books for good? be it so. Let the bishop of Rome, alone, uncils-that is to say, let some one part he whole. Let him be of greater power, re wisdom, than all his : and in spite of næ Ecclesiæ legem Concilia ulla præfixerint, cum ,' say you, 'being but a part, is greater than the If is inserted, because it has a specious show, and be- withstanding, others of your more indifferent doctors d have never read either the Scriptures, or the old hers, or yet his own Councils ?-How if he favour = Arians, as once Pope Liberius did? or have a RANDULUS in Quæst. An Papa sit supra Concilium?) Whereunto US MIRANDULUS addeth these words: 'Imo, simplici potius,' &c. ay, we ought to believe a simple plain countryman, or a child, or -old woman, rather than the Pope and a thousand bishops, if the e and the bishops speak against the Gospel, and the others speak h the Gospel.' (In eodem loco.)"-Defence, p. 533. EWELL goes on to quote, at considerable length, the opinions of the hops assembled in the Councils of Ferrara (A. D. 1438) and of sle, (A. D. 1431-1440) and that of Cardinal CUSANUS, (De Concord. . II. cap. xvii.) to the same effect with those of BERNARD and PICUS. PETRUS DE PALUDE, quoted in the former part of this note, and in eral in preceding pages, was an eminent doctor of the Sorbonne, teacher of scholastic theology, in the fourteenth century. He was de titular Patriarch of Jerusalem by Pope John XXII. in 1329, and in 1342. JOHN ANDREÆ made himself celebrated by his lectures on the Canon w, delivered in the public schools of Padua and Bologna, in the ly part of the fourteenth century, and by his published commentaries the same subjects. His morals were no better than the specimen of theology quoted by JEWELL; for several scandalous anecdotes are concerning him. PICUS MIRANDULUS distinguished himself among the restorers of ning in the fifteenth century, by his thirst for various knowledge, wonderful capacity, and his liberal affection for the arts and sciences. was born a prince, but resigned his dignity for literary leisure, and er having almost monopolized the admiration of the good, and the y of his unsuccessful rivals in learned pursuits, died at the early of thirty-three, in 1494. Things almost incredible are related of extent of his erudition, and his publications prove that it was united h a solid judgment, and fervent piety.] Epist. ad Evagrium. [See Note on page 35.] ["Concerning the Pope's great and high learning, ALPHONSUS DE STRO saith: Constat,' &c. It is certainly known, that sundry pes have been so unskilful in learning, that they never understood grammar.' (Contra Hæres. Lib. I. cap. iv.) And this he speaketh, of one Pope only, but of sundry."-Defence, p. 536. ALPHONSO DE CASTRO was a native of Spain, and accompanied lip II., the husband of the bloody Mary, into England. He attained siderable eminence among the Romanists as a theologian, and was ninated to the Archbishopric of Compostella in Spain, at the time of death, in 1558. His historical and controversial work Against resies, (quoted by JEWELL,) is the most esteemed of his productions.] ["Where we say 'Liberius favoured the Arians,' that, ye say, is k false. And yet, ye know S. JEROME is the reporter of that falsed. (HIERON, de Eccles. Scriptor. in Fortunatiano.) But S. JE other Councils, as Pope Zosimus corcil holden at Nice in times past; and leceived.' In such reverence and regard ye have ned fathers of the Church. Ye believe them no -If S. JEROME's authority suffice you not, ye may ty of S. AUGUSTINE. For S. AUGUSTINE saith, as inal CUSANUS, (De Concord. Lib. II. cap. v.) that his hand and consent unto the Arians."-De to quote the consentient testimonies of several ch it is needless to quote, as at the present day the constrained) approbation of Arianism by Pope as incontestible by all.] II. who succeeded Clement V. in the Papacy, at nd died in 1344, maintained opinions respecting the soul contrary to the Romish standard of faith, en by historians of that Church. HARDING raises JEWELL'S statement of the fact, with the view of hole story; and thus gives occasion to five folio the Defence. Without entering into the minute ce to remark that there is error on both sides: on denying, on that of JEWELL in exaggerating, or the error of Pope John. That Pontiff merely denied f the DEITY by the souls of the faithful in the interand the final judgment: an error, (if such it be,) of the names of heresy or detestable opinion! - propagation of this notion by the Pope; of the it by Philip, king of France, and, in subservience ch divines; of the Pope's endeavours to maintain it; orts to conciliate his opponents without relinquishing of his final tardy retractation on his deathbed 'so far ent with the doctrine of the Church;'-furnishes a of weakness, bigotry, and disingenuous equivocation.] story standeth thus: One Apiarius, a priest of the Africa, as it appeareth a very ill man, being justly oth by his own bishop, and also by a great number ogether in the Council there, appealed from them all en bishop of Rome [A. D. 419]. Zosimus, without of the cause, never hearing the other party, proto be innocent, and restored him to the communion; g there was a council gathered together in Africa , sent thither Faustinus the bishop of Potentia, with of Rome, Philip and Asellus, not only to see that the thout any further trial, might be restored unto his make plea in the open Council, that it should be lawto appeal from his own ordinary, or metropolitan, or apostolic see of Rome. The bishops of Africa answerstin loid forth a copon he Council of Nice, not made by the authority of the bishops there only devized by the bishop of Rome. The bishops there, among om was S. AUGUSTIN, that famous learned father, thought it was a ed matter, and therefore said, they would send unto Alexandria, ioch, and Constantinople, for the very original copies of the said uncil: and desired the bishop of Rome to do the same; and said, in the mean while they would do as they had done before. (Conc. thag. VI. Can. 3 et 4.) Upon this message, and return of the wer with the true authentic copies from Cyril the bishop of Alexan, and Atticus the bishop of Constantinople, it appeared plainly unto world that the Canons were corrupted, and that the Pope had falsithat holy Council; and to the intent to advance his apostolic see of ne, had devized privileges and prerogatives of his own.-The bishop Rome, when he saw he was taken with the maner, and found an n falsary, [forger,] for that the Canons of his making disagreed from very originals, thought it good policy to say, The originals were ned by the Arians, and so no true copy now remaining, but his only. d therefore he imagined a letter to be written in the name of Athaius, and other bishops of Egypt, unto Marcus the bishop of Rome; erein they besought him for a copy of the Nicene Council, for that their books were utterly destroyed. But this shift was too simplehe writeth unto Marcus the bishop of Rome, of the burning of the ks; and yet Athanasius himself certainly knew, that Marcus was d at the least nine years before that burning happened."—JEWELL'S ply to Harding's Answer to the Sermon at Paul's Cross. JEWELL goes on, in that work, to adduce other internal evidence ving the grossness of the forgery of the letter of Athanasius, brought Dear out the first falsification of the Nicene Canons. In the Defence, attention is occupied with the subterfuge of HARDING, who, unable defend the spurious Canons of the Nicene Council, changed his und, and to save the memory of Zosimus from the odious charge of gery, contended that although not Nicene canons, they were the nuine canons of another Council held at Sardica [4. D. 347]; and it as such they had been produced by the Pope. JEWELL shows, m Cardinal CUSANUS, 1. that it is very doubtful whether the Canon ed by Zosimus was really passed by the Council of Sardica; 2. that t were, it was not cited as such by the Pope, but deceitfully, by a se title; and 3. that the authority of the Council of Sardica was so from being equal with that of Nice, as contended by HARDING, that vas neither a General Council, nor free from suspicion of heresy.remarks on the whole transaction are just and forcible ;-" If this re all the fault, yet were it a great fault for CHRIST's Vicar, and Peter's successor, in maintenance of his own inordinate ambition, allege one Council for another, and therewith to face down two ndred and seventeen bishops in general Council. If it were the uncil of Sardica, and not of Nice, why then did Pope Zosimus so en and so stoutly allege it for the Council of Nice? How durst he he had seen it, he had read it, and had the very true copy of it in library at Rome? Why did he cause the bishops of Africa to send many hundred miles. to Constantinople in Thrace to Alexandria in ath of CHRIST, and become an apostate, th many Popes have been?-Yet, for h in Syria, to search the originals of the Council owing there was no such thing written in the Was this plain dealing? Was this no corruption aw saith: 'Magna negligentia culpa est: Magna eat negligence is a fault, and a great fault is guile Pope Boniface, [the successor of Zosimus,] to save of Rome, was forced to say, and publish openly, , and Aurelius the bishop of Carthage, and S. AuHippo, and two hundred and fourteen other bishops, evealed this falschood, were all inflamed and led by of your own sudden doctors of Louvain saith: 'Hæc ese decrees (of those Councils, of Carthage and , and repealed, and trodden under foot, as dreams, s superfluous.' (COPUS, p. 93.) This is the weighs. If they like [suit] you, they are the express GHOST. If they like you not, they are dreams, gs superfluous.'"-Defence, p. 543, 544.] ged by CORNELIUS AGRIPPA, (De Vanit. Seient.) præcipiunt: potestatem habent in mortuos. Vim t habeant plenitudinem potestatis. Ipse Papa jam ilis ejus pompam et fastum nullus tyrannorum Legati Romanorum Pontificum sic bacchantur in flagellandam Ecclesiam Satan egressus sit a facie ay their commandments upon the angels of GoD: er the dead. They wrest and rack the Scriptures, the fulness of power. The Pope himself is now No tyrant was ever able to match him in pomp ope's Legates keep such revel in kingdoms and an were sent abroad from the face of the LORD, to the Church." Reply denies any knowledge of such a writer as Es that were an error of the press for CARNOTENSIS, at Ivo CARNOTENSIS. JEWELL denies that there is ess, declares that he means a bishop named JOHN expressly distinguishes him from JOHN SARISBURIys, is otherwise called RUPERTUS CARNOTENSIS.suspecting that, after all, the writer whom JEWELL at second-hand, is JOHN of SALISBURY, called also, , CARNOTENSIS; a learned scholastic theologian of y, who in his writings freely inveighed against the the time when the lordly usurpations of the bishop heir height.] s upon the sixteenth chapter of St. Matthew, among d these words: Ex hoc patet, quod Ecclesia non ibus, ratione potestatis vel dignitatis ecclesiasticæ vel sinnenti sunt anos |