The repressor of over much blaming of the clergy.

xiij. CHAPITER.

THE iiij^e. resoun is this: If suche as is bifore seid a voice was spokun in the eir, whanne Constantyn had maad at Rome the endewing which he made, thilk voice was so maad and spoken in the eir for this, that thanne first endewing by immovable pos|sessiouns entride into the chirche; or ellis for this, that thanne first greet habundaunt endewing bi im|movable possessiouns entride into the chirche.

Thou maist not seie that for the firste of these twei causis: For whi in the daies of First Vrban Pope, goostli fadir and techer of Seint Cecilie Virgyn, which was mad pope bi an hundrid ȝeeris bifore the popehode of Siluestre and the regnyng of Con|stantyn Empereour, the chirche of Rome was endewid with immovable possessiouns, as croniclis openli wit|nessen, and as it is open bi the writing of the same Vrban in the greet book clepid The decrees of Hiȝest

Bischopis in the firste and ij^e. chapitris of his decree; [See Coleti, Concil. tom. l. pp. 636, 637. This Epistle is spurious, being one of the forgeries of Isidorus Mercator. The Chronicles, such as that of Martinus Polonus (Supp. A.D. 226), who says, "Hujus tem|pore cœpit primum Romana ecclesia prædia possidere," are probably de|rived from it.] and also by manye mo ȝeeris bifore the daies of Pope Siluester and of Constantyn Emperour in the daies of Pope Eleutheri and of Luci, king of Britouns, the hool al chirche of Englond was endewid with temporal immovable possessiouns large and greete, forwhi with the same large and grete possessiouns with whiche bifore the hethen bischopis and hethen chirchis in Ynglond weren endewid, as stories wit|nessen [Geoffrey of Monmouth (De Gest. Brit. lib. v. c. l.) seems to be the original authority for this state|ment. How far it is "worthy and credible" the reader may judge from Fuller's Ch. Hist. of Brit. book l. cent. ii., and Collier's Eccl. Hist. of Brit. book l. cent. ii.] ; as of these bothe endewingis oold stories and cronicles [croniclees, MS. (first hand).] (being famose and worthi and credible and not being apocrifis) maken mension. And ther|fore not for the firste now bifore seid cause thilk voice was maad and spokun in the eir.

Thou maist not seie that for the ij^e. cause now bifore seid thilk voice was maad in the eir: Forwhi, as anoon her aftir it schal be proued, the seid Em|perour Constantyn endewid not the [not pope, MS. (first hand).] Pope Siluester neither eny chirche in Rome with eny greet ha|bundaunt immouable possessiouns, but oonli with possessiouns competentli and mesurabily, with suf|ficience seruying for the fynding of the preestis and mynystris of the chirchis whiche he endewid; except oon chirche clepid [clepid is added in the margin by a later hand.] Constantynyana, into which chirche he ȝaf a certein of possessioun for fynding of liȝtis and for fynding of bawme into brennyng of laumpis, ouer the competent vnmouable endewing

which he made into the same chirche for fynding of the preestis and mynystris seruying in the same chirche; [See Coleti, Concil. tom. l. p. 1433.] but al the habundaunt and riche endewing of the pope and his see chirche in Rome, came bi othere persoones longe aftir Constantyn, as by Pipyn king of France, and by Charles king of Fraunce and emperour, and bi Lodowic king of Fraunce and em|perour, and bi Matilde a greet ladi which ȝaf the greet and riche and rial marchionat of Anchon to the pope to gidere at oonis, and bicame ther bi to be the douȝtir of Seint Peter, as in cronicles and stories it is open forto se, [See Mart. Polon. Chron. (inter alios) for all the principal facts here mentioned in their proper places. The authorities, giving an account of Matilda's life and acts, are fully set down by Mosheim, Eccl. Hist. pt. II. c. II. § 11. (vol. 2. pp. 339, 340. Lond. 1841.)] and sumwhat therof is sett in the Summe of Gracian, Dist. lxiij^e., chapiter [xxx^e.] Ego Lodowicus; and in like maner diden manie othere persoones mo than of whom it is writun. Wherfore the seid voice was not maad in the eir for the ij^e. now bifore sett cause. And so fynali folewith that for no cause thilk voice was maad, and therefore no such voice at al was in the eir than mad, thouȝ bi sum corrupcioun of leesing the fame of thilk voice hath long tyme be had and contynued.

That this is trewe what is now bifore seid, that the First Constantyn Emperour endewid not Pope Siluester neither eny oon chirche in Rome with eny greetly habundant and riche vnmouable possessiouns, y mai proue bi manie euydencis; of whiche oon is this: If the seid Constantyn had mad such greet habundaunt riche endewing to Siluester and to the chirche in which Siluester sate, Damasus Pope had mad mensioun of thilk same endewing in the storie which he writith to Ierom, and that for dyuerse

skilis now anoon aftir to be rehercid; but not with|stonding this the seid Damasus makith no mensioun of the seid greet endewing born an hond to Con|stantin, that he schulde it make to Siluester Pope. Wherfore treuthe is, that thilk greet endewing so born an hond was not maad.

The skilis ben these: Damasus was preied of Ierom, that Damasus schulde write to Ierom as miche as Damasus couthe fynde in Rome what was doon fro Petir into the dai of Damasus Pope; as the epistle of Ierom sent to Damasus and the epistle of Damasus to Ierom beren witnes. And Damasus writith aȝen to Ierom the now seid storie, and seith that al what he couthe and myȝte wite, encerche, fynde, and knowe what was doon fro Seint Petris daies into hise owne daies thanne lyuyng he hadde write in the now seid storie, which he sende to Ierom. Wherfore sithen it is not likeli that such a notable deede of endewing, if it hadde be doon bi Constantyn, schulde haue be vnknowe to Damasus succeding to Siluester withinne an hundrid of ȝeeris, more than othere smale endew|ingis doon bi Constantyn to diuerse chirchis of which Damasus makith mensioun alredi, it folewith that if thilk greet endewing of the Pope hadde be doon bi Constantyn, Damasus wolde haue write of it, as weel as of othere smaler and lasse endewingis mad to [to the, MS. (first hand).] chirchis in Rome bi Constantyn.

An other skile is: If thilk greet endewing hadde be mad to Siluester, Damasus schulde haue be in posses|sioun of the same endewing in the same tyme in which he wroot to Ierom; and of no thing Damasus myȝte bettir knowe than of the same thing which he helde in possessioun. Wherfore more sureli than of eny other thing, which Damasus wroot to Ierom in

the seid story, he wolde haue write of thilk greet; endewing, if eny such greet endewing hadde thanne be: and sithen Damasus not so wroot, it folewith that noon such greet endewing was bi Constantyn doon.

The iij^e. principal euydence is this: If eny such now seid endewing was mad bi Constantyn, sum mensioun schulde haue be mad therof in sum funda|mental and credible stori or cronicle. But so it is, that of thilk endewing no stori or cronicle makith mensioun, saue the legende or storie of Siluestris gestis and the oon bifore seid epistle putt and ascryued vn|likeli to Constantyn, and tho stories and cronicles which taken of it and folewen it; and neither thilk storiyng of Siluestris gestis neither the seid epistle is not credible neithir worthi be allowid, as it is schewid bifore in the next chapiter, and as schal better be cleer aftir in this present chapiter. Wherfore it is not to be takun and to be trowid as a trouthe, that Constantyn made eny such seid so [so is interlineated in a later hand.] greet endewing.

The iiij^e. principal euidence is this: The worthi and famose and credible stori clepid Thre departid storie (mad of thre moost famose and credible storiers in Greek lond in the daies of Theodosie not long after Constantyn) makith mensioun in the laste chapiter of the iij^e. book, and in the iiij^e. chapiter and vj^e. [The last reference is wrong; perhaps c. 35 is the place intended.] chapiter of the iiij^e. book, and bi manye othere chapitris in the hool book, that the greet Constantyn in hise laste daies, whanne he trowid be nyȝe his deeth, made his testament and departid his hool empire into thre par|ties, and tho thre parties he biquathe to hise thre sones, Constantinus, Constancius, and Constans; and in special he assigned and biquathe the lordschip of the west parti, which was Rome, with al the cuntrey

aboute out of Greek lond, to his eeldist sone Constan|tyn, which sone reioiced the same parti so to hem deuysid and that thoruȝ al his lijf, and his brother Constans next aftir him reioiced the same west parti of the hool empire, (not withstonding that Constans was ȝonger than Constancius,) and his brother Con|stancius after the deeth of hem bothe al the hool empire of Eest and West. But this schulde not haue be trewe, if the first grete Constantyn had maad the seid greet habundaunt upon him born an hond endew|ing. Forwhi thanne the sones of the same Constantyn myȝten not haue regned vpon Romayns and upon peple of al the cuntre ligging west fro Greek cuntre. Wherfore thilk seid greet endewing born upon the First Constantyn was neuere doon: and therfore the seid epistle ascriued to Costantyn, [So the MS., perhaps by a clerical error, but?] and also the storie of Siluestris gestis ben not but vntrewe apocrifis.

The v^e. principal euydence is this: After the deeth of Siluester Pope bi ccl. ȝeer, Boneface the iiij^e. and Pope of Rome, willing forto halewe the hous in Rome clepid Panteon, and forto make it [it is interlineated by a later hand.] a temple of alle martris, askide of Focas, being emperour bothe of the Eest and of the West, (that is to seie, of Greke lond and of the cuntrey ligging in west fro Greek lond,) leue forto so do; and he askid of Focas, that Focas schulde ȝeue to him thilk hous Panteon, that he myȝte ther of make a temple of alle martris, which was bifore a temple of alle ydolis. [Bed. Eccl. Hist. lib. ii. c. 4.] But so it is, that this licence and this ȝifte the Pope Boneface wolde not haue askid of the Emperour Focas, namelich into so holi a purpos to be therbi sped, if Bonefas hadde be [be is added by later hand.] ful lord of al Rome and of alle cuntrees ligging aboute bi ȝifte of the Firste Constantyn, and if Focas

hadde not be lord therof. Wherfore the seid large endewing born upon Constantyn to be mad to Sil|uester Pope was neuere doon. An so eftsoone it is open that the seid epistle ascryued to Constantyn and the storie of Siluestris gestis ben not but vntrewe apocrifes.

The vj^e. principal evidence is this: In alle the daies fro the deeth of the Firste Constantyn in to the daies of the Firste Charlis (being king of Fraunce and em|perour of Rome to gidere bi v. C. ȝeer aftir the deeth of Siluester) regniden in successioun euermore oon em|perour after an other pesibili to gidere and at oonys upon the eest cuntrey of Greek lond, and upon the west cuntre of Rome, and bi west Rome, as is open ynouȝ in cronicles; and how and whi fro thens [frothens, MS., and similarly below, p. 366.] weren ij. emperouris oon in the West vpon Germanie and an other upon the Eest in Greek lond the cro|nicles declaren pleinli. In whiche daies, as it is miche likeli, came yn the lordschip which popis han had vpon Rome and the cuntrees aboute ligging, and that bi graunt of the First Charles, maad bi the pope emperour of Germanie, and bi graunt of Lodowic em|perour aftir the same Charles. But this myȝte not haue be trewe, if the seid greet endewing born upon Constantyn hadde be doon. Wherfore truthe is that it was neuere doon.

Neuertheles aȝens thilk endewing which the seid Damasus Pope spekith in his storie writun to Ierom, and which endewing Damasus berith upon the First Constantyn to be mad to chirchis in Rome and to mynystrie in hem, y wole not replie, neither argue, neither holde and trowe, bi cause that forto ther aȝens holde y haue noon euydence: but certis thilk endewing maad bi Constantyn in vnmouable godis to dyuerse chirchis in Rome, of which endewing so spekith

Damasus, was not but litle and mesurable ynouȝ to tho chirchis and the mynystris, and was fer dyuers and othir and myche lasse than the greet endewing which in comoun fame is born upon the Firste Con|stantyn, and of which spekith the storie of Siluestris gestis and the epistle of which it is bifore spokun in the next chapiter; of which epistle Gracian takith a large porcioun in his Summe, Dist. xcvj., chapiter [xiv^e.] Constantinus. And therfore thilk storie of Siluestris gestis and the seid epistle ben needis vntrewe apocrifis.

The vij^e. principal evidence in to the same purpos is this: Bi manye hundrid ȝeeris after the deeth of Pope Siluester the eleccioun of the pope mad at Rome was sende into Greke lond, where the emperour was oftir [aftir, MS.] and lenger to gidere than at Rome, forto be confermed or admittid of the emperour; as can be proued bi sufficient credible cronicles and stories, and in special forto seie in the cronicle of Martyn, where he spekith of Pope Vitilian. ["Hic (Vitalianus) nuncios suos direxit ad imperatorem juxta con|suetudinem significans de sua ordi|natione. Qui nuncii postquam reverenter fuissent recepti, reno|vatis Romanæ ecclesiæ privilegiis, redierunt." Mart. Polon. Chron. A.D. 657.] This y seie not for this, that it so doon was weel doon; but herfore y seie it, that it hadde not be so doon, if the emperour of Greek lond hadde not be thanne in tho daies as ful lord and emperour of Rome and of alle cuntrees lig|ging ther aboute, but the pope had be ful al lord of Rome and of alle the cuntrees ligging aboute, as the seid born an hond endewing pretendith, and as the storie of Siluestris gestis witnessith. Wherfore folewith that no such large endewing was maad bi Constantyn, and folewith that the seid stori of Siluestris gestis and the seid epistle ben vntrewe apocrifis

If eny man wole be aboute forto defende the seid legend or writing of Siluestris gestis bi it what therof Pope Gelasie writith in his epistle, of which epistle a greet part Gracian rehercith in his Summe, Dist. xv^e., chapiter [iii^e.] Sancta Romana, y seie to him aȝenward thus: Loke thou bettir upon the processe of Gelasie in the now alleggid place, and thou schalt fynde that he neither approueth, neither reproueth, neither conferm|eth, neither infermeth [A later hand needlessly alters into infirmeth.] the seid writingis of Siluestris gestis, but he makith mensioun of hem, and seith how men doon aboute hem; and thanne leeueth hem, as he fonde hem withoute eny deede of auctorite bisett upon hem. ["Item actus B. Silvestri Apos|tolicæ sedis Præsulis, licet ejus qui conscripsit nomen ignoremus a multis tamen in urbe Roma Ca|tholicis legi cognovimus et pro an|tiquo usu multæ hoc imitantur ec|clesiæ." Decret. Gelas. ap. Grat. Decret. l. c. But this production itself, first quoted in the ninth cen|tury, is a forgery, from the anvil of Isidore, as it appears. See Cave Hist. Lit. s. v. Gelasius.] And therfore he dooth no thing there aȝens me.

The viij^e. principal euydence into the same purpos is this: In the seid epistle putt to grete Constantyn it is conteyned, that anoon withinne iiij. daies after that Constantyn was baptisid of Siluester Pope, Con|stantyn schulde seie that he wolde translate his em|pire fro the empire of Seint Petris successour, and Constantyn seide that therfore he wolde go into the Greek cuntre, and wolde bilde a newe citee for his empire at Bizancium in Greke lond; [See Coleti, Concil. tom. i. p. 1572.] but this is vn|trewe. For her aȝens witnessith and writith The thre departid storie in the ij^e. book the xviij^e. chapiter, where is plein storie aȝens this. For Constantyn pur|posid forto haue bildid his citee in an othir place ["Veniens ad campum ante Ilium positum juxta Hellespontum super Ajacis tumulum . . . . . civitatem designavit, portasque fecit quæ hac|tenus videntur à navigantibus. Hæc agente per noctem Deus apparuit," &c. Hist. Trip. lib. ii. c. 18.]

thanne at Bizans, and he biganne in so ferforth that touris weren there seen bi many ȝeeris aftir: but bi warnyng in his sleep he turned his purpos and bi|ganne of the newe his citee at Bizant, which newe citee he clepid sumwhat aftir his own name Con|stantynopil, and wolde that it schulde be as a newe Rome. And herfore the seid epistle is an vntrewe apocrife, namelich sithen historiers, dwelling in thilk same cuntre and soone after the deede doon, kouthen knowe better the treuthe of the deede than othere men dwelling ferther fro thens in rombe.

Thus miche is ynouȝ (as here) for answere to the iiij^e. semyng skile, sett bifore in the viij^e. chapiter of this present iij^e. partie. What is seid ouer schortli here for answere to the seid iiij^e. semyng skile mai be seen in more lengthe to be trewe, if the reder of this wole encerche famose stories and cronicles diligentli. [This paragraph follows the end of the next but one preceding (after the words aȝens me) in the MS. Pecock, no doubt, wrote his eighth argument after he had finished the chapter, and forgot to make the necessary transposition.]