The Novelty of Popery Opposed to the Antiquity of True Christianity, Book 4

The Novelty of Popery Opposed to the Antiquity of True Christianity · Book 4

p. 265BOOK IV. PROVING By the HISTORY of the BISHOPS OF ROME FROM The year 300. of the Lord, till two years after the death of Conſtantine the Emperour, which is the year of the Lord 340. That in that Age the Biſhop of Rome was not acknowledged Head of the Univerſal Church.

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

LET us follow the thred of this Hiſtory. In the year of our Lord 302. Marcellinus Biſhop of Rome burnt incenſe before the Idols, as we read in the Pontifical of Damaſus; Anaſtaſius ſaith the ſame, and Pope Nicolas the firſt in his Epiſtle to the Emperour Michael. In thoſe dayes they believed not that the Pope could not err in the faith. This gave occaſion to the forging of the Council of Sinueſſa, which is ſo ridiculouſly contrived, that it is not poſſible that things ſhould have been ſo carried. There Marcellinus lying down on the ground, condemneth himſelf,Baron. an. 303. §. 88. & 101, 102. the other Biſhops ſaying that it belonged not to them to condemn him. Baronius acknowledgeth plain forgery in this Council, and ſaith that there is impoſture in it.

p. 266CHAP. 2. Of the Judges given by Conſtantine to Cecilian, and to the Donatiſts. And of the Council of Arles.

IN the year 312 the Emperor Conſtantine newly turned to the Chriſtian religion, heard the complaints of the Donatiſts againſt Cecilian Biſhop of Carthage, and Felix Biſhop of Aptunga, who had ordained him. To judge of their grievances he appointed for their judges Melchiades Biſhop of Rome, Maternus Biſhop of Collen, Reticius Biſhop of Autun, and Marinus Biſhop of Arles, with other Biſhops living near the City of Rome. The Emperor would not make the Biſhop of Rome the only judge, but joined others in Commiſſion with him. And Melchiades complained not that the Emperor diſparaged his dignity. This action of the Emperor diſpleaſeth Cardinal du Perron: For in(a)(a)p. 363. & 366. ch. 46. he ſaith plainly that Conſtantine did that againſt all Eccleſiaſtical order, taxing that act of irregularity and nullity; and that Conſtantine proteſted ſo much. Baronius likewiſe, Ann. 314. Sect. 36. ſaith that(b)(b)Ut Ethnico Principe Aureliano hac in parte longe inferior Conſtantinus declaretur. Conſtantine in that point was much inferior unto Aurelian a Pagan Prince, that is, that a Pagan behaved himſelf better then he, and knew better what honour was due to the Biſhop of Rome. It is true that Conſtantine proteſted that it belonged not to him to judge of the cauſe of the Donatiſts, which was purely Eccleſiaſtical, ſaying that it belonged not to him to judge of a Biſhops cauſe; but he did not proteſt that his giving of Eccleſiaſtical judges to judge of it was againſt all order. No doubt but that when Auſtin ſaith, Ep. 162. & 166. that Conſtantine delegated the trial of that buſineſs unto Biſhops, among thoſe Biſhops Melchiades was comprehended. Wherefore alſo he calls the other Biſhops(c)(c)Auguſt Ep. 162. Judicante Melchiade tunc Romanae urbis Epiſcopo, cum collegis ſuis. colleagues of Melchiades and his companions of Office. Euſebius likewiſe and Optatus relating that Hiſtory, put him in the ſame rank as the others.

For that Melchiades did not bear himſelf as judge of that queſtion of his own authority, but only by the Emperors command, St. Auſtin ſheweth it, Ep. 162. ſaying,(d)(d)Quid quod ipſe non uſurpavit? Rogatus quippe Jmperator judic…s m…ſit Epiſcopos. Melchiades did not uſurp that judgement: for the Emperor at the requeſt of the Donatiſts ſent Biſhops to be judges to ſit with him, and to determine what they ſhould think juſt about that cauſe. Which I ſay, becauſe the Cardinal hath the confidence to deny that Melchiades was appointed judge by the Emperor.

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

That this Council of Arles did not acknowledge the Biſhop of Rome for their ſuperior and judge of their actions, it appears, not only becauſe they were aſſembled to be judges of Melchiades, and to examine his ſentence given againſt the Donatiſts: but alſo by the Acts of the ſaid Synod related by(e)(e)An. 324. §. 58. Baronius. For that Synod writes to Sylveſter Biſhop of Rome, commanding him in theſe words.(f)(f)Domino & Sanctiſſimo fratri Sylveſtro Epiſcopo Marinus & coetus Epiſcoporum qui adunati fuerunt in Synodo Arelatenſi. Quae decrevimus communi conſilio charitati tuae ſignificavimus, ut omnes ſciant quid in futurum obſervare debeant. To our Lord, and moſt holy brother Sylveſter Roman Biſhop, Marinus and the Aſſembly of the Biſhops convocated p. 267at Arles. We have ſignified unto your charity that which we have by common conſent decreed, that all may know what they muſt hereafter obſerve. They call Sylveſter their brother, and give him no higher ſtyle then that of Biſhop. They ask him no approbation of their decrees, but ſignifie unto him what they have decreed.

(g)(g)An. 314. §. 68.Baronius brings forth another Epiſtle of the ſame Synod, which the learned Pithoeus lent him, where that Synod gives a reaſon why they ſignifie to him what they had decreed, that he ſhould make it known unto others.(h)(h)Placuit etiam à te qui majores Dioceſes tenes, per te potiſſimum omnibus inſinuari. We have given order that this ſhould be declared unto all, by thee that holdeſt the greateſt Dioceſes. They ſay not, it is becauſe he was the head of the Church, but becauſe he had a larger Dioceſs.

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

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

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

IN the year of the Lord 315. Arius began to trouble the Church of Alexandria with his doctrine. That ſpark having met with fewel, grew to a great flame, which hath wrought greart ruines in the Church for many Ages. Alexander Biſhop of Alexandria, did virtuouſly oppoſe Arius; and the faithful Biſhops of Africa, Aſia and Egypt, laboured to quench that fire. The Biſhop of Rome alone held his peace, and being far from the evil, left to others the care of that matter. Had he been head of the Univerſal Church, it was his part to impoſe ſilence unto Arius, or to cite the contending parties, ſummoning them to appear before the Papal p. 268See, or to ſend Legats to judge his name. But that was beyond his power, and his judgement had no more authority then that of another. Therefore he did not meddle with that buſineſs.

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

Socrates in book 1.(a)(a)In the Greek it is ch. 7. ch. 4. ſaith, that Conſtantine ſent Hoſius, becauſe the Emperor loved him dearly, and bore him great reſpect. Wherefore Hoſius returned not to Sylveſter, but to the Emperor who had ſent him. Alſo(b)(b)Socrat. l. 2. c. 7. Hoſius had his letters and inſtructions from Conſtantine, not from Sylveſter, in book. 2. of Euſebius, of the life of Conſtantine, ch 63. there are letters of the Emperor to the Biſhops of Aegypt, of which Hoſius was the bearer, wherein the Emperour declareth why he had ſent Hoſius unto them. And in thoſe letters no mention of the Biſhop of Rome. All that our Adverſaries bring of the Actions of Sylveſter, is taken not from the authors of that Age or the next, but from ridiculous Legends, which ſay that Sylveſter baptized Conſtantine, and healed him of the leproſie, when that Emperor would have prepared a Bath for himſelf with the blood of infants. That he gave to Sylveſter the Empire of the Weſt, and the City of Rome, and held his horſes bridle. There is alſo mention of a Dragon with whom Sylveſter fought, and a thouſand idle tales, which any man that hath common ſenſe, and ſome ſmall knowledge in antient hiſtory, will acknowledge to be falſe. Wherefore the Cardinal makes no uſe of them, and no mention.

Of the like ſtuff is the Roman Council, which is found in the firſt Tome of the Councils, where Sylveſter is Preſident, and where it is decreed that no Kings ſhall be judges of the Biſhop of Rome. But in that time there was no King in all the Roman Empire. And the date of the Conſuls is falſe: For Conſtantine never had any colleague in the Conſulat whoſe name was Priſcus. And Criſpus Conſtantines ſon was dead before the time of the Council of Nice, after which they ſet that forged Roman Council. That poor Council is a ridiculous fiction, written in a barbarous ſtyle, where(c)(c)An. 324. Sect. 123. Baronius acknowledgeth that there is not one line without a fault.

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

THE 324. year of our Lord, is the year immediately preceding the Council of Nice. Then many Churches in the Eaſt retained yet the old cuſtome to celebrate the Feaſt of Eaſter upon the 14 day of the Moon of March, after the example of the Jews: therein diſſenting from the cuſtome of the Church of Rome, and the judgement which Victor Biſhop of Rome had pronounced above ſixſcore years before; and yet were they not therefore held for ſchiſmaticks or hereticks;(a)(a)Euſeb. de vita Conſtantini, l. 3. c. 5. Sozom lib. 2. cap. 15. for the other neigbouring Churches which kept Eaſter on the Lords day, choſe rather to live in peace with them, then to defer to the judgment of the Biſhop of Rome.

p. 269CHAP. 5. Of the Convocation of the Council of Nice. Anſwer to(a)(a)Ch. 42. of the firſt book. Cardinal du Perron.

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

(b)(b)foreign.Euſebius in book 3. of Conſtantines life, ch. 6. ſaith, that he aſſembled an Ʋniverſal Council, inviting all Biſhops by honorable Letters, to come out of all parts. Socrates book 1. ch. 8. Conſtantine convocated an Oecumenical Council, inviting Biſhops from all parts by letters to meet at Nice. Epiphanius ſaith the ſame in the hereſie of the Ariomanitae, and(c)(c)foreign. Theodoret, book 1. ch. 7. And Ruffinus book. 1. ch. 1. And Sozomenus book 1. ch. 17. Of the Biſhop of Rome not a word among them all. The Biſhops themſelves being met at Nice, in their Synodical Epiſtle to the Church of Alexandria, which is in Theodoret, book 1. ch. 9.(d)(d)foreign. ſay that they were convocated by Conſtantines order, and ſay nothing of the Biſhop of Rome. And yet if he had been acknowledged head of the Univerſal Church, the Council could not have been convocated but by him. Our Adverſaries confeſs themſelves, that the Emperor did aſſemble the Councils. Pope Pius the ſecond before he was Pope, writ the Acts of the Council of Baſil, where he ſpeaks thus in the firſt book;(e)(e)At ego dum veteres lego hiſtorias, dum actus percipio Apoſtolorum, hunc equidem uſum non invenio, ut ſoli Papae Concilia congregaverint &c. When I read the antient hiſtories, I find not that cuſtome that the Popes only have aſſembled Councils. And a little after.(f)(f)Nec poſt tempora Conſtantini & aliorum Auguſtorum ad congreganda Concilia quaeſitus eſt magnopere aſſenſus Papae. Since the time of Conſtantine, and the other Emperors, the Popes conſent was not much ſought for. And Cardinal Bellarmine, (g)(g)Bell. l. 1. r. de Conc. c. 13.Becauſe (ſaith he) the Pope acknowledged the Emperor for his Soveraign Lord, he deſired him to convocate a Synod: but ſince that time things are altered. Socrates in the Preface, book 5. ſaith that(h)(h)foreign. the great Councils held before, and held ſtill, by the will of the Emperours. Wherefore alſo Hierome in the 2. Apology againſt Ruffinus, (i)(i)Doce qui eo anno Conſules fuerint? quis Imperator hanc Synodum juſſerit congregari?What Emperor (ſaith he) hath commanded that Synod to be convocated? preſuppoſing that it could not be aſſembled but by the Emperors commandment.

This hinders not but that the Emperor took advice of the Biſhops that were neer his perſon, and was moved by their ſupplications, as Ruffinus ſaith, that(k)(k)Lib. 1. c. 1. Conſtantinus ex ſacerdotum ſententia apud urbem Nicaem Epiſcopale Concilium convocat. the Emperor by the advice of his Biſhops did convocate a Council at Nice.(l)(l)Pag. 323. The Cardinal ſaith that Ruffinus would not make a particular mention of the Biſhop of Rome, out of the hatred which he bore to the Roman Church: But why doth he not ſay the ſame of Epiphanius? who in the 68. hereſie(m)(m)In haereſi Melatianorum. foreign. ſaith that the care of Alexander Biſhop of Alexandria induced Conſtantine to aſſemble that Council? why ſhould we charge Ruffinus of untruth there being not one antient Author that contradicts him? By the ſame reaſon any one might confute with one word all that the Cardinal ſaith in defence of the Pope, ſaying that he ſpeaks ſo out of the affection which he beareth to the Roman Church.

To ſo many forealledged witneſſes the Cardinal oppſeth only the Acts of the ſixth Oecumenical Council in the 18. Action; where theſe words are found, p. 270Conſtantinus Auguſtus, and the Pope Sylveſter of venerable memory did convocate the famous Council at Nice. But this is taken from the Greek Copies of the Acts of Councils, which are ſtuffed with lyes, and which are but lately come forth in print out of the Popes Vatican Library; From which nothing of that and the like matters comes out but of dubious faith. And theſe Greek Copies contradict the Latin, which are as bad. Beſides, that ſixth Council was aſſembled above three hundred fifty five years after that of Nice, and cannot be oppoſed to ſo many witneſſes of greater antiquity, eſpecially to the very Biſhops of the Council of Nice whoſe teſtimony we have produced. Wherein the Cardinals dealing is unjuſt,(n)(n)Cap. 42. pag. 316. to offer to alleadge in this queſtion new Authors, and things happened many ages after. For the queſtion between us, is, whether in the time of the four firſt Councils the Popes did convocate the Univerſal Council?

M. du Perron to eſcape out of this ſtreight(o)(o)Ibid. makes a diſtinction of two ſorts of authorities: The one temporal, which the Emperors uſed to convocate Councils; the other ſpiritual, which belonged to the Popes. So that he makes a double convocation of Councils, the one temporal, the other ſpiritual. Let us receive this new coined diſtinction. For it is much already that he deveſteth the Popes of that temporal power which they uſurp in our days. But he ought to have ſhewed by antient examples that the Biſhops of Rome made uſe of that ſpiritual power to convocate the Synod of Nice: which he could not do. For the Emperor did not ſo much as ask the advice of the Roman Biſhop. The Pope did not convocate the Council, neither in his temporal, nor in his ſpiritual capacity: For that which the Cardinal alledgeth of the following Councils, convocated (as he pretendeth) ſome by the authority of the Popes, ſome by their conſent, (about which he ſpends almoſt the whole chapter) ſhall be found falſe when the order of this matter will bring us to the time of their convocation. And as for that Canon mentioned by Socrates, (p)(p)Socrat. l. 2. c. 8. foreign.That Canons muſt not be made for Churches againſt the advice of the Biſhop of Rome, which M. du Perron hath never done alleadging and repeating,(q)(q)Aeneas Sylvius de Geſtis Conc. Baſil. l. 1. Nec illud video ſemper obſ…rvatum, ut ſine a…thoritate Papae Concilium non ſit habitum, &c. we ſhall ſee hereafter what force it may have, and how it is to be underſtood. I will ſay before hand that the(q)(q)Pag. 316. Cardinal falſifieth that Canon, tranſlating foreign, it ought not, inſtead of it could not.

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

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

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

p. 271The Council then being aſſembled, if the Biſhop of Rome had been acknowledged the head of the Univerſal Church, his Legats had been Preſidents without queſtion, and had taken the firſt place among the Biſhops: which they did not: for as for the exterior order, the Emperor Conſtantine was Preſident, as it is ſaid in the Canon Futuram. C. 12. Q. 1. Conſtantine was preſident in the holy Synod aſſembled at Nice: And that taken from a Decretal Epiſtle of Pope Melchiades. And(b)(b)Lib. 3. de vita Conſtantini cap. 1. foreign. Euſebius ſaith that he went into the higheſt of the ranks. And Theodoret (c)(c)l. 2 cap. 7.ſaith that he ſat in the midſt between the two ranks of the ſeats of the Biſhops.

But among the Biſhops, he that preſided, and conducted the action, was Hoſius Biſhop of Corduba in Spain. This appears by the ſubſcriptions, where H ſius ſubſcribeth the firſt; And after him Victor and Vincentius, the Roman Biſhops Deputies.(d)(d)Athanaſ. Apol. 2. de fuga ſua loquens de Hoſio. foreign, &c. foreign? Athanaſius who was there preſent, ſpeaks thus of Hoſius: Above all, and eſpecially was eminent that old man; for of what Synod was he not the conductor? What Church hath not the faireſt marks of his preſidence? And Socrates in book. 1. ch. 1. doth marſhal them in this order, Hoſius Biſhop of Corduba, Victor, and Vincentius Prieſts, Alexander of Egypt, Euſtathius of great Antioch, Macarius of Jeruſalem. In that choyce the Synod did not regard the dignity of the chairs, but the vertue and the merit of the perſon. Wherefore alſo Athanaſius calls Hoſius (e)(e)Athan. Ep. ad ſolitarios.Father of Biſhops, Preſident of Synods, and ſaith he made the Symbol of Nice.

M. du Perron, pag. 648. & 651. acknowledgeth that Hoſius had preſided in that Council, but he ſaith that he was Legat of the Roman Church; and that to him were joyned Victor and Vincentius as Legats à latere to repreſent the Popes perſon. But he ſaith that without warrant; for in the whole Antiquity no trace is found that Hoſius was the Popes Legat, or ſitting there for the Roman Church in the Council of Nice. For Euſebius, Sozomenus, Theodoret, and all that write of of that hiſtory, ſpeak but of two Legats ſent by the Biſhop of Rome. Had Hoſius been the Popes Legat to repreſent the Roman Church, he would have taken that quality in his ſubſcription. But thus he ſubſcribes;(f)(f)In Tomis Conc. in fine Concilii. Nicen. Hoſius Epiſopus civitatis Cordubenſis provinciae Hiſpaniae dixit; Ita credo ſicut ſuperius ſcriptum eſt. Victor & Vincentius Preſbyteri urbis Romae pro venerabili viro Papa & Epiſcopo noſtro ſancto Sylveſtro ſubſcripſimus. I Hoſius Biſhop of Corduba, in the Province of Spain, believe as it is written. And after him Victor and Vincentius in a line by it ſelf, ſubſcribe thus, Victor and Vincentius Prieſts of the City of Rome have ſubſcribed for and inſtead of St. Sylveſter our venerable Pope. Certainly if they had been all three Legates ſent by the Biſhop of Rome, they would have ſubſcribed together; or at leaſt Hoſius had not omitted the quality, in vertue whereof he was Preſident of that Council.

Euſebius who was preſent in that Council, ſpeaks thus of it, in book 3. of the life of Cinſtantine, ch. 7.(g)(g)foreign. Out of Spain there was one of very great eſteem ſitting with the whole company: But the Biſhop of the Capital City of the Empire did not come by reaſon of his old age, but Prieſts which were preſent filled his place. Where he doth expreſly diſtinguiſh Hoſius from the Legats of the Biſhop of Rome. (h)(h)Theod. l: 1. c. 7. foreign.Theodoret ſaith the ſame, But he of Rome, by reaſon of his old age ſent two Priests, &c. Sozomenus the ſame;(i)(i)Sozomen. book 1. c. 17. For the Biſhop of Rome, Victor and Vincentius Prieſts were preſent. Wherefore Hoſius ſubſcribes for himſelf, not as a Deputy for another. Photius in the book of Councils ſaith the ſame, and Nicephorus in book 8. ch. 14.

To ſo many witneſſes M. du Perron oppoſeth the teſtimony of Gelaſius Cyſicenus, who about 170 years after the Council of Nice writ the Acts of it. That Author ſaith that Hoſius in the Council of Nice held the place of the Biſhop of great Rome. But this Cardinal ſhould have been aſhamed to produce a place ſo notoriouſly falſified: For his Galaſius in that place doth copy and tranſcribe the whole ſeventh chapter of Euſebius of the third book of Conſtantines life; Which he ought to have faithfully tranſcribed, without adding thoſe words by ſuch a groſs and evident falſification. Certainly Euſebius is more to be believed then he that hath ill tranſcribed him. But perhaps the fault is not in Gelaſius but in him that hath corrupted his book. Beſides that only Author who is later p. 272and of ſmall authority ought not to be put in the ballance againſt ſo many others, that are more antient, and of more credit.

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

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

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

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

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

This Canon being contrary to the pretended primacy of the Biſhop of Rome, yet the Legates of the Biſhop of Rome alledged it in the Council of Chalcedon, to eſtabliſh the primacy of the Roman Pope, but adding by a notorious falſification theſe words, That the Roman Church ever had the primacy. (b)(b)Acta Concil. Chalced. Action. 16.But the whole Council with one voice exclamed againſt that, ſaying that theſe words were not found in the originals and true Copies, which were produced. But of that more hereafter. The ſenſe of that Canon is clear. It was a received cuſtome in the antient Church, that the dignity of Biſhops was according to the dignity of the place of their reſidence. As it is ſaid in the 17. Canon of the Council of Chalcedon, (c)(c)foreign.Let the rank of the Eccleſiaſtical Pariſhes follow the form of the civil or publike. (d)(d)foreign.The Council of Trul ſaith the ſame in the 38. Canon. Wherefore the Biſhops juriſdiction extended as far as the Civil juriſdiction of the Magiſtrate of the place. By that order and cuſtome Meletius Biſhop of Lycopolis was ſubject to the Biſhop of Alexandria, becauſe the Prefect of Alexandria extended his civil juriſdiction ſo far. So the Council of Nice will have that order to be followed, and brings the Biſhop of Rome for an example, who extended his Eccleſiaſtical juriſdiction to all the towns and places ſubject to the Prefect of the town, which juriſdiction was of a hundred miles about p. 273Rome. Within which ſpace the old and the new Latium was contained, Valeria, Marcae d' Ancona ſuburbicaria, and Toſcana ſuburbicaria. The other Provinces of Italy, without that compaſs, were called Annonariae. That was then the antient limit of the Biſhoprick of Rome, which the Pope from age to age hath enlarged, and vaſtly increaſed.

Herein(e)(e)Book 1. ch. 30. pag. 175. & 176. Cardinal du Perron deals falſly and fouly. He ſaith that Auguſtus and the following Emperors gave to the Praefectus Ʋrbicus of Rome the power of judging of all the appeals from all the Provinces of the Roman Empire: and alledgeth for teſtimony ch. 4. of the comment upon Notitia Imperii; where the clean contrary is found, even that the power of the Prefect of Rome is limited to a hundred miles about Rome. Auguſtus (ſaith he)(f)(f)Cui omnem Imperii poteſtatem Auguſtus conceſſerat, non tantum in urbe, ſed & extra, intra centeſimum ab urbe lapidem, &c. had given to the Prefect of the town all the power of the Empire, not only in the town, but alſo without, unto a hundred thouſand paces. And in the ſame place Dio is alledged, who limits that power unto 550. ſtades or furlongs. But the Cardinal takes hold only of theſe words; Auguſtus had given to the Prefect of the Town all the power of the Empire, and leaves out the reſt.(g)(g)Caſſiod. l. 6. diverſorum. Epiſt. 4. Ditioni tuae non ſolum Roma commiſſa eſt, quamvis in ea contineantur univerſa, verum etiam intra centeſimū mill…ariū poteſtatem procedere antiqua jura voluerunt. Caſſidorus relates that the King of Italy ſpeaks thus to the Prefect of Rome; To thy juriſdiction not only the City of Rome is committed, although all things be comprehended in it; but alſo the antient laws would have thy power to extend unto a hunded miles. And in the Theodoſian Code in the ſecond law de integri reſtitutione, (h)(h)Codex, Theodoſ. lege. 2. Placuit uſ que ad anni triceſimi extremū diem ſpatia proregari, & intra ceuteſimū urbis Romae milliariū, ſi tamen ab iis judicibus qui ſunt Romae fuerit judicandum.It is our pleaſure that the Term be prolonged unto the laſt day of the thirtieth year; and that within a hundred miles about Rome, if the buſineſs is to be judged by the Judges that are at Rome.

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

Of the ſuburbicary regions frequent mention is made in the forealledged book(i)(i)Notitia Imperii Occidentis, c. 4. Notitia Imperii: where they are called ſuburbanae provinciae, becauſe ſuburbia Romae pertingebant, they touched the ſuburbs of Rome. In the Theodoſian Code in the 12. Law, de indulgentiis debitorum, theſe words are found; Picenum and Thuſciam ſuburbicarias regiones. Macca d' Ancona and Toſcana which are ſuburbicary regions. For the ſame reaſon the Churches comprehended within the hundred miles about Rome, were called ſuburbicary.

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

(k)(k)Ruffin hiſt. l. 1. Et ut apud Alexandriam & in urbe Roma vetuſta cōſuetudo ſervetur ut vel ille Aegypti, vel hic ſuburbicarū Eccleſiarū ſollicitudinē gerat.Ruffinus relating that Canon of Nice, makes a Paraphraſis of it which expreſſeth the true ſenſe; Let the ancient cuſtome be kept both in Alexandria, and at Rome; ſo that the one take care of the Churches of Egypt, add the other of the ſuburbicary Churches.

To this expoſition of Ruffinus the Council of Conſtantinople agreeth; which Council the Church of Rome receiveth, and reckoneth it the eighth Univerſal Council. The 17. Canon is ſuch,(l)(l)Sancta & univerſalis Niceae prior Synodus antiquam conſuetudinem jubet ſervari per Aegyptū & provincias quae ſub ipſa ſunt; Ita ut horū omnium Alexand. habeat poteſtatem, dicens quia & in Romanorum civitate hujuſmodi mos praevaluit. The holy and Ʋniverſal firſt Council of Nice commandeth that the antient cuſtome be kept in Egypt, and the Provinces ſubject unto it; ſo that the Biſhop of Alexandria have power over them all, ſaying that the like cuſtome prevailed in the City of Rome. That like cuſtome is to have power over the neighbouring countrey: For the cuſtome ſhould have been very unlike, if the Biſhop of Rome had had power over all the Churches of the world, and by conſequent over that of Alexandria, which had no authority but over the neighbouring Churches.

That expoſition, though moſt certain and true, diſpleaſeth M. du Perron, becauſe it ſets very narrow limits unto the Biſhop of Rome. The word ſuburbicary, eſpecially diſpleaſeth him in that Canon. Wherefore he beſtoweth many ill words p. 274upon Ruffinus, unto which, though moſt of them injuſt, we need not give any anſwer, becauſe the Jeſuite Sirmondus, who hath written of the Suburbicary Churches and regions, juſtifieth Ruffinus as for that word of Suburbicary, ſaying that this Canon is found in the Vatican Library, in an old exemplary with the word of Suburbicary, which ſo troubleth our Adverſaries.

Others, as Baronius, extend the Suburbicary Churches further, even out of Italy. Cardinal du Perron alone by the Suburbicary Churches, underſtands the Churches of the whole Roman Empire, which is confuted by the words of the Canon of Ruffinus, where the Churches of Aegypt are expreſly diſtinguiſhed from the Suburbicary Churches. It is a prodigious abſurdity to call the Churches of Aſia, Syria, and Aegypt, the Suburbicary Churches of Rome, that is, the Churches that are accounted as the Suburbs of Rome. Never any man ſpake ſo. By that interpretation the Canon becometh ridiculous; for(m)(m)book 1. ch. 30 p. 177. M. du Perron will have the ſenſe to be this, Let the Biſhop of Alexandria have power over the Churches of Aegypt, Lybia and Pentapolis, ſince the Biſhop of Rome by the like cuſtome governs all the Churches of the whole world. It is indeed an intolerable bold part to ſew ſuch a ſtrang piece of his own making unto ſuch a famous Canon; for after theſe words ſince it is alſo the cuſtome of the Biſhop of Rome, he adds theſe, over all the world, or in all the Ʋniverſal Church: But in that Canon the Biſhop of Rome is not ſet forth, as he upon whom the power of the Biſhop of Alexandria is founded, but as one that had an old cuſtome unto which the Biſhop of Alexandria might juſtly conform himſelf.

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

In the ſame page he falſly alledgeth Irenaeus, making him ſay;(o)(o)Iren. lib. 3. c. 3. Ad hanc Ecſiam propter potentiorem principalitatem neceſſe eſt omnem convenire Eccleſiam. With the Roman Church by reaſon of the more powerful principality it is neceſſary that every Church agree. He ſhould have tranſlated, To that Church becauſe of the more powerful principality, (which is the power of the Empire whoſe ſeat was at Rome) it is neceſſary that all Churches reſort. For convenire ad Eccleſiam is not to agree with the Church, but to reſort to it.

Of the place of Auſtin, who ſaith, that in the Roman Church the principality of the Apoſtolical See did always floriſh, we ſhall ſpeak when we come to St. Auſtins time. He that ſaith that in the race of Hugh Capet the principality or Royal ſoveraignty hath alwaies floriſhed, ſaith not thereby that there are no other Kings and no other ſoveraignty in the world. We ſhall ſee hereafter that the ſame principality or preheminence of the Apoſtolick See was alſo attributed to he Biſhops of Alexandria, Antioch and Jeruſalem.

p. 275CHAP. 8. Of the Convocation of the Council of Tyre.

IN the year of Chriſt 335. the Emperour Conſtantine commanded the aſſembling of a Council at Tyre, Euſeb. de vita Conſtantini, l. 4 c. 42.without asking the advice of the Biſhop of Rome. The Letters whereby he commandeth the Biſhops to reſort from all parts to Tyre, ſpeak thus. If any (which I think ſhall not happen) rejecting or deſpiſing our command, refuſe to come, we ſhall ſend ſome, who ſending him into exile, will teach him how ill it becomes [him] to reſiſt the commands of the Soveraign Emperour made for the defence of the truth.

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

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

AT the ſame time dyed Sylveſter Biſhop of Rome, of whom the Antients make almoſt no mention, as if he had been an unknown man: He was 22. years a Biſhop according to the computation of Baronius. And having lived in the moſt happy and the moſt flouriſhing Age of the Chriſtian Church, in which ſo many things happened to the exaltation of the Chriſtian faith, and ſo many conſtitutions were made, yet was no Actor in any important action; but only that in obedience to the Emperour he ſent two Prieſts to be his Deputies in his place, to the Council of Nice. And yet ſome doubt whether it was he or his ſucceſſour Julius that ſent them: For Sozomenus, and Caſſiodorus, and Beda and many more affirm that it was Julius that ſent thoſe Prieſts. Upon which(a)(a)Cap. 35. pag. 279. M. du Perron ſuſpecteth that in Sozomenus inſtead of foreign it ſhould be foreign, and ſaith that foreign ſignifieth venerable. Wherein he ſheweth his ignorance in the Greek tongue; For foreign ſignifieth hoary or gray-headed, not venerable. I think indeed that Sozomenus was miſtaken; Only I obſerve by this variation in the hiſtory, that Sylveſter was but little famous, and of ſmal account, ſince his actions are ſo little conſidered.

CHAP. 10. Baptiſm and death of Conſtantine.

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

M. du Perron himſelf doth acknowledge it,(b)(b)Ch. 35. of book. 1. p. 284. Which I obſerve, to confute the fable of the Baptiſm of Conſtantine by Sylveſter, when Conſtantine turned Chriſtian. A fable taken from the Acts or Legends of Sylvester which Baronius gives gives us for currant coin, herein oppoſing all Antiquity, But(c)(c)Lib. 1. cap. 35. p. 289. our Cardinal overcome by the truth, taxeth Baronius upon that without naming him.

Hitherto we have ſeen no trace of the Papal Monarchy. No appeal from the Churches without the Roman Biſhoprick. No laws given to the Univerſal Church. No perſons of the Eaſt, or of Africa appearing before the Papal See to be judged. No communication with the Churches without the Roman Empire. p. 277No communication of Councils. No precedency in Councils. Yet we are come already to the year of Chriſt. 338. Only ſome teſtimonies are found of the Antients that ſpeak of the Biſhops of Rome, as of ſucceſſours of St. Peter. Not in the Apoſtleſhip, or in the primacy over the univerſal Church, but in the Epiſcopacy of the City of Rome. So all the Antients ſpeak. Euſebius in ch. 2. of the third book of his Hiſtory, Linus hath held the Biſhoprick of the Romans the firſt after the martyrdom of Paul and Peter. St. Hierome in the book of Eccleſiaſtical writers, Clement is the fourth Biſhop of Rome after Peter. Tertullian in ch. 32. of the book of Preſcriptions, The Church of the Smyrneans relateth that Polycarpus hath been eſtabliſht by John. That of the Romans giveth Clement eſtabliſht by Peter. And we have heard before the ſame Tertullian in ch. 2. of the book of Pudicity, taxing Zepherinus Biſhop of Rome for attributing to himſelf the authority of binding and looſing, which the Lord gave unto Peter perſonally. Leo the firſt had his ſhare of ambition. Yet the ordinary title which he takes in the beginning of his Epiſtles, is, Leo Epiſcopus urbis Romae, Leo Biſhop of the City of Rome: And already it was the 450. year of the Lord. Why doth he not call himſelf Apoſtle or Head of the Church of all the world? Would the King of France in his Edicts ſtile himſelf only Lord of Paris, or Count of Toloſe, leaving out the title of King?

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

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

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

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

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

Here the Cardinal needeth not to trouble the order of times to bring an authority of Auſtin, and another of Proſper, that have written above 200. years after Irenaeus; who ſay, that in the Roman Church the principality of the Apoſtolick See p. 278hath always flouriſhed. For we willingly acknowledge that the Roman Church was the moſt eminent in honour, and the principal Church of the Roman Empire, by reaſon of the dignity of the town, although it had no Empire or juriſdiction over the other Churches, which, as well as the Roman, were called principal and Apoſtolical, as the Churches of Antioch and Alexandria. But of that, and of this place of St. Auſtin more hereafter.

His ſecond authority is of Victor Biſhop of Rome, who excommunicated the Churches of Aſia, becauſe they obſerved the Feaſt of Eaſter upon the 14. day of the Moon of March. We have ſhewed that the ſentence of Victor, whether he did excommunicate them, or only ſeparate himſelf from their Communion, was altogether without effect; And that the Oriental Churches which were of the ſame opinion as Victor, did not for that ſeparate themſelves from the communion of the Churches condemned by Victor: Wherefore(a)(a)Euſeb. lib. 5. cap. 26. foreign. Euſebius ſaith only that he endeavoured to cut them off from the common union, but that the action of Victor was not approved, and that many Biſhops were offended at it, and ſent remonſtrances to him about it. Irenaeus eſpecially, whoſe Epiſtle full of juſt reprehenſions is related by Euſebius. (b)(b)Above in ch. 2. of this book. 4.We have ſhewed that in old time not only the equals did excommunicate their equals, but alſo that inferior Biſhops and leſs in dignity have often excommunicated their ſuperiors, and ſuch as were of a higher degree then they. That hiſtory of Victor we know only by the teſtimony of Euſebius and Ruffinus, whom, becauſe they ſpeak to the diſadvantage of Victor, M. du Perron rejecteth as hereticks and enemies to the Church of Rome, which is the ſhorter way to anſwer the Fathers, when they ſay things that diſpleaſe the Church of Rome. But theſe accuſations are falſe as we have ſhewed.(c)(c)ch. 2. of this book 4. And though they had been hereticks, it followeth not that their hiſtories are falſe. We believe Tacitus and Livy, though they were Pagans.

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

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

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

He alledgeth alſo the ſame Tertullian, Above, 3. ch. of book 4.who in his book of Pudicity calls the Biſhop of Rome in ſcorn Pontifex Maximus, and Biſhop of Biſhops. We have ſhewed that at that time the Biſhops of Rome had not yet taken the title of Pontifex Maximus: For it was one of the Emperours titles: and for another to aſſume it, would have been high treaſon. The Emperour Gratian about the year of the Lord 379. or 380. renounced that dignity, as ill beſeeming a Chriſtian Prince. We have ſeen alſo that the title of Biſhop of Biſhops was given to all the Biſhops of the firſt Sees of Provinces, as well as to the Biſhop of Rome: And that Cyprian at the entry of the Council of Carthage doth tax the Biſhop of Rome upon the by, for taking that title upon him. But the Cardinal was more wary then to add that(d)(d)Qualis es, evertens atque commutans manifeſtam Domini intentionem perſonaliter hoc Petro conferentem? lib. de pudicitia cap. 2. Tertullian in the ſame place taxeth Zepherinus, that p. 278under pretence of the ſucceſſion of St. Peter he uſurped the power of binding and looſing, which he ſaith to have been conferred upon Peter perſonally, not upon the Biſhop of Rome.

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

To no purpoſe the(e)(e)Pag. 79. Cardinal ſaith, that(f)(f)Epiſt. 67. Cyprian writing to Steven, tells him, Thou muſt write letters into Province, and to the people dwelling at Arles, whereby Martianus being depoſed, another be ſubstituted into his room. For Arles being nearer to the Roman See, Cyprian thought that the Biſhop of Rome had ſome authority at Arles. And Cyprian laboured about the ſame thing with thoſe of Arles, as well as Steven. But what doth that to make him Biſhop of the Church of all the world?

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

Yet the(g)(g)Pag. 99. & 100. Cardinals words are notable. He ſaith that Steven deprived Firmilianus and the other Biſhops of Cappadocia, Cilicia, and Galatia from his communion, for the ſame errour of Cyprian, but more obſtinately defended. He durſt not ſay that he excommunicated them, but only that he deprived them from his communion, that is, he ſeparated himſelf from them: For they did not leave for him to communicate in their provinces, and to live in peace with their neighbours, though of different opinion. Note alſo, that if Firmilian was deprived of the communion with Steven for Cyprians errour; much more ſhould Cyprian the head of that opinion, who perſevered in it unto the end, have been dealt with alike; and yet Cyprian remained in the communion of the univerſal Church; and Steven, though condemned by Cyprian in full Council, never durſt pronounce any cenſure againſt him. Note alſo a manifeſt contradiction of the Cardinal. He ſaith that Firmilian and the other Biſhops of the Eaſt retracted themſelves, and left Cyprians opinion; and yet he ſaith that they defended his opinion more obſtinately then Cyprian himſelf, who yet perſevered in his opinion till death. They were then leſs obſtinate then Cyprian.

But it will not be found that Firmilian did ever alter his opinion. Neither(h)(h)Contra Creſcentium, l. 3. c. 3. Austin nor Hierome ſay ſo much. They ſpeak not of Firmilian, but of the p. 279Oriental men. For as for Firmilian, (i)(i)Lib. de Sp. S. cap. 29. foreign.Baſil, Arch-biſhop of the ſame town, not only put him in the rank of his Catholick predeceſſours, but alſo partly followed his opinion. For in that Epiſtle to Amphilochius he ſets down a liſt of hereticks which ought to be rebaptized, as we have proved(k)(k)In ch. 1. book 4. before. Euſebius (l)(l)Euſeb: l. 7. c. 5.indeed ſaith that Dionyſius, Alexandrinus was a ſuitor to Steven for the Oriental men, but he ſaith not that he deſired bim to forgive them, but he intreated Steven to be reconciled with them.

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

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

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

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

p. 280Every careful Reader will conſider the length of the time which is above 300. years, and the weakneſs and ſmall number of proofs, which yet are more againſt then for the Popes; and will acknowledge that in the firſt ages of the Church the Popes Primacy was an unknown thing. Alſo that the cauſe that made him more eminent at that time, was, the dignity of the City of Rome, and the opinion that St. Peter had founded the Roman Church; of whom the Biſhop of Rome called himſelf ſucceſſour, not in the Apoſtleſhip, nor in the Office of Head of the Univerſal Church, but in the Epiſcopacy over that City.

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

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

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

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

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

Firſt the ſtyle thereof is barbarous, and hath a relliſh of the cloyſter of later Ages. Theſe are ſome of their elegancies,(a)(a)Marcell, Ep. 1. augmentande & eligimus perſequi, to ſay we chooſe rather to be perſecuted; and(b)(b)Euſeb. Ep. 1. nimis contriſtatus, to ſay very ſad; and(c)(c)Euſeb. Ep. 2. praeſentialiter, & odiet; and(d)(d)Marcel. Ep. 2. vos non poteſtis, ſpeaking to one ſingle perſon; and many the like flowers, for which petty Scholars of the lower forms are whipt.

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

In theſe Decretals the forgery is herein moſt evident, that they are ſtuffed with lyes, and things unſutable to the time, and repugnant to the truth of the hiſtory. Firſt the date of moſt of theſe Epiſtles is falſe; For they are dated from the Conſulat of Conſuls that never were in the world, or never were Conſuls, or ſuch p. 281as were not Conſuls together, nor at that time. For example, the ſecond Decretal Epiſtle of Marcellus is dated from the Conſulate of Maxentius and Maximus, but in the Faſti (or Chronological Annals) there is no Conſulate of Maxentius. Which(e)(e)Baron. Annot. An. 308. §. 24. Baronius alſo hath obſerved.

The Pontifical of Damaſus ſaith, that Marcellus Biſhop of Rome was condemned by the Emperour Maxentius to ſerve naked in a ſtable, where he ended his dayes in great miſery. Yet there is a Decretal Epiſtle of that Marcellus to the Emperour Maxentius, where he ſpeaks to him maſterfully; Haec vobis ſcienda mandamus, ut ab his vos caveatis, We command you to know theſe things that you may take heed of them. Who knoweth not that the Pagan Emperours that perſecuted the Church, aſſembled no Synods of Biſhops? Such aſſemblies were made without their knowledge as much as could be. Yet this pretended Marcellus ſpeaks thus to the Emperour Maxentius; (f)(f)Synodum ergo abſque hujus ſanctae ſedis authoritate Epiſcoporum non poteſtis regulariter facere, neque ullum Epiſcopum qui hanc appellaverit ſedem Apoſtolicam damnare.You cannot regularly aſſemble a Synod of Biſhops without the authority of this holy See, nor condemn any Biſhop appealing to this Apoſtolick See. If we believe that impoſtour, in thoſe dayes they appealed from the judgement of Pagan Emperours to the Biſhop of Rome; and Prieſts and Biſhops were not to be ſentenced or tryed by the Imperial Magiſtrates and Judges. Of which the reaſon is added, That it is ſaid of Biſhops, I have ſaid you are Gods, and you are all children of the Almighty, Pſal. 82. That pretended Marcellus addeth, that Laymen muſt not be Judges of Biſhops, becauſe the Beat or bleſſed Clement hath ſo determined it by the inſtruction of the Apoſtles. Was not this well alledged to the Emperour Maxentius? who queſtionleſs ſtood in great awe of Clements conſtitutions, who was dead above 230. years before?

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

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

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

(g)(g)Crucis Domini noſtri Jeſu Chriſti, quae nuper nobis gubernacula ſanctae Romanae Eccleſiae tenentibus, 5. Nonas Maii inventa eſt.In the third Epiſtle that falſe Euſebius ſpeaks of the finding of the Croſs, as happened in his time, and commands the Biſhops of Campania and Toſcana to celebrate the Feaſt of the ſame. But in the time of Euſebius Biſhop of Rome, Conſtantine was yet a Pagan, and turned Chriſtian before his Mother Helena, of whom Euſebius of Ceſarea in the third book of Conſtantines life, ch. 46. ſaith, that ſhe found the Croſs of the Lord.(h)(h)Vide Baron. An. 311. §. 41. & An. 326. §. 42. Which could not be, but many years after the death of Euſebius the Roman Biſhop, who dyed in the year of our Lord 309. But Helena began to ſeek the Croſs a while after the Councel of Nice, which was held in the year of our Lord 325.

The decretal of Melchiades to the Biſhops of Spain, forbids them to judge of a Biſhop without the Popes authority, ſaying that it was alwayes done ſo. This is falſe. For the cauſes of the Biſhops of Rome did not come to Rome by appeal. This is ſeen by the example of Baſilides and Martial Spaniſh Biſhops, who being depoſed by the Biſhops of Spain, had their recourſe unto Steven Biſhop of Rome, who tryed his credit to reſtore them, but the Biſhops of Spain would not obey, p. 282and followed the Counſel of Cyprian who diſſwaded them from it. This is to be ſeen in the 68. Epiſtle of Cyprian. The ſame Decretal of Melchiades declareth that Confirmation ought to be more reverenced then Baptiſm. Thus humane tradition is ſet above Divine inſtitution.

CHAP. 13. Of Conſtantines donation, and the untruth of it.

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

The date and time of that Donation diſcovereth the untruth of it. For it is made by Conſtantine to Sylveſter Biſhop of Rome after Conſtantines baptiſm. And yet there is another forged writing attributed to Melchiades, predeceſſour of Sylveſter, dead ſix years before the baptiſm of Conſtantine (if we believe Baronius) where Melchiades ſpeaks of that Donation, a thing done ſeven or eight years after his death. That Epiſtle of Melchiades is inſerted in the firſt Tome of the Councels, and ſerveth for a Preface to Conſtantines Donation. And Gratian hath put a piece of it in his Decree in the Canon Futuram, (a)(a)Cauſa 12. qu. 1.where alſo the Council of Nice is mentioned, which ſate twelve years after that Melchiades. In the ſame place Melchiades alleadgeth a Canon of the Council of Chalcedon, held in the year 451. a hundred and thirty ſeven years after his death.

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

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

3. In that goodly Donation, Conſtantine (b)(b)Ʋtile judicavimus una cum omnibus noſtris Satrapis & univerſo Senatu & cuncto populo Romano, gloriae imperii ſubjacenti, &c. Succeſſoris Principis Apoſtolorum poteſtatem amplius quam terrenae noſtrae imperialis ſerenitatis manſuetudo habere videtur.ſaith that he, and all his Satraps, and all his Senate, and all the people ſubject to his Empire, have thought good to defer to the ſucceſſors of St. Peter, a greater Principality then to the Emperours: And that he hath choſen to himſelf the ſucceſſors of St. Peter for Patrons towards God. How many abſurdities and untruths heapt up in few words! For this word of Satrap is a Perſian word, which the Roman Emperours have never uſed. To ſay the Satraps of Rome, is ſuch another mungrel expreſſion, as if one ſaid the Baſha's and Viziers of France, and the Sultans of England, and the Caliph of the Vatican. How could Conſtantine have made ſuch a Decreee by the conſent of all the people of his Empire and of the Roman Senate, ſeeing that moſt part of that people were Pagans, and that the Roman Senate did conſiſt of none almoſt but Pagan Senators, and ſo was for long time after? Witneſs that deſigned Conſul, who ſaid to Damaſus Biſhop of Rome, (c)(c)Hieron. ad Pammachium adverſus errores Johannis H…eroſol.Make me a Biſhop of the City of Rome, and I ſhall be a Chriſtian preſently, as Hierom relateth in his Epiſtle to Pammachius. The ſame is ſeen in the 54. Epiſtle of the tenth Book of the Epiſtles of Symmachus Prefect of the City of Rome, written to Valentinian, Theodoſius and Arcadius Emperours; where Symmachus, as Oratour for the whole Roman Senate, and for all the Citizens of Rome, beſeecheth the Emperours to preſerve the antient Religion, that is, the Pagan. And this was about the year 377.

p. 2834. By the ſame donation(d)(d)Et ſicut noſtram terrenam imperialem potentiam, ſic ejus. ſacroſanctam Romanam Eccleſiam decrevimus reverenter honorari, & amplius quam noſtrum imperium & terrenum thronum ſedem ſacratiſſimam beati Petri glorioſè exaltari, tribuentes ei poteſtatem & gloriae dignitatem imperialem, &c. Conſtantine giveth to the Biſhop of Rome an Imperial power, and makes him Emperour: Giveth him power over the four principal Sees, of Alexandria, Antioch, Jeruſalem, and Conſtantinople, and over all the Churches of the univerſal world: Whereas when Conſtantine turned Chriſtian, the word of Conſtantinople was not yet in the world, neither was then any ſpeech of the See of that place. The name of the Town was Byſantium, and the Biſhop of the ſame was but a Suffragant of the Biſhop of Perinthus or Heraclea. And how could Conſtantine have given power to the Biſhop of Rome over all the Churches of the world, ſeeing that many great Provinces and Churches were not ſubject unto his Empire? Beſides, if the Pope hath received that power immediately from God, what need had he of a Donation from the Emperour?

5. In the ſame Donation Conſtantine is made to ſay, that(e)(e)Eorum corpora cum magno honore recondentes thecas ipſorii ex electro cui nulla fortitudo praevalet elementorum, conſtruximus. he hath incloſed the bodies of Peter and Paul in ſhrines of Amber, and built the Churches of Peter and Paul at Rome; to which he hath given great poſſeſſions in Judea, Greece, Aſia, Thracia, Africa, Italy, and in diverſe Iſlands, to furniſh lights unto the ſaid Churches. Theſe candles were very coſtly ſince ſo many mighty Provinces did contribute towards them. And to what purpoſe did he give poſſeſſions to the Biſhop of Rome in Judea to furniſh the Churches of Rome with candles, as if Italy had not been ſufficient to afford candles?

6. By that Donation(f)(f)De praeſenti contradimus palatiū imperii noſtri Lateranenſe, quod omnibus in toto terrarum orbe praefertur palatiis. Deinde diadema, videlicet coronam capitis noſtri, ſimulque Phrygium, id eſt mitram, &c. & omnia imperialia indumenta, ſed & dignitatem imperialium praeſidentium equitum, &c. Conſtantine giveth to Sylveſter and to his ſucceſſors his Palace of Lateran, and the right of wearing a Crown like that of the Emperour, made with pure gold, and ſet with precious ſtones, and to be clad in purple, and to bear an Imperial Scepter, and all the Imperial Ornaments, and to have an Imperial Power. Things which every one knoweth, not to have been in the Popes poſſeſſion in Conſtantines time, nor many ages after. And which Conſtantine could not give without deveſting himſelf of the Empire, and wronging his children.

7. Among the marks of Empire which Conſtantine giveth to Sylveſter, he puts banta vel banda, words which Conſtantine and his Court underſtood not. And they are much like the words that are found in the Capitularies of Charles and Lewis. For that Donation was forged ſince their time, and was made purpoſely to blot out the memory of their Donations. For the Popes will not have the world to believe that they are obliged to the Kings of France.

8. The ſame Donation commands(g)(g)Viris reverendiſſimis Clericis in diverſis ordinibus eidem ſacroſanctae Romanae Eccleſiae ſervientibus, illud culmen ſingularitate potentiae & praecellentiae habere ſancimus, cujus ampliſſimus noſter Senatus videtur gloria adornari, id eſt Patricios & Conſules effici. that the Clarks of ſeveral Orders of the Roman Church be Senatours, and Fatricians, and Conſuls of Rome. Upon that ſcore the Roman Empire had multitude of Conſuls, and the Conſulares Faſti; and the Chronicles of Euſebius, of Marcellinus, of Caſſiodorus and Baronius were miſtaken when they put two Conſuls for every year, ſince all the Roman Prieſts and Deacons were Conſuls, yea perpetual Conſuls.

9. With the like abſurdity that Donation commands that(h)(h)Decernimus & hoc Clericorum ejuſdem ſanctae Romanae Eccleſiae manipulis & linteaminibus, id eſt candidiſſimo colore decorari equos, &c. the Roman Church, that is the Popes Court, have Chamberlans, Uſhers, and guards of the body, like the Emperour. And that the Clarks of the Roman Church ride upon horſes harneſſed with rich trappings; that they be clad in white, and wear white pumps; Things very ſuitable to the Apoſtolical ſimplicity, and which in Conſtantines time had been lookt upon as prodigies.(i)(i)Hier. ep. ad Euſto. c. de virg. ſcru. St. Hierom a Prieſt living at Rome, did not march in that equipage, and derides a Prieſt that had fine horſes, ſaying that he was called in ſcorn Veredarius urbis, the Poſt-horſe or the Poſtilion of the Town.

10. In the ſame place Conſtantine ſaith(k)(k)Nos Phrygium candidiſſimi nitoris ſacratiſſimo Papae vertici impoſuimus, & tenentes fraenum equi illius pro reverentia Petri Stratoris officium ei exhibuimus. that he had held the bridle of the horſe of Sylveſter the Roman Biſhop, and had done to him the office of a groom to help him to get on horſe-back. Was there ever a fable ſo impudently invented? Is the leaſt trace of that found in ſo many antient Hiſtorians, who have written the hiſtory of that time? Is it credible that the Biſhops of Rome that p. 284lived in the four or five following ages (of whom ſome were pretty well ſtored with pride, as Gelaſius, Hormiſdas, Vigilius,) would have forgotten ſuch a ſubmiſſion of the Emperor to the Pope? It is certain that this feigned paſſage was put in that forged donation to bring the Emperors of Germany, and the Kings of the Weſt to that ignoble ſervitude unto which ſome have baſely ſubmitted themſelves, defiling by a ſhameful ſubmiſſion the dignity of their crowns.

11. By the ſame Donation(k)(k)Ʋrbem Romam & omnes totius Italiae & Occidentalium regionum provincias, loca & civitates praefato beatiſsimo Pontifici noſtro Ʋniverſali Papae concedimus, &c. Conſtantine makes an abſolute gift to the Biſhop of Rome and his ſucceſſors for ever of the City of Rome and Italy and all the Occidental Provinces, that is, France, Spain, the Iſle of Brittain, Sicily, Corſica, Sardinia, and part of Germany; to poſſeſs all thoſe Countreys with power to diſpoſe of them abſolutely and ſoveraignly. He adds that to yield the place unto the Pope, and deveſt himſelf of the domination of thoſe Provinces, he withdrew himſelf from Rome, and tranſported the ſeat of his Empire to the Byzantine province, it being not juſt that an earthly Emperor ſhould have any power where God had eſtabliſhed the principality and the Head of Chriſtian Religion.

If theſe things be true, we muſt ſay that Conſtantine hath revoked his Donation, and made it void. For(l)(l)Socrat. hiſt. Eccl. l. 3. cap. ult. Cum tres filios haberet, ſingulos eorum imperii ſui participes eſſe conſtituit. Primum quidem filium Occidentalium partium, &c. Zozimus lib. hiſt. p. 2. Conſtantinus natu maximus cum minimo natu Conſtante omnia trans Alpes ſita & Italiam & Illyricum ſortitus est. Vide & Aurelium Victorem & Sigonium.Sir 50:3 Conſtantine dying ſhared the Empire among his three ſons, Conſtantinus, Conſtantius, and Conſtans; and gave to Conſtantinus Rome and Italy, as all Hiſtorians teſtifie it. And accordingly Conſtantius the eldeſt ſon kept his Court at Rome and in Italy: And Conſtantius after his Fathers death, ſucceeding in the Empire of the Weſt, entred into Rome in great triumph, as it is to be ſeen in Ammianus Marcellinus in book 16. §. 1.

As for the Biſhop of Rome, he was then ſo ſubject to the Emperor, that Conſtantius commanded him to come to him, and when he could not bring him to his opinion, he baniſht him, giving him five hundred crowns to keep him in his exile, as Theodoret relateth in the ſecond book of his Hiſtory, ch. 16. After Conſtantius, Valentinian and Theodoſius the great, and Gratian and Honorius and two Valentinians reigned in Italy, and at Rome, in quality of Soveraigns, the Biſhop of Rome being ſubject unto them as the other Biſhops of the Empire.

One only example will ſerve for all. In the year of Chriſt 418 two Biſhops of Rome, Eulatius and Bonifacius, were elected by two contrary factions of the Roman people. The Emperor Honorius who at that time was at Ravenna, took notice of it, and having expelled both the one and the other out of Rome, appointed two Serjeants to keep Bonifacius. In the end both were cited before the Emperor. The parties being heard, the Emperor gave ſentence for Bonifacius, and put back his Competitour: And thereupon made a Law which is found in the ſeventy ninth Diſtinction of the Roman Decree in theſe words;(m)(m)Diſt. 79. Can. Si duo. Si duo forte contra fas temeritate concertantium fuerint ordinati, nullum ex eis futurum ſacerdotem permittimus. If it happen that two be created by the raſhneſs of of the contenders, we will not ſuffer any of them to be Biſhop. The ſtyle of the Letters of Bonifacius to the Emperor Honorius, is remarkable;(n)(n)Precamur ſacrâ cauſâ religionis, ut in urbe manſuetudinis veſtrae hoc animo quo poſtulatis & annuitis in perpetuū ſtatui univerſalis Eccleſiae conſulatis. We beſeech you for the love of holy Religion, that in the City of your clemency, you provide for the State of the Ʋniverſal Church, according as you deſire and grant. By theſe words he acknowledgeth that the City of Rome belonged to the Emperor. As alſo the Emperor Conſtantius ſaid to Liberius Biſhop of Rome in ch. 16. of book. 2. of Theodoret; Becauſe thou art a Chriſtian, we have judged thee worthy to be a Biſhop of our City.

The Roman Empire being overthrown in Italy by the Goths, Theodoricus King of the Goths reigning at Rome, and in Italy, created the Magiſtrates of the City of Rome, as one may ſee in Caſſiodorus; (o) Among whoſe Epiſtles many Epſtiles of Theodoricus are found, where he diſpoſeth of the charges of the City of Rome, and preſcribes unto the Vicar and to the Prefect of the City the form of governing.

In that Kings time(p)(p)Athanaſ. Paul. Diacon. Lib. Pontif. Sigebert. Platina, Sigonius. a ſchiſm happened between Symmachus and Laurentius, both elected Biſhops of Rome by two contrary factions. Of which, Theodoricus took notice, ſending Peter Biſhop of Altina to make informations of the buſineſs, and to govern the Church of Rome while that contention laſted.

In the year of our Lord 525. the Emperor Juſtinian had begun to perſecute the Arians. Theodoricus who himſelf was an Arian, ſent Pope John Embaſſador p. 285to the Emperor to intercede for the Arians, and at his return from his Embaſſie put him to death in priſon.

To King Theodericus Athalaricus ſucceeded, who being informed of the Simony and traffick that was uſed to get the Biſhoprick of Rome, prohibited by a Law, and upon grievous penalties, the getting of the Papacy by faction, or bribery, or ſelling of the ſacred place, and cauſed that law to be ſet before the Roman Biſhops door. This is to be ſeen in book 9. of the(q)(q)Variarum lib. 9. cap. 15. Diverſities. Epiſt. 15.

The Emperor Juſtinian having by the means of Belizarius and Narſes recovered Italy, and deſtoyed the Kingdom of the Goths, became Maſter of Rome, as his predeceſſors were. A law of his is extant, commanding the Biſhops of Rome to pay to their Emperour twenty pounds weight of gold for their entry into their place, as holding it by the Emperors conceſſion. That law is in the Authenticks, or Novels of Juſtinian (r)(r)Novell. 123. cap. 3..

In the year of our Lord 654. the Emperor Conſtans bound Marinus Biſhop of Rome with chains, and baniſhed him, appointing Cherſoneſus for the place of his exile, where he dyed.

A thouſand ſuch examples I might bring, to prove that Conſtantines ſucceſſors had full power at Rome, and in Italy: and that the Biſhop of Rome were their ſubjects, having no temporal power. Elſe the Biſhops of Rome ought to have levyed tribute and cuſtome out of Spain and France, and created Magiſtrates, and led armies, which never was done.

If Conſtantine made the Pope Emperor, and ſet an Imperial Crown on his head, yeilding to him the whole Empire of the Weſt; whence comes it that the Biſhops of Rome never took upon them the title of Emperors? Why did they not after that donation create Magiſtrates in all the Cities of Italy and Gaules? And when Theodoſius divided the Empire between his two ſons, leaving to Arcadius the Empire of the Eaſt, to Honorius the Empire of the Weſt; why did not the Biſhop of Rome oppoſe that diſtribution, ſaying that the Empire of the Weſt belonged unto them? How comes it that of a thing of ſuch a principal importance, whereby the Biſhop of Rome is raiſed ſo high, no author of that time, or of many ages after, makes any mention?

The reaſon which that donation alledgeth, is falſe, and contrary to the holy Scripture: namely That it is not juſt that an earthly Emperor have any power on the place where the Head of the Chriſtian Church is reſiding. For unde the reign of David and ſince, the reſidence of the High-Prieſts, Heads of the Judaical Church, was at Jeruſalem; which was alſo the place of the Kings reſidence.

That prodigious ambition whereby a Biſhop pretends that the Empire belongs to him, and attributes a ſoveraign power to himſelf over the temporal of Kingdoms, is contrary to the Apoſtles command, inſtructing thus his Diſciple Timothy, 2 Tim. 2.4. No man that warreth, intangleth himſelf with the affairs of this life. And to the 83. Canon of the Apoſtles.(ſ)(ſ)foreign. If any Biſhop or Prieſt gave himſelf to war, and will have theſe two things together, the Roman Empire, and the ſacerdotal government, let him be depoſed; for the things of Ceſar ought to be given unto Ceſar, and the things of God unto God.

12. Certainly that impoſture, whereby of a Biſhop of one City, ſubject unto Emperors, and puniſhable by their laws, they will make an Emperor of Italy, Gauls, Spain, &c. is ſo groſs that I know not, which ought to be more admired, either the ſhameleſs boldneſs of thoſe that have forged theſe fables, or the ſillineſs of the people that would believe them, or the patience of God that would ſuffer them, or his juſtice that puniſht the contempt of his word with ſuch an horrid blindneſs.

It is true that now of late ſome of our Adverſaries are aſhamed of theſe things, and imploy not that Donation to uphold the Popes power: and of thoſe ſome this Lord Cardinal du Perron is one. But as ſcaffolds are ſet up to build a houſe, and when the houſe is built they are pulled down; So the Pope made uſe of theſe forged writings to underprop his growing Empire, and made them paſs for good in an ignorant age. But now that his Monarchy is born up with the power of Kings and nations, many have believed that they can reject theſe ſuppoſititious things without ſhaking their Empire.

p. 28613. Finally that goodly Donation of Conſtantine (t)(t)Haec vero omnia & per alia divalia decreta ſtatuimus atque confirmavimus, uſque in fin…m mundi illibata & inconcuſſa p…rmanere decrevimus &c. Si quis autem. (quod no… credimus) in hoc temerator aut contemptor extiterit, aeternis condemnatio…ibus ſubjaceat innodatus, & ſanctos Dei, Princip…s Apoſtolorum, Petrum & Paulum ſibi in praeſenti & futura vita ſ…ntiat contrarios, atque in i…ferno inferiori concrematus cum diabolo & omnibus deficiat impiis.enjoyneth that this pragmatick ſanction of his remain firm unto the end of the world. And if any tranſgreſs his ordinance, he will have him damned eternally, and that he find the Apoſtles Peter and Paul contrary, both in this life, and in the other; and that he be plunged into the loweſt bottom of hell with the Devil. So this Emperor ſends into hell his own children that have reigned at Rome, and in Italy, and in the Weſt, in quality of Soveraigns. Yea he condemneth himſelf to be damned eternally, having retained the Empire of the Weſt for himſelf, and left it to his children. In which execration the Kings of France and Spain, &c. are alſo inwrapped, ſince they ſtile themſelves and are in effect Soveraigns in the Provinces which this Donation giveth to the Biſhops of Rome unto the worlds end. And it is certain that by this Donation forged by the Popes, the Kings of France, as alſo the Kings of Spain, are declared uſurpers and unjuſt poſſeſſors of their Kingdoms, ſince by that jolly deed they belong to the Roman High-Prieſt.

That the taile may be be like the body, this Donation is dated with a lye, that is, with the Conſulat of Conſtantine and Gallicanus, who never were Conſuls together. Read the Chronicles of Euſebius, Marcellinus, and Caſſiodorus, the Faſti Conſulares of Onuphrius, and the Annals of Baronius, you ſhall find no Conſulate of Conſtantinus and Gallicanus together.

CHAP. 14. Of the Baptiſm of Conſtantine mentioned in the ſame Donation.

ALthough it is not material for the Popes primacy by whom Conſtantine was baptized, yet the falſe coyners whom the Pope hath imployed, have thought that it would increaſe the reverence of the nations towards the Papal See, if the world believed that the firſt Chriſtian Emperor was baptized by the Pope of Rome in a miraculous way.

In that Donation it is related, that Conſtantine being covered with leproſie, phyſitians preſcribed him a bath of infants blood: But he being moved with the cries of the mothers of thoſe children, would not uſe that remedy. And that the next night St. Peter and St. Paul appeared unto him in a dream, and warned him that he ſhould ſend for Sylveſter Biſhop of Rome, why lay hid in a hole of mount Soract for fear of the perſecution raiſed by Conſtantine againſt the Chriſtians, which Sylveſter would give him another kind of bath that ſhould heal him. He ſent then for Sylveſter, of whom he asked what Gods Peter and Paul were among the Chriſtians: Then he received the Baptiſme from Sylveſters hand, whereby he recovered health. That tale is taken out of the fabulous Legends of Sylveſter, whoſe Author is unknown. Pope Adrian the firſt tells that fable in the firſt Action of the ſecond Council of Nice, 360. years after Sylveſters death.

We muſt know that Baronius, who receiveth this fable for a truth, puts that Baptiſm in the nineteenth year of Conſtantine, eighteen years before his death, in the year of Chriſt 324. chooſing rather to give credence to theſe Acts of Sylveſter, which himſelf acknowledgeth to be much falſified and corrupted, then to the teſtimony of ſo many antient Authors, who teſtifie with one accord, that Conſtantine was baptized in the ſuburbs of Nicomedia in Bithynia, by Euſebius Biſhop of that place, a few days before his death.

Euſebius of Ceſarea, one of the Emperors family, towards the end of the fourth book of Conſtantines life, ſaith, that he being ſick in the Suburbs of Nicomedia, he called the Biſhops, and told them that he had purpoſed long before to be baptized in the river Jordan, where our Saviour was baptized. But ſeeing that God diſpoſed it otherwiſe, he deſired them to confer baptiſme upon him, which they preſently did, a little before that Emperor gave up his ſpirit unto God. p. 287To which Baronius anſwereth, that Euſebius was an enemy to the Roman Church, that he was an Arian, and that he deviſed that Fable. Truely Euſebius in all his writings ſhews no enmity againſt the Roman Church: But that which grieveth our adverſaries, is, that he being the antienteſt and the moſt famous Chriſtian Hiſtorian, deferreth not any primacy to the Biſhop of Rome, but ſpeaks of him as of another Biſhop, and condemneth the action of Victor, who for a difference about the Feaſt of Eaſter, ſeparated himſelf from the Communion of the Oriental Church.

But what have they to object againſt Hierom, who in his Chronicle ſpeaks thus,(a)(a)Conſtantinus extremo vitae ſuae tempore, ab Euſebio Nicomedienſi baptizatus, in Arianum dogma declinat. Conſtantine in the end of his life being baptized by Euſebius Biſhop of Nicomedia, inclineth towards Arianiſm?

Ambroſe ſaith the ſame in his Oration upon the death of Theodoſius; (b)(b)Cui licet baptiſmi gratia in ultimis conſtituto, omnia peccata dimiſerit, &c.Ʋnto whom [ſpeaking of Conſtantine] although the grace of Baptiſm conferred in his laſt hour have pardoned all his ſins, &c.

Socrates in the 39. Chapter of the firſt book of his Hiſtory,(c)(c)foreign. Conſtantine went from Helenopolis, and came to Nicomedia, and there being lodged in the ſuburbs, he received the baptiſm of Chriſtian religion.

Theodoret in the 32. Chapter of his Hiſtory;(d)(d)foreign. Conſtantine being at Nicomedia fell ſick, and knowing the uncertainty of human life, received the gift of the ſacred baptiſm, which he had delayed till that time, deſiring to receive it in the river of Jordan.

Sozomenus in the laſt Chapter of the ſecond book,(e)(e)foreign. Conſtantine was carried to Nicomedia, where, being in the ſuburbs, he was conſecrated with the holy baptiſm.

What more? a multitude of Biſhops aſſembled at Remini write thus to Conſtantius ſon to Conſtantine. (f)(f)Socrat. lib. 2. c. 37. foreign.Being gone from among men after he had been baptized, and tranſported to the reſt that was reſerved to him. They ſpeak of Conſtantines death. That Epiſtle is found in Socrates in book 2. chap. 29. and in Sozomenus, book 4. chap. 17.

So many witneſſes near Conſtantines time, ought in my opinion to be more believed then a fabulous Legend of Sylveſter, of which the Author is not known, and which Baronius acknowledgeth to be full of untruths.

It is to be noted that Conſtantine embraced the Chriſtian faith in the year of the Lord 312. and that from his converſion he never ceaſed to do good to the Chriſtians. In that ſame year he made edicts in favour of the Chriſtians, granted immunities to Church-men, and relieved with his own money thoſe that had been perſecuted by Maxentius and Maximus, as is to be ſeen in Euſebius in Conſtantines life.

In the year of our Lord 313. the Donatiſts appealed to Conſtantine as to a Chriſtian Prince, who gave them ſome Biſhops for Judges, and convocated a Synod at Arles.

In the year 318. having overcome Licinius, a cruel perſecutor of the Church, and being the ſole poſſeſſour of the Empire, he raiſed Chriſtian Religion in honour and wealth everywhere; began to build magnificent Churches, gave to Chriſtians the Temples of the Pagans, and never gave over promoting Chriſtian Religion which he profeſt.

How can all that agree with the fabulous relation of the baptiſm of Conſtantine by Sylveſter, as it is ſet down in the Donation of Conſtantine? For whereas that baptiſm was in the 324. year of Chriſt (if we believe Baronius) that is eleven years after Conſtantines converſion, nevertheleſs in that Donation the Emperour ſpeaks as having received baptiſm immediately after his converſion to Chriſtian Religion, and as having alwayes been a Pagan till that time; ſaying, The Gods of the Gentiles which I have ſerved hitherto are Devils; and as having ſo little knowledge of Chriſtian Religion, that he knew not whether Peter and Paul were Gods or men: Which is repugnant to that Chriſtian profeſſion which he had made twelve years before with ſo much zeal and conſtancy; and to that which Baronius ſaith, that Conſtantine from his infancy had been inſtructed in the Chriſtian Religion by his mother Helena.

p. 288But this is worſe yet. That narration of Conſtantines baptiſm, which Baronius will have to be in the year 324. ſpeaks of that Emperour as of a perſecutor, who had perſecuted the Church before his baptiſm; ſo that Sylveſter Biſhop of Rome, was forced to hide himſelf in a Cave of Mount Soracte to avoid perſecution. Is it like that Conſtantine began to perſecute the Church when he was a Chriſtian, and twelve years after his converſion to the faith, ſeeing that even when he was a Pagan he never perſecuted it? Doth any Authour ſpeak of any man whom he hath put to death, or baniſht, or ſtript of his goods for the Chriſtian faith? Such are the brakes of contradictions wherein thoſe that have ſold their pen unto the Pope, intangle themſelves; men to whom all fables are good, ſo they may ſerve to exalt the Papal Empire.