The Novelty of Popery Opposed to the Antiquity of True Christianity, Book 3

The Novelty of Popery Opposed to the Antiquity of True Christianity · Book 3

p. 239BOOK III. Which is the FIRST PART OF THE HISTORY of PAPACY: WHEREIN So much of the Hiſtory of the Antient Chriſtian Church is deduced from the beginning, unto the year 300. of Chriſt, as will prove that then the Biſhop of Rome was not acknowledged Head of the Univerſal Church.

CHAP. I. That in the firſt Age the Biſhop of Rome was not acknowledged Head of the Univerſal Church.

ALthough the Word of God decide this queſtion ſufficiently by not aſſigning unto St. Peter any ſucceſſour in the Apoſtleſhip, or in the primacy over the Univerſal Church, and ſpeak neither far nor neer of a Hierarchical Soveraign, or of the Biſhop of Rome: Yet becauſe Cardinal du Perron being deſtitute of the word of God, caſts himſelf altogether upon the Fathers, and grounds himſelf upon humane teſtimonies; it will be expedient to ſearch the firſt and the pureſt antiquity of the Church, and to ſhew how much he is miſtaken, and that in vain he heaps up teſtimonies to no purpoſe; taking the preheminence which the Biſhop of Rome pretended in the time of the firſt four Councils, over the Biſhops of the Roman Empire, for a primacy and ſoveraign power over the Church of all the world, the precedence for a power of juriſdiction, and the prerogatives founded upon the dignity of the City, or upon p. 240the Eccleſiaſtical Canons, for divine rules: Limiting himſelf purpoſely to the time of the firſt four Councils, the firſt whereof was held in the year of Chriſt three hundred twenty five, becauſe the three precedent ages are contrary to him. Wherefore the three parts of four of the teſtimonies which he alledgeth, are from the hiſtory of about fourſcore, or a hundred years.

Becauſe in points of hiſtory and antiquity it is neceſſary to begin by the things that are moſt antient, I am forced rather to follow the order of the times then that of the Cardinals Chapters, which overthrow the order of times, and have neither order nor coherence, and the moſt part whereof diſpute about things of no uſe.

To begin then at the firſt Age: Among the Fathers of the firſt Age, I put in the firſt rank the Apoſtles and the Evangeliſts. In whoſe writings there is no trace of that imaginary Monarchy, and not one action of Peter that hath any reliſh of primacy or Soveraign power in the Church; Not one word of that holy Apoſtle, where he ſpeaks like a Monarch, although we have the hiſtory of his life, and two long Epiſtles which he hath written to the Chriſtian Church.

To that Apoſtle,(a)(a)Vide Pontificale Damaſi. Linus a diſciple of St. Paul hath ſucceeded, according to the relation of many Antients; And he ſucceeded him, not in the Apoſtleſhip, but in the conduct of the Church of the City of Rome: For of him we have no action recorded that extends beyond the limits of his particular Church. Had Peter needed a ſucceſſour in the primacy over the Univerſal Church, there were ſome Apoſtles that out-lived Peter; among others that excellent Apoſtle St. John, to whom that dignity rather belonged then to a Diſciple of Paul. At leaſt the Apoſtles that out-lived Peter ſhould have been called and asked their advice. A Head could not be given to the Univerſal Church without their conſent.

After Linus, they put Clement, of whom divers Epiſtles are extant in the Tomes of the Councils. Whether they be true or falſe, it matters not for our preſent purpoſe, ſince our Adverſaries give them to us as true. Among them there are two written to S. James Biſhop of Jeruſalem, to whom he gives theſe qualities;(b)(b)Clemens Jacobo fratri Domini, Epiſcopo Epiſcoporum, regenti ſanctam Hebraeorum Eccleſiam Jeroſolymis, ſed & omnes Eccleſias quae ubi que Dei providentiae fundatae ſunt. Clement to James brother of the Lord, Biſhop of Biſhops, governing the holy Church of the Hebrews which is at Jeruſalem, as alſo all the Churches that are founded every where by the providence of God. Thereby he acknoledgeth St. James his ſuperiour, governing the Roman Church as well as the other Churches.

In the ſame Age lived Dionyſius, the Areopagite converted by St. Paul. Which Dionyſius, our Adverſaries make the Author of the books of celeſtial Hierarchy, and of Eccleſiaſtical Hierarchy. In that book of Eccleſiaſtical Hierarchy, which he frames at the imitation of the celeſtial (where one ſoveraign Monarch, which is God, hath under him divers Angelical orders) this Author deſcribes the Eccleſiaſtical charges and degrees: And from the leaſt mounting to the greateſt, he riſeth no higher then to the charge of Biſhop of each particular Church, and makes Epiſcopacy the higheſt degree. It would have been very convenient to his end, to have ſpoken of the charge of Soveraign Paſtor, head of the univerſal Church, ſo to make the Eccleſiaſtical Hierarchy conformable unto the celeſtial. But of ſuch a Head he ſpeaks not, becauſe he knew none ſuch.

In the ſame Age the cuſtom began to create the Biſhop of Rome by the ſuffrages of the people and the Clergy: Which was alſo the cuſtom of other Churches. A certain proof that the Biſhop of Rome was not the Head of the Univerſal Church. For was it reaſonable or likely that the people of the City of Rome ſhould have the power to give a Head to the Churches of Berſia or Eaſt-Indies? Who knows not that in elective Kingdoms, the King is elected by the States, and general Aſſemblies, to which Deputies are ſent from all parts of the Kingdom, becauſe all parts are alike intereſſed in that election.

In all that Age no trace is to be ſeen of the power of the Biſhop of Rome without the limits of his particular Church. No Law given by him to the Univerſal Church. No appeal from any Church, not ſo much as from the next Churches, much leſs from the remote. All the Churches that were founded immediately from p. 241the Apoſtles, as that of Jeruſalem, of Rome, of Theſſalonica, of Antioch, were honoured above all others, and were called the firſt and Apoſtolical. And thoſe that were propagated and planted by thoſe, firſt took the ſame title, and were likewiſe much honoured. Of them Tertullian ſpeaks thus;(c)(c)Sic omnes primae & omnes Apoſtolicae, dum unam omnium probant unitatem; communicatio pacis, & appellatio fraternitatis, & conteſſeratio hoſpitalitatis. They are all firſt and Apoſtolical, while the communion of peace, and the name of brethen, and the common earneſts of hoſpitality ſhew the union that is among them all.

This Age brought forth many hereſies, the Simonians, the Cerinthians, the Ebionites, the Nicolaites, &c. If the Biſhop of Rome had been Head of the Univerſal Church, it was his part to cite thoſe hereticks, and make them appear before him, and to take cognizance of their crimes and errours. But of that no trace is found. Neither do we ſee in Irenaeus, or Epiphanius, or Auſtin, or Theodoret, or Philaſtrius who have by expreſs Treatiſes deſcribed and repreſented the hereſies of the Antient, that any of thoſe Hereticks be condemned for diſobeying the Pope, and not yielding to his Judgement.

There is a book of the ſame age called the Canons of the Apoſtles, which doubtleſs are very ancient, although there be but ſmall likely-hood that they were made by the Apoſtles. There ſome Canons are found much contrary to that which is practiſed in our dayes by the Popes, and by the Roman Church.

The eighty fourth Canon is ſuch,(d)(d)foreign. Let the Biſhop, the Prieſt, or the Deacon that will meddle with war, or will have theſe two things, the Roman Empire, and the Sacerdotal government, be depoſed. For the things of Caeſar muſt be given unto Caeſar, and the things of God unto God. And in the ſixth Canon the Biſhop is forbidden to meddle with civil affairs.

The fifth Canon is this,(e)(e)foreign Let not the Biſhop, or the Prieſt, or the Deacon reject his own wife upon pretence of piety. If he put her away, let him be deprived from the Communion. If he continue, let him be depoſed.

The ſixty fourth Canon is this,(f)(f)foreign. If any Clark be found faſting upon the Lords day, or on the Sabbath day, excepting one only, let him be depoſed; if he be a Lay-man, let him be excommunicated.

Towards the end of this Age lived Ignatius Biſhop of Antioch, who in the Epiſtle to the Philippians ſaith, that whoſo faſteth upon the Lords day or Saturday, is a murderer of Chriſt.

From thoſe rules the Roman Church hath diſpenſed her ſelf; Eſpecially from the eighty fourth Canon. For many Popes have led Armies, and given battels. And the Pope hath drawn to himſelf the rights and the power of the Roman Emperour.

CHAP. II. That the Biſhop of Rome in the ſecond Age was not acknowledged Head of the Univerſal Church. Vindication of Euſebius Biſhop of Ceſarea againſt the falſe accuſations of Cardinal du Perron.

IN the year of the Lord 103. according to the computation of Baronius, Anacletus was made Biſhop of Rome, and held the Biſhoprick nine years and three moneths. That his charge was ſmall, and the limits of his Biſhoprick but ſhort, it appeareth by that the Pontifical of Damaſus ſaith of him, that in thoſe nine years he created five Prieſts, three Deacons, and ſix Biſhops. If he had governed, I ſay not the Univerſal Church, but only a Dioceſs of ten leagues about Rome, he had created many more.

In the beginning of the ſame age Ignatius was Biſhhp of Antioch, who paſſing p. 242through Smyrna writ a letter to the Romans, where he makes no mention of the Biſhop of Rome, nor of the primacy of the Roman Church.

In the year of Chriſt 142. Teleſphorus was made Biſhop of Rome, who, as Damaſus relateth, made an order that there ſhould be a faſt of ſeven weeks before Eaſter. But he ſaith that this order was only for the Roman Church; and that the other Churches held not themſelves ſubject unto it, it appeareth in that many other Churches followed another order. Irenaeus ſhews it in the Epiſtle which he writ to Victor Biſhop of Rome, which Epiſtle is related by Euſebius in the fifth book of his hiſtory, chap. 23.(a)(a)Euſeb. in Graeco codice, ib. 5. c. 22. foreign, &c. Some (ſaith he) think that they muſt faſt but one day, ſome two, ſome more. Some limit their day [of faſt] to forty hours both of day and night. And that diverſity of obſervations hath not begun in our age, but hath been long before our Anceſtors. And yet they have kept peace among themſelves. He ſpeaks of the Faſts before Eaſter.

In the year of the Lord 159. according to the relation of(b)(b)…aron. an. 159. S. 1. Baronius, Pius Biſhop of Rome made a Law that Eaſter ſhould be celebrated upon the Lords day; and Baronius ſaith that this Law had been revealed unto him by Angels. So they ſaid to ſhew that this Law was given by Pius as neceſſary and come from God. And yet the Churches of Aſia did not practice it, becauſe they held not themſelves ſubject unto the Biſhop of Rome, who alſo made that Law, not for the Univerſal Church, but only for the Church of the City of Rome. This will clearly appear out of that which happened ſince. For about the year 167. Anicetus being Biſhop of Rome, Polycarpus Biſhop of Smyrna came to Rome to confer with him: And this was their communication according to the teſtimony of Irenaeus, related by(c)(c)Euſeb. l. 5. hiſt. c. 26. in Graeco codice. Euſebius. Polycarpus and Anicetus having conferred a little about certain things wherein they differed in opinion, made their peace preſently; and for the obſervation of that Feaſt, they brake not the band of charity, &c. Yet Anicetus could not perſwade Polycarpus to leave his cuſtom. Neither could Polycarpus perſwade Anicetus that he ſhould practice the cuſtome of Aſia. Here two things are to be obſerved. 1. That Polycarpus thought not himſelf bound to follow the opinion of Anicetus the Roman Biſhop. 2. That notwithſtanding the diverſity of opinions, they lived in peace, Anicetus being not offended that the brethren of Aſia would not hearken to him.

That controverſie about Eaſter grew hot afterwards: for the Church of the Weſt, and part of that of the Eaſt did celebrate the Feaſt of Eaſter upon the Lords day. But part of the Church of the Eaſt did celebrate it upon the fourteenth day of the Moon of March, not looking for the Lords day, grounding themſelves upon St. Johns authority, and that of his Diſciples, Ignatius and Polycarpus, and of Polycrates Biſhop of Epheſus, then living, a perſon of great authority. Towards the end of that age, Victor Biſhop of Rome took that buſineſs in hand with eagerneſs; and for that ſubject ſeparated the Oriental Churches from his communion. Polycrates Biſhop of Epheſus reſiſted him, ſpeaking thus;(d)(d)Euſeb. l. 5. c. 23. Hier. Catal. in Polycrate. I then brethren, who have lived ſixty five years in the Lord, who have conferred about the faith with many brethren ſcattered over all the earth, who have peruſed all the holy Scriptures, am not troubled with that which is objected unto us to fright us; for our Anceſtors have ſaid that we muſt rather obey God then men. The Apoſtle Peter, Acts 4.19. ſpake thus to the Prieſts and Sadduces, who forbad the Apoſtles to ſpeak any more in the name of Chriſt, ſaying that it was juſt before God rather to obey God then men. Yet the Apoſtles were not at all ſubject unto thoſe Prieſts, whoſe Office was now void, and expired by the death of Chriſt. Which I ſay to ſhew that the Cardinal is out,(e)(e)Pag. 341. thinking that he that ſpeaks ſo, acknowledgeth himſelf ſubject and obliged to obey thoſe to whom he ſpeaks in that manner.

Victor incenſed with that reſiſtence, excommunicateth all the Eaſtern Churches. An action condemned by the Roman Church, which expreſly(f)(f)Cap. Romana de ſententia excommunicationis in 6. In univerſitatem vel in collegium proferri excommunicationis ſententiam prohibemus. forbiddeth to excommunicate an Univerſity or Colledge. How much more to excommunicate whole Countreys and Provinces? By that excommunication Victor did rather excommunicate himſelf by his ſeparation from their communion, p. 243as Euſebius ſaith,(g)(g)Euſeb. l. 5. hiſt. c. 25. in Graeco. foreign. That did not pleaſe all the Biſhops, wherefore alſo they made him a contrary command that he ſhould keep peace, union and charity with his neighbours. Among other examples he brings forth the Epiſtle of Ireneus to Victor, whereby he accuſeth him to have violated charity, and to have departed from the example of his anceſtors. Ruffinus relates the ſame. The word foreign is notable, that other Biſhops, made him a contrary command. For that word imports that thoſe Oriental men believed that they had as much power to command Victor as he them.

Cardinal Du Perron (h)(h)cap. 44. p. 330.anſwereth that Euſebius was an Arian, and Ruffinus an enemie of the Roman Church. So doth this Cardinal uſe the Fathers, when they ſpeak things that diſpleaſe him. And indeed it is moſt unjuſtly that he accuſeth Euſebius of Arianiſm, ſeeing that in ſo many places he ſpeaks ſo excellently of the God-head of the ſon of God; eſpecially in the fourth book of the Evangelical demonſtration, ch. 3. and in the 5. book, ch. 2. Euſebius hath ſubſcribed to the Symbole of Nice, and to the condemnation of the Arians. And he praiſeth and exalteth Hoſius the capital enemy of the Arians. See the firſt book of Theodoret, ch. 11, 12, and 13. where Euſebius is altogether purged from that ſuſpicion, and the word foreign conſubſtantial, is defended by the authority of Euſebius of Ceſarea.

Socrates in the 1 book, ch. 3. doth expreſly diſtinguiſh between(i)(i)Non Caeſarienſis ille ſed alter. Euſebius of Nicomedia, a head and a favourer of the Arian party, and this Euſebius of Ceſarea whom he purgeth from that imputation. The ſame(k)(k)17 ch. in Latino, where he calls him Euſebius Pamphili, becauſe of the great friendſhip between Euſebius and Pamphilus. Socrates in his 2 book, ch. 21. ſheweth how vigorouſly this Euſebius of Ceſarea reſiſted the Arians, and brings many very expreſs teſtimonies out of his books wherein he condemneth thoſe that call the Son of God a Creature.

Some places indeed are found, l. 7. and 11. of his evangelical preparation, where he calls Chriſt foreign, and foreign, a ſecond eſſence, and a ſecond God. But theſe books were written by Euſebius in the time of the perſecutions, long before the Council of Nice, after which it ſhall not be found that ever he ſpake ſo.

Hierome meant this in his Apology againſt Ruffinus, ſaying that(l)(l)Euſebius Arianae ſignifer quondam factionis. Euſebius had been ſometimes the ſtandard-bearer of the Arian faction, namely in the time when he writ his books for the defence of Origen. But ſince that time he changed language, as we have proved. And Nicephorus concurs with this in the 21 ch. of the 8 book. Euſebius (ſaith he) was at the firſt a Sectary of the Arian hereſie; but after that he had ſubſcribed to the Council of Nice, he writ to his friends, and proved that ſome antient and excellent Biſhops had uſed the word foreign conſubſtantial, to expreſs the God-head of the Father, and of the Son. Some delay that he took in the Council of Nice before he ſubſcribed to the Symbole made in that Council, and ſome emulation between Athanaſius and him, which appeared at the Council of Tyr, have increaſed that ſuſpicion,(m)(m)foreign. of which he purgeth himſelf by an Epiſtle related by Theodoret.

So many antient witneſſes, and Euſebius himſelf, ought rather to be credited then the ſecond Council of Nice, held above four hundred years after; A Council ſtuffed with impiety and the ſetter up of the adoration of images by a law. That Council ſets upon Euſebius the black mark of an Arian, to be revenged of him for ſaying in the ſeventh book of his Hiſtory, ch. 18. ſpeaking of the Statue of Chriſt at Paneas which is Ceſarea Philippi, erected by the woman whom the Lord had healed of a bloody fllx; and of the images of Paul and Peter which he affirmeth to have ſeen, he addeth, That it is no wonder if the Pagans to whom Chriſt had done ſome good, did ſuch a thing; and a little after he ſaith that(n)(n)Et paulo poſt. foreign. this was done by the Antients by a Pagan cuſtome to honour indifferently in that manner all thoſe whom they held for their Saviours.

But the true cauſe why the Cardinal and many of the Roman Church do ſo calumniate Euſebius, is, that being the only antient Hiſtorian who hath written the Hiſtory of the three firſt ages untill the year of Chriſt three hundred and thirty eight, he ſpeaks alwayes of the Biſhop of Rome as of another Biſhop, without p. 244giving him any ſuperiority, and without relating any actions of his, which reach beyond the limits of his Biſhoprick, excepting only the action of Victor, which he condemneth openly. Eſpecially becauſe in the eſtabliſhment of the Chriſtian Religion made under Conſtantine, Euſebius ſaith nothing of the Biſhop of Rome, as of a perſon left behind, who was not at all employed in that great buſineſs. Yet what high eſteem Hierome had of this Hiſtory of Euſebius, he ſhewed it by taking the pains to tranſlate it out of Greek into Latin.

As for Ruffinus, M. du Perron doth injuſtly tax him to have been an enemy to the Church of Rome, becauſe he had quarrels with Hierom.

Pope Gelaſius Diſt. 15. Can. Sancta (o)(o)Ruffinus vir religioſus plurimos Eccleſiaſtici operis edidit libros.ſpeaks thus of him, Ruffinus a religious man hath publiſht many books of Eccleſiaſtical work. And Gennadius a Maſſilian Prieſt puts him among the Orthodox Authors. Hincmarus Archbiſhop of Rhemes in the book of the fifty five Chapters, ch. 21.(p)(p)Decimus hiſtori…e Eccleſiaſticae liber Ruffini. qui in Catalogo Apoſtolicae S…des inter recipiendos libros deſcribitur. The tenth book of the Eccleſiastical Hiſtory of Ruffinus, who in the Catalogue of the Apoſtolick See is put among the books which muſt be received. And though Ruffinus had been a Pagan, yet the Hiſtories written by Pagans are read and believed. It is falſe alſo that Ruffinus was excommunicated by Pope Anaſtaſius, as the Cardinal ſaith. Anaſtaſius indeed ſaith in an Epiſtle of his, Ruffinus à noſtris partibus eſt alienus, Ruffinus is averſe from our party; but he ſaith not that he hath excommunicated him.

But there is no need to quarrel about Euſebius or Ruffinus, ſince we have the Epiſtle of Irenaeus condemning the raſhneſs of Victor, as a thing without example, never heard of before. Indeed the Cardinal alleadgeth a place of Irenaeus, twice in the fourty fourth Chapter, and twenty times in other places; but he falſifies it. The words of Irenaeus are(q)(q)Ad hanc Eccleſiam propter potentiorem principalitatem neceſſe eſt omnem convenire Eccleſiam.. To that Church of Rome becauſe of the more powerful principality every Church muſt reſort. For convenire ad Eccleſiam Romae is not to conſent with the Church of Rome, as the Cardinal interprets it. Irenaeus ſaith that becauſe of the Soveraign power (namely the power of the Roman Empire) which had its ſeat at Rome, all the Churches reſorted thither and had communication with the Church of Rome. For all the Subjects of the Empire had buſineſſes in the capital City, as it is ſaid in the(r)(r)foreign. nineth Canon of the Council of Antioch.

But what? although Victor be blamed by the Fathers for this ſo unjuſt excommunication, nevertheleſs M. du Perron thence inferreth that he had power to do ſo much. For he preſuppoſeth that excommunication cannot be done but by a Superiour: Wherein he is very much miſtaken; for Antiquity is full of examples to the contrary. Cyprian in the fourty one Epiſtle unto Cornelius ſaith(s)(s)Illicitae & contra Eccleſiam Catholicam factae o… dinationis pravitate commoti, à communicatione eos noſtra ſtatim cohibendas eſſe cenſuimus. that he hath excommunicated Novatianus a Roman Prieſt, who by tampering and factions had cauſed himſelf to be elected Biſhop of Rome.

John Patriark of Antioch in the firſt Councel of Epheſus excommunicated Cyrillus Patriarch of Alexandria, who was not ſubject to him. Hilary Biſhop of Poitiers pronounced anathema againſt Liberius Biſhop of Rome, as it is to be ſeen in his fragments. Menas Patriarch of Conſtantinople excommunicated Vigilius Biſhop of Rome, as Nicepherus reports it in his ſeventeenth Book; ch. 26. Acacius Patriarch of Conſtantinople blotted out of the Diptycha or Eccleſiaſtical tables, the name of Felix Biſhop of Rome, commanding that his memory ſhould be execrable.(t)(t)Baron. an. 484. ſect. 34. In the year of Chriſt five hundred and thirteen, Severus Biſhop of Antioch, an Eutychian, was excommunicated, and ſentence of depoſition was pronounced againſt him by Coſmas Biſhop of Epiphania, and by Severianus Biſhop of Arethuſa, although they were his inferiours, as(u)(u)Evagrius l. 3. c. 34. Evagrius relates it. And Victor of Tunis in his Chronicle Anno 549. relateth that the Biſhops of Africa excommunicated Vigilius Biſhop of Rome. Such excommunications were but ſimple declarations that they would have no communion with ſuch a one, and that they would ſeparate themſelves from the communion of ſuch a man and ſuch a Church. Which was well apprehended by Sigebert who ſaith in his Chronicle an. 409(x)(x)Innocentius Papa & Orientales Epiſcopi pro Johannis praejudicio ab Orientalium ſe communione ſuſpendunt. Innocent Pope, and the Biſhops of the Weſt ſuſpend themſelves from the communion with thoſe of the Eaſt becauſe of John Chryſoſtome. They ſuſpended and ſeparated themſelves from the communion with the Eaſtern men, but did not cut them off p. 245from the Communion of the Univerſal Church. The Nomocanon of the African Church hath many Canons which ſhew that evidently. Eſpecially the(y)(y)Can 77. foreign. ſeventy ſeventh, and eighty one Canons, which ſpeak of perſons which being excommunicated in the Church of another, ought to content themſelves with the communion of their own Church. I cannot make ſuch a ſiniſter judgement of Victor, as to believe that he intended to caſt away into damnation, and to exclude from the Univerſal Church all the Churches of Aſia, for a diſpute about the obſervation of a day.

I paſs by the long diſcourſe of the Cardinal whereby he goeth about to ſhew that the relation of Nicephorus and Anaſtaſius concerning the indignities offered to Vigilius Biſhop of Rome, at Conſtantinople, is not true;Pag. 343. & ſeq. for that is nothing to the purpoſe of the preſent queſtion. It is enough that Nicephorus believeth that an equal can be excommunicated by an equal. Likewiſe I paſs by his long diſcourſe in the ſame chapter, to ſhew that Victors meaning was to excommunicate the Churches of Aſia, and to deprive them from the communion of the Church: for it is ſufficient that this excommunication pronounced by Victor, found no place, and took no effect. Whence it appeareth that he was not acknowledged Head of the Univerſal Church. Wherefore Euſebius in the forealledged place, ſaith not that Victor cut off, but that(z)(z)foreign. he endeavoured to cut off the Churches that diſſented from him from the common union, for he could not bring it to effect. In our dayes if the Pope pronounceth an excommunication, it is publiſht with bells ringing, candles burning, and then put out. But at that time the Pope had no executors of his Decrees in the Eaſt. He ſpake, but no body ſtirred for his ſpeaking. And Polycrates Biſhop of Epheſus who was involved in that excommunication, did notwithſtanding his reſiſtence to the Biſhop of Rome, end his dayes in the communion of the Church, and was very much reſpected. His words full of liberty againſt the condemnation pronounced by Victor, are related out of Euſebius by Hierome in the Catalogue of Writers.

Yea in the Weſt the Chriſtians of the(a)(a)Beda in hiſtoria Angloſaxonum. Galfridus Monumetenſis l. 8. de geſtis Regum Britānorum. Polydorus Virgilius. Baronius an. 298. ſect. 6. Ile of Brittain did not care for the judgements given by Victor: for they celebrated the feaſt of Eaſter on the fourteenth day of the Moon of March.

That diverſity of cuſtoms laſted till the firſt Council of Nice, in which the Quartodecimani were condemned, and the Churches were reduced to one general obſervation. Which was done without ſpeaking of Victor, and without any regard to his authority.

So much of the ſecond age: In which no trace appeareth of the primacy of the Biſhop of Rome. No appeal to Rome from other Churches. No Laws from Rome given to the Univerſal Church. No communication of the Biſhop of Rome with the Churches without the Roman Empire. No hereticks condemned for diſſenting from the Biſhop of Rome. In thoſe dayes the Biſhops of Rome were eminent only in ſufferings, full of zeal, in a deep poverty, affecting no preheminence, and having no other dignity, but that which their good life, and the greatneſs and dignity of the City gave them. Whereupon the confeſſion of Pope Pius the ſecond is notable: who in the one hundred eighty eighth Epiſtle to Martin Mayer ſpeaks thus of the Churches of the firſt ages:(b)(b)Sibi quiſque vivebat, & ad Eccleſiam Romanam parvus habebatur reſpectus. Every one then lived for himſelf, and the Church of Rome was little regarded.

p. 246CHAP. III. That in the third Age the Biſhops of Rome were not acknowledged Heads of the Univerſal Church.

VVEE 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 medled 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 Mentz, in the ninth Age, to ſtrengthen the Papal Empire, as I will ſhew 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 Biſhoprick of Rome. Then lived Tertullian an African Prieſt, a learned and zealous man, but cholerick, 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;(a)(a)Si quia dixerat Petro Dominus, Super hanc petram aedificabo Eccleſiam meam, Tibi dedi claves regni coeleſtis, vel Quaecun que alligaveris vel ſolveris in terra, erunt alligata vel ſoluta in coelis; idcirco praeſumis & ad te derivaſſe ſolvendi & ligandi poteſtatem, id eſt ad omnem Eccleſiam Petro propinquam; qualis es, convertens atque commutans manifeſtam Domini intentionem perſonaliter hoc Petro conferentem? If becauſe the Lord ſaid unto Peter, Ʋpon this ſtone I ſhall build my Church, and I have given thee the keyes 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 Churh allyed 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 Emperours. And if any had aſſumed it, he had been guilty of treaſon. The Emperour 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(b)(b)Sidonius l. 6. Epiſt. 1: Tu Pater Patrum, & Epiſcopus Epiſcoporum, & alter ſaeculi tui Jacobus. 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, ſeing that he was of the hereſie 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 p. 247of the Biſhops of Africa and Numidia, where it was reſolved and determined that all that had been baptized by Hereticks muſt be rebaptized when they are converted, and that the Baptiſm conferred by Hereticks is null.

That doctrine was contrary to the Roman Church which received and receiveth ſtill the Baptiſm of Hereticks. 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;(c)(c)Quod & Agrippinus bonae in moriae vir cum caeteris coepiſcopis ſuis ſtatuit, & librato conſilii communis examine firmavit, quorum ſ…ntentiam & religioſam & legitimam & ſalutarē fidei, & Eccleſiae Catholicae congruentem, nos etiam ſecuti ſumus. 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 judgement we have followed as religious and lawfull, and wholeſome for the faith, and agreeing with the Catholick 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 Catholick 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 ſhew 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 extreams, Steven receiving indifferently the Baptiſm of all Hereticks, wherein the Council of Nice diſſenteth from him: and Cyprian rejecting indifferently the baptiſm of all hereticks without any exception.

Then to follow the thred 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 practiſed in our time. To that election a Prieſt called Feliciſſimus oppoſed himſelf, who with ſome ſeditious perſons withdrew himſelf into a mountain neer Carthage. A little after an African Biſhop, called Novatus, came from Carthage to Rome, when the See of Rome was vacant. This Novatus joyning 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,Baron. an. 2 4. §. 64. 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 Legats from Carthage to Rome, to endeavour 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 mans deed, if the Biſhop of Roven or Lyons 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(d)(d)Cyprian. Epiſt. 42. ad Cornelium. Cum flagitarent ut crimina quae ſe afferre ac probare dicebant, publice à nobis & à plebe cognoſcerentur, gravitati noſtrae negavimus convenire ut collegae noſtri jam delecti & ordinati, & laudabili multorum ſententia comprobati, ventilari ultra famam ore maledico & aemulantium voce pateremur. Cyprian to be judge of the difference between him and Cornelius, and to take knowledge of the crimes which he objected to Cornelius. Which ſheweth evidently that the Biſhop of Rome was not held in thoſe dayes 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 my ſelf his Judge, whom I acknowledge to be my ſuperiour, 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.

p. 248In 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 daies by the Biſhop of Rome, if a Biſhop of France or Spain writing to him, gave him no title of honour or preheminence, but called him only brother and colleague? Mr. Du. Perron in the 45 ch. of his firſt book,Pag. 256. ſaith, that Cyprian ſpake ſo to ſhew 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 inferiours ſpeaking to their ſuperior, but examples of ſuperiours, 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 honourable 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 daies. 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, Pag. 356.where having poſſeſt Steven Biſhop of Rome with many untrue ſuggeſtions, he deſired him to imploy his credit for his reſtitution: Which Steven laboured 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(e)(e)Epiſt. 68. 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 Hereticks. Steven (f)(f)Verba Stephaniſunt in Epiſt. 74. Cypriani. Si quis ergo à quacunque haereſi venerit ad nos, nihil innovetur niſi quod traditum eſt ut manus illi imponatur ad paenitentiam.ſaying that all that were converted from any hereſie whatſoever, were to be received without rebaptizing; and Cyprian ſaying that all hereticks whatſoever ought to be rebaptized. Theſe two opinions have bin condemned ſince by the(g)(g)foreign Council of Nice, Can 19. which makes a difference between hereticks, 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 her ſelf obliged to follow the deciſions of the Biſhop of Rome.

Cyprian then rebaptizing all the converted hereticks, according to the cuſtome 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. (h)(h)Miſi tibi reſcripti ejus exemplum, quo lecto magis ac magis errorem ejus denotabis qui haereticorum cauſam contra Chriſtianos & contra Eccleſiam Dei aſſerere conatur. Nam inter caetera vel ſuperba vel ad rem non pertinentia, quae imperite atque improvide ſcripſit, &c.I have ſent thee a copy of Stevens writing, which when thou haſt read, thou wilt more and more acknowledge that mans errour, who endevoureth to defend the cauſe of the hereticks againſt the Christians, and againſt the Church of God. For among other either p. 249proud 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 hereſie 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 humane tradition before divine diſpoſition? He addeth, that by Stevens doctrine Chriſtians do that which Antichriſts do: and after many the like diſcourſes he adds,(i)(i)Dat honorem Deo qui haereticorum amicus & inimicus Chriſtianorii, Sacerdot…s Deo veritat…m Chriſti & Eccleſiae tuentes abſtinendos putat &c. Doth that man give glory to God, who being a friend to Hereticks, and enemy to Chriſtians, thinks that Gods Priests that defend the truth of Chriſt, and the unity of the Church, must be excommunicated, &c. Then ſpeaking Ironically(k)(k)Tradantur Diabolo ordinatio Evangelu, &c. 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 ſhewed 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 daies 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 judgements were of no account in Africa. All the revenge he took of Cyprian, was, that he would not(l)(l)Epiſt. 75. ſect. 8. …g… tos nec ad ſermonem ſaltem colloquii communis admitteret, praeciperi… fraternitati ne quis eos in domum ſuam reciperet. ſpeak with Cyprians Legates, and forbad the Chriſtians of Rome to give them lodging, calling Cyprian a(m)(m)Sect. 22. Non pudet Stephanum propter haereticos aſſerendos fraternitatem ſcindere? In ſuper Cyprianum pſeudo-Chriſtum & pſeudo-Apoſtolum & doloſum operarium dicere? 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 hereticks, ſheweth a fear that Steven ſhould think that he would preſcribe him Laws; wherefore he ſhuts up his Epiſtle in theſe words.(n)(n)Qua in re nec nos vim cui quam facimus, aut legem damus, cum habeat in Eccleſiae adminiſtratione voluntatis ſuae arbitrium unuſquiſque praepoſitus. 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 daies 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 every one to ſpeak his mind, taxeth thus Steven obliquely, as Baronius acknowledgeth(o)(o)Concilium convocatum An. 25…. ſect. 42. Supereſt ut de hac ipſa re ſinguli quid ſentiamus proferamus. Neminem judicantes aut à jure communionis aliquē ſi diverſum ſenſerit amoventes. Neque enim quiſquam noſtrum Epiſcoporum ſe Epiſcopum conſtituit, aut tyrannico terrore ad obſequendi neceſſitatem collegas ſuos adigit. It remains that we ſpeak every one his opinion concerning this point; judging no body, 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 terrour, 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 judgement 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 honour 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 ſhew the unity of the Church: and that the office of Paſtour 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, ſhew ſufficiently, that he held not himſelf ſubject to the Biſhop of Rome.

p. 250The above named Prieſt Feliciſſimus being excommunicated by Cyprian, croſt 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.(p)(p)Poſt iſta adhuc pſeudo-Epiſcopo ſibi ab haereticis conſtituto, navigare aud…nt ad Petri cathedram at que Eccleſiam principalem, unde unitas ſacerdotalis exorta eſt, & à ſchiſmaticis & profanis literas ferre, nec cogitare eos eſſe Romanos quorum fides Apoſtolo praedicante, laudata eſt, ad quos perfidia habere non poteſt acceſſum. After theſe things (ſaith he) having ſet up to themſelves a Biſhop made by hereticks, 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 ſchiſmaticks and hereticks: Not conſidering that you are Romans, whoſe faith was commended by the Apoſtle, and to which perfidiouſneſs can have no acceſs. Meaning that traytors 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 (q)(q)Oportet illic agere cauſam ſuam ubi & accuſatores & teſtes habere ſui criminis poſſunt, niſi ſi paucis deſperatis & perditis minor videtur eſſe authoritas Epiſcoporum in Africa conſtitutorū qui jam de illis judicarunt.their cauſe where they may have accuſers and witneſſes of their crimes. Ʋnleſs 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 judgement have condemned their own conſcience, already bound with many ſnares of ſins; Already their cauſe is tryed, 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 ſheweth 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**p. 360. Falſification of Card. du Perron. M. du Perron will perſwade us: For to break the ſtrength of that place he clips it, and alleadgeth 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 controverſie of rebaptizing hereticks, 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 ſhew, 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.(r)(r)Epiſt 55. ſect. 6. 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 Chriſts 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 p. 251Biſhop of Rome, where he ſaith, that in a Catholick Church there muſt be but one Biſhop. But by the Catholick Church, he means the Orthodox Church of the City of Rome; not the Univerſal Church, as the following words ſhew it, where he ſaith that in that Catholick 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 remembred as a holy man, and greatly honoured by poſterity. Of this man(ſ)(ſ)Theod▪ de haereſibus in …aulo Samoſateno. foreign. Theoderet exalteth the praiſes, ſaying that he was a famous man, learned both in divine and humane 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 inferiour 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; (t)(t)Gratiam referre Stephano in iſto po…umus, quod perillius inhamanitatem effectum eſt ut fidei & ſapientiae veſtrae fidem cape…emus.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,(u)(u)Sed haec interim quae à Stephano geſta ſunt praetereantur, ne dum audaciae & inſolentiae ejus meminimus, de rebus ab eo improbe g…ſtis longiorem moeſti…iam nobis inferamus. Let us paſs by the things that Steven hath done, leaſt that by remembring his audaciouſneſs and inſolence we grieve too long for the things which he hath wickedly done: Then he addeth(x)(x)Eos qui Romae ſunt no… in omnibus obſervare quae ſunt ab origine tradita, & fruſtra Apoſtolorum authoritatem praetendere. that they that are at Rome, practiſe 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 practiſe not all things that are practiſed at Jeruſalem That holy man held not himſelf ſubject to the Roman Church, and wiſht that the Roman Church would conform her ſelf to that of Jeruſalem. Then condemning Steven for troubling the peace of the Church,(y)(y)Epiſt. 75. §. 15. Juſte indignor ad hanc tam apertam & manifeſtam Stephani ſtultitiam. 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 deceitfull workman, did juſtly belong to Steven.

Another famous man for holineſs and learning in thoſe times, was Dionyſius Biſhop of Alexandria in Aegypt; who in the contention of Cyprian with Steven, took Cyprians pa…t, as Hierom teſtifieth in the Catalogue of Eccleſiaſtical Writers.(z)(z)Hic in Cypriani & Africanae Synodi dogma conſentiens de rebaptizandis haereticis, ad diverſos plurimas ſcripſit Epiſtolas. This man (ſaith he) conſenting with Cyprian, and with the Synod of Africa, hath written many Epiſtles to divers perſons, about the rebaptizing of hereticks. Yea he writ about it unto Euſebius alſo, as Euſebius (a)(a)Euſeb. l. 7. c. 4, & 5, Idem l. 7. c. 26.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 Judgement 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 Aegypt, which could not aſſemble without the authority and conſent of Denis Biſhop of Alexandria, who governed the Churches of Aegypt.

Briefly, in all that third Age no trace appeareth of the Primacy or Soveraign 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 heretick 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 Apoſtolick See, but ſomewhat obſcurely; know that before p. 252the 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 combates 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 colour can be alledged 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 defence to my Lord Cardinal againſt ſome Jeſuites 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 alledged them, but in ſome places(a)(a)As in the 31. chap. of the firſt book. p. 189. where he ſaith that the firſt Epiſtle of Clement to James is Apocrypha, and ſuppoſititious. 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,(b)(b)Inter Canonicas Scripturas Decretales Epiſtolae co…numerant…r. The Decretal Epiſtles are reckoned among the Canonical Scriptures. And Pope Nicolas the firſt, Canone Si Romanorum, maintains that(c)(c)Capitulum ſancti Innocentii Papae, cujus authoritate docetur à nobis utrum que Teſtamentum eſſe recipiendum, quanquam in ipſis paternis Canonibus nullum eorum ex toto contineatur inſertum, &c. Sio Vetus & Novum Teſtamentum ſunt recipienda, non quod ex toto Canonum codici videantur annexa, ſed quod de his recipiendis ſancti Papae Innocentii prolata videatur eſſe ſententia. 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.(d)(d)L. 2. de iummo Pontifice, c. 14. Sect. Primum. Bellarmine makes uſe of them to prove the Popes Primacy. And the Jeſuite Coſterus in his Enchiridion in the chapter de ſummo Pontifice: (e)(e)Sect. Conſtat. Stapleton princip. doctrin. l. 6. c. 15.Which is more, Turrianus a Jeſuite writ a great book purpoſely to defend theſe Decretals: And his work is exalted by Stapleton, (f)(f)Baron. Annal. an. 102. Sect. 12. Gretſer. defenſ. Bellarmini Controv. lib. 3. cap. 5. col. 1290.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 honour 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.

p. 253Theſe 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 vertue of Chriſts words, Thou art Peter, and upon this ſtone, &c. give laws to the Churches of all the world; Pretend that the judgement of all the great and important cauſes muſt be reſerved to them; Void and diſannul all the judgements 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 dayes: 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 no body ought to be judge and witneſs in his own cauſe, and though theſe words which exalt the Papal power, would have been more becomming in the mouth of another then the Biſhops of Rome; yet the ſhew of a great antiquity makes theſe Epiſtles conſiderable, ſeeing that moſt of thoſe Biſhops have been Martyrs; and antient 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(g)(g)of which more hereafter. Aurelianus a Pagan Emperor, then of the oracles and judgements 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 antient 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 imployed himſelf to maintain the Papal primacy, that he hath together avoided to defend it by waies 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 cals 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 (a)(a)ubi non murium ſtercora inter fragmenta Dominicae portionis appareant.leaſt among the pieces or fragments of the Lords 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 vertue of water to purifie and p. 254regenerate the Souls: Which Binius hath obſerved in his Notes upon theſe Epiſtles Clements words contain a ſubtile 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 ſome body. See in Gratians Decree(b)(b)Cauſa 12. Can. Dilectiſſimis. 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,(c)(c)Peracta conſecratione omnes communicent qui noluerint Eccleſiaſticis carere liminibus. The conſecration being ended, all they muſt communicate that will not be cut off from the Church. And in the ſecond Epiſtle of Clement. (d)(d)Tanta in altario holocauſta offerantur, quanta populo ſufficere debeant.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 Paſſeover muſt be celebrated upon the Lords day. Yet the Roman Church holds that book of Hermes to be fabulous. Pope Gelaſius puts it among the Apochrypha, and Hierome in his Prelogus Galeatus, and Euſebius in the third book of his hiſtory, ch. 3.

To the ſame Pius a Decree(e)(e)Cauſa. 21. qu. 1. Can. Si quis. Si quis per creaturas juraverit, acerrime caſtigetur. 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 relicks of the Saints, as it is expreſly 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 Ʋrban 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(f)(f)Magis gratias referemus illi grano ſinapis. 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 ſoveraign good is for one to love thoſe that love him. Truly many wicked men love one another fervently.

In thoſe Decretals Clarks are called Spiritual above twenty times, and Lay-men carnal, although there be Lay-men that live with a ſpiritual life, and many Clarks that live with a carnal life. The Apoſtle St Paul, 1 Cor. 2. by the ſpiritual man underſtands every man regenerated by Gods 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 hereſie. So that if a Biſhop hath killed a Lay-mans Father, or lyen 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 Clarks.

The ſecond Epiſtle of Clement forbids to(g)(g)Tanta in altario holocauſta offerantur, quanta populo ſufficere debeant. Quod ſi remanſerint in craſtinum, non reſerventur, ſed cum timore & tremore clericorum diligentia conſumantur. keep any part of the conſecrated bread till the next day: But preſcribes that the remnant be diligently eaten by the Clarks with fear and trembling. In thoſe daies they reſerved no conſecrated hoſts.

p. 255CHAP. 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 prophaned 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 flowres of elegancy which are found in theſe Decretals.(a)(a)Clem. ep. 2. Altario. (b)(b)Anacl…ti… ep. 1.Odientes. (c)(c)Ejuſdem. ep. 2.Conſolari & venerari, for being comforted and reſpected.(d)(d)Ejuſdem. ep. 3. Calumniari, for being calumniated.(e)(e)Gaii Papae & Evariſti ſecundi. Titulandus ad urbem honorabilem. In a hundred places the words of taliter & qualiter are repeated. And theſe phraſes,(f)(f)Alex. ep. 1. Epiſcopi ſunt obediendi & non detrahendi, nec injuriandi, ſed portandi & ſupportandi. Et (g)(g)Teleſphori ep.confeſſio debet profiteri, that is, muſt be freely pronounced. In the ſecond Epiſtle of Sixtus the firſt, Ab hac ſancta ſede à ſanctis Apoſtolis Epiſcopi tueri & defendi juſſi ſunt. Et ſicut egerit ita recipiet, ſi bene bene, 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 confeſſione 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(h)(h)Urbani Decretalis. modernus for new: and(i)(i)Bontiani Ep. exiet for exibit; and(k)(k)Fab. Ep. 3. 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 kickt 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(l)(l)Quicunque obediunt Epiſcopis ſui…; videntur aliquid gratiae conferre Deo. 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(m)(m)Ejus concubitu frui, id eſt ordinatione. 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 ſanctifie and cleanſe the people, how much more doth the water asperſed with ſalt, ſanctifie the people? &c. And if we doubt not but that the ſick were healed by touching the hemm of our Saviours garment; how much more by the vertue of his ſacred words are the elements conſecrated, whereby humane 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 p. 256abſurd ſenſe, contrary to the right meaning. Clement in the firſt Decretal, and Anacletus, and Alexander after him, prove that Clarks 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(n)(n)Steph. Ep. 2. 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 judgements; 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 judgement 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 Gods chair. In the ſame place the excellency of Prieſts and Biſhops is proved, becauſe it is written, God ſitteth in the aſſembly of the Gods, and I have ſaid you are Gods, 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 labours to ſhew that the Son is not inferiour 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 ſome one [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(o)(o)Alexand. Decretal. Pejus malum fore non aeſtimo quam Chriſtianos ſuis invidere ſacerdotibus. Novit enim Dominus qui ſunt ejus. 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 ſheweth his handy work. And Eutychian in the ſecond Epiſtle proveth that Clarks 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.

p. 257CHAP. 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 falſhood of their Contents, for they are all over ſtuffed with lyes. Many falſe and abſurd things, which could not have been ſaid in thoſe dayes, and neither conſonant with the time, nor with the truth, are there aſcribed to the antient 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(a)(a)Baroniu… an. 66. §. 35, 36, 37, 38. & an. 80. §. 3. & ſaepe alibi. 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(b)(b)Clem. Ep. 1. Anacl. Ep. 1. & 2. 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 hereſie, 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(c)(c)Epiſt. 54. Montaniſtae habent primos de Pepuza Phrygiae Patriarchas. Hierom. Of the Patriarchs of the Jews, mention is made in the ſixteenth book of the Theodoſian Code.(*)(*)Tit. 8. lege 1. Judaeis & majoribus eorum & Patriarchis volumus intimari, &c. & lege 2. 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 favour if ſometimes the Emperours 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 martyrdome. How could they have given Laws to the Pagan Emperours, or hinder thoſe that were of the Emperours and the Senates religion, to be received to be witneſſes?

In the ſame Epiſtle Anacletus ſpeak thus.(d)(d)Idem habes Ep. 1. Hygini Epiſcopi, & Ep. 3. Fabiani. 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 Emperour. 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 Apoſtolick 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 Emperour 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 errour: For in Greece, Aſia, Aegypt, &c. yea in all the Provinces of the Roman Empire p. 258there 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 antient Author.

The ſame ſecond Decretal of Anacletus ſaith(e)(e)Sacra unctione exemplo Prophetarum & Regum capita eorum more Apoſtolorum & Moſis ungentes. that Moſes and the Apoſtles were anointed with oyl. Thats falſe. The Apoſtles never received any anointing with oyle. They annointed 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 Emperours 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 Ʋrban, 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 ſtript of all their goods. Laurentius a Roman Deacon being commanded by the(f)(f)Praefectus Ʋrbi. 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(g)(g)The ſame is found in Epiſt. 2. of Fabianus. 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 Emperours 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 Emperour had in the ſeveral Cities, to be puniſht and imployed 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 Emperour Arcadius, and came to Conſtantinople to condemn Chryſoſtome 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 Emperours perſecuting the Church with all their might, were carefull that the Chriſtian people ſhould bear reſpect to their Paſtors?

In the ſame Epiſtle the forger of theſe Decretals diſcovereth himſelf, and ſheweth in whoſe time he lived, namely of Charlemagne or his children; In which time there was two Empires, the one of the Greek Emperours, the other of the Emperours of the Weſt, ſtyling themſelves Roman Emperours. For that Epiſtle ſaith,(h)(h)Eos conſanguineos dicimus quos divinae & Imperatorum Romanorum atque Graecorum leges conſanguineos appellant. We call thoſe kin whom the divine Laws, and thoſe of the Roman Emperours, and of the Greeks, call kin.

The Decretal of Ʋrban ſaith falſly, that(i)(i)Scimus vos non ignorare quia hactenus vita communis inter bonos Chriſtianos viguit, & adhùc gratia Dei viget. to his time goods had been common among Chriſtians, and were ſtill, and that they had nothing proper. Now Ʋrban was Biſhop in the year of Chriſt 222. And that which is moſt falſe and abſurd, is, that the ſame Epiſtle(k)(k)Quod ſi quis fecerit, perpetua damnetur infamia, & carceri tradatur, aut exilio perpetuae deportationis utatur. 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 martyrdome, 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(l)(l)Baron. an. 238. Sect. 9. Binius in Notis. Poſſevinus Apparat. 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. p. 259Yet 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 Emperours 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 Emperour, and reverſeth the judgements of the Roman Pretor. Thoſe good Biſhops did little think of a temporal power over the Emperour, being buſie 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(m)(m)An. 221. §. 3, 4, & 5. Annals, and by Binius in his Notes upon theſe Epiſtles. Had that Cornelius (who ſuffered Martyrdome) 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 mans body.

Can any thing be more groſly forged then the ſecond Decretal of Sixtus the ſecond, in which he reſtores ſome Spaniſh Biſhops unjuſtly condemned and ſtript of their goods by the Princes of Spain? Spain in that Age had no Princes, but Preſidents or Lieutenants of the Roman Emperour, who was an enemy to the Chriſtian name, for which that very Sixtus ſuffered Martyrdome. Yet ſee how he ſpeaks to thoſe Princes,(n)(n)Fratres quos timore terreno injuſtè damnaſtis, ſci…ote à nobis eſſe reſtitutos. Quibus ex ſancti Petri & Apoſtolica authoritate omnia quae eis ablata ſunt integerrime reddi jubemus, ſi non vultis vos & principes veſtri à collegio noſtro & membris Eccleſiae ſeparari. 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 Colledge, and from the members of the Church. All that no leſs ridiculous, then if the Biſhop of Lyons 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 Emperours in favour of the Chriſtians: Leſs yet in the time of Eutychianus who ſuffered Martyrdome.

Thus the Decretal of Gaius diſableth a Pagan and an heretick from inditing a Chriſtian, or offering him any diſgrace; And all kinds of men from inditing Biſhops and Clarks before ſecular Judges. How could that Biſhop (that(o)(o)Pontificale Damaſi in Gaio. 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 Emperours, and exempting Chriſtians from the ſubjection of the civil Magiſtrate? ſeeing that even under the Chriſtian Emperours 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 Emperour 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 Gods, commanding him to keep, the conſtitutions of Pope Clement, who was dead two hundred years before.

p. 260CHAP. 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 imploy them for the Popes primacy, which in them is ſo highly exalted. And truly if we wanted proofs of their falſhood, 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 Brittain 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 twentyeth 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;(a)(a)Aliquos errores in has Epiſtolas irrepſiſſe non negaverim, nec indabitatos eſſe affirmare audeam. 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,(b)(b)Merces illas nimiorum Iſidori Mercatoris per Riculfum primum illatas in Gallias ex Hiſpania. Ne quis calumniari poſſit ab Eccleſia Romana aliquid hujuſmodi commentum eſſe. That Merchandize (alluding to Mercators name) was firſt brought out of Spain into Gaules by Riculfus Arch-Biſhop of Mentz, in the time of Charlemagne; that none may calumniate, ſaying that the Roman Church hath forged theſe things. And a little after §. 8. The (c)(c)At vero ex multis eas reddi ſuſpectas Epiſtolas, quae dictae ſunt ſecundo Annalium tomo, ſatis eſt demonſtratū, ſimulque oſtenſum illis non indigere Romanam Eccleſiam ut ſi falſitatis arguantur, ſuis deſtituatur juribus, &c.things that we have ſaid in the ſecond Tome of the Annals, ſhew ſufficiently that theſe Epiſtles are of a dubious faith in many things: and together we have ſhewed that the Roman Church hath no need of them, ſo that ſhe ſhould be deſtitute of her rights and priviledges, 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 teſtimonie (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 lyes?

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 lyes, and a cunning old fox.

George Caſſander a Divine of Collen (e)(e)Caſſander defenſ. libell. de officio viri pii Sect. Quod autem. De reliquis quae Clemenis, Anacleti, Evariſti, Alexandri, Teleſphori, &c. nomine circumferuntur, qui credi poſſit ut ea homo veritatis & ſinceritatis amantiſsimus tantopere probet, cum pleraque eorum & olim ab ipſis Pontificibus inter Apochrypha ſint rejecta, & poſtremis hiſce ſaeculis & noſtra aetate à viris prudentiſsimis & doctiſsimis adjectis graviſsimis & firmiſsimis rationibus in dubium ſint vocata?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, (d)(d)Ecce in quoà diſcrimen unus Iſidorus Mercator illarum Epiſtolarum collector res noſtras adduxit, ut ex ea parte periclatari videatur Eccleſia ſi quae ipſe collegit vel potius affinxit, firma certaque eſſe dixerimus.ſeeing that moſt of p. 261them have been long ſince rejected by the Popes themſelves, and put among the Apochrypha; 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 teſtimonie of Cuſanns and Eraſmus. To which we may add Marſilius of Padua, the Cardinal Torquemada, the Jeſuite 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.

(a)(a)See Sigonius de regno Italiae. Blondw. Volateranus, Baronius, Sigebertus.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 yoak of the Emperor of Constantinople their Soveraign Lord. This change happened 666. years after the Apoſtle St. John had ſeen the Revelations, which expreſly 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 entred into Rome was elected Roman Emperour by the Senat 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 Rhemes, 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(b)(b)Ado perfectis laudibus à Pontifice more Principum antiquorum adoratus eſt. See alſo Preſident Fauchet in his Antiquities, who ſaith the ſame, and Monſieur Pitau a Counſellor of the Court in his Preface before the Chronicles of Euſebius and Sigebertus. Ado teſtifieth it, who lived in the ſame age. And Aventinus in the fourth book of the Annals of Baniers: For that Emperour reſerved unto himſelf the Soveraignty of Rome and Italy. The ſame Emperour 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 Emperour had from the Pope, was, that the Pope Gregory the fourth entred into a League with the ſons of Lewis (c)(c)Sigebertus Chronico, Ann. 832. Gregor. Papa in Gall am veniens contra Imperatorem cum filiis agebat.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.

Charls the Bald ſucceeds his Father in the Kingdom of France. A ſoft Prince and of little vertue, who hoping by the Popes help to attain to the Imperial Crown, favoured 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 p. 262come 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 threatned 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 favouring Lewis, grand-child to Lewis the Meek, againſt Charles the Bald his Unkle, ſent peremptory Letters into France, whereby he declared, that(d)(d)Quod ſi quis praeſumpſerit, non ſolum per ſuae authoritatis miniſterium infirmabitur, verum etiam vinclis anathematis obligatus nomine Chriſtianitatis privatus, cum Diabolo omnino locabitur. 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 Rhemes writes to the ſaid Adrian upon that ſubject, where he ſaith, that both Eccleſiaſtical and ſecular men being aſſembled at Rhemes, would ſay in a reproachfull 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 heretick Emperours. 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 Aegypt, and all the Eaſt, laughed at that pride, and deteſted it. For at that ſame time Photius 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, imployed 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 ſoveraign 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 Rhemes had promoted to the Biſhoprick of Laon, another Hinckmar his nephew; who having excommunicated his Clergy, and hindered the divine ſervice, and the baptiſm of children in his own Biſhoprick, and committed divers crimes and exceſſes, was cited to appear before his Unkle, who was his Metropolitan. But he would not obey, nor appear. Upon that, p. 263Hinckmar of Rhemes 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 antient Popes made by Iſidorus, where by the Popes Decrees ſuch cauſes are reſerved to the Apoſtolick See.

Hinckmar of Rhemes, 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(e)(e)Hinckmar. l. 35. capitum c. 24. Forte putaſti neminem alium eaſdem ſententias vel ipſas Epiſtolas praeter te habere, &c. Res mira eſt cum de ipſis ſententiis plena ſit iſta terra, ſicut & de libro collectarum Epiſtolarum ab Iſidoro quem de Hiſpania allatum Riculſus Moguntinus Epiſcopus obtinuit; & iſtas regiones ex iſtis repleri fecit. Hinckmar of Laon was miſtaken, if he thought that he was the only man that had thoſe Epiſtles: That the Countrey was full of them: And that Riculfus Biſhop of Mentz 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 antient 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 Emperour.

Hinckmar ſaid alſo to defend himſelf againſt thoſe Epiſtles,(f)(f)Hinckmar. lib. 55. cap. c. 25. Illae Epiſtolae ſuis temporibus congruentes fuerun…: donec Patres noſtri in unum convenientes manſuras, uſ que in finem leges condiderunt, &c. Cum leguntur, Apoſtolica illa praecedat ſententia, quae dicit, omnia probate, quod bonum eſt tenete. Et haec dico non quod quaedam in eis dicam eſſe non bona, ſed non per omnia ſacris Canonibus Patrum que Conſiliis conſona, &c. Lex bona ſed in temporibus ſuis. 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 Rhemes, complaining that he deſpiſed the Decretals collected by Iſidorus, and ſaying that the(g)(g)Can. Si Romanorum Diſt. 19. 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 threatned 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 Unkle.

Yet in one point he was miſtaken, that he believed the report ſpred by Riculfus, that thoſe Epiſtles had been ſent to him out of Spain, which at that time was poſſeſt by the Saracens, Mahumetans. Riculfus had raiſed that report to perſwade 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 Zachary, 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(h)(h)Errant Hinckmarus Rhemenſis Epiſcopus, Trithemius & alii qui illam collectionem tribuunt Iſidoro Hiſpalenſi▪ 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.

(i)(i)See the Prolegomen. of M. David Blondell, ch. 2.Theſe Decretals then have been forged by Riculfus, or ſome Frenchman, or p. 264German 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 Mentz 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 lyes hath wrought very powerfully.

I will for the end mark here a notable lye of Baronius about this Hinckmar of Rhemes, who hath made us a way to find out the origine 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 Emperour Lothary, a Pallium or Archiepiſcopal Cloak, with a priviledge to uſe it every day. But Hinckmarus himſelf in the book of the fifty five Chapters ſaith the contrary, ſpeaking in this manner,(k)(k)Quanquam & quarti Leonis nomine ac Benedicti authoritas mihi privilegia non à me quaeſita contulerit; quia ſufficiunt mihi quae per ſacros Canones unicuique ſunt Metropolitano collata. Leo the fourth, and Benedictus did conferr upon me ſome priviledges, which I did not ask for; For the priviledges 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 priviledges 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 perſwade 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 priviledges, and that he held his dignity from the Canons, not from the Roman Prelate.