, lived in the same Age, and is but few years more ancient then Hinckmar. For he outlived Charlemagne, who died in the year of Christ 814. since (as Baronius saith in the year of Christ 865. §. 6.) he was one of those that subscribed the will of that Emperor.

Hinckmar said also to defend himself against those Epistles, that they had been good in their time; but that the Fathers assembled in Council, had altered those things, and made Canons of greater authority, which are to remain perpetually. And that those Decretals were never put in among the Canons of the Church. He will have then those Epistles to be received with this condition, Omnia probate, quod bonum est tenete. Try all things, retain that which is good. That strife between the two Hinckmars happened in the year of the Lord 870.

Hereupon Pope Nicolas the first bestirred himself with violence against Hinckmar of Reims, complaining that he despised the Decretals collected by Isidorus, and saying that the Decretals are nothing the less receivable for not being inserted in the Code of the Canons of the Church, seeing that the Canons of the New and Old Testament are no more inserted into that Code, and yet are received, because Pope Innocent hath decreed it so. But though Nicolas did storm and threatened never so much, Hinckmar resisted him stiffly, and had the better of the Bishop of Rome: neither did he ever suffer the causes which he had judged, to be revised at Rome, nor any man that had been deposed by the Synods of France, to be restored by the Pope. And all his life time he maintained with great constancy so much liberty as remained to the Gallican Church, which liberty suffered by his death a great diminution. The Popes durst not touch him, because he was the Kings Uncle.

Yet in one point he was mistaken, that he believed the report spread by Riculfus, that those Epistles had been sent to him out of Spain, which at that time was possessed by the Saracens, Mohammedans. Riculfus had raised that report to persuade the world that he was not the forger of these Decretals, but that Isidorus of Sevilia dead in the year of Christ 636. that is two hundred years before this Riculfus was the Collector of them. Herein the forgery is evident that this false Isidorus hath put in his collection in the Epistles of Gregory the second, and Gregory the third, and Zacharias, who lived long since the death of Isidorus of Sevilia. And that in the beginning of the same collection there is a chapter of the order of celebrating a Council, where he alledgeth a Canon of the XI. Council of Toledo held in the year of Christ 675. And that in the Preface he speaks of Pope Agathon dead about forty six years since the death of Isidorus of Sevilia.

Whence Baronius in his Martyrologium upon April 4. gathereth, that those men are mistaken that attribute that collection to Isidorus of Sevilia. Which collection we have proved to have been unknown to Leo the IV. dead in the year of our Lord 853.

These Decretals then have been forged by Riculfus, or some Frenchman, or German of the same time. But Riculfus is with good reason suspected for inventing them, because he did publish them under a false title. And because at that time, and a long time after, the Ach-bishops of Mainz were the strong pillars of Popery, and the first promoters of the Papal authority in Germany. For I dare affirm that nothing hath helped more to the establishment of the Papal Empire then these Epistles, which have been a long time held for Oracles in the West; By them the Father of lies hath wrought very powerfully.

I will for the end mark here a notable lie of Baronius about this Hinckmar of Reims, who hath made us a way to find out the origin of these Decretals. Baronius on the year of our Lord 849. §. 13. saith upon the Testimony of Frodoard, that Hinckmarus obtained of Pope Leo the fourth by the mediation of the Emperor Lothary, a Pallium or Archiepiscopal Cloak, with a privilege to use it every day. But Hinckmarus himself in the book of the fifty five Chapters saith the contrary, speaking in this manner, Leo the fourth, and Benedictus did confer upon me some privileges, which I did not ask for; For the privileges which are conferred upon every Metropolitan by the sacred Canons are sufficient for me.

It was one of the Popes tricks to send Palls, and to grant privileges to them that asked not for them, and had nothing to do with them: And to give to a Prince or Prelate that which he had before: Then to go about to persuade the world that the power of that Prince or Prelate was out of his grant and liberality. It was a generous part of Hinckmarus to declare that he had no need of the Popes privileges, and that he held his dignity from the Canons, not from the Roman Prelate.

CHAP. I. Of the Idolatry of Marcellinus Bishop of Rome, and of the Council of Sinuessa.

LET us follow the thread of this History. In the year of our Lord 302. Marcellinus Bishop of Rome burnt incense before the Idols, as we read in the Pontifical of Damasus; Anastasius saith the same, and Pope Nicolas the first in his Epistle to the Emperor Michael. In those days they believed not that the Pope could not err in the faith. This gave occasion to the forging of the Council of Sinuessa, which is so ridiculously contrived, that it is not possible that things should have been so carried. There Marcellinus lying down on the ground, condemneth himself, the other Bishops saying that it belonged not to them to condemn him. Baronius acknowledgeth plain forgery in this Council, and saith that there is imposture in it.

CHAP. 2. Of the Judges given by Constantine to Cecilian, and to the Donatists. And of the Council of Arles.

IN the year 312 the Emperor Constantine newly turned to the Christian religion, heard the complaints of the Donatists against Cecilian Bishop of Carthage, and Felix Bishop of Aptunga, who had ordained him. To judge of their grievances he appointed for their judges Melchiades Bishop of Rome, Maternus Bishop of Collen, Reticius Bishop of Autun, and Marinus Bishop of Arles, with other Bishops living near the City of Rome. The Emperor would not make the Bishop of Rome the only judge, but joined others in Commission with him. And Melchiades complained not that the Emperor disparaged his dignity. This action of the Emperor displeaseth Cardinal du Perron: For in ch. 46. he saith plainly that Constantine did that against all Ecclesiastical order, taxing that act of irregularity and nullity; and that Constantine protested so much. Baronius likewise, Ann. 314. Sect. 36. saith that Constantine in that point was much inferior unto Aurelian a Pagan Prince, that is, that a Pagan behaved himself better then he, and knew better what honor was due to the Bishop of Rome. It is true that Constantine protested that it belonged not to him to judge of the cause of the Donatists, which was purely Ecclesiastical, saying that it belonged not to him to judge of a Bishops cause; but he did not protest that his giving of Ecclesiastical judges to judge of it was against all order. No doubt but that when Austin saith, Ep. 162. & 166. that Constantine delegated the trial of that business unto Bishops, among those Bishops Melchiades was comprehended. Wherefore also he calls the other Bishops colleagues of Melchiades and his companions of Office. Eusebius likewise and Optatus relating that History, put him in the same rank as the others.

For that Melchiades did not bear himself as judge of that question of his own authority, but only by the Emperors command, St. Austin showeth it, Ep. 162. saying, Melchiades did not usurp that judgment: for the Emperor at the request of the Donatists sent Bishops to be judges to sit with him, and to determine what they should think just about that cause. Which I say, because the Cardinal hath the confidence to deny that Melchiades was appointed judge by the Emperor.

By these Bishops, the Emperors delegates, the Donatists were condemned, and Cecilian absolved. But from that judgment the Donatists appealed to the Emperor; who being overcome by their importunity, gave order that the cause should be judged again in a Council at Arles; where the judgment pronounced by Melchiades and his associates was examined. That Council was assembled by the Emperors absolute command, as he saith himself in his Epistle to Chrestus Bishop of Syracusa, which Eusebius hath inserted in the tenth book of his history, ch. 5. We have (saith he) commanded that a great number of Bishops should meet at Arles the first of August. For Constantine thought not that the judgment of the Bishop of Rome could not be retracted. Certainly the Bishops assembled at Arles would never have made themselves judges of the judgment of the Roman Bishop, if they had acknowledged him head of the Universal Church. And Melchiades would have complained that the dignity of his See was thereby damnified, and his authority diminished: which yet he did not, and suffered his judgment to undergo the test of a particular Council.

That this Council of Arles did not acknowledge the Bishop of Rome for their superior and judge of their actions, it appears, not only because they were assembled to be judges of Melchiades, and to examine his sentence given against the Donatists: but also by the Acts of the said Synod related by Baronius. For that Synod writes to Sylvester Bishop of Rome, commanding him in these words. To our Lord, and most holy brother Sylvester Roman Bishop, Marinus and the Assembly of the Bishops convocated at Arles. We have signified unto your charity that which we have by common consent decreed, that all may know what they must hereafter observe. They call Sylvester their brother, and give him no higher style then that of Bishop. They ask him no approbation of their decrees, but signify unto him what they have decreed.

Baronius brings forth another Epistle of the same Synod, which the learned Pithoeus lent him, where that Synod gives a reason why they signify to him what they had decreed, that he should make it known unto others. We have given order that this should be declared unto all, by thee that holdest the greatest Dioceses. They say not, it is because he was the head of the Church, but because he had a larger Diocese.

CHAP. 3. Of the deliverance and establishment of the Church under Constantine.

THat was the time when the Emperor Constantine having embraced, and professed Christian religion, the Christian Church which had been cruelly persecuted for the space of three hundred years, was delivered from that horrible oppression. Then were Churches planted over all the Empire, and upon a sudden the Church had a new face; and Bishops might meet with all liberty, to look to the Government of the Church, and the union in doctrine. It was then or never that the Bishop of Rome should have shown himself to take order with all things, and give force to that new establishment, if he had been head of the Universal Church. Then deputies from all parts should have come to him to be ruled and guided in that raising of the Church, which Constantine did labor for with all his power. At least the Emperor should have taken Counsel of the Roman Bishop, and desired him to assist him with his authority. But no such matter. At that time Sylvester was Bishop of Rome, who never appeared in that great work, and of him the ancient Histories speak little more then if he had not been in the world. Not one Epistle, not one action of his is recorded, whereby he contributed to that new Creation: Which is largely and exactly descibed by Eusebius, Theodoret, Socrates and Sozomenus. Upon these historians, all but Sozomenus, M. du Perron bestoweth many ill words, as upon men ill affected to the Roman Church; calling one Arian, another Novatian, another enemy to the Church of Rome: And all these mere calumnies. That's a short way to answer objections drawn from the Fathers, to revile them. The Emperor had near his person some Bishops whom he loved, as Hosius Bishop of Cordova in Spain; Eusebius Bishop of Cesarea in Palestine; and some others, by whose counsel he guided that so holy and so excellent work; not expecting the counsel, and much less the will of the Bishop of Rome.

CHAP. 4. Of Arius, and of Hosius sent to Alexandria. Of Sylvester, and of the Roman Council.

IN the year of the Lord 315. Arius began to trouble the Church of Alexandria with his doctrine. That spark having met with fuel, grew to a great flame, which hath wrought greart ruins in the Church for many Ages. Alexander Bishop of Alexandria, did virtuously oppose Arius; and the faithful Bishops of Africa, Asia and Egypt, labored to quench that fire. The Bishop of Rome alone held his peace, and being far from the evil, left to others the care of that matter. Had he been head of the Universal Church, it was his part to impose silence unto Arius, or to cite the contending parties, summoning them to appear before the Papal See, or to send Legates to judge his name. But that was beyond his power, and his judgment had no more authority then that of another. Therefore he did not meddle with that business.

Ten years past in contentions, till the Emperor Constantine put his hand to it. To that end he sent the above named Hosius to Alexandria, to appease that trouble by his prudence. Here the boldness of Baronius is shamefully licentious, presuming without bringing any proof, to affirm that Hosius was Legat to Sylvester: seeing that the Historians testify that he was sent by Constantine, and make no mention here of the Bishop of Rome.

Socrates in book 1. ch. 4. saith, that Constantine sent Hosius, because the Emperor loved him dearly, and bore him great respect. Wherefore Hosius returned not to Sylvester, but to the Emperor who had sent him. Also Hosius had his letters and instructions from Constantine, not from Sylvester, in book. 2. of Eusebius, of the life of Constantine, ch 63. there are letters of the Emperor to the Bishops of Egypt, of which Hosius was the bearer, wherein the Emperor declareth why he had sent Hosius unto them. And in those letters no mention of the Bishop of Rome. All that our Adversaries bring of the Actions of Sylvester, is taken not from the authors of that Age or the next, but from ridiculous Legends, which say that Sylvester baptized Constantine, and healed him of the leprosy, when that Emperor would have prepared a Bath for himself with the blood of infants. That he gave to Sylvester the Empire of the West, and the City of Rome, and held his horses bridle. There is also mention of a Dragon with whom Sylvester fought, and a thousand idle tales, which any man that hath common sense, and some small knowledge in ancient history, will acknowledge to be false. Wherefore the Cardinal makes no use of them, and no mention.

Of the like stuff is the Roman Council, which is found in the first Tome of the Councils, where Sylvester is President, and where it is decreed that no Kings shall be judges of the Bishop of Rome. But in that time there was no King in all the Roman Empire. And the date of the Consuls is false: For Constantine never had any colleague in the Consulat whose name was Priscus. And Crispus Constantine's son was dead before the time of the Council of Nice, after which they set that forged Roman Council. That poor Council is a ridiculous fiction, written in a barbarous style, where Baronius acknowledgeth that there is not one line without a fault.

CHAP. 4. Of the diversity of the Churches in observing the day of Easter.

THE 324. year of our Lord, is the year immediately preceding the Council of Nice. Then many Churches in the East retained yet the old custom to celebrate the Feast of Easter upon the 14 day of the Moon of March, after the example of the Jews: therein dissenting from the custom of the Church of Rome, and the judgment which Victor Bishop of Rome had pronounced above sixscore years before; and yet were they not therefore held for schismatics or heretics; for the other neigbouring Churches which kept Easter on the Lord's day, chose rather to live in peace with them, then to defer to the judgment of the Bishop of Rome.

CHAP. 5. Of the Convocation of the Council of Nice. Answer to Cardinal du Perron.

IN the year 325. the Arians and Meletians continuing to trouble the Churches of Egypt, Constantine was advised to assemble an Universal Council at Nice: that is, a Council gathered from all the countries subject unto the Roman Empire. It was not the Bishop of Rome that called that Council, but the Emperor Constantine by his own authority only.

Eusebius in book 3. of Constantine's life, ch. 6. saith, that he assembled an Universal Council, inviting all Bishops by honorable Letters, to come out of all parts. Socrates book 1. ch. 8. Constantine convocated an Oecumenical Council, inviting Bishops from all parts by letters to meet at Nice. Epiphanius saith the same in the heresy of the Ariomanitae, and Theodoret, book 1. ch. 7. And Ruffinus book. 1. ch. 1. And Sozomenus book 1. ch. 17. Of the Bishop of Rome not a word among them all. The Bishops themselves being met at Nice, in their Synodical Epistle to the Church of Alexandria, which is in Theodoret, book 1. ch. 9. say that they were convocated by Constantine's order, and say nothing of the Bishop of Rome. And yet if he had been acknowledged head of the Universal Church, the Council could not have been convocated but by him. Our Adversaries confess themselves, that the Emperor did assemble the Councils. Pope Pius the second before he was Pope, writ the Acts of the Council of Basil, where he speaks thus in the first book; When I read the ancient histories, I find not that custom that the Popes only have assembled Councils. And a little after. Since the time of Constantine, and the other Emperors, the Popes consent was not much sought for. And Cardinal Bellarmine, Because (saith he) the Pope acknowledged the Emperor for his Sovereign Lord, he desired him to convocate a Synod: but since that time things are altered. Socrates in the Preface, book 5. saith that the great Councils held before, and held still, by the will of the Emperors. Wherefore also Jerome in the 2. Apology against Ruffinus, What Emperor (saith he) hath commanded that Synod to be convocated? presupposing that it could not be assembled but by the Emperors commandment.

This hinders not but that the Emperor took advice of the Bishops that were near his person, and was moved by their supplications, as Ruffinus saith, that the Emperor by the advice of his Bishops did convocate a Council at Nice. The Cardinal saith that Ruffinus would not make a particular mention of the Bishop of Rome, out of the hatred which he bore to the Roman Church: But why doth he not say the same of Epiphanius? who in the 68. heresy saith that the care of Alexander Bishop of Alexandria induced Constantine to assemble that Council? why should we charge Ruffinus of untruth there being not one ancient Author that contradicts him? By the same reason any one might confute with one word all that the Cardinal saith in defense of the Pope, saying that he speaks so out of the affection which he beareth to the Roman Church.

To so many forealledged witnesses the Cardinal oppseth only the Acts of the sixth Oecumenical Council in the 18. Action; where these words are found, Constantine Augustus, and the Pope Sylvester of venerable memory did convocate the famous Council at Nice. But this is taken from the Greek Copies of the Acts of Councils, which are stuffed with lies, and which are but lately come forth in print out of the Popes Vatican Library; From which nothing of that and the like matters comes out but of dubious faith. And these Greek Copies contradict the Latin, which are as bad. Besides, that sixth Council was assembled above three hundred fifty five years after that of Nice, and cannot be opposed to so many witnesses of greater antiquity, especially to the very Bishops of the Council of Nice whose testimony we have produced. Wherein the Cardinals dealing is unjust, to offer to allege in this question new Authors, and things happened many ages after. For the question between us, is, whether in the time of the four first Councils the Popes did convocate the Universal Council?

M. du Perron to escape out of this straight makes a distinction of two sorts of authorities: The one temporal, which the Emperors used to convocate Councils; the other spiritual, which belonged to the Popes. So that he makes a double convocation of Councils, the one temporal, the other spiritual. Let us receive this new coined distinction. For it is much already that he devesteth the Popes of that temporal power which they usurp in our days. But he ought to have shown by ancient examples that the Bishops of Rome made use of that spiritual power to convocate the Synod of Nice: which he could not do. For the Emperor did not so much as ask the advice of the Roman Bishop. The Pope did not convocate the Council, neither in his temporal, nor in his spiritual capacity: For that which the Cardinal alledgeth of the following Councils, convocated (as he pretendeth) some by the authority of the Popes, some by their consent, (about which he spends almost the whole chapter) shall be found false when the order of this matter will bring us to the time of their convocation. And as for that Canon mentioned by Socrates, That Canons must not be made for Churches against the advice of the Bishop of Rome, which M. du Perron hath never done alleging and repeating, we shall see hereafter what force it may have, and how it is to be understood. I will say before hand that the Cardinal falsifieth that Canon, translating 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , it ought not, instead of it could not.

Pope Pius the second before he was Pope, did not acknowledge that rule. (r) I see not (saith he) that this was always observed, that a Council cannot be held without the Popes authority: For the Council of Pisa was not assembled by the authority of any Pope, seeing that Pope Gregory detested it, and Benedict did abhor it, &c. Now if the Council of Pisa was not lawful, John was no true Pope. For John was made Pope by that Council. But this Author being made Pope since, altered his opinion, and craved pardon of himself.

CHAP. 6. That the Bishop of Rome did not preside in the Council of Nice. Confutation of the Cardnials assertion, that Hosius was Legat of the Roman Church in that Council.

IN the year of our Lord 325. that famous Council of Nice sat, which is the first Universal, where 318. Bishops of the Roman Empire were present. There were the Bishops of Alexandria, and Antioch. As for the Bishop of Rome, Eusebius speaks thus of him in book 3. of the life of Constantine ch. 7. The Bishop of the City, which is the Capital of the Empire, was not there, because of his old age, but his Priests there present filled up his place. It seems that he regarded not so much Sylvester as to name him; and he speaks of no other persons sent by him, but Roman Priest, that our Adversaries may not do here according to their custom, saying without proofs, when another then the Pope hath been President of a Council, that the Pope had given him his place.

The Council then being assembled, if the Bishop of Rome had been acknowledged the head of the Universal Church, his Legates had been Presidents without question, and had taken the first place among the Bishops: which they did not: for as for the exterior order, the Emperor Constantine was President, as it is said in the Canon Futuram. C. 12. Q. 1. Constantine was president in the holy Synod assembled at Nice: And that taken from a Decretal Epistle of Pope Melchiades. And Eusebius saith that he went into the highest of the ranks. And Theodoret saith that he sat in the midst between the two ranks of the seats of the Bishops.

But among the Bishops, he that presided, and conducted the action, was Hosius Bishop of Corduba in Spain. This appears by the subscriptions, where H sius subscribeth the first; And after him Victor and Vincentius, the Roman Bishops Deputies. Athanasius who was there present, speaks thus of Hosius: Above all, and especially was eminent that old man; for of what Synod was he not the conductor? What Church hath not the fairest marks of his presidence? And Socrates in book. 1. ch. 1. doth marshal them in this order, Hosius Bishop of Corduba, Victor, and Vincentius Priests, Alexander of Egypt, Eustathius of great Antioch, Macarius of Jerusalem. In that choice the Synod did not regard the dignity of the chairs, but the virtue and the merit of the person. Wherefore also Athanasius calls Hosius Father of Bishops, President of Synods, and saith he made the Symbol of Nice.

M. du Perron, pag. 648. & 651. acknowledgeth that Hosius had presided in that Council, but he saith that he was Legat of the Roman Church; and that to him were joined Victor and Vincentius as Legates à latere to represent the Popes person. But he saith that without warrant; for in the whole Antiquity no trace is found that Hosius was the Popes Legat, or sitting there for the Roman Church in the Council of Nice. For Eusebius, Sozomenus, Theodoret, and all that write of of that history, speak but of two Legates sent by the Bishop of Rome. Had Hosius been the Popes Legat to represent the Roman Church, he would have taken that quality in his subscription. But thus he subscribes; I Hosius Bishop of Corduba, in the Province of Spain, believe as it is written. And after him Victor and Vincentius in a line by itself, subscribe thus, Victor and Vincentius Priests of the City of Rome have subscribed for and instead of St. Sylvester our venerable Pope. Certainly if they had been all three Legates sent by the Bishop of Rome, they would have subscribed together; or at least Hosius had not omitted the quality, in virtue whereof he was President of that Council.

Eusebius who was present in that Council, speaks thus of it, in book 3. of the life of Cinstantine, ch. 7. Out of Spain there was one of very great esteem sitting with the whole company: But the Bishop of the Capital City of the Empire did not come by reason of his old age, but Priests which were present filled his place. Where he doth expressly distinguish Hosius from the Legates of the Bishop of Rome. Theodoret saith the same, But he of Rome, by reason of his old age sent two Priests, &c. Sozomenus the same; For the Bishop of Rome, Victor and Vincentius Priests were present. Wherefore Hosius subscribes for himself, not as a Deputy for another. Photios in the book of Councils saith the same, and Nicephorus in book 8. ch. 14.

To so many witnesses M. du Perron opposeth the testimony of Gelasius Cysicenus, who about 170 years after the Council of Nice writ the Acts of it. That Author saith that Hosius in the Council of Nice held the place of the Bishop of great Rome. But this Cardinal should have been ashamed to produce a place so notoriously falsified: For his Galasius in that place doth copy and transcribe the whole seventh chapter of Eusebius of the third book of Constantine's life; Which he ought to have faithfully transcribed, without adding those words by such a gross and evident falsification. Certainly Eusebius is more to be believed then he that hath ill transcribed him. But perhaps the fault is not in Gelasius but in him that hath corrupted his book. Besides that only Author who is later and of small authority ought not to be put in the balance against so many others, that are more ancient, and of more credit.

The distinction of those two sorts of Legates which the Cardinal brings, some representing the Popes person, some representing the Roman Church, can have no place here. For when the Western Church sent some Bishops to the General Synods to speak for her, they called a particular Council before to make that Deputation, and to give instructions to the Deputies. Shall we say then that Hosius was named Deputy in some Synod held in the West, before the Council of Nice? But we find no such thing, and no Author makes mention of it. To guess that such a Synod was called as the Cardinal doth without any proof, is a very rash part. And to say that all that have omitted to speak of that, have done it out of hatred to the Roman Church, is a confession of want of strength, and that he finds no help in all antiquity.

In the same Council of Nice it was decreed that the Bishop of Alexandria should signify to all the Bishops of the Empire, and by consequent to that of Rome, the day of the feast of Easter. See Pope Leo Ep. 64. to Marcian, and Ep. 93. to the Bishops of Gauls and Spain. And the Paschal Epistles of Theophilus. In the 135. Canon of the Code of the Canons of the Church of Africa, Cyrillus Bishop of Alexandria signifieth to the Council of Carthage that Easter should be the seventeenth of the Calends of May. Had the Bishop of Rome been the head of the Universal Church, he would never have received this order from the Bishop of Alexandria.

CHAP. 7. Of the Canon of Nice, which sets limits to the Roman Bishopric: and of the suburbicary Churches. Absurdity of the Cardinals interpretation.

IN the time of that famous Council lived one Meletius Bishop of Lycopolis in the Thebaid of Egypt, who would withdraw himself from the subjection of the Bishop of Alexandria, and confer orders without his consent.

The Council of Nice to bring him into order, made this Canon. Let the Antient customs that were in Egypt or Libya, and Pentapolis, remain in force: so that the Bishop of Alexandria have power over all these, since it is also the custom of the Bishop of Rome, &c.

This Canon being contrary to the pretended primacy of the Bishop of Rome, yet the Legates of the Bishop of Rome alleged it in the Council of Chalcedon, to establish the primacy of the Roman Pope, but adding by a notorious falsification these words, That the Roman Church ever had the primacy. But the whole Council with one voice exclamed against that, saying that these words were not found in the originals and true Copies, which were produced. But of that more hereafter. The sense of that Canon is clear. It was a received custom in the ancient Church, that the dignity of Bishops was according to the dignity of the place of their residence. As it is said in the 17. Canon of the Council of Chalcedon, Let the rank of the Ecclesiastical Parishes follow the form of the civil or public. The Council of Trul saith the same in the 38. Canon. Wherefore the Bishops jurisdiction extended as far as the Civil jurisdiction of the Magistrate of the place. By that order and custom Meletius Bishop of Lycopolis was subject to the Bishop of Alexandria, because the Prefect of Alexandria extended his civil jurisdiction so far. So the Council of Nice will have that order to be followed, and brings the Bishop of Rome for an example, who extended his Ecclesiastical jurisdiction to all the towns and places subject to the Prefect of the town, which jurisdiction was of a hundred miles about Rome. Within which space the old and the new Latium was contained, Valeria, Marcae d' Ancona suburbicaria, and Toscana suburbicaria. The other Provinces of Italy, without that compass, were called Annonariae. That was then the ancient limit of the Bishopric of Rome, which the Pope from age to age hath enlarged, and vastly increased.

Herein Cardinal du Perron deals falsely and foully. He saith that Augustus and the following Emperors gave to the Praefectus Urbicus of Rome the power of judging of all the appeals from all the Provinces of the Roman Empire: and alledgeth for testimony ch. 4. of the comment upon Notitia Imperii; where the clean contrary is found, even that the power of the Prefect of Rome is limited to a hundred miles about Rome. Augustus (saith he) had given to the Prefect of the town all the power of the Empire, not only in the town, but also without, unto a hundred thousand paces. And in the same place Dio is alleged, who limits that power unto 550. stades or furlongs. But the Cardinal takes hold only of these words; Augustus had given to the Prefect of the Town all the power of the Empire, and leaves out the rest. Cassidorus relates that the King of Italy speaks thus to the Prefect of Rome; To thy jurisdiction not only the City of Rome is committed, although all things be comprehended in it; but also the ancient laws would have thy power to extend unto a hunded miles. And in the Theodosian Code in the second law de integri restitutione, It is our pleasure that the Term be prolonged unto the last day of the thirtieth year; and that within a hundred miles about Rome, if the business is to be judged by the Judges that are at Rome.

The regions comprehended within that space of a hundred miles about Rome were called suburbicariae: The others without that space were called Annonariae, of which Trebellius Pollio makes a list in the chapter of the thirty tyrants. All the testimonies alleged by the Cardinal in pag. 176. to show that the power of the Prefect of Rome extended over all the Empire, say no such thing: and are some false, some to no purpose.

Of the suburbicary regions frequent mention is made in the forealledged book Notitia Imperii: where they are called suburbanae provinciae, because suburbia Romae pertingebant, they touched the suburbs of Rome. In the Theodosian Code in the 12. Law, de indulgentiis debitorum, these words are found; Picenum and Thusciam suburbicarias regiones. Macca d' Ancona and Toscana which are suburbicary regions. For the same reason the Churches comprehended within the hundred miles about Rome, were called suburbicary.

Such then is the sense of the Canon of Nice. Let the Bishop of Alexandria have the Government of the Churches of Egypt, of Libya, and of Pentapolis; because these regions are subject to the civil jurisdiction of the Prefect of Egypt: According as the Bishop of Rome extends also his Ecclesiastical jurisdiction according to the extent of the civil jurisdiction of the Prefect of the City of Rome.

Ruffinus relating that Canon of Nice, makes a Paraphrasis of it which expresseth the true sense; Let the ancient custom be kept both in Alexandria, and at Rome; so that the one take care of the Churches of Egypt, add the other of the suburbicary Churches.

To this exposition of Ruffinus the Council of Constantinople agreeth; which Council the Church of Rome receiveth, and reckoneth it the eighth Universal Council. The 17. Canon is such, The holy and Universal first Council of Nice commandeth that the ancient custom be kept in Egypt, and the Provinces subject unto it; so that the Bishop of Alexandria have power over them all, saying that the like custom prevailed in the City of Rome. That like custom is to have power over the neighbouring country: For the custom should have been very unlike, if the Bishop of Rome had had power over all the Churches of the world, and by consequent over that of Alexandria, which had no authority but over the neighbouring Churches.

That exposition, though most certain and true, displeaseth M. du Perron, because it sets very narrow limits unto the Bishop of Rome. The word suburbicary, especially displeaseth him in that Canon. Wherefore he bestoweth many ill words upon Ruffinus, unto which, though most of them injust, we need not give any answer, because the Jesuit Sirmondus, who hath written of the Suburbicary Churches and regions, justifieth Ruffinus as for that word of Suburbicary, saying that this Canon is found in the Vatican Library, in an old exemplary with the word of Suburbicary, which so troubleth our Adversaries.

Others, as Baronius, extend the Suburbicary Churches further, even out of Italy. Cardinal du Perron alone by the Suburbicary Churches, understands the Churches of the whole Roman Empire, which is confuted by the words of the Canon of Ruffinus, where the Churches of Egypt are expressly distinguished from the Suburbicary Churches. It is a prodigious absurdity to call the Churches of Asia, Syria, and Egypt, the Suburbicary Churches of Rome, that is, the Churches that are accounted as the Suburbs of Rome. Never any man spake so. By that interpretation the Canon becometh ridiculous; for M. du Perron will have the sense to be this, Let the Bishop of Alexandria have power over the Churches of Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis, since the Bishop of Rome by the like custom governs all the Churches of the whole world. It is indeed an intolerable bold part to sew such a strang piece of his own making unto such a famous Canon; for after these words since it is also the custom of the Bishop of Rome, he adds these, over all the world, or in all the Universal Church: But in that Canon the Bishop of Rome is not set forth, as he upon whom the power of the Bishop of Alexandria is founded, but as one that had an old custom unto which the Bishop of Alexandria might justly conform himself.

Upon this matter we have already observed some falsifications of the Cardinal, unto which this must be added. He makes Gregory Nazianzen to say this; The Antient Rome treads aright in the faith, holding all the West bound by the salutary Verb, as it is fit for her that presideth over the whole world. He translateth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , her that presideth over the whole world. But the precedent line showeth that Gregory speaks of all the West, not of all the world. He should there have translated, She holds all the West bound by the salutary Verb, as she that hath the precedence before all. The Reader that will take the pains to consult the place, shall find that Gregory speaks of the power of the Cities of Rome and Constantinople, and regards as much the civil power as the spiritual, or rather more. Now Gregory was not so ignorant as to think that Rome had a temporal power over all the world, seeing that the Roman Empire did not reach to the tenth part of the world.

In the same page he falsely alledgeth Irenaeus, making him say; With the Roman Church by reason of the more powerful principality it is necessary that every Church agree. He should have translated, To that Church because of the more powerful principality, (which is the power of the Empire whose seat was at Rome) it is necessary that all Churches resort. For convenire ad Ecclesiam is not to agree with the Church, but to resort to it.

Of the place of Austin, who saith, that in the Roman Church the principality of the Apostolical See did always flourish, we shall speak when we come to St. Austin's time. He that saith that in the race of Hugh Capet the principality or Royal sovereignty hath always flourished, saith not thereby that there are no other Kings and no other sovereignty in the world. We shall see hereafter that the same principality or preeminence of the Apostolic See was also attributed to he Bishops of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem.

CHAP. 8. Of the Convocation of the Council of Tyre.

IN the year of Christ 335. the Emperor Constantine commanded the assembling of a Council at Tyre, without asking the advice of the Bishop of Rome. The Letters whereby he commandeth the Bishops to resort from all parts to Tyre, speak thus. If any (which I think shall not happen) rejecting or despising our command, refuse to come, we shall send some, who sending him into exile, will teach him how ill it becomes [him] to resist the commands of the Sovereign Emperor made for the defense of the truth.

That Emperor spake thus indifferently to all Bishops, not excepting the Bishop of Rome.

CHAP. 9. Death of Sylvester Bishop of Rome. How little his authority was.

AT the same time died Sylvester Bishop of Rome, of whom the Ancients make almost no mention, as if he had been an unknown man: He was 22. years a Bishop according to the computation of Baronius. And having lived in the most happy and the most flourishing Age of the Christian Church, in which so many things happened to the exaltation of the Christian faith, and so many constitutions were made, yet was no Actor in any important action; but only that in obedience to the Emperor he sent two Priests to be his Deputies in his place, to the Council of Nice. And yet some doubt whether it was he or his successor Julius that sent them: For Sozomenus, and Cassiodorus, and Beda and many more affirm that it was Julius that sent those Priests. Upon which M. du Perron suspecteth that in Sozomenus instead of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 it should be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and saith that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifieth venerable. Wherein he showeth his ignorance in the Greek tongue; For 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifieth hoary or gray-headed, not venerable. I think indeed that Sozomenus was mistaken; Only I observe by this variation in the history, that Sylvester was but little famous, and of small account, since his actions are so little considered.

CHAP. 10. Baptism and death of Constantine.

IN the year 338. Constantine finding himself sick to death, caused himself to be baptized at Nicomedia; Eusebius writes it who was present, and Ambrose upon the death of Theodosius, and Sozomenus in book 4. cap. 17. and Theodoret, lib. 1. cap. 31.

M. du Perron himself doth acknowledge it, Which I observe, to confute the fable of the Baptism of Constantine by Sylvester, when Constantine turned Christian. A fable taken from the Acts or Legends of Sylvester which Baronius gives gives us for currant coin, herein opposing all Antiquity, But our Cardinal overcome by the truth, taxeth Baronius upon that without naming him.

Hitherto we have seen no trace of the Papal Monarchy. No appeal from the Churches without the Roman Bishopric. No laws given to the Universal Church. No persons of the East, or of Africa appearing before the Papal See to be judged. No communication with the Churches without the Roman Empire. No communication of Councils. No precedency in Councils. Yet we are come already to the year of Christ. 338. Only some testimonies are found of the Ancients that speak of the Bishops of Rome, as of successors of St. Peter. Not in the Apostleship, or in the primacy over the universal Church, but in the Episcopacy of the City of Rome. So all the Ancients speak. Eusebius in ch. 2. of the third book of his History, Linus hath held the Bishopric of the Romans the first after the martyrdom of Paul and Peter. St. Jerome in the book of Ecclesiastical writers, Clement is the fourth Bishop of Rome after Peter. Tertullian in ch. 32. of the book of Prescriptions, The Church of the Smyrneans relateth that Polycarpus hath been established by John. That of the Romans giveth Clement established by Peter. And we have heard before the same Tertullian in ch. 2. of the book of Pudicity, taxing Zepherinus Bishop of Rome for attributing to himself the authority of binding and loosing, which the Lord gave unto Peter personally. Leo the first had his share of ambition. Yet the ordinary title which he takes in the beginning of his Epistles, is, Leo Episcopus urbis Romae, Leo Bishop of the City of Rome: And already it was the 450. year of the Lord. Why doth he not call himself Apostle or Head of the Church of all the world? Would the King of France in his Edicts style himself only Lord of Paris, or Count of Tolose, leaving out the title of King?

CHAP. 11. How poor and weak and few are the proofs which Cardinal du Perron brings out of the three first Ages, till the year of Christ 340. to defend the Popes primacy.

OUR Adversaries are at no time more gravelled then in two points. When they are put to prove out of the word of God that the Bishop of Rome is successor to St. Peter in the Office of Head of the Universal Church; and when they are called upon to show out of the history of the three first Ages after Christ's death, that the Pope was then acknowledged the Head of the Universal Church.

Of them all M. du Perron is the man who with most diligence hath searched the Antient History. Yet when question is of the History of the three first Ages, and part of the fourth, it is woeful to behold what trouble he is put to, and how little the first Antiquity is favorable to him in this matter. Which to avoid he confineth himself to the time of the four first Councils, whereof the first was held in the year of our Lord 325.

Yet that he may not seem altogether destitute of strength on that side, he treats that matter in ch. 25. book 1. and from page 97. unto page 101. he layeth up all he could find in the first Ages which may serve to help up the Popes Primacy.

He begins by Irenaeus, whom he puts in the next Age to that of the Apostles, although he writ about the year 200. of Christ, or in the beginning of the third Age. Out of his book 3. and ch. 3. he alledgeth ten or twelve times a text, which he hath falsified in the interpretation, making him say that with the Church of Rome all Churches must agree, because of the sovereign principality; whereas the right English of the Latin of Irenaeus is, That to that Church (meaning the Roman) all Churches must resort because of the sovereign principality; that is, because Rome was the seat of the Empire, where the Christians of all Churches had businesses. The Latin text of this place of Irenaeus we alleged in ch. 7. of this 4. book

Here the Cardinal needeth not to trouble the order of times to bring an authority of Austin, and another of Prosper, that have written above 200. years after Irenaeus; who say, that in the Roman Church the principality of the Apostolic See hath always flourished. For we willingly acknowledge that the Roman Church was the most eminent in honor, and the principal Church of the Roman Empire, by reason of the dignity of the town, although it had no Empire or jurisdiction over the other Churches, which, as well as the Roman, were called principal and Apostolical, as the Churches of Antioch and Alexandria. But of that, and of this place of St. Austin more hereafter.

His second authority is of Victor Bishop of Rome, who excommunicated the Churches of Asia, because they observed the Feast of Easter upon the 14. day of the Moon of March. We have shown that the sentence of Victor, whether he did excommunicate them, or only separate himself from their Communion, was altogether without effect; And that the Oriental Churches which were of the same opinion as Victor, did not for that separate themselves from the communion of the Churches condemned by Victor: Wherefore Eusebius saith only that he endeavored to cut them off from the common union, but that the action of Victor was not approved, and that many Bishops were offended at it, and sent remonstrances to him about it. Irenaeus especially, whose Epistle full of just reprehensions is related by Eusebius. We have shown that in old time not only the equals did excommunicate their equals, but also that inferior Bishops and less in dignity have often excommunicated their superiors, and such as were of a higher degree then they. That history of Victor we know only by the testimony of Eusebius and Ruffinus, whom, because they speak to the disadvantage of Victor, M. du Perron rejecteth as heretics and enemies to the Church of Rome, which is the shorter way to answer the Fathers, when they say things that displease the Church of Rome. But these accusations are false as we have shown. And though they had been heretics, it followeth not that their histories are false. We believe Tacitus and Livy, though they were Pagans.

That which M. du Perron adds, that the Censure of Victor was followed by the two Councils of Nice, and Ephesus, is most untrue. Indeed the Council of Nice hath condemned the Quarto-decimani; but without speaking of Victor, or regarding his censure, which never was approved, and had no other effect, but that Victor incurred the blame and the reprehensions of the holiest Bishops of his time, as of Irenaeus Bishop of Lions, and of Polycrates Bishop of Ephesus. The Council of Nice, which sat 125. years after Victor, took care of the peace and conformity of the Churches, without any reflection to Victor, whose memory was either forgotten or odious.

The Cardinal adds that it appears by Tertullian against Praxeas that the Bishop of Rome had received into his communion the Montanists excommunicated by the Oriental Churches: Whence he inferreth that the Bishop of Rome was Head and Superintendent of the Universal Church.

He should have past by that example with silence, for the credit of the Bishop of Rome, who cannot be praised for receiving Heretics into his communion. Having failed in one point, which was to communicate with heretics, he might also fail in another, which was to violate the Discipline of the Church, in receiving to his communion those that had been excommnicated by other Bishops. Besides, to receive those that had been excommunicated by others into his communion, may be a proof of his dissenting from others, not of his superiority over them.

He alledgeth also the same Tertullian, who in his book of Pudicity calls the Bishop of Rome in scorn Pontifex Maximus, and Bishop of Bishops. We have shown that at that time the Bishops of Rome had not yet taken the title of Pontifex Maximus: For it was one of the Emperors titles: and for another to assume it, would have been high treason. The Emperor Gratian about the year of the Lord 379. or 380. renounced that dignity, as ill beseeming a Christian Prince. We have seen also that the title of Bishop of Bishops was given to all the Bishops of the first Sees of Provinces, as well as to the Bishop of Rome: And that Cyprian at the entry of the Council of Carthage doth tax the Bishop of Rome upon the by, for taking that title upon him. But the Cardinal was more wary then to add that Tertullian in the same place taxeth Zepherinus, that under pretence of the succession of St. Peter he usurped the power of binding and loosing, which he saith to have been conferred upon Peter personally, not upon the Bishop of Rome.

Thence the Cardinal passeth to Cyprian, between whom and Tertullian there is about 50 years, in which the Cardinal can find no proof of the primacy of the Bishop of Rome. It would be a strange thing, if since the establishment of the French Monarchy there was an interval of fifty years, in which it appeared not that there was any King of France. Of Cyprian we have shown at large that he held not himself in anything inferior to the Bishop of Rome; and that he called the Bishops of Rome his brothers and colleagues. And that he never suffered the Bishops of Rome to take knowledge of businesses already judged by the Bishops of Africa. That he called a Council purposely to oppose Steven Bishop of Rome, and condemn his doctrine. That he writ letters full of high reproaches to Steven. That the Bishops of Spain chose to follow his advice, rather then that of the Bishop of Rome. That he believed that all the Apostles were equal in power and honor since Christ's resurrection. Of all that we have treated fully before, and examined the places which the Cardinal alledgeth out of Cyprian.

To no purpose the Cardinal saith, that Cyprian writing to Steven, tells him, Thou must write letters into Province, and to the people dwelling at Arles, whereby Martianus being deposed, another be substituted into his room. For Arles being nearer to the Roman See, Cyprian thought that the Bishop of Rome had some authority at Arles. And Cyprian labored about the same thing with those of Arles, as well as Steven. But what doth that to make him Bishop of the Church of all the world?

He addeth that Firmilianus upbraideth Steven Bishop of Rome, that he boasted of St. Peters succession, upon which the foundation of the Church had been laid, and yet he brought other stones, that is, other Churches. But he doth not faithfully allege the words of Firmilian, which are these; I am justly angry against that folly of Steven, so evident and so manifest; that he should boast of the place of his Episcopacy, and maintain that he hath Peters succession upon whom the foundation of the Church was laid, and yet bring in other stones. And a little after, Steven boasteth that he hath St. Peters chair by succession. He saith that Steven boasteth of it, but whether he hath a just title to it, he saith not. Besides, that succession was only in the Episcopacy of Rome, and Steven pretended to no more: Not in the Apostleship, nor in the Office of head of the Universal Church. Which if Firmilian, a man of holy life, had believed to have belonged to the Bishop of Rome, he would never have opposed Steven, nor impugned his doctrine, nor given him so many ill words, which are to be seen in his Epistle.

Yet the Cardinals words are notable. He saith that Steven deprived Firmilianus and the other Bishops of Cappadocia, Silicia, and Galatia from his communion, for the same error of Cyprian, but more obstinately defended. He durst not say that he excommunicated them, but only that he deprived them from his communion, that is, he separated himself from them: For they did not leave for him to communicate in their provinces, and to live in peace with their neighbors, though of different opinion. Note also, that if Firmilian was deprived of the communion with Steven for Cyprians error; much more should Cyprian the head of that opinion, who persevered in it unto the end, have been dealt with alike; and yet Cyprian remained in the communion of the universal Church; and Steven, though condemned by Cyprian in full Council, never durst pronounce any censure against him. Note also a manifest contradiction of the Cardinal. He saith that Firmilian and the other Bishops of the East retracted themselves, and left Cyprians opinion; and yet he saith that they defended his opinion more obstinately then Cyprian himself, who yet persevered in his opinion till death. They were then less obstinate then Cyprian.

But it will not be found that Firmilian did ever alter his opinion. Neither Austin nor Jerome say so much. They speak not of Firmilian, but of the Oriental men. For as for Firmilian, Basil, Arch-bishop of the same town, not only put him in the rank of his Catholic predecessors, but also partly followed his opinion. For in that Epistle to Amphilochius he sets down a list of heretics which ought to be rebaptized, as we have proved before. Eusebius indeed saith that Dionysius, Alexandrinus was a suitor to Steven for the Oriental men, but he saith not that he desired bim to forgive them, but he entreated Steven to be reconciled with them.

The next allegation of the Cardinal, is, that Dionysius, Patriarch of Alexandria, being suspected of heresy, the Catholics of Alexandria, instead of calling upon the Synods of their Province, came to Rome to indite him before Dionysius Bishop of Rome. This is deceiving ones self knowingly. For since the provincial Synods of Egypt could not assemble without the authority and permission of Dionysius the first Bishop of Egypt, how could the Egyptians have recourse to their provincial Synods against Dionysius? Therefore the enemies of Dionysius not being able to do him harm in Egypt, endeavored to defame him everywhere, and carried that defamation to the ears of the Bishop of Rome, to make use of his credit for persuading the other Bishops of Italy to meet in a Synod, and examine the doctrine of that Dionysius. Which also was done. But Dionysius Bishop of Rome commanded not Dionysius of Alexandria to appear before his See. He pronounced no judgment in that cause. Only he writ letters to Dionysius of Alexandria whereby he warned him that the Bishops of the Synod were offended at some terms that were found in his writings, that he might think to justify himself by writing, as also he did. But for any action of judge or superior, none is found in the Bishop of Rome's proceeding.

For want of better proofs, the Cardinal brings a Pagan Emperor Aurelianus, who, when Paulus Samosatenus Bishop of Antioch, condemned by the Synod of Antioch, and deposed, would not leave the Church nor the Episcopal house, gave order that the Church should be given to them that were of the same belief as the Bishops of Italy and Rome. That Emperor knew not what belonged to St. Peters succession, but esteeming the Bishops according to the dignity of the Cities and Country, he named the Bishops of Italy and Rome for arbitratours. If that passage may serve to raise the Bishop of Rome, the same may be said of all the Bishops of Italy. For Aurelianus put them in the same rank.

Between that Aurelianus and the time of Julius Bishop of Rome, who was created Bishop in the year of Christ 337. there is above 60. years. In all that time Cardinal du Perron could not produce one example, nor one single action of the Bishops of Rome, nor any text of some ancient Author that can serve for the establishing of the Popes primacy. Which is the more considerable, because the Empire of Constantine falls out in that interval, and with it the deliverance & exaltation of the Christian Church, and a new establishment of Churches over the whole Roman Empire. Then or never the Bishop of Rome should have appeared, & there should have been a recourse to him from all the Churches. But the Cardinal with all his diligent search could find nothing to that purpose. And skipping sixty years with one leap, he comes to Julius Bishop of Rome, who began to offer to raise himself, but without success, because of the resistance which he met with, as we will show.

The Reader then may observe that from the Lord's death unto the year 341. the Cardinal brings but one testimony of Irenaeus, which he corrupteth, and takes in a wrong sense. Then an excommunication of the Bishop of Asia by Victor, an idle action, and without success, and generally condemned. Then two places of Tertullian, where he derideth and blameth the Bishop of Rome. Then the example of Cyprian and Firmilian, who resisted Pope Steven, and despised his authority, so far that Cyprian assembled a Council against the doctrine received at Rome, and defamed the Bishop of Rome with bitter invectives. Also the example of Dionysius of Alexandria altogether useless and to no purpose. And finally a judgment given by a Pagan Emperor, which puts the Bishops of Italy in the same rank as the Bishop of Rome, and speaks not at all of Primacy, nor of succession, in St. Peters quality of Head of the Church; For in those matters that Emperor had no skill.

Every careful Reader will consider the length of the time which is above 300. years, and the weakness and small number of proofs, which yet are more against then for the Popes; and will acknowledge that in the first ages of the Church the Popes Primacy was an unknown thing. Also that the cause that made him more eminent at that time, was, the dignity of the City of Rome, and the opinion that St. Peter had founded the Roman Church; of whom the Bishop of Rome called himself successor, not in the Apostleship, nor in the Office of Head of the Universal Church, but in the Episcopacy over that City.

Here we must always remember that all that M. du Perron alledgeth of those Ages, as also of the following, for the Popes authority, is enclosed within the limits of the Roman Empire: For he durst not affirm that the Pope had at that time any superiority without the precincts of the Roman Empire.

CHAP. 12. Showing how our Adversaries being destitute of true proofs of the Popes Primacy in the time that followed next to the three first Ages, have forged false Epistles and supposititious Decrees.

IT is an an evident sign of an ill cause, when to defend it, the parties make use of false titles. The truth is not defended with lies, nor God's cause by borrowing weapons from the Devil. Every man of good sense will carefully weigh this, and judge what that Primacy may be which the Pope pretends unto, since to establish it, so many false deeds have been forged. Of this I have brought before great number of proofs, and intend now to bring more of the like kind.

In the beginning of the fourth Age, the Christian Church of the Roman Empire being delivered from persecution, and settled in a flourishing State by the Emperor Constantine, it was then or never that the authority of the Roman Primate should have appeared, to give an order and form to that first establishment, and to convocate Councils, and preside in them. But of that no trace is found in all Antiquity. But we find that in that time the Bishop of Rome sat still; and had no part in the government of public businesses.

To supply that defect, when the Popes Empire began to rise, many false writings and supposititious Decrees were forged, in which the Popes power is exalted to heaven. False Epistles of Marcellus, Eusebius, Melchiades, and Marcus, were coined, where they made those good Bishops to say things which they never thought on, and such as suit not with the time, and are repugnant to common sense.

First the style thereof is barbarous, and hath a relish of the cloister of later Ages. These are some of their elegancies, augmentande & eligimus persequi, to say we choose rather to be persecuted; and nimis contristatus, to say very sad; and praesentialiter, & odiet; and vos non potestis, speaking to one single person; and many the like flowers, for which petty Scholars of the lower forms are whipt.

It is ordinary with those Epistles to wrest the words and texts of Scripture. The first Epistle ascribed to Eusebius, calls Clerks spiritual, and Lay-men carnal. In the second he saith that Jesus Christ hath declared that he hath reserved Bishops and Priests to his judgment; when himself expelled the buyers and sellers out of the Temple, and with his own whip. The Decretal of Melchiades proveth that after Baptism it is necessary to receive Confirmation, because it is written, Psal. 127. Unless the Lord keep the City, they that keep it watch in vain, which is a very pregnant allegation.

In these Decretals the forgery is herein most evident, that they are stuffed with lies, and things unsuitable to the time, and repugnant to the truth of the history. First the date of most of these Epistles is false; For they are dated from the Consulat of Consuls that never were in the world, or never were Consuls, or such as were not Consuls together, nor at that time. For example, the second Decretal Epistle of Marcellus is dated from the Consulate of Maxentius and Maximus, but in the Fasti (or Chronological Annals) there is no Consulate of Maxentius. Which Baronius also hath observed.

The Pontifical of Damasus saith, that Marcellus Bishop of Rome was condemned by the Emperor Maxentius to serve naked in a stable, where he ended his days in great misery. Yet there is a Decretal Epistle of that Marcellus to the Emperor Maxentius, where he speaks to him masterfully; Haec vobis scienda mandamus, ut ab his vos caveatis, We command you to know these things that you may take heed of them. Who knoweth not that the Pagan Emperors that persecuted the Church, assembled no Synods of Bishops? Such assemblies were made without their knowledge as much as could be. Yet this pretended Marcellus speaks thus to the Emperor Maxentius; You cannot regularly assemble a Synod of Bishops without the authority of this holy See, nor condemn any Bishop appealing to this Apostolic See. If we believe that impostour, in those days they appealed from the judgment of Pagan Emperors to the Bishop of Rome; and Priests and Bishops were not to be sentenced or tried by the Imperial Magistrates and Judges. Of which the reason is added, That it is said of Bishops, I have said you are God's, and you are all children of the Almighty, Psal. 82. That pretended Marcellus addeth, that Laymen must not be Judges of Bishops, because the Beat or blessed Clement hath so determined it by the instruction of the Apostles. Was not this well alleged to the Emperor Maxentius? who questionless stood in great awe of Clements constitutions, who was dead above 230. years before?

With the like imposture in the XI. clause of Gratians Decree, quest. 1. a forged Decree of Marcellus speaks thus, Let no Bishop whether for a civil or a criminal cause be sued before a civil or military Judge. For every Magistrate that will be so bold, as to make such a command, shall be punished with the loss of half his goods, and shall be deprived of his military girdle or belt. Is there any man so stupid or senseless, as to believe that under the Pagan and persecuting Emperors, it was in the power of the Roman Bishop to depose the civil Magistrates, confiscate their goods, degrade them from honor, and declare a soldier unworthy to carry the sword?

In the first Epistle of Eusebius, a prohibition is made to Laymen to accuse the Clerks. And in the same Epistle, Eusebius writing to the Bishops of Gauls, saith, that he is very much grieved for their oppression. A palpable untruth. For in the time of Eusebius, Constantine governed the Gauls, which had suffered no persecution under him.

In the second Epistle it is said, that the statutes of Kings command that all the estate of Bishops that are expelled or stripped of their goods, be restored unto them, before any proceeding can be made in Synods against them. Never any such Law was made by any Pagan King or Emperor. And there was none but Pagans before the time of Eusebius. Besides, there was no King under the Roman Empire in those days.

In the third Epistle that false Eusebius speaks of the finding of the Cross, as happened in his time, and commands the Bishops of Campania and Toscana to celebrate the Feast of the same. But in the time of Eusebius Bishop of Rome, Constantine was yet a Pagan, and turned Christian before his Mother Helena, of whom Eusebius of Cesarea in the third book of Constantine's life, ch. 46. saith, that she found the Cross of the Lord. Which could not be, but many years after the death of Eusebius the Roman Bishop, who died in the year of our Lord 309. But Helena began to seek the Cross a while after the Council of Nice, which was held in the year of our Lord 325.

The decretal of Melchiades to the Bishops of Spain, forbids them to judge of a Bishop without the Popes authority, saying that it was always done so. This is false. For the causes of the Bishops of Rome did not come to Rome by appeal. This is seen by the example of Basilides and Martial Spanish Bishops, who being deposed by the Bishops of Spain, had their recourse unto Steven Bishop of Rome, who tried his credit to restore them, but the Bishops of Spain would not obey, and followed the Counsel of Cyprian who dissuaded them from it. This is to be seen in the 68. Epistle of Cyprian. The same Decretal of Melchiades declareth that Confirmation ought to be more reverenced then Baptism. Thus human tradition is set above Divine institution.

CHAP. 13. Of Constantine's donation, and the untruth of it.

OF all the writings grossly and wickedly forged, the donation of Constantine may well challenge the first place for bestial impudence and stupidity. That Donation was long held for an Oracle in the Roman Church, and is inserted in the first Tome of the Councils; and in the Roman Decree in the 96. Distinction, Augustinus Steuchus the Popes Library-keeper, and Bartholomaeus Picerna, have written in the defense of that Donation. Against which Laurentius Valla hath writ a Declamation, whereby one may see that in his time, it was an heresy to doubt of the truth of that Donation; upon which the Popes have founded the temporal power, which they pretend to have over the Empire.

The date and time of that Donation discovereth the untruth of it. For it is made by Constantine to Sylvester Bishop of Rome after Constantine's baptism. And yet there is another forged writing attributed to Melchiades, predecessor of Sylvester, dead six years before the baptism of Constantine (if we believe Baronius ) where Melchiades speaks of that Donation, a thing done seven or eight years after his death. That Epistle of Melchiades is inserted in the first Tome of the Councils, and serveth for a Preface to Constantine's Donation. And Gratian hath put a piece of it in his Decree in the Canon Futuram, where also the Council of Nice is mentioned, which sat twelve years after that Melchiades. In the same place Melchiades allegeth a Canon of the Council of Chalcedon, held in the year 451. a hundred and thirty seven years after his death.

1. In the beginning of that Donation the Emperor Constantine calls himself Hunnicus, as if he had defeated the Huns with whom he never had any war.

2. In the same place it is related, how Constantine being leprous was healed of his leprousie by baptism, which was administered unto him at Rome by Sylvester Bishop of Rome. But we will show in the following Chapter, that Constantine was not baptized at Rome, but in the subburbs of Nicomedia; Nor when he turned Christian, but on his death-bed.

3. In that goodly Donation, Constantine saith that he, and all his Satraps, and all his Senate, and all the people subject to his Empire, have thought good to defer to the successors of St. Peter, a greater Principality then to the Emperors: And that he hath chosen to himself the successors of St. Peter for Patrons towards God. How many absurdities and untruths heaped up in few words! For this word of Satrap is a Persian word, which the Roman Emperors have never used. To say the Satraps of Rome, is such another mungrel expression, as if one said the Basha's and Viziers of France, and the Sultans of England, and the Caliph of the Vatican. How could Constantine have made such a Decreee by the consent of all the people of his Empire and of the Roman Senate, seeing that most part of that people were Pagans, and that the Roman Senate did consist of none almost but Pagan Senators, and so was for long time after? Witness that designed Consul, who said to Damasus Bishop of Rome, Make me a Bishop of the City of Rome, and I shall be a Christian presently, as Jerome relateth in his Epistle to Pammachius. The same is seen in the 54. Epistle of the tenth Book of the Epistles of Symmachus Prefect of the City of