Originally this was just going to be the first four quotes I'm going to list, as I hadn't seen anyone else do an examination of them (the others I list I have seen discussed online, so the information was already there). However, I figured as long as I'm talking about false quotes attributed to Nicholas, I decided to throw in a few more I've seen attributed to him that others have answered, just for easier reference.
I know some people might want quick answers on whether they're legitimate or not, so before going through my often lengthy explanations of my investigations, I'll first list them with a quick note as to my conclusions, and then list them in more depth afterwards.
#1: "I glorify you for having maintained your authority by putting to death
those wandering sheep who refused to enter the fold; and you not only
have not sinned, by showing a holy rigour, but I even congratulate you
on having opened the kingdom of heaven to the people submitted to your
rule. A king need not fear to command massacres, when these will retain
his subjects in obedience, or cause them to submit to the faith of
Christ; and God will reward him in this world, and in eternal life, for
these murders." (attributed to "Louis-Marie de Lahaye Cormenin, A Complete History of the Popes of Rome
(J. & J. L. Gihon, 1851): 244") This quote is found in the cited book, but despite the book presenting it as a legitimate quote, it is at best a very inaccurate paraphrase.
#2: "You
affirm that you are submissive to your sovereign, in order to obey the
words of the apostle Peter, who said, ‘Be subject to the prince, because
he is above all mortals in this world.’ But you appear to forget that
we, as the vicar of Christ, have the right to judge all men: thus,
before obeying kings, you owe obedience to us; and if we declare a
monarch guilty, you should reject him from your communion until we
pardon him.
We alone have the power to bind and to loose, to
absolve Nero and to condemn him; and Christians can not, under penalty
of excommunication, execute other judgment than ours, which alone is
infallible. People are not the judges of their princes; they should obey
without murmuring the most iniquitous orders; they should bow their
foreheads under the chastisements which it pleases kings to inflict on
them, for a sovereign can violate the fundamental laws of the State, and
seize upon the wealth of the citizen, by imposts or by confiscations;
he can even dispose of their lives, without any of his subjects having
the right to address to him simple remonstrances. But if we declare a
king heretical and sacrilegious, if we drive him from the Church, clergy
and laity, whatever their rank, are freed from their oaths of fidelity,
and may revolt against his power." (attributed to "Louis-Marie de Lahaye Cormenin, A Complete History of the Popes of Rome
(J. & J. L. Gihon, 1851): 242") Given the inaccuracy in the first quote from this source, one should be skeptical of trusting anything else it gives without a clear citation on its part (which it does not offer). However, a search through a collection of Nicholas's letters in the original Latin for "Nero" (and other associated forms of the name) turns up zero relevant matches, indicating that this is probably either a fabrication or inaccurate paraphrase.
#3: "We order you, in the name of religion, to invade his states, burn
his cities, and massacre his people, whom we render responsible for the
resistance of their bad prince." (attributed to "Louis-Marie de Lahaye Cormenin, A Complete History of the Popes of Rome
(J. & J. L. Gihon, 1851): 242") Given the issues with the prior two quotes from this source, there is little reason to grant this one credence either (especially given how vague A Complete History of the Popes of Rome's own citation is).
#4: "Know,
prince, that the vicars of Christ (the popes) are above the judgment of
mortals, and that the most powerful sovereigns have no right to punish
the crimes of popes, how enormous soever they may be….; for no matter
how scandalous or criminal may be the debaucheries of the pontiffs, you
should obey them, for they are seated on the chair of St. Peter.
Fear,
then, our wrath and the thunders of our vengeance, for Jesus Christ has
appointed us with his own mouth absolute judges of all men, and kings
themselves are submitted to our authority." (attributed to "Louis-Marie de Lahaye Cormenin, A Complete History of the Popes of Rome
(J. & J. L. Gihon, 1851): 243") Given the issues with the first two quotes from this source, there is
little reason to grant this one credence either (especially given how
vague its own citation is). I still did attempt to find matches, but none came up.
#5: "I am in all and above all, so that God himself, and I, the vicar
of God, hath both one consistory…and I am able to do almost all that
God can do…I then, being above all…seem by this reason, to be above all
gods." (attributed to: "The Church Historians of England: Reformation Period," by Josiah Pratt, pub. 1856, p.159) This is not a quote from Nicholas. This comes from an essay attacking Catholicism written from the point of view of a pope, and none of the things quoted here are actual quotes from Nicholas.
#6: "Wherefore, No marvel if it be in my power to dispense with all things, yea, with the precepts of Christ." (attributed to: "The Church Historians of England: Reformation Period," by Josiah Pratt, pub. 1856, p.159) Same as above, this is not a quote from Nicholas. This comes from an essay attacking
Catholicism written from the point of view of a hypothetical pope, and none of the things quoted here are actual quotes from Nicholas.
#7: "The appellation of God had been confirmed by Constantine on the Pope, who being God, cannot be judged by man." (attributed to: Labb IX Dist.: 96 Can 7 Satis Evidentur Decret Gratian Primer Para) This one appears to be a mistranslation.
Thus as we can see, none of these seem to be actual quotes from Nicholas save for perhaps the last one, but a mistranslation would still seem to be a misquote. But now let us look into them in more detail.
#1: "I glorify you for having maintained your authority by putting to death those wandering sheep who refused to enter the fold; and you not only have not sinned, by showing a holy rigour, but I even congratulate you on having opened the kingdom of heaven to the people submitted to your rule. A king need not fear to command massacres, when these will retain his subjects in obedience, or cause them to submit to the faith of Christ; and God will reward him in this world, and in eternal life, for these murders." (attributed to "Louis-Marie de Lahaye Cormenin, A Complete History of the Popes of Rome (J. & J. L. Gihon, 1851): 244")
Before discussing anything else, I want to note an error in this citation, though this error is the fault of the cited work. The title page of A Complete History of the Popes says it is "translated from the French of Louis Marie de Cormenin." Here's the problem: Louie Marie de Cormenin, while a real French person, didn't write this. Rather, it is translated from a French work entitled "Histoire des Papes" by Maurice de la Chatre (also known as Maurice Lachatre), someone else entirely. I suppose it doesn't make all that much of a difference who wrote the original for our purposes, but I felt it was worth noting.
Now, the quote immediately under discussion appears to be the most popular of the quotes taken from the work, and what appears to have popularized this quote is that it is offered in A Woman Rides the Beast by Dave Hunt (a book attacking Catholicism), though he offers a slightly different version of this quote. On page 125 of his work, his version reads:
"I glorify you for having maintained your authority by putting to death those wandering sheep who refuse to enter the fold; and . . . congratulate you upon having opened the kingdom of heaven to the people submitted to your rule. A king need not fear to command massacres, when these will retain his subjects in obedience, or cause them to submit to the faith of Christ; and God will reward him in this world, and in eternal life, for these murders."
However, Dave Hunt doesn't appear to have read the original A Complete History of the Popes of Rome himself, as he cites R.W. Thompson's book The Papacy and the Civil Power (page 244) as itself citing A Complete History of the Popes of Rome. One will also notice the above one (aside from the ellipses) is slightly different; note that it says "refuse" instead of "refused."
This discrepancy comes from the indirect source. The Papacy and the Civil Power, citing A Complete History of the Popes, slightly changes the original quote (perhaps by a typographical error), reading "refuse" instead of the original "refused." Since Dave Hunt took the quote from that work, he also used "refuse". Thus the quotes you can see online can sometimes differ slightly based on whether they are using the original quotation, The Papacy and the Civil Power's version (which despite the minor altering gives the full quote), or Dave Hunt's quotation (which is the same as that, though it cuts off part with the ellipsis).
Now, it is true that this quote is found in A Complete History of the Popes on the applicable page, along with a number of other quotes it attributes to Nicholas, including the others under examination. The quote that is distributed does strike off a bit of the beginning that shows what is being discussed, though, which gives a little more context. Right before the standard quote that is distributed, it says:
"The letter of the pope contained one hundred and six articles, drawn from the Roman laws and the Institutes of Justinian. Nicholas professes in this recital a singular mentality: "You advise us," he says, to the Bulgarian king, that "you have caused your subjects to be baptized without their consent, and that you have exposed yourself to so violent a revolt as to have incurred the risk of your life."
Following that, it goes on to give the rest of the quote, beginning with "I glorify you" and ending with "these murders."
But now we come to the critical point. Is this quote accurate? It is true that it's found in A Complete History of the Popes (as well as its original French version), but is that work quoting it right? Well, A Complete History of the Popes claims it's found in his letter to the king of Bulgaria that contains "one hundred and six articles". There is only one letter of Nicholas's that fits that description, and thankfully there is a full English translation by W.L. North of it, which is even available for free online:
https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/basis/866nicholas-bulgar.asp
But here is where we run into a problem. I cannot find the applicable quote in the letter. Yes, I would not expect it to be the the same word-for-word quote given that there would be differences in translation, but even taking that into account, I simply see nothing that matches up with it. Frustratingly, A Complete History of the Popes does not save us time by saying which of the one hundred and six articles is in view, but having looked through the entire letter, I do not see anything that corresponds.
The closest thing I can find is #17 (XVII), but it seems to actually say the opposite. I will quote it in its entirety. The bolding is my own, whereas the italics and brackets are original to the English translation:
"Now then, you have told us about how you received the Christian religion by divine clemency and made your entire people be baptized, and how these people, after they had been baptized, rose up unanimously and fiercely against you, claiming that you had not given them a good law and also wishing to kill you and establish another king; and how you, having been readied against them with the help of divine power, conquered them from the greatest to the least and held them captives in your hands, and how all the leaders and magnates along with every one of their children were slaughtered by the sword, though the mediocre and lesser persons suffered no evil. Now you desire to know whether you have contracted any sin on account of those who were deprived of their lives. Clearly what you did not escape without sin nor could have happened without your fault, was that a child who was not privy to their parents' plot nor is proven to have born arms against you, was slaughtered along with the guilty, although innocent. For after the Psalmist said: I shall not go to my seat in the counsel of vanity and with people who do iniquitous deeds, I have hated the gatherings of the wicked and I shall not sit with the impious, [Ps. 25:4-5] he says a little while later in this regard, while praying to the Lord: Do not destroy my soul with the impious nor my life with the men of blood.[Ps. 25:9] Furthermore, the Lord declares through the prophet Ezechiel, saying: Just as the soul of the father is mine, so, too, the soul of the son: only the soul that has sinned shall perish;[Ez. 18:4] and a little later he speaks about the father: But he bore a son, who, when he saw all the sins which his father had done, was afraid and did not do anything like them, he did not eat upon the mountain nor lift his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel, he did not violated the wife of his neighbor or trouble the husband, he did not keep surety nor commit robbery, he gave his own bread to the hungry and covered the naked with clothing, turned his hand from the injury of the poor man, did not accept usury and any superabundance, judged my judgments, and walked in my commandments: this man shall not die in the iniquity of his father, but shall live with life. His father, because he falsely accused and did violence against his brother and did evil in the midst of his people, behold he died in his own iniquity. And you say: Why does the son not bear the iniquity of the father? Because his son did judgment and justice, kept all my commandments and carried them out, he shall live in life. Only the soul that has sinned shall die: the son shall not bear the iniquity of the father and the father shall not bear the iniquity of the son.[Ez. 18:14-20] You also should have acted with greater mildness concerning the parents who were captured, that is, [you should have] spared their lives for the love of the God Who delivered them into your hands. For thus you might be able to say to God without hesitation in the Lord's prayer: Forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.[Mt. 6:12] But you also could have saved those who died while fighting, but you did not permit them to live nor did you wish to save them, and in this you clearly did not act on good advice; for it is written: There shall be judgment without mercy for the person, who does not exercise mercy;[James 2:13] and through the abovementioned prophet the Lord says: Is it my will that the wicked man should die, sayeth the Lord God, and not that he be converted from his ways and may live?[Ez. 18:23] But because you erred more because of your zeal for the Christian religion and your ignorance than because of any other vice, with subsequent penance seek mercy and indulgence for these sins through the grace of Christ."
One
can certainly see some similarities between the above and the quote that A Complete History of the Popes offers. Both refer to him
baptizing his people, them rising up against him, and him putting down
the rebellion harshly. Based on that, one would think this is what is in mind... the problem is, while entreating on similar subject matters, their essence is rather different. The one cited
in A Complete History of the Popes has Nicholas commend the king for killing people and that he will be rewarded for it by God, but in the actual letter Nicholas scolds
the king for being too harsh in putting down the rebellion and says he has committed sin as a result and should do penance! This is the opposite of what the quote that A Complete History of the Popes has him say! Just to be sure that it was not the above one that was in error, I consulted the Latin to be sure (one can find it at https://books.google.com/books?id=ZR5PAQAAMAAJ on page 577). My Latin is basic, but it appears to match the above text.
If this was the section of Nicholas's letter in view in A Complete History of the Popes, then the "translation" that A Complete History of the Popes offers is not a translation at all, but a paraphrase--and an inaccurate one at that. (Note I refer not to the French to English translation, which as far as I am aware is fine, but rather it being a translation from the Latin into French) But if that section is not what is in view, then I have no idea what in Nicholas's letter is being cited. Thus this appears to simply be a false quote. Nicholas did not say what he was claimed to have said, and in fact his sentiments appear to be the opposite!
Perhaps this by itself is sufficient to ignore the other quotes that come from A Complete History of the Popes that are attributed to Nicholas; if it botched this one this badly, what confidence should I have in any other quote it offers of Nicholas? It also reflects rather poorly on Dave Hunt and R.W. Thompson that they uncritically accepted this inaccurate quote rather than verifying it.
I
should note that in A Complete History of the Popes, it goes on to
offer a number of additional quotes from Nicholas's letter. Looking
through some, while none are quite as twisted as the above, they
nevertheless are not translations, but paraphrases, and often
uncharitable ones at that. Yet despite them being paraphrases (and not
necessarily accurate ones either) rather than translations, they are
presented as the actual words of Nicholas. Again, why should we put confidence into any quotes it offers if it is, in this case when we can easily look up the original words to compare, constantly offering quotes that are at best paraphrases, at worst distortions?
#2: "You
affirm that you are submissive to your sovereign, in order to obey the
words of the apostle Peter, who said, ‘Be subject to the prince, because
he is above all mortals in this world.’ But you appear to forget that
we, as the vicar of Christ, have the right to judge all men: thus,
before obeying kings, you owe obedience to us; and if we declare a
monarch guilty, you should reject him from your communion until we
pardon him.
We alone have the power to bind and to loose, to
absolve Nero and to condemn him; and Christians can not, under penalty
of excommunication, execute other judgment than ours, which alone is
infallible. People are not the judges of their princes; they should obey
without murmuring the most iniquitous orders; they should bow their
foreheads under the chastisements which it pleases kings to inflict on
them, for a sovereign can violate the fundamental laws of the State, and
seize upon the wealth of the citizen, by imposts or by confiscations;
he can even dispose of their lives, without any of his subjects having
the right to address to him simple remonstrances. But if we declare a
king heretical and sacrilegious, if we drive him from the Church, clergy
and laity, whatever their rank, are freed from their oaths of fidelity,
and may revolt against his power." (attributed to "Louis-Marie de Lahaye Cormenin, A Complete History of the Popes of Rome
(J. & J. L. Gihon, 1851): 242")
The credibility of A Complete History of the Pope's has been dramatically lowered given its massive error in its first quotation, which is at best a very inaccurate paraphrase. That should make us suspicious of the other quotes it attributes to Nicholas. Certainly we should demand a very specific citation so that we can confirm it.
Unfortunately, we do not get that. According to A Complete History of the Popes, this supposedly comes from a letter Nicholas wrote to the Catholic bishops of Lorraine. With the first, it was clear what letter was being referred to due to the mention of the 106 articles; the above one is harder. Nicholas wrote a lot of letters and it is difficult to find the specific one.
However, there is strong reason to believe that this one, too, is an inaccurate paraphrase or may be entirely fabricated. One will notice that Nero is mentioned here. This is very useful, as it is easy to know how this would be written in Latin. Latin nouns and names do change spelling based on how they are used in a sentence, so we must do searches for the various forms; Nero can be written Nero, Neronis, Neroni, Neronem, Nerone, or (if there were multiple Neros) it
could be Nerones, Neronum, or Neronibus. Based on how it is used in the sentence, the most likely version would be Neronem, the accusative.
So, let's pull up a collection of Nicholas's letters (Patrologia Latina Volume 119) and search for these.
https://books.google.com/books?id=7P4QAAAAYAAJ
If we do a search for Neronem, nothing shows up. If you do a search for "Nero", we get matches, but nothing like we see in the quote turns up. The only time "Nero" shows up in Nicholas's letters is in column 959 (letter LXXXVI), which is simply giving his name in a list of Roman emperors that persecuted the church; it says nothing at all about loosing, absolving, or condemning him. There are other matches for Nero, but Patrologia Latina Volume 119 includes works of other writers; this is the only match in something Nicholas wrote. As for the other forms of Nero? Only Neronis shows up, but not in Nicholas's letters, but writings of others.
But it is possible that the above collection didn't scan everything quite well. So let's look at one in a more modern typeface that would be far less likely to have that problem here, "Monumenta Germaniae Historica: Epistolae, Volume 8":
https://books.google.com/books?id=ZR5PAQAAMAAJ
This work also includes works by others, but it still has Nicholas's writings on pages 257-690. If you
do a search for "Nero" in the book, it only turns up an instance on page
484 (the same letter as above, though due to different numbering it is Letter 88 of Nicholas) and the index on page 776 (which directs you to page 484). But again, this is the same letter as before, when the only usage of Nero is in a list of Roman
emperors that persecuted the church. And when one searches up the other ways Nero's name could be rendered based on grammar, there are no matches. Between that and the Index only referring us to page 484, it would
appear the only mention of Nero is in that letter where he appears in a list of emperors.
It seems abundantly clear that the quote simply isn't found in his letters, unless they are both missing some writing or letter of Nicholas. Normally I might grant the possibility of the search being faulty, but even the Index only gives us one instance of Nero being mentioned, and its context is completely different from the attributed quote. Perhaps, like the first one, it's loosely based on something he actually did say, but is heavily paraphrased and in doing so Nero's name got added. In such a case, it's still a false quote. And after what we saw in the first quote, why should I give it any benefit of the doubt?
#3: "We order you, in the name of religion, to invade his states, burn his cities, and massacre his people, whom we render responsible for the resistance of their bad prince." (attributed to "Louis-Marie de Lahaye Cormenin, A Complete History of the Popes of Rome
(J. & J. L. Gihon, 1851): 242")
#4: "Know, prince, that the vicars of Christ (the popes) are above the judgment of mortals, and that the most powerful sovereigns have no right to punish the crimes of popes, how enormous soever they may be….; for no matter how scandalous or criminal may be the debaucheries of the pontiffs, you should obey them, for they are seated on the chair of St. Peter.
Fear, then, our wrath and the thunders of our vengeance, for Jesus Christ has appointed us with his own mouth absolute judges of all men, and kings themselves are submitted to our authority." (attributed to "Louis-Marie de Lahaye Cormenin, A Complete History of the Popes of Rome
(J. & J. L. Gihon, 1851): 243")
I will be tackling these together. #3 is supposedly from a letter to King Charles the Bald, and in reference to the King of Lorraine; #4 is supposedly from a letter to an envoy from Constantinople.
Again, I note that the error in quote #1 give us considerable reason to be skeptical of these quotes to begin with, and #2 strongly looks to be inaccurate as well. Further, like in #2, without a more clear citation it is difficult for me to find the letters in question (if they even exist), especially #3 given its brevity. The mention of Charles the Bald narrows things down a little, but not enough given there were a bunch of letters involving him.
I did attempt to try to search for some Latin phrases that would seem to match quotes from the letters, but did not have much success. While it is possible they are still there and I did not search for the right things, I must again note that in regards to the first two quotes, A Complete History of the Popes has shown itself to be a very dubious source when it comes to quotes from Nicholas. Thus I have little reason to give credence to these quotes until someone can show me exactly where Nicholas said these things.
#5: "I am in all and above all, so that God himself, and I, the vicar of God, hath both one consistory…and I am able to do almost all that God can do…I then, being above all…seem by this reason, to be above all gods." (attributed to: "The Church Historians of England: Reformation Period," by Josiah Pratt, pub. 1856, p.159)
#6: "Wherefore, No marvel if it be in my power to dispense with all things, yea, with the precepts of Christ." (attributed to: "The Church Historians of England: Reformation Period," by Josiah Pratt, pub. 1856, p.159)
I will be tackling these two together. I should note, for the sake of completeness, that there are a few other versions. One is a more "complete" form of the above two:
"I am in all and above all, so that God Himself and I, the vicar of God, hath both one consistory, and I am able to do almost all that God can do... wherefore, if those things that I do be said not to be done of man, but of God, what do you make of me but God? Again, if prelates of the Church be called of Constantine for gods, I then being above all prelates, seem by this reason to be above all gods. Wherefore, no marvel, if it be in my power to dispense with all things, yea with the precepts of Christ."
The last version to note is this one, which has more modern wording and changes it from first person to third person:
"The pope has power to change times, to abrogate laws, and to dispense with all things, even the precepts of Christ."
While I gave The Church Historians of England: Reformation Period as the citation, one can find multiple different citations for this. Sometimes you will see obscure-looking ones like "Decretal, de Tranlatic Episcop. Cap" or "Decret. par. Distinct 96 ch. 7 edit. Lugo 1661", the latter of which which appears to not be the citation for the above quotes, but rather for the next one we'll look at. Some, actually don't cite the quote to Nicholas at all, but rather Boniface VIII's Unam Sanctam bull (the quote is not found there, if you are wondering).
But the true source is the one noted above, ""The Church Historians of England: Reformation Period," by Josiah Pratt, pub. 1856, p.159". Though as is common with such copy/pasted citations, that citation is incomplete; it does not mention this is in volume 4 of the work.
If we do this, we find out that the quotations are not quite accurate or are misleading. The first ellipsis in #5 is completely pointless as nothing at all is cut out--the work goes directly from "one consistory" to "and I". The third ellipsis is very odd, as the only word that exists there is the word "prelates" and there is simply no reason to use an ellipsis to remove a single word. The only reason I can think to do that, other than simple sloppiness, is if the person who came up with this quote was trying to exaggerate things--"above all" certainly sounds like a larger claim than "above all prelates." Also, #6 (and also the alternate quote I gave) cuts out some bits itself. It says "Wherefore, no marvel, if it be in my power to dispense with all things, yea, with the precepts of Christ." The actual full statement is "Wherefore no marvel, if it be in my power to change time and times, to alter and abrogate laws, to dispense with all things, yea with the precepts of Christ." Part of that is simply cut out ("to change time and times, to alter and abrogate laws"), with no usage of an ellipsis to admit that. Granted, these edits don't make too much of a difference in essence (outside of the removal of the phrase "of prelates" which makes it sound more extreme), but it certainly shows error.
But more important is what the source itself is. This part of volume 4 of The Church Historians of England: Reformation Period is an essay called "The Image of Antichrist, Exalting Himself Above All That Is Called God" which is part of the larger Acts and Monuments by John Foxe, who was strongly critical of Catholicism. This essay, which is a big attack on the papacy, is written from the point of view of a pope. Now, some parts of the essay are based on actual papal statements or writings by other Catholics. But if one looks at the essay itself and sees Foxe's citations, you will discover that nothing in the above quotes is actually something Nicholas said.
The majority of these quotes are Foxe's own statements, and the one part that actually is given a citation to show it was not his own ("so that God Himself and I, the vicar of God, hath both one consistory, and I am able to do almost all that God can do") comes not from Nicholas, but is a combination of separate statements that are both cited to other writers who were not even popes. Even if this is an accurate representation of their statements--the citations are vague which makes it hard to check for context--it nevertheless is not anything that Nicholas said, which is what we are concerned about here. Thus it is completely inaccurate to claim Nicholas said any of these quotes! This link goes into a bit more detail on it (in the context of looking at several alleged papal quotes):
http://www.geoffhorton.com/PapalClaims.htmlThus these are simply false quotes. Pope Nicholas never said them. They were mostly things John Foxe had his fictional pope say, with a small portion attributed by him to people who were not Nicholas.
#7: "The appellation of God had been confirmed by Constantine on the Pope, who being God, cannot be judged by man." (attributed to: Labb IX Dist.: 96 Can 7 Satis Evidentur Decret Gratian Primer Para)
The site noted immediately above (again, http://www.geoffhorton.com/PapalClaims.html) says the original Latin is "Satis evidenter ostenditur a saeculari potestate nec solvi prosus nec ligari pontificem, quem constat a pio principe Constantio Deum appellatum, cum nec posse Deum ab hominibus judicari manifestum est." It asserts the above is a mistranslation, and that a better rendering would be "the pontiff, who was called “God” by the pious prince Constantine, is neither loosened nor bound in any way by secular power, since it is manifest that God cannot be judged by men either."
I don't like to take someone else's word for it, though, so I did search up what was in mind here. The citation is saying that it's in the "Primer Para" (which I think is supposed to be Primer Pars, which means first part) of the Decretium Gratiani, specifically Distinctio 96 Canon 7, with the "Satis Evidentur" in the citation referring to the start of that section. And we can find that here on this German site:
https://geschichte.digitale-sammlungen.de/decretum-gratiani/kapitel/dc_chapter_1_1039
And we do see the Latin phrase quoted above here:
"Satis euidenter ostenditur, a seculari potestate nec solui prorsus, nec ligari Pontificem, quem constat a pio principe Constantino (quem longe superius memorauimus) Deum appellatum, cum nec posse Deum ab hominibus iudicari manifestum sit."
This one is slightly different from the quote given by the site that examined the quote, though not in any important way. Some of the spellings are a little different (they may have simply been based on different manuscripts or printings), and this one does add in "quem longe superius memorauimus", but otherwise it is the same basic Latin text and with the same essence. Thus the objection that it was being mistranslated seems to hold up.
But there is an additional issue that site (http://www.geoffhorton.com/PapalClaims.html) does not explicitly note. The original uses "pontificem" (accusative form of pontifex, which means pontiff). The Latin term pontifex means a high-ranking member of the clergy; the pope is a pontifex, but is not the only one. Thus to translate "pontifex" as "pope" as the alleged quote does is inaccurate.
This is especially apparent in context. Here is the background as I understand it: Ignatius, the Patriarch of Constantinople, had been deposed by the emperor and replaced with Photius. Nicholas was critical of this, saying that the emperor had no business interfering like that. As part of his argument, he asserts that secular powers could not judge bishops in such a manner, offering the quote of "the pontiff, who was called “God” by the pious prince Constantine, is neither loosened nor bound in any way by secular power, since it is manifest that God cannot be judged by men either." This controversy was over the Patriarch of Constantinople, a different pontiff from the pope entirely! No doubt Nicholas believed this argument applied to him as well, but the person immediately in view is the Patriarch of Constantinople. This statement may apply to pontiffs in general, but it would not be specific to the pope.
As for the claim about what Constantine said, this was cited to "Rufinus i hist. lib.1.c.2." (this was in a side gloss unfortunately not reproduced in the https://geschichte.digitale-sammlungen.de/decretum-gratiani/kapitel/dc_chapter_1_1039 link but is viewable here) This highly abbreviated citation refers to Rufinus's Church History (Historia Ecclesiastica), book 1, chapter 2. This actually was translated into English a few years ago, but I do not have a copy. But we can see the original Latin here where the quote is attributed to Constantine, with Constantine referring to the assembled bishops as gods sent by God who should therefore not be judged ("Vos estenim nobis a Deo dati estis dii, et convenients non est ut homo judicet deos"). The accuracy of Rufinus's claim is questionable, as he was writing a century after and earlier accounts of Nicaea do not refer to Constantine making this statement; on the other hand, it's possible Rufinus was using documents we no longer have access to.
In any event, whether Constantine said such a thing or not is besides the point: The quote as given is a poor translation. Not only is it mistranslated in referring to the pope as
God with its inaccurate "who being God", it is further mistranslated because the pope was not being
specifically referred to in the first place!
Conclusion
Nicholas appears not to have said any of the quotes listed here. Of the ones cited to A Complete History of the Popes, the first one is not found in the letter it supposedly was in (there is something that vaguely resembles it, but actually says the opposite of what the quote has him say). The second, third, and fourth are too vague to properly check, but given the falseness of the first one, it is highly likely that A Complete History of the Popes (the source for all four) bungled those as well. I should also note that the second quote, independent of the dubiousness of A Complete History of the Popes, seems likely to be a false one also as it refers to Nero, but I found no instance of Nero being mentioned in any of his letters in the same context as the quote. The fifth and sixth were not attributed to Nicholas even in the work that gave them, and the seventh is apparently a mistranslation. Unless people can provide better proof he did say those, they should refrain from attributing these to him.
Due to the problems with these quotes, if you do see someone offer these quotes, you should be very cautious trusting anything else they have to say given the fact they clearly did not attempt to verify them (actually, this applies to copy/pasted false quotes in general). Especially if they are part of a big list of other quotes--those other quotes tend to be just as copy/pasted as the ones noted above and just as unverified by their authors. And generally speaking, just as inaccurate.