to the very written Oracles of God yet 't is clear enough that himself Baronius and others of the Roman Faith do use the Authority of these forged Epistles to countenance several Doctrines and Practices wherein the Reformed Church and theirs differ And yet for all this there are several learned Writers of the Roman Church who cannot but acknowledge that such and such Epistles Constitution Recognitions fathered upon their Primitive and Martyred Bishops are shrewdly suspected yea and clearly proved too to be false and counterfeit Thus Lorinus Verborum Domini liber tam est Apocryphus quà m in quibus memorantur Clementis Recognitiones The Book of our Lord's Words is as Apocryphall as the Recognitions of Clemens wherein that Book is mentioned He tells us indeed Clementis Constitutiones paulò majoris sunt fidei the Constitutions of Clemens are of a little more Credit But are these unquestionable no that he denieth Clementis libri Constitutionum non sunt usquequaque indubitatae Authoritatis The Constitutions of Clemens are not of an Authority that is undoubted altogether And what else can we think of those Decretal Epistles that are ascribed to Zephyrinus which contain things foolish ridiculous and false as that the Consecration of the Holy Cup must be in a vessel of Glasse onely that a Bishop must be accused before twelve Judges and that Evidence against him must be made by seventy two Witnesses How contrary is this not onely to Scripture but to those very Canons which are ascribed to the Apostles whereof this is one 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And to the same purpose the Council of Nice too 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 These Canons according to the Rules of St. Paul require the Testimony two or three Witnesses onely even against a Bishop whereas the pretended Decree of Zephyrinus demands seventy two and that with an Appeal to Rome which is enough to prove it false and forged Such a counterfeit Epistle too was the second of those two fathered upon Pontianus which begins thus Pontianus Sanctae Vniversalis Ecclesiae Episcopus Pontianus the Bishop of the Holy and Vniversal Church This Title in those early days unknown to the World being as yet not claimed nor assumed by any Roman Bishop but afterwards denied and decried by Gregory the Great gives us a fair and clear Evidence that this Epistle is counterfeit and written by some other hand as well as those of Fabianus Stephanus and some other succeeding Bishops with a design to pretend something of Antiquity for the defence of those unwarrantable Doctrines and Practices of the present Roman Church for which they can produce no fair and clear Evidence from the genuine and acknowledged writings of the most ancient Fathers And as for the Decrees Constitutions and Canons of the Bishops of Rome which have sate in that Chair since the time of Sylvester what security have we but that these also may have been changed corrupted and falsified according as the exigence of the Roman Church hath so required Bellarmine tells us that Pope Leo complained that whilst he himself was yet alive the Graecians had corrupted his Epistle to Flavianus and why might not the Latines for their own ends doe as much What reason have we to give credit to such and such Papal Decretals when Bellarmine himself being pressed with a Canon of Zacharias that made against him had little to say but this Zachariae Canon mihi valde suspectus est This Canon of Zacharias I do very much suspect And the truth is we are so much of his mind and have so much cause to be jealous that many Canons and Constitutions ascribed to such and such Bishops of Rome were indeed none of theirs but onely forged and counterfeited that we cannot upon their Authority admit those Doctrines and Practices for which we can find no warrant in the written Word of God But 2. The Testimony of Roman Bishops in the Cause of Traditions is not firm and sure because the Pope at least in matters of this nature notwithstanding their Pretence of his being Infallible may possibly be deceived himself and if so he may deceive us too 'T is the free Concession of Bellarmine and that as he saith wherein all Catholicks do agree Posse Pontificem etiam ut Pontificem cum suo coetu Consiliariorum vel cum Generali Concilio errare in Controversiis facti particularibus quae ex Informatione TestimoniÃsque hominum pendent That the Pope considered as Pope with his private or General Council may erre in particular matters of Fact which depend upon the Information and Testimonies of other men And that seems to be the Case in hand the business of Traditions is a matter of Fact and the whole Controversie under our present Disquisition is onely this Whether Christ delivered to his Apostles the Apostles to the Primitive Bishops they to their immediate Successours and so from Age to Age such and such particular Doctrines and Practices as are now contended for by the Roman Church So that the whole Question in hand being concerned about matters of Fact wherein they themselves acknowledge the Fallibility of the Pope we have little Reason to acquiesce in his Determinations and to be so well satisfied with his Testimony as to think our selves obliged thereby to believe and doe those things which the Scriptures do neither assert nor command But what if the Pope may erre in considerable Points of Faith too and become an Heretick are we obliged to believe his Testimony even then too Photius tells us that by the Canon-Law 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hereticks might not in any Judicature be admitted to bear witness against any Orthodox Christian within the Church And certainly if Heresie be a Crime of that nature as that it hath been thought enough to exclude or evacuate any man's Evidence in Civil Causes we shall have but little reason to admit any person that is as liable to Heresie as other men as an infallible Witnesse in matters of Spiritual and Sacred Concern And that several Bishops of Rome have been not onely shrewdly suspected but publickly accused and condemned too and that of the foulest Heresies 't is not to be denied by any man whose brow is not made of Brass 'T is recorded by several Authours and those of good name and credit that some Roman Bishops have been Monothelites some Montanists some Eutychians some Arrians yea and some downright Atheists too But the Charge being heavy against them and the Honour of the Roman See lying at stake and the Pope's Infallibility also being herein somewhat concerned we must enquire into the Witnesses and see that they are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 such as deserve to be believed For so justly tender is the Christian Church of the reputation of her Bishops that she will not admit all persons whatsoever to bring in Evidence against them No the sixth Canon of the Second General Council forbids it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
Rome then to prove his universal Preeminence over all other Bishops and Churches by some Act of that famous Council which no Church gainsayeth This is that which Bellarmine attempts and because he cannot doe it convincingly by the Canon as it is vulgarly read and expressed in the usual and publick Editions he produceth a private Copy and tells us that the Canon as it is commonly read is imperfect and ought thus to begin Ecclesia Romana semper habuit Primatum Mos autem perduret c. The Roman Church hath always had the Primacy c. One would think it strange that Bellarmine should adventure to make such an Addition to the Canon of so known and famous a Council but to justifie himself he tells us that this Canon was anciently so read and that about a thousand years ago it was thus translated out of the Greek Copies into Latine by a certain Abbot named Dionysius and that such a Copy was found in the Roman Library and that it was so read by Paschasianus the Legat of Pope Leo in the Council of Chalcedon and there approved But in desperate cases the old Rule must be observed Scelere tutandum est Scelus One Lie must be justified by another For 't is not easie to believe that the onely true Copy of the Acts of the Nicene Council and that in a Latine Translation too should be preserved at Rome nor is it easie to imagine that if there had been such an authentick Copy of that famous Council lodged at Rome it would have been permitted so long to have lain in the dark and never have been produced ti◠the Council of Chalcedon especially since the Interest of the Roman Bishop required the Production thereof to prove the same Prerogative above fifty years sooner For will any man believe that those Roman Bishops Zosimus and his Successour Boniface who claimed this Primacy from the sixth Council of Carthage would have been so far wanting to themselves as not to have produced such an authentick Copy which if clearly made out would have satisfied the Council ended the Controversie and established the Primacy of Rome by a Law True it is Faustinus the Pope's Legate produced in that Council his Commonitorium which he had from Rome pretending the Authority of the Nicene Fathers for the Primacy of the Pope and particularly in matters of Appeal but how little these Pretences were liked by the Council we may easily guess by that Answer which was returned by Alipius who was a great man there 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It troubleth me that though we have examined the Greek Copies of the Nicene Council yet how it comes to pass I cannot tell we can by no means find any such thing as the Roman Bishop pretends and claims And so much did they certifie Pope Boniface himself in their Synodical Letter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Having many Greek Copies before us we could not find what was intimated and demanded from Rome no not so much as in any one However that they might satisfie themselves and the Bishop of Rome too so much the better they thought fit to dispatch away their Letters to Cyril Bishop of Alexandria and Atticus Bishop of Constantinople desiring them to send over what Copies and Registers they had of the Nicene Council who accordingly did so For thus Cyril tells them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And thus Atticus too 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 'T is evident by these Expressions that these two Bishops sent over to the Council of Carthage the Acts Decrees and Canons of the Nicene Fathers entire uncorrupted and unquestionable And what 's the Issue do any one of these Copies agree with that of Rome No the Council having perused 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 these true Copies sent this Message to Caelestinus who was now become Pope and had made the same Demands with Zosimus and Boniface 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We cannot find any such Canon as is pretended no not in the most authentick Copies that we have perused But the truth is that Copy of the Nicene Council mentioned by the Pope's Legate to the Council of Carthage was to the shame of the Roman See unworthily and basely corrupted and those words mentioned by Bellarmine Ecclesia Romana semper habuit Primatum were de novo how politickly soever yet knavishly enough added to the old Canon For 't is evident that the Council of Carthage resolved to alter nothing that had been defined by the Nicene Fathers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and again 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Which Expressions are enough to convince all reasonable men that this Council of Carthage had no inclination to change any but confirm all the Constitutions of the Nicene Fathers but as to that Canon which the Pope's Legate pretended requiring or allowing the African Clergy to appeal from their own Bishops to the Bishop of Rome they were so far from confirming this that they established an express Canon against it and thus it runs 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Presbyters Deacons and other inferiour Clergy-men in whatever Causes they have let them not appeal to any Tribunal beyond the Sea i. e. as the Council expresly words it in their Letter to the Pope 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 let them not appeal to the Bishop of Rome This Canon did so nettle the Roman Bishops that upon this occasion Boniface the Second told Eulalius Bishop of Carthage who had now unworthily submitted his Chair to the See of Rome that his Predecessour Aurelius St. Austine and above two hundred more learned and pious Bishops assembled in the Council of Carthage had denied Subjection to the Roman Bishop because they were as he impudently affirmed inspired and instigated by the Devil But as from this Determination of the Council of Carthage we may conclude that pretended Canon of the Nicene Bishops alleged by Faustinus in the Pope's behalf to be spurious and forged so may we reasonably infer as much from the consideration of its matter which is altogether untrue and evidently false For is it imaginable that so early a Council as that of Nice should acknowledge and ratifie the perpetual Primacy of the Roman Bishop since 't is notoriously known that the Primacy of the Roman Bishops was first derived from that bloudy Emperour Phocas and procured by the crafty Insinuations of Boniface the Third who magna cum contentione as Platina writes with much adoe procured but most willingly assumed to himself the Title of Vniversal Bishop and Head of all other Churches That it was not thus in former Ages we have the Confession of Gregory the Great who tells us Nullus unquam Praedecessorum meorum hoc tam prophano vocabulo uti consuevit None of all my Predecessours would ever assume to himself this profane Title and as for himself he was so far from owning it that he was the very first Bishop of Rome that styled himself Servus Servorum Dei the Servant of the Servants of
his Greatness Splendour and Magnificence that Doctrine which asserts his Power to dispense with Vows Oaths and in several cases with Matrimonial Contracts either to allow or null them that Doctrine which assigns him a Power more then ordinarily Ministeriall to pardon Sin and deliver whom he will from Purgatory c. makes for his Wealth and fills his Bags apace And if so if these and other Doctrines do bring in such a Revenue to the Roman Bishop and many more of his Church too 't is very likely that they will be so kind to themselves as to plead for those Traditions by which alone those Doctrines can be maintained That the Bishops of Rome have the usual Infirmities of other men and may perhaps fail now and then in matters of Morall Concern I think no man denieth 'T is a bug word that Baronius speaks of Pope Vigilius whom he calleth a Thief a Brigand c. and 't is no great Commendation which Bellarmine gives of John the Twenty third when he doth acknowledge him to have been a man vitae dissolutae of a loose and dissolute Conversation so dissolute that fifty three severall Articles that concerned his Manners for in Points of Faith the Pope though an Heretick must not be thought to erre were exhibited against him in the Council of Constance and proved by sufficient Testimonies These two Instances not to name the Sorceries and Treasons of Gregory the Seventh nor the Concubine of Nicholas the Third and to passe by the late pretty stories of Donna Olympia who governed the Roman Chair as Themistocles his little Son ruled Athens are more then enough to evidence that even his Holinesse himself may erre in point of Morality And since other Vices are incident to the Bishops of Rome why should we think it impossible for them to be a little tainted sometimes with those small Infirmities of Covetousness Pride and Ambition Though St. Bernard indeed might tell his friend Pope Eugenius Apostolis interdicitur Dominatus Christ forbad his Apostles to exercise any Despotick Power at least over one another yet perhaps Boniface the Eighth might have in him some little remainders of unmortified Pride which might prevail with him to accept the Title from others yea and to style himself too Mundi Dominum the Lord of the World And though Alexander the Fifth who professed himself a rich Bishop a poor Cardinall but a mere beggarly Pope might perhaps deserve that Character which St. Paul requires in a Bishop not greedy of filthy lucre yet what may we think of John the Twenty Third who was so covetous of Money and heaped up so much Treasure that he thought himself concerned to brand that man for an Heretick who should dare affirm that Christ and his Apostles had no Possessions in the World Now then if the Roman Bishops as well as other men may possibly so far forget themselves as to be guilty of Ambition and Avarice 't is not reasonable that we should admit their Testimony for the Justification of those Traditions wherein their own Advantage and Honour is so very much concerned they are Parties so mightily interessed in this Cause that there is ground enough to suspect their Evidence and to imagine that they will represent the matter not impartially as it really stands but with those favourable Constructions or false Glosses and Equivocations which an ambitious or covetous heart may probably suggest and a bad Cause doth certainly require But 2. Although the Testimony of the Roman Bishops should be admitted for the justification of their own Traditions should we be so kind as to accept their Evidence in a Cause which so deeply concerns themselves nay should we pass a candid interpretation upon it and suppose it to be impartial yet neither so would it doe their work nor prove firm sure and cogent See why upon a double ground 1. The Testimonies of several Roman Bishops especially those early ones who would indeed have been very credible Witnesses in any matter which concerns the Church have been counterfeited and notoriously forged Methinks we may use the same Consideration to invalidate the Testimony of any Roman Bishop which Bellarmine himself doth to weaken and take off the Evidence of a Roman Cardinall We find what horrid Crimes if Simony Heresie Sorcery and Adultery be such indeed are by several Authors laid to the Charge of Pope Gregory the Seventh And because these detestable Villanies do much reflect upon the Honour of the Roman See and do intrench too much upon that Fundamental Point of the Pope's Infallibility 't is the great endeavour of Bellarmine by all ways and means to wipe off this Guilt and to make the world believe that all these Vices objected against as he styles him an innocent Pope were but unworthy Reproaches and base Calumnies that were raised by Tilmannus and the Centuriatours out of a forged Book that was fathered indeed upon Cardinal Benno but was probably written so Bellarmine would have it by some Lutheran or other This kind of Argumentation we may justly retort upon the Roman Church who justifie their own Traditions and unjustly charge us with Heresie as having departed from the true Faith of the Primitive and Catholick Church and this they would fain prove by Testimonies produced out of some Writings which are ascribed to several ancient Bishops of Rome whereas 't is very certain that those Writings neither were nor could be theirs 'T is the great Honour of the Roman See that in the three first Centuries the Bishops who governed that Church were very choice and excellent Persons we reade that Thirty and one successive Bishops of theirs even from Linus to Sylvester if we except but Hyginus and Pius who lived under the kinder Empire of Antoninus Pius were Martyrs or Confessours at least The memory of these Champions and stout Assertours of the true Catholick Faith being precious and their Authority being venerable in the Church of Christ some well-wishers to the present Roman Church that there might be some pretence of great Antiquity for their superstitious Novelties have written such and such Epistles Constitutions and other Tracts in the names of these Primitive Roman Bishops which they have published and sent abroad into the world with as much confidence as if they were genuine and authentick indeed What Authority such Epistles have in the Roman Church we learn from Gratian who equals them to the Definitions of General Councils and is not ashamed to make St. Austine say that they are equal to the very written Word of God But St. Austine is so much wronged in being produced by Gratian as the Authour of such an intolerable Assertion that Bellarmine who for once hath something more of Modesty doth thus excuse it Deceptus est Gratianus ex depravato Codice quem ipse habuit beati Augustini Gratian was deceived by a corrupted Copy which he had of St. Austine's Works But however though Bellarmine dare not equal these Decretall Epistles