The grand impostor discovered, or, An historical dispute of the papacy and popish religion ... divided in four parts : 1. of bishops, 2. of arch-bishops, 3. of an œcumenick bishop, 4. of Antichrist : Part I, divided in two books ... / by S.C.

CHAP. XII. Objections from forged Authors answered, pretended to prove the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome, before the dayes of Cyprian.

HItherto, they have endeavoured to prove the supre∣macy of the Bishop of Rome, before the death of Cyprian, by wrested and misapplyed testimonies: that not serving the turn, they fall to forgery, and that of two kinds; first, they bring testimonies from bastard, and suppositïtious, Authors; Secondly, from true Authors, cor∣rupted by the Popes authority or otherwayes: we will dis∣course of the first sort in this Chapter, of the second in the following.

In the first place, they pretend the decretal Epistles of several Bishops of Rome, who lived in that interval, and after, unto the beginning of the fourth Age. But it is answered, all those decretals are forged, attributed to Popes before the dayes of Syrictus, Bishop of Rome, who lived about anno, 380. the reasons follow.

First, Dionysius Exiguus, a diligent Compilator of all the decretals of Popes, in one volumne, begins this work with the decretals of the said Syritius, not mentioning the de∣cretal Epistles of any Popes before him: whereby it evident∣ly appears, that there was no such decretalls, in his time, or in the sixth Century, whereby also it is evident, that they have been forged since that time.

Secondly, those decretalls are mentioned by non of the Ancients most exact enquirers after antiquity; such as Eusebius, Hieronymus, Gennadius, and Pope Damasus, who lived himself in the time of Hieronymus, and to whom Hieronymus was Secretar, but all those Authors; made exact

enquiry, after the actions of Bishops of Rome, before the Council of Neice: and yet not one of them, maketh mention of those decretals, which are at least thirty.

Thirdly, the stiles of men are almost as different, as their faces: but it appears to any Judicious Reader, that all those Epistles were penned by one man, having the same stile, but they are attributed to Bishops of Rome, of divers Ages, whereof the last lived three hundred year after the first.

Fourthly, the Latine Tongue, before the Council of Neice, was in great purity: and the Bishops of Rome of those dayes, known to be most powerful in it: but the stile of those decretals, is most barbarous. Turrianus objects, (who wrote a defence of those Epistles) that those Bishops of Rome used a humble stile, in imitation of Paul, who shunned the words of humane wisdom. But it is answered, that al∣though Paul did forbid affected eloquence, yet he did not pre∣scrive solicismes, and barbarity, which both are frequent in those Epistles. And first, for Solicismes, Enaristus, epist. 2. Episcopi sunt obediendi & non detrahendi: Telesphorus in his Epistle hath these words, Patres omnes sunt venerandi non insidiandi, such like expressions are found every where. As for barba∣rismes, you have everywhere, such expressions as those folow∣ing, Rigorosus tortor, dependere obtemperantiam: agere indis∣ciplinate; jurgialiter stare; paternas doctrinas injuriare: cuncta charitative peragere.

Fifthly, Isidorus Mercator, who lived in the seventh Age, challenged by Barronius, ad annum, 336. num. 80. and 60. as a great forger of monuments of Antiquity: he lived in the 7. Age, at which time, there was great debate between the Greek and the Latin Church; the Greek Church, refusing to acknowledge the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome, albeit Phocas, in the beginning of that Age, had taken the title of oecumenick Bishop, from Cyriacus, Bishop of Constantinople,

and bestowed it upon Bonifacius Bishop of Rome; yet, not∣withstanding, the Bishop of Constantinople, still keeped the stile of oecumenick Bishop and would not acknowledge the Bishop of Rome. The said Isidorus Mercator, as Barronius relates, forged several monuments of Antiquity, to prove the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome; and he is commonly thought to be the forger of those decretalls, for three reasons; first, (as we said) he is detected of several other forgeries; secondly, because it appears by their stile, they are all written by one man; thirdly, because the stile is barbarous, and exactly agreeing with the stile of that Age, in which Isidorus lived.

Sixthly, it is demonstrat those Epistles are forged, not on∣ly by the stile, but by the matter contained in them: It were prolix to mention all; we will only note some few, suffi∣ciently demonstrating those decretals to be forged. First, some of them are directed to those who were dead long be∣fore; as that Epistle of Clement, to James, in which he writes to him of the death of Peter and Paul: but James was dead in the seventh year of Nero, as is testified by Eusebius, Hegesippus, and Hieronymus; but Peter and Paul died not till seven years after, viz. the fourteenth year of Nero. 2. Anterius in his decretal, makes mention of Eusebius Bishop of Alexan∣dria, and Felix Bishop of Ephesus: but Anterus lived in the beginning of the third Century, almost a whole Age before them both. 3. Fabianus in his Epistle, makes mention of the coming of Novatus to Italy; but Cyprian, lib. 1. epist. 3. affirms, that Fabianus came to Italy in the time of Cornelius, who lived at another time. 4. Marcellus writes a threatning Letter to Maxentius, pressing him with the Autho∣rity of Clement Bishop of Rome: but Maxentius both a Pa∣gan, and a Tyrant, cared nothing for Clement at all. 5. Ze∣phyrinus in his Epistle to the Egyptians, affirms, that it was against the constitutions of Emperours, that Clergy men should be called before the Judge Secular: the same is affirmed by Eu∣sebius,

in his Decretal to the same Aegyptians. But in those dayes, viz. In the third Century, the Emperours were all Pagans: and it is ridiculous to affirm, that they made such Edicts, in favour of Christians, who were cruel persecuters of the Christians 6. Its known, that many ceremonies came by degrees in the Church, and that there were very few ceremo∣nies in the Church, the time of those Bishop of Rome: but those decretal••Epistles, makes no mention of the grievous persecutions of the Church in those dayes, no not one of them; but on the contrary, makes mention of the Church as it were in pomp, making mention of all those ceremonies, as holy vessels, of the habit of the Clergy, of the Mass, of Archbishops, Metropolitans, Patriarchs, none of which things were in the Church in those dayes: those Cannons, commonly called Apostolick, mention indeed Primats: but albeit they contain many profitable things, yet many learned men among the Papists themselves, maintain, that they were not made by the Apostles but collected from Cannons of the Council of An∣tioch, and other posterior Councils: See Salmasius, and Photius, Bibliothick, cap. 113.

We might alledge several other reasons, to prove those Epistles forged, as their absurd interpetation of Scripture, some of them maintaining community of wives, &c. But those reasons are sufficient, since Bellarmine, and Barronius seems not to care much for them; since Contius, Professour at Bruges, maintains them to be forged; since Ae∣neas Silvius (epist. 301. according to Bellarmines supputati∣on, 288.) expresly affirms, that before the Council of Niece, there are no Monuments for the Popes Supremacy; which he would never have affirmed, if he had not believed those Epistles had been forged, which ingeminate everywhere, the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome: and yet the said Aeneas Sil∣vius, was afterwards Pope himself, under the name of Pius

second. Whence we conclude, that those Epistles were un∣known to the Ancients. And whereas Turrianus objects, that Isidorus mentioneth them; It is answered, he is charged for forging them. He objects, secondly, that Ruffinus turned those three Epistles of Clement; but it is answered, those Epistles of Clement are very old indeed, but they do not prove the Antiquity of the rest. The stile of these three Epistles of Clement, is different from the stile of those others: and al∣though Ruffinus, turned them from Greek to Latine, it doth not prove, they are Authentick. He tu••ned also his Books of Recognitions, which are esteemed Apocryphal, by Gratianus, Bellarmine, and other Doctors of the Church of Rome.

And this much of those decretal Epistles: they alledge testimonies from several other forged Authors, in that in∣terval, to prove the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome in that interval, as Abdias Bishop of Babylon, is cited by Dorman to prove the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome: Linus is cited by Coccius, for the same reason; Clement by Harding. viz. his books of recognition: Dyonisius Areopagita, de divinis nominibus, is several times cited by Coccius in Thesauro, for the same end: but all these Authors, or those books now mentioned of those Authors, are rejected by Bellarmine or Barronius, or Possevinus, or Cajetanus, or Grocinus, or Sixtus, Senensis and other lights of the Church of Rome: and therefore, it is needless to insist upon the disproving them; we will only answer one passage falsly attributed to Eusebius, or to Hieronymus, in his additions to Eusebius, and it is this:

Bellarmine, to prove that the Bishop of Rome hath a legis∣lative power, and Posnan also, thes. 131. alledge a passage of Eu∣sebius, viz. that lent fast of 40 dayes was instituted by Telespho∣rus Bishop of Rome, who lived in the second Age, and this is his first instance: But it is answered, that Scaliger, in his edition of Eusebius demonstrats, those cannot be the words of Eusebi∣us;

because lib. 5. cap. 17. he expresly affirms, that Montanus the heretick was the first that prescribed set fasts. Secondly, because cap. 34. of the same Book, Eusebius affirms from Irenaeus, that in the time of Victor Bishop of Rome, who lived after Telesphorus, that the fast of lent was not observed one way, some observing one day, some two, some more, &c.

Bellarmines second instance is, that the said Eusebius affirms, that the mystery, or celebration of the Mystery of the resurrection of the Lords day, was first ordained by Pius Bishop of Rome, and universally observed in the west. But it is answered, that Eusebius, cap. 22. of the said Book, expresly affirms the con∣trary, viz. that it was ordained, by the decrees of several Councels: neither was it ever generally observed, before the Council of Neice; whereby it is evident, that both the one and the other passage is fraudulently inserted, in the works of Eusebius, otherwayes Eusebius would contradict him∣self.